New subject: TC-1-10 re: changes to Raleigh's site plan and subdivisionprocess

10 Feb 2010

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.

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