INC NEWS - Jordan @ Southpoint Annexation: Council to reconcider this Mon, Dec 17

[Melissa Rooney]

I am writing to ask you to again contact the City
Council (even if you've already contacted them) over
Jordan at Southpoint, as the annexation will be
reconsidered this Monday, Dec. 17th. I think that
Council needs to know that we are still paying
attention and we haven't changed our minds. No need
for long emails (especially if you've already written
them) -- just a "please consider my previous
correspondence and vote against annexation of Jordan
at Southpoint."

council at ci.durham.nc.us

If you need more convincing, see below.

Melissa



You should already have read enough bg info (from my
previous emails), which I summarized in a letter to
the Herald Sun editor as follows:

Regarding your article "Drought may affect growth”
(Dec 5), I disagree that "the water shortage appears
to be a convenient issue that critics of a few
projects controversial for other reasons are latching
onto as applications reach the council." The current
water crisis is hardly incongruent with opponents’
long-term concerns regarding the rural/suburban
developments in question. The issue is about both
water 'levels' and water quality, which continue to be
degraded by clear-cutting, mass-grading, and lack of
sufficient stream/wetland buffers -- all of which
characterize the PRECEDENT-SETTING 'conservation
subdivision' plans of Jordan at Southpoint. 

And, yes, Durham citizens were concerned about these
issues long before the drought got everyone's
attention: 

On March 10, 2002, the News and Observer ("Growth
sizzling in South Durham") stated that Mayor Bill Bell
would “like to preserve the remaining rural character
of South Durham as much as possible. Bell said the
city and county must send a stronger signal to
developers and landowners that they're going to stick
with their long-term goals for the area."

Meanwhile, in the Independent Weekly (Feb. 20-26,
2002), George Stanziale (the applicant for Jordan at
Southpoint) says of the planning staff: “Their job is
to protect and legislate the [zoning] ordinance. But
when someone wants to get something done on a piece of
property, and it doesn't meet the ordinance or a
particular plan, say, a small-area plan, they're going
to always work with us to see how we can get it done.”

For the sake of our water resources and Durham, in
general, change has to start somewhere.

[P.S. With every re-write, even since being changed to
a 'Conservation Subdivision,' the number of lots
proposed increases. It is now up to 233 or 234. Mr.
Stanziale is evasive on the most important issues. He
claims he will answer these questions to the DRB when
it is beyond the purview of Planning. By no stretch of
the imagination is this a conservation subdivision.
The project will be mass graded, there is no attempt
at low impact storm water management, important
specimen trees will not be saved in order to plat
lots, Army Corps' request for a 100 foot buffer
against gameland is being reduced to an inadequate 30
feet, and the vast open space referred to by the
applicant is an unbuildable Duke Energy cross-country
powerline easement. At the very least, a project of
this magnitude and intent should be held to the higher
standards of the revised conservation subdivision
ordinances. 

If council votes for annexation of this land, it will
not come back to them for further approval since this
is not a rezoning request.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Melissa Rooney, Ph.D.
Fairfield Community Awareness, 
Communications and INC representative

Durham, NC 27713
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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