[Durham INC] August minutes -- DRAFT

Sat Sep 3 18:03:10 EDT 2011

Please let me know about any corrections (I had some problems reading the attendance sheet).  Regards, pat
------

August
Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham

First Presbyterian Church

August 23, 2011

Attending the meeting were:

Neighborhoods

Cleveland + Holloway – Matt
Dudek

Colony Park – Don Lebkes

Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen

Downing Creek – Dick Ford

Duke Park – Bill Anderson

Falconbridge – Rosemarie Kitchin,
Nancy Laney

Golden Belt – John Martin

Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias

Magnolia Place – Darius Little

Northgate Park – Mike Shiflett,
Nancy Kneepkens

Old Farm – David Harris

Old North Durham – Peter Katz

Old West Durham – Brett Valley,
Eric Heidt

Trinity Park – Philip Azar

Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan
Sewell 

Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom
Miller

Woodcroft – Scott Carter

Visitors 

Will Wilson – Durham Open Space
and Trails 

Jim Wise – N & O

Bob Ashley – Preservation Durham

Steve Bocchino 

Mike Woodard

Tom Miller called the meeting to order, and members
introduced themselves.  

Steve Bocchino gave a report on what is happening around 751South.  

·      
Lawsuit – The judge has narrowed the questions on the
lawsuit down to 2 issues: can the person at NC-DOT who accepted the highway
strip sign the agreement for the state and if he can sign, does NC-DOT have the
right to give back the strip?  

·      
City Annexation and Water/Sewer – What would cost the
city (a lot) if they annexed would be roads, fire and police.  If they give water and sewer now, would
they ever be able to annex?  City
Council has decided to put these questions aside until the lawsuit is settled,
so this decision will probably be up to the next council.

Bob Ashley of Preservation Durham (website: http://www.preservationdurham.org/)
gave a presentation on the role historic
preservation can play with neighborhood concerns.  The recent Board of Adjustment approval
of the conversion of McPherson Hospital with good resolution of neighborhood
and preservation concerns is a good example of how we can work together.  Board of Adjustment testimony must be
facts and real evidence, not just opinions, about things like compatibility, so
Preservation Durham can be a good ally, even if there is not an explicit
historic preservation issue. 
Preservation Durham programs that may be of interest to neighborhoods
include:

·      
Endangered Properties and
Places in Peril – identifying threatened properties and getting them
“unendangered.” See http://www.preservationdurham.org/epf/what_epf.html

·      
Awards – recognizing
great preservation, taking nominations year round

·      
Plaques – if a structure
is at least 70 years old and its history can be thoroughly documented, it is
eligible for a plaque

·      
Tours – in addition to
the tour in the spring of historic neighborhoods, they are considering one in
December to show off holiday decorations

·      
Lunch-and-learns and
historic happy hours

Rosemarie Kitchin moved to approve the July minutes. David Harris seconded the motion,
and the delegates voted to approve the minutes.  The treasurer reported that INC’s
current balance is: $2,936.48, and dues have been paid by: Burch Ave, Colony
Park, Duke
Park, WHHNA, Tuscaloosa-Lakewood, Long Meadow, Woodcroft, Trinity Park, Magnolia Place, Old North Durham, Northgate Park, Downing Creek, Falcon Bridge and Old Farm. 

Pat Carstensen moved the resolution (see Appendix A) on the Transit
Tax Referendum that was sent out on
the list-serve, and Susan
Sewell seconded it.  John Martin
mentioned that the resolution could include something about planning around the
transit stops; possible text for this amendments is in brackets in the Appendix.  Mike Shiflett said that if any
neighborhood wants a presentation, they are easy to get arranged.  A couple points made: there will be a
plan on affordable housing near the stops, the sales tax will not be charged on
food and medicine and other necessities, there are back-up plans on what
happens if other counties don’t pass their tax or we get less in state and
federal funds.  Mike Woodard provided
a list of areas where the Planning Department is starting planning for transit
stops (Appendix B).  

The delegates next discussed the
resolution (See Appendix C) on bringing
war dollars home.  Because many
neighborhoods directed their delegate to vote “abstain” as the resolution is
outside of their scope, Tom Miller checked the text of the by-laws, which say
the Delegate Meeting “adopt[s]
by a vote of two-thirds of the Council delegates assembled, the official
position of the Inter Neighborhood Council for all external dissemination or
any general issue or matter of general interest to all neighborhoods.”  The vote on this issue
was 5 for, 1 opposed, and 9 abstaining, which was not enough to carry the
resolution.  

The meeting then took up a
resolution (See Appendix D) on the Rights
of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender People and Legislation Pending in the General
Assembly.  The same rules on
the vote apply.  This time the
result was 10 for, 5 abstaining because the issue was outside the
neighborhood’s scope, and 1 present but lacking instructions from his board (so
not counting in the vote).  This
gave 2/3 vote so the motion carried.

Finally the delegates discussed
the resolution (Appendix E) on the objectives of Urban Open Space Planning.   Voting is a little less critical than originally
thought because the Urban Open Space Plan is delayed.  The general feeling was that the resolution needs to be
simpler and clearer, so we will discuss it more in September.  

Neighborhood news and
announcements included:

·      
Trinity Park – For the
Special Use Permit on the McPherson Hospital property at the Board of
Adjustment, there were an impressive number of suits for the developers.  The process worked because (1) there
was an impressive amount of preparation so the neighborhood had confidence the
SUP conditions were enforceable and would work, and (2) the neighborhood had
one voice.  At the other end of the
neighborhood, they have the PERC contamination.  The building was demolished and DENR is coming back with
remediation plans.  The
neighborhood has formed a committee to push DENR to do the right thing.

·      
Golden Belt – The second
phase of the charette was a disaster because the other side flooded the meeting
with well-rehearsed adherents to their side. 

·      
There will be a “Bring the War Dollars Home / Fund Our Communities” Town Hall
Meeting on September 10, 10:30 am – 12:30 pm, First Presbyterian Church, 305 E.
Main St., Durham.

The meeting adjourned.

Appendix A:  Resolution on Transit Referendum

WHEREAS, a transit system that will maintain our quality of
life with the projected growth in Durham County’s population, direct that
growth in smarter ways, give people more choices, provide good jobs and
economic opportunities, and realize social justice,  and

WHEREAS, this election season, Durham County is the first
jurisdiction in the state to hold a referendum to adopt a ½ cent sales tax to
be used exclusively to transit, since such referenda were authorized by the NC
legislature in 2009, and

WHEREAS, the referendum was preceded by development of a
detailed “financial plan” for how revenues will be spent to encourage mobility;
this plan calls for 3 phases – bus expansion, then commuter rail to Wake
County, and finally light rail to Orange County, and

WHEREAS, Durham County is especially critical for the
regional transit plan related to the financial plan: it sits midway between
Orange and Wake Counties, and commuters come and go from many directions into
and through the county.  

Therefore, be it resolved that the
InterNeighborhood Council of Durham supports the passage of the Transportation
Tax Referendum. 

[Furthermore, INC and its member neighborhoods looks
forward to being part of the process of planning the evolution of the areas
around the transit stops.] 

(Note: The
last sentence was proposed as an amendment over the list-serve after the
meeting, following up on discussion about the resolution.)

Appendix B:  Potential Areas for Transit Oriented
Development  

Mike Woodard provided this information via the list-serve after the
meeting.

At last night's meeting, during our discussion of the
upcoming Transit Referendum, I mentioned that the City-County Planning staff
prepared a list of Transit-Oriented Developments (TOD).

In preparing the list, the staff looked at the following
criteria: if the TOD is a) on a current or planned transit line, and b) has a
density that is supportive of transit.

The following list may not be comprehensive, as it was
developed quickly by staff members. These TODs are among the most successful in
terms of sales/occupancy since 2008.

Developments with an asterisk (*) are not underway (built).
The others are partially or wholly complete:

• Davis Park / Metro Center

• Patterson Place

• University Marketplace (*)

• West Village

• Erwin Square Multifamily (*)

• Ninth Street North (*)

• Station 9

• Erwin Terrace

• Hock Plaza

• Lakeview / Lofts @ Lakeview

• Heritage Square (*)

• Van Allen (*)

• Trinity Commons

There are also a couple of small-area plans that are moving
toward the approval stage that are designed to encourage and support TODs.

Appendix B:  Resolution on Urban Open Space Plan
Objectives

Whereas, the Durham City and County Planning Department is undertaking the
development of an Urban Open Space Plan, which should provide the City with
proper guidance for further decision-making processes, including possible
acquisition/preservation or development of those areas deemed important to
Durham’s quality of life and our environment; and

Whereas, general open space planning has
concentrated on aesthetic, recreational and wildlife benefits, and (as shown in
the background below), with urban open space we need to add health, social and
environmental benefits; and

Whereas, Durham has a
certain amount of ad hoc data laying out issues and opportunities for open
space in downtown Durham, but nothing like the scientifically designed
collection that other cities are doing.

Whereas, many
neighborhoods have a stake in downtown Durham, and the recent history of Old
North Durham Park has shown that these interests can conflict; 

Therefore, be it resolved that the InterNeighborhood
Council encourages the Durham City/County Planning Department development of
Durham’s Urban Open Space Plan should 

1.    
Carefully consider the environmental health and justice aspects, in
addition to the more traditional aesthetic and recreational aspects. 

2.    
Create an environmental health survey detailing the above issues

3.    
Pay close attention to process and governance issues to manage /
minimize conflicts over the resources.

Background

Trees reduce the heat island effect; satellite data of Durham
County shows a clear connection between tree coverage and temperature.  Durham’s Urban Heat Island exceeds
10F.  Effects of this additional
heat include:

·     
In other cities air conditioning associated with this elevated
temperature accounts for 5-10% of electrical energy costs and associated
greenhouse gas emissions.

·     
Elevated urban temperatures make the effects of automotive
emissions worse in downtown areas and in surrounding downwind areas.  Reduced air quality increases incidence
of asthma and heart attacks by as much as 15 to 20.

Other benefits of the preservation
and protection of vegetated open space include decreasing peak runoff volume
through short term storage and evapotranspiration, filtering pollutants through
soils and other media, providing visual relief for urban neighborhoods and the
community, and providing habitat for animal, bird and insect populations.

All open space is a social and economic asset as it promotes
community investment, growth and development; promotes citizen connections and
multigenerational experiences and provides a more pedestrian-friendly
environment.  Trees are not “just
nice to have,” since the presence of trees calms people in urban areas,
reducing aggression by 25%, and promotes positive child development.

Urban open space is also an environmental
justice issue.  Durham County
data shows that families earning $80,000/year live in neighborhoods with 70%
tree coverage, but neighborhoods of families earning $20,000/year have just 20%
tree coverage.  

The Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies urban open space
areas that may need further protection (particularly sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
and 10) and the Unified Development Ordinance, Trails and Greenways Master
Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Landscape Guidelines and a number of
other plans/guidelines that have already been adopted or are in process provide
some control and protection of open space in the City.  However, urban open space planning has
three aspects that differ from general open space planning.

·     
Different types
of components – both publicly and privately owned spaces, including but not limited
to community gardens; isolated roadside trees, bushes and plants; benches and
bus-stop shelter areas; areas of strategic wildlife habitat unrelated to
recreation; rivers, streams, and creek corridors, and creek/bridge crossings;
city and county-owned small natural areas and pocket parks, cemeteries and
small natural areas around libraries, schools, and hospitals; median plantings;
informal pedestrian paths following sewer and power line easements; stormwater facilities
and similar sites; owner-maintained gardens and entrances to and parking areas
of commercial/office properties; and plazas; 

·     
Broader design
questions – not just aesthetics, but also the public health and safety
issues outlined above.

In addition to the “philosophical issues,” there is the issue of
having too little data.  <need
here example of what NYC is looking at, or what data should be collected>

Appendix C:  A Resolution
of the Inter-Neighborhood Council of Durham, NC Calling upon the US Government
and President Obama to Bring Our War Dollars Home Now 

Whereas, the economic
collapse has exhausted the financial resources at the local, county, state and
federal levels of the US; and 

Whereas, the US government
has spent well over 1 trillion dollars nationally on the wars and occupations
in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 (with North Carolina taxpayers’ share of
that total at $32.2 billion, and North Carolina’s share of the 2012 overall
military budget estimated at $15 billion); and 

Whereas, over 6,000 US
troops have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 40,000 wounded,
with thousands more succumbing to trauma or suicide; and 

Whereas, hundreds of
thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have damaged
U.S. credibility as an advocate for human rights, created a resource of
recruitment for enemies of the U.S., and generated social and political
instability and civil conflicts that cannot be solved by ongoing military
action; and

Whereas, billions of taxpayer
dollars are spent to prop up repressive regimes in the Middle East and
elsewhere around the world; and 

Whereas, funding for a
constructive economy that sustains high level educational services for K though
college, equal access to medical care, low cost housing, infrastructure repair,
environmental protections, and family financing throughout North Carolina,
especially in cities such as Durham, has been diverted to wars and occupations,
and 

Whereas, budget deficits,
largely due to war spending, have been used as a pretext to force reductions in
funding for these essential public services, and

Whereas, 2010 census data
shows that in North Carolina one out of every 4 children goes to bed hungry, 

Be it resolved that the
Inter-Neighborhood Council of Durham calls upon the US government and President
Obama to end the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our war
dollars home now. 

Now be it further resolved,
that the Inter-Neighborhood Council of Durham endorse and encourage informational
events regarding the cost of the wars and occupations to our community.

Appendix D:  Same Sex Marriage Resolution

WHEREAS, throughout its
history Durham has proved to be a progressive city in nearly every aspect of
its civic endeavor; and

WHEREAS, the City of Durham
has adopted and reaffirmed a policy of promoting equal rights and opportunities
for employees of Durham Government without regard to race, religion, age,
gender, disability, national origin, color, marital status, or sexual
orientation; and

WHEREAS, the Durham City
Council has shown its commitment to making Durham a welcoming community for gay
and lesbian residents by formally extending health care benefits to same sex
domestic partners of City employees and their legal dependents in 2002; and

WHEREAS, the Durham City
Council passed a resolution supporting marriage equality in 2009 and again,
recently, in 2011; and

WHEREAS, the North Carolina
General Assembly is considering Senate Bill 106 and House Bill 777 that would
place on the 2012 ballot a referendum to amend the North Carolina Constitution
to prohibit marriage between people of the same gender, and further prohibit
the recognition of any other form of domestic legal union; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of
such a Constitutional amendment is inconsistent with the City's commitment to
equal rights and opportunities for its residents and employees; could
invalidate the City of Durham’s domestic partner benefits; and could lead to
litigation;

WHEREAS, this diversity
of residents is found in, and is seen as a source of strength to, its
neighborhoods, represented by the Inter Neighborhood Council; and

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY
THE INTER NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF DURHAM THAT:

1)   The INC opposes Senate Bill 106 and House Bill 777

2)   The INC reaffirms its commitment to equal rights and
opportunities for all residents of Durham, including the rights of same-sex
couples to share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and
commitments of civil marriage.

Appendix E:  Resolution on Urban Open Space Plan
Objectives

Whereas, the Durham City and County Planning Department is undertaking the
development of an Urban Open Space Plan; and

Whereas, numerous environmental benefits result from the preservation and
protection of vegetated open space, including but not limited to reducing urban
temperatures and enhancing air quality, decreasing peak runoff volume through
short term storage and evapotranspiration, filtering pollutants through soils
and other media, providing visual relief for urban neighborhoods and the
community, and providing habitat for animal, bird and insect populations; and,
specifically

Whereas, Durham’s Urban Heat Island exceeds 10F, and in other cities air
conditioning associated with this elevated temperature accounts for 5-10% of
electrical energy costs and associated greenhouse gas emissions; and

Whereas, elevated urban temperatures combined with automotive emissions
reduces downtown air quality and surrounding downwind areas; leading to more
violations of air quality standards, and

Whereas, reduced air quality increases incidence of asthma and heart
attacks by as much as 15 to 20%, and

Whereas, satellite data of Durham County shows a clear connection between
tree coverage and temperature, and

Whereas, Durham County data shows that families earning $80,000/year live
in neighborhoods with 70% tree coverage, but neighborhoods of families earning
$20,000/year have just 20% tree coverage, and

Whereas, the presence of trees calms people in urban areas, reducing
aggression by 25%, and promotes positive child development, and

Whereas, all open space enhances the quality of life for its citizens and
promotes community investment, growth and development; promotes citizen
connections and multigenerational experiences and provides a more
pedestrian-friendly environment.

Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies urban open space
areas that may need further protection (particularly sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
and 10) and the Unified Development Ordinance, Trails and Greenways Master
Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Landscape Guidelines and a number of
other plans/guidelines that have already been adopted or are in process provide
some control and protection of open space in the City, a comprehensive urban open
space plan for the City is needed to provide proper guidance for further
decision making processes which may include possible acquisition/preservation
or development of those areas deemed important to Durham’s quality of life and
our environment.

Whereas, unlike traditional concepts of undeveloped open space, current
concepts of “urban open space” encompass broader environmental and urban design
aspects of both publicly and privately owned spaces, including but not limited
to community gardens; isolated roadside trees, bushes and plants; benches and
bus-stop shelter areas; areas of strategic wildlife habitat unrelated to
recreation; rivers, streams, and creek corridors, and creek/bridge crossings;
city and county-owned small natural areas and pocket parks, cemeteries and
small natural areas around libraries, schools, and hospitals; median plantings;
informal pedestrian paths following sewer and power line easements; stormwater
facilities and similar sites; owner-maintained gardens and entrances to and parking
areas of commercial/office properties; and plazas; and

Therefore, be it resolved that the InterNeighborhood
Council encourages the Durham City/County Planning Department carefully
consider the environmental health aspects of Durham’s Urban Open Space Plan, in
addition to the more traditional open space motivations. Of utmost importance
is the reduction of downtown temperatures, improvement of air quality, and
rectifying issues related to environmental health and socioeconomic equity. As
a part of this planning process, we urge the creation of an environmental
health survey detailing the above issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110903/e4889b69/attachment.html>