[Durham INC] Fwd: [dukepark] A fundamental change to Durham's development process

Mon Aug 24 09:57:55 EDT 2020

Hi Neighbors,

In case you haven't already seen this email in listservs. Below is
information about possible changes to Durham's development process
involving development agreements. If after reading this you feel moved to
make your opinion known you can email :

council at durhamnc.gov
Commissioners at dconc.gov

Thanks!

*From:* "Mary Molina via groups.io" <mymolina49=yahoo.com at groups.io>
*Date:* August 22, 2020 at 6:18:42 PM EDT
*To:* TrinityPark-noreply at yahoogroups.com
*Cc:* DukePark Groups <DukePark at groups.io>, "OND Neighborhood via groups.io"
<luxnorth=yahoo.com at groups.io>
*Subject:* *[dukepark] A fundamental change to Durham's development process*
*Reply-To:* main at DukePark.groups.io

 Please share this information and let City Council hear you're voice!

Begin forwarded message:

On Saturday, August 22, 2020, 6:10 PM, Christy Ferguson <
christymferg at gmail.com> wrote:

The below message is from Will Wilson, the president of the
Inter-neighborhood Council.

*From:* Will Wilson <willwilsn at gmail.com>
*Date:* August 22, 2020 at 5:18:57 PM EDT
*To:* inc listserv <inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net>
*Subject:* *[Durham INC] A fundamental change to Durham's development
process*
*Reply-To:* willwilsn at gmail.com

Fellow Durhamites,

The Planning Department proposed a text amendment to Durham's Unified
Development Ordinance that would allow chosen developers to sidestep the
rules that the rest of us must adhere to. Part of the sidestepping means
that the rest of us would have no input into what gets built where.

With permission, I'm passing on comments written by long-time INC member,
Planning Commission member, and development legal expert Tom Miller
regarding a UDO text amendment that Durham's Planning Department. The
Planning Commission rejected the text amendment 10 to 3. It now goes to
elected officials.

There are two parts to his comments: first is his preface that explains the
situation, and second is the text of his letter to the City Council and the
Board of County Commissioners.

If you feel moved, please make your opinion known.

council at durhamnc.gov
Commissioners at dconc.gov

Thanks,
Will Wilson
President, INC

Tom's preface to his comments:
------------------------------
The Planning Department initiated the text amendment to the UDO to
expressly allow development agreements.   A development agreement is a
statutory device that allows a local government and a developer to enter
into a formal contract to write special zoning rules pertaining only to the
developer's property.  The rules can be more strict than the regular zoning
rules (unlikely) or less strict than the regular zoning rules (more
likely).  The agreement can establish a slight change in the zoning rules
for the developer's property or the agreement can throw the regular zoning
rules out altogether and create an entirely novel and unique arrangement
for the developer's property.  A development agreement may be about more
than just zoning. It can include promises about improvements, city
services, etc. What's more, the agreement may provide that the special
arrangement for the developer will last for a certain period time during
which the local government would have no authority to alter or change the
zoning.  That period of time could be short or long - years even.

Durham's UDO has always declared that there will be no development
agreements in Durham.  Now the city administration wishes to change the UDO
to allow them.  The proposal the city has come up with would treat at least
some development agreements - those that tamper with zoning rules - like
rezoning cases.  Such agreements would be heard by the Planning Commission
and the City Council )or the Board of County Commissioners if the land is
in the county's jurisdiction).

When the UDO text change was first presented to the Planning Commission,
the commission members had questions and wanted to delay its consideration
to give the public more time to weigh in.  When the proposal to delay was
floated, the city staff disclosed that the proposal to allow development
agreements was tied to a rezoning on Farrington Road that had not yet hit
the commission's radar and that a significant delay of the development
agreements would spoil the Farrington Road rezoning which the city was
obviously invested in in some way.  The Planning Commission delayed the
development agreements just two weeks to allow staff time to address some
of the commission members' comments.  When the item came before the
commission members again on August 11, the commission voted 10-3 against
the proposal. It is now headed to the City Council and the BOCC for a final
decision.

--------------------
Now, Tom's letter to City Council and BOCC:
--------------------

Concerning case TC2000003, Development Agreements:

The City Council and the Board of Commissioners should reject this text
amendment.

The statutory authority for local governments to enter into development
agreements was in place when Durham adopted its UDO.  In the UDO Durham
declared that such agreements would not be allowed.  Not here.  This was a
deliberate decision based in ideas of simple fairness and openness in
government.  The UDO is one set of rules for everybody.  Durham does not do
business in back rooms or behind closed doors.  The declaration against
development agreements is something in the UDO that we should all be proud
of.  We have got along without special favors to the already specially
favored for nearly fifteen years.  We do not need to change the rules now.

Development Agreements - allowing special deals and special treatment for
favored developers - is anti-democratic.  How can we promote such a thing
when we are at the same time struggling to make the whole development
review and approval process more transparent, accessible, and equitable?
Our UDO applies equally to everybody.  The UDO belongs to everybody.  The
developer may own his land but zoning is public property.  The very idea of
development agreements runs against this idea - a separate deal between the
government and a developer that takes the developer's property out of the
general regulatory scheme and provides the developer with an exclusive set
of rules which he will own for a set period of time.  Zoning the developer
can rely on.  What about zoning everyone else can rely on?

The legislative trend over the last few years has definitely been one of
opening doors for developer interests and closing them for everyone else.
First the General Assembly eliminated the protest petition right for
neighbors of proposed rezonings.  Then just last year they took away the
right of average citizens to ask for rezonings.  That right now belongs to
land owners.  Now Durham, the "for all" city, wants to activate the
development agreement method of land use regulation.  More for the
developer, less for everyone else.  Public input has been reduced from real
due process to a box to be checked at the end of the process.  With
development agreements, due process will occur only after the city and
county elected officials, staff, and the developer have hammered out all
the particulars of their deal.  Potential stakeholders in the community
will not be consulted.  They won't even know what's going on.  That's the
point, isn't it?  By the time case is rolled out and the notices are sent,
it  will be too late for the public to back up the momentum of the
agreement or alter its course.  Review by the Planning Commission and even
the hearing before city or county officials will be window dressing.  The
case will have been agreed to and decided before it even started.

It's already happened in getting this proposal this far.  The only reason
this text amendment is being considered is that it is necessary to bring
about a backroom deal between the city administration and a developer near
Farrington Road.  Planning Commission members only found this out when
staff objected to a possible delay to study the item more.  "Oh no!  You
can't delay this.  A delay will mess up a deal we have with a developer of
a project on Farrington Road!"   We have not yet been briefed on the
Farrington Road project.  It is obvious from what we have been told,
however, that city officials have committed themselves to the project
before opening it up to public scrutiny.  We were told again at our meeting
on August 11 that if we delayed our consideration of the development
agreement ordinance that it would "sink" the Farrington Road project.  I
wish I could make people realize that this behind-the-scenes deal making -
even to the point of agreeing to change the zoning code to formalize the
deal  - is contrary to sincere public engagement and injurious to public
trust.  There can be no equity in city planning if cases are decided before
the public knows they have started and public involvement is reduced to a
box to be checked.

We must vote this idea down.  Staff says this is just another tool. Imagine
calling special treatment just another tool!  Whatever we might get from
this tool isn't worth having - not at this cost.

_______________________________________________
INC Website: https://sites.google.com/view/durhaminc/

Durham INC Mailing List
inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
https://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

_._,_._,_
------------------------------
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#1934) <https://DukePark.groups.io/g/main/message/1934>
| Reply To Group
<main at DukePark.groups.io?subject=Re:%20%5Bdukepark%5D%20A%20fundamental%20change%20to%20Durham%27s%20development%20process>
| Reply To Sender
<mymolina49 at yahoo.com?subject=Private:%20Re:%20%5Bdukepark%5D%20A%20fundamental%20change%20to%20Durham%27s%20development%20process>
| Mute This Topic <https://groups.io/mt/76356347/4488987> | New Topic
<https://DukePark.groups.io/g/main/post>

Your Subscription <https://DukePark.groups.io/g/main/editsub/4488987> | Contact
Group Owner <main+owner at DukePark.groups.io> | Unsubscribe
<https://DukePark.groups.io/g/main/leave/8111512/947998102/xyzzy> [
joannetandrews at gmail.com]
_._,_._,_

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Local Government Task Force" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lgtf+unsubscribe at ellerbecreek.org.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20200824/6209d2f3/attachment-0001.htm>