|
HENKEL: Mr. Fuke, you know the drill.
<br />FUKE: Very busy day. Sorry.
<br />HENKEL: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on matters before the Commission?
<br />FUKE: Yes, I do.
<br />HENKEL: Thank you. Proceed.
<br />FUKE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Applicant, Mr. Kai, is also over here. He's
<br />had a chance to review the staff's Background Report and the proposed conditions and found
<br />them to be acceptable. The staff's report is, as always, very accurate and so, you know, we have
<br />no comment to that except that I'd like to respond just generally to I guess to Commissioner
<br />Clarkson's inquiry regarding the road, you know, road right-of-way requirement.
<br />As I understand it, you know, the Code is saying that, you know, if you're Ag -3 and above,
<br />three, five, or whatever, then the minimum requirement for a right-of-way is a 50 -foot wide. If
<br />it's less than three acres, you know, zoning—whether it's FA -2, one acre of residential, then as
<br />long as you have less than six lots being serviced by that proposed subdivision, then your right-
<br />of-way can go as small as 20 feet. If you're gonna do like a six or less lot subdivision in a place
<br />that's zoned for Ag -3 or Ag -5, there's no way you can have a right-of-way that's 20 feet wide.
<br />That allowances is for smaller lot, you know, for all the smaller zoning and not larger zoning.
<br />Part of the theory as I understand, is that if you have a large, you know, like zoning, like Ag -3 or
<br />Ag -5, there is always a potential of that property coming in later on for further development,
<br />rezoning, and as a result, in anticipation of further activity, they would want to see a wider right-
<br />of-way. I believe that's the theory. Whether it's logical or not, I mean, it's, that I think is a
<br />theory.
<br />DARROW: If I can also interject and, Sidney, if you can confirm this, there is the possibility of
<br />coming in for a roadway variance for these particular situations so unfortunately because this is a
<br />Change of Zone and not existing zoning, we don't, we normally don't allow variances through
<br />the subdivision process. So, in this particular case, they have to meet that required roadway
<br />width because it is a new Change of Zone.
<br />FUKE: The other thing, too, is like the Applicants' property has the pole—the width of the pole
<br />is 20 feet wide, but there's an adjoining property that is also has a 20 -foot wide pole as well, so
<br />they do have a cross easement. So, as a practical matter, the—the, Mr. Kai's property has access
<br />to a total of 40 feet but still that's ten feet short of the 50 -foot requirement.
<br />HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Are there any other questions of the Applicant, and I think
<br />Mr. Fuke addressed the conditions that the Planning Director applied. If that's the case, then
<br />thank you very much.
<br />No one has signed up to testify. I'll look for a motion to close
<br />EXHIBIT E
<br />4
<br />
|