Planning Commission
On October 19, a use permit application was before you regarding 328 Central Ave. We were unable to participate in the meeting because of the technical difficulties we encountered. Nonetheless, we used the form on the Webinar page to comment as the deliberations were underway. To our dismay, Chair Henry Riggs overruled the concerns of Commissioner De Cardy and refused to acknowledge or allow our comments to be entered into the record, despite his being informed that we were having difficulties speaking remotely.
During the meeting none of the Commissioners encouraged that the applicant TJH homes agree to one of our three proposed solutions to the privacy issues we raised. The Chair asked the applicant if she would be interested in even one of the three suggestions and she declined. At that point the Chair made a motion to approve the use permit.
On October 29, we appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the use permit for 328 Central and within 90 minutes of receiving a copy of our appeal TJH offered to meet our request. Since then TJH has reimbursed us for the appeal fee of $110; agreed to raise the window sill a foot and has met with us regarding our preferred design of the shared fence.
It was a disappointment to watch the deliberations for this use permit for a myriad of reasons:
1. that once the Chair realized we as the adjacent neighbors could not participate due to technical problems, he did not either continue the item to a later date or at minimum allow our comments to be entered into the record.
2. that not one Commissioner made an effort to make a requirement that the developer choose one of our suggested solutions regarding the sight line from the project’s 2nd story house into our bathroom and bedroom
3. that Mr Barnes claimed that our existing fence moved back and forth on the property line. TJH's representative sent us a letter apologizing for not correcting Commissioner Barnes or Staff Chris Turner during the meeting. She admitted that the fence line moves into our property only once and that was to accommodate a tree on the project’s property. Had the Commissioners read the plans, it was clear the fence was on the property line.
4. that the only contribution any of the Commissioners made was to take issue with the height of an ornamental chimney. This was not an issue or part of the use permit application.
The Planning Commission has heard several use permit applications from industrial size developers and it is time to discuss alternatives to the deaf ear paid to residents who have borne the burden of these large residential developments that maximize FAR and building heights, but minimize setbacks.
The planning commission continues to put its thumb on the scale in favor of the developer by ignoring the resident’s concerns. The standard staff report recommends approval of a project and it’s up to the residents to push uphill for mitigating changes. Staff recommendations should not imply the expectation of an approval by the Commission. Your role needs to be reviewed.
Steve Schmidt and Brielle Johnck
