Date: Fri 14-Mar-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

P&Z-Lone-Oak-Meadows

Full Text:

Resubdivision In Lone Oak Meadows Is Approved

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has approved a revised plan for the

resubdivision of Lot 32 in Lone Oak Meadows, resolving conflict which began

eight months ago over the plan to build two houses on land where one house

initially was planned.

P&Z members on March 6 approved M&F, Inc's, request to resubdivide the

5.8-acre Lot 32 into two home building lots on Fawnwood Road near Rose Lane.

The site lies in a rolling section of the sprawling Lone Oak Meadows

development which links Jeremiah Road to Berkshire Road.

P&Z member Heidi Winslow noted that the commission last summer reviewed an

initial version of the resubdivision in which a driveway was built over a rock

ledge outcropping at a property boundary.

"This application is a vast improvement," Ms Winslow said of the modifications

M&F made in its revised resubdivision proposal.

The initial version of the plan included a "precarious driveway," Ms Winslow

said.

In the revised version, the driveway is positioned in a less rugged location.

The initial version had proposed that Lot 32, a frontage lot, be subdivided

into one frontage lot and one rear lot.

The new version provides that Lot 32 be cut into two frontage lots.

When aired at a February public hearing, M&F's revised resubdivision proposal

drew some opposition but not on the scale of the criticism leveled at the

initial proposal last summer.

Last August, P&Z members voted 4-to-1 to reject M&F, Inc's. requested

resubdivision.

When the initial resubdivision proposal was aired at a July public hearing, it

drew strong opposition from neighborhood residents for various reasons,

including objections to rear-lot development in the neighborhood.

Resident Joseph D'Agostino of 14 Fawnwood Road, who lives next to Lot 32, had

especially protested the proposed resubdivision.

Last July, opponents of the resubdivision said the very steep section of rock

ledge on Lot 32, posed vehicular safety, and child safety concerns.

Other complaints voiced by nearby residents included: a loss of privacy;

decreased property values; a higher than expected population density in the

area; and damaged aesthetics.

Following the P&Z's rejection of the initial resubdivision plan, M&F sued the

P&Z, claiming it acted illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse of the discretion

vested in it because: it failed to assign a proper reason for denial of the

application; it decided on the application based on factors not contained in

the regulations; the addition of a driveway on a rear lot in a relatively new

subdivision cannot of itself be a safety hazard; and the blasting necessary

for such a rear lot wasn't unusual for the area and doesn't constitute a

safety hazard.