OCR Text |
Show 4 - LIGHTNING TIMES - JULY 15, 1996 COMMUNITY ISSUES MORE SURVEY, from p. 1 regulated the Town as a Rural Agricultural Residential zone. This emphasizes their money and spend it on grading the roads for the people who live here, and then deny them any say in something lowing are the questions from the Home occupation section: 1) Should Home occupations continue the residential nature of the Town but this important, harkens back to the allows agricultural-livestock activities and Home and Premise occupations. early days of this country and the cry of to be allowed? 2) Should Home occupations (permits) “no taxation without representation.” be issued only to persons residing on How has the Town been mwtaged? Both residents and non-residing property owners are stakeholders in this community. A number of non-residing property owners have already built 3) Should a Home occupation be allowed to have an employee(s) who does Until recently Home and Premise businesses were supposed to be carried on only by the peopleresiding on the property. In a suprise interpretation by the Town attorney, the Town was told that the phrasein the zoning ordinance “carried on by persons residing in the dwelling” actually allowed any number of employees to work for any Home occupation even if the employees resided outside the Town. (This interpretation still defies all logic!) This survey is to determine what level of business activities the members of this community would like to have conducted anywhere within the Town (i.e. on a lot next to you!) Why are the non-residing property owners being excluded? The Town Council said that it was only responsible to the voters. On certain legal voting issues this is the case. In preparing a master plan, any members of the community may be polled. Attempts are usually made to include as many groups as possible. The two members of the POA board whose votes caused the nonresiding property owners to be excluded gave different reasons for their vote. Richard Williams seemed to feel that most of the non-residing property owners were holding their property for speculative financial reasons. George seemed to feel that the Town Council was going to do what it wanted regardless of the input from non—residing owners. Obviously, sending out more surveys would have meant more work for either the Town Council or the POA Board. Communicating with out-offTown propaty does take time and ef011. Some reasons why the non—residing property owners should have been ineluded: The non-residing property owners have been subsidizing the residents of Castle Valley from the very beginning of the Ranchos development. No Town property taxes have ever been levied Community funding has come primarily from POA members’ dues. To take the property? homes here and are planning on mov- not reside on the 4) Should a Home occupation be al— ing here as soon as they am. I personally know of many non-residing property owners who are more interested in this community than are some residents who rent property and may leave lowed to conduct a business that will attract primarily those who live outside of Castle Valley? 5) Should the neighbors and adjoining property owners be informed about the at any time. application for a Home occupation be- Only two and a half years from fore the permit is issued? now (by Dec 31, 1998) the property 6) Should there be a limit to the num- owners must decide whether or not to keep, modify or discard the POA organization and the Covenants. Including the POA membership in this or any other survey gets people thinking about some of the important issues facing this community. Castle Valley will not remain a nice place to live unless people actively work to keep it that way. How will the surveys be done? Instead of one longer survey, several “mini” surveys are to be sent out by ber of Home occupations allowed on a given street or neighborhood? the Town. The first survey, which has been sent out and is due back this week (July 26th). asks some broad questions. Other surveys will be sent out in Ausust and September to get more specific answers to some of the questions asked Other issues may also be explored (i.e. the Town decided at the last Town Council meeting to include a question on the next mini-survey asking residents if they would like to have/support KZMU broadcasts into the valley). Some questionsfiom thefirst survey: 1. “Castle Valley should... a) become a purely residential zone without any more Home or Premise occupations permitted.” b) remain amidential zone with Home and Premise ocupations permitt . c) become a residential community with light commercial zones permitted.” Parts H. & III. of the first survey then asks somewhat more specific questions about whether more Home and Premise businesses should be allowed and whether there should be any restrictions placed on them. The fol- 7) Should Home occupations be al- lowed within the town to operate free of limits and restrictions? These same questions were asked about Premise occupations (business activities conducted on a lot outside the dwelling or conducted in an accessory building, ex. a woodworking shop). One additional question asked about Premise occupations is as follows: “Should a Premise occupation be allowed to operate in more than one accessory building?” These questions are included since the majority of property owners will neither have the opportunity to see the surveys nor respond to them. Can anything be done? Even if surveys were sent with the Oct. annual mailing, the Town is likely to have made some decisions on these issues before responses could be analyzed. You might thank POA Bead members Rebecca Martin and Melody Taylor for trying to include you. —Jaek Campbell FIRE RESTRICTION ORDINANCE The complete text of the recently passed fire restriction ordinance is printed on the following page. While all ordinances are posted on the bulletin boards at the front gate and on the community lot, it’s not convenient for many people to stop and read them. (Signatures section was deleted for space reasons.) |