Zoning again
Susan asks a very good question in the comments to the previous post:
"Is it the UDO or the city's refusal to support neighborhoods in the face of any development. It can't work if you don't stand behind it."
I think it's a bit of both.
Let's start with the Morreene Rd. case. The problem, as i see it, is that the UDO left the definition of the category "Neighborhood Commercial" vague enough so that two different Planning directors, first Frank Duke, and then Interim Director Steve Medlin, came to two different conclusion as to whether the proposed D&L facility was a conforming use. That's a huge problem.
When i think of "Neighborhood Commercial", i think of a corner store like the Triangle D mart on Trinity, or a beauty parlor with 4 chairs, or even a restaurant like Magnolia Grill. I don't think about a two story retail with a warehouse space and 20,000 square feet of parking. The language of the UDO is vague enough, though, that D&L's initial proposal was approved under NC zoning. (Leaving aside the issue of how accurately the proposal described the actual plan.)
The current ruling allows the structure to be completed and sold, and used for something resembling the initial approved use. It's hard for me to imagine how that fits in with Neighborhood Commercial, but the language of the UDO is imprecise enough to allow that.
There are other issues where it's not just the language, but the enforcement. Take lawn parking, for example. Parking cars on lawns became a violation a number of years ago, after a concerted effort by the Inter Neighborhood Council. Parking on lawns is a problem for a number of reasons, not just aesthetic. It compacts soils, killing trees and other vegetation, and increases stormwater runoff, leading to increased air and water pollution. Shade trees help keep air conditioning costs down in summer months as well. Additionally, the presence of multiple cars parked in a front yard, when most neighborhoods in Durham have adequate on-street parking and most dwellings have driveways, is often a sign of other violations, including the presence of too many people living in a house. (Many landlords i've met really don't care about this, but in the longterm, having 8 adults living in a 3 bedroom, 1.5 bath house is not a good plan for enhancing the value of your investment.) It's been my experience that getting Planning Department inspectors to enforce this provision of the ordinance is like pulling teeth. Anyone who drives through almost any neighborhood in Durham on their morning commute can point out 4 or 5 houses with one or more cars parked on the lawn, but the onus is on the citizen to document these violations, and then request the Planning Department to enforce the code. Often this takes multiple complaints from multiple citizens over a period of months before any citations are written.
The ordinance part of the problem comes into play when a property owner decides to tear up the yard and replace it with gravel or concrete. Once that's done, it's no longer a violation to park on it, although the compacted/impervious surface issue remains, and in fact has gotten worse, not better. The UDO also fails to address impervious parking surfaces on parts of the property other than front yards. You can essentially park as many cars as you want in your back yard, and pave the whole thing with concrete without violating any provisions of the UDO.
I'd be remiss if i didn't point out that the UDO does allow for something called Neighborhood Protection Overlay, and kudos go to the Tuscaloosa-Lakewood Neighborhood Association for being the first to take advantage of this provision. They've now written additional protections into their zoning (including a provision mandating that all hardwood trees above a certain diameter must be saved when building on an empty lot.) That would not have been possible without the UDO.
Personally, i think the citizens of Durham would be better served by the creation of a code enforcement department which would deal with things like parking violations and other non-trivial yet non-criminal problems, and let the Planning Department (and the Solid Waste Department, and the PD, and others as well) deal with their real issues. but that's a discussion for another time.
"Is it the UDO or the city's refusal to support neighborhoods in the face of any development. It can't work if you don't stand behind it."
I think it's a bit of both.
Let's start with the Morreene Rd. case. The problem, as i see it, is that the UDO left the definition of the category "Neighborhood Commercial" vague enough so that two different Planning directors, first Frank Duke, and then Interim Director Steve Medlin, came to two different conclusion as to whether the proposed D&L facility was a conforming use. That's a huge problem.
When i think of "Neighborhood Commercial", i think of a corner store like the Triangle D mart on Trinity, or a beauty parlor with 4 chairs, or even a restaurant like Magnolia Grill. I don't think about a two story retail with a warehouse space and 20,000 square feet of parking. The language of the UDO is vague enough, though, that D&L's initial proposal was approved under NC zoning. (Leaving aside the issue of how accurately the proposal described the actual plan.)
The current ruling allows the structure to be completed and sold, and used for something resembling the initial approved use. It's hard for me to imagine how that fits in with Neighborhood Commercial, but the language of the UDO is imprecise enough to allow that.
There are other issues where it's not just the language, but the enforcement. Take lawn parking, for example. Parking cars on lawns became a violation a number of years ago, after a concerted effort by the Inter Neighborhood Council. Parking on lawns is a problem for a number of reasons, not just aesthetic. It compacts soils, killing trees and other vegetation, and increases stormwater runoff, leading to increased air and water pollution. Shade trees help keep air conditioning costs down in summer months as well. Additionally, the presence of multiple cars parked in a front yard, when most neighborhoods in Durham have adequate on-street parking and most dwellings have driveways, is often a sign of other violations, including the presence of too many people living in a house. (Many landlords i've met really don't care about this, but in the longterm, having 8 adults living in a 3 bedroom, 1.5 bath house is not a good plan for enhancing the value of your investment.) It's been my experience that getting Planning Department inspectors to enforce this provision of the ordinance is like pulling teeth. Anyone who drives through almost any neighborhood in Durham on their morning commute can point out 4 or 5 houses with one or more cars parked on the lawn, but the onus is on the citizen to document these violations, and then request the Planning Department to enforce the code. Often this takes multiple complaints from multiple citizens over a period of months before any citations are written.
The ordinance part of the problem comes into play when a property owner decides to tear up the yard and replace it with gravel or concrete. Once that's done, it's no longer a violation to park on it, although the compacted/impervious surface issue remains, and in fact has gotten worse, not better. The UDO also fails to address impervious parking surfaces on parts of the property other than front yards. You can essentially park as many cars as you want in your back yard, and pave the whole thing with concrete without violating any provisions of the UDO.
I'd be remiss if i didn't point out that the UDO does allow for something called Neighborhood Protection Overlay, and kudos go to the Tuscaloosa-Lakewood Neighborhood Association for being the first to take advantage of this provision. They've now written additional protections into their zoning (including a provision mandating that all hardwood trees above a certain diameter must be saved when building on an empty lot.) That would not have been possible without the UDO.
Personally, i think the citizens of Durham would be better served by the creation of a code enforcement department which would deal with things like parking violations and other non-trivial yet non-criminal problems, and let the Planning Department (and the Solid Waste Department, and the PD, and others as well) deal with their real issues. but that's a discussion for another time.
Labels: development, Durham, local government
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:
The Morreene Rd warehouse highlights the need for a genuinely friendly neighborhood commercial zone. Another example is a used car lot now being proposed on Hillsborough Road (adjacent to homes in the neighborhood). General Commercial is a dreadful zone to place next to residential areas in Durham.
These controversies also highlight the need for a Neighborhood Advocate who can help avoid these problems in the first place. Neighborhood groups, elected officials, planning staff, and even developers, would all experience less heartburn with an effective Neighborhood Advocate keeping an eye on things.
~John Schelp
By
Unknown, at 3:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home