INC NEWS - Conservation Subdivision Text Amendment(s)

[Melissa Rooney]

Regarding the Conservation Subdivision text amendment
(to the UDO) to be considered at the JCCPC meeting
tomorrow morning...Below are my suggestions for
improvement, for those who care to read them.

If you agree with any of these points and/or have any
of your own, I encourage you to voice this to the
JCCPC at:

Diane.Catotti at durhamnc.gov,
Cora.Cole-McFadden at durhamnc.gov,
bmheron at durhamcountync.gov, Mike.Woodard at durhamnc.gov,
ereckhow at aol.com, lcheek at durhamcountync.gov,
gabrine013 at msn.com, Steve.Medlin at durhamnc.gov

I am so grateful to the JCCPC and planning department
for taking this on -- it will be a great (and much
needed) change to the UDO.

Cheers,
Melissa
(P.S. See below)
________________________

Conservation Subdivision text amendment comments:

1) p.5, Section 6.2.4.A Commentary: "A conservation
subdivision SHOULD be considered for any tract that
contains sizeable environmentally sensitive areas..." 

Can we change 'Should' to 'Must' here? This still
doesn't REQUIRE that the land be used for a CSD, it
only requires that it must be CONSIDERED for a CSD
first.

** 2) p.6, Section 6.2.4.D: Density calculation: Lakes
and other land that CANNOT be built upon should be
excluded from the density calculations, as these do
not offset the increased density in any way (except
perhaps visually, though this is debatable if all the
natural area around the lake is cleared).

3) p. 6, Section 6.2.4.E.2.b: 'All streams, rivers,
lakes wetlands and other hydrologic features;'
Shouldn't we specify that this includes INTERMITTENT
streams as well?

4) p.6, Section 6.2.4.E.2: Shouldn't the site analysis
map also show all 'specimen trees' (18 " dbh)
throughout? If this is required via another section of
the UDO, it should still be referenced as item "j"
here.

**5) p.7, Section 6.2.4.F: In addition to primary and
secondary conservation requirements: Clear-cutting and
grading should be required on a lot by lot basis, or
there should be a minimum clear-cutting and grading
lot size (say 3 acres), so that native vegetation,
slopes and trees are left within the development. 

Especially in a conservation subdivision, there should
 be strong language to preserve trees WITHIN
residential lots and not just on the edges of the
development parcel (the latter of which was done with
the controversial Southampton development on Herndon
Road, as well as many others).

** Such tree preservation should be required for the
rural and suburban tier as well as for conservation
subdivision developments -- if this is done it won't
discourage developers from going the CSD route.

Preserving such trees only increases the desirability
and value of the homes on these lots, as well as their
environmental integrity (compare Fairfield to
Southampton developments, both on Herndon road and
both still under construction, the latter of which
can't sell it's lots).

6) p.7, Section 6.2.4.F.1.a: Need to define what
'Special Flood Hazard areas' and "Future Conditions
Flood Hazard Areas" are, or refer to a
section/document that does so. [What about the 100
year flood plain? I presume this is included.]

7) p.7, Section 6.2.4.F.1.b: The Riparian buffers
along all perennial and intermittent streams are
required of ANY zoning and should, thus, be in the
SECONDARY Conservation areas, NOT in the primary
conservation areas. 

** In order to protect water resources, including
Jordan Lake, the Chapel Hill LUMO (sections 3.6.3 and
3.6.4) has limited uses in a band that is further back
from the required 50 foot stream buffer (an additional
50 - 100 feet, depending on the zoning), thus
providing a total corridor area of up to 150 feet from
the stream bank. Durham should consider including this
'extra buffer' as a primary conservation area.

** 8) p.7, Section 6.2.4.F.1.c: "Wetlands protected by
ACE ...and any provided or required buffers." 

Does this include the regularly 'requested' 100 ft
buffer adjacent to ACE land? If not, the language
should be changed to include this.

**9) p.7, Section 6.2.4.F.1.d: 'Lakes, Ponds, and
other water bodies'...These should be REQUIRED in ALL
zonings and should not be included as open space here,
because they can't be built on anyway (at least not
without great expense). 

At the VERY least, such 'water bodies' should be a
secondary conservation option, NOT a primary one (and
they certainly shouldn't be so high on the primary
priority list).

10) p.7, Section 6.2.4.F.1.g: Wildlife Corridors,
Wildlife Habitats and other sites..." Are these well
defined in the Durham County Inventory(ies)? If not,
we need a better definition here.

11) p.8, Section 6.2.4.F.1.n: Define viewshed. Jordan
at Southpoint tried to call the powerline easement a
viewshed.

** 12) p.8, Section 6.2.4.F.2.D: preservation of
individual existing healthy trees should be required
OUTRIGHT -- rather than as part of the open space
requirements (see item 5 above).

13) p.9, Section 6.2.4.G: "...and, if required,
secondary conservation areas..." 

In this opening section, it is unclear whether the
developer can simply substitute these additional open
space options for the secondary conservation area
options. If this is, indeed, the case, then why not
just include them in the secondary conservation area.
There needs to be better indication under what
situations these can be substituted for secondary
conservation requirements. 

Furthermore, why does it say 'if required?' I thought
the secondary conservation areas ARE required,
otherwise what's the point?

14) p.10, Section 7.2.2.C: Since 'payment-in-lieu
shall be an amount equivalent to the tax value of the
amount of USABLE property,' shouldn't all conservation
subdivision open space be 'useable.' In other words,
lakes and water bodies should be required outright,
but should be excluded from inclusion in the primary
and secondary open space areas.

15) p.13, Section 8.3.3.C: Specimen tree survey. Is
this required for the conservation subdivision? If so,
it should still be included in Section 6.2.4.E.2, at
least via a reference to Section 8.3.3.C.

6) p.14, Section 8.3.3.D.2: Is the land disturbance
tree survey (showing root protection zone of any tree
> 10 inches DBH, etc.) required for the conservation
subdivision as well? If so, it should still be
included in Section 6.2.4.E.2, at least via a
reference to Section 8.3.3.D.2.


** I agree with Pat Carstensen that, if the property
is over a certain size (i.e. say 25 acres of preserved
primary conservation areas), require that
representatives of land conservation organizations
(Eno River, Ellerbe Creek, TLC, etc.) be invited to
the pre-application conference with planning. Though
these land conservation organizations could obviously
come to the neighborhood meetings (if properly
notified), this 
additional invitation/involvement would recognize
their professional expertise.

** Another suggestion from Pat is that the density
calculation be done on the basis of 'buildable land'
(i.e. excluding water bodies, etc.) as opposed to
total land. Of course, I agree with this as well.

________________

Other suggestions for changes to text (regarding rural
and suburban tiers) within these pages:

*) p.12, Section 7.2.3.B: Open Space Use Chart, column
4: 'revegated to appear naturally vegetated"
...shouldn't this be better defined? And shouldn't
this be allowed only in 'special' circumstances (where
natural vegetation simply cannot be 'saved')? 

Replacing several old-growth trees with a single
sapling is far from adequate. This should be the case
for ALL tiers, not just CSD.

*) p.12, Section 7.2.3.B: Open Space Use Chart, column
5: water bodies should be removed from allowance into
Open Space %age for ALL tiers, not just CSD (see above
for rationale).

*) p.12, Section 7.2.3.B: Open Space Use Chart,
columns 8, 9 and 10: 'recreational property,'
'prepared play areas,' and 'publicly accessible plazas
and courtyards,' are usually cleared and graded, and
often paved, and should not count the same as
'natural' areas toward open space for rural or
suburban tiers.

*) p.12, Section 7.2.4.A: If streets, driveways, etc.,
'may not be counted toward the open space
requirement,' then neither should other nonpermeable
areas (like tennis, basketball courts, play areas,
pools, clubhouses, etc.).

*) p.12, Section 7.2.5.A: Why is 'no useable open
space' required in the Rural tier? So all open space
in the rural tier can be water or powerline easement,
for instance? Something's wrong with this.










      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs