[Durham INC] reject Jordan Lake Boundary Rezoning email the Planning Commission; background information

Fri Aug 7 14:25:25 EDT 2009

I believe that the Jordan Lake boundary is an important issue. If you are
interested in background information about the proposed boundary changing
see the bottom of the email. If you would like to write the Planning
Commission members individually see the attachment.

Laura

----------

Subject: Fw: Email the Planning Commission to reject J Lake Boundary
Rezoning
> Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com
> <http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mmr121570@yahoo.com> >
> 
> ...If you care at all about the Jordan Lake boundary issue, please email the
> Planning Commission with your concerns. Their public hearing is Tuesday,
> August 11.
>  
> Please reference Plan Amendment Case A0900004/Zoning Case Z0900009
>  
> Email for all PC members is
> durhamplanningcommission at durhamnc.gov
> <http://us.mc346.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=durhamplanningcommission@durhamn
> c.gov> 
>  
> Melissa
> 
------------

The Planning Commission (PC) meeting (regarding comprehensive plan amendment
and rezoning to retract the Jordan Lake Critical Watershed Boundary) is at
City Hall in Council Chambers at 5:30 PM on AUGUST 11 (next Tuesday). Don't
know when the deadline is for the PC to receive emails, but I would presume
they can receive and consider emails up to the last minute...though it would
be better to get them to the PC at least one or two days ahead of time, to
be sure they get them in time.

Melissa

----------

From: Will Wilson <wgw at duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:04:25 -0400

For planning commission and meeting details see:
http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/planning/planning_commission.cfm

Will

------------

Will Wilson
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:44:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Email the Planning Commission to reject J Lake Boundary
Rezoning]

....The current 1 mile buffer extends
from the Jordan Lake Pool Boundary, roughly mapped around 1993, but
specifically defined by the 216' elevation. Here's text I wrote earlier:
"The Jordan Lake pool boundary has a complicated shape. The developer's
surveyor used nine survey points, each of which accurately marks 216
foot elevation. (That elevation defines the pool boundary.) The nine
chosen points change the developer's land from low-density development
to high-density development because Durham's zoning map depends on where
the pool boundary sits." Here are the maps of the area:
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=26

Instead of disputing zoning boundaries that require a public forum, the
751 Assemblage developer, in a novel approach, "surveyed" a new Jordan
Lake Pool boundary, got the former planning director to approve it as a
"correction" to the old boundary, and that shifted the zoning boundary
to include the developers property within high density zoning. The value
of the property, owned by the developer, went from about $1.7 million to
about $17 million by this action. The developer is now suing because
undoing this action takes away the value of this "property right"....

----------

From: Will Wilson <wgw at duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:47:16 0400
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Email the Planning Commission to reject J Lake Boundary
Rezoning]]

....Rain falling in forested watersheds slowly percolates
>> through biologically active soils, cleaned before entering streams. In
>> urban watersheds, dirty stormwater comes from rain falling on
>> impervious surfaces (roofs, roads, etc), which carries pollutants
>> washed from those surfaces. This water is often piped directly into
>> streams, or has such high volume that it overwhelms soils. Either
>> situation puts pollutants into streams. Healthy streams can reduce
>> pollution, but there are two main problems for healthy streams, the
>> amount of stormwater, and how quickly that water flows through the
>> stream. Healthy soils and streams both clean stormwater better than
>> lakes and reservoirs.
>>
>> Reducing impervious surface reduces stormwater runoff. Things like
>> slowly emptying rain barrels, cisterns, detention ponds reduce high
>> flows, in some ways changing the effects of rapid downpours into
>> gentle rains. Disconnecting stormwater pipes reduce peak flows,
>> forcing stormwater onto healthy soils, and increasing the width of
>> stream buffers, provides greater time and distance for stormwater
>> filtration by soils, not just streams.
>>
>> All impervious surfaces produce stormwater, and all stormwater harms
>> stream and lake water quality. Durham County's high development zoning
>> boundary was rigidly set at one mile from Jordan Lake, and it is in
>> the public interest to preserve that boundary. Yes, a school has been
>> proposed within this area, but it's a false dichotomy to play off
>> education against water quality. Do we want a good education system?
>> Yes. Do we want good water quality? Yes. Can we have both? Yes. Do we
>> need to build a school where the harm to water quality is greatest?
>> No. Let's build schools where we want to concentrate people, and let's
>> concentrate people where it won't harm water quality.
>>
>> I've put together a short overview of how development harms urban
>> water quality, including measures of some pollutants, some organisms,
>> and even sedimentation rates in Pamlico Sound. Also shown are plots on
>> the efficacy of various approaches to dealing with stormwater. Those
>> dry basins we see across the city are the cheapest solution with the
>> lowest maintenance costs and, not surprisingly, have the lowest
>> performance. See my site,
>> http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=61
>>
>> As in the saying, "death by a thousand cuts", is it appropriate to ask
>> which cut killed? Would there be no death if it was just 999 cuts? In
>> the case of water quality, zoning protects us from a thousand
>> developments in a critical watershed area. We must protect the zoning
>> regulations if we want to protect water quality.
>>
>> The email address for all planning commission members is
>> durhamplanningcommission at durhamnc.gov

> ----------
> 
> On 8/4/09 9:30 PM, "Melissa Rooney" <mmr121570 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> With regard to your questions:
> 1) Are people going to the city and county commissioners or just focusing on
> the Planning commissioners only?
>  
> Yes, we've been trying to lobby city and county commissioners as well. But
> right now the Planning Commissioners are on the hot plate. Becky Heron and
> Ellen Reckhow clearly feel that use of a developer-commissioned survey that
> had no gov't/planning oversight is a conflict of interest and are wary of
> removing any protections from Jordan Lake without the utmost scrutiny. MIchael
> Page and Joe Bowser have made it very clear that they believe this should have
> been an administrative decision and that the J Lake boundary should have
> already been retracted to make way for this development within what is
> currently the Jordan Lake watershed...that is, they were against any public
> hearings whatsoever. Brenda Howerton voted to 'follow procedure,' but
> indicated that she is not against this development; that is, she voted to have
> public hearings as the UDO requires, but she is on the fence as to whether or
> not she'd vote to retract the watershed boundaries and reduce the protection
> for Jordan Lake in this manner...many believe that she plans to vote to change
> the maps according to the developer-provided survey, but that remains to be
> seen.
>  
> Mike Ruffin has reported that DWQ (the state division of water quality) has
> communicated to him that they would not accept the Haw River Assembly survey
> (for which Triangle citizens mostly from Durham remarkablyl ponied up $15,000)
> which, like the developer-commissioned survey, was done by a NC licensed
> surveyor utilizing a more accurate method than what currently defines the
> boundary...in addition, the HRA citizen survey was also reviewed by a
> hydrologist, an extra level of expertise not shared by the developer-provided
> survey. If Ruffin's interpretation of DWQ's position is correct, then the
> development community is clearly getting preferential treatment over the
> citizenry.. (Earlier this year, DWQ informed that they HAD to accept the
> developer-commissioned survey on procedural grounds -- that they couldn't
> judge it at all, but just made sure that it was submitted by a licensed NC
> surveyor utilizing established methods.)
>  
> 2) What about lobbying nonincumbients who are running for office to make the
> issue a campaign issue?
>  
>  It is my understanding that the city has the right to vote on this issue as
> well -- that is, the comprehensive plan amendment to implement the
> developer-commissioned survey to change the lake boundary maps; but that the
> city council has agreed to let the County determine whether to change the
> Jordan Lake Watershed boundaries....presumably the city plans to have their
> say when the subsequent rezoning and annexation/water-sewer are considered.
> Personally, I think this is a cop-out on the part of the city council.
> Considering their fight against any retrofits to aid in cleaning up Jordan
> Lake, they should want to have a say in any case that may provide less
> protection for the Jordan Lake watershed in the face of future development.
>  
> ----------
> 
> From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:53:04 -0700 (PDT)

I have attached 2 documents relating to this issue -- one a letter (to the
editor of the N&O) from Bob Healy (of the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory
Committee) and the other a summary of the project at hand and its
implications. 

It is absolutely amazing how the developer-survey's redrawing of the Jordan
Lake Watershed boundary just barely excludes the exact boundaries of his
land from the critical watershed area...see the link immediately below:
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A271898

You also should see the following article/link that shows where the Jordan
Lake 216 foot boundary is, based on LIDAR mapping and a Haw River Assembly
Survey (obtained solely on voluntary citizen donations totalling ~$15,000)
utilizing ground contour lines (as opposed to the estimations resulting from
the developers' surveyor's 'water surface analysis') -- both surveys were
performed by well-reputed NC licensed surveyors utilizing methods
recognized/acceptable to the state, and the HRA citizen survey also was
reviewed by a hydrologist. Nonetheless, the Planning Dept, majority of
county commissioners and even the state (DWQ) appears poised to ignore the
citizen survey while RETRACTING the Jordan Lake critical watershed boundary
based solely on the developer-commissioned survey.

Here's the link:
http://www.indyweekblogs.com/triangulator/2009/06/29/haw-river-assembly-surv
ey-says-jordan-lake-is-6200-feet-upstream/

Click on the map at the top of the webpage to enlarge it so you can see the
respective 'easternmost points' defining the Jordan Lake Watershed boundary..

Thanks for your serious consideration of this important matter, and for
communicating your concerns to our planning commissioners, county
commissioners and even state legislators.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090807/bd357811/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: JLakeReasoning[2][1].doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 33280 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090807/bd357811/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BobHealyLetter[2][1].doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 22016 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090807/bd357811/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Planning Commission members.rtf
Type: application/msword
Size: 10119 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090807/bd357811/attachment.wiz>