The Scott Mill rezoning vote is on the County Commissioners' agenda tonight (the 12th) and opponents need to fill the room for that vote. I've said a lot of this in past posts, but this is another post on what is going on and why I support the opponents. Any factual inaccuracies here are my fault - but as far as I can tell, these are the facts (please comment or get in touch if you think I'm in error). I will try to post about the meeting afterward.
The project, Scott Mill, is located near the American Tobacco Trail (ATT) at the southern end of Durham County. The opposition tried to negotiate a mutually acceptable development plan with Bill Ripley, who has an option on the land, over the summer, but he has resorted to what I see as misleading and undemocratic tactics, to push forward a development that will harm NE Creek's (and ultimately Jordan Lake's) water quality, the larger environment, and the people of Durham. There are fears that Scott Mill will be like Indigo Corners, at Mt. Moriah Rd. and Chapel Hill Boulevard, and the Herndon Rd. development down the road from the Scott Mill site. Scott Mill is a necessary fight in resisting sprawl, the degradation of waterways, and the control over local government by development interests in Durham and the region. The opposition would have acquiesced to living with development, if the agreed-to committed elements had been kept. As a resident who grew up in the area and often hikes in the public bottomlands along the Creek, I am leery of development, but I am not against development. I am more offended by how this development has been pushed up to now, than by the development plan itself, though it could be more socially beneficial. Many of the problems of development are not the fault of one development, but caused by the total of existing problems and new development together. The opposition would like help publicizing this struggle, lobbying the Commissioners, and bringing out many people in opposition at the meeting on the 12th, to discourage the Commissioners from approving the request. I expect that there will be a carpool, probably at 6:30pm, from the Parkwood Branch Library. I think comments to the Commissioners were needed by the 8 th especially, but it might not be too late. I would include a summary from the opposition, but I don't know if it is meant for blog posting.
The site
The roughly 45 acre Scott Mill residential development is planned for a peninsula of higher ground above NE Creek's floodplain south of Scott King Rd., between its intersections with Herndon and Grandale roads. The floodplain is a large wild area protected as State Game Land and by the Army Corps of Engineers. That area is also within a Natural Inventory Site, surveyed in the late 90's to see what rare species and habitats exist on the protected land around Jordan Lake. There has not been development of any of the other Inventory sites. The survey found colonies of the "significantly rare" plants Lewis' heartleaf and Indian physic, and reported that "The mesic forest [a forest on well-drained soil] at the site is one of the best examples of Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Floodplain variant known in the project area, and perhaps the best in the state," and "worthy of protection as a Registered Natural Heritage Area." Many large hardwoods 2-3' in diameter were also noted.
There will be an environmental affect from development, even within the parklands, such as loss of habitat for animal species, worse water quality, and more harvesting of plants. The swampy area outside the site is an important amphibian breeding area, and many of the species live in upland habitat, such as Scott Mill, as adults. The toad breeding areas north of Scott Mill have already been affected by Fairfield, Lyon's Farm, and Grandale Forest, and a small population of marbled salamanders off Grandale was apparently wiped out, so there can be serious consequences. Marbled salamanders aren't rare, but they seem to be much less common than local toad species. It will probably take more than development to totally extirpate any amphibian species in the bottomlands, though. Light pollution from development will affect nocturnal species, and stargazing for humans. Maybe light pollution is part of the reason large and beautiful silk moth species seem to be rarer in southern Durham than they seem to be in dark areas in Orange County, despite the forests remaining in Durham. The presence of Game Lands increases the risk of hunting accidents, and development would reduce the area available for deer hunting, and force wildlife to relocate, also contributing to deer being on roads. I think the creation of Southpoint Mall and its environs might be why a turkey, deer, and foxes have been seen on my street, which is inside a subdivision, though it could be from some other cause, regarding the herd of deer and foxes.
The Creek is already classified as impaired in water quality by the EPA, because of the wastewater treatment plant on Highway 55 and silt and pollutants from development. Scott Mill would increase the siltiness of the Creek, since it is on a hill. Silt in large amounts is a pollutant that harms freshwater mussels, native fish, and other animals. Polluted stormwater runoff would be a problem after a subdivision is built. If too much silt and pollution reaches Jordan Lake, the reservoir will become shallower, and there could even be algae blooms and fish kills from the excess nutrients. Careless development will further reduce the diversity of the area and harm many recreational uses of the Creek and Jordan Lake.
South of the site is a high-tension powerline running between RTP and Orange County, which I think would make a good cross-country trail route, connecting the ATT to other trails. Having a trail will depend on the individual landowners, but if the corridor is built over, the opportunity will be gone. A gas line also crosses the site, one of the oldest lines in the area, and due for expansion to two lines. The Tobacco Trail runs close to the site. A small farm pond and a beaver pond (probably abandoned), along a tributary of the Creek, are also features of the site.
What happened when
Below is how this situation arose, as I understand it. The saga of Scott Mill has been going on since spring 2002, at which point only 1-2 houses per acre were proposed. The company originally owning the land wanted it reclassified from rural to part of the Urban Growth Area. In summer 2003 some of the land was clearcut. A contract for the land was announced the day after the Comprehensive Plan classified that area for suburban instead of rural development in 2005. The first plan was presented that August, just before the vote to approve the new, more rigorous Unified Development Ordinances. In January of last year the current rezoning was requested. The plan was mostly empty, except for a few lots that were alleged to be "typical" of their intentions. These lots had houses 6'apart and with 8' back setbacks.
Daniel Brown, the Operations Manager of Jordan Lake, wrote to the Durham Planning Dept. with concerns about habitat loss, pollution, and hunting accidents, but his suggestions about warnings, stormwater control, preservation of wetlands, and buffers have seemingly been ignored. Legitimate concerns being ignored has become a pattern in this story. Brown called the public land "an important natural area with regional significance" He also pointed out that neighboring development "can adversely impact" the uses of the Lake and its protected land "by decreasing the minimum flow from any streams on the property, increasing the volume or rate of flow of storm water discharge from the property, increasing the sediment or nutrient loads leaving the property, and adversely impacting wetlands."
In February 2006 Ripley scheduled a meeting with the community the Thursday before the Tuesday Durham Planning Commission meeting, and did not attend. The Commission deferred its decision for 60 days so that Ripley could meet with neighbors and produce a plan with more details. In March two community consultation meetings were held, but Ripley broke off negotiations at the end, and was against most of the community's requests. He also refused Brown's request for a 100' undisturbed buffer. At the Commission meeting in April Ripley presented the old, vague plan and cancelled all committed elements (agreements on features of a development). This included a promise to the Planning Dept. to leave the land south of the powerline as undisturbed open space. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the rezoning request be denied.
For months since then the County Commissioners have delayed voting on the request so Ripley could consult the community and present a clearer plan. In June the Commissioners requested extensive changes to the plan and mediated community consultation. At the meeting Ripley verbally offered to only have 73 lots, of slightly larger size. Working with Ripley's mediator, the opponents gained several good committed elements. These included restrictions on construction noise, average erosion controls (instead of above average), a tapering 70' undisturbed buffer on the east side (instead of 100'), about 6 acres of permanently undisturbed land south of the powerline (towards the Creek), landscaping along Scott King Rd. (using mainly native plants from what I remember), a prohibition on large-scale grading in wooded areas, 15' between houses, 15' of woods in yards adjacent to the eastern buffer, and no more than 71 houses, with most being on 9000+ sq. ft. lots and some on 7500 sq. ft (instead of a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft.). The request for the area south of the powerline to be a conservation easement, meaning there would be rules against development, was rejected. The mediator said a sewage lift station might be placed there by the County, and rejected language creating a buffer. Other rejected requests were a conservation subdivision design, and prohibition on large scale grading. The new plan showed 71 lots and a tot lot and small park in the center. In August the Planning Department said the vote should be delayed because the lot layout plan was filed late.
The opponents were set in September to not oppose the rezoning, but the Friday before the Monday meeting I was told that the committed elements had been watered down on the final plan, and conflicted with this plan, which was basically the same plan from January, with the addition of verbal agreements made with the County Commissioners in June. Ripley said the July plan was still in effect, but that is not what was filed. Among other things, the buffers were downgraded (the 70' eastern buffer was reduced to a minimum of 15', and I believe that is about how wide they would make it) and the open space at the south end was made disturbable for general infrastructure (allegedly the developers want to pile extra soil there). The specifications for the 70' buffer were supposed to be on page 5 of the plan, but there is no 5th page! The eastern and southern buffers would belong to the homeowners' association and the tot lot could be placed south of the powerline (by the hunting lands) or at the east, the eastern buffer would be disturbed to access a runoff retention pond, a trail at least 6' wide would be in the southern buffer (instead of being within the agreed to maximum of 6'), and the 15' of wooded lots would potentially be disturbed by infrastructure. The old lot dimensions and the original 20' Scott King Rd. buffer were restored, and buffer opacity figures were not provided to the community. The noise restrictions are "confusing and unenforceable" (according to a neighbor) and the company refused to provide a copy of the restrictive covenant alleged to address this issue. The Commissioners referred it back to the Planning Dept. for review last fall.
The company allegedly broke promises to the Durham County government and the community, showing contempt for the rules and the openness and good faith needed for democracy, if this is true. I've heard objections to calling this undemocratic, because the Supreme Court interprets the 5th Amendment as limiting what can be done with zoning, and the fact that legally, this is just a market transaction. I say it is undemocratic to mislead the government and people you are negotiating with, and the neighbors have specific complaints about how the development would affect them, so this isn't a matter of significant private ownership of land or the fact that what people do with land affects everyone else or the fact that land is really not a commodity, though it is treated as such by American capitalism. I have to point out how the system of property in land is not how land use must or always will be, though I think the opposition is being reasonable under the present rules.
Neighbors have told me that Ripley misled them about not having a developer lined up, and they believe Centex Homes, which I see as having despoiled much of the tall second-growth forest previously existing along Grandale Rd., is waiting in the wings for this rezoning, not a local company, as Ripley had indicated. The Ripley-mediated Indigo Corners development ignored, for several days, County fines for breaking silt regulations. Down the road from Scott Mill, another Ripley land deal began last year with the clearcutting of an area beside the ATT, and then the excavation of a large area, allegedly to sell the soil (the developer in this case is Parker Orleans). This must cause massive erosion and creates a hotter microclimate (because the trees are removed), and the more this kind of development occurs, the larger the heat affect, until you have a city with an updraft that can create its own severe summer storms. Most or all of the silt eroded from the Herndon Rd. development flows through the Scott Mill property.
For these reasons, this is an issue of environmental damage, anti-democratic practices, and rampant development that affects all of us (such as the possibility of accountable government, our taxes, and traffic problems). Scott Mill is a relatively small project, but it borders one of our last large protected open lands in southern Durham. If we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere, and regulate development carefully, piecemeal development will soon finish carving up much of Durham, hurting all of us, and our remaining biodiversity. This is also a battle that could contribute to reversing the control of Durham's government by development interests, interests enriching themselves at the expense of the majority of Durham's residents. I had the impression that development occurred in a crooked and unaccountable way before I got involved in this, but I didn't realize that developers got away with this much. I didn't say anything or follow events closely when other developments were being planned, changing the face of the area over the last 15 years, but I will be more engaged from now on.
Contacting the County Commissioners (also available at the County's website):
Ellen Reckhow
ereckhow at durhamcountync [dot] gov
Telephone: (919) 383-3883
Becky Heron
bmheron at durhamcountync [dot] gov
Telephone: (919) 489-4402
Lewis Cheek
lcheek at durhamcountync [dot] gov
Telephone: (919) 419-3303
Phil Cousin
prcousin at earthlink [dot] net
Telephone: (919) 683-1379 (w)
Michael Page
mpage at durhamcountync [dot] gov
Telephone: (919) 361-2146 (h)
Email me and I can provide contact information if you want to talk to the residents most involved in the Scott Mill process.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment