pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 7 of 11 interest involved. So, please understand that when dealing with me I am acting solely on my own behalf and not on behalf of the affected neighborhood or any one person living in the affected neighborhood. With this said, I have spoken with some of my neighbors. All that I spoke with explained to me that they haven't yet been notified by the church of the plans. Judging by what I can gather it has only been me that was notified (albeit with brief opportunity to examine the preliminary plans). I believe that this needs to change. As per your email, you are planning a meeting to discuss notification to the neighborhood. While the language used seems a bit noncommittal to actually having a meeting or providing notice - may I suggest using the church as a meeting place (coffee & cookies etc.) to show all the affected neighbors the plans and also to provide an opportunity to answer questions and concerns? May I also suggest having this meeting before ground-breaking takes place. Further, in my experience, the more information that is provided, the less people get concerned about things that may have been easily dispelled by full and complete disclosure. I have come to understand in my experience in advising corporations that this is an essential tool in risk management and overall Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) endeavors. In speaking with my neighbors I can confidently say that the initial reaction is very negative. Full and complete disclosure would likely dispel some of the concerns that I have been hearing. And as you know, this "notice" and disclosure issue has been my primary concern. Obviously, the city is in somewhat of a bad situation because "community gardens" aren't contemplated by the city code and they (city planning dep't) thinks that it may not be able to force you to provide notice to the neighbors for something that isn't specifically listed as a"conditional use" or "nonconforming use" et cetera. I vehemently disagree with this as will be made apparent below. Nevertheless, the neighbors I have spoken with have great concerns over the size and scope of the planned project. While the city does not actually regulate "gardens" in R1 districts, the concern of the neighborhood, mine obviously included, is that what is planned is not a"private garden" as the R1 district obviously contemplates, but is rather a material alteration of the land to an "agricultural" use that 1) is not even contemplated by any city zoning designation, description, or permitted use; 2) is a rental of various portions/plots of land by agreement to others for the specific purpose of growing produce, and 3) is, moreover, being used to grow produce for public (as opposed to private) consumption. Thus, it is not the "label" that is placed on the project, but the character and substance of the project that we are focusing on. This is where the city planning department went very wrong. Indeed, the mere fact that part of the church's plan is labeled as an "Orchard" dispels the "garden" land use aspect of what you have planned insofar as it conveys a purpose that is indeed commercial and enterprising in character and context - whether for-profit or nonprofit makes no difference. It is an enterprise to grow produce for public consumption. More Importantiv: one has to seriously wonder if I could use my land to grow sod (a "sod garden" if you will) and provide it for profit or for charity? I would then be using a significant portion of my land to produce sod for public use and consumption. Such a home occupation would not be permitted in the residential ordinance because it is not confined to the dwelling. "The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling." (Ord. § 1004.01(G)(2)(a)). Further, only the homeowner plus one non-resident can be engaged in the home occupation. (Ord. § 1004.01(G)(2)(b)). Basically, the church needs to make up its mind what it wants to be. A church, a school, a parking facility, or a share-cropping enterprise in a r-. -` 4/19/2010