The InterNeighborhood Council added a dig at public authorities before adopting a resolution on local historic districts. To wit:

"The Planning Department needs to be as timely and responsive to the requests of ordinary citizens as they are to developers. ... "

Tom Miller, who represents the Watts Hospital-Hillandale neighborhood, suggested the additional clause.

The comment was added to the "Whereases" prefacing a  "Therefore" to the effect INC "urges City and County officials" to give the Planning Department what it needs to expedite property owners' petitions for creating local historic districts.

INC's resolution came abut because two neighborhoods, Golden Belt and Cleveland Holloway, submitted petitions in 2010 and are still waiting for Planning to do something about them. They presented their problem at the February INC meeting.

"If a developer had filed a petition to rezone this piece of property that constitutes the Cleveland-Holloway neighborhood or Golden Belt neighborhood two years ago, the rezoning would be over by now," Miller said in February. "Is the Planning Department a service agency for the developer class or is it one for everyone?"
 

The InterNeighborhood Council announced Thursday that it is holding two public forums for county commissioner candidates: one for Democrats March 28, one for Republicans March 29.

Durham holds a partisan primary for all five seats on the Board of County Commissioners May 8. Winners face off in the Nov. 6 general election.

Both forums will be held at the N.C. Central University School of Education Auditorium. Doors open at 6:30 p.m., candidate introductions at 6:45, forums 7 to 9.

Preservation Durham Director Bob Ashley will moderate, asking prepared questions and questions submitted from the audience. Information: Don Lebkes, dll-sjl@frontier.com, 919-403-0370; or Dick Ford, rbford@aim.com, 617-619-9994.

The InterNeighborhood Council has put off voting whether to take a stand against paying for the war in Afghanistan.

A resolution to "Bring Our War Dollars Home" (http://bit.ly/naxjmS) was on the group's agenda Tuesday, but because some neighborhoods have yet to discuss the resolution it was held over until the next meeting, Aug. 30.

Unlike some other local-government departments, City-County Planning isn't asking for fee increases this year. InterNeighborhood Council President Tom Miller, though, has said he intends to complain anyway.

At the council's April meeting, Miller called the fees "unreasonable" and said he intends to tell the city council why.

Some current fees are:

• $1,435 (including surcharges) to apply for rezoning a residential lot of one acre or smaller
• $3,500 (plus surcharges) to submit a minor site plan for review
• $4,000 or $6,000 for a Traffic Impact Analysis, depending on the level of traffic
• $2,739 (including surcharges) to apply for an amendment to the city-county land-use plan.

Such high fees, Miller said, make public processes inaccessible to ordinary citizens.

"You shouldn't spend $1,000 to get your case heard before the Board of Adjustment," he said; and a hearing, application or submittal fee paid brings no assurance of approval.

"The fee structure assumes that only developers appeal for rezoning," and they are familiar with the process and absorb the charges as a cost of doing business.

"I have as much right to petition for rezoning as a developer does," said Miller, an attorney by profession.

Miller likened the planning department fees to a police department charging crime victims to deal with their cases or a fire department charging to save a burning house.

"Make it so everybody has equal access," he said.

City transportation Director Mark Ahrendsen and colleagues from City Hall, Triangle Transit and NCDOT gave the InterNeighborhood Council a Transportation 101 class Tuesday night.

"The smell of asphalt is going to be in the atmosphere pretty soon," Ahrendsen said to start, referring to $20 million worth of street repaving voters approved in last fall's bond referendum.

State-owned streets are in for more repaving, too, as DOT continues playing catchup on overdue maintenance.

"There is a lot more coming downtown," said District Engineer Joey Hopkins, along with Duke and Gregson streets through the Trinity Park neighborhood between I-85 and Main Street.
 

The InterNeighborhood Council is gearing up for another billboard battle, this time at the General Assembly.

Tuesday night, the group unanimously approved a resolution opposing any new restrictions on local governments' authority to regulate billboards.

No such bill has been introduced, but State Sen. Floyd McKissick and others have said that rumors abound that billboard interests are drafting restrictive legislation for the current session.

Some neighborhood delegates at Tuesday's meeting suggested waiting until a bill is actually introduced, but INC President Tom Miller, who introduced the resolution, said waiting could be risky.

"INC meets once a month and the General Assembly meets once a day," he said. "If we wait we may miss the vote [in the legislature], we may not be able to do what we can do and I'm not sure how much that may be."
 

The InterNeighborhood Council is considering whether to weigh in on the Alston Avenue widening controversy.

Alston Avenue, a.k.a. N.C. 55, is a major corridor north-south corridor through East Durham. NCDOT considers the street congested and has plans to widen it from the Durham Freeway to Holloway Street.

But neighborhood groups and others interested in the long-depressed area's revival see DOT's plan as splitting their neighborhood in two.

"A four-lane highway is just a wall lying on its side," INC President Tom Miller said at the council's meeting this week.
 

The InterNeighborhood Council has gone on record favoring the city's proposed $20 million bond issue for resurfacing Durham's worst streets. Voters will decide the issue in Tuesday's election.

"People are very well aware it's an ongoing problem and they [City Hall] need the money," said Parkwood representative Michael Brooks.

Delegates passed this resolution at the INC's monthly meeting this week:

WHEREAS the streets in the city of Durham are in need of repair and maintenance on city streets has been neglected and deferred for too long; and
WHEREAS the poor condition of the streets impede the city’s renaissance and impact negatively on the community’s image; and
WHEREAS current economic conditions and the general financial health of the city favor incurring modest debt to pay for long needed repairs;
WHEREAS the city government has expressed its resolution to address future street repair needs on a reasonable schedule from annual revenues;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham through its delegates duly assembled that the citizens of Durham should support the proposed street repair bonds by voting “yes” in the referendum on the November 2, 2010 ballot.

INC approved two other resolutions this week: one favoring a statewide moratorium on digital billboards, as proposed in a bill presented in the state legislature (HB 2011); the other favoring training and licensing requirements for hired managers of homeowners' associations as proposed in HB 762, introduced in the 2009 legislative session.

City Hall has been caught in some compromising positions lately, such as tearing up streets that were just repaved to replace a water main and docking a homeowner's bank account almost $83,000 for an erroneous water bill.

Those instances came up Tuesday night when City Manager Tom Bonfield (left) went to the InterNeighborhood Council to talk about the upcoming $20-million bond referendum for repaving streets.

Bonfield was asked how borrowing $20 million for streets might affect the city's similarly overdue maintenance on water and sewer lines. He explained that money for streets and money for water/sewer come out of two different pots. So, he said, the one doesn't affect the other.

"These two projects do intersect though," responded INC President Tom Miller, "in that we have to tear up the streets in order to do the pipes. We just resurfaced Englewood Avenue [in 2008], and now we're tearing Englewood Avenue up to replace water mains."

"That," Bonfield replied, "is a major screwup."

He went on to say the city "has systems in place now" to keep that from happening again; still, there's no guarantee the city won't have to re-repave a street if there's a sewer collapse or utility break or some other unforeseen calamity.

To which Miller said, "If you get that person to pay that $83,000 water bill you could probably pay for some of that."

Bonfield could only smile and say, "All right."

The InterNeighborhood Council wants the city and county governments to commit themselves to continued funding for low-income housing and services before committing any more money to the Rolling Hills/Southside redevelopment project.

"We feel the City Council has an obligation to spread the resources according to need," said INC President Tom Miller, "and tying them up in Rolling Hills isn't very effective."