Log in to WRAL.com with one click using your favorite social network:
OR
Log in using your WRAL.com account:



Wrong email/password combination.

Forgot password?

Register with WRAL.com using your favorite social network:
OR
Register for a WRAL.com account using our web form.

12:44 a.m. • 6-19-13

Weather Forecast for Raleigh

  • Today: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 85° F
  • Thu: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 85° F
  • Fri: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 85° F

Other Locations

> 7 Day Forecast

Doppler Image

Published: 2008-01-16 17:44:00
Updated: 2008-01-16 18:45:12

Panel: Don't Limit Raleigh Home Sizes


McMansion, tear-down, tear down
McMansion, tear-down, tear down
print friendly

A City Council committee on Wednesday rejected suggestions aimed at limiting the size of homes built in older Raleigh neighborhoods.

Almost 600 homes have been knocked down in Raleigh in the last five years to make way for larger residences, and many homeowners in older neighborhoods complain that the so-called "McMansions" detract from the character of their areas.

The debate led Mayor Charles Meeker to propose revising city zoning rules to reduce the maximum height of homes and increase required setbacks from adjacent properties for many neighborhoods citywide. The regulations, which would have squeezed some of the excess out of McMansions, prompted vocal opposition from local homeowners.

"The fact that you are thinking about this is a bad thought," resident John McConnell told the Comprehensive Planning Committee on Wednesday.

McConnell said he and his wife plan to expand their Raleigh home to make room for their grandchildren. Building restrictions could keep him from doing that, he said.

"All these arbitrary restrictions we are talking about do nothing but penalize families," resident Allison Garcia said.

Planning committee members removed the proposal to limit building heights. Instead, they recommended creating more Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts, where individual neighborhoods could establish their own building standards.

"I think we heard you loud and clear," Councilwoman Mary-Ann Baldwin said.

About a dozen overlay districts already exist across the city.

The committee also called for forming an infill study group to look at the effect of regulations on local property owners and to seek out ideas from other cities.

"(We want) to get those best practices from other cities that have been through these kinds of growing pains," Councilman Russ Stephenson said.

The City Council is expected to consider the committee's suggestions next week.


8 Comments


WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

View Comments VIEW ALL 8 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments
While I think your views are a little extreme (violence, the Soviet Union comparison), I do agree with some of them, including the congestion problem and strip mall phenomenon. I disagree that the free-market is the solution to the problem, and that building wealth should be the primary objective of planning. I'd be curious as to your views on performance based zoning.

Finally, some reasonable people out there opposing restrictions. For so long this issue was slanted toward groups that want to limit what people can do on their own property. So many would be penalized heavily for investing in our community if restrictions were placed after the fact. Many purchased the land for a premium, only to be told they can't put a replacement home on their property. I hope all those that represent themselves as neighborhood advocates and continue to say we ALL want restrictions will either be quiet or move to a location that has a HOA. Imposing their ideas on my property has been a slap my the face all along. These agenda's are just plain un-American and have no place in our community.

bahville, you're exactly right--zoning is a form of planning--coercive government planning, like the Soviet Union but on a smaller scale. It is neither necessary nor beneficial. Houston (and basic economics) shows that it's not necessary--a free-market system of private property deed restrictions achieves the goal of a prosperous and harmonious community and does so through the voluntary actions of individuals, not through the violence-based coercion of government zoning. And it's also not beneficial, because when you artificially reduce the options available to people in any given system, you reduce the amount of wealth that is able to be created and thus make the entire community poorer than it would have been under free market conditions. In this case, zoning results in higher housing costs, increased congestion, and a preponderance of unsightly strip malls, among many other things. Zoning is a lose-lose proposition.

flashlight, I realize zoning is legal according to the artificial laws of government. That's why I specified that it's illegal according to "natural law." It violates the natural right to not have force initiated against you.

"Anyone who supports ANY kind of government zoning should be quite ashamed of themselves. They're using violence to accomplish what should be voluntary arrangements."

Personally, I'm very glad that Exxon/McDonald's/whatever can't purchase my neighbors house and open a location next door to me, or that the land next to my neighborhood isn't going to become a site for industrial manufacturing, and so on. Zoning is a form of planning, and is both necessary and beneficial.

View Comments VIEW ALL 8 COMMENTS