8-6-25 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9.3.25 275 Delores Bailey: Mr. Chair. Just a quick point of that. Are we, then, changing the agenda? And if so,then we 276 probably should have voted on that. 277 278 Beth Bronson: All the comments are directed specifically at the agenda item and not general. 279 280 Cy Stober: The order of cadence of the meeting is at the board's discretion. The agenda just states that we 281 will consider the matter for recommendation to the board. So, there's no agenda amendment 282 necessary. 283 284 Lamar Proctor: Okay. Thank you. 285 286 Beth Trahos: I think our team signed up. I think I'm the end of our team, so we don't need to speak, but unless 287 you would like to hear from us. 288 289 Lamar Proctor: I'm just looking at the sheet. The direction of the sheet is, and I know people have signed up who 290 may not want to speak. But if you wish, it says in the last comment, if you wish to address the 291 board, indicate the agenda item number. So, I'm going to call on those who put the agenda item 292 number. Indicating that they wanted to speak on this agenda item. Is it Laura Streitfield? Come 293 on up. 294 295 Chris Johnston: And for our public comment, if you wouldn't mind speaking into the microphone, it makes 296 transcription a lot easier. And also, there's going to be a timer on there for 3 minutes. I'll start 297 that. You'll just see the little light on there. 298 299 Laura Streitfeld: Okay. Thank you. 300 301 Chris Johnston: Whenever you're ready. 302 303 Laura Streitfeld: I'm Laura Streitfeld. Thank you for hearing my comments tonight. I want to say first quickly that 304 the Statement of Inconsistency on Page 138 of your agenda appears to have an error that should 305 be corrected if you do decide to vote to deny this application. Where it should say that principal's 306 goals and objectives of the proposed development are inconsistent, it says that those items are 307 consistent with the proposal. I wanted to call that to your attention. 308 309 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. 310 311 Laura Streitfeld: Having a long-term plan or Comprehensive Plan has set expectations for property owners and 312 also has set size limits for lots that appear to be sustainable and fitting to the rural community. 313 Doubling the number of permitted lot minimum sizes. Cutting in half, doubling the number of lots, 314 cutting in half for lot size to half acre rather than full-acre lots raises a lot of concerns for 315 surrounding property owners, and I would like to say for the Rigsbee family, I do know that folks 316 I've heard from in the community really do support the family's ability to sell their land and develop 317 it; however,the rezoning is what folks object to, and I would strongly urge you tonight to consider 318 not approving rezoning. Because even if built and meeting standards that are set by the county 319 and the state, this development would still double the amount of lots and double the amount of 320 construction and post construction run off, stormwater issues. Today, I drove here and drove into 321 standing water on my rural road where the road had washed away on the side of the road, and my 322 car almost got stuck and, I can't count the number of flash flood days in the last 2 weeks as well 323 as I'm sure all of you know,folks,who had to evacuate the houses. I do. Lost everything. Folks 324 who washed off the road and passed away. So,we're living in times where were vacillating 325 between drought and flood and to approve this rezoning would be to say we want to have more 326 density in an area that may not be able to handle it. I also believe that some of the numbers that 327 you've seen are not perhaps as useful as they could be. Our concern is that,where you could, 328 where it says that this is a conservation community,the area that's being conserved is largely, 329 there's three waterways,wetlands and other water features that are already buffered and that area