Sunday’s guest column by Carol Ann Zinn has generated several responses. Zinn recently sold land off N.C. 54 to the UNC Foundation at a major financial loss after failing to win approval for her Aydan Court condominium project (See story here). In her column, she said Chapel Hill’s development process is influenced by no-growth activists and forces developers to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars modifying plans in a lengthy review process that has no guaranted outcome and drives up housing costs.
Here are a few excerpts from letters that have come in this week. Look for the full versions of these letters Sunday in The Chapel Hill News and at www.chapelhillnews.com.
From Suzanne Haff: "Ms. Zinn has designed and built many wonderful residential communities around Chapel Hill; but, in my opinion, she made a poor choice when she purchased this property – not a very buildable parcel – and then proceeded to hammer the town with request after request to modify the topography – until it lost all its uniqueness, needed fancy and costly mechanics to control run-off when completed. ... There is no right as far as I know to do whatever you want to the natural terrain when you purchase a piece of property. She gambled she could convince the council otherwise and she lost."
From Del Snow: "Carol Ann Zinn is, in fact, an experienced developer with many projects that have been approved in Chapel Hill. Before purchasing the proposed Aydan Court property, she, more than most, should have been clearly aware of all the constraints of the state-designated Significant Natural Heritage Area and the three major ordinances that would have had to be overturned for any development to occur. At every point in the process, these issues were pointed out in staff reports. Our town ordinances are in place to protect our environment, our future, and us. Why did she decide to keep pouring money into a losing proposition in order to force an approval?"
From: Kristina Peterson: "Ms. Zinn should get past this long temper tantrum she’s been having. The development review process does not need to be made easier for flawed development proposals. I am grateful for all the citizen groups and their leaders who give their time freely and generously to support our interests. What would Chapel Hill look like if we hadn’t had heroes like them throughout the years?"
Comments
Process
Sat, 12/24/2011 - 11:21 — tbucknerFrom many of the comments I've heard at the 2020 meetings, it seems like Ms Zinn is spot on in claiming that the process is broken. Developers shouldn't be forced to spend so much time and money getting their projects approved or rejected. And if the advisory boards aren't going to be listened to, why bother having them? However, I personally am glad that Aydan Court was not approved. More residential growth, whether it meets environmental standards or not, simply exacerbates the town's economic problems. What I'd like to know is whether the concept review process is designed to look at the big issues--like balancing residential and commercial growth--or whether it only looks at specific issues, such as environmental impact.
Every one of the advisory
Fri, 12/23/2011 - 10:22 — ClaudiusEvery one of the advisory boards voted in favor of the Aydan Court project.
What good are these boards when they are consistently ignored by town council?
All the more reason for a new approval system that does not rely on the political whims of council members nor the shrill outbursts of a few powerful antigrowth advocates.
Just Wondering?
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 14:39 — fhblackDidn't some of the Town advisory boards sign off on the project? If so, were they split votes like the Council votes?