HAT TIP :Cinema Treasures for the picture
This picture is a blast from the past where plenty of us in Greensboro grew up having our first dates and plenty of hang out time at the Janus Theatres during the 80's and 90's which is off of battleground avenue on northwood street.
Now we see a total transformation of the property to becoming a complete behemoth and a total out of character building for the neighborhood and surrounding area where no other buildings in the area is more than two stories but this building is a total of 4 stories and a top that makes it look even bigger and completely doesn't blend in at all. Thanks to First Citizens Bank for getting the 2012 award for non conforming monstrosity to the area in regards to rezoning of this property.
Jordan Green from Yes!Weekly is interviewing the candidates in the upcoming Greensboro municipal election and we see that Protest Petition has been brought up on the campaign trail. In this Yes! Weekly blog interview we have this from the article:
"While Vaughan was not on council at the time the body took action on the matter in 2009, she strongly advocated for the restoration of the protest petition in Greensboro.
Under current zoning, phases VI and V at the White Street Landfill can only be used for fill dirt, excluding use as a landfill. In addition to obtaining permits from the NC Department of Natural Resources, the city council would also have to hold a public hearing and take a vote to rezone the tracts before the city could begin accepting household waste in the two areas.
“At that point, it would fall under the protest petition,” Vaughan said. “Residents with adjacent property would have the opportunity to file for the protest petition. If that’s the case, in order to use IV and V they will have to have a super majority…. That means they need seven affirmative votes. Do you think there are seven council members who would vote for that?"
Four members of the nine-member council have recently prevailed to reopen the landfill against three members opposed. Councilman Zack Matheny, like Vaughan, has been conflicted out."
If what we hear from what Nancy Vaughan is saying then the gang of four will not have a fighting chance of this ever passing the Greensboro City Council with the Protest Petition being used in the zoning process. Will we see any other media outlet pick up this interesting piece of the White Street Landfill issue? This is a huge story and we will see if the protest petition is used by the abutting neighbors . More to come on this issue.
UPDATE: ROCH101 has a new post titled "Too Cozy: Board Appointee's Company Lobbying City for Trash Business"CLICKHERE on top of what is written in this post.
During the Greensboro City Council meeting on November 16, 2010 councilman Jim Kee at the end of the meeting when each council person gets to speak on matters important to them decided to reappoint local realtor Paul Gilmer to the zoning commission. Why is this appointment so significant ? Who knows but in the embedded video above we have fellow councilman Zack Matheny really taking to task this appointment from Jim Kee.
There has been a little history with Paul Gilmer on the Greensboro Zoning Commission with this post at TRIADWATCH back on September 20, 2008 with a title "Greensboro Zoning Commission is in a mess and needs fixing, memo from city attorney:, CLICKHERE .
Also we need to remember that Paul Gilmer is a part of the group called CICO where we have Jordan Green from Yes Weekly have this to say in a article on opening up the white street landfill,
"The politically connected enterprise has retained lawyer Cameron Cooke, also a former councilman, and Paul Gilmer, a realtor and area resident who formerly served on the zoning commission. Cico touts its private waste disposal project as a boon to economic development in the area and its plan as “the most important element for the revival of the area.”
You can see from the embedded video at around the 1 minute and 40 seconds it seems like Zack Matheny said something that really ticked off fellow councilwomen TDB Small who was pointing her finger at Zack Matheny, then we see the mayor bang his gavel and sternly say that Zack Matheny has the floor and enough with the rest. Just another day in the life of a Greensboro City Council meeting.
Something that needs to get explained from the embedded video above and am sure is what is at the heart of this problem comes at the 2 minute mark of this embedded video. Zack Matheny had this to say
" When you tell me your gonna "
Then Zack Matheny catches himself mid sentence after this quote above then he mumbles
"i just this is a tough one for me out of the blue"
It would be great to know what more Zack Matheny wanted to say about the appointment of Paul Gilmer back on the zoning commission where in the past week he had talked with Zack and was interested in the planning board not the zoning commission. There must have been something worked out between Zack and Jim on something and him appointing Paul Gilmer to the zoning commission was a total blindside to Zack.
There has been a lot of controversy over how the Greensboro City Council appoints it's members to certain boards and commissions. Back in around July of 2009 we had the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress address the Greensboro City Council on the need for a change in how the council appoints people to boards and commissions. Here is what was stated in the scuttlebutt section of the weekly paper called Yes Weekly!
"Call for more diversity on Greensboro boards made The Greensboro Neighborhood Congress presented a proposal to the Greensboro City Council on July 21 to reform the process of appointing citizens to city boards and commissions. The congress’ recommendations include making boards and commissions more representative by gender, district, ethnicity and profession, conducting an annual analysis of the demographic composition of the citizen boards and requiring that applicants provide relevant personal information. One oft-made criticism of city boards and commissions is that they’re stacked with real estate professionals. District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade suggested that the city consider moving meeting times later in the day that would accommodate more citizens’ schedules, and speculated that “people in real estate and development may have more flexible schedules that allow them to serve on boards.” — JG "
As we have seen with this appointment of Paul Gilmer a local realtor to return back to the zoning commission, this is just par for the course where we have plenty of instances in the past to show you how the local lobbyist group called TREBIC which stands for the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition likes to stack the deck on these boards and commissions. Here is a few post on TRIADWATCH from the past on this subject.
Marlene Sanford, Greensboro Partnership, TREBIC = Stacking The Deck on Boards and Commissions
Here Is What Stack The Deck with TREBIC Developers Looks Like in Greensboro N.C. on CAT Team CLICKHERE
TREBIC + RUCO = Fox Guarding The Hen House CLICKHERE
It is amazing how someone like realtor Paul Gilmer gets to jump all the people who are waiting in the databank line to serve on a board or commission and he has already served his time a few years ago but gets to be reappointed to the zoning commission. This appointment is just one instance of how certain council members want to stack the deck in the favor of TREBIC and we haven't even talked about mary skenes, betty smith, gary wolf, russ parmele, rick pinto, de sean alston, chuck truby might be on 2 boards, and plenty of commissions who were completely tilted to the real estate lobbyist group called TREBIC. It is time for everyone to be aware of what is going on and there needs to be a complete analysis of just how many people are waiting in the databank to serve Greensboro city council on a board or commission but to see someone like Paul Gilmer jump everyone in line is not fair to the other people and the process. Time for a complete overhaul and a fair process for all the citizens not just the select few with connections.
From: Jason Cannon [mailto:JCannon@greensboro.org]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 12:16 PM To: msanford@trebic.org Subject: Greensboro Partnership Governmental Affairs Position Opening Importance: High
Marlene,
Per our conversation, attached is a job description for the position of Manager of Governmental Affairs for the Greensboro Partnership. Please review and forward to anyone who you feel may be qualified and interested in this opportunity. Posting this description to any appropriate listservs you control or participate in is also appreciated. Deadline for submission is February 5, 2010.
Thank you for your assistance.
Best regards, Jason
Jason A. Cannon Vice President, Governmental Affairs The Greensboro Partnership jcannon@greensboro.org (336) 387-8330 (336) 275-9287 (fax) _________________________________________________________________
As you can see from above, this email from Friday January 8, 2010 will show you the relationship between Marlene Sanford from the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC) and Jason Cannon from the Greensboro Partnership . Why does this email above even matter well let's take a look at a recent article in the Greensboro News & Record with a title "Commissioners skeptical about merging depts.with Greensboro" CLICKHERE this past week. Here is a little part of the article.
"Marlene Sanford is chairwoman of the Intergovernmental Planning Task Force, which has been studying a merger since April. She’s also president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition. She said her task force’s study found that the county can’t count on a merger saving money or making the departments more efficient, but it would make development easier once the economy turns around.
Sanford’s task force recommended a merger by the end of the year, saying the path for developers is too obstructed now."
Now we have the president of TREBIC who has an agenda and is the chairman of this Intergovernmental Planning Task Force, what a joke. Now we need to take a closer look at who are the members of this Intergovernmental Planning Task Force. Here is a closer look at who is on this committee. Here is what is on the greensboro n.c. web site CLICKHERE
This task force includes people with a variety of interests to provide a well-balanced perspective on issues facing Guilford County and the cities located within the county. The primary charge of the task force is to study the pros and cons of merging the cities' planning and inspection functions with the county's planning and inspection functions. The task force will review key issues and provide recommendations to the County Commissioners and City Councils.
Task Force Appointees Jeff Deal Guilford Planning Board Henry Isaacson TREBIC MEMBER, Ex-Mayor Johnson's Steering Committee Craig Fleming TREBIC MEMBER Marlene Sanford TREBIC President Sandy Carmany Pleasant Garden Town Manager Michael Brandt Summerfield Town Manager Bruce Oakley Oak Ridge Town Manager Dan Pritchett Engineering firm Mike Westcott Engineering firm Gary Hill TREBIC MEMBER Keith Price TREBIC MEMBER for Samet Greg Garrett TREBIC MEMBER for Shugart Gary Wolf TREBIC MEMBER Susan Spangler Greensboro Zoning Ray Trapp Greensboro Zoning Marsh Prause TREBIC MEMBER for Smith Moore Leatherwood Law Firm Neighborhood Congress Chuck Truby TREBIC MEMBER CPT engineering Mary Skenes TREBIC representative for Yost and Little and Greensboro Zoning
Take a look above at all the TREBIC members of this intergovernmental agency 10 out of 18. This is what is wrong with soo many boards and commissions in Greensboro and Guilford County the deck is stacked in their favor. As the saying goes look at the FOX GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE. To hear them say on the web site that this is a well balanced perspective is laughable.
When will see a change in the mind set on who needs to be appointed to these boards and commissions because it has become a broken record. How has it become a broken record because here is what was reported back in 2008 from the protest petition for Greensboro N.C. blog
"In the Triad Business Journal January18-24 2008 in the Triad Talk section this is what was said. " Developers always have the upper hand in Guilford County" says Reid Phillips, an attorney with Brooks Pierce in Greensboro. They have boards packed with their people. They have experience. They are masters of divide and conquer. They can also wear people out with continuances.
It is hard for grass roots efforts to compete with this modus operandi."
Also in the same post let's also take a look at what was reported back in May 22, 2008 and look at some of the members of this land development ordinance committee if you would like to see the whole article on the propoganda TREBIC letter sent to the state legislators to deny the citizens of Greensboro the right to Protest Petition CLICKHERE . Below is another part of this post.
Where can we start with this one 2 points first on how your hear them say "most developers voluntarily meet with neighbors". The key word is "most" it is amazing that there is not a requirement for the developers to meet with neighbors in Greensboro.David Wharton who is a member of the Greensboro Land Development Ordinance Committee had this to say"This might interest you: I and others tried hard to get a "meet and confer" requirement written into the new ordinance, which would require a developer seeking a rezoning to meet with the neighbors beforehand and to report to the zoning commission the outcome of the meeting.
The best we could get was a requirement that developers must report to the zoning commission on their efforts to confer with neighbors, which means that if they didn't try to meet, they have to say that."
As you can see David Wharton says the best we could get, because people like Gary Rogers with Starmount Company,Trip Brown with Brown Investment,Keith Price with Samet Companies,James Cox with Mid-City Urban,Jessica Marlies with Brooks Pierce Law Firm,Mike Fox with Tuggles Duggins Law Firm,Dick Franks with Koury Corp.,Gary Hill with McAlphine Company,Gary Wolf with SparrowWolf Law Firm, and Mary Skenes with Yost and Little. So 10 out of 14 are TREBIC members or close allies with TREBIC for the Land Development Ordinance Citizen Advisory Team. As said before by Lawyer Reid Phillips ,boards get packed with TREBIC all the time especially in Greensboro where as Mike Barber said at a Greensboro City Council meeting on April 1st "TREBIC has been contacted and TREBIC has some interest".
The other point has to do with TREBIC saying that " Protest Petition is antiquated and should be repealed statewide". It should be noted that Protest Petitions are not antiquated but the exemption of Greensboro from this North Carolina General Statute is antiquated. Let's have the State Legislators pass a bill to make Greensboro comply with this statute and then TREBIC can lobby to deny the citizens of the whole state of North Carolina their right to protest unwanted development in their neighborhood.Good luck with that endeavor.
It is also noted that they left out the condescending quote from Gary Rogers TREBIC chairman saying that Greensboro had the foresight to exempt themselves from Protest Petitions.No, Mr. Rogers, it was not foresight. It was an effort to take away a right of the citizens to use the power of petitions against unwanted development in established neighborhoods
Look at some of the same names on the ldo committee and this intergovernmental agency . Gary Wolf, Gary Hill, Mary Skenes , Keith Price and TREBIC in general. QUIT,QUIT, QUIT doing this. We saw the true colors of TREBIC when they tried to deny every citizen of Greensboro the right to Protest Petition in the zoning process. As we have seen lately it has proven to be a major part of the process in cases on elm and cornwallis plus also the spring garden zoning case with the newman buildings which will come up soon in a future case.
We still haven't even talked about the deck stacking of TREBIC on the RUCO commission .
It is time for a complete overhaul of all of these boards and commissions in Guilford County and not let these lobbying groups like TREBIC stack the deck in their favor.
Let's take a look at what is on the Agenda for the Greensboro City Council meeting for 5-18-2010. Below is item #19 which after the zoning commission met on this matter it would have been wise for this applicant to go back to the drawing board here is the post which is part 2CLICKHERE .If you would like to go back further here is what started this series now up to part 3 CLICKHERE for the original post.
Cyndy Hayworth talking about this case at the zoning commission
Here is the agenda item below for the 5-18-2010 meeting of the Greensboro City Council Meeting.
19. Ordinance rezoning from RS-9 (Residential – Single Family) to CD-LB (Conditional District-Limited Business) for property located at 3500, 3502 and 3504 North Church Street, generally described as the northeast corner of the intersection of North Church Street and Denny Road. (Council District: 2) (roll call vote) (Attachment #19 (PL(Z) 10-06) to Councilmembers)
This applicant above never met with the surrounding neighbors before the zoning commission. One would hope that they have met with the surrounding property owners before they come in front of the Greensboro City Council. It would be great to hear a council member ask the question , when did you meet with the surrounding property owners? What are the concerns?Did anything come out of the meetings?
With all this talk about the new land development ordinance for the entire City of Greensboro and to see just how much the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC) wants to deny REQUIRED meetings with surrounding property owners in the zoning process. These past posts now up to part 3 will show you what is wrong with the system and to hear these applicants say that they never met with the surrounding property owners is the topping on the cake. Dump the talk of meet and confer and actually make it a requirement to meet with surrounding property owners 2 to 3 weeks before it ever gets in front of the zoning commission.
The Greensboro Zoning Commission on 4-12-2010 had this a an agenda item;
Z-10-04-002 - 3500, 3502 and 3504 Church Street (Northeast corner of the intersection of Church Street and Denny Road) – An ordinance rezoning from RS-9 (Residential-Single Family) to CD-LB (Conditional District-Limited Business) *[CD-C-L (Conditional District-Commercial-Low)] with the following conditions: 1. Uses: All uses allowed in the LB zoning district except convenience stores (with fuel pumps) and any use with a drive-thru.
2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 AM thru 10:00 PM. 3. Where the property abuts a designated transit stop, the developer shall provide an easement and concrete pad(s) built to GTA standards for a bus stop if one is requested by any transit authority. – for property located at 3500, 3502 and 3504 Church Street, generally described as the northeast corner of the intersection of Church Street and Denny Road (0.85 Acres) – Alejandro Rocha Perez for Avreliano Rocha.(Sheet(s) 127)
As you can see from the video above Greensboro Zoning Commission, member Cyndy Hayworth was not impressed with how they didn't meet with the neighborhood especially with this case going from residential to commercial. The irony of this rezoning is that the person speaking for the applicant was Emily Arzate from Keller Williams Real Estate Agency. She should have known better even being in the real estate business to meet with the neighborhood on a commerical rezoning.
We need to ask the Greensboro Planning Department if they are letting these applicants know what is in their best interest to meet with the neighborhood on rezoning cases.
Triadwatch has been talking in the past about how neighborhoods all over Greensboro have been getting the short end of the stick in the zoning process.
As you can see from the video above from 4-12-2010 and from this video on 3-8-2010 as wellCLICKHERE
We had a applicant who was changing a property from residential to commercial and didn't even bother talking with the neighborhood about the rezoning. It is time for the Greensboro City Council to take their Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition(TREBIC) Blinders Off and make a requirement for the applicant to have a REQUIRED MEETING 21 days before the zoning commission meeting.
The City of Greensboro is in the process of maybe approving this new Land Development Ordinance and the part of the zoning process has a watered version called "meet and confer," which should be mandatory.
There has been plenty of talk about this issue, but I wanted to bring you a video to show what went on at the zoning commission this past week and to reiterate to citizens in Greensboro to write or call or e-mail your city council members to let them know that a requirement to meet with the neighborhood needs to be a part of the process.
Below is a few more posts on this subject
Greensboro Neighborhood Congress Has Issues With The New Land Development Ordinance Rewrite For GreensboroCLICKHERE
Greensboro Neighborhoods Will Not Get A Fair Shake In The Zoning Process Thanks To TREBIC CLICKHERE
The above video is from the Greensboro Zoning Commission on 3-8-2010 and below is the zoning case that was in front of the commission
Z-10-03-001 - 2330 Fleming Road (Northeast corner of the intersection of Fleming Road and Old Acre Court) – An ordinance rezoning from RS-12 (Residential-Single Family) to CD-LB (Conditional District-Limited Business) *[CD-C-L (Conditional District-Commercial-Low)] with the following conditions:
1. Uses: All uses permitted in the Limited Business zoning district except gasoline service station and any use with a drive-thru. 2. Medical, dental and related offices will be limited to a maximum of 30,000 square feet. 3. All other offices will be limited to a maximum of 50,000 square feet. – for property located at 2330 Fleming Road, generally described as the northeast corner of the intersection Fleming Road and Old Acre Court (0.82 Acres). – for Keramatollah Lashani (Sheet(s) 224)
Triadwatch has been talking in the past about how neighborhoods all over Greensboro have been getting the short end of the stick in plenty of instances in regards to the zoning process. As you can see from the video above from 3-8-2010 we had a applicant who was changing a property from residential to commercial and didn't even bother talking with the neighborhood about this rezoning. It is time for the Greensboro City Council to take their Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition Blinders Off and to make a requirement in the zoning process for the applicant to have a REQUIRED MEETING 21 days before the zoning commission meeting. The City of Greensboro is in the process of maybe approving this new Land Development Ordinance and the part of the zoning process has a watered version called meet and confer. It should be mandatory and required as a part of the process not just a meet and confer.
There has been plenty of talk in the past about this issue but wanted to bring you a video to show you what went on at the zoning commission this past week and to reiterate to plenty of people in the City of Greensboro to write or call or e-mail your city council members to let them know that a requirement to meet with the neighborhood needs to be a part of the process.
Below is a few more post on this subject
Greensboro Neighborhood Congress Has Issues With The New Land Development Ordinance Rewrite For Greensboro CLICKHERE
Greensboro Neighborhoods Will Not Get A Fair Shake In The Zoning Process Thanks To TREBIC CLICKHERE
Greensboro shouldn't accept its defeat in an annexation dispute without taking the case to a higher court.
The city courted trouble by waiting years to annex land in eastern Guilford County. By the time it acted, residents of three subdivisions on Millstream Road contended they should not be bound by an annexation agreement signed by the developer before they bought their property.
…Greensboro predicated its annexation on a pact with the subdivision developers a decade ago in which it would provide water and sewer and the developers would consent to annexation.
[Hartzman Question: Should municipalities create conditions in which developers can easily gloss over material information to new homebuyers?]
This agreement was recorded with the Guilford County Register of Deeds, negating protests by subsequent homeowners that they weren't aware of annexation plans.
[Hartzman Question: Aren’t real estate transactions subject to more disclosure than Register of Deeds filings?]
[Hartzman Question: Shouldn’t material information about financial implications of annexation be disclosed to new homebuyers, and if so, what documentation were Millstream Road homeowners and their attorneys provided to make informed decisions?]
…The city was slow to annex but, having gone so far into it now, should pursue it to the end.
The City of Greensboro and Guilford County governments should be prohibited from funding or approving projects or programs from which local elected officials derive income or profit that depend upon local governmental financial support.
Current Greensboro City Council members, Guilford County School Board members, Guilford County Commissioners and Candidates for local elected office should be prohibited from entering into or receiving compensation from enterprises dependent upon local governmental support.
Current Greensboro City Council members, Guilford County School Board members, Guilford County Commissioners and Candidates for local elected office should be prohibited from making campaign contributions to entities who publicly endorse political candidates.
Current Greensboro City Council members, Guilford County School Board members, Guilford County Commissioners and Candidates for local elected office should be prohibited from accepting campaign contributions or endorsements from those with conflicts of interests, including but not limited to; leading members of organizations receiving taxpayer money, and/or developers, contractors or their lawyers or agents, for 12 months before and after doing business with Greensboro and Guilford County’s governments.
The City of Greensboro had a public meeting on 2-9-2010 where the citizens of Greensboro could get a overview of the new Land Development Ordinance rewrite and what it will look like with approval from the Greensboro City Council. Let's take a closer look at the video below to see just how the local special interest group known as TREBIC which stands for the triad real estate and building industry coalition stacks the deck in their favor.
If you want to get a history of just how the local developers or you can call them TREBIC stacked the deck as you can see from the above video with a ratio of 8 developers - 3 others Yes Weekly has a article with a title "Developers more assertive on panel to rewrite ordinance", CLICKHERE,
Then over the summer of 2009 Triadwatch went to a community public meeting at Leonard Rec Center on the LDO rewrite and also looked at the document in question . One glaring issue that came out of the meeting was a post on July 27, 2009 with a title "Greensboro neighborhoods will NOT get a fair shake in the zoning process , thanks to TREBIC", CLICKHERE
Then a few days ago we see that the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress has some of the same problems where TREBIC members on this LDO would not want to make it a requirement to meet with the neighborhoods here is that post CLICKHERE
During the meeting we also find out that city staff was the ones who sent out the invites to this citizens advisory team. When will these elected officials or staff quit putting all these TREBIC members on these boards and commissions.
In a future post we will see how the City of Greensboro and the Guilford County Commissioners wanted to form a task force to come up with ways to save money and consolidate departments, High Point doesn't want any part of this consolidating. Wouldn't you know it that the president of TREBIC was the chairman of this committee in Marlene Sanford with plenty of other TREBIC members stacking the deck again in TREBIC's favor.
When will we ever see a time where TREBIC doesn't have it's hands in every board and commission and advisory council . It must be nice to have a luncheon right before this LDO meeting to get unfettered access to our local officials at Grandover, like TREBIC hosted last week.
Start looking out for the citizens not the special interest.
The Greensboro Neighborhood Congress has sent out issues they have with the new Land Development Ordinance rewrite for the City of Greensboro. Above is the document to share with your council members and below is the same with the email sent out to all in the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The public hearing for the Land Development Ordinance Rewrite will be held on February 9 at 5:30 PM in the City Council Chambers. We encourage all neighborhood leaders and all residents to attend. By now, each of you should have received your rezoning notice that is part of this rewrite. Below are the concerns that the Issues Committee of the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress have identified that we will be addressing at the hearing. These items will affect you and your neighborhood. You may have others that we have not identified. The rewrite is huge - too large for us as volunteers to cut through item by item, so there will undoubtedly be surprises in implementation.
We hope to be able to support the rewrite once we learn more but will have to address this in a full Congress meeting before we take a position. Please attend the hearing, provide your input, learn what you can and we'll discuss this again in our February 11 meeting.
This is very Important, please read the following.
Land Development Ordinance (LDO)-Related Matters of Concern to GNC Issues & Bylaws Committee (based on Input from Committee members’ neighbors and neighborhood organizations)
February 3, 2010
1. While we recognize the importance of infill development, there is good infill and bad infill, and bad infill can destabilize existing neighborhoods and deteriorate property values. To the extent that the LDO would allow for denser infill development in existing neighborhoods, but does not provide safeguards to ensure that the increasingly dense infill is not detrimental, that is a matter of concern. In particular:
A. The proposed LDO allows a greater maximum density for multifamily (RM-40), which could have an impact on existing neighborhoods with fringe areas susceptible to apartment complex development. This is of particular concern to neighborhoods near educational institutions, where the construction of increasingly dense student apartment housing is an issue. In existing neighborhoods, such dense developments are likely to cause potential traffic, noise, parking, sanitation, and architectural compatibility issues. If such a new category of ultra-dense development (50% more dense that the existing limit, RM-26) is to be allowed, stringent development standards need to also be created to regulate it.
B. The proposed LDO allows for corner lots on thoroughfares to be developed to contain two homes (“twin homes”) in single-family zoned areas, but does not require such denser new construction to be compatible with surrounding detached single-family residences. We expect homeowners in established single-family neighborhoods to be dismayed when the corner lot near them suddenly becomes the site of not one, but two new homes, particularly if their appearance and construction is not at all compatible with the adjacent existing homes.
2. The LDO does not require developers to meet with neighborhood groups before proceeding with a rezoning, and GNC’s longstanding position is that such meetings should be mandatory. GNC appreciates that the LDO encourages such meetings and requires reporting concerning them, but this stops short of requiring that the meetings occur. We request that the proposed procedures suggested by the Planning Department concerning the information that a developer must report concerning such meetings (see attached) be incorporated directly into the LDO to ensure that those procedures are implemented.
3. Many neighbors are concerned about the LDO now that they have received letters in the mail from the City advising them about the proposed changes. Public understanding of the implications of the changes is limited, and we have anectdotal reports of inconsistent information being given to neighbors when they inquire to City staff concerning the changes. We believe that further communication should be encouraged before any changes are made to ensure that citizens are as well educated as possible concerning the impact of the changes.
If you ever want to see a lot of the back and forth on Item #2 above you might want to see the biggest commenting post ever at Triadwatch with a title back in July of 2009 titled "Greensboro Neighbors Will Not Get A Fair Shake In The Zoning Process, Thanks to TREBIC", CLICKHERE . The TREBIC Trolls were out big time on that post .TREBIC is the local special interest group for the development industry. Now with all the comments and hearing that the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress is now on board with the same issue Triadwatch brought up last summer, let's see if the City of Greensboro will make it a requirement to meet with the neighbors or will it be business as usual for TREBIC.
UPDATE UPDATE: This rezoning case has been postponed till February 2, 2010 Greensboro City Council meeting for a full advertised agenda item.
The Greensboro City Council on today's agenda #8 which is the rezoning request for 2207-2209 North Elm Street and 106-108 West Cornwallis Drive . Let's take a look at a little background on this rezoning case . Below is from the council agenda with attachments.
Following a public hearing on October 12, 2009 the Zoning Commission's recommendation was for approval by a 4-3 vote. 2 residents spoke in favor and 4 spoke in opposition to this approval.Pursuant to the public hearing on November 17, 2009 this request was denied by a vote of 3 in favor of and 4 against (a valid PROTEST PETITION had been filed for this request). On December 15, 2009 a reconsideration motion for this request was approved by the City Council and therefore the City Council will conduct another public hearing on January 5, 2010 to reconsider this request. New public notifications will be made prior to this new hearing.
Let's take a look at how this action came about during the last council meeting on November 17, 2009 here is some of the minutes from the meeting. Now look at what happened at the end of this where Greensboro City Council member Zack Matheny changed his vote after a recess of council, slick move for your golfing buddy.
Councilmember Wade moved adoption of the ordinance and stated that the Greensboro City Council believes that its action to approve the zoning amendment, located north of West Cornwallis Drive and west of North Elm Street from RS-12 to CD-RM-12 to be consistent with the adopted Connections 2025 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: it promotes compact development, it promotes mixed income neighborhoods (Policy 6A.2); it promotes new patterns and intensities of use to increase economic competitiveness and enhance quality of life in urban areas (Policy 4C). The motion was seconded by Councilmember Barber; the ordinance was adopted on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Barber, Groat, Matheny and Wade. Noes: Bellamy-Small, Johnson, and Wells.
(A copy of Mr. Stratton‘s handout is marked Exhibit R-21 and is referenced herein and made a part of these minutes.)
……..
Mayor Johnson declared a recess at 9:44 p.m.
……..
Council reconvened at 10:03 p.m. with all members in attendance except Councilmembers Rakestraw and Wade.
……..
Upon reconvening, Councilmember Matheny stated that after he had spoken with the City Attorney and City Clerk, that he wished to change his vote on Item #12 to a ―No‖ vote. Upon no objections from Council, Mayor Johnson stated that the ordinance rezoning classification from RS-12 (Residential-Single Family) to CD-RM-12 (Conditional District-Residential Multi-Family property located at 2207-2209 North Elm Street and 106-108 West Cornwallis Drive, generally described as north of West Cornwallis Drive and west of North Elm Street had failed. City Attorney Wood stated that the item would not come back before Council.
Somehow there is a ordinance where you as a council member can bring up a vote previously denied by council. There is also another Greensboro ordinance where if you don't get 6 votes then it automatically comes in front of council again at the next council meeting to cast another vote. These 2 ordinances need to get more scrutiny where now the citizens have the right to Protest Petitions.If i were a neighborhood who went in front of council and the rezoning case got denied but now we have a councilman change his vote then get it resubmitted close to a month and a half later, not fair and not right.Could be a great challenge in a court setting.
More background on this rezoning case can be found on a post during the November council meeting from the birthplace of triadwatch in "protest petition for greensboro" web site with a title "Greensboro City Council Member Zack Matheny has a Golfing Buddy, Campaign Donor and Rezoning case with Protest Petition", CLICKHERE .
Just found the ordinance that needs to be taken out of the books for good . Here is the Greensboro City Code of Ordinance in administration under article 2 City Council,
Sec. 2-21. Reconsideration of matters previously acted upon.
(a) The city council may reconsider any matter previously acted upon by it subject to the conditions set forth herein. A motion for reconsideration shall be made and acted upon no later than the day of the second regular meeting following the meeting at which such matter was previously considered. In the discretion of the city council, either at the same meeting in which the matter was favorably reconsidered or at any meeting thereafter, the city council shall finally dispose of the matter by taking another vote thereon.
(b) In the event that there are not a sufficient number of councilmen present at the meeting as required by applicable provisions of law to act favorably on a motion to reconsider any matter arising under the provisions of this section, then the matter shall be reconsidered not later than the day of the next regular meeting at which a sufficient number of councilmen are present to act favorably on such motion to reconsider any matter.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), any ordinance which received five (5) affirmative votes upon first reading shall automatically be carried over to the next regular meeting of the city council following the meeting upon which such ordinance was first voted upon and shall be subject to a second reading with a subsequent vote to be taken thereon. In the discretion of the city council, either at the same meeting in which there is a second reading or at any meeting thereafter, the city council shall finally dispose of the matter by taking another vote thereon.
(Code 1961, § 2-6; Ord. No. 04-08, § 1, 1-6-04)
This ordinance given to the Greensboro City Council should be thrown out and given a proper burial. Now with the right of citizens all over Greensboro to have the right to a Protest Petition then both the 5 vote rule for a second vote and also this maneuver that Zack Matheny did at the November meeting should be done away with . For example you are making the citizens who are fighting these rezoning cases come back again and again on the same matters it is not fair and right to make these citizens all over the city come back again and again. Vote these rezoning cases up or down and move on .
The rezoning case on Elm and Cornwallis which will have Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins recuse himself again because he has a 12% stake in the property and now with a new council we will have Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan also have to recuse herself on this case as well because her husband State Senator Don Vaughan is a lawyer for a group of citizens who needed representation in front of council on this issue. This case has it all then you add Protest Petition to the mix and they still need 6 out of 7 votes for this case to pass council.
Here is a case in point about this whole reconsideration of a rezoning case. The citizens filed a proper Protest Petition back in November on the Elm and Cornwallis case and looking at the new agenda item here is what was stated" (A VALID PROTEST PETITION WAS RECEIVED BY THE CLERK AND DELIVERED TO PLANNING ON 11.11.09 AT 11:48 A.M., AN ADDITIONAL PROTEST PETITION WAS RECEIVED BY THE CLERK AND DELIVERED TO PLANNING ON 12.28.09 AT 12:58 P.M. – SUFFICIENCY HAS NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED)". Why would they need another filing of a Protest Petition? This is time wasted and should have never had to happen. Just like this case to begin with it was voted down back in November and should not be brought back in front of council for a year.
The city attorney Terry Wood gave John Stratton a out back in november where he could have postponed this case till the december meeting where a new council could have seen this case along with the new conditions put on the property. Now we have a case where it was brought up in front of council and now they are going to have to redo the whole case in front of council again. They could have just delayed this till December but didn't want to see how the new council will vote and now with another recusal in this case it will still take 6 out of 7 votes for this rezoning case to pass with a valid Protest Petition as a part of the process.
It is real tough to understand this whole case from the beginning but it has been a real mess from day one. To sum it up in a nutshell it is time to take a closer look at the ordinance called reconsideration of matters previously acted upon section 2-21 of the municode of greensboro.
It will be interesting to see this rezoning case play out and to see if it passes council in a early vote on a controversial zoning case.
Above you will see the text messages from Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins to local developer Roy Carroll. During this last council meeting on December 15, 2009 it was discovered that Robbie Perkins was texting back and forth to Roy Carroll about a situation involving a court case which is totally a separate issue and a condemnation of Kotis properties to put in water and sewer to Roy Carroll's property off of horse pen creek road.
The first issue that needs to be addressed is should council members be text messaging during council meetings? The answer should be NO because the council members need to be concentrating on who is speaking to them and the case in front of them and not text messaging their friends or in Robbie Perkins case your TREBIC which stands for the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition buddy.
The second issue is to see if Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins is also Roy Carroll's leasing agent for this property off of horse pen creek road? If Yes ,then the councilman needs to recuse himself from yet another case that comes in front of the City of Greensboro. Here is a post from the past where both Robbie Perkins and Roy Carroll are tied together CLICKHERE on the center city pointe in downtown Greensboro.
To understand the above text messages in the first text message it talks about a person by the name of winfree, that happens to be Kotis Properties lawyer in Chick Winfree. The third text says that is has been tabled till January 5, 2010.In the fourth text it states that "Al" has been giving me the play by play. Al is probably, Al Leonard who is Vice President Carroll Commercial Construction Company and Carrolland Company.And the last text seems like Robbie Perkins saying to Roy Carroll to go toe to toe with Kotis Properties. The "Terry" in the last text is Greensboro City Attorney Terry Wood.
A lot of this came out in front because we had a airplane incident over the summer where local developer Roy Carroll wanted to fly the Mayor of Greensboro and chairman of Guilford County Board of Commissioners Skip Alston to Washington D.C. , well some of us including this blog wanted to say that this was completely unethical for this to happen CLICKHERE for that post on July 10,2009 titled "Greensboro City Attorney Advised That Trip To D.C. Raises Ethical Concerns for Mayor of Greensboro and County Chairman. Then on July 16, 2009 we have this post CLICKHERE titled "Roy Carroll's Company + City of Greensboro are Defendents in a Court Case As We Speak, Any Ethical Questions Now?. Now we fast forward to the end of year where the city now wants to condemn Kotis Properties for water and sewer to Roy Carroll's companies and we have a sitting Greensboro Council member text messaging the president of the company while the council meeting is going on. Amazing.
Hopefully the Mayor of Greensboro Bill Knight will make sure that all council members turn off their cell phones and not look down at their blackberry's of I phones during council meetings.
We also need to let the court case run it's course on this issue because it seems that the city attorney Terry Wood has sided with Roy Carroll on this issue and the reserve strip is acceptable but to Kotis Properties it is not but we see that Greensboro City Council Member Robbie Perkins has advised Roy Carroll that "Terry was forthright, you and marty should go toe to toe on Jan 5".
If you want to see the court case of Kotis VS. City of Greensboro & Horse Pen Creek Village CLICKHERE plenty of tidbits in that court case.
UPDATE: more post on this issue Joe Guarino has more CLICKHERE part #2 and CLICKHERE part #1 Roch101 CLICKHERE Questions for Greensboro CLICKHERE
Amanda Lehmert from the Greensboro News & Record has a update with a quote from Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins CLICKHERE
The Historic College Hill district of Greensboro, North Carolina and it's neighborhood association are getting prepared for a huge rezoning battle . Below in red typeface is some information being sent around from the College Hill Neighborhood Association and also a website dedicated to this as well CLICKHERE
A student housing complex made up of 233 units (over 750 beds) proposed by out of state developer, Edwards Communities CLICKHERE, for Newman Machine and other industrial properties along Spring Garden Street from South Mendenhall to the railroad tracks, and Fulton and Houston Streets all bordering the College Hill Historic District.
What are the issues? · Quality of life in College Hill – the scale and quiet residential nature of our architecturally rich neighborhood
· Property Values – tremendous gains have been made in the values of the restored single family homes
· 30 years of public and private investment to return rental houses to single family owner occupied houses, one house at a time
· Parking – the development only plans to include parking for 90% of their tenants
· Traffic – over 750 additional residents depending on existing narrow roadways coming and going
· Loss of potential to develop a key property – this is a gateway to College Hill from downtown, with a great view of downtown Greensboro . It could be refurbished similarly to Wafco or Revolution Mills, or made into another Southside or something that could attract more committed long term residents
Come to the next College Hill Neighborhood Association meeting Monday, December 7th, 7:30 pm Presbyterian Church of the Covenant Fellowship Hall. If you choose to do so, you can you help these College Hill residents in the following ways: · Buttons and yard signs are now available. Wear the buttons, place signs in your yard to show your support for the preservation College Hill · Attend the December 14th Zoning Commission meeting in Council Chambers, Melvin Municipal Building. Meet at 4:30, wear black and your Save College Hill button – now available! · Save the Date to attend the January 11th 2010 Zoning Commission meeting. · Save the Date to attend the City Council meeting January 5th or 19th · Call, write or email Zoning Commission members – make your voice heard; tell everyone how detrimental this development is to Historic College Hill · Call, write or email City Council Members – make your voice heard; tell everyone how detrimental this development is to Historic College Hill · Make a Donation - Tax deductible contributions are greatly appreciated to help defray costs. Make checks payable to CHNA, place defense fund in the memo field and bring to the Dec 7th meeting .
This will be a very interesting zoning case with the newly elected Greensboro City Council getting sworm into office in december and this pitting the neighborhood against student housing needs of the universities in the area. If you would like to see a overall view of the property in question CLICKHERE , this is from the Preservation Greensboro blog with a title of the post"Large Project Concerns Historic District". This is a tough call because if you have ever traveled down spring garden street or cut through on fulton street to get to lee street you will see this huge eyesore of buildings called newman machinery. Eventually something was going to happen with this property in question but to see the density of over 700 students living in this area would make for a huge change in the neighborhood.
We have seen another neighborhood near the UNC-Greensboro campus get contacted about selling their properties in the glenwood area here is that post CLICKHERE , with a title "The Skeen Group's Puzzling Development Approach".
We also have a great student housing project that went up on the old Cotton Mill Square area called Spring Place CLICKHERE which is near the merritt drive and spring garden area of Greensboro. There is also a renewal of places on lee street where they are putting up student housing as well.Student housing is becoming very big business and we are seeing that with these out of town developers coming into Greensboro trying to make a difference.
Where does the universities stand on all of these student housing projects? Are they for or against it ? We just found out this week that the university police departments have the jurisdiction to patrol other areas surrounding their campuses. Will developments like these stretch the university police departments thin or will they be able to handle more problems that housing of this magnitude will produce.
This rezoning case will be one to take a hard look at when it comes to density of a project and the ramifications of this project right next to a historic district of Greensboro.
Will Edwards Communities hire King Zoning Stud Lawyer Henry Isaacson?
Will political guru Bill Burckley who lives near the properties has something to say about this zoning case?
Will we see a Protest Petition being filed by the neighbors who abut this property?
These are questions that will get answered in the future but with a case of this magnitude , we will probably see a few delays in this process for all sides to hash out their positions for and against this project before it goes to council for a vote.
In the Kelo case, the Supreme Court held that the use of eminent domain to acquire property for “economic development” was not unconstitutional.
This Supreme Court case was one of the worse property rights decisions ever made . To see a AP article 4 years later and the non progress on this development is fitting to read. Seeing government power take private homes to benefit a property developer and the decision from the Supreme Court was unimaginable.
If you want to see the whole article click on the title above or the red highlighted title .
The above document is from the public review draft of the new Land Development Ordinance rewrite for the whole City of Greensboro this section above is titled Neighborhood Communication Summary. One thing you see missing from this section is something called a "meet and confer " or "citizen information meeting" between the applicant for a zoning case and the surrounding property owners.Cities all over this state from Charlotte,Raleigh, Wilmington, and High Point require the applicant to hold some type of meeting with the citizens when they have a rezoning case.
Let's take a look back and see just what the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition(TREBIC) tried to do to the citizens of High Point back in 2005.
On September 27, 2005, a public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the request by the City of High Point to amend Chapters 3 and 9 of the Development Ordinance pertaining to zoning map amendments (rezoning), conditional use permit and special use permit procedures, including their notice requirements.
Speakers expressing opposition to and concerns about this request were Mr. Keith Price, 3907 Gisbourne Drive, Jamestown (TREBIC MEMBER), Mr. Ron Guerra, 4476 Kendale Road (TREBIC MEMBER) and Ms. Marlene Sanford, 1830 Eastchester Drive (President of TREBIC). All of the speakers were opposed to requiring a mandatory neighborhood meeting and submitting a report on this meeting. It was noted that this is something that most responsible developers are already doing, but it should not be mandatory for all requests.
Let's take a look at what was said in the draft to High Point Planning and Zoning on having mandatory meetings with the neighborhood.Here were the objectives of having required meetings with the surrounding property owners.
Objectives:
• To improve the rezoning process by providing an opportunity for citizens to become better informed of the applicant’s development proposal prior to offering their comments at the public hearings;
• To provide an opportunity for citizens to ask questions and determine what specific issues of concern, if any, they have with a specific conditional use district rezoning request prior to the public hearings;
• To provide an opportunity for the applicant to consider citizen’s concerns and offer conditions to address those concerns prior to submittal and consideration by the city of their conditional use district rezoning;
• To provide an opportunity to resolve citizen concerns before the P&Z Commission and the City Council consider the request and thus prevent delays once the rezoning is in process;
• To allow dialogue between the applicant and citizens to occur in an informal setting outside and prior to the formal rezoning process;
• To provide an opportunity for the applicant to be open and informative about their development proposal and to offer adequate conditions to mitigate potential problems before the public hearings;
• To allow the P&Z Commission, the applicant and the public to better prepare for their public hearing by providing them staff reports approximately one week prior to the P&Z Commission meeting;
• To provide an opportunity for rezoning requests to proceed in a more efficient manner by emphasizing the need for preparation by the applicant prior to submittal and by limiting changes once a request is under consideration by the city; and
• To reduce the length of time under consideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council for some zoning proposals that would normally be tabled by the P&Z Commission or referred to the City Council’s Planning & Development Committee to provide time to address citizen concerns.
This requirement for mandatory meetings can and will help out the whole process in the long run.Let me give you a great example of what happens if you leave it like it is. There was a rezoning case off of Elm Street and Cornwallis Drive CLICKHERE back in December of 2008 where Greensboro City Council Member Robbie Perkins partner Stan Hope Johnson was trying to rezone this property. He knows the process but decided to sneak this one in at last minute and only had a meeting 1 week before the zoning case was to be presented. Here is what was said at the blog spot dedicated to this rezoning case, " Following neighborhood opposition at a poorly advertised meeting on December 1, the developers requested the Greensboro Zoning Commission postpone their hearing until January 12 at 2:00". Following a poorly advertised meeting was a understatement and to know that this was done by a partner of a sitting council member, priceless.
Here is the final product from High Point City Council on a required Citizen Information Meeting:
Citizen Information Meeting (22 days prior to P&Z meeting) This step is only required for zoning requests which include a Conditional Use Permit. Applicants are required to notify owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed zoning site and conduct a citizen information meeting or meetings. The applicant shall submit to the citizens a written description of their development proposal and a statement, provided by the Planning & Development Department, outlining the purpose of the citizen information meeting and the zoning process. The purpose of the citizen information meeting is to allow the applicant the opportunity to inform citizens about their zoning proposal and to provide citizens the opportunity to ask questions and find out more about the proposal prior to the public hearings. Following the information meeting(s), and at least 22 days prior to the P&Z Commission meeting, the applicant is required to submit a citizen’s information meeting report. At a minimum, this report shall include the following: Names & addresses of property owners notified and date & method of notification; Date, time and location of the citizen information meeting(s); Written description of the development proposal presented at the meeting; and Any comments, ideas, or suggestions from citizens that were incorporated into the zoning proposal.
How does TREBIC try not to let this requirement happen in Greensboro. Let's stack the deck in our favor on the Land Development Ordinance Committee where David Wharton CLICKHERE who is also a member of this committee had this to say back in January of 2009.
I made some comments at the meeting, too, in which I focused on the fact that the building and real estate industries hold majorities on key boards and commissions, specifically the Zoning Commission, the RUCO board, the Board of Adjustment, and the Land Development Ordinance Citizens Advisory Team (of which I was a member). Marlene Sanford of TREBIC took issue with my figures, disputing in particular the LDO CAT numbers, which I said was weighted 11-4 in favor of real estate interests. Since this is a public board, I don't think I'll be violating anyone's privacy by posting their names and occupations here. So here they are: Trip BrownBrown Investment Properties (TREBIC member) James CoxUrban-Atlantic Builders Mike Fox Attorney Tuggle Duggins and Meshan PA (TREBIC member company) Dick Franks Koury Corporation (TREBIC member) Gary Hill McAlpine Company Jessica Marlies Environmental law attorney Bob Powell North Carolina A&T University Keith Price Samet Corporation (TREBIC member) Todd RangelCommercial real estate manager SunTrust Bank Gary Rogers Starmount Company (TREBIC member) Todd Rotruck Independent Contractor Mary Skenes Yost and Little (TREBIC member) Gary Wolf Sparrow Wolf & Dennis, PA (TREBIC member) David Wharton UNC Greensboro
Some might quibble with the way I counted. Mike Fox and Gary Wolf are both attorneys, but I counted them as being in the real estate industry because both of their firms are TREBIC members. And though Todd Rotruck was appointed as a representative of the GNC, he's also a contractor in the building industry.
Even on Ed Cone's blog David Wharton had this to say.
This might interest you: I and others tried hard to get a "meet and confer" requirement written into the new ordinance, which would require a developer seeking a rezoning to meet with the neighbors beforehand and to report to the zoning commission the outcome of the meeting. The best we could get was a requirement that developers must report to the zoning commission on their efforts to confer with neighbors, which means that if they didn't try to meet, they have to say that.
The "best we could get" which means when you stack the deck of TREBIC members on this committee and ever since 2005 they have wanted to deny Triad residents the requirement of meeting with adjoining property owners you will see what comes out as a final product. Neighborhoods all over Greensboro need to be aware of what is happening and to be aware of what is going on.You can make a difference by letting your city council member or future city council member know that you would like a requirement for the applicant in a zoning cases to meet with adjoining property owners it is called "meet and confer" or "citizen informational meeting".
