|
KANNAPOLIS — City leaders and citizens again expressed concerns Monday about a proposed countywide planning and zoning ordinance.
The difference: city leaders want their concerns addressed before they adopt the ordinance; for citizens, the concern is the ordinance itself, which they say undermines their rights.
City Council and the Planning Board met to continue studying the Unified Development Ordinance, a 500-page document proposed to replace the county’s various zoning and development ordinances with a single set of standards.
Concord adopted the ordinance — which regulates everything from residential subdivisions to corporate parks — earlier this month. Cabarrus County commissioners have said they’ll consider adopting it in November.
The Kannapolis Planning Board could get a final recommendation from city planners at its Nov. 1 meeting, but board Chairman Jay Nodine said that doesn’t mean the board will then make a recommendation to the council.
Kannapolis leaders remain divided over a section of the ordinance requiring developers to offset the impact of development by doing it in phases or paying to alleviate it.
The adequate public facilities measure would apply to the effects of development on schools, water and sewer works, and roads.
But it’s unclear whether the county or city would negotiate the dollar value of the impact of development on a school, and who would collect money.
Councilman Richard Anderson suggested leaving the provision out of the ordinance.
“Idon’t want to deal with it until somebody can tell me ... who is going to make the decisions,”he said. In the meantime, Anderson said, he’d rather charge developers an “access fee” to begin using city services and facilities.
Others, including Mayor Ray Moss and City Manager David Hales, said they favor adopting the adequate facilities measure to ensure the city can alleviate the effects of new development on taxpayers.
Anderson drew applause several times from the residents gathered to protest the ordinance as he questioned provisions giving administrators or appointed boards the power to make decisions in matters such as conditional use permit requests.
Residents began gathering before 5:30 p.m., when the work session started, for a silent protest against the ordinance. Most had also protested at an Oct. 9 public hearing, when about 100 residents filled the council chambers to overflowing.
About 40 remained when the work session ended and council began its regular meeting 45 minutes late, giving people who wanted to be heard a chance to speak.
Five people spoke, all opposing the ordinance.
D.J. Griffith, of Westward Drive, compared the residents’ struggle to that of the colonists who came to this continent to escape the tyranny of Great Britain.
“One of our basic premises for being here is our individual rights,” she said. “I feel ... this is taking away our rights as individuals, and this is taking our constitutional rights.”
As at the public hearing, many opposed what they say are unnecessary restrictions on home-based businesses.
They say also that the ordinance, written by a Kansas City consulting firm guided by a local steering committee, does not address the needs for desires of residents here.
Homemade protest signs littered City Council chambers after the meeting. A bright yellow sign draped over a chair back said in black letters “We live in Kannapolis — we want laws for our own community.”
|
Today's News