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
In his report, the Planning Director provides a long list of government agencies that <br /> are required to be contacted or consulted as conditions for the permit - many on an <br /> annual and ongoing basis. So I disagree with the director over the claim that the <br /> requested use will not burden public agencies to provide additional services. Also, <br /> like the main Burning Man in Nevada and in the interest of public safety there should <br /> be law enforcement presence on site for the duration of the event. <br /> 10. <br /> Criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (D) Unusual conditions, trends, and needs have arisen <br /> since district boundaries and regulations were established. <br /> In the Recommendation report, the Planning Director that "The proposed uses <br /> would address the preceding by providing event guests an opportunity to enjoy an <br /> event <br /> venue on a small portion of a working ranch while helping the rancher lessee <br /> diversify <br /> their land uses and supplement their income." It is unclear how the rancher will <br /> benefit from the festival event as it has been stated that the Rancher will only <br /> operate the heavy equipment rental business. Will the Rancher be engaged in some <br /> sort or agritourism business with the festival goers during the 4 day event? <br /> 11. <br /> Criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (E) The land upon which the proposed use is sought <br /> is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district. <br /> The director agrees that land is suited for the permitted agricultural uses. However, he <br /> justifies the festival event because of its short duration. However, no mention is made of the <br /> suitability of the land used by the heavy equipment base yard which will be permanently <br /> located on the site. I believe it is also suited for the same agricultural uses. Elsewhere in <br /> the recommendation report appears to justify the non-ag uses because they occupied area <br /> represents -1% of the total area of the lot or -15 acres. The claim is therefore that there is <br /> an exception to this criteria if the relative area is small. Where is this exception mentioned <br /> in the Special Permit Practice and Procedures? And what is the land area threshold at <br /> which this exception applies? <br /> Interestingly the 15 acre site area is inclusive of roads within the subject parcel. It does not <br /> include the roads outside of the of the subject parcel located on nearby parcels containing <br /> the road easement. For the record, -0.7mi of 50ft wide easement — 4 additional acres. <br /> These additional acres would now see industrial use as a consequence of the heavy <br /> equipment base yard. <br /> 12. <br /> Criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (F) The proposed use will not substantially alter or <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.