[Durham INC] DRAFT August minutes

Mon Sep 22 16:33:43 EDT 2014

Sending this out to get ready for the meeting tomorrow.  Regards, pat

From: pats1717 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 07:29:11 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] DRAFT August minutes

As usual, please let me know about additions or corrections.  Regards, pat

August Delegate
Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham

NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt

August 26, 2014

Attending the meeting were:

Neighborhoods

Buck Crossing – Carol Baldwin

Colonial Village – Connie Hurt

Colony Park – Don Lebkes

Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen

Downing Creek – Dick Ford

Duke Park – Bill Anderson

Eagles’ Pointe – Donna Rudolph

Fairfield – Melissa Rooney, Steve Biccum

Forest Hills Neighborhood Association – Donna Laws

Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman

Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias

Morehead Hill – Paul Cornsweet, Bruce Mitchell

Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins

Old Farm – David Harris

Old North Durham – John Martin, Pete Katz

Old West Durham – Ginger Blubaugh, Vicky Welch

Scarsdale Village – Peter Eckhoff

Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher

Trinity Park – Philip Azar

Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell 

Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller

Woodcroft – Scott Carter, Jose Sandoval

Visitors 

Lynwood D. Best – City of Durham, NIS

John Killeen – City of Durham, NIS

Will Wilson – DOST

Tania Dautlick – Keep Durham Beautiful

Ginny Bowman – Northgate Associates and DAAG

Lee Pardue – Duke Energy

Brandon Hughson – Rainbow Tree Care

Patrick Byker – Morningstar Law

President Scott Carter called the meeting to order; those present
introduced themselves.  We modified
the agenda to add resolutions on internet service and on solar power to new
business.  Tom Miller moved, and Bill Anderson seconded, the
adoption of the July minutes, with
the correction that Bike Durham didn’t have an event in August.  The treasurer reported that total expenses have been $349.31, dues and
donations were $1030, and the current balance (as of August 22) was
$4,291.25.  

Tom Miller moved and David Harris seconded to pay the bill for our
website, of $67. This resolution passed.

Trees around power
lines are complex to manage, and the older oaks on Duke Street are an
example of the difficult decisions. 
Lee Pardue and Brandon Hughson gave a presentation about a tool that
came up after a discussion among Councilmember Don Moffitt, city staff and Duke
Power.  When trees are trimmed,
they respond by growing new shoots faster.  Rainbow Tree Care (from Minnesota, but they work across the
country, http://www.rainbowtreecare.com, including protecting
trees from threats like emerald ash bore and Dutch elm disease) offers a
hormone treatment cambistat that reduces cell elongation (that is, discourages
re-growth into the power lines) and also makes the leaves greener and the roots
denser (so generally reduces aging). 
There haven’t been any decisions, but they won’t put the treatment
around yards of people that don’t want it.  

Patrick Byker gave an explanation of the proposed change to
the UDO on buffering between two types
of industrial zones.  The
following text would be added to a section that sets details in buffer
protection around residential areas: “Where the Industrial Light (IL) District
is on property four acres or less in size and adjacent to the Industrial (I)
District, the buffer requirement in the table in paragraph 9.4.3B, shall be
0.2/0.4;” it would reduce the requirement for a completely opaque buffer if the
Industrial District side has no existing buffer, to a minimal buffer, for
Industrial Districts small enough that they probably wouldn’t get really
obnoxious uses like asphalt plants. Mr. Byker is working with Wendy’s, which
wants to re-develop (make a bigger and slicker) their property on Hillsborough
Road, and because the property behind them is a warehouse in an industrial zone,
the buffer would take up 80 feet of their “back yard.”  They can’t ask for a variance because
they can’t create their own hardship. 
The UDO created a lot of non-conforming buffers on commercial property,
which could become an increasing issue if there is a lot of redevelopment.  The Planning Department is apparently
re-looking at the buffer requirements (and we will have to make sure they
aren’t throwing out any babies with the bathwater).  Pat Carstensen observed that in general, making changes to the
UDO to fix one property owner’s problem is a dangerous idea.  

The Zoning Committee presented a report on progress on the Wireless Communications Facilities
(WCF) section of the UDO (see Appendix C).  Planning is not going to move
to our land use-based framework (we still think it is better), and has made
several changes that decrease the probability that people will have no say in
towers near their homes.  There are still a few concerns (especially about
suburban and rural residential), but Pat Carstensen moved and Tom Miller
seconded the following resolution to guide the committee, “The INC resolves
that the Zoning and Development Committee should continue to work toward a
resolution of the WCF issue along the lines outlined in the memo submitted to the
delegate meeting.”  This passed with an abstention.  Donna Rudolph
cautioned neighborhoods to watch the details in the “end game” on the WCF
issue, saying that though INC is moving closer to accepting Planning’s recent
Wireless ordinance revisions, INC neighborhoods that are RS-20 and /or suburban
tier of Rural Residential (RR) need to be aware that their residential areas
are NOT included (protected by) in the lower height restraints other R zones
will enjoy, such as underlying district limits plus 20 feet, nor by staff’s
newly proposed 60 foot height limit (to which state law allows another 20ft “by
right”). That is, RS-20 like Eagle’s Pointe, Falconbridge, Woodcroft, etc. are
open to 120ft. towers defined by planning as “concealed” which structures will
be approved by staff without opportunity for resident input at a public hearing
 (despite INC’s request that any
freestanding WCF proposed in existing R areas require the special use permit
approval process, entailing resident notification and a public hearing).

Committee Reports                                                                                                

 Membership
     and Outreach – The first two PAC presentations (to PAC2 and PAC3) will be
     in September.  Tom Miller
     moved and Susan Sewell seconded a motion to spend up to $50 to print more
     brochures; this passed.  

·      Nuisance Abatement –  Nothing new. 

·     
Speeding and Traffic – Chief Lopez is presenting
the strategic plan on safety soon to the city manager, after which it will be a
public document and we will see how well it matches our recommendations.

·     
Transit, Sidewalks, and Bicycles – No report.

·     
Public Spaces and Environmental Issues – They
will probably be requesting time for a presentation of results in
September.  In the meantime, you
can still participate in Charge Ahead Durham (http://chargeaheaddurham.org)  

9)   Old Business 

·     
Legislative
update
on Protest Petitions and Historic Preservation – The General Assembly has
adjourned.  The conference
committee took repealing protest petitions out of the regulation bill, so this
precious right is safe until next February at least.  They didn’t renew tax credits for historic preservation (though
the governor is in favor of such credits, so there is hope for next year); to
get anything for projects now underway, everything needs to be finished and
paid for by December 31.

·     
Resolutions on
Safe Disposal of Used Motor Oil – The resolution is in Appendix A.  It was moved and seconded last
month.  Bill Anderson read the
resolution and it passed.

·     
Resolutions  on Storm Water Management – It is in Appendix
B.  It was generally thought that
we should hear what Stormwater Services thinks of the issue.  Tom Miller moved that we vote on the
matter in October or after hearing from Stormwater, whichever comes first.  This passed with an abstention.  

 For the
     Neighborhood Hero Awards we
     have a place – The Pit – but not a definite date.  You’ll have plenty of time to get
     nominations in, but it’s not to early to start thinking about who is
     making a difference in your neighborhood.
 The Nominating Committee reported the
     following set of nominees:

Phil Azar, President 

DeDreana Freeman, Vice-President 

Pat Carstensen,
Secretary 

Susan Sewell,
Treasurer 

Pete Katz, At-large 

Dick Ford, At-large 

Scott Carter, Past
President 

·     
Mayor’s Task
Force on Poverty – Moving along.  

New Business 

 Resolution on Internet Services –
     The resolution is in Appendix D. 
     Tom Miller moved and Pat Carstensen seconded the motion.  We will vote on it next month.

·     
Resolution on
Solar Power
– This is something we promised to look at, based on a presentation earlier
this summer.  The text of the
resolution (slightly modified from what was available at the meeting) is in
Appendix E.  We will discuss it over
the list-serve and vote next month.

·     
Downtown Open
Space Plan –
To make meaningful votes, you need to download a big file and read it, but
folks are encouraged to show how involved they are and take this (http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/dosp.aspx) on by
Friday.  

·     
Check out the facebook page:  www.facebook.com/InterNeighborhoodCouncilDurham

Neighborhood Reports and Announcements                                                            

·     
Morehead Hill reported on the three big
apartment buildings being proposed in the historic district, in the meadow by
Greystone, where Greystone would become the “clubhouse.”  The proposed apartment buildings would
overshadow its historic neighbors, but the property is zoned OI, so the only
thing forcing negotiation in the historic designation.  One lesson is to look for the worst
cases of use when someone proposes a new zone.

·     
Deb Hawkins invited folks to the food truck
rodeo at Northgate Park.  www.facebook.com/events/669283039829949/permalink/682244735200446/
and said the link to Northgate Park
on the INC website didn’t work.

·     
The Durham Soil and Water Conservation District
and the Sierra Club will be having a lawn clinic on September 13th
in the Fairfield neighborhood.

·     
The Durham Rescue Mission item at the Board of
Adjustment was continued; Golden Belt will be continuing to work on this issue.

The
meeting adjourned.

Appendix A:
Resolution on Safe Disposal of
Used Motor Oil

Because every
quart of used motor oil has the ability to contaminate one million gallons of
drinking water, we no longer spray it on dirt roads to keep the dust down.

And because
proper disposal of large quantities of used motor oil can be difficult and
expensive, and can tempt the owner to dispose of 55 gallon drums improperly.

And because the
environmental damage can be so profound from such large quantities, additional
safe guards would be a wise practice.

And because our
Storm Water Department has the authority to ensure proper storage, but that
only includes not storing large quantities outside.

Therefore when
Storm Water becomes aware of large amounts of used motor oil in the possession
of Durham residents, their authority should extend to ensuring the safe
disposal.

Appendix B: Resolution on Storm Water Management

Whereas:

1) Durham City and County are in the same watershed(s), such that stormwater
management and funding should be a joint city-county effort;

2) The most effective, long-term and cost-effective stormwater management is
one that has a holistic, rather than a piece-meal, approach;

3) At a work session last November, County Commissioner Ellen Reckhow
questioned collaborative efforts between the city and county to minimize
duplication and costs related to stormwater management, and Assistant County
Manager Cummings said they would “consider revisiting” this issue;

4) The Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) has, for years, installed
BMPs (“best management practices” like cisterns, rain-gardens and stream-bank
restorations) without any funding from the city until this year (and only
$10,000 funding from the city for 2013-14), and this free ride cannot continue
without the county raising taxes to fund the SWCD's services, thereby double
taxing city-water residents whose significant stormwater fees are already
increasing over the next five years;

5) The city’s Stormwater Services Department, with whom SWCD’s responsibilities
overlap, has declined when SWCD has offered expertise, collaboration and
services; and, despite SWCD requests for partnerships, the stormwater
department has actually competed with SWCD for state, federal and other grants.

Therefore, 

The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham hereby requests that the city and
county of Durham establish a Watersheds Improvement Committee similar to the
Joint City-County Planning Committee. The mission of this committee, which
would consist of city and county stakeholders (elected officials, reps from
SWCD, the stormwater department, County Engineering, etc.), would be to
eliminate redundancies and develop long-term, holistic approaches to storm-water
management and watershed improvements throughout the city and county.

Appendix C: 
Wireless Communications Facilities Report

InterNeighborhood Council Zoning and Land Use
Committee 

Memorandum

TO:                        The
Officers and Delegates

FROM:            The
Zoning and Land Use Committee

RE:                        Proposed
Changes to INC’s Position Regarding UDO Regulations Governing                                                 Wireless
Communications Facilities

DATE:                        August
26, 2014

            Since
the committee received the planning staff’s August 6 memorandum to the JCCPC,
our committee has met and we have gone over the document with some care.  Although we continue to have some
serious misgivings about the concealed vs. non-concealed regulatory scheme,
based upon the changes to the regulatory scheme proposed by the planning staff in
its August 6 memo especially as they relate to monopines and the staff’s recent
position on “slick sticks”, we ask the INC to go along with the essence of the
staff’s proposal if the city and county will do the following:

            Referring
to the numbered items in the August 6 staff memorandum to the JCCPC:

Item
2: 

With
regard to notifications, we prefer the 600-foot radius we have proposed and
note that it is the radius currently used for major use permits.  That having been said, if it is clear
that the radius is to be measured from the boundary of the host parcel and not
the tower or compound, then we are willing to concede this point.

Item
3:

Because
free-standing WCFs, concealed and unconcealed, are different from every other
use most likely to be placed in proximity to a residential neighborhood, we
believe that some subject-specific use permit standards are called for in
addition to the one-size-fits-all litany used for all use permits.

We
ask that the city and county develop standards that would insure that:

a)
            a
proposed free-standing WCF is reasonably proportionate to the residential
buildings nearby and             that
it will not overbear such buildings,

b)
            the
WCF is aesthetically consistent with the community and that effective measures
to buffer and              reduce
the visual impact of the structure have been employed, 

c)            the
WCF has been sited to prevent it from being the dominant feature of the
skyline, and that

d)            the
WCF does not interfere with, intrude upon, or compromise scenic, historic, or             environmentally
significant areas. 

Item
4:

With
regard to set-backs, we are content with the setbacks the staff proposes and we
note that they are a dramatic reduction in the setback distances INC has asked
for.  We do ask that there be no
setback reductions allowed for any free-standing WCFs in R-zones as we have
defined such zones.

Item
7:

With
regard to WCF height, we continue to be concerned about what the state statutes
mean with regard to the by-right height addition.  We appreciate the staff’s concern with this same issue as it
impacts very tall towers.  We note,
however, that because a 20 foot addition on a 60-foot tower in a residential
area will have a greater impact than the addition of 10% to the height of a 180
ft. tower in a non-residential area, INC should ask for a reduction in the
maximum tower height in residential zones from the height-plus-25 feet proposed
by staff to height-plus-20 feet. 
We also ask that RS-20 and RR in the suburban tier be included with
those districts where height is calculated this way.  This would still permit a 75’ “concealed” tower in
residential areas once the statutory bonus is factored in – through a process
which would involve no public notice and no public hearing. 

We
also ask whether height bonuses allowed for buildings in the code under certain
circumstances would also apply to WCFs. 
We should oppose the application of height bonuses to free-standing
WCFs.

Item
11:

With
regard to monopines and “slick-sticks,” we understand the staff’s current
proposals to mean that such WCFs would not be considered “concealed” when they
are proposed for location in a residential area and consequently the only way
such a WCF would be allowed in a residential area would be as a result of the
special use permitting process.  If
our understanding is correct, then we are prepared to recommend moving forward
with the staff’s proposal.  Again,
we ask that the concept of residential areas be defined to include RS-20 and RR
in the urban tier.

Item
15:

With
regard to balloon tests, we ask that the notification radius be 400 feet from
the boundary of the host property. 

Item
17:

With
regard to major gas lines, we ask that setbacks be applied to gas lines of 8”
or greater diameter.

If
the city and county will make these adjustments, The INC committee is prepared
to ask the full INC to support the rewrite of the WCF standards in the UDO.

Appendix D: A RESOLUTION
BY THE INTERNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF DURHAM SUPPORTING FASTER, LESS EXPENSIVE,
AND MORE RELIABLE INTERNET SERVICE

WHEREAS,
existing Internet service providers enjoy near monopolies of Internet access
infrastructure; and

WHEREAS,
residents of Durham experience poor Internet performance from these same
existing broadband carriers; and

WHEREAS,
Durham’s economic future is dependent, in significant part, on growth in
industries and services which require high speed, high quality Internet access;
and

WHEREAS,
Durham neighborhoods and residents have drawn the attention of the
InterNeighborhood Council of Durham to a number of initiatives, whether by
publicly traded companies or public-private consortiums, designed to bring high
speed Internet alternatives to Durham and to the determination of the City and
County of Durham to pursue one or more of those alternatives;

NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham through
its delegates duly assembled that the InterNeighborhood Council:

1.  Recognizes, salutes, and celebrates
Durham's desire for faster, more reliable and less expensive Internet
alternatives; and 

2.
Supports competition in the Internet service provider market; and 

3.  Expresses its gratitude, enthusiasm,
and encouragement of and for the City and County of Durham as they pursue high-speed
Internet alternatives; and

4.  Urges Durham elected officials and other
government officials to seek one or more alternatives that balance the desire
for higher real-world speeds, more reliable and cheaper service, and expanded
coverage of as much of Durham as possible, as quickly as possible, in as equitable
a manner as possible; and

5.  Offers its support, whether by
resolution or otherwise to any application, pooling of information, or other
reasonable means that might increase the chances for high-speed internet
alternatives being realized sooner rather than later.

This
_________ day of ______________________________, 2014.

THE
INTERNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OF DURHAM

By:
__________________________________________

      Scott Carter,

      President

Appendix E: Solar Power Resolution

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF
MAKING DURHAM A WORLD-CLASS SOLAR CITY

WHEREAS, the
State of North Carolina currently emits 72 million metric tons of carbon
pollution annually to produce electricity; and

WHEREAS,
solar power is a clean source of energy with which North Carolina can power its
homes, businesses, and cars to achieve better air quality and reduce carbon
pollution; and

WHEREAS, the
State of North Carolina receives more than 250 days of sunshine per year, and
last year installed more solar than every state but California; and

WHEREAS, the
solar industry provides over 3,100 jobs to North Carolinians, and has grown for
six consecutive years; and

WHEREAS, if
the State of North Carolina were to generate 14% of its electricity from
distributed generation solar, an additional 700,000 solar rooftops would be
installed; and

WHEREAS, the
City of Durham is the fourth largest City in the State; and

WHEREAS, the
City of Durham has adopted a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Local
Action Plan and has committed to reduce emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by
2030; and

WHEREAS, the
City of Durham recognizes the above assets of solar power and desires to renew
its commitment to this important clean energy solution; and

WHEREAS,
neighborhoods support the reduction in greenhouse gases,

THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Interneighborhood Council of Durham urges Durham to
become the first North Carolina city to officially set its own goal of
generating 15% of the electricity used by the City of Durham and its residents
from solar by 2030 and to call on the State
of North Carolina to follow Durham’s lead in making North Carolina a leader in
solar power and to set a goal of having 700,000 solar roofs by 2030.

_______________________________________________
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/20140922/56320ee0/attachment.html>