Note: resolutions are listed in the order they have been presented or voted on with the most recent being first.

Tree Saving Resolution	(to be discussed at the May 27 meeting)
	Whereas: 1) Jordan Lake serves as a water supply source for Cary and Apex; a backup water source for Durham; the habitat of abundant wildlife (including blue and white herons, racoons, beavers, osprey, cormorants, eagles, fish); and is a popular spot for swimming and fishing; 2) For years, Jordan Lake has exceeded the limitations on nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and resulting chlorophyll (indicating unhealthy levels of algae in the water) and alkalinity (pH) levels required by the federal Clean Water Act, requiring the NC division of Water Quality to develop rules to clean up Jordan Lake; 3) The New Hope Audubon Society reports significantly lowered levels of dissolved oxygen content in Jordan Lake: see page 5 of http://www.newhopeaudubon.org/info/news/NHASNL20061112NovDec06_v2.pdf 4) Trees/Forests and the continuity of their mature root systems are essential to controlling erosion, sedimentation, and filtering N, P, and other contaminants from storm water run-off into Jordan Lake (and other bodies of water); 5) The UDO regulates the edges of developments but has no restrictions on clear-cutting and mass-grading. Thus developers frequently clear-cut and mass-grade large plots of forests, including mature trees with their extensive root-systems, leaving trees only on the outer fringes of the development, thereby destroying the natural vegetation and topography of the land which aids in natural storm water control; 6) Older suburban developments ( > 10 years or so), such as Parkwood, Lake Park, and the older sections of Fairfield, Woodcroft, and Hope Valley subdivisions, were developed on a lot-by-lot basis, leaving a lot of trees among houses, and these remain as natural areas (as well as residential lots) that require less irrigation and slow run-off. 7) Retention of mature trees and forests increases the aesthetics and the property values throughout Durham; 8) The Stormwater and Erosion Control Division (SECD) has informed that "Between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007, [their] office issued 8 civil penalty assessments, totaling $139,610. All of these assessments were issued to mass-grade residential projects, [and] six of eight were issued to residential single - family dwelling unit developments"; 9) The UDO permits Developers to use unbuildable land, including powerline and sewer easements (as well as tree-less playgrounds, swimming pools, tennis courts and other facilities, to fulfill their minimum open space requirements (section 7.2.3)), despite the fact that this land is usually cleared of trees, bush-whacked and/or sprayed every few years; 10) The Army Corps of Engineers repeatedly requests 100 foot buffers adjacent to their land, and developers repeatedly give significantly less in this regard, causing concerned Durham Citizens, the planning commission, and DOST to fight the same battle with each new development, and even then usually obtaining only 25-50 foot buffers; 11) The UDO (Section 8.3.C.4) allows tree coverage requirements to be fulfilled by planting replacement trees, which require significantly more water to survive (and provide far less control of erosion, filtration and sedimentation) than mature trees, and leave property owners responsible for preserving and protecting these vulnerable trees. 12) The UDO (section 6.2.4.F.2) requires that conservation subdivisions include the preservation of 'individual existing healthy trees greater than 18 inches dbh,' but offer no such requirement for other residential developments. Thus, if the developer has already fulfilled their open space and tree-save requirements, he is not obligated to save any remaining trees, no matter how mature/large they are. 13) At the public hearing in Carrboro on July 12, 2007, the NC Water Quality Division presenter stated that the proposed state regulations require "2-zone, 50 foot buffers" to "intermittent perennial streams" (among other water sources), yet the UDO (Section 8.4.3.C.1) allows as little as 20 feet on either side of a stream. 14) In order to protect water resources, including Jordan Lake, the Chapel Hill LUMO (sections 3.6.3 and 3.6.4) has limited uses in a band that is further back from the required 50 foot stream buffer (an additional 50 - 100 feet, depending on the zoning), thus providing a total corridor area of up to 150 feet from the stream bank. 15) In her second annual State of the County Address, Board of County Commissioners' Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow stated the intent to "discourage mass grading and clear cutting associated with residential development and encourage the retention of more existing vegetation with all development." 16) The preservation of Durham County's few remaining mature forests serves to reduce CO2 emissions and to reduce energy consumption (by providing significant cooling via shade), while clear-cutting these forests is incompatible with the city and county's Greenhouse Gas plan passed in 2007. 17) The research of Will Wilson (of DOST) for the downtown Durham plan update definitively shows that lack of tree cover results in significantly higher temperatures, which exacerbates problems from air pollution as well as energy consumption, when compared to areas with tree cover. This is especially the case where clear-cutting and mass-grading have been employed, particularly when the cleared areas are filled with buildings and driveways (or parking lots). THEREFORE, INC resolves that the Joint City County Planning Staff, Durham County Board of Commissioners and City Council, review the environmental protection requirements as outlined by the UDO (Section 8) and impose more stringent tree-save requirements. We specifically request: 1) Wherever possible, require tree-clearing and land-grading on a lot-by-lot basis, to preserve the natural topography and mature tree root systems across the development. 2) Prohibit the developer (of all types of development) from using any unbuildable land (including bodies of water) in his open space requirement. 3) Require that all developments provide the 100 foot, un-cleared buffers consistently requested by the Army Corps of Engineers. 4) Ensure that all streams (including intermittent ones) are clearly designated in development plans, that 50 foot buffers of uncleared land exists around all intermittent and permanent streams, and impose restrictions on land use for an additional 50-100 foot buffer (as done by Chapel Hill). 5) Develop stronger requirements that the developer save trees greater than 18 inches dbh (so-called specimen trees) that are not located in the actual physical space (or a 'safe-zone' in the case of downed-trees) where houses and roads are going to be built. 6) Specifically differentiate between different types of open space, and regulate each type appropriately (in terms of minimal amount of natural areas in suburban developments and run-off mitigation). For example, cleared recreational facilities (tennis courts, swimming pool) should not be counted as natural open space, and lakes and other water bodies should not count toward density calculations. 7) Considering the low amount (15-18%) of open Space Required for RS-10, RS-8 and RS-M, at least half of the open space should be 'useable' (not just the 5-6 % currently required, UDO Section 6.3.1.A) 8) RS-20 zoning currently has NO open space requirement; it should be amended to require at least 15%, the minimum required for RS-10, RS-8 and RS-M (UDO section 6.3.1A).

support for amendment to UDO text
	Resolution on Square Footage Permitted for Home Occupation Whereas, a home occupation, or business, is supposed to be incidental to the primary residential use of a home; And whereas, the UDO limits the square footage to 30% of the floor area of the livable portion of a home, and the old ordinance had both a percentage limit and a total square footage limit; And whereas, 30% of a 3000 square foot home is 900 square feet, which would be a 30' x 30' area; We, the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham, resolve that Article 5 of the UDO should be amended to limit the total square footage devoted to home occupation to the smaller of 30% or the livable portion of the home or 600 square feet.

ban glass "rose" stems
	Whereas Drug Paraphernalia is any legitimate equipment, product, or material that is modified for making, using, or concealing illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Whereas Law Enforcement Officials have confirmed that "glass stems" are being used as modified equipment pipes to smoke (crack) cocaine and methamphetamine. Whereas the Rose in a Glass "glass stems" should not be sold in Durham stores. Now, therefore, let it be resolved that the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham asks Durham City and County should include these and similar glass stems in the list of banned drug paraphernalia.
	passed unanamously 9/26/06

Chained Dogs
	Whereas: The practice of chaining dogs can be destructive to communities because dogs become more aggressive and dangerous when not adequately socialized. And, because barking is increased due to boredom and sadness. And also, increased strain is put on Animal Control and Durham Police Department Personnel who must deal with citizen complaints pertaining to the problems associated with chained dogs. Whereas, Durham County currently has guidelines [Section 4-62 (6)] as to how a dog can be chained or tethered but is inadequate in protecting dogs and unsuccessful in allowing animal control officers to efficiently enforce and sufficiently punish those that break the law. Whereas, this practice of chaining dogs is considered to be inhumane, cruel and callous. Therefore, we, the member neighborhoods of The Inter-Neighborhood Council resolve that Durham County adopt an ordinance that completely bans the continuous chaining of dogs at any location within the County and for any reason.
	passed unanamously 7/25/06

Service Standards
	Whereas: Citizens need a way to monitor their service requests made to Housing, Zoning, Solid Waste and other city/county departments, and get discouraged when the work isn't completed Whereas: When service requests become lost in the system, there may not be follow through, Whereas: Unified call systems are an important way to get a "report card" on the effectiveness of city services. That is, if there are standards -- for example, how long it takes to handle requests -- and we monitor how well they are met, citizens will have assurance that requests are being handled in a timely fashion and will know how long to wait before following up on requests. Whereas: This monitoring is equally important for county and city/county departments, such as zoning. We resolve that: Durham One Call organizes "Service Delivery Standards," for consistencies in city/county departmental service performances and to allow citizens to monitor such performance of service requests through the system. Furthermore, we propose that the County be strongly encouraged to join the Durham One Call program in order to make county functions easily accessible to the entire Durham community.
	passed unanamously 6/27/06

Solid Waste Enforcement
	INC supports the proposed resolution to City Council on enforcement of solid waste violations. (These were the new Section revisions to the code.)
	passed unanamously 4/25/06

Calendar Year By-Laws Change
	From: The fiscal year shall run from October 1st through September 30th, and dues for the upcoming year shall be due within 90 days of the annual meeting. To: The fiscal year shall run from January 1st through December 31st, and dues for the current year shall be paid by April 1.
	passed unanamously 4/25/06

Solicitation Ordinance
	We, the membership of the Inter-neighborhood Council, support a change to Durham's current solicitation ordinance that would bar solicitation from rights-of-way in Durham.

Public Information on Rental Properties
	Whereas The GIS maps available to the public via the City of Durham website make it easy for citizens to identify property owners. However, nearly half the properties in Durham overall are rental properties, and many of these properties are managed by property management companies. When there are problems with these properties or the tenants in them, such as possible code violations, lack of lawn or structure maintenance, noise violations, or criminal activity, there is no easy way for citizens to identify and inform the property managers of these problems. These kinds of problems have a negative impact on neighborhoods, discouraging residents from investing financially and emotionally in their neighborhoods and encouraging negligence and criminal activity. And whereas The InterNeighborhood Council (INC) of Durham believes that the city of Durham should do everything in its power to encourage citizens to actively address the problems that contribute to neighborhood blight and criminal activity. Therefore, INC resolves that the City of Durham to require that all property managers who manage three (3) or more rental properties in the City of Durham provide a complete listing of their rental properties to be posted on a city-sponsored website that will be open to the public and searchable by street address, and to require that these listings be updated every six months.

Citizen Oversight Committee
	Whereas City of Durham staff followed a well-defined method for evaluating firms to design and oversee construction of the Walltown Park Recreation Center and made their recommendations based on points earned during the interview process, and City Council then selected a different firm, based on unknown criteria, and The Walltown Park Recreation Center will take about 20% of the Parks and Rec part of the 2005 Bond Referendum, and INC has expressed support for a citizen oversight committee for bond spending, but did not specify details in the oversight processes and scope, and INC has traditionally supported openness in government, use of well-defined decision processes, and respect for the professional work of staff and the efforts of citizen committees, The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham resolves that language creating the Citizen Oversight Committee for Bond Spending needs to be precise in what the powers of the committee will be, what aspects of bond spending they will oversee, and what the consequences will be when the committee is displeased.
	passed unanamously 8/9/05

Impact Fees
	Resolution on Legislation Allowing Durham County To Assess School Impact Fees Whereas: Durham County has been seeking authority for impact fees for 14 years. Three other counties have school impact fee authority - Orange, Chatham and Cabbarrus Counties. After years of trying to obtain legislative authority for school impact fees, Durham County did adopt them, effective January, 2004, based on our County Attorney's opinion that we have authority to levy fees for essential services. Unfortunately, a Superior Court Judge has recently ruled that our action is illegal. Durham County plans to appeal his ruling. Impact fees or an impact tax (applied to new housing) would help reduce the pressure on the property tax and allow people on fixed incomes (elderly) to stay in their homes. Impact fees would allow us to better keep pace with growth and avoid school overcrowding. In fact, we will need a new middle school in the next year or two. We presently don't have the funding without impact fees. The current fees are $2000 for a single family home and $1,155 for an apartment or townhouse. In a typical year, we expect to raise $4 - 5 Million for new schools. Impact fees did not reduce housing production this past year in Durham County. In fact the number of housing starts went up.   Resolved: We, the members of ____The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham____, do strongly request the Durham Delegation to the North Carolina General Assembly support legislation to allow Durham County to assess school impact fees on new houses to provide school capital funds to keep pace with growth.
	revision asked for and resolution never came back before INC

Yardwaste
	Resolved: We, the members of ______The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham______ formally requests that the City of Durham re-examine its policies on the collection of yard waste within the city limits. This re-examination should include a review of the purpose of collecting yard waste, the methods of collecting yard waste, and the distribution of the costs of collecting yard waste. Thorough examination of the practices of other municipalities, including cost structures and collection practices, should also be included. A working committee comprised of relevant city employees, department heads, and representatives of community organizations should conduct this review, and be charged with making specific recommendations to City Council as to how this policy should be rewritten. The City of Durham has gradually, over the past few years, increased the out of pocket costs to its citizens of participating in the yard waste collection program by requiring the purchase of a specified yard waste cart, instituting an annual fee to register the required cart, increasing that annual fee by 20% in the current fiscal year, reducing the amount of yard waste that will be picked up with the payment of these required fees, and charging additional fees for the removal of normal amounts of yard waste. The result of these policies has been a continued decline in participation in the yard waste program among Durham citizens. According to figures published in the Durham Herald-Sun on 20 December, 2004, approximately 13,000 Durham households are currently participating in the program, down significantly from approximately 18,000 in the previous fiscal year, and down dramatically from the period before annual fees were instituted. The revenue generated by current levels of participation is lower than that generated in recent years, despite the increase in fees. A search of the internet for the published yard waste collection policies of other North Carolina municipalities shows Durham is currently in the minority in both the restrictions on yard waste and the fees charged for picking such waste up. Although we applaud the city's efforts to encourage citizens to reuse as much of this material as possible, we urge the city to recognize that it's efforts are counterproductive. As fewer citizens participate in the program, more yard waste is is either dumped illegally or simply pushed out onto the city streets. The results are increased pollution in our creeks and streams, unsightly streets, and blocked storm drains, creating esthetic, health, and safety problems for all residents.
	passed unanamously 2/22/05

New Hope Creek Land
	Whereas The New Hope Creek Corridor ß Was recognized as significant in the 1987 Inventory of Natural Areas and Rare Species of Durham County ß Was defined and its value recognized in 1989 by Durham County, Orange County, the town of Chapel Hill and the City of Durham, which together created the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee. ß Received Federal recognition in August 1990, when the US Fish and Wildlife Service designed New Hope Creek as an "Important Regional Wetland."   The Duke Tract ß Is comprised of 44 acres of land owned by Duke University, bordered by Erwin and Pickett Roads, straddling the Durham County/Orange County line. ß Is part of Duke Forest, and is designated as "Open Space" on the current Comprehensive Plan and on the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan. ß Has been deemed "decommissioned" by Duke University and has been optioned to Crosland Properties for development into 49 homes as the "Preserve at Erwin Trace" without prior notice to public or nonprofit preservation/conservation groups, with approximately 12 (of the total 44) acres, located in Orange County, proposed to be donated by Crosland to Orange County for open space. ß Has been formally recognized by a resolution of the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee on October 21, 2004, as having vital importance as part of the New Hope Creek Corridor.   New Hope Creek Park ß Is proposed to be created from the Duke Tract through the purchase of the Duke Tract by Durham County. The money for the purchase would be raised through a combination of private contributions and public and nonprofit grants. ß Is being promoted by a group of residents of neighborhoods near Erwin Road in Durham and Orange Counties who have come together to form the Erwin Area Neighborhood Group (EANG). ß Is being investigated by The Durham County Board of Commissioners, which has delayed any further action on the Crosland development proposal for the Duke Tract until April 1, 2005. ß Could be created by the purchase of the Duke Tract from Duke University and Crosland, who have made an offer to sell the Duke Tract to Durham County for $1.5 million.   IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham, NC ß Supports a balance of urban, surburban and rural tiers of development as conceived in the Comprehensive 2030 Plan and Unified Development Ordinance under consideration by Durham County. ß Affirms that it is in the interest of all citizens of Durham County that some rural areas of Durham County be preserved in their rural character. ß Acknowledges that the Erwin Road area of Durham County is one of the last remaining rural areas in the southwest of Durham County and has great historic and environmental value. ß Supports the preservation of open space in the Erwin Road area. ß Supports the proposed New Hope Creek Park as a valuable addition to the New Hope Creek Corridor and open space in Durham County.   AND FUTHER RESOLVED THAT The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham, NC ß Thanks the Durham County Commissioners for their investigation into the purchase of the Duke Tract and the creation of the New Hope Creek Park. ß Thanks Duke University for its role in preserving open space in Durham and Orange Counties as part of Duke Forest, and ß Urges Duke University to give public and nonprofit conservation and preservation groups first refusal on any proposed sale of decommissioned areas of Duke Forest for preservation/conservation as open space.
	passed 1/25/05

Court Funding
	Whereas: The Durham courts are understaffed by standards set by the Administrator of Courts. Only 2.7% of the annual appropriations of the Legislature are allocated to the criminal justice system, making full staffing of the courts in North Carolina impossible. The District Attorney has three grant-funded ADAs that will leave in June or July of 2005. Without replacements, the average number of days to try a Superior Court felony case will likely lengthen from the current 245 days. The Clerk of Court is authorized to have 4.67 more clerks than can currently be hired because of budget constraints. One additional magistrate for Durham was in the House bill reported out during the short session last year but removed in conference. Funds for the Youth Treatment court are set to sunset in 2005, closing the court.
	passed 1/25/05