Members of the Advisory Plan Commission:

Please accept this email message as submission of comments into public record regarding Hidden Hills PUD Proposal from Pyatt Builders.  I hope to virtually attend the APC meeting on July 27, 2021 however I will be out of town and may not be able to.  Therefore, I am submitting my input via email just in case.

As you may recall, I was quite engaged with the previous PUD proposal from Arbor Homes.  Since then, I have had the privilege of interacting with select members of the Town Council and APC for the purpose of reviewing current land use and development standards for the Town of Pittsboro and offering input on revising the standards to better reflect what is most desirable for the Town and residents.

As a resident of Deer Meadows immediately adjacent to the Hidden Hills land, I am pleased that the Pyatt proposal is a much better starting point than the Arbor proposal was.  I recently had the opportunity to meet with Paul Claire from Pyatt Builders to dialogue about the proposal and give him my personal input as well as discuss some of the recent input from the land use and development special sessions of the APC and Town Council.  Although there are still open issues I want to see addressed in the PUD proposal, I came away from my meeting with Paul with the belief that he and Pyatt Builders sincerely want to work with the Town and residents to make this the best development experience possible.

Here are the open issues that I believe need to be addressed in the initial version of the Pyatt proposal:


  *   Karen Drive connection – I believe you are all very well aware that the overwhelming majority of  residents of Deer Meadows are opposed to this just as we were with the Arbor PUD.  The Staff Report clearly states that ‘The roadway connections … have been included at the request of the Town.’ 

I request to know specifically who has requested this on behalf of the Town.  I have first-hand knowledge that not all members of the Town Council are in favor of this.  Further, the Staff Report states these connections are ‘a common development best practice’ and that both Pittsboro Police and Fire Departments ‘have indicated the importance…’.  

I believe those statements are true but they are not mandates.  Is there hard data or research to back up the importance of the Karen Drive connection?  If so, please produce it for the residents to read and consider.  If not, this is simply a preference.  The residents of Deer Meadows – specifically those who live on Karen Drive – also have a preference and that preference is no connection.  

The Staff Report also mentions the likelihood of kids traveling from one neighborhood to another.  Personally, I hope that happens among parents and adults as well as kids.  Please know that Deer Meadows residents do not wish to be exclusionary to potential future neighbors to our East.  We just want them and us to enjoy an environment safe from unnecessary additional vehicle traffic that will occur from this connection.  

Therefore, I am open to a trail or footpath or sidewalk connecting the 2 neighborhoods.  Lastly, I quote the Staff Report again, ‘…speeding cars make streets less safe and desirable for pedestrians and bicyclists.’  Need I say more?  Remove the Karen Drive connection and I predict resident support for this new PUD will increase significantly.

  *   Density – While 222 homes is better than nearly 300 (Arbor PUD), it is still a concerning number of new homes.  I believe it would be prudent for the APC to ask Pyatt to consider reducing the number of lots in Area C.

  *   Lot Sizes, Setbacks, Street widths, etc – Since the land use and development special sessions of the APC and Town Council have produced new guidance that will most likely result in revised standards in the coming months, I believe the APC should ask Pyatt to cooperate with the Town on these elements (even though they are not yet complete and codified) to be consistent with the ongoing, current discussions.

  *   Compatibility – Pyatt has made a great effort for the proposed lots immediately adjacent to Deer Meadows to have compatibility with lot size and building materials.  They are to be commended for this.  The one slight change I am suggesting is to ask Pyatt to apply those lot size and materials requirements to the lots on both sides of the adjacent street.  When we look to the east from our backyards we will see the front of the houses across the street, not the ones whose back will be to our properties.

  *   Town Infrastructure – Even if future revisions to the Pyatt, Hidden Hills PUD proposal are eventually satisfactory or perhaps even desirable mutually by the residents of Pittsboro and the Town, there needs to be studies, research and hard data to show that our infrastructure has adequate capacity before any development is approved by the Town Council.  The Staff Report mentions that the recently added water wells will create adequate supply for the project.  I would assume that to be the case but I would like to see actual data (gallons per day available compared with expected gallons per day usage from 222 new households).  

The Staff Report further states that ‘…the Town is studying sanitary sewer upgrade options that would create capacity to serve the proposed development’.  Who would pay for said upgrades?  Pyatt Builders?  All residents of Pittsboro in the form of increased rates?  I will go on record as opposing any new development that results in the current rate-paying residents of the Town having to pay for any infrastructure upgrades necessary to support such a development.  The developer should bear any such costs, not the current residents.  This includes not only water supply and sanitary sewer capacity but also stormwater systems, electricity supply and natural gas supply.  The natural gas overage costs the Town experienced earlier this year is still a very fresh memory.  

The Town paid dearly (for which I am grateful) and those of us who are natural gas consumers are also paying increased rates from that incident.  I hope the Town in actively looking into options to avoid any future situation.  How much worse would the situation have been with an additional 222 natural gas consuming homes?  Additionally, are the current levels of police and fire protection adequate to support an additional 222 homes?  What is the plan to ‘pay as we go’ for necessary increases in emergency services as the Town grows without these costs being born on the backs of the current residents of the Town?

I realize this message is lengthy but these are important questions to be worked through by the Town and communicated to the residents prior to consideration of any new development.  Thank you for your consideration of the residents of the Town of Pittsboro.  As just one household, please know that Denise and I are not opposed to growth and development.  But it must be done with adequate foresight and planning.  Perhaps there are great answers to all of these issues.  I look forward to the response(s) from the Town and I commit myself to be part of the solution, not just a voice of dissent.

Sincerely,

Larry W. Woods
457 Woodland Place
Pittsboro, Indiana  46167