Against Proposed Development off of Burney Lane

Signatures 61 total

Page: 1, 2

1. 1
   Name: Wm.T.Capps & Debra Capps on Jan 8, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Nancy McArthur on Jan 8, 2008

   Comments: This development will destroy the roads and the habitat in this area. Furthermore, this area was purposely built in a way to deter further development in order to maintain the trees and wildlife in this 'natural preserve' for the city of Southlake, which is the way it needs to be maintained.

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Rob Johnson on Jan 8, 2008

   Comments: I believe the petition speaks for itself....developing on this land seems absurd and forced. City Council rejected, unanimously, the last developers plan.....nothing has changed with this developer.

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Terry L. And Judith Y. Sauder on Jan 8, 2008

   Comments: In addition to the above petion concerns, we feel that our property values will continue to deteriorate.

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Terry L. And Judith Y. Sauder on Jan 8, 2008

   Comments: In addition to the above petion concerns, we feel that our property values will continue to deteriorate.

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Alice Miller on Jan 8, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Ward And Diedra Flora on Jan 8, 2008

   Comments: A similar development of this property was unanimously rejected by the City Council less than 2 years ago. Little has changed, and we cannot understand why this issue is being considered again.

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Barbara Hill on Jan 9, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Bill Cook on Jan 9, 2008

   Comments: Development in this area was rejected by the city in the past. The reasions for rejection in the past have not changed by the adoption of a new development name.

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Terri West on Jan 9, 2008

    Comments: The area involved should be protected as a wildlife habitat as was originally planned.

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Jamie Galis on Jan 9, 2008

    Comments: The city should look at purchasing this property to maintain the unique character of the undeveloped land around Lake Grapevine much like they have already done for Bob Jones Nature Center. This property is no less valuable as a wild life habitat.

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 9, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Greg And Mariana Hammer on Jan 9, 2008

    Comments: These people need to live with the consequences of their prior actions and go find another area where develoment might be welcome. These developers are wanting to disrup and affect too many tax paying citicenz lives just to pocket money. They are not welcome in our neighborhood, and we will oppose it no matter what.

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Tina Johnson on Jan 10, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Mark And Carol Cox on Jan 11, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Jimmy & Tammy Fox on Jan 11, 2008

    Comments: Do not like breaking of covenants by granting an easement for the road. Construction will tear up our roads, which we waited 20 years to be repaired. Traffic is already to busy, and they drive to fast down Burney Ln.

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Jack Fredricks on Jan 13, 2008

    Comments: If this proposal is approved, it will have major impact to my family with the introduction of a road right next to my property line. This development simply does not fit into the neighborhood. A similar development was rejected in the recent past, and this proposal has even more impact to the neighborhood and the properties in close proximity to the entrance of the development. Do to the natural runoff flow of water towards Lake Grapevine, significant work will need to be completed which will create major disruptions to the habitat and nature landscape and tree lines. This development is simply being forced into and area that was not planned, I request that the zoning remain agriculture and that the city find a suitable solution for the current owner and for this neighborhood without affecting it's pristine harmonization with nature.

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Mary Durkin on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Mary Durkin on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Ray & Dinah Chancellor on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments: The proposed development plan is totally irresponsible given the precedent history established for previous development along the west side of Burney Lane and the documented ecological sensitivity of the area.

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Terry L. Sauder on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Alethea Schroen on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments: This land has been recognized by the city of Southlake during previous attempts of development as a unique and highly valuable natural resource unsuitable for development. This is still true.

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Debbie Ledet on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Steve & Cathy Curtis on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments: The above is all inclusive to what will happen should this subdivision be built, other than the immense dominoed effects, thereafter.

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Connie Hitchcock on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments: My husband, Gil, and I agree the impact of this development in its present form would not be good for our neighborhood nor the surrounding environment.

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Rose Fredricks on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments: One reason we moved here was for the health and welfare of our children. I believe this proposed development will significantly negatively impact their home and play environments.

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Rod And Kathy Stevenson on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: John G. Hammer on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments: I concur with the Harbor Oaks impacts.

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: John G. Hammer on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Darin And Michele Winn on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments: The planned development would be extremely disruptive to the existing neighborhood, the environment and wildlife which currently occupies this land. This property was allowed to be landlocked when Huse Homeplace was developed (by this same developer I believe) and the city should not make this neighborhood suffer the consequences of those decisions. Also, Huse Homeplace still has one third of the lots approved for development with no homes. The developer would argue that there is tremendous demand for these types of lots, yet his last project in the neighborhood is still not fully developed years later. There are hundreds of acres of property in Southlake that could be developed with significantly less disruption to a community. Please find a solution that allows for this property to remain undeveloped but which provides some liquidity for the property owner. Thank you.

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: John G. Hammer on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments: Fully concur

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Mark And Carol Cox on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Gale Farhat on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments: 1060 harbor haven southlake tx, we have lived at this location for 20 years.

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Mary R Wambsganss on Jan 14, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Leonard Ledet on Jan 15, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Michael Cope on Jan 15, 2008

    Comments: We are at 3550 Carmel Ct and protest what will be the sure negative environmental impact to the cove and wildlife habitat. The density of development is far too great to not cause this environmental damage. When this was voiced in SPIN meetings, by me, the developer/presenter replied that this was the density that it takes to make the project economically viable. That means to me that this project is not economically viable for the kind of project that this developer wants to build, NOT that the city should do whatever is necessary to make it economically viable. Using his logic the city should approve a 20 story building if that is what it would take to make the site economically viable. That area should not be developed at all if the result is going to be damage to the cove and environment. If someone wants to buy the whole area for the placement of 1 or 2 higher value estates that may be possibles without serious ecological damage, but nowhere is it written that any piece of property anywhere should be zoned to be economically viable for whatever the mass market currently prefers. This is a non-renewable resource that our community has been blessed with. It should be protected, not exploited.

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Allan Hultin on Jan 15, 2008

    Comments: I dont like being "sold" a bill of goods by developers. The impact on this area will last forever if this is approved.

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Ellyn King on Jan 15, 2008

    Comments: We need parks not houses.

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Ken And Gloria Land on Jan 15, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Marge Zielke on Jan 15, 2008

    Comments: Access road location and lot sizes smaller than adjacent lots are of particular concern. Environmental buffer and COE access trail as provided are important features of proposed plan.

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Jim Schmidt on Jan 15, 2008

    Comments: I am opposed to this plan and any other plan for developing this land with lot sizes smaller than 2 acres.

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Jim Schmidt on Jan 15, 2008

    Comments: I am opposed to this plan and any other plan for developing this land with lot sizes smaller than 2 acres.

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: John Monrad on Jan 16, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Barbara Fischbach on Jan 16, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Marc McGaffigan on Jan 16, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Joan McGaffigan on Jan 16, 2008

    Comments: I agree with the "more parks, not homes", especially in this established neighborhood. I live on Burney Lane and would not welcome more cars on this already busy street. One of the main reasons people love the neighborhood is the size of the lots and the natural environment.

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Shay Sabbatis on Jan 16, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: John & Lynda Stewart on Jan 16, 2008

    Comments: We are very opposed to this development as planned. The property will not support the proposed layout, as it appears the conservation area defined expands any reasonable usable area for several lots. In addition, a new road will be placed that severely impact three existing lots, two adjacent to the road and one facing the road entry onto Burney. This property also is very rocky and likely will not support underground septic systems.

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Bernard Fischbach on Jan 16, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Amy K. Hakert, D.V.M. on Jan 16, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: 1, 2