Information Services Advisory Board

MINUTES

July 6, 2006, 5:30 p.m.

Town Hall Campus

Council Large Conference Room #10035

316 N. Academy Street, Cary, North Carolina

www.townofcary.org

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m.

Present:  Donna Bravo, Terra Brown-Shelton, Lee Douglas, Mark Evangelista, John Fitzpatrick, Dayna Guzik, John Nolander, and Staff liaisons Susan Moran and Teri Peralta

Absent:  Frank De Vita, Tangie Hofer, Nazi Kite

Approval of Minutes

The minutes from the June 1, 2006 meeting were approved unanimously with noted corrections.

Old/New Business

Citizen Communications in Planning and Development Issues

Mr. Evangelista noted that previous discussions have centered on citizen involvement in general and that the focus of this meeting was to discuss in greater detail ways citizens can have more involvement in planning and development.

There was a brief discussion as to the status of downtown WIFI topic and Ms. Moran explained that council voted to not move ahead with it at this time but to have the Economic Development Director, who is to be hired later this summer, look at that as part of a total approach to a downtown revitalization plan to be developed.  She emphasized that this was not being given back to the Economic Development Commission but to a soon-to-be-hired Cary Chamber staff member.

Mr. Evangelista directed attention back to citizen communication. Ms. Moran noted that Council has been increasingly interested in improving citizen involvement in planning and development issues.  She explained that most citizens only get involved in Town government when something affects them specifically, usually something that they don’t want to happen.  She stated that, in an effort to help citizens be more informed about rezoning and other planning and development activities, Council has directed staff to come up with videos and accompanying brochures on four topics:  Annexation, Rezoning, Development Review, and Long-Range Planning.  In addition, Town staff has been looking at potential process changes to promote increased citizen awareness and involvement.  She then asked for feedback on five of the items discussed in the related Staff Report: 1) a mandatory neighborhood meeting; 2) a public comment period, rather than a single public hearing; 3) the videos and brochures just mentioned; 4) staff findings or staff evaluations, rather than a staff recommendation; and 5) public comment Web-based software designed by Neighborhood America.

Ms. Guzik asked if neighborhood meetings have been mandatory and Ms. Moran explained that currently Staff suggests they happen, but applicants are not currently required to have such a meeting prior to submitting their rezoning request. Ms. Guzik felt that this would increase efficiency and open the way for better communication throughout the process. Ms. Moran noted that the mandatory neighborhood meeting would be required prior to submission of a rezoning request and that some kind of proof that the meeting took place would need to be submitted with the application.  It was also noted that the applicant would bear the burden of any costs involved with such a meeting.

Mr. Fitzpatrick initiated a discussion about the notification process of rezoning activity.  Ms. Moran explained that the Town is required to notify residents within a 100-foot radius but chooses to notify residents within a 400-foot radius, adding that suggestions in this regard are welcome. More discussion centered on who would be considered affected by certain rezonings, and it was determined that each case would need to be reviewed on they kind of land use involved. 

Mr. Evangelista reminded members that the purpose of the transition seemed to be a means of mitigating problems that might not otherwise become evident until much time and resources had been expended by both the applicant and the Town.  Ms. Moran concurred, adding that another it is also designed to make the public more aware of future developments.  She explained that, because there is a limited window of time during which the Town can provide legal notice, sometimes the first time citizens hear about a project is when they read an article in the newspaper, giving them the wrong idea.  Ms. Moran said the intent of this requirement was to make the public aware of upcoming planning and development events much earlier in the process.  Overall, members felt this would be a positive change.

The discussion then focused on the change from a single public hearing to a specified comment period.  She explained that the way it works now, citizens and developers begin contacting staff the moment they are aware of a rezoning and continue right up to the minute the meeting starts.  This makes it very difficult for staff to provide a complete summary of the comments submitted.  Staff is proposing adjusting the Town’s public comment model to be more in line with the federal and state government standard, making the comment process more fair and equitable to all involved.

Ms. Guzik expressed concern that the timeframe would need to be very clearly publicized, but if a fair amount of time was provided, it would be a good idea.  Mr. Fitzpatrick suggested an automatic response be generated acknowledging citizen input via e-mail and indicating when the comment period would close.  Mr. Evangelista added that it should also include notification of where all comments submitted could be viewed online.  He felt a comment period would be a beneficial change to the process because it would allow for all comments to carry the same weight, whether first or last, since the review process would not begin until the submission period had ended.

Mr. Nolander noted a distinction between paid Staff and elected officials stating that Staff can turn away comments that come in outside the comment period, but there is not an elected official alive that isn’t going to open his door to some citizen about some issue.  Mr. Evangelista also suggested that scheduling the public hearing for a couple of weeks after the comment period would give people perhaps a second chance to provide input.  Ms. Moran summarized by stating that members agree that a comment period could be a positive step provided it is looked at realistically, and Mr. Evangelista added that if it gave the impression the Town was less open to citizen input it would need to be revisited.

Ms. Moran gave an overview of Neighborhood America, the Web-based software designed for effective management public input, stating that the Planning Department is considering using this as part of the rezoning process change.  She explained that all types of citizen input could be posted to this program which would act as a clearinghouse.  She noted that currently citizens have been submitting high volumes of identical e-mails and clogging up the e-mail system, effectively shutting down the usefulness of that tool. Another problem Staff encounters is that many people may ask the same question requiring staff to answer the same question day after day.  She went on to explain that it is hoped this program would improve the process by no longer require staff to repeat their responses and assuring citizens they are being heard.

In general, members felt it would be advantageous to investigate the Neighborhood America software.  Mr. Evangelista added that it could be a valuable tool for obtaining citizen information and demographics, not just for planning purposes.

Ms. Guzik left at 6:38; Ms. Bravo left at 6:38.

Comments

a. Statement of Findings

We, as a board, generally concurred with the proposed changes to the objectives in the Staff Report, and encouraged using the Neighborhood America pilot to obtain information for ISAB purposes as well.

b. Citizen comments

There were no citizen comments.

c. Member comments

In response to Mr. Nolander’s question about the August meeting, Ms. Moran stated that Chief Cain will be speaking about the Town’s current emergency preparedness, the new programs they are looking at, the CERT program, and to get feedback from the Board concerning the Biennial Survey findings on emergency preparedness.  She encouraged members to review the survey results on this topic in preparation for the next meeting.

Disappointment was expressed at the seemingly slow progress in the evaluation of downtown WIFI implementation.  Members were reminded of the various means of communication with Town Staff and Council, including feedback@townofcary.org and council@townofcary.org.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m.