[Durham INC] Planning Commissioner resigns -- and other J Lake related news (14Oct2009)

Wed Oct 14 14:33:18 EDT 2009

Good for Planning Commissioner Summers. These good people should not waste their time any further, at least not on rezoning issues, for which their discussions and votes have absolutely no bearing. I'd like to see the planning commissioners go on strike (for rezoning cases) until they are ensured that their decisions will carry some weight with our county's elected officials.

Ditto on the comment requesting that we citizens demand that the planning commission be given at least one tooth. A unanimous
rejection by the PC should certainly hold as much weight as signatures
from property owners (within 100 feet) from at least '20% (in area) of
one side of the property being considered for rezoning,' particularly
when the definition of a 'side' is left completely up to the planning
director and can be decided on a case-by-case basis.an' 

It will be interesting to see how the city council decides to deal with this. They are going to need to decide whether to adopt the county's new watershed boundaries before dealing with the 751 Assemblage annexation and rezoning (without which SDD can't start developing) or any other rezoning application received from landowners near Jordan Lake. It would be smart to deal with the watershed issue before these cases come before them.

--Melissa (Rooney)

___________________________________

Brightleaf Commons, 751 votes spur one Planning Commissioner to resign 

Bull City Rising, 14 Oct 2009 

One of the more interesting points made by 751 assemblage project proponent
Jackie Wagstaff at Monday night's meeting was her assertion (as a former City
Council member) that the perspective of the Durham Planning Commission -- a
board that makes non-binding recommendations to elected officials on land use
cases -- really is, well, "non-binding." As
the H-S noted today:

Former City Councilwoman and
school board member Jackie Wagstaff also aimed a barb at the Durham Planning
Commission, which had recommended that elected officials keep the buffer in
place and order an independent survey of the lake.

Wagstaff alluded to the fact that the planning commission's advice isn't
binding, but went beyond to suggest its influence is deservedly small. 

While she was on the council, "95 percent of the time they would vote to
deny a development," Wagstaff said. "And most of the time, the
council would approve. It doesn't matter what that commission says." 

The statement drew criticism from some opposed to the project -- but given
the 3-2 BOCC vote in favor of the critical watershed area move, after a 12-0
recommendation for the denial of the change, there's certainly one example of
such an event before us. 

And for Planning Commissioner LaDawnna Summers, it looks like this was the
proverbial last straw. 

Summers announced her resignation from the Planning Commission last night in
an email to DPC chair Don Moffitt, City/County Planning director Steve Medlin --
and the entirety of the BOCC and City Council to boot. 

She expressed her concern over both the 751 assemblage case as well as the
matter of Brightleaf Commons earlier this year, in which the City Council
approved a retail center for US 70 outside Brightleaf at the Park after
a 10-2 vote against by the Planning Commission. Both cases failed to win
Planning Commission support. (It's worth noting that the latter was
approved by Council after further changes and compromises on the
development.) 

As Summers notes in her resignation email, her concerns over possible water
quality impact of these projects on Jordan Lake and Falls Lake respectively led
her to her move. 

Cases like these create a
tremendous financial burden which the tax payers will have to fund in order to
clean up the environmental impact.  Further, our neighboring counties rely
upon these drinking water sources, as will our children one day soon.  We
are stewards of the land and water, and these are precious resources.  

In light of these cases, it has become clear to me that our development process
is broken in Durham.  This process resulted in an outcome which did not
serve the people of Durham, and disregarded the wellbeing of our neighboring
counties.  I feel strongly that I can no longer be a part of this process,
and so I am resigning from the Planning Commission.  I do so with thanks
and admiration for the great work of the Planning Commission Members and the
Planning Staff.  I also thank those elected officials who tried to serve
the tax payers and future generations by voting against these cases.  I
hope that the voters will remember your stewardship when the time comes.   

Summers added that she felt PC members worked hard to "tirelessly
research" cases that come before them -- "visiting the sites in
person, diving into the details of development plans, listening to the
citizens, and understanding the science involved," she said. 

Her resignation marks the second PC departure of note this year; Commission
member Ben Greene resigned
earlier this year after moving to Raleigh. 

http://www.bullcityrising.com/2009/10/brightleaf-commons-751-votes-spur-one-planning-commissioner-to-resign.html

Jordan options under review

By Ray Gronberg, Durham Herald Sun, 14 October 2009

gronberg at heraldsun.com; 419-6648

DURHAM -- Lawyers on both sides of the Jordan Lake buffer dispute are still sizing up
Monday's vote by County
Commissioners removing watershed-protection limits on 165 acres
next to the lake.

Bill Brian, lawyer for Southern Durham Development Inc., and Kay Bond, counsel
for the Southern Environmental Law Center, both indicated that their clients
haven't decided yet how the 3-2 decision may affect litigation. Commissioners
Joe Bowser, Brenda Howerton and Michael Page voted for removing the limits.
Commissioners Becky Heron and Ellen Reckhow voted against the change.

"You could say we are studying the commissioners' decision last night to
determine what if, any impact, it will have on the lawsuit," Brian said,
referring to South Durham
Development's ongoing court case against the county.

The company sued over the summer in hopes of getting a judge to uphold a
private survey and a 2006 ruling by former City/County Planning Director Frank
Duke that it contends should have sufficed to remove watershed-related
restrictions from the land.

Bond, meanwhile, said her client, the Haw River Assembly, was "certainly
disappointed" by the commissioners' vote and is "still looking at the
options" to counter it. Litigation is possible, but "that's something
that will ultimately be the [assembly's] call."

South Durham activists,
meanwhile, made it clear they were angered both by the vote and some of the
things said Monday night by supporters of the would-be developers.

The company drew support from groups representing business and Durham's black
community. They argued that Southern Durham Development's plan would bring
jobs, particularly for blacks, and said the county needs to foster a stable
investment climate.

But they also took shots at the opposition, which they noted was largely white.

One speaker, recent City
Council candidate Darius Little, said "smoke and
mirrors" should not overcome Durham's need for "jobs and tax
base." He added, "We should not allow a bunch of bitter hens to run
the farm."

Former City Councilwoman
and school board member Jackie Wagstaff also aimed a barb at the Durham Planning
Commission, which had recommended that elected officials
keep the buffer in place and order an independent survey of the lake.

Wagstaff alluded to the fact that the planning commission's advice isn't
binding, but went beyond to suggest its influence is deservedly small.

While she was on the council, "95 percent of the time they would vote to
deny a development," Wagstaff said. "And most of the time, the
council would approve. It doesn't matter what that commission says."

Wagstaff's comment stuck with Melissa Rooney, one of the leaders of the
opposition. She said afterward that it's clear elected officials regard the
Planning Commission mainly as a distraction.

"It's obvious that when it comes to things like this, this citizen
advisory board is just going through the motions, trying to make us think
citizens have a say when we don't," Rooney said.

Another South Durham activist,
Steve Bocckino, said he was bothered that the support for the project came
mostly from people who don't live on that end of Durham.

"It's as if Rougemont residents suddenly flocked en masse, carrying
pre-printed signs, to become vocal proponents of a project in North-East
Central Durham -- one that was opposed by residents," he said on the Bull
City Rising blog.

Meanwhile, Heron made it clear Monday she's not happy with how administrators
have handled the issue.

Former Planning Director
Duke, she said, "usurped" the authority of elected officials to
decide zoning matters and kept them in the dark about it. His successor, Steve
Medlin, also didn't act quickly enough to inform them after Duke left, she
said.

Heron also faulted Medlin and his staff for failing to give opponents accurate
information about the petition process local law sets up to give people a
chance to formally protest rezonings.

Haw River Assembly members and local activists submitted a protest petition
last week, only to have it rejected for not speaking for enough of the property
affected by the buffer changes. Had the petition stood up, four commissioners
instead of the usual three would have had to vote in favor.

Monday's vote gave Southern Durham Development the theoretical chance to cover
up to 115 acres of its property with paving and other hard surfaces, provided
it installs catch basins and other measures to control runoff.

The company has to come back for a second rezoning because other restrictions
still in place bar high-density construction on the property.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20091014/66e76d8f/attachment.htm>