HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Kent BorgmanNov. 15. 2007 12;O1PM
November 14, 2007
City of Meridian planning and Zoning Commission
660 E. Watertower, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83fi42
Re: Request'for Annexation and Zoning, AZ 078-015
Location: 1650 East Dunwoody Court, Meridian, Idaho
Applicant: Marshall Williaxns
No, 9067 P. 1
1~,.~C
E~V
N0 ~-~
~ ~ 5 2007
~1 t
City Cle k o~~u
e
pear Chairman Rohm and members of the City of Meridian Plaruung and Zoning
Commission:
This letter is intended to inform the Commissioners of the Dunwoody Subdivision
homeowners' concerns regarding proposed request for annexation and re-zaning.
As president of the Dunwoody Architectural Control Committee, and in light of
the overwhelming response of the Dunwoody homeowners to this proposal, I believe .that
it would be appropriate, if not necessary, for the City of Meridian to require the applicant
to enter into a development agreement with the City as a condition of annexation and re-
zoning. The development agreement could require the applicant, as a condition of
annexation and re-zoning, to agree: 1) to not subdivide the subject property and 2) to use
the subject property for no other purpose than as a single family residence.
These xequirexnents are already set forth in the Declaration if Covenants,
Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Dunwoody Subdivision dated November 1,
.1990 and recorded as instrument 1259001201 (hereinafter referred to as "CC&R' 1 t are
the CC&R's, Section 5.01 clearly states that the lots specified in the Dunwoody p
to be used for single family residences or agricultural purposes only. The CC&R's go on
to specify that separation of lots is prohibited {section 5.02), that approval by the
Dunwoody Architectural Committee is required for any and all improvements (Section
5.03) and that no residential or open lot may be further subdivided (Section 5.13).
Therefore, a City of Meridian .Development Agreement that requires the applicant
to not subdivide the subject property and to not use the subject. property for any other
purpose other than for a single family residence (as required by the duly recorded
CC&R's) would be entirely appropriate, and perhaps necessary, to protect the interests of
the surrounding, homeowners in Dunwoody whose property will undoubtedly be affected
by this proposal 'and whom boug$t homes in Dunwoody precisely because of the
CC&R's which were drafted to preserve the rural feel of this area.
I appreciate your~time and consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Kent Borgman _