My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2025-02-05 Jim McMahon Testimony
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
2025
>
2025-02-06 - Windward
>
Item #2 Teppy Mountain, LLC (PL-SPP-2024-000075)
>
Info given WPC 2-6-25 meeting
>
2025-02-05 Jim McMahon Testimony
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2025 10:10:47 AM
Creation date
2/6/2025 10:10:36 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• Annual status reporting requirement <br /> 91- no May- Base yard <br /> 0026 1992 The industrial nature of the proposed use is not <br /> consistent with the character of the existing <br /> community <br /> The proposed use is better suited to an Urban area <br /> which has been determined to be appropriate for <br /> such industrial use. <br /> The desired use would adversely affect <br /> surrounding properties. The character of the <br /> surrounding subdivisions is <br /> residential/agricultural in nature. The close <br /> proximity of dwellings conflicts with the proposed use <br /> by the applicant. This application for Special Permit <br /> is the outcome of complaints filed by surrounding <br /> property owners. Complaints were based on <br /> negative visual impact as well as noise and traffic <br /> problems created by the activity <br /> The proposed use will substantially alter or change <br /> the essential character of the land. The proposed <br /> parking of dump trucks and heavy earthmoving <br /> equipments on the property will substantially alter the <br /> existing residential/agricultural character of the land. <br /> Applicant's Financial Reasons - Discussion of the Starving <br /> Farmer Argument <br /> One of the reasons cited in the application for justifying this use is the rancher's "ability to <br /> use his farm vehicles for other commercial purposes is vital to his ability to finance the <br /> vehicles and earn a living". I have some difficulty with this argument because there are <br /> many farmers, perhaps a majority of farmers, that are part-time and most do not derive <br /> most of their income from farming. Farming is therefore often a secondary source of <br /> income. Other than agri-tourism which has specific income thresholds to ensure that it <br /> remains secondary to the primary agricultural operation, it seems difficult to justify the co- <br /> location of other commercial activities on the farm. What if the heavy equipment rental <br /> operation is more profitable than the ranching operation? Shouldn't there be income <br /> thresholds and therefore some amount of financial disclosure before approval just as for <br /> agritourism? This is similar to the argument around allowing transient rental <br /> accommodations and other non-farm uses on agricultural land. <br /> To allow non-agricultural commercial uses on farm land would seem to represent a kind of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.