[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers

[Melissa Rooney]

Ken, I can see how this can be a problem, but stream buffers are important 
regardless of where they are located. That said, the city should differentiate 
between in-fill and rural/suburban land -- something Durham residents have been 
discussing for a while now. And if in-fill lots are all but useless due to 
streams, then perhaps the city should request that the owners make them 
conservation easements (with associated tax breaks), convert them to urban 
gardens or parks, etc. Perhaps nonprofits can be asked to purchase these lands 
so that the streams can be protected. There are lots of other things we can do, 
rather than continuing to current degradation to our water supply via lack of 
stream protections and other things -- it all adds up.

Melissa




________________________________
From: Ken Gasch <Ken at KenGasch.com>
To: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
Cc: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 4:59:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers

I appreciate Stream buffers when farmer Dan's field is being turned into a 
subdivision. However, stream buffers have rendered in-fill lots within Durham's 
pre-war neighborhoods, that are close to streams, all but useless. Houses got 
torn down during the "bad" times due to neglect. Houses can't go back up now. We 
are left with weedy lots. Who mows it? What do we do with them? It is a real 
problem that the UDO does not address. I do not support stream buffers for this 
reason. Over and out.

Ken Gasch
REALTOR®/Broker
Seagroves Realty
www.KenGasch.com
C: 919.475.8866
F: 866.229.4267




On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Apparently we citizens HAVE to come out in droves to have any chance of our 
concerns being heard over those of the development industry. 
>
>
>Please, please, please write your city council members, particularly Mayor Bill 
>Bell, with your support for more protections for our stream buffers. Widening 
>from 50 -100 feet is a SMALL request, considering the protections of neighboring 
>jurisdictions (read the HS article). The longer we wait to strengthen our stream 
>buffer requirements, the more stream buffers we'll lose to development -- we 
>don't have much land left..
>
>
>council at ci.durham.nc.us, Bill.Bell at durhamnc.gov ; farad.ali at durhamnc.gov ; Eugene.Brown at durhamnc.gov ; diane.catotti at durhamnc.gov ; Cora.Cole-McFadden at durhamnc.gov ; Howard.Clement at durhamnc.gov ; mike.woodard at durhamnc.gov, Tom.Bonfield at durhamnc.gov
>
>
>
>(remove any spaces in the above email addresses before sending)
>
>
>And if you can also send your letters (to the city council) to the editor of the 
>Herald Sun, that'd be great too!
>
>
>http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/letter_submit
>
>
>or
>
>
>bashley at heraldsun.com
>
>
>
>
>Melissa (Rooney)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
>To: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 2:12:57 PM
>Subject: [Durham INC] Council stops move to widen stream buffers from 50 to 100 
>feet
>
>
>See below. Are you kidding me !? This just keeps getting more and more 
>insulting. The widening of stream buffers from 50 to 100 feet was one of the big 
>conclusions/recommendations by the EEUDO (Environmental Enhancements to the UDO) 
>committee that stemmed from the REAP (resolution for environmentally responsible 
>amendments and protections to the UDO) which was presented to the INC over a 
>year ago.
>
>
>ANY impact to improve water quality is necessary and is already far belated. And 
>the EEUDO committee members who met for many hours and worked very hard on their 
>recommendations certainly thought that widening the stream buffers from 50 to 
>100 feet would have a significant impact.
>
>
>I'd like to know just what the council means by 'minor.' Doesn't sound very  
>scientific...
>
>
>Melissa (Rooney)
>
>
>
>
>----- Forwarded Message ----
>From: Tina <tinamotley at earthlink.net>
>To: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>; rcyoung4 at frontier.com
>Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 1:21:53 PM
>Subject: Durham's Buffers
>
>
>Council stops move to widen stream buffers. Shift from 50 to 100 feet 
>would have 'minor' impact on water quality[You may need to register 
>to view this article.] 
>http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10156480/article-Council-stops-move-to-widen-stream-buffers?instance=main_article
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Durham INC Mailing List
>list at durham-inc.org
>http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20101104/43120c3e/attachment.html>