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

Wed Nov 10 23:22:57 EST 2010

Somewhere in this picture of what these buffers are, we have left out the
herbaceous buffers that typically rim the outside of the riparian buffers.
They generally are the same width. So if you have a 50' riparian buffer
(25' each side of the centerline of a stream), then you have an additional
25' on each side of that. So with 50' riparian buffer and the herbaceous
buffer added to the outside, the buffer is actually 100'. It makes for an
unsightly mess if the areas were once managed and had vistas as it will
grow into a forest over time. But they say it's all good...

Randy

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>

====================================================================
This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) or
entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this electronic  transmission in error, please notify
me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail (pickle at patriot.net)
immediately.
=====================================================================