HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-28-1996 - C2(a) I j
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 28, 1996
Action Agenda
SUBJECT: STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN Item#C 2(a)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _X—Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X–No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
• Final Draft Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Gene Bell,Planner III, Ext. 2589
• Stone's Creek: A History of the Stoney Creek Area
• Certificate of Mailing and Letter TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough- 732-8181
Durham- 688-7331
Mebane- 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on the Draft Stoney Creek Small Area Plan.
BACKGROUND: On December 5, 1994,the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the
following charge: "To prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for
implementation,for the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area southeast of the town of
Hillsborough." Since March 16, 1995,a 22 member Planning Group of
neighborhood representatives plus elected and appointed officials and seven
alternates has worked on a Stoney Creek Land Use Plan that achieves two goals:
1. Preserves landowners' rights to get fair value for their property; and
2. Protects the area's"rural character."
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified levels of
land-use intensity that would help protect these resources. Three levels of land-use
intensity are recommended for different parts of the Stoney Creek area:
1. Lower intensity areas lie adjacent to most of the resource areas and best typify
the area's remaining rural character. They are proposed to have the lowest
future development densities and water and sewer extension is=envisioned.
2. Intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition between lower
and higher intensity. They are envisioned as being predominantly residential
-
Ob
with density being determined largely by the character of existing
development. Water and sewer extension is un1ikel .
3. Higher intensity areas are adjacent to areas experiencing urban growth and at
some future date will likely be annexed by Hillsborough or Durham. A mix of
land uses is possible along with the eventual extension of water and sewer.
The Planning Group explored traditional legal tools for plan implementation such
as rezoning to promote consistency. However, a key plan goal is to not take away
any options landowners currently have and no zoning changes are recommended.
The Planning Group relied extensively on the Flexible Development Options in
making their recommendations and suggest the following modifications to
Flexible Development to make it specific to the Stoney Creek area:
1. Flexible Development allows a density bonus of an additional housing unit
for every acre of open space preserved above 33%. For Stoney Creek:
• Up to 50%open space allows half of the bonus to be used in the area; and
• open space in excess of 50% permits use of the bonus units w"fierever
desired.
2. Where density bonuses can be used:
• The lower intensity area is a sending area for density bonuses;
• the intermediate intensity area is a sending Md receiving area;
• the higher intensity area is a receiving area; and
• density bonuses created in the Stoney Creek area can be utilized as stated
above,but density from other areas cannot be transferred into the area.
3. In the lower intensity areas, 50% of active recreation land will not count
toward open space, although such uses will continue to be permitted.
4. Expedited review and approval of projects that preserve large amounts of open
space and enhance rural character should be included as an incentive. Two
areas in which the group has consensus regarding expedited review are for:
• Developments that preserve 70%open space; and
• Rural subdivisions with lot sizes averaging five acres or more that follow
the Flexible Development Rural Design Guidelines and ensure against
further subdivision of lots.
The proposed Stoney Creek Small Area Plan will modify the 1988 plan for the
area by introducing the three land use intensity levels discussed above. However,
these will apply only where a landowner/developer chooses to use yolunt=
V
Flexible Development Options. Since no zoning changes are proposed, the zoning
patterns as established by the current plan will remain in effect.
RECOMMENDATION: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,including the Land Use Element, are
subject to the same provisions governing the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. Article
20 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be
presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an application.
However, article 20.4 exempts any applications for amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance by either the public or the County from the provisions of Article 20.3.
In either case, though, the public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of
the Zoning Officer's recommendation.
Zoning Officer Recommendation
Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the
affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text
amendments and change to the Land Use Plan Map.
Administration Recommendation
The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the
Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than August S, 1996.
08
09
Final Draft
STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN
Submitted to:
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Orange County Planning Board
Submitted by:
Stoney Creek Small Area Planning Group
For:
Presentation at the Quarterly Public Hearing
May 28, 1996
V - r }
f
11
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Dr. Stephen Halkiotis
Bill Crowther Don Willhoit
Dr. Alice Gordon
Orange County Planning Board
Joan Jobsis, Chair Margaret Brown Renee Price
Leo Allison Paul Hoecke Cherie Rosemond
Karen Barrows Cheryl Howie Bob Strayhorn
S. A. M. Brooks Arnie Katz Elizabeth Walters
Stoney Creek Small Area Planning Group
Verla Insko, Facilitator
Gene Bell, Project Planner
(*Denotes Alternate)
Curtis Bane Bob Hall Steve Price Michael Warner
Bill Bracey Gary Hanker Lee Rafalow Don Willhoit
James Bumphus Dan Kenan* Trish Rafalow* Thea Wilson
Clint Burklin Ken Maynard* John Ringland* David Yelton
Keith Cook Meg McKean Elio Soldi Dean Zehnder
Trudy Cuffe Bobby Nicholson Bob Strayhorn
Judd Edeburn Kim Price* Dan Teichman
Steve Halkiotis Renee Price Irene VanDyke*
Orange County Staff
John Link, County Manager Don Belk, Planner II
Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney Mary Willis,Planner III
Marvin Collins,Planning Director Slade McCalip,Planner II
Emily Cameron,Planner II Miriam Coleman, GIS Staff
David Stancil, Planner II . Beth McFarland, GIS Staff
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
12 r f
,
' 13
DRAFT STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN
Table of Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................1
Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................3
Chapter 2: Vision and Value....................................................................5
Chapter 3: The Recommended Plan.......................................................11
Chapter 4: Implementation Strategies....................................................17
Appendices...............................................................................................23
r �
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 5, 1994, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the
following charge: "To prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for
implementation,for the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area southeast of the town of
Hillsborough." Since that time a 22 member Planning Group has worked on a land
use plan for the 4,700 acre area that achieves two goals:
1. Preserve landowners' rights to get fair value for their property; and
2. Protects the area's "rural character."
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified three levels
of land-use intensity that would help protect these resources. The resources
include Duke Forest, the Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor, scenic road corridors,
and existing farmland and neighborhoods. Lower intensity areas lie adjacent to
most of the resource areas and best typify the area's remaining rural character;
intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition between lower and
higher intensity; and higher intensity areas are adjacent to areas experiencing
urban growth pressures and at some future date will likely be annexed by a
municipality.
The Planning Group has recommended against traditional plan implementation
strategies such as rezoning, opting instead for the voluntary Flexible Development
Options (adopted by the County Commissioners on May 1 and effective July 1 as
an alternative to conventional subdivision development) with the following
modifications applicable within the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area:
1. Projects preserving 33% to 50% open space can use half of their density bonus
in the area while those preserving more than 50% can use it wherever desired.
2. Lower intensity areas are to be "sending" areas for density bonuses;
intermediate intensity areas are to be "sending" and "receiving" areas; and
higher intensity areas are to be "receiving" areas.
I Density bonuses created in the Stoney Creek area can be sent out, but density
bonuses from other areas cannot be transferred into the area.
4. Expedited review and approval of projects that preserve large amounts of open
space and enhance rural character should be included as an incentive.
i
. :..............:::..:............:::.......r:................:.>.....:..:.:...................:.«....:.>..::.>...: ... .................. ..................................................r...................e.......:.�..
..... <...... . . ?> < ?: < ..........................................<..........r........x...
.....
............................
r �
lb
The proposed Stoney Creek Small Area Plan will supersede' the 1988 plan for the
area by introducing the three land use intensity levels discussed above. However,
these will apply only where a landowner/developer chooses to use volun
Flexible Development Options. Since no zoning changes are proposed, the zoning
patterns as established by the current plan (1988) will remain in effect.
`A third draft of the plan text was distributed in late April for Planning Group review. Several members called and
suggested changes,but there was not time for an additional meeting to discuss them. Thus,suggested revisions
have not been incorporated in the text,but are referenced in footnotes as appropriate. Two members suggested
alternative wording to"supersede;" the suggestions included"augment"and"modify."
2
1
17
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
On December 5, 1994, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the
following charge: "To prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for
implementation,for the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area southeast of the town of
Hillsborough. " Since March 16, 1995, a 22 member Planning Group of
neighborhood representatives plus elected and appointed officials and seven
alternates has met 17 times to prepare the Stoney Creek Land Use Plan (see
Appendix A for a listing of the Planning Group members and alternates and
Appendix B for Planning Group meeting dates and attendance).
The 4,696 acre Stoney Creek Basin area lies southeast of the town of
Hillsborough. It is triangular in shape and is bounded generall by I-85 to the
north, the University Spur of the Southern Railroad to the east, and NC Highway
86 to the west. Data for April 1995 indicated 795 dwelling units in the area with
an estimated population of 2,135. Predominant land uses in the area include
residential at 1,393 acres (30%), agricultural/managed forest at 1,033 acres
(22%), and Duke Forest at 514 acres (11%). Commercial, industrial, institutional,
and transportation uses comprise less than 10% of the area. The remainder of the
area is classified as vacant/undeveloped and occupies 1,373 acres or 30% of the
area.
Because of its proximity to existing and future employment centers and
transportation corridors, as well as the available land supply, the population
residing in the Stoney Creek area has the potential to grow rapidly in the near
future. A small area plan is needed to manage growth consistent with the two
goals of the Planning Group:
1. Preserve landowners' rights to get fair value for their property; and
2. Protect the area's "rural character."
If adopted by the County Commissioners, the small area plan will add tol 1988
A third draft of the plan text was distributed in late April for Planning Group review. Several members called and
suggested changes,but there was not time for an additional meeting to discuss them. Thus,suggested revisions
have not been incorporated in the text,but are referenced in footnotes as appropriate. Two members suggested
alternative wording to"add to;" the suggestions included"augment"and"modify."
3
::,.,�? ...................... :::::.:..:.::.:.......................::.:....::.:::.:::::::::::.: :.:::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.: :.::::
e
18
1988 Land Use Plan amendments as the basis for County land-use policy in the
area. Also (upon adoption), implementation strategies specific to the area such as
modifications to the Flexible Development Proposal will take precedence over the
more general , countywide program on which they are based.
Note: The southern portion of the planning area is located in the Rural Buffer;
plan recommendations will not be applicable there unless an amendment to the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan is presented at public hearing and approved
by the governing boards of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County.
4
; �r ::�C�e ��,ra'>s�'tan....:::::::::::::::.:.�. :<i::::::::::.;:.;;:.:::;.; ' .` �•.:� �:1�+��':�'t� ..t� �ra�.'�. .�r',.�:,
13
CHAPTER 2
VISION and VALUE
As part of their charge, the County Commissioners specified that the Planning
Group be guided by the following general interests:
• Avoiding urban sprawl;
• Preserving protected watersheds and groundwater supplies;
• Encouraging bicycle and mass transit transportation in and between urban
areas;
• Protecting and preserving farmland and open space;
• Developing an appropriate mix of residential and nonresidential development;
• Encouraging fiscally responsible development;
• Involving neighborhood residents in the planning process; and
• Diversifying the revenue base of the Town and County.
With the above interests in mind, the Planning Group identified two primary goals
to guide development of the recommended plan:
1. To retain rural character, and
Z Preserve landowners'rights to get fair value for their property.
Two subcommittees (Vision and Value/Rights) were appointed to explore issues
related to the goals and to prepare written statements for Planning Group
consideration and endorsement. Each subcommittee met three times during the
fall of 1995 to fulfill their assignments. The Planning Group reviewed extensively
the subcommittee reports and adopted the work of both by consensus.
Vision for the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan
The process of defining a "vision" is in many ways like trying to define beauty; it is
largely in the eye of the beholder. The beginning stages reveal a variety of
individual visions, each equally valid, but often in conflict with one another.
However, any vision if zealously pursued to the extreme will preclude the
possibility for other equally valid visions to be incorporated in the final plan.
Therefore, we have defined our collective vision as a result of significant
5
Mew
s± :: :::::: :::::::::::::. .::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::.s:...................... :::::::::::::::::::..:::. .::::::.:: .:.
..........:................................................................................................ ................................................................................................... .................
F t
20
compromise, creativity, flexibility, and fairness with all who will have a hand in
shaping the future of the Stoney Creek Basin.
The development of a "vision" for the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan has considered
the natural, cultural, visual, and economic resources of the area in the context of
diverse viewpoints expressed during the planning process. Two key themes have
been prominent and seem central to development of the plan. These are, first, that it
is important to retain elements of the present rural character for the area and second,
that property owners should receive fair value for their land should they choose to
sell or develop it in some way.
Existing land use patterns in the Stoney Creek area reflect the nature of its rural
heritage. Expanses of agricultural (active and inactive) and forest land are
interspersed with residential development of varying scales, most of which occurs
on lots exceeding one acre in size and served by single wells and septic systems. An
expanding municipality on the area's periphery and its location between two
interstate highways enhance its attractiveness for development and contribute to
pressures for change.
The Stoney Creek Small Area Plan should serve to guide future changes in the
Stoney Creek Basin area while recognizing its rural heritage, cultural, historical, and
natural resources, and the rights of individual property owners. In this regard, the
goals of the Orange County Rural Character Study (initiated in the late 1980's to
address preservation of rural open space with minimal impact on affected property
owners) seem particularly relevant in defining the vision for the area. Specifically,
they focus on balancing development with agricultural preservation, protection of
natural, cultural, and visual resources, and managed growth, while maintaining
flexibility for landowners.
Elements of the plan should address the following:
• Development of mechanisms which will encourage preservation of rural
landscapes such as active farms, forests, and visual openness.
• Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of significant cultural and
historical features and the development of criteria and incentives for encouraging
their preservation.
6
.:: ....................................? .................
+ 21
• Continued identification, evaluation and inventory of natural terrain features,
visual resources, and sensitive ecological areas and the development of criteria
and incentives for encouraging their protection.
• Recognition of the generations of land stewardship by rural landowners and the
protection of their property rights and land values by providing a variety of
development options which will allow for flexibility and creativity in design.
• Protection of the character of existing neighborhoods from abrupt changes in
density or land use by providing densityl transitions. Also, provision should be
made to direct growth that is not rural in character toward more urbanized areas
where it can take advantage of existing infrastructure.
We recognize and acknowledge that we have a responsibility to balance all aspects
of the character of this area including its rural heritage, rights of landowners, and
likelihood of future change. The Stoney Creek Basin Land Use Plan should,
therefore, seek to preserve important elements of rural character and special natural-
features, while still allowing for quality development of rural and country suburban
neighborhoods; concurrent with this development should be a recognition of the
need for affordable housing and opportunities for active and passive recreation
through the provision of a community park. Finally, the plan should not preclude
the possibility of some very limite , internally oriented, commercial and service
locations compatible with preserving rural character and consistent with "Flexible
Development" options that may be available for the area. This must all be done
without unfair or unreasonable financial restrictions or burdens either for the
landowners who may desire to develop their property, or for the taxpaying citizens
of the area who may have to pay for any negative effects or excess costs for public
infrastructure of ill-planned development.
Property Value/Property Rights
Several areas of concern related to property rights, property values, and flexibility of
development were identified and discussed extensively by Planning Group.
`A third draft of the plan text was distributed in late April for Planning Group review. Several members called and
suggested changes,but there was not time for an additional meeting to discuss them. Thus,suggested revisions
have not been incorporated in the text,but are referenced in footnotes as appropriate. A member suggested that
"density"be preceded by"gradual'to better convey the intent of the Planning Group.
7
rea !'!lx> '1 :::.................. 71 3':: .::.................. . :: ` ?<: 9J1'tef .
:::::::.: _ ......::::::::. .:. ::::: .:.
• t
2 20
4 r
Pro Rights and Pr -
Values
Private
landowners have the right to develop their property as understood under the
U.S. Constitution and within the limits of community or public standards described
by current zoning and other ordinances.
In addition to rights, a landowner has responsibilities. There must be a balance
between what a landowner can do and what the larger community can expect.
Zoning, public health, and other rules regulating development help express this
balance and encourage responsible stewardship of the land.
The property's financial value is determined on the open market, when a buyer and a
seller voluntarily agree on a sale price. Value is influenced by many factors,
including supply and demand, zoning, development possibilities, natural features,
neighborhood character and community quality-of-life.
Perceived versus Actual Rights
Zoning and public health rules define the maximum number of housing units that
can be built per acre. The R-I zoning in most of the Stoney Creek Basin region
limits density to one housing unit per 40,000 square feet (about one acre) if the land
supports a septic tank, drainage system, and well. Because so much of the region
has soil that can't support septic drainage systems, the actual density achievable
under current law is usually less than one unit per one acre.
Landowners may perceive that they have a "right" to build one unit per one acre,
but, because of soil conditions, the reality is that current ordinances and health
regulations generally give them a right to build fewer units. If much land is in the
flood plain or steep slopes or other restricted areas, the density by right could be
even lower. A "yield plan" shows how many units a particular piece of land actually
will support under current regulations.
Property rights ,include protection from an arb� decrease of density
(downzoning); but they do = include the automatic right to any particular density
nor the right to a greater density than permitted by current regulations through the
use of government enhancements, such as rezoning or new water and sewer service.
Generally speaking, changes of density, up or down, absent arbitrariness, are policy
decisions, not rights.
s
:::'::jC :ii :i:_:,:„?: :i i .>::'.i::::jv:;.::;:"'.::::;Y..i,.,:::.iii^ :ii::::iiii:i`fii::i i::_:::i::i::'}j: :2>'?::<L:;:>:}::j:::':::.-::.!:SV%:i::::....,..i..Y..-}•:;:.:...:j i:'y::i'{::::.::.;?i:>::::'ivti::::jj::'.'.:;::::i::''?>
2.3
Flexibility of Development
Landowners traditionally cherish the ability to develop their land as they see fit.
Today, most landowners recognize the need for community standards -- or
regulation -- of development, because the actions of one neighbor can have a large
impact on others.
The list of permitted land uses in an area may provide more flexibility than a
community wants, or may restrict other uses that seem desirable. For example, in
the Stoney Creek Basin, the areas zoned R-1 permit construction of a large country
club or government office building, and, with a special-use permit, an airport,
sewage treatment plant, or land fill. But the ability to build an open-space, cluster-
style development is limited. Current law also does not allow landowners to use the
incentives and design guidelines in some of the large-lot options recommended by
the Rural Character Study Committee.
Stoney Creek Basin landowners should be able to choose from a variety of
development options that are consistent with good land stewardship, community
health standards, and Rural Character design guidelines. Offering landowners
constructive alternatives to meet these objectives is better than forcing them into a
very narrow range of options.
Recommendations
• Preserve the density permitted under current zoning and public health standards,
i.e., the density based on a yield plan for the land;
• Provide an array of flexible development options that will encourage landowners
to preserve open space and rural character such as those in the Rural Character
Study and Randall Arendt's open space development plans; .
• Consider some of the creative tools available to direct dense development into
urban growth,areas rather than beyond and to create incentives for landowners
and developers to preserve some undeveloped open land in the majority of the
Stoney Creek Basin which is beyond current urban growth boundaries. Tools
that can be considered within Orange county's jurisdiction include density
bonuses and penalties, speedy approval processes, adjustments to requirements
for private roads, adjustments to rules about sharing and placement of septic
9
.......}......i.i.i.i.:.^.i'.:.:.:::.:::.::..:'.:i.:i.:i.:i.:}.:i.:i.:".:.ti:.:?.:.:..::.:i.:i.::.i:.J:.:i.:.i:l....:.:.:.:.:.^:.:'.•:i.:i.:i.:i.:?.:i.:i.:i.:i.:i.::.::.::.::.::.:'..:i.:i.:i.:i.:i.:i.:i.:i..:.^.:i.i...:..^.:i.:i.::.:::.:.•i..:i.:i.}:.}..:}.:i.:i.:.:".:.":.:..v..:.:.:::•i:.:i::i...:i.:i:.:i..:i..:i.:::.:i.::.:.:.:.•:i.::.^:.:i.:i..i.:..i.i.:i.:i.:i.:i..i.i.:i.:i.:i.:i.i.}.:'.::..:}.::.::.:...ii.i.i.i.i.:i.:'.::.•:.:.::.:.i.:i.::.::.::.n:.:}.:•.::.r:.::.::.{:..}.:'.!:.S:.::
::::............................ :.::.: ...::v::::::: :::: ii
. .:::...f....:i..:J..
+ r
24
fields, tax breaks, and purchase of development rights. Tools that may require
changes in state law include transferable development rights; and
• Educate the entire community about land uses and densities that are currently
permitted; about how new tools of land use policy work; and about the
advantages and disadvantages of different development options.
io
;.:.'i: 'v:i:i:;!:v::::{;<��i'.?i::•(:;?v);;:�: i:w:: iii:::ii i::::::i:�:}i::iii ii'r'�"�?:isi:X.:tt::fi;;xi::ivii:i::ij::::i:::�:::�::::::;:}'.}:-:�:::i:::.::�i:''"':•:::Y.:.:.`.:<:j••:i i(•'i:i::'.
k�f ..:::.::•:::::
CHAPTER 3
THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
On September 14, 1995, the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning Group
appointed three subcommittees, Vision, Value/Property Rights, and Preliminary
Design. Following reports to the Planning Group on October 19 by the Vision and
Value/Property Rights Subcommittees, the Preliminary Design Subcommittee was
assigned the task of preparing a conceptual land use plan for the group to consider
on November 16.
Background
The Preliminary Design Subcommittee met three times following October 19. The
first meeting on October 25 was to define objectives/guidelines and determine map
and data needs. At the second meeting on November 1,the subcommittee began the
task of defining areas on a map. On November 9, a third meeting was held to refine
the map and review a first draft of this report.
Our objective was to create a vision of orderly land use compatible with the
statement of the Vision Subcommittee. We realize the ultimate achievability of this
land use vision is based on finding an acceptable means to implement this within the
Value/Property Rights Subcommittee guidelines.
Guidelines
The draft Vision Statement served as the starting point for defining guidelines and
additional areas for focus were drawn from previous work, primarily the Rural
Character design prepared in May. The subcommittee based its assumptions on the
realization that the vision statement was still evolving. The draft vision statement
was the source for the following numbered statements and the bulleted () items in
italics came primarily from the Rural Character design alternative.
1. Encourage preservation of rural landscapes including as much forested and
agricultural land- and active farming- as economically feasible for the landowner.
• Provide density transition around active farms (Strayhorn)
11
26
2. Encourage preservation of significant cultural and historical features.
• As identified in inventories
3. Protection of natural terrain features and sensitive ecological areas.
• Duke Forest
• Wildlife corridors along Stoney Creek
• Identified natural areas in inventories
4. Protection of area's visual resources.
• Vistas along New Hope Church Road and Strayhorn Farm
• Vistas along Old NC 10 and former Guernsdale Dairy
5. Protection of character of existing neighborhoods from incompatible land
uses/densities and direction of growth not rural in character toward
municipal/transition areas.
• Provide density transition between existing neighborhoods and areas
where future development may occur '
• Density should be generally higher in areas to north and west near
Hillsborough, lower to south and east near Rural Buffer
• No new commercial development in the planning area
In applying the guidelines to the planning area, we identified resource areas and
then in order to protect those resources, we developed three land use intensity
categories.
Resource Areas
Duke Forest: Primary area on which to focus preservation efforts. It serves as a
major area for teaching and research, outdoor recreation, filters water flowing into
Stoney Creek, and provides habitat for wildlife. Dense development adjacent to
forest degrades it and increases predation on wildlife by house pets. Our strategy is
to locate the lowest intensity uses practicable adjacent to Duke Forest.
Wildlife Corridor: Defined in the 1988 Inventory of the Natural Areas and
12
27
Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina prepared by Dawson Sather
and Stephen Hall for the Triangle Land Conservancy. The corridor lies 100 meters
(328 feet) on each side of Stoney Creek and connects Duke Forest and the Eno
River. Wherever practicable, we recommend low intensity uses adjacent to the
corridor,* although there are some areas proposed for intermediate and higher
intensity adjacent to the corridor.
New Hope Presbyterian Church: A portion of the land on which New Hope
Presbyterian Church and cemetery is located extends into the planning area
immediately south of the NC 86/New Hope Church Road intersection. This is part
of a much larger series of contiguous tracts comprising almost 200 acres and
containing Camp New Hope. The subcommittee recognizes the historical and
cultural significance of these properties and to the maximum extent practicable,
recommends low intensity uses adjacent thereto. Note: This portion of the
planning area is located in the Rural Buffer and contains approximately 270
acres; plan recommendations will not be applicable there unless an amendment
to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan is presented at public hearing and
approved by the governing boards of Chapel Big, Carrboro, and Orange
County.
Proposed Scenic Road Corridors: Two sections of road in the planning area are
proposed for scenic corridors. These include all of New Hope Church Road in the
study area and Old NC 10 from its intersection with University Station Road west to
the railroad overpass in the vicinity of Strayhorn Hills. The winding nature of the
roads, vistas of existing and former farmland, and repeated transitions of forest-to-
open (especially along New Hope Church Road) contribute to scenic qualities along
the two roads.
Existing Farmland: The Strayhorn farm is currently the primary active farm in the
study area and contains about 125 acres. The subcommittee has chosen not to
establish a separate category to set it apart from surrounding properties. They felt
one of the best ways to keep the land in farming was by reducing impacts when land
adjacent to it developed. The strategy has been to propose the lowest intensity uses
practicable adjacent to the farm. For the most part, this is a continuation of existing
development patterns on adjacent lands. In total, there is slightly over 1,000 acres
in the Stoney Creek Basin Area assessed under agricultural use value taxation, the
overwhelming majority of it being classified as managed forest land.
13
2b
Existing Neighborhoods: The subcommittee placed a high priority on the
character of existing development and proposed that future development be
compatible in scale. New adjacent development should, wherever practicable, be of
the same density. Where this is not possible, a gradual' transition from lower-
intensity to higher-intensity areas should be provided.
Land Use Intensity Categories
In undeveloped portions of the planning area where residential development might
ultimately take place, the subcommittee defined three land use intensity levels:
higher, intermediate, and lower.
Higher Intensity Areas: These areas are generally synonymous with the ten and
twenty year transition areas in the existing Land Use Plan (adopted 1981, amended
1988) or they are adjacent to areas proposed for future development on an urban
scale. At some future date, they will most likely be incorporated into the
municipalities of Hillsborough and Durham through the annexation process. A mix
of land uses is possible in these areas and they will be served by water and sewer.
They could be viewed as "receiving areas" for lower density areas to the south.
Most Higher Intensity Areas lie in the west and northwest parts of the planning area.
There is however, one smaller portion situated on the eastern tip of the area adjacent
to the I-85/US 70 EDD. Density in these areas will be determined by the
availability of water and sewer. Higher Intensity Areas cover approximately 700
acres of the planning area.
Intermediate Intensity Areas: These areas are intended to provide a transition
between Higher and Lower Intensity Areas. They are envisioned as being
predominantly residential with density being determined in large part by the
character of existing development; water and sewer extension is unlikely. The
largest area of intermediate intensity includes Strayhorn Hills and Wyngate and
intervening areas bordering I-85. Smaller areas of intermediate intensity lie west of
University Station Road between I-85 and Old NC 10 and on both sides of
University Station Road south of Old NC 10. A third very small section separates
the southwestern corner of Duke Forest along NC 86 from higher intensity to the
1 A third draft of the plan text was distributed in late April for Planning Group review. Several members called
and suggested changes,but there was not time for an additional meeting to discuss them. Thus,suggested revisions
have not been incorporated in the text,but are referenced in footnotes as appropriate. A member suggested that by
"gradual"be followed by"density"to better convey the intent of the Planning Group.
14
29
west adjacent to the I-40/Old NC 86 EDD. Intermediate Intensity Areas cover
approximately 1,210 acres of the planning area.
Lower Intensity Areas: These areas comprise a substantial part of the planning
area and contain most of the "Resource Areas" delineated on the draft plan. The
current character of these areas is residential development on relatively large lots, a
considerable number of large undeveloped tracts (both open and forested), and the
only active farm in the area. Lower Intensity Areas best typify the area's remaining
rural character. These are the areas where many of the plan's protection goals
(natural resource, visual, and neighborhood) will be achieved. Lower Intensity
Areas are proposed to have the lowest average development densities in the future,
to be determined in part by the character of existing development. Implementation
tools that may be applied will probably go beyond limitations on density and could
include features such as buffers and easements. Extension of water and sewer
service to these areas is=envisioned.
Lower Intensity Areas lie in the central and southern part of the study area adjacent
to Duke Forest, the Strayhorn farm, New Hope Church Road, and the Rural Buffer
area to the southwest, south, and southeast. A portion of the area also extends north
to I-85 in the undeveloped area east of Strayhorn Hills to provide a low-density
separation between the future urban expansion of Durham and Hillsborough. Lower
Intensity areas cover approximately 2,500 acres of the planning area (this includes
approximately 750 acres contained in Duke Forest and the Stoney Creek wildlife
corridor). Note: The southern tip of the planning area is located in the Rural
Buffer and contains approximately 270 acres; plan recommendations will not
be applicable there unless an amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan is presented at public hearing and approved by the governing boards of
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County.
Features From Other Plans
Two features from other plans covering the area are retained in the draft small area
plan:
Community Park: A recommendation of the Orange County Master Recreation
and Parks Plan (1988) is a "community park" in the vicinity of New Hope Church
Road and Old NC 10. Such a park would contain areas for active (athletic fields and
courts) and passive (wooded areas and trails) outdoor recreation, generally some
15
30 r
r
type of water body, and be approximately 25 acres in size. The park will be
implemented either through land dedication or purchase of land from payment-in-
lieu funds. Also, effective April 1, 1996, the County Commissioners substantially
increased payment-in-lieu fees for parkland acquisition.
Commercial-Industrial Activity Node: The Land Use Element - Orange County
Comprehensive Plan states the following about the node located at I-85 and NC 86:
This node, focused on the intersection of an Interstate and arterial road,
contains a number of existing commercial and industrial uses. A satellite to
this node exists farther south on NC 86, separated from the rest of the node by
a medium density residential neighborhood. There are no maj or
environmental constraints to hinder more intensive development in the main
portion of the node. With the possible exception of the area immediately to
the south of the intersection of Old NC 10 and NC 86, there would be no
disruption of areas with a residential character. Additional development in
the satellite should be restricted to avoid adverse impacts on Duke Forest and
neighboring residential communities. Although the ability of NC 86 to
handle additional traffic may hinder some development, the existence of
sewer service and the road system within the node make it a good site for new
commercial and industrial development.
A draft plan map depicting the above-referenced resource and land use intensity
categories is presented on the following page.
16
�f��� ��"'�����— sly \����i=�� �►���u
�l�. °ice � i; � ;• �TF■ � ��
�� : ►: ,� t• •�� Cie
ISO
IN
pl
,Oil
v It
IS git,
''`\,�1��► 7 �a,���` 1 r ��,►••� \ice
�""�
IS
l"Do;lf
RA
.�. .► -� � _
`■ ■ �.� � �..��\� �,J±II fwd ��9:,
l
.., dill I
- :�� Liar ►_ � --
1 1 1
1
32 r
f
A
33
CHAPTER 4
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Two key themes have guided development of the draft Stoney Creek Small Area
Plan. These are, first, that it is important to retain elements of the present rural
character for the area and second, that property owners should receive fair value for
their land should they choose to sell or develop it in some way. The draft plan
reflects a substantial commitment of time, resources, and efforts at consensus
building by the Stoney Creek Planning Group.
The most expedient way to implement the plan recommendations would be to
amend the zoning ordinance to create higher, intermediate, and lower intensity
districts with required minimum lot sizes consistent with the plan recommendations.
However, this is perceived by the Planning Group to be at odds with the underlying
premises of the Plan and could effectively undermine efforts. at achieving
consensus across a broad spectrum of landowner opinion.
The Property Value/Rights Subcommittee states that, "Stoney Creek landowners
should be able to choose from a variety of development options that are consistent
with good land stewardship, community health standards, and Rural Character
design guidelines. Offering landowners constructive alternatives to meet these
objectives is better than forcing them into a very narrow range of options." The
Flexible Development proposal presented at public hearing on November 27, and
currently being considered by the County Commissioners, is consistent with this
statement and offers an alternative to wholesale rezoning of the area.
It needs to be emphasized that Flexible Development is NOT a transferable
development rights program! The provisions related to density bonuses are based,
in part, on existing regulations applicable to affordable housing, the
recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee, and the proposed
Preliminary Recommendations for a Regional Transit Plan as prepared by the
Triangle Transit Authority. Both affordable housing and open space bonus options
1 A third draft of the plan text was distributed in late April for Planning Group review. Several members called
and suggested changes,but there was not time for an additional meeting to discuss them. Thus,suggested revisions
have not been incorporated in the text,but are referenced in footnotes as appropriate. A member suggested that
"effectively"and"across a broad spectrum of landowner opinion"be deleted and that"both within the Planning
Group and within the larger community"be inserted.
17
34 i
have similar provisions; e.g., affordable units or additional open space may be
provided on-site or off-site.
Flexible Development QZjons Summary
The basic provisions of Flexible Development presented at the public hearing are:
• The existing one-acre minimum lot size would be retained.
• The provision of open space would be optional, however a developer seeking
conventional development would be required to submit two concept plans - one
for a conventional subdivision and another for a "flexible" or open space
subdivision.
• If a Flexible Development option is chosen, at least one-third (33%) of the land
within a subdivision must be preserved as open space which may be preserved
through:
0 An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres
or greater in size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot, and the
open space outside such limits is preserved through restrictive covenants
and/or conservation easements; or
0 A "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open
space is preserved through the use of conservation easements held by the
County or a land conservancy; or
0 A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through
such reductions is dedicated to the County or a land conservancy, or owned
and maintained by a homeowners' association.
• Density bonuses, while limited by the type of water supply/sewage disposal
service available to the development, may be achieved by:
0 Providing greater amounts of open space than required; or
0 Providing affordable housing units either as part of the development or at an
off-site location; or
18
35
0 Purchasing the development rights on farm or forest lands, natural areas, and
similar resources; or
0 Some combination of the above.
• Water supply/sewage disposal service may include:
0 Individual wells and septic systems on each lot or located off-lot within a
recorded easement, including subsurface disposal or spray irrigation on
open land; or
0 A community water and/or sewage disposal system, including subsurface
disposal or spray irrigation on open land, designed, constructed, and
maintained in conformity with all applicable state, federal, and local rules
and regulations; or
0 Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a
municipality, association, or water or sewer authority. As part of such service
provision, public water and sewer extensions would be permitted to defined
"transit corridors" and "transition areas."
Flexible Development defines two types of open space, Primary Conservation
Areas and Secondary Conservation Areas. Primary areas consist of wetlands,
floodplains (100 year) and alluvial soils, steep slopes (>25%), natural areas,
wildlife habitats and corridors, and historic and archaeological sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. Secondary conservation areas consist of
woodlands, farmland, slopes of 15% to 25%, other historic and/or archaeological
sites, public and/or private recreation areas and facilities, and scenic views. The
map at the end of this chapter depicts primary and secondary conservation areas
for the Stoney Creek Basin.
It is important to remember that Flexible Development options are voluntary an d
landowners still have the choice of conventional subdivision development! By
offering incentives, the plan aims to encourage types of development that protect
rural character and the landowner's economic value.
19
l
lJ
Planning C=up Recommendations
The Planning Group suggests the following modifications to Flexible
Development to make it specific to the Stoney Creek area:
1) Flexible Development allows a density bonus of an additional housing unit for
every acre of open space preserved above the 33% minimum. For Stoney Creek:
• Up to 50% open space allows half of the bonus units to be used in the Stoney
Creek area (for example, if two bonus units are allowed, one can be used in the
Stoney Creek area, but the other has to be used outside the area); and
• preserved open space in excess of 50% permits the owner to use the bonus
units wherever desired (for example, if two bonus units are allowed, both can
be used in Stoney Creek, or one inside and one outside, or both outside).
2) Where density bonuses can be used:
r
• The lower intensity area is a sending area for density bonuses, i.e., bonus units
resulting from open space preserved here cannot be used here, but must be
transferred elsewhere;
• the intermediate intensity area is a sending and receiving area, i.e., density
bonuses originating here can be used here as well as density from lower
intensity areas;
• the higher intensity area is a receiving area for density transferred from the
lower and intermediate areas; and
• density bonuses created in the Stoney Creek area can be utilized as stated
above, but density from other areas-cannot be transferred into the Stoney Creek
area.
3) Flexible Development allows 50% of active recreation land to count toward
open space. The Planning Group recommends that active recreation uses
continue to be permitted in the lower intensity areas, but that they not count
toward open space.
4) To encourage the use of Flexible Development, a package of incentives has
been included. As an added incentive the Planning Group recommends expedited
review and approval of projects that preserve large amounts of open space and
20
• J�
enhance rural character. As currently envisioned, expedited review would entail
review and approval of projects by County staff as opposed to the more lengthy
process of Planning Board review and County Commissioner approval. Currently,
minor subdivisions (the creation of five lots or less) and projects consistent with
Economic Development District guidelines receive expedited review. Care must
be taken when considering activities for expedited review because an important
element of public oversight is foregone.
Two areas in which the group has consensus regarding expedited review are for:
1. Developments that preserve 70% open space; and
2. Rural subdivisions with lot sizes averaging five acres or more that follow the
Flexible Development Rural Design Guidelines and ensure against further
subdivision of lots.
21
��!� li v�-1►�.1 !�•iir•� .� X11- i11.' '.j1�.�...
�\ �i''YA _. _1... +_ �► is i j t=� �t.,��..i•,fit
Priv
MIS izaiJ
�oI/hrw���,�
Orr
JWP
111 r� "�t��� � �. �r � �� d �!�i� ��►�'
���� ► rte tA
41 `��i� �M��. �,�, �rl�����f��"/��� �■�
P,r,,,��� � '•%'�: �����yt�,i .�/t-SIR.
�' ■i�w► .� ,ins- •�����/�61�1_ �,---- -
. 33
APPENDICES
23
:•. .:•. \ •± •iv7 is ;#
40
APPENDIX A
41
STONEY CREEK BASIN PLANNING GROUP
NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE
Colonial Hills Steve Price Kim Price
1801 Washington St. 1801 Washington St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278
732-2005 732-2005
Joppa Oaks Bobby Nicholson Kenneth Maynard
2436 Lonnie Circle 2439 Lonnie Circle
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278
732-8348 732-7142
NC 86 Area Trudy Cuffe None
3630 NC 86 South
Hillsborough, NC 27278
732-7554
New Hope/ Michael Warner Trish Rafalow
Powder Mill/ 100 Europa Drive 4512 Powder Mill Rd.
Bumphus Road Suite 250 Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 382-2950
383-8213
James Bumphus
4118 Bumphus Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
383-4673
Old NC 10 South Gary Hanker John Ringland
2622 Hoot Owl Drive 2512 Hoot Owl Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278
644-7199 644-2977
Stoney Creek Meg McKean Dan Kenan
3711 Stoneycreek Rd. 3522 Bluestone Ct.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Unlisted Number 732-4607
Strayhorn Hills Dan *Teichman Irene VanDyke
2310 Stagecoach Dr. 3015 Carriage Trail
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278
644-0874 732-8014
David Yelton
3035 Carriage Trail
Hillsborough, NC 27278
732-4672
University Station Curtis Bane None
Road Area 3Q09 University Station Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
383-1559
Wyngate Dean Zehnder Thea Wilson
2121 Old Forest Dr. 2108 Old Forest Trail
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278
644-8365 732-5421
Old NC 10 North None None
Stoney Creek Farms None None
42o
STONEY CREEK BASIN PLANNING GROUP (CONTINUED)
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE (S)
At Large Bob Strayhorn
2103 New Hope Church Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
967-1467
Dr. Angelaurelio Soldi
4317 Cedar Pass
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
383-2853
Lee Rafalow
4512 Powder Mill Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
382-2950
Duke University Judson Edeburn
School of the Environment
Duke University
PO Box 90328
Durham, NC 27708
613-8014
Orange County Keith Cook
School Board 419 Calvary Ct.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
644-1657
Economic Development Bob Hall
Commission 5706 Old Stony Way
Durham, NC 27705
489-1931
Triangle Land Bill Bracey
Conservancy Arbor Realty
431 W. Franklin St.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
967-4116
Orange County Clint Burklin
Planning Board 3811 Stoneycreek Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
732-4379
Renee A. Price
1701 Riverside Dr.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
383-5284
Orange County Dr. Stephen Halkiotis
Commissioners 1007 Panther Ct.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
644-6863
Don Willhoit
203 Lexington Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
942-2571
Rev. 11-2-95
4.3
r a� rxrrrrrrrra� ra� rrrrrrr a� 0 — W ;Rr A
�(� •t NO �p N {{((�� f� aaN N pp N le - f, •- vO w t0N
x � � N Q7N W � (7 O0f •- aD OCOR � f� I� ♦7 N< I� �
Q z
Q In 49 lO �� •f X10 V 1A1AN <O COON v t"71- m N N 1- 00li e- f7N 1�1
W = !�f/
W
+ d
H
Q
a
a
d a
� m
c
c
C LO �
Aa
d d �w dwi
� o a
r a
I wi dw d+ w d H �w w H �w d w I
Y
C
r r r r C Hd
d d d
` a
� a
m �
a
in wpm �
N � � � � •- rrr H- r -1+1+ .- r r Cl V
_HT w. H+ w dd + H ww
C_
d
N
r
C
• 7
y m " C6 E 1
vm
1tE (6 o �lam
all
03 CE Cc
44
Stone 's Creek:
A History of the Stoney Creek Area
by
Donald R. Belk, AICP
Orange County Planning Department
Edward Stone received land grants from agents of Earl Granville in
1755 and 1761. The Earl, John Carteret, was heir to one of the
eight Lords Proprietors, who received the original 1663 grant of
the Carolinas from King Charles II of England. Since it was
common during early colonial times for streams to be named after
the owner of the lands they crossed, the creek traversing Mr.
Stone' s property was henceforth known as Stone' s Creek. First
seen on the Collet map of 1770, the name held until at least 1882,
when it was shown on the Kerr-Cain map.
Prehistory
Archaeological evidence has shown an active Native American
presence in the Eno River area around present-day Hillsborough.
The Indians of the Woodland Period (500 BC up to the first
European contact, about AD 1500) practiced .agriculture to
supplement the hunting and gathering of food. During this period,
the introduction of pottery and bow-hunting represented the most
significant changes to Indian culture. With the fertile
floodplains supplying their source of food, the villages became
stable communities. The extensive network of trails, and the
system of creeks and rivers provided opportunities for a mingling
of tribes from throughout the region.
The topography along Stoney Creek suggests a high probability for
the occurrence of significant archeological sites. The Congaree
soils that are prevalent within the Stoney Creek floodplain north
of SR 1710 probably contain sites from the Woodland period. In
the North Carolina Piedmont, many notable prehistoric settlement
sites have been found on Congaree soils, including the Hogue,
Fredericks, and Jenrette sites near Hillsborough.
Early American history relies upon the accounts of the German
physician John Lederer in 1670, and John Lawson, who observed
Indian settlements in the present-day Hillsborough area during his
famous 1701 exploration of the Carolinas. It is likely that the
46
Stoney Creek area was inhabited by native American peoples from
about 8000 BC until their demise in the late 17th century. The
last Native American groups to live in the region included the
Occaneechee, Eno, Shakori, and Saxapahaw.
Colonial Times
The first European settlers in the Stoney Creek basin area began
arriving by the mid-eighteenth century. Most of the new emigrants
to eastern Orange County were of Scots-Irish stock, and came from
Pennsylvania along the Great Philadelphia Wagon Road. They
travelled southward through the Shenandoah Valley and into North
Carolina along the Occaneechi Trail (also known as the Indian
Trading Path) . Today, St. Mary's Road follows the route of this
trail. Gilbert Strayhorn was among the first to take up land, and
settled near Stone' s Creek. According to local tradition, Gilbert
Strayhorn built his house on a knoll which today would lie on the
south side of Old NC 10, just west of New Hope Church Road. The
Strayhorns remain a prominent family in the Stoney Creek area.
Other early settlers in the area were the Craig, Freeland,,
Blackwood, Kirkland, Nelson, and Conner families.
During most of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, subsistence
agriculture was the primary occupation. Self-sufficient, yeoman
farmers were the foundation of the early agrarian society. Most
farmers held between 80-100 acres, growing a variety of
subsistence crops such as beans, peas, wheat, corn, and potatoes.
Farmers raised cattle and sheep, but primarily swine, which could
forage in the forests along Stone's Creek. Corn, which could be
converted to whiskey, and wheat provided the main cash crops for
these farmers. When land and labor were sufficient, small farmers
grew a few acres of tobacco to provide cash or barter.
The farmer's extended family formed the basis of his community,
and the church remained the hub of social life. The major church
in the area, the New Hope Presbyterian Church, was established in
1756. An important as churches in the social interactions of
colonial farm life were the mills. The old mills provided power
for grindstones and sawmills but were just as valuable as
community meeting places. Families who spent long, isolated days
on the farm welcomed a trip to the nearest mill, where they could
exchange news and fellowship with other farmers. There is a
historical reference to a Baldwin Mill located on Stone's Creek.
2
47
Court records from 1805 show that James Strayhorn petitioned to
build a gristmill on Stone's Creek.
The Borland-McCauley Mill, located near the confluence of Stone' s
- Creek and the Eno River, was the chief mill in the area. Although
the technology of power generation changed from water to steam,
the geographical advantage remained: the site later became a Duke
Power station.
Mid-Nineteenth Centu3zc
Slavery existed on a relatively small scale in Orange County,
compared to the large, commercially oriented plantations of
eastern North Carolina. Only the larger landholders owned
significant numbers of slaves. Few small farmers owned slaves,
and most of those owned less than ten. A slave-owning yeoman
farmer may have had but one black family in servitude, and they
lived and worked side-by-side. The two families dwelled and
toiled in such close proximity to each other that their food,
clothing, and shelter were barely distinguishable.
Small farmsteads were the predominant feature of the cultural
landscape of Stoney Creek throughout the 19th century.
Agriculture continued to be diversified, with cotton becoming an
important commodity in the trend toward cash-crop farming. The
railroad, completed in the mid-1850x, opened up new markets,
allowing farmers to begin concentrating on one or two cash crops,
mostly cotton and tobacco.
University Station was born when owners of the land adjacent to
the North Carolina Railroad realized its development potential.
An 1856 newspaper account reported that Calvin Strayhorn was
offering for sale twenty half-acre lots "lying immediately on
Stone's Creek. " Strayhorn and others dreamed that University
Station would become a bustling crossroads for trade between
Chapel Hill and the rest of Orange County. However, it was never
more than a passenger stop for people traveling to and from the
University of North Carolina.
No industries developed at this point along on the railroad line,
and by 1890 only about twenty-five persons, mostly farmers, lived
there. The Clayton House, formerly a boarding house for
travelers, survives to this day.
3
48
S onPy Creek Today
The Stoney Creek area maintained a largely rural character into
the second half of the twentieth century. The only significant
commercial development occurred in the northern reaches of the
basin as a result of automobile travel along US Highway 70, built
in 1924 . The original route is now known as US Highway 70A.
Other modern roadways came relatively late to the Stoney Creek
basin. Old NC 10, once the major east-west route through the
area, was essentially replaced by Highway 70 and not paved until
1947. The present-day US 70 Bypass was completed in 1948 to route
traffic north of Hillsborough. Many other roads within the Stoney
Creek area remained unpaved until the 1950'x. New Hope Church
Road was paved in 1952. The Interstate Highway era came to the
region during 1960-61, when I-85 opened. An interchange to I-40
at New Hope Church Road, just outside the Stoney Creek basin,
opened in 1988, creating rapid access to Durham, Research Triangle
Park, Burlington, and Greensboro.
Today, - single-family residential neighborhoods have replaced the
small to medium-sized farmsteads. The Strayhorn Farm, located in
the New Hope community since the early 18th century, is the only
substantial agricultural operation remaining in the basin,
producing primarily beef cattle.
The largest, undisturbed natural area remaining within Stoney
Creek is - the 519-acre Eno Division tract of Duke Forest. The
nucleus of this forest was created in 1927 by acquisition of lands
from the Benjamin N. Duke Farm. Additional tracts were acquired
over 30 years, with the last acquisition made in 1957. Today, 484
acres are classified by Duke University as Research Project Lands,
the second highest category for protection and retention. A 35-
acre tract, located north, of the railroad track, is classified as
Residual Endowment Land, which could be subject to sale and
development.
The first, large residential neighborhoods that came to the Stoney
Creek area consisted of primarily mobile homes on small lots.
Colonial Hills, Colonial Park and Joppa Oaks, opened in the early
1970s, contained quarter-acre and half-acre parcels. Construction
of Strayhorn Hills, the area' s first single-family residential
neighborhood, was started in 1976, with lot sizes averaging
4
49
• slightly over one acre. Development of the Stoney Creek
subdivision started in 1978, featuring lots ranging from three to
over five acres in size. The Wyngate subdivision, consisting of
one to two-acre parcels, opened during 1989.
Similar subdivision development across Orange County created the
need for new schools. New Hope Elementary School, located at the
corner of NC 86 and New Hope Church Road, was completed in 1991.
The new A. L. Stanback Middle School opened in 1995 and is located
on NC 86 just north of the elementary school.
During the last two decades, the Research Triangle of North
Carolina became of the country's most rapidly growing areas.
Today, the growth that has resulted from the Triangle' s livability
and strong economy threatens to forever alter the character and
appeal of many of the area' s traditional communities. Likewise,
Stoney Creek' s desirability as a location for residential
development has dramatically increased growth pressures there.
Local concerns over growth issues reached a climax in June 1992
when the University Station development was proposed. The vacant
land in this area had been slated for development for several
years, but this proposal, which would create a 600-acre "neo-
traditional village" with over 1100 lots, a high-density core area
with mixed housing, an 18-hole golf course, and a 25-acre public
park, galvanized the community. Opponents to the proposal
believed the scale of University Station would cause traffic
problems, degrade the natural environment, and destroy the rural
character of the Stoney Creek basin. Despite numerous studies and
reports, public hearings, and the creation of a University Station
planning work group, the divisive issues of density, land use,
open space preservation, and annexation by Hillsborough were not
resolved to the satisfaction of either the community or the
University Station development consortium. Ultimately, the
proponents withdrew their village proposal and are in the process
of developing low-density residential subdivisions that will
encompass the remaining 800 acres of open land near New Hope
Church Road and Old NC 10.
Many Stoney Creek residents believe the University Station
proposal was a turning point in their community's future. Even
though the development concept proved unsuccessful, it
unquestionably heightened community awareness of land-use planning
issues. As a result of the University Station issue, the Board of
5
50
Commissioners resolved to continue efforts with the Town of
Hillsborough to cooperatively plan for growth in the central part
of the county. As part of this cooperative planning effort, the
Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Planning process was initiated.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. B. Durham County: A History of Durham County. North
Carolina Duke University Press, 1990 .
Daniel, I. R. , Jr. An Archaeological Survey of Portions of Orange
County, North Carolina. Research Report No. 12, Research
Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill. September 1994.
Lally, K. A. and R. Little. Chapel Hill Township Survey, Final
Report. June, 1992.
Lefler, H. and P. -Wager, eds. Orange county 1752-1952 . The
Orange Printshop, 1952.
Peck, T. and J. Carter. Orange County Multiple Property
Documentation Form: Historic Resources of Orange County.
July, 1993 .
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. An Archaeological and
Historical Overview of the Proposed University Station
Project, Hillsborough/Chapel Hill Vicinity, Orange County,
North Carolina. Section III in Preliminary Evaluation of
Ecological and Archaeological Resources at University Station
Site. October, 1992.
6
51
Appendix I
Sites of Historical Significance
The Boyd House (OR 682) is an impressive two story I-house that
was probably built around 1900 . The house has Greek Revival
detailing and ornate interior woodwork. A slave cemetery is
reputed to exist at the site. Researchers found a collection of
fieldstones but were unable to substantiate the claim.
The Benjamin Duke House (OR 666) is a substantial Victorian house
constructed in 1896 . It features several ornamental brackets,
impressive gable returns, and an elaborate porch featuring turned
and sawn work. The property includes the Duke Hogan office which
was originally located across the street from the house, then
moved behind the house sometime around 1950 . In July, 1993, the
Benjamin Duke House was placed on the Study List for the National
Register of Historic Places.
The James Strayhorn Cemetery (OR 697) is located east of the
abandoned Guernsdale Dairy Farm. There are several unmarked
graves and approximately eight marked graves at this cemetery,
which is overgrown with vegetation. The most recent field
investigation describes markers dated from 1836 to 1905. This
cemetery is probably associated with the Boyd House and farmstead.
Considering Stoney Creek's two hundred year history, it is highly
probable that other, undocumented cemeteries exist. There are
unconfirmed reports that a large slave cemetery is located on a
hillside near the James Strayhorn cemetery. Another was reported
to exist at the northwest corner of University Station Road and
Old NC 10 . Another family cemetery, containing the graves of
John (1791-1858) and Susan (1799-1871) is located off University
Station Road between I-85 and U.S. 70 . This cemetery also
contains the grave of Susanna Bolland (Borland?) who died in 1850
at the age of 95.
The New Hope Presbyterian Church and Cemetery (OR 458) was
organized in 1756 and is one of the oldest congregations in Orange
County. The current church cemetery was founded in 1868 . The
slate marker of Vernon Craig (born and died in 1868) notes that
his was "the first grave in this ground" . Gilbert (1715-1803) ,
one of the church' s founders, is buried in the old cemetery that
adjoins the original church site. Engravings of a few other
J
markers in the yard note that the graves were moved to the
cemetery from other locations.
The Guernsdale Dairy Farm (OR 679) site lies upon land once owned
by Benjamin Duke. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century, this area was known as "The Meadows" . This farm
contained a grandiose farmhouse with a three-story tower, a large
barn, and numerous outbuildings, and the entire development was
enclosed by a white rail fence. All of these structures were
apparently razed prior to 1930 . The present complex includes two
houses, several barns, and outbuildings. It is in a serious state
of deterioration: Nonetheless, it is relatively modern in
comparison with most agricultural establishments listed in Orange
County' s historic resource inventory. Its origins probably date
from the 1930s.
The Clayton House (OR 995) is located directly across from the
railroad tracks at the University Station junction. The long,
narrow house was likely constructed in the early to mid-19th
century. The rear ell was added to the house in the 1870s to
provide additional rooms for travelers.
The Craig Manor Ruins (OR 698) mark the site of a complex of
houses and farm buildings with origins dating to the mid-18th
century. The house was expanded to twice its size in the 1850s.
Originally associated with the Strayhorn family, the house passed
into the Craig family in the late 19th century, and was enlarged
again around 1920 into an elaborate mansion with a large ballroom.
The house was destroyed by fire in the late 1980s.
The Strayhorn House (OR 456) retains a prominent presence along
New Hope Church Road. This two-story "I-house" was added to an
earlier one-story-with-attic farmhouse around 1900. During the
1940s, it was remodeled in the Colonial Revival style. The
original farmhouse, which dates to the mid-19th century, forms the
rear block of the house. It retains its original stone base-and-
brick stack chimney.
The Craig-Blackwood House (OR 452) is named after two of the
oldest families in the Stoney Creek/New Hope area. Although
several additions have been made to this structure, the core of it
is a one-story-with-attic log dwelling thought to date to 1811.
It is one of several rectangular single-pen log houses in Chapel
Hill Township, representing a standard 19th century house type.
2
53
The Craig-3trayhorn-Blackwood Farm (OR 457) is one of the oldest
farmsteads in the area. The house was originally a log structure
dating to 1827, but it was expanded and completely remodeled as a
bungalow in the 1920s. Outbuildings on this 140-acre farm include
a board-and-batten smokehouse, milkhouse, frame privy, several
chicken houses, and a large barn. Traces of an old stagecoach
road are visible in the front yard.
The Duke Power Worker House (OR 1015) is a modest structure built
around 1910 as housing for workers at a new Duke Power station.
It was part of a 90-employee industrial complex upon the original
site of the Borland-McCauley Mill, which was located at the
confluence of Stoney Creek and the Eno River. The house is
unremarkable except for its slate roof, which may have been made
from slate found near the power plant. The structure exists in a
deteriorated condition.
The Mac House (OR 675) is a well-maintained, typical bungalow that
features exposed rafter ends and brackets under the eaves. It was
probably built in the mid-1930s.
House, Victorian, c. 1910 (OR 460) . This T-shaped Victorian house
features turned porch posts, gable returns, and an interior brick
chimney with a corbelled cap. The house features German siding.
The front porch has been screened.
3
54
t
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
I, Gene Bell, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT:
On or about May 10, 1996, I sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, a
Notice of Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, May 28, at 7:30 PM in the
Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), at 106 East
Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of providing all
interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against Land Use Plan
Amendment CP-2-96, Stoney Creek Small Area Plan. The notice was sent to
734 property owners inside the planning area and 209 property owners within 500
feet of the planning area boundaries.
Gene Bell, Planner III
Zoning Officer
ATTEST: Joanna Bradshaw
Notary
' r
56 Nift: Salutation on letter to property owners within 500 feet stated:Dear Owner of Property Within 500 Feet
of the Stoney Creek Basin Area:
May 10, 1996
Dear Stoney Creek Basin Property Owner:
The following text is excerpted from a public hearing announcement which will run in the News of
Orange on May 15 and 22 and the Chapel Hill Herald on May 16 and 23. It is being mailed to all
property owners of record in the area known as the Stoney Creek Basin and also property owners within
500 feet of this area. The Stoney Creek Basin is defined generally as lying south of I-85, west of the
University branch of Southern Railroad, and east of New NC Highway 86(see map on back of this letter).
A public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106
East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. for the
purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items:
ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
1. CP-2-96 Stoney Creek Small Area Plan
AMEND the Orange County Land Use Plan to incorporate the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan. On
December 5, 1994, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the following charge: "To
prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for implementation,for the Stoney Creek Basin
Planning Area southeast of the town of Hillsborough." Since that time, a 22 member Planning
Group has worked on a land use plan for the 4,700 acre area that achieves two goals:
1. Makes sure landowners get fair value for their property; and
2. Protects the area's"rural character."
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified three levels of land-use
intensity that would help protect these resources. The resources include Duke Forest, the Stoney
Creek Wildlife Corridor, scenic road corridors, and existing farmland and neighborhoods. Lower
intensity areas lie adjacent to most of the resource areas and best typify the area's remaining rural
character; intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition between lower and
higher intensity; and higher intensity areas are adjacent to areas experiencing urban growth
pressures and at some future date will likely be annexed into a municipality. The Planning Group
has recommended against rezoning as a means of plan implementation and has instead used the
voluntary Flexible Development Options currently being considered for adoption as the basis for
their recommendations.
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received
during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by
the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of
Commissioners for decision.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in
the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough,North Carolina. Office hours are
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call Gene Bell at extension 2589 at
732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031
(Mebane/Graham).
1
f
/.Vii• � \ ��_..i/V ,�!�\►N�+ `'���11�.
• � pus 1 +� �l�l �.�r■�/� Cs_■.�'��■ p�a� ��
�.�� �:;=■.urn '���.`# �,l�" � \�. !��° �-r ���
y C ��'fit.:• T`t CC-_. ,
S_ NEW
lw
op
IRF.
Ism
WIN 0 LISP
awl
011
No
mum
r�- 1
h
� 5