Agenda - 01-14-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

II 3 an arc around the incorporated towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. This is a very important provision and I strongly urge that the Commissioners and the governing boards of Chapel Hill and Carrboro do whatever is necessary to implement this plan of greenways and parks to protect the land so designated and preserve it for the future generations who will be coming to live in this area. This region is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. We are planning prabably for a population two or three times that which now resides. This is the time - NOW - to set aside the parkland that will be needed by our children. . MTE GAY EDDY See Attachment "E". Chair Willhoit submitted two letters for the record: 1. Property owners of property at the northwest intersection of Homestead Road and Rogers Road requesting that it be zoned in such a matter as to permit CI development on a portion of the 64 acre tract. See Attachment • 2. Letter from Nello L. Teer Company requesting that their 200 acres near the interchange of I40 and New Hope Church Road be zoned as an industrial activity node. See Attachment "G". L1 ONA1�[) VAN NESS Representative of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce We met with Roger Waldon at our growth management division and reviewed the proposals and the alternatives and would like to express our leaning toward the alternative "C" which we feel would be more in tune with same of the population growth that we would expect for the area. In looking at the estimate of 3% growth from 1980 to the year 2000, we felt that that might be somewhat under the current growth rate that we have experienced in the last two decades. Wei feel that a 3.5% growth rate might be more likely and therefore would mean a population of 96,000 in the township area as opposed to 87,000. In that case, we think that alternative "B" would not give us enough leaway to in effect in the fifteen years of less search out other ways to deal with our planning and infrastructure needs. We want to commend the planners for what they have done by including some of the activity nodes to address the issues that were brought up by the Orange County Economic Development Commission. In specific, we think that the office uses at the 1-40 nodes will allow local professional firms to expand in the area. We should not lose good corporate citizens and residents or firms like O'Brian Atkins. In the long run we feel that the loss of those kinds of businesses will only increase our local tax rates. We also want to express our concern of our interest in the rural industrial node proposed north of the I-40 NC86 node. If we had had such land properly zoned in the last couple of years we would not have loss Anderson Products Company which located on Highway 54 just two miles inside of Alamance County which if you drive by there you would hardly notice its presence. It does' employ a good number of people and does have an investment of about one million dollars. It also has people living in Chapel Hill traveling on Highway 54. Also by having such land we would also have provided space for local firms such as Dayteck or McBrooan Bicycle to expand in Orange County rather than adjoining counties. B. OLIVE I would like's to make two points: (1) the presence of Duke Forest it seems to me is extremely important to the Town of Chapel Hill and to Orange County. I have for many many years been concerned about the potential loss of Duke Forest. Some) of you who have been around here for some time know that about ten years there was a serious threat by some people at Duke University to sell off Duke Forest. I think it is extremely important that the officials