Citizen
INDY Week columnist Bob Geary's Raleigh news & politics blog

Archives | RSS

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Falls Lake fiasco: Or, top 10 signs you have a very bad zoning case

Posted by on Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:06 PM

fallslake.jpg
  • Photo by D.L. Anderson
There are bad zoning cases, and then there are bad zoning cases like the one involving Falls Lake that was approved Monday by the Wake County Board of Commissioners. Yes, approved by a 6-1 vote, with all four Democrats and two of the three Republicans in the majority. This case was bad enough to prompt a David Letterman-like list of the top 10 ways you know you’ve got a very bad zoning case:

10 — Commissioner Tony Gurley, the Republican who stole the chairman’s seat when Democrat Betty Lou Ward went to the bathroom, casts an heroic dissenting vote.

9 — Ward, who chairs the commissioners’ land-use committee, says the case is nine months old, and it’s unfortunate that nearby residents, who’ve shown up to object, didn’t hear about it until a couple of weeks ago.

8 — Ward is the nearby residents’ representative on the commissioners’ board—and their neighbor in the Falls Lake watershed.

7 — The case isn’t even a rezoning. It’s an amendment (“text change”) to the county’s zoning ordinance designed to grease the way for a specific property owner’s redevelopment plans; the amendment was written not by the planning staff but by a private lawyer representing his client.

6 — One reason the planning staff couldn’t have written it: The commissioners recently abolished the position of county planning director.

5 — The Upper Neuse Riverkeeper wants the amendment rejected.

4 — Leaders of the Watershed Protection Council want the amendment rejected.

3 — The mayor of Raleigh, the Raleigh City Council and the Raleigh Planning Director want the amendment rejected, saying it will undermine regional efforts to protect the Falls Lake water supply.

2 — Before voting to approve the amendment, Democratic Commissioner Stan Norwalk calls on what’s left of the planning staff to figure out how the county can better protect the Falls Lake water supply.

1 — What part of “shopping centers don’t belong in the Falls Lake watershed” don’t you understand?

More below:

Falls Lake, located in the Neuse River basin, supplies the drinking water for Raleigh and six eastern Wake municipalities. But it’s polluted—“impaired,” the state says—from the development all around it, especially upstream in Durham County.
The pollution comes in with the stormwater (oils from the pavement, fertilizers from the lawns) and the wastewater (the sewerage is treated, but it’s not pure). The worse the pollution gets, the more it will cost to keep using the lake as a drinking-water source.
Thus, Raleigh and Durham are wrangling, with state regulators and their respective legislators in the middle, over how to clean the lake and prevent future degradation. Last year they came together to pass a law, entitled “An Act to Protect and Restore Water Quality and Quantity in the Upper Neuse River Basin, Falls Lake and Other Drinking Water Supply Reservoirs,” under which the state is supposed to issue new Falls Lake rules in 2011.

Naturally, Raleigh wants the new rules to be tough on developers, especially in Durham. Durham wants the new rules to be tough, too, as long as they don’t get in Durham’s way.

So imagine Raleigh’s horror, as it’s trying to put some pressure on Durham, when it discovers that the Wake County commissioners are about to approve a scheme to build a shopping center in the watershed—with all the cars and pollution attendant thereto.

That’s what this bad zoning case was about. There’s an 82-year old lumber yard off N.C. Highway 98 that’s barely in business, and the property owner would like to sell it for development. But the watershed zoning is very restrictive, calling for one house per acre or a small (15,000-square feet tops) commercial building.

Enter Lacy Reaves, a developers’ lawyer from Raleigh, who quietly approached county officials nine months ago. Let’s amend the zoning code, Reaves proposed, to create a special exception for any “non-conforming uses” in an R-40W zone. (The “W” is for watershed.)

Under the Reaves Amendment, if it’s a non-conforming use—say, a lumber yard that existed before the county had any zoning—you could replace it with something almost as big, like a shopping center, as long as the resulting pollution is substantially less than it was with the lumber yard.

In other words, the more pollution you used to produce, the more you can produce now.

Neighbors calculate that the amendment, which is complicated, may lead to a 160,000- to 170,000-square foot shopping center. Reaves says it’ll be 120,000 square feet, max. There is, of course, no site plan.

“It’s a cleanup measure,” the artful Reaves told the commissioners Monday.

“It’s very good lawyer work,” Chairman Gurley responded.

But just because the lumberyard (and there’s an old cement plant there too) was a big polluter in its day, Gurley said, is no reason to permit another big polluter there now.

The property can be redeveloped under the existing zoning, he added, “just not as profitably.” There’s always a trade-off when there’s an old, undesirable use, but the owner doesn’t like what the zoning allows. “I’m just not willing to accept that the trade-off needs to be this large.”

That put Gurley on the same side as Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker, the Raleigh council and Planning Director Mitch Silver, who came out against the amendment when they got wind of it last month.

So did Lake Falls subdivision residents, who didn’t know the amendment was on tap (since it wasn’t a rezoning case, there was no notification to neighbors) until after a March 1 public hearing. “From my perspective,” said resident Rob Posgai, “the public has been left strategically out of this process.”

Even John Grace, longtime leader of the Watershed Protection Council, said he learned about the measure only when a county staffer mentioned it at an unrelated meeting in February.

Grace and other WPC leaders agree, something new on the lumberyard tract would be nice, but it shouldn’t produce more pollution than what the existing zoning would allow. “The lake shouldn’t know what’s there,” is the way Grace put it.

“What we’re doing is issuing a new set of rights to the property owner that no one else in the watershed has,” he said. “It won’t be long before other property owners want them too.”

Pin It

Comments

Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in Citizen

More by Bob Geary

Facebook Activity

Twitter Activity

Comments

As is Chavis Park, Doug. But both are relatively small compared to Umstead, NCMA and, when it happens, Dix Park.

by Bob Geary, INDY Opinion Columnist on Dix Park: The Deal is Done (Citizen)

Let the debate begin on the Parks future. Horace Greeley, viewing recent improvements to Central Park in The 1870's, observed …

by Doug Johnston on Dix Park: The Deal is Done (Citizen)

Most Read

No recently-read stories.

Visit the archives…

Latest videos from the INDY

© 2015 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation