HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2007 Item 064 MOHA VE COUNTY REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION FORM From: Chris Ballard, Planning & Zoning Director FORMAL ACTION 0 CONSENT 0 Date: February 22,2007 RESOLUTION 0 OTHER 0 BOS Meeting Date: March 5, 2007 INFORMA nON ONLY 0 SUMMARIZE THE ISSUE & DESIRED ACTION CLEARLY/ATTACH BACKUP MATERIAL: Adoption ofBOS Resolution No. 2007 -138 ~ Denying a request for a MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE MOHA VE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN and MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE LONG MOUNTAIN AREA PLAN of Parcel 247-F as shown on Parcel Plats Book 7, Page 41, in Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 17 West, from RR/5A (Rural Residential/Five Acre Minimum Lot Size) land use designation to a SDA, SE (Suburban Development Area, Suburban Estates) land use designation, in the Long Mountain Portion of the Mohave County General Area (west side of Parker Street between Ruthe Avenue and Deloris Avenue), Mohave County, Arizona. (COMMISSION DENIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE) Recommended Motion: Adopt BOS Resolution No. 2007-138, denying the applicant's request, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Reviewed and Approved By: County Attorney 0 Personnel 0 Finance 0 County Man1er ' Board Action Taken: Approved as Requested 0 No Action Taken 0 Disapproved 0 Continued to o Approved with the following changes: Acknowledged receipt and referred to Filing Information and Retrieval Filed Bid Filed Agreement BOS Resolution Filed Yearly Correspondence Filed petition Filed Dedication Filed Land Sold Filed Land Acquired Filed Franchise J.D. Resolution Filed Improvement District Filed Other Date Routed: Additional Information: XC: You are reminded that items for the agenda, along with complete b Manager's Office 10 days prior to Board Meeting. Item No. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-138 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE MOHA VE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE LONG MOUNTAIN AREA PLAN OF PARCEL 247-F AS SHOWN ON PARCEL PLATS BOOK 7, PAGE 41, IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 17 WEST, FROM RR/SA (RURAL RESIDENTIAL/FIVE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) LAND USE DESIGNATION TO A SDA, SE (SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA, SUBURBAN EST A TES) LAND USE DESIGNATION, IN THE LONG MOUNTAIN PORTION OF THE MOHA VE COUNTY GENERAL AREA, MOHA VE COUNTY, ARIZONA. WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors held on March 5, 2007, a public hearing was conducted to determine whether approval should be granted for a minor amendment to the Mohave County General Plan and Long Mountain Area Plan for the above-described property as requested by William and Kim Moffit of Kingman, Arizona, and WHEREAS, this property is located approximately] ,350 feet north of Jane Avenue, on Parker Street between Longee Street and Bannister Street. The site is accessed from Interstate 40 via north on Stockton Hill Road, east on Jane Avenue, and north on Parker Street approximately 1,350 feet to the property located on the west side. The property has multiple residences. The Zoning Use Permit for the second residence was APPROVED (BOS Resolution No. 2006-453) on July 10, 2006. The terrain is flat. The surrounding land uses consist of single~family residences and vacant land. There is a minor wash located on the north side of the property, and WHEREAS, on December 2, 1991, the Mohave County Board of Supervisors APPROVED a similar Rezone (Resolution No. 91-324) from an A-R/lOA (Agricultural Residential/Ten Acre Minimum Lot Size) to A-R/3A (Agricultural Residential/Three Acre Minimum Lot Size) on a portion of neighboring Parcel 332- 24-0 I O. This request and approval predated the adoption of the original Long Mountain Area Plan in 1992 via BOS Resolution No. 92-198. This 1991 request and those similar may have been the genesis for the creation of Long Mountain Area Plan and its attempt to curtail such minor land divisions requiring a rezone. For example, page 2 of the Area Plan's adopting resolution documents the Planning and Zoning Commission concerns over an increase in rezone requests and the need for a planning mechanism to address these requests, and RESOLUTION NO. 2007-138 PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the applicant requests this Minor Area Plan/General Plan Amendment to change from RR/5A (Rural Residential/Five Acre Minimum Lot Size) land use designation to a SDA, SE (Suburban Development Area, Suburban Estates) land use designation to allow the applicant to divide the 6.01 acre parcel into two 3-plus acre parcels, effectively nullifying the need for the just-granted Zoning Use Permit allowing for a Secondary Residence via BOS Resolution No. 2006-453. The existing secondary residence will generate additional demand on the water supply and roadways but this demand is expected to be significantly less, the use being temporary by definition, than an additional residential lot occupied by a single-family residence. The Mohave County General Plan and the Long Mountain Area Plan designates this area as a Rural Development Area, and WHEREAS, the applicant has attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings regarding the Long Mountain Area Plan updates, however, the applicant was unaware his property was to remain RR/5A (Rural Residential/Five Acre Minimum Lot Size). The applicant did not attend the ten public meetings held from October 2005 to June 2006 where the Long Mountain Area Plan was revised with the input of area residents, and WHEREAS, the Division of Environmental Health advises that an east to west split of this property would provide the applicant with appropriate septic setbacks, whereas a north to south split may cause some issues, and WHEREAS, the site is not within a Fire District, but the applicant is a member of the Inland Valley Fire Service Area. The site is not served by a water system or a sewer system. The site is served by a private well, electric power and telephone. Parker Street is not paved, but is on the County's road maintenance system, and WHEREAS, the Division of Environmental Health advises that wastewater disposal must meet all current, applicable State laws, local polices and ordinances including any applicable subdivision approvals and requirements or restrictions. Depending on the type offacilities that are eventually built on these parcels and the amount of sewage flow, an alternative system may need to be designed to meet current nitrogen- loading rules. If an on-site wastewater system is applied for it will be the responsibility of the applicant to prove to the Environmental Health Division that the discharge of wastewater from the proposed residence or facility will not violate any water quality standard. Studies may need to be completed including, but not limited to, site investigation (soils evaluation/characterization and/or percolation testing) and a nitrogen- loading study, and WHEREAS, the Mohave County General Plan states that the location of development has a significant impact on the demands for public facilities and services, the costs of infrastructure construction and the cost-effectiveness of public service provision. A sprawling, low density development pattern is more costly to serve than is a compact pattern. Development within areas that are already adequately served reduces the need for expensive extensions of facilities to new areas. For these reasons, the land use plan for a community has important implications for the quality and cost of public services available to its residents. A Rural Development Area is an area where residents presently enjoy a rural lifestyle, wide open spaces and few neighbors. Most of the land in Mohave County is included in this area type. Properties in these areas are generally at least five (5) acres in size, and many are much larger than this lot size, and RESOLUTION NO. 2007-138 PAGE 3 WHEREAS, Policy 11.7 of the General Plan states that Mohave County shall only approve requests for rezoning, special permits, the division of land, other new development proposals or public projects that are consistent with the Land Use Diagrams, the policies contained in the land Use Element and the other Elements of this General Plan, as further set forth in the County's Development Regulations, and WHEREAS, Policy 11;8 of the General Plan states that a residential proposal's density shall be considered consistent with the applicable Land Use Diagram if the average gross density of the entire project is within the range of the land use category for the property. Mohave County may approve projects at any density within this range, if consistent with zoning regulations; the category does not ensure approval at the maximum density. The actual density approved will take into consideration the policies found in the other elements of the General Plan. Land within a floodway should be excluded from density calculations. Floodway fringe lands may be included in the calculation if development can be appropriately engineered, and WHEREAS, Policy 13.4 of the General Plan provides that when determining the maximum density of rural development, the county shall consider the availability of services, access to the properties, natural resources and environmental constraints on the property, and the cumulative impacts of development within the Rural Development Area, and WHEREAS, Policy 29.7 of the General Plan provides that parcels created via the rezone process, that are between one and ten acres in size, shall have sufficient areas to place a home site, well head and septic system in a flood-free zone, and WHEREAS, Policy 51.4 of the General Plan provides that streets and native material roadways shall be designed to provide safe access for vehicles normally accessing developed parcels and for emergency and service vehicles, and WHEREAS, Policy 54.7 of the General Plan provides that the County should not promote exurb an residential development through its rezoning process when site adjacent roadways are not maintained, and WHEREAS, Policy 57.4 of the General Plan provides that the County shall limit the increase in housing density, via the rezone process, outside of fire districts and in areas where roadways are substandard, and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1.1 of the Long Mountain Area Plan strives to reduce trip generation by limiting lot divisions requiring rezones where the developer is exempted from roadway exactions, and WHEREAS, Water Resources Policy 1.1 of the Long Mountain Area Plan seeks to limit the increase in residential density when new development is proposed on bedrock or outside the regional aquifer unless the development is served by a water company with a IOO-year supply, and WHEREAS, a review ofFEMA FIRM Panel #040058-2350C indicates the parcel described to be in Zone C, not in the Special Flood Hazard Area, and RESOLUTION NO. 2007-138 PAGE 4 WHEREAS, the following described Findings of Fact are for the above-captioned item: a. All notices have been advertised and posted according to regulations. b. The proposed action and effect does not comply with the Mohave County General Plan and the Long Mountain Area Plan. c. The site is inadequate for the action intended; however, the use is consistent with the surrounding land uses and terrain. d. The neighboring area does contain other land uses similar to the above-proposed action. e. County road maintenance is limited to road blading along Jane Ave. and Parker S1. f. This property lies outside of the regional aquifer and is not served by a water company. g. The site has legal access. h. There are no known significant environment features affecting the site except the noted wash. WHEREAS, at the public hearing before the Mohave County Planning and Zoning Commission on February 14,2007, the Commission recommended DENIAL for the General Plan/Area Plan Amendment based on the following: 1. The proposed development density is not compatible with the existing infrastructure. 2. There is no compelling reason to amend the recently adopted Long Mountain Area Plan WHEREAS, the notice of hearing was published in The Kingman Daily Miner, a newspaper of general circulation in Kingman, Mohave County, Arizona, February 18,2007 and posted February 16,2007, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes and the Mohave County Zoning Regulations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors, at their regular meeting on Monday, March 5, 2007, DENIED this General Plan/Area Plan Amendment as recommended by the Mohave County Planning and Zoning Commission and outlined herein. MOHA VE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST: Pete Byers, Chairman Barbara Bracken, Clerk Dear Property Owner: 12-24-06 The undersigned property owner is proposing a change to the General Plan and/or Area Plan and/or their land use maps for an area shown on the enclosed maps. According to county records, you own property within or near the proposed area to be changed. The present six acres, known as 7163 N. Parker Street, will be changed from AIR 6 to AIR3. The reasons for the change are as follows: 1- The property has two wells and two septic systems, each supplying a separate home. All permits are registered and up to date with the County of Mohave. This will allow each home to have a separate address. 2- The primary home is fully handicapped equipped. For a handicapped person to maintain six acres could result in a less appealing lot appearance, and cause possible harm to the owner. 3- This property adjoins property that can be divided. separated only by Deloris Street. 4- All infrastructures are met, re; water, maintained streets, and Fire Department protection. 5- After consulting all immediate neighbors, this split will increase property values, Enhance appearance, and not cause any regrets or problems for this neiboorhood. The applicant is requesting any opinions and comments you may have concerning the proposed amendment be sent to the Mohave County Planning and Zoning Department, attention: Planning Division. The letter must reach Planning staffbefore the date of the scheduled public meeting or hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission for this request. You or your representative may attend any public meeting concerning this issue to discuss the action. If you wish to make additional changes to the plan in regard to property you own, contact the Mohave County Planning and Zoning Deparbnent directly. William & Kim Moffit 3880 Stockton Hill Road Ste. 103-131 Kinernan.~.86409 Property Legal description- TWN: 23N RNG: 17W SEC:36 Stockton Hill Ranches Unit 8A portion of parcel 247 know as parcel 247-F per parcel plat BK 7 PG 41 CONT 6.01 AC 309-66-011A(309-66-011 H,J & roads( PLAT BK 7 PG 41 CONT 6.01 AC 309-66- 011A(309-66-011 H) & roads. 332-24-01lJ ThMkYo~ ~ ~ Wdliam & Kim Moffit '1\~.~\ >~n~ .....---.. ....~...- ~ 5 -;2.. - 'J... ~ --- 0 U~ STOCKTON HILL RANCHES UNIT 8 :w STOCKTON HILL RANCHES AS RECOR/JED IN BOOK I OF PARCEL PLATS PAGE 58 AS RECOROED IN BOOK I OF flIRCEL PLAT. RttC. APR. I8.I!P9 ,. No. 79-J1!()()9 R8r:. APR. IS, /979 FM~ 1 No R..'Tl.t SIr _ z.-s- s. SAItII ~ I!ilFS ~-" ;;;ur- r .:.=:: I ""..... ~ --.. --~ ""- -... - ee &I'm .. 24GB I -.. ~I HS-FZ tl -.. oS'" I =76 I _D I -.. I ~I '::lt~ """'""- III --.. I1('T/II 1:( :: 2'l6E I .-... I n ~... --- - - ~ -- ~-@: -. - __ BIte .- I ..-... I ~~~ . ! l!S4: ~ .fI'Uaz. ft~_~ -- ....... MIt. ~_. -.. -,- 2 -.... .l;I;,! I ,,/1:/ 4 . I I I li~ I I I . I I "''''b.. . , II' -- ,: 1.;0 I~ -- ..-... _,-<0 I - 161_. ~} '-I ~ .. @-1 <1B> Gf!> .- .~ . -. ,._.-.., ...........Jr./l ---- -, I<LIl 'UM - .-'" _nr t~"""_.EJ ~_ ~,:', 4lUl ~"'.r-r B_~ .""-~ MIIII--4L- \'!t,', , ~,.,'.' _ .....YIL.- Qf:': -- II" " ~ ~~ ~ ~= " I ~~ .....,. I 6'1O.,.,Q he. @ 6 iV ~ ...,::"--:f.':'l !_.:.....l.1 1tIr . not>< _/-e ~ '. " . '. ~ : ~.. ,,' -". . " 1 ' '~~ . " ~. :,;' ",". .[\ , j" Evaluation of a request for a MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE MOHAVE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN and MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE LONG MOUNTAIN " , AREA PLAN of Parcel 247 -F as shown on Parcel Plats Book 7, Page 41, in Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 17 West, from RR/5A (Rural Residential/Five Acre Minimum Lot Size) land use designation to a SDA, SE (Suburban Development Area, Suburban Estates) land use designation, in the Long Mountain Portion of the Mohave County . c " " ~ General Area, Mohave County, Arizona. +-' ..Ju.CI) <(,0) 0:::!;;:5: WNI'-- z -..... W 0) 0) C) ~ en m c >- a... m I- ......0:: Z o ~ ~ ZL: 0 <(t 0 ..J 0 D..Z W <(~ ~ We.. ~ :I: 0::: .- +-' 0 <(~ C :!E z c _ 3: U W <( 0 >- :I: 1-1- I- Z CO 0 ~ C"? "'C I- 0 c C I- :!E 0 CO z C) t5 W 0) Q) Z CI) +-' :!E 0 c (f) 0 ..J Zw ~ ..... '+- W:I: "o::t 0 :!EI- 0) ..c <(0 en m C. 0:::1- a.. CO OI- l'-- L.. Zz en :!EW ~ 0 0 m:!E 0 - .....0 en 0 oZ CI) ..c """w +-' en:!E m CL 0)<( a... :J 0) CO c-o::: ~o ~ .C m Q) m~ a... <( o:!E c c"o 0 0 C C +:i m 3: m Z 0 :J L: -rn<(CI) > ..J CI) WD..m +-' ...Ju..CI) ~,a> !;ts WNr-- E Z - ..- W Q) Q) cu C) 2 OJ s... ro e C) ~ a..ro CU _0::: .- Z o ~ C - - - ::J z..c. ,-. :._..,.=,.""..~~?~.. ." 0 <ct:: - u ...J 0 CU D..z ... W <c~ Q) > C <C w .9- :z:: ~ ..c. Q) 0 <c CI) fA :E Z e ~ :J W <C 0 " :z:: l- I- I- Z <0 c: 0 ::J M cu 0 ...J l- e I- :E 0 c: z C) :g CU W Z Q) :E 0 en Il. C ...J .5 CU Zw ~ ..- Q) W:z:: v s... :EI- a> <C <Co OJ ro c: ~I- a.. .- 01- CU Zz r-- ... :Ew ..::.:: c: 0 ~ ro:iE 0 0 ....0 CO oZ CI) :E ......W +-' 1i):E ro C) ~<c a.. c: O"'~ Q) 0 () ~O .... ...J ro roZ a.. ~ 'Q:E e C"Q 0 c: o e e CU :;:::::;ro~ - ro Z 0 a. ::J ..c. - ro <C (J) CU > ...J (J) s... WD..ro Q) c: Q) C) d'8A/~ To Whom It May Concern: Re. Property Legal Description~ TWN: 23N RNG; 17W SEC; 36 Stockton Hill Ranches Unit 8A portion of parcel 247 known as parcel 247-F per parcel plat BK: 7 PG: 41 CONT: 6.01 AC: 309-66-011A (309-66-0111 H, J & roads) Plat BK: 7 PG: 41 CONT: 6.01 AC: 309-66-011A (309-66-011 H, J & roads. Tax ill: 333-24-0111 We the undersigned approve of the proposed division of the above mentioned property, now zoned AR6, to be zoned AR3. Thank You; Name Address ~I&.~~ :; / q ~ /V.l/ 6-k. k ~/\ 7c:'lo ~sr: /" ~ /.2- 'C i''-'''-'~'~'~-''-~''-''~--'-~'~'-~''-'-''- -- -....~..- ----..-.....-..-..-....-....-.-..--.--.....-..-.-.- - -' [' Lin9a Romero - Fwd: L~tter for3/5/07 BO'SMeeting. . .,.. '''. .... . .. ---cc,--- -"~'-Page1' .-...-._.-.~.-.----_.-.-.~_..--.~._-.-.-...--'-'-.--'-"-..-. -...--'-. -.'."-.-. ..-....-...."--.."-'-- -..~..-. - _.. _' _._.,_. --'-"-..._ _ ,_..,...____. _..... J From: Theresa Shell To: Bracken, Barbara Date: 03/01/200710:20:38 AM Subject: Fwd: Letter for 3/5/07 BOS Meeting >>> "Rebecca Goodman" <rsgood@frontiernet.net> 03/01/200710:06 AM >>> 3/1/2007 Dear Ms. Shell Please include the following letter in the packet of information supplied to the Board of Supervisors for the meeting on Monday, March 5, 2007. Thank you in advance! Re:Agenda Items 64 and 70A & 70B Dear Board of Supervisors, Item 64This minor amendment request (from Rural Residential/Five Acre Minimum Lot Size to Suburban Development Area, Suburban Estates) does not conform to the Long Mountain Area Plan land use designation. Please uphold the integrity of the plan by approving the denial made by the Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting 2/14/07. Item 70APlease defend this rezone decision (from Agriculture-Residential/Thirty-six Acre Minimum Lot Size to Agriculture-Residential/Ten Acre Minimum Lot Size) made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on 1/10/07 and approved by you (BOS) on 2/5/07 as it does follow the land use designation in the Long Mountain Area Plan. Item 70BPlease do not allow this rezone change (from Agriculture-Residential/Thirty- six Acre Minimum Lot Size to Agriculture-Residential/Five Acre Minimum Lot Size) as it does not comply with the Long Mountain Area Plan. Sincerely, Rebecca Goodman Long Mountain Area Plan Committee Member !DSPAM:45e70843357874588411131 ! CC: Romero, Linda I: 5 lo~ ~ I~~~ f~~Rome-ro~ F~J30S ~~tin!i ~arc~5,2067~ .-:=~_~-~-_~-_-~==-_-_-_ =-=-==~ ==_=='~= =-=.==f~e_i] From: Theresa Shell To: Bracken, Barbara Date: 03/01/2007 3:00:37 PM Subject: Fwd: BOS Meeting, March 5, 2007 >>> "Judy & Jim Bodenhamer" <bodenhamer@frontiernet.net> 03/01/200712:18:57 PM >>> Kevin& Theresa: Please include the following letter in the packet of information supplied to the Board of Supervisors for the meeting on Monday, March 5, 2007. Thank you! Dear Supervisors: We would like to object to the passage of the following items during your March 5, 2007 meeting...(reasons included). 1) Item #64 does not conform to the Long Mountain Area Plan. Please retain the integrity of the LMAP and vote for the denial recommended and voted unanimously by the P&Z Commission. 2) Items 70A&B are an example of my fears from the February 5, 2007 meeting where items #50A&B were approved, 50A due to an oversight by the county on a request made before the LMAP meetings were initiated....item 50B an item requested during the LMAP Committee deliberations. During the February 5, 2007 meeting I personally appeared to request denial of these two items, as the P&ZC had recommended by unanimous decision. When that request failed, I specifically asked the Board to make it a situationally conditional approval, a one time exception, so as not to set a precedent for future requests of lot splits in that area that are outside the limitations set by the LMAP, to preclude others asking for same based on the tired old "You gave my neighbor approval, now you owe me one too". Coincidentally, the entity on the current #70A asked, and received approval of their February 5 request #51, to rezone from AR/36A to AR/1 OA. This request was unopposed as it was allowable within the LMAP. Now, it appears that approval was not suitable to them, in light of the fact that their neighbors from #50A& B were allowed. I submit to you that entity #70 A requested AR/10A on their February 5 #51 action because they knew it would not face opposition, indicating that they were well aware of the LMAP stipulations, but are now, via #70B, trying to "push the envelope" due to the earlier rulings, to split their acreage even further. I/we respectfully request that the Board adhere to its previous promise to enforce the LMAP. While neither the Board nor I expected such a blatant challenge soon after an exception was made to amend for an inadvertent county shortcoming, it is here, and only one month later, that it has become a challenge. A ruling by you to uphold #70A and deny #70B will show that the Board will not be fooled by these tricks to continue illegal lot splits, an issue that the LMAP strove to eliminate for the benefit of all, including the Board. Sincerely, Judy& Jim Bodenhamer Long Mountain Area Plan Committee Members Outgoing mail is checked for viruses by Norton. (0'1 J 1'0 f\~~ lL~~~~~~]=w2:j~mi~4,70}\ ~~fOB_==~ :.=::=~~~~===:. =~~ :.==_-___-~ = _-_~_-~=:. _-=:. = ~~~ 1J From: Theresa Shell To: Bracken, Barbara Date: 03/01/20073:01 :03 PM Subject: Fwd: Items 64, 70A and 70B >>> "Patti Lewis" <patti@lewis.name> 03/01/2007 12:09:22 PM >>> Please include my note in the board packet for March 5th, 2007. Note: The changes being requested in items 64, 70A and 70B to the Longmountain Area Plan appear to ignore the comments made at or meetings concerning the traffic increases on Stockton Hill Road and the rural density that the people on the committee hold so dear. Before such changes are approved, the Longmountain community needs to know the impact that will be made to an already bad traffic situation on Stockton Hill Road. Where will the children of the new families moving in go to school, where will the projects get water facilities and who will pay for the paving of the new roads, will the applicant be developing a fire district, etc.? Thanks for your time and consideration. We all appreciate what you have done to protect the integrity of our area plan. Patti ! DSP AM:45e 72503370685665865348! CC: Romero, Linda fo1) iO A.~:5 ~~-0C!a_~oc-~~O~~d~}W:' B~f0~~i~,~j[CE ~~~o~I~-~==:=-==__ :========~==== =~==-=~~~-==-=:~-__I='~ge2-: From: Theresa Shell To: Bracken, Barbara Date: 03/01/20075:27:29 PM Subject: Fwd: Fw: BOS Meeting, March 5, 2007 >>> "Judith Meyer" <jrae40@frontiernet.net> 03/01/2007 3:42 PM >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Supervisors: We would like to object to the passage of the following items during your March 5, 2007 meeting...(reasons included). 1) Item #64 does not conform to the Long Mountain Area Plan. Please retain the integrity of the LMAP and vote for the denial recommended and voted unanimously by the P&Z Commission. 2) Items 70A&B are an example of my fears from the February 5,2007 meeting where items #50A&B were approved, 50A due to an oversight by the county on a request made before the LMAP meetings were initiated....item 50B an item requested during the LMAP Committee deliberations. During the February 5, 2007 meeting I personally appeared to request denial of these two items, as the P&ZC had recommended by unanimous decision. When that request failed, You specifically asked the Board to make it a situation ally conditional approval, a one time exception, so as not to set a precedent for future requests of lot splits in that area that are outside the limitations set by the LMAP, to preclude others asking for same based on the tired old "You gave my neighbor approval, now you owe me one too". Coincidentally, the entity on the current #70A asked, and received approval of their February 5 request #51, to rezone from AR/36A to AR/10A. This request was unopposed as it was allowable within the LMAP. Now, it appears that approval was not suitable to them, in light of the fact that their neighbors from #50A & B were allowed. I submit to you that entity #70 A requested AR/10A on their February 5 #51 action because they knew it would not face opposition, indicating that they were well aware of the LMAP stipulations, but are now, via #70B, trying to "push the envelope" due to the earlier rulings, to split their acreage even further. IIwe respectfully request that the Board adhere to its previous promise to enforce the LMAP. While neither the Board nor I expected such a blatant challenge soon after an exception was made to amend for an inadvertent county shortcoming, it is here, and only one month later, that it has become a challenge. A ruling by you to uphold #70A and deny #70B will show that the Board will not be fooled by these tricks to continue illegal lot splits, an issue that the LMAP strove to eliminate for the benefit of all, including the Board. Sincerely, ~ ~ c..\~ ~~ '\. "<.~ CDJ..{ IO~~~