Neighbors urge Plan Commission to reject dense Foxwood plan, citing traffic, wildlife and property-value worries

At the public hearing on the Foxwood preliminary plat, neighbors delivered repeated, detailed objections to the proposed 38‑lot plan.

Resident Robert Slasky said the development surprised neighbors because, he claimed, many were told previously that Kirschner would not be connected: “I think pretty much everybody that bought property was told Kirschner would never be connected.” Other commenters raised common themes: concerns about loss of woods and wildlife, noise and construction impacts, higher traffic through formerly dead‑end streets, smaller lot sizes than the existing neighborhood, and potential declines in property values.

Several speakers cited factual data and neighborhood history: staff noted that 97 letters were mailed and 17 were returned not in favor; resident Jill Sciardo said, “38 houses, a retention pond is absolutely ridiculous for that piece of property.” David Skinner asked whether environmental impacts had been studied and said initial ground clearing displaced wildlife, including that “a bald eagle was displaced out of that.” Residents asked about buffers such as berms or tree lines and whether lot sizes could be increased; petitioners and staff responded that some lots meet R2 requirements and that larger lots would affect project feasibility.

The commission acknowledged the concerns but emphasized its ministerial role under state law: its review is limited to whether the application complies with zoning and subdivision ordinances, not to revisit prior zoning decisions.