We Need Your "In Person" Support

As you may know Charlotte City Councilman Ed Driggs has been meeting in private with a small select group of area HOA Board Members regarding a compromise that would allow the Rea Road Gillespie Property Rezoning Request (RZP -2022-121) to proceed with the blessing of area Homeowners Associations.

Having held at least one meeting in December, members of the “Secret Squirrel Society” came up with a five – page list of concerns and requests for RK Investments Charlotte LLC.

 

The five page "ask" apparently included many requests including financial support regarding the landscape maintenance of Rea Road between Pineville-Matthews and 485 was forwarded to RK Investments at some point.

While this noble effort on the surface seems genuine, the underlying premise offered by Ed Driggs is that the homeowners better accept something or risk getting nothing at all, because the developer can proceed with the project "by right", that is as currently zoned.

On February 2^nd RK Investments Charlotte LLC responded to the "ask" by sending a letter to the leader of the group Tom Coyne. Unfortunately, Tom was out of town visiting family and didn’t forward the letter to members until the following Monday.

During a quick review of the RK letter, which promoted the RK proposal as being considerably better than “by-right” and of great advantage to the community, it was determined that many of the request items were responded to with meaningless or non-comital “maybe we can talk about this later” answers.

In other words, the letter it seems was a complete air-ball.

At this point some members of the “Secret Squirrels” started asking if perhaps “by-right” was the better option.

Yet Ed Driggs was quick to respond and continued his you better accept a compromise approach.

"My personal view is that denial of this petition could lead to by-right development of the property that residents like even less, with half as many trees and minimal traffic improvements.  If, however, the HOA leadership group that met in December considers whatever RK's final offer is and still wants to take a chance on what might come next instead, I will oppose the petition and encourage my colleagues to do likewise.  I just hope that residents, and you in particular, will carefully study what the real options are and choose thoughtfully.  If we kick it to by-right, there will be no opportunity for me or residents to weigh in, and I cannot be responsible for the outcome."

Not only were many of the items outlined in the February 2^nd letter meaningless or poorly conceived, some it turns out are also required under a “by-right” development.

Members of the "Secret Squirrel Society" then met at an undisclosed secure location on Tuesday February 27 to discuss RK Investments’ February 2nd letter.

Even with the delay of several weeks Ed Driggs and some leaders of the Squirrels continued to take issue with the idea that a "by-right" development was better than the RK proposal.

During this meeting Charlotte planning staff confirmed that much of what RK had offered would also be required under “by-right” as well. 

The only major concern brought up during the meeting by Tom Coyne was that RK could possibly remove all the “Willow Oaks” along Rea Road.

This rumor took another week to dispel and convince members of the “Secret Squirrel Society” that the developer could not just remove forty plus city owned trees.

At this point the Squirrels, some begrudgingly, agreed that “by-right” was indeed the better option.

Unfortunately, Ed Driggs then emailed the Squirrels that a "revised" and "more attractive" offer was in the works.

But as the week wore on it was clear this was just more gamesmanship from RK Investments and their attorneys. 

As of Friday, there was no revised much less enhanced offer.

Finally Ed Driggs emailed those on his email blast Sunday afternoon:

Gillespie rezoning Pubic Hearing on track for March 18; petitioner offers significant concessions

"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."

Mr. Driggs wants you to believe that the original proposal for 1,100 units was legit and that the developer has reduced the project size by half. The rest of Mr. Driggs' email is a phalanx of gibberish. It has been posted it in its entirety elsewhere on the blog. 

Basically he's still trying to work out a compromise with the developer who has been entirely dishonest. He is also still pushing the "by-right" would be bad for the area concept, even though he was told last week the Squirrels agreed by-right was preferable. 

Mr. Driggs has attended 3 community meetings over the last year, each with more than 150 attendees who unanimously opposed this project, he has relentlessly promoted a meaningless compromise that neither benefited the neighboring taxpayers or citizens, nor the city as a whole. 

It is unfortunate that Ed Driggs has not used the last 12 months to lobby his fellow council members regarding this poorly conceived project but rather to push his personal agenda on being the deal maker and hero.

The fact that Ed Driggs has received campaign donations from not only the developers, the architect and designers of the property but also the attorney is suspect regardless of the amount. 

Ed Driggs threat of a "by-right" development has been nothing more than a bluff even repeated by the developer. A bluff that needs to be called, because RK doesn't have the skill set to develop the project by right. RK is a big box apartment builder not a custom home or townhouse operation. They just can't do it.

As it turns out the by-right option is more favorable. Lower density, 400 homes instead of a sprawling big box apartment complex with 640 units. Height of only 48 feet rather than 65. A tree save nearly the same as under the rezoning request at the cost of a few traffic "enhancements" that are minimal at best. 

Homes even duplexes are preferable to apartments. N1-A doesn't allow apartment complexes. Period!

In fact, the biggest traffic enhancement is reducing the number of garaged vehicles by 240 homes. If you could take 480 cars off Rea Road a day, wouldn't you do that?

If you ask many that's eliminating at least 2,400 VTD 365 days a year, a far better traffic improvement than anything offered in the rezoning proposal.

Given that there are less than 8 days until the March 18th Charlotte City Council hearing, it is unlikely that any compromise will be reached.

We have been put at a pretty difficult disadvantage by Mr. Driggs. We have postponed 3 prior meetings and our neighbors are understandably tired of the idea of taking time out to go uptown and fight this rezoning petition which is exactly what Ed Driggs and the developers want.

Therefore, it is imperative that we commit to showing up in person on March 18^th at Charlotte City Council chambers to let our elected officials know this is a terrible idea and that the current zoning should not change.

Frankly neighbors we have been sold as my grandfather used to say a "pig in a poke' by Ed Driggs, David Gillespie and RK Investments LLC. 

Now we are looking at an empty poke. 

SAVE THE DATE! Monday March 18, 2024 Charlotte City Council Meeting 5PM

Good Morning All - We Need Your Attendance & Support !!!!

Monday March 18th at 5:00 PM

Rea Road Gillespie Property City Council Rezoning RZP 2022-121 Public Hearing

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center

600 East 4th Street Charlotte, NC 28202

During this meeting City Staff will provide a brief summary of the Rea Road Gillespie Property rezoning request. The developer RK Investments Charlotte, LLC will then have 10 minutes to present their plan for the development of the property (massive big box apartment complex) to Charlotte City Council and the Zoning Committee. After which we have only 10 minutes to speak in opposition. 

In honor of St. Patrick's Day and Charlotte's Trees we will be wearing GREEN.

This is our only chance to formally voice our concerns to Charlotte City Council.

Because our time is limited, what Charlotte City Council sees may be more important than what they hear, therefore it is imperative that we fill the Charlotte City Council chambers with people wearing the GREEN who care about our city and oppose this rezoning request.

We ask that you arrive early. Parking is provided at 232 S Davidson St Charlotte, NC 28202 directly across from the Government Center. 

We realize this is a big request the day after St. Patrick's Day and just as our Carolina Spring gets under way but three hours of your time is far better than a lifetime of regret if we don’t show Charlotte City Council our resolve and unwavering opposition to this project.

As of this morning we are 20,000+ signatures strong and now we need to show the Charlotte City Council that there are real people behind our petition.

Please mark you calendar for the event. This is your chance to be heard and seen.

Again, a big turn out for this event is critical !!!

Thank you for your continued support. 

Heartfelt thank you to Christine Morgan and RP Signs for her help with our signs and branding.

GO TEAM GREEN!

Rea Road Gillespie Traffic Improvements Nonsense

The following was sent to Ed Driggs' group of Homeowner Association members formed to discuss the Rea Road Gillespie Property rezoning petition. Driggs' "Secret Squirrel Society" members have met several times over the past few months in an effort to reach a "compromise" at the direction of Ed Driggs.

Members of the "Society" saw a February 2, 2024 letter from RK Investments that described numerous "traffic improvements". While a few continue to support a "compromise" at the urging of Ed Driggs many saw the "offer" from RK as a meritless airball.

Councilmember Driggs’ email of February 8, 2024 states:

“As I have noted previously, the final decision about this petition may come down to a difficult choice between whatever final proposal may be offered by RK Investments and a possible by-right development that could include only half as many trees and minimal traffic improvements”.  

The letter was simply an effort to review from a practical stand point some of the traffic "improvements" that really amounted to fluff. In other words the "improvements" are not gifts from the developer rather requirements that would be required even if the property was developed by right.

So here is the letter to members of the SSS that upset some.

To All:

At first glance and as I understand it the traffic improvements offered are already minimal, many are required under a “by-right” development and others are either poorly designed or ill-conceived. 

Elm Lane Improvements

Elm Lane Access B

The secondary entrance is required by the UDO under the concept of connectivity. It really offers nothing in the way of traffic relief with regard to Bevington Place. 

Because of line-of-sight issues, traffic volume and the fact that Elm Lane is only a two-lane road the right turn and left turn lanes should be required if not already. 

It seems this entrance is by requirement mandatory and should not be construed as a traffic improvement since it would be required under a “by-right” development. 

Guardrail 

This also would seem, given the area and grade, a requirement and not an improvement. 

Elm Lane and Highway 51

With regards to the February 2, 2024 letter which states “there will be two northbound left turn lanes on Elm Lane at Highway 51”.  

There is currently one dedicated left turn lane at Highway 51 and one left, thru and right combination lane. The addition of a right turn only lane would be considered an improvement.

Rea Road Improvements

Rea Road Access A 

Adding a Traffic Signal at Rea Road and entrance into the site would only benefit the developer. An additional traffic signal would only add to the traffic concerns unless fully coordinated and included inductive loop traffic sensors.

Traffic signals would need to be constructed in the same style as Bevington and Piper Glen Drive signals. Which would constitute an improvement.

The construction of a southbound right turn lane with 100 feet of storage, while possibly beneficial to traffic, is not in keeping with the neighborhood as there are no other right turn lanes between Highway 51 Pineville Matthews Road and I-485. This includes the signalized intersections at Bevington Place and Rea Road as well as Piper Glen Drive and Rea Road. Further, neither the Fairways at Piper Glen or Calvary Church and the South County Library utilize right turn lanes.

Doing so would also require the removal of at least five mature Willow Oak Trees that neighbors are fighting to preserve. 

Furthermore, the only right turn lanes along the entire Colony Road/Rea Road length from Carmel Road to I-485 are at Highway 51. Additionally, the lack of right turn lanes serves to traffic calming and, right turn lanes reduce pedestrian safety dramatically.  

While traffic experts have weighed in with support for and against right turn lanes it is our belief that adding right turn lanes encourages aggressive driving and conversely the lack of right turn lanes serve, (perhaps with limited effect) as a traffic calming mechanism. 

CMS Bus Stop

While certainly considerate of drivers and students. CMS is notoriously difficult to work with and given the ever-changing demographics it is highly doubtful CMS would agree to a bus stop on the internal connector road. 

From CMS regarding a student bus stop off of Rea Road:

There are some exceptions for special needs students, but as a general rule, our buses must stay on the main roads for bus stops.

Adam Johnson, CDPT

Executive Director of Transportation

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

Therefore this item should not be considered an improvement.

Rea Road at Highway 51 

One of the “traffic improvements" offered by RK Investments are changes to the Rea Road Highway 51 Pineville-Matthews Road intersection.

Adding additional length to the left turn lane is unnecessary as the lane is seldom used. The petitioner’s letter of February 2, 2024 states: “Petitioner will commit to extend the existing left turn lane on northbound Rea Road at the intersection of Read (sp) Road and Highway 51 an additional 200 feet”.

The left turn lane should not be altered. 

The above is from Friday February 23, 2024, at 6:00 PM.

Seldom are there more than two cars in the queue and often none.

It is understood from Tom Brasse with RK Investments that Ed Driggs himself asked for more stacking. 

It is important to understand that the inability to enter the left turn lane due to the abundance of through traffic (going straight) if not a left turn "backup" and doesn't equate to a need of longer stacking. Yes it is unfortunate if you are the only person wanting to turn left and you are prevented from doing so because of all the "idiots" going through the intersection. 

Adding an additional right turn lane is also counter intuitive. This would add zero benefit as few cars have trouble turning right even during peak driving times. Doing so would require the removal of several large trees and perhaps the monument. 

The problem is with traffic wanting to go north on Rea Road beyond the Highway 51 Pineville-Matthews road intersection. Prior to the Hwy 51 intersection two (2) north bound Rea Road lanes are “funneled down” to one (1) lane going north. This is because once you cross Hwy 51 there is only one lane going north (straight) toward SouthPark Mall and Uptown. 

Many AM drivers turn right only to make a U-turn on Highway 51 Pineville-Matthews Road and then turn right back on to Rea road to continue going northbound.They are trying to beat the backup on Rea Road waiting to cross Hwy 51. The reason they can do this is the right lane is open and not backed up. 

Additionally, 2 right turn lanes are always problematic for drivers and are dangerous for pedestrians. 

Even adding an additional traffic island aka "porkchop" won't prevent many of the drivers "gaming the system".

Below the right turn lane for Rea at Highway 51 again from Friday February 23, 2024, at 6 PM.

Need a little more convincing?

January 2022 – The light is red for northbound Rea Road no left turn cars except all the way down at the start of the left turn lane there is one car that seems to be heading to the left. Two cars in the right lane and maybe two others in the right turn lane moving up.

Above January 2021 – Again, the only “grid lock” is northbound Rea Road. The left turn lane has one car and the right lane has 2 or 3 moving up to the intersection.

Above January 2023 – One maybe two cars turning right, zero cars turning left. 

While not a true traffic study this conclusion is reasonable that any improvements to this intersection regarding the left or right turn lanes would be meaningless. 

Bevington Place 

The proposed Bevington Place "improvements" are also poorly conceived. 

According to RK Investment the “area multimodal improvements” to Bevington Place were at the request of CDOT staff that included restriping Bevington Place between Birkdale Valley Drive and The Shops at Piper Glen driveway to shift the on-street parking to the south side of Bevington Place and to install a pair of rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs) at the pedestrian crossing on the west side of The Shops at Piper Glen driveway.

The north side of Bevington street side parking (20 spaces) is purposeful as it serves westbound traffic only. The south side parking lot (40 spaces) is designed to serve Bevington eastbound traffic only. Moving the parallel street side parking from the north to the south side would make matters worse as west bound traffic would either need to make a U-turn to access the parking lot or make a U-turn further down Bevington to access the south side of the road for parking.  

Additionally, I can clearly imagine drivers parking on the south side yet doing so headed westbound. 

Update: During a phone call and follow-up email city staff with Charlotte DOT agreed that the idea of moving the Bevington street side parking was a non-starter and would be removed.

Thank you again for the phone conversation. I’ve instructed the CDOT review engineer to modify that note from relocation of parking to removal of on-street parking immediately adjacent to the Trader Joe’s driveway where it conflicts with sight distance.

Have a great day!

Brandon Brezeale, PE

Development Services Division Manager

704.432.5561

brandon.brezeale@charlottenc.gov

Internal Connector

The internal connector offered by RK Investments will do nothing to reduce current traffic on Bevington Place. Additional this aspect of "connectivity" is required under by the UDO and any "By Right" development.

Given the details of the development plan and those “improvements” listed in the February 2, 2024, letter it seems clear that RK Investments are offering nothing but a total “air ball”.

The bottom line is regardless of what Ed Driggs say the RK Investments "offers" are not really improvements but rather just a statement listing actually required items under the UDO for any development either as proposed or by right.

Note: Based on the comment below I've added the last "unedited" email from Brandon Brezeale (above) and will also add the same from Jake Carpenter.

The bottom line is none of the traffic "improvements" are voluntary most if not all would be required under a "by-right" development. 

 

Observation Notes March 4, 2024

Mar 6, 2024

We are pleased to share with you this week's field notes from our eagle expert. While most of us enjoy watching these impressive beautiful birds, Bob's detailed and recorded observations serve as an important baseline to a more formal understanding of our eagles behavior. 

OBSERVATION NOTES
PIPER GLEN BALD EAGLE NEST

Observer: Bob

Loocation: Piper Glen Golf Club (Driving Range) 4300 Piper Glen Dr.

Date OF Visit: 03/04/2024

Time Of Visit: 11:30 AM - 12:50 PM

Weather Conditions:

Temperature: 63 F Wind (direction & speed): NNE 6mph

Sky: Partly Cloudy Precipitation: none

BAEAs Present: (Yes) No 

Number & Type: 2 Mature + 2 Eaglets

Behaviors Observed:

Nest Improvement: Yes (No) 

Courting: Yes (No)

Copulation: Yes (No)

Territorial Defense: Yes (No)

Nest Sitting: Yes (No) 

Food Deliveries: Yes (No)

Eaglet(s) in Nest: (Yes) No

Eaglet Fledging: Yes (No)

OBSERVATION NOTES (record every :15):

:15 A mature BAEA is visible in the nest from the parking lot.

:30 The mate returns to the area and does a flyby of the nest and flies off.

:45 The BAEA in the nest leaves the nest to perch above for a few
minutes before it returns to the nest. Two fuzzy heads are
observed in the nest, so at least two eaglets have been
hatched. They are only visible for a short time as the adult
appears to tuck them back down into the nest.

1:00 The mate returns to the nest area and perches beyond the golf cart path towards Rea Road.

We are very appreciative of our photographers who are able to capture images of these impressive birds and allow us to share them with you. The photo above taken by Ward Welch. 

Rea Road Gillespie Property Flooding Concerns

Anyone living is South Charlotte knows we have a flooding problem. The question is do we allow developers to make it worse or do we step back and say lets' make sure we do this right?

The Gillespie Property Developer RK Investments Charlotte LLC was asked about flooding concerns voiced by dozens of property owners in the Piper Glen area.

The response by developer Russell Ranson was that flooding exists in Piper Glen under certain storm conditions and the Sutherland project is downhill from Piper Glen. 

According to the Charlotte Observer he said RK Investors will comply with all municipal rules by adding controls to mitigate storm water from its property. “It is important to understand that, currently, sections of a nearby golf course and other natural areas provide relief from excess stormwater and flood on occasion”.

Below are photos of what it looked like on January 9 and a normal September fall afternoon.

We need to be clear that the flooding of January 9th may or may not have been caused by the 485 expansion but it clearly contributed to it.

IN TO THE WEEDS

Yes, 1 inch of rain will create 27,000 gallons of stormwater runoff per acre of impervious surface. 

Based on NCDOT numbers and aerial photos the "estimated" additional impervious surface area added by the 485 expansion between the Elm Lane bridge and the Ballantyne Commons Parkway bridge (1.42 miles) at Tom Short Road is 35 acres. What they didn't pave over in this area they removed nearly all of the vegetation. 

On January 9th the 35 additional acres of impervious surface likey sent an "estimated" additional 3,000,000 gallons of stormwater runoff into Piper Glen via 3 creeks (Stuart's, Schitt's and Shepherd's) and eventually into Four Mile Creek which "added to the flooding" that we have seen in the photos shared by local news and social media. 

Fact - this is "additional" stormwater runoff we did not have 2 years ago.

It is important to recognize that flooding is often the cause of many factors.

Soil Saturation 

Temperature

Previous Rain Events (in this case rain on January 6th)

Precipitation Rate

However, NCDOT has been exploring the flooding and construction silt issues with the Mitchell Pond Number Six since the 485 expansion began. We now know and NCDOT confirms that this has been a problem that was not anticipated.

Furthermore, based on the USGS flood gauge located at Four Mile Creek and the USGS rain gauge located at St. Matthews we can see a solid correlation to the recent additional impervious surfaces created and the accompanying stormwater runoff to the increase in frequency of flooding.

Prior to the completion of the paving 485 express lanes Four Mile Creek would hit 10 feet about 3-4 times per year. Ten feet seems to be where the creek floods the TPC Piper Glen Fairways 1,2,10 and 11. Since late 2022 this has been happening about every 4-5 weeks or 10-12 times a year.  

The January 9th rain event pushed Four Mile Creek well past flood stage on a rather steady rain. Not a heavy rain not an isolation downpour just a steady soaking good for the crops rain.

Had the January 9th rain event occurred after the Gillespie project was completed (development of 70% of the 53 acres) totaling 37 acres of impervious surface would have created at least an additional 2,997,000 gallons of stormwater runoff adding to the 485 additional runoff.  

(The above is based on 3 inches of rain. We actually received 3.48 inches.)

So if we understand the variables and calculate the impervious surface area we can quickly determine the additional runoff created by the yet undeveloped projects like Gillespie.

Note NCDOT admits the water flowing into Schitt's Creek as well as Shepherds and Stuart's Creeks is coming from 485 and other sources. They haven't admitted to causing the flooding but, understand the concerns. 

Currently "Post Construction" stormwater plans need to be presented prior to issuing permits. But really should be a large part of the rezoning process.

Retention Ponds - only "slow down" the velocity of stormwater runoff; they don't limit the volume and the effect is only temporary.  

Also it's not just the water or volume but what is in it. Crazy amounts of pollutants.

The bottom line - Southern Mecklenburg County has a lot of FEMA flood zones. Most of our area in southern Mecklenburg County was farm "bottomland" prone to occasional flooding which was fine for cows and crops. 

Now the big issue, 3 inches of rain in 24 hours is not a rare event 100 year event. 

November 12, 2020 4.62

September 16, 2018 4.28

September 26, 2016 3.89

November 2, 2015 3.08

We even see records of 6.44 in 1997 and 13.11 in 1995 

We also had a 1.10 inch rain event on January 25th which pushed Four Mile Creek to over ten feet. 

We can clearly see how these last few rains have also overburdened the wetlands called Pooh's Corner (Property Owned by White Oak and Meck County) west of Elm Lane.

The bottom line is approval of the Gillespie Property Rezoning for an apartment complex would add another 1,000,000 gallons of stormwater to Four Mile Creek and Pooh's Corner every time it rains 1 inch.

Amateur sleuthing is fine but what do the experts say?

According to Don Ceccarelli, PE, CFM and Director of County Storm Water 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services who reviewed the above information it all depends.

That is a lot of information and to be honest, without analyzing historic rainfall data, topographic maps and drainage features, I cannot really comment on most of the information.  However, I will add a few comments.

 

• Increased impervious / built-upon area does increase run-off to streams whether that built-upon area is driveways, rooftops, roads, parking lots, etc.
• Floodplain ordinances in Mecklenburg County regulate to a modeled “future” floodplain, assuming undeveloped properties are developed according to their zoning, to help account for the impacts of future development.
• There are development ordinances in place (i.e. post-construction ordinances) to reduce the impacts from increased run-off from development; both for water quality and flow.
• There were many places in Mecklenburg County that saw increased flooding during the run-off from the rain event on January 9 because of ground saturation (i.e. even pervious areas contributed additional flow more like impervious areas).

Look closely at what Don Ceccarelli says: "Floodplain ordinances in Mecklenburg County regulate to a modeled “future” floodplain, assuming undeveloped properties are developed according to their zoning, to help account for the impacts of future development."

In other words they are not considering zoning changes and density increases in their planning.

Given the dramatic change and increase in storm water runoff the Gillespie Project would create wouldn't it be better to have that information before giving a green light to increasing the density and therefor amount of storm water by 1000%? 

Unless we commit a massive amount of tax dollars to building man-made flood control we will need to be very careful what we approve for development. Density saturation is going to cause massive amounts of flooding. 

In the end it will cost us millions of dollars in damages, increased insurance premiums and even lives if we don't step back and think this through.

Rea Road Willow Oaks

There was a tidal wave of concern last week, after one of Ed Driggs' "Secret Squirrel Society" meetings word leaked out that the Rea Road Gillespie Developer had threatened to remove all the Willow Oaks along Rea Road if the local homeowners associations forced a "by-right" development, rather than accepting the proposed rezoning petition.

That combined with this site plan from the city staff was enough to convince some that removal of nearly forty 30 year old Willow Oaks was indeed a possibility.

You'll notice that the above site plan submitted by the developer is without the Willow Oak trees and that the 30% "possible tree" save as indicated by the developer is really pretty marginal.

Turns out that a city planning staff member or Tom Coyne was the person who brought up the subject of sidewalk requirements vs the Willow Oaks. And at least from some attendees perspective this suggested that the developer could remove all of the Rea Road Willow Oak trees.

Now it seems likely the developer hasn't actually addressed the Willow Oaks one way or the other at least not publicly. 

So the question was sent to the City Chief Arborist:

Is there a way that the developer would be required to provide a sidewalk and yet also preserve the trees? Or perhaps a waiver on the sidewalk requirement?

In typical bureaucrat fashion it took nearly a week to get the answer. But here it is:

Yes to a degree. 

 

City trees are considered assets of the City and protected at all times. Healthy and structurally sound City trees must be preserved in all scenarios unless significant site conflicts exist. In some cases healthy and structurally sound trees may be authorized for removal if reasonable and adequate measures cannot be provided to ensure success preservation.

 

Per past survey work, it’s my understanding that all street trees north of the existing driveway on Rea Rd. adjacent to this site are City trees and all trees south of the driveway are not City trees. Planted oak trees south of the driveway likely don’t have any UDO or Charlotte Tree Ordinance protection attached as they’re not City trees or heritage trees.

Tim Porter
Chief Urban Forester – Division Manager

So it seems the tree lined Willow Oaks section of Rea Road is safe for the moment.

But that's the trouble with the "Secret Squirrel Society" and the lack of communication where outsiders are not updated when news, rumors or facts emerge it quickly becomes a fire storm.  

The other problem is that Ed Driggs has repeatedly said:

"My personal view is that denial of this petition could lead to by-right development of the property that residents like even less, with half as many trees and minimal traffic improvements.  If, however, the HOA leadership group that met in December considers whatever RK's final offer is and still wants to take a chance on what might come next instead, I will oppose the petition and encourage my colleagues to do likewise.  I just hope that residents, and you in particular, will carefully study what the real options are and choose thoughtfully.  If we kick it to by-right, there will be no opportunity for me or residents to weigh in, and I cannot be responsible for the outcome."

 

Just My Opinion:

In other words Ed Driggs is listening only to select few within the "Secret Squirrel Society" and not to his district citizens, residents and taxpayers.

This has put those who have opposed this project from day one at a terrible disadvantage.

Ed Driggs has been working against those who opposed this project from the beginning often telling taxpayers they don't understand and routinely blaming his democrat counterparts party affiliation as the reason he is unable to convince other city council members to vote no on this petition. 

Mr. Diggs has apparently told many others that it is "his job" to negotiate an agreement with the neighborhood associations. Seems like Mr. Driggs considers himself an agent of not the citizens, residents and taxpayers but rather the developers.

I've found it very disheartening that Mr. Driggs has never once said he was opposed to this rezoning request despite having two huge meetings with more the 150 attendees at each, where there was unanimous opposition. 

Driggs went even as far as tell one reporter that the meeting at St. Matthews was the worst meeting he ever attended. Apparently not because of infighting or bickering among the constituents but because he was unable to appease the taxpayers. 

He has simply let the clock run out on this petition to rezone the Rea Road Gillespie Property and has yet to say no or even attempt to convince other council members to support him and the Charlotte citizens of district seven. 

It is simply heartbreaking that not only would our district representative let us down but he's also our neighbor.

The Rea Road Gillespie Property rezoning request offers nothing for the Piper Glen area residents, nor for Charlotte residents as a whole. 

If approved it will overburden our schools, our roads, and our stormwater system.

If built it was add additional strain on our infrastructure including utilities, sanitation and public safety. 

There has been no consideration given to the environment, including wildlife, wetlands, tree canopy or stream water resources. 

In the end Ed Driggs will vote no but will have done nothing to convince the other council members vote against this poorly designed big box apartment complex and at this point we do not have the votes to vote it down. Once approved he will then tell the homeowners in district 7 that they should have negotiated with the developer and that he's not responsible.  

Interesting Park and Rec Information

We have asked Mecklenburg County Commissioners to take a serious look at acquiring the Rea Road Gillespie Property.

Several candidates for North Carolina State House and State Senate have offered support for this idea as well.    

As our population continues to grow rapidly in Mecklenburg and the surrounding counties, so does the need to expand and maintain our greenways, parks, nature preserves, and recreation centers. 

Due to underinvestment in the past, many area residents have limited access to park and recreation opportunities. 

A recent study by The Trust for Public Land showed that only 38% of Mecklenburg County residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park. The median for the top 100 most populous U.S. cities is 74%.

Increasing our investment in our area Greenways and Parks will not only improve access for more residents but will also:

• Provide local job opportunities.

• Encourage active lifestyles and reduce health costs. 

• Make our community more resilient by helping mitigate flooding.

• Help clean our air and reduce our contribution to the climate crisis.

• Increase community cohesion and help reduce crime.

• Improve quality of life and livability.

• Build community by providing gathering places for neighbors, families, and friends. 

Investment in our parks will provide long term returns we can count on for years to come. 

What do you think let us know and we will pass it on.