2005-01-21 TLAURANCE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SPRINGER:Thats correct. VITOUSEK:Thank you. If I may, it was interesting I just received this morning, in fact just as the hearing started, this Planning Commissions decision dated January 3, 1995. Im concerned that I didnt receive it before; but, you know, that really doesnt matter, we have it. Basically, what this is, is this is, this is an approval of a shoreline setback variance that is essentially identical to the application thats now before you. This, this is approval of an application to construct a lap pool, deck and rock wall adjacent to and fronting their residence in Kona Bay Estates. It pertains to parcel 42. Referring to the exhibit, parcel 37 is the Laurance application shaded right there. Parcel 42 is right there. So this is four doors down. This, this, this is four doors down from the application thats currently pending before the Commission. And, in reading this decision of the Commission, you know, basically all one would have to do is change the application number and the TMK. And this- it just really shows that the Commission has specifically found that an application for a pool, in a location exactly such as this, meets all ofthecriteriaforashorelinesetbackvariance.AndsoIthinkthatisobviouslyanimportant piece of new evidence. It supplements the application. And I think it really makes it very clear that this applicant meets the criteria for a shoreline setback variance. In other words, the Commission has already found that an identical application four doors down meets all of the criteria. So I think the point is we start out on this, is to look at what the- look at what those criteria are. And, under the Planning Commission rules, the issue is whether the-. It says the structure or activity may be granted, may be granted a variance on the grounds of hardship only if: (i) the applicant would be deprived of a reasonable use of land if required to comply with the rule, (ii) if the request is due to unique circumstances and does not draw into question the reasonableness of the rule and (iii) the request is the best practical alternative which conforms to the purpose of the rule. My starting point now is that the Commission has already made these rulings with respect to a pool four doors down. In looking at the particular application and recall from the site visit that at Kona Bay Estates, 18 of the 27 parcels have pools in the same location as the proposed application. The houses on either side have pools. Now this, what this goes to, what this information goes to is whether it is a reasonable use of land, okay, thats the question. Is this a reasonable use of land? And when 17 lots in the same subdivision have that use in the same location and where the Commission has found previously that its a reasonable use of land, it is a reasonable use of land. The next question is, are there unique circumstances that do not draw into question the rule? In this lot there are unique circumstances, in addition to those that may have applied in Lot 42. In this lot, there are, you know, approximately 20% of the lot, thats the area shaded in blue on that exhibit, 20% of the lots are already the subject of easements dedicated to public access and public use. In other words, this, the buildable area of the lot has been reduced by areas of the lot being subject to recorded easements, which give the public the right to walk over and to use those areas of the lot. Mr. Laurance still pays taxes on those portions of the lot that are dedicated to public use. In other words, hes, he still pays property taxes on those sections, but the public has the right to use those sections of land 24 hours a day and for purposes of access and use to the shoreline. Because the lot has the public access use, it reduced the amount of the lot that was 5