CummingHome

Some of the new information that I’ve learned about this applicant/developer and his dealings with the Chairman of the FC BOC, from reading these e-mails,  include:

 

1.     In the first e-mail of this series, dated Dec. 5, 2007, the developer wrote in paragraph 2.  “I would like to please request approval for 2 drive-through windows for this plaza….This plaza is too small to have a large anchor tenant but certainly I see my two strongest tenants being the coffee shop (Dunkin, Starbucks, Moose Mountain, etc.) and the deli (Jason’s, etc.), both of which rely heavily on the drive-through window for their revenue (upwards of 75% for the coffee shop).”  This is the first reference made by anyone in 10 months to having drive-through lanes in this shopping center that I've heard of.    The developer would have to have a Conditional Use Permit, based on my understanding,  to have drive-through lanes but when this was going to be made known by either he or Chairman Laughinghouse to the 83 opponents of this shopping center isn’t known.  Several of us met with Chairman Laughinghouse on Dec. 27, but he never said anything to us about the developer planning to have drive-through lanes, neither then nor later. 

 

2.January 11, 2008, developer requested that Chairman remove Condition 14, even though developer made a verbal agreement with Hutchinson Pointe residents, who live behind the proposed shopping center, regarding this Condition.

 

3.January 13, Chairman Laughinghouse wrote back, “Sal, I removed Condition 14”, no further questions asked. 

 

4.January 14, Chairman Laughinghouse wrote, “There are commissioners who are concerned about the traffic issue.  Would you consider a change from NS to Office and Institutional (O&I) or Office Residential (OR). 

 

5.January 15, the developer wrote back “I prefer to rezone to NS”.  He followed this by stating that other property owners on Castleberry Rd., plan to rezone to NS also.  On the night of February 21, the developer told several homeowners, including me, who live on Rollins Rd., that he would not only rezone to OR but he would submit another site plan showing the change in plan.  But when the change was submitted, he was still planning on rezoning to NS.

 

6.March 7, the developer wrote:  “Hello, Sir, I just wanted to follow up with you regarding my application.  Beth Blalock (unknown to author of this article) shared with me your comment that I should wait a few weeks before moving forward with reapplication, so I will wait a big longer if you need time for some internal reason.  Please let me know what the outcome is of your inquiry.”  On February 21, the FC BOC had unanimously agreed to allow the developer to withdraw his application without prejudice, even though he never did put it in writing as required by the Unified Development Code, probably because no one present that night at the FC BOC Meeting told him to do so.  It appeared to Chairman Laughinghouse that 3 commissioners were going to vote to deny the rezoning.  If they had done so, the developer wouldn’t have been able to reapply for 1 year, whereas if he withdrew his application without prejudice, he could reapply the next day.   

 

7. March 8, Commissioner Laughinghouse wrote the developer:  “Sal, I believe I have some good news for you.  Commissioner Ledbetter announced (March 6) that on March 20^th she would make a motion to rescind the vote on the withdrawal and bring your zoning back to the table.  If the motion passes, and I hope it will, there will be a public hearing scheduled for April 17, I think, and then I will once again move to approve.  Please check with our Planning Department for the details.”  On February 21, Commissioner Ledbetter’s feelings seemed to be for the over 1,000 school children who will be transported on 2-lane, minor arterial, Castleberry Rd., beginning next year, to Whitlow ES, but between Feb. 21 and March 6, her feelings apparently switched and she began to feel sorry for the developer and Chairman Laughinghouse and how hard these two worked to get this rezoning approved, based on a letter from her to me.

 

Before the FC BOC took office they all signed an oath stating they would  “discharge the duties…in all matters…. the most conducive to the welfare and best interests of the entire county”.

 

I have studied the campaign contributions that Chairman Laughinghouse has received and it seems to me that about half of them  are from developers/builders/real estate businesses and lawyers.   It seems obvious to those of us who live in District 1, and I hope to the rest of you who read this letter,  who are concerned about the dangers of driving on two-lane, minor arterial Castleberry Rd., on which over 1,000 school children will be transported twice a day, that his heart is with this developer who doesn’t even live in Forsyth County.

 

Recently, I talked to someone in the U. S. Attorney’s office about this rezoning and he suggested that when we residents of Forsyth County can do so, to work to reelect public servants who care what the face of Forsyth County looks like, to replace FC Commissioners who are helping developers to build strip malls.

 

It’s not too late to get this rezoning denied but a lot of common folk, parents, grandparents, children, teachers and staff,  are going to have to stand up and be counted, before the night of the vote, commissioners@forsythco.com, and on Thursday, April 17, 5 p.m., in the County Administration Building, 2^nd floor,  in order to do so.  Make your vote count.

 

We’ve stood up for 10 months and plan to continue to do so, to try and improve the safety of children and adults as they travel Castleberry Rd, in spite of what our leaders do.

Editors note:  We contacted Commissioner Laughinghouse regarding this issue, and here are his comments:

"Ms. Leifeste bases her opposition on her perception of increased traffic and the hazard this implies. She does not mention that the developer has taken every effort to minimize any sight line problems at this section of Castleberry Rd. In addition, she is not conveying the fact that she did not oppose ZA# 3326, a development that surrounds Whitlow school, which added 328 homes and over 3000 vehicle trips on Castleberry road in the immediate vicinity of ZA #3438. It would seem to me that the vehicle traffic from a major subdivision would have been of some concern to her. Why the outcry over a few hundred car trips to a commercial center when thousands from a residential complex are OK?"