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 .
Showing posts with label carolina peacemaker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carolina peacemaker. Show all posts
Feb 12, 2011
Jun 6, 2008
Carolina Peacemaker article "Community Group Wants Petition Power Restored
Benjamin Fair from the Carolina Peacemaker on June 6, 2008 writes a front page article on Protest Petitions for Greensboro North Carolina, click here
Enclosed is the whole article :
Community group wants petition powers restored
by Benjamin Fair
Carolina Peacemaker
Originally
posted 6/6/2008
Unable to arm themselves with the power of petition, a group of Greensboro residents have taken aim and are ready to shoot down what they feel are efforts by local developers to keep their voices from being heard in local zoning cases. In 1971, legislation was passed that exempted the City of Greensboro from a statute that originally gave citizens the right to submit a protest petition in zoning cases, an act many community members today feel was unconstitutional and, according to one group of Greensboro residents, just the beginning of what they feel is an effort by the Greensboro City Council to keep their voices silent on the issue.
“The silence from the Greensboro city council is deafening,” said Keith Brown, a member of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens in Greensboro.According to Brown, Greensboro is the only city in the state to have banned protest petitions. As he explained, residents who support lifting the ban simply want the city of Greensboro to follow the rest of the state in allowing protest petitions to be presented. “Developers are getting away with carte blanche in this county,” he said.
By lifting the ban, disputed zoning cases could only be passed if they receive a 7-2 majority vote by members of the council. Currently, a vote is passed by a simple majority.
As Brown explained, lifting the ban on protest petitions would give residents of the community greater power in standing up to corporate developers. “This should never have been taken away,” he said. “This needs to be changed.”
Ronald Wilson, President of Starmount Residential, Inc. and Sr. Vice President for Starmount Company in Greensboro explained to the Peacemaker that the issue presents both advantages and disadvantages for both sides. According to Wilson, the issue is a complicated balancing act between the developer and the self interest of the community. “From a developers standpoint, it puts a burden on the developer to come up with some kind of agreement to make a project go forward,” he said.
On the other hand, he also explained how lifting the ban could strengthen the relationship between local developers and the community. “It would require the developer the get involved with the surrounding community and get involved with their concerns,” he said.
Wilson explained that in his opinion, the best time to lift the exemption would be in cases where the city is being presented with more opportunity for in-fill development. “I think it is very problematic that we don’t have the right to the protest petition on in-fill cases,” he said. In-fill development is defined as building on an empty lot within the city limits.
Marlene Sanford, president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, recently told the Peacemaker why she is against the idea of a citizens protest petition. As she explained, protest petitions are a bad idea because they infringe on the private property rights of developers and because they are outdated. “From our perspective, it’s really antiquated and should be repealed statewide,” she said. Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins, who is also a real estate developer, shared his opinion on the issue with the Peacemaker. “It’s not really the city’s issue, it’s a state issue,” he said. “I don’t see it as a silver bullet for neighborhood residents to stop contentious zoning cases.”
As the issue continues to draw support and criticism from both sides, Keith Brown has vowed to continue fighting to make his voice heard. “We’re trying to make something that is wrong a right,” he said.
Enclosed is the whole article :
Community group wants petition powers restored
by Benjamin Fair
Carolina Peacemaker
Originally
posted 6/6/2008
Unable to arm themselves with the power of petition, a group of Greensboro residents have taken aim and are ready to shoot down what they feel are efforts by local developers to keep their voices from being heard in local zoning cases. In 1971, legislation was passed that exempted the City of Greensboro from a statute that originally gave citizens the right to submit a protest petition in zoning cases, an act many community members today feel was unconstitutional and, according to one group of Greensboro residents, just the beginning of what they feel is an effort by the Greensboro City Council to keep their voices silent on the issue.
“The silence from the Greensboro city council is deafening,” said Keith Brown, a member of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens in Greensboro.According to Brown, Greensboro is the only city in the state to have banned protest petitions. As he explained, residents who support lifting the ban simply want the city of Greensboro to follow the rest of the state in allowing protest petitions to be presented. “Developers are getting away with carte blanche in this county,” he said.
By lifting the ban, disputed zoning cases could only be passed if they receive a 7-2 majority vote by members of the council. Currently, a vote is passed by a simple majority.
As Brown explained, lifting the ban on protest petitions would give residents of the community greater power in standing up to corporate developers. “This should never have been taken away,” he said. “This needs to be changed.”
Ronald Wilson, President of Starmount Residential, Inc. and Sr. Vice President for Starmount Company in Greensboro explained to the Peacemaker that the issue presents both advantages and disadvantages for both sides. According to Wilson, the issue is a complicated balancing act between the developer and the self interest of the community. “From a developers standpoint, it puts a burden on the developer to come up with some kind of agreement to make a project go forward,” he said.
On the other hand, he also explained how lifting the ban could strengthen the relationship between local developers and the community. “It would require the developer the get involved with the surrounding community and get involved with their concerns,” he said.
Wilson explained that in his opinion, the best time to lift the exemption would be in cases where the city is being presented with more opportunity for in-fill development. “I think it is very problematic that we don’t have the right to the protest petition on in-fill cases,” he said. In-fill development is defined as building on an empty lot within the city limits.
Marlene Sanford, president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, recently told the Peacemaker why she is against the idea of a citizens protest petition. As she explained, protest petitions are a bad idea because they infringe on the private property rights of developers and because they are outdated. “From our perspective, it’s really antiquated and should be repealed statewide,” she said. Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins, who is also a real estate developer, shared his opinion on the issue with the Peacemaker. “It’s not really the city’s issue, it’s a state issue,” he said. “I don’t see it as a silver bullet for neighborhood residents to stop contentious zoning cases.”
As the issue continues to draw support and criticism from both sides, Keith Brown has vowed to continue fighting to make his voice heard. “We’re trying to make something that is wrong a right,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
