Laserfiche WebLink
This doesn't seem to be addressed in the application. Whereas Ordinance 93 65 would have <br /> required gutters and drainage improvements as well. We do understand and acknowledge that <br /> the front portion of the parcel was previously zone Commercial and of course, as we've <br /> previously stated that the applicant repealed that to bypass the expensive cost to complete the <br /> subdivision. We do not understand why there is an additional right to the Land Use amendment <br /> and why it would be granted in this case. I see no meaningful value to the SLU other than <br /> apparently money adding the residential lots is not in fact in this quote from the application "add <br /> to the local flavor and historical significance of the property". <br /> VITOUSEK: So, I think you've already hit the 3-minute mark,please— <br /> COUNTER: You let others go over and I'm almost done. I've just got one more thing here. So, <br /> many have already discussed traffic and I did read the traffic impact study. It did a good job in <br /> counting cars but, it did not practically consider how others come in and out over the 40 <br /> driveways down the stretch of road. To wrap up most officials have talked at nauseum about <br /> sustainability and agricultural independence and this application is far from that. In addition, I <br /> haven't met a single person in this community who wants this, not a single one, thank you for <br /> your time. <br /> VITOUSEK: Thank you we appreciate it. <br /> The public testimony ended at 10:04 a.m. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador <br /> Secretary to Boards and Commissions <br /> 6 <br /> EXHIBIT A <br />