INC NEWS - BOCC mtg Monday, March 10: Epcon Rezoning case Z07-26 (Farrington Rd)

Mon Mar 10 09:58:34 EDT 2008

The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public
hearing and will vote on the rezoning of the Epcon
Development (Z07-26) tonight (Monday, March 10, @ 7
PM).

This land (on Farrington Road) currently has a zoning
of RS-20 (20,000 s.f. lots). Epcon is asking that ~33
acres be rezoned to PDR 4.5 (4.5 units per acre).

I am writing to ask that you please contact your
commissioners and ask that they deny this rezoning,
and/or ask for more committed elements for the benefit
of the Durham (and Triangle) public:

ereckhow at aol.com, bmheron at co.durham.nc.us,
lcheek at co.durham.nc.us, prcousin at earthlink.net,
mpage at co.durham.nc.us

For the sake of future land use in the Farrington Rd.
area and its overburdened infrastructure, I would hope
that the BOCC would 

1) support a reduction of the mere 6 units required to
keep the established density of the area (to 4 DUA or
less), 

2) make sure the buffered landscaping along Farrington
Rd. maintains a year round opacity of at least .6, 

3) insist on the promised trails (in committed
language), and 

4) require Epcon to share in the cost of a traffic
signal at Farrington and Ephesus Church Rd. since the
traffic impact from this project will be higher than
what is being acknowledged.

Furthermore, please look at the attached photos of
Epcon developments (obtained via the Internet)...the
degree of clear-cutting and mass-grading, as well as
the amount of impervious surface is worrisome to say
the least. Commissioners should certainly demand tree
buffers/saving in committed language.

If you are so inclined, please email or call your
County Commissioners today -- tomorrow will be too
late.

Background info on this project:

Some of the land in this area, including a portion of
the Epcon tract, has a future land use of 4 to 8 units
per acre. This higher density was granted only because
this area was supposed to be a transportation hub for
a rail system. However, the rail system has been
tabled and is unlikely to happen in the near future. 

It is obvious that this degree of density cannot be
supported by the road infrastructure, especially since
DOT has no plans to improve Farrington Rd. 

Therefore, it would seem prudent to keep the density
to 4 units per acre or less ('low-density' according
to the comprehensive plan) until mass transit will
actually serve that area. 

Approving a density ABOVE 4 units per acre will allow
for future development to occur within the 4 to 8
units per acre density range (low-medium density,
according to the comprehensive plan). 

Future developments will use this rezoning as reason
to increase the density on surrounding property; and
as past experience has shown,  the next rezonings will
most likely be higher than Epcon's proposed 4.5.

Thanks so much for your concern and your participation
in the planning process of your county.

--Melissa Rooney
P.S. Want more background info? Read on...

______________________

Further Background info:

At their last board meeting (Feb 25), the BOCC voted
to amend the comprehensive plan (as requested by Epcon
for this parcel) to increase the maximum density from
4 to 8 units/acre. The approval was based on a split
vote (3 in favor, 2 against). This comprehensive plan
amendment makes way for the current rezoning request. 

The Planning Commission still recommends denial of
this rezoning, based on the fact that the increase in
density is not consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive plan, and their opinion that it is not
in the public interest.

The current density permits a maximum of 4 units/acre,
such that approving this rezoning request (so that the
developers can increase the density to 4.5) will
increase the number of units (in the entire
development) by 6 (or 5, depending on who you talk
to). I am told that omission of these 5-6 units would
result in a price increase of around $100 for the
remaining homes. Thus, there is the fear that there
are ulterior motives for requesting this rezoning and
its resulting density increase.

Links to more info below.

___________

Item 10 on the agenda:
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/bocc/Agendas/Current_Meeting_Agen.html
___________

County OK another step in the wrong direction
By Melissa Rooney : Guest columnist
The Herald-Sun
Feb 29, 2008

I was deeply discouraged by the Durham Board of County
Commissioners' Feb. 25 approval of Epcon's
comprehensive plan amendment for the West Side of
Farrington Road, which permits a residential density
increase from four single-family homes per acre
(RS-20) to as many as eight units per acre (PDR 4.5)
in an area where rural farmland now exists.

The time for upholding Durham County's stated
intentions and comprehensive plan has long passed, yet
the county commisioners refuse to accept the fact that
change must start somewhere.

I commend commissioners Ellen Reckhow and Becky Heron
for their sincere concern for the long-term state of
Durham County and their support of the comprehensive
plan (which took tremendous effort and cooperation
from all Durham citizens), as clearly evidenced by
their intelligent discussion and their sole votes
against this comprehensive plan amendment.

The other commissioners' supporting argument was that
Epcon developers would provide water and sewer to this
area, thus saving Durham taxpayers from having to do
so. However, the residents moving into this higher
density area are going to cost us much more in
infrastructure than sewer and water lines would have,
especially since the developers' promise of 90 percent
senior housing is unlikely to be enforceable. Then
again, the water and sewer connections will certainly
increase the asking price of the surrounding farmland
that, I presume, will soon be for sale.

As Commissioner Reckhow pointed out, and planning
director Steve Medlin confirmed, rejection of this
comprehensive plan amendment would result in a
reduction of only five residential units. Yet the
board has now cleared way for the slippery descent of
this area from a density of four homes per acre to as
many as eight units per acre, while requiring no truly
committed language addressing concerns for greater
Durham county (infrastructure, water conservation,
environmental resources).

I find it hard to believe that, after all the work and
money spent up to now, the Epcon Development team
would give up their development plans (including
providing water and sewer) for a mere five units. But,
once again, our county commission does not have the
courage to test those waters.

In addition, it is incomprehensible that, after more
than a year in the working, the Epcon development team
was unable to offer the "committed" elements discussed
Monday night until after their most recent meeting
with the planning department (and this after an
additional two-cycle deferral). And these elements
were still declared by several goverment officials and
staff as not truly committed by language in the
development plan, thus leaving open the possibility
that they may never come to fruition anyway.

So once again, Durham is taking the developers at
their word and hoping we don't get burned (something
with which we haven't had much past success). Even if
this development team is upstanding and their actions
follow their spoken words (despite the looseness of
their written ones), the reward of a plan amendment
and subsequent rezoning without the demand for truly
committed language continues a terrible precedent in
Durham County.

If Durham were a person, they'd buy the first used car
they see for the sticker price, without negotiation
and certainly without any kind of warranty. No wonder
Chapel Hill is driving a hybrid limo while we're still
crawling along in a 20-year-old, gas-guzzling jalopy.

It is no surprise that the Planning Department and
Planning Commission both, recommended denial for this
plan amendment, which begs the recurring question:
What's the point of development review by the Planning
Dept and Planning Commission when their requests for
denial can be so completely ignored?

Before the Board of County Commissioners approves
rezoning for this area (deferred until their next
meeting), they should at least require truly committed
language on all elements, including buffering and
preservation of existing mature trees and vegetation,
rather than the current plan to clear-cut, mass-grade,
and plant lower-density saplings that require more
water, and even then often die with no replacement and
no repercussions.

At the very least, I hope that all commissioners will
remember their discussion Monday night, and in line
with that, prevent the new density of this parcel from
being used by future developments to increase the
gross residential density throughout this area.

And I hope that all Durham citizens will remember the
way the BOCC voted on this issue when we vote,
ourselves, in the upcoming elections.

The writer is a resident of Durham.

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Epcon's Villas at Wake Forest.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 948752 bytes
Desc: pat1641459658
Url : http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20080310/82cece42/attachment-0002.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Epcon Canal Winchester, OH.bmp
Type: image/bmp
Size: 1024896 bytes
Desc: pat1355568747
Url : http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20080310/82cece42/attachment-0003.bin 