[Durham INC] Please reject UDO Tree coverage change TC1300002

[wjacobs at dconc.gov]

Thanks for bringing this upcoming proposed change to my attention, Will, Milo and Bob.

Wendy Jacobs
Durham County Commissioner
Cell Phone: (919) 418-3169

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:21 AM, "Will Wilson" <willwilsn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To: Durham City Council
>     Board of County Commissioners
>     Planning Director Steve Medlin
> Re: UDO Text Amendment TC1300002, Tree Coverage Reduction
>
> Changing Durham's Unified Development Ordinance should be done carefully
> and comprehensively, at regular and infrequent intervals, with a full
> understanding of the consequences of each change.  Changes should not be
> made in response to requests affecting specific properties or individual
> situations. An excellent example of how not to make changes is the text
> amendment TC1300002 that reduces Durham's tree coverage requirements at
> the request of a single developer to avoid the present requirements. The
> UDO mandates tree coverage for Durham's citizens in order to provide
> many beneficial services, and there is no clear public purpose served by
> reducing these benefits.
>
> Without the proposed change, a lot of a certain size requires a certain
> fraction of tree coverage. With the change, the developer gets to remove
> the easement area from the lot size, then calculate the fraction of tree
> coverage. That change reduces tree coverage and increases the
> development size.
>
> We sympathise with long-term property owners that have easements placed
> during their ownership, though financial compensation for these
> easements generally accounts for the loss of use, present and future.
> However, after such negotiations have completed, it is not clear that
> any miscalculation of the value of these easements by the landowners
> should result in reduced tree coverage for Durham's citizens.
>
> We have little sympathy for purchasers of properties with existing
> easements. The issue of unbuildable easements, and the consequences of
> the existing UDO rules are clear at the time of purchase. The financial
> burden can easily be mitigated by either (A) not purchasing the parcel
> having such easements, or (B) calculating the cost of tree coverage in
> the purchase, planning, building, and selling of developed housing units.
>
> In either case, Durham's people should not have to sacrifice the
> benefits that come with being a "Tree City" because of the financial
> miscalculation (or the seeking of enhanced profits) by a single
> developer seeking a rule change for a specific development.
>
> Therefore, we strongly oppose the UDO text amendment TC1300002, and urge
> the Durham City Council and Board of County Commissioners to reject it.
>
> Will Wilson
> Milo Pyne
> Bob Healy
> --
> http://www.biology.duke.edu/wilson/
> http://www.constructedclimates.org/
> http://biology.duke.edu/wilson/Book/index.php

This message is being sent on a public e-mail system and may be subject to disclosure under the North Carolina Public Records Act.