Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19821122 124 MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1982 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, November 22, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted and Commissioners Norman Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker, and Don Willhoit. Commissioner Whitted announced that the Board would first consider the Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Board. Planning Board Members present: Pat Crawford, Chairwoman, and Sally Boericke., Alice Gordon, Logan Irvin, Steve Kizer, Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Lunsford, Sharlene Pilkey and David Shanklin. Planning Board Members absent: Tom Bacon. Pat Crawford chaired the Joint Public Hearing and announced the order for the procedures. C. 1. REZONING--HILL COUNTRY FURNITURE FROM R-1 to EC-5 Mr. Rick Cannity of the Planning Department made the presentation to the Boards and the public for the Hill Country Furniture. Mr. Cannity, cited the location of the property and provided background on this lot and building. (A detailed statement is included in these minutes on page/3e of this book.) Ms. Crawford asked for a list of permitted uses in the EC-5 zone; Mr. Cannity read the permitted uses from the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. John Northen, an attorney, spoke for Mr. Gregg saying that this property has always been used as a small commercial establishment. Mr. Northen sups ports Planning Staff's recommendation approval of the EC-5 designation for this property. C. 2. CORNWALLIS HILLS SUBDIVISION REZONING FROM R-1 to R-3 Mr. Rick Cannity made the presentation for the Boards on the Cornwallis Hills Subdivision. Mr. Cannity cited the location of the subdivision and provided background information of this subdivision. He said the requested change in the designation to R-3 meets the application criteria for bhe R-3 district. The designation change is appropriate for this location. Mr. Jerry Levitt, representing the developers of Cornwallis Hills spoke in support of the zoning change. 126 808 Mrs. James Rippy, an adjacent property owner, asked the difference between R-1 and R-3 zones. Mr. Cannity responded to her satisfaction. C. 3. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS Mr. Cannity made the presentation on the proposed zoning text amendments to the Boards. (Mr. Cannity's verbatim remarkes are on pages M/4500f this book.) Following his presentation on the proposed changes, Mr. Cannity responded to questions from the Boards and members of the audience, clarifying the changes as and if necessary. C. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN--PIEDMONT POWER COMPANY Ms. Susan Smith, of the Planning Staff, made the presentation to the Boards on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan for Piedmont Power Company. She cited the location on NC 86 and said the request is reasonable given the proposed use and it is not incompatible with existing development. Mr. Delmas Adams, representing Piedmont Power's architectural firm, said the site had been purchased in 1974 and it had been Piedmont's intention to locate its facility on that site. Ms. Hazel Lunsford, speaking as a private citizen, spoke in opposition to the proposed changes; she cited the changing character of the area from its prese rural character. She said her opposition was not directed at the company. Mr. J. T. Squires from Fayetteville spoke for Mr. and Mrs. Millis who own property along NC 86. He wanted to know what the effect of the proposed use would be on Mr. and Mrs. Millis' property. He asked if the buffer zone is entirely on Piedmont's property. Mr. Cannity replied yes. Mr. Cannity, responding to Commissioner Willhoit, said Piedmont had acquired the property in 1974 and even if Piedmont's plans had been known that knowledge would not have affected the designation given the site during the zoning process. Commissioner Willhoit asked if money had been expended for planning on the 4 site at the time zoning was adopted. Mr. Adams replied that he did not know when zoning was implemented in Orange, County, however, following the purchase his firm had been commissioned to do the site study. He added that the "final map" indicated that the site was to be used for office purposes, "storage yard and related power company facilities." Ms. Smith, responding to Ms. Crawford said that the plat recorded showed wording to the effect the property was to be used for office purposes. 805 126 Planning Board Member Kizer voiced concern that the Land Use Plan was being revised to accommodate Piedmont's request. He indicated that the proposal was likely to have a major impact in the area extending up to 5R 1710; adding that a review should be made of the entire area. Commissioner Willhoit felt that a project begins with the expenditure of considerable funds. Planning Board Member Kizer said that the Zoning Ordinance makes clear what y is evidence of the start of a project and he was not sure that the Piedmont proposal meets this criteria. There were no further questions. C. 5. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AND REZONING FOR PIEDMONT POWER COMPANY Chairman Whitted chaired this public hearing on the Special Use Permit Request by Piedmont Power Company for a PD-OI designation at their property located on NC 86 in Hillsborough Township. All persons who presented evidence were sworn by Chairman Whitted. Mr. Cannity presented the evidence on behalf of the Planning department to the Boards. Mr. Cannity's verbatim evidence follows. Piedmont has requested a rezoning to PD-OI in a tract of land in Hillsborough Township. The area of the parcel is 33.92 acres, it is on NC 86 south of the town of Hillsborough adjacent to Joppa Oaks and Duke Forest and across from Wood Brothers commercial uses. As previously indicated, the adopted Land Use Plan would have to be amended in order to accommodate the proposed use. Piedmont purchased this property in 1974 with the intention of using the site as an office building and yard storage area.: After the purchase, the Corporation made application of Washington D.C. for the approval to go ahead with the planning and design of the structure. During the late 1970's 'and early 1980's Orange County- was developing a land use plan and zoning ordinance which would be applied to Hillsborough Township on September 2, 1981. The property was zoned R-1 which means it could be used for residential purposes at a density of one unit to the acre. Piedmont brought the problem to the attention of the Planning Staff. The Staff outlined the options open to the developer and the developers decided to apply for a planned development designation. The Orange County Health Department has approved an on site ground sewage disposal system for the Office Building. However, the developers are continuing to investigate the possibility of extending a sanitary sewer line from the existing service near the intersection of US 70 and NC 86. The application contains letters from the Orange County Sheriff's Department and rescue squad which state they can provide service to the development. Orange Rural Fire Department wrote that it can service the building. The application contained all the pertinent material required by Section 8.8. The site is located adjacent to NC 86 which is designated as an arterial in the adopted Land Use Plan. According to the most recent figures of the NC DOT there are 4100 motor vehicle trips/per day along this section of the road. The Planning Staff estimates that this dev- elopment will generate 450 motor vehicle trips per day. The two proposed 12" 81 c entrances to the site have good sight distance in both directions. The service entrance which is 186' north of the public entrance should be paved according to state secondary road standards rather than be a gravel road as suggested in the application. The physical character of the site lends itself to the proposed development. The site plan shows a 100' wide buffer along the property lines to the north, east and south. The high elevation of the site is 702' near where the developer proposed to install a radio communi- cation tower to a low point of 631' near the northern property line at NC 86. The site plan indicated that a good amount of the existing vegetation should remain, there will be considerable clearing and grading involved in the construction of the proposed outdoor storage areas. The building-does not exceed the maximum allowed floor areas, or heights. Nor does it exceed the maximum allowed intensity of develop- ment. The signs, used to identify the project and give directions within the project shall meet all sections of Article 9. This concluded the verbatim portion of Mr. Cannity's evidence; he cited Plan- ning Staff's suggested conditions if the Permit-is approved. Those conditions •follow: 1. That all signs for the development shall be according to Section 7.16 and Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Drainage, soil'erosion and sedimentation plans shall be reviewed and approved by,Orange County. The installation of control devices and on going construction work shall be inspected by Orange County. The site shall at all times be in conformance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 3. That the proposed dumpster be placed an a 10' x 20' concrete pad 6" thick, with wire mesh. ' 4. That the service entrance from NC 86 to the entrance gate into the storage yard be paved to NC DOT secondary road stan- dards. 5. That the developer mark the 100' buffer on the perimeter of the site and take precautions to insure that the grading contractor does not disturb the area. 6. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made part of the Special Use.Permit. A copy of the final site plan and narrative are to be maintained on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Only those uses specified in the project narrative and on the site plan, including but not necessarily limited to the offices, warehousing, maintenance service and outside storage of utility materials will be permitted at the office facility. All improvements as indicated shall be constructed according to the construction schedule set forth in this permit. 7. The following construction schedule shall be adhered to by the applicant. Construction shall begin within six months of the issuance of the Special Use Permit. 8. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone, sewer and water) installation, servicing and hookups to the devel- opment shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. • Planning Board Member Wilson asked Mr. Cannity a question about the buffer on ' the northwest side. Mr. Cannity responded that the property at the northwest corner • was transversed by a road and by drainage lines for the septic tank. Mr. Cannity continuing to respond to Mr. Wilson said the fence was not on the property line but • 100' feet in. Mr. Cannity added that staff recommended as a condition that the ,• buffer be clearly marked on the ground and that the grading contractor be made aware ;• of the existence of the buffer. • 128 811 Planning Board Member Pilkey asked the width of the buffer on the Joppa Oaks side of the property. Mr. Cannity said that the buffer was only 60' wide in that area due to an access road to the Jones property that was granted prior to Piedmont's purchase of the property. Commissioner Gustaveson expressed concern regarding traffic safety at Joppa Oaks and at this site's proposed entrances. He cited Duke Power's widening of the road at the intersection of Homestead Road and NC 86 in Chapel r Hill as an example that might be followed here. Mr. Cannity said the physical considerations on Piedmont's site and NC 86 were considerably different. At Duke Power the entrances are at the top of two hills, where vehicles could be below grade and not easily visible. Piedmont's site at NC 86 is flat with good sight distance in both directions. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that the design considerations were good at Joppa Oaks also. He said he would like for the design people to address the question of traffic. Mr. Adams indicated that Piedmont was working with NC DOT on this problem. Mr. Cannity replied to Planning Board Member Shanklin that the ground elevation is 701' at its highest- point and .631' at its lowest point in the northwest corner. Planning Board Member Shanklin asked what the height of the communications tower was. Lawrence Allen, a Piedmont engineer, stated that the tower would be between 200' and 250'. Commissioner Gustaveson said he wanted the record to note that he has serious reservations regarding the traffic safety at the proposed entrances. Commissioner Gustaveson suggested that prior to a final decision being made on this Permit that NC DOT should submit a proposal to address the traffic problem. • Mr. Adams indicated that the public entrance was located so as to avoid steep • terrain on the site, resulting in the service entrance located in the buffer area. • He added the office building was located on the crest of the site leaving the flatter terrain for the operations center. • Commissioner Whitted inquired as to the current location of the communications • tower for Piedmont Power. Mr, Adams responded the tower is presently located in • southern Person County. The proposed site would become the regional headquarters • for Piedmont Power. • Commissioner Gustaveson asked if the site would contain all the warehousing e for Piedmont Power. Mr. Adams responded negatively noting that the center would • 812 129 deal with potential business from all twelve satellites and a large portion of Piedmont's storage requirements. Commissioner Gustaveson inquired if the proposed development included an assumption of expansion of Piedmont Power's facilities. Mr. Adams responded that the site contains ample space. Planning Board Member Irvin inquired about the nature of the stream to the north of the storage line all night lighting. Mr. Adams responded that there was 40' to 50' of trees and that the lights would be oriented into the site. He added that lighting was primarily to serve security purposes. Planning Board Member Kizer asked for an estimate of the total cost excluding the purchase of the property. Mr. Adams replied the total prodect cost excluding property was approximately 1.75 million dollars. Mr. Kizer asked how much Piedmont Power invested. Mr. Adams responded that REA contributes approximately 40% and that the remainder is covered by the private sector. Planning Board Member Shanklin expressed a concern about airports within 7 miles of a communications tower with the type of lighting proposed being a potential obstacle. He continued that given common pilot procedures, it would be best to use strobe lights rather than a rotating beacon. Mr. Adams indicated his firm had not yet considered this and that he had assumed that a red light is used on low towers and a strobe light on high towers. Mr. Squires asked if the Millis' property would still be residential, expressing concern about "spot zoning" of the property. Mr. Cannity responded that all property not otherwise designated. is residential. Commissioner Will.hoit moved to adjourn the Public Hearing for a Special Use Permit from Piedmont Power to January 4, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. to receive the recommendation from the Planning Board; Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5; Noes, 0. Following a short break, the Board resumed deliberations with all members present as indicated at the beginning of this meeting. A. BOARD COMMENTS Chairman Whitted deleted consideration of Joint Planning from the agenda and added NACo dues increase; he announced that the order of the agenda would be D-1, D--S, and D-8, in order to accommodate those members of the audience who are waiting. S. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no comments f-^-_ L�== audience about matters on or off the printed agenda. I,30 .. 81r D. ITEMS FOR DECISION BY BOARD 1. Planning Board By-Laws Discussion: Chairwoman Crawford summarized the Planning Board's concerns regarding the Board of Commissioners' recommendations on Planning Board By-Laws. (Please see page of this book for recommendations or refer to the Board of Commissioners minutes of November 1, 1982.) Chairwoman Crawford,said regarding Article IV-C, that in the event Planning Board minutes were not as timely or as acceptable as the Board desires a Planning Board member would be appointed to aide or to serve in an advisory or screening capacity to the Staff. She continued that the Board did not anticipate that the member appointed would have additional recording duties except in the event that relations between the Staff and Planning Board had deteriorated. Commissioner Willhoit responded that if there was a relationship problem the Board of County Commissioners should know about it. There was a concensus among Commissioners that the Planning Director or his designee should serve as the Chair to the Planning Board, Chairwoman Crawford, continued with Article VII-E, saying the Planning Board had concerns about the question of abstentions. Commissioner Gustaveson said that some previous Planning Board's votes on issues had contained so many abstentions that the recommendation received was not useful; stressing that the Commissioners are searching for the best direction from the Planning Board. County Attorney Gledhill said that because there are "no expressed rules" for the Planning Board voting procedures, that the rules, regulations and phil- osophy of elected Boards become that of the boards they appoint. He added that, in the event of a possible conflict of interest, the Chair makes the determination. Chairwoman Crawford asserted that the Planning Board felt there were conflicts of interest other than financial considerations. Planning Board Member Gordon noted that the Planning Board used abstentions for conflicts of interest and for a lack of information. Commissioner Willhoit added that the deliberation process used for making decisions was also important to the Commissioners. Chairwoman Crawford said that with regard to Article IX, approval of rules and procedures for the Planning Board, the question of Planning Board autonomy was foremost, although it is recognized that the Commissioners created it and > gave it its authority. 8i-i 13i Chairman Whitted said how the Planning Board conducts its business is essential to the recommendations the Commissioners receive. With regard to the Township Advisory Councils, Commissioner Willhoit noted that they are not required to have a quorum; his concern is that the Councils not become a vehicle for special interest 'groups. Commissioner Willhoit said that the Planning Board should decide if the Councils were an effective method, as originally intended, of receiving citizen input. Chairwoman Crawford said the Planning Board would reconsider the Commissioners' recommendations at its next meeting. D-8. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the above entry hiring of Paul Cook (69-6A), Donald Truelove (68-7A) and Joseph Dickey (63-58) in the Sheriff's Department as requested by Sheriff-elect Pendergrass. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. D-5. HUD MANAGEMENT REVIEW Following Chairman Whitted's summation of the attachments to this agenda item (please see pages/S -/M""f this book), Mr. Tom Heffner Chair of the Chapel Hill Housing Authority briefly presented the Housing Authority's recommendations and reasons for those recommendations. (Those recommendations are cited in the attachments to this agenda item. Following much discussion Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve entering into a contract with the Chapel Hill Housing Authority for that Authority to continue administering the Section Eight Program for one year with a sixtyrday termination clause exercisable • by either party. Contract would be effective January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983. Vote: Ayes 4 (Commissioners Gustaveson, Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit); Noes, 1 (Commissioner Walker). Commissioner Walker left the meeting following this vote. ` I D-2. DECEMBER MEETING SCHEDULE • Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to change i• the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21st to December 14th and to cancel Lo the December 27th meeting. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. i• D-3. DUMONT DRIVE AND MACE ROAD PARTICIPATORY PAVING Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to adopt T. 3_ 3. 8ilu 132 the Preliminary Assessment Resolutions for both Mace Road and Dumont Drive and to schedule a public hearing on both Preliminary Assessment Resolutions for 7:30 P.M. December 14th. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. D-4. BRITTON WOODS Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to rescind the condition of approval placed by the Board on the preliminary plat for Britton Woods, requiring that it be located within one fire district. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. D-7. BUDGET AMENDMENT Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve budget amendment # 4 (of the agenda of November 16th; see page /-?;t, of this book) for the Health Department. The revised revenue figures are due to an error in estimating the Department's revenue, not Federal reductions. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by ommissioner Willhoit to approve budget amendments # 1, 2 and 3 (see pages 1,24 A-,AS/of this book for those amounts). Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. Settlement of Pending Claim. Mr. S.M. Gattis resigned from Orange County on June 30, 1981. He was paid for thirty days accumulated leave pursuant to the Orange County Personnel Policy. He contends he was owed for an additional one hundred fifty- three and one-half days. The claimed and unpaid leave time is valued at $24,604.53 plus interest from June 30, 1981. Orange County contends that Mr. Gattis was paid for all he was entitled for accumulated leave under the Orange County Personnel Policy. This claim was settled on September 17, 1982 by payment to Mr. Gattis of $19,698.63. In exchange for this payment, Mr. Gattis released and discharged Orange County and the members of the Board of Commissioners from liability for all claims he has now or may ever have growing out of or incident to his employment with Orange County through June 30, 1981. Orange -County has not admitted liability for any sum and Mr. Gattis has acknowledged that Orange County has admitted no liability. D-9. RECYCLING AGREEMENT Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Resolutions authorizing agreements with the Orange Regional Landfill and Non- Profit Recycling Organizations, and to approve the agreement with ECOS and the agreement for the establishment of recycling sites. VOte: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. D--10. NACo PAYMENT--Added Item Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve • 81C the additional dues payment of $359.00 to NACo for this fiscal year. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. With no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adjourn the meeting. Vote: Ayes, 4; noes, 0. I Richard E. Whitted, Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Acting Clerk