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.

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.

Historic designation update first step for major new development in Davidson

The drumbeat of development keeps pounding in Davidson, and as has come to be expected, nothing is ever straight forward.

Long-swirling development rumors for the 169+ acre Westmoreland Farm property off Davidson Concord Road are finally coming true with the planned development of roughly 300 home sites in a neighborhood to be called ”West Branch”.  (An exact development plan is not available as of deadline, but reportedly should be submitted in coming days.)

Prior to implementing any plan the current owners of the property are pursuing a change to the current “historic” designation for a significant portion of the land.   That's where things get interesting.

Readers who follow developments in Davidson may remember that during the long debate over the rewrite of the town's planning ordinance, the Westmoreland Farm property was one of the most contentious pieces.  In fact, from previous discussions with Davidson Commissioner Rodney Graham, the change in the designation of this property from “Rural” to “Neighborhood General” was a primary reason he ultimately voted against the entire rewrite – feeling it did not do enough to protect this large amount of open space.

The old “rural” designation required 40% open space for new development while the new “neighborhood general” designation only requires 20%.  However, the specific geography with this property implies the actual open space would be significantly greater than the 20% minimum due to the presence of a large amount of flood plain on the property as well as  something called a “viewshed” for the historic Beaver Dam House across Davidson Concord Road.

It's this viewshed which will take center stage as this project kicks off.

According to Wikipedia, in urban planning  viewsheds “tend to be areas of particular scenic or historic value that are deemed worthy of preservation against development or other change.” That definition definitely applies to the eastern end of the Westmoreland property.  There's just one problem.  When the planning work began, it was discovered that the actual officially protected viewshed area is in the center of the property – and not really in the main view of the Beaver Dam House at all.

To that end, Davidson resident Susan Irvin who is representing the Westmoreland family has been working with the Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission to get the viewshed changed from its current 39 acres to a significantly expanded 59 acres covering the eastern end of the property.  That's the good news.

What could possibly be considered less than good news by some is that this “viewshed” designation does not really protect the land from development.  The Landmarks Commission included a portion of the Westmoreland property in the historic designation for the Beaver Dam House back in 1979 upon request, but the development protections likely apply only to the house itself.  The Commission is not in the business of protecting raw land as an organization like the Davidson Lands Conservancy would do, so technically, any land not within flood plane could likely be developed even if it was in this “historic” designation.

In the end though, all of this may not matter much for those most concerned about preserving meaningful open space in town while still allowing development.  Per information provided by Irvin, the upcoming plan will likely have approximately 50% open space across the entire 169+ acre site – open space that includes both this new viewshed area as well as open areas within the planned development.

At 50%, this amount should more than satisfy all but those who want to see zero new development in town.

If you are interested in learning more, there will be a public hearing at the next Historic Landmarks Commission meeting this coming Monday, January 11th.  The meeting starts at 6pm and will be a the HLC offices at 2100 Randolph Road in Charlotte.

Assuming the HLC approves the change Davidson’s Town Board will also have to approve at a later date.  In the event this occurs, Davidson Commissioner Brian Jenest has already confirmed he will ask to be recused from voting.  Jenest’s firm, ColeJenest&Stone, who  is doing the design work for the development.

As said earlier, things are always interesting when it comes to development in Davidson.

UPDATE:  The town planning department says the application for West Branch has been received and will be up on the site here by late Friday or most likely Monday.

This story first appeared in this week’s Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com

Historic designation update first step for major new development in Davidson

The drumbeat of development keeps pounding in Davidson, and as has come to be expected, nothing is ever straight forward.

Long-swirling development rumors for the 169+ acre Westmoreland Farm property off Davidson Concord Road are finally coming true with the planned development of roughly 300 home sites in a neighborhood to be called ”West Branch”.  (An exact development plan is not available as of deadline, but reportedly should be submitted in coming days.)

Prior to implementing any plan the current owners of the property are pursuing a change to the current “historic” designation for a significant portion of the land.   That's where things get interesting.

Readers who follow developments in Davidson may remember that during the long debate over the rewrite of the town's planning ordinance, the Westmoreland Farm property was one of the most contentious pieces.  In fact, from previous discussions with Davidson Commissioner Rodney Graham, the change in the designation of this property from “Rural” to “Neighborhood General” was a primary reason he ultimately voted against the entire rewrite – feeling it did not do enough to protect this large amount of open space.

The old “rural” designation required 40% open space for new development while the new “neighborhood general” designation only requires 20%.  However, the specific geography with this property implies the actual open space would be significantly greater than the 20% minimum due to the presence of a large amount of flood plain on the property as well as  something called a “viewshed” for the historic Beaver Dam House across Davidson Concord Road.

It's this viewshed which will take center stage as this project kicks off.

According to Wikipedia, in urban planning  viewsheds “tend to be areas of particular scenic or historic value that are deemed worthy of preservation against development or other change.” That definition definitely applies to the eastern end of the Westmoreland property.  There's just one problem.  When the planning work began, it was discovered that the actual officially protected viewshed area is in the center of the property – and not really in the main view of the Beaver Dam House at all.

To that end, Davidson resident Susan Irvin who is representing the Westmoreland family has been working with the Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission to get the viewshed changed from its current 39 acres to a significantly expanded 59 acres covering the eastern end of the property.  That's the good news.

What could possibly be considered less than good news by some is that this “viewshed” designation does not really protect the land from development.  The Landmarks Commission included a portion of the Westmoreland property in the historic designation for the Beaver Dam House back in 1979 upon request, but the development protections likely apply only to the house itself.  The Commission is not in the business of protecting raw land as an organization like the Davidson Lands Conservancy would do, so technically, any land not within flood plane could likely be developed even if it was in this “historic” designation.

In the end though, all of this may not matter much for those most concerned about preserving meaningful open space in town while still allowing development.  Per information provided by Irvin, the upcoming plan will likely have approximately 50% open space across the entire 169+ acre site – open space that includes both this new viewshed area as well as open areas within the planned development.

At 50%, this amount should more than satisfy all but those who want to see zero new development in town.

If you are interested in learning more, there will be a public hearing at the next Historic Landmarks Commission meeting this coming Monday, January 11th.  The meeting starts at 6pm and will be a the HLC offices at 2100 Randolph Road in Charlotte.

Assuming the HLC approves the change Davidson’s Town Board will also have to approve at a later date.  In the event this occurs, Davidson Commissioner Brian Jenest has already confirmed he will ask to be recused from voting.  Jenest’s firm, ColeJenest&Stone, who  is doing the design work for the development.

As said earlier, things are always interesting when it comes to development in Davidson.

This story first appeared in this week’s Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com

About those orange flags around the Westmoreland property in Davidson

Well, it appears that development swirl in Davidson is continuing at a furious pace.

If you live on the east side of town in the vicinity of the Westmoreland Farm property, you may have noticed the orange flags along Robert Walker and Davidson Concord Road as well as along the greenway.

Those are survey stakes.  There are also a bunch of the small utilities flags marking those locations as well.

Apparently, workers in trucks from a company named Cardno, Inc were seen on multiple occassions this past week doing work - including taking soil samples.  Per a local resident, these workers said they were doing the work on behalf of a "community development" company.

From its website, Cardno is a global engineering firm with an office in Charlotte.  A firm of that size would seem unlikely to be involved in anything small.

Davidson recently completed a planning ordinance rewrite which included rezoning of numerous parcels all across town - including the Westmoreland farm property.  That's why you are unlikely to ever see any of the large yellow rezoning signs.  The town took care of that for the landowners as part of its internally initiated work.

With these flags appearing so quickly on the heels of that rezoning, one has to wonder if anything was already in the works prior to the town finalizing the latest rezoning maps.

Keep your eyes on this one.