Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2, letter from LHVC re A 40-1 dated August 5, 2004 <br /> <br /> This is the only part of EC 9.8424 (2) addressed by the applicant. We <br /> assume that the applicant would agree that (a), (b), (d) and (e) are not met <br /> by the application, as is clearly the case. Regarding {c), the applicant <br /> suggests a finding could be based on a draft Metro Plan amendment. This <br /> is invalid. Anyone can suggest draft amendments, they have no force and <br /> no bearing on any land use proceedings unless the draft amendment <br /> becomes an adopted part of the Metro Plan. <br /> <br /> Even if the amendment is adopted at some future date, it would only <br /> suggest that the parcel not be included in the inventory of available <br /> residential lands. It in no way suggests that redesignation to commercial <br /> land is an appropriate course of action. <br /> <br /> This parcel was zoned residential and encumbered with power line <br /> easements when the applicant purchased it just a few years ago. The <br /> applicant is aware that a zone change request for this parcel was rejected in <br /> 1998. Unfortunately for the applicant, the Laurel Hill Plan dictates that <br /> there will be no quick turn around on this land speculation. Only after the <br /> existing East Laurel Hill commercial node has been fully developed will we <br /> be able to determine if a public need for additional commercial land exists. <br /> <br /> Thus since neither of the two criteria set out in EC 9.8424 has been met, <br /> RA 04-1 should be denied. <br /> <br /> Sincerely, <br /> <br />~~ ~j~~ Wostmann <br /> Rich Hazel <br /> Co-Chair, LHVC Vice-Chair, LHVC <br /> <br /> I-A-4 <br /> <br /> <br />