Agenda - 04-15-1993 - C-1-a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Georgann Eubanks: Hogan Lake Rezoning Summation 2 The applicants are not entitled to the rezoning unless they convince you through solid, relevant facts in the public record. For two reasons, we do not believe that the applicants' case can convince you. First, the case rests almost entirely on the two arguments prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. Second, it fails to answer any of our objections regarding the threats to public health, safety and welfare which increased density would bring. The applicants offered three points at the public hearing, all irrelevant to what the ordinance requires: • that the Hogan family wishes to leave the dairy business and will receive more by selling to a developer than to another farmer-- in other words, the special benefit to the developer; • that higher density development will allow more economical provision of sewerage, encouraging a "master planned/ open space development"-- in other words, a promise of a particular use of the land; and • that the proposed density is permissible under the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan- a fact that proves nothing, since both R-R and R-20 are allowable under general plans. But a greater weakness in the applicants' case lies in what it does not address. We have shown that rezoning would impair, not advance, the public health, safety and welfare. Doubled density would bring a projected 5,740 daily additional automobile trips on Old 86 and Homestead Road instead of 2,640. It would bring twice the impervious coverage on the land, with corresponding increases in already-serious downstream peak flooding in any major storm. It would create extra public expenses for roads, schools, fire, police