Tommy Wilmouth speaks against the revised ordinance.
City staff presented a revised ordinance at the Nov. 17 meeting. The original ordinance, passed in August, prohibited all tractors (trucks or cabs) and trailers more that 80 inches wide and 30 feet long from parking within the city limits.
“We could beat this thing to death tonight, but we need to talk about every issue we’ve heard (from citizens),” said Councilman Barry Lambeth when he made the motion to table the issue. “We’ve done two ordinances people didn’t like. Maybe the third one will be right.”
The Council heard from 15 citizens during the public hearing. No one was in favor of the revised ordinance, but their reasons for opposing it varied.
“I believe if the city amends this ordinance, peace will be shattered and our property values will decrease,” said Sharon Reitzl.
“Passing this will allow more truckers to come in and destroy the peace,” agreed James Barker.
“I’m not here to bash truckers, but I built a house in a residential district not a commercial district,” Brenda Campbell fired off. “The ordinance only changes who sees the truck, not the problem.”
Campbell was referring to language in the revised ordinance that would have allowed tractors to be parked behind the rear plane (back side) of a house. Trailers would have been prohibited in all
residential districts with the exception of the residential-agricultural (RA) district, where they would be allowed if screened from view.
“What is the purpose of (the original) ordinance? To promote the harmony of the city,” Chester Ayres reflected. “The city is changing and needs to keep zones separated. The ordinance was written to protect the majority of citizens.”
Arthur Gilbert disagreed. “You don’t punish everybody for one bad apple. The city should deal with these on a case-by-case basis.”
“I just want the city to consider all its citizens,” Ed Lohr, a truck driver, explained. “I haul for the federal government, and they require me to keep the truck within sight of a window (in my house).”
Steve Wellern, who lives next to Lohr, told Council that he has know Lohr for years and never had a problem with his truck or trailer.
“I’ve never known when he came or went, never smelled any gas,” Wellern added.
Lucy Rush also noted that her husband’s tractor gave off no fumes.
“He has driven a truck and lived at that residence since before Trinity was a city,” she pointed out.
However, it was Trinity resident and local developer Gary Loflin who cut to the heart of the situation.
“This appears to be, based on what I’ve heard and based on conversations I’ve had with residents, a disagreement between certain neighbors,” Loflin observed. “You’re asking City Council to decide between truck drivers and residents ... and God knows, no one is King Soloman.”
Loflin paused, then added, “This appears to me to be a homeowners’ association question. Many neighborhoods and subdivisions have deed restrictions or protective covenants.”
Karen Allred, a real estate broker, agreed. “When people look at (buying) a house, they want to know whether or not restrictions go with the land.”
People also ask about neighbors, she added, so they have some idea of what goes on around them.
Once the public hearing was closed, Councilman Tyler Earnst asked, “Why isn’t this covered under a nuisance ordinance?”
City Manager Ann Bailie told him that trying to enforce this under a nuisance ordinance would be problematic because they city does not have its own police force and because the violation is transitory.
“By the time code enforcement arrives, the truck is usually no longer there,” Bailie explained.
Joe Rainey, city planner and code enforcement officer, added that Trinity does not have the resources to measure gaseous fumes.
Earnst nodded, then observed that all the complaints about tractor-trailers had come from the R-40 zoning district, which encompasses the more densely populated neighborhoods. None of the complaints had come from people in RA.
“Meadowbrook Road is less dense, and designed to carry heavier loads,” he noted. “I’m against having trucks behind the rear plane of the house (in R-40) because the area is too dense. In RA, if it’s screened, let them (park).”
Mayor Fran Andrews then asked those who spoke what they were doing if their neighborhood had restrictive covenants in place. The general response was that those who had a homeowners’ association were consulting a lawyer.
“Restrictive covenants extend over years, but they can and do lapse,” commented City Attorney Bob Wilhoit.
He went on to say that even without a homeowners’ association, neighbors could jointly choose to have a lawyer send a letter to the offender and the covenants could be enforced through the courts.
Councilman Kelly Grooms, however, just shook his head, then pointed out the contradictory nature of some Trinity residents’ requests.
“Everybody says we need to do what Archdale, High Point and Cary have done,” Grooms said, referring to the residents who had reminded Council that other cities had banned tractor-trailers completely. “Everybody also says ‘we’re rural, we want to stay rural’ — but you can’t have it both ways.”
Trinity’s planning retreat is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 9.
Post a Comment
