Northwest Observer Forums > Northwest-Area Towns > Stokesdale > Proposed gas station at 68 & Haw River road
Northwest Observer Forums > Northwest-Area Towns > Stokesdale > Proposed gas station at 68 & Haw River road |
|
| Moderated by: EditorPS | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
onthefence Member 
|
HAW RIVER ROAD / NC HIGHWAY 68 Big A** Gas Station............. Neighbors: Here are the facts… There is a large 'proposed' convenience store and gas station on the agenda for the Stokesdale Town Council meeting next Thursday ~ Dec. 15, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting is held the third Thursday of each month in the Town Hall. The agenda for the meeting can be found at http://www.Stokesdale.org, but has not been posted as of today 12/10/05. The site plan was presented at the Nov. 17th, meeting. The council decided to delay voting on the request to allow time for additional review, etc. This 'proposed' mart will house a gas station with the capability to fuel 20 cars at once, (with more waiting in line), contain a 25 seat fast food restaurant with drive thru service. The 'proposed' building will be 4,800 square ft., with a gas canopy measuring 110' long and 20' wide. Entrances are proposed from Haw River Road, and Highway 68. Please note that this is an intersection with traffic currently coming from four (4) directions. NCDOT has NOT, as of December 5th issued, the driveway permits. The developer said these permits had already been taken care of at the last TC meeting (In November). Stokesdale has a Long Range Land Use Plan that was adopted in 2001. Note that this document is a guideline, and was not adopted in it's entirety. The Scenic Corridor portion was rejected and never approved by the council. Guidelines are simply suggestions - - - - - while Ordinances are enforceable by law. To the point, we have no ordinance or regulations in place in Stokesdale that will allow this development to be controlled at this time. We are in a CNSW - Nutrient Sensitive Watershed (not a protected watershed), and the classification was determined in 1983, and is the one that the State of North Carolina considers active. Guilford County is under Phase II Storm Water Runoff requirements, and a Soil and Erosion Permit will be required for this construction site since it disturbs land between one (1) and (5) acres. The Storm Water permit remains active during construction, but is no longer required after final approval of the developed site. This information comes from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Guilford County - regarding the requirements for underground storage tanks. *Secondary Containment Requirements must be met. Simply put, this means double wall tanks and lines with sensors that are supposed to monitor for leaks and corrosion will be installed. The sites are inspected by a county employee once every three years. There are no requirements to catch (Fuel Spills) surface runoff since we are not in a protected water shed. Our current Mayor (John Flynt) asked the developers to come to the next meeting prepared to tell us how they would handle a spill on site. It is also worth noting that lighting was mentioned..............the developer simply stated that if we are concerned about lighting that Stokesdale should have a lighting ordinance. They intend to follow only the guidelines that pertain to permits, etc., required by Guilford County and enforceable by law. Please note that Stokesdale has no current development ordinances in place pertaining to groundwater, surface runoff, or environmental protection in general. This is certainly an issue of public safety and should be important to anyone that has chosen Stokesdale as home. My impression of these developers is their bad, uncaring attitude. Several times their words were to the effect of “If there’s no law forcing me to do the right thing, I won’t do it” They don't care the inevitable fuel spills will contaminate our water supply. They have twice lied. (said something untrue) One, They said there was to be ten fueling spots. The plans call for TWENTY. Two, They said DOT has approved their entrances. There is NO approved DOT permit Do we wait for their third strike (lie) ? The best that we can hope for is to show the town council that we are overwhelmingly opposed to this developer and their project. They have been reviewing the proposal, and we must show up to let our voices be heard at the next meeting. Please mark your calendar for December 15th, it's Thursday evening at 7:30 p.m. I hope to see you all at the meeting. Please share this message with neighbors and concerned citizens. Lets protect our future! Last edited on Dec 28th, 2005 01:53 pm by EditorPS |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member 
|
WOW. That would be weird having a big A- gas station there. Thanks for the info. |
|||||||||||
|
EditorPS Administrator 
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
onthefence Member
|
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) ... Dear EditorPS... Although you may have a written statement from CI, The public record at two legally recognized public hearings (TC meeting and Planning board) will show 20 fueling spots. The written statement is not binding. The public record is. Would you be willing to post an image of the statement ? Alternately, will CI introduce that written statement into the public record this Thursday at TC meeting? |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
There is now a sign up there that says bethel commons I think. Maybe a whole strip or what? It says something about a 20 seat restaurant w/ a drive thru. Maybe the sign is not new and I am just unobservant. That is a weird spot for that kind of thing. Of course I'm sure one can say that about all development. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member 
|
Bama, The sign just went up last week. The site plan was just approved at the Dec. 15 Stokesdale Town Council meeting.... according to that, there will be a gas station/convenience store and some kind of drive thru restaurant. 5 acres total, but evidently a lot of that is for septic field... Yeah, I think we should develop EVERY INCH of available green space -- NOT! |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member 
|
Posted: Oct 16th, 2005 10:49 am At the risk of being redundant, once the green space is gone, we can't get it back. Economic growth is one thing, but why pave over everything in order to offer jobs? (Part-time at that, in the case of FedEx.) There are other kinds of economic development that don't change the personality of the area. Harmony with what brought us here? Macca.......you almost gave me a heart attack. Glad I read the last posting to the end......I still remember the answer you gave me above back in Oct. Thought you fell off the wagon. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
NOT A CHANCE!  I guess your posting just proves that we need ot be careful what we post... people have good memories! |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
BTW, What about a nice boutique area, like Sadie's. She's proven there is a market for such in that area. That could be a quaint little area, instead of mega businesses. Some nice coffee shop/cafe, craft area with nice products by local artisans. We have some very talented folks in the area. This would "recycle" space that is already developed while bringing commerce to the area -- without destroying more green space! There was also talk at one point of using the area that used to be the train tracks into a walking trail. Plant some trees, put in a few benches, maybe even picnic tables.... |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member 
|
onthefence wrote:
Can we say that? Goodness, I had no idea! Thanks onthefence for being diligent and keeping us up to date! Last edited on Dec 28th, 2005 01:00 am by Cracker Jax |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
Yeah I read the story in the NWO last night finally. I remember onthefence talking about the gas station a while back but did not remember the details. In the story, the owner/developer ( a summerfield resident) said that his grandmother used to have a farm where that development is and now they do not want him to put anything there even though it has been zoned for it for some time now. He said he thought it was ironic that those opposing him were living on a developed piece of his land. I am sure people opposed this neighborhood back when it was being planned just like they are opposing the gas station. If things had worked out against the neighborhood, then they would not be living there. I am not on either side of this issue. It does not affect me outright, and I do not feel strongly opposed or in favor enough to voice opinion. |
|||||||||||
|
zippitydoodah Member
|
Great ideas, macca. Of course, it would depend on how high the rents are and whether people would frequent those places enough to make them worthwhile to the business owner. After all, even at $3-4 a pop for those yummy lattes and cappucinos (is that spelled right?), it takes a lot of cups of coffee to pay a hefty monthly rent. |
|||||||||||
|
zippitydoodah Member
|
There is a sign up at this corner now. It says something about space for lease. Anybody know anything about that? Isn't it going to be a gas station? |
|||||||||||
|
onthefence Member
|
zippitydoodah wrote: There is a sign up at this corner now. It says something about space for lease. Anybody know anything about that? Isn't it going to be a gas station? The site plan as approved by TC includes a restaurant as well as a (10 We'll see? ) fueling spot gas station. The site plan also includes a drive though window. I've heard the station is going to be branded as a BP. Sounds like it'll be a franchise, not an oil company owned station |
|||||||||||
|
Revpast Member
|
The Shields family paid something like $35,000-$50,000 for this property a few years ago. Once it was rezoned, it was sold for approximately $725,000.00. Does that tell you anything about how politics works in Stokesdale? If you don't believe the Rev, simply check the tax (stamps) record in the Guilford County Register of Deeds. Last edited on Jan 15th, 2006 01:20 am by Revpast |
|||||||||||
|
thepanther Member
|
I propose a local boycott the big a gas station and keep our support going to the three current stations in Town. I know this wont hurt their business but it will support the stations already here. Thepanther is running out of habitat space I have already helped a family of misplaced rabbits find a new home and with the flood of development to come I expect to have to go into Stokes County to find a place to roam. I have also heard Macdonalds is comming to Oak Ridge. Thepanther Last edited on Jan 15th, 2006 04:45 am by thepanther |
|||||||||||
|
zippitydoodah Member
|
I don't know that has as much to do with politics as it does free enterprise. They could have asked $10 million for the property and if somebody was willing to pay it, then it would sell. There is that piece of property in Oak Ridge at the corner of 150 and Linville Rd. that I heard they are asking something like $900,000 for a little over 3 acres (across from the fire chief's eyesore that people keep asking about in the NWO). I can't believe they're asking that or that anybody would be stupid enough to pay it, but we'll see.... |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
I also heard that the Shields family originally bought that property (at the corner of Haw River and 68) as part of the effort to block the landfill expansion. Then it worked out that they were able to sell it for a good profit.... I agree w/zippy...Look around, isn't that what's going on all over this area? (Not that I'm in favor of developing every inch that can be, but .... ) |
|||||||||||
|
zippitydoodah Member
|
Good morning, macca. What do you mean they bought that property to block the landfill expansion? That property's not beside the landfill. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Ok, I heard this second or third hand... but it had something to do with the intersection. The company needed/wanted a wider intersection for its trucks, so someone in the Shields family bought this property so the company couldn't.... |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member 
|
Taco Bell anyone? Then we could eat great ,even late, as we run to the border(of Stokesdale/OR). What if someone was hit in the head with a golf ball while pumping gas and eating a taco? Who would you sue, the town for allowing the gas station/ rest., the golf course for the 9th hole going toward the road,the owners of gas station for building close to the course, the golf equipment manufactures, or your auto manufacture for not building a more economical large suv so you could go to a cheper gas station. Last edited on Jan 19th, 2006 02:56 pm by ff12 |
|||||||||||
|
onthefence Member
|
macca wrote: Ok, I heard this second or third hand... but it had something to do with the intersection. The company needed/wanted a wider intersection for its trucks, so someone in the Shields family bought this property so the company couldn't.... I would doubt this as fact. The NC DOT is tasked with insuring the road system works for the traffic. If the intersection needs improvement, DOT would condemn the land if the owner won't sell. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Onthefence, It wasn't that DOT wanted to make the changes, it was that the trash company did.... In order to have larger trucks in and out, needed wider turning lane(?).... Anyway, that's just what I heard... |
|||||||||||
|
onthefence Member
|
Macca: I wasn’t casting suspicion on your veracity. Just that I doubt the property owners at the corner could block construction of a larger roadway if the DOT was convinced of its need. |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member 
|
It seems like someone would consider widening 68 before developing it up this way! That road is a total mess at "rush hour" each day. Morning & evening traffic on 68 from where it narrows at the "Hole in the Wall" restaurant to Stokesdale is typically bumper to bumper! Does anyone know of any plans to widen that section? It seems the town of Oak Ridge would be trying to get that done before development gets too far! If one were to take a step back and look at the area where the shopping center is, near the military academy, it would seem nearly impossible to widen it now without disrupting the land owned by the academy. |
|||||||||||
|
Bubba Guest
|
Great idea DToney......widening a road. If you have lived here all your life, you might like to know that they had a public meeting back in the 50's to let us all know they were going to be widening 220 N and how it was going to be so great! Well it might be done in the next 10 years......might live to see it  |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
Bubba wrote: Great idea DToney......widening a road. Dang, Bubba! You don't mean it!  Actually I recently moved here from SC and was not aware of that.... 68 & 220 are both overdue....  With the heavy growth in this area I'm afraid this is just the beginning...... our schools are overcrowded as well as our roads.... but no one is doing anything about it.... any body listening?  |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member
|
DToney wrote: With the heavy growth in this area I'm afraid this is just the beginning...... our schools are overcrowded as well as our roads.... but no one is doing anything about it.... Are you referring to the schools? or the roads? There is a whole forum dedicated to NW area schools. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
DToney wrote: It seems like someone would consider widening 68 before developing it up this way! That road is a total mess at "rush hour" each day. Morning & evening traffic on 68 from where it narrows at the "Hole in the Wall" restaurant to Stokesdale is typically bumper to bumper! Does anyone know of any plans to widen that section? I'm not sure that the DOT plans to do a whole lot to Highway 68 since they have plans to build the 220-68 connector (which somewhere along the way became I-73) at some point in the future. Doing that is supposed to take a good portion of the through traffic off the road and leave primarily local traffic. Of course, by the time they get around to getting that done, the local traffic may be built up to the point that something will have to be done to 68. They will be widening 220 through Summerfield, but I recently heard that project has been pushed back to 2012. |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
so that means we will all be victims of "urban sprawl" and lack of good planning... oh, well... just hope they don't outlaw cell phones, at least I can call my child while stuck in traffic! I also heard it would be a long time before anyone gets to actually ride on "Future Corridor 73" Why keep postponing the road construction? We need a fix now! |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
Has anyone heard that there might be a Dollar General going in out there? What about the drive thru restaurant? Anyone heard what kind? Just curious........ |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
maybe we can steal the McDonalds from OR . Why would you build a McD's without a playplace for all the kids in the area. |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
They can keep their Micky D's... I'd rather have a Hardees! Good ol' biscuit in the morning on the way to school & work... I'd really be fat & sassy! |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
i wonder how many times ownership and stores will change because it will be extremely diffucult to get into and out of due to traffic. |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
ff12, do you have some "scoop"? |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
Does anyone know what is being built on Angel Pardue? There are 2 nice buildings - all brick - but no sign.... any ideas? |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
The local dentists are building that and will be moving into part of it and hoping to rent out part, I think. BTW: I think you're "Off Topic" here! ♥♥♥ Last edited on Jun 15th, 2006 02:07 am by macca |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
oops.... |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
3 walls up . 1 to go? Looks like a really small place so far. Maybe they will have cheap gas, bought it for 2.61 Sunday in Haw River. Always amazes me how they can sell it for 25cents less than in Stokesdale and 30 cents less than Oak Ridge.Maybe our NWO FactFinders can get on the case. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Yeah, I've noticed that area always has cheaper gas, too. In fact, when we are traveling to/from Raleigh and beyond we usually stop there both on the way and on the way back! Re: the new place at Haw River/68 -- Didn't I read that folks who live in that area, who opposed the development of that property as it is being developed, have said they won't be giving it their business? |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
looks like they are coming along with the building now... didn't you guys say that there was some kind of plaza supposed to be on one corner & a gas station on the other?? |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Two different projects, developed by two different developers -- totally different projects, not related in any way.♥♥♥ |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
any idea when the other one will begin? or what will be there? I'd love to see a Family Dollar! It is small, inexpensive, & has lots of useful things for sale. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
I know that it has been wet and all, but man is that building going up slow. |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
ff12 wrote: I know that it has been wet and all, but man is that building going up slow. s-l-o-w a-s a s-n-a-i-l-s p-a-c-e! I figured we'd at least know exactly what was going in over there by now... |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
almost have 4 walls complete , may be open by summer 200? |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
ff12 wrote: almost have 4 walls complete , may be open by summer 200? like I said before... s-l-o-w a-s a s-n-a-i-l-s p-a-c-e! I figured we'd at least know exactly what was going in over there by now... |
|||||||||||
|
johnboy Member
|
My handle is johnboy and I will tell anyone interested that I am very much interested in this project, because I am a resident that will be using this intersection and we certainly cannot use anymore traffic congestion at this section. If you think I am kidding just be close by this area, say 7:30 am till 9:00 am and see it first hand and it returns in the afternoon when the same vehicles plus a whole herd of trucks are trying to get to their destinations. It is going to get worse with all of the developement plus the commercial building that is going in place and I use this location as an example. Someone is not looking out for the interest of the people and are more interested in the dollar and to heck with the public. They will cheat and lie when it comes to their benefit as far as the greenback is concerned and they do not care who is caught in the middle of this fiasco. Listen up voting and taxpaying public you are going to get railroaded if you do not attend the TC meeting and be heard with your opinion and it does make a difference. Thanks......Johnboy |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member
|
johnboy wrote: Listen up voting and taxpaying public you are going to get railroaded if you do not attend the TC meeting and be heard with your opinion and it does make a difference. Thanks......Johnboy Excellent point Johnboy, those that get involved in their community are those who make a difference. The TC meetings are an invaluable source of that information. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
I used to drive down 68 every day going to work. Now I have found a different way to go and just avoid 68 altogether. I agree that this development here will be a deathblow to any movement on 68 in the morning or afternoon. It's already bad enough. Any development anywhere on 68 is just a mess. |
|||||||||||
|
zippitydoodah Member
|
johnboy wrote: Someone is not looking out for the interest of the people and are more interested in the dollar and to heck with the public. They will cheat and lie when it comes to their benefit as far as the greenback is concerned and they do not care who is caught in the middle of this fiasco. Listen up voting and taxpaying public you are going to get railroaded if you do not attend the TC meeting and be heard with your opinion and it does make a difference. Thanks......Johnboy Your right Johnboy. Giving your opinions at TC meetings does make a difference. But I'm interested in knowing who you say is "more interested in the dollar" and will "cheat and lie when it comes to thier benefit"? Is there something we don't know going on? That sounds like some pretty strong acusatoins. Don't get me wrong. I don't like traffic on 68 anymore than anybody else does. |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
well, y'all don't stone me or anything... I can't wait for this place to open up especially if it has a drive thru restaurant! I just cannot understand why the construction is moving so slowly! are they paying for it as they go along? What about the other business they were planning across the street or something? No word at all on that lately! |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
That construction site has to be the ugliest construction site that has ever been witnessed in Northwest Guilford County. It is a shameful disgrace to even the lowest measure of decent construction practice and sound development process. The powers that be (i.e., the Town Council) who used no less than stinking thinking to vote favorably to allow this mess should ride by and see what they have inflicted on an otherwise nice group of people and community of citizens. They should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this ugly elephant to be a part of our community. Last edited on Oct 30th, 2006 01:11 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
Mr.Jim , I do agree with you about the unkempt look. Will the completed project have better upkeep? Sure hope so or else it will look like a certain heating and air business. |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
how long has this project been in the works? seems like forever! do we even know what is going in? I'm like some of yall too about the appearance of the job site... pittiful! I've worked construction & that has got to be the worst looking ever...... what is the deal? |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
just a little info. on the building going up. The owner/developer also either owns or built the new truck stop and Huddle House on 220. Word on the street is that he builds as he gets the money. Anyway its also how Sheetz got started. |
|||||||||||
|
DToney Member
|
If he has any interest in the operation of the Huddle House, I hope someone gets the word across to the management that the woman with the long hair who is an asst mgr or something needs to wear all of that stuff pulled back! It is disgusting to see her hair all over people's food when she is serving it! We quit going because of the incident about a week or so ago when her hair was all in someone's bacon! ewwww! I figured they were paying as they go.... thanks for the word! |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
I saw in the NW Observer recently that they've had a couple of setbacks (wrong equipment ordered, etc) but hope to get this project done in near future. I notice intermittent work as I drive past.... I wonder if folks in the area will hold true to their word and not give it business, as they stated when it was being approved... |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
I still think that is the ugliest construction site in America and the building is shaping up to be one Pink Elephant of equal unattraction. I know of at least one 'local' that will not be patronizing the joint. |
|||||||||||
|
onthefence Member
|
There are many words to describe this project. The latest word is Last edited on Jan 26th, 2007 01:46 pm by onthefence |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
onthefence wrote:
Who were the two "rocket scientists" on Stokesdale town council who voted for the rezoning misrepresentation and the resulting unsightly mess? (They are obviously not the two sharpest knives in the drawer) Stokesdale citizens should be reminded before the next election of those responsible. Last edited on Jan 26th, 2007 02:33 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Who were the two "rocket scientists" on Stokesdale town council who voted for the rezoning misrepresentation and the resulting unsightly mess? (They are obviously not the two sharpest knives in the drawer)I honestly don't remember who voted for or against this, but I'd assume that those who voted for it felt it met the ordinance. Do you think otherwise? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote: I honestly don't remember who voted for or against this, but I'd assume that those who voted for it felt it met the ordinance. Do you think otherwise? Sandra, I'm not even sure the current development plan has met or is even meeting the conditions which were attached to the rezoning and included within the approved site plan. A site plan, which was attached to the rezoning approval and binding on the owner/developer, I might add. I was not involved nor did I attend the rezoning hearings at the time, but I do recall that there were dozens of neighboring properties owners who were opposed to the rezoning of the property. If memory serves me correctly, some conditions were attached to both the rezoning and to the site plan to try and assuage some (though not all) of the neighbors concerns. It is also seems that one of the council members later expressed regret that they had voted for this rezoning, and made the quite public comment that they would not have done so had they known at the time of the vote, that there were misreprensentations made by the petitioners at the town council rezoning hearing. Perhaps Vicki can shed more light on the rezoning, or, we can go back and research the archives to recall the details of the case. In any event, I think what has transpired in the construction phase has actually turned out to be even worse that the worst case scenario that any of those opposing neighbors might have imagined. Unfortunately, and all too often, when the Northwest town councils have rezoned properties, they have done so based on oral promises of the landowners, but those promises fall by the wayside once the property is rezoned, and the owner then sells the property to a buyer who could care less about the prior promises. Those oral promises by the way, aren't worth the paper they are not written down on. (Need I remind anyone of the 'pie in the sky' promises made in the original Armfield rezoning?) What has been left behind on the Shields property is an absolute and total unisghtly mess, and the sad part is, it did not have to be this way. If only we had a town council out here who was not in the developer's pocket. And that is just one more thing we are going to talk about in the next town council election. Last edited on Jan 27th, 2007 01:29 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
onthefence wrote:Jim, seems like you and othefence are making some pretty serious charges here. How can they not follow what the original plan was? If they don't follow it, can't they be made to take out whatever it is and make it right? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
macca wrote: Jim, seems like you and othefence are making some pretty serious charges here. How can they not follow what the original plan was? If they don't follow it, can't they be made to take out whatever it is and make it right? IF, and IF is such a big word here Macca, IF Stokesdale ENFORCED their zoning ordinance, the answer is and would be YES. There are, as others have pointed out in this and other threads, numerous examples around here where the zoning and planning enforcement is not only unnoticed, it is non-existent. Last edited on Jan 28th, 2007 10:35 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
And what happens when people complain about it? Isn't the Council obligated to address the complaints? How do you make an official complaint? How do you make sure you are at least heard if you have a complaint? Surely any Town Council must follow some kind of protocol and respond to official complaints???? |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Oops -- Forgot to ask in my prior post -- What zoning violations has the Stokesdale Town Council not enforced? |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
onthefence wrote: Jim, what were the conditions attached to this rezoning? Since I don't remember the specifics of this case, I can't really comment whether either written or oral promises were made. I do know that in the case of Armfield, the conditions, such as land for a park, were written. The town has been trying to "collect" for some time, and has even threatened to pull building permits until the conditions were met. Your accusation about the town council being in the developer's pockets is pretty strong. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote: Your accusation about the town council being in the developer's pockets is pretty strong. Sandra, when certain of the town council members are riding around (literally) with some of the developers out here (literally) trying to find them land to develop, I would think that would meet the very definition of my statement. When some of the Stokesdale farmers and large property owners have 'caught' (literally) these same town council members and developers riding on their property without the permission of the property owner, I would think that would again meet the very definition of my statement. There are more stories and more to tell, but for the time being, I am going to keep a little of the powder dry for another day. Open your eyes folks to what is going on over here! |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
macca wrote: Oops -- Forgot to ask in my prior post -- What zoning violations has the Stokesdale Town Council not enforced? Macca, I have not done an exhaustive study of that, but I can tell you that there are literally dozens of violations of the Stokesdale town ordinances for planning and development which are going unenforced. To single out one or two here publicly would not be fair to those one or two without naming names of them all. Just familiarize yourself with the Stokesdale ordinance, consult with the Stokesdale Comprehensive Land Use map and the zoning maps for the area, and then drive around. The evidence as they say, is all over the map. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote: Jim, what were the conditions attached to this rezoning? Since I don't remember the specifics of this case, I can't really comment whether either written or oral promises were made. Sandra, my recollection is that there were written conditions attached to the rezoning request which would be binding on the developer. Further, as the site plan was attached to the rezoning request, (and required if I remember correctly for this particular zoning district), the site plan (and details contained within that site plan) would be binding on the developer as well. Both would assume of course, that the Town of Stokesdale actually enforces the ordinances. Which to many is a stretch of the imagination. |
|||||||||||
|
onthefence Member
|
Hello Sandra... My statement : "This entire project was a misrepresentation" refers to the various presentations that were made to Stokesdale in the rezoning and site plan process. My last "misrepresentation" statement refers to the picture of the building facade that was presented to Stokesdale. The picture is on their construction sign. Does it show a Honk'in huge awning connected to the top, center of the facade? NO... It does not. Therefore a misrepresentation by omission. "Beware the next impact" I fear is an environmental one... polluted run-off, fuel and oil spills, trash and litter from their drive through, etc. Take your pick and take your chances. Since the site isn't in a declared public watershed, it doesn't have to follow the watershed rules. But it is in MY watershed, flowing to MY well. Last edited on Jan 30th, 2007 03:07 am by onthefence |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
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). |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote: 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. I see a lot of parallels between what has happened to this proposed gas station in Stokesdale with the rezoning case before the Summerfield Town Council on the Armfield rezoning. What absolutely amazed me at the last Summerfield Town Council meeting was how only one town council member seemed to be asking any questions of the Armfield developers. The rest of the TC members seemed to be sitting there not knowing what to say or the questions to ask. And they are getting ready to have the wool pulled over their eyes again. By the very same developer who has already pulled it over their eyes before. Unless, they start asking questions. And start asking them fast. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Jim Flynt wrote: S. Smith wrote:So is what they've done here out of compliance or against the ordinance? 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
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
onthefence Member
|
S. Smith wrote: Thanks for the explanation, onthefence. (By the way, sounds like you're not on the fence on this issue.) 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
|
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) ... 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 |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
onthefence wrote:
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 |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
onthefence wrote: S. Smith wrote:Thanks for the explanation, onthefence. (By the way, sounds like you're not on the fence on this issue.) 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
|
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
|
I wonder how much gas will be when the place opens up? |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
Sure would like to buy me some Sunoco gas!!!!!!!!!! Does anyone know where I could get some? |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
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
|
You're not running a quart low these days are you ff12? |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
It is a Ferrari. And yes I am feeling a couple of quarts low. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
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
|
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! |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote: So what does business look like over there? Sandra, ironical that you ask that question. Yesterday afternoon, I happened to notice while in 'downtown' Stokesdale that almost all of the gas pump lanes at Times Turn Around were full of vehicles as was Countryside Market across the street. Just for the heck of it, I drove by the new Sunoco station and there was not one vehicle in a gas pump lane and only 3 cars on the entire lot (which would include employee vehicles). Personally, I was opposed to this rezoning and have not and will not patronize this station. I know several others who opposed the rezoning who have taken the same position of boycotting this store on principle. I hope others will join us as well. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
To follow up further with Sandra's question, this afternoon during rush hour along Highway 68, there was not one single customer up at the new Sunoco station. All of the employees were sitting outside the front door watching the world go by (and waiting for a customer to drop in). Meanwhile, Countryside Market and Times Turn Around (Intersection of Highway 158 & 68) were both booming with customers and business at the same hour. I think they are going to have to rely on the drive by and out of town roadside traffic rather than the locals if they are going to make it here. I think it is safe to say they are an impulse rather than destination vendor/location. Last edited on Jun 13th, 2007 02:31 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
smileyfaces Member
|
One thing going against them is the location. Trying to come out of that intersection is a hassle at any time of day. Especially on a school morning or late afternoon. Everyone is playing the guessing game because A LOT of people simply don't know how to use a turn signal. I see an accident waiting to happen in the future. Gosh forbid, it's a bad one too, because there really aren't that many choices to get out of that area without making some major detour. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
I don't have an opinion on this one but if no one patronizes this place, and it goes out of business, what will you be left with? [see summerfield food lion] I know most people in the area probably didnt like it, but I think you will be just as disappointed with an overgrown abandoned building there. Obviously its too late to go backwards and not have this rezoned, but I just wanted to throw a wrench in the works here. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
bama80 wrote: ...if no one patronizes this place, and it goes out of business, what will you be left with? I think you will be just as disappointed with an overgrown abandoned building there. bama, just slap on some orange paint and the building could easily be renovated and reopened as the Church of the Orange Owl. Wouldn't that be a Hoot(ers)? Right across from Dawn Acres it would make the perfect 19th Hole. We could meet up there for wings and beer! |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
Now that's an idea! |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Can you get to the store from Highway 68, or do you have to turn onto Haw River Rd.? If you can get to it from 68, it would seem to me like people heading south on 68 might stop there on their way to wherever they're going. If you can't enter from 68, I'd think it would be a major hassle to get in and out. Also, if you're on the west side of 68 (the Arbor Run side), you might be inclined to stop there if it's not at a busy time of day so you could get back out. If you're on the golf course side of 68, you might not ever go there because of the traffic hassle. Maybe they need to offer .99/gallon gas for a day or something to kick things off. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote: Can you get to the store from Highway 68, or do you have to turn onto Haw River Rd.? If you can get to it from 68, it would seem to me like people heading south on 68 might stop there on their way to wherever they're going. If you can't enter from 68, I'd think it would be a major hassle to get in and out. Sandra, as you may or may not know, the developers were required to provide and pave a new turn lane on the west side of Highway 68 adjacent to the southbound lanes. So traffic headed south can access the station directly from Highway 68. Those same patrons could also re-access Highway 68 by way of either Haw River Road or Highway 68. As most know, Highway 68 is now quite the busy highway with something like 15,000 plus cars per day. Unfortunately, Haw River Road also has a slight hill headed west from the intersection with Highway 68, which creates a quite limited visual situation in being able to enter Haw River Road with any safety. Vehicles headed along Haw River Road eastward are often traveling rather fast for the intersection approach than they should be, thus creating an additional traffic hazard on Haw River Road. Ultimately, I personally think there may well me more accidents along the Haw River Road access to this station than from the Highway 68 station access. I do think the lack of safe and easy access to this station are and will continue to greatly compromise safety and deter consumers from frequenting this facility with any regularity. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
I have seen quite a few people fueling their boats here. Maybe the parking lot is easier to access than times turn around or gastown. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
One of the other complaints which I'm hearing, is from the folks who live along Haw River Road, who are griping that now that the southbound turn lane along Highway 68 has been installed, the big truck rigs are starting to use Haw River Road as a short-cut to Kernersville. (Prior to the turn lane installation, these large transfer trucks could not make the turn westbound onto Haw River Road with any ease or safety) I know that some of these neighbors have contacted the NC Department of Transportation to see if the weight limit can be raised on Haw River Road to prevent these trucks from doing that. Their complaint being that Haw River Road is too narrow and dangerous for these large trucks, especially at the higher speeds currently allowed under the existing speed limit. Last edited on Jun 18th, 2007 04:16 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
smileyfaces Member
|
Since it's opening it appears that there are plenty of people using it. At $2.89/gal, it's actually pretty good. I saw gas at the Gate on New Garden at $2.88/yesterday. It appears that Sunoco will give the other local gas stations a run for their money. Again, the only situation will be the lack of consideration people use in the use of turn signals. I hate playing the guessing game when coming off of the golf course side of Haw River and turning south onto 68. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
Gas has usually been 1 to 2 cents a gallon cheaper at Countryside. Stokesdale Service Center had them all beat during the week and it is full service and locally owned as is Countryside. I do not know about Times but they sell that dictator Chavezs' state owned gas CITGO. I dont plan on buying from them. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Has anyone noticed all of the dead and dying newly landscaping trees which were just planted on this site less than 3 weeks ago? I can't imagine spending all of that money on trees and landscaping and then not having the good sense to water them regularly. (As a side note, I have also noticed a couple of local town government landscaping projects which aren't looking real good right now either, due to a lack of regular watering and maintenance). What the heck, it's just the taxpayer's money..... |
|||||||||||
|
onthefence Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Has anyone noticed all of the dead and dying newly landscaping trees which were just planted on this site less than 3 weeks ago? I can't imagine spending all of that money on trees and landscaping and then not having the good sense to water them regularly. Those dead trees will have to be replaced. All it takes is a complaint to the zoning enforcement office. The approved site plan says so and so trees ... Then there has to be so and so trees ... Guilford zoning enforcement: 641-3154 contact Tiffany Burch or Greg Niles ( Not sure of the their name spelling) |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
wouldn't you know it, they sell racing fuel and I dont have a hotrod anymore. Maybe bama can get his trans am out again. |
|||||||||||
