Ord 1446 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

testified regarding prior farming of the residential parcels by the Doerfler family, and their lack of desire to continue farming the proposed residential parcels. Mr. Lulay testified that farmers are, willing to farm the larger 78-acre Farm Parcel, but it is not cost effective to farm the proposed smaller Jesidential parcels because of the difficulty in accessing and farming the proposed smaller parcels. 10. Michael Carrick testified in favor of the application as a homeowner in the neighborhood. Mr. Carrick testified that he is strongly in favor of approval to prevent the farmland from being developed from individuals and entities outside of the Enchanted Ridge Property Owners' Association. Mr. Carrick also testified that the smallest proposed residential lot has a large sequoia tree that prevents farming. 11. Bonnie Kelly testified as a homeowner in the neighborhood. Ms. Kelly testified that she always wondered why the proposed residential parcels at issue in this Application, which she referred to as the "gap pieces," were not developed because they look like they should be residential parcels. Ms. Kelly does not believe that the proposed residential parcels can produce significant crops because of the trees on the property. Ms. Kelly supports that the Farm Parcel, which she referred to as the "heartland," be kept in agricultural production. 12. Eugene Webb testified in favor of the Application. Mr. Webb owns Lot 7, which is next to one of the "gap" properties at issue in this Application. Mr. Webb raised concerns about the use of chemicals for farming. Mr. Webb stated that there is a risk to children and pets in the area from the use of agricultural chemicals if the lot was to be farmed. 13. Teresa Lulay testified to reiterate what had been stated. Ms. Lulay stated that allowing the two gap properties to be residential lots is a "win -win." The visual aspect of the empty lots that cannot be farmed in a similar manner to the Farm Parcel is inconsistent with the homes in the neighborhood. 14. Brian Crist initially indicated his intention to oppose the Application. However, when it was, learned that the small parcel was no longer the subject of the Application, Mr. Crist offered' general comments rather than comments in opposition. Mr. Crist addressed that his main concern is water availability, and that the dust and dirt concerns of the neighborhood should not be considered as such consequences are the natural result of fanning. Mr. Crist was positive of the proposal to include only three residential parcels, as opposed to four, because he has concerns about the impact of potential residences on water and impact to other wells. 15. Dale Abraham testified in opposition to the Application to express his concerns about future development. Mr. Abraham lives north of the neighborhood and is concerned about development of the area, including the impact on the water supply as a result of additional development to the school that is located in the area. Mr. Abraham is concerned about future changes to the zoning as a threat to the water supply. II. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Applicant has the burden of proving all applicable standards and criteria are met. 2. Land use applications of this nature must be consistent with the Goals. In this specific case, the subject Property is covered by Goal 3 (Agriculture Land). There is a mechanism, however, for Exhibit A - Findings Case No. CP/ZC 21-005 3 4864-0600-7078, v. 3