Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19951127 w APPROVED 1/16/96 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 27, 1995 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, November 27, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the A.L. Stanback Middle School Auditorium in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Don Willhoit, Alice Gordon and William Crowther COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Bill Waddell, and members Joan Jobsis, Cheryl Howie, Leo Allison, Margaret Brown, Renee Price, Karen Barrows, Bill Waddell, Arnie Katz and Elizabeth Walters. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr., Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Mary Willis, David Stancil, Don Belk and Jim Hinkley and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. Note: All documents referred to in these minutes are located, in their entirety, in the permanent agenda files in the Clerk's office. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting. He mentioned that everyone, including staff, who wished to speak on the Special Use Permit (C.3.a) would be sworn in prior to giving testimony. He stated that Bill Waddell, Chair of the Planning Board, would serve as the Chair for all items on the agenda, with the exception of the request for a Special Use Permit for Reba and Roses. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (a) CP-2-95 Charles W. And James L. Davis (Rural Residential to 20-Year Transition) This item was presented by David Stancil to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. A proposal to expand an 2 existing Twenty-Year Transition Area has been received from Mr. Charles W. Davis and Mr. James L. Davis for part of a parcel in their ownership lying between NC 86 and Old Chapel Hill- Hilisborough Road (Old 86), south of the Town of Hillsborough. The area proposed for re- designation is a 50-acre portion of a 108-acre parcel on the southeast side of Cates Creek in Hillsborough Township. The 50-acre portion is currently designated Rural Residential, while the remainder of the parcel is already designated Twenty-Year Transition. The property is undeveloped and is adjacent to the 1-40/Old 86 Economic Development District. The designation of Twenty-Year Transition, if applied, would allow potential rezoning of the property to higher-density residential uses in the future. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD. None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. Martin Brown, a resident of Stagecoach Run, mentioned that a small section of Stagecoach Run abuts the property in question. He requested that the Stagecoach Run portion be maintained in the R-1 zoning to preserve the neighborhood. Also, the portion of their land that abuts the Economic Development District has a 100 foot buffer. He requested that the portion that abuts the area requesting the 20-Year Transition designation also be given a 100 foot buffer. He asked what the highest density zoning was that could be anticipated and if there would be an additional opportunity to review proposed development in the future. Planner David Stancil stated that the highest density zoning district is R-13, however, it has never been used. There are several small R-8 (8 units to the acre) designations and several R-5 (5 acres per acre) designations. This Public Hearing is about an appropriate change in designation only. An actual rezoning would require a subsequent public hearing. The issue of the buffer would also be addressed at that time. Jean Brooks asked for clarification about the boundaries of the area in question. David Stancil clarified those boundaries. Jay Zaragoza, the land planner for the Davis property, indicated that he was pleased with the staffs recommendation and their support of this change. He stated that the Davis' are considering the use of a cul-de-sac. The developed lots in Stagecoach Run would then not be attached to this subdivision. This would eliminate through traffic as a consideration. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3• (b) CP-3-95 Land Use Plan Amendment (Natural and Cultural Resources) This item was presented by Marvin Collins to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Revisions were proposed to the Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County and the "Water Resources" section through which to implement, in part, the State's Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989. The proposed revisions were listed in their entirety in the agenda. The administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 16, 1996. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE PLANNING BOARD. None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. Steve Yuhaz asked for clarification about the practical effect of the designation and questions if it would be used within the zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations. Marvin Collins stated that many of these features are currently regulated through existing ordinances. The limitations created by poor soils cause difficulty in getting preliminary soil analysis approved by the Health Department. The natural areas and historic sites are covered through the Environmental Impact Ordinance requirements as well as through the potential cluster subdivision option that exist in the subdivision regulations. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ZONING Atlas Amendments (a) Z-7-95 Vernon P. And Barbara S. Davis (AR to AS) This item was presented by Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a Zoning Atlas amendment request submitted by Vernon P. And Barbara S. Davis. The Davis' request rezoning of a 4.67 acre portion of a 10.01-acre lot from Agricultural-Residential (AR) to Agricultural Service (AS). The property is located in the southwest corner of NC 54 and White Cross Road (SR 1952) and is known as Lot No. 6.30..7M. The proposed zoning lots abuts a .17 -acre (50' x 150') NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial parcel, known as Lot No. 6.30..7B. The property is located in the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. Commissioner Gordon said that it appeared that even if this request was granted, the septic system would not be in compliance. 4 Mary Willis indicated that current zoning would not allow the septic system and the rezoning to Agricultural Services would not change that. She stated that the Board of Commissioners could refer this item to the Health Board and the Planning Board to look at a solution. Commissioner Gordon stated that she would like to see it referred to the Health and Planning Boards to look at the septic system issue. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. Tom Whisnant, owner of the White Cross School which is located across from this site, spoke against granting this request. White Cross School is a working artists community and an empowerment project. The North Carolina Writers Network is located here. He was not concerned about this request until he researched the AS designation and discovered that it allowed both warehousing and storage. The Planning Staff indicated that the applicant has discussed both a storage facility for Southern Bell as well as mini-warehouses. The community intends to present a petition opposing this use. If this request is granted, the applicant could then pursue either of these options simply by applying for a building permit. He asked that the Commissioners reject this request. David Kasper lives across the street from this property and does not support this proposal. It appears likely that 4 acres of self-storage units are an option and that would not be in line with the community vision. He requested that the Board of Commissioners reject this request. Barbara Trent stated that she lives in the immediate community and does not support this proposal. She asked that the County send out another notice and include all residents as well as land owners. Weldon Rigsbee spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. He felt that this would greatly detract from the value of the surrounding land. He also mentioned that the sewage lines run though the field. He asked if it was permissible to put a building in the same location as the sewer lines. Mary Willis stated that only the rezoning and the variety of allowed uses are being considered now. Even if the property were to be rezoned, a site plan would still have to be approved prior to the start of construction. The site plan would have to comply with all county zoning regulations. It is not permissible to build over septic systems. The Zoning Ordinance also requires buffering that would be adjacent to residential zoning. Stan Lewis, a White Cross property owner, spoke against this proposal. He felt that it would be an eyesore. He requested that it not be rezoned. 5 Renee Price, Planning Board member, asked about the existing use of the property. Mary Willis indicated that the total tract consists of approximately 10 acres. There is a residence on the southern most portion which is not being proposed for rezoning. There is nothing on the portion being proposed for the rezoning. There is an antique store with a zoning of NC-2 on the corner. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to refer to the Planning Board and the Board of Health the problem of the septic system being located in an illegal zoning district for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer to the Planning Board a request that they review the permitted uses for Agricultural Services District and recommend if there should be a change. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) Z-8-95 Jones Concrete (AR to EC-5) This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a Zoning Atlas Amendment request submitted by the Orange County Planning Department. The Planning Staff requests the rezoning of a 1.54-acre lot owned by Henry Ernest Jones at 5908 NC 86 North also known as lot No 2.33..5. The premises has been used commercially for Jones Concrete Service since 1969. The request is to rezone the property from AR to EC-5 to correct an oversight during the original zoning of Cedar Grove Township. The Administration recommends that the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 16, 1996. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. Mark Sheridan, attorney for Henry Jones, spoke in support of this request. He mentioned that Mr. Jones has been in the concrete service business for 35 years. He thanked Ms. Willis for her candor in acknowledging the oversight in the zoning process. Mr. Jones was denied a request for a permit to rebuild a structure damaged by fire. He was told that he did not have the proper zoning. At that time the Planning Department filed the application on Mr. 6 Jones' behalf and waived the fee. He commended them for their initiative. He requested that the zoning be changed. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. SPECIAL USE PERMITS (a) SUP(A)-1-95 Reba and Roses (Non-Residential Use-Historic Structure) The following people were sworn in to speak on this item: Mary Willis, Laura Baldwin, Jo Barbour, Stephen Roberts and John Hartwell. This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a Class A Special Use Permit Application for non- residential use of a historic structure. This Special Use Permit Application was submitted by Laura Baldwin allowing her to continue the operation of Reba And Roses gift and garden shop/greenhouse at 112 Baldwin Road. The business is located in a former farm building on a historic site known as Sunnyside. The non-residential use of the property is currently in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. However, non-residential use of historic structures is allowed with approval of a Special Use Permit. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. A Planning Board member asked why the Special Use Permit was not requested several years ago. Mary Willis stated that when this business started it was simply a greenhouse and did not require a Special Use Permit. It has evolved into a business that does require a Special Use Permit. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. Mary Baldwin, owner of Reba and Roses, spoke in support of this request. She is committed to preserving the rural character or the area. She provides a place for local artists to display their work. She also sells products that fit in with the atmosphere of rural character. She distributed pictures of the greenhouse, the converted chicken house and surrounding land. She stated that this is a commercial enterprise and a labor of love. Their customers come to shop and to relax and visit. She requested that she be allowed to continue the business. Jo Barbour lives in the area of Reba and Roses and is a customer. It is a wonderful place to go and visit. She requested that this request be approved. She urged that the Board of Commissioners support cottage industries. Stephen Roberts indicated that he shares the property line and road with Reba and Roses. He felt that this business is not suitable for the area, however, he requested that the Commissioners approve the Special Use Permit with one condition. That condition would be 7 that Ms. Baldwin would be required to participate equally in paving the road and the right-of- way from St. Mary's Road to Reba and Roses. He also asked that the Reba and Roses facilities be inspected to assure that they meet all State safety standards and Federal handicap accessibility standards. John Hartwell spoke in support of this Special Use Permit. He stated that he has discussed this request with most of the neighbors and each one of them supports her request. The neighborhood wants to see this approved. He did express concern about necessary improvements to the road and the intersection at St. Mary's. He requested that the Commissioners consider apportioning the road costs so that those who will benefit from the improvements are required to help with the costs. Laura Baldwin requested that the Commissioners take into account that the cost of road improvements for subdivisions are factored into the cost of the homes. It is not possible for her to pass on the cost of improving this road to her customers. It would be an unreasonable and devastating economic hardship on her. She also felt that only she bears the burden of traffic to Reba and Roses. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A letter was received from Virginia Balhman in support of this proposal. A copy of this letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. A letter in support of this proposal was received from Dan Leigh, Executive Director of the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce. A copy of this letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. A letter in support of this proposal was received from Sherry Caplan. A copy of this letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (a) Article 8.8.17 Telecommunications This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis to receive comment on a proposed amendment concerning Special Use Permit requirements for telecommunication towers. The proliferation of telecommunication towers is an issue of concern to Orange County as well as other jurisdictions nationwide. After reviewing provisions which have been adopted in a number of other jurisdictions, the Planning staff recommends a proposed amendment. The key aspects of this amendment are as follows: Telecommunication towers would be established as a separate use and would require approval of a Class B Special Use Permit by the Board of Adjustment. The set back to non-residential property lines could be reduced to 50% of the height of the tower if the remaining distance were included within an easement on adjoining property. A type C Land Use Buffer (40 feet in width) would need to be provided. 8 Specific documentation to indicate that efforts to co-locate on an existing tower were unsuccessful must be provided. Issues of tower color, lighting and view from historic site, scenic road and major view corridor must be resolved. Obsolete towers must be removed. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. Planning Board member Bill Waddell asked about the request that engineers could provide evidence that a setback includes the potential collapse zone. Mary Willis commented that the industry representatives are able to calculate the collapse zone. It is possible to calculate where a tower would break if it were to fall. It is also possible to calculate the area to which the debris would be contained. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. Jim Cain, a representative of the Carolina PCS Limited Partnership, made several comments. This Partnership, which is comprised of Bell South Corporation, Duke Power Company, Carolina Power& Light and the 31 independent telephone companies in North Carolina, was formed to bring to the citizens of North Carolina a new technology called Personal Communication Services. This is a new technology, recently licensed by the FCC, which provides a wider range of services and operates at a lower power than existing cellular services. This is a digital rather than an analog technology which means that it can transmit data as well as voice. This provides greater clarity and security. All of the towers that use this new technology will be lower than 200 feet. The concerns that he has about this proposed amendment include the possibility that it will be too restrictive for this new technology to grow and expand. He asked that incentives be implemented to encourage all companies to build their systems without constructing new towers. Other possible places to locate using "stealth technology" are bell towers and church steeples, water towers, and tall buildings. Stealth technology would be a tower hidden or disguised in conjunction with another use. He suggested that the incentives would be the cost savings as well as the possibility that the Board of Commissioners could exempt "stealth technology" locations from the Use Permit process and allow for staff approval. He also commented on the suggested standard for"unreasonable interference with the view" from historic sites, scenic roads or major view corridor. He felt that it would be impossible to accurately determine this standard because of its subjectivity. If the intent is to assure that the tower is in harmony with the area of location, that standard already exists in the ordinance. Rick Isherwood, Manager of Forsythe Development for GT Mobil Net (owner/operation of Cellular One), reiterated Mr. Cain's comments. He disagreed with the requirement that industry notify other companies about intention to erect a tower. The construction of towers which support co-location of towers is already required. County staff is aware of all activity and is the logical entity to keep track of new requests for towers and/or tower use and matching those requests with already erected towers with available space. He also felt that requiring this type of notification unfairly handicaps current tower owners both competitively and from a capital 9 investment standpoint. Another area in which he expressed concern was the "fall zone" requirement. The industry does not feel that "fall zones" are necessary. There are 2000 towers across the United States and there has never been a tower failure. He requested that these towers not be compared with the T.V. towers which are in excess of 1000 feet. He also commented that the 100 foot setback is not necessary or reasonable. John Weldon, with BellSouth Personal Communications, expressed agreement with previous comments. He addressed the issue of"stealth technology" which refers to antennas that do not look like antennas. He recommended that a task force be created to look at this technology to assure that they meet the intended nature and intent of the technology. When they are approved as "stealth technology" the industry could be provided relief from subdivision setback regulations and other Special Use Regulations. He indicated that he would work with staff to present examples of how the Special Use Request process and subdivision process work together to create burdens on their industry. Jerry Eatman, North Carolina General Counsel for Sprint Cellular, expressed several concerns. He mentioned that the requirement to share tower space indicates that a letter needs to be sent to all owners of towers within a one mile radius. This raises the concern for industry staff that they could be requested to locate a mile from their original requested site. The site locations are not flexible and would not provide the necessary coverage if they were required to locate at another location. There is a real financial motivation to locate on existing towers where that is possible. The additional paperwork will not increase that motivation. He also felt that requiring that applicants for new towers send notification to a preexisting list is not workable for industry staff. The Special Use Permit process already requires co-location wherever possible. This adds additional paperwork and questions about who gets on the list. He asked for clarification that the buffer is to be around the tower compound rather than the entire perimeter of the tract. Also, that the setback is from the base of the tower to the adjacent property line rather than the base of the tower to the lease line. Mary Willis indicated that the buffer is to be around the tower compound but that the set back is from the base of the tower to the lease line. Mr. Eatman asked that the setback requirement be reconsidered so that it deals with adjoining property owners and adjoining property lines rather than simply increasing the size of the parcel that needs to be leased. Jeff Lansing, with DialCall in Cary, agreed with the previous comments. He requested that a open discussion be held with industry and County staff, the Planning Board, citizens , and County Commissioners to facilitate developing standards. Commissioner Willhoit asked if it was true that land in an easement area could not be cultivated. He mentioned that many of the issues to be addressed in the application do not relate to telecommunications, but to the tower itself. He asked that the Planning Board address the issue of whether the Special Use Permit ought to apply to a tower. • 10 Mary Willis replied that the subdivision regulations addressed that issue. Land leased for this particular purpose is considered under subdivision regulations and must receive approval in order to create a lot for the principal use as opposed to just having an easement. It would not specifically prohibit cultivation of that land. Commissioner Gordon asked if the buffer was related to the lease line because other nearby lots could have homes on them. She also asked for further clarification regarding the objection to mailing notification to a specified list. Mary Willis indicated that the buffering is required around the base of the tower to shield the view around the base of the tower. It could be around the perimeter if, for instance, it was a two acre area. It is more likely that it would be around the base of the tower. Jerry Eatman, indicated that the primary objection is that the list and who gets on the list would involve the Planning Department in the day-to-day operation of the business of these companies. He felt that the free-enterprise line is crossed when County staff keeps a list of competitors who must be notified. The issues involved for the industry are financial and competitive. John Weldon mentioned that his company, BellSouth, is the newest company in this business. AT&T will soon be coming to this market and they will be a direct competitor. They do not want to be required to co-locate with a direct competitor. Lee Rafalow stated that in his opinion the only reason that these companies do not want notification requirements is so that the public will not be informed. Mary Willis stated that the provision of the list is to allow everyone to be on an equitable basis. It is possible to reword this section of the Amendment to accomplish this. The intent is to have tower owners identified, as well as to identify all additional users. New users would be added to the list. Companies not erecting the towers themselves, but who have equipment to co-locate, would also be included. The intent of the Amendment was to have as large a comprehensive list as possible. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) Article 6.16 Home Occupations This item was presented by Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the intent of Article 6.16.6.3 regarding screening of home occupations on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet (4.59 acres). The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 16, 1996. 11 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Gordon asked how it would be assured that the accessory buildings would not be visible to adjacent roads and property. Mary Willis stated that by reviewing the Site Plan and the landscape on the property a determination would be made. It would not apply in cases where the proposal was to plant vegetation that would eventually grow to be an adequate shield. In this particular case, the shield would have to be in place and already existing within a wooded area. Commissioner Gordon asked if it was possible that changes could occur in the future which would cause it to be visible from the road. Also, she asked why this would be a burdensome requirement to this landowner since the required setbacks are relatively small. Mary Willis replied that there are two scenarios where it can be a burden on the homeowner. One is when there is an existing structure which could be used as a home occupation, and where it would be permissible to use it for a residence but not for a home occupation. There are cases where such structures exist on a property and the owners wish to use them for a home occupation. The problem exists because it does not meet this requirement. The other situation that can occur is where there is a large lot with the residence located at the back of the lot. It may not be feasible to require the accessory buildings to be behind the residence. This is a matter of requesting the flexibility to work with existing situations. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that by definition, home occupations are in residential areas, and 30 or 40 feet of buffer may not be adequate to protect the neighbors. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS None. A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (a) Private Road Standards (Class AA Private Roads) This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a proposed subdivision regulations text amendment to allow up to 50 lots to be served by a private road provided that specified design criteria are met. These regulations currently require that no more than 25 lots be served by a private road. The proposed amendment would create a new private road class (Class AA) to serve 26 to 50 lots being served by a private road. The 12 Class AA road would be paved, but would not be required to meet all of the criteria required by NCDOT for acceptance into the State road system. The quality of the road would be adequate to serve traffic, while providing for greater flexibility in design and character of the subdivision. The increase in design flexibility could also be an incentive used to encourage open space development. This amendment also addresses the situations where 25 lots currently are served by one road. This amendment would allow for the applicant of the Class AA standard to add additional lots. It would also allow the Board of Commissioners to approve a subdivision which results in a cumulative total of 26 to 50 lots on an existing road which does not fully meet the new Class AA private paved road standards if: the road exceeds Class A private road standards in either width or surfacing requirements, Emergency Management has certified that the road is adequate for access by emergency vehicles, and at least 1/2 of the lots which are served by the private road are already developed. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Gordon asked why this amendment was being presented. Mary Willis stated that there were two reasons. One was the discussion that came up regarding the flexible development proposals and how to deal with roads. The more specific incident was a private road that is served by 25 lots and the property owner on that road wanting to subdivide and create one additional lot. In this case there was no possibility of granting the request unless the ordinance was amended. Commissioner Gordon stated that it was a big change in policy to allow the number of lots on a private road to double. There could be a more measured approach to allow only a small number of additional lots in an already existing subdivision. In the case of new subdivisions, the use of private roads was recommended as an incentive by the Rural Character Committee to encourage the preservation of open space. Commissioner Gordon also noted that this amendment would double the number of lots in a subdivision that would involve maintenance of private roads. If a change like this is made, it should only be used to provide an incentive for the preservation of open space. Renee Price asked if there would be additional liability to the County as a result of this change in policy. Mary Willis indicated that would be covered in the Private Road maintenance agreement which is required for all private roads. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Bill Terry spoke in support of this Amendment. He would like to subdivide a four (4) acre lot off of his property and is currently not able to do that. The Homeowners Association which maintains that road is willing for him to add this lot. 13 Jay Zaragoza spoke against this proposal. He commented that private paved roads create problems because no one wants to pay for the maintenance. These problems are avoided by building to state standards. Vic Knight spoke in support of this proposed amendment change. The Private Road Maintenance Agreements are reviewed by the County Attorney. They are also carefully explained to new homeowners at the time of Closing. A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS III. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PROPOSALS This item was presented by David Stancil to receive citizen comment on open space development strategies, including a staff generated Flexible Development Proposal. He reviewed the timeline for this project which began in December of 1993 with a work session between the governing boards of Orange County and Hillsborough. At that meeting it was agreed to establish the University Station Planning Group. As a result of the work by citizens and staff , three basic approaches have been recommended. They are: The Rural Character Study Committee recommendations; The "Status Quo"; and A"Cluster Option" incorporating a mandatory 50% open space requirement and density limits based on the carrying capacity of the soils. The Planning Staff has prepared a proposal which consists of three parts. The first section contains "Goals and Action Strategies" (as recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee). The second section contains a "Flexible Development" option. The "Flexible Development" option has been prepared in the format of an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. This entire report is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS David Stancil replied to a question from Commissioner Gordon. He stated that the conventional and flexible development proposals would be considered together and either both of them would be approved or both of them would be denied. This will assure that the process is not used to mandate flexible development. Mary Willis noted that Concept Plan approval is the Planning Board's commitment that, if the Preliminary Plan comes in essentially the same as the Concept Plan, then the Planning Board will recommend approval. Commissioner Gordon asked if it would be necessary for developers to submit two plans, or could they submit only a flexible development proposal. If that happens, how would staff know how many lots to approve. David Stancil replied that if the developer intends to submit only a flexible development 14 proposal there is no need to prepare a conventional concept plan. There is also an exemption for developments that involve affordable housing units. The development of a "Yield Plan", using either a soil survey or random site testing of 10-15% of the site, is still a part of the process and determines the number of lots permitted. The Yield Plan also utilizes existing zoning. The options available are to use existing soil maps developed as part of the Soil Survey, or actual site testing, working with the soil scientists in Environmental Health. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING BOARD Planning Board Member Karen Barrows commented that she is disappointed by the provisions concerning low and moderate income housing. She felt that it sent the wrong message and was perhaps even discriminatory to allow developers of such projects to submit only a conventional plan. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS BY CITIZENS John Roger, a resident of Hideaway Drive, felt that the Flexible Development Plan does not give adequate attention to sources of water. He mentioned his concern to Commissioner Gordon earlier in the year, and she said that staff was studying water resources in the County to clarify the status of the aquifers that exist in the area. He noted, in particular, that the proposal does not give enough attention to water resources. Attention is given to how to dispose of the water after it is used but not to where the water is going to come from. He is concerned that cluster development will result in well failures. Jay Zaragoza spoke against the portion of the proposal which would allow multiple homes to be connected to a community sewage disposal system. He stated that the history of these systems is one of failure, and often necessitates bailout by the County. He spoke in support of the overall plan but asked that this portion be eliminated. Nick Tennyson, Executive Vice-President of the Home Builders Association of Durham- Orange County, stated that he was impressed with the positive tone of the document. He asked that the County keep in mind that the complexity of rules could result in higher costs. He also asked for assurance that the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Staff will stay in communication with other county departments, especially Environmental Health, who oversee different aspects of the regulation process. Bob Strayhorn stated that he was 100% in favor of the proposal. He commended staff on the good work that they did. He felt that the rural landowners will accept the plan, and it would encourage protection of open space as well as affordable homes. John Hartwell, spoke in support of the plan. He likes the voluntary nature. He commended the Commissioners on their leadership in this matter. 15 Vic Knight commended the staff people and volunteers who worked on the plan. He indicated that he supports 80% of the plan. He would like to see more clarification on the issues. He commented that much of what is currently required by the Subdivision Ordinance is static. He approves the flexible development concept but feels that there are still many unresolved issues. He mentioned that there are bonuses, other than density bonuses, that developers are willing to use, and for which the public is willing to pay. He felt that allowing a developer to present only a flexible development plan was discriminatory. He was disturbed by the statement that Flexible Development pertains everywhere in the County except the Rural Buffer Zoning District. Mary Willis mentioned that the Planning Board uses the Concept Plan to identify issues that are likely to come up in the Preliminary Plan. Approval with conditions would continue in a similar fashion. The Planning Board would look at both plans and would approve both plans. That approval could be "with conditions" for both Conventional and Flexible Development options. Lee Rafalow commented that good work has been done here. However, he felt that the proposal would create different and possibly better suburban sprawl. A 33% requirement of open space is inadequate. It will not achieve the objectives that he sees as necessary for promoting agricultural, wildlife habitats, and conservation. He mentioned a November 10 Wall Street Journal article which discussed conservation oriented development. The article discussed open space developments ranging from 68% to 98%. He asked that options continue to be explored and provided to encourage flexible development. However, he also requested that the importance of zoning regulations not be forgotten. Bob Hall, a member of the Economic Development Commission, spoke in support of the proposal to encourage open space. He spoke in support of requiring an open space concept plan, and limited density bonuses for affordable housing. He also supported the concept of higher design standards or disincentives for conventional subdivisions, including paved streets with bike lanes, sidewalks, construction setbacks, and tree lined buffers for major roads. He asked for caution regarding expanding the menu of land development options for building in rural Orange County. Too many options could create incentives and cause it to be more profitable to develop. He also questioned the bonus options which allows off-site land to be protected through conservation easements and used to increase the number of homes being built. He asked that the density bonus section be written so that it can be used only to create the kind of homes that the County wants and needs. Another issue he addressed was setting the minimum open space at 33% of all land. Carrboro's standard is 40% in their Urban Transition Area. For the County to accept 33% invites a developer to build deeper into the County. The standard is based on all land, not just buildable land. The 33% would allow for steep slopes, wet lands, and flood plains to be counted toward open space. He stated that Randall Arendt recommends 50% of buildable land. He asked that this percentage be reviewed and revised. He asked that the concept involving the "Village Option" be pulled from this plan and sent to public hearing separately for further discussion and input. Dan Bromal, an Eno Township resident, asked that the County consider the cost of 16 administering the additional standards. Marty Mandell, a Carrboro resident, spoke in support of mandatory open space. Carrboro has mandated 40% open space. They do not give density rewards for the open space. Rural Orange County should increase the amount of open space by not including unbuildable land in that percentage. Clear cutting needs to be prohibited. She also requested that the issue of open space continuity be addressed. Dolly Hunter, Chair of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board, mentioned that the Advisory Board is teaching the Planning and Agricultural staffs, and the public, the process of establishing conservation easements and land protection for tax benefits. If open space becomes mandatory whenever land is subdivided then conservation easements could not be counted toward meeting the open space requirements. If open space becomes mandatory, then incentives for dedicated conservation easements would be lost in this county. Robert Harrell sent a letter to the Board of Commissioners which supports this proposal with some reservations. He suggested at least 50% open space or the exclusion of buildable land from the calculations be considered. This letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to forward the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 16, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners is scheduled for December 4, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk