Fayetteville City Council Meetings Update:
New Rezonings that were approved by Council:
- Rezoning of property from single family/residential/neighborhood commercial to mixed residential. The property is located at 8363 Cliffdale Road and is owned by Ethel Pate. The site plan calls for a 96-unit housing complex.
- Special Use permit approved on property zoned light industrial district for industrial use within 500 feet of a residential zoning. The property is located at 914 North Street and is owned by DRA LLC. The owners intent on this property is to build a cement distribution center. A rail yard will need to be constructed for material to loaded and unloaded. The property abuts residential property by 250 feet.
- Rezoning of property from agricultural residential to mixed residential conditional. The 6 acres of property is located at 2454 Gillis Hill Road and is owned by Janet and Jesse Kimball. The developer (United Developer) will construct a 56 unit apartment complex. Accessibility will be on Gillis Hill Road. Two hundred residents from the gated subdivision of Lancaster signed a petition against the proposed development. Voting in opposition were councilmembers Bill Crisp and Ted Mohn.
Bill Owens (employee of United Developers) – “There has been a lot of development out there…but hasn’t been any affordable housing development.”
Faye Lockamy (resident) – “The traffic is terrible now, they need to do something about the roads before they approve anything like that.”
The following item was discussed at the May work session.
- The council considered water options for the Bullard Circle neighborhood due to high arsenic levels found in their wells. At the end of discussions, the council voted for option 2 in their city memo. Voting in opposition were councilmembers Mitch Colvin, Chalmers McDougald, Jim Arp & Mayor Pro-Tem Kady Ann Davy. Councilman Larry Wright was absent from the meeting.
Option 2 – Pursuant to Policy 150.2, set a date to consider exempting the Bullard Circle property owners from the requirement for annexation prior to receiving services.
Sidebar – Cumberland County suggestion was option 2. Option 2, according to the county would be the most expedient way to provide water services.
What’s Next: The Council will take a formal vote on this item later this month.
What Was Said:
Ted Voorhees (City Manager) – “Annexation creates thoughts and memories of annexations carried out against your will. This is within the MIA and an area that should be annexed. I think we have a compelling story to be in the city. Join the team and get the team discount or don’t join and the residents and county pay for it.”
Councilman Mohn – “The county and PWC should negotiate, there is no advantage to annex.”
Mayor Robertson – “What is the cost?”
Steve Blanchard (CEO PWC) – “$475,000.”
Robertson – “How much will the city absorb?”
Blanchard – “Up to 25% of main cost, PWC pays 25% and county is assessed 75%.”
Councilman Crisp – “There is no gain in annexing. Everyone desearves God’s water. Nothing is black and white. They belong to the county. Let the county deal with this.”
Councilwoman Jensen – “I’ve spoken with them and they really don’t care if they get water. They’ve been living with it this long. They do not want to be annexed.”
