Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19811123 1.^ 0006 2. r� 3e 4. MINUTES 5. NOVEMBER 23, 1984- 5. 7, The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session_. .. 8, on Monday, November 23, 1981., at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroor- 9. Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 10. Commissioners present: Commissioner Anne Barnes, Chair, and Commissioners Norman Gustaveson, Norman Walker, Richard Whitted and . 12. Don Willhoit. 13. A. Comments from the Board l4. . . Commissioner Whitted suggested the Board consider Items D. and. 15. E first on the agenda. 16. D. Recreation Department: Resolution 17. for Bob Strayhorn 18. Mr. Wayne Weston, Recreation Director, told the Board that Mr. 19. Strayhorn had been awarded the highest level of recognition that can 20. be given in North Carolina to a citizen. Mr. Thomas Stein of the ?l. North Carolina Parks Society read the Resolution presented- to M. 22. Strayhorn in a reenactment of the special citation he received on 23. November 17, 1981. 24. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, 25. to adopt a Resolution of Appreciation for Bob Strayhorn from the 26. people of Orange County. (For a copy of that Resolution, see page 27. of this book.) Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 28. Commissioner Barnes read the Resolution of Appreciation to Mr. 29. Strayhorn and presented it to him. 30. E. Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Board. 31. Planning Board members present: Pat Crawford, Chair, and members 32_ Tom Bacon, Art Cleary, Claudine Harris, Logan Irvin, Steve Kizer, 33. Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Lunsford, David Shanklin, and John Wilson. 34- All persons who addressed the Boards were sworn by Commissioner 35. Barnes. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 2. 3• 4. 1. The Timbers: Class A Special Use Permit and Rezoning 5. Mr. Jim Polatty and Mr. Rick Cannity, planning Director and 6. Staff, respectively, presented the Planning Department's evidence 7. describing the site and its conformance or non-conformance with the 8. Zoning Ordinance, Article 8 (A copy of their remarks is on page 9. of this book) . Planning Staff said it did not feel that the-site 10. plan promotes the health, safety and public welfare because: . ___.11. 1) a buffer around the site is inadequately addressed; - 2) building to building setbacks don't provide enough 12. privacy for each unit; 3) there is no plan for pedestrian circulation; 13• 4) no parking_and travelway separation. 14• The second general standard is maintenance of the value of . 15• contiguous property; Mr. Polatty said this standard was for the 16• neighbors to present evidence. The final general standard was 17• that the site plan be in compliance with development for the County; 18. Mr. Polatty said it met the requirements for such development in 19• that location (for high intensity residential districts) , it is locate-: .!0• in the Hillsborough ten year transition area; and that traffic be '1• directed onto a road designated as a collector and that Orange Grove 22• Road is such a road. However, the development dolls not comply with 23• certain policies in the Land Use Plan; specifically, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 24• and 13.3. Planning Department fears there may be a problem due to 25• the proximity of the site with 1-85 and proposed 2-40 with regard to 26• the noise impact on the site. A question as to the provision of a 276 buffer and adequate recreational facilities for the site remain. 28• Mr. Polatty said the applicant also requested a variance on �9• the required setbacks. 30• Mr. Cannity listed specific standards which the applicant must 31• fulfill: 1) Method and adequacy of disposal of waste, water and '2• sewage. Mr. Cannity said the developer would place two dumpsters _3• on the site and the water and sewer was from the Town of Hillsborough. 346 2) Method and adequacy of Police, Fire and Rescue protection--supplied 359 respectively by Orange County Sheriff's Department, Orange Rural 36&, Fire Department and Orange County Rescue Squad. 3) Traffic conditions-- 37• the site opens onto SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road) and Planning anticipates 38• that this development would double the number of vehicles using the 39. 40. 0OQeG 3 2. 3° Z . road. Additional information requesed is found on the site plan 5° submitted by the applicant. Mr. Cannity said the woner of the pro- 6. is Mr. Fred Cates, 112 West Union Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina, 7° and that he had paid the fee for application. Mr. Polatty reviewed specific standards of evaluation as found 9, in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Some which are not covered 10. under Article 8 are: 1) Planned Development related to major -.--11• transportation; 2) relation to public facilities, utilities,- and 12. services; 3) .increased cost of police and fire protection; 5) the 13• physical character of the site with the relation to surrounding . 14• Property--the noise of Interstate 85 and proposed I-40, Mr. Polatty �5• said, is an environmental concern; 6) a unified control .p an of the 16• site--the plan has been submitted but it does not satisfy the require- 17• ments of Article 5.7 a-c. 1$° The applicant's representative requested the Planning. Director 19• make a statement that a decision could be made based on all sub- 2o. stantial evidence presented for the Special Use Permit, and that 21. the recommendation included in the packet (the agenda packet the Board 22° received). was not necessary o b Y e presented as evidence. The Plann?:-:- 1, 23• Director so stated. 24` Mr. John McAdams, the John McAdams Cor„ an p Y, presented the appli- ` . cant's evidence. Mr. McAdams summarized the material found in the 26. application for a Special Use Permit and noted one change, i.e. 27. there are now plans for 79 mobile homes on the site rather than the 28. original 86 as planned. (A copy of the•+application, with comments, �9• is found on pages of this book) . Mr. McAdams noted threee 30• specific responses in the presentation: 1) the site is well suited 31° for high density development of this nature; 2) the number of units 32'" proposed correlates with the price for which the sites may be rented. 33° and, 3) public aspects or concerns versus private aspects or concert..:. 34. Mr. McAdams questioned the accuracy of the expected vehicles using 35• Orange Grove Road if this project is approved, saying his own research 35° indicated one vehicle per 30 seconds entering the road, well within 37. that road's bearing capacity. He said the site is unsuitable for 38. 39. 40- 1° 2° 3. 4° commercial development because there is no access from .the Inter- 5° state highways (I-85 and proposed I-40) which will border the site b° on the north and west, respectively. He said the land to the east 7° is owned by the applicant and to the south a ridge prevents the 8' owner of adjacent land from seeing most of the site. 9° Mr. McAdams continued his remarks concerning the second 10' response saying, the intent of the owner is to offer sates at a 11. low cost and the more units placed on the site the lower the cost. 12' He added that. a variance was being requested to lower the amount �3` of separation between units from the required 38' to 28 and 18 feet. �4' He said shrubs would be planted and would grow. 15` In response to number three, Mr. McAdams said that the sites lb° would be rented with the units being owned, for the most part by 17° the dweller, and the choice of whether or not to park his home there 18. would be left up to the individual. He said the owner of the site 19. would be responsible for various maintenance tasks, including mow- ?0. ing, and having a guardhouse intermittently manned. He said the ?1` site had received FHA approval. Mr. McAdams said he thinks the 22. noise generated by the existing interstate and proposed interstate �3` would be a low hum. He added that the internal screening was a �4° private concern, not a matter of public concern- Mr. McAdams then 25. presented a taped tour of the site. 26° Commissioner Willhoit asked the location of the open space; �7° Mr. McAdams replied it was to the north of the site and was about 28. 500 feet from the fartherest unit. Mr. McAdams told Planning 29° Board Chair Crawford the applicant would seed the lsope of the site. 30. Commissioner Whitted asked where the owners of the mobile homes 31. would park; Mr. McAdams said on the street and parallel to it. '2` In response to a question from Commissioner Barnes, he said the '3° owners of the mobile homes would be responsible for the maintenance 34` of the road withing the site. 35. Planning Board member Kizer asked about redesigning the pro- 35. jest with the open area in the center and the trailers on the peri- 37. phery; Mr. McAdams said the existing ines g sewer presented a problem 38° with that design. 39. 40. 0Qi°S g 1. 3• 4. Commissioner Willhoit questioned the safety of children play- s• ing while parking was parallel to the road. Commissioner Barnes 6. questioned the access emergency vehicles would have to the homes 7. and also the parking facilities. 8. Mr. McAdams told the Boards the sewer was an on site system 9. which was privately maintained and connected to the Town of Hillsborough 10. system. 11. Planning Board member Irvin asked about the number of fire 12. hydrants planned and Mr. McAdams responded two. Mr.Irvin. also 13• questioned the fencing of the swimming pool and the pond. The 14. pool is to be fenced, however, Mr. McAdams did not know ii the 15• pond would also be fenced. 16. Commissioner Willhoit suggested relocating the dumpsters away 17. from the homes. Following other comments on the paving of the 18. road from Orange Grove Road to the site and questions of landscaping, 19• Commissioner Barnes thanked Mr. McAdams for his presentation on 20, behalf of the applicant. 21• Commissioner Barnes asked those in the audience who wished to 22. give evidence to address the Boards. All persons who spoke on this 23.• topic were sworn. 24• Mr. Lucius Chesire: Spoke in favor of the mobile home develop- 25• ment. He cited the high interest rates as the rational to placing 26• an increased number of units on the site. He feels that mobile homes 27• are the wave of the future. 26• Mr. Fred. Cates: The Owner. He said he would respond to questions 29. the Boards may have. In response to such questions, he said that 30• rents for the spaces, would be $50-65.00 each with utilities additional. 31• He figures to have an income from this development of about $48,000. 32• annually. He said the plan is to make housing affordable to familie 33. and to enable them to build equity. 34. Mr. Rommie Eller: Is presently living in one of the units now 35. on the site. He said there is a need for such developments. Mr. 36. Eller feels the spacing planned between the units would be adequate 37. for his needs. 38. 39. 40. 1. 000 2. r7 IQ , 3. 4. Ms. Cathy Phillips: Now lives on the sate. She said there 5. was no privacy in apartments and the trailer was quiet. She said 6. there was no problem in the spaces between the trailers now. Answer- 7. ing a question from Commissioner Gustaveson, she said at the present 8. time there are four trailers at the site and three are close to her. 9. Ms. Anne Kemp: hives at the site. She said it was pleasant 10. for her children and there had been no complaints about noise. y 7J . She would like a different type of housing-but she was sole support-- .. -. 12. of her family and could not afford it. She said Mr. Cates had 13• strict requirements and it was a nice place to live. 14* Mr. Mitchell: He said there wer problems finding adequate 15• space to put mobile homes and he was in favor of the project. 16. Dr. M. James DeBartolo: He is new in the area and needs a place 17. to put his family. He cannot afford to buy a home at this point 18• but he has bought a mobile home and needs to find a place to parkt 19. it. He feels spacing/proximity of units will not be a problem. '0• Mr. James Freeland: Said mobile home spaces would be the �1• answer to housing problems in Hillsborough. He is in favor of the 22• project. He feels some restrictions should be lessened in order 23• to keep costs down. 24. Mr. James Bennett: He owns two mobile home parks and says 25• he. turns away applicants for spaces each day. There is a need, he 26• says, for such housing in Orange County. 27. Mr. Matthew Strum: Owns a business and can't a place to put 28. mobile homes. He would be very near this development and is in favor 29. of it. 30. Commissioner Barnes said the Orange County Schools had not had 31. time to prepare its report on the Timbers' impact. There were no further �2. persons wishing to speak. Commissioner. Whitted moved, seconded by Com- 3• missioner Gustaveson, to adjourn this public hearing until 10:00 A.M., 34• January 4, 1982, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Orange 35. County Schools and receiving the recommendation of the Planning Board 36. on the Class A Special Use Permit for the Timbers. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 37•' Commissioner Barnes said this section of the Joint Public 38. Hearing was closed until the time and place set above; she turned 39. 40. 7 le 2., . 3 a 4. the meeting over to Chairman Crawford. 5. E. Rezoning Requests from ASCO Construction, Security 6e Window and Door and U-Stare--It. � Mr. Cannity told the Boards that the properties are close 7. 8, to each other and made his presentation to the Boards on all 9. three requests at. the same time. Mr. Cannity located the pro- 10. perties on Old # 10 highway and said that the Health Department llo had approved installation of an in-ground sewage disposal system 12. for ASCO but had denied.permission for -such a system to Security 13. Window and Door and U-Store-It. The existing zoning for the 14- properties is residential; the requests for rezoning is for E-C 15. for ASCO and U-Store-It while the rezoning request for Security 16. Window and Door is for. E-I. 17. Chairman Crawford asked if there was - anyone who wished to 18. speak about these rezoning requests. 19. Planning Board member Lunsford asked about adverse effects 20, such rezoning would have on those residences near the properties. 21. She asked about use changes of those properties and difficulty 22. homeowners adjacent or near the properties might encounter in 23. selling homes. . 24. Chairman Crawford said the Planning Board would consider these 25. items on its December 21st meeting. 26. 4. Text Amendments to the zoning Ordinance 27. Mr. Cannity told the Boards the changes in Article 4 would 28. specify what uses are allowed in all districts as a matter of 29. right (he added, this addressed Board instructions regarding 30. transmission lines) ; changes to Article 8 clarify the general l' 31. aviation standards and address off site noise impact. (Specific 32. suggested amendments are on pages of this book.) -- 33• Planning Board member Shanklin asked if the sentence in Article 34- 4,"Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited," was not incon- 35. sistent with the section 2 of that Article, Bona fide farms? 36. Mr. Cannity said no, bona fide farms are defined in State law- 37. Commissioner Barnes asked the meaning of 8.8.8.2.f "The road 38. shall be coordinated and in accordance with the Orange County 39. 40. 0007.1 .;6�.�s 3° 4° Land Use Plan and Thoroughfare Plan." Staff was asked to clearly 5° define its terms and to rewrite that sentence more specifically. 6. Chairman Crawford recognized Mr. Lee Mahler, an Orange County 7° architect and citizen. 8. Mr. Mahler.. Said the timing of these amendments is his big 9. concern. He is associated with Peloquin Associates, the architectural 10. firm designing the Midway Airport and Air Park; his firm has been 11. working on this project for about six months. He said if these 12. amendments are directed toward a specific project it is "questionable 13. legally. " He added that the amendments were designed to stifle 14. public argument, .place hardship on his client and added a "new 15. cog into the machinery." 16. Mr. Mahler took issue with 8.8.8.1 b and all subsequent sub- 17• sections of that Article, saying that NEF 25 was a "non-entity." 18. NEF is usually measured in 20-30-40-50. He said with a.NEF of 19• 30 all .functions except a "concert" were allowed. ?0° Mr. Mahler asked that his project hot be treated as a special '1. case. 22. Commissioner Barnes told Mr. Mahler she was puzzled by his �3• reference to these amendments being used to deny or block publi 24. hearing for the airport. She said she did not see that at all. �5• Mr. Mahler said several items would suggest such a thing to him. 26. He said an isosonic contour was an addition to the Zoning Ordinance; 27° and, puchase of land not previously owned by the developers was 28. now required; private access to state maintained roads; setback 29' requirements from the noise generator. 30' Commissioner Barnes said that if she understood what Mr. Mahler 31' was saying then he meant that .this project may not come to public �20 hearing because he may not be able to proceed with the project .3° as planned. 34. Mr. Mahler said his main objection centered around the noise 35. levels mentioned in the amendments. He feels that the NEF 30 36. is a very low level of noise and says the State representatives 37' concur. He said it was not good to add things when. a project 38. 39. 40. 1. 00 / r' 9 �� 2. 30 e was underway. 5. Chairman Crawford said they were amending the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Planning Board member Kizer said that at a public hearing for 7. the airport, if any conflicting evidence came forth that new con- 8, ditions could be added then. 9. Chairman Crawford thanked the audience and those who spoke; 10. concluded the public hearing and turned the Chair over to Commis- 11. sioner Barnes. Commissioner Barnes referred the rezoning requests 12. and amendments to the Planning Board for recommendation. 13. F. Public_Hearing--Community Development Redevelopment Plan 14. The Planning Board remained for this public hearing. 15. Mr. Albert Kittrell, Community Development Director, told the 16. Board of Commissioners that approving the Plan would enable the County 17. to acquire property in the Northern Fairview area. He said the 18. plan does not differ substantially from the plan submitted to HUD 19. in July, 1980. He listed objectives and plans to attain those 20. objectives. 21. -There were no members of the audience who wished to speak on 22. this matter. 23. Commissioner Barnes declared the public hearing on the Community X24. Development Redevelopment Plan closed. 25. Commissioner Walker left the meeting and did not return. tr. 26. G. Items for Decicison by Board 27. 1. Tax'Appeals: 28. Mr. Arthur Hurow, Tax Map 54 B, Block C, Lot 14: Mr. Kermit 29. Lloyd told,the Board he had visited Mr. Hurow's property and found 30• that an error was made in pricing method; additionally, he found a 31. drainage ditch across the front yard and thinks a 5% topographic 32. adjustment should be made. Correcting the error in the pricing met]-' ![ 33. and a allowing the 5% topo adjustment would reduce the value of this 34• lot from $47,520 to $40,554 (the value of the lot and home together 35. would be reduced from $130,986 to $124,020) . Mr. Hurow said he would 36. accept the recommendation of the Tax Appraiser. 37• Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, 38. to approve the recommendation by the Tax Appraiser to reduce Mr. Hurow's 39.. 40. UUU7d 1. lU 2. °c'1 3. 4. property valuation by the amount stated, that is, from $130,986 to 5e $124,020. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 6. Ms. Mary Wilkinson, Tax Map 1, Lot 20: Mr. Lloyd said he found 7. that the property was landlocked with no access; he recommends an 8. adjustment of 69% to reduce the valuation from $14,336 to $5,555. 9. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded, by Commissioner Gustaveson, 10. to approve the Tax Appraiser's recommendation of the 69% economic 11. adjustment,, thereby reducing the price from $14,336 to $5,555- 12 Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 130 Mr. F.R. Dodson, Tax Map 20, Lot::15A: Mr. Lloyd said this lot 14. was landlocked and that he recommended a 52% economic adjustment 15. to this lot. Mr. Dodson said he planned to sign up for a Forestry 16, Management Plan for this acreage. 17. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, ' 18. to approve the 52% economic adjustment to Mr. Dodson's property, i 19. thereby reducing its value from $43,512 to $26,107. Vote: Ayes, 0, 4; noes, 0. Mr. William T. Boyd, Jr, Tax Map 51, Block F, Lot 12A: Mr. 22. Lloyd said he had been unable to see the inside of the home on his 23- recent visit; however, he did inspect the property from outside. 24- Mr. Lloyd recommends no change in the original valuation of $93,447. 25. Mr. Lloyd said he had met today with .the Boyds and told them why he 26. was not recommending a change, that is, comparable homes and lots 27, are selling for about what this home is valued at; additionally, he 28. said there is an additional room at the rear of the home which in- 29. creases its value. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commis- 30. sioner Gustaveson,to approve the Tax Appraiser's recommendation of 31. no change in the original valuation of $93,447. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes,0. 32. Mr. J.O. Sanderson, Tax Map 26, Lot 15: Mr. Lloyd said Mr. Sanderson says he had no legal access to his property from Orange 34, County and no road access from Durham County. (The property is on 35. the two Countys' lines.) Commissioner Whitted suggested, and the 36, Board consented, that Mr. Lloyd determine if, indeed, there is not 37. an access to the property. The Board deferred action until such 38, determination is made. 39. 40. 19007-1 11 2. 1 ` r.C'V 3. 4. Mr. Robert E. Giles, Tax Map 86, Block F, Lot 7: Mr. Lloyd 5o said he was unable to see the inside of the home but he did review 6- it from outside. Mr. Lloyd recommends no change in the original ' 7. valuation of $114,082. Mr. Giles told Mx. Lloyd that a home he 8. had used for comparable sale value had undergone $18,000 worth of 9• remodeling; Mr. Lloyd still recommended no change. 10. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Wilhoit, 11. to approve the Tax Appraiser's recommendation of no change in the 12. original valuation of $114.082. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 13• Mr. K.S. Gentry, Account number 7158: Mr. Gentry was requesting 14• the Homestead Exemption under GS 105-277.1. He said, in the letter, 15• from his attorney (attached on page of this book) that there was l6. a misunderstanding when he listed his taxes for 1981. �7• Commissioner Gustaveson moved to correct the error, thereby is. reducing Mr. Gentry's taxes to zero, seconded by Commissioner Wi.11hoit. 19• Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 20, 3. Eligibility Specialist--DSS 21. w Commissioner Whitted moved to authorize the filling of this;' 22. position in the Department of Social Services; Commissioner Gustaveson rya• seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 24• 6. Falls of New Hope Participatory Paving Project 25• Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, 26. to adopt the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for the Falls of 27° New Hope Participatory Paving Project. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes,. 0. 28. (The Resolution is on pages of this book.) 29. 7. Budget _Amendments 30• Commissioner Whitted moved to approvg the budget amendments 31• (found on page of this book) ; Commissioner Gustaveson seconded 32• the motion. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 33. C. Minutes--October 13, 1981 34- Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, 35• approval as corrected of the minutes of October 13, 1981. Vote: 36• Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 37. 380 39. 40. r (�//��(/�12 2. 3D G.2. Personnel Advisory Board_ D 5 The Board asked that this item be returned to the next . 6. agenda. 7 O 4. Assistant Manager 8s Mr. Thompson, County Manager, said he had .named former Tax 9. Supervisor, Bill Laws, to the position of Assistant County Manager. 10. Mr. Thompson requested the .Board approve a two step increase in 11. salary, from Grade 714 Step 6B to Grade 7874B. _ 12. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, 13. to approve the two step increase for the Assistant County Manager, 14. effective November 17, 1981. Voter Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 15. 5. Clean Water Bond 16. County Manager Thompson told the Board that the Clean Water 17. Bond Project # WC-305R could be closed out if the Board would: 18. 1--Approve acceptance of the supplemental State Grant of $54,585; and, 19. 2---Authorize a representative to execute the Offer and �Oo Acceptance document. ,1. -Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, 22. to accept the Manager's recommendation of accepting the supplemental 23. State Grant and authorizing a representative to execute the Offer 24. and Acceptance document. Commissioner Gustaveson offered a friendly 25. amendment to Commissioner Willhoit's motion, that is, to name 26. County Manager Thompson the representative authorized to execute 27. the offer and acceptance document; Commissioner Willhoit accepted 28. the friendly amendment. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 29. 8:. Executive Session--Legal and Personnel Matters 30. Commissioner Barnes added personnel matters to the executive 31. session. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Barnes, -12. to convene in executive session for legal and personnel matters. 3 D Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. 34- 35• Anne C. Barnes, Chair 36. 37. Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk 38. 39. 40.