[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Thu Nov 4 23:11:22 EDT 2010
Gosh, I don't know enough to enter this discussion, but Tina's point makes
me wonder if a berm of soil between the stream and anything else, that
would stop the water from running right into the stream, and cause it to filter
through the land first.
Probably hard to regulate such a thing, but wouldn't that help?
Bill
In a message dated 11/4/2010 8:09:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tinamotley at earthlink.net writes:
Would simply increasing the stream buffers by 50 feet help protect water
quality? Since City Council just ruled against increasing the stream
buffers, let’s consider this…. The more effective solution would be to consider
soil type and slope when calculating the amount of impervious surface and
stream buffers for a site.
What the developers don’t want you to know is that they understand the
effects of soil type and slope. It is factored into the requirement to
control 1 inch of rain in a 24 hour period. They all use software that can
calculate the runoff volume based on site conditions. Feel free to ask a
developer to verify this.
The developers lobby our elected officials to keep regulations at bay to
maximize profits. Durham citizens and those downstream pay for these poor
decisions, whether it is increased stormwater fees or water treatment plant
costs to those downstream.
Here is a map of Durham.
The lower portion (red) of Durham is Triassic Basin soils which has low
permeability and erode easily when disturbed. The lower part is also the
water supply watersheds for Jordan and Falls Lakes. Durham allows up to
70% impervious surface in this area.
The upper portion (light colored) of Durham is the watershed for Lake
Michie and Little River. The impervious surface limitation is 6%. Water
and sewer are not allowed, so development is very restricted. The soils are
generally better in the upper portion than the lower portion of Durham.
Maybe the development community has a point….because simply increasing the
stream buffer by 50 feet wouldn’t be nearly as effective as calculating
impervious surface limitations and stream buffers based on soil type and
slope.
With the high costs quoted by Durham’s staff for improving water quality
in Jordan and Falls Lakes, surely our elected officials would want to do
what is most effective for protecting water quality and minimize costs for
Durham citizens.
Tina Motley-Pearson
-----Original Message-----
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
Behalf Of Pat Carstensen
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:27 PM
To: Ken Gasch; Melissa Rooney
Cc: inc-list at rtpnet.org; enviro durham
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
If one takes the time to look in even the most casual way at the proposed
ordinance, one will see that IT DOES NOT PROPOSE TO INCREASE THE BUFFER
downtown, in compact developments or in the urban tier (I'm pretty sure the
100 feet are already required for perennial streams in the Eno River critical
watershed). See page 11.
_http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/council/ord_changes/TC0900008_110110.pdf_
(http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/council/ord_changes/TC0900008_110110.pdf)
What I distinctly am detecting is the scurry of little lawyer feet and the
threat to gnaw the ankles of anyone who doesn't get in line.
Regards, pat
____________________________________
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 16:59:40 -0400
From: Ken at KenGasch.com
To: mmr121570 at yahoo.com
CC: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
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_ (http://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_
(mailto: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_ (mailto:council at ci.durham.nc.us) ,
_Bill.Bell at durhamnc.gov_ (mailto:Bill.Bell at durhamnc.gov) ; _farad.ali at durhamnc.gov_
(mailto:farad.ali at durhamnc.gov) ; _Eugene.Brown at durhamnc.gov_
(mailto:Eugene.Brown at durhamnc.gov) ; _diane.catotti at durhamnc.gov_
(mailto:diane.catotti at durhamnc.gov) ; _Cora.Cole-McFadden at durhamnc.gov_
(mailto:Cora.Cole-McFadden at durhamnc.gov) ; _Howard.Clement at durhamnc.gov_
(mailto:Howard.Clement at durhamnc.gov) ; _mike.woodard at durhamnc.gov_ (mailto:mike.woodard at durhamnc.gov) ,
_Tom.Bonfield at durhamnc.gov_ (mailto: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) (http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/letter_submit)
or
_bashley at heraldsun.com_ (mailto:bashley at heraldsun.com)
Melissa (Rooney)
____________________________________
From: Melissa Rooney <_mmr121570 at yahoo.com_ (mailto:mmr121570 at yahoo.com) >
To: _inc-list at rtpnet.org_ (mailto:inc-list at rtpnet.org) ;
_durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:tinamotley at earthlink.net) >
To: Melissa Rooney <_mmr121570 at yahoo.com_ (mailto:mmr121570 at yahoo.com) >;
_rcyoung4 at frontier.com_ (mailto: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-Counc
il-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_ (mailto:list at durham-inc.org)
_http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html_ (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/20101104/31e69e2c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4961 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20101104/31e69e2c/attachment.jpg>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list