INC NEWS - UDO and impervious surfaces

Sat Apr 19 17:46:16 EDT 2008

I have to agree with Barry's assertion that it's poorly worded. One  
interpretation that bothers me to no end is when some folks get a citation for  
parking on their front yards, they dump a bunch of gravel onto the grass and  call 
it parking area. This seems to appease code enforcement and the attitude  seems 
to be that these driveways are "pervious". Or they can pour concrete, go  
figure.

Bill Anderson

In a message dated 4/19/2008 4:53:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
bragin at nc.rr.com writes:

Thanks,  Pat. i'm not a lawyer, but the way i read that section, 
"residential uses  may only utilize designated driveways  
<http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4241> within any  yard 
area between the primary structure and the street for parking," it  seem 
pretty clear that driveways are not supposed to extend beyond "the  
primary structure." This is of course poorly worded - houses with  
detached garages often have them set behind or to the side of the house.  
Nevertheless that's what the code is. Runoff is the key issue for me,  
with appearance secondary. I should think that the city and county would  
be equally concerned with runoff issues as well.

That does not  appear to be the case.

If your recommendations are in fact put into the  code, how would that 
impact construction that was done before these  amendments are adopted? I 
would also ask that the number of vehicles that  can be parked in a back 
yard is explicitly limited, to perhaps two,  regardless of whether they 
are in operating condition or not. If you're  storing more than two cars 
in your back yard, may i suggest you consider  renting commercial storage 
space for your vehicles? If you're regularly  parking more than two 
vehicles in your back yard, then you've essentially  created an entire 
yard of impervious surface, as well as making wonder  what sort of 
commercial enterprise you're engaging  in.

best,
Barry Ragin

Pat Carstensen wrote:
> The UDO  is pretty explicit about what can be used as a driveway int 
> the FRONT  yard, but doesn't deal with back yard.  This is clearly an 
>  issue. 
>
> I think the logic was that neighbors wouldn't see the  back yard, so it 
> shouldn't be part of the code.  We overlooked  the issues like
> (1) run-off
> (2) appearance to side and back  neighbors
>
> I would suggest a new clause that
> (1) limits  % of impervious surface (which would also limit things like 
> swimming  pools)
> (2) require screening around areas that park more than X  cars
> (3) If something close to the permitted amount of impervious  surfaces 
> is done, it must be surrounded by stuff that absorbs water  (Mangum 
> terraces, water gardens, trees) -- I don't know that we know  any good 
> best practices short of little ponds, but we should be  figuring that out.
>
> Hope this helps, regards,  pat
>
>
>       10.2.3 Vehicle Parking  Permitted in Residential Districts and Uses
>
>    1.  Other than townhouses
>        <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4408> and
>   apartments
>        <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4174>,
>   residential uses may only utilize designated  driveways
>        <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4241>  within
>       any yard area between the primary  structure and the street for
>       parking.  Driveways shall be surfaced with an all-weather
>     material with edges clearly delineated and, within the  area
>       between the primary structure and the  street, shall not exceed
>       25 feet in width  unless wider driveways are shown on an approved
>     site plan  <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4380>
>   or plot plan. Except for driveways, no additional curb  cuts or
>       vehicle access points shall be  permitted. Parked vehicles shall
>       not block  pedestrian walkways
>
> There is footnote on a table on design  standards:
> ^3 Building coverage 
>  <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4190> may be further  
> restricted by the impervious surface requirements of Sec. 3087  
> <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=3087>B,  Impervious 
> Surface Limits.
>
> (This may only apply in  select watersheds?  I have no clue what 3087B 
>  is....)
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:39:08  -0400
> > From: bragin at nc.rr.com
> > To:  inc-list at durhaminc.org; inc-list at rtpnet.org
> > Subject: INC NEWS -  UDO and impervious surfaces
> >
> > I've been told by  Planning Dep't. and Inspections Dep't. staffers that
> > the Durham  UDO does not address the issue of impervious surfaces on
> > existing  residential lots. In other words, there is no ordinance that
> >  would prevent you from turning your entire back yard into a paved
> >  parking lot.
> >
> > I know there are people on this list  much more conversant with the UDO
> > than I am. Can anyone confirm  this for me?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Barry  Ragin
> > _______________________________________________
>  > INC-list mailing list
> > INC-list at rtpnet.org
> >  http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now. 
>  
<http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008>  
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing  list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>  http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>    
_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing  list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20080419/a9e16140/attachment-0001.htm 