Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19910225 ' 3 Approved April 1, 1991 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25 , 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint Session with the Orange County Planning Board for the regular Quarterly Public Hearing on February 25 , 1991 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough , N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Stephen Halkiotis, Vice-Chair, Commissioners Alice Gordon, Verla Insko and Don Willhoit. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr. , Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Eidenier, Chair, Clint Burklin , William Waddell , Virginia Boland, Daniel Eddleman , Jean Hamilton , Chris Best and Amanda Cantrell . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Abrams, Joan Jobsis, Michael Lewis, and Larry Reid. A. OPENING REMARKS Commissioner Halkiotis opened the meeting and explained the procedure which would be followed . B. PUBLIC CHARGE Commissioner Halkiotis read the Public Charge. C. ITEMS FOR DECISION 1 . Assignment of House and Building Numbers a. Rural Route 2 , 3, 5 , 6 , and 7 - Mebane - This item was presented by Marvin Collins . In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Mebane rural routs (partials) 2 , 3, 5 , 6 and 7 . Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the US Postal Service, all rural box numbers are being converted to street addresses within the County . With the Commissioners' approval of the Mebane routes, the County-wide project of rural route conversion to street addresses will be completed . Route 2 Mebane encompasses an area south of US 70 bordering the Alamance County line. Included are the northern half of Buckhorn Road , the western half of West Ten Road, and the western third of Mount Willing Road. Also included either partially or in their entirety are the following roads: Redman, Mattress Factory, East Washington, South Frazier, Oakwood, Rock Quarry , Ben Wilson , Bowman , Whitaker , Hebron Church, Yarborough, Oak Morrow Mill , Lloydtown and Saxapahaw. Route 6 is a small portion of the major route extending from Alamance, and includes only Ben Wilson and Bowman Roads, Route 7 includes that segment of US 70 stretching east from the Mebane town limits to Buckhorn Road. Route 5 Mebane adjoins Route 2 on the north side of US 70 and includes those roads emanating from US 70, including North Frazier, Lancaster, Shambley, Mace, Hoover and Mebane Store Road. Also, included either partially or in their entirety are the following roads: 'West Lebanon , Supper Club, Mill Creek, Doe Run, Saddle Club, Lynch Store, Harmony Church, Mount Zion Church, Penecost, Doc Corbett, and NC 49 from Carr Community to the Alamance County line. Route 3 is in the extreme northwest corner of Orange County and includes the northern half of Corbett Ridge Road, Claiborne' s Road and Atkins Road . COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND/OR PLANNING BOARD None. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT Mr. William Goodson, a resident of Route 5 , indicated that he had received a letter notifying him that he had a new address but it did not include his new address. Don Powell indicated that they were unsure as to where his house was located which was why the letter did not have an address listed. This matter will be handled and an address assigned. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon , to approve the proposed house and building numbers followed by notification of the Mebane Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G. S. 153A-240 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. CP-1-91 Robert Ayers and Harold Harris - This presentation was made by David Stancil . In summary, this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan ( Land Use Element) submitted by Robert Ayers and Harold Harris. The property proposed for amendment lies in Hillsborough Township, south of the Interstate 40/Old Chapel Hill- Hillsborough Road interchange. The property contains 32 . 76 acres, has a 60-foot access lot to Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough Drive (Old 86 ) , and 2200 feet of frontage on the western right-of-way of Interstate 40. The property is reference as Lot 13B, Block B of Hillsborough Township Tax Map 49 . The property and surrounding areas are currently designated Rural Residential on the Land Use Element of the Plan . The proposed amendment would create a new free-standing Commercial Transition Activity Node and Ten Year Transition area on this site. The stated purpose of the request is to allow the applicants to make application for an office park. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND/OR PLANNING BOARD In response to a question from Commissioner Insko, Mr. Stancil indicated that the Rural Buffer boundary line was approximately 3/4 of a mile to the south. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if there was an interest on the part of the owners to talk with the town of Hillsborough about providing water and sewer. Mr. Stancil indicated that he was not able to respond regarding the applicants intent. Ms. Eidenier stated that she agreed with the Planning Staff' s recommendation. The Planning Board is working with the Economic Development Commission to develop recommendations for all of the interchanges along I-40 and I-85 . She indicated that they would like to pursue this project without having to decide about a particular property at the same time. Also, during a 1990 meeting between the Board of Commissioners of Hillsborough and Orange County , Mr. Whittiker recommended that this area be supplied with town water and sewer in order that the entire area could be developed. Commissioner Smith indicated that there was a sewer line under the bridge at I-40 and he would like H i l 1 sborough to provide water and sewer with the county providing fire and police protection. This is something that the town and the county need to discuss further. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Mary Ayers indicated that she was speaking on behalf of Mr. Ayers and Mr. Harris. She stated that the applicants do not wish to withdraw their application at this time. The owners would like the land use to be changed to a transition area so that they could begin to develop on a limited basis. They would like to increase the development of the area at sometime in the future. She indicated that the locational criteria is met by the property. The owners have discussed the water line with OWASA and they indicated that if demand warranted, they would allow tap-ons of 6" or larger. Sewer lines are currently in place within one mile of the property. The soils report states that there are no impediments to development and that the proposed lot arrangements would be feasible for business or commercial use. She mentioned that with the close proximity of I-40 and the high transmission line that runs across the property, residential development does not seem feasible. Ms. Vicki Berry, 3300 Old Chapel Hill Road, spoke on behalf of herself and her sister who owns the property next to the wooded area. She indicated that she opposes this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Homer Davis stated that he owns property in this area. He indicated that he is against this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that traffic is already a problem and this change would only worsen the situation. • A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 1 , 1991 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2 . CP-2-91 Efland Area Study - This presentation was made by David Stancil . In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on the findings of the Efland Area Study , including CP-2-91 , an adjustment to the existing Efland Center Commercial Activity Node . In the fall of 1988, after input from several residents of the Efland area in Cheeks Township, the Planning Board requested that staff undertake an area study to address community character concerns and future land use issues in Efland . In November , an Efland Steering Committee was appointed by 38 village residents. This group was charged with 1 ) assisting staff in developing a community land use plan and recommendations, and 2) studying the feasibility of Efland incorporation and recommending a course of action. In brief , the Efland Area Study recommends a series of actions and strategies designed to enhance the community character of the village from the standpoint of housing , community services, transportation, open space and land use planning. The study proposes using "neotraditional " planning techniques to encourage pedestrian-scale community services and recreation facilities built around the community's traditional core. To accomplish this, an Efland Village Overlay District is proposed which might apply special standards and mixed uses to enhance the core of the village and make the community viable and well-planned in the future as development pressures related to I-85/40 increase. Before an overlay district can be adopted, the existing "Efland Center" Commercial Activity Node must be adjusted (CP-2-91 ) to include several lots that are within the service areas of the community focus, but currently outside of the node. In this manner, all properties in the community focus ( 1 /4-mile from strategic intersections) can be treated consistently under the County Comprehensive Plan. The plan would also provide a strong backbone for a town plan, if the community should opt to incorporate in the future. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND/OR PLANNING BOARD In response to a question from Commissioner Insko, Mr . Stancil indicated that the related amendment includes several other areas in the existing community node. Commissioner Willhoit asked what kind of commercial activity is proposed? Mr. Stancil indicated that the proposal was to develop the Efland Village overlay district. This would encourage mixed use development of a community scale. Efland is a quasi- urban area. It has urban services but is not incorporated . Commissioner Gordon stated that she felt an application should • be completed even if staff is the originator of the proposal . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT Mr. Robert Efland, a resident of this area, indicated that he would like to have more information about neo-traditional overlay zoning. He indicated that he wanted to know if changing to this neo-traditional overlay would cause him to lose any of his rights as a property owner. He indicated that unless the sewer line was extended east, the property would not be suitable for commercial development. Ms. Marilyn Liner spoke in opposition to this proposal . She indicated that she would like to have the meaning of the term "affordable housing" properly defined . She indicated that the citizens of Efland would not be willing to have trailer parks, projects or certain types of apartment complexes. She also indicated that the Habitat for Humanity project did not receive widespread approval from the committee. Sidewalks for the citizens to get to the post office and stores was agreed upon, however, they were against recreational walking areas. Lastly, a mess was left on McGowan Creek by the company who worked on the Efland sewer line. Hopefully, whoever does the second phase of this project will do a better job. Commissioner Halkiotis requested that the Manager have the county engineer review the area of the creek where the materials were left and supervise having that clean-up project completed. Mr. William Brooks, a resident of Efland, indicated that he is opposed to businesses being allowed to locate in this area. He would like for it to remain residential . Mr. Michael Efland, a resident of Efland, indicated that he is opposed to changing the zoning of this area. He mentioned that all services are available within 5 miles of Efland and he sees no need to have most services any closer. Mr. Van Anderson, a property owner, spoke in opposition to rezoning this property . He stated that he lives in Durham and will be moving to Efland in the near future and hopes that it will remain residential . Commissioner Willhoit requested that a report be made on the sewer capacity for the proposed plan. He questions if it will be adequate to serve economic development activities. Commissioner Insko questioned the feasibility of providing urban service to an area which is unincorporated and unable to pay for the services. Mr. Link stated that the question of density should directly relate to the viability of extending the sewer line. The first phase of the sewer line was extended , using grant money, and based on public health reasons as well as economic development reasons. It was not considered a self-sustaining project at that time and is still not considered self-sustaining. As the second extension is pursued it needs to be establish whether it is a public health/economic development project being funded by ad valorem taxes or an enterprise which would need to be self-supporting. Commissioner Willhoit stated that when the Efland Sewer project was initially approved the intent was to set up an enterprise fund, realizing it might have a negative cash flow in the beginning. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 1 , 1991 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment a. Article 4. 3 Permitted Uses- (Golf Driving & Practice Ranges) b. Article 8.8 Special Uses - Golf Driving & Practice Ranges) These presentations were made by Eddie Kirk. In summary these items were presented to receive public comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to add a new section addressing Golf Driving and Practice Ranges as Class B Special Uses in the Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R-1 ) zones. Mr. Bradshaw has requested that Golf Driving and Practice Ranges be permitted uses in the Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R-a) zoning districts. These ranges are currently considered as Recreational Facilities for profit and are permitted uses in the Community Commercial (CC-3) , General Commercial (GC- 4) and Industrial-1 ( I-1 ) zones. Although Golf Driving and Practice Ranges may be appropriate in low density residential areas, special conditions should be attached which allow for minimum disturbance in residential areas. This amendment would specifically set up a Golf Driving and Practice Range as a Class B Special Use Permit and provide specific standards that would apply in Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R- 1 ) zones. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon requested clarification as to why this item was being recommended for approval . Mr. Kirk indicated that a driving range is considered a recreational facility for profit. The change would be to allow a Class B use in an AR and R1 zone. He indicated that this kind of use would generate very little traffic . A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 1 , 1991 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Erosion Control Ordinance Amendments This presentation was made by Warren Faircloth. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Erosion Control Ordinance. The North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission allows local governments to enforce their own erosion control programs under certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the local ordinance conform to the Commissions Model Ordinance. The Model Ordinance was revised by the Commission in 1990, and the majority of the proposed amendments are for updating the County' s Ordinance so that it conforms with the Model . Additional amendments are proposed by staff and are noted as such in the commentary . The amendments will also be made to the Chapel Hill Erosion Control Ordinance which is administered by the County staff. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation, to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 1 , 1991 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Proposed Historic Preservation Commission Ordinance This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this time was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed ordinance which would, upon adoption, establish a Historic Preservation Commission for Orange County, including mechanisms for the identification and preservation of historic sites and structures. In 1986 , the Planning Department completed preparation of An Inventory of Sites of Cultural , Historical , Recreational , Biological and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County. While some field surveys were conducted, the inventory was based almost exclusively on existing documentation. In 1988, a Master Recreation and Parks Plan was prepared for Orange County. During the same year, the Triangle Land Conservancy completed the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County. These studies provided a more detailed identification of sites than identified in the 1986 inventory. A goal of the Planning Department and Planning Board has been the completion of the detailed inventories through a survey of historic sites and structures. Discussions were held with representatives of the N.C. Preservation Fund and NCDCR about ways and means of preparing an inventory and preserving historic sites and structures. They recommended that Orange County consider adopting an ordinance to establish a Historic Preservation Commission , empowered to conduct an inventory, prepare a preservation plan, and administer programs for the preservation of both individual sites; e. g. , landmarks, and historic districts. Following the meeting , NCDCR provided Staff with a model ordinance to consider in drafting a local ordinance. Information was also provided about the annual application process for Planning and Survey Grant funds with which to initiate and carry out a historic inventory. Authorization was subsequently sought and obtained from the Board of Commissioners to apply for such funds. If the application is approved, an inventory of the unincorporated portions of Chapel Hill Township will be undertaken. Concurrent with the development of an application for survey funds, an ordinance was drafted for the purpose of establishing a Historic Preservation Commission. Authorization for counties to create such boards is contained in Part 3C of Article 19 of G.S. 160A. The basic provisions of the proposed ordinance are as follows: 1 . A historic Preservation Commission comprised of seven members would be created. Members much have special interest, education or experience in history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or related fields. 2 The Commission may undertake an inventory of properties of historical , prehistorical , architectural , and/or cultural significance. 3 The Commission may recommend to the Board of Commissioners areas to be designated as "historic districts" and individual structures, buildings, sites, areas or objects be designated as " landmarks" . A recommendation to designate a landmark would be contingent upon the voluntary application of the property owner. Since historic districts would be created as overlay zoning districts, such designations may be initiated by request of the property owner(s) , the Historic Preservation Commission or the Board of Commissioners. A request would be handled in the same manner as a zoning ordinance or atlas amendment; e.g. , following notification of property owners, conducting a public hearing, recommendation of the Planning Board, and approval of the Board of Commissioners. Before either designation could be initiated, the inventory referenced in #1 about must be completed. 4 The Commission may conduct an educational program with respect to historic districts and landmarks. An educational program is partially mandated by the proposed ordinance, since it requires the notification of property owners of the significance of their sites and/or structures as identified in the inventory. The ordinance also requires that property owners be informed of the procedures for designating historic districts and landmarks. 5 The Commission may review and act upon proposals for alterations, demolition or new construction within historic districts, or for the alteration or demolition of designated landmarks. Before building permits may be issued for alterations, demolitions or new construction within historic districts, or for alterations or demolition of historic landmarks, a Certificate of Appropriateness must be approved by the Commission. The review process insures that changes are in accord with the character of the site, structure or district. Approval is based on design principles and guidelines adopted by the Commission and which are applicable to the structure or district. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon indicated that there was a provision for non-experts on the Historic Commission. For example, four members could be experts and three could be interested citizens. Mr. Collins indicated that the County's share of the inventory cost would be $20,000 which would be matched with $20,000 of Federal funds. The publishing of the inventory could be minimal or it could be a high quality publication costing as much as $60,000. If the high quality option is chosen , funding options through the State, as well as local and private sources, would be pursued. Orange County will be responsible for the unincorporated areas and the Towns and University will be responsible for their areas. In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon , Mr. Collins indicated that qualifying for tax incentives would be handled by the County Manager and the Tax Supervisor. He stated that if some of the property owners objected to being included in a historic district the Board of Commissioners could review this issue thoroughly and determine what is in the best interest of the community. The people in the district will be included in this process at every step of the way. Commissioner Gordon asked how properties included in the district will be monitored so that unauthorized renovations were not made. Mr. Collins indicated that the County would have to assume that role. Mr. Gledhill mentioned that the Health Department handles the moving of graveyards. The Register of Deeds Office has a list of Orange County graveyards. This list is not complete. Mr. Anderson of the Historical Society requested a question be added to the Tax Declaration asking if the property contained a graveyard. Apparently, many citizens didn' t answer truthfully because they believed that they would be taxed for the graveyard. Mr. Collins stated that the first step in establishing a district would be to define the boundaries. The properties which were not in keeping with the district would be excluded wherever possible. New construction would have to be in keeping with the district. He indicated that the Commission would have a quasi- judicial role in approving Certificates of Appropriateness. The Board of Adjustment would review disputed properties to assure that the Historic Preservation Commission had followed the adopted guidelines in making their determination. The case could be referred back to the Commission if procedures were not followed . They could, in fact, reverse the decision of the Commission and authorize a Certificate of Appropriateness. The final course of action in a dispute would be to take the matter to court. Mr. Collins indicated that the proposed Historic Preservation Commission would decide on the guidelines to be used for alterations, new construction, and additions. The enabling legislation requires specific types of expertise to be represented on the Commission for this reason. A Commission of 7 members, with a majority of experts, would be workable. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commission Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 1 , 1991 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on March 4, 1991 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey , Jr. , Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk