HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19831128 030
1
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
November 28, 1983
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a special joint public
hearing with the Orange County Planning Board on Monday, November 28, 1983 at
7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough,
North Carolina.
Commissioners Present: Richard E. Whitted, Chair, Commissioners. Ben Lloyd,
Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit.
Planning Board Members Present: Dr. Logan Irvin, Chair, and Members George
Allison, Carl Walters, Frank Pearson, Alice Gordon, Nancy Laszlo, David
y
Shanklin, John Wilson and Sharlene Pilkey.
Planning Board Member Absent: Tom Bacon.
In accordance with policy, the public hearing was chaired by Dr. Irvin.
A. BOA L9IMM-S
There were no comments.
B. AiIS.IENCE COMMENTS
1. on the Printed 2d -da
There were no comments.
2. PRatters_AQt_ be_P_ri.I3:0 nda
There were no comments.
C-1 g I �_FiE�$�.?4 �_ rop9sed L,7gZJt_D.Laagp_Area_ S Plan
Marvin Collins, Director of Planning, presented the proposed Nest orange
Area Study and Land Use Plan. With the adoption of the 1982 task force report
on the protection of the water supply reservoir sites and watersheds, the
Planning Board on October 3, 1982 recommended deferring action on the proposed
land use for Cheeks Township. The Board of Commissioners concurred. Subsequent
study by the planning staff and planning board of the watershed area, Cheeks
Township and other surrounding townships has resulted in proposals that are new
and different from those previously presented. The study area, centered on
Cheeks Township, includes portions of Chapel Hill, Hillsborough Township, and
Bingham and covers 34,125 acres. Three public meetings provided suggestions
for this proposed amendment to the adopted Land Use Plan.
Concerns include: (1) changing the character of the area, (2) governmental
interference and over regulation, (3) need for increased shopping facilities in
the area, (4) lack of job opportunities, (5) need to encourage non-residential
use, (6) condition of housing in the area, and (7) transportation - lack of
maintenance along the roads, and a desire for more paving. Support for
extension of water and sewer was strong both for industrial development and for
protection of the existing drinking water supply. Other concerns included the
lack of police protection and park and recreational facilities.
The two basic concepts of the West Orange Area study and Land Use Plan: (1)
to provide for activity nodes., and (2) to provide for the orderly development
of municipalities. Seven different land classifications are proposed including
the water quality critical areas. Alternatives available to the Board of
Commissioners include: (1) application of zoning to Cheeks Township with no
developmental standards to insure water quality protection; (2) control of
the shore lines as well as the drainage area into the reservoir, and extension
of water quality protection and water standards throughout the entire area.
Reservoirs, and those lands around the reservoirs are critical and the
development standards prepared should be applied to these critical areas.
031
2
Bill Dorsett, Chair of the Cheeks Advisory Council, questioned the map
showing the water critical areas and Mr. Collins explained the boundaries.
Commissioner Willhoit asked how the water quality critical area was
determined. Mr. Collins explained that the land was divided by topography and
was then transferred to the property- based map in the study area. This was
adjusted so that a person's property would not be split. Commissioner Willhoit
requested that this be done on a water quality critical basis regardless of
boundary lines. Fred Cates, Hillsborough citizen, requested that the area
between Highway 70 and I-85 be included in the industrial area.
Mr. Dorsett reminded the Board of the recommendations adopted by the Cheeks
Advisory Council on September 7, 1982 and subsequently presented at Public
Hearing. The primary difference in the present proposal is the removal of
certan prime developable lands because of water critical areas designation.
Richard Ward, resident of Cheeks Township in the water critical area, spoke
in support of the plan, stating that Rural Orange County, through its type of
small service businesses, along with governmental and educational institutions,
account in large part for the low unemployment rate in Orange County.
Industrial development must not be allowed to disrupt the existing resources;
Regulations on toxic substances are not strict enough and Orange County should
develop a toxic substance ordinance to ensure continued public and economic
health of the county.
Lindsey Efland, concerned Efland resident, noted critical need for sewer
services in the area, the ability to develop the area between I-85 and I-70 and
the amount of land countywide that the water critical area represents, and how
far back to run the water critical area. Further study of the concept
countywide is necessary.
Dr. Irvin noted that the Planning Board is now studying county-wide
application of potential water supply watersheds and also that the purpose is
not to prohibit development but to limit density, perhaps to the neighborhood
of two acres.
Dan Lewis, citizen, noted that location of industry should be allowed any
place in Orange County so as long as sufficient buffer zoning regulations are
instituted.
Toby Lipton, speaking for the North Carolina Occupation Safety and Health
Administration project, noted that an impact study relating economic
development to the community and environmental health supported the land use
plan, and encouraged the zoning as proposed. The study showed that protecting
resources does not limit industry from coming into the area. The
Administration project supports the right-to-know ordinances so that people are
aware of the toxic chemicals and/or substances used.
Michael Teer, President, Cane Creek Conservation Authority, questioned
whether the water critical area concept would be expanded countywide. (Dr.
Irvin noted no decision at this time) and if there were any regulations in
affect now similar to those in Orange County to which Dr. Irvin answered
negatively. Mr. Teer, expressing a specific concern regarding his land, was
told by Commissioner Whitted that his land would be exempt from. this proposed
zoning ordinance.
Susan Smith noted requests from Mike Riley of Arkansas and Mabel Gordon for
rezoning of tracts they own to industrial. Ms. Gordon's tract is located in
the water quality critical area.
C-2 Pronued_ Laps] Use P1_an Text Amen_d�DtZ.1_,_An4
C-3 p1-o__n_bs _Z� n9x�Q_mpXr Amp�?d7I15.
03
3
Susan Smith requested consideration of C-2 and C-3 together. (see pages Lq
of this book) Susan Smith presented the item, reviewing each of the,/-,/
proposed districts and the requirements of each of the districts.
Valerie Carter, President of the League of Women Voters of Chapel.
Hill--Carrboro, reported that on May 5, 1953 at the annual meeting, the League
of Women Voters adopted a study on water quality to reach a consensus on
issues and actions that would assure and protect the quality of the drinking
water. Regulations should be adopted at the local level to protect the water
quality and water supply in Orange County. The League of Women Voters urged
adoption of these land use plan text amendments .for identifying and regulating
land development in the water quality critical watershed areas in Orange
County.
Lindsey Efland questioned the two acres standard and the provision for road
frontage, stating .that most industries are located on at least ten acres of
land; the requirements for screening large parking lots is unreasonable;
restrictions on business should be reviewed because most businesses that come
into our area are small, and we must not regulate the small businesses out of
existence.
Max Kennedy, local contractor, expressed his concern for those people who
want to build homes or start businesses in Orange County: the goal is to
provide adequate, reasonable, safe, and suitable housing and the wording of the
documents seem to prohibit that; the 6% required of impervious areas is
excessive; the language in 9.3 prohibiting public water and sewer services.
Gordon Brown, resident of Chapel Hill, spoke in opposition: the land use
plan assumes: (1) the 7-mile creek reservoir will be built, (2) technology
will not advance through the years so that industrial land use would become
compatible with good drinking water, (3) the economic needs of the township
will not someday outweigh the interest of other parts of the County in terms of
what it wants to do with its own land, (4) that planners are able to forecast
the economic development in this particular areas over the next twenty years,
(5) by locking off this area into a highly restricted mode of development that
the land will increase in value. He made note of the fact that there are to
be no lines in the water critical area and/or in areas where the minimum
residential lot size is two acres. He made a legal comment, noting that the
ony way to accomplish the task is to create a water quality critical area as a
special area of concern or special overlay that is in a district in itself.
Within the designated special overlay, that it would be appropriate for people
requesting zoning or use consideration, to have to address concerns regarding
water quality as is normally done under a special use or conditional use
program and thus considered on a case by case basis.
Margaret Holton, LVTV-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Task Force expressed concerns
about the protection of the water supply and the actions that need to be taken
now to protect the future of the water supply in Orange County. Once
pollution has taken place, it is very hard to clean up so that development
should take place away from the critical areas. She supports the
recommendations.
Mr. Efland asked if there was any consideration for underindustriai
development as there is for residential development and if all developments
would have to be serves: by underground power which would create problems with
the power industry.
Max Kennedy noted that in the study for West Orange, it states that the
power plant would be "operated, and maintained by a public agency," and
nupgtinnn if this creates a conflict.
p3�O
4
4
Mr. Ray expressed his concern for the natural state and what would be the
minimum and maximum limitations. Nis. Smith stated that the maximum area would
be about 190 feet for the portion not cleared and the minimum would depend upon
the slope.
C-4s� �T]JY39-
Marvin Collins made the presentation noting the proposed zoning
classification for non-residential use classification, and the cost associated
with the development (primarily water and sewer) .
Commissioner Whitted asked the procedure for determining the portion of the
existing classification to be reclassified or zoned for non-residential. Mr.
Collins replied: the survey done by Cheeks Township (2) the tax maps which
designated the dimensions and size of each property, and (3) the actual acres
covered by a particular piece.
Commissioner Lloyd noted (1) that zoning in Cheeks Township has probably
caused more controversy in the County than anything else while the zoning
ordinance refers to harmonious development in the County; (2) that after the
October 3 meeting, he was approached by Chairman Whitted regarding the concerns
of the people in Cheeks Township; (3) he requested an immediate up-to-date
copy of the ordinance and the land use plan to study and come up with the best
usage for Cheeks Township; (4) that there has not been enough time for the
people of Cheeks Township to review the proposal and come up with a
recommendation; and (5) the need to have the engineering study results. He
would like this zoning done in a harmonious manner acceptable to the people in
Cheeks Township.
Lily Cobble, Cheeks Township, noted opposition of rezoning at Cheeks
Crossing stating that she is proud to live on her one acre in this area. Dr.
Irvin noted that there are zones that contain only one or two acres, and this
presented no problem.
Dr. Irvin read a comment from the newspaper quoting Mr. Gastineau,
Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, "The creation of the
Commission was one of the greatest things that has happened here because EEOC
will help lure industries to sites by securing the necessary zoning and
utilities in advance. If the zoning is right, it saves the industry so much
time and speeds things up.
Any further comments on this item will be received on December 14, 1983.
C-S Ra=z ni
a. $ j��gronerty of_B Dce Smith in Hi_lls6grouh T9wnshin_ from
R-1 to R-4 Residential
Jeff Coutu made the presentation. (see page of this book) . The
purpose of this request is to enable residential development on 10,000 square
foot lots in order to provide less expensive single-family homes. The Land Use
Plan designates this as a 10-year transition area and it is reasonable to
assume that the Town of Hillsborough would annex the area within 10-20 years;
according to Clarence Rosemond, Water and Sewer Superintendent for the Town of
Hillsborough, water service is available by way of a two-inch main. Sewer
service can be made available by either installing a force main or by relying
on a gravity flow system. The developer would have to bear the cost of
extensions of water and sewer facilities.
No citizens commented.
Commissioner Whitted asked the proximity of I-40 to this property. Susan
Smith explained that this tract would cross old 86 east of this property.
No citizens commented.
q34
Dr. Irvin received a request from the Town of Hillsborough to hold this
open for their comments.
b. ReZDDina of_ thE_P�Dp rt�t L'(4rritt in H311 }�9591��11_T_Q39Z9biR
from R-1 to NC2 Neighborhood Commercial
Jeff Coutu made the presentation. (see page5��=.s.L of this book) The
purpose of this request is to expand the existing use (Orange Garden Center)
which is presently located on a portion of this property currently zoned as
NC-2. The property size is 2.77096 acres, and is within the HB-3, St. Mary's
Node. He noted that the purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial II (NC-2)
zoning district is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited
commercial uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural
level with convenience goods and personal services. Water supply and sewage
disposal facilities are provided by the Town of Hillsborough.
No citizens commented.
Dr. Irvin announced this item will be held open for comments from the Town
of Hillsborough.
c. UzQnin_a_sr�-_tbe Prone��p#��nn��s1�1L]si. �br�?Pl.�.11�ip
from R-1 to CC3 Community Commercial 3
Jeff Coutu made the presentation. (see pages �Xs5:7 of this book) The
property is located on the south side of Weaver Dairy Road and on the west side
of NC 86, tax map, lots 27, 27C and 27D. The request is to enable commercial
development and that the purpose of the Community Commercial-III (CC-3)
District is to provide suitable size sites for commercial, office and service
uses including limited automotive, convenience, durable goods, and other
similar uses. The site is designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan as
10-Year Transition and as a Commercial Transition Activity node. The applicant
is requesting a "General Use" zoning designation, not a planned development
category. The request is thus at variance with Section 4.2.10(6)2 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Water and sewer lines are available to serve Timberlyne
Shopping Center and could be extended to this site. A 16-inch water main
exists on Weaver.Dairy Road, while an 8-inch sewer line is available in Banks
Drive adjacent to Timberlyne. The site has direct access onto NC 86 and Weaver
Dairy Road, and both roads are designated as arterial streets in the .Land Use
Plan. In 1982 the average daily traffic on NC 86 was 8,976 vehicles per day and
3100 on Weaver Dairy Road per day.
Mr.Coutu submitted for the record comments from the Chapel Hill Planning
Department. (see page of this book)
A person from the audience asked if it was ever established if there was
access from the corner to 86.
Kenneth Cheek, resident of Weaver Dairy Road spoke to traffic problems and
the unwillingness of Chapel Hill to solve them.
Robert Page, representing Mr. and Mrs. Howell, stated that since the
present Zoning Ordinance lays the groundwork for change in zoning classfication
and since the Ordinance was passed in September, 1981 there is justification
for the reclassification from RI to CC3. The three criteria for considering a
zoning amendment are: (1) to correct a manifest error in the chapter, (2) to
accommodate changing conditions, and (3) to achieve the purposes of the
comprehensive land use plan of Orange County. The Ordinance further states
that if amended, it should be amended as reasonably necessary to promote public
health, etc. Mr. Page stated that their is no existing use of the site at this
time. Two large buildings are not presently in use. To rehabilitate the
buildings would not justify the cost and this land is not now economically
faacih1P to rnntinnP in single family residential use. The residential area
q3�
!.i
surrounding the property is partly owner occupied and partly rental. With
rezoning, when the shopping center is finished, determinations for the
potential of this land can be made. The comprehensive land use plan for Orange
County designates this land as 10-Year Transition and as a Commercial
Transition activity node.
Mr. Page stated that in 1979 special use permits were issued for the
development of 200 acres and the Orange County Board of Commissioners rezoned
six acres for use as offices.
The Department of Transportation has said that as soon as the shopping
center opens, they plan to make a traffic count to determine if a signal is
needed. Mr. Page noted the need for this signal now. If a signal is
installed, the traffic conditions will be regulated and safe traffic patterns
will be established for this commercial area. He noted the changed conditions
in the area - the opening of the shopping center; the offices underway; the
Village Company building; the offices south of this property and the fire
training station. The existing zoning map does not reflect these changes.
In anticipation of objections made by the Planning Staff of Chapel Hill and
Orange County, Mr. Page noted he would like to enter his remarks regarding the
suggestion that a planned development be brought forth. He states: that zoning
consists of plans to contract and direct the development and use of property
providing for present and future use -- and noted this is a future use. He
stated that most North Carolina cases have always said that ordinances are
invalid when the surrounding uses of land make a tract unusable for residential
purposes. The Orange County Planning Staff has recommended that this tract
come before the Board as a Planned Development. He noted that present
surrounding uses make this tract invalid for residential purposes. The Town of
Chapel Hill Planning Staff has recommended that this tract be considered a
Planned Development. After having read the Planned Development Ordinance, it
is his understanding that the public can accommodate flexibility in the
development of land where there is a desire to apply regulations more flexible
and not less flexible than perhaps the Planning Staff would like. In regards
to variances, it seems that in the Ordinance, the concern is for structure,
topography and the whole making of uses for offices, institutions, commercial,
recreational facilities, single family, multi-family or otherwise. if the
principles of the zoning law are applied to this tract,it seems that this site
would not be conducive to planned development, which is less than three acres
and that planned development reasoning would not apply. Mr. Page made
reference to the question of access to 86: there would be an access to 86 off
of this property, and because this is a corner lot there would be two
entrances.
No other citizens made comments.
d. $ezgninrg of J.P. Go for th--2rpgerty_j,p-Cbg12e1 Hill -TQYSbiP trorL R-1- to
R-8 Residential
Jeff Coutu made the presentation. (see pages of this book) The
request is for rezoning from R-1 Residential to R-8 Residential for the purpose
of allowing reasonable development as a residential site. The lot size is 44.8
acres and abuts the Chapel Hill zoning/corporate limits jurisdiction. The Land
Use Plan designation of the subject property is 10-Year Transition; water and
sewer lines would be extended at the developer's expense to serve the property.
Immediate water service can be provided by OWASA by way of the extension of a-
12 inch or 16 inch main from a 16 inch main on Weaver Dairy Road. A longer
line is needed to serve properties to the north of the proposed 1-40. Sewer
93C
service can be provided by OWASA by extending an 8-inch line from existing
developments adjacent thereto. Access to a classified arterial road is
provided by access to Weaver Dairy Road. Chapel Hill's adopted thoroughfare
plan calls for the widening of Weaver Dairy Road to a 65-foot cross section
(five lanes) with curb and gutter. The Land Use Intensity System, which is
applicable to R-5 and greater residential developments, requires the provision
of 1.75 acres of recreation area.
Mr. Coutu read and entered into the record a statement from the Chapel Hill
Planning Staff, and letters from Charles Pullian and Roberta Wollever.
(See permanent agenda file.)
John Buck read and entered into the record two petitions from residents of
Weaver Dairy Road. (See 6errpamemt agenda file)
Newton Fisher entered a plea to delay the rezoning to allow consideration
of transportation hazards and difficulties, and consideration for the present
attractiveness of the area for the elderly. He expressed concerns about
increased density.
Arthur Wurner, President of the Booker-Creek Association expresses: a
concern for traffic on Weaver Dairy Road and noted the possibility of the count
going from 3100 to 6000 because of new development in this area. The Town of
Chapel Hill has not considered any new developments which will extend further
out on Weaver Dairy Road and have taken the position that it does not have the
responsibility for improving the roads and any improvements must be either done
by private developers or by the State. He noted that the intersection of
Weaver Dairy Road is now at a point where prime developers have developments
which have been approved and are not able to acquire the land for the
right-of-way to widen Erwin Road and to improve Weaver Dairy Road.
John Dupree of Carol Woods stated that his primary concern relates to the
privacy of the elderly (approximately 325) , in Carol Woods on the adjacent
tract. He suggested' that the development be rezoned to R-5 instead of R-8,
thus suggesting that this might be more compatible with the adjacent properties
including Carol Woods.
6. n.0PDSEjL ZQMIYG oRD_1NANrS TEY.T AMENI7AiENTS — OTHER
AX_t.icle 9 Signs
Sue Snaman, Orange County Planning Intern, reported that the proposed
amendments to the zoning ordinance are intended to remove inconsistencies
contained in Article 9, entitled Signs' . There is also a change to Article 22
which clarifies the definition of on-premise signs. Within the statement of
intent included in this section, further clarification is provided so that
regulation of signs is a per lot basis as opposed to a per use basis. The
designation of the lot is based on the description of the lot appearing on the
current tax role. Where a non-residential use by right or by special use
permit occurs in residential zones, one sign less than 6 feet high and 16
square feet would be permitted. Other amendments of a minor nature to clarify
the sight preservation triangle at crossroad intersections, and the size,
number, and duration of election signs are included. The most extensive
amendments are contained in Table 9.11 which she summarized: (1) Brings county
sign regulations into accordance with sign regulations contained in the North
Carolina Outdoor Advertising Act which restricts billboards along interstate
and federal and primary highways. (2) Pole-mounted signs, whether on or off
premise, are limited to one sign with sign area determined by the zoning
district in which the sign is located, (3) in residential districts where home
occupations are permitted, each lot may contain one sign with a maximum area of
fniir r;auare reer.
The staff has, over the last six months, photographed and documented all
commercial signs in zoned areas of the County, and received public comments
from sign manufacturers and business persons.
There were no citizen comments.
b• �r�j,�_� A]onconfoYn�i,t�es -- 5>�8��]1��Lln'n_Q __St�Gt��Q�
Susan Smith made the presentation. (See permanent agenda file)
A discussion at the May 23, 1983 meeting again centered on the perception
by some that: (1) an individual owning a one-acre lot ("lot of record") in a
protected watershed with a two and/or five acre minimum lot size requirement,
could not build, a dwelling on that lot, and (2) a dwelling constructed on a
non-conforming lot destroyed by fire to the extent of 75% or more of the floor
area, could not be reconstructed. The Board of Commissioners had asked on I-lay
23, 1983 that amendments be drawn, to clarify these questions that persist.
Attorney Gledhill noted that the proposed amendment did indeed clarify the
intent of the Ordinance, though in his opinion they were unnecessary. He
suggested to the Board that the dimensional requirements regulating front
setback, side and rear setback and maximum building height: be waived entirely
rather than on a case-by-case basis.
There were no citizen comments.
c.. Article B Spe-cia.2_Use d _�II1 11S�II _ Q ] g-Rea»_ quiirem1ns
Susan Smith made the presentation. (See permanent agenda file)
The changes proposed would bring the period for notification provided in
the ordinance in compliance with the 1981 amendments to the General Statutes.
Commissioner Willhoit questioned the purpose of the amendment, having
assumed it merely applied to computation of the period of notification. M_s.
Smith stated that the proposed amendment would both reduce the mininum
notification period from fifteen to ten days and specify the manner of
computation.
Attorney Gledhill indicated the computation method was commonly utilized by
the legal profession but included for clarification.
There were no citizen comments.
Susan Smith made the presentation (See permanent agenda file)
The inclusion of the definition of "on-premise sign" was needed given
proposed changes to Article 9, Signs.
In response to Sharlene Pilkey's concern for the use of flashing lights,
Ms. Smith stated that these were viewed as hazards and were not permitted under
the current ordinance. Ms. Pilkey then questioned the continued existence of
such signs in Eno Township, and was told that the staff had conducted a sign
survey identifying such signs and they are now waiting for approval of the
proposed tent amendments before notifying owners of non-compliance. She added
that new non-conforming signs, however, would have to be removed immediately.
There were no citizen comments.
1_._PROPQSED_ P NEt7TATZON AND LBQLTCN CONTROL ORDINANCE AMZNpMENTS
Warren Faircloth reviewed the proposed changes. (See permanent agenda file)
In response to Commissioner Lloyd's concern for the costs of permits, 14r.
Faircloth noted that fees vary with the amount of land disturbance, but would
equal approximately $50.00 per acre. Commissioner Lloyd questioned whether
seeding a yard would require a permit. Mr. Faircloth noted that if the
activity covered more than 1/2 acre it would technically require a permit.
There were no citizen comments.
With no further business before the board, by consensus, the meeting was
adjourned.
Richard E. 6bhitted, Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
APPROVED 1/17/84
y