Topic

land use

27 petitions

This petition won 2 days ago

Petition to Fauquier County Board of Supervisors

Protect the future of Vint Hill and Fauquier County!

Dear Fauquier County Board of Supervisors:I strongly oppose Vint Hill Village LLC’s proposal to amend the current Vint Hill Comprehensive Plan. Vint Hill Village LLC, and related companies, want to rezone approximately 60 acres in the northwest corner of Vint Hill from industrial/commercial to residential use. Their proposal could involve the building of as many as 573 new homes. Their proposal also proposes moving the “Village Center” from its current location to the northern end of Aiken Road. Finally, Vint Hill Village LLC proposes using land designated for a school site for other purposes. There are many good reasons to oppose this initiative. First and foremost, the proposal conflicts with the goals stated in the original document: the generation of high-quality jobs and tax revenue in the county. Building several hundred additional homes in Vint Hill serves neither purpose. It actually increases costs to the county while reducing the size of the county’s only Planned Commercial Industrial District (PCID). Second, neither Vint Hill Village LLC nor any other builder has produced a formal market analysis thatc supports a demand for additional housing in the New Baltimore area. Given that several other areas in the Baltimore Service District have already been reserved for the development of housing, I don’t believe that there is a need for still more housing in Vint Hill. If all these identified areas were developed collectively in the next several years, they would likely generate other problems related to homeowner quality of life and costs, such as:• Increased power requirements, with associated costs to users• Increased demand for additional police, fire and rescue services – with their associated costs• Increased traffic on already crowded local roads, with associated costs tied to maintaining or improving these roads (which are already unsafe in many places and in less than satisfactory condition)• Increased demand placed on schools in place with a danger of overcrowding them (This would argue against taking the planned school site off the table)• Increased demand for water and sewage systems, potentially increasing costs to residents• Parking overflows that could adversely affect traffic flow and safety on Vint Hill’s main roads The Old Busthead complex is already the de facto Vint Hill retail business center. We should see how the small businesses there fare before building space for additional businesses on Aiken Road.• Current service businesses are already struggling, not thriving, so additional competition will not help those businesses already operating on Vint Hill.• Further, Vint Hill is so far off commercial arteries, that it is unlikely that Vint Hill will draw retail business away from Gainesville, New Baltimore, Bristow or Warrenton. In sum, Vint Hill Village LLC’s proposal to amend the current Vint Hill Comprehensive Plan appears to serve neither the interests of residents like me nor the stated purposes of the original Comprehensive Plan.

Troy Marshall
483 supporters
Update posted 3 days ago

Petition to New York City Mayor's Office, New York City Council

Advocate for an Urban Agriculture Plan to Grow More Food and Jobs in NYC

We need an urban agriculture plan, not a website, to grow more food and jobs in NYC. #UrbanAgPlan A comprehensive urban agriculture plan is necessary for establishing an efficient citywide land use scheme for growing food. We need streamlined and effective regulation to expand and strengthen the City’s 900+ farms and gardens – the largest number of any U.S. city - but also better coordination integrating urban agriculture into existing plans, programs, and policy-making processes in city government, and for creating more transparent and participatory processes to enable gardeners and farmers to influence decision-making on urban agriculture. Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, and Denver have plans that have encouraged innovative land and space use, spurred job creation, refined food policy, and supported mission-based gardeners to expand their efforts – why not New York? We supported the original legislation, Intro #1661, proposed by the Brooklyn Borough President Adams and sponsored by Council Member Espinal on July 20, 2017, to expand and strengthen urban agriculture citywide with a comprehensive plan, ensuring access to fresh and local food for all New Yorkers, job creation, and environmental and social resiliency. On October 26, forty-six urban agriculture advocates, including the Design Trust for Public Space, testified in the Committee on Land Use to inform the legislation and, ultimately, the Plan. The revised Intro #1661-A is a completely different bill that we cannot support. Now the New York City Council proposes to scrap the comprehensive urban agriculture plan in favor of websites to share information. Creating websites does not require legislation, and much of the data proposed to be included in the websites can already be found on existing platforms, such as NYC Park’s GreenThumb. Furthermore, websites will not address the more fundamental issues of resource gaps within urban agriculture or of the lack of coordination, integration, transparency, and equity in decision-making processes related to urban agriculture. We urge City Council Members and the Mayor’s Office to reconsider and return to the goal of developing a comprehensive urban agriculture plan that will maximize the health, social, economic, and environmental benefits of farming and gardening for all New Yorkers. We only get one chance to do urban agriculture legislation right. Join us to deliver this message to the Mayor’s Office and City Council Members before they vote on Monday, December 11, at 1:30 pm, by signing this petition. We also encourage you to talk to your Council Member in advance and attend the public session on December 11. ... The Design Trust for Public Space project on urban agriculture, Five Borough Farm, was a multi-phased project conducted in partnership with Added Value, NYC Parks, and Farming Concrete. Five Borough Farm offered a roadmap to farmers and gardeners, City officials, and stakeholders to understand and weigh the benefits of urban agriculture, and made a compelling case for closing resource gaps to grow urban agriculture throughout the five boroughs of New York City. The first phase of the Five Borough Farm project resulted in policy recommendations, including for the creation of an urban agriculture plan, that would: establish goals, objectives, and a citywide land use scheme for garden and farm development integrate urban agriculture into existing plans, programs, and policy-making processes in city government address disparities in access to funding, information, and other resources by creating more transparent and participatory processes to enable gardeners and farmers to influence policy and decision-making. Our recommendations, released in 2012, align with the original legislation proposal Intro #1661 that Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and Council Member Rafael Espinal have introduced for developing an urban agriculture plan. However, systems of accountability are essential to maximizing the benefits of the Plan for all New Yorkers. The Plan must apply not only to commercial urban agriculture, but also to community gardens, school gardens, permaculture gardens, vertical farms, and all other forms of gardening and farming practice. We urge the New York City Council to incorporate the following three means to ensure accountability in the generation and execution of the Plan: a citywide task force—composed of City agencies, support organizations, and gardeners and farmers representing a variety of types—for reviewing the development and implementation of the Plan. This task force would build off of the Urban Agriculture Task Force with NYC Parks established through Five Borough Farm, and the roundtable convened by Brooklyn Borough President Adams in Spring 2016. open forums at many points in the Plan’s development process, including input-gathering in each borough at spring gardening and farming events, such as GrowTogether and Making Brooklyn Bloom. communication within the City and with gardening and farming support organization and advocate networks, including GreenThumb, NYCHA’s Garden and Greening Program, 596 Acres, and the New York City Community Garden Coalition.

Design Trust for Public Space
1,067 supporters
Update posted 4 days ago

Petition to Beverly Burger, Margaret Martin, Scott Speedy, Pearl Bransford, Dana Mclendon, Ann Peterson, Brandy Blanton, Clyde Barnhill, Ken Moore

Stop controversial Colletta Park development!

Developers are closing in on final approval for the proposed Colletta Park development (defeated when proposed as Ashcroft Ridge and Ashcroft Valley). As it stands, this development will bring 199 new homes to Williamson County. The following are some of the many reasons to make sure this plan gets denied again: 1. The developers are asking for modifications because the plan does NOT meet current zoning ordinances and land use plans. The land is zoned for R-1 lots of one acre, and the land use calls for lots of 1-5 acres. Using appropriate standards would allow for less than 80 homes to be built. 2. Our zoned Page schools are already over-capacity. 3. The existing traffic is greater than our current roads can handle.  4. The planned development site is a picturesque Williamson County location. The forested hills are full of wildlife. Permits to cut trees are only required for lots greater than one acre, and 90% of these lots are smaller. 5. There are water conveyances that run through the valley to the Harpeth. There have not been comprehensive studies of the environmental impact of this development. 6. Probable future connections from this subdivision would go onto county roads not designed to handle the additional cars (Beacon Hill, Stanford, and Warren are current possibilities). The current plan includes county roads for emergency vehicle access, which poses safety issues for Franklin East subdivision. Please consider which of these would negatively impact your life and sign this petition to let the Board of Mayor and Aldermen know before the December 12th vote. Insist they follow the rules and vision they have laid out in the zoning ordinances and land use plan of the City of Franklin. Let them know that making exceptions for the developers at the cost of the quality of life for current residents is unacceptable.

Monique Kueker
938 supporters
This petition won 6 months ago

Petition to Mr. Nicholas Matz, Planning Commission, City Council

NO to Bellevue Technology Center Development

In 1970 Joni Mitchell wrote the song “Big Yellow Taxi” warning us all to preserve nature and the precious trees needed to keep our air clean. In 1972 Bellevue heeded her warning and implemented an agreement to preserve open spaces, protect trees surrounding specific properties as well as provide a buffer for the surrounding residential neighborhoods from further development. Recently, KBS Capital Markets Group (KBS), a real estate investment trust headquartered in Newport Beach, CA, filed an amendment to modify Bellevue's 20-year Comprehensive Plan by adding language which would open the door to unspecified, significant development of the Bellevue Technology Center (BTC)  property. It would override an agreement that has protected the site for over 45 years. The BTC site was initially developed in 1972 based on a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designed to limit the square footage in office space built on the site.  Based on the PUD this site is fully developed and cannot be built out further. KBS is seeking to void the agreements with the citizens and the City of Bellevue so they can maximize development on the site. While no specifics have been filed with the current application, prior applications included conceptual plans that would triple the amount of square footage built on the site. More buildings will result in cutting down trees, reducing open space, and will increase traffic congestion. Most importantly, if the PUD is eliminated and the property is rezoned, the developer or any future owner can submit even more aggressive plans. KBS knew these restrictions were in place when they purchased the site in 2012 but believe they have the power to override the will of the people of this community and to entice the City of Bellevue to revise these restrictions so they can develop as they please. Let’s protect our natural spaces and avoid having to create “tree museums” for our children. Sign this petition demanding the City uphold and respect the past decisions and agreements that protect the BTC site and express your opposition to KBS’ current application (City Project #17-104627-AC).

Say NO to BTC
1,259 supporters