Opposed To Extension Of West Sherwood Drive

Advertisement

We wish to voice our opposition to the possible extension of West Sherwood Drive to connect with Airport Road.

We are residents of the Woodhill Subdivision, Lot 34 of Woodhill Unit One. It is an attractive, quiet and peaceful neighborhood. It is one of the best neighborhoods in all of Payson. Its quality standards and CC&Rs are vigorously upheld by an active and efficient homeowners association. It is a neighborhood that takes pride in its quality of life. It is a community of homeowners that zealously wishes to maintain its current quality of life.

We purchased our home in October 1998 with the understanding that Woodhill would be comprised of residential housing Unit One, Unit Two and Unit 3. At that time and ever since that time West Sherwood Drive has been displayed and considered as a dead-end street by the residents of Woodhill.

It is with surprise and shock that we read in the Payson Roundup recently that plans are afoot to extend West Sherwood Drive to Airport Road. We are opposed to any such extension for the following reasons:

1. Our quiet streets and neighborhood will be turned into a major connector, a route that would carry traffic to and from Airport Road, to and from a commercial and industrial park and a new residential development. For all traffic, night and day, West Sherwood Drive would become a heavily traveled shortcut to and from McLane Road.

2. This increase in traffic will lower curb appeal and property values.

3. This increase in traffic will increase potential hazards to our residents and their children.

4. This increase in traffic will tear up our existing streets.

5. This increase in traffic will permanently create and sustain irritating and disgusting levels of noise pollution.

6. This increase in traffic will permanently create higher levels of air pollution in the neighborhood.

7. This increase in traffic will seriously degrade the attractive ambiance of the neighborhood.

8. Construction and heavy truck traffic will be especially destructive to the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.

9. This increase in traffic will eventually necessitate the installation of more stop signs and possibly signal lights. When traffic control signs/lights are in place, it very greatly increases noise and pollution levels as vehicles must rev up their engines to proceed after stopping. This makes matters even worse.

Director Erlandsen, we ask that you carefully consider these points of opposition and hear the voice of the residents at your proposed Nov. 10 meeting. We respectfully ask that you also consider the following issue.

In the article in the Roundup there were references to the general plan zoning maps of 1998 and 2006. Apparently the 1998 map indicates no extension of West Sherwood Drive to Airport Road. The year 1998 is when we bought our Woodhill home.

Apparently the 2006 map does indicate realignment and extension of Sherwood Drive to Airport Road. If this is true, we ask how did this happen? Do lines drawn on a zoning map constitute due process of law for the citizens of Payson?

Were the residents of Woodhill ever informed of this possible realignment? Were they ever invited to participate in any discussion on the subject? Did they have a voice or a vote in this revision to the zoning map?

We certainly knew nothing about the matter. Our homeowners association appears to have been excluded. Was this realignment spurred on by developers in a top-down secret manipulation with the concurrence of the planning/zoning commission? According to the Roundup, “Jones said the town directed him to incorporate the expansion/ changes of five streets into the plans for the exchange land ...”

Then, based on that premise, Mr. Jones has stonewalled any attempt for the voice and concerns of the Woodhill residents to be heard! “The Town” appears to have made assumptions, decisions and deals without the common courtesy and democratic process of inviting the people who are affected to a hearing or to the planning table. With all due respect, squelching any attempts of citizens to voice their concerns, and inserting top-down arbitrary “street connections” into an obscure land exchange deal, appears to be unethical and unfair. We hope you will make an effort to bring the residents of Woodhill to the bargaining table before matters progress any further.

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.