Durham County has a date in court today, with Southern Durham Development Inc. and Judge Howard Manning.

Southern Durham's is one of two actions filed against the county regarding the Jordan Lake watershed boundary near N.C. 751. The company, which has plans to build a subdivision in that area, contends among other things that the county has improperly impeded its progress.

The county has moved for dismissal; Southern Durham is asking a summary judgment.

The hearing starts at 2:30 p.m. in the Grand Jury Room, sixth floor, County Judicial Building.

In the other action, filed last Friday, four landowners are seeking a ruling to deny approval of a county rezoning request that would move Southern Durham's property outside the critical watershed zone. If successful, their suit would block the planned development.

The Jordan Lake protest petition is going to court. Raleigh attorney Jim Conner filed a complaint today in Durham Superior Court, contending the county commissioners' Oct. 12 rezoning vote failed to move a watershed boundary line.

The complaint asks for a declaratory judgment and injuction "to have the vote that was taken on the rezoning be declared a vote against the rezoning," Conner said.

If successful, the complaint would negate the commissioners' 3-2 vote in favor of the rezoning because the presence of a protest petition required a 4-1 "super majority" for the rezoning to be approved.

Defeat for the rezoning would block a planned subdivision from being built between N.C. 751 and Jordan Lake in southwestern Durham County. It would mean

Conner is representing three individuals and the Kendrick Estates Development Corp. The Haw River Assembly, which with the Southern Environmental Law Center filed the protest petition on behalf of more than 20 affected property owners, is not party to the suit, said SELC spokeswoman Kathleen Sullivan.

Conner said he expected the court to rule on the complaint "in the next few months."

The next step for the Jordan Lake watershed saga must be into court, County Attorney Lowell Siler said this morning.

But it will be up to those opposing the watershed relocation, which county commissioners approved Oct. 12, whether that step is taken, Siler said.

City/County Planning Director Steve Medlin has ruled that the Haw River Assembly's protest petition regarding the Jordan Lake watershed case is valid.

Medlin's finding, included in a memo released tonight by County Manager Mike Ruffin, reverses an earlier decision made in advance of the county commissioners' Oct. 12 vote to change the critical watershed boundary in southwestern Durham County.

Commissioners approved the change 3 votes to 2. A valid protest petition, however, requires at least a 4 to 1 "super majority" to approve.

Durham County has not announced its position on the move in light of Medlin's ruling. Commissioners had scheduled a closed meeting on the petition, and on the related lawsuit against the county by Southern Durham Development, at 10 a.m. Thursday.

The Haw River Assembly, an environmental-protection group, filed the petition on behalf of 24 property owners affected by the change.

Ruffin released the memo upon the advice of County Attorney Lowell Siler in response to several public-records requests. The county has not released Medlin's earlier report, sent to Ruffin Nov. 13, which Siler has said contains information privileged under the law.

Durham's City/County Planning Department should have a report on the Jordan Lake watershed protest petition done by the end of the day, but it doesn't appear it will be going public before next week.

The Southern Environmental Law Center hasn't decided what to do next about its twice-denied petition on the Jordan Lake watershed, SELC attorney Kay Bond said today.

 During Monday's meeting of the Durham County commissioners, County Attorney Lowell Siler said he expected a lawsuit to come over the City/County Planning Department's ruling that the petition is invalid.

"We have not given any indication to Mr. Siler that we would do that," Bond said.

What promised to be a routine meeting of the Durham County Board of Commissioners turned testy at the outset, when commissioner Becky Heron asked County Attorney Lowell Siler for a report on the Haw River Assembly/Southern Environmental Law Center's protest petition regarding the Jordan Lake Watershed boundary.

Siler said that would be better discussed in a closed session, because he expects the petition sponsors to take the matter to court.

"I hope we don't have to go to litigation," Heron said. "I just want a report."

Reacting to the Durham County commissioners' Monday-night vote on the Jordan Lake boundary, Durham Planning Commissioner LaDawnna Summers resigned Tuesday night.

"It has become clear to me that our development process is broken in Durham," she said, reading from a prepared letter to commission Chairman Don Moffit and Planning Director Steve Medlin. "I can no longer be a part of this process."

DURHAM -- The Haw River Assembly has filed a protest petition at the Durham City-County Planning Department regarding the proposed relocation of the Jordan Lake critical watershed boundary.

Elaine Chiosso, director of the environmental group, said the petition was filed Monday on behalf of about 20 property owners in the area that would be affected by a boundary move.

The Jordan Lake boundary is a complex business (see below) that just got a little more complicated.

Durham's Environmental Affairs Board this week recommended that the county and/or city appoint a technical advisory committee to look into the matter, county commissioner Ellen Reckhow said today.

The environmental board is a volunteer citizens' group created in 1991 "to provide the City and County with expert and comprehensive advice on various environmental matters" — according to the planning department Web site.

But the disputed Jordan boundary already has a lawsuit, three surveys, two methods, political candidates, assorted citizens' groups, the state water-quality division and a subdivision as big as a small town muddying the water.

And now a technical advisory committee? Not likely.