Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
M <br />C. Through continued residential development within the <br />Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <br />D. In the triangular area north of Chapel Hill bounded by <br />I -85, I -40 and the Durham County line - in the County <br />school district. <br />E. In the White Cross /Old Greensboro Road area of Bingham <br />Township, in the County school district. <br />F. In eastern Little River and Eno Townships, near Durham. <br />These areas have been identified through the use of permit <br />data since 1985 by the Towns and County; the use of the <br />County and Towns Land Use Plans; and through the use of <br />enrollment maps on the part of the City schools. <br />4. Why will the enrollment occur in these areas? <br />It would appear that the majority of the new enrollment in <br />the County will be in the Chapel Hill-- Carrboro School <br />District, in areas north, west and south of the Towns. This <br />lends credence to the state's projections for the decade of <br />the 19901s, which show the city schools receiving a larger <br />share of the new enrollment. <br />The reasons for this are numerous. The most significant of <br />these reasons is probably the simplest: that the City School <br />district has contained, and probably will continue to <br />contain, 67% of the overall County population; and that the <br />majority of new residential units constructed in the past <br />five years have been in the city school district. <br />Other reasons that have been mentioned as indicators are : <br />1. The presence of young families in multi - family units in <br />the towns - which directly impacts elementary schools <br />(and probably accounts in part for the state's <br />undercount of kindergarten enrollments in the city <br />schools). <br />2. In- migration more directly affects higher density <br />areas, especially if they are in proximity to "magnet" <br />employment areas (RTP, UNC, etc.). <br />3. The majority of the new residential units in the towns <br />were constructed in the 1985 -87 timeframe. This might <br />correlate to the significant enrollment growth projected <br />for the city- district in the mid -90's (lag time). <br />In summary, the subgroup feels comfortable with the state's <br />projections - as comfortable as can be felt in projecting <br />births over a 10 -year period. <br />3 <br />