Tuesday, May 25, 2010
After memo from developer's attorney and withdraw of appeal, 751 Assemblage public hearing scheduled for June 23
Durham's county commissioners finalized the date today: they'll hold a public hearing on the controversial 751 Assemblage rezoning case at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, June 23. The 167 acres to be rezoned is in the watershed of Jordan Lake and at the center of a long-brewing controversy about whether to build a dense community of homes, offices and shopping areas there.
Much to the suspicions of critics, the commissioners have scheduled and rescheduled the public hearing twice in the past two weeks. Attempting to settle the matter last night, commissioners couldn't choose a date due to scheduling conflicts. Other obstacles have thrust themselves in the way of choosing a date, not the least of which was the deferral request by resident Melissa Rooney... Which resulted in an appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Which was withdrawn yesterday.
The decision comes a day after a memo (PDF) from K&L Gates (attorneys for developer Southern Durham Development) to the Board of County Commissioners, poking holes in Rooney's appeal and asking commissioners to defer the hearing until the latest possible date, June 24.
Residents near the area proposed for rezoning submitted a protest petition to commissioners yesterday, which will make it more difficult for the developer in this case to win rezoning. If the petition is deemed valid, it would require four of five county commissioners to support it, instead of a simple majority that would require only three supportive votes.
Because the public hearing has been moved to June 23, the official due date of the protest petition is June 16, Steve Medlin explained in an e-mail to the Indy Tuesday. Therefore, the planning department won't be determining the validity of the protest petition until around June 21, Medlin wrote.
Whether the planning department finds that citizens have met protest petition requirements is a sensitive subject, considering what happened the last time such a petition was filed in this case. (See tag "protest petition" for details.)
Comments (3)
Showing 1-3 of 3
As for the appeal to the EMC with which the developers try to discredit Melissa Rooney. This was withdrawn, at the request of Mr. Smith, because the applicants neglected to *show* standing. That is, seeing as how they don't have the deep, million dollar pockets of the development team, these Durham citizens (it was not Rooney alone) filed this appeal by themselves (without a paid attorney), only to find that they had not completed the documentation properly. It wasn't that they had no standing, it was that they failed to mention standing altogether.
The development team's and certain BOCC members' attempts to discredit Rooney for exercising her rights as a citizen in a democratic government is appalling.
like
dislike
How gracious of the developers to *proffer* to move the deferral date to June 23, in order to *spare* the BOCC the costs of going through with a BOA appeal and a possible appeal to Superior Court. Interesting that this occurred only after last night's BOCC closed session meeting was unintentionally made apparent to opponents, causing them to hastily acquire and file a protest petition due to their well-founded mistrust of the intentions of the BOCC. Again, only after they were aware of this protest petition filing did the developers say, 'OK, we can do it on June 23.'
Of course, the development team could have originally offered this June 23 date when the deferral date (from June 24) was being decided, in order to postpone the meeting until June 23, but they didn't. Instead, they apparently insisted that the "The second regular meeting in June [June 24] would be five weeks from the originally scheduled date and ... would violate the provisions of the UDO.” Again, they did not say, "but we could do it on June 23."
In addition, several county commissioners apparently insisted that their schedules could not accommodate a meeting in late June, not when it was requested by the opposition. But now that it has been requested by the developers, suddenly the commissioners' schedules are open.
The question remains why the developers are being consulted about the planning department's (and the BOCC's) actions (or reactions) with regard to the opponents' request for a deferral, appeal to the BOA, or any of this.
One has to ask: Just what is it about THESE developers that makes Commissioners Page, Bowser and Howerton fall all over themselves to do their bidding? I've been watching the development scene in Durham closely for the last decade and I've never seen a puppet show like this one.
Latest in Triangulator
-
Womble bill would compensate eugenics victims
Bill would establish $10 million fund to help compensate eugenics victims.
- May 16, 2012
-
State elections board clears Durham Partnership for Progress
Durham Partnership for Progress didn't coordinate with candidates, says state board
- May 7, 2012
-
Woodard: Election paperwork was sent, but not received
Mike Woodard says he learned Friday that the stack of forms he says he sent Feb. 22, within the required 10-day period, had not been received. "I'm going to take care of that today," he said.
- May 1, 2012
- More »
More by Author
-
Judge to announce decision on Cline Friday morning
If a judge orders her removal, Cline may appeal the decision.
- Mar 1, 2012
-
Groups to hold several public forums on fracking this month
The League of Conservation Voters announced three upcoming meetings and public forums on the topic of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. NC DENR will also hold two meetings this month to present its draft report on fracking and take public comments.
- Mar 12, 2012
- More »
