It has been over a Year since Katie Soloff Posted This Story - Little Has Changed Expect We Now Have 20,000+ Signatures

 

Neighbors push to save bald eagles from impending development in south Charlotte

• Katie Peralta Soloff

Photo: Mert Alper Dervis/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

A petition to stave off the development of a sprawling retirement complex near Piper Glen in south Charlotte has gained more than 4,300 signatures over the last few days. Advocates point to a pair of nesting bald eagles as one reason they’re asking city leaders to vote “no” on an upcoming rezoning request.

Why it matters: Communities frequently push back on plans for new housing development, citing everything from traffic to preservation of green space. Neighborhood opposition is frequently one of the main hurdles local governments face with ushering in new housing options. City leaders must balance those concerns with addressing the demand for housing — which only grows as our population swells.

Between the lines: Bald eagles aren’t exactly a common sight in the Charlotte area.

• Previously endangered by pesticides and hunting, the bald eagle was removed from the Endangered Species list in 2007, per the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.

Context: Real estate investment company RK Investments wants to rezone 53 acres for a retirement community with up to 1,100 units, site plans show. The property is on the east side of Elm Lane and west side of Rea Road, south of Bevington Place.

• Amenities onsite could include a swimming pool, a clubhouse, a dog park, trails, benches and a lake, per the site plans.
• The land is owned by The Gillespie Family Limited Partnership and Elm Lane Holdings, as CBJ reported last summer.

What they’re saying: The neighbors’ petition makes a number of arguments against the density that the proposed development would bring, including that the area does not have the infrastructure adequate to support a development this size.

• They also note that the development would disrupt the habitat of a number of animals in the area, including beavers, coyotes, deer, raccoons, opossums, hawks, owls, Snowy Egrets and Great Blue Herons, among others.

“It is of utmost concern that a pair of American Bald Eagles who have called Piper Glen home for the last two decades are also in jeopardy, as the development will come within 900 feet of their nest … they have maintained for 16 years or more and will destroy a large portion of their natural habitat,” the petition reads.

Charlotte City Council member Ed Driggs, whose district 7 includes the property in question, said the city’s review of the rezoning petition will include an investigation into the possible impacts on protected species.

“I’m sure the local interest in the eagles will serve to focus their attention on that species, but it is too early to say what weight that will carry in deciding the future of the petition. It should be noted that the petition cites other important reasons the signatories have for opposing the petition,” Driggs told Axios in an email.

• He added that he does “not intend to support it in its current form.”

Developer RK Investments did not respond to a request for comment.

Mecklenburg Audubon Society Letter to Mayor Lyles and City Council

 

Dear Mayor Lyles; Dear Members of the City Council:

The Mecklenburg Audubon Society wrote to City Council last year to express our opposition to Rezoning Petition 2022-121, by RK Investments Charlotte LLC, which seeks to modify 53.07 acres of land currently zoned as Single-family District (R-3) to an Urban Residential District (UR-2(CD)). We understand the Petition will be heard during the City Council Zoning Meeting scheduled for Monday, March 18. We write again to reiterate our opposition to this Petition.

Mecklenburg Audubon Society began in 1937 as the Mecklenburg Audubon Club and became the first official North Carolina chapter of National Audubon Society in 1970. Our members are committed to the appreciation, protection, and preservation of birds and other wildlife through inclusive, community-based education and conservation activities.

Our organization’s reasons for opposing Rezoning Petition 2022-121 center on the protection of the birds and wildlife currently living and thriving in this area. We also want to remind you of the ongoing need to provide affordable housing options, well-functioning government services and infrastructure, and high environmental quality. We believe this rezoning petition meets none of these needs. Our specific concerns include the following:

· The property in question sits near the Four-Mile Creek greenway, which is widely used by walkers, runners, bicyclists, and our members, as they search for resident and migratory birds. The area is rich in bird life and other wildlife precisely because the greenway is surrounded by undeveloped or minimally developed land, wetlands, and an impressive tree canopy.

· This land supports a nesting site for our national bird – the American Bald Eagle – and many other species of nesting birds, including pileated woodpeckers, red-bellied woodpeckers, and red-shouldered hawks, as well as breeding migratory birds, such as scarlet tanagers, prothonotary warblers, and ruby-throated hummingbirds. As birds are currently migrating to their summer breeding habitat, it is estimated that over 850,000 birds pass through Mecklenburg County on a single night during peak migration. These birds need land such as the property in question in order to feed, find water, and rest before they continue their journeys.

· We recognize that Charlotte has an acute affordable housing shortage, but this rezoning proposal does nothing to address the lack of affordable housing. We urge you to focus on affordable housing needs as a priority, and to therefore reject this rezoning proposal as failing to meet those needs.

 · The Charlotte Tree Ordinance emphasizes the importance of Charlotte’s tree canopy for maintaining air quality, minimizing increases in temperature via tree cover, preventing soil erosion, and managing stormwater drainage problems, among many other aims. We share the city’s urgent need to protect and enhance Charlotte’s tree canopy, and we caution you to keep in mind the goals of the Charlotte Future 2040 Comprehensive Plan (particularly Goal 7: Integrated Natural and Built Environments) as you consider this rezoning petition. Given the propensity of this area to flood after heavy rains, further destruction of existing protections will only exacerbate these and other environmental risks in the area.

· We urge you to ensure that a thorough assessment is conducted as to how the significant expansion of residential units in this area will impact the ability of emergency services to reach and react to the demands of an additional 642 housing units in this densely populated area.

There is no clear justification for allowing a rezoning petition that will not further any of the most urgent needs of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County community. This petition will not expand the availability of affordable housing, it will not improve the livability of this city, and it will not address ongoing environmental and climate-change concerns.

The Mecklenburg Audubon Society invites you to join us on a bird walk along the Four Mile Creek Greenway, so you can experience first-hand the incredible bird life and other natural wonders in this area. We encourage you to contact us if we can provide any additional details, and we hope you will allow us to address the Council before you consider a vote on this Rezoning Petition 2022-121.

Larry J. Leamy
Mecklenburg Audubon Society
Charlotte, NC
Meckbirds.org

Wednesday March 13, 2024 via: email only.

Can They Build an Apartment Complex on The Rea Road Gillespie Property?

Seems like a simple question but Ed Driggs can't give you a straight answer.

Even as far back as his community "coffee" last April Ed Driggs was apparently telling people that "the UDO makes no distinction between owned homes and rentals" whenever asked if apartments on the Rea Road Gillespie Property where prohibited under the current zoning.

Ed Driggs has used this ploy to deflect and obfuscate often. Is he being truthful?

To be clear in N1-A (As Currently Zoned) Apartments complexes are not allowed. 

But let's hear it from the City of Charlotte's John Kinley:

"N1-A zoning allows for single family, duplex, triplex dwellings on individual lots by right. Quadraplexes on individual lots are permitted under prescribed conditions (see 15.4 GG. Of the UDO) https://read.charlotteudo.org/articles/article-15-use-regulations/#null " 

 

"The UDO/Zoning does not dictate whether dwellings are rented or owned."

 

"Multi-family dwellings (more than 4 units in a building) and multi-dwelling developments (multiple dwellings on one a lot) are not permitted in N1-A zoning."

 

"The developer is requesting rezoning to allow them to develop a mix of residential dwelling types, including multi-family dwellings and a multi-dwelling development.  The requested UR-2 zoning is a pre-UDO zoning district that accommodates developments with a mix of housing types."  

 

John Kinley

Senior Project Manager, Land Development Division+Zoning/UDO Administration

Planning, Design & Development
600 East 4th Street | 8th Floor| Charlotte, NC 28202
(704) 336-8311 | john.kinley@charlottenc.gov | Zoning Administration | charlottenc.gov/planning

So, it is true that the UDO does not restrict or differentiate between owned homes and homes that are rented. 

Therefore RK Investments Charlotte LLC can 'by right" build homes, condos, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and even some quadruplexes on the Gillespie Property and rent them out.

But they also can not build an apartment complex which is the question often asked of Ed Driggs. It is also what they have proposed and why they need the property rezoned. 

The reason? In my opinion this is all that RK knows how to build. This is perhaps why they haven't come back with a scaled down plan with attractive townhomes. I suspect the townhomes if any will be built by a different builder/developer after they complete their big box apartment buildings.

As an example this building above. Super nice attractive and totally ill-suited for suburban Charlotte. Great in SouthEnd or NoDa but ridiculous in Piper Glen. 

Which brings us back to Ed Driggs. Why does he only give part of the answer? Why won't he say N1-A prohibits apartment complexes?

Update:

Funny Stuff Someone claiming to be from RK messaged Ellie McIntire telling her "I just don't think you understand" something she's witnessed Ed Driggs tell women dozens of times over the last year. Its condescending and dismissive. Not smart. Definitely Not Smart.

We Need Your Attendance!

Good Morning Carolina - Next Monday We Need Your Attendance & Support !!!!

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 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 this event. This is your chance to be heard and seen.
• Again, a big turn out for the event is critical !!!

Thank you for your continued support. 

We are looking forward to seeing a sea of GREEN on March 18th!

Charlotte Staff Response to Rea Road Willow Oaks

Tim Porter

Henry Kunzig

cc: Laurie Reid-Dukes

cc: Brandon Brezeale

 

Good Morning Tim and Henry:

 

I'm sorry to be a nuisance but we are up against a hard deadline of Monday PM and would really appreciate some guidance. 

 

The following question regarding the Rezoning petition RZP-2022-121 remains.

A concern has come up that if this 53-acre property is developed as currently zoned “by-right” (N1-A) that the city would require the removal of a three dozen (36 +/-) large "Willow Oaks" on the east side of the property along Rea Road to accommodate the city sidewalk requirements.

There is currently no sidewalk along the entire eastern border of the undeveloped property with Rea Road from just north of Old Course Drive to Four Mile Creek.

These Willow Oaks were planted more than 40 years ago and are large mature trees and while native to North Carolina are not considered "Heritage Trees" as defined by the city ordinance due to their diameter of approximately 22-28 inches.

(Heritage trees being defined as: “any tree native to North Carolina per the US. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service Plants Database with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 30 inches”).

The developer has apparently threatened to remove all the Willow Oaks in order to meet the city sidewalk requirements under a “by-right” development. The developer is apparently using the threat of tree removal to force acceptance of their rezoning petition which includes a multi-use path in lieu of a conventional style sidewalk located deep within the property.

 

It is my belief that the recently adopted UDO offers guidance.

 

From the UDO:

Streetscape Modifications for Tree Preservation

The Chief Urban Forester, in consultation with the CDOT Director, may modify the streetscape requirements and the associated streetscape standards found in Article 33 to accommodate the preservation of trees meeting acceptable standards for tree health, structural integrity, and risk level as determined by the Chief Urban Forester. If a modification to the location of the required sidewalk is necessary, then the location of the required sidewalk shall be prioritized in descending order as follows:

·         Sidewalk located between trees and building.

·         Sidewalk located between curb and trees, with substandard planting strip permitted.

·         Sidewalk located at the back of curb, with an additional foot of width added.

Sidewalk widths may be modified to no less than five feet. On arterials with sidewalks located at back of curb, sidewalk widths may be modified to no less than six feet. Modification for sidewalk location or width shall be for the minimum length of sidewalk necessary to accommodate the preservation of trees meeting acceptable standards for tree health, structural integrity, and risk level as determined by the Chief Urban Forester.

This section seems to give Tim Porter, Chief Urban Forester the ability to say the trees stay, overriding the UDO upon consultation with CDOT.

The Chief Urban Forester cannot override the UDO. The UDO provides guidance and some measure of flexibility to consider modifying streetscape standards for tree preservation purposes, when conflicts between tree preservation and streetscape requirements exist. In these scenarios, during land development permitting the Chief Urban Forester and CDOT Director (or their designees) may consult and coordinate modifications as allowed per the UDO.

Can someone tell me what options are available to the developer and to the neighboring homeowners concerned about the preservation of these trees?

Information for neighbors on how they learn about and/or get involved in the rezoning process affecting their neighborhood can be found here. You may also contact your City Council representative or City staff resource for the specific petition.

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?

Yes to a degree. Any applicable tree preservation and streetscape requirements would have to be met by the development customer per an approved rezoning petition. This would include any ordinance-required tree preservation and streetscape requirements. However, site plans approved with conditional rezoning petitions are conceptual in nature and typically don’t/nor are required to include detailed site information needed determine if conflicts exist between requirements in all cases. Typically, if there are site conflicts between required tree preservation and streetscape requirements they’re resolved during the land development permitting process (post rezoning process).

 

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.

 

I am happy to meet on site at any time, even on short notice. Available via zoom, webex if needed, text or voice whatever works for you.

Urban Forestry staff may have availability this week to meet virtually to further discuss your questions. Please let us know what date/times may work for you. 

Ed Driggs' March 10, 2024 Email "Gillespie rezoning Pubic Hearing on track for March 18; petitioner offers significant concessions"

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

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