[Durham INC] Correction: Zoning Case Z1100024 is NOT in a floodplain

[Pat Carstensen]

I agree with Melissa that there is something that can be confusing about the maps on zoning cases.  I recently got a notice for which it took me three tries to figure out the correct property that the notice was about.  The area under consideration was relatively small and easy to overlook.

Regards, pat

Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:36:31 -0800
From: mmr121570 at yahoo.com
To: durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com; inc-list at durhaminc.org; NortheastCreekStreamWatch at yahoogroups.com
CC: Council at DurhamNC.Gov; durhamplanningcommission at durhamnc.gov
Subject: [Durham INC] Correction: Zoning Case Z1100024 is NOT in a floodplain

I apologize for my misinterpretation of the context map for zoning case Z1100024.
The copy of the map I received makes the parcel appear to be located in the area to the east of the Nimitz Ave - Isenhour Street intersection. On my copy, this area appears both darkened and striated, which would indicate that it is the case area. Upon further inspection of another copy of the map, I now have concluded that my map was confusing due to low ink or something.
The zoning area I interpreted is also a much larger area (by about 5 x) than the actual case area, which is located to the west of the aforesaid intersection.
Any time I see a development rezoning containing a floodplain, I contact the planning
 commissioners and the city council requesting that no development be allowed in the floodplain. In fact, given all the development that has happened in Durham and its affects on our existing floodplains, there should be buffers adjacent to floodplains.
I agree with Mike Woodard that the JCCPC (joint city county planning commission) and the planning department try to encourage/influence development such that floodplains are not impacted and that we do have ordinances protecting floodplains. However, development has been allowed in floodplains in past cases in which I've been involved. This is also indicated by the recent information sent with our last water bills indicating that Durham citizens are responsible for drainage systems on their property and that they should take care to determine whether their property is located in a floodplain (among other places) before buying that property.
While I
 sincerely believe that our ordinances should stipulate that flood plain areas are not developed or altered in any way, I apologize that I misinterpreted this case as a prime example of floodplain rezoning/development that should not be allowed.
Again, I am sorry for misinterpreting the maps and raising a stir. And I am sorry for the inconvenience to Mike Woodard and any others.
For now, I will continue to take note of any developments that contain floodplains and will make the INC and others aware when there is concern. If we find that future floodplains are being altered/developed, then a resolution could be considered.
While I know I am far from perfect, I do correct any misinformation I have communicated as soon as I am aware of it.
Thanks for your understanding...I hope all of you have a safe and relaxing
 holiday.
Sincerely,Melissa (Rooney)


       From: Mike Woodard <mike at mikewoodard.com>
 To: inc listserv <inc-list at durhaminc.org>; NortheastCreekStreamWatch at yahoogroups.com; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, 24 December 2011 11:51 AM
 Subject: [durhamenviro] Zoning Case Z1100024 is NOT in a floodplain
  















 



  


    
      
      
      Neighbors:



After reading Melissa Rooney's emails yesterday, along with others sent to various listservs and to the City Council, I checked on this case.



In fact, none of the parcels Melissa cited are in or are impacted by the floodplain. The

closest area of regulated floodplain is located on the west side of Alston Avenue/NC

55 across from this site. I have reviewed the context map for the area to confirm this.



As many of you are aware,  Durham has some of the most restrictive floodplain regulations in the region and the state. And some of your elected officials, working with our various staffs, have protected and even enhanced those regulations in recent. We believe that development should be extremely limited, and in many cases prohibited, in floodplains.



As a six-year member and two-year chair of the Joint City-County Planning Committee, I have seen your Planning staff routinely advise potential developers of the limitations or prohibitions that sites have. They have been very successful in directing developers away from adversely impacted sites.



Relax on this case. We will need your passion and energy on other cases in the new year.



Happy holidays.



Mike Woodard



    
     

    
    __._,_.___

        
  
   
    
      
        
	  Reply to sender |
        
	  Reply to group |
        	  Reply via web post |
            	Start a New Topic
      

                Messages in this topic
          (1)
           






      Recent Activity:

    
    
  
    Visit Your Group
  


              
      MARKETPLACE
      
                          
                        Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.           
                      
    
  

  
  Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of
 Use




   

  
  
  



     




     

  .


   


__,_._,___






  








    
_______________________________________________
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/20111225/836818f5/attachment-0001.html>