New developments and the "Missing Middle"

Two new developments submitted November 30th that popped up on the Town website in the past month would not have met the requirements for the proposed "Missing Middle" text amendments.  That's the determination from comparing the applications for these projects and the proposed language in the text amendments.  These text amendments could have potentially been voted on at the December meeting by the outgoing Board prior to seating new Board members, but they were not.  Instead the ultimate decision on these will be left up to the newly seated elected officials.

The Lake Cornelius Residential development submitted by Meeting Street is designed by the firm of former Davidson Commissioner Brian Jenest.  The second project, Davidson Springs, is being developed by former Commissioner Rodney Graham.  That's according to information on the Town website.

In the case of the Lake Cornelius Residential parcel located at the end of Catawba Avenue, the project was originally incorrectly shown as being in the Village Infill area when first put on the on the Town website.  In fact, it is not.  aShortChronicle verified with Planning Director Jason Burdett that this was an error on the website.  (It has since been corrected.)  The project is across the street from the Village Infill area and actually lies in the Lakeshore planning area.  That means that even if the Missing Middle text amendments had been passed by the outgoing Board they would not have applied to this project.  See below for the pictures.

Project Maste

The Davidson Springs development on the other hand is in the Village Infill area located at the end of James Alexander Way off of Spring Street.

This project as currently planned is 100% single family detached houses and townhomes.  That would not have met the requirements of the proposed Missing Middle test amendments if they had been passed prior to submission of this project.  These requirements would have applied to developments greater than 3 acres, and Davidson Springs is over 4.5 acres.

The project is 53% townhomes and 47% single family detached, both of which are less than the 60% stated in the proposed text amendment.  However, that 60% applies to the total of this category.  If the Missing Middle had passed prior to submitting this project, it would have been required to have some form of multi-family attached housing  and reduce the number of single family detached and townhomes to no more than 60% of the total.  That's per the answer to a follow-up question to the Davidson Planning Department.

Per Planning Director, Jason Burdett, "the intent of the proposed missing middle was to insure a variety of building types (beyond SF or TH) in master planned community of three acres or greater. This mix would provide a greater opportunity for housing affordability while not sacrificing context-sensitivity of the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff proposed the two categories to ensure a building type beyond developers’ typical boilerplate plans–i.e. the Village Walk Up or Village Courtyard. Speaking in generalities, there’s a much higher likelihood that a duplex or quadplex could be affordable than a townhome.

While Davidson Springs includes a mix of building types, as proposed, it would not have complied with the missing middle text amendment. However, this could all be moot. It remains to be seen if the new board of commissioners would like to proceed with the missing middle text amendments."

As Burdett points out, all of this of course is just hypothetical because the Missing Middle text amendments were not passed by the outgoing Board.  Instead, those proposed changes were left for the new set of Commissioners to potentially consider.

Since both of these development applications were submitted prior to the Missing Middle changes being considered, these changes would not have applied to the projects.  Only the zoning in place at the time of an application submittal applies.  As explained earlier, that change would not have applied to the Lake Cornelius project in any event because it is just outside the Village Infill area where the Missing Middle would have an impact.  On the Davidson Springs project the Missing Middle requirements would not be forced on the project because it was submitted just before the Missing Middle might have been passed.

As can be seen in these cases, the location and timing of zoning changes are critical.

When you have development industry people on an elected Board making decisions that could potentially impact their own projects, even in tangential ways, that always has the potential to raise uncomfortable questions or cause Commissioners to potentially have to recuse themselves.  It may not have been a big deal here, and aShortChronicle is certainly glad the Missing Middle is still "missing" from Davidson's planning ordinance as we are skeptical on the Missing Middle's potential impact on affordability.   However, not having these kinds of potentially sticky situations among Davidson's current Board members will certainly be a less complicated situation going forward, and that is a good thing.

Mi-Connection FY2017 numbers disappoint...subsidy needed until FY2024

Numbers were put out by the Town of Davidson in a press release last week on the municipally owned cable company's financial performance for FY2017.  That was followed up by a presentation from Town Manager Jamie Justice at the Tuesday Board meeting.

The long and the short of it boils down to these bullet points.

• The company is still losing money and did not meet projected growth in FY2017.
• Subsidies will still be needed for years to come with FY2024 as the new subsidy-free target date.
• Competition is increasing with new players entering the municipally owned company's footprint making growth even more difficult.
• Davidson has little to no leverage in determining the company's future under the current inter-local agreement with Mooresville which pegs Davidson's ownership at 30%.
• All of the numbers are projections based on continued rapid growth in rooftops and businesses.

Here is the press release put out by the town.  Emphasis added in bold.

DAVIDSON, N.C. – On Thursday, August 23, the MI-Connection Board of Directors met to review financial results for FY 2017, which ended June 30, and compare last quarter to the same quarter a year ago. Data has been externally audited, but are preliminary and still subject to external audit.

Quarter Comparison

Revenue is even when comparing Q4 2017 to Q4 2016 and total expenses are up by 3.02% in Q4 2017 compared to Q4 2016. EBIDA (Earnings before interest, depreciation and amortization, a key metric used by cable operators to measure performance) decreased by 7.64% from Q4 FY 2016 to Q4 FY 2017. Average revenue per customer is even.

“We didn’t meet our growth projections for this year, and recognize that we have had some tough competition in the marketplace,” said MI-Connection CEO David Auger. “We are confident that the services we offer and our superior customer will make us more competitive in the future.”

FY 2017 vs. FY 2016

Financially, year-over-year, FY 2017 revenue exceeded FY 2016 by 1.79%.  EBIDA declined by 8.61% from FY 2016 to FY 2017. Average revenue per customer is up 1.88% from FY 2016 to FY 2017. The customer level stayed about the same year-over-year.

In the enterprise and small/medium business market in FY 2017, MI-Connection grew commercial customers by 10.9% and increased revenue by 10.2%.  Commercial revenue as a percentage of overall revenue increased from 12% in FY 2016 to 13.7% in FY 2017.

MI-Connection made a contribution of $2.919 million in debt payment to the Town of Mooresville for FY 2017, and projected a payment of $3.45 million in the FY 2018 budget. The amount the Towns of Mooresville and Davidson made to the debt payment for FY 2017 was $3.44 million and the projected payment for the towns in FY 2018 is $2.93 million. MI-Connection’s contribution toward the debt is projected to exceed the towns’ contributions in FY 2018.

During his comments at the meeting Tuesday night, Justice did address the stall in the drop of the annual subsidy required by the towns for 2017.  aShortChronicle pointed that out back in May.  The explanation given by Justice was that there were some new developments scheduled to come on line that were delayed.  That delayed the new revenue.  Those developments are now coming online so 2018 should see a bump.

What's left unsaid here is that Mi-Connection future growth is essentially now wholly dependent on significant growth in rooftops and or businesses within its footprint.  The operational and financial improvements over the past few years are now fully baked into the year over year performance expectations.  There are no more big chunks of cost savings that can be wrung out of the financials.

Justice mentioned that RGUs or Revenue Generating Units actually dropped very slightly year over year in 2017.  RGUs are individual services such as voice, data, and video.  A single "triple play" household would count as 3 RGUs.  If RGUs dropped and there certainly was some growth in rooftops/businesses in 2017, that logically means Mi-Connection lost some existing customers to other provider and got some new ones to nearly break-even, but the company didn't get the new ones it was expecting from the delayed developments Justice mentioned to show any growth.  As competition increases and other providers build out their networks this industry "churn" among competing providers will only increase as well.

The current predictions in Justice's presentation say subsidies are needed through FY2023 - another 5 years.  It also says, the company's debt to value trend likely makes the company saleable 2-4 years from now with another 5-6 years needed to get that ratio down to where the towns could recoup all the subsidies they had paid over the years. However, competition will only increase in coming years, and if the housing market or economy slows or stalls, then all these projections go out the window.  In a high-tech industry such as telecommunications, keeping Mi-Connection for another decade just to attempt getting towns' their money back would be a high risk maneuver.

While Justice tried valiantly to put as good a face as possible on this situation, it's still an ugly situation the towns have in front of them.

Read the whole presentation here.

Exit 30 Hotel stakeholder provides data to Board prior to update on Tuesday agenda

At Tuesday's Board meeting Davidson's electeds are scheduled to get an update on "stakeholder" feedback regarding the current proposal for the new hotel on Griffith Street next  to Community School of Davidson and Davidson Day.

Since the last update staff has met with various stakeholder groups including:

▪ 8/4/17 - Site Walk
▪ 8/4/17 - Lunch & Learn
▪ 8/10/17 - West Davidson
▪ 8/10/17 - Spinnaker Cove
▪ Various - Additional Stakeholders [Calls, Emails, Meetings]

While these meetings certainly garnered feedback on things like safety, traffic, and parking, most people haven't heard too much feedback on the need for a hotel in the first place.  To that point, aShortChronicle wanted to pass along some information provided to the Board on Friday.  It comes from an individual with years if experience in the hotel industry and raised some serious questions about the very need for a new hotel on top of the numerous safety issues of the site itself.

It seeks to answer the question "Is there sufficient demand in the market to justify increasing the supply in the face of so many risks?"

Information was collected using Smith Travel Research (www.str.com) data from the 24 hotels within a competitive proximity to the proposed site. The average hotel size in the sample was 91 rooms with a combination of full service, select service and extended stay brands. Year to date through the end of July, this competitive set has averaged a 73.5% Occupancy with a $95.40 Average Daily Rate (ADR). Occupancy is down -6.4% from prior year, representing a loss of -23,113 room nights from just the first 7 months last year. On this pace, the competitive set (Comp Set) hotels are projected to lose -39,622 room nights in 2017 as compared to 2016. At the current ADR, this represents a forec asted revenue loss of nearly -$3.8M to the immediate areas hotels this year compared to last year. 

For this proposed site to be considered a successful and profitable hotel venture, one needs to look at market share. A Revenue Generation Index (RGI) is the measure of market share for a hotel. A hotel with less than 100 RGI has less than its fair share, an RGI over 100 has more than its fair market share. To reach fair market share, this hotel would need to meet or exceed the market average occupancy and/or rate. This hotel would need to generate over 30,000 room nights at the current market occupancy at the prevailing ADR to be considered successful in industry standards. 

In support of my own data research, the most recent Hotel Horizons report from CBRE Hotels' Americas Research (formerly PKF) (https://pip.cbrehotels.com/) forecasts a continued decline in occupancy for the Greater Charlotte Area (which includes Davidson) every year for the next five years through 2021. The Northwest Charlotte Sub-market as defined by Smith Travel is not immune to this decline and as a result developers have only 3hotel projects currently in the pipeline! This Smith Travel Research defined Sub-market extends from Huntersville to Davidson and also includes Gastonia to Lincolnton. 

Considering the location of the proposed hotel project in regards to limited access, highway visibility and distance from corporate demand generators in Mooresville, Huntersville and Lake Norman, the 30,000 room nights would need to be generated primarily from new demand coming into the Davidson market as it would be unlikely to pull room night production from those other markets which offer supply well in excess of the demand available. 

Is the current Homewood Suites turning away 30,000 room nights per year because it has reached capacity?
Is the the current occupancy trend at the Homewood Suites in contrast to all available industry statistics, averages and forecasts for this market?

For this hotel development project to be feasible and considered a financial success, several statistically unlikely things must take place:
1. The Davidson market would have to create the demand for an additional 30,000 room nights per year, nearly doubling the existing estimated average for the city. Who or what would be the source of this additional demand?
2. This hotel would have to defy all current market data, trends and forecasts in both the immediate area, the Northwest Sub-Market and the Greater Charlotte Area. What would be the differentiating factor for this hotel that would give it such a market advantage?
3. The developer would have to maintain the current business levels at his existing property. Even if the Homewood Suites is averaging an occupancy at 15% higher than the market average, it is consuming at most 40,000 room nights per y ear. Can the city of Davidson attract or create the demand for over 70,000 consumed room nights that this developer would need to be successful? 

If this proposed hotel beats all these insurmountable odds, the highest possible net growth to occupancy tax generated for the city would be approximately $220k. Is this doubtful and highly unlikely gain sufficient to offset the known risks and negative impact to the area?

What is interesting about this above analysis is that it clearly shows additional data is available to assess the need for this hotel.  It is not just taking the developer's word for it like the Town is doing with the parking needs for this project.  It also shows the Town staff clearly has more work to do on the economic development front to appropriately educate itself and the Board.  Staff, not the developer, should also vet the following:

• Exactly how many FTE does the developer plan to employ?  How does this compare to the FTE and similarly sized hotels in this area?  The developer can not be allowed to inflate this number for the purposes of a "job creation" sales pitch.
• How exactly did the developer calculate its parking need?  How many sold out dates were sampled? What times were sampled on those days? What is the most common mode of transportation for those rooms that don't have cars? 

The same exact types of analysis would apply to the Luminous project and its hotel proposal which is even bigger.

Yes, the private sector has the right to risk its own money on these ventures, but in both cases Davidson elected officials truly have the final say in whether or not these projects go forward.  With that final say comes responsibility.  In turn Davidson Staff has the responsibility to provide them the information needed.  To date, it looks like the Town is relying on the developer to do that job for them and that is not a good.place to be.

Did the "Davidson Way" skew Exit 30 Hotel TIA?

A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is required for various types of developments depending on their size.  They assess the impact of a new development and make recommendations for infrastructure improvements to mitigate those impacts.  They can be useful tools to ensure development does not externalize the costs onto taxpayers by forcing others to pick up the bill.

But what happens if the TIA is skewed from the start?  Unfortunately, it appears that could be the case with the TIA completed for the Exit 30 Hotel proposal.

aShortChronicle has uncovered via public records request information that raises several questions about the TIA completed for the Exit 30 hotel proposed next to the Community School of Davidson (CSD) on Griffith Street.

Now, people may assume that any skewing would come from the developer who pays for the TIA and that could of course happen.  To help prevent that, Town Hall picks the firm to do the TIA, but the developer pays for it.  One would think that should lower the chance for bias.

In the case of the Exit 30 Hotel proposal the skewing appears to come from Davidson Town Hall itself.

The hotel TIA was conducted in 2016.  Below are emails aShortChronicle came across as part of a public records request on the hotel project.  Note the underlined portions.

In this first one, the Town planning manager, Jason Burdett, is shopping for a firm to give a certain flavor to the assessment.

When a TIA is supposed to be an unbiased assessment, saying "the last thing we want" before it even starts is not a good thing.

Two days later Craig Lewis with Stantec responds.  Stantec has done a considerable amount of work for the Town in recent years.  Mr Lewis previously worked for the now closed local office of The Lawrence Group which also had done lots of work for the town.

After this email things moved quickly with Burdett contacting the recommended person at Stantec the next day.  The comment about "deflecting" citizen concerns via the ordinance is particularly interesting.

Stantec appears to have been selected as the firm for this TIA immediately after these exchanges as further emails show the town discussing all the parameters of the study and arranging for collecting traffic counts from the developer's other hotel in town, the Homewood Suites.  Those counts are used as a baseline for the new hotel.

And about those counts...

Regarding the traffic counts from the Homewood Suites, when might those have been collected?  While the TIA Report doesn't say, the public record indicates they were to be done the week of Nov 7 - Nov 11 2016.   That week just happened to include Election Day for the most anticipated election in recent U.S. history on Tuesday followed by Veterans Day on Friday Nov 11th.  As acknowledgement that this could be an issue the below exchange occurred.

So, while at least an effort was made to not do the counts when school was out, what is the likelihood that business travel might have been a little light that week - affecting the baseline counts from Homewood Suites?

So, after asking for a report that wouldn't recommend significant and costly road improvements and taking critical traffic measurements at a questionable time, not surprisingly the final TIA Report recommends no road related changes in the immediate vicinity of the hotel.  That is in spite of the fact that the most impacted intersection has its most impacted direction going from bad, yet acceptable, levels to very unacceptable failing levels.  Look at the Griffith Gateway Drive NB line underlined in red.  That is headed north bound on Davidson Gateway towards Griffith.

This shows that regardless of the development, whether it be the proposed hotel or the previously approved development on this site, this intersection north bound becomes almost impassable.  During drop off and pickup for school at CSD, Davidson Gateway backs up significantly.  Add in the proposed hotel parking scheme that ensures all the street parking in the area is full, and Davidson Gateway may be impassable in the south bound direction as well during these times.

Yet, the report makes no recommendations to do anything about this for cars.  It does say this however about sidewalks.

"Additional and/or improved sidewalks in the area will encourage pedestrian activity to and from the hotel, which may further reduce the amount of vehicular traffic to and from the hotel beyond what has been assumed in this study."

Rather than mitigating the impacts on traffic this development might bring, this feels more like planned gridlock.

Is Commissioner Rodney Graham #PositivelyDavidson? That's a question he doesn't "wish to answer"

Many people in the Davidson area have noticed a new Facebook page recently that has attracted hundreds of likes, a page called Positively Davidson.  The site provides a laundry list of great things about living in this wonderful town.

Davidson is a great place to live.  Those of us who have spent years fighting to preserve that small town character and those who are relatively new to that fight know this intrinsically.  If this is the only point Positively Davidson is trying to make, then we whole heartedly agree.

However, a close reading of the page's "about" section shows that might not be the case.

It sounds good and very "positive", but there is also a hint of uncomfortableness with the pushback "official Davidson" has been getting in social media these days.

Unlike the other Facebook pages or groups around town (Paradise Lost, Save Davidson, Citizens for a Safe Davidson Hotel Location) nobody knows who is behind this new incarnation of Positively Davidson.  It is a "page" not a "group" and that allows a higher level of anonymity if the page admins so desire.

Oh, people have asked who is behind it.  To be sure people are curious about that.  However, only vague responses are given in reply.

So, aShortChronicle did a little digging to see if it could be figured out.  First though a little history.

You'll notice that above it stated this page was a "new incarnation of Positively Davidson".  The name Positively Davidson has a little political history in town going back to the last time citizens pushed back against Town Hall in any significant way.  That was during the 2011 election season.  A group by the same name, circled the wagons around Town Hall.  They held meetings, wrote letters to the editor, and generally worked to preserve the political status quo.  Here are some links to stories from back then when the group was clearly political. See here, here, and here.

So, who is behind Positively Davidson now?

Well, the first time aShortChronicle noticed the new incarnation was from Davidson Commissioner Rodney Graham with these posts on his "Rodney Graham, Davidson Town Commissioner" page.  This is his political campaign page.  The link is www.facebook.com/VoteRodneyGraham/

That was back in early June.  It raised the political antennas a bit because it was a reference to a political group that didn't exist anymore.  It was also in the aftermath of the May 23rd Board meeting where the town had been exposed for its clear mishandling of the Beaty Street property and the Luminous project, a project Commissioner Graham strongly supports.

So, with that in mind aShortChronicle just went ahead and asked Commissioner Graham if he was involved with the new Positively Davidson.  Here is what he had to say.

"I appreciate the question but don't wish to answer it.  That shouldn't be inferred as a "yes" or a "no" but just wanting to separate my private life from my public life.  I've set up multiple facebook pages and websites over the years for various organizations, frankly because it is something I enjoy doing, both creatively and just to help out organizations that I support.  But I don't wish to publicize whether I'm involved with those pages because (a) it's irrelevant, and (b) I don't wish for them to have any political overtones.

The Positively Davidson page you reference appears to be completely apolitical, which is good.  Regrettably many sites out there - NextDoor is a good example - have become forums for people to express frustration and anger.  There are appropriate forums to do that - although there is never an appropriate forum for slander - but I think certain forums should be off limits."

aShortChronicle thought that was an interesting response from an elected official.  Particularly, it was interesting for an official in a campaign season where transparency is the overarching theme for many issues citizens have with Town Hall.

With that answer, of sorts, in hand a little more digging shows data points that may shed some light on this situation for readers.  aShortChronicle noticed the following similarities between the Positively Davidson FB page and Commissioner Graham's campaign page.

1.  June 1st, the date Graham first used #positivelydavidson on his campaign page, is the same date the Positively Davidson page published its first posts.

2.  The two Cover Photos on Graham's campaign page are the same two photos Positively Davidson has used as its Profile pics until a third profile pic was added just yesterday.  You can tell the two with Summit in the photo are the exact same photos if you look closely.  Variables such as the cars on the street and the shape of the flags are exactly the same.  They are the same exact photos, not two different photos taken from the same locations at different times.

Graham Campaign
Cover Pics

Positively Davidson
Profile Pics

3.  Multiple other photos appear on both pages as well - a home in the Town Affordable housing program, a picture of Davidson College Presbyterian Church (DCPC), a picture of what appears to be a field at Fisher Farm etc.

Does all that definitively prove Commissioner Rodney Graham is behind Positively Davidson?  Not necessarily, but it is a number of coincidences .  So, you can take those coincidences and Commissioner Graham's non-answer for what it is worth.

The Positively Davidson site does appear to be reaching a milestone of sorts as it approaches 1000 likes.  Per the below, the content of the site is possibly about to change, so we'll see if the non-political tone changes with it as Davidson enters the heart of election season.

A shadow Town Attorney for Davidson Town Hall?

That's what one would believe after reviewing the results of a recent public records request on former Davidson long-time Town Attorney, Rick Kline.  At least that would be the case when it comes to real estate transactions involving the town.

Regular readers of aShortChronicle will know that before he resigned his position with the town in 2015 (effective June 30, 2016), Mr Kline's position as Town Attorney and the conflicts that presented with his private practice representing developers was a hot topic for this blog.

This list of conflicts was problematic enough that Mr Kline even mentioned them as part of his comments when the position was handed over to current Town Attorney, Cindy Reid.  Below is an excerpt from a May 2016 column penned for the Herald Weekly and re-posted here.  That column covered why aShortChronicle covers what it does.  When it came to conflicts of interest, Mr Kline was the example.

"Some of those columns were down in the weeds on the state law governing exactly what is a conflict.  Others covered specific examples – more than one involving the long time Davidson town attorney, Rick Kline.  Those columns in particular seemed to strike a nerve.  Kline announced his retirement a few months ago, and his replacement was announced at the May 10th Board meeting.  The town’s Affordable Housing  Coordinator, Cindy Reid, will be stepping into the Town Attorney role.  At the meeting, as Kline was complementing the town’s selection of Reid as his replacement, it was interesting to hear him add “unlike me, she doesn’t have any potential conflicts out there.”"

That was in May of 2016.  So, it was really very surprising to see the results of a recent public records request through June 1st 2017 showing Mr Kline still very much engaged with Davidson Town Hall - particularly when it comes to real estate transactions.

The request which ran up to June 1st, 2017 shows invoices from Kline to the town for work done every month except December 2016 since his "retirement". Per a separate email from Town Hall, Davidson has "paid Rick Kline $10,453 since July 1, 2016 for projects related to the planning department, town attorney, and real estate".

In March and April of this year, that planning/real estate work was around the controversial Beaty Street RFP project and selling public land to an unincorporated group called Davidson Development Partners or DDP.

One $400 charge on April 6th was particularly interesting.  It's for a conference call with the Beaty Street developer.  The email record sheds more light on that meeting.  At about noon on April 6th, Assistant Town Manager Dawn Blobaum contacted Kline asking him to attend on short notice and meet with the developer's attorney because they were asking questions Blobaum couldn't answer.

What makes this interesting is it shows Kline's close involvement in pushing this project forward.  Just a little over 6 weeks later Kline was called to Davidson Town Hall as a witness of sorts for the project to refute activists' claims that the parcel should be used as a park.  That story and video can be seen in this post titled "Beaty Street: Lawyers, threats, and karma at Davidson Town Hall".  The public records request did not include Kline's invoice to the Town for any work done in May because, again, the request only went through June 1st and that invoice likely had not arrived yet.  It would be interesting to know if Kline paid for that testimony or for preparing for it?

If all of that doesn't bother citizens enough regarding Mr Kline's continued involvement at Davidson Town Hall after his "retirement" from official Town Attorney duties, the gray area continues involving his private practice helping developers as well.

In this single public records request, aShortChronicle counted no less than four private sector projects Kline is working in Davidson.  Three of these are unannounced at this point.  The one that is public is The Summit at River Run.  aShortChronicle will be working on stories for the other three as they develop.

The breadth and depth of this continued involvement by the former Town Attorney in development projects is important.  It should bother readers because of the obvious chumminess between Mr Kline and the town staff particularly in the Planning Department - the department that has very direct impact on decisions impacting Mr Kline's private sector clients.  The public records request is riddled with banter and jokes with one exchange being particularly telling.

On September 1st, 2016 Kline asked for a quick 15 minute meeting with Town Planning staff either that day or the next.  It was regarding the Summit at River Run project mentioned previously.  Planning Director Jason Burdett responded "Just like a developer.  Always wanting to meet with no notice!  How's 1130?"   To that joking comment Kline replied "Perfect!  And thanks for the compliment."

The saying "fox in the henhouse" comes to mind when one sees this kind of thing, and that is not good - not good at all.  But let's be clear, that is not the the fault of the "fox".  That is the fault of the Davidson Town Board who left the door to the henhouse wide open.

#DavidsonElection2017: After filing, the initial reading of the tea leaves says...

Who would have thought Davidson would end up being this year's ground zero for "most interesting elections to watch" in North Mecklenburg, but that's exactly how things are shaping up after the close of the filing period last Friday.

Both Huntersville and Cornelius have uncontested races for Mayor.  Mayor John Aneralla is seeking re-election in Huntersville.  In Cornelius, current Commissioner Woody Washam is unopposed seeking the Mayor's spot since current current Mayor Chuck Travis decided to not try for another term.  All of the remaining incumbent Commissioners in both towns filed for re-election except for Commissioner Rob Kidwell in Huntersville.  That means each of those boards are guaranteed one new face, but to get more an incumbent has to lose.  That's always a hard thing to do.

In Davidson, things couldn't be more different this time around.

Three candidates are vying for Mayor (John Woods, Rusty Knox, and Laurie Venzon).  This will definitely be Mayor Woods's biggest electoral challenge since becoming Mayor a decade ago.

Both Knox and Venzon are well known names in Davidson politics.  Rusty Knox comes from local political family, and he is well known in his own right as a musician.  Importantly, in recent years he has been leading the charge against many of Town Hall's most unpopular ambitions.  Venzon served previously as Mayor Pro Tem on the Board and is familiar with how Town Hall operates.  Between the two of them, the challenger best able to coalesce the "Not John Woods" vote and eat into Wood's loyal base, stands to take this contest.  However, if that doesn't happen, in a three way race Woods could squeak by with likely less than 50% of the total vote.

On the Commissioners side, things are no less chaotic.  This race has turned into a major contest with thirteen candidates filing for five spots.  Typically, such a large number of candidates is due to some known open seats going into filing.  Open seats where an incumbent doesn't file for re-election attract candidates because of the possibility of getting a seat without having to knock off a sitting Commissioner.  Going into the filing period that wasn't the case in Davidson.  All of the incumbents were mum on their intentions, so many assumed all would file for re-election. Ultimately, though two incumbents did not file - Mayor Pro Tem Beth Cashion and Commissioner Brian Jenest.  While there were rumors out there that these two might not file they were never confirmed, and ultimately having two Commissioners not file was a surprise to many.

So what caused the large number of challengers if it wasn't known open seats?  Issues and controversy, that's what.

It looks like a long simmering discontent with Town Hall finally boiled over and that spurred the large number of candidates with only a few of the challengers being well known names.  Incumbents Jim Fuller, Rodney Graham, and Stacey Anderson filed for re-election, but they are outnumbered by 10 challengers.  Due to controversies over the past two years that have emanated from Town Hall like the Catalyst Project, the Rural Area Plan mass rezoning, and most recently the Beaty Street RFP, any incumbent is probably at risk with Graham and Anderson more so this time due to their recent Beaty Street vote.  Of the three, Jim Fuller is probably in the safest position because he has been on the right side of these contentious issues much more often than not.

The dynamics of this race will be interesting.  With the real possibility of a 4-5 new faces on the Board and so many candidates to choose from, voters will have their work cut out for them.  If a solid slate of candidates comes together to challenge the remaining incumbents, or four challengers plus maybe Fuller, that could leave the remaining incumbents and challengers to resort to single shot voting to have a chance at getting on the new board.

aShortChronicle had previously told readers in this post from 2015 that single shot voting was a way to super charge your vote and help break the grip of incumbents.  This time around those incumbents may be the ones who need to use it.

Beaty Street vote: the fix was in before the meeting started

aShortChronicle has obtained the results of a public records request confirming what most people thought after last week's Beaty Street RFP vote.

The "votes" were in fact counted prior to the meeting.

The records request shows a flurry of activity the evening before the vote and the morning of to ensure the development team and staff supporting the project had the votes needed.  These emails show Assistant Town Manager Dawn Blobaum acting as the go-between for the DDP team and the Town Board

Readers will remember that on the Friday before the vote, the town meeting agenda presented an option that had removed the affordable housing component. Then on Monday it became known that was being replaced in favor of a payment in lieu option for that component.

On Tuesday, Commissioners Stacey Anderson, Rodney Graham, and Brian Jenest voted to support a new Luminous option that had on-site AH back in the plan.

So, what happened?

Public records show the following timeline:

Monday, July 10

9:56pm - In an email to the rest of the development team copying Dawn Blobaum, mention is made of nearly having the Beaty Street decision pulled from the agena "again".  It is also stated that "we believe we have reached a consensus with a majority of Commissioners" (emphasis added)

(Note: No emails show how this "consensus" was reached.)

9:58pm - DDP sends email to Dawn Blobaum with new plan that puts on-site affordable housing back in the proposal.

(Note: That is just 2 minutes after the first email.)

Tuesday, July 11

7:02am - Blobaum sends Commissioners the new plan with this request.  "Please let us know if you can support this tonight.

7:32am - Commissioner Stacey Anderson replies "I can support this."

7:36am - Commissioner Rodney Graham replies "Ditto".

7:55am - Commissioner Brian Jenest responds "I support the current proposal."

(Note: There is no comment from Commissioners Beth Cashion and Jim Fuller in the emails.  Both Cashion and Fuller voted "no" on this issue Tuesday evening.)

In these emails Commissioners Graham and Anderson also made other comments.  Graham asked for clarification of possible County support for parks in this area of Davidson, but said his support wasn't "contingent" on getting that update.  Anderson expressed concern for staff's ability to "support the effort that it will take to move this forward including the amount of anticipated public interest".

Later that same day, Commissioners Anderson, Graham, and Jenest stuck with their statements supporting the project - proving that what happened Tuesday evening was little more than kabuki theater.

Filing period half-time report for Davidson electoral contests

At the midway point in the two week filing period, this year's election in Davidson is setting up to be the most competitive in many years.

There will be a real race for Mayor with 3 candidates in the mix - all of them totally viable from an electoral standpoint.  On the Commissioners side of the ballot, 8 candidates have already filed.

Incumbents Mayor John Woods and Commissioners Rodney Graham and Stacey Anderson have filed for re-election.  The other incumbent Commissioners, Beth Cashion, Jim Fuller, and Brian Jenest have declined to answer when previously asked whether or not they will seek to stay on the Board.  (They were not asked again for this post as the public will find out soon enough anyway.)

The incumbents face a slew of challengers which will create interesting dynamics in the two different races.

So far, Mayor Woods faces Rusty Knox and Laurie Venzon.  Knox is very well known around town and has been leading the charge over the past couple of years against some of the unpopular ideas emanating from Town Hall.  Venzon is a former Commissioner seeking to return to the Board in the top spot as Mayor.  The dynamic, and danger from the challengers' perspective, in a three way race is that the challengers split the anti-incumbent vote and the incumbent squeaks by.

As an example, in a two way head to head race against an unpopular incumbent, it would seem likely either Knox or Venzon would beat Woods handily - say 60% to 40%.  However, in a three way race if Knox and Venzon split the anti-Woods vote and Woods's share of the vote is solid, then Woods could stay in office winning 40%, 30%, 30%.  In this scenario one of the challengers has to win an overwhelming share of the anti-incumbent vote.

On the Commissioner's race several new faces are on the ballot already.  There is also the distinct possibility of 1 or more "open seats".  In Davidson, all 5 Commissioners are always up for election at-large.  The term "open seat" just means an incumbent has decided to not seek re-election.  When that happens it attracts more challengers because it is guaranteed there will be a new face to fill each open seat.

Beating incumbents is always hard to do, but in this election, the incumbents have supported various unpopular projects in varying degrees over the past two years.  Between the real possibility of open seats and this incumbent unpopularity the dynamic of the race can change dramatically.  The top five vote getters make the Board, and this race is shaping up to be close with the potential of an anti-incumbent wave.

However, just like things can change in the second half of a Davidson Wildcats basketball game, we will have to wait and see what happens next week in the second half of the filing period.

The buzzer sounds and filing closes Friday, July 21st at noon.

Big meetings, big decisions, big controversy on docket in Mooresville and Davidson this coming week

Big development related decisions are on the agendas for Mooresville/Davidson on Monday/Tuesday this coming week, and each is likely to yield some controversy.

Social media sites are encouraging people to attend and show their displeasure with the Lake Davidson development rezoning request in Mooresville on Monday and with the Beaty Street RFP developer selection in Davidson on Tuesday.  See here and here for the details on each.

Citizens opposed to both projects have been working diligently - pursuing any and all options to derail these large scale projects that will occur in close proximity to each other, on similar propose6thd timelines, on already overcrowded NC115.  To date, those efforts appear to have fallen largely on deaf ears at local Town Halls.

Enough shenanigans have certainly come out of those halls of power to have earned officials the ire of the people they supposedly represent.  See here, here, here, and  here for examples.

aShortChronicle has received indications that both meetings could see some surprises as activists pull out all the stops before potential votes that could change this portion of the Lake Norman area from bucolic small-town America to Birkdale on steroids.

Stay tuned as this story unfolds over the next few days.

Save Davidson's level of organization peaking as election season begins

The Save Davidson activist group is getting more organized by the day it seems.

Originally started as a Facebook group focused solely on the Beaty Street RFP, the Facebook group quickly expanded and now boasts over 1100 members.  That's a tremendous representation and reach for a town the size of Davidson.  In addition to hosting several nature walks on the town owned Beaty Street property, conducting flyer handouts, and coordinating information sessions at homes around town, the organization has just expanded its web presence as well by launching SaveDavidson.org .

As a show of the dedication and research capacity this group is capable of harnessing, a 100 page dossier on the history of the Beaty property and the RFP process was posted to the new website.  Check it out here.

When a group gets this organized and this active, it is a game changer when it comes to local politics.  Look at WidenI77.org for a comparison.  While that group hasn't stopped the I77 HOT lanes project - yet - it has had a tremendous impact on our local elections over every election cycle since 2013.  It's very arguable the anti-toll group's efforts and the other groups it spawned cost the governorship of a sitting incumbent at the state level.  That is in addition to the impact the movement has had on the makeup of the Town Boards in Huntersville and Cornelius.

With "Save Davidson", it looks like a similar phenomenon is in the works in our local college town.

A big part of the reason for the saying "you can't fight Town Hall" is that Town Hall (or government in general) has a whole staff whose job it is to promote the "official" point of view.  It is hard for part time activists to compete against that.  When average citizens get organized and leverage the time and talents of many, it changes that dynamic.  The balance of power between activists and the local government shifts.

Election season starts Friday with the opening of the filing period for candidates.  The Save Davidson group is peaking at the right moment to truly have an impact on the outcome.  The key will be which candidates does it get behind and which ones it opposes.

Mobility Plan RFP underway

Davidson has another RFP underway, but unlike the Beaty Street RFP which has caused a lot of controversy, this one hopes to address an issue many (maybe even most) can agree on - Mobility.

The Mobility Plan RFP was posted to the town website with a date of June 12th.   Responses are expected by June 30th.

While Davidson has done a lot of mobility related studies in recent years including the Walks and Rolls Plan and various downtown parking studies (3 since 2011 by aShortChronicle's count), this RFP is for putting together an overall guide around mobility similar to the Town Comprehensive Plan.

"The Davidson Mobility Plan will propose transportation enhancements, programs, development policies, and projects to enhance connectivity for all modes of transportation in town. This plan will also evaluate and incorporate traffic management strategies / programs, evaluate car / bike sharing programs and investigate other innovative transportation solutions. This plan will serve as Davidson’s comprehensive transportation plan and be used as a guiding document for mobility as the town grows. Projects recommended as a result of the Davidson Mobility Plan will be prioritized and funding will need to be determined and allocated."

According to the town, unlike the Beaty Street RFP which was initially sent to a pre-selected group of developers, this RFP went to a wide audience.  According to a response from town staff
"no firms received the Davidson Mobility Plan RFP directly.  It was listed on the NC Planning List Serv, the town’s website, and Charlotte's RFP website."

As for a tentative timeline for vendor selection, the Town "will select a vendor 2-3 weeks after receiving the applications. This may change depending on the number of applications received and NCDOT timelines."

The plan is expected to cost $125,000 with $25,000 coming from the Town of Davidson as local match funding and $100,000 from the CRTPO / UPWP.  The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is a Federal program administered locally via the CRTPO that doles out money from the FTA.  (No, more obscure transportation planning acronyms could not be put into that sentence.) 

As is typical for Davidson, the plan covers way more than automobile mobility.  As a nod to that fact, the order of the sections in the requested response is as follows: Pedestrian Mobility, Bicycle Mobility, Mass Transit, Roadways, Parking.

There is also a section for "emerging technologies". for covering things such as:
• Additive manufacturing (3D printing)
• Advanced analytics
• Automated vehicles
• Hyperloop
• Infrastructure inspection robots
• Innovative concepts for protecting pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists
• The Internet of Things
• On-demand ride services (transportation network companies)
• Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
• Pedestrian Safety and Promotion

Davidson has a long history of spending money on things of questionable value for the town.  While the overall concept of a Mobility Plan seems like a good idea, this last section provides ample opportunity for that unfortunate tradition to continue.  Can anyone else hear Davidson Commissioners justifying "infrastructure inspection robots" or an "unmanned aircraft system" to monitor the Town greenway network?

As with all of these types of things, Davidson says it wants lots of public input and the RFP requires input sessions and input from stakeholder groups as part of the plan buildout.  However, as has been seen with the Beaty Street RFP, saying the Town wants public input and listening to and accepting that input can be very different things.

First Candidate out of the gate for Davidson Commissioner is newcomer Sam Weaver

So, Davidson finally has its first candidate for the Board of Commissioners race this November.

aShortChronicle has been periodically asking the incumbents if any of them plan to run for reelection, and so far none have taken the opportunity to commit one way or the other.  Today however, the race officially started with political newcomer Sammy Weaver announcing his candidacy on Facebook Tuesday morning.

Announcement begins below.

Hello, my fellow Davidson Citizens! Thank you for this warm welcome. I am very happy to be here with so many new friends! I am here today to announce my intention to seek one the nominations for Commissioner of the Town of Davidson. Over the next few months, I will challenge myself, go out into public, speak and introduce myself to as many Davidson residents as possible. I will listen and more importantly, pay attention. And for the ones who have been more vocal than others, I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR!!! All I ask from you is to continue to be LOUD and maybe, maybe someone will hear. I know I will. I am here to serve the community and ONLY the community.  

I wanted to be brief but here are things that I am and are NOT. 

I am a Husband,
I am a Father,
I am a Veteran,
I am a Millennial, 
I am a Davidson Resident. 

I am NOT a politician,
I am NOT a developer,
I am NOT a lawyer,
I am NOT a builder,
I am NOT corruptible. 

My Slogan - “Roots Not Roads” 

This slogan is very important to me; it isn’t about anti-development or against growth. It is about establishing roots within our community, our home the Town of Davidson, and slow but important growth (similar to an Oak Tree) that benefits the community as a whole and not my self-interests (Roads, High Density Development, Compromising values, etc.). 
startled Stay Tuned for more information “On the Issues” and how we will address them together.  

Vote for Sam “Dream” Weaver (Just Like the Song)
“Roots Not Roads” 


Official filing begins on July 7th at noon.

Mi-Connection subsidy drop stalls in new budget

The long march towards profitability for Mi-Connection appears to be stalling.

On Tuesday, the Town of Davidson sent out a release on the municipally owned cable company providing the latest numbers and projections for next year's budget.  In FY2018 Mooresville and Davidson will have to pony up $2,931,038 to subsidize the company.

Under the current agreement with Mooresville, Davidson pays a maximum of $1,000,000 per year in subsidy and anything over that based on the Town's 30% ownership percentage accrues with Mooresville.  If there is good news in the current numbers it's that the Davidson's share for just the current year is below the $1,000,000 mark.  30% of $2,931,038 equals $879,311.  However, Davidson will still pay a $1,000,000 subsidy this year due to past accruals on its Mooresville credit card.

Even though it doesn't help Davidson's actual budget this year, that annual amount under $1,000,000 is the lowest since Mi-Connection first went into the red back in FY2010 when Davidson owed just $181,000.  After that year the deficits and subsidies exploded.  All told, including the upcoming FY2018 budget, Davidson will have subsidized Mi-Connection a total of over $11.5 million over the years.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that the a annual drop in overall subsidy appears to have stalled going into FY2018.  aShortChronicle delved into its email archives for these annual budget announcements from the Town to compile the below chart.

Notice, the projected drop in overall subsidy of just $118,636.  That's a significantly smaller drop than in recent years.  The announcement from the Town did not offer a reason for this slowdown going into FY2018.  aShortChronicle also noticed that previous announcements included the previous year numbers as well to highlight the significant year over year drops.  The announcement for FY2018 did not, a possible sign this much smaller drop was not lost on the Town either.

If the pace of improvement had continued at the previous rate, Davidson was in for a bit of a "windfall" in coming years as the annual subsidies would have dropped well below the $1 million mark and the Mooresville credit card was paid off.  That would start freeing up money for tax relief or other needs.

Now, it looks like that date is put off at least another year.

Davidson Commissioners to send ironic letter opposing Mooresville's Lake Davidson neighborhood

"The one thing I don't see in here is this whole concern about the intensity of the neighborhood - how big it is; how many houses it is; how many people you're trying to put in that space compared to the R3 zoning it was.

It seems a little bit like it's not strong enough.  It's like we have some concerns, but basically, we don't like it at all."

That was Davidson Commissioner Stacey Anderson referring to a draft letter put together by Planning Director Jason Burdett on behalf of the Board.  At last week's Board meeting the Board discussed sending the letter to Mooresville expressing their concerns around the proposed Lake Davidson neighborhood in Mooresville's ETJ right on Davidson's border.  Anderson's comment came as the discussion opened.  See video at minute 160 here.

Commissioners spent several minutes critiquing the Mooresville project.  There were questions and concerns about Mooresville's process, by right versus conditional zoning, and whether this plan fit within the stated plans for the area.  Mayor Woods told of speaking to area land owners and there being little detail on the actual future plan at this point.  They also danced around the fact that it's a bit unusual for one local Board to offer direct criticism or even suggestions to another elected Board.

However, what may have been the most unusual thing of all was the level of seemingly unnoticed irony in this discussion considering that what Mooresville is doing is effectively the same thing as what Davidson just recently did itself with its mass RAP rezoning. To allow for more density in major portions of its rural area, Davidson uptiered the zoning of 1100 acres from Rural to Neighborhood Edge, Neighborhood General, or Neighborhood Services - all of which allow much more density than Rural.

During the RAP debate, many of the concerns expressed by Davidson's citizens were the exact same ones expressed by Davidson's Commissioners in the discussion about the Lake Davidson neighborhood.  One has to wonder if Davidson Commissioners could hear themselves as they expressed them.  Did they hear the irony?

When the citizens expressed them about the RAP, Davidson Commissioners rammed through their plan anyway.  Those same Commissioners shouldn't be surprised if they get the same treatment from Mooresville on June 5th.

Beaty Street: Lawyers, threats, and karma at Davidson Town Hall

Davidson Town Hall was the set for some high drama last Tuesday - drama worthy of an episode of Matlock or even the climactic scene from a John Grisham novel.  The action included:

• Three very southern lawyers sitting around a Town Hall conference table sort of sizing each other up while being unfailingly polite.
• A threat to clear the room when the gallery got a little vocal.
• A closing argument one-liner that will forever live in Davidson's collective memory.

The scene starts at the 1hr16min mark of this video from Town Hall.  It has already shattered records for the number of views of anything Davidson Town Hall has on file.

In what appeared to be an orchestrated event intended to finally quash opposition to Town Hall's plans for the 19 acre Beaty Street property, former Town Attorney Rick Kline was summoned to Davidson Town Hall on Tuesday as an "expert witness" of sorts.  Kline was the attorney when the Town of Davidson bought the majority of the Beaty Street land back in 1985.  He should know if the land was intended as a park, right?

Over several minutes of questioning, mostly by Commissioner Jim Fuller, himself an attorney and former judge, Kline recounted the history of the purchase as he remembered it and according to "his file".  Meanwhile, there's a gentleman in the back of the room who has stood multiple times throughout it all as if asking to be recognized.  Who was he?

As the story began to unfold, Kline said he didn't remember the land being purchased with any "strings attached", either "legally or non-legally".  He said that in spite of his own documents referencing a park multiple times.

At that point the attendee in the back of the room who had stood speaks up and says, "I just wanted to let you know I'm here.  I'm Ralph Clontz.  I was there."  To that, the room erupts into applause. Who is Ralph Clontz?  Well, he turns out to be none other than Ralph Clontz III, the grandson of Venie Clontz who sold the property to Davidson over 30 years ago.

Kline proceeds to say all the documents that mention a park were from him as if to parse the fact that references to a park were just his and that there was no obligation for a park because he didn't remember it that way.  That of course flew in the face of at least one document aShortChronicle showed readers in this piece from Tuesday AM.  That document had been circulating  on social media for days.  The crowd grew restless at these conflicting statements by Mr Kline coming on behalf of the Town's position.

In response to the restless audience, one can hear Commissioners tell the crowd to settle down. One of them blurts out "we'll clear the room if we have to!!"  (Has that actually ever happened in Davidson - a real threat to throw the public out of Town Hall???)

Doing the right thing, Commissioner Fuller asks if the Board would "suspend its rules" of normal procedure and allow Mr Clontz to speak.  Having little choice with a room full of people, they allow it.  If the room had been empty who knows what would have as happened.  One can easily see Mr Clontz being asked to "set up an appointment with staff" to discuss in detail - a tactic sometimes employed to keep uncomfortable discussion out of the Board Room.

Instead, the public heard several minutes of quote unquote "testimony" that directly contradicted the Town's star witness, Mr Kline.

Mr Clontz, now the third attorney in the discussion, recounted clearly knowing his grandmother intended to sell that property to Davidson for use as a park.  Saying :  "I know.  It was important to her.  She believed that this was going to be used for a park."  When describing the negotiations between his grandmother and the Town, Ralph Clontz told of the sale being at "somewhat of a discount", saying "she was trying to do something very wonderful for the Town of Davidson - that being a park.  That's what we thought was going to happen."

There were a few more minutes of discussion, then Mr Clontz says  "I just hate for my grandmother to have been so generous and then...poof."

To that Commissioner Jenest interjects that all the proposals discussed include at least some park uses.  After acknowledging that as "good to know" Mr Clontz goes back to the original intent of the sale with this closing line.

"You can decide to ignore the wishes of a little old lady who was very generous if you want to, but...(dramatic pause)...that's some bad karma."

Being legally required and following the original intent of something aren't necessarily the same things.  So, it looks like the Town of Davidson has a decision to make - do what's legal or do what's right.

Whichever one it chooses, the jury (aka the citizens) will be watching closely.

100s of multufamily units coming to Potts Street per application

The hurricane of development pounding Davidson just went from a Category 3 to a Category 4, and it unfortunately shows no signs of stopping.

An application dated Monday 5/19 showed up on the town website this week - exactly when is unclear - for something simply name the "Potts Development".   The application proposes 19 townhomes and 276 multi-family units.  Whether those would be condos or apartments is also unclear, but recent development patterns would say apartments are likely.

The developer is Crescent Communities, the development spinoff of Duke Energy.  The rest of the development team includes all too familiar names on big developed projects in Davidson.  Local attorney Susan Irvin filed the application, and once again the firm of Davidson Commissioner Brian Jenest did the land planning.

Per the application, this appears to be a "by right" development which likely means Davidson Commissioners won't vote on it.

Also per the application, the traffic impact analysis is underway, but one can be sure the TIA will say impact from this project is being "mitigaged" by both the Potts Sloan Beaty corridor an the reconfiguring of the Potts/115 intersection currently being planned.  Both of those projects are being made possible with I77 HOT lanes "bonus allocation" dollars.  Incidentally, Commissioner Jenest has been a staunch supporter of that controversial effort to expand I77 with the toll lanes that also generated those bonus dollars.

aShortChronicle noticed something interesting about this plan when looking at the pictures that came with the application.  They made us ask the question "why does this development not use the entire property?"  Readers will notice the bottom several acres next to the BMP pond are not being developed.

Why would that be?  Developers tend to use every square inch of land to squeeze out more profits.

A close examination of the main parcel in question appears to give the answer.  When bringing that parcel up in Polaris, it is 00320511A and 00320511B. Part A is in Davidson and Part B is in Cornelius.  Part A is zoned by Davidson as Village Infill which allows this kind of high intensity development.  Part B is zoned by Cornelius as Neighborhood Residential which only allows 2-4 residences per acre per the Cornelius planning ordinance.

From Cornelius Zoning Map

It would seem, the correct way to look at this is that Cornelius's zoning has saved Davidson from this project being 50% bigger and creating a true traffic disaster at this entrance to town - at least for now.   Davidson is allowing this while Cornelius would not. Remember that the next time you hear Davidson Town Hall crowing about the awards won by the town Planning Department.