Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
yin <br /> • <br /> 1986-17 • <br /> • <br /> CD <br /> erz Jeff Mr)"!inseam <br /> Jot Maki. Preitions <br /> Bab tae Pmt Presider g <br /> e�� 1oc <br /> i <br /> Carolyn Baguio.TITCOWIT <br /> Kasai Robertson.Secretary •Nail Minoan,Dbeemr - <br /> Raw Rumor.Dbeeeer - - <br /> Stalin Mamma.Obecor Property Owners Association <br /> Ran McCracken,Director <br /> of Stoneridge and Sedgefield,Inc. <br /> 191346 P.O. Box 3188 <br /> t Cbaziaa,Pneisiew Chapel Hill,North Carolina 21515-3188 <br /> Juk Skenkle.Y.P./Teas <br /> Monis Mao,Stormy <br /> Rama .D April .. 19$6 <br /> StAa Maiagaq Dinesor . . <br /> David z ''D"` Mr. Don Wilhoit <br /> Orange County Board of Commissioners <br /> East Margaret Lane <br /> C a r l sobz4mAesidow <br /> .yp„ Hillsborough, NC rias <br /> Mare's bean,Secirmty <br /> David Martars.Dfroraor <br /> Dear Mr. Wilhoit t <br /> . BdlrPsae.Dirmas <br /> su°*Di "' The Stoneridge and Sedgefield Property Owners Association (about <br /> 200-households) supports the concept of joint land use planning <br /> between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill. We stress <br /> how important it is for the planners to have input from local <br /> citizens at every step of the process. <br /> This letter gives our response to the plans that you presented <br /> on March 11 at the New Hope Community Center, for the activity <br /> node centered around the intersection of 1-40 and NC 86, near <br /> Stoneridge and Sedgefield. <br /> We are pleased that plans for this activity node call for a <br /> minimum of light industrial development and no further commercial <br /> activity. We approve of prohibiting retail trade in the. node. <br /> We support suburban and urban residential zoning south of 1-40. <br /> We support the planned resource protection areas (green areas) . <br /> We object, however, to the northeast section of the activity <br /> node's being designated for urban, suburban, and office/ <br /> institutional use. Such development would have a negative impact <br /> on the current residential character of this area. We recommend . <br /> that this area remain as rural residential. <br /> We are also concerned about the inadequate capacity of existing <br /> roads to accommodate present traffic as well as future traffic <br /> created by the intersection, and by the proposed activity node. <br /> NC 86 must be widened from I-40 to Homestead Road. Eubanks and <br /> Whitfield Roads will not accommodate the envisioned future ._ <br /> traffic. We do not want Eubanks and Whitfield to become <br /> four-lane roads, but they could be significantly improved as <br /> two-lane roads. Improvements to NC 86 and to Eubanks and <br /> Whitfield Roads must be made before any major development of the <br /> activity node. <br /> We look forward to working with you in this most important <br /> project concerning the future planning of our area. <br /> Sincer ly yours, <br /> Cay-Q.12-!9 <br /> J f 'C areas, President <br />