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

Browse Search

103 by oinfillo Commissioner Brown asked where his golf course was located. Mr. Ray pointed out his course on the map. He felt that this could have ruined his golf course if it had been built last year when El Nino was active. Planning Board Chair Barrows asked Mr. Ray to elaborate on his concerns regarding the potential run -off problem. Mr. Ray mentioned that the pond would be a owet pond6 which would mean that it would be practically full all of the time. When it rains it is going to run over that. When its dry it will catch the rain and prevent it from going to his property and when the land is already holding moisture it will overflow the pond -and go to his property. Commissioner Brown asked for clarification of the location of his property. She read from the proposal that gall run -off from the site is collected by three intermittent streams; two of the streams on the northern half of the property join off site and go north approximately 2.5 miles to the Eno River. She asked if that was where his property was located. Mr. Ray indicated that was the location of his property. He stated that he would have thought more of this development if the man who owned the land would attend any of these hearings. He hasn/Et attended any of them to date. He mentioned that he tried to buy water from Hillsborough and they told him that it would be a bad political move at this point. They were within days of losing every green that they had at that time. Mr. Bob Bateman stated that he had a bad dream the other night, he dreamed that he had a housing development near him. Here tonight that dream has become a reality. He heard a little about the pocket parks. He remembered that the University Station project was killed because of a lack of open spaces and they had a golf course. He does not see open space in this project. Some of the speakers who have already commented that if this was developed in R -1 it could be a pleasant development to have in the community. At R -2 it could probably be abided, however, at R -3 it is totally despicable to the neighborhood. He mentioned the school impact of a development of this size; if there are 244 houses with 1.5 children, which is the figure the County uses, you would have 366 children. If you use 2 children per house, which is another figure that is frequently used, you would have 488. If you use 2.5 which is more realistic and more probable, you end up with 610 children. As you know, our schools are overcrowded. The three that would probably be impacted by this development would be New Hope Elementary which is currently overcrowded; Cameron Park which is at capacity; and Grady Brown which is at capacity. He did not hear the developers say anything about giving the School Board twenty five acres to build an Elementary School which is a very popular idea in the development field these days. If they reduced the density to R -2 or R -1 they could probably accommodate a neighborhood school in that area. We could live with it out there but we would want it to be less dense, have more open space, and for the developers to give the School Board twenty -five acres for a school. Mr. James Klemk, of 70 -A East near Lawrence Road, stated that when he first heard of the proposed development on Lawrence Road he was not bothered or surprised. After he heard that it was for 240 homes he was very disturbed. We are here to discuss not a builder building homes but a builder with a plan run amok with greed and an unacceptable attitude of callousness toward our neighborhood. That the property at this location will have something built on it is obvious. It is important that it be done in the context of peaceful and sane growth. The extreme density of this project is an outrage and would be tantamount to a cancer in our midst. The project would probably necessitate a new school and an increase in traffic in an already busy area. The builder has provided a statement from a Chapel Hill Realtor saying that the property would increase our property values. He felt that he was in error. They would suffer diminished values to their real estate which for many of them is the backbone of their savings. The builder also provided a traffic report at prior meetings showing minimal traffic at Lawrence Road and Highway 70. When he came home today at 2:50 p.m. he stopped and in 5 minutes counted 31 cars going through the intersection and that is not a particularly busy time of day. The builder is not here for the good of the community; he is here to make money. The members of this community have clearly let their objections to this project be known. He presented a petition with 129 signatures which he and a few others had taken to some of the nearby neighbors. Not one person who was asked to sign failed to do so. Each of those people who was asked to sign expressed their objections. Every signer of the Petition asked that you, the County Commissioners we elected to represent us, do so by denying the request for approval. He read the petition, as follows: 6We the undersigned are aware of the proposed housing development that is Lawrence Park Subdivision. With our signatures, we are voicing our opposit ion to it being given approval to proceed. While we understand the need for sustained growth we strongly feel that the high density of this development would radically change the character of our community for the worse.6 He presented the petitions to the Deputy Clerk.to the Board. The original of this petition is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Bill Hendrickson stated that his wife wrote a letter to one of the principals in this group who happens to