The board also cleared the path for construction of a massive Walmart store in what had been billed as a modern, cutting-edge multi-use development and okayed a less-than-desirable access option for another development east of town.

But it was what the board didn’t do that made the most racket.

As Commissioner Ken Lucas prepared to ride off into the sunset, he was treated to one last rootin’, tootin’ ruckus as fellow Huntersville Town Board members came out loaded for bear concerning the future of his now vacant seat.

In May, Lucas announced plans to resign from the board. His plan was to step down after the first June meeting — following a vote on the budget and his successor. Interpretations of those intentions fueled the flame that ignited Monday’s debate.

Lucas and fellow Commissioner Charles Jeter wanted a vote on a replacement. Commissioners Sarah McAulay, Danae Caulfield and Ron Julian — each with their own expressed reasons —did not. Lucas and Jeter believed the finality of Lucas’ resignation hinged on the selection of a commissioner to fill his seat. McAulay, Caulfield and Julian viewed it differently and —eventually in reluctantly qualified, carefully expressed and professionally honed vague terms —Town Attorney Bob Blythe agreed with the majority.

The result is a four-member board, with Mayor Jill Swain positioned as the tiebreaker, at least until August, when commissioners vowed to address the issue again. The 3-2 vote to not vote did not occur without one of the board’s signature floor shows.

“I believe we have an obligation to fill the seat if we have someone available to do the job,” Jeter said, adding that he searched the community to find suitable candidates and pared his list down to seven, then three. He then nominated former commissioner Brian Sisson as Lucas’ replacement.

Lucas quickly seconded Sisson’s nomination, but a substitute motion by McAulay, who said in May she did not think Lucas should be a part of a vote to name his replacement, to not vote on a replacement redirected the discussion.

The next 30 minutes included questions and comments about the board’s responsibilities to name a replacement, the regulations and timeframe requirements related to naming a replacement, the wisdom in picking a replacement so close to campaign season and the status of Lucas’ resignation if a replacement was not selected.

Caulfield took the lead in listing reasons for delaying.

“I think there’s a lot of people who could be considered,” she said, “but we’re five months out from an election. If we appoint someone now, we’re giving that person a lot of publicity,”

She added that a citizen joining the board now would also require some extensive tutoring from town staff members to get up to speed on issues the board will be dealing with in the coming months.

Julian said he simply wasn’t ready to decide on a replacement.

“I’ve received e-mails from people who are well knowledgeable about this position,” he said.“I just couldn’t make up my mind.”

Lucas took a final opportunity to scold his fellow board members.

“Everyone has known about my resignation since May 16,” he said. “Showing up at this daisunprepared to vote on my replacement is a disservice to the people of Huntersville.”

Jeter also jumped in, addressing the audience.

“This may be the first time you’ve seen a board fight so hard not to vote on something,” he said, then turning his comments back to the board. “If the votes aren’t there, let it fail. We’ll vote and move on. By delaying a vote until Aug. 1, all you do is prevent Mr. Lucas from his charter allowedright to vote on this.”

Blythe was a reluctant but popular target for questions during the discussion and his interpretation of the issue is that Lucas’ resignation had been accepted by the board and was in effect after the meeting no matter what votes were taken. When Jeter asked if Lucas could rescind his resignation, Blythe was unsure.

“I think ... I don’t know,” he said.

He added that guidelines and requirements for filling board vacancies vary and in some cases boards can be required to name a replacement after a specific time period. But for Monday’s meeting, there was no requirement.

“The town charter allows us to make a vote,” Caulfield asked, “but it doesn’t compel or require us to, is that correct?

“Yes,” Blythe said.

Debate continues

On the budget issue, Jeter proposed a last-ditch plan to reduce the tax rate to the estimated revenue-neutral 27.5 cents per $100 valuation number. His idea was voted down prior to approval of Town Manager Greg Ferguson’s budget package, which had been poked, prodded, tweaked and trimmed during a month-long review by the commissioners.

The approved rate of 28.25 cents is a 75-cent reduction from last year’s rate, but still represents a tax increase for most because of revaluation that raised the assessed value of nearly all property in the county.

To make his suggestion work, Jeter proposed cutting one-half million dollars in expenditures from Ferguson’s basic budget package and using funds earmarked for commissioner compensation to finance specific items for the police department and the town’s contribution to the Ada Jenkins Center. His idea was put to a quick vote and was defeated 3-2, with McAulay, Caulfield and Julian voting against.

“We as a group worked through this budget,” McAulay said, “and that is the budget that has been presented tonight. We made some cuts. The rest of the items are needed to serve the town.”

Lucas, who voted in favor of Jeter’s proposal, said the budget process was tough and he believes a sign of things to come.

“We had some back-and-forths and some gyrations on this, it happens every year,” Lucas said. “However it has played out, we had some great discussions. Now we’re asking (finance director) Janet Stoner to look into her crystal ball and tell us how much money we’ll have.

“This has been the most difficult budget discussion I’ve been a part of,” he continued, “and I believe this board will be dealing with the same situation next year.”

The budget issues kicked off a quick firestorm on Facebook as former board member Sisson, spurned as Lucas’ replacement, fired off a missive.

“For those of you who live in Huntersville, the ‘conservative’ Town Board voted 3-2 to adopt a budget that will raise taxes 20-plus percent on the majority of it’s citizens. Add that to the 25 percent county increase, and enjoy those tax bills come January!” Sisson posted on his page.

Caulfield responded via Facebook.

“During our budget session, Comm. Jeter and Lucas both argued to keep things in our budget that would cause an increase ... so in an effort to get the tax rate decreased through general consensus of all Board members, items were kept in that could have been taken out,’’ Caulfield posted. “It’s so easy to fold your arms and say no, knowing full well that there are 3 people that will pass a budget that you helped shape and who will take the heat so you don’t have to.”

On the development side of Huntersville’s agenda, two projects received unanimous board approval to proceed.

Developers of Bryton, a 428-acre multi-use Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) on the southern edge of town, were given approval for phase 1A of their project involving 28.23 acres anchored by a 151,060-square-foot Walmart store. The first phase of American Asset Corp.’s project will include the Walmart facility, four outparcels and four public streets representing initial construction at the project, framed by Alexanderana Road, N.C. 115 and Everette Keith Road.

Bryton, designed to combine retail, office and residential uses, is described as a TOD because of its focus on easy transportation access and transit-friendly layout. The location is near the final leg of I-485 and is designed around a re-routed commuter rail line with a planned station inside the development.

At Monday’s meeting, David Peete, Huntersville’s principal planner, said the first-phase proposal does not require any rezoning and is in keeping with the overall conceptual plan for Bryton approved five years ago by the town.

“There was a large retail facility included in the original plan,” Peete told the board. “It is in a new location within the development, but very similar to the original concept.”

During a public comment session concerning plans for Walmart, only one speaker, professional planner Alison Nichols, voiced opposition.

“I’m surprised anyone would consider Walmart as part of a transportation-oriented development, it’s incompatible with a TOD,” she said. “When I moved here, I liked the look of Huntersville. I liked the zoning guidelines. Honestly, I think this will change the nature of the development.

“Walmarts generate traffic, that’s what they do, that’s what they want to,” she continued. “It will set a bad standard for Walmart to the be the first business in the development.”

In another part of town, roads were the primary issue in a developer’s request for town approval. Glenwood Development is planning Huntersville East on the south side of N.C. 73 at the intersection of Davidson-Concord Road. The original plan called for a major intersection of N.C. 73, Davidson-Concord Road and extended Prosperity Church Road bordering the development.

Developers have not been able to secure land to complete the intersection and sought a “plan B” to move forward with their project. The second option would involve a major intersection 900 feet west of Davidson-Concord Road to serve as the primary entrance to the development.

The board granted approval for the change with the understanding that a full-flow traffic signal (one providing protected turns for traffic in all directions) would be a pre-requisite for option B to be implemented.