18 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Rocha stated that moving the tank would create a financial hardship for her as she is a single mother who cannot work because of the harassment and issues she has to deal with from the Segundos. She noted that there was always something everyday from violation letters to complaints to the police about the barking dog, the smell of manure, and the flies. She stated that this is a farm property and there will always be horses and other farm issues. She concluded that this has to stop somewhere and that she did not know what she can do to make the neighbors happy. Commissioner O'Connor noted that the old tank had a capacity of 10,000 gallons and asked Ms. Rocha what the capacity of the new tank was. Ms. Rocha replied that it was a 5,000-gallon tank. She added that the well company had written a proposal and recommended two 5,000-gallon tanks but she only installed one to determine if this would be sufficient so she can conserve water and save on the cost. She noted that a 5,000-gallon tank is adequate for the present. Commissioner O'Connor noted that based on the staff report, he thinks staff believes that both tanks were of the same capacity. Ms. Amos explained that that information was based on the narrative received from the applicant that stated that the tanks were approximately the same size. She added that new information indicated that the old tank was larger. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Olson inquired if staff ever talked to Dan's Water and Well. Ms. Amos said no as staff was not aware of the company until recently. Commissioner Olson inquired what staff s opinion was with respect to the new open fence at the end of Diamond Court. Ms. Decker clarified that the question is if staff would support an open fence at the end of the cul-de-sac and if needed to go through a process. She noted that she was uncertain which PUD the end of Diamond Court may pertain to but that when there is a development plan and an established approved fencing plan, a PUD modification is necessary when the fences are modified, at which time staff evaluates privacy issues, landscaping, and other matters. She stated that staff has not had the opportunity to evaluate if this particular PUD had an approved fencing plan and to evaluate privacy and visual aesthetics in terms of having landscaping on one side or the other of the fence which is typically required with developments. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the fence can be replaced without a permit if it were not over six feet tall. Ms. Decker replied that she as mentioned earlier, she does not know the history of the development in terms of whether or not it had an approved fencing plan. She added that if the fence would be a modification from what had been approved, then a PUD modification would be required. She added that it would probably be a staff-level process with a review of the change from solid to open fencing, landscaping or no landscaping, irrigation, and other issues. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if a permit would be required if there is no approved fencing plan. Ms. Amos replied that the property falls within the provisions of the North Sycamore EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, Apri19, 2008 Page 9 of 15