Chairman Laughinghouse, will you please explain how ZA 3438 conforms to the UDC when this is what the UDC says about Neighborhood Shopping Activity Centers in Chapter 12, Commercial and Office Districts (Revised 12/13/07), ARTICLE I, NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING DISTRICT (NS): 12-1.1..."This district is "intended" (mental desire and will to act in a particular way), to discourage the random sprawl of commercial development by concentrating neighborbhood-serving businesses in activity centers at road intersections rather than in a strip or linear pattern...." Subject property, which is located on a dangerous curve on 2-lane, minor arterial Castleberry Rd., is planned Neighborhood Commercial. One zoning use for NC is Neighborhood Shopping which according to the UDC is "intended" to discourage the random sprawl of commercial development by concentrating neighborbhood-serving businesses in activity centers at road intersections rather than in a strip or linear pattern...."

There is a conflict between the FC Land Use Map and the FC UDC regarding subject property, and all one has to do to see it is to read Chapter 12, Article I, NS District, 12-1.1. When the then Board of Commissioners, approved the 2004 Comprehensive Plan 9/04, and Chairman Laughinghouse was a member of that BOC too, but based on my listening to the cassette tape of that meeting, (though he may have been ill or in the hospital and if he was he had a good excuse) was not present that night when the 2004 Comprehensive Plan was approved, no one realized that land planned Neighborhood Commercial by those major changes in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, and zoned Neighborhood Shopping was intended according to the BOC approved Unified Development Code, to discourage the random sprawl of commercial development by concentrating neighborhood-serving businesses in activity centers at road intersections. How many zoning lawsuits has the Forsyth County Government had to use our tax money to pay for because of zoning mistakes like this one? The amount I am in receipt of through the Open Records Act, is $315,995 that has been paid to fight 14 lawsuits pertaining to FC defending zoning cases which instead could have been used to increase the safety of FC residents by helping to purchase the new HAZMAT vehicle for the FC Fire Department which because of the $6.8 million deficit in revenues, the FC BOC had to vote to deny this purchase. And I didn't ask for under the ORA how much of our tax money has been spent to defend FC non-zoning lawsuits. Because we don't know the reasons for the zoning lawsuits that FC spent tax money to defend, perhaps Chairman Laughinghouse will find out the reasons and share them with those of us property owners in this county who paid for those lawsuits, that had no deductible. That would be very considerate of him to do for at least those of us in District 1.