Talking Points on the CHA Rezoning Petition (#2010-22)

  • Written by Quincy Acklen
FIRST AND FOREMOST….

DILWORTH SUPPORTS AFFORDABLE/LOW-INCOME HOUSING.
DILWORTH SUPPORTS TOD/TS ZONING.

Here are a bunch of different points to consider sharing with both our City Council and Zoning Committee members. Just a couple of sentences is all that they need to hear. It is more important that they hear from as many neighbors as possible.

  • Exceeding height by 50% more than what is allowable is definitely NOT a good land use decision.
  • Development rights requested allow for a mega-project that is almost one and a half times the size of the entire South Park Mall.
  • When plans are ignored to this extent (height excesses on three sites) citizens lose faith and trust in the planning and zoning process.
  • It is a completely disingenuous process to have a major city department (planning dept.) spend years crafting a template of rules for development and growth (e.g. transit area plans, small area plans, general development policies, etc.) and then have the city ignore the rules.
  • The development community continues to be the true "planner" of Charlotte's future. Let's look around our suburban landscape now and see how well that has worked for us. Good development follows a plan, not a developer.
  • The ULI study recommendations have been completely ignored. ULI, an international group of land use professionals, must know how a world-class city should plan and develop. Why do our taxes pay for smart people to come here and advise us so that we can then proceed to completely ignore them?
  • Our neighborhood is concerned about the current residents of the Strawn site. We have consistently been given vague answers by CHA regarding their future in this process. Where will they be temporarily housed? For how long? Will they return?
  • CHA does not even have any site plans for its own development on this property, the one that will replace all the housing units they will demolish.
  • How can a property owner in a rezoning petition not be required to have a site plan?
  • Not one additional affordable or low-income housing unit will be realized in this redevelopment.
  • The Dilworth neighborhood has stated repeatedly, from day one, that the density and height that TOD allows a developer is by far the most that our neighborhood should have to accept.
  • Rezoning 17 acres in Dilworth from R-22 to TOD is an aggressive change to our neighborhood. But to then exceed this zoning allowance (and without any site plans for any of it) with such unnecessary height allowances is a complete disregard of the normal planning process.
  • CHA has never provided a reason for needing even more height than TOD/TS zoning allows.
  • Why can't we just let the ordinance work for us?
  • Why is CHA requesting more development rights when there isn't even a market for them?
  • This rezoning project should have never made it this far in the process. The Planning Department should have discouraged something of this magnitude that does not conform to TOD guidelines. The neighbors and the DCDA should not have to spend so many hours working on something that is so unacceptable.
  •  Neighborhoods "downstream" of this site experience frequent flooding. Development standards for this petition do not offer any details for how this massive project will address this issue.
  •  There are less than 1,000 words in the Development Standards for this 17-acre site. There were more than 20 pages for Lowe's.