[00:00:02]
GOOD EVENING EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2025 NEW BOARD OF ALDERMAN MEETING.UM, BEFORE WE DO THE PRAYER, UH, FOR THOSE THAT MAY NOT HAVE HEARD, UH, WE LOST COMMISSIONER TOM MARK CRAVEN COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PASSED AWAY EARLIER THIS WEEK.
SO IF WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR RESPECT FOR HIM, THANK YOU.
THE PRAYER TONIGHT WILL GIVE ALDER MCKENZIE, GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE NEWBURN BOARD OF HONOR.
I'D LIKE TO ASK PASTOR JOHNSON, WOULD HE COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE TO GIVE A PRAYER.
KENZIE, AND TO THE BOARD OF ALMONDS AND ALL THE OTHER OFFICIAL OFFICERS THAT MAKE UP THIS, UH, CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S JUST GOOD TO BE YOUR PRESIDENT ON THIS EVENING, SHALL WE? BOWHEAD? THE SONGWRITER ONCE SAYS, WITHOUT GOD, I CAN DO NOTHING.
JUST LIKE A SHIP ON THE SEA, WITHOUT A SAIL, AND WITHOUT YOU, OUR LORD, OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, I'LL SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST AND THE BLESSING, HOLY SPIRIT, WE ARE LOST.
WE CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT YOU, BUT WITH YOU, WE CAN DO ALL THINGS.
SO WE COME ON THIS EVENING TO THANK YOU FOR WAKING US THIS MORNING EARLY, SOMEWHERE BEFORE THE BREAK OF DAY, YOU REACHED DOWN AND YOU TOUCHED EACH ONE OF US WITH YOUR FINGER OF LOVE, GRACE, AND MERCY, COMPASSION AND POWER, AND BREATHE FRESH BREATH, LIFE, HEALTH AND STRENGTH WITHIN OUR SOUL AND BODY.
WE WERE ABLE TO RISE UP NOT ON OUR OWN, BUT ON YOUR MERCY AND GRACE.
SO WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING NOW THE GOLDEN MOMENT IS TO ROLL ON OVER INTO THIS DAY.
YOU'VE BEEN WITH US ALL THROUGH THIS DAY, RIGHT UP TO THIS VERY POINT THAT WE HAVE GATHERED IN THIS MEETING.
LORD, WE COME MAX INDEED, TO LOOK UPON US.
WE COME AS AN EMPTY PITCH BEFORE A FULL FOUNTAIN.
AND LOOK INTO YOU WHO IS AN ALL SEEING GOD, AN ALL KNOWING GOD, AN ALL EVER PRESENT GOD.
ONE THAT KNOWS US BETTER THAN WE KNOW OURSELVES.
AND WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WHO YOU ARE.
YOU BEEN MIGHTY GOOD TO US IN THIS CITY.
DEAR GOD, YOU ALLOW US TO, UH, PUT INTO PLACE A OUR NEW STANLEY WHITE CENTER, AND YOU ALLOW US TOGETHER, THE LORD, TO PUT IN OUR COMMUNITY, OUR FIRST COMMUNITY CLINIC.
IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR YOU, NO WAY WE WOULD, COULD HAVE DONE SUCH MINISTRIES.
SO WE SAY THANK YOU AND THANK YOU LORD.
SO LORD, YOU ARE GOD OF LOVE, GOD OF ORDER.
SO WE COME ASKING YOU TO BE IN CHARGE OVER OUR THOUGHTS, OUR DELIBERATIONS, AND ALL THAT WE PLAN TO DO AS A CITY, CITIZENS AND ALDERMANS, AND EVEN MAYOR.
BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT YOU AND NOT ABOUT US.
IN THE NAME OF JESUS, WE COUNTED, DONE.
[00:05:01]
YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND WITH ME AS WE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE OF OUR COUNTRY.I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND TWO REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR MADAM CLERK, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CALL A ROLL.
[3. Approve Agenda.]
OKAY.BOARD ITEM NUMBER THREE IS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? SO MOVED.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS IS, IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ANY OPPOSED? AGENDA IS APPROVED.
[4. Request and Petition of Citizens.]
REQUESTING PETITION OF CITIZENS.UM, JUST FOR THE PUBLIC'S, UM, REFERENCE, THE TIMER IS STILL NOT WORKING.
SO YOU SHOULD SEE A TIMER ON THE SCREEN.
AND THAT IS BEING, UH, MANAGED BY MS. COLLEEN ROBERTS IN THE BACK ROOM.
SO YOU'LL SEE THE TIMER THERE.
UH, SHE HAS CONTROL OVER THAT, NOT US.
UH, FIRST UP IS MR. DAVID FRENCH.
I AM DAVID FRENCH AT 1 0 4 JOHNSON STREET HERE IN NEW BERN.
MY EMAIL IS DAVID A. FRENCH AT GMAIL.COM.
THAT'S DAVID, DAVID, MIDDLE INITIAL, A AS IN APPLE, FRENCH.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO FIVE TWO THREE FOUR NINE OH ONE OH TWO FOUR DAYS.
OH, I MEANT TO ASK, UM, ALDERMAN PRI SAID, IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME TWO EXTRA MINUTES, GIVEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHAT I'M DISCUSSING, UM, THAT WOULD REQUIRE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND THE BOARD TO VOTE ON THAT.
SO WOULD THE BOARD LIKE TO GRANT MR. FRENCH, UH, SIX MINUTES VERSUS FOUR? I'M, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT.
IS THAT A MOTION? NO, THAT'S A MOTION.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
BECAUSE YOU ARE OPENING UP SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS.
LET BEFORE LET'S, LET'S JUST FOR THE RECORD, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL, UM, STARTING WITH ALDERMAN PRILL, PLEASE.
UH, SO THE RULES WILL SUSPEND, UH, I'M SORRY.
SO, MR. FRENCH, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES.
CAN YOU RESTART THE CLOCK? SINCE WE HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT, SHE, I THOUGHT SHE STOPPED AT THAT'S FINE.
SEVEN VERY LONG YEARS SINCE HURRICANE FLORENCE HIT OUR BELOVED NEW BERN IN EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA ON SEPTEMBER, 1314, 2018, AND CHANGED SO MANY OF OUR LIVES FOREVER.
MY DEAR COUSIN MARYANNE, A STROKE SURVIVOR, AND I WROTE OUT THE, UH, WROTE OUT THE HURRICANE IN HER WALKUP ATTIC AS THE FLOOD WATERS ENGULFED AND RUSHED INTO HER HOME.
WHAT MANY PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE IS THAT THERE ARE STILL THOUSANDS OF US HERE IN EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA WHO ARE STILL NOT BACK HOME.
DUE TO THE ABSOLUTE FAILURE OF FORMER GOVERNOR ROY COOPER, PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR JOSH STEIN AND THEIR COHORTS, EDDIE BUFFALO, LAURA HOGSHEAD, MATTHEW ARLIN, PRYOR GIBSON, MICHAEL CULLEN, AND OTHERS TO PROPERLY ADMINISTER THE REBUILD NC PROGRAM, IT SEEMS JOSH STEIN AS ATTORNEY GENERAL NEVER INVESTIGATED REBUILD.
IN 2019, WE WERE TOLD BY FEMA THAT THEY WERE GOING TO REPAIR COUSIN MARYANNE'S HOME.
IN 2020, WE ENTERED THE REBUILD AGENCY, UH, PROGRAM, UH, THAT WAS FUNDED WITH ALMOST $1 BILLION IN FEDERAL TAXPAYER HUD FUNDS IN 2022.
AFTER WAITING ALMOST TWO YEARS WITH NO SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS FROM REBUILD NC, WE WENT TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND ALSO SPOKE TO LISA.
SO THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER WHO EXPOSED THE CORRUPTION AND MISMANAGEMENT OF THE REBUILD PROGRAM IN SEPTEMBER, 2022, THE FIRST HURRICANE HEARING AT THE NC LEGISLATURE WAS HELD.
THEY HAVE FAILED TO HOLD MEETINGS EVERY THREE MONTHS AS PROMISED IN OCTOBER, 2022.
VERY SADLY, MY DEAR COUSIN PASSED AWAY WHILE I DID MY BEST TO SHIELD HER FROM THE STRESS OF IT ALL.
THE EFFECTS OF HAVING TO MOVE THREE TIMES IN HER EIGHTIES AND NOT BEING BACK IN HER BELOVED HOME TOOK ITS TOLL ON HER.
WE HAVE ONLY MADE IT THROUGH ALL THIS WITH THE HELP OF THE GOOD LORD, OUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
IN MAY, 2023, I SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH REBUILD AND SEE FOR THEM TO BUILD A
[00:10:01]
HOME TO REPLACE COUSIN MARYANNE'S.THEY WERE TOLD REPEATEDLY SINCE 2020 THAT THE HOME WAS IN THE NEW BERN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THAT IT MUST ADHERE TO ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES.
THEY LIED IN AUGUST, 2024, REBUILD NC WOOD BEFORE THE NEW BRUN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WITH A HOME DESIGN THAT THEY WERE TOLD WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE.
THE NEW BRUN HPC VOTED IT DOWN AS EXPECTED IN NOVEMBER, 2024, REBUILD NC TRIED TO KICK ME OUT OF THE PROGRAM BECAUSE I WENT TO MY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND GAVE A FRONT PAGE INTERVIEW TO LUCIANA AS THE NEWS AND OBSERVER ABOUT THE FAILURE OF REBUILD NC IN FEBRUARY, 2025, REBUILD NC ILLEGALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY KICKED ME OUT OF THE PROGRAM STOPPING AND ALL STORAGE AND STIPEND PAYMENTS, WHICH THEY ARE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO SUPPLY UNTIL I'M BACK HOME, I WOULD'VE NEVER NEEDED 1 CENT.
HAD THEY DONE THEIR JOBS PROPERLY YEARS AGO, I APPEALED AND THEY HAVE NEVER RESPONDED, WHICH THEY ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO.
SO OVER THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, THERE HAVE BEEN TALKS BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEW BERN, CRAVEN COUNTY AND REBUILD NC ABOUT TRANSFERRING MY HOME PROJECT AND OTHERS TO CRAVEN COUNTY TO DO THE WORK.
BUT REBUILD NC HAS FAILED TO DO THAT.
CRAVEN COUNTY HAS 40 YEARS OF SUCCESS IN ELEVATING AND REPAIRING DAMAGED HOMES.
SINCE NOVEMBER, 2024, I HAVE DONE MY BEST TO WORK WITH REPRESENTATIVE STEVE TYSON, WHO WAS GREAT AFTER THE HURRICANE UNTIL SOME MONTHS AGO, AND SENATOR BOB BRISSON, BUT FOR SOME REASON, THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO TRULY FIGHT FOR ME AND THE THOUSANDS OF EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL SUFFERING.
THEY BOTH HAVE EXCLUDED ME FROM REBUILD NC MEETINGS ABOUT MY LIFE AND MY HOME.
I FINALLY HAD A MEETING WITH REBUILD, UH, NC TYSON, BENSONS AND OTHERS A MONTH AGO TODAY IN RALEIGH.
I HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED FOR AN UPDATE, ANOTHER MEETING WITH NO RESPONSE FROM ANY OF THEM.
UNACCEPTABLE AND UNPROFESSIONAL THEY ARE.
WE THE HURRICANE FLOOD SURVIVORS HAVE NO ONE REPRESENTING US.
ONLY THE STATE AUDITOR IS WORKING ON A, UH, INVESTIGATION.
I AM FACING, LOSING MY UNINHABITABLE HOME, MY TEMPORARY APARTMENT, AND MY STORAGE.
DUE TO THE FAILURE OF REBUILD NC AND MY NORTH CAROLINA ELECTED OFFICIALS, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP WALKED RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR HOME IN 2018 WITH NEWER NATIVE LINDA EDWARDS AND MCMAHAN.
LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD THE LA FIRE SURVIVORS, THEIR HOME SHOULD BE, BE BUILT BACK, BIGGER, BETTER, AND MORE BEAUTIFUL.
I THINK HE WOULD SAY THE SAME FOR US HERE IN ENC AND WNC.
I HAVE ASKED MY ELECTED OFFICIALS, TYSON, BRISSON, MURPHY, TILLIS, AND BUD.
THANK YOU MR. PLEASE CONTACT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE HUDSON TE TURNER TO STEP IN AND FIX THE REBUILD DEBACLE.
THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO, MR. FRANK, WE JUST WANT TO GO HOME.
MY DAILY PRAYERS ARE FOR US HERE IN ENC AND THOSE IN WW ENC THANK YOU WHO ARE SUFFERING UNDER A TYRANNICAL NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNMENT.
NEXT UP IS MS. SO BLISS, I'M SORAYA BLISS, AND I HAVE A LITTLE SURVEY FOR YOU.
IT'S NOT JUST FOR THE ALDERMAN, IT'S FOR EVERYONE IN THE ROOM.
QUESTION ONE, HOW MANY OF YOU THINK YOU COULD KEEP A STRAIGHT FACE IF YOU HAD TO TELL A CONTRACTOR WHO IS ABOUT TO PAINT YOUR HOUSE THAT THEY COULD NOT USE MOTORIZED SANDERS? QUESTION NUMBER TWO.
HOW MANY OF YOU THINK THE CONTRACTOR WOULD STILL SIGN UP TO DO THE JOB? QUESTION THREE.
IF THE CONTRACTOR DIDN'T WALK AWAY LAUGHING AT YOU, HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU THINK THE JOB WOULD COST? HPC GUIDELINES 6.1.
POINT SIX SAYS, REMOVE PAINT AND OTHER LOOSE MATERIAL WITH SCRAPERS.
SANDPAPER AND SIMILAR MODERATELY ABRASED HAND TOOLS.
HAND TOOLS TRANSLATION, NO MOTORIZED SANDERS ARE ALLOWED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WHO AMONG YOU WOULD PAINT A BRAND NEW OUTDOOR APPLIANCE KNOWING IT COULD VOID A WARRANTY? FUN FACT, PAINTING A AN APPLIANCE A RENA ACTUALLY DOES VOID THE WARRANTY.
IF YOU HAVEN'T GUESSED ALREADY, I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE HPC AS I HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS WHILE SOME PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, THE RESISTANCE TO INCREMENTAL GUIDELINE IMPROVEMENTS REMAINS A CONCERN, AND IT DOES NOT PUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST FIRST.
I UNDERSTAND THAT A MEETING IS SCHEDULED NEXT WEEK WITH THE CITY MANAGER STAFF, HPC CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
TO DISCUSS THE HPC GUIDELINE REVISION PROCESS, I ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU, THE PUBLIC INCLUDED, TO WEIGH IN AND PUSH FOR A PROCESS THAT INCLUDES INCREMENTAL CHANGE.
THE STATED REASON FOR HOLDING ALL CHANGES TO THE VERY END IS TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO STAND.
THE HPC HAS MADE SEVERAL INCREMENTAL CHANGES IN THE PAST AND THE REQUIRED PROCESSES FOR
[00:15:01]
AN HPC TEXT AMENDMENT INCLUDES, UM, A REVIEW BY BOTH LEGAL AND PLANNING AND ZONING.THESE ARE BUILT IN SAFEGUARDS TO REDUCE ERRORS.
INCREMENTAL PROGRESS IS A PROVEN STRATEGY ACROSS DISCIPLINES NOT HOLDING UP GOOD FOR GREAT EMPHASIZES DELIVERING FUNCTIONAL SOLUTIONS.
NOW, RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO STALL, APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION WOULD ALLOW PAIN POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN IGNORED FOR YEARS TO BE ADDRESSED FURTHER, THIS APPROACH, APPROACH ACTUALLY HELPS CATCH ISSUES EARLY AND GENERALLY IMPROVES OVERALL PROCESS AS WELL AS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
IS IT REALLY FAIR TO ASK HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESSES TO WAIT ANOTHER SIX MONTHS OR ANOTHER YEAR TO SEE CHANGE? TELLING THE PUBLIC THEIR FEEDBACK MATTERS, BUT THEN TURNING AROUND AND DELAYING ACTION UNDERMINES CONFIDENCE AND TRUST.
HOW IS THAT GOOD GOVERNANCE? ALSO, HIRING A CONSULTANT IS A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY.
THE GUIDELINES NEED UPDATES, NOT A COSTLY DO OVER.
USE EXISTING RESOURCES AND PUBLIC SUPPORT AND GET CHANGES DONE.
NOW, IF YOU CAN AFFORD AN UPGRADE LATER, FINE, BUT DON'T MAKE THIS CRITICAL WORK DEPENDENT ON A LINE ITEM IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL SLOW THINGS DOWN.
THE PUBLIC DESERVES PROACTIVE TRUST BUILDING APPROACH WITH IMMEDIATE CHANGE.
UM, SINCE I HAVE A FEW SECONDS LEFT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, THE HP ALSO JUST REQUIRED THE END CORE TO, UM, REPLACE ALL WOOD SIDING, REMOVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE VINYL SIDING ON A HOUSE AND RESTORE THE EXISTING WOOD SIDING.
THEY GOT TO THAT BY LOOKING AT THE ONE SIDE THAT NEEDED VINYL REPLACING.
UM, THEY DETERMINED THAT WAS WHOLESALE ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THE WHOLE HOUSE.
UM, I'VE REPORTED THAT TO YOU GUYS A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.
I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING'S BEEN BE DONE, BUT THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM.
[Consent Agenda]
OKAY, BOARD, NEXT UP IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.I ALWAYS PLEASURE THE BOARD ON ITEMS FIVE THROUGH 16.
UH, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTED WITH ALDERMAN ROYAL.
[17. Presentation of Police Department' s 2024 Annual Report.]
NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER 17, PRESENTATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S 2024 ANNUAL REPORT.THANK YOU MAYOR BOARD, UH, CITY MANAGER.
I PROMISED YOU MY PRESENTATION WILL BE LEFT IN 10 MINUTES AND I WILL FULFILL THAT PROMISE.
SO I AM HERE TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD THE 2024 ANNUAL REPORT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THIS BOARD LAST MONTH.
UH, JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, THIS DOCUMENT WAS ACTUALLY COMPLETED, UH, MIDSUMMER.
UM, BUT WE WAITED UNTIL THE NEXT BOARD MEETING TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU.
UM, SO, UH, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT, UM, WE AS A TEAM PUT TOGETHER WAS WE WANTED TO TELL OUR STORY.
UM, FAR TOO OFTEN OUR COMMUNITY SEES THE WONDERFUL, UH, OFFICERS IN UNIFORM AND THEY ASSUME THEY KNOW WHAT WE DO.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS THE PROVERBIAL, UH, TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
AND SO IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO, UH, UM, TELL THAT STORY TO OUR COMMUNITY SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT THE NEW BERN POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES.
WHAT I PROVIDED HERE IN THIS SLIDE IS OUR ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF THE 118 AND A HALF ABILITY POSITIONS IN THE NEW BERN POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, OVER A, WELL, ROUGHLY A THIRD OF THOSE ARE CIVILIAN STAFF.
AND IN THIS ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, ANY OF THE SQUARES THAT YOU SEE THERE THAT ARE HAVE A YELLOW OUTLINE REPRESENTS A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE.
THEY'RE EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL TO THE MISSION OF THE NEW BERN POLICE DEPARTMENT AS THOSE THAT WEAR THE UNIFORM AND HAVE SWORN AUTHORITY.
ALSO, CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO OUR MISSION IS, UM, OUR VOLUNTEERS AND OUR CONTRACTUAL WORKERS, SUCH AS OUR RHA COPOS, WHO WORK IN OUR SAME BUILDING AND RESPOND WITH OUR OFFICERS TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE IN CRISIS.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN DIVERT THEM FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM INTO, UM, SERVICES THAT THEY NEED, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THEIR MENTAL HEALTH.
THIS IS A VERY BUSY SLIDE, AND IT WAS CONSTRUCTED TO BE EXACTLY THAT.
THE, UM, PRINTED VERSION OF OUR ANNUAL REPORT THAT YOU
[00:20:01]
HAVE IS ROUGHLY 80 PAGES LONG.UM, IT IS NOT MANDATORY READING, BUT WHAT I ENCOURAGE MOST PEOPLE TO, UM, TO UNDERSTAND IS EACH AND EVERY, UM, ENTRY IN THERE WAS SPECIFICALLY AND INTENDED TO PROVIDE THAT STORY.
AND WE'VE TRIED TO USE THE WORDS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE WORDS OF OUR, OF OUR EMPLOYEES TO SPEAK ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY WE HAVE DONE AND WHAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO TO SERVICE OUR COMMUNITY.
NOW, OFTENTIMES, UM, OUR COMMUNITY, OUR CITIZENS AND, UM, SPECIAL INTEREST PERSONS AND GROUPS ARE INTERESTED IN WHAT OUR CRIME RATE IS, AND THAT IS A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT PIECE TO ANY POLICE DEPARTMENT'S, UM, ANNUAL REPORT, AND I'M HERE TO RELAY THAT.
AS IT RELATES TO THE REPORTABLE CRIMES, WE HAVE SEEN A DRAMATIC DECREASE IN NOT ONLY PART ONE VIOLENT CRIME, BUT ALSO PART ONE, UH, PROPERTY CRIMES.
AND IF YOU COULD, UH, SEE THE BOTTOM TOTAL IN 2024, WE HAD A TOTAL OF 757 REPORTABLE.
UM, PART ONE CRIMES THAT WERE REPORTED TO THE FBI THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER AND BY PERCENTAGES, UM, ROUGHLY 20% DECREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME AND ALSO ALMOST 32% IN PROPERTY CRIMES.
THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT AND CELEBRATE IS THE AMOUNT OF CLEARANCES THAT OUR STAFF HAS, UM, RESULTED IN INVESTIGATIONS AND HOMICIDES AND MURDERS.
IN 2021, WE HAD EIGHT HOMICIDES, BUT TWO OF THOSE WERE NON-CRIMINAL.
UM, THEY WERE JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES, SO IT WAS ONLY SIX MURDERS.
WE HAVE A CLEARANCE RATE OF 64%, AND WE ARE EXTREMELY PROUD THAT WE WERE ABLE TO CLEAR THE 2023 JULY 4TH, UH, NEIL SHEP TALK HOMICIDE.
UM, OUR CLEARANCE RATE IS BY FAR HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, AND TO, UM, FULFILL MY PROMISE TO MY BOSS THAT I WOULD BE LESS THAN 10 MINUTES.
UH, THE NEW BERN POLICE DEPARTMENT, UH, WILL CELEBRATE WITH THE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND OUR COMMUNITY, THE NATION'S 250TH BIRTHDAY.
ONE OF THE, UM, UH, SALIENT, UM, GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS THE 56 WORDS IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE THAT SPEAKS TO INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
THIS IS, UM, PROUDLY DISPLAYED IN THE NEW BERN POLICE DEPARTMENT.
OUR OFFICERS UNDERSTAND WHERE INALIENABLE RIGHTS COME FROM AND WHERE WE AS GOVERNMENT AGENTS STAND IN, UH, SUPPORT OF THAT.
WE, WE WISH THAT ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE LIBERTY IN THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, AND THAT IS THE CORE FEATURE OF WHY WE EXIST AS POLICE OFFICERS.
AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[18. Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Adopting an Ordinance to Establish Initial Zoning for 2960 Old Airport Road as R-8.]
STEP IS ITEM NUMBER 18.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH INITIAL ZONING FOR 29 60 OLD AIRPORT ROAD AS R EIGHT.
NOBODY EVER ASKED ME TO STICK TO 10 MINUTES.
I'M GONNA, I AM GONNA DO MY BEST TO GO VERY EFFICIENTLY THROUGH A FIVE, FIVE ZONING REQUESTS HERE THIS EVENING.
THIS WE'RE, WE'RE STARTING OFF PRETTY VANILLA, SO WE'LL DIP OUR TOES IN.
THIS IS, UH, A PROPERTY THAT WE JUST ANNEXED IN IN JULY.
IT IS OUT AT 29 60 OLD AIRPORT ROAD.
CURRENTLY DOESN'T HAVE ZONING BECAUSE WE JUST BROUGHT IT IN THE CITY LIMITS.
WE ARE PROPOSING R EIGHT ZONING FOR THIS AREA WE SEE ON THE VICINITY MAP.
WE ARE JUST SLIGHTLY NORTH OF THAT CROSSING, UM, AT BRYCE'S CROSSING BOULEVARD AND OLD AIRPORT ROAD.
UH, PROOF OF NOTICE THE AREA IN YELLOW, AS I ALWAYS SHOW YOU, ARE THOSE WHO ARE IN WITH WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET, WHO RECEIVED WRITTEN NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY OUR ORDINANCE.
THE R EIGHT ZONING DISTRICT IS A BASIC ONE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
IT DOES ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY ON LARGER SITES.
THIS IS OUR EXISTING CONDITIONS.
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S PLENTY OF R EIGHT RIGHT THERE, UH, OR IN AND AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN DARK RED.
YOU CAN SEE THAT PARCEL STAND OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
[00:25:01]
IS A PICTURE OF THE SITE.THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DID RECOMMEND APPLICATION OF R EIGHT ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY.
THEY RECOMMENDED THIS TO YOU SEVEN ZERO BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE LAND USE PLAN, STATE LAWS, AND OUR LAND USE PLAN UPDATE.
WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
HEARING NONE AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 18.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE DO SO.
AT THIS TIME, MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SECOND, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ANY OPPOSED? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
UH, THE BOARD IS NOW, UM, EXPECTED TO CONSIDER ADOPTING THE ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THIS INITIAL ZONING.
WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD ON THE ITEM NUMBER 18? YOUR HONOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THE ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH INITIAL ZONING FOR 29 60 OLD AIRPORT ROAD AS R EIGHT.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN ASTOR.
[19. Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Adopting an Ordinance to Rezone 1700 Red Robin Lane from I- 1 to C3.]
NEXT UP IS ITEM NUMBER 19.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 1700 RED ROBIN LANE FROM I ONE TO C3.
THIS REZONING REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED BY NEW BERN WASH.
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS STEVEN UMSTEAD OUT OF 1700 RED ROBIN LANE.
THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUESTED IS COMMERCIAL THREE OR C3.
YOU CAN SEE IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS KIND OF, UH, TURNING INTO LOWE'S WHERE THE CAR WASH IS.
HERE'S PROOF OF NOTICE, PROOF OF MAILED NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO COMPARE THE TWO DISTRICTS.
THEY ACTUALLY ALLOW REALLY SIMILAR THINGS.
THE BIG DIFFERENCE BEING IN THE SETBACKS, UH, WHICH I'VE LISTED HERE AND ILLUSTRATED ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU.
UH, MOVING FROM INDUSTRIAL ONE TO COMMERCIAL THREE WOULD RELAX THOSE SETBACKS SIGNIFICANTLY.
THE COMMERCIAL THREE IS ONE OF OUR, UH, VERY TYPICAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT'S.
OFFICE, PERSONAL SERVICES, RETAIL, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
UH, THEY ARE PRETTY SIMILAR, UM, IN USES.
THE BIG DIFFERENCE HERE WOULD BE THOSE SETBACKS.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S PLENTY OF C3 IN THE AREA.
UH, REZONING REQUEST FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TO REPORT THE GRAY AREA IS THE I THREE AND ALL THAT OTHER RED DOWN MLK IS C3.
OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES SUPPORT THIS AS DEVELOPED, SO IT SUPPORT IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST.
UH, THIS SHOWS YOU THAT THE SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING REQUEST SEVEN ZERO BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH OUR ADOPTED PLANS AND THE FACT IT IS ADJACENT TO SO MUCH C3.
WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOUR AND HAVE QUESTIONS.
MS. RU, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE CURRENT AERIAL.
OOPS, THAT I, I MIGHT NEED COLLEEN TO HELP ME.
SO THE, THE ONE PICTURE SHOWS THAT IT'S UNDEVELOPED, BUT THAT IS THE NEW CAR WASH THAT'S IN THAT PICTURE.
I GUESS I'M, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW WITH THE RED BORDER AROUND IT MM-HMM
THAT'S THE PARCEL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT?
[00:30:01]
YES.IS THAT NOT THE NEW CAR WASH THAT I'M LOOKING AT? YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE NEW CAR WASH.
THAT THERE IT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED.
SO HALF, ONLY HALF OF THAT PARCEL? YES.
I'M SORRY THAT THAT WASN'T CLEAR.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
NOW, MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ANY OPPOSED? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? ON ITEM NUMBER 19, MAYOR, MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO REZONED 1700 BRAD ROBIN LANE FROM I ONE TO C3.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDER MCKENZIE.
[Items 20 & 21]
NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER 20.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH INITIAL ZONING FOR SEVEN 50 HIGHWAY 55 WEST AS R 20 R 10 R 10 S OR R EIGHT.
THIS IS ANOTHER ZONING APPLICATION WHERE THIS IS BEFORE YOU BE DUE TO AN ANNEXATION.
THIS WAS ANNEXED BACK IN JANUARY.
THE LOCATION IS 750 HIGHWAY 55 WEST.
THE OWNER IS TANYA DILLA HUNT.
AND THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS LISTED AS POSSIBLE AND WERE NOTICED FOR POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS.
AND I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY THAT IS.
SINCE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE USUALLY LOOK AT.
I WILL NOTE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IS RECOMMENDING TO YOU THE R 20 APPLICATION OF ZONING.
AND I'M GOING TO CALL ATTENTION TO THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL BECAUSE THAT WILL BE IMPORTANT AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION.
SO YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE JUST UNDER AN ACRE HERE THAT IS SPELLED OUT IN, IN REGULAR MATH 40,946 SQUARE FEET.
THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING.
THIS IS THE SIGN SHOWING OUR POSTED NOTICE.
AND THIS IS OUR PROOF OF MAIL NOTIFICATION.
AND WE HAVE A, A CHART HERE THAT STAFF PUT TOGETHER FOR US THAT SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE FOUR ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE ZONING MAP, THIS WILL MAKE SENSE WHY I AM EXPLAINING THIS.
SO WE HAVE R 20, WHICH IS A, A VERY RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
WE HAVE R 10, WHICH IS A MORE, UH, D UH, MORE DENSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES OR WHAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER A DUPLEX.
WE HAVE R 10 S, WHICH IS THE SAME LOT SIZE, BUT ONLY ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, NOT DUPLEX, NOT APARTMENTS, OR WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL EIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE PREFERENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
NOW I'LL CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION IS 8,000 SQUARE FEET LOTS, BUT ALSO ALLOWS MULTI-FAMILY USES OR APARTMENTS.
AND ON A, A PARCEL THAT SIZE, YOU COULD, UH, POTENTIALLY GET UP TO NINE UNITS.
R 20, AS I JUST REFERENCED, IS A RURAL DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH LARGER LOT SIZES.
R 10, THE THE, WE ARE CUTTING THE SIZE OF POTENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOTS DOWN TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DUPLEXES, THE R 10 S, WHICH ALLOWS 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ONLY, OR THE RESIDENTIAL EIGHT, WHICH UH, HAS THE SMALLER LOT SIZES, SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY.
SO YOU TAKE THE 8,000 AND IF YOU ADD 4,000 ON, THAT'S HOW, IF WE MATH, THE MATH I JUST WALKED THROUGH, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY GET UP TO NINE UNITS.
AND PLEASE REMEMBER WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE RANGE OF WHAT'S POSSIBLE ON A PROPERTY WHEN WE CONSIDER REZONING.
BUT THIS IS OUR EXISTING ZONING MAP.
THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND.
AND SO WE'VE GOT AGRICULTURE OUT THERE.
WE HAVE PROPERTIES THAT AREN'T ZONED BY THE CITY.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT IN OUR LIMITS,
[00:35:01]
SO WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THOSE.AND YOU'LL SEE A LITTLE PIECE UP, UH, TO THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN TO THE NORTHWEST THERE OF R SIX.
SO THE VERY LIGHT YELLOW ARE THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ZONED R 20.
AND SO WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING THIS AND WHEN THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WAS REVIEWING THIS, THEY LOOKED AT THAT AND WERE HIGHLY CONCERNED THAT THROWING ANY OTHER DISTRICT ON THERE COULD BE POTENTIALLY LOOKED AT AS SPOT ZONING.
AND SO WE'VE MET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY AND WE'VE TALKED, UH, THROUGH VARIOUS OPTIONS WITH 'EM.
AND, UH, THEY, THEY WERE GIVEN THE OPTION AFTER PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE PO POTENTIALLY OF CASE LAW THAT MAY SHOW THIS IS NOT SPOT ZONING.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT TO DATE.
I AM, I'M SURE YOU, YOU'LL HEAR FROM THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL SHORTLY.
UM, AND THEY MAY HAVE HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT'S PHYSICALLY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
AND AGAIN, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DID RECOMMEND APPLICATION OF THE R 20 ZONING.
HOWEVER, THE NOTICE DID GO OUT WITH THE POTENTIAL THAT ONE OF THOSE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS, THE R 10, THE R 10 S, THE R EIGHT COULD POTENTIALLY BE OPTIONS.
AND THE REASON WE ADVERTISED IT LIKE THAT IS, SO IF YOU WEREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH THE R 20, UM, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THOSE OTHER OPTIONS OF EVIDENCES IS PRESENTED TO YOU.
UM, THEY DID FIND THAT THE R 20 WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN UPDATE WHAT WAS IN THE VICINITY.
UM, BUT DID NOTE HOLD HOLD ON A SECOND.
IS, IS THAT A TELEPHONE OR IS A BABY MONITOR? SOUNDED LIKE A LULLABY.
UH, AND WITH, WITH THAT, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
I KNOW THIS WAS A LITTLE MORE CONFUSING THAN WE NORMALLY WALK THROUGH, SO, OKAY.
DOES BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? JESSICA, WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDING AT THE, UM, ON THIS PROPERTY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING BASED ON CONSULTATION WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL? R 20.
AND THEN YOU MENTIONED, UH, APARTMENTS, THEN YOU SAID HOMES AND, UH, THEN YOU WENT BACK TO SAY THAT IT COULD GO EITHER R 10 OR R EIGHT.
THOSE, THOSE ARE ALL DUE TO WHAT THE ATTORNEY'S GOING TO BRING BEFORE US YES.
TO GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW IF IT'S BEEN SOME CHANGES.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, SO TYPICALLY SPAT ZONING, IF IT'S A VERY LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY OUT OUT SOMEWHERE, IT'S, AND YOU CAN SUB, YOU'RE DOING A SUBDIVISION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S NOT LOOKED AT AS SPOT ZONING.
WE LOOK AT WHAT'S IN THE VICINITY.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT VICINITY IN THE STAFF REPORT, WE TYPICALLY REFERENCE A HALF A MILE RADIUS.
THE THE LAW DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY TELL YOU, AND OUR ORDINANCE DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY TELL YOU WHAT VICINITY IS, BUT ON A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNDER AN ACRE, IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THE COURTS WOULD LOOK AT JUST SLAPPING ONE SMALL PIECE LIKE THAT, A DIFFERENT COLOR, A SPOT ZONING.
SO I GUESS WE'LL SEE WHAT THE ATTORNEY HAS TO PRESENT US.
AND I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO GO BACKWARDS AGAIN IF IT'S NOT, UH,
SORRY, I'M GONNA TRY, HERE WE GO.
WHERE DO YOU WANT, WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO LAND, UH, TO THE CURRENT ZONING? RIGHT THERE.
UH, WITH THE, THE MAP OF WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING, HERE YOU GO.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, EVERYTHING THAT'S IN WHITE IS UN ZONE.
IS IT IN THE CITY LIMITS? NO, THIS IS AN AREA, YOU KNOW, WE GET THESE PIECEMEAL ANNEXATIONS, WHICH IS HOW WE GOT THIS BEFORE US THIS EVENING.
SO MAYBE THE ATTORNEY COULD ANSWER THIS ONE FOR ME.
HOW, HOW WOULD IT BE CONSIDERED SPOT ZONING WHEN THERE'S PARCELS ALL AROUND IT THAT ARE UN ZONED? GREAT QUESTION.
SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ZONING, WE'RE LOOKING AT COMPARABLE LAND USES, RIGHT? SO WHEN WE COMPARE THE COUNTY'S REGULATIONS WITH SETBACKS, UM, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THAT ANALYSIS PLACES US VERY CLOSE TO THE R 20 ZONING DESIGNATION.
ADDITIONALLY, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT PROPERTIES OR PARCELS THAT ARE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY, FOR EXAMPLE, ACROSS THE STREET, WE SEE THAT LARGE SECTION OF A FIVE, WE LOOK UP THE CORRIDOR A BIT AND WE SEE THE, THE R THE R TWENTIES.
THAT IS HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT NOT HAVING A SPOT ZONING ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT IS CONTIGUOUS UNDER THE STATUTE TO PARCELS THAT ARE IN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY THAT ARE ZONED.
SO THEORETICALLY, IF ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND PETITION TO BE ANNEXED AND ASKED TO BE R SIX, THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY START
[00:40:01]
BUILDING A COALITION OF THE SAME ZONING THERE.IS THAT FAIR? THEY COULD POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, R SIX MAY BE, UM, MORE, PROBABLY A BETTER ANALYSIS CLOSER TO THE, THE YELLOW SHADED AREA TOWARDS THE TOP LEFT CORNER OF THE MAP.
UM, THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE, THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE MAP MAY HAVE A HARDER, UM, A TOUGHER HILL TO CLIMB TO TRY TO ARGUE FOR AN R SIX.
WHEN SHE MENTIONED THE R 10 AND THE R EIGHT, IS THAT DUE TO THE SETBACK OF THE DENSITY OF THE PROPERTY? I, I, I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HIS ATTORNEY HAVE PROPOSED SOME ALTERNATIVES TO R SIX, I MEAN TO R 20.
THEY HAVE SOME SPECIFIC USES IN MIND THAT MIGHT WORK BETTER WITH A, UH, R SIX, R 20, UM, R SIX, R 10 ZONING DESIGNATION.
UH, AND, AND THEY CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
BUT CERTAINLY FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, WHEN YOU'RE ASSESSING WHAT USES OR WHAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS REASONABLE AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAND USE PLANS, YOU WANT TO REVIEW ALL OF THE POSSIBLE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED FOR THAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
UM, JESSICA, YOU SAID THAT, UM, THE R EIGHT WOULD, UM, YOU COULD POSSIBLY PUT NINE UNITS.
ARE YOU SAYING NINE HOUSES OR NINE? NO, TWO.
YOU COULD POTENTIALLY BUILD A MULTI-UNIT STRUCTURE OF NINE UNITS OR AN APARTMENT.
BECAUSE OF THE LAND ACREAGE THEY HAVE AND THE, UM, LOT WIDTH SET ARE REQUIRED WHEN YOU MAKE NEW LOTS OUT OF AN, AN EXISTING LARGER PARCEL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY.
AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR GUESTS, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
I NEED TO PASS OUT SOME STUFF.
THESE ARE FOLDER I CAN GET YOU THE RECORD.
I, BRENDA, I'LL JUST GIVE YOU MINE WHENEVER WE'RE DONE.
I'M A LAWYER WITH CHESTNUT AND CLEMONS IN NEWBURN.
AND I HAVE PRACTICED LAW HERE SINCE 1985.
UM, I REPRESENT THE ACTUAL LAND OWNER WHO IS TANYA DILLA HUNT AND SHE LIVES IN TEXAS.
UM, HER FATHER IS JIMMY DILLA HUNT AND HE IS HERE.
HE HAS A RECORDED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OFFICE TO ACT ON HER BEHALF.
SO I ACTUALLY REPRESENT BOTH OF THEM.
THE LANDOWNER AMONG ALL THE OPTIONS PREFERS, UH, ARE EIGHT FOR FOUR REASONS.
ONE, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF R EIGHT, AND I'LL GO IN MORE DETAIL IN A MINUTE.
NUMBER TWO, IT MEETS THE GUIDELINES UNDER 15, UH, DASH 1 36, WHICH INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH WHEN I LOOKED AT THESE GUIDELINES, THERE ARE FIVE OF THEM AND THEY'RE DIVIDED INTO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TO ENCOURAGE, DISCOURAGE, OR PROHIBIT.
SO THE LANGUAGE HAD TWO ENCOURAGES, TWO DISCOURAGES, AND ONE PROHIBITION, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING HOW THEY SET THAT UP.
BUT IT MEETS ALL THOSE FIVE GUIDELINES.
UH, THIRD, UM, THE, UM, APPLICATION FOR THE RA ITSELF, UM, BLENDS IN WITH THE VICINITY AND I'LL SHOW YOU SOME MAPS I HAVE ON THAT.
[00:45:01]
AND FOURTH, IT HAS THE, UM, SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY.AND I HAVE A PETITION, UH, MAY I SUBMIT THIS.
UH, THIS IS A PETITION, UM, FROM UH, A HUNDRED PEOPLE.
UM, 44 OF THEM LIVE IN THE PLEASANT HILL COMMUNITY.
THE OTHER ONES LIVE OUTSIDE THE PLEASANT HILL COMMUNITY.
AND IT'S BASICALLY THERE IN SUPPORT OF THE LANDOWNER'S POSITION, UH, TO HAVE THIS ZONED R EIGHT, UH, SUBMIT THAT RECORDS.
SORRY, ONLY HAVE THAT ONE COPY.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS OF R EIGHT, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL, IT DOES TALK ABOUT EITHER SINGLE OR TWO OR MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW IT AS TO WHAT ANY POTENTIAL USE OF THE LAND MIGHT BE OR THE DEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE TO ANALYZE IT THAT WAY.
BUT WHAT, UM, MR. DILLA HUNT AND HIS DAUGHTER PROPOSE, UH, IS THAT, UM, YOU, THEY WANT TO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.
UM, EACH OF THESE LOTS, UM, UH, IN SEVEN 50, UM, HIGHWAY SEVEN, UH, HIGHWAY 55 WEST ARE AT LEAST 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
THEY'RE ALSO AT LEAST 50 FEET APART ON THE PROPOSAL.
UM, AND THEY HAVE AT LEAST 72.8 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE.
UM, THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS OF R EIGHT, UH, IS THAT THEY HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8,000 SQUARE FEET FOR ONE OF THE LOTS AND THEN A MINIMUM OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE OTHER ONE.
NOW I'M ALSO GONNA BE UP HERE IN A MINUTE, UH, TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS 7 94 HIGHWAY 55, WHICH IS ONE TRACK.
AND THIS IS ONE TRACK THAT HE WANTS TO DIVIDE INTO FOUR AND SURVEYED FOUR SEPARATE LOTS FOR FOUR SEPARATE HOUSES, 50 FEET APART ON THE HOUSES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW IT IN LIGHT OF, UM, WHAT ALL THE POTENTIAL POSSIBILITIES ARE, BUT THAT IS NOT THE PLAN OF THIS PARTICULAR LANDOWNER.
SO IT MEETS ALL THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.
UM, SO THE NEXT REQUIREMENT IS, UM, DOES IT MEET THE GUIDELINES OF, UH, R EIGHT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES UNDER 15 DASH 1 36 OF R EIGHT, THE THE TWO THAT TALK ABOUT ENCOURAGING ARE TO ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUED USE OF THE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
WELL, IT'S GONNA BE RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
AND THE THIRD ONE IS TO ENCOURAGE THE DISCONTINUANCE OF EXISTING USES THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS NEW USES IN THE DISTRICT.
SO THERE, I'M, I'M GONNA SHOW YOU A MAP IN A MINUTE, BUT THIS IS AN AREA ONE MILE RADIUS GOING ONE MILE OUT FROM THIS PROJECT.
UM, INCLUDES OUR 20 OR EIGHT OR SIX.
I MEAN, IT JUST INCLUDES EVERYTHING.
UM, IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR PACKET THAT YOU HAVE THERE, UM, THERE ARE, UM, IN, UM, UH, NUMBER TWO A, B, AND C, UH, YOU WILL SEE SOME, UM, PICTURES, UH, AND UM, UH, HOW SOME OF THESE HOUSES ARE GOING TO LOOK THAT MR. DI HUNT HAS ALREADY GIVEN THE TWO GUIDELINES HAVING TO DO WITH DISCOURAGEMENT, UH, ARE TO DISCOURAGE, UM, ANY USE WHICH WOULD GENERATE TRAFFIC, UH, ON MINOR STREETS OTHER THAN THE NORMAL TRAFFIC.
WELL THIS IS HIGHWAY 55, SO IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE THERE.
UM, OR THE OTHER ONE TO DISCOURAGE IS ANY USE, WHICH BECAUSE OF ITS CHARACTER OR SIZE, WOULD CREATE REQUIREMENTS AND CALLS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND INCREASE FIRE PROTECTION, STUFF LIKE THAT.
THE LAST ONE, IT'S IS A PROHIBITION PROHIBITION TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE OF THE LAND AND TO PREVENT IT, TO PREVENT ANY OTHER USE WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY
[00:50:01]
INTERFERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONTINUATION OF, UH, RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE DISTRICT.SO IT DOESN'T DO THAT 'CAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL.
SO IT MEETS THE TWO PARTS OF ENCOURAGEMENT, THE TWO PARTS OF DISCOURAGEMENT, UH, AND THE PROHIBITION.
IT WAS MENTIONED HERE EARLIER ABOUT SOME, UH, UH, CASE LAW REGARDING SPOT ZONING, UH, WHICH I'M GOING TO PUT UNDER THE CATEGORY OF VICINITY.
UH, IT IS UNTRUE THAT I DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY CASE LAW TO COUNSEL FOR THE CITY.
THE QUESTION IS LIKE ALL LAWYERS, WHAT DOES THE CASE LAW HAVE TO DO? AND IS IT, IT IS APPLICABLE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? SO FIRST, UM, HERE, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL CAN SEE THIS OR NOT.
UM, MY DISTANCES BETWEEN WHERE I STAND GENERALLY IN JURIES ARE CLOSER.
UM, BUT IT WILL JUST HAVE TO GO TO WHAT WE'RE DOING.
SO THIS IS KIND OF THE AREA RIGHT HERE.
AND THESE FOUR GREEN BLOCKS ARE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
THEY HAVE AT LEAST 72 UH, FEET MORE THAN THAT, UH, FOR THE ROAD FRONTAGE.
AND, UH, NOT ONLY IS ONE MORE THAN 8,000 AND THE REST MORE THAN 4,000, BUT THEY'RE ALL MORE THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO THE SECOND PART I WANNA TALK ABOUT IS THE, UH, VICINITY.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT, AND I, I BELIEVE IN YOUR, UM, MATERIALS THERE, IF YOU LOOK AT, UM, THE OUTLINES IN NUMBER THREE, I'M SORRY, YOU LOOK AT NUMBER FOUR, EXHIBIT FOUR.
SO YOU WILL SEE, UH, ON THE RED, UH, DOT THERE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THEN THAT'S A VICINITY OF ONE MILE OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH THERE ARE AREAS OF, UH, R 20 ACROSS THE STREET THERE, AREAS OF R SIX, THERE'S A R 10, AR-15, R 10, R EIGHT, AND R 20.
SO TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S OUT THERE ALREADY BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF R 20, THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, BUT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF R EIGHT AND IT ALSO MEETS THE GUIDELINES.
UH, I DID, UH, SUBMIT, UH, TWO CASES.
I DO NOT HAVE THE CASES WITH ME, BUT I SUBMITTED THEM CHILDRESS VERSUS YAKKIN COUNTY AND MUEY VERSUS TOWN OF OTTE.
UM, THEY DID NOT REALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH SPOT ZONING AS MUCH AS THEY ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU WORK ON ZONING AND MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT ZONING.
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VICINITY AND THE, THE CASES INVOLVED, ONE CASE INVOLVED THE VICINITY OF DRY LAND AND WATER AND THE OTHER ONE INVOLVED A ONE MILE RADIUS THAT THEY CONSIDERED THE AREA THAT THEY WOULD, UM, LOOK AT IN TERMS OF WHAT KIND OF ZONING IT WOULD BE.
AND THAT'S WHY I CITED THE CASES I DID NOT FIND, UH, IN MY RESEARCH ANY SPECIFIC CASES REGARDING SPOT ZONING THAT WOULD AFFECT THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
SO IN TERMS OF THE AREA, IT FITS INTO THE AREA, UM, AND BLENDS THERE.
UH, THE FOURTH REASON, UH, IS BECAUSE IT HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY.
I HAVE A HUNDRED, UM, SIGNATURES HERE.
44 OF THEM ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN PLEASANT HILL.
ALL OF Y'ALL KNOW WHAT PLEASANT HILL LOOKS LIKE.
IT'S A HODGEPODGE OF A LOT OF STUFF OUT THERE.
UM, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT THE, THE NICEST PART OF THIS, UH, IS THAT, UH, THE DILLA HUNTS REALLY WANT TO DO SOMETHING NICE.
THEY WANNA, THEY WANT TO HAVE FOUR STRUCTURES ON THIS ONE AND ONE STRUCTURE ON THE OTHER ONE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT, UH, PRICED SO HIGH THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD IT.
UH, AND TO HAVE, AND TO MAKE THEM NICE.
I MEAN THERE, THERE'LL BE NICE OUT THERE WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF STRUCTURES, HOUSES OUT THERE AND NOT SO NICE AND JUST MAKE IT AVAILABLE AND AFFORDABLE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, OR AT LEAST FOUR HOME, UH, FOUR HOUSES OR FOUR FAMILIES, UH, WHO COULD LIVE THERE.
AND THAT'S WHAT IT PURPOSE IS.
SO ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE OPTIONS BETWEEN 20, UH, 10 S 10 AND, UM, UM, UH, R EIGHT, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITS R EIGHT BEST SUITS HIS PURPOSES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? ANY QUESTIONS? YES.
[00:55:02]
THE, THE, THE, THE STANDARD THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT NOW, IT SEEMS THAT HE'S UP TO PAR NOW AND HAVING EVERYTHING CORRECT.IS THAT CORRECT? NOW I I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
EARLY ON WHEN SHE WAS SEEING, UH, THE, WHAT WE WAS LOOKING AT WAS R 20, BUT NOW HE'S UP TO STANDARD TO BRING IT UP TO R EIGHT TO FIT IN TO, TO, HE'S SUBMITTING NOW THE CORRECT DOCUMENTATION TO GO FORWARD IN HIS BUILDING.
WELL, ACTUALLY IN THE BEGINNING WHEN I GOT IN THE CASE, WE DID MEET WITH THE PLANNING BOARD.
I WENT OVER THERE TO THE OFFICE, WE SAT DOWN, WE KINDA LOOKED AT ALL THE MAPS.
AND SO, UM, UH, R EIGHT, UH, WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL, UM, POSITIONS THAT THE LANDOWNER HAD.
NOW, WHILE WE WERE IN THERE, WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT, UH, R 10 AND POSSIBILITIES WITH R 10.
OF COURSE WITH R 10 YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO REDUCE YOUR, YOUR LOT SIZES.
UH, SO FOR EXAMPLE, UH, IF YOU HAVE, UM, AN R 10, UH, IN THE TRACK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THREE LOTS RATHER THAN FOUR BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS.
UH, THOSE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO BETWEEN 97 AND 98 FEET FOR EACH ONE OF 'EM.
THEY, THEY'D STILL BE 50 FEET APART, BUT IT, IT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS FROM FOUR TO THREE.
UM, AND I THINK THE A AIS ENGINEERING DID ALL OF THESE AND I USED THEM A LOT TOO.
UM, BUT R EIGHT WAS ONE OF THE OPTIONS IN THE BEGINNING.
SO WE WENT TO THE HEARING, UM, WITH THE, UM, THE ZONING BOARD, UH, AND THE KIND OF OUR PRES OUR PRESENTATION WAS FOR R EIGHT KIND OF PRIMARILY.
BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE A LOT OF THINGS, YOU, YOU, YOU DON'T WANT TO, YOU WANT TO HAVE ALTERNATIVES.
YOU WANT TO HAVE PLAN B AND PLAN C AND PLAN D IF YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN GET IT.
SO, BUT NUMBER EIGHT WAS OUR PRIORITIES OUR PRIORITY BECAUSE WE CAN GET FOUR HOUSES ON THERE.
AND ONE ON THE OTHER QUESTION TO YOU FROM WHAT THEY PRESENTED, ARE THEY IN, WOULD IT NEED TO BE NOW IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS TO PASS? NO.
WHY NO, WHEN YOU JUST SAID THAT, UM, HE DID A WONDERFUL JOB WALKING THROUGH ALL THE GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR R EIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER R EIGHT OUT THERE NEAR THAT.
THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE HIGH CONCERN THAT WE AND OUR LEGAL TEAM HAVE THAT THIS IS LOOKED AT AS SPOT ZONING BECAUSE OF THAT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT NOW IT BECOMES SPOT ZONING Y YES.
AND PERHAPS ALDERMAN KENZIE, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE HELPFUL.
THE, THE FACTS ARE IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT ZONING, WE'RE LOOKING AT COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND USES AND WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT REASONABLENESS.
OKAY? SO IN ORDER TO LOOK AT ADJACENT USES, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW FAR FROM THE SUBJECT PARCEL ARE WE WILLING TO LOOK.
STAFF IS SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD LOOK A HALF A MILE AWAY FROM A PARCEL THAT'S LESS THAN AN ACRE.
MR. CLEMONS IS ARGUING ON THE OTHER HAND THAT YOU SHOULD LOOK AT LEAST A MILE OUT THE CASES THAT MR. CLEMONS HAS REFERENCED.
GIVE US SOME PARAMETERS ABOUT WHAT THE RULE SHOULD BE.
'CAUSE THERE'S NOT A BRIGHT LINE TEST.
THE CASES THAT MR. CLEMONS HAS CITED ARE GENERALLY LARGE PARCELS 51, 57, 58 ACRE PARCELS WHERE THE COURT HAS SAID IF YOU LOOK UP A MILE AWAY FROM A 50 ACRE PARCEL, THAT'S REASONABLE AND YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE USES.
BUT THOSE ARE NOT OUR FACTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ZONING APPLICATION.
OUR FACTS HERE ARE WE HAVE A LESS THAN ONE ACRE PARCEL THAT'S VERY SMALL, ESPECIALLY WITH WHEN WE COMPARE IT TO THE ADJOINING PARCELS.
THERE'S LARGE PIECES OF LAND ON THAT HIGHWAY 55 WEST CORRIDOR.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE STAFF IS ARGUING IN OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, UM, AGREES WITH STAFF THAT WE SHOULD LOOK NO MORE THAN A HALF A MILE AROUND THE SUBJECT PARCEL.
BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.
IF THE PARCEL WAS MUCH LARGER, WE WOULD LOOK AT A LARGER RADIUS.
WHEN THE PARCEL IS SMALL, WE MUST LOOK AT A SMALLER RADIUS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T FIND OURSELF
[01:00:01]
IN AN LEGAL SPOT.SO QUESTION, WHAT ABOUT R 10? THAT'S LARGER STUDENT? YES.
R 10 LOT WOULD BE LARGER THAN AN R EIGHT LOT.
AND ALSO WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT ALL THE PERMISSIBLE USES.
SO THE BIGGEST DISTINCTION HERE BETWEEN R 20 AND R SIX, I MEAN R EIGHT, OTHER THAN THE SIZE OF THE PARCELS IS R 20 REQUIRES SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.
R EIGHT PERMITS, MULTI-FAMILY USES.
AND WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN THAT CORRIDOR, WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND CONSISTENCY WITH ADJACENT USES, YOU WANNA ASK YOURSELF, HOW MANY APARTMENT BUILDINGS DO I SEE ON HIGHWAY 55 WEST? YOU WANNA ASK YOURSELF, HOW MANY DUPLEXES DO WE SEE? HOW MANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES DO WE SEE? AND WE WANT TO TAKE THOSE FACTS INTO OUR ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT IS ASSIGNED IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE USES THAT WE SEE ON THE GROUND.
DOES SETBACK IT? BASICALLY, YOU ARE SAYING THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IN GENERAL IS ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT WE LOOK AT WHEN WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW FAR AWAY SHOULD WE LOOK AT COMPATIBLE LAND USES? SO, UM, SO CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? I HAVE TWO ARGUMENTS ABOUT THAT.
YEAH, LET GO AHEAD AND RESPOND AND ALDERMAN BEST IS NEXT, RIGHT? SO ONE, UH, WITHIN THE HALF MILE RADIUS THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS OF R SIX, WHICH ARE EVEN GREATER RESTRICTIONS THAN R EIGHT WITHIN A HALF MILE RADI AND THERE ARE TWO BIG ONES OF THOSE.
SECOND, THE REASON THAT I CITED THE CASE IS BECAUSE I COULDN'T FIND A CASE WHERE YOU USED VICINITY AND GOING OUT A HALF A MILE IN A SMALLER TRACK.
SO I USED WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS GAVE ME IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE AN A ONE MILE AREA TO GO OUT.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE WAS A LARGER TRACK, BUT THE COURT DID NOT SAY IT WAS LIMITED TO LARGER TRACKS.
IT JUST SAYS THIS CASE IS A LARGE TRACK, BUT IT DID NOT LIMIT IT TO LARGER TRACKS.
IT DIDN'T SAY THIS CASE IS LIMITED TO LARGER TRACKS ONLY.
SO THAT ALSO MEANS THAT YOU CAN USE AT YOUR DISCRETION TO GO OUT A MILE.
AND IF YOU GO OUT A MILE, IT HAS R EIGHT, WHICH IS IN MY PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NUMBER FOUR ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE WITHIN THE ONE MILE PARAMETER AM IS THAT ALL ALL ROBUST? YES.
UM, MS. RU, SO FOR CLARITY HERE, RECOMMENDATIONS IS R 20.
NOW IF WE GO WITH ANY OTHER, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF 10, 10 S AND EIGHT, THEN IT WILL BE CONSIDERED SPOT ZONE.
ALTHOUGH CUTTING IT IN HALF, UH, SEEMED TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO POSSIBLY OFFER TO YOU AS A MORE PALATABLE OPTION.
UM, SO THE DIFFERENCE HERE WE'VE SEEN IS BEING ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE AT R 20, WHICH IS RECOMMENDED FOR, FOR LEGAL REASONS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T SUPPORT THIS IDEA, BUT FOR LEGAL REASONS, THEY LOOK OUT FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY IS R 20.
YOU COULD SUBDIVIDE THAT PARCEL INTO TWO PIECES.
UM, AND IN THE VERY DILIGENTLY DEBATED THE R EIGHT AND DIDN'T NECESSARILY, THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SUBDIVIDING SOMETHING INTO TO FOUR LOTS OUT THERE.
THEY HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
THEY ARE HUNG UP AS, AS WE ARE THIS EVENING ON WHAT SPOT ZONING IS AND HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS.
AND THIS IS A, IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, A VERY SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT COULD BE SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR MUCH SMALLER PIECES IN AN AREA WITH TYPICALLY THE LARGER LOTS AROUND IT THAT'S PRETTY RURAL.
SO WITH THAT, ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, IF WE, UH, I MEAN WE AS A BOARD AGREED TO R EIGHT AND WE'RE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS HERE FOR FUTURE PIECES OF PROPERTY IN THIS SAME LOCATION THAT'S ALL CLASSIFIED UNDER R 20.
UM, AND R 10 TO ACTUALLY COME UP WITH A PLAN TO, OKAY, WELL I WANT TO REZONE MY PROPERTY AND I'M GONNA MAKE IT R EIGHT.
IF YOU WERE TO DO THAT THIS EVENING AND TAKE THAT SPOT ZONING RISK, IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR FUTURE PEOPLE TO COME ASK FOR R EIGHT.
IN YOUR OPINION, TO PROTECT THE CITY AGAINST SPOT ZONING, DO YOU RECOMMEND R 20
[01:05:01]
ZONING? I WOULD SAY IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE TO DEFEND R SIX, GIVEN THE SMALL SIZE OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT AND THE FACT THAT THE PARCELS TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTHWEST AND THE IMMEDIATE EAST AND ACROSS THE STREET DO NOT HAVE THE SAME DENSITY THAT R EIGHT WOULD ALLOW, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DEFEND IT.UM, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT OUR, WELL, I'M SORRY.
THE ZONING MAP THAT COUNSEL PRESENTED, UM, EVEN IF YOU DON'T GO OUT A MILE, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT WASHINGTON POST ROAD, THERE'S A C FIVE THAT IS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF R SIX.
DO WE KNOW, I'M SURE YOU PROBABLY DON'T, THIS IS PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHEN AND HOW THAT WAS ZONED? BECAUSE THAT'S A, TO ME THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF SPOT ZONING IF THERE EVER WAS ONE.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT WITH A PROPERTY.
IT, IT, IT'S, UM, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT'S A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THAT IS USED FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE.
UM, AND IT'S, EVERYBODY SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ON HIS MAP, THE BLUE C FIVE, THAT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR SIX AND THEN I GET THE ARGUMENT ABOUT GOING OUT ONLY A HALF A MILE, UM, BASED OFF OF THE LAND SIZE.
BUT YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GO A HALF A MILE BASED OFF OF THIS SCALE ON THIS MAP.
UH, YOU CAN GO 0.2 AND YOU'RE AT R SIX.
UM, AND FOR ME, WHAT WHAT'S REALLY BOTHERING ME ABOUT THIS IS THE FACT THAT THERE'S SO MUCH UN ZONE PROPERTY AROUND IT.
UM, I MEANT, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
WHEN, WHEN WAS THIS ANNEXED IN? I BELIEVE JANUARY.
UM, IS ZONING REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMITS TO BE PULLED? IF IT'S UN ZONE THEN NO.
SO THEORETICALLY THE CLIENT AND THE OWNER COULD HAVE PULLED BUILDING PERMITS AND BUILT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANNA BUILD UP UNTIL NOW? NO.
'CAUSE WE COULDN'T SIGN OFF ON THE SUBDIVISION.
IF IT WAS R EIGHT WE COULD, THEY WOULD MEET THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AT THIS POINT WE COULD ONLY SUBDIVIDE IT INTO TWO PARCELS.
I THINK MY LAST QUESTION, I THINK MY LAST QUESTION IS THEY WANNA BUILD FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
AND IT'S 40 ON THIS ONE AND ONE ON THE OTHER.
AND THAT OTHER ONE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS PART OF THIS 43,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL.
ALRIGHT, SO NOW I'M REALLY CONFUSED.
SO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME IF WE HAVE 43,000 SQUARE FOOT AND R 10 GIVES 10 TH FOUR 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
WHY IS R 10 NOT GONNA WORK IF IT'S GONNA BE SINGLE FAMILY? SO R 10 HAS, UM, DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE ROAD FRONTAGE COULDN'T, UH, MEET TO MAKE THE FOUR, THE FOUR PARCELS AND MEET OUR, OUR SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR CREATING NEW LOTS IN THAT ZONE.
UH, R 10 S WAS THROWN UP THERE BECAUSE IT WAS SUGGESTED YOU MAY FEEL COMFORTABLE KNOWING AND YOU COULD ONLY PUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THERE RATHER THAN THE APARTMENTS.
THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY THOSE ARE OPTIONS UP THERE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT.
UM, NOT TO MUDDLE UP THE SCREEN, BUT THAT, THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT.
SO R 10, YOU COULD GET THREE LOCKS.
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES AND I KNOW IT EXPANDS TO SOME OTHERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUILDING TWO HOUSES VERSUS FOUR HOUSES, CORRECT? MM-HMM
THAT'S ASSUMING WE'RE GOING TO SPECIFICALLY TAILOR OUR ANALYSIS TO WHAT MR. CLEMENS IS PROPOSING.
HOWEVER, WE KNOW WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT ALL THE POSSIBLE USES AND ALL THE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS THAT ANY LANDOWNER COULD APPLY TO THESE PARCELS.
I ALSO WANT TO REMIND THE AUDIENCE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, YOU'RE FREE TO DO SO.
OKAY? WE HAVE, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR ME? YEAH.
[01:10:01]
DID OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CORRECT? WE DID.MR. DI HUNT, MR. GOOD EVENING.
I, I'M JIMMY DI HUNT, FATHER OF THOMAS DI HUNT, DI HUNT.
MR. DI HUNT SPEAKING TO THE, COULD YOU, COULD YOU MOVE THAT MICROPHONE IN FRONT OF YOU, MR. JIMMY? I GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
UH, AS FAR AS R EIGHT, R EIGHT, UH, SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE 8,000 SQUARE FOOT.
THOSE LOTS REALLY HAVE MORE THAN EIGHT.
THERE'S ABOUT NINE PLUS THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT IN THOSE LOTS.
AND, UH, REASON WE'VE BEEN BUILDING OUT IN THE PLEASANT HILL AREA, THAT'S MY HOME.
THE AREA IS THAT'S GOING TO THE DOGS.
YOU CAN GO OUT THERE AND COUNT SEVERAL HOMES WHERE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU CAN COUNT 20 THAT HAVE DILAPIDATED TORN DOWN.
SO MY PURPOSE IS TO UPLIFT THE AREA.
MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE WILL WANT TO MOVE OUT THERE, BUT BY BEING AS IT IS, I DON'T THINK NOBODY WANT TO MOVE IN SUCH A COMMUNITY.
AND RIGHT UP THE ROAD, I GUESS WITHIN A HALF A MILE, THERE'S AN R SIX SEWING, UH, RIGHT UP THE ROAD ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, IF YOU LOOK, IT'S ON R SIX.
SO I WANT THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT R SIX VERSUS MY R EIGHT WITH THE FOUR HOUSES.
AND AGAIN, I HAVE ABOUT 9,000 SQUARE FEET ON THOSE LOTS VERSUS 8,000 FOOT MEAT.
MUCH MORE THAN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE LOTS.
SO YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ME? MAYBE I CAN ANSWER THEM.
SO YOU SAID YOU HAVE NONE VERSUS EIGHT.
THE DEPUTY WON'T BE NO APARTMENT BUILT ON THOSE LOTS.
TO CLARIFY THAT, MCKENZIE, IT IS ACTUALLY 10,000 PER LOT.
THE R EIGHT IS 8,000 FOR ONE LOT AND MORE THAN 4,000 FOR THE OTHER LOT.
EACH LOT HAD MORE THAN 10,000 EACH.
AND THE HOUSE GONNA BE AT LEAST 50 FOOT APART.
HOW? THEY'RE MORE NARROWER THAN THEY'RE ALONE WITH ABOUT 1300 SQUARE FEET.
SO THEY DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAD GIVEN PUR DID, BUT SHE SAID IT WAS EIGHT AND YOU'RE TELLING US IT'S 10? NO, WE WERE SAYING THAT, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR R EIGHT IS 8,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT THE LOTS ARE BIGGER THAN THAT.
THEY HAVE ABOUT NINE, SOME OF 'EM HAVE 10,000 SQUARE FEET LOTS.
SO THEY EXCEED THE SO YOU NEED QUADS.
YEAH, THEY EXCEED THE LIMIT AS FAR AS R EIGHT, THE LOIN THAN R EIGHT.
YOU SEE THE COUNCIL? YES, SIR.
SO WHAT HE'S SAYING, HE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS.
DOES HE, THESE LOTS, WHAT HE'S PROPOSING DO SATISFY THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE R EIGHT DESIGNATION.
THAT IS NOT THE END OF YOUR ANALYSIS.
HOWEVER, IN ADDITION TO LOOKING AT, DOES HE HAVE ENOUGH ACREAGE OR ENOUGH SQUARE FEET, YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT PERMISSIBLE USES.
AND WHAT HE'S SAYING IS, I HAVE A PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.
WHAT THE LAW TELLS YOU IS YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE PERMITTED USES OR PERMISSIBLE USES IN THAT ZONING DESIGNATION, WHICH INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY USES.
SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THAT COIN IN OUR ANALYSIS.
DO YOU HAVE ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT SHE JUST SAID? OF COURSE.
I, I, I THINK IN, IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO BE HELPFUL, AS THE ATTORNEY LIKES TO SAY, WHAT DID YOU SAY? MR. DILLA HUNT'S PLAN WOULD MEET THIS CRITERIA.
HOWEVER, IF THIS WAS REZONED TONIGHT TO R EIGHT AND THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD, THEN DUPLEXES COULD BE PUT THERE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AN APARTMENT BUILDING COULD BE PUT THERE.
I CAN GUARANTEE THE BOARD IT WILL NOT BE SETTLED.
THERE WILL NOT BE NO DUPLEXES PUT ON THAT PROPERTY.
MI MS. RU, I HAVE A HAVE A QUESTION.
I KNOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH OUR LAND USE UPDATE AND I SEE MR. DUFFY OUT THERE.
HE'S ALWAYS BEEN, UM, VERY VOCAL ABOUT CONDITIONAL ZONING.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THIS A SITUATION WHERE A CONDITIONAL ZONING COULD BE DONE TO SAY YOU CAN DO OUR EIGHT IF YOU DO YOUR PLAN, BUT ANYTHING ELSE YOU COULD NOT DO? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
BECAUSE YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY CREATING A UNIQUE ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY WHEN YOU HAVE CONDITIONAL ZONING TOOLS, WHICH IS STILL SOMETHING WE ARE MOVING FORWARD TO.
THE BENEFIT OF CONDITIONAL ZONING IS WE CAN DEBATE
[01:15:01]
THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED TONIGHT AND ACTUALLY MAKE DECISIONS ON THEM.WHEREAS WITHOUT CONDITIONAL ZONING WITH A TYPICAL REZONING, WE'RE HAVING TO LOOK AT ALL THE USES WITH A CONDITIONAL REZONING.
WE WOULD'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AND APPROVED THE SITE PLAN.
IT WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH DRC AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND COME BEFORE YOU AS A ONE STOP SHOP.
I JUST WANT TO ADD SOME MORE INFORMATION, UM, THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, MR. DUFFY, IF YOU WOULD COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 88 IN CITIES, OUR SIZE BETWEEN 25,000 POPULATION AND A HUNDRED THOUSAND, 88% OF ALL REZONINGS ARE CONDITIONAL.
WE DO IT ON, AT, AT THE ACTUAL MEETING IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
SOMEBODY PUTS A CONDITION THAT DOESN'T LIKE IT, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
AND, AND IT IS PART OF THE RECORD.
YOU'RE WAY BEHIND ON THIS AND ITEM, I'M HERE FOR TWO.
THAT CASE HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR FIVE OR SIX YEARS, FOUR HEARINGS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
IT GO, THAT PROPERTY SHOULD BE PUT TO USE AS WELL AS OTHERS IN MINE.
IMPORTANT POINT, UH, NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT YOUR CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED THIS AND SO I'LL BEST, UM, MR. DI HUNT.
UM, I REALLY WANT TO ACCOMMODATE YOU AND HAVING THE DESIRE TO, UM, BUILD HOMES WITHIN THE PLEASANT HILL COMMUNITY, BUT I ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ME MAKING A, A A, A DECISION HERE TO GO AGAINST WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES.
BUT I I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF YOU PUTTING FOUR HOMES ON THAT LOT.
I DO KNOW THAT A LOT OF CITIZENS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY DOES HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BECAUSE THEY WERE THINKING YOU WERE GONNA PUT MORE HOMES ON THE LOT, LIKE SIX HOMES.
BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING HERE AND THE CITIZENS, THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO, THAT ARE HERE, AND WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THIS BOARD MEETING AND GETTING THIS INFORMATION NOW HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS REZONING IS OCCURRING.
BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU PUTTING FOUR HOMES THERE.
I JUST DON'T WANT THIS TO BECOME A PROBLEM LATER ON WITH SOMEONE ELSE IN THIS AREA.
AND YOU SEE THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTY HERE THAT ZONE OUR 20 THAT THEY CAN COME HERE AT SOME POINT IN TIME AND SAY, WELL, HEY, I'M GONNA REZONE MY PROPERTY BECAUSE I WANT TO PUT SOME APARTMENTS ON, ON ON MY PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM I'M LOOKING AT.
I FORESEE COMING DOWN THE ROAD WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WANTING TO REZONE AND PUT IN APARTMENT COMP, PUT IN APARTMENTS.
AND IF WE DON'T, I PARTICULARLY AND OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY DO NOT WANT APARTMENTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, BUT HOUSES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
SO I'M, I'M REALLY CAUGHT HERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE OUR, UM, DEVELOPER, OUR, UM, MS. JESSICA VIEW, UH, RU HERE TELLING US AND THE CITY ATTORNEY GIVING US THIS INFORMATION THAT IF WE GO WITH OUR EIGHT, THEN WE ARE, YOU KNOW, IT IS OPENING UP THE DOORS FOR OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TO REZONE TO, AND I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
UM, BUT I I I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR FOUR HOMES THERE.
I I, I MEAN, I I, HOW, HOW CAN I BE GUARANTEED THAT, YOU KNOW, YES, MR. DILL HUNT'S GONNA PUT FOUR HOUSES THERE AND THAT'S GONNA BE THE GIST OF IT.
AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA PUT ONE HOUSE ON THE OTHER LOT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
JUST ONE ON THE OTHER LOT? YES.
UM, I, I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FEEL ABOUT IT.
BUT I JUST, I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT MS. CITY ATTORNEY
GOING WITH R EIGHT THAT I'M OPENING, THAT I'M NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES AND GUIDELINES OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE AS A CITY BY LAW.
AM I CORRECT? WELL, I I THINK THERE'S SOME SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THE R EIGHT USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH ADJOINING AND ADJACENT LAND USES.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT WAS HOW THERE'S LOTS OF R 20, THE RULE, CHARACTER AND AGRICULTURAL NATURE OF THAT PARTICULAR CORRIDOR OR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEEING USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN R EIGHT THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH
[01:20:01]
THE USES THAT WE SEE.AND THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT I THINK THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HAD THE CONCERN THAT MS. RU IS TRYING TO EXPRESS TO YOU TONIGHT.
AND I THINK THE LEGAL CHALLENGE THAT WE WOULD HAVE IF WE HAD TO DEFEND SUCH A DECISION.
BUT, BUT LET ME ALSO SAY ONE WITHIN A HALF A MILE, THERE ARE TWO BIG SECTIONS OF R SIXES, WHICH ARE MORE RESTRICTED THAN R EIGHT OR R 10.
SO TO SAY IT'S INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE ENTIRE AREA THAT IS WITHIN A HALF A MILE.
IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE ENTIRE AREA, WHICH HAS A LOT OF STUFF, IT HAS R SIX, IT HAS R EIGHT IN THE CORNER, IT HAS R 10, IT HAS R 20.
SO IF SOMEBODY COMES IN ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND SAYS, OH, I HAVE A R 20 AND I NOW WANT MAKE IT AN RA, I MEAN, I THINK YOU HAVE TO DECIDE THAT BASED ON THE FACTS, JUST LIKE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DECIDE THIS ONE.
BUT WHAT I'M JUST SAYING, THERE'S, THERE ARE OTHER ONES OUT THERE THAT ARE, ARE JUSTICE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE TOO.
AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE R SIX AREAS, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THEM ARE ACCESSIBLE FROM HIGHWAY 53.
I THINK THEY ALL ENTER FROM WASHINGTON POST ROAD, WHICH HAS A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT CHARACTER THAN THE PLEASANT HILL LOOP ROAD, HIGHWAY 55 WEST SECTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALDERMAN.
HOWEVER, THOUGH, I THINK THOUGH THERE'S A ROAD PROPOSED ROAD THAT GOES FROM HIGHWAY 55 THAT'S GOING TO GO INTO THAT R SIX AREA.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE GOING TO BE A ROAD FROM HIGHWAY 55 THAT GOES INTO ONE OF THOSE R SIX AREAS, R MASTER, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT EXCEPT THAT'S WHAT I KNOW YOU GOT ON THAT MR. DILLA HUNT AND MR. CLEMINS, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR ARGUMENT TONIGHT NIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
I AM ALL IN FAVOR OF BUILDING NEW HOMES.
BUT TAKE, I'M ALSO WANT TO TAKE THE ADVICE OF OUR COUNCIL, OUR DIRECTOR, AND AS WELL AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.
UH, AND I, I JUST, I, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER VOTED ON SOMETHING THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS TOLD ME NOT TO VOTE FOR BECAUSE IT COULD PUT THE CITY IN A, UM, A LIABLE SITUATION.
SO I, I WISH THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT COULD BE DONE SO HE COULD GET HIS FOUR HOUSES WITHOUT CHANGING THE ZONING FOR, FROM R EIGHT TO R 20, R 20 IS WHAT EVERYBODY'S RECOMMENDING ON CITY STAFF AS WELL AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING AS WELL AS OUR CITY
UH, AND SHE'S REPRESENTING THE INTEREST OF THE CITY OF NEWBURN.
BUT YOU ALSO HAVE OUR, YOU HAVE OPTIONS ALSO WITH 10 S AND THESE OTHER ONES, IT REDUCES THE NUMBER.
SO BASICALLY HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT A R 20 WITH TWO HOUSES, OR YOU'RE LOOKING AT A MAYBE A R 10 S WITH THREE HOUSES.
SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? ONE HOUSE, I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA STAND HERE AND ARGUE OVER ONE HOUSE, ALDERMAN ROYAL.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT.
GOING BACK TO WHAT MR. DUFFY PRESENTED, COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT HE WAS MEANING WITH CONDITIONAL? YES, MA'AM.
SO THE, THE GENERAL STATUTES ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ADOPT CONDITIONAL ZONING AND WITH CONDITIONAL ZONING, THEY CAN LOOK AT EACH PARCEL.
AND IF THERE ARE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE, THEN THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER AND PLACE CONDITIONS AND ESSENTIALLY CREATE A UNIQUE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT PARCEL.
SO IF WE HAVE CONDITIONAL ZONING IN THIS TYPE OF CONTEXT, IF THE SINGLE FAMILY, UM, USES ARE APPROPRIATE, BUT THE MULTIFAMILY USES ARE NOT CONDITIONAL ZONING WOULD ALLOW US TO SAY, WE ARE GOING TO ZONE THE PROPERTY INSERT DESIGNATION, BUT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO DO, UM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CONSISTENT WITH YOUR PROPOSAL.
AND THAT WOULD BE ENTIRELY FINE BECAUSE THE CITY OF NEWBURG DOES NOT HAVE CONDITIONAL ZONING.
WE CANNOT ENTER INTO THAT TYPE OF CONTRACT IN IT'S ILLEGAL.
MS. MS RU, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.
UM, I'M TRYING TO GET YOUR STEPS IN FOR YOU TONIGHT.
UM, HE WANTS FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND HE WOULD NEED R EIGHT TO ACCOMPLISH THAT BASED UPON THE SETBACKS.
R 10 ALLOWS DUPLEXES HOW MANY DUPLEXES, IF
[01:25:01]
THIS WERE R 10, COULD BE BUILT ON THAT PARCEL.SO YOU WOULD TAKE THE 10,000 REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST UNIT AND ADD 5,000 FOR THAT SECOND UNIT.
SO YOU NEED 15,000 SQUARE FEET IN ORDER TO PUT A DUPLEX.
SO HE COULD DO TWO DUPLEXES, WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE FOUR HOUSES.
MR. DI HUNT, YOU CAN SELL DUPLEXES INDIVIDUALLY, JUST LIKE YOU CAN AN INDIVIDUAL HOUSE WOULD, WOULD THAT BE AN OPTION FOR YOU TO BUILD TWO DUPLEXES? I REALLY HADN'T PLANNED TO, UH, PUT DUPLEXES DOWN.
SO TO SELL 'EM TO AN INDIVIDUAL FIRST TIME HOME BUYER, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING ON THE MARKET FOR.
SO TO DO THAT, IT'LL BE OUTTA MY LEAGUE.
I'M LOOKING FOR A FIRST TIME HOME BUYER.
SO THAT'S MODERATE COST LESS THAN $200,000 AFFORDABLE.
SO A DUPLEX WOULD BE OUT THE RANGE.
DUPLEX IS ONE, PROBABLY 300, 3 50, WHICH WOULD BE OUT THE, IN THE RANGE OF A FIRST TIME HOME BUYER.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO BUY A DUPLEX AND MORE PEOPLE DON'T.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THOUGH, IF YOU BUILT TWO DUPLEXES AND YOU DEEDED FOUR DIFFERENT UNITS, YOU COULD SELL THOSE FOUR UNITS INDIVIDUALLY.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CHANGED, BUT TYPICALLY A DUPLEX IS CHEAPER THAN BUILDING ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
SO YOUR ACTUAL FOUR UNIT COSTS TO A FIRST TIME HOME BUYER WOULD PROBABLY BE CHEAPER IF YOU WENT WITH DUPLEXES VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
BUT EVERYBODY WANT THE YARD, THE FLOWERS.
SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND A COMPROMISE TO THAT.
WE MIGHT BE HELPING IF THAT THE CASE, I MEAN, WE BUILD DUPLEXES, BUT I WOULDN'T LIKE IT.
BUT I, WHAT I NEED TO DO, BUT LOOKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T THINK MY NEIGHBORS AND I DO CALL MY NEIGHBORS IN PLEASANT HILL, THAT'S MY HOME.
I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD LIKE DUPLEXES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
DON'T, DON'T GET ME WRONG SIR, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.
AND IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WE HAVE BOTH.
SO I, I UNDERSTAND IT, IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO FIGURE IT OUT, BUT I LIVE IN AN ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THAT HAS SEPARATE OWNERS AND THEY CAN BE SOLD SEPARATELY.
I OWN MINE ATTACHED ONE TO ME, THE OWNER HAPPENS TO RENT IT OUT.
SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SELL IT FOR 300,000.
AND MY NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR SOME REASON, THEY CHANGED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING AND THEY HAVE, WE HAVE BOTH DUPLEXES OF A SINGLE PROPERTY THAT IN ORDER TO SELL IT INDIVIDUALLY, I GUESS YOU'D HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE IT OR SOMETHING.
SO, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
SO ONE REASON I BROUGHT THAT UP AS AN OPTION IS BECAUSE MISS ATTORNEY CAN CLARIFY IF, IF YOUR ZONING REQUEST IS DENIED TONIGHT, WHAT IS THAT STIPULATION? YOU HAVE TO WAIT HOW LONG BEFORE YOU CAN COME BACK? I THINK IT'S A YEAR.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, I, I WANT THE BOARD TO BE AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE I WOULD RATHER THE BOARD NOT MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT VERSUS MAKING A DECISION THAT WOULD HINDER YOU FROM COMING BACK FOR A YEAR.
SO I JUST WANT US TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE WERE TO MAKE A DECISION.
WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, OKAY.
WE COULD GO WITH, ALONG WITH THE DUPLEXES.
WE COULD DO TWO DUPLEXES AND THAT WOULD BE R UH, WHAT WOULD THAT BE? R 10? R 10.
DO YOU WANT US TO CONTINUE THIS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO TALK TO COUNSEL UNTIL NEXT MEETING? NOT REALLY.
SO YOU, YOU ARE AGREEABLE TO DO TWO DUPLEXES.
WHAT IS THAT SIGN IN AGAIN? IT WOULD BE R 10.
I DO HAVE A SINGLE LOT WHICH WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE A DUPLEX.
SO ASKING THE BOARD, DO I HAVE ANY BOARD PERMISSION OR WOULD THEY OKAY.
MAYBE BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON, THAT'S THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM 7 84.
IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD DECIDE ON, WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT.
JUST A REMINDER, IF ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK, YOU'RE FREE TO DO SO.
HOW YOU DOING MR. MAYOR AND OLDMAN? UM, NORRIS DI HUNT JR.
AND THIS IS MY UNCLE JIMMY DI HUNT.
AND I WANT TO SAY THAT THE HOUSES THAT HE IS PROPOSING TO BUILD, WE'VE ALREADY BUILT THOSE HOUSES FOR THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE FOR LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS, FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS THROUGH A PROGRAM THAT THEY HAVE TO,
[01:30:01]
YOU KNOW, GET THE FIRST TIME HOME BUYER IN A, IN THE HOUSES.AND THOSE HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT WERE SOLD VERY RAPIDLY.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING ABOUT THE DUPLEXES, BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FOUR HOUSES BUILT OUT THERE INSTEAD OF THE DUPLEXES.
BECAUSE THE FOUR HOUSES, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUTTING A FAMILY IN A HOUSE AND YOU HAVE A SENSE OF, THIS IS MINE NOT IN A HOUSE WHERE ANOTHER FAMILY LIVES RIGHT BESIDE YOU.
AND WHEN IT COMES TO DUPLEXES, I'VE SEEN WHERE ONE SIDE MAY GET THEIR ROOF REPAIRED AND THE OTHER SIDE DON'T.
AND YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT AS APPEALING AS OWNING THE OWN HOUSE.
I ALSO KNOW THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA THAT OWNS A VAST MAJORITY OF THE LAND THAT'S OUT THERE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HOUSE BE BIG ENOUGH TO HOUSE A DEVELOPMENT.
AND YOU KNOW, MOST OF THAT LAND IS OWNED BY X FARMERS.
AND I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, MY UNCLE IS A, IS A BUILDER.
THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THAT LAND, THEY'RE NOT BUILDERS.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD EVER BE A PROBLEM OF SOMEBODY COMING OUT THERE WANTING TO BUILD DUPLEXES OR APARTMENTS ON THE PROPERTY THAT THAT'S THERE.
THEY COULD HOLD SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO, I MEAN, IF Y'ALL COULD DO THIS SPECIALIZED CONDITION WHERE HE COULD DO THE FOUR HOUSES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE BEAUTIFUL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WAS, I MISS RUDE, JUST, JUST IT WAS, UM, SAID TO US BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND UM, MS. RU, THAT WE AS A CITY, WE DON'T HAVE CONDITIONAL ZONING IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
WELL I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE SAYING THAT YOU COULD DO A CONDITIONAL ZONING BECAUSE, WELL, WE CAN'T, UNFORTUNATELY.
LET ME, I GOT, I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION.
YOU SEE, I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE.
IS THAT THE PROBLEM? WHY I CAN'T GO WITH R EIGHT? NO SIR.
THAT'S WHAT THE REASON WHY I COULDN'T GO WITH R EIGHT.
SO THE BOARD WOULD LIKE ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
PROBABLY THE REASON THE DIFFERENCE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, MR. DI HUNT, THERE'S AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS AND ONE, THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE PROXIMITY TO OTHER R EIGHTS ON HIGHWAY 55 WEST.
AND THE OTHER IS THERE ARE USES THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED HERE, UM, ON THE SCREEN UNDER R EIGHT THAT WE DO NOT SEE PRESENTLY WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS.
SO THAT WAS ANOTHER CONCERN THAT HAS BEEN RAISED.
SO R SIX WOULD BE, UH, R SIX IS GOING TO HAVE R SIX WITHIN A MILE, HALF A MILE UP THE ROAD.
THAT'S THE QUESTION I'M ASKING.
AND I GUESS, WHO SHOULD I ASK THAT TO? BUT SEE WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF, MR. DIVAN? THE R SIX IS NOT ON HIGHWAY 55 WEST.
NO, WELL, NO, THIS ONE IS NOT ON HIGHWAY 55 WEST WHERE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING YOUR, WANTING TO PUT YOUR FOUR HOMES DOWN.
IT'S BASICALLY OFF OF, UH, I THINK IT'S STEVENSON ROAD.
IT'S ON, IT'S NOT ON THE HIGHWAY, OFF THE HIGHWAY.
BUT LET ME ASK, LEMME ASK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
UM, JESSICA, UM, WITH THE R SIX, UM, THAT'S OFF OF HIGHWAY, UM, 43.
UM, HOW, I MEAN THAT, AND I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. DIANO WAS ASKING ABOUT COMING.
I MEAN THAT IT LOOKS LIKE APARTMENT BUILDINGS OR I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GONNA BE, UH, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX OR WHAT, BUT WILL THAT BE COMING OFF THE, THE INGRESS AND EGRESS WILL BE OFF OF HIGHWAY 55 WEST? NO MA'AM.
DO YOU KNOW WHICH AREA I'M SPEAKING OF? YES.
AND R SIX WAS NOT, UH, GIVEN TO YOU AS AN OPTION THIS EVENING.
SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CONSIDER.
AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE, THIS IS NOT A CITIZEN INITIATED REZONING REQUEST.
THIS IS A REQUEST FROM THE CITY STAFF TO APPLY ZONING TO A PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT HAVE ZONING THAT WE HAVE HAD ANNEX SINCE JANUARY.
ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK?
[01:35:09]
YES.MY NAME IS LINDA HILL AND I TOO WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOUR HOUSES THERE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CANNOT DO CONDITIONAL ZONING, BUT IS ALL OF 55 IN THE CITY LIMITS? BECAUSE WHAT WILL CAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE FROM THE COUNTY TO JUST GO OUT THERE AND GET A PETITION FROM THE COUNTY AND BUILD APARTMENTS OR BUILD SOMETHING ELSE? I, I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S, THEY COULD, IF THEY COULD GET WATER AND SEWER, BUT WHEN THEY ASK TO HAVE WATER AND SEWER, THAT'S A ORDER AND SEWER AGREEMENT.
THEY HAVE TO ASK TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.
SO THAT'S WHY WE GET INTO THIS CONUNDRUM WE'RE IN.
BUT IF, IF THEY HAD WATER AND SEWER AND THEY DIDN'T NEED THAT FROM THE CITY MM-HMM
THEY COULD BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE ZONING.
BUT I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE COUNTY DID THAT UH, THAT UH, THAT MOUND THING WHERE THE SEWER, BUT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GET THETIC CITY WATER, CORRECT? THAT THAT'S CORRECT.
LIKE THEORETICALLY IF THEY COULD GET A WELL AND THEY COULD GET A SEPTIC SYSTEM, THEY COULD BUILD APARTMENTS.
BUT I THINK IT'S SO, SO, BUT OKAY.
SO IF THEY COULD DO THAT, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SPOT ZONING, WOULD THAT NOT CONSIDER BEING SPOT ZONING IF THAT HAPPENED? I MEAN 'CAUSE THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
WELL THAT WOULDN'T BE SPOT ZONING BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO ZONING.
BUT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE COMING IN IN THE FUTURE AND UH, WANTING TO HAVE IT REZONED, WHEREAS YOU'RE STOPPING SOMEBODY FROM BUILDING FOUR HOUSES THAT WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW SOMEBODY TO HAVE THEIR OWN PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HOUSES IS HARD TO COME BACK AND ESPECIALLY IN THE RURAL AREA.
AND UM, BUT ANYHOW, YOU'VE MADE UP YOUR MIND.
BUT WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE FOUR HOUSES OUT THERE.
I DO, I DO HAVE ONE FINAL COMMENT.
MR. MR. JIMMY ALDERMAN ROYAL MS. ROOF SAID THAT THIS WAS FOR INITIAL ZONING.
SO IF WE DID THE R OF 20, COULD MR. DI HUNT FOLLOW UP WITH A REQUEST FOR REZONING? YES.
AND IN MY OPINION, AND I BELIEVE OUR LEGAL COUNSEL'S OPINION, THAT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED SPOT ZONING THE SECOND TIME WE HEARD IT.
I'M TRYING MR. DI HUNT VERY HARD.
I'M TRYING MR. JIMMY, GO AHEAD.
LIKE I WAS SAYING, CONSIDERING THE NEXT UH, LOCK WE SAY WE MAY NEED TO TABLE THIS, TABLE IT TO WHEN, IF WE DO TABLE IT, SO THE BOARD HAS A COUPLE OPTIONS, WE COULD TABLE THIS DECISION UNTIL WE TAKE UP THE NEXT ITEM SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THAT'S ALL ABOUT, TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY CONJUNCTION BETWEEN THE TWO OR WE COULD TABLE THIS TO OUR NEXT, NEXT BOARD MEETING.
WELL, LET'S TABLE IT TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS, UH, ITEM 21, I BELIEVE.
SO PROCEDURALLY LET'S DO A COUPLE THINGS.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WANTS TO SPEAK BECAUSE WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IS CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN THE BOARD WOULD NEED TO TABLE THIS DECISION, UM, UNTIL AFTER WE HEAR THE NEXT ITEM.
SO IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? MS. BLISS, I SAW YOU STAND UP EARLIER.
THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS GONNA ADD IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO SEEMS SO CLEAR AND APPARENT AND I KNOW THAT EVERYONE'S STRUGGLING TO GET THERE.
UM, I THINK SOMEONE REALLY NEEDS TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
I JUST WANTED TO VOICE SUPPORT FOR A BOARD LEADING AND FINDING THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS.
ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE A MOTION BY ALDERMAN ASTER.
SECOND BY ALDER MCKENZIE TO CO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ANY OPPOSED? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
[01:40:01]
WOULD RECOMMEND BASED OFF WHAT WE JUST SAID, THAT THE BOARD TABLE ITEM NUMBER 20 AND TAKE IT UP AFTER ITEM NUMBER 21.YOU NEED ADD AS A MOTION? YES SIR.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 21 AND THEN COME BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 20 ONCE WE DECIDE ON THIS ONE, MS. ROOT.
OKAY, THIS ONE WE CAN GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT QUICKER.
IT'S GONNA BE MOSTLY THE SAME INFORMATION.
UH, THIS IS A PROPERTY SEVERAL DOORS DOWN.
WE HAVE OUR SAME OPTIONS AND OUR SAME RECOMMENDATION COMING FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.
ALTHOUGH THIS ONE I'LL CALL YOUR ATTENTION IS A LITTLE SMALLER.
THIS IS JUST ABOUT A THIRD OF AN ACRE.
THERE IS A PARCEL BETWEEN THE PARCEL WE JUST WRAPPED UP DISCUSSING.
AND THIS ONE, THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE CURRENT CONDITIONS AND THE SIGN, OUR NOTIFICATIONS, OUR ZONING DISTRICT ANALYSIS THAT WE JUST WALKED THROUGH.
WE WILL NOTE RIGHT NOW, UM, R 20 APPLICATION WAS RECOMMENDED BY A PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, AGAIN, DUE TO THE VICINITY REASON, ALTHOUGH THIS LOT THAT EXISTS THERE IS SMALLER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FELT HAVING THE, THE LOT THAT WAS SMALLER.
IF THIS WAS DONE THEN, UM, OPENING IT UP TO THE SPOT ZONING THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
OUR 20, AGAIN, WE WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS FROM THE LAST HOUR.
ALL OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS, WE LOOK AT THIS AS PIECE IS, UM, SMALLER THAN THE OTHER ONE.
THEY ARE NOT CONGRUENT OR CONTIGUOUS TO EACH OTHER.
THIS IS OUR AERIAL OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, AGAIN RECOMMENDED THE R 20, THEY BASE THAT ON CONSISTENCY IN, IN, IN THIS DISCUSSION THAT WE JUST HAD ON WHAT IS IN THE VICINITY OF THE AREA THAT THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT WAS MOST APPROPRIATE AND IN LINE WITH WHAT EXISTS OUT THERE.
BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS, ONLY ONE FAMILY HOME CAN GO SINGLE FAMILY HOME CAN REBUILD ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT BECAUSE OF SIZE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, HEARING NONE AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 21.
THE, THE PROPERTY BETWEEN WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS OWNED BY MR. DILLA HUNT.
OKAY? AND, UM, TO GIVE YOU THE DIMENSIONS IS AT LEAST THIS ONE IS AT LEAST, UH, 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S 92.5 FEET ON THE FRONTAGE, WHICH IS, WHICH WOULD BE BIGGER THAN THE OTHER SECTION.
UH, IF YOU DIVIDED IT INTO FOUR LOTS, WHICH IS 72.5 FEET PER LOT.
UM, AND THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO PUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON IT.
UH, ZONE IT R EIGHT, IT'S A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR THE HOUSE AND IT'D BE CONSISTENT WITH, UH, WHAT THE OTHER ONES LOOK LIKE.
I I ALSO WANNA SAY THIS AS A LAWYER, OKAY? BECAUSE Y'ALL KNOW THIS AND SHE KNOWS THIS.
THERE, THERE IS A CONCEPT IN THE LAW THAT WHEN IT COMES TO TWO RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY, THE LAW FAVORS THE LEAST RESTRICTION ON PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO WHEN A COURT LOOKS AT, IS IT GOING TO BE MORE RESTRICTED OR LESS RESTRICTED IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS? ALL THE CASE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING 250 YEARS FROM NORTH CAROLINA, COURTS ALWAYS GO WITH YOU DO WHAT THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE THING IS AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE FREE USE OF PROPERTY BY THE OWNER, REGARDLESS OF ALL THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS, IS THE NUMBER ONE RULE THAT THE COURTS LOOK AT IN THE UNITED STATES.
WHAT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO DO? AND IS HE ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S LEAST RESTRICTED TO HIM OR MORE RESTRICTED TO HIM? SO AT LEAST ON THIS ONE, I THINK IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
HARLEY, HE'S GONNA PUT ONE HOUSE ON IT AND EVEN IF YOU DID IT RULE UNDER R 20, YOU WOULD PUT ONE HOUSE ON IT.
BUT UNDER RULE, I MEAN UNDER A, HE GETS THE SAME THING THAT IT WOULD GET ON THE OTHER FULL OTHER FOUR
[01:45:01]
LOCKS AND ITS MORE CONSISTENT.SO, UM, ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND? IS THAT GOOD? OH, OKAY.
ON THE UH, ON THIS LOT THERE'S GONNA BE ONE HOUSE ABOUT 25 FOOT WIDE, UH, 52 FOOT LONG.
THEY COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE PROPOSED HOUSES ON THE OTHER LOT.
SO WHAT ARE WE SAYING? I CAN DO ONE LOT THEN I CAN'T DO TWO.
DO I NEED TO DIVIDE THE OTHER LOTS UP OR WHAT ARE WE TALKING? COME BACK AND THAT'S ALL I'M GONNA SAY ABOUT THAT.
SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
UM, MS. UH, MS. ATTORNEY, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, IF WE NOW HAVE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS YES SIR.
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT THAT SPOT ZONING WOULD NO LONGER BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER ZONING IN THE AREA THAT IS CONGRUENT OR SIMILAR TO THAT? VERY INTERESTING QUESTION.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT A LEGAL SPOT ZONING, OBVIOUSLY WE LOOK AT THE SIZE AND COMPATIBILITY OF THE OTHER USES.
HAVING TWO PARCELS THAT ARE A PARCEL APART WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE FROM ONE ANOTHER, UM, MAY LESSEN A ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING ARGUMENT, UM, AS IT RELATES TO THOSE TWO PARCELS.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT ALL THE OTHER USES THAT ARE APPLIED AND, AND GOING OUT OUTSIDE OF THOSE THREE LOTS THAT ARE OWNED BY THE DILLA HUNT FAMILY, I THINK IT STILL MAY BE A CHALLENGE CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF PARCELS IN THAT AREA THAT ARE ZONED R 20 AND A FIVE.
AND YOUR BOSS IS VERY FAMOUS FOR SAYING THAT ANYBODY CAN SUE ANYBODY FOR ANYTHING AT ANY TIME.
DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE GONNA WIN.
BUT MY QUESTION FOR YOU WOULD BE IS WHO, WHO WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO WOULD SUE THE CITY THAT WE'D ILLEGALLY SPOT ZONED THIS? IF, I MEAN WHO WOULD BE, IT WAS SOMEBODY THAT WOULD HAVE DAMAGES FROM THAT.
SOMEBODY POTENTIALLY THAT WOULD HAVE DAMAGES AND THOSE PERSONS WHO COULD HAVE DAMAGES WOULD BE THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.
YOU WON'T, WE MAY
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, I'LL JUST MAKE THE COMMENT THAT AS I'VE SAID EARLY ON, THERE'S A LOT OF UN ZONE PARCELS THAT SURROUND THIS.
UM, WITHIN A HALF A MILE THERE'S R SIX, WHICH IS THE ATTORNEY POINTED OUT, IS MORE RESTRICTIVE, UH, THAN R EIGHT.
UM, I PERSONALLY, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ANYONE SUING US OVER A SPOT ZONING WHEN IT'S SURROUNDED BY UN ZONED PROPERTY, BUT THAT'S JUST ME, THAT'S MY COMMENTS.
ANYONE ELSE? NOW A LOT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY IS COUNTY PROPERTY, SO THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR THAT AREA.
AND THESE ARE A LOT OF LARGE TRACKS OF PROPERTY OUT THERE THAT IS R 20.
SO, BUT UM, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MR. UM, I'M DI HUNT BUILDING HIS HOUSE THERE ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT.
OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, WE DO HAVE A SHORTAGE OF HOMES AND EXACTLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HE'S WILLING TO PUT HIS TIME AND EFFORTS AND TO DO THIS, TO MAKE IT WORK AND MAKE IT HAPPEN.
AND I'M WILLING TO MAKE A, A DECISION TO BE IN FAVOR OF MR. DYLAN OVER FORWARD TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.
TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS UH, THE MOTION.
A SECOND HAS BEEN MADE TO DO AN INITIAL INITIAL ZONING FOR 7 8 4
[01:50:01]
HIGHWAY 55 WEST AS R 20.SO LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE STARTING WITH ALMAN.
THIS IS FOR THE UM, R 20 FOR 21.
OKAY, THIS IS FOR THE SINGLE HOUSE DWELLING? YES.
IS THAT FOUR TO TWO? YES IT IS.
SO THAT PARCEL WILL BE ZONED R 20.
NOW THE BOARD HAS TO GO BACK AND CONSIDER ITEM NUMBER 20 AND NOT TO LEAD THE WITNESS, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS BOARD COULD MAKE ANY DECISION OTHER THAN R 20 AT THIS POINT IN TIME ON ITEM NUMBER 20.
SO, UH, PUBLIC HEARING'S BEEN CLOSED, SO NOW IT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION FOR THE BOARD ON YOUR PLEASURE ON ITEM NUMBER 20.
SO WHY DID YOU JUST MAKE THE STATEMENT, MAYOR THAT THIS BOARD COULD MAKE NO OTHER RECOMMENDATION IN R 20? BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID THAT, THAT WHEN YOU JUST SAID YOU WASN'T BECAUSE THIS BOARD JUST CONCERNED ABOUT US GETTING SUED FOR SPOT ZONING BECAUSE THIS BOARD JUST MADE A DECISION TO ZONE A PARCEL.
THAT'S ONE PARCEL DOWN AS R 20.
SO HOW CAN THE SAME BOARD TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT THIS BOARD JUST AGREED TO? THAT'S ONE, ONE HOME ON THAT LOT.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF HOMES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING.
AND THERE'S ANOTHER HOUSE IN BETWEEN THESE LOTS.
THERE'S ANOTHER TWO STORY STRUCTURE IN BETWEEN THESE TWO LOTS.
OKAY, BUT MISS ATTORNEY, AM I OFF BASE TO THINK THAT IT WOULD BE HARD FOR THIS BOARD OR FOR YOU TO DEFEND A SPOT ZONING ARGUMENT IF ONE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THIS BOARD WHEN FIVE MINUTES AGO WE SAID A PARCEL TWO DOORS DOWN WAS R 20 AND NOW WE'RE GONNA SAY THIS ONE SHOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE.
SO IN FINDING THAT THE SMALLER PARCEL, THE PARCEL THAT WAS IN 21 WAS COMP R 20 WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT LAND USES AND REASONABLE, IF THAT'S THE FINDING OF THIS BOARD, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A PARCEL JUST UP THE STREET, THE SAME ANALYSIS SEEMS TO BE A LOGICAL OPTION UNLESS THERE ARE SOME FACTS THAT YOU ALL CAN ARTICULATE THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH THIS CASE FROM THE OTHER.
WELL I WAS LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL TO BE R UM 10, WHICH HE AND MR. DOHA AGREED THAT HE WOULD PUT TWO DUPLEX UNITS ON IT.
AM I UH, IS THAT CORRECT SIR? I'M CONFUSED.
DEATH
OKAY, NOW IS THAT STILL YOU TALKING ABOUT? WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TWO DUPLEXES, RIGHT? AND IS HE STILL AMENABLE TO THAT SAME QUESTION R 20 THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE THE DUPLEXES? I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.
NO, I DON'T HAVE THE USE CHART BUT NO MA'AM.
THE R 10 WILL BE THE ONES THAT WILL DO THE DUPLEXES.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT HE AGREED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BUILT, THAT HE WOULD DO THAT INSTEAD.
SINCE HE CAN GET THREE, HE CAN DO IT THAT WAY.
HE DECIDE TO GO WITH R 10 VERSUS R 20.
AND THE SIGNIFICANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 10 AND 20 IS THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND THE SINGLE AND THE DUPLEXES, THOSE, THAT'S THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.
SO IT'S A BIT MORE DENSE BUT THE USES ARE NOT RADICALLY DIFFERENT AND THE DENSITY WOULD NOT BE RADICALLY DIFFERENT THAN AN R 20 DESIGNATION.
QUESTION THEN FOR ITEM NUMBER 21, IF WE HAD TO DO R 10 ON NUMBER 20, THEN ITEM NUMBER 21 SHOULD HAVE BEEN R 10.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT WAS THE POINT THAT I WAS SO NOW HOW CAN I BACKTRACK THEN? YOU CAN'T, THE DECISION'S BEEN MADE, CORRECT? MR. ATTORNEY? I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK A, A MEMBER AND THE MAJORITY CAN VOTE TO RECONSIDER.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM NUMBER 21 BECAUSE I THOUGHT BOTH OF 'EM WERE GOING THE DUPLEXES COULD BE HOUSED IN R 20.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO I GUESS HELP ME OUT HERE.
[01:55:01]
RE CHANGE FROM 21 THAT WE VOTED TO MAKE IT R 20 TO MAKE IT RT MOTION TO RECONSIDER.MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ACTION TAKEN REGARDING LINE 21.
ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.
WE HAVE A SECOND ALDERMAN BEST.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE A.
ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA RECONSIDER ITEM NUMBER 21 NOW AND THE OPTIONS ARE R 20, R 10, R 10 S OR R EIGHT FOR CLARITY.
AGAIN, R THE FOUR DUPLEXES IS R 10, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
DUPLEXES ARE PERMITTED USES IN R 10? YES MA'AM.
DID YOU MAKE A MOTION? NO SHE HADN'T.
YOUR HONOR, I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION.
IT'S OPEN FOR WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE.
I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH, UM, ZONING FOR 7 84 HIGHWAY 55 WEST TO R TEN SECOND.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN PRILL.
SO ITEM NUMBER 21 HAS NOW BEEN DEEMED AS R 10.
WE'LL GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 20 FOR CONSIDERATION.
AS A REMINDER THAT IS TO ESTABLISH THE INITIAL ZONING FOR SEVEN 50 HIGHWAY 55 WEST.
AND WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING IT AT R 10 AS WELL, CORRECT? EXACTLY.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH INITIAL ZONING FOR SEVEN 50 HIGHWAY 55 WEST AS R 10.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL DURING WITH ALDERMAN ROYAL ALDERMAN MEMORIAL.
SO ITEM NUMBER 20 AND 21 IS COMPLETE.
BOTH HAVE BEEN REZONED TO R 10TH.
[22. Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Adopting an Ordinance to Rezone 2409 Oaks Road R- 6S to C3.]
RIGHT ALONG TO ITEM NUMBER 22.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 24 0 9 OAKS ROAD R SIX S TO C3.
OKAY, THIS ONE WILL LOOK FAMILIAR TO SOME OF YOU.
UH, THIS BOARD OR PREVIOUS BOARDS OF YOU SITTING UP HERE A WHILE.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS R SIX S.
AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY SMALL PARCEL IN THE, IN THE MIDDLE OF RR SIX S.
IT'S ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN ACRE.
THIS IS THE PICTURE OF THE SIGN.
R SIX IS NOT EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED.
HOWEVER, OR SR SIX IS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
THE S IS DEDUCTED TO MEAN, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ONLY IF WE READ R SIX TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
CERTAIN COMPATIBLE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE, UH, TO ENCOURAGE THE DISCONTINUANCE OF EXISTING USES THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS NEW USES IN THE DISTRICT.
ZONING HISTORY HERE, IT APPEARS THIS WAS KIND OF A RESULT OF AN ANNEXATION BACK IN THE NINETIES AND, UH, THE R SIX S WAS KIND OF THROWN ON THE WHOLE AREA.
UH, C3 AS WE HAVE DESCRIBED EARLIER, IS A MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
IT GENERATES A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN AND OUT.
IT HAS, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO IF WE LOOK AT THESE TWO USES, THEY ARE NOT REALLY COMPATIBLE AT ALL.
WE HAVE STRAIGHT UP RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEN A WIDE VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES.
YOU CAN SEE WHILE THERE IS SOME C3 ACROSS THE STREET.
THIS PARCEL IS FLANKED BY MANY OTHER RESIDENCES.
IT IS IN THE DEVELOPED CATEGORY IN OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH REALLY DOESN'T LEND EITHER, EITHER WAY TO THE CURRENT OR PROPOSED ZONING.
THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND THIS IS A PICTURE SHOWING
[02:00:01]
THE TWO RESIDENCES FLANKING THIS, UH, SORT OF COMMERCIAL USE, WHICH FOR SOME REASON HA WAS ZONED ORIGINALLY AS R SIX S.THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED DENYING THIS REQUEST.
UH, THAT WAS A VOTE OF SIX TO ONE.
THEY FELT IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH CITY LAND USE POLICIES DUE TO THE INCOMPATIBILITY AND THE FACT THERE WAS TWO RESIDENCES FLANKING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND AS A REMINDER, THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN DENIED TWICE BEFORE BACK IN JUNE OF 2019 AND JULY OF 2020.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DOES BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE ONE.
ARE VAPE SHOPS ALLOWED IN C3? YES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? IF NOT, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE REZONING OF 24 0 9 OAKS ROAD, R SIX S TO C3.
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE DO SO.
SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN CLOSE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL.
UM, AS TO, UM, WHY THERE ARE SO MANY COMMERCIAL, YOU KNOW, BUILDINGS IN THE OAKS ROAD AREA.
'CAUSE WE'VE ADDRESSED THIS BEFORE.
IT'S BECAUSE PRIOR TO ANNEXATION OF TOWNSHIP EIGHT IN APPROXIMATELY THE, THE NINETIES, UM, IT WAS PART OF CRAVEN COUNTY, WHICH HAS NO ZONING.
UM, A DECISION ON THIS TO APPROVE THIS WOULD AFFECT A VERY LARGE PART OF WARD FIVE BECAUSE VIRTUALLY ALL OF, UH, TOWNSHIP AID, I BELIEVE IS IN, UH, WARD FIVE.
SO YOU'D BE SAYING THAT ALMOST ANY PROPERTY IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN WARD FIVE COULD BE REZONED COMMERCIAL WITH ALL KINDS OF USES.
UM, ONCE THIS BECAME ANNEX ANNEXED, IT WAS, UH, ZONED OR RESIDENTIAL, WHICH MEANS THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS WE ALL DO TO THE PROTECTION OF ZONING.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE PAY TAXES.
THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ASK TO BE YOUR NEXT IN MANY CASES, OR EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS.
ALSO, IRONICALLY, EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS ET JS HAVE THE PROTECTION OF ZONING.
SO CERTAINLY THESE RESIDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO THAT SAME PROTECTION.
SO, AND UM, AGAIN, I I DO FEEL STRONGLY THAT A LOT OF THESE PROBLEMS COULD BE, UH, SOLVED BY CONDITIONAL ZONING.
A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS ONE WOULD BE YOU COULD SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, GROCERIES ONLY, NO ALCOHOL STORAGE WORKSHOP.
YOU COULD HAVE MANY DIFFERENT USERS FOR IT.
UM, THAT WOULD BE PRACTICAL AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
AND WHY HE WAS, IF HE WAS MISLED WHEN HE BOUGHT IT, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IN THE TIME I WAS THERE, UM, SINCE 2015, IT NEVER OPERATED AS A STORE.
UM, WHEN I FIRST CAME HERE, I DIDN'T HAVE THE SCOOTER.
NOW I HAVE A SCOOTER AND A CAR, BUT I JUST HAD A BICYCLE.
AND SO I WAS RIDING ALL OVER TOWN BACK AND FORTH AND STOPPING AT HIS OTHER TWO LOCATIONS THAT HE OWNS AT, AT THE END OF EACH END OF OAKS ROAD, UH, FOR BEVERAGES TO KEEP ME GOING IN THE SUMMER.
AND, UH, IT WAS NEVER OPEN AS A STORE, YOU KNOW, IN THAT TIMEFRAME.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
YOU KNOW, SO, AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD TAKE A WHOLE LONG TIME TO, YOU KNOW, ADOPT CONDITIONAL ZONING.
IT'S IN THE, UM, IT'S IN THE LANGUAGE IS ALREADY IN THIS, IN THE SECTION ON, UH, SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
SO, UH, SO THE LANGUAGE IS THERE AND AS I SAID, UH, I'VE BEEN THERE WHEN WE DID IT ON THE FLY, YOU KNOW, SO WE DO IT RIGHT THERE AT THE MEETING.
YOU, THEY AMEND THE APPLICATION AND IT'S DONE.
AND, AND IF THE OWNER EVER WANTS TO TAKE AN OFFER OR CHANGE, THEY CAN COME BACK AND ASK FOR IT TO BE CHANGED.
BUT AGAIN, YOU CAN'T CONDITION ASSUME THAT HE'S GONNA USE IT AS A STORE, AS HE SAID IN THE PAST, BECAUSE THE, UM, ZONING REZONING GOES WITH THE LAND, IT IS ALSO SPOT REZONING, WHICH, AND THE PROBLEM WHERE IT COULD BE SU IS SPOT REZONING.
IF SOMEBODY, IF YOU DID IT AND SOMEBODY DID WORK ON IT, OR IF A SALE WAS CONDITIONAL UPON REZONING, THEN HE WOULD HAVE RECOURSE AGAINST THE CITY.
ANYONE ELSE? I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE, OH, HOLD ON.
SO, UM, WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY BACK IN 2019, UH, WE WERE FIVE WAS COMMERCIAL BECAUSE I MEAN, AS, UH, LOOKING AT THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY, IT WAS BUILT IN 1950 AS COMMERCIAL FOR RETAIL.
AND THAT CAN BE SEEN BY LIKE THE FLOOR PLAN AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO, I MEAN, FOR US TO REALLY CONTRACT THE CONVERTED RESIDE RESIDENTIAL, IT WILL PROBABLY COST US FIVE TIMES WHAT WE PAID FOR IT.
[02:05:01]
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN VACANT FOR, SINCE WE BOUGHT IT IN 2019.'CAUSE IT'S JUST MAKE NO SENSE FINANCIALLY OR LOGICALLY.
DID, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY YOU BOUGHT IT? 'CAUSE IT WAS COMMERCIAL? WE, WE THOUGHT IT WAS.
BECAUSE I MEAN FOR LIKE, UH, PREVIOUS OWNERS, WE SPOKE TO THEM.
I MEAN, IT WAS, IT WAS, WE LOOKED AT A PROPERTY HISTORY.
I MEAN, IT WAS BUILT FOR COMMERCIAL AND IT BEEN OPERATED FOR COMMERCIAL SINCE IT WAS BUILT, I THINK MAYBE UNTIL THE NINETIES, I BELIEVE SO.
ANYONE ELSE MAKE A MOTION? CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SECOND, A MOTION A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS A FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ANY OPPOSED? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD ON ITEM NUMBER 22? WELL, CONSIDERING I, I DON'T, UM, CONSIDER REZONING THIS TO C3.
OH, NOT SO YOU WANT TO DENY THE REQUEST, UM, DENYING THE REQUEST.
SO MAYOR, THERE, I BELIEVE IT'S AN INCONSISTENCY STATEMENT THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE.
SO I THINK ALDERMAN BEST'S MOTION IS TO ADOPT, ADOPT THE INCONSISTENCY STATEMENT REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 24 0 9 OAKS ROAD.
WHICH EFFECTIVELY DENIES THE RESOUNDING REQUEST.
I DID NOT, I DIDN'T HAVE THAT.
UM, I'M REQUESTING THAT, UM, THE, THE, THE, TO THAT THE PROPERTY AT 24 0 9, EXCUSE ME, Y'ALL OAKS ROAD, UM, BE IN, IS INCONSISTENT WITH, UH, REQUIRED REZONING TWO C3.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE, I THINK HER MOTION IS TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT LAND USES AND NOT REASONABLE.
YOU GOOD WITH THAT? ALL? I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN ROYAL.
IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE REZONED, YOUR ANSWER WILL BE YES.
[23. Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Adopting an Ordinance to Amend Rate Schedule 60 and Add Schedule Rider No. 2 for Consumption of Electricity.]
ITEM UP IS ITEM NUMBER 23.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND RATE SCHEDULE 60 AND ADD SCHEDULE RIDER NUMBER TWO FOR CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR RHODE, BOARD OF DERMAN.
TONIGHT I'M PROPOSING TO AMEND, UH, RATE SCHEDULE 60 EFFECTIVELY MAKING THAT, UM, RATE SCHEDULE OBSOLETE AND UNAVAILABLE TO EXISTING CUSTOMERS, UM, THAT ARE NOT PRESENTLY SERVED BY THE RATE.
SCHEDULE 60 IS A CREDIT WE GIVE TO CUSTOMERS FOR ENERGY THAT THEY PRODUCE AND PUT BACK ON OUR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.
AS PART OF OUR RATE MODERNIZATION EFFORTS, IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE ENERGY CREDIT ON SCHEDULE 60, UM, FALLS SHORT OF CONSUMER REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
SO AS A RESULT, YOU'RE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WOULD MAKE SCHEDULE 60 OBSOLETE WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO NEW CUSTOMERS.
HOWEVER, THOSE CUSTOMERS THAT ARE PRESENTLY USING THAT RATE PRODUCING SOLAR ENERGY, PUTTING IT BACK ONTO OUR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, THEY CAN STAY ON THAT RATE INDEFINITE INDEFINITELY.
WE JUST WOULD NOT OFFER IT TO ANY NEW CUSTOMERS.
CONCURRENTLY AN EFFORT TO MODERNIZE OUR SOLAR OFFERING.
UM, I'M PROPOSING THAT WE ADOPT RIDER NUMBER TWO AND THIS IS A NEW RESIDENTIAL SOLAR OFFERING THAT BETTER SERVES THE CONSUMER'S REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
THERE'S A LIMITATION TO THE FIRST A HUNDRED CUSTOMERS.
UM, AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS STAFF WOULD BE MONITORING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE RATE AND RECOMMEND ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT MAY NEED TO TAKE PLACE AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE RATE AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE SOLAR CUSTOMERS THAT MAY BE FORTHCOMING.
[02:10:01]
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.FOUR, HAVE QUESTIONS? CHARLIE? I, I HAVE, I HAVE ONE FOR YOU.
UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT OUR ATTORNEY HAS REVIEWED THIS.
WE'RE OKAY WITH LIMITING THE FIRST A HUNDRED CUSTOMERS? YES, SIR.
AND WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS WITH ELECTRIC CITIES.
ELECTRIC CITIES DOESN'T HAVE ANY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR US.
SO ELECTRIC CITIES TELLS US THAT WE CAN'T GENERATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF POWER AND THIS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
I JUST UNDERSTOOD WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR POWER SUPPLY CONTRACT IN AGREEMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BOARD? HEARING NONE AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE AMENDING RATE SCHEDULE 60 AND ADDING SCHEDULE RIDER NUMBER TWO FOR CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY.
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE DO SO AT THIS TIME, MA'AM, WE MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
SECOND, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY OPPOSED? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? ON ITEM NUMBER 23, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE RATE SCHEDULE 60 AND ADD SCHEDULE RIDER NUMBER TWO, FOR CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY.
SECOND, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN ASTOR.
[24. Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving a Water and Sewer Use Agreement with DGT Ventures, LLC for 4301 US Hwy. 70 East.]
CHARLIE.NEXT UP, ITEM NUMBER 24, CONSIDER ING RESOLUTION APPROVING A WATER AND SEWER USE AGREEMENT WITH D GT VENTURES, LLC 4 43 0 1 US HIGHWAY 70 EAST.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, BEFORE TONIGHT IS CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING A WATERED SERIES AGREEMENT, UH, FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 43 0 1 US HIGHWAY 70, WHICH IS D-D-G-D-G-T VENTURES.
UH, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A AUTO DEALERSHIP ON THIS PROPERTY.
WE HAVE PREPARED OUR STANDARD WATER SERIES AGREEMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY OF ATTORNEY, THIS OFFICE, AS WELL AS EXECUTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AGREEMENT OR THE WATER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? THERE'S NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WATER AND SEWER USE AGREEMENT WITH DGT VENTURES LLC FOR 43 0 1 US HIGHWAY 70 EAST SECOND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN MCKENZIE.
[25. Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving a Lease Agreement with the Area Day Reporting Program for Youth for Property Located at 500 Fort Totten Drive.]
NUMBER 25.CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE AREA DAY REPORTING PROGRAM FOR YOUTH FOR PROPERTY.
LOCATED AT 500 FORT TOTTEN DRIVE.
UM, THIS IS JUST, UH, ANOTHER ANNUAL RENEWAL FOR AREA REPORTING DAY.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN A CONTINUED LEASE FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
THEY HAVE BEEN IN GOOD STANDING DURING THAT TIME.
AND THIS WILL BE A CURRENT, CURRENT RENEWAL UP TILL THE END OF JUNE, UM, WHEN THE LEASE WILL NEED TO RENEW.
DOES BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? MAY I MAKE, IF THERE IS NO QUESTIONS, I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION.
APPROVE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE AREA DAY REPORTING PROGRAM FOR YOUTH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 FORT TITAN DRIVE.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE STARTING WITH ALDERMAN BEST.
[26. Consider Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Contract with the NC Department of Transportation for Section 5303 FTA Planning Funds.]
ITEM NUMBER 26.CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR SECTION SECTION 53 0 3 FTA PLANNING FUNDS.
[02:15:01]
GOOD EVENING.THE CITY OF NEW BERN ON BEHALF OF THE NEW BERN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION IS IDENTIFIED AS THE DIRECT RECIPIENT OF SECTION 53 0 3.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION.
URBAN PLANNING FUNDS EVERY YEAR.
N-C-D-O-T REQUIRES THAT THE MPO LEAD PLANNING AGENCY, WHICH IS THE CITY OF NEW BERN, UH, ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TO SIGN THE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH N-C-D-O-T TO RECEIVE SUCH FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.
THE TOTAL OF 53 0 3 ALLOCATION IS $67,000 AND 47, I'M SORRY, $67,047 WITH A FEDERAL AND STATE SHARE OF 60,341 AND THE LOCAL SHARE OF $6,706 OF WHICH $4,371 AND 86 CENTS IS NEW BERN'S PER RATA SHARE FOR THE LOCAL MATCH.
AND AT THIS TIME, I ASK FOR SOME CONSIDERATION IN APPROVING THE RESOLUTION AND EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT.
THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS HEARING NO COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR SECTION 5 3 0 3 FTA PLANNING FUNDS.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, STARTING WITH ALDERMAN PRILL.
[Items 27 & 28]
BOARD.UH, WE CAN START MAKING UP SOME TIME HERE IF YOU'D LIKE.
UH, ITEM NUMBER 27 AND 28 CAN BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, SO I'LL READ THEM BOTH.
ITEM NUMBER 27 IS CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SALE OF NINE 11 EUBANK STREET.
AND ITEM NUMBER 28 IS, CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SALE OF 8 21 WEST STREET.
TONIGHT I BRING BEFORE YOU THE REDEVELOPMENT, UH, COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SALE OF NINE 11 EUBANK STREET.
UM, IT'S A PROPERTY IN THE DEPTH OF FIELD NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS ACTION REPRESENTS ANOTHER TANGIBLE STEP AND OUR COMMITMENT TO PUT BACON AND UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS BACK INTO PRODUCTIVE USE FOR FAMILIES IN NEW BERN.
THE SITE AT NINE 11 EUBANK STREET IS MADE UP OF A PARCEL, UM, ON NINE 11, UH, ON EUBANK STREET, COMBINED WITH A RELOCATED HOME FROM GASTON STREET FOR THE RE FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, THE REDEVELOP THE COMMISSION OVERSAW THE LOCATION AND REHABILITATION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ONTO THE SITE THROUGH FEDERAL CDBG RESOURCES.
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG-TERM EFFORT TO STABILIZE AND REINVEST IN THIS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE PAR THE PARCEL, UM, IS 0.13 ACRES, UH, PLOT, AND WAS CONVEYED TO THE RDC, UH, BY THE CITY IN NOVEMBER OF 2020.
IN KEEPING WITH OUR ADOPTED DISPOSITION POLICY, WE CONDUCTED A SEALED BID PROCESS ON AUGUST 13TH, 2025.
THE COMMISSION FORMALLY ACCEPTED THE HIGHEST RESPONSIBLE BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 FROM MS. CATHERINE LUBBOCK.
THE PROPERTY WILL CARRY WITH IT THE NECESSARY CDBG, UH, LIEN NOTE AND COVENANTS TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS QUALIFIED OCCUPANCY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD'S APPROVAL ON THIS SALE SO THAT WE MAY PROCEED WITH CLOSING AND FORMALLY RETURN NINE 11 EUBANK STREET, UH, TO COMMUNITY USE.
UH, IN ADDITION, UH, I'M ALSO ASKING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT 8 21 WEST STREET, 8 21 WEST STREET, UH, IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL EIGHT DASH 0 0 7 DASH 2 25 IN THE CRAVEN COUNTY GIS SYSTEM.
THIS LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 0.11 ACRES AND IS CURRENTLY A VACANT RESIDENTIAL SITE UNDER THE RDC OWNERSHIP.
IT'S LOCATION ALONG THE WEST STREET CORRIDOR MAKES IT AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF OUR BROADER REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY.
FOLLOWING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THE PROPERTY WAS OFFERED THROUGH UPSET BID PROCESS.
THAT PROCESS WAS COMPLETED AND ON AUGUST 13TH, 2025, THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION VOTED TO ACCEPT THE BID OF $6,375 FROM MR. SERGIO.
A, MR. ARAN HAS EXP EXPRESS EXPRESSED HIS INTENT TO CONSTRUCT A PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR THIS SITE FOR HIS FAMILY.
THE CONVEYANCE WILL INCLUDE COVENANTS REQUIRING TIMELY CONSTRUCTION AND OWNER OCCUPANCY.
ACCORDINGLY, THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS YOUR APPROVAL FOR THIS SALE AS WELL.
I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ON EITHER SALE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? NO.
MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SALE OF NINE 11 EUBANK STREET, AS WELL AS 8 21 WEST STREET.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, MAYOR, IF I COULD SURE.
I DID, I DIDN'T GET ANY QUICK ENOUGH
[02:20:01]
WITH MY COMMENT OR QUESTION FOR YOU.UH, I MEAN, I, I INTEND TO VOTE IN FAVOR, UH, OF THESE TWO ITEMS, BUT I JUST FEEL THAT I WOULD BE REMISS, UM, NOT ASKING YOU THE QUESTION.
IS THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CONSIDERING ANY OTHER POSSIBLE PURCHASES, RELOCATION OF STRUCTURES, UM, IN THE FUTURE? I CAN PRETTY CONFIDENTLY SAY NO, SIR.
UM, AND, AND WITHOUT GOING INTO A LOT OF DETAIL, I MEAN, I THINK THE, THE, THE EUBANKS PROPERTY WAS, UM, A TOUGH LESSONS LEARNED.
UM, AND, UM, I, I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE, IF, IF ANY OTHER OPPORTUNITY CAME UP THAT A, A VERY THOROUGH EVALUATION WOULD NEED TO BE DONE BEFORE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION IN THE FUTURE.
JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GET THAT OUT.
I THINK THAT'S A, A GREAT ASSESSMENT.
AND I WOULD SAY, THINKING BACK ON THAT DECISION, THAT WAS, UH, A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DECISION TO MOVE THAT HOUSE WHEN THE, PROBABLY THE BEST FINANCIAL DECISION WOULD'VE BEEN TO TEAR IT DOWN.
UH, BUT THAT WAS IN THE MIDST OF THE STANLEY WHITE RELOCATION DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL IT.
AND, UM, YES, BUT LESSON LEARNED.
AND I THINK THIS IS ALSO ANOTHER GOOD LESSON LEARNED THAT CDBG FUNDS ARE SO RESTRICTIVE THAT YOU BETTER BE DANG SURE WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO WITH IT BEFORE YOU SPEND THEM.
SO, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN ROYAL.
DER MCKENZIE ALDERMAN BEST? YES.
[Items 29 - 31]
BOARD.UH, WE CAN ALSO CONSIDER 29, 30 AND 31 TOGETHER.
SO I'LL READ THEM ALL AT THIS TIME.
RELU A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALE OF 3, 2 3 LIBERTY STREET, 1002 SAMPSON STREET AND 6 0 5 SECOND AVENUE, MR. HUGHES.
ON THE FIRST ITEM IN AUGUST OF 2024, AN INITIAL BID OF $1,380 WAS RECEIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE BID WAS ADVERTISED AND MULTIPLE UPSET BIDS WERE RECEIVED.
THE FINAL BID OF $6,161 WAS SUBMITTED BY PATRICIA SMITH.
THE PROPERTY IS A VACANT 0.039 ACRE LOT SUITABLE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE CITY AND CRAVEN COUNTY IN APRIL OF 2015 THROUGH A TAX FORECLOSURE.
IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD FOR THE FINAL BID, THE CITY WILL RECEIVE $2,608 79 CENTS.
THEN THE COUNTY WILL RECEIVE $3,552 21 CENTS ON THE SECOND ITEM, BCJ DEVELOPMENT, LLC SUBMITTED THE BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,700 FOR THE PURCHASE OF THIS PARTIAL.
THE BID WAS ADVERTISED WITH NO UPSET BIDS RECEIVED.
THE PROPERTY IS A VACANT 0.062 ACRE RESIDENTIAL TRACK THAT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE CITY AND COUNTY IN NOVEMBER OF 2005 THROUGH A TAX FORECLOSURE.
IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD FOR THE FINAL BID, THE CITY WILL RECEIVE $1,669 99 CENTS.
THEN THE COUNTY WILL RECEIVE $1,030 1 CENTS FROM THE PROCEEDS ON THE THIRD PROPERTY.
VICTORIA CLARK SUBMITTED THE BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,700 FOR THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY IN OCTOBER OF 2000.
ON OCTOBER OF 2024, THE BID WAS ADVERTISED AND SEVERAL UPSET BIDS WERE RECEIVED.
THE FINAL BID OF $5,037 AND 50 CENTS WAS SUBMITTED BY MS. CLARK.
THE PROPERTY IS A VACANT 0.078 ACRE RESIDENTIAL TRACK THAT WAS ACQUIRED JOINTLY BY THE CITY AND COUNTY IN SEPTEMBER OF 2013 THROUGH TAX FORECLOSURE.
IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD FOR THE FINAL BID, THE CITY WILL RECEIVE $2,686 43 CENTS, AND THE COUNTY WILL RECEIVE $2,351 16 CENTS.
DOES BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALE OF 3 23 LIBERTY STREET, 1002 SAMPSON STREET AND 6 0 5 SECOND AVENUE.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN ASTOR.
[Items 32 & 33]
UH, WE WILL BE CONSIDERING IF YOU WOULD LIKE ITEMS 32 AND 33.UH, ITEM NUMBER 32 IS CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING
[02:25:01]
A GRANT FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LIAISON.AND ITEM NUMBER 33 IS CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM, HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM FOR OVERTIME.
THIS PROBABLY REPRESENTS THE FOURTH, UH, TIME I'VE BEEN FOR THIS BODY.
UH, REQUESTING VERY SIMILAR GRANTS FROM THE, UH, NORTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM.
WE UTILIZE THE MONIES TO, UM, HELP EDUCATE AND REDUCE, UM, RECKLESS DRIVING, SPEEDING, AND, UM, CRASHES AND FATALITIES.
UH, THE $20,000 WILL BE USED FOR OVERTIMES SPECIFIC TO NEW BERN, AND THE $30,000 WILL BE USED IN, UM, OUR REGION.
UM, NEW BERN AND THE, UM, NEW BERN POLICE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP, UM, REPRESENTS OUR PARTICULAR REGION.
AND ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO THE 30,000, WE BENEFIT GREATLY FROM IT.
AND I ENCOURAGE YOU, AS YOU'VE DONE THE PAST FOUR YEARS, APPROVE THESE TWO GRANTS.
THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF MAYOR.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GRANT FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LIAISON, AND A GRANT FROM THE NEW J NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM FOR OVERTIME.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL, STARTING WITH ALDERMAN BEST.
[34. Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving an Investment Policy.]
AS ITEM NUMBER 34.CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INVESTMENT POLICY.
THIS INVESTMENT POLICY ESTABLISHES GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING CITY FUNDS, ENSURING SAFETY FOR OF PRINCIPAL, PRINCIPAL, SUFFICIENT LIQUIDITY TO MEET FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AND A REASONABLE RETURN ON INVESTMENTS.
A FORMAL POLICY IS ESSENTIAL TO SAFEGUARD TAX.
YOUR DOLLARS COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND PROMPT TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CONSISTENCY AND FINANCIAL POLICY PRACTICES.
SPECIFICALLY, THE POLICY ADDRESSES ETHICAL STANDARDS, STATUTORY MANDATES, PROCEDURES AND INTERNAL CONTROLS, AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS IN TRANSACTIONS, DIVERSIFICATION AND MATURITY PARAMETERS, AND REQUIRED REPORTING AND AUDITING, INCLUDING QUARTERLY REPORTS AND ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
FIFTH, POLICY COMPLIES WITH NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES 1 59 DASH 30, AND MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION POLICY CERTIFICATION WITH CURRENT TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS AT $71 MILLION.
THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THIS POLICY IN IN PLACE IS CLEAR.
IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE RESOLUTION FORMALLY APPRO THE INVESTMENT POLICY.
BEFORE YOU THIS BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS, I I DO OWN, UM, ITEM NUMBER 10 IN THE INVESTMENT POLICY MM-HMM
UH, IT TALKS ABOUT LIMIT ON RECEIPTS, GIFTS, GRATUITIES, AND IT SAYS THAT EMPLOYEES RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THE CITY'S INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO AS WELL AS ANY MEMBER OF THE INVESTMENT PROGRAM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, MAY ACCEPT HONORARY GIFTS OR GRATUITIES FROM ANY ADVISOR, BROKER, DEALER, BANKER, OR OTHER PERSON WITH WHOM THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DOES BUSINESS.
PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL VALUE DOES NOT EXCEED THE LIMIT SET BY THE CITY POLICY ANY PHYSICAL YEAR.
I'M ASSUMING THAT'S PROBABLY JUST A BOILERPLATE STATEMENT.
UM, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT REALLY RAISES SOME RED FLAGS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, WHAT THE CITY POLICY IS, BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INVESTMENT OF CITY DOLLARS IN AN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE JUST WOULDN'T SAY THAT.
SO THESE ARE THINGS LIKE, UM, A POLO A HAT, RAFFLES, THAT KIND OF STUFF.
UM, AND I THINK OUR LIMIT IS ABOUT $25, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IN OUR POLICY, UNDER ANYTHING UNDER $25.
IT'S, IT'S PENS PAID FOR PAD TO PAPER.
AS LONG AS EVERYBODY'S GOOD WITH IT, IT JUST, IT CAUGHT MY EYE AND IT REFERENCES THE C CITY POLICY SO THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING TO ALWAYS UPDATE THIS IF WE HAD AN UPDATE TO THE CITY POLICY.
SO, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE HAS BEEN AN UNWRITTEN POLICY FOR MANY YEARS, UH, WITH A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $15 UNWRITTEN POLICY, UNWRITTEN POLICY.
[02:30:01]
OKAY.BOARD, HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THE RESOLUTION OF PROVEN AND INVESTMENT POLICY.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL ON ALDERMAN KENZIE.
[Items 35 & 36]
UH, WE CAN LOOK AT ITEMS 35 AND 36 TOGETHER.ITEM NUMBER 35 IS CONSIDERED ADOPTING A RESOLUTION, ACCEPTING OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN STREETS IN PHASES ONE, TWO, AND THREE OF LAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT.
AND ITEM NUMBER 36 IS CONSIDERED ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 70 99 STOP INTERSECTIONS TO ADD CERTAIN STREETS IN LAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE CONSIDERATION BEFORE YOU IS FOR THE STREET ACCEPTANCE OF PHASE ONE, TWO, AND THREE OF THE LAKEVIEW COMMUNITY, WHICH IS OFF OF THURMAN ROAD AND OLD AIRPORT ROAD AND WARD THREE.
IT CONSISTS OF ABBEY ABBEY, LEE AVENUE, BETTY GRISHAM LANE, CLYDESDALE COURT, LORETTA LANE, UNDERWRITER LANE, AND WEATHERSBY DRIVE.
IN YOUR PACKAGE, THERE ARE CERTIFICATIONS OF COMPLETION BY THE OWNER AND AN ENGINEER.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETE COMPLETION BY THE DESIGNER.
PUBLIC WORKS HAS INSPECTED THIS AND WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE ENGINEER OF THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS TO ADDRESS OUTSTANDING ISSUES.
WE FIND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS WERE BUILT TO STANDARDS AND THAT WHAT WE ARE ACCEPTING IS IN THE BEST ENTRANCE OF THE CITY AND THE RESIDENCE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS? GEORGE, I KNOW YOU RECEIVED 'EM 'CAUSE I SENT A BUNCH OF 'EM TO YOU.
UM, WE'VE GOT SOME RESIDENTS OUT THERE THAT JUST FEEL THAT THE ROADS WERE NOT BUILT TO STANDARDS.
THEY WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT CRUMBLING SIDEWALKS AND STUFF.
YOU'VE INSPECTED AND FOUND THOSE.
THERE ARE, THERE ARE SOME AESTHETIC ISSUES, BUT THERE'S NO FUNCTIONAL ISSUE WITH WHAT IS INSTALLED.
THERE WAS ONE SECTION OF CONCRETE WHICH I'D REACHED OUT TO ONE OF THE RESIDENTS.
UM, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THAT PERSON YET OF A BROKEN PIECE OF, UM, EDGE BANDING.
A LOT OF THE DRIVEWAYS IN THAT, IN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT HAVE A SIX INCH TOOL BAND, DECORATIVE BAND AROUND THE DRIVEWAY.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS APPEARED TO BE.
AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT IS NOT A PART OF THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND WOULD NOT BE A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY OF BURG.
SO SOME OF THOSE PHOTOS WERE ACTUALLY PRIVATE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY? I BELIEVE SO, YES.
SOME OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN, YES.
AND YOU'RE HAPPY WITH EVERYTHING? YES.
UH, YOU KNOW, APPROXIMATELY 12 TO 18 MONTHS AGO, WE DID HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE STORM DRAINAGE, SOME VEGETATION.
UM, WE HAD SOME SLOUGHING OF THE EMBANKMENTS.
THE DEVELOPER HAD A CONTRACTOR GO BACK IN AND REWORK THESE SECTIONS.
AND WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE INTENDED DESIGN OF THE STORMWATER.
GEORGE, WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE AESTHETIC OF A FEW SECTIONS OF SIDEWALK.
WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR THAT? YOU KNOW, WE'LL KEEP AN EYE ON SOME OF 'EM.
SOME OF 'EM HAD SOME, UM, AGGREGATE THAT HAD POPPED OUT OF THE TOP, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WOULD HAVE, UM, PREVENTED THE USE OF THE SIDEWALK.
IT LOOKED LIKE POSSIBLY A DIFFERENT CONCRETE BATCH WAS USED ON ONE SECTION.
SO THE TEXTURED FINISH IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
BUT ONCE WE HAVE TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY, THE OWNER WARRANTIES ANY OF THE WORK FOR 12 MONTHS AND BEYOND THAT POINT, THEN IF THERE IS A DEFICIENCY OR A FAILURE IN THAT, THEN WE WILL ADDRESS IT.
PUBLIC WORKS WILL ADDRESS IT DIRECTLY.
GEORGE, I MEAN, UM, GEORGE, UM, LAST WEEK WAS THE LAST WEEK WE WAS GOING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, LOOKING AT SCORING OF THE, UH, ROADS THAT NEEDS REPAIR.
HAVE YOU COMPLETED ALL THAT YET? TO GET BACK WITH ME TO LET ME KNOW WHEN WILL WE START OUR PAVING CYCLE AND HOW MANY ROADS THAT'S TOTALLY, THAT NEEDS REPAIRED.
AND THEN WE JUST PUT SOME SIDEWALKS DOWN ON COLONY DRIVE.
HAVE YOU LOOKED AT ANY OTHER AREAS THAT WE MAY BE SHORTCOMING THAT WE NEED TO, UH, LOOK AT SOME MORE, ADDING SOME MORE SIDEWALKS ON? WELL, UH, WITH THE PAVING, OBVIOUSLY, WE, UM, ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FORWARD INTO THE, THE PAVING, UM, FUNDING THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
BUT REALLY BEFORE WE START ANNOUNCING PAVING ON A LARGE SCALE, WE'RE GONNA WAIT ON THE, THE BOND REFERENDUM ITEMS. 'CAUSE THAT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE OUR COURSE IN HOW WE PLAN OUR, OUR PAVING.
[02:35:01]
THAT WOULD PROBABLY BRING US MORE UP TO SPEED TO CATCH UP WITH, WITH A PAVEMENT CYCLE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY FALL INTO.WELL, CERTAINLY $10 MILLION SHOULD, SHOULD ADDRESS A LOT OF ROADS.
SO THAT BOND REFERENDUM IS GONNA BE SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CAN COUNT ON LOOKING AT, GIVING EVERYONE A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE AS FAR, AS FAR AS THE DOLLARS WILL GO ON THE LINEAR FOOTAGE THAT, THAT WON'T ADDRESS EVERY, EVERY, EVERY ROAD.
UM, I, I REMEMBER LOOKING AT SOME OF THOSE SIDEWALKS AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS A DIFFERENT POUR AGGREGATE LOOKS DIFFERENT.
MY QUESTION FOR YOU WOULD BE IS IF THE CITY WAS PAVING THE SIDEWALK AND WE WERE DOING IT OURSELF, OR WE HAD SUBBED IT OUT TO A CONTRACTOR AND THE SIDEWALK TURNED OUT LOOKING THE WAY IT DOES NOW, WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE THEN? IF IT WAS RECENT TO THE POOL? YES.
UM, LIKELY THE CONTRACTOR WOULD'VE PULLED IT THEMSELVES.
IN THIS CASE, THERE'S A LOT OF TRUCTURE.
THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR FOUR TO FIVE YEARS.
UM, AT WHAT POINT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A MAINTENANCE ITEM VERSUS A FAILURE ITEM? SO A MAINTENANCE ITEM, GENERAL STATUTE, UH, DOESN'T ALLOW US TO HOLD BOND MONEY ON ITEMS THAT WERE INSTALLED THAT WERE TOO STANDARD.
AND THEN FOR A MAINTENANCE, IF IT'S JUST A TYPICAL MAINTENANCE, WE HAVE SOME AREAS THAT, UM, SIDEWALKS BEEN INSTALLED.
UH, LANDSCAPERS MAY HAVE EDGED IT.
DOES IT JEOPARDIZE THE FUNCTION OF THE SIDEWALK? NOT NECESSARILY.
AND THEN, UM, THOSE, THOSE BACKYARDS THAT SEVERAL OF US WALKED BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE, ALL THAT'S BEEN FIXED.
I, I WAS NOT A PART OF THE REPAIR, BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND OBSERVATION, IT WAS ADDRESSED BETWEEN THE HOUSE BUILDER DEVELOPER, OR, AND THE RESIDENCE ON THAT, ON THOSE LOTS.
ARE YOU CONCUR WITH THAT? I I KNOW, I KNOW AT LEAST TWO WERE TAKEN CARE OF.
AND WE JUST RECEIVED A, AN, I THINK AN EMAIL FROM ONE OF 'EM WITH SOME OTHER CONCERNS.
BUT, UM, I KNOW HIS WAS TAKEN CARE OF.
I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY ON BACKYARD DRAINAGE.
HE, I THINK THEY SENT A LETTER ON SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF THAT DID.
UM, NO, ACTUALLY IT WAS QUESTIONS TO YOU.
SO, BUT THE, UM, BUT HIS, HIS PROBLEM WAS RESOLVED.
THE, UH, CONTRACTOR RESOLVED HIS PROBLEM.
WELL, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BACKYARD DRAINAGE ANYWAY, DO WE? NOT NECESSARILY, NO.
IN GENERAL, IN GENERAL, UH, DEVELOPMENTS, UH, THE BACKYARD DRAINAGE IS USUALLY A RESPONSIBILITY EITHER THE HOA OR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
BUT IF IT CARRIES WATER OFF OF OUR STREETS THAT WE'RE GETTING READY TO ACCEPT, WE DO.
AND IF IT, IF IT CARRIES WATER OFF OUR STREETS AND IT'S NOT A PART OF THEIR TREATMENT SYSTEM THAT'S DESIGNED IN THEIR STATE PLAN, WE WOULD HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE CASE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
I, I BELIEVE THIS WAS A DEAD DRAINAGE WITH THE HOUSES.
UM, A LITTLE BIT OF SLOPE, SLOPE CHANGE BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO ACTUALLY GET IT TO THE STREET.
AND DALLAS, WHAT WAS ACHIEVED, I BELIEVE IT'S PLEASURE OF THE BOARD ON ITEM NUMBER 35 AND 36, MAYOR MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION EXCEPT A COUNTERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN STREETS IN PHASE ONE, TWO, AND THREE OF THE LAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT.
DO YOU WANNA COMBINE THAT WITH ITEM NUMBER 36? OH, I, I'M SORRY.
OH, AND PART TWO, I GUESS IS TO AMEND SECTION 70 DASH 99 STOP INTERSECTIONS TO ADD CERTAIN STREETS IN THE LAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN PRILL.
[37. Consider Adopting an Ordinance to Amend the Multi- Year Grants Fund.]
NUMBER 37.CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MULTI-YEAR GRANTS FUND.
MS. OSTRO, THE MULTI-YEAR GRANTS FUND IS AMENDED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT GRANT AWARDS FOR $610
[02:40:01]
FROM THE JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL FOR NATIONAL NIGHT OUT.$30,000 FROM THE GOVERNOR'S HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT LIAISON.
$20,000 FOR THE GHP, UM, FOR OVERTIME FUNDS.
AND $4,399 FROM THE NEW BERN POLICE DEPARTMENT VOLUNTEER GROUP THROUGH FUNDING AWARDED BY THE BATES FOUNDATION GRANT TO ASSIST WITH THE PURCHASE OF A TRAILER.
NO MATCHES ARE REQUIRED FOR ANY OF THESE GRANTS.
BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MULTI-YEAR GRANT FUND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH THE ALDERMAN.
HAVE ANY APPOINTMENTS TONIGHT? HEARING NONE.
ATTORNEY'S REPORT NOTHING TONIGHT, SIR.
[40. City Manager's Report.]
MANAGER'S REPORT A FEW THINGS TO UPDATE YOU ON A REMINDER THAT THE 9 9 11 CEREMONY WILL BE THIS THURSDAY AT 8:30 AM AT THE FIREMAN'S MUSEUM.THE CEREMONY WILL BE, UH, PRESENTED BY NEWBURN FIRE RESCUE AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
ALSO, A REMINDER THAT EARLY VOTING WILL BEGIN ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, THE STANLEY WHITE RECREATION CENTER.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, UH, TO HELP THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
UM, I ALSO WANNA REMIND YOU THAT OUR NEXT BOND MEETING IS COMING UP TOMORROW NIGHT, 4:00 PM TO 7:00 PM AT THE STANLEY WHITE RECREATION CENTER.
ONE WILL BE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25TH AT THE WEST NEW RECREATION CENTER FROM FOUR SEVEN.
AND FINAL ONE WILL BE ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30TH AT THE NEW MALL FROM FOUR SEVEN.
SO I WANNA REMIND EVERYONE, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BOND REFERENDUM, PLEASE CALL US AT CITY HALL.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE BOND REFERENDUM THAT GOES BACK OVER THE LAST YEAR ON THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH TO DETERMINE WHICH PROJECTS WE WERE GOING TO, UH, LET THE CITIZENS, UH, DECIDE ON.
UH, I HAVE RECEIVED SOME, SOME COMMENTS THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SITES OUT THERE THAT ARE, ARE PUTTING INFORMATION OUT THERE.
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CITY OF NEW ROOM BOND REFERENDUM TO GO TO THE CITY WEBSITE NC.GOV FOR FACTUAL INFORMATION.
UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TONIGHT, SIR.
UH, WHAT, WHAT ABOUT THE CHANGE OF SCOPE OF WORK? THE GRANTS COORDINATOR DID GOT NOT GET BACK WITH ME AT FOUR OR FIVE O'CLOCK TODAY, SO I, WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING HAPPENED.
[41. New Business.]
OKAY.ALDERMAN PRILL, UH, TWO WHITES MAYOR.
UM, CHIEF LOCKNER, COULD YOU STEP TO THE PODIUM? UM, THE FIRST SIGN I HAVE, UM, AND IF I MS. FOSTER, IF I MISSTATE THIS, UM, PLEASE CORRECT ME.
UH, IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, UM, FUNDING WAS INCLUDED, UH, IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR THE PURCHASE OF A DRONE, UH, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000.
AND, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS HIGHER THAN THE 3000 CHIEF YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? OR? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
IT WAS HIGHER THAN THAT, BUT IT GOT REDUCED DOWN AS PART OF THE, UH, BUDGET PROCESS TO, YOU KNOW, BRING A BUDGET TO THE BOARD THAT THE, THE CITY MANAGER FELT WAS, WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
SO THE, THE FUNDING OF 3000, UM, DOES NOT PROVIDE YOU WITH THE ENOUGH FUNDING TO PURCHASE THE DRONE WITH THE CAPABILITIES THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS LOOKING FOR.
IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, SO A, A REQUEST OR WELL REQUEST WAS, WAS MADE TO ME IF, UM, IF I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF SUPPLEMENTING THE $3,000 BUDGET ALLOCATION WITH SOME WARD ONE A RPA FUNDS, UM, TO BRING THE, THE FUNDING LEVEL UP TO A POINT THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COULD PROCEED WITH PURCHASING A DRONE, UM, THAT IS EQUIPPED WITH THERMAL IMAGING OR A THERMAL SENSOR CAPABILITY.
UM, AND THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING, UM, TO BRING IT UP TO THE LEVEL TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THIS THRONE IS AN ADDITIONAL $5,845 AND 97 CENTS.
[02:45:01]
UM, I AM, I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, UH, ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER APPROPRIATING, UH, THE, THE 5,845, UM, DOLLARS 97 CENTS OF THE A RPA FUNDS, UM, FROM WHAT IS REMAINING IN THE WARD ONE ALLOCATION.SO I'LL MAKE THAT INTO A FORM OF A MOTION.
AND, AND BEFORE YOU FINISH ALL OUR APPEAL, JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW, YOU HAVE, UH, $40,601 REMAINING IN ALLOCATION.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE? ALRIGHT, I CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING.
UH, THE, THE SECOND ITEM I HAVE, UM, JUST PROVIDE A, A LITTLE BACKGROUND, UM, JUST TO, UM, KIND OF SET THE STAGE FOR THIS MOTION.
GOING BACK THE TWO THOU, THE 2010 TIMEFRAME, THE, THE SITTING BOARD AT THAT TIME, UM, ENGAGED IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT TERM LIMITS.
AND IT, IT, IT'S INTERESTING TO, TO KIND OF GO BACK AND, AND, AND LOOK AT THE, UM, THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING.
'CAUSE THERE WAS A RESOLUTION ON, UM, AN AGENDA TO, UM, ESTABLISH TERM LIMITS.
BUT THERE WAS ALSO A SECOND PROVISION OF THAT RESOLUTION.
AND THAT WAS TO CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER, UM, TO ALLOW THE, THE MAYOR TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON, UM, ALL MATTERS THAT ARE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OF THE CHARTER WAS, THAT THE MAYOR WOULD ONLY VOTE TO BREAK A TIE.
UM, BUT THERE WAS NO, IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION AT ALL ABOUT THAT PART OF THE, UM, THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED, THAT THE PRIMARY FOCUS WAS ON TERM LIMITS.
AND IT'S A LITTLE ODD TO ME THAT, UM, CHANGING OF A MUNICIPAL CHARTER DIDN'T GENERATE ANY DISCUSSION.
UM, ULTIMATELY, UH, THE RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED.
UM, THE CITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY NOTIFIED BY THE STATE THAT, UM, ESTABLISHING TERM LIMITS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN NORTH CAROLINA.
UH, AND SO THE, THAT PART OF THE RESOLUTION, UH, COULD NOT BE ENACTED.
UM, AND, UH, AT A LATER DATE, UM, UH, THE BOARD REVISED THE RESOLUTION TO ELIMINATE THE PROVISION FOR TERM LIMITS.
UM, BUT IT, UH, DID NOT TAKE ANY, UH, UH, ANY ADDITIONAL ACTION ON THE, UH, CHANGING OF THE CITY CHARTER.
I, AGAIN, THIS IS MY OWN PERSONAL FEELING.
UM, I THINK MOVING FORWARD, UM, THE CITY WOULD BE BETTER SERVED IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CHARTER LANGUAGE, UM, WHERE THE, THE MAYOR WOULD BE A, A TIE BREAKER.
UH, IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE, UH, THE BOARD, UM, VOTES ON A MATTER AND ENDS UP IN A TIE VOTE, THEN THE MAYOR WOULD BE THE, WOULD BREAK THAT TIE.
UM, I THINK AGAIN, UH, UH, I JUST FEEL THAT MOVING FORWARD, THAT, UM, THE CITY WOULD BE BETTER SERVED, UM, TO REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CHARTER LANGUAGE.
AND IN THAT VEIN, UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, THAT THE BOARD APPROVAL RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO INTRODUCE AND SECURE PASSAGE OF LOCAL LEGISLATION TO AMEND ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 2.2 OF THE, UM, CITY CHARTER TO REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CHARTER LANGUAGE THAT PROHIBITS THE MAYOR FROM VOTING, EXCEPT IN THE CASE, UM, TO BREAK
[02:50:01]
A TIE, UH, TIE VOTE OF THE ALDERMAN.UM, SO MAKE THAT IN, IN THE FORM OF A MOTION.
AND AT FIRST, WHEN I FIRST CAME ON AND WHEN THEY CHANGED THE CHARTER, I VOTED AGAINST THAT AT MYSELF.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I DISCUSS AS WE, AS I HAVE SERVED MAYOR, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THE MOTION.
IS THE MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OR IS THE MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION? WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT.
IS THAT SO AS, TO BRING BACK WELL, AND, AND I LEAVE IT UP TO LEGAL COUNSEL.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE, THE MOTION THAT I'VE MADE IS, IS PROPER IN THAT FORM OR WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD REQUIRE A WRITTEN RESOLUTION TO BE PREPARED YES.
TO BRING BACK AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION.
OUR CITY CHARTER REQUIRES THAT ANY RESOLUTIONS BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD IN WRITING.
I WILL REVISE MY MOTION TO REFLECT THAT.
UM, I GUESS STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE A MOTION TO, TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING.
TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR THE NEXT MEETING, UH, FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER CHANGING, UH, THE CITY CHARTER TO GO BACK TO, UM, THE PREVIOUS CHARTER LANGUAGE.
UH, WHEREAS WHERE THE MAYOR ONLY VOTES, UH, IN, IN THE INSTANCE OF BREAKING A TIE VOTE TO THE BOARD OF ALL WOMEN.
SO THE RE YOU'RE INSTRUCT, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A MO YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION TO ASK THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO CHANGE THE CHART? YES.
DOES EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTAND THE MOTION? DO YOU CONCUR WITH THAT, WITH YOUR SECOND YES.
UM, I, I'LL I'LL SAY A FEW THINGS.
UM, I'M LOOKING AT MY CALENDAR AND THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE AFTER, LET'S SEE, THE NEXT MEETING IS GOING TO BE SEPTEMBER THE 23RD, IN THE MIDDLE OF EARLY VOTING.
UM, THE WAY THIS PROCESS WORKS, ATTORNEY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE BOARD WOULD PASS, IF THE BOARD WERE TO PASS A RESOLUTION, IT WOULD GO TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THEM TO BE CONSIDERED DURING THEIR LONG SESSION, WHICH BEGINS JANUARY, I THINK AFTER THE FIRST YEAR.
BUT I CAN'T, UH, I CAN'T SWEAR TO THAT.
UM, AND AS FAR AS TIMEFRAME, TYPICALLY ALDERMAN PRILL IN NORTH CAROLINA, WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS IS THEY WOULD LOOK AT LOCAL REQUESTS LIKE THIS AND THEY WOULD ASK THEMSELVES QUESTIONS LIKE, IS IT UNANIMOUS? UM, BECAUSE TYPICALLY STATE LEGISLATORS DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, UM, OF COURSE I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EITHER ONE OF OURS.
UM, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THEIR ASSESSMENT ON WHETHER THEY WOULD TAKE SOMETHING BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT WAS APPROVED BY A BOARD WITH THREE MEETINGS LEFT BEFORE A NEW BOARD WAS SAT.
SO I TELL YOU WHAT I'LL DO, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO AMEND YOUR MOTION, IF YOU HAVE THAT RESOLUTION COME BACK ON THE SECOND AGENDA ON DECEMBER THE NINTH, I WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT MS. UH, ATTORNEY.
HOW LONG DOES IT USUALLY TAKE? I MEAN, ESTIMATE OF, FOR A REQUEST LIKE THAT FOR THE CITY CHARGE BE CHANGED MUCH.
THAT'S ENTIRELY UP UNTIL IT'S UP TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DO THEIR MAGIC.
I, I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO DO.
WELL, EVERYBODY UP HERE IS SUBJECT NOT TO BE HERE EXCEPT YOU.
AND IN MY OPINION, I WOULD RATHER FOR THE WAY FOR THIS TO BE DISCUSSED BY THE NEW BOARD BECAUSE THE ACTION'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE BY THE NEW BOARD OF SEAT.
THAT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION, AND I AGREED WITH HIM ON THAT.
'CAUSE THAT IS THE WAY TO TAKE THAT ON THE PRO.
ARE YOU WILLING TO AMEND YOUR MOTION FOR THAT? UH, WELL AMENDED IN WHAT WAY? THAT IT WOULD BE PUT ON THE SECOND AGENDA ON DECEMBER THE NINTH FOR THE NEW, THAT
[02:55:01]
WOULD BE FOR THE NEW BOARD TO TAKE UP ON DECEMBER 9TH.UM, IT, IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE IF WE, IF THE VOTE WERE TAKEN TONIGHT, IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE A NEW BOARD FROM TAKING FURTHER ACTION IF THEY WERE SOLE INCLINED.
I MEAN, IF THEY, IT WOULDN'T BE RUN BACK AND FORTH.
THEY WERE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH, UM, ANY VOTE TAKEN BY THIS BOARD.
UM, THEY COULD CERTAINLY TAKE FORMAL ACTION TO BASICALLY REQUEST, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO, UM, JUST WITHDRAW, UM, YOU KNOW, THE RE THE ORIGINAL REQUEST.
SO IT, IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THEM FROM ACTING.
WELL, BUT, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE BASICALLY, YOU'RE TAKING A VOTE AND SENDING SOMETHING TO OUR LEGISLATORS WHEN THEY'RE NOT IN SESSION, SO THEY CAN'T EVEN TAKE IT UP UNTIL THEY COME BACK IN SESSION.
AND WHEN THEY COME BACK IN SESSION, AT LEAST TWO OF YOU WON'T BE SITTING HERE.
AGAIN, I MEAN, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN IN, IN 2010, UM, SAME BASIC TIMEFRAME THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE OF ANY CONCERN.
UH, THAT WAS IT AN ELECTION YEAR? I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WOULD BE OF CONCERN TODAY.
NO, IT WASN'T AN ELECTION YEAR.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE NEW BOARD SHOULD DISCUSS.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S GONNA BE AT LEAST, LIKE I SAID, AT LEAST TWO OF YOU THAT WON'T BE SITTING HERE NEXT TIME.
AND I THINK IT'S, IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE NEW BOARD NEEDS TO DISCUSS.
SO IF YOU'RE GONNA STICK WITH YOUR MOTION, UH, AT, AT THIS POINT, YEAH, I THINK I'D JUST LIKE TO PUSH THE MOTION.
SEE, SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO BRING THIS UP AT OUR NEXT MEETING, I REMOVE.
ALDER MCKENZIE HAS REMOVED HIS SECOND.
WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SECOND HIS MOTION TO BRING THIS BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING? EXPLAIN THAT AGAIN, MAYOR NEXT MEETING.
SO ALDERMAN PRU MADE A MOTION TO HAVE A RESOLUTION DRAFTED THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY CHANGE OUR CITY CHARTER AND BRING THAT BACK AT OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING, WHICH IS IN TWO WEEKS.
UM, I MADE THE COMMENT THAT THAT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF EARLY VOTING.
UM, THE STATE LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THIS BILL UP IN RALEIGH AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT OR NOT.
AND THEY'RE NOT EVEN IN SESSION.
THEY'RE NOT IN RALEIGH WORKING, SO THEY WON'T BE IN WORKING IN RALEIGH UNTIL AFTER THE NEW YEAR.
BY THAT TIME, THERE WILL BE A, A NEW BOARD, AND IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THE NEW BOARD MAY HAVE OTHER THINGS WITHIN THE CITY CHARTER THAT THEY MAY WANT TO ADDRESS.
SO I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE RATHER ODD TO DO THIS NOW AND NOT WAIT FOR THE NEW BOARD.
BUT MISS ATTORNEY, WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? WELL, I THINK THIS IS A POLITICAL DECISION FOR YOU ALL TO MAKE, BUT ONE THING TO BEAR IN MIND IN THIS DISCUSSION, THERE ARE PROS AND CONS TO HAVING THE RESOLUTION PLACED ON THE NEXT AGENDA IN SEPTEMBER.
UM, CERTAINLY THE MAYOR BRINGS SOME GREAT POINTS ABOUT THE FACT THAT IF THAT RESOLUTION IS PASSED, IT GOES TO RALEIGH AND IT SITS UNTIL NEXT YEAR.
AND THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO YOU ALL.
UM, THE LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR THAT TIME, IF YOU ALL WERE INCLINED TO HAVE THE NEW BOARD CONSIDER IT LATER IN THE YEAR, UM, CONTEMPLATING A CHANGE BECOMING EFFECTIVE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THEN THAT MAY OR MAY NOT SHAPE WHETHER THE RESOLUTION PASSES.
AND CERTAINLY IF A RESOLUTION IS NOT UNANIMOUS GOING TO OUR GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HISTORICALLY THOSE CHANGES HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE.
SO AT THIS JUNCTURE, UM, IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE LEGAL POSSIBILITIES, BOTH ALDERMAN P'S REC MOTION IS A LEGAL PATHWAY.
THE COMMENT THAT THE MAYOR MADE IS ALSO A LEGAL PATHWAY, BUT ONE PRESENTS PRACTICAL CHALLENGES THAT THE OTHER DOES NOT.
THERE ARE CERTAIN PRACTICAL CHALLENGES WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE BEING OUT OF SESSION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR THAT THIS BOARD CANNOT OVERCOME.
HOWEVER, THE ALTERNATIVE POSITION DOES NOT, UH, INCLUDE THOSE SAME PRACTICAL CHALLENGES, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? LET ME ASK A, A QUESTION OF, OF CITY COUNCIL, UM, COULD A RESOLUTION BE ACTED ON TONIGHT THAT WOULD INCLUDE A PROVISION, UM, FOR THE ISSUE TO BE, UM, REVISITED IN THE, BY THE, YOU KNOW, AT THE FIRST MEETING OF DECEMBER WITH
[03:00:01]
WHOEVER'S GONNA BE SITTING UP HERE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND THEN HOWEVER THEY CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD, THEY'RE FREE TO DO SO.WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLUTION BEFORE US TONIGHT, SO, NO, THE DIRECT ANSWER, WHAT I'M SAYING, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT HAVE STAFF MM-HMM
BRING BACK A RESOLUTION FOR CONS, YOU KNOW, FOR CONSIDERATION IN TWO WEEKS.
THAT WOULD INCLUDE A PROVISION REQUESTING THE NEW BOARD.
HOWEVER, THE VERBIAGE NEEDS TO BE PUT IN THERE TO, UM, CONSIDER THIS ACTION.
AND, AND THIS IS ASSUMING THAT IN TWO WEEKS THE RESOLUTION GETS APPROVED, IT MIGHT NOT GET APPROVED.
UM, SO THE WHOLE ISSUE IS MOOT AT THAT POINT.
BUT IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED IN TWO WEEKS, IT WOULD, IT WOULD INCLUDE A PROVISION ASKING THE NEW BOARD TO REVIEW THAT DECISION THE FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER.
YOU, YOU ABSOLUTELY COULD DO THAT TO ASK THE BOARD.
YOU CAN'T BIND THE NEW BOARD, BUT YOU COULD ASK THEM.
BUT IT BEGS THE QUESTION THEN, IF WE'RE TAKING ACTION NOW AND ASKING A NEW BOARD TO REVISIT IT, WHAT ARE WE HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH AND HAVING THE RESOLUTION IN TWO WEEKS? AND, AND IT MAY BE THAT WE ARE ACCOMPLISHING SOMETHING, BUT HAVING THOSE TWO PROVISALS IN THERE TOGETHER, UM, WHAT IS THE WATER? SO GOOD? WHAT'S THAT? I SAID HAVING THE TWO PROVISOS TOGETHER, THAT WE'RE GONNA TAKE THIS ACTION, BUT WE WANT IT TO BE REVIEWED, I THINK.
I THINK JUST LEAVE IT UP TO THE NEW BOARD.
LET THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW SOME OF THE NEW BOARD MIGHT BE SITTING IN THIS ROOM TONIGHT.
SO, SO JUST, JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I DID REACH OUT TO SENATOR BRITS AND ASKED HIM WHAT THE EARLIEST THAT COULD, THAT COULD GO TO THE LEGISLATURE.
IT WOULD BE ALL, UH, A LOCAL BILL COULD BE PRESENTED AT THE SHORT SESSION, WHICH STARTS APRIL 20TH, 2026, JUST AS AN FYI, HE SAID THAT WAS THE EARLIEST IT, IT WOULD BE PRESENTED.
WELL, I MEAN, ALDERMAN PRI MADE, UM, ALDERMAN PRI MADE A MOTION, AND I DON'T HAVE A RI A PROBLEM WITH US NOT, UH, TAKING ACTION ON HIS MOTION.
UM, THERE'S OTHER BILLS OR WHATEVER HAS GONE BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND SET THERE.
I MEAN, HE'S MADE A, UM, THAT A REQUEST.
SO WITH ME, IF I WOULD MAKE A REQUEST FOR A BILL OR APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD, I WOULD WANT SOME ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON IT, WHETHER IT'S YES OR NO.
ARE YOU SECONDING HIS MOTION? UH, WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALDERMAN, UM, ASK, I MEAN, UM, ROYAL WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION OR NOT.
WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON TABLE.
SO, I MEAN, NOT A MOTION, BUT A SECOND.
WE, WE NEED A SECOND, OR I'M GONNA SAY IT'S DEAD.
ARE YOU STAFF CLEAR ON WHAT THE REQUEST IS? SO HAS THE MOTION BEEN AMENDED NOW ON APRIL THAT THE MOTION IS TO HAVE STAFF BRING BACK A RESOLUTION FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AND ALSO INCLUDING IN THAT RESOLUTION THAT THE NEW BOARD WILL RECONSIDER THE ACTION? UM, I, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT PROCESS.
AND ALDERMAN ROYAL, IS THAT YOUR SECOND? OKAY.
YOU, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? UH, I I JUST THINK IT'S IRONIC THAT THE TWO ALDERMAN THAT ARE NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION IS TRYING TO PLACE, SO PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEW BOARD TO DO.
SO I'M GONNA TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I'M GONNA VOTE NO BOARD SOMETHING THE NEW BOARD NEEDS TO ADDRESS.
AND I JUST, IT'S JUST CRAZY FOR US TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA IN THE FUTURE.
WELL, AS I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE PULLING THIS BIAS, THERE HAS BEEN LOTS OF TIMES MOTIONS MADE FOR NEW BOARDS COMING IN, MAKE THE DECISION ON, AND, YOU KNOW, AS WELL AS I DO, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, I THINK THE NEW BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE THE DECISION.
I'M JUST SAYING AN ALDERMAN HAS, AND EVEN IF I, I GO OUT, IF I MAKE A MOTION FOR AS ALDERMAN PRI DID FOR AN ACTION TO BE TAKEN AND I'M OUT, HEY, I MADE THAT MOTION.
SO AS A BOARD HERE NOW, I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE A, WE AS A BOARD SHOULD MAKE A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GONNA SAY YES OR NO ON IT.
AND IT'S UP TO THE NEW BOARD, WHETHER THEY ACCEPTED OR DECLINED IT.
'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE MY RIGHT IF I'M SITTING HERE AND WANTING TO MAKE A MOTION ON, UH, UH, AN ACTION THAT I WON'T HAVE DONE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN ROYAL.
[03:05:01]
NO.ANYTHING ELSE? ALDERMAN? I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
OKAY, ALDERMAN ROYAL, UH, THREE ITEMS IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, BRIEFLY.
FIRST OF ALL, I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES AND, AND, AND, UH, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE STAFF FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND YOUR CARDS AND, AND YOUR, UM, MESSAGING REGARDING THE DEATH OF MY SISTER.
I APPRECIATE THAT AND I'M VERY, VERY GRATEFUL FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT REACHED OUT AND, UH, SHOWED YOUR CONCERN AND CONSIDERATION.
THE OTHER ITEM IS, UH, THE SECOND ITEM IS I LOOKED AT THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED REGARDING THE, UH, REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, UH, FROM THE CITY CLERK AND THE TERM OF US OFFICE.
AND I CALLED HER TO ASK SO I COULD GET SOME CLARITY ON IT.
AND SHE SAID THAT THE TERM OF OFFICE IS FOR, UM, FIVE YEARS.
AND I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THE STAGGERED TERMS. SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, UH, THE BOARD, IF WE COULD GIVE THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTION TO BRING A DRAFT ORDINANCE, EXCUSE ME, AT THE NEXT MEETING, TO REDUCE THE TERM OF THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FROM FIVE YEARS TO THREE YEARS.
AND THAT WE WOULD ALSO INCLUDE, UH, UH, TO LIMIT SERVICES TO TWO BACK TO BACK TERMS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR OTHER BOARDS WITHIN THE CITY, THAT'S, UH, GENERALLY HOW IT OPERATES.
AND THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION IS FOR FIVE YEARS.
SO IF WE DID THIS, IT WOULD ALIGN THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MORE CLOSELY WITH THE TERM OF OFFICE, WITH THE OTHER BOARDS WITHIN THE CITY.
AND I'M ASKING THE BOARD OF, UH, IF WE WOULD GIVE THAT DIRECTION TO, UH, THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.
I, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, UM, CONSIDERATION.
UM, YEAH, AGAIN, I, I WASN'T A PART OF THE DISCUSSION WHEN THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WAS ORIGINALLY, UM, ESTABLISHED.
I SUSPECT THAT THE LONGER TERMS AND NO LIMIT TO CONSECUTIVE TERMS MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN, UH, INTENTIONAL AT THAT TIME.
ONLY BECAUSE YOU, I THINK FOR AN ENTITY SUCH AS A REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, YOU'RE LOOKING TO ESTABLISH SOME STABILITY, UM, INITIALLY.
UM, BUT IT HAS BEEN, I THINK A, A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME HAS PASSED SINCE IT WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED, UM, THAT IT MAKES SENSE, UH, TO MAYBE BRING THE, THE TERMS OF OFFICE AND THE, UM, THE LIMITING THE CONSECUTIVE TERMS, UM, TO BRING THAT MORE IN LINE WITH, UM, OUR OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
SO I'D, I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT REQUEST.
ANYONE ELSE? ALDERMAN ROYAL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION SO WE CAN BE FORMAL ON RECORD? YES, SIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ASK THE BOARD IF, IF WE COULD GIVE THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTION TO BRING A DRAFT ORDINANCE AT THE NEXT MEETING TO REDUCE THE TERM OF THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FROM FIVE YEARS TO THREE YEARS AND TO LIMIT, UH, CONSECUTIVE TERMS TO TWO YEARS.
AND AGAIN, THIS WOULD ALIGN THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MORE CLOSELY WITH THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR OUR OTHER BOARDS.
ALDERMAN RU I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M, I'M CLEAR ON THE MOTION.
ARE YOU SETTING THE TERMS TO TWO YEARS OR ARE YOU SETTING IT TO TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS? AS OF CURRENT, LIMITED TO TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS. OKAY.
AND ADDITIONALLY, WHAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER IS, I THINK THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION IS THE ONLY CITIZEN BOARD APPOINTED BOARD WHOSE TERMS IN, IN AUGUST, ALL THE OTHER BOARDS TERMINATE IN ON JUNE 30TH.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INCLUDE
[03:10:01]
IN THIS, UM, DRAFT ORDINANCE TO ALIGN THEM WITH THE OTHER BOARDS COMMISSION? YES.IF IT WOULD ALIGN WITH THE OTHER BOARDS WITHIN OUR CITY.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? UM, WHY WAS THE REASON, OR IS THERE A REASON WHY THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SERVED THE FIVE YEARS? SO I WOULD, FROM THE INFORMATION I'VE LEARNED FROM MR. DAVIS BACK WHEN THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WAS BEING FORMULATED, THERE WAS A DESIRE AT THAT TIME AS ALDERMAN PRILL ALLUDED TO, TO CREATE SOME STABILITY AND RECOGNIZING THAT REDEVELOPMENT IS SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.
SO I THINK THE REASON WHY THE TERMS APPEAR TO BE LONGER THAN OUR OTHER APPOINTED BOARDS IS TO GIVE THOSE COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY, ONE, UM, TO ACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH THE STATUS OF REDEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE APPOINTED, AND GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOME TRACTION AND HOPEFULLY SEE THEIR EFFORTS COME TO FRUITION DURING THEIR TERM.
SO YOU FEEL THAT THAT A FIVE YEAR TERM IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR BOARD IS BETTER FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THAN A THREE YEAR TERM? IT CERTAINLY WAS AT THE TIME THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WAS CONSTITUTED.
AND WHEN WAS THAT? I THINK THEY, IT FIRST STARTED IN 2018, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
SO WE'VE HAD TIME FOR TRACTION AND ADJUSTMENT SINCE 2018.
AND THEN IT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR, UH, CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO BRING ALSO, UM, SOMETHING TO THE TABLE OR ADD TO IT OR THE EXPERTISE IN WHATEVER AREAS IN REDEVELOPMENT.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN ASTOR.
UM, I AM REALLY, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE PROGRESS AT HENDERSON PARK AND THE AMENITIES THAT OUR PARK WILL PROVIDE TO OUR CITIZENS.
AND, UM, IN LIGHT OF THAT, I WOULD, UH, LIKE TO FURTHER INVEST IN HENDERSON PARK IN, UH, COMPLETION OF SOME ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE COMPLETED THROUGH A RP FUNDING.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REALLOCATE MY A RP FUNDS FOR ENHANCEMENT OF HENDERSON PARK AND TO PROVIDE SOLID AT HENDERSON PARK MULTIPURPOSE FIELD AT $20,000, UH, TO PROVIDE IRRIGATION AT HENDERSON PARK MULTIPURPOSE FIELD FOR 10,000 TO PROVIDE A SCOREBOARD AT HENDERSON PARK MULTIPURPOSE FIELD FOR 10,000 AND A SCOREBOARD AT HENDERSON PARK BASEBALL FIELD FOR $6,000.
AND THEN LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO ALLOCATE $10,000 TO IMPROVE THE AESTHETICS AT THE EVERGREEN CEMETERY BY REPLACING A FENCE THERE AT THE CEMETERY.
WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE A MOTION? YES, SIR.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ALL THOSE IS, DO YOU NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS? OR ARE YOU GONNA BRING BACK A BUDGET AMENDMENT, OR HOW ARE WE DOING THIS? THIS IS ROLL CALL.
STARTING WITH ALDERMAN KINZIE.
ANYTHING ELSE TONIGHT? UH, THAT WILL BE ALL.
UM, JUST GOT A COUPLE QUICK THINGS.
YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SCOPE OF WORK CHANGE.
UM, SPEAKING OF A RP FUNDS, I'VE, I'VE BEEN APPROACHED ABOUT SOME ROOF DAMAGE AT THE OLD, I MEAN AT THE OLD FIRE STATION, CURRENTLY THE FIREMAN MUSEUM.
[03:15:02]
ALLOCATE 3000 NOT TO EXCEED $3,000 FOR ROOF REPAIR TO THAT BUILDING.IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
LET'S HAVE A ROLL CROSS HONOR WITH ALDERMAN.
ANYTHING ELSE? THANK, THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I, I'VE HAD A CONVERSATION JUST TO BE TRANSPARENT HERE.
I'VE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ZEV ABOUT THIS, BUT I WANTED TO, I WASN'T ABLE TO GET AHOLD OF, OF YOU, UM, MR. CITY MANAGER.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE THREE LITTLE HOMES ON, IS IT JONES STREET? IS THAT THE ADDRESS OR ARE THEY WAL BELLA WAL BELLAMY DRIVE.
I MEAN, IT'S, THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETE NOW.
I WOULD BE GETTING CLOSE TO GUESSING NEAR A YEAR.
MAYBE NOT, BUT THEY'RE NOT OCCUPIED YET.
AND I'VE BUILT THOSE HOUSES FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE, UM, A HOME.
NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S, IT'S, HUD IS HOLDING THINGS UP.
YOU WANT ME TO, YOU WANT ME TO TAKE THIS ONE? SURE.
UM, IT'S THAT WHITE OFFICE RIGHT OVER THERE ON THE CORNER CALLED TWIN RIVERS OPPORTUNITIES.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT MANAGE THE VOUCHER PROGRAM FOR HUD FOR THIS AREA.
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT'S NOT GIVING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY THREE VOUCHERS SO PEOPLE CAN MOVE IN THOSE HOUSES.
WHY DO WE HAVE A CLUE? UHUH? WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS ABOUT IT.
NO, THAT'S, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I CAN TELL YOU.
I I HOPE THE PRESS PICKS UP ON THIS ONE.
SHAME ON TWIN RIVERS OPPORTUNITY TO LET THREE BRAND NEW HOMES.
I DON'T MEAN TO SHAKE MY FINGER ING THREE BRAND NEW HOMES TO SIT UNOCCUPIED FOR ALMOST A YEAR.
WELL, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ADD SOME CONTEXT TO IT, UH, TWIN RIVERS OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN, I DON'T WANNA QUOTE A NUMBER, BUT THEY WERE GIVEN A LOT OF VOUCHERS FOR PEOPLE FROM TRENT COURT THAT WERE FLOODED DURING HURRICANE FLORENCE.
VERY FEW OF THOSE VOUCHERS WERE ACTUALLY USED.
SO TWIN RIVERS OPPORTUNITIES GOT VOUCHERS BECAUSE OF THE VACANCIES AT TRENT COURT.
AND THE SAME HOUSING AUTHORITY THAT GOT THEM, THOSE VOUCHERS HAVE ASKED FOR THREE OF 'EM AND THEY REFUSED TO GIVE 'EM TO 'EM AGAIN.
I HOPE THE PRESS PICKS UP ON THIS.
FOR NOT, FOR NOT, WE BUILT HOMES TO GIVE SOMEBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A HOUSE TO LIVE IN.
YOUR HONOR, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T PAY FOR THOSE OUT OF MY A RP MONEY FOR 'EM TO SIT VACANT FOR A YEAR.
BUT THAT'S ALL I'VE GOTTA SAY.
THANK YOU FOR MR. MAYOR FOR ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.
ALDER MCKENZIE, NEW BUSINESS? NOTHING TO MY SIR.
UM, MR. CHILDS, I'M SO GLAD THAT YOU'RE STILL HERE.
AND THEY'RE INQUIRING ABOUT THE, THE ROWS OVER THERE WHEN THEY'RE GONNA GET THE NEW PHASE OF THE ROSE IS GONNA GET, UM, PAVED.
AND ALSO WHEN WOULD THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS BE PUT IN? NOW I KNOW IN THE PAST WE HAVE BEEN WORKING YOU, UH, WHEN MATT MAINTAIN WAS HERE, UM, WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS AND, UH, EVEN UM, WITH FOSTER THAT WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHEN WERE THEY GOING TO, TO, UM, PUT IN A TRAFFIC SIGNAL THERE.
NOW I SAY THAT TO SAY, YES, CAN YOU PLEASE UPDATE THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE WITHIN THE LAKE TYLER, UH, WASHINGTON POST ROAD, HIGHWAY 43, UM, AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY UPDATED INFORMATION OR WHATEVER BECAUSE YOU KNOW, IT WAS SAID, UH, BY, UM, MR. I I, I'M GONNA PRONOUNCE HIS NAME AS RUIZ OR RU OR WHATEVER HIS NAME, HOWEVER HE PRONOUNCES IT, THAT I, ALL THE WOMAN HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING I DON'T SUPPORT.
I'M NOT, UH, I DON'T SUPPORT MY CITIZENS AWARD FIVE AND I'M NOT WORKING FOR THE CITIZENS.
AND BEFORE HE, YOU KNOW, HE SHOULD HAVE HIS FACTS TOGETHER BEFORE HE OPENED HIS MOUTH AND MAKE COMMENTS LIKE THAT ABOUT ME.
SO COULD YOU UPDATE THE CITIZENS AND LET THEM KNOW THAT WE
[03:20:01]
HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS, THE CITY AND MYSELF AND YOU AND EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S INVOLVED WITH THE CITY ON THIS PROJECT? I, I CAN PROVIDE YOU, LEMME DO THIS IN TWO PARTS.SO, SO THIS WOULD BE THE COMPLETION OF THE, THE PAVING.
OVER THE LAST FOUR TO SIX WEEKS, WE HAVE HAD OUR INSPECTOR AND OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR MEET ON SITE WITH THE PAVING CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEVELOPER.
SO THE, THE PAVING CONTRACTOR WAS LOOKING AT THE STREETS THAT NEEDED THE ADDITIONAL TOP COAT THAT WAS OUR OLD STREET STANDARD WHEN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE.
AND THEY HAD WORKED UP PRICING FOR EVERYTHING NORTH OF LAKE TYLER DRIVE TO GRACIE FARMS. SO THAT WOULD BE BASICALLY ALL OF THE, ALL OF THE PHASES THAT ARE TOTALLY BUILT OUT.
WE DO NOT HAVE A DATE FOR THAT PAVING YET, IS THAT, IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE PAVING CONTRACTOR.
BUT WE'RE AT A POSITION THAT I BELIEVE WE ARE CLOSER THAN WE HAVE BEEN IN A LONG TIME TO GET, GET THESE RESIDENTS TO SOME, SOME POINT OF COMPLETION IN THAT AREA.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS THAT.
UM, AS SOON AS I KNOW OF A DATE THAT'S GIVEN TO ME BY THE DEVELOPER OF THE CONTRACTOR, I'LL C CERTAINLY SHARE THAT WITH THE BOARD.
UM, AS FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT OLIVIA IN WASHINGTON POST ROAD.
SO I JUST GOT CONFIRMATION THIS AFTERNOON, EY, DOT, THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION IN, AT THE END OF AUGUST.
AND THEY RECEIVED CONFIRMATION THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED.
NOW IT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER TOO, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT AGREEMENT REQUIRE THEM TO INSTALL THE SIGNAL AT OLIVIA AND WASHINGTON POST ROAD AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED TOWN HOMES.
SO, SO THAT AGREEMENT, UM, WAS RECEIVED TODAY BY THE LOCAL OFFICE FROM THE BOARD, SO IN RALEIGH.
SO THAT THIS IS UP TO DATE AS WE CAN BE, AND IT CERTAINLY, IF I HAVE ANY MORE UPDATES, I'LL CERTAINLY SHARE 'EM.
THAT IS GREAT NEWS AND I'M QUITE SURE THE RESIDENTS, SO THEY'LL HIGHLY APPRECIATES THAT.
OH, I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT WAS ALL.
I'M NOT GONNA COMMENT ON THAT.
UH, JUST TO COMMENT ABOUT, UH, I REALLY WISH MR. FRENCH WOULD'VE HUNG AROUND, UM, MR. FRENCH, UH, THAT SPOKE DURING PETITION OF CITIZENS TONIGHT, UM, HAS EMAILED A LOT OF PEOPLE, UM, PROBABLY DOZENS OF TIMES ABOUT HIS SITUATION WITH HIS HOME.
UM, I'M NOT SURE, UM, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE HE'S COME BEFORE THIS BOARD UNDER PETITION OF CITIZENS WITH HIS ISSUES BEFORE.
UH, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED HIM TO COME TONIGHT, BUT HIS REQUEST TO HAVE EXTRA MINUTES, UM, ANYBODY THAT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD CAN MAKE A CASE THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT SHOULD REQUIRE EXTRA MINUTES.
SO THAT'S THE REASON I VOTED NO TO ALLOW HIM THAT EXTRA TIME, EVEN THOUGH HE PROBABLY GOT AN EXTRA MINUTE AFTER, UH, HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SPEAKING.
UH, SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY UNDER NEW BUSINESS.
UH, DO WE NEED A CLOSE SESSION? YES.
CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION, PLEASE? SURE.
WHO IS IN CHARGE OF TWIN RIVERS? IT'S A, IT'S A HUD ENTITY, BUT THERE IS A BOARD THAT OPERATES THIS LOCAL CHAPTER.
ARE THEY LOCAL? YES, THEY ARE.
THE BOARD'S LOCAL? YES, THEY ARE.
DO YOU KNOW WHO THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT BOARD IS? I DO.
WOULD YOU PLEASE SEND ME THAT PHONE NUMBER? I'D BE HAPPY TO NAME PHONE NUMBER.
UH, DO WE NEED A CLOSE SESSION? WOULD, WOULD IT AN INVITATION TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVE OF TWIN RIVERS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN BE APPROPRIATE US TO EXPLAIN WHY THERE HAS BEEN SUCH A DELAY? WELL, NOT ONLY IN THAT, BUT ALL THE OTHER VOUCHERS AS WELL.
WELL, I, YEAH, I'M OPEN TO THAT.
SO THEY MIGHT NOT WANT TO COME.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO? WELL, I, I'M JUST RACING DOWN AS A POSSIBILITY.
WELL, I, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
LET 'EM, LET 'EM ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
MR. MANAGER, CAN YOU HANDLE THAT? YES, SIR.
[42. Closed Session.]
YOU.DO WE NEED A CLOSED SESSION? YES SIR.
PURSUANT TO GENERAL STATUTE 1 43 3 18, 11 A FIVE, WE NEED TO DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF REAL.
DO HAVE A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION? THAT MOVE MR. MAYOR? I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, WE ARE IN CLOSED SESSION.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADJOURN.