HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19841126ci b
M I N U T E S 1
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COPSMISSIONERS
SPECIAL f,EETING
PdOVEh1BER 26, 19$4
' The orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on
Pdovember 26, 198 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of Commissioner's P.oom,
_ Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of clarifying the Board's
position on funding options for long-range capital improvements for the
••..._. Chapel Hill-Carrbaro and Orange County School Systems.
Commissioners Present: Chair Don willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley
I~Sarshall, Ben Lloyd, Norman walker and Richard whitted.
y
Ghair t0i11hoit announced the purpose of the meeting and
indicated that discussions on the distribution of the one half cent sales tax
proceeds had been held but no specific action had been taken on the
recommendation of the Capital deeds Task Farce regarding the sale of bonds as
a means of financing the more immediate capital needs.
' Commissioner whitted noted that the Capital Needs Task Force hoc:
recommended that the proceeds from the one half cent sales tax be used to
retire the bond indebtedness. This recommendation was not adopted by the
Board in total and some of the one half cent sales tax money has been
allocated for roof repairs. He emphasized that the proceeds from the one half
cent sales tax will not be sufficient to meet the needs of the schools for
big ticket items or major renovation work.
Dr. Dan Lunsford emphasized there was never any intent for the
Orange County School System to receive all of the one half cent sales tax
money but their intent was to reassess the possibilities for the A.L.
Stanback facility and other renovation projects.
Norman Haithcock, School Board Chair, noted that the Board of
Education must first demonstrate to the people in the County that they know
how to manage money before a band issue would have any chance of passing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tahitted, seconded by
Commissioner Marshall that all the options that were presented in the Capital
Needs Task Farce. report are still open and none have been closed off by the
Board.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
~DJQj_$Li7~1 Farr
The Special Meeting was adjourned.
Don t~iillhoit, Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
3~~.
t~I I N U T E S
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CprIN4TSSIONERS
JOINT PUBLIC HEAF.ING
NOVEMBER 26, 1984
1
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session on
November 26, 198Q at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough. North
Carolina for the purpose of holding a Joint Public Hearing.
Chair Dan Willhait~ and Commissioners Shirley
Marshall. Richard F7hitted, Norman walker, and Ben Lloyd.
Chair Alice Gordon and members Nancy
Laszlo, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl Walters, and
Steve Yuhasz.
p1, an,~,na $s,~rd Members__AhaDnt" Tom Bacon, Ruth Burnette, Valerie
Greenberg, Steve Kizer, and John Wilson.
1. fiFnr.H.vannn APARTMED]TS CDNTIttUATIOa
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Whitted to continue the public hearing on Sedgewood Apartments,
PD-2-8A until December 18, 1984 to allow the applicant to resolve design
issues raised by the Town of Chapel Hill.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
2. 1-4D/OLD 86 ARE~,,$~SJgY
Staff presentation was made by Planner Susan Smith.
The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on
the revised draft I'40/Old N.C. 86 Area Study. The I-40/Old tI.C. 86 Area
Study will revise and update the Orange County Land Use Plan adopted in 1981
and is the first of the four I-40 interchange area studies to be completed.
The I-4Q/Dld $6 Area Study was submitted to public hearing an
August 27, 1984. The Area Study was revised and recommended for approval by
the Planning Board on September 17, 1984. On October 1, 1984 the Board of
Commissioners directed that it be resubmitted, as revised, for further public
comment at public hearina. The revised area study designates approximately
90 acres at the I-40/pfd N.C. 86 intersection as a blended Commercial
Transition and Rural Industrial activity node.
Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed 240/Old N.C.
86 area plan and map.
Mr. Chuck Cavallito spoke in opposition to the proposed plan for
the I-40/Old N.C. 86 area. He felt the study and map as presented would
destroy the complextion of the area. Fie noted that there are no public
services in place for industrial uses. He continued that any venture drawing
heavily on ground water will have a serious impact on the residential area.
There are also na public waste disposal facilities available. He also
expressed concern with the type of commercial activities that would be
allowed and the traffic impact on Old N.C. 86. He asked for those opposed to
the study to stand and ten (10) stood in opposition while two (2) stood in
favor of the proposal.
Mr. Leland Phelps expressed concern with water supply capacity
if industry comes in with a great demand for water. He had concern with
"exceptions" and asked what kinds of industry or commercial uses would be
located in such a small enclave. He noted that only a mile down the road
erarc ~~aca that u~nitln nrnhahly itt~t ha riitnlif~at.Prl. '
~~~
2
Smith .responded that rural industrial uses proposed were
"limited" and could not generate impacts beyond the building itself. The
Commercial Transition activity node classification would allow any commercial
use.
Mts. Gertrude Rippy expressed apposition to any commercial or
industrial use in this area. She felt that the noise from I-40 would be
enough disturbance as her home is less that 600 feet from z-40. (smith
• identified Mrs. Rippy's property on the map).
Jim Hawks spoke in favor of the study. f?is property will be
split due to the relocatior. of New 86 and he felt it was-a fatal.loss to him
for the use for which he currently utilizes his property. He would prefer to
have his entire property coned commercial. (Smith identified the Hawk
property on the map).
Mike Dodson, who lives southeast of the interchange would like
for his property to be in the Commercial Transition activity node. He does
not wish to live so near I-40 and would prefer to move and have his property
zoned commercial.
3.
Smith made the presentation.
The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on
three (3) Secondary Land Use Plan amendments as follows:
_ LUP-4-84 Khye 67eng Pdg & Guat Chang Ng
LUP-5-84 Bob and Rachael Scholar
LUP-6-84 James L. Freeland
All three amendment requests are located north of the Town of
Hillsborough corporate limits territorial and extra-territorial planning
jurisdiction within Hillsborough Township. All three request a redesignation
from Agricultural-Residential to Ten Yeat Transition.
Amendment of the Land Use Plan as requested would extend the
Transition Area for the Town of Hillsbrorough north of the- current
extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. Designation of a Ten Xear Transition
Area provides for the full range of residential densities permitted under the
Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Staff recommends that the Land Use Plan be amended to
designate the t~leno and Scholar tracts as Ten Year Transition.
Planning Staff recommends that a larger area, which includes the
Freeland tract, be considered for redesignation as Ten Xear Transition, after
further study.
Smith explained the difference between the Agricultural-
Residential and the Ten Year Transition designations. She gave descriptions
and locations of the properties in question and reviewed the applicable
locational criteria.
Commissioner tghitted inquired if this property had already been
rezoned. Smith responded that it was the adjacent property that was
previously rezoned PDI.
Commissioner Marshall asked what is intended by the Ten Year and
Twenty Year Transition plan categories.
3~
3
Smith responded the designation Ten and Twenty is not a fixed
time period, but a policy guideline.
Commissioner Marshall expressed concern that the soard, the Town
of Hillsborough, and the developers do not have a clear agreement on what is
meant for the time periods of ten and twenty year transition and that the
knowledge of the long range plans for Hillsborough are essential to goad
decision making. She also noted that the plan calls f.or a complete review of
the Land Use Plan every two years.
Smith noted that the Town Planning Board had received
information on all the projects and that comprehensive review of the Land use
Plan was presented to both Boards in January of this year.
There was no public comment.
SCI30LAR REQUEST LUP-5-84
Rick Cannity, representing the Scholars, stated that they were
basically in agreement with staff's presentation of the request. He noted
that the criteria listed in the adopted Land Use Plan showed this amendment
as appropriate for the area. He indicated that the applicants were also
aware that this was just the first step in the process.
• There was no other comments.
EREEI,~ND_ REOUE~T LIJP-6-84
Smith noted that staff was concerned about the size of the tract
indicating staff felt that a larger area would be more appropriate for a plan
amendment. Staff did not recommend approval of this Land Use Plan amendment.
There was no public comment.
4. ZONING ATL~,^~j~MENDFIENTS
Staff presentation was made by Planning Director Marvin Collins.
The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on
five (5) zoning atlas amendments for Cheeks Township. The proposed zoning
atlas amendments address property located in Cheeks Township which were not
included in the list of nonresidential uses which was submitted to public
hearing in Povember 1983 and approved in October 1984. Two amendments refer
to non-residential uses which existed prior to the November, 1983 public
hearing and which were erroneously omitted from the proposed list of
non-residential uses. These include:
Racking "B" Saddle Shop
Griffin's General Services
Three amendments refer to non-residential uses which came into
-- existence following the November, 1983 public hearing and were, therefore,
not included on the list of non-residential uses submitted to public hearing.
These include:
Efland Hosiery Mi11
Orange Investors Corporation
Orange Truss Company
Consideration of these uses for non-residential designation in
the zoning atlas for Cheeks Township would address concerns regarding the
3e
4
current non-conforming status of these uses. The Planning staff recommends
that the zoning atlas for Cheeks Township be amended as follows:
Rocking "B" Saddle Shop -Existing Commercial for portions of
lot dimensioned 100'-700'/400'-400' including structure.
Griffin's General Store - Existing Commercial-V for portions of
lot dimensioned 200' by 450' including structure.
Efland Hosiery - Industrial-IT
Orange Investors Corporation -- GC-~4 for portion of lot
associated with structure, septic system, parking and access.
Orange Truss Company - non-conforming.
C I
Collins noted that the applicant was requesting a zoning atlas
amendment due to wn error in the atlas for Cheeks Township. Staff recognized
the error and Recommends rezoning to EC-5 (Existing Commercial-V).
Commissioner Marshall inquired if this property was under use
value taxation and haw such valuation affects the commercial user of the
property.
Collins responded that he did not know.
There was no public comment.
Collins noted that this item also represented an error in the
zoning atlas for Cheeks Township.
Commissioner N-arshall expressed concern with use value taxation
of the property. Smith responded that the Tax Office has recognized the
commercial use and taxes it appropriately.
e
Collins noted that this property was not listed among the
parcels in Cheeks Township to be zoned non-residential as it was not used for
a commercial use at the time of the public hearing.
The Building Permit was issued January of 1984.
Collins cited a letter from Thomas D. Efland in support of the
request for rezoning.
Glen Everette, pastor of Efland Rgethodist Church, spoke in
support of this request.
nRANQF. SNVESTOP.S CORPORAT1O13
The presentation was made by Collins. The applicant desires
that the zoning P_tlas for Cheeks Township show this parcel as General
-- Commercial-4 (GC-4) as opposed to Residential-1 zoning district. A building
permit was issued for the use of the tract for a flea market after the
November. 1983 public hearing on the extension of zoning to Cheeks Township
and prior to the decision to zone Cheeks Township made by the Board of
Commissioners ir_ October, 19$4. The property was not listed among the
parcels in Cheeks Township to be zoned non-residential as it was not used for
a commercial use at the time of the public hearing.
The Planning staff recommends that only the portion of the
property which includes the flea market structure, septic tank and
ritrifir.atinn Fialrl. narking and access be zoned GC--4. This recommendation
4
3 ~ ~-
5
reflects the designation of the zrea as Commercial-Industrial Transition
activity node in the West Orange Area Plan amendment to the adopted Orange
County Land Use Plan.
Chair Willhoit inquired why staff felt the GC-~ designation seas
appropriate. Collins responded that this type of use fits. best in this
district given the types of uses permitted in a GC-4 district. He cited the
use's location at a major interchange and along an industrial corridor.
Chair Willhoit inquired why only a portion of the property was
designated by staff. Collins responded that it is not the policy of the
County to prezone property and that a decision to include the whole property
would require a zoning plan for the entire area. He noted that a less
inclusive xone could be considered.
Commissioner tahitted asked if staff was equating the flea market
to retail sales. Collins responded yes. He questioned this saying that
retail sales traditionally occur within enclosed structures. Collins
responded that that may be traditional. but that it is not specified in the
ordinance, citing the example of a plant nursery.
Chair t~iillhoit asked about an accessory use designation for the
latter. Collins responded that it is not an accessory use as it is a retail
operation.
Commissioner Whitted asked if the flea market is synonymous with
retail sales. Collins responded yes, where goods are sold on a retail level
it is appropriate to consider it as a permitted use under .that zoning
designation. Whitted felt the Zoning Ordinance should speak more
specifically to the flea market as opposed to an enclosed structure. Collins
_ agreed that the Ordinance would be strengthened with more specific
categories, otherwise interpretation must be made as to what fits in what
categories.
Commissioner Marshall expressed concern with the appropriateness
in the GC-4 district than elsewhere for this use. Whitted concurred adding
that he would prefer that the Ordinance proscribe the manner of development
of a flea market in that same way as extractive uses are proscribed.
Gordon inquired if the use were not allowed here under a
specific zoning designation which permits it, then how would it be
designated. Collins responded that it would be considered a non-conforming
use until the Zoning Ordinance was amended to recognize it in some fashion.
Commissioner Lloyd inquired about the status of the use.
Collins described the history of the issuance of building permits,
construction of the structure and conduction of sales on the property.
Charles Johnson suggested that the Board recognize the
difference between the flea market and a yard sale.
The presentation was made by Planning Director Marvin Collins.
The applicant desires that the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Township show this
parcel as Light Industrial as opposed to Residential-1 zoning district.. A
building permit was issued for the use of the tract after the November, 1983
public hearing on the extension of zoning to Cheeks Township and prior to the
decision to zone Cheeks Township made by the Board of Commissioners in
October 1984. The property was not listed among the parcels in Cheeks
Township to be zoned non-residential as it was not used for a commercial use
at the time of the public hearing.
6
The Planning Staff recommends that the property be zoned
non-conforming as it is inappropriate far this type of use to be conducted in
this location under the policy. of the County.
Commissioner NThitted asked staff to locate the use on the map.
Collins reviewed the location of the operation on the map.
Commissioner Lloyd inquired how long the use had been in
operation. Collins responded that a permit was issued in September, 1984.
1]ean Gast, ovrner/operator clarified that a building permit was issued in
February, 1984 for the operation building and a second permit was issued in
-. October, 1984 for the storage structure/warehouse. He indicated he had begun
operations in June. 1984.
Steve Xuhasz. Planning Board member, inquired when the deed of
the property was dated. Gast responded February. 1984.
Commissioner Lloyd asked why staff disapproved of an an-going
use. Collins responded that it was an inappropriate use in that area. He
noted it was located a substantial distance from the area designated for
Commercial/Industrial activity node under the West Orange Area Study and that
it was located north of the Transition Area under the same study. He
continued that agricultural uses were clearly designated as•appropriate in
this area and he was concerned that the existence of this use would stimulate
yet further requests for commercial and industrial uses in the area.
Collins continued that staff would rather classify the use as
non-conforming than open the door to similar requests.
Commissioner Lloyd asked what would happen to the use if the
structure were destroyed by fire. Collins cited the Ordinance specifies if
60~ or more of the structure housing a non-conforming use was destroyed, that
reconstruction could only occur in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Zf
this use was destroyed to that extent, it could not be rebuilt in that
location under that provision.
Commissioner ~•'alker indicated that as a nearby property owner he
did not object to the use.
5hanklin, Planning Board member, indicated he lives nearby and
that neighbors polled have no objection to the operation as it is now, but
are concerned about expansion of the operation in terms of additional noise,
lights, and outdoor storage. He added that no one indicated that they want
the operation to be prohibited from continuing to function a•nd that they saw
it as a desireable business for the area.
An audience member asked if the use was in operation, why was
staff blocking its rezoning. Gordon responded that this was a public hearing
regarding the rezoning request and that staff had recommended that the use
not be rezoned as it was located outside an area appropriate for such a use.
Commissioner Lloyd inquired if the use was simply overlooked.
- Collins responded no, that a survey had preceeded the compilation of the
Zoning Atlas and that the building permits for the structures were not issued
until after the public hearing held in tdovember, 1983.
Gast indicated that staff had informed him fully of the
possibility of zoning when the permits were issued, but that he did not know
he could not rebuild at this location if destroyed and that that was a
concern for him.
Carl 1^Iilkins indicated he had no problem with the business as it
is now, but was concerned with additional expansion and noise, traffic and
lights.
C
7
Carl Ashley recommended that only a part of the lot be rezoned,
but not the whole property.
R. Banks H1cAdams felt that the use should be allowed to operate
as there was no problem with noise and there was no industry on the north
side of the Southern Railroad.
5.
_ The staff presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this
agenda item is to receive public comment on a proposed rezoning request for
-.... Wildwood Corporation.
The request was for higher density use for 12.97 acres of land located
along the south side of the Southern Railroad and west of 1dC 86.
The property is part of Lot 4 of Orange County Tax Map 45, Hillsborough
Township. The present zoning classification is R-l. Residential while the
requested designation is R-~k.
The property is located within the HB-4 Central Orange activity node
which is designated Commercial/Industrial Transition. The area is also
designated as 10 year Transition.
Approval of the request would allow a density of 10,000 square feet per
dwelling unit instead of the X0,000 square feet that is presently allowed.
Planning staff recommended approval of this request.
Commissioner Whitted clarified that the abstract should read Planning
staff recommendation, not the Planning Board.
Commissioner Marshall expressed concern that she has in the past
requested that staff indicate cumulative impacts of development proposals
along NC 86 and that these traffic generation figures were not available.
Evelyn Poole-ROber, Town of Hillsborough Planning Board, spoke on
behalf of the Town Planning Board. She indicated that the Planning Board was
concerned about a single access to a major road from the site and the
location of the residential proposal next to railroad tracks and across from
a proposed industrial development. The Town Board recommended an Rwl or R-2
zoning district only. She continued that the Town Planning Board was
concerned about the slope of the property toward the railroad tracks and the
impact of this proposal on existing residential uses. She also indicated
that they were concerned about chemical spills along the railroad line.
6.
Sworn in: Susan Smith and Tommy Stone
The staff presentation was made by Planner Susan Smith. This agenda
item is to receive public comment on a proposed Planned Development/Special
Use Permit and rezoning application from R-1 to PD-12.
Hallmark F~7oodcraft Company has requested a Planned Development
designation for 6.27 acres of land located off NC 86 west of Occoneechee
Point and north of the Southern Railway. The purpose of the request is to
permit the construction of four industrial buildings to be used by Hallmark
woodcraft Company for their business.
The property in question is part of lot ~4 of Orange County Tax Map 45
in Hillsborough Township. The present zoning classification of the property
is R-1 Residential, while the requested designation is PD (I) -I-2,
Industrial-2.
The property is located in a Commercial Industrial Activity Node as
Boa; r„a~-e,a ; n tr,o llranrta rn~,nrv r.~nri T1RP Plan and Central Oranae Area Studv.
3e~
s
That designation permits a rsnge of commercial and industrial zoning
classifications, including the I-2 designation. Certain zoning and
development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained
for the development to proceed.
Approval of the request would allow industrial development on the site
for Hallmark toodcraft Company.
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following
- conditions:
1. That all improvements to Alexander Dickson Road be to IVC DpT
standards and that engineering plans be submitted to NC DOT for approval.
2. That Alexander Dickson Road be constructed and completed prior
to the issuance of any occupancy permit.
3. That Alexander Dickson Road be dedicated to the public following
construction.
~4. That the applicant obtain from the Town of Hillsborough approval
of connection to the Town of Hillsborough's water and sewer system prior to
the initiation of construction activity.
• S. That detailed water and sewer plans be submitted to .the State
for approval prior to the initiation of construction activity.
6. That water and sewer lines be installed prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit.
7. That a detailed landscaping plan which meets all applicable
requirements of Articles 6, 7, and 12 be submitted for approval prior to the
initiation of construction activity.
8. That the applicant provide screening details which satisfy
Articles 6, 7, and 12 prior to the initiation of construction activity.
9. That individual building details be submitted to determine
compliance with applicable building codes prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
10. That signage details be submitted to determine complaance with
Article 9 prior to the issuance of a sign (zoning) permit.
11. That development of the site be subject to submission and
approval of an erosion control plan by the Orange County Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Officer prior to the initiation of construction activity.
Gordon asked if any major requirement was not satisfied. Smith
responded no. Gorton asked about the landscaping plan. Smith responded that
the landscaping plan was not submitted, but that landscaping is generally
shown o.n the plan. She indicated that the landscaping plan shows the
landscaping details and is reviewed and approved by staff prior to
construction activity.
Tom Stone, co-owner of Hallmark Woodcraft, described his operation and
reviewed his clientele including Duke University and the Morehead Foundation,
and examples of his work including Duke University Chapel, Brightleaf Square
and Erwin Square. He indicated that his operation is diverse in its
woodworking capabilities and is highly rated in Dun/Bradstreet. Ee noted his
operation has a commitment to the public and is responsible in its credit
history. He referenced his partner, Mr. Robert Burke, adding that there are
six persons involved in the business, including he, his partner and his
father.
F)r. Stone described his reasons for seeking this location for the site
of his operation noting its proximity to the Research Triangle Institute Park
~~v
9
and the Universities. Ne added that bath the location and its accessibility
were important considerations in the firm's decision to relocate.
Mr. Stone noted that the Planning Department staff had favorable
considered the application and had noted deficiences which he wished to
address. These included landscaping requirements and screening requirements.
He advised the Boards that the firm was willing to comply with the
landscaping requirements and would provide additional landscaping in the
parking areas to meet the requirements of the ordinance.
He addressed the screening requirements clarifying that the screening
requirement was not met along the property edge of Parcel B. He noted that
the purpose of the screening requirement was to provide visual obscuratian
and a sense of spatial separation between different uses of the property,
according to the ordinance. He continued that this requirement is already
satisfied because Parcel B, in order to be developed, would be subject to
plan review at a later date and satisfaction of this requirement. He added
that there were 80-100 existing trees on Parcel B which were greater than
25-30 feet in height and that there was tremendous spatial separation between
the buildings proposed and the nearest residential property. He noted there
was 75 feet between the structures and the property line of Parcel B and then
another 300 feet to the next residential property.
On this basis, he asked that the Boards favorably consider the request
that the screening requirements for Parcel B of deferred until Parcel B is
developed according to a subsequently reviewed and approved site plan.
Kith regards to other screening requirements along the western property
line, he noted that screening requirements are of no use to vacant property,
that according to the Lane Use Plan is designated for commercial and
industrial use.
On this basis, he asked that the Boards favorably consider adding a
stipulation that t•he screening requirement be met if and when the adjacent.
property to the west is developed for residential, rather than commercial or
industrial purposes.
Evelyn Poole-Kober, representing the Town of Hillsborough Planning
Board, spoke to the project. She indicated that the Planning Board preferred
that the industrial plan for the entire tract be submitted, rather than
individual sections. She indicated that there was a clear concern for water
supply and quality and asked that the firm submit a pretreatment plan for
wastewater disposal. She expressed concern about the paint operation and
hazardous materials used and asked if a list of these substances had been
submitted to the Fire Department to ascertain emergency capability.
Stone responded that at this time the firm was not in the position in
terms of capital or intention to put in a paint facility. He cited technical
innovations and compliance with OSHA standards as well as noted that their
operation has little impact on discharge into the Town's water supply. He
continued that the State of I`Torth Carolina distinguishes between toxic and
non-toxic substances. He reviewed his operation citing that the firm uses
cut wood .and produces only organic waste, not toxic waste, and that there is
no discharge into the wastewater system associated with production. He added
that according to law, the firm cannot discharge air pollutants and that the
only air pollutant involved is dust which is to be addressed by the use of a
Cyclone.
Chair GTillhoit indicated that the use must meet the pretreatment
requirements of the town. Stone responded that the only wastewater involved
;~ hnncahn9rl aaor~np anti rho nccasinnal. amer.aencv use of a shower facility.
3 r'
Motion was made by Commissioner
that the public hearing be continued
Planning Board's recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIPIOU$.
to
Marshall, seconded by Chair Willhoit
to Jar_uary 7, 1984 to receive the
7. 9~p~,E_1'~1RI~~~-PLANNED EVE=,Q$~+'ENT/~PFC3AL_ USE_ PERMIT APPLICATION
S470RN IN: Doris Huckabee, Rodney Turner, Steve Medlin, Ricky Smith,
Frank Williams, Phil Post, Roger bale Stephens, Evelyn Poole-Kober, and
Marvin
Collins.
Marvin Collins made the staff presentation. He cited the receipt of a
letter from Marvin T. Glenn in apposition of the proposal. The purpose of
this item is to receive public comment on a proposed Planned Develop-
ment/Special Use Permit application for 52.78 acres of land located west of
NC 8 and east of the Interstate 40 corridor. The purpose of the request is
to permit the construction of a 57 unit mobile home park on lots 13 and 23 of
map X49 in Hillsborough Township. The present zoning classification of the
property is R-1 Residential, while the requested designation is PD-H-R1. The
property is located in a Rural Residential area as designated on the Orange
County Land Use Plan. That designation permits single-family residential
housing. Certain development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit
obtained to cluster the mobile home units an the property.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the
following conditions:
1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange
County, in a farm acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or
letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all improve-
ments plus 10~. The amount shall be determined on the basis of
fully executed construction contracts or certification by a
registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use
Permit. security for construction of the improvements in this
project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, as
improvements are completed in each phase that phase and a cor-
responding amount of money may be released from the security
instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated
based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements.
2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabili-
zation of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travel
ways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways, erection of
street signs; utility installation and hookups and "tot lot";
landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units.
3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity. tele-
phone and cable television by any cable television provider
franchised by Orange County to serve this development)
installation, servicing and hookups to the development and to
each unit within the devopmert shall be provided at no cost to
the utility provider.
4. Roads, parking areas, walkways, street signs, utilities, recrea-
tion facilities and sites, landscaping and mulching around units
shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and
3 l1
11
facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe
manner.
5. The grantee shall promulgate rules and regulations governing
tenancy in the development which shall restrict accumulation of
trash and rubbish outside of the mobile home units, shall re-
strict storage of goods outside of mobile homes and which shall
further prohibit the storage of junked or unregistered motor
vehicles. The grantee shall file with the Orange County
Planning Department a copy of the rules and regulations
promulgated under this condition and maintain an up-to-date copy
of the-rules and regulations in the Orange County Planning
Department.
6. The recreation areas shall be cleared and grassed, a 20 x 40
foot swimming pool constructed, basketball court installed and
tot lot built. The recreation facilities and sites shall be
open to the tenants of this development at all reasonable times,
periods far maintenance excepted.
7. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of
planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained
between units.
8. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control
shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. Tn addition,
Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices
and the ongoing work for the total project. The project shall
at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
9. Mailboxes shall be provided close to the entrance, but far
enough into the rlobile Home Park to prevent traffic problems on
NC 86. A pulloff shall be provided and the mailboxes set back
off the main entrance road. The entrance road and pulloff shall
be of sufficient width to allow three or four cars to stop and
get mail while others continue to pass. The mailboxes shall not
be located in a place that would require cars to cross traffic,
maY.e unnatural turns or ga against the flow of traffic.
10. There shall be at least 2 parking spaces per mobile home unit in
the development.
11. -The roads in the mobile home park shall be hard surfaced.
12. All roads will be named and the names not duplicate any other
names within Orange County. Road name signs to Orange County
standards shall be erected at all intersections. Individual
units shall be numbered in such a manner that the identification
is visible from the road.
13. Removal of snow and ice from the roads in the development and
the sidecaalks within the development shall be the responsibility
of the grantee. Such removal shall be completed promptly.
14. Prior to the start of any construction, the final plans for the
water system must be approved by the Town of Hillsborough and
the State. The final plans for the sewage system must also be
approved by the Town of Hillsborough and the State prior to the
start of construction.
15. That water and sewer lines be installed prior to the issuance of
an occupancy permit.
~`~~
12
16. The project must remain in unitary ownership and no lots can be
sold to individuals.
17. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improve-°
ments shall be recorded by the developer.
18. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating
all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval
of the project are incorporated hereir. and made a part of this
Planned Development Special Use Permit. A copy of the final
site plan and narrative aze on file with the Orange County
Planning Department. Grading and building permits, upon
application, will be issued after approval and recordation of
the Special Use Permit.
19. The development shall be built and operated according to the
site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in
compliance with the above conditions.
Commissioner t•?hitted asked staff to show the location of the project site
on the map. Collins reviewed its location.
Evelyn .Poole-Kober expressed concern about the availability or interest of
the Toevn in extending public water and sewer to the site given its distance
from the Town. She clarified that the letter submitted by the Town Clezk
regarding water and sewer is a "routine" letter and did not indicate Town
approval. She noted that the Board had concern about adequate water pressure
and meeting the State minimum river flow requirements. She indicated that the
Board wanted a subdivision with a lot size greater than one acre. She
expressed concern about access to t?C R6; interior road layout, suggesting
instead a loop road; parking facilities at 2 spaces per unit plus an additional
visitor's space for every 5 units, as provided in the proposed Hillsborough
Zoning Ordinance; paved roads and recreation areas to state standazds; and
clustered recreation facilities.
Gordon questioned Ms. Poole-Kober's comment on the letter from the Town as
a "routine° letter. Fis. Poole-Kober responded that she had just recently
learned of these letters and stated that they only indicate that facilities are
there. .
Commissioner tR*hitted questioned this matter noting that the County makes
its approvals contingent on Town approval of sewer/water extensions and that it
is not the County's responsibility to address Tawn proceduzes on this matter.
Roger Dale Stephens, owner/developer, stated that he had spoken with
Horace Johnson of the Town of Hillsborough prior to purchasing the property to
clarify that he would be allowed to extend lines to the site and be served by
the Town system, as he could not pursue the project without public water and
sewer. He indicated that in subsequent meetings A",r. Johnson had expressed to
him verbally and in written form that approval would be granted pending
approval under State requirements. He indicated that plans for the extension
had already been submitted to the State and that he understood that the Town
would approve the project with the contingency that Hillsborough's extension
policy requirements be met.
Charlotte Huckabee expressed strong apposition to the rezoning for a
trailer park as the ovmer of the adjacent 22 acres. She informed the Boards
that her father had sold access via Phoebe Drive to a neighbor as a favor, but
that the property had subsequently been sold. She expressed concern that the
only access to the property was via Phoebe Drive; that the property would be
rlasral ~7C/~. tha+ the raei r3c+nt•c wrn~9 r~ r3amaaP aC7;acent lands: that the mobile homes
~} -~ r
t) ~: L
13
would serve only as low-cost temporary housing without contribution to the tax
base; that the units would require additional services; that the units would be
a target in violent storms; that the units would be unattractive; that the
residents would not take pride fn the grounds; that she would have to make
similar use of her, land, that the use would not make a positive contribution to
the area, and that a project providing housing to attract young professionals
should be substituted.
--. Roger Dale Stephens responded that this was not a rezoning and that there
was a dire need for mobile home spaces in the area. He continued that he had a
petition of 192 signatures indicating the need for mobile home spaces; that he
was the owner/operator of a park constructed in 1981 in which 26 spaces were
filled in advance of its completion; that he has references of support for the
existing and proposed parks; that he had letters of support from adjacent
homeoowners around the existing parks; that he wanted to be proud of his
development; that the cheapest conventional home was 548-50.000 with 510,000
down payment and that he provided alternatives for those who could not afford
this; that 57 families would benefit; that the units would be clustered rather
than spread across the County; that a l00' setback is provided; that the
property is located 1200' off the road; that the existing road will be paved
and landscaped and the property values enhanced as the result; that the
extension of public weter and sewer will enhance the property values; that the
value of the property is 5400,000.00 which the bank would not have funded if
• the use for which the monies were obtained would be detrimental to surrounding
properties and residents; that the traffic contribution would be relatively
small; that neighboring uses include mobile homes; that clustering of the units
.-_. allows economic maintenance and installation of public services; that the
portion of the site to be utilized is afield overgrown in pines and that the
portion of the property to remain undisturbed is in mature hardwoods; that the
central facility is to be located in the area that cues cleared by the previous
use for an archery range; that drainage easements are shown for all cree}a on
the property; that the entire front corner of the property is to be retained in
open space for least visual impact; that the entire perimeter of the property
will have a minimum 100 foot vegetated buffer; that all paved surfaces are 100'
from the property line; that only 20 out of 54 acres will be disturbed with the
remainder in open space; that pedestrian paths cross at right angles to
vehicular pathways; that the 30~ open space and recreation space requirement is
exceeded; that a tot lot, basketball court and swimming pool are to be
provided; that submission of utility plans to the Hillsborough consulting
engineer and the State has been done and that the state is reviewing these
plans for acceptance. C~'~%~~eq p,.aL 5u~vrfi•r9 ~rr~.~{s i., perNra~vaf y~,a~,. Ft/e~
-- Rodney Turner, representative of Pict?eese Cooper of North Carolina, spoke
in support of the project indicating there is a need for mobile home spaces for
elderly couples in their retirement and young couples starting out. He con-
. tinned that NIr. Stephens well maintains his mobile home park. He noted that
one of his corporation's criteria is that suitable spaces be found for their
mobile homes. He added that he lives within two miles of the Oakdale Mobile
Park and that it is well kept.
Ricky Smith spo}:e in favor of the proposal indicating that he and his wife
were the first residents of Oakdale riobile Home Park and that it is well mani~
cured and family oriented. He noted that a mobile home is a way to start with
home-ownership and that he was proud of his home and not ashamed of it.
~.
3 ~~
~~
Sid Medlin of Charlotte indicated he also was one of the first residents
of Oakdale tfobile IIome Park and that it is very nice. IIe indicated that ^Ir.
Stephens sets firm rules and deals with all park problems himself. FIe added
that he knows there is a need far mobile home spaces as he has.been looking for
a space for 4 months orhile his wife resides here with her new job and he lives
in Charlotte while they seek new living arrangements.
Fzank Williams. co-owner of 145 acres adjacent to the site, indicated that
he had discussed this matter with the two other owners and that they had ea-
pressed concern about lowering of the property values, particularly given the
..---. location in vicinity of I-40. P_e added that he coos not opposed to mobile homes
but was concerned that mobile home parks run down after some years. fIe added
that he drove through Oakdale I•iobile Home Park I and was impressed with it. He
asked that the Board recruire all improvements be in place prior to the start--
up of the park, if approved.
Charlotte fIuckabee expressed concern that there is also a need for up-
graded housing and that her nephew had been searching far same time. She added
that her property would be a buffer far this proposal.
NOTE: HILDA BROAY ETAS SWORN IN.
Ms. Brady asked if a second phase of the park was planned. Stephens re-
sponded that there was no second phase proposed.
Smith clarified that the property was located in the Rural Buffer and that
under that plan designation only a density of one unit per acre vras permitted.
Stephens indicated that he was clustering the permitted number of units on
the property to provide for utilities and improvements and to retain the wooded
area for recreation and open space. Pe added that this is a breakeven project
given that his son, who helps maintain the existing property, is now older and
will be given a salary.
Shanklin asked if those who stated that the use would not enhance the
value of their property had any evidence supporting their comments, i.e.
examples of where such uses affected property adversely. Shanklin added that
this evidence should be submitted at this time.
Huckabee expressed concern that she felt the property would be difficult
to sell as a result. Williams indicated that his comments were based only on
the feelings of the other owners. '
Stephens noted that three. mobile homes currently adjoin the property and
Mr. Williams property and that these were in bad shape. He submitted pictures
of the adjoining mobile homes and pictures of Oakdale Park I as evidence.
Stephens indicated he was willing to comply with the staff recommended
conditions.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chair Willhoit that
,. the public hearing be continued tv January 7, 198 to receive the Planning
Board's recommendation.
-- VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
8.
HISTORIC STRUCTURES
The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. There was no comment on
the item.
9. ~N~~IS 0~3>INAt4CE _ T~~~ Af~1E1ti'DPiE~-rt~~Q~. VEHI_CLE_ SALE~L~E~P~~~~__.I~ ~~
ZONING DISTRICT
The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith.
t:
3 ~' ``
15
Commissioner :"_arshall questioned the staff on the justification used to
support this amendment.
Smith responded that the district is one of the two most intensive zoning
districts in the ordinance and that uses of similar impact are permitted in
this district.
Chair Ta'illhoit inquired about the use of property zoned CC-3 specifically
for car sales, citing the property located at Piatts/Star Point. Smith
_ responded that the property cou],d be used for any use permitted in the CC-3
district according to the CC--3 district requirements. Assignment of a CC-3
-,_ zoning district classification would require .satisfaction of the application
criteria for the district.
NOTE: COMri2SS20NER 4IALI~ER LEFT AT 10:15.
Commissioner rarshall asked if there were any other criteria to be applied
to this use in a CC-3 district. Smith responded no additional criteria was
proposed.
Commissioner tarshall asked staff to review the characteristics of the
CC-3 district. Smith reviewed the definition of the district, its intent
statemment, the application. criteria and the types of uses permitted in the
district. She noted that this use is appropriate in this district, citing the
range of uses permitted currently.
Commissioner Marshall inquired about materials staff review to came to a
decision on these matters. Smith cited Planning Advisory Service Reports and
other planning research and support data, as well as other. jurisdictions'
ordinances.
10. * ~ 4 -
The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith.
Commissioner Marshall asked if a time limit should be set on the construc-
tion period and presence of the temporary home. Chair willhoit concurred.
Yuhasz expressed concern that given the nature and use of temporary mobile
homes, a time limit was inappropriate.
Commissioner rarshall expressed concern about safety factors.
Pearson indicated that except for the thirty day removal period there
would not be twv livable structures on the same site. He added that the perms
vent or replacement structure would not be occupiable until a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued and that both the permanent and the temporary structure
must meet the requirements for issuance of the building permits. Smith
verified that both structures must comply with applicable requirements.
11. 7~Q
_ The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith.
No comment on the amendment was received.
--.. The public hearing was adjourned.
An~ouRrrrt~r~T
The Joint Public Hearing was adjourned.
Don Willhait, Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk