The thought with Plan B wasn't that everyone would get 2 acres, but that we would have 50% or 100% more potential lots then shareholders. If that were the case then it should be much much much easier for everyone to get a lot they like, rather than getting stuck with whatever is left. Now to make that notion cost effective, shareholders would have to pick their lot before it is surveyed. No sense paying to survey the extra lots that don't get used. Seeing as how more than 50% of share holders still don't have a great feeling for the land layout as a whole and probably still won't by next summer, I don't see that people will need exact boundaries and stakes to chose from. especially if your lot is more than an acre.

I also included sections Dand E (e at Troy's suggestion) to add to the choices and acreage.

The reason sections B and C have separate roads is a 30 foot deep and 25 foot wide ravine that is a creek part of the year that separtates the two areas. That doesn't mean you couldn't built a foot bridge across it next Columbus day.

Section a in plan number A and sections A and D in plan B are accessed from a road extending off of the road from the back gate on the far side of the creek/falls. This is from dave's plan, to save on the money needed to build a vehicle bridge across the creek. That maybe a long term plan. Also section A is up back away from the creek and point itself so that it doesn't disrupt the natural splendor there.

Finally, I added the funny circle lines to plan B to stimulate thoughts about walking trails to connect neighborhoods to each other and other major points of interest. Trails have many more options in placement compared to roads because of costs and the such.

- John Ashley