State regulators OK Durham developer's version of Jordan Lake map | Durham County | Indy Week
Pin It

State regulators OK Durham developer's version of Jordan Lake map 

The N.C. Division of Water Quality has signed off on a private developer's controversial survey that significantly redraws Jordan Lake's boundaries, paving the way for Durham city and county elected officials to alter the lake's protected areas as early as April.

Simultaneously, an online petition has gathered 1,400 signatures opposing the plan, which signatories say will result in fewer environmental protections, even as the state is proposing a bold strategy to rid Jordan Lake of pollution that has placed the drinking-water supply on the Environmental Protection Agency's Impaired Waters list since 2002.

In a letter to the Durham City-County Planning Department (PDF, 580 KB) dated Feb. 4, state regulators ruled that the agency "accepts and approves your proposed revisions to the critical and protected area boundaries around Jordan Lake."

The revisions—which Durham County submitted to the state in November—are the result of a 2005 survey commissioned by Neal Hunter, a developer who owned land within Jordan Lake's critical watershed, a one-mile boundary that severely limits development near the reservoir's shore.

If adopted, Hunter's survey would effectively move out of the restricted area 164 acres that he sold, in 2008, to Southern Durham Development, a company that plans to build a dense, mixed-use project called the "751 Assemblage." Hunter is a minority shareholder in Southern Durham Development.

Julie Ventaloro, the state watershed protection program coordinator at DWQ, told the Indy that adopting the state-approved survey is now "in Durham's hands." Steve Medlin, Durham's planning director, confirmed that his department has begun preparing amendments to the comprehensive plan and Unified Development Ordinance to reflect the revisions, which it will present to City Council and the Board of County Commissioners for a vote. Both governing bodies must conduct public hearings before adopting the changes.

"DWQ has signed off on it; now we have to execute it, by carrying it forward to the governing bodies for them to approve and authorize modifications to both the comprehensive plan and the zoning atlas," Medlin said.

The Durham Planning Commission, a citizen-run board, must first make a recommendation, which Medlin estimated would occur in April. The board's decision would be non-binding.

In the Feb. 4 letter, John Hennessy, a supervisor in the DWQ's compliance and oversight unit, wrote that "updated maps as well as natural processes" might have accounted for a "considerably different location" of the 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 December letter to DWQ.

Ventaloro said her department considered the fact that Hunter had a vested interest in his survey—which covered only the portion of Jordan Lake that affected his property—and that Frank Duke, Durham's former planning director, violated state code in 2006 when he accepted Hunter's survey without review. (In November 2008, after learning of Duke's actions, the Durham Board of County Commissioners voted 3-2 to submit Hunter's survey anyway.) However, Ventaloro said DWQ chose not to preclude Durham from accepting the survey based on these facts alone.

"It was discussed, the fact that it was done by a private company, but it was submitted through Durham," Ventaloro said. "We put a lot of responsibility on the counties, and we also put a lot of faith in their efforts. We have an oversight role here, so we really do rely on the expertise of the local governments to enforce the regulations, through their ordinances."

If Durham accepts Hunter's survey, Ventaloro said, it will be the first time watershed maps have been changed in North Carolina based on a private developer's partial surveying of a water supply. The division's preference, she said, would be a survey of the entire lake. She pointed to Durham County's 1998 survey of Ellerbee Creek, which only affected one portion of the Falls Lake reservoir. However, that survey was conducted by the county, not a private developer.

"It could conceivably open the door to multiple requests to revise the small parts of a watershed boundary," she said. "It would just be better, and perhaps produce a better-quality product, if these boundary issues were looked at regionally, on a larger watershed basis, or even around one entire reservoir, rather than piece by piece."

Previous Indy articles about this issue:

Comments

Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in Durham County



Twitter Activity

Comments

He was ordered deported and the convicted of DWI and domestic violence. He is a criminal and even said so. …

by Wayne OBriant on What Thirteen Months Hiding from Immigration Officials Inside a Durham Religious Facility Has Taught Jose Chicas (Durham County)

I will vote this election for candidates who prioritize citizens over illegal aliens (bet you thought that was a given …

by Mira Dean on Durham Officials Want to Make Sure No One Ends Up in Immigration Detention Because of Local Policies. Someone Should Tell the Sheriff. (Durham County)

Most Recent Comments

He was ordered deported and the convicted of DWI and domestic violence. He is a criminal and even said so. …

by Wayne OBriant on What Thirteen Months Hiding from Immigration Officials Inside a Durham Religious Facility Has Taught Jose Chicas (Durham County)

I will vote this election for candidates who prioritize citizens over illegal aliens (bet you thought that was a given …

by Mira Dean on Durham Officials Want to Make Sure No One Ends Up in Immigration Detention Because of Local Policies. Someone Should Tell the Sheriff. (Durham County)

Wow, Scary stuff.
-"The agency has also stopped initiating traffic checkpoints and deprioritized lesser offenses like vehicle equipment violations and …

by Timothy Oswald on Durham Officials Want to Make Sure No One Ends Up in Immigration Detention Because of Local Policies. Someone Should Tell the Sheriff. (Durham County)

"residents who say it's not a good fit" are a massive obstacle to affordable housing.

NIMBYism will ruin a …

by Edward Teach on To Keep Up With Growth, Durham Needs to Add Two Thousand Housing Units a Year. Its Rules Are in the Way. (Durham County)

Great, informative story. How did a story about scooters get 500 more words than an article about the housing problems …

by Durmite110 on To Keep Up With Growth, Durham Needs to Add Two Thousand Housing Units a Year. Its Rules Are in the Way. (Durham County)

© 2018 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation