Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 2 <br />recreation area to 4.54 acres minus that area set aside for a septic system, Class B well and <br />related setbacks. Bird watching and picnic areas also take up a part of the open space. The <br />trails and riding arenas already exist as a business for the current landowner. There is no <br />"public benefit" in this. <br />5. Applicant will provide a passive recreation area and earn 10 bonus points. There will be 18 <br />acres for 12 residential homes with 60 automobile trips made per day, horses and horseback <br />riding, many children playing, yelling and screaming, plus dogs and cats running loose <br />"hunting" wild life. Does anyone really believe there will be a bird in the area for "bird <br />watching"? Besides, there is no "public benefit" in this. <br />6. Wastewater management via a community septic system earned 10 bonus points. I agree that <br />12 septic systems should not be put on 18 acres of land. But I am also concerned that one <br />septic system being fed by 12 homes may be more of a hazard. Had this land been allowed to <br />develop at rational densities, these 18 acres would have had 3-4 septic systems rather than <br />12. With 12 homes feeding one system, it only takes one failed septic system to contaminate <br />the ground water in the area and the contamination will likely be much greater. Again, there is <br />no "public benefit" in this. <br />When we bought our 6 acres, we knew the zoning was 3 -acre zoning and expected it to develop at <br />that density. We did not expect that an ordinance would be passed that would allow de facto rezoning <br />to 1.5 acres. What is worse, this can be done in any zone in any part of the county. <br />In 2006 Lannigan Meadows was one of the first, if not the first performance based cluster plats. Last <br />time I was out there only about half of the 14 homes have sold. There has been a lot of flooding in <br />and around this cluster development during the spring snow melt. I've seen flooding very close to well <br />heads and seen water over roadways. This kind of intensive development borders on urban <br />development that requires urban services and should only be allowed where those services exist. <br />They should not be allowed in rural areas. The County does not have the resources and tools in place <br />to adequately protect other rural landowners from damage caused by this kind of urban development <br />in rural areas. <br />Thank you for your attention, <br />Roger Olsen <br />Karen Watland <br />