Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br /> 602 region. We hope you, the Planning Board, will keep these considerations in mind as you <br /> 603 deliberate. Thank you. <br /> 604 <br /> 605 Ralph Warren: Good evening and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ralph Warren. My spouse <br /> 606 and I own land on the eastern boundary of the application, and we've lived on our land for <br /> 607 50 years. We're in a neighborhood of four households within one hundred and nine acres <br /> 608 of land. I have lived in Orange County since 1954, with the exception of 7 years of <br /> 609 Raleigh residency. My spouse moved to Chapel Hill in 1944. These speakers are here to <br /> 610 address incompatibility of this application with existing County ordinance and planning. 1 <br /> 611 want to offer a view of the affected surrounding community as a need to understanding <br /> 612 our community and its land use. I have used GIS information to identify the landowners <br /> 613 and the acreage of properties that form a continuous land area bounded by Six Mile <br /> 614 Road, NC 54, Morrow Mill Road and Goldmine Loop Road. Each of these properties has <br /> 615 frontage on one of the listed roadways. The land area within this Bingham Township <br /> 616 segment is six hundred and sixty acres, and there are 18 households currently occupying <br /> 617 those adjoining lands. That total includes the 90 acres under discussion tonight. If the <br /> 618 requested classifications were to be granted, one hundred and fifty residences would be <br /> 619 added within 30 acres of those six hundred and sixty acres. The incompatibility of the <br /> 620 proposed high-density urban housing development is obvious on paper as well as my <br /> 621 drive through this area. Part of our community population is made up of families who <br /> 622 have lived a rural lifestyle on their land for multiple generations. Those of us newcomers, <br /> 623 whether 50-year or 30-year or recent residents, chose to locate here in order to join and <br /> 624 continue the existing lifestyle. We do not fit the conventional description of a <br /> 625 neighborhood, but we do form a strong community. Our members have come together on <br /> 626 many occasions to successfully protect our rural character as prescribed by consecutive <br /> 627 land use plans and successive boards of Orange County commissioners. This application <br /> 628 plan would attract residents drawn to an inward focus as opposed to those wishing to <br /> 629 meld with the longstanding lifestyles and values of the surrounding community. Dense <br /> 630 placement of the 200 or more residents together in an area with more expanded services <br /> 631 will be an open invitation to rapid commercial development. Granting the changes <br /> 632 requested by the current application would ease the path for such incompatible growth <br /> 633 both here and across the county. Our community residents are not opposed to <br /> 634 development that maintains the rural nature of our area. A long succession of Orange <br /> 635 County Boards of Commissioners and their land use plans have specified and maintained <br /> 636 rural agricultural zones in Orange County, including our area. So, we, as residents, ask <br /> 637 that you reject this current application, and thank you very much for the opportunity to <br /> 638 speak. Thank you for your time. <br /> 639 <br /> 640 Dan Eddleman: My name is Dan Eddleman, adjacent landowner, senior citizen, aging in place in Bingham <br /> 641 Township, agricultural and multi-generation community for the past 45 years. My past <br /> 642 service to the county was as a member of the Bingham Township Advisory Council, <br /> 643 Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, and was a strong advocate for the extension of <br /> 644 zoning into all of Orange County. The above experience was during this era commented <br /> 645 on in the first meeting of the County to our planning agreements with Chapel Hill, <br /> 646 Hillsborough for water supply planning protection, for municipal throughfare planning, and <br /> 647 for development of best management practices for growth, where it should and should not <br /> 648 occur. The rural buffer zone serves as a bit of a demarcation of the types of development <br /> 649 that good land use planning would dictate be close to, or within the municipalities, and of <br /> 650 what is permissible and not permissible in the areas outside of the rural buffer. Rural land <br /> 651 node classification and zoning is an integral part of this question. In the June 5th meeting, <br />