DCPREZ-0000-07121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/ As innocuous and innocent as this petition may appear on the surface, it marks a clear deviation and exemption from current policies and guidelines in effect within the Town. In the past, the county has endorsed the Town's decision to limit residential development south of Highway Y: approval of this petition would also represent the County's endorsement of expansion of residential development into an area traditionally set aside for larger residential lots and agricultural use. 3. The approval would set a precedent (a distinctly negative precedent, in our opinion) for re-zoning any and all lands south of Highway Y for small lot, higher density residential development. Even Town Board members did not dispute that approval of this re-zoning petition would establish a precedent that would open all lands south of Highway Y for similar kinds of small lot, higher density residential development. They even acknowledged that adjacent landowners would likely seek the same treatment as indicated by approval of the Zeman petition. As an area which is in a rural in nature--and unsewered—such higher density development represents a significant public policy issue. County policy in recent years also repeatedly expressed concerns about rural, unsewered developments. The fact there is a spring-fed pond on the applicant's property, plus a second spring-fed pond on our property within approximately 50-60 feet of the lot line, raises a question of the potential impact of a second house and a second septic system on the water quality of those ponds. The grade of the land where any new house presumably would be located is relatively steep in places, certainly more than a 20% grade. The combination of the grade and the proximity to the ponds is another reason this re-zoning could potentially have adverse consequences. We would request, before any decision is made, that there an environmental impact study be conducted of the effect of any unsewered development on the ponds on both properties. Although this petition involves only one additional house, it raises significant public policy and zoning policy questions. In addition, it clearly and without dispute from any of the parties opens the door to more dense, unsewered residential development. Would anyone doubt that such would be case? Is this the kind of public policy decision the Committee wants to make and support?