I wasn't able to attend the last City Council Briefing. I know that there was lots of stuff going on that I am interested in knowing more about. And I since haven't been able to read Sandy's blog (She usually has a good, honest review of the meetings) I don't really know what happened.
I did attend the last meeting of the Greensboro Zoning Commission. I was disappointed in the approval of an apartment complex on Freeman Mill Road. I drove to the site and can't understand how the Planning Department and the Zoning Commission could think that this project is a good idea. If the zoning decision is appealed, and it should be, it will be heard at the Dec. 20 meeting of the City Council.
I mentioned to John Hammer, who was at the meeting, that I thought the apartment complex was a bad idea. He asked me if I could think of a better use of the land. That is a legitimate question. I'm not sure how to answer it. Maybe a city park? At least, if it were a park, the area would be patrolled by Greensboro Police and some of the problems that opponents of the project see as bad for their neighborhood would be lessened. Even an office and/or retail complex would seem a better use of the land than the kind of apartment complex proposed at the meeting.
The proposed entrance to the complex will be a right-in, right out only on a blind curve on a busy road with a median. This invites U-turns in order to drive toward Downtown Greensboro. That alone seems to be a bad call for any kind of development with only one entrance/exit point. There will be one way in and out of a cul-de-sac type road which will be a private driveway, not a city maintained street. More problems??? A buffer area (because there is a stream on the property) and a fence on one side of the proposed apartments (I don't think that this is a requirement of the zoning) are suppose to isolate the complex from surrounding areas. A fence on one side??? What good does a fence on one side do???
I'm sure we will be hearing more about this project. I hope City Council Members will study this proposal well before they make a decision.
What do you think?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog will express my feelings about life and happenings in Greensboro, NC. and other stuff. Thank you for visiting my personal page.
Labels
- bond issue issues
- budget
- civil rights and voting rights
- conservation
- conservation district
- courts
- Crime and Punishment
- Death Sentence
- downtown development
- economy
- Election 2010
- Election Thoughts
- energy
- environment
- government
- GREEN Stuff
- greensboro government
- Greensboro NC my town
- Guilford County
- healthcare
- human rights
- incentives
- jail
- media
- money
- nc government
- north carolina politics
- Pet Peeves
- photos
- random thoughts and reflections
- South Elm St.
- the web and blogging
- trash talk dumps landfills
- Waste to Energy
- Winston-Salem
- zoning
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(89)
-
▼
December
(15)
- Pricey Harrison to Speak Jan. 17
- GOOD Smells & BAD Smells
- New Year's Resolution for Greensboro? ? ?
- NC Adding People
- Right Thing! Wrong Reason?
- I enjoyed a quote that a read recently in a column...
- Re-Zoning in Glenwood
- www.securelicense.org rep. to be on radio tomorrow
- More on Safe Housing/Safe Streets
- Cary, NC gets into Fertilizer
- I spent this morning in a workshop sponsored by th...
- RE: It could only happen.....
- Secret Drug Research ???
- Bad Zoning Decision
- Blog withdrawal symptoms
-
▼
December
(15)
2 comments:
NO MORE DEVELOPMENT! I vote for a park. Especially if there is a wetland area involved.
The Freeman Mill Road GFLUM amendment request should be denied. The question to ask is NOT the question that seems to have been asked in recent amendment cases (“Is the proposal reasonable?”) but rather “Is the current GFLUM unreasonable?” In order for the land use portion of Connections 2025 to function as intended, namely, as a framework within which development is to occur, it cannot be placed on an equal footing with particular development requests. It must stand above them. In short, for an opposing request to be credible, the GFLUM must be shown to be defective. In this case, the parcel in question is surrounded on three sides by low-density residential, consistent with the current GFLUM, and the existing residential areas appear to be stable over time. Thus, there is nothing on the ground to indicate that the GFLUM is off-base, and there is no present instability that could be exploited with the idea of creating a different future dominant land-use (or set of uses). Thus, the GFLUM is entirely reasonable. If the GFLUM is reasonable, then it is not unreasonable. The GFLUM passes the test, and the request to change it is not credible.
Post a Comment