Laserfiche WebLink
(2) Catch-22. <br /> ➢ The scale of this development requires quite a lot of excavation. In the most <br /> pi•evious plan tfiis excavation was enough lo i•equire a CUP. Foi•all the other <br /> reasons discussed here,the closest neighbors(the Nelson's and particulat•ly the <br /> Cowarcl's and the Charrier's)wantecl this development to be moved fi•om the <br /> usual `avecage setback' applied on the lake to a position more forwacd toward the <br /> lake,thereby limiting our e�posure to it.Now however, the CUP is apparently no <br /> longer required. We hope that our desperate attempt to (imit the damage to our <br /> properties has not made this developmeut more likely. <br /> (3) Other <br /> Y This is no at•chitect on tllis project. <br /> ➢ There is no landscape plan. And professional landscape plan, with a requirement <br /> to complete it, should be a part of youc approval <br /> Y Beyond scale, the proposed building seems unbecoming to the neighborhood. <br /> ➢ This is not an experienced builder. <br /> ➢ This development will reduce property values—people buy neighborhoods as <br /> well as houses. <br /> ➢ The City has a stated interest in limiting access on County Rd. 15, and we <br /> support this objective. Mr. Broitzman has agreed to relocate the drive to Heritage <br /> Drive.Note, however, that this will require the removal of additional trees. As a <br /> result, there is a balance of interest issue here. Possibly a new plan, wtiicl� <br /> becomes an enhancement to the neighborhood, will, on balance, be better leaving <br /> access to 1860 on County 15. <br /> We urge you to deny approval to this plan. <br /> I can tell you, based upon personal conversations,that neighbors will welcome the construction of <br /> a well designed home on l 860, properly scaled and 1lndscaped. <br />