Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 199212141 APPROVED 2j1/93 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 14, 1992 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in adjourned session on December 14, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpose of this adjourned meeting was to continue the Joint Public Hearing held on December 1, 1992 on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Amanda Carol Cantrell, and Members H. Paul Hoecke, William J. Waddell, James Gray, Elizabeth Eidenier, Clinton Burklin and Virginia Boland. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN Chair Moses Carey, Jr. welcomed everyone to the meeting. He announced that comments from the public will be from the list of people who signed up at the December 1, 1992 Public Hearing but did not get the opportunity to speak. Those who spoke at the last meeting and those who did not sign up at the last meeting may speak after the list is exhausted. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Moses Carey, Jr. read the Public Charge. Commissioner Willhoit noted that the mediation session scheduled for last Thursday was canceled. The Dispute Settlement Center is interested in getting another session scheduled. He asked Callie Warner, spokesperson for the University Station group, to suggest a date for the next session so that notices can be sent to those persons involved in this process. C. PIIBLIC HEARING ITEM - CONTINUATION OF DECEMBER 1 1992 HEARING 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment a. CP-1-92 University Station Planning Director Marvin Collins gave a brief presentation. This is a continuation of the December 1, 1992 Public Hearing on the proposed University Station Land Use amendment. He emphasized that this is a Land Use Plan amendment. This is not involved in the consideration or approval of a specific project. There are two options available in amending the Land Use Plan. The first is to place it in a transition category which would allow the applicant to come back, if approved, and apply for a zoning designation which would permit them to carry out the proposed project. The current zoning of the property is R-1 Residential which permits one unit to the acre. In order to achieve the density necessary to implement the plans, the zoning request of R-2 where two units to an acre would be appropriate would need to be approved at a later time. The other option that is being considered is to place the proposed University Station area in a new Land Use 2 Plan category which is called an Open Space Development Area. The Open Space Development Area proposal was presented at Public Hearing on November 23, 1992. Comments regarding that proposal have been sent in from people who live in that area and have been included as part of the Public Hearing record. If the University Station property was to be placed in an Open Space Development Area category, it would also allow them to go forward with the next step if that Land Use Plan amendment is approved. That step would be to apply for a Planned Development designation. That designation involves the rezoning of the property, issuance of a Special Use Permit, and approval of a specific site plan and subdivision plat for the project. The earliest that particular phase could be considered would be at the February Quarterly Public Hearing. In each of these Land Use Plan categories there are specific criteria that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board must consider. These have been reviewed previously and are part of the initial public hearing packet on December 1, 1992. Commissioner Insko asked that comments be focused on the agenda item. PUBLIC COMMENTS THOMAS BIIELL read a one page statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary he is against the University Station development proposal as it is now proposed. He feels that the time has come to consider some version of such a planned development. He feels the golf course must be replaced with legitimate open space like fields and woods. JOHN STONE, a Professor at North Carolina State University specializing in land use and transportation planning, read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary, he stated that while he supports the concept of neotraditional neighborhoods, he urges the County Commissioners to reject the Comprehensive Plan amendment which will permit the proposed University Station experiment to proceed. He feels that the proposed University Station plan is flawed with respect to neotraditional design guidelines and that the traffic analysis is incomplete. He gave several reasons in his written statement why he feels the plan is flawed and the traffic analysis is incomplete. CHERIE ROSEMOND read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. She is concerned about the language used to describe the proposed University Station project. She does not feel that 367 three story condominiums describe a rural village. She feels that traffic will be a problem. She would like to see the golf course eliminated and the density reduced by 50~. LARRY BOHS read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary his greatest concerns are the preservation of the wildlife habitat, the forest, the streams and wetlands that form a major part of the property. He showed some slides of the natural areas in the proposed University Station area. He is concerned about the runoff from the development and its affect on Stoney Creek. He thinks the idea of clustered development is great and believes that with a thoughtful density-neutral clustered development, it may be possible to preserve much of the wildlife habitat and natural beauty of Stoney Creek. He does not believe that Stoney Creek and the wildlife who live there will survive the 3 intense development, golf course and sewer lines in the current University Station plan. BARBARA ROBERTSON read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary she emphasized that they bought land in this area because it was rural. They have created a rich organic vegetable garden and perennial flower beds. She questioned how this can be preserved if they run sewer and water out to Old Ten and New Hope Church Road. She asked that they not extend sewer or change the category to Ten-Year Transition to Urban and to Open Space that allows R-2 and sewer extension. She favors density neutral planning and clustered housing within density neutral open space. She feels that Old Ten is already crowded. She is against the golf course. ILENE SIEGLER read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary she asked that the Board of County Commissioners not adopt the proposed change to the Land Use Plan to create a new category of open space development with R-2 zoning or the ten-year transition. She feels the proposed University Station project, and the R-2 zoning change proposed for the Open Space Development area threatens the rural character of this part of Orange County. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners develop plans that preserve the Rural Character of Orange County in the areas now threatened by the proposed University Station project. CHARLES EDELMAN stressed that he and others in the University Station area have informed themselves very well and their hope is that the information they present will help the Board of County Commissioners to oppose the project. He talked about risk. The people who live in the area are putting their health and aesthetics at risk if the environment is damaged by this project. He feels they have a safety and mobility risk by overburden roads and an overburden school system which will cause higher taxes and more bond issues. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners reject University Station. LIBBY SEABEES read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. She lives about five miles north of the proposed development area. She feels that mass transit, reasonable walking distances to avoid driving, retail shops that avoid driving trips, affordable housing, the use of open space to protect important natural areas and clustering of houses to avoid suburban sprawl have been used as strategies by the developer to promote the plan. She addressed each area and how the plan does not provide for any of these strategies. She feels that the land should be developed within the current zoning density level of R-1 and with a plan that truly embraces forward-thinking, open space and clustered development. ROBERT CANTWELL read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary he addressed the developers' presentation at the last public hearing, the proposed University Station project itself and the use of language in this debate. He .feels the developers made no case for University Station and that the wetlands, storm water retention areas, steep slopes, a powerline easement, and other otherwise undevelopable areas do not constitute open space. He would like to see a true density-neutral cluster development at University Station which genuinely preserves and restores its agricultural character and natural beauty. 4 A. SOLDI lives adjacent to the proposed University Station development. He expressed a concern for the natural habitat and the streams. He realizes there is a conflict between growth and sound development while still preserving as much farmland as possible. He urged the Board of County Commissioners to give preference to development that trades open space and even better natural habitats for higher density developments. By increasing densities in some places, it relieves the pressure for using more and more land as well. If the Board of County Commissioners approve this project he asked that more evidence be presented to assure affordable housing and that the construction schedule be carried out so that there is little disruption to animals and vegetation. JOE HAREN, Chairman of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, stated that his board requests that the Board of County Commissioners consider any plan which has diversity of housing included in it. He feels that it is important to provide an opportunity for people who work in Orange County to live in Orange County. The Chamber assumes that the developers will take care of the environment, traffic and other issues which have been brought forth by the citizens. JANE MASRE distributed a newspaper article entitled "Study links leukemia, chemical contact". She stated that she feels the information given at the last meeting by Mr. Cogswell, the developer, about the safety of toxins on golf courses was erroneous and that low levels of toxins are dangerous. She spoke to the issue of risk indicating that there are other than financial risks at stake, like health and well being. She is opposed to the proposed University Station high density village. She feels that this village can destroy the rural character of this area, destroy the wildlife and create an unbelievable traffic situation and dilute the quality education by overcrowding the schools. JENNIFER MILLER read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. ,She presented information on the detrimental effect that the proposed University Station development would have on Orange County schools. In her statement she list sixteen errors in the new school impact study presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins. She feels that the strain of a new town on the schools, combined with strains on public safety, roads and water quality, constitute a cumulative and predictable impact, sufficient to cause the Board of County Commissioners to deny the petition that is before them to amend the Land Use Plan. The impact on New Hope Elementary will be the equivalent of one new classroom each year. GREGG FRAHELY spoke against the proposed University Station development. This area has a great potential for development within the next forty or fifty years. He feels there is a loophole in the proposed rural village concept. That loophole allows developers to call golf courses open space. He would like to see true open space -- true rural character written into the code and not .allow wetlands or golf courses to be included in that category. This would allow the growth to be managed and not turned into a golf course community. BILL STROM presented two maps which showed the proposed open space area and water and sewer lines. He read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. He feels that questions about providing water and sewer to this proposed development have not been adequately addressed. The proposed University Station plan does not meet any of the four stated objectives of the Rural Character Study. He feels it is 5 irresponsible to grant density bonuses to developers before there is a clear definition of open space. He emphasized that he wants to see cluster developments with community wastewater systems, mandatory neutral densities and true contributions of open space. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to truly consider the long term impact of University Station and have the courage to vote this proposal down until the open space strategy is completely defined. ROBERT HARRELL read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. He presented an analysis of the school impact study which showed the increase in students as the number of housing units increase. He also presented a fiscal impact study which projected an annual deficit stating that it is very unlikely that this development will generate any net tax revenue for Orange County. KAREN BLEY stated that the community is clearly opposed to the proposed University Station plan. She feels the developers care more about making money than about the needs and wants of the community, the environment or neutral density. She likes the solitude that she now has. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners listen to the community. JENNIFER TAYLOR read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. She spoke about the term affordable and how it is being used in the proposed University Station project. She feels it is important before calling housing affordable to ask the question affordable to who. For housing to be affordable, it must be affordable to families and individuals earning below 80~ of the areas median income. The highest price in this area which can be called affordable is $94,000. For smaller households, the upper end is much lower. For a single person, the most they could afford is about $60,000. She noted that the developers have referred to a house costing $143,000 as affordable. It would take a family of four with an income of $54,000 to afford a house costing $143,000. She wants to know the price of housing they plan to build, what size they will be and what will be included in a $100, 000 house and does the cost of the golf course make the housing less affordable and by how much. She also wants to know when the affordable housing will be built and if the developer is willing to sign a guarantee to build a specific number of affordable houses at a specific price. She stressed that there is a need for affordable housing in Orange County. ROY ROTH made reference to some prepared materials which are made a part of the record of the minutes of this meeting by reference. He included in this material numerous references which allude to neotraditional villages and their problems particularly as they relate to the University Station proposal and alternate development possibilities. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners read all the information he prepared. He spoke about ethics. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart defined ethics as knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do. The problem is that people sometimes adjust their ethical values to meet immediate pressures. He asked if the Land Use Plan modifications are being drawn around the proposed University Station project. Orange County has a carefully developed Land Use Plan. He asked that they not look for loopholes. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board decide the ethical thing to do concerning the proposed University Station development. PHIL WITT made reference to his letters which have been made a part of 6 the record of this meeting by reference. He mentioned that he cannot conceive of this area supporting a light rail system. He is concerned about the water. The Durham pipeline was built for emergencies and the golf course does not constitute an emergency. Education, not housing, is the number one concern in North Carolina. He feels the process should have started with information on making the area urban. He feels that this property could be used for an equestrian community. BILL BRACTsY, Conservation Chair of the Orange/Chatham Sierra Club, made reference to newspaper articles stating that some have been incorrect. He feels that the terms rural character and density neutral have been misused. He stated that the Sierra Club did not endorse University Station. They do endorse the idea of cluster development and rural villages that preserve open space and facilitate mass transit and hope that appropriate zoning will be put in place to allow this. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners take this opportunity to aggressively pursue innovative planning options, especially including transferable development rights. Strict agricultural and very large lot zoning can prevent the sprawl that sewer lines, transit corridors, etc. will cause if allowed. He hopes that those who oppose this project will consider joining one of the conservation groups to preserve some of the natural areas in the county. CINDY IDOL stated that they moved to University Station Road from Woodcroft because they wanted to live in the country. She is strongly opposed to the proposed University Station development and particularly the rezoning of that section of land which would allow for smaller lots. She hopes the Board of County Commissioners listen to what the people have to say and that something good comes from this. If this development goes, she hopes that the best of all the knowledge the people have assimilated is put together for the good of all. PATRICIA ANDREWS read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. She is against the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and to the creation of a newly designated category of Open Space. She feels that the economic, environmental, logistical and educational issues are very different than they were several years ago when the University Station village was first introduced. She expressed concerns about the schools and the carrying capacity of the roads. She questioned what will happen to this area if the venture fails. She is against any amendment or category changes or other loopholes which would make it possible for urbanization to take place in this area. PAUL ANDREWS spoke about seven concerns. He feels that the density is too high. The density bonuses are too generous. The developers have proposed a golf course community, a suburban subdivision and village density or three developments for the price of one. He is concerned about the overcrowded roads and schools. Dense urban development leads to groundwater contamination. His fifth concern is open land. University Station will not preserve rural open land. Most all studies show that developments of this kind are a liability to local governments. He feels that this is actually two developments with a University Station North and University Station South. He suggested that the county adopt a policy of not extending water and sewer to rural areas. The affect has been to rejuvenate growth in urban areas and preserve the rural areas. He feels that high density growth will follow water and sewer. BOB HALL, Director of Research for the Institute for Southern Studies, 7 stated he has written a number of articles on Land Use strategies. He stated he does not understand the information that backs up this amendment request. If the information is flawed, can the Board of County Commissioners vote on it. He pointed out several contradictions in the background information. On page 195, the information indicates that 258 children will be generated by this project while on page 303 the information indicates there will be 345 school age children generated by this project. On page 245, the developers say there will be over 1,000 children living in this project. On page 248 the developer indicates there will be 6700 average traffic trips generated. On page 255, the information indicates there will be 9,431. On page 301 it says that the average price of a home in this development will be $159,944. He noted that there is no evidence presented in the background information to merit a favorable vote by the Board of County Commissioners to designate this project as open space. The amendment was changed in the middle from Ten-Year Transition to Ten-Year Transition or Open Space transition. ALLEN SPALT, Director of the Agricultural Resources Center in Carrboro, read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary, he stated that he supports planned communities but saying that this kind of development will preserve rural character and is consistent with the kind of density that's allowed is just not right. He feels that a golf course is not open space but more like a medium on a freeway counting the grassed area as open space. Active open space should not count the same way as a field. Responsibly managed gold courses are not toxic waste dumps and their environmental affects should not be exaggerated. But neither are they benign or neutral. They have been a source of serious problems affecting water quality, wildlife and human health primarily from the heavy use of pesticides. He presented some written information on the affects of golf courses and other articles. PETER PICRENS read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. He is against any rezoning of this part of rural Orange County which would allow a development such as University Station to be built. He objects to the apartments, townhouses and condominiums planned for this development. He is opposed to the whole village concept of University Station. He would be very surprised if University Station doesn't have urban restrictive covenants, which will not allow livestock such as horses or perhaps chickens. He feels that the developments built in rural areas should themselves have rural character with rural covenants, which would give residents the option, the alternative, the freedom to live and pursue a country life in those rural areas. He asks the Board of County Commissioners to do what's best for rural Orange County and not to change the zoning from Rural Residential to Ten-Year Transition or Open Space Development Area and not to approve the proposed University Station project. LEE RAFALO~P read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary he made reference to the comments Mr. Kenan and Mr. Cogswell made at the last public hearing on December 1 and indicated that a lot of people know about risk. His vision is that of a density neutral development that does not distort the concept of preserving open space and rural character. He feels that the developers will transform their homes into urban sprawl and ruin the quality of life for which they have all worked so hard. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to help the citizens implement an alternative to urban sprawl. 8 MARK MARCOPLOS stated he lives in Bingham Township approximately fifteen miles from the proposed University Station development. He thanked all the residents in the area for bringing forth additional information on this proposal. He hopes that this doesn't get labeled as a pro anti-development process. This is a situation where people are aware of the choices and aware that there will be development and they just want it to be the best it can be. Just because they oppose the proposed University Station development, it doesn't mean they oppose affordable housing, economic development or anti- development. He feels that the Rural Character Study should be amended and then proceed slowly. ALAN SEIFERHELD made two points on rural character. Because of the type of land that exist at University Station, the property most likely will not support more than 300 homes under the current zoning. University Station is asking for approximately 1100 homes, almost a 400$ increase in the density over what the land will now support. Water and sewer should not be extended into University Station. Extension of water and sewer will invite similar developments. He is opposed to the Land Use Plan amendment. ELIZABETH ~POODMAN spoke for Michael Warner. She noted that Mr. Warner has reviewed the Land Use Plan which makes very specific recommendations about what types of development is in the interest of Orange County and where they should be located. She showed on a map the two high density areas of the County namely, Hillsborough and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area. Excluding those two areas, the average density in the County is seven units per 100 acres. the University Station proposal would transform this area from low to high. density and it would climb from seven units to 175 units per acre. The University Station development would constitute the highest density development between Hillsborough and Durham. She stated that the County is being asked to change the Land Use Plan to allow the developers to create this high density development and the third largest town in Orange County right in the middle of an area that matches every definition of rural. She made reference to page 322 of the Land Use Plan and the 22 categories listed. The only category that the proposed University Station development fits is Ten-Year Transition. She stated that the reasons for voting against this proposal include (1) it doesn't fit the Land Use Plan, (2) it creates leapfrog development in the inevitable corridor affect and (3) the process is not about planning but a reaction to what the developers want. She urged the Board of County Commissioners to reject University Station. LINDSAY EFLAND stated that on September 10, 1992, the Economic Development Commission passed a resolution stating their support for master planned developments where a wide range of housing opportunities, adequate open space, commercial activities for residents and support services are included. Based on the review of the concept plan for University Station the Economic Development Commission has concluded that this proposed development offers potential economic benefits for Orange County. They voted to support the proposed University Station village concept. Mr. Efland pointed out that mass transit and recreational space have been identified as long term goals. This proposal does address in some form these two long term goals. It has a diversity of housing styles, a diversity of prices and focuses growth. As present companies grow, they will bring in additional people who will need a place to live. He stressed that the decision before the Board of County Commissioners is very difficult and that it is a time for political leadership. There are many issues that will need to be addressed and they 9 will all affect someone's neighborhood. The EDC supports the concept of a planned rural village and asked that the Board approve the change from Transition to Open Space classification per the staff's recommendation. MARGARET MCREAN read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. She understood that water and sewer would not be extended into the Rural Buffer except for emergencies and questioned why they plan to extend water and sewer to the proposed University Station project. She feels that the rural residential zone without water and sewer is meant to be a buffer for the official rural buffer. She feels the county should stick with the Land Use Plan and devise a plan that provides community well and community septic treatment. She made several suggestions for changing the plan that would reduce some of the risk to the developers and to existing county residents. She suggests removing the golf course, setting aside half of the buildable acreage and making special plans for the two houses which have historical value. MARGO BOWERS read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. She noted that she likes to golf but prefers not to have a golf course unless its organic. She suggested turning the nearly full landfill into a golf course. She has worked very hard to be able to live in this area. She cares more about the earth than a round of golf. She does not want this area to become Hillsborough. She wants to remain a Chapel Hill person. AL JOHNSON made reference to a graph on page 296 and noted that it indicates that if there are 1300 units instead of 600 units that the developers will make eight times as much money. He feels that the developers are trying to optimally design their model to control the theory that they want to propagate. PHIL PRICE presented into the record a letter from J. Moredock which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. Ms. Moredock wants to protect the old forest and wetland habitats and is against the golf course because of the toxins involved. Mr. Price stated he is strongly against the proposed University Station project as currently proposed. He is opposed to bringing urban density and urban traffic through the heart of the designated rural buffer. He is opposed to golf courses, power easements and new water and sewer lines being designated as open space. He asked that an Environmental Impact Study be done. The traffic analysis did not address lifestyle, noise and preservation of rural character. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners not allow this part of the County to be rezoned for higher density and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer but allow this area to grow at the current R-1 designation with emphasis on cluster development and real open space. RIIDY RENFER noted that the vast majority of people who have spoken do not represent a particular group or organization but people in the community. He feels this neotraditional model is a test. He feels that all the information generated has been generated from a perspective of a desire to see the particular project fly rather than look at the reality of the impact on the people who are actually going to live with it. He stated that they can only speak through their representatives and asked the Board of County Commissioners to listen to the people they represent. PHILLIP SCHERRER stated he lives in Stoneridge and is concerned with orderly and planned development of the area. He has not taken a position but has only provided information. 10 WAYNE POOLE stated he is opposed to the proposed University Station development because he is concerned about the affects this development will have on the people who live in that area. This development will cause increased traffic and increased taxes. Also, a lot of animals will lose their homes. CALLIE WARNER showed some slides of affordable housing communities that are all done within the current zoning allowed in that area. She entered into the record a letter from Randall Arendt dated December 4, 1992 reading several paragraphs dealing with density bonuses. Excerpts from Randall Arendt's book entitled Rural by Design were also submitted for the record. ROBERT EPTING noted that Orange County has a tradition of having planning drive development rather than development proposals drive planning. He noted that this development is being considered before the Rural Character Study process in finished and before the definition of Open Space has been determined and before determining the appropriate density for Open Space developments. There has not been any information on the impact of the transition zoning extension or the Open Space designation on the use of land and the most appropriate use of land throughout the County as the statute requires. What has been presented is how this development within the concept, not yet set, would affect a particular neighborhood, not the entire band around Hillsborough where the Open Space may be placed but only with respect to this one neighborhood. He stated that it is his opinion that this process could be challenged in a court of law. He had several questions about water and sewer. It is his opinion that excluding tapons into a line that has been run at public expense is a very difficult thing to do. He will submit written remarks at a later time. STEVE OIIINN spoke about the cost the residents in the area paid to create a rural buffer zone. When the rural buffer zone was created it was done to preserve the rural character. He emphasized that the Board of County Commissioners made a commitment to the people in the buffer zone who gave up value, sale or marketability of their property in return for long-term planning. Commissioner Willhoit noted that this proposal is not in the Rural Buffer . Commissioner Insko asked that there be a discussion or information provided on height limitation for multifamily residences and that some consideration be given to the concept of municipal golf courses and whether or not this proposed golf course meets the specifications or requirements for a municipal golf course. Commissioner Gordon asked that Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill respond to the questions from Mr. Epting on procedure and process. Commissioner Insko expressed a concern that deals with the use of Open Space Area for developed recreation space. She questioned if the percent of open space allowed for recreational use should be lower than that allowed in a more urban setting. BONNIE ROGERS asked if the developers or planners have taken into consideration the recently passed American Disability Act in their planning and cost analysis and the impact that would create with respect to transportation, restaurants, etc. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner 11 Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than February 1, 1993. VOTE: UNANIMOUS LETTERS RECEIVED Each County Commissioner, the Planning Director and the County Manager have received copies of all letters received in the County Commissioners office in Hillsborough. Each letter is filed in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. Following is a list of the letters received from citizens who did not speak at this Public Hearing: JIILIE ANDRESEN, Chapel Hill Council Member, asked that Chapel Hill be given an opportunity to review and comment on this Land Use Plan Amendment. She indicated that the Council has a particular interest in clarifying the issues pertaining to water and sewer extensions outside Hillsborough's urban services area, and the implications those extensions raise for the Joint Planning Agreement and for all County residents. JANE FARBER wrote in opposition of providing water and sewer lines and density bonuses. She does not feel that the residents in this proposed development will work or shop there. She feels the railway corridor will never work on a scale Orange County can afford to promote. She questions if growth on this scale will benefit the community. DEBBIE AND CHRIS FIBEEN wrote in opposition of the request to change the land use designation of the University Station area. They believe this project will only benefit a small number of people. They expressed concerns about the traffic, schools and the environmental impact of this project. They feel that Open Space in rural areas should involve forests and farms. RHONDA HICRB wrote about her concerns with the possible development of "University Station Town". She cannot see any benefit to their community from this "town" and feels that everyone will lose. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners put the people of Orange County first. PRESTON LEE submitted information on Spray Irrigation. The document was produced by the Department of Public Works, Newark, Delaware. RAEFORD A. MAYSE AND OTHERS (7) wrote in support of the project. They have land adjoining the proposed development and feel that the University Station development will create jobs, both during construction and after construction. It will provide family closeness with activities and an environment that will generate activities for families. The wide range of housing cost is a great advantage for a county in which everyone is not a "professional" but "just normal every day people". They asked that the Board of County Commissioners consider all the advantages and not be swayed by the citizens who speak the loudest. TRiP AND RONA FRIED-OVERHOLT AND OTHERS (25) wrote in opposition of the proposed University Station project. They feel that a golf course is intensive development which provides no animal habitat, no natural recreation experience for humans, and pollutes the water with pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. They asked that the Board of County Commissioners reject the plan. EMMIE PARRS AND CASSANDRA WILLIAMS wrote about their concern of what the developers want to do in University Station. They stated their concerns 12 about the environment and erosion. They don't want a golf course that uses pesticides. They feel the traffic will increase and they will need a new school. There were pictures submitted from an unidentified person. These pictures showed areas of Durham that are congested and areas of New Hope Church Road and Old Ten as well as wetland areas. D. ADJOIIRNMENT With no further items adjourned the meeting. The will be held on January 4, County Courthouse in Hillsb Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk for the Boards to consider, Chair Moses Carey next regular meeting of the County Commissioners 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old orough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair