Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cluster Development Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents protest Key State Homes’ 5‑unit cluster concept; commission flags density, setbacks and wetlands issues
Summary
Residents urged the Planning & Zoning Commission to reject a concept plan from Key State Homes to build five clustered homes on a 1.22‑acre parcel adjacent to Beechwood Wetlands; commissioners said the plan needs substantial redesign and several variances and noted wetland mitigation is handled by state/federal agencies.
Residents and nearby property owners packed the chamber to oppose a concept plan from Key State Homes that would put five cluster homes on a parcel adjacent to the Beechwood Wetlands.
Jeff Nash, representing himself and the Fairwood Glen Homeowners Association and more than 75 petition signers, urged the commission to protect the wetlands and opposed the developer’s request to cluster five units on a lot zoned for single‑family use. ‘‘This property was purchased with zoning for single family residential use...the wetlands is a vital part of our ecosystem,’’ Nash said.
Ronald Khan, president of the Fairwood Glen Homeowners Association, cited Beechwood Code Chapter 1001 and said required riparian and wetland setbacks (30–50 feet, depending on wetland category) should be enforced. David Steinberg, who owns the adjacent 26611 Fairmont parcel, focused on a requested 37‑foot side‑yard variance he said represents a 92.5% reduction and argued the developer has not shown a comparable hardship after the city denied his smaller variance last year.
Developer Andrew Gottlieb and consultant David Kaplan said the plan would preserve and mitigate some wetland area, work with a wetlands consultant, and buy mitigation credits as needed for Army Corps requirements. Gottlieb said the proposal aims to fit the neighborhood pattern of other cluster developments and suggested that building fewer, larger homes would change lot coverage but might be an option.
Planning staff and commissioners identified multiple code variances that would be necessary: the cluster chapter requires a minimum of 2 acres (the parcel is 1.22 acres), density rules would limit the number of units to four under code, side‑to‑side separation would require roughly a 6.5‑foot variance (code requires 15 feet; the plan shows 8.5 feet), and driveway setbacks and interior separations also need exceptions. Commissioner Zabel and others said the number and magnitude of variances — particularly for acreage and side setbacks — make the plan unlikely to be approved as presented.
Several commissioners also noted that the city does not have final authority over federal/state wetland mitigation decisions; any mitigation or credits would need review by outside agencies. The commission emphasized continued discussions with staff and neighbors; no formal approval was requested or taken at this meeting.
The commission asked the developer to continue working with city staff to test alternative layouts that reduce density, increase setbacks, and minimize impacts on neighboring properties and wetlands.
