INC NEWS - Council to consider annexation of Jordan at Southpoint on Dec 3 -- pls write w/ concerns

[Melissa Rooney]

Hello.

Council will hold the public hearings on annexations
on December 3. I am writing to request that you write
Council opposing annexation of Jordan at Southpoint,
for the following reasons:
 
1) Annexation is the first step in the addition of
future users of Durham's water supply.  The proposed
Jordan at Southpoint subdivision contains over 220
lots, meaning over 220 new users would be added. 
Considering the extraordinary drought conditions that
we are presently in, conditions that may get even
worse in the future, it seems unwise to add new water
users through the expansion of the present city
limits.  In view of the drought situation, Durham
needs to look closely at where it really wants new
development to take place and to use its water
resources to direct development to those areas.  For
instance, channeling new growth and development into
future transit corridors and into the continued
redevelopment of Durham's blighted areas is more
rational than continued expansion of the city limits.
 
2) Annexation will lead to further degradation of the
Jordan Lake water supply.  The Jordan at Southpoint
annexation area is about a mile from the present
Jordan Lake critical area.  The upper portion of
Jordan Lake is the most polluted part of the lake,
having been on EPA's 303(d) list of impaired waters in
2002.  (The remainder of the lake was added to the
list in 2006.)  This part of the lake is feed
primarily by three creeks (New Hope, Northeast,
Crooked) and associated tributaries that drain Durham
County's part of the Cape Fear watershed.  Crooked
Creek is adjacent to the Jordan at Southpoint property
and Northeast creek is fed by tributaries from that
property.  All three creeks are in bad shape due to
sedimentation and pollution from development in the
Cape Fear watershed, in particular south Durham. 
While updating the sedimentation and erosion control
ordinances and the stormwater ordinances has been a
high priority item ever since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan (02/28/2005), so far this has not
been accomplished. So any further development so close
to the lake will lead to further degradation of the
lake.  We can't afford to further degrade the water
quality of Jordan lake.
 
3) Annexation is inconsistent with the adopted
(09/19/2007) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) plan.  There is no
transit service to the Jordan at Southpoint property,
and none is planned.  Thus, over 220 home owners will
need to use motorized vehicles (in high probably
single occupancy vehicles) to obtain goods and
services.  As these individuals would live further
than anyone else in south Durham from goods and
services, their trips would be longer and their GHG
emissions would be higher than those of other
residents.  City of Durham vehicles (e.g., police,
solid waste collection) would also contribute to the
additional GHG pollution.  The GHG plan was adopted to
avoid this exact scenario, by controlling urban sprawl
(section 7.24, Transportation).  An added benefit from
the control of urban sprawl is the preservation of
more trees. J at S plans clear-cutting and mass-grading
of a majority of the buildable land.  How can Durham
hope to achieve the GHG reduction goals stated in the
plan if our Governing Bodies take actions that are
inconsistent with the plan? 

4) Finally, I have communicated to you all the
problems that Durham citizens have encountered with
Haden-Stanziale's methods in attempting to develop
this land as THEY have planned from the onset, going
to controversial means to avoid citizen (and gov't
officials') input and consideration.

For a recap, please see the following articles from
the News and Observer, which are also available via
the News and Observer Archives:

http://www.geocities.com/durhammassgrading/12May2007.doc
http://www.geocities.com/durhammassgrading/30Jun2007.doc


Durham citizens fear that Jordan at Southpoint is now
pushing for annexation by the city, prior to county
approval as a conservation subdivision (or a
rezoning), in a last attempt to avoid confronting
citizens' concerns. It is our anticipation that,
if J at S is annexed, Mr. Stanziale may withdraw his
application as a 'conservation subdivision,' and
resubmit for rezoning via the City Council, thereby
forcing gov't officials and citizens to start all over
again. If suburban/rural citizens burn out at this
point, J at S could move forward relatively unchallenged.

Durham (and Jordan Lake) can't afford to let this be a
precedent for future developments.

For more detail in this regard, including what's
happened since June, I've included the bulk of what I
sent to council below.

Thanks, Melissa

Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com

_________________________________

Haden-Stanziale has been attempting to get Jordan at
Southpoint developed for over 6 months now. At the
neighborhood meeting required by the PC, Mr. Stanziale
warned concerned neighbors that the developers could
withdraw their rezoning application and resubmit
virtually identical plans as a 'conservation
subdivision,' thereby avoiding any sort of public
hearing altogether. Nonetheless, Mr. Stanziale and Mr.
Owens said that they would see what they could do to
accommodate neighbors concerns, promising to send
revised plans before the next PC meeting.  But despite
repeated requests, neighbors did not hear from Mr.
Stanziale or Mr. Owens in this regard, not before the
second PC meeting, where Mr. Stanziale successfully
sought a continuance, nor before the 3rd PC meeting.

Less than 24 hours before the 3rd PC meeting regarding
J at S (May, 2007), Mr. Stanziale emailed neighbors that
he was going to ask for yet another continuance to
provide more time to address neighbors' concerns.
However, many neighbors attended anyway, and Mr.
Stanziale withdrew the rezoning application at the
very last minute, a move completely unanticipated by
the PC.  We can only guess that his email was an
attempt to get neighbors NOT to show up at this PC
meeting, so that he could ask for a vote unchallenged.


Within weeks, Mr. Stanziale then proceeded to make
good on his threat and resubmitted virtually the same
plans (his own admission) as a 'conservation
subdivision,' which requires no review by the planning
commission or the board of county commissioners (and,
thus, no opportunity for public input). The plan
showed the majority of their '40% minimum open space
requirement' as the unbuildable powerline easement at
the southern edge of the property. They labeled this
easement a 'wildlife corridor' (despite clear-cutting
and herbicide spraying that will occur in this area),
thus fulfilling primary conservation requirements.
When citizens voiced their concerns and Mr. Stanziale
was challenged by the planning department in this
regard, he changed the designation from 'wildlife
corridor' to 'Viewshed,' which would still enable him
to use this land to fulfill his open space
requirements. 

Citizens have been persistently attending JCCPC
meetings, and the conservation subdivision section of
the UDO has been sent back to Planning for amendments
that will remove these potential loopholes and better
ensure the intent of this type of development. But J at S
was submitted before these changes were even
considered, and may not be forced to adhere to them. 

Nonetheless, the planning department appears to be
interpreting the 'conservation subdivision'
requirements much more strictly than Haden-Stanziale
was initially lead to believe. Regardless, neighbors'
concerns involving infrastructure (more complete
studies wrt the impact on traffic/schools/water/etc),
clear-cutting and mass-grading (planned for the
majority of the land in this development),
environmental and storm-water concerns, impact on
immediate neighbors' environment and lifestyle, etc.,
remain to be addressed in any meaningful (i.e.
'committed') way by the developer.

And now the developer/contractor is seeking
annexation, before receiving county approval for the
development. If successful, we fear he will withdraw
his conservation subdivision application and force
everyone to start all over again.

Please don't let this be a precedent for development
in Durham. The citizen should not have to work so hard
for his concerns to be known and acted upon.





      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you 
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ