Agenda 02-06-24; 8-a - Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 1 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 2 Chair Bedford dispensed with reading the public charge. 3 4 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) 5 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 6 George Gurley said he has a concern about a law that may be a state law or a local law. 7 He said the law is whether or not someone can be held on a 72-hour hold based on a letter of 8 someone from a church. 9 BJ Warshaw read from the following prepared statement: 10 "I'd like to speak tonight about the Chapel Hill Town Council's November 15th vote to amend 11 WASMPBA. They voted 8-1 to extend water and sewer services in the southern area of Chapel 12 Hill to unlock dense development opportunities. I ask that, before voting to amend WASMPBA, 13 the Board of Commissioners conducts environmental impact studies and comprehensive planning 14 to ensure sensible development. The water and sewer boundaries, alongside our Joint Planning 15 Agreements and the Rural Buffer, have stood the test of time to prevent sprawl and preserve our 16 watersheds. 17 Living in the ETJ is disenfranchising. We cannot vote for Mayor or Town Council. You are my best 18 direct representation. 19 Some history: When the Chamber last petitioned the Town in 2018, it was to designate the 20 Southern Area a "focus area" during the Future Land Use Map preparation. That proposal was 21 met with widespread opposition from residents, after which the Southern Area was not included 22 in the FLUM. 23 Fast forward to this past summer. The Chamber petitioned for something more drastic: amending 24 WASMPBA. 25 There was no response from the Town until September, when they scheduled two public 26 information sessions (one online, one in-person) with barely two weeks' notice. I received no 27 mailer, and I couldn't even attend, as I was out of town visiting family. Neighbors in Heritage Hills 28 couldn't attend the in-person session, because, ironically, they were meeting that night with 29 NCDOT about their flooding issues. Many others never even heard about the sessions. 30 The Town's YouTube recording of the online session promised another "public hearing" on the 31 issue. Instead, the Council was presented with the amendment to WASMPBA, and they voted in 32 favor. To myself and many of my neighbors, their minds seemed to already have been made up. 33 Explicitly, at that 11/15 meeting, Councilmembers rejected the need for a small area plan. They 34 want us to trust that the permitting process, down the road, will be sufficient to guide responsible 35 development. Forgive me for being skeptical. Especially when they also admit they have little to 36 no means to directly regulate home pricing or rents. Especially when the OWASA memo studied 37 such a broad number of potential new units —from 1170 to 2202 — one to two Southern Villages. 38 Especially when Councilmembers went from talking about duplexes all the way to discussing 39 quad- and six- plexes, or the possible need for adjoining commercial development. Especially 40 when watershed limitations and setbacks didn't even make it into the meeting materials. 41 My neighbors and I simply have no clear understanding around why WASMPBA must be 42 amended first. It's painted as a public health emergency. But the couple of people dealing with 43 unsafe wells are already working with the Orange County Health Department to tap into the 44 existing OWASA lines — without amending the WASMPBA. It's also been painted as a means 45 towards affordable and missing middle housing. But there's no transparency around who or how 46 development funds will manifest, nor how costs and home prices will be kept in check. 47 So, I humbly ask again that you hold off on bringing amendments to WASMPBA up for vote, at 48 least until: 49 • The County completes its comprehensive planning process 50 • The Town of Chapel Hill finishes its LUMO rewrite, so we know the precise zoning 51 changes planned for the Southern Area