over 2/3rds of the gallery were Realtors -- guess when there is an overwhelming number in a group opposed there must be something to the plan -- interestingly enough the john locke foundation -- who has never cared for speaking on behalf of the have nots or the poor made their plea based on the fact that there would not be enough housing available to the mid to low class with the proposed plan mmmmm i say when the john locke foundation members all live and work in johnston county THEN they can have an opinion ----or at least say it hurts the big time developer and be up front with their concern -- til then shut up as kdsgrandma said 16,500 lots that have already been approved are not affected -- mmm lets put 2 school aged children in just 12,000 of those houses and what do you have but the need for 24 new schools at 1000 students --- we are at a crossroads where we can be smart and do whats in the best interest of all or we can continue down the slippery slope that we are already heading down at break neck speed and look back w/ 2020 and say guess we should have......
yes to the voluntary farm mention -- it was done in the summarization of a letter received by the planning board
Thank you for attending, I feel like a terrible citizen in that I cannot make any of these meetings. Actually I am kind of depressed in that they are looking at putting fewer homes per acre. That just encourages sprawl.
It was Lanny Thompson. I did not hear anything tonight about the voluntary farm district program. I think I will go again next week, hope to see you there!
You can make your views known by mail, fax, or e-mail. At the beginning of last night's meeting they read the highlights of a couple of letters they had received, and they encouraged people to contact them in writing. Contact information for the planning dept. can be found on this page, on the left hand side in the blue box. I would encourage everyone who has any interest in this to read the report and shoot the planning board a short e-mail. planning@johnstonnc.com Please include your name and address, for greater impact. If, like me, you have a Willow Spring address, you might mention that you live in western Johnston County. You do not have to be an expert on growth, development, planning, or economics. If you are a citizen of Johnston County and you have an opinion about whether we are growing too fast or whether we should do anything in the way of planning, you are entitled to be heard. Our county commissioners and planning board members are not mind readers. The developers who would love to go on building with little or no restriction are certainly making their voices heard. We citizens need to do likewise.
I was there too. It is sad that those who showed up (in force) are those who stand to make buku money off of not slowing growth. Realtors and developers don't care. They want to make lots of money, but the truth is they'll make good money regardless. Heck, one of the commissioners owns a lumber company and another works for the law firm that has represented that lumber company. There are way more people in Johnston County that enjoy a particular lifestyle and do not want it to change than developers, realtors and politicians. The report takes simple step to make sure growth does not outpace the County's ability to provide services. Basic services, like police protection. Think about it... the 16,000 approved lots would represent 40,000 more people outside of city limits. That requires the already overburderned sherrifs office to work even harder. And with that kind of growth (quick and dirty) we'll get what we pay for...cheap homes, crammed in together with no open/green space and overflowing schools. Where will the developers be then? The Bahamas. The realtors will continue to reap the rewards because they get their 3% over and over and over. Write in. Fax in. Submit a comment to the Planning Dept. Discussion Board, call a commissioner. Show up!
This does not necessarily require the homes to be spread out. It's just one way to limit the number of new homes being built in the area. Another way would be just to cap the number of permits, and whoever got in first with their plans would get the nod and others would not be able to develop their properties. Or they could micro-manage growth, saying you can build here and here this year, and someplace else next year. Still another way would be a form of price rationing, by adding prohibitively high impact fees. There are lots of ways to slow down growth, this proposal is just one of them. The plan would allow for cluster development; although they didn't use that term, their "sample developments" showed that in a couple of the configurations. They had several large maps, showing different possibilities with the same 100 acre tract. One of the maps showed the current situation, with the entire 100 acre tract divided into 150 lots. Three others showed different possibilities under the proposed plan. One interesting possibility under the new plan showed what they called a "homestead" option, where as I recall, a little less than half of the land is divided into 50 building lots, and the rest stays in farmland. This gives the farm family an opportunity to cash in on part of the value of their land, while continuing to farm the rest, or just use it for horse pasture or whatever - kind of a retirement plan, you could say. Later, if the children or grandchildren wanted to develop the rest of the land, they would have to go through the Special Use Permit process. Another option shows the 100 acre tract with a couple of groups of homes on it, on what I would guess to be about 1 acre lots or a little smaller, and the rest of the tract having a recreation area or natural area, and an area set aside for a possible future school. Allen Mims told me that the county would buy that part for the school at a later time if they decided to build a school there. Of course the same principles apply to any size development, 100 acres is just an easy number to work with. You can imagine all kinds of possibilities for larger tracts of land. Gosh, look at how many times I have used the words "possibilities" and "possible" here. It's all about possibilities!
Yes, you are right, I apologize for getting his name wrong. He certainly seemed to know and care a lot about the area.
Does anyone know anything about Mr. Austin selling off all his farmland behind Austin Pond? I heard that it was getting surveying the other day for a new development. Does anyone know about this development?
kdsgrandma, thank you so much for all the info. i would like to attend next Tuesday - we'll discuss it Friday at lunch if that is ok.
Thanks for being our local roving reporter.. KD's Gran Here's a link for the N&O's story about the meeting. http://www.newsobserver.com/152/story/535508.html
tomorrow night is the next public hearing for county planning proposals 6:00 superior court room at the courthouse smithfield
Southernborn, your message is the first I've heard about the land being surveyed! I didn't think Jesse Austin owned the land behind Austin Pond... are you talking about the pasture area that's fenced (on the left) at the end of St. Jiles? I was under the impression that land was owned by the horse farm. I'll do some digging and see what I can find out, but first clarify to me what area you're referring to. (If you prefer, PM me.)
i have a questions about the proposal. How will this affect the property value of those of us who currently do not live on 2 acres of land in the future? Will the value of our homes fall because we do not have the extra land either where our home actually sits or in the neighborhood?
In my opinion, property values will fall because any vacant land adjacent or near yours, that might be available for development, will not be as attractive and therefore not as valuable. Now this does not necessarily mean your house and lot value will drop, persay, but if we do go to a 1 lot/2 acre, then any vacant land is not worth as much because a developer can not get as many lots for that land. Most developers buy a tract of land based on how many lots they can get out of it so vacant property values will drop. What that does to your house...eh who knows for sure.
Ok, that i understand. But, what about existing subdivisions where the average lot is .5 to .75 acre and development is finished. As new homebuyers come into the market, will the older (some only a year or two old) subdivisions still retain the same draw they now have? Sorry if i sound a bit thickheaded, just trying to see what the long term benefit, if any, is for current homeowners if this proposal passes.
