I also find that if a 45 foot ROW is necessary for.safe travel then the pure dediptibn <br />of the land does nothing to make safety a reality. OMC should be required to actually make <br />the expanded ROW a reality, not just a dedication for the future. When? 50 years from <br />now? <br />Along this same logic, if the City-says it needs to have a 45 foot ROW then the entire <br />length of Oakleigh should have to be.improved to meet those standards. This would b e a <br />'huge impact oiilhe neighbors an.d-the cost of-improvements to the city would be enormous.' <br />Therefore, this PUD should-be fully denied! <br />2. The hearings official erred in saying that the neighbors to the North must not have <br />understood the landscape plan and that-OMC made it very clear that they have selected the <br />row of cedar trees for preservation. This is a gross error. The neighbors to the north, <br />MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND, know full well what OMC's landscape plans are and we made <br />it very clear in our letters. Either the HO was being sarcastic and rude or he did not read <br />any of our letters. As.the owners of Tax Lot 200, and the owners of the large row of cedar <br />trees, we made it very clear that OMC does not have the authority to "select the cedar trees <br />f or preservation". Wording it as if the cedar trees belong to. them! You cannot select <br />something that does not belong to you! Those trees are on my property, and at any time, I <br />may need to, or choose to, remove those cedar trees. Or the future property owner of tax <br />lot 200 could remove those trees. That will leave OMC's property with no screening on the <br />north property line, whatsoever. Please keep in mind that the setback back from Building 1 <br />to the proposed new ROW of Oakleigh will be 0:5 feet and there is no screening proposed <br />for the north side of OMC's development along Oakleigh Lane. <br />We currently plan to remove several of those cedar trees. due to them leaning <br />toward the proposed OMC buildings, should this development move forward. We are <br />already debating the removal of additional trees due to our fear of them falling.from <br />damage during construction and our feat of liability of damage of falling trees or branches <br />on building 2, which that is being built very close to them. <br />So, once again, the HO erred in his statement. Yes, the neighbors to the north are <br />well aware of the landscape plan of OMC, NO, OMC should not be able to use OUR trees for <br />their screening, and NO, those cedar trees are not guaranteed to remain. <br />3. OMC did a good job of tricking the HO into thinking that the building size and mass are <br />compatible with the existing neighborhood. OMC likes to talk about how their "units" are <br />comparable in size to the existing homes in the surrounding neighborhood. Once again, <br />300 <br />