09/16/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• between Lot 2 and the conservation easement. The Commission reasoned that such a connection was not consistent with the Town's Zoning Code, as it provided additional development area and floor area for Lot 2 without a concurrent increase in buildable area on the lot(the strip connecting to the conservation easement was not buildable). Gary Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, stated his opposition to the lot line adjustment between Lots 2, 4 and the conservation easement. He felt this was unusual and unnecessary. In addition he did not believe that this lot line adjustment was in compliance with the Town's Zoning Laws nor in compliance with the State Government Code as it related to the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Cleary continued that this lot line adjustment was not adjacent to the parcels involved and questioned the real purpose for this narrow connector. Jeffrey Widman, real estate attorney for the Clearys, asked if this lot line adjustment would have been approved at the time of the tentative map approval and thought not. He reiterated that this lot line adjustment was not in conformance with the Town's Zoning Laws nor the Subdivision Map Act. Nobuko Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, noted that the Planning Commission had reviewed this lot line adjustment request and denied it. She also submitted a petition signed by 58 neighbors opposing the `stringbean' shape of the lot line adjustment. They stated in the petition that they wanted to keep the conservation easement as open space, free of buildings and structures. The following spoke against the lot line adjustment between Lots 2 and 4 of the Eshner Court parcel map: Helen Kupka, 27319 Julietta Lane; Robert Fenwick, 28011 Elena; Lynn Miller, • 27320 Julietta Lane;Nicholas Dunkel, 12171 Cortez Court; Leo Quilici, 27350 Julietta Lane; and Richard Harapat, 27360 Julietta Lane. They emphasized that this lot line adjustment would negatively affect the conservation easement and had no purpose. Harry Price, attorney for the LeFevres, stated that the Town had limited inquiries which could be made as far as lot line adjustments were concerned. He specifically referred to conformance to zoning and building ordinances. Mr. Price stated that this lot line adjustment had no impact on the neighbors, did not create non-conforming lots, did not eliminate the conservation easement nor attempt to change it to development area. Stephen Pahl, attorney for the Clearys, referred to his letter dated 8/19/99 to the Town on this application. He briefly outlined the historical background of the original Eshner estate and subsequent subdivisions. Addressing this specific lot line adjustment, Mr. Pahl stated that it was not in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances and had no purpose. He further emphasized the importance of preserving the conservation easement. The City Attorney referred to the Government Code Section of the State Subdivision Map Act and what options were available to the Town regarding lot line adjustments. She stated that Council had to determine if these lots were adjacent and whether or not this request was in compliance with the Town's Zoning Ordinances. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to approve the lot line adjustment request between Lot 4 of the Eshner Court parcel map and Parcel 2 of the Silent Hills Lane parcel map and to deny the lot line adjustment request between Lots 2 and 4 of the Eshner Court parcel map. September 16, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 4