[Durham INC] If you thought the BOCC were sleaze-balls, check this out

Tue Jun 29 10:36:08 EDT 2010

I just asked Commissioner Ellen Reckhow about this legislation.  The  
Senate version of the bill (which passed that body, 50-0,  on June 9)  
is currently in  hearing in the House Judiciary I Committee. Comm.  
Reckhow says I can pass on what she said:  (1) The purpose of the bill  
is to align the County's protest petition provisions with those of the  
City of Durham;  (2) the issue has been under discussion "for several  
years" by County Commissioners (suggesting as far back as she was  
Board Chair);  (3) It has no relationship to the 751 Assemblage  
application; (4) "It was confusing" for some residents to have  
different provisions for city and county.

I will say that Durham County is relatively rare in having ordinance  
provisions which allow non-municipal residents to file protest  
petitions against municipal development applications. This was put in  
place via a local bill in the early 2000s.  One of our Pope Road  
neighborhoods were able to file a protest petition in 2004 against an  
application to the City, which resulted in a significantly changed  
project. Planning Commission Chair (then) Jackie Brown strongly  
encouraged me to get one organized, and (when encouraged) the  
unincorporated neighborhood with the most frontage went gangbusters  
(something like 90-plus percent of the adjacent owners signed on).

The Senate version of the bill, Senate Bill 1399, was introduced on  
May 25th, primary sponsor Floyd McKissick, co-sponsor Bob Atwater (so,  
both of Durham County's Senators).  All of Durham County's State Reps  
sponsored the House "companion" on the same day, House Bill 2033.   
That is, every legislator in the delegation supported this legislation.

Here is what's currently in the UDO (Section 3.5) for *County* protest  
petitions:

2. County
In particular, the petition shall be submitted on time and contain the  
signatures of property owners comprising of 20% of either:
a. The area of the property under consideration; or
b. The area within 100 feet of either side or the rear of the subject  
property; or
c. The area directly across the street from the subject property and  
extending 100 feet from the street frontage of the properties across  
the street.
.
Here's what in the City provisions, taken directly from the State  
Statute, at N.C.G.S 160A-365:
• Twenty percent (20%) of the land area proposed to be rezoned, or
• Five percent (5%) of a 100-foot-wide buffer extending along the  
entire boundary of each discrete or separate area
proposed to be rezoned. A street right-of-way shall not be considered  
in computing the 100-foot buffer area as long as
that street right-of-way is 100 feet wide or less. When less than an  
entire parcel of land is subject to the proposed
zoning map amendment, the 100-foot buffer shall be measured from the  
property line of that parcel. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the city may rely on the county tax listing  
to determine the ‘owners’ of potentially qualifying
areas.

Citation:
[http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_160A.html 
]

So yes, Anne, it applies to the City -- it IS the City's current set  
of provisions for protest petitions (and has been
for a long time).

It looks to me as if this would actually make it less burdensome to  
come up with the signatures for a protest petition, based on the
reduction from 20 percent to 5 percent of the frontage distance.

While I know that many of us are currently prone to accuse the Board  
of Commissioners of nefarious
deeds right now (well, not all of them), this legislation is not one  
of those. It would bring the unique
protest petition capability of unincorporated residents in Durham  
County in line with everywhere else
in North Carolina. There are plenty of reasons for us (including me)   
to have problems with that Board's recent conduct.
Probably best if we stick to the ones that are justified.

Ed Harrison

On Jun 29, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Anne Guyton wrote:

> Pat,
>
> Can you tell me if the present protest petition requirements/ 
> ordinance are part of the UDO, passed by the city and county?
>
> Wouldn't this also apply to the city?
>
> Thanks as always for your expertise!
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Anne M. Guyton
>
>
> From: Pat Carstensen <pats1717 at hotmail.com>
> To: inc listserv <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
> Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 8:23:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] If you thought the BOCC were sleaze-balls,  
> check this out
>
> To spell out more clearly what this means:
> 1) The legislature is expected to go home in 2-3 weeks, so if this  
> passes, it will apply to the 751 assemblage.
> 2) This is why they needed a postponement until July
>
>
> Regards, pat
>
> From: pats1717 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:29:07 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] If you thought the BOCC were sleaze-balls,	 
> check this out
>
> I was looking at something else and found this special provision on  
> Durham protest petitions that the legislature is considering:
>
> http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/PDF/H2033v1.pdf
>
> considered "members of the board" for calculation of the requisite  
> supermajority.
>
> 10 To qualify as a protest under this section, the petition must be  
> signed by the owners
>
> 11 of either (i) twenty percent (20%) or more of the area included  
> in the proposed change or (ii)
>
> 12 five percent (5%) of a 100-foot-wide buffer extending along the  
> entire boundary of each
>
> 13 discrete or separate area proposed to be rezoned. A street right- 
> of-way shall not be considered
>
> 14 in computing the 100-foot buffer area as long as that street  
> right-of-way is 100 feet wide or
>
> 15 less. When less than an entire parcel of land is subject to the  
> proposed zoning map amendment,
>
> 16 the 100-foot buffer shall be measured from the property line of  
> that parcel. In the absence of
>
> 17 evidence to the contrary, the county may rely on the county tax  
> listing to determine the
>
> 18 "owners" of potentially qualifying areas.
>
> 19 The foregoing provisions concerning
>
>
>
> it is obviously something the county commissioners has asked for  
> since all the reps are sponsoring it.  This would make it ALMOST  
> IMPOSSIBLE to get a protest petition in the county.  I'm not sure  
> how to stop it, but it must be stopped.
>
>
>
> Thanks, pat
>
>
> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your  
> inbox. Get started.
>
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from  
> your inbox. Learn more.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed