Agenda - 10-07-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

;V October 15, 1991 The Orange County Planning Dept. ATTN: Ms. Elizabeth Eidenier " 127 E. Union St. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Eidenier: Concerning the application for the residence known as Green Hill to be designated a bed and breakfast, we submit the following as reasons to reject the request. First, the property as proposed does not appear to fit the ordinance for public safety. It is located on a dangerous intersection of Hwy 70 and Lawrence Rd. with the identifying entrance to the house at a corner where cars whiz by, leaving the highway where the speed limit is 55 mph. Long range plans include widening of Hwy 70, which would further limit the frontage of the plot which is now shown as 235 feet. Even if the entrance and exit to the public facility were limited to the second gravel driveway, slower traffic looking for the establishment cannot but endanger the public. The "worst case scenario" is a traffic fatality. If in fact this residence does become a public facility, the least that should be done should be: 1- Removal from the corner the existing sign and lights which are very distracting and dangerous at night (and in fact are on public right -of -way) and 2- Installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection. Secondly, the designation of Green Hill as a bed and breakfast will not maintain or enhance the value of neighboring property. The current owners, the Proctors, have greatly improved the home they purchased, which was in a deteriorating condition. As adjoining property owners, we greatly appreciate the time and investment involved. We, too, did a similar restoration in 1972 on property owned by James Coman II, parcel #65 on your map. We can never hope to regain costs even if we rented rooms; only personal satisfaction can repay our efforts. We feel the small amount a bed and breakfast can return could do little to defray costs the Proctors have undergone or continue to undergo in maintainance. We, too, have a large investment, which in short we do not feel would be enhanced by having a public facility on the adjoining property.