UDO Update

Hi all, I want to offer 2 recommendations to make the UDO more consisten when it comes to Townhomes:

Page 59 of proposed UDO - b. GR District. i. Development Sites Five Acres or More in Area.
If located adjacent to existing Single Family Detached Dwellings, the subdivision plan shall site new Single Family Detached Dwellings, so they provide a transition between the existing Single-Family Detached Dwellings and the new Dwelling Townhome buildings and provide a mix of uses

Page 60 of proposed UDO - c. MUR District.
ii. Single-Family Detached Transition. When adjacent to existing Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Townhome development shall incorporate Single-Family Detached Dwellings along the boundary with the adjacent Single-Family Detached Dwellings to serve as transition and provide a mix of residential types.
RECOMMENDATION #1: The wording for GR District should be conformed to the wording for the MUR district as to the Single Family Detached dwellings to say should be “along the boundary with the adjacent Single-Family Detached Dwellings” . This was discussed with Kari Grace on December 13, 2024.

Page 60 noted above requires that detached single family homes be sited along the perimeter in a MUR to serve as a transition and provided a mix of residential types.

RECOMMENDATION # 2: This transition should be required for all types of building in the MUR, not just in the instance of the Townhomes. Otherwise, the UDO as written appears to allow development such as residential buildings - Residential Care Facility, Retirement Housing, Single Room Occupancy, Institutional Buildings such as Child /Adult Day Care Center, Client Meeting Center, Cultural/Community Facility, Entertainment/Recreation, Commercial development such as Bars Entertainment/Recreation, General Commercial and Restaurant, to be along the boundary of the existing Single Family Detached Dwellings. Existing Single Family Detached Dwellings should not abut any of these buildings. This was also discussed with Kari Grace on December 13, 2024.

Page 59 - b. GR District. i. Development Sites Five Acres or More in Area.

If located adjacent to existing Single Family Detached Dwellings, the subdivision plan shall site new Single Family Detached Dwellings, so they provide a transition between the existing Single-Family Detached Dwellings and the new Dwelling Townhome buildings and provide a mix of uses

Page 60 - c. MUR District.
ii. Single-Family Detached Transition. When adjacent to existing Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Townhome development shall incorporate Single-Family Detached Dwellings along the boundary with the adjacent Single-Family Detached Dwellings to serve as transition and provide a mix of residential types.
The wording for GR District should be conformed to the wording for the MUR district as to the Single Family Detached dwellings to say should be “along the boundary with the adjacent Single-Family Detached Dwellings” . This was discussed with Kari Grace on December 13, 2024.

Page 60 noted above requires that detached single family homes be sited along the perimeter in a MUR to serve as a transition and provided a mix of residential types. This transition should be required for all types of building in the MUR, not just in the instance of the Townhomes. Other wise the UDO as written appears to allow development such as residential buildings - Residential Care Facility, Retirement Housing, Single Room Occupancy, Institutional Buildings such as Child /Adult Day Care Center, Client Meeting Center, Cultural/Community Facility, Entertainment/Recreation, Commercial development such as Bars Entertainment/Recreation, General Commercial and Restaurant, to be along the boundary of the existing Single Family Detached Dwellings. This was also discussed with Kari Grace on December 13, 2024.

I do not understand the need for the zoning change to transit supportive/high-density housing and neighborhood commercial on Harris Road. The traffic in this area is already congested as Harris Road is one of main roads out to Capital Avenue. This area should be rezoned to open space especially given the fact that the state of NC has not yet decided how to handle the on/off ramps when Capital becomes a littled access highway. The last thing needed in this area a complete restructuring of Harris Road to allow for hundreds of more cars to funnel out of an apartment complex. The town feels saturated with developments. Where is the need to add more here? We live in a time where every choice/decision matters. Many people have participated in the UDO meetings asking for this area to be designated as open space. Rethink this area wisely.

I have a major concern on the proposed changes to conditional zoning districts, especially when it comes to business use and exceptions for private schools. The case that would have a direct and major imapct to those of us who live on Averette Rd is the rezoning of of highway districts (HD) being rezoned for high business conditional district (HB-CD) for the puposed of Thales Academy. The proposed location of the school with an right in right out only from Averette Rd. will have a major impact on the already congested traffic flow. As it stands now the traffic in the mornings and evening is backed up all the way to the traffic circle with Highway 96 as well as down through the Bishop's Grant traffic light. Looking at the proposed plan for Thales there was no road improvemens shown to widen Hwy 98 or Averette Road so I am questioning that a TIA was done properly for this area to accurately refelct the traffic in the area. New neighborhoods on Avererette Rd. have added to the increase in traffic on the road and merging onto Hwy 98 as well. This small intersection cannot support the traffic that would ensue from two schools with both private transportation and buses.

Any deviation from our ordinances the developer should be responsible for paying the fee to record the changes.

Any deviations from our ordinances the developer should pay the fee to record the changes.

Any deviations from our ordinances the developer should pay the fee to record the changes.

Any deviations from our ordinances the developer should pay the fee to record the changes.

This community has continually expressed well noted and serious concern about any proposed development on the Joyner/former Wake Forest Golf Course property. There is available evidence that the soil is contaminated with Chlordane, Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic used in pesticides and fertilizers. With this addressed in the UDO, the town can require essential testing by the developer and clear evidence of appropriate remediation (or certification that appropriate remediation given the serious condition of the soils is not available) in these situations with the goal of keeping our community safe. Further, The Concerned Citizens for the Preservation of Open Space in Wake Forest request that Soil Testing, Phase II Soil tests and remediation be included in the UDO updates.

What we have here in Wake Forest is of historical significance, a very special environment well worth protecting. It appears that the objective of the entire tenor of the UDO is to encourage denser development with smaller and smaller lots and more apartments/townhouses/ and smaller homes. None of this adds to the quality of life for the residents of Wake Forest, will, as in other similar urban development surely add to sanitation concerns (i.e. litter on road ways and citizen properties), increased traffic congestion, crime, and school overcrowding. Too much of what makes Wake Forest special has already fallen victim to unharmonious development. What we lose can never be replaced.

I strongly agree with the previous comments specially the phase 2 soil testing.. How could the UDO not contain this safeguard provision? Which Wake Forest citizen including all planning staff & BOC would conscientiously object to soil testing? Which developer would not want to protect us citizens, themselves, wildlife and specifically our environment?
Draining of existing ponds and releasing dangerous chemical sediments in our water supplies is of equal importance.

Soil testing needs to occur before this project planning goes further. Chemicals used on the golf course has been pumped into the ground and could leach into the ponds and waterways around this area if disturbed during course of any construction. This will be hazardous to the current surrounding residents who have wells on this water table and will have an adverse affect on the local wildlife.

Soil testing needs to occur before this project planning goes further. Chemicals used on the golf course has been pumped into the ground and could leach into the ponds and waterways around this area if disturbed during course of any construction. This will be hazardous to the current surrounding residents who have wells on this water table and will have an adverse affect on the local wildlife.

Also I adamantdly object to the deletion of pond draining in the UDO

I cannot stress enough the importance of phase 2 soil testing for potential development of golf course properties. Golf courses are known to have dangerous and health hazard chemicals in the soil. if the soil is dug up, these chemicals are leaked into the air, water and surrounding area putting construction workers, future residents, surrounding residents and wildlife in danger. This is a priority for health and safety of our community. There is known chemical contamination of this land and Phase 2 testing along with remediation of the soil should be included in the UDO to help protect our community. In the section 12, Natural resource protection Standards there is significant discussion about storm water management, nitrogen loading in the watershed and sedimentation monitoring testing and management of contaminated soils should also be included. On this same note, there is no wording about development on a property with a pond and possibly of ponds being drained to gain space for roadways or additional lots. the town should include a restriction or requirement for a variance in order to drain a pond. Ponds provide resources for traveling wildlife, erosion control, and pollution management. Allowing developers to remove ponds at will in order to serve their needs and pockets really needs to be evaluated and monitored.

Lastly we are glad to see section 4.3 conservation design. is there a way to encourage developers to consider this kind of plan? if Wake forest can encourage more residential plans of this design it will make a major impact on the character of our community and Wake Forest as an environmentally sensitive community. Keep Wake Forest a forest! The application of this design could be interpreted very differently by each developer and it will be up to staff to make sure that this conservation plan is indeed conserving as much land and trees as possible. There should be incentives and rules for our developers to consider this plan and not just a suggestion.

We would very much like to make sure that Phase II Soil Testing and remediation of contaminated Soil be included. It's important in all areas, but especially in watersheds as these chemicals could pollute the source of drinking water if disturbed by development.

Also, there should be restrictions about not being able to drain ponds or interfere with ponds to make space for roadways, infrastructure or development.

Thank you for your consideration!
Lynn Joyner

1. There is no wording in the UDO about soil testing for hazardous chemical presence in development plans or remediation of contaminated soil. If the town has reason to believe soil is contaminated, the UDO needs to provide direction for the developer to test the soil. This is important for the health and safety of the community, new homeowners and anyone working at a chemically contaminated site. In Section 12.Natural Resource Protection Standards there is significant discussion about Storm water management, nitrogen loading in the watershed, and sedimentation. Monitoring, testing and management of contaminated soils should also be included. Existing and Closed Golf Course properties should be specifically identified as they are heavy users of pesticides, fungicides, weed killers and fertilizers.

2. Also in section 12.Natural Resource Protection Standards, there is no wording about development on a property with a pond and the possibility of ponds being drained to gain space for road ways or additional lots. Under section paragraphs 12.7.1.F.1 & 2 (or other appropriate sections), the town should include a restriction or requirement for a variance in order to drain a pond. This would include Existing Conditions/Proposed Plan sites. Ponds provide resources for recreation, wildlife, erosion control, and pollution management. Also under the definitions section pond drainage needs to be added back to the definition of development. It is not magic. The landscape is being altered.

3. We are glad to see section 4.3 Conservation Design. Is there anything to further encourage residential developers to consider this kind of plan? If Wake Forest can encourage more residential plans of this design, it will make a major impact on the character of our community and Wake Forest as an environmentally sensitive community.

4. The entire tenor of the UDO is to encourage denser development with smaller and smaller lots and more apartments/townhouses/ and smaller homes. None of this adds to the quality of life for the residents of Wake Forest and will only add to the traffic congestion, crime, and school overcrowding.

5. The BOC is delegating its responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats and consultants. These UDO changes were imported from some other high density city that the consultants consider a success. People moved to Wake Forest to escape high density living. Move all approvals for variances to the UDO back under the BOC and public hearings.

1. There is no wording in the UDO about soil testing for hazardous chemical presence in development plans or remediation of contaminated soil. If the town has reason to believe soil is contaminated, the UDO needs to provide direction for the developer to test the soil. This is important for the health and safety of the community, new homeowners and anyone working at a chemically contaminated site. In Section 12.Natural Resource Protection Standards there is significant discussion about Storm water management, nitrogen loading in the watershed, and sedimentation. Monitoring, testing and management of contaminated soils should also be included. Existing and Closed Golf Course properties should be specifically identified as they are heavy users of pesticides, fungicides, weed killers and fertilizers.

2. Also in section 12.Natural Resource Protection Standards, there is no wording about development on a property with a pond and the possibility of ponds being drained to gain space for road ways or additional lots. Under section paragraphs 12.7.1.F.1 & 2 (or other appropriate sections), the town should include a restriction or requirement for a variance in order to drain a pond. This would include Existing Conditions/Proposed Plan sites. Ponds provide resources for recreation, wildlife, erosion control, and pollution management. Also under the definitions section pond drainage needs to be added back to the definition of development. It is not magic. The landscape is being altered.

3. We are glad to see section 4.3 Conservation Design. Is there anything to further encourage residential developers to consider this kind of plan? If Wake Forest can encourage more residential plans of this design, it will make a major impact on the character of our community and Wake Forest as an environmentally sensitive community.

4. The entire tenor of the UDO is to encourage denser development with smaller and smaller lots and more apartments/townhouses/ and smaller homes. None of this adds to the quality of life for the residents of Wake Forest and will only add to the traffic congestion, crime, and school overcrowding.

5. The BOC is delegating its responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats and consultants. These UDO changes were imported from some other high density city that the consultants consider a success. People moved to Wake Forest to escape high density living. Move all approvals for variances to the UDO back under the BOC and public hearings.

1. There is no wording in the UDO about soil testing for hazardous chemical presence in development plans or remediation of contaminated soil. If the town has reason to believe soil is contaminated, the UDO needs to provide direction for the developer to test the soil. This is important for the health and safety of the community, new homeowners and anyone working at a chemically contaminated site. In Section 12.Natural Resource Protection Standards there is significant discussion about Storm water management, nitrogen loading in the watershed, and sedimentation. Monitoring, testing and management of contaminated soils should also be included. Existing and Closed Golf Course properties should be specifically identified as they are heavy users of pesticides, fungicides, weed killers and fertilizers.

2. Also in section 12.Natural Resource Protection Standards, there is no wording about development on a property with a pond and the possibility of ponds being drained to gain space for road ways or additional lots. Under section paragraphs 12.7.1.F.1 & 2 (or other appropriate sections), the town should include a restriction or requirement for a variance in order to drain a pond. This would include Existing Conditions/Proposed Plan sites. Ponds provide resources for recreation, wildlife, erosion control, and pollution management. Also under the definitions section pond drainage needs to be added back to the definition of development. It is not magic. The landscape is being altered.

3. We are glad to see section 4.3 Conservation Design. Is there anything to further encourage residential developers to consider this kind of plan? If Wake Forest can encourage more residential plans of this design, it will make a major impact on the character of our community and Wake Forest as an environmentally sensitive community.

4. The entire tenor of the UDO is to encourage denser development with smaller and smaller lots and more apartments/townhouses/ and smaller homes. None of this adds to the quality of life for the residents of Wake Forest and will only add to the traffic congestion, crime, and school overcrowding.

5. The BOC is delegating its responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats and consultants. These UDO changes were imported from some other high density city that the consultants consider a success. People moved to Wake Forest to escape high density living. Move all approvals for variances to the UDO back under the BOC and public hearings.

I don't see anything precluding a developer from draining a pond without special consideration from the Planning Dept. It seems that draining a pond as part of a development would be significant from a water protection and environmental management.

I have read through the UDO and there is no provision for the UDO to request a developer test soil for contaminants if any contamination is suspected.

The Concerned Citizens for the Preservation of Open Space in Wake Forest request that Soil Testing, Phase II Soil testing and remediation be included in the UDO updates. I have drafted language to be used in the UDO.

The TOWF may request a Phase II Soil Survey Plan in a proposed development suspected of chemical contamination including former golf course properties. The soil sampling plan should be completed by an unbiased, qualified third party using scientifically sound planning and practices in accordance with EPA’s Data Quality Objectives or similar guidance document. The Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) Process was developed by US EPA and is a systematic plan for collecting environmental data of a known quality and quantity to support decisions.

Results of the soil sampling plan should be evaluated in terms of the original plan objectives and should include recommendations for soil management and remediation if required. Transparency to all parties (town, developer and stakeholder communities) in all phases of the process is essential so that everyone understands the scope of contamination, remediation plans and potential risks.

We are quite concerned about any proposed development on the Joyner/former Wake Forest Golf Course property. We have evidence that the soil is contaminated with Chlordane, Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic used in pesticides and fertilizers. By including this in the UDO, the town can require this testing by the developer in these situations and help keep our community safe.