Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199400015 Correspondence 1994-11-28 To: Ron Lilley Cc: Ron Keeler,Wayne Cilimberg From: Larry Davis Subject: ZMA 94-15 Proffers Date: 11/28/94 Time: 3:02p Ron: At your request I have reviewed the proffers dated October 25,1994, relating to ZMA 94-15. If the property is owned by Wilton Country Homes, then the proffer is not properly signed. Dr. Sansone, if he is a legal agent for Wilton Country Homes, would have to sign the proffers in that capacity. His individual signature would not legally bind Wilton Country Homes. The proffer is very vague. It proffers the plan as a guide for development but does not define what that means. The context seems to say that only the number of lots and point of access is binding. If that is correct, the proffer of the plan of development is misleading. The proffer seems to fix the point of access for the subdivision. Unless the plan of development has been given subdivision review, it may not be proper to accept proffers which could be argued to limit the subdivision review process. The proffer should be clearly understood to say that any proffered conditions are in addition to any requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Also, the plan of development shows a 30 foot right of way that can only be adequate for a private road subdivision. As we have discussed, the issue of private roads cannot be granted as part of the rezoning and should be considered by the PC as part of the subdivision review. Why doesn't the proffer simply limit the number of lots and let the private road issue be resolved after the rezoning? If that is not desirable, then there should be an alternate development plan that allows for the development of the property with public roads so that the rezoning does not put the PC in a position that there is no alternative because of the rezoning but to approve private roads. Proffers are suppose to place development limitations on property, not be the vehicle to gain exemptions from development regulations. From a development review perspective, I do not know if Wayne or Ron favor running a simultaneous review of a subdivision plan with a rezoning application. Finally, the proffer is confusing as to the number of lots proffered. " (38-19 further divided) " is confusing and ambiguous. My assumption is that it limits the rezoned property to 19 lots, but it is not clear. Give me a call if you have questions or need to discuss further. Thanks.