751 saga continues: Will the protest petition be found valid after all?

It's the case that never seems to end -- and if an assertion by longtime 751 assemblage opponents Steve Bocckino and Melissa Rooney are on target, it may get a lot more interesting very soon.

The N&O and Indy are reporting that County Commissioners are set to meet in closed session on Thursday morning at 10am, with a public session to follow, to discuss a protest petition filed in the 751 assemblage critical watershed boundary relocation case, as well as a lawsuit against the county filed by would-be developers of the parcel.

City/County Planning initially found that the petition -- which if accepted would have required a 4-1 supermajority of BOCC members to have approved the boundary change -- lacked signatures from a sufficient number of adjacent property owners. 

But if reports from project opponents are correct, that protest petition may (and we emphasize "may") have been valid after all.

The current round of public scrutiny over the effort came after representatives from the Haw River Assembly and Southern Environmental Law Center challenged the county government's ruling on the protest petition.

County attorney Lowell Siler -- appointed after Chuck Kitchen was hustled into retirement a few months early -- initially released a statement describing problems with petition signatures.

But Bocckino and Rooney are alleging that Planning director Steve Medlin found the signatures valid on Friday, reportedly in an email to county administrators and elected officials.

It's not clear yet what impact this would have on the BOCC's vote to move the watershed boundary, which would have failed to pass if the protest petition had been validated; county manager Mike Ruffin has previously signaled that any challenge to the vote would need to be settled in the courts.

Not, mind you, that this case has ever seemed destined for anywhere but the courts, between the developers' lawsuit and possible challenges from the Haw River Assembly and SELC.

Stay tuned.

Comments

[Tom Miller]

I have asked for a copy of any written communication
about the 751 case between the planning department and the board of commissioners dated last week. So far, the County Attorney's office has acknowledged that a memo exists, but they have not agreed to provide me with a copy. They told me that they are entitled to a day, maybe more, to study the memo to determine whether, under the Public Records Act, grounds exist to avoid releasing it to me.

The public records laws state that a government entity must make its records available for public inspection at reasonable times and that the records must be produced within a reasonable time, but as soon as possible. Memos from the planning department to the board of commissioners are not exempt from release under the law or otherwise protected. They have identified the record, it should not take a day or more to either release it or explain the reason, under law, why they will not. In the meantime, I'm still waiting....

[Retro-Grouch]

Thanks Tom for your efforts on this and for your communication to let people know what is going on.

[Tom Miller]

I have just been advised by the county attorney's office that they have completed their review of the planning department's memo to the board of commissioners. This is what they promised to do when I spoke to them yesterday and I am grateful. They have delivered a redacted copy of the memo to the county manager's office and have directed me there to obtain a copy.

I have made a request to the manager's office and am now waiting to hear back from them. I hope to obtain a copy of the memo by the end of business today. Maybe the document will shed light on the 751 rezoning case.

[Myers Sugg]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/counties/durham_county/story/200393.html