Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streets And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves renaming of five streets severed by I‑295; directs staff to seek DOT guidance on resident costs
Summary
After a public hearing, Fayetteville council approved renaming five streets fragmented by the I‑295 realignment and asked staff to contact NCDOT about possible reimbursement for residents who must change addresses. The council voted to approve the renaming and later approved a staff follow-up motion to consult DOT and the county.
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — Fayetteville City Council on Sept. 22 approved renaming five streets that were severed by the I‑295 realignment and instructed staff to pursue information from the North Carolina Department of Transportation about whether affected property owners can be reimbursed for address‑change expenses.
Planning Development Services staff presented the five proposed name changes, explaining the renaming is necessary because the highway project bisected existing thoroughfares and the county’s E‑911 system requires unique names within response zones. Staff said most of the affected streets have only a few properties and that Cumberland County had already notified property owners and solicited input on new names.
Councilmember Thompson moved to approve the renamings after the public hearing; council voted to approve the name changes. During discussion several council members, including Thompson and others who said they were retired postal employees, raised the cost burden on residents required to update driver’s licenses, mail, bank and other records if their addresses change. Thompson then made a separate motion directing staff to contact NCDOT—specifically requesting outreach to the DOT contact mentioned in the meeting—and, if necessary, the county, to determine whether DOT would reimburse property owners for those costs; the motion was seconded and passed 8–2. Councilmembers Green and Hondros recorded no votes on that follow‑up motion.
Planning staff supplied property‑owner counts by street during discussion (examples given: one street petition had 4 property owners; others listed 5, 12 and 5 property owners for several segments). Staff and council clarified that most affected parcels are undeveloped lots rather than businesses; staff indicated the county handled owner notifications for the renaming process.
The approved renamings are administrative actions required by the E‑911 addressing rules following a state highway realignment; council did not tie the renamings to any immediate development approvals. Staff will report back to council with DOT’s response and, if DOT declines, with possible options for city assistance or a future work session.
