2003-09-22 tpuna - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the staff or the Department in coming forth with a provision that would exclude certain uses that the, otherwise are generally allowed in the zone change. And, again, from a substantive standpoint, you know, the Applica either one of those two. But, for the record, I wanted to get some clarification. Aside from that, the staffÓs Background Report and the responses to the questions raised by various Commissioners, IÓll be happy to answer them, or be more than happy to respond to other questions that the Commissioners may have. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Norman, would you like to respond Mr. FukeÓs concern regarding Condition D and Condition E. YouÓll yield to the Chair, the Director? HAYASHI:Yes. GALDONES:Okay. Mr. Yuen? YUEN:First, on the limitation, the remaining 8 acres, we got a letter from the State Land Use Commission Executive Director who talked about the concern they had about the project being segmented. This is a concern that theyÓve expressed in a number of cases. And the reason for their concern is that the law says that you can take up to 15 acres on the County level, and take it from Agriculture to Urban. You cannot take, if you go beyond 15 acres, you canÓt go, you must go to th Commission. So their concern is that when you have a parcel that is say 20 or 30 acres and somebody comes in with an application to take only 15 acres of that into the Urban District without, on the County level without going to the Land Use Commission, that leaves open the possibility that they will come in next year, couple of years later, for the remaining 8 acres, 10 acres, 15 acres. This would be an end-run around the State Land Use law. ItÓs not something, itÓs something that has been seen before, letÓs put it that way. So itÓs actually a rather mild way of meeting with this concern. We want to put in a clause that says that you canÓt reclassify the remaining portion of the property for five years to avoid this idea of segmenting the property, and going 15 acres now and for the remainder at a later time. I should mention that, in looking over the material today, we really should have made, this is Condition D of the rezoning. We really should have made this in, it should have been, the condition should have been put in the State Land Use Boundary ordinance Òcause it really relates to that more than the rezoning. And it should be reworded slightly; and since weÓre talking about it, I think this is a good time to put in the, say the rewording. It now starts out saying, ÐThe applicant shall include a restrictive covenant in the deed which states that,Ñ and take out up to Ðstates,Ñ and then Ðstates that,Ñ the sentence should begin with, ÐThe approximately 8-acre portion of the property in the State Land Use Agricultural District shall not be reclassified in the Urban District for 5