Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19850826MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PUBLIC REARING AUGUST 26, 19$5 ~p9~95 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint .session with the Planning Board for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing on August 26, 19$5, 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse, Aillsboxough, North Carolina. ~1MMTRRT(1NF.RS ARESENT: Chair Don Flillhoit, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey and Ben Lloyd. COMMI55TONER ABSENTS Commissioner Norman Walker. ,STAFF PRESENT': County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Planner Susan Smith, Planner Gene Bell, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. Alice Gordon (Chair), Chris Seats Barry Jacobs, Steve Rixer. Peter Kramer, Betty Margison, Frank Pearson. Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Walters, and Steve Yuhasz. . 5 David Shanklin NONE. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS NONE. The presentation was made by Planner Susan Smith. 4_ The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a request for a Class A Special Use Permit for the non-residential use of the historic Bingham School. The applicants Robert M. and Jane B. Belly have requested a Class A Special Use Permit for a Non-Residential Mixed Use/Reuse of an Aistoric Structure for the property commonly known as the Bingham Schoal. The property is located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of NC 54 and Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) in Bingham Township. The property contains 9.9$ acres or 434,728.9 square feet. The purpose of the request is to allow for the development of a bed and breakfast country inn. The property is knovm as Tax Map 17. Lat 19 in Bingham Township. The property is located within an area designated Agricultural-Residential. That designation allows the consideration of development application fox uses permitted in the Agricultural Residential and Agricultural Services zoning districts. The present zoning classification of the property is Agricultural Residential (A'R). The use of the property, as proposed, requires the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. Certain development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained fox the development to proceed. Approval of the request would allow for the use of Bingham Schaal for commercial purposes as abed and breakfast facility fora maximum of twelve occupants. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request with conditions (Attachement on pages o2© ~ of these minutes). Commissioner Marshall expressed a concern that there was no illumi- nation planned fora sign that would not be easily seen by night travelers. She noted this was a safety concern for the Planning Board to address. aoa~.~a Mr. Kelly spoke noting that his primary interest is renovation and preservation of the historic value of the Bingham School for the general public. Pilkey inquired about fire precautions. Smith responded that Mr. Kelly had been working with the Inspections Division over the past year as to the requirements for residential/commercial use in all applicable building code areas. No one spoke in opposition to the request. CONCRATF. C0P4PANY._ INC_~ The presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive public comment on a proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan for 1.41 acres of a 7.25 acre tract (inclusive of street and railroad rights-of-way) owned by Chandler Concrete Company, Inc. The property in question is located on the south side of Old NC 10 (SR 1710), approximately one-half mile from the intersection with NC 86. The property is referenced as Tax Map 45, Lot 32 in Hillsborough Township. The request for redesignation of the 1.41 acre site from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition/Co~nnercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node has been submitted to legally address wastewater runoff problems from an existing concrete plant site. Under a directive from the NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development - Division of Environmental Management (DEM), the applicant attempted to contain runoff with retention basins. The basins were constructed on progerty owned by the applicant and which were located in an R-1 zoning district. The applicant erroneously thought the site was zoned for industrial purposes and the use of the property for retention basins as well as for truck parking resulted in a zoning violation. Upon official notification from the Planning Department, the nonconforming use of the property ceased. The request is a nev application. The applicant previously submitted a proposed amendment for 4.34 acres of the property to public hearing on May 28, 1985. In the Board of Commissioners review (August 5. 1985) of.the request for decision, it determined that new information had been submitted after the public hearing and directed that the request be sent back to public hearing as anew request on August 26. 1985. The Board also directed that the rezoning request far the same property be considered at the same public hearing. The proposed amendment would change the Land Use Plan (LUP)designation of the 1.41 acre portion of the property from Rural Residential to Ten Year Txansition/Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node making it compatible for rezoning to PD I-3. Rezoning would make it possible for the applicant to legally pursue on-site wastewater retention and recycling. The Planning Staff recouunends approval of the request. Bell continued listing procedures for amending the Land Use Plan and the three reasons for which the Plan may be amended as follows: (1) Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County (2) To correct an error or omission in the Plan (3) In response to a change in Land Use Policy The applicant cites ^1 as his reason for request for amendment and lists several changes of a nonresidential nature which have taken place in the area since the concrete plant was established. 4QQ~~7 A condition not mentioned by the applicant nor brought out in the Central Orange Area Study is run-off from the concrete plant site. It seems logical to assume that runoff has been a condition associated with the concrete plant site since it was established in 1982. Likewise. the recent recognition of the runoff as a problem by DEM would seem to qualify as a changed or changing condition . Pilkey inquired if a letter had been received from Southern Railroad and Sell responded no. Commissioner Marshall inquired if there had been any statement how the amendment would carry out the intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan as this was not addressed in the application. Sell agreed that this had not been addressed. Bell continued that the procedures for amendments said ~should~~ not ~shall~ yr -muster in that regard. Gordon asked how the change in the request (regarding amount of land) affects the staff recommendation. Bell responded that staff looked upon runoff as an existing conditien recognized by DEM as a public health. safety and welfare hazard that does represent a changing condition that was not addressed in the Central Orange Area Study. Commissioner Marshall noted that these were undesirable existing conditions, not conditions brought about by other things happening in the neighborhood. Bell continued that the procedures in the plan were not very specific regarding changing conditions and it was the staff interpretation that conditions had changed sufficiently to warrant amendment. Commissioner Marshall requested that the May 28, 1985 public hearing minutes be entered into the record . Ton Chandler, applicant and president of Chandler Concrete., spoke. Ae noted he had operated the business in substantially the same manner for 13 years. He was notified by DEM in January concerning the problem of water runoff. He noted the reason for the new request for 1.G1 acres was to ask for help in solving the water runoff problem. He continued noting that the Railroad representatives were aware of the existence of the ponds, but that it usually took six to eight months to get a letter of approval from Railroad officials regarding right-of -way encroachments. Tf it becomes necessary to move the ponds from the railroad right-of-way. they could be shifted forward without having to relocate the recycling equipment. Mr. Chandler stated that there would be no expansion of his business operation, no increase in the number of trucks or use. There will be an improvement in the traffic conditions due to the relocation of the driveway. He cited a letter from J. W. Watkins stating that the proposed driveway has a greater sight distance and ie a safer entrance than the one now being used. He also cited a letter from Jon S. Harder concerning land values. He submitted these two letters along with a letter from AEM dated 8/22/85 to the Board as evidence. (Copies of these letters are on pages o71~ I of these minutes). Chandler continued addressing the concern regarding the contents. appearance and overflow of the ponds. He noted the purpose of the third pond was to take care of any overflow. The design and construction of the ponds has been approved and accepted by DEM as a solution to the environmental problem. ~oa~~~ Chandler referenced the comment that he had graded the property to make it more usable and noted this was inaccurate. He called on Philip Post to explain exactly what had been done on the property and the design details as well as the traffic circulation pattern. Philip Post explained that there were three sources of runoff: truck washing, runoff from the making of concretes and rainwater; the latter being the primary source of runoff. He noted that other than the technical problem regarding water runoff. there were three other benefits from this site plan: (1) additional landscaping. (2) access improvements and (3) eventual recycling of materials used in the operation so there would be no solid or liquid waste removed from the site. At this point Willhoit asked that the applicants only address those things relating to the Land Use Plan amendment at this time. Post noted that most of his remarks were specific to the site plan. Regarding the Land Use Plan amendment he continued that DEM required total. detention of water runoff at this site. The liquid waste contains materials used in making concrete. This proposal requires 1..41 scree as an absolute minimum area to accampliah the requirements of DBM. Kizer inquired what the anticipated results were if the request for LUP amendment is denied. Post responded that if the request were denied, the applicant could not comply with AFM requirements and closure of the plant could eventually occur. Gordon read the reasons for making a Land Use Plan Amendment. Post noted that his client was responding to a state requirement and he felt this was a changed condition. Harry Harkinss an attorney from Chapel Hi11. representing the Rhine family who owa the land surrounding the Chandler Concrete plant. spoke. He noted there would be three additional speakers in opposition to the amendment to the LUP. He continued expressing more firmly the opposition to the amendment far three reasons: he felt it was bad policy. set a bad precedents and it was not necessary to the operation of the Chandler Concrete plant. He stated that from meeting to meeting the applicant had changed his needs or reasons £or the requested amendment. He felt only two lagoons were needed and the proposed driveway was unnecessary. He also felt that a way could be found for location of the lagoons on land that Chandler already ie using and that the barriers that are being stored by contractors working on I-40 could be stored anywhere. He and his clients greatly oppose the expansion of industrial use into this residential area. Harkins continued stating that Chandler had purchased land without checking into the zoning and had begun using the land in violation of the zoning regulations. Harkins clients, the Zzhine family, had to report the nonconforming use to the County before the action was corrected. He further stated that he and his clients felt that this was simply a means to expand the operation of the existing concrete plant. He read from the Zoning Ordinance the reasons for change and noted that he did not view the situation as changed conditions. but simply an expansion of the use after purchase. He also reminded the Boards that Commissioner Marshall had asked for the May 28 public hearing evidence to be placed in the record. Commissioner Marshall noted that she only asked for the minutes Co be entered into the record and if Mr. Harkins had some particular item of record to be entered he would need to make that request. Harkins then requested that aoo~3~ all evidence presented by the opposition at the Nay public hearing be entered as part of the record of this hearing. Dr. Sally Feather spoke expressing the concern that hex property was the most affected by the requested LUP amendment. She noted that the use and enjoyment of her land has been seriously jeopardized by the concrete plant already. She continued noting she had registered her property as a National Wildlife area and the wooded area was placed in a forest management program. She is also participating in the nutrient sensitive watershed program operated by the State Division of Water Resources. She felt that the hard work done an one side of the road to preserve and protect the land had been destroyed by the fact that just on the other side of the road trees had been destroyed and land cleared. Betsy Rhine spoke stating that she had been living across the road from Chandler Concrete property long before it was a concrete plant. She continued that everyone in the area who axe concerned are here to stay. She expressed concern that the request for less land in this amendment request was supposed to be a compromise, but yet it seemed that everything Mr. Chandler wanted originally was included in this site plan. She expressed concern with traffic safety. health and welfare of the area. She also stated that residents of Joppa Oaks complained of stinging, burning eyes from the acid solution used to clean the trucks. She continued that the hazardous acid solution should be dumped elsewhere and the Land Use Plan left as is to protect the County. Alan Fields, a resident of Strayhorn Hills, inquired if after the ten year period the property in question could be used for any purpose or if it must stay with this same use. Gordon responded that the Ten Year Transition Axes is a land categorization meaning the land is expected to go from rural to urban in a ten year period. Joyce Carrett. attorney for Chandler Concrete Company, spoke stating that the purpose for the amendment to the LUP was the requirement imposed by DEM regarding xunvff control. This is based on changes in the environmental agency position in the last ten years and not based on changes in the use of the facilitq. She noted this was a secondary amendment and she reviewed the criteria for a secondary amendment. She stated that when the LUP was developed it was simply an arbitrary decision that the boundary was the boundary line of the Chandler Concrete Company. She noted that other commercial type activities had developed along SR 1710 and residential and industrial areas can co-exist side-by-side. She noted that the operation of the concrete plant could only go forward with respect to compliance with the zequiremente of DEM. Representatives from DEM were en the site when it was raining; according to the direction of the flow of runoff. they told Chandler where to place the ponds. She continued that Chandler originally petitioned for ~ + acres with the intention of expansion. ae well as envixonmental control. Since it is clear that the community does not wish this expansion, Mr. Chandler is only requesting an amendment for sufficient land to control the runoff problem. The effort to control the problem does not constitute an expansion of the business. The community should not be able to dictate if an envirolmtental problem must continue to exist. She continued that the driveway proposed in the Planned Development has been endorsed by NCDOT as a safer entrance. Chandler stated in his opinion it is a bad precedent if the County is not flexible in helping residents and responsible people comply with the an increase in the sales tax ordinance. He noted that the County cannot anticipate nc thorn mill ba nn axnanainn of rho hnatinasa. ~~~~~~ He expressed concern about the irresponsible action of the opposition in referencing that the Rhines' were ~tricked~ and that somehow he was involved. He noted that he did not buy the property from the Rhines, but was solicited by a subsequent owner of the property who approached him regarding its availability for purchase. He continued that he was not aware of the sequence of events leading up to the sale. He emphasized that the stated requirement that the property be used only for residential use was not part of the public record. He continued that the deed does not show that the property came from the Rhine Estate. He continued that he felt it was important not to have the comment regarding being ~tricked~~ linger in the Boards` mind. 3_ PD-4-85 CAANDLER_C4NCRETE COMPAI~C The presentation was made by Susan Smith. She informed the Boards that the screening and lot size requirements had not been satisfied, but continued that staff would recommend that the lot size requirements be modified under Section 7.3 given the nature of the request. She continued that staff had been in contact with DEM as of this morning and that DEM verified that a three pond system was required to satisfy their requirements; that a runoff control system in this location was necessary as an immediate measure to address runoff in this area; and that the proposed recycling system is a long term proposal to address the applicant`s needs beyond the control of runoff. She noted that DEM had approved the submitted plans with the exception of a freeboard requirement which the applicant has subsequently indicated he will comply with. Thomas Chandler requested that all materials submitted far the Land IIse Plan application be made part of the record an the rezoning request. Ae also requested that his written comments be made part of the record. The Board concurred. Chandler subsequently read the lettex from Jon Harder. Phil Post, engineer for the applicant, spoke on the project and clarified that he would address what will happen to the runoff on the site and the nature of the materials in the ponds. He noted that the materials are not hazardous and that they will not be leaving the ait~ which would substantially improve the current situation. He described the recycling facilitq noting that the solids and liquids derived from the system will be reused in the plant as recycled materials. IIntil this system is in place accumulated solids will be removed by trucks. Post cited a map prepared to illustrate the nature of the request noting the actual acreage to be utilized for the operation is very limited once you identify rightrof-way. open space and screening proposed. He clarified that the area designated in pink is the use area and includes .74 acres. Poet clarified that the applicant must meet the specifics of the site plan upon development of the site. He continued that maintenance of facilities installed is also required as a condition of approval and that this would address landscaping and the integrity of system. Fritz Bxunssen, engineer for the applicant, addressed traffic flow. He noted that driveway C is in the middle of the turn and has limited sight distance and that the applicant proposes to use Driveway B to enter and load the vehicles and then use Driveway D to exit the tract. He continued noting that NCDOT accepted the proposed driveway as having safer sight distance and that the driveway is higher than the road. He noted that truck parking will Boa t~~ not be seen from the road and that those on the other side of the railroad cannot see the basins due to a combination of plant material and fencing. He summarized that the proposal would result in improved traffic arrangements. improved landscaping and total compliance with environmental regulations. Planning Board member Kizer inquired about the total concentration of the liquid in the ponds. Chandler responded that there are 10 parts water to 1 part muriatic acid. Ee informed the Boards that this acid is purchased and stored in 55 gallon drama and diluted on a 10-1 basis for utilization. Kizer inquired how much acid is used a month. Chandler responded that they use 55 gallons a month generally, but that use is not determined on a scheduled basis. This is determined by the plant manager and related to the number of trucks out of use. He clarified that they use 550 gallons of diluted muriatic acid monthly. Kramer inquired about the structures to be located above ground associated with the ponds. Post responded that the pumps will be placed underground. He described the process indicating that the water would flow from the wash area in the plant area to the first pond and that the liquids will be pumped out of the second basin. The thud basin would accommodate a storm event. Liquids would be pumped to an existing overhead tank. Yuhasz asked the applicant to describe the recycling system. Post indicated that it utilizes a conveyor belt which scoops heavier material out of a bin filled with water laden material. Chandler indicated that there are many models on the market and that they are generally 16-20 feet long and 8 feet wide. Yuhasz inquired how close landscaping may be placed to the railroad tracks before the railroad company objects. Brunssen responded 15 feet. He continued that existing vegetation in the area is not to be disturbed and that additional vegetation will be added. Sest inquired if the sand and gravel reclaimer mentioned is also the recycling facility. Post responded yes. Best asked how high is such a facility. Chandler responded six feet. Pilkey inquired about projected water usage and the depth and rate per minute of the well. Chandler responded that the well was installed when the plant was built and though he did not know how deep it is. it was installed by the Dodson Well Co. He indicated that he had replaced the pump once since acquiring the plant. He noted that the facility was also connected to city water, but that well water was preferred as the temperature of the water is constant. He noted there was a storage tank on site. Chandler reviewed hie decision to apply for a planned development versus a general rezoning as a means to clear the sir and put into writing and on plans what he intended to do with the property. P.H. Craig, appraiser, reviewed his appraisal credentials and noted he had a long team familiarity with the property. He noted that he had observed the acid pits and the long section 'of stripped property. He indicated that there was an adverse impact on the property values of the Rhine property, property which by its use and the owners' actions is an asset to Hillsborough. Craig cited a map prepared to show on which parcel he was commenting. He noted that the area designated in blue was the property in question. He cited the topography of the Rhine property which has 1200' of road frontage with X00' immediately adjoining the Chandler property. The yellow area on the map indicated possible building sites. He maintained that the Rhine property had hoPn ~AmAOP~ a m~nimnm of S3A.Ap0.00_ F.a cnntimipd that the hamenlace had some ooo~o~ intervening vegetation, but that Pis. Laura Feather's 40 acres was entirely impacted and that the value could not be added back, to the property once sv severely damaged. Rizer asked Craig if in his professional opinion the proposed screening and runoff control facilities would further devalue the property. Craig responded that the property was already devalued when the Chandler property was stripped of vegetation adding that the industrial use o£ the property had damaged the Rhine property. Rizer repeated his question noting that Craig had not responded to the question posed. Craig responded that the screening will help, citing the blue green area on the map. Kizer again asked if in Craig's professional opinion the proposed runoff control facilities would further devalue the property. Craig responded that in his appraisal comment he had not concerned himself with the runoff question. He noted his concern was with the aesthetics of the possible pond sites. Rizer asked if the proposed screening is an improvement. Craig responded yes. Commissioner Lloyd asked if Craig addressed the value of the property before and after development in his appraisal comment letter. Craig responded yes. Commissioner Lloyd asked whose property was devalued $30,000.OD. Craig responded that the heaviest damage was to Sally Feather's property as potential building sites look down a ravine into the Chandler site. Commissioner Lloyd asked if she was entirely affected by the $30,D00.00. Craig responded that the topography allowed for no space and screening between the lake and the road. Commissioner Lloyd asked how much land Ms. Feather had. Craig responded that she has 40.93 acres of land which includes the right-of-way and pond. Commissioner Aiarshall inquired what happens to the `acid ponder built and constructed without permission. Smith responded that the ponds cannot be ;;j:'_i''rrfi,'. I";~,.~s"%d used until approval is obtained. Commissioner Willhoit inquired if ponds can be put in othezv~ise. Smith responded that the ponds cannot be used except as permitted, but that property can generally be cleared and ponds constructed without regulation. Commissioner Willhoit inquired if most of the devaluation was due to the denuding of the property as opposed to the construction of the ponds. He further inquired if there would be devaluation if screening was installed. Craig responded that the industrial zoning devalues the property. Commissioner Lloyd asked if Craig was referring to the 1.41 acres proposed or the entire plant. Craig responded that the 1.41 was the only part ' he took into consideration. Commissioner Lloyd cited Harder's letter and Craig responded he took exception to Harder as an appraiser. Gordon asked Gledhill how much weight could be given to Hander's letter. Gledhill responded that the letter was introduced for the truth of its and was, therefore, hearsay evidence. It is admissible so long as there is no objection and that the weight attributed to the letter is the choice of the Board members. Commissioner Lloyd inquired if Mr. Harder exists. Craig responded that he is a licensed contractor. Robert E. Rhine questioned if approval should be given by the Board after the fact. He asked what Mr. Chandler would have done if the land had not 00003 been available fox purchase. He reviewed the history of the ownership and sale of the property. He noted that the family had listed a 19 acre tract with James Rae Fzeeland of Apple Creek Realty and that he had inquixed of him the zoning of the property to which Fxeeland had responded Residential. He had not put a proviso in his listing to the effect that it could only be used as such. He noted that due to irregularities in their relationship he had sought the assistance of the Real $state Board. Mr. Rhine further addressed the engineering aspects of the project, citing his qualifications to address such a matter. With regards to ~space~ he noted that the axes to the west was utilized for the storage of concrete baxriers which he numbered to be 1000. These barriers are 12 feet long, 2.5 feet high and 2 feet wide at the base. He noted that if this property were unavailable. Chandler would have tv store the barriers elsewhere and reorient the use of the property within the confines of the industrially zoned portion. He addressed slope of the land/flow of water by noting that the land can be made lower or raised. He addressed ~~washing/cleaning commenting that on July l5 Chandler had indicated he needed 200 gallons to wash and clean 15 trucks and that they were cleaned every two weeks. In regards to ~flpw of traffic he cited the potential removal of the stored barriexs for use of driveway A as a regular entrance and exit for the plant. He cited the truck cixculation map noting that no comment had been made regarding the use of driveway A versus D. He addressed ~parking~ noting that 15 txucks had been parked at the facility over the weekend. He addressed ~npise~~ asking how much noise the conveyor system will generate. When Rhine addressed "facility layout , he maintained that the directive to be given to the engineers ie to show how and why moxe land is needed versus how to operate within the confines of the industrial land already owned. Ae addressed ~busineea/return on capital commenting that Chandler had said he had been led to believe that industrial uses were permitted, but that he had not commented an when he was notified that the land could only be used for residential uses. He expressed concern that the County would change the zoning to accommodate Chandler's expenditures. He continued that Chandlex has found or will find away to operate if the land was not available for purchase or is still zoned residential. Commissioner Lloyd commented inquixed about the barricades. Chandler responded that W. C. English Construction Co. is constructing the interchange of I-40 and I-85. This company had requested storage space from local businesses for the concrete barriers and that Chandler Concrete Co. had complied with their request. He noted that the barriers are used to divert traffic at the interchange. Chandler commented that he had not initiated the purchase of the property and that he had dealt with the same individual as the Rhines and was guilty of the same lack of foresight. He indicated he had cooperated with the State investigation of the real estate firm. He continued that he did nat do anything with the property from the time of purchase of the land in September and recordation in October until he was contacted by DEM and told that he had to control the runoff and suggested where to lpcate the control facilities. He was contacted by the Planning Department in March regarding the improper use of the property and the requirement that all activity cease until he had applied for approval. He noted he had received a permit to grade the site and construct the pond prior to being informed of the vielation of the Zoning Ordinance during the last week in March. Smith noted that all property owners within the study area were Q~QN~4 notified of the development of the Central Orange Area Study, notices were posted on local properties and notices were published in the local newspaper. Commissioner Carey inquired if the boundary fox the zoning lots was an arbitrary boundary. Smith reviewed the History of the development of the plan. noting that zoning boundaries did not necessarily follow property lines, that the drainage basins for public water and Bawer eexvice were an important criteria in determining the boundary for certain planning designations, that there was considerable community opposition from those residing at the intersection of NC 86 and Old 010 to nonresidential development in the area; and the designation of the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node area was linked to those areas designated as Transition; and that the indentification of a potential service area for public water and sewer given drainage basin boundaries had limited the designation of Transition and. subsequently. Industrial areas. Gordon inquired why a Soil and Erosion Control permit was issued. Smith responded that clearing of property and control of runoff from adjacent properties may or may not relate tv the uses permitted. She noted that upon further review by staff, the staff determined that, in this case, the runoff central facilities could Hat be disassociated from the industrial use. Commissioner Lloyd inquired if the whale tract is zoned. Smith responded that the designation of a zoning lot does not necessarily correspond with the ownership of the property, but generally relates to the use area. Kizer indicated that the Board had been persuaded to ~gxandfather~ in this use when Hillsborough was zoned given that the lot area was small, there was no room for expansion and given the plant's fifteen year history at that location. Chandler commented that the topography does not allow for the use of the land for trucks to turn away from the plant and utilize driveways A ox B given the presence of the railroad tracks. On the other side of the plant ase fuel tanks. The only possible exit £or loaded trucks is Driveway C which has been used since the plant was constructed. Driveway A was constructed by English Co. to get to their barricades, not by Chandler Concrete. Commissioner Willhoit inquired shout screening requirements. Smith responded that the screening requirements are specifically stated in the ordinance. She described the applicant's proposal commenting that the applicant had indicated during the public hearing his desire t0 comply with all the requirements. Smith cited the letters from the Town of Aillsborough regarding water and sewer services availability, noting that the following comments are applicable to all of the subsequent .projects to be considered at this public hearing. She informed the Board that the Town of Aillsborough Board had endorsed their previous commitment to service these projects and had also adopted amendments to the water and sewer extension policy which were suggested by the Orange County Planning Staff to address concerns with the procedures for Town approval of service extensions. She noted that the Town Board had determined that only new submittals would be subject to the revised policy. Gordon inquired why the projects were continued and why this item had been continued from the February public hearing. Smith reviewed the history of subsequent action on this matter noting it was the staff's and applicant's desire to resolve the water and sewer issue with the Town of Hillsborough to assure compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 00005 Gordon asked for the Attorne.y's opinion on the satisfaction of the zoning criteria by the most recent letter from the Town of 1illsborough. Gledhill responded that his opinion did not matter as the Board had accepted a similar letter on a previous development request. A.W. Kenyan. resident of~Hillsborough, spoke to both the Weng and Scholar projects. He referred to the question of the availability of water and sewer services to the projects. He reviewed the history of Town action on these requests and their discussion of the availability of services. He noted that the Town Board had been told by Horace Johnson of serious defects due to water pressure north of Town. He noted that the Town Engineer had been directed to study the problem and then submit a solution to the Town Baard £or consideration by July, 1985. He indicated that Horace Johnson had stated that both a storage tank and pumping station would be necessary. He continued that the 'Board had been informed that it would be 12-18 months after the receipt of the engineer's report before the solutions posed would be put into effect. He noted there was a postponement in the arrangement with the Town Board. He questioned why there would be a shorter period for implementation of a solution now. He stated that the Town Engineer had brought a report before the Town Board in July that indicated that the only feasible solution would be a 300.ODD gallon storage tank at Frank Perry's farm with 8" service lines and construction of at least one pump station. He noted that the Town Board had accepted the report unanimously and called for a 12-18 month delay. He continued that at the August 12. 1985 meeting of the Town Baard discussions were cgnducted on the possibility that new developments would not worsen the situation and that the Mayor had seemed skeptical of that outcome. He noted that. as in February, the town Engineer had not been consulted nor were plans approved for either development. He expressed concern about a tentative promise of service from the Town and asked why the most recent letter from the Town was acceptable given that the attorney had advised that previous letters were unacceptable. He asked that the approvals wait until .service was available and that the projects be considered on the merits of conditions then prevailing. Vance BFOO1Ca, resident of the Coleman Loop Road area. expressed concerns that he had mixed feelings about the project and felt he had received bad information. Smith reviewed the development request, citing the density of residential use requested. Brooks asked what type of residential unite would be constructed. Smith responded that the applicant had not specified the type of units, but had only indicated that the lots would be moderately priced. d No additional staff presentation was made. Rick Gannity. agent for the applicant, indicated that his client wishes to proceed at this time with the project, but would be willing t0 delay for more information from the Town of Hillsborough. He cited the Practice of Local Government Planning . a manual for planners. which indicated on page 201 that with the reference to utility services provision, the economics of such improvements requires the development of property into quarter acre lots, otherwise the profit margin ie marginal. Gannity cited the recently approved rezoning immediately to the south in the Town's jurisdiction which is currently under development by the applicant. ~~t~ti~6 Kenyon reiterated his previous comments. In addition to his concerns on the water difficulties he cited problems with the wastewater treatment plant. He also noted a concern with traffic along US 70 and the intersection rated by NCDOT as the 37th most dangerous section. Commissioner Lloyd asked that he clarify which intersection he was referring to. Kenyon responded the intersection of Corbin and Geer Streets at the Snake Den. Commissioner Lloyd indicated he was impressed with the development by the applicant currently under construction. G C The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. Randy Smith. agent. reviewed the project noting that the existing portion was presently zoned R-3 and that the Town of Hillsborough had agreed with extension of utilities to service the new section. He continued that the remaining undeveloped portion of the property would remain R-l as the applicants would wait until they were ready to develop the property to determine the zoning from the dictates of the market current at that time. Pilkey inquired about the exit patterns for the project. Randy Smith responded that the main exit would be Lafayette Drive exiting onto both 01d NC 86 and Oakdale Drive. Pilkey inquired about the number of houses proposed. Randy Smith responded 111 houses. Susan Smith cited page 182 of the agenda and the letter from NCDOT regarding access. Tom Teman. resident of the area, noted a storm sewer problem on Lafayette Drive. He inquired about the intentions with the remaining acreage and the need for two exits. Jim Barick, resident of Cornwallis Hills. asked if there was a water pressure problem in this area. Susan Smith responded that Horace Johnson, Water Commissioner for the Town of Hillsborough, had indicated there was goad water pressure in this area. She added that the applicants would have tv make specific improvements to the services as part of the development process. Smith continued that NCDOT had estimated that 85X of the traffic would flow to Old NC 86 and that 75X of that traffic would £1ow to T-G0. She noted that road improvements would be required through the development process. specifically wider rights-of-way, turning and deceleration lanes. xalph Cochrane, agent, noted that in their analysis Oakdale Drive is a viable secondary access. He commented that they had tried to acquire a second access onto Old NC 86 but had not been successful. The presentation was made by Susan Smith. Concerns have been identified by the Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Staff about features of the Special Use Permit and watershed standards. recent ehanges in the General Statutes dictated amendments to Article 20 AMTSNDMENTS. The proposed text amendments, if approved. would clarify and improve the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. Smith noted there were a number of text amendments being put forth for consideration. The first is Article 6 $yQjj~ltEj~,NTS . 000~~7 In the period of time following the approval of the Water Quality Critical Area and Protected Watershed II Zoning Ordinance text amendments, the staff has monitored the administration of these standards and has identified specific concexns to be addressed. These concerns have tracked similar concerns raised by members of the Board of Commisaivners and by othex local government staffs attempting to implement the State-Local Action Guidelines for the Falls of the Neuse and Jordan watersheds. Specifically. these concerns include the complexity of the Impervious Surface Ratios Table as opposed to the three-tiered approach endorsed by the TJCOG and the State of North Carolina; the lack of recognition in the Table of areas already serviced by public water and sewer services and developed at higher densities given the provision of these services; the technical difficulties posed by a standard of atormwater management which relies solely on infiltration; and the seed to establish an acceptable guideline for implementation of the infiltration standard by type of land use, particularly large lot development. The particular items are: 6.23.4. 6.23.7. 6.24.6. and 6.24.$. These track each other within the two watershed districts and, specifically, provide fax the control of the first 1/2 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces in protected watersheds in one of three ways. The preferred method is on-site infiltration through the retention of undisturbed, vegetated areas; the other two methods are structural or engineered infiltration measures, such as trenches or retention ponds, which reduce the amount of runoff and detention structuxes that reduce the rate of runoff. These methods will be used va a site specific basis. Smith noted that Orange County is the only-agency at this time which is evaluating every project that is in a protected watershed. It is felt that a minimum cutoff is reasonable from a technical and administxative standpoint in terms of evaluating a site plan. Staff would like to provide some flexibility in the administrative procedures so that those sites 50,000 sq. ft. or larger would not have to be reviewed through detailed calculations, yet would have some site specific requirements. Also proposed is a revision of the Impervious Surface Ratios Table by district to reflect State requirements. Gordon inquired if the Planning Board reviewed these proposed amendments. Smith responded yea. Smith continued with Article 8 SPECIAL USE_PERffiTE In reviewing recent requests for the issuance of Special Use Permits, members of the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board have expressed concern regarding the burden of proof in determining compliance with the General Standards specified in Section $.2 of Article 8. The Ordinance provides that where the Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with the general standards. specific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the aplication must be approved unless the Board finds, in some specific manner, that the general standards have not been satisfied. Under the present Oxdinance, the burden of proof rests pzimarily with those opposing the issuance of the Special Use Permit to prove that the general and/or specific standards have not been satisfied. The proposed amendment would require the Board to make specific findings that the general standards have been met. Those opposing the issuance of the Special Use Permit would continua to have the burden of proving that the general standards have not been satisfied. Kizer expressed concern about the proposed amendments, noting that what was currently in the ordinance was precisely what the County Attorney had oooNo~ advised and that the County Attorney had stated during the preparatiou of the Ordinance that wording such as that proposed was incorrect. He felt what was proposed was significant and needed to be addressed. He continued that to require the applicant to meet all aspects of the general standards is unreasonable. particularly in the consideration that the general standards serve as the catchbasin for what the staff and Boards missed. Re noted that the Courts have demonstrated that they will not uphold such ordinances if the applicant does not know the specific requirements, that must be met. He reviewed the couxt literature on the issue. He maintained that the process is failing if the County does not anticipate specific requirements in advance for the applicant to be aware of and to answer in the application. Commissioner Lloyd commented that it makes the applicants guilty before proven innocent . Gledhill commented that the provision as spelled out satisfies the decision of the Court. Re asked that he be allowed to provide Che Beard with further information on this matter. Gledhill continued that offhand he objects to using generalized findings, though he recognises they are used by other jurisdictions, as they are not informative of the process. He cited a 1984 Court of Appeals decision on such a matter noting that one cannot determine from the decision what went on. Commissioner Willhoit commented that he was concerned about competent evidence and the need for more specific criteria. Gledhill responded that there is a difference between showing that you are meeting the general conditions versus shifting the burden of proof. Aa the current Ordinance provides. the applicant must show or establish that he has provided everything required by the Ordinance as apposed to proving some specific health, safety and welfare issue. He continued that i£ the process is being followed appropriately, then the current Ordinance provisions are satisfactory. Rizer noted that educative information is needed for the citizens on these matters. Smith cited the. letters regarding the special use permit procedures forwarded to all affected property owners as part of the notification process, an example of which may be found on page 106 of the agenda package. Gordon questioned the last paragraph of page 201. Gledhill responded that this provision applies to those opposing approval and occurs only after the applicant has established hie evidence. Kizer indicated that those in opposition should have real. legitimate evidence of a concern which the applicant should then be asked to address. Otherwise. the ordinance requires that the permit be issued. Bobby Nichols expressed concern with the proposed amendment and agreed with Dr. Rizer*s position. Gordon commented that she favored the proposed wording. ~I9 Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on September 3, 1985, 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' doom of the Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit. Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk V ~ V N V The Planning Staff does, however, recommend the attachment of conditions to the approval as follows: 1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10~. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certific- ation by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. As improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding 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 improve- ments. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, and stabilization of all cleated areas, streets and other vehicular travelways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; and landscaping. 3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County and/or Chapel Hill to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. Final utility plans shall be approved by the County Manager and/or applicable utility company prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance 'Permit. All lines shall be underground. 4. That a driveway permit be obtained from NC Department of Transportation prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit. 5. Roads, parking areas, walkways, utilities; recreation facilities and sites and landscaping shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 6. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Sims following issuance of a building permit. No sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceway to the development. 7. Grading of the site shall be kept to a minimum. In liew of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. 8. Supplementary base planting shall be installed within the parking area around the existing specimen trees. g. That all structures be erected in compliance with applicable. building codes following submittal for the issuance of building permits. 10. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 11. The final site plan and narrative of the project, incorpo- rating all changes, deletions and additions threugh the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain 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. 12. 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. ~SrA7~,y '" ~~:~ ~~ ~r~,, STA~l OF NORTH CAROLINA pEPARTMHNT Op TRANSPO{iTATION JAMES G. MARTIN Greensboro, NC 27429-0278 GOVERNOR August 23, 1955 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E. HARRINGTON SECRETARY Ms. Susan Smith, Planner Orange Couaty Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Smith: This has further reference to my letter to you dated August 21, 1985 concerning the proposed. driveway on SR 1710 fox Chandler Concrete Company. The proposed driveway "D" has a greater sight distance and is a safer entrance than the driveway that is currently being used. • Sincerely, ~ ~ L`- . W. Watkins DIVISION BNGINEF.It ` JWW:mdj ~ / cc: ~Mr. Tom Chandler i Mr. D. B. Kelly l l i An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer 000~:~1 J. S. HARDER & ASSOCIATES ItiCORFORATF.D GENERAL CONTRACTORS CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27~1~ .LFPHU\f: ,19)9-L_-M1? n August 26, 1985 Mr. Don Wi.lhoit, Chairman The Orange County Co»imissioners Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 5ubjett: Application of Chandler Concrete Company Dear Chairman Wilhoit and Members of the Commission: r~~l POSC OFFlCE BOX 761 1777 DURHAh1-CHAPEL HiI.L BLVp. The undersigned is a.resident of Orange County, as well as the owner of property near the subject site. I am a land dealer and broker, developer and builder in Orange County; additionally, I perform economic Smpact and feasibility analysis far financial lending institutions. I am familiar with area land values, as well as ordinances and statutes relating to Chis application. After examination of the Chandler Concrete Company plant, and the ad,~acent and nearby properties, it is my opinion that the applicant has satisfied all criteria to support the application. Specifically, it is my conclu- sion, after review of plans far intended environmental management prac- tice, that surrounding property values would not be adversely affected. If I can provide further data, please do not hesitate to call upon me. Sincerely, :. Jon S. Harder JSH/rtm i - Qr00N~.~ ;. N STA7f u rW State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resaurc~s and Community Development Raleigh Regional Office James G. Marrin, Governor - S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary DTVxSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT August 22, 1985 Mr. Thomas E. Chandler, President Chandler Concrete Ca., Inc. P.o. Bax Drawer ].239 Burlington, North Carolina 27215 Subject: Chandler Cancxete Company Industrial Washwater Recycle Facility Orange County pear Mr. Chandler: This will acknowledge receipt of faun (4) sets of the plans and specifications and the appropriate application fee ($50.00) for the recycle system to serve the Chandler Concrete Plant in Orange County. The plans and specifica- tions appear tv be satisfactory. Upon satisfactory review of the plans and specifications, it is reasonable to assume the facility could be permitted. zf you have any questiaris yr need additional assis- tance, please contact Ms. Carolyn McCaskill at 919/733-2314. Sincerely, ., R.W. Van Tilburg Regional Supervisor Raleigh Regional Office RWV:DTA:bas cc: Ms. Susan Smith Ms. Carolyn McCaskill Mr. Gil Vinzani 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 276EC7, Raleigh, NC. ]7611.7687 ~ Ti~kpFrorx 91}733-]314 An Equal Opprrrtuniry Affirmative ACdun Empfgyer