Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19860417 127 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PLANNING AREA HEARING APRIL 17, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners held a joint meeting with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the respective Planning Boards for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan on April 17, 1986 at 7: 30 p.m. at Carrboro Elementary School, Carrboro, North Carolina. COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Jr. , Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Walters, Steve Yuhasz. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Planner Gene Bell, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw, Planning Director Marvin Collins and Planner Susan Smith Chair Willhoit convened the meeting at 7: 45 p.m. and recognized the participants in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. County Planning Director Marvin Collins briefly reviewed the overall Land Use Plan for Orange County, the existing Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area, and the proposed Land Use Plan. He expounded on the proposed revisions to the Draft Land Use Plan which was presented at public hearing January 14, 1986, and noted that these revisions were the outcome from the many meetings between the three staffs, Planning Boards and numerous meetings with citizen groups. He expressed thanks to the League of Women Voters for conducting a forum on Joint Planning which he felt was very beneficial to the general public. Collins reviewed the Land Use Plan that was adopted in September 1981 using the Existing Land Use Plan Map. He noted the three watersheds for which the County adopted standards designed to protect the quality of the water of existing and future reservoirs. He noted that several amendments had been added to the plan including the amendment for the Joint Planning Area. He noted that Joint Planning was actually begun seven or eight years ago and has reached its culmination the last 12 to 18 months through the Joint Agreement between the County and the Town of Chapel Hill. The agreement calls primarily for the preparation of a plan for the Joint Planning Area. It also calls for joint approval of development projects which occur in a designated portion of the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area. Collins noted that the Town of Carrboro is also participating in Joint Planning and will take a more active role once the plan is adopted. Carrboro is currently considering a proposal which is 128 similar to that which the County has with Chapel Hill for joint approval of projects within designated areas. Collins reviewed the plan as presented at the public hearing January 14, 1986, highlighting the different plan designations and the assumptions behind each one. He presented the plan noting extension of the transition area into the Bolin Creek basin to reflect the ability of OWASA to serve the area with sewer. The plan proposes some changes to the activity centers that were shown on the existing plan. Such changes include the designation of an activity node at the New Hope Church Road/I-40 Interchange, an expansion of the activity node at NC86/I-40, the designation of a commercial/industrial center at Calvander, an expansion of Blackwood Station, a reduction of a node centered on Homestead Road/NC86 and a deletion of a neighborhood type node at the intersection of Rogers Road and Homestead Road. Collins presented the Strategy Map that included on it the adopted Chapel Hill/Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan. The map shows a proposed greenway system and a system of neighborhood and community parks throughout the area. He explained that the activity node centered on the New Hope Church Road/I-40 Interchange. The initial concept at the time the plan was presented at public hearing was that light industry would be more oriented toward research and development activity (high-tech industry) and not wide open manufacturing or distributing centers. The Blackwood Station would be expanded for retail and office establishments. At the interchange of NC 86/I-40 the proposal is for a mix of high density residential and office type uses close to the interchange but not directly on it. At the intersection of Homestead and Old NC 86 some expansion would be allowed for retail uses already located there. The activity node designated at Homestead Road and Rogers Road was deleted. It was felt that this area is more suited to residential uses. Collins explained the proposed greenways system connecting the parks. He explained the high density areas and moderate density areas. Several suggestions have been made for the rural buffer area such as 1 unit to two acres or 1 unit to five acres and some even lower densities have been suggested. The feeling is that the lower the density the more rural buffer characteristics are observed. He explained the transition areas where urban development is expected to occur. These are areas which can be served by gravity sewer systems. One goal was protection of the Duke Forest holdings. Collins noted that because there is pressure for higher density development on Erwin Road due to development of commercial centers in Durham County and those being proposed in the Durham Comprehensive Plan the Transition Area was extended to address this situation. Collins noted that because of the comments heard at public hearing, citizens' group meetings, and other meetings held after the public hearing, several revisions have been made. One of the major changes deals with the extension of the rural buffer area. The primary reason for extending the buffer outward is to continue to follow the drainage divide of the New Hope Creek basin. Land uses in this area are resource protection areas, low density residential development and agricultural preservation areas. The New Hope Church Road/I-40 Interchange is to go back to a rural buffer type area. At Blackwood Station the recommendation is to delete the office type uses and to include some moderate expansion of the retail use already 129 there which would leave Blackwood Station much as it is now. At the NC 86/I-40 Interchange, office uses are recommended nearest the interchange and high density residential uses farther from the interchange because of traffic noise. Because of a pending development application as well as the current plan, it is recommended that an office park type arrangement be at Homestead Road and Rogers Road which would place equal distance between major activity nodes. Another change in the revised plan was the combination of the two nodes in the Calvander area. In the plan presented on January 14, 1986, a commercial/industrial node was shown east of Calvander on Homestead Road. The rural neighborhood node at Calvander which was designated in the 1981 plan was retained as a separate node. These two nodes were separated by a high density residential area. In the revised plan the high density residential area was replaced with office/institutional and the two nodes combined into one. The other change was a breakdown of the urban growth boundary into 10 and 20 year periods to be consistent with the existing Land Use Plan. He indicated on the map the areas where gravity sewer service could be extended easily. Collins noted that a number of inquiries have already been received about development around the I-40/NC 86 Interchange and a great deal of development activity is occurring out Erwin Road. The feeling of staffs and Boards was that development would be increasing in this area within the next ten years. He stated that the boundary of the ten year transition west of NC 86 paralleled Homestead Road 500 ' to the north. He stated that the Planning Staffs of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro felt that high density uses should be within 500 ' of an arterial to provide access, reduce the length of trips and reduce traffic through lower density areas. He indicated that the remainder of the transition area lay in the Bolin Creek basin was being designated Twenty Year Transition. This area has been experiencing some growth pressures, but not as intense as in the Ten Year Transition areas. He mentioned the County's current land use policy of clustering development in transition areas to reduce urban sprawl and stated the policy would probably be carried over into Joint Planning. He mentioned that the Ten Year Transition Area would be the focus of current development proposals and that only after the area had begun to fill up would development be channeled toward the Twenty Year Transition areas. One means of implementing phased development in the transition areas would be through the formulation of a Water and Sewer policy. Roger Waldon, Chapel Hill Planning Director, noted that the Chapel Hill Planning Board would consider the revised plan on April 29th. He noted that the Chapel Hill Planning Board' s main concern deals with the rural buffer. One recommendation of the Chapel Hill Planning Board was for low density, the highest to be one unit to two acres, with wells and septic tanks. The recommendation excludes the extension of water and sewer and package plants. The Board supports mixed use at the interchanges and the areas where there is to be new development. There is strong support to protect the University Lake Watershed and the I 40/New Hope Church Road Interchange (considering them as part of the rural buffer) . It is hoped that by the end of April the Chapel Hill Planning Board will forward their recommendations to the Chapel Hill Town Council. 130 Andy Dobelstein, representing the Carrboro Planning Board, outlined the recommendations sent to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. The Planning Board did recommend that Carrboro join with Chapel Hill and Orange County in Joint Planning. The Board recommended that the Calvander Industrial Node be developed as a planned industrial development. There is lack of support and agreement for the planning in that area from the residents. Planned industrial development would have much better control than just industrial uses. He expressed concern for the protection of the rural buffer as open space. The Planning Board recommended that the rural buffer concept be developed in such a way as to provide for cluster housing which would make it possible to preserve the rural character and still allow residential development in the area. He asked that Duke Forest and UNC holdings be designated on the Land Use Map as conservation areas. The Board also recommended that water/sewer lines be permitted in the watershed with the justification that the watershed could be better protected by extending water/sewer lines into a watershed and controlling the development in the watershed by ordinance. (Copy of these recommendations are in the permanent agenda files located in the Clerk' s office. ) A statement was made by Pat Crawford representing Orange County Economic Development Commission. They are attached to these minutes. Kirk Pelland, Chair of Chapel Hill TAC, expressed support from the Chapel Hill TAC for Joint Planning. The unanimous recommendation is that the New Hope Church Road Interchange be designated as suitable for limited office/institutional use, but unsuitable for any type of industrial activity. He noted that a Ten and Twenty Year Transition area is suitable for more than residential use and the concerns expressed by the citizens seemed to focus on the industrial uses and the demands on water and water quality. The other recommendation from the TAC is that the County Planning Staff prepare for consideration a proposed description of lands which can be considered candidates for acquisition to form a system of recreation areas, parks and greenways. PUBLIC COMMENT Elizabeth Shoemaker, Calvander resident, presented the following statement: "I know that the Joint Planning Commission has worked very hard to plan the next twenty years for us for this area in order to benefit its citizens. You all deserve congratulations for this effort. I am sure that you have had your differences but the desire to cooperate instead of planning at cross purposes is clear. As a resident of Orange County for the past seventeen years, I thank you. However, when I wanted information about what was being planned for the Calvander node area in which I became a resident and homeowner last year, I found that the information I needed was in a hard to find box in the Carrboro Planning Department and it also cost $4. 00. I talked to other landowners in Calvander, many of whom were unaware of this plan, of this meeting and of what we are discussing here tonight. A few residents received maps in the mail, small and difficult to read. Many of us received no notice at all. I 'm aware that you are under no legal obligation to inform us of the plan. The 131 Carrboro Planning Board has publicly stated its desire to communicate openly with the citizens affected by its plan. I speak for myself, my family and many of my neighbors when I earnestly ask you to grant a further public hearing on development plans for the Calvander node. In conclusion I wish to state for the record that I strongly object to any zoning for Calvander other than R-1. Anything else will destroy the quality of life Calvander's residents have worked so hard to retain. " Ruby Blackwood, a resident of Calvander, made a statement which is attached. Randy Danziger, resident of Calvander, noted that because the homeowners in a given area are transitory and so the development pressures are real. The development pressures are going to be created by this planning rather than being addressed by this planning. He called everyone in the immediate vicinity indicated by this industrial node as to their position relative to the notion of having a node here and having high density housing. He presented a map noting that he had marked the property of all those property owners who have no intention of doing anything other than what is being done now with their land for the next thirty years. He indicated as well property of an owner who wishes to remain neutral because he is a farmer now and if the area is zoned as an industrial park he will have a profitable opportunity sometime within the next ten years to transfer out of farming in this area where it has become unprofitable and buy property further out in the County. The people have not expressed any advocacy for having an industrial node or any higher density residential use than currently exists. He submitted the map into the record. He stated the property owners do not want an industrial or higher density recommendation made in the planning of this area because that would bring about the pressures which this thing is attempting to address which do not exist in reality at this time or the foreseeable future. W. A. Scott made a statement which is attached. Ellen Kepley made a statement which is attached. Jeff Charles, president of the Property Owners Association of Stoneridge and Sedgefield, Inc. , presented a prepared statement which is attached and entered into the proceedings of the meeting for the record a signed petition. John Hartley, a Calvander resident, endorsed joint planning and expressed thanks to the County Planning Staff for their excellent job. He asked that Mr. Collins and the Board of County Commissioners not abandon the citizens of Calvander for the desires of the Town of Carrboro. He noted that planning starts with the desires of the people it is going to affect immediately. He felt that the community of Calvander has not had time to respond to the Land Use Plan and asked for another public hearing. He continued that he realized Carrboro wishes to grow and widen its tax base and not be swallowed up by Chapel Hill but it needs to go to the north. Carrboro has listed other options in which it could increase its tax base through infill (they could increase the zonings within the Town to enhance the tax base) . He noted they do have an industrial area off t32 Old Fayetteville Road already designated which has not been used and this would be the place to start an industrial park. This is within the Town limits. They also could go up instead of out. He felt the plan indicates a sprawl strategy instead of concentrating into an urban center. The ability of a Town to rezone and provide multi- story institutional buildings in the town' s center could help to strengthen a town's center, help to create more commercial use within the town and keep the town from dying. What is often seen is peripheral commercial nodes outside of town which pull all the commercial activity and retail space out and the center of town dies. He asked about the extension of Homestead Road and noted that he felt this was not sensible as it would eventually be a four-lane road with a commercial strip right through the center of a high-residential area. Also, the proposed industrial park should be placed nearer I- 40. High residential development would need considerable infrastructure and did not belong in this area. He stated it was hard for him to understand the rationale behind these types of densities noting that they did not seem to serve human needs of a plan of this size and he wondered if this would perhaps work into a formula for annexation to get unit counts high enough to be annexed. He felt this should be designed for the wants of the people and not as an economic base for a town to grow. Mr. John Sowder, a Calvander resident, noted that the Calvander residents are not opposed to growth and do like good roads but from Calvander' s standpoint, the plan is devised to do one thing only and that is to "put tax dollars into the coffers of a financially strapped community that lies to the southeast. " He stated that the rural residential way of life is not obsolete. "We can't export our main product. " His statement is as follows: "If you will focus with me for a moment, on one salient feature of this plan, if you have doubts as to what the emphasis is for the plan, I think you will understand and that feature is the Homestead Road Thoroughfare ( a misnomer if there has ever been one) . It is going to be named after the homesteads that it thoroughly plows under. It meanders. It is not primarily designed to feed traffic but to break open the backwoods to development, the sort of development that up until now by natural forces we have largely been able to avoid. The fact that Carrboro now wishes to extend water and sewer into watershed areas is a matter of record, is it not, April 10. That is an interesting way to go about protecting this watershed that Carrboro and Chapel Hill spent an incredible amount of their political coin to enhance in the western regions of the County. No matter what you do in the western regions of the County, if you pollute this watershed by running a road diagonal across it two and one-half miles, if you run sewer and water into that area, what's the purpose? It meanders. The road goes as it will to break up the new property. There are alternatives to the present routing of the thoroughfare that are much more feasible in the movement of traffic and also cost effective in terms of the acquisition and the regrettable but foreseeable use of the power to condemn the property. That corridor is the Eubanks Road corridor. What more could be done to trash that corridor than has been done for the use of the landfill. If you begin at Hatch Road where the present thoroughfare is proposed to begin you are already on the Morgan Creek Watershed. You go diagonally across it two and one-half miles, you come out still in the watershed just north of the suicide intersection of Old NC 86 and Old Fayetteville Road. Then you go down and across Bolin Creek to re-emerge on Homestead Road and put 6000 trips a day in front of the High School and Jr. High School. I would really like to hear from the School Board on this. They have plans to move Horace Williams Airport but we know that its far more dangerous to the lives of young people to have 6000 trips a day in front of the high school. There is an alternative. It is the Eubanks Road alternative. As it comes down it can come right straight down Old 86. You can prioritize Old Fayetteville Road. As Mr. Hartley suggested you can cross NC 54 above Plantation Acres. That's going to have to be controlled at some point at any rate. You can go from there on down Old Fayetteville Road and across Jones Ferry Road hooking up with the southern link. My question is "What does the School Board say about the traffic problem at their end and what does NCDOT say about the environmental impact on the watershed end. I would like to hear some answers from the appropriate domain and I shall close by saying we don't want to vote in the Carrboro elections. Mr. Dave Rutter, a Calvander resident, noted that he had been unintentionally misquoted by Jerry Davenport of the Carrboro Planning Department in a statement he made at an April 3 Special Public Forum with Carrboro Planning Board. He continued that he must clarify that misunder- standing before he presents his statement tonight. "I am only a citizen and a taxpayer living in the most heavily impacted area of this Land Use Plan and I am powerless in this situation except in speaking out in meetings of this type. The most unfortunate distortion of my remarks is the paragraph I read verbatim and say again tonight, "Ladies and Gentlemen the annexation statutes of North Carolina takes much of the annexation say so away from the people by proscribing the referendum. The law puts the burden of trust on the planners of communities to achieve growth reasonably, rationally and when necessary. Annexation solely for the sake of Carrboro's fiscal enhancement is a betrayal of that trust. I must say I feel the annexation law is a good law because in theory it puts our community' s growth in a status more reflective of real urbanization. Calvander is a rural area now and the 100 or so signers of the petition that we have circulated just since Monday night would like to have it remain so. I-40 or no, if growth comes we want its pace to reflect the character of the neighborhood but nobody asked us about that. Instead, though there are 2400 undeveloped acres within the County zoned or designated for industrial use, Carrboro has planned for us a hundred acre industrial park, a possible 100, 000 square foot shopping center and high density urban housing to raise this nodes population by 12 , 000 in the next twenty years. Roy Williford, Carrboro Council members and Planning Board members confirmed that this is an annexation strategy and why. Mr. Davenport' s answer sheet states clearly that this is to 'anchor' Carrboro's tax base plus the notion of developing blue collar jobs. We've never had much of a blue collar climate here and I doubt we need one since a) we have the lowest unemployment rate by county in North Carolina and b) as the planners own answer sheet states 'the jobs in the Research Triangle Park area and Chapel Hill are creating the growth. So the job argument is weak meaning that pretty much for the purpose of Carrboro's fiscal enhancement, Calvander must undergo a devastating transformation. ' North Carrboro, yes the time has come 134 for us to raise our voices. I like Mr. Davenport' s assertion that the planners advised the elected officials on the effect of particular growth strategies or goals. But is there an elected official here, County or Carrboro, who claims personal sponsorship for this industrial park high density annexation package. The numerous Aldermen and Planning Board members I have spoken with identify this with Carrboro's Planning Staff alone. In no way am I criticizing the diligence and creativity of Carrboro's Planning Staff. These maps are carefully detailed. Perhaps an industrial park is a good idea. But lets put it in a place where it does not devastate people' s homes and heritage. This area has long been known as a pat of butter in a sea of grits. Let' s not rashly turn our backs on the history of the community we cherish. Let' s have I 40 's impact on us be beneficial not just to developers and urban tax bases but to the great majority of those of us in southern Orange County who like where we live for what it is today not just for what we can get out of it tomorrow. " Nat Smith, resident of Pine Street in Carrboro, noted that he felt the residents of Carrboro do have a stake in what is being proposed for the Calvander area. He has always enjoyed bicycling in the Calvander area and that many other residents of Carrboro derive much pleasure out of Calvander remaining as it is. He pointed out that there is retail space available at Willow Creek and Plantation Plaza and he could not see the need to create more office and retail space. Jerry Koontz, resident of Barrington Hills, Carrboro, spoke in opposition to the rezoning proposed for the Calvander area and also in opposition to the routing of the northern loop arterial. His statement is as follows: 135 Nat Smith, resident of Pine Street in Carrboro, noted that he felt the residents of Carrboro do have a stake in what is being proposed for the Calvander area. He has always enjoyed bicycling in the Calvander area and that many other residents of Carrboro derive much pleasure out of Calvander remaining as it is. He pointed out that there is retail space available at Willow Creek and Plantation Plaza and he could not see the need to create more office and retail space. Jerry Koontz, resident of Barrington Hills, Carrboro, spoke in opposition to the rezoning proposed for the Calvander area and also in opposition to the routing of the northern loop arterial. His statement is as follows: "I don't want an industrial park in my back yard. And that's literally where it is going to be. Two of my property lines are Carrboro city limits. It will be exactly in my backyard. The proposed buffers around the industrial area are inadequate and inappropriate because they allow for high density development which I guess is consistent with that proposed industrial use and use as a retail center. One of my big concerns is just what uses are permitted in an industrial park. The Carrboro Planning Staff has said, according to Carrboro definitions this would include assembly, wholesale distribution, mail order and other uses of similar character. The problem is that I don't know who to believe; whose guidelines are we going to use to control the use of this area; will it be Carrboro's, Chapel Hill 's or Orange County's. We don't know and until we know what the proposed uses are going to be I don't see how anyone can make a decision on whether or not to adopt this plan. Many people have already commented on the inadequacy of the roads in the area and I will not dwell on that, but what I don't want to happen is I do not want Homestead Road and Old 86 to become another Highway 54 By-Pass. One question which has already been raised and I ' ll raise it again, I want to know who is proposing this. Just who is it that wants an industrial park there and if anyone will admit to wanting an industrial park there, I want to know why they want an industrial park there. No one that I have heard speak today or before, wants an industrial park there. We have already addressed the fallacy of creating jobs for people in the area and I think that argument can be dismissed very quickly. But, one other reason for having an industrial park in this area, I think needs further attention. That is the idea of shifting the tax burden from the residential homeowner in Carrboro to an industrial client in the area. The Carrboro Planning Staff says, 'We have no proposal to annex this area' . Now, quite frankly, I find it very inconsistent to say that we are going to have an industrial park in this area to enhance our tax base and yet not intend to annex the area, otherwise you can't increase the tax base. I think this needs to be considered very carefully. I think that what people will find if they study carefully newly annexed areas is that most often they do not even generate enough revenue to pay for the costs of providing services to them. Well, I know what is going to happen whether or not Carrboro tax base is increased by an industrial node at Calvander, my taxes are going to go up one way or another. So it makes no difference really. I don't think that anyone can propose any plausible argument to show how building an industrial park at Calvander is going to decrease my taxes. Now there have been mentioned before alternates to the northern loop and I just want to say that I would strongly recommend that all the judicial bodies present this evening to t36 reconsider the location of the northern loop, to not put that near or on Homestead Road. I also support fully calling another public hearing to specifically discuss the Calvander Industrial Node. I am not opposed to planning for growth. I am not opposed to joint planning but I am opposed to planning which encourages growth that nobody wants. " Richard Ellington, citizen of Carrboro made the following statement: "As a citizen of Carrboro I look forward to the day when we will indeed have joint planning between Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County. The Calvander Industrial Node as depicted on the map beside me, cuts off the normal northern growth pattern for the Town of Carrboro. It also is, incidentally, the only industrial node left on the map, which I highly disapprove of. Carrboro has already sacrificed its western boundary for growth to a watershed. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen recently passed a resolution to agree to go along with the North Carolina Conservation Council, I believe, which would declare this land as a water conservation area and decrease and even strengthen the residential restrictions on the area immediately west of the Old Fayetteville Road area and west of the Old Hillsborough Road area. So, Carrboro has cut off its own nose in a sense as far as western growth is concerned. So, we only have as a town, basically one way that is vital to grow and that is north. I personally do not approve of the idea of an industrial commercial node parked directly in the middle of that natural growth pattern economically. Aesthetically, I disapprove of it even more. I live in this area annexed by Carrboro approximately five years ago. Dumping your industry and your garbage on the Homestead Road neighborhood is a travesty of justice. I don't have facts to substantiate it, but I cannot help but believe industry provides only short term tax benefit to any organization, be it a town or be it a county. As Carrboro or if Carrboro absorbs this industrial complex, it can't expand without either going around it and I don't know many people who want to build their house across the street from a factory, and the area immediately north becomes a drain on Carrboro as opposed to an advantage. We're much too short sighted on our arterial plan. 15-501 By Pass around the south of Chapel Hill is a prime example. The By-Pass was no more in place until roads were being run off the by-pass and it opened up more residential areas. Why do we talk about having an artery that is going to bisect a large area that we say is going to be high density within twenty years. If the road is not even being planned, just thought about then let's put it somewhere way out that makes sense. Let's put it way out on Old Hillsborough Road. Factories and assembly plants come and go but homes and families stay. " Ruth Miller, Billabong Lane resident, expressed concern with the proposed landfill which she noted would be in her backyard and would affect three hundred families. She expressed concerns with the effects the landfill will have on the environment, the schools, land values and quality of life. It is located only three miles from downtown Chapel Hill. She inquired about traffic safety on Homestead Road, Eubanks Road and the road which will run adjacent to the proposed landfill. She stated it is a known fact that landfills are one of the greatest health hazards and polluting hazards to families and the environment. She further asked about water quality and pollution noting there are resource protection areas indicated on the 139 maps which go into Bolin Creek and New Hope Creek. The residents in the area depend on wells; the extension of water lines does not answer the question of water pollution. All of Carrboro and Chapel Hill is affected by the proposed landfill. Ms. Miller concluded with the thought that the dreams of passing land for homes on to her children has been shattered by the devastating effect of the landfill on the land and quality of life. Steve Halkiotis noted his property adjoins the Calvander area. He expressed distress with the thought that this is to be a commercial area and noted that two school buses could not pass each other on the bridge on Homestead Road. He expressed distress with the bureaucracy of Carrboro and the fact that annexation was not the improvement which was promised . He cited increased taxes and poor garbage pickup service as other problems from annexation. Problems with Carrboro range from the purchase of city stickers to problems in the receipt of his mail. He cautioned Calvander residents against allowing the industrial node as he felt this was only going to lead to annexation of the Calvander area into Carrboro. Halkiotis noted that when asked where he lives he does not answer Carrboro, he answers Calvander. Sally Nussbaumer stated that she was concerned about the proposed Draft Land Use Plan for all the previously stated reasons and an additional reason as well. She stated that she felt sure a lot of time and effort had gone into the proposal but she had questions about the care with which the plan was drawn up. Her statement is as follows: "I live on approximately five acres of land in Calvander. There are restrictive covenants on my land which preclude more than one dwelling on the entire parcel of land and yet the proposed plan designates the area where I live as suburban residential which would permit two to five residences per acre; that's absolutely impossible because the restrictive covenants preclude that. I know personally of five other tracts of land in the Calvander area which have similar restrictive covenants. Therefore, the land does not adequately reflect the covenants of the neighborhood. This will be entirely misleading for anyone moving into the area or plans to develop. They would think they could put more on the property than they actually can. I propose that before any future land use plan is adopted, the deeds of all the property to be affected by the land use category changes be examined to determine if any land use restrictions are contained in the body of the deeds and that those restrictions in land use be reflected in the land use category designations on any future land use map. " Curtis McLaughlin, Calvander resident, made the following statement: "I live in Calvander in the Homestead Hills Subdivision and I have a number of very specific requests. Most of them help to throw some questions on the accuracy of the map and the quality of the plan. I 'm addressing the County Commissioners; I don't believe in addressing anyone else I can't vote for. So, to the County Commissioners: first of all, I would like the word North Carrboro removed from the map; secondly, the plan itself contains a very interesting element in that it now has the one industrial area that remains at the greatest possible distance from I-40. It calls for a 138 very expensive road to bring all of those people from I-40 into Carrboro. If you are not in a good location the only way you'll get a plan in N.C. is to give major tax concession. You've got to buy your plan. You have to get down on your knees in competition with other towns when you are that far from an interstate and give away the sewer to get the plan so why do you want it in the first place when you've got a lousy location. You don't have much labor. Why do you want to spend money to help unemployed textile workers from Mebane and further west. Then there is a residential area of high density which is at a position where it will take the most in the way of sewers and the most in the way of water and the most in the way of road construction. My property which is on Homestead Road at the corner of Drew Lane is classified on this map as urban residential. That whole subdivision is classified as one-acre zoning. With the covenants on the land, it can never be developed that way. If you look at that area from Lake Hogan Farm Road almost to the Calvander intersection, all of that property is already developed along the road so the only way you can get more density in that area is by breaking up the existing home pattern. Therefore, I would request that all of the land from Lake Hogan Farm west until you reach the potential commercial properties at the corner of Old 86 and Homestead Road be left under the existing zoning because that breaks up the character of the entire neighborhood. The plan calls for multiple retail areas which to me is ' strip city' . If you are going to have to have any retail areas they should be kept close to the intersection and not spread out over several different areas. We're not after the Durham/Chapel Hill Highway. With all of these, what I think, are careless and thought- less parts of the plan, I would request that the County Commissioners a) not grant extra-territorial rights to the Carrboro Planning Board at this time and hopefully not until hell freezes over and that the Commissioners require that the map be more carefully drawn to represent the existing nature of the existing residential areas and that means more hearings. " Judson Edeburn, Duke Forest Resource Manager, presented a prepared statement which is attached to these minutes. John Mackowiak, spoke representing the small community located on New Hope Church Road between the I-40 Interchange and Old 86. He noted that the families in this area were unanimously opposed to the previously drawn light industrial zone indicating a petition was to be presented by a later speaker. He felt that these people would favor the revised plan which has this zone removed. Hugh Wilson spoke expressing concerns with traffic safety around the Calvander area noting that industrial uses would only create more traffic hazards. He noted that he felt industrial uses do not belong in such an area to create jobs that are not needed for the immediate area. He felt this would increase tax problems as well as increase the need for services, noting that Northern Orange County is the area where employment is needed. He felt that the benefits to Carrboro would be far less than the problems which would be created. Jeff Collins spoke as a resident and homeowner in Northwood Subdivision as well as a representative of the Northwood Homeowners Association noting that Northwood is located in the middle of the activity node at Eubanks Road and I-40. He expressed concerns with the types of industry included in light industrial noting that he is still unclear as to what these involve. He continued that he had not au seen evidence that the infrastructure needed for such an industrial park is going to be available in the foreseeable future. He indicated there were already grave concerns with traffic at the intersection of I-40 and NC 86 and neither Eubanks Road nor Whitfield Road could handle the increase in traffic that such development would bring into the area. He expressed the desire to support the statement by the Stoneridge/Sedgefield Property Owners Association calling for continued zoning for lower density residential areas. He expressed concern that before the Joint Land Use Plan has been accepted by the appropriate bodies, there was a hearing two weeks previously before the Chapel Hill Planning Board for a 137-unit development in the activity node north of Eubanks Road, west of NC 86, and this rezoning was approved by Chapel Hill with nineteen stipulations. He stated this was a major concern that large developments are being approved before the adoption of the Land Use Plan and before verifying that the area can support this type of development. He noted that Timberlyne is in this activity node and already expanding and the residents feel they are surrounded by major new development that cannot be supported by the area. Perry Miller stated that his is one of the 300 families which will be critically and adversely affected by the proposed landfill. He noted this takes in residents on Billabong Lane, Homestead Road, Northwoods and the Rogers Road Community. He noted the feeling of the residents is that "We were the unnecessary victims of a hasty, insensitive, expedient closed door and even sneaky political process to acquire this land as a proposed garbage dump site. This is not some land that is distant or faraway out in some rural area but this is right in the midst of neighborhoods of people, of children, of a way of life. " Mr. Miller continued referencing the virgin trees and flowing streams which would be affected. He noted he felt there was no evidence that thoughtful planning had taken place. After the first joint planning hearing he asked several planners how it made good professional planning sense for a landfill to be located so near schools and downtown Chapel Hill. "The response from one planner was 'we took that as a given, that the garbage dump had to be placed there and our responsibility was to simply plan around that given' . Ladies and Gentlemen, that is not adequate, far sighted, envisionary planning for the lives of people in this community. Interesting enough, in the introduction tonight about the various components of the planning, not one word was ever mentioned to you, the public, about the garbage dump, not one word. What do you make of that? What a community does with its garbage and its impact upon the environment and its people is a major concern. You don't read the paper each week without that somehow being highlighted for us. But have our planners helped us to highlight this as a concern? No. In fact I think it's not only a major concern it borders on being a moral issue that deserves adequate attention. So we call for a public Joint Planning Meeting to solely consider the proposed garbage dump site and its impact upon the environment and its people. It's that important, that crucial and should not be lumped and approved together in some kind of joint package without we the citizens knowing what we're buying into. " "We are very sensitive to you who also feel that your neighborhood, that your homes, that your way of life is being adversely affected by various components of this plan. We know where you are and we would like to join with you if you would join also with us. In fact there are those of us who have even considered that 140 we would welcome a high density development in our neighborhood, we would take that away from your neighborhood if that were to occur in your neighborhood if you will help us fight against a garbage dump in our backyard. " Sue Kay stated she was an absentee property owner in the Calvander area and asked that her neighbors requests and concerns be considered for more public hearings on the plan for the Calvander area. Joicey Hurth, Calvander resident made the following statement: "I too, want to, for the record, add my voice to those in the Calvander area opposed to an industrial park and I too want to request that further hearings on this matter be held since I was not privy to or informed of any previous planning activity. I also just want to mention that in the high population density planned and accompanying industrial plan, the impact on schools has not been mentioned. The schools are already using trailers. I think that such future planning bringing more traffic and higher density population is not well advised for this area. " Robert Lagemann stated that he did not like the plans for the Calvander area. He noted there are some states which are now banning landfills and he continued that landfills do pollute and there is no way to prevent it once it hits the ground. He stated that there are such things as "liners" but indicated these last approximately twenty years. John Stewart stated that he lived outside the "node" but in the Joint Planning Area and presented the following statement: "What is Joint Planning? I trust my County Commissioners to do this. This goes against my democratic rights which I have as an American. I have a right to vote for who represents me and we need to not forget about that. Some people here have endorsed the Joint Planning; I do not in the least. Just think back three or four generations. Folks from England came over here and tried to tell us how to live our life and what we could do with our land. At that time, we took some tea and dumped it in the harbor at Boston. If I go to Bill Thorpe or Jim and tell them I don't like what's going on, they may say 'you don't vote for me' . If I go to Don Willhoit, I say I don't like it, he says I 'm going to do it anyway, then I am going to talk to my friends and the next time he is not going to be Chairman of the County Board. Let's leave it in the County's hands. Let them make the decision. " Robert Markunas, resident of Hideaway Estates just north of the Blackwood Station node and south of the New Hope Church Road/I-40 Interchange noted he was pleased to see the revised Land Use Plan and hoped some of it was due to the input from citizens at some of the more informal meetings. He expressed some of the objections from residents of Hideaway Estates to the New Hope node as follows and did present a petition. "The New Hope node as originally configured on the Joint Planning Area Map nearly bisects Hideaway Estates. The idea of a subdivision with one acre land use per residential occupancy being included in an industrial node and being called Hideaway seems to sum 141 up the overall objection the people had. In addition, if we look at the rural buffers projected on that map, we see that we are in effect making a strip by putting, not a node, but I 'd like to think of them as seeds, a seed at New Hope, a seed at Blackwood and a seed at Whitfield and although they are drawn as nicely defined circles there will be enormous pressure for those so-called nodes to link as time goes on. For sure you will have strip development going north from Chapel Hill and remember at the same time that Hillsborough is coming south so that these concepts of transition zones spreading out or well-defined activity nodes are more likely to lead to a disappearing buffer rather than a transitioning buffer. The idea of an industrial node centered at an interstate interchange at first examination seems to make a lot of sense; however, when you look at the services that are available at that node and you realize there is no sewer available, no water available and that the secondary roads that are serving it both in terms of New Hope and 86, are inadequate to support any major traffic flow, you begin to see the irrationality in our view of taking what is effectively a rural buffer that is adequately serving residential needs and turning it into an industrial node that will probably attract one or two isolated occupants that will be just enough to destroy the land for residential use and not enough to provide the real impetus to the node for which it is designed. " George Woodgates, a resident of Barrington Hills, noted he wished to go on record as being opposed to the industrial park at Calvander and a great deal of the planning that has taken place, including the garbage dump. He made the following statement: "I 'd like to call attention to one or two things in terms of planning. The first that was raised, 'who is behind this planning and the need for this industrial park? ' We have Food Lion, we have the new Plantation Acres which was put in; somebody must have conned the planning commission into development of those two areas. They are not full, they are not fully occupied and used; the Food Lion that is up on Weaver Dairy Lane has lots of property around it that hasn't been used, but somebody, somehow has told the planning commission that we need more industrial land to be used and it is coming at a high price. Now there was a planning commission in 1977 and I want to quote to you from the records from this Land Use Plan of Carrboro for 1977 to the year 2000. They have about four alternate plans for the development of Carrboro rather than talk toward Calvander, I 'd like to talk to you people who make up Carrboro environs. They had four plans. The wildest one of these was to expand the plan which they have in here in which they thought they could consider thirty eight acres for commercial and sixty acres for industrial. There' s 155 acres planned at Calvander to say nothing about some of the other planning that is there and that which was included in Plantation Acres and also Food Lion, etc. Somebody is able to really to talk this Planning Board or whoever the people who are concerned into it, that industry is more important than the citizens rights, and the homes and families and the things that they have here. Number 2 , in terms of employment, we don't have an employment need here; I think it is 3% here in Carrboro. To say that we have to provide employment to bring these people in here for employment is begging the question. We're going to draw people in here who then of course add more things and more things to it. That's not an argument that is valid. The third one, which I think is the biggest one to consider is, in terms of taxes, any increase in the tax base and I 'm quoting, 'would be 142 eaten up by the rising cost of supplying services to the residents of the Town. The Planning Committee of 1977 understood that; the one of today does not. Let me read you their vision of this, ' the unlimited growth alternative which this group of whoever is responsible, would require a significantly higher level of services than is required by the presence of urban areas. It would require extensions of water and sewer lines, 183 acres of additional roadways and I don't believe that this one that was talking about on Homestead was included at that time. Increased police protection, increased fire protection, including a new sub-station to be located in the northwestern portion of town (None of these subjects have been discussed in all of this) , increased park and recreation staff in order to maintain the parkland required, an increased Town Staff to manage the every day functions of a town of 21, 000 residents, one additional elementary school located in the northern part of the town adjacent to the recreation center to provide for the multiple use for both facilities. Implementation of this Plan would radically alter the character and scale of Carrboro. ' That is what we are dealing with in having this industrial park in here and all that goes with it; 'the sprawling nature of development would eclipse the human scale and neighborhood ambience which exists today. The market would shape the future of Carrboro largely according to economic criteria" that is what this Planning Board is allowing this community to do. " Clint Burklin, President of the Stoney Creek Neighborhood Association, presented a prepared statement which is attached to these minutes. Chair Willhoit stated he had received a petition from the Borland Road residents signed by 39 people opposing the creation of an industrial zone at the I-40/New Hope Church Road interchange. Henry Whitfield began his statement saying that he felt the rural buffer was a misnomer. "I think what we are talking about is what part of the land we're going to maintain as residential and what part we are going to develop as commercial and industrial. And I think that should be definitely specified. " Mr. Whitfield continued indicating the location of his property, (23 + acres) between Carol Woods and New Hope Fire Station, and the plans he had for this property at the time of purchase approximately fifteen years ago. He noted he had always intended for his land to remain residential and now he did not know whether he would be able to develop this land even in the next twenty years. Whitfield noted that his land was adjacent to land that had been developed with one acre lots and he felt that anything other than one acre lots would be unfair to him. Whitfield indicated that in order to underwrite sewers in these areas there must be high enough density to pay for the sewer. He expressed a concern that lower density than one acre lots would increase cost of property and with water and sewer make it unaffordable for many people. He referenced studies made by Triangle J in the 1960s which indicated how sewer service could be provided for the area and noted that these plans apparently have never been considered and expressed a desire for residential one- acre lots rather than a rural buffer to help create more affordable homes. Marie Bristol spoke about the Eubanks Road/I-40 interchange expressing concern with the design of the node and the way it goes through Duke Forest. She expressed concern for those property owners 143 whose families had for generations lived in the area and wished to keep it residential. Using the maps, Ms. Bristol indicated locations of individual properties and explained the need for preservation of the forest lands and homelands. She expressed concern that property owners like herself wished to leave the homes to their families and have the community remain as residential. Larry Reid noted that the same serious concerns regarding the landfill had already been expressed by previous speakers. Alternative methods of handling garbage, rather than use of landfills, need to be found. He continued as follows: "The second item I would like to speak on is the possibility or the proposal that Carrboro and the Town of Chapel Hill has had about dividing my community by using Rogers Road as a dividing line for the municipalities to create their jurisdictional range. I wish that that line be drawn through an area that would not break a community in half. " Mr. Reid expressed a concern that plans were being made for properties without input from the owners and that "officials were elected to represent, not dictate" . Bob Bonar, resident of New Hope Church Road community, presented a petition with 19 names to add to those previously entered, and noted that he was pleased that the rural buffer is to be retained for the I- 40/New Hope Church Road interchange. He noted that with the substantial amount of environmentally sensitive areas and lack of water and sewer, it is hard to understand why this area was chosen for office/institutional and industrial uses. "It appears that the only reason it was chosen is because I-40 is there. " He stated he felt it is very important "now and in future years that the County consider other aspects of the appropriateness of the land around I-40 and its interchanges, that we not automatically assume that because DOT put the highway through this particular point, we must therefore have non-residential uses. You do not expand improved tax base by designating an area for non- residential use when it is not really suited for that purpose. " Gary Saleeby stated he felt it clear that light industrial use that allows such things as rock quarries at New Hope Church Road interchange would be inappropriate as well as a rural buffer around this interchange. He felt the reaction was based on fear. A balance of uses would be appropriate such as office/institutional, light industrial (specify carefully what this could be) for the convenience of residents traveling I-40 to places of employment such as the Research Triangle Area. Carmine Prioli, a Stoneycreek resident, noted that Stoneycreek residents wished to keep the New Hope Church Road interchange as a rural buffer area. He indicated he had a list of many facts to prove the reasons for keeping this as a rural buffer. He expressed thanks that this industrial node had been removed from the plan and wished it to remain so. Steven Garfunkel, a resident of Barrington Hills noted two concerns about the Calvander Industrial node. 1) the concern that he lives near where the road dead ends and pressure would sometime in the future be such to carry this road on through into another residential area which would severely change the character of the neighborhood, and (2) the implications of placing an industrial node in an area so out of character. It is particularly troublesome since t44 none of the property owners in the Calvander area have expressed a desire to develop their property. It seems that those in favor of the industrial node are professional planners. He believes in planning but it needs to be justified and he noted he did not feel this could be justified. Robert Oakes, a resident of Calvander, noted that he has been in favor of joint planning between Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro for many years. He referenced the Governor' s Community of Excellence program and the fact that to participate in that program there had to be six industrial sites available to offer to those coming into the community. He stated that this was really the beginning of the industrial node concept and the present planning staffs were not involved. He felt it would be better to move the industrial site to the buffer zone. John Peraza, Stoneycreek resident, presented a prepared statement attached to these minutes. Dan Marnell, Stoney Creek resident, presented a prepared statement attached to these minutes. Willhoit was asked about further public hearings. He stated this matter was being referred back to the respective Planning Boards and Staffs for study and recommendation. He asked that careful consideration be given to the timing of the implementation of the accommodating ordinances. He also asked that consideration be given to the ratio of the road frontage at Blackwood Station node. With no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 11: 15 p.m. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk