[Durham INC] Please reject UDO Tree coverage change TC1300002

[Melissa Rooney]

Wow. How eloquently written, Will. I hope this letter gets published in the Herald Sun or Durham News.

Of course, I couldn't agree more with you, and I hope that our elected governments will finally formulate a stringent procedure with a strict  and regular schedule by which to make changes to the comprehensive plan and the udo moving forward. Even an annual review would be better than the piecemeal changes Durham does nothing to discourage right now. 'Technical changes' in the interim should be requested only by planning staff- though they may be at the request of developers, they should not be dictated by developers and their well paid legal teams.

Sincerely,
Melissa (Rooney)



On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 3:08 PM, "Schewel, Steve" <Steve.Schewel at durhamnc.gov> wrote:
  
Will, Bob and Milo,
I appreciate very much hearing from you on this issue, and I'll take your concerns very seriously.

Best wishes,
Steve
________________________________________

From: Moffitt, Don
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:00 PM
To: willwilsn at gmail.com; Council Members; commissioners at dconc.gov; Medlin, Steve
Cc: inc listserv; Robert Healy; 'milo pyne'
Subject: RE: Please reject UDO Tree coverage change TC1300002

Thanks, Will, for taking the time to share your concerns. We haven't heard from staff yet on this, but I'll bear your perspective in mind.
Regards,
Don


________________________________________
From: Will Wilson [willwilsn at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:20 AM
To: Council Members; commissioners at dconc.gov; Medlin, Steve
Cc: inc listserv; Will Wilson; Robert Healy; 'milo pyne'
Subject: Please reject UDO Tree coverage change TC1300002

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
_______________________________________________
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/20140129/9a8dae57/attachment.html>