Mon 21 Jun 2010
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Chapel Hill Emergency Homeless Shelter Zoning”.
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- Monday, Jun 21st, 2010 at 7:46 pm
- Category :
- Community
- Do More :
- You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Content copyrighted Will Raymond
Like usual, the town council whitewashed their decision. They chose guidelines over standards with teeth because they want “flexibility”. Standards allow flexibility, but only with the diligence of a public finding. Thus, the ordinance would require the council to write a fictional public finding to overcome the known safety issues with the IFC proposal that come with siting a wet shelter beside preschools and a park.
Many town council members repeatedly referred to the mythical “rigorous SUP process”. This process is only rigorous when the council members dislike the project or development. IFC is politically powerful and the town is the leasor and a funder of Community House, so the SUP will merely be the final signature on a blank check. Any “rigor” will merely be theatrical enough to look good during future judicial review.
Chris Moran’s statement (read by McCulloh – you may want to note that above) is quite rich: “Concern for shelter zoning didn’t arise until IFC proposed site at Homestead”.
There was no NEED for shelter siting standards until IFC and the town decided that the Homestead Park area is the designated location of all at risk overnight social services in the entire county. Moran continues to selectively leave out important facts whenever he talks about this aspect of the siting.
Donna B clearly had not read or understood the materials when she argued that IFC is no different than a private developer. Town staff made it perfectly clear that this is NOT the typical developer relationship because the town is LEASING the property, GRANTING community development block grants ($300K granted, $200K pending), and FUNDING IFC with $50K per year in support from town taxes. The town staff made it clear that, for these reasons, the town has every right to require processes over and above the standard SUP process, including a public siting process requirement.
Also, a key point is that Roger Stancil admitted that the town did not look at multiple spots when it chose the Homestead location. Look for the video on that in the future.
Another amusing faulty selective memory of Mark K (I love it when the politicians try to rewrite history) is when he said that the county said “no” to the shelter going to Southern Human Services property. The county didn’t say no. The county said that they were going to put a justice facility (the county’s constitutional responsibility) on that property and if the town wanted a shelter there, then it needed to permanently swap the current leased courthouse at the post office for the county land. The town never responded to the county. Rather than admitting that, the town just made up another story. IFC is spinning the same story to pander to the council.
————
FROM THE N&O a while back:
(excerpted quote of article follows)
Current plans have the Homestead Road site pegged for a new county justice facility, so putting the shelter there instead would require the town to find alternative space for that. The town has discussed providing the county with space for a justice facility in the current post office and courthouse, including the rear parking deck, on Henderson Street between Franklin and Rosemary.
In a recent letter to Mayor Kevin Foy, county commissioners chairman Moses Carey said the town would have to formally offer the post office site and a consultant would have to study it to determine whether it’s adequate for a future courthouse.
“If it meets that need, only then can the county consider permitting the IFC to locate a men’s shelter at the Homestead Road site,” wrote Carey.
Mark,
My recollection is that the folks supporting the Seymour Center were so bent out of shape about the proposed move to the Southern Human Services property (where the old house was I believe) that it was rejected.
The County did entertain the idea (in 2007) when the adopted the Homestead Campus Concept Plan with the proviso that the Justice Center also be dealt with.
At the time I thought that this served as a convenient smokescreen for the real reason for ditching the site. I believe Chapel Hill had some zoning authority, this leverage, over that project.
Roger indicated (and has before) that the site search was somewhat cursory (as if looking for a site for Walgreens as he put it last evening). The criteria for site selection was based more on what appeared to be practical than addressing the broad range of issues you and others have brought to the fore, the search was somewhat simplistic.
Matt C.’s request to Stancil for a simple executive overview of the previous searches, the criteria used to select those sites and the reasons for rejecting those sites was on target. I have gone over Chris’ documentation, which makes sense to me and aligns with my recollection, but well understand that if you haven’t been following the bouncing ball over the last decade it might not be very clear.
On this point I feel for the IFC. After watching them valiantly searching for and locating various spots around Town for these facilities to only have the rules of the game change – the rug pulled out from underneath them – again and again I am amazed of their fortitude in trying to plunge ahead.
I agree that Donna B. came off very unprepared. When she asked if the shelter was “our shelter”, well, I was flabbergasted. Maybe she was having a bad night?
As far as a “rigorous” SUP process, the research the Sustainability Visioning Task Force, the local Chamber of Commerce and other concerned local groups has shown that Ed Harrison was being quite forthright in calling Council’s whimsical approach a “crap shoot”.
To be clear, sometimes the incredible suppleness of Chapel Hill’s SUP process has produced results I’m quite happy with. But with that good (at least from my perspective) has come a lot of bad – including a lack of confidence by citizens and developers that the goals of the Town’s comprehensive plan, LUMO ordinances, design guidelines, etc. will be met in the end.
The arbitrary feel of the current process – the lack of predictability – has been more of a hinderence than an asset.
Finally, I agree that the distinction between standard and guideline was deliberately obfuscated by Mark’s rhetoric (a tactic he’s borrowed from Foy).
STAFF made the distinction on purpose – standards carry regulatory requirements, guidelines are policy objectives which can be easily dispensed with (see how easily Council perverted the RSSC zone as one example).
Mark, if the IFC moves the “white flag” component off Homestead would you accept that site?
I ask because, to me, this is the biggest impediment for moving forward.
Given that Carrboro won’t take on the shelter or kitchen, I’d like to see a cooperative effort made by Chapel Hill, Orange County and the IFC to identify a site for a dual-use facility.