Triangulator

• Pool Photo/Chuck Liddy/The News & Observer
• Suspended Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline packs her files after an hour-long hearing on whether she should be removed from office. A judge granted Cline, who is recovering from pneumonia, a continuance to Feb. 20.

Her voice cracking and swerving in pitch due to illness, suspended Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline persuaded a judge Monday to give her another week to prepare for a hearing on whether she should be stripped of her title. Cline was recovering from pneumonia, she said, and also had yet to find an attorney to represent her who wouldn't have a conflict of interest in the case.

After about an hour of proceedings—during which Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood twice advised Cline to sit for a moment, sip some water and try and recover her wobbly voice—the judge decided the hearing should continue Monday, Feb. 20, at 10 a.m.

Cline is facing a legal petition alleging that she's unable to do her job—that an ongoing conflict between Cline and Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, in which Cline has tried to have Hudson removed from her cases because of alleged bias, has brought the DA's office into disrepute, and is "prejudicial to the administration of justice."

Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton filed the petition Jan. 18 to have Cline removed. Cline was suspended with pay until a judge could hear Sutton's complaint and Cline's response. Although Sutton said she was prepared to begin showing evidence today in court, Cline was not. So Hobgood tried to first address some motions that attorneys had filed to quash some of the dozen subpoenas Cline said she had filed to bring in witnesses.

Among the people called to court were reporter J. Andrew Curliss and editors John Drescher and Steve Riley of The News & Observer, whom Cline wanted to appear to speak to information contained in several news articles the Raleigh newspaper published in September 2011 about some of Cline's cases.

• Wikimedia Commons

This post has been modified from its original form. See deletions and italicized phrases below.

Despite initial plans to wait until a civil lawsuit was over, Durham's City Council has now decided it will consider at a meeting Feb. 20 whether to grant utilities to Southern Durham Development. The company wants to build 751 South, a large mixed-use project in southwest Durham controversial in part because of its proximity to Jordan Lake.

The council met during a closed session Thursday with City Attorney Patrick Baker to consider a request from SDD to grant water lines and the use of storm drainage and sewer systems for the project. Baker said the session was not public because he was providing legal advice to the council covered by attorney-client privilege.

SDD made the original request in April 2010, but city council members decided in August 2011 that they wanted to wait until a civil lawsuit related to the development had been resolved. A judge recently dismissed the lawsuit the plaintiffs, Chancellor's Ridge Homeowners Association, brought against Durham County. The plaintiffs announced they would appeal.

In the meeting, council members indicated that they wanted to delay their decision until after the appeals process had concluded. The council isn't bound by its August decision and is free to change course, Baker said Thursday.

The council also isn't required to hold a public hearing on the utility extension agreement, Baker said. The council could opt to allow public comment at the meeting, and could vote on that date, or defer the matter.

But the application has already been deferred by 21 months, Cal Cunningham, an attorney for SDD, pointed out in a recent letter to Baker (PDF). The company paid the appropriate fees to the city when it filed the application in April 2010, Cunningham wrote, and the application materials indicated a decision would be made within five months.

SDD had originally asked the council to consider annexing the 167 acres on which 751 South would be built. Becoming part of the city limits would entitle the property to services such as water, wastewater treatment, police and fire services. But a city analysis determined that the city could potentially spend as much as $1 million by providing services to the property before the tax revenue from the project would help the city break even.

When it became evident the numbers wouldn't add up in the city's favor, SDD changed its request. Instead of asking for annexation, it just asked the city to consider providing provide water, stormwater and sewer services without annexation. That's the request discussion that was tabled in August, and is now coming before council again Feb. 20.