[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers

[Ken Gasch]

If more folks worked to redevelop in-fill, farmer Dan's field wouldn't turn
into a sub-division in the first place. Non-profits can purchase the
land,..... that has been rendered worthless by increasing the stream
buffers? Stream buffers do not even allow existing homeowners to ad onto
their homes if the proposed addition is within the boundary. Until the
proposed changes make a distinction between farmer Dan's field and lots in
my neighborhood, I am likely not to support an increase in buffers.

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



On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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<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<http://action.ncconservationnetwork.org/site/R?i=JGS_dbuP9bj93SJvCC7SlQ..>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/c8c77638/attachment-0001.html>