[Durham INC] Clarification: Riparian Buffers text amendment MINUSSTREAM BUFFERS

Wed Nov 10 08:07:49 EST 2010

Melissa makes a lot of good points.  The development community was
resistant to increasing these buffers because they said it would hurt
them economically and Durham would loose tax base.  Durham already
allows buffer variances.  The developers can also build the same amount
of units, just closer together.  

Tina

-----Original Message-----
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
On Behalf Of Melissa Rooney
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 4:47 PM
To: Melissa Rooney; inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Durham INC] Clarification: Riparian Buffers text amendment
MINUSSTREAM 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20101110/4be38473/attachment.html>