Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19840918G `~'~ ~ 1 2~III~UTES ORANGE COUNTX 130AFZD OF COP~II~fISSIDNERS SEPTEI~]SER 1$, 1984 The-Orange County Board of Comrr.issioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 1$, 19$4 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courthouse of the Old Post _ Office Building, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Commissioners Present: Chair Don TVillhoit, and Commissioners Shirley tlarshall, Ben Lloyd, Norman t•~alker .and Richard 1.7hitted. A, ROAP.D COI~i?~]EA'TS Commissioner ]tiThitted added a brief executive session to the agenda for the purpose of discussing personnel. B. AUDIENCE COj]I"]F,,~TS 1, P.9A'1•'TF.R~ Ora THE RINTED ~~,;;~DA Chair G•7illhoit announced that those persons who wish to speak about any items on the agenda will be recognized at the appropriate time. 2, r~ATTFR~ rvOT ON TH PP,=T7TEj2 _AGENDA None. C. 1,,.]22aUTES Deleted p . - '~.~ 1 , HOf•]ESTEAD ROP,~_.APARTA]ENTS (H.V._ r~COY CDj~~ANY)_ PD-6-84 The staff presentation was made by Collins. Collins indicated that Chapel Hill had informed the County that 'the Town did not have time on their agenda on which to take action on the proposal. The Town adr:inistrative staff had also informed the County that they were working with the developer to address concerns raised by the Tovan on the proposed project. The Town of Chapel will has, therefore, requested that the public hearing be continued until October 16, 1'84 to allow for • the Town of Chapel Hill to consider the matter again on September 24, 1984. The developer has requested that the public hearing be continued until October 1, 19S4. Chair ti~illhoit clarified that the public hearing had been continued until September 18, 19$4 to receive input from both the Tovm of Chapel Hill and the general public. Mel Rashkis addressed the Board expressing concern about securing speedy approval or dismissal of applications given that contracts are entered into in light of the schedule of public hearings and Bcard reviews. He continued that the courtesy review oppor.tur.ity includes the responsibility to act within the time frame established. He felt that unnecessary delay was proposed by the Town's request for extension of the public hearing. He also felt that courtesy revieva items should be given • some priority by the Towns for consideration. He added tht he had no interest in the development project presently being reviewed. Chair ]•~illhoit noted that the problem occurred with the desire by the Tovan Council to review this project as opposed to just the staff and Planning Board because of critical location. Commissioner willhoit stated that an e:tension of the public hearing to Datober 1, 1984 would expedite the request. • Commissioner t•Iarshall noted that the Tovm Council of Chapel Hill will be meeting prior to October 1, 1984. Commissioner Tuhitted reviewed the requirements that evidence be taken during a rlanned development public hearing, but stated he understood ~~~ 2 tdr. Rashkis' comments regarding priorities for courtesy review items. He added that October 16, 1984 seas too late a.n considering an item for approval. He also felt that there was some obligation on the part of the Towns to process courtesy review items so that the Board of Commissioners could receive the Towns' comments ~•~ithin the established review schedule. Motion. was made by Commissioner 14hitted, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to continue the public hearing until October 1, 1984 to receive comment from the Chapel hill Town Council. Commissioner tlarshall inquired about public comment on the item. i~7illhoit noted that the public would be allowed to comment on the item at this tir,.e or at the public hearing continuation. Willhoit asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak to the item. There was no response. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. S , ~'~Ci~ITIES. TNC. The staff presentation was made by Collins. Collins noted that the Tovan of Chapel Hill had requested that the public hearing be continued to allow for consideration of the item by the To~~~n Council on September 24, 1984. The Tocan had requested that the item be continued until October 1, 19$4. - Collins noted tht the applicant had provided additional - information to address concerns raised by the Orange County Planning Department regarding service provision to the development. Collins stated that the Chapel Hill Planning Department and Planning Board have already considered the project and have made three recommendations. The applicant has addressed tcao of the recommendations, but had expressed concern about the recommendation regarding the P1C 86 - improvement and the decication of additional right-of-way. The applicant had indicated a willingness to dedicate additional right-of-way but not make improvements to the existing road, has indicated a willingness to provide a 20' drive and garbage collection turn-around, and .has also shown a willingness to comply with concerns raised by the Orange County Planning Staff. Chair Vlillhoit inquired about the comment in the manager's report regarding the deletion of the recommendation if the extension of the public hearing coos not granted. Collins responded that the Manager probably wanted the authority of the Town Council vote behind the recommendation. Commissioner r~Thitted again expressed concern about how critical the timing was in the review process for proposals. tdr. Dal Hogan presented some comments an the Homestead Road Apartments project. The Board determined that the public hearing on that item had been closed and scheduled for continuation on October 1, 1984. The Board also determined that his comments could not be considered as they were not sworn testimony. 'lotion was made by Commissioner fdarshall, seccnded by Commissioner [+7hitted to continue the public hearing until October 1, 1984: VOTE: UP1ATdIPlOUS. 3. r~F ~E p T 1 R T -8 The staff presentation was made by Collins. ~# ;~. 3 Collirs indicated that the Planning Staff had raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the T7ilr~ore pump station serving the project and that the applicant had submitted additional information but that the submitted information was inadequate and additional information was needed. Collins informed the Board that the Town of ~Iillsborough had requested that the public hearing be continued to allow the Tovan time for courtesy review and that such a request was made by rlayor Sheffield. The _ Town has requested that the public hearing be continued until October 1G, 1987!. Commissioner whitted expressed concern about setting precedents with the continuation of public hearings to allow for additional courtesy review time for the Towns. Collins noted that tie staff had reouested comment from the Towns prior to this request. Commissioner t•7hitted felt that courtesy review periods should be operated withir. the established timeframe for project review and action. Chair T^7illhoit noted that the town of Hillsborough could hold a special meeting to consider the project if they chose to do so. He asked why the Town wanted the public hearing to be continued until. October 16, 19$4. Collins responded that Mayor Sheffield had requested that the Town be allowed thirty (30) days to review the item. Barbara Page noted that , the Town Board meets the first Thursday of each month. h7otion was made by Chair L^Tillhoit, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd that the public hearing be continued until October 1, 1987! to receive - the comments of the Town of Hillsborough and that the deadline be communicated to the Town. VOTE: UNAI~~1~4OU5. 4. ~i~TOPd DOi'7P1S ~, IL\TC. The staff presentation was made by Collins. Collins noted that, like the previous project, additional. information an the t7ilmore pump station serving the site was needed to clarify previously submitted information. Collins informed the Board that the Town of Hillsborough, through t•layor Sheffield, had requested that the public hearing be continued until October 16, 1984 to allow for courtesy review by the Tovvn. ?~1il;e Levine, attorney representing neighboring property owners, inquired if he would be permitted to present evidence when the public hearing was continued. James Rae Freeland, developer, also requested an opportunity to speak at the continuation of the public hearing. The Board indicated that all interested parties cvould be permitted to speak at the continuation of the public hearing. __ tdotion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner i~arshall that the public hearing be continued until October 1, 1984. VOTE: ur7Ar7lrlovs . $. iC~p~~j~TOOD ~~ Ti•1ETITS (GOFORTH PROPERTIES. , ID7C.) . PD-2-84 The staff presentation was made by Collins. Collins informed the Board that the applicant had requested the public hearing be continued and Chapel Hill has also requested that the public hearing be continued. Collins noted that the developer was working • vaith the Town of Chapel Hill and is planning to revise his site plan to meet recommendations of the Town. Chaoel Fill has indicated that to date i,t has not receives a revised site plan to review. The Town of Chapel Hi11 ~iuC has requested that the public hearing be continued until November 5, 198' so that she revised site plan can be received, reviewed .and presented to the Town Planring Board and Council for comment. Commissioner I~hitted asked who had submitted the request for extension. Collins answered the Town of Chapel Hill: Commissioner TPhitted asked what the developer's response was. Collins responded he was open-ended on the request. The Board discussed continuing the public hearing to the regularly scheduled public hearing date in November. Lloyd expressed concern about burcening the developer with delays. Motion was made by Commissioner tarshall, seconded by Commissioner t^Ihitted that, the public hearing on 5edgewood Apartments be continued until tovember 26, 198x. MOTE: UIdANIP~OUS • Smith asked that the Board clarify their motion by indicating whether the continuation of the public hearing eras to be on the original or the revised plan. :aillhoit responded.that the plan was only being revised in consultation with the Town of Chapel Hill. County Attorney Gledhill clarified the approaches the Board could take in considering this matter, but recommended that the Board ccntinue the public hearing to review the plan submitted to public hearing in August and to consider the revised plan only as proposed to meet the conditions recommended during the course of the public hearing. Gledhill emphasized that the revised plan would be considered only as a means to meet the conditions stipulated by the Board of Commissioners in its approval of the special use permit. Pearson inquired if the developer would be required to submit the revisions to the Planning Board for its review prior to the public hearing continuation on October 1, 1984. Chair T9i].lhoit responded that the planning staff can pass on the additional information as it becomes available. :~arshall noted that the developer cannot formally take the revised plan to the Planning Board prior to the public hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING T•7A5 CLOSED. ~'. ~,TEMS FOR DF.C25ION 1. ' Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall. seconded by Commissioner G7hitted to approve a revised preliminary assessment resolution and reschedule the public hearing on the Preliminary Assessement Resolution for the Joppa Oaks Subdivision Participatory Paving Project to October 1, 1984. VOTE: UP7ANIP•10U5. 2. RSVALUAT~ON CYCr,E I:ermit Lloyd. Tax Supervisor, made the following statements of clarification to previous questions from the Board of Commissioners: 1. On residential property not influenced by Chapel Hill values, it woulc require a 10$ increase to bring that property to marlcet value today. The same increase applies for farmland not influenced by Chapel Hill values. The Residential property that is in Chapel Hill or within four to five miles of Chapel Hill would require about a 20~ increase to reach a market value, while commercial property in the Chapel Hi11 area would require about 40~ increase to reach marlcet value; commercial property away from Chapel Hill would require more than 20~. Condominium conversions 3~1 s since 1981 FlOU1G~ require a 20 to 30~ increase to reach market value, while condominiums that e::fisted prior to 1981 would require about a 10b increase.. 2. 3y la~o every property does not have to be visited. Revaluating a particular section and then adjusting the other sections to that sample is being used by other counties but this method will not solve the problems here in Orange County. A horizontal adjustment would create problems also. 3. A three year cycle would provide Orange County the best use of personnel. be the most efficienty and most equitable. Other county tax supervisors do not recommend a four year cycle while a two year cycle would cost more. Kermit Lloyd requested that the Board consider the adoption of 1987 as the effective date for the next revaluation and postpone a decision on the revaluation cycle for further study. Commissioner [calker asked the purpose for having a revaluation. F(ermit Lloyd indicated that in the seventh year, utility property owners have the right to request relief down to the assessment ratio the County is experiencing at that time to correct the inequities that have occurred over the revaluation cycle as some properties have inflated at a greater degree than others. Commissioner Lloyd noted that there are same inequities and would like to see a proper rate adjustment. He expressed concern about the amount of taxes.. This will have a tendency to put the tax burden in proper perspective. Chair [•rillhoit expressed concerns about both the "hat spots" and how they might average out over the eight year cycle and the impact of opening I-40 and vrhether that impact will be felt prior to 1987 or later. He is concerned about the ability of people to deal with the increase in taxes at the time of evaluation and is not against a more frequent evaluation. The system is inequitable to begin with and [•7illhoit would like to have additional retails about the class of the property and the impact on personal property and how the percentages will be adjusted with the values. Notion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner [Vhitted to approve an inhouse revaluation effective January 1, 1987 with the revaluation cycle being set after further study. VOTE: Ayes. 4; Noes. 1 ([9illhoit). 3. ,gOLICE SNFORI-1ATION NETWORK P4otion was made by Commissioner [+Talker, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the renewal of an annual agreement under cahich the County receives access to police information. VOTE: UNANINIpUS 4. ~~~ Q$DE$ ORANGE ~NDU5TRIE~BUILD2NG I•Iotion was made by Commissioner 47hitted, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd for approval of a change order for the-Orange Industries Building that would provide one 10 x 12 canopy instead of three smaller ones. VOTE : Ui~ANIiiOUS 5. APPO~,~T~'I-]EA?T~ Pdotion was mace by Commissioner I.4arshall, seconded by Commissioner :7hitted to approve the appcintment of Anne Brown to the Domiciliary Home Community Advisory Board. VdTF: LTT:ANII•[OU5 3 ~! ~. 6 Notion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner t•Iarshall to approve the reappointments of T"ichael Robb and idike Y.irby to the Private Industry Council. VOTE: UNANII40US F. SPORTS ].. I?tSPQ~S~TIO~~' SCHOQja P$~gERTy Geoffrey GJ,edhilJ., County Attorney, gave a report on an -- upcoming offez of school property for purchase. He explained that before the school can sell this property it must be offered to the County and the ~__ . County must formally reject the offer. Motion was made by Commissioner ti'7hitted, seconded by Commissioner ~•?alker to au~horize the Chair to indicate to the Board of Education that the Board of Commissioners have no intention of buying the property nor does the County have any future interest in purchasing this property. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ~ , hI ~~jj,, T7FC AgpEAL . In accordance with the recor•+mendation from I:ermit ~,loyd, Tax Supervisor, motion was made by Commissioner Y7hitted, seconded by Comr,.issioner I4arshall to reject a compromise on the tax assessment for the utilities. VOTE: Ut1ANII•_OUS. - EXECU~S~SESSION tlotion was made by Commissioner tidhitted, seconded by __.. Commissioner Plarshall to adjourn. into e3:ecutive session to discuss a personnel matter. VOTE: UP7ANIt10US. Following the Executive Session, the Soard reconvened. 7n idotian was made by Commissioner v?hitted, seconded by Commissioner nlarshall to adjourn the meeting. Don willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk