|
May Delegate Meeting
First Presbyterian Church
May 25, 2010
Attending the meeting were:
Delegates and Alternates
Jennifer Skahen – Burch Avenue
Erin Kennedy - Colonial Village
Pat Carstensen - Cross Counties
Bill Anderson - Duke Park
Melissa Rooney - Fairfield
Mike Shiflett - Northgate Park
David Harris - Old Farm
Fred Foster – Old Farm
Brett Walters – Old West Durham
Scott Pearson – Olive Branch Road
Tina Motley-Pearson – Olive Branch Road
Mike Brooks - Parkwood
Susan Sewell -- TLNA
Tom Miller - Watts Hospital Hillandale
Scott Carter – Woodcroft
Visitors
Lynwood Best - City of Durham (NIS)
Lorisa Seibel – Durham Affordable Housing Coalition
Minutes
Tom Miller opened the meeting. Delegates introduced themselves. We approved March and April minutes by voice vote.
After a discussion of the Penny for Housing Resolution (having adequate housing code inspection to maintain housing stock is important to neighborhoods but there was some concern about recent news stories on affordable housing), we passed it:
INC urges the Durham City Council to include in the 2010-2011 budget funds equivalent to one penny of the tax rate for housing programs.
The 751 Assemblage is 167 acres near Jordan Lake that is proposed for a zoning change from RR (1 house per 3-5 acres) to mixed use (for which the development plan would have 1300 housing units and 600,000 square feet of commercial space, plus promises of a school police substation, and so on). Melissa Rooney went through the history:
· April 13 – Planning Commission votes 11-1 against it. Developer laughs off all proposals that would make it more acceptable to the community.
· May 7 – Citizen request for a deferral of Board of County Commissioners decision to give more time for protest petition and discussion of city water.
· May 11 – Melissa told decision deferred until June 14, and later informed the new date was June 1.
· May 19 – Melissa files appeal (with $695 fee) to Board of Adjustment on the unusually and unfairly short (a mere 8 days) deferral.
· May 21 – The Planning Director indicates the appeal was valid, which would delay the decision until the end of summer.
· May 23 – News leaks that Board of County Commissioners is going to hold a closed session – maybe for something else, but it sure looks like they were trying to simply ignore the appeal.
· May 21 – Protest petition filed. Developers request their own delay and immediately get the most time allowed under the law to attack the protest petition.
The discussion revealed a deep distrust of what is going on with the Board of County Commissioners and sense that the Commissioners feel a need to keep their thumbs on the scales of justice, using legal strategy coming straight from the developers, blatantly stealing the process and manipulating it to be benefit of those with money and the exclusion of everyone else, and generally bullying neighborhoods, staff and anyone else that dares to raise a peep.
Bill moved and David seconded that Tom should write a resolution (see draft below) and we should have our June meeting early (on June 15) to vote on the resolution and work out what we can do in support of that resolution. This passed so the next meeting is June 15.
On the digital billboards, neighborhoods should do their own resolutions. At the statewide level, there is an attempt to legislate a moratorium until the federal government finishes a study about their safety (the bill is tied up in an unfriendly committee, but thank Representative Luebke for introducing it).
We passed the Liens Resolution by voice vote.
INC urges the Durham City Council to devote the resources and take the steps necessary to enforce its accumulated liens for housing violations and to direct the funds collected to housing and housing enforcement.
Neighborhood news:
· Tom has INC badges if anyone is speaking for the organization.
· Lynwood Best reported that the Landlord Training Workshop went well.
· The Beaver Pageant is June 5.
· Burch Avenue has won a KaBOOM! grant to revitalize their pocket park. They could use more volunteers and food and raffle items when they put everything together.
· TLNA is working to incorporate students into the neighborhood better – will have a September “welcome event.”
The meeting was adjourned.
DRAFT 6-1-10
A RESOLUTION of the
INTERNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF DURHAM
WHEREAS developers have petitioned the County of Durham to rezone approximately 167 acres in southern Durham County on the shores of Jordan Lake from low density residential to mixed use allowing for approximately 1300 dwelling units and nearly 600,000 sq. ft. of non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS certain Durham residents and neighborhood organizations oppose the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS the Durham City-County Planning Commission, in fair and open proceedings at its meeting in April 2010, voted overwhelmingly to recommend denial of the rezoning following a public hearing and an exhaustive inquiry into the merits of the matter; and
WHEREAS the matter was then scheduled for public hearing before the Durham County Board of County Commissioners on May 24, 2010; and
WHEREAS the neighborhood opponents of the rezoning made a timely request for a postponement of the hearing under the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance reasonably expecting thereby to delay the matter by at least two weeks; and
WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners, interfering in the customary procedures for rezonings, and to render meaningless the grant of extra time sought by the neighborhood opponents of the rezoning, rescheduled the hearing on the matter to June 1, 2010, only eight days later and not even one cycle of the board's regular scheduled meetings; and
WHEREAS a resident of Durham County appealed the decision of the Board of County Commissioners to the Durham Board of Adjustment on the grounds that the Board's decision was contrary to the letter and spirit of the ordinance and unfair; and
WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners then further interfered in the customary procedures for rezoning by proposing to hold a closed session on the proposed rezoning on May 24, 2010; and
WHEREAS no closed session was held because property owners neighboring the subject property made a timely filing of a protest petition in anticipation of the June 1 hearing and the appeal to the Board of Adjustment was withdrawn; and
WHEREAS one of the owners signing the petition is the government of a neighborhood association organized pursuant to a declaration of restrictive covenants and that even though the signatures of such organizations on protest petitions in past case have been found acceptable, Durham County government has cast doubt on the ability of such organizations to execute protest petitions in matters relating to these developers; and
WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners, following communication with the developers' attorneys, again rescheduled the hearing on the rezoning to June 23, 2010, in order to give the developers time to overcome the protest petition; and
WHEREAS, rather than allowing this rezoning case to follow the customary procedure for such matters, and without due regard for the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and without concern for the due process rights and welfare of the citizens of Durham, the Board of County Commissioners has at every step, intervened in this matter to twist the process to assist the developers and to confound the neighborhood opponents, and has thereby considerably undermined the trust of Durham citizens and neighborhood organizations in the fairness of the government of Durham County generally and the ordinances governing development particularly;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham, through its government and its members, protests the unwarranted and unfair interference of the Board of County Commissioners in the procedures regulating this rezoning, and further that the InterNeighborhood Council, its government and its members, call upon the Board of County Commissioners to deny this rezoning petition in conformity with the recommendation of the Durham City-County Planning Commission because to do otherwise would reward the inappropriate and unfair conduct of this matter at the expense of the trust and welfare of the citizens of Durham; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham calls upon the Durham County Government to treat the protest petition signed by a neighborhood organization in this matter as valid in the same manner as such petitions have been treated in past cases.
Adopted this _____ day of June, 2010
THE INTERNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF DURHAM
By: _____________________________________________
Thomas R. Miller, President
|
