Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19731016MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY ~.~J BDAR17 OF COMMISSIONERS October 16, 1973 The Board of Commissioners of Drange County met in regular session on Tuesday, October 16, 1973, in the biatriat Cpurtroom of the County Courthouse in Hillsborough. Members Pr©aent: Chairman C. Norman Walker and Commissioners Henry 5, Walker, Flora Garrett, Richard E. Whitted and Melvin Whitfield. Members Absent: None Chairman Walker called upon Honorable A. B, Coleman, representing University Builders, to continue discussion of the County~s action in revocation of the building permit issued for lot number 22 of Heritage Hills Development. Mr. Coleman first filed with Chairman Walker a statement from Robert Ayers, Registered Land Surve or, that showed the area of lot #22 of Heritage Hills Development to be 13 ,26.30 square feet. Mr. Coleman further stated that Mr. Ayers had surveyed the lot, #23 now owned by Mr. Hector Ferias, one of the complaintants against University Builders, in July of 1971. He found this lot to contain 13,918 square feet. This lot was surveyed two months later by Mr. George Love, Registered Land Surveyor. Mr. Loves survey indicated lot ~23 to have in excess of 15,000 square feet. Mr. Coleman further stated that this disparity in size was asused b a ten foot variation in the length of the common boundary between Lots #22 and ~23. No evidence has been produced to indicate which if either of these measurements is correct. Obviously there was considerable difference of opinion between two reputable surveyors as to the area of these two lots. It is equally obvious that if the shorter of the two measurements is correct then there would be a material reduction in the size of many other lots in this particular subdivision. It is unreasonable to assume that the structures on those lots that might become undersized would have to be removed merely because the lots are now found'to be smaller than the minimum size prescribed in the County Zoning Ordinance. It is likewise equally unreasonable to say that University Builders cannot construct on a lot that is approximately the same size as the neighboring lots. Mr. Coleman further stated that the fee title in the atreete of this subdivision was still in the name of Roberts Construction Company and they had in feat conveyed an area of approximately 5,000 square feet to University Builders. Tor. Coleman continued on by niting a North Carolina Supreme Court case which stated that the owner of land under easement could freely convey the fee title to this property. Bohn Woodson, Attorney representing Mr. Clark and Mr•. Ferias, presented an affidavit from George Love, Registered Surveyor, stating that lot #23 belonging to Mr. Ferias contained more than 15,000 square feet. T2r. Woodson continued by saying in his opinion the adoptions of the County zoning Ordinance did not intend for the area of land under publio streets to be considered as part of the overall area of slot. He supports this contention by citing the definition of a lot propounded in the Zoning Ordinance itself. This definition among other things states that a lot is a parcel of land intended to be oaeupied by a house. Obviously no area of a street was intended to be oaeupied by a house. Chairman Norman Walker then called upon the County Attorney for his opinion of this matter. Mr. Cheshire stated that in hie opinior_ the Roberts Construction Company could convey the fee in these streets to University Builders if it so desired. Thus, University Builders did have or might obtain the fee in this laud if it so desired. Re was not prepared to oomment on what effect this acquisition would have on a courts opinion of the lot size issue. 7iowever, he did observe that past courts have held that matters affecting property rights in law must be construed strictly. Since our Zoning Ordinance did not specifically prohibit inclusion of an area under easement in the calculation of lot size the court might well state that this area must be included. Commissioner Flora Garrett reported that she had investigated the practices of Durham County and the Town of Chapel Hill in this area. Neither of these agencies consider the land in streets as part of the area of a lot. - Commissioner Richard Whitted stated it seems that University Builders seemed determined to build an this lot even in violation of a ruling of the County Board of Adjustments. Since the County had adopted this ordinance and since the Board of Adjustments had issued its ruling denying s variance it seemed unreasonable to him for the County not to enforce the ruling of its appointed Board. The action of not enforcing this ruling would put the legal burden of enforcing the County Zoning Ordinance upon private aitizena. This he did not believe was proper. Commissioner Whitted asked the County Attorney if the Zoning Ordinance prohibited the County from using the street area as part of the area of a lot? Mr. Cheshire replied it did not prohibit this. ~~~ Charles Vickery, associate of Ms. Coleman, pointed out on the various mope of the property in question, presented for inspection, that easements of several types were depicted and some of the area of several lots was under easements yet seemed to have been included in the calculated areas of these lots. Mr. Ferias questioned the fact that University Builders had not surveyed their lot until after they started construction of the building. The people residing in the area had offered to purchase this lot from University Builders before its area was calculated and before University Builders had started construction on the property. Since the County had adopted the Zoning Ordirance and University Builders were in apparent violation of the Ordinance the burden of enforcement should Pall upon the County and not upon the immediately affected persons residing in the area. - Commissioner R3,ahard Whitted then moved the County proceed with its suit in this matter. The County Attorney then stated to the Board he had started this suit at the request of the Board of Commissioners, he was at present pursuing the matter and would continue doing ao unless and until he was directed to stop by this Board. A. B. Coleman questioned the Board as to their action if and when they were' presented evidenoe showing there were other undersized lots in this neighborhood? Would the Board pick and choose as to which lots would have the minimum size provision of Zoning Ordinance enforced against it? John Woodson pointed out at this point that in his opinion this was a matter for decision by the County Board of Adjustments. Edward Bennett, owner of lot #?Ja, in Heritage Hills, stated that as soon as University Builders started construction on the lot he went to the property and advised the representative of University Builders that in his opinion the lot was undersized. Comr^_issionar Melvin Whitfield then stated that in view of the feat trot the County was proceeding with its suit against University Builders he felt it was not necessary for the County to take further action at this time. John Woodson summarized his position by stating that he agreed that University Builders did seem to own the fee title in the street adjacent to the lot in question, however, he felt the County should not consider the area under street easement in calvulating the area of the lot. Clasrles Vickery stated his opinion was just opposite.that'of Mr, Woodson and that the County should consider the area under street easement. Further Mr. Vickery wanted the Board of Commisaionera to ask the County Attorney as to hie opinion of this particular point. Mr. Cheshire stated that in hie opinion Roberta Construction Company could oonvey the Pee title to University Builders. He did not want to coumient about legal significance of this conveyance however. Chairman Norman Walker stated he did not want to proceed with this suit to restraLn University Builders. Commissioner Flora Garrett asked Mr. Vickery and P'~. Coleman about their opinion of the legal significance of the suit Smith VS. The Town of Hillsborough. Mr. Coleman stated that the point in question here was the revocation of a building permit. The Court decided in the Dose that once a permit was issued and a person had expended substantial soma of money in reliance upon the permit the governmental unit could not then withdraw the permit. Mr. [doodson pointed out at this point that the factual situation of the case in hand and Smith VS. Hillsborough were not at all similiar. Mr. Coleman then concluded his clients position b4 stating that when a Board is unfamiliar with the law it should not sue an individual citizen. This deaiaion should be made only when the Board is quite sure of its position. Chairman Norman Walker then stated that this would conclude the discussion of the building permit issue. Fred Herndon, acting Chairman of the Triangle Housing Development Corporation, appeared before the Board to explain the operation of this organization and to request that Orange County fund $1,000 as a portion of the administrative expense of this group until a more permanent funding arrangement could be made. This group has received a funding aommi.ttment from the Farmers Home Administration for two hundred units of rental housing for the elderly. These two hundred unite would be spread out among the six counties in the Region J. Orange County's allocation would be twenty four units. The by laws of this group state that Orange County is entitled to appoint one member to the Board of Directors of the Triangle Honaing Corporation. At present our appointee is Howard Welch. Mr. Herndon stated that this loan aommittment has enabled his group to get on the way towards doing something of significance for the counties in Region J. .. _ _....k. .. -~~ Tn regard to future funding of the administrative needs of the Triangle .Corporation Mr. Herndon stated they had filed application for funding with both the Babcock and Reynolds Foundations. It would not be until early in 1974 before they receive an answer from these requests for funds. To finance their program until January 1, 1971}, the Corporation needs about $7,600. Tf they are not funded through their present or some other grant requests they might file the group will have to come back to the County in 1971} for additions], funds. Durham, Wake and 3ohnson Co+uities have already made funding committments to them. Lee County has made an informal committment and Chatham County has promised an answer in early November. Mr, Herndon stated plans for development Dell for housing units (apartments) of 600 square feet in size that will be built in some sort of cluster arrangement and cyst about $15,OD0 per square foot. Utilities and site improvements would cost another $5.00 per square foot. Upon motion of Commissioner Flora Garrett, aecnnded by Commissioner Richard E, Whitted, it was moved and unanimously adopted, that $1,000 be granted from the Contigency Fund to the Triangle Housing Development Corporation. The County Administrator made a brief report of the situation as it has developed concerning the Graham application for Orange County funds under the Clean Water Sond Act. No further action on this request is expected until a meeting scheduled in mid November. Chairman Norman Walker then stated the Board of Commissioners would again discuss the proposed rho valley Agreement. Commissioner Flora Garrett briefly reviewed the comments she had filed with the County Administrator. Her comments are as follows: 2. Pa a 2: 2nd Para ra h; This paragraph is misleading and at least was not pu 1 cly acknowledged to be the case. The first sentence is either very bad grammar or untrue. Durham has not obtained water from the Eno for fifty years and until very recently has owned only a small portion of hand on the Eno. Again, Durham has not publicly declared its intentions for a reservoir. 22. Page 6: Line 10: Add "County" this section should mention more specifically Orange County's interest. IIT, Paae 8: The Agreement: Paragraph 2: "Has the City of Durham in reality acquired all lands except two parcels between Cole I~fill Road and the Orange County line?" Para rash This paragraph must be explicit enough to indicate Orange ounty is a party or can become a party to land acquisition, A case in point: Cabes Ford in Orange County is rapidly becoming a littered, often dangerous place on the Eno River. White it is a popular and lovely plats to en5oy the river, someone should step in fairly quickly to police and clean up the area. Orange County should have that option. Paragraph 1~: In line four change the word "potential" to "possible". Para ra hs & 6: These paragraphs are really not necessary. Paragraph 7: Add at its conolusion-"---------and failing in this respeot will look to all other possible sources of water supply before turning to the Eho. Paragraph 8: Rewrite this paragraph: That if all possibilities " fail end the Fhv is needed for a water supply by the City of Durham, then the State and Orange County intend to cooperate with the City of Durham in the planning and developing of such water supply. Orange County, as stated earlier, is in favor of a State Park on the ~.v and would like to aid in any way possible. However if we sign the agreement as it is written, the signature in effeot means that we agree with what has been stated. Indeed as pointed out earlier in the notes there are some very misleading statements and some glaring omissions. Orange County should be very much a part .of this agreement. We certainly want some input in planning for a.major recreational park in our County and we should have input as to acquisition of land. This agreement is not a two party agreement. __ If the agreement takes some time for s11 parties to sign, then Orange County is interested in. working with the State independently and immediately for two ma3vr purposes; ~.~~ 1. W® have a Recreation Study Commission that is hiring a consultant and surveying recreational lands and needs. This consultant should work with the State on the Eno State Park in order to establish our long- range needs for recreation. 2. We are 3ntereated in using zoning for the prevention of urbanization of lands set aside for the State Park. Tn order to accomplish this, we moat know as precisely as possible what lands the State intends to purchase. On these two issues, Orange must and should move ahead and work together with the State. Commissioner Richard Whin ed also reviewed the comments he had fYled with the County Administrator. His comments are as follows: In order for Orange County to dv constructive and effective long range planning it is necessary for us to have more definite information From the State about which lands in Orange County will be used for the State Park. We need this information to help protect this area from further development that tends to make land acquisition more difficult and more costly. In the document on page b, 2nd paragraph and also in the agreement itself, item 8, it appears that Orange County should have a voice in any decision that would locate a water reservoir in Orange County. Chairman Norman Walker stated that any action on the "Eno" agreement at this time is premature. Re Feels that there is some conflict between the Society for th® Preservation of the Eno and some persons representing the Nature Conservancy. Commissioner Flora Garrett said she felt the Board of Commissioners should now write Dr. Cooper and point out some of the deficiencies in the present agreement. Wa should suggest possible changes to remedy these deficiencies. Commissioner Henry S. Walker stated he did not object to the comments oP Commiaaionera Flora Garrett and Richard Whitted. IIpon..motion of Commissioner Flora Garrett, seconded by Commissioner Henry S. Walker, it was moved and unanimously adopted, that topic's of the comments she and Commissioner Whitted had made be sent to Dr. Cooper along with the suggestion that they be incorpoxated in the next draft of the agreement. The County Administrator briefly explained an easement being offered to the County by General Electric Corporation for the relocation of a 12" water line around the end of a proposed addition to the plant in Mebane. This relocation was to be done at the General Electric Corporations expanse. The Board of Commiaaionera accepted this relocation and directed the County Attorney to have the easement recorded and to advise the General E1.ectrio Corporation. There bring no further business to came before the Board the meeting was adjourned to meet again on Thursday, October 1B, 1973, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. in the District Courtroom of the Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of reviewing tax assessments. C. Norman Walker, Chairman S. M. Gattis, Acting Clerk MIAIUTES OF THE ORAIdGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS October 18, 1973 The Board of Commiaaionera of Orange County met in apeoial session on Thursday, October 18, 1973, at 7:30 o~elock P.. M. in the Diatriat Courtroom of the County Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina, as a Board of Eeualization and Review. Members Present: Commissioners Henry S; Walker, 'Flora Garrett, Richard E,' k'::itted. and Melvih Whitfield. _ . P4embers Absent: Chairman C. Norman Walker. This meeting was called in order that the Board of Commissioners might reach a final decision on tax assessment of the following properties: