[Durham INC] Riparian Buffers text amendment MINUS STREAM BUFFERS

[Melissa Rooney]

See message below. The county and the city rejected extending suburban and rural 
stream and wetland buffers, despite the fact that the EEUDO steering committee, 
which consisted of the following members of the development community, 
recommended that they do so:

Frank Thomas - Home Builders

Craig Morrison - Residential Developer

Gregg Sandreuter - Non-residential Developer

Dan Jewell – Consultant

Please write your county and city elected officials with your dissatisfaction 
over their acquiescence to the development industry at the expense (literally 
and figuratively) of their constituents:

council at ci.durham.nc.us, Tom.Bonfield at durhamnc.gov, commissioners at durhamcountync.gov, mruffin at co.durham.nc.us

(remove any spaces that may appear in the above email addresses)

Uuuugh.
Melissa (Rooney)




----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "Cain, Aaron" <Aaron.Cain at durhamnc.gov>
To: charles.mceachern at gmail.com; craig.morrison at cimarronhomes.com; 
croberts at durhamcountync.gov; "Danner, Teri" <Teri.Danner at durhamnc.gov>; "Darden, 
Lindsay" <Lindsay.Darden at durhamnc.gov>; Ellen Reckhow <ereckhow at aol.com>; 
frank at hbadoc.com; Gregg Sandreuter <gsandreuter at nc.rr.com>; "Jacobs, Wendy" 
<geewen at nc.rr.com>; Jane Korest <jkorest at co.durham.nc.us>; 
jim.wise at newsobserver.com; "Johnson, Alexander" 
<Alexander.Johnson at durhamnc.gov>; kathryn6668 at yahoo.com; "Kramer, Anne" 
<Anne.Kramer at durhamnc.gov>; "Luck, Keith" <Keith.Luck at durhamnc.gov>; "Medlin, 
Steve" <Steve.Medlin at durhamnc.gov>; mmr121570 at yahoo.com; "Mullen, Julia" 
<Julia.Mullen at durhamnc.gov>; pats1717 at hotmail.com; tfreid at durhamcountync.gov; 
tinamotley at earthlink.net; Wanona Satcher <wajisa22 at yahoo.com>; "Whiteman, Scott" 
<Scott.Whiteman at durhamnc.gov>; "Wilbur, Sandra" <Sandra.Wilbur at durhamnc.gov>; 
Will Wilson <wgw at duke.edu>; "Woodard, Mike" <Mike.Woodard at durhamnc.gov>; "Young, 
Patrick" <Patrick.Young at durhamnc.gov>; "Youngblood, Helen" 
<Helen.Youngblood at durhamnc.gov>
Sent: Tue, November 9, 2010 11:27:57 AM
Subject: Riparian Buffers text amendment adoption

 
Dear EEUDO Steering Committee,
 
On November 4 and November 8, respectively, the Durham City Council and the 
Durham County Board of Commissioners adopted text amendment TC0900008, Riparian 
Buffers.  The original draft of this text amendment that was presented to the 
Durham City Council on November 1 included all of the recommendations from the 
EEUDO Steering Committee regarding water quality and stream buffers.  However, 
at the request of the City Council, and with the eventual concurrence of the 
County Commissioners, the provisions in the text amendment that would widen all 
50’ buffers in the Suburban and Rural tiers to 100’ were removed, as well as the 
provision to widen wetland buffers from 25’ to 50’.  Most all other provisions 
of the draft that you reviewed last winter have remained.  The buffering of 
stream gaps of 300’ or less that was recommended through the EEUDO process 
remains.  Furthermore, the state has mandated much stricter buffer use and 
piping limitations, both of which were discussed during the EEUDO process.
 
Attached is the text amendment that was adopted by the City Council this past 
Thursday.  The County Commissioners adopted the same measure except for a 
modification to paragraph 8.5.4D.2.d, which staff will be working on shortly to 
incorporate.
 
As part of the motion to adopt the attached text amendment, both City Council 
and the County Commissioners instructed staff to do further research and 
outreach into wider riparian buffers, and to come back to the elected officials 
at a future date with a proposal that meets the interests of both the 
development and environmental communities.  Furthermore, staff has been 
instructed to look into ways of incorporating wider stream buffers into the 
larger discussion with the City of Raleigh and the state on the upcoming Falls 
Lake Rules.  Staff will be working to provide an update to the Joint City-County 
Planning Committee this winter on its efforts, and I will apprise you all of our 
efforts at that time as well.
 
Finally, I want to be sure that you all are aware that the third module of our 
EEUDO project, Tree Protection (TC1000003), has been moving forward.  You all 
reviewed and provided input on draft language for a UDO text amendment in 
August.  We have incorporated much of your input, and are presenting a proposed 
amendment is going before the Planning Commission tonight.  I have attached that 
draft as well for your information.  The Planning Commission will be holding a 
public hearing tonight on the draft text amendment, so you all are invited to 
come and speak.
 
As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
 
Aaron
 
Aaron Cain, AICP
Planning Supervisor
Durham City/County Planning Department
(919) 560-4137x28226
aaron.cain at durhamnc.gov
 
"Golf courses and cemeteries are the biggest wastes of prime real estate." - Al 
Czervik


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20101109/c7109782/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CC11-4-10AttachmentC TC0900008 - Adopted	Version.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 601726 bytes
Desc: CC11-4-10AttachmentC TC0900008 - Adopted Version.pdf
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20101109/c7109782/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Tree Protection Draft v11.0 - Planning	Commission.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 115205 bytes
Desc: Tree Protection Draft v11.0 - Planning Commission.pdf
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20101109/c7109782/attachment-0003.obj>