*37 residents voted for too much development. Staff included the 37 votes in both residential and commercial development and as a result had to subtract 37 votes from the total.

The general categories listed above are broken out below to show the specific issues that residents voted on. If an issue has (0) beside it, that indicates that the issue was listed for voting but no one voted for it. If an issue does not have a number after it that means the issue was not listed for voting but was discussed in the group sessions or written on a notecard.
 

• Rural character (59) - Baker's Mountain (16), low density, open space, slower pace, long time property owners, farms, topography, scenic
• Churches (5)
• Location (4) -accessible to stores/retail/urban areas/highway, not as congested
• Recreation (2)
• People (1) - diversity, community involvement/spirit, family atmosphere

• No city taxes (57) - unincorporated
• Schools (16)
• Library (9)
• Adequate zoning (1)
• Roads (0)
• Fire Department and EMS - safety
• Post office

• Little or no industry (3)
• One stop shopping (3)

• Affordable housing (2)
• Neighborhoods good, clean, affordable

Services - 49

• School crowding (11)
• More recreation facilities (8)
• Bicycle trails, recreation center, YMCA, passive recreation, park on Baker's Mountain
• Need water/sewer - failing septic tanks (6)
• Fire/rescue (6)
• Protection, accessibility, more hydrants - Quality of government services (5) - lack of leadership in Mountain View (1)
  - lack of stricter zoning (9) -inconsistent, substandard housing regulations, maintain residential areas, 321 zoning at interchange
• Animal control (2)
• Citizen involvement (1)
• Healthcare (0)
• Crime (0)

• Too much development (37 - duplicated below in residential) -unregulated, uncontrolled, need a business access road
• Need better commercial development (grocery stores/services ) (1)
• Future land conflicts (0)
• No industrial parks (0)

• Too much development (37 - duplicated above in commercial/industrial) - unregulated, uncontrolled, houses too close together
• Quality of housing (0)
• Future land conflicts (0)
• Unattractive subdivisions
• Lack of architectural design guidelines

• Traffic (35) - speed/volume, too much, need more traffic lights/don't want traffic lights at every business (0), don't want/want expansion of 127, safety, concerned about losing property to right-of-way expansion
• Sidewalks
• Public transportation

Aesthetics - 15

• Preserve Baker's Mountain (9)
• Don't want to lose rural atmosphere (6) - quality of life
• Cell/radio towers
• Don't want 127 to look like 70 - no billboards
• Better landscaping

• Water/air pollution (1)
• Litter/gunfire in woods (1)
• Clear cutting
   

• Recreation facilities (39) - scenic by-way, cultural events and facilities (13), park, YMCA, greenway, bikeway/sidewalks (9), park on Baker's Mountain
• Keep school districts (4) - more schools
• Urgent care center (2)
• Study impact fees

• No public housing (49)
• Retirement village (5)
• Lot sizes - minimum 1 acre + (3) - 2 - 3 acre lots, 1/2 acre + lots,
• Limited multi-family housing (2)
• Restrictions on mobile home parks (2)
• Affordable, but no multi-family, housing (1)

• Light/little commercial - no strip malls - create retail villages (25) - one-stop, mixed, shopping, mom & pop stores, separate from residential, no big boxes, environmentally safe, landscaping, aesthetics, keep business north of fire department on 127
• Industry away from residential areas (10)
• Newspaper (1)
• Restaurant (1)

Transportation - 12

• 127 - more lanes (10)
• Road improvement (2)
• Traffic control
• Truck by-pass
• Lights on 127

• Keep farms (6)
• Beautification (2)
• Keep 321 rural (0)
• Subdivision buffers
• Preserve highway corridors
• Keep rura