HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19770228~®4
settled. Mr. Nassif was still unclear of whom he should talk with at
the Health Department concerning preliminary plans. He was requested
to meet with senior staff employees of the Department and attempt to
work out some interim plans: Commissioner Willhoit suggested that the
architect talk with people from the School of Public Health concerning
the basic needs of a Health Department.
Mr. Nassif stated that if the Library did not go into Grady Brown,
he would have to take another look at the building, particularly the
Social Services Department. (Commissioner Willhoit left the meeting
at this point.)
Commissoner Gustaveson pointed out that Grady Brown was still in --
the design stages, and that the Library Board should meet with the
architect and attempt to work together in the design plans of the space
at Grady Brown. He spoke further of the possible design of the court-
yard being a cultural square. He stated that this area had many possi-
bilities and that many of the problems which had been mentioned could be
licked. He added that he was concerned about additional library services
and programs being ready in twe years instead of operating under the
present constrains for seven to ten years. Mr. Gustaveson added that the
County still had a portion of the proposal to implement which is not in-
cluded in the current funding operation. He spoke of the needs of the
schools within the next three to four years, as well as other programs
which will be emerging. He re-emphasized his feelings that to wait and
hope for a bond issue to build a new structure was a great risk.
Mr. Sanford stated that there were risks both ways and he felt the
risk of holding out a few more years was the better way.
Chairman Whitted summarized that the Library Board feels they should
wait and remain in the present structure, with the hopes that a new
facility will be provided in the future.
Commissioner Pinney stated that he would like to wait before making
a final decision to hear from Mental Health.
Commissioner Gustaveson suggested that the Library Board, Mr. Nassif,
and members of the Board of Commissioners tour the Grady Brown complex on
Friday, February 25, 1977, The time of 3:30 p.m., was scheduled for this
tour.
i'
The meeting was then adjourned. ~; ~ ~ ~/~
,'
~~
Richard E. Whitted, Chairman
Agatha Johnson, Clerk
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FEBRUARY 28, 1977
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on Monday, February 28,
1977, far the regular quarterly scheduled public hearing on planning
matters with the Planning Board and Staff. The maeging began at 7:30 p. m.,
in the Superior Courtroom of the Courthouse in Hillsborough.
Commissioners present were Chairman Richard Whitted, Norman Walker,
Norman Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, and Donald Willhoit.
Planning Board members present were Chairman Charles Johnston, Dr.
Robert Boaar, Marilyn Riddle, Jean Anderson, Pat Crawford, Hazel Lansford.
Col. William Breeze, Lindsey Efland, Andrew Dobelstein, Art Cleary, and
Paul Gates.
Others present were 5. M. Gattis, County Manager, Neal Evans, Finance
Director, Jeffrey Gledhill,.Gounty Attorney, Ervin Dobson,Planning Director,
Hal Minis, and Chris Edwards, members of the Planning Staff, and Agatha
Johnson, Clerk.
Chairman Richard Whitted called the meeting to order and announced
l~5
that the agenda consisted of three rezoning requests, discussion con-
cerning amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance and discussion of the
extension of the Subdivision Ordinance County-wide.
He then turned the public hearing over to the Chairman of the
Planning Board, Charles Johnston.
Mr. Johnston asked that the rezoning request be considered first
and recognized Chris Edwards from the Planning Department.
Mr. Edwards stated that the first request was that of Lockridge,
which is an amendment to a Plan Unit Development plan. This section of
land was rezoned several years ago to plan unit development and at
the time the survey was. recorded, it was discovered that problems existed
in the survey. He presented to the Boards a modification of the plan
which will correct the problem in the survey. The revised plan shows a
reduction in the number of lots, as well as the location of some roads.
The Planning Board had previously reviewed the plan and recommended that
Class C roads be developed instead of public roads. This request will
be presented to the Planning Board on March 21st, .a long with a rezoning
request for property adjacent to this property.
Mike Calhoon, an agent from the Lockridge Community, spoke of how
the survey problem had occurred. He also spoke of the future plans for
the Lockridge Development.
Mr. Edwards stated that assuming the plan was .approved, it would go
through the same procedures as a subdivision plan. The Commissioners
and the Planning Board would see this plat at least three more times.
Chairman Johnson asked if there. were persons present who would like
to speak in favor of this request. No one came forth.
He asked if there were those present to speak in opposition to the.
request. No one came forth.
The second rezoning request was that of Wallace Gates to rezone an
approximate 40,000 square foot lot from residential to rural commercial.
This lot is located just inside of Bingham Township on the South side of
Hwy. 54. The area consist of single family dwellings and mobile homes.
When the zoning map was originally drawn for this area, a garage,
which did exist at that time failed to be zondd commercial. The matter
has been brought to the attention of the Berard of Adjustment and this
Board has asked that this oversight be corrected by rezoning this 40,000
square foot lot from residential to rural commercial. The rezoning re-
quest would bring the structure into compliance for a permitted use.
Mr. Edwards informed the Board that the existing building did not
meet the set back requirements.
Commissioner Pinney stated that the reason it did not meet these
requirements was because Hwy. 54 had been recently widened.
Commissioner willhoit asked if access could be provided from SR #1944
instead of Hwy. 54.
Mr. Edwards replied that the building faced Hwy. 54, which was the
major problem.
Dr. Bonar stated that the Board of Adjustment had initiated this.
requst since it was zoned residential as an oversight. Also, this
building was at one time a service station.
Chairman Johnston asked if there were those present to speak in
favor of this rezoning request. No one cam a forth.
He asked if there were opponents to the request.
Mr. J. R. Farlow stated that he was presen to speak in opposition to
the rezoning request. Mr. Farlow owns property directly in front of the
Gates property. He stated that if this one acre lot was rezoned, it
would appear to him that this would be spot zoning. Why would not a
property owner on the other side of the road be entitled to the same con-
sideration. He stated if there was a need in the planning operation of
the County to justify the creation of a commercial zone, this should be
1®s
studied and determined as to how large a commercial zone to set up. To
rezone a one acre lot, the Board would lose all control and perhaps
create an unpleasant situation. He added that Mr. Gates had been granted
variances to add additional bays to the structure and a variance regarding
set back requirements, and it appeared to Mr. Farlow that Mr. Gates had
what he wanted. He added that the potential of this rezoning situation
was not good and urged the Board to deny the rezoning request.
Dr. Boaar, who also serves on the Board of Adjustments, stated that
the two variances which Mr. Farlow spoke of had been granted to Mr. Gates.
The third rezoning request was that of J.H,H, Associates. This pro-
perty is located at the intersection of 15-501 and Smith Level Road. A
portion of the property is located in Chatham County and part in Garrboro
planning jurisdiction. The eight acre tract in Orange County's planning
jurisdiction is the area to be rezoned to general commercial. Plans for
the rezoning area is for a 24 office building complex. No sewex is avail-
able, however, water is available.
Mr. Fred Hazard, a developer of the property, stated that development
would not take place until sewer was available. Plans now are tc build a
professional center, and Carrboro has already zoned their area to comply
with this use. The architects have talked with the Department of Trans-
portation and it is likely that another entrance will be made available,
toward Hertiage Hills 5ubdivision.to relieve congestion.
Chairman Johnston asked if there were any present to speak in favor
of the rezoning request. No one came forth.
He asked if there were those present to speak in opposition to the
rezoning request.
Carolyn White stated that she was representing Ben Dollar, a pro-
perty owner an Smith Level Road. She stated that Mr. Dollar's primary
concerns were the proposed Laketree Development, traffic on Hwy. 15-501
and Smith Level Road and the location of the access road leading into
Hertiage Hills. She stated that Mr. Dollar was concerned that this road _
would come through his property. She inquired if studies had been con-
ducted on "the spring", since Mr. Dollar used the spring as a water supply.
Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the spring on the one
acre lot is the one used by Mr. Dollar as a water source.
Mr. Hazard stated that the architect has and would continue to talk
with the Department of Transportation concerning the access road to
Hertiage Hills. That they did not want a great influx of traffic from
15-501, and there probably would be more than one entrance onto Smith
Level Road. He added that the State Road in Chatham County could not be
used as an entrance, but could be used as an exit.
No other comments were made concerning the rezoning request.
Mr. Edwards stated that these rezoning requests would be reviewed by the
Planning Board on March 21st and by the County Commissioners on Apri1.4,
1977.
The next item on the agenda was discussion of the amendments to the
Subdivision Ordinance. After tonight's public hearing, the amendments
will go the the 8lanning Beard on March 21st for consideration and to
the Commissioners April 4, 1977.
Mr. Edwards stated that the proposed amendments had been incorporated
into the handout Subdivision Regulations. _
Hal Minis of the Planning~.`Staff reviewed the major differences bet-
ween the proposed amendments and the old Subdivision Regulations. He
highlighted some of the major differences in the Subdivision Regulations
which the Subcommittee on the Subdivision Regulation had worked on.
This Subcommittee is made up of members from the Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board members, and members from the Planning Staff.
Page 1 of the section "Purpose". Theold Ordinance provided for
proper design, and location of facilities and the proper layout of sub-
divisions. The proposed Ordinance provides for proper design, location
of facilities,•and management of natural resources.
Page 5 of the section "Minor Subdivision". Under the old Ordinance
a Minor Subdivision is defined as creating one new lot, with approval by
~®~
the Planning Board and the County Commissioners. The proposed
Ordinance defines a Minor Subdivision as two lots with approval being
granted by the Planning Department within 30 days. This is designed to
speed up the review and approval.
Page 4 of the section "Sketch Plan". The sketch plan is optional
under the old Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance requires a sketch plan
by major developers. This provides the developer. an opportunity to talk'
abcut his plans before investing large amounts of monies. A sketch plan
is not a survey, but a sketch plan done by the developer himself. The
Planning Department would require a maximum 30 day review of the sketch
plan.
Page 7 of•the section "Preliminary Plat Approval" (a) Review.
_ The old Ordinance required a review by the Health Department, Depart-
ment of Transportation, School District and the Erosion Control Officer.
The new Ordinance requires a certification by the Health Department,
Department of Transportation, School District, Erosion Control Officer,
Orange Conservation District and 5oi1 Conservation Service. These
agencies would provide a technical review of the areas concerning any
potential problems that might exist on the land.
Further recommendations, when required, will be sought from the
Division of Archives and History for historical sites and recommendations
from the N. C. Natural Heritage Program, or Natural Areas Advisory
Committee concerning natural areas. Recommendations from these agencies
will have no legal bearings on the suitability of the site.
(b) The length of time for agency review was not specified in the
old Ordinance. The length of time required by the agencies would be 30
days. If a recommendation or certification is not obtained within that
amount of time, the agency forfeits their opportunity to make comments.
Mr. Minis stated that this would be the Planning Department's responsi-
bility to coordinate. This is a free serve provided by the County.
Page $, 9 (c) "Board Review." The Dld Ordinance required approval
of plats by the Planning Berard and the County Commissioners. The new
Ordinance, the Planning Board will make recommendations and the County
Commissioners will act on the agency certifications and recommendations.
.The purpose in this case is to get review from those who have the
technical knowledge, rather than from a lay board who does not have
this knowledge.
Page 9 - Final Plat. The old Ordinance required the approval
again of the Planning Board and the County Commissioners. The new
proposal would assume that all problems have been worked out and would
require the approval of only the Planning Board.
Chuck Beemer, an attorney, asked that Mr. Minis go back to the
section on Page 7 regarding length of agency review. He stated that
Mr. Minis has stated that the length of review would be 30 days, however,
he did not see this spelled'.out in the Ordinance.
Jeffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, stated that the Planning Staff
had used 30 days as z3 c~eneral guideline for the review process, actually
7n davs would be needed for the Planning Board's approval of a subdivision.
Further discussion ensued. The Planning staff .pointed out that the
minimum days involved from a sketch plan to approval of a final plat
would be 206 days.
Questions were asked concerning the reviewing agencies, particularly
the School District. The County Attorney explained that the General
Statutes required that the Subdivision Ordinance provide the reservation
of school sites in accordance with a comprehensive land use plan approved
by the Board of Commissioners err planning agencies. Further, he
envisioned that if a school superintendent determined the need of a
shcool in an area which would be proposed to be subdivided, then formal
board action by the Commissioners and School Board would take place at
that time, if not, the subdivision would go on.
The next section of the proposed Ordinance was Page 14, Lat Standards,
The old Ordinance had no standards set out. The new Ordinance proposed
that the minimum lot size shall be determined by the waste disposal and
water supply system. A) Lats served by on-site sewage disposal and
water systems shall be at least 40,000 square feet. b) Lots served by
public or community water and sewer shall be at least 15,000 square feet.
1G8
These standards conform to the Health Department's requirements.
Page 14, Section "Land Suitability", this is a new section to be
added to the Ordinance. The section proposed one suitable site for
building on each lot. The Planning soard, or other agencies will investi-
gate flood prone areas, soil drainage, drainage patterns, slope, historic
sites, unique natural areas. The Planning Department maintains maps of
these areas within the County. Mr. Minis pointed out that this section
did not mean that should these problems exist, a subdivision would not be
approved, but that the Planning Department and agencies weuld work with
the developer to passible rearrange lot lines, and work to solve some of
the problems, if possible. Discussion ensued. ...
One suggestion was made to designate on the plat of a subdivision
which lots are unsuitable for building. -•
Commissioner Willhoit stated that he felt the working, as used in
the proposed Ordinance, was the intent of the Subcommittee, so that lots
would not be created, which could not be suitable for building.
Dr. Bonar stated that the purpose of the sketch plan was to provide
information to determine if the lot is suitable for the plan in mind.
Further discussion ensued concerning this section of land suitability.
Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he felt the Ordinance had built
into it an attempt for flexibility. The Subcommittee had attempted to
indicate criteria around which a developer could design a subdivision and
take in account the conditions of the land.
Mr. Beemer stated that the way he read the Ordinance, a developer
would not be able to develop any lots within a subdivision if one lot
was not suitable fox use.
The County Attorney was asked to express his opinion on the sentence
f IV-B-2 (Land Suitability) which reads "Each lot of a subdivision shall
contain at least one site which is suitable for development." Mr. Gledhill -
stated that if the entire section concerning Land Suitability was read,
the last sentence was clear, however, it appeared that the sentence was __
being taken out of contexts. He added that this section would be clearer
if the statement was added to the Ordinance that lots unsuitable for
building should be so stipulated on the plat.
The question was asked if the new regulations would speed up the time
for developing a subdivision.
Mr. Edwards replied that the regulations may not speed up the process,
however, when these recommendation are followed, the developer would have
no doubt about the use of the lots. He added that land with problems would
take additional time for approval.
An opinion was expressed by a developer from the County, that a builder
should serve on the Planning Board in order to provide input from the
developer's point of view.
Another citizen stated that land could have a valid use other than for
buildings, such as T.V, towers, parking lots, tennis courts, etc., and that
these uses should be spelled out in the Ordinance.
The next seciton of the Ordinance discussed was the section "buffer
strip" on page l9. This new seciton proposes that a buffer strip be at __
leaset 25 feet adjacent to Railroads, industrials uses, limited access
highways, critical areas of the natural environment, and agricultural
areas. Mr. Minis stated that this buffer could be in the form of trees
or fences. He added that in some areas, a buffer zone would be part of
the set back requirements.
Page 2Q, "Stormwater Management". The old Ordinance required a plan
to remove stormwater as approved by the Department of Transportation.
The new proposal required a plan consistant with objectives to minimize
runoff, prevent local flooding, and protect natural drainage ways. These
objectives are consistant with the County Sediment Control Ordinance.
Mrs. Josephine Barbour asked a question concerning the Land Suitability
section - IV-B-2. She read the last sentence on Page 14, "The proposal shall
be evaluated for the potential impairment of habitat of rare and endangered
1~9
species or unique natural areas as determined by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program or North Carolina Natural Areas Advisory
Committee." Mrs. Barbour asked how much land in Orange County would
this affect and are those areas identified, if so, where are they.
Mr. Minis stated that the Division of Archives and History is conju-
gating an Orange County Historical map with the landmarks designated.
When a subdivision site is within 100 feet of a historical landmark, the
plans will be sent to the Department of Archieves and History for their
recommendations. This does not mean that development cannot be within
100 feet of the landmark. Mr. Minis added that there were very few
places within Orange County that would be in this category.
This concluded Mr. Minis' presentation and the Chairman asked if
there were those present who would speak as proponents to the Subdivision
Amentments. N4 one came forth.
The Chairman asked.~f there were those present who wished to speak
as opponents to the Subdivision Amendments.
Chuck Beemer spoke of Section 222-C-~. He stated that if heirs
were attempting to divide the estate of a deceased person, he failed to
see how the County could have a vested interest in requiring the questions
under 222'C-4 answered. He suggested that the Ordinance be tied down as
strongly as possible. He also suggested another examination of the
Ordinance and a change of language in some .areas.
Mr. Wilson stated that he would like to compliment the Planninf Staff
and the County Commissioners for their meeting with the developers and
citizens to discuss the Ordinance.
Chairman Johnston moved to the next item on the Agenda, which is
discussion of the Subdivision Ordinance Extension County-wide.
Chris Edwards stated that for clarification, the Subdivision Regula-
tions are not the same as a Zoning Ordinance. Subdivision Regulations
can be extended either by extenting county-wide or by extending where
zoning is in effect.
Chairman Whined stated that the question presented was to extend
the Subdivision Regulations on a County-wide basis since subdivisions
are being developed all aver the County, Regulations should apply to all
townships.
Chairman Johnston stated that the floor was open for discussion of
extending the Subdivision Ordinance county-wide.
Chairman Whined stated that the Ordinance would be presented to the
Planning Board on March 21st, and that the Planning Board would make re-
commendations to the Commissioners. If the recommendation is to extend
the Subdivision Regulations Gouty-wide, the Commissioners will take action
as soon as possible, possibly April 4, 1977.
David 5hanklin from Cheeks Township stated that he was in favor of
extending the prdinance, however, he felt municipalities' zoning lines
should be clearly indicated before the Ordinance is put into effect.
Bill Ray stated that over the years, he had heard what Orange County
needed was "zero Growth". He added that this Ordinance was the perfect
instrument to accomplish this.
Discussion ensued concerning the appointees to the Planning Board.
It was emphasized that a developer should be a member of the Planning
-. Board by members of the audience.
Further questions and answers ensued between members of the Planning
Staff and the audience.
Bobby Nichols stated that he would like to go on record as apposing
the extension of the subdivision Ordinance. He added that he felt the
Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance should go hand in hand.
However, he was also opposed to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Director, Ervin Dobson, stated that the Zoning
Ordinance is the division of land based on the useage of the land. With
the Subdivision Regulations, the County can coordinate planning within
~.1~
the communities .
Mr. Hugh Wilson from Bingham Township stated that he was in support
of the Subdivision Ordinance and that people in Bingham Township were
anxious to see the Ordinance in effect in that area.
Chairman Johnston asked if there were others who wished to speak.
No one came forth.
Commissioner Finney moved that the meeting adjouz~. /
r , ~~~; ;,
ichard Whitted, Cha rman
Agatha Johnson, Clerk