Items on the agenda for the Tuesday, Sept. 19 Greensboro City Council meeting could be continued because of the number of mistakes in the agenda packet.
They are item H.1, which is a request for annexation of 5909-5915 West Gate City Blvd., and item H.2, a request for original zoning to Conditional District – Office (CD–O) for that property.
A request was made at the June 20 City Council meeting for annexation and original zoning to Conditional District – Public and Instutional (CD–PI) for this same property by the same entity, Renaissance Church Gate City Inc.
The City Council voted down that annexation request from Gate City Church at the June 20 meeting, but you won’t find that in the official minutes of the June 20 meeting. According to those minutes, “Moved by Councilmember Thurm, seconded by Councilmember Hightower to deny the ordinance and stated that the Greensboro City Council believed that its action to deny the original zoning request for the properties at 5909-5915 West Gate City Boulevard, 5800 and 5900 Scotland Road, and 5810 Marion Elsie Drive from County MXU (Mixed Use) and County RS-40 (Residential Single-family 40) to City CD-PI (Conditional District – Public and Institutional) to be inconsistent with the adopted GSO-2040 Comprehensive Plan …”
The minutes state that there were eight votes in favor of denying the zoning request and one vote (Councilmember Goldie Wells) opposed.
The problem is that the City Council did not vote to deny the original zoning request but voted to deny the annexation. Thurm originally made a motion to deny the zoning request but was corrected by Mayor Nancy Vaughan and restated her motion to deny the annexation
The way the minutes read don’t make sense because the City Council couldn’t deny the original zoning of land that it had not annexed, and if the City Council did annex the land it would have to have some original zoning designation.
Consideration of the item is further confused by the fact that the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that are attached are for the May 15 meeting, not the August 21 meeting when the current request before the City Council was approved by a unanimous vote.
Someone relying on the information in the agenda to speak on this matter would be doubly confused, because the original zoning request at the Aug. 21 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was different from the May 15 meeting. They also might infer from the minutes that the City Council had somehow annexed the land and then voted not to zone it.