HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-17-1999 - 9gORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 17, 1999
Action Agenda
Item No. q_a
SUBJECT• Woodgreen Subdivision Preliminary Plan: Motion to Reconside
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Letter from Alexander & Miller, L.L.P.
2) Sketch of Proposed Landscaping Section
3) Under separate cover: Preliminary plats
showing type of septic system proposed for
each lot.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Lincoln Extension 2583
Craig Benedict Extension 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331 _
Mebane (336)227-2031
PURPOSE: The Board will decide whether or not to reconsider its decision to deny the
application for Woodgreen Subdivision Preliminary Plan. If the Board votes to reconsider, then
the revised preliminary plan will be brought back at a future meeting for the Board's
decision.
BACKGROUND:
Request Sidenham Alexander, attorney for (Tri Star Brokerage and Development Company),
requests that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider its March 16, 1999, decision to deny
the preliminary plan for Woodgreen Subdivision. The applicants have submitted, as a revised plan,
new evidence concerning types of septic systems proposed for each lot and alternative screening
along Moorefields Road.
Location The proposed subdivision is located at the southern intersection of Dimmocks Mill
Road (SR 1134) and Moorefields Road (SR 1135), Cheeks Township.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: The preliminary plat presented at the March 16, 1999, Board of Commissioners
meeting proposed: • Conservation approach of flexible development with 36% open space
remaining in private ownership on individual lots;
• Individual wells and Innovative septic systems proposed for all 25 lots;
• Sparsely spaced (40 ft.) Leyland Cypress along cleared area of
Dimmocks Mili Road and on 6 ft. berm along Moorefields Road.
Proposed: Newly submitted evidence suggests the same subdivision layout with:
• Conventional septic systems for 18 lots;
• Innovative septic systems for 7 lots;
g:Uclincolnlreconsid. doc18-4-99Uc1
f
2 ~.
• Alternative screening along Moorefields Road to be used instead of berm.
Develoament Process. Schedule. and Action
• First Action: Motion to reconsider Board's decision to deny the application for
Woodgreen Subdivision Preliminary Plan.
If the Board votes to reconsider, then the revised preliminary plan wilt be brought back at a
future meeting for the Board's decision.
• Final Action: At a future meeting, the Board shall base its action on its findings as to
conformity with all applicable regulations and shall:
(1) Approve the application;
(2) Approve the application subject to conditions; or
(3) Deny the application.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION{S):
Administration Recommendation: To reconsider the decision to deny approval of the
application for Woodgreen Subdivision Preliminary Plan. .
g:lklincolnlreconsid.doc18-4-99Uct
3
A T Fir a rmEi g $~ MTT.T,Fi R
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1326 BAST FRANKLIN STREET SUITC 202
POST OFFICE BOX 3200
S'IDCNMAM 8, ALtXANDCR, JR. Cj$Ap'F+!T. j~ N'QgZg ~.Jd$ol.~Tb Q7S1,3 ,t~2OO DONALD A. WILLIAMS
STLPN[N B. MiLLCR
or couNacL
(919) 929-(984
FAX (919) 929-(990
June 3, 1999•
•Ms. Karen Lincoln
Supervisor, Current Planning
Orange County planning Department
30~6F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Woodgreen Subdivision
Dear Ms. Lincoln:
As I believe you are aware, I represent Mr. Dennis Evans and
Mr. Jim Mooring, the owners of the proposed Woodgreen Subdivision.
My clients are asking that the County Commissioners consider the
revised plan for the subdivision at the meeting presently scheduled
for June 21. Given the prior history of this development, I
thought it would be helpful to provide additional information
regarding the proposal.
The proposed subdivision would be on a tract of land 30.6
acres in size., located at the intersection of Mooresfield Road and
Dimmocks Mill Road. Access to the property would be through two
entrances off of~Mooresfield.Road. The preliminary plans for the
development provided for 27 lots. After consultation with the
autharities'at'the Health Department, my clients reduced the lot
total to 25 single-family, lots. This proposal received the
unanimous support of the Planning Board.
The Health Department examined the proposal and approved each
of the 25 lots for an innovative septic system and informed my
clients that the permits had been prepared and were ready to be
issued. In my telephone conversation with you, 'you indicated some
significant concerns about having 25 innovative systems in this
subdivision. In your letter of March 17, you indicated further
that the County Commissioners had expressed concerns about the
exclusive use of innovative systems. Each of these lots has a
requisite area for both an innovative system and the required
backup site for such a system in the event the original should
fail. Each of the lots can accommodate such a system without any
4
Ms. Rarer Lincoln
Orange County Planning Department
June 3, 1999
Page 2
encroachment into the areas set aside for open space, flood plain
use, or the stream buffer.
Following rejection of this plan by the County Commissioners,
my clients have reevaluated the septic proposal. The revised
proposal we are submitting for your consideration and review, and
for action by the Commissioners, now contains eighteen lots
utilizing regular conventional septic systems and only seven lots
utilizing the innovative systems. These seven are Lots 3, 4, 5,
11, 12, 15 and 16. This revised proposal meets all the
requirements of the Health Department, and each of the lots has
been approved for a permit in accordance with this plan.
My clients plan to have wooden fencing along the two entrances
off of •Mooresfield Road, and similar fencing at the corner of
Dimmocks Mill Road and running the entire length of Dimmocks Mill
Road. One of the owners, Mr. Evans, lives immediately across
Dimmocks Mill Road on the east side of the property. He .plans to
construct additional wooden fencing along the length of his
property and his neighbors' in order to make the entire area more
attractive.
As reflected on the proposed plan, my clients will plant
trees along the Dimmocks Mill boundary, portions of the Mooresfield
Road boundary, and in the interior to provide additional
landscaping amenities. Each of the trees will be at least six feet
high and will comply fully with the requirements of the zoning
ordinance.. The plan further provides for the construction of a
six-foot high berm along approximately 220 teat of the open space
area off Mooresfield Road to provide a visual screen for the
development.
My clients are very pleased with the revised proposal. Each
of the single-family residences will be a three-bedroom residence.
It is anticipated that the sales prices for each lot, once the
residence is constructed, will be between $240,000 and $280,000.
I have reviewed the applicable portions of the Orange County
zoning ordinance, and have met with Mr. Geoff Gledhill to review
the proposed development. It is my opinion that the development as
revised meets each of the criteria set forth in the ordinance and
that my clients are entitled to have this proposal approved by the
County Commissioners. I welcome the opportunity to meet with you
or other members of the Orange County planning staff to address any
concerns you may have.
Ms. Karen Lincoln
Orange County Planning Department
June 3, 1999
Page 3
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
ALEXANDER & MILLER, L.L.P.
~I
l~
Sy Wham 8. Alex er, Jr'
SBA:jb
cc (via hand delivery): Mr. Gledhill
Mr. Evans
Mr. Mooring
File # 1688.00
5
ALTERNATIVE SCREENING ALONG MOOREFlELD ROAD
TO 8E USED INSTEAD OF. BERM
QR ~ ~So~tZD Fact
ao' I ~ I ~
~4. ~S y; ° ~+~ k•~°~.Y e'~.'~`Zc ~'~ ~~ l +'~ gj'~'~"z'" '~„'' `lf, ~° ta~~ ~. ~~4~ ~{+'`l., ~,•'~a'h''%r+„
t`*..! Kt ~.ei ati' Z~~i ~`h+~..+~ b,~di ~l.N .i~ ;~ ~'~ ~ ;.`sa3 ~~ ~~~ `a'~'°~ .R"~
..+, 'b,.S' ,Pad ~~ `(d4.8
F . ~ ~•
REE
00
VIA HAND DELIVERY
August 11, 1999
Ms. Susan Dovenbarger, Chair
Orange County Board of Education
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Dr. Randy Bridges, Superintendent
Orange County Schools
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Dovenbarger and Dr. Bridges:
Thank you for meeting with us concerning our research relating to the location and
establishment of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District line. The Kimley-Horn and
Associates' map attached to the enclosed Petition shows the location of the school district line
based on our research. The enclosed Petition requests that the Board correct the location of
the school district line to the position shown on the Kimley-Horn map.
T~~ _xt v_~r_~~s+~axclt artd rest. by O~£t'r~y Gaedliill, the County A.ttt~~ey, it a}~p~at'~
that ~e curt~nt rrt 1~r~,4.t#~..s~hoo! d~stticf line (fransc~ibed from the Qlde,~ tax map
sum) is i~t~brrect~'fieoff Oiedhiil"s research reveals that the e~li~st-viitirr- of ~ tap of Vie,
'~t-t>ol district; dated'-April L, 19:3, contains "5a~r~rai ~g~nficant errors" nclug ~ in~c~rr~ct
no~#ih-sQUth oMetitation. This incorrect orientation resulted in the school district line being
shown in asouthwest-northeast orientation rather than east-west as is called for in the 1951
Petition, discussed below. Apparently, this map has been used as the basis for each
subsequent attempt to map the school district line. :As a result of the errors in t~ 196 map, r
~e erronebt~~ly ply spool district line has b~rt perpetuat+~d for the past 36 y~ar~.
As you know, the line was established in 1951 as a result of a petition from the Chapel Hill
City Administrative Unit (Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education). The petition asked the
Orange County Commissioners to call an election "on the question of the enlargement of the
boundary lines and whether or not special taxes shall be levied therein." The election was
held on November 20, 1951 and was approved by a margin of 699 votes "for" and 91 votes
"against."
The 1951 petition contains the legal description of where the district line is located. The line
is to run with the "Durham County line to the point of intersection of the Durham County line
and County Highway #552; thence directly west crossing County Highways #551 and #550 to
the tracts of the Southern Railway (State University Railway)." A map from the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, dated December 1950, shows the general location and
numbering of roads in the area. County Road #552 is commonly known today as Erwin Road
CREEK WOOD aN SBeH LLC DEVELOPMENT, P.O. Box 16007, CtrapEL HILL, NC z7g16-6007
9ig.968.7z8z Fax 9i9.9zg.o7g8
Orange County Board of Education
August 11, 1999
Page Two
(now SR 1737), County Road #S51 is Turkey Farm Road (now SR 1730), and County Road
#550 is NC 86.
Therefore, the beginning point for the northern boundary line of the Chapel Hill school
district is the intersection of Erwin Road and the Durham County line. While this point was
not established with a monument in 1951, there is a considerable amount of evidence that the
point of beginning was essentially the same in 1951 as it is today. Accordingly, we believe
the current Orange County GIS mapping correctly shows the beginning point intended in the
1951 Petition.
~d can our rer~h, dte ~rg~i t;~'l~arM ~4~ty! lie ~+as ~t surveyed and monumentedf
prUe ~,~.~=:~We d+~ k~~ fat the line was surveyed in 1968. `~~il~Off f
t"~rdlina General Statutes, and, al~ovgh all ~e requirements of Statues v+~er~ ncit rr-et
Cor~C~rifitig the adopti+~t~ and- r~t~rc~ of the surer; tl~e sur~y awe #m reflect the
get~erhlly' aeeeptaed loeatiort of tlta Cc~u~ty life: We have spoken with a number of the
individuals involved with this survey. Lucius Cheshire was the Orange County attorney at
this time. He remembered the survey being done but did not recall that it was the result of a
legal directive. Likewise, Sam Gattis was the Orange County manager at this time. He recalls
that the survey was agreed to voluntarily by the two counties with Orange County appointing
one surveyor (Jerry Strictland of Engineering Surveys, Inc.) and Durham County appointing
the other surveyor (Ed Credle of Credle Engineering Company). Both surveyors recalled that
the survey had been ordered voluntarily by the two Counties to reduce confusion concerning
the exact location of the line. A ~Y of'~is surrey i$ available ~n the. O~ra~ge +Cout~ty Land
~ naap~i~g o#l`i~> althQ~g~+~t~e surer was never recofc~ec~µ~~Or C~urtitys The
survey was recorded in Durham County on January 7, 1983 (Plat Book 102 at Pages 49-52).
In the course of all this research no evidence was discovered, verbal or written, to indicate
that the Orange/Durham County line near its intersection with Erwin Road either was in 1951
or is currently in a location other than the one shown on the 1968 survey.
Additionally, it appears that the location of Erwin Road at the County line has not changed
materially, if at all, since 1951. Aerial photography from the Orange County ASCS office
that was prepared for the US Department of Agriculture dated in 1938, 1955, and 1972 shows
Erwin Road in the same location and configuration. This is the same location depicted by the
current Orange County GIS mapping. On the 1955 USDA map, the location of the County
line is shown intersecting Erwin Road at a small bend in the road. The current GIS map
shows Erwin Road and the County line intersecting at exactly the same point. We also
researched recorded road easements and requested that NCDOT review their easement records
relating to Erwin Road in this area. No recorded easements or other anecdotal evidence exists
to indicate that Erwin Road has moved since 1951 (or for that matter since 1938).
Orange County Board of Education
August 11, 1999
Page Three
The Orange County GIS system accurately reflects not only the location of Erwin Road, but
also uses the 1968 survey as the basis of the Orange County line location. Having established
the beginning point (the intersection of Erwin road and the Orange/Durham County line), our
engineer, Kimley-Horn and Associates, plotted the school district line, utilizing the Orange
County GIS system, in accordance with the legal description in the 1951 Petition. The
Kimley-Horn map correctly locates the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district line between
Erwin Road and the railroad tracts.
We respectfully request that you correct the error in mapping that occurred in 1963 and
modify the school district line as shown on the Kimley-Horn map. In doing so, the intent of
the 1951 Petition establishing the school district line, as approved by the voters, will be
realized since the school district line will truly begin at the point they selected and go directly
west until it reaches the railroad tracts.
We appreciate your consideration of our Petition. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you
have questions or if we can provide additional information
Sincerely,
S & H DEVELOPMENT, LLC
~ss~
Rol Sass Tom He
LAw oFFtcEs
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E TRYON STREET'
P. O. DRAwF.R 1529
H1IISBOROTJGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
919.7)2-2196
FAX 919.732-7997
July 21, 1999
Mr. Roscoe E. Reeve
Manager
Orange County Land Records
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
FROM THE DESK OF
GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL
RE: Creek Wood Development and School District
s Boundaries
Dear Roscoe:
This letter confirms our discussions recently about the
location of the northern boundary of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
school district and the southern boundary of the Orange County
school district between the Durham County line on the east and
the University Railroad tracks on the west. What follows are
two lists. The first list is of things we do know. The second
list is of things we don't know and about which, at this point
in time, we can only make an educated guess. A number of the
listed items contain explanatory or my editorial comments.
Things we do know.
1. On October 1, 1951 the Orange County Board of
Education approved the petition of the Chapel Hill City Board
of Education calling for an election on the question of
enlarging the boundaries of what is now the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro School District.
2. The election was successful.
3. The post election 1951 boundary separating the Chapel
Hill-Carrboro School District and the Orange County School
Mr. Roscoe E. Reeve
Page 2
July 21, 1999
District was to have been a line running due west from the
intersection of the Durham County line and Erwin Road and
intersecting with the University Railroad.
4. The location of the Durham-Orange County boundary
line was in "controversy" prior to 1968.
5. A survey directed by a Durham-Orange study commission
was prepared in 1968 pursuant to the procedure described in
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-18 (at that time the statute number was
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153-11) That survey purports to locate the
Orange-Durham County line. However, the statutory requirements
for the establishment of that line were not in all respects
complied-with. The boundary statute requires resolution
approval of the line by each board of commissioners and the
recording of the survey map of the line with the register of
deeds of both counties and with the Secretary of State. I've
not been able to find the resolution of approval of the line by
the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County. And, so far
as I know, the map has only been recorded in the Register of
Deeds of Durham County. I can find no record of its having been
recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds or in the
office of the Secretary of State.
6. An attempt was made to map the new school district
boundary line. The earliest version of this map is dated April
1, 1963. This map was probably prepared in order to change the
school district boundaries sometime after 1951 to include
within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District portions of the
Stone Ridge Subdivision. This map has several significant
errors. Its north south orientation is inaccurate and therefore
the line dividing the school districts, which was supposed to
be an east-west one, runs southwest-northeast.
7. Whatever mapping errors were made in 1951 and
subsequently, the boundary between the Orange County School
District and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District has been
where it is now for many years. In addition to school
attendance issues, the location of the boundary creates a
property tax district boundary related to the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro School District supplemental tax, a school board
voting district boundary and a school board office-holding
boundary.
Mr. Roscoe E. Reeve
Page 4
July 21, 1999
enlarging of tax districts and city units. I have reviewed the
procedure for making a change in the presently recognized
boundary between the two school districts with the attorneys
for both school districts. Both concur with my assessment that
any change in the location of the boundary now will be a G.S.
115C-73 tax district and city administrative unit enlargement
procedure. I have enclosed a copy of that statute with this
letter. I recommend to those interested in this boundary that
this statute be used as a method for resolving the question of
the boundary between the two school districts. If a
determination is made by the Orange County School Board and the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board to relocate the boundary to
where it was apparently intended to be located in 1951, I
recommend that, if at all possible, the boundary be relocated
over its entire length, that is, from the Orange-Durham County
boundary line due west to its intersection with the University
Railroad tracks. This, of course, may require the owners of all
affected property to become involved in the process for change.
g If you have any questions about any of this, please advise.
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C.
GEG/lsg /
Enclosures
xc: Tom Heffner
John M. Link, Jr.
John McCormick, Esquire
D. Michael Parker, Esquire
Rod Visser
mydocuments/reeve#3.ltr