|
Monday, 26 December 2005 06:15 |
By DAVID FORBES
WEAVERVILLE ?? Controversy continues to swirl over a more than 85-acre development passed 4-1 by the Weaverville Town Council last month, as several residents raised complaints in the public comment portion of council??s meeting last Monday. One of those speakers, resident Tom Maroney, was escorted from the chambers after refusing to step down at the end of his allotted time.
In response to concerns earlier in the meeting that its rules for public comment were too restrictive, council unanimously passed new rules that require less notice before speaking. Those rules will take effect at next month??s meeting.
When council approved the rezoning of the Northridge Commons project on Nov. 21, which is necessary for it to proceed, the supporters of the rezoning said that the project, which will be built at the N.C. 25-70/U.S. 19-23 interchange, is high quality and will bring more than 1,500 jobs to Weaverville.
Its opponents contend that the size of the development is too large for the town, will damage its small businesses and will massively increase traffic.
While a public hearing in October included remarks from both supporters and opponents of the project, the public comment portion of Monday??s meeting involved several of the opponents raising concerns about the amount of public input council received before it was passed.
Some also assert that their voices are being been ignored.
In his remarks, Maroney accused council of ignoring the feelings of the project??s opponents and asked, ?®Would you sell your souls for money??∆
Maroney repeated his question, to which Councilwoman Marcie Nesbeth answered ?®No.?∆
?®Well, that??s exactly what you have done,?∆ Maroney said. ?®You have purportedly known about the rezoning of about 100 acres of Weaverville into a monstrosity greater than that on Tunnel Road. You??ve known about this for approximately one year and you??ve never informed the people you allegedly represent.?∆
Moreover, Maroney said, council had met with representatives of Charlotte developer Harris, Murr & Vermillion, who are behind the project, for a year prior to the vote as well.
?®You didn??t meet with any of the people in this community for one year,?∆ Maroney said. ?®You limited the people in this community to a few minutes of discussion back a month ago. Then you limit us to a few minutes of discussion after you??ve already voted. You failed to make this proposed development an issue in the last election.
?®You could have made this an issue. We could have had a referendum on this issue by saying, ?¥We are in favor of this. Anybody opposed to this, why don??t you run against us??? I wonder what would have happened. Were you concerned more with maintaining your own position of power than doing the right thing for this community? The truth should come out, you didn??t allow the truth to come out.?∆
At that point, Mayor Mary ?®Bett?∆ Stroud banged her gavel and said to Maroney, ?®You are out of order.?∆
In reply, Maroney said, ?®I respectfully disagree,?∆ to which Stroud answered, ?®You are being rude.?∆
Maroney continued, asserting that ?®what you are saying are that the material wants of these developers are more important than the lives of the people who are being zoned out of their homes. Many of them were in the audience last month crying.?∆
Then Maroney??s allotted three minutes for comment ended and Stroud informed him that his time was up.
?®Let me rephrase the question,?∆ he said.
?®Your time is up,?∆ Stroud replied.
?®What you have done...?∆ Maroney began.
?®Sir, do not speak. Your time is up,?∆ Stroud answered, banging her gavel again.
?®You??ve sold the town,?∆ Maroney said, while Stroud continued to bang her gavel.
?®Please escort him from the chambers,?∆ Stroud said. Maroney then left, escorted by a police officer.
Meanwhile, in earlier remarks, resident Mel Kelly wondered aloud if council is listening to the concerns of the townspeople.
?®I have spoken with many residents who do not want a development of this size in Weaverville,?∆ Kelly said. ?®I have seen many more letters against this project than for it. As I looked through those, I thought it clear that folks are very wary about big-box development in our town. My question to you tonight is: Are you listening? Do you hear what the people in this town want??∆
She also implored council to reconsider its decision in favor of the project.
?®A growing number of people feel that not enough accurate information was given about this project, that not enough notice of public hearing was given with enough time to comment, that not enough time was given before the vote to talking and discussing about this. I respectfully request that you consider revisiting this issue.?∆
In separate remarks, resident Bill Hussey criticized council members Dottie Sherrill, Harold Payne and Don Hallingse for not remarking on their reasons before casting votes in favor of the project at the Nov. 20 meeting.
?®I can??t really pick on three of you, which I??d love to do, because you didn??t even say a word before you voted on this,?∆ Hussey said. ?®I would think, in my opinion, that something of this importance that perhaps would change the entire character of our town would be worth explaining why you voted for this.?∆
Nesbeth stated at the November meeting that she had received 347 remarks through phone and e-mail in favor of the project and 139 against it, and Hussey questioned her about the accuracy of those numbers.
Hussey said that while Nesbeth had said that the responses came through e-mail, letters and phone calls, the responses also came from petitions.
?®Only 200, Ms. Nesbeth revealed to me in a phone call, had come from personal contacts,?∆ he said.
Paul Litton, who lives outside Weaverville, noted that council should keep in mind how the projects it approves affect other areas.
?®On Monday night last week, I witnessed a horrific accident just off the New Stock Road exit,?∆ Litton said. ?®That intersection and interchange is already what I would describe as a nightmare, and I??d seen many accidents there and I??ve seen countless close calls. As you have approved this new development, there??s really a lot of concern about how you??re going to deal with these new traffic concerns on Weaverville Road. I urge you to understand what your decisions mean outside of the plans, because they impact everyone in your town and in your community at large, which spans outside the legal limits of the town.?∆
Nesbeth noted that the intersection where Litton witnessed the accident technically lies in Woodfin, not Weaverville, and hence is not council??s responsibility.
In reply, Litton said, ?®If your decisions as a town council put more burden on that intersection, then I believe it is your responsibility to try and proactively come up with a solution.?∆
Earlier, in response to concerns expressed about council??s format for public comment, council adopted new rules that shortened the amount of notice a person has to give to speak in the public comment portion of the meeting.
Previously, someone wishing to speak had to inform the town clerk by the Friday prior to the Monday meeting. Now the person may sign up at any point before the meeting begins by signing their name and noting what topic they wish to address.
The rules are aimed at making public comment more open, Councilman Al Root said, adding that he wants to monitor how they work out in the coming months.
?®I do think, as we go forward, I want to pay close attention to how these rules work,?∆ Root said. ?®Also, if something builds up that??s a controversial issue, I do think we should take comment during session, sometimes before a meeting if people want to say something about what we??re voting on that night.?∆
In response, Town Manager Mike Morgan noted that council may vote to change its rules for a given session if such a special situation occurs.
In other action, council set 6:45 p.m. Jan. 16 as the time for a public hearing on the voluntary annexation of 34 acres at the intersection of Aiken Road and Merrimon Avenue and 6:15 p.m. the same day as the time for a public hearing on adopting a Hillside Development Ordinance to limit construction on slopes. The ordinance is the same one that was passed by Buncombe County earlier this year.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
