080520 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/2/2020 222 223 Randy Marshall: I was just going to say that since we have a number of people who want to speak tonight, it seems 224 to me we want to try to institute some limit to the amount of time that people have to speak. Otherwise, we're going 225 to be here terribly late. The other thing is in the past, it's never been quite productive to have Planning Board 226 members respond to presenters individually. I agree with what Craig had to say in that we need to take the 227 information that people are offering to us and we can get back to them or staff can get back to them at an appropriate 228 time. 229 230 David Blankfard: Thank you Randy. 231 232 Perdita Holtz: We have asked for folks to limit comments to no more than 5 minutes. 233 234 Ronald Sieber: This is Ronald Sieber speaking; I live in the New Hope Springs neighborhood, which is along David 235 Road. I have two short comments to make and a question. My first comment is that the signs that have been 236 provided by the Planning Department to announce these meetings are too small, the print on them is too small, and 237 they are placed in dangerous venues that if a person such as myself wants to stop and try to interrupt what is on 238 them, we'll get run over by cars. This actually happened to me on Davis Road when I stopped to photograph one of 239 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 240 car which was parked by the side of the road. I would ask the Planning Department to please come up with a sign 241 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 242 read what's going on. My second comment is that the July 21st meeting invited only those people within a 1000 243 square feet of the affected area along David Road, which is a mile and a half long, there are 100s of homes, 244 thousands of people who live on Davis and Ode Turner and all of us are going to be effected by this change. Not 245 only from the development itself in parcels one and two but also the proposed change of planning along Davis for 246 that little 12 acre parcel that the RTLP is planning to incorporate as part of their zoning change. That goes to my 247 questions, my questions is if this is a rural neighborhood of farms, legacy businesses and homes, why are we 248 allowing a major corporation come in and annex this piece and make it part of their monstrosity of a development. 249 This is just going to change everything not only in our neighborhood but on the road itself on Old 86 and potentially 250 on Davis Road. That's the end of my question. Thank you for taking it. 251 252 Richard Wagoner: My question is more of a question than a comment. I was unable to attend the earlier July 253 meeting for the public and my question is about the residential areas right when you come off 1-40 onto Old 86. Right 254 now, I think it is in the Neighborhood Mixed Use on one map but on another map, it's the Economic Development 255 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 256 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 257 trying to find out what is proposed for that area. 258 259 Tom Altieri: The parcels you are inquiring about are to the north of the amendment area that I discussed in my 260 presentation. They are addressed in that Central Orange Joint Land Use Plan as well as the County's 261 Comprehensive Plan it is located in an area that would have the potential for economic development. The properties 262 there that are residential if zoned for non-residential uses those parcels are allowed to continue to be there to have 263 residential uses. They are what's called non-conforming uses meaning that it may be a house if it's rezoned to non- 264 residential it's not within the conforming zoning district but those houses are certainly allowed to stay. We did receive 265 a question at our public information session about would it increase potentially the developers interests in purchasing 266 those houses and the response at that time was that yes it could so it is possible there could be some transitioning 267 there if property owners want to willingly sell their property to developers for non-residential uses in the future. 268 269 Richard Wagoner: There would be no requirement at this time, you could stay there if you wanted to or sell if you 270 wanted to? 271 272 Tom Altieri: Absolutely, that is correct. I know it's hard to really separate the development proposal from some of the 273 land use amendments that I've been discussing but things like buffer requirements around the development to 274 provide buffers between it and adjacent residential uses will certainly be discussed later this evening. 275 276 Richard Wagoner: Ok,thank you. 277