A correction
A short while back i discussed Durham's Unified Development Ordinance in relation to impervious surface creation on individual residential lots. I also talked about whether or not parking was allowed in back yards. What i said, essentially, is that the UDO remains silent if an individual wants to turn their back yard into a parking lot. My comments made their way to Steve Medlin, new Director of the Durham City/County Planning Department. He had this to say:
Basically, my initial statement is correct as it regards older neighborhoods, such as the one i live in. New neighborhoods may be subject to restrictions regarding the amount of impervious surface that can be installed on a lot.
I apologize for any confusion, but repeat my contention that this is a loophole big enough to, well, park a truck on. It needs to be fixed.
Mr. Ragin's original question/statement about impervious surface limitations on single-family lots is not totally correct. The Unified Development Ordinance does deal with the issue in Section 8.7. Single-family lots located within watershed overlays are subject to the watershed restrictions that were in place at the time the lots were created if prior to January 1, 1994 and the current regulations if after this date. As some lots were created prior to the adoption of watershed
overlays and the regulations in effect at the time of creation did not contain limitations on impervious surfaces then these lots are not restricted on the amount of impervious surfaces. Any lots created after January 1, 1994 are subject to the current watershed restrictions including the maximum impervious surface limitation, (Sec. 8.7.3).
The second issue is the ability of property owners to park vehicles in the side and rear yards. The UDO only limits where you can park vehicles within the front yard, as correctly pointed out by Ms. Carstensen. The standard is that if required parking is proposed between the structure and the street that it must meet certain performance standards for surfacing, width, and edging. The UDO is silent on parking in side and
rear yards. As long as the passenger vehicles are located to the side or rear of the primary structure there are no prescribed standards and parking in these areas is deemed to be permissible. This has been the application of the parking requirements under both the UDO and the former Zoning Ordinance.
Basically, my initial statement is correct as it regards older neighborhoods, such as the one i live in. New neighborhoods may be subject to restrictions regarding the amount of impervious surface that can be installed on a lot.
I apologize for any confusion, but repeat my contention that this is a loophole big enough to, well, park a truck on. It needs to be fixed.
Labels: development
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
1 Comments:
It's a loophole that allows a situation where you can buy a home in a residential neighborhood, and then have your neighbors build a parking lot adjacent to your backyard, and have the greasy runoff from that parking lot flooding your garage and basement, and soaking into the gardens you've been working on growing for the last seven years. Not that I'm bitter.
Also, to have something with environmental consequences "grandfathered in" from a less-polluted time when there were no environmental regulations does not do anything to help clean up the watershed. It locks in a situation in which the watershed will continue to be destroyed.
By
Anonymous, at 8:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home