Davidson had two unanimous votes on Tuesday night showing solid moves towards more respect for property rights and landowners.
In the first vote, commissioners voted 4-0, with Commissioner Rodney Graham recusing himself, to allow developers to fully buy out of the affordable housing ordinance requirements. Graham asked to be recused from voting because he is a developer who has built affordable housing in the past and likely will be in the future.
After Tuesday's vote developers can now buy out of all of all fordable housing requirements at the reduced rate of just over $26,000 per required unit. In the past, they could only buy out of the lowest tier in the program for those making less than 50% of the area's median income.
By passing this change, the town seems to have finally recognized that forcing every developer in every situation to do the same thing does not work.
In the second big vote of the evening, the board voted unanimously 5-0 to approve the Narrow Passage development off of Rocky River Road. The neighborhood will be built by local developer Karl Plattner on land owned by the Mayes family for over 120 years.
After more than a year of discussion, requests, and revisions - including bringing in nationally renowned rural development expert Randall Arendt - Davidson's board finally did the right thing and approved this project.
Every Commissioner spoke passionately about how difficult the process had been for the Narrow Passage. There was obviously a lot of concern for how the public would perceive this vote.
Commissioner Brian Jenest gave away the surprise early in the discusssion when he indicated he was a 'yes'. Jenest had been seen as the most likely swing vote by those who had watched this debate unfold. With him on board, the outcome was not really in doubt.
But, in what may have been a surprise to many, Commissioner Rodney Graham also gave away early in the discussion that he now looked favorably on the project. He said that if you had asked him four weeks ago what he thought, he would likely have been leaning the other way. However, with changes that include improved efficiency standards for homes, some affordable housing on site, and a move towards achieving 70% open space in the development or making a payment to buy land elsewhere, Graham changed his mind.
He genuinely seemed excited about the project.
However, the evening was not without a bit of drama.
The main sticking point in public hearings as well on the Planning Board and among town staff has been the desire to do a rural area plan for the entire rural area prior to approving this or any development project.
To that end Commissioner Fuller put forth a motion to table the decision for five months until a rural plan could be completed. That motion failed 1-4 with Fuller being the only 'yes' vote.
After it was clear, no further delay would occur. The Board voted unanimously to approve the project.
On Narrow Passage, the Planning Board had previously voted 9-2 against the project. Town staff also recommended delaying firther and doing a plan first. Fortunately, town commissioners recognized there were other principles at play in this decision. Ideological purity was not the primary concern.
Since all evidence pointed to the likelihood of this neighborhood being approved now, or six months from now, commissioners used common sense and made the right decision.
That's what they were elected to do.
Good work!
Showing posts with label Narrow Passage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Narrow Passage. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Friday, June 26, 2015
Is it possible to have a fair Planning Board hearing on The Narrow Pasage? Doesn't seem likely.
Monday's Planning Board meeting is shaping up to be considerably more interesting than most - to say the least. The main driver of interest is he Narrow Passage project.
As mentioned here, election related swirl and scare tactics have already spun up around the planned development.
That swirl continued on Thursday. Only hours after the recent column in the Herald Weekly was published, a Facebook page calling itself "Preserve Davidson" popped up. It is a site launched specifically to oppose Narrow Passage - supposedly to "offset substantial lobbying by Narrow Passage LLC."
Coincidence? Who knows?
The site is full of what Mayor John Woods likes to call "misinformation". It appears more designed to mislead and scare people rather than to inform.
What is also clear is that the participants in the site make it unlikely Narrow Passage will get an unbiased hearing on Monday. Planning Board members Brunson Russum, John Kennedy, and George Berger have all "liked" various postings on the site.
But that's neither all that surprising, nor is it too troubling.
On the other hand, this message sent by the town Planning Director , Jason Burdette, is both of those things. Burdette sent the below mail Thursday evening to the entire Planning Board.
As mentioned here, election related swirl and scare tactics have already spun up around the planned development.
That swirl continued on Thursday. Only hours after the recent column in the Herald Weekly was published, a Facebook page calling itself "Preserve Davidson" popped up. It is a site launched specifically to oppose Narrow Passage - supposedly to "offset substantial lobbying by Narrow Passage LLC."
Coincidence? Who knows?
The site is full of what Mayor John Woods likes to call "misinformation". It appears more designed to mislead and scare people rather than to inform.
What is also clear is that the participants in the site make it unlikely Narrow Passage will get an unbiased hearing on Monday. Planning Board members Brunson Russum, John Kennedy, and George Berger have all "liked" various postings on the site.
But that's neither all that surprising, nor is it too troubling.
On the other hand, this message sent by the town Planning Director , Jason Burdette, is both of those things. Burdette sent the below mail Thursday evening to the entire Planning Board.
Subject: Planning Board
All,
Jason Burdette, AICPIt’s come to my attention that the representative for Narrow Passage (Susan Irvin) has reached out to members of the Planning Board requesting individual meetings to address any concerns you might have about the project. As a legislative board, the applicant is permitted to do this. However, in fairness to other members of Planning Board, I would recommend against meeting with the applicant in advance of the meeting. It’s important that any conversations about this project with the developer be available to all members of the Planning Board.Best,
Planning DirectorTown of Davidson
So, the town's official position is that it is OK for Planning Board members to actively participate in a clearly biased effort to stop a project, but it is not OK for Planning Board members to actually educate themselves on the actual details of the project.
Got that? Good!
Yes, Monday will be interesting.
Narrow Passage starts election season early in Davidson
This column originally appeared in the Herald Weekly.
Filing for this year’s local elections doesn't start for a couple of weeks, but election-related shenanigans already seem to have started in Davidson. As is typical in small-town politics, accusations are made, emails circulate, and unfounded rumors fly.
One such issue initiating some of that election related swirl is the proposed Narrow Passage development working its way through the town planning process for more than a year now. This is the same development mentioned in a previous column regarding property rights and how Davidson’s view of those rights impacts its decisions
The issue at stake is whether or not this project should be approved by the Town Board – bringing new development to the town’s northeastern Extra Territorial Jurisdiction, or ETJ. The proposed 59 acre site sits right at the intersection of Rocky River and Shearers Road. It's that location that has generated opposition.
In another area publication, local resident Ed Harris penned a strongly worded editorial about a month ago. He lamented the possibility that three Davidson Commissioners, aka a majority of those elected by the voters, might actually approve the project.
However, that editorial paled in comparison to an email that landed in my inbox last week. This email from someone who can accurately be described as a very well connected town insider used language that can best be defined as fear-mongering.
For example, the emailer likened approval of the project to “allowing our award winning community based approach to devolve into a politically idealistic shift that embraces an environmentally disastrous imbalance between individual property rights and the rights of the common good.” The emailer has a similar lament about “three of our five commissioners” and goes on to say a “small group” is working to stop the project.
However, the emailer also encouraged people to educate themselves on the project.
Fortunately, that is easy enough to do because Davidson Town Hall spent about $9,000 tax dollars last month to educate itself on this project and rural planning in general by bringing in nationally renowned rural planning guru – Randall Arendt.
Below is what Mr Arendt had to say about the Narrow Passage in a memo to the town after his visit.
“It is my belief that the ultimate layout of this development would probably not change much, if at all, whether it is approved in a timely manner or whether approval were delayed until after a Small Area Plan has been devised, debated, and adopted – a process that could take 6-12 months. Its layout reflects the opportunities and constraints of this site, and any good plan for it would probably bear a very strong resemblance to what we came up with earlier this week”.
Arendt goes on to say “it is my belief that a plan update process would not alter the reality that the southeastern end of the ETJ is currently more suburban than rural, unlike the areas north and west of Runneymede and Maple Way Drive.” Additionally “Narrow Passage and the property just to the north of it are virtually surrounded by suburban house lots, nothing very rural.”
Finally, and maybe most importantly, for those who are at all concerned about this project Arendt says this. “I do not believe that approval would create any kind of legal precedent, once the town updates its planning documents and regulations. Adopting a moratorium to prevent new applications being filed during the plan update process would probably be a wise idea.”
Once you get past the planning lingo, the basic idea from Randall Arendt is that the proposal presents a good design and does not open the floodgates for new development as those who oppose it fear.
There are also other facts on the table that address specific concerns emailed and printed elsewhere.
They include a lower number of planned lots – as low as 32, down from 47, if the builder takes advantage of the town’s newly lowered Payment in Lieu for the affordable housing obligation. Another is that according of Randall Arendt the planned use of septic systems is more environmentally friendly than the town-required installation of sewer for neighborhoods of this size and density.
The project has gone through a significant amount of public input including the three day session where Arendt was brought in at the town’s request. Additional delays in the decision making process are unwarranted.
It is true that people, particularly Commissioners, should educate themselves, but the way to do it is not to listen to ideologically driven emailers intending to instill fear in an election season.
That education process continues Monday when this project goes before the town Planning Board.
Filing for this year’s local elections doesn't start for a couple of weeks, but election-related shenanigans already seem to have started in Davidson. As is typical in small-town politics, accusations are made, emails circulate, and unfounded rumors fly.
One such issue initiating some of that election related swirl is the proposed Narrow Passage development working its way through the town planning process for more than a year now. This is the same development mentioned in a previous column regarding property rights and how Davidson’s view of those rights impacts its decisions
The issue at stake is whether or not this project should be approved by the Town Board – bringing new development to the town’s northeastern Extra Territorial Jurisdiction, or ETJ. The proposed 59 acre site sits right at the intersection of Rocky River and Shearers Road. It's that location that has generated opposition.
In another area publication, local resident Ed Harris penned a strongly worded editorial about a month ago. He lamented the possibility that three Davidson Commissioners, aka a majority of those elected by the voters, might actually approve the project.
However, that editorial paled in comparison to an email that landed in my inbox last week. This email from someone who can accurately be described as a very well connected town insider used language that can best be defined as fear-mongering.
For example, the emailer likened approval of the project to “allowing our award winning community based approach to devolve into a politically idealistic shift that embraces an environmentally disastrous imbalance between individual property rights and the rights of the common good.” The emailer has a similar lament about “three of our five commissioners” and goes on to say a “small group” is working to stop the project.
However, the emailer also encouraged people to educate themselves on the project.
Fortunately, that is easy enough to do because Davidson Town Hall spent about $9,000 tax dollars last month to educate itself on this project and rural planning in general by bringing in nationally renowned rural planning guru – Randall Arendt.
Below is what Mr Arendt had to say about the Narrow Passage in a memo to the town after his visit.
“It is my belief that the ultimate layout of this development would probably not change much, if at all, whether it is approved in a timely manner or whether approval were delayed until after a Small Area Plan has been devised, debated, and adopted – a process that could take 6-12 months. Its layout reflects the opportunities and constraints of this site, and any good plan for it would probably bear a very strong resemblance to what we came up with earlier this week”.
Arendt goes on to say “it is my belief that a plan update process would not alter the reality that the southeastern end of the ETJ is currently more suburban than rural, unlike the areas north and west of Runneymede and Maple Way Drive.” Additionally “Narrow Passage and the property just to the north of it are virtually surrounded by suburban house lots, nothing very rural.”
Finally, and maybe most importantly, for those who are at all concerned about this project Arendt says this. “I do not believe that approval would create any kind of legal precedent, once the town updates its planning documents and regulations. Adopting a moratorium to prevent new applications being filed during the plan update process would probably be a wise idea.”
Once you get past the planning lingo, the basic idea from Randall Arendt is that the proposal presents a good design and does not open the floodgates for new development as those who oppose it fear.
There are also other facts on the table that address specific concerns emailed and printed elsewhere.
They include a lower number of planned lots – as low as 32, down from 47, if the builder takes advantage of the town’s newly lowered Payment in Lieu for the affordable housing obligation. Another is that according of Randall Arendt the planned use of septic systems is more environmentally friendly than the town-required installation of sewer for neighborhoods of this size and density.
The project has gone through a significant amount of public input including the three day session where Arendt was brought in at the town’s request. Additional delays in the decision making process are unwarranted.
It is true that people, particularly Commissioners, should educate themselves, but the way to do it is not to listen to ideologically driven emailers intending to instill fear in an election season.
That education process continues Monday when this project goes before the town Planning Board.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Property rights underlying issues at Davidson Town Hall
Davidson has a well earned reputation for being a well planned town. The town regularly receives awards and recognition for its efforts in promoting walkability, the protecting open space, and preserving its Main Street area.
The most ardent supporters of how Davidson does things are fond of saying “Davidson didn't happen by accident.”
However, there is a flip side to this approach that can turn into something that often looks less than welcoming. There is an undercurrent through many town decisions on planning and development that often looks like infringement of property rights.
Take for example the onerous deed restrictions currently required by the town’s affordable housing ordinance. Currently, the town requires buyers in the program to agree to 99 year deed restrictions that limit the price they can sell a home – regardless of what the market can bare. That may seem reasonable to some because it's a restriction agreed to upon purchase.
On the flip side, having such long deed restrictions allows the town to maintain a level of control over the property for what is effectively the life of the building – probably longer. One outcome of this is that buyers are limited in what they can do to actually improve their home. If the owner wants to make improvements that make the house too nice or too expensive the deed restrictions prevent the homeowner from recouping those costs. As an owner, one has to ask one’s self – “Do I really own my own home if I have to ask about making it more livable?”
Another example where the town seems to fear the free execution of property rights comes in its recurring opposition to bills in the General Assembly that impact planning in any way.
Over the years the town has fought efforts in Raleigh to pass legislation that limits what design restrictions a town can place on homes. The current incarnation of this bill working its way through the Legislature is actually sponsored by our very own Senator Jeff Tarte.
According to current and former sponsors of these bills – bills that have received strong bi-partisan support it is clear that they would have minimal impact to Davidson. But, if you listen to the rhetoric coming out of Davidson Town Hall, you would think they gut planning ordinances across the state.
These first two examples deal with development and limits on property rights where development actually is approved, but the most obvious infringement on property rights occurs when the town attempts to prevent development altogether.
The ongoing brouhaha over the proposed Narrow Passage neighborhood off of Rocky River Rd provides a perfect example of that scenario.
The local Mayes family has owned the land for over 100 years and working with local builder, Karl Plattner, has proposed building 47 houses on roughly 59 acres at the corner of Rocky River and Shearer roads.
The proposed development will have large amounts of open space. It fits with the other surrounding development – including River Run which is right across the road. It will add a nice bump to the town’s tax base.
The idea that those involved are somehow intentionally proposing something that would harm Davidson is laughable.
The problem?
The proposed development goes against a belief among some that Davidson should not allow development – any meaningful development - along Shearers Rd. To listen to some opponents of this proposal you would think they are the ones that own the land – talking about how important it is to them, talking about what it means to them. Unfortunately for them, they don't actually own it.
The town has used its ordinances and process to throw up barrier after barrier in attempts to delay or outright prevent this development from going forward.
While not exactly the same situation, it evokes similarities to a case recently lost by NCDOT in the NC Court of Appeals. In this case, NCDOT used something in its planning efforts called the Map Act to prevent landowners from developing their land – sometimes for decades – without compensation. The appeals court recently said in a unanimous decision that the NCDOTs actions resulted in a legal “taking” of the property and the landowners needed to be compensated at the time NCDOT placed its development restrictions on the land.
Davidson’s zeal in opposing development in certain areas at times approaches that same threshold.
Infringing on personal property rights is something government should do with extreme caution. In Davidson, it seems to be a standard approach to doing business.
The most ardent supporters of how Davidson does things are fond of saying “Davidson didn't happen by accident.”
However, there is a flip side to this approach that can turn into something that often looks less than welcoming. There is an undercurrent through many town decisions on planning and development that often looks like infringement of property rights.
Take for example the onerous deed restrictions currently required by the town’s affordable housing ordinance. Currently, the town requires buyers in the program to agree to 99 year deed restrictions that limit the price they can sell a home – regardless of what the market can bare. That may seem reasonable to some because it's a restriction agreed to upon purchase.
On the flip side, having such long deed restrictions allows the town to maintain a level of control over the property for what is effectively the life of the building – probably longer. One outcome of this is that buyers are limited in what they can do to actually improve their home. If the owner wants to make improvements that make the house too nice or too expensive the deed restrictions prevent the homeowner from recouping those costs. As an owner, one has to ask one’s self – “Do I really own my own home if I have to ask about making it more livable?”
Another example where the town seems to fear the free execution of property rights comes in its recurring opposition to bills in the General Assembly that impact planning in any way.
Over the years the town has fought efforts in Raleigh to pass legislation that limits what design restrictions a town can place on homes. The current incarnation of this bill working its way through the Legislature is actually sponsored by our very own Senator Jeff Tarte.
According to current and former sponsors of these bills – bills that have received strong bi-partisan support it is clear that they would have minimal impact to Davidson. But, if you listen to the rhetoric coming out of Davidson Town Hall, you would think they gut planning ordinances across the state.
These first two examples deal with development and limits on property rights where development actually is approved, but the most obvious infringement on property rights occurs when the town attempts to prevent development altogether.
The ongoing brouhaha over the proposed Narrow Passage neighborhood off of Rocky River Rd provides a perfect example of that scenario.
The local Mayes family has owned the land for over 100 years and working with local builder, Karl Plattner, has proposed building 47 houses on roughly 59 acres at the corner of Rocky River and Shearer roads.
The proposed development will have large amounts of open space. It fits with the other surrounding development – including River Run which is right across the road. It will add a nice bump to the town’s tax base.
The idea that those involved are somehow intentionally proposing something that would harm Davidson is laughable.
The problem?
The proposed development goes against a belief among some that Davidson should not allow development – any meaningful development - along Shearers Rd. To listen to some opponents of this proposal you would think they are the ones that own the land – talking about how important it is to them, talking about what it means to them. Unfortunately for them, they don't actually own it.
The town has used its ordinances and process to throw up barrier after barrier in attempts to delay or outright prevent this development from going forward.
While not exactly the same situation, it evokes similarities to a case recently lost by NCDOT in the NC Court of Appeals. In this case, NCDOT used something in its planning efforts called the Map Act to prevent landowners from developing their land – sometimes for decades – without compensation. The appeals court recently said in a unanimous decision that the NCDOTs actions resulted in a legal “taking” of the property and the landowners needed to be compensated at the time NCDOT placed its development restrictions on the land.
Davidson’s zeal in opposing development in certain areas at times approaches that same threshold.
Infringing on personal property rights is something government should do with extreme caution. In Davidson, it seems to be a standard approach to doing business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)