ATTENTION: Concerned Town Residents and Elected and Appointed Representatives, Upstate Media Outlets, Friends of Pendleton and Neighbors 

Re: Proposed 61 SFR Development on Pendleton’s Eastside Central Area

In the spirit of good stewardship of our gifts in Pendleton, we submit 12 urgent concerns regarding a proposed plan to rezone a 26-acre eastside property within the central area of town to allow subdivision into 61 building lots. Think about these concerns prior to the Planning Commission review on September 8th, 2022. Were this property to be altered as proposed there will be no going back.

1. What do Pendleton’s residents truly want and how will the proposed zoning change and plan add to or subtract from quality of life for current and future residents?
2. Infrastructure costs as presented to members of the community appear woefully underestimated. (By example, we calculate 2,450’ of asphalt costs alone at $500,000.)
3. For what impact fees will the developer be responsible, and are they aware of them all?
4. The current plan is very much like that previously rejected unanimously by the Town Council. Please explain why this new plan is any better.
5. The proposal does NOT take guidance from the town’s Comprehensive Plan as relates to history, culture, and environment. In other words, it fails to be a “fit” for the Upstate’s most historic and beloved small town.
6. Visualizing the impact of 61 slab-built homes with roads, sidewalks, and cul-de-sac(s) on a pristine site is essential. In effect, the proposed plan is a 1960s/1970s-era bedroom community that is out of character with the site, surrounding residences, town character, and not environmentally friendly!
7. Additionally, both construction and future neighborhood traffic on outdated adjoining roads are major concerns and require a traffic study and analysis. Also schools being affected, limited transit choices to children’s detriment and safety, e.g., walkability and cycling, and noise levels are quality of life concerns that must be addressed prior to any plan approval.
8. Why is such an environmentally rich and beautiful site being laid out and planned by a civil engineer? The 26 acres bespeak “landscape.” Thus, the project and town would be best served if a qualified landscape architect were the prime consultant.
9. An exception to the previously rejected 74 SFR plan is that this developer proposes selling only lots and not building. What assurances do we have that this marketing model will not result in a long-term construction intervention with all its attendant adversities?
10. Regarding #5, and the developer’s claim of “minor grading intervention” - What is considered "minor"? It is likely that extensive development will necessitate significant grading – and clearing.
11. Regarding the town’s FRD zoning classification requirement for the proposal, there is no evidence that it conforms to the town's FRD environmental requirement. To the extent that the FRD might be pertinent, the proposal “backs into” its provisions and is addressed only through verbal pronouncements with no documentation – plans, other drawings, data, written report.
12. There should be concern shown for the lack of community amenities in the proposal, especially in the context of the amount of new housing in recent years where there has been a nearly total lack of park amenities added to the town’s infrastructure. 

We the undersigned: