The elm street and cornwallis rezoning case has been going on for a long long time and ed cone has a whole section titled elm and cornwallis CLICKHERE to see a history of this rezoning case. At tonight' Greensboro City Council meeting 2-2-2010 first off we had 2 recusals in Mayor Pro Temp Nancy Vaughan because her husband represented the neighborhood in opposition to this case . We also had Greensboro City Council member Robbie Perkins also recuse himself because he has a 12% stake in this development with John Stratton the developer.
The Protest Petition came up plenty in this rezoning case and once i try my hand at youtube will get some video to show . The vote on this rezoning passed 6-1 with TDB Small voting against.
This case had plenty of issues but it is great to see the Protest Petition be a part of the process good or not in the neighborhoods favor. It is a new day for rezoning in Greensboro and the developers need to start listening to the neighborhood because in the past they have had the votes without much conditions put on properties . Now we will see more back and forth between the different sides in the case and hopefully a better resolution.
Now on to the next protest petition case in the newman machinery against the college hill area of greensboro. That is going to be a tough case as well with a dump load of economic impact involved compared to this small elm street rezoning.
Jan 9, 2010
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.
Jan 4, 2010
Protest Petition Group Wins an Award
The Inside Scoop of the Greensboro News & Record CLICKHERE has their end of year awards. This site and plenty of citizens all over Greensboro and High Point will be happy to take this award and know that this lost cause should have never been taken away from the citizens of Greensboro to begin with. Below is what was said in the inside scoop.
The Lost Cause Cup
WINNERS: Supporters of the protest petition, including local blogger and gadfly Keith Brown. They battled the foot-dragging of City Council and muscle of the real estate community to get Greensboro residents a powerful tool to fight unwanted development.
Nov 18, 2009
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.
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.
Sep 7, 2009
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.
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.
Jul 9, 2009
Rhino Times Has An Epiphany on Protest Petitions in Greensboro
The Rhino Times has a new article out this week by John Hammer called "City Staff Wants To Control Your Home", click on the link above. John Hammer writes this,"The City of Greensboro now has a program called the neighborhood conservation overlay (NCO) district, designed to force an eclectic, older neighborhood – like what they are calling "Greater Kirkwood" – into the mold of a new, cookie-cutter housing development with a homeowners' association".
Let's do a little history lesson on Rhino Times and Protest Petition for Greensboro, here is a post back on May 3, 2008 when the state legislator of this state were getting ready to go back into short session here is that post CLICKHERE and here is a quote from the first paragraph,"The reason I post this e mail is because I have e mailed the Rhino Times 3 times with no correspondence , while I also went to their web site and did a letter to the editor about Protest Petitions to no avail. Maybe this might help with a correspondence."
Then finally on July 17, 2008 after the short session of the state legislature was over and plenty of anonymous letters to the editors in between this time at the Rhino they finally printed the letter to the editor about restoring Protest Petitions to Greensboro. It was amazing to have to fight so hard to get a letter to the editor printed in the Rhino but when your whole middle section of the Rhino is real estate industry or TREBIC CARTEL as they have been nicknamed as a parody to their fight to deny the citizens of Greensboro the right to Protest Petitions.Then we see in this new article that John Hammer had a epiphany for the use of Protest Petitions in Greensboro because in the past John Hammer never wanted to talk about this issue that was resonating all over the City of Greensboro.
The Rhino Times article talks about the Kirkwood area of Greensboro which is off of lawndale and cornwallis drive near battleground avenue.John Hammer talks in length about the neighborhood conservation overlay but at the end of the article he had this to say.
"One final note, the push for an NCO in Greater Kirkwood seems to be a result of a failed plan to build a Walgreens at the intersection of Cornwallis and Lawndale drives. Since that attempt was made, the city has passed a protest petition amendment that gives neighborhoods much more power in controlling development.
The protest petition was passed by the North Carolina General Assembly, and went into effect in Greensboro, this year. It gives nearby property owners a tremendous amount of power to have a voice in rezoning requests. If a protest petition is signed by 20 percent of the property owners affected by a rezoning, or 5 percent of the property owners within 100 feet of the boundaries of the property in question, the rezoning comes to the City Council. Then the rezoning has to pass by a 7-to-2 majority. Passing a contested rezoning by a 7-to-2 majority on the City Council is extremely rare, which means the developer is going to make every attempt to get the support of the neighborhood before moving forward.
The way to keep unwanted development from Lawndale and Cornwallis is with protest petitions, not by putting another layer of regulations on the neighborhood."
It is nice to see John Hammer come around on this issue because it was very hard at the beginning to convince the good professor in David Wharton from a blog called A Little Urbanity CLICKHERE on this issue but he was a great advocate at the end and now John Hammer can see the light as well in Protest Petitions for Greensboro
Shared via AddThis
Jun 15, 2009
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.
Jun 3, 2009
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.
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.
May 9, 2009
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.
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.
May 5, 2009
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.
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.
Apr 30, 2009
Greensboro City Council Agenda for May 5th Add Protest Petition To The Agenda Round #2
The Greensboro City Council has plenty on the agenda for May 5th and Amanda Lehmert from the Greensboro News & Record reports tonight that the Lindley Park Neighborhood has filed a Protest Petition on a zoning case at the corner of Spring Garden Street and Elam Avenue, CLICKHERE . To see this zoning case click on the title above or CLICKHERE then proceed to May 5, 2009. Below is what is on the agenda with 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)
This will be the second time that Protest Petitions has been used since it was brought back to the City of Greensboro in over 37 years. The first case was withdrawn by the developer, CLICKHERE for that post. At the end of the post it was noted that Lindley Park Neighborhood Association was none too happy with the zoning case off of Spring Garden Street.
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)
This will be the second time that Protest Petitions has been used since it was brought back to the City of Greensboro in over 37 years. The first case was withdrawn by the developer, CLICKHERE for that post. At the end of the post it was noted that Lindley Park Neighborhood Association was none too happy with the zoning case off of Spring Garden Street.
Apr 21, 2009
Protest Petition Was Used and Developer Has Withdrew The Case
At the Greensboro City Council meeting on April 21, 2009 the first Protest Petition case was in front of the council for the first time in over 37 years.Here is the case;
10. Ordinance rezoning from RS-12 (Residential Single-Family to CD-RM-12
(Conditional District-Residential Multifamily) for uses limited to 56 multifamily units
for property located on 911, 913 and 917 Pilgrims Church Road and 911 Near
Pilgrims Church Road. (roll call vote) (Attachment #10 (PL(Z) 09-06) to Council
members)
Hold your horses because the developer has withdrawn the case.
To give you a little history of this case it was denied from the zoning commission on a 9-0 vote with also a denial from the planning department. Adding these two denials and also the presentation was weak it was a surprise to see them actually bring this up in front of the Greensboro City Council. Then the surrounding property owners filed their Protest Petitions last week. This case really didn't need to use a Protest Petition because it should have never gotten in front of council at all. But to see it used for the first time was great to see.
The one zoning case that will probably take on a higher caliber will be the case off of Spring Garden Strteet and Elam Avenue . The Lindley Park Neighborhood Association is none too happy with this development and probably will use the Protest Petition against this case that will be in front of council in future. Will keep you informed on anymore cases that use Protest Petitions in the process.
You can also read the story at the Greensboro News & Record CLICKHERE or click on the title above.
10. Ordinance rezoning from RS-12 (Residential Single-Family to CD-RM-12
(Conditional District-Residential Multifamily) for uses limited to 56 multifamily units
for property located on 911, 913 and 917 Pilgrims Church Road and 911 Near
Pilgrims Church Road. (roll call vote) (Attachment #10 (PL(Z) 09-06) to Council
members)
Hold your horses because the developer has withdrawn the case.
To give you a little history of this case it was denied from the zoning commission on a 9-0 vote with also a denial from the planning department. Adding these two denials and also the presentation was weak it was a surprise to see them actually bring this up in front of the Greensboro City Council. Then the surrounding property owners filed their Protest Petitions last week. This case really didn't need to use a Protest Petition because it should have never gotten in front of council at all. But to see it used for the first time was great to see.
The one zoning case that will probably take on a higher caliber will be the case off of Spring Garden Strteet and Elam Avenue . The Lindley Park Neighborhood Association is none too happy with this development and probably will use the Protest Petition against this case that will be in front of council in future. Will keep you informed on anymore cases that use Protest Petitions in the process.
You can also read the story at the Greensboro News & Record CLICKHERE or click on the title above.
Apr 16, 2009
City's First Protest Petition Filed Since 1971 Ban by Amanda Lehmert N&R
Amanda Lehmert from the Greensboro News & Record is reporting today that the first Protest Petition and definitely won't be the last has been filed with the Greensboro Planning Department. Planning Director Dick Hails hinted about this at the zoning commission meeting this past monday. If you want to see the article CLICKHERE or click on the title above.
While seeing the zoning cases online from monday , you might just see a protest petition used on this case as well.We will see if the Lindley Park Neighborhood wants to file a Protest Petition. Below is the case;
Z-09-04-003 Northwest corner of Spring Garden Street and South Elam Avenue - An
ordinance rezoning from CD-RM-26 (Conditional District-Residential-Multi Family)
and RM-18 (Residential-Multi Family) to CD-PDI (Conditional District-Planned Unit
Development-Infill) with the following conditions:
1) The maximum height of buildings shall be 3 above ground stories
2) The maximum number of multi-family units shall be 44
3) The maximum amount of non-residential space shall not exceed 10,800
square feet
- for a portion of the property located at the northwest corner of
Spring Garden Street and south Elam Avenue (1.82 Acres)
- for Derek Allen (Sheet 22)
If you want to see the video of the zoning commission CLICKHERE
While seeing the zoning cases online from monday , you might just see a protest petition used on this case as well.We will see if the Lindley Park Neighborhood wants to file a Protest Petition. Below is the case;
Z-09-04-003 Northwest corner of Spring Garden Street and South Elam Avenue - An
ordinance rezoning from CD-RM-26 (Conditional District-Residential-Multi Family)
and RM-18 (Residential-Multi Family) to CD-PDI (Conditional District-Planned Unit
Development-Infill) with the following conditions:
1) The maximum height of buildings shall be 3 above ground stories
2) The maximum number of multi-family units shall be 44
3) The maximum amount of non-residential space shall not exceed 10,800
square feet
- for a portion of the property located at the northwest corner of
Spring Garden Street and south Elam Avenue (1.82 Acres)
- for Derek Allen (Sheet 22)
If you want to see the video of the zoning commission CLICKHERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
