INC NEWS - PC MUST vote on Black Mdw Ridge Zoning on December 9th -- by law

[Colin Crossman]

Melissa, in this case, I think you may be mistaken.  In standard 
practice, the procedure is that the planning commission must make a 
decision within 3 cycles.  The law goes on to state that in some 
circumstances, the time period can be extended by up to 3 additional 
cycles.  If you go no farther in your analysis, you'd determine that, 
indeed, the time period will elapse before February, however, if you 
look closely, you'd find that the first period would have elapsed on 
August 12th, as the cases A0800001 and Z07-47 were initiated on May 13th.

That the cases were marked as new on September 9th, which implies that 
they were not deferred using the above mechanism. Indeed, the Mid-Year 
report mentions that the cases were "Pulled" not deferred.

It appears that the (new) initial date is now September, the first 3 
cycles end in December, and the second set would end in March.  If this 
is indeed the case, a deferral to February will therefore not moot the 
planning commission.

Of course, I could be wrong. Would any helpful planning department or 
planning commission representative, or perhaps an experienced zoning 
attorney (Tom?) comment on this?

Thanks,
Colin


Melissa Rooney wrote:
> Hello all. I think the INC voted too quickly on the developers' letter regarding Black Meadow Ridge for a number of reasons that I won't go into here.
>
> Regardless, please take note that, by law, the Planning Commission MUST vote on the rezoning for this property at their December 9th meeting. Otherwise, they forfeit their voice in this matter (which I don't think any of us would want them to do). This supersedes the aforementioned letter, which requests that any rezoning decisions be deferred until February, 2009.
>
> As such, I am writing to request that the INC members communicate to the PC their opposition to the current request to down-zone the Black Meadow Ridge property to RS-10, thereby allowing a density of 4.5 units per acre. 
>
> This density would result in one house(lot) per ~0.2 acres. Clearly, this zoning would STILL not provide the protection that this sensitive piece of land requires. For example, I have been informed repeatedly (by development and planning staff) that any residential lot smaller than 0.3 acres would require clear-cutting and mass-grading. 
>
> Please write your planning commissioners and ask that they vote against an RS-10 zoning for this land parcel and that they insist upon a more stringent down-zoning that will truly protect this environmentally important piece of land. (There's no harm in letting them determine what that 'more stringent down-zoning' will be.)
>
> Email address for the PC: durhamplanningcommission at durhamnc.gov
>
> It wouldn't hurt for the INC to consider voting on a resolution to this effect at their November meeting...
>
> Thanks!
> Melissa
>
> Melissa Rooney, Ph.D.
> Fairfield Rep to the Interneighborhood Council
> (among other things -- wink)
> mmr121570 at yahoo.com
>
>
>
>       
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>