[Durham INC] Please reject UDO Tree coverage change TC1300002

[Ellen Reckhow]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Will, Bob and Milo. Is this
on an upcoming JCCPC agenda?

Ellen Reckhow
Durham County Board of Commissioners
Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:28 PM, "wjacobs at dconc.gov" <wjacobs at dconc.gov> wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing this upcoming proposed change to my attention, Will, Milo and Bob.
>
> Wendy Jacobs
> Durham County Commissioner
> Cell Phone: (919) 418-3169
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:21 AM, "Will Wilson" <willwilsn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> To: Durham City Council
>>    Board of County Commissioners
>>    Planning Director Steve Medlin
>> Re: UDO Text Amendment TC1300002, Tree Coverage Reduction
>>
>> Changing Durham's Unified Development Ordinance should be done carefully
>> and comprehensively, at regular and infrequent intervals, with a full
>> understanding of the consequences of each change.  Changes should not be
>> made in response to requests affecting specific properties or individual
>> situations. An excellent example of how not to make changes is the text
>> amendment TC1300002 that reduces Durham's tree coverage requirements at
>> the request of a single developer to avoid the present requirements. The
>> UDO mandates tree coverage for Durham's citizens in order to provide
>> many beneficial services, and there is no clear public purpose served by
>> reducing these benefits.
>>
>> Without the proposed change, a lot of a certain size requires a certain
>> fraction of tree coverage. With the change, the developer gets to remove
>> the easement area from the lot size, then calculate the fraction of tree
>> coverage. That change reduces tree coverage and increases the
>> development size.
>>
>> We sympathise with long-term property owners that have easements placed
>> during their ownership, though financial compensation for these
>> easements generally accounts for the loss of use, present and future.
>> However, after such negotiations have completed, it is not clear that
>> any miscalculation of the value of these easements by the landowners
>> should result in reduced tree coverage for Durham's citizens.
>>
>> We have little sympathy for purchasers of properties with existing
>> easements. The issue of unbuildable easements, and the consequences of
>> the existing UDO rules are clear at the time of purchase. The financial
>> burden can easily be mitigated by either (A) not purchasing the parcel
>> having such easements, or (B) calculating the cost of tree coverage in
>> the purchase, planning, building, and selling of developed housing units.
>>
>> In either case, Durham's people should not have to sacrifice the
>> benefits that come with being a "Tree City" because of the financial
>> miscalculation (or the seeking of enhanced profits) by a single
>> developer seeking a rule change for a specific development.
>>
>> Therefore, we strongly oppose the UDO text amendment TC1300002, and urge
>> the Durham City Council and Board of County Commissioners to reject it.
>>
>> Will Wilson
>> Milo Pyne
>> Bob Healy
>> --
>> http://www.biology.duke.edu/wilson/
>> http://www.constructedclimates.org/
>> http://biology.duke.edu/wilson/Book/index.php
>
> This message is being sent on a public e-mail system and may be subject to disclosure under the North Carolina Public Records Act.
>