Chris Crew was born in Morganton, NC and moved to Raleigh in 1964. He’s been a resident of Historic Oakwood since 1975.
Educated at NCSU and UNC-Chapel Hill and is retired from Public Safety. Preservationist, Cook, Trombonist, Brewer, Choirboy, Grandfather.
Chris spoke to City Council September 16, 2025:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your continuing efforts on behalf of Raleigh and your commitment to the preservation of its character and culture.
I will pause here and remind you about the guidance on public comment published on the City’s website:
In a scheduled public comment session, comments may be on any subject UNLESS the particular topic is subject to a public hearing during the same council session.
Comments I am about to make should not count against the time allotted for public comment during a public hearing that has not yet been scheduled.
I spent more than 25 years as a state program manager and planner, reviewing plans for compliance with regulation and guidance and reviewing associated project proposals for consistency with the same. It is extremely rare to encounter a perfect proposal.
The materials being presented by the Planning Department in support of Z-12-25 do not create a complete picture or analysis that is useful for basing your decision on this third round of change requests for these particular parcels.
A good analysis of compatibility should take a broad view of relevant rules, plans and guidance, and it should reflect stakeholder input with integrity. There is no attention given to known stakeholder concerns, there is no evidence that such input was adequately solicited, or incorporated into the compatibility analysis.
The presentation indicates six areas of congruence with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use plan that are dubious at best. Please pay attention to the detailed analyses that are showing up in your inboxes from Neighbors United and others—time does not allow a thorough walk through at this time. Please take advantage of the work done by citizen advocates.
In the report there are issues with definitions of cores and edges, there are references to association with purely conjectural transportation facilities and infrastructure. The scale and cropping of the maps in the report and presentation do not accurately reflect the subject site’s relationship to the downtown core or central business district, or neighborhoods and historic districts.
There is no proper analysis of set back and buffering requirements. Page ten of the presentation includes a brief and opaque analysis of the proposed public benefits, and shockingly declares that NO adverse impacts were identified. No reference to any adverse impacts of any kind: no historic preservation assessment, no environmental assessment, no transportation or utilities impact statements. You got half of a report.
Given the inadequacies of the materials provided to you, there is no way you can come to a rational conclusion of consistency with the comprehensive plan.
What you have seen is a selective view put together by the Staff and property owner. The applicant was afforded considerable face to face time with staff and seems to have thus dictated (or drafted at least) the report. You should not vote to forward this to a public hearing until these shortcomings have been addressed and a full audience has been given to the entire body of stakeholder input.
Honor the process.
Request a complete and impartial staff analysis before you proceed any further.
There is a petition opposing Z-12-25, The West Street Tower, you may sign it here:
If you appreciate the kind of reporting we bring to you
|
Please donate $10 or $20, Thanks for supporting |
 |