Agenda - 02-28-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PAGE 12 DIRA P241 that the rules not be changed in the middle of the game. Commissioner Willhoit stated that the Planning Director's recommendation would permit dividing a twenty acre parcel into seven lots. Chair Carey suggested Mrs. Carter go to the County Planning Office and ask how these changes affect her individual property. Town Council Member Hilliard Caldwell made comments about the complexity of the report. CATHY CARROLL spoke in support of Option 2 as presented by Marvin Collins. She agrees that everyone needs clean drinking water and that it should be achieved through the most responsible and fair means possible. It is possible to work with two acre lots and detention 'onds with attention to details. MARK O'NEILL of Flat River Properties asked that as many options as possible be provided so that the individual landowner can apply those options in the most environmentally sound and in the most economically sound manner. He supports Option 2 with two exceptions. He feels that water and sewer extension with some properties makes sense and the option of community water systems need to be looked at. He feels that the process has been going on for so long that the basic economic model of supply and demand that creates value in land is out of kilter. There is so much risk that the people forced to sell their property are losing money. By finalizing the rules, it is hoped that the supply and demand model will come back into kilter. ROBERT GREENBERG is a resident of the University Lake Watershed. He spoke as a pediatrician and urged them to choose the most restrictive options for development in University Lake Watershed. Unfortunately any development will lead to deterioration. That can't be prevented. They are learning regularly of adverse health affects from low level pollutants -- pollutants that can't be measured. The latest one is low level lead that has long term affects on the development of young children. The children are most vulnerable to pollutants and they are the ones that will drink the water for the longest period of time and will be the ones that will suffer the most. The best solution is no development if thinking about public health. If that can't be done, then a decision needs to be made of how much risk can be taken and how much deterioration can be tolerated. Restrictions must be adopted to keep the water from deteriorating and then address as a separate issue the problem of costs for those people who want to develop the land. Public health is the most important thing. He urged them to adopt the most restrictive options. There is no going back. Technology does not provide a filter to remove everything. He would like to see it more restrictive than the five acres. He asked that the impervious options not be changed - don't allow more. ROBERT KIRKPATRICK, Vice-President of the Alliance of the Chapel Hill Neighborhood and Associate Professor of English at the University of North Carolina, expressed appreciation for the attention given to both sides of this issue. He made reference to a story and stated that he does not know the magic formula to do what is best for everyone and also create a happy balance between the legitimate claims of private property rights and the rights of public well being. That is a valuable goal because it is impossible. There is no way of knowing what is best for all. The engineering reports and public health studies show that the water supply of the future will be damaged if property rights in this case takes absolute precedence over public well being. He urged them to protect the watershed by the maximum allowed by the options available while endangering property rights as little as possible. If the damage to the watershed is allowed to make the property of all citizens unsafe, then property rights in the future will have very little meaning. BETTY MUTZABY stated that it seems there is a group of citizens of this community whose