Back to Archive Index
Back to Proposed Change to Fearrington PUD

Index

July 17, 2006

TO: Chatham County Board of Commissioners

FROM: William Sommers, 1067 Fearrington Post, Pittsboro, NC 27312
29 East Madison, Fearrington Village

Subject: Submission of Written Comments Re Public Hearing on Proposals to Amend the existing Fearington Village PUD: Agenda Items 36, 37, 38 and 39

My name is William Sommers. I am a resident of Chatham County at 29 East Madison, Fearrington Village. As such I have a direct interest in the application of Fitch Creations to amend the existing Fearrington PUD as noted in agenda items 36, 37, 38 and 39. Besides these revisions in the PUD, the sketch map submitted as part of the documentation indicates a number of related changes that are important to Fearrington residents and are included in the comments which follow.

General Statement: Last October when Fearrington residents were considering incorporation, R.B. Fitch of Fitch Creations, was critical of this effort noting that “there seems to be a rush by the FHA Board to have this enacted.” Now nine months later, the shoe is on the other foot, and it is R.B. Fitch who seems to be in a rush to have his enlarged PUD enacted by both the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners.

Does this haste may have something to do with a change in the Board’s composition which will occur in December? Is “maybe” the right answer?

Mr. Fitch at that time also chided the FHA for its proposal since he felt that “most of us moved here to enjoy the calm of the countryside, not to be engaged in electing mayors, council persons, fighting special interests…it doesn’t make a lot of sense.” Yet nearly a year later he has offered up a plan that will increase Fearrington’s density and cover a great deal of the Fearrington “countryside” with additional residences engendering increased traffic activity, thus confounding his vaunted goal that all of us should “…enjoy the calm of the countryside.” And, in truth, some of his proposals also don’t “make a lot of sense” – at least for many Fearrington’s residents.

Nevertheless, we recognize that it his land and his development and he has a right to make changes, to fully develop his plan to produce a profitable result. At the same time, many residents have strong concerns about certain aspects of his proposals, concerns that probably have more validity than the “concerns” he voiced in October of last year.

Turning to the sketch plan of the proposed revised Fearrington PUD – and its accompanying explanation – it should be clearly noted that while the requests are divided into four agenda items they are interrelated and do not stand alone in terms of the overall PUD. In addition, parts of the submitted Sketch Plan included changes in the originally approved PUD that, while they may not need specific approval at this stage in the process, need to be carefully examined and evaluated. To this end, my commentary follows the agenda items – 36,37,38 and 39 – concluding with additional remarks on other proposed changes affecting the existing PUD.
(Back To Top)

Agenda Item 36: While this forty acre tract poses no obvious problem with the addition of 33 residential units, we note that this tract is steep and gullied and could have an adverse affect on storm water drainage as it exits into Beaver Creek then into the larger Bush Creek and finally into Jordan Lake. It is important that the County and DWQ make a careful review of the details of the reconstruction of this site so that the environmental disaster that occurred upstream in portions of Section II, III and IV does not repeat itself. The design of the drainage system for that area was faulty and as a result could not protect what was once a beautiful natural area wherein one could enjoy “the calm of the countryside.” In addition, the design of waste water and water lines to serve this area should be carefully reviewed when final plans are brought before the County Boards.
(Back To Top)

Agenda Item 37: The 46 acres is actually part of the large tract of 243 acres, the other part of which is discussed in Agenda Item 38. While no construction is planned here, the proposed rezoning to RA-40 will allow Fitch Creations to transfer the residential unit potential from this tract to the new tract in Agenda Item 38 and to the Village Center areas. Fitch Creations has proposed an “open space preserve” for this tract and the undeveloped portions of the adjoining tract. It should be noted that if this tract were to be developed it would probably need Corp of Engineer and DWQ approval because the development would have a direct affect on the Bush Creek tributary to Jordan Lake; this would raise the costs and extended the development calendar by many months. Thus Fitch Creations is making shrewd use of this piece of land which it ordinarily would not develop because of the high development costs involved.
(Back To Top)

Agenda Item 38: This is the “sister” track to the 46 acres discussed above which covers 197 acres. Here Fitch Creations plans to include 50 single family lots and 28 cluster homes for a total of 78 residences on 60 acres. The remaining 137 acres will be added to the 46 in Item 37 for a total of 183 acres, all of which are included in a proposed open space preserve. The rezoning will then make possible the transfer of the remaining residential lots to the Village Center. The County should be concerned about site development here in terms of storm water run-off, sewer lines and the costly access to the County’s water supply. The County should also consult with the DWQ and the Corps of Engineers to be certain that 401 and 404 Clean Water Act requirements are met in the detailed development plans when they are submitted.

The County should also require that a legal commitment to transfer the proposed 183 acres of open space preserve to a registered North Carolina land trust be in hand before approval is given to the development of this site.

Mr. Fitch’s June 19, 2006 letter underlines the fact that the proposals for an open-space reservation “…preserves a vast area for wildlife and passive enjoyment for Fearrington Residents.” While his open space proposal will no doubt be applauded by the wildlife in that area, it is difficult to see how Fearrington residents can engage in passive enjoyment of an area that is neither accessible nor in the regular purview of their community life. Whether or not the establishment of this open space, much of which is not readily usable for residential construction, is a balanced quid pro quo for the increased density in the Village Center area may need further valuation.
(Back To Top)

Agenda Item 39: This is the “heart of the matter” by which the rezonings requested in agenda items 37 and 38 come to fruition in the increased densities shifted to Section X.These transfers, though legally possible under the current zoning ordinance, will change the character of this area from a “country village” to a truly “urban settlement”. A key to the overall concern of many residents comes into practical play on the effect of increased density on road safety. For example, residents who want to walk along portions of Weathersfield now do not have either a sidewalk or a path but, under Fitch Creation’s view, must walk along the internal net work in Camden Park for coming and going.

The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the Sears Design group dismisses the traffic and road safety problems by noting that “Fearrington residents, primarily active retired couples, make fewer automobile trips and make them most often at “off peak” times, as compared to residents of communities of working families.” This, in a word, is rubbish. Sears Design Group has made no actual analysis of the road safety problems based on increased car use, nor has it, to my knowledge, talked to the Fearrington Road Safety Committee about these problems. SEARS does acknowledge, however, that based on increased car usage the “anticipated tax on automobiles should generate $83,373!”  But as though the firm were answering our complaints, SEARS stresses the fact that “Roadways will be built without curb and gutter except in those areas where on-street parking is required. Principles of low impact development will be employed in the site design.”

In view of the increased density with three new roadways feeding into Weathersfield (including the 14 homes proposed for Section XIV), this design principle only heightens the probability that we are looking at accidents waiting to happen. Shouldn’t we require better planning by which this situation can be ameliorated if not eliminated?

We recommend that the Board of Supervisor and the Planning Board take careful and serious note of this extraordinary deficiency in the submitted plans. As a partial solution we propose that a unified concrete sidewalk-curb- gutter system be built on the south side of Weathersfield from the intersection of Weathersfield and the extension of McDowell (Proposed Section XIV) to Galloway Ridge entry way. This will have to be approved by the DOT but in the interests of road safety and a clearly demonstrated need we believe they will cooperate.

While this may raise the development costs in these areas, the proposal is supported by Finding #2 which would consider the walkway as “essential…for the public convenience.” We note as well that the developer by being able to increase residential density in an area with in-place infra-structure (built at lower than current cost) has already achieved substantial savings in the implementation of the expanded PUD.
(Back To Top)

Other Considerations: I would also like to address three additional concerns arising from proposed changes in the already approved PUD and which changes have been including in the overall SKETCH DESIGN/OVERALL PLAN, dated June 19,2006 and submitted with the other changes discussed above:

1. Section XIII: Proposed Mixed Use Apartments and Offices This is a 5 acre site off Weathersfield in front of the Galloway Ridge development. The tentative proposal is to construct 4 mid-rise (3 stories) apartments or a variation including office space. To quote RB Fitch’s letter on incorporation: “I think this is an idea whose time has not come.” In our judgment this is not good land use planning. The developer has already gotten a substantial density shift (See Agenda 39 above) that will increase traffic and related pedestrian activity. Moreover, the proposal indicates two entries into the 5 acre tract along with existing entries into Galloway Ridge. This would put in place five exit/entries on Weathersfield within 1200 feet of the exit/entry from US 15-501. Is that good traffic engineering? If the two entries were shifted to the rear they would then impinge on the parking and other traffic flow associated directly with Galloway Ridge.

Our recommendation here is to request the developer to include this five acre tract in the proposed open space preserve. Shade trees could be planted along with flowers and perhaps the inclusion of gazebo, e.g. Camden Park. This would be much more accessible to both Galloway Ridge and Fearringtoln Village residents than will the nearly inaccessible 183 acres being preserved in Fearrington East/Southern Tract. Moreover, this small “open space preserve” is consistent with Fitch Creations’ oft stated desire to preserve “the calm of the countryside.”
(Back To Top)

2. Section XII: South Park Proposed 5 mid-rise apartments, 75 added residents This is an entirely new residential concept to Fearrington Village that does not seem to fulfill the requirement of preserving “both the form and function of rural character” (Finding #4, Item 1) but rather reflects the increasing urban character of this part of Fearrington Village. Many residents have trepidations about these residential apartments, for which the developer has provided little or no information on building particulars or overall design. We recommend that before any permits are granted to build these so-called mid-rise apartments, the developer be asked to hold an informal meeting with Fearrington Village residents to explain the concept by showing proposed building plans and discussing the pros and cons of such residential construction.
(Back To Top)

3. Road Access to Adjacent Lands: The filed Sketch Map indicates a possible road opening providing “access to adjacent lands” at Section X’s southern border. This leads to a confluence of land parcels between Big Hole Road and Rt 15/501 with some parcels fronting on Mt. Gilead Road. However, there is, so far as I can determine, no explanation for this proposed access road into Fearrington Village. A future access road built in this general area could have a profound affect on Fearrington’s future development, not to mention the pressure of increased traffic that could result from outside traffic, particularly short-cutting to Rt. 15-501. Both the developer and his design team should be much more forthcoming to Fearrington residents regarding the potential construction of an access road into Fearrington Village.
(Back To Top)