2003-02-21 tkamuela - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Now the only real objection that I hear from the Planning Director is that the proposed church does not lie within a half-acre portion of the lot, together and contiguous with the existing dwelling and garage. It seems like that is the point that goes contrary, as far as what weÓre presenting, goes contrary to his opinion on that. But no matter how many times I read the ordinance, no where in the ordinance does it state that requirement. It talks about the half-acre but it never states that it has to be continuous or part of the same footprint. So we never can draw, really, according to the ordinance an imaginary one-half-acre boundary around a certain portion of the property and every building or every use has to be within that imaginary boundary. Keep in mind, also, that Ordinance 889 defines that a property is deemed to be appropriately used for agriculture when only 50 percent of the lot is actually used for agricultural activity. So this proposed project shows less than a half-acre of land occupied by the existing dwelling, existing garage, proposed church and the proposed parking; and this is even as calculated by the Planning Department. If you read the Declaration of Rodney Nakano, he stated that, when he drew the footprint, he tells you how much area is allotted. Nowhere does it reach a half-acre. As part of the Declaration, he tells you what a half-acre would involve, but he doesnÓt say that this building and the proposed buildings occupy that amount of property. So we should really look this, at this Special Permit, and judge as to what it is. ItÓs not a farm dwelling. We know it is a church use. Now regarding the IntervenorsÓ objections to this project, they say they want Ordinance 889 and the subdivisionÓs CC&Rs to be adhered to. But it seems from the actions and testimony of the Intervenors that they are being very selective in this opposition. For example, are there any lots in this subdivision being used for agricultural activity? Not by the definition of Ordinance 889. Note that the lot right next to the Wilsons was subdivided by the CPR process where each lot is now less than the five-acre minimum set by the ordinance. Mr. Wilson said in testimony he had no objection to that, none. All we want is a small piece of property so that we can peacefully pursue our way of worship. Now we donÓt want to cause any ill-will in the community. ThatÓs just the opposite of what weÓre trying to accomplish. And so we had hoped that during the course of this process, we could convince the Wilsons and the Planning Director that our request is reasonable and consistent with law. Now we are a modest group as you can see. ItÓs not a large group. We have a very modest project. ItÓs a small project in an agricultural district. And we want to be good 14