Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19840529ig~ 1 T•IIF~UTES ORANGE COUI]'1'X BOARD OF COT1b1ISSI0T~ERS Flay 29, 1984 The Orange County Hoard of Commissioners met in special session on flay 29, 1S$~1 in the Superior Courtroom. Orange County Courthouse, HillsborougYi, Forth Carolina. Commissioners Present: Chair ~~Tillhoit and Commissioners Marshall, Lloyd, 6~:hii:ted and YTalker. 1. ]~~~~~• COT.iP~~X~,~EALS - (sEe,3~ in the Clerk's permanent files) Y.ermit Lloyd; Tax Supervisor, gave a status report on the requests made by Duke Power Company, Piedrnont Electric, Centel, Southern Bell, and the Public Service Company of North Carolina for reduction of their tax bill by 16.77 percent for 1954 and the ne~:t three years because of a sales ratio study prepared by Assessment Analysis Associates, Inc., of Zebulon, N.C. This request is pursuant to G.S. 105-342. Lloyd recommended denial of the appeal and rec~uestea authorization to respond accordingly. kiotion vvas made by Commissioner ~•7hittea, seconded by Commissioner Alarshall to deny the request made by the utility companies in Orange County to change their assessment evaluation and to notify accordingly. VOTE: ur7Ar7rAlovs . 2. HOUSE SIj~~$ ~Qi•.c.~9~A~.?~ Motion was made by Gor,~rc:issioner 47hitted, seconded by Commissioner Alarshall to support House Bills 204. 205 and 207 and forward that information to our legislative delegation. Commissioner Lloyd expressed a concern about the disclosure stateroent in House Eill 205 which requires name, the actual and estimated value for consideration, and amoknt of liens. To require such information is an infringement upon confidentiality. Lloyd approves the motion with the deletion of this disclosure requirement. Commissioner Vn~itted amended the motion to endorse only the addition of Section 5. G.S. 105-287 which reads "has been converted to condominium units under the Unit Ovrnership Act (G.S. Chapter 47A) that have been Bald or offered by sale as condominium units since the last appraisal of such property." i~9otion seconded by Commissioner Lloyd. VOTE: UP7AAITA:OUS. ADDE~~~~ - ~~~C~~T Tig__~'~E_LV~_iH CAROLTNA_ D~~$T.~2~N~~~8L~~9B~~~'~Q:k It vaas the consensus of the Board that Chair t^1illhoit edit the letter that will be presented at a public hearing on I~1ay 30. Commissioner ir,illhoit expressed a concern to reiterate the road improvements to 54 and 15-501 South. 3 . ~~~L~~~$~7AS~_A2~~~DGET_ I~?D. Kenneth Thompson, County Tlanager, explained that additional material will be available on personnel from the two school systems on Friday. Also, tomorrow the Eoard of Commissioners will receive the personnel printout, line-item printout and a printout by official cone from the Finance Office. Commissioner V7illhoit indicated. that the adoption of the budget might need to be delayed until after the legislature adjourns. This will necessitate the approval of an interim budget until such time as the legislature makes their final decisions. ThP h„dapt ~vor.k sessions were set as fo17_ows: ~~ V 2 1. June 6, 7:30 in Chapel Hi11 2. June 7 7:30 in :iillsborough 3. June l~l, 7:30 in Chappel Hi l 4. June 14, 7:30 in Hillsborouggh 5. June 25. 7:30 in Chappel HiII • 6. June 28, 7:30 in Hillsborough The public hearing on the budget will be held an June 18, 1984 at 8:30 in the Superior Courtroor,; in Hillsborough. - ADJOURi11}~~~ ' I•Zotion was made by Cor~lmissioner. Gihitted, seconded by Commissioner - Niarshall. to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: UL7AIvIb!OUS. Don S•iillhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk APPROVED 7/2/8+ ~~E 1 tdINUTES ORANGE COUNTX BOARn OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MAX 29, 1984 The Orange County Board of Cot~missioners met in joint session with the Planning Board on May 29, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners Present: Chair Aon v~illhoit, and Commissioners Marshall, Lloyd, Walker and Whitted. Planning Board. Members Present: Chair Alice Gordon, and members Greenberg, Kizer, Pearson. Pilkey, Shanklin, Walters and Wilson. Planning Staff Present:' Collins, Coutu, and Bradshaw. A. Rn~axn coM~ None B~ AfiT1TENCE Cnn'fr1F.Ti'f'S None C ~ ~i7RT~IC,~~~~Z1~~ l~ ' - The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public input on the proposed Joint Planning Agreement between Carrboro and/or Chapel Hill and Orange County, The proposed Joint Planning Agreement between the Towns of Chapel Hill and/or Carrboro and Orange County has been developed over the last five years. Substantial agreement has been reached between the jurisdictions on the substantive elements of the Agreement. The Agreement as proposed, is to provide for coordinated and comprehensive planning of the areas surrounding the two Towns to assure orderly and proper development of urbanizing growth areas. The Agreement provides for the development of review procedures within the Joint Planning Area, which encompasses the Ten and Twenty Xear Transition Areas and Rural Buffer as defined by the 1981 adopted Land Use Plan. Specifically, the Agreement calls for the application of Town development standards and joint approval by the County and appropriate Town of projects within the Transition Areas and the application of County standards to and courtesy review o.f projects within the Rural Buffer. The Agreement also provides for the joint development by the County and Towns of a land use plan and zoning map for the Transition Areas and the adoption of these ordinances by the County. This process is to begin immediately upon adoption of the proposed Agreement. (See File ~~~ in the Clerk's permanent file for a copy of the proposed Joint Planning Agreement) If adopted, the Agreement would go into effect immediately. Withdrawal or termination would be by mutual agreement and with a public _._ hearing. There would also be a time element of 90 days. Planning Board member Pilkey inquired as to why this agreement was only with Chapel Hill and Carrboro and not Dieb'ane and Hillsborough. Collins answered this is a unique type of agreement within North Carolina. It is within Planning Staff's wank program to initiate discussion of a similar type agreement with Hillsborough and perhaps bYebane if this agreement proves successful. Chair Gordon inquired if the intent was that the joint hearings would be between the Town Council. Board of Aldermen, Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board. Collins responded yes that was the intent. "l~•~ a Dr. Stanley Bennett, from the audience, asked if this plan was proceeding under any State authorization. Collins responded there is statutatory authority to proceed in the manner being proposed. w.A. 5cott inquired of Collins the location of the dividing line between Chapel Hi11 and Carrboro in relation to the railroad tracks. Collins pointed on the map that the dividing line follows Rogers Road. Scott inquired further who decided that this was the dividing line between Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Collins responded that he understood that discussions were held within the Chapel Hill Town Council and Tovrn of Carrboro representatives as to where the dividing line should be and this was an agreed upon line. Scott asked why there had not been a public hearing about the line and Collins, as well as Commissioner Chair Willhoit, responded that this was_ the public hearing. The dividing line itself is part of what is under consideration. Scott wished to go on record as being opposed to the dividing line following Rogers Road. He felt that the railroad, at least from Homestead Road to Eubanks Road should be the dividing line between Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Chair willhoit responded that the Chapel Hill High School area is west of the railroad- tracks and it is already part of the town limits of Chapel Hill. Also, Carrboro has requested a modification of the joint planning line. Jim Porto, Mayor of Carrboro, spoke on the following items concerning joint planning: (1) Dividing line - Carrboro feels that the railroad should be used for the dividing line as originally set out. (2) Standards - should not be an issue. (3) Zoning -- Joint approval an zoning and an agreement on the zoning map is the most important aspect. (4) Procedures - the administrative procedures to approve permits seem cumbersome. Better administrative measures° are needed. Cammissioner Chair 47i11hait wanted to clarify his understanding from a meeting with Carrboro approximately two weeks previously. He noted that essentially they seemed in agreement with the red line dividing the area that put the high school and city dump in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. The line would go up to the rural buffer area, proceed eastward to the railroad tracks and follow the railroad tracks through the rural buffer. He understood that Carrboro was in agreement with the men and Twenty Xear transition areas but wished to have the line moved to the railroad tracks in the rural buffer area. Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal read the Resolution adopted by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill on April 24, 1984. (See Pile # in the Clerk's permanent file for a copy of the resolution.) Dr. Stanley Bennett, a resident of Chapel Hi11 Township in the rural buffer area, urged the County and the two Towns to come to a reasonable and acceptable agreement on the issue of zoning. The residents are dependent for their property values and general welfare on sound and firm planning and zoning practices. Zoning is exceedingly important. Planning Board member Kizer inquired of Mayor Porto if the issue of contributing to the cost of implementation and enforcement had come up in any of the discussions. Mayor Porto responded that it had not come up. Kizer inquired if they had any idea how many extra meetings would be generated by following the request for meetings to streamline the planning arrangements. Mayor Porto explained his understanding of the procedures and noted that he did not know the number of meetings but that with so many boards and rnmmi~cinnc lnnkina ah aar_h nlan. it seemed there Woula be many meetings. 1~W 3 Willhoit noted this was still in an outline stage and a lot of text and information needs to be completed. He continued that if there is a Special Use Permit application and Chapel Hill indicates there are certain stipulations to be followed in the special use permit, but that the County in its review did not believe all those stipulations were appropriate, the County could deny or could add stipulations. However, the more restrictive form of the recommendation would prevail. It was not to "bounce back and forth" in an effort to reach a compromise. Kizer questioned if the County would bear the entire cost of implementation and enforcement and passible litigation of suits --' even if it (the County) did not impose the most stringent conditions. He was concerned that the County would possibly be bearing the entire cost and perhaps be caught in de€ending conditions that it did not impose or agree Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney, stated that, under the agreement, if such instances occurred, the County would be bearing the total cost plus possibly defending a condition they did not impose. He did not not know of costs being discussed, but the administration process, as he heard it being discussed, was a joint effort. There would be dependence on the Towns' staffs to enforce the ordinance. There have been no formal discussions about cost sharing, but it may not be an issue because of the .sharing of the administration of planning in the joint planning area. Planning Board member Pilkey inquired how far beyond the one mile zoning jurisdiction of the town limits does joint planning extend. Collins responded 2 1/2 to 3 miles. Gledhill noted that most of this was in the rural buffer area and under courtesy review. Commissioner Y7alker asked for clarification of the difference __ between joint planning and extra-teritorrial courtesy review. Collins .explained that the County would have the same rights in the extra-territorial jurisdictions as the towns now have in the rural buffer area for courtesy review. Planning Board member Shanklin questioned the real need of a joint planning agreement. He felt there was room for disagreement which would not occur with a definite line of responsibility. Do we stand to gain that much from the Joint Planning Agreement, he asked. Chair Willhoit noted that the Towns of Mebane and Hillsborough exercise a one mile extraterritorial jurisdiction. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have annexed areas since joint planning discussions began and come right up to the transition area. Joint planning is an effort to develop a coordinated plan For the entire area and an effort at long-range planning. Shanklin responded he would prefer to see it handled as extraterritorial jurisdictions and one meeting a year. Whitted noted that the joint planning process began when we had a request from Chapel Hill to exercise extra-territorial zoning jurisdiction to what would amount to the extent of the rural buffer. Some Board members felt this would not bring the County and Towns together for joint planning. There was a lot of discussion on this and it was felt that joint planning would be better than going out three miles with extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. Mayor Porto stressed that the very heart of joint planning is the zoning map and standards. Commissioner Walker questioned if the zoning designations were the same for Carrboro and Chapel Hi11 as the County. Collins responded they had different district designations. Commissioner Whitted noted there would be a jointly approved zoning map. The transition areas would have the standards for whichever area it was (Chapel Hill or Carrboro) and the rural buffer has County standards. ~.y9 4 Commissioner Lloyd inquried if there were any big differences in the standards. Collins responded there are a lot of similarities between Carrboro and the County, but some big differences between Chapel Hill and the County. There are similarities between all three. Commissioner 47alker expressed, concern with various board reviews using different standards. He felt adopting one set of standards would solve some problems. Collins responder) that one reason for having the different staffs, review the proposal separately was to have means to accommodate the different development standards. Chair Willhoit noted that it was not unusual to have different standards for different areas. Marshall responded this is where the map is so important. Once the map is adopted there will be less confusion. Planning Board nember Pearson asked the date of the map showing the transition areas. Collins responded it was the map from the 1981 adopted Land Use Plan. Pearson continued that this map would be changing considerably and he felt we were getting public input into something that was not complete at this time. Commissioner Marshall noted that the Land Use Plan would not be changing; only the zoning map would be changing. The zoning map within the transition areas will follow the development standards. The rural buffer will remain where it is and will .be as is in our Land Use Plan and under County control. Gordon asked for clarification: is the issue the Ten and Twenty Year Transition areas rather than the expansion of these areas and Willhoit responded yes. Pearson expressed that he understood that the Land Use Plan, in terms of where the Ten and Twenty Year Transition areas are, was also up for •• discussion. Gledhill commented that the location of the boundaries could change but that would not be a joint decision but would be an Orange County decision. Willhoit indicated that the Land Use Plan would not change until a joint Land Use Plan was developed. Gledhill indicated that the comments Dr. Kizer made related solely to development proposals, but had nothing to do with the Land Use Plan with the joint planning area definitions. •He continued that until the respective Towns and the County agree on the area in the Land Use Plan, the current County Land Use Plan applies. He noted that a major difference betwen Chapel Hill and Carrboro is that Carrboro does not want to be party to the agreement until the jointly defined Land Use Plan and zoning map are in place. Mayor Porto indicated Carrboro wished to be a part of things but felt it would be more productive and acceptable to wait until an agreed upon Land Use Plan and zoning map could be developed. Kizer asked if it would not be better for the County to maintain - - veto control over the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance and turn over administration and implementation to the Towns. Willhoit responded that within the scope of this Public Hearing. the Planning Board could consider that. Gordon indicated it was her understanding that if the Planning Board made major changes to this document it would have to go back to public hearing. Mayor Porto reviewed the procedures for withdrawal of any party from the_Agreement. He expressed a desire to see the time period for withdrawal shortened from one year. Willhoit responded indicating that a public hearing • would be required because it would be a change to the County Ordinance and +-~+afi a aoar~a nnt;rn nrinr to withdrawal wrnilrl limit ranricinuG withdrawal. and ~oL 5 would allow transition from one ordinance to another during that period. This item was referred to the Planning Board for recommendation. 2. 7,~-4-84 (RE~Q~ING_ O$F UE5_T) , W~L_D_D~OQD CORP~~ Presentation was given by Jeff Coutu. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public input on a rezoning request by Wildwoad Corporation to change 12 acres from Residential-1 to General commercial-4 and to change 62 acres 'Residential-1 to Industrial-2 on the west side of N.C. 86 adjacent to I-85. The property is known as part of Lot 4, Tax dap 45, Hillsborough Township. It is within the HB-4 Central Orange Node which is designated Commercial/Industrial Transition. The area is also Ten Year Transition. The proposed rezoning would allow commercial and industrial development on the site. The Planning Department report (see File ~~~ in the Clerk's permanent file) identifies other impacts of the proposed rezoning. Commissioner Darshall questioned the traffic .count. She expressed the desire to have the count for all previously approved projects in the area to be included for the overall count to be complete., She asked if more up-to-date figures could be received from DOT. Coutu responded that it was DOT's policy to wait far the development to happen and traffic to be generated before a traffic count is done and road improvements proposed. Marshall also Hated concern about the impacts on fire protection and law enforcement protection. Also, she expressed concern whether the Town of _ Hillsborough was willing to provide water and sewer. Planning Board member Rizer noted it was difficult to find answers to traffic and water problems. The need must generally be there before services are provided. r?arshall indicated again that she was requesting cumulative information rather than information on the contribution of individual projects. Commissioner V7alker commented that there would be drastic impact, but that DOT would be placed in the position of "reacting" rather than acting. Willhoit commented that we have the ability to create problems at a greater rate than DOT will ever be able to respond. He expressed concern about the type of development and noted that perhaps planned development would be the best approach. Planning Board member Greenberg asked if approval of water and sewer lines had been received from the State. Coutu stated that development can be served .by the Town of Hillsborough and he sees this process as moving smoothly now. Coutu referred these questions to Rick Cannity who represented the developer in this rezoning request. Cannity stated that it was his understanding that the lines alreay have state approval and the water and sewer lines already exist on this property. Cannity commented that it was his opinion that this rezoning request meets the criteria set forth in the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He felt that the projected county traffic was too high and that Hillsborough had stated it was willing to provide water and sewer. Planning Board member Wilson inquired of Mr. Cannity what traffic count he would consider as being more accurate. Cannity responded that since clients were not yet lined up for the lease of the property, it was not known just what business would be in the development and the amount, of traffic generated. Wilson felt that the road was already overused. ;~ ~ 1 6 Planning sward member Greenberg asked whether the Soil and Erosion Officer needed to check an this location again. Collins responded that Faircloth had talked to Freeland. Freeland stated this was to be pasture land and received an exemption under this condition. Collins stated he would have Faircloth ga out to the site again. Commissioner Lloyd inquired what kind of industry would generate the traffic projected by staff. Collins responded he could not name a particular industry. The National Institute of traffic Engineers have conducted studies nationwide and for general manufacturing that is the average traffic volume. Commissioner Marshall noted that with a planned development, more accurate figures could be arrived at for consideration. Impact could more easily be figured. a Kizer inquried if the developer withdrew his application for rezoning could he go ahead and submit. a planned development application. Gledhil responded that the developer could probably submit a site specific planned unit development application. Hazel Lunsford, property owner in. the area, voiced some concerns; traffic, pollution, noise and screening. Another concern was the use if the land should change hands. She noted junkyards would be allowed in a GC-4 designation. She noted that in an I-2 district there were several undesirable businesses allowed adjacent to residences such as storage of petroleum, feed products and heavy duty truck businesses. All of these businesss would create odors that would be very disturbing to property owners. She was greatly concerned that waste products would be getting into the wells and that --. property values would be affected. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall to adjourn to a later date to recieve further traffic data and projections. Seconded by Whitted. The date decided upon was June 18r 1984 at 7:30 p.m. voT~: uNANIrlous. 3. Z-5-Sly (REZONING REOLI~~T~ _g,Aj,~~uRAS ENTERPR~~~ The presentation was given by Jeff Coutu. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public input on a rezoning request by Paliauras Enterprises to change 15.D acres of land on the west side of N.C. S6 from CC--3 Community Commercial and R-1 Residential classifications to GC-4 General Commercial. The property is located on the west side of N.C. 86 in the rear of the present Chris' Restaurant (Truck Stop) site. The property is known as lot #11A of Tax Niap 45 - Hillsborough Township.. The site is located at the Commercial/Industrial Transition Activity Node and the zoning category regulated is one of six (6) commercial zoning districts permitted in such a ,__ node. The proposed rezoning would allow development of the Truck Stop which may include the establishing of a motel as well as possible commercial truck sales. The Planning Department report (see File #~~ in the Clerk's permanent file) identifies other impacts of the proposed zoning. willhoit noted that many of the same problems are involved as in the previous rezoning. He felt planned development was the best way to go with this project as well. Gordon inquired about sewer and Coutu responded that he understood the developer hoped to tie in with the line across the road. A motion was made by Commissioner in°hitted seconded by Commissioner t%~arshall for continuation of the Public Hearing on the rezoning request for 2~~ 7 Paliouras Enterprises to June 18, 19$4 for collection of traffic data. VOTE: UNANIPIOUS . ~~NME~+T,T tlotion was made by Commissioner 4dhitted, seconded by Commissioner Hiarshall to adjourn the Joint Public Hearing. Don Willhait, Chair Beverly Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw. Planning Secretary APA'ROYID 7/2/8