Public Hearings
The Council meeting opened with three public hearings regarding zoning ordinance changes. The first zoning ordinance change was a perfunctory exercise for the Council. Mr. Zollicoffer explained that the changes had been written and approved by the General Assembly in Raleigh and signed into law by the Governor. The Council’s options where to approve or reject the changes in whole. The Council approved the “government mandated” zoning ordinance changes. The second zoning ordinance change waived the fee charged not-for-profit organizations applying for a permit to a build handicap ramp. According to Ms. Dunston’s research, implementation of this change will cost the city $1,150 over the next three years based on past three years building permits for such ramps. Approval of the zoning code allows an organization such as, Rebuilding Hope or Baptist Men, to build a ramp to city building code for a homeowner who is financially and physically challenged. After swallowing that bitter pill of a “government mandated” we can feel good about helping someone in need. Before moving on to the meat and potatoes of the night’s three zoning ordinances changes take note the public was silent neither favoring nor opposing the first two ordinance changes. (Audio timestamp 11:18 – 20:47
As suspected during the March 24, or as Mr. Griffin prefers 24 March 2014, Council meeting this third zoning change is to allow building of more government subsidized housing. In all fairness this first phase of a yet undisclosed second and third phase is intended to provide government subsidized housing for elderly who are financially and possibly physically challenged. Definition of elderly is someone over 55. Depending on where you look 50 is the new 40 or the new 30. That’s old age? The out of the county developer Andy Rosen includes a suitable for framing architectural rendering of the proposed 48 unit complex in his presentation. The source of his population projections was left stated or questioned. The property owner selling this small portion of his estate stayed in Florida in his stead was the realtor, Donald Mathews. Mr. Mathews explained the virtues of this zoning change and subsequent project. Adding the owner wants the best for the community. Apparently government subsidized housing is the best for the community. Mr. Gene Mathews a resident in the neighborhood spoke in opposition to the project. He had two points first the project changes the nature and look of the community. Second, issues with the Sandy Creek waste water lift station’s capacity and effectiveness. Some members of the Council participated in a limited discussion regarding the pre-ordained approval. Most notable was the Council’s ignoring of Mr. Mathews’ objection to a change in the nature of the community. Instead the four council members using government ostrich think were resolute in a big hope that a grant (taxpayers’ money) will arrive just in time to provide the financial means for solving the sewer issue. The Council voted unanimously to change the zoning code allowing the project to move forward increasing government subsidized housing and forever changing the nature and look of a community. (Audio time stamp 20:48 – 56:21
New Business
There were five topics in the New Business meeting segment. Of the five topics one was pulled for re-write. The Off Premise Advertisement Sign Ordinance includes an exemption for off-premise signs for government sponsored programs. Defining the appropriate size, duration, and what constitutes a government sponsored program is as difficult as defining free speech. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
Before the Council could conclude New Business and move onto Consent Agenda council member Michael Insoce interjected a discussion on the Intergovernmental Committee regarding parks and recreation. Mr. Insoce’s concern is funding and liability of parks jointly owned by the county and city. Mr. Inscoe stated that for fiscal year 2013 – 2014 the total budget for parks and recreation is $1,239,000, which is shared by the city and county using a 55% – 45% ratio. Mr. Insoce pointed out the city residence are also county residence and suggested shifting the ration for the 2014 – 2015 fiscal year to 45% city and 55% for the county. Then in subsequent years increase the county’s percentage and lower the city’s. Ms. Coffey and Mr. Kearny appeared to agree with Mr. Insoce’s suggestion. All recognizing that both the city and county governments will begin the annual budget review process starting in May and continuing through June. (Audio time stamp 1:16:00 – 1:34:00)
Reports
Mr. Griffin informed the Council he had received a letter from Commissioner Chairwoman Brown in response to the Council’s question regarding the Intergovernmental Committee. Mr. Griffin will advise the Council as to the content of Chairwoman Brown’s letter at the next Council meeting. If you recall the some members of the Board of Commissioners were not pleased with the City Council’s question regarding reactivating the Intergovernmental Committee.
Note: an apology for the poor quality of the recording. The person responsible for checking the recording equipment did not check the little chromium dial indicating low volume recording instead of high volume.
Editors Note: I’ll check the audio recording and try to increase the volume, this has not yet been posted yet.