[Durham INC] HeraldSun.com article: Planners and DWQ ignore HRA Citizen survey

Thu Aug 6 18:14:51 EDT 2009

Please read the article below.

How can the NC state Division of Water Quality possibly endorse the developers' survey method over the one used by the Haw River Assembly (from ~$15,000 voluntary citizen contributions), when state regulations dictate only that the county 'correctly delineate' the reservoir and backwaters, in no way, shape or form, indicating how this is to be done. Earlier this year, DWQ said they HAD to accept the developers' survey on procedural grounds, because it was submitted by a licensed surveyor, expressly stating that they are not surveyors, themselves and do not have expertise in this area). Well, the HRA citizen survey was performed by an equally well reputed NC state licensed surveyor AND a licensed hydrologist, utilizing a method that has been stated to be acceptable to the state of NC, and one whose emphasis is direct measurement of the ground contour lines defining the lake -- thereby protecting the lake over development interests.

Please act immediately by emailing DWQ's Julie Ventaloro, and asking that she share your email with John Hennessey and Coleen Sullins (Director of the Division of Water Quality). You should ask for a direct statement from DWQ regarding their alleged indication that they prefer the developer survey (water surface analysis) to the Haw River Assembly Citizen survey (ground contour measurement).

Julie.Ventaloro at ncmail.net

You can also cut and paste your email and send it to legislators David Price and Kay Hagan, and also our state legislators, whose email addresses are included below:

http://price.house.gov/contact/contact_form.shtml

http://hagan.senate.gov/?p=contact

Bob.Atwater at ncleg.net
Floyd.McKissick at ncleg.net
Winkie.Wilkins at ncleg.netLarry.Hall@ncleg.net

Thanks so much!
Melissa (Rooney)

--- On Thu, 8/6/09, mmr121570 at yahoo.com <mmr121570 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: mmr121570 at yahoo.com <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
Subject: heraldsun.com article
To: mmr121570 at yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 5:58 PM

#yiv5728925 p {font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;text-decoration:none;color:#000000;font-weight:normal;line-height:18px;}
#yiv5728925 .hedMain {font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:18px;line-height:20px;}
#yiv5728925 .story2 {font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;text-decoration:none;color:#000000;font-weight:normal;line-height:18px;}
#yiv5728925 a {color:#000000;}
#yiv5728925 #photoCredit {font-size:11px;padding-right:3px;color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:#999999;}
#yiv5728925 #photoCaption {font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10px;padding-left:3px;line-height:15px;background-color:#cccccc;}

Hello, This is an automated e-mail from heraldsun.com. Melissa has asked us to send you the following article, which can also be found online at:

http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1190688.cfm? 

Local planners back changes for lake project

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun 
gronberg at heraldsun.com 
Aug 6, 2009 

DURHAM -- City/county planners have endorsed policy and zoning changes that would help clear the way for a controversial real estate project along N.C. 751 next to Jordan Lake. 

Their support came in memos to the Durham Planning Commission, which is scheduled to hold hearings and an advisory vote Tuesday night. County Commissioners hold the actual power to decide the issue. 

Planners said the changes are justified by a developer-funded survey, since accepted by state regulators, that moved the boundary of Jordan Lake to the west. 

They also "would not create substantial adverse impact in the adjacent area or in the city and county in general," officials said in a memo addressing a proposed amendment of Durham's long-term land-use plan. 

The memo acknowledged that a large project on Southern Durham Development Inc.'s 165-acre tract would be unlike anything else in the vicinity. 

"The area exhibits primarily rural characteristics, due in large part to the large amount of floodplain forest" nearby, planners said. "The west side of the lake has farmland, as well as single-family residences. The east side of the lake, within the critical area, is largely undeveloped." 

An accompanying zoning change would remove strict limits on paving and other hard surfaces that are supposed to protect the regional drinking-water reservoir from pollution-carrying runoff. 

Existing impervious-surface limits on the site would allow Southern Durham Development to place buildings and parking lots on only about 15 acres. Following a rezoning, it could use almost 116. 

A separate memo to the Planning Commission from Assistant Planning Director Keith Luck noted that regulators in the N.C. Division of Water Quality recently endorsed the use of survey methods more consistent with the developers' than those of a competing survey commissioned by an environmental group. 

The group, the Haw River Assembly, pegs Jordan's boundary much farther east, far enough in fact to suggest lake-protection rules should've covered land along N.C. 751 and the southern reaches of Fayetteville Road that's already developed. 

The Planning Commission's hearing on the changes will proceed without the panel's chairman, George Brine. A critic of Southern Durham Development's project, he recused himself under pressure from the company's lawyers, who work for the RTP firm K&L Gates. 

The lawyers' tactics -- which also contributed to the County Commissioners' decision Monday to remove former County Attorney Chuck Kitchen from office -- drew criticism Wednesday from one prominent community activist. 

"I don't know if it's intentional, but they do seem to be making some effort to neutralize people they don't see as allies," said Frank Hyman, a former City Council member who managed County Commissioner Brenda Howerton's 2008 election campaign. 

Hyman added that the K&L Gates effort seems "to be having an impact" ahead of the critical votes on the project. 

"I wonder if we'll see more of that?" he said. "In which case, who's going to be next?" 

Separately, the Joint City/County Planning Committee, a policy panel that includes Brine, County Commissioners and City Council members, decided Wednesday morning to back-burner for at least a year any attempt to change Durham's southern urban growth boundary. 

The growth boundary determines what tracts outside the city are eligible for water and sewer service. Some south Durham activists want the boundary pulled closer to the city. 

But the joint committee decided, in part because of the controversy over the N.C. 751 project, that "there were just too many moving parts on this right now," said City Councilman Mike Woodard, who sits on the panel. 

Woodard -- who joined other council members earlier in the week to rezone land for an east Durham shopping center project against the Planning Commission's advice -- signaled doubts about how much influence the advisory board's Tuesday vote would have with county leaders. 

"Commissioners' minds are made up on this one," he said, referring to the N.C. 751 project. "Heck, they fired the county attorney over it." 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090806/e6d3fe57/attachment.htm>