INC NEWS - PC MUST vote on Black Mdw Ridge Zoning on December 9th -- by law

[TheOcean1 at aol.com]

I agree with Melissa.
 
As a returning board member, I intend to provide pointed reminders of the  
INC process.
That process was perfect for the first resolution, which was presented last  
month to be taken back to each neighborhood via the delegates.
 
My neighborhood reviewed that, and voted it's support. While I personally  
might have voted for the two additions, (Tom's amendment, and the letter) my  
neighborhood could not express an opinion on two items it had never seen.
 
While my vote last night might have been counted as a "no" (to include the  
two additions), it was really an attempted "NO VOTE!" as Duke Park couldn't 
vote  yes or no on a resolution it had never seen.
 
If those additions could be sent to this listserv, I'll be glad to float  
them by my neighborhood and bring it's opinion to the November meeting.
 
While it appeared the discussion was going to go on forever, rushing the  
vote wasn't the answer. We could have saved more time by recognizing no vote  
should be taking place. I think we got tangled up in the parliamentary  
procedure, and forgot the INC procedure!
 
Bill Anderson
 
 
In a message dated 10/28/2008 10:15:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
mmr121570 at yahoo.com writes:

Hello  all. I think the INC voted too quickly on the developers' letter 
regarding  Black Meadow Ridge for a number of reasons that I won't go into  here.

Regardless, please take note that, by law, the Planning  Commission MUST vote 
on the rezoning for this property at their December 9th  meeting. Otherwise, 
they forfeit their voice in this matter (which I don't  think any of us would 
want them to do). This supersedes the aforementioned  letter, which requests 
that any rezoning decisions be deferred until February,  2009.

As such, I am writing to request that the INC members communicate  to the PC 
their opposition to the current request to down-zone the Black  Meadow Ridge 
property to RS-10, thereby allowing a density of 4.5 units per  acre. 

This density would result in one house(lot) per ~0.2 acres.  Clearly, this 
zoning would STILL not provide the protection that this  sensitive piece of land 
requires. For example, I have been informed repeatedly  (by development and 
planning staff) that any residential lot smaller than 0.3  acres would require 
clear-cutting and mass-grading. 

Please write your  planning commissioners and ask that they vote against an 
RS-10 zoning for this  land parcel and that they insist upon a more stringent 
down-zoning that will  truly protect this environmentally important piece of 
land. (There's no harm  in letting them determine what that 'more stringent 
down-zoning' will  be.)

Email address for the PC:  durhamplanningcommission at durhamnc.gov

It wouldn't hurt for the INC to  consider voting on a resolution to this 
effect at their November  meeting...

Thanks!
Melissa

Melissa Rooney, Ph.D.
Fairfield  Rep to the Interneighborhood Council
(among other things --  wink)
mmr121570 at yahoo.com




_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing  list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list





**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel.  Check out Today's Hot 
5 Travel Deals! 
(http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20081029/4a18d22d/attachment.htm>