Planning Board - 081920 Agenda Packet

Browse Search

D R A F T 222 Randy Marshall: I was just going to say that since we have a number of people who want to speak tonight, it seems 223 to me we want to try to institute some limit to the amount of time that people have to speak. Otherwise, we’re going 224 to be here terribly late. The other thing is in the past, it’s never been quite productive to have Planning Board 225 members respond to presenters individually. I agree with what Craig had to say in that we need to take the 226 information that people are offering to us and we can get back to them or staff can get back to them at an appropriate 227 time.228 229 David Blankfard: Thank you Randy.230 231 Perdita Holtz: We have asked for folks to limit comments to no more than 5 minutes.232 233 Ronald Sieber: This is Ronald Sieber speaking; I live in the New Hope Springs neighborhood, which is along David 234 Road. I have two short comments to make and a question. My first comment is that the signs that have been 235 provided by the Planning Department to announce these meetings are too small, the print on them is too small, and 236 they are placed in dangerous venues that if a person such as myself wants to stop and try to interrupt what is on 237 them, we’ll get run over by cars. This actually happened to me on Davis Road when I stopped to photograph one of 238 the signs because it was really too small to read. As I was doing that, a truck came up behind me and almost hit my 239 car which was parked by the side of the road. I would ask the Planning Department to please come up with a sign 240 that’s got larger print in it, is more intelligent in its presentation and doesn’t present a danger to us folks who want to 241 read what’s going on. My second comment is that the July 21st meeting invited only those people within a 1000 242 square feet of the affected area along David Road, which is a mile and a half long, there are 100s of homes, 243 thousands of people who live on Davis and Ode Turner and all of us are going to be effected by this change. Not 244 only from the development itself in parcels one and two but also the proposed change of planning along Davis for 245 that little 12 acre parcel that the RTLP is planning to incorporate as part of their zoning change. That goes to my 246 questions, my questions is if this is a rural neighborhood of farms, legacy businesses and homes, why are we 247 allowing a major corporation come in and annex this piece and make it part of their monstrosity of a development. 248 This is just going to change everything not only in our neighborhood but on the road itself on Old 86 and potentially 249 on Davis Road. That’s the end of my question. Thank you for taking it.250 251 Richard Wagoner: My question is more of a question than a comment. I was unable to attend the earlier July 252 meeting for the public and my question is about the residential areas right when you come off I-40 onto Old 86. Right 253 now, I think it is in the Neighborhood Mixed Use on one map but on another map, it’s the Economic Development 254 Transition so I am trying to get an idea of what is proposed for that area in the future. My mother-in-law lives when 255 you are coming off 86 on the right hand side, my wife is the property owner along with my mother-in-law so we are 256 trying to find out what is proposed for that area.257 258 Tom Altieri: The parcels you are inquiring about are to the north of the amendment area that I discussed in my 259 presentation. They are addressed in that Central Orange Joint Land Use Plan as well as the County’s 260 Comprehensive Plan it is located in an area that would have the potential for economic development. The properties 261 there that are residential if zoned for non-residential uses those parcels are allowed to continue to be there to have 262 residential uses. They are what’s called non-conforming uses meaning that it may be a house if it’s rezoned to non-263 residential it’s not within the conforming zoning district but those houses are certainly allowed to stay. We did receive 264 a question at our public information session about would it increase potentially the developers interests in purchasing 265 those houses and the response at that time was that yes it could so it is possible there could be some transitioning 266 there if property owners want to willingly sell their property to developers for non-residential uses in the future.267 268 Richard Wagoner: There would be no requirement at this time, you could stay there if you wanted to or sell if you 269 wanted to?270 271 Tom Altieri: Absolutely, that is correct. I know it’s hard to really separate the development proposal from some of the 272 land use amendments that I’ve been discussing but things like buffer requirements around the development to 273 provide buffers between it and adjacent residential uses will certainly be discussed later this evening.274 275 Richard Wagoner: Ok, thank you.276 277 7