Supporters of urban greenways tout them as an important recreational and environmental amenity for residents in cities all over the country. But some might say there’s a trend in local government to make greenways more than they are.

In Greensboro, city officials have ambitious greenway plans. A $26 million downtown greenway is currently under construction, and long-term plans include linking that greenway with another one that would run along one of the city’s busiest thoroughfares. The Gate City envisions an eventual 300 miles of urban greenway.

City planners believe that greenways not only have health and environmental benefits, but also are drivers of economic development. With that in mind, they already are making plans to guide development along greenways.

The Greensboro City Council pondered that idea at a recent meeting when it discussed a greenway development ordinance.
In an unusual twist, a developer proposed the ordinance. The developer in question was Marty Kotis, president and CEO of Greensboro-based Kotis Properties.

Kotis Properties is known for high-quality development. It has properties all around the Southeast in addition to several high-profile properties in Greensboro, including a good chunk of land along Battleground Avenue, which runs from downtown until it turns into U.S. 220 north of the city.

Some of Kotis’ property is adjacent to the Yadkin and Atlantic Greenway, a 7.5-mile trail that runs along the Yadkin and Atlantic rail corridor. Right now, only one company — Chandler Concrete — uses the rail line for product transportation. A few scenarios are possible. Chandler has stated its intention to move when the economy recovers, which could free that rail corridor for reuse on an expanded greenway, but the company has provided no timetable for moving.

Moreover, commercial and industrial properties are in short supply in Guilford County, making a relocation easier said than done.

Still, Kotis plans to be ready when the railroad does become available.

In a phone interview with Carolina Journal, Kotis said reduced parking requirements — to cut down on automobile traffic — reduced setbacks, and signage along the greenway will make commercial development more attractive.

“We’re trying to do something that’s not part of the original ordinance,” Kotis said.

Other changes include improvements to what is typically the back of a building and improving access from the greenway to buildings.

While some might view this as a restrictive ordinance, Kotis told CJ he’s discussed the issue with other property owners along the rail line.

“We haven’t heard any negative feedback,” he said.

Even so, it was unusual that no one appeared to speak on the item when the City Council took it up in July — not even Kotis.

“My guess is the reason why the applicant is not here is he thought it would be an innocuous request and there wouldn’t be a lot of discussion,” said council member Robbie Perkins. “It’s a little bit out of the box, but it’s something that’s necessary in order to maximize our tax base and his potential for success. I see no way in which this inhibits a business owner’s rights or anything else.”

Still, other council members had tough questions for city planning and community development director Russ Clegg. “The greenways were established to promote business,” said council member Trudy Wade. “I don’t know who decides what appropriate uses are, but there may be some existing businesses on the greenway that might not know about this.
To me, this is the first step in putting in a lot of other ordinances, and I don’t see how that promotes businesses.”

Council member Danny Thompson asked about the effect on current property owners. Clegg said they would be “grandfathered in.”

Clegg told the council that the ordinance would “encourage use of greenways and to integrate greenways into existing commercial uses” which in turn would “encourage economic development along greenways.”

Despite the concerns of some council members, the motion to approve the ordinance passed by a 9-0 vote.

The downtown greenway came up in September 2010 as the council was discussing a downtown design overlay. At issue were properties across Fisher Avenue carved into the overlay. Property owners maintained that the north side of Fisher Avenue wasn’t “downtown.”

Perkins cited the greenway when supporting a version of the overlay that included those properties.

“I think it’s pretty clear that the city is going to spend $26 million on a greenway, and that greenway is going to go down Fisher Avenue,” Perkins said. “I think it’s critical that Fisher Avenue be an outstanding street that’s consistent in character.”

After Wade spoke up for the rights of the property owners across Fisher Avenue, the council passed her substitute motion excluding those properties by a 6-3 vote.

Sam A. Hieb is a contributor to Carolina Journal.