This is in response to the following article:
It seems the editorial submitted by Steve Lunetta has several erroneous statements. Since when does removing a 2500 square foot barn and replacing with a 2500 square foot single story house constitute the building of a 2 story “monster house”? This modest house would not be built in a flood plain. FEMA has drawn new flood plain maps and where the house is to be built is not in a flood plain nor would it be required to have a flood insurance policy by the lender. The city would never let us build a project that would effect our downstream neighbors with a negative impact.
The current zoning states that you are allowed 2 horses per 5000 square feet. The existing property of 2 acres to be split into 1 acre parcels each. An acre is 43,560 square feet which equates to 8 horses allowed on each parcel. Seems pretty accommodating for a rural atmosphere to me.
The lot line was drawn in this manner to be able to create 1 acre parcels. Although the current zoning does not require a full acre we know the neighbor to the North would have fought the lot split on this issue alone as she had already stated she did not want anyone living directly next to her.
You indicated that the people on Meadview all objected to this project. What about the neighbors on Quigley who support the project? Why are you so one sided?
Addressing the 2 old oak trees, one is old and diseased and part of it has fallen on the barn and caused extensive damage to the roof. The other is constantly being trimmed by the Department of Water & Power as it is directly under overhead transmission lines causing it to grow on an angle and in danger of falling over.
Perhaps a visit to the site might change your opinions?
Blog has been viewed (305) times.