 |
|
|
|
|
Nina Court developer wins reprieve from the council
By Nathan R. Huff
A developer appealing a planning commission denial of his four-lot subdivision off Nina Court won a council reprieve June 5. Neighborhood disagreements and a potentially dangerous legal situation led council members to return the project to the planning commission rather than uphold the commssion's denial.
Dividend Homes Inc.'s project calls for four homes of about 3,000 square feet each to be constructed on a small road off Pinta Court. A very organized group of neighbors showed up to urge the council to reaffirm the commission's claim that the subdivision is not suitable for the site, that grading is excessive and that the project is not consistent with general hillside guidelines.
Neighbors also complained that the project was too visible. They also stated that the proposed roadway into the subdivision was in a dangerous location.
Others neighbors spoke in favor of the project, saying the density was suitable for the area, and the development offered an opportunity for the town to work with Dividend homes to repair the hill's ineffective drainage system.
Pinta Court resident Willis Flood gave a detailed presentation to the council in opposition to the appeal, presenting overheads of visibility issues with the proposed roadway as well as a long list of hillside regulations the project violated.
However, following public testimony, Lubeck questioned Flood's arguments before seconding Attaway's motion to return the matter to the planning commission.
"I applaud Mr. Flood for putting in the effort he did," Lubeck said. "But I have to tell you, in the eight years I've been sitting on the council I've never heard anyone quite take the hillside plan and twist it quite the way you did."
Councilman Joe Pirzynski also supported sending the project back, saying it would give the commission a chance to review the applicant's revised project, as well as correct any errors it may have made.
Attaway said the town was in a tricky legal position. If the project met guidelines but was still rejected, he said, then the developer could sue the town, while if it went forward as is, neighbors would likely sue.
"We have a responsibility to do good planning and stay within the legal boundaries," Attaway said. He added that while it would be great if drainage issues could be addressed in a partnership with the developer, the town had a responsibility to residents to fix any existing problems.
|
|
|
|
Los Gatos, California Since 1881
