Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19820823 738 AUGUST 23, 1982 The pr,:uige County Pcard of Conr,.issioners net in .regula,-r ,se,-s;i-on on liondey Auguot, 23, 1982$ at 7:30 P.M. in thce Superioz: Courtroom, Orange County Count- house, Mllsbo rough, ITorth Carol_51-na,. Conrissioners p2•csca t: Chair; aa.i Richard E. ?•1ni'tted, and Cor:.missioners :urr;xr Guot;aveson, Shirley B. 14arsha7l, Idormau 'lalker and Don Willhoit. Comm osi_onor 2aitted arniounced that this was the regular Gedarterly t Joint I'ubl-lc Ilearing ti:Aith the Drano e County 1'lsmning Board. He corrected the auenda to reflect that the blac% Fountain nv:�alopment xequest for a Special Use Pernit Ws '� .portion of the Public Hearing for the Board of Comni.ssioners. i j i?e rxinoi n6e, ' that the Chair of the Planning Board., Pat Crawford, i:nuld conduct the gi Lr'terly Joint Public Ilearing,; a- is usual. r Planni.n;; Board riombers present: Pat Crawford, Logmi Irvin, Sharlene A Carl l�al.tcr,,, David. whanklin. G Planning Board members absent: Tom Bacon, Saragene Boericke, Alice Gordon, - N John Kizer, Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Lansford •and John Wilson. % IZeMnsng neiluest-Roy Wilkcersor_ property (from Agricultural/Reside;'itial r (A-R) 'to Xxisting Commercia1-3 003-5)° Ili,, Rick C_sn:ity, 1'lannlnu S't'aff,, nude the presa:ltation on behalf of the I'Latvning Del c's't:lent° He gave the location$ and description of the proper'::;/ ia?ad ;:,nfld when the zoning ,va, baing drat-in up for the County, this tract ha£' been overloo;:ed by the Staff. He said Staff had requested a portion of tljia I' be ;•ez?ned HC-5.but that ..ho Planning Doaxd had ac?ced the Staff to ro-e car ins Itho tract and consider rezoning the entire 6 acre tract to '!?C._5, as requested b by clxc proper-by 01:2aer. 11r. Cann.ity said fir. Wilkerson had been in business on th-I., _Xoperty for approriaaa'tely ?_C yee7•s and that staff reconnendation is to I' rowne a p ortion of the pro ert y (500' -: EGG i ) EC-5; he added that the reason is that it inuld apply the same criteria to this piece of property as t:aald apply I° to a.11 other property in zoned toi:nships. Crawford arcked for qu,:utions from Beam T7c-ibe2s; nacre gore none,. She ° a .ed for those in favor of the rezone c request to j. Er. Aloi; :w7lc:n�inf a Land surveyor.in HillslN)rough, asked that the entire'• s 6.6 acres be rc ::ned. Ile said he„vy eouiu�::e_z•L• crjijtt be s'iarcd a.;ithin a building 0 sad this is an outdoor b­asines,:. ITe said th.• c;tire tract tirould have been ;owed p• 406 739 r COTI-M Orel 0- origi�la_Lly ii the FlannLiC Staff had not overlooked tho business.. Ca],1c-j,.,yn ,,aid tilat he had a ]_e,-ter from Mr. 11il-her5on. which said that; if the whole 6�6 acres vas not rononcd he di.dnTt thii—ic he covild continue to >sa1ze a 1:i.vi g in his bucinc:ss, A;rr. Taal 'r:iJ_kexuons 01:ler of Roy 1:rilherson Construc'4aon Co]Lparyg said the :to-fx" rroposal to rezone oil;-y 5001 x 300' was 'Lao = l,. He needed the entire ?, txac't rcr�ned _'_n order to continue his operation as he had for the last 28 yca:_•s Po P-nd t, allow for cont-iinicc expansion of his business. Es. CrairFord asked tlmi those ne,bers of the audience opposed to the xczax;.iz: r rcgiieSt �peojS; there Mere none. . 2. Curtis i', Emie P mn&! D6Vel-okmenty AmendLnent to the Land Use Plan, Mr. Fred Luce,. 3?3_a nino Staff, made the preseaitation on behalf of the >, PLanniilg Dcpartmoiit, He za-d the 1 equcst is to change the Land Use plan for 36.5 acres iron Rural F:esidential to Twenty year Transition. (Specifics of the request are on the agenda abstract for this item which is included on page of this book.) Mr. Luce said Staff recommendation is for approval of the amend- ment to the Land Use Plan. Ms. Crawford asked for those in favor of the proposed amendment to the Land r Use Plan to speak; there were none. f Pis. Crawford asked for those opposed to the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan to speak; there were none. i3. Curtis F. Bane Planned Development, Class A Special Use Permit Request. rl /Clerk's note: Staff had presented its information and Mr. Bane was pre- senting his information when the Attorney reminded those concerned that the Special Use Permit Request procedure required sworn evidence, with the Chair of the Board of Commissioners presiding; accordingly, all information was reintroduced as evidence as indicated in the Minutes which follow pertaining to this item.? Chairman Whitted administered the oath to Messrs. Cannity and Bane, and Pis. Crawford. Mr. Cannity gave the presentation on behalf of the Planning Department on the Class A Special Use Permit Request for the Planned Development, Stonegate, and fo.^ the rezoning associated with it. Mr. Cannity said: i The Applicant has requested a PD-H, R-4 for 114 mobile home spaces on 36.5 acres of land. The property is located in Eno Township on SR 1713 (Mt. Hermon Church Road). Th_. property lies north of the Southern Railroad east of an undeveloped Wooded tract and south of Mobile Acres II mobile home park. Building separation will be 35' minimum from the road, 20' minimum 407 when mobile homes are end to end and 40' when mobile homes are parallel. There are central sewage disposal and water systems proposed for the development. Two recreation area are show on the plan, each connected to the street system by pedestrian walks. Private roads are proposed to service the units in the development. The property is in the Eno Rural Fire District. Mr. Cannity continued, saying that there would be a divided entry-way into the park with a central office where tennants could report problems, pick up mai',-.,- pay rent,, etc. He said the developer thought this would offer added security also. Mr. Cannity said the Staff recommendation is that the rezoning and Special Use Permit be approved with conditions. The Boards decided to make the findings of fact prior to listing conditions. This concluded the Staff presentation on this item. s Mr. Curtis Bane: Said that he had been working on this project for a number 1 of years and that it was the end-product of input from Planning, local res'i ants r I and architects. He said that if anyone was familiar with his present mobi ., home r park, this one would be built to the same standards, emphasizing "appearance... r easy movement in and out of the park." He continued that this park would have more density, three units per acre, all roads will be 29' wide and we will have - a waste water trea'-::.11t plant in preference to the usual septic tank...the roads will be red. The water system will be put in as prescribed by -the Ground Water Division of North Carolina. The waste water treatment plant will be under. the 4 continuous supervision of the North Carolina Environmental Protection ." iie said the lots would be landscaped and maintained in as original a condition as possible. e Planning Board Member Irvin: Asked what would be done with the effluent from s the waste water treatment plant. fMr. Bane: Replied It would flow into a stream. He added that he had asked about a lagoon but that the State "has their reasons for not wanting this. I was fftt` talking to one of the heads of the Enviromental Protection just last Tuesday night f° 4 JJ++ and he was asking me did we have any properties that they Could irrigate for the uric acid factor. I told him that we did so we ire going back to that. My envir ° onmental architect is still working on it with the State and I can't say what the ° final outcome will be. ..but it will be something that the State will approve." Mr. Irvin: Asked what the relationship between the volume of effluent and the flow.of the stream would be. PSr. Bane: Responded that he did not know and that he trusted the State which had inspected the area and reviewed the data in Raleigh prior to his receiving approval. ..408 Mr. Irvin: Asked what sort of arrangement had been worked out regarding maintenance of the recreation areas. Mr. Bane: "We will provide it." Mr. Bane referred to the sketch plan and noted the circles on it, saying each of those circles was a recreation area. Mr. Irvin: "You will provide the facilities and the maintenance?" Mr. Bane: "We will provide the area and the facilities, limited say, to the { tennis court and the net and the participants in the game will provide the other { equipment." Mr. Bane elaborated saying that in the other park he had attempi.ed to provide equipment as well as facilities but that non-residents had come in and damaged the equipment and facilities; consequently, he would only provide the facilities at this park. "For smaller children there will be permanent areas with equipment." Mr. Norman Hilliard, Route I, University Station Road: /Clerk's note: Vr. f _ i Hilliard was not sworn or aff'r;ned7 Said he is in favor of the project. hie presently lives in the other- trailer park owned and operated by Mr. Bane. He saic! this park is beautifully maintained and well organized. He invited members of the Boards to inspect the present park to note its condition. He added he had friends who had or, were buying mobile homes and found it difficult to find a place to put the homes. Those whop{ he has told about Mr. Bane's planned new park are excited about it and would like to live there. He cited some concerns ` about extra expenses involved in developing the new park fearing that it may ` increase the cost of living there. Mr. Hilliard said Mr. Bane provided snow removal and the roads in the present park were clear during storms. He had no complaints. He urged again that the Boards visit the present park. Ms. Crawford asked if the applicant opposed any of the suggested conditions. Mr. Bane: Replied no. There were no others present who wished to give evidence regarding the Class A Special Use Permit Request from Curtis Bane for a Planned Development Housing R-4, Stongate and rezoning for same. . C/. Proposed Changes to the Zoning Ordinance. j. Mr. Cannity presented the seven main changes proposed for the Zoning Ordinance: 'it-i:. of telephone booster stations as a permitted use with additional requ.: 2. cdditional application criterion to High Density Residential which ude the full ran-2 of urban services; the application criteria. of the Existing Commercial-•5 distri� - to all,. it'(.o be applied to previously zoned Tounships., 4. .:dd .• ficiency apartments to the Permitted Use Table with Single Family Residence; { I r f� 5, require that residential accessory structures be placed behind the principal residence; 6. set time limits on reapplication for Special Use Permit requests that have been denied and for the start of construction under a. Special Use Permit; 7. acid definitions for lot area and efficiency apartments to Article 22. j Ms. Crawford asked those in favor of any of the proposed amendments to speak. i Mr. Banks Cline and Ms.. Jill Maxwell , Southern Bell employees: Said they I i were present with regard to amendment V 1 relating to telephone booster stations. The piece of equipment is a digital switching device located in a building 10' j wide and 20' long, with air conditioning. The additional capacity is needed for I growth in that portion of Chapel Hill (Weaver Dairy Road and Highway 86). The ' alternative to building the booster station is to rim another cable and, acr_ording to Ms. Maxwell , conduit space in that area -is "almost exhausted." Mr. Clin-, r said there was no water, sewer required, that the building is self contained { self attended, and self diagnostic- Mr. Cline and Ms. Maxwell addressed the issue r j of the County's requirements regarding minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. feet saying that since this proposed switch station is so small and self contained, they coulc'. put it on a piece of property 180' x 190' . They noted that less land would b used, the building used nothing (no water/sewer lines) and would save on construction costs by using less land. i Commissioner Willhoit asked how many of these units would be built and the j material which would be used. Ms. Maxwell responded that the one p. presently under discussion with another smaller unit within a year near Hideaway Estates also on Hwy '86; Mr. Cline replied that the material is fiberglass and concrete slab. Commissioner Willhoit asked if materials more harmonious with the surroundings could be used. He suggested brick, for an example. Mr. Cline responded that screening would be ulled for the building. and it would not be obtrusive; they prefer to use the, previously mentioned materials, t i.e. concrete slab floor and fiberglass body. Commissioner Willhoit asked about future maintenance of the landscaping materials. Mr. Cline said evergreens would be used which require a minimum of future maintenance and that the office in Chapel Hill has someone who does the landscaping maintenance. They will comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Gustaveson asked what the telephone company's general response was to the requirements as outlined in Section 6.13. i 4.1G Mr. Cline said the company was in agreement with all requirements except the 40,000 sq. ft, required and mentioned previously. There were no other comments fro-in the audience on the proposed text changes s to the Zoning Ordinance, either pro or con. . . Pro osed Changes to the Subdivision Regulations. Mr°. Cannity made the presentation for the Planning Staff, saying there were four m_,. .:° changes proposed: y j 1. addition of definitions of road types that coincide with the NC DOT definitions; f 2. definition of a lot of recoi°d in reference to subdivision requirem pits; 3. revisions to road rights of way to coincide with revised NCDOT j standards (this also allows us to propose a reduction of private road rights of way requirements); 4. deletion of Section VII Variances. i There were no comments from the audience on the proposed text changes to ' the Subdivision: Regulations, either pro or- con. i Ms. Crawford turned the meeting over to Chairman Whitted for the recommendation 1 from the Planning Board on the Class A Special Use Permit Request from Buck Mountain i Development Company for the Midway Airport. Chairman Whitted declared the Quarterly Joint Public Hearing with the Orange County Planning Board adjourned and declared the public hearing on the Buck Mountain Development Company for a Class A Special Use Permit for a General .P.viation Airport i (Midway) opened. The purpose is to receive the recoinnendation from the Planning I� Board on the aforementioned request; Ms. Crawford was sworn (see pages of ! these minutes). /Clerk's note: The following, until otherwise noted, is a verbatim transcript j of Ms. Crawford's testimony.% Ms. Crawford: Chairman Whitted, members of the Board, I want to bring the following concerns to your attention, prior to making the Planning Board's recommendation on the Special Use Permit Request by the Buck Mountain. Y r At our August 16, 1982, the following motion was made: "The Planning Board has serious questions about the legality of the reconsideration of the Specia'i i Use Permit request by Buck Mountain Development at this time. The Board feels f that a one year period should elapse before a reconsideration. The motion was made by Dr. Irvin, seconded by Dr. Kizer; the vote was four in favor, two opposed, and two abstentions. As indicated in the memo to you, dated August 29th, this is impossible, dated August 23rd, The Planning Board previous to this meeting and pre- vious to the second public hearing on this request, in addition, it was raised by a citizen at the second public hearing. Futhermore, we have just seen a rec.;s.-st by the Staff to amend our Ordinance, in agreement with thrr Planning Board's motion. i Th meno to you indicates th:: , sp?cial uses require changes in our Zoning i Ordinance and requires a public hearing. They are similar- in that respect to zoning amendments and therefore should be in accordance with the section on amendments as it currently reads, which requires a one year period before P i 41 reapplying after denial . However, during our process, the Staff and County Attorney indicated disagreement with the Planning Board's interpretation. And, therefore we went on with the public hearing. The purpose of this motion is merely for the Planning Board to re-affirm its position to you. This is the second-industrial spe-.ci-al use permit we've had; the rest of them have been Planned Development Special Use Permits. And we've tried through- out, since the enactment of our Ordinance to refine the Planning Board's process in making Findings of Fact that are useful to the Board in suche that the Planning Board can also handle. We, ah, therefore, did it a little bit differently this time, again. What we did was rearrange the Ordinance essentially to take, first of all , the specific requirements that are required of all special use applicants; we then took the specific requirements that are required just for general aviation airports; we then considered the three general standards at the conclusion of our findings. The first two types of findings are those for which the applicant had the i the burden of proving compliance with. . You will find, I believe, that the Planning Board's avocation of findings, particularly when they find that the ( applicant did not meet its burden was because either there was lack of evidence or failure on the part of the applicant to rebut conflicting I testimony. i Our .findings are different from other findings that we've done in the past. in that, before we've acted on Staff's findings of fact and in this instance we made our own findings and did not take into account what the Staff had found; however, the Staff was there to advise us if necessary. With the Board's permission, I'll begin our findings. 1. North point scale and date. We found this contained within the I 2. The extent of area to be developed. The Planning Board found tha, it is . not clear in the record what areas are included in the development preps,-1 , particularly, the land of Mr. Leslie Walton. This is found on page 8, line 12-14 of the draft minutes of the July 8th meeting.' The vote was'6-2 on that motion. The Board seemed some concerned that there was mentioned in the proposal that Mr. Walton's land could be used if necessary, but yet was not specifically included in the proposal. f 3. Location wideths of all easements and rights-of way within or adjacent to the site. The Board found the plans as. submitted as deficient because they did not show the approach/departure zone easement or rights-of-way. The vote was four in favor, one against and three absentions. ! 4. Location of all existing or proposed and structures on the site. The Board found that that's contained within the application. 5. Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on the flood maps or soil maps. The Board found that that was contained within the application. ! 6_ Location of all water courses on the sites including direction of flow. This was also contained within the application. 7. Existing topography at a contour interval of 5' based on mean level datum. This was also contained within the application. 8. Proposed or existing fencing, screening, gates, parking, service and storage areas. This is contained in the application. 9. Access to site including site distances on all roads used for access. Thi_- also is contained in the application. 10. Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development_ While the Planning Board eventually found that this item was contained in the application, t P was some disagreement because within the applicant's pro- po:>al th::y sub- -�d pictures to us which did not indicate dimensions; further- more, there was later testimony by Mr. Hazzard that lacked some knowledge.Qf exact dimensions proposers for all strurtures. 11. Names and addresses of owners and applicants. This is contained in the application. P i 41 12. A fee as set by the Orange County Board of•Commissioncrs. Staff indicated that this was paid by the applicant. The following specific requirements are those that are only for general aviation airports: a. All F.A.A. and State regulations are met as a condition of approval . The Planning Board found that the applicant did not supply evidence that they own all the area within the clear zone and did not own or control any of the area known as the approach zone. The vote was 6 in favor and 2 opposed. This finding assumes that one interprets the Ordinance to mean that FAA requirements are for any airport regardless of the source of funding. There was same contention and still, 1 believe, disagreement on the interpretation of this item. b. The site and its operation will not adversely affect existing adjacent land uses. Evidence in pages 1518 of the draft July 8th minutes .indicatos that there will be adverse affects on adjacent property, especially in the testimony of Mr. Wallace Kaufman concerning land values and real estate values and Bland Simpson concerning the affect on agricultural land. The ac;enda package is incorrect here; the vote was 6 in favor, 1 against and 1 absention. c. Land sufficient to-provide approach zones and over-run areas is controlled or o,vned and controlled by the applicant. The Planning Board found that the applicant has not provided evidence that they control sufficient land (nr the. approach zones. The vote on this motion was 6 in favor and 2 .against. Even if on item 'a' you assume that all FAA requirements are met, our.Ordinance goes over and beyond FAA requirements and does require ownership or controll of the approach zone. This issue begins to raise a larger question should the Board find that this is not necessary will the Board be willing to deny any subdivision requests within the approach zones should they arise. As per the testimony of Mr. Bruce Matthews saying that residential uses were incompatible with airports. d. Adequate land area is -provided for all of the proposed uses, buildings ar,d storage areas. The Planning Board, on a motion,' voted in favor of this item, 5 to 3, that it is contained in the application. Howev.r, there was some confusion and disagreement on the interpretation of this item. Th�.re was some evidence that the Board felt proposed usage should have included the use of the airport and consistent with item 'c' should say no to this motion. The majority felt that this should be interpretated as physical usage such as buildings or other structures. e. Screening of buildings, storage and maintenance areas is provided from adjacent residential land. This item was found to be met by the application. f. Letters from appropriate fire and rescue agencies that protective services can be at an adequate level. The Planning Board found that the applicant has not met the requirement for adequate fire protection as evidenced by the testi- mony of Dr. Thomas Griggs on pages 13-14 of the draft July 8th minute::: and by a letter dated June 24, 1982, by Dr. Edward Johnson. The vote was 7 to 1. g. Access shall be directly onto a State maintained road. The Planning Board found that this item is contained in the application. h. Compatible land uses are located in the final approach areas of the air- port. The Planning Board found that the applicant has not presented evidence that compatible land uses are located in the approach zones. The testimony of Bruce'Matthews on July 19, 1982, public hearing, page 7, lines 32-35 of the draft minutes indicates. that homes should be excluded from the approach zone of an airport. The vote on this motion was 5 in favor, 2 against and one abstention. Again, this raises the larger question, of if, if we cannot control through the way our Ordinance is currently drafted, uses withing -the approach zone, quite frankly, how will we? There are other standards that the applicant can, must meet in addition to those .1 ;List mentioned. Method a. ethod and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and neater. The Planning Board has found that the applicant has addressed I, the question of sewage and solid waste disposal and water supply. There is concern that storm water runoff will impact adjacent property- See pages for that 17­�t concern pages 19, lines 30 and 33 of the July Stir draft . minutes. 1 believe on;, citizen expressed a concern that a drainage easement was shot..:!, on the plat and he had not been contacted on that. 1" '41a : b. Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. Planning Board -found the applicant has not met the requirement for adequate fire protection as evidenced by testimony of Dr. Thomas Griggs on pages 13 and 14 of the draft July 8th minutes, and letter dated June 24th by Dr. Edward Johnson. The vote was 5 in favor, 2 against and one abstention. c. Methond and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. This item was found to be contained in the application and testimony_ The vote was 4 in favor, 3 against and one abstention. This motic... as you can tell by the close vote, had considerable discussion as there had 4. been a previous motion that there was not adequate vehicular access as demon- strated by testimony concerning traffic counts and projected increases in traffic counts. . That concluded the specific .requirements for which the applicant carries the burden. We next went to the general requirements where the burden shifts to those critizing the the proposal. In these, these are a little bit difficult to deal with cause you deal with negatives and you have to find evidence that supports a negative conclusion. The best way I can state i it is that: a. The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare 1 if located where proposed and developed according to the plan submitted. I The Board found that there is specific evidence to show that the use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare for two areas 1) fire protection and FAA State regulations. The vote on that motion 6 in favor and 2 against. The references may be incorrect because v.e ',:-d a different pagination than on this one and if you'll give me some tfi,= a� C a later point I'll correct them for you. But primarily they are based on our specific findings. b. Use will not maintain or enhance the value of of contiguous property i unless the use is a public necessity in vghich case the use need not m� ntain or enhance the value of contiguous property. The Planning Board found that 1 the evidence shows the use will not maintain or enhance the value of con- tiguous property; specifically see the findings of Wallace Kaufman and Bland Simpson in the draft July 8th minutes. And the vote on that was 6 in favor, I opposed and one abstention. c. Use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical develop- ment of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the comprelr:,,rsive plan or portion thereof. The Planning Board found that the evidence ;iows that the use is not in compliance with the general plans for the devl-:'opment �. of the County. Specifically the adopted goals of the Land Use Plan, goals Two, Five and Seven; the adverse impact the development could have c.., the agricultural land uses in the area. Again on pages may be incorrect, and that s the compatible land uses in the approach zones for airports are not compatible with the current zoning around the proposed airport. The vote on that motion was five in favor and three against: This conclusion, item 'c', specifically the Board felt permitted your Board to make a site specific evaluation of the proposal and tie the proposal in with the general plans for the County. Therefore, the Planning Board's final recommendation is that the Special Use Permit be denied because the applicant failed to meet the conditions for the permit required by the Zoning Ordinance as evidenced by these findings. The vote on that motion was seven tin favor and. one against. i. In the past, several Commissioners have .asked the Board for guidance on proposals if they decide to do contrary to what the Planning Board has recommended. Therefore, the Planning Board then looked at the project and made a list of nine conditions that they would like to see addr..-ssed and included should the Board decide to permit the request. This also raises a concern that the Planning Board has in how we approach Special Use Permits. I believe the Staff and the Board are pretty much in agreement on how the project should proceed in terms of v:' at it would look like, or what one air- pert :::�ul d look like. But the metier::: of doing it is in di sagre�:r,,ent. The Staff seems to feel that vie can handle it with imposed conditions that will solve all our problems. The Planning Board, however, chose to deny the pert-it. In the event that you choose to approve the permit and impose conditions to clear up any deficiencies these are some the Planning Board would like to see included: 'd i 14 1. There be no based jet aircraft. 2. That the applicant own or control the area knov!n as the clear zone. Clear zone should be defined as starting 200' from the end of the runway and rising at a 20:1 slope to a height of 100'. 'This would make the length of the clear zone 2000'. 3. There be no commercial uses associated with the airport facility such as restaurants, motels or shops. Sale of fuel for aircraft, maintenance service and flight training classes would be permitted. 4. That te number of based aircraft be limited to 200 hangared or tied- ! planes. 5. That all the requirements and suggestions from the Orange Grove Rural Fire Department be met, including the construction of a fire access roar) to the property from Tear Road. 6. That the construction schedule outlined on page 4 of the draft July Sth minutes be �dher•ed to by the applicants. 7. That a bond covering the cost of construction of all public improvements and the runway, fire ponds and fire -Fighting equipment, plus 10% be approved by and supplied to Orange County. 8. That flight training operations not exceed 50% of the total operations of th:! facility. 9. That any Planning -Staff recommendations consistent with these conditions be incorporated. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the Planning Board's recommendation. /Clerk's note: This concludes the verbatim portion of the meeting unless otherwise noted./ Commissioner Marshall asked Ms. Crawfo.,J if she would explain the Planning Board's rationale behind conditions 4 and 8. Ms. Crawford: "I believe the 200 was as arbitrary a figure as Mr. Mahler indicated 276 is." She said concern was expressed that the original proposal had indicated 50-100 planes whereas this proposal specifies 276 planes. The Planning Board wished to limit ("cap"). the number and "to clear the confusio;) that came up at the public hearing of whether we're talking about hangared and an unlimited number of tied dorm aircraft...." She cited Mr. Matthews' testimony regarding flight training operations, and said that he seemed to be of the opinion I that flight training "seriously increased" the noise level. She said that residents i had voiced concern about noise pollution and the Planning Board, while realizing "that it would be virtually impossible to moniter,"thought limiting flight training i - I operations would decrease the potential noise level. Ms. Crawford added that the votes on these conditions were unanimous. Commissioner Willhoit: Asked if thought had been given to limiting the jhours of operation for flight training operations. l Pis. Crawford: She said that the Board fr�:red that anyone from Raleigh-Durham might come to this site and just practice take-off and landing operations. She ::'rid that sc• .one might make more than three take-offs and landings per hour and i so hours of operation for such flights was seen to fe less desirable than what the Planning Board had agreed on. Shia said they still recognized the problem of enforce- { U With no further questions, Chairman Whitted declared the Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit Request from the Buck Mountain Development Company to be adjourned. Chairman Whitted altered the agenda in order to accommodate those persons present for items D. 4-6. D-4. Buck Mountain Development Special Use Permit Request Chairman Whitted said that the Board had heard the Planning Board's recommendation and he asked Mr. Hazard about the number of airplanes to be placed on the site. Mr. Hazard replied that the site and the Development Company could.accommodate 276 planes and to limit the number would reduce the F income from the venture. He said he wanted to make a profit. There was some discussion of when the Board would make a decision on this request; the Board members noted that they had not received the Minutes of the proceedings yet. Upon advisement: by the Clerk that the Minutes relating to this request would be on the Commissioners' agenda for September 7th, Comiissionor j Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to table this request until 0 ? the September 7th meeting when the Minutes would be available. Vote: /Ayes, 5; noes, O. D--5. Water Resources Task Force Report Chairman Whitted announced that there had been a public hearing on both this item and the question of the extension of zoning into Cheeks Tow�.Iship. He announced that procedure would be staff presentation, Board questions o-' Staff, Board discussion and then public input. i Mr. Fred Luce gave the presentation on behalf of Planning Staff.. He said the Commissioners had referred the report to the Planning Board in 1981 which w had referred the report to the Township Advisory Councils for reconenendation. He said work sessions had been held on the Task Force Report. He added that the k � t Board had acted on three of the seventeen recommendations by: -1) adopting the Land Use Plan which showed protected watersheds; 2) adopting zoning ordinance i amendim-nts which required stream buffers; and, 3) requesting an allocation from F Jordan Lake water. The Board chose to act on the recommendations one at a time at the conclusion of Mr. Luce's presentation. Mr. Luce continued with recommendation 1 (for specifics of each recommendation see pages of this book). regarding the outflow of water from one water basin to another. Mr. Luce noted that the Board has already requested that the water ' outflow taking place in the Orange/Alac.ance water system to the Cape Fear and Neuse ., 416 basin. Commissioner W-illhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adopt recommendation # 1. Upon being reminded that the Board had outlined the procedure (see previous page of these minutes) to be followed to include public input, Commissioner Willhoit withdrew his motion. Recommendation # 2: Mr. Luce noted, with regard to the recomi nclation on the allocation of water rights in Lake Orange, that 'it was "not currently , a critical issue." 1 Recorl:r.endation # 3: Mr. Luce read it aloud and did not supply any update. Recommendation # 4: With regard to reservoir sites, Mr. Luce said two additional sites had been identified on the north and south forks of the Little River. i Recommendation #5: To reserve a portion of the Jordan Lake Water, as earlier noted, the Board has acted on this recommendation. Recomn:: elation # 6: Mr. Luce read it aloud and did not supply any update. I Recommendation # 7: To adopt a Land Use Plan which identifies protected watersheds. Mr. Luce noted the Board had done so on September 2, 1981. J� Recommendation #! 8: Mr. Luce read it aloud and did not supply any update. I Recommendation # 9: Mr. Luce read it aloud and did not supply any update. Recommendation # 10: Mr. Luce sum.narized it and did not supply any update. Recommendation # 11: Regarding the extension of zoning into its areas of protected watersheds, Mr. Luce said the Board had done so in the case of the exten- sion of zoning into Hillsborough Township. I Recommendation # 12: Mr. Luce summarized the recommendation and added that Ithe impervious surface ratios had already been added to the zoning ordinance. Recommendation # 13: Regarding the provision of stream buffers, Mr. Luce said the Board had implemented this recommendation in the watershed amendments to the zoning ordinance. Recommendation # 14: Mr. Luce summarized the recommendation and did not provide an update. RE-:ommendation 15: Mr. Luce cited the recommendation and did not provide any update. Recoi:,Mendation 16: Mr. Luce summarized the recommendation and did not pro- vide any update. 1 Recommendation # 17: Mir. Luce summarized the recommendation and did not provide any update. 41 Commissioner Willhoit suggested changes in some recommendations: with regard to # 4, he said recent studies done by the State indicated the possibility of a large dam on Corporation Lake and consequently, he would modify # 8 to delete the sentence beginning "Medium- and high-density residential housing'...McGown Creek sub-basin." He added that references to "If development intensifies in McCown Creek" should also be deleted "because under what I am proposing we would not be proposing any higher intensity development in the ticGown Creek sub-basin than in the rest of the ah Upper Eno." Beginning with "If development intensifies..." i Commissioner Willhoit said the remainder of the paragraph in #8 should be struck. Concerning # 10, Commissioner Willhoit said to strike references to ."bxtending i i water and sewer lines into McCown Creek sub-basin"; he clarified that such extension I was dependent on the ultimate site of the dam : and was consistent with "al'I our discussions that at some point sewer lines will be extended in the vicinity :,r" ?- r 85." He continued to leave in the reference that the "Upper Eno watershed in accord- ance with the Land Use Plan." For recommendation It 12, Commissioner Willhoit suggested striking reference to lot size; there was a consensus that this would entail striking the entire recommendation # 12. Responding to a question regarding the necessity of returning the amended recommendations to another public hearing, Commissioner Willhoit said his under- standing was that these deletions were less restrictive than what was taken to public hearing and therefore, no second public hearing was required. r Mr. 5hanklin, Planning Board member, said he thought an 18th recommen-ation regarding the New Hope Creek Watershed had been adopted. Planning Board nrinutes were consulted and it was noted that the motion to include an 18th recommendation on New Hope Creek Watershed had not passed. Commissioner Gustaveson suggested that the Board hear audience comments i on the proposed changes to the recommendations; accordingly, Chairman Whitted i i reviewed the recommendations: # 5, # 7, he said had been "taken care of"; #8 had been amended /see above7; # 9 reads as is; # 10 had been amended /See above_%; # 12 had been deleted as above, however, Commissioner Willhoit said the last sentence, regarding the impervious surface ratio should remain; # 13, CI Chairman Whitted coniitued, hA been "dealt with"; and # 14, 15, 16 and 17 were as printed. Chairman Whitted asked for audience comments on the recommendations. Mr. Ben Lloyd, Route 1, Efland, asked Commissioner Willhoit to "clarify" the changes he had made in the recommendations; Commissioner Willhoit did so. i a 418 1 Mr. Lloyd expressed his feeling that industry was being discouraged in Seven Mile Creek Watershed. He added that he did "not agree with this" contending that developers said this was one of the most viable sites in the County. Com- mi--ioner Ilillhoit said he had "no objections to it being reworded to say that, ah,. industry. ..that does not have an adverse affect on water quality should be enco;araged to locate in the Upper Eno Watershed. I would accept that." Commissioner 11illhoit continued that since the mechanisms to demonstrate that water quality is not affected had not been identified it was up to the "developer to indicate considerations that they had taken to ensure that water quality would not be adversely affected; and, that I will not compromise on." j Mr. Lloyd continued his- comments by asking Commissioners to clarify the recommendations. In reference to # 11, he said he is opposed to the extension of zoning into Cheeks Township. Mr. .Lloyd said he agreed with the changes in P12. Ms. Josephine Bar!,our, Hillsborough, said she wished to object to recommendation # 13; The Commissioners told Ms. Barbour that recommendation had already been implemented. She objected, saying that the buffers would provide access across U private land. She objected to the Water Resources Task Force Report being r shared with the Triangle J Council of Governments, saying that Orange County Citizens had not had prior input. The Commissioners reminded Ms. Barbour and Mr. Lloyd that citizens had had primary input through the Township Advisory i Councils. Ms. Crawford, Planning Board Chair, read the original motion on the 18th recommendation which had not passed /see Planning Board minutes%; she said that F � - with the exception of the recommendation to request an allocation from Jordan Lake, F 1 none of the recommendations had addressed the Jordan Lake situation. Commissioner " Willhoit said that with regard to ;# 18, "we could address that with a Resolution to the Triangle J Council of Governments developing a regional plan for protection f of the Jordan Resevoir." Ms. Crawford said she would like to see stronger wording f for # 18, regarding anyone who might be polluting or potentially polluting the "sources of Jordan Lake." Commissioner suggested that Staff bring back to a subsequent meeting a full motion "to work it into a policy statement" for # 18. The Board consented to take each recommendation in order. RE(.''IMENDATION ## 1: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commis-,loner Marshall, to approve the recommendation. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. !41 G RECOMMENDATION # 2: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded as amended by r� Commissi.b r Willhoit "to clarify that that is a longer range goal once adequate water supplies are assured in all parts cl Orange County"; Commissioner Gustaveson accepted the amendment to his motion. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Gustaveson, Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit); noes, 1 (Commissioner Walker.). I RECOMMENDATION # 3: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, approval . Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. S RECOMMENDATION # 4: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner I Whitted, to approve the Planning Board's recommendation /see pages for j specifics]. Commissioner Walker moved to amend the motion to include the Lower j Eno as a site for a reservoir; Commissioner Willhoit seconded the motion to amend. j Vote on motion to amend the original motion to include the Lower Eno as a reservoir i site: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Marshall, Walker, Whitted and Willhoit); noes, 1 (Commissioner Gustaveson). s Vote on original motion„ as amended: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Marshall, Walker, i i Whitted and Willhoit); noes, 1 (Commissioner Gustaveson). RECOMMENDATION # G: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. RECOMMENDATION # 8: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Co=jissic•. er Marshall, to approve recommendation # 8 through the sentence ending ". .J ndu,;trial uses should be prohibited from University Lake and Cane Creek Watersheds" ar;J to ask that Staff return with an amendment to address Mr. Lloyd's concerns tha-c this may be interpreted as "having a negative stance on industrial development." Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. v RECOMMENDATION # 9: Commissioner Willhoit moved adoption with the recommendation changed to read "...should be encouraged to incorporate..."; Commissioner Gustaveson seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. s RECOMMENDATION # 10: Commissioner Willhoit moved to approve, seconded by b Commissioner Gustaveson. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Gustaveson, Marshall, I Whitted and Willhoit); noes, I (Commissioner Walker). fb �. RECOMMENDATION # II: Corrtlnissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Nillhoit to approve. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. !o RECOMMENDATION # 12: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner-::K Gustaveson, to approve as previously changed. Vote_ Ayes, 5; noes, 0. to 1' 4 a i ti i RECOMi�iENDATION r 14: Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Comn-iissioner Gustaveson, to approve. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. RECOMPiENDATION # 15: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Com- missioner Willhoit,to approve. Vote: Ayes 5; noes, 0. RECOMMENDATION # lo: Commissioner ;,arshall moved, seconded by Com- missioner Gustaveson, to amid the motion to reflect the Planning Board's revised version of this reco:nm�ndation; Commissioner Marshall accepted the amendment. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. RECOMMENDATION # 17: Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Com- missioner Whitted, to approve. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. D•--6. Extension of zoning into Cheeks Township. i Mr. Cannity presented the Staff background on this issue, noting that the Planning Board had twice recommended that the extension of zoning into Cheeks be delayed; he added that Staff's position was that "zoning provides i. protection." He' said that Cheeks Township was located in watersheds which could provide drinking vjater to the County. i Commissioner asked that the Staff show two alternates to the Land Use Plan for Cheeks Township as the result of the deletion of references to i iMc Gown Creek Watershed from Recorwnand'ation # 8 of the Water Resources TAsk Force Report; and the uncertainty of Seven Mile Creek and the possible expansion i of Corporation Lake. Mr. Cannity said Staff proposed: "Area south of Efland to Old # 10 and 4 then around the intersection with the interstate be increased or that the 10 year i transition area be increased to -include this area: it would be immediately south of Efl.and and then down to the area of Old # 10, around the interchange of 85 s and back up to a line that's about parallel with the existing Ten Year Transition at this point. We would also suggest that this area in here to the new proposed f i Ten Year Transition be expanded and called Twenty-Year Transition." r Commissioner Gustaveson moved to send this recommendation as presented by Cannity, to the Planning Board as an urgent item and to ask for its expeditious consideration. Commissioner Walker said he would second the notion 4 if Commissioner Gustave--:.n would amend the motion to include Mr. ShanklAir's su :,:.stion that this re.commendation return to the Township Advisory Council . Commissioner Gustaveson said that would be a Planning Board decision and he } would not amend his motion to include Mr. Shonklin's suggestion. Commissioner f Marshall :.econded Co:nnissioner Gustaveson's motion. 4:21 _ t Chairman Idhitted said that the tr,ree major- ren^erns voiced at the Public I;eariny on this issue, as he remembered them were: 1) Industrial develop- ment batween the 1-85 and US 70 corrider; 2) sewer, and water extension; and, 3) lot size restrictions. He said the recor:.mendatiens as amended and adopted this evening of the Water Resources Task Force addressed those issues. Vote: Ayes,, 5; noes, 0- i D--1. Housing Rehabilitation Contract Awards. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to award the housing rehab contracts to the low bidders as recommended by the Community Development Director- (That recommendation and all bid results are on pages respectively, of this book.) Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. D--2. Safety Seat Program. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve the lease agreement with the Orange County Child Pas:- 5er Safety Association, as reconniended by the Mianager. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. D--3. Voting Machine Bid Aiaard. _. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to award the bid to Computer Elections Systems as recommended by the Purchasing I Officer. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. II D-•-7. Executive Session to consider personnel matters. i Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to t go into executive session for a personnel matter. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Following the executive session the Board adjourned the meeting by consensus. r Richard E. Whined, Chair S Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk i I L I D i1 b .f IP 0 •