Driggs, Edmund
4:15 PM
To all,
It now appears certain that the Public Hearing for the Gillespie rezoning will take place at the March 18 City Council zoning meeting, which will take place at the Charlotte Mecklenburg Government Center starting at 5:00. What you should also know is that, earlier this week, the petitioner communicated to me and a working group of 15 HOA representatives led by Tom Coyne a willingness to reduce the number of units in the proposal by up to 100 from the current 636. This is a significant development in the long history of this engagement and reduces the plan density to half of that in the initial proposal.
The working group is seeking to schedule a meeting with the petitioner to learn more about possible changes to the petition. This meeting may not take place until after the March 18 hearing date. Even if there is some progress on changes prior to the 18th, the petition itself will not be updated by then. I will explain to my colleagues at the hearing that the petition in its current form is unacceptable to me and residents, but that significant changes are being negotiated to see if an acceptable result is possible. There is no barrier to modifying the petition to reflect changes after the hearing, and there will be plenty of time to update the filing documents if there is support for a new plan, as the deadline for a vote is not until December.
I would propose that the working group establish the final terms the petitioner is willing to offer, then, if they believe the final plan is worth considering, work with me to schedule an open community meeting sometime after the hearing to present the plan to residents.
Please note that, if a modified plan did end up coming up for a Council vote, it would incorporate all of the features agreed with residents in language that was unambiguous and legally binding.
I remain as always committed to opposing a plan that does not have any support from residents, but I want to ensure that the final outcome is what is best for our area. As has been noted previously, if the petition is withdrawn, the petitioner has the right to develop the site by-right in accordance with the requirements of Place Type N1-A of the Unified Development Ordinance adopted (over my objections) in 2022. What that might look like is difficult to say because of the complexity of the N1-A specifications, but, based on a long conversation between the working group and senior member of City Planning staff, it appears that duplexes and triplexes adding up to 400 units or more could be built, with only 12-15% of trees being saved, the pond eliminated, the existing topography of the property significantly changed, and minimal traffic improvements. Conversely, one possible outcome of current discussions with the petitioner is that, as a result of deleting units from the current plan, the committed tree save in that plan ends up being greater than 30%, with trees along Elm Lane being preserved.
It is clear to me that some of you are resolutely opposed to development of the site and may well remain so. I too would like to see it stay as it is, but the fact remains that the eagles are too far away to be a legally permissible barrier to approval of a plan, and an outreach from the County Parks and Rec Department that I initiated through County Commissioner Susan Rodriguez McDowell was rejected by the property owner. The City does not have any capacity to acquire land for preservation. The decision about the rezoning could well still be negative, but, one way or another, it should be made in the context of a clear understanding of the real-world options available.
Those wishing to speak at the Public Hearing may register to do so online at the Office of the City Clerk https://www.charlottenc.gov/City-Government/Council-Meetings/Speak-at-a-City-Council-Meeting Opponents of the petition will have a total of ten minutes to address City Council, so you should coordinate who will speak and for how long.
Please let me know if you have questions or comments.
Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council District 7
(704) 574-7262
To all,
It now appears certain that the Public Hearing for the Gillespie rezoning will take place at the March 18 City Council zoning meeting, which will take place at the Charlotte Mecklenburg Government Center starting at 5:00. What you should also know is that, earlier this week, the petitioner communicated to me and a working group of 15 HOA representatives led by Tom Coyne a willingness to reduce the number of units in the proposal by up to 100 from the current 636. This is a significant development in the long history of this engagement and reduces the plan density to half of that in the initial proposal.
The working group is seeking to schedule a meeting with the petitioner to learn more about possible changes to the petition. This meeting may not take place until after the March 18 hearing date. Even if there is some progress on changes prior to the 18th, the petition itself will not be updated by then. I will explain to my colleagues at the hearing that the petition in its current form is unacceptable to me and residents, but that significant changes are being negotiated to see if an acceptable result is possible. There is no barrier to modifying the petition to reflect changes after the hearing, and there will be plenty of time to update the filing documents if there is support for a new plan, as the deadline for a vote is not until December.
I would propose that the working group establish the final terms the petitioner is willing to offer, then, if they believe the final plan is worth considering, work with me to schedule an open community meeting sometime after the hearing to present the plan to residents.
Please note that, if a modified plan did end up coming up for a Council vote, it would incorporate all of the features agreed with residents in language that was unambiguous and legally binding.
I remain as always committed to opposing a plan that does not have any support from residents, but I want to ensure that the final outcome is what is best for our area. As has been noted previously, if the petition is withdrawn, the petitioner has the right to develop the site by-right in accordance with the requirements of Place Type N1-A of the Unified Development Ordinance adopted (over my objections) in 2022. What that might look like is difficult to say because of the complexity of the N1-A specifications, but, based on a long conversation between the working group and senior member of City Planning staff, it appears that duplexes and triplexes adding up to 400 units or more could be built, with only 12-15% of trees being saved, the pond eliminated, the existing topography of the property significantly changed, and minimal traffic improvements. Conversely, one possible outcome of current discussions with the petitioner is that, as a result of deleting units from the current plan, the committed tree save in that plan ends up being greater than 30%, with trees along Elm Lane being preserved.
It is clear to me that some of you are resolutely opposed to development of the site and may well remain so. I too would like to see it stay as it is, but the fact remains that the eagles are too far away to be a legally permissible barrier to approval of a plan, and an outreach from the County Parks and Rec Department that I initiated through County Commissioner Susan Rodriguez McDowell was rejected by the property owner. The City does not have any capacity to acquire land for preservation. The decision about the rezoning could well still be negative, but, one way or another, it should be made in the context of a clear understanding of the real-world options available.
Those wishing to speak at the Public Hearing may register to do so online at the Office of the City Clerk https://www.charlottenc.gov/City-Government/Council-Meetings/Speak-at-a-City-Council-Meeting Opponents of the petition will have a total of ten minutes to address City Council, so you should coordinate who will speak and for how long.
Please let me know if you have questions or comments.
Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council District 7
(704) 574-7262
If someone can find the significant concessions in the above email please point them out to me. Frankly I'm not only embarrassed that this clown is my city council representative but also my neighbor.
Let's take a look at Ed Driggs email.
It now appears certain that the Public Hearing for the Gillespie rezoning will take place at the March 18 City Council zoning meeting, which will take place at the Charlotte Mecklenburg Government Center starting at 5:00
First you will notice the "appears certain" aspect which is proposedly still vague.
Then:
"What you should also know is that, earlier this week, the petitioner communicated to me and a working group of 15 HOA representatives led by Tom Coyne a willingness to reduce the number of units in the proposal by up to 100 from the current 636. This is a significant development in the long history of this engagement and reduces the plan density to half of that in the initial proposal."
In other words ignore the meeting information above because this is what you should know.
Then he adds the fallacy of "long history of this engagement" there of course has been no engagement.
Finally "reduces the plan density to half of that in the initial proposal" anyone with 1/2 a brain knows the original request was just BS.
"there will be plenty of time to update the filing documents if there is support for a new plan, as the deadline for a vote is not until December."
This is another effort to convince you that nothing is urgent about this in the hopes that you just ignore the people who are asking you to attend Monday's Charlotte City Council meeting.
"Please note that, if a modified plan did end up coming up for a Council vote"
Pay attention to his use of "if" at this point Ed Driggs is showing his hand. There is no modified plan and he has no basis to even suggest there will be one.
Ed Driggs is not your friend neither are his Kool-Aid drinkers who thing because Driggs is a "Republican" he can do no wrong.
Chip Starr
7 comments:
I don't see any concessions if by-right is 400 and they are asking for 640 wouldn't significant be 375? If they want it to be apartments that's what it should take.
Chip is not wrong.
Why is Ed Drigg still pushing this garbage? There is no support for this never has been.
Why would they even negotiate if the density is that low? By right would have no road improvements, save no trees and they could grade it pancake flat. I'd rather give them some density and have input in a good plan. I don't know much, but know we do NOT want by-right.
All you have to do is read Ed Driggs email to know he's owned by the developer. Wonder what he has on Driggs?
Driggs wants as low a turn-out as possible. That is why he is telling people that even after the council meeting there will be a compromise. He has promised this developer a deal and he'll do anything to deliver. But he is full of BS.
9:00 you're an idiot if you think you are going to have any input with this developer. They sent a five page list and a month later got nothing. They told them that the response was nothing and now they are offering significant concessions? BS
Post a Comment