The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 02-26-1979 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD d OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1979 UPERIOR COURT ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 7:30 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County 1• in their quarterly joint public Planning Board are meeting hea i n g to A. Hear a petition to rezone fin Chapel Development Residential a 10 acre trac t r This property is State Raa� l (Dam owned by Mr B. Discuss a proposal to add a new section to"the Orange Temporary County Zoning Control Ordinance entitled, Permit for Mobile Homes". At the conclusion of the public hearing, the meeting will move to the Commissioners' ord ss i oners' Room. 2. M tters of public concern relating to: A. Items not on this agenda. B. Items on this agenda. 3, Te Finance Director reports the bid results for: A. Three patrol cars to be used in the Sheriff's Department. B. Three mid-sized cars to be used in the Sheriff's Department. . One compact car for general use. compact truck to be used in the Public Works Department. Com D. One p E. Automobile tires and tubes. _2_ 4. The anager recommends: A. The bids of County Ford for three Fairmonts, 6 cylinders, ($15,909.90) be accepted. (This is not the low bid) . B. The bids for three patrol cars , one compact car and one compact ruck be rejected, as each low bidder failed to submit the required bid bond. C. The low bid of Nu-Tread Tire Company for tires and tubes be accepted. 5. A review of a proposed response to a letter from Judge Henry McKinnon, Jt concerning plans for improvements at the county ..jail . 6. Board members have received correspondence concerning noise from the Chapel Hill Police firing range. Does the Board desire to dis uss this issue? 7. The Finance Director will review a proposed format of procedures to be ollowed in the upcoming capital improvement program. 8. A resolution concerning membership in the State Employees' Credit Union. 9, The County Attorney will review proposed legislation repealing cer ain legislative acts dealing with animal control in Orange County. 10. Discussion of correspondence from the Department of Transportation con erning a proposed Southern By_Pass around Chapel Hill . il. Rep rt from subcommittee dealing with extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Chapel Hill . REZONING RE HEST CHECKLIST +' oWNERiS NAME Mr. & Mrs. Samuel Putnam ADDRESS Rt. 5, Box 365, Chapel.Hill., NC 27514 Current zoning PUD - Total number of acres 10 Current land use Type of rezoning requested Residential. Proposed land use Tax map # Block # Number of lots Proposed Water Supply:- Pubi c Community Individual X Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public community Individual septic tank X " Not Access onto state road # 1939 Average daily traffic count on the state road available Describe existing Southern boundary is Price Creek with critical areas: Flood prone areas flood plain of 50 ft, All possible Poorly draiA44 4rgp, house locations are well away from ZWqJ plain. Streams Price Creek (see above flood other sensitive aire�s proves areas Describe land uses in: General Area Residential sin le family dwellings with small farming and livestock Adjacent parcels of land i Acs _ i9.75 AC. . 7 y� 5 AC.. 59.06 AC. 22 4 7B P/0 7 / 4.a3Ac. R�z 130 AC. P/ RC 9 7 t C7) 3 G 64 AC. r�r� /{AC�t 5.22 . i 1 i AP 'LIC TION FOR CHANGE OF %ONIRG DISTRICT C:L4SSrVjCATTON n WE Jan. _26, 1 979 The Honorable Board of County CO;nmissioners ;.:- Orange County, No Lh Carolina ..! ,Gen'Llem' en: _.. The undersigned request that prapexC -ac- Block number - P = _ . _ Lot nl=Be = shown on the accom art ......�.._�--�..._......wa yang plat, which is pre tl.y ire a pqo District be reported to for the following ieasons: Owners wish to develop the- tract la to several. indivIdual = �' -- --Y „�_ --.'pare el s n t Me t:�.n the design .of the P-UD o M.-_..... ..Signed: Address: f` r ../✓/LG�YYt t. Ar -z ,1 Ip Price Creek Rezoning Chapel. Hill. To«ship Tax map 120 Lot 3 Mrs. Ila J. Poythress Lot 20 Genron Corporation Rt. 5, Box 362 2727 Queen _ Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Missoula, Mt. . Lot 6 William J. Crabtree Lot 21 - Bzl-1 Y W.W & Sall :.. - Y Rt. 5, Box 3&7- t° _.Lavin rgod -- Chapel Hill . Ht ,5 Sox 375 Chapel: Hill, NC 275. Lot 6A Kenneth W. & Donna. Cash Lot 22 Charles Barry & Anne Rt. 5, Box .367E Burns Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Rt. 5, Box 364 _- Chapel H3.1 , NC 275: Lot. 7 Gilbert C. Chase � - 1. 107 Laurel Lane. - Austin, Texas Lot 7A .lames D. & Maraly'n Riddle Box 2 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Lot 7B Samuel M. & Elizabeth Putnam Rt. 5, Box 365 Chapel, Hill, NC 27514 Lot 8 John C. Earnhardt Rt. 5, Box 371 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Lot 9 Rufus Farrington Rt. 5, Box 377 Chapel, Hill, NC 27514 Lot 10 W. G. Etal Atwater 313 Eugene Street Ca.rrboro, NC 27510 bf 7 3, Temporary Use Permit for Mobile Domes 1. The Board of Adjustment may permit an individual mobile home to be located on the same lot as an existing single-family dwelling for temporary residential use for a period not to exceed one year if a custodial relationship exists between the occupants of the mobile home and he existing single-family dwelling when all of the fol- lowing conditions are met: A) Oecupa is of the mobile home shall be related by blood or marriage or designated as a legal guardian by Court of Law to the occupants of the existing single-famIly dwelling. b) The necessity of direct custodial care shall be certified in writin.� by a licensed physician (M. D.) because of age: or poor health c) The applicant shall demonstrate that no other reasonable alternative is available based on the utilization of habitable space in the existing single—family dwelling unit. d) The Imo ile home shall. meet all front, °side, and rear yard setback requiir ents for the zoning district wherein such mobile home is located. e) Water and sewer facilities to the mobile home shall be approved by the Orange County Health Department or by the appropriate municipality from which water and sewer will be provided. f) All abI�tting property owners shall have been notified of the application for such temporary use permit by the Planning Department. g) 0n Lots less than 40,000 sq. ft. the applicants lot shall not contain more tAan l (one) existing single-family dwelling. 2. A renewal, shall be issued only upon application of the permittee. Any such appl.xcation for renewal shall be treated as a new application hereunder AGENDA ITEM 3 A & B REPORT OF BIDS FOR THREE MID-SIZE CARS MODEL VENDOR FIRST COST MPG REPAIR RECORD Volare 225" 6 cyl . Yates $15,564.08 18 Much worse than average Fairmont 200" 6 yl . County 15,909.90 18 Not Available Aspen 318" V-8 Coggin 16,020.09 16 Much worse than average Volare 318 V-8 Yates 16,286.24 16 Much worse than average Fairmont 302" V-E County 16,646.64 16 Not Available Fairmont 302" V-8 Ray 16,729.87 16 Not Available Malibu 305" V-8 Love 16,977.24 17 Not Available Malibu 305" V-8 Long 17,213.81 17 Not Available RECOMMENDATION. The staff recommends bid from County Ford for three Fairmont 200" 6 cylinder ($15,909.90) be accepted because 1) Repair record, from Consumers Report advises poor repair record and a large number of "lemons" found among Volares, 2) Unusual public acceptance of the Fairmont. REPORT OF BIDS FOR THREE STANDARD SIZE PATROL CARS MODEL VENDOR FIRST COST MPG REPAIR RECORD Ford LTD Ray Motor $13,247.42 14 Average Chevrolet Impala Love 15,913.78 16 Better than Average Dodge St. Regis Coggin 17,205.06 14 Not Available Ford LTD County Ford 17,222.70 14 Average Chevrolet Impala Long 17,497.04 16 Better than Average Chrysler Yates 17,513.92 14 Much worse than Average RECOMMENDATION: The low bidder failed to submit the required bid bond. The staff recommends all bids be rejected and the item rebid. y AGENDA ITEM 3 C & D REPORT OF BIDS FOR FOUR (4) CYLINDER COMPACT CARS MODEL VENDOR FIRST COST MPG REPAIR RECORD Chevette 98" 4 c A . Long $4,030.22 29 "Average" Hatchback Chevette 98" 4 cy Love 4,168.93 29 "Average" Hatchback Pinto 140" 4 cyl . County 4,248.24 22 "Average" Pinto 140" 4 c,yl . Ray 4,314.02 22 "Average" Dodge Omni Hatchb ck Coggin 4,476.58 24 "Not Acceptable" 107" Toyota Corolla 2 Jr. Old Hickory 4,785.59 31 "Much better Sedan than average" Horizon 105" Yates 4,856.15 25 "Not Acceptable" RECOMMENDATION: Low bidder failed to submit required bid bond. Staff recommends Ell bids be rejected and this item be rebid. REPORT OF BIDS FOR COMPACT TRUCK MODEL VENDOR FIRST COST' MPG REPAIR RECORD LUV Pick-up 110" Long $4,805.65 23 "Average" LUV Pick-up 110" Love 4,837.20 23 "Average" Courier 120: County 5,196.57 27 Not Available Toyota 134" Old hickory 5,250.04 17 Not Available Courier 121" CID Ray 5,406.72 27 Not Available Dodge 119" D50 Coggin 5,534.06 21 Not Available RECOMMENDATION: L w bidder failed to submit required bid bond. Staff recommends all bids be rejected and this item be rebid. NOTE: Gas mileage estimates are from the Environmental Protection Agency. Repair records are from the Consumer Reports. L�e'0*1 3� AGENDA ITEM 3 A & B REPORT OF BIDS FOR THREE MID--SIZE CARS MODEL VENDOR FIRST COST MPG REPAIR RECORD Volare 225" 6 cyl. Yates $15,564.08 18 Much worse than average Fairmont 200" 6 cyl. County 15,909.90 18 Not Available Aspen 318" V-8 Coggin 16,020.09 16 Much worse than average Volare 318 V-8 Yates 16,286.24 16 Much worse than average Fairmont 302" V-8 County 16,646.64 16 Not Available Fairmont 302" V-8 Ray 16,729 87 16 Not Available Malibu 305" V-8 Love 16,977.24 17 Not Available Malibu 305" V-8 Long 17,213.81 17 Not Available RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends bid from County Ford for three Fairmont 200" 6 cylinder ($15,909.90) be accepted because 1) Repair record, from Consumers Report advises poor repair record and a large number of "lemons" found among Volark, 2) Unusual public acceptance of the Fairmont. REPORT OF BIDS FOR THREE STANDARD SIZE PATROL CARS MODEL VENDOR FIRST COST MPG REPAIR RECORD Ford LTD Ray Motor $13,247.42 14 Average Chevrolet Impala Love 15,913.78 16 Better than Average Dodge St. Regis Coggin 17,205.06 14 Not Available Ford LTD County Ford 17,222.70 14 Average Chevrolet Impala Long 17,497,04 16 Better than Average Chrysler Yates 17,513.92 14 Much worse than Average RECOMMENDATION: The low bidder failed to submit the required bid bond. The staff recommends all bids be rejected and the item rebid. AGENDA ITEM 3 C & D REPORT OF BIDS FOR FOUR (4) CYLINDER COMPACT CARS MODEL VENDOR FIRST COST_ MPG REPAIR RECORD Chevette 98" 4 cyl. Long $4,030,22 29 "Average" Hatchback Chevette 98" 4 cyl. Love 4,166.93 29 "Average" Hatchback Pinto 140" 4 cyl. County 4,248.24 22 "Average" Pinto 140" 4 cyl. Ray 4,314.02 22 "Average" Dodge Omni Hatchback Coggin 4,476,56 24 "Not Acceptable" 107" Toyota Corolla 2 dr. Old Hickory 4,785.59 31 "Much better Sedan than average" Horizon 105" Yates 4,856.15 25 "Not Acceptable„ RECOMMENDATION: Low bidder failed to submit required bid bond. Staff recommends - all bids be rejected and this item be rebid. REPORT OF BIDS FOR COMPACT TRUCK MODEL VENDOR FIRST COST_ MPG REPAIR RECORD.. LUV Pick-up 110" Long $4,805.65 23 "Average" LUV Pick-up 110" Love 4,837.20 23 "Average" Courier 120: County 5,196,57 27 Not Available Toyota 134" Old Hickory 5,250.04 17 Not Available Courier 121" CID Ray 5,406.72 27 Not Available Dodge 119" D50 Coggin 5,534,06 21 Not Available RECOMMENDATION: Low bidder failed to submit required bid bond. Staff recommends all bids be rejected and this item be rebid. NOTE: Gas mileage estimates are from the Environmental Protection Agency. Repair records are from the Consumer Reports AGENDA ITEM 3 E BIOS FOR TIRES AND TUBES 10:00 A.M., February 6, 1979 Item Nu-Tread Terrel's Chapel Hill (1) 50 - H78 x 15 Belted 1,451.32 1,848,50 1,493.00 Fiberglass 2 + 2 Tires (2) 5 600 x 14 Six-Ply 182.99 193.75 - Highway (3) 14 - 1100 x 20 Four- 2,049.47 2,297.96 2,391.76 Ply Highway (4) 20 - 1100 x 20 Tubes 237.12 297.20 213,40 (5) 2 - 825 x 20 Ten-Ply, 178.71 219.02 136.00 Precision Traction Grip (6) 6 - 825 x 20 Tubes 52.67 58.62 40.62 TOTAL BID 4,152.28 4,915.05 4,274.78 Recommendation: Chapel Hill Tire Failed to submit bid bond, and consequently cannot be considered an acceptable bid. The apparent low bidder is Nu-Tread,and their bid at 4,152.28 is recommended. AGENDA ITEM 13 A RESOLUTION URGING ACTION REGARDING CREDIT UNION MEMBERSHIP WHEREAS on September 15, 1977, the State Employees Credit Union changed its bylaws to open membership to bona fide local government employees who were members of a retirement system set up and overseen by the State of North Carolina; and WHEREAS since that time many local government employees state-wide have joined the Credit Union, including ninety (90) of the approximately two hundred forty-nine (249) full time County employees; and WHEREAS these ninety (90) employees of Orange County have arranged for loans or savings by payroll deduction, which loans and savings programs would be seriously disrupted by their sudden explusion from the Credit Union; and WHEREAS the North Carolina Bankers Association and the North Carolina Savings and Loan League have combined to attack in court the practice of allowing all governmental employees to join the same credit union; and WHEREAS in a January, 1979 opinion (stayed pending appeal), Mudge Braswell determined that as a matter of law under the current statutory provisions state and local governmental employees do not have a sufficient "common bond" to be permitted to join the same credit union; and WHEREAS the Bankers Association and Savings and Loan League are believed to be preparing legislation which would clearly debar local governmental employee! from being members of the State Employees' Credit Union, whatever courts might ultimately decide about the existing statute; and WHEREAS this debarment would work a hardship on all present and future employees of Orange County, forbidding them to take advantage of the economies of scale offered by the larger organization; and WHEREAS the effect on the ninety (90) employees already involved in payroll deductions to the Credit Union could be very severe, involving refinancing loans and withdrawing long-term savings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Board hereby urges the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners to add to its legislative package a bill changing the language of NC GS54-98 in such a manner as to clarify the common bond between state and local governmental employees so that state and local governmental employees may join the same credit union; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board of Commissioners send copies of this resolution to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and to the Legislative Delegation representing`Orange County. This the 20th day of February, 1979 14 REQUEST TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR INFORMATIONAL MEETING REGARDING SOUTHERN BY-PASS Because the Orange County Commissioners have received telephone calls, letters, and resolutions opposing plans for the recently announced by-pass, we believe that there is an urgent need to separate fact from fiction and to inform concerned citizens about the current status and future planning of this proposed by-pass. There are many questions that we are unable to answer and would appreciate an opportunity to meet with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, or his representative, at an early date to clarify these questions. Therefore, it is requested that our Chairman contact Secretary Bradshaw to request an informational meeting to give our Board and citizens an opportunity to hear, first hand, how decisions are to be made in determining the need for a Southern By-Pass around Chapel Hill (and Carrboro) and, if needed, how the location will be decided. Specifically, what measurements or other data will be collected, what criteria will be used to determine whether it is needed, how citizen input will be received, etc, In the event that it is determined that the by-pass, or a portion of it, is needed, what is the process by which,the exact location of the road will be decided? We should also invite the Carrboro and Chapel Hill Boards of Aldermen, the Chatham County Commissioners and representatives from the University of North Carolina to participate if they are interested. STATEP1Eh'I TO MAYOR .JA-MES C. WALLACE AND THE BOARD OF ALDEItHEN OF THE TOtNct OF CHAPLE, HILL ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTHWEST CO-fDIUNIT'i PRESERVATION ALLIANCE REGARD- ING THE PROPOSED SOUTRERN BYPASS 'IiHOROUGHHFARE AROUND CHAPEL HILL AND CARRBORO SUDt-IARY OF PETITION 1. The Southwest Community )Preservation Alliance consists of residents of the area along Jone:; Ferry, Damascus Church, and Mann's Chapel Roads which would be adversely affected by the presently proposed routes of the Southern Bypass around Chapel Hill. and Carrboro to the west. Consequently, this Alliance is opposed to the presently proposed routes of this road. 2. Each of the various routes of the proposed Southern Bypass would cross several of the major creeks and streams which feed into University Lake, and consequently this road would increase the siltation and pollution of the lake and thus increase the problems of acquiring and maintaining an adequate water supply for Chapel. Hill. One route would pass through the ecological, forest established by the University in the University Lal:e watershed. 3. Since the proposed Southern Bypass to the west would connect with State Route 54 and State Road 3.005, an examination of the data of the External Origin and Destination Traffic Survey for Chapel. Hill which was made in 1971 (the latest survey of this type) shows that only 10% of the traffic on those roads was through traffic involving origins yr destinations beyond Chapel Hill. If this through traffic from or to N�C. 54 West and 1005 West was distributed in proportion to the total traffic on the principal exit roads to the north, east, and south, such traffic would account for only 1.4% of the total traffic on 15-501 bypass. Consequently, the proposed road would have only a slight and almost negligible effect toward relieving traffic congestion is Chapel Hill., 4. The proposed Southern Bypass Thoroughfare s:nuld encourage the development of a shopping center at one of the interchanges west of Carrboro, and this shopping center would contribute to further deterioration of business activity in the centers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. 5. In view of the potentially destructive consequences of the presently pro- posed routes of the Southern Bypass Thoroughfare around Chapel Hill to the west, we urge that a decision concerning the recommendation of this portion of the Thoroughfare Plan for Chapel Hill be delayed by the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen pending a thorough study of the impacts upon our rural community, the University Lake watershed, and the central business district of the town vis-a-vis the apparently limited benefits of this road in relieving traffic congestion, Mayor Wallace and Members of the Board of Aldermen of Chapel Bill, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to you as Chairman of the Southwest Community Preservation Alliance in opposition to the presently proposed routes of the Southern Bypass Thoroughfare around Chapel Hill and Carrboro to the Nest. The Southwest 'Community Preservation Alliance consists of residents of communities which are located along Jones Ferry Road west of University Lake, Damascus Church Road, and portions of MLinn's Chapel Road, and State Roads 1946 and 1948. This Alliance includes residents of developments known as Wolf's Pond, Carolina Forest, Spring Hill Forest, Cram-.Ian 'Hills, Tua?rey Run, Loop Road and Heath's Development. After only a two-week period of organization this Alliance has 168 members, and the list is growing daily. We have liaison with other coranunity 2 groups organized with similar objectives at Cite twit. Carmel Church-Farrington Road area, Old Lystra Road, Heritage Hills, Antioch Church, and White Cross areas. These communities are located in southern and southwestern Orange County and a small portion of northern Chatham county. Within the area of our Southwest Community are three very productive dairy farms, three beef cattle farms, and the homes of approximately 100 persons who work in Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the fields of business, the law, medicine, the arts, letters, and the sciences. Many are professors at the University, and they contribute enormously to Chapel. Hill through their productivity and through their research grants which are largely expended in Chapel Hill for the support of personnel who are, employed by the research projects. A hasty and incomplete survey of research grants awarded to University professors living in our area shows that these persons are bringing to Chapel still grants amounting to more than $1,500,000 per year. One professor alone brought to the University and flown of Chapel Hill approximately $3,000,000 over a ten--year period. Thus, our contributions to Chapel Hill through these direct methods as well as indirectly through our real estate, personal. property, and intangible taxes to the county and through income taxes to the State are large and have an important impact upon the town. Our community is developing rapidly in terms of numbers of houses and citizens, but the growth has been orderly and well planned such that the overall effect is a pleasing admixture of the old agricultural way of life with the new communities of professional, and business people. The result is that we have preserved and developed an area of natural beauty and harmony that is, we believe, unequalled and unparalleled by any other area in the vL4inity of Chapel Hill. The existence of this beautiful area is of enormous benefit to Chapel Hill, from an aesthetic standpoint. There lies within the boundaries of our area several of the impor- tant feeder streams to University Lake, and we have made careful and wise effort to preserve the purity of that important and vital watershed. We come before you tonight because this beautiful area and important part of the University Lake: watershed is threatened by each and all of the presently proposed routes of the southern bypass thoroughfare around Chapel Hill to the west. This road, if constructed, would have a devastating effect upon our community and upon the University Lake water supply. Such a road would destroy scores of houses and lots- The road would greatly increase the rate of siltation of University Lake both during the constru:cion of the road and subsequently through the accelerated run-off from shoulders and drainage ditches. This road would inevitably accelerate development in our area, particularly around the interchanges with other roads, and this development would sooner or later, despite zoning ordinances of either county or town, be of a commercial type which would have a disasterous and deleterious effect upon the nature and character of our area. For example, such commercial development at the inter- changes would lead to high-density housing in the vicinity and thus to serious pollution of University Lake. Dr. Biggers, who is here tonight, can tell you about serious pollution of University Lake which already is occurring if you will grant him one or two minutes to make a report. However, the rate of pollution of the lake will be greatly accelerated by the new commercial and residential development which a major thoroughfare of this type will bring. Ile seriously question whether this road is really necessary. A limited-access thoroughfare of the type proposed obviously is designed to carry through-traffiq destined for points beyond Chapel Hill around the town rather than into or throu tt the town. The traffic to consider in this case is that from west to east and vice versa.. in 1971 the State Department of transportation conducted an External Origin s 3 and Destination Traffic Survey for Chapel Hill. This is the latest survey of this type available. If we examine the data for State Route 54 west (the "old Greensboro highway") and State Road number 1005 (the Antioch Church Road or "new Greensboro highway") both of which would connect with the proposed southern bypass thoroughfare, we find that only 10% of the traffic on those highways was destined to pass th_ rou 'Chapel Hill, Conversely, 90% of the traffic on those highways was destined to stop in Chapel Hill or Carrboro, namely the major part of the traffic on those highways consisted of vehicles bringing people to Ind from Chapel Hill and Carrboro to work or to shop. If this through--traffic from or to N.C. 54 West and State Road 1005 West was distrubted in porportion to the total traffic on the principal exit-entry roads to the north (N.C. 85), east (U.S. 1.5-5O1 and N.C. 54E), and south (N.C. 15-501), then the through traffic from those two sources (viz. N.C. 54 W and 1.005 W) would account for only 1.4% of the total traffic on the 15-5011 bypass (probably the most heavily congested road in Chapel Hill). Thus, this enormovply expensive throughway around Chapel. Hill and Carrboro can be expected to have an insignificant impact in relieving the traffic congestion which exists at certain hours of the early morning or late afternoon within Chapel Hill and on the 15-501 bypass. On the contrary, the proposed southern bypass thoroughfare would bring the Chapel Hill--bound traffic from the west into town more rapidly and thus would add to the morning traffic congestion in the center of town and on the 15--501 bypass. Although the total volume of traffic on State Route 54 and State Road 1005 has increased since 1971, it is doubtful whether the proportion of through traffic on those roads has changed very much. If there is any doubt about this point, a new 0. and D. survey should be made before seriously considering the construction of this road. The 1971 Survey data also show that even the traffic on the 15-501 bypass consists largely of local traffic although the percentage df through taaffic is somewhat higher than the percentage for State routes 54 and 1005 west. If 1--40 is build through Orange. County as proposed, then traffic from the south and east destined for Greensboro would be much more likely to follow 1-40 to 1-85 to reach Greensboro rather than to take the proposed southern loop road around Chapel Hill since the latter would feed into State Routes 54 and 1005 which are only two lanes and thus are "slow" relative to I-85. Thus, the need for the southern thoroughfare is not apparent, and this road would not solve the traffic problems of Chapel Hill. In fact, this road probably would increase the traffic problems of Cbapel Hill since this road would stimulate additional development west of Chapel Hill and Carrboro,. This development also would increase the pollution of University Lake as stated previously. There is another probable effect ofthis loop road which should be considered, namely the ultimate effect which it may have on the central business district of Chapel Hill.. The construction of the southern bypass thoroughfare around Chapel Hill to the west probably would encourage the construction of shopping centers at one or more of the interchanges with other roads. Chapel Hill then may have a Westgate comparable in beauty and good planning with the Eastgate which now graces the city, and the effects will be similar, namely to draw still more business away from the central business district of the town. At the present time we do not have shopping centers west of Carrboro, and the residents of our community do not wish to have one in our area. We now do our shopping in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. However, if a shopping center is forced upon us as a result of the construction of the loop road to the west, then we probably will use it, and the trade which we now have with shopping centers in Chapel Hill and Carrboro will be lost to the central, business districts of the towns. 4 In view of all or these probable consequence:z of the presently proposed routes of the Southern Bypass Thoroughfare "rotund Chapel hill to the west, we urge the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen to delay a decision concerning the recammuendatian of this portion of the Thoroughfare Plan for Chapel. Hill pending a thorough study of the impacts of this road upon our rural communities, the University Lake wntnrshed, and the central business districts of Chapel Hill and Carrboro vis-a-vis the .apparently rather negligible benefl,,:-, of this road in relieving the traffic congestion in Chapel liill, Respectfully sub itted, L l J. Loga Ir Win, Chair'a , Sauths.est Com'Runity Preservation Alliance,. F'-'L r[AA'/