Petition to Sullivan County Zoning & Codes
Keep camping and parking available for Pursuit Farms!
I have been informed that Pursuit Farms is in a A-1 zone and needs to be changed to a AR zone. I am no longer allowed to let anyone camp or park at Pursuit Farms until the zoning is approved by the Sullivan County Board. I need your support to encourage their decision to approve my request! As you all know my father, Judson (Juddy) Mottern, started this business within the heart of friendships he grew with so many individuals. He started allowing campers and fishermen to come on the property 10+ years ago. My father passed away December 22nd 2011 leaving me with the property and growing business. His dreams, prayers, and many conversations were for me (Victoria) to have a future and career within this farm. He wanted nothing more than me to be successful. We have never had any problems or "neighborly complaints" from anyone so this is a first for me. If this request is denied than Pursuit Farms will be closed and will no longer be allowed camping or parking. My future with Pursuit Farms will be demolished and my dreams will be crushed. I ask you as Judson Mottern's friend, my friend, my family, my neighbor, loyal customers, fly fishermen, family campers, guide services, fly shops, and all others, please sign this petition to keep Pursuit Farms open! Thank you for taking time to read this, and thank you so much for the support!
Petition to Paul Koretz, Shawn Bayliss
Petition for Fair Re-Zoning Rules of South Beverlywood Adjacent/Castle Heights Homes
Dear Neighbors: The City is about to implement new zoning rules of either R1V2 or BMO, both of which are unfavorable for our neighborhood (South Beverlywood Adjacent/Castle Heights; see map, red section). These rules will drastically restrict our ability to renovate/expand/rebuild, and reduce our property value, without making a difference in restraining mansionization. Our area is singled out for far more restrictive rules than Beverlywood to our north and Cheviot Hills to our west. Our councilmember Paul Koretz is open to giving us the same fair rule of R1VNew as granted to them, as long as he hears from enough of us. The City will decide in early January 2017, so please sign the petition ASAP, and tell your neighbors. Why should you care? DRAMATICALLY LIMIT RENOVATIONS OR EXPANSIONS: The City is currently considering for us either the R1V2 or the BMO rule, both of which will reduce the living area, or the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) between 45% FAR down to 35% FAR. For example, a 4200 sq. ft. lot is limited to less than 1700 sq. ft. of living space, hardly enough for three bedrooms. THIS WILL DECREASE THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY: Land on which you cannot build is not worth much. So when you want to sell, take out a second mortgage, or leave something valuable to your children, R1V2/BMO will reduce the value of what is probably your most important asset. UNFAIR—ALL SURROUNDING AREAS GET BETTER RULES: For example, Beverlywood north of us, and Inner Council District 5 (Cheviot Hills) west of us, get the better R1VNew rules (55% FAR). Why should our area be singled out for harsher rules? THIS WILL AFFECT YOU IN THE FUTURE: You might not think about expanding now, but the rules will be in place for 30 years or more. If at any time in the future you need more bedrooms for kids, take in your aging parents, or want a home office, R1V2/BMO will prohibit you. NO IMPACT ON MANSIONIZATION PREVENTION: We are all concerned about mansionization, but whether it's R1V2/BMO or R1VNew, it will prevent huge ugly boxes — the rules for height, setbacks from neighbor properties, etc., are almost identical. The key difference is living area, which is important for the inhabitants of the house while hardly affecting the neighbors! In summary, we are asking our Councilmember Paul Koretz to carve out our area (proposed red section in the attached map) from the Lower Council District 5 (in which we belong now) and requesting that we are allowed the same R1VNew zoning as Beverlywood and Inner Council District 5. This will allow a maximum 55% FAR for lots less than 6,000 sq. ft., and scale down in several steps, down to 45% FAR for lots 10,000 sq. ft. By signing the petition, I am voicing my opposition to the proposed R1V2/BMO re-zoning rules, and in favor of R1VNew for the South Beverlywood Adjacent/Castle Heights neighborhood. Who we are: We are Andy, Betty, Adam, and Michael, a group of homeowners living in the area. None of us is a developer, or has connections to developers. We just want fair and reasonable rules for the neighborhood we live in. For more information, visit www.LCD5zoning.net, or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Petition to Frank Petrone, Susan A. Berland, Eugene Cook, Tracey A. Edwards, Mark Cuthbertson
Stop Cluster Zoning around Indian Hills Golf Course, Fort Salonga
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of high density, multi-family housing on the Indian Hills Golf Course. We oppose this project due to the threat it presents to the fragile environmental habitat of the area and the negative impact it will have on the quality of life of the residents. The golf course and the whole area is zone R-40 and was zoned this way for a reason - the precarious environment warrants that type of zoning. This is a very delicate area from an environmental standpoint - surrounded by the Makamah Nature Preserve and the Jerome A. Ambro Memorial Wetlands and directly bordering the Davis Brickmaker Preserve, the Long Island Sound and the already polluted Fresh Pond. In addition, the entire area of the golf course is located in primary area of the Crab Meadow Watershed which has been determined to have the greatest influence to Long Island Sound and water quality. Adding 108 townhomes, de-foresting 11 acres of woods to put more impermeable surfaces such as homes and additional blacktop, and keeping a perfectly green, excessively watered and fertilized golf course on top of that all just does not make any sense from an environmental standpoint. This will have an impact that reaches much farther than the neighborhood which houses Indian Hills Country Club. There will be major traffic repercussions in the immediate area, the infrastructure of the neighborhood cannot safely shoulder this many additional vehicles. There is also the inevitable trickle down to Elwood Road which is already going to bear the traffic burden of the Seasons at Elwood (256 units) and the Matinecock Court Housing Project (140 units). Preserving the golf course in perpetuity at the expense of damaging the environment for perpetuity does not seem like a sound tradeoff. Additionally, approval of a project of this nature sets a bad precedent for future projects elsewhere in the Town where developers will seek a zoning downgrade in other residential neighborhoods, adjoining multiple environmentally sensitive areas.
Petition to Mark Cheran, Board of Supervisors
Allow backyard chickens in residential settings.
I would like to see the current zoning revised to allow backyard chickens in residential communities with guidelines. No Roosters annual permit with fee coops only in backyard fenced area and no free range allowed no slaughtering of chickens on property chicken coop and run must be at least 15 feet from other properties. Coop must have a one time inspection. Kept clean and well maintained. Hens must have food and water available at all times.
Petition to Michael LoGrande (Director, L.A. City Planning), Mike Bonin, Eric Garcetti, VNC Board, LUPC , Tricia Keane, Kevin Jones
CALLING FOR A MORATORIUM ON MANSIONIZATION & SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS IN VENICE, CA
We the undersigned call for the following: - an immediate moratorium on the 'McMansionization' of VENICE - an immediate moratorium on Small Lot Subdivisions (SLS) in VENICE - a denial of all Small Lot Subdivisions currently pending for VENICE - no building permits to be issued for Small Lot Subdivisions prior to recordation of final map In VENICE - FULL public notification and participation, as set forth by Federal, State, and Local Law, in any and all proposed developments in VENICE. Additionally, we the undersigned call for full enforcement of the California Coastal Act, the Mello Act, and the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan, because the cumulative effect of recent development in VENICE is diminishing the quality of life for it’s residents, and negating the purpose of said protections put in place to preserve the Coastal Zone. Here are 3 consistent and repeated ways that the City is ignoring and violating Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan (VCZSP):1. City Planning is interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance (SLSO) to trump the Specific Plan, although the law says that specific plans always trump ordinances. The City is interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance to allow more units on lots than the Specific Plan allows, and is not requiring any guest parking at all, and is allowing tandem parking that people often don't use, rather than side-by-side parking.2. Allowing buildings to be constructed to the maximum possible size even when the proposed building is totally out of scale with the neighborhood i.e. three story buildings that block all of the neighbors' sunlight in a one-story or two-story neighborhood. The Specific Plan requires an evaluation of the compatibility of the mass and scale of the proposed building with the other buildings in the neighborhood. The Planning Department does not do this, and they have set up a process where there is no appeal. If the Planning Department continues to get away with this, soon Venice will be all 3-story compounds with very little sun or air between the buildings. 3. The Planning Department is issuing illegal DIRs that blatantly violate the Specific Plan. Then the City says that there's no appeal because the 14-day deadline has passed. The community has no real notice and no opportunity to respond. The City refuses to email citizens a .pdf of the DIRs as they are issued, they only send a mailed copy.Whereas per The CA Coastal Act. Section 30116 Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas – Venice has the following characteristics:b. areas possessing significant recreational value.c. Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor designation areas.Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate income-persons.The public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development.From Section 30250 Location; existing developed area:“In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.”Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities:“Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. Section 30252 (e) and enhancement of public access:Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.”