Showdown at the BOCC meeting

Scott Mill was item 10 at the Board of County Commissioners meeting earlier this evening, and it came up a little before 8pm (the agenda is online at www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/bocc/Agendas/Current_Meeting_Agen.html).  The opponents filled an entire row on the left side of the room, and a few other seats, with more than half as many people as the developers.   Commissioner Lewis Cheek was absent.  This was a substantive hearing and the discussion was pretty sharp at points, and the political plays were clear.  

 

The hearing began with a summary of the Commissioners' past decisions in the rezoning request, that it was continued (meaning delayed, I think) twice, etc.   A man from the City-County Planning Department spoke.  I think the basic point was that the plan as submitted for this meeting violates the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), so the Commissioners could not approve the plan legally (if they did, they would likely lose a resulting lawsuit).   One problem was that the plan is inconsistent, for example on a buffer required for a wetland on the site.  I think there was a second, similar problem.   Commissioner Rev. Philip Cousin asked if this inconsistency was the only problem, implying that these are just technicalities that could be ignored.   Then or later the County Attorney mentioned a judge who said technicalities are the law.   

 

Bill Ripley spoke early on, trying to make a Powerpoint presentation, and argued that the committed elements agreed with the neighbors remained.   There would be only 71 houses, with a 12' separation between them, more open space, a tapered eastern buffer strip, open space on the south side, undisturbed except for a trail and any necessary infrastructure, 46% less traffic, 50% fewer students, etc.   Several people yielded on each side to allow the main people to speak for more than 2 minutes. 

 

Speaking next was a woman from the IUKA company, which is the actual owner of much of the property (I think 37 acres out of a little over 44 acres).   She said that IUKA had held that land for 40 years and already lost over half to the Army Corps of Engineers, which she seemed to count as environmental protection having been given its share.   She said the neighbors had never contacted IUKA to discuss their concerns. 

 

Next a member of the Durham People's Alliance spoke, since the PA voted to oppose Scott Mill for its environmental and process problems, last Thursday.  

 

The Headwaters branch of the Sierra Club also had a speaker against the rezoning.  Then three members of Northeast Creek Stream Watch ( www.necreek.org) spoke strongly (but not officially, though the group did send out an official letter of opposition).   The President of the Lyon's Farm homeowners' association spoke, and I think said the residents were offended by how this rezoning has been pushed. The leader of the neighborhood opposition, Carol Young, from Lake Park, outlined the arguments against.   She pointed out conflicting house separation figures, the lack of response from Ripley on requests for Scott King Rd. buffer opacity figures and the restrictive covenant covering noise, and she said the Sheriffs Department is not able to enforce community rules like that.   I think she was the one who said IUKA was not available for dialogue, and she or someone else said it should be up to the applicant for rezoning to contact the community.  

 

Several more people spoke for and against.  Ripley's negotiator said the committed elements were still in effect and that the problem was just a return of distrust.   A longtime resident and watcher of development said Ripley had promised one thing after half a Sunday of discussion with her about a development in a key part of the New Hope Creek lands, but the next day submitted a different plan.   I think she is the speaker who said this was the worst case she has seen in 40 years.  Another important opponent, Liz Pullman, spoke and rebutted the negotiator's argument.   Someone called the proponents land speculators, whom the BOCC does not need to coddle (later Cousin or Page said the proponents were not speculators, because they have owned the land for so long).   By this point people were calling Ripley out as a bad developer. 

 

After these comments, the Commissioners began deliberating.  Cousin started by asking for definitions.   The thrust of his question about inventory sites was whether landowners, who are not informed that a survey is being done, could challenge it (apparently they can).  He said he is not against having surveys, but consider how he voted and his comments, which ignored the inventory and favored the rezoning.   He cast this case as "a tragedy of miscommunication and lack of communication" and said "this is about to take my first prize" as a trainwreck of a case.   Commissioner Rev. Michael Page said he found the case very confusing, but as the meeting went on he came out more in favor of the rezoning.  I think he and Cousin did not see why this case was so drawn out. Ripley was asked to clarify points, and argued that the inconsistencies were an attempt to be helpful or honest, for example by not submitting a new plan.   Then there were questions that opponents could answer.  Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow wanted to ask the opponents, and the audience was saying to call on Liz Pullman and Carol Young.   Page wanted to postpone the decision again, which I think was an attempt to help Ripley by giving him another chance and it would possibly weaken the opposition by dragging the process out further.   Carol Young said no to this from the audience and Page said he would not return her phone calls because she is rude (I think he specifically said "I, Michael Page, won't return your phone calls, because you are rude, Mrs. Young")!  

 

Both Cousin and Page were focused on the development side and only explicitly said they were sorry to disappoint the landowners.   Page especially said both sides were at fault.  Reckhow and Commissioner Heron were on the anti-rezoning side, but went out of their way to say development could happen responsibly, but recommended that the owners get a different developer (I think Heron said it first).   Eventually all of the Commissioners (but the absent Cheek, of course), said this.  I hope this is not seen as a promise to approve a development.   A better development is possible, but whatever is proposed, it will have a negative impact on parts of the environment, so we shouldn't be greenwashing it.    

 

None of the Commissioners would make a motion, so there was a ten-minute recess, to the astonishment and irritation of many.   After the break Heron and Reckhow motioned for approval.  I think the order was, voting to approve: Cousin and Page; then, voting against: Reckhow and Heron.   A tie means the rezoning request is denied, but under the UDO, a rezoning request can be made again immediately, instead of after 12 months.  The opponents clapped.   This was around 9:30, instead of the 40 minutes allotted in the agenda, and the public part of the meeting went on until around 9:45.   

 

After most of the audience had left, Cousin and Page again said how sorry they were for the landowners. 

 

There are obvious divisions in this case.  The vote was divided by race, sex, and party.   The opponents were all or mostly white, against a black-owned company (Ripley and his associates are white though).  This could be seen as a racial problem, and Page or Cousin implied this strongly in their last remarks.   Progressive people need to try to ease racial/ethnic tensions, but this is also probably a case of race being used to cover over class issues.  There are the black landowners (who don't live on the property), the all or mostly white middlemen, and the all or mostly white suburban neighborhood opposition.  It is complicated, with the middlemen possibly using the landowners, but it is still developers and seemingly absentee landowners against neighbors, who are probably mostly working class, though probably mostly white collar.   There were longtime residents on each side I think.        

 

Some other items:

 

Before Scott Mill, there was the issue of whether undocumented immigrants will be paid by the City to work on housing projects.   I think Victoria Peterson brought this up.  I think this is an attempt to divide the working class on ethnic lines, though it would be preferable if business would hire Durham residents and increase the employment rate.   It also probably would violate the City's immigration neutrality resolution to make this distinction. 

 

The other two rezoning cases after the Scott Mill item were postponed.  The last item then was a tax on land transfers.   Peterson also spoke against this, and there were at most four guests left in the meeting.  I wondered if this is a case like the opposition to the estate tax, which argues that workers and family farmers are hurt by it, while it most affects the rich, and is a progressive tax.  

 

More to come.              

 

 

Scott Mill rezoning agenda summary:

 

The Board is requested to deny a request for a zoning map change for 44.336 acre site located on the south side of Scott King Road, east of Herndon Road and west of Grandale Drive.   PINs 0727-03-33-0274, -3487, -5136, and -6917.  Request: RR; F/J-B to PDR 1.680; F/J-B

 

This case was opened and continued at the June 26, 2006 Board of Commissioners meeting and continued again at the August 28, 2006 Commissioners meeting.   The public hearing for this case was closed at the September 25, 2006 Commissioners meeting as a result of proposed changes to the development plan that required review by the Planning Commission.   Staff was directed to re-review the item as a result of the proposed changes and process it accordingly.  The applicant subsequently has withdrawn the changes proposed at the September 25 ^th meeting in order to avoid returning to the Planning Commission and refused to make the changes required for the development plan to meet ordinance requirements, asking that the case go directly to the Board of Commissioners.

 

To adopt as support for its action on the proposed zoning map change the determinations that, notwithstanding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the request is neither reasonable nor in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the agenda materials.

 

Alternatively, in the event that a motion to deny the item fails, the Commissioners adopt as support for their actions on the proposed zoning map change the determination that the action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the accompanying agenda materials.

 

Staff Recommendation: Denial, based on the development plan not meeting minimum ordinance standards including 1) failure to show an appropriate buffer around "Wetlands Area 'A'" on sheet D-1 and 2) internal inconsistencies with the committed elements #4, #5b, and #5c not reflected sheet D-2.

 

Planning Commission Recommendation and Vote: Denial, 12-0 on April 11, 2006.   The Planning Commission finds that the requested revision to the zoning districts of the UDO is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.  The commission recommends that the request be denied based on finding that the project will adversely impact sensitive environmental areas, that there is significant opposition from the surrounding community, that the density of the project is inconsistent with the neighboring land uses and densities, and considering the information in the staff report and comments received during the public hearing.

 

Resource Person(s): Frank M. Duke, AICP, City-County Planning Director

 

County Manager's Recommendation : The Manager recommends that the Board conduct a public hearing on the proposed zoning map change and deny it, if appropriate, based on the comments received.

Showdown at the BOCC meeting

Scott Mill was item 10 at the Board of County Commissioners meeting earlier this evening, and it came up a little before 8pm (the agenda is online at www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/bocc/Agendas/Current_Meeting_Agen.html).  The opponents filled an entire row on the left side of the room, and a few other seats, with more than half as many people as the developers.   Commissioner Lewis Cheek was absent.  This was a substantive hearing and the discussion was pretty sharp at points, and the political plays were clear.  

 

The hearing began with a summary of the Commissioners' past decisions in the rezoning request, that it was continued (meaning delayed, I think) twice, etc.   A man from the City-County Planning Department spoke.  I think the basic point was that the plan as submitted for this meeting violates the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), so the Commissioners could not approve the plan legally (if they did, they would likely lose a resulting lawsuit).   One problem was that the plan is inconsistent, for example on a buffer required for a wetland on the site.  I think there was a second, similar problem.   Commissioner Rev. Philip Cousin asked if this inconsistency was the only problem, implying that these are just technicalities that could be ignored.   Then or later the County Attorney mentioned a judge who said technicalities are the law.   

 

Bill Ripley spoke early on, trying to make a Powerpoint presentation, and argued that the committed elements agreed with the neighbors remained.   There would be only 71 houses, with a 12' separation between them, more open space, a tapered eastern buffer strip, open space on the south side, undisturbed except for a trail and any necessary infrastructure, 46% less traffic, 50% fewer students, etc.   Several people yielded on each side to allow the main people to speak for more than 2 minutes. 

 

Speaking next was a woman from the IUKA company, which is the actual owner of much of the property (I think 37 acres out of a little over 44 acres).   She said that IUKA had held that land for 40 years and already lost over half to the Army Corps of Engineers, which she seemed to count as environmental protection having been given its share.   She said the neighbors had never contacted IUKA to discuss their concerns. 

 

Next a member of the Durham People's Alliance spoke, since the PA voted to oppose Scott Mill for its environmental and process problems, last Thursday.  

 

The Headwaters branch of the Sierra Club also had a speaker against the rezoning.  Then three members of Northeast Creek Stream Watch ( www.necreek.org) spoke strongly (but not officially, though the group did send out an official letter of opposition).   The President of the Lyon's Farm homeowners' association spoke, and I think said the residents were offended by how this rezoning has been pushed. The leader of the neighborhood opposition, Carol Young, from Lake Park, outlined the arguments against.   She pointed out conflicting house separation figures, the lack of response from Ripley on requests for Scott King Rd. buffer opacity figures and the restrictive covenant covering noise, and she said the Sheriffs Department is not able to enforce community rules like that.   I think she was the one who said IUKA was not available for dialogue, and she or someone else said it should be up to the applicant for rezoning to contact the community.  

 

Several more people spoke for and against.  Ripley's negotiator said the committed elements were still in effect and that the problem was just a return of distrust.   A longtime resident and watcher of development said Ripley had promised one thing after half a Sunday of discussion with her about a development in a key part of the New Hope Creek lands, but the next day submitted a different plan.   I think she is the speaker who said this was the worst case she has seen in 40 years.  Another important opponent, Liz Pullman, spoke and rebutted the negotiator's argument.   Someone called the proponents land speculators, whom the BOCC does not need to coddle (later Cousin or Page said the proponents were not speculators, because they have owned the land for so long).   By this point people were calling Ripley out as a bad developer. 

 

After these comments, the Commissioners began deliberating.  Cousin started by asking for definitions.   The thrust of his question about inventory sites was whether landowners, who are not informed that a survey is being done, could challenge it (apparently they can).  He said he is not against having surveys, but consider how he voted and his comments, which ignored the inventory and favored the rezoning.   He cast this case as "a tragedy of miscommunication and lack of communication" and said "this is about to take my first prize" as a trainwreck of a case.   Commissioner Rev. Michael Page said he found the case very confusing, but as the meeting went on he came out more in favor of the rezoning.  I think he and Cousin did not see why this case was so drawn out. Ripley was asked to clarify points, and argued that the inconsistencies were an attempt to be helpful or honest, for example by not submitting a new plan.   Then there were questions that opponents could answer.  Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow wanted to ask the opponents, and the audience was saying to call on Liz Pullman and Carol Young.   Page wanted to postpone the decision again, which I think was an attempt to help Ripley by giving him another chance and it would possibly weaken the opposition by dragging the process out further.   Carol Young said no to this from the audience and Page said he would not return her phone calls because she is rude (I think he specifically said "I, Michael Page, won't return your phone calls, because you are rude, Mrs. Young")!  

 

Both Cousin and Page were focused on the development side and only explicitly said they were sorry to disappoint the landowners.   Page especially said both sides were at fault.  Reckhow and Commissioner Heron were on the anti-rezoning side, but went out of their way to say development could happen responsibly, but recommended that the owners get a different developer (I think Heron said it first).   Eventually all of the Commissioners (but the absent Cheek, of course), said this.  I hope this is not seen as a promise to approve a development.   A better development is possible, but whatever is proposed, it will have a negative impact on parts of the environment, so we shouldn't be greenwashing it.    

 

None of the Commissioners would make a motion, so there was a ten-minute recess, to the astonishment and irritation of many.   After the break Heron and Reckhow motioned for approval.  I think the order was, voting to approve: Cousin and Page; then, voting against: Reckhow and Heron.   A tie means the rezoning request is denied, but under the UDO, a rezoning request can be made again immediately, instead of after 12 months.  The opponents clapped.   This was around 9:30, instead of the 40 minutes allotted in the agenda, and the public part of the meeting went on until around 9:45.   

 

After most of the audience had left, Cousin and Page again said how sorry they were for the landowners. 

 

There are obvious divisions in this case.  The vote was divided by race, sex, and party.   The opponents were all or mostly white, against a black-owned company (Ripley and his associates are white though).  This could be seen as a racial problem, and Page or Cousin implied this strongly in their last remarks.   Progressive people need to try to ease racial/ethnic tensions, but this is also probably a case of race being used to cover over class issues.  There are the black landowners (who don't live on the property), the all or mostly white middlemen, and the all or mostly white suburban neighborhood opposition.  It is complicated, with the middlemen possibly using the landowners, but it is still developers and seemingly absentee landowners against neighbors, who are probably mostly working class, though probably mostly white collar.   There were longtime residents on each side I think.        

 

Some other items:

 

Before Scott Mill, there was the issue of whether undocumented immigrants will be paid by the City to work on housing projects.   I think Victoria Peterson brought this up.  I think this is an attempt to divide the working class on ethnic lines, though it would be preferable if business would hire Durham residents and increase the employment rate.   It also probably would violate the City's immigration neutrality resolution to make this distinction. 

 

The other two rezoning cases after the Scott Mill item were postponed.  The last item then was a tax on land transfers.   Peterson also spoke against this, and there were at most four guests left in the meeting.  I wondered if this is a case like the opposition to the estate tax, which argues that workers and family farmers are hurt by it, while it most affects the rich, and is a progressive tax.  

 

More to come.              

 

 

Scott Mill rezoning agenda summary:

 

The Board is requested to deny a request for a zoning map change for 44.336 acre site located on the south side of Scott King Road, east of Herndon Road and west of Grandale Drive.   PINs 0727-03-33-0274, -3487, -5136, and -6917.  Request: RR; F/J-B to PDR 1.680; F/J-B

 

This case was opened and continued at the June 26, 2006 Board of Commissioners meeting and continued again at the August 28, 2006 Commissioners meeting.   The public hearing for this case was closed at the September 25, 2006 Commissioners meeting as a result of proposed changes to the development plan that required review by the Planning Commission.   Staff was directed to re-review the item as a result of the proposed changes and process it accordingly.  The applicant subsequently has withdrawn the changes proposed at the September 25 ^th meeting in order to avoid returning to the Planning Commission and refused to make the changes required for the development plan to meet ordinance requirements, asking that the case go directly to the Board of Commissioners.

 

To adopt as support for its action on the proposed zoning map change the determinations that, notwithstanding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the request is neither reasonable nor in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the agenda materials.

 

Alternatively, in the event that a motion to deny the item fails, the Commissioners adopt as support for their actions on the proposed zoning map change the determination that the action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the accompanying agenda materials.

 

Staff Recommendation: Denial, based on the development plan not meeting minimum ordinance standards including 1) failure to show an appropriate buffer around "Wetlands Area 'A'" on sheet D-1 and 2) internal inconsistencies with the committed elements #4, #5b, and #5c not reflected sheet D-2.

 

Planning Commission Recommendation and Vote: Denial, 12-0 on April 11, 2006.   The Planning Commission finds that the requested revision to the zoning districts of the UDO is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.  The commission recommends that the request be denied based on finding that the project will adversely impact sensitive environmental areas, that there is significant opposition from the surrounding community, that the density of the project is inconsistent with the neighboring land uses and densities, and considering the information in the staff report and comments received during the public hearing.

 

Resource Person(s): Frank M. Duke, AICP, City-County Planning Director

 

County Manager's Recommendation : The Manager recommends that the Board conduct a public hearing on the proposed zoning map change and deny it, if appropriate, based on the comments received.

Showdown at the BOCC meeting

Scott Mill was item 10 at the Board of County Commissioners meeting earlier this evening, and it came up a little before 8pm (the agenda is online at www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/bocc/Agendas/Current_Meeting_Agen.html).  The opponents filled an entire row on the left side of the room, and a few other seats, with more than half as many people as the developers.   Commissioner Lewis Cheek was absent.  This was a substantive hearing and the discussion was pretty sharp at points, and the political plays were clear.  

 

The hearing began with a summary of the Commissioners' past decisions in the rezoning request, that it was continued (meaning delayed, I think) twice, etc.   A man from the City-County Planning Department spoke.  I think the basic point was that the plan as submitted for this meeting violates the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), so the Commissioners could not approve the plan legally (if they did, they would likely lose a resulting lawsuit).   One problem was that the plan is inconsistent, for example on a buffer required for a wetland on the site.  I think there was a second, similar problem.   Commissioner Rev. Philip Cousin asked if this inconsistency was the only problem, implying that these are just technicalities that could be ignored.   Then or later the County Attorney mentioned a judge who said technicalities are the law.   

 

Bill Ripley spoke early on, trying to make a Powerpoint presentation, and argued that the committed elements agreed with the neighbors remained.   There would be only 71 houses, with a 12' separation between them, more open space, a tapered eastern buffer strip, open space on the south side, undisturbed except for a trail and any necessary infrastructure, 46% less traffic, 50% fewer students, etc.   Several people yielded on each side to allow the main people to speak for more than 2 minutes. 

 

Speaking next was a woman from the IUKA company, which is the actual owner of much of the property (I think 37 acres out of a little over 44 acres).   She said that IUKA had held that land for 40 years and already lost over half to the Army Corps of Engineers, which she seemed to count as environmental protection having been given its share.   She said the neighbors had never contacted IUKA to discuss their concerns. 

 

Next a member of the Durham People's Alliance spoke, since the PA voted to oppose Scott Mill for its environmental and process problems, last Thursday.  

 

The Headwaters branch of the Sierra Club also had a speaker against the rezoning.  Then three members of Northeast Creek Stream Watch ( www.necreek.org) spoke strongly (but not officially, though the group did send out an official letter of opposition).   The President of the Lyon's Farm homeowners' association spoke, and I think said the residents were offended by how this rezoning has been pushed. The leader of the neighborhood opposition, Carol Young, from Lake Park, outlined the arguments against.   She pointed out conflicting house separation figures, the lack of response from Ripley on requests for Scott King Rd. buffer opacity figures and the restrictive covenant covering noise, and she said the Sheriffs Department is not able to enforce community rules like that.   I think she was the one who said IUKA was not available for dialogue, and she or someone else said it should be up to the applicant for rezoning to contact the community.  

 

Several more people spoke for and against.  Ripley's negotiator said the committed elements were still in effect and that the problem was just a return of distrust.   A longtime resident and watcher of development said Ripley had promised one thing after half a Sunday of discussion with her about a development in a key part of the New Hope Creek lands, but the next day submitted a different plan.   I think she is the speaker who said this was the worst case she has seen in 40 years.  Another important opponent, Liz Pullman, spoke and rebutted the negotiator's argument.   Someone called the proponents land speculators, whom the BOCC does not need to coddle (later Cousin or Page said the proponents were not speculators, because they have owned the land for so long).   By this point people were calling Ripley out as a bad developer. 

 

After these comments, the Commissioners began deliberating.  Cousin started by asking for definitions.   The thrust of his question about inventory sites was whether landowners, who are not informed that a survey is being done, could challenge it (apparently they can).  He said he is not against having surveys, but consider how he voted and his comments, which ignored the inventory and favored the rezoning.   He cast this case as "a tragedy of miscommunication and lack of communication" and said "this is about to take my first prize" as a trainwreck of a case.   Commissioner Rev. Michael Page said he found the case very confusing, but as the meeting went on he came out more in favor of the rezoning.  I think he and Cousin did not see why this case was so drawn out. Ripley was asked to clarify points, and argued that the inconsistencies were an attempt to be helpful or honest, for example by not submitting a new plan.   Then there were questions that opponents could answer.  Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow wanted to ask the opponents, and the audience was saying to call on Liz Pullman and Carol Young.   Page wanted to postpone the decision again, which I think was an attempt to help Ripley by giving him another chance and it would possibly weaken the opposition by dragging the process out further.   Carol Young said no to this from the audience and Page said he would not return her phone calls because she is rude (I think he specifically said "I, Michael Page, won't return your phone calls, because you are rude, Mrs. Young")!  

 

Both Cousin and Page were focused on the development side and only explicitly said they were sorry to disappoint the landowners.   Page especially said both sides were at fault.  Reckhow and Commissioner Heron were on the anti-rezoning side, but went out of their way to say development could happen responsibly, but recommended that the owners get a different developer (I think Heron said it first).   Eventually all of the Commissioners (but the absent Cheek, of course), said this.  I hope this is not seen as a promise to approve a development.   A better development is possible, but whatever is proposed, it will have a negative impact on parts of the environment, so we shouldn't be greenwashing it.    

 

None of the Commissioners would make a motion, so there was a ten-minute recess, to the astonishment and irritation of many.   After the break Heron and Reckhow motioned for approval.  I think the order was, voting to approve: Cousin and Page; then, voting against: Reckhow and Heron.   A tie means the rezoning request is denied, but under the UDO, a rezoning request can be made again immediately, instead of after 12 months.  The opponents clapped.   This was around 9:30, instead of the 40 minutes allotted in the agenda, and the public part of the meeting went on until around 9:45.   

 

After most of the audience had left, Cousin and Page again said how sorry they were for the landowners. 

 

There are obvious divisions in this case.  The vote was divided by race, sex, and party.   The opponents were all or mostly white, against a black-owned company (Ripley and his associates are white though).  This could be seen as a racial problem, and Page or Cousin implied this strongly in their last remarks.   Progressive people need to try to ease racial/ethnic tensions, but this is also probably a case of race being used to cover over class issues.  There are the black landowners (who don't live on the property), the all or mostly white middlemen, and the all or mostly white suburban neighborhood opposition.  It is complicated, with the middlemen possibly using the landowners, but it is still developers and seemingly absentee landowners against neighbors, who are probably mostly working class, though probably mostly white collar.   There were longtime residents on each side I think.        

 

Some other items:

 

Before Scott Mill, there was the issue of whether undocumented immigrants will be paid by the City to work on housing projects.   I think Victoria Peterson brought this up.  I think this is an attempt to divide the working class on ethnic lines, though it would be preferable if business would hire Durham residents and increase the employment rate.   It also probably would violate the City's immigration neutrality resolution to make this distinction. 

 

The other two rezoning cases after the Scott Mill item were postponed.  The last item then was a tax on land transfers.   Peterson also spoke against this, and there were at most four guests left in the meeting.  I wondered if this is a case like the opposition to the estate tax, which argues that workers and family farmers are hurt by it, while it most affects the rich, and is a progressive tax.  

 

More to come.              

 

 

Scott Mill rezoning agenda summary:

 

The Board is requested to deny a request for a zoning map change for 44.336 acre site located on the south side of Scott King Road, east of Herndon Road and west of Grandale Drive.   PINs 0727-03-33-0274, -3487, -5136, and -6917.  Request: RR; F/J-B to PDR 1.680; F/J-B

 

This case was opened and continued at the June 26, 2006 Board of Commissioners meeting and continued again at the August 28, 2006 Commissioners meeting.   The public hearing for this case was closed at the September 25, 2006 Commissioners meeting as a result of proposed changes to the development plan that required review by the Planning Commission.   Staff was directed to re-review the item as a result of the proposed changes and process it accordingly.  The applicant subsequently has withdrawn the changes proposed at the September 25 ^th meeting in order to avoid returning to the Planning Commission and refused to make the changes required for the development plan to meet ordinance requirements, asking that the case go directly to the Board of Commissioners.

 

To adopt as support for its action on the proposed zoning map change the determinations that, notwithstanding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the request is neither reasonable nor in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the agenda materials.

 

Alternatively, in the event that a motion to deny the item fails, the Commissioners adopt as support for their actions on the proposed zoning map change the determination that the action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the accompanying agenda materials.

 

Staff Recommendation: Denial, based on the development plan not meeting minimum ordinance standards including 1) failure to show an appropriate buffer around "Wetlands Area 'A'" on sheet D-1 and 2) internal inconsistencies with the committed elements #4, #5b, and #5c not reflected sheet D-2.

 

Planning Commission Recommendation and Vote: Denial, 12-0 on April 11, 2006.   The Planning Commission finds that the requested revision to the zoning districts of the UDO is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.  The commission recommends that the request be denied based on finding that the project will adversely impact sensitive environmental areas, that there is significant opposition from the surrounding community, that the density of the project is inconsistent with the neighboring land uses and densities, and considering the information in the staff report and comments received during the public hearing.

 

Resource Person(s): Frank M. Duke, AICP, City-County Planning Director

 

County Manager's Recommendation : The Manager recommends that the Board conduct a public hearing on the proposed zoning map change and deny it, if appropriate, based on the comments received.

Scott Mill final vote tonight

The Scott Mill rezoning vote is on the County Commissioners' agenda tonight (the 12^th) and opponents need to fill the room for that vote.   I've said a lot of this in past posts, but this is another post on what is going on and why I support the opponents.  Any factual inaccuracies here are my fault - but as far as I can tell, these are the facts (please comment or get in touch if you think I'm in error).  I will try to post about the meeting afterward.    

 

The project, Scott Mill, is located near the American Tobacco Trail (ATT) at the southern end of Durham County.   The opposition tried to negotiate a mutually acceptable development plan with Bill Ripley, who has an option on the land, over the summer, but he has resorted to what I see as misleading and undemocratic tactics, to push forward a development that will harm NE Creek's (and ultimately Jordan Lake's) water quality, the larger environment, and the people of Durham.   There are fears that Scott Mill will be like Indigo Corners, at Mt. Moriah Rd. and Chapel Hill Boulevard, and the Herndon Rd. development down the road from the Scott Mill site.   Scott Mill is a necessary fight in resisting sprawl, the degradation of waterways, and the control over local government by development interests in Durham and the region.  The opposition would have acquiesced to living with development, if the agreed-to committed elements had been kept.  As a resident who grew up in the area and often hikes in the public bottomlands along the Creek, I am leery of development, but I am not against development.   I am more offended by how this development has been pushed up to now, than by the development plan itself, though it could be more socially beneficial.   Many of the problems of development are not the fault of one development, but caused by the total of existing problems and new development together.  The opposition would like help publicizing this struggle, lobbying the Commissioners, and bringing out many people in opposition at the meeting on the 12th, to discourage the Commissioners from approving the request.   I expect that there will be a carpool, probably at 6:30pm, from the Parkwood Branch Library.  I think comments to the Commissioners were needed by the 8 ^th especially, but it might not be too late.  I would include a summary from the opposition, but I don't know if it is meant for blog posting.  

 

The site

 

The roughly 45 acre Scott Mill residential development is planned for a peninsula of higher ground above NE Creek's floodplain south of Scott King Rd., between its intersections with Herndon and Grandale roads.   The floodplain is a large wild area protected as State Game Land and by the Army Corps of Engineers.  That area is also within a Natural Inventory Site, surveyed in the late 90's to see what rare species and habitats exist on the protected land around Jordan Lake.   There has not been development of any of the other Inventory sites.  The survey found colonies of the "significantly rare" plants Lewis' heartleaf and Indian physic, and reported that "The mesic forest [a forest on well-drained soil] at the site is one of the best examples of Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Floodplain variant known in the project area, and perhaps the best in the state," and "worthy of protection as a Registered Natural Heritage Area."   Many large hardwoods 2-3' in diameter were also noted. 

 

There will be an environmental affect from development, even within the parklands, such as loss of habitat for animal species, worse water quality, and more harvesting of plants.   The swampy area outside the site is an important amphibian breeding area, and many of the species live in upland habitat, such as Scott Mill, as adults.   The toad breeding areas north of Scott Mill have already been affected by Fairfield, Lyon's Farm, and Grandale Forest, and a small population of marbled salamanders off Grandale was apparently wiped out, so there can be serious consequences.   Marbled salamanders aren't rare, but they seem to be much less common than local toad species.  It will probably take more than development to totally extirpate any amphibian species in the bottomlands, though.   Light pollution from development will affect nocturnal species, and stargazing for humans.  Maybe light pollution is part of the reason large and beautiful silk moth species seem to be rarer in southern Durham than they seem to be in dark areas in Orange County, despite the forests remaining in Durham. The presence of Game Lands increases the risk of hunting accidents, and development would reduce the area available for deer hunting, and force wildlife to relocate, also contributing to deer being on roads.   I think the creation of Southpoint Mall and its environs might be why a turkey, deer, and foxes have been seen on my street, which is inside a subdivision, though it could be from some other cause, regarding the herd of deer and foxes.    

 

The Creek is already classified as impaired in water quality by the EPA, because of the wastewater treatment plant on Highway 55 and silt and pollutants from development.   Scott Mill would increase the siltiness of the Creek, since it is on a hill.  Silt in large amounts is a pollutant that harms freshwater mussels, native fish, and other animals.    Polluted stormwater runoff would be a problem after a subdivision is built.  If too much silt and pollution reaches Jordan Lake, the reservoir will become shallower, and there could even be algae blooms and fish kills from the excess nutrients.   Careless development will further reduce the diversity of the area and harm many recreational uses of the Creek and Jordan Lake.        

 

South of the site is a high-tension powerline running between RTP and Orange County, which I think would make a good cross-country trail route, connecting the ATT to other trails.   Having a trail will depend on the individual landowners, but if the corridor is built over, the opportunity will be gone.  A gas line also crosses the site, one of the oldest lines in the area, and due for expansion to two lines.   The Tobacco Trail runs close to the site.  A small farm pond and a beaver pond (probably abandoned), along a tributary of the Creek, are also features of the site.  

 

What happened when

 

Below is how this situation arose, as I understand it.  The saga of Scott Mill has been going on since spring 2002, at which point only 1-2 houses per acre were proposed.   The company originally owning the land wanted it reclassified from rural to part of the Urban Growth Area.  In summer 2003 some of the land was clearcut.   A contract for the land was announced the day after the Comprehensive Plan classified that area for suburban instead of rural development in 2005.  The first plan was presented that August, just before the vote to approve the new, more rigorous Unified Development Ordinances.   In January of last year the current rezoning was requested.   The plan was mostly empty, except for a few lots that were alleged to be "typical" of their intentions.  These lots had houses 6'apart and with 8' back setbacks.

 

Daniel Brown, the Operations Manager of Jordan Lake, wrote to the Durham Planning Dept. with concerns about habitat loss, pollution, and hunting accidents, but his suggestions about warnings, stormwater control, preservation of wetlands, and buffers have seemingly been ignored.   Legitimate concerns being ignored has become a pattern in this story.  Brown called the public land "an important natural area with regional significance" He also pointed out that neighboring development "can adversely impact" the uses of the Lake and its protected land "by decreasing the minimum flow from any streams on the property, increasing the volume or rate of flow of storm water discharge from the property, increasing the sediment or nutrient loads leaving the property, and adversely impacting wetlands."  

 

In February 2006 Ripley scheduled a meeting with the community the Thursday before the Tuesday Durham Planning Commission meeting, and did not attend.   The Commission deferred its decision for 60 days so that Ripley could meet with neighbors and produce a plan with more details.  In March two community consultation meetings were held, but Ripley broke off negotiations at the end, and was against most of the community's requests.   He also refused Brown's request for a 100' undisturbed buffer.  At the Commission meeting in April Ripley presented the old, vague plan and cancelled all committed elements (agreements on features of a development).   This included a promise to the Planning Dept. to leave the land south of the powerline as undisturbed open space.  The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the rezoning request be denied.  

 

For months since then the County Commissioners have delayed voting on the request so Ripley could consult the community and present a clearer plan.   In June the Commissioners requested extensive changes to the plan and mediated community consultation.  At the meeting Ripley verbally offered to only have 73 lots, of slightly larger size.   Working with Ripley's mediator, the opponents gained several good committed elements.  These included restrictions on construction noise, average erosion controls (instead of above average), a tapering 70' undisturbed buffer on the east side (instead of 100'), about 6 acres of permanently undisturbed land south of the powerline (towards the Creek), landscaping along Scott King Rd. (using mainly native plants from what I remember), a prohibition on large-scale grading in wooded areas, 15' between houses, 15' of woods in yards adjacent to the eastern buffer, and no more than 71 houses, with most being on 9000+ sq. ft. lots and some on 7500 sq. ft (instead of a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft.).   The request for the area south of the powerline to be a conservation easement, meaning there would be rules against development, was rejected.  The mediator said a sewage lift station might be placed there by the County, and rejected language creating a buffer.  Other rejected requests were a conservation subdivision design, and prohibition on large scale grading.   The new plan showed 71 lots and a tot lot and small park in the center.  In August the Planning Department said the vote should be delayed because the lot layout plan was filed late.           

 

The opponents were set in September to not oppose the rezoning, but the Friday before the Monday meeting I was told that the committed elements had been watered down on the final plan, and conflicted with this plan, which was basically the same plan from January, with the addition of verbal agreements made with the County Commissioners in June.   Ripley said the July plan was still in effect, but that is not what was filed.  Among other things, the buffers were downgraded (the 70' eastern buffer was reduced to a minimum of 15', and I believe that is about how wide they would make it) and the open space at the south end was made disturbable for general infrastructure (allegedly the developers want to pile extra soil there).    The specifications for the 70' buffer were supposed to be on page 5 of the plan, but there is no 5^th page!  The eastern and southern buffers would belong to the homeowners' association and the tot lot could be placed south of the powerline (by the hunting lands) or at the east, the eastern buffer would be disturbed to access a runoff retention pond, a trail at least 6' wide would be in the southern buffer (instead of being within the agreed to maximum of 6'), and the 15' of wooded lots would potentially be disturbed by infrastructure.   The old lot dimensions and the original 20' Scott King Rd. buffer were restored, and buffer opacity figures were not provided to the community.  The noise restrictions are "confusing and unenforceable" (according to a neighbor) and the company refused to provide a copy of the restrictive covenant alleged to address this issue. The Commissioners referred it back to the Planning Dept. for review last fall.  

 

The company allegedly broke promises to the Durham County government and the community, showing contempt for the rules and the openness and good faith needed for democracy, if this is true.   I've heard objections to calling this undemocratic, because the Supreme Court interprets the 5^th Amendment as limiting what can be done with zoning, and the fact that legally, this is just a market transaction.   I say it is undemocratic to mislead the government and people you are negotiating with, and the neighbors have specific complaints about how the development would affect them, so this isn't a matter of significant private ownership of land or the fact that what people do with land affects everyone else or the fact that land is really not a commodity, though it is treated as such by American capitalism.   I have to point out how the system of property in land is not how land use must or always will be, though I think the opposition is being reasonable under the present rules.  

 

Neighbors have told me that Ripley misled them about not having a developer lined up, and they believe Centex Homes, which I see as having despoiled much of the tall second-growth forest previously existing along Grandale Rd., is waiting in the wings for this rezoning, not a local company, as Ripley had indicated.   The Ripley-mediated Indigo Corners development ignored, for several days, County fines for breaking silt regulations.  Down the road from Scott Mill, another Ripley land deal began last year with the clearcutting of an area beside the ATT, and then the excavation of a large area, allegedly to sell the soil (the developer in this case is Parker Orleans). This must cause massive erosion and creates a hotter microclimate (because the trees are removed), and the more this kind of development occurs, the larger the heat affect, until you have a city with an updraft that can create its own severe summer storms.   Most or all of the silt eroded from the Herndon Rd. development flows through the Scott Mill property.  

 

For these reasons, this is an issue of environmental damage, anti-democratic practices, and rampant development that affects all of us (such as the possibility of accountable government, our taxes, and traffic problems).   Scott Mill is a relatively small project, but it borders one of our last large protected open lands in southern Durham.  If we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere, and regulate development carefully, piecemeal development will soon finish carving up much of Durham, hurting all of us, and our remaining biodiversity.   This is also a battle that could contribute to reversing the control of Durham's government by development interests, interests enriching themselves at the expense of the majority of Durham's residents.   I had the impression that development occurred in a crooked and unaccountable way before I got involved in this, but I didn't realize that developers got away with this much.  I didn't say anything or follow events closely when other developments were being planned, changing the face of the area over the last 15 years, but I will be more engaged from now on.

 

Contacting the County Commissioners (also available at the County's website):

 

Ellen Reckhow

ereckhow at durhamcountync [dot] gov

Telephone: (919) 383-3883

 

Becky Heron

bmheron at durhamcountync [dot] gov

Telephone: (919) 489-4402

 

Lewis Cheek

lcheek at durhamcountync [dot] gov

Telephone: (919) 419-3303

 

Phil Cousin

prcousin at earthlink [dot] net

Telephone: (919) 683-1379 (w)

 

Michael Page

mpage at durhamcountync [dot] gov

Telephone: (919) 361-2146 (h)

 

Email me and I can provide contact information if you want to talk to the residents most involved in the Scott Mill process.  

Socialism? discussion, February 17th

Join the Triangle Socialist Forum for an informal and
nonpartisan discussion about socialism, Saturday,
February 17th at 4:30 in the lower conference room at
the Chapel Hill Public Library.  What is wanted and
required from American socialism?  What is socialism?
Isn't socialism dead?  How can a socialist economy and
society be built?  The group also needs to
plan what topics to discuss in the future, so come and
have your say if you're interested.  For more information,

email southplumb at gmail [dot] com. 

 

The event on Iraq and the resistance will be later, so the

socialism meeting was moved up to this month. 
 

Scott Mill and upcoming project hearings

The Scott Mill rezoning request will be voted upon by the County Commissioners Monday, February 12th. There will be a carpool from the Parkwood Branch Library. 

 

The East End Connector road project could have a large impact on a section of Northeast Creek's headwaters, around the Durham Freeway, and several hearings are coming up over the next two months.  For more information, see:

www.ncdot.org/project/eastendconnector

The Western Wake Turnpike is a proposed toll road (North Carolina once was, or still is, free of toll roads) that also affects NE Creek.  An environmental document was done by April 2004, but another public meeting is coming up early this month.  More info is at:

http://www.ncturnpike.org/projects/Western_Wake/documents.asp
 

Defend liberty, repeal the Military Commissions Act

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (text online at
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109IVm4h3:: ),
passed late last year, abolishes habeas corpus for
citizens and non-citizens alike and legalizes torture.

Demand that it be repealed by signing the Durham Bill
of Rights Defense Committee's petition to NC
politicians, online at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/stopMCA/petition.html

There are paper petitions at Internationalist Books,
and soon at The Peoples Channel, the Durham Food
Co-op, and elsewhere.  There will be a Durham BORDC branch
meeting Saturday afternoon (there is also a Chapel
Hill BORDC branch).

The text of the petition is:

We oppose the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This
is an unjust law that violates the basic human rights
of citizens and non-citizens. It does away with habeas
corpus rights (to a prompt court hearing to determine
whether one's imprisonment is legal, to know what
charges have been brought, and to have legal counsel).
It also gives the executive branch power to allow
interrogation techniques that violate the Geneva
Conventions and human decency. No one should be
subject to arbitrary arrest or to detention without a
prompt and fair trial, and no one should, under any
circumstances, be subject to torture.