The Greensboro City Council has put Protest Petitions for Greensboro under city requested local legislation, under agenda item for resolution approving 2009 Legislative Program and requesting support thereof by the Guilford County delegation to the General Assembly. If you want to see the agenda please click on the title above and proceed to page 243 of 248 or CLICKHERE then proceed to current agenda with attachments.
This is great news and not so great news because our coalition is wanting to postpone this item till January 20, 2009 so that we can speak to the Greensboro City Council members about how important this is to the citizens of Greensboro. When the Greensboro City Council had a briefing on November 11, 2008 one of the items was the legislative agenda for 2009. In that briefing there was not a mention of bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro. Let's proceed to Monday November 24, 2008 late in day we get word that Protest Petitions is on the agenda for the next Greensboro City Council meeting.
As we can see this news came right before the thanksgiving holidays with no time to prepare our case to the Greensboro City Council members. So we are wanting to delay this item till January 20, 2009. Our coalition has been in contact with a host of people on this issue and would like to present our case with full support of many people in Greensboro and it would not happen if we have to do this next Tuesday.
It is time for the people of Greensboro to make a statement to the Greensboro City Council members that you want Protest Petitions back in the zoning process, 37 years is long enough. Please contact your Greensboro City Council members which can be done by clicking on the item to the left hand side of this blog.
It would be beneficial to also e-mail, call or write you state representatives on this issue. You can reach the whole Guilford County delegation by going to the left hand side of this blog and click on each representative to let them know this.
"BRING BACK PROTEST PETITIONS TO GREENSBORO"
Have a HAPPY THANKSGIVING
Nov 26, 2008
Nov 14, 2008
Time to Bring Back Protest Petitions To Greensboro Round #2 Repost to Refresh Memory
The Coalition of Concerned Citizens Member Keith Brown wrote a Guest Column to the Greensboro News And Record on Thursday May 15, 2008, click here to comment.
Greensboro residents want rights on zoningBy Keith Brown
Thursday, May. 15, 2008 3:00 am
The N.C. General Assembly can create new law and destroy old law. Cities such as Greensboro are subject to those laws, unless state legislators allow an exception.
In 1971, local elected officials supported a bill under a cloud of politics to exempt Greensboro from N.C. General Statutes 160a-385 and 386, which created what formally is called a "protest petition." This exemption never should have been made in the first place and is bad public policy.
Protest petitions are used if a certain percentage of property owners most affected by a zoning change object to the rezoning. These residents may petition for a super-majority vote of at least 7-2 to approve the rezoning if the council has 9 members.
Protest petitions level the playing field for residents, especially when pro-development members of the City Council are making rezoning decisions.
Professor David Owens of the UNC School of Government says, "The provision in North Carolina zoning law for a protest petition is mandatory for cities." His use of the word "mandatory" demonstrates that Greensboro is not following a law every other city must follow. As stated before, the General Assembly can destroy old law, and this exemption is definitely old law.
To hear Gary Rogers from the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC) say that Greensboro, back in 1971, had the foresight to exempt itself from this statute is condescending to citizens here. No, Mr. Rogers, it was not foresight. It was an effort to take away a right of the citizens to use the power of petitions against unwanted development in established neighborhoods.
Those who oppose protest petitions in Greensboro say they would discourage in-fill development. They say the current exemption aids growth, and not having the exemption would hurt growth.Yet Raleigh and Charlotte have protest petitions, and both have grown faster than Greensboro since the exemption has been in effect.
Because I live in High Point, my neighborhood had the right to use a protest petition against a major developer not once, but twice, in a highly contested rezoning case off N.C. 68. I'm certain Greensboro citizens also would like to have this powerful tool as their voice against encroaching development.
Why not let the Guilford County legislative delegation push a bill to make the city of Greensboro comply with this state law? This would give Greensboro residents the same right as other North Carolina residents who live in cities.
Thirty-seven years is long enough. Let your state legislators know you would like to have protest petitions back in Greensboro.
I will leave you with a quote from a Greensboro resident who said it well: "It's time that citizens had a way to stop the business-as-usual crowd from developing our quality of life out of existence."
Keith Brown lives in High Point and is a member of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of The Triad.
Greensboro residents want rights on zoningBy Keith Brown
Thursday, May. 15, 2008 3:00 am
The N.C. General Assembly can create new law and destroy old law. Cities such as Greensboro are subject to those laws, unless state legislators allow an exception.
In 1971, local elected officials supported a bill under a cloud of politics to exempt Greensboro from N.C. General Statutes 160a-385 and 386, which created what formally is called a "protest petition." This exemption never should have been made in the first place and is bad public policy.
Protest petitions are used if a certain percentage of property owners most affected by a zoning change object to the rezoning. These residents may petition for a super-majority vote of at least 7-2 to approve the rezoning if the council has 9 members.
Protest petitions level the playing field for residents, especially when pro-development members of the City Council are making rezoning decisions.
Professor David Owens of the UNC School of Government says, "The provision in North Carolina zoning law for a protest petition is mandatory for cities." His use of the word "mandatory" demonstrates that Greensboro is not following a law every other city must follow. As stated before, the General Assembly can destroy old law, and this exemption is definitely old law.
To hear Gary Rogers from the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC) say that Greensboro, back in 1971, had the foresight to exempt itself from this statute is condescending to citizens here. No, Mr. Rogers, it was not foresight. It was an effort to take away a right of the citizens to use the power of petitions against unwanted development in established neighborhoods.
Those who oppose protest petitions in Greensboro say they would discourage in-fill development. They say the current exemption aids growth, and not having the exemption would hurt growth.Yet Raleigh and Charlotte have protest petitions, and both have grown faster than Greensboro since the exemption has been in effect.
Because I live in High Point, my neighborhood had the right to use a protest petition against a major developer not once, but twice, in a highly contested rezoning case off N.C. 68. I'm certain Greensboro citizens also would like to have this powerful tool as their voice against encroaching development.
Why not let the Guilford County legislative delegation push a bill to make the city of Greensboro comply with this state law? This would give Greensboro residents the same right as other North Carolina residents who live in cities.
Thirty-seven years is long enough. Let your state legislators know you would like to have protest petitions back in Greensboro.
I will leave you with a quote from a Greensboro resident who said it well: "It's time that citizens had a way to stop the business-as-usual crowd from developing our quality of life out of existence."
Keith Brown lives in High Point and is a member of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of The Triad.
Nov 10, 2008
Round #2 with Marlene Sanford and TREBIC Asking ? to NC Planners
It looks like Marlene Sanford President of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition AKA "TREBIC CARTEL" is trying to ask questions to the N.C. Planners. Here is what she posted on the list serve of the N.C. Planners.
2 Questions on Rezoning Protest Petitions:
1- Do any of you cities NOT have protest petitions?
2 For those of you who have them, if your “protester” criteria is different from “5% of owners within 100 feet” , what is it?
3 If you have an experienced opinion/example about the pros and cons and are willing to share it, please do.
Thanks!
Marlene Sanford
________________________________________________________
As you can see Marlene Sanford has already started trying to find answers from N.C. Planners all over this state.Let me help you out in answering these questions you have posted on the list serve.
Question #1 is NO , Greensboro is the only city that doesn't abide by this North Carolina General Statute and it is time for that to change in 2009
Question #2 is NO, This is a North Carolina General Statute nobody has their own version of Protest Petition but Greensboro who got exempted from this bill 37 years ago under a cloud of who knows what happened, and it is time for that to change in 2009.
Question #3 here is your experienced opinion, our Neighborhood in High Point had the right to use Protest Petitions in a major rezoning case and for the citizens of Greensboro to not have Protest Petitions is a total injustice to them.Go ask Blue Ridge Companies.
Let me give TREBIC a few pointers. If you want to take on this fight to deny the citizens of Greensboro this North Carolina General Statute go right ahead. We already know about your modus operandi with your mass e-mail to the State Legislators back in May 2008, CLICKHERE to see the annotated letter. Your efforts will be watched by many and reported by me. So in the end it should be in your best interest to let a bill get passed to let the citizens of Greensboro use Protest Petitions in zoning cases all over this great city and if you fight this bill than you will feel the repercussions for a very long time.Take your pick.
2 Questions on Rezoning Protest Petitions:
1- Do any of you cities NOT have protest petitions?
2 For those of you who have them, if your “protester” criteria is different from “5% of owners within 100 feet” , what is it?
3 If you have an experienced opinion/example about the pros and cons and are willing to share it, please do.
Thanks!
Marlene Sanford
________________________________________________________
As you can see Marlene Sanford has already started trying to find answers from N.C. Planners all over this state.Let me help you out in answering these questions you have posted on the list serve.
Question #1 is NO , Greensboro is the only city that doesn't abide by this North Carolina General Statute and it is time for that to change in 2009
Question #2 is NO, This is a North Carolina General Statute nobody has their own version of Protest Petition but Greensboro who got exempted from this bill 37 years ago under a cloud of who knows what happened, and it is time for that to change in 2009.
Question #3 here is your experienced opinion, our Neighborhood in High Point had the right to use Protest Petitions in a major rezoning case and for the citizens of Greensboro to not have Protest Petitions is a total injustice to them.Go ask Blue Ridge Companies.
Let me give TREBIC a few pointers. If you want to take on this fight to deny the citizens of Greensboro this North Carolina General Statute go right ahead. We already know about your modus operandi with your mass e-mail to the State Legislators back in May 2008, CLICKHERE to see the annotated letter. Your efforts will be watched by many and reported by me. So in the end it should be in your best interest to let a bill get passed to let the citizens of Greensboro use Protest Petitions in zoning cases all over this great city and if you fight this bill than you will feel the repercussions for a very long time.Take your pick.
Sep 29, 2008
Friends of New Garden Thanks Citizens for Help in Wedding Planner
Thanks to the extraordinary effort of many residents in the area, we have succeeded in stalling the event center development on New Garden Road. With the blizzard of letters and EMails to the City Council, we were able to convince a majority of them that community objections were so strong that the had to vote against the proposal.
Faced with the inevitabliity of defeat, the developer came before the City Council last Tuesday and withdraw the proposal. However, this is not necessarily the end of it. They can come back to the Zoning Commission for a Supplementary Use Permit (SUP) to build the event center. Should they do so, we will have to once again martial our resources and show our government that we don't want to have such a development in our neighborhood.
Please keep an eye on New Garden Road and report any signs of development or zoning actions at the event center site, or elsewhere between Brassfield and Jefferson (the rest of the road is, alas, lost). You can contact us at info@friendsofnewgarden.org, and check our website for updates at friendsofnewgarden.org.
Faced with the inevitabliity of defeat, the developer came before the City Council last Tuesday and withdraw the proposal. However, this is not necessarily the end of it. They can come back to the Zoning Commission for a Supplementary Use Permit (SUP) to build the event center. Should they do so, we will have to once again martial our resources and show our government that we don't want to have such a development in our neighborhood.
Please keep an eye on New Garden Road and report any signs of development or zoning actions at the event center site, or elsewhere between Brassfield and Jefferson (the rest of the road is, alas, lost). You can contact us at info@friendsofnewgarden.org, and check our website for updates at friendsofnewgarden.org.
Sep 16, 2008
Friends of New Garden Could in Future Need Protest Petition
On September 16, 2008 Derek Allen Attorney from Brooks Pierce Law Firm withdrew his rezoning case for property on 1807 and 1809 which was for a special event facility.
As reported before on this site CLICKHERE . There is a serious aspect of zoning cases that needs to be addressed for all of the citizens of Greensboro to know about. Every other city in this state abides by a North Carolina General Statute 160 a 385 and 386 which is called Protest Petitions. This blog is dedicated to informing the citizens of Greensboro on how they are getting screwed in zoning cases all over this city.
A great example was seeing the friends of new garden CLICKHERE fight this rezoning case. But I am sure that if you had the Protest Petition to use in this case as seen by how many neighbors were against this rezoning case . This case would have never been put on the docket to begin with.
It is time for neighborhoods all over Greensboro to get involved and e mail your Greensboro City Council to bring back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.
As reported before on this site CLICKHERE . There is a serious aspect of zoning cases that needs to be addressed for all of the citizens of Greensboro to know about. Every other city in this state abides by a North Carolina General Statute 160 a 385 and 386 which is called Protest Petitions. This blog is dedicated to informing the citizens of Greensboro on how they are getting screwed in zoning cases all over this city.
A great example was seeing the friends of new garden CLICKHERE fight this rezoning case. But I am sure that if you had the Protest Petition to use in this case as seen by how many neighbors were against this rezoning case . This case would have never been put on the docket to begin with.
It is time for neighborhoods all over Greensboro to get involved and e mail your Greensboro City Council to bring back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.
Sep 15, 2008
City of Greensboro Thanks Delegation for 2008 Session, Let's See If They Do The Same In 2009 with Protest Petitions
It looks like the City of Greensboro will pass a resolution on 9-16-08 to thank the Guilford County Delegation to the North Carolina State House for the 2008 Legislative Session. Click the title above and go to item #25. Here is what the resolution states,"To recognize and express appreciation to the Guilford County Legislative Delegation for it's role in the 2008 Legislative Agenda".
Here is the kicker that will play out for all to see once the 2009 session begins on this quote in the City of Greensboro's Resolution for 2008. "WHERERAS, the delegation is to be commended for it's assistance in helping the city achieve the City Council's goals in the interest of it's citizens.
In regards to bringing back Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro. Let's see if this statement above will ring true for the Greensboro City Council in 2009. Are they going to let the citizens have this North Carolina General Statute like every other city has the right to use. Or are they going to be on the side of the special interest which in this case is the TREBIC CARTEL.
In the next few months you will see the City of Greensboro start to work on their agenda and if bringing back Protest Petitions is not on that list of items for 2009, it will be a total injustice to the citizens of Greensboro for this not to happen.
I urge everyone to let your state and local politicians know that you want Protest Petitions back in Greensboro. There are a few races in the State House who need to know how you feel . Don Vaughan CLICKHERE and Joe Wilson CLICKHERE these 2 are going for N.C.Senate Seat 27. Also Maggie Jeffus CLICKHERE and Jim Rumley CLICKHERE are vying for House District 59.
It is also time to let your Greensboro City Council know that you want Protest Petitions back in the zoning process like every other city in this state. CLICKHERE to e-mail the whole Greensboro City Council.
Here is the kicker that will play out for all to see once the 2009 session begins on this quote in the City of Greensboro's Resolution for 2008. "WHERERAS, the delegation is to be commended for it's assistance in helping the city achieve the City Council's goals in the interest of it's citizens.
In regards to bringing back Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro. Let's see if this statement above will ring true for the Greensboro City Council in 2009. Are they going to let the citizens have this North Carolina General Statute like every other city has the right to use. Or are they going to be on the side of the special interest which in this case is the TREBIC CARTEL.
In the next few months you will see the City of Greensboro start to work on their agenda and if bringing back Protest Petitions is not on that list of items for 2009, it will be a total injustice to the citizens of Greensboro for this not to happen.
I urge everyone to let your state and local politicians know that you want Protest Petitions back in Greensboro. There are a few races in the State House who need to know how you feel . Don Vaughan CLICKHERE and Joe Wilson CLICKHERE these 2 are going for N.C.Senate Seat 27. Also Maggie Jeffus CLICKHERE and Jim Rumley CLICKHERE are vying for House District 59.
It is also time to let your Greensboro City Council know that you want Protest Petitions back in the zoning process like every other city in this state. CLICKHERE to e-mail the whole Greensboro City Council.
Sep 3, 2008
Greensboro City Council Member Robbie Perkins Wants To Know About Vested Interest
Greensboro City Council Member Robbie Perkins at the City Council Meeting on September 2, 2008 CLICKHERE , then proceed to item #21 on the agenda at around the 1:23 mark on video. Mr. Perkins must love to put foot in mouth because his assertion that since I am in High Point than I have no vested interest in what happens in Greensboro is ridiculous. Let me share with you Robbie Perkins as to where my vested interest stands and compare to where your vested interest stands.
Coalition of Concerned Citizens of The Triad
Vested Interest = The Citizens of Greensboro who are getting screwed in the zoning process because they don't have the right to use Protest Petition like every other city in this state has the right to do.
Robbie Perkins
Vested Interest= Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition aka TREBIC CARTEL, NAI Piedmont Triad, Silver Member , or CLICKHERE to see 2007 campaign contributions
While you are at it Robbie Perkins , let's see where you stand on bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro. Will the City Council vote on the issue? There are plenty of vested interest or I like to call them CITIZENS OF GREENSBORO who want to see where you stand on the issue of bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.
Coalition of Concerned Citizens of The Triad
Vested Interest = The Citizens of Greensboro who are getting screwed in the zoning process because they don't have the right to use Protest Petition like every other city in this state has the right to do.
Robbie Perkins
Vested Interest= Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition aka TREBIC CARTEL, NAI Piedmont Triad, Silver Member , or CLICKHERE to see 2007 campaign contributions
While you are at it Robbie Perkins , let's see where you stand on bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro. Will the City Council vote on the issue? There are plenty of vested interest or I like to call them CITIZENS OF GREENSBORO who want to see where you stand on the issue of bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.
Aug 29, 2008
New Garden Road Neighborhoods Could Use Protest Petition
There is a rezoning case coming before the Greensboro City Council on September 16, 2008 where the use of a Protest Petition should have been allowed by these citizens of Greensboro. But as we know from this blog that the exemption of Greensboro from North Carolina General Statute 160a-385 and 386 is in need of a overhaul and let's get a bill passed to make Greensboro comply.
A new neighborhood organization was formed to fight this rezoning case CLICKHERE , it is time to make a stance to the Greensboro City Council and to say to them it is a total injustice to the citizens of Greensboro that they don't have the right to use a Protest Petition in the zoning process. This case is a great example of this, plus to see the total destruction of garden lake road and new garden road and the creeping in to that neighborhood from a controversial rezoning case. BRING BACK PROTEST PETITIONS TO GREENSBORO.
Stop the Rezoning of New Garden Road
SAVE THE DATE
Tuesday, September 16
5:30 (get there early for a seat)
Please join us at the City Council Chambers, Melvin Municipal Building , to protest the rezoning of 1807 and 1809 New Garden Road from residential to commercial zoning.
The owner wants to build an events center in our residential neighborhood, bringing great noise, more traffic and a huge building and parking lot in a residential neighborhood.
For more information or to sign the letter of protest:
www.friendsofnewgarden.org
A new neighborhood organization was formed to fight this rezoning case CLICKHERE , it is time to make a stance to the Greensboro City Council and to say to them it is a total injustice to the citizens of Greensboro that they don't have the right to use a Protest Petition in the zoning process. This case is a great example of this, plus to see the total destruction of garden lake road and new garden road and the creeping in to that neighborhood from a controversial rezoning case. BRING BACK PROTEST PETITIONS TO GREENSBORO.
Stop the Rezoning of New Garden Road
SAVE THE DATE
Tuesday, September 16
5:30 (get there early for a seat)
Please join us at the City Council Chambers, Melvin Municipal Building , to protest the rezoning of 1807 and 1809 New Garden Road from residential to commercial zoning.
The owner wants to build an events center in our residential neighborhood, bringing great noise, more traffic and a huge building and parking lot in a residential neighborhood.
For more information or to sign the letter of protest:
www.friendsofnewgarden.org
Aug 26, 2008
How Greensboro Lost The Protest Petition by Jordan Green Yes Weekly
This article was one of the first reports on this issue in bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro. Yes Weekly changed web sites and some information is not there anymore. So here is the article for people to read.
DIRT: protest petition
A Rezoning Chronicle How Greensboro Lost The Protest Petition
by Jordan Green
Yes Weekly
A rezoning request heard by Greensboro City Council on Feb. 1, 1971 was so controversial that a local lawyer asked Mayor Jack Elam if the meeting could be moved to a larger room to accommodate an overflow crowd stuck outside of council chambers.
Nine residents of Quaker Acres and other neighborhoods spoke in opposition to Maralee Development Corp.’s plan to build apartments north of Friendly Avenue near Guilford College. If that line of defense were breached, opponents argued in language evocative of the 1781 stand by patriotic militias against General Lord Cornwallis, multi-family development might creep further north, overtaking Horsepen Creek and even Carlson Farms.
The neighbors had a powerful weapon at their disposal: a protest petition that, with the signatures of 5 percent of adjacent property owners, allowed them to force the council to muster a 75 percent “supermajority” to approve the rezoning. Noting at the start of the hearing that the petitions had been found sufficient, Elam explained that the seven-member board would need six affirmative votes to approve the rezoning.
An act by the NC General Assembly before the month was out would strip residents of the protest petition, amending the city charter to exempt Greensboro from a law followed to this day by all seven of the state’s largest municipalities: Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham, Winston-Salem, Fayetteville, Wilmington and Asheville.
Few in Greensboro appear to have been aware of North Carolina general statute 160A-385(a), which requires the 75 percent supermajority for approval in cases where neighbors formalize their opposition — or the fact the city was exempt by the authority of 1971 session law. That is, until Councilman Tom Phillips questioned whether the provision could apply to a controversial rezoning request heard by the zoning commission last year that would have allowed commercial development at the intersection of Lawndale Drive and Lake Jeanette Road. The request was made on behalf of three individuals employed by real estate company NAI Piedmont Triad. One of them, Robbie Perkins, was elected to city council last November. Phillips was unable to persuade his colleagues to support a repeal of the city charter amendment.
“It’s just another tool to give surrounding neighbors,” said Phillips, who has since retired from the council. “It doesn’t stop development. It just requires a supermajority. I haven’t seen a good reason not to have it. If it’s good enough for the rest of the state, it’s good enough for us.”
Talk of reinstating the protest petition arose recently during a contentious rezoning request earlier this month in which Perkins cast a tie-breaking vote to allow a politically connected developer to build three-story apartments south of West Friendly Avenue. The request was defeated by the zoning commission, and then came before the council on appeal. The 5-3 vote would not have met the 75 percent threshold required for approval had Greensboro been subject to the protest petition statute.
The reasons the council of 1970-’71 requested that the General Assembly exempt Greensboro from the protest petition remain murky. Among several players interviewed, including former NC Rep. Henry E. Frye, former Mayor Jack Elam, former Mayor Pro Tem Jim Melvin and former Planning Director Charles E. Mortimore, only one person, former City Attorney Skip Warren, indicated he was familiar with the provision.
Warren said he thought another North Carolina municipality might have previously lobbied to have the protest petition enacted as state law, and that Greensboro’s exemption had represented a return to the status quo. A 2006 treatise by David W. Owens, a professor at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill with expertise in zoning and in city and county planning, suggests otherwise. Owens writes that the provision for a protest petition was included in New York state’s 1916 zoning ordinance, the first comprehensive law in the nation. North Carolina followed suit in 1923.
“Neither landowner nor neighbors can be given a veto over proposed zoning changes,” Owens wrote. “Yet from the outset of local land use regulation, its proponents have concluded that those most directly affected by zoning need a degree of protection from unwanted changes in the land use policies that have relied upon.”
In any case, Warren said he thought the supermajority requirement was too burdensome.
“When you’re acting in a legislative capacity, even with Congress the higher standard is two-thirds as far as [overriding a] veto is concerned,” he said. “We felt that that wasn’t really intended for Greensboro. It was intended for some other municipality.”
While acknowledging that Greensboro was not unique in 1971 in having a council comprised of seven members, Warren said the protest petition provision “gave two members of your council veto power, which could be a bad thing.” Warren said he could not recall whether the request to amend the city charter was made at the initiative of a particular council member or a staff member.
“I was responsible for drawing up the legislative program,” the former city attorney said. “We developed our legislative program based on suggestions and recommendations and other things. Back then there were some legal technicalities that needed to be clarified. Then we presented our program to city council. It would have been in a briefing that reporters could attend.”
Council approved the legislative program unanimously four days before Christmas 1970. Meeting minutes reflect no discussion.
Frye, the former House representative, said typically the city council would meet with the Guilford County delegation and give them a list of bills they wanted introduced, “and unless there was some really strong objection in the delegation, we would designate somebody to file the bills that they suggested.” He said he had no recollection of the city charter amendment enacted in the 1971 session law.
Warren said there was no particular rezoning case that propelled the city charter amendment through the General Assembly.
“The word ‘urgency’ doesn’t even apply,” he said.
While no one has owned up to a personal interest in exempting the city from the protest petition, council minutes and contemporaneous newspaper accounts suggest that Greensboro land-use politics in the late 1960s and early ’70s were a stew of political connections, alleged and real conflicts of interest, and passionate neighborhood opposition to multi-family residential development.
Both the city’s daily newspapers, the ***Greensboro Daily News*** and the ***Greensboro Record*** carried stories in the first week of January 1971about an announcement by Mayor Elam that he had found no impropriety on the part of any city official in a 1969 rezoning case that allowed Urban Systems Development Corp. to move forward with plans to build single and multi-family housing in northeast Greensboro. Neighbors had fought the rezoning, the ***Record*** noted; its morning competitor reported that an allegation of a council member holding ownership of the subject property surfaced in a lawsuit involving the developer.
Elam himself abstained from a vote taken on Feb. 1, 1971 request by an unnamed applicant to rezone property at the southeast intersection of Yanceyville Street and Cone Boulevard for public housing because of “a personal interest.” That request also met opposition from neighbors whose protest petitions were found to be sufficient. The request went down in defeat by a vote of 5 to 1.
In another case, involvement by an elected official in a rezoning matter was more direct, although not legally a conflict of interest. Rep. W. Marcus Short, Frye’s colleague in the House, appealed a decision by the zoning commission to deny his request to rezone property at the southwest corner of Cornwallis Drive and Battleground Avenue. Again, protest petitions by neighborhood opponents were found to be sufficient and the 75 percent supermajority came into play. Short requested a continuance and the request was defeated unanimously two weeks later.
No rezoning battle raised the social temperature higher in the first two months of 1971 than the request by the Maralee Development Corp. to rezone property purchased from the Coble and Ballenger families north of Friendly Avenue between King George Drive and Stage Coach Trail. Although a protest petition had been found sufficient, Elam would say 37 years later that he had no recollection of the tool being used by opponents. Warren, the former city attorney, would say that to his knowledge the case had no influence on the city’s successful efforts to do away with the protest petition.
And yet Elam’s comments at the outset of the hearing revealed a tension in city land-use politics: Both commercial pressures on individual members’ decisions and opposition by neighbors appeared to bear an impact on the council’s land-use decisions.
“The mayor further stated that the council is far from satisfied with the zoning process itself; that the council often finds itself in the position of having pressure applied by people who are in a position to make money simply because of rezoning, and at the same time, facing the ire of people who have moved into areas expecting the zoning to remain the same and finding that there is a movement afoot to rezone; that some members of the council feel that this matter can be better handled by zoning well in advance of development so that anyone moving into the area will know just what the zoning will be,” the meeting minutes read. “The mayor stated that no conclusion has been reached with regard to this matter but that he wanted those present to know that the council was concerned.”
Whether or not the protest petition was part of the council’s dissatisfaction with the zoning process, the provision would be eliminated in Greensboro in a little over three weeks by an act of the General Assembly.
Minutes reflect that John Russell, the development company’s president, told the council that “the land was not purchased with this project in mind, but that after study it was determined that there was a need for quality multi-family housing and that this would be the highest and best use of the land.”
The rezoning request was doomed; council voted unanimously to defeat it on Feb. 1. When Russell asked that council reconsider the request on March 1, it failed by a 4-3 vote, with Elam joining the nay column.
Today, the councilmember most familiar with the protest petition is Robbie Perkins, who said he has encountered it in other North Carolina municipalities in his role as a real estate developer. He said he planned to consult with Warren to learn more about the reasons for Greensboro’s exemption.
“I think this is something that deserves debate,” he said. “The outcome of the debate is pending. I’m interested in doing my research before I take a position.”
Perkins pointed to several potential downsides of restoring the protest petition, including that it could discourage infill development.
“We’ve got to look at this closely before we go ahead and put a protest petition in place,” he said. “It may have some negative consequences as well. We have enough problems attracting investment. Do we want to make it that much harder? You’ve got big picture stuff…. We’ve got hit pretty good by job loss and loss of tax revenue. We need to think from a strategic point of view. How much leverage do you want to give that individual who lives next door?”
Mayor Yvonne Johnson said she was interested in learning why the city was exempted, but currently does not hold an opinion about whether Greensboro’s unique arrangement is preferable to the ground rules followed by other cities across the state.
Planning Director Dick Hails recently wrote to Keith Brown, a High Point man campaigning to restore the protest petition in Greensboro, that the idea had been proposed several times by council members in the past few years. “In each case,” he said, “there was not a sense that the majority of council wanted to pursue the matter, and there was not any follow up on the issue.”
Three other sitting council members — Sandra Anderson Groat, Dianne Bellamy-Small and Goldie Wells — indicated they would be hesitant to tinker with the current practice of approving controversial rezoning requests by a simple-majority vote.
At least one current member of the Guilford County legislative delegation has indicated sympathy with those who wish to restore the protest petition in Greensboro.
“I did not know about the protest petition exemption, but I see no merit in it if the rest of the state has similar relief,” Rep. Pricey Harrison wrote in a recent e-mail. She said she agreed with Phillips, the former Greensboro councilman “that if the infill proposal is a good one, it will win approval of the necessary majority. It is imperative, particularly in what is quickly becoming a carbon-constrained environment, that we adopt better land use management plans and stick to them.”
To comment on this story, e-mail Jordan Green at jordan@yesweekly.com.
A rezoning request heard by Greensboro City Council on Feb. 1, 1971 was so controversial that a local lawyer asked Mayor Jack Elam if the meeting could be moved to a larger room to accommodate an overflow crowd stuck outside of council chambers.
Nine residents of Quaker Acres and other neighborhoods spoke in opposition to Maralee Development Corp.’s plan to build apartments north of Friendly Avenue near Guilford College. If that line of defense were breached, opponents argued in language evocative of the 1781 stand by patriotic militias against General Lord Cornwallis, multi-family development might creep further north, overtaking Horsepen Creek and even Carlson Farms.
The neighbors had a powerful weapon at their disposal: a protest petition that, with the signatures of 5 percent of adjacent property owners, allowed them to force the council to muster a 75 percent “supermajority” to approve the rezoning. Noting at the start of the hearing that the petitions had been found sufficient, Elam explained that the seven-member board would need six affirmative votes to approve the rezoning.
An act by the NC General Assembly before the month was out would strip residents of the protest petition, amending the city charter to exempt Greensboro from a law followed to this day by all seven of the state’s largest municipalities: Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham, Winston-Salem, Fayetteville, Wilmington and Asheville.
Few in Greensboro appear to have been aware of North Carolina general statute 160A-385(a), which requires the 75 percent supermajority for approval in cases where neighbors formalize their opposition — or the fact the city was exempt by the authority of 1971 session law. That is, until Councilman Tom Phillips questioned whether the provision could apply to a controversial rezoning request heard by the zoning commission last year that would have allowed commercial development at the intersection of Lawndale Drive and Lake Jeanette Road. The request was made on behalf of three individuals employed by real estate company NAI Piedmont Triad. One of them, Robbie Perkins, was elected to city council last November. Phillips was unable to persuade his colleagues to support a repeal of the city charter amendment.
“It’s just another tool to give surrounding neighbors,” said Phillips, who has since retired from the council. “It doesn’t stop development. It just requires a supermajority. I haven’t seen a good reason not to have it. If it’s good enough for the rest of the state, it’s good enough for us.”
Talk of reinstating the protest petition arose recently during a contentious rezoning request earlier this month in which Perkins cast a tie-breaking vote to allow a politically connected developer to build three-story apartments south of West Friendly Avenue. The request was defeated by the zoning commission, and then came before the council on appeal. The 5-3 vote would not have met the 75 percent threshold required for approval had Greensboro been subject to the protest petition statute.
The reasons the council of 1970-’71 requested that the General Assembly exempt Greensboro from the protest petition remain murky. Among several players interviewed, including former NC Rep. Henry E. Frye, former Mayor Jack Elam, former Mayor Pro Tem Jim Melvin and former Planning Director Charles E. Mortimore, only one person, former City Attorney Skip Warren, indicated he was familiar with the provision.
Warren said he thought another North Carolina municipality might have previously lobbied to have the protest petition enacted as state law, and that Greensboro’s exemption had represented a return to the status quo. A 2006 treatise by David W. Owens, a professor at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill with expertise in zoning and in city and county planning, suggests otherwise. Owens writes that the provision for a protest petition was included in New York state’s 1916 zoning ordinance, the first comprehensive law in the nation. North Carolina followed suit in 1923.
“Neither landowner nor neighbors can be given a veto over proposed zoning changes,” Owens wrote. “Yet from the outset of local land use regulation, its proponents have concluded that those most directly affected by zoning need a degree of protection from unwanted changes in the land use policies that have relied upon.”
In any case, Warren said he thought the supermajority requirement was too burdensome.
“When you’re acting in a legislative capacity, even with Congress the higher standard is two-thirds as far as [overriding a] veto is concerned,” he said. “We felt that that wasn’t really intended for Greensboro. It was intended for some other municipality.”
While acknowledging that Greensboro was not unique in 1971 in having a council comprised of seven members, Warren said the protest petition provision “gave two members of your council veto power, which could be a bad thing.” Warren said he could not recall whether the request to amend the city charter was made at the initiative of a particular council member or a staff member.
“I was responsible for drawing up the legislative program,” the former city attorney said. “We developed our legislative program based on suggestions and recommendations and other things. Back then there were some legal technicalities that needed to be clarified. Then we presented our program to city council. It would have been in a briefing that reporters could attend.”
Council approved the legislative program unanimously four days before Christmas 1970. Meeting minutes reflect no discussion.
Frye, the former House representative, said typically the city council would meet with the Guilford County delegation and give them a list of bills they wanted introduced, “and unless there was some really strong objection in the delegation, we would designate somebody to file the bills that they suggested.” He said he had no recollection of the city charter amendment enacted in the 1971 session law.
Warren said there was no particular rezoning case that propelled the city charter amendment through the General Assembly.
“The word ‘urgency’ doesn’t even apply,” he said.
While no one has owned up to a personal interest in exempting the city from the protest petition, council minutes and contemporaneous newspaper accounts suggest that Greensboro land-use politics in the late 1960s and early ’70s were a stew of political connections, alleged and real conflicts of interest, and passionate neighborhood opposition to multi-family residential development.
Both the city’s daily newspapers, the ***Greensboro Daily News*** and the ***Greensboro Record*** carried stories in the first week of January 1971about an announcement by Mayor Elam that he had found no impropriety on the part of any city official in a 1969 rezoning case that allowed Urban Systems Development Corp. to move forward with plans to build single and multi-family housing in northeast Greensboro. Neighbors had fought the rezoning, the ***Record*** noted; its morning competitor reported that an allegation of a council member holding ownership of the subject property surfaced in a lawsuit involving the developer.
Elam himself abstained from a vote taken on Feb. 1, 1971 request by an unnamed applicant to rezone property at the southeast intersection of Yanceyville Street and Cone Boulevard for public housing because of “a personal interest.” That request also met opposition from neighbors whose protest petitions were found to be sufficient. The request went down in defeat by a vote of 5 to 1.
In another case, involvement by an elected official in a rezoning matter was more direct, although not legally a conflict of interest. Rep. W. Marcus Short, Frye’s colleague in the House, appealed a decision by the zoning commission to deny his request to rezone property at the southwest corner of Cornwallis Drive and Battleground Avenue. Again, protest petitions by neighborhood opponents were found to be sufficient and the 75 percent supermajority came into play. Short requested a continuance and the request was defeated unanimously two weeks later.
No rezoning battle raised the social temperature higher in the first two months of 1971 than the request by the Maralee Development Corp. to rezone property purchased from the Coble and Ballenger families north of Friendly Avenue between King George Drive and Stage Coach Trail. Although a protest petition had been found sufficient, Elam would say 37 years later that he had no recollection of the tool being used by opponents. Warren, the former city attorney, would say that to his knowledge the case had no influence on the city’s successful efforts to do away with the protest petition.
And yet Elam’s comments at the outset of the hearing revealed a tension in city land-use politics: Both commercial pressures on individual members’ decisions and opposition by neighbors appeared to bear an impact on the council’s land-use decisions.
“The mayor further stated that the council is far from satisfied with the zoning process itself; that the council often finds itself in the position of having pressure applied by people who are in a position to make money simply because of rezoning, and at the same time, facing the ire of people who have moved into areas expecting the zoning to remain the same and finding that there is a movement afoot to rezone; that some members of the council feel that this matter can be better handled by zoning well in advance of development so that anyone moving into the area will know just what the zoning will be,” the meeting minutes read. “The mayor stated that no conclusion has been reached with regard to this matter but that he wanted those present to know that the council was concerned.”
Whether or not the protest petition was part of the council’s dissatisfaction with the zoning process, the provision would be eliminated in Greensboro in a little over three weeks by an act of the General Assembly.
Minutes reflect that John Russell, the development company’s president, told the council that “the land was not purchased with this project in mind, but that after study it was determined that there was a need for quality multi-family housing and that this would be the highest and best use of the land.”
The rezoning request was doomed; council voted unanimously to defeat it on Feb. 1. When Russell asked that council reconsider the request on March 1, it failed by a 4-3 vote, with Elam joining the nay column.
Today, the councilmember most familiar with the protest petition is Robbie Perkins, who said he has encountered it in other North Carolina municipalities in his role as a real estate developer. He said he planned to consult with Warren to learn more about the reasons for Greensboro’s exemption.
“I think this is something that deserves debate,” he said. “The outcome of the debate is pending. I’m interested in doing my research before I take a position.”
Perkins pointed to several potential downsides of restoring the protest petition, including that it could discourage infill development.
“We’ve got to look at this closely before we go ahead and put a protest petition in place,” he said. “It may have some negative consequences as well. We have enough problems attracting investment. Do we want to make it that much harder? You’ve got big picture stuff…. We’ve got hit pretty good by job loss and loss of tax revenue. We need to think from a strategic point of view. How much leverage do you want to give that individual who lives next door?”
Mayor Yvonne Johnson said she was interested in learning why the city was exempted, but currently does not hold an opinion about whether Greensboro’s unique arrangement is preferable to the ground rules followed by other cities across the state.
Planning Director Dick Hails recently wrote to Keith Brown, a High Point man campaigning to restore the protest petition in Greensboro, that the idea had been proposed several times by council members in the past few years. “In each case,” he said, “there was not a sense that the majority of council wanted to pursue the matter, and there was not any follow up on the issue.”
Three other sitting council members — Sandra Anderson Groat, Dianne Bellamy-Small and Goldie Wells — indicated they would be hesitant to tinker with the current practice of approving controversial rezoning requests by a simple-majority vote.
At least one current member of the Guilford County legislative delegation has indicated sympathy with those who wish to restore the protest petition in Greensboro.
“I did not know about the protest petition exemption, but I see no merit in it if the rest of the state has similar relief,” Rep. Pricey Harrison wrote in a recent e-mail. She said she agreed with Phillips, the former Greensboro councilman “that if the infill proposal is a good one, it will win approval of the necessary majority. It is imperative, particularly in what is quickly becoming a carbon-constrained environment, that we adopt better land use management plans and stick to them.”
To comment on this story, e-mail Jordan Green at jordan@yesweekly.com.
Aug 9, 2008
GREENSBORO CITY MANAGER MEMO TO COUNCIL ON PROTEST PETITIONS FOR GREENSBORO
Greensboro City Manager Mitchell Johnson sent out a memorandum to the Mayor of Greensboro Yvonne Johnson and the whole Greensboro City Council and item #3 had to do with PROTEST PETITIONS.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 1, 2008
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Mitchell Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEMS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
In response to City Council requests, I have attached memorandum and reports on the following items:
1. Update on Fire Department – I have attached memorandum from Deputy City Manager Robert Morgan that provides updated information on the Fire Study and Fire Chief recruitment.
2. Flexible Work Schedules – In recent months, the idea of providing for a more flexible work schedule has come from employees as well as citizens. We believe this policy will meet the need but I have asked each department head to make sure that we continue to provide service and accessibility consistent with our normal working hours. This attachment has been communicated to all Department Heads reviewing our established guidelines, through City Policies, of flexible work schedules. These policies could assist in addressing not only the City of Greensboro, but our employees’ use of the nation’s fuel resources.
3. Protest Petition – I have attached memorandum from Planning Director Dick Hails providing information related to Protest Petitions. The memorandum covers background information, issues and staff recommendations.
4. Streetlight Outage – There has been some discussion on how to handle the reporting and repair of Streetlights. Interim Transportation Director Adam Fischer has provided the attached information for your review. This information contains Greensboro Streetlight Outage Policy, a survey of other municipalities’ streetlight practices, and the most recent DPCO Thoroughfare Lighting Spreadsheet documenting outages. Also, Mr. David Montgomery with DPCO will be present at the August 4th, 2008, City Council meeting to address concerns.
Memorandum from Dick Hails Planning Director
July 24, 2008
Memo to: Mitchell Johnson, City Manager
From: Dick Hails, Planning Director
Subject: Information Related to Protest Petitions
Background – There has been much discussion within the Greensboro community in recent months about whether to reinstitute the protest petition provisions on rezonings in the City that were prohibited in 1970 by the General Assembly, at the request of the City Council. This memo reviews some of the issues associated with this zoning provision.
Protest petitions have been eligible for use by nearly all NC cities from the time of the original state zoning enabling act in 1923. The provisions in the General Statutes note that if a sufficient petition is filed, a ¾ majority vote of “all the members of the city council” is required for approval. This would have the effect of requiring the Greensboro City Council to cast at least 7 affirmative votes to pass any rezoning request, versus the 5 affirmative votes now required to approve a rezoning. Original zoning requests associated with annexations are exempt from protest petitions. A change to this prohibition to use protest petitions in Greensboro would require approval by the General Assembly.
Issues - The petition provision is generally mandatory for all NC cities and prohibited for all counties, unless an express exception is authorized by the General Assembly. This has occurred, for example, for the City of Greensboro (exempted) and the County of Durham (included). A memo from the City Attorney recently noted that this change was endorsed by City Council in 1970 and approved by the General Assembly in 1971. A 2008 School of Government report on zoning practices in the state notes that Greensboro’s exemption from these provisions is rare, and that there are very few other cities not authorized to use protest petitions.
However, the report also notes that there are limited direct impacts in different communities from protest petitions. The report tallied only about 5% of zoning decisions that had valid protest petitions received more than a simple majority but less than a ¾ majority vote. Rezonings approved by the Greensboro Council in the past year echo this trend, with no cases approved with a simple majority but not ¾ majority vote. The report also shows that protest petitions are utilized more in larger municipalities than in smaller ones.
The report notes, however, that there appear to be indirect impacts from such petitions, such as only a 52% approval rate reported for requests with protest petitions, as compared to a 76% approval for cases without such petitions. The presence of a protest petition option may also lead to greater amounts of communication between the requesting party and property owners surrounding the site on some rezonings.
The statutes lay out specific guidelines on how to judge a valid protest petition. Signatures of owners of either 20% of the subject property or 5% of property within 100 feet of the exterior of the subject property (not including public ROW’s) are necessary to validate a protest petition. Such petitions must be submitted at least two working days prior to the scheduled public hearing, to allow for adequate time for staff review and verification of the petitions.
Recommendation – Staff recommends that Council receive this report on various issues pertaining to use of protest petitions for the City of Greensboro.
________________________________________________________
Durham City And County Unified Development Ordinance on Protest Petitions
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 1, 2008
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Mitchell Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEMS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
In response to City Council requests, I have attached memorandum and reports on the following items:
1. Update on Fire Department – I have attached memorandum from Deputy City Manager Robert Morgan that provides updated information on the Fire Study and Fire Chief recruitment.
2. Flexible Work Schedules – In recent months, the idea of providing for a more flexible work schedule has come from employees as well as citizens. We believe this policy will meet the need but I have asked each department head to make sure that we continue to provide service and accessibility consistent with our normal working hours. This attachment has been communicated to all Department Heads reviewing our established guidelines, through City Policies, of flexible work schedules. These policies could assist in addressing not only the City of Greensboro, but our employees’ use of the nation’s fuel resources.
3. Protest Petition – I have attached memorandum from Planning Director Dick Hails providing information related to Protest Petitions. The memorandum covers background information, issues and staff recommendations.
4. Streetlight Outage – There has been some discussion on how to handle the reporting and repair of Streetlights. Interim Transportation Director Adam Fischer has provided the attached information for your review. This information contains Greensboro Streetlight Outage Policy, a survey of other municipalities’ streetlight practices, and the most recent DPCO Thoroughfare Lighting Spreadsheet documenting outages. Also, Mr. David Montgomery with DPCO will be present at the August 4th, 2008, City Council meeting to address concerns.
Memorandum from Dick Hails Planning Director
July 24, 2008
Memo to: Mitchell Johnson, City Manager
From: Dick Hails, Planning Director
Subject: Information Related to Protest Petitions
Background – There has been much discussion within the Greensboro community in recent months about whether to reinstitute the protest petition provisions on rezonings in the City that were prohibited in 1970 by the General Assembly, at the request of the City Council. This memo reviews some of the issues associated with this zoning provision.
Protest petitions have been eligible for use by nearly all NC cities from the time of the original state zoning enabling act in 1923. The provisions in the General Statutes note that if a sufficient petition is filed, a ¾ majority vote of “all the members of the city council” is required for approval. This would have the effect of requiring the Greensboro City Council to cast at least 7 affirmative votes to pass any rezoning request, versus the 5 affirmative votes now required to approve a rezoning. Original zoning requests associated with annexations are exempt from protest petitions. A change to this prohibition to use protest petitions in Greensboro would require approval by the General Assembly.
Issues - The petition provision is generally mandatory for all NC cities and prohibited for all counties, unless an express exception is authorized by the General Assembly. This has occurred, for example, for the City of Greensboro (exempted) and the County of Durham (included). A memo from the City Attorney recently noted that this change was endorsed by City Council in 1970 and approved by the General Assembly in 1971. A 2008 School of Government report on zoning practices in the state notes that Greensboro’s exemption from these provisions is rare, and that there are very few other cities not authorized to use protest petitions.
However, the report also notes that there are limited direct impacts in different communities from protest petitions. The report tallied only about 5% of zoning decisions that had valid protest petitions received more than a simple majority but less than a ¾ majority vote. Rezonings approved by the Greensboro Council in the past year echo this trend, with no cases approved with a simple majority but not ¾ majority vote. The report also shows that protest petitions are utilized more in larger municipalities than in smaller ones.
The report notes, however, that there appear to be indirect impacts from such petitions, such as only a 52% approval rate reported for requests with protest petitions, as compared to a 76% approval for cases without such petitions. The presence of a protest petition option may also lead to greater amounts of communication between the requesting party and property owners surrounding the site on some rezonings.
The statutes lay out specific guidelines on how to judge a valid protest petition. Signatures of owners of either 20% of the subject property or 5% of property within 100 feet of the exterior of the subject property (not including public ROW’s) are necessary to validate a protest petition. Such petitions must be submitted at least two working days prior to the scheduled public hearing, to allow for adequate time for staff review and verification of the petitions.
Recommendation – Staff recommends that Council receive this report on various issues pertaining to use of protest petitions for the City of Greensboro.
________________________________________________________
It is great to see that someone at City Hall is wanting to get some information on Protest Petitions for Greensboro. One of the best observations from Planning Director Dick Hails is when he said this"The presence of a protest petition option may also lead to greater amounts of communication between the requesting party and property owners surrounding the site on some rezonings". That is precisely what our coalition has been pointing out and what has not been happening for well over 37 years in Greensboro. Also, Mr Hails states that Greensboro's exemption is rare. To say that it is rare is an understatement , how about a total injustice to the Citizens of Greensboro that might be a better statement.
It is time to see where the Greensboro City Council stands on this issue. In the following months they will start preparing for their legislative agenda for 2009 and bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro should be on the top of the agenda. But we will see if they want to be for the citizens of Greensboro or are they going to take the side of the special interest group called Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition also known as the TREBIC CARTEL .
Time is now to understand what this means for you as a citizen of Greensboro and to write you Greensboro City Council to let them know how you feel.
Here is the link to e-mail your Greensboro City Council CLICKHERE
Below is the ordinance that Durham North Carolina uses for Protest Petitions
_________________________________________________________
Durham City And County Unified Development Ordinance on Protest Petitions
Durham City-County Unified Development Ordinance
3.5.13 Protest Petition Sufficiency and Procedures
Protest Petition
Protest Petition
Defined
A petition in opposition to a zoning map change shall be considered a "valid protest petition" if the petition meets the requirements of applicable state or local law.
Standards
City
City
The petition must meet the substantive requirements of GS 160A-385(2), and in particular must be signed by the owners of either:
20% or more of the area included in the proposed change or
5% of the area of a 100-foot wide buffer extending along the entire boundary of each discrete or separate area proposed to be rezoned. In evaluating the sufficiency of a protest under this provision:
A discrete or separate area shall be calculated for any non contiguous part of an area proposed for zoning map change that is physically separated from other areas proposed for change by property (not including right of way) that is not part of the requested zoning map change;
A street right of way shall not be considered in computing the 100 foot buffer area as long as the street right of way is 100 feet wide or less.
When less than an entire parcel of land is being rezoned, the 100 foot buffer shall be measured from the property line of the entire parcel.
20% or more of the area included in the proposed change or
5% of the area of a 100-foot wide buffer extending along the entire boundary of each discrete or separate area proposed to be rezoned. In evaluating the sufficiency of a protest under this provision:
A discrete or separate area shall be calculated for any non contiguous part of an area proposed for zoning map change that is physically separated from other areas proposed for change by property (not including right of way) that is not part of the requested zoning map change;
A street right of way shall not be considered in computing the 100 foot buffer area as long as the street right of way is 100 feet wide or less.
When less than an entire parcel of land is being rezoned, the 100 foot buffer shall be measured from the property line of the entire parcel.
County
In particular, the petition shall be submitted on time and contain the following:
Signatures of property owners comprising of 20% of either:
The area of the property under consideration; or
The area within 100 feet of either side or the rear of the subject property; or
The area directly across the street from the subject property and extending 100 feet from the street frontage of the properties across the street.
Signatures of property owners comprising of 20% of either:
The area of the property under consideration; or
The area within 100 feet of either side or the rear of the subject property; or
The area directly across the street from the subject property and extending 100 feet from the street frontage of the properties across the street.
Both City and County
Property Ownership Property ownership shall be determined based on available recorded property records. In the event of records that are incomplete or in conflict, County tax listings may be used to determine ownership.
Other Required Information The petition shall contain all information required on the form supplied by the Planning Director or designee or the City Clerk or the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, as appropriate.
Other Required Information The petition shall contain all information required on the form supplied by the Planning Director or designee or the City Clerk or the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, as appropriate.
Procedure
A form for a protest petition shall be available from the Planning Director, or designee, or the City Clerk or the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, as appropriate.
Completed petitions shall be submitted to the appropriate Clerk's office (City Clerk or Clerk to the Board of Commissioners) at least four working days prior to the day of the public hearing.
The Planning Director, or designee, in consultation with the Attorney for the jurisdiction shall determine if the petition meets the criteria for classification of "valid protest petition". The Clerk shall inform the governing body that a petition has been filed and indicate the determination by the Planning Director, or designee, whether the petition is valid or invalid. The Planning Director, or designee, shall notify the petitioner as to the validity of the protest petition.
Where a substantial modification to a zoning map change application that requires resubmission to the Planning Commission has been submitted, the Planning Director, or designee, shall notify the petitioner, in writing, that a new protest petition is required.
Petitions for zoning map change for which a protest petition has been determined to be valid shall require a ? vote of the governing body for approval rather than a simple majority. In the City, vacant positions on the Council and members who have been excused from voting because of a conflict of interest shall not be considered in computing Council membership.
A form for a protest petition shall be available from the Planning Director, or designee, or the City Clerk or the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, as appropriate.
Completed petitions shall be submitted to the appropriate Clerk's office (City Clerk or Clerk to the Board of Commissioners) at least four working days prior to the day of the public hearing.
The Planning Director, or designee, in consultation with the Attorney for the jurisdiction shall determine if the petition meets the criteria for classification of "valid protest petition". The Clerk shall inform the governing body that a petition has been filed and indicate the determination by the Planning Director, or designee, whether the petition is valid or invalid. The Planning Director, or designee, shall notify the petitioner as to the validity of the protest petition.
Where a substantial modification to a zoning map change application that requires resubmission to the Planning Commission has been submitted, the Planning Director, or designee, shall notify the petitioner, in writing, that a new protest petition is required.
Petitions for zoning map change for which a protest petition has been determined to be valid shall require a ? vote of the governing body for approval rather than a simple majority. In the City, vacant positions on the Council and members who have been excused from voting because of a conflict of interest shall not be considered in computing Council membership.
Withdrawal Persons or entities who have signed protest petitions may withdraw their signatures at any time prior to the vote on the proposed map change. Any withdrawal must meet standards established for such withdrawals by the Planning Department. Withdrawals submitted less than two working days prior to the public hearing may result in a continuance of the hearing if the effect of the withdrawal on the validity of the protest cannot be determined prior to the public hearing.
Exemption The foregoing provisions concerning protest petitions shall not be applicable to any zoning map change that establishes the City's zoning designation on property that has been added to the City's jurisdiction as a result of annexation, except as provided by general or local law.
Jul 22, 2008
Greensboro City Attorney Terry Wood Answers Coalition Questions
The coalition had asked the City of Greensboro Attorney Terry Wood a few questions about the History of Protest Petitions and what the future holds.
Here is the results.
Protest Petition Information
In response to your questions I have found the
following information. Some information is not available and that fact
will be so indicated.
HISTORY OF THE EXEMPTION OF PROTEST PETITION FOR GREENSBORO
1. When and where was the meeting in 1971 held to request that
Greensboro be exempted from the protest petition?
Our Council Minutes reflect that the request for exemption was
included with the “Legislative Program” of the City Council which was
adopted by Council on 21 December 1970 at a regular meeting of the
Council which was at the old City Council meeting room. The meeting
room was in the Annex Building (210 Greene Street, now demolished) near
the corner of Gaston Street (now Friendly) and Greene Street. It was
called the Municipal Office Building, City Council Chamber, Room 204.
There were 15 different items listed on the Legislative Program. We did
not find any other previous reference to the exemption in the Minutes.
2. What City Council member(s) sponsored the bill?
The Motion to adopt the Legislative Program was made by Vance H.
Chavis. There is no recorded discussion in the
Minutes of any of the “Legislative Program” items. Of the seven members
on the Council at the time six were present and voted in favor of the
“Legislative Program.” W. L. Trotter, Jr.; Jimmie I. Barber; Vance H.
Chavis; H. J. Elam III; Charles W. Phillips, Jr.; and Mary P. Seymour.
E. S. (Jim) Melvin is listed as absent from the meeting at the time the
vote was taken but entered later.
3. What was the reason for requesting this bill?
As stated in the previous answer there was no recorded discussion
of the Legislative Program so the reasons behind the inclusion of the
exemption from the protest petition are not discernable. Different
Council Members may have had different reasons, but we are uninformed as
to what those reasons may have been.
4. Who sponsored the bill in the NC House of Representatives and
Senate?
The Legislative Bill Research Division of the North Carolina
Legislature informs us that the Original Bill was introduced by Rep.
Henry Frye in the North Carolina House of Representatives.
5. Why weren't the people of Greensboro informed about the 37 year
absence of the protest petition rather than being informed thorough the
press?
The Council Minutes reflect it in the Legislative Program adopted
at a regular Council meeting and the printed N. C. Legislative records
reflect its adoption as Session Law 1971, Chapter 29, on February 25,
1971. I cannot speak to what publicity, or lack thereof, this matter
received at the time it became effective or over the years.
6. Does a property owner with or without legal council, who brings a
zoning case before the City have the right to submit a valid protest
petition to Greensboro City Council? Can City Council honor the protest
petition?
Without repeal of Greensboro’s exemption from the protest petition
statute Greensboro has no authority to invoke the protest petition (that
is the 3/4’s vote) process.
7. No question numbered 7. was included in your e-mail.
There was no question numbered 7.
8. When does the Greensboro City Council's agenda for the NC General
Assembly long session begin? When does it have to be completed? When
will it be available to the public? Where is it made available to the
public?
The 2009 session of the NC Legislature begins January 28, 2009. The
actual date when the requested legislation must be delivered to the
Legislature will not be set by the Legislature until a week or 10 days
after that when the Legislature sets its calendar. Council usually
begins to determine its Legislative Agenda about three or four months
prior to the January date. Most often it is initially presented and
discussed in “Briefing Sessions” held in the Plaza Level Conference room
in the Melvin Municipal Office Building. These briefing sessions are
open to the public but no final action may be taken at them by Council.
It will eventually be on a Regular Meeting agenda for further discussion
or adoption.
Our Council agendas, including Regular Meetings, Special Meetings and
Briefing Sessions are posted on the City’s website as soon as they are
available. Regular meetings are the first and third Tuesdays each month
and the briefing sessions are the fourth Tuesday of each month. That’s
the easiest way to keep track of the items being covered.
9. What is the position of Greensboro today to the protest petition?
This Office cannot comment on the City’s position since the City
Council would make that determination.
I hope this answers your questions and we appreciate your interest. We
do not have any further information. If you still desire to meet, or
discuss this matter, I will be happy to do so. Please give my Office a
call or e-mail me.
Respectfully,
Terry Wood
City Attorney
336-373-2320
We would like to thank the City of Greensboro Attorney for answering our questions. The pressure needs to be put on the City of Greensboro to put this on the Legislative Agenda for the Long Session of the State Legislature starting in January of 2009. If the City of Greensboro does nothing on this isue it will be duly noted and if they want to see a major wedge issue for the fall of 2009 City elections let this issue linger even more.Our coalition is not going away and will get even bigger as time goes by.
Here is the results.
Protest Petition Information
In response to your questions I have found the
following information. Some information is not available and that fact
will be so indicated.
HISTORY OF THE EXEMPTION OF PROTEST PETITION FOR GREENSBORO
1. When and where was the meeting in 1971 held to request that
Greensboro be exempted from the protest petition?
Our Council Minutes reflect that the request for exemption was
included with the “Legislative Program” of the City Council which was
adopted by Council on 21 December 1970 at a regular meeting of the
Council which was at the old City Council meeting room. The meeting
room was in the Annex Building (210 Greene Street, now demolished) near
the corner of Gaston Street (now Friendly) and Greene Street. It was
called the Municipal Office Building, City Council Chamber, Room 204.
There were 15 different items listed on the Legislative Program. We did
not find any other previous reference to the exemption in the Minutes.
2. What City Council member(s) sponsored the bill?
The Motion to adopt the Legislative Program was made by Vance H.
Chavis. There is no recorded discussion in the
Minutes of any of the “Legislative Program” items. Of the seven members
on the Council at the time six were present and voted in favor of the
“Legislative Program.” W. L. Trotter, Jr.; Jimmie I. Barber; Vance H.
Chavis; H. J. Elam III; Charles W. Phillips, Jr.; and Mary P. Seymour.
E. S. (Jim) Melvin is listed as absent from the meeting at the time the
vote was taken but entered later.
3. What was the reason for requesting this bill?
As stated in the previous answer there was no recorded discussion
of the Legislative Program so the reasons behind the inclusion of the
exemption from the protest petition are not discernable. Different
Council Members may have had different reasons, but we are uninformed as
to what those reasons may have been.
4. Who sponsored the bill in the NC House of Representatives and
Senate?
The Legislative Bill Research Division of the North Carolina
Legislature informs us that the Original Bill was introduced by Rep.
Henry Frye in the North Carolina House of Representatives.
5. Why weren't the people of Greensboro informed about the 37 year
absence of the protest petition rather than being informed thorough the
press?
The Council Minutes reflect it in the Legislative Program adopted
at a regular Council meeting and the printed N. C. Legislative records
reflect its adoption as Session Law 1971, Chapter 29, on February 25,
1971. I cannot speak to what publicity, or lack thereof, this matter
received at the time it became effective or over the years.
6. Does a property owner with or without legal council, who brings a
zoning case before the City have the right to submit a valid protest
petition to Greensboro City Council? Can City Council honor the protest
petition?
Without repeal of Greensboro’s exemption from the protest petition
statute Greensboro has no authority to invoke the protest petition (that
is the 3/4’s vote) process.
7. No question numbered 7. was included in your e-mail.
There was no question numbered 7.
8. When does the Greensboro City Council's agenda for the NC General
Assembly long session begin? When does it have to be completed? When
will it be available to the public? Where is it made available to the
public?
The 2009 session of the NC Legislature begins January 28, 2009. The
actual date when the requested legislation must be delivered to the
Legislature will not be set by the Legislature until a week or 10 days
after that when the Legislature sets its calendar. Council usually
begins to determine its Legislative Agenda about three or four months
prior to the January date. Most often it is initially presented and
discussed in “Briefing Sessions” held in the Plaza Level Conference room
in the Melvin Municipal Office Building. These briefing sessions are
open to the public but no final action may be taken at them by Council.
It will eventually be on a Regular Meeting agenda for further discussion
or adoption.
Our Council agendas, including Regular Meetings, Special Meetings and
Briefing Sessions are posted on the City’s website as soon as they are
available. Regular meetings are the first and third Tuesdays each month
and the briefing sessions are the fourth Tuesday of each month. That’s
the easiest way to keep track of the items being covered.
9. What is the position of Greensboro today to the protest petition?
This Office cannot comment on the City’s position since the City
Council would make that determination.
I hope this answers your questions and we appreciate your interest. We
do not have any further information. If you still desire to meet, or
discuss this matter, I will be happy to do so. Please give my Office a
call or e-mail me.
Respectfully,
Terry Wood
City Attorney
336-373-2320
We would like to thank the City of Greensboro Attorney for answering our questions. The pressure needs to be put on the City of Greensboro to put this on the Legislative Agenda for the Long Session of the State Legislature starting in January of 2009. If the City of Greensboro does nothing on this isue it will be duly noted and if they want to see a major wedge issue for the fall of 2009 City elections let this issue linger even more.Our coalition is not going away and will get even bigger as time goes by.
Jul 17, 2008
The Rhinoceros Times July 17, 2008 on Page 57 Protest Petition Letter
The Rhinoceros Times for July 17, 2008 has a Letter to the Editor on page 57 with the title "Time To Protest"in regards to Protest Petitions for Greensboro. We would like to thank the Rhino for allowing this letter to be printed. The issue of Protest Petitions for Greensboro will not be swept under the rug and if the powers to be think that this will go away, think again.
Once the Rhinoceros Times has the updated edition of the paper online it will be linked.
There are somethings that can be done right now to further the progress of bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.
Please e-mail, write, or call your State Representatives below. Let them know that you want Protest Petitions back in Greensboro.
Alma Adams Almaa@ncleg.netJohn Blust Johnbl@ncleg.netPricey Harrison Priceyh@ncleg.netMaggie Jeffus Maggiej@ncleg.netEarl Jones Earlj@ncleg.netLaura Wiley Lauraw@ncleg.netState SenateKatie Dorsett Katied@ncleg.net
Phil Berger
philbe@ncleg.net
also there are 2 people who are going to be vying for Kay Hagan's Senate seat District 27 , they are Joe Wilson click here and Don Vaughan click here
The City of Greensboro also needs to hear from their citizens, below is a link to the Greensboro e-mail center
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/citygovernment/council/emailcouncil.htm
Please e mail them to let them know you want Protest Petitions back in Greensboro .
Once the Rhinoceros Times has the updated edition of the paper online it will be linked.
There are somethings that can be done right now to further the progress of bringing back Protest Petitions to Greensboro.
Please e-mail, write, or call your State Representatives below. Let them know that you want Protest Petitions back in Greensboro.
Alma Adams Almaa@ncleg.netJohn Blust Johnbl@ncleg.netPricey Harrison Priceyh@ncleg.netMaggie Jeffus Maggiej@ncleg.netEarl Jones Earlj@ncleg.netLaura Wiley Lauraw@ncleg.netState SenateKatie Dorsett Katied@ncleg.net
Phil Berger
philbe@ncleg.net
also there are 2 people who are going to be vying for Kay Hagan's Senate seat District 27 , they are Joe Wilson click here and Don Vaughan click here
The City of Greensboro also needs to hear from their citizens, below is a link to the Greensboro e-mail center
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/citygovernment/council/emailcouncil.htm
Please e mail them to let them know you want Protest Petitions back in Greensboro .
Jul 15, 2008
This is Why Protest Petitions are Needed in Greensboro
A new article in the Greensboro News and Record by Amanda Lehmert with the caption "City Council Reverses Development" on 7-15-08 click here is a main reason why Greensboro needs to bring back Protest Petitions.
This neighborhood off of Rehobeth Church Road argued their case a few months ago to not allow Keystone Realty to build another apartment complex next to their single family homes. Now with a few trees and a fence it is ok now.
If this rezoning case happened in any other city in this state of North Carolina , I am sure they would have used their right to a Protest Petition under North Carolina General Statute 160a-385 and 386. Since Greensboro exempted themselves from Protest Petitions but every other city abides by this law it is in you court to e-mail Dianne Bellamy-Small and Goldie Wells to let them know that this is not acceptable that every other city in this state has this right to a Protest Petition why not Greensboro
Please e-mail your Greensboro City Council to let them know that this is unacceptable and to say to them,"Bring Back Protest Petitions to Greensboro"
here is the link Greensboro City Council E-Mail Center
This neighborhood off of Rehobeth Church Road argued their case a few months ago to not allow Keystone Realty to build another apartment complex next to their single family homes. Now with a few trees and a fence it is ok now.
If this rezoning case happened in any other city in this state of North Carolina , I am sure they would have used their right to a Protest Petition under North Carolina General Statute 160a-385 and 386. Since Greensboro exempted themselves from Protest Petitions but every other city abides by this law it is in you court to e-mail Dianne Bellamy-Small and Goldie Wells to let them know that this is not acceptable that every other city in this state has this right to a Protest Petition why not Greensboro
Please e-mail your Greensboro City Council to let them know that this is unacceptable and to say to them,"Bring Back Protest Petitions to Greensboro"
here is the link Greensboro City Council E-Mail Center
Jul 10, 2008
What Does Protest Petitions , Census Bureau , and Top 10 Cities for Growth have in Common
While looking through the Greensboro News and Record on Thursday July 10, 2008, there was a A3 article from the Associated Press in regards to the fastest growing cities in the United States.
Ever since the issue of Protest Petitions for Greensboro has been going on there has been talk about how bringing back Protest Petitions will somehow hurt the growth of Greensboro in the development community.
On May 15, 2008 guest column on Protest Petitions for Greensboro here is what was said, "Those who oppose protest petitions in Greensboro say they would discourage in-fill development. They say the current exemption aids growth, and not having the exemption would hurt growth.Yet Raleigh and Charlotte have protest petitions, and both have grown faster than Greensboro since the exemption has been in effect."
Well it seems like the argument from the opposition to not bring back Protest Petitions ie "TREBIC", can be thrown right out the window because the U.S. Census Bureau has some new numbers to report , click here
TOP 10 IN GROWTH
Cities with the largest numerical increase from July 2006 to July 2007
#1 Houston- 38,932
#2 Phoenix- 34,941
#3 San Antonio- 32,680
#4 Fort Worth- 29,453
#5 New Orleans- 28,926
#6 New York- 23,960
#7 Atlanta- 20,623
#8 Austin- 17,648
#9 Charlotte- 17,471
#10 Raleigh- 15,148
The #9 and #10 in fastest growing cities happen to be in our great state of North Carolina and guess what they both have in common their citizens both have the right to use Protest Petitions in zoning cases .
This is your time to let the Greensboro City Council know that you want Protest Petitions back in the zoning process. All you need to do is say "Bring Back Protest Petitions to Greensboro", here is the link to the e-mail center for the Greensboro City Council.
Greensboro City Council E-Mail Center
Ever since the issue of Protest Petitions for Greensboro has been going on there has been talk about how bringing back Protest Petitions will somehow hurt the growth of Greensboro in the development community.
On May 15, 2008 guest column on Protest Petitions for Greensboro here is what was said, "Those who oppose protest petitions in Greensboro say they would discourage in-fill development. They say the current exemption aids growth, and not having the exemption would hurt growth.Yet Raleigh and Charlotte have protest petitions, and both have grown faster than Greensboro since the exemption has been in effect."
Well it seems like the argument from the opposition to not bring back Protest Petitions ie "TREBIC", can be thrown right out the window because the U.S. Census Bureau has some new numbers to report , click here
TOP 10 IN GROWTH
Cities with the largest numerical increase from July 2006 to July 2007
#1 Houston- 38,932
#2 Phoenix- 34,941
#3 San Antonio- 32,680
#4 Fort Worth- 29,453
#5 New Orleans- 28,926
#6 New York- 23,960
#7 Atlanta- 20,623
#8 Austin- 17,648
#9 Charlotte- 17,471
#10 Raleigh- 15,148
The #9 and #10 in fastest growing cities happen to be in our great state of North Carolina and guess what they both have in common their citizens both have the right to use Protest Petitions in zoning cases .
This is your time to let the Greensboro City Council know that you want Protest Petitions back in the zoning process. All you need to do is say "Bring Back Protest Petitions to Greensboro", here is the link to the e-mail center for the Greensboro City Council.
Greensboro City Council E-Mail Center
Jun 29, 2008
Coalition Member Colin Kelly speaking to Greensboro City Council on June 17, 2008
The Coalition of Concerned Citizens of the Triad went to the Greensboro City Council on June 17, 2008 to make the case for bringing back Protest Petitions to the citizens of Greensboro.During the speakers from the floor section of the Greensboro City Council meeting, Keith Brown and Colin Kelly spoke for 3 minutes a piece. It is hard to get what you want to say in 3 minutes but below is the transcript of Colin Kelly's speech. Also if you would like to see the video of the Greensboro City Council meeting then jump to #4. Click below
Greensboro City Council Video
I am Colin Kelly and I reside at 6716 Forsythia Drive Greensboro.
Madam Mayor, Council Members
I am a member of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens and we feel
that the Protest Petition needs to be re-instated.
Coalition for Concerned Citizens has 5 large neighborhoods participating and we are growing. There are many areas of Greensboro that are fed up with the “in-fill” attitude of our city leaders. Growth is good and I support it but the guidelines currently set are not enough to protect our long standing neighborhoods. Please look closely at the current situation in Greensboro and consider bringing back the protest petition to our city.
Greensboro City Council and the zoning commission are a run away development freight train that is out of control. The protest petition will probably not stop this freight train but it might slow it down. If the proposal is worthy then the majority of the council will prevail and the protest petition will not affect that. Why is TREBIC so afraid of the petition?
Greensboro managed to exempt itself from Protest Petition 37 years ago. I have heard
comments to the effect that Greensboro had the foresight to exempt itself from this
state statue in 1971. I am absolutely sure that “foresight” is the correct term I would
use to describe this “injustice”. I have also heard comments to the effect that it is
antiquated and it will hinder future growth in Greensboro. All other cities in our
state have the Protest Petition and their growth has not been hindered. Raleigh,
in fact, has grown quite well so has Charlotte, Asheville, Wilmington…
and I could go on.
The Protest Petition will not hinder growth in our city. It will give the citizens
an opportunity to express to the developers satisfaction as well as their
dissatisfaction to areas of development. It will not stop development.
As an example I would like to talk about the area on Highway 68
near Wendover. The citizens of High Point used the Protest Petition
to state their dissatisfaction with the proposed development. They were able
to negotiate reduced saturation and lighting abutting a single family neighborhood.
Earlier this year in this very chamber the citizens of Western Greensboro
lost an attempt to stop development of an apartment complex going next
to a 50 year old single family neighborhood. The Protest Petition would have
given those citizens the opportunity to say to the builder that this does not fit.
Reduce the density and make it compatible with the existing neighborhood
and we will accept it. We were not given that option because Greensboro is
exempt from theProtest Petition.
The taxpaying citizens of Greensboro have given this message to this council.
It is time for this council to start listening to the people that elected them.
It is also time for this council to send a message to Raleigh and the
Guilford delegation that it is time for Greensboro to re-instate the Protest Petition
because this is what its citizen’s wants.
Thank you.
Greensboro City Council Video
I am Colin Kelly and I reside at 6716 Forsythia Drive Greensboro.
Madam Mayor, Council Members
I am a member of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens and we feel
that the Protest Petition needs to be re-instated.
Coalition for Concerned Citizens has 5 large neighborhoods participating and we are growing. There are many areas of Greensboro that are fed up with the “in-fill” attitude of our city leaders. Growth is good and I support it but the guidelines currently set are not enough to protect our long standing neighborhoods. Please look closely at the current situation in Greensboro and consider bringing back the protest petition to our city.
Greensboro City Council and the zoning commission are a run away development freight train that is out of control. The protest petition will probably not stop this freight train but it might slow it down. If the proposal is worthy then the majority of the council will prevail and the protest petition will not affect that. Why is TREBIC so afraid of the petition?
Greensboro managed to exempt itself from Protest Petition 37 years ago. I have heard
comments to the effect that Greensboro had the foresight to exempt itself from this
state statue in 1971. I am absolutely sure that “foresight” is the correct term I would
use to describe this “injustice”. I have also heard comments to the effect that it is
antiquated and it will hinder future growth in Greensboro. All other cities in our
state have the Protest Petition and their growth has not been hindered. Raleigh,
in fact, has grown quite well so has Charlotte, Asheville, Wilmington…
and I could go on.
The Protest Petition will not hinder growth in our city. It will give the citizens
an opportunity to express to the developers satisfaction as well as their
dissatisfaction to areas of development. It will not stop development.
As an example I would like to talk about the area on Highway 68
near Wendover. The citizens of High Point used the Protest Petition
to state their dissatisfaction with the proposed development. They were able
to negotiate reduced saturation and lighting abutting a single family neighborhood.
Earlier this year in this very chamber the citizens of Western Greensboro
lost an attempt to stop development of an apartment complex going next
to a 50 year old single family neighborhood. The Protest Petition would have
given those citizens the opportunity to say to the builder that this does not fit.
Reduce the density and make it compatible with the existing neighborhood
and we will accept it. We were not given that option because Greensboro is
exempt from theProtest Petition.
The taxpaying citizens of Greensboro have given this message to this council.
It is time for this council to start listening to the people that elected them.
It is also time for this council to send a message to Raleigh and the
Guilford delegation that it is time for Greensboro to re-instate the Protest Petition
because this is what its citizen’s wants.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
