Judge won't dismiss 751 South-related lawsuit against Durham County | News
News
INDY Week's news blog

Archives | RSS

Monday, March 14, 2011

Judge won't dismiss 751 South-related lawsuit against Durham County

Posted by on Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Proposed location of 751 South development

A superior court judge on Monday denied a request from a Durham County attorney to dismiss a civil lawsuit against the county and its commissioners. Several South Durham homeowners filed the suit late last summer, challenging the way the county handled approvals for the proposed 751 South mega-development.

The project, which could include 1,300 residences, plus offices and retail space, is controversial for its size and density, its proximity to Jordan Lake and for some measures the developers and their attorneys have taken to advance the project. (See "How many ways has K&L Gates touched you today?," Jan. 19, 2011)

With the lawsuit still pending, attorneys for Durham County now have another 21 days to respond to the lawsuit's contents. The plaintiffs in the case, which include residents of the Chancellor's Ridge neighborhood and its homeowners association, want the case handled as quickly as possible. As the civil suit meanders through the court process, the project is moving forward. Members of the Durham City Council could soon be asked to annex the land slated for 751 South, and take other measures that would allow the controversial project to move forward. If the city makes those decisions before the civil lawsuit comes to a resolution, the residents' case against Durham County would be moot.

Early this year, Durham City Manager Tom Bonfield said he anticipated having a financial analysis from the city's budget office in February. The report would estimate the costs associated with providing city services to the planned community if it were fully built—costs such as any maintenance of new roads and traffic patterns, police and fire protection, schools for an influx of new families, wastewater treatment, garbage collection, etc.

There does not appear to be a date for when that annexation analysis will become public. Thus it's unclear how soon members of City Council will be voting on the matter.

The legal complaint against the county was filed in September, and moved to civil court in October. After two month-long extensions, Durham County Attorney Lowell Siler filed a motion to dismiss the case. (PDF) He contended that county officials weren't properly served with the lawsuit within the time period prescribed by law.

But attorneys for the homeowners, including Dhamian Blue of Raleigh firm Blue, Stephens & Fellers, argued successfully Monday that Durham County was properly served with the lawsuit in a timely fashion when Siler received it in October and read the entire contents of the documents to County Commissioner Michael Page over the phone.

Judge Robert H. Hobgood, a Senior Resident Superior Court Judge from Louisburg, agreed with Blue's assessment and denied the dismissal.

The next step: Durham County's attorneys have until April 4 to file a response to the original contents of the lawsuit. That original argument says Durham county and its officials voted to rezone 160-some acres in the 751 development without following the proper procedures, which would have included enforcing a valid protest petition.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pin It

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in News



Twitter Activity

Comments

Fine work, Mr. Billman. Your readers are probably aware that most of the NC conservative shenanigans can be laid at …

by growlybear on The Republican Power Plays at the Heart of N.C. Politics (News)

I have very little patience for the empty-headed Pro-poison crowd, which is begging the government to take everyones rights away …

by DoritoReiss on The Problem with N.C.’s Religious Exemption Law (News)

Most Recent Comments

Fine work, Mr. Billman. Your readers are probably aware that most of the NC conservative shenanigans can be laid at …

by growlybear on The Republican Power Plays at the Heart of N.C. Politics (News)

I have very little patience for the empty-headed Pro-poison crowd, which is begging the government to take everyones rights away …

by DoritoReiss on The Problem with N.C.’s Religious Exemption Law (News)

About time some one fixed this.

by Bob Schroeck on Durham Attorney Scott Holmes Challenges N.C. Court Fees as Unconstitutional (News)

And I'm just getting started- What do you think of a society that ritualizes placing its babies -their most vulnerable, …

by Nellie McFarlane De Jong on The Problem with N.C.’s Religious Exemption Law (News)

Feel free to put your faith in pharmaceutical products if you want to live like that. I prefer not to, …

by Nellie McFarlane De Jong on The Problem with N.C.’s Religious Exemption Law (News)

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation