September 1, 2013 <br />To whom it may concern: <br />We would like to voice our concern and opposition to the Oakleigh Meadow Co-Housing development <br />as currently proposed. We bought the residence at 109 Oakleigh Lane because of the quiet low-traffic <br />street, fun and interesting neighbors, and for its proximity to the bike path. <br />Initially, the planners presented a 7-10 unit development to the neighborhood. This development was <br />explained to us as 'low-impact', 'sustainable', and 'community oriented'. For example, the rhetoric was <br />that the people interested in a co-housing arrangement would share a kitchen, eschew automobiles, be <br />content with very small living spaces, all for a very low price point and the opportunity to create and <br />enhance community. At that time, construction traffic seemed to be the largest impact to the <br />neighborhood one that would be noticeable, but potentially short-lived. <br />Unfortunately, that is not the scenario which exists today. The initial tale of a small cohousing <br />development has been replaced by what appears to be a traditional, albeit heavily 'green-washed', <br />townhome complex: <br />• 28 proposed units - Currently there are 17 only homes on Oakleigh Lane <br />• 47 parking spaces - this lot will house more cars than currently reside on Oakleigh Lane, but <br />strangely enough will not be sufficient to hold guest or maintenance traffic <br />• As stated on the OMC website, the proposed cost for each new condo is $200,000-$300,000. <br />This is inconsistent in that it is more than double the current value of the homes on Oakleigh <br />Lane. It also appears to contradict the original idea of an affordable cohousing community. <br />We have several concerns which are presented in detail on the next page (Appendix.A). Our opposition <br />is simple, and can be expressed in the following manner: Oakleigh Lane is a small, narrow, and dead-end <br />street. Allowing this development to continue as proposed will have a negative and measureable <br />impact on the people who reside there. There will be legitimate safety concerns associated with both <br />the construction and residential traffic this development will create (as evidenced by traffic collision <br />May 19, 2011-please refer to Appendix B). In addition, the planning process has been (arguably) mis- <br />leadirig and disingenuous; the current proposal maximizes profit / # units at the expense of the <br />surrounding community. <br />These concerns are real, well defined, and come from citizens who will be impacted by this <br />development. This is not a situation in which land use modification is acceptable. We encourage the <br />RRCO to reconsider their support. <br />Sincerley, <br />Jean Darian <br />Laurie Trautman <br />Simon Trautman <br />