[Durham INC] Draft Minutes from December 10 meeting
Pat
pats1717 at hotmail.com
Thu Dec 12 19:56:29 EST 2013
These have a long attachments thanks to all the work of the committees. Sorry if the formatting is messed up (my e-mail providers can be so clueless). Please let me know about any corrections or additions. Happy holidays, regards, pat
-------
November / December Delegate Meeting of the
InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt
December 10, 2013
Attending
the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Eagles’ Pointe – Donna Rudolph
Forest Hills – Donna Laws
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Northgate Park – Mike Shiflett
Old North Durham – Peter Katz,
John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom
Miller
Woodcroft – Scott Carter
Woodlake – Katrina Portwood
Visitors
Jim Wise – N & O
John Killeen – City of Durham,
NIS
Lynwood D. Best – City of
Durham, NIS
Will Wilson – DOST
President Scott Carter called the
meeting to order; those present introduced themselves. There were no changes to the
agenda. The minutes from the
October meeting were approved after Mike Shiflett moved to approve, and John
Martin seconded the motion.
Tom Miller gave a report on Wireless Communications Facilities for
the Zoning and Development Committee.
When the committee was dealing with the procedural changes in the UDO to
remove discretionary powers, it decided a whole separate effort was needed on
wireless communications facilities because of the complexity of the technical
and procedural issues. The
document in Appendix A is still not finished, but it is ready to be
shared. The industry wants to be
able to get administrative approval of towers because it is so much quicker,
and also needs towers in the 120-180 foot range. The neighborhoods that have been dealing with cell towers
mostly care keeping towers further away from where they live. The Planning Department proposal makes
distinctions between “concealed” and non-concealed towers, with the concealed
ones getting the (faster) administrative approval. The committee isn’t against concealed towers, but proposes
that the main distinction should be between towers in “residential type areas” and
those not in such areas; those in “residential type areas” would need a minor
Special Use Permit. The committee
is continuing to meet with representatives of the industry. In the meantime, please look at Appendix
A, watch for a final resolution to come out on the list-serve soon, and be
ready to vote on it in January.
Pat Carstensen gave a report on a
proposed change TC1200012 to the UDO.
See the proposed resolution on it in Appendix B (4 items in brackets “[
]” were added based on the discussion at the meeting). Generally it was felt that neighborhoods
needed more time to discuss the resolution, that we need to be careful to say
that density is good in its place, and that we should find out if any
neighborhood (not just a committee) was worried about the proposal. Tom Miller moved, and Mike Shiflett
seconded, a motion to ask City Council to delay consideration of amendment
until February; this passed. Tom
then moved, and Mike seconded, the resolution in Attachment B, so we can vote
on it in January.
Don Lebkes and Dick Ford gave a report from
the Membership and Outreach Committee. They didn’t get much response from
their attempts to reach out to neighborhoods so they have decided to go to the
PACs. They have been asked to come
to the facilitators’ meeting first, which they will do soon.
Peter Katz reported that the Nuisance Abatement Committee had a
productive meeting. They are
working on data and metrics and find that what they do dovetails nicely with
NIS’s Neighborhood Compass work.
Philip Azar reported for the Traffic Enforcement Committee. In incidence of pedestrian crashes,
Durham is the 3rd highest in the state. Traffic enforcement in neighborhoods is low-hanging
fruit. Enforcement responsibility
is spread between the sheriff’s department and the Durham Police Department
(DPD); within the DPD, responsibility is divided among different divisions,
enforcement is often pre-empted by motorized escort or accident investigations,
and even when they are doing “traffic enforcement,” it might be doing stops on
I40 or major interventions on DUI or drugs. They have some more information to gather – getting the
results of the BPAC survey and meeting with higher levels in DPD – but wanted
to share what they are proposing (see Appendix C). They expect to submit a final resolution in January, to be
voted on in February.
Scott Carter reported that the Bike, Pedestrian and
Transit Committee expects to meet in
January. They may want to look at
the processfor neighborhoods to get sidewalks installed or have sidewalks
refurbished. The Tobacco Trail
bridge fix is rumored to be going forward. The Main Street work is now completed with bike lanes. Mike Shiflett reported that there are
road projects all over the county: Triangle Connector (lots of neighborhood
issues), Infinity Road, Carver Street extension, and Fayetterville Road
widening. The Bull City Connector
route is being extended to NCCU.
In old business, someone
reported that Rick Hester says there are 203 boarded up houses in Durham, and 6 will go to foreclosure in the
new year.
There was a brief discussion of
committee structure. Traffic Enforcement hopes to work
themselves out of a job. Planning
and Development has a long list of potential issues to work on. We will not do a brain-storming session
this year, but neighborhoods are encouraged to bring up new issues or committee suggestions during neighborhood reports in
January or to bring them to the Executive Committee, which expects to meet in
January.
Neighborhood Reports and Other Announcements:
· Scott said that Susan Sewell, INC treasurer, will have dues statements
in January, but you can pay your dues ($25 minimum) any time. It was suggested that a re-designed
website would do better at showing the value of the organization for neighborhoods
considering joining INC.
· The Night of Lights will be December 15th in many
neighborhoods. Come out and enjoy
the spectacle. Duke Park is
decorated with big ball lights in some trees.
· Watts Hospital Hillandale brought copies of their most recent
newsletter.
Appendix A: Wireless Communications Tower Proposal
InterNeighborhood
Council of Durham Committee on Zoning and Land Use
Draft
Suggestions for New Durham UDO WCF Regulations
ed. 4, December
3, 2013
Introduction
Since the publication of the Durham City-County Planning Department’s
proposed revisions to the Durham Unified Development Ordinance as it pertains
to wireless communications facilities (WCFs), the Durham INC Zoning and Land
Use Committee has been working on comments and proposals for the effective
regulation of such facilities in a way which reasonably balances the interests
of WCF operators and stakeholders most often concerned about WCF
placement. Although the committee’s approach differed significantly from
the department’s initial draft, the department’s most recent version of the
rules indicates some points of conversion – especially in the area of approval
procedures.
In this process, committee members have met with industry
representatives and critics to learn more about WCFs and the issues associated
with them. We have consulted ordinances in other communities to better
understand the scope of regulatory schemes which govern this unique type of
use. From the industry we learned that growing demand requires more and
taller WCFs. The industry, while not opposed to regulation, prefers an
administrative application and approval process which does not require long
delays, potentially contentious public hearings, and discretionary
decision-making based upon broad standards which, to the industry, may seem
subjective. From the residential stakeholders most often opposed to WCFs,
we learned that the key issue is proximity. When a proposed WCF is
located in or near a residential neighborhood, issues relating to height and
compatibility become important. In these situations, neighbors expect
advance notice and an opportunity to be heard. When a WCF is proposed for
a site some distance away from a residential neighborhood, these concerns
diminish.
With these interests and concerns in mind, the INC committee has
focused on a regulatory scheme which increases substantive requirements and
procedural safeguards for WCFs proposed for residential areas while it reduces
dimensional requirements and streamlines approval procedures in areas
classified as non-residential. The WCF regulations reposed in the UDO
currently turn on the distinction whether a proposed WCF is “concealed” or
not. Those which are not concealed must go through the use permit process
before the board of adjustment while WCFs which are “concealed” must satisfy a
staff-only administrative review. The INC committee determined that the
concealed vs. non-concealed distinction fails to address either industry
interests or neighborhood concerns.
Instead, the committee divided the county’s land mass into two
principal regulatory areas, residential and non-residential. The
residential area includes all property included within a residential zoning
district except areas zoned Rural Residential in the Rural Tier. Also
included within the residential area is property not located within a
residential district, but within 450 feet of such a district. The
non-residential area includes all remaining property. Each of the
residential and non-residential areas covers a rough half of the county’s total
land area.
The INC committee’s regulatory scheme would require a minor use permit
for all free-standing WCFs in the residential area. WCFs proposed for the
residential area would be limited to 120 feet in height. In the
non-residential area, only administrative approval would be required for
free-standing WCFs up to 180 feet in height. WCFs taller than 180 feet
would require a use permit. In the committee’s scheme, WCF concealment
becomes a factor in the determination of compatibility and no longer determines
the form of approval procedure. The Planning Department’s most recent
draft takes a similar approach.
The INC committee’s proposal follows in greater detail below. It
should be read as a modification of the department’s proposed rules and not a
wholesale substitution. The committee’s proposal is as yet incomplete
inasmuch as the committee still intends to inquire into issues relating to WCF
inspections, maintenance, and removal. Also, the committee still plans to
invite the Planning Department and the industry to review and comment on the
committee’s proposal before a final version is sent to the neighborhood
delegates for full INC approval.
Approval Procedures
1)Minor
special use permit required for all freestanding WCFs^ in all R zones.*
2)Minor
special use permit required for all freestanding WCFs in non-R zoned property
which is within 450 feet of any R-zoned property.
3)Minor
special use permit required for all free-standing WCFs more than 180 ft.
tall.**
4)Administrative
approval only required for all free-standing WCFs below 180 ft. in non-R
zones.
5)Administrative
approval only required for attached WCFs in both R and non-R zones; however, an
attached WCFs in an R zone shall be no higher than 20 feet above the building
or structure to which the WCF is attached and the WCF shall substantially match
the building or structure in design and color.
Special Requirements for
WCFs in R Zones
1)Maximum
height of WCFs in R zones shall be 120 ft., including the height of any
antennae or equipment suspended on the tower.
2)Setbacks
shall be 300 ft. from any residential buildings in R zones. Setbacks from
non-residential buildings in R zones shall be 100 ft. or height of the tower
whichever is greater.
3)The
maximum compound or ground area for a free-standing WCF, exclusive of drives
and access roads shall be 10,000 sq. ft.
4)Equipment
within the ground area shall be fenced or walled with an 8 ft. opaque
fence.
5)The
fenced area shall be surrounded by a vegetative buffer of at least 10 ft. in
width. The plantings shall achieve 60% opacity.
6)Utility
lines serving WCFs shall be buried.
7)Testing
of generators serving WCFs in R zones shall be conducted only between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
8)Required
setbacks for WCFs in R zones shall not be reduced.
Special Setback requirements
for WCFs in the RR zone in the rural tier
A free-standing WCF located within the rural tier RR zone shall not be
sited closer than 450 feet or the 120% of the height of the tower (including
any antennae or array suspended on the tower), whichever distance may be
greater, to any residence or residential structure.
When a Minor Special Use
Permit is Required
1)The
applicant shall include with the application the results of a balloon test
demonstrating the height of the tower (and any antennae or other array
suspended on the tower) in its proposed location. See requirements for
balloon tests below.
2)Additional
showings required for special use permits for WCFs in R zones:
a) A WCF designed to resemble a tree shall be located within a stand of
trees so that the tower reasonably appears to be part of the stand of
trees. The WCF so designed shall not exceed the height of the
tallest trees within the stand of trees by 25 feet. Only trees located
within 100 feet of the WCF shall constitute a stand of trees for the purpose of
this provision. A stand of trees shall include no fewer than 25 trees
taller than 40 feet. The stand of trees shall not include trees which are
removed or die as a result of the erection of the WCF. Only monopole-type
WCFs may be designed to resemble trees.
b)A WCF (just free-standing or all?) approved in an R zone shall be the
leastvisually obtrusive among the options available and each site under
consideration shall be considered individually to determine the proposed WCF’s
compatibility with the particular location in question, existing uses, nearby
buildings and other structures, the surrounding landscape, and the applicable
zoning regulations and adopted land-use priorities.
c)Required setbacks for WCFs in R zones shall not be reduced.
3)
The notification radius for hearings before the Board of Adjustment for all
WCFs shall be 600 feet.
All WCFs
1)All free-standing WCFs
shall be insured in an amount not less than $1,000,000 against liability for
injury, damage, or loss caused by the erection, operation, or failure of the
WCF.
2)Every
application for WCF approval (whether administrative or through the Board of
Adjustment) shall identify a tenant or tenants for the structure.
3)No
WCF shall be permitted in any local historic district unless it is extant at
the time the district is approved.
4)WCFs
may be excluded or further regulated from NPO districts and from any parcel or
parcels by means of a design commitment in a development plan.
5)WCFs
shall not be located within a distance equivalent to either 120% of the height
of the structure or 200 feet, whichever may be greater, to any facility or
structure storing or transporting in bulk a flammable, explosive, or hazardous
gas, liquid, or other similar material rated ____. This requirement shall
apply to all such facilities or structures, whether located above or below the
surface of the ground; however, this requirement shall not be triggered by facilities
containing or transporting such materials if the facility is designed for the
distribution of amounts ordinarily used by residential, institutional, office,
or retail end-users.
6)No
buildings or structures may be located within the setback required for any
WCF.
7)Measurement
of free-standing WCF height shall include the platform or base upon which may
be sited and any antennae or other array attached to the tower. (Include or
exclude lightning rods?)
8)The
owner or operator of a WCF (free-standing or all WCFs?) shall provide a bond in
favor of the approving jurisdiction in the amount of $______ to provide for the
removal of a WCF which is abandoned, damaged to an extent equal to or greater
than one-half its replacement cost, or so unsafe that it poses a real and
imminent threat or risk of harm. A WCF is deemed abandoned if it is unused or
out-of-service for six months. (This section raises some issues about a city’s
or county’s ability to move against a cell tower in any way that would be
different from any other building or structure which is abandoned or
unsafe. It might be better, simply, to tie into those ordinances, if
possible.)
9)Every
application for the approval of a WCF, whether the approval be administrative
or pursuant to a minor special use permit, shall be accompanied by a site
plan. (This may require reconciliation with the site plan regulations
elsewhere in the UDO.)
10)In
connection with every application for the approval of a WCF, whether the
approval be administrative or pursuant to a minor special use permit, the
applicant shall demonstrate that no existing or previously approved structure
reasonably can be used and that collocating proposed antennae or arrays on an
existing or previously approved structure is not feasible.
11)Every
application for the approval of a WCF, whether the approval be administrative
or pursuant to a minor special use permit, shall be accompanied by the
certification of an appropriately licensed professional engineer or engineers
that the WCF and the supporting structure shall have the strength and integrity
to support the loads to be applied to it and that the structure conforms to or
exceeds the minimum standards promulgated by the American National Standards
Institute and any other applicable building and structural codes.
Following approval, WCFs shall not be operated in a way which is inconsistent
with these standards.
12)Every
application for the approval of a WCF, whether the approval be administrative
or pursuant to a minor special use permit, shall be accompanied by the
certification of an appropriately licensed professional engineer or engineers
that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by or associated with the WCF shall
not exceed the safety levels established by the Federal Communications Commission
or interfere with public safety communications of governmental units. Following
approval, WCFs shall not be operated in a way which is inconsistent with these
standards.
13)The
erection of every new WCF and every substantial modification of an existing WCF
shall require a new application for such approval as the height of the proposed
WCF or its location may require. No approval of a WCF, whether
administrative or by special use permit, may permit or allow for the future
substantial modification of a WCF without a new application, review, and
approval.
14)The
City-County Planning Department may obtain independent third-party review of
any WCF application when, in the discretion of the department, such review is
desirable. The department may assess the cost of such review to the
applicant within the limits established by law.
15)In
non-R zones, including the RR zone in the Rural Tier, a balloon test shall be
required only if requested by the City-County Planning Department.
Balloon Tests
1)The applicant shall
conduct a balloon test prior to the scheduled hearing before the Board of
Adjustment or, in the case of a test required by the Planning Department, on
such dates as the department may require. The applicant shall fly or
raise upon a temporary mast with stabilizers, a brightly colored red or orange
balloon, a minimum of 10’3” in length, at the maximum height of the proposed
new WCF. The balloon test shall be raised within 25 feet of the proposed WCF’s
location. The test shall be conducted on at least two days. The initial
test date shall be not later than 30 days before the date of the hearing before
the board of adjustment. The secondary test date shall be conducted not
more than five days following the date of the initial test. The balloon
test shall be flown for at least four consecutive daylight hours on the dates
chosen. The initial date for the balloon test shall be on a weekend (excluding
legal holidays), but to prevent delays in application, the secondary date may
be a weekday. When the test is performed at the request of the Planning
Department, the department may waive the secondary test.
2)No
less than 14 days in advance of the initial test date, a notice of the
dates times, and location of the balloon tests and an applicant’s phone number
shall be mailed, return receipt requested, by the applicant, to all persons
owning property within 1,000 feet of the property lines of the proposed tower’s
parent lot. Deed records, maps, and tax records of Durham County shall be
used as the source for determining which property owners shall receive notice
of the balloon tests.
3)The
applicant shall inform the Planning Department, in writing, of the dates and
times of the balloon test at least 21days in advance.
4)The
applicant shall post a sign or signs on the proposed site property at
location(s) determined by Planning Department. The sign(s) shall give the
contact information of the Planning Department, the proposed dates, times, and
location of the balloon test. The sign(s) shall measure no less than 5 sq. ft.
in area and be posted at least 14 days before initial test date.
5)The
applicant shall supply pictures of the balloon test’s results from all
directions of east, north, south, and west of the proposed tower’s location at distances
equal to the applicable WCF setback and 1/2 the distance of the WCF
setback. The applicant shall, upon request, also submit photos from other
locations such as property lines, roadways, major view corridors, and other
locations deemed necessary by the Planning Department and/ or by written
requests from notified residents, received by Planning Department at least 24
hours before the initial test date. Also, the applicant shall submit
photographs with the proposed tower and associated antennas superimposed upon
them showing what the WCF will look like from all required locations, to be
used to assess the visual impact of the proposed WCF by the approval
authority.
WCF Inspections
Need to review Chapel Hill and other applicable ordinances
WCF Removals
Need to review Chapel Hill and other applicable ordinances
^For
this purposes of this document, the term “WCF” shall mean a wireless
communications facility and the structure to which it is attached as the
context may require. A reference to a free-standing WCF shall include the
tower or structure to which it is attached.
*For
the purposes of this document, the terms “R zone” and “residential zone” shall
mean and include RS-20, RS-10, RS-8, RS-M, RU-5, RU-5(2), RU-M, RC, PDR, and
the RR zone outside the rural tier. The standards and regulations
proposed herein for WCFs in R zones and residential zones shall also apply to
any WCF located or to be located within 450 feet of any property zoned as an R
zone.
**
Wherever the height of a WCF is referred to in this document, the height shall
include the structure, including its base, and whatever antennae or array be
mounted on the structure.
Appendix B: TC1200012
A Resolution Regarding Proposed
Changes in Density of Multi-Family Developments, TC1200012
Whereas
Durham’s governing bodies are being asked to consider TC1200012, changing the
Unified Development Ordinance to generally increase the density allowed for
multi-family residential zones by
1. Adjusting current density allowances
to remove fractions of dwelling units;
2. Modifying the existing Residential
Suburban-Multifamily (RS-M) Major Roadway Density Bonus to include frontage
along service roads;
3. Allowing higher densities, but only
with approval of the governing body through rezoning with a development plan;
and
4. Allowing the use of density bonuses
for multifamily development in non-residential districts in the Suburban and
Compact Neighborhood Tiers, consistent with what is currently permitted within
the Urban Tier, and.
Whereas
removing fractions of dwelling units from the multiplier does not eliminate the
need to sometimes round the result (since the property could have, for example,
12.5 acres), and
Whereas
removing fractions results in as much as a 14.2% increase in the number of
dwelling units (for example, going from a multiplier of 3.5 to 4 for 10 acres
goes from 35 to 40 units), and
Whereas
rounding the result of multiplying a fractional number of units per acre and
the “allowed acreage” has seemed to work in the past, and
Whereas
changing multiplies that have been decided on through a political process and
based on best national practices should not be done lightly, and
Whereas
there is no guarantee that a development along a service road will use that
service road as the primary access, or than the service road is not already
identified as having failing intersections, resulting in either more traffic
injected into residential streets behind the property or an even more dangerous
intersection with the main road (can anyone seriously propose that we put more
traffic on the service road on the south side of 15-501 east of Garrett Road?),
and
Whereas
the higher densities around transit areas with development plans are necessary
to create the kind of density needed to make transit work, allowing any
suburban area is just diluting the incentive to build around transit, and
Whereas
Durham has shown its support of transit through its planning processes and vote
to use a sales tax to support it, and
Whereas
the UDO requires two parking spaces per unit [in non-transit-oriented areas],
which will create an immense amount of impervious surface when there are 20
units per acre [if that density is allowed in areas that will remain
car-dependent], and
[Whereas
the Planning Department analyzed two potential development sites along 15-501
access roads, http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Documents/JCCPC/Agendas/2013/May/Attachment6.pdf,
one at Cornwallis and one at Mt. Moriah Road, which are very different in their
suitability for density: the one at Mt. Moriah is within walking distance of
job opportunities, already served by both TTA and DATA, and will be at a rail
stop in the future and the one at Cornwallis, even though it is on the future
rail line, is a long way from any future stop and will likely always be
car-dependent, and]
Whereas
these changes are being made at the request of a developer trying to squeeze
more units onto a property too small for their profits, and
Whereas
no developer has the right to rules that optimize their profits, and
[Whereas
developers have other choices to obtain greater density, such as variances,
re-zoning and Compact Districts; in fact, the area at Mt. Moriah and 15-501 that
the Planning Department analyzed is already starting the process of becoming a
Compact District, and]
Whereas
changes to rules [that apply across the county] for the benefit of a single
development usually have many unforeseen bad consequences, and
Whereas
the Planning Department has done excellent work in identifying the issues with
the developer’s original proposal, therefore
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the InterNeighborhood
Council (INC) of Durham by its delegates duly assembled that the City and
County of Durham should reject TC1200012.
Also although the INC does not agree with the current proposal from the
Planning Department, the department is to be commended for its efforts to
improve the original proposal.
Appendix C:
Traffic Enforcement
THIRD
DRAFT. FOR UPDATING INC IN ANTICIPATION OF A POSSIBLE JANUARY OR FEBRUARY
VOTE BY NEIGHBORHOOD DELEGATES.
DURHAM
INTERNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF TRAFFIC ENFORCMENT ON
NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS
DEFINITIONS
“Enforcement of traffic laws” and “traffic enforcement”
refer primarily to enforcement of speed limits, and
failure-to-yield-to-pedestrian laws, and similar measures designed to promote
pedestrian and vehicle safety. “Enforcement of traffic laws” and “traffic
enforcement” as they are used herein do not refer to the enforcement of laws
regarding illegal arms, controlled substances or driving while under the
influence.
“Neighborhood streets” are streets going through residential neighborhoods
for which the speed limit typically is 35 miles per hour or less. The
maps of pedestrian crash locations provided in the Durham Transportation
Department’s Draft Preliminary Action Plan (2010) and in the in the UNC Highway Safety Research
Center’s Durham Pedestrian Crash Trends (August 29, 2012) attached collectively as
Appendix A assist in the identification of important neighborhood
streets.
PREAMBLE
Whereas the Durham InterNeighborhood Council (“INC”) has identified the
enforcement of traffic laws as an achievable way to improve the quality
of life in Durham neighborhoods, has noted that other citizen forums were not
focused on traffic enforcement, and has formed a Traffic Enforcement Committee
charged with improving the safety of Durham neighborhood streets by encouraging
increased traffic enforcement on those streets; and
Whereas statistics compiled by the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Division of Motor Vehicles Crash Database, 2005-2009, as cited by Durham
Transportation and Police Departments shows that Durham has the 3rd highest
incidence of pedestrian crashes in North Carolina even though it has only the
5th largest population in the State and that, over the 5 years studied,
Durham's pedestrian crash trends increased even though they have decreased in
other North Carolina cities; and
Whereas Durham pedestrian accident statistics were of such concern that Durham
was chosen by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (“NC DOT”) for a
pilot jurisdiction of the Watch4MeNC campaign and recent
data (Appendix B) continues to highlight pedestrian and bike crashes
as areas of concern; and
Whereas a number of City of Durham Strategic Plan priorities speak
directly to the need to seek improvement in traffic safety (Safe & Secure
Community; Thriving, Livable Neighborhoods; Well-Managed City; Stewardship of
Physical Resources); and
Whereas a number of Durham County Strategic Plan priorities speak directly to
the need to seek improvement in traffic safety (Health and Well-being for All;
Secure Community; Environment); and
Whereas INC recognizes that there have been and will continue to be great
things happening in Durham and that through the efforts of elected
officials in the city and county, the Durham Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Commission (“BPAC”), and public employees of the city and the county ,
Durham is the regional leader in walkability and bike-ability, especially in
terms of engineered infrastructure and education and encouragement of residents
to exercise outdoors and to engage in alternative forms of transportation;
and
Whereas scarce traffic enforcement resources are currently divided between the
county and the city and, with regard to the city, divided among multiple DPD
divisions and districts with no police captain or assistant or deputy police
chief responsible for coordinating traffic enforcement on a jurisdiction-wide
basis or for reporting the results thereof; and
Whereas BPAC regularly receives reports from engineering, transportation and
other departmental experts employed by the city and county staff on matters
relevant to the Commission's obligation to advise elected officials on matters
of importance to community members who bike and walk or wish to do so;
and
Whereas INC is fully aware that among the offenders against traffic and
pedestrian safety laws are neighbors residing in the neighborhoods where
traffic enforcement should be improved; and
Whereas many of our neighborhood streets are also state-maintained roads and
require coordination and negotiation with NC DOT and other state agencies and
bodies; and
Whereas INC is aware of allegations of
racial profiling in Durham, especially with regard to drug enforcement at
traffic stops as well as the responses to those
allegations and recognizes that these concerns are currently being addressed in
the Durham Human Relations Commission;
NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DURHAM INTERNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL BY
ITS DELEGATES DULY ASSEMBLED:
1. That the Durham Police Department (“DPD”) and Sheriff's
Office are profusely thanked for their dedication, service and sacrifices
to the City and County of Durham; and
2. That City Council by is urged to direct DPD by and
through the City Manager to make traffic enforcement on neighborhood streets a
significantly higher priority than has historically been the case; and
3. That City Council by is urged to direct DPD by and through the
City Manager to prepare a Traffic Enforcement plan within three months of such
direction that includes, among other things, the following elements:
(i) an inventory of the number and organizational location of officers,
cars, bikes and motorcycles and speed detection equipment having primary
responsibility for traffic enforcement on neighborhood streets;
(ii) an estimate of the percentage of time those human and physical
assets will be devoted to traffic enforcement on neighborhood streets as
opposed to other duties;
(iii) a clear identification of the hierarchy/ies within DPD
responsible for the deployment, coordination and efficient use of those assets
including the name, title and contact information of the DPD officer having
city-wide responsibly for deployment and coordination of those assets and
reporting on the usage of the same;
(iv) a statement explaining DPD's policies as to how those assets are
regularly, systematically and effectively used on the enforcement of traffic
laws on neighborhood streets as opposed to accident investigation, motorized
escort, community outreach, traditional law enforcement, or other priority
absent exigent circumstance beyond the type of emergencies that law enforcement
faces on a regular basis;
(v) publication of an easier means by which Durham residents can
request additional traffic enforcement in an area they live in or regularly
transit (e.g. DurhamOneCall); and
(vi) metrics on the numbers of traffic enforcement operations
undertaken on neighborhood streets, the numbers of cars stopped, warned and
ticketed, etc., such metrics to be publicly available and sortable at precinct,
district, and city-wide levels; and
4. That the City Council is urged to direct the DPD by and
through its Manager to open dialogue with the Durham County Sheriff for the
purpose of improving coordination with the Sheriff's Office and with the
County's human and physical assets (such as laser-based speed-detectors
purchased by the Sheriff's Office that work during rush hour when speeding
traffic may be dense); and
5. That the City Council is urged to draw the DPD's attention by
and through its Manager to the following INC recommendations in designing the
department's Traffic Enforcement Plan:
(i) The DPD shall publicly report
to BPAC and the Crime Cabinet on the amount of time and other resources devoted
to traffic enforcement on neighborhood streets and the results of those
efforts. Such reports shall be of comparable specificity as what BPAC
already receives from the engineering, transportation and other departments;
and
(ii) The DPD shall weigh crashes
involving bicycles and pedestrians more heavily than car crashes when
deciding where to stage enforcement actions so that enforcement efforts focus
on human safety for those who are most vulnerable; and
(iii) The work of Officer David E. Kub as
shown in the Neighborhood
Portfolio Exercise Presentation, Spring 2013 (Appendix C) contains
the type of traffic enforcement action and reporting that might be included in
the Traffic Enforcement Plan; and
(iv) The DPD shall create a
specifically trained and led traffic enforcement squad deployed throughout the
city on a roving, periodic, unannounced basis to neighborhoods where traffic
enforcement is most needed; and
6. That the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners
are urged to encourage Durham's delegation to the General Assembly to request
statutory authority for Durham and other local jurisdictions to install speed
cameras on a limited or pilot basis on neighborhood streets, especially near
schools, hospitals and parks, and to clarify to the General Assembly that speed
cameras are not like red light cameras in several important respects:
there is no possibility of altering the timing of yellow lights so as to trap
motorists and there is no safe time to speed by schools, hospitals and parks on
neighborhood streets; and
7. That the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners
are urged to encourage Durham's delegation to the General Assembly to determine
the most feasible means of changing the state driver's license tests to
emphasize pedestrian and bike safety and to reflect the state's increasing
urbanization; and
8. That the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners
are urged to include within its appointments to BPAC individuals who advocate
for greater enforcement of traffic laws on neighborhood streets much at it
already appoints proponents of planning, engineering and infrastructure;
and
9. That the Executive Committee of INC remain seized of this
issue, taking appropriate steps to follow up on this resolution and
report progress to its delegates.
This ____ day of _______________, 2013
THE
INTERNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF DURHAM
By:
________________________________________
Scott
Carter, President
Appendix
A – http://bit.ly/18jmK5l and http://bit.ly/1kAAfxR
Appendix
B – http://bit.ly/18kN1Ai
Appendix
C – http://bit.ly/18jmFP7
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20131212/be7a2a9f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list