Whereas we the undersigned are citizens of Kimberly, Alabama and homeowners in the development of Doss Ferry, and having made substantial investments in our homes based on a vision communicated and marketed by the original developer as well as in the original master plan, we hereby submit this petition to the Kimberly Planning and Zoning Committee this 6th day of November, 2017.

In a hearing of April 3, 2017 concerning the applicant’s submittal that was denied, over 140 homeowners signed and submitted a petition to the city of Kimberly Zoning Board with the following request:

• We ask that you deny any application for development of the subdivision that substantially alters the concept of Doss Ferry marketed as a predominantly low-density neighborhood. Specifically, we ask that any approved plan consists of a majority of lots that essentially match the size of lots in sectors I and II, having a nominal width of 100 ft and a minimum area of 15,000 square feet.

In the application being considered today, while the density of the proposed new sector is decreased from 142 lots to 102 lots on the same 39 acres, it remains nonetheless a significant increase in density over the original Master Plan of 52 lots (as detailed in the city’s letter to the applicant), and not consistent with the request we made in April in the spirit of that original plan. Even though all lots have been increased in width, many lots on the proposed plan are under 15,000 sq ft and some are under 10,000 sq ft. This is not consistent with the character of the original master plan. We therefore remain opposed to a change to any sector higher in density than the original master plan and again urge you to consider the same request above and to deny this application on that basis.

If you will not immediately deny application on the basis above, and whereas some members had not seen the plan as of October 30 or had ample time to review the plan, we request that the city exercise its right to delay action on this application under zoning ordinance section 904.3.d to fully consider our concerns and until the proposed zoning ordinance revisions are considered by the city, and that the proposed sector be subject to any such revisions, with applicant to be required to revise specifications that do not meet the revised ordinance, or otherwise be required to also apply for any resulting variances from the board of zoning adjustments. The following requirements of the proposed ordinance for a planned unit district are not met by the applicant’s plan.

1. Street setbacks proposed in the application do not satisfy the proposed ordinance revision section 904.2.b.22.
2. Applicant has not provided the residential structure details required in ordinance section 904.5.2.h and has publicly declined to make those details available to the homeowners of Doss Ferry.

We further request that any approval of a new sector in Doss Ferry be provisional stipulating the following conditions:

• In the interest of public safety, no individual building permits will be issued until the proposed second entrance to the development is open for public and construction access and Doss Ferry Parkway has been extended and is open and connected to the second entrance. With 257 home sites in the current sectors, the existing entrance will not safely support the additional traffic burden.
• In the interest of public safety, no individual building permits will be issued until the proposed direct access to the common area pool, park, and school bus stop is completed for the new sector, is clearly marked, and is safe. Doss Ferry Parkway and Warrior Kimberly Road do not have sidewalks and more children will be walking to the common areas and to school. This access from the new sector is for the safety of everyone in the development and its completion cannot be relegated to verbal promises made by the applicant.

Moreover, we also make the following request of the city of Kimberly:

Recognizing that many homeowners in Doss Ferry continue to be significantly affected by storm water problems, we ask that the city take an active and critical role in inspection not only of the structures, but also of the site work, as the applicant is not being diligent in this regard in spite of numerous complaints and problems.