Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19940822 1 APPROVED 9/20/94 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 22, 1994 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, August 22, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, Verla Insko and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Bill Waddell, and members Virginia Boland, Paul Hoecke, Clint Burklin, Saregene G. Boericke, Elizabeth Walters, Cherie Rosemond, Larry Reid, and Karen Barrows. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Planning Director Marvin Collins and Planners Eddie Kirk and Mary Scearbo, EDC Director Ted Abernathy and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting. He indicated that Planning Board Chair Bill Waddell would Chair the remainder of the meeting. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The public charge was not read. C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Amendments Related to I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) CP-4-94 I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District b. Zoning Atlas Amendments (1) Z-4-94 I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Economic Development Districts (Approval Procedures d. Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Economic Development Districts (Approval Procedures) These items were presented by Marvin Collins for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a series of amendments related to boundary adjustments in the I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District, and various approval procedures applicable to such districts. When the I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District was approved on March 2, 1994, several properties were split by the Economic Development District boundaries on either the Land Use Plan or Zoning Atlas. During the public hearings concerning the district proposals, the owners requested that all of their property be included in the Economic Development 2 District category. In addition to the Land Use Plan boundaries, several properties were split by either the "zoning district" boundary or by a "development area" boundary identified in the Economic Development Districts Design Manual. The owners requested that adjustments be made in the Primary and Secondary Development Area designations to include all of their property. Also, when the Board of Commissioners approved the Economic Development Districts proposals, the issue of the approval for each proposal was discussed. The proposals for how to approve the Special Use Permits, Site Plans, Subdivision, and Planned Development were presented. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon stated that according to her understanding of the original proposal to create Economic Development Districts, there was no intent to remove oversight of these large projects from the Board of Commissioners. She felt it was important for elected officials to have that oversight. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Bill Clayton, an Orange County citizen, stated that he was in favor of zoning. However, he requested that this area remain in residential zoning. R.L. Clayton, an Orange County resident, spoke in opposition to this rezoning. She requested that it remain residential and all future landowners be alerted to the fact that it will remain residential. She feels that rezoning this land will devalue her investment. Frankie Baker, an Orange County resident and mobile home park owner, requested that his entire property be zoned either residential or commercial. He felt that it would place a financial burden on him to have part of it zoned commercial and the remainder zoned residential. Chair Waddell suggested that Mr. Baker meet with Mr. Collins to clarify his concerns and to submit further comments in writing. R.L. Clayton requested clarification on the 100 foot buffer and the 30' D.O.T. buffer. Mr. Collins indicated that if the property owner would suffer a hardship with the 100' foot buffer they have the right to use the Planned Development Process as long as the intent of this district is not abandoned. Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the most significant effect on the land occurs when it is zoned and during the subdivision approval process and with the permitted uses that are allowed. The individual specific development proposals should be directed by the design manual and the design standards. It should not make any difference if staff or the Board of Commissioners are interpreting it. The outcome should be the same. When 500 acres are developed, either by a series of small steps or by a large step, the outcome would then be as prescribed. The developers have stated that the length of time necessary for the process is an important factor in the cost of the process. They have requested 3 predictability. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these items to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Other Zoning Atlas Amendments a. Z-5-94 Major Business Forms This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Hillsborough Township as requested by Major Business Forms, Inc. The property is located at the northwest corner of Coleman Loop Road and NC 86 where Coleman Loop joins NC 86 at its southwest intersection. Adjacent land uses include undeveloped agricultural and residential land. There is one undeveloped PD-II lot at the southwest corner of the intersection. A portion of the 21-acre tract is zoned Light Industrial (L-1) . The remaining property is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) . The applicant proposes to rezone the remaining 17. 052 acres from AR to L. 1 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD In response to a question, Mr. Kirk indicated that the southwest corner of this intersection is zoned PDII and is not developed. The buffer requirement for I-1 is 100 feet. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, 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 October 5, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Other Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Public Hearing Notice Requirements This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to notification requirements for amendments to the Zoning Atlas. Effective January 1, 1994, the North Carolina General Statutes (H.S. 153A-342) allow for certain rezoning actions to be advertised through enhanced newspaper advertisement instead of notification by mail to all affected property owners. The proposed amendment specifies situations in which notification by mail of individual property owners is not required. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon said she is opposed to this proposal. She feels that it is important to communicate with citizens individually, not through the newspapers. 4 Ms. Willis indicated that if this proposal was approved citizens outside the newspaper circulation area would continue to be notified through the mail. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Joyce Stanford, and Orange County resident and landowner, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She requested that citizens continue to be notified through the mail. Commissioner Insko commented that this is an example of how growth costs money and the current property owners are asked to pay those costs for new residents. A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Radio/TV Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving citizen comment. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would add new requirements for additional information and standards of evaluating communication towers. Currently a Class B Special Use Permit is required. If the Board of Adjustment determines that all of the ordinance criteria are met, the permit is approved. If the proposed amendment is approved, towers would have to be built to accommodate an additional use. The additional user would be responsible for working out cost-sharing with the original owner . THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Diane Shaw, an Orange County resident and member of the Board of Adjustment, spoke in support of this proposal. She commented that citizens are concerned about the frequency with which these towers are going up. David Helms, with Cellular One, indicated that they would support this proposal with one exception. He requested that each tower user be required to build their own storage shed. It would not cause them a problem to have two sheds at the base of the tower; however, they foresee difficulties if the same shed is shared. He agreed to send the Planning Board an information report on these towers. Frances Douglas, an Orange County resident, spoke in support of this amendment. She indicated that towers devalue nearby residences. It is in the landowners' and tower owners' best interest to combine uses on new towers. Paul Cook, a Buck Horn Road resident, indicated that two towers are 5 located near his home. He requested that an amendment be approved which would required that tower access roads have gates installed in order to deter their use by drinkers. He also requested that the County consider making this retroactive. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, 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 October 5, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Borrow Pits/State & Federal Highway Projects This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment. This proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will allow a borrow pit associated with a state or federal highway construction project as a use permitted by right in all zoning districts. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Willis indicated that the Federal Government would not have to request the right to use land for a borrow pit except in situations where they do not own the land. Commissioner Willhoit requested that staff consider this request in terms of the principles for sustainable communities. Construction rubble being buried, rather than reused, is worrisome. EPA promotes the reuse of construction materials. Clint Burklin requested information contrasting Orange County's and the Federal Government's erosion control programs. Ms. Willis indicated that she was not familiar with the differences, but the staff person in charge of Orange County's erosion control program could come to a Planning Board meeting and report on this program. Commissioner Gordon asked how the reclamation could be enforced if this was a use by right. Ms. Willis indicated that if the borrow pit was not reclaimed, it would no longer be a use by right and would require a Special Use Permit. John Link stated that the County has no authority where D.O.T. pursues the borrow pit process through their own right of way. This proposal would allow D.O.T. to save the tax dollars necessary to purchase the right-of-way if they agree to reclaim the land. If they do not follow through with the reclamation, the county could delete this provision. D.O.T. would then be required to purchase the property. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a 6 recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Other Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments a. Lot Boundaries (Public Rights-of-Way) This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would require that property lines for individual lots extend only to the edge of a public road right-of-way and that the area within private road easements be included within lot boundaries. b. Lot Layout (Land Hooks) This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment which would allow, in some circumstances, a new lot to contain land area on both sides of a private road easement. c. Private Road Standards Curve Radius This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow for modification of the 125-foot curve radius for subdivisions served by existing private roads which have a lesser radius. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Willis indicated that the proposed amendment to allow a new lot to contain land area on both sides of a private road easement is necessary to deal with the occasional unusually shaped property. Currently adjustments to the location of the road or property line are required in order to meet the technical requirements. The technical requirements do not always appear appropriate or correct for the land. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer these items to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on September 6, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the Northern Human Services Center, Cedar Grove, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk