8521 HOLLY DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

��T � � _ _. ._.__--�-�.. ,,.n ,. .. . „�.�..�.,,�:,� ---_—._ _.....•..,. � -•._,.,.�. .i�°"�r.a�'"'„":�r..�r. ,.� ��«.�..:�u::,wk- � —� — � -- — .. ....,�.;.. �_.. �,.,.: . , ._...,._>-. . . — s There is nothing in the ordinance which allows the City to speculate about what might hapoen without any principles to guide its decision. First, tne City asks us to consider what might be proposed in the future - with no basis to believe it might be - when the Yergers have, in fact, declared their intentions to not subdivide again. The Yergers declare their intention to enter to enter into a covenant to require any future purcnaser seeking to subdivide to put in frontage improvements along all of the property. Second, the City is asking us to consider that certain regulations or requirements miaht be waived in the future (for example, an improved easement) . That leads to arbitrary decision- mak:n:?. True, the ordinance mentions the "potential" for more than four units. We might understand where the City was ccming from if Lot 2 could be divided in such a way as to exceed the four unit maximum without having to speculate that the City miQht bend its regulations . However, in �this case, in order to argue that there is the potential for more than .four lots (or 3 lots with an easement) , the City has to speculate. that it might allow: 1 . A boundary line adjustment. 2 . An easement where it has not allowed one before (to our knowledge) . Even assuming that a11 the City' s assumptions about what might happen are correct and ( 1 ) the Yergers and the adjoining property owner in Lot 3 cooperate tb create another lot, (2) the City allows 1 � 3 � �„�„� ws'rz' �+T`'ti''�ia� `�tl��hfi�- -�-�r �a�d"n�"�. � Ety ��?FL ��j��'�� x' �xt ...fiivtY'�"' '� ._ .cA yi �k� .r'� � __�u� _�,�'�vd�.�s`�Y'wre�a..�€�s.%,.��k�t� `.Rai �'zNYt�,''r� f � . ,_>.., ti..- ___.��' ___ ._ �F p.��"