Remarks by Libby J. Thomas
72 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 3
- Play at 17:01
“I don't have it. I'm looking for it, but Does that apply to all the plants not just canopy species are we starting with a 100% on canopy trees and”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 21:35
“Well, just for more clarity, how detailed, for example, some of the requirements about trees, three-inch calipers, maybe smaller is better. And maybe you can remove the exception for greater credit for larger trees. Smaller trees actually tend to get established and survive better and are easier to plant. Especially if they're being interplanted with existing, like if you're enhancing an area. So, I mean, I have detailed comments on many things. I don't know how much detail we have time for tonight. Or do we come back to these things?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 25:09
“how treaty rules and all the other rules, the Jordan Lake buffers and these things, there isn't much detail on inspection and enforcement.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 38:31
“allow scaling up of floor area areas as lots grow larger and that would kind of seem to contextualize it to neighborhoods that have larger lots bigger houses yeah that's that's definitely a possibility now that we've created this”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 39:56
“Can I ask another question related to how we constrain sizes? I'm trying to think through what is the intent of achieving the town's goals by having buffers, in some cases floor area ratios, and maximum sizes, maximum building heights, and total impervious. It says the total building coverage requirements are designed to help preserve open area and reduce the bulk of buildings. But can't we do that with fewer tools, with just maximum impervious building heights and And buffers, perhaps.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 41:51
“I guess what I'm thinking is it also reduces flexibility of people to build more housing and reduce other impervious. If they are allowed that flexibility, that trade-off, we might get more creative building on sites and keep the overall oppressiveness of large buildings for neighbors and such, as well as keeping the impervious constrained. I don't know. It's just, like I said, I'm sorry if you've all been around about this, but I'm still trying to...”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 58:48
“Yeah, building on that, I think it's a worthwhile notion, but very difficult to retrofit density onto an existing community where the schools weren't built in locations always that are appropriate for more density and the greenways are most of the time in the floodway and rcd which deserve consideration for protection so i have some You know, again, there's another idea that you could put another circle around these Greenway nodes in RCD or RCDs. I mean, yes, RCD has protection Already but adding density close to Where wildlife need to travel? Floodways and all of that You know that's another…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:01:19
“Yeah, I'll just say that idea makes sense to me, but I think they have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis almost if you're going to. You might not be able to do that in a blanket way, so again.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:07:21
“I agree with that. I would rather omit the Greenways at this point. The schools don't have the connectivity now that they need to support that density, I think, because it will lead to more drive trips.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 1:07:45
“I'm I'm saying adding the density will add to more drive trips Apart from schools. Yes, and that will create more issues for schools perhaps until we kind of sort How these things are going to look?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:05:29
“I agree with that and I think the cost to the town and as Liz pointed out, people living in low income areas, I mean the town's own public housing was flooded, it's flooded often and I haven't seen the investment so far in addressing these issues at a town level, and I think we owe it to current and future residents not to make it worse with what we do here.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:06:42
“My house is 20 feet above flood level, and it came remarkably close to flooding this year.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:06:53
“1969, but I don't see why that's relevant.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:07:06
“I think the flood risk is increasing. I mean, you can look at the rain gauge data.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:08:08
“There's just so much discharge into streams. When you look at rainfalls now, the streams flash. There's more impervious everywhere, and we've got to get a handle on this.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:31:10
“I don't have a fancy slide presentation, and I'm not really as well prepared. But unfortunately, I've been bogged down in the details for now. But there are a few principle-based things that concern me and it's you know relating to lot sizes and more dense development smaller the more affordable units are going to end up with less trees and so i'm trying to think of a way We can improve on that.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:31:47
“Yes, the three, four, and then the density.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:31:59
“yes and that contributes to the stormwater issues too but um and we know that there are some heat zones in chapel hill that relate to that where there isn't a canopy now and so just in thinking of these principles if we can come up with any better solutions to adding back trees. Thank you. Somebody did this. Good. Thanks for bringing that up. I do have a few specific notes. There are some places where the language talks about 85% protection of root zone, and then elsewhere it talks about 75%. I think it has to do with that section about the safe zone to protect neighbors. So I think given…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:33:22
“Well, I can't really see the chart. Let me just go through a few quick notes about. Okay, I'll look for it. The section 7.1.2A3C, just add among the hazards in that section to also protect route compaction by heavy equipment driving over, not just being parked on, but driving over. the root zone. This may be addressed if there's currently less than the canopy required. Anyway, I would like to see more incentives for protecting existing canopy and topography. Then I know the trade-offs for canopy, you do have a little bit of incentive. It counts more, but maybe we could think about bumping…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:37:50
“Can I add, we really need to take a look at the buffer requirements and all of these things at once to kind of get a handle on the tree issues.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:46:57
“So we're finished? So building on what Liz said, perhaps the exception should be based on lot size rather than home size or...”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:48:11
“Why leave that exception in there? It could lead to unintended consequences.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:48:47
“Can I bring up two more things, quick things? One is related to invasive plants. in all the places that this is comes up in plantings or replacing or clearing in the lumo when you are developing a property just refer to the latest north carolina invasive pest plant council list it's very thorough for plants to remove and to avoid planting back. Again, I would like to see the number of native trees, canopy trees, maybe start at a higher level. I don't know why that can't be 100%, but maybe start at 70% or something like that. And then I don't know if this has come up before, but have you…”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:54:56
“I would definitely prefer that later approach, but I'm looking for ways to plug the DEM at the moment. Finally, there's a question.”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026
- Play at 2:56:18
“Just in the canopy and what have you standards. I mean, there's some lots like part of that Weaver Dairy lot close to the Harris Teeter that we heard this past year. it's a lot of it is an open space or very beat up right now I mean it really doesn't matter what's exactly what's there but say there isn't existing tree canopy to preserve and the developer decides they want to put in a native plant meadow instead which also store a lot of carbon, and they're great. And so is that allowed in the current LUMO?”
Planning Commission · Oct 6, 2026