1:00 P.M., TUESDAY / JUNE 17, 2008 / THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
. . .
D. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
(THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WERE TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR JUNE 10, 2008 MEETING,
BY UNANIMOUS VOTE)
4. TC-4-08 - Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
This text change proposes to amend the Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations by revising the process for individual neighborhoods proposing to establish zoning and lot size regulations specific to their neighborhood. The ordinance proposes to eliminate the lengthy Comprehensive Plan element (creation and adoption of a Neighborhood Plan) from the process and replace this with a neighborhood built environmental characteristics analysis. Additionally, the ordinance proposes to include within the Zoning Code the previously adopted and future built environmental regulations specific to the individual neighborhoods.
CR-11209 from the Planning Commission recommends that this text change be approved, as revised.
We have come a long way baby, but the pushback has begun.
In an effort to avoid what many perceive as a slippery slope, the heat is on to increase the slipperiness of the entrance ramp to this process.
According to those who covered the negotiations in the Planning Commission, Text Change Committee of the Planning Commission, and Committee of the Whole of the Planning Commission (moi included), there was a high degree of misunderstanding of the NCOD process; some did not understand that this was city policy before the increase in re-development activity (that was matched by a hold on this tool for the neighborhoods). This belief is supported by the idea that the town will-dry up if we allow pesky residents any tools, and some felt that allowing this would be a sweeping change.
Somewhere - sometime - somehow - the following issues became a major concern: number of notifications (beyond the original one inviting the neighbors to a public meeting to disuss), who pays for the notifications (beyond what the fee already was required to cover), what is a majority (beyond how we define a majority currently), how to count landowners (more if by land or once if by person).
The COW voted to recommend adoption of TC-4-08 with the following changes:
- Notification of all property owners when NCOD application is approved by City Council for study by the Planning Department.
- Require property owner list with initial NCOD application. This is similar to requirement for a rezoning petition.
- Require NCOD applicant to pay for/process additional initial mailing. It was not clear if the COW was recommending that the applicant also be responsible for the notification of the neighborhood meeting.
The COW also included in its motion that the following be considered separately from the current NCOD TC. Only changes in the existing NCOD TC can be considered at this time.
- Consider future Text Change to increase majority for NCOD rezoning - 60%. 66.7%, 75%, etc.- to protect "property rights."
- Consider future Text Change to increase number of signatures (beyond the 3 now proposed) required for submittal of NCOD application.
- Consider future Text Change to make the requirement for NCOD zoning petition to be majority of owners of property (area) not parcels.
- Consider future Text Change to remove requirement that building permits on property with a pending zoning change meet both the existing and proposed zone requirements.
Because we're growing,we can truly be selective about what development we allow. We ask, does this project really have the long-term potential to enhance the quality of life?
--Debra Campbell, Planning Director for the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
How about it Raleigh? Can we do this the right way, where everyone's rights are protected?