Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker said today he's worried about the Wake County Board of Commissioners decision to not adopt stricter development restrictions along the Little River. The commissioners unanimously voted down those restrictions during their meeting Monday.
"That’s a matter of real concern in terms of the permitting of the next water resource for Raleigh," Meeker said. "I’m hopeful they will study that issue further."
Meeker said he'd spoken to one commissioner about this issue. But, given that the vote was unanimous, it seems unlikely that the commissioners will change their minds anytime soon. The lopsided nature of yesterday's vote raises questions about whether Raleigh did enough to make its case for the tougher restrictions. No Raleigh City Council members spoke in favor of the proposal at yesterday's meeting, instead a consultant and Public Utilities Director Dale Crisp spoke. The city really can't afford to not gain approval to build the Little River Reservoir, and Raleigh officials clearly feel the new restrictions give them a much stronger case with regulators.
Does this show a lack of involvement or leadership on the part of Raleigh officials? Or were these restrictions bound to be voted down by a county board that is clearly worried about unnecessarily stepping on residents property rights?
Business reporter David Bracken came to the N&O in 2004. He covers commercial and residential real estate. Contact David at 919-829-4548 or 
Comments
Mind your own business
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 08:59 — WuptdoWell if Meeker is so "concerned" maybe he should run for the Commissioners job. Maybe someone should tell him that outside of Raleigh, he is nothing more than another worthless lawyer & politician.
It will pass
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 08:26 — Educated (not verified)Mayor Meeker is worrying for nothing. The Commissioners voted to send the proposal back for modification. They did not like the extra land that staff suggested for a portion of the watershed. Staff wanted to throw federal agencies a bone and offer one home per three acres, versus one home per two acres---as required by the state in the "critical area" of the watershed. Property owners were not happy about this and let the commissioners know.
The irony is that the state only requires one home per two acres. Over 75% of the governments that have Class II watersheds only require one home per two acres in the critical area of the watershed.
But there is no data or science that says three, four, even one per two acres will get cleaner water. What will get us cleaner water is stormwater management regulations, and how much of the land can be covered by driveways, roofs, decks, pools, etc. The county's proposed requirements, beyond the downzoning that staff (and Raleigh) want do far more to ensure the water will be clean in the Little River.
If 75% of the class II watershed were approved with the state min standards for homes per acre---why would this be any different?
At the end of the day, why should we take extra land from the property owners, at their expense, when there is no tangible benefit to them or the community at large?
Unless, of course, the county (and Raleigh) want to pay them for the extra land (as stated in the 5th amendment). I am not holding my breath for that to happen.
Little River
Tue, 07/08/2008 - 13:51 — Anonymous (not verified)The city should ask the State to step in to protect the future lake and the streams that feed it.