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.