2003-07-28 TBLASMAN (4) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

YUEN:That is true. VITOUSEK:So the State could design public access in a way that the public would not be channeled into a position where they would be impacted by any development on the Blasman property, isnÓt that correct? YUEN:That is true. ThatÓs a possibility. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so the potential impact on the public conceivably could be mitigated by the State in its own management of its cultural and ÐrecreationalÑ resources, isnÓt that correct? YUEN:ThatÓs correct. But I think it would be a shame if the State felt that it ought to keep people away from going to certain areas because of a decision that the County had made to allow a particular development. VITOUSEK:The, it wouldnÓt be a unique situation, would it not, for there to be a historical site in close proximity to other types of economic and residential uses, would it? YUEN:No, that is already going on in this, in this very area. And thatÓs, again, one of the reasons why rather than some more drastic recommendation, IÓve recommended handling this particular application through a landscaping screening rather than really cutting it down or banning it entirely. VITOUSEK:Yes, but the particular screening that you had proposed is a, is a particular type of screening. In other words, youÓve proposed, you said that unless there is a particular type of screening, you will recommend denial. IsnÓt that correct? YUEN:Yes. VITOUSEK:And that particular type of screening requires that the project not be visible from the historic site, isnÓt that correct? YUEN:ThatÓs my recommendation. VITOUSEK:Okay. And so are you familiar with other areas here, o anywhere where there is a specific development condition that says that the proposed project has to be invisible from a nearby cultural site? YUEN:No. VITOUSEK:So this condition would be unique then in that respect, isnÓt that correct? YUEN:As far as I know. 17