.

CNW - Great News of Another Victory for Woodinville Homeowners

CNW, a Woodinville-based non-profit advocating for preservation of the R-1-zoned spaces in the greater Woodinville area wins another key victory!

Concerned Neighbors of Wellington had a very important victory this week and we’re excited to share it with you!! 

Our Victory!!

Ordinance 532 passed second reading on Tuesday at the Woodinville City Council meeting with the key changes CNW advocated. The terrific victory here is that a minimum lot size of 35,000 sq ft (+ or - 15%) has been established in the R-1 zone--if there are no critical areas--and limiting the development to 1 house per acre rounding to the nearest acre.  In lots with critical areas, the absolute minimum lot size will be 31,000 sq ft. which will be greater than the absolute minimum without critical areas (35,000 *(1 - .15) = 29,750 sq ft). 

This is a great win for CNW and we should ALL be proud that our efforts have helped CNW achieve yet another victory in our fight to preserve the R-1 neighborhoods in the greater Woodinville area!!

“Are We Done, Yet?”  What’s Next?

Well, no, unfortunately, we’re not done yet.  The WA State Supreme Court ruling in our favor last year and the victory this week re: Ordinance 532 are major milestones, but there is still more work to do – and we need to continue to keep awareness high regarding the next steps in our journey.

Another piece of important legislation on which the Woodinville City Council is working and that impacts the R-1 area are the sewer regulations.  Ordinance 550 has been discussed at several recent City Council meetings and another Public Hearing is scheduled in  November. 

It seems CNW has the necessary support from the City Council to get the right
language clarifications changed in the Woodinville Municipal Code so that
homeowners are *NOT forced* to hook up to sewer, regardless of whether
or not it is nearby.  It’s important to attend the City Council meetings
where important Ordinances such as 550 (and 532) are discussed as the physical
presence of folks in the audience impacts how the Council views issues and how
they vote. 

Also extremely important to all R-1 residents is the question of vesting relating to the current Wood Trails development application. As you will recall, the developer
submitted an application for Wood Trails just hours before the moratorium on
new applications went into effect.  There is a legal question as to
whether this application is vested, due to the fact that it is not complete and
a formal public challenge was made within the legal timeframe to question the
validity of the application, since it was incomplete when it was submitted. 
This is a very important battle for CNW – if the application is considered
“vested,” then CNW will need to step up to a huge new effort to fight the
details of the application for development of Wood Trails.  That is why it
is very important we win on the vesting question/decision.  CNW will
once again be required to pay legal fees as legal work will be required. 
We’re in fund-raising mode again, and your help here is appreciated.

Update from Neighbors to Save Wellington Park

The battle over the future of the former Wellington Hills Golf Course (which was closed September 30) is in full swing.  Technically speaking, this park is located in
Snohomish County.  However, it borders Woodinville City limits and if 8
artificial turf fields and 700 parking spots (as big as Costco’s parking lot!!)
are put in, ALL of us in Woodinville will be impacted by the ensuing traffic,
noise, and light pollution. 

Please read the full blog from this non-profit organization at the link below.  Please also consider supporting the efforts of Neighbors to Save Wellington Park so that the quiet wooded character of our neighborhoods are not destroyed by installing a Regional Sports Park in an area in which the infrastructure required to support it do not exist!!  You can contribute funds to this sister non-profit, attend Snohomish County Council meetings, or volunteer to help.  Read more details about the devastation this plan could cause at http://neighborstosavewellingtonpark.blogspot.com/.

You may donate to CNW today by mailing a check or donating online using Paypal.

http://www.wellington-neighborhood.org

P.O. Box 2968, Woodinville, WA  98072-2968

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Susan Boundy-Sanders November 01, 2012 at 04:11 AM
With regard to the social contract, I'm happy to be absolutely clear. My concern for the social contract is in the same place it has always been: as a shield between Woodinville's citizens, and people who want to disrupt our neighborhoods for personal gain. Let's bring that into sharper focus. You, Mr. Koetje, started attending Planning Commission outreach events in 2008 or 2009. You explained that you had a large lot in R-1, and you suggested it would be a good idea for Woodinville to create new R-2 or R-3 zoning in Woodinville so you could subdivide. You claimed to represent an organization, but have never, to my knowledge, produced or named a single other person who is a member of this organization. Since then, you have documented that there has been a gap in the size of new parcels created in the past few years. Roughly, you say the new parcels are under 5000 square feet or over 44,000 square feet. These may not be your exact numbers, but the basic premise has been that this gap in size in new lots in Woodinville is a problem that the city should solve.
Susan Boundy-Sanders November 01, 2012 at 04:18 PM
I evaluate this premise by asking several questions. Do the existing parcels in Woodinville fill this gap? Yes. Is Woodinville meeting its housing obligations under the GMA? Yes. Are Woodinville's zoning codes consistent with its Comprehensive Plan? Yes. Is Woodinville obliged to create a full spectrum of lot sizes at all points in time? No. Is Woodinville obliged to fulfill the wishes of everyone who comes to us with a suggestion? No. Is this suggestion consistent with Woodinville's plan to focus its growth downtown? No. Then, I evaluate the premise in terms of the Council's ongoing conversation. Is Woodinville to blame for the worldwide financial and mortgage meltdown, and the consequent housing bust? No. Is it appropriate for Woodinville to respond to the worldwide recession by lowering its standards? No.
Susan Boundy-Sanders November 01, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Those last two questions provide the context for the statement you quote, which amounted to creating good policy and not worrying about the pace at which it becomes reality. The context of that statement was the several Council discussions in which some Councilmembers expressed a sense of desperation about the pace of development in Woodinville, and seemed vulnerable to returning to Woodinville's bad old days, when developer after developer came to the podium thanking Woodinville for being the "easiest jurisdiction in the region to work with." Those days did not serve Woodinville well. "Easiest" was code for lax codes and lack of enforcement. The result was things like homes with flooding problems, storm water ponds built with plywood, and driveways so short that sidewalks are consistently blocked by parked cars. Those days gave us a retail area that many citizens avoid because access is difficult and parking spaces are too small. I'm simply not willing to return to that way of doing business.
Susan Boundy-Sanders November 01, 2012 at 04:20 PM
Moving on to a new topic, one of my previous posts needs a bit of correction. Consider this basic fact: Ordinance 532 (minimum lot sizes) and Ordinance 550 (sewer) now use numbers that don't match each other. That's why I pushed so hard to get 550 onto the agenda close in time to 532. Some of your concerns may stem from an impression that the inconsistencies are mine, when they're actually inconsistencies between 532 and 550. In reality, I've been the driving force behind identifying and trying to get the codes to be internally consistent. Recall the quote from Ordinance 550: "New single-family residential subdivisions and short subdivisions, that have submitted a complete application after [effective date of ordinance]; that create lots less than one acre per unit must hook up to the municipal sewer system if the system is within 330 feet of a proposed development." Compare the one-acre trigger in 550 – 43,560 square feet – to the 29,750 square feet that is the new minimum lot size in R-1 in 532. The smaller lots from 532, combined with the sewer triggers in 550, create a REQUIRED march of sewer across R-1, 330 feet at a time. That requirement can be a very expensive proposition: Up to 330 feet of sewer mainline – large pipe deep underground – in addition to the curb-gutter-sidewalk we already require.
Susan Boundy-Sanders November 01, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Now, consider the scenario I described in a previous post: a senior citizen wants to sell off a spare acre of land on his or her oversized lot, so they can continue to afford to live in their home. If the resulting parcels are at least an acre in size, the subdivision would not trigger the sewer requirement, but my senior citizen would still have to install curb-gutter-sidewalk. So my senior citizen is subject to a sizable expense for pavement but could still conceivably turn a profit under both the old and new rules. In other words, my error was to describe something that's not actually a new problem created by 532 and 550. Your senior citizen, in contrast, is in a much worse position. With 1.6 acres to divide, if this senior is within 330 feet of sewer, the sewer requirement gets triggered, and your senior citizen has to install curb-gutter-sidewalk AND sewer BEFORE the subdivision will be approved. I think it's unlikely your senior can make a profit. It’s likely your senior has to either forego subdividing or sell out entirely.
Susan Boundy-Sanders November 01, 2012 at 04:22 PM
In other words, without fixing 550, it's your 1.6-acre scenario, not my spare-acre scenario, that inhibits single-family development. And this is not a hypothetical. I can already point to subdivision that has not happened because the homeowner could not afford to install curb-gutter-sidewalk on the unusually long road frontage of the parcel. As 550 stands, the likely timing for future development is a longer delay, then sale of whole existing parcels to developers for teardown, subdivision, and rebuilding. That's not a good way to achieve that first land use goal in Woodinville's Comprehensive Plan, "To guide the City's population growth in a manner that maintains or improves Woodinville's quality of life, environmental attributes, and Northwest woodland character."
Randy Koetje November 03, 2012 at 08:04 PM
Honorable CM Boundy-Sanders: (1 of 3) In all your string of postings, never once do you explain your “no” vote on allowing rounding up. Using terms such as “remixing” may be convenient to explain that one’s position is not clear or needs correction, but I’d appreciate your time in being concise and on topic in the first place. That being said, I would like to hear specifics about the rounding up vote. Please explain in detail your position on this matter. If the “no” vote had succeeded, then a senior citizen with a 1.6 acre lot would not have been able to subdivide; do you agree? The discrepancies between 532 and 550 should be resolved, but the example you site would be moot if a “no” vote had passed; agree? Not being able to subdivide would be a potential loss of value to that citizen; agree? Prior to 532 being passed, a citizen with a 1.6 acre lot had the potential to subdivide, a no vote would have eliminated this property right; agree? A “no” vote would have also reduced the quantity of potential single family housing lots, so would have a negative impact to SFR development; agree? What benefit did you see in voting “no”? A “no” vote encourages less SFR development opportunity; agree?
Randy Koetje November 03, 2012 at 08:05 PM
To CM B-S (2 of 3): With respect to my postings, I am speaking specifically about new single family residential construction as it pertains to growth, housing choice and economic opportunity. Unless you are advocating home sharing to accommodate new growth, your reference to the city having a spectrum of existing lot sizes does not apply. Your reference again to this “social contract” and being “a shield between Woodinville’s citizens” is also misunderstood, as past and present Councils, including yourself, stood idly by while R4 and R6 zoned areas of the city were being built out with lots much smaller than 532 remedied. I’m sure you are also aware that the Comp Plan and GMA contain language for measuring a plan’s success in terms of dwelling units actually being built. My yardstick analogy only included a couple other measures (minimal litigation and increased revenue stream) that I felt are important specifically to Woodinville. Maybe you can clarify specifically how Woodinville intends to meet the monitoring program called out in 4.3.2 of the Comp Plan, and on a county level RCW 36.70A.215.
Randy Koetje November 03, 2012 at 08:06 PM
To CM B-S (3 of 3): With respect to the organization that I am a member, it is a loosely knit group, but we do have a website: citychord.com CHORD stands for Choice Housing for Our Residents. We have engaged other council members that are more open to our cause. You have proven to be rather adversarial and not interested in alternatives to “bright line” lot sizes. I encourage you to spend some time on the web site, I believe you will find some common ground that we share with respect to having a vested interest in our community. One of the main tenets or our group has been a quest to explore alternatives from what SFR development in the city has experienced over the last decade, being a huge gap between 5,000 sq ft lots in the R4 and R6, to 40,000 sq ft lots in the R1. In this regard, 532 is a step in the right direction. I just don’t believe it’s enough.
Ron Olson November 03, 2012 at 09:44 PM
ORD 532 benefitted Paulette Bauman, not the Wellington neighborhood. Paulette did not disclose the fact that her vote would mean the difference of at least $100,000.00 in her property value. The vote for NOT rounding up residential lots would be consistent with what Woodinville residents have been fighting for, and Susan Boundy-Sanders was true to her campaign promises. Paulette left Woodinville citizens behind, and made a $100,000.00 vote for her purse instead. In my opinion, she sold citizens out, but I do have to say at least she didn't sell out cheap. Enjoy the money, Paulette. The really sad part is Paulette just funded her re-election campaign. So far, Paulette voted on issues related to her parent’s property, she was the deciding vote that increased the value of her own real estate holdings without even disclosing it, she continues to vote on expanding the wine industry in Woodinville and most people do not know that she is a wine salesperson and has clients in the city. I don’t know how her votes on annexation of additional wines tasting property would NOT be influenced by the fact that she makes money by selling wine….but somehow she votes and gets away with it. Paulette Bauman has been at the center of ethics issues since her first weeks as a councilmember. It looks bad for the city and for other councilmembers.
Nancy Cunningham November 03, 2012 at 09:48 PM
Paulette Bauman works at Costco. What's the big deal if she sells wine?
Randy Koetje November 03, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Mr. Olson, Please elaborate on what you mean specifically re "not rounding up would be consistent with what Woodinville residents have been fighting for." I believe that even the CNW is ok with 35,000 sq ft lots, as stated by Ms. Peterson in the original text that this is a "terrific victory". A 1.6 acre lot if subdivided would yield two such lots. Are you suggesting that Woodinville residents really want no SFR development in the R1, unless a lot is at least 43,560 sq ft (1 acre)? And if you have a 1.99 acre lot, too bad, you can't subdivide into two 43,342 sq ft lots?
Ron Olson November 03, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Costco? Paulette Bauman hasn't worked there in a long time. After getting elected to the Woodinville council, Paulette took a sales job with Click Wholesale, a wine and beer distributor. She sells wine to Woodinville businesses. Does Paulette profit directly from her votes? Well, the city doesn't buy wine, but local businesses do. If a councilmember showed up at your business selling wine....would you feel obligated to buy from them, knowing that they would be making decisions about expanding the wine industry? If your local wine salesperson was a councilmember that will be voting on spending tax money to support tourism and wine tasting rooms...would that encourage you to buy from her? If a councilmember/wine salesperson showed up selling wine at your business, could you say no to her? If you were a councilmember that made money selling wine, would you vote against making zoning changes that would increase the availability of more businesses that sell wine? Paulette took a job where she will have a lot of political influence on her income. Is this a coincidence, or strategic planning? Councilmember Bauman has done nothing illegal. But if she wonders why she is at the center of ethics issues….
Ron Olson November 03, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Randy, please don't speak for the CNW. If you want to know the position of Sharon Peterson or the CNW with respect to rounding up vs. rounding down, ask for an official response from them. I am suggesting that the vote to round up, as opposed to rounding down, was decided by a councilmember that had a financial interest in the vote, and that she did not disclose the interest, and that rounding up was the result of a biased vote. It doesn’t really matter if rounding up or rounding down was good or bad for the community. The vote was tainted, period.
Randy Koetje November 03, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Mr. Olson, I said "I believe" with respect to my understanding of CNW's position, my intent was not to be their spokesperson. "I believe" implies that I'm hoping I'm making a true statement, but can't be 100% certain, in this case because I don't represent the CNW. Sorry you were offended. It's also now clear to me that you have no interest in clarifying statements you make such as "what Woodinville residents have been fighting for". A rather broad statement, certainly doesn't include me and I'm a Woodinville resident.
Ron Olson November 03, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Randy, can you please answer some questions for me? Read the comments about Paulette Bauman above. You seem to have insight on land use issues. Do you think Paulette's property has a higher value based on the ability to round up vs. NOT being able to round up her lot size? Do you think Paulette should have recused herself from voting on the specific issue of rounding up vs. rounding down? Do you think Paulette should have disclosed to the public that her vote meant the difference of a hundred thousand dollars or more for her real estate holdings? Kindly answer my questions and I will be happy to answer yours. Thanks. RAO
Randy Koetje November 04, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Mr. Olson, Certainly willing to give my opinions. I believe that a property that may be subdivided has the potential of higher value, but ONLY after it is has been successfully subdivided. There are many pitfalls on the way to being successful. Property taxes are usually based on a given lot, there is not much increase in value typically within a range of lot size (eg 1 acre lot has about as much value as a 2 acre lot). So to try to directly answer your question, I don't think Paulette's property will change value due to the vote, she of course does continue to have the potential to subdivide which would be a windfall. It's important to note though, that prior to 532, she had the potential to subdivide, so a vote to round up only maintained this potential. I don't think Paulette should have recused herself. I do think Paulette should meet the standards of all council members to err on the side of disclosing everything, to be as open as possible; but I don't think she could defend the claim that her vote meant $100k increase in property value. If she had voted yes to rounding down, her property value would probably have stayed the same; she would just have lost the chance to pursue subdivision.
Gail November 04, 2012 at 03:08 AM
You are splitting hairs Randy and relying on a technicality - that she would not subdivide. But it's clear and obvious from this discussion that is exactly what we are talking about. Her property has no subdividing pitfalls. This isn't rocket science - just look at the map. Once her lot is subdivided creating another legal lot, she automatically has increased the value by at least $100,000, but more like $200,000. THAT is the discussion. THAT is the problem with the vote ethically. Paulette should have been disclosed her financial interest. Not that legally she had to. I don't think she will learn anything seeing the somewhat silly "Slander" threat she made here. Another sad comment. Get some skin Paulette. Disappointed
Ron Olson November 04, 2012 at 04:40 PM
There are ways to deal with a councilmember that fails to disclose their personal or financial interest in the legislation they are voting on. You must first investigate all of their real estate holdings, sources of income, and look at their close friends, relatives, and business associates. Connecting the dots is time consuming but it can be done. If Paulette Bauman didn’t report her financial interest in Section 8, voted on legislation that affected her parent’s property, and fails to disclose her financial interest in expanding the wine industry, what else hasn’t she told us?
Gail November 04, 2012 at 08:21 PM
I visited your website Randy. Funny that with ALL that info, not a peep about the 'members'. IOW, those behind it? Simple enough request. Let's see how upfront you are Randy. It was interesting to see that the site's information was gleaned from woodinvilleblog.com, a site that I've learned was a known source of distorted, prejudiced information hiding who they really were. From what I heard, any mention of public figures such as past council members Lucy DeYoung or Don Brocha was instantly purged. That itself is revealing. The 'adversarial' parties are clearly those that hide! For starters, disclosure is required to be even considered as a credible site. First of all - WHO comprises this group that has nothing but good intentions for the rest of us? Btw, I'm pretty sure you are in violation of Copyright Law by using the King County and City of Woodinville Logos on your site. IMO, it is a deceptive use.
Ron Olson November 04, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Wasn't citychord.org behind the push to develop Mack's Corner? I remember that name coming up at a meeting at the Woodinville Fire Station when dozens of citizens showed up to fight any attempt at development there.
Susan Boundy-Sanders November 05, 2012 at 03:42 AM
Gail, thanks for noticing how off-kilter Mr. Koetje's Web site is. Gail mentions woodinvilleblog.com, a now-defunct Web site. For those not familiar with its regrettable practices, I still have woodinville-blog.com up. My site describes their tactics, with screen shots. The basic strategy of woodinvilleblog.com was to anonymously flood the site with sockpuppet posts praising themselves and their friends (Don Brocha and his crew), delete posts that were critical of "their" folks, and delete posts that supported the other camp (Bernie and me, and our predecessors).
Dale Knapinski November 05, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Maybe we should start a new topic...Ethics in Woodinville government.
Randy Koetje November 06, 2012 at 01:56 AM
Honorable CM Boundy-Sanders: I posed some questions with respect to your “no” vote on rounding up. I asked you to clarify your vote and provide specifics as to how this would benefit/hinder citizens. As an elected official I think you would appreciate this opportunity to clarify. Of course you are under no obligation to do so, but I think it would go a long way as a matter of respect to your civic duty and to your constituents. Instead, you interject cityCHORD into the discussion and claim that you will only respond to the questions if I provide member personal information to Patch readers (violation of Patch policy by the way), information that you will act as prosecution, judge and jury in deciding if it is sufficient and legitimate. You state further that you will only answer questions that you determine serve the “general interest”, again you being the sole and final judge in this determination. We do live in a democracy you know! With no definitive ground rules, I certainly won’t participate in this. Perhaps you might persuade an unbiased third party to pursue your claims, such as the editor of Woodinville Patch or Woodinville Weekly. Let the Patch readers themselves decide the issue.
Randy Koetje November 06, 2012 at 01:59 AM
For the record, cityCHORD had no affiliation with woodinvilleblog, other than to defer blog type correspondence to this site (permission granted by woodinvilleblog). Any other inference or association is false. CityCHORD copied and edited responses from the blog to create the FAQ tab, that is all. CityCHORD does not have the resources to support a blog site, a lesson learned from other organizations.
Susan Boundy-Sanders November 06, 2012 at 05:13 AM
To arrive at my position on rounding, the following considerations weighed most heavily: With regard to zoning decisions, the Woodinville City Council has paired responsibilities: meet our capacity targets under the Growth Management Act, and be consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 532 would have met those paired responsibilities under either rounding method. Beyond that, the Phoenix v. Woodinville decision gives us a great deal of latitude in our zoning decisions. Since Ordinance 489 in 2010, Woodinville's planning policy has been to focus our population growth downtown. Members of the Sustainable Development Citizens Advisory Panel probably recall one of the conclusions of the Sustainable Development Study: larger lots disproportionately benefit water quality. Even under the extraordinarily rigorous standards of the last decade, the Wellington neighborhood met the standards for preserving large lots for the sake of their benefit to the Bear Creek salmon run. The most significant effect of rounding up comes at 1.51 acres. Creating two three-quarter-acre lots, in my opinion, does not preserve the environmental and woodland character values of the neighborhood. Combining those considerations, my conclusion was that it was in Woodinville's best interests to round down.
Gail November 06, 2012 at 06:33 PM
LOL, YOU are the one that interjected cityChord Randy - see above. I asked you to clarify your membership. As a citizen with clear subdividing interest I think you would appreciate this opportunity to clarify. Of course you are under no obligation to do so, but I think it would go a long way as a matter of respect to gaining credibility. In all your postings (and voluminous site) not a peep who's behind this "loosely knit group" - a secret membership. Very odd. Since permission was granted by the woodinvilleblog, this says you know who they were. I'd call that an 'affiliation'. As you know, Woodinvilleblog was a heavily censored, biased and not very nice political site. Any information you 'copied and edited' is suspect since we have no idea what you edited or the original poster. You might as well say: "Here's stuff I've created and edited in my favor". There are indeed 'ground rules' for acceptance, you just don't like them as I'm suggesting. Susan is going way beyond her responsibilities here.
Randy Koetje November 17, 2012 at 09:58 PM
CM Boundy-Sanders cites the Sustainable Development Study as one consideration for voting to round down, also stating that creating ¾ acre lots does not preserve certain aspects of neighborhood character. I find it interesting that this Study was referenced, since it is a very biased and inconsistent document. The City and CAP pushed for the results they wanted, the process was far from objective. But not all of the findings against sewers or development were gleaned from the report. For example, the study states that based on neighborhood character alone, most of the R1 has zoning consistencies of R2 and R4; states that if sewer service were provided to Lake Leota lots this would likely provide substantial benefits to lake water quality. The Study was conducted for the R1 zoned areas only and does not consider non-R1, therefore may be limiting for making citywide policy. One only needs to overlay the critical areas map with the city zoning map to see that most of the R4 areas (very close proximity to the Sammamish River) are encumbered with steep slopes, erosion and seismic areas, whereas most of the R1 is not. So if environmental and woodland character concerns are most important, these must be viewed at least from a citywide perspective. Based on that, and the restrictive nature of 532 to promote housing choice, I quite frankly do not agree with the reasoning and conclusions drawn by CM Boundy-Sanders.
Dale Knapinski November 18, 2012 at 04:17 AM
Randy, it would appear that the majority of Woodinville voters supported council candidates that would protect the R-1. It should come as no surprise that the council has done just what most residents wanted. Keeping residential development downtown where infrastructure is in place and city services are close at hand makes sense. We could use some additional building heights downtown to encourage development where we want to see it, but at least we are moving in the right direction. You are correct that there should be housing choices, and Woodinville citizens made their choice at the polls.
Dale Knapinski November 18, 2012 at 04:30 AM
With respect to sewers contributing to water quality near Lake Leota, I fail to see how increasing impervious surfaces with R-4 zoning would improve water quality. The existing septic systems are not the major cause of water quality issues at most lakes. Lawn chemicals, detergents, runoff from roads, removal of the tree canopy, and the lack of natural filtering in local wetlands and aquifers cause more damage to our lakes and streams than a properly functioning septic system would. Adding sewers alone might eliminate some pollution issues, but if sewers bring 4 times the number of homes, the benefit of sewers goes down the drain.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »