DCPREZ-0000-04764 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Petition 4764 May 10, 1990 . . .page 2 RESPONSE to item 3 : I find this statement to bercompletly ludicrous! Our current zoning would permit livestock. By his other comments, it would appear that 4r. Johnson wishes to maintain the rural integrity of the area. What is more rural than pastureland? I doubt that he would like to see a field full of hogs on this land, and yet this is what our present zoning would allow. I would remind the committee that. the zoning categories selected were the recommendation of the Town of Dunn clerk, Roselynn Gausman, and not ourselves. We were only trying to be co- operative with the Town and the Planning committee who we thought were in agreement with this proposal. We have no personal problems with limiting these parcels to residential useage, but it would appear that this would be defeating the purpose of the land use ordinance (that being) to maintain the rural nature of the town. It would seem that prohibiting agricultural type activities on these parcels would be inconsistent. Item 4) "All the current properties contain numerous covenants and restrictions in their deeds to maintain the character of our neighborhood. " RESPONSE to item 4 : I 'm pleased that Mr. Johnson appreciates the effect of those covenants and restrictions that I personally invoked when I developed Burning Tree In Dunnwood Heights. After serving 2 years on the Town of Dunn board, it was obvious that the Town Board had little control over neighborhoods in terms of maintaining cleanliness and order. I would not be adverse to making similar covenants and restrictions apply to these parcels, but feel it would be inappropriate to restrict animals and crops from such large parcels. Item 5) This property is prime farmland. . . " RESPONSE to item 5: By today' s standards, approximately 70 percent of this acreage would be considered prime farmland, the actual building sites selected by the prospective buyers are not located in what would be considered prime farmland. Indeed, the removal of a couple of acres of marginally productive rockhills from nearly 70 acres of land in the locations selected would hardly be construed as removing prime farmland from production.