UDO Rewrite

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.

I do not see the town is listening to the residents ask for more open space. I see transit oriented and high density developments in areas which could be better suited for recreational use. Although the town is proposing a change to increase the tree canopy I don’t believe it goes far enough to protect critical streams and watershed especially when high density housing is zoned. Although I read about conservation subdivisions, where are they? Why can’t this be the norm? Many people move to Wake Forest from Raleigh and surrounding areas to get more breathing room. People want to live in Wake “forest”. The idea of living within a forest is attractive. Let’s make this town different from surrounding towns and work to hold development to a higher level— where are solar requirements for huge developments- such as those on 98? Wake Forest should live up to its name and be the town known for conservation

As others have stated, we must protect our environment and not insist on being blinded by dollar signs. Climate catastrophe is on the horizon and myself and I'm sure many other residents will not be pleased with insistence on irresponsible and short-sighted development that only helps those who are already wealthy.
We should only entertain regenerative and cyclical ways of being, it is long past time to put frameworks centered on extraction and exploitation of our natural resources and neighborhoods to rest.
"When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money"

Wake Forest is rapidly losing the tree canopy and nature that makes it unique. Clear cutting entire lots cannot continue to happen, not only is it destroying the visual appeal, it’s increasing temperatures, increasing flooding, and decimating the species that call Wake Forest home. I’d like to see the town insist on a percentage of trees be kept PER ACRE not just around the perimeter. I’d like to see the town purchase conservation acreage that is for the health and wellbeing of the environment … maybe with soft trails at most but not to be paved for human softball fields or pickleball courts. If wake forest doesn’t start preserving our environment now it will be too late in 10 yrs, and what makes our town so desirable will be a memory. I’d like to see a native plant species list for new development and not just non natives that grow fast. More use of tree boxes, rain gardens, permeable surfaces in new development, preservation of wildlife corridors. Better parking lot design that incorporates shade and covered sidewalks instead of paved heat deserts. Wake Forest can be a leader in LEED certifications, conservation eco preserves, responsible green development, and insisting on a healthy balance between humans and nature.

I like the goals of keeping more tree canopy, especially more mature trees. I would like to suggest when adding plants and landscaping to use native plants and trees for pollinators.

We’re disappointed. If approved, the new UDO will cause catastrophic harm to our nonprofit religious organization (The Church Initiative). How so?

We’d lose the ability to expand our operations at our current location. And the value of our property would be reduced.

As a growing ministry, it’s imperative that we retain the option to expand on our property and that we protect its value.

Our current building is 12,500 sq ft. It sits on 5.51 acres of land, in a Mixed Use Residential District. The UDO states that, “In the MUR District, Professional Service uses shall have no more than 15,000 square feet total of building or tenant floor area.”

As you can see, the new UDO will prevent us from building significant additional structures—on our own property.

We would like to work with the Town to preserve our right (or the right of a future property owner) to add additional structures to our property. We’re willing to work with the Town to ensure that future development would complement MUR District objectives.

Any ideas regarding how we could achieve that?

Finally, congratulations on getting to this stage in the UDO process. We appreciate the information you’ve shared with us and the Town throughout the process. We look forward to continuing to work with you to resolve our concerns.

USO for roads! Too much development and no infrastructure updates!

Proposed Zoning District - the new zoning has no density limits. So, any land zoned General Residential (GR) can have apartments built on it. Our population has grown 53% since the last census, it's time to stop this continued housing expansion and tearing down the woods.

Proposed Overlay Districts - this includes Watershed Protection Overlays for Smith Creek (the 350 acres across from DWT). Wake County has the 350 acres with a Watershed Protection of WS-II which allows only 1 home per 2 acres. The Town of Wake Forest is changing that to a brand new term called Smith Creek Critical Area District which will all 2.5 homes per acre. Why are you allowing this? What is the rationale. It does not seem that it benefits anyone except builders.

Proposed Administrative Modifications 15.5 (G) - Allows Administrators (Staff) to approve deviations to UDO standards such as:

Min/Max setbacks, buffers, and frontage buildout (Shrink the buffer between DWT & the Nursing home). This is ridiculous. Why are you allowing this? Vote NO against this proposal.

Payment in lieu of specified improvements. (A specified improvement could be a bike trail or a required number of trees on new development).

For example, the proposed Nursing Home needed to plant 360 trees after clear cutting, the final site plan included 98 planted trees and a payment in lieu of the missing 262 trees. Vote NO against this. They should be REQUIRED TO PLANT THE TREES. This is just an easy out and the town calls in income.

It worries me that these Administrative Modifications will have have no oversight from the Planning Board or the Board of Commissioners or residents. It is just a closed door conversation between of member of the Town of Wake Forest staff & the developer. Who are these decisions makers and who has given them this authority? Someone needs to publish the names of these decision makers.

Mary Laws
1017 Mendocino St
Wake Forest, NC 27587
919-628-7811