Agenda - 04-06-2010 - 7c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I would like to hear one minute. Brian Crawford: Six in favor. One minute. Can one person speak for you? Tommy McNeill: Can we have a timer? Brian Crawford: We have one here. Tom Holt: I represent the association of homes from Oakcrest. Regarding this recommended stub out, first, this map is not necessarily accurate now, in that what you will be stubbing out to is not a right of way. Where you are proposing to lots one and two, you are stubbing out to no right of way whatsoever. The other point I would like to make is that the land that the developer owns now is not landlocked. Tommy McNeill: What is your opposition? Judith Wegner: I think he wants to be clear on the record if this comes back again that the Board is apprised to those two points. Tom Holt: I would prefer if you adopt this plan that it not include a stub out to nowhere. Kirsten Freskin: I live to the left there. 1 want to look at the watershed map. My question is that we have had discussion about watershed and crossing water. We cross water all the time but what you are doing here is crossing water and then walking along water and you are crossing water again. This is a stream and this is a stream and these are all feeding into University lake. It is not just crossing one stream but this I all water. It is not fioodplain its active water feeding into University Lake. The other concern is that we don't get any law enforcement on this road. I live on this hill and people do 70 MPH. 1 have lost four animals there. I would ask that be considered. Also, consider when putting 12 houses here that we have a high school that is overcapacity and not funding for the arts wing, which is a mandatory arts wing, and finally the reason it was sold at nine acres was so it would only be one house and that was the intention. Tommy McNeill: Staff has clearly stated the water has passed with various developers and so why is Damascus Road any different than any other plan. Kirsten Freskin: It is the access road being all water and that is the watershed. Margaret Lewis: 1 noticed the board recommended Option 2 at first. What is the rationale for supporting Option 2 and I would like the document that supports that, I don't have that document. Brian Crawford: Ma'am, Option 2 is off the table. Margaret Lewis: But we didn't get any notification of that. Brian Crawford: This is public information, I will be glad to give it to you. Margaret Lewis: I would also like a copy of the application for the subdivision. Brian Crawford: Staff? Craig Benedict: That is fine. Margaret Lewis: I would like to know what the developer means by saying the hill is too high to have a road through Lovinggopd. I disagree with the developer's statement about the Tots, which is now 12 but at one point it was two or three. Brian Crawford: Final comments. Andrew Noble: I live on Booth Road. I wanted to reiterate our concerns, which I think we expressed last time about the safety of our children. The stub out sounds like connectivity by another name in the future. I am very concerned about that. If it is for purposes of emergency vehicles then there should be exclusive wording to that fact. I don't anyone has a problem with safety but they are concerned about the stub out being put in and then five years it becomes a through road. Pete Hallenbeck: We are voting on a motion where we vole yes or no and I thought you said if we take no action there is another step and I want to clarify what that step and what should we do to take that as opposed to voting yes or no. 24 Brian Crawford: Let' have the vote first before we determine we are taking no action. If it is voted down, then we could ask that question.