Laserfiche WebLink
Richard Oliver, 25466 Adobe Lane, stated that he did not believe it was fair for <br /> Council to adopt an urgency ordinance to stop someone from doing a <br /> project they are undertaking in conformance with the current Town <br /> ordinances. Mr. Oliver referred to the old silos on the Pink Horse Ranch <br /> Developent with had been preserved as silos but the uses were changed <br /> and they were now used for storage and a library. <br /> Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, stated that she was in favor of the urgency <br /> ordinance but not against the Wheatleys. She also questioned the <br /> foundation of the barn under discussion and stated that site development <br /> on any structure with a change from use to another was important. <br /> Shari Emling, 11853 Murietta, requested that this matter be continued to a <br /> hearing by the full Council as it had an affect on the future of the Town. <br /> Mr. Timothy Tang, 26638 Purissima, commented on privacy and fairness. He <br /> asked why his land be used as a buffer for this project and stated that there <br /> was a difference between a barn and a secondary dwelling. <br /> Mrs. Timothy Tang, 26638 Purissima, stated that she believed it was wrong to <br /> change the barn to a secondary dwelling without a site development <br /> permit. <br /> Casey stated that the whole purpose of the urgency ordinance was to block the <br /> Wheatley's project. There was no Town-wide urgency; the findings stated <br /> in the urgency ordinance were not true; there was no invasion of privacy <br /> and the issue was not precedent setting. She further commented on the <br /> issue of fairness and also noted that the change of the barn to a secondary <br /> dwelling was actually low density as two structures could actually go on <br /> the property. She noted that the barn was there when the Tangs moved <br /> next door to the Wheatleys and she believed the neighbors were <br /> overreacting. <br /> Hubbard stated that he did not like to change the rules midstream but the <br /> Town's General Plan did state one acre minimums. The intent of the <br /> ordinances was for openness and the ordinances did not encourage these <br /> kinds of projects. The urgency ordinance allowed this to be corrected. He <br /> believed it would be shifting the burden to the neighbors if the Wheatley <br /> project was approved. <br /> PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the urgency ordinance to the May 1, <br /> 1991 Meeting for a hearing by the full Council. <br /> Tryon also asked the City Attorney to research the site development permit <br /> issue. <br /> tibir <br /> April 17, 1991 <br /> 10 <br />