Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19840604~U~ MxNUTEs ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMtAISSIOD]ERS JUNE 4, 1984 1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, June a, 1884 4t 7:30 p.m. in the Cammiss.ioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners Present: Don Willhoit, Chair, and Commissioners Marshall, Lloyd, Walker and ~0hitted. p,. BOARD COt4t?IEI~S None B, AfTDIENCE CQj~jiEP]TS 1. Chair tillhoit announced that those who want to comment on items on the agenda will 6e recognized and given an opportunity to speak at the appropriate time on the agenda. 2, 1+7at~-ar_ Tipt on th Printec_ Bgptlda None c. APPO>•rrrr~~raTs Chair Willhoit announced the appointment of Valerie Greenberg to represent the Planning Board on the Resource Conservation and Development Board. - Alotion was made by Commissioner tdhitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall that Elaine Parker be reappointed - to the Economic Development Commission for a three year term. VOTE: Ut1ANIM0US. Nomination was made by Commissioner Marshall that Pat Crawford be considered far appointment to the one year AT LARGE vacancy on the Economic Development Commission. Nomination was made by Commissioner Lloyd that Robert Greer be considered for appointment to the one year AT LARGE vacancy an the Economic Development Commission. A7Ot4INATIONS CLOSED VOTE: Pat Crawford - Commissioners Iarshall, Willhoit, Whitted. Robert Greer - Commissioners Walker and Lloyd. Pat Crawford vaas appointed to the Economic Aevelopment Commission for a one .year term. QRY CobiMYTTE~ - Motion was made by Commissioner N?hitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to appoint Mary Ann Matteson to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. _ VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ~ - Commissioner Walker nominated Dr. Jack Moore for the vacancy on the ABC Board. Commissioner tib'hitted nominated Caleb Moore for the vacancy on the ABC Board. NOt•1INATIOI~S CLOSED VOTE: Dr. Jack Moore - Commissioners t~lalker and Lloyd. Caleb Moore - Commissioners Willhoit, Marshall and Whitted. solid 47as~e Task _Forgg - Commissioner Willhoit nominated ArmanG Gammarino, Leslie t•aeiner, Carole L. Crumley and Linda Balfour. Commissioner Parshall nominated Blair Pollock, William Oldenburg, Terrence Pierson and Jane S. Sharp. NOMINATIONS CLOSED 2U~ z Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by ,Commissioner Marshall that all the above nominations be appointed to the Solid TrTaste Task Force. VOTE: UNAIIIiIOUS Qrange ~g ~ -Commissioner Walker nominated William Dorsett; Commissioner I•Tillhoit nominated Muth Burnette; and Commissionez Aarshall nominated Peter Kramer for consideration fot appointment to the Orange County Planning Board. VOTE: William Dorsett - Commissioners Walker and Lloyd. Ruth Burnette - Commissioners Willhoit, Aarshall and Whitted. Peter Kramer - No votes. Ruth Burnette was appointed to the Orange County Planning Board for the AT. LARGE vacancy. For the Elillsborough representative on the Orange County Planning Board Commissioner Walker nominated Steve Xuhaaz for consideration for appointment to the Orange County Planning Board. VOTE: UNANII^YOUS - Plotion was made by Commissioner Z^Thitted, seGOnded by Commissioner I.Sarshall to approve the appointment of Douglas Ludy to the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment., VOTE : UNANIt4OU5 - Aiotion wus made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner I^Sarshall to appoint Carol Weissert to the Chapel Hi11 Planning Board. VOTE: UP:ANTMOUS - Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the appointment of Gary Dean to the Eno Fire Protection Association. VOTE: UNANII^1OUS ~jj81,TC __uFA12TNG_S 1. ____~~~ I:NOB PART~CIpATORY PAVING PROGRAM PROJECT(see fi1e~~. for resolution) Susan Smith, Planner, presented the preliminary assessment role for Oak Iinob Road (SR 1605) to receive public comment. This ig the final action the Board will take for approving this project. ND COP4ASENTS FRDr1 THE AUDTENCE. Pdotion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner i^Tallcer to approve the confirmation of the assessment role, acceptance of the certificate of mailing offered by the Clerk and to direct the Tax Collector to collect the assessment. This approval took place at 8:02 p.m. VOTE: UI4APTIi~IOUS. 2 _ r, Susan Smith presented the Rangewood Subdivision Participatory Pavinc Project to obtain public comment on the Preliminary Assessment Resolution which was approved by the Board on Aiay 7, 1984 and to take action on the adoption of the final assessment Resolution. Nat Davis, property owner in the Rangewood Subdivision, requested additional information about the cost of the project and the method of assessment. Smith explained the assessment at $2.Op per lineal front foot plus small fee for administrative charges which covers attorney charges and publications. The assessment will be on the first tax bill after the public ~U~ 3 hearing and is to be paid within 1 month of that notice. Xou can pay the entire fee or pay an equwl amount over the next five years. The total cost for construction is 555,000 plus 5700 administrative costs and the balance is paid by the State of North Carolina. Commissioner Lloyd asked about the 5700 administrative costs. Smith e::plained this cost covers attorney fees, publication, xeroxing and mailing costs. The attorney cost is for reviewing the project and is a normal procedure for all Participatory Paving Programs and is not billed to the County until after the final assessment resolution is adopted and the money appropriated. Smith explained the work-will probably not begin until September or October because of the backlog by the Department of Transportation. The larger projects are usually started in the Spring. CHAIR 1<VSLLHOIT CALLED THE PUBLIC H)aARING TO A CLOSE. notion was made by Commissioner Whitted, Seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to adopt the final assessment resolution, accept the certificate of mailing as offered by the Clerk to the Board and schedule the public hearing on the preliminary assessment toll for July 2, 1984. VOTE: UidANII7OUS. E. ~TE?•1S FOR DECIS~~ 1. - Homes,_In~._ Smith presented for consideration of the Board the proposed Secondary Amendment to the Land Use Plan for 20+ acres located north of Eubanks Road and west of the NC 86/Eubanks Road (5R1127) intersection from Rural Buffer to Twenty Year Transition. The Planning Board reviewed this item on biay 21, 1984. Commissioner Iaallcer requested explanation of the difference between the 20 Xear transition and rural buffet designations because they don't have water and sewer in that area at this time. Smith explained that the Rural Buffer area with its present zoning would only permit one residential unit per acre. In the Ten to Twenty Year Transition area the range of zoning permitted would be R1-R-13. I+~hen the applicant can't adhere, to the present zoning a subsequent request for rezoning or proposal may be submitted. This area will be subject to any of the stipulations as outlined in the Joint Planning Agreement. Chair Y~illhoit asked about the rationale for changing from Rural buffer to Twenty Year Transition when sewer will not be available to that area for another nine (9) years. Smith explained that although OI+7ASA is not interested in extending water and sewer at this time. they would look favorably on the extension of lines by a developer so long as the line size and location meet OWASA criteria. Motion was made by Commissioner >;Valker, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the request for amendment to the Land Use Plan from Rural Buffer to Twenty Xear Transition based on the following criteria: 1. The Planning Board for the Town of Chapel Hill recommends extension of the Twenty Year Transition Area, and 2. O~r7ASA's long range Capital Improvements Budget calls far water and sewer in this area between 1993-1996. VOTE: Ayes, 9, Naes, 1 (I~7illhoit). 2. Proposec_ Secondary ~endmen~ to_ Land_ Us e_ g],~I1.~ t4. Kimball Partin 2~6 a Smith explained the proposed secondary amendment to the sand Use Plan far approximately 89.862 acres of a 114.022 acre tract located between US 15-501 and Lystra Road (SR 1915) and split by the Orange County and Chatham County lines from Rural Buffer to Ten Year Transition. The Planning Board reviewed this request and the vote was six in favor of the request and two against. The Chapel Hill recommendation was for a Twenty Year Transition; the Orange County Planning Board recommended a Ten Year Transition designation based on the development of the area. Smith further explained the zoning designations for the area: 1. Chapel Hill -R1 which allows for 17,000 square foot lots and R2 which allows for 10,000 square foot lots. 2. Carrboro,- R20 which allows for 20,000 square foot lots and R40 which allows for 40.000 square foot lots. 3. Chatham - Residential and Agricultural The Planning Board also looked at the projects that had been approved by Chapel hill and there are four (4) projects just north of the proposal: 1. Dogwood Place 2. Obeys Creek 3. Woodlake 4. Southbridge Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd to approve an amendment to the Land Use Plan extending the Ten Year transition Area for approximately 89.862 acres located between US15-501 and Lystra Road. Commissioner Piarshall questioned the Ten instead of the Twenty - year recommendation since the water and sewer would not. be available in that area until 1993-1998. Smith explained the Planning Board's recommendation for Ten Year Transition was based on the development characteristics of the immediate area. ~~j,Q~- F~ylp~ f~r_ hack o~_ a~e,~ond Chair [^rillhoit expressed two concerns about the request which will determine the growth in that area. 1. does represent leapfrogging close to the County line. 2. A large portion is in Chatham County. Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner t4arshall to approve a change from Rural Buffer to Twenty Year Transition for approximately 89.862 acres located between US 15-501 and Lystra Road based on the pace of the development and the plans of 0[^lASA to have water and sewer in that area by 19n8. - Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, advised that the Board could agprove a change from Ten to Twenty Year Transition but could not go zrom Twenty to Ten. VOTE: Ayes, 3; Noes, 2 ([Talker and Vlillhoit) 3. MTios ,~]. (See #~~ in the permanent file) Smith presented the Major Transportation Corridor proposal that was presented at a public hearing on January 23, 1984 for consideration by the Board. The overlay zoning district for the I-40 corridor provides for sign limitations, landscaping requirements and additional setbacks and buffers. It goes not affect existing land use or future single family and 2 ~~ i 5 duplex dwellings unless expanded by 50$ in square footage or extended onto an adjacent lot. Smith summarized the changes recommended by the Planning Board. Gledhill noted .that the recommendations made by the Planning Board were included in the copy he distributed. The only other changes were in form and cJ,.arification and not in intent. tlotion was made by Commissioner Marshal]., seconded by Commissioner Whitted that the proposed amendments to Articles a and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance as presented by the attorney be approved. Chair Willhoit announced that this was not a public hearing. The following people voiced opposition: (1) James Freeland, John Dear, Fred Dear, Curtis Bain, Setty PTann, Jim Poris and Henry Whitfield, David Smudski. Mary Ellen Priestly who owns 32 acares on NC86 along both sides of the corridor spoke in favor of the proposal. Chair Willhoit explained that the ordinance does not apply to the area that is in Hillsborough's extraterritorial jurisdiction, and does not apply to single or two family dwellings. Only single or two family dwellings could be built within the 100 foot buffer. Commissioner P~?arshall pointed out that the same restrictions contained in Orange County's T•lajor Transportation Corridor have been approved in Durham County, Durham City and Wake County. The restrictions are necessary to dq the most for the future development of our County. Commissioner Lloyd noted that Orange County has not had any industrial growth and feels industry wants to locate on a major highway so they are in view of the traveling public. He expressed disagreement with the proposal stating it unnecessary and over regulatory. Commissioner Willhoit noted the aesthetics along a major thoroughfare to be a plus in attractinc high quality industry. VOTE: Ayes, 3; Noes, 2 ([)alker and Lloyd) 4. Proj~osed Text A=meg~m~p~g _~~ Articlg 9 and 22 Assor_iatPr3 wi _r h MTC Proposal (see file ir. the permanent file) t•Zotion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adopt the proposed amendments to Article 9 Signs and Article 22 definitions of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the establishment of the additional signage requirements applicable within the Major Transportation Corridor overlay district. Those speaking in opposition of these proposed text amendments were ,Tames Ray FreelanG, Chuck Pfiller, Dick Knight, John Hogan, and Betty Mann. Commissioner Lloyd requested Gledhill to speak to the legal ramifications of this ordinance. Gledhill noted that outdoor advertising signs along T-S5 which are properly permitted by the North Carolina Department oz Transportation will need to be purchased by the County if the County reciuires their removal. The Board can zone on aesthetics alone provided the regulations are reasonably necessary to promote the purpose sought and that they do not interfere with a property owner's right to use his or her property to a "reasonable degree." The court is going to uphold the ordinance if it finds the public benefits exceed the private property rights lost as a result of the zoning regulation. The proposed regulations, in the case of outdoor advertising signs, contain an amortization provision whereby the signs may remain for a period of five years. With the exception of having to buy the signs in artier to have them removed at the end of a five va:tr nF„- ~ n~7, [;l ar',h; l l ~ S oni.n%on is there i s no constitutional or statutory 2 i_- ~: s problem wth the sign limitations and sign regulations that are proposed in this ordinance. Commissioner Lloyd contended that the ordinance will cost the taxpayers and get the County into legal trouble. Chair T4illhoit requested clarification on the buying of the signs by the County at the end of the five year amortization period. Gledhill indicated that the requirement is that the County must pay for the removal of signs that are erected in accordance with a valid _ Department of Transportation permit and that this is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional requirement. This act requires local governments to compensate the owners of signs validly permitted by the state under its permit process. The amortization provisions are constitutionally based and determine if the sign has remained long enough after being prohibited for the owner to recover the money on his investment. Five years has been determined to be a sufficient time by the North Carolina Courts to satisfy this requirement. Comrissioner T•7alker recommended to table the ordinance until the Board fully discusses all the things that will be done when the Signs are removed and the plan for compensation to the people has been determined and also further time to study the information just received from the attorney. Commissioner Lloyd seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes, 2; Noes, 3 (Commissioners Nlillhoit, A?arshall and Whitted) VOTE ON THE ORIGIP?AL AIOTIOiv: ayes, 3; Naes, 2 (Commissioners Walker and Lloyd) 5. __ ~~~~e:~inn_gg~L ; rQ,m~,n~ (see file ~~Q~ in the Clerk's permanent file for a copy of these zoning ordinance text amendments) Smith presented the proposed Zoning Ordinance Tert Amendments for Landscaping and Screening Requirements. The proposed text amendments would establish procedures for plan review and approval as well as standards for landscaping oft-street parking and loading areas, and screening between incompatible land uses. Proper installation standards would be designated to insure the life of new plants and protection of existing vegetation woulc be encouraged. The amendment would apply primarily in Ten and Twer_ty year Transition Areas and Activity Nodes where commercial, industrial and medium/high density residential development would occur. Single family dwellings and duplexes would not be affected by the amendment. trotion was, made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner T~hitted to adopt the proposed Article l2 - Landscaping and Screening Requirements. - VOTE: Ayes, 3; P?oes, 2 (Commissioners Walker and Lloyd) ~• p - (sea file n/~Dyin the Clerk's ]?ermanent file) notion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to proclaim the month of June as Rape Prevention Month. VOTE: UNANIMOUS NOTE: At 11:15 Commissioners P~alker and Lloyd left the meeting. ~ _ for a copy of contract agreement) Thompson presented this amendment to Orange County's October 4, 1982 contract with the N.C. Department of Administration. This contract enabled Orange County to receive 54,219 in State matching funds for the ~.r'~S v 7 purchase of computer equipment to be installed in Carrboro to provide access to the Land Records System in the southern end of the County. P•Iotion was made by Commissioner 1`Iarshall, seconded by Commissioner Whitted to approve the amendment to Orange County's October 4, 1983 contract with the 1+?. C. Department of Administration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Ho~sina Rehahil~(-atio~ Contract Award IaIotian was made by Commissioner P?hitted, seconded by Commissioner 1`iarshall to award one Housing Rehabilitation Contract as follows: g~ ,~T ~EET CONTRACTOR BID A_n1OUPdT 88 Daye Street Taylor Home T_mprovements $10,960.00 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9. Cq ' ti I.lotion was .made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Whitted to approve an extension agreement for the direct mail of Food Stamp Coupons for which the funds are included in the agency 84-85 budget. voTE: UNANIt•1OU5 10. C,~y~ntr c nt of Social Services Thompson explained this agreement as a continuation of the agreement between Northern and Little (attorneys) and Orange County. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner I^lhitted to continue the agreement between Northern and Little and Orange County. VOTE: UNANII•IOUS ll. 'j,'~x Refund Reruest Kermit Lloyd, Tax Supervisor presented seven (7) request for refunds as follows; ~XPAYE~, 7 q Central Carolina Bank & Trust Co. 34052 5 23.97 E.T. Dupont De Nemours and Co. 34238 238.23 Hilton C. & Evelyn ICI. Albrecht 15514 46.27 Victor B. & Nancy H. Thegze 55695 42.09 Victoria Neal Ralston 73301 62.15 Erle E. & tdary L. Peacock 69501 194.53 Robert T. Anderson 63455 l1b.28 l;iotion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Whitted to approve all seven refund requests as presented by the Tax Supervisor. - VOTE: UNAItTIM0U5 -_.. F. ~$,~'=0N THE _ ~TATUS_ OF EFFQ~T,~_~'O ,_RESO7 V~'4,__.~~ i'~],'x n'Fi.F:pHn~~~STF.P~1 PROBLEMS r'.ark Rees, Director of Purchasing, told the Board that additional incoming lines have been added to handle the incoming calls. Also, some telephone lines have been rededicated to more efficiently take care of outgoing calls. Lines will be monitored to determine the peak hours. An~oURNtiEN~ Dlotion was made by Commissioner Idhitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adjourn the meeting. Don laTillhoit, Chair Beverly P_. Blythe, Clerlc