West Branch "moonscape" on Davidson's Tuesday agenda

For months, heavy machinery has been hard at work grading the old Westmoreland Farm into what will become the new West Branch neighborhood.

However, in recent weeks large numbers of trees have come down to make way for the new project, and that has really gotten local residents' attention. It has become crystal clear this new neighborhood will have a negative impact on the town's Greenway and residential tree buffers for existing homes, and that has people up in arms.

What used to be dense groves of trees has become steaming piles of compost.  What used to be a walk in the woods, will soon become a walk next to a road.  What used to be a view of nature will soon be a view of other houses.  What used to be...

Davidson Commissioners will hear an update on this project at their Tuesday work session.  See agenda here.  The meeting starts at 6pm, but this is the last item on the agenda so arriving a bit late will still allow you to see the update in person.

Sound of "progress" at new West Branch neighborhood

Grading at the new 306 home West Branch neighborhood off of Davidson Concord Road has been underway for quite a while now. However recently the tree cutting that was inevitable has finally begun.

This 3 minute video was taken on Saturday.

Click here to play.

Damaged Old Growth
Tree

New view from greenway,

piles of trees 

Now, take a look at this.  The below picture is the approved master plan for this neighborhood.  The picture below it were taken from about where the red X is.  The area within the circle is the upper right side of the first two pictures and directly across the access road cut in the second two.  The area in the red circle is forest, and it will be going as well.

The approvals for this project required only one vote of the Davidson Board, and it wasn't even for the project itself.   The project was "by right".   The one vote Commissioners did have was for something called a historic viewshed at the other end of the property which is largely unbuildable floodplain.  However, the Board could have leveraged that vote to protect more of the land.

They didn't.  Now we have this, and this is why November's election is so important.

Sediment pond drains onto greenway at West Branch construction site

With construction grading now in full swing at the West Branch construction site on Davidson-Concord Road, we now have the first "unintended consequence" impacting residents - albeit a minor one compared to the traffic problems to come once the neighborhood is built out.

From the Town:

"The Town of Davidson is actively working to repair a section of the greenway that was flooded by water overflowing sediment ponds. The repairs are taking place along the section of the greenway located between Robert Walker Drive and Davidson Concord Road.

The Davidson Public Works Department and Lennar Carolinas, LLC are aware of the situation and are actively rerouting the water by creating a swale from the sediment ponds to a stream channel. The water redistribution process will take two to five days. The greenway should dry out and be fully passable by April 22.

The safety of our residents is our primary concern and we apologize for the inconvenience. If you have any questions regarding the progress of the repair, please contact the Public Works Department at 704-940-9638 or email Jesse Bouk at jbouk@townofdavidson.org ."

Considering it hadn't rained for several days by the time this release was published, it's hard to know exactly how bad the mess was originally, but here are some pictures as of Thursday evening.

It appears the water flowing from the sediment pond on the south end of the West Branch property did not flow into the river bed as expected, but instead flowed into the part of the field not being developed and the across the greenway.  The dirt swale was in place to divert any more water by the time the Town notified residents of the problem.

This happened after a relatively minor rain storm. One wonders if they are taking grading advise from that landscaping management sage, Carl Spakler from Caddyshack. and thinking "the heavy stuff"  isn't coming down anytime soon.

"Coconut Telegraph" wrong on WestBranch? We'll have to wait and see.

You can hear it on the coconut telegraph
Can't keep nothin' under their hat 
You can hear 'em on the coconut telegraph 
Sayin' who did dis and dat 
Dis and dat dis and dat
        - Jimmy Buffet "Coconut Telegraph"

Rumors have been swirling the past couple weeks about possible delays in starting the WestBranch neighborhood off Davidson-Concord Road on Davidson's east side.  So, in the interest of passing along information aShortChronicle did some checking this past week.

One possible source of delay could have been getting approvals from Duke Energy because the project abuts the easement for Duke's transmission lines that cross the Westmoreland Farm where WestBranch will be built.  Duke can be a real stickler in protecting its assets.  Just ask anyone who has had them cut down trees on and near private property how reasonable they can be, and you will find that Duke protects its right of way very aggressively.

Meredith Archie with Duke's media relations department had this to say.

"Thanks for reaching out on the West Branch development project as it relates to Duke Energy's transmission lines. There are two transmission corridors that cross the West Branch.  Duke Energy is currently working with the project engineers to ensure compliance along these transmission rights-of-way."

Following up on this with Lennar Homes and ColeJenest&Stone - the developer and designer of the project - David Nelson from Lennar had this to say.

"WestBranch has received Master Plan approval from the Town of Davidson, and we are now moving forward with construction document review by the Town and Mecklenburg County.  As part of that review, as with any project with utility rights of way, we are coordinating with Duke and others.  We anticipate approvals for the community in a normal timeframe and look forward to making WestBranch a vibrant part of Davidson."

The town website indicates the Master Plan was approved on August 3rd.

So, it looks like if there are any delays in starting WestBranch related to these easements, they would be minor or none at all. Meaning, 306 new homes are on the way soon to Davidson's east side.

The "Coconut Telegraph" appears to have been wrong this time.

More questions about the West Branch TIA

aShortChronicle has learned that the town has questions about the Transportation Impact Analysis completed back in March for the massive West Branch project designed by Commissioner Brian Jenest's firm.

Those questions go above and beyond what we raised in this piece, and the Town has questions out to Ramey Kemp, the firm that did the TIA, for more data before it can be accepted.

One of the main concerns we raised was that the baseline data for peak traffic did not completely cover the hours associated with pickup and dropoff times for local schools.

aShortChronicle has since learned that the hours  used in the study do not appear to meet the town's clearly specified planning standard. The planning ordinance says...

"The trip generation counts shall be taken between 6 to to 9 AM and 4 to 7 PM to verify a local, more accurate trip rate."

The detailed trip counts in the submitted Ramey Kemp document only cover 7-9 AM and 400-630 PM.

The "staff" here at aShortChronicle pulled together the below analysis to show how this could miss a portion if the traffic related to the main CMS schools in the area.

This raises a couple of issues.

1.  The town parameters in the afternoon miss a portion of traffic related to the bell schedules.  Considering the number of trips generated as well as the potential for additional pedestrian activity, this is significant.

2.  The Ramey Kemp time frame missed a significant portion of the AM traffic for Hough High than if it followed the town ordinance.

As examples of why this is important, two of the most significant accidents in recent years at the Robert Walker/Davidson Concord intersection occurred during these "missed" time frames. One was the Mason Stewart pedestrian accident which occurred at 630am.  The other involved multiple Hough High School students in a rollover accident at this intersection which occurred just before 3pm.

Additional questions are out to the town on who chose Ramey Kemp to do this analysis.  The town ordinance says...

"All required traffic studies shall be conducted at the expense of the developer by an engineer retained by the town."

One would think the parameters for such a study would be clear.

Add to that these facts...

- the TIA only shows data capture for one and a half days to get a baseline 
- and those days started the day after a holiday (Presidents Day)
- and that day happened to be the day after one of only a couple winter weather events this past season (Feb 15th storm).

Pull all that together and one may get the idea the baseline data might not be all that representative of your typical day.

Stay tuned.  More certain to come on this one.

It's time to slow down the "Davidson-Concord Speedway"

If you’ve ever traveled across Davidson’s east side, you are probably familiar with Davidson-Concord Road or what could more accurately be described as the “Davidson-Concord Road Speedway”.  The stretch of that road from Highway 73 all the way up to the roundabout at Rocky River has become more dangerous as the area has grown, but the speed limit remains an alarming 55mph for most of it.  In fact the speed limit does not drop to 45 until under 2 tenths of a mile before the first of multiple pedestrian crosswalks.

The result is a situation where drivers regularly fly through these crossings putting pedestrians at undo risk.  It’s a situation that has long concerned residents and one long blown off by NCDOT who controls the road.  However, a series of videos that recently surfaced make it a situation the town and the state can no longer ignore.

In three videos taken in recent weeks, several mom’s captured multiple incidents occurring while waiting for the school bus at one of these crosswalks.  In the first video, numerous cars refuse to stop to let a girl cross the road.  In the second, multiple cars drive by a stopped school bus with lights flashing and its stop sign out.  The third video captures the chaotic scene of a car accelerating through the crosswalk at over 50pmh just to beat the students who have disembarked the bus and are beginning to cross the road.  It's harrowing stuff.

Google “Video Davidson-Concord Road Speedway” if you want to see for yourself.

All of this was captured right near the site of a serious accident that occurred three years ago this month when Davidson teenager Mason Stewart was critically injured when he was struck by a vehicle while crossing the road at the intersection of Robert-Walker and Davidson-Concord roads.

If something is not done to truly address the issue, it is just a matter of time before tragedy strikes again.

To that end, citizens are taking matters into their own hands and preparing to take their message to Davidson Town Hall.  Soon after the blog post containing those videos was posted, a Facebook invite was put out by Vallee Bubak of River Run encouraging people to attend Davidson’s May 10th Board meeting and speak out on the issue.

One of the commenters on that invite to town hall was Jennifer Stewart whose son was struck in that previous accident.  Stewart says as part of her comments that “despite all of our efforts with the Town of Davidson and the NCDOT, safety at the intersection hasn't improved.  I'm thankful for the flashing lights the town installed, but sadly they are ignored by most drivers.  I shudder to think how dangerous the intersection will become when the new development begins.”  That new development she mentions is the 306 unit West Branch neighborhood slated to be built right at the intersection where her son was injured.

In a follow up conversation for this story with Ms Stuart, she reiterated her appreciation for the things the town has done, but the fact remains that the speed limit is too fast and that makes the road too dangerous.  She pointed out that the next accident victim may not be nearly as lucky as her son.

The town needs to do more.  It can do more  The question is will it do more?  Now is the time to push the town to truly fight for a real solution to this safety hazard.

Davidson residents are encouraged to attend the May 10th Board meeting at 6pm and speak out on safety conditions on state maintained roads.  Those in the Bradford, Bailey Springs, and River Run neighborhoods are particularly encouraged to speak put on the issues along the “Davidson-Concord Road Speedway”

There were earlier indications the town planed to invite NCDOT to the meeting, but by deadline the town was not able to confirm if they would attend.  However, even if NCDOT does not show, citizens should plan to attend anyway.

Nothing says “this is important” to elected officials like a room full of concerned voters.

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

Media pressure mounts regarding "Davidson-Concord Speedway"

We broke the story here at aShortChronicle a couple of weeks ago regarding videos showing how truly dangerous Davidson-Concord Road has become for pedestrians.

That story has now caught the attention of other local media.

Wednesday night Fox46 ran the following story.

Click HERE for video.

Thursday, Time Warner Cable news had this piece.

Click HERE for video.

Also early Thursday, a press release was sent to local media from Vallee Bubak of Davidson.  It contained some interesting research.

-From 2008 - 2015 there have been a total of 112 reported accidents on the 2.39-mile stretch from Highway 73 to Rocky River Road.

-14 of those accidents (including the one that almost took my son's life) occurred at the intersection of Robert Walker Road).

-The current speed limit on this stretch of road is 55 mph and changes to 45 mph at Beaver Dam, although most northbound drivers (like the one who hit my son) choose to ignore or don't notice the change in speed limit.

-If the speed limit were lowered by 10mph, safety and driver reaction time would increase significantly and add less than 45 seconds to the drive time. 

The release goes on to say...

Results show that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reaches 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph. The average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact speed of 23 mph, 25% at 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph, 75% at 50 mph, and 90% at 58 mph. Risks vary significantly by age. For example, the average risk of severe injury or death for a 70‐year‐old pedestrian struck by a car travelling at 25 mph is similar to the risk for a 30‐year‐old pedestrian struck at 35 mph. 

All of this information and attention comes as

Davidson Commissioners recently swept through multiple approvals for the new West

Commissioner Jenest

Branch neighborhood at the intersection of Robert Walker Drive and Davidson-Concord Road. That's the neighborhood involving Commissioner Brian Jenest.

Click key word "West Branch" on the bottom of this post for the in depth coverage of those votes.

Those approvals and that neighborhood WILL make this area even more dangerous.

Commissioners have in the past contacted NCDOT about this road and "resolved" to do something about it.  To date nothing has caused NCDOT to bend.  Residents should plan on attending the 6pm Board meeting this coming Tuesday to ensure they follow through with getting this issue fixed.

Now that Davidson Commissioners have approved growth knowing it will make this situation worse, they have ownership and responsibility for resolving it.  To some degree, they also own any future accidents that occur in that area if they don't get it done.

More on West Branch rezoning weirdness....about those maps...

In addition to the hard to watch and confusing discussion about recusing Commissioner Brian Jenest from voting on a rezoning impacting his project, a second weird thing occurred on the West Branch rezoning request.

During the presentation about the request to reduce the size of the  project's commercial area, the Town tried to convince the audience that the request didn't even come from the project.  No, the town now wants residents to believe the request actually came from the town Planning Department.  On multiple occasions, Mayor John Woods and the town Planning Director made reference to such.

The problem?  That doesn't jive with recent facts or the history of how this project has unfolded on the Westmoreland Farm property.

Here's a the language from the zoning request public hearing on the town website when this came up in March.

"The Westmoreland family has requested a map amendment to the Planning Areas Map to reduce the size of the Neighborhood Services designation. The proposed amendment would designate +/-7.1 acres as Neighborhood General (previously designated as Neighborhood Services)."

As can be clearly seen, the Westmorelands requested this.  That was put on the town site just one month ago.  Now, the town wants the public to believe this originated with the town.

But that's not the most interesting thing that conflicts with this storyline.

Below are two maps.  The first is the West Branch plan submitted by Commissioner Jenest's firm.  The second is the map for the zoning change approved Tuesday night.

Notice that the size of the West Branch commercial area in the first map matches the smaller dark brown area on the second map.  The developer plan assumes this rezonig will go forward.  The larger light brown area on the second rezoning request map shows the commercial area prior to the request.

Now take a look at this map.  This is what's called a "bubble diagram".  It depicts what could be built on the Westmoreland Farm property.  It was sent to the town by ColeJenest&Stone way back in January 2015 - a full year before the West Branch project was submitted. This was before last year's planning ordinance rewrite passed in April.  Commissiner Jenest voted for the rewrite.

Notice the size of the Commercial area in this picture - 6.5 acres - much closer to the amount in the rezoning request than the 12 acres included in the April 2015 planning ordinance rewrite passed months after the bubble diagram was received.  In fact the entire West Branch project submitted in January 2016 looks similar to this "bubble diagram" - right down to the amount of open space.

If town staff wanted the commercial area to be smaller, if it was their idea, why did it not make it into the April 2015 rewrite?  Why did it not get recommended by staff for 9 months after the rewrite while other map amendments went through last fall?  Why did this not come up until the West Branch project - a project that involves a sitting Commissioner - submitted a rezoning request - a request that looks very much like the bubble diagram that Commissioner's firm put together a year earlier?

Incidentally, per a public records request made last year, just one week after the Planning Ordinance rewrite passed on April 15th, 2015 a representative of ColeJenest&Stone contacted the town with a number of questions about the property, saying...."We are working towards a schematic site plan for the Westmoreland property along Davidson-Concord Road and have a few questions/requests" .  The firm was already master planning the property - one week after the planning ordinance rewrite - a rewrite that impacted this property - passed.

It is unclear why the town felt the need to suddenly indicate this rezoning was all their idea.  What is clear is that having elected officials so heavily involved in the development business is messy.

West Branch rezoning passes. Conflict of interest discussion not pretty.

Tuesday night, in a not totally unsurprising move Davidson's Board unanimously passed the rezoning request for the new West Branch neighborhood which greatly reduced the size of the project's commercial area.

While one could have hoped the Board might have taken the opportunity to minimize the project's impact on pedestrian safety, they chose not too.

What was surprising was the discussion leading up to its passage.

Davidson's Board actually debated whether or not Commissioner Brian Jenest should be recused from voting on the rezoning. 

His firm, ColeJenest&Stone, is doing the project design!!! What was there to debate!?!?

If there was anything positive about that whole discussion it was that many more people than usual actually saw it in person. The room was pretty full and the governmental sausage making was on full display.

At one point commissioners were dancing around the meaning of the word "substantial".  As in "was the financial impact substantial enough to Commissioner Jenest to allow him to be recused?"

Commissioners wanted to know if it was substantial but none were willing to ask Jenest how much his firm was paid for the project.  Frankly, that’s a question that probably should have been asked.

In the end though, they did allow him to be recused.  As painful as it was to watch, at least they ended up in the the right place.

The Board should be able to do better on this kind of thing.

Here's hoping they eventually figure out how to do that.

West Branch Traffic Study leaves too many questions for pedestrian safety.

At the proposed West Branch neighborhood Public Information Session at Davidson Town Hall back in February, one of the hottest topics and biggest concerns from attendees was traffic.  Unfortunately, developers couldn't answer any hard questions on the subject at the time.  The required traffic study was still in the works.

Well, now the report is up on the town website.  It is dated March 15th.  See the full report here.

When asked earlier this week what the town thought of the study, town Planning Director, Jason Burdette had this to say.

"We’ve not had the opportunity to review the TIA yet. When we do, it will involve NCDOT since Davidson-Concord Road is state-maintained."

Considering that the Town Board is scheduled to vote next week on a rezoning request related to the project, we here at aShortChronicle wanted to take a look prior to that important vote.  Our staff, aka concerned citizens, jumped right into the document.

Here is the meat of it..

1. No safety improvements recommended for the area because of the West Branch project.

From the TIA...

"Based on the analysis results, minor impacts are expected by the proposed development. No queue issues are expected."

Really?!?!  Adding 306 houses - which is basically the size of the Bradford and Bailey Springs neighborhoods combined - will cause no impact.

2. The study also puts a price tag on safety. A roundabout was studied for the dangerous Robert-Walker/Davidson-Concord intersection, but it is too darned expensive.

From the TIA...

"Additional analysis intersection was performed using a roundabout as the traffic control at the intersection per discussions with the Town of Davidson. Analysis results that the single lane roundabout will operate efficiently under future build conditions. With a constant growth rate of 2%, the roundabout will operate effectively for 19 years before reaching capacity. Although the construction of a roundabout would accommodate future traffic needs, the conversion of this intersection to a roundabout is not recommended due to the high cost of construction, impact to neighboring properties, and the fact that no significant queues are expected at this intersection under build conditions as an unsignalized intersection."

This is a very dangerous intersection which had a near fatality involving a pedestrian just three years ago.  See here for that story.

However, citizens are to believe it's too expensive to fix for a development that will undoubtedly make it worse.

As for a roundabout impacting neighboring properties, that would only be River Run.  Here's what Mickey Pettus the president of the RR-POA had to say about it.

"I believe that our Association would strongly recommend a traffic light for that intersection to provide safe entry and exit of wheeled traffic to and from the West Branch and River Run. Alternatively, a roundabout is another means to accomplish the desired results.

We recognize the efforts of our Town Commissioners to provide a safer pedestrian crossing of Davidson-Concord at the intersection. But, with the increase of retail and residential wheeled traffic at the intersection, we need to concentrate on the safer management of those vehicles as well."

That sure doesn’t sound like making that intersection safer with a roundabout would be any kind of inconvenience, now does it?

So how did the authors of this TIA come to these conclusions?  Again, the "staff" here at aShortChronicle had some interesting findings.

1.  The "peak" hours for AM and PM traffic counts do not fully include the start and end times for nearby Hough High and Bailey Middle schools.  Thus, they likely are off somewhat.  The pedestrian accident mentioned in the above link occurred outside this window with a Hough student.

2.  While the traffic counts do include pedestrians and bicycle crossings, the counts are artificially low due to the times used.  Weekday rush hour is not when pedestrians are mostly out and about in this area.  Weekends would get significantly higher numbers.

3.  The study explicitly says no other approved developments in the area impact the study.  However the town is currently planning to push forward with the Bailey Springs park which could dramatically increase pedestrian activity in the entire area.

4.  There is some question about the extent of the greenway along the frontage of the new development along Davidson-Concord Rd.  If it does not fully cover the entire length of West Branch, that will significantly increase crossings of Davidson-Concord at Appollinaire and at Robert-Walker.

5.  Anecdotally, residents who stand out waiting for the school bus in that area also say the numbers of trucks counted seem low based on their daily experience.  These numbers will also be much higher during the years of buildout for West Branch.  That increase should be accounted for as well.

In summary, this traffic study and its recommendations do not appear to address the increased pedestrian safety issues caused by the scale of the West Branch neighborhood in this area.  Remediating these issues will need to be addressed at some point, and the cost should not be externalized by the developers onto the town's taxpayers.

Due to how this project has proceeded, Davidson Commissioners have limited opportunity to impact it.  The one major card they hold is the approval of the West Branch map amendment scheduled for this Tuesday.  Before they approve this map amendment, the safety concerns mentioned here or by other citizens need to be addressed.

You can contact the Town Board at board@townofdavidson.org to express your own concerns.

Deja Vu in Davidson on Conflicts of Interest

Close watchers of activities at Davidson Town Hall may experience a strange feeling of déjà vu at the upcoming town hall meeting where the new West Branch neighborhood on Davidson-Concord Rd  may be discussed. For the second time,  when the project does come up, Davidson Commissioner Brian Jenest is expected to seek recusal from voting on actions impacting the development where his firm ColeJenest&Stone serves as project designer.

As of this writing the agenda for the April 12th Board meeting has not been published, but it is expected to include a vote on a zoning map amendment significantly reducing the size of the proposed commercial area for the project.

One would certainly think Davidson’s Board would allow Jenest to recuse himself from a decision that directly benefits his project, but after what happened back in February when another decision related to the project came before the Board, one cannot be too sure.

In that previous decision, by a vote of 3-1, the remaining Davidson Board members forced Jenest to vote on changing the historic designation of a significant portion of the projects’ land.  Using rather convoluted reasoning Board members Graham, Fuller, and Anderson concluded that even though Jenest’s firm was working on the project, and that there could be consequences to the project if the historic designation change didn’t go through, they somehow decided it did not have financial impact to Jenest.

Only Commissioner Beth Cashion took the more common sense approach and voted to allow Jenest to be recused.  (To be fair, Jenest ultimately abstained, but abstaining without permission counts as a "yes" vote.)

In the interest of public faith in local government transparency, hopefully things will be different this second time around.

Unfortunately however, it’s not uncommon for the town to find itself in discussions about conflicts of interest.  Just last year, Commissioner Graham who is a developer and builder asked to be recused from a vote involving the town’s affordable housing ordinance.  As has been written about in previous columns, the outgoing town attorney, Rick Kline, has done a lot of work for developers in town over many years.  In 2015, he was asked by the Board to contact the state bar in relation to his activities particularly those involving the Bradford neighborhood.

In fact, after the February vote regarding the change in the historic designation on the Westmoreland Farm property, one town insider contacted me saying if Jenest was recused “for every project he has in Davidson, he would never vote on anything.”  While that’s a wee bit of an exaggeration, a quick look at the current projects on the town planning department website shows Jenest’s firm involved in no less than three current projects including West Branch.

It would be nice if local officials never put themselves in these situations, but sadly, that’s not always the case.

Now to be very, very clear, none of this in any way means any laws or rules have been broken on any projects.  The folks involved are all smart people who understand the rules and what exactly needs to be done to stay within the letter of the law.

At the same time, just strictly following the letter of the law can often leave the spirit of the law bruised and battered.  Board members shouldn’t have to go through the same kabuki theater every time there is a potential for conflict of interest.  It’s theater where Board members ask the town attorney to explain the rules. (They already know them.) The Board then finely parses the meaning of those rules. (Again, they already know them.) Finally, the Board attempts to read the mind of the member asking to be recused to see if they believe their fellow member who is stating he/she have a justifiable conflict. (The Amazing  Kreskin they are not.)

How about this?  If a member asks to be excused for what sounds like a reasonable reason surrounding a member’s financial interest, the Board should recuse that member.  If the voters think a member has been recused too many times, they’ll sort that out.

It would be great to see that approach implemented in Davidson starting with this pending West Branch vote.

This post originally appeared today in the Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com 

100% of public hearing speakers oppose West Branch rezoning!

Unfortunately, that 100% opposition came from a grand total of two, yes, only TWO people who showed up to speak Tuesday night.

That small turnout is a bit surprising considering how well attended the West Branch public information session was just last month.

The likelihood of a major change to the overall master plan due to the requested zoning change to the "neighborhood services" section is minimal.  That's due to how the underlying zoning was setup.  That also probably contributed to why so few people chose to show up.

In the end, the developer will likely get what they want.

Nonetheless, the speakers did raise some good points.

The first speaker pointed out that reducing the size of any future commercial development by more than 50% works against Davidson's goal of building walkable communities.  At under 5 acres the reduced site will likely never attract enough or the kinds of businesses to significantly reduce car trips.  (Regardless of size the Neighborhood Services designation doesn't allow a grocery or gas station, so that may be a foregone conclusion.)

The second speaker mentioned that the new site will also be placed in the front of the neighborhood and not necessarily act as an attractive entryway - drawing people into the neighborhood center.  The current shape of the neighborhood services prior to the requested change would do that.

The second speaker also brought up the possibility that the town might pursue better protection of the existing greenway next to the development as a condition of approving this rezoning.  Whether that's possible is unclear, but it would be nice to see the town push for that

What was interesting about both of these speakers is that they were relative newcomers to Davidson who live near the proposed development.  They were there on their own.

The "usual suspects" when it comes to development issues in town were nowhere to be found Tuesday night.

West Branch public hearing Tuesday March 8th...more conflict of interest questions on the way.

The public hearing for requested changes to the size of the commercial district in the proposed West Branch neighborhood on Davidson-Concord Rd will take place at Tuesday's Davidson Town Board meeting.

This issue came before the Planning Board at its meeting last month.  However, citizens should not expect the Town Board to take action on Tuesday.  Per town Planning Director, Jason Burdette,...

"The Planning Board did not take action. The public hearing for the map amendment is on the agenda Tuesday night. The Board will not take action without a recommendation from the PB, per the ordinance."

What this means is that if citizens have a real issue with the change, they have until next month to lobby elected officials.  However, due to the way this has played out opposing this change may be a moot point.  Opposing this change may just result in some funky looking townhomes as part of the project.

Per town planner Chad Hall...

"Based upon the current design, the map amendment would have bearing on three single family lots and 54 townhomes. The Neighborhood Services Planning Area does not allow single-family, so those three single-family lots are dependent upon the rezoning. The Neighborhood Services Planning Area also does not allow townhomes, so the 54 townhomes also are impacted by the rezoning request. However, it should be noted that the Neighborhood Services Planning Area does allow for Storefront and Live/Work units and the Ordinance will allow for residential on the ground floor of those units, but their architecture would need to be in keeping with the storefront or live/work design, meaning that ground floor façade transparency regulations would apply.

Therefore, the rezoning decision does impact the site plan, particularly for the three single-family lots. It would not necessarily require changes to the site plan for the live/work and/or townhome units, though, but it would alter the architecture. At present, the site design does not illustrate any storefront buildings, but we should recognize it as being an option. Storefront buildings could have residential units above, so it is difficult to determine the actual net unit count increased/lost by the proposed map amendment."

It will be interesting to see how the Town Board once again handles the question of a conflict of interest with this project.

Commissioner Brian Jenest has indicated to aShortChronicle that he plans to ask to be recused from voting on this map amendment if/when it comes before the Town Board.  Previously, when the Historic Designation change for this property came before the Board last month, the Board forced Jenest to vote on the issue saying he didn't have a conflict even though his firm is doing the design work on the neighborhood.  Only Commisioner Beth Cashion voted to allow Jenest to be recused.  Read previous coverage on that vote here and here.

One would think the Board would see this conflict, but after the previous vote it's hard to be sure what this Board will do.

Good Turnout for West Branch Public Information Session...Planning Board Map Amendment up next.

Sketchy weather didn't keep people away from the public information session Monday evening at Town Hall.  The topic was  West Branch - Davidson's newest major neighborhood proposal consisting of 306 new homes off of Davidson-Concord Rd on the 169 acre Westmoreland farm.

The project promises to bring a lot more traffic to the east side of town.

The increase in traffic will greatly impact the intersection of Robert-Walker and Davidson-Concord roads which has ling been a dangerous spot.  According to a project representative at the meeting, the required traffic study should be available in a few weeks.  Whether or not that study recommends a traffic light, roundabout, or some other additional safety measure at D-C Rd will be critical for residents in Bailey Springs, River Run, and Bradford.  If 300 new homes in the immediate area doesn't convince NCDOT to make it safer, it would seem nothing will.

West Branch traffic will also impact the Hudson Place, Pine Rd, and Kimberly corridors leading to downtown due to the new connection from the back of the neighborhood to Hudson Place.  These neighborhoods have long been effectively dead end with minimal through traffic.  Now they are going to be the alternate way to get to/from Downtown Davidson as well as people going to/from Bailey Middle and Hough High schools.

Traffic was just one of the concerns mentioned.  Other concerns included impacts to the existing greenway through the area, additional students for crowded area schools, and a perceived lack of transparency in the process.

As reported earlier, Commissioner Brian Jenest's firm, ColeJenest&Stone is doing the land planning work on the project - a situation which, naturally, raises eyebrows.  Multiple people approached yours truly asking about that and if it was a conflict of interest.

The next stop for this project is the Planning Board on January 29th.  The project apparently needs a Map Amendment around the neighborhood services area.  It appears the developers desire to reduce the "neighborhood services" portion of the project to include 3 single family homes and allow townhomes without storefront appearance - 57 units are impacted, more than 20% of the total project. (UPDATED: Original post said 71 units impacted.)

The red line in the below picture shows the current zoning for neighborhood services.  The blue line shows where it will be moved if the zoning amendment is approved.

The below picture shows the impacted home sites.  The blue dashed line matches the current neighborhood services zoning.

If this map change comes before the Town Board it will be interesting to see if the Board allows Commissioner Jenest to recuse himself.

They should, but after what happened last week, who knows what this board will do when it comes to conflicts of interest?!?!

More on why Davidson's Board got conflict of interest vote WRONG!

As written earlier this week, a three vote majority of Davidson's Board forced fellow commissioner Brian Jenest to vote on a change involving the historical designation on part of the Westmoreland Farm property while Jenest is also working on a project on that same property.

This gets a bit technical and a bit long, but this post on the UNCSOG website explains why they got the decision wrong.

Conflict of Interest: How do the voting statutes relate to the criminal statute?

The subject of conflicts of interest for city and county elected officials has both legal and ethical dimensions. In the legal realm, there are two main statutory provisions: 1) the contracting statute, which creates criminal liability when a public official or employee who is involved in making or administering a contract derives a direct benefit from the contract; and 2) the voting statutes for city and county governing boards, which provide that a member shall be excused from voting only upon “matters involving the member’s own financial interest or official conduct.” This post identifies some important differences between the two statutory provisions, and discusses to issues about how they relate to each other. Next week’s post will discuss the process of excusing members from voting.

How the statutes are different:

The contracting statute, G.S. 14-234, creates criminal liability, making it a Class 1 misdemeanor for an individual to derive a direct benefit from a contract with his or her unit of government. The resulting contract is void and unenforceable.  The contracting statute defines key terms, such as “direct benefit,” and “making or administering a contract.” The definition of direct benefit in the contracting statute specifically includes an interest by the spouse of the public official or employee. The contracting statute applies to all public agencies, and any public employee or officer within those agencies, but only with regard to the making or administering of contracts.

The voting statutes, G.S. 160A-75 (cities), 153A-44 (counties), are silent as to any liability or consequence for failing to be excused from voting on a matter involving one’s own financial interest. The statutes do not define terms and give no specifics about what constitutes financial interest, except to state that the question of compensation and allowances for the board does not involve a member’s own financial interest.  They apply to any matter that might come before the board – not just contracts.

How the statutes relate:

Should the definition of “direct benefit” in the contracting statute be used as a guide in interpreting what constitutes a member’s own “financial interest” in the voting statutes? No. Both statutes probably have a common purpose: to ensure objective decision-making in the public’s (rather than a private individual’s) best interest. But the scope and applicability of the statutes are different. The contracting statute seeks to prevent financial gain from contracts, and it defines “direct benefit” in ways that are specific to interests that arise in contracting. The broader language in the voting statutes reflects their broader applicability across all matters coming before the board. The voting statutes address “financial interest,” which could be either beneficial or detrimental. So, for example, a person might be excused from voting on a matter involving her employer, since she could stand to gain or lose, depending upon how she votes.  As such, the definition of direct benefit in the contracting statute is too narrow to encompass all of the financial interests that might affect voting.

On the other hand, in cases where there is a direct benefit under the contracting statute, it is safe to assume that the benefit is considered a financial interest under the voting statute. This is reflected in the voting statutes themselves, which cross-reference both the contracting statute and several provisions in the land use regulations statutes, to make clear that a conflict under those provisions is a basis for being excused from voting.

If you go back and listen to the video of the hearing and fhe discussion about Jenest's requested recusal, you hear Town Attorney Rick Kline and Commissioner Graham use the word "direct" a number of times.  Clearly, they are incorrectly applying the standard from the criminal statute to the voting statute.

Even the example sited of recusing someone from voting because their "employer" is involved applies.  One can reasonably say Jenest is "employed" by the Westmoreland's through his efforts planning the develoment of the West Branch neigjborhood on their property.  His firm's name is on the application submitted along with Lennar Homes.

Jenest clearly had an interest in the outcome of this vote whether it positively or negatively impacted his very closely related project.  At the very minimum if the change did not go through, his firm would have had to deal with those implications possibly even redesigning a larger portion of the West Branch project that would have remained in the historic designation.

Three Davidson Commissioners drop ball on clear recusal vote.

Like Elvis, common sense has left the building at Davidson Town Hall!!!

Or maybe to be more accurate, it left the seats of Commissioners Jim Fuller, Rodney Graham, and Stacey Anderson on Tuesday night.

When the Davidson Board faced a question of allowing fellow commissioner, Brian Jenest, to recuse himself from voting on an issue directly related to a project his design firm is doing, these three Commissioners actually forced Jenest to vote after he said he had a financial interest in the vote.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These three commissioners forced a fellow commissioner to vote when he clearly said that if the issue did not pass, he could suffer a financial consequence.

aShortChronicle previously reported that Jenest planned to ask for a recusal on the redesignation of the historical area on the Westmoreland Farm property related to the Beaver Dam viewshed.  Jenest's firm ColeJenest&Stone is doing the design work for the West Branch development on the same property.  To his credit, Jenest followed through with that commitment.

Unfortunately, these three commissioners thought they knew more about Jenest's interests than he did and decided that he should vote against his own wishes.

Ultimately, only Commisioner Cashion showed common sense and voted to allow Jenest to recuse himself.

Start watching the tape of Tuesday's meeting at the 40 minute mark.  This is minutes after the public hearing.   If you want to watch the hearing, start at minute 19.

During the hearing and in the questions afterward it was clear that a significant portion of the proposed West Branch neighborhood, including the commercial neighborhood services portion, would no longer be in the historic designation if the change in historic designation was approved.  The impact would be that the Historic Landmarks Commission would no longer have design approval authority over more of the proposed West Branch development.  Getting that approval could have been a particularly tricky thing for the commercial area and removing that requirement has a definite benefit to Jenest's project with the Westmoreland family.

After Jenest was forced to vote, he abstained. That actually counts as a "yes" since he was not excused.  The historic designation change was actually unanimously approved.

So what does all this mean???

It means to have a "conflict of interest" in Davidson, you apparently have to have wads of cash being directly stuffed into your pockets a la Pat Cannon for a majority of the Board to recognize it.  Anything other than that is apparently some sort of gray area.

With all the potentially controversial development projects on the docket including the Catalyst Project  and potentially a new hotel at Exit 30, that's not a place where citizens want their government to be!

CORRECTION - East side developments on the docket this week in Davidson

In the original post this story incorrectly mentioned this Tuesday's Board Meeting the next Board Meeting is on 2/9, not 2/2.

Mark your calendars the next 2 weeks for development discussions in Davidson.

At next Tuesday night's (2/9) February Board meeting, commissioners will consider the proposed changes to the Historic Landmark designation for a larger portion of the Westmoreland Farm property on Davidson Concord Rd.   This is in preparation the new 306 home West Branch neighborhood.

Read earlier coverage on this development here and here.

The meeting starts at 6pm.

This Wednesday (2/3) evening sees a change to the Summers Walk neighborhood discussed at Town Hall.

The neighborhood's developers are seeking a change to the master plan to remove commercial uses and make way for more townhouses.

The public information session will be between 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. in the Davidson Town Hall board room. It will be an open house format with no formal presentation. The Summers Walk developers and members of the Davidson Planning Department will be present to discuss the master plan and answer any questions. 

Combine these two devwlopments with the giant Davidson East development and more than 800 new dwellings are in the works for the east side of town.