INC NEWS - Jordan at Southpoint (Z06-51) Application Withdrawn

[Mullen, Julia]

Good morning, everyone:

I am with Durham City/County Planning and we would like to clarify, just
in case there is any misunderstanding, the nature of a conservation
subdivision.  It does not require a rezoning, or zoning map change, but
is a use available by right in the RR district in both rural and
suburban tiers.  It is subject to subdivision approval and is therefore
approved or denied by the Development Review Board unless the applicant
seeks modifications to standards requiring a major special use permit,
in which case governing body approval is required.  DRB review is
technical, meaning it assesses compliance with UDO requirements; it is
not discretionary review.  Public notice would consist of notice to
groups like the Durham Open Space and Trails Commission unless a major
special use permit is required.  

For more information, see UDO Sec. 6.2, Residential Rural (RR)
Development Intensity, which includes Sec. 6.2.4, Conservation
Subdivision, and Section 3.6, Subdivision Review.  Also feel free to
contact the Planning Department with any questions.  For information on
conservation subdivision review, you can contact Teri Danner,
Development Review Section Supervisor, at 560-4137 ext. 246,
teri.danner at durhamnc.gov.  Frank Duke, Director, is available at
560-4137 ext. 213, frank.duke at durhamnc.gov, and Steve Medlin, Assistant
Director, is available at 560-4137 ext. 223, steve.medlin at durhamnc.gov.

Regards,
Julia Mullen
Planner
560-4137 ext. 255 

-----Original Message-----
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
On Behalf Of Melissa Rooney
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:01 PM
To: inc-list at rtpnet.org
Subject: INC NEWS - Jordan at Southpoint (Z06-51) Application Withdrawn

Thank you to everyone who wrote the planning
commissioners with their concerns and/or objections
regarding the current application for Jordan at
Southpoint (Z06-51).

The applicant(s), George Stanziale (and Jerry Owens)
withdrew the application at the very last minute -- at
~6:20 PM, when they were scheduled to present the
current plan to the planning commissioners. About 10
concerned neighbors showed up (~5 of which planned to
speak) to object to the development plan as we last
saw it (on March 22).

As of yesterday evening, Mr. Stanziale had informed
planning commissioners & neighbors (including myself)
that he planned to ask for a 3rd and final
deferral/delay, and many commissioners had responded
that they would still hold a public hearing before
deciding whether to grant a deferral. Thus, the last
minute withdrawal was very frustrating, both to the
planning commissioners and to the neighbors who showed
up (and who prepared statements and even a power point
presentation), neither of whom knew about the
intention to withdraw beforehand. 

Mr. Stanziale made the unusual request (and was
granted 5 minutes) to explain the reasons behind his
withdrawal, during which he stated that he'd met with
neighbors twice and that they requested an unusually
high number (30 is the number he quoted) of committed
elements -- he more than insinuated that neighbors
were simply asking too much. 

Fortunately, the planning commission also let the
neighbors speak for 5 minutes, during which their very
reasonable concerns and list of requests were
presented.

It is very hard to believe that Mr. Stanziale did not
think that by telling neighbors he was planning to ask
for a deferral/delay, they would be less likely to go
through the trouble of attending the meeting, thereby
minimizing the threat/challenges to achieving a vote
of approval for the application. (When he informed
that he was asking for the first deferral back in
April, only one or two neighbors attended the
meeting.) Thus, either 1) the deferral would be
granted or 2) the application would be discussed and
voted on tonight, with few there to present their
objections. Of course, if a lot of neighbors showed up
to oppose the application, he figured he also had a
3rd option) to withdraw the application completely.

So when it was clear that the commission planned to
hear from neighbors, regardless, and when the
applicants saw that more than a handful of neighbors
showed up, they made the split-second decision to
withdraw. 

This is a small victory for us. For there is no doubt
that, without the support and presence of Durham
neighbors (both physically and by email), the
applicants may have gone ahead with the hearing and
the application could very well have passed.

What now?

It is anticipated that the applicants have used the
time since the March meeting with neighbors to
research a conservation subdivision and will probably
try again with this (or another) zoning. Like the UDO,
conservation subdivision requirements are also
skeletal, and there are 'loopholes' that are often not
anticipated by gov't and neighbors/residents.

Summer is not the best time for neighbor/citizen
involvement, but I hope that you all will stay tuned
and offer your support if/when another rezoning is
considered.

Thank you again for your help and involvement!
Melissa

P.S. I have written the Joint City County Planning
Commission and asked why there cannot be a requirement
that developers inform the commission (and thus
neighbors) of their intention at least 24 hours in
advance. The penalty? Put their application at the
bottom of the pile. If you agree, you know what to do
;)

___________

Melissa Rooney, Ph.D.
301 Spring Garden Drive
Durham, NC 27713
mmr121570 at yahoo.com

Fairfield Community Awareness Co-Chair
Fairfield Communications
Fairfield INC Representative



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list