|
41
<br /> 1750 what does that look like as far as continuity of the neighborhood in line with the rural
<br /> 1751 neighborhood activity network, which a mom and pop store would it not be, and so, at the
<br /> 1752 same time, if that's a requirement just to get this land to be able to have this site plan on
<br /> 1753 it, it's a convoluted way of going about it, and I think that there's better ways to approach
<br /> 1754 this.
<br /> 1755
<br /> 1756 Chris Johnston: I want to make sure that we have the time for Statler's questions as well.
<br /> 1757
<br /> 1758 Statler Gilfillen: I'll try to keep mine short. I think we are watching democracy, as it should be, at its best.
<br /> 1759 1 appreciate both sides and what you've said. What I have listened to is a developer
<br /> 1760 whose goals and intentions, I think, are excellent. I think they are needed in this county,
<br /> 1761 but I've also listened to the neighbors, the people there, and when I look at the logistics,
<br /> 1762 which are the water, the sewer, the transportation issues, that are still fairly undefined,
<br /> 1763 and I'm concerned about them, and as an architect, there are issues of the design that
<br /> 1764 this is much more of a scaled down subdivision in the layout than it is actually a village,
<br /> 1765 and there's a difference. That's an architect speaking. And listening to the neighbors and
<br /> 1766 the people that are surrounding this, I have to raise serious questions if this particular
<br /> 1767 location is appropriate for this scale of a development being put in. I'll keep it short, and 1
<br /> 1768 think that's enough.
<br /> 1769
<br /> 1770 Adam Beeman: So, the pieces for me is that you want to change the activity node, and that's to benefit the
<br /> 1771 public, but your statement from several members in the literature is we want to be left
<br /> 1772 alone and be invisible to the community. So, you want the benefit of a public rezoning,
<br /> 1773 but the public doesn't get any benefit from your property. I kind of find that weird. Like
<br /> 1774 everybody else said, I think the development itself is a great idea. I think it's just trying to
<br /> 1775 shoehorn in the wrong place. So, with that being said, I'm just going to cut if off there and
<br /> 1776 say that I'm not for this proposal the way it's proposed. I don't think that any of these
<br /> 1777 things, if we change this, we're going to open a can of worms that I don't think the
<br /> 1778 county's ready for. If we are ready for it, then we should do that in the comprehensive
<br /> 1779 plan because I've been to those meetings, and the community in every one of those
<br /> 1780 meetings say that we want rural, rural, rural, keep the woods, keep the nature, keep the
<br /> 1781 animals, keep the wildlife, and this yes, it is stuffed in. If you did a normal development,
<br /> 1782 you could put 90 homes on that 90 acres. You want to put 60 additional homes on a third
<br /> 1783 of that 90 acres. To me, that's just a wrong place. We're not in the city. We're not
<br /> 1784 anywhere close to those metropolitan areas, and while I get the point, you want to have
<br /> 1785 concerts. That's not really something that your neighbors get a benefit of, but they'll have
<br /> 1786 to hear it. You want to have all those other things, and the traffic, they'll have to deal with
<br /> 1787 it, but they don't get any benefit of it. So, if you want to use something that's benefiting
<br /> 1788 the public, then I think you should benefit the public. Otherwise, go back and figure out
<br /> 1789 how to do it with an appropriate zoning where you don't have to jump through all these
<br /> 1790 hoops to make it happen, because it's like twisting an arm to make it happen for you, and
<br /> 1791 then the next guy that comes along, we've got to twist an arm to make it happen for him,
<br /> 1792 where it should just happen at the County level and the UDO. So, I would say if you want
<br /> 1793 that to happen, go advocate with the Board of County Commissioners and see if we can
<br /> 1794 make that happen in the 2050 comprehensive plan because we're currently working on
<br /> 1795 that. But until that gets changed, I really don't see how this whole thing works. I'm going
<br /> 1796 to leave it at that, and I'm going to leave it for the Board to any other questions or
<br /> 1797 comments or motion. I'm open for it all.
<br /> 1798
<br />
|