Preserving Dunbar: The City Council Vote

Lexington’s City Hall {Davidson Local/James Kiefer}

The bitter aftermath of last summer’s vote by the Lexington City Council to approve a zoning permit for Shelter Investments Development Corporation (SIDC) to convert Dunbar School on Smith Ave. into affordable, senior housing has been widespread throughout the Black community. From feelings of betrayal, skepticism and exhaustion to thoughts of where do we go from here, the future of Dunbar School remains at the forefront of many minds.

For some, there still isn’t a clear understanding of how the process works.

The Application Stage

Any developer or company interested in potentially bringing a business or project to Lexington must first contact the Office of Business and Community Development (OBCD). To begin the conversation, a staffer will inform interested parties of the initial steps in securing a zoning permit. This consists of directing said party to its website where they can access the Unified Code of Ordinance. The document contains detailed information outlining the type of approval one would need and the regulations required to be met.

The office has a variety of applications and will determine which one will need to be submitted after learning more about the proposal. Once the application has been completed, it must be submitted to the development office for review. City Planner Josh Monk noted part of his job is to ensure applications are submitted correctly.

“We talk them through it and work together to get things right,” said Monk. “It usually ends up being a pretty smooth process.”

In alignment with the city’s current ordinance if the application meets the requirements, it’ll be presented to the city’s Planning Board/Board of Adjustment. At this stage, the board has the liberty to ask questions regarding the application as well as engage in discussion. If the board votes to approve the request, it’s then submitted to the city council for a vote.

If the OBCD doesn’t certify that an application meets the requirements, the applicant has the right to adjust. Although s/he wouldn’t receive a recommendation from staff, the applicant may approach the Planning Board/Board of Adjustment on his own merit. If the request is denied, the applicant will be forbidden, for a year, from applying for another permit.

The Dunbar School proposal was recommended to the Planning Board/Board of Adjustment for approval. The motion to approve passed with a majority 5-2 vote.

Notifying Neighbors

Last spring, Ward 1 representative, Councilor Donald Holt, received an unexpected call from a citizen. He was informed the sign alerting residents of an upcoming planning board meeting about Dunbar School had fallen. Stunned by the news, Holt immediately issued an inquiry since this was the first time he had heard of it.

“I didn’t even know about the meeting,” Holt admitted. “I went down to look at the sign, verify it and that’s how I got informed. It was at the planning board stage when I found out. Yes, it’s not a city or school property but something of that magnitude that’s going to happen, a total change. I think it could’ve been presented earlier in this process.”

At the time, according to former NC state law 160A, those who were required to be notified when there were transformations made to private property were few in number.

“The state law has always prescribed who you send the notices to and how you calculate that,” stated Tammy Absher, Director of OBCD. “It was pretty narrow.”

When the city of Lexington adopted its current ordinance in 2010, it followed the precedence set forth by the state. The ordinance maintains that only adjacent property owners must be notified of any modifications being made by neighbors.

Mixed Emotions

Although the OBCD notification procedures adhered to the regulations, “it left people with a bad taste in their mouth because of the way it was presented,” noted Holt. This became evident at two meetings last year.

At the planning board meeting on May 28, 2020, during the public comments section, residents of the neighborhood, including Minnie Roberts, Theresa Simmons, Vanessa Williams and Jewell Kirk, called to voice their opposition to the proposal. They shared their concerns about increased traffic, reduction in property values, the lack of notification about the proposal and a disruption of life for many of the folks who are seniors and have lived in their homes for more than 40 years.

Ward 1 resident, Charles Owens, who said he was contacted prior to the meeting by Absher, was the only citizen to convey support for the plan. He expressed saving Dunbar School was the top priority and he was satisfied with anything making it look better than it does currently.

On June 8, 2020, at the city council meeting, additional neighborhood residents disclosed their opinions about the process. Louise Miller requested that the building be used for its initial purpose: education. Dr. T.E. Kilgore, interim pastor of First Baptist Church, Village Dr., suggested the council host a community meeting because he felt residents should agree with the development.

After hearing from citizens, City Manager Terra Greene advised council to provide clarification as it related to the concerns expressed. She acknowledged that confusion arose regarding public input at the planning board level. At this stage of the process, input is used to ensure staff has met publication requirements, considered all possibilities and attempted to announce development to the community.

Additionally, Greene referenced the city’s zoning ordinance requirements that include design standards and parameters regulating how zoning occurs within city limits. She proffered if the property owner meets the guidelines of the ordinance, then the council shouldn’t deny the development.

Council Discusses and Votes

Upon hearing the explanation, Holt inquired if council would have a choice when voting commenced. Greene informed Holt that if a permit meets ordinance standards the council has an obligation to approve it.

Councilors Tobin Shepherd and Joe Watkins, Ward 2 and At-Large representatives, respectively, both commented they had heard from those who oppose the project as well as citizens who felt there wasn’t adequate notification.

Adhering to the agenda item, Absher presented the proposed development to the board. Developer, Ned Fowler, answered questions via phone. Holt queried about Excel Property Management handling management of the property. Fowler stated they currently manage over 5,000 properties and have a top rating recognized by the United States Department of Urban Development and State Housing Finance Agency. Holt shared the agency had been fired by the Lexington Housing Authority.

Watkins questioned if there would be 24-hour facility security while Holt asked about 24-hour facility management. Fowler revealed 24-hour management was not included in the plan.

Councilor Garrett Holloway inquired if Absher had received a petition from citizens. She confirmed she had and that she thought it had been forwarded to the council.

The petition was started by Charles Miller, Jr., who owns multiple tracts of land in the neighborhood.

“Our concern was with the number of apartments being proposed and the number of parking spaces they had,” Charles said. “We also had a desire that the school would be used for something other than apartments. My concern was everyone being told the truth.”

A decision was made to table the vote until the council reconvened on July 13. At that meeting, the motion to issue a major zoning permit to SIDC was approved 5-4. Councilors Shepherd, Linwood Bunce, Wayne Alley and Frank Callicutt voted in favor. Councilors Holt, Watkins, Holloway and Whitney Brooks voted against. Mayor Newell Clark cast the deciding vote.

Both Shepherd and Holt offered their thoughts regarding the decision.

“The bottom line of my vote was about representing my constituents who live in that area,” said Holt. “They didn’t want it. I was their voice. It was my duty to express the will of my constituents. The way it came about they felt as if they had no say so because by the time they found out about it, it was almost a done deal. They wanted to be treated better than the process presented itself.”

Shepherd said his vote was based on three conscious points:

• NC General Statute 160A that says to private developers if a government is following its rules, then their (development) plan should be approved

• private property rights

• his consistency in voting in favor of affordable housing

Lexington’s New Ordinance

In July 2020, the North Carolina State Legislature adopted a new zoning law – NCGS 160D. The law provides cities with more flexibility as it pertains to what type of development will be permitted and how to notify citizens in regards to proposals.

“It sets us up to be able to handle development approvals in a way that seems a little more consistent with what we were hearing from the community and city council,” Absher said. “It will allow council more choice in approving larger developments in residential areas. The idea is to safeguard against impacts to residential areas while promoting the type of growth we would want to see.”

The law also smooths out the kinks of the conditional zoning process.

“It allows communities to move some types of development into a legislative action from an administrative action,” Absher explained. “A developer would have to get the property conditionally zoned for their development. It’s up to the developer to propose a development that they believe would be palatable enough for the city council and the community to want and for council to approve. It’s at city council’s discretion. A developer can come and propose conditional zoning for a piece of property. They propose a plan that might be outside of what would normally be permitted in that district. They can say if you will rezone this property so I can do this specific development then I will agree to have better design standards for the housing, have additional amenities. They are offering up conditions they believe will make it something the city council will want to approve.”

Currently, the OBCD is working on incorporating the new law into the city’s ordinance. As they progress, the chapters will be presented to the Planning Board/Board of Adjustment. The city council has the final say regarding what is included in the ordinance.

Shepherd shared his thoughts about the changes.

“To me, to be an open, accountable and transparent government we need to not only advertise to our surrounding neighbors but also to any adjoining neighborhoods. In my mind, we’ve hidden behind a little bit of social media. ‘Oh yeah, well, we’ve advertised on social media’ is the way it goes. To me, we’re still old school. Nothing is better than a good, old letter in the mail. For a small town, its more personable. I’ve even knocked on some doors to make sure people knew what was going on. I’d like to see the ordinance updated to reflect the feedback from the council on how far out we want to notify people.”

Although there are residents in his ward who still have a disdain for the process, Holt believes the ordinance modifications will benefit them moving forward.

“Our constituents are going to love it because the ordinance thinks about them,” noted Holt. “It makes sure they are notified in the process if something is coming to their community. Businesses will love it as well. This change will give us a label as a business-friendly city and community-sensitive city. We care about the people and business. Once this is out and working, it’ll be a good day to be a councilman.”