“The property is zoned to do exactly what the property owner wants to do on it,” said Supervisor Steve Worthley, who cited the Fifth Amendment as protecting the rights of private property owners. “We’re not here to pass judgment on the property. We’re here to uphold the law.”

Worthley called for the property owners to do an environmental report and resubmit the proposal through the planning commission. “I know some people are upset that the process has taken so long but this is what the law allows. When we go back through this process, then the board will have a decision to be made at some point in the future.”

With that, he moved to adopt Alternate Proposal #1, which refers the proposal back to staff for further study and report, and requires “clustering (of homes) and a reduction in lot size, water sustainability analysis at each phase and possible mediation between the two parties involved to be brought back to the planning commission for recommendation.”

Supervisor Ishida seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Before the vote, Ishida explained why the property was zoned residential, an action taken about 40 years ago. “The prevailing thinking of planning was to move the population to the least productive land, such as the foothills. Citrus wasn’t doing financially well in the early ’70s. I believe that’s why there wasn’t a lot of push (against the idea) from citrus growers.

“Once it’s zoned, we’re held to a different standard,” he added. “We have to look at the law.”

Elderwood Heights is a proposed development that would be built northwest of the City of Woodlake on land that is currently being farmed. The current plan calls for 225 acres to divided into 162 single-family residential lots, ranging in size from 22,500 sq. ft. to 98,650 sq. ft.

The planning commission had recommended that supervisors deny the project because, among their other reasons, they found the property “physically unsuited for rural development,” and that it did not “conform to smart growth and healthy communities principles.”

At previous meetings, neighborhood residents expressed concerns about noise, traffic, water, waste and other issues. Several of them also addressed the board before this vote, calling for the board to adopt the planning commission’s recommendation to deny the proposal. Developer David Roberts of R-7 Enterprises then presented a petition with signatures from 468 project supporters.

Shani Jenkins, attorney for the developers, took the podium to present a list of concessions that R-7 Enterprises was willing to make, such as performing an environmental impact report, reducing the visual impact of the development, using only “colors of low reflectivity” and limiting the amount of turf used. “We’ve probably agreed to 80% of what (development opponents) want,” she said.

Craig Breon, the attorney for Citizens Against Elderwood Heights Subdivision, followed by saying that he was “hopeful that R-7 could bridge more of these gaps.” While the board was in closed session to consider their decision, Breon told the Voice that he hopes that the area residents can “come to some agreement” with the developers. Even so, he was not happy about the board’s decision.

“We would rather have the decision of the planning commission upheld,” he said after the vote. He called the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment used in the supervisors’ decision “radical,” adding that the amendment was intended to provide a balance between private and public interests. “Even a judge like (Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia would not agree,” he said.

Following the meeting, Roberts called the decision “a partial victory” because the board upheld his private property rights. “That’s what my family bought and paid for.”

Roberts was asked why he didn’t submit an environmental impact report with the proposal, an omission that became a point of contention for development opponents.

“The county never asked for one,” he said.

The post Elderwood Heights Becomes Legal Decision appeared first on Valley Voice.

Only three members of the Tulare County Board of Supervisors attended their July 29th meeting, so the decision was made to delay a vote on the proposed Elderwood Heights development until their August 12th meeting in Tulare.

The full board was in attendance at the August 12th meeting, where they decided to continue the matter until their September 23rd meeting. Neither the developers nor the area residents opposed to the project were happy about the latest continuance, which was announced by Supervisor Phil Cox before the board heard public comment on the issue, and before the vote to continue was taken.

Elderwood Heights is a proposed 162-home development that would be built just west of the City of Woodlake on land that is currently being farmed. Some project opponents had the opinion that its developers requested the latest delay.

“What this tells me is that the project proposer is going to lose this vote,” said an angry Craig Breon, the attorney for Citizens Against Elderwood Heights Subdivision. “I cost a lot less than other attorneys, but if you’re going to delay this, you should make it a condition that (developer) Mr. Roberts is going to pay me.”

Roberts denied after the meeting that he sought the delay. “It was not a victory,” he said.

Several other project opponents addressed the board with their concerns about water usage and increased traffic if the planning commission’s decision against the project is overruled.

“All we’re asking you as supervisors is to put yourself in our position as a home owner,” said area resident Robert Pearcy. “I don’t think you’d like it any more than we do.”

Developer David Roberts then presented arguments for the project.

“The (residential) zoning was put there in the ’70s and we bought (the property) in the ’80s with an eye on doing this when the time was right,” he said, adding that if the community was concerned about water usage, they should prefer the development because the property would require less water than if it was fully farmed.

“Woodlake needs a project like this,” Roberts continued. “I talked to merchants. This community needs this sort of development. It needs a stronger economic base.”

Following Roberts’ comments, Supervisor Steve Worthley moved to continue the hearing on September 23rd. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Allen Ishida. The vote was 4-1 to postpone the discussion.

“We were floored,” said area resident Lauri Segrue-Polly after the meeting. “We were all disappointed. (The project has) been denied repeatedly. It’s been unanimously denied by the planning commission. Their studies are old. They never did an EIR (economic impact report).”

“I really wanted to speak to them about their process,” said Jim Gorden of Tulare County Citizens for Responsible Growth. “(The board of supervisors) should have sent it back to the planning commission.”

“When I’m ready to vote, I want to vote,” said Supervisor Cox, the lone dissenter in the vote to postpone the decision, after the meeting. “Let’s get it done.”

So why did supervisors again delay a decision on Elderwood Heights?

“We don’t view it as a delay,” said Michael Spata, assistant director of the Tulare County Resource Management Agency’s planning branch. “We view it as an opportunity to meet with the developer and the community to see if we can try to resolve the matter both amicably and effectively.

“I understand the sentiments of the developer, the community and the elected official, however, we do not view this as a needless delay,” he continued. “It’s necessary to explore all opportunities to see if an effective resolution can occur. Whenever you have a challenge, you have an opportunity to see if both sides can reach common ground.”

The post Elderwood Heights Decision Delayed Again appeared first on Valley Voice.