A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | March 19, 2015 | Committee Room | Local Government Committee Meeting

Full MP3 Audio File

FEGXON [0:00:00.0] Our page today is Kate Lee Johnson from Harnett County, welcome and our Sponsors David Louis, our Sergeant-At-Arms today Young Bay, Bill Mars, Jim Marant, thank you. We have received a request to hear House Bill 143 first so without objection we will hear from Representative Bishop first, Representative Bishop welcome to the committee, where is he? There he’s… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and members, this bill comes forward at the request of City of Charlotte to increase the size of Civil Service Board from seven members to nine and the rest of city with discretion, rest of city with discretion to increase the size to 11 the purpose being for the hearing panels that conduct hearings into employment matters in the fire and police services they are finding they are not able to have members meet frequently enough to give the hearings on the time limits that is required by the Charter and so you have like 163 days in access of the described period. So City Councils seeks permission by modifying the Charter to increase the size of the board and make more hearing personnel available. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Bishop. Do I have a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move for a favorable report to House Bill 143. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You heard for that motion, all in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any opposed, thank you. House Bill 99, thank you Sir, Town of Polkton/Deannexation, Representative Brody. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will bring before you a Deannexation petition for Lutana Polkton it’s a small community in?? County, if you read your packet it is supported by not only unanimous resolution by the Polkton Council but also the people seek Deannexation, it’s a ?? Deannexation property that had a potential use for the town of Polkton in years back and it never materialized. So I respectfully ask that you grant them their Deannexation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [inaudible] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Favorable report on House Bill 99 with the referral to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have heard the motion, all in favor say aye, any oppose, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 131: Town of Maggie Valley/Deannexation, Representative Presnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have a Deannexation requested by the home owners and we have two people. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have two people that are going to speak today and they had two minutes of piece, the first one is the Mayor of Maggie Valley if you announce your name and you have two minutes to speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My name is Ron Desmond, this Deannexation request is based on a petition of the people in the community two-thirds of which were purchased their homes in 2011-2014, the premise of the petition is that the road that they have is too narrow and there is no turn around and that we can provide service. The reality is that we have provided service for seven years and that road is typical of roads throughout our community as well as Western North Carolina. The premises that the road is, because it’s narrow is unsafe and that backing up trucks up that road is not a safe thing to do. Well, again this is typical of the way these services are provided throughout the North Carolina. Our services are delivered to this community in the same manner that they are throughout our community and throughout Western North Carolina. They have sewer trash and brush pickup, white goods removal, police and zoning protection, we do have our public records that show that those services have been delivered consistently. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Eric Helfrich. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman I’m Eric Helfrich President of… [0:05:00.5] [End of file…]

are Evergreen Height's road maintenance group, which is not a homeowner's association. In 2008, the town of Maggie Valley aggressively annexed the 11 houses and additional lots in Evergreen Heights. They did not annex the road. Though taxed fully, most residents do not receive garbage and trash pickup. About half the road does not receive snow removal. We have that part plowed by a nearby woodsman, as we did before annexation. Our water and sewer's from Maggie Valley Sanitation District, and when we were county residents we paid a rate about 50% higher than town rate. All other services we got from Haywood County. To receive full services, we are required to upgrade the eight foot wide road and pay to build the turnaround. In an August 26, 2010, letter to us, the town noted that they had thought there was an undersized cul-de-sac, but it was a private driveway and the owner had decided to end town access. The town has generally been unresponsive to our needs, despite talking to us when we have asked. On February 23, 2012, the town voted three to two to de-annex the property in the upper part of our community, as services could not be provided. According to several aldermen who signed letters to that effect, this was never implemented as the mayor negated it with our then-legislators. Letters are in that are in the March 16, 2015, packet I've been handing out, pages 3A3 through 3A8. Two former aldermen, a current alderman, and our representative know that there's no place to turn a truck at the end of the road. The town knew that in 2008 before annexation. Respectfully, the town is not always right. Representatives, committee members, in summary, Evergreen Heights, the small community of 11 houses and vacant lots, request de-annexation from the town of Maggie Valley. Thank you for the time you have spent considering House bill 131, and thanks to all the legislative assistants who guided me during this process. You definitely know how to hire quality. Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Helfers. Anything else from Representative Presnell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll just take questions, if there's something. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Representative Floyd. Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask Mr. Helfers a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Helfers, we have a question for you from Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did I understand you to say that the city annexed the property but left the road out so they would not have to take care of it? Is that what I heard? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct, sir. I believe at the time the laws allowed them to do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any more discu-? Representative Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask the gentleman another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You said they do not provide garbage service? I believe that's what you said. It's my understanding that the option of garbage service is available through their subcontractor, and that at least five homes on the street utilize that service. The other homes on the street could utilize that service, but have opted not to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have to sign a hold harmless agreement to allow the trucks to turn in our driveway, and many of the residents have opted not to do that. In truth, three houses at the lower end of the road have opted for some time to have garbage pickup, and they can turn a truck, because there is a small side road that they can back up safely. Backing up more than several hundred yards is just not safe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it not true that, you reference truck as if this is a standard garbage truck, as if we think about it. But is it not true that they use a specialized truck for this street that is somewhere between the size of a Ford F150 and a Ford F250? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would say that it's a community-size garbage truck with one rear axle instead of two rear axles, and it is still quite large, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any more questions from the committee? Representative Floyd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move for a favorable report for House bill 131 with referral to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've heard the motion. All in favor say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any opposed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Ayes have it. House bill 201. We have a motion from Representative Boles to bring the PCS of House bill 201 before the committee for the purposes of discussion. All those in favor say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any opposed? Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to present this bill on behalf of myself, Representative John Fraley, Representative Ken Goodman, and also Darren Jackson who is in court in Pender County this morning, but wanted me to assure you

That he hopes the bill passes. The House passed a very similar provision, a similar bill in another bigger bill I think twice last session and this version of it addresses at least one concern that was raised by the opponents and I’ll get to that when I explain the bill. The current law extremely protects the rights of some adjoining owners in a rezoning case, an extremely destroys or devalues the rights of other neighbors and the property owner who actually owns it and is paying taxes on it. How that happens is this, if as few as one person with enough frontage files a protest petition than it elevates the vote from a majority to a 3/4 vote required which on some small boards sometimes means it has to be unanimous depending on who’s there or all but one person in some cases. In contrast, North Carolina law requires a 3/5 vote of the House and Senate in order to propose Constitutional amendments. Federal law requires 2/3 vote of each house of Congress to do so or 2/3 to override a Presidential veto. We can amend our constitutions or override vetoes with a smaller vote count than what one individual can trigger for a rezoning. A little context, for the past 26 years zoning laws changed so that conditional use zoning is available where rezoning requests can be basically tailored to the needs of the town and many towns require applicants to meet with all the neighbors within a large area, say 300 feet I believe in Apex, to make sure their concerns are addressed and with modern technology neighbors, anybody in town can access all the information with the touch of a button if they know how to do it. I’m not that good at it. Notice things have changed a lot since this zoning protest petition was put in place I belive in the 1920s. If it was envisioned as a means of leveling the playing field and ensuring notification of and input from adjacent owners, that rationale has long since expired. A typical rezoning takes months and months and even years to complete with all the steps that have to be gone through. In a recent North Carolina Supreme Court case, Highrock Lake Partners, LLC, about a year and a half ago, they talked about the due process rights to protect property owners from state delegations of power that give neighbors the authority to regulate how another person uses his or her property. The current zoning protest petition has the same defect. One quick, true, short story before I go to the bill, and that’ll be short as well. You want a short story, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I was 7 or 8 years old, lived in Greensboro, was the Greensboro Delegation near Friendly Shopping Center. Every afternoon I’d go play at our treehouse a couple blocks from our house. Wonderful treehouse. We would also go under the culvert under Friendly Shopping Center. That was pretty dangerous. One day I went to play in my tree and the treehouse had been torn down and I went home, they were gonna build a house there apparently, and I went home and told my mother and cried and complained and you know what she told me, one day when you’re big you can buy a tree of your own and have your own land, but that land doesn’t belong to you, Skipper, she said. Okay. And this is the basic problem. The real property rights is in the owner of the property, not the people who wanna control somebody else’s property, so what does the bill do? It does away with this idea that you can elevate the vote beyond a majority vote just because it’s a rezoning, but some concerns were raised that, well, how can, people still need to protest what the council, the city’s gonna do. So the very first part of the bill says that if people wanna protest that they can still protest it. File it with the City Clerk and the city, if they do it at least two days before the council cause they’ve gotta get their agenda out, then the City Clerk will bring these protests to the attention of the council. There’s an exception for that for quasi-judicial

hearings because we can't let unsworn testimony infect the ears of the council people. But if somebody wants to testify under oath, they can still do that in opposition. The second thing it does, since we're going down to a true majority, on page two, section five, we make sure it is a true majority. And this relate to a sentence that I've always despised in 168-175. The second sentence, which says that in case of a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the council chamber or who has withdrawn without being excused, that's recorded as an affirmative vote. In other words, if you get up to go to the bathroom, somebody can cast your vote for you in favor. Or if in disgust you leave, or if you get an emergency call to come rescue your child or your dog, then they can count your vote. So theoretically it is possible for one person to outvote two other people by casting the votes of two people who aren't there. This says that will not apply in rezoning cases. We're talking about a true majority of the council, not a pretend majority. If I thought I had it in my power, I would just repeal that entire sentence, and maybe the local government committee should be the one to look at that, Mr. Chairman. But at least in this context, since we're reducing from three-fourths to a majority, it needs to be a true majority. Be glad to, section three's really just technical, and section two is a conforming change as well. Be glad to answer questions, or if you want staff to further talk about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee discussion or questions. Representative Holley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got a quick question. By submitting this in writing, are you taking away the citizen's right to petition or to talk directly to the council? That if it's a zoning requirement, they can only do that in writing? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Am I misunderstood that? That's what I was trying to [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. No, ma'am. This just assures that if they submit it in writing, that it will be brought to their attention, but unless it's a quasi-judicial hearing, which is another case, you can talk to council members all you want. I mean you ought to. It does not in any way stop a oral protest. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But they could address it. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma'am. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They can address it at a city council meeting? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. Certainly. What it does is we're not going to change the vote from majority to three-fourths just because you spoke up. But you can still talk about it, write about it, do picket signs, whatever you want to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Motion when appropriate, but I'd like to make a couple comments, if I could. I have experienced this issue in the past as a mayor in a city the size of Burlington where we had a five-member council. And I know of on at least two occasions where a property owner was in the process of trying to develop property. The development of the property was fully within the existing zoning that was within the city, and in both of these cases, and I'm going to just use one example. In one case a neighborhood across the highway filed a protest petition and was able to tie this piece of property up in the development of this property for two years. In the meantime, the property owner lost the development opportunity because of the timeframe involved, and it was really just one individual in the neighborhood that was causing this issue. On a council the size that we had with five members, all we had to have was one person absent and it was dead in the water. You couldn't do anything. And unfortunately in Burlington, those that filed the protest petitions knew that we had a small council and took advantage of that. So for us, in my city, it was almost like a nuisance, because you had property owners that in all right wanted to develop the property and were unable to do so. They met all the qualifications, all the zoning requirements

but had one person in an adjoining neighborhood that blocked it. And so for that reason, I fully support making this change. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to speak on the bill, if you will, and offer an amendment, but I wondered first. I do know we have at least one representative from the League of Municipalities that'd like to be heard on the bill, and I wondered if you'd honor that request? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was waiting until we were possibly finished with committee discussion, but if you'd like to go now, we'll do it now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it would help the debate, sir, if you would allow that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. Anyone wanting to speak for or against this, please come to the microphone and identify yourself. And you have one minute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative Luebke and Representative Stam, and I know our folks have spoken about this. My name is Rose Vaughn Williams and I am the Government Affairs Director for the North Carolina League of Municipalities that represents 540 cities and towns around the state, and some are on both sides of this issue. And as you know, the protest petition is a means by which a certain percentage of property owners who want to petition their government who oppose a potential change in the zoning map or zoning map amendments may petition that government, in this case through city council, to oppose this potential zoning change. And the protection for them in the statute is that if enough people or enough property owners sign on, a certain percentage of the property owners, then the city council can only make that zoning change if a supermajority of the city council votes for it, and that's the position there. We recognize that this has come before the General Assembly for many years, and we recognize that it probably has teeth to pass, or the push to pass. We recognize we have members on both sides of the issue, and therefore we support a compromise proposal, if we could. And I just think Senate bill 285 has been filed that could contain that, which is to maybe reduce the people that could file that petition, and maybe change the supermajority down a little for the city council to have a compromise, so the people still have that little bit more of a teeth than just a simple majority would give them, that this bill does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Your time's up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Anyone else wishing to speak for or against, identify yourself, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Richard Beard, member of the North Carolina NAIOP Joint Chapters of the Governmental Affairs Committee. NAIOP is the leading voice of commercial real estate and development with chapters in Charlotte, the Triangle, the Triad. I also am a commercial real estate broker and developer with Schulman and Beard in Greensboro. On behalf of the hundreds of NAIOP members across North Carolina, we urge you to support House bill 201 as presented by Representative Stam, Goodman, Jackson, and Fraley. This amendment to the current legislation is necessary due to the unfair governmental power it bestows to a very small minority of persons neither elected to a governmental body nor appointed by a governmental body. Such power in the hands of unelected citizen is without precedent, it is contrary to our system of checks and balances on governmental power, it has no justification, and it is wrong. Please support the amendment as presented in House bill 201 and make the process which city and councils receive input and zoning ordinances cases fair for all citizens. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Anyone else? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My name is Colleen Kochanek. I represent the Apartment Association of North Carolina, and we also support this bill. The reasons, obviously, have already been stated very well by Representative Stam. But I wanted to give an example of one of our developers who worked with the neighbors and worked with the whole community around the development. They made a lot of changes to their plans. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on engineers and lawyers to change them. And then a couple of the neighbors who didn't agree with all the other neighbors filed a protest petition. So now they had to start all over again. So we urge you to support the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Anyone else? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Mike Carpenter, general counsel for the North Carolina Home Builders Association. We strongly support this legislation. We have been working on this for about 20 years, and we appreciate Representative Stam bringing this forward. What I would say about the proposed compromise that Ms. Williams, Rose Vaughn Williams mentioned is that seems to make nobody happy. As I understand, a number of the cities that I'm personally familiar with, the number of cities across the state who want to get rid of, as Representative Ross just indicated, this antiquated process that was adopted in the 1920s when there was very little communication possible to citizens. We live in a different age, and as you've already heard from some of the examples, Representative Ross and Colleen's example, that's not a

Problem anymore. This is an antiquated process that needs to go. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Anyone else? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, please. My name is Michi Voyta and I’m a resident here in Raleigh. I’m a citizen, I don’t, I’m not paid to come here. I came here on my own volition and I want to support the valid statutory protest petition. I am somebody in a community. I own a house, a bunch of single family homes, lower income homes. They’re not the most tech-savvy people alive, don’t speak English as a first language and the idea that somebody can come and put a freeway sized bright gas station with 14 pumps immediately next to homes without the citizens having anything to say about that is very discouraging. We used the valid statutory protest petition because we did not find that council was, we did not feel that council or the planning commission would listen to us without some kind of clout. In addition, because of our discussions with that last case that we had the developers who are now interested in developing a different corner have come to us in advance to speak to the community to work this out with us civilly and in a democratic fashion. No, we don’t, I don’t own that big property of land, but I do own land next to it that would be damaged dramatically by insensitive development so I appreciate the fact that the VSPP helped us in that it didn’t force the council to vote in our favor, it forced people to pay attention to the fact that a lot of citizens in the area, not just one, a lot of citizens in the area were very much against having something slapped in their back yard without, that would have such influence on them, that would be built up above them and also that it helped, the previous case helped bring the current case to us earlier so that we could talk about it and try to have some discussions. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Anyone else? Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me say about this that first of all as Mr. Carpenter has said, this has been a provision in our statute since the 1920s. Its purpose today is to protect neighbors from outside development that happens right near where they are, adjacent to where they are in many cases and what this says is for example, you have a group of homes, you have a neighborhood and all of the sudden a 14 pump gas station proposal as was laid out, increasingly in North Carolina they’re called Sheetz. The Sheetz wants to come in and really undermine the neighborhood from the standpoint of livability, quality of life, property value. The neighbors are coming together to say, under this process come together and say this is really detrimental to us as neighbors, as citizens of this city, taxpayers of this city and we need a process whereby we can protect ourselves from major commercial development whether it’s a gas station, super gas station, whether it’s an asphalt plant which might offer pollution to the neighbors in addition to being oversized, this feature, the protest petition, helps the neighborhood. Now some have said, many have said in criticism, Representative Stam among them, that this is simply unfair to have so few people be able to stop a situation from its normal majority decision by the city council. So, what I think is appropriate and would ask the members of the committee to consider is a compromise that increases the number of neighbors really who have to be protesting. That’s the first part of my amendment and I do, Mr. Chairman, let me just say I would send forth the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, we have an amendment before you. It should be at your seat. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It should be AST9 and it’s an act to amend Article 19 to alter qualification requirement, so we’re offering here a change that basically goes from 3/4 of the vote of the city council to 2/3 and as I indicated to Representative Stam, his bathroom break example, I’d gladly, if the committee will accept this amendment I’ll gladly have a correcting or perfecting amendment on the floor to take care of that issue cause I think he has, makes a valid point there. These shouldn’t have an automatic yes there because you’re out of the room. I think something of this importance

It does make a, it does make a good point. But what this does is drop it from three-fourths to two-thirds. From the, on the council. The second thing that it does is it increases the number of protests that need to be established from 5% to 15%. This is in section two, part two of section one. It's on line 21. So we have an increase for the citizens from 5% to 15%. And we have a reduction of the vote required by the city council from two-thirds, from three-fourths to two-thirds. Members, I think this is a legitimate compromise. And allows us to go forward and see if it's going to allow more development to go through without the feeling that the neighbors are being obstructionist. I have ?? this is a, the protest position is something that has been used effectively by members of, citizens of my constituency, citizens of Durham. And I know it's been used by many other citizens to protect their property values, protect the quality of life in their neighborhood. I understand Representative Stan's bill wants to get rid of that. But that really is not fair to the residents. This requires the residents to do more and allows the protest to be overruled with fewer votes than the current law. Two-thirds rather than three-fourths and 15% rather than 5%. So Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to take any questions from members on about ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter, did you have something to say on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to, first of all, compliment Representative Lubki. I think this is a step in the right direction. I served seven years as a city councilman, and we had about 7 to 10 protest petitions during that time. However, here's my concern with this amendment. Why I would hope the committee would vote against the amendment. The most important thing we do in city council government is set the tax rate. It requires a simple majority vote and the citizens can't require us to have a super majority vote on that. You're requiring a simple, a super majority vote with only 15% if this amendment passes, of the affected neighbors. If this was 67%, if it was of a super majority of the neighbors that matched up with the super majority required vote, I may be supportive of it. But 15% is still too low a threshold, I think, it's still allows for the bad actors on the other side of the equation. Home owners try to use this to get a new fence. And I've seen that happen in my town. I'm not saying that's the rule, but it does occur. 15% to me is still too low a threshold. It needs significantly larger. If you want the city council or town board to have a super majority vote, it's ?? a super majority of the citizens protesting as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah I'm a have to apologize in advance because this is probably a silly question. But if we go with two-thirds, what is two-thirds of a city council of five? But then follow up. But that's four out of five. That's 80%. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At least two-thirds. Whatever you like consider an override vote or something. So in case of a five member board that would be four. And on lines 16 to 17, he's also striking the language that says that you're not a member of the council if its vacant. So he's including vacant positions. So in some cases it would actually be a higher margin. This amendment was voted down on the house floor last session. Almost the same amendment by Representative Myer, who offered it. And I would urge the committee to defeat it because it's, one person can easily own 15% in many ?? And it allows that one person to legal, and I'm not saying criminally, to legally extort from the land owner things that the city council does not want them to be extorted from. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Question, Representative Stan

A city is considering the annexation of a five square mile area on the edge of that city. What is the vote required of the council to pass that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Annexation is a majority vote only. This is really unique, the three-fourths requirement in city government. I can't think of any other vote that set like that other than a majority. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to thank Representative Jeter for raising an interesting point. That should the neighborhood opponents of a property owner's use of his property have the same burden of percentage as that property owner as that property owner has to get from the city council? And I was wondering if Representative Luebke would agree to set the super-majority percentage to pass a protest petition to be the same as the percentage of the property owners that would be required to initiate that percentage? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold on. Representative Luebke, go right ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Representative Brawley, if I can have your support on the amendment I will make the adjustment that you're talking about, because it saves at least the concept of neighborhoods worried about what's going on adjacent to them. The bill that Representative Stam is presenting to us gives no special standing to the neighbors who are harmed by an inappropriate, say, commercial or industrial development. So if you would like to put a friendly amendment on this amendment, I would gladly accept that, as I think saving the notion of the protest petition is very important. And I would ask you back, would you be willing to do that, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask a question of Representative Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you support such an amendment, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, sir. It has the same basic flaw. Thomas Jefferson defined democracy, I'll get this for you out of my books, as basically, not a republic. What a democracy is, is majority vote. And you have to have a really, really good reason to require something other than a majority vote, like changing the constitution, because that affects people's fundamental rights. But only fundamental rights, fundamental rights here are the rights of the property owner, not the neighbors, and a majority of the council should be able to make that decision between the adjoining owner and the property owner without it being jacked up artificially, and in many cases. I've seen a lot of zoning. Sometimes it's 100 property owners, sometimes it's 1 or 2. So even 67% of the adjoining owners can sometimes be one unelected person who is, therefore, on a five member board, has therefore changed the vote required from three to four, but without ever being elected as a council-member. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the Luebke amendment before you. All those in favor of the amendment, say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any opposed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Nos have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment fails. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, that sure didn't sound like a majority against. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We've taken the vote. The vote is concluded. We'll move on back to the bill. Any more discussion on the bill? Representative Floyd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just wanted to ask a question of the bill's sponsor and the way that he explained the outcome of a vote. So a council vote, so are you saying that if the meeting occurred, and a committee of five, and if one person leaves and then casts a vote for him or her indirectly? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's current law. Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But isn't it not true that if the meeting start with five, the fifth person leave, it does not affect the outcome, because he or she should have been there? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It doesn't affect the quorum, but it could very well affect the outcome of the vote, because if that person was against it and would've voted no, it would be one thing. If they would vote yes, it's another

Speaker changes:like we did take a walk from the house floor you are not counted yes because you just took a walk Speaker changes:follow up chair Speaker changes:follow up Speaker changes:?? Speaker changes:only in city councils t does suppose there is proposal for the council and the proponent wants your absent votes to cunt then they make the motion but suppose the proponent of the proceeding wants to capture absent vote ?? then the make motion to postpone definitely which kills the ?? in one person's absent and the person who knows parliamentary procedures oppose it an propose lose motion definitely vote in his/her pocket Speaker changes:Mr chair ?? Speaker changes:Representative ?? Speaker changes:just to comment one other issue that we dealt with we had number of ?? where we had couple of embers that we died in office for example good mount of time before the set was filled still counts the feet even though its; empty so that's where it really becomes problem Speaker changes: Representative ?? i believe you have motion ?? Speaker changes:yes i like to review for favorable ?? propose committee substitute and i don't think that is saw in to house bill 201 Speaker changes:?? Speaker changes:knowing that if we don't handle this here we don't handle it ?? and I'm the proponent of working committee working already what i wanted to do is let's go head talk bout the amendment that i suggested which would be the super majority would be 2/3rd Speaker changes:Mr chairman Speaker changes:yes sir Speaker changes:Representative brolly Speaker changes:knowing that if we don't handle this here ?? and I'm the proponent of working committee working already what i wanted to do is let's go head talk bout the amendment that i suggested which would be the super majority would be 2/3rd Speaker changes:Mr chairman Speaker changes:yes sir Speaker changes:ll that be it would be 2/3rd of super majority it would be two third of the are it would be two third of the property owners would be the same but in every case both to initiate the protest partition and we have that proposed ?? to look at it the amendment is capable to the body to take up today we can take up the debate rather than on the floor Speaker changes:we have on minute and we are gonna take up the ?? i think it is my first item chair involved Speaker changes:Representative ?? Speaker changes:?? his built until that sometime is if he wishes to do that and we have less than a minute Speaker changes:Representative Luke Speaker changes:do we not have ten minutes time Speaker changes:not in this committee Speaker changes:sir the rules re fifteen minutes before session but Speaker changes:I'm getting this with staff ??

Admitted they didn't know session was not at 11 so we do have until 10 till. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now Representative Ross would like to withdraw your motion we'll take up this amendment. If not we will go forth with the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Boles? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Have you been consulted about this amendment and do you agree to it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well obviously I've heard the previous discussion. I know that the amendment also deletes lines 15-18 so it's making it possibly even worse and even if it didn't do that we would oppose the amendment because there's not a rational reason. I don't mean that you're irrational, there's no, there's no, I cannot think of a real reason why it should take more of a majority to pass a zoning change than for us to propose an amendment to the Constitution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, in consideration of the time that's available and the fact that there is another opportunity to present an amendment could we take a minute just to let Representative Ross maintain his motion so we could move this out of committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, yes, Representative Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I'd like to move forward with the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a motion before us to accept the PCS House Bill 201 as favorable. All those in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any opposed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes have it, this committee is adjourned. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Skip where is, is this referral to the floor or? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah ?? . Yes, sir.