Sincerrely, Sandra Garber, 320 Smith Dr., Petaluma, Ca

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Sincerrely, Sandra Garber, 320 Smith Dr., Petaluma, Ca"

Transcription

1 From: Sandra Garber Sent: Tuesday, February 27, :13 PM To: Brett Bollinger Tiffany Robbe Subject: Sunnyslope II "revisions" It is my understanding that Lafferty Communities was directed to redesign a couple of the houses in their Oaks development on Sunnyslope Road to reduce the negative impact on the quality of life of the people living adjacent to the development. I don't know what changes were actually made. The story poles in place today, February 27, 2018, don't look much different to me from their predecessors, particularly the one at the northeast corner of the site. It still is aggressively close to the house on the northwest corner of Smith and Sunnyslope Road. and still blocks the view and possibly the light from most of the windows on the west side of that house. I accept that the development and some impact is inevitable at that site. I would rather have it there than have Petaluma sprawl further into the countryside. However, Lafferty Communities' response to both the Petaluma Planning Commission and to the neighbors among whom the development is being inserted is disrespectful and downright insulting. Please require them to comply with the letter and the spirit of the recommendations made after the January 9 meeting. Personally, I think that Bill Wolpert's suggestion of a one story house at that northeast corner of the site is an excellent solution. Sincerrely, Sandra Garber, 320 Smith Dr., Petaluma, Ca

2 From: Lieser, Jordan Sent: Tuesday, February 27, :36 PM To: Michael Healy; Wolpert; Gina Benedetti-Petnic; Diana Gomez; Richard Marzo; Bollinger, Brett; Robbe, Tiffany Cc: David Glass; Teresa Barrett; Chris Albertson; Kathleen Miller; Subject: Re: Letters of Concern about the Oaks at Sunnyslope Development Petaluma Planning Commissioners, I would also like to submit for the public record this community letter, signed by an additional 18 neighbors of the Oaks at Sunnyslope Project. Given the short window of time between story pole installation and tonight's meeting, the community has had less time to react. However, I should point out that these signatures represent the most immediate neighbors to the project and were collected within only 90 minutes. Thanks yet again, Jordan Lieser On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Lieser, Jordan <jordan.lieser@dominican.edu> wrote: Dear Petaluma Planning Commissioners, I write you today to submit letters of concern for the public record on behalf of many of the neighbors to the Oaks at Sunnyslope development. I am very sorry to have to submit these over the weekend; however, our time to react to the new story poles has been very brief. The new poles began to be installed on the property on Thursday afternoon, 15 February, and the crew did not get to Lot 2 and Lot 1 until after dark. They came back on Friday to finish the job, but since the installers were working by the headlights of their truck, we did not get our first good look at the story poles in their entirety until Friday after we returned home from work. We have collectively put our thoughts together as quickly as possible in order to work with the short timeline for these homes coming before the commission this upcoming Tuesday. Thank you for your considerable service to the City of Petaluma, we very much appreciate that you each dedicate a significant amount of time and energy into the community we love. Best, Jordan Lieser 345 Smith Drive -- Jordan Lieser, PhD Assistant Professor of History Dominican University of California

3 50 Acacia Ave. San Rafael, CA (415) Web page: Office: Angelico Jordan Lieser, PhD Assistant Professor of History Dominican University of California 50 Acacia Ave. San Rafael, CA (415) Web page: Office: Angelico 321

4

5 February 25, 2018 Dear Chair Benedetti-Petnik, Councilmember Healy, and Commissioners, My husband and I live directly behind lot 5 which was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting on 1/9/2018. We want to bring up our original concern that was not addressed regarding the drainage and sewer lines that were installed directly at the fence line. We have two trees in our yard immediately next to the fence line. We want to be sure that if any problems should arise with roots and or tree degradation that we are not responsible due to Lafferty s decision to place these drainage and sewer lines so close to these existing trees. Another concern brought up at that meeting by me and multiple neighbors was the size of the new homes on lots 1, 2 and 5 and how they specifically impact the smaller homes on Smith Drive. Then new development looks nice from the planned drawing street views on Sunnyslope Road and Oak Knoll Court, but the actual sizes and placements are daunting from the Smith Drive neighbor s yards, an extremely different view. Lots 1 and 2 homes appear to be slightly smaller with the new story poles however they are still looming over the Smith Drive homes and are only 15 feet from the highly used yards/outdoor living spaces with no tree screening as promised when the map was approved. We ask that you reconsider and strongly request that all the homes along Smith Drive be one-story to feather into the existing modest neighborhood. One-story does not mean they cannot still be luxury homes. Please keep some of the Petaluma feel between this new development and the people of the Westridge/Sunnyslope community rather than so densely filling open space with square foot homes right next to each other. We really want this development to be an asset for the new neighbors as well as the existing ones. Thank you for listening and for all your hard work. Sincerely, Theresa and Mike O Brien 333 Smith Drive Petaluma, CA 94952

6

7

8 LOT 1 LOT Smith Drive 345 Smith Drive LOT 2 LOT Smith Drive 341 Smith Drive The areas highlighted in yellow represent living room, master bedroom, child's bedroom and pool 337 Smith Drive 337 Smith Drive 333 Smith Drive 333 Smith Drive A B A B Shadow Study Summer Solstice: June 21, :00AM Summer Solstice: June 21, :00PM THE OAKS AT SUNNYSLOPE PETALUMA, CA SP-1 SHADOW STUDY 2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA

9 This mass of trees no longer exists. They were removed by Lafferty. 337 Smith Drive

10 PLANT SPECIES SPECIFIED FOR PRIVACY SCREENING AT ADJACENT PROPERTIES: Deciduous: Lagerstroemia indica Muskogee /Muskogee hybrid crape myrtle Evergreen: Arbutus unedo/ Strawberry Tree Eriobotrya deflexa Coppertone Dodonea viscosa Purpurea /Purple Hopseed Bush Feijoa sellowiana/pineapple Guava Juniperus virginiana Sky Rocket /Skyrocket Cedar Myrica California/Pacific Wax Myrtle SITE SECTIONS ADJACENT HOUSING (SMITH DR.) Lot 2 is more than double the height of 337 Smith Drive 333 Smith Dr. LOT 5 LOT 6 The trees in this rendering do not exist and likely cannot be planted there due to existing storm drain 6-0 FENCE WITH 2-0 LATTICE ABV. C 3 SECTION C LOT 2 APPROXIMATE AREA OF NEIGHBOR PROPOSED NEW TREES 337 Smith Dr SMITH DRIVE B 2 LOT 2 A 341 Smith Dr. 345 Smith Dr. 1 LOT 1 This mass of trees was removed by Laffery during the land grading process and the view is wide open now SECTION B LOT FENCE WITH 2-0 LATTICE ABV. APPROXIMATE AREA OF NEIGHBOR PROPOSED NEW TREES SMITH DRIVE SITE PLAN VIEW OF ADJACENT HOUSING (SMITH DR.) AREA OF NEIGHBOR APPROVED PROPOSED TREE PLANTING AREA (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) EXISTING HEDGES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) EXISTING TREES (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) SECTION A LOT 1 APPROXIMATE AREA OF NEIGHBOR PROPOSED NEW TREES 6-0 FENCE WITH 2-0 LATTICE ABV NOTE: GRADES DEPICTED IN SITE SECTIONS PROVIDED BY: STEVEN J. LAFRANCHI & ASSOCIATES, INC SMITH DRIVE FRONT YARD BACKYARD DIMENSIONS FROM LOTS 1 & 2 TO ADJACENT HOUSES AND PROPERTY LINES THE OAKS AT SUNNYSLOPE PETALUMA, CA SP-3 CONTEXT STUDY 2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA

11 337 Smith Drive 337 SMITH DR 341 SMITH DR PROPERTY LINE Existing landscape screening here removed 345 SMITH DR SETBACK LINE LOT 5 PROPERTY LINE PRIVATE DRIVE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE LOT BI-PASS FR. DOOR T.G. DRIVEWAY SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE STRIP WALKWAY SETBACK LINE LOT 6 PROPERTY LINE OAK KNOLL COURT Lot 2 Architectural Site Plan Lot area: 9762± SF Building Coverage: 2955 SF Coverage (40% max): 30.27% LANDSCAPE STRIP SIDEWALK Sunnyslope - Lot 2 THE OAKS AT SUNNYSLOPE Petaluma, CA Lafferty Communities PETALUMA, CA CURB CUT A LOT 2 Site information derived from civil drawings January 11, Sunnyslope - Petaluma, CA 2017 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA

12 This room not included in story poles THE OAKS AT SUNNYSLOPE PETALUMA, CA A LOT WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA

13 From: Jennifer Pierre Sent: Monday, February 26, :59 PM To: Michael Healy; Diana Gomez; Gina Benedetti-Petnic; Richard Marzo; Wolpert; Cc: Jordan Lieser; Robbe, Tiffany; Tekob3; Hines, Heather; Seth Harris Subject: Oaks at Sunnyslope Dear Councilmember Healy and Planning Commissioners, I am so grateful to our neighbor Jordan for going through ALL of the history on the Oaks project to paint a very clear picture of the consistent vision that the City Council, Planning Commission, and the community has had for this project. It is clear from comments made by City leaders going back even to Mayor Torliatt and David Rabbitt, that no one reviewing this project either conceptually or as part of a tentative map has agreed that the appropriate massing, stories, or size of the homes adjacent to Smith Drive is as large as what's proposed. This consistent perspective over the last decade should give the Planning Commissioners pause. The Commission should heavily consider that landscape screening cannot be accomplished along or near a sewer line that was foolishly placed in an area that is nearly impossible to service (instead of the road), that building envelopes are being pushed to the max in all directions, that rear yard sizes proposed for these very large homes are similar to those found in substantially smaller homes and are inconsistent with feathering policies of the GP, and that the applicant is not engaging the neighbors in a manner that they committed to repeatedly throughout the map approval process. It is up to the Planning Commission to fairly assess the proposed homes and their surroundings to approve only development that is respectful of its environment including existing neighborhoods. Clearly 3,000sf homes pushing the max of their envelopes at 15' from the property line does not do that as has been articulated over and over again by many city leaders. I urge you to set the correct precedent for this development and recognize that even with smaller, more respectful homes, the developer will make plenty of profit in the Petaluma market, while creating a pleasant living environment for existing and future neighbors. As I noted before, homes along Smith Drive should be single-story only and there should be room made on the Oaks side of the development to plant the landscape screening that the developer has committed to and that is required in the conditions of approval. As always, thank you for the hard work you do! Sincerely, Jenny

14 To: Planning Commission Re: Sunnyslope Development Good afternoon, Per the latest phase of the approval process for the Sunnyslope Rd. development, and per the last Planning Commission meeting discussing the architectural designs and dimensions, we are writing to continue to express our opinions regarding the way forward. We are neighbors residing at 677 Sunnyslope Rd. and were in attendance during the last meeting. During that meeting, design changes primarily associated with structural height, privacy concerns, property setbacks, drainage and sewage infrastructure, landscape screening, and shadow impacts etc. were addressed and it seemed that more compromise would be forthcoming. In the scenario that the economics would work out for the developer, we have a proposal that may satisfy all parties concerned. Lot one, as was discussed, is a small lot size in comparison to the others, and situated in a position where all four sides make it the least desirable lot for purchase (Sunnyslope on one side, close neighbors in back and side, as well as the development street on the forth side). It appears obvious that the architectural design was to maximize square footage on the lot to make the smaller lot size more attractive (cannot fault developer for this as they are a for-profit business). As was indicated, they could not increase the footprint to increase square footage so they had no choice but to go up instead. The proposal we are putting forward is to combine lots one and two, and design a single level ranch style home with sq. ft. They can allocate part of lot one for an open space/park on the Sunnyslope side of the parcel thereby creating a buffer for the lot owner, create a goodwill gesture for the neighborhood, maintain single level homes along the fence-line (eliminating the necessity for larger landscape screening) and maximize profit margins on the sale of a larger home. My guess is that as an added benefit, it would be easier to sell after completion. In conclusion, there has to be a way to satisfy all parties needs and it seems to us that large landscape screening is not a viable primary solution as the infrastructure that has been constructed and installed (drainage and sewer) interferes. We do not think that it is reasonable to ask the neighbors to forgo their backyard square footage to provide the screening as well as potentially incur the liability that is associated with the roots of the said landscaping. As it takes time to develop new architectural plans (perhaps they already have archived plans that they have used for some of their other developments) is it possible to start construction on other lots first? We understand that they have an interest in the project moving toward completion, but that might involve looking at it from another angle and taking a different approach where no time or money is lost in the process.

15 Thanks for your consideration, John and Jasmine Gerber 677 Sunnyslope Rd.

16 From: Anne Howatt Sent: Friday, February 23, :51 PM To: petalumaplanning Subject: Objection to approve - Oaks at Sunnyslope Phase II Dear Petaluma Planning Commission, I am writing to express my opposition to the homes being built on Sunnyslope Road. They are too big, too high, and they have little set back to the adjoining existing single family homes that they back up to. These homes are extremely close to the street with little or no front or back yards. More importantly, these homes represent the total opposite for where Petaluma needs to be heading. With housing at crisis levels Petaluma does not need more 3500 square foot homes that negatively impact the environment, negate the community feel of the Sunnyslope area, and have indulgent water usage and energy usage. The ridiculous height of these houses is over bearing to all the existing single family homes, especially those homes closest to the street. Petaluma is a wonderful place to live because of it's charm and general social conscience. These homes do everything to destroy that part of Petaluma that we all love. Sincerely, Anne Howatt

17 23 February 2018 To: Petaluma Planning Commission Re: Lafferty Communities The Oaks at Sunnyslope Until now the development of the West Side Sunnyslope Community has respected and enhanced the character of our neighborhood. Many varieties of homes coexist here very successfully. We write to you today because we feel that the Lafferty project violates the character of our neighborhood by cramming too many oversized houses causing a severe impact, particularly for our neighbors on Smith Drive. We think the developers and architects should build smaller single story homes to help mitigate what will become a burdensome 18 home subdivision crammed into a small, sloped parcel. We are confident that you will take these matters into your design approval consideration. Thank you. Amy and Joel Levine 671 Sunnyslope Road

18

19

20

21 Dear Petaluma Planning Commissioners, The proposed homes for Lots #1 and #2 were not designed with coordination from the Smith Drive neighbors as directed in the January 9,, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, are in violation of Resolution N.C.S. Planned Unit Development Approval, and do not fulfill the promises made to the neighbors during the approval process of the Planned Unit Development. Lack of Coordination with the Smith Drive Neighbors: After the January 9, 2018 meeting, we as the Smith Drive neighbors were optimistic that Lafferty Communities would address our concerns, listen to our suggestions, and offer solutions to comply with Planning Commission Chair Gina Benedetti-Petnic s comment to go back to the drawing board for all the issues on Lots #1 and #2 (Planning Commission Meeting 1/09/2018, Granicus 2:40:00). The final comments from the Planning Commissioners on January 9, 2018 were quite pointed and included a number of specific concerns. For your reference, I have cited and summarized many of the relevant comments here: Councilman Mike Healy pointed out how infill projects in Petaluma have a long history of sensitivity to the neighbors, citing a similar example near G&G supermarket, where a row of one-story homes were required which showed you the type of sensitivity the city has had on the issue over the years. He added that I think lots one and two in particular are too big given the constraints of the site. I don t think is a problem the developer can anticipate seeing throughout the entire project. I think eliminating the bonus room is a good start, but it is just the beginning of a conversation rather than the end of it. Commission Bill Wolpert then spoke, beginning his message as stating he was in complete agreement with Councilman Healy. He continued, As we read through the General Plan, the Hillside Protection Plan, the IZO, the guidelines are clear about designing in the context of the neighborhood. Wolpert then pointed out that the height of the homes was shocking and the structures were too large and imposing for the neighbors on Smith Drive. He suggested the homes on Lot #1 and Lot #2 be built within a context of the neighborhood, not just the development itself. Furthermore, having to burden the neighbors to screen out their view is backwards. I am not altogether clear how we came to a design that created an easement for sewer and storm drains for ends up precluding the landscaping of those backyards. I see it as the developments responsibility to screen these homes, not the neighbors. I think lots one and two should also be one story homes. I don t see how they work as two-story homes, I really think they need to be one-story homes (Planning Commission Meeting 1/09/2018, Granicus 2:58:20). Commissioner Scott Alonso also expressed agreement and pointed out the need for the developer to work with the neighbors and the additional need to look at the history of the project. We have to emphasize the promises made to the neighborhood, the promises made to the council.to go over what is appropriate for those specific lots. Commissioner Marzo pointed out that the taller homes in the neighborhood should be up against Wallenberg, where the homes are taller and larger. Commissioner Gina Benedietti-Petnic, while not in agreement with the necessity for a single story, said she was unhappy with the height. Commissioner Wolpert was then asked if he was a single-story man? I believe his response has proven to be quite prophetic, I am not really. But, if you want the style to be consistent with the rest of the architecture, and you are going to have a ten foot first floor and a nine foot second floor, and a roof style that is similar to the others you are going to end up in the same place. 1

22 You are not talking about a flat roof, how much difference can you make. That s why I suggested onestory. Gina Benedietti-Petnic then responded that perhaps if the second-story was limited to a bonus single suite type of thing, really limit the spans but it would take a dramatic floorplan change (Planning Commission Meeting 1/09/2018, Granicus 2:42:00) Unfortunately, what has transpired since the past meeting has been entirely disappointing, onesided, and not in alignment with the feedback given at the 9 January Planning Commission meeting. In the weeks leading up to that meeting, we were told that making changes to the homes took weeks, even months. They argued that this arduous time required prevented Lafferty from making any changes to the homes on Lot #1 and #2 prior to the meeting. Needless to say, I was incredibly surprised when Scott Zengel, Vice-President of Lafferty Communities, came into my home on January 13 th with modified plans in hand albeit far from going back to the drawing board only four days later. The plans were explained to be a starting point as he sat at my kitchen table and listened to our suggestions. Scott left and after two weeks of not hearing back, I contacted him once a week, every week, to check-in and see if there were any updates. We were hoping to hear about the new designs and see if our concerns had been considered. Scott was finally willing to share the new plans for Lots #1 and #2 with the Smith Drive neighbors after he returned my call on February 15 th the same evening that the new story poles were erected (they finished putting up the poles for Lot #1 and Lot #2 at about 7pm on the 15 th ). We worked out a meeting for February 17 th where he brought the plans again to my kitchen table. Much to our surprise, they were identical with the very minor exception of a one foot grading adjustment to what was shown to us on January 13 th. Literally none of our suggestions, concerns, or requests were adopted, nor even compromised upon. At the 17 th meeting, we again expressed our same concerns, but he instructed us that they were unwilling to make any additional changes as he systematically told us no to any and all requests. For example, we asked if the homes could have one-foot lower ceilings and we were instructed that Lafferty doesn t build homes under 10-ft high ceilings on the first floor. Lack of Adherence to Resolution N.C.S. Planned Unit Development Approval: Resolution N.C.S. Planned Unit Development Approval includes some very specific language written precisely with the Smith Drive neighbors in mind. It reads, At Lots 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 13-17: Particular care shall be exercised..to preserve privacy and minimize visual impacts to adjoining existing properties. It goes on to state that Landscape screening shall also be utilized to preserve privacy and visually buffer the new homes. The proposed two-story home, that towers over my own home thanks to high ceilings, a high roofline, an elevation change of approximately 6 feet and a setback of only 17 feet, proposes an impossible challenge to adequately meet the landscape screening obligation. Unfortunately, not only is the backyard of the home on Lot #1 too small to plant large trees, but a sewer line and a drainage line were both installed immediately on the other side of our shared property line. In addition, on our side of the soon-to-be-built fence, there is a large V drainage ditch that does not appear on ANY of the submitted plans (and in fact, in what feels very ironic from our perspective, the nicely rendered architectural drawings show non-existent trees in the precise location where the V-ditch exists). There is also a large French drain a few more feet further in towards our own home (see Image 1 for the cross section view on both sides of the fence). 2

23 Image 1 According to Brett Ward, Utility Operations Consultant for the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) at the University of Tennessee, and Wayne K. Clatterbuck, Associate Professor Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries at the University of Tennessee, in their publication Choosing Sewer Safer Trees (research conducted via a US Forest Service Grant) no large trees should be planted within 100 feet of a sewer line and absolutely nothing within 10 feet. This also goes for drainage pipes, as trees seek water, nutrients, and oxygen all things these lines have in abundance. In short, they write, there are no sewer safe trees. The fact that a sewer line and a drainage ditch were placed right along our property lines is a significant problem that directly impacts the Resolution N.C.S. guarantee to provide screening trees of the new homes. I m not sure if it is common practice to place sewer and drainage lines between two particularly narrow lots and in a 17 foot wide back yard, but this poses serious long term problems. Even the existing small oak trees and hedges are within the ten foot line. I moved to Petaluma and bought a house with every intention of staying here for the rest of my life, so I do want to see the day were either raw sewage or drainage water leaks into my home (and likely my new neighbors home) due to trees planted on either side of the fence. In addition, if they were new trees that I planted, there is a growing legal precedent including a Virginia Supreme Court Decision which states I would be liable for any damage done by the roots. I also consulted Vice Landscape Management out of Santa Rosa concerning the tree screening issue. Scott Vice himself came into our backyard and told us he would not plant trees anywhere near the drains or sewer line. He said some small hedges may be possible, but thanks to the elevation change this would not even screen the first story of the proposed home on Lot #1. 3

24 Much has been made of the reimbursement for trees taken off of our property or what Lafferty has described as behind my property. To be clear, two trees were removed. Both trees straddled the property line and I was only informed that they were unhealthy and in the way of the new fence. As it turns out, thanks to a recent surveying job completed at the discretion of Seth Harris, it was confirmed that the removed tree trunks split across the property line, making the trees commonly owned by both parties. I should also add, that while I was reimbursed (at what I believe to be below market rate) for the removed trees, the letter I received from Lafferty Communities themselves pointed out that this compensation was only in addition to other screening from their development. Their letter reads, In an effort to help compensate for the loss of the trees located behind your lot at 345 Smith Drive, and to provide you the ability to add additional screening from our development, Lafferty Communities is happy to provide you this payment. At this point in the process I find myself wondering, in addition to what? What is the screening to which my new trees will be in addition to? (See full letter in Appendix 1) In short, the narrow lot shapes of Lot #1 and Lot #2, in combination with minimal yard space, our own narrow lots, and the placement of a sewer pipe and an extensive drainage system have restricted the ability to provide landscaping to buffer the new homes. This is especially important to us as these new homes contain only half as much of a rear setback than the rest of the homes in Westridge, which average approximately a 30 foot rear setback and appear to be a huge mass blocking most of our view out of every single one our rear windows. This concern has been brought up several times to Scott Zengel, but we have been repeatedly told to simply plant the trees, get them going, and not worry about it. Beyond the landscaping issue, particular care has not been given to the Smith Drive neighbors to minimize visual impacts to adjoining existing properties. The profiles of the homes on Lots #1 and #2 from our viewpoint have only marginally changed. Pictures of the old story poles from both our living room, the approach to our home via Sunnyslope, and the viewing platform off of I-Street are hard to distinguish from the new story poles. Having gotten to know the neighbors on every side of this project, I know that the Wallenberg Way neighbors feel as though the new homes adjoining their property are in coherence with minimizing visual impacts, but even they agree (many wrote/signed letters saying as much) that the homes on Lot #1 and Lot #2 DO NOT do so. The proposed home on Lot 16 serves as in interesting case-study comparison. It contains a single story home and sits downhill with existing, mature screening trees from multiple, large two-story homes on Wallenberg. This design preserves the view of existing homes and leaves nearly no impact of the new construction on the existing neighbors. In contrast, the homes on the lots opposite from our homes sit uphill from us (rather than downhill), are twostory, are significantly larger in square footage, have no landscaping (and no possibility for meaningful landscaping), and obstruct our view of the hillside from every window on the backside of our home. Having watched 50+ hours of Granicus tapes on the Oaks at Sunnyslope project, I discovered that the reason a single story home was placed on Lot 16, was simply because the existing neighbor on Wallenberg stepped forward asked for it. We think the Smith Drive homes in relation to the new homes Lot 1 and 2 necessitate a greater need for adjoining single stories homes than those that abut Lot 16. In addition, a single story would allow for the guaranteed appropriate tree screening. It is not possible to screen a two-story home with a 17 foot setback, a sewer line, a drainage line----and our side of the fence a V drainage ditch. In total, over 50 letters of concern have been written by neighbors on all sides of the Oaks at Sunnyslope project. Every single one of them advocated for single story homes on Lots #1 and #2. The entirety of the neighborhood remain united and passionate about this issue. 4

25 Promises made to the neighbors during the approval process of the Planned Unit Development: As I noted above, I have watched a lot of Granicus over the past month. I often do in-depth historical research for a living, so I quite familiar with dedicating considerable time in order to fully understand important issues. I discovered that this project has been presented a number of different times to SPARC, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. At several points along the way, specific concerns of the Smith Drive neighbors have been specifically addressed by the developers themselves, resulting in specific promises that Smith Drive neighbors would have input on the size, shape, and number of stories of the new homes, the choice of where new trees would be planted to buffer the new homes, and a promise to do all of this during the design review phase. Mr. Steve Lafranchi, who has arguably the longest connection to this project, has been the primary presenter and spokesperson for the developers at past meetings seeking approval. Since Lafferty Communities is a relative newcomer to the project, they may not have been well versed in its long history. Mr. Lafranchi, and those others previously involved in this project, built a sense of trust and buy-in from the community in order to move this project forward. Steve is known and respected in this town and we believe his promises should be applicable, transferable, and welcomed by Lafferty Communities. The first instance of this promised cooperation came in front of the Planning Commission on March 10, Mr. Lafranchi answered a question from Councilwoman Teresa Barrett about working with neighbors. He stated, At the presentation what I tried to indicate our commitment to the neighbors that at design review part and work with them up through design review. We would work with neighbors, you know, to revise architecture, to possibly relocate some of the residences on the site. The issues about tree planting also came up at that meeting. Again, made it publically we committed that trees would either being on the lots, in the development itself, or they could have the option to plant the trees on their property, or no trees at all actually. Some neighbors indicated they didn t want trees (Planning Commission Meeting 12/22/2009, Granicus 9:00). Further clarity to this promise came later in the same meeting when a discussion between staff and commissioners reveal staff analysis about the timing of this consulting with the neighbors. Staff stated, the size of homes, the rooflines (pause) was when it comes through design review, that will be where I believe the applicant will be consulting with neighbors and really fine tuning the design (Planning Commission Meeting 12/22/2009, Granicus 1:12:50). As you are certainly aware, despite not receiving the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the plan went to the City Council for a decision. On February 22, 2010, Lafranchi again spoke into the microphone, representing this similar promise for future work with neighbors at design review. In specific reference to Smith Drive, he stated. We still offer to them [Smith Drive neighbors] that they can come to us before design review and work with us on design of the house. Where it is within building setback, the stories. They will have opportunity before design review to adjust houses on the lots. Thank you very much. (City Council Meeting 2/22/2010, Granicus 3:07:00). At the same council meeting, Mr. Lafranchi also stated that nothing at all from our development can be seen from any viewshed in the city of Petaluma. None. At the December 20, 2010 City Council Meeting, where the tentative map was ultimately approved. It is also relevant to mention that Principal Planner Geoff Bradley, while referencing the 5

26 homes abutting Smith Drive informed the City Council that These are relatively large lots and two-story versus one-story isn t particularly an issue for the ability to get a house on these parcels that are adequate in size to accommodate the price range we are searching for the type of houses are proposing for the project. He went on to state that, Single family homes are much more desirable and much easier to sell than two-story homes are. So, to the extent that it s possible given the topography and given lot sizes to have single story houses, there are some motivations for developers to put single story houses on lots (City Council Meeting 12/20/2010, Granicus, 2:40:15). Perhaps even more important than the above promises, SPARC members, Planning Commissioners, and City Council members have for years at this point made consistent official comments suggesting smaller homes, a reduction in massing, and a whole host of other concerns about the proposed new homes bordering the neighbors on Smith Drive. At the August 23, 2007 SPARC meeting, the discussion period quickly brought up concerns about a healthy mix of massing, reductions in Lot 1 and 2, a failure to look at the subsequent neighborhood, and a suggestion to consider the size of those homes (SPARC Meeting 8/23/2007, Granicus 1:23). When it came time for official comments, every single committee member suggested changes in the massing. Specifically, the final comments which included a sharp criticism of the application s self-described pleasing sense of scale, which one commissioner poignantly argued I didn t find that at all. Another official comment argued that these 3,400+ sq. ft. homes did not fit well with the historic home, engulfing it. In addition, there were suggestions to eliminate blank spaces and blank walls which facing existing homes or streets. Another committee member suggested a stronger visual continuity and that the plan was simply too massive. (SPARC Meeting 8/23/2007, Granicus 1:54:00). Yet another member argued that this was simply massing of homes and the project needed more variety in the size of homes. He suggested the planners pay careful attention to massing in the future as at their current sizes they are overbearing in respect to existing houses. The final two members also both commented on massing, with the one stating it quite clearly, the units are too large and that this was stressing the site (SPARC Meeting 8/23/2007, Granicus 2:03:00). When it moved to the Planning Commission, the same concerns were echoed. During the discussion period at the December 22, 2009 meeting, cohesion with the surrounding neighborhoods was a central concern. In addition, proximity of the homes to Smith Dr. was mentioned. Headlights into the windows of neighbors was a new concern raised at this meeting. It was asked if a headlight study had been completed, but it is unclear if this was ever addressed by the applicant. Mr. Lafranchi stated that the headlights would be above the existing units, but there was no evidence presented to back up this claim. The official comments most relevant to Smith Dr. were focused predominately around massing. Commissioner Marianne Hurley stated, We are making the site respond to the desire to have large massed buildings placed there (Planning Commission Meeting 12/22/2009, Granicus 1:53:00). Another commissioner, Curtis Johansen, criticized the large homes as well. He said the intent of this plan is to maximize the lot with home size. He went on to point out that this was not necessarily a good economic philosophy and suggested in this case smaller homes would likely fetch as much if not more (Planning Commission Meeting 12/22/2009, Granicus 1:58:00). He went on to suggest a healthy mix of larger and smaller homes in order to avoid the segregation of our neighborhoods by socio-economic status (Planning Commission Meeting 12/22/2009, Granicus 2:00:00). While somewhat tangential to the issue of massing, Johansen s commented further that The healthier mix of smaller and big homes.[are where] communities are healthiest, the ones built 100 years ago, in this country, where a wide variety of house sizes and socio-economic sizes are built together. Those communities hold up better (Planning Commission Meeting 12/22/2009, Granicus 2:01:32). It is also relevant to mention here that Councilwoman Barrett agreed with the previous commissioners and injected that story poles are a 6

27 necessity in order to reveal if the homes were truly visible form the viewing platforms (Planning Commission Meeting 12/22/2009, Granicus 2:06:00). Commissioner Melissa Abercrombie agreed with the previous commissioners and cited a lack of feathering, and argued that the massing of these homes actually went against the General Plan. Commissioner Christopher Arras, who was the only member to vote in favor of the plan, specifically stipulated the lots neighboring Smith Dr., saying they should scale better with their neighbors (Planning Commission Meeting 12/22/2009, Granicus 2:23:00). Commissioner Dennis Elias summarized the commission s final comments the clearest, bring down those 3,000 sq. ft. houses down to a reasonable size (Planning Commission Meeting 12/22/2009, 2:16:00). At City Council, the message was the same, although perhaps even more pointed. Mayor Pamela Torliatt herself stated, that the size of the homes needs to be addressed, houses along existing homes need to be one story, especially Smith Dr. (City Council Meeting 2/22/2010, Granicus,4:22:00). Vice- Mayor David Glass summarized it nicely following Torliatt s comment. He stated: These are not really new issues, this all came up at a SPARC review and I believe the date was August 23 rd What I m reading from the staff report, need to understand site constraints and locate buildings to avoid these constraints.healthy mix of smaller homes and big homes would allow project team to avoid constraints. That is specifically pointed out, so that people come here and talk about how they bent over backwards, in effect, to make accommodations, listen and receive input, and when I m sitting here looking at homes averaging 3,280 sq. ft.you need to look back a healthy mix of smaller homes and big homes. What we have now is a consistent mix of big and bigger (City Council Meeting 2/22/2010, Granicus 4:24:00). Councilmember David Rabbit followed the above comment with, be careful what you ask for and added his support to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor, remarking that he was All for a healthy mix of home sizes, but his most important question moving forward was concerning what are these units going to look like and what are the neighbors going to accept. (City Council Meeting 2/22/2010, Granicus 4:28:00). Councilwoman Tiffany Renée then agreed with the previous commenters, specifically stating, I appreciated the mayor s comments. Her subsequent feedback included, I d like to see some of the houses down below come away [from the neighbors]. She further commented on the need for more backyard space, which could be achieved if those houses were thinner (City Council Meeting 2/22/2010, Granicus 4:35:00). Councilmember Mike Harris also stated his agreement with the previous comments, citing a previous comment that the project was a mess from earlier right before Vice-Mayor Glass again spoke, stating that We ve heard from people across the street from the project and they haven t had a chance to give their input, it s déjà vu all over again.it goes all the way back to the 2007 SPARC hearing (City Council Meeting 2/22/2010, Granicus 4:44:00). Councilmember Mike Healy shared agreement with previous comments and added that, with an applicant that is very keen on pressing their legal rights to get a number of parcels here, that it seems a little on the high side and you combine that with the fact that they want what is essentially all very large homes it does make for a suboptimal layout (City Council Meeting 12/22/2010, Granicus 4:49:00). Councilmember Barrett also shared agreement with her colleagues who spoke before her. At the December 20, 2010 City Council Meeting, familiar discussion already represented in this letter abounded; however, of note was a comment by Councilmember Rabbit concerning the need for every home to come under individual review. He commented, I appreciate every home will come back and have that say.the privacy issues and the height issues [can be individually addressed then] (City Council Meeting 12/22/2010, Granicus 2:57:00). The meeting also resulted in the addition of Condition 7

28 77, which was enacted for Lots 1, 2, 5, 8-10, and was initialed by Steve Lafranchi during the meeting. It reads, For those lots particular care shall be exercised during the site plan and architectural review process to preserve the privacy of adjoining existing properties. Window locations, patios, and balconies shall be placed so that line of sight privacy impacts do not occur. Landscaping screening shall also be utilized to enhance privacy and visually buffer the new homes (City Council Meeting 12/22/2010, Granicus 2:58:20). Councilmembers were asked by the mayor what they would like added to Condition 77 and they responded with, One-story buildings shall be considered where appropriate (Councilwoman Renée). Councilman Rabbit made the point that views [from existing houses of the hillside] do get taken into account when each individual home comes in for review. The council only decided not to mandate that all homes along Smith Drive be single story due to the recommendation by Principal Planner Geoff Bradley, who suggested said that flexibility for two-story homes may actually be preferred by the neighbors in some instances. He pointed out that homes could be designed with minimal footprints on some of the lots in order to minimize impact on the neighbors and that this could be decided at individual design review. (City Council Meeting 12/22/2010, Granicus 3:00:10). Mr. LaFranchi agreed that this flexibility was preferable. Unfortunately, the proposed plans have instead maximized the footprint pushing the limit on the building envelope in every direction including vertically which very much goes against the very specific conditions given by the City Council to approve the site plan. We, as the Smith Drive neighbors, believe that promises made in good faith (and put on the public record nonetheless) should be promises kept. Again, I want to reiterate my thanks for your time and service to our community. Petaluma is a wonderful place because of the people that live and work here. Sincerely, Jordan Lieser, PhD 345 Smith Drive 8

29 Appendix 1: 9

30 Appendix 2: Photographs A) Taken from inside my home standing in the doorway. Photograph taken at eye-level. B) Taken down the road on Sunnyslope 10

31 Dear Petaluma Planning Commissioners, I am writing regarding the new proposed plans at the Oaks at Sunnyslope. My name is Stephanie Lieser and I am a resident at 345 Smith Drive, which is adjacent to Lot 1 of the proposed project. During the last planning commission meeting on January 9, 2018, many of the Smith neighbor s concerns were publicly communicated. The concerns included, but were not limited to, privacy, screening, massing, and obstruction of hillside views. The commission recommended that Lafferty Communities redesign the homes on lots 1 and 2 by working with the neighbors on Smith Drive to address these concerns. Unfortunately, the redesign was instead simply small adjustments made to existing plans that narrowly addressed the concerns; which in turn resulted in minimal change in the impact on the current Smith Drive neighbors particularly at 345 and 321 Smith Drive. I urge you to closely review the changes that were suggested in comparison to the prior plans (see the Staff Report Oaks at Sunnyslope Phase II). By viewing such documents, one can note the failed attempt to address our concerns. In an effort to work with Lafferty Communities, we (myself, Jordan Lieser, and JoEllen Fitzgerald) eagerly approached Scott Zengel, Vice President at Lafferty Communities, who agreed to meet with us on January 13, 2018 (the weekend following the Planning Commission meeting). Unbeknownst to us, Scott had come with a new set of plans with proposed changes to serve as a starting point. The changes included the following (see Staff Report Oaks at Sunnyslope Phase II, as what was presented to us on January 13 th is what has been submitted): Lot 1: Lot 2: -Elimination of the bonus room (400 sq ft). Note that this was initially presented by Scott Zengel himself at the planning commission meeting. At which point one commission suggested that this was a good start. -Allow for a 17-foot rear setback, rather than maximizing the rear set back to 15 ft which allowed for an addition 321 sq ft reduction in the home. Note that although the set back is not maximized it is considered narrow compared to the Westridge community in which rear setbacks are around 30 ft. -Privacy was address by elimination of rare windows and rather replacing the facing façade with a steep 2 story roofline. -Reduction in sq footage by 192 sq feet, a disrespectful and non-compromising solution to the massing of the home at which remains at 3000 sq ft. -Elimination of rare facing windows and replacing the facing façade with roof line. -Shifting the second floor towards the front of the home while maintaining the height of the home. The meeting amongst the Smith Drive neighbors and Scott on January 13, 2018 was disheartening. Our willingness to compromise was met with minimalistic changes that were suggested by the planning commissioners (not even in their entirety) rather than a thoughtful redesign to not only address the commissioner s suggestions but also address remaining concerns of the neighbors. We expressed gratitude for addressing privacy through the elimination of rear facing windows. We expressed concerns regarding the lack of screening and continued view obstruction. In addition, we proposed that the square footage on the second floors of the homes on lots 1 and 2 were minimally changed and that the visual impact the homes had on the neighbors was a drop in the bucket. We were told by Scott that additional changes would be considered.

32 Weekly attempts were made to contact Scott through the process of redesign. We finally received new information on February 15, 2018 at which time we were told that additional changes had been made and that the story poles would be replaced with the new design and that further changes would be unlikely entertained. We were hopeful that our concerns from the initial meeting were addressed, but were very disappointed once the story poles were erected. The only additional change was to lower the elevation of the lot 1 home by 1 foot and the lot 2 home by 2 feet. Again, these small changes did not address the visual impact that these homes are having on the affected Smith Drive neighbors. We again met with Scott on February 17, 2018; again, in hopes that our concerns would finally be heard. He again explained that privacy was addressed with elimination of rare facing windows. Although privacy was addressed, the view of the home is now a sheer two-story roof. My view windows now look out on a 2-story slate rooftop that runs nearly the length of our property (with the exception of the roofline that was eliminated via removal of the bonus room on lot 1, allowing for a peak hole look at the hillside). From the posterior windows of my home (the majority of the windows of our home are on the rear side of our house) I see only a glimpse, a true glimpse, of sky. The inability to see even the tops of the huge eucalyptus trees on the ridgeline was sobering. This continued view obstruction was to say the least, very dissatisfying. He stated the height of the home was addressed by lowering the homes one and two feet respectively (note that our homes are still at considerable lower elevation). We left the meeting thinking to ourselves, why was our compromising suggestions met with such a minimalistic approach and an unwillingness to compromise on the part of Lafferty Communities? Myself (345 Smith Dr) and my neighbor (321 Smith Dr) are suggesting more substantial changes with reduced visual impacts. I would like to see the 2 nd floor sq footage of the proposed homes on lots 1 and 2 to be minimized. I would like to see proposed screening trees placed in locations that allow for appropriate screening of the 2-story home (slate rooftop). If unable to provide proper screening trees, I would propose 1 story homes on lots 1 and 2 which would lead to a more reasonable visual impact on their neighbors. From my understanding, screening trees on Lots 1 and 2 are not feasible given the sewer drainage pipe. The Smith Dr. neighbors are also unable to plant such screening trees on our lots as a water culvert runs the length of our backyard adjacent to the property line. In addition, screening trees would need to be adequate distance from such sewer lines which would not be desired (at minimum it is suggested that trees of any kind be planted 10 feet away from sewer lines). This is not feasible or desired on our property. Given the inability to screen, I strongly suggest 1 story homes on lots 1 and 2 to address issues of privacy, screening, massing, and view obstruction. I hope you highly consider such concerns. We are more than willing to continue working with Lafferty and would encourage them to make an appropriate effort in redesigning the homes on lots 1 and 2 to reflect changes that lead to improved visual impact, privacy, and view obstruction of the Smith neighbors. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Stephanie Lieser, MD

Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2014 Page 1

Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2014 Page 1 Page 1 CVA14-00030 / SCOTT STEWART Location: 1493 W. Saint Patrick Street VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE STREET-SIDE SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET AND REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO APPROXIMATELY

More information

ATTACHMENT 4 ZAB Page 1 of 9

ATTACHMENT 4 ZAB Page 1 of 9 Page 1 of 9 Jacob, Melinda ATTACHMENT 4 Page 2 of 9 Subject: Attachments: Importance: FW: Concerns regarding the Project at 2928 Otis ST 3rd Letter to Planning Commission.pdf High -----Original Message-----

More information

June 6, Chairman Ken Dull, Vice Chairman Jim Smith, Vivian Zeke Partin, Janice Clark, Jeff DeGroote

June 6, Chairman Ken Dull, Vice Chairman Jim Smith, Vivian Zeke Partin, Janice Clark, Jeff DeGroote WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 321 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 June 6, 2017 The Town of Wrightsville Beach Planning Board met at 6:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers

More information

MINUTES PITTSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES PITTSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PITTSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION December 11, 2001 A regular meeting of the Pittsburg Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Holmes at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday,

More information

St. Vincent Martyr Church, Madison, NJ

St. Vincent Martyr Church, Madison, NJ Design Vision for St. Vincent Martyr Church, Madison, NJ JAMES HUNDT LITURGICAL DESIGN CONSULTANT 426 State Street, 3 rd Floor Schenectady, New York (518) 372-3655 THE EXISTING SPACE The current worship

More information

Adas Torah - an Orthodox Jewish synagogue - seeks to relocate from the Beverlywood to Pico Robertson area. Adaptive reuse of the vacant Victory

Adas Torah - an Orthodox Jewish synagogue - seeks to relocate from the Beverlywood to Pico Robertson area. Adaptive reuse of the vacant Victory Adas Torah - an Orthodox Jewish synagogue - seeks to relocate from the Beverlywood to Pico Robertson area. Adaptive reuse of the vacant Victory Furniture building significant façade remodel, interior floor

More information

Historic District Commission January 22, 2015 City of Hagerstown, Maryland

Historic District Commission January 22, 2015 City of Hagerstown, Maryland Michael Gehr, chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 22, 2015, in the Conference Room, Fourth Floor, City Hall. A roster of the members of the commission and the technical

More information

Charlottesville Planning Commission Preliminary Hearing - Franklin LLC PUD Site Plan Monday, April 11, 2006

Charlottesville Planning Commission Preliminary Hearing - Franklin LLC PUD Site Plan Monday, April 11, 2006 Charlottesville Planning Commission Preliminary Hearing - Franklin LLC PUD Site Plan Monday, April 11, 2006 Transcription services generously donated by Willoughby Parks, Woolen Mills resident CPC Members:

More information

CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING. October 15, 2012

CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING. October 15, 2012 CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Paul Sellman Dave Mail Diane Werner Elizabeth Howard Steve Balazs Arrived at 7:09 p.m. Heather Phile,

More information

BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY

BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Cathy Wolfe District One Diane Oberquell District Two Robert N. Macleod District Three Creating Solutions for Our Future HEARING EXAMINER BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY

More information

May 2, 2018 BETA Workshop HARRIMAN THE CHAZEN COMPANIES

May 2, 2018 BETA Workshop HARRIMAN THE CHAZEN COMPANIES May 2, 2018 BETA Workshop HARRIMAN THE CHAZEN COMPANIES Village of Mamaroneck, New York April 4, 2018 1 Agenda Introductions Presentation Goals and Process Zoning and Implications Results of Public Workshop

More information

BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOONE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURTROOM BUSINESS MEETING MARCH 9, :00 P.M.

BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOONE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURTROOM BUSINESS MEETING MARCH 9, :00 P.M. BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOONE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOONE COUNTY FISCAL COURTROOM BUSINESS MEETING MARCH 9, 2016 6:00 P.M. Mr. Whitton called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS

More information

GEORGIA PLANNING COMMISSION May 1, :00 pm

GEORGIA PLANNING COMMISSION May 1, :00 pm GEORGIA PLANNING COMMISSION May 1, 2018 7:00 pm Board Members Present: Peter Pembroke, Suzanna Brown, Tony Heinlein, Maurice Fitzgerald, and Lary Martell. Absent: George Bilodeau Staff Present: Ryan Bell,

More information

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX PLAN COMMISSION. Held in the New Lenox Village Hall, 1 Veterans Parkway

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX PLAN COMMISSION. Held in the New Lenox Village Hall, 1 Veterans Parkway CALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE OF NEW LENOX PLAN COMMISSION Held in the New Lenox Village Hall, 1 Veterans Parkway Tuesday, June 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. #15 6 B A regular meeting

More information

MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2015

MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2015 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2015 A regular meeting of the of the Borough of Madison was held on the 1st day of December 2015 at 7:30 P.M., in the Court

More information

Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission:

Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission: Attachment 0 Suzanne Avila Marjorie Green Thursday, January 04, 208 6: AM Jitze Couperus; Kavita Tankha; Susan Mandie; Richard Partridge; Jim Basiji; Suzanne Avila Esther John Planning Commission meeting

More information

CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING April 18, Dave Mail Paul Sellman Jona Burton Benjamin Tipton

CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING April 18, Dave Mail Paul Sellman Jona Burton Benjamin Tipton CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Elizabeth Howard Dave Mail Paul Sellman Jona Burton Benjamin Tipton Bridget Susel, Community Development

More information

Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Nathan Burgie

Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Nathan Burgie Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 21, 2011 DRAFT Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Nathan Burgie Tom Burgie Jack Centner Ken Hanvey, Chairman Brian Malotte Sandra Hulbert Mitch Makowski Joe Polimeni Scott

More information

CAUCUS PRIOR TO STRONGSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING CODE APPEALS Meeting of November 20, :30 p.m.

CAUCUS PRIOR TO STRONGSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING CODE APPEALS Meeting of November 20, :30 p.m. CAUCUS PRIOR TO STRONGSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING & BUILDING CODE APPEALS Meeting of 7:30 p.m. Board of Appeals Members Present: Kenneth Evans, Richard Baldin, John Rusnov, David Houlé, Tom Smeader Administration:

More information

Town of Phippsburg Public Hearing / Remand of Lesser Buffer Permit Popham Beach Club August 29, 2006

Town of Phippsburg Public Hearing / Remand of Lesser Buffer Permit Popham Beach Club August 29, 2006 Town of Phippsburg Public Hearing / Remand of Lesser Buffer Permit Popham Beach Club August 29, 2006 Note: The Phippsburg Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board approved a New Business application for

More information

City of Lilburn 76 Main Street Lilburn, GA City Council Meeting Agenda

City of Lilburn 76 Main Street Lilburn, GA City Council Meeting Agenda City of Lilburn 76 Main Street Lilburn, GA 30047 City Council Meeting Agenda Auditorium Monday, May 11, 2015 7:30 p.m. Council Johnny Crist, Mayor Teresa Czyz, Post 1 Scott Batterton, Post 2 Eddie Price,

More information

William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Catherine Wood, Secretary

William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Catherine Wood, Secretary PRESENT: John Spooner, Chairman Absent: Mike Campanella, Vice Chairman John Pagliaccio Frank Wilton Mary (Molly) Flynn At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Aurora, New York,

More information

JANICE MENKING - Chair CHARLIE KIEHNE CHRIS KAISER STEVE THOMAS RON WOELLHOF JASON HELFRICH MATT LINES BJORN KIRCHDORFER

JANICE MENKING - Chair CHARLIE KIEHNE CHRIS KAISER STEVE THOMAS RON WOELLHOF JASON HELFRICH MATT LINES BJORN KIRCHDORFER STATE OF TEXAS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION COUNTY OF GILLESPIE December 7, 2011 CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG 5:30 P.M. On this the 7 th day of December, 2011, the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION convened in

More information

Zoning Board of Appeals Sheffield Lake, Ohio September 15, 2016

Zoning Board of Appeals Sheffield Lake, Ohio September 15, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals Sheffield Lake, Ohio September 15, 2016 The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held Thursday, September 15, 2016. Chairperson Diana Jancura called the meeting to order at

More information

William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Wendy Potter-Behling, Secretary

William Kramer, Code Enforcement Officer Wendy Potter-Behling, Secretary PRESENT: John Spooner, Chairman John Pagliaccio Mary (Molly) Flynn Bruce Mitchell Michael (Mike) Croft At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Aurora, New York, held at the Village

More information

MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2018

MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2018 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2018 A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Borough of Madison was held on the 15th day of May 2018 at 7:30 P.M., in the

More information

**TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND** ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. MINUTES November 2, 2017

**TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND** ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. MINUTES November 2, 2017 **TOWN OF GRAND ISLAND** ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES November 2, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Marion Fabiano, Betty Harris, Bob Mesmer, Tim Phillips, Alternate Dan

More information

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH P.O. BOX 898 WINDHAM, NH 03087

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH P.O. BOX 898 WINDHAM, NH 03087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 268B MAMMOTH ROAD LONDONDERRY, NH 03053 DATE: MAY 20,

More information

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION March 14, :00 p.m. Municipal Complex 100 Ann Edwards Lane Public Meeting Room 1, Building A MINUTES

OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION March 14, :00 p.m. Municipal Complex 100 Ann Edwards Lane Public Meeting Room 1, Building A MINUTES OLD VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION March 14, 2016 5:00 p.m. Municipal Complex 100 Ann Edwards Lane Public Meeting Room 1, Building A MINUTES Members Present: Staff Present: Also Present: Brett Bennett,

More information

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE Zoning Board of Appeals October 17, 2018

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE Zoning Board of Appeals October 17, 2018 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF NORTHVILLE Zoning Board of Appeals October 17, 2018 DATE: October 17, 2018 APPROVED: November 14, 2018 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Northville Township Hall 44405 Six Mile Road CALL TO ORDER:

More information

May 2, Chairman Ken Dull, Vice Chairman Jim Smith, Susan Snider, Vivian Zeke Partin, Janice Clark, David Culp, Jeff DeGroote

May 2, Chairman Ken Dull, Vice Chairman Jim Smith, Susan Snider, Vivian Zeke Partin, Janice Clark, David Culp, Jeff DeGroote WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 321 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 May 2, 2017 The Town of Wrightsville Beach Planning Board met at 6:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers located

More information

TOWN OF BEDFORD May 15, 2018 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

TOWN OF BEDFORD May 15, 2018 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES TOWN OF BEDFORD May 15, 2018 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES A regular meeting of the Bedford Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:00 PM in the Bedford Meeting Room, 10

More information

Present: Bob Bacon Guests: Kevin & Michelle Webb

Present: Bob Bacon Guests: Kevin & Michelle Webb Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 24, 2015 APPROVED Present: Bob Bacon Guests: Kevin & Michelle Webb John Holtz Phil Sommer-Code Tom Burgie, Chairman Enforcement Officer Bert Crofton Jon Gage Absent:

More information

APPROVED MEETING MINUTES

APPROVED MEETING MINUTES CITY OF SOLVANG PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 4, 2018 6:00 P.M. Regular Hearing of the Planning Commission Council Chambers Solvang Municipal Center 1644 Oak Street Commissioners

More information

TOWN OF WOODBURY Zoning Board of Appeals 281 Main Street South Woodbury, Connecticut TELEPHONE: (203) FAX: (203)

TOWN OF WOODBURY Zoning Board of Appeals 281 Main Street South Woodbury, Connecticut TELEPHONE: (203) FAX: (203) First land deed horn the Indians April 12th 1659 TOWN OF WOODBURY 281 Main Street South Woodbury, Connecticut 06798-0369 TELEPHONE: (203) 263-3467 FAX: (203) 263-5076 PUBLIC HEARING / REGULAR MEETING ZONING

More information

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 21, :00 p.m.

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 21, :00 p.m. PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 21, 2013 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Duffer: Good evening, I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals for February 21, 2013. ROLL CALL/DETERMINE

More information

Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Jack Centner

Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Jack Centner Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting August 25, 2010 DRAFT Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Jack Centner Tom Burgie Glenn Dunford Ken Hanvey, Chairman Glenn Steed Sandra Hulbert Joe Polimeni Scott Wohlschlegel The

More information

Minutes of the Salem City Council Meeting held on March 19, 2008 in the Salem City Council Chambers.

Minutes of the Salem City Council Meeting held on March 19, 2008 in the Salem City Council Chambers. Minutes of the Salem City Council Meeting held on March 19, 2008 in the Salem City Council Chambers. Work Session: Nancy Hardman, from CUWCD, came and discussed water conservation to the council. Miss

More information

Model: 2+2 Scenario 1: Cluster SMK, SKD, and SM; cluster CCBT and SJW

Model: 2+2 Scenario 1: Cluster SMK, SKD, and SM; cluster CCBT and SJW Model: 2+2 Scenario 1: Cluster SMK, SKD, and SM; cluster CCBT and SJW Round 1: Good sharing of resources Every parish shares in the change Geographically equal in size Number of Funerals would seem to

More information

Francis City Planning Commission Meeting Thursday August 18, 2016

Francis City Planning Commission Meeting Thursday August 18, 2016 Francis City Planning Commission Meeting Thursday August 18, 2016 7:00 PM 2319 South Spring Hollow Road Francis, UT 84036 Present: Chair Kevin Cannon, Commissioner Trent Handsaker, Commissioner Shauna

More information

CALL TO ORDER DISCUSSION APRIL 15, 2003

CALL TO ORDER DISCUSSION APRIL 15, 2003 Conservation Commission 04/15/2003 Minutes NORWALK CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2003 ATTENDANCE: Matthew Caputo, Vice Chairman; Ed Holowinko, Marny Smith, Anne Cagnina, Jane Corcillo, Karen

More information

ROUND HILL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, Pastor Jeffery Witt, RHUMC 4 citizens

ROUND HILL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, Pastor Jeffery Witt, RHUMC 4 citizens Page 1 ROUND HILL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 10, 2009 The regular meeting of the Round Hill Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 in the Town Office, 23 Main

More information

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Note: The City s Website address is sarasotagov.com. Select Videos on Demand from the Main Web Page to view agendas, videos

More information

CITY OF THE DALLES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

CITY OF THE DALLES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF THE DALLES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, September 3, 2015 City Hall Council Chambers 313 Court Street The Dalles, OR 97058 Conducted in a handicap accessible room 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER

More information

Sons of Abraham Synagogue

Sons of Abraham Synagogue HISTORIC RESOURCES 2013 City of Medicine Hat Sons of Abraham Synagogue Date of Construction 1912 Address 530-5 (Ottawa) Street SE Original Owner Elijah L. Becker Architect Elijah L. Becker Contractor Mat

More information

Candia Zoning Review & Revision Committee Minutes of September 21, 2016 APPROVED

Candia Zoning Review & Revision Committee Minutes of September 21, 2016 APPROVED Candia Zoning Review & Revision Committee Minutes of September 21, 2016 APPROVED Present: Sean James; Scott Komisarek; Mike Santa; Carleton Robie; Susan Young; Boyd Chivers; Dick Snow and Dave Murray,

More information

Mayor Mussatto Thank you very much for that. Is there a presentation by staff? Mr. Wilkinson, are you doing a staff presentation?

Mayor Mussatto Thank you very much for that. Is there a presentation by staff? Mr. Wilkinson, are you doing a staff presentation? TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, 141 WEST 14 th STREET, NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C., ON MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor D.R. Mussatto

More information

3. Discussion and/or action to add one member (citizen) to the Public Works Committee.

3. Discussion and/or action to add one member (citizen) to the Public Works Committee. Public Works Committee meeting October 6, 2010 4pm Present: Richard G. Harris Mayor Annette Spendlove City Recorder/ HR Director Dave Hulme Planning Commissioner Jim Harris Project Manager Mel Blanchard

More information

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 12, 2014

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 12, 2014 OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 12, 2014 Agenda MOPHIE, LLC -REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 37,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING

More information

MINUTES OF MEETING HOOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES OF MEETING HOOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HOOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: Time: 5:30 PM Place: Hoover Municipal Center Present: Mr. Mike Wood, Chairman Mr. Ron Harris Ms. Mari Morrison Mr. Kelly Bakane Mr. Allen

More information

Minutes: Watersmeet Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2014

Minutes: Watersmeet Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2014 Minutes: Watersmeet Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 10, 2014 Watersmeet High School Library 1) Meeting called to order by Chairman Roy D Antonio at 6:30 PM. 2) Pledge of Allegiance

More information

CITY OF NORWALK PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE. May 9, 2013

CITY OF NORWALK PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE. May 9, 2013 CITY OF NORWALK PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE PRESENT: Jill Jacobson, Chair; Adam Blank; Harry Rilling; Joseph Santo; Michael O Reilly STAFF: OTHERS: Mike Wrinn; Dori Wilson; Frank Strauch Atty. Liz Suchy; Kate

More information

Planning Board Meeting Monday, August 10, 2015 Council Chambers, City Hall at 7:00 PM. MINUTES Approved 8/24/2015

Planning Board Meeting Monday, August 10, 2015 Council Chambers, City Hall at 7:00 PM. MINUTES Approved 8/24/2015 Planning Board Meeting Monday, August 10, 2015 Council Chambers, City Hall at 7:00 PM MINUTES Approved 8/24/2015 I. Roll Call Present: David Putnam, James Short, Victor Bergeron, Bruce Kolenda, Neil Ward,

More information

OCEANPORT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 24, 2012

OCEANPORT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 24, 2012 OCEANPORT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 24, 2012 Chairman Widdis called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and announced that the meeting had been advertised in accordance with the Open Public Meetings

More information

CITY OF BOISE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

CITY OF BOISE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Rich Demarest, Chair Milt Gillespie, Vice-Chair Stephen Bradbury Douglas Gibson Jennifer Stevens Tamara Ansotegui Garrett Richardson (Student) III. REGULAR AGENDA CPA15-00008

More information

TOWN OF VICTOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 17,

TOWN OF VICTOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 17, TOWN OF VICTOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 17, 2017 1 A regular meeting of the Town of Victor Zoning Board of Appeals was held on April 17, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. at the Victor Town Hall, 85 East Main Street,

More information

Marshfield Development Review Board Minutes Thursday, December 8, 2016, 7:00 p.m. Old Schoolhouse Common, Town of Marshfield, VT

Marshfield Development Review Board Minutes Thursday, December 8, 2016, 7:00 p.m. Old Schoolhouse Common, Town of Marshfield, VT Marshfield Development Review Board Minutes Thursday, December 8, 2016, 7:00 p.m. Old Schoolhouse Common, Town of Marshfield, VT Present DRB Members: James Arisman, Les Snow, and Gary Leach Zoning Administrator:

More information

November 13, 2017 Planning Board Meeting Page 1164

November 13, 2017 Planning Board Meeting Page 1164 November 13, 2017 Planning Board Meeting Page 1164 Chairman Gene Bavis called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:30 P.M. Planning Board Members present were Chairman Gene Bavis, Lou

More information

TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 3, 2009 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP

TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 3, 2009 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Members Present: David Deakin Roger Fridal Lyle Holmgren Jeff Reese Byron Wood Max Weese, Mayor Shawn Warnke, City Manager Darlene Hess, Recorder TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION CITY COUNCIL MEETING September

More information

WHITE OAK BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD MEETING MINUTES HELDJUNE 25, 2009

WHITE OAK BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD MEETING MINUTES HELDJUNE 25, 2009 WHITE OAK BOROUGH ZONING HEARING BOARD MEETING MINUTES HELDJUNE 25, 2009 Zoning Hearing Board Members Present: David Preece Terry Farrell Zoning Hearing Board Members Absent: Phyllis Spiegel Keith Reigh,

More information

River Heights City Council Minutes of the Meeting April 22, 2014

River Heights City Council Minutes of the Meeting April 22, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 River Heights City Council Minutes of the Meeting April 22, 2014 Present

More information

Cheryl Hannan: Is the applicant here? Could you please come up to the microphone and give your name and address for the record.

Cheryl Hannan: Is the applicant here? Could you please come up to the microphone and give your name and address for the record. The North Royalton Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on January 29, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 13834 Ridge Road, North Royalton, Ohio. Chairperson Cheryl Hannan called the meeting

More information

HOBOKEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF HOBOKEN

HOBOKEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF HOBOKEN HOBOKEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF HOBOKEN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RE: REGULAR MEETING OF THE : Tuesday HOBOKEN ZONING BOARD OF : ADJUSTMENT : September, - - - - - - - - - - - -

More information

CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCIL MEETING Wednesday, September 21, :00 p.m. PRESIDING Council Chair Deborah A.

CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCIL MEETING Wednesday, September 21, :00 p.m. PRESIDING Council Chair Deborah A. CITY OF SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MEETING Wednesday, September 21, 2016 7:00 p.m. CITY OFFICES 220 East Morris Avenue South Salt Lake, Utah 84115 PRESIDING Council Chair Deborah A. CONDUCTING:

More information

Page 1 of 6 Champlin City Council

Page 1 of 6 Champlin City Council Minutes of the Proceedings of the City Council of the City of Champlin in the County of Hennepin and the State of Minnesota Pursuant to Due Call and Notice Thereof Regular Session August 11, 2014 Municipal

More information

Department of Planning & Development Services

Department of Planning & Development Services Department of Planning & Development Services S T A F F R E P O R T August 27, 2014 CASE NO: PROJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DETAILS: ZA14-023 Preliminary Plat for Silver Ridge Addition Phase III The applicant

More information

MINUTES KAMAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, :00 p.m. Kamas City Hall, 170 N. Main Kamas, UT 84036

MINUTES KAMAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, :00 p.m. Kamas City Hall, 170 N. Main Kamas, UT 84036 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 MINUTES KAMAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY, 01 :00 p.m. Kamas City Hall, N. Main Kamas, UT Mayor Marchant opened the meeting welcoming those in attendance: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

More information

Fall 2018 A MESSAGE FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT TREASURER S REPORT

Fall 2018 A MESSAGE FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT TREASURER S REPORT Fall 2018 A MESSAGE FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT By: Ron Choron As a member of the landscape committee and a resident for 28 years, I am very interested in the appearance of our community. This aspect of Rock

More information

St. Anselm Church 2017 Community Life Survey Results

St. Anselm Church 2017 Community Life Survey Results St. Anselm Church 2017 Community Life Survey Results INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the responses and commentary of individuals and families who responded to our 2017 St. Anselm Community Life Survey.

More information

New Building Proposal

New Building Proposal O Fallon First United Methodist Church. New Building Proposal Church Conference October 29, 2018 CONTENTS 1 Letter from Our Pastor... 2 Our Vision... 3 Our Proposal... 5 The Motion... 8 Frequently Asked

More information

Sprague Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Sprague Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Wednesday, January 2, 2019 Sprague Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Wednesday, January 2, 2019 Members Present: Sandor Bittman, Chairman Paul Piezzo Nicholas Velles Arthur Spielman Warren Baker Phyllis Nelson

More information

RAVENNA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JEFF GAYNOR, CHAIRMAN, REMY ARNES,S DOROTHY GRIFFITHS, JIM ACKLIN, AND GARY LONG

RAVENNA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JEFF GAYNOR, CHAIRMAN, REMY ARNES,S DOROTHY GRIFFITHS, JIM ACKLIN, AND GARY LONG RAVENNA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JEFF GAYNOR, CHAIRMAN, REMY ARNES,S DOROTHY GRIFFITHS, JIM ACKLIN, AND GARY LONG The Ravenna Township Board of Zoning Appeals met on September 26, 2012 at 7:00

More information

STRONGSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING. March 8, 2018

STRONGSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING. March 8, 2018 STRONGSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING The Planning Commission of the City of Strongsville met at the City Council Chambers located at 18688 Royalton Road, on Thursday, at 7:30 p.m. Present:

More information

Toongabbie Anglican Church. Church Site Possible Redevelopment Discussion

Toongabbie Anglican Church. Church Site Possible Redevelopment Discussion Toongabbie Anglican Church Church Site Possible Redevelopment Discussion February 2018 Executive Summary Toongabbie Anglican Church is a medium sized congregation meeting at 8am, 10am and 6pm in two main

More information

Coordinator s Planning and Preparation Guide

Coordinator s Planning and Preparation Guide Coordinator s Planning and Preparation Guide Contents Coordinator s Planning and Preparation Guide... 1 Overview... 6 Documents are Online... 6 Start! Six Months or Earlier... 7 Pray... 7 Letter to the

More information

Determining Meetinghouse Adequacy

Determining Meetinghouse Adequacy Determining Meetinghouse Adequacy Contents Introduction... 2 Inspect and Rate the Building... 2 Review Meetinghouse Usage... 2 Evaluate Options... 3 Short-Term vs. Long-Term Needs... 3 Identifying Solutions...

More information

Building Campaign & Annual Commitment to Parish Life

Building Campaign & Annual Commitment to Parish Life Building Campaign & Annual Commitment to Parish Life Loving God, at this time in the life of our parish, we turn to you with grateful hearts, for what we have, and with grateful anticipation of what is

More information

Allie Brooks Dwight Johnson Linda Borgman Doris Lockhart Karon Epps Jeffrey Tanner Ted Greene. Mark Fountain

Allie Brooks Dwight Johnson Linda Borgman Doris Lockhart Karon Epps Jeffrey Tanner Ted Greene. Mark Fountain Minutes Regular Meeting of the Florence County Planning Commission Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. County Complex, Room 803 180 N. Irby St., Florence, South Carolina 29501 The Florence County Planning

More information

KAMAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING

KAMAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 0 0 0 KAMAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER, 0 :00 p.m. Kamas City Hall, N. Main Kamas, UT 0 Mayor Lewis Marchant opened the meeting welcoming those in attendance: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dan

More information

FRANCIS CITY Planning Commission Meeting. Wednesday April 24, Recreational Building 2319 South Spring Hollow Road Francis, UT

FRANCIS CITY Planning Commission Meeting. Wednesday April 24, Recreational Building 2319 South Spring Hollow Road Francis, UT FRANCIS CITY Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday April 24, 2013 Recreational Building 2319 South Spring Hollow Road Francis, UT The Francis City Planning Commission convened in regular session Wednesday,

More information

Item #1 Autozone Development Modification of Conditions 5221 Indian River Road District 1 Centerville February 10, 2010 CONSENT

Item #1 Autozone Development Modification of Conditions 5221 Indian River Road District 1 Centerville February 10, 2010 CONSENT Item #1 Autozone Development Modification of Conditions 5221 Indian River Road District 1 Centerville CONSENT Joseph Strange: The next items we will address are those that are placed on the consent agenda.

More information

Brochure of Robin Jeffs Registered Investment Advisor CRD # Ashdown Place Half Moon Bay, CA Telephone (650)

Brochure of Robin Jeffs Registered Investment Advisor CRD # Ashdown Place Half Moon Bay, CA Telephone (650) Item 1. Cover Page Brochure of Robin Jeffs Registered Investment Advisor CRD #136030 6 Ashdown Place Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Telephone (650) 712-8591 rjeffs@comcast.net May 27, 2011 This brochure provides

More information

MINUTES MANTI CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1 st, :30 P.M.

MINUTES MANTI CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1 st, :30 P.M. MINUTES MANTI CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1 st, 2016 6:30 P.M. Mayor Korry Soper in chair and presiding. Roll call showed Gary Chidester, Darren Dyreng, Vaun Mickelsen and Jason Vernon present, along with

More information

MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Meeting of July 21, 2008

MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Meeting of July 21, 2008 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Meeting of The of the, Texas met on MONDAY, July 21, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the Turk Cannady/Cedar Hill Room, 285 Uptown Blvd. Building 100, Cedar Hill,

More information

TOWN OF COLONIE BOARD MEMBERS:

TOWN OF COLONIE BOARD MEMBERS: PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF COLONIE COUNTY OF ALBANY 0 *************************************************** DUNKIN DONUTS/SUNOCO TROY-SCHENECTADY ROAD AMENDMENT TO FINAL APPROVAL ***************************************************

More information

APPROVAL OF MINUTES. DISCUSSION & APPROVAL TO CHANGE MEETING TIME - Fourth Monday of the 10:00 AM

APPROVAL OF MINUTES. DISCUSSION & APPROVAL TO CHANGE MEETING TIME - Fourth Monday of the 10:00 AM MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF SAGAPONACK IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK AND STATE OF NEW YORK A meeting of the Architectural and Historic

More information

All Saints-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church Sanctuary Preservation and Readiness Project Summary of Questions from the October 23, 2016 Town Hall Meeting

All Saints-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church Sanctuary Preservation and Readiness Project Summary of Questions from the October 23, 2016 Town Hall Meeting All Saints-by-the-Sea Episcopal Church Sanctuary Preservation and Readiness Project Summary of Questions from the October 23, 2016 Town Hall Meeting An extensive Question and Answer session took place

More information

The invocation was offered by Councilwoman Scott and was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

The invocation was offered by Councilwoman Scott and was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Regular Meeting Madison Heights City Council Madison Heights, Michigan August 28, 2017 A Regular Meeting of the Madison Heights City Council was held on Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal

More information

BANNER ELK PLANNING BOARD AND LAND USE UPDATE COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING, 04 JANUARY 2010 MINUTES

BANNER ELK PLANNING BOARD AND LAND USE UPDATE COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING, 04 JANUARY 2010 MINUTES BANNER ELK PLANNING BOARD AND LAND USE UPDATE COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING, 04 JANUARY 2010 MINUTES Members Present: Buster Burleson, John Collier, Dan Hemp, Paul Lehmann, Dawn Sellars, Ann Swinkola, Penny

More information

Zoning Board of Appeals City of Geneseo

Zoning Board of Appeals City of Geneseo Zoning Board of Appeals City of Geneseo Monday September 28, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 115 S. Oakwood Avenue Geneseo, Illinois 61254 AGENDA AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL ACTION 1. ROLL CALL 2. MINUTES

More information

Town of Hinesburg Development Review Board July 17, 2018 Approved August 7, 2018

Town of Hinesburg Development Review Board July 17, 2018 Approved August 7, 2018 Town of Hinesburg Development Review Board July 17, 2018 Approved August 7, 2018 Members Present: Greg Waples, Ted Bloomhardt, Andy Greenberg (Alternate), Rolf Kielman, Dennis Place, Sarah Murphy, Dick

More information

Chairman, John Spooner opened the meeting at 6:03 PM and introduced the (3) members of the Zoning Board of Appeals which constitutes a quorum.

Chairman, John Spooner opened the meeting at 6:03 PM and introduced the (3) members of the Zoning Board of Appeals which constitutes a quorum. At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Aurora, New York, held at the Village Hall, East Aurora, New York on the 21 st day of May, 2015 PRESENT: John Spooner, Chairman Michael

More information

TWIN EAGLES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE RULES AND GUIDELINES

TWIN EAGLES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE RULES AND GUIDELINES TWIN EAGLES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE RULES AND GUIDELINES Approved April 18, 2016 Twin Eagles Neighborhood Association, Board of Directors As authorized by, Article

More information

Summary of Research about Denominational Structure in the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

Summary of Research about Denominational Structure in the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Summary of Research about Denominational Structure in the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Surveys and Studies Completed in 1995 by the NAD Office of Information & Research By

More information

ORDINANCE NO , and of Chapter 51 of the Dallas City

ORDINANCE NO , and of Chapter 51 of the Dallas City ORDINANCE NO. 16439 12/11/79 An Ordinance amending CHAPTER 51, "COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL ZONING ORDINANCE," of the Dallas City Code, as amended, by permitting the following described property, to-wit: Being

More information

TOWN OF VICTOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 21,

TOWN OF VICTOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 21, TOWN OF VICTOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 21, 2017 1 A regular meeting of the Town of Victor Zoning Board of Appeals was held on August 21, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. at the Victor Town Hall, 85 East Main Street,

More information

FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 13, 2013

FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 13, 2013 FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 13, 2013 Vice Chairman Decker called the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting of to order at 7:30 p.m. He read the notice of the Open Public Meetings

More information

Mr. Oatney called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting.

Mr. Oatney called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting. The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:00 pm in the Lancaster City Schools Education Service Center, 111 S Broad Street, Lancaster, Ohio. Members present were Tim Oatney, Preston

More information

Guidance Note Statements of Significance and Statements of Needs

Guidance Note Statements of Significance and Statements of Needs Guidance Note Statements of Significance and Statements of Needs This form should be used for all projects other than very complex ones. For major complex projects an expanded version of this form is likely

More information

Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes December 20, 2016

Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes December 20, 2016 Minutes Acting Mayor Veenbaas called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. COUNCIL IN ATTENDANCE: Aldermen Mike Cannon, Len Prejna, Laura Majikes, Brad Judd; Robert Banger, Jr., John D Astice, Tim Veenbaas

More information