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 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 .

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.

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 .

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.
 
 
 

Protest Petition Was Not Needed But Used at Greensboro City Council Meeting 3-16-2010

Ordinance rezoning classification from RS-9 (Residential – Single Family) to CD-GO-M (Conditional District – General Office – Moderate Intensity) for property located at 2404 Liberty Road, generally described as the west side of Liberty Road, east of J.M. Hunt, Jr. Expressway and south of Alamance Church Road. A VALID PROTEST PETITION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. (Council District: 1) (roll call vote) (Attachment #30 (PL(Z)10-02) to Councilmembers) (THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 16TH MEETING OF COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER ADVERTISING)

At the Greensboro City Council meeting on 3-16-2010 there was a valid protest petition on the above agenda item. The Greensboro City Council denied the rezoning on a 9-0 vote , so in reality the neighborhood really didn't need the protest petition but good to have it a part of the arsenal.

There was one aspect of this rezoning case with a valid protest petition that needs to be addressed in that the Greensboro City Council might want to address the denial process of voting in regards to the protest petition. There was some confusion at the meeting when Councilwomen Small made a motion to deny this rezoning case. In denying the rezoning case that meant you were voting in favor of denial so plenty coulcilmembers were wanting to make sure how they voted on a denial. It is a tough issue to vote in favor of a denial when they might should be voting in favor of this rezoning case and if you don't get the 7 votes than it is denied. Now it looks like if someone votes to deny than they will have to turn the petition in reverse and the ones in favor will be voting as a no vote.

If you can follow what i just said please do but it is crazy how they did the vote tonight.

I looks like the neighborhood made a real good case for not rezoning this property and the protest petition was used.

Greensboro City Council Member Zack Matheny and Just How Does The Local Developers Feel about Protest Petition?

The above video is from the Greensboro City Council meeting on February 2, 2010 where there was a rezoning case off of elm street and cornwallis in Greensboro with the abutting neighbors filed a protest petition on this case. Let's take a  look at a little history on just how they got to this point in a post on this site titled "Greensboro City Counciul Member Zack Matheny has a Golfing Buddy,Campaign Donor and Rezoning Case with Protest Petition" CLICKHERE .

 As seen from the above video it seems like the local developers are none too happy with the new law for the citizens of Greensboro. As the councilman stated the local developers are "frustrated" with the Protest Petition. How do the citizens of Greensboro feel for the past 30 years? The local developers are frustrated but the citizens of Greensboro have been getting the shaft in the zoning process for a long time. It is time for the developers to actually talk with the neighborhoods and put plenty of conditions on these properties like what you saw in this elm street case even though it passed with a protest petition filed.

We need to remind everyone in Greensboro that the local special interest group Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition "TREBIC" , fought to have your rights as a citizen of this state taken away from denying this state law from you. There was a coalition of folks all over this area who worked their butt off for you to have this right back some 30 years later. As you can see from your local councilman the developers are frustrated because of this bill and what you heard tonight then it was all worth it.

Enjoy having protest petition as a part of the zoning process and in this case you win some and you lose some but as you can see this was a far cry from what they wanted at the beginning of this process granted single family residential was the ultimate goal but there are a lot of conditions on this property you wouldn't had if there was not a protest petition as a part of the process

Rhino Times On Greensboro City Council and The Power of Protest Petitions

The Rhino Times has a article out in this week's edition with a headline, "Council Doesn't Like New Seats", CLICKHERE . In this article he talks about the ramifications of this new law for the citizens of Greensboro. Here is a part of the article talking about Protest Petition for Greensboro.

"One thing to watch in this new seating arrangement will be how Bellamy-Small votes on rezoning requests. Traditionally she has voted against them, particularly if they were in east Greensboro. Perkins, who is in the commercial real estate profession, votes for almost all projects that can muster enough votes to be approved, and he votes for quite a few that fail. If Perkins votes against a rezoning request then generally everyone votes against it.

But with the new protest petition this whole issue of rezoning has shifted. Before, a developer only had to be able to convince five councilmembers it was a good project. Now, if a protest petition is filed, for the project to be approved a supermajority of the City Council must vote in favor of it. So the developer would have to convince seven out of nine. Or since Vaughan and Perkins appear to be abstaining from the controversial rezoning requests, six out of seven votes would be needed to pass a rezoning request.

Perkins, being in the real estate business, has to abstain a lot. And Vaughan's husband, state Sen. Don Vaughan, as an attorney is representing a good number of neighborhoods who are opposing rezoning requests. It's a pretty sweet deal for Nancy Vaughan because she will not have to take a public stand on many controversial rezoning requests where councilmembers are often caught between making a neighborhood mad and doing what they think is best for the city."

It will be interesting to see how citizens all over this city use the Protest Petition. Some have waited till last minute to file theirs like the group off of elm and cornwallis the first time it came up in front of council. But with a slick move by Councilman Zack Matheny he changed his vote from yes to no after the meeting and has the opportunity to bring up the denied zoning case again. Now this new case had another protest petition added to the mix as well as the one that was used the first go around. 

Now we also have a controversial case off of spring garden street where the neighborhood association filed their Protest Petition well before the case was even heard at the zoning commission. The Protest Petition can only be used in front of council. This was their perogative to file way early in the process but in general it is to your benefit to wait and see if the conditions put on the property are to your liking to even file the petition.

We will see what happens in the future but it is great to see this law back on the books in Greensboro and being a part of the zoning process.

 

Greensboro City Council Member Zack Matheny Has A Golfing Buddy,Campaign Donor and Rezoning Case with Protest Petition

Greensboro City Council member Zack Matheny had a lot to say about the controversial rezoning case for properties at the corner of elm street and cornwallis that was brought in front of the council on 11-17-2009. If you would like to see the video CLICKHERE then proceed to the 2:42 mark of video and the part where Zack Matheny spoke like the energizer bunny is around the 3:59 mark on video.

John Stratton was presenting a rezoning case in front of the Greensboro City Council.Campaign donations for this past election shows that John Stratton gave Zack Matheny on 8-24-2009 $100.00 with a election sum to date total of $350.00 , it was also interesting to see John Stratton on the 35 day report for Zack Matheny campaign forms as self employed and business owner maybe you could add developer to your resume when it is in regards to job title or profession or just let treasurer Robert Kidwell know this information for the future .Maybe just maybe in the future we can get rid of these campaign donors who know full well they have business in front of council and will not be able to give for a period of time before or after a election.

When the councilman Zack Matheny was speaking about the area of Greensboro where he lives, he mentioned the area off of elm street called Fountain Manor and said " if voted on today fountain manor wouldn't be passed by any council." Nice try to say that statement about fountain manor , that was about as ridiculous as Betty Smith from the Greater Greensboro Realtors Association say that if Protest Petition had been in play then Lake Jeanette would not have been built, too much hearsay for me.

Let's also take what Zack Matheny had to say in regards to this rezoning case off of elm and cornwallis. "I have never seen a developer work harder. If you ask Mr. Stratton he would probably tell you he and i don't agree on everything. I am a much better golfer than he is for one thing". It looks like Zack Matheny has a golfing buddy in zoning presenter John Stratton. What is your relationship with Mr. Stratton? Was he one of your anonymous investors off of Highway 68 which you will not disclose ?Here is a link to that post, CLICKHERE . How much agreeing and disagreeing goes on between Zack Matheny and John Stratton?

Now let's end with what Greensboro City Council member Zack Matheny had to say at the end of this rezoning case off of elm and cornwallis.

"It surprised me the comment was made setting the stage what this would do for the future of Greensboro. We can let everybody come in like developers and they will control the whole city. I don't think that is correct, neighborhoods have a voice , if you haven't seen it tonight you will in future especially when it pertains to the protest petition."

As you can see from the above statement neighborhoods all over Greensboro are going to finally have their say in regards to zoning cases.This state law should have never been taken away from the citizens of Greensboro. It looks like having Protest Petition back as state law in Greensboro will level the playing field because for way too long we have known how this outcome has been in regards to developers in town because Zack Matheny just said so. Thanks for letting us all know what the future brings for neighborhoods all over Greensboro and hopefully there will be more cases where Protest Petition is used .

First Protest Petition in Front of Greensboro City Council What Happened?

At the Greensboro City Council meeting on 11-17-2009 items #11 and #12 came in front of council here is the items below

11. Ordinance amending Chapter 30, Section 30-1-10, Relation to the Comprehensive Plan, to consider an amendment to the Connections 2025 Comprehensive Plan Generalized Future Land Use Map (Figure 4-2) from the Low Residential and Mixed Use Commercial land use classifications to the Moderate Residential land use classification for property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of W. Cornwallis Road and N. Elm Street. (Attachment #11 (CP-09-02) to Councilmembers) (roll call vote) (THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 10TH MEETING OF COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER ADVERTISING)

12. 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. (Attachment #12 (PL(Z)09-14) to Councilmembers) (roll call vote) (THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 10TH MEETING OF COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER ADVERTISING) (A VALID PROTEST PETITION WAS RECEIVED BY THE CLERK AND DELIVERED TO PLANNING ON 11.11.09 AT 11:48 A.M.)

As you can see from above there was a valid protest petition received by the city clerk. This is the first time since the bill was passed earlier this year for this to happen. Here is the article by Amanda Lehmert on this rezonong case with a title " Council fails to pass controversial rezoning" CLICKHERE

In the article this is what was said"The motion to approve the rezoning failed 4 to 3, with Mayor Yvonne Johnson, Councilwoman Wells, and Councilwoman T. Dianne Bellamy-Small voting no.
Councilman Robbie Perkins abstained and Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw was absent. Councilman Matheny later changed his vote to no – meaning he will be able to ask that the council reconsider the decision at a future council meeting.

The protest petition is now a part of the landscape of future zoning cases in Greensboro.This state law should have never been taken away from the citizens of Greensboro in the first place, hopefully in future will see more zoning cases with a valid protest petition attached to the case. But in the future there might be a case with a valid protest petition and still pass muster with the council and pass but at least they had the right to use a protest petition in the zoning process.

At Large Greensboro City Council Candidate Nancy Vaughan on Protest Petition

The Greensboro News & Record has a section of their online site titled "Meet the candidates". In the online edition they interviewed At Large Greensboro City Council candidate Nancy Vaughan CLICKHERE.


In the article here is what Nancy Vaughan had to say:


"She got drawn into politics again recently, when she began to follow the fight to get protest petition back to Greensboro. Advocates pushed City Council members for more than a year before they took up the debate.
“I was frustrated that council sat on it,” she said, during a recent interview over a cup of hot tea at the Green Bean."


To say the current batch of Greensboro City Council members sat on this issue was an understatement. To also see that the current Greensboro City Council want to compromise on State Law with the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition , known around these parts in parody as the TREBIC CARTEL was also sad to see.It was also hard to understand why Betty Smith from the Greater Greensboro Realtors Assosciation would fight to deny Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro.


To all the citizens of Greensboro who plan on voting in the upcoming municipal election, remember how the current Greensboro City Council handled this issue. Goldie Wells was the only council member who fought tooth and nail to bring this back to the citizens of Greensboro and she is not running for reelection this year. It was Goldie Wells who was the only Greensboro City Council member who came and heard David Owens from the UNC School of Government speak in regards to Protest Petitions in the state of North Carolina before the council voted for the legislative agenda on January 21, 2009.


Every single current council member from Mayor Johnson to Robbie Perkins to Zack Matheny to Trudy Wade to Mary Rakestraw to T Dianne Bellamy Small to Sandra Anderson Groat will say that they voted yes on bringing back Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro. But ask this question, what did you do before the vote to help the citizens of Greensboro have the same rights as every other citizen who lives in a municipality have? Not much at all.


It will be interesting to see if any candidate will also step forward to talk about how this current Greensboro City Council for the longest time denied this right to the citizens of Greensboro and to see them cow tow for a compromise with TREBIC on state law was laughable. But as you saw our State Legislators with 100% support from Pricey Harrison from the beginning introduce a bill as soon as the long session started and to also witness how fast it became law was great to see.

Protest Petitions is now state law for every single municipality in this state. If this issue resonated with any voters in Greensboro then i hope you can see what your current council did not do for the longest time on this issue and vote accordingly. Get someone in office who will fight for the citizens.

Protest Petition for Greensboro Will Now Be Official on the City of Greensboro Code of Ordinances

The City of Greensboro at the June 16, 2009 meeting will officially have Protest Petitions as part of the Code of Ordinances. This is great news for the citizens of Greensboro to see this happen and we will see if any of the council members want to speak out in regards to this ordinance.Here is a link to the agenda . If you want to see the agenda CLICKHERE , then click on June 16, 2009. You can also see the council meeting tonight as well at this location.

Add Another Developer Who Withdrew The Zoning Case With A Protest Petition Filed in Greensboro

Development plan abandoned: Typar Development has withdrawn its request to rezone property at South Elam Avenue and Spring Garden Road. The request and plans to construct a mixed-use building met with opposition — and a protest petition — from area residents. This was reported by Amanda Lehmert of the Greensboro News and Record CLICKHERE

below is the two cases that were withdrawn from the Greensboro City Council meeting on June 2, 2009

8. Resolution authorizing amendment to future land use map of the Lindley Park Neighborhood Plan. (THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 5, 2009
MEETING OF COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER ADVERTISING

9. Ordinance rezoning from CD-RM-26 (Conditional District-Residential-Multifamily)
and RM-18 (Residential-Multifamily) to CD-PDI (Conditional District-Planning Unit
Development Infill) for property located at the northwest corner of Spring Garden
Street and South Elam Avenue. (THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 5,
2009 MEETING OF COUNCIL WITHOUT FURTHER ADVERTISING – VALID
PROTEST PETITION HAS BEEN FILED WHICH WILL REQUIRE A
THREE-QUARTER, MAJORITY VOTE OF THOSE MEMBERS PRESENT
AND VOTING) (roll call vote) (Attachment # 9 (PL(Z) 09-08) to Council members)

The first filed Protest Petition for Greensboro was done on April 21, 2009 with this post on the issue, CLICKHERE and now we have another difficult case for the folks in the Lindley Park Neighborhood who filed a Protest Petition in this new case that got withdrawn. It is nice to see the citizens of Greensboro use this state law which was denied to them for a very long time.

It would be nice to see a case where a protest petition was valid and not withdrawn but the last 2 zoning cases with a valid Protest Petition have both been withdrawn.

Preserving the Written Minutes of The Meeting Where Protest Petition's Were Put on Legislative Agenda on 1-23-09

BELOW THE FOLD IS THE OFFICIAL MINUTES FROM THE January 23, 2009
Greensboro City Council meeting where Protest Petitions for the citizens of Greensboro was put on Legislative agenda for the State Legislators. It was a impressive show of force to see the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad, League of Women Voters of the Piedmont Triad, and Greensboro Neighborhood Congress come together to make this happen for the citizens of Greensboro. It was also a real rude awakening to see the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC), Greater Greensboro Realtors Association,Greensboro Homebuilders Association, Triad Apartment Association, National Association of Industrial & Office Properties try to deny the citizens of Greensboro the right to use Protest Petition in the zoning process. This post is here to record the history of Protest Petitions for Greensboro and what happened on January 23, 2009.

________________________________________________________
Mayor Johnson indicated that Numbers 11-20 would be skipped to address Number (21) of Item #28, theProtest Petition segment of the 2009 Legislative Agenda. Mayor Johnson introduced and read into the record that
the City will seek legislation to repeal a local act passed in 1971 exempting the City from state law concerning petitions of protest on zoning matters.



Repeal of the law will subject the City to the provisions of 160A-385, which
will require rezonings to pass by a three-quarter vote of Council, rather than a majority vote, when a proper protest petition is submitted. Mayor Johnson indicated that speakers would have twenty minutes for and against the
category and conversely, five minutes of rebuttal.


Mayor Johnson asked if anyone wished to speak in support of Number (21) of Item #28, the 2009Legislative Agenda:


Jack Masarie, 3 Garden Lake Circle, spoke in favor of the protest petition; the importance of providing
clear procedural and representation items for property owners in close proximity to development; and the
importance of representation, communication and procedure.


Art Davis, 910 Ross Avenue, representing the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, indicated that theprotest petition process was essential to effective communication for residents involved in controversial rezonings;
encouraged reinstatement of the protest petition to ensure neighborhood development; and supported utilizing theprotest petition as a participation tool for residents.


Kathleen Sullivan, 5302 Lange Trail, representing the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, requested Council reinstate the protest petition tool which would act to check-and-balance development; and cited the example
of the Twin Oaks Golf Course infill development project.

Sharon Hightower, 6 Bells Court, spoke in support of the protest petition process because it emphasizedinclusion within the development process, allowed community input into the development process, and that stated
that Greensboro’s regulations should reflect protest petition regulations of other municipalities.


David Wharton, 667 Percy Street, spoke in support of the protest petition with a PowerPoint presentation,concern regarding the proportion of representation of real estate members on city boards; legal representation of
real estate industry; funding of industry professionals by regional and national firms; lobbyists intervention into landuse public policy; and to correct the imbalance between political and regulatory interests. (A copy of the
PowerPoint presentation is filed as #R-2 which is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of these
minutes.)


Willie Taylor, 808 Sea Carriage Crossing Lane, representing the League of Women Voters, spoke torestore the protest petition in the spirit of collaboration and trust between developers and residents.


Colin Kelly, 3614 Gainsboro Drive, spoke in favor of the protest petition process and the need for itsreinstatement.


Susan Taaffe, 2511 Wright Avenue, spoke in favor of the protest petition and requested audience membersto stand in support thereof.


Donna D. Newton, 1 Gwyn Lane, representing the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress, spoke to the rightof the protest petition to the citizens, emphasized the rights of transparency and equity; and mentioned that the right
had been removed by the former Council in 1971 without any public discourse.


Mayor Johnson then asked if anyone desired to speak in opposition to Number (21) of the 2009 LegislativeAgenda:


Algenon Cash, 405 Battleground Avenue, spoke in opposition of the protest petition; stated that duringeconomic downturns, the protest petition would be counter-productive relevant to inefficient regulation; that the
current rezoning process was not broken and did not require fixing; that passing a protest petition regulation would weaken private property rights by allowing as few as one person to impact majority rule; and that strengthening
regulations would deter economic growth.


Jeff Yetter, 905 Cornwallis Drive, spoke in opposition to the protest petition stating that infill developmentwould be the focus of protest petitions; North Carolina was on a national target list for development; requested
Council to not deter smart growth and infill development; and expressed his concerns regarding the impact of theprotest petition regulation on job creation.


Steve Batts, 4804 Thacker Dairy Road, representing the Greensboro Homebuilders Association, spoke inopposition to the protest petition.


Betty A. Smith, 3907 North Elm Street, representing the Greensboro Regional Realtors Association, spokein opposition to the protest petition; stated that the current rezoning process was effective; cited the rezoning case of the Lake Jeanette area; expressed her concerns for private property rights; and stated that realtor attendance was low due to the council meeting conflicting with the North Carolina Association of Realtors’ quarterly meeting.


Ron Guerra, 115 South Westgate Drive, representing TREBIC, spoke in opposition to the protest petition; stated the real estate industry was already heavily regulated; indicated that neighbors meetings with developers was
an essential part of the TREBIC credo; and stated that the threshold percentages are too high.


Marlene Sanford, 115 South Westgate Drive, representing TREBIC, the Triad Apartment Association, the Greensboro Landlord’s Association, spoke to the fairness of the protest petition whereby rezoning opponents have
an unfair advantage over the applicant in lieu of the applicant being considered guilty until proven innocent; protest petition represents a tyranny of the minority; public policy should not be conducted based on the fact that everyone
else is doing it; and spoke her opposition to the statistics presented regarding the Boards and Commissions’ members backgrounds.


Mayor Johnson called for speakers in rebuttal, supporting Number (21) of the Legislative Agenda:


David Wharton, 667 Percy Street, spoke to the role of communication and cooperation between government, residents and developers; stated that the current economy is affecting homeowners’ equity; denied that one person could prevent a rezoning; opposed evidence that the protest petition would create sprawl by stating Greensboro currently has sprawl; and supported the statistics presented in his PowerPoint presentation.


Mary Burritt, 2016 Fleming Road, spoke in support of the protest petition and emphasized constituent support and expressed her apprehensions concerning the rezoning process.


Mayor Johnson responded that Council was attempting to find a compromise between the real estate industry and property owners.


Mayor Johnson then called for speakers in rebuttal, opposing Number (21) of the Legislative Agenda:


Ron Guerra, 115 South Westgate Drive, spoke to the negative perception of negotiations relevant to development projects; and the lack of statistics indicating the number of rejected projects based on protest petitions;
and stated his opposition to the five percent threshold.


Betty A Smith, 3907 North Elm Street, reiterated her opposition to reinstating the protest petition.


Marlene Sanford, 115 South Westgate Drive, spoke to sprawl, density and geography; and expressed willingness to work with the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress and the League of Women Voters to discuss
different standards for the protest petition in the case that Council voted for its reinstatement.


Councilmember Matheny moved to close the public hearing; Councilmember Wade seconded the motion which was adopted by voice vote of Council.


Council discussion mentioned the need for affordable housing in Greensboro for first-time homebuyers; expressed the concern of the protest petition’s impact on community relations; encouraged favorable methods of urban planning with residents, staff and developers; the necessity of a communication tool between residents and government; questioned the appropriateness of the five-percent threshold; expressed concerns about infill development, redevelopment and residential deterioration along major corridors; and the need to compromise
between real estate and residential interests.


Attorney Wood detailed the protest petition process consisting of the developer meeting with protesters to discuss conditions; subsequently, the project could proceed or not; finally the project would be presented to Council for voting.


Donna D. Newton stated that the Neighborhood Congress would be willing to discuss amending the protest petition with the real estate community after the protest petition right had been reinstated in Raleigh. Council discussion emphasized the lack of public records of discourse regarding the exemption that was adopted by the City Council in 1971.


Councilmember Wells indicated that the protest petition was a state law that Greensboro citizens should be allowed the basic right along with rest of the populous; and that the threshold percentages could be amended by the
Legislature.


Mayor Johnson commented that if Number (21) passes, ask that the State Legislature revisit the whole area of protest petition, and the percentages, and the standards, because the rezoning criteria and process has changed;
you could add that if you pass this as a request of the Legislature.

Councilmember Bellamy-Small moved that we send this forward with the Mayor’s comment added to it, leaving it for us to tweak the percentages and the number of votes whatever, but giving us some flexibility; so you reinstate it but give us still the opportunity to work with folks who put it to make it fit for Greensboro. Attorney Wood proceeded to summarize Council’s intentions. Councilmember Barber interjected with an option to ask the Legislature to allow Greensboro to establish a local ordinance. Councilmember Wells made a motion to send it, Number (21), so that it be repealed so that the citizens
would have their right. Councilmember Barber’s friendly amendment that supplemental language subsequent to the protest petition being reinstated that we take your (TREBIC, Neighborhood Congress, League of Women Voters)
collective proposal on percentages and detail to the Legislature, as well. Attorney Wood clarified that if Council voted tonight to include this in the Legislative Agenda Packet, it would go to Raleigh then we could send a related
bill within the timeframe for local bills to the Legislative Study Commission to be considered. Councilmember Barber summarized that the expectation is that you mail it by February 3rd, and that the protest petition goes and the
recommendation goes at the same time. Mayor Johnson added that a local bill to be structured and be consistent to their agreement. Councilmember Wells accepted the friendly amendment and moved Number (21) remain on the
Legislative Agenda. Councilmember Bellamy-Small seconded the motion which was approved on the following roll-call vote: Ayes: Barber, Bellamy-Small, Groat, Johnson, Matheny, Perkins, Rakestraw, Wells and Wade.
Noes: None.

Nancy Vaughan Was None Too Happy With The Waffling of Greensboro City Council on Protest PEtition

My good friend Erik Huey over at his own blog called Greensboro Metro CLICKHERE had a post titled "City Council Candidate Nancy Vaughan: Someone To Watch"

The idea bringing back Protest Petition to the citizens of Greensboro started well back in February of 2008 and to see the inaction of the whole Greensboro City Council in regards to this issue was pathetic to experience.

Now we see that Nancy Barakat Vaughan was none too pleased with the Greensboro City Council as well. Here is what she said over at the Greensboro Metro blog,

"In an interview with GSOMetro, Vaughan said for these reasons and more (along with the blessing of her family), she had to begin prepping to get back in. She said the waffling on "protest petitions" were the catalyst of her itching to run again."

To hear a candidate say that the Greensboro City Council was waffling on bringing back Protest Petitions for the citizens was a great to hear.

Everybody and their mother knew that if this issue dragged on in to the fall without a bill getting passed at the state level that it would have been a real wedge issue for the incumbents to say to their citizens why they are denying them the rights that every other citizen who lives in a municipality has.

There is more to the post on some of the issues Nancy Barakat Vaughan talked with Erik Huey about CLICKHERE and it was great to see a candidate talk about the issue of Protest PEtitions for the citizens of Greensboro.

First Protest Petition for Greensboro in 37 Years Has Been Continued

The first Protest Petition in the City of Greensboro in over 37 years has been continued till the next Greensboro City Council meeting for June 2, 2009. Items #11 and #12

11. Resolution authorizing amendment to future land use map of the Lindley Park
Neighborhood Plan. (roll call vote) (Attachment #11 (CP-09-01) to Council
members)

12. Ordinance rezoning from CD-RM-26 (Conditional District-Residential-
Multifamily) and RM-18 (Residential-Multifamily) to CD-PDI (Conditional
District-Planning Unit Development Infill) for property located at the northwest
corner of Spring Garden Street and South Elam Avenue. (roll call vote)
(Attachment #12 (PL(Z)09-08) to Council members)

Since the Protest Petition has been brought back to Greensboro we have seen a withdrawal of a case with Protest Petition and now we have seen a continuance of a zoning case with Protest Petition. It is amazing to comprehend that this denial of State law to the citizens of Greensboro for such a long period of time could have been used in plenty of other cases over the years.

There are informal and formal aspects of having Protest Petition as State Law and with the Lindley Park Neighborhood you have seen the informal part of Protest Petition with this continuance. Time will tell if they will still need to use the formal aspect of this law and have the Greensboro City Council vote on the matter.