8/15/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M This application, from the beginning, has been an exercise in semantics and circular reasoning, intended to justify the "exception" sought. Save for the opposition of one member, the Planning and Zoning Staff concurred with the faulty reasoning of the application and produced a flawed conclusion. In essence, the applicant is only interested in selling lots and is trying to get eight cents out of a nickel. Unfortunately, the Planning Staff, is supplying the arithmetic to make it happen. The applicant has 39 acres, and is entitled to as many one acre h(,mesites that the acreage will yield after design requirements. IP he h. --is to surrender frontage on 58th Avenue to he in compliance, then that is part of the cost of deveLopment whLeh, quite naturally diminishes his holdings. If he chooses or is required to install a Lake, that is also part of his cost and further diminishes the homesites he has left to sell. A requirement should not be made synoltymous with a dedication or a donation. To suggest that the applicant be allowed to reduce the lot size requirements to compensate for acreage applied to the development process, whether by requirement or prerogative, is an unacceptable compromise of zoning and amounts to a pure giveaway. To further suggest that density will not increase because the same number of homes will be built on lots half the size required is specious reasoning, and appears to 'be a substantial basis on which the recommendation has been made. The semantics for this is contained in Section 9 and 14 of the Staff report. Density, by definition in this matter is not numbers, but closeness or proximity. If, as the Report states, setbacks for one acre lot sizes will be maintained, it therefore stands to reason that the lot sizes the applicant seeks to establish are substantially narrower. The value of the lots will consequently be less, and the improvements will be closer to eachother, creating a density that the required. zoning seeks to prevent. Zoning, by any yardstick, is a quality enforcement provision in the police powers of the state, and the Lago Rey.application is"not__ctzns ,Atent with the abutting lot sizes or with the zoning in place. There is.no compelling reason to grant the exception sought,,since the objective of the applicant appears to be limited to the yield in dollars from the sale of lots that the applicant does not truly have. I am hopeful that the Board of Commissioners will agree that there is no gainsaying the right of taxpayers in the area to oppose such a plan and to expect the one acre zoning requirement to be upheld. I am confident that an approval contrary to 'zoning in place and supported by the circular and errant reasoning demonstrated in the Staff report would never stand up under judicial scrutiny. I would greatly appreciate the review of my April 1994 letter to Mr. Boling by the Berard of Commissioners. Respec y urs, THE DORS AMGELL AUGUST 15, 1995 11 toa 95 ',�Aa" 0