Lame-Duck Boone Town Council Poised To Do the Wrong Thing

During its last hour in office on December 21st, the current Boone Town Council (including all the members who were just kicked out of office on November 7th) is set to vote on a major give-away to Appalachian State University.

The proposed text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance will allow ASU to rent any and all space (offices, storage, etc.) in the M1 (Manufacturing), B3 (General Business), and O/I (Office/Institutional) districts of the town. B3 is of particular concern because it includes so many existing buildings on all the main corridors.

This text amendment would allow the university to move in for long-term use (up to seven years with the possibility of further open-ended extensions -- see below), putting university functions including possibly classes all over the business districts without requiring the university to go through the normal procedures required for such consequential changes in use.

ASU is reportedly going to need a lot of space, like in a whole lot and more, because the Old Lowe's Building must be vacated and other demolitions and renovations are going to throw many faculty, staff, and whole programs with their required classes out into the town of Boone. The only use excluded for ASU in the B3, M1, and O/I districts will be residential.

This major adjustment to the town's already capacious accommodation to ASU has been moving quietly along the path to passage, with a Public Hearing last week that not many citizens knew about, though renters of empty property did know about it. During that public hearing one property owner stood up and said it's a fact that ASU already owns Boone, so why don't we just go ahead and make it official with this text amendment?

What Is Especially Pernicious About This Planned Vote

Under normal procedures, this text amendment would be voted up or down by the newly elected Boone Town Council, which will be sworn in at 5:30 on December 21 (barring Nathan Miller and Anne Marie Yates's ridiculous attempt to overthrow the election). But the current council -- Lynne Mason, Jeannine Underdown Collins, Charlotte Mizelle, Quint David -- with Loretta Clawson vigorously opposing the text amendment -- scheduled a "Special" session at 4:30 on December 21st, an hour before they're officially off the job. They clearly intend to vote this text amendment through while they still can.

Their rush to pass this before the new Council takes office speaks loudly, and the message is not flattering to the old Council.

What the University Wants, the University Gets

The very generous "planners" on the Boone Planning Staff wrote it into the text amendment that the university could have the rentals for three years with a one-time renewal for three more years, for a total of six years.

But the university wants more and has requested "through counsel" that the initial term be for five years with a two-year extension, and wanted this language added to prepare for going beyond those seven years: "An additional extension may be granted upon a showing of unanticipated and extraordinary circumstances" -- and there's no end to that "additional extension."

How does a university take over a town? With the willing collusion of a town council.

Town of Boone to Developers: "No Parking? No Problem!"

Clawson

Last night, by a vote of 4-1 (with Loretta Clawson, the lone voice of reason), the Boone Town Council approved too large a development on too small a space with too little parking.

The majority on the council have been seized by a New Faith: If the town deliberately allows new developments to ignore required parking regs, then the town will almost magically reduce "auto dependency" and become a "walking and biking" town. That's the long-range vision. The short-term is more and denser rent-by-the-bedroom student housing along major corridors with Council saying simultaneously, "We have a serious parking problem," but approving anyway mega-developments without adequate parking.

Head, spinning.

The University Overlook on the Blowing Rock Road beside the Parthenon is now approved: 24 one-bedroom apartments and approximately 4,000 square feet of retail space on the first floor, with a total of 28 parking spaces. The Town's ordinance provides that there should be 1 parking space per bedroom. Generally, retail/commercial uses are required by Town ordinance to provide 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial use (restaurants -- 12 spaces per 1,000 square feet).

So ... a bit of rough math:

UDO requirement = 24 residential parking spaces
Approved by Council = 22 residential parking spaces
UDO requirement = 20 retail/commercial parking spaces
Approved by Council = 6 retail/commercial parking spaces

Absurd?

Time out for my forlorn observation RE 22 parking places for 24 one-bedroom apartments: Perhaps there'll be at least two renters at University Overlook without cars, but how many of those one-bedrooms will be rented by two unrelated (but very friendly) persons, both of whom have cars?


The Boone Planning Commission considered this project on January 11 before it went to the Town Council last night. The following discussion, taken from Planning Commission minutes, is eye-opening:

Vice-Chair Simmons asked how everyone felt about the parking. Commission Chair Woolridge noted that he didn’t have a concern with the parking and asked Vice-Chair Simmons if he had any concerns about the parking. Vice-Chair Simmons noted that his concern was that maybe applicants are putting in token commercial space because Council did not want to see 100% residential in commercial corridors and that the commercial spaces may not have the parking spaces to support them. Vice-Chair noted the answer might be that this proposal is for a walkable development but noted that the commercial area only had 6 spaces.

Chair Woolridge asked if Vice-Chair Simmons wanted to see more parking spaces. Vice-Chair Simmons noted that he just wanted to have the discussion.

Commission Member McCracken asked how the development next to Hob Nob and Winkler Square worked. Commission Member Tate noted that he handles the parking for those two locations and that it seems to work great for the residential tenants but that his concern is that there may not be enough parking for the commercial business which is why they are vacant at Winkler Square.

Commission Member Dineen noted that she thought the parking is problematic; that the existing parking in the area is congested and that this area was not like King Street where on-street parking is provided for the commercial customers and that regardless of whether the development is walkable people will still own cars and will need a place to park them. [Italics have been added]

What did the Planning Commission do after this discussion. It voted unanimously to approve the project.  (Sometimes the boat sinks when no one wants to rock it.)

And this, also from the minutes during the discussion of parking: "Mr. [Bill] Bailey [Planning Director] noted that studies from other Universities indicate that only 60% of students have vehicles and that number keeps decreasing." One wonders what other universities (and "studies") Mr. Bailey was referring to. Certainly not Appalachian State University.

When some members of the Boone Town Council last night expressed the same concerns about parking, Mr. Bill Bailey trotted out that particular factoid that university students somewhere are using autos much less. Inquiring minds would like to see that evidence and understand more clearly what it has to do with this place and these college students and their automobiles.

Although Councilwoman Loretta Clawson was the only member to express dismay at the direction the town is deliberately taking, to her credit new Councilwoman Jen Teague announced that she was not comfortable about the parking requirement, and she turned to the council's lawyer Allison Meade for help with wording: How do we require more of the developer?

Allison Meade

And then I witnessed something I've never seen before -- an elected public body's attorney injecting her own "vote" into the discussion and effectively taking over control of the Council's decision. Oh don't try to tell a developer how many parking spaces he should provide, Lawyer Meade advised. The developer knows far better than we do what is needed. Don't tie the developer's hands, because there are already incentives aplenty for the developer to get it right, and who are we to impose more conditions?

At which Councilwoman Teague dropped her question and voted for the development, along with members Lynne Mason, Charlotte Mizelle, and Jeannine Underdown Collins. Member Clawson stood alone in opposition.

Whatever else is going wrong in the Town of Boone, there seems to be a problem with having an attorney who is also a real estate broker.

Where Boone Is Headed (Hint: It Ain't Nowhere Good)

You probably won't recall that back in November the Boone Town Council passed sweeping new rules that allow "planned developments" in any neighborhood (after a 2-2 tie was broken by acting Mayor Rennie Brantz).

The first "planned development" to come under the new rules: the development of the old Southern States property at the end of Faculty Street (now known as Rivers Street). The developers want a 50'-tall building containing 350 bedrooms which will rent at $700 a bedroom. Best part: the developers plan to provide only 150 parking spaces, all of which will be leased and will not be provided as a part of the rent. Dumpsters for the complex will be placed right on Water Street in full view of people driving down Howard St.

The new rules required a "neighborhood meeting" between adjacent property owners and the developer. Since no one else is invited, nor informed, only five adjacent property owners showed up last Thursday evening to hear about this development. No one from Boone's Planning and Inspections Department bothered to show up, because under the new rules, they don't have to. It's up to the developer to report any neighborhood concerns to the Zoning Administrator. And, O my children, the developer does not have to accept any of the suggestions/criticisms/cries of alarm. The Town Council has the final say.

The new rules allow developers to avoid Boone's existing minimal development standards by bypassing the town's Board of Adjustments altogether. Neighborhoods no longer have the right to appeal approvals through a court of law. Neighbors only get to express their frustrations to both the developer and Town Council members in hopes that sanity might prevail. Best of all (for the specter of corruption, collusion, and cronyism), both the developer and the Council are now allowed to meet with each other without public knowledge.

This is what Town Council members Lynne Mason and Quint David and Rennie Brantz chose for the future of Boone back in November. It stinks to high heaven.

The final approval of this now falls on the shoulders of new Town Council members Jen Teague, Charlotte Mizelle, and Jeannine Underdown Collins, who'll be called upon to vote for or against this development, along with Lynne Mason (who pushed the new rules to begin with) and Loretta Clawson (who opposed the new rules from the get-go).

The Erosion of Boone's Single-Family Neighborhoods

Last night at its regular meeting, the Boone Town Council voted 2-2 on an ordinance amendment to allow for "planned developments" in every zoning area of Town. Mayor Rennie Brantz broke the tie by voting for the text amendments (about which, more below), siding with Council members Lynne Mason and Quint David and against members Loretta Clawson and Fred Hay.

This was Quint David's last meeting on the council, since he did not seek reelection (neither did Fred Hay). Mason and Clawson recently won reelection to four-year terms and are now well established and also sharply contrasted for differing visions of Boone's future.

Mason has been leading to make Boone friendlier to big developments and to seek a lot more New River water to sell to those developers, both inside and outside the city limits. Clawson has long been a champion of Boone's endangered single-family neighborhoods, but she's about to be even more out-numbered on the Council.

Jen Teague and Charlotte Mizelle, both elected to two-year terms earlier this month, have firmly aligned themselves with Mason and will hold a solid three-person majority. They could and probably will cement that majority when they appoint a new Council member to serve out Rennie Brantz's term (Brantz was elected Mayor, leaving his remaining time on Council to be filled by appointment).

New Rules for "Planned Developments"

The text amendments voted through last night by Mason, David, and Brantz effectively eliminate the requirement that developers follow the Town's minimal zoning standards, like setbacks, buffers, parking, etc., as long as they promise a "Planned Development," a promise that can be as empty as smoke.

The amendments allow for any use to go anywhere in town. A meeting is now required between neighborhoods and the developer to share neighborhood concerns, but the new rules do not allow for any conditions to be placed on the development other than those agreed to by the developer. There's your smoke, and how's that for the future of neighborhoods in the town of Boone?

The amendments greatly increase the power and authority of the planning administrator to approve big developments and greatly reduces a neighborhood's ability to challenge those developments. The Board of Adjustment, which ordinarily provides a judicial process for challenges and for imposing conditions on new developments, is taken out of the process altogether. The Town Council can deny a Planned Development proposal, but only on narrow grounds that do not include taking into consideration neighborhood concerns.

The removal of the Board of Adjustment, with its quasi-judicial process that can be challenged/sustained in court, paves the way for closed-door bargaining, cronyism, and the specter of favoritism.

It's just sad maddening that recently reelected Council members placed "protecting our neighborhoods" at the top of their campaign platforms when it's obvious they didn't mean a word of it. Do they think we're not paying attention?