Town RAP wins Sustain Charlotte award, but please keep them away from our parking

Davidson's Planning Department has won another award.

Local non profit, Sustain Charlotte, has granted Davidson its most recent "Land Use Award" for the town's recently implemented Rural Area Plan.  You know the one, the plan whose implementation generated some intense pushback from citizens and a petition with over 700 signatures in opposition.

According to the Town press release on the award, Planning Director Jason Burdette had this to say about the "award winning" plan.

“As the Rural Area Plan was a wholly collaborative effort to create a framework to proactively balance conservation and development in the years to come, this award belongs to all of us,” said Davidson Planning Director Jason Burdette. “I'd like to specifically thank the Davidson Mayor and Board of Commissioners for their leadership, Town Manager Jamie Justice for his direction, guidance, and support, Senior Planner and Rural Area Plan Project Manager Trey Akers for his proactive project management, our citizens and stakeholders for their invaluable input, and Craig Lewis of Stantec for leading the team. All of us carried this across the finish line.”

The cognitive dissonance generated by these comments from Town Hall and the pushback from the public against the wholesale implementation of this "award winning" plan is hard to miss.

However, that kind of tone deafness appears to be common practice from Sustain Charlotte.

The group's Executive Director Shannon Binn recently wrote a piece for the Charlotte Observer titled "We should make driving in Charlotte less convenient" where he espoused the idea of jettisoning municipal parking requirements to achieve that goal.

Let's hope Sustain Charlotte doesn't give the town any awards for how it manages parking in town.  It's doubtful the citizens of Davidson could stand any more of their "award winning" plans.

Bonus Observation: Here is another article where Mr Binns laments the availability of parking.

"Why now?" question lingers after Davidson rezoning passes

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

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

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

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

Then, Commissioners spoke.

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

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

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

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

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

That's certain to be the case.

Finally, Commissioner Rodney Graham spoke.

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

Time will tell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some things to remember a few short months from now.

RAP Armageddon on Tuesday...Commissioners set to vote

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

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

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

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

And that brings us to this coming Tuesday...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rezonings make critical water extensions more likely

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

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

First a little background...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about that for a minute.

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

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

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

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

Davidson RAP Rezoning - An Alternate Plan

For more than a month now, proposed zoning changes to support Davidson’s  Rural Area Plan (RAP) have been roiling local discussions in Mecklenburg County’s northernmost municipality.

Starting with the official public hearing on January 10th on the proposal to rezone 2048 acres in the town’s rural jurisdiction, through a community chat with Commissioners, another Board work session, a Planning Board meeting, and a Q&A session on the subject this past Saturday, elected officials and town staff have been making a hard sales pitch.  All of that’s in addition to staff putting out multiple videos and frequently asked question (FAQ) documents on the town’s website.

The major concerns from citizens revolve around why the town would proactively rezone roughly 1300 acres of land from Rural to Neighborhood General, Neighborhood Edge, or Neighborhood Services – designations that allow more intense by right development – without having any proposals on the table from landowners or developers.

People are asking “Why now?  Why not wait until developers come forward with proposals or ask to have these zoning changes made?”

It should be pointed out that many who oppose this proactive rezoning and have commented at these public meetings will say in the same breath they support the RAP.  They think it has lots of great recommendations, but they are concerned these mass rezonings needlessly help open the door a little wider for more development in these areas.  It is not about saying these areas should never be developed.  As one person at this past Saturday’s Q&A session put it, it’s about doing what can be done to control the “velocity” of that development.

The town’s response has largely been to make two different points.  First, they say going forward with these rezonings now (which the town confusingly calls “map amendments”) is the only way for the town to legally enforce the recommendations in the RAP.  Second, there is a concern that if this action is not taken now, future Boards might not implement the recommendations in the RAP.

While the town might technically be correct with these responses, there is always more than one way to solve a problem.  These responses also ignore the reality that even if this current Board was to approve this mass rezoning exactly as proposed by staff, there is nothing to prevent a future Board from undoing or changing pieces of it if it wanted to do so.  No Board can ever really tie the hands of a future Board.

Acknowledging the amount of pushback the proposed plan has generated, it seems like a good time to start talking about other options.

For example, there is no reason the Town has to implement all of the changes at the same time. Why not implement the changes that are not controversial first and leave the more controversial pieces until later when more information is available?

The town could implement the changes to rezone the Fisher Farm and Abersham properties for future Rural Reserve, never to be developed.  It could also implement aspects of the Scenic Byway overlay district to further protect the Shearer Rd and Grey Rd corridors. Finally, the town could implement some of the proposed text amendments redefining the Rural Area designation to raise open space requirements and reduce density.  Doing this last piece without doing the more controversial rezonings would have the effect of making large scale development in the entire existing Rural Area more difficult and force developers to come forward with good solid plans and request rezoning at the time projects actually arise.  It would require the Board to trust future Boards to stick to the plan, but as is clear, they have to do that anyway.

Taking this kind of approach would allow the town to implement the best parts of the RAP while still maintaining a bit more control over future development.  It would also dial down a controversy that doesn’t need to happen.  On the other hand, continuing to defend this mass rezoning reminds one of an old saying.

“Don’t cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.”

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

RAP rezoning moves one step closer to happening

The proposed Rural Area Plan (RAP) rezonings that will impact over 2000 acres primarily in Davidson's ETJ moved one step closer to passage Monday night.

According to someone in the room, at its meeting Monday evening the Planning Board unanimously passed what are called "consistency statements" with Planning Board Chair, Mickey Pettus, pointing out to the Planning Board members that they were voting on whether or not the proposed rezonings were consistent with the Rural Area Plan.  Town Hall confirmed this morning that this is all that is needed from the Planning Board.

These consistency statements are required as part of the process.  They do not however imply whether or not the Planning Board approved of them as a good idea.  In that sense, this is not a surprising result.

Throughout the debate, people opposing the rezonings have explicitly not been attacking them as somehow "inconsistent" with the RAP.  In fact most people have said the RAP is a good plan including the fact that it permanently protects about 700 acres as Rural Reserve that can have no development.  What people are concerned about is the timing for rezoning the rest of the impacted  acres.  They are concerned about the hard fact that doing these rezonings now without proposed plans for development is simply throwing a bone to developers.  It's making their job easier by granting them new by right privileges under new zoning without having to present plans first.

All of these concerns are valid despite vigorous protestations to the contrary from Town Hall staff and electeds.

Flawed ideas need to be fought every step of the way.  If they aren't, you end up with things like MI-Connection and the I77 HOT lanes.

Unfortunately, nobody on Davidson's Board seems to see things that way in general and certainly not with this RAP rezoning specifically.

Last week when the Board of Commissioners sent these rezonings to the Planning Board for its recommendation, it did so unanimously.  After repeated questions from aShortChronicle the Board steadfastly refused to remove this item from the consent agenda and vote on it separately.  Consent agenda items imply unanimous approval of an action by the Board.

In an email to aShortChronicle, Commissioner Rodney Graham defended this saying this request for input from the Planning Board was just standard procedure and that he couldn't imagine any Commissioner not following procedure and voting for getting that input.

Now, they have it.  The Planning Board says these rezonings are "consistent" with the RAP and this process moves one step forward.

The next opportunity for citizens to review this plan is this Saturday at Q&A forum at Hopewell Baptist Church from 9:00am to 10:30am.