|
for now. So, you know, I think we are at a good place to continue discussion, if there is anything
<br /> . else. Yes, Commissioner Van Pernis.
<br /> VAN PERNIS: I agree with you, Mr. Vitousek, and I don't begrudge these folks subdivision.
<br /> But we rely upon thorough investigation and informed recommendation from the Planning
<br /> Department and the planning director, not from some state agency. So I think there
<br /> (indiscernible–simultaneous speech)
<br /> KERN: So, yeah, so, okay—
<br /> VITOUSEK: I think—
<br /> KERN: —Mr. Van Pernis, Mr. Van Pernis, we send out an.application to all various agencies
<br /> for their comment, we receive those comments, and we put them.into a background report and a
<br /> recommendation; that's exactly what's happened on every single application over the last 20
<br /> years, that is exactly what happened here. Tracie ha's done an excellent job, and the Planning
<br /> Department tries our very best to meet the needs of our community and bur applications. Thank
<br /> you very much.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yeah, so we got, they got, I-think they got the recommendation right, you know,
<br /> they've taken into account the effects and; you know, I agree that sometimes it would be nice to
<br /> have things a little further in advance, but I think we got there_Fatthe end of the day. So, is there
<br /> any other questions? Go ahead, Commissioner Van Pernis.
<br /> VAN PERNIS: This ordinance, theoriginal ordinance, expired in 2009. What, why wasn't there
<br /> a new application, rather than an amendment to a 15-year-old expired ordinance?
<br /> VITOUSEK: I mean, we covered this many times; when it comes to zoning, the zoning is tied to
<br /> the land, and so the zoning stays with the land, the ordinance is considered stale, and it's up to
<br /> the Planning Department to determine whether that zoning is appropriate, which it appears that
<br /> they believethe zoning is appropriate, so in that case it's simpler in order to extend the zoning,
<br /> rather than go into the process again. I think it's appropriate, and this is the pretty standard
<br /> practice at this point for stale ordinance. Commissioner Carr Smith.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you. I wanted to commend Tracie for her presentation; I thought it was
<br /> very thorough and had some greathistory and stories, which I appreciated having those inserted
<br /> there, and it was very pretty, too. Thank you. And, yeah, Mr. Van Pernis, I don't really
<br /> understand why we want to question the department on this. You are asking questions that have
<br /> already been cured and, like Mike said, we've got to the place we wanted to get to, and that's
<br /> what we should be talking about, not what-ifs, so that's my input. Thank you, Tracie.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner Van Pernis.
<br /> VAN PERNIS: Yes, in regards to the new proposed ordinance amendment, it states in one
<br /> condition that the subdivision must be completed within five years. Is that sentence incomplete?
<br /> Because it doesn't say what happens if that five-year requirement is not met. And I don't
<br /> 5
<br /> DRAFT
<br />
|