Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19910528 APPROVED JUNE 25, 1991 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING MAY 28, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint Session with the Orange County Planning Board for the regular Quarterly Public Hearing on May 28, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Moses Carey, Jr. , Chairman, Verla Insko, Alice Gordon, Don Willhoit (arrive at 7:40) . COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Stephen Halkiotis. COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Cameron, Mary Scearbo, Eddie Kirk, Miriam Coleman, and Beth McFarland, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Eidenier, Chair, Joan Jobsis, Clint Burklin, Larry Reid, Virginia Boland (left at 8:00) , Daniel Eddleman, William Waddell, Jean Hamilton, and Amanda Carol Cantrell (arrived at 8: 10) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Deloris Ramsey A. OPENING REMARKS Commissioner Carey opened the meeting and explained the procedure which would be followed. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the Public Charge. C. ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. Assignment of House and Building Numbers A. Rural Route 2 - Timberlake Subdivision B. Rural Route 8 - Stoneridge and Sedgefield Subdivisions 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 a portion of Timberlake Rural Route 2 extending from Person County, and the Stoneridge/Sedgefield Community bordering Whitfield Rd. Permanent street addresses are now being proposed for a small portion of Timberlake Rural Route 2, extending from Person County into northern Orange County. Approximately 35 residents along portions of five roads are affected: Bacon Road, Sawyer Road, Gray Road, Berry Road and NC 157 West. Additionally, the Stoneridge/ 2 Sedgefield Community, bordering both sides of Whitfield Road is being proposed for address changes which will make those addresses consistent with the numbering system approved for the entire county. Approximately 240 residents along 23 subdivision roads will be affected. These residents are located within the old Rural Route 8 postal jurisdiction served by the Chapel Hill post office. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND/OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. W. Pierce, a Sedgefield resident, spoke in opposition to the renumbering proposal. He indicated that Sedgefield already has street names and house numbers. He feels there is no benefit to the Sedgefield residents and it would cost him in excess of $1000. 00 to make the necessary changes in letterhead, license, checks, etc. Mr. Donald Fox, a Sedgefield resident, spoke in opposition to this proposal. Mr. Rick Pratt, a Stoneridge resident, indicated that he also opposed this plan to renumber. He indicated that he is the GIS coordinator at the RTP, and in his expert opinion, it is not necessary to make these changes in order to protect the integrity of the system. Ms. Maryann Bassett, a resident of Stoneridge, spoke in opposition to this proposal. Mr. Tom Hurtgen, a resident of Stoneridge, spoke in opposition to this renumbering proposal. Commissioner Carey indicated that the Board of Commissioners has reconsidered this proposal on several occasions. Each time the Board has decided to proceed with this project. In response to a question from Commissioner Insko, Collins indicated that none of the homes in question have rural route numbers. He also indicated that the proposed house numbers can be no larger than 4 digits. He mentioned that the County is trying to be consistent in this renumbering project. A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve the proposed house and building numbers for Rural Route 2, Timberlake Subdivision, followed by notification to the Timberlake Postmaster, and the N. C. Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A-240. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 3 Commissioner Insko, to refer Rural Route 8, Stoneridge and Sedgefield Subdivisions to staff for further fact finding, to be returned no sooner than June 25, 1991 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. NEW HOPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN This presentation was made by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan. On September 1, 1987, Mayor Gulley of Durham met with the Mayor of Chapel Hill and the Chairs of the Orange County and Durham County Boards of Commissioners to discuss a cooperative project involving open space preservation along New Hope Creek. The scope of the project was defined to include land along New Hope Creek between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. During the following fifteen months, staff members from each jurisdiction's planning department met to work out alternatives for project implementation. In December of 1988, the elected officials again met to review the open space plan proposal and agreed to send a resolution to the governing body of each jurisdiction, seeking endorsement of the project. The Resolution was adopted by the four jurisdictions during the spring of 1989. Coulter Associates, Landscape Architects and Land Planners, was hired as the consultant later that Year. Since October 1989, an appointed Advisory Committee representing each of the four jurisdictions met with the consultant and planning staff members to produce the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan. The Plan includes recommendations for acquiring critical environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational or recreational value. Acquisition could be through donation, purchase in fee simple, or purchase of development rights. Some of the wildlife corridors should remain in private ownership. The Orange County portions of the Corridor include: a. Wildlife Corridors, including the 100-year floodplain. b. Wildlife Protection Area, including the 100-year floodplain between Erwin Road and the Durham County line. c. Unpaved nature trails d. Bike/pedestrian trails. Mr. Coulter, Coulter Associates, presented the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan using a slide presentation. He indicated that the plan has been divided into 10 geographic components. A copy of this master plan is incorporated herein by reference and may be found in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD 4 Planning Board Chair Betty Eidenier indicated that Jean Hamilton attended all meetings of this committee. She has represented the Planning Board very well and has kept them informed at each step of the way. She also mentioned that the Transportation Committee of the Planning Board is interested in alternatives to automobile transportation, in particular, bicycle lanes. The Planning Board is very much in favor of the recommendation for the bicycle trail that would go from 751 to NC 10 along Mount Herman Church Road at Pleasant Green Rd. to the Eno River State Park. She mentioned that DOT has indicated that adding the extra two (2) feet for the bicycle lanes is quite expensive and that they need some direction from the Commissioners in order to spend the extra money. Commissioner Carey indicated that a preliminary phase in this process includes exploring non-economic and non-regulatory means for acquiring land in this corridor. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT Mr. Don Fox commended the planning that has gone into this proposed wildlife corridor. He pointed out that Site #5 for the landfill is at the headwaters of the entire corridor system. He stated that the Landfill Site Search Committee needs to remember that as they proceed with their search. Mr. Pearson Stewart, Chairman, New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee, pointed out that the original charge by the four governing Boards included investigating a corridor between the Eno River State Park and Jordon Reservoir. The area from Jordon Lake to Duke Forest was an easy problem to solve. However, north of Duke Forest, crossing I-85 to the Eno River State Park is very difficult to accomplish. They were not able to come up with a corridor north of Duke Forrest because it was not possible to find a way to get across I-85. They were able to suggest a system of wildlife corridors, to remain in private ownership, for wildlife purposes, north of Duke Forest. Orange County is being asked to solve the problem of the different aims of private ownership and wildlife access in the same area. The Board of Commissioners is being asked to make a recommendation as to how that can be done. A recommendation has not been made to establish a new organization for the four-County area. He indicated that he believes that each unit of government can solve these problems with the structure they already have in place. Commissioner Willhoit stated that finding a way to extend this corridor north of Duke Forest is a goal that he would like to see accomplished. An additional purpose is served by the corridor in assuring that the urban areas of Hillsborough and Durham will not be able to grow together. If that area is set aside as a buffer between the urban centers, then something could be done when development requests come in for that area. 5 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 August 5th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to ask the Planning Board and staff to consider designating an urban buffer that would connect the Eno State Park with the Corridor Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS A. Z-1-91 James R. Sparrow This item was presented by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Bingham Township. The subject property is located on the north side of NC Highway 54 approximately 900 feet east of the Morrow Mill Road intersection. It is 2.94 acres in size and known as lot 27A on tax map 26 of Bingham Township. The current zoning is Neighborhood Commercial and Agricultural Residential. The applicant is requesting a designation of Local Commercial. The purpose of an LC-1 district is to allow limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the rural and neighborhood level with convenience goods and personal services. The surrounding land on the north and west is zoned AR, but undeveloped; to the south and east are commercial uses. The area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as the BH-1 Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. Currently, there is no other LC-1 zoning within the activity node. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND/OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT Mr. Greg Shepard, Shepard Design Associates, indicated that he was representing Mr. Sparrow on this petition. He mentioned that in 1989 1.92 acres of this 2.92 acre tract was zoned NC-2. At that point a total of 5 acres in this activity node were zoned NC2. He stated that DOT has done a feasibility study for widening NC54. Their feasibility study indicates that they would have to purchase all of the buildable area on this tract. He stated that they feel they have met the four criteria in the zoning ordinance which need to be satisfied in order to propose such a rezoning. Commissioner Gordon stated that the Durham/Chapel Hill TAC deleted the proposed widening of NC54. Because of that it is very unlikely that NC54 will be widened. B. Z-2091 W.E. Blackwood This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of 6 receiving public comments concerning a rezoning request submitted by Thomas J. Whisnant for W. E. Blackwood. The property in question is located on the north side of NC Highway 54 between White Cross Road (SR 1952) and Dodsons Crossroads South (SR 1102) . The property contains 3.00 acres and is specifically described as part of Lot 9 of Tax Map 30 and part of Lot 13 of Tax Map 30B in Bingham Township. The property fronts on NC Highway 54 for a distance of 532 feet and has a depth of 414 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is R-1 Rural Residential and LC- 1 Local Commercial-1. The proposed zoning designation on 2.35 acres of the property is LC-1 Local Commercial-1. The proposed zoning on the remaining 0.65 acres is NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial- 2. The property is located within the BH-2 Rural Community Activity Node as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that the LC-1 and NC-2 zones may be applied to no more than 5. 0 acres each within an activity node of rural population density. At present there is 4. 35 acres zoned NC- 2 and 4 . 65 acres zoned LC-1 at this node. This proposed rezoning would therefore complete the allotment of LC-1 and NC-2 zoned property at this node THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND/OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Thomas Whisnent indicated that this property, as it is currently zoned, has no area for Mr. Blackwood's proposed future use of this property. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer both of these items to the Planning Board, to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 5th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS A. Large Day Care Homes This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving public comments concerning proposed revisions to existing Zoning Ordinance provisions applicable to day care centers. Day care facilities are currently permitted in residential zoning districts upon approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. In commercial and office zoning districts, such facilities are permitted by right. A day-care arrangement which provides care for more than 5 children on a regular basis as defined by the NC Child Day Care Commission is considered a Day Care and must receive approval of a Class B Special Use Permit from the Board of Adjustment. Recently, Child Care Networks contacted the Planning Department about a new category of child care arrangement approved and licensed by the N.C. Child Day Care Commission. The new category is a "large day care home" and is termed a "home" because 7 it is located in a family residence. A large day care home may have up to 15 children, depending on their ages. Child Care Networks requested that large day care homes be permitted as a use by right. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND/OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon indicated that she had several questions for the County Attorney and that she would like to hold the Public Hearing open until the next Board meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Eddleman, Mr. Kirk indicated that in a worst case situation, the Planning Staff estimates that an additional 20 trips per day would be generated. The small day care center is a permitted use which is not regulated by County zoning. Therefore, they do not have statistics on traffic generated by a small day care home. Amy Rabb, Child Care Networks, spoke in support of this request. She indicated that this request would decrease the amount of red tape which is currently required to increase the number of children in a child care home. However, the regulations are still in place to assure that the children are not going to receive a lower quality of care or be placed in an unsafe environment. She indicated that there is a great need for homes of this size in Orange County. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to hold the Public Hearing open until the June 3, 1991 Board of Commissioners meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS A. Administrative Approval of Expired Subdivision Plats This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary, this item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow staff re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats. Under current procedures, the Board of Commissioners may approve a revised phasing plan for an expired Preliminary Plat. If a revision is not approved, the expired portion of the Preliminary Plan must be re-submitted as if it were a new project. In many cases, the re-submitted Preliminary Plan is identical to the original plat. If there have been no major changes in subdivision, zoning, or other regulations which affect the proposal, then the Preliminary Plat is generally re- approved with little or no change. Major design considerations and other issues were addressed and resolved prior to the original approval. In many cases, the approval process for the "new" subdivision is oriented largely toward process, rather than substance. This amendment is proposed to allow staff to re- 8 approve expired Preliminary Plats which meet certain criteria. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD THE MEETING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Mel Rashkis spoke in favor of this amendment. He stated that he feels that this would save the Board of Commissioners, and the developers, time and money. Commissioner Willhoit asked if there could be changes in the surrounding area that would make the outcome of the development different than what was initially approved. Scearbo indicated that in each case the staff would review the terms of the original approval. If anything major had changed, it would automatically be brought back to the Board of Commissioners. The regulations in effect at the time of the reapplication would be adhered to. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko to refer this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board no sooner than August 5th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on June 3, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk