Agenda - 12-10-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

„ . . am . i M 000060 r • f' : - - . -=A1•anning Area (JAM, the majority live •in either the North - Chapel Hilii Transition Area or the Southern :Triangle. Arl' ;but • -40__ _ . _ - - two of the respondents live in Chapel Townshi - . , the -area due to job-related, "other” (refer to Attachment t 2).i - • - '4 or education-related reasons. _ ' ^__ - . - -An. overwhelming majority of the respondent-s own -single family .� -: -- - . homes. in a subdivision and work in Chapel Hill. Only ten .. _- indicated that they are retired. In general,_ the codmmute to - _ � _ : .work_ covers form 0-5 miles for most respondents -and-they - _ _ - . , _for the majority of their needs in the Chapel Hi-1:1 area.- It . . - - ... interesting ! to note that the most of the - . thee= forum (or othrerwisee! obtained a quest ionaire�): either saes -a- 7...7 Paper, recieved a not ica:in the oral1, •ar _Z.a•.-_- heard about lit from a friend or relative. -__ _. _ . - - -- - -:-: -.. ..-F. S 'aCY_2!_Regorses _ ... Chan$esa r rt�itiaArea -_ :.��__ __- Changi s• to_tr t as i n _Most respondents _would leave-the ti • -• ==- _ fora : a they are (42%) • or expand them. The proposal -_ -:=. permertant rural buffer or "greenbelt* around-.Chapel Hill. . . . = . , was ind _ _ - by over 82% of those who respandeci. Most of _ - endors��it ies - • _ of development of 1 unxtlacre or••l:ess -(i - • unit/a acres+), with some persons indicating an =intenresi 'iri'- - - - : bari,�ng.,,ail lowed to develop some units on larger -tracks _for use try ---:-.7 - family. Nat yra _goAreianoaent o Restrictions of ._ he- - _ _ • ' ""A -.r ..-Planning. - because �snt in: fie!-=:to ,_...- • . _ of environmental .consti^aintsa 1baite ! _ . 7 :- = water resautices, and the possible future construct ion of° • - reservoirs were endorsed overwhelmingly. .fhe; ents - . : .supported• restrj ions .en the development in Wetlands, in areas. of undesirable soils or slopes, near streams and around`� -`- '-- : University Make. There was also the recognition that the . complet-ion off the Cane Creek Reservior may (or may not)--_resolve--- - ' ' - the , water quantity issue, thus making the - potential re ' rvoir sites less important. preservation of portent Most • responds nts also expressed the belief that her arise-_"� - . - . problems with the use of septic tank systems in--the-Joie _ Planning Area. - . - 7 • Infrastructure and Pu 13c_ery ,casy.Resptande:nts ee:rdorsed.-,t{ae---.� �._..:__ _-.. _ • " limitation of water and sewer line extensions to the Towns and - - - - - ' • - Transition areas, and the use of the same to direct deve�lopmant --- = - - in the .TPA. The development in areas ,not -to be serviced-.-sh ld,;-., _.__ - • • • according to! the majority of respondents, be limited to allow development using wells and septic tanks with a two-tor: ;61;1'4 i-7.-:-. .-.. .. - acre. minimum : lot size (Alternative 2, 1). in the-' PA.---Th . - conviction was also expressed that area elected 'officials, and not developers, should control (the rate and- location of)•--- '-.- . development in! Chapel Hill and the ',IPA.