[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers

Thu Nov 4 22:13:10 EDT 2010

Two points:1) Even if the proposal affected in-fill (which is doesn't), there always is a variance process to find a workable solution in the kind of situation Ken mentions.2) I continue to think that a big part of the solution to water quality is neighbor-to-neighbor talking about how to re-think our yards.  We may not want to put in cisterns as big as my neighbor did, but can we reduce the fertilizer, put in "filter strips," deal better with our leaves, etc.
Regards, pat

> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 21:19:39 -0400
> From: randy at 27beverly.com
> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
> 
> It doesn't matter if it's Farmer Dan's field, inner-city or your own back
> yard. Stream buffers are on their way. It's what the State is asking us
> (before it becomes an unfunded mandate) to do to better the quality of
> water we have in our drinking water supplies. I expect it to be the
> largest bond issue (to pay for it) by our fair community in history. I
> recall a conversation (had years ago when the issue first came
> forward)when it was thought to be somewhere less than a $250M price tag.
> Now in conversations, it is heading toward a billion dollars. Buffers are
> the last opportunity for water run-off to get cleaned before entering what
> becomes our drinking-water-supply-cycle. In-fill in these areas does
> nothing to help water quality. Because we're in the Piedmont, alot of the
> streams are in designated flood plains (as are alot of our parks).
> 
> RW Pickle
> 
> > 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
> >
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Durham INC Mailing List
> > list at durham-inc.org
> > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101104/09730cac/attachment.html>