Crickentree HOA newsletter yesterday.
I wanted to point out a few items in the letter and offer my opinion.
1) “E-Capital’s application is for rezoning to RS-MD (Residential Medium Density) District, with self-imposed restrictions consistent with the site layout plans as presented and revised.”
If they are truly planning 237 total lots as indicated in the letter,
then why are they applying for zoning that would allow 5.12 homes per acre totaling nearly 950 homes
? I believe it’s so they can scrap the plan they have “sold” to our neighborhood and so the developer they subsequently sell the property to can build 900+ homes. If they had intentions of abiding by the 237 total lots in the plan, then I don't believe they would have applied for Medium Density.
2) “Low density lot standards will apply to homes south of the existing pond (separate development area). This includes all homes which are closest to the existing Crickentree community.”
Again, this promise is “self-imposed” and
. Even if you believe that they will hold to that promise, the plan indicates a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size which is still less than a 1/3 of an acre which does not match the character of our neighborhood. Low Density lot standards allow for 3.63 homes per acre. Many lots in our existing neighborhood are about an acre.
Now, imagine your own personal lot with 3 homes sitting on it.
3) “A perimeter buffer is proposed to be a minimum of 150’ directly adjacent to the Crickentree community. Grading options may be necessary within this buffer and if disturbed, the buffer will be replanted…”
So the 150 ft. buffer (that is “proposed” and that they are “self-imposing” and that is not enforceable) may be
(insert “clear cut” if you like) and then they “promise” to replant. Wonder if we will get some little seedlings to replace the 80-100 ft. hardwoods on the course that will be cut down?
4) “This proposal deals with the actual facts and circumstances of this owner’s property. It is not intended to be, nor should it be, a general referendum or precedent on TROS Zoning.”
Rezoning proposals are site specific…true.
But it would be ridiculous to believe that Richland County would not take their decision on Crickentree into account if another TROS zoning application landed in front of them.
5) “The restrictive provisions and specific lot standards for each area identified will be written in recordable/enforceable form.”
The plan submitted with their zoning request is simply a proposal. I have been personally told by Richland County officials that it is
and once E-Capital sells the land to a developer, the developer can completely scrap the plan and start over. And, even if you believed that is was enforceable, what would it take to enforce it? A lawsuit that would cost tens of thousands of dollars, and we would likely lose. Not to mention,
once the land is cleared, you can’t go back and undo it.
Even if we could win a lawsuit against the new property owner, we would never be made whole again after the destruction of the property.