[Durham INC] Clarification: Riparian Buffers text amendment MINUS STREAM BUFFERS

Tue Nov 9 17:49:24 EST 2010

I think we have to research what the science really says about the benefit of buffers.  The news article cites one statistic (and slants it in a particular way -- if you put it in terms of the pollution saved, the number looks very different!) -- and anyone who can't find one statistic on their side just isn't trying.  Of course, this is MUCH easier when you are getting paid to do it.
Regards, pat  

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:46:39 -0800
From: mmr121570 at yahoo.com
To: mmr121570 at yahoo.com; inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Durham INC] Clarification: Riparian Buffers text amendment MINUS	STREAM BUFFERS

Okay, I admit I'm very frustrated over the removal of the stream and wetland buffers from the riparian buffer text amendment (to the UDO), and this has affected my representation and rhetoric regarding this important issue.
As such, I'd like to point out the following statement in Planning Staff's correspondence with the EEUDO committee (which I included in a previous email) regarding the riparian buffer text amendment:
"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"
So the buffers have not been 'rejected' and our elected officials have not 'acquiesced' to special development interests, as I heatedly wrote in an email earlier today.
At least this issue is still on the table.
I hope that everyone will stay diligently tuned and support increased stream and wetland buffers through their participation in Durham planning staff's outreach in the (hopefully) immediate future. 
And please don't forget to write your city and county elected officials with your input regarding how best to protect our streams and wetlands, which I (and the EEUDO committee apparently) believe includes an increase in stream and wetland
 buffers (to 100 and 50 feet, respectively).
I think that the proposal should not only meet 'the interests of both the development and the environmental communities,' but should meet the interests of unaffiliated citizens (all of whom will be paying the bill to clean up Jordan and Falls lakes) as well.
Sincerely, Melissa (Rooney)
From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
To: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 9, 2010 11:56:47 AM
Subject:
 [Durham INC] Riparian Buffers text amendment MINUS STREAM BUFFERS

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 

_______________________________________________
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/20101109/f8020569/attachment.html>