Laserfiche WebLink
.. �, <br /> (2) Catch-22. <br /> ➢ The scale of this development requires quite a lot of excavation. In the most <br /> previous plan this excavation was enough to require a CUP. For all the other <br /> reasons discussed here,the closest neighbors(the Nelson's and particularly the <br /> Coward's and the Charrier's)wanted this development to be moved from the <br /> usual `average setback' applied on the lake to a position more forward toward the <br /> lake,thereby limiting our exposure to it.Now however,the CUP is apparently no <br /> longer required. We hope that our desperate attempt to limit the damage to our <br /> properties has not made this development more likely. <br /> (3) Other <br /> ➢ This is no architect on this project. <br /> ➢ There is no landscape plan. And professional landscape plan,with a requirement <br /> to complete it, should be a part of your approval <br /> ➢ 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, which <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 1860,properly scaled and landscaped. <br />