Judge upholds Duke’s original map change of Jordan Lake watershed

Samiha Khanna · 16 Dec 2009, 5:50 PM · 4 Comments


A superior court judge found in favor of Southern Durham Development on Wednesday in its major lawsuit against the county.

Superior Court Judge Howard Manning said that lines drawn in 2006 by a former planning director that outline the protective boundaries around Jordan Lake are binding and must stand.

This means that 146 of 165 acres on which Southern Durham Development was hoping to build a mixed-use community are no longer considered part of a protected zone that heavily restricts commercial and residential development, opening the door to broader development options.

In his ruling, Manning dismissed other arguments in the lawsuit against Durham County, including claims by Southern Durham Development that county officials were trying to undermine its development plans for the land (west of N.C. 751 in South Durham), and requests for $20,000 in damages.

Both parties seemed pleased with portions of the judge’s actions.

“We feel we’ve had the facts and the law on our side the entire time, and that’s what the court said,” said Alex Mitchell, president of Southern Durham Development.

On the other hand, County Attorney Lowell Siler and Brad Risinger, an attorney contracted by the county to handle the case, both said the fact that the judge dismissed other claims by Southern Durham Development was significant, also. That decision saved the county thousands of dollars in work hours and defense funds, as well as any indication of negligence or impropriety on behalf of the county or its employees regarding the project.

The ruling by Manning on the suit, which Southern Durham Development filed in June, upholds a map change made by former planning director Frank Duke. Duke changed county maps in 2006 based on data from a land survey to determine the exact location of the protective boundaries around Jordan Lake. The survey was commissioned and paid for by a private landowner, who is a party to the development company.

Prior to the survey, Durham’s planning department relied on outdated maps to determine where the boundaries were, so Duke changed the maps to reflect more up-to-date data. But later, the county said, what Duke did was tantamount to a zoning change—such a significant change always requires the approval of county commissioners, county officials said.

County officials reversed Duke’s action last year and this year took the map change through public processes, despite the protest of Southern Durham Development. County Commissioners voted in October in favor of maps that reflect exactly what Duke already had done, but this time it was thought to have been a proper public process in keeping with a local ordinance.

(The commissioners’ vote has since been challenged in a separate lawsuit filed last week by residents around the rezoned land who say they don’t want developers to build a new, densely populated community around the lake because it could pollute the reservoir and cause other problems.)

Attorneys for both sides argued Wednesday as to whether the map changes Duke made were simply corrections raised by the land owner, or whether Duke effectively rezoned the land without going through the public processes.

In the end, Manning ruled that the changes Duke made should stand. The map change is worth at least $18 million to Southern Durham Development—what the company paid for the land—plus millions more down the road if the company may carry forward with its commercial and residential development, which could include 1,300 residences.

Although Manning didn’t officially rule against the county, he did have some harsh words for the county’s actions from the start of this case:

“I’ve spent slightly over three hours reading the materials you all have submitted,” Manning said at the opening of the hearing. “I must say at the outset that certainly Southern Durham Development is the victim here. They got had. This thing was botched by the planning department from start to finish.”  Southern Durham Development did what it was supposed to do to get a correct survey completed of its land, and Manning said he had no doubt the lines in the survey indicating the Jordan Lake watershed are correct.

Now that the argument over where the protective boundary on Southern Durham Development’s land has been settled (at least temporarily) in court, the October vote taken by commissioners on the extent of the protective boundary has no bearing as it relates to those 165 acres. The October rezoning still applies to more than 700 acres of other land around the watershed.

It’s unclear what effect Wednesday’s decision may have on a lawsuit filed last week by four property owners challenging the commissioners’ October vote, or whether that case will continue.

Durham, Durham County, environment, news , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments

Don’t know why SDD shouldn’t just go ahead and bulldoze the land now: They’ve certainly bulldozed the Commissioners!

GrannieGrump 16 December 2009

“Manning said he had no doubt the lines in the survey indicating the Jordan Lake watershed are correct.”

Take a look for yourself:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=26

I think Judge Manning should be a little more doubtful.

Will Wilson

Will Wilson 17 December 2009

It’s hard to believe that attorneys for the county (defendant) and the developers (plaintiff) didn’t meet or at least inform the judge of their parallel desire (at least where 3 of the 5 county commissioners are concerned) — to have Frank Duke’s watershed boundary stand. This would seem a win-win situation to any judge, and would certainly have made Manning’s decision pretty easy. Only problem is that the Haw River Assembly requested and was granted the right to intervene, precisely because citizens feared that the county would not truly defend them and the health of Jordan Lake, but would settle with the developers by giving them the watershed change that they need.

It is very disturbing that the judge chose to hear the case at this time, after having continued it earlier in the year in order to let the county make its ruling on the watershed changes. Considering the county’s decision was still under consideration (based on a valid protest petition that was erroneously deemed invalid) one would think the judge would have stayed the case further to enable the county’s decision to be conclusively determined.

The fact that the case was heard only days after Durham citizens raised the thousands of dollars required to appeal the county’s decision (the aforementioned protest petition appeal), questions the timing involved. Were the developers, and the system at large, waiting to see if Durham citizens successfully funded and filed the protest petition appeal before hearing the developers’ lawsuit in court? If so, it was unfair to citizens who donated a lot of time and money to protect the land upon which Southern Durham Development wants to build the 751 Assemblage mini-city.

Melissa Rooney 26 January 2010

Minimizing the water quality damage seems to now fall on the City Council. Their decision regarding bringing city sewer and water out to that development determines its density and impervious surface fraction. The plans I saw at a commission meeting last week look horrible, paving over ecological treasures, putting roads over streams, with tremendous amounts of impervious surface.

This mess now sits with Council. Urge the City Council to deny sewer extension, and that will lower the environmental damage.

Will Wilson 27 January 2010

Add Your Comment