Laserfiche WebLink
I am writing to firmly object to the categorization of all our property as"Open". <br /> Per the CDP minutes,there seems to be a miss-placed concern: "clearly articulate the desire to protect this parcel from <br /> future development". There is no plan, desire or economic/justification for its"future development" now,or for the <br /> next 75-100 years. <br /> Our property has always been(75+yrs.)AG, Residential,and Conservation. More recently, (26 yrs.),it has been <br /> maintained with 6.2 acres of a macadamia nut orchard,for the AG portion. It is located parallel to the Hi-Way, between <br /> the Home,Conservation and Ocean Cliffs areas. This is very similar to the two AG portions of the two properties cited <br /> above. Why should my congruent property be designated differently? <br /> I am requesting that consistent decision logic, precedence,and reasonableness be employed and the orchard portion of <br /> our property be designated"Agriculture", in the Plan. I have maintained it as AG for 22+years and will do so into the <br /> distant future. Its usage is consistent with the State's Agriculture Goals, Plans and Objectives. <br /> Designation of the orchard as AG would be consistent with similar near—by,ocean-front,CDP draft parcels. More <br /> importantly, it would reflect reality,support community goals and do the"Right Thing". <br /> Please advise me of the Committee's Decision. <br /> Respectfully, <br /> James R.Weldon <br /> 2 <br />