Protest Petition Used in Kernersville Against Land Where Guilford County Schools Want a New High School

HAT TIP RHINO TIMES with this post in regards to a rezoning case in Kernersville . The article is titled "Schools Rebuked By Kernersville" written by Paul Clark CLICKHERE
In the article was this

"Colfax resident Garland Stack, whose property adjoins the TDO land, organized a protest petition against the rezoning request. Hatling said that 23 of 29 qualifying property owners, or 79 percent, signed the protest petition – far more than needed for the petition to succeed. Stack said he isn't even done getting signatures.

A successful protest petition requires a three-quarters supermajority of the Kernersville Board of Aldermen to approve the rezoning request when the aldermen consider the Planning Board's recommendation. There are five aldermen, so four aldermen would have to vote in favor of the rezoning request"

Nice to see our neighbors to the west of us the Protest Petition in rezoning cases.  

Protest Petition Filed and Not Needed in Case in Front of Greensboro City Council on May 15, 2012

On May 15, 2012 the Greensboro City Council had a new agenda item for a rezoning case with a valid Protest Petition added to the agenda. Below is the item in front of council.

24. Ordinance rezoning from R-3 (Residential-Single Family) to CD-RM-18 (Conditional District – Residential Multi Family) property located at 2823 Randleman Road, generally described as east of Randleman Road and north of Apple Ridge Court.

(Council District: 1) (roll call vote) (Attachment #24 (PL(Z) 12-04).

It was amazing to see the whole Greensboro City Council along with the Zoning Commission and also the Greensboro City staff all said that this did not fit in with the area. They voted 9-0 to DENY the rezoning. This site plan next to a residential neighborhood was a no brainer to vote for a denial on this rezoning it is hard to see that with no from zoning and staff that they would appeal to the Greensboro City Council but the applicant did just that to his detriment. This was a win for the neighborhood and good to see the Protest Petition used .

Yes Virginia! 4 Bills Introduced This Week which Propose to Modernize "Notifying the Public." | Legal Notice Online

Yes Virginia! 4 Bills Introduced This Week which Propose to Modernize "Notifying the Public." Legal Notice Online

Protest Petition for Greensboro on Agenda for Greensboro City Council Meeting on January 17, 2012

On the agenda for the Greensboro City Council January 17, 2012 meeting


21. Ordinance rezoning from R-5 (Residential-Single Family) to CD-RM-18 (Conditional District – Residential Multi Family) for property located at 3711-R1 Mosby Drive. (Council District: 5) (roll call vote) (Attachment #21 (PL(Z)11-19) to Councilmembers) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 13, 2011 MEETING OF COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER ADVERTISING. A VALID PROTEST PETITION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK.

It will be a interesting case to see what the new council thinks of this rezoning case.  Will update this post with the vote from council

Guilford County Uses Protest Petition Against City of High Point and Wins

Hat Tip:Rhino Times Paul Clark with a title of article "Council Allows Hinkley Hotel"

In the article this is what was written

"Guilford County filed its protest petition twice – on Dec. 13, signed by Guilford County Manager Brenda Jones Fox and on Dec. 14 signed by Chairman of the Guilford County Commissioners Skip Alston, before the Board of Commissioners voted to authorize the petition – something the High Point City Council could have challenged, but didn't.

"We don't believe it, but we're recognizing the county's protest petition," High Point Mayor Becky Smothers said. "We don't need to get into a lawsuit with y'all."

After a nearly five-hour public hearing and debate, Smothers could muster only five votes to rezone the 91.5 acres, but not the supermajority of seven votes needed because of the county protest petition. Barring an upset bid by another developer, the sale by Guilford County to GEO Care should go through.

It seemed fairly clear before the meeting that Smothers didn't have the required supermajority, but the addition of three new councilmembers last year upset old voting blocs and has made City Council debates less certain and more interesting. In addition, the City Council chamber was standing room only, and members of the audience leaned against the walls.

The debate showed the wide divide between High Point's two classes: the political and business class, which is dominated by developers and property managers, and its working class, which is made up primarily of former furniture plant and textile mill workers. The developers and politicians are focused on the long-term development and improvement of High Point, but the working class neighborhoods are desperate for jobs and unwilling to pass them up based on promises of better development in the future."

This is great to see more people understand and use the protest petition in zoning cases. It is odd to see the owner of the property use the protest petition because usually it is the adjoining property owners who want to object to a certain property being rezoned for usually a commercial or higher residential uses. This case might get more scrutiny because just this past week we have both the county and the City of Greensboro want to extend water and sewer to over 9,000 acres in eastern Guilford County which means more residential development being rezoned from agriculture. The use of protest petition is only allowed in municipalities but with a bill getting passed in the state legislature we could see in future a place where the whole citizens of Guilford County can use the protest petition in zoning cases .

Guilford County Manager Fox Uses Protest Petition Against the City of High Point

Hat Tip : Paul Clark from Rhino Times

Rhino Times is reporting today in a new front page article titled "County Protest Petitions Abound" CLICKHERE

It is very unusual to see the owners of the property file a protest petition especially when the owner is you and i who live in Guilford County. Paul Clark talks about the whole situation involving land that Guilford County owns and wants to sell to a company from Florida to have a secured mental hospital.

 below from Rhino:

The hand-delivered protest petition was signed only by Guilford County Manager Brenda Jones Fox. But Chairman of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners Skip Alston, on Wednesday, Dec. 14, said he would sign another copy on Wednesday and seek the approval of the Board of Commissioners at its Thursday, Dec. 15 meeting.

"That's right," Alston said. "I'm going down there to sign it myself shortly. We thought she could do it as manager, but to be on the safe side, I'm going down there to sign it myself. I'm doing it on behalf of the county."

Alston said the protest petition had to be turned in to the High Point Planning and Development Department by 5 p.m. on Wednesday to meet a deadline of two business days before the High Point City Council meeting.

The Fox-signed protest petition shows every sign of being hurriedly prepared. It is accompanied only by a cover letter by Guilford County Attorney Mark Payne and contains no supporting material other than a copy of the state requirements for a protest petition.

State law allows the owner of at least 20 percent of the land to be rezoned to file a protest petition; Alston said the two county parcels involved add up to 24 percent of the land that would be rezoned 

.
This make for a interesting situation in Guilford County because now they have set them up for a group of people to maybe in future try to make the whole county have to abide by the protest petition just like other municipalities all over the state do it might just be time for the counties all over the state as well to abide by the protest petition

We have counties like Durham who use the protest petition for the whole county and looking at what the Guilford County Commissioners did in regards to this situation in High Point it might be something to consider in the future for the residents of Guilford County. Could we see a protest petition for Guilford County in the future? Maybe just like some people told us we would not get protest petition for Greensboro do not underestimate us on this situation.

Also we have the Greensboro News and Record who has a post out as well CLICKHERE

Protest Petition Has Been Filed on Rezoning Case Off of Horse Pen Creek Road For Greensboro City Council

Below is agenda item for the November 15, 2011 Greensboro City Council Meeting

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

24. Ordinance amending Connections 2025 Comprehensive Plan Generalized Future Land Use Map (GFLUM) for property located at 3223 Horse Pen Creek Road. (Council District: 3)

(roll call vote) (Attachment #24 CP-11-07) to Councilmembers)

25. Ordinance rezoning from R-3 (Residential-Single Family) to CD-O (Conditional District – Office) for property located at 3223 Horse Pen Creek Road, generally described as north of Horse Pen Creek Road and west of Hanberry Drive. (Council District: 3) (roll call vote)

(Attachment #25 (PL (Z) 11-18) to Councilmembers) A PROTEST PETITION WAS FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK ON NOVEMBER 8, 2011 AT 11:23 A.M.

This has been the first Protest Petition for Greensboro in awhile but looking at the Zoning staff report it was funny to look the transportation section of the report to have this to say about Horse Pen Creek Road.

Transportation Street Classification

Horse Pen Creek Road – Minor Thoroughfare

Tagging Horse Pen Creek Road as a minor thoroughfare is a joke. I am sure this rezoning will pass but the area where this is being rezoned is way too crowded and this property should stay residential not  office. To tag this property office is a slippery slope and should not happen.

Let's see King Zoning Stud Lawyer Henry Isaacson do his typical dog and pony show in front of the Greensboro City Council on this rezoning but it is great to see the Protest Petition being used in the zoning process.

White Street Landfill, Protest Petition and Yes! Weekly Interview with Nancy Vaughan

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."

To see the whole interview CLICKHERE

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.

Will post this also on my Triadwatch blog which came about because of this blog Protest Petition for Greensboro.

President Elect for Local Realtors Group Wants To Deny Greensboro Citizens The Right To Protest Petition

On Monday 3-28-2011 there was a joint session of the Regulatory Reform Committee meeting at the campus of Guilford Tech . Community College. While looking at my twitter account i came across this tweet by Greensboro News and Record state and federal government reporter Mark Binker which he had this to say,

"TREBIC out in force at #ncga Reg Reform committee asking for repeal of protest petition rules. #GSO just got it back a couple years ago."

Here is a link to Mark Binker's twitter account CLICKHERE

The TREBIC in the post belongs to the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition our local developer lobbyist organization. It is amazing to think that it hasn't even been 2 years and they are already whining and complaining to the state about this law. To also understand that the citizens of Greensboro have been getting screwed for the past 30 years of not having this state law and we are only going on 2 years of finally having it be a part of the zoning laws to see them complain to the regulatory commission is ridiculous.

 We also have a blog post from Jordan Green at Yes Weekly on this meeting here is what Jordan had to say.

" Lolita Malave, president-elect of the Greensboro Regional Realtors Association, asked the General Assembly to repeal the protest petition, which allows neighboring property owners to trigger a requirement of a 75 percent majority vote for approval of a rezoning request if they file a valid protest petition.



“It is easier to change the US Constitution that it is to rezone your property under the protest petition,” Malave said. “The US Constitution can be changed with a simple-majority vote of the people or a two-thirds majority vote of Congress. By contrast, the owner of 5 percent of the land within 100 feet of a proposed land rezoning project can trigger a requirement for more than a super-majority vote. That equates to more than 75 percent of voters. It is absurd and unfair that such a small number of citizens can and do decide the fate of many.”


One speaker echoed Malave’s appeal, while another spoke in defense of the protest petition.

here is a link to the whole article CLICKHERE

 We also have  our local Greensboro City Council Member Zack Matheny talk about Protest Petition in a council meeting last year here is the clip;












Now we have a local city council member talk about how they are frustrated with Protest Petition being a part of the zoning process and this was over a year ago that the councilman talked about this, then we see this year they go in front of a regulatory commission meeting to let them know how they feel and want it repealed. With this being said it shows to all the citizens of Greensboro that this law is working for it's purpose and needs to stay a part of the process. 

It is time to let our local state representatives know how you feel about Protest Petition and to say to them keep this a state law and it should stay that way.


Here is a link to all of our local representatives if you would like to say to them "KEEP PROTEST PETITION AS STATE LAW".

STATE SENATE SIDE

Don Vaughan CLICKHERE
Gladys Robinson CLICKHERE
Phil Berger CLICKHERE
Stan Bingham CLICKHERE

STATE HOUSE SIDE

John Blust CLICKHERE
Maggie Jeffus CLICKHERE
Pricey Harrison CLICKHERE
Marcus Brandon CLICKHERE
John Faircloth CLICKHERE
Alme Adams CLICKHERE

You can also let the Regulatory Reform Commission know how you feel as well by filling out this form on the state web site  CLICKHERE

Protest Petition Will Play a Part in Property Off of Alamance Church Road for Continued Zoning Case

UPDATE #2 this zoning case did pass the greensboro city council on 2-15-2011 with a vote of 8-1 with tdbs the no vote  even with a protest petition filed.

UPDATE

This was in the agenda for next weeks Greensboro City Council meeting.

19. Ordinance rezoning from CD-RM-5 (Conditional District-Residential Multi Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for property located at 1419 Alamance Church Road, generally described as north of Alamance Church Road and west of Zornbrook Drive. (Council District: 1) (roll call vote) (Attachment #19 (PL(Z)10-14) to Councilmembers) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 18TH, 2011 MEETING OF COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER ADVERTISING. A VALID PROTEST PETITION HAS BEEN FILED. _________________________________________________________________________________
The Greensboro News and Record on their online version which you can't link to states that this zoning case below has a valid Protest Petition filed :

22. Ordinance rezoning from CD-RM-5 (Conditional District-Residential Multi Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for property located at 1419 Alamance Church Road, generally described as north of Alamance Church Road and west of Zornbrook Drive. (Council District: 1) (roll call vote) (Attachment #22 (PL(Z) 10-14) to Councilmembers) COUNCIL IS BEING ASKED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 15, 2011 MEETING OF COUNCIL.


The  Carolina Peacemaker has a post after the case went in front of zoning board back in December of 2010 titled "Residents Object To rezoning on Alamance Church Road", CLICKHERE

The lawyer for the applicant is none other than Marc Isaacson the son of King Zoning Stud Henry Isaacson. As you can see right before this case was to go in front of the Greensboro City Council the lawyer looked into his playbook to continue this item till next month as usual. This continuence by our local lawyers is getting very old. It is time for the neighborhood to sit down with the applicant and get as many conditions on this property as possible or if the applicant will not budge then it is time to see how the Protest Petition works in front of council.

We will see what happens in front of Greensboro City Council but it is great to see neighborhoods all over Greensboro finally get the chance to use this state law in the zoning process. It should have never been taken away from the citizens of Greensboro but glad to see it used in plenty of zoning cases .

N.C. House Rep.Pricey Harrison Should Be Very Proud of Her Role in Restoring Protest Petition to Greensboro

Yes Weekly! with a blog post from Jordan Green talks with  N.C. House Rep. Pricey Harrison . In this candidate profile here is what she had to say about Protest Petition for Greensboro.CLICKHERE for the blog post.

"  She’s particularly proud of her role in restoring the protest petition, a mechanism by which a certain threshold of neighbors to property proposed for rezoning can force the city council to muster a supermajority for approval, to Greensboro.



“I strived hard to get our [Guilford County] delegation's support,” Harrison said. “I spoke out pretty often about it. Not everybody was on board. There was also significant resistance from the developer community.”

Rep. Pricey Harrison worked very hard to return this state law back to the citizens of Greensboro, she should be very proud of this accomplishment . It was a long hard fight to bring this back to the citizens of Greensboro and Pricey Harrison was the first state representative who wanted to learn about this travesty and do something about it and she did with this House Bill #64 CLICKHERE

The Birthplace of Protest Petition in Greensboro Just Got Down Zoned Off of Friendly Avenue

The Greensboro Zoning Commission had a meeting last night on 8-9-2010 and on the agenda was this case.

8. Z-10-08-005 - 6705 West Friendly Avenue and 613 Pompano Drive (South of West Friendly Avenue and west of Pompano Drive) – An ordinance rezoning from CD-RM-18 (Conditional District-Residential Multi Family) to CD-R-3 (Conditional District-Residential Single Family) with the following conditions:



1. Uses: Limited to a place of religious assembly and permitted educational facilities.


– for property located at 6705 West Friendly Avenue and 613 Pompano Drive, generally described as south of West Friendly Avenue and west of Pompano Drive. (5.94 Acres)


– For Korean Baptist Church.(Sheet(s) 219 and 220)
 
This item is a major step in the process of healing a neighborhood that was torn apart but also brought together to bring back Protest Petition to the citizens of Greensboro. As you can see from above, the Korean Church wants to DOWN ZONE and yes that is DOWN ZONE property in Greensboro N.C. from CDRM 18 to CDR-3 . This takes out a major part of the rezoning of a massive apartment complex that Guilford County Commissioner Mike Winstead had planned on the property along with the adjoining property next door which is owned by Ex State Senator Bob Shaw who happens to be married to Guilford County Commissioner Linda Shaw. We also had Ex Greensboro City Council member Mike Barber who had to recuse himself from this rezoning case from a few years ago for a conflict of interest. Then we had current at large Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins be the deciding factor for this rezoning case to be passed back on February 5th 2008.Look at all of the political aspects of this issue.
 
Here is a link to a news story from Channel 14 CLICKHERE
 
Here are  the minutes from the meeting which had to come back in front of council for a second reading and Robbie Perkins back to vote.
 
Mayor Johnson introduced an ordinance rezoning from Conditional District-General Business and

Residential Single Family 12 to Conditional District-Residential Multifamily-18 for property located on the south side of West Friendly Avenue between Forsythia Drive and Nora Drive. The Mayor advised that this was the Second Reading for the ordinance after having received 4 affirmative votes at the January 15, 2008 Council meeting

.Councilmember Perkins noted that he was absent from the January 17 Council meeting but advised he had
watched the meeting, reviewed the materials related to this matter and was prepared to vote. He offered brief comments in support of this rezoning.

After Councilmember Barber stated that he must abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest,
Councilmember Matheny moved to permit Councilmember Barber to abstain due to conflict of interest.

 The motion was seconded by Perkins and adopted by voice vote of Council.

Councilmember Matheny moved adoption of the ordinance and stated that the Greensboro City Council
believes that its action to approve the zoning amendment, located on West Friendly Avenue from CD-GS and RS-12 to CD-RM-18 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 is consistent with the high residential land use category indicated for this site on the Connections 2025 Generalized Future Land Use Map, it is consistent with the growth at the fringe goal to promote sound and sustainable land use patterns and compact development, and it promotes the diversification of new housing stock to meet the needs for suitable housing..

The motion was seconded by Councilmember Wade; the ordinance was adopted on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Groat, Matheny, Perkins, Wade and Wells. Noes: Bellamy-Small, Johnson and Rakestraw, with Councilmember Barber abstaining due to conflict of interest.


It is time to thank the shaws, winsteads, barbers and perkins on approving, abstaining and bringing  this rezoning case to the citizens of Greensboro because  now a few years later it is DOWN ZONED back to what it should have been in the first place and now the citizens of Greensboro have the right to use Protest Petitions in zoning cases all over Greensboro like every other city in this state had the right to do. This was a huge rezoning case that brought many people all over the city and even the interloper from High Point on the case. It was a hard fought battle with the local Lobbyist Organization called TREBIC which is the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition and plenty of folks on the other side and let me end with this PEOPLE POWER PEOPLE POWER CLICKHERE
 
 

Kotis Properties, Lindley Park Neighborhood and Sherwin-Williams and the Dynamics of Protest Petition for the Future

At the Greensboro City Council meeting tonight May 18, 2010 you will see the dynamics of how a Protest Petition can and does work for all sides of a zoning case.

A little history of this rezoning case can be seen at this previous post CLICKHERE  on March 29, 2010. Then in today's Greensboro News & Record  CLICKHERE with a title "Sherwin-Williams Drops Protest"  but the title should read "Sherwin-Williams Drops Protest Petition" , just for this blogs mind on the new title and a note to Taft Wireback it is Protest Petition not just a formal protest.

Then tonight we see Amanda Lehmert has a post about the zoning case where the Greensboro City Council voted unanimously for this project.

Here is a quote from the rhino times in regards to this zoning case,

"It would be fascinating to see the protest petition used against a project that the Lindley Park Neighborhood Association was supporting. It would definitely put the shoe on the other foot."

This quote from above is from this post on the rezoning case CLICKHERE

As we can see from what happened from this rezoning case that even when the shoe is on the other foot it still worked out in the end with or without the use of the Protest Petition. This case is a great example of how both sides of this rezoning case can come together to work out their differences and to see this project pass with a unanimous vote in front of the Greensboro City Council.

We also saw Greensboro City Council member Mary Rakestraw praise both sides on this case and to me it shows that using the Protest Petition when both sides can come together on aspects of the rezoning to work out the differences and take the protest petition off the table and agree with the new conditions and move forward into the future.

This case will not make the college hill neighborhood happy on what happened to them with the newman machinery buildings on the other side of spring garden street but would say that Lindley Park Neighborhood Association was there to make sure the process worked out for them and we will see a renovated Historic Rolane Building from Kotis Properties  in the future.

Protest Petition for Greensboro is alive and well and this case shows you that both sides can come to the table and work things out and then before the meeting drop the Protest Petition and come together with a project that makes sense for a building that has been empty for a long time.

Edwards Companies Wins 8-0 approval even with a Protest Petition

There was a very contentious rezoning case in front of the Greensboro City Council where the Edwards Communities will build a humongous student housing on the old newman machinery properties off of Spring Garden street. Good luck with traffic around that area in the future but College Hill Sundries will be a happy camper. The Greensboro City Council voted 8-0 with Nancy Vaughan recusing herself from the vote because her husband State Senator Don Vaughan was the lawyer for the opposition.This 8-0 vote also had a valid Protest Petition as a part of the case.

To read more on this issue here is a link to the Greensboro News & Record article out tonight CLICKHERE

This rezoning case has been continued for a long time but one aspect of this case in regards to the Protest Petition is that the save college hill group opposing this rezoning played the Protest Petition even before this case went in front of the zoning commission, that was a mistake. This new law will be interesting to see how it is used in plenty of zoning cases in the future but in this case the Greensboro City Council voted overwhelmingly for student housing off of spring garden street clearly against the wishes of the neighborhood and with the use of Protest Petition on Greensboro City Council.

Sherwin-Williams Might Be The First Business To Use Protest Petition in Greensboro

At the Greensboro Zoning Commission meeting on March 8, 2010 there was a zoning case in regards to a property that has been around for a very long time which is called the old rolane building off of spring garden street in Greensboro. To read a article on what is planned for this property here is a link to a Triad Business Journal article CLICKHERE . Below is the agenda and the case in question

6. Z-10-03-002 - 2610 Oakland Avenue (North of Oakland Avenue, south of Hiatt Street, east of South Lindell Road and west of Howard Street) – An ordinance rezoning from HI (Heavy Industrial) to CD-PDI (Conditional District-Planned Unit Development-Infill) *[PUD (Planned Unit Development )] with the following conditions:



1. All uses allowed in the PDI zoning district except for the following: Automobile Sales (no service); Automobile Repair Services, Major; Automobile towing; Pest and Termite Control; Truck Terminals; Bingo Games; Coin Operated Amusement; Fortune Tellers, Astrologers; Billiard Parlors; Funeral Homes or Crematoriums; Convenience Stores with fuel pumps; Pawn Shops; Service Stations, gasoline; Bus Terminals; Taxi Terminals; Sexually Oriented Businesses; Junked Motor Vehicles; Shelters for the Homeless; Motor Vehicle Sales.



2. Any structures built within 250 feet of Oakland Avenue shall have a maximum height of six stories above the average elevation of finished grade.


3. Any structures built within 315 feet of Hiatt Street shall have a maximum height of three stories above the average elevation of finished grade.


4. The developer must reserve either 2.25 acres or 40,000 square feet of building area within the subject property for non-residential uses (the “Non-Residential Reserved Area”).


5. Developer shall provide direct pedestrian access from Howard Street to at least 50% of the Non-Residential Reserved Area. In addition, Developer will ensure that at least 50% of the Non-Residential Reserved Area will be visible from Howard Street. Non-Residential use of the Boiler Room building with good access and visibility provided to Howard Street would fit these guidelines.


6. 51% of the original structure of the main building will be preserved to the extent where economically feasible. If severe damage or structural deterioration is discovered in portions of the main building, preservation of these portions of the building may be judged infeasible. Likewise, preservation of the 51% or more of the remaining sound sections of the main building would be undertaken with development of this site to the extent it is deemed historic by the State of North Carolina, and to the extent it is economically feasible.


– for property located at 2610 Oakland Avenue, generally described as north of Oakland Avenue, south of Hiatt Street, east of South Lindell Road and west of Howard Street (8.72 Acres)


– Henry Isaacson for H 1010, LLC.(Sheet(s) 45)
_________________________________________________________________________________
 
The above agenda item is going to come up in front of Greensboro City Council very soon and have heard that the Sherwin-Williams Company is going to use the Protest Petition and around the 52 minute mark of the zoning commission meeting you can hear their hired gun in lawyer Tom Terrell in opposition of this rezoning talk about the use of Protest Petition.
 
One of the arguments of not bringing back Protest Petition into the City of Greensboro was that one adjacent property owner can have enough property to make a valid Protest Petition. Well if Sherwin-Williams does follow through on using this state law then we will see if the Greensboro City Council will take that into consideration because it seems like the whole Lindley Park Neighborhood Association is in favor of this mixed use development with a few dissentions but Sherwin-Williams wants everyone to know that this is a chemical plant and they are not in favor of this rezoning case.
 
There is also going to be a very contentious rezoning case on the other side of spring garden street with the neighborhood association in opposition to a mixed use student housing near college hill. CLICKHERE and we know that they have already used the Protest Petition on this rezoning.
 
It would be interesting to see how the Greensboro City Council will take this use of Protest Petition into effect in regards to this mixed use development offered by Kotis Properties and seeing one property owner using the Protest Petition and maybe getting Norfolk Southern railroad to sign it as well.
 
Looking at this property and knowing that this was always for a longtime going to be a mixed use development and hearing King Zoning Stud Henry Isaacson talk about this and this property has been vacant for awhile it seems like this is a right fit for the area . It looks like Sherwin-Williams wants to come in at the eleventh hour and put a wrinkle into the process as commissioner Mary Skenes pointed out at the zoning meeting.
 
We will see what happens in front of Greensboro City Council and if Kotis Properties has enough votes for it to be a 7-2  in favor of this mixed use development or will Sherwin-Williams have the 3 votes for it to get denied on a 6-3 vote.