The vote was 3-1 in Danbury on Wednesday night, January 28. The point of contention was the requirements for Danbury Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Board applicants. Council member Mike Barsness was the single nay vote to the rigid standards the other council members had set.

Council member Wendi Uselton, former chairman of the P & Z board, said that she had given Danbury Town Administrator Byron Ellis three applications used by other small towns in North Carolina. The council had also had time to look over these samples.

Uselton stressed that it is important that the P & Z board members live in Danbury and are vested there, with no personal agendas.

Council member Andrew Mathys stated that he was in favor of adding background checks as a qualification for applicants. He asked that a line be added for listing prior convictions.

Barsness interjected that this was a "delicate" area and that he didn’t want applicants to have to spell out their lives. Ellis agreed, saying that it isn’t as if the P & Z members would be entrusted with anything or as if they were being employed. He said that they just meet and discuss issues.

Rebecca Sullivan, a citizen who presently has a lawsuit pending against the Town of Danbury, asked if she could speak from the floor. She noted that the P & Z board members have no power beyond that of the council. Sullivan said that the board could give a 100 percent recommendation and the council still overturn it.

With regard to Mathys’ suggestion, council member Olivia Shelton declared that what was involved here was "a matter of trust."

Barsness said that background checks are basically the "default" setting these days. "I lean toward ‘Why do we do this?’" he stated.

Uselton brought up the expense factor of background checks. Then she elaborated on her feelings about residency in Danbury, noting that the definition of "primary residency" is not clear in the application.

Barness suggested that voter rules be the guidelines. Shelton said that meant the applicants must live in Danbury four of seven days each week.

Ellis noted that the IRS rules of residency state that a person must live in a place more than 50 percent of the time. He also told the council that the applications Uselton had given him were "the most complete applications I’ve seen in the state of North Carolina." He reminded the members that they had never even had a P & Z application before.

When Mathys again mentioned adding the line about convictions, Ellis said they could add a line asking if the applicant had been convicted of a crime other than minor traffic violations in the last 10 years.

Later in the meeting when the issue came up for action, Mathys put forth a motion to approve the application with the line about prior convictions. Shelton insisted that IRS convictions be added as well. "We want honest people," she said.

Uselton reiterated her desire to emphasize residency, saying that she wanted the application to say that applicants should live in Danbury 75 percent of the time, not just "most of the time." Ellis countered that simply being there over 50 percent of the time is the legal limit.

Mathys said, "But we can make it stricter," agreeing with Uselton. He restated his original motion adding the requirement of 75 percent primary residency and the line to list IRS convictions. He, Shelton and Uselton voted in favor of the motion.

Ellis will mail out the application to all eligible Danbury voters who will then have two weeks to turn it back in if they wish to apply for the P & Z board.

Filling the positions on the board is a key focus of the town council right now, due to the fact that Sullivan has submitted both a map and text amendment for the council to consider. Mayor Janet Whitt laid out three options the council, regarding Sullivan’s requests: wait for a recommendation from the P & Z board, postpone the requests or set a public hearing for March.

Shelton wanted to go with the desires of the returning board members, Barsness and Mathys, but added that she felt the P & Z board was needed first.

Uselton asked, "Is there anything that says it has to be heard by the town council in a certain amount of time?" She told the council that she didn’t think it was fair for her to sit on the P & Z board and make a recommendation and then vote as a council member. Uselton explained that she wasn’t opposed to still sitting on the board until they could get a new one but that it seemed "tainted" to make decisions while on both board and council.

Mathys’ suggestion was that the map and text amendment discussion be tabled while the town is in litigation.

"We need to work as quickly as we can to staff the new board," Barsness opined, adding that "it’s unfortunate we’re in this position."

The entire council’s recommendation was that they wait on the P & Z board to be seated before they made a decision on the amendments. The town’s attorney, Mike Bruce, also recommended sending the amendments to the P & Z board first.

The next regular meeting of the Danbury Town Council is Wednesday, February 25, at 7 p.m. at the Danbury Town Hall.