SHERIDAN — Tom Balding purchased his house off Peno Road 22 years ago, but “of course it feels like yesterday,” he said.
Balding revels in looking up at the night sky, enjoying quiet walks on the trails through his property, and relishing relative isolation his property has afforded him despite being less than a mile outside the Sheridan city limits. For Balding, home is indeed where the heart is.
“Typically, you have your wife, your kids and your home,” Balding said. “That’s what you live for. I’m not married now and my kids have moved out. But my home is very important to me.”
Balding believes many of the things he loves about his property could change if the Sheridan County Commission chooses to approve the Freedom Ranch subdivision Feb. 15.
Balding, and others who have been protesting the 20-lot subdivision in various public meetings over the last six months, are concerned about the impacts of 20 new septic tanks on the ground water; increased traffic; and increased light pollution that could limit residents’ view of the night sky.
“He (developer Todd Greig) calls it the Freedom Ranch, but I feel like I should have my freedom to live my lifestyle and try to keep it the way it’s always been,” Balding said. “You know, this is what I’ve worked for all my life.”
Public disapproval of housing developments isn’t new, according to Sheridan Community Development Director Wade Sanner, and the desire to expand and create something new is always balanced by those who wish things would not change. But that particular tension has become increasingly evident in recent weeks.
Less than a week after a housing study was released predicting Sheridan County would need 990 new housing units within the next decade, Balding and others who live near the proposed Freedom Ranch site told the Sheridan City Council they don’t want to lose their way of life in the name of progress.
“I just want someone to say ‘no,’” Ron Turpin said at a Jan. 17 Sheridan City Council meeting. “I’m tired of ‘yes.’ I want to keep Sheridan Sheridan. I’m tired of it growing. I’ve lived here 17 years, and in that 17 years, I can’t believe nobody has ever said ‘no’…. At some point, we need to say ‘No, we don’t need this.’”
The proposed 72.94-acre Freedom Ranch subdivision would be located at the northeast corner of Cedar Lane off Brundage Lane. The property, which is currently zoned rural residential, will be divided into 20 lots and two conservation lots. The lots will vary in size from a half-acre to just over a full acre, according to the city’s Public Works Director Lane Thompson. The conservation lots — which will be used for agricultural purposes, according to developer Todd Greig — will be 36.47 acres and 14.60 acres.
The development is taking place in what is colloquially known as the “city-county doughnut,” according to Sanner. This area includes all county properties within a one mile-radius of the city limits. Imagine the city itself as a doughnut hole, Sanner said, with that big one-mile circle of space around it as the doughnut.
Sanner said development occurs frequently in the doughnut, with the city considering a new subdivision there every three or four months. And it’s easy to see the appeal, according to county planner Mark Reid.
“It is not uncommon by any means to have these developments in the doughnut area, especially during this period of rapid development and growth,” Reid said. “Developers like to have a product they can sell, and the ones that are not too far away from the city, but that still provide rural amenities, are pretty desirable. It’s the best of both worlds, I guess.”
Freedom Ranch is located on the southeast portion of the doughnut, according to Reid, and indeed much of the development in the doughnut zone is occurring south of the city.
“Most of it is happening to the south, and some to the west,” Reid said. “There is not much at this point to the north, and that is a reflection of the fact that there is not currently extensive public infrastructure to the north. But to the south and west, there is some pretty significant infrastructure in place.”
Subdivisions in the doughnut go through a multi-tiered approval process, first going before the county Planning and Zoning Commission. Next they go before the Sheridan City Council for what Sanner calls a “certification” — basically an acknowledgement the subdivision has the necessary infrastructure in place if it were ever annexed into the city. Lastly, it goes before the Sheridan County Commission for final approval.
Currently, Freedom Ranch has passed through the first two steps, with a county commission hearing scheduled for Feb. 15, Reid said.
This extended process has lent itself to an extended discussion on the concerns of those who live near Freedom Ranch. And while Scott Soderstrom, whose house borders the proposed subdivision’s southeast edge, doesn’t hold out much hope for a vote in citizens’ favor, he said the battle was worth fighting.
“All of us kind of live there in our little valley, our quiet little piece of paradise,” Soderstrom said. “Of course, we’re going to fight for it. I know there is a housing need right now, but I think we’re addressing it through irresponsible development. If this goes through, we’re going to lose a lot more than we gain.”
During the city certification process Jan. 16, the residents garnered some support from several councilors, including Steven Brantz.
“I do hate to see this one-mile doughnut area, where we had such good wildlife and deer and pheasants, become occupied,” Brantz said. “I hope if the county commissioners are listening, they would understand that possibly these subdivisions are taking away the nature that we love and share in Wyoming…Everywhere you look, there’s building going on, and it really is sad.”
Councilor Jacob Martin similarly expressed support for the homeowners and even offered to write a letter of support to the county commission. But he also felt a little sorry for Greig, who he believes is earnestly trying to solve one of Sheridan’s biggest and longest-standing problems.
“I feel for the developer here,” Martin said. “The city and county have said we need more stock in housing, and he buys property and just wants to develop it. I understand that side of it as well.”
Sanner said he understood both sides of the issue — both the need for housing development and the desires of residents to maintain their own little piece of paradise. As the community continues to grow and expand, it will be increasingly up to elected officials to find the middle ground between the two.
“Good policy is about finding the middle ground, and finding the middle ground means you will probably still be making people angry on both sides,” Sanner said. “But, hopefully, by the end of the process, you’ll come out with something that everybody can accept and appreciate, even if they aren’t happy about it.”
"freedom" - Google News
January 25, 2022 at 01:00AM
https://ift.tt/343UnM6
Freedom Ranch discussion shows tension between planning for future, preserving present - The Sheridan Press
"freedom" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2VUAlgg
https://ift.tt/2VYSiKW
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Freedom Ranch discussion shows tension between planning for future, preserving present - The Sheridan Press"
Post a Comment