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