Choosing the Right Development Review Process: Factors to Consider

The city will soon be making a major land use regulatory decision.  There is a 15-acre site in town that is mostly vacant, but has a few modest, outdated commercial buildings.  The site fronts a major street, so more intensive use is feasible.  The owner has expressed interest in a new mixed use development that will include commercial and office space along with a substantial multi-family housing component.  Much of the surrounding land behind the site has already been developed for single-family residential use and the neighbors will no doubt be strongly concerned about the traffic, noise, congestion, stormwater runoff, and other impacts of any intensive development.  A variety of detailed land use issues are likely to arise — questions about site design, street and sidewalk improvements, fiscal impacts for the town, building design, buffers and landscaping to mention a few.

What type of development review process should be used for this type of proposal?  Would it be best to require a rezoning?  Or perhaps a special use permit review?  How about an administrative review by staff experts to apply detailed development standards?

The short answer is that it depends.  A zoning ordinance can be structured to use any of these three types of review.  The challenge is to think about what type of review is best suited for different situations and needs and then to structure the ordinance so that anticipated developments are placed into the appropriate category. Read more »

A Possible Unexpected Result of the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Decision

Many commentators saw the United States Supreme Court’s June decision in Shelby County, Ala., v. Holder, ___ US ___, 133 SCt 2612, eliminating the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as a significant setback for African American voters. In at least one area of the law, however, the consequences of Shelby County may turn out different than expected and actually may increase the influence of African Amercian voters. That area is redistricting. Read more »

Tax Foreclosure and Redevelopment

Carolina County has been working with its largest municipality, Tar Heel Town, to  redevelop one of Tar Heel Town’s more dilapidated neighborhoods.  Many of the properties in this neighborhood are owned by absentee landlords who fail to maintain them properly.  Not surprisingly, many of these properties are also subject to liens for thousands of dollars of delinquent property taxes and minimum housing ordinance repair costs.

A local community development corporation (CDC) hopes to acquire and redevelop some of these properties into affordable housing, but the CDC has had difficulty convincing the absentee landlords to sell. Now the CDC is pushing the city and county to foreclose on the delinquent properties in the neighborhood—and then, with the liens cleared, the CDC hopes to buy some of the properties out of foreclosure at a substantial discount. The town council is supportive of the proposal, because it sees it as a way to accomplish some of its goals for the neighborhoods. Is the CDC’s proposal realistic? How could it be implemented?

In short, the CDC’s proposal is realistic, but the city and county would need to proceed carefully… Read more »

The Perils of Preauditing P-Cards (and Other Electronic Payment Methods)

A county ambulance crew member calls Fiona, the county finance officer, at 9pm on Sunday night. The crew just responded to their third call of the night and he needs to refuel the ambulance. Fiona grabs a copy of the county’s budget ordinance and a printout of current expenditures and encumbrances and rushes out the door to meet the ambulance crew at a gas station several miles from her home. When Fiona arrives the crew member gives her an estimate of the amount of gas needed. Fiona notes the current per-gallon price and calculates the total cost to be $72.65. She quickly glances at the budget ordinance. It allocates $100,000 for ambulance fuel for the fiscal year. She also checks to see that there is $43,000 remaining in that appropriation. She gives the crew member the ok and he fills up the tank. Fiona uses a county-issued fuel card to pay the $72.65 owed. When the receipt prints at the pump, Fiona stamps it with the following statement, “This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.” Fiona then signs her name to the receipt and hands it back to the crew member. (The crew member will later submit the receipt, through his supervisor, to the county’s finance department to reconcile with the monthly fuel card bill.)

Fiona returns home. Just as she walks in the door the phone rings again. It is a Sheriff’s office deputy. She is at the end of her shift and needs to refuel her vehicle. Just as Fiona grabs her coat and starts to walk out the door again she awakes with a jolt from what can only be described as a stress-induced nightmare. Or was it? Read more »

Voluntary Annexation: An Overview

“Annexation” is the incorporation of new territory into an existing city. North Carolina allows three methods of annexation:  1) city-initiated (“involuntary”), 2) by petition from property-owners or residents (“voluntary”), and 3) by act of the General Assembly (“legislative”). The General Assembly recently made significant changes in the involuntary annexation statutes, which are summarized in my blog post here. The new requirement for voter approval of involuntary annexations is widely viewed as likely to make this type of annexation rare, if not extinct. As such, the growth of cities may be more likely to occur through legislative and voluntary annexation. This blog post provides an overview of the voluntary annexation process, and answers some frequently asked questions about how it is used in North Carolina. Read more »

The N.C. Regulatory Reform Act of 2013 and Local Environmental Health Programs

[Update: On October 23, 2013, the North Carolina Division of Public Health issued a position statement on the change to the definition of “private club” in the food and lodging laws. The statement specifies that an establishment must have a mixed beverages private club permit to fall within the expanded definition of private club. It also points out that the changed definition of “private club” applies only to the public health laws regulating food and lodging establishments. The definition of “private club” in the state laws regulating smoking in restaurants and bars was not changed.]

[Update 2: On December 3, 2013, the N.C. Commission for Public Health adopted a final rule clarifying the definition of “enclosed area” for purposes of the state’s smoke-free restaurants and bars law. The rule will take effect 30 days after the General Assembly convenes for its 2014 short session, unless the legislature takes action to disapprove the rule. On December 18, 2013, the N.C. Division of Public Health issued this update to answer questions and clarify issues arising from local health departments’ enforcement of the new requirements for carbon monoxide detectors in lodging establishments.]

The Regulatory Reform Act of 2013 was an omnibus bill that addressed the regulation of a wide range of issues, from the state’s rule-making procedures, to the authority of local governments to regulate environmental issues, to specific state laws that provide for environmental health inspections and permitting. North Carolina’s local health departments are responsible for operating environmental health programs to ensure compliance with statewide regulations. Among other things, local environmental health employees inspect and permit food and lodging establishments, evaluate sites and issue or deny permits for on-site wastewater systems and private drinking water wells, and enforce the state law prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars. This post explains the portions of the Regulatory Reform Act affecting local environmental health programs and provides links to state agency position statements addressing how the changes in state laws should be implemented.

This is not a comprehensive summary of all 2013 legislation affecting public health or local health departments – I am limiting this post to the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Act that affected local environmental health programs. Interested in more public health legislative summaries? They are available here.

Read more »

College Student Voting in Light of 2013 Elections Legislation

UPDATE February 2017:  In July 2016 the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction against elements of the 2013 legislation, prohibiting enforcement of the photo ID requirement described in this post.  The matter is before the United States Supreme Court.

Starting in 2016 at North Carolina polling places you will have to present a photo ID to vote.  That’s the result of one of many elections changes in the Voter Information Verification Act passed by the 2013 General Assembly.  How will voter ID affect North Carolina college students who wish to register and vote in their college towns, not back home where their parents live?

Imagine that it’s 2016.  North Carolina’s new photo-ID-to-vote requirement is in place. Read more »