06/06/1996 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y `I r f ? this proposal will devalue his property. He, too, would prefer single family homes. He. noted that Mr. Bower has no experience in managing this large a property. Mr. Barlik believed that there would be about 1,200 people in the development, but it was est'vnated that there would be about 424 people with 4 people per unit. He too would prefer single family homes. Mr. Schmetzer is concerned that one of the roads touches his properiy and he also objected to rental property. Mr. Hollis noted that Mr. Bower had stated that there would be no federally subsidized tenants, but he does not believe that can be guarantee since, if the Federal Government wants them there, he would have to have them. W. Vannoy suggested that the driveway onto Clague be relocated to another lot that is for sale since there is a church driveway right across from it. He objected to lights from a drive shining onto his property. He, too, prefers single family homes, and stated that he has rental property 1,000 feet away from him and he has had things taken. Mr. Dusik is also against rental property and prefers single family homes. Cou.ncilmau McKay spoke for a constituent, Diane DeWitt, who does not want to have the buffering reduced behind her property and is also concerned about her property values. He is amazed at the number of variances being requested since this code was just reviewed, aud he, believed that this development does not fit the property since it needs this many variances. Mr. Gomersall stated that the 15 feet setbacks was way out of line, he saw no problem with multi family, but there were just too many units; and there were no sidewalks, some of the units were only 8 foot from the street, he believed that this would need a lot of work before it comes back to the board. Mr. Maloney agreed that 15 foot was too close to the adjacent properties; he was concerned about the Clague Road entrance for safety; he, too, believed that there were too many units- on this property to accept it; and that the swimming pool was too close to Brookpark. Mr. Purper stated that Mr. Bower owns the property and is entitled to develop it, either apartments or multi-dwellings, but he tlunks that this plan needs more work to have a satisfactory solution to everybody. Mr. Gomersall stated that they would never satisfy everybody, but there must be some give and take. He did not think the board would be opposed to variance number 5. Mr. Koberna was also concerned about the density; retention, the lack of play ground facilities, but his biggest problems are with the setbacks and the driveway on Clague which is within two to three feet of someone's back yard. He agreed with planniug commission that fire trucks might never be able to make some of the turns. Ms. Boyle stated that she agreed totally, there was too much on too little, and the setbacks really concemed her. She noted that some of the setback in the middle of the complex were also too small. Chairman Gorriersall advised Mr. Bower that he was within his rights to ask for a vote, but since hearing the comments, he wondered if he would prefer to rework the plans and return to the board later. Mr. Bower stated that it appeared that the use was not a problem, the board was more concerned about density and setbacks. He asked for some direction from the board. Mr. Gomersall stated that instead of 15 foot setbacks, he would prefer 50. The members agreed that the 40 foot setback on Brookpark was the least of the problem since there was 100 feet from the road. Mr. Bower came forward and the members indicated the areas where they preferred to have some units eliminated. Mr. Bower stated that he did not thivk he could purchase the lot that was mentioned for the drive, but he might be able to relocate it slightly. Mr. Koberna advised that he would have to include fences adjacent to the neighbors' properly and there should be some provisions for play areas. Mr. Maloney agreed. Ms. Boyle mentioned that some of the backyards were only 15 feet deep. (Much of this discussion was not audible.) It was clarified that some of the units on the Clague Road entrance were to be eliminated. Mrs. Nicola objected that the board was re-planuiug the development. Others in the audience seemed to agree. Mr. Gomersall responded that the board was trying to solve the problem so that the developer aud residents do not have to come back several times. The members were telling him that they will not accept the 15 foot setback, but he is a land owner and he does have a right to develop his property. Mr. Koberna responded that the meinbers are doing this for• the good of the community, and for the board just to snub him would accomplish nothing. Mr. Nicola stated that if the developer was going to put in something that was improving their property values, they would not be here, but tlus project will devalue their property. Mr. Bower advised that he was requesting that the issue be tabled this evening and he 9