pf10-014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. � This is important because, when Molly asked Mr. Lloyd in a meeting on May 4, whether a mitigation measure might be to extend the height of the fence behind us to 10 feet, he said the City had just ordered the 8 foot fence, and it didn't seem right to ask the industry to make a change. Well, it does not seem right to us that the City did not do its homework by visiting the neighborhood and taking the hill into consideration, and then just assuming the residents should take the consequences for the City's omission. C. MARGINAL GOOD FAITH FROM INDUSTRY RE TREE SCREENING: The existing vegetative screen is/was made up of spruce and jackpine, mentioned above. It has deteriorated substantially, due to tree loss from wind, disease, etc. Repeated requests to the City to have the vegetative barrier kept up have gone nowhere. There are now some serious gaps in the screening-though we've planted some spruces on our side (seen in 2010 photo). In 1996, there was another Variance Request from the MIDC property. At that point, the request was granted, contingent on strong mitigation measures to protect the neighborhood via use parameters and screening. This included strong vegetation planning, plus a possible berm. MIDC later withdrew its request. Enclosed are 2 pictures of MIDC from property...One is from 1996, and one from 2010. You can just see one of the 3 pines that Mr. Albrecht planted in 2009 (the smail one in the gap).,.it will be years before they achieve screening heigh� And, in the 14 years, the gap has gotten worse. Those 3 trees are the only plantings on the industry side in 14 years... It seems to me that this says a lot about the City's lack of commitment to its residents. D. IGNORING THE STAKEHOLDERS: Another mark of the City's inability to listen to its stakeholders: Mr. Albrecht had specifically suggested at his information meeting in April that he could help with plantings on the residential property. This offer was ignored by City staff. In fact, their original Staff report would mandate that all screening be to the north of the industry fence. When questioned about this in the Planning Meeting, City staff repeatedly said that, basically, the residents could not be counted on to maintain them (on their own properties)--this after Molly tald the Committee that she has been watering t�e industt-,X s r e (in the 15-foot buffer) faithfully for 20-plus years, and had offered (in writing) to do the same for the 2 new trees Mr. Albrecht installed in 2009. How does the City not see that it is in the economic self-interest of the residents to work with the industry? How does the City have such great trust in the industry--and none at all in the good sense of the residents? E. REAL EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL HARM: At one point--1991, in one of the code disputes with the City, 2 families decided to see if we could get our County Property Taxes lowered. We did this to see if an outside agency would validate that the City's lack of enforcement had an economic impact. We succeeded in having our taxes lowered. It's probably time to re-file a similar request.