Internet Fax To Email - Unlimited
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
|
|
|
Following is a July 26, 1998, letter from the Federation of Forsyth County Homeowners to the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners. The Federation also presented the suggested changes to the Board of Commissioners during a Master Land Use Plan Public Hearing on July 27, 1998. A majority of the Board (Commissioners Anderson, Jenkins and Kieffer) voted to incorporate almost all of the suggested changes in the plan. The Federation is convinced that these changes help the plan to better represent the desires of Forsyth County citizens. The July 26 Federation letter refers to a Federation letter of June 6. The Federation's June 6 letter is very similar to my May 25, 1998 letter, which follows the Federation letter on this web page.
July 26, 1998 Forsyth County Board of Commissioners Gentlemen: We are writing concerning the Master Land Use Plan you are considering for approval. We wish to comment and ask you to make changes that we are convinced are in the best interests of the great majority of Forsyth County citizens. I will start by referring to my letter to you dated June 6, 1998, and Chairman Bill Jenkins letter to Jeff Watkins dated May 29, 1998. Both letters are enclosed for your reference. The suggestions made to you in our June 6, 1998 letter are still valid. We will later speak to some of the points made in Chairman Jenkins' letter. First, some of the major issues to be addressed in this Land Use Plan are Forsyth County's rate of growth and density of development. We are convinced that both of these issues should be addressed in the Master Land Use Plan, giving guidance to subsequent implementation changes to be made in county ordinances. Goal 10 of the proposed Master Land Use Plan states: "RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER ACRE SHALL BE FIGURED ON GROSS ACREAGE TO ACHIEVE AN OVERALL COUNTY DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER ACRE". We think that produces a density too great for Forsyth County. Let's compare implied ultimate build-out populations of the different approaches. Ultimate 400,000 1998 Land Use Plan submission 300,000 1997 Land Use Plan submission 250,000 continue the 1994-1996 new development average density 225,000 Chairman Jenkins suggested change We are prepared to provide the computations which led us to the above figures. Chairman Jenkins asked that Goal 10 state : "RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER ACRE SHALL BE FIGURED ON GROSS ACREAGE TO ACHIEVE AN OVERALL DEVELOPED DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER ACRE. ONLY AREA ZONED RESIDENTIAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING SITE DENSITY".We interpret that to mean there will be an average of one housing unit per acre for acres zoned residential (number of housing units divided by number of acres zoned residential will equal one). We ask that the projected ultimate population intended in the Land Use Plan be stated in the plan to eliminate speculation about what the Land Use Committee really meant to convey. Although we agreed, as a compromise, with the ultimate population projections presented in the 1997 Land Use Plan submission, we believe the majority of Forsyth County homeowners would prefer 225,000. Certainly 400,000 is much too great. We are also convinced that potential increased financial gain will cause many in the development community to exert continual pressure for increased density over time, which will probably result in eventual additions to any ultimate population projection we establish now. We think that the experience of other Metro Atlanta Counties, which have developed earlier than Forsyth County, demonstrates the planned densities will increase as development continues over time. Chairman Jenkins' referenced letter asks for other plan changes. We agree with many of these suggested changes, most of which deal with incentives for the development community. While we believe we must all work together to produce desired results we think the Land Use Plan is premature in some areas in determining how to achieve the desired results. Following are the Chairman Jenkins' proposed changes we support: Eliminate goal 1, section1-1, "Use incentives to provide private infrastructure development". Eliminate goal 1, section 1-5, "Provide zoning bonuses for the development of amenities or community benefits". We are not against amenities or community benefits, but how to provide them needs more consideration. Eliminate goal 1, section 1-8, "Use incentives to incorporate private sewer systems into a regional system". It is not clear that tying private sewer systems, built over time, into a countywide system, is the way to proceed. Change goal 4, section 4-3 from "Offer incentives for parks, walking and running trails, bicycle trails, open space parks and common recreation areas" to "Require designs that will provide for parks, walking trails, open space, etc. Eliminate goal 5, section 5-3, "Design ordinances for overall density and eliminate minimum lot sizes and setbacks". Eliminate goal 6, section 6-3, "Provide incentives for developments using sidewalks and bike paths". We believe sidewalks and bike paths have a place in county development, but how to provide them needs more study. Change goal 10 as recommended by Chairman Jenkins and our clarification of the definition as stated above in this letter. Change goal 10, section 10-1 to say "Design ordinances for a density of one unit per acre". Omit "eliminate minimum lot sizes and setbacks". Change goal 10, section 10-3 from "Encourage" to "Consider" "two and three-story developments in nodal or core areas to create centers of density with pleasant esthetics". We believe there should be a stronger statement about managing the rate of growth in Forsyth County. We suggest adding Goal 11 as follows: MANAGE THE RATE OF FORSYTH COUNTY GROWTH SO AS NOT TO OVERBURDEN THE COUNTY'S INFRASTRUCTURE NOR SIGNIFICANTLY DETRACT FROM THE COUNTY RESIDENTS' QUALITY OF LIFE. Strategies for how to satisfy this goal need to be developed and added to the Master Land Use Plan. The Federation of Forsyth County Homeowners feels strongly that our suggestions, in this letter and our letter of June 6, 1998, should be incorporated into the Land Use Plan. If you have any questions or comments please call
Prescott Eaton President
Forsyth County Board of Commissioners Gentlemen: I am writing concerning the Latest version of the proposed update of the Master Land Use Plan. You will recall that you assigned the proposed Land Use Plan, submitted to you a year ago by Robert and Company and the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, to a ten person committee for their review and recommendations. One of your stated reasons for the delay and the additional work was your concern that the 1997 submitted plan would produce a too densely populated Forsyth County. I think Forsyth County has a unique opportunity to do something special in guiding its continuing development. Our county still has most of its development ahead of it. Other counties of the Atlanta Metro area have experienced rapid growth and widespread development long before we did and we can learn from their failures and their successes. Unless halted by something like clean air or clean water problems the long-term expectations for the Atlanta Metropolitan area are for continued rapid growth. As a result, forgoing something more to control the county's growth rate, It looks like Forsyth County will keep on experiencing very rapid growth by continuing to get more than its share of the Metro Atlanta growth. A recent survey and meeting conducted by the Federation of Forsyth County Homeowners shows a continuing concern about the density of and rate of development occurring in Forsyth County. I have several concerns about the new version of the Master Land Use Plan. First, half of the members of the new ten person Master Land Use Committee have a personal financial stake in the development of Forsyth County because they are developers, builders, large landowners or land speculators. I would expect this group to be biased in favor of development in Forsyth County. I believe that bias would be towards their greatest financial gains, and their greatest financial gains would result from rapid and dense development. The group has proudly announced that the contents of this plan had to have unanimous agreement from the members of the Committee to be included in the plan. That rule has some appeal in that it seems to foster compromise, but it also allows any member veto power over something nine others favor. If there is a group bias that favors development I think this consensus rule also favors development. Second, the Plan offers no ultimate population objective. The plan does have a stated goal of one residential unit per acre based on gross acreage. If that means the total number of residential units in the county will equal the total acres in the county the ultimate population of our little county would be about 400,000 people. The Plan submitted last year was anticipating an ultimate county population of about 300,000 people. Both of those cases are more dense than if the county continued with the density of new developments created in the 1994 to 1996 time frame, which averaged about 1.35 residential units per residential development acre. Continuing the 1.35 residential units per acre would yield an ultimate Forsyth County population of about 250,000. I suggest the plan contain an ultimate population goal and the population goal be accompanied by a method of measuring and guiding intermediate progress towards that goal. I also suggest that some attention be given to achieving a timely proportional development of high-density and low-density residential areas. I think the greater financial motivation will be to develop the high-density areas faster. Third, I do not think it is wise to eliminate all minimum lot sizes and setbacks. I believe there is merit in allowing developers flexibility in designing offerings appealing to a variety of segments of the housing market. However, I believe a starting point of no minimum lot sizes and no setbacks to be unwise. It offers no minimum standard for those who are not trying to create something unique and/or better. It may offer a temptation to some to just squeeze more units onto a given property. Also, if there are no standards how does a Board of Commissioners fairly and nonpolitically approve developments. Would not the county be more exposed to losing lawsuits to developers who have been denied a rezoning? My experience causes me to believe that the courts, without proper backup in the Master Plan and zoning ordinances, would very often reverse the Board of Commissioners denial on the basis of the Board being arbitrary and capricious. Also, I am concerned that accumulated precedents established over time will produce justifications for even denser developments in the future. These results will not lead to a density of development satisfying a quality of life desired by most of the citizens. The rest of the newly submitted Master Land Use Plan appears to be in concert with the Plan submitted last year, with which I agreed. I would suggest making changes as have been emphasized here. I presume the intent is still to rewrite the zoning ordinance to implement the changes produced in a new Master Land Use Plan. I notice that the brochure produced by the Master Land Use Committee lists several members as being Vision 20/20 Committee Members. I do not remember them being on the Vision 20/20 Quality Growth Task Force. Of which Vision 20/20 Committee were they a member? If you have any questions or would like to have a discussion with me please call. Sincerely,
6355 Barberry Hill Place (770)889-1088
|
