Development decisions at the Council meeting

I am concerned about two development-related items coming up at the City Council meeting tonight, the request to annex the site of the proposed Jordan at Southpointe development and a rezoning request for a proposed luxury apartment development on Ellis Rd. (called NE Creek Initial in the Council's agenda).  Both impact NE Creek, and a main branch of it flows through the Ellis Rd. site.  Crooked Creek (not part of NE Creek) flows through the Jordan at Southpointe site on 751. Many of the same issues are involved, but I will focus on Ellis Rd., because there is already community concern about it and I think there has been government opposition.  Both sites seem to be wooded, especially the 751 site, and most of the trees are hardwoods.  They are also both isolated in relatively rural areas, especially Jordan at Southpointe.

 

Unlike Ellis Rd., Jordan at Southpointe seems to involve jurisdiction shopping.  If it is true that the developer wants the site annexed in the hope of a more favorable decision on development by the City Council, it is an attempt to weaken government oversight and the will of the people, to the extent that the County Commissioners reflect our thinking.  The developer is local and reportedly brags about never being denied a request here, and given the government's record, I can believe it.  

 

Several streams and ponds lie on the Ellis Rd. site, including one of the two most northeast of NE Creek's branches (the south one). I think that branch is probably the more polluted of the two.  January 12th that branch was twice as silty as the north branch where they meet just after flowing under Ellis Rd.  Yesterday both seemed to be unnaturally cloudy brown gray, but there was more silt from the north.  That could be from sediment kicked up by the rain Saturday, and that branch starts in a car junkyard and a cow pasture, which is better, but still problematic.  Local creeks should not be so brown, and runoff from development is one major source. According to a map, there is also a claypit in the area that could be contributing, but the south branch does not seem silt colored, but it is cloudy.  Excess silt is a pollutant because it smothers aquatic life.  It could also mean valuable and slow to regenerate top soil is washing off.  Jordan at Southpointe is in a rolling area and would require a lot of grading, hence erosion, to build the hundreds of houses planned.  It is close to Jordan Lake, allowing for less settling of its pollution before reaching the Lake, which already has water quality problems.  I have seen a picture of very silty floodwater from the Creek filling a portion of the otherwise blue Lake.    

 

Both developments, if they are approved, need to minimize grading and deforestation, leave buffers (preferably with natural vegetation and native plants) for waterways (and neighbors), and use the best stormwater management practices, to control silt and other pollutants.  It will save money to do this now, before the State implements a plan requiring retrofitting stormwater controls, like settling ponds, to clean up the Lake.  This will also help control fertilizer, pesticide, and fecal coliform bacteria in the runoff after the developments are built, and flash flooding and stream channelization.   

 

All of this development relates to our current drought.  It might not be an aberration - yesterday an article in the Herald-Sun said this area appears to have 10-year droughts every 150 to 200 years, and climate change could make NC more drought-prone.  Deforestation and urbanization could decrease rainfall and increase temperatures locally.  Developments need to be designed for the possibility of drought, and this is another reason to use native plants or plants that can handle drought.  Slowing stormwater lets it sink in and water trees and the water table.  

 

Besides changing the local climate, development out in rural areas contributes to species loss.  Fragmenting and clearing forest is one reason many songbirds are threatened, as the News & Observer mentioned a few weeks ago.  Some of this is hard to see because most of Durham City has already lost the birds that need large wooded areas or rural woods and fields.  I think birds like whippoorwills, bobwhite, and pileated woodpeckers fit in this category.  It is also a fact that some animals need both bottomlands and uplands to live, such as amphibians that breed along the Creek, but live on the hillsides as adults.  At Ellis Rd. the Creek is pretty small, but it still has fish, along with beavers and deer.  Jordan at Southpointe is near hunting areas and future residents should not complain about deer problems (maybe even bobcat attacks on pets).  Light pollution is a problem all over Durham, wasting electricity (from fossil fuels) and harming health and biodiversity, and I expect light pollution is worse for wildlife if it impacts a previously relatively dark area.     

 

If these developments are built, I hope traffic is taken into consideration.  Ellis Rd. and 751 need wider shoulders for bicycles and sidewalks would be good to have if the areas are going to be urbanized.  Durham is supposed to be decreasing its fossil carbon emissions, but building developments isolated from commercial centers, workplaces, etc., encourages commuting by car, high traffic, and road kill (go look at Massey Chapel Rd. on a wet night next summer to see how massive it is for amphibians on places in south Durham).  These developments should have spaces for future bus stops.  If Durham is planning to suburbanize Fayetteville Rd. down to Jordan at Southpointe, that would seem to violate what they said when Southpoint Mall was approved, and will further isolate the volunteer agricultural district on Barbee Rd.  It is bad enough how Cary has expanded west towards NE Creek and its tributary Panther Creek, scraping away everything, including the old road network, in favor of upscale suburban sprawl.       

 

I don't want to be against necessary development, but I care about what we are losing, and I think these are not the most socially necessary developments. If they are, they should at least be higher quality and less harmful, but Durham has a record of weak rules and bending over for developers.