[00:00:02]
[I. CALL TO ORDER]
FROM THERE.BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND ROLL CALL.
I'LL START BACK WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER DANIELLE PEOPLES HERE.
AND THEN, UH, BOARD MEMBER KIT FARGO.
UH, VICE CHAIRMAN RUSTY INGRAM PIER.
BOARD MEMBER THOMAS BROWNELL HERE.
AND THEN BOARD MEMBER MARSHALL BOW HERE.
ALRIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
[IV. APPROVE AGENDA ]
DO I HAVE A, UH, MOTION ON THE AGENDA? I MOVE.WILL WE APPROVE THE AGENDA AS WRITTEN? SECOND.
I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED IS AGENDA IS APPROVED.
UM, I HAVE NO CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS OTHER THAN TO SAY IT'S MY BIRTHDAY AND I GET EXTRA CREDIT FOR THAT, FOR BEING HERE.
WELL, AND WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE
[VI.A. Land Use Ordinance Text Amendment ]
ON TO ACTION ITEM, UH, FIVE A OR SIX A.AND, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, MS. JESSICA RU WILL BE PRESENTING THAT ITEM.
CAN YOU ADVANCE THE SLIDE? I'LL DO IT.
UM, BACK IN MAY, WE BROUGHT FORTH TO YOU A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THAT WAS TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES TO ENJOY THE SAME, UM, RELAXED STANDARDS, NOT ONLY IN THE R SIX DISTRICT AS IT WAS WRITTEN, BUT IN ALL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE RDC BOUNDARY.
AND IN LOOKING AT THIS IN PRACTICALITY, WE REALIZED WE DID NOT CALL ATTENTION TO WHAT TO DO IN THE EVENT.
THERE ARE CONFLICTING STANDARDS BETWEEN AN OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.
AND SO WE ARE ASKING YOU ADVANCE THE SLIDE PLEASE.
IT, IT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU FORWARDED ON TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN.
A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THIS FOR AUGUST 8TH, I BELIEVE THEIR NEXT MEETING, THIS WILL STILL STAND AND MOVE FORWARD, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO, UH, MAKE A SUGGESTION IF YOU AGREE WITH THE RDC AND STAFF TO ADD CLARITY ON HOW TO APPLY THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS WHEN THEY EXIST IN THAT AREA.
THIS HAS BEEN BLESSED BY THE RDC AND RE RECOMMENDED TO YOU AND STAFF SUPPORTS THAT RECOMMENDATION.
OKAY? UM, WE ARE GONNA OPEN A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM 'CAUSE IT IS PART OF OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES.
UM, BEFORE I DO THAT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT IT'S HERE AND AT HOME.
UM, PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER COMMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE BOARD, UH, CITY STAFF AND TO BE RELEVANT TO THE ACTION ITEM BEING DISCUSSED.
UM, PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A COMMENT PERIOD, SO THE BOARD IS NOT TAKING OR RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, BUT AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN TO ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE, UH, ITEM SIX A HEARING NONE.
I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.
THIS DOES SEEM PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AS A CLARIFICATION.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.
AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, MR. CHAIR, BECAUSE THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT, UM, WE ARE, WE ARE GOING TO ALSO INCORPORATE THE CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY STATEMENT.
SO THE MOTION MAKER WILL WANT TO ADDRESS BOTH THEIR SUPPORT OR LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE CHANGE AS WELL AS THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY STATEMENT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THE CHANGE AND FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAND USE CODE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT.
I SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[VI.B. 2409 Oaks Road Rezoning]
ON ITEM SIX B, GUESS I SHOULD READ THIS.THE 24 0 9 OAKS ROAD REZONING MIKE STILL AREN'T WORKING, BUT I'LL DO MY BEST TO TO AIR AND SPEAK LOUDER.
UM, I APPRECIATE THE, UM, THE OFFERING THERE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND JUST, UH, EXPLAINING THIS WAS FOR 24 0 9 OAKS ROAD.
[00:05:01]
BE PRESENTING THIS SECOND ITEM HERE.AND THIS IS MAPA OR MAPA 0 0 3 0 1 1 20 25.
AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY, UH, THE APPLICANT IS ZEN ALTI AND THE OWNER IS NASSAR ALTI.
THE LOCATION AGAIN IS 24 0 9 OAKS ROAD, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA.
THE CURRENT ZONING, IT'S RESIDENTIAL SIX S OR R DASH SIX S.
THE REQUEST IS CHANGE IS TO GO FROM RDAS SIX S TO COMMERCIAL THREE, AND THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS EIGHT DASH 0 1 9 DASH 0 0 8.
AND THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL APPROXIMATELY IS 0.248.
AND JUST TO COMMENT, AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, THIS WAS THE ITEM FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING THAT WAS CONTINUED.
UH, I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THE APPLICANT OR OWNER IS HERE, BUT THEY MAY BE, UM, REGARDLESS WHICH SCOPE WE'LL PROCEED FORWARD AS NORMAL.
THEY DID NOT INDICATE THAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THEIR APPLICATION FROM, YOU KNOW, THE REGIONAL, UH, PROPOSAL.
SO THIS IS WHAT WE PROCEEDED WITH.
AND IN THE RESIDENTIAL SIX, UH, OR RDAS SIX ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS, ESSENTIALLY THIS IS JUST A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT IS FOR, UM, DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE SINGLE AND TWO AND ALSO MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS.
UH, IT ALSO ENCOURAGES THE CONTINUED USE OF THE FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND CERTAIN COMPATIBLE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
UH, IT'S ALSO TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES OF LAND, UM, TO PROHIBIT ANY OTHER USE, WHICH WOULD ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OR CONTINUATION AS BEING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.
UH, THIS ALSO IS TO ENCOURAGE THE DISCONTINUANCE OF EXISTING USES THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS NEW USES IN THIS DISTRICT.
AND IN THE COMMERCIAL THREE ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS, IT IS TO ENCOURAGE, UH, THE FOR OFFICES, PERSONAL SERVICES AND THE RETAILING OF DURABLE AND CONVENIENCE GOODS.
THIS DISTRICT ALSO WILL GENERALLY, UM, ALIGN WITH CITY MAJOR RADIO ROADS, UM, AND BECAUSE THESE DISTRICTS WILL BE LOCATED ON HIGHER VOLUME TRAFFIC ARTERIES AND WILL BE SUBJECTED TO THE VIEW, UH, NOT ONLY OF LOCAL RESIDENTS, BUT TOURISTS, OTHER NON-LOCAL MOTORISTS, AMPLE OFF AND OFF, EXCUSE ME.
AND ALSO OFFER AMPLE OFF STREET PARKING CONTROLLED TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AND AN APPROPRIATE APPEARANCE INCLUDING SUITABLE PLANTING SHALL BE PROVIDED.
SO THAT'S SUMS. IT KIND OF SUMMED IT ALL UP.
ITS JUST SCREENING ABOVE ROOM.
SO, AND THE USE COMPARISONS, UH, OR USES COMPARISONS.
YOU CAN SEE HERE TO THE LEFT WE'VE GOT RESIDENTIAL SIX S AND TO THE RIGHT THEY HAVE COMMERCIAL THREE.
AND I'LL JUST BRIEFLY LEAVE THAT FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT.
AND FOR THIS FIRST MAP, UH, WE HAVE THE VICINITY MAP, WHICH THIS HIGHLIGHTS THE PARCEL IN RED AND THAT THAT'S FOLLOWED BY THE BUFFER MAP.
AND THE BUFFER ESSENTIALLY JUST SHOWING YOU ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT FELL WITHIN THE A HUNDRED FEET, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY LINES FOR THAT ACTUAL SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THOSE FOLKS SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER, UM, OF SOME SORT THAT'S JUST INDICATING ABOUT, UH, THE PLANNING IS ZONING BOARD MEETING AS WELL AS WHAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES BEING ZONED FOR.
AND NOW RECENTLY THEY WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER WHEN YOU'RE DOING A CONTINUANCE, WE DO NOT HAVE TO RE-NOTICE.
THAT'S FOLLOWED BY THE AERIAL MAP HERE.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ZONING MAP, WHICH REFLECTS ITS CURRENT ZONING AS THE R DASH SIX S.
AND THEN, UH, IF THE BOARD HAS NO QUESTIONS, THE ACTIONS NEEDED.
NEXT WOULD BE THE ADOPTION OF CONSISTENCY STATEMENT AND THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? KENDRICK? I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.
THE APPLICATION INDICATED THAT THIS WOULD BE A RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS USE FOR THIS PARCEL.
UM, NOW IT SEEMS LIKE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A NON-CONFORMING USE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY HISTORICAL INFORMATION ON THIS PARCEL THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US? THE ONLY THING I'VE HEARD, UM, THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
UM, HE ACTUALLY MADE THE COMMENT THAT HE HAS DONE SEVERAL INSPECTIONS, UH, FOR WHAT WAS COMMERCIAL, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS NOT REALLY NECESSARILY JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY DECLARED IN THAT RESPECT BY, YOU KNOW, OBTAINING A PROPER PERMIT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT PERMITS WERE NECESSARILY REQUIRED OR HOW THEY WERE REQUIRED BACK IN AT THAT PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME.
SO IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SAY, IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED LEGALLY, BUT YOU CAN'T REALLY PROVE IT.
I HAVEN'T FOUND ANYTHING THAT WOULD SAY DIFFERENT.
[00:10:01]
I'M SORRY I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT DIRECTLY.YEAH, I JUST, I SAW IT MENTIONED IN I THINK TWO OF THE QUESTIONS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE APPLICATION FORM THAT THIS WOULD BE YES MA'AM.
TAKING IT BACK TO THE PREVIOUS USE.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT MUCH.
A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT IT'S OPERATED AS A STORE PREVIOUSLY OF SOME SORT, BUT AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S SUBJECTIVE IN A LOT OF WAYS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PERMITS THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE OBTAINED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD.
ALSO, I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT BECAUSE I READ IN THERE THAT THEY STATED TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS ZONING, NOT JUST AS THEY USED, BUT TO THE PREVIOUS ZONING AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAS THAT EVER BEEN ZONED ANYTHING BUT R SIX I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
I BELIEVE I HAD A MINOR CONVERSATION WITH OUR GIS PERSONNEL AND THERE WAS NOTHING THAT MADE IT, UH, OR SHOWED THAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAY HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT WHEN THEY INTRODUCED IT.
SO WHEN, WHEN IT WAS PURCHASED BY THIS INDIVIDUAL BACK IN 19 2019, IT WAS ZONED R SIX? YES, SIR.
TO MY, HE SAW THAT AS A R SIX ZONING TO MY UNDERSTANDING, YES, SIR.
AND FROM WHAT I ALSO UNDERSTAND, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS TOLD PRIOR TO PURCHASE, BUT AGAIN, I WASN'T THERE FOR THAT CONVERSATION, BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT'S BEING SAID.
SO ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR KEN? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SIR.
UM, JUST POINT, POINT OF BUSINESS BEFORE WE CONTINUE.
UM, UNDER, FOR EACH ACTION ITEM, WE GO THROUGH A STAFF REPORT, THEN WE DO A PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE ALLOW THE APPLICANTS TO SPEAK.
SO THAT'S THE ORDER AND JUST IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING, UM, SO WITH THAT, UM, I'LL OPEN UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MORNING DOVE TRAIL, NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA.
UH, THE REASON I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS IS THAT DURING THE LAST HEARING ON THIS, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THREE HOURS OF FACT.
I ALSO HAVE THE EXPLANATION AS TO THE TWO QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED AS TO HOW IT CAME TO BE THIS WAY.
THERE'S ONE PART OPINION HERE.
TOWNSHIP EIGHT, WHICH MAKES UP MOST OF THE FIFTH, FOURTH, WAS NEXT TO THE CITY OF NEWBURN, SOMETIME BETWEEN 1983 AND 1992.
THIS IS BASED ON REVIEWING MY OWN DEED AND OTHERS IN THE AREA.
AND CLEARLY THEY SAY PRIOR TO, UM, 1983, ALL OF THEM THAT THIS WAS, UH, TOWNSHIP EIGHT.
AFTER THAT YOU SAY IT SAYS TOWNSHIP EIGHT NEAR NEW BERN.
AND THAT'S WHY ALL THESE COMMERCIALS BECAUSE PRE COUNTY.
THE OTHER FACTOR IS THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED BY I BELIEVE MR. BALLARD AS TO WHETHER THIS CASE HAD BEEN HEARD BEFORE.
IT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN HEARD THREE TIMES BY THE BOARD BOARD.
THE FIRST TIME WAS IN PETITION.
UM, THE FIRST HEARING FOR C3 WAS HELD ON JUNE 11TH, 2019.
THE C3 REZO REJECTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE APPLICANT FOR C4 AS YOU GUYS DISCUSSED.
AND AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE VAPE SHOPS COULD NO LONGER OPERATE IN C FOUR ZONES AND TOBACCO SALES WERE LIMITED, THAT'S WHAT THAT OCCURRED.
OBJECTION WAS FOLKS WROTE ELEMENT, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD BY MAY 12TH ON C FOUR.
INITIALLY THE MOTION FAILED FOR AT THREE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AND AFTER EVERYBODY WAS GONE, ONE OF THE ALDERMEN, SOMEONE CALLED THE RECESS AND ONE OF THE ALDERMEN WANTED TO CHANGE HIS VOTE, VOTE.
AND BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT PRACTICAL, UM, UM, IT WAS RE HELD THE HEARING ON JULY 14TH, 2020.
AFTER THIS HEARING, THE C FOUR WAS OBJECTED FIVE TO SIX.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ALLOWED TO GIVE THAT OR NOT.
UM, MY OPINION IS THAT COMMERCIAL ZONING REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY COULD BE MUCH EASIER IF WE HAD CONDITIONS ON.
AND THE LAST ONE IS IN FACT ALSO THAT A STUDY BY GOVERNMENT SHOWED THAT 82% IN CITIES OUR SIZE OR CONDITIONAL ZONES.
[00:15:02]
SURE.IF YOU KENRICK ALLOWED TO PASS 'EM OUT.
UH, YEAH, WE'LL TAKE WHILE KENDRICK'S PASSING THOSE OUT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO BE MADE ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU, SIR.
WITH THAT I WILL OPEN IT UP TO BOARD, TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.
WELL, FOR, FOR ME, UH, I DON'T THINK MY MIND HAS BEEN CHANGED ANY BY ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN SINCE.
UM, I STILL HOLD THAT THIS IS ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET THAT IS ALL RESIDENTIAL.
UM, THERE IS COMMERCIAL ACROSS THE STREET, BUT IT IS MORE INDUSTRIAL TYPE EVEN THOUGH IT'S ZONED C3.
AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO THAT'S MY OPINION ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT.
I ALSO DON'T THINK THERE'S AMPLE PARKING BEING THAT'S SUCH A SMALL LOT.
SO A QUARTER ACRE, IF YOU HAVE A STORE, YOU HAVE NO PARKING ON THAT, SO IT'S ALL GONNA BE STREET PARKING, WHICH IS GOING TO INTERFERE WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS.
STREET PARKING ON THAT ROAD WOULD BE INTERESTING.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? HAD A LONG CONVERSATION ON THIS ONE LAST MEETING.
UM, DRIVING BY AND LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY, THERE IS A STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY THAT SUGGESTS THAT IT WAS USED AS A, A BUSINESS, A LITTLE GROCERY MARKET TYPE THING.
UM, SO THE CHALLENGE OF HAVING A STRUCTURE THAT IS CONDUCIVE TO COMMERCIAL USE BUT NOT BEING ABLE TO USE THE PARCEL FOR COMMERCIAL USE, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT PREDICAMENT FOR THE OWNER.
AND I, UM, YOU KNOW, WE OF COURSE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH LAST TIME, BUT I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE, LIKE MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE CONSIDER THAT FOR THE CONSISTENCY STATEMENT, IT'S VERY EASY TO MAKE THE POINT EITHER WAY THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH BEING COMMERCIAL OR IT IS CONSISTENT WITH BEING RESIDENTIAL.
UH, SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO THINK ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY AND WHAT'S BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY IN THAT AREA.
REITERATING THAT THIS WAS A AREA THAT WAS HIT RATHER HARD BY HURRICANE FLORENCE, THERE'S STILL A, A FAIR AMOUNT OF RECOVERY GOING ON IN THAT AREA WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN THAT STREET.
THERE ARE COMMERCIAL USES ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, SO IT'S NOT, IT WOULDN'T BE AN ABRUPT, UM, THING TO HAVE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AS YOU DRIVE DOWN.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU GET A LITTLE FARTHER INTO RIVERSIDE AND YOU'VE GOT THE, UM, THE HARDWARE STORE AND THE GAS STATION.
UH, AND AGAIN, THERE IS A STRUCTURE THAT SITS THERE THAT SEEMS CONDUCIVE FOR A COMMERCIAL USE.
SO IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE'S NOBODY HERE NECESSARILY SPEAKING AGAINST THIS REZONING, FOLKS WERE NOTIFIED AS THEY, WELL, FOLKS WERE NOTIFIED THE ONE TIME.
UM, I, I CONTINUE TO FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER THIS REZONING TO COMMERCIAL.
THE MAIN PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT IS C3.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S A HEAVY MM-HMM
AND BROAD REACHING, UH, COMMERCIAL ZONE THAT I DON'T FIT THE, I MEAN IT'S IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND C3 IS, IS A LITTLE TO ME, AND THE ALLOWABLE USES THAT ARE THERE, UH, AND, AND A C3, UH, ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ALL GOING DOWN THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.
UM, THE, THE C3, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THIS INDIVIDUAL OWNER THINKS HE'S GOING TO DO WITH IT, THE C3 WILL STAY WITH THAT PROPERTY FOREVER.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT MY MAIN CONCERN IS WITH IT, IS THAT, UH, WE'RE MAKING A DECISION AND WE DO THIS OFTEN BASED
[00:20:01]
ON THE PERSON STANDING IN FRONT OF US WITHOUT REGARD TO THE NEXT OWNER OR THE NEXT OWNER, WHICH MIGHT BE A MONTH FROM NOW, UH, AND WHAT THEIR INTENDED USE WOULD BE.AND C3 IS JUST TOO WIDE REACHING, UH, IN, IN MY OPINION FOR THIS LOCATION.
AND, AND I ALSO THINK IN THE LAST MEETING WE WENT THROUGH, AS DANIELLE STATED CORRECTLY, I MEAN WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS AND ON ONE SIDE, WHILE SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE WERE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT MIGHT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE LIVING ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET FOR PARKING REASONS OR OTHER REASONS.
SO, YOU KNOW, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY, YOU CAN SEE IT EITHER WAY, AND WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION LAST, LAST MONTH THAT YOU COULD GO EITHER WAY ON THIS.
UM, BUT POINT WILL TAKE TORICK, REMIND ME, THE, THE ACROSS THE STREET OVER THERE, THOSE COMMERCIAL ZONINGS, IS THAT C3 OR C FOUR? C3.
UM, I, I AGREE WITH, WITH, WITH, WITH PART OF KIPP'S STATEMENT IN THE FACT THAT THIS IS WHERE BOTH ON THIS BOARD AND THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN, THIS IS WHERE THE DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE HAD BECAUSE THAT ZONING GOES WITH THAT LOT FOREVER AT, YOU KNOW, ONCE SOMEBODY COMES IN AND THEY WANNA DO A THING, THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THE ZONING THAT THAT'S WHERE THE, THE ARGUMENT IS MADE.
UM, AND SO IT, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK IS WHEN YOU BUY THE PROPERTY AND YOU RE-ZONE IT TO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO, WHATEVER IT IS, THEY CAN THEN DO WHAT THAT IS ALLOWED IN THAT ZONING.
AND SO THIS IS REALLY WHERE THE, THE CONVERSATION SHOULD BE HAD AT THE BOARD AND AT THIS BOARD, UH, THE BOARD OF OTTOMAN AT THIS BOARD.
UM, THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
I I THINK THAT, THAT THE REZONINGS ARE MORE PORT NEED TO BE, UH, THOUGHT OF MORE IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD GOING FORWARD.
OFTENTIMES IT'S, WELL, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO WITH THE PROPERTY? AND IT'S LIKE, THAT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
THIS IS, IT'S THE LONG TERM VISION.
AND, AND TO THAT POINT, MR. CHAIR, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER AS YOU ANALYZE THIS APPLICATION, YOU WANNA THINK ABOUT ALL PERMISSIBLE USES.
SO I THINK KENDRICK HAD A SLIDE THAT ANALYZED THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO, BUT AS YOU LOOK AT YOUR TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES, YOU KNOW, RE-IMAGINING IF SOMEONE WERE TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND RE-ENVISION THAT PROPERTY, WOULD YOU FEEL THAT THE OTHER PERMITTED USES NA C3 WOULD BE SUITABLE, REASONABLE, CONDUCIVE, AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAND USE PLANS AND ADJACENT USES? DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT? TO JAMIE'S POINT, NOTHING ON THAT LIST OF COMMERCIAL USES GIVES ME PERSONALLY PAUSE.
WELL, IF, IF YOU GO TO THE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE IN THERE THAT WILL SHOW YOU WHAT'S ALLOWABLE IN C3 AND IT'S A LONG LIST.
I I THINK THIS LIST IS SOMEWHAT SHORTENED.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF IN THERE THAT COULD BE DONE ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT JUST CHANGES TO C3.
IS THERE SOMETHING WITHIN THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE INCONSISTENT? I FEEL LIKE IT OPENS IT RATHER THAN TALK ABOUT INDIVIDUAL THINGS.
I THINK IT OPENS IT UP TO A GAMUT OF POSSIBILITIES WHERE THIS AREA HAS BEEN RESIDENTIAL AND PROBABLY HAS BEEN NOW FOR MANY YEARS 'CAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN A STORE THERE, EVEN IF IT WASN'T LEGAL AT THE TIME, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WASN'T, EVEN IF THERE WAS SOME SORT OF COMMERCIAL USE THERE, IT HASN'T BEEN THERE IN A LONG TIME.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTS ARE THE RESIDENTS ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.
SO I WOULD SAY I THINK IT OPENS IT UP TO WAY TOO MANY POSSIBILITIES, JUST OF GENERAL.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? A AND TO CONFIRM THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR WE CAN CONTINUE TO DISCUSS PLEASURE THE BOARD.
I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DECLINE THAT WE ASK THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN TO DECLINE THIS REQUEST AND THAT IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE.
I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WITHOUT KENDRICK.
AND I'LL START OFF WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER DANIELLE PEOPLES NO.
[00:25:01]
MEMBER.BOARD MEMBER KELLY KAISER? YES.
BOARD MEMBER THOMAS BRUNELL? YES.
AND BOARD MEMBER MARSHAL BATTLE? YES.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT VOTE IS SIX TO ONE.
[Items VI.C. and VI.D.]
ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX C SEVEN 50 HIGHWAY 55 WEST INITIAL ZONING.AND THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN FOR THIS.
UH, NEXT ITEM IS REZ 0 0 3 0 8 4 20 25.
AND THIS IS FOR SEVEN 50 HIGHWAY 55 WEST.
IT'S THE INITIAL ZONING AND THE REQUEST SUMMARY.
THE APPLICANT HERE IS THE CITY OF NEW BERN.
THE OWNER IS TANYA L DILLA HUNT AND LOCATION IS SEVEN 50 HIGHWAY 55 WEST NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA.
UM, THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED IN AS YOU MAY RECALL, UH, WHEN IT CAME ABOUT IN DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY FOR OUR, I CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY THAT MEETING DATE, BUT, UM, IT IS STILL UNASSIGNED WITH AS FAR AS ING.
THE REQUESTED CHANGE BY THE CITY OF NEW VERN IS FOR RESIDENTIAL 20 OR R DASH 20.
AND THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR THIS FIRST PROPERTY IS EIGHT DASH 2 22 DASH 3 0 0 0 1 AND THE APPROXIMATE SIZE IS 0.94 TOTAL ACRES.
JUST THE ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS.
UM, ESSENTIALLY IT'S FOR LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH 20,000 SQUARE FEET BEING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
AND THIS IS TO ENCOURAGE CONSTRUCTION OF, UH, AND THE CONTINUED USE OF LAND FOR LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS.
AND IT ALSO ENCOURAGES THE PRESERVATION OF RURAL CHARACTER AND IT'S TO PROHIBIT ANY COMMERCIAL, UH, OR INDUSTRIAL LAND USES AND PROHIBIT ANY OTHER INFLUX OF USES LIKELY TO RENDER IT UNDESIRABLE.
UM, SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT'S TO DISCOURAGE, UH, THE USE WHICH BECAUSE OF ITS CHARACTER FOR SIZE, THAT WOULD CREATE REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION.
AND AGAIN, TO ENCOURAGE A DISCONTINUANCE OF EXISTING USES THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED, UM, AS NEW USES IN THE DISTRICT.
AND FOR THIS FIRST UH, MAP HERE, YOU HAVE THE VICINITY MAP THAT JUST SHOWS THE PARCEL IN RED.
AND THAT'S FOLLOWED AGAIN BY THE BUFFER MAP.
THIS IS WITH ALL THE PROPERTIES WITHIN 100 FEET AND FOLLOWED BY THE AERIAL MAP, WHICH JUST SHOWS YOU WHAT'S ON THE GROUND.
AND THEN OUR ZONING MAP, AND AGAIN, THIS IS OF COURSE UNASSIGNED, SO YOU'RE SEEING THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS THAT ARE SURROUNDING IT ALONG WITH, UH, SOME OTHER COUNTY PROPERTIES.
AND, UM, THE ACTION NEEDED AT THIS TIME FROM THE BOARD WOULD BE TO ADOPT A CONSISTENCY STATEMENT AND A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF BALDWIN.
BUT I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD IF THEY HAVEN'T BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR KENDRICK? KENDRICK? I'D GO BACK TO THE LAST SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE ZONING ON THIS ONE.
JUST FOR CLARITY, I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS IS BEFORE THIS BOARD TO LOOK AT.
UM, EVERY TIME WE GET PROPERTY ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF NEW BERN, WE NEED TO ASSIGN A ZONING DISTRICT TO THAT 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ONE.
IF YOU RECALL SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN I FIRST STARTED WORKING HERE, I WAS KIND OF HORRIFIED TO FIND OUT WE HAD 32 PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN ANNEXED IN AND NEVER GIVEN ZONING.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THESE COME UP MORE CLOSELY TO THE TIME THEY'RE ANNEXED IN NOW.
AND THAT, AND WE'VE GOT SEVERAL OF THEM THIS EVENING AS A STAFF, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT AREA, LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOOK AT THE ZONING WHEN WE'RE APPLYING IN INITIAL DISTRICT OR RECOMMENDING IN INITIAL DISTRICT IN, UH, TYPICALLY WE'LL WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND, AND IF IT MAKES SENSE, WE WILL, UH, UH, RECOMMEND THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TO AVOID HAVING TO GO BACK AND PERHAPS THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY WERE ASSIGNED AND THEY CAN OF COURSE, ALWAYS FOLLOW THE PROCESS AND REQUEST A REZONING.
AGAIN, IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU'RE GONNA SEE A 0.93 ACRE TRACT OF LAND HERE, WHICH IS RELATIVELY SMALL, UM, IN A, IN A RURAL AREA.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S ON THIS MAP IN FRONT OF YOU, WHICH IS THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS A FIVE.
SO THAT'S VERY, VERY LOW DENSITY.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT SOME OF THESE OTHER ONES THAT HAVE BEEN ANNEXED IN R 20.
SO KE AND KEEPING WITH THAT SPIRIT OF LOW DENSITY.
[00:30:01]
AND SO I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, UM, ABOUT THEIR TAKE ON WHAT THIS IS.UH, OUR STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE R 20 IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN HARMONY WITH THAT AREA.
ALRIGHT, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. ROOT? ALRIGHT, THANKS GUYS, APPRECIATE IT.
UM, WITH THAT I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, WOULD THE APPLICANT MIKE, LIKE TO MAKE ANY REMARKS ON THIS ITEM? YES, I WOULD.
WHY? MY NAME IS GARY CLEMONS, A LAWYER WITH CHESTNUT AND CLEMONS.
UH, AND I REPRESENT THE LAND OWNER, UM, IN, AND MIGHT AS WELL TALK ABOUT BOTH OF THESE AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE THEY GO TOGETHER.
IT'S UM, ITEM NUMBER C, WHICH IS SEVEN 50, HIGHWAY 55 WEST, AND ALONG WITH THAT IS ITEM NUMBER D, WHICH IS 7 84 HIGHWAY 55 WEST.
UM, AND I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT A FEW FACTS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER, UH, ANOTHER OPTION OTHER THAN R 20.
UM, SO FIRST THE LAND OWNER ITSELF IS, UH, TANYA DILLA HUNT AND MS. DILLA HUNT DOES NOT LIVE HERE.
SHE LIVES IN TEXAS, BUT HER FATHER IS JIMMY DILLA HUNT AND MR. DILLA HUNT IS HERE.
THE REASON HE HAS AUTHORITY TO BE HERE IS BECAUSE THERE IS A RECORDED POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HIM TO ACT IN THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OFFICE.
IF THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE, THEN I'LL MOVE FORWARD.
OTHERWISE I'LL TALK ABOUT THE MERITS OF WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO.
UM, SO THE, UM, PROPOSAL THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT TWO OPTIONS OTHER THAN R 20.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT, UM, THE SEVEN 50 HIGHWAY, 55 WEST, UM, EXHIBIT THREE.
ALRIGHT, SO, UM, THE PROPOSAL, I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE POWERPOINT, I'M JUST GONNA HAVE TO DO IT THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, LIKE ALL LAWYERS USED TO DO.
UM, SO ANYHOW, AND I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF HARD TO SEE FROM WHERE YOU ARE, UM, BUT THE FIRST PROPOSAL IS, UH, R EIGHT.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER R EIGHT, IT TALKS ABOUT SINGLE OR TWO OR MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE LOT OF 8,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE OTHER LOT OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO HERE, HERE'S BASICALLY WHAT THE WHOLE PROJECT IS BETWEEN, UH, ITEMS NUMBER C AND D TOGETHER.
OKAY? SO THE, THE SAME LANDOWNER OWNS ALL OF THIS UNDER ITEM C AND ITEM NUMBER TWO.
AND SO C BASICALLY THE PROPOSAL OF THE LANDOWNER IS TO HAVE FOUR LOTS SURVEYED DIVIDED UP WITH A SINGLE, UH, UNIT OR SINGLE HOUSE ON EACH OF THE LOTS, WHICH IS COVERED UNDER R EIGHT.
OKAY? I, AND I'LL GET INTO THE, WHAT THE REST OF THE AREA LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE MORE DETAILED THAN WAS POINTED OUT BY THE CITY ABOUT THE AREA.
I HAVE A MAP THAT HAS A A ONE MILE CIRCUMFERENCE AND I WILL HAVE TO SAY THAT IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE R SIXES, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF STUFF.
UH, BUT IN ANY EVENT, IT'S KEEPING THIS R EIGHT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS THE FIVE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PUBLIC POLICY SECTION OF, UH, THE REGULATION.
UM, SO, UM, SO WHAT WE HAVE IS, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RA ARE, ARE MADE BECAUSE IT'S 73, 72 TO 73 FEET ON THE FRONT OF EACH OF THESE.
AND IT'S A MINIMUM, IT'S LOWER THAN THE REQUIRED 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FOR ONE AND FIVE, 4,000 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE OTHER THREE.
SO ONE LOT IS 10,000, ONE LOT IS 10,000, THE OTHER LOT IS 10,000.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONES IS OVER 10,000.
SO IT MEETS THAT PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT OF THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT AND THE OTHER, I MEAN THE 8,000 SQUARE FOOT AND THE OTHER 4,000 SQUARE FOOT.
[00:35:01]
NOW, EARLIER IN THIS PROCESS, I DID SEND, UH, TO THE CITY ATTORNEY SOME CASE LAW AS IT RELATES TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.OKAY? SO SHE HAS THE, THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS ON THAT SO SHE CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT.
OKAY? WHAT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU HERE, AND I KNOW YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE THIS, UM, BUT I I JUST KIND OF WANT TO POINT OUT THE
SO WE, WE, UM, COMPARED THESE TO ALL THE MAPS THAT THE CITY HAVE.
SO WITHIN THIS, UM, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE AS PROPOSAL NUMBER ONE IS, WHICH IS FAR EIGHT, IS THAT RIGHT? CLOSE TO IT IS A WHOLE DEVELOPMENT OF R SIX.
THERE'S ANOTHER R SIX, WHICH IS 20, THERE'S A R 20, WHICH IS CLOSE TO THAT.
THERE'S ANOTHER R 20, THERE'S A R 10 A, THERE'S AR-15, THERE'S A R EIGHT, THERE'S A SLICE OF ANOTHER R 10 AND THERE'S A R 20.
SO TO SAY THE WHOLE THING IS RURAL IS NOT CORRECT.
IT, IT IS A HODGEPODGE, A MIXTURE OF A LOT OF THINGS.
SO, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, HIGHWAY 55 WEST, YOU KNOW, THE PLEASANT HILL AREA, IT'S A DEPRESSED LOOKING AREA.
I MEAN, IT, IT'S NOT DOWNTOWN NEW BERN.
AND THE WHOLE POINT THAT, UM, UH, MY CLIENTS WANTED TO DO IS CREATE SOME SINGLE HOUSING FOR RESIDENTS TO KIND OF IMPROVE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON HIGHWAY 55.
LOW INCOME HOUSING THAT PEOPLE COULD AFFORD, WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS 25 FEET AND THE, THE REST OF THE HOUSE IS 40 FEET.
SO, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT THAT, THAT'S THE GOAL.
AND, AND I REALIZE I, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU ZONE SOMETHING R EIGHT OR MY OTHER OPTION IS GONNA BE R 10, I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE, BUT WHEN YOU ZONE SOMETHING, YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY ZONING IT SPECIFICALLY FOR WHAT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT WANTS.
BUT I'M JUST, I'M EXPLAINING IT TO YOU IN A WAY TO, TO TELL YOU THAT ALTHOUGH THAT'S THE CASE, IT IS MR. DILLA HUNT'S MOTIVE AND INTENT TO HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HELP PEOPLE GET INTO BETTER HOUSING IN THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK BETTER THAN IT'S, I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S HIS ULTIMATE GOAL.
SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S KIND OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND RA.
NOW, UH, AS UH, LAWYERS, LAWYERS NEVER TALK ABOUT, THERE'S ONLY ONE ROAD TO VANCE BOROUGH.
THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE ROAD TO VANCE BOROUGH.
AND SO WE LIKE TO GIVE, AT LEAST I DO.
UH, I LIKE TO GIVE, UH, PEOPLE MAKING DECISION.
UH, I LIKE TO GIVE 'EM OPTIONS.
OKAY, SO I'VE GOT ANOTHER OPTION.
SO THE OTHER OPTION IS 15 1 36 B FOUR, UH, WHICH IS R 10.
AND, AND THIS ONE IS A LITTLE TRICKY, UM, AND IT'S GONNA REQUIRE SOME CREATIVITY, I THINK ON Y'ALL'S PART.
UM, BUT AN R 10, UH, AS YOU ALL KNOW, IS SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY HOMES WITH A $10,000 FOR ONE FAMILY DWELLING AND ANOTHER 5,000 IF IT'S TWO.
SO IF YOU, IF YOU HAD WHAT THIS PLAN DOES, IT CUTS DOWN ON THE LOTS ON, UH, AT SEVEN 50 FROM FOUR TO THREE.
OKAY? HOWEVER, HOWEVER, IT, IT DOESN'T MEET THE STRICT REQUIREMENTS OF R 10 BECAUSE EACH OF THESE ARE NOT 15,000 SQUARE FEET, OKAY? THEY'RE A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT.
HOWEVER, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHED THE PUD 15 DASH 86, UH, I'LL READ TO YOU THE, A PART THAT GIVES YOU SOME FLEXIBILITY.
THERE ARE HEREBY ESTABLISHED DIFFERENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AS SUBSCRIBED IN THIS SECTION.
EACH PUD IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, OR INDUSTRIAL USES, EITHER SINGULARLY OR IN COMBINATION.
THE INTENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY FLEXIBILITY TO ENCOURAGE CREATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT WHILE WORKING WITH THE DENSITY AND PERMISSIBLE USE REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY THE ESTABLISHED ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE CITY STANDARDS
[00:40:01]
FOR STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES.THE BOTTOM LINE IS MR. DILL HUNT WANTED TO USE HIS LAND, WHICH WAS RECENTLY ANNEXED AS YOU KNOW, IN JANUARY THIS YEAR.
AND, AND IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE REZONING.
WE, THIS IS A NEW APPLICATION.
AND AS YOU ALSO WILL REMEMBER, UH, MR. DILLA HUNT FILED THE INITIAL APPLICATION AND IT, WE, YOU HAD TO GO BACK AND WE HAD TO DO IT THE OTHER WAY WHERE THE CITY WAS THE ACTUAL APPLICANT ON THIS ONE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT TOOK SOME TIME TO DO.
UM, SO, UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THE WHOLE GOAL, MR. DILLA HUNT'S GOAL AND HIS DAUGHTER'S GOAL IS TO CREATE SOME HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME PEOPLE AND MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK BETTER.
THAT'S ALL HE IS TRYING TO DO.
HE'S NOT TRYING TO GET INTO THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BUSINESS.
HE'S NOT TRYING TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY UNITS, HE'S NOT TRYING TO BUILD APARTMENTS, HE'S NOT TRYING TO DO ANY OF THAT.
HE'S ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR HIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE NOW HOW OLD ARE YOU NOW? MR. DI? 82 78.
AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE OLDER YOU GET, JUST LIKE ALL THE MULTIMILLIONAIRES IN THE UNITED STATES IS THAT WHEN AT THE END OF THEIR LIVES WHAT THEY LIKE TO DO IS LIKE, THEY LIKE TO LEAVE A LEGACY.
WE ALL LIKE WANT TO LEAVE A LEGACY.
AND SO THIS IS LEGACY THAT MR. DILLA HUNT WANTS TO DO, NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY.
HE'S JUST IN IT TO HELP PEOPLE AND TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF IF THEY'RE WILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, I'LL, OKAY, TWO, TWO SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR YOU GARY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER 'EM.
MR. DI HUNT COULD PROBABLY ANSWER 'EM BETTER THAN ME.
LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BEHIND THIS LOT.
THIS YES, THIS BILL, THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A 30 FOOT EASEMENT COMING THROUGH THIS PIECE.
PARK, PARK, UH, ACT FOR ACCESS TO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
I DIDN'T SEE THAT ON YOUR PLAN.
I THINK THAT'S ON MR. DI HUNT'S PROPERTY.
THAT, THAT PART THROUGH, UH, THROUGH THE, THE TWO SECTIONS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S A, THERE'S A PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT HERE MM-HMM
THAT, THAT PART IS NOT ANNEXED.
SO THERE'S, HE HAS SOME PROPERTY BACK HERE.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EASEMENT THAT WENT THIS WAY OR WENT ACROSS HERE AND WENT THAT WAY 'CAUSE THERE'S, THERE WAS NO PLANS TO HAVE AN EASEMENT FROM HERE TO HERE.
WELL THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD LAST TIME.
WE HEARD THAT THAT'S, UM, THAT WOULD'VE TAKEN UP 30 FEET OF THAT AND CHANGED THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS UNDER THE R 10.
UH, THE LOTS NEED TO BE 10,000 SQUARE FEET PLUS FIVE IF YOU HAVE ONE OR MORE.
IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE UNIT.
BUT YOU GOT FOUR, YOU GOT 40,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU GOT OVER 40,000 SQUARE FEET IN THAT LOT.
SO YOU COULD ACTUALLY PUT FOUR LOTS ON THERE.
WELL, UH, UH, I'VE GOT, UM, 10,000, WELL IF I HAVE THREE LOTS, THEY COME TO ABOUT 13, ABOUT 14,000 A PIECE ON THREE OF THE, LOTS ON AT HIGHWAY SEVEN 50.
BUT, BUT, BUT WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF WE ZONED IN R 10 YEAH.
HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THREE, HE COULD DO FOUR.
'CAUSE THERE'S 40 OVER 40,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO HE WOULD'VE FOUR 10, 10,000 FOOT LOCKS THERE.
I THINK THAT UNDER R EIGHT THOUGH, HE, IT HAS TO BE, WELL IF YOU DO IT UNDER R 10, EACH OF THE LOTS HAVE TO BE 15,000 SQUARE FEET.
SQUARE FEET, AM I WRONG ON THAT? YEAH, I'M WRONG.
IF WE JUST HAVE, IF YOU JUST HAVE ONE DWELLING ON THE LOT, I'M READING THE, THE YEAH, I THINK IF YOU HAVE ONE DWELLING ON THE LOT, OKAY.
SO IF, IF HE HAD, UM, A DUPLEX RIGHT WITH TWO, RIGHT.
WITH TWO ON EACH OF THE THREE LOTS MM-HMM
IF YOU GO INTO MULTIFAMILY THAT THAT'S RIGHT.
ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, UM, 10 R AS COMPARED TO 10 RSI BELIEVE, OR A UH, ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT ONE OR TWO FAMILY UNITS WHERE THE OTHER ONE TALKS ABOUT MULTIPLE.
I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT EITHER THE ABILITY TO PUT ONE OR DUPLEXES WHERE YOU GOT ONE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILIES UNDER R 10.
BUT, BUT IF YOU PUT TWO FAMILIES UNDER R 10, YOU GOTTA HAVE THAT AND YOU CAN'T, YOU GOTTA HAVE 15,000.
AND I'M, I'M JUST GOING FROM WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING US WITH THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, RIGHT? AND YEAH, YOU COULD DO THE DO FOUR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON THAT PARCEL.
[00:45:01]
YOU COULD MM-HMMI'M JUST GIVING YOU OPTIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU COULD DO.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS R 10 A AND R 10 A.
BUT IF YOU DO R 10 S THEN THAT LIMITED STRICTLY THE SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY, RIGHT? NO, NO OPTION FOR THAT'S RIGHT.
SO YOU COULD DO R 10 A AND DO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND STILL HAVE DUPLEXES.
DO I HAVE, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? NO, THAT'S ALRIGHT.
WHAT, UH, KENDRICK, WHAT IS THE FRONT SETBACK IN THOSE FOR R DASH 10? IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN? I BELIEVE IT'S 25 FEET.
SO, AND THAT'S FOR THE FRONT, FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S WHERE IT'S TAPING FROM AND I BELIEVE IT'S 10 FEET ON THE SIDE AND THEN IT'S 25 FEET OFF THE REAR.
AND THAT'S ACROSS THE BOARD FOR EACH R 10 DISTRICT.
AND KENDRICK, CAN YOU REMIND EVERYONE THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS WHEN YOU CREATE A NEW LOT, LIKE WOULD BE DONE IN WHAT WAS JUST PRESENTED, JUST SO THEY UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE, THE DIMENSIONS.
SO AS FAR AS FOR THE DIMENSIONS AND THE RANGE OF RECOMMEND THAT THEY DO, AND THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO REAPPLY HOW, WHAT IS THAT PROCESS? YEAH, THE MICS JUST CAME ON.
WHAT, SO SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO, SO THE NOTICE THAT WENT OUT FOR THIS MEETING WAS NOTIFYING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OF R 20.
SO ANYONE WHO MIGHT'VE HAD COMMENTS IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION WOULD'VE KNOWN ABOUT R 20.
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT R 10, R 10 S, R 10 A, R EIGHT.
UM, AND PERHAPS IF THAT, THAT INFORMATION HAD BEEN IN THE, IN THE NOTICE, PEOPLE MIGHT COME OUT AND HAVE COMMENTS.
SO IN THAT REGARD, I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS, UM, ABOUT RECOMMENDING SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT WHAT WAS IN THE NOTICE.
HOWEVER, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO, UM, NOT RECOMMEND R 20, WHAT YOU CAN DO IS YOU CAN INSTRUCT STAFF FOR THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN MEETING TO NOTICE OTHER ZONING DESIGNATIONS SO THAT PEOPLE AT THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND TALK ABOUT R SIX, R EIGHT, R 10, R 20, A FIVE F WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE A PART OF THAT PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
AND SO THEN THE PROCESS COULD CONTINUE AND THEN THERE COULD BE SOME TYPE OF DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD OF ALTMAN MEETING AND THEN THEY COULD VOTE HOWEVER THEY SAW FIT.
ONE MORE QUESTION AND, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND.
MR. CLEMENS MADE, UM, SOME COMMENTS ABOUT SOME CASES THAT HE SHARED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND HE'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
I, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO BEAR IN MIND THE CONCEPT OF A LEGAL SPOT ZONING.
OKAY? AND WE TALK ABOUT SPOT ZONING ALL THE TIME AND SPOT ZONING IS ONLY BAD WHEN IT'S ILLEGAL.
AND WE THINK ABOUT ILLEGAL SPOT SPOT ZONING BY ANALYZING A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT FACTORS.
SO ONE OF THOSE FACTORS IS THE RELATIVE SIZE OF THE PARCEL THAT'S IN, IN QUESTION RELATED TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU ALL HAVE THE DIMENSIONAL, UM, STANDARDS HERE ABOUT THE, THE ACREAGE OF THE PARCEL AND YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE VISUALLY DEPICTED, UM, THE SIZE OF THE PARCELS IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
AND I THINK IF WE CAN GO BACK TO MR. CLEMONS, UM, EXHIBIT, WHICH IS ZOOMED OUT EVEN FARTHER, I THINK THAT GIVES US SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT ABOUT THE RELATIVE SIZE OF THIS, LESS THAN AN ACRE PARCEL VERSUS THE LARGER GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
ANOTHER CONSIDERATION IS HOW MANY OWNERS ARE INVOLVED IN THE REZONING? AND IN THIS CASE WE HAVE A SINGLE OWNER THAT'S LOOKING AT, UM, RESTRICTING THIS TRACT.
AND THE COURTS SAY, WELL, WHEN WE HAVE A BUNCH OF OWNERS THAT ARE ASKING FOR THE SAME THING, IT'S LESS LIKELY TO BE A LEGAL SPOT ZONING.
[00:50:01]
WHEN YOU HAVE A SINGLE OWNER, THEN WE HAVE TO SCRATCH OUR HEADS A BIT MORE.ANOTHER CONSIDERATION THAT YOU WANT TO BEAR IN MIND IS WHEN WE HAVE A SMALL PARCEL THAT'S BEING EITHER RESTRICTED LESS OR RESTRICTED MORE THAN THE SURROUNDING LAND AREAS.
SO IF WE THINK ABOUT WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE VICINITY, IF WE LOOK AT MS RU'S PICTURE HERE, WE HAVE A RELATIVELY SMALL PARCEL THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE SOMETHING AS DENSE AS R EIGHT.
UM, WHICH IS VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN WE SEE THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
IF WE ZOOM OUT FARTHER, UM, IF WE WANT TO USE A ONE MILE VICINITY FOR A HALF ACRE TRACT, WHICH I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME ISSUES OF SCALE THERE, BUT LET'S JUST GO WITH IT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT.
WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH OR LESS RESTRICTIVE THIS PARTICULAR USE IS FOR THIS SINGLE OWNERSHIP SMALL PARCEL RELATED TO THE LARGER LAND AREA.
SO AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHICH VIEW SHOULD WE USE, YOU WANT TO HAVE THOSE FACTORS IN YOUR MIND.
UM, AND YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT SIZE AND SCALE AS WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE COMPATIBLE ADJACENT LAND USE.
IS THERE ANY CONCERN ON YOUR PART OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT CONDITIONAL ZONING? YES.
AS WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE CONDITIONAL ZONING AS AN OPTION THAT'S, SO WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS SAY IF YOU ZONE IT THIS, WE'LL VOTE THIS.
I DON'T WANT THAT SAID 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DO HERE.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I WAS CONCEPT FACT ZONING IS ILLEGAL AND WE DO NOT HAVE CONDITIONAL ZONING.
SO AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AND WE'RE EVALUATING THESE PROPOSALS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL POSSIBLE USES IN THE, THE, THE PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION.
SO AN R 20 IS ESSENTIALLY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
AND OUR, I THINK AS WE GET MORE DENSE, UM, R 10, WE CAN HAVE A COUPLE MORE FLAVORS.
SO R 10 CAN GET US PERMITTED BY RIGHT, UM, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DUPLEXES, UM, SHORT TERM RENTALS, THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT WITHIN R 10 WE GOT AN R 10 S, WHICH GIVES US EXCLUSIVELY SINGLE FAMILY.
AND R 10 A, WHICH DOES ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DUPLEXES AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES.
AND IF WE GO A STEP MORE DENSE TO R EIGHT, UM, WE ALSO HAVE THE OPTION FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DUPLEX AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY.
SO THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R 20 AND THE OTHER PROPOSALS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT IS WHETHER MULTIFAMILY, THE MULTI-FAMILY USE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE, CONSISTENT AND REASONABLE.
AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION, SINCE THE ATTORNEY BROUGHT UP, CAN WE TAKE BOTH ITEMS C AND D AND TREAT THEM TOGETHER WITH A MOTION? IF YOUR VOTE IS GONNA BE UNANIMOUS ON THOSE TWO ITEMS, YOU CAN.
UM, BUT CONSIDERING YOU KNOW IT, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD, RIGHT? IF YOU WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY.
I THINK MR. CLEMENT'S ARGUMENTS, UM, FOCUSED A LOT ON PARCEL 8 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 1.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY ABOUT THE SMALLER PARCEL OTHER THAN IT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO HANDLE ALL OF THEM.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT IT STILL FITS.
THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO PUT IT UNDER R EIGHT TO PUT ONE HOUSE THERE.
AND THAT WAS ALL PART OF THE PLAN.
UM, SO THAT, THAT'S WHY I SAID THERE'S NOT MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE.
UH, BUT THE PLAN FOR R EIGHT AND R 10 WOULD BE THE SAME AND THE DIMENSIONS OF THAT ONE PARTICULAR LOT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO HANDLE EITHER ONE.
AND ALSO AN IMPORTANT NOTE IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THE SAME RECOMMENDATION FOR THE TWO PARCELS.
RIGHT? SO IF YOUR PAR, IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS GONNA BE THE SAME FOR BOTH, THEN YOU CAN HANDLE THEM TOGETHER.
IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION MAY DIFFER, THEN YOU WANT TO TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.
UH, YOU BROUGHT UP THE, UH, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
AND I MEAN, WHICH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A A LESS THAN AN ACRE SITE, I MEAN, IS THAT EVEN FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT? I MEAN, COULD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ALSO REQUIRES SOME COMMON SPACE? I BELIEVE THAT BE INVOLVED, I MEAN YOU OPENED THAT AND I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND YES.
WHERE, WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT.
WELL, WELL I INCLUDED BOTH OF THE TRACKS, WHICH IS 1.24 ACRES.
WHEN I PUT THAT IN THERE, WHEN I, WHEN I MADE THAT COMMENT, I WAS LOOKING AT ALL OF 'EM AS 1.24 ACRES, WHICH IS YEAH, BUT THEY'RE NOT CONTIGUOUS.
WELL I KNOW THEY'RE NOT, BUT IT CAN BE IN THE SAME PLAN TOGETHER IF, IF YOU ZONE IT A CERTAIN WAY.
I MEAN, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WHOLE PLAN TO, TO DO IT ALL THE SAME.
NOT, NOT, NOT ON ONE TO HAVE A BUNCH OF STUFF AND THE OTHER ONE ONES HAVING TOTALLY DIFFERENT STUFF.
[00:55:01]
IS THIS RA TO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING ON EACH ONE.FOUR LOTS UNDER RA AND ONE HOUSE ON THE OTHER.
ONE ONE LAST QUESTION FOR STAFF, IF I MAY.
THE SECOND PARCEL OF LAND DOES NOT QUALIFY TO BE A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOCK, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT SIR.
SO IF, IF, HOW, HOW CAN THAT WORK IF, IF, IF THE CITY IS REQUESTING AN R 20 ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IT'S ONLY 13,242 SQUARE FEET, HOW, HOW DID, HOW DOES THAT PLAY INTO YES SIR.
I'M GONNA DEFER TO THE, UH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HERE.
YEAH, SO BECAUSE THAT LOT IS ALREADY EXISTING, IT'S NOT BEING, IT'S, IT'S NOT BEING ZONED AND THEN TRYING TO MAKE LESS MADE LESS THAN THAT, UM, 20,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT, IT WOULD BE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY.
SO YOU COULD ZONE AT R FOUR, YOU CAN ZONE IT R ONE IN THE HOUSE.
I MEAN THERE'S ALREADY A HOUSE FOUNDATION THERE ON THE LOT MM-HMM
UM, SO IT COULD BE A, JUST AN EXISTING ACKNOWLEDGED NON-CONFORMING USE.
IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING BECAUSE THIS LAND HAS RECENTLY BEEN ANNEXED BY THE CITY AND NOT BEEN ZONED BEFORE VERSUS BEING REZONED AND CHANGING ZONING? I THINK THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN UN ZONED IS RELEVANT TO THE ANALYSIS.
UM, IF IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED, YOU KNOW, AGRICULTURAL AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GOING TO SOMETHING INDUSTRIAL, THEN CERTAINLY THAT CHANGE IN USE WOULD BE RELEVANT.
BUT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH A BLANK CANVAS, UM, THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT WE CAN DO IN THE, IN THE WAY OF COMPARISON TO A PREVIOUS ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PREVIOUS USES.
AND, AND YOU TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE RESEARCH IN THE CASES THAT WE READ, SPOT ZONING WAS ONLY USED IN CASES WHERE THERE WAS A REDESIGN, NOT A NEW ZONING.
IS THAT RIGHT? I DO NOT REMEMBER YOUR CASES CHAPTER IN VERSE, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY CASES THAT ANALYZE INITIAL ZONING AS WELL AS REZONINGS.
AND I AM REMISS, I FORGOT TO INTRODUCE, UH, ISABELLA MAL.
SHE IS A THIRD YEAR LAW STUDENT AT MY ALMA MATER, CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW IN RALEIGH NOW.
AND SHE, NEXT YEAR, THIS TIME SHE'LL BE SITTING FOR THE BAR EXAM TO BECOME A REAL LAWYER, WHATEVER THAT IS.
JUST ADD FOR THE BOARD'S CLARITY.
UH, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T LOOK AT A PUD ON TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT CONTIGUOUS AND COULDN'T BE COMBINED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME BEFORE I NOTICE IT IN? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
UH, WITH THAT I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.
IF I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON RUSTY'S, UH, OPERATOR OPERATIONAL MODE AND THAT I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY MIND SINCE THE LAST TIME.
AND IN MY MIND THAT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE, UH, ZONING FOR THIS, THESE PARTICULAR PIECES OF PROPERTY.
AND AS LONG AS THAT SECOND PIECE OF PROPERTY CAN BE DEALT WITH AS, UH, AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ZONING THESE PROPERTIES.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, UM, IN YOUR MOTION? WOULD YOU OR THAT WAS DISCUSSION? FAIR ENOUGH.
UM, AND IS THERE ANY APPETITE ON BOARD TO PUT SOME TYPE OF NOTICE IN FOR THE OTHER ZONINGS? UM, OTHER THAN R 20? I WOULD ASK THAT YOU DO THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THE STAFF REPORT WHEN THIS MOVES FORWARD, I'LL INCLUDE THE RE THE REQUESTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP TONIGHT AND ANALYSIS OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND THE PROS AND CONS FOR ALL THINGS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY APPROPRIATE HERE, UH, GIVEN THE VARIOUS OPTIONS TO UH, WHEN WE SEND OUT THE NOTICE TO OPTION, WALK THROUGH THE OPTIONS OF R 10, R 10 SR EIGHT, AND THE RECOMMENDED RA.
AND IF WE DON'T DO THAT, YOU CAN'T NOTICE OF THAT, THAT WILL ALLOW THIS TO MOVE FORWARD AND ALLOW THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN TO MAKE THE DECISION THEY FEEL IS
[01:00:01]
APPROPRIATE.THEY'LL HAVE YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE PUBLIC WILL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW, OH HEY, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE DENSITIES ARE, ARE SOMETHING I MIGHT BE CONCERNED WITH, BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT, THAT NOTICE FOR THIS.
SO THEY'LL HAVE IT THE NEXT TIME.
THEY'LL STILL BE GIVEN NOTICE THIS, IN MANY COMMUNITIES, WE DON'T, WE DON'T FEEL THAT WE, THAT WE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE ONLY WANT IT TO BE R 20 AND WE WOULD NOTICE THAT AND THEN YOU GUYS COULDN'T NOTICE THE OTHER.
SO I THINK WHAT THE DIRECTOR'S ASKING FOR IS DIRECTION.
SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS ONLY BOUND TO, IS THE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEFORE YOU GOOD OR NOT RECOMMENDED.
AFTER THAT, I THINK THE DIRECTOR IS ASKING FOR YOU TO GIVE SOME DIRECTION.
SO THAT SHE CAN, UM, NOTICE SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION AS WE HAVE DONE TODAY.
PERHAPS ANOTHER MOTION MADE DIRECTION IS FINE.
SO FIRST MEAN, FIRST THINGS FIRST IS HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT R ONE? RIGHT? A HUNDRED PERCENT.
I DO THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS ON AN EXTREMELY BUSY ROAD AND THESE HOUSES ARE GONNA BE RIGHT OFF THAT ROAD
AND THIS IS A ROAD WHERE THERE'S ALREADY BEEN FATAL ACCIDENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.
AND I'D ASK ALSO, AND IF YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO CLARIFY IF WE'RE VOTING ON C AND D OR JUST C AND YOU WANT TO HEAR D SEPARATELY, I'LL JUST GO IN THERE, BUT I APPRECIATE IT.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON EITHER C OR, UH, EITHER SIX C OR TO COMBINE THEM AND THEN WOULD BE SIX C AND SIX C.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN TO DENY THE PROPOSED INITIAL ZONING DESIGNATION.
I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN THAT WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED INITIAL ZONING DESIGNATION AND FINDINGS.
THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY COMPREHENSIVE OR APPLICABLE END USE PLANS AND DETERMINED TO BE REASONABLE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
UH, I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION FOR BOTH C AND D.
ALRIGHT, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S DO A ROLL CALL ON THIS ONE TOO.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GONNA START WITH, UH, BOARD MEMBER DANIELLE PEOPLES.
AND THEN BOARD MEMBER KIT PARAGO.
VICE CHAIRMAN RUSTY INGRAM? YES.
BOARD MEMBER KELLY KAISER? YES.
BOARD MEMBER THOMAS BROWNELL? YES.
AND BOARD MEMBER MARSHALL BOW? YES.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S A CLEAR SEVEN TO OH VOTE SO TO PASS ROGER.
BUT I, I WOULD ALSO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE, WE REQUEST THAT STAFF GO LOOK AT R 10, UH, AND R EIGHT, UH, AND GIVE THOSE OPTIONS TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND LET THEM MAKE THE CHOICE.
ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THAT? CAN WE DEFINE THAT, UH, UH, 10 S TO ADD AN S TO IT? YES.
I'D SAY ALL, YEAH, I, I'D SAY THAT'S PROBABLY RIGHT.
AND LET THE BOARD BOTHER TO MAKE THE CHOICE.
[VI.E. 1700 Red Robin Lane - Rezoning ]
THAT TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN E, THE 700 RED ROBIN LANE REZONING.ALRIGHT, FOR OUR NEXT ITEM HERE, WE DO HAVE THE REZ 0 0 3 1 1 8 20 25.
THIS IS, UH, 1700 RED ROBIN LANE AND THIS IS THE REZONING REQUEST.
SO THE REQUEST SUMMARY HERE, THE APPLICANT IS NEWBURN WASH, LLC, THE OWNER IS STEVEN ER OR UMSTEAD.
UM, LOCATION IS 1700 RED ROBIN LANE, NEWBURN, NORTH CAROLINA.
AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS INDUSTRIAL ONE OR I ONE.
AND THE REQUEST TO CHANGE IS TO GO TO COMMERCIAL THREE OR C3.
UH, THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS EIGHT DASH 2 0 8 DASH 2 7 0 AND THE SIZE IS 1.84 TOTAL ACRES.
[01:05:03]
AND FOR THE INDUSTRIAL ONE ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS, UH, THE INDUSTRIAL ONE IS AN ESTABLISHED DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PRINCIPAL USE FOR THE LAND, UH, IS MORE INDUSTRY RELATED.SO THIS ESSENTIALLY PROMOTES QUIET, UH, A QUIET MANNER FOR SUCH USES, UM, THAT ARE MORE LIKE YOUR WAREHOUSES AND THINGS TO THAT EFFECT MORE INDUSTRIAL STYLE OF USE.
UM, THE REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF LAND FOR HEAVY INDUSTRY, UH, HENCE THE I ONE I TWO IS MORE INTENSIVE AND WHICH SHOULD BE PROPERLY ALSO SEC, UH, SEGREGATED AND TO PROHIBIT ANY OTHER USE WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND WHOLESALING ESTABLISHMENTS IN THAT DISTRICT.
AND THEN THE COMPARISON FOR COMMERCIAL THREE, THE ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS, AS YOU'VE HEARD ALREADY, IT'S MORE OR LESS ALONG THE LINES FOR OFFICES, PERSONAL SERVICES AND THE RETAILING OF DURABLE AND CONVENIENCE GOODS.
UM, THESE DISTRICTS, AGAIN, USUALLY TYPICALLY LOCATED ON HIGH TRAFFIC ARTERIES.
UM, AND ESSENTIALLY THEY ACCOMMODATE SAID USES AND ALSO ARE, UH, EXPECTED TO PROVIDE SUITABLE PLANTINGS.
SO FOR SCREENING PURPOSE? YES.
AND THE USES COMPARISON CHART AGAIN, YOU HAVE, UH, INDUSTRIAL ONE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE AND YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL THREE.
I'LL LEAVE THAT JUST FOR A MOMENT SO THAT YOU CAN VIEW IT.
AND THE FIRST MAP WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS, UH, FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND WE'LL FOLLOW THAT ONCE MORE WITH THE BUFFER MAP, UH, THAT'S JUST WITHIN THE A HUNDRED FEET, ALL THE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE, UH, WITHIN THAT RANGE OF THE BUFFER.
UM, AND OF COURSE WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THERE IS THE AERIAL MAP BEHIND IT.
AND THAT IS WHAT IS ON THE GROUND CURRENTLY.
AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY OUR ZONING MAP, WHICH REFLECTS THAT IN DEPTH INDUSTRIAL ONE ZONING DISTRICT.
AND THEN, UM, TO THE NORTH AND ALSO TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE THE C3, UH, PRETTY MUCH ABUTTING OR ADJACENT, UM, TO THE ACTUAL PROPERTY.
AND TO THE SOUTH, YOU'VE GOT INDUSTRIAL ONE ONCE AGAIN, UM, ABUTTING THAT PROPERTY.
AND THE ACTION NEEDED BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME WOULD BE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSISTENCY STATEMENT AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN.
IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL TAKE THOSE AT THIS TIME.
BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? I DO, YES, SIR.
WHEN, WHEN THE CAR WASH WAS BUILT THAT IT WAS BUILT ON A I ONE? YES.
HUH? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I WASN'T HERE WHEN IT WAS PUT IN PLAY, BUT, UM, INDUSTRIAL ONE ON THE TABLE, I BELIEVE THE CAR WASH IS PERMITTED BY WRIGHT AS WELL.
SO IS THERE ANY INDICATION WHY THEY WANT TO GO TO A THREE IF IT'S A PERMISSIBLE USE IN, IN THE PROPERTY THAT THEY ALREADY BOUGHT? I'D PROBABLY HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY CLUES AS TO WHAT MAY HAVE SPURRED THE, THE INITIAL REQUEST, BUT, UM, PROBABLY THE APPLICANT'S GONNA BE BETTER TO ANSWER THAT.
KENDRICK WOULD, MA'AM, WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED DOWN ZONING? UM HMM.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT, WE MAY HAVE TO REVISIT THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU AN ANSWER THAT I'M NOT CERTAIN OF.
UM, THERE'S A POTENTIAL, BUT THIS WOULD
'CAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE OWNER FOR NEWBURN WASH LLC.
SO THAT TO MY, IF I, MY RECOLLECTION, TERMS BEEN RIGHT, SO, SO THE PROBLEM IS NOT THAT WE JUST CAN'T TO SOUND ZONE, WE HAVE TO HAVE WRITTEN A WRITTEN REQUEST FROM THE OWNER, WHICH WITH THIS APPLICATION WE HAVE.
SO IT'S A GREAT QUESTION BECAUSE THERE'S VERY DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES, BUT THIS ONE IS SUPPORTED.
IT'S NOT LIKE A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT'S REMOVING USES FROM A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, THANKS KENDRICK.
UM, WITH THAT, UH, I'LL OPEN UP FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYBODY HAS NOT THE APPLICANT COMMENT, BUT THE PUBLIC, ARE YOU THE APPLICANT SIR? UM, YEAH.
WE'LL LET YOU SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, BUT IS ANYBODY ELSE HERE FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THREE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, UH, THE SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
JUST, UH, INTRODUCE YOURSELF, GIVE YOUR NAME, THAT KIND OF STUFF.
SPEAK INTO THE MIC IF YOU WOULD.
MAY BE WORKING MICHAEL RUSHING.
AND, UH, ANYWAY, I'M PARTNERS WITH, UH, STEVEN EMAD ON NEW BERN WASH, LLC, KNOWN AS TEGY EXPRESS,
[01:10:01]
UH, CAR WASH.UM, UH, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, WHEN WE PURCHASED THE LOT, IT COME, IT WAS, IT WAS FULLY INDUSTRIAL.
IT USED TO BE JEFFRIES, A BUDWEISER DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
AND SO THAT WHOLE SECTION, WHICH WAS LIKE 5.4 ACRES WAS ALL INDUSTRIAL.
AND THEN THE FOOD BANK, UH, INITIALLY BOUGHT THE BACK HALF OF IT.
SO THAT WAS FINE FOR THEM TO STAY INDUSTRIAL.
AND I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW THAT A CAR WASH COULD BE AN INDUSTRIAL, BUT, UH, THE LAST, UH, THE GENTLEMAN THAT I DEALT WITH BEFORE WAS SETH LAUGHLIN, WHO WAS AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, HE SAID, OH YES, YEAH, A CAR WASH COULD GO HERE, BUT WE DIDN'T REALLY NEED 1.83 ACRES FOR THE CAR WASH.
WE NEEDED JUST A GOOD, YOU KNOW, ACRE AND A QUARTER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND SO OUR PLAN WAS TO HAVE A SEGMENT OF THE LOT TO, TO SELL OFF THAT WOULD RECIPROCATE BUSINESS FOR US AS WELL.
AND THE CAR WASH, IT ALSO FIT THE HARMONY, UH, THROUGHOUT THAT RETAIL DISTRICT.
AND SO, 'CAUSE WE'RE ON THE SECOND ROW THERE, BUT MCDONALD'S IS ALSO ON THE SECOND ROW.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE JUST FEEL LIKE THAT, UM, IT WOULD GO ALONG.
I'VE HEARD Y'ALL SAY HARMONY SEVERAL TIMES WITH THE HARMONY IN THAT DISTRICT.
AND, UM, WE'RE NOT RIGHT NOW, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE THINGS IN MIND OF CLIENTS THAT ARE, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, TILL WE GET A ZONE RIGHT, SETBACKS REALLY DON'T ALLOW US TO BUILD ANYTHING.
UH, WHEN THE INDUSTRIAL, UH, ZONING, SETBACKS MAKE IT SO MINUTE WE CAN'T, IT'S REALLY THE DELAY THE LAND'S DEAD, UH, WITHOUT HAVING IT BE REZONED.
'CAUSE WE HAVE POINT, I THINK IT'S 0.69 OF AN ACRE TO DO SOMETHING WITH, BUT THERE'S JUST NOTHING THAT CAN GO ON IT DUE TO THE SETBACKS UNDER INDUSTRIAL.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO SEE THREE.
OKAY, SO THAT'S BETWEEN YOU THE CAR WASH AND LOWE'S, THE LOWE'S PARKING LOT.
IS THAT THAT SLIVER OF LAND THERE IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YEAH, SO WE, WHAT WE DID WAS WE TRIED TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT TRAFFIC BY BUILDING THAT ROAD ACROSS THE BACK END.
AND ALSO HOPING THAT LOWE'S CUSTOMERS WOULD ATTEND THE WASH.
AND THEN THAT OTHER LOT AT ONE TIME I THOUGHT MAYBE AN OIL CHANGE STATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THERE'S PRETTY SATURATED ON THAT STREET WITH OIL CHANGES.
BUT WE, UH, WE'VE HAD A, A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS.
WE'VE HAD LITTLE SEIZURES, WE'VE HAD BLOOD BANKS, WHICH DEFINITELY WOULD NOT DO, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE PLASMA DONATION CENTERS, WHICH IS NOT THE CUSTOMER.
WE WON'T, UM, WE'VE HAD, UM, SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS.
WE'VE GOT A COUPLE THINGS IN MIND OURSELVES THAT WOULD BE, UM, HELPFUL FOR THE WASH BUT ALSO FIT WITH THE COMMUNITY, UH, STANDARDS.
SO, UM, YEAH, WE'RE JUST HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, GET IT, GET IT ON THAT C3.
SO THAT MAKES IT A LOT SELLABLE SO THAT THE SETBACKS, THERE'S, THERE'S ABLE SOMETHING TO BE BUILT, BUILT THERE AND WE'RE JUST NOT USING IT TO MOW EVERY OTHER WEEK.
UM, WE DID, UM, THE CITY HAD A DITCH THAT WENT ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF THAT AND UM, IT WAS, THERE WAS ALL KINDS OF JUST, YOU KNOW, NEEDLES AND EVERYTHING WHERE PEOPLE WOULD STAY IN OUR STORAGE UNITS WORTH THE LOWS WORTH.
AND THEN AT NIGHT THEY WOULD SNEAK OUT BACK, YOU KNOW, DOING WHATEVER.
WE CLEANED IT UP, FILLED IT IN, PIPED IT ALL IN, UH, JUST WE THOUGHT IT WOULD MAKE IT LOOK CLEANER, BUT IT WAS ALL BENEFIT OF THE CITY 'CAUSE IT WAS THE CITY'S LAND.
AND THEN I THINK THAT ROAD AT THE BACK END HELPS WITH SOME WITH THE TRAFFIC.
SO ANYWAY, WE'LL JUST ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT IT AND HOPEFULLY, UH, HOPEFULLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING WILL WORK FOR THE CITY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE HAPPY? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR.
UM, WITH THAT I'LL OPEN UP A DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD.
ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION, FIND IT CONSISTENT, INCONSISTENT, CONSISTENT WITH REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO YOU RECOMMENDED IT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN, YOU FIND IT CONSISTENT? YES.
I SECOND I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[VI.F. 2960 Old Airport Road – Initial Zoning ]
ITEM SEVEN F 29 60 OLD AIRPORT ROAD, INITIAL ZONING.ALL RIGHT, AND THANK YOU UH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
[01:15:01]
OF THE NIGHT, UH, THIS IS REZ 0 0 3 12 8 DASH 2025 AND THIS IS FOR 29 60 OLD AIRPORT ROAD.AND THIS IS THE INITIAL ZONING.
AND PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THIS HAS NOT BEEN ANNEXED AS OF YET.
SO WE HAVE KIND OF REVERSED SOMEWHAT OF THAT PROCESS.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW YOU ARE STILL APPROACHING AND LOOKING AT THIS IN A SIMILAR FASHION, BUT UM, THIS IS STILL THE INITIAL ZONING.
UH, THE REQUEST SUMMARY HERE, THE APPLICANT AND OWNER IS ST.
BARTHOLOMEW ANGLICAN CHURCH AND THE LOCATION IS TWENTY NINE SIXTY OLD AIRPORT ROAD, NEWBORN NORTH CAROLINA CURRENTLY, OR EXCUSE ME, THE CURRENT ZONING OF COURSE UNASSIGNED, THE REQUESTED CHANGE OR REQUEST TO ZONE IS GONNA BE RESIDENTIAL EIGHT OR R DASH EIGHT.
AND THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS SEVEN DASH 1 0 5 DASH 1 0 2.
AND GOING INTO THE RESIDENTIAL EIGHT OR R DASH EIGHT IS ONLY DISTRICT ANALYSIS.
UM, THE R DASH EIGHT DISTRICT IS, UH, TO ACCOMMODATE SINGLE TWO AND MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS WITH A, UH, MINIMUM OF 8,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A LOT AND THEREAFTER FOR ONE UNIT, EXCUSE ME, FOR 4,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, FOR EACH ADDITIONAL UNIT.
AND IT ALSO ENCOURAGES THE CONTINUED USE OF, AS FAR AS FOR LAND, FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, IT'S TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.
UM, AND THEN TO ENCOURAGE THE DISCONTINUANCE OF EXISTING USES THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS NEW USES IN THIS DISTRICT.
AND ADDITIONALLY, UM, IT IS TO DISCOURAGE ANY USE THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY GENERATE TRAFFIC OR, UH, MINOR STREETS OTHER THAN NORMAL TRAFFIC, UH, TO SERVE RESIDENCES ON THOSE STREETS.
AND THE FIRST MAP HERE THAT WE HAVE IS JUST VIEWING THE VICINITY MAP FOR THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED AND THAT'S FOLLOWED BY OUR BUFFER MAP HERE.
AND THAT JUST SHOWS THE PROPERTIES THAT FALL WITHIN THAT A HUNDRED FEET.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE AERIAL MAP TO REFLECT WHAT'S ON THE GROUND.
AND LASTLY HERE, THE, UH, ZONING MAP, UM, WHICH JUST SHOWED, SHOWS YOU WHAT'S AROUND AND THE ACTION NEEDED, UH, WOULD BE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSISTENCY STATEMENT AND ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN.
BUT PRIOR TO THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF THE BOARD HAS ANY KENDRICK, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP? SURE.
SO IS THIS, THIS PROPERTY YOU SAID HAS NOT BEEN ANNEXED BUT IS INTENDED TO BE ANNEXED, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT IS IN THE CITY LIMITS.
MOSTLY THERE'S SOME OF THE, THE MORE CLEAR AND WHITE PIECES THAT YOU SEE SHOULD ARE, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY STILL THE COUNTY PIECES.
SO THEY'RE OKAY, SO LIKE THREE, THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THE CITY.
YOU'VE GOT PROBABLY 1, 2, 3, THERE IS WHAT IT LOOKS OR APPEARS TO BE.
SO MOSTLY EVERYTHING IS ALREADY WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION.
AND THEN JUST REMEMBER, I KNOW THIS IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, BUT THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE A, A FOURTH PROPERTY THAT'S TECHNICALLY IN THE COUNTY.
SO THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IS STILL WITHIN THE COUNTY, BUT IT'S UP FOR PROPOSAL FOR THE INITIAL ZONING.
AND IT'S HARDER TO SEE 'CAUSE IT'S HIGHLIGHTED WITH THAT OVERLAY.
SO THERE'S AN ANNEXATION REQUEST TRACKING RIGHT NOW.
THERE IS AN ANNEXATION REQUEST? YES.
JUST FOR CLARITY, I DON'T YES, I'M SORRY.
I'D LIKE, WE'D LIKE TO GET TO A POINT WHERE THESE ARE TRACKING CLOSER TOGETHER.
SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT INITIAL ZONING FOR PROPERTIES THAT WERE ANNEXED IN JANUARY.
SO YOU'LL PROBABLY START SEEING THIS MORE OFTEN AHEAD OF TIME.
I MEAN, IS THAT, IS THAT LEGAL TO YES.
FOR US TO ZONE A YOU'RE NOT ANN, WE'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT ZONING IT YET.
THIS IS PURELY A RECOMMENDATION.
SO WHAT I FORESEE HAPPENING AT THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN LEVEL IS ITEM FIVE ON THE AGENDA MAY BE THE ANNEXATION, AND ITEM SIX WOULD BE THE REQUEST TO ASSIGN INITIAL ZONING.
SO THAT GIVES US ZONING PROTECTION IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT'S ANNEXED IN.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR STACK? UH, ALL THE PINK DOWN THROUGH THERE IS C FOUR.
AND THE YELLOW IS R EIGHT? YES SIR.
UM, AND I'M WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM AND IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, WE WOULD ENTERTAIN, UH, NOT REQUIRED.
DON'T HAVE TO, BUT IF THEY WOULD LIKE
[01:20:01]
TO, THEY'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO SPEAK.JUST UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
THIS BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, THAT I WILL OPEN IT UP TO, UH, BOARD FOR, UH, DISCUSSION.
KENDRICK, CAN YOU FLIP IT TO THE NEXT PAGE PLEASE? YES, SIR.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED INITIAL ZONING DESIGNATION AND FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY COMPREHENSIVE OR APPLICABLE LAND USE PLANS AND DETERMINED TO BE REASONABLE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
UM, OPEN IT UP TO NEW BUSINESS IF THERE IS ANY.
I BELIEVE THERE IS, UH, SINCE, UH, WITH NO NEW BUSINESS WE'LL
[VIII. STAFF COMMENTS ]
GO TO STAFF.UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT AT THE LAST MEETING THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR, UH, THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR IN MY OPINION ON POSSIBLY CHANGING ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.
GEORGE CHARLES COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT ON THE SCREEN IS THE MEMO HE PROVIDED STATING HE DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY REQUESTS TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF DIRECT OR INDIRECT ACCESS.
HE HAD A PROJECT BEFORE US, UH, POTENTIALLY THAT IT DESIGNED IN SUCH A WAY THEY WANTED TO CREATE LOTS THAT DID NOT HAVE ACCESS.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY POOR PLANNING PROCESS, PRACTICE AND I CANNOT SUPPORT HAVING ANY LOTS NOT HAVE ACCESS, NEVERMIND VERY SMALL ONES THAT ARE ALREADY RECEIVING A LOT OF RELAXED REQUIREMENTS.
UM, WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION, I'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH SOME OF YOU AS MEMBERS.
UM, HOWEVER IT WAS ASKED FOR GEORGE'S OPINION AND THAT IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN AS WELL.
ANY FURTHER STAFF COMMENTS? OKAY.
ACTUALLY I'LL MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT.
AS OF THIS MOMENT, I'M NOT AWARE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A MEETING.
SO CANCELLATION WOULD ACTUALLY BE GOING OUT FOR NEXT MONTH'S MEETING, UM, PENDING, NEVER SAVED THAT WAY.
SO OBVIOUSLY I'LL TRY TO CONFIRM THAT AND MAKE SURE TO SEND OUT TO YOU ALL THAT IF IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN TRULY CANCELED.
I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT ACTUALLY.
OH, I WAS GONNA GIVE AN UPDATE ON OUR LAND USE ORDINANCE.
IS THERE AN UPDATE? THERE IS AN UPDATE.
UH, WE'RE STILL MEETING REGULARLY, UH, BASED ON FEEDBACK WITH DEVELOPERS.
WE ARE DOING IT IN THREE SECTIONS.
THE FIRST SECTION IS JUST ABOUT FINISHED.
WE TOOK AN APPROACH WHERE ALL OF THE SECTIONS THAT ARE NOT IMPACTED BY THIS HORRIBLE LEGISLATION WE'RE ALL DEALING WITH ABOUT DOWN ZONING AND ALL OTHER KIND OF WONKY PLANNING THINGS.
SO THAT'S COMING IN VERY QUICKLY.
I ANTICIPATE THAT MID TO END OF NEXT MONTH WE'LL BE HAVING STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AGAIN.
OUR CONSULTANT WILL BE BACK IN TOWN FOR US TO ALL START DIGESTING THOSE FIRST PIECES.
WE HAVE DIRECTED THEM TO KEEP TRACKING AS IF WE ARE GOING TO GET OUR EXEMPTION FROM THIS LEGISLATION THAT WE REQUESTED.
UM, ONLY ONE MUNICIPALITY IN THE WHOLE STATE HAS BEEN ABLE TO GET THIS PASS FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM MY PHONE CALL ON TUESDAY.
BUT THERE'S HOPE THAT MEANS, WELL WE WERE HOPING FOR A BROAD JUST REPEAL OF ALL THIS OR AT LEAST THE SECTIONS OF THE, UM, HURRICANE RECOVERY BILL THAT, THAT IMPACT THIS.
UM, THAT'S NOT HAPPENED YET BECAUSE UM, THINGS GET TRACTION AND THEY PASS ONE HOUSE AND DIE IN THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE.
WE THINK THIS IS STILL A REALITY FROM UNTIL AT LEAST NEXT YEAR WHEN, WHEN THEY RECONVENE.
SO WE MAY HAVE TO PIVOT A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEY ARE STILL, ONCE WE GET PAST THIS FIRST THIRD THAT'S COMING, UM, THEY'RE GONNA START DRAFTING.
AND AT THIS POINT IT IS STILL AS IF WE ARE GOING TO GET A EXEMPTION FROM THAT LEGISLATION.
WE MAY HAVE TO HAVE SOME REALLY HARD DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE A LOT OF THE DIRECTION WE GAVE THEM ABOUT WANTING CONDITIONAL ZONING AND WANTING TO LIMIT CERTAIN USES AND COMPLETELY REIMAGINE OUR ZONING MAP, UM, IS NOT GOING TO WORK UNDER THE
[01:25:01]
CURRENT RULES.SO I JUST WANTED TO DROP THAT.
WE WILL BE HAVING STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS RESUMING AT MIDDLE THE END OF NEXT MONTH ON THAT.
THAT'D BE THE STEERING COMMITTEE AS WELL? UH, YES.
UH, I GOT TO SEE MY FIRST, UH, SUBDIVISION DECISION SIGN TODAY.
AND IT'S, IT'S SITTING THERE KIND OF ON THE EDGE OF A FIELD, UH,
IT IS THAT MU FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THAT MUST BE WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS COMING OUT TO HIGHWAY 43.
AND THE OTHER QUESTION WAS, IS THAT SUBDIVISION PLAN ON THE ON WEBSITE YET SO THAT A SUB, SOMEONE THAT SEES THAT SIGN SAYS, WHAT, WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THIS AND HOW DID OTHER THAN COME INTO YOUR OFFICE, CAN THEY, WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE OFF FROM WORK OR ANYTHING ELSE, HOW DO, HOW DO THEY GET INVOLVED IN THAT AND SEE WHAT THAT SUBDIVISION SIGN DECISION SIGN IS ALL ABOUT? GREAT, GREAT QUESTION.
UM, SO WE HAD ACTUALLY MADE SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH FOLKS AND BEEN WORKING WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ON HOW WE WERE GONNA ROLL THIS OUT.
AND A LOT OF, WELL, NOT A LOT, I WOULD SAY SOMETHING'S CHANGED DURING ITS PROCESS IN PASSING THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW KIND OF FOR THIS PROCESS TO TAKE PLACE THROUGH THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN AND SPECIFICALLY STATED AND EXPRESS WAS GETTING NOTICE, WHICH WE PROVIDE NOTICE TO ALL ADJACENT OWNERS BY LETTER THAT ARE WITHIN THAT A HUNDRED FEET.
UM, SECOND TO THAT POINT, THE SIGN OF COURSE THAT HAS A DIRECT CONTACT NUMBER TO OUR OFFICE.
AND THEN BASICALLY ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PROVIDE WHETHER THEY WANNA DO A RECORDS REQUEST TO OBTAIN IT OR IF THEY WANNA PHYSICALLY COME IN AND SEE IT, UM, WE CAN HELP OR EXPLAIN IT TO THEM EITHER WHICH WAY.
UM, SO THEY HAVE FULL ACCESS, FULL RANGE.
THERE IS A SEVEN DAY PERIOD WHERE THE SIGN HAS TO BE PLACED OUT.
UH, AS SOON AS THEY SEE THE SIGN THEY CAN CALL AND WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL FILES.
AS FAR AS FOR THE WEBSITE, UM, WE DO STILL WORK WITH THE, WITH MS. ALICE.
UM, AND IN SOME CASES WE'RE TRACKING PROJECTS.
I BELIEVE SHE IS PUTTING THOSE PROJECTS STILL IN THERE.
SO IT'S STILL RELEASED TO THE DIFFERENT FOLKS JUST SO, SO THAT THEY HAVE IT FOR RECORD.
UM, AND IT SHOULD BE BEING POSTED IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
BUT IF IT'S NOT, THEY HAVE AMPLE, UH, OPPORTUNITIES TO STILL RECEIVE IT.
SO WE MAKE SURE JUST AN OPINION DRIVING ALONG HIGHWAY 45, 43 ALONG THERE TO TRY TO FIND YOUR PHONE NUMBER YOU GET KILLED.
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S A HEAVILY TRAFFIC ROAD WITH LOTS OF TRAFFIC ON IT.
AND I NEVER SAW YOUR PHONE NUMBER WHEN, WHEN I WENT BY 'CAUSE IT KIND OF CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD.
UH, THIS, YOU MIGHT WANNA THINK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT.
THAT WE, WE ACTUALLY DON'T POST THE SIGNS WE ALLOW FOR THE, UH, PERSON THAT'S APPLYING TO POST THE SIGN.
THE EXPECTATION OF COURSE IS TO ACTUALLY PLACE IT ON THE PROPERTY SO THAT IT IS VISIBLE.
'CAUSE THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE IT.
UH, SO WE HOPE THAT FOLKS DEFINITELY DON'T TRY TO INJURE THEMSELVES OR PUT THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY.
BUT WE WANNA ARE THERE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SIGN OTHER THAN JUST POST TO SIGN? THERE A LOT OF PHONE CALLS TO BE REALISTIC? UH, YEAH.
UM, SO A LOT OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO STOP AND TAKE NOTICE OF THE SIGN.
UM, OTHERS RECEIVED BY MAIL THE, THE ADJACENT LETTERS AND THEY'RE CALLING US FOR THAT.
UM, AND THEN IN OTHER CASES IT'S WORD OF MOUTH.
SO IT JUST DEPENDS ON, BECAUSE THOSE SUBDIVISIONS, WHEN ONE PERSON KNOWS THE, THEY ALL KNOW WELL THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT.
THE SIGN'S GOTTA BE A FOUR BY FOUR SIGN WITH THIS SIZE FONT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON THERE.
THERE'S REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THE LETTER.
I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS TO THE SIGN.
BUT THE LETTERING HAS TO BE LARGE ENOUGH, UH, IN A SPECIFIC MANNER.
AND IT WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN MEETING.
SO WE MADE SURE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL TO WORK IN UNISON TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS PROPERLY ASSESSED AND PUT ON THE SIGN.
THAT'S HOW WE DESIGNED THE SIGN.
AND I THINK THE CREATORS MADE SURE TO OF COURSE, HAVE THAT IN PLAY.
SO WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT EVERY, EVERY POINT THAT WE COULD.
KIPP, ARE YOU CORRELATING THAT WHEN SUBDIVISION REQUESTS USED TO COME TO THIS FLOOR, THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE AS OUR PACKET ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE? IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO VIEW IT? UH, YEAH.
UM, YEAH, IT, IT'S, WE WOULD KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON 'CAUSE WE GOT THE PACKET.
AND OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE THAT GET THE A HUNDRED, THE LETTER WITHIN THE A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER, UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE RELIANT STRICTLY ON THAT SIGN BEING POSTED AND WHERE IT'S POSTED.
UM, FOR ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE, IF, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE REZONED IT R SIX BACK IN THE WINTER I THINK, AND IT'S WAY BACK IN THE
[01:30:01]
MIDDLE OF NOWHERE.AND SO IF YOU POSTED IT ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE, THE LOTS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE, AIN'T NOBODY GOING TO SEE IT.
UM, SO IT WAS POSTED OUT ON A VERY VISIBLE PLACE ON RIGHT ON HIGHWAY 43.
AND, UM, BUT IT, I GUESS THE WHOLE THING IS YOU SEE A SIGN FOR JOE BLOW, THE CITIZEN THAT SAYS SUBDIVISION DECISION.
HOW MANY PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.
IF WE HAVEN'T PROMOTED IT VERY WIDELY TO INFORM THE PUBLIC THAT WHEN YOU SEE ONE OF THOSE SIGNS, THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON.
YOU KNOW, SUBDIVISION DECISION.
AND YOU KNOW, TO, I MEAN NEXT ROUND OF SIGNS WE'RE OPEN TO CHANGING THEM.
IF YOU HAVE WELL I'M JUST, I'M JUST, LIKE I SAY THIS WAS AN OPINION THE FIRST TIME SEEING THAT SIGN AND BECAUSE I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN THAT PROCESS OCCURRED, INTERNALIZE IT WITH STAFF, IT'S, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, IT TOOK PUBLIC
WELL IT GOES BACK TO THAT REZONING.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE FIGHT IS.
SO IT'S, UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK THERE'S SOME EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THAT FOR THE PUBLIC YEAH.
LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THAT PROCESS HAS CHANGED AND, AND IF THEY SEE THIS, THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS AND WHAT YOU DO.
UM, SO THAT, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S JUST, LIKE I SAY, THAT'S OPINION.
THAT'S AFTER A FIRST EXPERIENCE.
THAT'S A GREAT IDEA FOR COLLEEN TO DO A, A POST OR SOMETHING MM-HMM
TO KIND OF PUSH AND SHARE THIS AND THE EFFORTS WE'VE TAKEN, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE TO.
IF YOU SEE THIS SIDE, WE WANT YOU INCLUDED, WE WANT YOU TO KNOW YOU CAN GO TO OUR WEBSITE.
SO WHAT'S UP? I REALLY TRY TO, TO PUSH, I, I LOVE TALKING TO PEOPLE BUT OUR PHONE RINGS OFF THE HOOK AND ANYBODY THAT CAN GO TO THE WEBSITE FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY NEED AND GET IT, IS A HUGE HELP TO US.
QR I MEAN EVERYBODY QR CODE STOP TECHNICALLY SEND IT TO THE WEBSITE.
YEAH, THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS GETTING TO A QR CODE WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING BY.
BUT IF I REALLY WANTED TO KNOW, I MEAN REALLY DRIVING, IF YOU DRIVING WERE WANTED TO KNOW AND I SAW IT AND I WENT, OH, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THAT? RIGHT? I WOULD, I WOULD TURN AROUND, STOP, GET OUT AND I'D GO THROUGH THE SIGN TAKE AND GET THE QR CODE, GO RIGHT STRAIGHT TO THE SITE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S GOT.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO.
ALRIGHT, UM, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT WHEN NO ONE'S HERE.
THE PUBLIC HAS LEFT, THE PUBLIC HAS LEFT.
SO I GUESS THAT'S A MUTE MOOT POINT.
AND WITH THAT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.