2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Boryczka noted that this subdivision has been opposed by the majority of neighbors 403 in the immediate area; and personally opined that it would ruin the neighborhood and 404 negate any benefits.Mr. Boryczka opined that this was a lot of money for these proposed 405 lots, noting that he had his corner lot for sale for many years, and it remained so.Mr. 406 Boryczka strongly suggested that this is not an appropriate plan for this area. 407 Evan Thomas, 2177 County Road B 408 Mr. Thomas expressed his concern with this proposal, particularly with the magnitude of 409 any additional runoff unless the southwest corner of the lot would actually address that 410 drainage, of which he remained skeptical.Mr. Thomas noted that both his property and 411 that of Mr. Cross that shared a common border were very low and with very little grade at 412 thispoint flowed toward the catch basin on Marion, a distance of in excess of 200’.Mr. 413 Thomas noted that the property to the west of his property has been diked on all four 414 sides, but in some heavy rain events, he still experienced water in some areas on hislot, 415 and he had observed water in the middle of the Cross lot between their tennis court and 416 pool.Mr. Thomas noted his lingering doubt as to whether or not in a worst case condition, 417 the southwest corner destination and along the undulating slopeacross his lot with a one 418 foot slope would still get to Marion Street before significantly impacting his lot.Even 419 though he had no structures in that area, Mr. Thomas expressed concern that it would 420 create more of a dilemma for Mr. Cross and seemed to him to represent a loose end yet 421 in this proposal. 422 Janet Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road 423 Ms. Romanowskispoke in support of the written comments provided by her and her 424 husband, reiterating their strong opposition to Mr. Mueller’s project.Mr. Romanowski 425 noted that in the past the neighborhood had collected a petition with thirty signatures from 426 the neighbors, all in opposition, and questioned why Mr. Mueller kept pushing this plan on 427 his neighbors over and over and over again.Mr. Romanowski stated that the neighbors 428 were taxpayers too, and given their strong opposition to this proposed project, should 429 have a voice as well. 430 Member Cunningham sought clarification that the petition had been submitted prior to Mr. 431 Mueller’s submission of this revised plan. 432 Ms. Romanowski responded that while this was true, a similar petition could be submitted 433 again for part of the record since the neighbors continued to feel the same opposition. 434 Mr. S.Ramalingam 435 Mr. Ramalingam questioned if a new petition was desired by the Commission every time 436 a new plan came forward. 437 Member Cunningham clarified that she was not asking that, simply noting that there had 438 been thirty signatures on a petition regarding the previous plan submitted by Mr. Mueller, 439 with significant changes having been made in that original plan at the City Council’s 440 direction, which caused her to question if some of the previous concerns of neighbors 441 had been satisfied in this latest plan. 442 Mr. Ramalingam responded that, if needed the neighbors could go ahead and get 443 signatures on a new petition for submission. 444 Paul Romanowski 445 If a petition was needed, Mr. Romanowski opined that he could get another petition with 446 even more signatures, since he had only been able to contact thirty neighbors for the 447 past petition, but could get morenow and produce it once again. 448 Member Cunningham reiterated that she was only seeking information as to the same 449 people having signed the previous petition remained opposed to this updated plan, and 450 was not asking for submission of another petition. 451 Mr. Romanowski opined that those signatories remained opposed and yet more as well. 452 With no one else appearing, Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. 453