RCAC February 2010

rcac@eastraleigh.org

12 participants
25 discussions

citizen/RCAC input for new recycling program?

by Linda Watson

I was surprised and disappointed to see in the paper today that Raleigh will be using big new plastic recycling containers and decreasing the number of city employees (no layoffs, but a net loss of jobs). We had a presentation about recycling at a recent Glenwood CAC meeting, but I don't recall any mention of this new plan. I took a survey that a friend forwarded to me, but otherwise didn't know about the upcoming changes until seeing the article today. The survey mentioned a tax increase to pay for the new program, but the article today didn't mention one. Was the RCAC informed of this change? I know the people in the recycling department work hard and have great intentions, but I would have liked to have a more public discussion of the pros and cons of this program before seeing it approved, including RCAC notification. For example: * What is the environmental impact of throwing away the bins we already have and buying new ones? * Where will the new ones come from? A Raleigh firm would be good, a Chinese firm would be very bad. * Is it a good use of tax money to replace jobs with big plastic bins and fancy trucks? * Should we be striving to increase the volume of material recycled or to decrease the amount of overall waste? Sincerely yours, Linda Watson Glenwood CAC chair

15 years, 9 months

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT: UDO Advisory Group Meeting #3

by Philip W Poe

Date / Time: today, February 17, 4 - 6 PM Location: Urban Design Center, 133 Fayetteville Street Agenda: See attachment NOTE: A calendar of events for the UDO process is being maintained here <http://fivepointscac.org/newraleighcode/calendar> . This is the first meeting that will be dedicated to a discussion of the draft of the Diagnostic & Approach Report. The Advisory Group (AG) received its orientation at the first meeting on January 27th. At the second meeting on February 3rd, Code Studio, the lead consultant for UDO project, walked the AG through the Diagnostic & Approach Report. IMPORTANT: There are only 27 days remaining before the final draft of the Diagnostic & Approach Report is presented to the City Council. Visit http://fivepointscac.org/newraleighcode/ to get additional information. Links to important content is posted on the home page. IF I'M GOING TO REPRESENT THE CACs AND NEIGHBORHOODS, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT I GET FEEDBACK FROM YOU. The easiest way to do that is at http://fivepointscac.org/newraleighcode/ . Just register (if you haven't done that yet), click on "UDO Workspace," and start posting. Some instructions are provide on the homepage of the workspace. Philip W Poe PWPoe(a)att.net 919.832.6777 voice 919.522.1078 mobile 919.832.6775 fax

15 years, 9 months

Re: [RCAC] Fw: Comp Plan Amendment Cutoff Date

by Southralcap＠aol.com

Thank you, Paul, for keeping up with this issue and for keeping us informed. I support the request that you will present at the RCAC meeting tomorrow night. mbp In a message dated 2/16/2010 5:04:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, paulbrant(a)mindspring.com writes: CAC Chairman, FYI Paul Brant NECAC Chair _paulbrant(a)mindspring.com_ (mailto:paulbrant@mindspring.com) ----- Original Message ----- From: _Paul Brant_ (mailto:paulbrant@mindspring.com) To: _Mitchell Silver_ (mailto:mitchell.silver@ci.raleigh.nc.us) ; _Kenneth Bowers_ (mailto:Kenneth.Bowers@ci.raleigh.nc.us) Cc: _Raleigh City Mayor_ (mailto:charles.meeker@ci.raleigh.nc.us) ; _John Odom_ (mailto:john.odom@ci.raleigh.nc.us) ; _James West_ (mailto:James.West@ci.raleigh.nc.us) ; _Thomas Crowder_ (mailto:Thomas.Crowder@ci.raleigh.nc.us) ; _Nancy McFarlane_ (mailto:nancy.mcfarlane@ci.raleigh.nc.us) ; _Russ Stephenson_ (mailto:Russ.Stephenson@ci.raleigh.nc.us) ; _Mary-Ann Baldwin_ (mailto:mary-ann.baldwin@ci.raleigh.nc.us) ; _Bonner Gaylord_ (mailto:bonner.gaylord@ci.raleigh.nc.us) ; _Russell Allen_ (mailto:russell.allen@ci.raleigh.nc.us) Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:03 PM Subject: Comp Plan Amendment Cutoff Date Mitchell, At today's Council Meeting, during my Citizen Petition, you indicated April 1st was the cutoff date for submitting suggested amendments to the new Comp Plan based on the 6 month window established by the Planning Commission. This was to be from Nov 1, 2009, the date the Plan was effective. I suggested May 1, 2010 was my understanding and you corrected me by stating April 1, 2010 was the date which is really only 5 months from the effective date. I believe the correct cutoff date should be May 1, 2010 or at a minimum Friday April 30, 2010 since that is the last business day of the 6 month period.So there is no doubt as to what the date really is, I suggest you place the cutoff date and related Public Hearing date on the Planning Department's web site so the general public will clearly understand the window. Reading through the Comprehensive Plan web page there is no mention of the Amendment process or time frame; nor is there any mention of this form or process in the Comprehensive Plan itself. It seems to be a well intended plan of the Planning Commission to accommodate the public but not well communicated. I assume their intent is recorded in a set of minutes somewhere but I doubt that the average citizen is able to find that information or even knows where to look. I will ask the RCAC to make a formal request to the City to make this information, with a link to the new Amendment Form, available on the Comprehensive Plan web site so everyone can understand the opportunity not just a few closely connected and well informed professionals. Paul _paulbrant(a)mindspring.com_ (mailto:paulbrant@mindspring.com) _______________________________________________ RCAC mailing list RCAC(a)eastraleigh.org http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac

15 years, 9 months

Fw: Comp Plan Amendment Cutoff Date

by Paul Brant

CAC Chairman, FYI Paul Brant NECAC Chair paulbrant(a)mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Brant To: Mitchell Silver ; Kenneth Bowers Cc: Raleigh City Mayor ; John Odom ; James West ; Thomas Crowder ; Nancy McFarlane ; Russ Stephenson ; Mary-Ann Baldwin ; Bonner Gaylord ; Russell Allen Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:03 PM Subject: Comp Plan Amendment Cutoff Date Mitchell, At today's Council Meeting, during my Citizen Petition, you indicated April 1st was the cutoff date for submitting suggested amendments to the new Comp Plan based on the 6 month window established by the Planning Commission. This was to be from Nov 1, 2009, the date the Plan was effective. I suggested May 1, 2010 was my understanding and you corrected me by stating April 1, 2010 was the date which is really only 5 months from the effective date. I believe the correct cutoff date should be May 1, 2010 or at a minimum Friday April 30, 2010 since that is the last business day of the 6 month period.So there is no doubt as to what the date really is, I suggest you place the cutoff date and related Public Hearing date on the Planning Department's web site so the general public will clearly understand the window. Reading through the Comprehensive Plan web page there is no mention of the Amendment process or time frame; nor is there any mention of this form or process in the Comprehensive Plan itself. It seems to be a well intended plan of the Planning Commission to accommodate the public but not well communicated. I assume their intent is recorded in a set of minutes somewhere but I doubt that the average citizen is able to find that information or even knows where to look. I will ask the RCAC to make a formal request to the City to make this information, with a link to the new Amendment Form, available on the Comprehensive Plan web site so everyone can understand the opportunity not just a few closely connected and well informed professionals. Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com

15 years, 9 months

congrats to Norman Camp!

by Ana Duncan Pardo

Hi everyone, Please join me in congratulating Norm on receiving the City of Raleigh Human Relations Award! An excerpt from the award announcement...the link to the full announcement is below: "Dr. Norman C. Camp III, who leads the South Citizens Advisory Council and chairs Partners for Environmental Justice, a grassroots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Walnut Creek wetlands in southeast Raleigh. Partners for Environmental Justice worked with the City of Raleigh on constructing the new Walnut Creek Wetland Center at 950 Peterson St." http://www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_411_208_0_43/… Ana

15 years, 9 months

2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendments

by Paul Brant

CAC Chairs; There is a process for requesting amendments to the new 2030 Comprehensive Plan. I have attached the form. Apparently, the Planning Commission authorized the use of this process free of the $514 fee per amendment during the six month period following adoption of the new plan. The new 2030 Plan became effective Nov 1, 2009 so six months would be May 1, 2010. The Public Hearing date will be July 20, 2010 and the deadline for normal filing would be 4 weeks prior to the Public Hearing or approximately June 22, 2010. If you file after May 1, 2010 it is unclear if the fee will be waived. So you have any issues with the new plan it is important to fill out the form and file it with the Planning Department as soon as you can during this no charge period. Perhaps we could have Travis Crane or Ken Bowers come to our next RCAC and cover this process and how much detail they are expecting from applicants and how much assistance they can give to citizens to ensure a successful submission. Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com

15 years, 9 months

(no subject)

by Patterson, Dwayne

RCAC Members, RTN will begin archiving the RCAC meetings for streaming video beginning with this week's meeting. The process for starting a new streaming program will take a few days to set up. Once the procedure is established the posting time will significantly decrease. I will let you know when Wednesday's meeting will be available on the RTNSV site. The website address is www.raleighnc.gov/rtnsv<http://www.raleighnc.gov/rtnsv>. Also, now is a good time to for the group to review methods for conducting business within the 1½ hour timeframe allotted so that the content that you want citizens to know about is handled within the viewable time that airs live and that will be on RTNSV. I have also asked the RTN staff to share a few 'on air' tips to help make the production look more professional and engaging. I will share those when provided. The RCAC meeting will still air live on RTN 11 (unless the City Council meeting runs over its slotted time). The meeting is rebroadcast on RTN 11 on the following Sunday at 5 p.m. and Wednesday at 7 p.m. 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.”

15 years, 9 months

Re: [RCAC] Agenda for February 16, 2010 Raleigh City Council Meeting

by Paul Brant

Ralph, Would it be possible to send out a PDF version of the agenda so our citizens can use the Blue underlined web links to see the background information to agenda items rather than going to the City web site to get the agenda and useable links? The Word version does not give you that option. The PDF version would save us a step and be easier for the general public to see what background info is going to Council for the agenda. Paul Brant NECAC Chair paulbrant(a)mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Puccini, Ralph Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 8:33 AM Subject: Agenda for February 16, 2010 Raleigh City Council Meeting Please see attached. RLP Ralph L. Puccini Assistant Deputy Clerk Office of the City Clerk and Treasurer City of Raleigh P. O. Box 590 222 West Hargett Street Suite 207 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 996-3040 Fax: (919) 996-7620 E-Mail: Ralph.Puccini(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us Website: www.raleighnc.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ â?oE-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.â?

15 years, 10 months

TC-1-10 re: changes to Raleigh's site plan and subdivision process

by Ana Duncan Pardo

Hi all, Just a reminder to send your comments on TC-1-10 to Paul. The text change was heard this afternoon by the Comp Planning Committee of Council, which referred it back to the full Council with the Planning Commission's recommended changes intact. For background's sake, the Planning Commission previously recommended a 20-day appeal window instead of 30 days (30 days was the planning staff recommendation, by the way), and recommended reducing the notification requirements for adjacent property owners from 400 ft. away from the property in question to just 100 ft. The Comp Plan committee did, however, bring up the possibility of creating another body which would be responsible for holding the quasi-judicial hearings (instead of Council). This idea stayed in committee for further discussion. Having a third party to do the deliberations instead of elected officials strikes me as a very good idea--what do others think? Folks who want to comment on this need to do so before Council hears it next Tuesday. My best attempt at explaining the text change in plain language is below. Paul, my comments are as follows: My main concern about the changes is the expectation that appeals before Council will be "de novo". The text change should include some explanation as to how this will be enforced. How can the public have a reasonable expectation that councilors won't already have established opinions about a controversial case by the time it reaches Council? How will the city government ensure that Council members are not being inappropriately influenced during the appeal process? It seems wholly prudent to hand off quasi-judicial de novo hearings to another party. This is a good idea that would help avoid much of the significant potential for abuse and subsequent loss of confidence in the fairness of the hearing process. Not to mention it would keep Council from being overrun by these appeals. Also, 100 ft. doesn't seem like enough of a notification for a subdivision, and now the Comp Plan committee is recommending that the notification range for site plans also be reduced to 100 ft. Notification for both site plans and subdivision applications should be increased so more neighbors will be aware of what's happening in their neighborhood. Ana Explanation of TC-1-10 TC-1-10 amends the zoning code to comply with recently passed state legislation. TC-1-10 changes our city's rezoning process in the ways outlined below. I've tried my best to put it in plain English. 1) It changes the review process and the standards of approval for site plans and subdivisions. 2) It only applies to site plans and subdivisions, NOT rezonings 3) It defines the area of notification for adjacent property owners as 400 ft. for site plans, 100 ft. for subdivisions. (Mary Belle, I know you had comments on this.) 4) It defines the process by which a person, business or organization can appeal a decision by the Planning Commission or the city of Raleigh (with regard to site plans and subdivisions) 5) It defines the different kinds of groups and individuals who would have a right to appeal approval or denial of a site plan or subdivision as follows: - owners of the property in question - renters of the property in question - people whose properties share a covenant with the property in question - people or companies who have an option or a contract to purchase the property in question - the person or company who filed the original application regarding the property in question - people who would suffer "special damages" as a result of the decision regarding the property in question - ***associations of people who own or rent in the area where the property in question is (i.e. HOAs, neighborhood associations, merchants' associations, etc.) AS LONG AS the association wasn't formed for the purpose of submitting the appeal*** (this is where most of our efforts would fit) - the city of Raleigh can also appeal when it believes that the decision was improper 6) It lays out the process for how an appeal should be filed--basically like how you'd file an appeal in court. 7) It explains the rules for a quasi-judiciary procedure, in which City Council acts as a quasi-judicial body hearing the "case" of the appeal, as well as the rules for submission of evidence. 8) It directs the Council not to consider the decision that was made previously (what they call "de novo" proceedings) nor any other information or testimony submitted to the body who made the previous decision. The Council is supposed to start from scratch in their consideration of the site plan or subdivision petition, meaning that individuals or groups are NOT ALLOWED TO APPROACH COUNCIL ABOUT THE APPEAL before or during the time in which the appeal is being heard. 9) It states that only expert witnesses can testify about the traffic impacts or property value impacts of a proposed site plan or subdivision. Any person can testify on other subjects, and also any person from the public can cross-examine the "experts" and other witnesses. Anyone who cross-examines a witness during the hearing, though, may also be cross-examined.

15 years, 10 months

Fwd: TC-1-10 re: changes to Raleigh's site plan and subdivision process

by Ana Duncan Pardo

Paul, Please see below for comments from Hillsborough CAC secretary Gail Brock. Thanks for collecting comments! Let's touch base over the weekend to put them together for a letter to Council, per our discussion at the January meeting. Ana ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gail Brock <gbrock_dca(a)yahoo.com> Date: Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:16 PM Subject: Re: [RCAC] TC-1-10 re: changes to Raleigh's site plan and subdivision process To: Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> What kind of third party? How would members be selected? If the city could enter into interlocal agreements with neighboring cities to form appeal boards from relevant staff (planning, transportation, maybe utilities?, whatever) that would sound pretty good -- i.e., for an appeal in Raleigh, the appeal board would consist of appropriate staff from maybe Durham, Cary, Orange County (and similarly, Raleigh would agree to assigning staff to an appeal board for Durham, wherever). That way, you'd get relevant expertise and relatively little knowledge of the history or investment in the outcome. Obviously, that's just a possibility that sprang to mind. On the other hand, I worry about appointed boards that are insulated from the voters. They very often end up being captured by the deepest pockets with an interest. So if the third party was the kind of appointed board that developers could relatively easily get friendly appointments onto, I'd prefer the city council. ------------------------------ *From:* Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> *To:* RCAC <rcac(a)eastraleigh.org> *Sent:* Wed, February 10, 2010 5:17:12 PM *Subject:* [RCAC] TC-1-10 re: changes to Raleigh's site plan and subdivision process Hi all, Just a reminder to send your comments on TC-1-10 to Paul. The text change was heard this afternoon by the Comp Planning Committee of Council, which referred it back to the full Council with the Planning Commission's recommended changes intact. For background's sake, the Planning Commission previously recommended a 20-day appeal window instead of 30 days (30 days was the planning staff recommendation, by the way), and recommended reducing the notification requirements for adjacent property owners from 400 ft. away from the property in question to just 100 ft. The Comp Plan committee did, however, bring up the possibility of creating another body which would be responsible for holding the quasi-judicial hearings (instead of Council). This idea stayed in committee for further discussion. Having a third party to do the deliberations instead of elected officials strikes me as a very good idea--what do others think? Folks who want to comment on this need to do so before Council hears it next Tuesday. My best attempt at explaining the text change in plain language is below. Paul, my comments are as follows: My main concern about the changes is the expectation that appeals before Council will be "de novo". The text change should include some explanation as to how this will be enforced. How can the public have a reasonable expectation that councilors won't already have established opinions about a controversial case by the time it reaches Council? How will the city government ensure that Council members are not being inappropriately influenced during the appeal process? It seems wholly prudent to hand off quasi-judicial de novo hearings to another party. This is a good idea that would help avoid much of the significant potential for abuse and subsequent loss of confidence in the fairness of the hearing process. Not to mention it would keep Council from being overrun by these appeals. Also, 100 ft. doesn't seem like enough of a notification for a subdivision, and now the Comp Plan committee is recommending that the notification range for site plans also be reduced to 100 ft. Notification for both site plans and subdivision applications should be increased so more neighbors will be aware of what's happening in their neighborhood. Ana Explanation of TC-1-10 TC-1-10 amends the zoning code to comply with recently passed state legislation. TC-1-10 changes our city's rezoning process in the ways outlined below. I've tried my best to put it in plain English. 1) It changes the review process and the standards of approval for site plans and subdivisions. 2) It only applies to site plans and subdivisions, NOT rezonings 3) It defines the area of notification for adjacent property owners as 400 ft. for site plans, 100 ft. for subdivisions. (Mary Belle, I know you had comments on this.) 4) It defines the process by which a person, business or organization can appeal a decision by the Planning Commission or the city of Raleigh (with regard to site plans and subdivisions) 5) It defines the different kinds of groups and individuals who would have a right to appeal approval or denial of a site plan or subdivision as follows: - owners of the property in question - renters of the property in question - people whose properties share a covenant with the property in question - people or companies who have an option or a contract to purchase the property in question - the person or company who filed the original application regarding the property in question - people who would suffer "special damages" as a result of the decision regarding the property in question - ***associations of people who own or rent in the area where the property in question is (i.e. HOAs, neighborhood associations, merchants' associations, etc.) AS LONG AS the association wasn't formed for the purpose of submitting the appeal*** (this is where most of our efforts would fit) - the city of Raleigh can also appeal when it believes that the decision was improper 6) It lays out the process for how an appeal should be filed--basically like how you'd file an appeal in court. 7) It explains the rules for a quasi-judiciary procedure, in which City Council acts as a quasi-judicial body hearing the "case" of the appeal, as well as the rules for submission of evidence. 8) It directs the Council not to consider the decision that was made previously (what they call "de novo" proceedings) nor any other information or testimony submitted to the body who made the previous decision. The Council is supposed to start from scratch in their consideration of the site plan or subdivision petition, meaning that individuals or groups are NOT ALLOWED TO APPROACH COUNCIL ABOUT THE APPEAL before or during the time in which the appeal is being heard. 9) It states that only expert witnesses can testify about the traffic impacts or property value impacts of a proposed site plan or subdivision. Any person can testify on other subjects, and also any person from the public can cross-examine the "experts" and other witnesses. Anyone who cross-examines a witness during the hearing, though, may also be cross-examined.

15 years, 10 months

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

RCAC February 2010