(July 28, 2016) The debate over, essentially a fence, carried over onto the majority of a mayor and council meeting in Berlin on Monday night.
It was not the first time this particular fence had taken center stage, but it was the first time the council agreed to spend money on the problem.
The council was considering purchasing a piece of property from developer Osprey Property Company, LLC in order to build a fence between Cannery Village and the properties of existing residents on Flower Street, who were not happy just now close their new neighbors were.
In the exchange, the town would pay $90,000, with $25,000 of that going into an escrow account in order to build a six-foot white vinyl fence between the first three homes along the border, closest to the entrance. The remaining border would then be separated by a vegetative fence.
“Fences make good neighbors,” Mayor Gee Williams said. “This is one where we don’t want the fences to divide neighbors, but to make good neighbors so that, over time, everybody basically respects each other’s property and private space. And that’s going to be a community effort.”
As part of the deal, the town would also eventually build a walking path along the property in order to encourage foot traffic there – and not through the yards of the Flower Street residents, as was apparently occurring.
Resident Candy DeShields worried there would still be a “gap” between the fence and the row of trees the town promised to plant.
“So you’re going to plant some pretty trees up in there?” she asked. “What’s wrong with extending that fence?”
Councilmember Elroy Brittingham said the first three properties had “no barrier in the back … no backyard.” The rest of the residents had much more of a buffer, he said.
Zackery Tyndall, a candidate for city council, asked if there were special circumstances, or if the town had done similar things in the past.
“This is the first time we’ve ever had a circumstance like this,” Williams said. In hindsight, he added, more space should have been allocated between the new development and the existing homes much earlier in the process.
Town Administrator Laura Allen said the town was working to develop better visual aids so that, in the future, residents could get a better sense of new projects that were, in effect, going up in their back yards.
“As long as we’ve learned from it,” Tyndall said. “I mean $70,000 is kind of a bigger mess up, but as long as we learn and don’t keep recreating the same mistake.”
After the motion passed 4-1, with only Lisa Hall dissenting, Councilmember Dean Burrell asked to make a statement.
“Now that it’s passed I have to say [this agreement] did not come lightly,” he said. “It came as the result of our mayor not accepting that a solution could not be found. Our mayor and Laura have worked tirelessly to work this thing out, and I think that it is a testament to us – and especially the mayor’s fortitude – in trying to make this a community that we all can be proud of.
“This fence thing has weighed on us tirelessly,” Burrell continued. “We may not [have] satisfied everybody, but rest assured we have done the best we can and it’s all because of Gee Williams and Laura Allen, so I just want to thank them both.”
Hall said she wanted to congratulate the neighborhood itself.
“You’re very, very lucky that this agreement was done,” she said. “They did this in my backyard and nothing was done, so I ran for council. And it was very frustrating for me to go to these meetings – BZA, planning and zoning – and watch this happen, because I knew when this project was done that you folks would not be happy with it.
“I just can’t vote to pay a developer $95,000 … for a fence when he should have done it in the beginning, and it should have been done at the planning and zoning level,” Hall added. “Going forward, when these things are happening in your neighborhood don’t wait until after everything is approved and a project has started, because normally it’s too late to get anything done.
“The mayor and the developer did go back, but they also took our taxpayers’ dollars and bought this piece of land. It is a win-win for the community, but we paid for it also,” she said.
Resident Gabe Purnell also asked to weigh in.
“Foresight is better than hindsight, but the bottom line is Berlin is taking a great leap as far as growth. And there’s going to be growing pains,” he said. “The thing you have to learn from those pains [is that] we don’t repeat them.
“I got a feeling this is not going to be the last one, but you’ve got to be open minded to the fact that we’re going to have these [growing pains]. It’s not going to be perfect,” Purnell continued. “With what I see it’s a benefit because I’m a business. I’ve got to look at that. We need jobs. We need revenue. So, we can’t have it both ways.”
The next item on the agenda happened to be new design and construction standards for Berlin water, sewer and roadway systems.
Hall asked what happened when “a developer comes to town” and asked planning and zoning and the board of zoning appeals for exceptions to those standards, again citing Cannery Village.
Town Attorney David Gaskill said the planning commission and board of zoning appeals, ideally, have no role in design and construction standards.
“The only time I’ve ever seen town standards deviated from was by request, which was approved by the mayor and council,” Gaskill said. “If you adopt them, the only time [the standards] can be deviated from is by your approval.”
“It is incumbent upon us to follow our own rules,” Burrell said. “If we’re deviating from our standards that’s our responsibility and we need to take the weight for that. That’s the way this thing works … if there’s a finger pointed at Cannery Village … it’s us that did it.”
That’s why, Brittingham said, it was the responsibility of the council to correct that and “please the residents.”
“That’s why we went back and approved it. That’s why I approved it,” he said.
Brittingham also commended Williams and Allen, and said he was originally part of the negotiations with the developer, but that “my temperature … I mean, we just didn’t blend too well together.”
“That’s a very diplomatic way of putting it,” Williams said.
Going forward, Purnell asked if similar developments would need to pass through a public hearing.
“Always,” Williams said. That included, he said, Cannery Village.
“But there was nobody here,” Hall said, referring to the hearings.
“That’s our fault – that’s the people’s fault,” Purnell said.
The motion to adopt the new design and construction standards passed unanimously.
It was not the first time this particular fence had taken center stage, but it was the first time the council agreed to spend money on the problem.
The council was considering purchasing a piece of property from developer Osprey Property Company, LLC in order to build a fence between Cannery Village and the properties of existing residents on Flower Street, who were not happy just now close their new neighbors were.
In the exchange, the town would pay $90,000, with $25,000 of that going into an escrow account in order to build a six-foot white vinyl fence between the first three homes along the border, closest to the entrance. The remaining border would then be separated by a vegetative fence.
“Fences make good neighbors,” Mayor Gee Williams said. “This is one where we don’t want the fences to divide neighbors, but to make good neighbors so that, over time, everybody basically respects each other’s property and private space. And that’s going to be a community effort.”
As part of the deal, the town would also eventually build a walking path along the property in order to encourage foot traffic there – and not through the yards of the Flower Street residents, as was apparently occurring.
Resident Candy DeShields worried there would still be a “gap” between the fence and the row of trees the town promised to plant.
“So you’re going to plant some pretty trees up in there?” she asked. “What’s wrong with extending that fence?”
Councilmember Elroy Brittingham said the first three properties had “no barrier in the back … no backyard.” The rest of the residents had much more of a buffer, he said.
Zackery Tyndall, a candidate for city council, asked if there were special circumstances, or if the town had done similar things in the past.
“This is the first time we’ve ever had a circumstance like this,” Williams said. In hindsight, he added, more space should have been allocated between the new development and the existing homes much earlier in the process.
Town Administrator Laura Allen said the town was working to develop better visual aids so that, in the future, residents could get a better sense of new projects that were, in effect, going up in their back yards.
“As long as we’ve learned from it,” Tyndall said. “I mean $70,000 is kind of a bigger mess up, but as long as we learn and don’t keep recreating the same mistake.”
After the motion passed 4-1, with only Lisa Hall dissenting, Councilmember Dean Burrell asked to make a statement.
“Now that it’s passed I have to say [this agreement] did not come lightly,” he said. “It came as the result of our mayor not accepting that a solution could not be found. Our mayor and Laura have worked tirelessly to work this thing out, and I think that it is a testament to us – and especially the mayor’s fortitude – in trying to make this a community that we all can be proud of.
“This fence thing has weighed on us tirelessly,” Burrell continued. “We may not [have] satisfied everybody, but rest assured we have done the best we can and it’s all because of Gee Williams and Laura Allen, so I just want to thank them both.”
Hall said she wanted to congratulate the neighborhood itself.
“You’re very, very lucky that this agreement was done,” she said. “They did this in my backyard and nothing was done, so I ran for council. And it was very frustrating for me to go to these meetings – BZA, planning and zoning – and watch this happen, because I knew when this project was done that you folks would not be happy with it.
“I just can’t vote to pay a developer $95,000 … for a fence when he should have done it in the beginning, and it should have been done at the planning and zoning level,” Hall added. “Going forward, when these things are happening in your neighborhood don’t wait until after everything is approved and a project has started, because normally it’s too late to get anything done.
“The mayor and the developer did go back, but they also took our taxpayers’ dollars and bought this piece of land. It is a win-win for the community, but we paid for it also,” she said.
Resident Gabe Purnell also asked to weigh in.
“Foresight is better than hindsight, but the bottom line is Berlin is taking a great leap as far as growth. And there’s going to be growing pains,” he said. “The thing you have to learn from those pains [is that] we don’t repeat them.
“I got a feeling this is not going to be the last one, but you’ve got to be open minded to the fact that we’re going to have these [growing pains]. It’s not going to be perfect,” Purnell continued. “With what I see it’s a benefit because I’m a business. I’ve got to look at that. We need jobs. We need revenue. So, we can’t have it both ways.”
The next item on the agenda happened to be new design and construction standards for Berlin water, sewer and roadway systems.
Hall asked what happened when “a developer comes to town” and asked planning and zoning and the board of zoning appeals for exceptions to those standards, again citing Cannery Village.
Town Attorney David Gaskill said the planning commission and board of zoning appeals, ideally, have no role in design and construction standards.
“The only time I’ve ever seen town standards deviated from was by request, which was approved by the mayor and council,” Gaskill said. “If you adopt them, the only time [the standards] can be deviated from is by your approval.”
“It is incumbent upon us to follow our own rules,” Burrell said. “If we’re deviating from our standards that’s our responsibility and we need to take the weight for that. That’s the way this thing works … if there’s a finger pointed at Cannery Village … it’s us that did it.”
That’s why, Brittingham said, it was the responsibility of the council to correct that and “please the residents.”
“That’s why we went back and approved it. That’s why I approved it,” he said.
Brittingham also commended Williams and Allen, and said he was originally part of the negotiations with the developer, but that “my temperature … I mean, we just didn’t blend too well together.”
“That’s a very diplomatic way of putting it,” Williams said.
Going forward, Purnell asked if similar developments would need to pass through a public hearing.
“Always,” Williams said. That included, he said, Cannery Village.
“But there was nobody here,” Hall said, referring to the hearings.
“That’s our fault – that’s the people’s fault,” Purnell said.
The motion to adopt the new design and construction standards passed unanimously.