Owner of Francis Oaks land wins council appeal, sort of
Anti-subdivision clause dropped, but project will return to commission
By Nathan R. Huff
These days, Francis Oaks Drive feels more like a battlefield than a quiet, hillside street.
In the latest episode of development-related decisions on the short, narrow street off Blossom Hill Road, the town council granted property owner Michael Moffat's appeal and in the same breath sent him back to the planning commission to allow commissioners to review the proposed home in a new light.
The 5,900-square-foot house had been approved by the planning commission on May 24, but Moffat objected to a condition added to the approval barring future subdivision of the 8-acre, steep hillside property. He appealed to the council to have the condition removed.
After hearing Moffat, who said the condition was unfair, the council asked the town attorney what the legal ramifications to the condition were. Korb said he had a "fundamental legal discomfort" with the condition barring subdivision, and recommended the council drop the condition. However, Korb also said the council had the right to send the entire application back to the commission--which it did--to be reviewed under the context of a possible future subdivision.
Neighbors on Francis Oaks Way, who have fought a number of proposed homes on their street, showed up once again. They told the council that the previous owner--as part of a lawsuit settlement over ingress and egress--had guaranteed the parcel would not be subdivided. While Moffat repeatedly stated that the property was not subdividable at this time, and he had no plans to do so, residents were skeptical.
"I do understand he's only asking for the removal of a restriction, not the actual subdivision of his land," Francis Oaks resident Diane McLaughlin said. "But in my mind, one follows the other." Her husband, Lee McLaughlin, added that the land would soon be subdividable, once sewer and road access are granted to the property from an upcoming 21-home development.
Council members expressed hesitation with stepping into what Councilwoman Linda Lubeck called "a civil matter," but they also weren't ready to simply repeal the condition, since the proposed house may not have been approved if the commission had considered future subdivision a possibility.
Making the motion to grant the appeal, Councilman Joe Pirzynski said the council had no choice but to also send the application back. "[Otherwise], unwittingly, we have gone ahead and devoured that entire hillside."
Further complicating the council's decision was the planning commission's recent decision to delay several other Francis Oaks Way applications for a cumulative environmental impact report. The three homes had appeared to be nearing approval after a number of trips to the commission when the planning body changed tack and asked for a more in-depth evaluation of the projects' impacts.
Council members, with the exception of Joe Pirzynski, feared Moffat's project could end up in the same boat upon return. "If the council takes this action, are we more likely than not saying, in effect, to the planning commission, 'and, oh, by the way, pull this one [in to the study], too?'" Lubeck asked.
Korb said his best guess was that, given "free reign," the commission probably would do just that, which prompted council members to specify in the motion that the commission was not to consider anything other than the design of the home given the potential for subdivision.
Los Gatos, California Since 1881
