[Durham INC] HS article on Jordan Lake Watershed Protest Petition -- Don't delay, act today!

[Melissa Rooney]

See the HS article at the bottom of this email.

I recall the initial majority BOCC vote was to 'follow proper procedure' -- that's why we were 'allowed' to have public hearings in the first place. Please write the County Manager, Planning Director, County Attorney and the county commissioners and demand that they will now uphold proper and democratic procedures regarding the protest petition against the Jordan Lake Watershed changes. They need to hear from you NOW -- next week may be to late:



Steve.Medlin at durhamnc.gov,
mruffin at co.durham.nc.us, lsiler at co.durham.nc.us 





beckymheron at nc.rr.com,
brendahowerton10 at yahoo.com, ereckhow at aol.com, jbowser2 at nc.rr.com, mdelanopage at aol.com 

 
We also need to ask the question: what incentive is there to keep Durham County from ruling that every protest petition is invalid and forcing every protest petition to Superior Court.  

If the Planning Dept admits that they made a mistake, the County should apply the rule that it takes 4 votes to pass the case, and reverse any case that did not get enough votes.

If the County is going to use the court system as an obstacle to protest petitions, especially in a case where the PD admits there mistakes, then I suspect that the court is going to award the plaintiff punitive damages as an incentive to follow the rules. 

And of course, the Taxpayers will have to pay for those damages (including members of the City Council).  The County would be exposing us all to needless penalties for an already controversial (to put it nicely) project.

K&L Gates attorney (for SDD, the company hoping to build in the Jordan Lake watershed), Patrick Byker spent a good deal of Friday afternoon (Oct 30) in County Attorney Lowell Silar's office. Please ensure that your voice is also heard, and demand that it be heeded.

More talking points about the Jordan Lake Protest Petition are below.

Thanks!

Melissa (Rooney)

___________

Talking Points about the Jordan Lake Protest Petition -- 


Do the Right Thing, Durham!

·         Durham’s mistake is a math error not a methodological
issue!  In its original calculation for the percentage of total area owned by
protest petition signatories for the eastern side of the buffer, Durham County
did not add buffer sections from two parcels into its calculations.  Because
of this oversight, the Planning Department erroneously invalidated the protest
petition, which if valid would have required a supermajority vote of the BOCC
in order to pass the proposed changes to the critical area watershed.

·         Durham County should admit its error and reverse any changes
to the zoning maps that were based on the Oct. 12th BOCC vote.  Anything less
is bad governance!  If the County does not voluntarily admit its error, it
leaves no recourse except more litigation which is expensive and wasteful. 
Durham County has maintained that it cannot afford to conduct an independent
survey of the Jordan Lake watershed. County resources should be going towards a
comprehensive survey and not defending clear errors by the County.

·         Once the protest petition mistake is fixed and any changes to
the zoning maps as a result of the Oct 12th vote are reversed, there will be
time and opportunity for Durham County to do the right thing for Jordan Lake, a
community water supply.  The right thing would be for the County to seek
guidance from experts on the best way to survey the boundary for a water supply
reservoir and commence its own comprehensive survey of the Jordan Lake boundary
in Durham County.

_________________


Activists revisit Jordan watershed dispute



 By Matthew E. Milliken 

mmilliken at heraldsun.com; 419-6684 

DURHAM -- Durham planners are reviewing their decision to invalidate a protest petition involving the recent Jordan Lake watershed boundary change, officials said Thursday. The review was ordered this week after petition organizers submitted evidence that the petition's status was affected by erroneous government calculations. 

But regardless of what the review turns up, county officials said, the only way the petition status or the county commission vote to alter the boundary might be affected would be by court order. 

"It's not going to go back to the board," County Manager Mike Ruffin said. "The board has taken action. And unless 
 the court remands it to the board, that's where [in court] it needs to get settled." 

The protest petition was submitted earlier this month by a group of activists that includes the Haw River Assembly and the Southern Environmental Law Center. The intent was to require a supermajority vote of county commissioners in order to change watershed protections around Jordan Lake. 

Because the protest was deemed invalid, the watershed boundary was altered on a 3-2 county commission vote on Oct. 12. Had the petition stood, at least four votes would have been needed to take action. 

Developers need officials to approve watershed and zoning changes in order to proceed with a 165-acre mixed-use project known as the 751 assemblage. 

Project opponents, who fear that runoff from the development will pollute the lake, maintain that they got signatures from the owners of 20 percent of the property adjoining the land affected by the watershed change
 . They assert that parcels on the east and west sides of Jordan Lake were overlooked by planners when they invalidated the protest petition. 

"We believe that there's a very clear-cut mistake that was made and that Durham needs to acknowledge the mistake," said Elaine Chiosso, riverkeeper for the Haw River Assembly. "And if they acknowledge the mistake, the vote that was held by the commissioners would not have had enough votes to change the boundary." 

Planners originally asserted that the petition was signed by individuals owning less than 18 percent of the requisite land -- short of the threshold for a valid protest. A new review was launched after the Haw River Assembly and the Southern Environmental Law Center contacted county officials on Tuesday. Planners will reassess the percentage of property represented by signers and seek to verify that petition signatures are authentic. 

But no matter what the review shows, neither the petition s
 tatus nor the Oct. 12 vote will be affected, county leaders asserted. 

"At this point, their route of appeal is through the courts," said Steve Medlin, the head of the Durham City-County Planning Department. 

Chiosso's side has a different view. "We believe that we have a valid protest petition and our understanding is that under the law, that would mean that the vote that was taken did not have enough votes," Chiosso said. "But we're waiting -- we're waiting for their reply." 

Medlin said he was not sure when his department's review of the matter would be completed.

 


  Thanks for reading!

  The Herald-Sun - Trusted & Essential




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20091102/bd2c9b87/attachment.htm>