[0:33] We're live. Can you hear me?

[0:36] All right. Uh, we'll call the meeting to

[0:38] order. Apologies for the late start. Had

[0:40] an unexpected urgent care trip. Um,

[0:42] casual appearance and all that. And

[0:44] thanks for being with us despite the

[0:46] World Cup game uh that is going on. Um,

[0:50] I think just in the interest of time,

[0:51] we'll probably skip pledge of allegiance

[0:53] for tonight if that's okay and proceed

[0:55] to roll call.

[0:58] >> Chair Gar

[0:59] >> here,

[1:00] >> Commissioner Gonko

[1:01] >> here,

[1:02] >> Commissioner Weaver

[1:04] >> here,

[1:05] >> and Vice Chair Tober and Commissioner

[1:06] Evans are noted absent.

[1:09] >> Uh, are there any changes to the agenda

[1:10] tonight?

[1:11] >> There are no changes to the agenda.

[1:13] There is one desk item for item number

[1:15] three on the agenda and that'll be

[1:18] explained in the presentation.

[1:20] >> All right, perfect. Um, all right. Any

[1:23] public communications? So, if folks have

[1:25] uh things they would like to raise that

[1:27] are not on the agenda tonight, now would

[1:29] be the time to do that. You can approach

[1:31] the microphone if you have a comment you

[1:33] would like to make.

[1:35] >> And for those online, please use the

[1:37] raise hand feature if you'd like to make

[1:38] a comment.

[1:42] And I see no raised hands.

[1:45] >> In that case, we will move on to the

[1:48] consent agenda. And the first item being

[1:50] the approval of the uh of the minutes

[1:54] from date correct uh from June 3 uh

[1:58] 2026. Does anybody have comments on the

[2:01] minutes uh before we consider approval?

[2:07] Um, I move that we approve the consent

[2:09] calendar, which is approval of the

[2:11] minutes from June 3rd.

[2:14] >> I saw a second.

[2:16] >> Chair Gard,

[2:17] >> yes.

[2:18] >> Commissioner Gerero,

[2:19] >> yes.

[2:19] >> Commissioner Weaver,

[2:20] >> yes.

[2:24] Okay. Uh in that case, we'll move to the second item, which is the public

[2:28] hearing on 2995 Woodside Road. Uh which

[2:32] is presentation and approval uh

[2:35] conditional approval or denial of the uh

[2:37] conditional use permit. Uh Sage, do you

[2:40] want to Okay. Uh KO.

[2:49] » Hello and thank you. Uh tonight I'll be

[2:51] presenting the project at 2995 Woodside

[2:54] Road Sweet 100.

[2:56] It's a presentation and approval,

[2:58] conditional approval or denial of a

[3:00] proposal requiring planning commission

[3:02] review for a new conditional use permit

[3:04] to allow for a new fitness/pilott

[3:07] studio. And there are no desk items at

[3:09] this time. Uh to give a brief

[3:11] background, uh the town received a

[3:14] request for approval of a business

[3:16] license in suite 100 at the Gilbert

[3:18] Center for a small-scale body studio. Uh

[3:21] with review of all proposed businesses

[3:24] located in a fixed location, uh town

[3:27] staff must determine if the Woodside

[3:29] Municipal Code allows a proposed use. Uh

[3:32] in Woodside Municipal Code section

[3:34] 153.107, 107. Um the table outlines the

[3:38] permitted uses uh with no cup required,

[3:42] uh conditional uses with a conditional

[3:44] use permit required and accessory uses

[3:48] um accessory to permitted or conditional

[3:50] uses uh allowed in that commercial uh

[3:53] zoning district. And it also states that

[3:55] if a specific use is not listed, it may

[3:59] be uh permitted if the planning

[4:01] commission determines that the proposed

[4:02] use is similar to a use listed in the

[4:05] tables. Uh whereas a fitness and or a

[4:09] Pilates studio is not explicitly called

[4:12] out in that code section. uh staff

[4:15] recommends that the proposed

[4:16] fitness/pilates

[4:18] instructional use uh would be most

[4:20] similar to a uh quote unquote uh music

[4:23] and dance instruction use uh outlined in

[4:27] that table. Um however uh that music and

[4:31] dance instruction uh would require uh

[4:34] planning commission approval of a cup.

[4:41] This is the um aerial photograph uh

[4:43] showing the location of that sweet 100.

[4:46] It's uh within that detached structure

[4:48] which I will show in the next slide

[4:49] here.

[4:53] And this is the uh these are the images

[4:55] of the existing building as well as the

[4:58] uh existing uh parking. Um to clarify um

[5:02] as you can see with my mouse here um

[5:05] showing the space where the proposed use

[5:07] would be taking place. It would be on

[5:09] the left side of that lower level

[5:18] and the applicant indicates that um

[5:21] Pilates again uh is a type of mindbody

[5:24] exercise uh that classifies as a

[5:26] recreation facility. Uh the proposed use

[5:29] would occupy a space with a gross flow

[5:31] area of approximately 700 square f feet

[5:34] uh which I will show in that uh floor

[5:36] plan that the applicant provided. Uh the

[5:39] applicant also indicated that the space

[5:41] would undergo minor interior

[5:43] modifications

[5:44] uh but there would be no changes to the

[5:46] existing uh facade of the structure

[5:48] itself. Um and as far as for parking, um

[5:52] the existing commercial unit was

[5:54] previously occupied by an office use. Uh

[5:57] section uh 153.223

[6:00] of the Woodside municipal code uh

[6:02] provides a limited uh list of uses for

[6:05] parking requirements. Uh one of the

[6:08] tables in that section indicates that uh

[6:11] businesses and professional offices

[6:13] require one parking space for each uh

[6:16] 200 square ft of floor area plus one

[6:18] space for every three employees. Uh

[6:21] since the previous use and the proposed

[6:23] use fall into this general category for

[6:26] parking requirements, uh staff

[6:28] determines that the proposed use would

[6:29] not require any additional parking

[6:31] spaces. uh therefore complying with the

[6:34] parking requirements.

[6:38] And here is the applicant uh floor plan

[6:40] showing uh the proposed uh spaces um of

[6:44] the Pilates machine. And um the details

[6:48] on the legend shows uh where exactly uh

[6:51] things will be located within this

[6:53] space.

[6:58] And again as for the findings um to

[7:01] quickly summarize the planning

[7:03] commission may approve the cup if the

[7:05] following findings can be made and this

[7:06] is all listed in the staff report and

[7:08] resolution.

[7:12] And to summarize the findings by

[7:13] planning staff uh the proposed use uh is

[7:17] in the CC zoning district uh which

[7:20] provides a centralized location for all

[7:22] residents to access. Uh the proposed use

[7:25] would occupy an existing commercial unit

[7:27] and does not require a new construction

[7:29] of a building and is also consistent

[7:31] with the general plan. Uh the

[7:34] fitness/pilott studio use is proposed to

[7:37] be a wellness focused facility that

[7:39] would not pose a detriment to the

[7:41] health, safety or general welfare of

[7:44] people residing or working in the

[7:46] vicinity. Uh the proposed use does not

[7:49] require more parking spaces. Uh the

[7:51] proposed use will be located in an

[7:53] existing unit of a commercial building

[7:55] and the commercial building is currently

[7:57] served by utilities and services. Um and

[8:01] the applicant has indicated that no

[8:02] changes to the existing utilities or

[8:04] services are required.

[8:07] Lastly, for the recommendation, uh staff

[8:09] recommends that the planning commission

[8:11] uh make the findings to approve the cup

[8:14] outlined in the draft resolution, uh

[8:16] including the following conditions of

[8:18] approval here.

[8:20] That concludes my presentation. Uh staff

[8:22] is happy to answer any questions. The

[8:24] applicant is also in attendance here

[8:26] tonight to answer any questions. Thank

[8:27] you.

[8:29] >> Thank you. Uh commissioners, uh

[8:31] questions for staff.

[8:33] >> I have no questions for staff.

[8:36] do not have any questions.

[8:39] >> Uh would the applicant like to make a uh

[8:42] presentation? It's not not required, but

[8:44] uh you're certainly welcome to

[8:47] or comments, any anything. Doesn't have

[8:49] to be formal.

[8:53] » Okay.

[8:57] » Works great. Uh grew up in Woodside. All

[9:00] my clients are in Woodside. Been a

[9:02] Pilates teacher for seven years. just

[9:04] the natural progression of things to

[9:06] open here have been a dream of mine and

[9:09] uh going to call it Arbor because I grew

[9:10] up on Arbor Court and Woodside. So would

[9:12] love to be an addition to the community.

[9:16] >> Awesome. Okay. Thank you.

[9:18] >> Any questions?

[9:20] >> No questions.

[9:23] » All right. Um thank you. Okay. We'll

[9:25] move to uh commissioner deliberations

[9:28] and discussion then. Oh, I'm sorry.

[9:31] Thank you. Uh public comment. Uh, any members of the public like to make a

[9:36] statement? And if so, can you please

[9:37] just Oh, okay. Can we maybe get her the

[9:40] microphone, please? Thank you.

[9:45] » Hi. Um, this girl is just stunning and

[9:48] wonderful and she wants to bring

[9:51] something happy and healthy to the town.

[9:54] That's to me as my husband also. We're

[9:57] the owners of the buildings here and u

[10:00] that means a lot to us and we just don't

[10:03] have people coming there and letting

[10:05] there's a lot of people come and want to

[10:07] live be in one of our buildings but if

[10:09] they don't have something to offer to

[10:10] this town we've been here over 60 years

[10:13] we're like no you know so this girl is

[10:17] amazing and she's going to do wonderful

[10:19] and people will like it and it's a

[10:21] healthy thing to do and um and she's

[10:24] beautiful

[10:25] and so but she has a boyfriend. So,

[10:29] [laughter]

[10:30] >> it's all based.

[10:32] >> So, that's really all I have to say. I'm

[10:34] just glad that this happened. I couldn't

[10:36] understand one thing, though, and she

[10:38] This is not from her. $5,000 to apply

[10:42] for this. That's a lot of money,

[10:45] especially for a young girl or young

[10:48] boy, young anybody or even an old

[10:51] person. I don't know. I think that's an

[10:53] awful lot to charge people. It's almost

[10:55] a deterrent in a way, you know. Uh so

[10:59] she's hanging in there. So if you if

[11:01] it's just one of those things where you

[11:03] have to take a little piece for

[11:04] something here and there, like do

[11:06] something for Melanie or something, do

[11:08] it. But for God's sakes, $5,000 is this

[11:13] is not her speaking. This is me.

[11:15] [snorts] And I think it's was wrong to

[11:17] do that to anybody. Okay. Thanks.

[11:21] >> Thanks. Any

[11:24] other public comment on this issue?

[11:29] >> As a reminder for those online, please

[11:30] use a raise hand feature if you'd like

[11:32] to make a comment.

[11:36] » And no raise hands.

[11:40] >> I have one question for staff. Is the

[11:41] 5,000 is that a standard cup uh fee or

[11:45] what what fee are we referring to?

[11:46] >> Um it's probably a little less than

[11:47] that, but it is quite still quite high.

[11:48] Um yes, it's a standard conditional use

[11:50] permit fee. It's a flat fee. Um and it's

[11:52] for the processing of the project and

[11:54] well it goes into flat for any

[11:56] >> yeah amendments are a little bit cheaper

[11:59] but for a new CUP. Yes.

[12:00] >> Okay. Thank you.

[12:01] >> So that fee would not have been any

[12:04] different if this type of facility had

[12:07] already been on the approved list.

[12:10] >> Um so uh what KGO explained is that so

[12:13] there's two different types of kind like

[12:15] what's called a permit or principal use.

[12:17] Um and those do not require conditional

[12:19] use permit. Um, so they would just come

[12:21] in straight for a business license. Um,

[12:24] and so this the use table's quite old.

[12:28] Um, and it just uh does not have

[12:31] anything listed like that. The mo things

[12:34] that typically don't need a use permit

[12:36] are different retail. They has a long

[12:39] list of retail uses if it's under a

[12:42] 2,000 ft facility. Um, but because

[12:46] there's nothing listed like a yoga

[12:48] studio, Pilates studio, a fitness

[12:50] facility, nothing like that is listed in

[12:52] the code. It is some type of

[12:53] instructional class. And the music and

[12:56] dance instruction was the closest thing

[12:59] um to this type of use. And that does

[13:01] require a conditional use permit.

[13:03] >> So if it were a music and dance

[13:06] explicitly facility, would it have

[13:08] triggered the application fee or is this

[13:10] because

[13:10] >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So, anything

[13:12] that requires the conditional use permit

[13:14] triggers this fee to go through the

[13:16] planning commission process.

[13:18] >> And the fee is not different based on

[13:21] whether it's something that's on the

[13:22] list versus something that's

[13:25] >> that's that's correct. So, whatever if

[13:27] it's like an auto body shop, that's just

[13:29] not like anything on the list and they

[13:31] just wouldn't be allowed. Um, but we

[13:33] felt that this was similar enough to

[13:35] something on the list. It just needed

[13:36] the cup.

[13:38] >> Yep.

[13:41] >> All right. Well, we will now begin uh

[13:43] commissioner deliberation.

[13:46] >> Uh I have no objection. Everything's

[13:48] been spilled out by staff and I agree

[13:51] with it.

[13:54] >> Um I can make the findings and vote to

[13:56] approve the cup.

[13:59] >> Yeah, I can make the findings as as

[14:00] well. I think it's I mean to to I think

[14:03] both uh both comments. I think it's

[14:05] great to have more um small local

[14:09] businesses serving the community. So,

[14:10] it's that's great. Um, it's it's nice to

[14:12] be able to do things besides mail a

[14:14] letter uh and and whatnot. So, it's it's

[14:16] awesome to find uh more coming into the

[14:18] to the center. So, would anyone like to

[14:20] make a motion?

[14:21] >> I would make a motion that we approve

[14:23] the draft resolution to approve the cup.

[14:27] >> And I second.

[14:31] » Chair Gar.

[14:32] >> Yes.

[14:33] >> Commissioner Gonerko.

[14:34] >> Yes.

[14:34] >> Commissioner Weaver.

[14:36] >> Yes.

[14:38] >> Awesome. and good luck with the

[14:40] business. It's It's going to be great.

[14:41] Looking forward to uh to seeing it.

[14:50] Okay. I guess that's me.

[14:54] All right. Well, we will move on to the

[14:56] next uh item which is

[15:01] uh which is 301 Olive Hill. And Melanie

[15:05] presentation.

[15:07] Yes, I have a presentation.

[15:23] » Okay. Good evening, commissioners. I'll

[15:26] be introducing the project at 301 Olive

[15:28] Hill Lane which is requesting a variance

[15:31] to the side setback for a proposed

[15:33] swimming pool, emergency generator and

[15:36] pool equipment. There is one desk item

[15:39] from the applicant and it's providing uh

[15:41] details for pool equipment enclosure uh

[15:44] that'll reduce the sound in output.

[15:50] Okay. Uh the property is approximately

[15:54] 3.4 4 acres in the RR zone district. The

[15:58] closest structures are shown on the

[16:00] southern southern side at around 200 to

[16:03] 300 ft away from the location of the

[16:06] proposed swimming pool location.

[16:12] The property has an existing one-story

[16:15] main residence on a parcel that requires

[16:17] septic. The main residence sits closest

[16:20] to the southwest uh corner of the

[16:23] property. Majority of the property is

[16:25] heavily wooded and has slopes greater

[16:27] than 35% and in some places greater than

[16:30] 50%.

[16:32] Um there includes an existing

[16:35] oval-shaped pool and pool equipment.

[16:38] However, those have been recently

[16:40] demolished.

[16:50] Uh the proposed swim swimming pool pool

[16:52] equipment

[16:55] and generator are shown in in similar

[16:57] locations as the existing

[17:01] uh let me get to a better one. Here we

[17:04] go. Uh so here we see that the existing

[17:08] pool equipment uh is shown in dashed

[17:11] blue here and then the existing

[17:13] ovalshaped pool or pear-shaped pool is

[17:16] shown here with the dashed blue uh

[17:18] indicating that the uh applicant

[17:21] proposed the new generator pool

[17:24] equipment in the similar locations.

[17:27] Uh the proposed swimming pool equipment

[17:30] and emergency generator would be uh once

[17:32] again located nearest there. Uh the

[17:35] property requires 50 foot se side

[17:37] setbacks for as well as front and rear.

[17:41] Uh the applicant is requesting a

[17:43] variance for the swimming pool uh due to

[17:47] uh pool equipment and emergency

[17:48] generator due to steep slopes wooded

[17:52] areas and the presence of septic

[17:54] required. The swimming pool would be

[17:56] about 26 ft from the side property line.

[18:00] The generator would be about 37 ft and

[18:02] the pool equipment would be about 46 ft.

[18:06] For this project to be considered, it

[18:08] needs to meet the findings in the M

[18:10] Woodside Municipal Code uh 153.94

[18:15] uh 949 which reflect that because of

[18:18] special circumstances such as property

[18:21] size, shape, and topography that the

[18:23] strict application of the chapter would

[18:25] deprive the applicant of privileges

[18:28] enjoyed by other properties within the

[18:30] vicinity.

[18:32] The variance would not constitute a

[18:34] special privilege and would be

[18:35] consistent with the objectives of the

[18:37] chapter. The granting of the variance

[18:40] would not be detrimental to the public

[18:42] welfare or injuries to other properties

[18:44] in the vicinity and the granting of the

[18:46] variance would would be consistent with

[18:48] the general plan and its objectives.

[18:52] Um please see attachment A that has been

[18:54] provided to you um to the staff report

[18:57] that shows the draft resolution which

[18:59] states the findings um that staff

[19:01] recommends approval.

[19:04] That concludes my presentation. The

[19:06] applicant and property owners are here

[19:08] in person as well as online

[19:11] um and

[19:14] they are going to give a presentation of

[19:16] themselves. Um but staff's here for

[19:19] questions. Thank you so much.

[19:22] >> Okay. Uh questions for staff.

[19:24] >> Uh what is behind um behind the uh

[19:29] property?

[19:31] That large area there?

[19:33] >> The large area.

[19:35] >> Um the one that doesn't seem to be

[19:38] subdivided into lots.

[19:45] So below the picture. Yeah, right there.

[19:49] Um, these should be residential main

[19:52] residences, but maybe the applicant can

[19:54] talk to that specifically, but it should

[19:57] be a a structure associated with the

[20:00] main residence.

[20:02] >> Yeah, I believe this is uh the Green

[20:04] Gables property. Um, and so it's a very

[20:08] large property. It's old historic site.

[20:10] There's multiple buildings out there.

[20:12] Um, so this is one of the accessory

[20:14] structures that is nearest, but it's

[20:16] about uh, you know, 290 ft away. And

[20:20] then the other closest structure is at

[20:22] 303 Olive Hill.

[20:32] » Other questions for staff?

[20:35] >> I had no further questions for staff.

[20:39] >> I do not either. So um why don't we move

[20:42] on to the applicant or applicant

[20:44] presentation please?

[20:58] Can you hear me? Okay,

[21:01] cool. Um so I guess I'll start by

[21:04] introducing myself. My name is Max

[21:06] Pedoya and I'm here on behalf of myself

[21:08] as the property owner as well as my wife

[21:10] Nina who is currently at home with our

[21:13] daughter Jane. Um

[21:16] I uh I want to talk a little bit about

[21:19] why we ended up choosing this property

[21:22] and and Woodside as a place to make our

[21:24] home. So, uh, my wife and I were

[21:27] previously living in Puerto Rico, and

[21:29] about two and a half years ago, when we

[21:31] first found out that she was pregnant

[21:33] with our daughter, we decided that it

[21:36] was time for us to find our forever

[21:37] home, as we call it. Um, so we went on

[21:40] kind of this like long exhaustive search

[21:42] of a bunch of places all around the US.

[21:45] Uh, we looked at the Pacific Northwest,

[21:46] which is where I'm originally from. We

[21:48] looked at many different places within

[21:49] the Bay Area. We looked at Southern

[21:51] California, Florida, North Carolina. Uh,

[21:54] and we actually flew out to a bunch of

[21:56] these places and and uh toured houses

[21:58] and tried to get a sense of what it

[21:59] would feel like to live there. And I

[22:01] think after all of that searching, we

[22:04] found that there was just something

[22:05] really special about Woodside that made

[22:08] it feel very unique in the sense that I

[22:10] don't really know that there's anywhere

[22:12] else in the world where you can be

[22:14] driving distance from all of the like

[22:16] dynamic industry of Silicon Valley, but

[22:18] when you're actually here in the town

[22:20] and in your neighborhood, you feel so

[22:24] kind of surrounded by and ensconcconced

[22:26] by this natural beauty. And I think that was just like a really amazing

[22:30] thing for us. Um, and it's something

[22:32] that when we talk more about like the uh

[22:35] the project itself, it's something that

[22:37] we've really tried to emphasize as we've

[22:39] been doing this renovation and uh the

[22:42] landscaping design. Um, we also really

[22:45] appreciated just the um kind of the

[22:48] tight-knit community and the sense of

[22:50] belonging that we found when we got

[22:51] here. I think it was really cool just,

[22:54] you know, we we love to get coffee at

[22:56] the Village Hub or to go to Bucks and

[22:58] it's just we're constantly running into

[23:00] people that we know and that feels very

[23:02] welcoming to us. Um so I think those two

[23:05] things together really just felt like

[23:07] something we wouldn't get anywhere else.

[23:09] for this particular property. Um,

[23:13] one of the things that we love about it

[23:14] is the it kind of accentuates that

[23:17] natural beauty that we that first

[23:19] attracted us to Woodside. As I think uh

[23:21] Melanie had mentioned, there's a lot of

[23:23] mature trees all throughout the

[23:25] property. Um, and it's also quite hilly,

[23:28] which is, you know, inconvenient for

[23:30] building things, but it creates this feeling of being kind of on the

[23:35] mountain or in the woods. It it it

[23:37] really is a a very serene property to be

[23:41] on. Uh and I think we we're trying to

[23:44] preserve that as part of our remodeling

[23:47] project and make it so that the house is

[23:49] not the main event of the property. It's

[23:51] just kind of nestled into all of the

[23:53] natural surroundings. Um

[23:57] I think uh so yeah in terms of our

[24:00] overall design goals basically one of

[24:02] the design goals that we have is we want

[24:04] to preserve the the like natural beauty

[24:07] of the property and not like override it

[24:10] with the work that we're doing. And the

[24:13] second thing is that this house, it was

[24:14] originally built in the '7s. And uh it's

[24:19] even though it's an older house, it has

[24:21] a really like charming character to it.

[24:23] And so we were particularly excited

[24:26] about this house because rather than it

[24:29] being like an older property that needed

[24:31] to be torn down and rebuilt, it was a

[24:33] property that we could build on top of

[24:36] and try to preserve and add to the

[24:38] existing character rather than

[24:40] overwriting it. And so that's been uh

[24:43] you know the the object of a lot of our

[24:47] effort and attention over the last

[24:48] couple years is figuring out how to make

[24:50] this house the best version of itself

[24:52] that it could be rather than just making

[24:54] like a new house. Um and so um so I

[24:59] guess now I'll talk about the specific

[25:01] uh issue that we're here for today which

[25:03] is the swimming pool. So, um, as Melanie

[25:05] mentioned, there was an existing

[25:07] swimming pool on the property when we

[25:09] purchased it, and, uh, that pool was a

[25:13] kind of kidney-shaped pool, and we felt

[25:15] that it was important to replace the

[25:17] pool, not just because it was in poor

[25:18] condition, having been built in the 70s

[25:20] and not maintained very well, but also

[25:22] because uh, from a safety perspective,

[25:25] it's it's much harder to to provide the

[25:29] proper safety features like an automatic

[25:31] cover when you have one of those like

[25:33] awkwardly shaped pools. And for us, you

[25:36] know, because we have one daughter and

[25:37] we have more kids that we're uh planning

[25:40] for in the future, I think that pool

[25:41] safety is very important and that's kind

[25:43] of the the driving calculus that we're

[25:46] using when we think about how to uh

[25:48] where to put the pool and how to design

[25:50] it. So, um so that was the the biggest

[25:53] reason for for needing to demolish the

[25:56] old pool, but as Melanie mentioned,

[25:58] we're basically putting the new pool in

[26:00] the same spot. We're just reshaping it

[26:02] and modernizing it. Obviously, it's

[26:04] going to have like a heat pump rather

[26:06] than the old heating system. Like, we're uh we're making the pool more

[26:12] functional and more safe than it would

[26:13] have been previously.

[26:16] Um, and I think that's everything that I

[26:19] have to say. I'm happy to answer

[26:20] questions to the best of my ability, but

[26:22] we also have the architect Peter here,

[26:24] um, who can answer more detailed

[26:26] questions if I don't know how to

[26:27] respond.

[26:30] >> All right. Thank you. Uh, Peter, did you

[26:31] want to present anything um before

[26:34] questions or Okay, thank you.

[26:39] » Uh, Peter Mason, Mason Architects. Um,

[26:43] what you see behind what you see on the

[26:45] screen is the um renderings

[26:49] uh of the house. I think the thing to

[26:51] point out is is kind of the relationship

[26:53] of the house and the areas within it.

[26:56] So, this is the uh kitchen area and the

[27:00] family room. And then this is their

[27:01] outdoor d dining dining and family

[27:04] entertainment zone. And it has a very

[27:07] it's the same relationship as the old

[27:10] pool, but it's a little bit more um

[27:13] adjusted and sophisticated in terms of

[27:15] what's there and how to get the the

[27:16] thing to integrate together. So, um,

[27:21] one of the big thing we wanted to talk

[27:22] about and what what we've done similar

[27:24] to what we did on a project we came in

[27:26] here last year for, which was how to

[27:30] mitigate the noise from the generator

[27:33] and the pumps that are u there. So, this

[27:37] is off to the side. There's a detail on

[27:39] this on the um,

[27:42] Shangri, you want to go to the last

[27:44] thing? Okay. So, uh, what we're doing is

[27:49] we're building an enclosure that has a

[27:51] sound attenuation around the outside of

[27:54] it, so it cuts it down substantially.

[27:57] And then we've chosen, like we did

[27:59] before, we've gotten the quietest pumps

[28:01] possible.

[28:03] And the same thing with the generator.

[28:05] It's a it's a um

[28:08] it's a very quiet one. Uh, and I think

[28:11] that I think that mitigates whatever 200

[28:14] feet away, you're not going to hear a

[28:15] thing.

[28:17] So, that's I think the rest of it is

[28:19] pretty self-explanatory and that, but um

[28:23] I'm going to point that out. Do you have

[28:25] any other questions?

[28:27] >> Uh I do not

[28:29] >> I do not have further questions.

[28:33] >> Um no question. Just uh not not even a

[28:36] comment. Uh have has the uh owner

[28:40] actually done any remodeling on the

[28:41] home?

[28:42] >> Oh, yeah. We've we've got permits for

[28:44] that. They've done they're doing an

[28:45] expansion on one of the other wings

[28:47] >> to add bedrooms for their family and

[28:50] family other family spaces and they're

[28:53] remodeling the entire inside.

[28:54] >> So that's ongoing or

[28:56] >> it's ongoing and someday it'll be done.

[28:59] [laughter]

[28:59] >> Right.

[29:03] » No further questions.

[29:05] >> Uh any members of the public uh that

[29:07] would like to comment on this?

[29:10] No.

[29:11] >> You would you be able to approach the

[29:13] mic, please?

[29:16] My name's Bill Gilbert. I live at 500

[29:19] Olive Hill Lane. I would like to know

[29:21] where

[29:23] >> Oh, where that house

[29:26] is in relation to mine

[29:28] cuz my our numbers are off. I'm 500. I'm

[29:32] at the corner of Albon and Olive Hill.

[29:39] » Are you my neighbor? I so so [laughter]

[29:44] we we'll pull up the map and I'll I'll

[29:45] show the the location here.

[29:48] >> So

[29:49] >> 566 feet away. [laughter]

[29:51] >> So uh

[29:53] >> you're in the next county per per Google

[29:55] Earth.

[29:56] >> This is it's it's as you go into where

[29:58] the private road is on Olive Hill. So

[30:00] once you pass the uh pylons that are

[30:02] right there, you're driving into the

[30:04] private road portion. It's behind that.

[30:06] >> And so Melanie will show it here. So,

[30:10] oh, you're between

[30:11] >> the white

[30:14] pillars.

[30:14] >> You see there on the map?

[30:16] >> You drive through the pillars and where

[30:17] the house.

[30:19] >> Oh, okay.

[30:21] >> No problem. Okay. Thank you.

[30:30] » Hill.

[30:32] >> Okay. Yeah.

[30:32] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[30:38] Uh any any other public comments?

[30:48] » Okay. Um so if there's anyone online

[30:51] would like to speak, please use the

[30:53] raise hand function.

[30:56] Seeing none.

[31:01] All right. Well, then we'll move to

[31:03] deliberation. Uh Lyle, do you want to do

[31:05] the honors?

[31:06] Um I visited the property on Monday

[31:10] and it was pretty clear that both the

[31:15] uh uh um from the report and then

[31:18] looking at the site that the old pool um

[31:23] was inside the side set back as is the

[31:26] new pool. Um, in this particular case,

[31:30] it's it is apparently not an issue for

[31:34] the neighbors because the neighboring

[31:35] property is the Green Gables estate and

[31:38] the nearest structure is on the order of

[31:40] like 250 or 300 ft away. So, they're not

[31:45] intruding into anyone else's backyard.

[31:49] and it seems to be the logical thing to

[31:52] do since the site is already uh

[31:54] disturbed and I have no problem making

[31:57] the findings and approving this.

[32:02] » Yeah, I I agree with uh everything

[32:04] there. Just make a comment that probably

[32:06] the old pool equipment was noisier than

[32:08] the new pool equipment. So So it's uh

[32:12] it's a benefit if anything. And then the

[32:15] safety issue with the uh automatic cover

[32:18] for the pool is another plus. So I

[32:22] agree.

[32:24] >> Yeah, I don't have too much further to

[32:26] add on the the substance of it. I think

[32:27] I mean it's in the same location as the

[32:29] old one. Uh actually recently moved to a

[32:33] place with a kidneyshaped pool as well.

[32:35] So we're going through the same thought

[32:36] process on on covers. Um so your

[32:39] bedroom's not adjacent to it, but not

[32:41] having frogs in there will save you a

[32:43] lot of sound.

[32:44] because there's 70 dB in our bedroom at

[32:46] night. Uh, not that you all care about

[32:48] that, but no, I mean, in general, I

[32:50] think the other thing I just want to say

[32:51] is kind of commending you all for uh for finding that house and and improving

[32:56] it in place. We see a lot of similar

[32:58] structures that kind of face the

[33:00] wrecking ball. So, it's it's cool to see

[33:01] one of the the kind of older rambling um

[33:05] type of houses kind of survive the

[33:08] transfer of ownership. So, I just think

[33:09] that's that's cool. Um, as well, but I

[33:12] have no problem making the findings uh

[33:14] either.

[33:17] Would anyone like to make a motion?

[33:20] >> A motion to approve the draft resolution

[33:23] uh for allowing the new pool within the

[33:26] setback for 301 Olive Hill Lane.

[33:31] >> And I would second that motion.

[33:34] >> Chair Gar.

[33:35] >> Yes.

[33:36] >> Commissioner Gerko.

[33:37] >> Yes. Commissioner Weaver.

[33:38] >> Yes.

[33:41] >> Right. Um, congratulations. Uh, with

[33:44] that, we have an appeal on this one.

[33:46] >> Yeah. So, there there's a 10-day appeal

[33:49] period. Um, so anyone who would like to

[33:51] file an appeal would contact the deputy

[33:53] town clerk.

[33:54] >> All right. Thank you. Okay. We will move

[33:57] on to the fourth and final item, which

[34:02] is one Montalina Court.

[34:05] Uh and Sage I believe that's you

[34:07] >> is me. Thank you. Um so

[34:09] uh

[34:11] yes just to explain the process for the

[34:13] public I'll give a brief presentation.

[34:14] There'll be questions of staff. The

[34:16] applicant will have an opportunity and

[34:17] then any members of the public who would

[34:19] like to speak can speak. Um so let's

[34:22] provide a brief presentation.

[34:40] Okay. Um, so, uh, just give a little

[34:43] brief background. Back in 1986, the

[34:45] properties were subdivided, um, from a

[34:47] previous property owner. Uh, the

[34:50] multiple easements were, um, included

[34:53] with the parcel map that was approved

[34:55] and recorded, um, approved by the town

[34:58] and recorded at the county. the

[35:01] property. One of the easements is a

[35:03] conservation easement that's 80 feet

[35:04] wide along the frontage of parcel one

[35:07] which is one Montilena Lane and then

[35:09] parcel 3 which is two Montelena Lane. Um

[35:12] those two parcels have the conservation

[35:14] easement. I do want to note that um

[35:16] beyond these properties on either side

[35:19] there are no connecting conservation

[35:21] easements.

[35:22] >> Um and uh even this these two

[35:25] conservation easements actually don't

[35:26] adjoin each other. They're split

[35:28] bisected by Montilena Corps. Um the

[35:32] applicant

[35:34] uh is um has been pursuing uh a desire

[35:38] to install an ADU on the property and uh

[35:41] this property is unique in that it does

[35:43] have different constraints. Although

[35:45] it's over a little over 3 acres, um the

[35:48] property has the easement constraints

[35:50] and part of one of those easement

[35:51] constraints is what's called a storm

[35:53] drain easement. Uh but it's a kind of a

[35:56] mixture of a drainage ditch and some

[35:57] underground pipes. Um so you can see

[36:00] that kind of weaving through the

[36:02] property in this location where my

[36:04] cursor is. Um so that bicts uh from the kind of the western part of the

[36:10] property where the conservation easement

[36:12] is uh from kind of the eastern part of

[36:16] the property. And the you'll notice that

[36:19] there's the main residence already

[36:20] constructed. There's a barn that's

[36:22] already constructed. Um, and then a

[36:24] riding arena and turnout area for the

[36:26] horses. Um, there's a driveway with a

[36:28] turnaround on that. Um, and in order to

[36:33] make an ADU work on this property, it's

[36:36] likely it really has to be located in

[36:38] the area where this conservation

[36:39] easement is today.

[36:41] um because uh it's not only the building

[36:44] itself but the other uh thing that comes

[36:47] with the building is septic system and

[36:50] um that often takes a very large area of

[36:53] land. So you'll see that this is a

[36:55] percolation test that the applicant is

[36:57] pursuing

[36:59] um if the easement can be formally

[37:02] abandoned and then they can come in with

[37:04] their permits for an ADU or potentially

[37:06] two ADUs if they can fit. it would be up

[37:08] to them uh but they would have that

[37:10] potential. So in removing this this

[37:13] process is to uh it's two steps. So the

[37:16] first step is what we are uh doing

[37:18] tonight and that is to look for

[37:21] conformance with the general plan and

[37:23] really a better way to kind of think

[37:25] about that is does this proposal

[37:26] conflict with anything in the general

[37:29] plan? Is this specific conservation

[37:31] easement called out for some specific

[37:33] use in the general plan? Um and it is

[37:35] not uh it is you know there are policies

[37:39] about retaining open space and

[37:42] conservation areas. Um as outlined in

[37:44] the staff report this is immediately

[37:46] adjacent to highway 84. There is no

[37:48] connectivity to other uh conservation or

[37:51] open space easements. um it does not

[37:54] provide any significant habitat value

[37:56] and we do have now as many are aware uh

[38:02] much more interest and mandates from the

[38:04] state to increase housing numbers um

[38:06] given the other constraints on this

[38:08] property. Uh staff has kind of weighed

[38:10] the different policies of the general

[38:12] plan and we do have determined that this

[38:15] proposal is consistent with the general

[38:17] plan. Uh we do recommend approval of the

[38:20] project. And one thing I forgot to note

[38:22] is I do want to also note that there is

[38:25] this what's called a multi-safety trail

[38:28] easement. Um it's not currently active,

[38:30] but that's immediately adjacent to

[38:32] Woodside Road. That would not be removed

[38:34] as part of this. I just want to clarify

[38:36] that. And on that parcel map, um it's

[38:39] actually quite common. You'll see on

[38:41] parcel maps that are adjacent to a very

[38:43] busy road, uh they have these little

[38:46] dash marks. I can even show you. Um, and

[38:49] these uh little hatch marks here are

[38:52] indicating that it's non-access. Um, so

[38:54] this would not be considered the front

[38:56] property line. Uh, giving it enough

[38:58] space for the ADU. The Montelina Court

[39:01] is considered the front property line.

[39:03] Uh, so they would just have to stay

[39:04] further away from Montelina Court, but

[39:06] still have the ability to place one or

[39:08] more ADUs in this area of the property

[39:11] as well as the septic system. Um so

[39:13] again to clarify staff does recommend

[39:15] approval of this and if the planning

[39:17] commission finds that um it can uh that

[39:23] this project is in conformance with the

[39:25] general plan then it will go to the town

[39:28] council on July 28th and they can take

[39:31] formal action um to approve the

[39:34] abandonment if they make the findings.

[39:37] That concludes my presentation.

[39:40] Only question I have. So in this in this

[39:41] diagram the the 15 MSTE is the two

[39:45] remains. So it's really not 80 that's

[39:48] going

[39:49] >> they overlap, right? So the the easement

[39:52] is 80 ft and then trail easement is 15

[39:55] ft within that 80 ft

[39:56] >> but effectively there's 65 ft that are

[39:58] coming out of the

[39:59] >> uh Yeah. Right. So they wouldn't be able

[40:01] to put a building in the easement.

[40:03] >> Um so anything would still I'm sorry and

[40:05] to clarify that trail easement.

[40:07] >> Okay. Then the setbacks will still be

[40:09] from Woodside Road.

[40:10] >> It will be it'll be from Woodside Road.

[40:11] It's a side property line. So, as we

[40:14] note that there are reduced setbacks for

[40:16] ADUs on side property lines, but they

[40:18] will have to stay outside of the trail

[40:19] easement. Um, and they'll still need to

[40:22] meet the front setback.

[40:24] >> And how will that usually with ADUs it

[40:26] can be as low as four with the So,

[40:29] that's from the property line. So, they

[40:30] could get because of this 15 ft, they

[40:32] would already meet that. Um, so the ADU

[40:35] could theoretically be as close as on

[40:37] the

[40:38] >> it could be adjacent to the trail

[40:40] easement. Um, and uh I should note that

[40:43] you know

[40:45] up to 800 square f feet of that would be

[40:47] the case.

[40:50] >> Okay, that's all the questions I have.

[40:54] Um, Sage, um, if the staff has looked at

[41:00] this and is of the opinion that the only

[41:04] place to put an ADU on this property

[41:07] would be within the conservation

[41:08] easement. Where does this property stand

[41:11] right now with respect to reaching its

[41:15] maximum amount of hardscape and

[41:17] developed area?

[41:19] >> That's a good question. haven't analyzed

[41:21] the details of the hardscape. Um,

[41:25] eyeballing it there, you know, all of

[41:27] the the Ryan arenas, those are all

[41:30] exempt. Um, it doesn't have a lot of

[41:32] paved area other than the driveway

[41:34] itself, which a good portion of that

[41:35] gets exempt. Uh, the turnaround gets

[41:38] exempt. Uh, so we're kind of really

[41:40] looking at the back patio and pool

[41:41] areas. uh they definitely have uh I have

[41:44] looked at I don't know the exact numbers

[41:46] but they have more than enough room from

[41:47] a floor area standpoint as well as we

[41:50] have some exemptions for floor area on

[41:51] ADUs. Um so you know it's one the ADU

[41:55] but also two what needs to accompany

[41:57] that ADU the with the utilities meaning

[42:00] the septic system

[42:16] uh then we can move on to the applicant

[42:19] presentation.

[42:22] Uh, Rebecca, would you like to do a

[42:24] presentation? It's up to you. Um,

[42:33] » a big difference.

[42:35] >> Okay.

[42:38] Well, I want to thank you for giving me

[42:40] an opportunity to address the town on

[42:43] the issues blocking the path to our ADU

[42:46] permitting. I'm going to go into things

[42:48] that are going to be pretty hardedged

[42:50] and I don't mean to, but we were very

[42:52] shocked and dismayed by our

[42:53] representation in the report and we need

[42:57] to clarify a lot of um situations.

[43:00] So, first I need to address the number

[43:02] of fallacies and inaccuracies in this

[43:04] report as well as explain the situation

[43:06] over the years since the report is not

[43:09] completely accurate and puts us in a

[43:11] negative light. The quote conservation

[43:13] easement end quote was never created

[43:15] properly or legally. No reason was ever

[43:18] given for having a conservation easement

[43:20] and literally no one knows why it was

[43:22] ever needed nor what it conserves. A

[43:25] note on the plat does not constitute a

[43:28] contract. A contract has six legal

[43:30] requirements and this note does not meet

[43:32] any of them. Thus, it is it has no legal

[43:35] standing as a contract. And I don't know

[43:37] if you've even gone over Sage, do they

[43:39] know that the only reference to a

[43:42] conservation easement is that one note

[43:44] on the plat map?

[43:46] >> Yes, the the e it's been explained that

[43:49] the easement is from the subdivision

[43:51] map.

[43:52] >> Okay. Um

[43:54] a contract must be drawn between two

[43:57] willing legal parties who can sign and

[43:59] perform the responsibilities of the same

[44:02] contract. This conservation easement was

[44:05] dedicated to quote the residents of

[44:06] Woodside and their guests end quote.

[44:09] That group is not a legal entity that

[44:11] can be party to a contract. Who would

[44:14] sign it? Who would be responsible out of

[44:17] the, you know, residents of Woodside and

[44:19] their guests. Thus, this platmap note

[44:22] does not constitute a contract. Further,

[44:25] conservation easements can only be

[44:26] legally dedicated to three entities:

[44:29] civic organizations, conservation

[44:31] groups, or tribes. Quote, "The residents

[44:34] of Woodside and their guests," end

[44:36] quote, is none of these, and thus they

[44:38] cannot receive, hold, or administer a

[44:40] conservation easement. Thus, this

[44:42] conservation easement is not dedicated

[44:44] to any legal holder. Additionally, there

[44:47] are only two documents with reference to

[44:49] this easement. the plat map note and a

[44:53] mention in minutes of a meeting of

[44:54] acceptance in which the town accepts the

[44:57] easement. It's uh council resolution

[45:00] 1984-4130

[45:03] something. I'm sorry I didn't write it

[45:05] down here. A different entity cannot

[45:08] usurp and take over a dedication made to

[45:10] another group. The plat conservation

[45:13] easement was dedicated to the residents

[45:15] of Woodside and their guests, not to the

[45:17] town of Woodside.

[45:19] As Joan Gallow, our attorney at the

[45:22] time, stated in her email of uh 12 of

[45:25] December 10th, 2007, without a proper

[45:29] instrument of conveyance, the town is

[45:31] not free to guess at its purpose or to

[45:33] whom it was dedicated. Thus, with no

[45:36] purpose, no legal contract, and no

[45:38] dedication to the town itself, the town

[45:40] cannot claim this easement. Thus, again,

[45:43] the town has no conservation easement.

[45:46] Finally, creating a conservation

[45:48] easement is a complex process with many

[45:51] specific requirements, none of which is

[45:53] met by this uh map note. First, it must

[45:57] define the conservation purpose. It must

[46:00] draw up a contract clearly stating what

[46:02] is to be protected and why. Then, an

[46:05] appraisal of the land is needed. Then,

[46:07] remuneration or benefit must be given. A

[46:09] baseline study of the conserved items is

[46:12] required. and annual reports on same are

[46:15] needed as proof of responsible

[46:17] stewardship.

[46:18] The holder of the conservation easement

[46:20] must always defend it and if changes are

[46:23] needed a formal amendment process must

[46:27] be followed. Not one of these

[46:29] requirements is met by this plat mapap

[46:31] note. Thus again there is no properly

[46:34] created conservation easement. When

[46:36] these legal findings were presented to

[46:38] the town in 2007 and 2008 by Joan Gallow

[46:42] Esquire, the town recognized the

[46:44] validity of her legal analysis and

[46:46] abandoned the conservation easement

[46:49] through acquiescence.

[46:51] This was demonstrated by a number of

[46:53] actions and facts, mainly that the town

[46:55] allowed construction of fencing and

[46:57] horse shelters without a conservation

[47:00] easement amendment, as would have been

[47:02] necessary if a conservation easement

[47:04] were actually in place. Instead, the

[47:07] town issued over-the-counter permits to

[47:09] us with payment of $900 paid by check

[47:12] number 1217 dated March 27, 2008, which

[47:17] I hand delivered to Joanne Kurts at the

[47:20] building counter that same day. I have

[47:23] photocopies of the check

[47:26] to prove that I can leave with you.

[47:29] Actually,

[47:30] um

[47:33] the fact that Joanne or whomever did may

[47:35] not have recorded the permits properly

[47:37] in the town files may be a simple

[47:39] oversight error, but we have proof of

[47:41] payment for the fencing and the permit

[47:43] shelters and and the shelter permits,

[47:46] which brings me to the wrongful

[47:48] accusations in this report. On page

[47:51] three, there's a statement that says,

[47:53] quote, "Over the past several years, the

[47:55] current owner, that's us, has created a

[47:58] horse turnout area with fencing and

[48:00] small structures which has not been

[48:01] permitted by the town." End quote. We

[48:04] were permitted by the town. We don't

[48:06] have the permits, but we paid for them

[48:09] and they and I kept talking to Hope

[48:12] because it took a long time for them to

[48:14] deliver the permits and we were not able

[48:16] to put the shelters up until the permits

[48:18] came through. That is completely untrue

[48:21] that we have that it was not permitted

[48:24] and that we use that space without

[48:26] permits.

[48:28] Uh

[48:30] our check shows the record of that. The

[48:33] report goes on to say, quote, "The honor

[48:35] the owner insists that the town should

[48:37] not have created conservation easement

[48:39] when the prior owner subdivided the land

[48:41] and therefore has continued to use the

[48:43] area for a horse turnout.

[48:45] [clears throat] This is also not an

[48:47] accurate depiction. Our point is that

[48:49] there is no legally created conservation

[48:51] easement dedicated to the town. So the

[48:53] town never has had a legal conservation

[48:55] easement as a town agreed and

[48:58] demonstrated by its actions of

[48:59] acquiescence in 2008. We only use the

[49:03] area as fenced and sheltered turnout

[49:05] after getting permission from the town

[49:07] and the permits from the town in 2008

[49:10] when the town acknowledged that there

[49:12] was no legal conservation easement and

[49:14] allowed fencing and shelters to be built

[49:16] in that area with no amendment. just the

[49:18] over-the-counter permits paid by us on

[49:20] March 27th, 2008. The report continues

[49:24] with more falsehoods. Quote, "The town

[49:26] has requested the removal of the horse

[49:28] turnout area and restoration of the

[49:30] conservation easement without success."

[49:32] End quote. We have never received any

[49:36] request like that from the town. So, I

[49:39] request that the town please supply

[49:40] evidence of such a request and any

[49:42] denial from us that it ever received

[49:45] there because none exists. These false

[49:48] and inaccurate statements paint us as

[49:50] rogue citizens when we are anything but.

[49:53] These statements also rise to the level

[49:55] of liel since they are untrue. They are

[49:58] printed and they are publicly shared

[50:00] with third parties. These statements not

[50:02] only hurt our personal reputations, but

[50:05] they extend to damaging my reputation as

[50:08] a boarding stable owner and manager. And

[50:10] given that, we demand that the town

[50:12] either show evidentiary proof to back up

[50:15] these statements or failing that, issue

[50:17] a public apology and retraction since

[50:20] this is by legal definition defamation.

[50:24] I have already had to defend myself to a

[50:26] neighbor who called about this report

[50:28] last night. The damage is done since

[50:30] this report is already in the public

[50:32] domain. We have no way of knowing how

[50:34] many read it and believe it and how much

[50:36] damage it will create to us personally

[50:38] and professionally. This is not a small

[50:42] matter to us, nor should it be to the

[50:45] town and the citizens of Woodside.

[50:47] According to Sage Sha, he received the

[50:50] above inaccurate information from the

[50:52] town attorney, Jean Sabie, who was on

[50:54] duty in 2008 and thus knows those

[50:57] statements are not true.

[51:00] Further, in 2021, that same town

[51:02] attorney told the town council that we

[51:04] had threatened to sue the town. Another

[51:07] point she she knows not to be true since

[51:09] she had been assured in two different

[51:11] emails from Joan Gallow at the time

[51:13] which I have provided for you. One from

[51:16] 10:01 a.m. on December 10th, 2007. And

[51:20] the second email marked 1:57 p.m. on

[51:23] December 10th, 2007, that we were not

[51:26] latigious and were actually trying to

[51:28] protect the town from possible

[51:30] additional erosion of easement if others

[51:34] may have been quote created in the same

[51:36] improper manner. Her action of telling

[51:39] the town council that we were

[51:40] threatening suit kept us from being

[51:42] allowed to present our side of the issue

[51:44] to the town council in their closed

[51:46] session meeting on the easement. that

[51:49] intentional misleading constitutes a

[51:51] violation of the Brown Act and giving

[51:54] false information to a third party is

[51:56] also a breach of lawyer ethics as stated

[51:58] by the California State Bar.

[52:01] Additionally, in 2008, the town

[52:04] attorney, Miss Savvere, contacted Joan

[52:06] Gallow inquiring, since the Plat Map

[52:09] conservation easement was not valid as

[52:12] she recognized, would the widows be

[52:14] interested in creating a new one that

[52:16] would meet our own needs? We declined

[52:19] that offer. We do not want a

[52:20] conservation easement on our property.

[52:22] It takes up almost threequarters of an

[52:24] acre of our property. Makes it unusable.

[52:27] But again, that shows that Miss Savi

[52:29] recognized the invalid status of the

[52:31] Plat Map conservation easement and the

[52:33] need for a valid one to be drawn up.

[52:36] This report also mentions the MST

[52:39] easement noted on the plat map on our

[52:41] property and on that of our neighbor

[52:43] Bill Butler.

[52:45] That easement across the Butler property

[52:47] to the Howard Boone Trail and on into

[52:50] Wonderlick Park was directed by the

[52:52] trails committee to be open for safety

[52:54] of equestrians in 2014 and $5,000 was

[52:59] allocated by the town for trail

[53:00] development. However, that project was

[53:03] preemptively shut down by Mr. Butler

[53:06] simply saying no and not allowing the

[53:08] town on his property. Thus, the town

[53:11] once again decided not to defend an

[53:13] invalid easement and abandoned it

[53:15] through acquiescence,

[53:17] allowing Mr. Butler to refuse town

[53:19] action due to no legal easement with no

[53:22] consequence, yet insisting that our

[53:24] property remain encumbered by bogus

[53:27] easements that are no more than

[53:28] contractually empty notes on a plat

[53:32] of double standard discrimination.

[53:35] We are thankful that the town attorney

[53:37] and the planning department staff now

[53:39] recognize that quote given that the

[53:41] conservation easement is only 80 ft wide

[53:43] adjacent to a state highway does not

[53:45] provide suitable wildlife habitat or

[53:48] connectivity to other conservation

[53:49] easements. The abandonment of the

[53:51] subject conservation easement at one

[53:53] Montelena lane and it's it's Montilena

[53:56] court. So if you could correct that in

[53:57] all the records will not conflict with

[54:00] the general plan.

[54:03] So this conservation easement serves no

[54:06] purpose or benefit and they recommend

[54:08] abandonment. We are also relieved that

[54:11] no sequel review is necessary. However,

[54:13] since we have brought forth evidence

[54:15] that no conservation easement was ever

[54:17] properly and legally created,

[54:19] abandonment is actually a moot point

[54:21] since no conservation easement exists to

[54:24] abandoned.

[54:25] That conservation easement was

[54:27] determined not to be legally extent in

[54:29] 2008 and was given up by the town

[54:31] through its acquiescence through its

[54:34] acquiescent actions. And now it is also

[54:36] determined to serve no public benefit

[54:39] and not be necessary at all since there

[54:41] never was a purpose given for it. Proper

[54:43] League or prop process was not followed

[54:46] and no reason for it exists even now. We

[54:49] now ask that the new building

[54:51] restrictions this report seeks to impose

[54:53] on our property be dropped since there

[54:55] is no legal justification for the town

[54:57] imposing any new restrictions on our

[55:00] property rights. The town's actions have

[55:03] been done have done enough financial and

[55:05] emotional damage to us by ministerally

[55:08] blocking the ADU process for five years

[55:11] with a legally untenable opinion that

[55:14] there is a conservation easement

[55:16] belonging to the town on our property

[55:18] exhibiting discrimination against us

[55:20] through double standard actions and now

[55:22] causing additional harm by publishing

[55:24] lielist fallacies about us personally

[55:26] and professionally.

[55:28] Over the years, we have asked the town

[55:30] repeatedly to provide evidence of

[55:32] illegal conservation easement and have

[55:35] had two um Freedom of Information Act

[55:38] searches done as well as searches at our

[55:40] title company. The town simply does not

[55:43] have any legal evidence of a properly

[55:46] created conservation easement. We

[55:48] however have provided evidence and now

[55:51] ask the town to provide actual evidence

[55:53] of their claims, not just opinion, false

[55:56] accusations, and dictim. Enough is

[55:59] enough. It's time to return ethics and

[56:02] propriety to the town of Woodside. And

[56:05] finally,

[56:08] while my husband and I have been truly

[56:09] blessed all our lives with vitality and

[56:12] good health, the last four weeks has

[56:14] handed us, excuse me, a huge dose of

[56:18] reality.

[56:20] My husband, who would have been here to

[56:22] stand with me tonight, I'm sorry,

[56:27] has suffered two life-threatening

[56:29] situations demanding immediate emergency

[56:33] operations, all within 10 days time. one

[56:36] for a brain bleed that rendered to him a

[56:39] phasia and another for a seriously huge

[56:42] pulmonary emblem that literally took his

[56:44] breath away and weakened him to the

[56:46] point of not being able to walk more

[56:48] than 10 ft at a time. I'm sorry.

[56:52] Thankfully, during due to miraculous

[56:55] medical techniques, he is in recovery,

[56:57] but the need for this ADU is more urgent

[57:00] than ever. We cannot afford to let this

[57:02] town obstruct the ADU process any

[57:05] longer. We need to get the ADU built so

[57:08] that we may peacefully age in place on

[57:10] our beloved property. This ADU will also

[57:13] help the town meet its quarter

[57:15] requirements of the state.

[57:19] And that is an immediate public benefit.

[57:21] The personal benefits will give us a

[57:23] place to age and place in a more

[57:24] medically appropriate home. There is no

[57:27] detriment to the town by advancing the

[57:30] ADU permitting process for this project.

[57:32] Only good will come of it. We've already

[57:35] lost 5 years to the town's ministerial

[57:38] obstructions. While our time on this

[57:40] earth is rapidly running out. Given all

[57:43] those facts and findings, we request

[57:45] that the conservation easement be

[57:47] declared null and void, that no more

[57:49] incumbrances be put on our property and

[57:52] that the ADU permitting process be

[57:54] allowed to begin immediately. Thank you

[57:56] for your attention, for your valuable

[57:58] voluntary service to our town, and for

[58:01] being caring civil stewards working to

[58:03] restore ethics and propriety to the town

[58:06] of Woodside. And I'm happy to answer any

[58:08] questions. And I I do also want to

[58:10] mention that the MST easement is 15 ft

[58:15] um into our property. We're planning the

[58:18] ADU will be 25 to 30 feet set set back

[58:21] from the side and 50 feet from the more

[58:24] than 50 feet actually from the

[58:26] courtyard. And it's literally the only

[58:28] place we have to put it

[58:31] due to leech fields and other

[58:34] construction on the property. And I'm

[58:36] sorry I lost

[58:38] got emotional. Anyway, if you

[58:41] >> comprehensive

[58:42] >> any questions on anything?

[58:46] I would love it if you could correct the reports.

[58:50] >> So, ma'am, you said that um a permit was

[58:53] issued, but you do not have the physical

[58:56] permit.

[58:57] >> I did not have the physical permit

[58:58] because I believe one, it took months

[59:01] for them to get it to us. I have emails

[59:04] back and forth with Hope Sullivan, who

[59:06] was um here at the time, saying,

[59:08] "Where's our permit? Where is our

[59:10] permit?" And when it finally arrived,

[59:13] um, and the reason we knew, we didn't

[59:18] even know we needed permits because

[59:19] these are units that are less than 120

[59:22] ft or 140 ft. What is it, Sage?

[59:26] 120 ft. These are just gazebo type um,

[59:29] open-sided things. And Hope had said

[59:32] because they were under that, we didn't

[59:34] need a permit. And so we went ahead and

[59:37] ordered them and got them were getting

[59:39] them installed. when Joanne Curts came

[59:41] by and red tagged us, which scared the

[59:44] hell out of me. I have never been red

[59:46] tagged and I didn't know what it meant

[59:47] and I was upset and she said, "Oh, don't

[59:50] worry. You know, you just need to get

[59:52] permits." Um, and so I called Hope and I

[59:55] said, "You told me we didn't need

[59:56] permits." And she said, "No, you don't

[59:58] need to go to ASRB. You just need to get

[1:00:00] an over-the-counter permit for them." So

[1:00:03] that's when on May on March 27th I went

[1:00:06] down and Joanne was at the counter and I

[1:00:09] laughed because again I I lost it with

[1:00:11] her uh because I thought we were doing

[1:00:14] something really wrong and we're not

[1:00:16] that type of people. Um and so we

[1:00:18] laughed about my reaction to her red tag

[1:00:22] all of that. Um and and then we finally

[1:00:26] did get the permits, but the permits

[1:00:28] were left with a you know this um they

[1:00:32] weren't put on our house or anything. I

[1:00:34] think they tacked one to the tree where

[1:00:36] they were doing the work and I just

[1:00:38] didn't save it. I didn't know it was

[1:00:40] necessary to save it. The town makes

[1:00:43] mistakes. Um the fact that they I went

[1:00:46] down and I actually looked for the

[1:00:48] permit. I also looked for a neighbor's

[1:00:50] permit one time and could they couldn't

[1:00:51] find it either, but he had built the

[1:00:54] prop the uh the uh it was a it's a

[1:00:58] little shed at the edge of our driveway

[1:01:00] and the town couldn't find his permit

[1:01:03] either. Um but he had one. He's a

[1:01:06] contractor. I know he doesn't do it

[1:01:09] without permits. Um it was Bill Butler.

[1:01:13] So, um, and we owned a property on

[1:01:17] Barrett and, uh, that was supposedly

[1:01:20] not, um, applicable for horses because

[1:01:24] it had been voted in a meeting that

[1:01:26] horses weren't going to be allowed in

[1:01:28] that part of Woodside Hills, but the

[1:01:31] town never recorded it. So, we were able

[1:01:33] to keep horses there. So, the town makes

[1:01:35] mistakes. We all make mistakes, but we

[1:01:38] have the proof. The town has not given

[1:01:40] any proof other than opinion. And the

[1:01:43] opinion of Jean Savvere has been proven

[1:01:47] by two three other lawyers. Now we've

[1:01:49] had three lawyers look at this not to

[1:01:51] sue but to give us advice.

[1:01:54] >> Um we are not latigious. We know better

[1:01:57] than to go up against a town that has

[1:01:59] unlimited funds and it's not any

[1:02:01] individual's funds and the way things

[1:02:04] work they can bleed you dry. So we do

[1:02:07] not do that. Um, we try to work amicably

[1:02:12] and we were very shocked and dismayed at

[1:02:15] uh the portrayal of us in this report

[1:02:19] and we need to either have evidentary

[1:02:23] um, you know, if we forgotten something,

[1:02:25] hey, we're almost 80 years old. We may

[1:02:28] have forgotten something, but I don't

[1:02:29] think we'd forget the town coming to us

[1:02:31] and say, "Tear out the horse shelters,

[1:02:33] tear out the fencing, and return it to a

[1:02:35] conservation easement that did not

[1:02:36] exist."

[1:02:38] So, all of that needs to be um

[1:02:42] uh apologized for and recanted.

[1:02:46] And if you have any more questions, I'm

[1:02:48] happy to answer them.

[1:02:51] And I don't mean this this is not

[1:02:52] anything. I'm giving more information

[1:02:54] probably than I need to here, but it had

[1:02:57] to come out when I saw that report and

[1:03:00] how we were portrayed and the falsities

[1:03:03] of it and that it again is coming from

[1:03:05] Jean Savvery who has been the one. I

[1:03:08] don't know what her what her problem is.

[1:03:11] Uh she knows that in 2008 this was all

[1:03:15] taken care of. Unfortunately, again, had

[1:03:17] I kept a permit in 2008, had we insisted

[1:03:21] that they take this off the record, you

[1:03:24] know, we don't deal with this every day

[1:03:26] and we just don't know.

[1:03:30] You know, we're we're not dumb, but

[1:03:32] we're not experienced in everything. So

[1:03:39] you

[1:03:44] » I have a question for Sage. Um

[1:03:47] so as as a uh in a larger scope when

[1:03:53] easements are created uh are

[1:03:56] does a town have many easements with u

[1:04:00] no justifications and things that are

[1:04:02] put on properties when they request

[1:04:05] subdivision things like that. How are

[1:04:07] they different from uh let's say a

[1:04:10] proper easement where uh it talks about

[1:04:13] the reason for the easement etc etc.

[1:04:17] >> Um I can't speak to allegations of

[1:04:20] non-justification. There's uh it went

[1:04:23] through a subdivision process that went

[1:04:25] through public hearings. The subdivision

[1:04:27] was recorded and on the recorded map it

[1:04:31] had the town accepting the easements.

[1:04:35] I can answer that or I can add to that

[1:04:37] because Joan Galla was a lawyer who

[1:04:39] worked on a a situation at 2000 Porto

[1:04:43] Road evidently at the time in the early

[1:04:47] to mid80s.

[1:04:49] I don't know if it was common in other

[1:04:52] towns, but it was evidently common in

[1:04:53] Woodside that when they did

[1:04:55] subdivisions, they made the land owners

[1:04:58] give them things. Um

[1:05:02] I don't want to use the word extortion

[1:05:04] but it applies and um they were called

[1:05:08] up short on it. Ga Joan Gallow actually

[1:05:12] litigated the 2000 Porto road and it's

[1:05:15] in one of her emails to Jean Savvere

[1:05:18] that um the town used to do this and

[1:05:20] then they were told to cease and desist

[1:05:23] doing that. And I know when I was on the

[1:05:25] trails committee, we were told um by

[1:05:27] Rick de Benadetti that often times one

[1:05:30] of the things that they would ask for is

[1:05:32] equestrian trail access across a

[1:05:34] property. And he said, "But we, you

[1:05:36] know, we're very limited now. We can't

[1:05:38] always do that. We can request it, but

[1:05:40] we can't demand it." And so there was at

[1:05:44] that time um if you want a subdivision,

[1:05:48] you're going to have to do this. And

[1:05:49] there's also um a note

[1:05:53] here

[1:05:55] that um

[1:06:01] that okay

[1:06:05] and this is from I don't know town of

[1:06:07] Woodside inter office memo from December

[1:06:09] 3rd 1979

[1:06:11] and I it just said the former access to

[1:06:13] wood it says conservation easements are

[1:06:16] not offered so they're looking for

[1:06:18] conservation easements at that at that

[1:06:20] time and um But again, that's not a

[1:06:23] terribly legal thing to be to be to be

[1:06:27] doing at that time or or after.

[1:06:31] So,

[1:06:36] I don't have any specific questions. I

[1:06:38] think what I wanted to mention, I mean,

[1:06:40] it sounds like there's a lot of of

[1:06:42] history here, right?

[1:06:43] >> A lot of history.

[1:06:45] >> And also, I want to keep us us focused

[1:06:47] on what planning commission is is sort

[1:06:49] of reviewing, right? So I don't believe

[1:06:52] it's or appreciate you sharing all of

[1:06:55] all the history at the same time.

[1:06:56] >> I wanted to get it into the record. If

[1:06:57] you have to go to town council, I want

[1:06:59] this in the record from the beginning.

[1:07:01] >> Right. And I think our our job is to

[1:07:04] determine is this consistent with

[1:07:06] general plan and can we make the the

[1:07:08] recommendations

[1:07:09] on the abandonment rather than the the

[1:07:13] full legal history, which I don't think

[1:07:15] we're in a position to do. Um w with

[1:07:18] that I think just our discussion should

[1:07:21] focus on can we make these final those

[1:07:24] issues

[1:07:24] >> me to stay or sit down?

[1:07:25] >> Uh you you can you can sit down. We're

[1:07:27] going to do uh public if there's anyone

[1:07:29] who do that and then we'll do

[1:07:31] deliberation and we can call you back up

[1:07:32] if needed.

[1:07:34] >> Are there any members of the public who

[1:07:37] make a statement on this issue?

[1:07:39] >> For those online, please use the raise

[1:07:41] hand feature if you'd like to make a

[1:07:42] comment.

[1:07:45] And there are no raised hands.

[1:07:49] >> Okay. Then we can move on to uh

[1:07:52] deliberation.

[1:07:55] >> Richard, do you want to pick someone?

[1:07:57] Um,

[1:07:58] so based on staff's recommendations and

[1:08:01] specifically Jean's recommendations,

[1:08:04] uh, legally it seems that, uh, the town

[1:08:08] wants to make this this decision and,

[1:08:11] uh, the other factors as far as it being

[1:08:14] next to the road, a large road. Um and

[1:08:20] that whole most of that area is going to

[1:08:22] be used as a leech field in addition to

[1:08:24] the building which will fairly keep it

[1:08:27] fairly natural. Uh I really don't have

[1:08:30] any objection in in saying that uh the

[1:08:34] we should the town should abandon the

[1:08:36] easement.

[1:08:40] Um,

[1:08:43] in some ways, um, my own thoughts are in

[1:08:46] agreement with Richards and I like the

[1:08:48] way that he's thinking on this.

[1:08:50] At the same time,

[1:08:53] um,

[1:08:55] we're being asked here to sort of

[1:08:59] unilaterally

[1:09:00] abandon the entire easement

[1:09:04] in the context of the fact that the a

[1:09:10] projected future not yet designed ADU in

[1:09:13] Leechfield is going to take up the

[1:09:15] entire portion of the property. And I'm

[1:09:19] just concerned about what sort of

[1:09:22] precedent that would set

[1:09:25] for other properties where

[1:09:29] properties have been subdivided in the

[1:09:31] past. The person subdividing the

[1:09:34] property accepted the existence of the

[1:09:37] easements and the current owners

[1:09:40] inherited that when they purchased the

[1:09:42] property.

[1:09:43] And

[1:09:45] my concern would be setting the

[1:09:47] precedent that whenever someone says

[1:09:50] they want I'd like to build an ADU

[1:09:54] that they can just go and based on this

[1:09:58] example we just give up the entire

[1:10:00] conservation easement. It's sort of when

[1:10:04] we do a variance where

[1:10:08] um further development on a property has

[1:10:10] to intrude into a setback,

[1:10:13] the project is usually more fully

[1:10:17] defined and we have

[1:10:20] definitive circumstances which which

[1:10:23] explain

[1:10:25] why there has to be an intrusion into

[1:10:27] the setback.

[1:10:30] And if

[1:10:33] they're and that if the only way to

[1:10:38] accomplish a positive goal for the town

[1:10:41] or the owners is to intrude into a

[1:10:44] setback

[1:10:46] and to deny them that would be a

[1:10:48] hardship

[1:10:50] where there's no reasonable alternative.

[1:10:53] Then that's fine. But it seems like the

[1:10:55] burden would have to be on the owners to

[1:10:59] present more details on why the only

[1:11:04] possible alternative is for the town to

[1:11:07] give up the easement.

[1:11:09] Um I'm not absolutely wedded to that one

[1:11:12] way or the other and I'm happy to have

[1:11:14] you guys push my thinking one direction

[1:11:17] or the other.

[1:11:20] >> Yeah. Uh yeah. No, [clears throat] it's

[1:11:24] getting a little

[1:11:25] >> Okay, we we'll continue discussion and

[1:11:27] then we can we can proceed with

[1:11:29] questions if if needed. Um yeah, I think

[1:11:32] I mean you raised an interesting point,

[1:11:34] Lyall, on on that. And because I I I

[1:11:37] look at this and I think

[1:11:40] so easement aside, this feels very much

[1:11:43] like the type of project where

[1:11:46] um like if there if this were a setback

[1:11:49] variance, for example, it it feels like

[1:11:51] a very clear-cut situation where

[1:11:56] um I don't even think we'd be in this

[1:11:59] position because the state would

[1:12:00] probably have the the the the um

[1:12:04] the mandate with the four feet setbacks

[1:12:06] and whatnot. Yeah. So, you know, it

[1:12:09] >> it feels like we wouldn't even, you

[1:12:10] know, be here if the easement well, we

[1:12:11] wouldn't be here if the easement weren't

[1:12:13] in place.

[1:12:14] >> I when I look at the site, I mean, I

[1:12:16] think the frame of reference that we

[1:12:19] usually think through. So, maybe I'll

[1:12:21] just use setbacks for the the typical

[1:12:23] let's assume this was a build in a

[1:12:25] setback variance, maybe not an ADU and

[1:12:27] the state weren't, you know, involved.

[1:12:30] uh in that situation we would be looking

[1:12:32] at

[1:12:33] um you know can we make the findings on

[1:12:36] there's not a good alternative place on

[1:12:38] the site is it consistent with the

[1:12:40] general plan and from that vantage and

[1:12:44] then we're talking about is the easement

[1:12:45] abandonment consistent with general plan

[1:12:47] right it it feels like I would have zero

[1:12:50] problems making the findings in a

[1:12:53] setback variance in this case which I

[1:12:55] know is not the legally binding thing

[1:12:57] here which is why this one gets

[1:12:58] confusing Um, but I think it's worth

[1:13:01] kind of thinking through that.

[1:13:03] >> Well, could you elaborate on the

[1:13:04] statement that it's not legally binding?

[1:13:07] >> Uh,

[1:13:09] the which the the easement which piece?

[1:13:14] >> Well, there seems to be a point of issue

[1:13:16] between the property owners and the town

[1:13:18] as to whether the easement is legal or

[1:13:21] not.

[1:13:21] >> Uh, no, sorry, I wasn't trying to make a

[1:13:23] statement piece. what I was was saying

[1:13:25] is more like from the perspective of

[1:13:28] general plan conformance.

[1:13:32] >> This feels like it would be a a a

[1:13:33] variance that that I would certainly be

[1:13:36] inclined to approve and it feels

[1:13:37] consistent with the ones that we have in

[1:13:38] the past. So I think I mean I think

[1:13:41] that's where we want personally not even

[1:13:44] personally I I feel like the the correct

[1:13:46] outcome here is that the ADU can be

[1:13:48] constructed. Now whether legally that's

[1:13:52] or I mean I don't want to say legally

[1:13:54] procedurally whatever the case is how we

[1:13:56] get there right could be a full

[1:13:59] abandonment of the easement or it could

[1:14:01] also be something like an exemption made

[1:14:03] for this particular project and that's

[1:14:07] really fully understand all the issues

[1:14:09] and transparency but I think this is

[1:14:11] maybe where

[1:14:13] >> well I'm truly on the fence on this

[1:14:15] because we have other properties that

[1:14:18] have been um I mean um looked at such as

[1:14:23] the uh you know Putinham property up on

[1:14:25] Kenyatta where they have 1acre lots

[1:14:29] where you have the main residence and

[1:14:30] you have two detached ADUs

[1:14:33] on that 1acre footprint

[1:14:36] and this property they have a barn, they

[1:14:39] have a horse turnout area, they have a

[1:14:40] main residence, they have a pool.

[1:14:44] It just seems like the

[1:14:47] um

[1:14:49] the concern would be

[1:14:52] just l unilaterally as soon as the

[1:14:57] concept of an ADU or additional housing

[1:14:59] gets thrown up, the town would be

[1:15:02] willing to abandon the entire easement

[1:15:05] um without additional information that

[1:15:08] says that this is really the only way to

[1:15:10] get an ADU on this property.

[1:15:15] Um

[1:15:18] » and

[1:15:19] >> but I'm not hard and fast on that

[1:15:21] either.

[1:15:21] >> Yeah.

[1:15:23] I think my question is what other

[1:15:25] means do we have here also right like if

[1:15:30] what what precedents exist right with

[1:15:33] respect to

[1:15:35] construction within within easements or

[1:15:38] I don't know partial relinquishment of

[1:15:40] easements etc like what can you help us

[1:15:42] with this [clears throat] space a bit I

[1:15:44] >> I think part of it is you know this

[1:15:46] easement is of limited size um and you

[1:15:51] know it was discussed

[1:15:53] at at the staff level

[1:15:55] that you know cutting you know putting a

[1:15:58] building it has to be set back for

[1:16:00] Montilena Court um you know you start to

[1:16:03] now further biseect this easement of

[1:16:06] limited size and to understand what

[1:16:09] value it would hold would be

[1:16:11] significantly diminished

[1:16:14] >> um and also you know there's also maybe

[1:16:17] an opportunity for another ADU um if

[1:16:20] some this owner or future owner wanted

[1:16:21] to to do that as well. So the purpose

[1:16:25] that we're looking at for general plan

[1:16:26] conformance is related to the housing

[1:16:28] goals and the housing element goals

[1:16:30] policies. Um and so that's why we added

[1:16:33] that condition of approval and to ensure

[1:16:36] that it would be used for housing. Um

[1:16:38] [clears throat] so there would be

[1:16:40] something recorded along with the

[1:16:41] abandonment that indicates this area to

[1:16:43] be used for housing and its ancillary

[1:16:45] uses such as walkways, patios and

[1:16:47] utilities like the subject system.

[1:16:49] >> Yeah.

[1:16:52] would it be reasonable? And um of course

[1:16:56] affordable housing is important, ADUs

[1:16:59] are important.

[1:17:01] Um,

[1:17:02] throwing out the suggestion, would

[1:17:06] it be possible to tweak

[1:17:10] the recommendation to council such that

[1:17:16] the abandonment,

[1:17:18] the potential abandonment of the

[1:17:21] conservation easement is contingent on a

[1:17:26] building permit for an ADU within that

[1:17:29] easement being issued. within a certain

[1:17:31] period of time and that if circumstances

[1:17:35] change for the owners and that ADU

[1:17:38] ultimately does um their plans change and they choose

[1:17:44] not to pursue the ADU that we're just

[1:17:48] not unilaterally giving up that um

[1:17:51] easement without getting an ADU out of

[1:17:53] it.

[1:17:54] >> So you can explore that option. Um I

[1:17:57] think you know the goal that we are

[1:17:58] trying to set at the staff level is even

[1:18:01] if someone submits for a permit obtains

[1:18:03] a permit you know we would have to make

[1:18:06] sure that that easement gets abandoned

[1:18:08] prior to issuing that permit. Um so that

[1:18:11] would have to occur and what we're

[1:18:13] proposing is cuz sometimes people obtain

[1:18:16] permits and then for whatever reasons

[1:18:18] things just don't get built. Um so we

[1:18:21] felt that the the condition as it's

[1:18:23] written that would ensure whether they

[1:18:25] submit for an ADU now or in 7 years from

[1:18:28] now that it would be for housing um and

[1:18:30] only allowed for housing and that would

[1:18:32] then also complete the process of the

[1:18:34] abandonment up front.

[1:18:35] >> So question so [snorts]

[1:18:38] excuse me. So Sage uh what mechanism is

[1:18:42] there to do exactly what you just said

[1:18:45] going forward if this property gets

[1:18:47] sold? So the the easement abandonment

[1:18:50] gets recorded at the county and this

[1:18:52] would be an additional document recorded

[1:18:55] at the same time

[1:18:56] >> without an easement.

[1:18:57] >> So yes, correct. It would it would be

[1:18:58] just indicating the area to be used for

[1:19:00] housing and so this would something that

[1:19:02] would run with the land.

[1:19:04] >> So it would it would be saying

[1:19:07] specifically it would it would be saying

[1:19:08] that this 80 foot easement

[1:19:12] would it would be a statement that says

[1:19:13] that can only be used for housing or

[1:19:15] ADUs or what would the specific I I just

[1:19:18] leave it at housing. Um, you know, you

[1:19:20] could have multiple ADUs. Um, you know,

[1:19:23] someone could redevelop the property.

[1:19:26] Uh, that puts ADUs in a different

[1:19:27] location, a main residence here. I think

[1:19:29] the main goal is more housing units.

[1:19:32] >> Yeah. And and what would that mean with

[1:19:33] respect to things like the existing um

[1:19:37] uh horse facilities? It's it's not

[1:19:40] something that would be explicitly

[1:19:42] allowed in that um the uh something that

[1:19:46] could be contemplated

[1:19:47] >> and those are still the town's position

[1:19:50] is still that it wants the horse

[1:19:51] facilities removed.

[1:19:52] >> Uh at this time I'm not sure exactly

[1:19:54] where the town has ended with that part

[1:19:56] of the process. Uh it's just matter of

[1:20:00] we I have looked in the system permits

[1:20:02] were applied for nothing was issued. Um

[1:20:05] and so this is just how we're pursuing

[1:20:08] uh this process. then the applicant has

[1:20:09] applied for this um abandonment and this

[1:20:12] is the steps that we're taking.

[1:20:17] » So in in in trying to conform to the

[1:20:20] state's requirements regarding housing

[1:20:23] uh for the past several years we've been

[1:20:26] uh making accommodations and deviating a

[1:20:29] little bit from the town's general plan.

[1:20:32] Um so we we haven't been following it to

[1:20:35] the letter but we we've been trying to

[1:20:38] uh uh follow the spirit. So in in this

[1:20:42] case I feel it is uh the site is such

[1:20:47] that um if we consider as an exception

[1:20:53] and compare it to other sites that also

[1:20:56] have easements uh we could uh consider

[1:20:59] them as they come. And in this case,

[1:21:03] it's going to be used for housing and

[1:21:05] also for a percolation field. So, it'll

[1:21:08] be essentially bare except for the the

[1:21:11] housing and the mitigations for

[1:21:14] screening and things like that, I'm

[1:21:15] sure, are are going to be required. Uh

[1:21:18] so, I would uh I would be in favor of

[1:21:21] passing and abandoning the easement. Um

[1:21:25] granted that uh like Sage said going

[1:21:29] into the future uh there would be

[1:21:31] documents uh that would be restricting

[1:21:34] its use. So in essence it would still

[1:21:37] stay partially as a conservation

[1:21:41] easement because of those restrictions

[1:21:43] and if we consider other properties that

[1:21:46] also have easements um maybe these

[1:21:49] circum you know the circumstances are

[1:21:51] different and we can't reach the same

[1:21:53] conclusion. So those are my thoughts. I

[1:21:56] think I might add on on general plan.

[1:21:58] It's so part of the reason I was pushing

[1:22:00] on the the horse facilities also is in

[1:22:04] general plan and residential design

[1:22:05] guidelines both point to honoring

[1:22:08] equestrian heritage of the town and so

[1:22:11] much so that you're supposed to like the

[1:22:13] general plan would actually tell us

[1:22:15] approve this for horse facilities before

[1:22:17] you approve it for housing right state

[1:22:19] aside because it would say things like

[1:22:21] you're supposed to uh you know enhance

[1:22:24] the vis visibility of equestrian

[1:22:25] facilities while you know diminishing

[1:22:27] the presence of human facilities, right?

[1:22:30] So, I mean from that perspective, I mean

[1:22:32] it seems like there's a con I say

[1:22:36] contentious or it's the right way to say

[1:22:39] unresolved discussion on the status of

[1:22:42] these permits. But I mean my perspective

[1:22:45] on this would be if we're if we're

[1:22:47] saying housing and if there are existing

[1:22:48] horse facilities and if we are you know

[1:22:52] continuing to try to enhance equestrian

[1:22:54] nature of the town which you know is

[1:22:55] generally on the decline. Um, I would

[1:22:58] actually advocate for also adding that

[1:23:01] to the conditions, right? So maybe it's,

[1:23:04] you know, you're not building,

[1:23:07] forgive me, but like a warehouse there.

[1:23:09] You're not building like you you're

[1:23:11] building either housing or maybe I would

[1:23:13] probably add equestrian facilities to it

[1:23:15] as well, given that these have been

[1:23:17] there for it sounds like 20 odd years.

[1:23:20] Um, that would be consistent with the

[1:23:23] general plan. And frankly, I think that as people are driving down 84,

[1:23:31] there are a number of horse facilities

[1:23:32] that that abut it already. And that

[1:23:35] frankly kind of continues that

[1:23:38] um

[1:23:40] feel slash supports equestrian heritage.

[1:23:42] >> Yeah. And that's what I've seen driving

[1:23:45] by that property. It's you see the

[1:23:47] horses and the corral there.

[1:23:49] >> Yes. That's the main

[1:23:56] I think we're frozen here. It seems like

[1:23:59] based on a straw poll here, we're two to

[1:24:02] one. Um,

[1:24:05] my main concern about this

[1:24:08] is

[1:24:10] not setting a precedent or trying to

[1:24:13] develop some additional criteria

[1:24:17] that would

[1:24:24] not allow this to become sort of an

[1:24:27] open-ended door that

[1:24:31] as soon as you throw down the affordable

[1:24:34] housing card that we just abandon the

[1:24:37] conservation easement from the

[1:24:40] standpoint of just

[1:24:42] this particular

[1:24:45] parcel. I do not have a problem if we

[1:24:48] end up with a split vote on this as a

[1:24:50] recommendation to council. I won't lose

[1:24:52] any sleep over it. But I would note when

[1:24:56] this goes on to council that my sole

[1:24:58] concern about it was just

[1:25:02] trying to set some sort of criteria or

[1:25:05] threshold

[1:25:06] where

[1:25:09] um affordable housing is a goal, the

[1:25:12] desire of the owners to have an ADU on

[1:25:14] the property is a goal. Um, but we need

[1:25:17] to weigh that against the reason that

[1:25:21] when the subdivisions occurred, the

[1:25:22] conservation easements were asked for.

[1:25:25] And it seems like that that just rather

[1:25:29] than preemptively abandoning the

[1:25:31] easement, we need to have some sort of

[1:25:35] policy or criteria worked out.

[1:25:38] >> So, I'll just leave it at that.

[1:25:40] >> I think that's well stated. Um, and we I

[1:25:42] mean we have variance processes and

[1:25:45] findings that we are supposed to make in

[1:25:47] many different cases. I don't know if

[1:25:49] anything's written down about easement

[1:25:50] abandonment, but it strikes me that that

[1:25:52] could also be something that we could

[1:25:54] request,

[1:25:55] >> you know, consideration of language

[1:25:56] around that says

[1:25:59] here are the findings that need to be

[1:26:00] made because I think if we had those

[1:26:02] findings that would address your

[1:26:04] concern.

[1:26:05] >> Yes, that would address my concern.

[1:26:07] >> Yeah. So findings like for example to

[1:26:10] advance just brainstorming but like to

[1:26:12] advance housing you know goals in cases

[1:26:16] where there's no uh as with this site in cases where there's no sort of better

[1:26:22] uh site where you know it create undue

[1:26:25] hardship. I think there's a lot of that

[1:26:26] language that could

[1:26:27] >> usually when we grant like a setback

[1:26:30] exception, we have something a little

[1:26:33] bit more definite than

[1:26:36] >> what we have here tonight. And that's

[1:26:38] not anyone's fault, per se, because the

[1:26:40] recommendation was just to abandon it,

[1:26:43] >> but it seems like

[1:26:47] just to not make it a totally open-ended

[1:26:50] process that we need some sort of

[1:26:52] criteria. Yeah, I think I mean we in in

[1:26:55] the interest of continued maybe

[1:26:57] amendments to what we would recommend to

[1:26:58] town council. I think in in in this case

[1:27:02] I think we could put something sage keep

[1:27:04] is on us that that essentially also

[1:27:06] recommends that that they

[1:27:10] you know I think town council would need

[1:27:11] to request this if we want to create a

[1:27:14] formal you know variant/acception

[1:27:17] process for easements that would be

[1:27:20] something town council would need to

[1:27:21] request you all to consider.

[1:27:22] >> That's correct. Yeah. So you you could

[1:27:23] provide that as a recommendation. Town

[1:27:25] council right

[1:27:26] >> consider that and it would be a little a

[1:27:28] bit separate from this action. Um but uh

[1:27:31] >> be separate from this action, but we

[1:27:33] could

[1:27:35] >> we could still include when this

[1:27:37] >> Right. I mean, if you're asking us to

[1:27:38] change the code before action takes

[1:27:40] >> No, no, no, no, no, no. But but when our recommendation goes to the town

[1:27:43] council, I would feel more comfortable

[1:27:45] if it is Well, so my my two things that

[1:27:48] I would change are are number one,

[1:27:50] >> including the equestrian piece.

[1:27:53] And then number two, requesting the um

[1:27:57] development of a exception variance

[1:27:59] process.

[1:28:00] >> Yes, we can include that if that's part

[1:28:02] of your motion.

[1:28:02] >> Yeah. Okay. And the applicants been

[1:28:06] trying to say something for right

[1:28:07] sometime. Why don't you go ahead and

[1:28:08] approach the mic, please?

[1:28:10] >> I would appreciate being educated as to

[1:28:14] why you think there is a conservation

[1:28:16] easement there. There is no contract. I

[1:28:18] went through the whole thing. We've had

[1:28:20] three legal

[1:28:22] um advisors

[1:28:25] and the town acquiesced and gave it gave

[1:28:28] up any claim to it. You have to have

[1:28:31] process and the process for conservation

[1:28:34] easements is very clear and it is very

[1:28:37] complicated. It is not a a note on a

[1:28:41] plat map giving to an amorphous group

[1:28:45] that cannot even sign a contract. So

[1:28:48] where do you get that there is a

[1:28:50] conservation easement in place?

[1:28:56] » If there were a conservation in place,

[1:28:58] there would be a different this would be

[1:28:59] a different story. I agree.

[1:29:01] >> Yeah. I just

[1:29:01] >> there is none.

[1:29:02] >> I just want to be careful because I

[1:29:04] don't I don't think planning commission

[1:29:06] is

[1:29:08] uh relevant to that specific question.

[1:29:11] Right.

[1:29:12] >> That's why Lyall is saying he doesn't

[1:29:13] want to um vote for this. Well, I think

[1:29:16] what what I hear

[1:29:18] what I what I hear you saying is

[1:29:22] predicated on a

[1:29:25] legal assumption of if there is a valid

[1:29:28] easement, right? But we are not I don't

[1:29:30] think we are making judgment on the

[1:29:32] validity of the easement. That's more of

[1:29:34] a legal sash town council question. But

[1:29:37] I I think Lyle's point is is well stated

[1:29:40] in that in the presence of an easement

[1:29:44] which is legal which here may or may not

[1:29:47] be the case but I don't think it matters

[1:29:48] for our decision

[1:29:49] >> in the framework that we work.

[1:29:51] >> Well I'm sorry I don't understand why it

[1:29:53] wouldn't matter because

[1:29:56] let me just finish. Lyall is saying that

[1:29:58] it would set a precedent

[1:30:00] >> and it doesn't set a precedent for any

[1:30:02] legal conservation easements. This is an

[1:30:06] exception because this is not a

[1:30:08] conservation ement.

[1:30:09] >> We are not making a decision on the

[1:30:11] validity of the conservation easement.

[1:30:13] That's that's not our how can you how

[1:30:15] can you decide whether to abandon it if

[1:30:17] you don't know whether it exists or not?

[1:30:20] >> That it's in my mind it's a separate

[1:30:23] legal issue. Right? So if if there

[1:30:24] continues to be you know a legal

[1:30:27] distinction slash potential litigation

[1:30:29] on the validity of the easement that's

[1:30:31] another thing. But our job is we are

[1:30:34] presented with a you know a body of

[1:30:39] facts that assumes the easement exists.

[1:30:41] And I'm I'm not saying it does or

[1:30:43] doesn't but in the context of I think

[1:30:45] what Lyall is saying it's words in your

[1:30:47] mouth but if there are legal easements

[1:30:50] we just want to make sure that there is

[1:30:52] a process where they're not all handed

[1:30:54] over to

[1:30:55] >> housing. We were trying to protect the

[1:30:57] town from that too. I mean that's

[1:30:59] exactly there were emails where we've

[1:31:02] discussed it with our lawyer. How can we

[1:31:04] protect the town from you know having

[1:31:07] all these illegal easements come to come

[1:31:10] to to mind? But if they do they're

[1:31:13] illegal

[1:31:14] >> and the town the town can't defend

[1:31:17] illegal easements.

[1:31:19] >> But no [clears throat] due respect this

[1:31:20] is outside the scope of our disc.

[1:31:22] >> Well that's this is going to be a legal

[1:31:25] issue. I' I'd like to move on to the

[1:31:27] actual decision we're making. Okay. So,

[1:31:29] um and then one other question for Sage.

[1:31:32] As far as the exemptions

[1:31:34] on the are the restrictions you're

[1:31:36] putting on the property if you if an ADU

[1:31:40] is built, we can't have a garage. We

[1:31:42] can't have a barn. We can't have

[1:31:46] anything that somebody moving to

[1:31:48] Woodside might want to have. And why

[1:31:50] would that why would that be a

[1:31:52] restriction?

[1:31:53] >> So, two things on course. Agent. So, if

[1:31:55] it's housing, housing typically includes

[1:31:58] the associated garages. No.

[1:32:01] >> If they had an attached garage to this,

[1:32:04] those to serve the ADU.

[1:32:06] >> Yeah.

[1:32:06] >> What if it's a detached garage? We don't

[1:32:08] have room for an attached garage.

[1:32:13] » We we were planning a detached garage.

[1:32:18] » I don't understand why why the town is

[1:32:20] putting restrictions on it at all other

[1:32:22] than housing. I mean, I could understand

[1:32:24] that. But a barn in Woodside, you're refusing that a barn might be put

[1:32:31] up. I mean, or a garage.

[1:32:37] No, I mean, I don't understand. So,

[1:32:38] could you explain, Sage, why those

[1:32:40] restrictions are put in here?

[1:32:46] [clears throat]

[1:32:46] >> If it's up to the count uh commission,

[1:32:49] you want me to respond or questions?

[1:32:51] >> Well, who who puts those restrictions on

[1:32:53] the property? I think I again I I want

[1:32:55] >> I'm trying to educate myself.

[1:32:56] >> Look, I want to move us past the

[1:32:58] discussion on the validity of the

[1:32:59] easement is not for us to decide. That

[1:33:01] is for

[1:33:02] >> Okay, but I'm not talking about that.

[1:33:04] I'm now talking about the restrictions

[1:33:05] you're imposing on the property if this

[1:33:08] even goes to an AD if it can go to an

[1:33:11] ADU.

[1:33:12] >> Now, we can't have a garage and if I

[1:33:14] wanted to have a small barn or small

[1:33:17] poultry thing or something

[1:33:20] >> in Woodside, we can't even do that,

[1:33:22] >> right? So look, I this this decision

[1:33:25] hasn't been made. So I think let's

[1:33:26] return please to to commissioner

[1:33:28] deliberation. So we have a

[1:33:30] recommendation from yeah

[1:33:31] >> town staff which is house which is to

[1:33:33] allow housing only.

[1:33:34] >> Yeah.

[1:33:34] >> And I think now we'll return to we we

[1:33:36] need a little bit of of space for the

[1:33:38] three of us to to debate those

[1:33:40] conditions.

[1:33:41] >> So you can go ahead and sit down.

[1:33:44] >> Thank you.

[1:33:47] Okay. So I I think I mean

[1:33:50] right so again the just to sort of

[1:33:53] re-encor us we're not deciding on the

[1:33:55] legal status of this number. So I just

[1:33:59] want to be clear

[1:34:00] >> and on the record that

[1:34:02] >> sorry what I say um

[1:34:05] we the decision we are going to make is

[1:34:08] predicated on the fact or the

[1:34:13] >> on the assumption right that that is put

[1:34:15] the the assumption put in front of us is

[1:34:18] that it's legal.

[1:34:19] >> Yes

[1:34:19] >> we're not deciding on that that can be

[1:34:22] decided in other forums by lawyers etc.

[1:34:26] Uh I think the one remaining thing is

[1:34:30] it sounds like to try to synthesize

[1:34:33] where we are. If we are recommending a

[1:34:36] variance a formal variance

[1:34:39] uh exception process

[1:34:43] uh then so I guess A are be unanimous on

[1:34:47] that and then B would be what

[1:34:50] restrictions if any we want to have on

[1:34:52] the usage

[1:34:54] of the

[1:34:57] >> assumed easement [laughter]

[1:34:59] right which again uh town staff's

[1:35:02] recommendation is housing only

[1:35:05] uh my position is extending that to

[1:35:07] include equestrian would be would be

[1:35:09] good. Uh and then it it sounds like a

[1:35:12] garage a detached garage is is

[1:35:15] potentially another uh item to discuss.

[1:35:18] So maybe we can make the rounds on where

[1:35:20] we feel on the on that issue.

[1:35:24] >> We're not going to hit all the points.

[1:35:26] We're not going to hit uh we're not

[1:35:28] going to have all those different things

[1:35:31] that you can have associated with

[1:35:33] housing necessarily in this meeting. I I don't know if we can. I mean a garage.

[1:35:38] Sure. I think Well, I So my

[1:35:41] understanding would be I mean we c we

[1:35:43] can amend the recommendation any way

[1:35:46] we'd like or sorry we can recommend to

[1:35:50] town council any recommendations. So

[1:35:53] it's currently housing. Uh my position

[1:35:55] would be to add equestrian in this case.

[1:35:59] >> Whether we want to make a statement on a garage or not. Um I mean the attached

[1:36:04] garage is already allowed and valid.

[1:36:07] >> It is allowed. Yeah.

[1:36:08] >> So that that's already valid. I think

[1:36:10] >> the the applicant's question is you know

[1:36:12] do we want to or would we also put

[1:36:15] something in there to for example enable

[1:36:16] a dec

[1:36:20] isn't that part of the application

[1:36:22] process for the ADU? it's to be

[1:36:25] deliberated by staff.

[1:36:28] >> So, if I may, you know, the primary

[1:36:30] recommendation is based on the housing

[1:36:31] goals. And so, that's what that was put.

[1:36:34] In terms of um certain types of

[1:36:36] equestrian uses that are out there

[1:36:37] today, that could be something that's

[1:36:38] ancillary to that housing. Um but to not

[1:36:41] build housing in just a barn, that would

[1:36:43] be a different question. Um so, you

[1:36:45] know, I just think that's important to

[1:36:48] look at when we're looking at the

[1:36:50] general plan conformance.

[1:37:01] So, we're all agreed that we would make

[1:37:05] a recommendation to council that

[1:37:08] criteria be established in the in the

[1:37:11] municipal code for this sort of thing

[1:37:13] going forward.

[1:37:14] >> Going forward. Mhm.

[1:37:15] >> And that is and that would be subject

[1:37:18] probably to a study session or vetting

[1:37:22] through the planning commission and then

[1:37:24] ultimately council would deal with that

[1:37:25] as a matter of policy what they decide

[1:37:27] they want to do.

[1:37:29] >> Okay.

[1:37:31] We're all agreed on that. So we

[1:37:33] can make that I mean presumably treating

[1:37:36] this as a straw pole we would uh you

[1:37:38] know make that a three to zero

[1:37:40] recommendation

[1:37:42] on the draft resolution here

[1:37:47] whatever you guys decide to make it it's

[1:37:50] going to be a 2:1 split with

[1:37:54] and the

[1:37:56] and I'm just trying to make clear for

[1:37:58] the record that my reason for voting no

[1:38:01] would the

[1:38:05] just

[1:38:06] we don't want to make abandonment of

[1:38:09] these easements totally unilateral

[1:38:13] >> and and unilateral in your view includes

[1:38:16] this process we're going through

[1:38:17] tonight.

[1:38:19] >> Yes. in that we don't have I mean when

[1:38:23] we grant a setback variance [snorts]

[1:38:27] we have some technical data or some

[1:38:30] explanations about why the only

[1:38:33] alternative for this property is to put

[1:38:36] the ADU in this area and that may very

[1:38:39] well be the case but this hasn't been

[1:38:44] really engineered or looked at and

[1:38:48] absent that I'm unable to make findings

[1:38:52] to just say let's just go ahead and

[1:38:53] abandon it up front.

[1:38:55] >> Well, hasn't staff um hasn't staffed

[1:39:00] looked at this in detail and uh

[1:39:02] concluded that in your recommendation to

[1:39:05] pass this bas you know indicating that

[1:39:08] other areas are not feasible. They've

[1:39:10] already researched this. In this case,

[1:39:13] >> you've analyzed the site plan. Um it'd

[1:39:15] be very difficult given the setback

[1:39:17] requirements and the ditch and the storm

[1:39:20] drain easement. Uh those are the primary

[1:39:22] factors.

[1:39:23] >> All right. So staff is going to say the

[1:39:25] only place you could put an ADU on this

[1:39:27] property is in that easement.

[1:39:29] >> We're looking at the potential for an

[1:39:31] easement to fit in this area. Um you

[1:39:34] could I don't know the details of septic

[1:39:38] suitability. Um this is where they're

[1:39:40] proposing a septic system. There's very

[1:39:42] limited areas that septic could go. It

[1:39:44] cannot go under driveways. It cannot go

[1:39:46] under paved surfaces. Um, and you look

[1:39:49] at where and then there's an open

[1:39:51] drainage ditch and there's further

[1:39:53] setback requirements for septic uh for

[1:39:56] those. And they not only have to provide

[1:39:58] septic, they have to provide a 100%

[1:40:00] expansion area as well. Um, and all of

[1:40:03] those areas would need to perk and be

[1:40:05] available.

[1:40:08] » Yeah.

[1:40:09] >> Okay. Perhaps I didn't read the staff

[1:40:12] report diligently enough, but if you

[1:40:16] know given that assertion,

[1:40:19] um

[1:40:21] I could make that recommendation now at

[1:40:23] this point, but it would be for housing

[1:40:25] only.

[1:40:28] » No question.

[1:40:32] » Well, I mean that's the justification for

[1:40:37] giving up the easement.

[1:40:40] Right. Well, right. So, this the staff

[1:40:42] recommendation is to Sage's point as as

[1:40:45] he mentioned is is based on the housing

[1:40:48] element being a stated goal of town.

[1:40:51] >> Y

[1:40:52] >> the the added thing that that I put in

[1:40:55] because or that that I asserted is based

[1:40:58] on you my general reading of the general

[1:41:00] plan,

[1:41:01] >> right, which is we we live in a

[1:41:04] >> Yeah. you know, in in a town that is we are sworn to uphold the general plan,

[1:41:11] which does have quite a bit of things

[1:41:12] around equestrian, right? Um when we

[1:41:14] moved to Remundo about 9 months ago and

[1:41:17] our neighbors found out we were horse

[1:41:18] people and we were going to tear down

[1:41:20] the somewhat, you know, not dilapidated

[1:41:22] but older barn from the 50s, it was like

[1:41:26] awesome, right? Like this is not being

[1:41:27] demolished and every time we see one of

[1:41:30] these properties turn over, it's it's

[1:41:31] the loss of facilities. So that that's

[1:41:33] my rationale in in in recommending that

[1:41:36] we add equestrian to it. Uh because I do

[1:41:39] think like that seems in in my mind is more important than

[1:41:46] this easement which again I really I I

[1:41:51] am sympathetic to the argument of what

[1:41:52] are we actually conserving here right

[1:41:54] like it's it's adjacent to the road

[1:41:58] it's not like

[1:41:59] >> well what if we add equestrian and the

[1:42:02] owner's plans change or successive

[1:42:04] owners come in and the new owners or

[1:42:08] whomever. Um, there's only equestrian in

[1:42:13] there and there's no ADU in the front.

[1:42:15] >> So, essentially with the justification

[1:42:17] for housing, we've abandoned the

[1:42:20] conservation easement

[1:42:22] and then we ended up with just

[1:42:25] equestrian stuff.

[1:42:26] >> I would have no problem. I I feel like

[1:42:28] that's consistent with general plan. So,

[1:42:30] I don't I don't have a problem with that

[1:42:31] as an outcome.

[1:42:32] >> It's it's the issue when we've been

[1:42:33] looking at is the the public good in

[1:42:36] removing these easements. That's one of

[1:42:38] the findings of the planning uh town

[1:42:39] council will be looking at and that's

[1:42:41] why we extended that to the housing

[1:42:44] goals

[1:42:45] >> um added by the general plan. uh if you

[1:42:47] want to it maybe some middle ground is

[1:42:50] looking at that the primary use has to

[1:42:53] be housing and if there's any ancillary

[1:42:56] turnout areas um small shelters of 120

[1:43:00] ft or less um you know those are kinds

[1:43:04] of things that kind of provide maybe

[1:43:06] that middle ground of making that the

[1:43:08] primary has to be housing and that if

[1:43:11] there's ancillary something similar to

[1:43:13] out there what's out there now um that

[1:43:16] could in support of general plan

[1:43:17] policies.

[1:43:18] >> Yeah. Right. I mean, but I I do think

[1:43:20] frankly I I I feel like the

[1:43:24] um

[1:43:26] I acknowledge I'm the one pushing on the

[1:43:28] equestrian hardest, right? But the

[1:43:29] reasons I'm doing that just to voice

[1:43:31] them are we're talking about public good

[1:43:34] in a town where we have equestrian

[1:43:37] heritage that we all asserted that we

[1:43:40] would uphold, right? And so like the

[1:43:43] fact of the matter is this also does

[1:43:44] have public boarding facilities. Like

[1:43:47] there are not a lot of options for folks

[1:43:49] to join the equestrian community if they

[1:43:51] don't have a gated property in Woodside.

[1:43:53] Right. This is something my my wife and

[1:43:55] I talk about all the time. Like most

[1:43:56] facilities are fully private. There's no

[1:43:58] kids riding. You know, the uh parent

[1:44:02] teacher conferences we have for for EIE.

[1:44:04] you know, our our teacher says she's

[1:44:06] like a throwback kid because she's

[1:44:09] actually playing around with horses and

[1:44:10] has dirt under her fingernails when she

[1:44:12] comes to school, right? So, like that

[1:44:14] all of that like it's not in the like

[1:44:17] look I I I acknowledge it's not in these

[1:44:19] documents, right? But it is something

[1:44:21] that I am asserting as a principle that

[1:44:24] it's actually a good outcome for the

[1:44:26] town to uphold the general plan to have

[1:44:29] equestrian facilities there.

[1:44:30] >> Okay.

[1:44:32] If you guys want to go that way, that's

[1:44:35] fine by me. I'm not coming along with

[1:44:37] that. Um, but I would be I mean, given

[1:44:42] Sage's comments on the restrictions

[1:44:44] about the leechfield and the septic

[1:44:47] lines not crossing any paved surface and

[1:44:50] the other constraints, if it's staff's

[1:44:52] opinion that the only place to put an

[1:44:53] ADU

[1:44:55] in this conservation easement, then I

[1:44:57] could go along with the original

[1:44:58] resolution. If you want to mod um modify

[1:45:02] it to add equestri you're welcome to do

[1:45:04] so I won't lose any sleep over it so

[1:45:06] however you guys want to go

[1:45:09] >> good okay so where where I would come is

[1:45:15] uh so to restate right the first we are

[1:45:20] going to request the town council looks

[1:45:23] at the exception process

[1:45:24] >> just I gonna make this in a motion so if

[1:45:27] this is a motion

[1:45:28] >> yeah we can we can I make a motion, Mr. Chair?

[1:45:31] >> You can make a motion. Y

[1:45:33] >> All right, I will go ahead and make the

[1:45:34] motion then. Um, so the motion would be

[1:45:36] to uh approve the uh staff

[1:45:40] recommendation with uh with two uh

[1:45:43] amendments. Number one uh would be

[1:45:47] adding equestrian

[1:45:49] to the approved use beyond housing.

[1:45:53] Um, the housing would include, and this

[1:45:56] is not part of the motion, but just to

[1:45:58] maybe restate, the housing already

[1:46:00] includes uh garage facilities that would

[1:46:03] serve the ADU that could be connected.

[1:46:05] So, just I want to have that on the

[1:46:06] record. And uh the second piece is that

[1:46:09] we would be requesting that town council

[1:46:13] uh direct staff to uh develop language

[1:46:17] slash a process for variances andor

[1:46:21] exceptions whatever the right term is

[1:46:23] for aim

[1:46:26] anytime an easement abandonment or

[1:46:28] change of use is considered.

[1:46:33] » Can I clarify something or question?

[1:46:36] Yeah. regarding the equestrian. So it

[1:46:38] would be not an or situation. It would

[1:46:41] be first housing and then the

[1:46:44] possibility of equestrian also. Well, it

[1:46:48] in other words, we're not going to

[1:46:49] abandon easements because we want to

[1:46:53] make that land for equestrian use

[1:46:56] without the housing. Right.

[1:46:58] Well, I think that would be in the

[1:47:01] process town council would devel or

[1:47:04] would request development of would be

[1:47:06] independent of

[1:47:09] what we decide here.

[1:47:14] That make sense? So, we're not going to

[1:47:17] follow Sage's recommendation as far as

[1:47:19] housing first primary and then we can

[1:47:23] add on equestrian.

[1:47:25] But housing is the reason for

[1:47:28] abandonment, not the equestrian.

[1:47:30] >> Yes, I I agree with that.

[1:47:31] >> Okay. And I agree.

[1:47:33] >> Right. Okay. So, the way we would state

[1:47:35] that is

[1:47:37] >> I'm struggling tonight.

[1:47:38] >> So, the the housing I think what I what

[1:47:41] I stated earlier is that the housing

[1:47:43] would be the has to be there first

[1:47:47] >> um in order to have ancillary

[1:47:50] strain uses in that area.

[1:47:52] >> Okay. My only issue there is what

[1:47:54] happens given there's a existing

[1:47:55] equestion facilities there. That becomes

[1:47:57] another issue.

[1:47:58] >> It's another issue I believe. You know,

[1:47:59] we're committed to I know the applicant

[1:48:02] wants to move as quickly as possible on

[1:48:04] this. Um you know, we're committed to

[1:48:06] keep this process going. They can get

[1:48:08] in. I mean, part of what's holding this

[1:48:09] up is the perk tests. We're not able to

[1:48:11] move forward um until the the easement

[1:48:15] issue has been taken care of. And so,

[1:48:18] um, you know, the

[1:48:21] owners are moving forward with this

[1:48:23] process and we'd continue to move

[1:48:24] forward that quickly. We wouldn't need

[1:48:26] to immediately take any action. Well,

[1:48:29] okay. Right.

[1:48:33] Um, so I agree, Richard, with what

[1:48:36] you're saying, which is the reason we're

[1:48:37] moving forward with this is the housing

[1:48:40] piece in this specific site, given that

[1:48:44] there's like I I I what I what I just

[1:48:48] what I'm trying to solve for without

[1:48:49] making a precedent is like this existing

[1:48:52] equestrian facilities that seems very

[1:48:54] consistent with general plan. If the

[1:48:56] town is out like trying to make all that

[1:48:58] get ripped out, I disagree with that.

[1:49:00] >> Yeah. No, it's just a matter, you know,

[1:49:01] the site has significant equestrian

[1:49:03] facilities on it. It is accommodated.

[1:49:05] Um, and to make further accommodation, I

[1:49:08] think the housing piece is important.

[1:49:10] [snorts]

[1:49:11] >> You're saying that exists or that's

[1:49:12] something we

[1:49:12] >> Yeah. No, no, there's already riding

[1:49:14] there's a riding arena, there's a

[1:49:15] turnout area, there's a barn. So, the

[1:49:17] site already

[1:49:18] >> outside of the ement

[1:49:19] >> outside of

[1:49:20] >> on the other side of the ditch, right?

[1:49:21] >> And so, the I think the housing piece

[1:49:24] is, you know, the key component here.

[1:49:26] and uh to extend that area beyond the

[1:49:29] housing with equestrian is something

[1:49:31] that

[1:49:34] be more appropriate with regards to the

[1:49:35] general plan.

[1:49:36] >> So so in this case we already have

[1:49:38] equestrian different area.

[1:49:40] >> So I mean that the motion was being

[1:49:43] worked on.

[1:49:45] So the equestrian can be added to the uh

[1:49:49] council's recommendations for criteria

[1:49:52] going forward with other easements

[1:49:55] in the future that can be part of it

[1:49:58] with respect to question.

[1:49:59] >> Yeah, I think that's something that yeah

[1:50:01] could be debated and discussed in that

[1:50:03] process. Yes.

[1:50:06] Okay. Good.

[1:50:08] Okay. Does the motion

[1:50:11] is this now consistent with where we are

[1:50:14] and

[1:50:18] So the

[1:50:19] >> I'm just struggling with the language. I

[1:50:20] understand what what uh makes sense, but

[1:50:24] the language is is a struggle for me

[1:50:26] right now to be honest.

[1:50:28] >> And

[1:50:32] do do you two feel like the equestrian

[1:50:34] There's already equestrian structures in

[1:50:36] the easement,

[1:50:38] >> right?

[1:50:39] >> Well, the horses are there and the

[1:50:40] corral is there. I I saw it. Yeah.

[1:50:42] >> In in the easement physically. Yes,

[1:50:44] >> currently

[1:50:45] >> it's correct,

[1:50:46] >> right?

[1:50:47] >> It's not something that

[1:50:50] has in shown in the permit system, there

[1:50:52] was not permits for those that were

[1:50:53] issued in the in the system, although

[1:50:55] that's disputed as we've learned here

[1:50:57] tonight. Um,

[1:51:00] >> well, can't we say that um we make a motion to to pass the uh draft

[1:51:09] uh resolution uh for the purposes of

[1:51:11] housing uh and allowing the existing

[1:51:15] equestrian facilities to also be

[1:51:18] accommodated

[1:51:19] on the ease on the former easement. I

[1:51:22] think yes and I think there is a you

[1:51:26] know with respect to the permitting

[1:51:27] status of that

[1:51:29] it seems like it needs to be looked into

[1:51:31] right if there are checks written

[1:51:33] >> it has been it has been looked into

[1:51:35] thoroughly I've called back every box on

[1:51:37] the property went through the permit

[1:51:39] system and went through the old permit

[1:51:40] system um nothing shows the issuance of

[1:51:42] those permits

[1:51:44] okay

[1:51:48] so housing yes we're unanimous there or

[1:51:51] at least for Two out of three there.

[1:51:54] And what do you do? Equestrian, yes or

[1:51:56] no?

[1:51:57] >> Yes.

[1:51:58] >> Allowing it. Yeah. Okay. To stay

[1:52:02] >> that doesn't have a permit right now.

[1:52:03] Existing facilities.

[1:52:04] >> What I'm hearing is the it would be the

[1:52:05] housing plus what the existing

[1:52:08] equestrian uses that are currently on

[1:52:10] the site with regards to the shelters

[1:52:12] and the turnouts.

[1:52:14] >> Yes, sir.

[1:52:17] >> Okay. So, we did it. I think so. Do we

[1:52:19] need to restate the motion?

[1:52:20] >> No. Uh I have is a motion to approve the

[1:52:23] resolution um with adding uh in the the

[1:52:28] looking at the restriction of the area

[1:52:30] is for housing and um in addition to

[1:52:34] also allowing the existing structures

[1:52:37] and turnouts for horses uh that are on

[1:52:40] the property. Um uh to clarify that a

[1:52:44] garage connected to the ADU to serve the

[1:52:46] ADU is acceptable. And that third piece

[1:52:49] is recommending to the town council um

[1:52:52] to consider uh modifying the municipal

[1:52:55] code uh to outline a process for the

[1:52:59] abandonment of such easements.

[1:53:03] » Is there a second?

[1:53:04] >> Sage.

[1:53:08] » Uh second motion.

[1:53:10] >> Chair Gar.

[1:53:11] >> Yes.

[1:53:11] >> Commissioner Gonerko.

[1:53:13] >> Yes.

[1:53:13] >> Commissioner Weaver.

[1:53:14] >> No.

[1:53:16] >> So the motion passes. There is no

[1:53:18] appeal. This is just a recommendation to

[1:53:20] the town council and the town council

[1:53:22] will hear project on July 28th.

[1:53:25] >> Right. Thank you.

[1:53:28] >> Okay. Uh Sage, is there anything

[1:53:32] we have any other reports tonight? Uh

[1:53:35] blank.

[1:53:36] >> No, I have nothing further to report

[1:53:38] tonight.

[1:53:38] >> Okay.

[1:53:39] >> All right. Well, in that case,

[1:53:40] >> well, sorry. One thing I'll just report

[1:53:42] is um it's not his last meeting, but I

[1:53:45] do want to note that Commissioner Kerkco

[1:53:47] has resigned from the planning

[1:53:48] commission. And just for anyone

[1:53:50] listening that we have put out ads uh in

[1:53:53] multiple locations um seeking for uh

[1:53:57] somebody who may want to participate on

[1:53:59] the planning commission and if we get

[1:54:01] applications, the town council will make

[1:54:03] that consideration on July 28th.

[1:54:06] >> And that's effective. Is this your last?

[1:54:08] >> I'm staying on until

[1:54:10] >> he's going to help us out through the

[1:54:11] through through this month. So, we have

[1:54:12] one more we have one more meeting on

[1:54:14] July 15th.

[1:54:17] >> It's I I think we won't need that

[1:54:19] meeting. We're just looking at the July

[1:54:20] 15th meeting. Okay.

[1:54:22] >> All right.

[1:54:24] >> Sure.

[1:54:26] >> Okay. Well, with that, we will go ahead

[1:54:27] and and adjourn. Thank you, everybody.

[1:54:29] >> Thank you.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting - July 1, 2026

Transcript