"Why now?" question lingers after Davidson rezoning passes

By now readers probably know, Davidson's Board approved the mass rezoning of large parts of its Rural Area at last Tuesday's meeting on March 28th.

The meeting was hard to watch as a sense of inevitability had settled over efforts to slow or change the overall direction.  If you have the stomach for it, you can see the meeting here.

Once again, speaker after speaker took to the podium to challenge the rezoning - receiving vigorous applause from the audience in the process.  One speaker who owned a small parcel impacted did speak for the rezoning.  Notably, none of the large landowners who stand to benefit most off of this rezoning spoke at all - a sure sign the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

A petition with over 700 signatures opposing the rezoning was delivered to the dais.  It was acknowledged and then politely set aside.

Then, Commissioners spoke.

Commissioner Stacey Anderson started off her comments with what sounded like a swipe at those citizens who had opposed the rezoning. She managed to impugn the citizen opposition by saying lies get around the world before truth has a chance to get its pants on.

Interestingly however, Commissioner Anderson was the only Commissioner to ultimately vote a few minutes later the way aShortChronicle had suggested.  She voted for the planning area text amendments and against the rezoning which is exactly what we recommended here.

Commissioner Beth Cashion gave what might be considered by some to be a lecture to the public.  She also read a lengthy quote.  It was something from Eleanor Roosevelt about great civilizations crumbling or stagnating because they would rather die than change.  She compared Davidson to her home town of Mt Airy saying Mt Airy was bigger in land area but smaller in population than Davidson.  Why that matters is still unclear.

The point seemed to be lost that it was the rapid pace of change, not change itself, the opposition was primarily trying to slow.  Many speakers opposing the rezoning have said repeatedly they supported the RAP as a plan, but were concerned its wholesale implementation at once would have unintended consequences.

Commissioner Cashion closed by saying she hoped people continued the conversation regardless of whether they left the meeting with feelings of anger or happiness.

That's certain to be the case.

Finally, Commissioner Rodney Graham spoke.

Channelling his best John Kerry, Graham explained why he was now for the plan when he was originally against it.  Graham voted against the RAP last year, but for its implementation last week.  He sited some changes mostly to the parts of the plan that would remain rural as to why he changed his position.  When it came to the mass rezoning of the parcels designated for more intense development, the 1300 acres that sparked much of the opposition's concerns, he simply said he disagreed with those concerns about this rezoning accelerating development.

Time will tell.

Graham also touched on the question of "why now".   His reasoning again was focused on parcels that will remain rural.  There are some rural area parcels for sale now so this saved more open space.  This rational of course ignores the fact that adopting the text amendments, but not the map amendments would have achieved the same thing.  If he had voted as Commissioner Anderson did, his reasoning might have made sense.

No.  Commissioner Graham did not answer the question "why now"?

Why vote on March 28th for a plan that won't actually go into effect until July because the town is waiting on a new TIA study?  That was stated repeatedly as part of this debate.  Why vote on it now if as the Commissioners seem to believe it really won't spark development anytime soon?

Here's a practical reason if you are an elected official.

This is an election year and filing for office runs from July 7th to July 21st.  Do you think incumbents would want to vote on this rezoning in the middle of that filing period or just after it when it would become apparent some were lame ducks if they decided to not run for re-election?

To that end aShortChronicle asked the Board on Monday if any of them were able comment on plans to seek re-election.

Commissioners Anderson and Cashion said"no comment".  Commissioner Graham said he wasn't running for Mayor but also had no comment on his plans for another run at Commissioner.  Commissoners Fuller and Jenest didn't respond.

Some things to remember a few short months from now.

RAP Armageddon on Tuesday...Commissioners set to vote

§ 160A-75.  Voting.  No member shall be excused from voting except upon matters involving the consideration of the member's own financial interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting under G.S. 14-234, 160A-381(d), or 160A-388(e)(2). In all other cases except votes taken under G.S. 160A-385, a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the council chamber, or who has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members present, shall be recorded as an affirmative vote.

The above section of Chapter 160A of the NC General Statutes covers voting procedures when it comes to NC municipalities.  In legalese it outlines the state's arcane rules about when a local elected official must and must not vote when there may be a conflict of interest.  We've covered this topic extensively over the years here at aShortChronicle, so we won't rehash it again other than to say it is generally absurdly hard for Commissioners to not vote.

The one exception is for  votes taken under G.S. 160A-385 - votes involving rezoning.

When it comes to rezoning, it is so fundamentally important that the public feel everything is done above board in land use decisions that conscience and good faith is allowed to rule rather than just dollars and cents.  The mere appearance of a conflict is enough for a Commissioner to unilaterally decide to not vote and not have that vote automatically count as a yes.

And that brings us to this coming Tuesday...

At the Davidson Board March 28th meeting, Commissioners are scheduled to vote on the controversial mass rezoning of the town's Rural Area.

Citizens do not want this action to pass.  Over 700 signatures have been captured in an online petition with dozens more captured at the Davidson Farmers Market.  Signs opposing this rezoning have dotted yards across town for weeks.  It has become one of the hottest topics around town in what will certainly be an interesting election year.

When Commissioners vote on Tuesday it will be very important to remember the following.

There needs to be no question this vote has not been structured in a way allowing the letter of the law to be skirted while trampling on the spirit of the law when it comes to conflicts.  aShortChronicle has confirmed with the town attorney that these votes will be taken under G.S. 160A-385 as outlined above.  If a Commissioner chooses to not vote it will not count as a yes.

Secondly, the public will know soon enough if this vote was taken as a "lame duck" by any Commissioner deciding not to run for reelection.   Campaign filing is just a few short months away.  Any problems that arise down the road as a result of passing this rezoning this way will forever be linked to Commissioners who vote for this.  A lame duck vote in support of such a controversial topic will only be seen as tainting that vote even more.

On Tuesday, Commissioners should not vote on the Map Amendments aka rezonings on their agenda, or they should vote them down.  That is what the public wants.  Most importantly, anyone with the slightest chance of a conflict should not vote at all.

Rezonings make critical water extensions more likely

This past week aShortChronicle told readers about the massive amount of money in the land involved in the mass rezoning Town of Davidson staff and elected officials are pushing as part of implementing the Rural Area Plan (RAP) -$70,000,000, give or take a few million.

One of the reasons the large amount of money involved is important became a little more clear at the February 27th Commissioner work session during a discussion led by Town Manager Jamie Justice.  That discussion centered on how water and sewer extensions to support development could move forward.

First a little background...

Water and sewer via CMUD is critical to development.  For many years Davidson effectively prevented any significant development in the Rural Area by withholding approval for these extensions.  That is until last year when Commissioners voted to allow extensions to be put on CMUDs 5 year Capital Improvement Plan or CIP.  This was a critical step in implementing the RAP that went relativy unnoticed by the public at the December 13th, 2016 Board Meeting.

The importance of this action when it comes to the on-going discussion about the controversial mass rezoning can not be overstated.  In fact, in a lengthy back and forth on Facebook regarding the rezoning, Davidson Commissioner Rodney Graham said people who oppose major development in the Rural Area should focus on water and sewer, not the rezoning.  It's kind of hard to do that however when the Board has already taken what may be the most important step by allowing these extensions onto the CMUD CIP.

Effectively, without water and sewer extensions, major development can not and would not happen.  See here. for the CMUD CIP

(To his credit Commissioner Graham voted against the CMUD action.  However, he has since become a strong proponent of the proposed rezonings.)

Now, back to that February 27th meeting...

At this meeting Town Manager Justice explained how these water and sewer extensions would be paid for to support development.  In what would seem to be an important point, Justice said the extensions the Board approved in December were in year 5 of the 5 year CMUD CIP, but that does not guarantee they would be built in that time frame.  These extensions would only be built as "reimbursable" projects Justice explained.  This means they would only happen if a developer comes forward and requests them and signs a reimbursement agreement with CMUD to actually pay for them.  Basically, development itself pays for the extensions.

aShortChronicle asked the town what exactly this means.  Could this actually speed up development by speeding up water and sewer?

Here is he answer from Public Information Officer Christna Shaul, copying Justice.

"A reimbursable project could come forward at any time, including before year 5 of the 5-year CIP. If a proposed development were to come forward, a timeline would be determined at that time however, working out the details and then the actual construction would take some time – it could be years to come to fruition."

At the February 27th meeting, another point was made - repeatedly - by Justice and Commissioners.  Any extensions would still have to be approved by Commissioners.  Again, giving the appearance the town would maintain control.

aShortChronicle also asked the Town a question on this.  What would be a reason the town might not grant such approval.  The answer was surprising.  Again, from the town PIO...

"Some possible reasons to not approve a sewer extension would be that the property has not been annexed into the town limits or the zoning has not been approved." (Emphasis added.)

Think about that for a minute.

If a developer comes forward with a project requiring water and sewer extension one reason the town might not approve the extension is that the zoning for the project has not been approved.  Yet, giving pre-approval to more intense zoning is exactly what the Town of Davidson staff and Commissioners are pushing to accomplish.

Alternatively, if the town grants this pre-approved more intense zoning it is effectively making it more difficult to say "no" to future requests to extend water and sewer.  They will have already asked to put it on the CMUD CIP.  They will have also approved the required zoning.  A developer or landowner with a by right project under the new zoning would have a very good case to say the town would be treating them unfairly if it did not approve the water and sewer extension when all of its previous actions show it intended for more intense development to occur.

Finally, we go back to the money.  With the land involved in this rezoning worth tens of millions of dollars, there will be more than enough money available to help fund these extensions.  One can easily see a scenario where a developer offers to buy land for a significant sum, but asks the land owner to chip in on the water and sewer extension.  If the land is worth significantly more with these extensions, there will be incentive to take deal.

Between the money involved with the land and the town's previous actions on water and sewer it is certainly possible these critical infrastructure extensions happen sooner rather than later - particularly if the Town moves forward with the RAP rezoninng.

Massive rezoning by Davidson Town Hall to make devopment easier

Many homeowners on Davidson's east side received what was likely an unwelcome surprise on Christmas Eve with the arrival of a letter from Town Hall.  Landing at an inopportune time considering the holidays and with many people traveling, the letters were to notify property owners that nearby land was up for rezoning.

And we're not talking about something minor.

No, this will be a massive rezoning in follow up to the recently completed Rural Area Plan.  According to the town:

• 2,379 letters went out.
• 114 properties will be rezoned
• 2,048.73 total acres impacted

Here's the letter.

What may be surprising to many is that these rezonings being done under the auspices of the Rural Area Plan will actually make it much much easier to develop land that is currently rural.

To give you an idea of how large an impact this could be, look at the below map for some perspective.  The areas are approximate due to the use of the drawing tool on the county's Polaris site.

The Barger Farm is a massive property and the 280 acres shown here is just a portion of it.  This portion will be rezoned as Neighborhood General with portions around the roundabout at Davidson-Concord/Rocky River being rezoned as Neighborhood Services.

These designation changes will make dramatic new development "by right" without needing to go through rezoning at the time development is actually proposed.  Making these changes now cedes significant control from the the Town to the development community.  While it is certainly reasonable and correct for land owners to expect to do something of value with their land, the Town taking this step proactively without any proposed actual development plans makes it much easier to ram through unacceptable projects when they do come up.

As a prime example from very recent history, that is exactly what happened with the Westmoreland Farm property depicted on the map as West Branch.  One week after it was similarly rezoned when the 2015 Davidson Planning Ordinance rewrite passed, land planning efforts began in earnest for what would become West Branch. (Click link for story)

Commissioner Brian Jenest voted for the rewrite, and his firm did the land planning for the West Branch project.

If the West Branch example doesn't bother you, how about the other two areas highlighted above?  Do you think it is a good idea to have pre-approved zoning for a high density development the the size of a combined McConnell/St Albans neighborhood?  What about something the size of the entire Circles@30 area?

Now consider that this portion of the Barger Farm is just one area that will be rezoned by this Town proposal.  More than 1000 additional acres will be approved for more intense development as part of this effort as well.  Those acres will mostly be in the less dense Neighborhood Edge category, but they will still provide by right approval for an untold number of rooftops.  Neighborhood Edge requires 40% open space and does not have multifamily, but also has no density cap.

In light of all this, these rezonings should not occur until there are official projects for an area.  This would not prevent the projects from occurring, and the Rural Area Plan should be used as the guide for approving them.  However, holding off on the rezoning changes would allow the Town more control in the event a developer down the road proposes something that may be inappropriate for the area but may be "by right" under the new zoning.

Residents should plan on attending the open house this week on January 5th from 430-630pm and the official Public Hearing at the January 10th Town Board meeting at 6pm.

#Cornelius to the left of #Davidson on property rights?

Cornelius elected officials have a well earned reputation for being a fairly conservative bunch.

Among similarly sized communities, the town has long had one of the lowest municipal property tax rates in the state.  At the same time, it provides high quality services.  That’s an indication of strong fiscal discipline.  Town Commissioners, if not the Mayor, have also been some of the leading elected voices against potential regional boondoggles like the Red Line Commuter Rail and the I77 HOT lanes.

So, it’s peculiar to witness the town involved in a brouhaha with citizens and landowners over a rezoning request that has similarities to a recent example in Davidson – it’s more leftward leaning neighbor to the north.  Those two decisions would be Classica Homes development currently being discussed in Cornelius  and the Narrow Passage development approved last year by Davidson.

Development company Classica Homes wishes to build 40 age restricted townhomes on roughly 9 acres off of land off of West Catawba Ave.   In Davidson, developer Karl Plattner looked to build a similar number of homes on a large parcel in Davidson’s rural area.  In both cases, town Planning staff opposed the rezoning requests because they didn’t perfectly conform to previously approved plans.  In both cases public feedback was significant with citizens packing the public hearings and sending numerous emails.

There were significant differences though.

In Davidson’s case, opponents were trying to all but eliminate any real development in the rural area.  In Cornelius, it appears the Town is pushing to reserve land for more intense commercial development at some undetermined point down the road.  Also, in Davidson the citizen led Planning Board opposed the rezoning along with staff, and there was some element of the public who opposed the project as well.  In Cornelius, the citizen Planning Board actually supported Classica’s request and public feedback from the neighbors most impacted also appears unanimous in its support.

You'd think the Davidson decision would have been the hard one, or at least the closest vote, wouldn’t you?  Ultimately however, the Davidson Board recognized they should respect the landowners’ property rights and allow what was clearly a reasonable plan to go forward.  They unanimously approved the rezoning.

The Cornelius vote appears to be the closer one.  With Commissioners knotted at 2-2 during their last meeting with one Commissioner absent, they decided to kick the final vote until their next meeting on May 2nd.

Unlike what happened in Davidson, the utter reasonableness of the proposal by Classica and the land owners appears to have been lost in the discussion.  Even if the proposal does not meet exactly what the town says it wants which is more commercial development, it’s hard to deny it is reasonable.

As confirmed by Town Planning Director, Wayne Herron, under the existing zoning the landowners could build a total of 16 single family homes -  no questions asked.  However, these would likely be large lot homes.  They would likely have as many cars and generate as many or more car trips as the 40 units in the Classica proposal.  They would also bring more children likely to attend local schools.  (Age restricted communities tend to have less cars, generate less trips, and don’t have children.)

It’s reasonable compared to other residential possibilities or even the town’s desired option of commercial development.  It will put less strain on area roads as well as area schools.

It’s reasonable when looking at growing the tax base compared to what could be built there by right already.  Forty high end townhomes will provide more revenue than the 16 homes already allowed.

Finally, and most importantly it’s a reasonable option for the town that also treats the landowners fairly – landowners who have been trying to sell this property for decades.

In Davidson, it was the reasonableness of the proposal which ultimately won over that Board.

Hopefully, reasonableness and respect for property rights will do the same in Cornelius at that Board's next meeting

This post first appeared in this week's Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com.