Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 04-15-1993 - C-1-a
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN Joint Planning Area Public Hearing Abstract Meeting Date: April 15 , 1993 Action Agenda Item # C- 1- ct_ SUBJECT: Z-2-93 LAKE HOGAN FARM DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Application Mary Willis Vicinity Map Extension 2583 Staff Report TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough-732-8181 Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a rezoning request for property owned by Lake Hogan Farm Inc. This request involves an amendment to both the Orange County Zoning Atlas and the Carrboro Zoning Map. BACKGROUND: The area proposed to be rezoned is located on the west side of Old NC 86 north of Homestead Road. The property consists of all or part of seven parcels totaling approximately 264 acres. According to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan (JPALUP) the property is categorized as Suburban Residential, and is located with in Transition Area I of the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. The Suburban Residential designation allows densities up to 5 dwelling units per acre. The property is currently zoned R-R, which allows a density of up to 1 dwelling unit per acre. The proposed zoning is R-20, which allows a density of up to 2 . 1 dwelling units per acre. Attached is a Staff Report for the proposed rezoning prepared by the Carrboro and Orange County Planning Staffs. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen approves changes to its Zoning Map by Resolution, based on the information contained within the Staff Report and comments received through the public hearing process. The Orange County Board of Commissioners takes action subsequent to action by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. Both Boards must act in the affirmative 2 before the rezoning can become effective. Subsequent to this public hearing, the rezoning will be presented to the Carrboro Planning Board for a recommendation (May 6) , and then to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen (May 25) for a decision on the change to the Carrboro Zoning Map. The Orange County Planning Board will consider the decision of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen in making its recommendation (June 21) . The recommendation of the Orange County Planning Board will be presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for its decision on August 2 . RECOMMENDATION: The Orange County and Carrboro Planning Staffs recommend approval of the proposed rezoning provided that the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen find that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Joint Planning Agreement requires that a rezoning within the Carrboro Joint Planning Area be approved by both the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. It is recommended by the Planning Staff that the terms of the Agreement be carried out according to the following schedule: 1) Refer the proposed rezoning to the Carrboro Planning Board meeting of May 6, 1993 for a recommendation to be presented to the Carrboro Board of Alderman on May 25, 1993 ; and 2) After action by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, refer the proposed rezoning to the Orange County Planning Board meeting of June 21, 1993 for a recommendation to be presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 2 , 1993. ORA 'E COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATI.... FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DIS'T .._ CT Date : ' .44/1:4 'D THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )RANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA • The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of )range County as hereinafter, requested . 1 . The pr-operty is located on the North side of S . R . # 1777 ( Homestead :Road Street/Road ) between S .R . # 1728 and S .R . # 1009 ' . It is known as Lot ( s) Sht_ 2 , Block , of Orange County Tax Mep 109 - Calvander Township . It has a frontage of 4350 feet and a depth of 5000 feet , end contains 19 , 079 , 280 square feet or 304 acres . 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from R-R ( T-1 ) to • R-20 ( T-1 ) . .3 .- The .following information has been _ attached . .in_- support of the a p p l i c a t i o n for ohang i ng the Zoning Atlas. I" - r e q u i r e d on a l l applications] . _ -.-- 's. A Tully dimensioned map at is scale of not leas than one [1) inch equals one—hundred (100) fast nor more than one (1 ) inch equals. twenty- 120') feet--showln'g"--t17e land -'which 1s proposed to be rezoned. 'b . A legal description of the Land proposed to be rezoned. 'c. A atatssant cf Justification addressing one or more of the following: (1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed emenoment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which maks the proposed amend ment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. '13) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent end purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or pert thereof. '.[4) All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service • agencies (e.g. firs, police, rescue and utilities agencies) assuring services provision capability to the development. d. A List of all individuals, Arms or corporations owning property adjoining or within ,five hundred (500) feat of the property soug3Pt f rezoning is attached. The List is current as of . [Date//) ff 3 • I certify that ell information furnished in this application is accurate o the best of my knowledge . ,pplicantIs) : Dale E. Redfoot AIA Young/Jewell & Assoc, (Bradley W.young ) ddress : 123 Blackcherry Ln. P.O.Box 2725 Chapel Hill . NC Chapel Hild. NC 27514 • ' 'hone : 919-929-0910 919-933-9170 5(6:Zs - / REZONING'REQUEST' CHEdktiST• OWNER'S NAME Dale E. Redfoot.. ADDPESS 123 Blackcherry Ln. Chapel Hill, NC Approx. Current zoningR-R ( rT-1 j Total number of acres 304 Current land use Open/Farm land Type of rezoning requested R-2Q Proposed land use -Rpsj*dpnf-nI ( See Addendum to Application for Lots ) Tax map # Block # Number of lots Proposed Water Supply: Public_LX_Community .,Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public X Community Individual 'septic tank SR 1777 SR 1777- 3070 ' Access onto state road # SR. 1009 Average daily traffic count on the state road 2r ()a Describe existing critical areas: Flood. prone areas Poorly drained areas Jones Branch See Wetlands Ma Streams Bolin Creek,Buckhorn Br. Other sensitive areas p Describe land uses in: General Area Dairy--Farm, Open undeveloped land ,terse Farm Adjacent parcels of land South-Homestead Rd: Farm Land ;East-Hgan Farm-R-20 , South- Stoney Hill Subd. ,• West.--Old: 8,6,(SR1009) .Open Land & Single Family Homes, North- Undeveloped / Farm Land L.) • Addendum to Application for Change of Zoning Lots: 1, 2,3 , most of lot 4 (acerage west of Lake Hogan Rd. ) , • approx. 5.5 ac. of 5 & 5A, 24,25 ,31,& 31F Map 109 Lake Hogan Farms- Statement Of Justification For Rezoning (1. ) We find No error in the zoning ordinance. (2. ) We do find there are changing conditions. Foremost, the Hogan family has a desire to leave the dairy f ; It has become harder and harder each year to make a profit in the dairy business. The Hogans also find that they can not sell their land to another dairy farmer and make anywhere close the amount per acre from a farmer as they can from a developer. Development of this property is inevitable as developments get closer and closer every day. (3 . ) The adopted Land Use Plan has designated this property as T-1 transition area. This means that it is slated for development for densities of 1 to 5 units per acre. Our rezoning request of a change from R-R to R-20 is in accordance with the Land Use Plan as it would allow a density of 2.178 units/acre density. (4. ) The area south and east of our proposed development has usually been developed in small 20 to 50 acre tracts. We are proposing rezoning a much larger piece of land at one time to allow us to .properly plan a large master planned/ open space development. This allows the developer a considerable cost saving per lot in extending sewer approximately 4000 feet to the project. A smaller project would be forced to develop with septic systems and therefore would be forced to into 1 acre lot minimums. Open space planned developments would not be economically probable. Water has already been carried adjacent to Lake Hogan Farm Road by the Wexford development. Owasa has the ability with its current water and sewer treatment plants to service our project. We will have to extend lines at our cost. We have presented a letter from Carrboro Fire and Police Dept. ,the Carrboro Public Works Dept. as well as all the utility companies assuring services provision capabilities to our development. 6 7_ FIGURE 1 ______ „,_ ,, li • RR -------1 _____—J! , - �_._ - -- -r III 1 t 1 al0 Li— ."-------4YaA h4 , TaLbryn = °^p r 1 . L.. 4. E. _ . .. sit— � AL , . 1 t pity �1/Al. Meadow Run • 11111111111111 1. -- `� in1 y 40114111 i IML Si ... Fox Meadow r�� smagaiiiiii,: . '�-� , MM. t / 4 7 I1 I el it : : : :: :. - II ., LAKE HOGAN FA RM REZONING REQUEST E .:.�:::.:'.�;,.;.:.:::: Q 2ha n e Carrboro 9 rrb ro RR zone to Carrboro R-20 zone > :. . :;: :::.;:.::.;:.;:.::<;::;;:.:: ..:; :;:.::.:�;�:,::;:::>:;.;:.;:.:: / III 1 7 A P P rox1 Approximately 264 A cres '� Scale 1" = 1200 / , w l < // R - 2 M-1-93 : �E :vAv':iibs. .. i___:( t I II Stony r— r Y Hitt I ti ,:?r 1, I , �_ I� ---.,___,-, AT airraig.:44,,„ • P11 , rr 0 :�!Calvander , ya . s, 1� te Ix A\ k ,_,-7-- B- .A, ' '�..j j R,-15 G 1 Wexford Subdivision i^ 7 STAFF REPORT TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Carrboro Board of Aldermen Orange County Planning Board Carrboro Planning Board FROM: Carrboro Planning Staff Orange County Planning Staff DATE: April 6, 1993 SUBJECT: Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request REQUEST: An amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas has been requested which would incorporate a proposed change to the Town of Carrboro Zoning Map. The proposed change would rezone all or part of 7 parcels located in the Carrboro Joint Development Area as identified on the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan. The total area is approximately 264 acres in size and is located on the east side of Old Rt. 86 (aka Old Chapel Hill- Hillsborough Highway) north of Homestead Road. Figure 1 (attached) depicts the properties proposed for rezoning. PETITIONERS: This rezoning has been requested by Dale E. Redfoot AIA and Bradley W. Young, agents for the property owners. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA: The specific parcels to be rezoned are identified as: all of Lots 1, 2 , 3 , 24 and the portion of Lot 4 west of Lake Hogan Farm Road on Tax Map 109 in Chapel Hill Township and the portion of lots 31 and 31F south of the Buckhorn Branch of Bolin Creek on Tax Map 23 in Chapel Hill Township. All properties or portions of properties specified are located within Transition Area I of the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. 1 8 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request Lots 1, 2, 3 , and the portion of Lot 4 west of Lake Hogan Farm Road on Tax Map 109 are currently zoned Carrboro R-R, Rural Residential, which allows a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per acre (43,560 sf) . Lots 31 and 31F on Tax Map 23 are also zoned Carrboro R-R, Rural Residential. The proposed zoning is Carrboro R-20, Residential 20, 000 sf Minimum Lot Size, which allows a maximum density of 2 . 1 dwelling units per acre. EXISTING LAND USE: The properties proposedifor rezoning contain residential and agricultural uses. LAND USES AND ADJACENT ZONING: North: Vacant land and residential uses zoned Carrboro R-R north of the Buckhorn branch of Bolin Creek. This area is considered to be Carrboro Transition Area II. South: Residential uses zoned Carrboro R-R, including the Stony Hill Road subdivision. Also the Drew Lane subdivision zoned Carrboro R-15, Residential 15, 000 sf Minimum Lot Size. East: Vacant land, agricultural and residential uses zoned Carrboro R-20, Residential 20, 000 sf Minimum Lot Size. West: On the east side of Old Rt. 86 (SR 1009) there are 4 lots surrounded on 3 sides by one of the properties proposed for rezoning. These lots are either vacant or in residential use. West across Old Rt. 86 are residential uses and vacant land including the Deer Ridge Drive subdivision. ZONING HISTORY OF THE PROPERTIES: 1988 Zoned Carrboro R-R, Rural Residential, 1 unit per 43 , 560 sf (1 acre) Minimum Lot Size, as part of the implementation of the Joint Planning Agreement. Pre-1988 Orange County R-1, Rural Residential, 1 unit per 40, 000 sf Minimum Lot Size. 2 9 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request COMPARISON OF ZONES: Carrboro R-R, Rural Residential 43,560 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Size: Carrboro' s R-R zone is defined in Section 15-135 (c) of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance as follows: The R-R (rural residential) district is designed to accommodate residential and related uses as well as several additional uses that would be appropriate in the more sparsely populated areas of the town's joint planning area, but that would be inappropriate within the more intensively developed residential zones. This residential zoning district requires 43 , 560 square feet (one acre) of land per dwelling unit. Lot sizes may be reduced to 20, 000 square feet of land per dwelling unit if a development is clustered; however, the land which is "saved" must be set aside as usable open space. The overall density of the tract cannot exceed one dwelling unit per 43 , 560 square feet of land; thus, the maximum density permitted under R-R zoning is 1 unit per acre. Table 1 (attached) compares the permissible uses in a Carrboro R-R zoning district with those in a Carrboro R-20 zoning district. Table 2 (attached) compares the density and dimensional requirements of both zones. Carrboro R-20, Residential 20,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Size: Carrboro' s R-20 zone is a residential zoning district which requires 20, 000 square feet of land per dwelling unit. Lot sizes may be reduced to 15, 000 square feet of land per dwelling unit if a development is clustered; however, the land which is "saved" must be set aside as usable open space. The overall density of the tract cannot exceed one dwelling unit per 20, 000 square feet of land; thus, the maximum density permitted under R-20 zoning is 2 . 1 units per acre. Table 1 (attached) compares the permissible uses in a Carrboro R-20 zoning district with those in a Carrboro R-15 zoning district. Table 2 (attached) compares the density and dimensional requirements of both zones. CONFORMITY WITH THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN: According to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan adopted by Carrboro, Orange County and Chapel Hill in 1986, these properties are categorized as Suburban Residential located within Transition Area I of the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. Under the 3 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request JPALUP, the category of Suburban Residential is defined as follows: Suburban Residential Areas are designated for housing densities ranging from one (1) to five (5) dwelling units per acre. Such areas are located where land is changing from rural to urban, suitable for urban densities, and to be provided with public utilities and services. Housing types range from single-family homes to duplexes to multi-family dwellings. However, densities may be lower than one dwelling unit per acre in Suburban Residential Areas. Chapel Hill as part of its Southern Small Area Plan has identified certain areas in the Southern Triangle as being suitable for densities not exceeding one (1) unit per acre for areas immediately east of U.S. 15-501 and densities not exceeding one (1) unit per five (5) acres for areas immediately west of Old Lystra Road. (amended 2/1/93) Both the current Carrboro R-R (1 unit/acre) zoning and the proposed Carrboro R-20 (2 . 1 units/acre) zoning are well within the density limits of the Suburban Residential Area category of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. CARRBORO SMALL AREA PLANNING PROCESS: Carrboro is at the beginning of a small area comprehensive planning process designed to produce a comprehensive plan for the growth and development of the northern edge of Carrboro's incorporated limits and the Transition Area. The study area encompasses approximately 3 , 900 acres within Carrboro and its permitting jurisdiction. The process has just begun and is expected to take a minimum of 2 years to complete. Carrboro has begun this process in response to increasing growth pressures along its northern boundary. Currently, over half of the land lying north of N. Greensboro St./Hillsborough Rd. and south of Homestead Rd. (excepting the Horace Williams tract) is either developed, undergoing development, has a current development 'De/mit, or is in the permitting process. Development of a comprehensive plan for this area is the responsibility of the Small Area Planning Work Group, a 34 member group which is made up of the Carrboro Planning Board, representatives from the Carrboro Transportation Advisory Board and Carrboro Parks and Recreation Commission, and 21 citizens of the study area. 4 11 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request No decision has been made by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen to place a moratorium on development permits during this project. The land in the Transition Area cannot be rezoned by the Board of Aldermen alone, rather it can only be rezoned by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to a joint public hearing process as provided for in the Joint Planning Agreement. A moratorium on rezoning requests would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners after a joint public hearing process. ANALYSIS: Carrboro' s R-R and R-20 zoning districts are similar in many of the uses permissible in each. Nonetheless, there are a number of uses peimissible in the R-R zoning district which are not permissible in a R-20 zoning district. These uses include temporary homes for the homeless; horseback riding stables; institutional residences such as nursing care, intermediate care, handicapped, aged, infirm, or child care institutions; veterinarian and kennel operations; agricultural operations which include livestock; airports; sanitary landfills; cemeteries; and commercial greenhouse operations with on-premises sales. Rezoning to R-20 would move these parcels to a more restrictive zoning category while doubling the allowable density. There is a significant difference between Carrboro R-R and R-20 in the maximum number of dwelling units allowed per acre. Carrboro R- R allows 1 dwelling unit per acre; R-20 allows up to 2. 1 dwelling units per acre. Dimensional requirements for the R-R and R-20 zoning districts are the same. The parcels under consideration for rezoning total approximately 264 acres. Under R-R zoning a maximum of 264 units could be developed; under R-20 zoning a maximum of 574 units would be possible. It is critical to note that it would be very difficult to realize this many standard single family lots from the parcels because no land has yet been set aside for roads, recreation purposes, required stream buffers, or as undevelopable land. . However, under multi-family or certain cluster designs it would be more likely that this many lots could be realized. The parcels proposed for rezoning are accessed via Old Rt. 86 (SR 1009) or Lake Hogan Farm Rd. (SR 1728) off of Homestead Rd. (SR 1777) . These are the main transportation routes which would be affected by any development which occurred on these parcels. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has recently completed a feasibility study of possible improvements to Homestead Rd. from the Calvander intersection east to NC 86. A feasibility study is required before any road project can be reviewed by the State Board 5 1 12 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request of Transportation for possible inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Plan. A feasibility study is very preliminary and is used mainly for cost estimating purposes. it represents the first of several detailed studies which must be completed in order for a road improvement project to move forward towards funding and construction. The time between feasibility study and actual construction is generally measured in years rather than months. In addition, detailed transportation impact studies would be required as part of Carrboro's permit process for development of these properties. Nonetheless, the following information is offered as a first take on the transportation impacts of full development of these parcels on Homestead Rd. Under Carrboro R-R zoning, single family development of these parcels would allow a maximum of 264 units producing an estimated 2 , 640 vehicle trips per day. Single family development of these parcels under Carrboro R- 20 zoning would allow a maximum of 574 units producing an estimated 5, 740 vehicle trips per day. The 1992 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Homestead Rd. is estimated to be approximately 3000 vehicles per day (vpd) . Homestead Road is designed to handle an ADT of 12 , 000 vehicles per day at capacity. It is apparent that full development of these parcels at either zoning density will, at completion, significantly increase the number of vehicles per day on Homestead Road; however, full development of these parcels alone would not push the ADT beyond the current design capacity of this road. These properties could be served by public water and sewer. As a part of its application for rezoning, Orange County requires that applicants obtain letters from agencies stating that the property can be served by public utilities and services. Those letters are attached for your reference. 6 13 Table I Comparison of Permissible Uses in Carrboro's R—R and R-20 Zoning Districts Permissible Uses R—R R-20 Single family uses x x Multi—family uses x x Group homes such as fraternities,sororities, homes for the handicapped,and boarding houses x x Homes emphasizing services,treatment or supervision such as nursing care homes, halfway houses, child care homes, x x Temporary homes for the homeless x Elementary and secondary schools x x Colleges, universities,and community colleges x Churches, synagogues and temples x x Libraries, museums, art galleries under 3,500 sf in size x x Community centers x x Outdoor recreational facilities——public and private x x Horseback riding stables x Institutional residences such as nursing care institutions, intermediate care institutions, handicapped,aged or infirm institutions, child care institutions x Veterinarian and kennel operations x Emergency services facilities x x Agricultural operations--excluding livestock Agricultural operations--including livestock x Silvicultural operations x x Reclamation landfills x x Airport x G Sanitary landfill x Neighborhood utility facilities x x Towers and antennas x x Cemetery x Nursery schools and day care centers x x Commercial greenhouse operations without on—premises sales x x Commercial greenhouse operations with on—premises sales x Source: Carrboro Land Use Ordinance Section 15-146 ( Table 2 Comparison of Density and Dimensional Requirements Between Carrboro R—R and R-20 Zoning Districts Requirements R—R R-20 Minimum Land Area per Residential Unit 43,560 sf 20,000 sf (iacne\ K4axinnurnNumnberofDvveUinQUnbs per Acre 1.0/acre' 2.1/acre Minimum Setbacks: from street right—of—way 40 feet 40 feet from rear lot boundary 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 100 feet Maximum Building Height 35 feet 35 feet Source: Ca.rrboro Land Use Ordinance _ ),...y- i .....,izir.„..„, TOWN OF CARRBORO ct lbA, , ' .4.', NORTH CAROLINA , )1 ---6--1 ) iv 4 ., ■ , MEMORANDUM TO: Members, Orange County Board of Commissioners Members, Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen FROM: James E. SpiveyA , Deputy Town Clerk DATE: April 15, 1993 RE: Information Received by the Town of Carrboro In addition to the information received by the County, I have attached information received by the Town of Carrboro regarding the proposed Lake Hogan Farm, Inc. rezoning request. Attached please find: 1. Memo from Roy Williford to the Board of Aldermen regarding the Protest Petition 2 . Memo from Michael Brough to Julia Trevarthen regarding Application of Protest Provisions 3 . PROTEST PETITION, received by the Town on April 12, 1993 4 . Memo from Robin Lackey to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen regarding a protest petition submitted by nine citizens who are also members of the Small Area Planning Work Group 5. Protest Petition submitted by nine citizens 6. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. H. Taylor Vaden to Roy Williford and Marvin Collins /jes attachments P. 0. BOX 829 • 301 WEST MAIN STREET,CARRBORO, NC 27510 • (919) 942-8541 • FAX(919) 968-7737 • TDD (919) 968-7717 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER wirg4.)t,, TOWN OF CARRBORO • NORTH CAROLINA _ 4 11,}1 off 11<lb. C MEMORANDUM TO Members, Board of Aldermen/ FROM Roy M. Williford, AICPri Planning & Economic Development Director DATE: April 14, 1993 RE: Protest Petition: Lake Hogan Farm, Inc. , JPA Rezoning The Town of Carrboro received a protest petition on April 12, 1993 regarding the Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request scheduled for a Joint Planning Area Public Hearing on April 15, 1993 . The petition has been reviewed pursuant to Section 15-326 of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance and is a valid protest petition. This petition has been signed by the owners of 54% (20% is required) of the area of the lots or portions of the lots immediately adjacent to the southern side of the lots included in the proposed change and extending 100 feet therefrom. The total area within 100 feet of the proposed rezoning is approximately 400, 600 square feet and an area of 215,810 square feet is represented by the petitioners. This petition will trigger the 3/4 vote requirement by the Board of Aldermen in order to approve the rezoning. (See attached memo from Michael B. Brough, Town Attorney. ) /jes attach. : Protest Petition xc: Robert Morgan, Town Manager Mike Brough, Town Attorney Sarah Williamson, Town Clerk P. 0. BOX 829 • 301 WEST MAIN STREET,CARRBORO,NC 27510 • (919) 942-8541 • FAX(919) 968-7737 • TOO (919) 968-7717 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .,. _ .... . MICHAEL B. BROUGH & ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM TO: Julia Trevarl.hen FRCH:.: Michael B. Brough 4V DATE:: April 7, 1993 Rr: Application of Protest Provisions to Rezoning Requests in the Transition Areas Yee have inquired whether the protest petition provision, of G.S. 160A- 365 .ird section 15-326 of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance applied to rezoning r'equest's involving property within Carrboro's transition areas, Having reviewed the .special legislation that authorized the Joint Planning Process in Orange County rind the Joint Planning Agreement, and having discussed the matter with County Attorney Geof Gledhill , my Conclusion is that the protest petition proOsIens do apply to rezonings that, under the Joint Planning Agreement require the approval of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. Under the Joint Planning Agreement, changes in zoning classifications for the transition areas be rode until an ordinance approving the zoning map amendment has been approved by both 1irang2 County and Carrboro following a point public hearing. The er!ab1'irq legislation for this Joint Planning Agreement states that each governing beard 1 $ follow its own procedures and voting requirements. Therefore, a successful protest petition will require the affirmative vote of the 3/4 of the enemeer of the Board of Aldermen, or 6 members, in order to change the zoning of aiy properties subject to the petition. However, since the county zoning enabliee legislation does not contain a similar protest petition, a vote of a sfcrple majority of the corm issioners a quorum being eee$ t1e amendment. � q g present) will be sufficient ieo additional thoughts come to mind in reference to this inquiry. First, 11' a protest petition is filed, it may be exceedingly difficult to determine whether e sufficient number of persons has signed the petition in order to trigger` tee 3/4 vote requirements. The reason is that the provisions of G.S. 16CA 18 i :an be applied rather easily when the rezoning effects only a single rectar!ri.cler lot. However, when the tract in question is very large and irregular In aria res, it becomes extremely problematic to apply these provisions. Therefore, If a peeii;ion is received, please let me know so that we can review it together. Second , the protest petitions can be easily avoided if the rezoning request lrrav e 1j buffer of at least 81 feet around the periphery for which no rezoning is requested. r''leese let me know if you have any questions. in1.,f Mr. & Mrs. H. Taylor Vaden 8033 Old NC 86 Chapel Hill NC 27516 (919) 967-2184 , 11 April 7, 1993 Roy Williford, Manning Director, Carrboro" Marvin Collins, Manning Director, Orange County Re: Z-2-93 LAKE HOGAN FARM We, the undersigned residents/registered voters of Orange County, respectfully request that this letter be read into the official record of the F'ublic Hearing scheduled for April 15, 1993 at 7:30 FM at which time proposed amendments to the Carrboro Zoning Ma and Orange County Zoning Atlas will be heard. We oppose the Lake Hogan Farm (and environs) rezoning request on the following grounds and urge rejection of the proposed changes: 1. There exists in Carrboro and Orange County a Small Area Planning Work Group whose charge is to develop a comprehensive plan for the growth and development of the area identified as Carrbords future growth area in Orange County. This group has not been consulted about the proposed change in zoning. Any action now that would result in changes in current zoning without involving the Work Group would be an insult to due 9rocess and would contradict the goal of the Board of Aldermen in establishing the Small Area Manning Work Group on October 6, 1992, 2. The petitioners have presented no evidence to show that doubling the current zoned density would NOT have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of all citizens of Carrboro, and especially on property owners who reside near the property where zoning changes are requested. 3. It is detrimental to the overall growth objectives of Carrboro and of Orange County to engage In spot-zoning that is inconsistent with existing plans developed for the good of all residents of Carrboro and Orange County. 4. Petitioners should be required to provide satisfactory evidence that their proposed changes will have no negative impact on the ecology and wildlife of the area, on transportation and roadways, on public schools, on water and sewerage systems, on waste disposal systems and landfill capacities, on police, fire, and health services, and on the general well-being of the populace. 5. The Small Area Manning Work Group should be required to evaluate the proposed changes according to the nine points delineated in the Group's defined mission, particularly with regard to patterns of growth and their impact; conservation of farmland, natural Letter to R. Williford and M. Collins, rage 2 of 2 areas and environmentally sensitive areas; protection of the character' and natural beauty of the area defined; and provision of adequate transportation routes including public, private, bicycle and pedestrian. We support the concept that every landowner should have the right to sell his or her property at a profit consistent with practices in the area and with the long range objectives of the community at large. We do not agree, however, that landowners have the right to take an action that will diminish the quality of life of their neighbors and fellow Orange Countians. We urge that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Board of Commissioners deny this request for rezoning and mandate that any petitioner for change work with designated Small Area Planning Work Group representatives to develop a plan that is consistent with the community's long range goals as well as their personal economic objectives. Respectfully, H. Taylor (Bud) Vaden Cl/1-3 Pr, Barrie R. Cassileth (Mrs. H. Taylor Vaden) Barrie R. Vaden 8033 Old NC 86, Chapel Hill NC 27156 (919) 967-2184 Presentation to Rezoning Hearing, April 15, 1993 I speak to those who own hundreds of acres of land, and to those who own a few; to those whose properties are worth millions of dollars in todays market, and to those whose properties would bring the smallest fraction of that amount. I speak to the relatively few who actually farm the land, and to the many who work their small gardens; to descendants of the early settlers and their slaves, and to the carpet-bagger newcomers who are responsible for the astronomical rise in property values. I speak to all of us, and we are the community. Together we can create something of beauty and grace, working on behalf of the common good; from the values and goals that we share. No single one of us has the right to manipulate the lives of others. No single one of us has the right to tell others how to live, or to force others to re-organize their worlds on behalf of self interests. As a community, we consider benefits to the group, and plan before, not after, we act. We respect one another' s right to live as well as we can, so long as we hurt no one else in the process, because communal right supercedes that of the individual. We urge you, our mayor, our commissioners and our aldermen, to work for the common good. To insist that careful planning occur before, not after, action is permitted, using the orderly mechanism that you yourselves already have established to develop this land that we all want and need- perhaps for different reasons, but with equal intensity. Let us truly understand the momentous opportunity that we face today as we literally hold in our hands the shape and quality of this land for all time to come. Katie Early McLaurin 109 Windsor Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Tel: 919-968-8673 May 24, 1993 Carrboro Board of Aldermen Town Hall Carrboro, NC Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing in regard to the rezoning request being considered by the Carrboro Alderman for the property known as Lake Hogan Farm. I have spoken at two meetings on this issue, once at the Homestead Community Building at a gathering of "concerned" citizens and once at the joint Carrboro-Orange Country public hearing. I am a Chapel Hill resident with children attending Seawell Elementary School. I am also a close personal friend of the Hogan family. The issue I want to address with this letter is the impact of additional development on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School System. I have served as an elected school governance committee member at Seawell and as a Seawell parent volunteer to the last system-wide school redistricting committee. • The request for rezoning Lake Hogan Farm is not the make-it or break-it issue for Seawell or the school system as a whole. Some of the information that has circulated by those who oppose this request lay the majority of the development burden on Seawell School. This is simply not the case. Development is here and more development is on the way throughout our community. Our school administrators and board members, in collaboration with local governing boards and the community at large, are responsible for meeting the educational needs of our children. It is my view that we have extremely competent and dedicated educator- administrators who are best able to face the growing demands of our increasing school age population when they are able to plan adequately. The development that is proposed with the rezoning request will take a minimum of eight to ten years to build out. This type of planned development will facilitate rather than hinder the work of those charged with designing and implementing educational facilities and programs for our children. RECEIVED NAY 2 5 293 Carrboro Board of Aldermen May 24, 1993 Page 2 I urge you to weigh the rezoning request for the Lake Hogan Farm property in light of the big picture of planning for the long term for the Carrboro community, its schools and the entire school system. Sincerely, eit&C. , Katie Early MrFaurin eta# Orange County Commissioners Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen County Clerk Hillsboro, NC 27278 4/8/93 Dear Commissioners and Aldermen, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of Lake Hogan Farm. I understand that development of that land is inevitable . I do not oppose the development , I oppose the proposed 100 percent increase in density . I request that the Redfoot plan not be discussed at the public hearing, since this is a rezoning hearing only. I oppose the rezoning for the impact that the potential number of houses and people will have on our community, most especially on the school system.There is no current infrastructure to support the population explosion in our area . Seawell Elementary School has the capacity to house 500 children. (That includes the new building, which was completed this school year. ) There are 613 students at Seawell to date. The school is 113 students over capacity . If you haven' t driven down Homestead Road recently, you should take a drive. Wexford Subdivision is under construction , with 95 houses planned. Those children will go to Seawell . Cameron Court is under construction. There will be 24 homes there. it is less than a half mile from Seawell , and if they do not go to Seawell , they will be bussed to a different district . There are 24 new low income houses on Airport Road. Those children will go to Seawell . Ironwoods is building 50 new houses , and all those children will go to Seawell Elementary School . That is a total of 213 houses , and Seawell is already over capacity by 113 ! If Lake Hogan Farm is to be upzoned from one house per acre to 2 . 1 per acre, that is a potential of more than 600 new houses , most probably starter homes with young families and young children who will feed into Seawell School . How can the school possibly accommodate that number of children? The Seawell PTA is obviously concerned by the rapid growth; they allowed a group of concerned citizens to send home pamphlets with the children which addressed these same issues . Wake County Schools are in crisis now, after opening their arms to the country. The students are housed in more than 300 trailers . Those people are moving to Chapel Hill for the school system. Because of the Durham School merger, residents from Durham are moving to Chapel . Lets not destroy the very reason that people have moved here, our superior school system. The recent bond referendum that we voted in last fall was for a high school and a middle school . It seems that we are already in need of another referendum for ar least one new elementary school . It was controversial then; there were bumper stickers that read "vote NO for kids" . How will the taxpayers feel about voting again for increased taxes? The need for new schools right now is obvious to anyone who looks at the capacities and the enrollment of the Chapel Hill Carrboro schools . A potential 600 new houses with young children would only exacerbate an unresolved problem. The small area planning group was formed to create a long range comprehensive plan for this area . It would be premature and unreasonable to change the zoning on such a large tract of land, the very keystone of the transitional area. I trust you will evaluate the impact on the community as a whole as you make your decision to rezone or not . The Hogan family has been generous and kind to the community, but just because the developers they are dealing with have convinced them that they must rezone to make the profit they desire, you do not have to give them what they want . Lets not forget that the burden is on the developers , not the community, to prove why the area needs to be rezoned. In 1988 the Board of Commissioners voted NOT to downzone this same area . What has changed since that time, other than the Bolin Creek Interceptor extension, to make you change your decision now? As a parent with 3 young children in an already overcrowded school and as a citizen of an essentially rural area, I appeal to you not to vote to rezone the Lake Hogan Farm. Sincerely, Carolyn J . Miller, PA-C April 6, 1993 My Dear Mayor Kinnaird , and Alderpeople Gist , Caldwell , Gurganus, Marshall , Shetley and Bryan: My name is Jef , and I live at 300 Stony Hill Rd. on the outskirts of the city of Carrboro in Orange County. I am one of those fortunate to be selected to serve on the city of Carrboro ' s Small Area Planning Workgroup for the area to the north of the boundaries of your city. As a member of this committee, I was unable to attend the first meeting , but upon returning home from a business trip , I spoke with several members of the workgroup and I picked up my official looseleaf notebook from the planning staff of the city of Carrboro. Imagine my surprise to discover one day later that a public hearing is scheduled to review a rezoning request for the proposed Lake Hogan Farms subdivision. Surprise because this proposed rezoning was not brought up at the meeting of the workgroup , and not mentioned to me by anyone on the planning staff of the city of Carrboro ! (Funny , it was mentioned to me by a member of your town 's staff that it was never meant to be on the agenda of any of the meetings of the SAPWG. ) Please correct me if I am wrong , but this 304 acres lies in the heart of the area for which my workgroup is supposedly planning. I am not dead-set against this proposed rezoning. I am, however , advocating for you to deny the rezoning AT THIS TIME: until the Small Area Planning Workgroup can review and discuss how the rezoning of this much property in the heart of the T-1 area affects the PLAN for the entire area. To be honest , this proposed rezoning could appear to be in case of what might be called "contract rezoning. " In many of the letters supporting the rezoning request , the authors refer to the site plan , density, and timetable for building the subdivision. My understanding of the laws of the state of North Carolina is that such practices as rezoning parcels of land to fit the need of specific developments or subdivisions is forbidden. I believe that your action on this one matter is important because it will signal to those living in your "Transition Areas" just how you are going to deal with the future growth of your city: by planning , or by reacting. So, in the interest of PLANNING, please, deny the rezoning at this time, and let the Small Area Planning Workgroup fulfill its charge: TO PLAN ! Sincerely, � � / / �- ` B°�/ Jef . el( � / / w ~ .it P. 8„1/ I plan to attend the April 13th meeting of the Small Area Planning Workgroup , and I would appreciate it if what I have to say may be put on the agenda of that workgroup. I am unable, however , to attend the April 15th public hearing on this rezoning, and request that this letter be included in the minutes of that meeting. The_Christ aaa_Clom -,Jef Paul Whetstone This is a musical for children. A town' s Christmas celebration is nearly ruined by two villains who plot to steal all of the townspeople's gifts using a "Trojan" Christmas tree. Fortunately, their evil plan is foiled by the town messenger/clown and some mice. It features physical theater, puppetry, Commedia lazzi and tap dancing presents. /l / -7' . /` �/�° �u/f�~� ) '� _ `' - „p' �� ��� 1 r ��� April 13, 1993 9: 30 PM Dear Chairman Lackey, Planner Williford , Mayor Kinnaird , and Alderpeople Bryan , Caldwell , Gist , Gurganus, Marshall , and Shetley: It is with great sadness that I resign my appointment to your Small Area Planning Workgroup. After listening to the response of the Alderpeople of the town of Carrboro to my questions during our first joint worksession tonight , and after listening to the planning staff and Planning Board Chair , I realize that I have no place in any decision making process if I serve on your Workgroup. Therefore I feel as though I am being used to further the interests of the town of Carrboro, which are not necessarily my own best interests. In the worksession , I asked three questions to which I needed . answers in order to gauge whether or not I , as a member of your Workgroup , had a place in helping to shape the future of growth in and around my home. The only solid answer I received from anyone on any of my questions was from Alderperson Gurganus, and in his response he clearly stated his feelings about planning and rezoning. This says to me that the Board of Alderpeople of the town of Carrboro will always work from a political agenda, whether or not that agenda includes proper planning with weight given to the planning process. Since I have no vote in the town of Carrboro, I cannot engender change in your political arena. I can and will continue to work with my elected officials, the Orange County Commissioners, on matters concerning the planning and zoning of my neighborhood. I had hoped things would be different , but as they are not , I cannot in good faith serve on your Workgroup. Shortlived , eh? Anyhow, I wish you all the best. Sincerely, � 300 Stony Hill Rd. Chapel Hill , NC 27516 j jr tili ', kgyie-en ', (_,,(e2,-c_z_e,-,C4,6,,,,_ 4 , ,d-a-0,4,9_, at,-, . , , , , j 1-1.1Q----___ ' ' ! ; :. . (akz at_e_am) P."6_4, : jVcrilic .4117,. --- - ,_,...,,_ , - ,-_-_)-( 5 et--id-4--,(-(a_, . i1:65764.14 ,j 0 Uto-c:(2-4 ,A Va-,,, _7--/-'-4-,1/6--/ / ,,/,..-re'-e-er...e zie_ft,„,i:--g_.,,,,./"-e---,--e(1.‹,___)/1-e,4._,, ,, ,--e ae,_ f 1. adri a „2-A,0„-,--yk-kg„) by,„ --h.. r 7 --,A; )I6,-4„ ,y,:,--, ._,J ,. 7-4,,,,t U 7-7,,,,e_,,,„,ce /..1--?y,,,,,, ,-- iy , .,,,,,Lz---„,.......e.--e,f7A, 42-d_Q_ - .... -tec-vtA- /*ea. .., 7 .' _ d blif i U---/- .1 '7,2 )19-7 Ct.;-/ a.244e ai ///,,,17.1.,Aps„,_e::. 2_,.._. ..�°7/t1..: G�I�,� 7-,,-�,,,i,{,,.'°�' r;� ;..JJ G,�'�e�.. �C., fi�.,�' 7�.�r�� ,�,(�c�-.a7..�., *ey,e,,, ,,,,,,t) 0....f_e_i/4:--e:07://_WiV., u"--)/,,,i_e4S.....e.4;.6 .7g,--,',4_7_,/,_4_,.<a: ey,,,,, ....zz..e.....(2„) o " (7 ® �� 'f 1.. r,e3-<.d-~om -,?ze - �,,l7_?r . (3 7, 6 y/-e--c-e_o_-„.c.-t. i-o-7)---e-a---&----) vai,„„),,,,,,„:„). . % -0A ./-4.0- a.--(-4a- a-,1•C ,-:-76,11 , ??. 7C a r #: gl,"--Zej_e.....) /1 /e . y . ...,7 , , . ,,, d ....„„, P ,r ‘5., e/t4-L-c-e-_e--4-erk--J , ,..4?J K.I.-d e! ,-T(_.,," ..l i4,te;, Jp& � /"' 'g e... ) . : / . / --1° - 4ter . / l:� e � �• .�'�--y '7"� �'� ./ / eY ,V ,,°✓` /',/k ,3a--i`.J"co'' 0-74-4-t A-e-4---4,-f4,._' 7, + � ; r v @� ?'- r(,e,.. ._, ,„ _ P-t- ' V_..•r----- - , ,,,,,-,,,,A__,,'I - eei-e- '.. ?, e 4 g--e.---2-Al2--1X-X- or ' 1. e , , (3.---,- ,y- -1-12- ,,,a.-„,...„..m„ a,_,,,a„,,,, ,,,,,,,e ,,,,,,,L,,,,,,,_ia,- Pz. . ,, e 4i.„,,,%,., , . j . : ,, :mac , ..,-�_..�..e f ...6 ° ,,,09,a ®, 31' ) (,) „(.. - to--ii„?.„-e_ '/ - . ---, -0-7,4_6-69-0,cza.,,d A- 6--x-e_ < "7-€-(...) A , ,...h.t.,_ ,:e_d_.;4-- __ , ...."___vc e.„.. ..t-,,„,,,,,, A•r„.6,4,e_e_.) aze.4 0 4 • (i_el„,_, ,rL ' oi � i � - -' ` La. \ C...,/...a., 1 aia.e../...-- , ey/( p G i e— -y-$ /17a-4-y(„1-- ., �a– ,f 2 ,4-r(_ e ,t1-�t rte✓, , -, , 1, 6".-,t_, --‹ , .r° i f e.r ,4.--,,-( f /6÷ , / -3 4- , � ° ?,r: a-,--, ,7 v- t-....,,,,e--ia- (_) e lx72`e'-69-e. er7 4:61p2-e-) 01 dice---4-3',"--- `-idi -,c.-e-7e'-e-----' • 0 de-ed-,),,---"Lea,/ 14-0-W-e-i4c,,, 1, il,„,,Lal_-1:; ,v'.),,- -� 0 1 �,�//J,/itf '✓C -Z "'7/1 -*`"Z 4,..- § _ P 71-° -i! { / % - /�..�J ftaa.,-'dr /4-7,,---C 1&,,(6,77 a----- 6)761 d ,,,,,,„..,„,6„,Jr---,1-e--670 e,e,,,_ „ „ i .,,, / / da / / /Mk, dy--t-c-e---6V2-7-oJ---icl - t, , Or, 0, ..----/Lay,1 e....,f oj 4-4-4-4----,-(-4.3 „,„,„„azen_y--8. _,,,t6--A Ael.„&,6(i_ , s, '"`" 0 ,..)-0.--- • -4,-. .....- 4/. ve i / / , 0 .e.,t,,,,,,, . 1/4„,p i jte,,,x_w_e_, 64) (9,2,a,,, ,(___r_ert.t 0_27„,,,,,, %,,,_„___,. 74_,,,,,,„_,,-,_,),,, ,.„,,a--ct-dr„-:<± „„,aa-ez--- et,,,,,i,ee-t,„?, e‹4-fy.„-7_6_74..„ ..7 /„.,,,,,,(,_. („e„.e* .-le(„,,4 7_.e z i-/,. a----e--c-e „1---4-4,--c-- 64.- -e-e A- ,..-77ia--,--c,y,.7?-2-z4-7,-",,,,,,,„,,,,,,2_,„....x ,9 '1'1, XI) ag-1,%^71 . ao....--ef-0-.:_c ,,-4..4....i a-„,,, ,.._/„_,,,,, /6,,,,,x_,4.&0-24,),,,z-e al - r ., _d_ _ 1::_ce) , . ",d,e_.e.„,--vt_d_.) ■Pr-' .,,,ce,,e j,e..,/c„,(7 7(-,-;___,_7--,4_a_-k.-e___,,,a-e-e-e--4 e_J-La 7.;-- .4 ),../2-0(7)-e--1,-) ,,c_.-:,,,,,-,"j • \-11 ' ---e- .766-e-,4,„.. .---/?,_ .6, -i-e__ ..._ - , ..d.,, ajde-c.--,-0„0„._ / / . - - ' . .,_ . ,- --,ta,,,a- -- „,,, ,. , c'efr 10 ,,,- .., .1 a-) 49' -2 -X ' 1-, / ' o'-.7 4 -a17 - i ---/ it,74-d 7 .47 7 7 /47-('—' ci - . V/q-9 /72 - q "76g Li Ito ©No awHkgoz Tyr/7071.r.3" L ( 1 LhL WI Caircd°Arm Farrest OragnMed@ *17' gt©ny R(Ded 0 „e /e, o Orapir_ coup11y_ e e 2,.6 Pi ite u es Is 2 -ot (1747aet ta ke --Fa ra4) aNc/ 2.-3 - 73 ( 114/11('42„) Plect5e read f + Apt;! /5 p /,,, ,-T ur7 e +lite o()Pir.ti Inc/ od rc( 0 -P C4rrboro w4c1 C-o(Afri4 y Soard o 10 delay cfPci.siort okt -1-14-ese (euqs4-5 -For re-zoktikici 0(44-11 rszcevri-fy __S-wk431/ Area // or i< jroar (SA etA) CT) ka_s 11,061 +14e off or+-wywly +o s4cAdy -f-ite- po+evyk611 IAA c-f.' 0-f s ucii 4 Citaptak p ro uicte_ ;-k ) The, GIRUAto p tv1P4f. +14-95e- prOp .Q141' QS Will pr0-614 city ipt-N .9146-,,2 o c pro ) 4-k off" trk S -C are 4-0 b comsicieri2d +AR_ We( 1,tc1 pirk_ mr-F 1 +s si-ady 4 14 }zi („1-€C,tS /01 5 -ere wts e_ e_ Co pi r pro c-f-l'o-e_ or/ ca /early -t-11 .. e a re_ /R,- ;#imiti? 14-ter-e,54-s- 1 ) b c,.tpisictere(P ace bal414c,ed i +k deci57011, (Rz, oktia- +14s e prop-or-l-le5 dells / I- f. de ue(0/9 rs o--p prop Aztve. iii+eres-45 -1-4.-e 1 ;74es+ p ItVAlitC "a et,55 ILI +A 41k (-) 6)/4 144 a-off. The 0 if VS o--F-• a Ci i tit ; p r44 e-S ha e i + rss 11. 44 erv- -Lest 71R e--.01AAtataki ,‘-ty 04- 1/05 QVkiS a 0 u e PArt C4-- i o IA M P 14 Phone: 919--K2 7768 Fox: 919-942-7857 ( fiai)el Hill, North Carohnd 27516 was wilm D 1 L , Carc4-Ann A Farrrost , ar@wwWcds ,17?' Otonv HUI R©ad ..7 alil rto+ wit al-l-Qe4hly 0 ft 0 od 7 Gilh-Pr de/1517y 5 efe v e fat 144 e 144- -F 4-tt-e$-e. p to p-Pr-1-;/24 j-it , QC-t- t i c_ci vt S 0 6reAsi-/7 /-e- oisf sowe__ For +foRs 0 --2- ic-h-P m , Fr 0 I)rd_is d .€k v i eo 11 042$4+4 11x s-ensiA've_ areas T1!-t pro c gs °4° r-e i,e 1..., 0 -C-- d-k-fa r-ez oil i A7 ie,t9 7&tes-j- -S.Arwcr Pi il I ro ti i(Le 6 c,2,/ "A'ca / 0 1.7 or+(I n; 4 7 --fro -stY a &A i 1/Lt- 4-kiL ).,211,...--R-t-s. akt d f oya ci- i _14- t,,,,,. 1( b 4.-; on.e. 6_26 y--1---A ,c/9,,,1 , c. MI f , Phone: 919-942-7768 Fax: 919-942-7857 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Georgann Eubanks: Hogan Lake Rezoning Summation 1 This proposal has created an unfortunately tone of debate for our community, marked on both sides by anger and hurt feelings. The bickering was regrettable-- but it must now be put behind us. Tonight you must not decide based on personalities and feelings. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the one, central issue before you now be the advancement of the public health, safety and welfare. To assure this focus, the ordinance declares two issues off-limits: promises regarding specific uses for the land, and advantages or disadvantages to the applicants as distinguished from the general public. We know and you know that the applicant has various possible plans for the property. They have promised a cluster subdivision-- Lake Hogan Farms-- with a golf course and a commercial center, at a density much lower than could be built under R-20. We are interested in a full, detailed and open discussion of each element of this concept, but this is not the time for that discussion. Had the planning staff encouraged the submission of this proposal as a PUD zone specifically tailored to the applicant's plans, the details of the proposed development could be debated now, and we might all be more comfortable with the terms of the discussion. But with the request that was submitted, the single question before you is whether public good would be advanced by doubling the zoning density on this 254-acre core of the Rural Transition Area, including all the uses that would be permitted under R-20. That means-- instead of 264-- up to 574 houses, on lots down to one- quarter acre. That is the only question before you. rkir" 1-4 ilk,470;9';" Georgann Eubanks: Hogan Lake Rezoning Summation 2 The applicants are not entitled to the rezoning unless they convince you through solid, relevant facts in the public record. For two reasons, we do not believe that the applicants' case can convince you. First, the case rests almost entirely on the two arguments prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. Second, it fails to answer any of our objections regarding the threats to public health, safety and welfare which increased density would bring. The applicants offered three points at the public hearing, all irrelevant to what the ordinance requires: • that the Hogan family wishes to leave the dairy business and will receive more by selling to a developer than to another farmer-- in other words, the special benefit to the developer; • that higher density development will allow more economical provision of sewerage, encouraging a "master planned/ open space development"-- in other words, a promise of a particular use of the land; and • that the proposed density is permissible under the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan- a fact that proves nothing, since both R-R and R-20 are allowable under general plans. But a greater weakness in the applicants' case lies in what it does not address. We have shown that rezoning would impair, not advance, the public health, safety and welfare. Doubled density would bring a projected 5,740 daily additional automobile trips on Old 86 and Homestead Road instead of 2,640. It would bring twice the impervious coverage on the land, with corresponding increases in already-serious downstream peak flooding in any major storm. It would create extra public expenses for roads, schools, fire, police Georgann Eubanks: Hogan Lake Rezoning Summation 3 0 and sanitation for a "leap-frog" development, exceeding tax base income and likely requiring higher tax rates. And, under the Joint Planning Agreement, doubled density means setting a precedent for further, similar rezonings throughout the T-2 transition area. All of these objections have been documented with detailed, uncontroverted facts. Since time is limited, I would like to review evidence in just one area: roads. Planning staff advises you that, because NCDOT studied Homestead Road last winter and proposed five-laning it from Calvander to Airport Road, all is well This optimism rests on oversimplification, to say the least: NCDOT found that the accident rate on Homestead is already 1.6 times the state average, even without the additional traffic of Wexford and other newly approved subdivisions. Road improvements may be years in coming, all out of Carrboro's control. Old 86, which carries many more cars and bicycles, particularly south towards the new school and shopping center, was not studied and is not planned for widening. We have raised similarly detailed concerns regarding flooding hazards downstream, negative fiscal impacts on the town budget, adequacy of schools and other public facilities, and incompatibilities with the Small Area Planning process and Carrboro 2000 policies. The applicants have answered none of these; your planning staff has responded only by promising that such impacts will be studied before any Conditional Use Permit is issued. However, rezoning entitles an owner of land to subdivide to the allowed density-- without any impact studies at all No CUP need ever be applied for, and no y'44 -1 C:eY r Georgann Eubanks: Hogan Lake Rezoning Summation 4 further determination of the interests of the public need ever be made before the maximum 574 housing units are built. Because our objections to this rezoning have met anger and aspersion, let me emphasize again that we are not attacking the motivation or the integrity of the Hogans. Nor are we attacking any proposed pla. i for Lake Hogan Farms, which must remain outside discussion in this rezoning. Rather, we are asking that you consider this rezoning under the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and that you reject it because the applicants have failed to show, through relevant, solid facts in the public record, that it will not impede the general health, safety and welfare. We are not opposed to development. In asking you to deny the applicants' request, we are not asking you to stop development of these parcels, and we are not asking you to reject the Lake Hogan Farms plan. We support a full and open discussion of the Hogans' concept after a resubmission of this proposal under PUP zoning, instead of the arbitrary R-R R-20 districts. And we truly hope that, in a full and open discussion of the applicants' real plans, a neighborly spirit of communication and compromise will replace the misunderstanding, distrust and ugliness that has hurt all of us this time around. April 15 , 1993 To : Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Orange County Commissioners Regarding: Rezoning Z-2-93 Lake Hogan Farm Public Hearing 04/15/93 From: John Hartley, adjacent property owner and member of the Carrboro Small Area Planning Work Group Please take a look at the attached sheet which illustrates vacant land within Carrboro' s Ti Area . Approximately 1114 acres zoned from R-10 (4 , 356 units/acre) to R-15 (2 , 9 units/acre) to R-20 (2 . 178 units/ acre) are available for immediate development with sewer in place in the Bolin Creek basin , 2778 new homes could be built in the Ti Area without any rezoning. In addition , please see the attached sheet which illustrates lands owned by the Hogan family within the Tl Area which are also vacant and already zoned at densities of R-15 and R-20 . Under present zoning the Hogans have approximately 104 acres of R-20 land and 73 acres of R-15 land allowing as many as 437 homes without any rezoning request . The Orange County Application For Change of Zoning District asks for the following information : "The changed or changing conditions , if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health , safety and general welfare . " (#3 , item 2) With the abundance of existing R-15 and R-20 lands I cannot see how this rezoning is reasonably necessary or promotes public health, safety or general welfare . Ritp‘ ft Jog D . Hartley ', r u" °s 1m",• �w ;Itt "}it RR I----• ' y , -1_ ____:' " mill 0:::. =9.711,00:11141.-'141111.11b_mlis: -,.,- A lit , 1's st ). LIN :, ,§ \ , mi,,,I..,,,,,,,,,,,,:„.„. : . , MI I 1 Mali S \\ . ,. 1 PIM • tx-i-,.:„„„____.,„,..,,..„ice; �'� i --� . ,. analIPININ .. .. n ; I MI6 , =.74 --4,:c., -- -- - - a IF s______. Ill, 11261111,,,....4.,..,-;,,.„‘-,,,-----ail ! --0`_i_ d11-4 • INigit_ } �r ' ' 3�7 1r'4y j� T i f aC L xi PS 7 al ‘ 4, f '''.' r ..., _ - _......_ .1/�\� -.,,,,-,, ....•-. . ....._ _-_,:i, - in, y, - .,- ,.,.. .d ,,,,--- .A . 338 ac Y l ;-- R-20 , g._' iI.12saC ' �` i r :-r k■ '''‘Z. ,___2_ 1 ,,„...f„,,,, .,-,„„.• . .,...,_.., , .. N.Ci.,.•-_, 64 ac R-10 . .\..„ . ,,,....., ..47 l'S - t-----: gm . , ; i A mix-,;:.,i,t) D'i( ...41....0-9 r , ..d. , ;,#. t-writui,‘: i - . 7.-el"-`.1 . 2 , ` MA 4 .. , : -' : !� �-., +lo ��♦;�►�+�?4=y�i ., i� 133ac 5 bar + ...:Nt'P"�'�rk.#10 'a��!�1/ �V�•• /,, , v. ....titariroUlats_______ -- 'It- 10.4P764 ♦ mot, \ S. 0,_,;,-z�- • .0-4;#,A, ito - .- t' ..,',1 '. :lb,is, . ...\ 7 , -/ • .--\ ---41$1. wr. ,-,>, ,• 1 ' s .,. ,e7.(-/.., <,..,/,,,/ \...; . 0 A . ._ 1 ...__. . •( . m--3 11.:-..44 4.4110. ''.sf. ..41# 414'10 kc I ''\///-1.a An/I 1 trA -4111r11111M �- 0 /"� ,� fie. s � � , ___J( L1 4a/ ��. �� '�11h 1 �.:•®� a .' — y .� fit, s s'T.�� �� = F ��"w°7a�i �,_„CI\f J — s , ` p. t.:• ,* 1' '� ,R a impe Il, / Vietioi ...tow ot`o.N.Q4z!,9 rti ,, .4TA . • : 1 , ‘4,4;914.-tit ,,....\;:_ wearita-A\ Illiwa \ r____ ore. . 1 ' *-■ iltfp`s® ' _ I R—� -fir /� NM 11111k t 1 -- -' ■ 11 =• — - ] ales • / //M'c -3-<” ' l'-'3—'' ' ' -- "• --7,6 (...■,./ 40 .., ,/ ..., ,..1. , „ ... _ 1 ,.., / .‘v • E3.7----, ,\ , c_ ill .. _- ,,,, . • ›,,, . _.....- ..Y '..----'-i-, --- ,Mmil rid e,,,, 1 on N._ ,,,,,,..k ,4, p.m..ss I /* , ON 1111111.1 °Al I 1111 ' ■ erdeleAn. , WEI ,.... . .4„. �. 1 . ac I�r v .11 To 'r•, ci ( . .. . ._.d...._ : 1111111111, Mil , ,.,;- - - ... ..,,,,„,... e'. - -. . III: ((-e2.04(tic is ,,,,,,,, ....„,,......\ . , // „ ,"....- . l c�>cr ( i ±167ac \�, �� i�i,\ 1 ' i� RR t \ \ / � r� F R-2t _ u. u 1 67• . 4 1 ..Y.N..) st .,,,,.,„ 1 \ x . .i\ ■ MOW i � ate., �',�:. ; ! : \ 1 II ''vim. : 73ac : r :!- ..r\i/<;. ..7.-1(/"..-11-) 7y/:� ' 22a �. P� B: * s ''. s :1111 •WR i �� `M1 .— t R-2 106 ac / �� n MOM . •••• •-. (r fr '.‘• '7„.,:44,rifir-..„, jp, , .. It all \ 1 �.. _ .. ral ,... ,..-- . 4." , i limili _ . I: • . * #.4f,"..nis.,479,7%,,,„,,,,I.,..,.?„,,,v5:_.:,, 1,,,,, . ({0C(A y (,��t6 ('�`5e'll -2(1cccD � MAY 21 '93 11:04 CARREORO TOWN HALL P.2 fifrir■ti- /8 May 15, 1993 / Dear Board of Aldermen, Because the tapes of the Hogan Farm rezoning public hearing were inaudtble, I am forwarding a copy of the statement I made at the hearing. Although the minutes do reflect the general tone of the meeting, the facts that I had gotten from Lincoln Center were omitted. I spoke about the impact that the increased zoning would have on the schools, especially on Seawell Elementary School . enclosed is a copy of my statement for the public record. Sincerely, 16, Carolyn Miller RECEIVED MAI 19 1999 MAY 31 '93 11:05 CARRBORO TOWN HALL. P.3 My name is Carolyn Miller and I am a resident of Calvander . I , opposed to the rezoning of Lake Hogan Farm because of the impact that , a 100% increase in density will have on this community, especially the Schools . The Romans and all other landowners have every right to develop their land. But we as citizens have every right to contest a change in zoning that will have an enormous impact on our schools . It is obvious that the schools cannot handle the high numbers of children moving into the Chapel Hitl/Carrboro school district right now. My children go to Seawel l Elementary School , which has a total capacity of 500 students . The current enrollment is 613 , so they are 113 students over capacity this year , even with a new building that was completed just last. fall . We passed a school bond referendum lilst November , which was controversial . It did pass , even though there were "vote NO for kids" signs posted around. That bond allows us to build a new high school and a middle school . There is no plan for a new EL D41 TARY school . The research triangle has the third highest birth rate in this country. This is not so-called "normal " growth. Chapel Hill/Carrboro school enrollment projections are based on birth rate and growth trends over the past few years . A January ' 92 report projected that there would be 6 , 617 students in the school system the following year . The report UNIT . P ' •JECTED by 245 students in just ONE year ! Anyone who drives down Homestead Road is aware of the explosion of developments in the Seawell school district , Wexford Subdivision is. under construction with 95 houses planned. Those MAY 21 '93 11:05 CARRBORO TOWN HALL P.4 4 children will go to Seawell . Cameron Court is under construction. There will be 24 homes there . It is less than a mile from Seawell , and if they ' re not allowed to go to Seawell , they will be bussed to another school . There are 24 new low income units on Airport Road. Those children will go to Seawall . Ironwoods is building Sty new houses , and all those children will also go to Seawall . That is a total of 213 houses , and Seawell is already over capacity by 113 students ! If Lake Hogan Farm is to be upzoned to 2 . 1 houses per acre , that is a potential of close to 600 new houses , most probably starter homes with young families and young children who will feed into Seawell Elementary School . How can the School possibly accomodate that number of children? The infrastructure does not exist to handle these kinds of numbers . Both Wake and Durham County Schools are in crisis now. This threatens our schools even more , as these people move to our area, too. As a parent of young children in an already overcrowded school and as a citizen of an essentially ' rural areas I appeal to you NOT to rezone the Lake Hogan ' Farm. May 24, 1993 Sarah C. Williamson Town Clerk P.O. Box 829 Carrboro, NC 27510 Re: Hogan Farm Rezoning Dear Ms. Williamson: In accordance with Mr. Roy M. Williford's May 14, 1993 letter and my understanding that the tape recording of the April 15th hearing was marginal, a reconstruction of my comments at that hearing is as follows: "Given the interconnected neighborhood roads policy, the lack of viable thoroughfares around/to and from Carrboro/Chapel Hill in this area, and the fact that traffic, much like flowing water, follows the path of least resistance, I am extremely concerned about the potential impact of increased traffic pressure from this and other developments on existing neighborhoods. I ask that the rate of development be matched to the proactive development of services such as transportation including roads and bicycle/pedestrian paths. Has a stormwater model been run for the T-1&2 area/Bolin Creek watershed and for the Lake Hogan Farm parcel in particular?" Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments on this issue. Sincerely, Sidney L. Harrell 204 Barington Hills Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (919) 942-7978 RECEIVED VIM 25 1993 C� � r I am sorry I am unable to attend this meeting and personally voice my concerns regarding the proposed zoning change to allow high density development in the Hogan Lake-Harmony Farms area north of Calvander. I agree with all of the concerns raised by others regarding school overcrowding, traffic congestion, and the overall adverse environmental impacts such a project would have. As an archaeologist, I am particularly worried about the possibility of losing potentially important prehistoric and historic archaeological sites in the project area. Although I'm unaware of any known sites that might be impacted, the area has never been systematically investigated, and given its long and significant history, there is a high probability that such sites exist. I sincerely hope the idea of preserving much of the area as a conservation sanctuary will be given serious consideration. If, however, the rezoning request is approved, I strongly encourage all parties--the developers, the town, and the county--to conduct a detailed environmental assessment prior to moving forward with. the project. And this assessment should certainly include an appraisal of cultural, historical, and archaeological resources, as well as natural environmental impacts. or H. Trawick Ward, *hi) III 1 y8' B1 Dr e t.4j L ear, April i tai -�._ u ' :—,.....„.__.— , , co,„..1141 oicric fii,2-9 5-5-1 1 I 14i t gar a cvPt {t1 1 , 'fG1V`t( t, gj �a4v1iY jai' i4 s ; i .„, , re:—a-0 i'i : 2.—J—ci 3 p co x,.47 v - t-fry'refecl H4 k . �,, rc i s 7 ., ; , r ' ,,,,c,,, 1 p i _,e r"Ik9r0 'k r .i ct c.10,i e.r, " ;SL(° ,r 1,,,e ) . w r , - pi Iii yo i 3 8.D. .(le i V 0 tAr ar d l rt ` i ' 1 (. a -` � s ( r ' a . . .. ,i,.-1.i ,i e .,,, 04 ',, Cal-1- 6.Yr . ' m .0 use V itm"10`C.i s r,g^w. '!` rte,& ,(= -, a v— I's-e ,. c ,.a Vii" 0 ver urco v.,civil, 'ctJ) ^ , ))4; Z y r '�„, 1 yV i� 1 •y e s L`? . - e-t41r ,- „Iry i' rvi r'Ivic., y .,--41' ,4,,l , . . ,i.y,, E,,.. lIF°' r' ^.L .- - %J i a of i° i pee v0'c ., ¢ t' /"_- ,,,„ f ei f! 4 . '13' A,IL3 i`�•,_, c„,,i....„,...„,_ , . ,„ ,„,,)1 0'00-0 ,s-vi,t,,,d04e_ -lee f, 0,44,,s S'Leid,&4. --+;.-es r0"-is A,e,el c)41,--fer-- l ;=1 ,r `i e$ e, ear, ' c i ri f v) rttrel► 0 f_ n; m ,.i, ;del WO c �y�y CC bey ey gg'i r `Ac t c)'111- c,. `..,,,, `' ,- \ . 4;?- it \v' i? t it x - lit />/: , , , \ d S pe.ec,k c wt i i-. s vg4 r� T=ct r m e,2,0 rti i r. fir- t l 5 , t`��t 3 lrer. P�b1t`e t`tea.r►n� c�,i`� CPrrbo�o �'i,4er-nr•Qr ©Y`�r�g��oun c� C M�sst`s�� e.t t o , ts( r x..m e.- 1 S L.t r kcz., `?o bei is oz..nd cx„s 0.9 au. l n.o'c.�s c a 1 er g t-e s ckettit' Q- ' `i-ke, �es�r't' o-P C'c�10-o.rae r - w\i cA is cis o known M0.1N 1 0 t.J�s cat,s " -o c:�s Co fart r e wci Ft- a 1 kne LJ o ±\.,:„1- ce,t ` Le. oz - m'v' de-s9 4 n∎` ‘,A.s cz i 1`�' - s e.1.1 r° v er`1' . he 1-1c V'e: 0.k t--) a.1 s izt e-S\-\\;Sor� aid ca a ; `o-wt dec t`s i r1 °t ke- 11ctiv-� \-\°.-4 At' haue. re.+r- , , , Z do ho-u-e s emu- ra co r c.et-(Ns 'CO tA:r wbrtidet-'cam Garnm.u.": + s a roac.)6 n,; be.e-am{ t'ri�bho , I CAD Kttc L `"\A"\ � ci v-e Se.Lrer` p� � b�u`���t d�t�o��,�r<rts e th t Corr r-r.u..N -y ere_ de knped eP, ot,,e c rtc ck.Gre b S tL tr eA ,5 �t hS a... 0.ice €4,4'n. 1'e A 'rnc:. i p ,e hez..a V C"° \Cd e-1-' 1 '0 m`rve. s -cal .ea- s o i1-k e. .0-o pt kei tc b-cczt r' I r F1 �'�T er n\E go `fir r i. , 3uft ` r.e e`er-r IN.et-n{n 0. 9', e ' but" G, .1, d r t"v�e i rvro e =-ea d ka LL s e . . . tyl <1r U-Q. , S a Fr,o g ∎ btu ci okra \ ' so kt,ewa r\d cL e et-se r 1 t t1 lr i c '�-` ±o cz t t b o d ri 1Te e r e r\ tr _ ` - - b � C'°m� roc s11}- n m�/ c�llA r e,wTc c. a�. l �h 4 r�'fi P p re r� �f n t��"± rn -Per, u s� o t�e hew-.r c r,�.� cub -, 4otn,es tic i. `.' ` 11 �� e v-srt'ar.d e u�''t k m -L k�` �`�° `mac r.d e 1 r-1'erS��.t roh 1 S �i-acti +CO ctq c�t^ou cad we de r it. r1e :ed c_ 6,4%er d psi�- deter_ -to r-a- t icl�� t i t 11.°- c - l- rc k wc�t-se , e Ca,rrbora P∎a_rnr\ -�- (e-.Po �'� �s `� �' --14V..& ©r\e e cv-e-1 rx.�r-t- Q_A o ne, w i 1:1 `��r` . e Per daY a.r�d 1-torn e 8 Quad -1-o g o o i`�#- ©T I ck+ s t etc h. i ct Gw C v. �.b r` coke-t rezor.tr, � � 5 `S QrQpe.r` It °t it' cocc, - hl c..ernT.L.N '1- i s pre ±o 1 n to S © t �a s e �,l nor ±o e. Y , a wal �-� c x..11 be_ r(DtA 4) c 1 Cp„tlrar &t-- ' hom " . xi:53 6/4 wr I&En "C eC1 is -the_ .speecti uyk(%c,i-k I 6cto-e c ± 'five Al` 1$, le19 3 7c(1.1 /13 0--vne_ery-)(•(-15 44-6,3qr, Atm e-z Ab-1 - k.)ctrIte cf 4-o mck e— S LP e- 1 ± LJas ie4 correctly ctrld t , -Fite_ mil n.u.1-e_is er42- 41±- tAbit'a heal-115 "HiPlt. iie eapeocia_v-e, it+ - Liartt- -Cot- 'Melt- rne,_di tte-s May 05, 1473 , tak. eX,( di C:= diF firo * / / _Rokir5 RECEIV73 MM 2 11 1?,23 I ' "'` 417 Stony Hill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 May 25, 1993 Board of Alderman, Town of Carrboro c/o Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk P.O. Box 829 Carrboro, NC 27510 Re: Hogan Farm Rezoning Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to voice my objection to the proposed rezoning of the Hogan Farm properties from RR, one unit per acre, to R-20, almost 2.2 units per acre. Article XX Section 15-325 of the Town of Carrboro Land Use Ordinance states that "In deciding whether to adopt a proposed amendment to this Chapter, the central issue before the Board is whether the proposed amendment advances the public health, safety or welfare. All other issues are irrelevant..."Subsection 15-325 (1) goes on to state that the Board shall not consider "any representations made by the petitioner that, if the change is granted, the rezoned property will be used for only one of the possible range of uses permitted..." and subsection 15-325 (2) states that regardless of the advantages to the applicant, the Board shall only "consider the impact of the proposed change on the public at large." - Not a single benefit to the public was advanced in the applicants' request for this zoning change. Indeed, a great number of people raised serious questions regarding the impact of a greater than 100% increase in the built-out repercussions of such a change including a negative impact on the Bolin Creek drainage basin, road traffic, school capacity, and eventually on our taxes. We already experience frequent flooding of Bolin Creek, precious wetland wildlife has already been displaced by growth along its course and no data has been presented on the impact of doubling the permitted density on these issues. Our schools are currently beyond their intended capacities and no provision has been considered to alleviate already heavy traffic through the Calavander intersection, such as paving Eubanks Road in its entirety. Accommodating the permitted and anticipated development of the Hogan Farm as zoned will not positively impact our tax burden. The impact of double density may well be more than twice as bad. This has been the case in many other developing residential areas. Time and again it is only the developers who end up putting money into their pockets. The Hogans suggest that they will not utilize the rezoned acreage at its capacity of 2.2 units per acre, but rather only at 1.3 units per acre, or as I last heard 1.6 units per acre. The Board must, in its deliberations, consider the impact of the full permitted uses of such a rezoning, as nothing less could be enforced. RECEIVED 'SAY 2 5 1993 open space, they might have requested a variance which would have permitted clustering on 15,000 sq. ft. lots instead of 20,000 as the RR zone permits. This would be cost effective for them, be beneficial to the environment and be within the anticipated growth projections of the area planning. Possibly in exchange for the increased open space, some additional density such as the originally suggested 1.3 units per acre could be considered. Surely, there must be some compromise that could result in a win-win situation. I implore the Board to deny this application and encourage the applicants to pursue an alternative that would be more in keeping with what they say they really want, and the public is prepared to accommodate. Respectfully, g676tW, a,43,,b f Carol-Ann Greenslade f f qtr 1)) MEMORANDUM 1 rir- i i , -- To: Orange County Commissioners: ,,, issioners: Moses Care , ( Alice Gor4,: . Steve Halkiotis ' I Verla Insko Don Wilhoit From: Michael D. Tashjian & Christene A. Petry 8817 Drew Lane Chapel Hill, NC 27516-9496 Date: 12 April 1993 Re: Proposed Revision to the Zoning Atlas of Orange County We recently received, by certified letter, notice of a public hearing on proposed revisions to the zoning atlas that would rezone much of what is now Lake Hogan Farm (Z-2-93) . We are concerned that the proposed development for which this rezoning has been requested needs further study as to the effects on our schools, roads and traffic, increased need for public safety, water, and the ecosystem generally. We are thus opposed to the rezoning petition until such time as the Small Area Planning Work Group has had an opportunity to do the job for which they have been commissioned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 7 ---,:-.— C ‘ - . a . 304 Ray Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 May 21, 1993 Dear Mayor Kinnaird and Members of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, I would like to take this opportunity to share my ideas about the rezoning request for the Hogan Farm. I feel strongly that Carrboro would be courting disaster if the Town were to grant this request. The Triangle area is growing so rapidly that we are now the third fastest growing region in the country. The implications of this phenomenon are staggering and difficult to imagine. I have enclosed a build-out map to help visualize what Carrboro will look like in the not so distant future under current zoning. Please take the time to look it over. To my way of thinking, rezoning to allow even more development should be inconceivable. Where is the open space to be preserved? Who pays for the roads, the schools? Most important, what happens to the quality of life? With Orange County's and Chapel.Hill's current zoning, we are heading in the direction of Miami and Los Angeles. Not only would a rezoning of the Hogan Farm add considerable density to the area, it would be a piecemeal approach to a comprehensive problem. What Carrboro needs, instead, is a broad- based plan,arriving at an overall plan for its northern and southern areas. Furthermore, the rezoning of the Hogan land would set a clear precedent for other landowners in the surrounding area. How can you deny their requests, once you have approved the Hogans'? That's a poor way to plan, in my opinion. The Hogan Farm is the gem in Carrboro's northern planning jurisdiction. Why develop this land in a mediocre way, increasing density and losing the beauty of the land? Mediocrity is not the answer. There is a better way. Developers, landowners, neighbors can all work together with Carrboro to find a better way. Everyone will have to compromise but in the long run, I think that the developers and landowners can make their money (maybe not as much), the pond and its surrounding land can be preserved (though it won't be as beautiful), and the neighbors can continue to enjoy this area (though it won't be quite as nice), while schools and roads will not be so greatly impacted, and Carrboro won't have to raise taxes to finance the cost of services . We can work together to find a solution. The answer, however, is not to grant a rezoning request which would allow twice the current density. Let's work towards continuing to build a quality community. We should not gradually erode the quality of life which we are so fortunate to enjoy. Thank you, RECEIVED MAY 2 tt 1993 Livy Ludington .93 eieta May 23, 1993 The Board of Alderman Town Hall Carrboro, North Carolina 27510 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter concerns the request for rezoning the Hogan Lake Farm property. I was born on a farm on Homestead Road that has been in my family since the 1700's and I continue to make this my home. I am pleased to support the request for rezoning. Yes, the farm and lake are beautiful properties and I have many happy memories of playing there, learning to swim, camping, ball games, class picnics, etc. Bill and Bob have been most generous as was their Dad, Henry, their uncles, Hubert, Glenn and Jack and their grandfather, Clay. Their roots go deep! This property is their inheritance and I know that their desire is to develop it to be an attractive area. They care! Growth is here. We, in this area, are no longer country and I, for one, believe that there is too much control on land use and development. At some point we must trust people and I think we should trust the Hogan's working in concert with the developer to provide an addition to the neighborhood in which we can all take great pride. I do not consider their request to be out of character for the area. Single family development of this type will prove to be benefical for all concerned. Again, I urge you to vote favorably for this rezoning request. Cordially, Ellen Kepley John and Ellen Kepley 1309 Homestead Road Chapel Hill, N. C. 27516 cc: Mr. Robert Hogan Mr. Bill Hogan RECEIVED KAY 2 5 1993 miv,7 OV 4°4' T ' May 19 , • 1993 Eleanor Kinnaird 207 W. Poplar Ave . Carrboro , N . C . 27510 Dear Mayor : We are writing to seek your support for the rezoning request we have submitted As you have heard , the decision to sell this section of Lake Hogan Farm has been a long and difficult one . Yet a range of forces have brought us to the point where continuing to operate the dairy farm is no longer wise for our family . Over • the past four years we have discussed with Dale Redfoot our vision for how the land should be treated when it can no longer be farmed . We have grown to trust Dale and to feel that he understands the importance we attach to developing the land in such a way that we will continue to be proud to be associated with it. Together we have worked hard to create a design that reflects the reality of increased demand for housing in this area while enhancing the sense of community that we in Calvander have always had We believe we have done that . We view our request to be a reasonable one . The transition area was created as the area to absorb the inevitable expansion of Carrboro . While requests for increased density of up to 5 units per acre are permitted in the area , our request for the 2 . 1 specification reflects our desire to create a community we will enjoy living in . We firmly believe that one acre lots only worsen urban sprawl and consume more of the rural nature of the county that we all appreciate . Our plan combines clustered housing with walking trails and open space . The increased density we are requesting helps us conserve more open space and allows for sewage and water hookups which are vastly preferable to individual wells and septic fields . We intend to continue farming the other segments of the farm, on Old 86 and on Homestead Rd . The development of the land under discussion will give us that flexibility . While we are sorry that the Small Area Planning Group began too late to be involved in the current request, we will welcome the opportunity to work with them on the long term plans for this remaining land . t Z rx RECE1VE° 2 it 1992 2 While the process of this request has been difficult for us , we appreciate the goodwill demonstrated on the part of the town , the Board and the staff to work together with us toward a reasonable and desirable use for our land . We want to continue working with the Board in that spirit as a specific plan goes through the process , whatever your decision on the rezoning request. Thank you for your consideration of our request and for being the good neighbors that Carrboro has been to us . We hope to be good neighbors to Carrboro too . Sincerely , Bob and Dot Hogan Rob Hogan and Ann Leonard To : The Carrboro Board of Aldermen . We , the following neighbors of Lake Hogan Farm, strongly support the rezoning of the Hogan property north of Homestead Road . We request your support of the rezoning proposal . Thank you for your consideration . Name Address (-----7) / O-2.q oU J ( 67-7211 ''''''.:-- /,' "ii"r- • "doe 2 ,..).d.tAtiyuci 1.31,07)kcs:} / --:--- 41'7 Ael4/60 .•&/'3'e c , 2 CcZti -01(1 I e its L c_..0 . ,T ./ ,-..,/ .: , 1 , -1 i• 1 v,l ( 1 iL./, ■., . /,:,: -,`''S 6 . .0 1 , ( ,--• / .,, 7., .!- -) (2,CI\VO\;-CJAa.5— a&i''' ..„.c.,,, 7,...A,■‘N 2 5 1393. R7c,-Ervi-:;-,..; '• •.,•. , :i.54,4;v4rip: , To : The Carrboro Board of Aldermen We the following neighbors of Lake Hogan Farm, strongly support the rezoning of the Hogan property north of Homestead Road . We request your support of the rezoning proposal . Thank you for your consideration . Name Address . 0(;11(y2 HO 1 /1C - r\ —Q--.9 a ir) i-bru.i) i-rci iect ,-) ( , 1 o 7 eM X . e... SCt Okay-2-J- , _ ,93. ±J %a 0 3 01.- /LI . e. . C 4-&-Ita ) 6-9--(2-i il-C / , ---) 7%;‘; .(,,g- c 'ez,_„/ fr4 ,'' eelyz,:k. dif i qto FkroiJi-zu Rek ())),i opsit 1 kce i /s'eq-- V(9040-1 4 eka\ I V& 71.e , Q i i Azai - 1-, -.417' Ai z.A2 itYA-26t,6,4, 14,4,1.4iG, cali,,,,,,-/ /2 2 i .1 ,,, 7 &,{_4,924Z ,UW, /V2- /7 ,„:2,2_,A ,z4....,,,,,z A 1 / ,,i- d ,V1-yrudi:z-ed Ai P4.71 2-Yd 1/4„.(y ,s,e, eytt/p/ 4.? .,. .,-77s70 -e- ,,te“... , 77----,--1-- <._ ie C p..., "1-P .c.. --- be;.,‹_ /.tf.;(5) ( ''9 c3 2 C) "---'2 FO o2 O.% ( ?PC dOF C)C) e-L,`1 Je; c \3 RECEIVED VIM 2 5 Sca T0 : THE CA.RRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMAN WE , THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORS OF LAKE HOGAN FARM STRONGLY SUPPORT THE REZONING OF THE HOGAN PROPERTY: fl?'k N1E ADDRESS ' / azed4.77,5 . ,, , eex x.ir, 7,.." f52./.. d s- ji,g,..,12,84 „,,,0 as,_ 4,,,,,,4_,G.,,,, 9 . ,,taitet___ l/) .I IN /P, /4/4,14„e,7-0 ,0 2, 4-72-.071 , , oa fiehAL ' „1,e,4--04.---40? 7/7°4' 1/.7;61.1....„ ... i � - -- 02/ 4/41.... // �� r 4._ &...._ ' -All 401 .",. , ‘___ .. 1 6 ? .A/LS- Wt-J- -4,- /, 4/, e1/ it . t. '� ��i / /2/2 -Z1l-...,-A--� 1/ e;/- '°"4 r°* `'.4) if (.„,A. v_az etli 4/c. . ._ alb 4)6.. WO a"1- ` R Q- - ... _. _ 1 Cf = = .(,, 125 1993 _ x r4 4 i ■ ri