Some reasons it was voted down:
(1) Potential flooding of surrounding areas and the destruction of local waterways, such as lakes.
(2) The doubling of traffic for surrounding area, which will cost lives.
and
(3) In terms of density, Chapel Ridge is completely incompatible with the surrounding area.
Regarding density, although the PR Chapel Ridge's "gross density" is 2.51 homes per acre (as this includes streets, flood retention structures, etc.), Chapel Ridge's real density is over 6 homes per acre. Some lots are only 7,150 ft. in size.
Here are a couple great slides the opposition used last night to illustrate the incongruity of Chapel Ridge to surrounding area.
The matter will now go before the County Commissioners. Let's just hope that the County Commissioners have to good sense to side with truth and long-term vision to maintain this area's charm, rather than siding with the short-sighted greed and poor planning of a developer.
Let's support responsible development. If land is to be developed, it should be rezoned to R-80 (to compliment surrounding area) and no lots smaller than 1 acre should be permitted.
Good news!
ReplyDeleteChapel Ridge would devastate the property values and quality of life for the surrounding area.
I once served as a member of the BZA and while we highly valued the input as well as opinions of the professional county staff I never once recalled the staff acting as the apologists for the applicants. Last night the staff should have allowed Mr. Mertz respond to questions posed by the Special Road District folks; instead Dan went way beyond his position and essentially acted as an advocate for Mr. Mertz.
ReplyDeleteThe unprofessional way Dan Erickson has been behaving these days he might as well be on the developer's payroll
ReplyDeletemaybe he is
DeleteNo, in reality the staff just did their job. It's interesting thst a development zoned the same as Thousand Oaks right across the streets, with houses priced in the 275-325 range, would somehow "Destroy quality of life" and bring down property values. The folks won for now, but when it eventually does get developed, I hope they put a trash dump on it for the ugly spectacle and smear and lie campaign the opponents started.
ReplyDeleteHi, Brian / Tabb. Thanks for stopping by!
DeleteGuess again
DeleteAh yes, unfortunately the trash dump comment seems to reflect how classy and mature a select few of the pro-Chapel Ridge people act. Thousand Oaks is a wonderful example of a higher density development, well-planned, set back from 45 highway, and it does not add a dangerous amount of additional traffic to roads that are already dangerous. It has the appropriate amount of green space and it is not adjacent to R80 or R40 developments. I'm sorry that the developer was the least bit encouraged by County staff, because there were just too many flaws in this plan - first and foremost, no regard or respect for any of the adjacent neighbors.
ReplyDeleteA trash dump would have less traffic! To imply that the residents in the area are some elitist snobs is simply wrong, it has nothing to do with the value of the homes, it is the amount of homes the developer is trying to shove in! Anonymous can you identify one lie? I have spent over 40 hours reading information fro both sides, and I can't find any instances that the opposition has been untruthful. I wish the ethics of the developer were as high.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am from Thousand Oaks and it's an insult comparing Thousand Oaks (nice) with the Chapel Ridge proposal (poor planning, cheap, squeezing every nickel from the land). It's like comparing a fine meal with a turd; the two are related on a biological level but one certainly is more pleasing to the eye.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't Brian or Tabb. To demand a development must just be like countrywood is asinine. No one develops large lots like that anymore. The old boy network at its finest. You can only develop what the neighbors want.....u all act like this is section 8 multi family housing....the staff recommended it...It will destroy our way of life...ru kidding me?
ReplyDeleteit is asinine for you to make a "blanket" statement that quote "no one" develops large lots anymore! Who are you kidding. And can you guarantee the multifamily units in this development will not go section 8. You know you can't. I submit the owners will do what ever it takes to keep them occupied and bringing in a monthly cash flow.
ReplyDeleteTalk about a smear and lie. No one is demanding that chapel ridge be like Countrywood. The surrounding neighborhoods want the Land Use Plan to be followed. "The intention of this policy area is to protect established areas through context sensitive infill development. It is not the intent of this Policy Area to prevent new development. New residential uses and densities should be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods."
ReplyDeleteChapel ridge density is not like any of the surrounding neighborhoods. Thousand Oaks is not a neighborhood that is adjacent to it and shouldn't be used to equate density for this development. The density of the development is what is causing concerns regarding storm water runoff and traffic safety. Mertz has failed to adequately address both. The traffic issue is both a developer and county issue. Apparently the county does not see benefit to improving K Hwy to allow for future developments, at least it is not a priority.