Park and Planning gave preliminary approval to a new development that could bring as many as 62 new homes to Piney Meetinghouse and Glen roads.
Several property owners who live near the proposed development came to testify against it. Neighbors complain that the new development’s smaller lots are incompatible with their lots of two acres and more.
The residents’ concerns were primarily about buffering and compatibility.
“It’s going to be insufficient in certain areas,” said Steve Taylor, whose property abuts the new development.
“I really enjoy the rear of my property where it’s rural and country,” said Laurana Reed, another adjoining property owner who wants more space between her property and the new homes. Reed believes that the “country” lifestyle she enjoys on her horse farm would be incompatible with the suburban-type development which has been proposed. “I don’t want to hear their basketballs and ... they are holding their noses and wondering where the manure smell came from.”
The space between houses ranges from about 200 feet to close to 650 feet. Residents, however, feel that those calculations are misleading.
“They’re using our land as buffer,” Taylor said. The residents in attendance would rather the distance be measured from the property line, not the house. The minimum setback requirement for the homes is 35 feet from the property line. “The closest house is 70 feet,” said Richard Weaver of Park and Planning.
Some of the buffering problem stems from the nature of the ground in the area. As a result of the serpentine bedrock, large vegetation can not grow. “The trees aren’t as tall,” Weaver said. As a result, it is easier to see the areas where the new houses will be built.
Some commissioners think that the amount of buffering shown in the preliminary plan is sufficient.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate to push for massive buffers,” said Commissioner Wendy Perdue. “The expectation in the Master Plan was this level of development.”
The compatibility of lot sizes was the issue that created the most debate. Current homes in the area are on lots of at least two acres. The proposed development would be comprised of lots of approximately one-half acre ranging in size from approximately 18,000 to 25,000 square feet. According to the Rural Neighborhood Cluster (RNC) zoning in the area, lots can be as small as 4,000 square feet (about one-tenth of an acre).
“[The lots are] well above the minimum size,” said Harry Lerch, attorney for the developer. Many of the largest lots are planned as interior lots, with the smaller lots bordering current homes. “I’m confident this project will be compatible,” said Lerch. “RNC zoning presupposes some confluence.”
Current residents are not convinced. “The 10 lots adjoining our lot are too small to be compatible,” said Carol McHugh, another adjoining resident. McHugh’s home sits on approximately two acres. McHugh believes that more than just the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood is at stake. “This will decrease our privacy and our property values,” she said.
Several commissioners agreed. “The council did direct us to look at compatibility,” said Commissioner Meredith Wellington.
Wellington and Commissioner John Robinson thought that the lots could be configured in such a way that the larger lots would be along the outside. This could result in reducing the total number of homes built, since the area is honeycombed with streams and a gas line right of way bisects it.
The commissioners noted that 62 lots is the maximum and losing a few might be the only solution. “I don’t think they have to squeeze out all 62,” said Chairman Derick Berlage.
Another possible result would be pushing some of the lots further into the stream buffers.
Complicating this is the discovery of what may be a new stream. This discovery, “requires the revision of both plans in order to ensure that stream buffers are maximized,” said Susanne Lee, president of West Montgomery County Citizen’s Association.
The developer, MTR Land, LLC, does not believes that the stream exists.
“Staff is fairly confident that, at least, an intermittent stream exists,” said Weaver.
After the debate, the planning board voted unanimously to approve the preliminary plan and to add to the conditions a requirement that the developer pay particular attention to the lot sizes on the outer edge of the property. This is hoped to offer more buffer between the smaller lots in the new development and the two-acre lots of the existing neighborhood.
“I would like to see this get better,” Berlage said.
All of these considerations will not be resolved until the next phase of the development, called site plan. The developer will come back with a revised plan at which point the commission can approve individual houses or alignments.
“We can certainly address the compatibility issues,” said Lerch. “There were a number of points that we attempted to address. A number of them may not have been as big a concern of the board.”