Letter to the Editor

East Loch Estates — One more time

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

The same controversial development plan rejected by the County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 25 is back again. While it is true that the proponent has applied once again, it appears that all of the same material for the original application was, either submitted with the original application in August, or made in a presentation to the Board of Adjustment on Sept. 25, where they rejected the proposal. There has been no substantive change in the plan presented to the Board of Adjustment, other than agreeing with the ordinance requirement of a 30 day minimum rental.

The proponent has changed their written material from eight units per acre to seven units per acre, but the actual number of units depicted on the plan remains the same.

At the September meetings, there were more than 120 property owners with many affected property owners speaking against for over an hour, along with more than 220 signatures on petitions.

This project did not and does not meet the standards of the County Comprehensive Plan of PUD requirements. The County Comprehensive Plan lays out a general land use to assure proper planning, timing and compatibility. Little consideration was given to the compatibility of this "horizontal regime" plan as to how it fit with the county’s goals of: preservation of open space, compatibility with surrounding land uses and impact upon public systems, such as traffic, drainage, sewer and water capacities. It was simply stated that it was compatible because it was residential.

The PUD has been used very little by the county and never for a project of more than 450 units. The purpose of this tool is to obtain a better development than is possible with strict adherence to the standards in the zoning ordinance. The proponent must illustrate that the plan preserves nature features, has less impact upon the land, provides a more attractive living environment, and/or is more compatible with surrounding land uses. The plan does none of these. Adherence to the ordinance would be superior.

Publishing this request for Public Hearings at County Boards, Christmas week is clearly a strategy by the developer to rush through without public input.

We urge the county boards to again deny this project as premature, incompatible and not in conformance with the county’s own land use policies/ordinances.

Chris Enger

Chalstrom Beach