I noticed that there has been no mention of what has transpired since the results of the referendum on the plans for the replacement of the Gazebo.
To date:
Joe Greblo put together a pretty impressive and politically advantageous presentation for the Sylmar Land Use Committee of the Sylmar Neighborhood Council. He covered everything from the SHGA's humble beginnings to our current desire replace the aging shade-shack. The entire council and the attendees were unanimous in the adoption of a motion to submit a letter of support to our local councilman.
Joe is now scheduled to provide a less extetnsive presentation to the General Council for final approval of the letter. We'll see how that goes but I'm optimistic that Joe will be as successful there (sometime in the next few weeks) as he was at the last meeting.
The councilman's deputy has been directed to work closely with Joe to get us through Building and Safety as soon as the letter of support is in Joe's hands.
Pavilion: The Next Step
Moderator: Chip
-
JT
Sylmar Neighborhood Council Meeting Results
Joe Greblo showed up to make a presentation Thursday, 7/26, that resulted in a vote by the entire council to approve and provide a letter of recommendation that our local councilman, Richard Alarcon, support the quest for the new pavilion. This is a huge hurdle Joe has overcome on the way to beginning construction.
One stipulation:
The members of the SNC are so pleased with the design the SHGA members selected that they required a continuing review to approve changes and make sure we build it, as much as possible, as presented. Not really a big deal.
One stipulation:
The members of the SNC are so pleased with the design the SHGA members selected that they required a continuing review to approve changes and make sure we build it, as much as possible, as presented. Not really a big deal.
-
JT
It's been a while and I thought I should provide an update since this project was scheduled for completion by the Dahlsten Cup weekend... wishful thinking.
After the meeting that Joe attended (he presented letters of support from the neighbors adjacent to our property) the Sylmar Neighborhood Council extended a letter of support for the project which was forwarded to Councilman Alarcon's office.
Results (short version): The contact at Building & Safety informed Joe that "there was nothing I can do for you" but did suggest that rather than an expensive CUP submission, the club might wish to apply for a variance; much less expensive.
Joe is waiting to hear for the next approach the councilman's office may pursue with him to comply with B & S - no answer at this time.
If all else fails, and Joe receives assurances from all interested parties that there will be no objections, we may just go ahead and build. This would preclude any chance of including restrooms or any facility requiring sewer-connected plumbing. And we would have to commit to keeping our act clean (whatever that may entail) to assure there would be no complaints that would attract scrutiny of our construction.
This would be a last resort, of course. Comments here ---->
After the meeting that Joe attended (he presented letters of support from the neighbors adjacent to our property) the Sylmar Neighborhood Council extended a letter of support for the project which was forwarded to Councilman Alarcon's office.
Results (short version): The contact at Building & Safety informed Joe that "there was nothing I can do for you" but did suggest that rather than an expensive CUP submission, the club might wish to apply for a variance; much less expensive.
Joe is waiting to hear for the next approach the councilman's office may pursue with him to comply with B & S - no answer at this time.
If all else fails, and Joe receives assurances from all interested parties that there will be no objections, we may just go ahead and build. This would preclude any chance of including restrooms or any facility requiring sewer-connected plumbing. And we would have to commit to keeping our act clean (whatever that may entail) to assure there would be no complaints that would attract scrutiny of our construction.
This would be a last resort, of course. Comments here ---->
I was wondering what was up with the project. Thanks for the update. I just did alot of research into variances, here are some notes from my experience:
A variance is essentially asking the local legislators to make a special law that applies only to you. It has nothing to do with B & S, but with local government: that is why B & S told Joe there was nothing they could do. A variance amends the law only for you, so permits can be issued by B & S and still be in compliance with local zoning and ordinances.
The burden of proof lies with you, as there is by definition no precendent. The council can decide for or against you, for any or no reason. There is no appeal.
You are essentially begging for permission, presenting before the City Council how you are deserving of exception to all local codes and ordinances. SHGA, by being a long-standing member of the community, has for sure more of a chance than a non-local developer.
A variance can be fast-tracked by a Permit Expediter, but will cost about 10,000.00 with no guarantees of success. Count on 9 months until the permit is granted, and then you have about 18 months to start construction. This time can be extended, I believe, but not sure for how long.
It is a gamble, but with letters of support, and most importantly, support of the City Council, the chances are much better.
Maybe the idea of using a container, or mobile home, and modifying to suit can be revisited.
A variance is essentially asking the local legislators to make a special law that applies only to you. It has nothing to do with B & S, but with local government: that is why B & S told Joe there was nothing they could do. A variance amends the law only for you, so permits can be issued by B & S and still be in compliance with local zoning and ordinances.
The burden of proof lies with you, as there is by definition no precendent. The council can decide for or against you, for any or no reason. There is no appeal.
You are essentially begging for permission, presenting before the City Council how you are deserving of exception to all local codes and ordinances. SHGA, by being a long-standing member of the community, has for sure more of a chance than a non-local developer.
A variance can be fast-tracked by a Permit Expediter, but will cost about 10,000.00 with no guarantees of success. Count on 9 months until the permit is granted, and then you have about 18 months to start construction. This time can be extended, I believe, but not sure for how long.
It is a gamble, but with letters of support, and most importantly, support of the City Council, the chances are much better.
Maybe the idea of using a container, or mobile home, and modifying to suit can be revisited.
The biggest advantage of a C.U.P. or Variance is that we would fix the zoning issue for flying itself. The fact is that we could be shut down tomorrow due to zoning restrictions. That doesn't seem likely, given that everyone is currently happy with us. But, all it would take is the wrong accident, the wrong publicity or some such to change that. If we had the C.U.P. or Variance, it would be much harder to shut us down.
Heck if all we cared about was the Pavillion, we probably could slide it past. But then it would be harder to get the C.U.P. or Variance, since we would be showing that we don't play by the rules.
I don't know enough about the differences between C.U.P. and Variance to say which we should do. But whichever way we do it, we need to get ourselves protected. We could go years without a problem (as we have in the past) or we could have a problem tomorrow. All parties are happy with us NOW. They are as happy with us as I've ever seen them. Let's take advantage of this situation and solve our biggest long-term problem.
Our second largest long-term problem, in my estimation is launch - Any ideas about that? I mean, we don't own it. We can't get an easement (long story, ask Larry C.) Does anyone have the money to buy or lease it? (Long term, of course!)
Heck if all we cared about was the Pavillion, we probably could slide it past. But then it would be harder to get the C.U.P. or Variance, since we would be showing that we don't play by the rules.
I don't know enough about the differences between C.U.P. and Variance to say which we should do. But whichever way we do it, we need to get ourselves protected. We could go years without a problem (as we have in the past) or we could have a problem tomorrow. All parties are happy with us NOW. They are as happy with us as I've ever seen them. Let's take advantage of this situation and solve our biggest long-term problem.
Our second largest long-term problem, in my estimation is launch - Any ideas about that? I mean, we don't own it. We can't get an easement (long story, ask Larry C.) Does anyone have the money to buy or lease it? (Long term, of course!)
Last edited by stebbins on Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
-
JT
Larry can sum up for us the issues that arise when applying for a conditional use permit. As I recall there are many thorny ones.
Therefore I expect the CUP process will only happen when a president and a board or committee decide to take it on because they believe it must be done. It is really gonna be a leadership thing, a future of the club thing.
My guess is that most members are expecting pavilion construction to start soon, under the radar. Who knows, maybe that's the best way to test community support after all.
Therefore I expect the CUP process will only happen when a president and a board or committee decide to take it on because they believe it must be done. It is really gonna be a leadership thing, a future of the club thing.
My guess is that most members are expecting pavilion construction to start soon, under the radar. Who knows, maybe that's the best way to test community support after all.
Let's Do It Right !
I personally would rather take the time and do it right. Going "under the radar" is not be the best approach.
In the long run it would probably be best to do it once - get the CUP and we have a more secure future. Having to "jump through hoops" every time we want to do something is short-sighted.
JMO
In the long run it would probably be best to do it once - get the CUP and we have a more secure future. Having to "jump through hoops" every time we want to do something is short-sighted.
JMO
-
JT
The Latest Report
After a great deal of work by Joe Greblo and other members of the BOD, it appears that the options for building the Pavilion legally are nearly exhausted. There is a slight chance that Councilman Alarcon's office may yet find a helpful soul at Building & Safety and a way to slip a permit in with the present zoning; don't hold your breath.
So, what do we do now?
"Midnight construction" is not a viable alternative, in my opinion. That route sets the club up for difficulties in the immediate and long-term future. Rather than spend money for a structure that could bring us all grief, I'm going to get behind a push to pursue the CUP.
A Conditional Use Permit is the only way to permanently secure a solution and the Landing Zone. The Sylmar Neighborhood Council is with us and so is Alarcon... for the moment. Whatever it takes, the SHGA, every member, should make it plain to the BOD that it's time to get this done, ASAP. We can always build next year.
Everyone's opinion is solicited.
So, what do we do now?
"Midnight construction" is not a viable alternative, in my opinion. That route sets the club up for difficulties in the immediate and long-term future. Rather than spend money for a structure that could bring us all grief, I'm going to get behind a push to pursue the CUP.
A Conditional Use Permit is the only way to permanently secure a solution and the Landing Zone. The Sylmar Neighborhood Council is with us and so is Alarcon... for the moment. Whatever it takes, the SHGA, every member, should make it plain to the BOD that it's time to get this done, ASAP. We can always build next year.
Everyone's opinion is solicited.
This is a quote from initial discussions.
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject:
1. Circumstances (permit, zoning and such) are not favorable for ambitious projects.
We can vote for the most ambitious design, no harm is done. But chances of getting it approved are next to none. Let’s face it, even if the club can lobby it now trough influential politicians, the next guy in the office can simply crush it like a sand castle. Too much unjustified risk is involved.
Get real!
My full posting:
http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB2/viewto ... c&start=20
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject:
1. Circumstances (permit, zoning and such) are not favorable for ambitious projects.
We can vote for the most ambitious design, no harm is done. But chances of getting it approved are next to none. Let’s face it, even if the club can lobby it now trough influential politicians, the next guy in the office can simply crush it like a sand castle. Too much unjustified risk is involved.
Get real!
My full posting:
http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB2/viewto ... c&start=20
The Law:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/cup/condition.htm
Note that a CUP has nothing to do with Building and Safety. The CUP appears to be a sort of variance to the existing zoning ordinance, not a stand-alone exception.
Tha LZ is zoned as A1-1XL, which is an agricultural zoning.
As far as I can tell the Assessor parcel number is: 2580016015
Tract number: TR 46064
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/cup/condition.htm
Note that a CUP has nothing to do with Building and Safety. The CUP appears to be a sort of variance to the existing zoning ordinance, not a stand-alone exception.
Tha LZ is zoned as A1-1XL, which is an agricultural zoning.
As far as I can tell the Assessor parcel number is: 2580016015
Tract number: TR 46064
While the quotes are correct, the conclusion is not. If the zoning doesn't allow the desired construction (as it does not) then B&S will disallow it. If the zoning DOES allow the desired construction (as it would if we got the correct type of CUP or Variance) then B&S may allow it. If they don't allow it, they have to show why. There are rules. They have to be followed by B&S or they get in trouble. The exceptions usually go through the council. That covers B&S's rear-end.JBBenson wrote:The Law:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/cup/condition.htm
Note that a CUP has nothing to do with Building and Safety. The CUP appears to be a sort of variance to the existing zoning ordinance, not a stand-alone exception.
Tha LZ is zoned as A1-1XL, which is an agricultural zoning.
As far as I can tell the Assessor parcel number is: 2580016015
Tract number: TR 46064
By the way, we are in fact zoned agricultural. A previous BOD (when I was president) went through that exercise. I couldn't get enough BOD members to support a C.U.P. then.
But, I still think it is time. We need to do this for our long-term health as a club, regardless of the gazeebo. Are there risks? Yep. When you go for a C.U.P. the neighbors get to weigh in on what they think you need to do to qualify. An example: When SIBL got one, they were told no alcohol & no public access via the gate at Simshaw. That became part of their C.U.P. Our neighbors seem to be happier with us than at any time that I can remember. This is the time to do it. We want to do it when everyone is happy with us and is less likely to make silly requests. I've been flying here 25 years, and I've never seen us in a better state with the neighbors as we have been for the last four years or so. Maybe a bit longer. Let's take advantage of that before someone does something to mess it up and it takes another five years to get them happy again!
Once we have the C.U.P., nobody can come and say we shouldn't be flying here because we are zoned wrong. The C.U.P. will give us permission as long as we follow the conditions on the permit. That's a big deal. It also means that (assuming we get the right stuff in the permit) that we can build the desired structures. That can be part of the C.U.P. Including water/sewer for bathrooms if we ever want them.
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
-
JT
Vrezh, your memory is good and the original thought is accurate. However, to build anything legally means a permit. No matter how pedestrian or grand the design, it could be denied. That has no bearing on the discussion at hand. We didn't have the right to request a permit for a tool shed or anything else. The SHGA needs to grow a little now and accept that the future uses of the LZ that the club may realize are limited by our "privateer" status. We have no rights. Even the CUP will only bestow priveledges but it is better to have them than not. Unless we just want to continue as "brown dirt cowboys." Every member needs to get behind the CUP idea before the BOD will act. Forget pavilions and gazebos. I always wondered if the money wouldn't be better spent ensuring survival.
-
JT
A question keeps coming up every time the CUP discussion starts and everyone seems to think that some one is opposed to the idea.
If anyone who reads this forum or knows some one, by name, who is opposed to pursuing the CUP to legitimize flying at the LZ please speak up. It will save a lot of time and effort if the BOD can be assured that the membership supports making the application. The BOD will not move without a consensus, a majority of members, indicating that the CUP is a palatable, if not popular, goal.
At pressent, the BOD has formed a committee to investigate all the questions posed in the past, at the meeting and that will arise in the future. The immediate goal is to be able to truthfully provide well-informed answers to any questions and address any concerns that any member may bring up. Ask your questions now. Let the BOD know if you support or oppose the CUP and why. Pass this on, some pilots don't look here; some don't have computers.
If anyone who reads this forum or knows some one, by name, who is opposed to pursuing the CUP to legitimize flying at the LZ please speak up. It will save a lot of time and effort if the BOD can be assured that the membership supports making the application. The BOD will not move without a consensus, a majority of members, indicating that the CUP is a palatable, if not popular, goal.
At pressent, the BOD has formed a committee to investigate all the questions posed in the past, at the meeting and that will arise in the future. The immediate goal is to be able to truthfully provide well-informed answers to any questions and address any concerns that any member may bring up. Ask your questions now. Let the BOD know if you support or oppose the CUP and why. Pass this on, some pilots don't look here; some don't have computers.
If we are zoned for agriculture can we simply call the pavilion a shed or a barn as those are typically constructed for agriculture? I read online that Elsinore has one or 2 C.U.P. for their launches, does Crestline? I think we should get the USHPA to help fund and manage the application. It's part of their mission statement.
http://www.ushga.org/aboutus.asp
http://www.ushga.org/aboutus.asp
A thought came up. I read new construction can trigger a Prop 13 reappraisal.
...Except for these two instances, reappraisals due to change in ownership and reappraisals due to new construction, property assessments cannot be increased by more than 2% annually. ...
http://assessor.countyofventura.org/Gen ... rop13.html
We are zoned agricultural and not residential but if we were reassessed at current residential levels then our annual membership dues would need to be increased to maybe $250/year or our cash would only last 2 years after which the county would auction the land off. If this is all true then would a trailer or wheels on the pavillion not be counted as new construction?
http://www.ridgewoodworking.com/images/ ... /truck.jpg
Doug
Measure twice, cut once
...Except for these two instances, reappraisals due to change in ownership and reappraisals due to new construction, property assessments cannot be increased by more than 2% annually. ...
http://assessor.countyofventura.org/Gen ... rop13.html
We are zoned agricultural and not residential but if we were reassessed at current residential levels then our annual membership dues would need to be increased to maybe $250/year or our cash would only last 2 years after which the county would auction the land off. If this is all true then would a trailer or wheels on the pavillion not be counted as new construction?
http://www.ridgewoodworking.com/images/ ... /truck.jpg
Doug
Measure twice, cut once
-
JT
I'm not entirely sure but when a permit is pulled, the increase in property taxes is usually based on the cost of the improvement. That would mean an increase of 2% of $40,000 if that's what we told them when the permit is purchased.
No worries now. More than ever we need to pursue the CUP if we're going to build anything.
No worries now. More than ever we need to pursue the CUP if we're going to build anything.
