Importance of site specific review

On Tuesday, 6/27/2017, Supervisors denied a proposal for rezone south of Hwy50 that would have created 4 residential lots out of one. It was the Hansen Project, Z16-0001. County planners had ‘blessed’ it with a recommendation for approval, making a BOS denial fairly unusual. By contrast, these same Supervisors just approved a MUCH bigger project, right down the road from Hansen’s: a 5-building complex for commercial activity with a 50-student school, staff of 20, & a caretaker residence.

So why do you suppose the Supervisors said ‘no’ to Mr. Hansen? ..while they had their reasons, the point here is that only a site specific review of the project could reveal those reasons. SITE SPECIFIC REVIEW is key; it’s a must. Yet in December 2015, three of those same Supervisors denied the public site specific review of over 37,000 parcels rezoned en masse, county wide, under the TGPA/ZOU. It was a HUGE over-reach. How many of those 37,000 rezones might have been denied- just like Hansen’s- had they been given the site specific review required by Policy 2.2.5.3 of the General Plan?

Two supervisors (Frentzen and Hidahl) understand the importance of doing a site specific review. Thank them for their efforts, and remind them that the other 37,000 parcels should have had the same treatment. Perhaps they can convince the other Supervisors that the RCU lawsuit should be settled and the mass-rezones overturned!!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s