Agenda 12-09-2025; 8-a - Minutes for November 6, 2025 Business Meeting and November 11, 2025 Work Session

Browse Search

45 1 experiences his children and their peers have had in school programs with the potential impact of 2 removing valuable teaching resources if the proposed development proceeds. Boro highlighted 3 that the school's outdoor environment is an essential part of the educational experience, enabling 4 students to learn from nature and the surrounding land. He, like many others, appealed to the 5 commissioners to evaluate the broader impact on education and the community before deciding 6 on the rezoning proposal. 7 Laura Streitfeld asked the Board to deny the request to rezone. She calculated a 23,520- 8 gallon daily water draw for the proposed development, pointing out that groundwater in similar 9 areas in Orange County regenerates at less than 400 gallons per day per acre. She emphasized 10 the implications of concentrating a high water draw like this on a relatively small area, especially 11 in terms of potential environmental impacts. She also highlighted that such a concentrated 12 extraction could detrimentally affect both the groundwater supply for residents and the natural 13 habitat, including the creek and wetlands nearby. This level of extraction could stress the local 14 groundwater resources, leading to issues for both the community and local ecosystems. 15 Winifred Johnson, who resides on Highway 86, shared her distress over the potential 16 impacts on well water and the traffic situation. She described her personal experiences living near 17 three hills along Highway 86, where the planned entrances for the development would create 18 hazardous "go-kart" conditions. 19 Annalisa Hartlaub asked the Board to deny the request. She expressed concerns over the 20 potential impact of the proposed development, particularly focusing on the risk of neighbors losing 21 water access due to the demands of the community well. She asked who these properties would 22 serve in the community and said the applicant's presentation didn't assure her that there would 23 be no sewer contamination. 24 Eva Nagel said this development will impact her school and the cross-country team. She 25 emphasized the issue of pollution potentially affecting Strouds Creek, which Eno River Academy 26 uses frequently for educational purposes. Her concerns extended to traffic safety along Highway 27 86 and 57. She fears the increased traffic from the development would exacerbate existing 28 hazardous conditions, further endangering community members and school families who 29 navigate these roads daily. She said the negatives outweigh the positives of this proposal. 30 Joe Phelps, lifelong Orange County resident and former Hillsborough mayor, didn't oppose 31 the Browns developing their land, but questioned the number of lots and the logistics of fitting 32 wells and septic systems on the 20,000 square foot lots. He said he is skeptical of Hillsborough's 33 water availability, given limitations and potential large developments south of town. He said he is 34 familiar with the Town's water limitations, and unless there is a guarantee, wouldn't count on 35 approval. 36 37 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to 38 close the public hearing. 39 40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 41 42 Commissioner Greene said she sent a staff memo to the rest of the Board today that the 43 Hillsborough Board of Commissioners will be receiving at their meeting on Monday. She shared 44 information from her recent conversations with Hillsborough Mayor Bell and Assistant Town 45 Manager Matt Efird. She said the land in question is within the current Urban Services boundary, 46 but Hillsborough intends to pull it back, which would require a revision to the COCA. She read 47 from Hillsborough's 2023 comprehensive plan, which clarifies Hillsborough's focus on prioritizing 48 water and sewer for annexation and focusing remaining capacity in-town rather than extending