Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 198410013 ti' c r,' I N U T E S OPANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COY•ltiISSIOIdERS REGULAR tIE$TZNG OCTOBER 1, 1954 1 The Orange County Boarcl of Commissioners met in regular session in the Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, Narth Carolina on October 1, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chair Don [Villhoit, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd, Norman F•7allter and Richard ~Vhitted. Planning Board t4embers Present: Caxl WaltErs, Steve Yuhasx, Valarie Greenberg and Sharlene Pilkey. Planning Staff Present: Joanna Bradshaw, Susan Smith and Marvin Collins. A. BOARD CO.lt•iErL None B. ri 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGEPdDA Pir. Nichols indicated a desire to speak on Cheeks Zoning. z . tai T ~ ~T Idone C. APPOINTbiE2.T5 .•lotion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner >ivhitted to appoint Henry Atwater to the Senior Citizens Board. VOTE: UrIAN2'idOUS Iiotion was made by Commissioner t+larshall, seconded by Commissioner T•7hitted to appoint ;Villiam Oldenberg to .the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. VOTE: UNANIA10U5 Iiotion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner 47hitted to appoint Sadie Carson, James R. Harris, Clifton Ingram, Melba J. Jones, and Regina Aiitchell to the Community Development Task Force. VOTE: UIdANIMOUS tiotion was made by Commissioner sVhitted, seconded by Commissioner T•larshall to approve the appointment of Sharlene Pilkey to serve as the Planning Eoard mer„ber on the Board of Adjustment. VOTE: UNANTt•iOUS D. ~~ Motion was made by Commissioner Aarshall, seconded by _. Commissioner t9hitted to approve the May 15th Regular Meeting minutes. VOTE : UNANIf~iOUS ---- I•iotion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner P~Iarshall to approve the May 15th Board of Equalization and Review minutes. VOTE: UNANILiOUS Ptotion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chair FVillhoit to approve the May 16 Special t4eeting minutes. VOTE: UPdANIP~,OUS Plotxon was made by Commissioner Y7hitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the i~4ay 21 Special tieeting minutes. VOTE: UtdANIiiOUS ~ 1.4 2 Motion was made by Commissioner f•iarshall, seconded by Commissioner GAhitted to approve the June.4 Equalization and Review Alinutes. VOTE: UNANII~:OUS Ilotion. Baas made by Commissioner t•7hitted, seconded by Commissioner I~Zarshall to approve the June 4 Regular I•?eeting minutes as corrected. VOTE: UAIAATIA9OU5 fdotion was made by Commissioner C^~hitted, seconded by Commissioner Alarshall to approve the June 6 Budget minutes. VOTE: UAdANTMOU'S I.lotion was made by Commissioner Gvhitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the June 7 Budget minutes. VOTE : UNANIMOUS f•Yotion was made by Commissioner A:arshall, seconded by - Commissioner R*hitted to approve the June I2 Budget minutes. VOTE: Ui'dANIh1OU5 E. PUBLIC F3EARIAIGS (COi'TIT;UED) 1. ,1Q~~~ OAI:S Susan Smith, Planner, gave the presentation. The Participatory Paving Program Project for the 3oppa Oaks Subdivision was presented to receive public comment on the Preliminary Assessment P,esolution and to take action on the adoption of the Final Assessment Resolution and to schedule the public hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Rol]. for October 16, 1984. Ilotian was made by Commissioner Alarshall, seconded by - - Cor.Imissicner G•7hitted to adopt the final Assessment Resolution for ~7oppa Oaks Subdivision, accept the certificate of mailing offered by the Clerk to the Board and to schedule the public hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Roll for October 16, 1984. VbTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Q1?AL~Cxk'~ ~~RS~$d-~IIATHAI~L HALFG•~Y_ HOUS~_ - PD-5-84 Collins made the staff presentation. G~lillhoit indicated that Mayor Nassif would speak to the recommendations of Chapel Hill. Collins noted that staff had received a revised site plan showing all required information. Mayor Nassif was sworn in. Nassif read the September 24, 1984 resolution with the Town Manager's recommendation. He reviewed Chapel Hill's policy of right-of-way dedication and paving noting that the Town had debated this matter but had came to no conclusion on this development on NC $6. He emphasized the Town's intent regarding the appropriateness and _ method of improvement desired. Sumner t•7ynn, applicant, said he had met all the requirements of --. the County and recommendations of the Tovm with the exception of the _ construction of improvements to NC 86. He emphasized that OFC was a law budget, non-profit group and limited financially. He asked that an exception to this recommendation be granted; to make the improvements would cost an amount equal to the cost of furnishing the facility and would essentially "sandbag" the project. i^7hitted asked hoca much the improvements proposed would cost. vdynn responded 56000 to widen with a 6" base and curb/gutter or approximately 5/8 -- 3/4 of the total, furnishing cost. i•Ietion was made by Commissioner G~Thitted to continue the public 3 ~~ ;. l.; 3 hearing to receive the Planning Board's recommendation to the November 5, 19£4 Board of Commissioners meeting. t~iarshall seconded the motion. VOTE: UNANT[~10U5 ~B. HOI~IESTEAD,RO.~,D APARTI9~AITS Collins made the staff presentation. Collins noted that the Orange County Planning Staff did not have sufficient time to review the revised plans submitted in response to Chapel Hill's comments for compliance with the Orange County ordinance. He reviewed the originally submitted plans and how they met the ordinance. ;Ie reviewed the revised site plans prepared to satisfy Chapel 1-Iill's recommendations. He indicated that the staff recommendation was to continue the public hearing until November 26, 1984 to allovr time for staff revievr of the revised site pJ.an. Idayor Massif was sworn in. D?ass if read the September 24, 19£4 resolution by the Town of Chapel Hill Council recommending denial of the project. He emphasized the Town's concern about annexation of the project site into the Town of Chapel Hill and a desire to see it conform to Town standards. He noted that though the Town staff and Planning Board had recommended approval of the revised site plan, the Town Council had not • recommended approval of either the original or the revised site plan. I3e expressed concerns about crowding of the buildings, congestion on Homestead Road, and reviewed site features and design concerns including buffer provisions, unit types, drainage, access, traffic patterns, dumpster locations, etc. He noted the strategic location for the Town. - "Iarshall asked if the Town Council had looked at the administrative proposals and schedule far the Joint Planning Area. Taylor, Tovrn T•Ianager, responder that they had received the final agreement and administrative standards for action by the Tovrn Council next week. tiarshall recognized the zig-zag jurisdictional boundaries in the area. She felt that the staff recommendation regarding a November public hearing did not make sense adding that though the Board did agree that the project was not subject to the Joint Planning Agreement, the cooperation of the developer with the Town of .Chapel Hill provisions did bring the project vrithin the calender for the joint planning Agreement. tiiillhoit noted that under the Orange County ordinance the project must be referred to the Planning Board. P?assif stated that the Town was not soley interested in the technical aspects of the development, but also in liveability and cited the closeness of the units, the elevations of the buildings, dwarfing the special proportions of the building, the closeness of the buildings to the _ parking lots, the frontage of all the units on the parking lots and other buildings. Be felt that the land was pat suitable for this type of ~. --- development which would, in his estimation, require the leveling of land. Steve Upson, developer, reviewed the history of the project approval process noting that they had presented the project to the Town Planning Board on September 4, 1984 where disagreements were apparent between the Town staff and Tovrn Planninr, Board. At.that point the developer recognized the need to work out a good plan to satisfy both Town and County. He indicated that they had submitted 4-5 different layouts for the Town Planning Board to consider. Tt is his company's practice to fit the buildings to the land.anc that he had stated that to the Town Boards. His company uses bath full and half split foundations to meet elevation The nrimar~r Pnt.r~nra crac nrioin~lly placed on ITC 86 vrhlch responded to tha 3v~ a traffic impact on Homestead Raad. He e.:pressed concern that his comiany was in a "catch 22" on this nraject in trying to be cooperative and satisfy too many interests; in his opinion the revised plan was not as good as the original plan because of the revised plan being tighter in design layout and the inclusion of public roads through the development. His firri does not want to cluster the units too much. He requested that the approval process not be delayer; they had oricinally met with the Planning staff far - preliminary meetings to taorl: out any problems before submitting the application and had strict contractual agreements on the project. Phil Post, representative of the developer, expresser concern that the project cannot meet both the Town of Chapel Hill's and Orange County's development regulations. The Orange County ordinance encourages entrances onto major thorough~a=es but the Town ordinance and design standards require entrance on the lowest classification of street possible: it is impossible to meet both development standards in the same plan. He continued citing the buffer yard requirements where the County requires a 75' buffer along parking areas and a 100' buffer for buildings versus the Town standards which require 10-15' buffer and 20' buffer along major streets. The final plan agreed upon with the Town staff provides for entrances which line up with the Duke Power entrances, but that if public roads required additional problems with meeting parking and buffer requirements. He emphasized that the request for a second entrance onto Homestead Poad would cause a problem with poor sight distance unless it was directly opposite Dul:e Power's entrance. DoT encouraged and approved tvao Duke Power entrances to satisfy sight distance and clearance. The traffic problem along Homestead related to the need for a traffic light at the intersection of Homestead and i0C 85. FIe continued that both plans show the dumpster locations; The site is not currently eligible for Town refuse pick-up and that the system proposed is a trash compactor on the site which eliminates the need for dispersed dumpsters and essentially is a single refuse station which would be served by a private trash service and later the Tocvn, when Town serviae is available. He continued reviewing the sites's landscaping provisions noting that the Town request for a public street and the buffer requirements of the County force the building layout into a tight configurations to be supplemented with additional post construction landscaping. The project meets all the County standards for liveability, recreation and open space and the original plan submitted to public hearing in August was superior and favored by the applicant. Fost asked that the Board refer both plans to the County Planning Board and indicated a willingness to incorporate selected elements of the revised plan into the original plan noting that the revised plan did receive the Town staff and Planning Board approval. t•Iotion was made by Commissioner Whined, seconded by Conunissioner Lloyd to continue the public hearing to receive the Planning Board's recommendation at the Alovember 5, 1984 meeting of the Board of Commissioners. VOTE: UNANI:•,OUS Etc. -8~. ^ The staff presentation was made by Collins. Collins reviewed the engineer's report an sevaer capacity vahich indicated that the ?•lilmore pump station can handle waste from all three developments (:aildwood, Hampton Downs and Occoneechee Point.) A second ~ ~.~ r 5 engineer's report on the capacity of the tiVilmore pump station indicated that given all three developments upgrading would be necessary only with further development in the area. Collins reviewed the Town of Hillsborough comments and the Orange County staff response. Collins noted that the project site has 1200' of frontage which results in spacing of greater than a city block between each of the three proposed entrances. Collins reiterated .the provision regarding negotiation between the Town and the developer on the sewer issue as a contingency of approval. Bill Danielle, representative.for the developer, noted that the public hearing was continued to address certain matters and that the relevant information has been submitted. ??e addressed the revised site plan as it corresponded with recommendations or the Department of Transportation. The applicant wants to negotiate with the Tavan over the t7ilmore pump station and has contacted tray [~=altbie who said that the matter would have to be resolved v~ith the Town Board at a later date. He submitted a letter from the applicant indicating that the applicant was prepared to provide the Town with assurances that surpassing the pump station's capacity and upgrading of the facility all problems that will be addressed through later negotiation. t4otion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Lloyn to continue the public hearing to receive the PJ.anning Board's recommendation to the November S, 1984 meeting. VOTE: UNAh'TMOUS E2d. TxAT•1PTON DOT~dNS~ PD-3~4 ~'he staff presentation was made by Collins. Collins reviewed the Town of Hillsborough comments and staff response. [Marshall raised the question of the problem of reconciling what the Board has heard over the evening faith the ordinance requirements., asking why there is a different approach to emptying out traffic onto Bohn Breckenridge Drive in Hampton Downs and Homestead ttaad with the [McCoy project. Collins responded that the Orange County Zoning Ordinance requires direct access to arterials or collectors as designated in the Land Use Plan. He continued that tdG 86 is an arterial and that Article 7 requires that traffic from a planned development cannot cause traffic aver minor roads. He reviewed the definition of a minor road. He continued that the number of dwelling units served by John Breckenridge Drive doesn't meet the definition.of a collector or arterial road, not a minor road. The road could be used to gain access to IdC 85. E?e applied the same definition to NC 86 and Homestead Road. tarshall cited the evidence given regarding conflicting policies caith Chapel Ftill. She called for staff to look at the definition of a minor road and the rationalization regarding the appropriate entrance for this density expressing a desire to see a reference to a "significant" collector or arterial. Co1,lins agreed there was confusion given the different policies of the two jurisdictions. t~iarsha7.1 felt that the public health, safety anc welfare of individuals is the same in all circumstances and should be addressed regardless of the situation She also expressed concern about ad hoe decisions. 3 ~.? 6 Pilkey asked about the flow o` water at the base of the Hampton Roads site. Collins identified the stream location vrhich runs parallel to the site and noted that the applicant has provided a 100' buffer around the property. He noted that at the southern end of the site the closest building was 200' off the property line and the only other disturbed area was jogging trails. At the northern end of the site the stream is located in the middle of the 100' buffer. He indicated that an .erosion control plan would have to be approved which would provide for protection of the stream from siltation. Bill Danielle was sworn in. Danielle reiterated the comments previously made by Occonreechee point regarding the pump station and the developer's taillinaness to negotiate given that the pump .stations are sufficient to •handle his proposals. He distributed two documents which addressed aroperty values and traffic respectively. Danielle reviewed a letter from Thomas H. Heffner,. appraiser, which stated his opinion of the impact of the development on adjacent property values. The letter was dated September 18, 1984 and stated that there would be no diminuition of property values. Danielle stated that the proposed use of the tract behind r7ilawooa had been identified during the approval process for 5~ildwood and was, therefore, no surprise. • He reviewed a trip generation report based on multipliers used by the Institute of Traffic Engineers as a guide to estimate traffic flow. He noted that a single family detached development venerates the highest number of trips per day or 10 trips per day and that a development of the type proposed generates 5.6 trips per day. He reviewed data applying these multipliers to the development of Hampton Downs as R-a and R-5 versus the requested R-S. P•7i}:e Levine, representative of residents of 1•~ildwood Subdivision, was sworn in. Levine reviewed an outline of his clients's concerns including that the homeowners were told that the Hampton Towns site would be developed the same as 1~lildwood; that roads were to be constructed to state standards but were not as evidenced by photographs; that there was no dedication of the roads to the state on record; that the traffic generation figures previously cited did not take into account the lesser number of units with a lesser density; that adjacent property owners must sign a petition for DOT maintenance; that the roads are only 20' wide; that there was no cliscussison of the ability of the developer to construct the Oakdale Drive e~:tension; that Hampton Downs, rnc. is not proposed to be on land that has steep slopes and the development would aggravate traffic problems. Levine indicated that an appraiser, 1^7allace Kaufman, had stated that in his opinion there would be a diminuition in property values but he had no documentation to that effect. He asked that photographs and a map presented by the landowners showing f?ampton Dot:~ns and .conditions in the jlildwood Subdivision be entered into the record. °-ZOtion cods made by Commissioner TVhitted, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd that the public hearing be continued to receive the Planning Eoard's recommendation to november 5, ].984. V(1TRe TTTdAT~1TD1Cli1.^~ 3~-~. 7 r"~ ~' - ?^ ~' ~' dUAL F~NAPdCIAL, REPORT The Board of Commissioners received the Annual Financial Report (Audit). v7allace FIarding, Director of Finance, expressed appreciation to the Finance Department staff and in particular I:en Chavious, Deputy Finance Director. The report represents 700 hours of staff time. Harding noted that Orange Gaunty is in a sound financial position. The report is very thorough going beyond what is required. ldichael Nelson thanked the Board of Commissioners for the opportunity of .working with Orange County and indicated to the Board he would be available for any questions. Chair tiiillhoit commended Harding and his staff on the report. G. ITF•45 FOR DEC~,~?O*•i a 1. ~j;)~~1~,,~ TOL'jQ$F]IP_ ZO~IAIG_ _ (seQ Zo~j,~a~~,an_ _ its _Ci~ in the permanent files) i4arvin Collins stated that in November of 1983 a public hearing was held for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed Land Use Plan for the i~Test Orange Study area. A final part of the public hearing involved a proposal far the zoning of Cheel:s Township. Because of an engineering report that was to be completed soon and provide information/recommendations regarding what reservoir sites within the Upper Eno basin should be designated as water sources and protected, and an accompanying report for providing water/sewer service to the Cheeks ':ovrnship area, a on recommencation on the Plan and text amendments and extension of zoning was postponed. At its t~5arch 19, 1984, meeting the Planning Board decided to reaffirm the recommendation of the Plan presented at public hearing and voted to approve the ~4est Orange Land Use Plan, proposed Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance text amendments with revisions and the proposed extension of zoning to Cheeks Township. Because of delays in consideration of the proposals by the Cheeks Township Advisory Council and controversy surrounding the receipt and review of the ,john R. [4cAdams engineering studies, the zoning of Cheeks was again delayed. The Planning Board at their G?ay 21, 198n meeting requested that the Cheeks Township Advisory Council develop comments and recommendations on the proposed zoning. EIowever. no information was received in time to be considered at the September Planning Board meeting. Bill Dorsett from the Cheeks Tovmship Advisory Council made the following comments which were received by the ManFger's office on 5eptenber 28, 1989: 1. The zoning as proposed does not allow any growth of industry or commerce. The only uses permitted are R1 and AR. The Cheeks Advisory Council recommends the I8S-US70 Corridor be zoned commercial and light industrial as the land use plan now so designates. Collins commented and showed on the proposed zoning map those areas that will be zoned AR and R1 and those areas that represent those existing industrial uses as identified by the Planning staff. The land use plan has designated about 1800 acres in this corridor as commercial industrial transition nodes. 2. Ordinance X2.4.2 - The Cheeks Advisory Council requests that the Development Advisory Committee b2 activated immediately to help streamline the planning process in Orange County. Collins indicated that section 2.a.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance provides for the creation of a Development P.dvisory Committee. The purpose of this committee is to review the zoning ordinance, 3~ any development .standards that pertain to the area and to make recommendations to the Planning Soard and to the Board of Commissioners far revisions to the ordinance and to the standards. The members of this advisory committee would include members of the planning staff, Orange County Kealth Department, the North Carolina Department of Transpor*ation and other agencies. 3. Ordinance 6.3.1 single residences per lot - this section of the Ordinance allow only one residence per lot regardless of lot size. The Cheeks Advisory Council recommends this be changed, especially in cases where mobile home users are building permanent residences, so they may live in their mobile home while building a permanent house. Collins noted this would necessitate a change in the Ordnance because the Ordinance does not permit two residences on one lot. The Planning staff has prepared a zoning ordinance amendment for the Planning Board's consideration vrhich mould allow the temporary use of a mobile home until such time a permanent residence is constructed. 4. Ordinance 6.16.6 - the present Ordinance allows no sales of goods on premises e.ccept those produced on such premises. The Cheeks To~,mship Advisory would like to change this to permit incidental sales such as those items sold in a beauty shop. Collins indicated that because the Cheeps Advisory Council did not present any recommendations to the Planning Department on September 17, th Planning Board reaffirmed its previoius recommendation on the proposed zoning of CheeY,s Tocanship based on the original plan as presented at the public hearing. Valerie Greenberg noted that the consideration of any report from the Cheeks Advisory Council would be a violation of procedure and requested that it not be considered. Commissioner C~7hitted commented on the four recommendations from the Cheeks Advisory Council. 1. prezoning would be contrary to the practices that Orange County has established in adopting the land use plan. 2. Agrees that this Development Advisory Committee should be activated. 3. Valid, and should be considered by the Planning Board for Public Hearing. 4. Valid, and should be considered by the Planning Board for Public Hearing. Commissioner t•7alker expressed the importance of prezoning and voiced approval of zoning Cheeks as the land use plan indicates. Chair tti'illhoit favors same prezoning in areas where it is _. clearly an appropriate use and could be used as an incentive for economic development but in order to protect the residences zoning must be done on ----- individual parcels. The ordinance provides a procedure for rezoning land to industrial if certain conditions are met. Comrlissianer Lloyd ouestioned 11.6 of the Ordinance erhich states that a noncomforming commercial or industrial structure destroyed 60~ ar more may only be reconstructed in accordance with the regulation of the district in erhich it is located is similar to that contained in the Minimum Housing Code and would recommend that this be changed to permit rebuilcing under the same criteria. He also questioned 11.5 about the cessation of use of a structure. Section 11.9 indicates that if a nonconforming use ceases for more than I80 days in a two year perzod subser,•uent use shall 3~1 9 conform to the regulation of the district; Lloyd requested clarification from Collins. Collins indicated that if it was not in operation for more than 180 days in any two year period it could not be reused unless it complied with the district regulations for structures costing 55,000 or more. Commissioner Lloyd requested the ordinance be amended to change the standard to non-income producing. T4otion eras made by Commissioner I•Thitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to accept the recommendation of the Planning 3oard and _ extend zoning to Cheeks Township with items discussed for referral to the Planning r3oard being considered at the November Public hearing. Camm].SSloner Lloyd stated that zoning.Cheeks Township has been s one of the most controversial things the County has had to face. In his opinion the problem with the zoning Ordinance is over regulation. There is nothing wrong with considering public interest but private property rights and the privileges that go with ft must be recognized. Ke feels the property owners in Chee{:s Township are willing to give for the public good that which is reasonable. lie expressed concerns about industrial sites for economic development and the lack of growth in the County caused by over control. VO~i'E: Ayes, 3; Does, 2 (Commissioners Lloyd and Iti~alker) 2. PROP05ED AF•IEPIDI•IENTS TO TFIE ZOP.ING_ O J - G Collins indicated that the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance - Articles 4,5,6, and 7 vrere also presented at Public FIearing on November 28, 1983. These items were deferred for the same reasons as the zoning of Cheeks Township was deferred. Comments from the CTAC were as follows: 1. Ir_dustrial and commercial areas should be allowed, using safe conditions now proposed in watershed protection areas. Low water users and nonhaaarous or toxic users should be permitted. If this is not acceptable the very least that ~,~ould be accepted is industrial and commercial users be permitted by special use permit. 2. F•7here public sewage is available, industrial, commercial and resident users should not only be allowed but encouraged to hook onto .. these facilities, thus reducing pollution from septic tanks. 3. Impervious surface ratio should be increased to l2~ on residential lots. 4•. Lot size minimum of one acre should be allowed for single family residents. tlost lots that have been created in Cheeks Township have been two acres or more. The Cheeks Township Advisory Council feels that with the buffer and setback requirements there is enough watershed protection to allow one acre lots. 5. Ordinance X6.23.5 Undisturbed area - each lot should be evaluated and a plan adopted to minimize erosion during construction and landscaped land use of adjacent areas should also be considered. This should be done instead of the current undisturbed area ratio. The Planning Hoard, at their September 24 meeting, voted to reaffirm their previous recommendation on the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance in Articles 4,5,6 and 7. i•7illiam Dorsett requested to make one more recommendation: the first one half ir_ch of infiltration not necessary except for major cnnr3 i c-i Gi r.n :~rni ~ri-~. LIa asrx;l a i nec~ the constraints of meetlnq Geadllries 3 ~_ to for getting information from the Township Advisory Council to the Planning Board. Commissioner Lloyd noted his concerns about the undisturbed «rea requirements, the maximum 6a impervious surface ratio, and the infiltration of the first one half inch of runoff. Commissioner Lloyd made a motion that the proposes amendments to the zoning ordinance. Article X4,5,6 and 7 be delayed until the first regular meeting in November so these concerns can go to the Planning Board for consideration. This would also 5ive time for the Cheeks Advisory Council to meet and oomment. Commissioner Walker seconded the motion. Commissioner~t~dhitted mentioned that if other water cuality critical areas are going to be considered at the Povember Public hearing it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to consider the TAC concerns prior to the Public Hearing. Susan Smith. Planner explained that the designatior. of the water quality critical area vas only in that area designated as the I.7est Orange-Area Stuc:y. It was not expanded north of that area nor to the other two designated protector watersheds - University Lake or Cane Creek. These two will be subject to public hearing in Plovember. vOTE: Ayes, ~4; Tloes, 1 (Willhoit) 3. -Q Smith explained the purpose is for the Board to consider the Land Use Plar. involving the I-a0/Old 86 Area Study. The area study has Some to public hearing and been considered by the Planning Board. The Planning Boars has recommended approval with the change that the activity node be a blend of a rural industrial activity node and a Commercial Transition activity node. This vaas in specific response to concerns about the kind of industrial uses that would be permitted under a commercial industry activity node. The purpose was to limit those types of uses to those of lour intensity where the impact does r_ot go beyond the property line and to designate commercial property that would meet the needs in the County. Commissioner F:arshall asked how this rural industrial blend with commercial transition responds to concerns that all interchanges do not have to allow industrial or commercial uses. Smith explained there was a consensus an the Planning Board of the interest in having limited light industrial uses at the interchange. NOTE: Chair T^Jillhoit suggzsted continuing the meeting to discuss Item ~:8 - Joint Planning and Item S9 - Classification and Pay Plan Recommendations. It was decided a meeting v~ould be scheduled for Wednesday, October 3 at 7:30 to complete the agenda. S. RAf:SHEAD ESTA2'ES PRELIr3INARY PLAN r 3 ! is 1 $. ~_SSHEA~ ESTP.^E S_ PRE~LII•iZI~!A_T2Y PLAP? Susan Smith presented the Preliminary Plan far Ramshead Estates. The property is located in Bingham Township off Jo [~iac Road (SR 1103) and abuts Bethel Church P.oad (SR 110n) and referenced as Lot 9A and Tax biap 28. It is located in the University LaF:e i?atershed and is designated as Rural Buffer in the Land Use Flan. Seven lots are proposed out of appro~:imately 9.25 acres. The property is zoned R-1. c~otion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner [ahitted to approve the Preliminary Plan for Ramshead Estates. _.. VOTE: UPdAP?I(•.OUS 6. E.H. KE^7NETJ'Y PP.EjIIiII~ARY PLAN Smith presented the Preliminary Plan for the property of E.H. Kennedy. The property is located in Hillsborough Township on NC 86 North and referenced as Lot 22 of Tax Pfap 1, Blocl; B. There are four (~) lots proposed out of 4.6 acre tract.. The property is zoned A-R. notion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded the Commissioner [7alker to approve the Preliminary Plan for the property of E.H. Kennedy. VOTE: U2dA~?IA'10U5 7. CHEEK LEDGE FRELLPI~•r]AR`' PLAP] Smith presented the Preliminary Plan for Creek Ledge. The property is located in Cheeks Township on Ben Johnston road (SFt 114•) and referenced as part oy Lot 11 on Tar. hIap 46 and is bordered by residential development and agricultural uses. There are nine lots proposed out of thirteen acres. The Hillsborough. Flanning Board has recommended that approval be withheld until Cheel;s Township is zoned. If this is not possible, a two-acre minimum lot size should be required. The Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the approval of an existing septic tank on Lot 9 by the Health Department. The Planning Board recommends denial of the subdivision because of the pending 2 acre lot size requirement in the water quality critical areas. The Planning Board feels the subdivision does not meet the standanc for protection of the public health, safety and welfare as set forth in Section I-A "Purpose of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations" Notion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner [4alker to approve the Preliminary Plan for Cheek Ledge. Smith further explained the rationale behind the Flanning Staff's recommendation in that preliminary the subdivision when it was submitted met all the requirements of the subdivision regulations and did not feel the lot size would pose a problem for public health, safety and oJelfare. They do not meet the minimum lot size requirements and other limitations of the water quality critical area. Attorney Gledhill indicated that if the subdivision is approved --= and the Board did adopt the standards for the water quality critical area in November that the lcts would not meet the standards and therefore could not be used. A substitute motion was made by Commissioner [ahitted, seconded by -. Commissioner fiarshall that the subdivision be referred back to the Planning Board and requested that the staff be in contact with the developer, explaining the situtatior, and giving them an opportunity to redesign the subdivision. Bill Daniell, an attorney, spoke on behalf of the developer and requested approval as the subdivisiar_ was presented. If on November S the saahar rri~alit-v r.ri~ir_al araa is annni-~+r; then snmc? chances wil.]. have to be made 3~~ 2 but sending it back to the Planning Board will delay the project. F?e recuested a conditional.approval based upon the redesigning of the lots to meet the two acre requirement. Cormissioner T•7hitted withdrew his motion. Commissioner T•7alker amended his motion of approval to a conditional approval that the subdivision meet the proposed water quality critical area requirements. Commissioner Lloyd seconded the motion. VOTE: UNANIfI0U5 8. JOIP,~' PLAP7P:ING - APPE~Q57~_~~_~2FF~'a?`1C._.~~~L Delayed until October 3, 1984 9. CLASS~'ICATIQ.'`i~j~j~. ~g.~'_P~r~?`7_~QdI~~r~)~~'.jONS T]elayed until,Dctober 3, 1984 10. HOU52NG REFTAB~4I~a~rQlt_COT:TRACTS fiction was made by Commissioner T~ihitted, seconded by.Comriissioner P-Marshall to approve the Housing Rehabilitation Contract Awards as listed below: ~~ ~~ BID Af1OUr7T 6 Samuel English $ 1,633.00 16 Samuel English 12,533.D0 17 Samuel English 13,611.00 19 Cates Construction Company 12,9D5.00 VOTE ; UNANTI•lOUS t,otion was made by Commissioner T•~hitted, seconded by Commissioner P•larshall to adjourn the meeting until Wednesday, October 3, at 7:30 to complete the agenda. ._. _.. VOTE: UTdANTf1OU5 Don t~illhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe. Clerk