| Author | Post |
|---|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 04:18 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: S. Smith wrote: So is what they've done here out of compliance or against the ordinance?
If the developer is out of 'compliance', wouldn't it go without saying that they are out of compliance with the zoning ordinance? Wouldn't compliance directly relate to whether or not the developer is following the requirements of the zoning ordinance?
(Where a 'site plan' is required by an ordinance or zoning district, then site plan compliance still relates back directly to following the requirements of the zoning district ordinance which required it).
My question wasn't meant to be interpreted as people should pick one or the other. It was meant more as a general reference, especially since some people aren't always familiar with the terminology used in ordinances, etc. (Heck, sometimes I'm not even familiar with the nuances and I've been attending meetings for years.)
To put it more bluntly, have these people done something against the rules and if so, what?
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 04:59 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: To put it more bluntly, have these people done something against the rules and if so, what?
Sandra, without seeing the actual site plan which was approved by the Stokesdale Town Council, I think it would be difficult if not impossible to provide a credible answer to your question. A review and examination of the written conditions attached to the rezoning as well as the actual site plan would be necessary before answering that question comprehensively and completely.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
onthefence
Member
| Joined: | Nov 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 12:24 am |
|
S. Smith wrote: Thanks for the explanation, onthefence. (By the way, sounds like you're not on the fence on this issue.)
So is what they've done here out of compliance or against the ordinance? If so, it seems like it could be remedied.
If things like the big awning are a misrepresentation by omission, is that the developer's fault? Unfortunately, I think sometimes it is up to the zoning board and town council not only to accept what a developer shows on a site plan or says at a rezoning, but rather what's not said or shown. In other words, the zoning board and town council members have to be pretty astute and make sure they read between the lines and ask all the right questions. It's a pretty difficult job.
Sandra ... "Onthefence" is only a pseudonym, not a characterization of opinion. Also the Zoning Board is called the "Planning Board" in Stokesdale's ordinance.
As you said... the Planning Board and TC have to ask astute and probing questions. I agree... The PB did so. They asked questions and were not swayed by the answers they heard and presentations they saw. They voted to deny the rezoning request. Town Council ignored them, and granted the rezoning in spite of the PB. The rezoning was passed by a twist of fate. As I recollect, of the five TC members, one was absent, one was reclused as he was a party to the action. This left the decision to three members. The action was passed 2 to 1.
I believe, the PB was trying to send a message that mere compliance with the letter of the law was not enough. The state watershed laws do not establish the optimum protection levels for our town. TC ignored that
North of 158 is considered watershed for Greensboro. Construction in this area is strictly regulated for run-off pollution controls. South of 158 is only watershed for the Stokesdale residences. Is Greensboro more deserving of pollution protection than half of Stokesdale? I think not. TC ignored their duty to protect the town in favor of
UGLY
development. ( Yes ... ugly is only my opinion.)
Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 12:33 am by onthefence
|
onthefence
Member
| Joined: | Nov 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 12:39 am |
|
EditorPS wrote: onthefence wrote: . . . This 'proposed' mart will house a gas station with the capability to fuel 20 cars at once, (with more waiting in line) ...
Just wanted to clarify one point, which has been a major point of contention from the beginning. I want to point out that I know the developer did not dispute it at the last town council meeting (it seems he got worn down and when asked specifically, just didn't have the zip left to respond or dispute) ... at any rate, according to a written statement that I received on Friday from Bartee Washburn and Mark Atkins, partners of Carolina Improvements: "the convenience store only has 5 pumps with one hose on each side of the pump, therefore the absolute maximum number of vehicles that could be serviced at any one time would be 10 vehicles."
I know first-hand that a rumor started early on that there was going to be a Sheetz at this site, which brought up all kinds of images of massive metal, lights, and gas pumps. According to a representative of the Shields family, this was never the intention, and they felt they put in conditions to prevent this look and magnitude -- i.e., the builidng will be all brick veneer, has 52 trees, 24 of which are canopy trees, plus 175 shrubs. I have seen a sketch of the front view of the building and it doesn't look anything like a Sheetz.
As far as Bartee Washburn of Carolina Improvements, I think he did a terrible job of representing himself at the last meeting. I was there, and heard him say some of the things that you've posted -- to be honest, developers sometimes think these things (i.e., "I'll conform to the ordinances on the books but I'm not going to offer any additional concessions"), but are usually smart enough not to voice them aloud at public meetings. I think that's why you'll see Bartee represented by someone else at this Thursday's meeting.
Let's review some postings from the start of this thread... The only aspect I'll agree it doesn't look like Sheetz is the of the awning...
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 12:43 am |
|
onthefence wrote:
Also the Zoning Board is called the "Planning Board" in Stokesdale's ordinance.
As you said... the Planning Board and TC have to ask astute and probing questions. I agree... The PB did so. They asked questions and were not swayed by the answers they heard and presentations they saw. They voted to deny the rezoning request. Town Council ignored them, and granted the rezoning in spite of the PB.
I believe, the PB was trying to send a message that mere compliance with the letter of the law was not enough.
An interesting study (perhaps for the Northwest Observer??) would be to compare the historical votes by the Planning Boards of all three communities with how the three Town Councils ultimately vote on these rezoning cases.
In Stokesdale, I suggest to you that the Stokesdale Planning Board decisions are not supported by the Stokesdale Town Council much more than half the time. (I have no idea what the percentages are for Summerfield and Oak Ridge). It really makes me wonder why the planning board members even agree to serve if their input and recommendations are so blatantly ignored.
As an aside, it is also worth asking why anyone would agree to serve on the Stokesdale Comprehensive Land Use Planning Committee for the very same reasons: the Stokesdale Town Council continues to pay very little attention to the Stokesdale Comprehensive Land Use Map in passing out rezoning approvals to developers as if they were candy.
One other thing to think about, is that when the three communities elect town council members, most of these town council members have no real knowledge and experience with zoning, planning, land use and land use laws. Astute developers and engineers who know every nook and cranny of these ordinances are being regulated by council members who are barely amateurs at best when it comes to zoning and planning matters. And that's one of the major reasons why the developers keep winning the battles and the communities and their citizens keep losing the wars.
Reminds me of Pogo: We have seen the enemy and he is us.
Get ready for URBAN SPRAWL folks. It's Coming soon to Summerfield, Stokesdale and Oak Ridge.
It won't be long before this whole area looks just like another Greensboro suburb.
Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 12:56 am by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 02:06 pm |
|
onthefence wrote: S. Smith wrote: Thanks for the explanation, onthefence. (By the way, sounds like you're not on the fence on this issue.)
So is what they've done here out of compliance or against the ordinance? If so, it seems like it could be remedied.
If things like the big awning are a misrepresentation by omission, is that the developer's fault? Unfortunately, I think sometimes it is up to the zoning board and town council not only to accept what a developer shows on a site plan or says at a rezoning, but rather what's not said or shown. In other words, the zoning board and town council members have to be pretty astute and make sure they read between the lines and ask all the right questions. It's a pretty difficult job.
Sandra ... "Onthefence" is only a pseudonym, not a characterization of opinion. Also the Zoning Board is called the "Planning Board" in Stokesdale's ordinance.
As you said... the Planning Board and TC have to ask astute and probing questions. I agree... The PB did so. They asked questions and were not swayed by the answers they heard and presentations they saw. They voted to deny the rezoning request. Town Council ignored them, and granted the rezoning in spite of the PB. The rezoning was passed by a twist of fate. As I recollect, of the five TC members, one was absent, one was reclused as he was a party to the action. This left the decision to three members. The action was passed 2 to 1.
I believe, the PB was trying to send a message that mere compliance with the letter of the law was not enough. The state watershed laws do not establish the optimum protection levels for our town. TC ignored that
North of 158 is considered watershed for Greensboro. Construction in this area is strictly regulated for run-off pollution controls. South of 158 is only watershed for the Stokesdale residences. Is Greensboro more deserving of pollution protection than half of Stokesdale? I think not. TC ignored their duty to protect the town in favor of
UGLY
development. ( Yes ... ugly is only my opinion.)
Hi onthefence,
You're right that I should have been referring to the Planning Board. Different towns out here have different names for the recommending body that serves the same function to each town council.
You're also right that protecting our water supply is very important and just because a line is drawn on a map somewhere doesn't mean that protecting the water on the "other side of the line" isn't necessary. I know the state is much stricter about things like gas stations than they used to be and advances in technology and equipment, like double-walled tanks and requirements that readings be taken to ensure that the tanks are not leaking into the ground, have helped to protect groundwater.
Of course, this doesn't address things like if the pump fails to cut off and somebody overfills their gas tank or if something happens to the tanker bringing in the gas and it somehow dumps out on the ground there. Even with the best precautions, accidents sometimes happen.
It's interesting about only 3 council members voting on this issue. I wonder if the result would have been different had everyone voted.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 03:19 pm |
|
| Sandra, that is exactly what I was trying to show the Summerfield Town Council when they agreed to grandfather in the gas station (I think it is on Pleasant Ridge) in Summerfield that is in the watershed. You can be as careful as you want but who hasn't overfilled a gas can or split gas out of the nozzle as you are returning it to the pump. That doesn't even bring into the fact that the tanker bringing in gas could have a problem.
|
ff12
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 310 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 10th, 2007 04:06 am |
|
I wonder how much gas will be when the place opens up?
|
ff12
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 310 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 15th, 2007 02:35 am |
|
Sure would like to buy me some Sunoco gas!!!!!!!!!! Does anyone know where I could get some?
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Apr 15th, 2007 11:37 pm |
|
ff12 wrote: Sure would like to buy me some Sunoco gas!!!!!!!!!! Does anyone know where I could get some?
You will probably need lots to go in your red Mustang, ff12 -- especially the way you keep the roads hot!
I haven't heard when the station is supposed to open, but we'll try to find out.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 15th, 2007 11:59 pm |
|
| You're not running a quart low these days are you ff12?
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
ff12
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 310 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 17th, 2007 01:32 am |
|
It is a Ferrari. And yes I am feeling a couple of quarts low.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 7th, 2007 02:39 pm |
|
| It's now official. The new Sunoco station at Highway 68 and Haw River Road is now OPEN for business. Gas is priced at $2.79.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jun 10th, 2007 01:23 pm |
|
So what does business look like over there?
Judging from the comments at the beginning of this thread, it seems like a lot of local people were against this. Has that seemed to decrease their business any?
|
DToney
Member
|
Posted: Jun 11th, 2007 09:48 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: It's now official. The new Sunoco station at Highway 68 and Haw River Road is now OPEN for business. Gas is priced at $2.79.
WOW! $2.79!
____________________
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work. - Thomas Edison
|
Current time is 12:50 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|