Residents urge Oak Hill commission to reject settlement, cite density, clear‑cutting and impact fees

Multiple residents spoke during public comment to oppose or urge caution on the proposed mediated settlement. Douglas Gibson pointed out the apparent age of the available zoning map and questioned whether public notice requirements been met; Terry Mason and other residents flagged discrepancies in open‑space calculations and asked the commission to confirm the records before approving any change.

Don Lafferell, who gave his address for the record, urged the commission to resist a mediated outcome that could replace R‑1 zoning with an RPUD and described the proposal as a recurring problem. "The Garden Street property is assessed at $450,000, and they're paying $9,789 a year," Lafferell said, arguing that developers should not receive preferential treatment on impact fees. Other speakers warned the commission against clear‑cutting trees along Gaines Street and urged denser vegetative buffers instead of a "plastic fence compromise."

Speakers repeatedly requested copies of the comprehensive plan, the official zoning map and any affidavits of notice so they could verify claims made in staff presentations and in the developer's exhibits. Several residents said the town’s character and infrastructure (water, sewer, stormwater) should guide decisions about density and any adjustments to the development plan.

The commission did not act on the settlement the same night; tabling the item left the residents’ requests and objections open for future consideration, and staff was asked to return the records the public requested.