|
15 ,xhange and proposed annexation to the City of Colton of his property, involving
<br />'Lots 35 and 36. Mr. Appleby stated the notice of the public hearing was addressed
<br />to the previous owner, and he had purchased this property almost two years ago, in
<br />March of 1980. Mr. Appleby said he has had only seven days, approximately, to pre-
<br />pare for this hearing to present his case to the City Council, outlining his reasons
<br />for opposition and protest of the proposed annexation and zone change. Mr. Appleby
<br />concluded he was hopeful that the City Council could reach a fair and just solution
<br />for all.
<br />Councilwoman Garcia asked the Planning Director if Mr. Applby's property will be in-
<br />cluded in the proposed public facility zone.
<br />Mr. Aguilera responded yes, and indicated the property on a vicinity map.
<br />Mayor Gonzales asked if this matter has been brought before the L.A.F.C., and, if
<br />so, have they approved it.
<br />Mr. Aguilera answered yes, the L.A.F.C. has issued a Negative Declaration and the
<br />City of Colton is in the final steps of the annexation procedure with the L.A.F.C.
<br />Mr. Appleby then requested that his letter, dated February 1, 1982, be made a part
<br />of the official records of this meeting.
<br />COPY
<br />TO: Colton City Council
<br />City of Colton
<br />Colton, California 92324
<br />FROM: James S. & Zona Appleby
<br />795 Agua Mansa Road
<br />Colton, California 92324
<br />Above address listed as Lots 35 & 36 Bandini Donation, as shown by map
<br />filed in Book 3, Page 24 of Maps, records of San Bernardino County.
<br />SUBJECT: Petition AGAINST the Prezoning of Annexation No. South 38 from M-2
<br />(Rialty zoning) to P.F. (Public Facility) City of Colton, of our
<br />property as described above.
<br />Gentlemen,
<br />It was only by accident that we knew of the above public hearing. My wife
<br />checked the mail, Tuesday, 26th of January, and found a letter addressed to the
<br />previous owner, from the City of Colton. No longer knowing the whereabouts of the
<br />previous owner, but feeling the letter was pertaining to the property, she opened
<br />it and found your notice of Public Hearing.
<br />We purchased this property in March of 1980, which is almost two years ago.
<br />We understood at the time of purchase that while our mailing address was Colton,
<br />we actually resided in Rialto. Our police and fire support are provided by the
<br />City of Rialto. In addition, our insurance rates are based on the above services.
<br />We strongly object to any rezoning or annexation for the following reasons.
<br />#1. I have not received any information, or been able to obtain any information
<br />explaining Annexation No. South 38, as indicated in your notice. Being very con-
<br />cerned how we were affected, my wife called the Planning Commission, City of Colton,
<br />and after giving them our parcel #s, we found we were definately affected by the
<br />proposal. In addition we have not received an agenda for the meeting to allow us
<br />to prepare properly on such short notice.
<br />#2. The rezoning, from M2 to P.F. (Public Facility) negates all our efforts to
<br />develop our property for manufacturing purposes. At this time we are not even
<br />sure that the rezoning to P.F. would allow us to reside in our home, as well as
<br />what affect it will have on the property value.
<br />We purchased our property in March of 1980 in order to develop it for the
<br />following: We have been in business at Flabob Airport, located in Riverside,
<br />California, since 1972. Our business consists of the manufacture and restoration
<br />of historical aircraft during the WWI period. Approximately three years ago the
<br />future of the airport began to look rather bleak. Our business does not require
<br />an airport for its operation. With this in mind we began searching for a small
<br />parcel of property properly zoned to develop our facility off of the airport. We
<br />looked at available parcels and found them to be unacceptable. It soon became
<br />obvious that small parcels of M2 property were very much in demand and commanded
<br />a larger $ value per acre than larger parcels. When we found 795 Agua Mansa Road,
<br />it was most ideal for our needs. It consisted of approximately 1.45 acres, zoned
<br />M2 and contained a basically sound two bedroom home constructed in the early 50s.
<br />The previous owner had allowed the premises and the house to deteriorate badly.
<br />Some of the maintenance required consisted of a new roof, major repairs to one
<br />room due to water damage, replacement of the water well pump and motor, regulator
<br />and controls, total cleaning and painting of the interior, carpeting, replacement
<br />FEB 2 1982
<br />
|