18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Adjacent property owners, Phillip and Joanna Segundo, oppose the project and have submitted the reasons for their opposition (refer to Attachment 6). The appellant's concerns were discussed in the April 9, 2008 Planning Commission staff report and minutes (refer to Attachments 4 and 5). Appellants Concerns In summary, the appellants believe that there would not be an issue if the applicant had gone through the proper procedure. They do not believe that the tank had to be replaced but that it could have been repaired. They also believe a lower profile tank could have been used that would have been less visible and have provided information on such a product (See Attachment 7). The appellants have also provided staff an opinion from a third party well company stating that there is no functional reason why a low profile tank could not be used and that it would be technically feasible to locate the tank 35-40 feet away from the well. Applicants Comments The applicant maintains that the location of the tank was not malicious but rather a suggestion by her well specialist to enhance the operation and life of the water system. She stated that she was unaware that planning entitlements would be required since she was replacing the existing water tank. The applicant has also provided a letter from a third party well company stating that it is especially important to install the tank and pump within ten feet from each other to prevent overburdening of the pump. The location of the new tank in relation to the appellant's residence is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Partial Aerial View oyf~~48~1 S camore Road ' a a,rr. f ~ F `~~:: .L` f ~ ~ l ~' ~~ +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~~ _ _tyt ~4 ~ r ~ ~~LL r ~ 1 ,,.. `: ~ .. r . ~,,,. ~ ~ ~ 7~ that was ~ . ~'~ "~:".r,~,~ ,-;, removed %7"r ~~~ .~ ss ;"c ~,~ ~`' .~ ~,. ~~ .. ... ,,,, ~ '~ti. .. ~ lJ appellan~~ ~'~ ~~- ~:,. -1 1 Y i ~f .e .i~ ,s '~ ~ .Y „r~et ... • ~~ fir... .CAI. r..+ .~ .~i Page 4 of 8