7_10_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 8.7.24 what does that look like as far as continuity of the neighborhood in line with the rural 1751 neighborhood activity network, which a mom and pop store would it not be, and so, at the 1752 same time, if that's a requirement just to get this land to be able to have this site plan on 1753 it, it's a convoluted way of going about it, and I think that there's better ways to approach 1754 this. 1755 1756 Chris Johnston: I want to make sure that we have the time for Statler's questions as well. 1757 1758 Statler Gilfillen: I'll try to keep mine short. I think we are watching democracy, as it should be, at its best. 1759 I appreciate both sides and what you've said. What I have listened to is a developer 1760 whose goals and intentions, I think, are excellent. I think they are needed in this county, 1761 but I've also listened to the neighbors, the people there, and when I look at the logistics, 1762 which are the water, the sewer, the transportation issues, that are still fairly undefined, 1763 and I'm concerned about them, and as an architect, there are issues of the design that 1764 this is much more of a scaled down subdivision in the layout than it is actually a village, 1765 and there's a difference. That's an architect speaking. And listening to the neighbors and 1766 the people that are surrounding this, I have to raise serious questions if this particular 1767 location is appropriate for this scale of a development being put in. I'll keep it short, and I 1768 think that's enough. 1769 1770 Adam Beeman: So, the pieces for me is that you want to change the activity node, and that's to benefit the 1771 public, but your statement from several members in the literature is we want to be left 1772 alone and be invisible to the community. So, you want the benefit of a public rezoning, 1773 but the public doesn't get any benefit from your property. I kind of find that weird. Like 1774 everybody else said, I think the development itself is a great idea. I think it's just trying to 1775 shoehorn in the wrong place. So, with that being said, I'm just going to cut if off there and 1776 say that I'm not for this proposal the way it's proposed. I don't think that any of these 1777 things, if we change this, we're going to open a can of worms that I don't think the 1778 county's ready for. If we are ready for it, then we should do that in the comprehensive 1779 plan because I've been to those meetings, and the community in every one of those 1780 meetings say that we want rural, rural, rural, keep the woods, keep the nature, keep the 1781 animals, keep the wildlife, and this yes, it is stuffed in. If you did a normal development, 1782 you could put 90 homes on that 90 acres. You want to put 60 additional homes on a third 1783 of that 90 acres. To me, that's just a wrong place. We're not in the city. We're not 1784 anywhere close to those metropolitan areas, and while I get the point, you want to have 1785 concerts. That’s not really something that your neighbors get a benefit of, but they’ll have 1786 to hear it. You want to have all those other things, and the traffic, they'll have to deal with 1787 it, but they don't get any benefit of it. So, if you want to use something that's benefiting 1788 the public, then I think you should benefit the public. Otherwise, go back and figure out 1789 how to do it with an appropriate zoning where you don't have to jump through all these 1790 hoops to make it happen, because it's like twisting an arm to make it happen for you, and 1791 then the next guy that comes along, we’ve got to twist an arm to make it happen for him, 1792 where it should just happen at the County level and the UDO. So, I would say if you want 1793 that to happen, go advocate with the Board of County Commissioners and see if we can 1794 make that happen in the 2050 comprehensive plan because we're currently working on 1795 that. But until that gets changed, I really don't see how this whole thing works. I'm going 1796 to leave it at that, and I'm going to leave it for the Board to any other questions or 1797 comments or motion. I'm open for it all. 1798 1799