[Durham INC] Draft Minutes_ Neighborhood size?

[Dorothy Potter Snyder]

Small comment: As the average cohousing community is around 30 units, I
think this 40 dwelling unit rule is very much behind the reality of our
times.

Dorothy

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Donna Rudolph <donnakrudolph at gmail.com>
wrote:

> *RE minimum number of homes in a neighborhood to qualify to join INC>*
> My view: Reduce the present threshold; let a neighborhood into INC
> particularly if it shows interest or need.   There are many small
> neighborhoods that have no clout alone,  but  need attention on issues
> common to all neighborhoods.   INC is the logical advocacy group to mentor
> the suburban tier neighborhoods of the Rural Residential Zone--developed
> communities lying just outside the city boundaries--to  become dynamically
> involved in community safety, aesthetic improvement and community
> interaction.   Why not let these neighbors become part of the network
> around for decades which can share the varied experience of neighborhoods
> who’ve been there, done that?  Let the mission of INC include mentoring
> neighborhoods—however small—and thereby also live up to the slogan of
> “really being” a “greater Durham” network. Donna Rudolph
>
>
>
> *From:* INC-list [mailto:inc-list-bounces at lists.deltaforce.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Pat Carstensen
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 31, 2015 2:34 PM
> *To:* inc listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
>
>
> Sorry, I missed this item of new business:
>
>
>
> *New Business*
>
> Hopewell is a neighborhood of 13 houses that would like to join INC;
> however, the INC bylaws say that member neighborhoods have to have 40
> dwelling units.  Some members are coalitions of smaller neighborhoods.  The
> issue was referred to the Membership Committee.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: pats1717 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> 7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.     7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.     7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.     7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.     The Interneighborhood Council of Durham recognizes that the
> several neighborhoods south of N.C. Route 54 in the affected area,
> including member community Downing Creek,strongly objected to any light
> rail construction along proposed routes “C2” or “C2A”
>
>
>
> 7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.     and concludes in its own right that the proposed Durham-Orange
> Light Rail project, if constructed, should follow the originally intended
> path through Meadowmont, as represented by current option “C1A” or an
> alternative route with less negative impact on our communities.
>
>
>
>
>
> 7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.     and calls upon all elected and appointed officials whose
> jurisdiction includes the light rail planning project to take heed of these
> community resolutions and to work constructively with Downing Creek and
> other neighborhood leaders in finding appropriate alternatives
>
> 7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.     and hereby directs its President to publish this resolution and
> directly to the Durham City Council, the Durham County Board of
> Commissioners, and the members of the state legislative delegation who
> represent the affected area.
>
>
>
> *Appendix B: Resolution Regarding the Alston Street Light Rail Station
> Site*
>
>
>
> The Northeast Central Durham Leadership Council has given careful
> attention to the recent announcement by the Triangle Transit Authority to
> move the Alston transit station one quarter mile west on Pettigrew to a
> location near Grant Street.  East Durham is not well served by this
> change, and we call for TTA to identify a site east of Alston Avenue.
>
>
>
> TTA made presentations to our organization and other organizations and
> groups in Northeast Durham about the plans for station locations in the
> light rail system, and we are distressed that TTA did not request our input
> or inform us of the possible change in the station site before making this
> new recommendation to a meeting of the Durham City Council and County
> Commission on January 13, 2015.  To be true to the statements from TTA
> about how light rail would serve East Durham, we think it is essential that
> they continue to look for ways to place the station in a location east of
> Alston Avenue.
>
>
>
> The NECD Leadership Council opposes the Grant Street location for the
> following reasons:
>
>
>
> 7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.     The Grant Street location will not serve the heart of northeast
> Durham as well as a site east of Alston Avenue.
>
> 7 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
> Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
>
> Please let me know about additions or corrections.  Thanks, pat
>
>
>
> *May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham*
>
> *NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt*
>
> *May 26, 2015*
>
>
>
> Attending the meeting were:
> *Neighborhoods*
>
> Colony Park – Don Lebkes
>
> Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
>
> Downing Creek – Dick Ford
>
> Duke Park – Bill Anderson
>
> Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
>
> Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
>
> Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
>
> Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
>
> Old Farm – David Harris
>
> Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
>
> Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
>
> Trinity Park – Philip Azar
>
> Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
>
> Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
>
> Woodcroft –Scott Carter
>
>
>
> *Visitors *
>
> Will Wilson – DOST
>
> Elizabeth Chan – EAB
>
> Lynwood Best – NIS
>
> Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
>
> Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
>
>
>
>
>
> President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves.
> Discussion of the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics
> mean for neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
>
>
>
> Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin seconded and
> delegates voted to do this.
>
>
>
> Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
> accounts.  Dues are still $25.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of
> maintaining Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has
> significant benefits in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics.
> There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets, around parking lots in parks,
> and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most are willow oaks so have
> the same expected life, about 20 more years.  This leads to two major
> issues: the expense of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace
> these trees.  The EAB has made recommendations on the scale of maintaining
> our canopy; see
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
>  .  With 13000 trees, we would need to remove about 750 trees a year
> (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of course); we now have
> capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave to volunteers.
> Since many locations that now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for
> large trees, EAB recommends that for every 100 trees removed, we should
> replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99 small trees.  This would mean planting
> 1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant.  The next steps
> are
>
>    - do a detailed inventory of location and condition of the trees so we
>    can set specific targets and see what resources will be needed (other
>    cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
>    - set a policy of immediate replacement of dead and dying trees, and
>    - possibly change the UDO’s rules about planting on private land.
>
> There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
> more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
> full-time person just do support volunteers).  Ideally trees would be on
> the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also be a bond referendum.
>
>
>
> *Reports*
>
>    - *Zoning and Development (cell towers) *– The cell tower revisions to
>    the UDO were passed by both the city and county.  City Council, mostly led
>    by the Mayor, was concerned about general safety matters.  We had a better
>    hearing with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more
>    pertinent; they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended
>    to developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and
>    ability to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back
>    with or consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
>    (especially around safety) and inspection protocols.  Neither INC nor
>    neighborhoods are expected to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a
>    constructive role, we acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung
>    together in this long process.  We need to follow up with letter to staff
>    copying both bodies and planning commission with final comments.  All of
>    the commissioners were called with a note of thanks.  Donna and Dolly were
>    thanked for all their efforts.
>    - *Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) *– The
>    Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
>    with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
>    Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
>    there.  In May there were 5 meetings on specific sites to talk about
>    boundaries to the compact area.  There is concern that this was a very
>    complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even realize
>    what a complex problem they were looking at.  One thing that is especially
>    concerning is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block
>    to maintain similar character on both sides of a street” while some
>    neighborhoods have a principle of having compatible back yards.  If you go
>    to the second round of meetings, please comment on principles about where
>    the lines should go that you think are wrong.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
>    - *Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – *Pocket
>    neighborhoods have a small number of small houses.  See
>    http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
>    - *Membership and Outreach –* The LWV has asked if INC is interested
>    in co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election.
>    Given the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Old Business*
>
> Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who wants
> to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
> runoff will run into Colony Park.  Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want
> to talk about anything but his wants.
>
>
>
> There are two issues on the details of the *proposed light rail system*.
> Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
> transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail
> come through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have
> dangerous at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the
> arterial NC54.  We also have an old resolution on the eastern end of the
> light rail systems.  See Resolutions A and B.  The over-arching issue is
> that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
> decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s
> an indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings
> on routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
>
>
>
> *Neighborhood Reports*
>
>    - Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood reported on the re-configuration
>    of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and Hardy’s, taking the road from 5
>    lanes to 3 with bike lanes and parking.
>    http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx  TLNA, Bike
>    Durham and others are supporting the reconfiguration.  Council put the
>    reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the work session, but some
>    businesses along the route are opposing it so folks should tell Susan if
>    they hear anything.
>    - Bruce Mitchell of Morehead Hills reported that the redesigned plans
>    for Greystone Apartments are nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC
>    has invited Morehead Hill neighborhood residents and other interested
>    parties to attend a presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015
>    at 6 PM at the Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
>
>
>    - The Beaver Queen Pageant is June 6; there are opportunities to check
>    out the contestants and bribe judges.  More information is at
>    http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
>
>
> *Appendix A: **Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route *
>
> Submitted May 26, 2015
>
>
>
> *Whereas* local and regional authorities including GoTriangle (formerly
> Triangle Transit Authority), the City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill,
> the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
> (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are all
> presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail
> line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *two routes under consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the
> south side of the N.C. Route 54 right-of-way to cross the Little Creek
> section of that proposed rail line;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *either of those routes would require the creation of several
> dangerous grade-level rail crossings that obstruct access to and across
> N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and Chapel Hill
> neighborhoods;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *another route under consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light
> rail line across Little Creek north of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel
> Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *the Town of Chapel Hill’s 1995 approval of the creation of
> Meadowmont was predicated on the future routing of light rail there;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *a “C1A” route through Meadowmont would draw ridership from a
> population that exists in place today, made up of people who bought or
> built their homes in an area posted as a future transit corridor, while a
> “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a possible future
> population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel Hill and
> the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *Downing Creek, a member neighborhood of this council, has by
> vote of its community association board resolved to oppose light rail
> construction along either the “C2” or “C2A” corridor, and more than ninety
> percent of Downing Creek residents have responded to a survey by saying
> they are “strongly opposed” to these routes;
>
>
>
> *Whereas *in the course of several meetings, the authorities in control
> of this rail planning process have been dismissive of local residents’
> opinions and of their research into the relevant traffic and safety issues,
> as summarized online at Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
>
>
>
> *Be it resolved that*
>
>
>
> 1.     The Grant station site would be three-quarter miles rather than
> one-half mile from Driver Street which is a focus of economic
> revitalization efforts by the neighborhood and the city.
>
> •     The Grant station is less convenient for pedestrians using the Bryant
> Bridge who would have to walk an additional quarter mile to reach the Grant
> Street location.
>
> •     The Grant station site would be three-quarter mile rather than
> one-half mile from MacDougald Terrace.
>
> •     The Grant station is would be less than a half mile from the
> Dillard/Fayetteville Station and that station would serve many of the same
> residential areas that would be served by the Grant Street location.
>
> •     The new location would reduce the likelihood of placing the light
> rail Operations and Maintenance Facility in East Durham and eliminate the
> possibility that light rail could ever be extended to a new station that
> would directly service Driver Street, Briggs Avenue, and Durham Technical
> Community College.1  The light rail system should be planned now in a way
> that keeps open the possibility of extension in the future.
>
> Fundamentally, the level of light rail service promised to East Durham
> would not be provided and possible future enhancements would be eliminated
> by the using the Grant Street station site.
>
>
>
> TTA has announced that the Alston station cannot be at its exact original
> site north of the water tower on Pettigrew, but that does not mean that
> pulling the line farther back from East Durham is the only or best option.
> TTA has realigned the light rail with only slight shifts in the location of
> other stations in the latest version of the plan.  They should make the
> same effort to keep the station east of Alston by moving the line outside
> the railroad right of way.  The light rail line could be moved closer to
> NC147 with its own bridge over Alston Street at Gann Street and a station
> placed close to the Bryant Street bridge.  We call for a balanced
> assessment of the pros and cons of this and other potentially feasible
> alternative sites east of Alston for the current eastern terminal station
> in the light rail system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Durham INC Mailing List
> inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
>


-- 
*Dorothy Potter Snyder*
*The Art of Language*
*919-237-2931*
*Writer: www.dorothypotter.com <http://www.dorothypotter.com>*
*Teacher/Translator:  www.dorothypotterspanish.com
<http://www.dorothypotterspanish.com>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20150601/942e6d5d/attachment-0001.html>