EXHIBIT 10-B
DRAFT
FINDINGS OF DENIAL
CONSIDER APPEAL BY LAS VILLAS
February 24, 2005
It is hereby found and determined as follows:
1. FINDING: Las Villas Nogales Home Owner’s Association (VLNHOA) is appealing a staff determination that Water Use Credits originating from Parcels 9, 10, 11, and 12 (APNs 189-542-009, 010, 011, and 012) are not available for use on Parcel 3 (APN 189-542-003).
EVIDENCE: Application for Appeal attached as Exhibit 10-A in the December 13, 2004 Board Packet.
1. FINDING: A Water Use Credit allows reuse of water savings on the same Site.
EVIDENCE: District Rule 25.5 (Exhibit 10-C) in the December 13, 2004 Board Packet.
2. FINDING: Staff made the determination that Water Use Credits from Parcels 9, 10, 11, and 12 could not be used on Parcel 3 based on the District’s definition of the term Site (Exhibit 10-B) in the December 13, 2004 Board Packet.
EVIDENCE: District Rule 11 which states:
SITE
- shall mean any unit of land which qualifies as a parcel or lot under the
Subdivision Map Act, and shall include all units of land: (1) which are contiguous to any other parcel
(or are separated only by a road or easement), and (2) for which there is unity
of ownership, and (3) which have an identical present use. The term "Site" shall be given the
same meaning as the term "Parcel".
3. FINDING: Staff has consistently implemented the definition of Site using the interpretation of “unity of ownership” as being “identical” ownership.
EVIDENCE: Previous decisions regarding the definition of Site on file at the District office.
4. FINDING: There is not unity of ownership among the five parcels.
EVIDENCE: The parcels have the following owners according to records on file at the District’s office:
APN 189-542-009 Eric Marsh
APN 189-542-010 David L Wescott and Agneta Lenberg
APN 189-542-011 Laura Lynn Zehm and Paula M. Black
APN 189-542-012 Alfred Wardle
APN 189-542-003 Las Villas
5. FINDING: The public hearing on this appeal was opened and closed at the December 13, 2004 Board meeting.
EVIDENCE: Minutes of the December 13, 2004 Board meeting available at the District office.
6. FINDING: The item was continued to allow the applicant to submit copies of its Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for review by Counsel. District Counsel was asked to review the information and provide the Board with an opinion on the phrase “unity of ownership” in District Rule 11.
EVIDENCE: Minutes and proceedings of the December 13, 2004 Board meeting.
7. FINDING: District Counsel, by way of a memorandum dated January 28, 2005 to the Board of Directors and General Manager, provided legal opinion that land should be considered to be held with ‘unity of ownership’ only when the deed and title to all land comprising the ‘site’ are substantially identical, are unvaried, have uniform character, and are devoid of diversity.”
EVIDENCE: Memorandum shown as Exhibit 10-B of the February 24, 2005 hearing on this matter.
8. FINDING: As there is not strict unity of ownership (i.e., substantially identical, are unvaried, have uniform character, and are devoid of diversity) among the five parcels cited in this appeal, the properties do not meet the criteria to be considered as one Site.
EVIDENCE: The above stated facts.
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2005\2005boardpackets\20050224\PubHrgs\10\item10_exh10b.doc