SU0003429 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment "A" (6/22/04) � PA - 04 001 92 Variance PA-0400192 Robert and Judy Kent State the basis of the appeal. List any findings of fact made by the Commission which you feel were wrong and your reasons AND List any conditions and/or findings being appealed and give reasons why you think it should be modified or removed. A motion was made to pass the variance but failed to receive a majority vote(3-2). Findings 1 was not able to be made by two of the commissioners. We feel that dissenting commissioners did not take into consideration that stripping the topsoil from the subject property qualifies as a special circumstance for Finding 1 for the following reasons: This ten-acre parcel, part of an original 36 acre parcel, was stripped of much of its topsoil in the past, which was placed on the adjoining property to the south to help level the soil for flood irrigation and to improve the soil depth in preparation for planting a walnut orchard. We feel this qualifies as a change in topography, yielding the property unproductive for commercial farming. This deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. There have been two attempts at commercial farming on this property that we are aware of. One attempt with walnut trees failed due to the lack of sufficient topsoil. The original orchard extended into the southwest quarter of the subject property but never matured to the size present in the southern half of the two parcels south of us. Only two trees remain on our property with very few trees on the north end of the remaining orchard. (See attached arial photo.) Recently Oat hay was also attempted for several years by Mr. Connor, who farms the 40 acres just north of us. We entered into a share crop agreement with Mr. Connor, but he stopped planting after repeated poor yields. (See attached letter from Mr. Connor.). Two of the no votes came from commissioners who stated that they could not make finding number one because"anyone could just strip the topsoil and apply for a variance". The process of stripping topsoil is now regulated. Furthermore, stripping of topsoil for the sole purpose of dividing land is not the situation with this piece of property, as it was actually stripped more than 30 years ago. We were unaware of this stripping when the property was purchased in 1988. See also the attached Amended Exhibit "A", dated 5/24/04, concerning Findings 1 and 2. 1