HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_15063. Schools would be hard pressed to orderly and quickly evacuate in an emergency. Access
and egress to Woodland Heights and Lake Norman Elementary by buses and cars would be
almost impossible.
4. New road construction along the corridor will magnify the traffic problem for the schools. Access
and egress will be limited at best.
Schools respond to the growth in an area, they do not necessarily create it, but new schools
encourage people to move into the area or return from charter/private school settings.)
---------------End of Dr. Miller's Handout -------------
Comments from the Public
Vic Theobalds (opposition) voiced concerns about the impact the
ordinance would have on businesses providing services and goods for
the construction industry as well as the businesses (CPAs, attorneys,
security, insurance, printing offices) providing services to
homeowners and other commercial/ industrial businesses. He said his
lumber business brought in $1 million in sales taxes last year.
Deborah Bowen (opposition) suggested that the school systems
limit the number of personal vehicles being used to transport
students. She said high school students should realize driving was a
privilege -- not a right. Bowen said there was not a traffic issue on
weekends or spring break.
Len Sealer (opposition) said the cap was based on traffic and ;:he
congestion occurred on a 3.4 mile area starting around Chuckwood Road
and proceeding to the Brawley School Road. He said findings of fact
#s 10 and 38 mentioned 25,000 cars a day on the road, and #26 said
there were 18,000 residents at 2.4 per household which equaled 7500
households. He said that with this many households, at 9.6 trips,
there would be an indication that 72,000 vehicles were on the road,
rather than the findings of fact amount of 25,000 vehicles. He said
there needed to be a compromise on the building cap.
Brian Robinette (opposition) said he wasn't aware of any statute
that allowed the county to authorize the ordinance. He said "police
power was a thin thread to be using on such a drastic program that
curtailed the property rights of landowners." Robinette said 100
permits would not meet the demand, and this would develop into a
"defacto moratorium" that was in violation of G.S. 153-340. He said
the real problem that needed to be addressed was traffic.
Lee Easter (opposition) stressed the importance of letting the
legislators know about the need for better roads including the
interstates. He said road and gas taxes were going to other parts of
the state.
Glen Lindemann (advocate) said the residents' safety should be
considered. He said the schools were already crowded and would only
get worse if growth wasn't slowed. Lindeman mentioned other problems
and concerns such as (1) trailer complexes already at new schools (2)
updated evacuation routes were needed (3) speedy access/egress for
emergency rescue personnel was needed (4) the safety of drinking water
needed to be considered and (5) Department of Transportation funding
needed to be directed to the area and local organizations and citizens
needed to contact their representatives. Lindemann said he understood
an amendment might be approved that would exempt approximately 1500
lots owned by Crescent Resources and other large developers. He said
this would postpone the implementation of the ordinance for 15 years.
He urged the board members to vote against any amendments.
Skip Weber (advocate) said the ordinance was not a moratorium,
and it would allow developers to continue their businesses -- just at
a slower rate. Mr. Weber mentioned the homebuilders' comments, plus
the comments of others in opposition, and disputed their predictions
as follows:
12