|
<br />JACKSON: It’s an hourly threshold. So I believe for a second dwelling it would be eight hours per
<br />week of farming, and then if you want an additional dwelling beyond that, there is a higher threshold,
<br />more hours per week of farming.
<br />
<br />BEAUDET: Okay. Because this is, it’s two-sided, yeah? We are subdividing it into three lots with
<br />the restriction for one dwelling per lot. We obviously have a water issue, a Water Supply issue. But
<br />yet the request is to strike the condition so they can construct additional buildings. I would assume
<br />that a farm dwelling would need water service.
<br />
<br />JACKSON: Yes.
<br />
<br />BEAUDET: So how do we accommodate that, if there is other changes to Condition E?
<br />
<br />KANUHA: Perhaps I should respond to that; I was going to do that anyway. With regard to the
<br />philosophical notion that was raised by the applicant and discussed with the staff, that’s, the current
<br />situation now is even without subdivision someone could come in and ask for a farm dwelling. So to
<br />condition a rezoning for density purposes to limit additional farm dwellings when the Code already
<br />permits those, provided you can meet the requirements for farm dwellings, it’s, there is criteria
<br />already in the Code, but the analysis has been, you know, evolving over the years, because the
<br />primary threshold in the state Land Use Law is whether or not the proposed farm dwelling provides
<br />income to the occupants of the dwelling. Now, there is no real threshold for what the income is, and
<br />in the past the threshold has been at least 50 percent, okay, which obviously depending upon what
<br />kind of crops are involved, how big the property is, what the financing is for the dwelling, it could be
<br />difficult to accomplish. So the criteria has since been expanded somewhat to also include employees,
<br />you know, count your employees, how many hours they participate, you know, in the farm
<br />production, things of the nature. So based on that, that’s why I’m, I’m agreeable to waiving this
<br />restriction because in my mind it is, it is a form of contractual zoning; you know, you let somebody
<br />get a zoning, and in any other situation you are not restricted from applying for these farm dwellings,
<br />but because you are getting this additional zoning, now you get this restriction. If there were no
<br />qualification criteria for farm dwelling, then I think we would take a different approach, okay. But
<br />the provision is already provided for in the Code.
<br />
<br />Related to water, farm dwellings, there is no specific water requirement for farm dwelling as they are
<br />for a rezoning and a subdivision, okay. Those, to accomplish, the concurrency requirements in the
<br />County Code provide that you have to have either public water service or a system, a private system,
<br />that meets the same requirements of a public water system, right, in order to accomplish zoning and
<br />in order to get subdivision. On the subdivision component without rezoning, you can apply for a
<br />subdivision, if the requirements are there is no County water available, there is no private system, you
<br />know, meeting County dedicable standards available, then you have an option to apply for a variance,
<br />a variance from the water requirements. And the result of the variance is usually some form of a
<br />catchment system, and that is related indirectly to an analysis we do with regard to what the annual
<br />rainfall is in the area, what size tank you are going to have, you know, whether or not the structure
<br />you are going to provide has enough roof area to provide, you know, those requirements. So in this
<br />particular case they are only going for three lots because that’s how many meters, water meters, they
<br />have for the property. Now, in this case just because they have the meter doesn’t mean they have
<br />8
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|