Minutes-12-04-2023-Business Meeting

Browse Search

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