Fayetteville City Council Update – April & May


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.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Published by Angie Hedgepeth

Angie Hedgepeth, Government Affairs Director for the Association, attends all the local meetings each month, as well as NAR and NCAR meetings, and keeps members abreast of the multiple issues being addressed in local, state and national government. She prepares reports on the meetings she attends and they are included in the weekly "Government Affairs Update".