Fayette County Commissioners Oct. 27 denied a rezoning request that would create 31 homes on 38.92 acres on New Hope Road, approving instead an R-70 zoning that would restrict the development to 15 homes. Residents present in opposition to the proposed R-45 zoning were pleased.

Prior to voting unanimously for the R-70 zoning, commissioners said a less dense zoning in the area would be preferable.

“The land use plan is a guide and we do have discretion and in order not to have that domino effect that could easily occur if we did a one-acre zoning, I think that R-70 is probably the best use for this particular piece of property,” said Commission Vice Chair Linda Wells.

Commissioner Peter Pfeifer, who made the motion, also cited two-acre lots as being the preferred approach for the development.

“I made the motion because I believe the highest density should be two acres in this area. The land use plan does say one to two (acres), I don’t think we always have to be at one. I think we can sometimes be at two and this is a case where we should be at two,” he said.

A. G. VanLandingham added that, though not brought up during the public hearing, the property is situated over a groundwater recharge area.

Speaking earlier to commissioners, homeowner Judy Chastain requested a compromise, asking for an R-75 zoning that would require a minimum 2,500 square-foot home. Such a move would fall within the county’s land use plan. Doing otherwise, she said, would set up the potential for hundreds of acres in north Fayette to be zoned for one lot per acre, creating a domino effect in density that would not serve area residents.

“We predict it will be a domino effect for our community,” Chastain explained. “We would have a greater amount of density in an already overly dense area of north Fayette. The adverse ripple effect would be far-reaching. We are not against growth or change, but are pleading for a quality of growth that will not adversely affect property owners and the quality of life for our community.”

Chastain said a reduced number of lots would lessen the number of septic tanks and the concern for storm-water runoff and would reduce traffic volume over what an R-45 zoning would have allowed. Chastain said a fewer number of homes would also mean she would have four, rather than eight, backyards adjacent to her home.

A condition of the commission’s approval included the installation of a planted buffer around Chastain’s property.

Area resident Vick Bolton also asked commissioners to consider a lesser density zoning. He said an R-45 zoning, while legal, would be too dense, too soon and would not be a good fit.

“The fact that it’s legal is not in dispute. It definitely fits within the context of the land use plan,” he said. “The question is whether it’s right.”

login to post comments