We are very worried that Fisher Homes is going to come into our community and start to ruin it. We would like to make some bullet points on our concerns.
·We are sickened with the apparent direction you are going with “The Springs”. This could be a beautiful neighborhood and community and we know Fischer Homes will step up and make it as nice as similar surrounding developments being built, but ONLY if you hold them to it.
·They purchased this neighborhood basically for less than what it costs to develop the surrounding amenities and current lots and the land was basically free to them. The additional 61 homes and their choice of building materials and certain designs has been an added bonus for them. We fear you are caving in to what they want to do at our expense. For the best interest of the neighborhood and the community we believe the following items should be adhered to:
o 75% brick minimum on fronts of all homes.
o 8’ high brick (not 6’-10”) minimum on sides and rear of 2 story homes.
o 8/12 minimum pitch roof on all homes as close to 4 homes in any direction from existing homes per 2005 PUD. This will be gradual transformation from our existing 10/12 & 12/ 12 pitch to 6/12.
o Developed Area 3 to have same building specifications as Area 4 to protect existing residents.
o Area 2 to have minimum 6/12 pitch roof, overhangs at rear soffits and minimum of 1500 SF for ranch homes per 2005 PUD. (Nothing under 1500 SF shown in photos) 7 homes adjacent to clubhouse and house at front entrance of condos to have same requirements as Area 2A.
o All homes to have concrete board siding not vinyl.
o 61 additional homes not to be approved before widths of new homes have been determined, and have better than sufficient space between homes.
o All condos to have a garage and dimensional shingled roofs.
o Recalculate masonry: concrete board siding should not to be considered masonry for masonry calculations (Appraisers do not calculate brick and siding to be the same).
o Clubhouse needs additional reviews, no storage for chairs, tables, decorations, outdoor furniture, cleaning supply room with sink, ceramic floors in kitchen.
o Rental clause included in documents so investors are not permitted to purchase houses or condos.
·We would like to finalize our letter with a little remembrance of history. Fischer Homes is proposing squeezing in an additional 61 home sites above and beyond the original 351 approved by the City in 2005. This is an increase of approximately 17%. Their target market is young families as opposed to the original “empty nester” market envisioned in the 2005 plan. At an estimated 2 children per household, what impact will this have on Springboro schools? This density issue has been addressed in four successive Planning Commission meetings by concerned citizens. It appears to be a “non issue” as far as the planning commission is concerned. An impact study has been recommended prior to approval of the plan, but has been ignored, and it is upsetting us, since we have voted against the last several school levies. And several levies have failed so apparently, the majority of Springboro voters agree with us on this issue. I would like to jog your memories from a past article in Dayton Daily News for those of you, that have “conveniently” ignored and forgotten this: http://www.bizjournals.com
The Springboro Voice
Springboro, Ohio 45066
Operated by TheVoiceofMiamiValley.com
Serving CarlisleDaily.com, TheFranklinVoice.com, and TheSpringboroVoice.com
Valid points. What happens there could impact nearby market values in Woodland Greens and Greenleaf Village. Hopefully, others will realize this too.ReplyDelete