The process of creating a new worship facility could certainly be considered an act of faith by New Life
Fellowship Church. According to information presented in the concept plan review at last night’s public hearing, the church began the planning and design process for a complex on a 3-acre parcel on Weaver Dairy Road, near Erwin Road, in 2006. Since then, construction has begun on the roundabout, and the Department of Transportation has moved the new Sage Road Extension over 25 feet, squeezing the original design for the church to the point that it had to be scrapped because it no longer fit within the setback ordinances. After some council members objected to the church’s plan to have a parking lot entrance along Weaver Dairy Road, presenter Keith Shaw (the architect and an elder in the church) agreed that an entrance on the new Sage Road Extension made more sense, but that road did not exist yet.
The final straw came when council member Donna Bell chastised Shaw for not keeping neighbors informed of the church’s plans. Though neighbors had been notified in 2006, chances are there had been some turnover in residents who would want to know what was going on. (One relatively new resident spoke at the hearing that he had not known about the church’s plans when he moved in.) Bell chided Shaw to reach out to the neighbors again.
“It’s important for the neighbors to be comfortable with the project,” Bell said, completely missing the irony that the first hour and a half of the meeting was taken up by comments on the proposed guidelines for a homeless shelter from people likely to be neighbors of one. And who gave a thought about those neighbors being comfortable with the shelter project?
As a social worker, Bell should know that there would be much less resistance to the shelter issues had Town Council or town staff or advisory boards anywhere along the process listened to the Homestead Road neighbors’ concerns. The homeowners who spoke last night objected – rightly so – to the guidelines being too vague to prevent their worst fears from coming true. No one disputed the need for a shelter, and I detected a note of resignation that these homeowners know the shelter will be muscled through and built on Homestead Road. Their main point was that there be a mechanism in place to prevent Down-and-Out Village from being built up around the tidy subdivision homes they bought in good faith, that there be parameters to preserve their quality of life and reduce the expected slide in property resale values. (Because we all know the tax valuation won’t drop, regardless of the resale value.)
Council – “those that are left,” as acting Mayor Pro Tem Ed Harrison said, in reference to Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and Jim Ward being out of town – wisely decided not to approve the gauzy guidelines. The comments and questions were referred to staff. We hope they will listen. The quality of life for the homeless and the homeowners will improve “if the neighbors are comfortable with the project.”
– Nancy Oates
Runner
/ January 20, 2011The Town Council blew off the need to relocate the shelter for so long that the University had to finally step in and solve the issue for them. All the Town Council needs to do now is wipe out the rules that get in the way. It does not look like something so “trivial” as facts can stop this freight train.
There’s a $two billion goliath in town that wants this deal done, so it will be done.
[reposted from previous comments]
Terri Buckner
/ January 20, 2011Total utter hogwash! The neighbors in the vicinity of MLK and Homestead have been kept informed at every step along the way since the university made the offer of the land.
At last night’s meeting there were a lot of demands for data. So let’s get some facts straight.
1. The facility (if it is built) will be located on MLK, not Homestead.
2. The meeting last night was about shelter guidelines. Under the current plan, it’s not at all clear that Community House would fall under those guidelines. It’s primary purpose is not as a shelter.
3. The neighbors have had multiple opportunities for input. Many of their concerns, such as how men will arrive at the facility when the soup kitchen will not be located close by, have been incorporated into the plans (they will be bused). The whole concept of the Good Neighbor Plan came from the public meetings.
4. The most frequent cited concern among the speakers last night was having sex offenders staying in their neighborhood, even after Chris Moran stated that they will not provide any temporary housing for sex offenders.
5. It is impossible to count the homeless. All anyone can do is make an estimate based on current facility usage and then plan future services around that estimation (which is what IFC has done).
Since last night’s meeting was supposed to be about the proposed guidelines, any discussion about the number of homeless in this community and how many beds will be built in the new Community House was a total red herring to the discussion of the proposed guidelines. That portion of the discussion, along with the question about separating the men’s and women’s shelter, made it very very clear that at least some on council are viewing the development of ‘shelter’ guidelines as guidelines for determining whether Community House should be built at the proposed site. That is a violation of IFC’s right to a fair and impartial review of the SUP when it comes forward.
Terri Buckner
/ January 20, 2011Definition of a shelter (from LUMO):
“A building or group of buildings owned or operated by a non-profit organization intended to be used solely for temporary occupancy of homeless persons, with on-site supervision during all hours of operation, with or without board for the occupants and staff of the shelter. The number of homeless persons permitted to occupy a shelter shall be established by Special Use Permit and based on the findings required for the Special Use Permit.”
http://chapelhill.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=620&meta_id=45066
Mark Peters
/ January 21, 2011Nancy, good points.
IFC has primarily communicated with neighbors via the mandated town process. Outside the required town processes, no meeting has been held where IFC answered questions or had a dialog. They held three meetings that they are spinning as community meetings, but they were merely held to record raised issues so that they could create spin for them.
I LOVE the “It’s important for the neighbors to be comfortable with the project” comment by Donna Bell. Who would have thought that the town would have a hand in siting the third at risk facility in such a small area? We aren’t talking about just the proposed facility, but the aggregate. Does the quote extend to “what preschool parents are comfortable with the project?” Has anyone taken a blind survey of preschool parents and their opinion of adding a wet shelter next to them? What about a blind survey of park users and soccer parents given the proximity. Has anyone notified them or asked their opinion?
Who would have thought that the town would be complicit in creating a situation where we even needed guidelines?
I was very disappointed that Mark K and Jim W were not there for such an important topic. Rescheduling to another night would have been more appropriate.
Mark Peters
/ January 21, 2011Regarding Terri’s points:
2. The IFC proposal is both a transitional shelter AND a white flag night shelter. Chris’ Jan 4 statements make that indisputable. Both uses are a shelter under the town’s current definition, as Chris has stated in many public meetings.
3. “The neighbors have had multiple opportunities for input.” Hilarious! The good neighbor plan has zero enforcement mechanism and is a total joke. IFC has not addresses what happens when men are kicked out during the night.
4. “The most frequent cited concern among the speakers last night was having sex offenders staying in their neighborhood”. Baloney. Taking drunk and high men 200 nights per year remains a huge concern. IFC leaving sex offenders out in the cold is a huge concern and a gaping flaw in the backroom siting deal.
5. IFC has remained silent on anticipated white flag night demand growth. 60 years is a long time.
“any discussion about the number of homeless in this community and how many beds will be built in the new Community House was a total red herring to the discussion of the proposed guidelines” Baloney. It speaks to the need and likely future usage of such guidelines.
“That is a violation of IFC’s right to a fair and impartial review of the SUP when it comes forward.” The town documents clearly show that the siting was a backroom deal. Even if it were true that this is unfair as you suggest, with which I disagree, the town is lessor of the property. As lessor, they can say “the community has spoken and we are no longer willing to be a party to lease.” Done. The SUP argument is the red herring given the lease.
George C
/ January 22, 2011“I was very disappointed that Mark K and Jim W were not there for such an important topic. Rescheduling to another night would have been more appropriate.”
I agree.