Yesterday the current district 7 Charlotte City Council representative Ed Driggs sent out an email announcing that RK Investments, LLC had requested a delay in the formal Charlotte City Council rezoning hearing for the Rea Road Gillespie Property set for December 18th:
Some of you may have gotten word that the Gillespie rezoning was on the December 18 City Council zoning meeting agenda for a Public Hearing. The hearing was in fact on the calendar for that date, but I was advised today by Mac McCarley, one of RK Investments’ advisors, that, in order to allow more time for engagement with residents’ representatives, petitioners have agreed to defer the hearing by a month to the January zoning meeting.
The petitioner is currently reviewing a five-page compilation of concerns that have been raised by residents to see if they can address enough issues to come up with a plan that is more workable from a community standpoint. It is important to understand that the existing zoning, as translated into the new Unified Development Ordinance classification, would allow for significant development by-right, with no rezoning process or engagement with neighbors. The point of asking the petitioner to respond to a list of residents’ concerns is to see if a solution is possible that would be preferable to the outcome of a by-right development. I have asked petitioners and our planning staff for some guidance on what a by-right development might look like, to see if a basis for comparison can be established. In the meantime, as I have stated previously, I have made clear to the petitioner that I will not support the petition in its current form.
You should also be aware that Charlotte currently has deadlines in place for Public Hearings and decisions on petitions submitted under the old, pre-UDO zoning ordinance. The requirement is that hearings take place no later than January 2024 and decisions no later than the following month. Recognizing that this timeline might put pressure on Council and staff to process some petitions like Gillespie hastily, our Planning Director has indicated that Council will now be asked to move the deadlines back a couple of months.
I am circulating this message to a very long list of people from whom I have received emails about this rezoning. I regret that I have not been able to respond to all the emails individually, but I assure you I have read them all.
Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council District 7
(704) 432-7077
Opinion
Anyone familiar with Ed Driggs knows he's never seen a development proposal that he didn't like. This move to save the Rea Road Gillespie property rezoning request is simply gamesmanship, as was forcing the hearing during the holiday season, an effort to wear down the opposition.
In short this is nothing but total smoke and mirrors. Ed’s agenda has always been compromise. In this case his argument is the developer has “by right” the ability to develop the property with a large (but undetermined) number of duplex and triplex units so neighbors better “negotiate” or risk getting nothing.
I personally asked Russell Ranson,"Why not develop the property as zoned (by right)?" and his answer was it would not work because it was unattainable as zoned. In other words I assume it wouldn’t cash flow given the topography and massive amount of site work required, the logistics and I would also assume the interest rate environment. Seems that without the rezoning approval the project is dead.
Which makes sense RK is not a single family home developer, and Gillespie apparently needs the cash flow from rental vs an outright sale of the property.
But Ed Driggs' use of the UDO and “by right” as a motivating threat is pretty disingenuous. He knows there is universal opposition to this project and yet continues to try to get the HOA’s to agree to a compromise. You'll notice he refuses to meet with individuals or discuss concerns in public but is happy to meet with HOA boards in private.
I’m sure, but only my opinion that he asked RK to withdraw the request and let him try one more time to get the HOA’s to negotiate.
There are a few members of some HOA boards who are looking for "free stuff" some sort of reparations for years of maintaining the Rea Road frontage.
Yet the "free stuff" will not compensate anyone for our traffic gridlock nightmare ("Not my fault says Russell Ranson") that will just get worse, overstressed infrastructure, need for more schools, increased crime and irreversible damage to the environment and displaced wildlife.
The Rea Road Collation continues to support smart growth in Charlotte, the protection and preservation of our tree canopy, wildlife and natural resources. We remain fully opposed to the rezoning request.
NOTE: The zoning hearing if held in January will be on Tuesday January 16th rather than Monday because of the MLK Holiday. We will update this as we know more but we really need a show of force for this meeting in January.
18 comments:
Is anyone surprised? Ed Driggs is a douche bag.
No not surprised and totally agree with you! No one is asking for developers to address our concerns, we are asking for no rezoning. So why the need to give developers time to address concerns?? I seriously think that Ed has intellectual issues, maybe early dementia?? IDK
Look around at Charlotte there is no plan just allow the developers to do whatever they want. Gillespie is a clown now he’s in need of money tossed his mother into a nursing home and needs to sell her home to pay for his lifestyle and he expects the rest of us to suck it up.
I'm hearing rumors that David Gillespie bought a 5 million dollar home in Morrocroft because Driggs told him this was a done deal. Any truth to that how can I find out?
According to Meck County Gillespie bought 7545 Morrocroft Farms Lane Charlotte, NC 28211 for $4,825,000.00 on March 9, 2023. Meck County Tax Records
https://polaris3g.mecklenburgcountync.gov
You are clearly anti-Ed, which is your right, but you need to make clearer the assumptions you are making about the rezoning and developer intent versus actual fact. You run the risk of harming the outcome for the more educated neighbors who realize that a collaborative approach might make more sense here and better the outcome for what is coming. The idiotic comments above do little to further a logical debate with parties involved.
Alternatively, If your goal is not to keep people informed, but is to try and fear monger and garner clicks due to some sort of pathetic self-worth issues, then you are indeed on the right path.
Finally someone else is questioning this blog. I always wonder about this blog with the pen name and wonder if it is some leftist nutjob who hates Republicans on a mission to smear. I heard that they are developing another plan so if they lose the rezoning, they will build it under the existing rules, cutting down all the trees and no traffic improvements. Seems like that might be worse, but I am no expert. The mystery writer here must be.
If I understand correctly as zoned RK can build 150 to 300 duplex and triplex units however and more importantly by right doesn't include rentals.
Anyone who is buying into the tree save BS hasn't taken a good look at the projects on Endhaven. Developers are happy to promise whatever and then write then check.
As fas a traffic improvements no amount of turn lanes and traffic signals are going to ease the pain of 4,000 additional vehicle movements daily on Rea Road.
I doubt they have a plan B.
Leftist nutjob? I guess so what is wrong with hating republicans? Nothing the developer could offer will offset the damage this mess will do to Rea Road and Elm Lane.
Ed Driggs is on the take everyone knows that look at what happened with the middle school and high school those neighbors got nothing but Driggs claimed they all came together and compromised and that is total BS.
So let the more educated neighbors sell out for the free stuff they think they are going to get. Any promise from RK is worthless.
Cut the project by 50% deed 1/3 of the property to the county. Eliminate the Elm Lane entrance and take out the rental aspect and sure we will talk. Otherwise I say STFU!
Anyone reading Ed Driggs' letter has to laugh as it is layered and crafted by an expert con-man. RK lawyer is an "advisor" HOA board members are "residents' representatives" and "by-right" is the fear mongering the above comment should be referring to.
This project is a dead deal unless Ed Driggs' sells out the district 7 taxpayers and citizens.
Ed Driggs has never seen a rezoning request that he didn't like. DBag is actually pretty kind considering.
I too have concerns about these HOA's selling out to the developer based on promises and maybes. Ed Driggs has proved time and time again that he's owned by these developers. Anyone thinking otherwise is a fool.
I'm all for the HOA's trying to reach a deal with RK Investing but it seems a little late to be offering an olive branch. Aren't they now nearly two years after publicly saying they plan to wipe out 55 acres of forest and build a super high end luxury apartment complex? Isn't Ranson the one who said the eagles just need to move? What about Gillespie? Not a word from him? Maybe Chip Starr is part of the ownership group? I don't trust anyone these days.
Ed Driggs doesn't support this mess does he?
Ed Driggs is freaking leg humper over this deal. He's all over this stupid and poorly conceived mess. Driggs told a community meeting he can't be bought for $1,000.00 so I'd guess he's got more than $10k for this deal who knows but one thing is for sure he's got his hand in this mess.
I hadn't seen anything from Ed helping the developer, but i only see what he posts. Is there something else not shared here? If so, lets see it. If not, I tend to agree with the above that calling him out is not really helping here. Also remember, Ed voted against the School. He was the only one, but he did. I imagine the school had major political power behind the scenes to make that happen.
Who said the by right plan under the current zoning couldn't be rental? My understanding from the 2040 meetings and the Observer article a while back was that you can put a triplex in any neighborhood now on a single-family lot and it could be rental. That zoning trumps even HOA rules. In some instances it could be a 4 plex on that lot. That plus no tree save, no road improvements at all doesn't sound like a win. For a couple hundred units more we get road improvements and a bunch of trees saved? Why wouldn't that be better?
The thing to do is rally to get Elm Lane widened. It is still rooted in 1980. Why cant the City put some money out there to widen it the whole length? Seems like there is plenty of room.
4:39 All good points. However the UDO in N1 doesn't authorize commercial residential rental properties. It doesn't ban rental properties only prohibits them ie apartment complexes.
HOA rules in this case don't matter. However the UDO doesn't allow you to tear down your house and build a triplex if your deed has restrictions against such.
The tree save issue is a moot point just look at Elm and Endhaven.
Driggs tells developers to work towards a compromise then to appease his neighbors he'll vote no anyways knowing the petition will pass.
Finally all I know is that the opposition is not from just some tree huggers or liberal global warming crazy people. And they have some serious support and the developer can't cover the costs unless he builds five story apartments.
Sounds like the developer will not back down. They have offered nothing in exchange for neighborhood support. The developer says they've already reduced the project from 1,100 to 640. They are only going to wipe out 70% of the trees. They've offered a free bridge to Trader Joe's. They've offered a traffic signal and a extra turn lane on Elm and Rea. They've also stated the traffic is not their fault. What more to you want? Accept the deal or else!
We would be better served by a democrat who cared about our city and property owners rather than a republican who was always blaming his party affiliation for his impotence.
Post a Comment