COM 0451.004 2010-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

nearly useless. Instead of one lot with a 1.75 acre field with high quality deep soil, what would be left would be a fragmented Portion B in which neither lot would have even acre to work. In addition the current topographic divide of the ditch would be pronounced as ever as the users of the lot containing Portion A and half of B would again have to travel some 400 feet down Akala Road just to get access to their fragmented section of Portion B. This leads to Condition M and our reasoning as to why we feel it should be waived. Clearly rezoning our property to FA-la and subsequently dividing it along the proposed subdivision line makes the most sense from the perspective of functionality and maintaining the agricultural viability of the land. The question is then why should Condition M be waived. The answer to that question is best understood by comparing our rezone application to one which occurred across the street from us a few years ago (REZ- 000066 - See Maps 3 & 4 and the corresponding pictures). In that rezone application the lot size was of 4.852 acres. In that application one additional lot was created. In that application the increase in density was one additional home. In that application no Fair Share Contribution was accessed. In our application the lot size is 4.747 acres. In our application one additional lot is to be created. In our application the potential increase in density is one addition home. In our application though we are currently being accessed the Fair Share Contribution. Clearly both applications are similar in both in size, and potential usage. The only difference is the definitions used in the chosen rezone applications; FA-1 a in ours and FA-2a in our neighbors. In fact the potential increase in density, which is the very justification and reasoning for why the Fair Share Assessment exists, is no different between the two. Whether we chose to rezone to FA-la or FA-2a only one additional lot will be created. The following is also true. Condition D states "the terms of the zoning ordinance shall prohibit further subdivision of the subdivided lots". While the potential exists for increased lots the very conditions of the application restrict further subdivision. It would seem that these conditions treat our application like a FA-2a application by restricting the total lots created to two even though the potential for more exists, while at the same time assessing a Fair Share Assessment like a FA-la application. We have no desire to further subdivide but feel strongly that if the right to do so is denied, and we are for all intents and purpose being treated like a FA-2a application, then we should be free from the Fair Share Contribution like a FA-2a application. We are also asking that Condition F be revised to state"The applicants shall provide a 15 foot wide future road widening setback along the entire property frontage along Akala Road". As mentioned in our initial letter to the Planning Committee, this language is more in line with past rezone applications where a future road widening existed. In addition there is a real possibility that this road widening may be removed in the coming years making the need for dedicating land unnecessary. During our first meeting with the Planning Committee the Planning Director expressed no objection to this change. In conclusion we appreciate your time and the opportunity to convey our perspective. We thank you and hope that we have your support in voting for the amendments to both remove Condition M and rewrite Condition F. Marc Butz 808-935-6865