Agenda - 02-22-1999 - 1a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

104 live on Lawrence Road, expressing her concern. He wrote a nice letter back and one thing he said was that Scott Murray would be in touch with us directly to speak with us. This did not happen. He also said that this would increase the value of our land. This has been indicated by the appraiser from Chapel Hill, as well. He asked the Board of Commissioners if it would be appropriate for them to seek a study of land values of a similar project in a similar surrounding area before you vote on this development. He recommended that they seek some written documentation to this effect before they accept the word of someone who is involved with the organization. He does not doubt the person, but he thinks that it would be appropriate that the Commissioners would have written documentation in the record that a similar development in a similar surrounding area in North Carolina did allow for either increased or decreased value of the land. His second suggestion was that some documentation be solicited from the School Board as to the impact of these potential numbers of children being added to the school roles and what the cost would be in include them on the rosters. The Commissioners and the citizens should know what the financial impact would be to our school system by the addition of these children. It is important that the Planning Board and Commissioners have this information and make it public before this project is finally voted on. Mr. Lawrence Bohs indicated that he lives about two miles from the proposed subdivision. He expressed opposition to this development and read from a prepared statement, as follows: oSuch a large and dense development would have a significant impact on local traffic. That has not been completely studied. For example, he drives along 70 Alternate on his way to work in Durham and the traffic at Pleasant Green Road toward Hillsborough can be backed up for a mile or more on weekday mornings. This is going to make that significantly worse causing people to take NC 10 and Business 70 Alternate. He wondered how long it would be before all of the intersections need traffic lights if we start putting in these kinds of dense developments. Secondly, such a large and dense development would severely impact the character of this area. The instant town of 250 homes would bring in 500 to1000 new residents, probably closer to 1000 residents. All of these people would need places to shop, eat and work. These numbers would overwhelm the current facilities and would drive further commercial development. Those residents who moved to this area because of its relatively quiet character would have to look elsewhere. He is not arguing against development but only against this type of development. Finally, he asked if this development would improve the quality of life for area residents. He cannot understand how traffic congestion, dramatic increase in pollution from automobiles and surface runoff which will occur because of the large percentage of impervious surface in this development and the change in the quiet character in this area, would be an improvement. He asked the Commissioners to reject this plan. Planning Board Member Katz asked what the typical number of bedrooms per dwelling would be. Mr. Krichbaum indicated that he was not in the building end of the business but he believed that they would be two and three bedroom, mostly three bedroom dwellings. Planning Board Member Katz asked if there was a way for him to predict how many individuals would be in each dwelling and how many of those would be children. Mr. Krichbaum stated that he could only rely on the County averages that suggest that it is 2.5 persons per dwelling. Mr. Katz asked if that meant less than one child per household. Mr. Krichbaum stated that was his understanding of what the typical relationship would be. Some of them would have 3 or 4 children, some oempty nesterso, with the norm being one /two children. Mr. Katz asked if there could be some determination of how many children are really involved and what the consequences would be with regard to schools and the adequacy of the recreation facilities for the number of children one would expect to be in that area. He has concerns about whether or not there is enough open space to provide activities for the number of children that might be there. That is one issue. We need some answers to these questions. The question has also come up about property values of adjacent.neighborhoods. There is concern from neighbors as to whether or not their property values would diminish or remain the same. We heard Mr. Heaffner state that the property values would not be harmed. He wondered if there is a semantic issue here in that the houses around this large development would become less desirable for people because they would.be associated with an area that has a high density development. Therefore, the individuals who own these houses are concerned about the fact that they would lose potential buyers because people who want to buy their houses don/Et want to live next to a high density area. On the other hand, as Mr. Heaffner might state there would be no loss of value because the value of the land adjacent to this high density area would increase fora developWEs purposes, but not necessarily for someone who would be interested in living in the houses that exist there. It might be seen as an opportunity to create another high density develop ment in that area because it is a good commute and because it would be zoned correctly and because there is sewer, etc.; so that the tax value of the adjacent neighborhoods might increase because of the value of the land but in fact the individuals who might want to sell a particular house might have even greater difficulty in selling because it . is located near a high density area. Does this address the conflict that might be between the people who live in the . neighborhood versus the people who want to develop this land at a higher density?