Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 02-02-1999 - 9d
1 It I ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 2, 1999 Agenda Abstract Item # SUBJECT: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT Z -04 -98 James and Patricia LaTorre 1 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X 0 No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No ATTACHMENTS: Findings of Fact (included in abstract) Application General Information Memorandum Agency comments Draft Public Hearing Minutes Draft Planning Board Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Lincoln, Extension 2583 PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To consider amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from Primary Economic Development to Secondary Economic Development of a 19.96 acre lot located in the 1 -85 /Buckhorn Road Economic Development Activity Node, and identified on Tax Map 44, Cheeks Township, as parcel 2A. BACKGROUND: The subject property is owned by James and Patricia LaTorre and is located on the north side of West Ten Road approximately 0.5 mile west of Bushy Cook Road (SR 1137) and approximately 1.25 miles east of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114). The applicants purchased the property in August, 1994, as an existing "U- Pick" Berry Farm. The applicants' written statement, submitted as part of the application, indicates that the applicants have tried to market the subject property for commercial development and cannot find any interested clients because of the lack of public infrastructure (water and sewer) needed to attract large industrial or commercial enterprises. The applicants are requesting Secondary Development Area designation for the subject property. .-e, Orange County Board of County Commissioners Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract 2 Secondary Development Areas are intended to provide a "step- down" or land use buffer between Primary Development Areas and residentially zoned or developed properties. A limited number of residential and office uses are allowed within Secondary Development Areas. Where residential development is contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four dwelling units per acre are permitted. Adjacent properties to the west, north and east are within the 1 -85 /Buckhorn Road EDD; properties south of West Ten Road are in the R -1 Rural Residential Zoning District; the entire area is within the U- ENO -PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District. A Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District extends southward 1,250 feet from 1-40 & I- 85 right -of -way and covers the northern third of the subject property. Use of land within the MTC Overlay District for single family and two- family dwellings is not subject to the provisions, requirements and restrictions of that overlay district. There is one residential structure on the subject property. Adjacent properties to the west, south and east also contain residential structures. Areas along West Ten Road farther to the east are predominantly wooded; areas farther to the west are wooded and interspersed with residential uses; areas south of West Ten Road contain cleared and wooded land interspersed with residential uses. As documented in The Orange County Economic Development Districts Design Manual (Part Two, 2.2 Permitted Uses) residential uses (single - family, two- family, and multi - family dwellings in designated locations and subject to design standards, and mobile homes for replacement of existing mobile home and for temporary occupancy during construction of a permanent residential unit) are the only uses allowed, subject to County staff review and approval of development plans, within Secondary Development Areas in the 1 -85 /Buckhorn Road EDD that are not allowed in Primary Development Areas in that district. However, the 1 -85 /Buckhorn Road EDD was approved as a Primary Area for economic development and contains no Secondary Development Areas. The Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted the 1 -85 and Buckhorn Road Economic Development District north of 1 -85 in March, 1994. In August, 1996, the Board approved the expansion of that district, as strictly a Primary Development Area, to include a 586 -acre area bounded by Buckhorn Road to the west, West Ten Road to the south, the boundary of the Upper Eno Critical Area to the east, and 1 -85 to the north excluding Clearview, Subdivision and an adjacent mobile home park. Prior Orange County Board of County Commissioners 3 Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract to August, 1996, the subject property had been zoned R -1 Rural Residential, U- ENO -PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed. Prior to the expansion of the Buckhorn EDD, community meetings were held to discuss the possible expansion of that district. Some of the citizens supported the expansion of the EDD and the rezoning of their properties. Some of the citizens did not want to see any change to the residential character of the area. Others were not opposed to non - residential development, but wanted some assurance that they would not lose the potential to develop their properties for residential purposes if it would be a long time before non - residential development would happen. Many citizens expressed the belief that the County should extend water and sewer services to the area in order to attract business (if the area were rezoned for that purpose). Minutes of the May 28, 1996, public hearing regarding the expansion of the Buckhorn Road Economic Development District include the following observations. Mary Willis, Planner III, responded that allowing residential development of any large tract would defeat the purpose of the district. Ted Abernathy, Economic Development Director, stated that development will probably not happen in this area for another ten years or more but the proposed rezoning would safeguard the proposed expansion of the Economic Development District by restricting subdivisions. Mr. Abernathy also stated that during the comprehensive planning process, "it was decided that some land needed to be set aside for non - residential uses" and this area was chosen because of its location near an interstate and in close proximity to water and sewer facilities. Planning Board member S.A.M. Brooks commented that she supported comprehensive planning and that the only reason there is not industrial growth in this area is because water and sewer are not available and she urged the County to pursue providing those services. Commissioner Willhoit stated that the County has limited land designated for commercial and industrial purposes and this is a strategic location along an interstate; that residential development can preempt long -range planning because residential development can go in without public water and sewer; that he supported moving ahead with extending the Efland sewer line to this area. It was also pointed out that extending the Efland sewer system would not be economically feasible under the existing conditions because the fees would not provide enough monies to expand the system. Two citizens spoke at the public hearing. Owen Allison spoke in support of the expansion of the Economic Development District. David Permar asked that the area where his Amoco Station is located be excluded because of the impact the EDD standards would have on any renovations or expansions to the existing business. He supported an Economic Development District but not for Orange County Board of County Commissioners 4 Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract businesses like motels and restaurants and suggested that more area close to the interchange be excluded from the EDD. The County Engineer has verified that there are no specific plans at this time for the construction or provision of water or sewer utilities to the EDD and that such an extension is not likely to take place without the certainty that some business enterprise(s) is /are going to locate in the EDD. He commented that it is not clear, at this time, which utility provider would be extending utilities to the area or how the costs of such an extension would be paid. The Orange County Sheriff's Department commented that the Sheriffs Department presently provides patrol services to the area and that office sees no need for an increase in personnel or equipment to continue that service (if the property is rezoned). On November 12, 1998, the Economic Development Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the rezoning be denied. Members expressed concern that allowing further residential development in the EDD would erode the integrity of the area making it less desirable for industrial and commercial development. One of the location criteria used in selecting the expanded area was that there were relatively few residences within the area (17 within the 586 acres). That commission also noted that it supports extending utilities to the Buckhorn EDD to attract light industrial and commercial development. Public Hearing Summary A joint public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board was held on November 23, 1998. The applicants did not appear to address their request. Mabel Allison, owner of property adjacent to the subject property to the east and north, testified that she and her husband oppose the proposed rezoning and increased residential development in the 1- 85 /Buckhorn EDD. Recommendation of the Orange County Planning Board On January 6, 1999, the Orange County Planning Board reviewed the application and voted to recommend denial of the Special Use Permit application based on the following findings. Orange County Board of County Commissioners 5 Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract - Orange County Planning Board Findings of Fact The application must comply with all requirements specified in ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING. Those requirements include: ( "YES" indicates compliance "NO" indicates non - compliance) REQUIRED FINDINGS 20.3.2a) Map showing affected property at a scale of not less than 1"=1 00' nor more than 1 " =20'. PLANNING STAFF FINDING: PLANNING STAFF FINDING: YES YES 20.3.2a) Legal description of property. PLANNING STAFF FINDING: PLANNING BOARD FINDING: EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS As part of the application, the applicants have submitted a plat of the subject property at 1 " =100' scale. As part of the application, the applicants have submitted a legal description of the YES subject property. YES 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment. PLANNING STAFF FINDING: NO PLANNING BOARD FINDING: NO 20.3.2d) Changed conditions, if any, which make amendment reasonably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare. PLANNING STAFF FINDING: NO PLANNING BOARD FINDING: NO The Planning Board finds no error in the 1996 expansion of the 1 -85 / Buckhorn Road EDD or in limiting that EDD to Primary Development Areas. The area zoned for the EDD meets all criteria as given in Article IV, Section 4.2.11. Allowing residential development of any large tract would defeat the purpose of the district; the County has limited land designated for commercial and industrial purposes and this is a strategic location for those uses. The application does not allege that there is an error in the Zoning Atlas. (The application does state that the 1996 Zoning Atlas Amendment was "too harsh without a plan for city water & sewage.) The EDD safeguards the area for the long range plan for light industrial and commercial uses that will probably not happen in this area for another ten years. There has been no pressure for residential development in this area. The application makes no mention of changing conditions within the area. Orange County Board of County Commissioners Z -04 -98 Agenda Abstract Orange County Planning Department Findings of Fact (continued) REQUIRED FINDINGS 20.3.2e) Manner in which proposed amendment will cant' out purpose and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING STAFF FINDING: PLANNING BOARD FINDING: 0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS The intent of the adopted Comprehensive Plan is to create an industrial park setting at this location to accommodate a full range of light NO industrial, distribution, retail, office NO and service uses. RECOMMENDATION: Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends denial of the application to rezone 19.96 acres in the 1 -85 /Buckhorn Road Economic Development District to Secondary Development per the Planning Board's recommendation to deny the request based on the following: 1) uses allowed in Secondary Development Areas (that are not allowed in Primary Development Areas) would decrease the desirability for the intended Primary Economic Development uses supported by the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; 2) The Land Use Plan, as amended August, 1996, provides for only Primary Development Areas within the Buckhorn Road Economic Development District. JRANGE COUNTY, NORTH CARO► IA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT Date: _ s f' ZyJ /99g- TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1. The property is Located on the Ooh side of S.R.# l l qq ( WeST 10 Street /Road) between S.R.# A 13 Z and S.R.# 111Y It is knpwn as Lot(s) %2 A- Block , of Orange' County Tax Map - Lhee s Township. It has a frontage of _ /. feet and a depth of p feet, and contains \ t" - square feet or q 11 acres. 2. I�t is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from 6ohrm;(. 't. �� to _ J -3.. -- The ..foLL.awing information has been _attached ..in__ support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas (* - required on all applications). *a. A Tully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one (1) inch _ equals one — hundred (100) fast nor more than one (1) inch squats. twent'Y " t201 'Feet -- showtWg'- -the Land which is proposed to be rezoned. *b. A LegaL description of the Land proposed to be rezoned. *c. A statement of justification addressing one or ears of the foLLowing: (1) The aLLaged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would ba corrected by the proposed amendment with a datailed explanation of such error in the Zoning At Las and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generslLy, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and gsneraL welfars. *(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use PLan or pert thereof. *(4) ALL other circumstances, foetara and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not Limited to, documentation from service agencies (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies) assuring services provision capability to the development. d. A List of all in firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (5001 foot of the property sou�eh for rezoning is attached. The List to current as of .(Data) -I certify that all information furnished in this app ation is accurate to the best of //my knowledge. A p p l i'c ant (s) : 1`'t, us., awn. p`A,�1 t... .. o' Address : a TM e. -toned 7XC / _ 7 Phone: Eel REZONING REQUEST CHECKLIST ©�f OWNER'S NE I� 5 �-' o� /�� ca, �1`/`�- ADDRESS )7 Art Current zoning_nM.AteAciiG/ Total number of acres Current land use Type of rezoning requested EC 6Y- Proposed land use Tax map l / ` Block # q Number of lots I roposed Water Supply: _t0.4 ILW J� agar Public Community Individual J� Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public Community Individual septic tank Access onto state road # in Average daily traffic count on the state road Describe existing critical areas: Flood prone areas Poorly drained areas Streams Other sensitive areas Describe land uses in: General Area Adjacent parcels of land R C) ct .,I Co dt (C) 6A, 3./l/ Zj JG �- 55 36- GZre Cldte tt �7" t7 f i "t `7 ?G� ce f It/ c Ire � S is Co no ;-K C ec o alwa 0%17 .8 l co C / L it U Az i e- L, _ (Q :4 CO'll y'bt c .t t c�� C�'/� (lcr, t.(j �" to 67A Y � r � 5/A ci 4 aA v- 10/02/1998 13:32 9196443018 REGISTER OF DEEDS PAGE 02 r-z 27E Plr350 "erwam NT: Dalton H. Loftin, attorney At . Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 "I CAPOL1Nw. Ol.wrec COUNTY THIS at=. wet .Ha o.Teaea INTO THIS TNa OAT or 3411 u . aY AAro a1RYlegH L. J. Bauser and wife, Hach Lae L. Haver, RC. 1, Ef14nd, N.C. 27263 rANTV Or flee PIAW PAST AHO Joseph F. Brooks 4Ad wife. Barbara 7. Brooks. 426 PLeasants Ave, Carl. N.C. 27511 PANTY or Tun seeaNO PAAT. W"McssR„ THAT 1IIe ,go ►AITTT oP T"d of"? PANT. IN c0lue0T1a"I"WN OP Tl.e NUN Or Teft DOLLARS ^Ne OTNCS OOOD. VAII", •Na . ANO •IO ANa TNIT IMRAtfNY'7 00 t ~MMof faLL'''NO eOMV(Y YNIe tMl �t1111 *w TY IOP T1N MtONb P♦ r/Ai� APN ASNID.Ig wI.L. TNAT CaeTAS. TIACT OI PAaO[L Of LAHe IH Cheeks TDw$laulP OaAMW 0099fff IIOaTr *&4* INA WI NaTteYLA11LT OM4NIaaa AO RO1.LO". ADJQnMC the leads of tinder oa the Wiest, Old Bouts Ito. 10 (014 Greensboro Read), and Jack Hauser on the South, Alderson on the North; and BEGUIVING at as old iron, the Northeast cWCUINr of Jack Hauser, which it= is loczted 5 feet South of the North right -of -way of cbe said Old Soace No. 10; thenta North S' West along a hedge ran 1,403 feat to a stake. a new corner; thence a Raw 11na South 8$' Asst 670 feat to a stake, a nee corner with Wilder-. thence with Wilder's last line asd along a hedge tow South 5' Bast 1.225 feat to s stake. the Northwest COraer of said wear, which stake 1a located 5 feet South of the North right-of-Way of the said Old Roots 81e. 10; thanes with the North property Ilae of said 8aweer and in the ptngral course of the North right -of-w4 of the said old tout* No. l0 Souck 80° 30' East 69L rest to the plats or point of begianlag. and coacaialag 19.50 acres. nor* or less, according to survey and plat of E. L. Cu3breth. Ensiasas. dared Jlae 2. 1960. entitled "P3MI= 08 D. B. ALDERMAN ". Ibis conveyance is made subject to the 30 -foot wide right -of -way Along the Ease side of said 19.50 -acre Tract. said right- of-way having bees reserved in IJarrmty Dead dated June 20. 1960 from 0. S. Alderman and wife. to L. J. Rausar and rife, duly recorded in used Book 176, pap 628. Orange County 8agistrT. -, :d ;tc3! C�tCi� `-. ... h�a�uNA';r ;4� t.. G. N�T-�Tl� Z Q• Q% Oi tOTtt.� • fHn Aft.* fulawaN peeve" NIr 00WH,,W To ANA."Is M Nine $NNNANOI -- No" fat- - -- - TO HAVC ANO To HMO THIS wPOaaM10 Tmacr ONI MatNl, Or VAN! ame ALL MIYILaa;S OHO J#PURTeNANati Trea[YNTO NatsiNNlaN �s Teri Ana fA. w� }N� �a MRT ANa Wa NeIA M/O AfelOre IN Pea /lrrts IOI[Vea. (AtOaPP�* N f[Y f011r AOOVt. .- nr ire f.w. a.T loaf e01IWANT TI.AT rt Is NalatO Or sA.s aaaNlttl .N 1f" f.rw.a ANO rAt lug NIaMT TO 0"Vew TKC 111.14YMA. AHe THg IISe or AAY Ow/SY IN Tts" T MM[REDF Hlg SAID PAAVV OP• TNd Plea► $'^AT "Ad Np.OYHVO NEW rN rANe aAe 011"T1014 %AV AM T"0 PUIW ANN.$ wA ( L. J. gauger) C Hautie Lee I. Hauser ) ' INawLa .New . ' *TATS O ORTM CARD A. t0V1ITT OI A "arrow Fwa so ow ease cawTV. no "e aaT ava- s THAT L. J. gaser and "rife. Xanig Les I. Hauser *#^"TOM. raNNarALLT AMOAAae 000 It Of THIS OAT ANY AOIDIOWUMOtO "IN Aue gaatU"BIN 40 T" e0ai/' /�O1I' /TM • .. ..• . • T.+THW HV .l$Me Al/e HerAA,AL N••• TNN Two 0 ' � w .rrTAai IXW & -A * MT OOYYIl/IOH NI[IINea. 7 � ���J �r� •Nli ANNN.M I..Y.P ` WAYS! oI CIOUNITV Or - /. A NO►AaV P94 JS eP "IS oOYAIIV. 00 HIM ttNTIPT TART 40ANNA. r0 1"W" a A/NAAaO a wa"t ..c THIN OAT "a Ap/[NpfaVaaOtiO T"O Due exacu"ON Of TN0 ronvoo."o sees. wIvmT IHT NANO 6118 NaTM1AL ww THIS Tug &J.'I M • 1r saA• 'we"" .f.. AAAf► •n aNrrlNl+aw aslDS. -- eTATa OF HOVIT01 CARa$.INA-- -QWATV w OGANee TAB WOONGNe CS.HT112MM A a Cornelia 0. Henderson A NeTAAY PYGLSC ar The OtS18NargS DDOteNreNTAL WHITS le Isle/ e■aT•nas TO we Cealear. nl.m ran Noogo"^Tt" a" T-N 2nd DAY eP may Is 77 , Ar 11.41 wa1.— A "' AHa 04LT aceeNaea 1N VMS offmca ar THIN NtalNTp aP 0411111410 as THIS MTY W POOH 4i�ilkiiM New 272 /PASS 350 NATTY JYrt Nwvp. AteltTe.l a Otte! EV, — _ ARYN,/ Ta. • -- M _: Nis .ri�ie� �=� • =t —.rte �i N aim � � r� ii► C+V► -Zoo- IM LIZ .m„'S��r.-.'+'>f "a•�°cIT"sAFEaY�� �F.G,'�" to � � • F � ���� 13 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 i,.t ~ 1 r� MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Z -04 -98 JAMES AND PATRICIA LATORRE GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: James & Patricia LaTorre 4812 Timberwood Trail Efland, North Carolina 27243 Location: North side of West Ten Road, approximately 0.5 mile west of Bushy Cook Road (SR 1137) and approximately 1.25 miles east of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114), Cheeks Township. Lot size: 19.96 acres Existing Land Use: One (1) residential structure, remainder is undeveloped. Much of the land has been cleared for agricultural purposes. . Surrounding Land Use: North: EDD, Undeveloped. South: R -1, Residential Uses. East: Predominantly undeveloped woodland with few residential uses. West: EDD, Undeveloped woodland, scattered residential uses. MEMORANDUM Z -04 -98 JAMES AND PATRICIA LATORRE NOVEMBER 13, 1998 Comprehensive Plan land Use Designation: Economic Development Zoning: 1- 85 /Buckhorn Road Economic Development District, Primary Development Area. The intent of Secondary Development, as provided in the Orange .County Economic Development Districts Design Manual, Part Two, Chapter 2.1 Development Areas, is to provide a "step- down" or land use buffer between Primary I and II Development Areas and residentially zoned or developed properties. Within these areas, only a limited number of residential and office uses are allowed Where residential development is contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four dwelling units per acre are - permitted. The Orange County Economic Development Districts Design Manual, Part Two, Chapter 2.2, Permitted Uses, lists the following permitted uses in Secondary Development Areas: Dwelling, single - family (Only in designated locations and subject to design standards) Dwelling, two- family (Only in designated locations and subject to design standards) Dwelling, multi - family (Only in designated locations and subject to design standards) Temporary mobile home (For occupancy during construction of permanent residential unit and for 30 days after issuance of Certificate of Occupancy) Rail /bus passenger shelter Water and sanitary sewer pumping stations Churches Governmental protective services (Police and fire stations, rescue squads and volunteer fire departments) Parks, public and non- profit Governmental facilities and office buildings (Including solid waste collection centers) Accessory uses 14 15 MEMORANDUM Z -04 -98 JAMES AND PATRICIA LATORRE NOVEMBER 13, 1998 The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit: Temporary mobile home (For custodial care) Elevated water storage tank (Permitted as accessory use without a Special Use Permit) Day care facility Large day care home The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit: Public utility stations and sub - stations, switching stations, and telephone exchanges Banks, savings and loans, and credit unions (within a planned development) Credit agencies and institutions (within a planned development) Security and commodity brokers, and investment offices (within a planned development) Insurance carriers and agents (within a planned development) Real estate agents and brokers (within a planned development) Community Center Schools, elementary, middle and high (within a planned development) Beauty and barber shops (within a planned development) Clubs and lodges and social, fraternal and union clubhouses (within a planned development) Health services, including doctors and dentists offices and medical and dentaNaboratories (within a planned development) Laundry, dry cleaning and shoe repair services (within a planned development) Libraries (within a planned development) Art/photographic studios (within a planned development) Recreational facilities (non- profit) (within a planned development) Recreational facilities (for profit) (within a planned development) Repair service, electronic and appliance (within a planned development) Other offices and personal services; e.g., attorneys, watch and jewelry repair, computer programming and data processing, employment and travel agencies, advertising agencies, and accounting, engineering, architectural and surveying offices (within a planned development) Historic buildings for non - residential mixed use To: Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department From: Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass Date: October 20, 1998 Re: James and Patricia LaTorre Location: Cheeks Township Rezoning Tax Map 3.44.2A North side of West Ten (SR1144) .5 miles meat of Bushy Cook Rd. approximately 1.25 miles east of Buckhorn road (SR1144) The Orange County Sherif Office has been asked to write a letter regarding our lity to provide law enforcement services for the proposed rezoning site. We presently provide patrol services to this area and see no need for an increase in personnel or equipment to provide this service. Should any office,. s be needed please contact our 16 17 9-1 -1 Communications 24 Hour Warning Point 919 - 732 -8161 •933 -2600 24 -Hour Fax Machine 919 - 967 -9026 Urange County Emergency Management P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough North Carolina 27278 att N • v s 0 cat$`` November 18, 1998 TO: KAREN LINCOLN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: MIKE TAPP, FIRE MARSHAL RE: JAMES AND PATRICIA LA TOR.RE Emergency Medical Services Fire Marshal Disaster Response Hazardous Materials 919- 644 -3030. 968 -2050 Administrative Fax Machine 919 - 968 -4066 We have on concerns regarding the above referenced rezoning request. Please send us a copy of the final plan for distribution. As usual, please contact us if you have questions. Located at 1914 New Hope Church Road • Chapel 101, North Carolina 27514 18 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 r a ♦,'� •n���', DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1998 FROM: KAREN LINCOLN ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT TO: MIKE TAPP, FIRE MARSHALL, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Thank you for your response to my request for agency review for Z- 04 -98, Rezoning application for a 19.96 acre lot owned by James and Patricia LaTorre and located on- the north side of West Ten Road in Cheeks Township (Tax map reference 3.44..2A). There is no final plan, the LaTorre's are requesting the rezoning for the entire property referenced above. Attached is a vicinity map showing the approximate location of the property. This request will be presented next Monday at the November 23, 1998, quarterly public hearing. Please forward any further comment you may wish to add ASAP. Thank you. 19 MEMORANDUM TO: Karen Lincoln, Planner III FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer DATE: November 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Water and sewer plans for the Buckhorn Road Economic Development District In response to your query regarding plans for the Buckhorn Road EDD, I can advise you that there are no specific plans in existence at this time for the construction or provision of water or sewer utilities to the EDD. There has been, of course, a great deal of discussion about the potential for the eventual extension of utilities to this area, but such an extension is not likely to take place without the certainty that some group of businesses or at least one major business is going to locate in the EDD. At this time, it is not clear what utility provider would be extending utilities to the area or how the costs of such an extension would be paid. It is my believe that both the BOCC and the Planning Board were well aware of the uncertain nature of utility extension to the EDD when the EDD was approved. Likewise, I believe that it was understood that the creation of any utility infrastructure or capacity in the EDD would occur by one of the following means: 1) an industial or commercial venture in the EDD could pay the cost of obtaining utility service by means of developing its own individual on -site utility capacity; 2) an industial or commercial venture in the EDD could pay the cost of obtaining utility service by means of extending municipal -type utilities for the Town of Mebane or from a combination of the Orange- Alamance and Orange County water and sewer utilities; or 3) an industrial or commercial venture in the EDD would guarantee that it would employ a sufficiently large number of individuals at a pay scale that would qualify for economic development CDBG funded utility extension. To date no commercial venture has, to the best of my knowledge, expressed an interest or shown the ability to develop in the EDD under any of these conditions. However, given the location of the EDD with respect to the interstate system and the rail system, a commercial venture meeting these criteria could show up on the horizon tomorrow. If I may provide additional information, please advise. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA PRESERVATION • PROGRESS • PEOPLE TO: Karen Lincoln, Orange County Planning and Inspections Department FROM: Economic Development Commission Board DATE: November 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Rezoning of Property of James and Patricia LaTorre, Tax Map 3.44..2A At its November 12, 1998, meeting, the Economic Development Commission Board reviewed the application of James and Patty LaTorre for rezoning of subject property from EDD Primary Development Area to EDD Secondary Development Area. After discussion, a motion was made and passed unanimously to recommend against such rezoning activity. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. c: John Link ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION POST OFFICE BOX 1177 • HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 PHONE (919) 732 -8181, EXT. 2325 • FAX (919) 644 -3008 • EMAIL: TABERNAT @INTERPATH.COM 20 DRAFT 2' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 23,1998 MINUTES The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, November 23, 1998 at 7:30 p.m: in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, new County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of holding a joint Public Hearing. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret Brown, and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Moses Carey, Jr., and Steven Halkiotis. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner William L. Crowther. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows, and members Nell Andrews, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., James Selkirk, Robert Strayhom, and Elizabeth Walters. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M. Brooks, Libby Searles, and Runyon Woods COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. All other staff will be identified as necessary. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Brown requested that an item be added to the Agenda regarding Carrboro's intent to repeal the junk car provision in their Ordinance. If this provision is repealed it would become the responsibility of Orange County to enforce the County's provision regarding junk automobiles. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to add this item to the agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Brown indicated that she would Chair Items C.1 and C.2.b and the Karen Barrows, Chair of the Planning Board would Chair the remainder of the items. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ')RAFt 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment d) Z-4 -98 James and Patricia LaTorre This item was presented by Planner Karen Lincoln for the purpose of receiving evidence and public comment on the proposed rezoning from Primary Economic Development to Secondary Economic Development of a 19.96 acre lot located in the I- 85 /Buckhom Road Economic Development Activity Node, and identified on Tax Map 44, Cheeks Township, as parcel 2A. Th subject property is owned by James and Patricia LaTorre and is locate on the north side of West Ten Road approximately 1.25 miles east of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114). The owners are requesting Secondary Development area designation for the property. This designation is intended to provide - a "step -down" or land use buffer between Primary Development Areas and residentially zoned or developed properties. A limited number of residential and office uses are allowed within Secondary Development Areas. Where residential development is contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four dwelling units per acre are permitted. Adjacent properties to the west, north and east are within the 185 /Buckhom Road EDD; properties south of West Ten Road are in the R -1 Rural Residential Zoning District; the entire area is within the U- ENO -PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District. A Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District extends southward 1,250 feet from 1-40 & I- right -of -way and covers the northern third of the subject property. Use of land within the MTC Overlay District for single family and two- family dwellings is not subject to the provisions, requirements and restrictions of that overlay district. QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None. QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None. QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: Ms. Mabel Allison, a resident of West Ten Road in Efland, owns property on the East and North side of this property. They feel that changing the zoning of this property will effect their land. They are concerned and opposed to the rezoning of this property. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to sooner than February 2, 1999. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 22 23 Except for the power easement, the entire tract is wooded with mature hardwoods and locally common understory species. The Division of Environmental Health and the soils survey show that the soils are suitable to support septic systems. The subject property ranges in height from 700' to 780' above MSL sloping to the southwest and north and typically runs in the 7 V2 to 15 percent slope range. Lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems. Private roads are justified because the proposal maintains rural character by providing larger lots and building setbacks than required in the R -1 zoning district, prohibiting further subdivision, limiting tree removal and minimizing disturbance and grading. The area is designated as Rural Residential in the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This property and surrounding parcels are zoned R -1 Rural Residential. Land uses are single - family residential. The Orange County Fire Marshal and EMS indicate that the subdivision can be served adequately by their respective agencies. The final plat of the `first phase' of High Point Woods was approved as a minor subdivision by Planning Staff on November 26, 1996. The next activity required major subdivision approval because it was submitted prior to the expiration of two years after the approval of the original minor subdivision of the property. Titled Lot 4A High Point Woods Subdivision, this `second phase' consisted of the subdivision of Lot 4A into 2 lots fronting on the south side of Davis Road. Final plat approval by the Board of County Commissioners was on August 4, 1997. The Concept Plan for High Point Woods, Phase III was approved unanimously by the Planning Board on August 5, 1998 per the Resolution of Approval (copy an attachment to these minutes on pages ). Planning Staff recommends approval of the a Preliminary Plan for High Point Woods, Phase III, with conditions listed in the Resolution of approval. MOTION: Brooks moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Allison. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (NOVEMBER 23,1998) a. Zoning Atlas Amendments (1) 2-4-98 James and Patricia LaTorre Presentation by Karen Lincoln. This item is to consider amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from Primary Economic Development to Secondary Economic 24 Development of a 19.96 acre lot located in the I- 85Buckhorn Road Economic Development Activity Node, and identified on Tax Map 44, Cheeks Township, as parcel 2A. The subject property is owned by James and Patricia LaTorre and is located on the north side of West Ten Road approximately 0.5 mile west of Bushy Cook Road (SR 1137) and approximately 1.25 miles east of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114). The applicants purchased the property in August, 1994, as an existing "U- Pick" Berry Farm. The applicants' written statement, submitted as part of the application, indicates that the applicants have tried to market the subject property for commercial development and cannot find-any interested clients because of the lack of public infrastructure (water and sewer) needed to attract large industrial or commercial enterprises. The applicants are requesting Secondary Development Area designation for the subject property. Secondary Development Areas are intended to provide a "step - down" or land use buffer between Primary Development Areas and residentially zoned or developed properties. A limited number of residential and office uses are allowed within Secondary Development Areas. Where residential development is contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four dwelling units per acre are permitted. Adjacent properties to the west, north and east are within the I- 85Buckhorn Road DE; properties south of West Ten Road are in the R -1 Rural Residential Zoning District; the entire area is within the U- ENO -PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District. A Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District extends southward 1,250 feet from I-40 8c I -85 right -of -way and covers the northern third of the subject property. Use of land within the MTC Overlay District for single family and two - family dwellings is not subject to the provisions, requirements and restrictions of that overlay district. There is one residential structure on the subject property. Adjacent properties to the west, south and east also contain residential structures. Areas along West Ten Road farther to the east also contain residential structures. Areas along West Ten farther to the east are predominantly wooded; areas farther to the west are wooded and interspersed with residential uses; areas south of West Ten Road contain cleared and wooded land interspersed with residential areas. As documented in The Orange County Economic Development Districts Design Manual (Part Two, 22 Permitted Uses) residential uses (single - family, two - family, and multi- family dwellings in designated locations and subject to design standards, and mobile homes for replacement of existing mobile home and for temporary occupancy during construction of a permanent residential unit) are the only uses allowed, subject to County staff review and approval of development plans, within Secondary Development Areas in the I- 85/Buckhom Road EDD that are not allowed in Primary Development Areas in that district However, the I- 85/Buckhorn Road EDD was approved as a Primary Area for economic development and contains no Secondary Development Areas. 25 DRAFT The Grange County Board of Commissioners adopted the I -85 and Buckhorn Road Economic Development District north of I -85 in March, 1994. In August, 1996, the Board approved the expansion of that district, as strictly a Primary Development Area, to include a 586 -acre area bounded by Buckhorn Road to the west, West Ten Road to the south, the boundary of the Upper Eno Critical Area to the east, and I -85 to the north excluding Clearview Subdivision and an adjacent mobile home park. Prior to August 1996, the subject property had been zoned R -1 Rural Residential, U -ENO- PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed. Prior to the expansion of the Buckhorn EDD, community meetings were held to discuss the possible expansion of that district Some of the citizens supported the expansion of the EDD and the rezoning of their properties. Some of the citizens did not want to see any change to the residential character of the area. Others were not opposed to non - residential development, but wanted some assurance that they would not lose the potential to develop their properties for residential purposes if it would be a long time before non - residential development would happen. Many citizens expressed the belief that the County should extend water and sewer services to the area in order to attract business (if the area were rezoned for that purpose). Minutes of the May 28, 1996, public hearing regarding the expansion of the Buckhorn Road Economic Development District include the following observations. Mary Willis, Planner III, responded that allowing residential development of any large tract would defeat the purpose of the district. Ted Abernathy, Economic Development Director, stated that development will probably not happen in this area for another ten years -or more but the proposed rezoning would safeguard the proposed expansion of the Economic Development District by restricting subdivisions. Mr. Abernathy also stated that during the comprehensive planning process, "it was decided that some land needed to be set aside for non - residential uses" and this area was chosen because of its location near an interstate and in close proximity to water and sewer facilities. Planning Board member S.A.M. Brooks commented that she supported comprehensive planning and that the only reason there is not industrial growth in this area is because water and sewer are'not available and she urged the County to pursue providing those services. Commissioner Willhoit stated that the County has limited land designated for commercial and industrial purposes and this is a strategic location along an interstate; that residential development can preempt long -range planning because residential development can go in without public water and sewer, that he supported moving ahead with extending the Efland sewer line to this area. It was also pointed out that extending the Efland sewer system would not be economically feasible under the existing conditions because the fees would not provide enough monies to expand the system. Two citizens spoke at the public hearing. Owen Allison spoke in support of the expansion of the Economic Development District. David Permar asked that the area where his Amoco Station is located be excluded because of the impact the EDD standards would have on any renovations or expansions to U r> L the existing business. He supported an Economic Development District but not for businesses lice motels and restaurants and suggested that more area close to the interchange be excluded from the EDD. The County Engineer has verified that there are no specific plans at this time for the construction or provision of water or sewer utilities to the EDD and that such an extension is not likely to take place without the certainty that some business enterprise(s) is/are going to locate in the EDD. He commented that it is not clear, at this time, which utility provider would be extending utilities to the area or how the costs of such an extension would be paid. The Orange County Sheriffs Department commented that the Sheriff` s Department presently provides patrol services to the area and that office sees no need for an increase in personnel or equipment to continue that service (if the property is rezoned). On November 12, 1998, the Economic Development Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the rezoning be denied. Members expressed concern that allowing further residential development in the EDD would erode the integrity of the area making it less desirable for industrial and commercial development. One of the location criteria used in selecting the expanded area was that there were relatively few residences within the area (17 within 586 acres). That commission also noted that it supports extending utilities to the Buckhorn EDD to attract light industrial and commercial development. Lincoln reviewed the Planning Staff findings which are attached to these minutes on page The applicants did not appear to address their request at the November 23, 1998 public hearing. Mabel Allison, owner of property adjacent to the subject property to the east and north, testified that she and her husband oppose the proposed rezoning and increased residential development in the I- 85Buckhom EDD. The Zoning Officer recommends denial of the application to rezone 19.96 acres in the I- 85Buckhorn Economic Development District to Secondary Development based on the potential of uses allowed in Secondary Development Areas decreasing the desirability for the intended Primary Economic Development uses supported by the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan, as amended August, 1996, provides for only Primary Development Areas within the Buckhorn Road Economic Development District. The Planning Board has 60 days from the date of the Public Hearing in which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered as a favorable recommendation without conditions. Allison asked if the County Engineer had provided any long range plan for the extension of the £fland Sewer System. Lincoln responded that he verified that there are no specific plans for construction. It is not likely that the extension will take place without some certainty that there are business enterprises that are wanting to locate in that EDD. Allison asked how long the housing development had been in the area. Lincoln responded that it was there prior to the rezoning in 1996. Mr. James La Torn, applicant, using the map, indicated that he is surrounded by houses and the property in question contains three houses. He continued that he was trying to market his property but real estate agents have indicated to him that without public water and sewer businesses are not likely to locate in the area. That was the reason he was hoping for some leeway for some residential development. Barrows clarified that the three houses on the property are non - conforming and are there simply because they were already there at the time of zoning to EDD. The owners could not make additions to them since they are non- conforming. MOTION: Walters moved agreement with the findings of fact on Article 20.3.2a-2e as indicated by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Brooks. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Woods moved to deny the application for rezoning. Seconded by Brooks. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) Z -5 -98 L.J. Rogers Trucking Company Presentation by Jim Hinkley. This item is to consider a request to correct a Zoning Atlas error in Cedar Grove Township by rezoning 5.5 acres from NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial and AR Agricultural- Residential to EC -5 Existing Commercial. The proposed rezoning involves all of Tax Lot No. 2.17..1 C (3.44a), a part of No. 2.17..1 (1.5a + of a 184a tract), and small portions of Nos. 2.17..1A & 1D (less than an acre) at 7818 NC 49. L.J. Rogers, Jr. Trucking Company, Inc. has been in business at this location since 1975. On the property are the Rogers general offices, dispatch facility, training and safety operations, maintenance shops, outdoor storage of semi - trailers, and parking for semi - tractors. The proposed zoning lot is located on the northwest side of NC 49 approximately 1,100' southwest of the intersection of NC 49 and Corbett Ridge/Carr Store Roads. The 3.44a parcel is zoned AR Agricultural - Residential. A .94a portion is zoned NC -2 Neighborhood commercial and 1.12a is zoned AR Proposed zoning is EC -5 Existing Commercial for the entire 5.5a complex. The L. J. Rogers, Jr. Trucking Company has been in business on this site for 23 years. With a gross income of over $7 million dollars in 1997, the company currently hires 68 employees including 55 drivers, 8 office staff, 3 supply workers and 4 dispatchers. The Company owns and operates more than 200 semi - trailers. 27