May 2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

230 231 TODD ZEIGER: This is similar to what we did with the Abernathy property, which 232 had 35 acres under our easement. We devised a plan so that they could sell some of the 233 land for residential but severely restricted down where the houses could sit and how they 234 could impact the historic building. I am glad to hear you are not rescinding the entire 235 ordinance because preservation of rural resources is very important. It seems to be a 236 reasonable compromise, my concern would be how close the buildings are to the historic 237 property and that restrictions be retained so that the wooded area is not encroached upon. 238 My thought is that those restrictions are going to need to be fairly tightly written so that it 239 does not just protect the trees but that the woods does not become a lawn with a bunch of 240 trees in it. When you're trying to protect a woods you have to consider under growth. I 241 would be glad to lend our assistants in developing such restrictions. 242 243 DAVID ECKRICH: Some of those things could be written in the covenant for 244 our neighborhood and could even be on the actual plat. The reason I wanted the woods to 245 be owned by the subdivision was to maintain a buffer from S.R. 23. I could easily put 246 those kind of restrictions in the covenants. 247 248 THOMAS BODNAR: The woods would not go to an individual, it would be 249 owned by a tenants association? 250 251 DAVID ECKRICH: No, the county will not let us do that. At the very best, we could 252 have an easement as landscaped area with restrictions on how that area can be used. 253 254 MARTHA CHOITZ: We must accept Todd's gracious offer to look at this 255 situation. I have seen to often, for example, the Hay house on Jackson Road where the 256 developer did not live up to his promises. They did not protect the barn and the entire 257 neighborhood was redrawn after we approved everything. We have to protect the place 258 with enough breathing space to make the property viable. 259 260 DAVID ECKRICH: Those back lots in the development will be some of the 261 deepest lots in the neighborhood so they do not hear the noise from S.R. 23. 262 263 CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Would it make sense to send are approval the two 264 acres to the County Council? 265 266 RHONDA SAUNDERS: We do not have to send anything anywhere at this point. 267 Basically the Commission should make known its recommendation then it will be up to 268 the petitioner to decide if they agree with your recommendation or not. If the petitioner 269 agrees they will have to survey the land and submit a legal description, it is at that time 270 an ordinance will be drawn up, voted on and sent to the County Council. If the petitioner 271 does not agree with the recommendation then it will be up to the petitioner to petition the 272 County Council. 273 274 RICHARD MORRISON: We are recommending the retention of landmark status on 275 up to two acres, to include the house and surrounding woodland and desertification of the 0