Agenda - 08-19-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Of 05u JPA DRAFT MINUTES 4-17-86 • PAGE 16 the statement by the Stoneridge/Sedgefield Property Owners Association calling for continued zoning for lower density residential areas. He expressed concern that before the Joint Land Use Plan has been accepted by the appropriate bodies, there was a hearing two weeks previously before the Chapel Hill Planning Board for a 137-unit development in the activity node north of Eubanks Road, west of NC 86, and this rezoning was approved by Chapel Hill with nineteen stipulations. He stated this was a major concern that large developments are being approved before the adoption of the Land Use Plan and before verifying that the area can support this type of development. He noted that Timberlyne is in this activity node and already expanding and the residents feel they are surrounded by major new development that cannot be supported by the area. Perry Miller stated that his is one of the 300 families which will be critically and adversely affected by the proposed landfill. He noted this takes in residents on Billabong Lane, Homestead Road, Northwoods and the Rogers Road Community. He noted the feeling of the residents is that "We were the unnecessary victims of a hasty, insensitive, expedient closed door and even sneaky political process to acquire this land as a proposed garbage dump site. This is not some land that is distant or faraway out in some rural area but this is right in the midst of neighborhoods of people, of children of a way of life. " Mr. Miller continued referencing the virgin trees and flowing streams which would be affected. He noted he felt there was no evidence that thoughtful planning had taken place. He continued noting that after the first joint planning hearing he asked several planners how it made good professional planning sense for a landfill to be. located so near schools and downtown Chapel Hill. "The response from one planner was 'we took that as a given, that the garbage dump had to be placed there and our responsibility was to simply plan around that given' . Ladies and Gentlemen, that is not adequate, far-sighted, envisionary planning for the lives of people in this community. Interesting enough, in the introduction tonight about the various components of the planning, not one word was ever mentioned to you, the public, about the garbage dump, not one word. What do you make of that? What a community does with its garbage and its impact upon the environment and its people is a major concern. You don't read the paper each week without that somehow being highlighted for us. But have our planners helped us to highlight this as a concern? No. In fact I think it's not only a major concern it borders on being a moral issue that deserves adequate attention. So we call for a public Joint Planning Meeting to solely consider the proposed garbage dump site and its impact upon the environment and its people. It's that important, that crucial and should