HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19801124 -
:f •
t
3
2. ¢1> .� .
3- •
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5. NOVEMBER 24, 1980
6.
7. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular
8. session on Monday, November 24, 1980, at 6:30 P.M. in the
I 9• Commissioner's Room, Orange County Courthouse, in Hillsborough,
10. North Carolina.
11. Commissioners 'present: Commissioner Richard Whitted,
12. Chairman, and Commissioners Anne Barnes, Norman Gustaveson,
3.3. Norman Walker and Don Willhoit.
1 4� Chairman Whitted called the meeting to order.
3.5. Agenda Item 1: Agenda Modification
16. Commissioner Barnes requested Item 8 be considered prior to
i7. Item 6. •
18. Agenda Item 2: Comments from the Audience
ry 9. There were no comments.
- 20. Agenda Item 3: Tax Supervisor's recommendation
of adoption of a Standard of
23° — Values and Rules for Use in
the 1981 Property Revaluation
22. Commissioner Willhoit moved to accept the Tax Supervisor's
23° recommendation that the Board adopt a Standard of Values and Rules
to be used in connection with the 1981 property revaluation.
25. Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5;
26. Noes, 0.
27. Agenda Item 4: Manager's Recommendation of a
28. leduction of County Funding to
the State Social Services Budget
29. Commissioner Barnes questioned whether or not the Energy
30. Assistance Program was included in this budget. Finance Director
31- Neal Evans replied that it would be included in the December 1st
1 - 32. meeting.
33° Commissioner Gustaveson moved to adopt the Manager's re-
34- commendation of a reduction in funding to the State Social Ser-
35. vices Budget from $648,810 to $626,113.
36.
37.
38.
2
2. - �> .a .;ti
3-
4- Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5;
5. Noes, 0.
6. Agenda Item 5: Auditor's Review of County Fiscal
Year 1979-1980
7-
Mr. Wilson, representative of Peat, Marwick and Mitchell,
8.
submitted the Financial Statement Audit to the Board and stated
9.
that there were no reservations in the opinion. Mr. Wilson
10.
indicated that there was one change from previous years' Fin-
11.
ancial Statements; Those encumbrances previously considered
12.
expenditures were now considered "reservations of fund balances."
13.
This requires that those items outstanding be rebudgeted or
114..
amend the budget to include those items encumbered at the end of.
15.
the previous year.
16.
Commissioner Willhoit posed. a :question regarding."revenues and
17. dues from the Town of Mebane." Commissioner Willhoit asked
18. whether or not we had received what we:were scheduled to collect.
19. Mr. Evans replied yes.
20. Commissioner-Willhoit asked why Health Expenditures were
$113,000 below budget. Mr. Evans responded that this was due in
22. large to the number of programs which were not implemented.
23. Mr. Wilson then presented a proposed contract for next
21'. year's audit to Mr. Sam Gattis.
25. Commissioner Barnes queried whether or not the Board
26. needed to motion to receive Auditor's Report. The County
27. Attorney replied no.
28. Agenda Item 8: Cable Television Amendments
29. Chairman Whitted stated the problem thusly; the Board
30. has granted a Franchise for the unincorporated areas of Orange
31. County to one company, Village Cable; whereas another company,
32. Alert Cable, already has existing lines and service in the area.
33. The County Attorney prepared an amendment containing three
3�4- options to correct that situation_
35. Commissioner Barnes requested the County Attorney clarify
36. the options contained within the Amendments. The County Attorney
37.
38.
j9.
Za a 3
2. L.
3.
replied that adoption of the Amendments .as recommended with the
5. three options included permitted the County more flexibility.
6. Option 1 would declare illegal any prior existing lines and ser-
7. vices; option 2 would permit Franchises to more than one company
8• in the unincorporated areas; option 3 would permit Franchises to
9. more than one company but would limit the growth of the company
10. which po ssessed the pre-existing lines in the unincorporated areas
11. of Orange County.
12. Commissioner Barnes moved to accept the Amendments as pre-
13. sented to the Board.
14. Commissioner Wilihoit seconded the motion. Vote: ayes, 5;
15. noes, 0.
16. Commissioner Wilihoit moved to request the County Attorney
17. prepare a Franchise Ordinance utilizing Option 3 for Alert Cable
18. T.V:
19. Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion. Vote: ayes, 5;
- 20. noes, 0.
' ' 21. -- Chairman Whitted then adjourned the Board of Commissioner's
22. Meeting to reconvene downstairs in the Superior County Courtroom to
23. consider Agenda Item 6, a Joint Public Hearing with- the Planning
24. Board.
25. Agenda Item 6: Joint Public Hearing with the Planning
Board to Consider a Draft of a New
26. County Zoning Ordinance and a Request
to Rezone Property from Residential to
27. Prime Commercial
28. Following are the Minutes of the Joint Public Hearing of the
29. Board of Commissioners with the Planning Board.
30.
MINUTCS
31. The Planning Board met in Joint Session with the Orange County
32. Board of Commissioners for a Public Hearing to consider a Draft of a
.33• new County Zoning Ordinance and a request to rezone property from
34• residential to Prime Commercial.
35- Planning Board Members Present: Pat Crawford, Chairperson, Art
36. Cleary, Dr. Alice Gordon, Claudine Harris, Dr. Logan Irvin, Dr. Kizer,
Hazel Lunsford, David Shanklin and Dr. John Wilson9 B. Greer and N. Laszlo.
37.
Members Absent: Paul Gates.
38.
39,
Staff Present: Jim Polatty, Rick Cannity
1 ti 4
2. . . ..� i`J �`
3. =
. County Commissioners Present: Richard Whitted, Chairman, and
•
5. Commissioners Barnes, Gustaveson, Walker and Willhoit.
6. Chairman Whitted called,the meeting to order and stated its pur-
7. pose; he then turned the meeting over to Chairperson Crawford.
8. Chairperson Crawford stated that the purpose of the meeting was
9. primarily to elicit comments from the public on the proposed zoning
10_ atlas and zoning text. Chairperson Crawford requested that the public
11. approach the podium and state their name and address before commenting.
12. Item 1: Rezoning Request--Mary D. Henry
Property
13.
14. Chairperson Crawford stated that those in favor of the pro-
15. posed rezoning request would be heard first.
16. Jim Polatty presented the Staff's research and recommendation
17. on the request. Mr. Polatty stated that the property.was located
18, in Chapel Hill Township, on tax map # 25, lot 1 A on Weaver Dairy
19. Road, and was presently being utilized as a Montessori School.
20. The request was for the property to be rezoned Prime Commercial . Mr.
21. Polatty explained that rezoning the property to that category would
22. permit Class A service stations,offices and retail sales. Mr. Polatty
23. and Staff recommended denial of the request for three reasons:
24. 1--There were already two activity centers on Weaver Dairy Road;
25. one of these (Timberlyne) was presently allowed more commercial
26. property than was usually allowed under the Chapel Hill zoning
270 plan.
28. 2--The proposed Orange County Land Use Plan indicates that the
29. property lies in a transition area which is not in either an
30. urban or commercial node.
31. 3--The rezoning request would not be in with the
32. proposed Zoning Ordinance.
Commander Deacon (?), 3275 Pacific Heights Road, Honolulu, Hawaii:
33.
Mr. Deacon spoke in favor of the rezoning request saying the property
34-
belonged to his daughter, Mary Henry. He said she wished to use the
35•
property as physician's offices. Several physicians have expressed an
36,
interest in the property for offices.
37.
330
39,
1. 5
2.
3-
4- Charles Prudden, Route 2, Chapel Hill: Mr. Prudden stated that
5- he owns some land in the area and is opposed to the rezoning request.
6. There were no further comments from the audience regarding the
7. rezoning request for the Mary D. Henry property.
8. Chairperson Crawford asked Mr. Jim Polatty of the Staff to pre-
,
9. sent the proposed Zoning Ordinance for Orange County; Mr. Polatty did
10. so and explained the various steps in its development with opportunities
11. for'citizen imput., (For a copy of the proposed Zoning Ordinance see
12. page 2/0 of this book.) Mr. Polatty stated that the Planning
13. Board would meet December 2, 1980, to consider citizen's comments
14. made at tonight's meeting. Mr. Polatty said the proposed Zoning Atlas
I 15. would be considered first and requested that citizens approach the
16. podium, state their name, address and township and their proposal
1 17. for the Zoning Atlas. He offered aid, if needed, reading the Zoning
18. Map. =
1Q Chairperson Crawford thanked M . Polatty for his presentation and
A ..
20. asked that citizens be brief in their comments due to the large number
21. -of people present who wished to speak. ,.
22. Alan Biermann: Mr. Biermann does not think that there are enough
23. areas zoned for commercial/industrial development. He noted that
the Ordinance is "underzoned" for those purposes. He feels that the
24.
r
a procedure the developer will have to complete in order to have a
u
25.
Y 26. "planned development" is "unsafe;" there are not enough safeguards.
1
s: 27. David Borst (?), Route 2, Mebane: Mr. Borst asked the source of
t. 28. the imput into the Zoning Atlas and questioned the cost consideration
t which would be incurred by the landowner. He himself is not a land-
. i 29.
F owner in the area but he runs a small store on a lot which has been
30.
rezoned residential/agricultural under the new Ordinance. He stated
31-
r that the lot is .65/acre and was too small for its new use designation.
32.
He doesn't think the rezoning could be done economically.
33.
Chairperson Crawford: Responded to Mr. Borst that there had been
34-
considerable imput into this Atlas.
35.
Mr. Borst: Asserted that "No one here has been considered."
i 36,,
f
i 37.
€ 38.
t 39.
6
2. .�iSov' "
3-
�• Mr. Borst was asked the location of his store and he responded
5. that it was on Mebane Road, 3.8 miles south of Highway 85.
6. Mr. Polatty: Told Mr. Borst his store should have been zoned for
7. commercial development. .
8. Ms. Lena Murdock: Route 1, Chapel Hill, Bingham Township: She
9. wished her area to remain residential/agricultural_ -
10. Fred Hazard: Spoke for his development company and other pro-
11. perty owners. He referred to Tax Maps 23 and 26. He said that this
12. 140 acres of land was the only area in Bingham Township that was
13. "feasible" for an airport. He said there were no transmission lines and
114.. there was one free mile in each landing direction. He said his
15. company had spent $72,000 on a study for the proposed airport. He
16. wants the area zoned light industrial.
f.,
17. Ernest Crawford, Shelby, .N.C.: Mr. Crawford was•born in White Cross
18. and owns 10 acres of land on Highway 54. He has no plans pre-
19. sently for development but would like it zoned general commercial. He
20. said it would provide job opportunities for the young people growing up.
21. Mr. Shoffler, Route 1, Chapel Hill, Bingham Township: Mr.
22. Shoffler owns 130 acres of farmland in this area and has a child
23. attending State who wished to farm this land. Mr. Shoffler encouraged
24. the Board to prevent industrial development. He wants the proposed
25. airport stopped. He said it would only enrich the developer.
26. Edward Johnson, Route 3, Hillsborough, Bingham Township: He
27. spoke as a member of the Bingham Township Advisory Council which
28. thinks that this township should be made "safe for agriculture."
29. He said that both new and long term residents feel that way. He lives
30. near the proposed runway for the airport and "shudders" to think of
31. jets that close to dairies. He thinks the fire protection which would
32. be required for the airport would increase the tax rate. He also
33. thinks that Chapel Hill is looking to Bingham Township to solve its
34. water shortage and that Chapel Hill wants an airport located anywhere
35- but in Chapel Hill.
36.
37.
38.
3��•
~ -- -_
7
i
2.
- .
3.
Charles Williams, Route 2, Hillsborough: He said the area
5~ is now used as a flight training area which the proposed airport would
6° displace thereby creating a reduction in aircraft "aggravation."
7. He feels that even if taxes are increased due to increased needs of
— G. the airport it would bring more dollars into the area creating jobs
9. for local people. He stated that�e owned an airplane but only had
-� 10.I� restricted use of it due to the facilities at the Horace Williams
U. Airport in Chapel gill.
12. Michael Price, Box 182, Mebane, Bingham Township: He is in
` '� 13. favor of industrial zoning; he said the airport would divert the pre-
sent flight training flights from the area.
15. Dan Owen (Y)" Box 2294, Chapel Hill, Bingham Township: He stated
' �
|. � 16° that the proposed airport runway of 5,000 feet is more than is needed
' . I7~ for the light aircraft which would be using the airport as planned.
18. He said he has more than $72,000 invested in his home and land and
19° doesn't wish to have jet aircraft opproach1ng. He voiced concern
)20, over the probability of pilots practicing "touch and go" landings
� ! 21° -and circling over the area.
~'
22.- Ralph Warren, Lives in the area: He said there is significantly
23, more area affected by the proposed airport than the 5,00 foot run-
24~ way. He is against commercial development of the area.
Jim Loeb (?), Hillsborough' He works for a company which purchased
2�° m ^, '
. 28° land in that area on Highway 54 and wished to build an office on the
°
37, lot . but under the proposed Ordinance would be unable to do so because
20° the area would be rezoned agricultural/residential. He requests
general commercial zoning of the area.
29.
�D° George (?) Blackwood, Durham: Mr. Blackwood owns 2 tracts of
1mnd in Bingham Township. He favors the proposed airport and wishes
31.
- the area to be zoned for industrial development.
� 32°
] Dmrryl Tucker, Route 4, Box 401, Hillsborough, Eno Township: He
'
��. wants an Ordinance that will prevent people from allowing their homes
��°
to be used as junkyards.
John Rudd, Chapel Hill : Mr. Rudd represented the Chapel Hill
.`_ 36°
� |
37.
` !
38,
39~
L�
1. 8
2. }. i3 :J
•
3.
L . Pilot's Association. He spoke in favor of the proposed airport in
5. Bingham Township. He declared that the only jet craft which might be
6. using the runway would be Cessna Citations or Lear Jets. The majority
7. of aircraft would be small light planes; there would be no commercial
8. line using the airport. Mr. Rudd cited studies concerning noise levels
9, at airports corresponding in size to the proposed airport which showed
10. that noise levels were not significant. He said the Chapel Hill Air-
11. port had had 25 years of safe operation and saw no reason why it should
12. not continue to operate in that manner and no reason to expect the
13. proposed airport to do otherwise. Mr. Rudd concluded, "Therefore,
I feel that most of the comments that are being made are in fact. . .
15, /Based on] emotional feelings rather than factual information."
16. Ralph Perry, (no address given): Mr. Perry asked who was on
17. the Zoning Board and stated that sewage was running through a well
18. and nothing was being done. He stated that he doesn't approve of the
19. way tax money is being spent.
20, Chairperson Crawford asked if anyone else wished to express him/her
21_ self on the proposed Zoning Atlas; no one responded. She then declared
22. that portion of the hearing devoted to the proposed Zoning Atlas concluded.
23. Chairperson Crawford then opened the floor to public comment on the
2L.. proposed Zoning Text and stated that each individual article would be
256 considered in turn.
26. ARTICLE 1
27. Alan Biermann: Mr. Biermann stated that he wanted a strong
28. zoning ordinance,that under the proposed Zoning Ordinance the concept
29* of a zone was strongly undermined. He is opposed to the concept
30. of a planned development and said that under this zoning ordinance
31. "almost anything" could be "placed almost-anywhere." Mr. Biermann
32. said there were "No teeth 'in the Ordinance as written." He said he
330 saw little discussion of land values or of traffic patterns. He cam-
34- plained in general of weak wording.
Ben Lloyd, Route 1, Efland: Mr. Lloyd doesn't think that the
35•
361 Board of Commissioners gives enough consideration to rural Orange
County in this Ordinance. Mr. Lloyd suggested the Board check the
37.
38.
39.
1.
•
2.
3.
validity of Section 1.3.
5. Stanley Bennett, Route 5, Chapel Hill Township: Mr. Bennett
6. declared his support of the proposed Zoning Ordinance.
7. Ricky Allen, Efland: Mr. Allen said' he was not a landowner.
Br He thinks this Ordinance takes away the rights of people and re-
9. quested "on behalf of young people" that the Board not do this.
10. Bill Nelson (?), Route 1, Efland: Mr. Nelson is a small land-
21. owner and resents the Ordinance determining the size of the building
12. or shape of his fence. He asked that the Planning Board not submit
13. this Ordinance.
Josephine Barbour, Eno Township: Ms. Barbour thinks the Zoning
15. Ordinance "over-regulates" under the guise of "Public welfare."
16. Tommy Brand (?), Route 1, Chapel Hill : Mr. Brand has spent 2
17. years and $2,000 trying to get clearance for proper placement of 2
18. trailers on 4 acres of land. ;He's disturbed by this process.
19. Randall Waugh, Hillsborough: Mr. Waugh thinks the 'Ordinance
20. should state at the outset that it serves to "preserve and protect
21r private property rights and uses."
22. Norma Schultz (?), Hillsborough: Questioned whether or not the
23. area marked in green on the map displayed would be taken into the city
limits of Hillsborough; the answer was no. She then stated that she
24.
25. agreed with Ms. Barbour.
26. This concluded the comments on Article 1 of the Zoning Text.
27. ARTICLE 2
28. Tony Seaber, Cheeks Township: Mr. Seaber voiced concern that
�9r Section 2.2.12 placed priority of public interest over private interest.
Ben Lloyd: Mr. Lloyd referred to Section 2.5.c and suggested the
30.
Board delete it as "unharmonious" with Section 2.2.10. He also voiced
31.
concern regarding the placement of public interest over private interest.
32.
Mr. Lloyd asked Mr. Polatty if the Technical Advisory Committee was
33.
in place and functioning and who was involved. He also asked who the
34.
water systems representatives were and if they had been
35.
consulted.
36,
Mr. Polatty responded that when the Planning Staff and Planning
37.
Board dealt with matters concerning their sphere of authority they
38,
39.
lu
i. M
3.
were consulted.
5. Ms. Barbour: Referred to page 2-9, Section 2.3.3.7 and commented
6. that there no statement as to how long after the Board received an
7. appeal that it, had to render a decision. She suggested that this
8. section be clarified as to exactly how much time was required. She
9. voiced her concern about the public interest being placed above
10. private interest.
11. . This concluded the comments about Article 2 of the Zoning Text.
12. ARTICLE 3
13. There were no comments regarding Article 3 of the Zoning Text.
114. . ARTICLE 4
15. Mr. Lloyd: He asked why there was no sewage or water service
16. to the Efland area. He requested that more study be devoted to the
17. 10-20 years projection stated in this Article for the extension of
18. • such services into the Efland area. In reference to page 4-10, he
19. suggested the Eno River State Park be deleted from this Section and
20. considered a potential water source.
21. Ms. Barbour: Wanted to know, in reference to page 4-4, Section
22. 4.2.8.b.1, if Carrboro was the only area where such a local commercial
23. district exists. She also asked, in reference to page 4-7, "why do
2�. such "economic development" districts have to be near the Federal
25. Interstate Highway system? Ms. Barbour expressed concern regarding the
26. elimination of the Eno River State Park from consideration as a potential
27. dam site.
28. Ed Copeland, Route 2, Efland: Mr. Copeland asked how many present
29. were on the Planning Board. (There was a show of hands from members
present.) He then stated that he lived in a area where the soil won't
30•
pass the perk test and asked the Planning Board how they could zone
31.
this land for homes when the water won't perk.
32.
This concluded the comments on Article 4 of the Zoning Text.
33.
ARTICLE 5
3l..
Mr. Biermannn: Mr. Biermann thinks it is unwise to adopt a
35.
"land use intensity system" for rural Orange County. He said these
36.
systems were designed for use in heavily populated areas and simply
37.
38.
39.
1. 11
2. 4 „
3.
br. don't apply to Orange County.
5. This concluded the comments on Article 5 of the Zoning Text.
6. ARTICLE 6
7. Mr. Lloyd: Thinks that the planned development areas (page
8, 6-4) are too restrictive and asked that the Board examine this section
9. more closely. He does not like Section 6.21, in particular, the
10. 100 foot set back requirement from the property line. He also thinks
11. that 500 feet is too small an area for space as a home occupation.
12. He thinks Section 6.22 is too restrictive and needs clarification.
13. Mr. Allen: Voiced concern that not many people were adequately
14. aware of what was contained within the Ordinance and requested the
15. Planning Board have another public'.hearing in January.
16. Chairperson Crawford adjourned the Public Hearing for a short
17. recess.
18. Chairperson Crawford called the Public Hearing to order following
19. the break. Mr. Tony Seaber . asked her to please read Article
20. 6.13.3 on page 6-13 and to define it. She did so. He then asked Chair-
21. -person Crawford if unconforming objects would have to be brought into
22. compliance with the proposed Zoning Ordinance within 24 months.
23. Chairperson Crawford stated that she thought that's what this Section
24.
meant but she did not care to comment about it. Mr. Seaber then asked
25. that legal counsel examine this section.
26. This concluded the comments on Article 6 of the proposed Zoning
27. Text.
28. ARTICLE 7
29. Mr. Biermann: The planned development concept bothers Mr. Biermann;
30. he feels that the planned development regulations can over rule other
31. regulations. He reiterated his concern about this Zoning Ordinance
32. permitting almost anything to be built almost anywhere. He thinks
33e developers are forced into rural areas under the planned development
3 - concept. He voiced concern regarding the length and cost of the
35_ planned development procedures. Mr. Biermann said this Ordinance
36. does not say "no." Under this Ordinance commercial development could
occur in residential sections. He strongly feels that a Zoning Ord-
37.
3 inance should prohibit negotiations which would permit commercial
8.
39.
12
I
2. :.
3.
development in residential areas.
5. Mr. Lloyd: Requested clarification of Section 7.1. He asked
6. Mr. Polatty if a planned developer could provide his own utilities
70 under Section 7.4.
8. Mr. Polatty: "Yes."
9. Mr. Lloyd: Requested that Sections 7.12 and 7.14 be examined.
10. Ms. Barbour: Asked the exact location of the Upper Eno Watershed.
•
110 Mr. Polatty: "Everything west of Lake Ben Johnson."
12. This concluded the comments on Article 7 of the proposed Zoning
13. Ordinance.
140 ARTCLE 8
150 Dick Balance: Mr. Balance spoke as a representative of American
16. Stone Company. He said that American Stone would like every consideration
17. for a special use permit under the new Zoning Ordinance.
18. Mr. Boeke presented a petition and spoke to Section 8.8.8.1.b.
190 He cited a report from the Triangle'3 Council of Governments which
20. called for an airport in Orange County. The citizen agrees with the
210 -location of an airport in Orange County but disagrees with this section
22. - of the Ordinance which calls for public ownership of such an airport.
23. Fred Hazard: Mr. Hazard asked the Planning Board not to confuse
240 the airport his development company has planned for Bingham Township
25. with the airport recommended by the Triangle 3 Council of Governments.
26. Mr. Lloyd: Requested.that Section 8.16 be clarified with re-
270 gard to requirements for commercial cemeteries vis a vis church cemeteries.
28. Mr. Lloyd asked that Section 8.19, restricting utilities, be examined.
29. This concluded the comments on Article 8 of the proposed Zoning
Text.
30.
31. ARTICLE 9
Mr. Lloyd: Said that Section 9.5 is too restrictive with regard
32.
to utility poles and requested the rewriting of this Section. He
33.
also thinks that Secions 9.2.8 and 9.3.d are too restrictive; he feels
34.
that perhaps some provision should be made for the maintenance and up-
35.
keep of signs.
36.
37.
380
39.
2. i
3.
John Cates, Highway 70, Hillsborough: (Mr, Cates owns property
5 in Eno, Bingham, Hillsborough and Cheeks Townships) Mr. Cates said
6. that signs bring money into Orange County from the Interstate and we
7- should not ban signs on the Interstate.
8_ Mr. Lloyd: Spoke for Flavorich. He said Flavorich has several
9* signs on the Interstate and it would be ridiculous to have the signs
10. removed.
11. Ms. Barbour: Said Section 9.8 is too restrictive regarding
a
12. real estate signs.
13. Mr. Allen: He does not think signs are dangerous. He thinks the
1!}. Board should rid the County of liquor signs but keep the milk and
15. soft drink signs.
16. This concluded comments on Article 9 of the proposed Zoning Text.
17. ARTICLE 10
is. There were no comments about Article 10.
19. ARTICLE 11
20, Don Sulbreth (?), Wildcat Creek Subdivision: Mr. Sulbreth
21. said as he understood this Article, some of the lots in Wildcat Creek
22. would. be in non-compliance with the proposed Zoning Ordinance.
23. RAnda U Wad: Mr. Waugh addressed Sections 11.6 and 11.7; he
24. thinks the Ordinance takes away existing property rights and uses
25. which predate the Ordinance and limits the replacement of non-con-
26. forming stuctures. He expressed his displeasure with these Sections
27. of Article 11 and stated that Section 7 was discriminatory.
28. Mr. Lloyd: Thinks that one should be permitted to rebuild a
29. non-conforming structure that has been destroyed but not to enlarge
30. or expand that structure.
31. Ms. Barbour: In reference to Section 11.4, said that there should
not be a limit placed on the amount one could spend repairing or
32.
33.
maintaining non-conforming structures.
This concluded the comments on Article 11 of the proposed Zoning
34-
35. Text.
36.
37.
38,
39, '
14
2., ; •lam 0.:.1
3.
4• ARTICLE 20 -
5- Mr. Biermann: He thinks it's important that a "zoning ordinance
6. should be stable." He says that the planned development concept
7- would permit amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and the process would
8. be costly and lengthy. He says there should be no amendments to
9. the Zoning Ordinance.
10. Mr. Lloyd: Mr. Lloyd asked Mr. Polatty if the map required under
11. Section 20.1, paragraph 8, would be expensive.
12. Mr. Polatty: "Yes."
13. Mr. Lloyd thinks this requirement is unreasonable. He further
4 feels that Section 20.4 should be changed to permit the submission of
15. requests for zoning amendments monthly rather than quarterly.
16.
Ms. Barbour: Felt that Secti;on. 20.7.3 requiring notices be send•
17. by Certified Mail but not received is inconsistent and Section 20.
18. 10 is, discouraging.
19. This concluded comments' on Article 20 of the proposed Zoning
20. Text. - -
21. -- ARTICLE 21
22. Mr. Biermann requested that his written comments be made a part
• 23. of the official record. He passed copies to the Board members.
24- '(See page of this book.)
25. This concluded comments on Article 21 of the proposed Zoning
26. Text.
ARTICLE 22
27.
28. Mr. Lloyd: Mr. Lloyd questioned the definition of family and
asked that the Board check this closely.
29.
This concluded the comments on Article 22 of the proposed Zoning
30.
. Text.
31.
ARTICLE 23
32.
There were no comments on Article 23.
330
ARTICLE 24
34-
There were no comments on Article 24.
35.
Ms. Barbour requested the opportunity to make a closing statement.
36.
37.
38.
39.
2
• •
t�:U�> t1
3•
14. Chairperson Crawford yielded the floor to Ms. Barbour.
5• . Ms. Barbour thanked the Board of Commissioners and the Planning
6. Board and commended them for a "job well done."
7- Chairperson Crawford thanked Ms. Barbour for her kind statement.
8. and said the Planning Board would meet on December 2, 1980, to consider
9. comments made tonight. There- is another public hearing tentatively
10. scheduled for January 19, 1981, after which the Board will decide
11. whether-or not to adopt or recommend this Ordinance.
12. Mr. Sim Efland requested the floor to make an additional
13. comment; Chairperson Crawford granted permission. The citizen voiced
14. his concern regarding Article 10 Section 1 and asked that it be deleted.
15. There were no further comments and Chairperson Crawford turned
16. • the meeting over to Chairman Whitted who declared the public hearing
17. adjourned. The Board of Commissioners reconvened upstairs in the
18. County Commissioner's Room in Executive Session to consider p- sonnel.
19. `�r� �'T �
20. Rich. d Whi •, -
' " 21. Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33•
34,
35.
36.
{ 37.
38.
39.
+ : J
C-O-R-R-E-C-T-I-O-N
Motion by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Whitted,
to correct the Minutes of the November 24, 1980,. Regular Meeting of
the Board to properly reflect the action taken by the Board related
ti
to the adoption of the Standard of Values and Rules to be used in the
1981 property revaluation as follows:
Commissioner Willhoit moves that the Board accept, adopt and
order the Standard of Values and Rules recommended by the Tax Super-
visor to be used in connection with the 1981 property revaluation.
(For a copy of adopted Standard of Values and Rules see copy on file
in the Tax Supervisor's Office.)
Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
�1