XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.internet.wireless   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2025-12-04 08:08, Marian wrote:   
   > J. P. Gilliver wrote:   
      
   >> In certain areas even the   
   >> _type_ (style) of things is controlled, to preserve the character of the   
   >> area; this may (and is!) sometimes seen as draconian, but the converse   
   >> argument is that it is the character of the area that attracted you to   
   >> it in the first place, and if you wanted to build a lot of concrete or   
   >> tin boxes, you should have bought land somewhere else.   
   >   
   > That reminds me. We have "albido" codes! Yup. Albido. If a house is on the   
   > mountain, it can't be "too visible" from the valley. The albido is a paint   
   > requirement that every home must meet so that it doesn't reflect too much.   
      
   The word is "albEdo" with an "e":   
      
   Another example of your supposed education at work...   
      
   >   
   >> But I'm getting   
   >> off topic even from our off topic: basically, agricultural land is   
   >> protected from being built on, basically on the basis that we need to   
   >> preserve what ag. land we've got, at least where it's _good_ ag. land.   
   >> (Also AONBs - areas of outstanding natural beauty - and national parks -   
   >> even if not actually _good_ ag. land.)   
   >   
   > I understand agricultural land being protected, & vice versa since   
   > fertilizer runoff could be dangerous if homes are built in the drainage.   
   >   
   > Here's the local Silicon Valley zoning which contains what we have.   
   >      
      
   I love the way you feel this need to mention "Silicon Valley" every time.   
      
   >   
   > Page 61 begins "HS" (hillside) zoning, which all the mountains are, where,   
   > in some areas, apparently, the lot size can be as small as 20 acres (8   
   > hectares) when subdivisions occur. But where I am, they don't want any more   
   > people so there will never be more homes than there are currently here.   
      
   "Here" is completely redundant in that last sentence.   
      
   "But where I am, they don't want any more people[sic] so there will   
   never be more homes than there are currently here."   
      
   Means precisely the same thing as:   
      
   "But where I am, they don't want any more people[sic] so there will   
   never be more homes than there are currently."   
      
      
   But far more germane:   
      
   Page 61 does not "begin[] HS".   
      
   It begins with the remaining text regarding "AR Districts" from the   
   previous page.   
      
   Specifically, the text that reads "Lot Size Reduction. A subdivision may   
   include a lot or lots as small as 20 acres" is Section C of "2.020.060,   
   AR Districts: Specific Subdivision and Road Provisions".   
      
   After you get to "2.020.070 HS Districts: Supplemental Development   
   Standards", one of the very first things it says is:   
      
   "A. Setbacks–Substandard Named Subdivisions. Setbacks may be reduced on   
   lots less than one acre..."   
      
   Ergo, HS zoning MUST allow lots of far less than the 40 acres you first   
   claimed applied to "every property".   
      
      
   I'm wondering where you got the degrees you claim to have that you   
   cannot follow such a simple flow of text?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)