You’d expect a room full of developers, developer consultants and lobbyists invited specifically to bellyache Tuesday afternoon about Charlotte’s zoning ordinance would have had plenty to say. And they did have comments. But it was the group who followed them, about two dozen neighborhood activists and non-developers at a later public comment session, who all but scorched the paint off the walls.
“My concern is that this whole process will turn the zoning ordinance over to the developers,” said Bea Nance of the College Downs neighborhood in northeast Charlotte.
“We’re no match for the developers with money,” said John Wall of the Hidden Valley and North Tryon Street neighborhood.
“The problem is, there are no teeth in plans. They mean nothing,” said Susan Lindsay of east Charlotte.
“Quite honestly, the staff doesn’t support their own plans,” said Cindy Schwartz of Dilworth. “We never see them oppose anything.”
The two forums were held Tuesday ….
to solicit comments from the public about a zoning ordinance assessment. The city Planning Department has hired Clarion Associates of Chapel Hill and Denver to look at the city’s zoning ordinance and at whether it helps or hurts in implementing city policies and plans, and then offer ideas for reorganizing, restructuring and updating the ordinance. A 4-6 p.m. public comment session was aimed at developers and other regular users of the ordinance. A 7-9 p.m. session was aimed at other members of the public.
As consultant Matt Goebel of Denver repeated several times, the consultants aren’t writing a new zoning ordinance as part of the project. It’s an assessment, not a rewrite, he said.
Nevertheless, participants at both sessions questioned why more public input wasn’t included in the project. At the night meeting, even the consultants’ intent to get city planning staff to edit a draft of the assessment report they’ll write in the next few months raised suspicions and complaints among several people in the audience.
“You’re getting paid out of public dollars,” Susan Lindsay said. “I’d like to see what you have to say without the staff editing it.”
Not all the comments were in agreement with each other. Bea Nance said plenty of residents like having grass and trees and weren’t necessarily interested in more public transit service. ” ‘Suburban’ is not a bad word, people,” she said.
It’s not that the earlier session, with developers, was filled with the bluebirds of happiness. Among the issues raised, in addition to a wish for more public input, were:
From developer David Furman: A suggestion that, especially in more well-developed areas, measuring development intensity by counting units per acre isn’t particularly effective. A better measure, he said, would be to use what planners call Floor Area Ratio, which measures the square footage of the building compared to the size of the site.
From developer and consultant Karla Knotts: It’s difficult to look things up in the ordinance the way it’s presented on the city’s website. Also, she said, “Unless you know you’re in an overlay district there’s no way to know you’re in an overlay district.”
From lobbyist Joe Padilla of the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition: Some broad-brush restrictions, such as height limits, would be more effective if they were tailored to different parts of the city instead of imposed one-size-fit-all.
Add your own input. Take an online survey: Click here, or visit the city Planning Department department web page for the project by clicking here.