WESTLAND AREA COMMISSION
AUGUST 18, 1998
The meeting of the Westland Area Commission Zoning Committee
began at 6:30pm. Saxton introduced Z98-056, a request for
rezoning of a property located at 5933 Hall Road, owned by
the Aspen Companies, represented by attorney Frederick J.
Simon.
Simon said that he had been present at the previous WAC
meeting. At that time, he indicated that there were a number
of changes that had to be resolved with the Departments of
Recreation and Parks and Traffic. They have resolved those
matters.
Recreation and Parks determined that they had made a mistake.
They do not want to have any park on this land, or any access
from this land to a park that they thought they had in this
area.
Traffic has determined that the plans for Hall Road will
remain the same. The developer will have to build a left
turn land into the project. Galloway Road, being in the
county, they had to refer to the county. The county
requested that there not be any access to Galloway Road. The
only access to the development will be from the subdivision
to the south, and from Hall Road.
The site plan was drawn up with these changes, and copies
were delivered to Saxton and to one of the residents who
lives on Epernay.
The Division of Planning then contacted Simon, and said they
wanted to discuss the development. He met with them, and a
couple of changes were made to the plan that had been
delivered to Saxton. The Planning Division is anticipating
that the corner lot will be commercial. They want pedestrian
access to that piece. Therefore, the developer will provide
a ten-foot easement to provide for pedestrian access to the
potential commercial operation. They also had concerns that
the lots that will back onto Galloway and Hall Roads will
have stockade fences. The developer agreed to build split-
rail fences along Hall Road and Galloway Road, and that they
will deed-restrict the properties to prohibit high fences
along Galloway and Hall Roads.
The number of lots will total 173. 97 will be 50' lots. The
remainder will be 55' and 60' lots. He has determined that
56% of the lots will be 50' in width. 44% of the lots would
be 55' or 60' lots. The lots along the perimeter, which abut
on existing subdivisions, would be zoned SR. They would be a
minimum of 1200 square feet. The other lots, they propose,
would be a minimum of 900 square feet. They indicate that 2
or 3% of their houses are 900 square feet, and they requested
that they maintain that availability, because they have a
number of empty-nesters who do not want large houses, so they
want to be able to construct that smaller house on the lots
they have. All of the houses would have two-car garages.
J. Province asked the square footage of a two-car garage.
"It would be 1100."
So the garage would be larger than the house?
No, not counting the garage. That only counts living space.
They do not count basements, attics, or garages when they
measure square footage.
"You are talking about a 900 square foot living space
attached to an 1100 square foot garage."
"No, ma'am, I'm sorry, I thought you... You are asking the
size of a two-car garage. There, I can't tell you for sure,
but they usually, 20 by 40, 22 by... 22 by... let me get
this straight...about 22 by...about by 22. A car being
about... allowing about 10 feet for each car. And a depth
of 20 feet for each car."
Saxton asked for other questions from the zoning committee.
"In terms of density, refresh my memory, would someone on the
zoning respond to the percentages of 50', and 55' and 60'
lots?"
Saxton replied that our minimum standards on subdivisions is
that one-third of the lots be 50', one-third be 55', and one-
third be 60'. The minimum square footage of a house is 1200
square feet. Saxton reported that the owner of the property
called him, and he discussed this with him on the telephone,
yesterday.
And the proposal is that some of the 50' lots could contain
900 square foot homes?
Saxton said yes.
You used the figure that 56% of the lots would measure 50' in
width.
Yes. The 60' lots don't quite figure out to 45%.
Simon said that the 55' and 60' lots, together, would be 45%.
D. Province asked whether the developer has considered
mounding and trees, instead of a split-rail fence.
The Planning people did not want mounding. They thought that
a split rail fence would be better. The developer is
following their suggestions.
There might be a water problem.
Yes.
Province said that in this neighborhood, the bigger houses
are selling. The developers are building the largest houses
they can fit on each lot. In some cases, they can't build
the houses they want to build. Yet, now we are seeing
another proposal... You say the market's not there.
This developer builds starter homes. They build for people
who are buying their first home, or for empty-nesters who are
downsizing. That's what their market is.
But the neighborhood next to it is not that.
That is correct. They don't think the 60-footers will be
that way, either. That's why they started with the 1200'
minimum.
Saxton asked who the proposed builder is.
MI.
Everybody knows that that is the same type of home that is
being built off Alkire Road by the railroad tracks.
2 to 3% would be 900 square foot. What would the other
percentages be?
They didn't give Simon any other numbers.
Hurd asked whether there would be any stormwater retention on
the site. The low point is by Galloway Road. He assumes the
stormwater will enter the storm sewer that floods Hardesty
Heights every time there is a natural summer downpour.
Simon said that none of the engineering has been done on the
site. It is possible, that before the development is
finished, Sewers and Drains will require some kind of
stormwater detention. He doesn't know that. He won't know
that until they do some engineering.
MI is the builder of Galloway Ridge. He didn't know they
built starter homes, too. In this part of the area, we could
use bigger lots and bigger houses, not 900's.
Province said the original zoning was for much smaller lots,
and they came back and asked for larger lots, because that's
all they were selling.
Simon said he can't speak for that. He knows only that the
developer he is representing is in that kind of business. He
was advised that MI will construct the homes. MI could
change their minds. This is based upon the developer, at
this point.
Province asked whether the developer is paying money in lieu
of parkland.
No, it doesn't fit that category. They originally thought
there was a park to the east, with access through Epernay, to
reach that park, and they wanted pedestrian access through
this development. When the engineers talked about where to
put that access, they were advised that Parks and Rec was in
error, and they do not need anything there.
The Parkland Dedication Ordinance is now in effect.
It does not apply to this development.
Why not?
I don't know.
It says 27 lots would measure 60'. There are two lots...
there are 23 lots that are zoned R-2, that would be 60', and
the SR zoning, there would be 43. The SR zoning are on the
perimeter. A larger lot requires a larger house. That's
what these are. The other 23 are within the R-2.
Saxton moved that the zoning request be approved. Rinehart
seconded. Saxton asked for a roll-call vote of the zoning
committee.
Balthaser abstain D. Province no
Frank abstain J. Province no
Hymer no Rinehart no
Morris no Wotring no
Saxton no
Saxton introduced Z98-057, Countrytime Grove City Ltd.,
represented by Liz Hazelbaker.
Hazelbaker said she works with Mike Shannon.
The property is currently in Prairie Township. It is being
annexed into Columbus right now. It has two readings before
City Council on September 14 and 21, and then it will be
officially annexed into Columbus. They have filed for
rezoning to straight R-2. Countrytime does not yet own the
property; they are in contract to purchase the property when
it is annexed and rezoned.
The property is 39 acres, located near Alton-Darby Road, the
railroad tracks, and Doherty Road. The Dominion Homes
development currently under construction is bordering the
property, except along the railroad tracks. The property in
question is a skinny piece that runs along the railroad
track. The property is surrounded by straight R-2 zoning,
dating from 1994.
City Staff has already approved the rezoning, conditional
upon working out some traffic issues. There will have to be
some improvements to Doherty Road. Dominion Homes will build
a road called Galloway Road Extension, which somehow will tie
their whole property into Doherty Road. They will have to
improve Doherty Road up to Countrytime's property line.
Then, they will be required to continue that improvement to
the railroad tracks. The city is talking about requiring
them to improve the road with curbs and gutters.
Alton-Darby is still in the township, and they have very
little frontage on Alton-Darby. However, they are in
discussion with Franklin County about having a right-in,
right-out curb cut there. There will be no left turns in or
out. They will meet with Franklin County Engineers next
week.
They are looking for a straight R-2 category, with no
limitation text.
Saxton said the same questions apply to her that were posed
to Simon.
The lot sizes will be 50', because the developer doesn't
believe larger lots would be marketable, as almost 3000 feet
of boundary are adjacent to a railroad track. With regard to
garages, they want to keep their options open, because
Countrytime may not end up developing the property
themselves, but may sell to another developer to actually
develop the property.
Saxton said WAC can reject the proposal right now, or
Hazelbaker can go back to the buyer, tell him what we want,
and then bring back the proposal in September.
Hazelbaker said the buyer is present. They will move ahead.
Saxton moved to accept the application. Rinehart seconded.
Saxton requested a voice vote from the members of the zoning
committee.
Balthaser yes D. Province no
Frank yes J. Province no
Hymer no Rinehart no
Morris no Wotring no
Saxton no
Saxton asked whether Samantha Schuler is present, or anyone
to represent Chesterview Drive.
(Silence)
Is there anyone here representing Goldman, Shihab, and
Shihab?
(Silence)
Saxton presented zoning request Z96-112...
Z96 !!??
Yes. Z96-112. This is the northeast corner of Alkire and
Holt. This matter has been before us on several different
occasions.
Michael O'Reilly said he is substituting for Gus Shihab
tonight. Gus has other hearings tonight.
O'Reilly circulated copies of a limitation text and a letter
regarding site drainage issues. O'Reilly was assigned this
matter yesterday; he knew nothing about it before then.
He is asking for a rezoning from R to LC-5, which would allow
commercial uses on site. It is unclear now, what kind of
commercial use it would be. It could be a medical building,
on the low end of intensity, or, on the low end, it could be
a gasoline station with a fast-food mini mart.
In response to some criticism of the last site plan, they are
now showing a mounded landscape feature along the north and
east boundaries of the site, where there are multi-family
units behind. There will be six trees in the parking lot.
The maximum building size would be 18,000 square feet, which
is less than one-fourth of the total acreage of the site.
The maximum building or canopy height would be 35', which
would limit any building to a two-story structure, if it is
an office. If it is a retail use, it would be a single-story
structure.
All lighting features would be cut-off type fixtures, except
for landscape lighting, which could be up-lighting, so long
as the landscaping prevents glare onto the surrounding
streets. The landscaping would be thick, and within a couple
of years would provide complete opacity between the multi-
family to the rear, and the commercial use.
Why should there be commercial development on this corner?
Behind it, there is multi-family development already. We
can't expect the site to develop as single-family. It
wouldn't make sense. He doesn't think the area is developed
yet, but it is all zoned AR-12 around the site.
Saxton said we have turned this down three times. What
changes have been made, since the last times we turned it
down?
There is a swale through the site...
There is a creek through the site.
They have been to the Division of Sewers and Drains, and they
were open to the developer's plan to enclose the creek in a
concrete culvert, which would be diverted around the
building, and then would resume its natural course on the
other end of the property. Thus, it would be aesthetically
compatible with the plans for the rest of the site. It
would be completely underground.
Saxton asked whether O'Reilly is aware that the other three
corners are zoned single-family?
Yes.
Province said that O'Reilly is asking for a spot zoning.
O'Reilly asked whether the land is developed on the other
corners.
Yes, it is developed on three corners with single-family
houses.
Abston said that the area was flooded less than a month ago,
without the stream being cut off. WAC and the neighbors
have been watching the area develop. They started with a
commercial development on Georgesville Road, then followed it
with apartments, then condos, and now this developer wants to
go back to commercial. That lot is not big enough for a gas
station. Abston lives right there. They don't need
commercial development there.
Has O'Reilly ever seen the place?
No.
"Gus knew what he was doing when he sent you."
(Laughter).
"Thank you for sharing that. But for purposes of argument,
if it is a choice between the land sitting there empty for
years, and...
It's not empty. There is a home on the property now. And
it's in good condition.
Abston asked, what if they build a gas station there, and the
neighborhood doesn't support it? Then, there would be an
empty gas station there.
It wouldn't necessarily be a service station there.
We don't want any commercial development there.
C-5 means a service station.
The idea is to make the property capable of that, but you
could go all the way down to a C-2 range of use, which could
be offices. It could be offices.
Cooper asked whether he would be willing to put that into an
exclusion text.
He would be willing to report back to the client. If he came
back with something limited to offices, would that make the
whole thing more palatable?
J. Province said it probably would, because we can't imagine
an office ever being built on that site.
Abston said the neighbors don't want any commercial
development.
J. Province reminded O'Reilly that Saxton asked what's new,
since the last couple of rejections, other than the fact that
the sewer is crooked now. Is anything else different?
There is much more landscaping now.
But there is no turn lane easement given up to the city, from
Alkire to Holt. Also, what about the light from a gas
station all night?
All light would be downlighting, arranged so that it doesn't
escape off-site.
When the developer talked to Coffey, was nothing mentioned
about an oil-mud separation system?
Not to O'Reilly's knowledge.
This stream becomes open to a recreational area, parkland,
and we don't want oil escaping from the site.
O'Reilly said he is sure that, if this were a service
station, it is something the owner would commit to. But he
doesn't want to plant the seed that this would be a service
station. He doesn't know what it would be. There is not an
exact user in mind at this point.
Saxton moved for passage. Morris seconded. Saxton requested
a roll-call vote of the WAC zoning committee.
Balthaser no D. Province no
Billman no J. Province no
Frank no Rinehart no
Hymer no Wotring no
Morris no Saxton no
Saxton introduced V98-072, the property located at 5594
Chesterview Drive. The applicant is Samantha Schuler,
attorney representing Schottenstein Homes.
Schuler said that MI Homes has filed for a setback variance
for a house in the Westchester subdivision. The house is
located right off Norton Road, on Chesterview Drive, just a
couple blocks ("I don't know my directions.") past Sullivant.
It's the sixth lot on Chesterview.
The house is one that has the garage on the front. The
garage is 1.2 feet over the 25' setback. It is 23.8' from
the right-of-way. The request is for a variance of 1.2 feet.
When the subdivision was being built, around 1993, this house
was the model house. It had an office in the garage. It was
already built when the other houses were being built around
it.
When they went to sell this house, and they went to closing,
and got the survey back, they discovered that the house was
over the setback line. Somehow, inadvertently, it didn't get
staked right, or someone built the house in the wrong place.
They couldn't close.
The people who are in contract to purchase the house are
renting it right now, until they find out whether this
variance will get passed.
The only effect from this error is that the driveway is
shorter. It's not very noticeable.
It would cost $150,000 to rebuild the house. The developer
looked at the possibility of moving the house, but that would
require filling in the basement and building a new one, and
they couldn't guarantee the house, and that would cost
$90,000. They could no longer guarantee the structural
integrity of the house after it had been moved. Without a
warranty, the buyer wouldn't buy. The house would have to be
priced below cost.
D. Province asked whether the developer has been in contact
with the neighbors.
They are trying to do that right now. They intend to obtain
affidavits from the neighbors. However, they all purchased
their houses with this house built this way. The assumption,
therefore, is that they could see this house, and the problem
was not so obvious that it kept them from buying their homes.
Hymer said there seems to be a pattern here. Evidently, the
developers can't read their own plans. This is getting
repetitious.
Saxton moved that the zoning committee approve the variance.
Province seconded. Saxton asked for a voice vote.
Balthaser yes D. Province yes
Billman yes J. Province yes
Frank yes Rinehart yes
Hymer yes Saxton yes
Morris yes Wotring yes
The issue will be heard by BZA on September 22.
Morris asked whether she will have letters from the neighbors
by that time.
Yes.
Saxton introduced V98-077, concerning the property located at
5577 Johnson Road. The property owners are James and Debbie
Carney, who are representing themselves.
James Carney stated he has a 1.73 acre lot, and the home is
under construction now, in the upper half of the lot. The
house comes with a 20' by 20' two-car garage. He is
requesting a variance to construct a 30' by 50' building at
the rear of the lot.
He plans to give the outbuilding a natural finish. The house
is all brick. He is planning to have brick halfway up the
front of the outbuilding. The remainder, and all around the
sides and back, will be either cedar or stucco. There will
be three overhead garage doors on it, and a service door.
The building will be for personal use, only. Carney has a
business located on Sullivant Avenue, and he conducts his
business out of that building.
He owns a couple of vehicles, and he plans to purchase some
equipment for taking care of his grounds, and this
outbuilding will keep him from having these vehicles and
equipment from just sitting around. His wife has a
sportscar, and he has an old Camaro that is sort of a
historical car, and he would like to put them in this
building.
Saxton repeated that there is no commercial use for this
building.
Absolutely not.
Why is the roofline 19' high?
The house has a ten-twelve pitch, which is a steep pitch, and
he wanted the roof system of the building to coordinate with
the house. It is a seven-twelve pitch, and it is a hip roof
system on the building, but without a decent pitch, he is
concerned about the appearance of the building.
Will there be a finished driveway to this building?
Yes, he will finish a driveway from Johnson Road to his home,
and then to the building. It will be at least blacktop. It
may be concrete. It won't be dirt or gravel.
Province asked about the setback at the rear of the property.
It will meet whatever requirements there are. He thinks it
is ten feet.
Is there a house immediately behind the property?
No, it is an open field right now.
Is he removing a building to erect this one?
No, the diagram is misleading. That is pavement, for
parking. It will be either blacktop or concrete.
How about landscaping, to soften the pattern of the building?
There certainly will be quite a bit of landscaping.
Didn't we approve another one for this area?
Yes, two doors away. His house is vinyl sided, and the
outbuilding is block about halfway up, and vinyl sided the
rest of the way.
Province said that 30' by 50' is so massive, that the
building will need some tall shrubbery around it.
Is there a height restriction on buildings in the area, due
to the proximity of the airport?
Saxton asked whether he has obtained approval from the
airport commission?
The outbuilding will not be as tall as his home, and it meets
the airport's requirement.
Saxton moved to approve the variance. Rinehart seconded.
Approved.
The regular meeting of the Westland Area Commission was
called to order at 7:15pm. Present were Dan Province, chair,
Betty Balthaser, Jerry Billman, Hank Canello, Virginia Frank,
Mike Hurd, Glen Hymer, Dorothy Jantzen, Jim McCormick, Mike
McKay, Tom Morris, Jan Province, Dr. Rinehart, Bill Saxton,
Gary Wills, and Ted Wotring. Cooper, Makar, and Wilder are
excused. Also present were James Carney, Sgt. David Eing,
Liz Hazelbaker, Michael O'Reilly, Samantha Schuler, Fred
Simon, various reporters, and many residents.
Saxton moved to approve the July 1998 minutes. Frank
seconded. Approved.
Zoning Committee (Saxton): Saxton offered Simon the
opportunity to re-present his proposal (Z98-054).
Simon said he would not burden Saxton with it.
Province asked the neighbors to raise their hands to show
their concern with 5933 Hall Road.
A neighbor said that she is glad that the WAC zoning
committee turned it down. The proposal is nowhere near what
he told her he would come back with. It is less than the
original proposal.
Saxton moved that the application be accepted. Rinehart
seconded. J. Province requested a roll-call vote.
Balthaser yes Morris no
Billman no D. Province no
Canello no J. Province no
Frank yes Rinehart no
Hurd no Saxton no
Hymer no Wills abstain
Jantzen no Wotring (absent)
McCormick no
Liz Hazelbaker said she will follow Fred's lead, and she will
not waste WAC's time with a rehash of Z98-057.
Saxton moved to accept the application. Morris seconded.
Balthaser no Morris no
Billman abstain D. Province no
Canello no J. Province no
Frank no Rinehart no
Hurd no Saxton no
Hymer no Wills abstain
Jantzen no Wotring (absent)
Saxton called Michael O'Reilly, regarding Z96-112.
O'Reilly said, "Same thing."
Saxton moved that the application for the corner of Alkire
and Holt Road be approved. McCormick seconded.
Balthaser no McCormick no
Billman no Morris no
Canello no D. Province no
Frank no J. Province no
Hurd no Rinehart no
Hymer no Saxton no
Jantzen no Wills abstain
Saxton introduced V98-072, 5592 Chesterview Drive, MI
Schottenstein Homes, represented by Samantha Schuler.
Saxton moved that the application be approved. Morris
seconded. Saxton asked for a voice vote.
Balthaser yes McCormick yes
Billman yes Morris yes
Canello yes D. Province yes
Frank yes J. Province yes
Hurd yes Rinehart yes
Hymer yes Saxton yes
Jantzen yes Wills abstain
Saxton introduced V98-077, 5577 Johnson Road, to allow a
building to be built at the rear of that property. Saxton
moved that the application be accepted. Rinehart seconded.
Approved.
Province reported that still more storage sheds are being
constructed on Broad Street and on Georgesville Road. The
land has been zoned already.
Didn't we hear the zoning for the Broad Street development?
They came back a second time with landscaping...
Yes. There was a problem between the developer and the
apartment complex to the south. Everything has been worked
out, now, we hope. Province hasn't seen the final plat.
The Parkland Dedication Ordinance did pass at City Council's
last meeting. That means that, from now on, every zoning we
hear should have a donation of parkland or money to develop
parkland.
Why didn't the property at Hall and Galloway come under this
ordinance?
Province said he will look that up. Perhaps the application
was filed before the ordinance was passed.
Saxton told the neighbors that WAC is an advisory group,
only. The issues will now go before City Council, and they
are not bound to decide according to WAC's recommendations.
It is very important that the neighbors contact City Council
and inform the councilpeople of their opinions.
The issue will go before the Development Commission on
September 10. Then, it will go before City Council.
Province said that the Development Commission meets at 1250
Fairwood. The time the issue will be heard isn't known yet.
It will be between 6:00 and 10:00pm, probably.
Will Simon go before the Development Commission with the
plans we heard tonight, with the 900 square foot homes?
Yes, probably. Or, he may change it to anything he wants.
Saxton said the owner of the property is named Cipriani. He
will re-sell the land to MI, or whoever, and we have no
control over the sale.
Hurd said we can't stress enough how important it is for the
neighbors to appear at the meeting.
Saxton suggested they could even invest some of their
association's funds in a mouthpiece.
J. Province said that telephone calls and letters to
councilmembers are also a good idea.
Should we be doing that now?
Yes.
D. Province said that the neighbors should call City Hall and
ask for Matt Habash, who is the zoning chair for City
Council. Ask to talk to him, or to staff, about it. (Staff
people are being reassigned now, so names can't be provided).
Simon will be talking to Council, showing them that he is
offering more than the minimum, and the neighbors are being
unreasonable. The Council people don't care what the
developer is proposing to build. The neighbors have to speak
to the councilmen, and explain that they have better homes
than that, and that Simon is proposing to lower their
property values.
Saxton said he has many apartments for rent, and none of them
measure 900 square feet or less.
A neighbor said that, if we want a larger home, we have to
move out of the Westland area. There is nothing comparable
to Epernay available in the area. Comparable homes are all
they are after.
Saxton said that the new development will be in the Columbus
school system, not South-Western.
Yes, she understands that. But, you can't tell that by
looking at the houses. She was one of the original Epernay
homeowners. The buyers were given the choice of moving to
Westchester or Epernay, and they chose Epernay, which was
slightly upscale.
Another neighbor agreed. He is not rich, but no one is
talking about exorbitant amounts of money. They are asking
for more of what they now have. Let's not lower the
standards.
Province said that, about four to six weeks after the issue
is heard by the Development Commission, it will go before
City Council. Council can, and sometimes does, vote in
opposition to the recommendations of both WAC and the
Development Commission.
Don't they pay attention to WAC's minimum standards?
J. Province said that they will hear that. However, the
developer will be there on Tuesday afternoon, telling them
that, after all, this is only the west side. They are being
totally realistic, and we should be thankful for what we've
got, because it is so hard to build and sell houses in this
neighborhood.
D. Province said that City Council is committed to building
houses in Columbus, and in the Columbus school district.
They should have standards, though, for houses in Columbus.
Saxton said they do. The standard for R-2 is a 750 square
foot house, with no basement or garage required.
A neighbor said that, if he were a developer, and his
property was in the Columbus school system, he would be
unwilling to build a larger house on the property, for fear
he could not sell it.
But there are houses in Clifton Chase in the $170,000 range.
There are plenty of cracker boxes available now in Westland
for starter homes and empty nesters.
Wouldn't the taxes be higher for the owner of a $170,000
house, than for one that measures 900 square feet?
Ask your city councilman.
The developer could be playing mind games. The attorney will
ask for something unreasonably small, so that, after
negotiations, he can offer what he wanted in the first
place, and come out looking like a benefactor. There is a
game being played here.
It isn't just us, it is the entire west side community. If
we give in here, the developers can do what they want all
over the west side.
The developer met with the Epernay residents, and promised to
invite Clifton Chase residents to the meeting. Then, they
sent the invitations to the mortgage companies, who, in turn,
told no one.
Saxton said that, if a whole bunch of neighbors show up at
the Development Commission, the issue will be tabled. Then,
the next time, if the same group shows up, they will table it
again. Then, they will wait until the group doesn't show up
to take it from the table.
Province said he went to the Development Commission a week
ago about a garage. The attorney was there, ready to present
the issue. Because Province and some neighbors were there,
the issue was tabled. If they weren't there, the issue would
not have been tabled.
Wills said that the last big issue involved Westchester.
Province and many neighbors showed up at the Development
Commission, and the Development Commission voted in favor of
the neighbors and WAC. However, Province alone went before
City Council. The developer turned around everything that
had been said, and a representative of Recreation and Parks
conveniently "forgot" the existence of one of the only two
parks in the Westland area, and City Council voted
unanimously in favor of the developer and against the
recommendations of the Development Commission, WAC, and the
neighborhood.
On Galloway Ridge, the developer is building the biggest
houses possible on the small lots, because the small houses
aren't selling.
That's why they are encroaching on the setbacks. They are
building the absolute maximum size houses possible.
Province looked at those houses, and they are 1800 to 2200
square feet. Then, they come back to us, and they won't
commit to 1200.
A neighbor said Dominion built a big house next to him, with
no buyer. They weren't worried. They said some young exec
would come by, and they were right.
Then, the developer accuses WAC of being uncharitable,
denying young people the opportunity to have starter homes.
There are plenty of starter homes in this area, already.
There are vacant starter homes in Laurel Greene. If so many
people want starter homes, why don't they buy the ones that
are built already?
You can buy a new home at a lower interest rate.
Saxton said that something new is 40 year mortgages.
The meeting ended at 7:40pm.