Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19830104 MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1983 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 4, 1983, at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners Ben Lloyd, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. A. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Whitted added a property update on the Annie Obie Riley pro- perty matter. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Lawrence Allen and Delmas Adams were present for the Piedmont Power Special Use Permit hearing; there were no others who wished to speak. C. MINUTES Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve ' the Minutes of December 6, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. ' Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve ' the Minutes of December 14, 1982, as corrected. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. ' D. RESOLUTION ' Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to adopt the ' Resolution of Appreciation for Congressman L.H. Fountain and to have the Clerk mail ' the Resolution to Mr. Fountain. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. (See page of this Book.) Commissioner Whitted read the Resolution of Appreciation for L.H. Fountain. E. PUBLIC HEARING--PIEDMONT POWER Commissioner Whitted announced that the Public Hearing on the Class A Special ' Use Permit request from Piedmont Power was open to receive the Planning Board recom_ ' mendation. Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director, was sworn in to provide the Plan- ' ning Board's recommendation. ' Mr. Collins said that the Planning Board had met on December 20, 1982, to 'consider the two requests from Piedmont Power: 1) the Land Use Plan Amendment from 'Rural Residential to Commercial Transition Activity Node; and, 2) the Class A Special 'Use Permit for a PD-OI request. The Planning Board recommended denial of the Land 'Use Plan Amendment Mr. Collins said and the reason carried over into the way the 0 Planning Board had considered the Class A Special Use Permit. Rather than con- sidering it as a Planned Development-Office Institutional , the Planning Board treated the request as a Class A Special Use Permit in a Rural Residential area under provisions of Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such an interpretation would bring it within the same type of uses as substations, utility stations, switching stations, telephone exchanges and water and sewer treatment plants. Mr. Collins described the property and its location. Mr. .Coilins continued, saying, the Planning Board recommended approval as a Class A Special Use Permit in a Rural Residential area because all the Zoning Ordinance requirements had been met. Mr. Collins added that the Planning Board also considered the request as a Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development-Office Institutional , as advertised and requested, and "found that it met all the requirements with the exception that it did not comply with the Land Use Plan." Mr. Collins said Staff's recommendation to the Planning Board was that it could not consider this request under the provisions of Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance and that if it did so readvertisement was necessary. Mr. Collins cited the precedent of the Commissioners ' granting the PD-OI classification and use to Duke Power Company for its site on Homestead Road in Chapel Hill . The Planning Board recommended against changing the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Whitted clarified the issue saying this request was for a Class A Special Use Permit for a PD-OI and was advertised as such and the public hearing was held on that request, not for a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for under Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, in a Rural Residential District. The County Attorney said, in his opinion, that the use Piedmont Power plans for that area is more intensive than just "substations" and that there would be more traffic generated than for a substation. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to close the Public Hearing on the Class A Special Use Permit by Piedmont Power Company for a PD-OI on NC 86 in Hillsborough. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-2 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT--PIEDMONT POWER Commissioner Whitted asked Mr. Cannity, Planning Staff, to point out on the map how the Land Use Plan would be changed if the request for Commercial Transition Activity Node were granted. Mr. Collins replied, while demonstrating on the map, that the node was presently located in a half mile radius circle at the intersection of I-85 and NC 86. The request would result in the node having bbl: a "fingerlike" projection down NC 86 and ballooning out to encompass the 33.92 acre tract owned by Piedmont Power. Commissioner Willhoit suggested that the Zoning Ordinance might be amended to permit large scale development outside designated nodes provided sufficient buffers are provided. Commissioner Willhoit continued, saying that this particular use should have minimal impact on the residential area adjoining the tract. There was a concensus that the Planning Staff should re-examine this particular node, the Harmon-Young Node; Mr. Collins said Staff should complete its revaluation of this area in four to five months. Mr. Collins added that the Planning Department had received inquiries about the tract across from Piedmont's on NC 86 for potential commercial/industrial development. Commissioner .Willhoit noted two potential problems with this particular request: 1) traffic safety; and, 2) lights glaring into neighboring homes; both, he thought,could be resolved. Commissioner Walker moved to deny the Land Use Plan Amendment (from Rural Residential to Commercial Transition Activity Node) for Piedmont Power Company; he withdrew his motion. Commissioner Willhoit asked Mr. Collins if he could resolve for the Board the question of spot zoning outside a node. Mr. Collins responded that there were two or three ways of accomplishing that: 1) amend the Zoning Text to allow "this" as a permitted use in a R-1 area; 2) dissociate changes in the Land Use Plan from the zoning process; or, failing those, 3) adopt another kind of node that would be apart from an activity center. Mr. Collins responded to a question from Com- missioner Willhoit that the node concept as adopted by Orange County permits mixed uses in the nodes, that is, all development within a node does not have to be com- mercial or industrial. Commissioner Willhoit asked if the Staff could consider the possibility of having Planned Developments above a given size (25 acres) with the proper buffers and relatively self-contained permitted in all areas and not restricted to the node concept. He added that the problems the Board seemed to be having with this proposal was that it was a good one but "does not conform to the node concept." Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the Planning Staff recommendation to amend the Land Use Plan from Rural Residential to Commercial Transition Activity Node for the Piedmont Power Company's 33.92 acres. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 661 Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, "that the Planning Department review and revise the entire HB-4 Activity Node within six months of the date of this approval"; Commissioner Willhoit amended,and Commissioner Marshall accepted, the motion to include in the study the possibility that Planned Developments of large acreage be allowed outside the nodes. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-3 REZONING AND CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PIEDMONT POWER COMPANY Commissioner Walker moved to approve both the rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for Piedmont Power Company; he withdrew his motion for discussion. Commissioner Willhoit noted that one of the conditions recommended by the Planning Board dealt with the tungsten lights rather than specifying that the out- sid e lights from the development shouldn't glare onto the adjacent residential areas. The Attorney told the Board that if specific evidence was not presented at the public hearing on the lights that the condition and recommendation on lights imposed by the Planning Board was inappropriate and could not be considered by the Board. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the rezoning and the Class A Special Use Permit request by Piedmont Power Company for a PD-OI based on the "Findings of Fact" of the Orange County Planning Department and the summary of the evidence presented at the public hearing contained in the Orange County Planning Department's "Findings of Fact" accompanying these Minutes (on pages 340*639f this book) and with the imposed conditions proposed by the Planning Board and Planning Department, as amended by this Board (see pages of this book). /Clerk's note: the amended conditions are with regard to Condition # 2 from the Planning Board, and are that the outdoor lighting from the development be shaded or shielded so that there is no glare into the adjacent residential areas:] Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. - E-4 CORNWALLIS HILLS Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve It rezoning Cornwallis Hills Phase I Subdivision from R-1 to R-3. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-5 HILL COUNTRY FURNITURE Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve the Planning Board recommendation to rezone the Hill Country Furniture site (.88 acres) from R-1 to EC-5. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-6 DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve a one year extension of the preliminary plat for Deerfield Subdivision. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-7 SHERWOOD PARK Commissioner Whitted noted that this subdivision is within Hillsborough's Town limits and questioned the County's approving subdivisions within Hillsborough in the absence of standards expected by the Town. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the Sherwood Park Subdivision preliminary plan with the three conditions requested by the Town of Hillsborough. (See page 3 39of this book for those conditions.) Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-8 FAUCETTE SLOPE Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the Planning Staff's and Planning Board's recommendation to approve the preliminary plan for Faucette Slope Subdivision. Commissioner Whitted moved to amend the motion to reflect the request that the developer consider redesigning the final plan for this subdivision to minimize the number of entrances directly onto Borland Road (SR 1126), i.e. shared driveways; Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion to amend. Vote: Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Whitted, Marshall and Willhoit); noes, 2 (Commissioners Lloyd and Walker). Vote on motion to approve the subdivision as amended: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-9 HOLT'S LANDING Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve the preliminary plan for Holt's Landing Subdivision as recommended by the Planning Board (including the condition). Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-10 KRISTIE D. LENNON PROPERTY Commissioner Lloyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the partial right of way easement as recommended by the Planning Board for the Kristie D. Lennon property off SR 1562. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-11 DANNY & BONNIE MAY PROPERTY Commissioner Lloyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the Planning Board's recommendation that the partial width right-of-way be granted for the Danny and Bonnie May minor subdivision off SR 1958. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 6 Following a short break the Board resumed deliberations with all members present as indicated at the beginning of the meeting. b� E-12 PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve , the Planning Board By-Laws as submitted with one amendment, that Article IV-C , read that "The Planning Board Chair or his (or her) designee may have the opportunity , to review the -minutes of the Planning Board minutes...." Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-13 FOXFIRE DRIVE & EDWARDS DRIVE Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, approval , of the addition of Foxfire Drive and Edwards Drive to the State Secondary Road , System. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. The Board of Commissioners adjourned for lunch and resumed deliberations , at 1:30 P.M. with all members present. In order to accommodate the County Attorney , who needed to leave the meeting early the Board moved added item 24, Update on Annie Riley Obie Property, to this time. E-24 ANNIE RILEY OBIE PROPERTY UPDATE The Clerk reported that she had not received any upset bids on this property. • Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to accept the offer from • Mr. John Sealye to purchase the Annie Riley Obie Property subject to the conditions • contained in the agreement between Mr. Sealye and the County (see pages of • this Book). Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-14 RECOMMENDATION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF CHEEKS TOWNSHIP Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adopt , the four recommendations as detailed in his memorandum to the Board dated December , 30, 1982 (see pages.37of this book). Commissioner Lloyd requested information cited in the memorandum on Cor- poration Lake. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-15 RELOCATION OF POWER POLES Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve , the Manager's recommendation-to authorize removal of eight Duke Power Poles in the Northern Fairview Community Development area. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-16 GRANT AGREEMENT WITH NCDNRCD Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to approve the grant agreement with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development for the third year of.the CD Block Grant Program. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. ub4 • E-17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT • Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve • the Manager's recommendation to amend the streets improvements contract in Northern Fairview to include the complete paving of Hill Street. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-18 AMBULANCE PURCHASE Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the purchase of one ambulance from Southeastern Emergency Equipment of Wake Forest for $22,738.00 as the*low bidder (for complete bid results see page -�6/ of this book). Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-19 FINANCING AGREEMENT FOR FRONT END LOADER AND COMPUTER EQUIPMENT The Manager told the Board that the lowest interest rates that the County was able to obtain on a lease purchase agreement (13.1%) led him to recommend out- right purchase of the equipment rather than a lease purchase plan. He recommends outright purchase of the equipment by.using: $45,000 of the water and sewer exten- sion appropriation in the CIP fund (which will leave $10,000 in that fund for this year); $10,000 from the Old Courthouse restoration project; $32,000 from the con- tingency account; and, $52,000 from the current year's Local Option Sales Tax (which is coming in at approximately 2h% above budget). Some Board members questioned using the water and sewer extension funds, saying they wanted to build that fund up over the years, even if it wasn't expected to be spent this year; some Board members questioned the commitment of Local Option Sales Tax monies. The members felt such a commitment would reduce the Board's flexibility in meeting unexpected needs during the budget process. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the Manager's recommendation for outright purchase of the front end loader truck 0 and computer equipment (as outlined above). Vote: Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Lloyd, Walker and Willhoit); noes, 2 (Commissioners Whitted and Marshall). Commissioner Whitted asked that the Capital Projects be reviewed by the Board. E-20 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the budget amendments as recommended by the Manager. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. (Amend- ments are on pages X5��this book.) E-21 DISTRICT 9 NCACC BOARD OF DIRECTORS There was a concensus of the Board to recommend Jack Dossenbach, Jr., to fill the vacancy on the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Board of Directors created by the retirement of Wake County Commissioner J.T. .Knott. E-22 BOARD MEETING LOCATION There was a concensus to hold the Board's third Tuesday meeting of each month in Chapel Hill at the Old Post Office Building Courtroom for six months on a trial basis. E-23 APPOINTMENTS Planning Board: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to reappoint Sharlene Pilkey and Alice Gordon to the Planning Board. Commissioner Walker nominated Frank Pearson and Michael Woods to the Planning Board. Following discussion, Commissioner Willhoit withdrew his motion and , these appointments are to be returned to the February first Monday meeting. , Energy Commission: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner , Marshall ,' to appoint Doug Guild to the Energy Commission. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. , Nursing Home Advisory Council : Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by , Commissioner Marshall, to reappoint Ms.Hudson and Mr. Tyler to this Council . Vote: , Ayes, 5; noes, 0. . The three remaining appointments are to be returned to the February first , Monday meeting. , Mebane Board of Adjustment: The Clerk told the Board she had not received . any applications for this appointment. It is to be returned to the first Monday . meeting in February. The Board instructed the Clerk to advertise for the-Economic Develoment . Commission appointments. With no further business to consider the Board of Commissioner adjourned by concensus. Richard E. Whitted, Chair Paulette Pridgen, Clerk if r ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HMZZBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION For i WHEREAS, L.H.Fountain was elected to the North Carolina Senate in 1947,and after serving two terms,sought election to the United State House of Representa- tives and was elected by the voters of the Second District to that Office, where,since 1952,he has served his State and Nation for fifteen consecutive terms;and, WHEREAS, While in the House he helped establish the Advisory Commission on Inter- governmental Relations and served on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Federalism, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Government Operations,and,in addition,served as an effective watchdog for the public in health and consumer affairs;and, WHEREAS, L.H.Fountain has served the people of North Carolina in elective office since 1947 and in various public roles for over fifty years;and, WHEREAS, He has been a good friend of the Second Congressional District, serving Orange County faithfully and responsively since its inclusion in that District ten years ago. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners,acting on behalf of the citizens of Orange County,that the service,dedication,devo- tion and unceasing efforts of L. H.Fountain on behalf of his District, State and Nation are deeply appreciated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners wishes for him and his family every happiness and good fortune in the years ahead and directs this Resolution be presented to L. H. Fountain,with a copy sent to the press.and the Resolution be spread on the Minutes of this meeting,this 4th day of January,1983. 'Richard E.Whitted Chair Ben Lloyd � � Member Shirley,E. a Member IN n Walker Member 1,41 Don Willhoit ¢ Member �. r Paulette Pri ten-Pond "erk M)MRC CCM4ZS�-jTC`1f_RS AsMTI.AGO.TIAI 1'TLl :aST21= Zt= January 4. 1983 SUbje-C Amendment to the Land Use Plan for Piedmont Power-Company (Rural Residential to Commercial Trahsition_Activity. Node) c "y= ' Plannin , i as '- rg X ^-y Harmon Young Node Map C;.�-: Marvin Collins Public Hearing Minutes of 11/22/82; Planning Board Minutes of 12/20/82 P N=kr .-_- 73Z-8181 Extension 349 To consider a recommendation from the Planning Board in regard to a proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan from Rural Residential Co Commercial Transition Activity Node. rn 1974, Piedmont Power Company purchased a 33.92 acre tract located south of 1-83 an the east side of N.C. 86 in Hillsborough Township with the intention of using the site as an office building and maintenance/warehouse facility. Following the purchase, the company made application for- approval to proceed with the Planning and design of the facility. During the late 19.70's and early 1980's, Orange County developed a land use plan and zoning ordinance. The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance were officially applied to HiLlsborough Township on September 2, 1981. The area in which the property is located was zoned R-L at that time and limited the use of the property to primarily residential purposes at densities no greater than one (L) dwelling.unit per acre. In the fall of 1981, ?iedmont Power Company brought the problem to the, attention of the Planning Department. Several options were outlined, including a lard use olan. amendment coupled with a request for a general use zoning classification (Ofzi.ce Institutional) and a Land use plan change coupled with a request for a planned development. district classification (Office institutional). The applicant decided upon the latter approach since plans for the use of. the property were :tn.owu. Z+?a= The proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan. would result in a "zinger-Lika" projection. ( 3,000 feet ) of the Harmon Young Commercial Transition Activity Node south along the N.C. Highway 86 right-of-way to include the ?iedmonc Power Company pxopezty. The amendment would result in a change in the type of land uses proposed for the area; }.e_, office/institutional type facility as opposed to residential uses. However, the proposed use would not be incompatible in that impacts such as traffic asneraticn, visual appearance, etc, would be considerably less than amore intensive retail type of use. Furthermore, there is an existing commercial development an the opposite side of N.C. Highway 86 from the Piedmont Power Company site, and the site has adequate access by-way-of N.C. Highway 86. An on-site sewage disposal system and. well are proposed to serve the facilities. 7I%MNDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the requested change to the Land Use ?Ian.. A review and possible revision of the entire HB-4 activity node will be undertaken at a later date as part of the annual work program. The Planning Board recommended that the Board of• County Commissioners consider Piedmont Power Company's application as a "Class A" Special Use Permit as indicated on page 4-13 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use would be considered in the same class as public utility stations and substations, switching stations, telephone exchanges, and water and sewer treatment planes. The proposed use would be allowed. in the Rural Residential (R-1) district under the special. use permit procedure without changing the zoning classification. A decision regarding whether or not the proposal would require re-advertisement ORANGE' COUNTY BOARD OF COM CSSIONERS '.Lz.ETING DATE JanuaEz 4 1983 ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. CONTINUED RECOMIENDATION: would be left to the County Attormey^. (Continued) The Planning Board also recommended that the requested change to the . Land Use Plan be denied in that a modification of the Plan is inappropriate at this time. I u `:its•%�..,•:;:.. y X rt Y•:: ryi W'•?v: ti GARAGE Ro. o B 4 NOCE AREA �..:.x •s:� =; ryV i ��S S�;e'=.s Cj ECG/S� " � o : nY :.; MINN.. JI it ;..:.. r: TUSK"P IIA I7C4 FL i ` :;ry"r+i:�`'•{`♦y��•}'$;i ficYl��•i�'.f-,f.•,,•.r:�: \ - � 441 1\T NO A •^'.i'}'i lam.�� t.1�'y - ��•=J Y�`t' G' ' .� � � err _ �.J.- �a'r.�� •r�.1`�_L`•,•? � - � �•.+1'• .'- :'r y'-.Ar.:aY'w�wi:.'`.• .wf rrw�•S �1� y'' . ff�� � � rr� rl=�~..��:���^�'ai. r+.�i�..�..�•.'-ti.�_ � Lrrprr111 u7G Piedmont Power Company's Class A Special Use permit Application The following information is the Orange County Planning Staffs findings of fact concerning Piedmont Power's request for a Class A Special Use Permit. under section 8.8.23 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The corresponding zoning district applied fo= is Office-Institutional. The following- evidence- has been supplied. by the. applicant or by the Orange County Flanniag. Department. Article--8 Special Uses. Ordinance requires; Findings: 8.2.1 a) The applicant shall have the The Planning Staff finds that the burden of' establishimg1 by competent applicant. has presented competant material and substantial evidence, the material and substantial evidence existence: of the facts and conditions for the approval of the request; whictr this. ordinance requires. for with the attached imposed condition approval; and 8.Z.1 b.) The Boaxd: shall make written The applicant has provided figures findings certifying compliance with that indicate compliance with the: specific rules governing such Article 5 Dimensional Requirements individual SpeciaL Use and that the use, and Article 6, Applicatioa. o� which is- listed as a. Special Use in the Dimensional. Requirements. 'There district im which it is, proposed to be are no requested variances from. located, complies with all required re- requirements. gulacions and standards, including the provisions of Article 5 and 6 o'� this ordinance, unless greater or different regulations are contained in the i.adi- vidual standards far, the specific Special Use. It shall be the res- ponsibility o: the applicant to pre- sent evidence- in the form of the testi- mony, exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like: to support the application for approval of a Special Use. _ s 8.2.2 Where the Board finds a perpon- derance• of evidence to indicate compli- ance with the general standards, spe- cific rules governing the specific use and that the use, complies: with all required_ regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless the- Board shall also find, in some specific manner that. a) The use will not promote the public a) The Planning Staff finds that .health, safety and. general welfare, if therw is a perponderence of evident located where proposed and developed to indicate compliance with the according to the paln as submitted; general standards and specific rule. governing. the Special. Use and that- the use complies generally with re quired regulations. The following imposed conditions are cc be con- sidered. a part of the general standards and specific. -rules for- this'. request. b) The use W-UL not maintain or en- b) No evidence was presented to the hanca the value of contiguous property Planning Staff to show that it will (unless the use is- a public necessity, not enhance or maintain proberty in which case the use need: not main- values of contiguous Cain or enhance. the value of contiguous property, property), c) The use is not in_ co=liance wits c) The use proposed is not is cam` the general plans °pr the physical. devel- pliance with. the present ?Ian. opment of the county as embodied in these The Land Use Play must be amended regulations or is the Comprehensive Plan, from Rural Residential to a or portion thereof, adopted by the. Board Commerical Transit; of County C"emmissioners. on. Activity node for this use ca be appropriate . 8.Z.-4: In. addition to the General Stand- dard's stated is $.1 the following Speci is Standards shall be add.rassed by the applicant before- the issuance of a special. Use Perini--:. a) Method and adequacy of provision of sewn e die osal a a) The Orange County EIeal.th Depart- sewage p aci.lities, solid waste, menc has approved an area on this and- water lot for- an in ground sewage disposa system. The Planning Staff feels ` chat eventually sanitary sewer lines should be extended to serve this site- . A well will be located on the property, `or water. Solid wash disposal will be by contract with a. private hauler. b.) Method and adequacy of police, b) Police protection will be by th fire- and rescue squad. protection. Orange County Sheriff's Department Eire pootection will, be provided by the Orange Rural 'Volunteer Fire Department., rescue protection. by Orange Rescue Squad. This develop meat should not present any proble to these agency's. c) Method and adequacy of vehicle c) This site is located in Hills- access to the site and traffic condi- borough Township on NC 86. A tions around the- site. traffic count by the North Carolin Department of Transportation was 4,100 Motor Vehicles/bay in 1981. This highway is designated as an Arterial by the Orange County Land Use Plan. The Planning Staff estimates that this development will generate 450 trips'per day. There are two entrances proposed. for this development; the public entrance iv located 186' south of the serrice entrance. d) Specific requirements of all special. use requestes: 8.8. a) The following additional inforr The following are. s.pecifi.c rsquirs- maticra is. required for all. Soecial Use meats for this special use request Applications: Three copies of the Site Plan prepared: A site Plait has been suavlied_ by a registered North Carolina land sur- veyor or engineer which sail contain the following: 1. North point scale and data. l.. North Point, scale and date shown. 2. Extent of area to be developed .. Z. Extent of' area co be 3evelooad is indicated; possible futus development is also shown. t� r 3_ Locations widths of-,.all easements 3. The- location of easements and rights of way, within or adjacent and right's of way are shown. to the site. 4. Location of all existing or pro- 4. ALL existing and proposed posed structures an the site.. structures are shown an the site - plan. 5. Location. of all areas on the site 5. There are as flood prone areas subject to. flood hazard or inundation on. the site. as shown On flood maps Or soll'a maps. ' 6. Location of all water courses. on 6.. There are no water courses shoe the sate, including. direction of flow. on the: site- mlan. 7. Exiat.iag topoo apMy at a countour 7. Existing topography is shown. interval. of five feet based on mean level datum. 8. Proposed or existing fencing, screening, gates, parking, service s age are stand w areas, enclosF: p g storage areas and warehousing and storage areas.. facilities are. shown on the site, Flag. Outdoor storage areas are . screened and fenced. from adjac t uses. 4 Landscape Plan has be submitted with this• proposal, a-_ the Planning- Staff: feels. the Dlari isr adequate_ 3.. Access to site: including site 9=.. Access- to the- site distances on all roads used for is shown an access' the site- plan. 10. Elevations Of all. structures 10. Architectural elevations. have proposed: to be- used in the develop- been supplied to the PlanninP s"taf- meat. 11_ Names: and addresses of owners and LL. The name and address of the app Lican ca. owner have been supplied. 1Z. 4 fee, as set by the Orange, 1Z. The application fee has been Cou=p Board of Cc issioners. paid by the applicant.. 8.8.23 Planned Developments 8.8.Z3.L Additional Information 8.8.21.1 This refers to the stan- dards set forth in Article 7 21 ned Development. LA addition to the information- re- quired in Subsections 8.Z and 8.8, information shall be supplied as paw of the application as per applicable requirements of Article 7. 0 'i Article 7 Planned Develo ent Districts 7.4.1 Relationship of Planned Devel- 7.4.1 Relationship of this- projec ovment to ?Ja'or Transportation Foci- to major transportation facilities lities. (See 8.Z.4 c above) Requires that Planned Developments make use- of major roads for access; and public transportation facilities available. ' 7.4.2 Relationship of Planned De 7.4.2. Relationship. to Public Util velovment to Public Utilities_, Fa_ ties, Facilities, and Services. cilities and Services. (See. 8..Z.4. a above) Requires- that Planned Developments make use of existing utility systems .and not require the public extension- of, such. systems.. _ rt also requires \ that the Planned Development make use of public transportation if available. 7.4..3, Physical Character of the site; 7.4.3 Physical Character of the S Relation to surrounding ?ro-Derty. Relation to Su=-rounding Property. The- Site, shall be suitable: for the type This Site is located on a hill. wit'. development proposed- and be. freQ from a maximum elevation of 702.6' near adverse natural impacts. the proposed antenna to a low o.f 631' along. the northera property " line.. The, site has mature t--es ,,owth on the majority of the Land. This area has a mixture of devel- opment types with single f=iip dwellings- located to the North and Northeast. Duke Forrest to the Fast, Undeveloped land to the south, undeveloped land and seve-a: commercial..uses to the vest across NC 86. 7.16 Planned-Development - Office and Institutional Districts. 7.16.1 Planned Develo-anent - Office The Staff feels that this develop-- and Institutional Districts Defined; meat zs proposed is substznt ally Intent; where Permitted. in compliance with the intent of the PD-OZ section. Planned Development. '- Of ice -and Institutional Districts are districts for the establishment of complementary groupings of office and institutional uses. 07 Where existing developments exist, are proposed and previousl y.•acproved_devei- cl=eats. are. (in progress, which are of pat=e substantially in accord with the intent of these regctl.ations they may tae• , rezoned to PD-CL status, and shall there- after be subject to the regulations and requirements. for such diet-icts) _ It is the intent'of these regulatiens. to provide for development of such districts- At locations appropriate, in tez=s of the Land Use Plan and the Orange County Thozvugh=are P1a= and in�accord with standards, set; fortlm- hezy.:=- Zt. is EUIXther intended that Po-ox, devel- cement shal]. be scaled, balanced and Socated to reduce general. t-afm*.c coa- gesticm by pzOVidirig employment to close to principal places or residence, and convenient pedestrian circa.Zat:L= systm and mass transit devices to futthez• reduce need for private auto- moba.les W:Lthzn. suck districts, it: is intended that us as shall: be a=anged horizon- - tally and ve_"ti.caLy_ T_ Thai= major vehicura-- flows and other` disquiet;= i uenCeS be so Sep- a_ratae- f--cm r°_sidentia 1 areas as tQ ArOteCt px:�Lvacy and t~ancuajjty; 2- That gene_-al cz=excial and se--Dice uses be concentrated ;or• maw pedes 2ri= convenience and located for easy accessibility by workers and visitors a.,__vla.g by mass transit;- and Me--a such districts adjoin- resi- dential neigxborhoods, it is ia- tended mat �=angemen4 of 'build- ingz,. uses, open. space and veni- cula.r access be sucz as to. pr vide appropriate tra=s;tion and reduce pOte-= ,ially adverse eT_ec-s. ' C 7.16.2 Permitted Principal Uses and Structures The requirements and limitations that The proposed use.. and buildings app.l7 within ?D-OT districts are estab- are permitted in the 01 district lished in Article- 4 and. Article 5. and the proposed buildings does not exceed maximum allowed. levels 7.16.3 Height Limitations Height limitations within PD-OI dis- The proposed building does not dxicts• shall be as established in- exceed allowed heights. Article 5 and Subsection 6..2 7..L6.4 Permitted Tu­tensit7 of Develooment The requirements and Limitations- that The intensity- proposed 'or this app17 within the. PD-OZ District are development does not exceed allowE established is Articles 5• and. 6. Levels. 7.16.6 Site Painting a) External Relationships: The- site plan should. show.hoar t-he development will provide protection for the: development fsvm, potentially adverse surrounding- influences and provide protection. =or s.urroundic& areas. from potential17- adverse in- fluences withim the development. L. Principal access. points shall be. L. Access to the site as 2roposed designed to encourage smooth is- good and should allow a traffic flow.. Street 1a7auz smooth-. flow of traffic into shall not connect minor resi- the project. the proposed dential. streets ai.th collector access makes use of a proposed streets. 2-lane Arterial Road. 2. Access for pedest=rians and motor Z•_ There is a sidewalk -ar000sed c7clists shalL be safe and con- from. the. ctestomers Par!ciag veaient. Where there are street to the Entrance. Yo street crossings, they shall be se crossings are proposed. located as to be safe, shall be marked and. control.led_ 3. Protection of v4sib:Llit7 at. inter- 3. The sight distance at both sections. Shall be as sets forth is drives shoul minimum be a inimum Article 6.. of 400' in each direction. 4. Uses adjacent to single family dis- 4. There is a 100' buf_fe propose, tricts- which, cannot be used for aloe all parking. g. aproperty lines. S'. Yards., fences, walls or vegetative 5. There is an outside storage screening,. at the edges of the PTD- lard proposed, this is to OT. district shall be such-as to pro- be fenced and should be vide protection from the development to screened from all adjacer adjacent properties. propert7 by existing- vege - tion. The building. itsel. will be screened by natural vegetation. b) Internal Relationships The site plan shall provide for safe, efficient,. convenient and harmonious groupings of structures; uses and fa- cilities, and for preservation of de- sirable natural features and minimum disturbance of natural topography. L.. Streets drives and parkin. I, Generally the site plaza makes safe and convenient use of Streets. and drives shall provide the: property. safe, and convenient access. to. There is separation of visitor the• site and other facilities if and service access to minimize: necessary. Streets shall ids- conflicts. The parking areas courage through traffic and blocks will be paved and the spaces- shall be laid out to. macimize marked. The proposed number efficient use of the:. propertp_ of spaces meets the minim requirements-. Z._ Ways for pedestrians shall from a Z. Pedes t,xan. access. is- adecu'ate, safe logical and convenient system: for this area. for pedestrian access. to all units, project facilities and say principal afi site- des ti nations. 3.. Protection a= vis-icili-tv- for auto- 3. Visibility should be, good at Mobile traffic, cyclists, and oe- all iatars.ections where motor destrians. visioi;lity protection vehicles, cyclists and pedes- shall be as set fort.'i in Section crians might meet. 7.L6..L6 a) 3 above•. 4. Oven space and saacinr of buildin s. [ The project uses about 1/7 of The requirements for open space, pedes- allowed floor area, and provid :. t_-ian/lands.cape space; and spacing more than the required minima of buildings are contained. in Articles in open space, pedestrian/ 3 and 7. Definitions are in article 6. t landscape space and parking spaces. The building Is sited at least 100' from any property line. 7.16.7 Sias Limitations General Identification Signs for the. development as a whole. Shall be permitted as follows one Signs for the project shay? conform sign. structure, not exceeding twenty in All ways to the standard's contained feet in height, and having not more in 7.16.7. than two sign surface areas, each limited to twenty square feet, may be- erected inside ox outside required setbacks adjacent to public streets, provided that no Such sign shall C. hang any public way or be so located or constructed as to create a dangerous t to trattic visa�W ility. Such signs. may identify the development as a whole and beat directional ingorma_ ticn, b;rr'shalZ. O tai& no advertisisxg. matter. Minor Dixeetional Sig= stux-ctures. Having not more than two sign surface are-as-, each limited to four scva..•-e'{est May be erected as reasonably necessary for the safety and convenience af . visitazs to the center- Such signs shall bean no: advert3.sing matter other than the name of the• development as a- whole- ar an indication, of the portion of the development to which directiatz ,...• is givea- y - w .0 The Planning Staff feels that there is a preponderance of evidence to indicate substantial compLiance with the General, Standards and specific rules governing the Planned—Development—office—institutional, Class A Special Use Permit. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request, with the fallowi conditions: ng imposed 1. That• all signs for the development shall be according to. Section 7'. 16 and Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Z. Drainage, Soil erosion and sedimentation plans shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. The installation of control devices and bn going construction work shall. be inspected. by Orange County. The site shall at all times be- in conformance with the Sail Erasion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 3. That the proposed dumpster be, placed orr a 10' x 20' concrete pad 6" thick,, with wire mesh. 4.. That the service entrance. from MC--86 to- the entrance gate into the storage yard be paved to N.'-C. Department of Transportation Secondary road scan- dards. S'. That the developer mark the 100' buffer an 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 am pxovaL of the o.roject are in- corporated herein: and made mart of the Special Use ?ermlt. A copy of the final. site- play and narrative are to be maintained on €i Le. with the Orange County Planning. Department. Only those uses specified in the project narrative a-ad. ov- the site plan, including but not necessarily L;mited to the officas,. warehousing, maintenance- service and outside storage Of utility materials will be permitted at the of€ice €aciLity. A11 improvements as indicated shall be constructed according co the consturc- tiorx schedule. set forth, i - this. per=t. 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. 311 necassary- easement ca permit utility (electri.citq, telephone, sewer and. water) installation, servicing and hookups cc the development shall be provided at no cost. to the utility- provider. r 08C �i`o , v `. -" { �e gI . . 1p 9 771 � •WK ` I QZ So G _ 1 �( Y , r• r 1 :✓ "` «1 Ll Z 1 I CCDLJNTY HICHWA;f PSIFICATION SYSTEM aT==—IAL 7C7AC a 1(i�C� Ai HWY. SCALE LL i;F nCAG a MAY 15r1 BOARD OF COMTSSIONERS NO- ME� �A . January-4, 1983 . St'b3ect Request by Planning. Staff for a Rezoning from-R-L' (Residential-1) to R-3 (Residential-3) on Cornwallis ui3;ls Phase. I. Depa-tx-e t_. Planning i i fn Rezoning.. application pg.l; Rick.Caanity rezoning checklist pg_ 2; map-pg..3x minutes PC- 11/2'2/82 joint public hearing P ^ 'r' 73Z-$181 ext.. 347 i�. To hear ti=-Pl armling Boazsi's tic a of this rezcaiinc regmst. N=; This subdivision i.-.located in sillsbarough Township and is show on Tax Map 42E. it is located on 01& Y.C. 86 (SR 1009) and is in the Orange Rural Fire Dis't=ct., This subdivision was approved.on August. l7, 1981 and, recorded prior . to the• time zoning was adopted in Hillsborough: Township, when zoning was adopted, this subdivision was overlooked and received R-1' zoning instead of the appropriate The subdivision contains 38 lots. J:7: *_ota were approved under. the Subdivision Regulations and.have public sewer and water. There should be- no. adverse impacts associated with the development. F:CObAMMAT_T011. Planning Staff recommends approval of tae R-3 designation for Co--nwa.11is Hills Phase L. The. Planning Board recocm<ends approval of this rezoning. BClkRO CF- Casl2MIWE-0 Action ? a r=M=3 cif �. 1983 sanuary St:bje-= 7equest by Planning S*afff for?zoning from R-L (Basidential-I) to rZ;S (Existing Co=er l-5) an Hill- Country Fu=ture, site. ,-ntt- Planning n g zc Rza-i : ves X rM Mezaii ng application Pg.1; irifc�. C �•• Rid- canrnity ?,a=ing checklist Pg.2; tax map . .3; miauutes from 11/22/82 joint public nearing Ph=-- Nmb==' 712-8181 ice. 347 Lb hear the- Planning Board's recce endation of this rezcr4 ng request.. D®: 'ilie ex-`zing use is in C .apel FIi1.1[Tawnshi n and is shown on Tax Map�.]5,-IAt 1F' It is located on state road 1005 (Old Greensboro Road) and is' wiihin the area that E'._i 417.itney fire department from Alm=.= County serves on a volunteer bases.-. Luti l 1973 this lot.was not recognized as a separate lot and it was taxed in Bingham -twnship as part of a larger tract even though a deed had i-een recorded. for the 38 acre lot Lrt 1964. It appears that in 1967 wihen Chapel.31..11 Tbwnr'hip was zoned.. the property was not zoned F,ural. C=rercial. cause it was thoug�t to be in Bingham Township. Tr-, 1981 when Bingham TaAaislhig was zoned the property was not zone3.bxmmuse it was iri Chapel Fii i 1 ' itixvnshi-P.. y�coa IId� propert<� and buildarg :lave been use for several r;ferant uses siazre it c,ras in 1964. All Ober cmuercial uses ,mre designated ,,,I^n zcning wmt into effect in Ch=el Hi_LL Tmvns ip, t:'e Punning Staff -weals he C,aurnxcial-d (EC-5) designation is a zopriats for this use. Z=A1,MMA=CUz Pi armi^_g Staff reczz[rerids a_=rovart cf the EC-5 resignation for ups .38 ac=e lot_ . Planning Boazd reCrrwids approvall of this raz. c i„g, I ' ILI ?� CC' CCx^rrc�yC�lE�S A tiom zq-:m rr D. January 4, 1983 5uojeo`: Deerfield Subdivisign ",rent: , P�7.i.c ?.4arizig; yes � �' (S) jet-fir IrfCrr.2r rt G^.rs cb; :R.d�L(:M=ty - Pose 732-3181 347 �= iLa !mar Pl'r ring-Board'S- reCCZMX?1d2.tim to cm sid r a. au-- year ext.ezisum for q=.vvaL of the. Pre]imtwty P1aa for oaerie?d Subdivision Procerty is located in l 'rill Toicmh1p off ZiageaXd --bad. Hers are nine ]ats pry with the road to be cmist=t-ad to Deparb=t of 1'ranspor- tatica Stmki rds The owner is r�--,ng a, me y� extension for a=prova.L of the, PreLumnazy Plan. Due to hiSi ir&,sx�..st rates and poor ecm=mc osidi ti= :e. has not been. able to aamlete the road in the subdivision.. 'fie Planning Board recmumYled approvill of the Prel]mmnary Plan 1/55/85 and. time CC=t-z oners approved It 1/79/$3. za7.: the existing for Tot size_ 1,ts tract does Iie in :he University Lake Watershed and the lots rould not Met w,e rsin Eum =Lteria as set out in t:e ,vater ;as-- roro~ ;report aCwmver, t`+..is subc?tvision is a'P- of tea ems, f=-an me morator_Tum in the Lake F7at°.ss,-)jmd. s M=M-T—MACI : rlm P l armi ng Stafz reccmrends aP=cval of the ane year 22e Plarxung Board rec=_*ids approvesa of the one year extension. C°.1=.tip G��� • HQkrt7 CF CaIMISSIMMS' U L AC CT I AME mini =MgL 6�MA= 7.•� rr�_1'�.� D�= D_A= January 4, 1983 Sherwood- Park Subdivision t:: Planning X 1'A- t-Checklist Pg_ l >-.. .. �� Rick Cannity Tax Map, Letter Pg_ y 3 Plan pia ; 732-$1$1 EXT. 347 . To. hear «he PlPnning. Board's recommendation to consider the approval of the- Preliminary Plan for Sherwood Park.. NE.lM: Property is located ia. the' Town. of Hillsborough off Forrest Avenue:. There are six (6) lots proposed out of approximately 1.65 acres.. The proposed road. is. to be dedicated and constructed to Town. Standards. The proposed lot- sizes meet the 'Town of Hillsborough's standards. This tract is designated Urban in• the Land Use Plan and is located in the Town of' Rillsborough (Orange Rural.)' Fire Distzict. M" aZT1.: The proposal. meets- the existing standards for lot- size and is- bordered by other. residential development and a. stream. This area is designated Urban and development with the lot sizes proposed would have minimal impact. )IeMNDA=ON: The Planning Staff recommends approval with the three conditions pointed out by the Town_ of Hillsborough in their letter. The width of the drainage easement to be determined by the Erosion Control Officer. The Planning Board recommends approval with recommendations as required by the Planning Staff- CRAZ= C ACTICc*I r'x' I' I.E�35' 'ACT Itt Pao: b== CLA= January G. 1983 Faucette Slope Subdivision Planning PubLc EearirF: -- -yes r� =(s) � Checklist .pg.l. I�rp "� C=rtac�: Rick Cannity Tax Ma Plan p pg. 2 °- = 732-818 �= To: hear the Planning Board's recommendation to consider the approval of the Preliminary Plan for Faucette Slope. Nom: Property is- located in Bingham Township on SR 1126 (Borland Road). There are five (5) lots proposed out of 18.4 acres. The proposed road is to be. constructed to private "Class C"' standards:. The lot- sixes meet the minimum. standards of the• Zoniar Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.. This tract is- designated Water Supply Watershed is the Land Use Plan and is located in. the Orange Grove Rural. Fire District. The proposal meets- the existing standards for lot size and is bordered by other residential and wooded undeveloped land.. This area is designated Water Supply Watershed. in the Land Us-e: Plan and development with the lot sizes proposed would have minimal impact. 4 .OMMIMATION: The Planning, Staff recommends approval. The Planning: Bcaxd recommends approval. • CP.c��Cu�"'ti'�i �.1�' BO.?M M' CCtMIS5 all S Ati= : -w-;lL IAC:L"= EMM, =-1 t,BST:7' CLsy= January 4, 1983 Subject: Rolt's, Landing Subdivision. '=ter Planning ' i Checklist . . ";rr,r,- err. COL" Rick Cannity Tam Map Plan Pb=o-- Numb--: 632-8181 EXT. 34.7 To_ hear the Planning Board's.'reoc=azdation to consider- of the. Preliminary Plans fox molt's Landing. Property is located im Hillsborough Township off. NC 86.- There are four (4) lots- proposed out of. 3.79 acres. The. proposed. road. is to be constructed to Private- "Class. B" standards.. The lot• sizes meet the minimum requirements. This area is: located in. the Orange Rural Fire District. roa�'r The proposal meets the existing- standards- for lot size. and is bordered by wooded undeveloped land.. This area is. designated Agricultural Residential in the Land Use Flau and, this development would have minimal impact. )MMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval with. lots C-2 and C-3 labeled as unsuitable for septic tanks. The- Planning Board recommends approval with lots C-2 and C-3 combined with lot C-1 to fora one lot. U 8 aLAZ CCv.= acsz�: .awl a M Itec: vb r- DM��. CAM Januarq 4-, 1.983 Sub3ec: Property Surveyed for Kristie D. Lennon -Planning Checklist pg, 1 � '_ Coact' Rick Canaity Tax.Map pg_ 2 ` Letter, pg.. 3 ° == 732-8181 EXT. 347 Tc consider- ancrovaL Of'a partial.widtFx. right-.of -way'-for the minor subdivision a£ this property surveyed for: Yristie 0. Lennon. Ate: Property is located in Eno Township off $R 1562 (Palmers Grove Road).' There is, one one-acre lot proposed- out of 5.41 acres... The: road proposed is to be a."Class V private: road with a 30 foot partial width right-of-way across, Palmers Grove Methodist Church property. The remainder of. the road will have. the required right-o£-way. This lot is designated Rural Residential in the Land_Use Plan. and is. located in the Eno Rural_ Fire District. Palmer's Grove Chuxah was unwilling to give more than a 30' aside easement across; their property because- they use the. area for a parking lot- (see the attached lett'er). The- proposal meets the existing. standards for lot size, but does not meet the+ right-of-way requirements. The subdivision is bordered by other, residential and undeveloped land. This area is designated Rural Residential and. this• lot. would. have a. minimal impact. CMMMATION: The .Planning Staff recommends. approval of the partial width right-of-way. i The. Planning Soard recommends approval of the partial width right-of-way, • f MAN=CC's= �`u 3Q C�-TaJrE�?S t-r AC.Z'IG. A=-,I Mk II'e."I :u.STF�mLr' It�; '[O_�:! fly January 4, 1983 SL;27eC2: 'Property of Danny May and wife. Bonnie May -.nt= Planning A�,hl i_r- ]I1Cf yes X m At�ct(S) Checklist pg- 1 �' war: G`' Rick Cannity Tax Map P8. 2 732-8181 EXT. 347 Plan To.hear the Planning- Board's recommendation to consider approval of a patial. width right-of-way trot the minor subdiv sloe of the propezrty of Danny May and wife Bonnie; May. rte: Property is. located is Bingham Township off SR 1958 (Morrow Mill Road). There is 1.0 acre proposed out of 4.32 acres. The road: proposed is to be. a; "Class, B" private: road with a V foot partial width right-of-way out to Morrow Mill Road. This tract is designated Agricultural A:R.in the Land Use Plan and is located in the area where. Eli Whitney Fire Department serves on a volunteer basis. MS_ May has attempted to secure right-cf-way from the adjacentl property owne=',. he as not been successful. The proposal meets the existing standards for lot size, but does not meet the. right-of-way requirements. The. subdivision is bordered by other residential and undeveloped land. This request would have a minimal impact. I )MMENDATION- The Planning Staff recommends approval of. the. partial width right-ol-way. The Planning Board recommends approval of the partial width right-or'-way. u BC.ko CC Ca-SMSS"IO-n5 ACtian . A== E,a���rr . r 1aT�; January 4, -1993- Sr�7�Cz Planning Board Rules of Procedure Planning Pr bl-iC 1.1t'y= eyes X Rules of Procedure � � �� Marv-in Collins 732-6181 Extension 349 To consider- approval of the Planning Board Ibila of. Procedure as required by Section. 2.2..6'of the Zoning Ordinance. The- Planning Board has extensively revised its- Axles of Procedure in conjunction with the revised.. Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Board recommend: approval of the Axles of Procedure and that the Board of County Commissioners approve- them. =VACT: Approval of the Rules. of Procedure by the Board of County Commissioners would allow. the Planning Board to 'conduct its meetings and perform other duties and : responsibilities in. accordance with rules whit:. are up-to-date and in accord witz those,under whicir the Commissioners function• . The Planning Board has. bees operating under Procedures which. were: previously adopted on April 18, 1977'= h` 1pATION: The Planning. Samd recommends. approval of the Roles of Procedure. Changes have been made to. the, original draft based on. the discussion which occurred at a joint meeting of the. Planning Hoard and Board of County Commissioners held- on November 22, 1982•1 The changes incorporate the following. I. The Planning Director shall serve as Secretary to the Planning Board. The Planning Board Chat! may have the opportunity to review the minutes of Planning Board meetings prior to their submission to either the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners_(Axttcla Zv-C) Previously, they Planning Director might serve as Secretary or the Planning Board could appoint a Secretary from within or outside its membership. Z. The planning Director shall not be elig�i.ble to vote. Previously, this was =clear, and the Planning Board felt this provision should be stated explicitly. (Article IV-C) 3- The Planning Board rated to leave Article 7I - Township Councils - as w=-tte until- an appointed subcommittee could study the section and bring back a recommendation concerning proposed revisions. 4_. Each member shall vote "_yes" or "no" except when excused.by the Chair. The Chair shall, be entitled to the same voting privileges as any other member of the Board. Previously, members were to vote yes, no or abstain. The Chair could only vote in case of a tier The Planning Board felt that a "yes" or "no" vote was desirable, but it felt some benefit should be given a member who was concerned about a possible conflict of interest. Zn such instances, the member would have to identify specific reasons for not wishing to vote, and the member could only be excused from voting with the approval of the Chair,. . (Article VIM-p,-2) (Over) : ORANGE COUNTY- 4J BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, MEETING DATE' .Tan 4, 1983 ACTION AMMA ITEM NO. CONTINUED BECONb!ZNDATION: S. Any amendments. to the Rules. of Procedure must• be . (Continued) approved by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with Section 2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance_ This provision-was missing, and the Planning Board felt it should be added to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. (Article IV) .. s . BaAm.ce.cciduzssm s CA.�.LLCr`i FiG"'�'aA.' xJr�r-.� .. __ltelrr::'iSo `/ •' . 1�ETi1'G DATE TUESDAY,. JANUARY 4,..-1983 Subject: Economic Development Oepaztmient: Board of Commissioners P -Uc 'Team: Att ae�t(s): Trifntma tact:: Commissioner Wi l l hoi t. Yes, Memorandum P3=tL-- Dri sx. 73Z-8181 ext.- 510 plJRpO=r To consider se'veral recommendations for- the economic development of Cheeks Townsftia: Dot. See: memorandum:.frorrr Commissioner Wi l l ho..i t to Commissioner's. Lloyd, Marshall, Walker and Whitted attached to- this abstract. 114PALT. See memorandum- RECOMMENDATION:. As the- Board decides_ 0 MEMORANDUM TO Commissioners Lloyd,. Marshall, Walker and Whitted Mom. Commi sioner Willhoit RE: Economic Development--Cheeks- Township DATE: December 30, 1982 7 Creation of the Orange County Economic Development Commission (hereinafter OCEDC) marks &' significant milepost in our efforts to, w provide a systematic approach to accommodating.commercial development in the County. According to the Resolution creating the OCEDC, the Commission is to-rely on the respective planning agencies to provide "zoning designed to-identify potential industrial and commercial sites and protect them against types of developments that would lessen their attractiveness or their compatibility, with surrounding uses." In order- for the Planned development of Cheeks Township to proceed Ad to facilitate the task of the OCEDG-the following need to be dine: L) Adoption of Amendments. to Land Use Plan for Cheeks Township: The last public hearing on the Cheeks Plan was.held September 27, 1982- The amendments proposed at that public hearing would, among other things,•add. a commercial/industrial transition activity node centered on the intersection of 1-85 and Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120)- The existing ten and twenty year transition areas would be expanded to include the areas adjacent to 2-85. The Primary effect of the proposed changes would be to relax development restrictions in the Seven Mile Creek sub-basin,. the site of a proposed reservoir. The rationale behind the proposed changes was the suggestion by the State Office of Water Resources that a larger dam at Corporation Lake would result in a reservoir with a yield approximating that of the proposed Seven Mile Creek Reservoir. At their October 18, 1982 meeting, the Planning Board voted to postpone taking action on the Proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan. for 2-3 months is order to study alternate plans for designating areas appropriate for industrial development. Clearly, industrial development should not be limited only to nodes as currently designated, nor should it be permitted at random in the "U5-70 I-85 Corridor".- The Planning Staff has suggested "pre-zoning" Property as Planned-.Development:- Industrial (PD-I). This would have the advantage of indicating to industrial prospects, property suitable for industry, but would ensure, through the Special Use Permit process, that industry was appropriate. Recommendation: The Commissioners should delay action on the Land Use Plan amendments for another month or two, as requested by the Planning Board, to give the Planning Board time to identify additional industrial zones or develop a process for selecting industrial sites, such as by "pre-zoning". The Planning Board and Planning Staff should give this matter top priority in their work plan. 2) Extension of the Zoning Ordinance to Cheeks Township: At their October 18, 1982 meeting, the Planning Board voted to recommend that extension of zoning be delayed until consideration of amendments in the Land Use Plan is completed. Recommendation: Delay consideration of extension of zoning until a decision is made on amending the Land Use Plan.- When the Zoning Ordinance is extended into Cheeks Township, the use of the "existing. Commercial" and "ezi-sting Industrial' Classifications should be limited- to those uses in place at the time of the Planning Staff's September., 1982 field survey. This should minimize. -pre,-emptive'development,. i,e_. ,,. developmenr.;. that may be rushed to beat the effective date of the. Ordinance. 3)' Designation of Future. Reservoir Sites: The most controversial aspect of the Orange County Water Resources= Task Force was its recommendation regarding protection of reservoir sites in Cheeks Township and., at the same time, providing for industrial development along the US 70 and I-85 corridor. The Task Force recommendation was to restrict development to the McGowan, Creek sub-basin, and impose strict controls of development in the Seven Mila Creek. sub-basin a longstanding potential water supply. Just prior to the August 23, 1982, Public Hearing on.the Cheeks Land Use- Plan, the' NRCD Office of Water Resources released a report which. indicated that an expanded Corporation Lake would have a.yield essentially equivalent to the proposed Seven Mile Creek Reservoir. The implication should be obvious: If an expanded Corporation Lake were to be selected as the future water supply for Northern Orange County, the Seven Mile Creels site could be abandoned, opening up the Seven Mile Creek sub-basin for development. Although. an expanded Corporation Lake, as an alternative to the Seven Mile Creek site, would solve a major part of the Water Resources Task Force's concerns, the expanded reservoir would still be adversely affected by development in the McGowan Creek sub-basin. The ideal Solution would be to locate a reservoir upstream: of the confluence of McGowan'-: Creek and the Eno River. A preliminary analysis indicates that such: a• site exists. Recommendation: Authorize the County Manager to have an engineering report pre- pared' on the economic and geologic feasibility of as expanded Corporation Lake and upstream alternative reservoirs.. 4) Development of a.Plan for Financing Water and Sewer Line Extensions from: Hillsborough into Cheeks Township: Recommendation: Request the County Manager to have .an. engineering report prepared on extension of Water and Sewer limes into Cheeks Township and to explore methods of financing the lives. Attention should be given to creation Of a special tax district or other equitable means of financing.in order that use. of the_..County's. General Fund be avoided for this purpose. If an alternative to the proposed Seven Mile Creek Reservoir can be identified, then development in the Seven Male Creek sub-basin will- present less of a long term water quality problem. However-, protective measures. will need to be taken to protect Lake Ben Johnson as long as it is Hillsborough's primary water supply. In the event that the Seven Mile Creek Reservoir project is abandoned, then utilization of the County-owned property in this sub-basin might be considered as the nucleus for an industrial park site.. This prospect should be considered by the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission as they proceed with their deliberations. ORANGE COUNTY :OARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agneda Item No.425 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT `?EETING DATE January 4, ubject:., Relocation of Power* Poles Oeoartment: Community Develo ment t Public Hearing: yyes X no '.ttachment s : Letter from John McAdams Information Contact: Albert Kittrell Phone Number: Ext. 425 _;YPose: To consider authorizing the•relocation of eight Duke- Power Company power poles in conjunction with street improvements activities in the Northern Fairview Community. eed: The John McAdams Company, consulting engineers,. inadvertently omitted the reTocation of approximately eight power pales from- streets- improvements plans and specifications_ The McAdams Company wa.s. unaware the power poles exist orr NC Department of Transportation (007) right-of-way without an encroachment agreement.. The reason there is no encroachment agreement is that D07 acquired rights-of-way in the area of concern in March T972. and the power poles existed before that. date. After several discussions with Duke Power and 007, it was determined. the. County should bear the cost of relocating the poles. :pact: D07 will not accept improved streets unless located. The cost of relocation is power poles are re- 5,271 .85. This amount will not impact the community development street improvements budget, funds are available. ?ecommendation(s; : Board authorization of power pole relocation. ORANGE COUNTY Cyr tj BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agneda Item No.r-l(o ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ^';STING DATE January 4, 1981 abject: Execution of Grant Agreement -eoartment: Community ,.Oevelopment — � Public Hearing: yes _X no .LachmenL 5 Grant Agreement Information Contact: Albert Kittrell Funding Approval Phone Number: Ext. 425 :;urpose: To authorize County to enter into an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCQ) regarding third year fund- fng of the Northern Fairview Community Development Block Grant. Program. °edr NRC(1 wilt release the County's third year CDBG funding (5938,000) after the Board accepts the terms and conditions of the FiscaT Year 1982 Grant Agreement. NRCD's 1982 Grant Agreement is similar to HUD's Grant Agreements executed by the, Board i rr 1980' and 1981. The Grant_ Agreement is attached. impact: Execution of the Grant Agreement will facilitate the timely implementation of ongoing. community development activities. ecommendation(s): Board acceptance of the terms and conditions of NRCD's 1982 Grant Agreement. r n4=: JANUARY 4, 1983 S Acquisition of Ambulance- .:� " 't­'It:_Purchasine & Central Services pt1_^ n��Y-- _7� •:J }-� C=tZ=t= Mark H. Rees N P ° Nsce�: ext 498 I To consider awarding the purchase of a. 1983 Ambulance to Southeastern Fes.- ...rcy•Equipment of Wake Forest North Carolina at the cost of x13:00, on the basis of this being the lowest responsible bidder. =:ae r The purchase of this Ambulance was authorized in the 1982-83 budget. ` BID RESULTS- Bid Price Southeastern Emergency Equipment $Z2,738.�0 Wake: Forest, North• Carolia Ashley Ambulance Sales & Service $22-1990.00 Jefferson, North Carolina Emergency Vehicle Services $22,824.50 Winterville,. North Carolina M,;aCt $25,000.00 was budgeted. for this vehicle, leaving $2,262.00 far the purchase of radios and other equipment. Award the bid to Southeastern Emergency Vehicles. ' owN: ammy _ BOAM OF COK-E=ON= +- . A=CN AGWA ABSTM= xt :rro. l 9 MEM= HATE January 4, 1983 - Subject: Financing of Front End: Loading Refuse Truck and Computer Equipment - t Fcn as i n a Finance Public Hearing: ayes reo71 Att3& t(S) k7.0[1 Contact: Yes: Mark H. Rees, ext.. 497~ Phone Number: Wallace Harding, ext_ 496 Pte: To consider two alternatives for financing Front. End Loading Refuse Truck and Computer Equipment. Alternative 1-: Award lease purchase agreement to Municipal Leasing Corooratforr as being the lowest responsible bidder (see attached bid. summa r, 13'_11A interest rate. Alternative 2.: Purchase equipment outright by using: $45,000 of the water and - sewer extension appropriation in the CIP fund. This will Teave $10,000 in that project for this year and is all' that is expectr, to be spent; $10,.000 from old courthouse restoration project which will leave $55,000 in this project and will be enough to match grants of $29,000; $32,000 from the Commissioners contin- gency. account which will leave $40,900 for the remainder of the year} $52,000 frorrr current years Local Option Sales Tax which ' is. comina irr approximately 2h% above budget. NEED: Previous: Board. action authorized purchase'of this equipment subject to financing. arrangement. TMAGZ'': At the lease purchase rate of interest of 13.1% and the current investment rate of 9% the County would benefit materially by buyinq• the: equipment outright.. Interest expense (13,.10) 28,074 Interest earnings (9%) (18',793) 9,281 Assuming a 5% annual inflation rate the $9,281 loss would be $8,375. RECOMMENOATION(S) :: purchase equipment outright (see proposed budqet amendment.) 0 BID SUMMARY LEASE/PURCHASE FINANCING CAPITAL COSTS Front End Refuse Truck $80,000.00* Computer Equipment 110,997.00 $190,997.00 MuniripaT Leasing Corp., Raleigh, N.C. 3 Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Com uter 5 Year-Com uter E ui ment Refuse Truck, 88,960.00 88,960.00 Computer Equipment 130,116.60 144,104.37 .ataT 219,076.60 233,064.37 Total Interest 28,079.60 42,067,37 Interest % T3-1'%- 13.1% Ffrst Continental' Leasing Corp_,. Dallas., Texas- 3. Year-Refuse. Truck 3- Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Computer 5 Year-Computer Equipment Refuse Truck 92,445.60 92,445.60 Compute-- Equipment 133,550.55 145,527.09 Total 225,996.15 237,972.69 `-1 Interest 34,999.15 46,975,69 'Actual purchase price for refuse truck. is $77,907.00, however, bids for financing were received prior- to that- bid. Payments will be negotiated downward, per bid specifications. ORcADM COQU= RaAm Cr.- CCr^LSSIOLMOS A=M. FGENMk XTEL J\WM771= Item M-,L- ' MEEMG OATS laruuvru 4 1983 Subject: Budget Amendments sG- it: Axance ` � Public Hearing: ----Yes x � Attachmat(s) Ye6 Iafa tiocr Contact: Panic is S. Salta .. Efiane M=ber: CIO 16 PLTaX=z To Bona-idea Wpoeed budget amendments. roc " GENERAL FUND o Wvide Junds, &X pwcchaae 06 ftant end .loading nejus¢:t4=k and computeet equc.pmentr CETA To accept add%tionae CETA JedewZ 6und.Q and to adiva.t paognwx budgets in a=Adance: zith State. budget back-up. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a accept an naz Community Deve&pment grant_ FACT: GENERAL FUND ee agenda Ztem no. l� CF-TA Tri amendment wt.0 rywvide additwnat gund cng ix tke Orange County CETA ptagnam_ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tha 5Z 4Acneaee 6und6 avai&b.te dot county community deve:opment Wig. RECOMM=ATION: ApptovctZ ORANGE COUNTr PROPOSED 1982-83 BUDGET AM MMENT The 198243 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 22, 1982, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: GENERAL FOND Appropriation- Data Processing $ 111,000. Public Works3,000. Source: Transfer from CIP 551000- CotrL agencies 32,000. , Sales, Tax Revenue- 52,000_ Trade-i n: of Fixed Assets 15,000. Ta. budget for purchase of front-end loading-refuse truck and computer equipment_ i Adopted this day, of 1985- . ORANGE:COUNTY PROPOSID CaaMM ISM EMPLO=T AND TRAMING ACT 1982-83 PROJECT ORDINANCE All MENT The- 1982-83 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted a September 27, 1982 is hereby amended as follows: Appropriation: Ceta M - I & R Service Staff (1,745.) I & R Participants 1,488.. ABE;Service. Staff 2,226. HM Service Staff 1,141. OJT Service staff 5,571. OJT Participants (2,571-) AWE Service Staff 171. AWE Participants. Y. (3,914.) YV&Service Staff 4,268. M Participants (4,329_)- Source:. Ceta =3 Federal Grant S 2,329.F Adopted this day of 1983_ 4t ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPVMT 1980-81 PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The 1980-81. Project OrdinancO of Orange County as adopted on December 1, 1980, and subsequently amended, ia hereby amended as follows: Appropriation: Community Development IV Administration ' S- 101,102. Rehabi.Iitati.on 563,206_ - Landfill and Park 120,528. Acquisition- of Heal Property Clearance Activities 7,500. Relocation Payments Assistance 71,10.0. Source: Community Developmentliv Grant S; 938,000. Adopted. this��day of _, 1983.