CC_Minutes_1992_0810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

property when Mr. Schlosser had utility hook-ups installed during the street renovation project (at least the hook-ups for proposed Lots # 1 & 2). Several times during the Fall of 1990, Mr. Schlosser approached us proposing to trade the triangular portion of our property adjacent to proposed Lot # 1 for some at the back of the proposed Lot, which we declined. It was during this time that we were planning a major addition to our house, which we anticipated when we bought our house one and one-half years earlier, and which would overlook the property which is proposed Lots # 1 & 2. We were greatly concerned about investing $25-30 K for this addition given the prospects of looking at houses rather than down a sloping wooded hill to a lake. On one occasion during this time, we raised our concerns with Mr. Schlosser. He said, if I may simply rephrase, that he loved his property and had installed the hook-ups then since it would be cost-prohibitive to do so after the renovation, but that he had no plans on proceeding on any development for at least five years. Since we believed that either our growing family or my career opportunities would likely cause us to move within five years, we proceeded on the presumption of good faith with our addition, as can be seen in Photos #3-5, showing the exterior of our addition and views from the new dining room and 3-season porch overlooking proposed Lots # 1 & 2. Now, some $25+ K and just one and one-half years, not five or more years, later, we suddenly receive notice of this development plan. Beyond these very disturbing circumstances peculiar to me, I urge the Council to reject this Plan given the consensus neighborhood opposition based on our rights to preserve the character of the neighborhood we invested in, our concern for potentially serious water and structural damage to our surrounding properties, and, in my mind, the questionable basis 3