10/9/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• At the conclusion of Director Keating's presentation, he advised that staff's recommendation was to make no expansion of the urban service area at this time since it could cause a domino effect. He asked if there were any questions. In response to Chairman Adams' inquiry, Director Keating advised that the addition of the Feldman property to the urban service area was done when the Comprehensive Plan was being prepared in 1989-90 because Mr. Feldman was an intervener in the Plan and his property was included when the plan was adopted.. He believed that staffhad recommended against that inclusion at the time. Chairman Adams understood there is no protection against civil liability attached to the Right to Farm Act for spraying and wanted that mentioned in the consideration of this matter. She also wanted to know how staff arrived at 40 acre parcels in their alternatives. Director Keating stated that was based on the Clontz property, which is a little over 30 acres. He believed there was one other tract that was larger than Mr. Clontz' parcel. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant, Gerald Clontz, advised that his client and family had owned the subject property at least 50 years. He was disappointed in staff's report on this matter and he knew that would be the case when a Planning staff member called to inquire the name of the deputy who told Mr. Clontz to stop spraying; they do not know the name of the deputy. Aerial spraying is not viable due to the civil liability and responsibility. He questioned the 70 -year prediction for the build -out of the urban service area, and pointed out that Mr. Clontz would be 130 years old before he could look forward to some relief. Making an urban village out of his property was out of the question for Mr. Clontz. There are others in the same situation. He suggested a "transitional method" October 9, 2000 13 21W�Wffi •