Jordan Lake DWQ action on one-mile boundary draws citizen petition

A state action on proposed revisions to Jordan Lake's boundaries has put the "751 Assemblage" project squarely back in the hands of local leaders -- in what promises to shape up as one of the most controversial matters to come before local government this year.

Local leaders have been waiting for the state to rule on the revised survey of Jordan Lake's boundaries -- a ruling that came after the County Commissioners voted in December to send along a revised boundary survey funded by a property owner that would affect the ability to build a mixed-use development on a 164-acre parcel near Jordan Lake.

As the Indy notes at their Triangulator blog:

Julie Ventaloro, the state watershed program coordinator at [the N.C. Division of Water Quality], told the Indy that changing the maps is now “in Durham’s hands.” The County must conduct a public hearing, and vote to adopt the state-approved survey, which was commissioned by a private developer who owned land within the affected area. Adopting the change would effectively move a 164-acre tract that was owned by the developer–and now slated for dense, mixed-use development–out of Jordan Lake’s critical watershed area, which severely limits development within one mile of major water supplies....

The DWQ letter, written by John Hennessy, a supervisor in the division’s compliance and oversight unit, says that “updated maps as well as natural processes” might have accounted for a “considerably different location” of Jordan Lake in Hunter’s surveys. Hennessy also notes that Durham’s standards are higher than the state’s regarding watershed boundaries. (The state requires a half-mile boundary for critical watersheds; Durham stipulates one mile.) Hunter’s survey would not affect the state’s requirements, Hennessy writes–the same argument Hunter’s brother, Jeff, made in a letter to DWQ.

Ventaloro said her department considered the fact that Hunter had a vested interest in his survey–which only covered the portion of Jordan Lake that affected his property–and that [Frank] Duke, the former planning director, violated state code by accepting the survey without review. However, Veltaloro said DWQ chose not to preclude Durham from accepting the survey based on these facts alone.

As some local activists and the Indy notes wryly, the DWQ is the same state agency that has promulgated much-tougher rules on Jordan Lake water quality, rules that could lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs for Durham and other municipalities.

Ultimately, any changes to the boundaries and the land use/zoning rules to allow the proposed development would require the approval of both county and city elected officials, as the N&O's Jim Wise notes.

Meantime, some local citizens have launched an online petition campaign lobbying elected officials to reject the adoption of the privately-commissioned survey in favor of a publicly-funded survey rechecking Jordan Lake's borders, a move that could cost $100,000, the BOCC estimated in the fall. Petitioners cite concerns over what they (and some County officials) say are a small number of sampling points in the survey, as well as what they take to be a precedent when the County rejected a private survey of Falls Lake's boundaries in favor of a government-funded survey of the entire lake.

As of this writing, the survey has garnered almost 1,400 signatures.

Comments

[Todd]

It seems pretty obvious that Durham would want an independent survey to determine the critical area boundary. But $100,000 is a lot of money for local government to spend on that, especially these days.

Perhaps the developer should offer to cover the cost by way of a 'contribution' to the schools, and let the County pick the surveyor.

[JG]

This is nuts. We should focus on Downtown development between NC 147 and I 85 instead of increasing the sprawl in the Jordan Lake area.

[Anonymous]

In response to Todd's comment, I don't think that surveyors (or other "sealed" professions, like architects and engineers) can get away with fudging the details on their work. A new $100,000 survey isn't likely to change anything.

[tina]

Wow, this article has only received 2 comments but the A&E article has 18? Geesh!

I find it ludicrous and telling that the county isn't willing to spend $100K on this, when the county is going to be on the lurch for Jordan Lake Clean Up. It sounds to me as if the County & City Governments want the mega development for tax revenues and to heck w/ Jordan Lake. If it needs cleaning up they'll just make the tax payers down their pay for it. I hope Chatham Co. is considering a law suit against Durham. Because if they go down this path it's what is deserved.

I'm looking forward to the next election cycle when I can vote some of these so called Durham "civil servants" out of office.

[Wow...]

So far the signatures include:

George Lucier (Chair, Chatham County Board of Commissioners)

Randy Voller (Mayor of Pittsboro)

Eric Hallman (Hillsborough Town Commissioner)

Kevin Foy (Mayor of Chapel Hill)

Syd Miller (the water resource mgr. for Triange J Council of Government)

Dean Lamont (Advisory Board for the Division of Marine Fisheries)

Licensed land surveyor Alan Latham (signature #1286) left this comment: "Development is important but it does not trump quality of Life. I am a Professional Land Surveyor, NC L-2635, and have been a part of developing property. Encroaching on a buffer to protect clean water, especially a water supply, does not make sense."

If you want to add your name to this impressive list, the petition is at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/jrdnsrvy/petition.html

[Note: The second to last paragraph states that Durham was paying $100 million, when it should have said $100 thousand (to fight the Jordan Lake Rules). This was merely a typo (and one that missed 3 proof-readings and 1123 signers), but it cannot be corrected without starting a whole new petition. The signers (and all signers-to-be) have been notified of this typo (and given the option to withdraw their signatures, and the the recipients of the petition have been informed of the correction].