From:	Karen Edwards
Sent:	Tuesday, February 09, 2016 7:58 AM
To:	Karen Edwards
Subject:	FW: Protect community character and the environment by keeping the 
expansion of the Mill Plaza to a minimum



From: John Parry []  
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 8:38 PM 
To: Michael Behrendt; Karen Edwards 
Cc: Durham Conservation Commission 
Subject: Protect community character and the environment by keeping the expansion of the Mill Plaza to 
a minimum

Dear Planning Board:

I am writing to provide comment on the  proposed redevelopment for Mill Plaza.

I feel much of the recent development for housing and retail space has not been a positive addition for 
the Community. Pavement and concrete dominate the Downtown, and there is less and less greenspace 
remaining. 

Despite being called “ the Durham Village Center” this new proposal  is primarily  commercial space with 
more pavement, parking, student housing and un-needed retail space. I feel the planning board should 
take a very conservative approach on approving any conditional uses, and instead should protect the 
community character and the environment by keeping the expansion of the Mill Plaza to a minimum. 
Some specific suggestions/concerns I have related to the natural resources on the site are;

Allowing more housing with vehicle parking will increase pavement and storm water run-off, traffic 
congestion and parking issues down town. Planned buildings not meeting zoning guidelines should be 
rejected. Vehicle parking related to the housing  area should be reduced. The area of additional asphalt 
should be reduced and best management practices used to reduce run-off.

The wetland and shore land setbacks on the property should be honored, and carefully enforced. No 
construction activity should occur within the setback. Recent construction at Madbury Commons 
allowed construction activity to occur in the shoreland setback (storage of equipment, soil compaction, 
storing of supplies  & soil, significant grading, etc.). This degraded the protection area along Pettee 
Brook and should not be permitted. 

There is a nice woodlot on the northeast edge of the property. Much of this sloped area will be cleared 
for the development. Though it is private property the wooded area adds significant  value to the 
community in providing environmental services. A larger amount of this area should be preserved.

Much of the recent development in town has pushed for as much square footage as possible, extending 
construction activity nearly to property boundaries and leaving little space for wooded or vegetated 
buffers. Removal of a wooded buffer area on the west and south side of the Peak development site 
resulted in degrading the view at that site. A minimum wooded buffer of at least 75’ should remain.

Existing large Individual trees on the site, deemed desirable for the landscape,  should be clearly 
identified, and guidelines developed to protect a significant portion of the root system of each tree 
during construction. Tree protection for existing trees at past developments such as Madbury Commons 
was poorly done – most trees were removed prior to construction and those left had much construction 
damage.

New  trees and other landscaping planned for the development is inadequate. More green space needs 
to be added, include large tree planting along Mill Road. For trees to become large, space and 
infrastructure needs to be planned into the development. As seen by the slow growth and poor 
condition of trees in the current Mill Plaza parking lot, and on Main St. Downtown, cutting small 
openings in the hardscape is not adequate. Adequate rooting space and drainage needs to be designed 
into the  infrastructure (see Architectural Graphic Standards – Section on Tree Planting in Urban Areas).

A proposed path is suggested along College Brook. Path construction should designed to have a low 
impact, keeping disturbance to a minimum. Consider surface materials other than pavement/concrete 
(stone, etc. )
Construction of a path through wetland at the Peak Development on Mast Rd. was poorly done, 
removing a large # of trees and  vegetation and negatively impacting the wetland.

Thank you for your consideration of these issues. – John Parry