I thought everything is an auto-referral to PC.
From: southralcap@aol.com [mailto:southralcap@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:32 PM
To: alanwiggs@gmail.com; PWPoe@att.net
Cc: ddna@lineberry.org; rcac@eastraleigh.org
Subject: Re: [RCAC] [DDNA] Fwd: Check out http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/ga
The first item on the agenda is Z-3-10/Battle Bridge Road, then the text changes. I would guess that the text changes discussion would begin by 6:50 unless there is much opposition to Z-3-10.
Along with prohibited conditions in TC-2-10, I have major concerns that the neighborhood meeting does not specify that the CAC chair, or his/her representative, attend the neighborhood meeting. If the neighbors have had no dealings with rezoning cases prior to the neighborhood meeting, they might be taken in by promises that cannot or will not be kept - not always, but we do know that sometimes happens.
I think it will take more than my comments tonight to get TC-2-10 sent to the Planning Commission. It is my understanding that tonight the Council and PC are likely to vote to approve TC-1-10 immediately and possibly TC-2-10, too. If TC-2-10 is approved tonight, citizens will be stuck with the expanded list of prohibited zoning conditions. If that happens citizens will have very, very little say so in future rezonings.
mbp
In a message dated 1/19/2010 2:10:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, alanwiggs@gmail.com writes:
Any Idea on what time tonight?
I have a nother meeting, but I might be able to show up if it is later
on the agenda.
R,
Alan
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Philip W Poe <PWPoe@att.net> wrote:
> I don’t claim to fully understand either of these text changes; however, my
> 2 cents…
>
>
>
> TC-1: I’m still very confused about this text change. It sounds like it will
> force the PC and Council to become more accountable for their decisions,
> since compliance with standards is supposed to be the basis for decisions.
> Very concerned about equitable representation for the average citizen. Needs
> to be some serious discussion about implementation and training. The GA reg
> that requires consistency with the Comp Plan sounded like a good thing;
> however, the PC quickly learned there is no watchdog around to enforce the
> reg.
>
>
>
> TC-2: List of prohibited conditions is my biggest concern. Not sure why we
> are tinkering with prohibited uses before rewrite of code. Submittal of
> requirements and timing of changes seem advantageous.
>
>
>
> Not sure I can make it tonight. What are others thinking? Ana, can you be a
> spokesperson for the RCAC tonight?
>
>
>
> Philip W Poe
>
> PWPoe@att.net
>
> 919.832.6777 voice
>
> 919.522.1078 mobile
>
> 919.832.6775 fax
>
>
>
> From: ddna-bounces@lineberry.org [mailto:ddna-bounces@lineberry.org] On
> Behalf Of southralcap@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:25 PM
> To: ddna@lineberry.org
> Subject: [DDNA] Fwd: Check out
> http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_1...
>
>
>
> I hope some of you will come to the public hearing tonight to speak about
> TC-2-10. If TC-2-10 passes as is, it may be the beginning of the end of CUD
> cases. I don't know how you feel about CUD cases, but if CAC's can't
> negotiate with rezoning petitioners before the rezoning is approved, I
> believe that we lose control of what happens in our communities. TC-2-10
> also expands the list of prohibited zoning conditions to include:
>
> . the future sale or marketing of property
>
> . building materials
>
> . right-of-way reimbursement values
>
> . prohibitions of cross-wake access or public street connections or
> extensions
>
> . limitations on the hours of refuse collection
>
> . submittal of a traffic impact analysis
>
>
>
> Also, the way T-1-10 is written, we only can give our opinions at the
> Planning Commission meeting, not at the City Council public hearing. The
> writers of TC-1-10 had to choose between the City Council Public Hearing
> Meeting and the Planning Commission meeting as to which one would be the
> "quasi-judicial" meeting. They chose the Council meeting. That means if we
> want to state our opinions (that may or may not be factual), we cannot do so
> at the "quasi-judicial" City Council meeting, but will have to go to a 9:00
> a.m. meeting of the Planning Commission. TC-1-10 was written because of a
> bill passed in the Legislature during their last session.
>
>
>
> If you have concerns about either or both text changes, I hope you will take
> time to attend the Council meeting this evening. It begins at 6:30 p.m.
> There is only one rezoning case and these two text changes on the agenda, so
> the meeting should be rather short.
>
>
>
> Hope to see you there.
>
>
>
> Mary Belle Pate
>
> Chair, SWCAC
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RCAC mailing list
> RCAC@eastraleigh.org
> http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac
>
>
_______________________________________________
RCAC mailing list
RCAC@eastraleigh.org
http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac