Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
XWE6p
()
Date: February 19, 2014 08:04AM
Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
http://www.sungazette.net/mclean-greatfalls-vienna-oakton/news/neighbors-plead-for-fewer-houses-in-proposed-vienna-development/article_c2f90e44-9887-11e3-826b-0019bb2963f4.html
Residents of a neighborhood just north of the town of Vienna are pressing for lower density at the proposed new Spring Lake Section 3 subdivision.
Sekas Homes Ltd. would like to rezone 5.4 acres from one house per acre to two units per acre and build nine new houses.
John Sekas, owner of the development company, said he could build six houses “by right” on the parcel – neighbors contend just five would be permitted – but is asking for three more homes to offset expenses in making key improvements at the site.
The developer plans to increase the amount of tree canopy at the site, control stormwater by installing two infiltration trenches and a bioretention filter (or “rain garden”) and connect the houses to a Fairfax Water main.
“We’re going to build new homes no matter what,” Sekas said. “The question is, how do you want them built? In order to do all these controls, there are costs associated with it. If we don’t do the subdivision, we would dig six new wells.”
But nearby residents worry the new subdivision would be a marked departure from what exists in the neighborhood now.
“We felt it was going to compromise the character and integrity of our neighborhood,” said Jeanne McVey, who lives on Besley Road.
“We’re not a neighborhood of big mansion houses,” she added. “We really feel like the county missed the boat on this one and needs to look at it again. What he’s proposing looks nothing like what’s here now.”
Cecilia Forbes, who lives on Tetterton Avenue, agreed with McVey’s assessment.
“We have no problem with Mr. Sekas building his houses,” Forbes said. “We object to the [development’s] density and changing of the neighborhood.”
The subdivision, which would be located about 400 feet north of the intersection of Besley and Old Courthouse roads, would have 1.66 dwelling units per acre.
That is more than the other developments surrounding it, but is in keeping with Fairfax County’s zoning regulations, according to the staff report prepared by county planning officials.
Four of the houses would be accessible via a private road from Besley Road, which would end in a cul-de-sac. Three homes at the north end of the property would be accessed from Tetterton Avenue and two homes would be reached via Besley Road.
The proposed subdivision lists nine lots for houses, plus three other lots – marked A, B and C.
Parcel A is a non-buildable, 56,600-square-foot lot associated with the adjacent Leroy Subdivision and would have an infiltration trench for stormwater control, plus a bioretention filter at its southern end; Parcel B has 5,900 square feet of land and also would contain an infiltration trench; Parcel C is 10,900 square feet and located at the rear of Lots 3 and 4.
The site would have about 35,000 square feet worth of conservation easement areas, including part of Parcel A and all of Parcel C.
According to county officials, projected water runoff at the site would be less than what occurs in its pre-development state and at least 40 percent of phosphorous in that water would be removed.
Some neighbors, however, were skeptical that the runoff-mitigation efforts would prove effective.
“If their stormwater measures fail, all that water will come down our side yard,” said Carol Moore, who lives off of Besley Road.
The new houses will reach a maximum 35 feet in height, incorporate “green building” features and attain the Energy Star for Homes qualifications, according to the county staff’s report.
The applicant’s proposal would preserve a 29,000-square-foot “environmental quality corridor” in the center of the site, something that “could not be similarly achieved by a conventional district that requires larger minimum lot sizes, lot widths, and setbacks and does not have a minimum open-space requirement,” the staff report read.
The site now is home to two single-family houses, which would be razed, plus nearly 234,000 square feet of tree canopy.
The subdivision’s nine housing lots would range from 14,100 to 20,500 square feet, with the average being about 18,044, or just over four-tenths of an acre.
The newly created lots would be similar to those of an adjacent development, Manors at Wolf Trap, and are larger than typical ones found in the nearby town of Vienna, Sekas said. The developer said he originally hoped to build 10 houses and two cul-de-sacs at the site, but after hearing from neighbors, he cut the plan back to nine houses and one cul-de-sac.
Critics, however, say the new parcels would be significantly smaller than most surrounding lots and therefore not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood.
Sekas has offered to have 37-percent tree coverage at the redeveloped site, as compared with the 30 percent that would result from a by-right development.
Forbes countered that this did not offset the impact from more houses.
“Is it worth changing the character of the neighborhood for 7 percent more tree cover?” she asked.
The Fairfax County Planning Commission on Jan. 23 recommended approval of the new Spring Lake development and the Board of Supervisors will take up the rezoning application March 4.
“The plan is pretty much set, but if there’s anything that would improve it, I’m always open to discussion,” Sekas said.
This rendering shows the location of nine proposed single-family homes in the Vienna area that would be built as part of the Spring Lakes cluster development by Sekas Homes Ltd.
Attachments:
http://www.sungazette.net/mclean-greatfalls-vienna-oakton/news/neighbors-plead-for-fewer-houses-in-proposed-vienna-development/article_c2f90e44-9887-11e3-826b-0019bb2963f4.html
Residents of a neighborhood just north of the town of Vienna are pressing for lower density at the proposed new Spring Lake Section 3 subdivision.
Sekas Homes Ltd. would like to rezone 5.4 acres from one house per acre to two units per acre and build nine new houses.
John Sekas, owner of the development company, said he could build six houses “by right” on the parcel – neighbors contend just five would be permitted – but is asking for three more homes to offset expenses in making key improvements at the site.
The developer plans to increase the amount of tree canopy at the site, control stormwater by installing two infiltration trenches and a bioretention filter (or “rain garden”) and connect the houses to a Fairfax Water main.
“We’re going to build new homes no matter what,” Sekas said. “The question is, how do you want them built? In order to do all these controls, there are costs associated with it. If we don’t do the subdivision, we would dig six new wells.”
But nearby residents worry the new subdivision would be a marked departure from what exists in the neighborhood now.
“We felt it was going to compromise the character and integrity of our neighborhood,” said Jeanne McVey, who lives on Besley Road.
“We’re not a neighborhood of big mansion houses,” she added. “We really feel like the county missed the boat on this one and needs to look at it again. What he’s proposing looks nothing like what’s here now.”
Cecilia Forbes, who lives on Tetterton Avenue, agreed with McVey’s assessment.
“We have no problem with Mr. Sekas building his houses,” Forbes said. “We object to the [development’s] density and changing of the neighborhood.”
The subdivision, which would be located about 400 feet north of the intersection of Besley and Old Courthouse roads, would have 1.66 dwelling units per acre.
That is more than the other developments surrounding it, but is in keeping with Fairfax County’s zoning regulations, according to the staff report prepared by county planning officials.
Four of the houses would be accessible via a private road from Besley Road, which would end in a cul-de-sac. Three homes at the north end of the property would be accessed from Tetterton Avenue and two homes would be reached via Besley Road.
The proposed subdivision lists nine lots for houses, plus three other lots – marked A, B and C.
Parcel A is a non-buildable, 56,600-square-foot lot associated with the adjacent Leroy Subdivision and would have an infiltration trench for stormwater control, plus a bioretention filter at its southern end; Parcel B has 5,900 square feet of land and also would contain an infiltration trench; Parcel C is 10,900 square feet and located at the rear of Lots 3 and 4.
The site would have about 35,000 square feet worth of conservation easement areas, including part of Parcel A and all of Parcel C.
According to county officials, projected water runoff at the site would be less than what occurs in its pre-development state and at least 40 percent of phosphorous in that water would be removed.
Some neighbors, however, were skeptical that the runoff-mitigation efforts would prove effective.
“If their stormwater measures fail, all that water will come down our side yard,” said Carol Moore, who lives off of Besley Road.
The new houses will reach a maximum 35 feet in height, incorporate “green building” features and attain the Energy Star for Homes qualifications, according to the county staff’s report.
The applicant’s proposal would preserve a 29,000-square-foot “environmental quality corridor” in the center of the site, something that “could not be similarly achieved by a conventional district that requires larger minimum lot sizes, lot widths, and setbacks and does not have a minimum open-space requirement,” the staff report read.
The site now is home to two single-family houses, which would be razed, plus nearly 234,000 square feet of tree canopy.
The subdivision’s nine housing lots would range from 14,100 to 20,500 square feet, with the average being about 18,044, or just over four-tenths of an acre.
The newly created lots would be similar to those of an adjacent development, Manors at Wolf Trap, and are larger than typical ones found in the nearby town of Vienna, Sekas said. The developer said he originally hoped to build 10 houses and two cul-de-sacs at the site, but after hearing from neighbors, he cut the plan back to nine houses and one cul-de-sac.
Critics, however, say the new parcels would be significantly smaller than most surrounding lots and therefore not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood.
Sekas has offered to have 37-percent tree coverage at the redeveloped site, as compared with the 30 percent that would result from a by-right development.
Forbes countered that this did not offset the impact from more houses.
“Is it worth changing the character of the neighborhood for 7 percent more tree cover?” she asked.
The Fairfax County Planning Commission on Jan. 23 recommended approval of the new Spring Lake development and the Board of Supervisors will take up the rezoning application March 4.
“The plan is pretty much set, but if there’s anything that would improve it, I’m always open to discussion,” Sekas said.
This rendering shows the location of nine proposed single-family homes in the Vienna area that would be built as part of the Spring Lakes cluster development by Sekas Homes Ltd.
Attachments:
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Prediction
()
Date: February 19, 2014 08:21AM
Sekas will make some under-the-table "contributions" to a majority of the board, and will get approval to screw over the locals.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
CJxHF
()
Date: February 19, 2014 12:35PM
Coming soon...More traffic congestion!
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
SadForTrees
()
Date: February 19, 2014 01:10PM
Like all builders (cf. Wedderburn "Estates") what the locals want doesn't matter...it's all about $$
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
C Green
()
Date: February 19, 2014 01:29PM
Coming soon...
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Looks Like
()
Date: February 19, 2014 08:27PM
Obamatown.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Now you know
()
Date: February 19, 2014 09:36PM
No HOA? Too bad, so sad.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
C Green
()
Date: February 19, 2014 09:37PM
Looks Like Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obamatown.
+1
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obamatown.
+1
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
FeyPw
()
Date: February 19, 2014 10:07PM
"I don't want a McMansion next to my McMansion."
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Same thing here
()
Date: February 19, 2014 10:36PM
There's a side street I drive down every day in Burke. I think it's spring lake drive and it connects Burke lake road to old Keene mill. Right at the Intersection of where it meets Keene mill is some sort of church. It looks like the church sold its land to a developer and he was originally supposed to put in 9 or 10 houses but now it's going to be 15. The residents on that street are dti fighting it for the same reasons these Vienna residents are. Their groups is called "say no to 15.".
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Alexander Smith
()
Date: February 19, 2014 10:39PM
John is scum, I know personal things about him and his shady business. I will post it eventually.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Asshole Alert
()
Date: February 20, 2014 07:20AM
All the usual goober-NIMBY rubbish. What was there before YOUR house was built? Stupid braindead fucktards.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
vienna_mcmansion
()
Date: February 20, 2014 07:32AM
Vienna looks like HELL. The town does not have a shred of architectural integrity thanks to all of the McMansions that greedy home builders have built on postage stamp sized lots.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Ticky Tack
()
Date: February 20, 2014 08:34AM
Vienna looks like HELL. The town does not have a shred of architectural integrity thanks to all of the McMansions that greedy home builders have built on postage stamp sized lots.
That's a fact...and it's going to get worse...many more McMansions are planned
That's a fact...and it's going to get worse...many more McMansions are planned
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
High Density is the enemy
()
Date: February 20, 2014 08:38AM
Single family homes (even McMansions) are not the problem.
Everyone should be far more concerned about all of the high density housing being thrown up around Fairfax County.
Apartments, Condos, Townhomes = exponentially more cars, more traffic, more overcrowded schools, etc.
Everyone should be far more concerned about all of the high density housing being thrown up around Fairfax County.
Apartments, Condos, Townhomes = exponentially more cars, more traffic, more overcrowded schools, etc.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
vienna_mcmansion
()
Date: February 20, 2014 10:10AM
High Density is the enemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Single family homes (even McMansions) are not the
> problem.
>
> Everyone should be far more concerned about all of
> the high density housing being thrown up around
> Fairfax County.
>
> Apartments, Condos, Townhomes = exponentially more
> cars, more traffic, more overcrowded schools, etc.
Yes, they are. They're a fucking eye sore. Some of these mcmansion builders should have their asses kicked right back to design 101. Their main goal is to throw the thing up and get on to the next job. Vienna is a mess.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Single family homes (even McMansions) are not the
> problem.
>
> Everyone should be far more concerned about all of
> the high density housing being thrown up around
> Fairfax County.
>
> Apartments, Condos, Townhomes = exponentially more
> cars, more traffic, more overcrowded schools, etc.
Yes, they are. They're a fucking eye sore. Some of these mcmansion builders should have their asses kicked right back to design 101. Their main goal is to throw the thing up and get on to the next job. Vienna is a mess.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Where are they
()
Date: February 20, 2014 10:14AM
High Density is the enemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Single family homes (even McMansions) are not the
> problem.
>
> Everyone should be far more concerned about all of
> the high density housing being thrown up around
> Fairfax County.
>
> Apartments, Condos, Townhomes = exponentially more
> cars, more traffic, more overcrowded schools, etc.
You sound like there are tons being put up. I have hardly seen any. And apartments/condos I've only seen those "gated community" places like the ones in Fairfax Corner. Which are already up. The only thing being built around here is new houses on existing lots, mostly. There isn't much room for new residential.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Single family homes (even McMansions) are not the
> problem.
>
> Everyone should be far more concerned about all of
> the high density housing being thrown up around
> Fairfax County.
>
> Apartments, Condos, Townhomes = exponentially more
> cars, more traffic, more overcrowded schools, etc.
You sound like there are tons being put up. I have hardly seen any. And apartments/condos I've only seen those "gated community" places like the ones in Fairfax Corner. Which are already up. The only thing being built around here is new houses on existing lots, mostly. There isn't much room for new residential.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Winnah!!!!
()
Date: February 20, 2014 10:17AM
"I don't want a McMansion next to my McMansion."
Winnah!!!
Winnah!!!
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Section_8_Sharon
()
Date: February 20, 2014 10:27AM
NO MORE MCMANSIONS!
What Vienna needs is more affordable housing.
I'm calling an emergency meeting of the BOS today to enact ordinances and planning for affordable housing for the new arrivals to los Estados Unidos.
Please select from the below your preference of housing we build with taxpayer dollars and bonds.
Attachments:
What Vienna needs is more affordable housing.
I'm calling an emergency meeting of the BOS today to enact ordinances and planning for affordable housing for the new arrivals to los Estados Unidos.
Please select from the below your preference of housing we build with taxpayer dollars and bonds.
Attachments:
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Bill.N.
()
Date: February 20, 2014 11:14AM
Something doesn't seem right about this story, and perhaps one of the legal eagles can enlighten us.
Looking at the map it appears the owner is combining lots from one subdivision with a couple of other tracts. He is then trying to re-subdivide those properties into 9 building lots and 3 non-buildable parcels. Part of his justification for this is that non-buildable parcels A and B would have infiltration trenches, with parcel A's benefitting the adjacent subdivision of which some of his lots are a part.
First, how exactly is 1.66 units per acre in keeping with 1 unit per acre zoning? If the Planning Commission means that they routinely allow exceptions so that areas zoned 1 unit per acre actually have around 1.66 units, doesn't that mean that the Planning Commission isn't doing its job?
Second, it is my understanding that any new subdivision would have to be subject to current restrictions, and storm water runoff abatement steps for those properties are one of those requirements. If correct, then why is the fact that the developer is setting aside land to meet these requirements even relevant in a discussion on increased density? If zoning permits the construction of 5 or 6 units by right, isn't it the developers job to figure out how to get those 5 or 6 units while still meeting the requirements for storm water runoff abatement?
Third, aren't the lots from the existing subdivision subject to covenants on what can and cannot be done, including subdividing the property? If so, why would the developer be permitted to alter those rules without the consent of other owners?
Fourth, if parcel A is going to deal with storm water runoff from the Leroy subdivision, doesn't that mean the properties are already graded so that water from the Leroy subdivision goes to that lot? And isn't it likely there is something in the covenants about regarding or runoff? If so, why would the developer be permitted to use an existing obligation to justify increased density?
Fifth, if there wasn't any obligation on re-subdividing or on storm water runoff, and parcel A is going to be a new way to deal with storm water runoff, then isn't this more of a NIMBY issue than anything else?
Sixth, these storm water retention facilities don't take care of themselves. Who is going to be responsible for maintaining these facilities? If it is the County then hasn't the developer handed the County a liability in return for increased density? OTOH if it is the owners of the new development I would think that would be a factor.
Seventh, tree coverage SHOULD NOT be considered in deciding this. You aren't talking about preserving a significant portion of land in its natural condition, and normal reforestation and tree loss can easily move the percentages much more than the increase the developer is talking about.
Looking at the map it appears the owner is combining lots from one subdivision with a couple of other tracts. He is then trying to re-subdivide those properties into 9 building lots and 3 non-buildable parcels. Part of his justification for this is that non-buildable parcels A and B would have infiltration trenches, with parcel A's benefitting the adjacent subdivision of which some of his lots are a part.
First, how exactly is 1.66 units per acre in keeping with 1 unit per acre zoning? If the Planning Commission means that they routinely allow exceptions so that areas zoned 1 unit per acre actually have around 1.66 units, doesn't that mean that the Planning Commission isn't doing its job?
Second, it is my understanding that any new subdivision would have to be subject to current restrictions, and storm water runoff abatement steps for those properties are one of those requirements. If correct, then why is the fact that the developer is setting aside land to meet these requirements even relevant in a discussion on increased density? If zoning permits the construction of 5 or 6 units by right, isn't it the developers job to figure out how to get those 5 or 6 units while still meeting the requirements for storm water runoff abatement?
Third, aren't the lots from the existing subdivision subject to covenants on what can and cannot be done, including subdividing the property? If so, why would the developer be permitted to alter those rules without the consent of other owners?
Fourth, if parcel A is going to deal with storm water runoff from the Leroy subdivision, doesn't that mean the properties are already graded so that water from the Leroy subdivision goes to that lot? And isn't it likely there is something in the covenants about regarding or runoff? If so, why would the developer be permitted to use an existing obligation to justify increased density?
Fifth, if there wasn't any obligation on re-subdividing or on storm water runoff, and parcel A is going to be a new way to deal with storm water runoff, then isn't this more of a NIMBY issue than anything else?
Sixth, these storm water retention facilities don't take care of themselves. Who is going to be responsible for maintaining these facilities? If it is the County then hasn't the developer handed the County a liability in return for increased density? OTOH if it is the owners of the new development I would think that would be a factor.
Seventh, tree coverage SHOULD NOT be considered in deciding this. You aren't talking about preserving a significant portion of land in its natural condition, and normal reforestation and tree loss can easily move the percentages much more than the increase the developer is talking about.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Asshole Alert
()
Date: February 20, 2014 11:40AM
Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Something doesn't seem right about this story...
Primarily the stupid fucktards who feel qualified to comment on it. Why don't you just go off and read the fucking staff report so you could sound at least minimally educated re what's involved in the proposal.
http://ldsnet.fairfaxcounty.gov/ldsnet/ldsdwf/4434951.PDF
As is, you're just another among the usual gaggle of worthless dick-brained dumbfucks, no better than the total braindead asshole who calls himself "Section 8 Sharon". Compeltely worthless piece of shit, that one. Not exactly good company to keep.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Something doesn't seem right about this story...
Primarily the stupid fucktards who feel qualified to comment on it. Why don't you just go off and read the fucking staff report so you could sound at least minimally educated re what's involved in the proposal.
http://ldsnet.fairfaxcounty.gov/ldsnet/ldsdwf/4434951.PDF
As is, you're just another among the usual gaggle of worthless dick-brained dumbfucks, no better than the total braindead asshole who calls himself "Section 8 Sharon". Compeltely worthless piece of shit, that one. Not exactly good company to keep.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Dido buddy
()
Date: February 20, 2014 11:59AM
High Density is the enemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Single family homes (even McMansions) are not the
> problem.
>
> Everyone should be far more concerned about all of
> the high density housing being thrown up around
> Fairfax County.
>
> Apartments, Condos, Townhomes = exponentially more
> cars, more traffic, more overcrowded schools, etc.
+10,000
I fucking hate this county. There are too many illegals too many cars, too many people, too much development, too much mix of mismatched architecture everywhere you look.
This county used to have some flavor, now it is just an over-developed overcrowded shithole. You look out your window and can see 10 other houses. There are hardly any trees or forest left that isn't in development or has one of those guys surveying the area for development.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Single family homes (even McMansions) are not the
> problem.
>
> Everyone should be far more concerned about all of
> the high density housing being thrown up around
> Fairfax County.
>
> Apartments, Condos, Townhomes = exponentially more
> cars, more traffic, more overcrowded schools, etc.
+10,000
I fucking hate this county. There are too many illegals too many cars, too many people, too much development, too much mix of mismatched architecture everywhere you look.
This county used to have some flavor, now it is just an over-developed overcrowded shithole. You look out your window and can see 10 other houses. There are hardly any trees or forest left that isn't in development or has one of those guys surveying the area for development.
Re: Neighbors Plead for Fewer Houses in Proposed Vienna Development
Posted by:
Bill.N.
()
Date: February 20, 2014 01:02PM
Asshole Alert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Something doesn't seem right about this
> story...
>
> Primarily the stupid fucktards who feel qualified
> to comment on it.
Look asswipe. The point of a site like this is to exchange information and ideas. I read the initial posting and it left a great many points unaddressed. I didn't comment on anything and didn't attempt to take a side. I simply asked some of the questions the initial post raised.
Now thank you for posting the link. It is definitely a far better source of information than the initial posting. In reviewing it (yes I did wade through all 100 plus pages) it does appear to answer some questions. For example it indicates that the homeowner's association for the new development will be financially responsible for maintaining the storm water runoff measures. The report also clarifies that 1.66 dwelling units per acre does not meet the requirements for R-1 zoning as the initial post claims. In fact it appears the proposal would not meet the requirements for R-2 zoning, but the 2 units per acre for this area are consistent with the county's master plan.
There are however a number of other questions that the report does not address, or only briefly touches on. Until you know the answer it is hard to tell whether this is a developer attempting to pull a fast one or a bunch of NIMBY homeowners. I've put the questions out there. Now make your case.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Something doesn't seem right about this
> story...
>
> Primarily the stupid fucktards who feel qualified
> to comment on it.
Look asswipe. The point of a site like this is to exchange information and ideas. I read the initial posting and it left a great many points unaddressed. I didn't comment on anything and didn't attempt to take a side. I simply asked some of the questions the initial post raised.
Now thank you for posting the link. It is definitely a far better source of information than the initial posting. In reviewing it (yes I did wade through all 100 plus pages) it does appear to answer some questions. For example it indicates that the homeowner's association for the new development will be financially responsible for maintaining the storm water runoff measures. The report also clarifies that 1.66 dwelling units per acre does not meet the requirements for R-1 zoning as the initial post claims. In fact it appears the proposal would not meet the requirements for R-2 zoning, but the 2 units per acre for this area are consistent with the county's master plan.
There are however a number of other questions that the report does not address, or only briefly touches on. Until you know the answer it is hard to tell whether this is a developer attempting to pull a fast one or a bunch of NIMBY homeowners. I've put the questions out there. Now make your case.