Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor
As a public official, I often find myself the target of criticism, but have always “considered the source.” In this case, the newspaper being the source, it is important to set the facts straight. The merits of the case have not been reported in the paper, and the public has only read about the conflicts that have occured or have been alleged. The following are brief point-by-point responses to your editorial:
(1) “Hard to even raise them without impugning the integrity of the individuals involved.”
The result of your editorial has, in fact, given the “appearance of impropriety” on our part, which cannot be further from the truth. The LOMP property was zoned “rural residential” the lowest density (1 unit per 1-1/2 acres with town water and 1 unit per 1.8 acres without town water) in town.
The above densities are by right and require no change in zoning. The subdivision ordinance was adopted in June, 1981 for the entire town being in one zone (1 until/1/2 acre) or a minimum of three times as dense.
The LOMP Joint Venture could have merely done a boundary line adjustment on the five (5) existing lots and never come before Council or the Planning Commission. Instead the Joint Venture made a conscious decision to be above board and go through the subdivision process so we would be judged by our town residents in a free and open forum, unlike subdivisions in the past.
The waivers granted on the Stuart Property were totally appropriate for the unique location and proposed density. The benefits to the town are as follows:
(1) No rezoning or further subdivision allowed even though there has been a significant change in the area and the property is surrounded by higher density properties.
(2) Consolidation of two lots on Main Street to one lot.
(3) Partners invested $350,000 of their own money for 9.77 acres of raw land and they will now control any improvements to make sure they will be compatible with the Town and their lands.
(4) The revised subdivision ordinance may be further studied prior to adoption. ,
The Planning Commission made the right decision when it recommended off-site septic fields because it made it safer for cluster development and new single family subdivisions. This is true because the best available soils can be used for septic fields regardless of whether it is located on the lot or not. As for your hypothetical case of a similar action prior to adoption of the new subdivision ordinance, I would hope that the Council would act in the same
95.9%