news-record.com

NEWS

City code: Only temporary tents

Article
Comments (18)

Saturday, January 28, 2012

(Updated 7:04 am)

By Tina Firesheets
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — A city ordinance established more than 50 years ago could jeopardize a program that keeps kids active through the winter.

The ordinance says a tent or temporary structure can’t remain standing longer than 60 days without an intervening period of 30 days without it.

City inspectors recently found three businesses in violation of the ordinance — Sherwood Swim & Racquet Club, Village Tavern restaurant and Greene Street Club, a downtown bar and nightclub. The city notified owners on Jan. 20 that they had five days to remove the tents or pay a $50 fine for each day the tents remain up.

At Sherwood, losing the tent means interrupting winter swim programs. The club raises a “tent,” or dome, over its outdoor pool in mid-October so the Swim Fanatics Swim Club can offer lessons and hold practices there. It makes Sherwood the only private club in Greensboro with year-round swimming.

The news from the city baffled club president John Melson and Swim Fanatics owner Anitra Fulton. They said they worked closely with city fire and building inspectors to ensure they were abiding by the rules.

In fact, city officials granted Sherwood a permit last winter, which allowed the 7,575-square-foot dome to stay up for 180 days. The city issued the club another 180-day permit on Oct. 18. It cost the swim club about $40,000 to build and operate, which Fulton says is a significant investment for a small business.

“We worked with them for months to make sure that all our i’s were dotted and our t’s were crossed,” Melson said.

City spokesman Jake Keys said a recent review of city ordinances drew attention to the violations. Keys said visual inspections of the 54 tent and temporary structure permit holders showed just three violations.

City Councilman Zack Matheny said the city will work with the club so the pool can stay open. Matheny said he doesn’t consider the structure a tent.

Jen Nierle of Summerfield was among a group of moms watching their kids from poolside this week.

“That would be devastating to take (the tent) down,” she said, with furrowed brows.

Her daughters Katelin, 10, and Courtney, 7, are among 265 youths enrolled in the winter swim session. Nierle said it’s convenient to get to the club from their school.

For competitive swimmers like Maddie Smith and Grayson Thompson, having access to a pool through the winter helps them get faster. Thompson, a 15-year-old Greensboro Day School sophomore, trains there daily.

“I wouldn’t call this a tent, as much as a temporary housing for this pool,” he said.

Village Tavern president Tony Santarelli said the Westridge Road restaurant normally uses a tent during the busy holiday season. They removed it Friday, Santarelli said, because he doesn’t want a conflict with the city.

Greene Street Club manager Grady Green said discovery of the ordinance has cost the club and its staff thousands of dollars. As was the case with Sherwood, the business got city approval to raise a tent for 180 days.

The tent, which for the past five years has stood from late October to April, lets the club operate a rooftop bar and dance area.

Green said that sales last week were $12,000 below the weekly average because the club wasn’t allowed to serve customers under the tent, which remains up. It also meant his bartending staff lost a total of 20 shifts.

“In a sense, that’s 20 jobs lost, not including security, cleanup, the DJ, and whatnot,” Green said.

Green estimated the business could lose $40,000 to $50,000 a month. The city loses money too, he said, because it receives less tax income from alcohol purchased by the club.

As of Friday, Green said the club was working with city officials to build a permanent covering over the area.

Donnie Turlington, communications manager for the city of Greensboro, said officials will work with each business owner to resolve the issue.

Contact Tina Firesheets at 373-3498 or tina.firesheets@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

Joseph Rodriguez (News & Record)

Photo Caption: The Sherwood Swim & Racquet Club tent covered pool

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

anhal01

January 28, 2012 - 7:58 am EST

So I guess my Yurt would be illegal as well. Its a shame...They have been perfectly good homes for thousands of years. Do you suppose this is an attempt to keep "undesirable" people out of their neck of the woods? I mean people that would prefer to live off the power grid, closer to nature, without a 1.5 story mortgage dragging them down don't contribute to the system. Well guess I better start packing up the yak rugs...

jackhartjj

January 28, 2012 - 8:59 am EST

Am I missing something here? Would it not be simple to change the ordinace?
This is simply STUPID!
Jack

Sha

January 28, 2012 - 9:36 am EST

jackhartjj, I agree with you totally!

sparkeysig

January 28, 2012 - 9:37 am EST

There is apparently an anal moron (s) in Code Enforcement that needs to get a; dog, a hobby, or both. This is a completely useless pursuit of an old ordinance that apparently now needs significant modification by counsel to bring the tent Nazi (s) in Code Enforcement back under control.

Traveler

January 28, 2012 - 9:37 am EST

Things like this is what gives government a bad name. My initial reaction is that it sounds like bureaucrats demanding ridiculous behavior from citizens.

If this concerned health and sanitation issues, such an the Occupy crowd trying to sleep in tents without proper facilities, I can see making them take the tent down.

These are businesses which are using the tents for a few hours to provide a place for patrons to use facilities. There is no overnight camping. Jobs are being lost.

I agree, change the ordinance.

Also, fire the bureaucrat who did not have the common sense to bring this up to proper officials to change the ordinance before acting like "Big Brother". Ridiculous.

jackhartjj

January 28, 2012 - 9:42 am EST

Spark and traveler, right on!
At the very least the idiots could have said, "oh wait, I think there is a problem here', discussed a reasonable course of action, WITHOUT sending threatening letters. Our government at its worse, which is pretty regular these days!
Jack

johnodrake

January 28, 2012 - 10:03 am EST

Another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences at work. That said, the fine is $50 a day, ignore the law and pay the fine. The article said the "take" was as much as $40K/month - the $50 a day is a nit.

Dogwood

January 28, 2012 - 1:38 pm EST

The City Council has the power to declaw this nusiance code. What is the rationale behind this code? If it helps neighbors that complain about backyard cub scout tents killing grass, scrap the code and keep the kids' tents. If it is about the tents that get frayed and ugly make an ugly tent code.
The city, itself, built a steel and plastic dome tent over the Barber Park tennis counts years ago. I can't even remember what brought the dome down, was it wind or was it ice?
The city needs to get off the backs of private clubs and businesses about tents that can easily be inspected for safety and crowd control.
.

Does anyone know the rationale behind this 50 year old code?

ZipCanoe

January 28, 2012 - 1:43 pm EST

The business owners requested and received a permit for the tents. NOW after spending thousands of dollars the city says they are in violation of a code.

The City of Greensboro zoning department needs to get it's act together and remember it's trying to be PRO BUSINESS!

1234

January 28, 2012 - 4:17 pm EST

How about the code officials closing down the multifamily housing that is going on in single family homes? This would help us all with the slide in home values...if the tents are non flammable, leave them alone as they are in business zoning anyway!

jackhartjj

January 28, 2012 - 4:33 pm EST

The more I think about this the madder I get!
The city gave them permits a long time ago. Did they not check to see what prohabitions against tents were in place, they have only been on the books for 50 YEARS!
Then, once someone found the ordinance, the morons, instead of taking some time to figure out a course of action, sent letters out. Now remember, this has been on the books for 50 YEARS!
We pay these morons to do this!
Think about it!
Our stupid government in action!
Jack

Lord Trigo

January 29, 2012 - 9:56 am EST

Exactly... how is it that city staff can't ever seem to figure what rules are on the books? Isn't it their job to know that?

Dogwood

January 28, 2012 - 5:21 pm EST

It would be a very sinister move to pull out this outdated code just to shut down the Sherwood pool during the winter. With Grimsley pool suffering extensive renovation and the Sherwood pool closed, the new city swim center would benefit. I hope this is not the case.

I wonder what the Village Tavern tents did to deserve this code violation enforcement? I thought they contributed ambience and gentle shade.

Did the Kress building and other businesses just get caught up in a $Sherwood patron grab?

shine

January 29, 2012 - 7:23 pm EST

Your comments are based upon this belief that there's some sort of great conspiracy against certain businesses and people in Greensboro. That's ridiculous from anyone. You really think Greensboro is well organized and crafty enough to pull off this great conspiracy?

As far as the Kress building goes, those tents are for events only and the ordinance is against more permanent installations.

lskafori

January 29, 2012 - 3:27 am EST

That old code should be abolished. If it was an old code that was racially discriminatory, I'm sure it would "magically disappear". The simple fact is, while they won't do it this season, Greensboro wants Sherwood's dollars. Period. I guarantee Sherwood will never get another permit to cover their pool during the winter. Just sit back and watch.

shine

January 29, 2012 - 7:23 pm EST

Goodness. You didn't seem to care when it was Greene Street club that was complaining, but now a beloved swim club is being "terrorized" and you are all up in arms. Tons of businesses are being slammed with this silly ordinance that I'm sure was brought up again when Occupy starting putting up their tents. It's extraordinarily pretentious to think that Sherwood is being singled out when the article states that others are fighting the same law.

lskafori

January 30, 2012 - 1:56 am EST

Now just how do you know what my emotions are? My statement on the need for this ordinance to be abolished was all inclusive. I simply referenced the swim center primarily because I know how manipulative the "Greensboro machine" can be, and I strongly suspect the primary motive for "digging up" this out dated "ordinance" is to justify not renewing the swim center's permit, in order to generate more revenue to the aquatic center. The "Greensboro machine" has a long history of spending large amounts of tax payer money on projects that interest a very small, well-connected segment of this community, instead of conducting surveys to determine what the citizens really want. The aquatic center is not self-sustaining at present, so if they can justify shutting Sherwood down during the winter, they assume the swimmers would migrate to the aquatic center. But as usual, they rushed in, as they always do, without taking into account that there are businesses that will lose significant revenue, and this 50 year old ordinance will cost more people their jobs. As for Sherwood being a "beloved" swim center, I wouldn't know. I never heard of it until now. However, unfortunately, I am very familiar with the inner workings of the "Greensboro machine."

Mick

January 30, 2012 - 9:21 am EST

I'll go with ... ummmm no. A few things come to mind...

Do not the members of Sherwood and the private swim club using the facility fit rather neatly into your own conspiracy laced terminology (small, well connected segment blah blah)? Are they not indeed members of the "evil swim community" to which no doubt you refer. Yes or No.

I would think The GAC is at or near capacity for private swim club lane time (at a do-able hour anyway).

Does ANYONE really think a $40,000, private dome, open only a few months of the year is in competition with The GAC. How do you account for the two restaurants... just a cover or diversion? Sillyness.

I think government stupidity is in full display but no nefarious conspiracy has been uncovered.