RCAC November 2009

rcac@eastraleigh.org

11 participants
17 discussions

by Ana Duncan Pardo

Hi everyone, Please see below for the agenda for the regular November meeting. Also, please note that we'll be having a pre-meeting workshop at 5:30 p.m. upstairs in Room 303 of the Avery C. Upchurch Municipal Complex (city hall) to review recommendations from the 2009 RCAC Retreat. I've attached the following documents for your reading pleasure prior to the workshop: - Notes from the retreat - An interesting spreadsheet on various CAC chairs' reasons for becoming involved in the CACs - A full-page listing of chairs' ideas for increasing the success and effectiveness of the CACs and the RCAC I hope by now everyone has ordered their boxed dinner from Debbie < debbie.puckett(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us>, but if you haven't, please do so first thing Tuesday. See you all on Wednesday! Ana Duncan Pardo Chair, Hillsborough CAC Chair, RCAC (919) 818-5933 RCAC NOVEMBER AGENDA 11/18/2009 - Council Chamber Welcome & Introductions (5 min.) Minutes (5 min.) Elections (10 min.) Presentation from the Wake County Census Bureau re: 2010 Census (10 min.) Presentation from Planning re: how to use the new Comp Plan (30 min.) Q & A with Planning (20 min.) Roundtable: what's new in your district? (20 min.) Discuss arrangements for Holiday Social (10 min.) New Business (10 min.) Adjournment

15 years, 12 months

Re: [RCAC] RCAC presentation by Ken Bowers

by Paul Brant

Ken, Thanks for the references and clarification and yes Thanksgiving was good. My concern for the impact of the Guides on some of the Overlay Districts stems from the term "prescriptive" which by definition carries more weight than mere suggestion. The term prescriptive means "establishing or adhering to rules and regulations". That being the case it seems the Comprehensive Plan Policies that are prescriptive are framed as mandates but currently only the Code is a legally established mandate. Therefore I assume from your clarification that a case which is Code compliant would not be denied because it fails to implement one of the prescriptive policies of the Comprehensive Plan. That being said, it appears from the Quick Guide that the case would likely be deemed inconsistent with the policies and therefore most likely be denied solely on that basis. That seems to suggest that the Comprehensive Plan prescriptive policies carry more weight than the actual Code even though you suggest the code standard would control. Somehow, that statement "the code standard would control" does not reflect a recent analysis from the Planning Department that claimed our NCOD case TC-3-09 was inconsistent with the Plan policies even though it now meets all the current Zoning Code and Overlay District requirements. Are you suggesting then that while a case might meet all the Code requirements it should be denied on the basis that it is inconsistent with the Comp Plan Policies? That seems to put significantly more weight behind the Comp Plan than you suggest in your response. I believe NCODs and HODs are supposed to be judged differently as indicated in City Code 10-2011 (b) below. "(b) Enumeration and Descriptions of Zoning Districts. There are three types of zoning districts: General use districts are those in which a variety of uses are permitted; Conditional use districts are those in which limited uses are permitted and other regulations are imposed; Overlay districts are those which overlap one or more general and/or conditional use districts. Overlay districts involve additional regulations on some or all property within underlying general and/or conditional use districts." Likewise 10-2054 (e) 4 states; "The regulations contained in §10-2054(g) for the specific adopted Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District zoning may contain standards which are more stringent or less stringent than the underlying district; in the event of any conflict, the regulations contained in §10-2054(g) for the specific adopted Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District zoning shall control." Having reviewed all of the existing NCODs currently codified in the Raleigh City Code I find many instances where several of the existing Neighborhood Built Environmental Characteristics and Regulations for these NCODs establish minimums and maximums that differ from their underlying zoning district and often overlap the regulated minimums and maximums of more than one general and or conditional use district as the NCOD regulations permit. In fact the NCOD creates its own unique set of minimums and maximums based on the as built environmental characteristics of the neighborhood studied, which by their very nature are not likely to fit any one underlying district's regulations. By forcing an NCOD to fit a particular zoning districts minimums and maximums through the new Comprehensive Plans Land Use designation and Policies you are undermining the well established and codified norm for NCODs. How then will the guidelines for analysis of a NCOD Text Change and subsequent rezoning case be done? The current Quick Guides for evaluating Zoning Map Amendments and Preliminary Development Plans against the new Comprehensive Plan, you provided to us at the RCAC meeting, do not consider the allowable deviations of an NCOD from the specific requirements of its underlying zone. Therefore the Planning Department's analysis will most likely find that the NCOD Text Change and future rezoning case is inconsistent with the Land Use guidelines and prescriptive policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. That in fact has been our experience as TC-3-09 NCOD for Holly Ridge Farms was evaluated and reported to Council by the Planning Department concerning its inconsistency with the new Comp Plan Land Use and Policies. As I see it, no NCOD or Historic Overlay Districts will ever be approved since it will almost always differ from the specific requirements of the underlying zoning district acknowledged by the Plan for that area and probably violates at least one prescriptive policy for which it will be deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and mostly likely be the basis for denial by the Planning Commission and/or Council. That is why I am concerned that your recently published Quick Guides place an unjustified burden on Overlay District requests to fit the strict intentions of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Policies when there are no such requirements demanded within the City Zoning Code for Overlay Districts. In fact the Overlay District is viewed as a higher order set of regulations than most as stated in 10-2012 (l) as follows: "(l) General use districts and conditional use districts with one or more overlay districts shall be higher in classification than corresponding districts without overlay districts." I believe Overlay Districts such as an NCOD and HOD are special cases and the guidelines need to reflect an appropriate method for evaluating them. Otherwise you are defeating the whole principal on which these Overlay Districts were established. That is, to determine the as built environmental characteristics of the neighborhood and establish a unique set of regulations that will preserve and protect that environment (in spite of its deviation from the underlying zoning district) based on the will of the majority of property owners in the designated NCOD area. If that intent is to be protected then the new Comprehensive Plan and its Guides for evaluating these applications needs to reflect that unique overarching principal. To date that is not the case or our experience with the first NCOD evaluated under the new Plan. So, all that to say, I would definitely like to see the current Guides revised to better reflect the uniqueness of Overlay Districts such as NCODs and HODs, and the the Guides ultimately Codified or become part of the Comprehensive Plan so they are not changed without public comment or debate. This would provide some stability in the process rather than leave them open to administrative revision without debate. Since these are critical documents influencing important land use and rezoning case decisions it would give a measure of confidence to applicants and citizens that the basis for evaluation is firmly established. Thanks for your time and attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bowers, Kenneth" <Kenneth.Bowers(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us> To: "Paul Brant" <paulbrant(a)mindspring.com>; "Silver, Mitchell" <Mitchell.Silver(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us> Cc: "RCAC" <rcac(a)eastraleigh.org> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 10:29 AM Subject: RE: RCAC presentation by Ken Bowers. Paul, The terms "guiding" and "prescriptive" policies do not appear in the Plan, but the concept they describe is taken straight from Section 1.2 of the document. Here's the relevant passage, quoted verbatim: "Based on the specifics on a particular policy, it may apply exclusively to City actions, or it may set forth an expectation regarding private sector activities. The former policies are typically worded as an ongoing aspiration or intent, using active words such as "encourage", "promote", and "provide". The latter such policies are typically worded as a statement expressing a desired state or outcome, utilizing the word "should" to distinguish the policy statements in the Plan from the legal requirements found in the City's codes, where the word "shall" is the norm. In any specific case where the application of a Comprehensive Plan policy conflicts with a use, height, or density standard in the zoning and development code, the code standard will control." When we were developing the Quick Guides, we were looking for a shorthand method of referring to the concept embodied in the above paragraph. Referring to the "shoulds" as prescriptive policies, and the remainder as guiding policies, seemed to be a useful rhetorical device. However, it has no adopted policy implications beyond the language quoted above. Whether or not to introduce this shorthand description into the text of the plan is something that could be considered as part of the next update. Let me assure you, however, that how policies were written during the drafting of the Plan was done mindful of how those policies should be applied. Note that Section 1.2 of the Comp Plan has a footnote that reads as follows: "The City has available a stand-alone guide highlighting those policies most relevant to rezoning petitions and preliminary development applications." The Policy Guide referenced in the Quick Guides is that document. The words "Effective November 1" refer to the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan. The Quick Guides are only intended to provide guidance to the public--they do not substitute for the Comprehensive Plan, and any conflict between the two would be resolved in favor of the Plan. I am unclear what statements in the Quick Guides would serve to diminish the ability of citizens to apply for overlay zoning. The Comp Plan has several policies promoting the use of NCODs and HODs. Regardless, the Quick Guides are informational documents, and not policy documents. Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving. --Ken Ken A. Bowers, AICP Deputy Director Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 304 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2633 fax 516-2684 kenneth.bowers(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us www.planningraleigh2030.com ________________________________________ From: Paul Brant [paulbrant(a)mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:02 PM To: Bowers, Kenneth; Silver, Mitchell Cc: RCAC Subject: RCAC presentation by Ken Bowers. Ken & Mitchell, At the RCAC meeting November 18th you provided information about two Quick Guides for Rezoning Petitions and Preliminary Development Plans. In the information are statements that the new "Comprehensive Plan draws the distinction between "guiding" policies, intended to guide City decisions; and "prescriptive" policies, which are intended to influence private sector actions and are typically worded as "should" statements." As the complete plan is available on the web site in PDF form I did a word search on those two terms and found 0 references to prescriptive policies and only 4 references to "guiding" related to policies. Am I missing something? If this evaluation process is so fundamental to the Plan and Code why is there no mention of these terms in the Plan document. I also notice that the date on the handout says "Effective November 1, 2009. Was this ever brought forward to Council as a City Policy recommendation? Will the new Comprehensive Plan be amended to capture this rezoning case and development plan evaluation policy and in so doing provide a forum for public input to the process similar to a Text Change? It seems to me that several of the statements in the Quick Guides will significantly diminish the ability of citizens to apply Overlay District Zoning be it Historic or Neighborhood Conservation since by intent these overlay districts are most likely to be more restrictive than the underlying zoning districts within a land use category. Your guide would suggest that since such Overlay Districts would differ from the intended future land use they would be considered inconsistent with the Plan and recommended for denial. How will you reconcile these differing objectives? Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com<mailto:paulbrant@mindspring.com> "E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized City or Law Enforcement official."

16 years

CAC Leader List

by Patterson, Dwayne

RCAC Members, Please find an updated list of CAC leaders. The list will be updated next week as Mordecai is having their elections. Please review and notify me if there are revisions. Thanks. Serving with Excellence, Dwayne C. Patterson Neighborhood Services Supervisor Community Services Department 919.996.5710 Website: Community Services Homepage<http://www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_306_204_0_43/…> “E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized City or Law Enforcement official.”

16 years

Fwd: Zoning code update advisory group--finalizing CAC leader participants

by Ana Duncan Pardo

Please see Lonnette Williams' message below. ADP ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Frances Williams <flonnettewms(a)bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [RCAC] Zoning code update advisory group--finalizing CAC leader participants To: Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> Hi, My choices are Phil Poe, Mark Turner and Paul Brant to represent the RCAC on this task force. I had not seen Danny's when I first responded; it remains the first three who volunteered . Lonnette --- On *Mon, 11/30/09, Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com>* wrote: From: Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RCAC] Zoning code update advisory group--finalizing CAC leader participants To: "Frances Williams" <flonnettewms(a)bellsouth.net> Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 3:15 PM Lonnette, Thanks for weighing in. Which three? Can you post your preference to the group? Ana On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Frances Williams < flonnettewms(a)bellsouth.net<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=flonnettewms@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > Hi, > I am good with those three representing the RCAC. > > Lonnette > > > --- On *Mon, 11/30/09, Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=acpardo@gmail.com> > >* wrote: > > > From: Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=acpardo@gmail.com> > > > Subject: [RCAC] Zoning code update advisory group--finalizing CAC leader > participants > To: "RCAC" <rcac(a)eastraleigh.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rcac@eastraleigh.org> > > > Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 12:06 PM > > Hi folks, > > Per our discussion at the November RCAC meeting, I'm writing to follow > up about our participation in the Unified Development Ordinance > advisory group. This group will be made up of different types of > stakeholders in the development process, and will give input on the > re-working of the city's zoning codes. > > There are three seats available for CAC leaders. So far Paul Brant, > Phil Poe and Mark Turner have expressed an interest in participating. > We need to confirm our representatives and then I'll send a message to > Planning and Council to let them know who will be representing us. > > Paul, Phil and Mark - can you confirm that you are willing to > participate on behalf of the RCAC? Is anyone else interested in > participating? It's up to us to agree on who we want to act as our > representatives, and anyone can step up. You don't need to be an > expert, either--the city will be providing in-depth training to the > advisory group members so that everyone will be on the same page. > > If you're already expressed an interest in representing the RCAC in > this group, please confirm. If you're newly interested, please let me > know by responding to this e-mail. As soon as we've confirmed our > picks, I'll notify the appropriate folks in city government. > > Thanks, > > Ana Duncan Pardo > Chair, Hillsborough and Raleigh CAC > (919) 818-5933 > _______________________________________________ > RCAC mailing list > RCAC(a)eastraleigh.org<http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=RCAC@eastraleigh.org> > http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac > >

16 years

Fwd: Zoning code update advisory group--finalizing CAC leaderparticipants

by Ana Duncan Pardo

Danny Coleman has also expressed his interest in participating...see below. Ana ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <buildcon(a)bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [RCAC] Zoning code update advisory group--finalizing CAC leaderparticipants To: Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> I want to work w-that group pls Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:06:57 To: RCAC<rcac(a)eastraleigh.org> Subject: [RCAC] Zoning code update advisory group--finalizing CAC leader participants Hi folks, Per our discussion at the November RCAC meeting, I'm writing to follow up about our participation in the Unified Development Ordinance advisory group. This group will be made up of different types of stakeholders in the development process, and will give input on the re-working of the city's zoning codes. There are three seats available for CAC leaders. So far Paul Brant, Phil Poe and Mark Turner have expressed an interest in participating. We need to confirm our representatives and then I'll send a message to Planning and Council to let them know who will be representing us. Paul, Phil and Mark - can you confirm that you are willing to participate on behalf of the RCAC? Is anyone else interested in participating? It's up to us to agree on who we want to act as our representatives, and anyone can step up. You don't need to be an expert, either--the city will be providing in-depth training to the advisory group members so that everyone will be on the same page. If you're already expressed an interest in representing the RCAC in this group, please confirm. If you're newly interested, please let me know by responding to this e-mail. As soon as we've confirmed our picks, I'll notify the appropriate folks in city government. Thanks, Ana Duncan Pardo Chair, Hillsborough and Raleigh CAC (919) 818-5933 _______________________________________________ RCAC mailing list RCAC(a)eastraleigh.org http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac

16 years

Fwd: UDO advisory group - RCAC participation

by Ana Duncan Pardo

Hi again everyone, Please see below for more info from Planning Dept. Director Mitch Silver on time commitments and a rough meeting schedule for participants in the zoning code update advisory group. Looks like a minimum of 7 meetings between now and January 2011, with a total of 14-28 hours of time over 13 months. In a follow-up e-mail Mitch also explained that the group will agree on a meeting time, and that meetings will most likely be scheduled during evenings, after business hours. So, those are the commitments. I hope that's enough information for folks to determine whether or not they would like to represent us to the group. We need to agree on how the CAC representatives will carry forward the concerns of other CAC leaders in this process, and also how they'll make sure that the CACs are kept informed of how the code rewrite may affect us. As Phil Poe has pointed out, we want to ensure that the communication is more timely and thorough than it was during the Comp Planning process. Ana ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Silver, Mitchell <Mitchell.Silver(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us> Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:12 PM Subject: RE: UDO advisory group - RCAC participation To: Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> Ana, The Advisory Group will be convened at least seven times between December 2009 and January 2011. However, more meetings may be needed to allow the Advisory Group time to review and offer comments on key elements of the UDO. Key milestones for Advisory Group to meet include (tentative): - Orientation, Review Scope of Work (1 meeting) - Diagnostic Report (1 meeting) - Confirmation of Direction (1 meeting) - Draft Modules and Form Based Code Testing (2 meetings) - Public Review Draft (2 meetings) Each meeting may take up to 2 hours each. Also, the Advisory members should review material in advance. So I would estimate about 14 to 28 hours over 13 months. Mitchell Silver, PP, AICP Director, Department of City Planning & Urban Design Center One Exchange Plaza, PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919.516.2625 phone 919.516.2684 fax e-mail: mitchell.silver(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us Department: www.raleighnc.gov/planning Comprehensive Plan: www.planningraleigh2030.com Zoning Code: www.NewRaleighCode.com -----Original Message----- From: Ana Duncan Pardo [mailto:acpardo@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 12:58 PM To: Silver, Mitchell Subject: UDO advisory group - RCAC participation Mitch, I hope you had a restful holiday. I'm writing to ask about requirements for participants in the UDO advisory group. The RCAC is very excited to have three seats in the group. Currently we're trying to sort out who will represent us, and the question of the day is: what's the time commitment? Can you give me a sense of what the workload will be for advisory group participants, or direct me to a more appropriate person to ask? Thanks! Ana Duncan Pardo Chair, Raleigh Citizens' Advisory Council (919) 818-5933 “E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized City or Law Enforcement official.”

16 years

Zoning code update advisory group--finalizing CAC leader participants

by Ana Duncan Pardo

Hi folks, Per our discussion at the November RCAC meeting, I'm writing to follow up about our participation in the Unified Development Ordinance advisory group. This group will be made up of different types of stakeholders in the development process, and will give input on the re-working of the city's zoning codes. There are three seats available for CAC leaders. So far Paul Brant, Phil Poe and Mark Turner have expressed an interest in participating. We need to confirm our representatives and then I'll send a message to Planning and Council to let them know who will be representing us. Paul, Phil and Mark - can you confirm that you are willing to participate on behalf of the RCAC? Is anyone else interested in participating? It's up to us to agree on who we want to act as our representatives, and anyone can step up. You don't need to be an expert, either--the city will be providing in-depth training to the advisory group members so that everyone will be on the same page. If you're already expressed an interest in representing the RCAC in this group, please confirm. If you're newly interested, please let me know by responding to this e-mail. As soon as we've confirmed our picks, I'll notify the appropriate folks in city government. Thanks, Ana Duncan Pardo Chair, Hillsborough and Raleigh CAC (919) 818-5933

16 years

Council Meeting next Tuesday-Unified Development Ordinance

by Paul Brant

Ana, I notice that the makeup of the Task Force to participate in the Unified Development Ordinance advisory group is up for discussion at the Tuesday Council Meeting. I don't know what decisions will be made but the sooner we (RCAC) identify the 3 CAC member the better. Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com

16 years

RCAC presentation by Ken Bowers.

by Paul Brant

Ken & Mitchell, At the RCAC meeting November 18th you provided information about two Quick Guides for Rezoning Petitions and Preliminary Development Plans. In the information are statements that the new "Comprehensive Plan draws the distinction between "guiding" policies, intended to guide City decisions; and "prescriptive" policies, which are intended to influence private sector actions and are typically worded as "should" statements." As the complete plan is available on the web site in PDF form I did a word search on those two terms and found 0 references to prescriptive policies and only 4 references to "guiding" related to policies. Am I missing something? If this evaluation process is so fundamental to the Plan and Code why is there no mention of these terms in the Plan document. I also notice that the date on the handout says "Effective November 1, 2009. Was this ever brought forward to Council as a City Policy recommendation? Will the new Comprehensive Plan be amended to capture this rezoning case and development plan evaluation policy and in so doing provide a forum for public input to the process similar to a Text Change? It seems to me that several of the statements in the Quick Guides will significantly diminish the ability of citizens to apply Overlay District Zoning be it Historic or Neighborhood Conservation since by intent these overlay districts are most likely to be more restrictive than the underlying zoning districts within a land use category. Your guide would suggest that since such Overlay Districts would differ from the intended future land use they would be considered inconsistent with the Plan and recommended for denial. How will you reconcile these differing objectives? Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com

16 years

Please Join us for our 2009 Holiday Party Friday, Dec. 4

by Bill Padgett

Folks, Sorry if you might get this twice but there are folks on the RCAC email list that I do not have on our Annual Holiday gathering list and I do want to extend an invitation to each and everyone. (Besides if you get this twice, reading it once is all that is required. ;-) ) Hope you will be able to join us! Bill PS Yes this time I did mean to send this email out to everyone! ================ We would love to have you join us, Bett & Bill @ our Annual Holiday Party (always first Friday in December & always you are invited) Friday, Dec. 4th, 2009 5:00 to 10:00 1213 Dixie Trial <mailto:Bett@BettPadgett.com> Bett(a)BettPadgett.com & <mailto:Bill@BillPadgett.com> Bill(a)BillPadgett.com 787-6378 (RSVP if possible) Friends, Please join us for our annual Holiday Gathering on Friday, December 4th, 5 PM - 10 PM. This may well be our LAST LEGAL Holiday Gathering see end of this message as you will find this very interesting. Our Holiday Affair is one where many of our friends and colleagues (technology, music, environmental, political and neighbors) get together and enjoy good food, company and holiday singing and music. We invite you to romp around the house and grounds and have pizza and other things to nibble on, sodas, cider, beer and wine. If you would like to contribute dishes, desserts, appetizers, or your favorite beverage, etc. please feel free to do so. We welcome the variety! It is helpful that if you plan to bring something to share Thank YOU! Also please try to RSVP if you are planning to come since it is very helpful for us to plan for the evening and the food, but please come whether you remember to RSVP or not. PLEASE EXTEND THIS INVITATION TO YOUR SPOUCE, FRIEND, PARTNER, KIDS, PARENTS AND CLOSE NEIGHBORS and PALS! The festivities begin at ~5 PM ...Anytime right after work, but we go on into the evening. *********** There is always a little something special under the tree for the little ones ********** *********** Hopefully Some Special Entertainment ~6:30 ********** *********** SINGING BEGINS AT ~ 7:30! ************* MOST IMPORTANT: We celebrate ten years of happiness at Little Lake Hill, the name of the house and grounds given by Nancy and John Ferguson in 1932. We are grateful for the success of a wonderful house concert series and that we have been able to share of our home with many organizations and events and friends who have helped in making all of these gatherings so special and have become part of continuing spirit of Little Lake Hill. This gathering is SO MUCH FUN and hopefully will start you holiday season with the singing with kids joining in on an array of instruments and everyone running around the house, inside and out. 1213 Dixie Trail is the first house on the left north of Wade Avenue. Parking is available on both sides of Dixie Trail after 6 PM, but you will probably be safe if you park on the street a little before that time. If you need special access or are carrying in food, you may park along the horseshoe driveway on the grassy areas, but be careful not to block anyone in and keep the carport free for passage. Looking forward to seeing you on the 4th! Please let us hear from you! Bill and Bett Some of you are aware that the City of Raleighs Inspections and Zoning department has cited us for having gatherings in this case house concerts - in our home, charging us with operating a prima facia business. We were more saddened to learn that our citation is due to an anonymous person who only stated they thought we were in violation of the citys zoning code. This was not a nuisance complaint it did not concern noise, parking, etc. in fact in our nearly 10 years of having about 9 house concerts each year, there have not been any complaints of parking or disturbance and our concerts end well before 11 PM I may add! As a matter of fact, many of our neighbors attend the concerts and are happy that they are close enough that they can WALK! Also we have talked with all of our contiguous neighbors and they are unanimous in support of our community and art gatherings and they will be writing letters of support that they will have to have notarized! We have never profited from any event in our home of course we have raised money for charities, artists, and even politicians by asking for donations at many of our events so if we are a business we are not real good at it. ;-) Just for the record, we do carry a business license for Betts Music Studio located at 1213 Dixie Trail for 30 years where music is taught guitar, rhythm, song writing, performance and bringing in artists that mentor and demonstrate the skills of that business. We feel that the interpretation of the zoning code of Raleigh is in conflict as to how we want to use our home. As long as it is not illegal nor a disturbance or detriment to the neighborhood (we have laws for that) how we use our homes and the nature of our gatherings in our homes should be determined by us. So we have hired an attorney and are making an appeal to the Board of Adjustments asking for an interpretation of the code which states that we are in violation of the law because we have more than three (3) events per calendar year. Event has been defined for us on several occasions by Inspections as any gathering of people i.e. Bible Study, Garden Club, Book Club, Political Meet and Greet, Boy or Girl Scouts, 501 3C board meeting, Community meeting as well as House Concerts and even birthday parties so we assume also our HOLIDAY CELEBRATION. In conversations with the inspections staff, they have used the terms, Regular Basis, which would imply a scheduled event, such as our first Friday in December or Bills monthly Dix306 board meetings. Whatever our code interprets as an event, households in Raleigh are allowed to have only three events in any calendar year. Many of you may be in violation as well, and note that anyone for whatever reason can make your life interesting - anonymously ;-) by reporting you. We hope that the city will review their interpretation of events and will allow that more than three (3) can take place as long as there is a consensus especially when the gatherings are a benefit to the community and have no negative impact on the neighborhood. If they do not agree to a text change, we may appeal to higher courts based on issues like freedom of speech and freedom to gather, depending upon the cost. (For the record, you may have three (3) events up to 24 hours each or one (1) temporary event up to 20 days we are guessing that the 20 days is included so that all the homes & yards around the Fair Grounds can become a parking lot for the weeks of the fair.) For 9 ½ years many of you have joined us for good music, community building and fellowship. Some of you have come to nearly every house concert and appreciate that we open our home to you. If you have indeed enjoyed the musical experience & education at Little Lake Hill House concerts, or if you value that ones home is not just a place where you eat and sleep but also can be enjoyed shared with friends and others more than three times a year, there IS a way you can help. Letters can be written to the Citys BOA (Board of Adjustment) affirming the benefit to the community of the house concerts. These letters must be notarized to have standing. We hope that if one of you is a Notary you will consider coming to the party and help us notarizing letters. If you are a notary (or know of one), please contact us at 919-787-6378 or email Bett at bett(a)bettpadgett.com. We will have a station in our house where letters can be notarized and we will take them to the Board of Adjustment hearing when we meet with them, probably on December 14th. We may have a petition for you to sign, or a list you can sign up to get more information as we go further with this process. We are sad to bring you this news at such a joyous time of year, but friends stick together, and we hope you will help us make it legal for all of us not to be limited by three (3) events in their homes each year! Thanks & we hope everyone has a wonderful and safe Holiday Season & we hope to see you on the 4th! Bill & Bett

16 years

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

RCAC November 2009