Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19870223k~ ~.1 :1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY JOINT MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met jointly with the orange County Planning Board for a Quarterly Joint Public Hearing on February 23, 1987, 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall, Commissioners Moses Carey, Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and members Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Walters, Steve Yuhasz, Betty Margison, Prince Taylor, Dan Eddleman, Chris Best, Tim Hubbard, and Mike Lewis. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager, Kenneth R. Thompson, Clerk to the Board, Beverly Blythe, Administrative Secretary, Joanna Bradshaw, Planning Director, Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bell, Greg Szymik, Brad Tongan, Emily Crudup and Don Powell. A. BOARD COMMENTS None B. AUDIE] Those at the time 1. - 2. VCE COMMENTS people in the audience who signed their specific item is heard. Matters on the Printed Agenda Matters not on the Printed Agenda None up to speak will be recognized PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Shirley Marshall read the public charge as printed below: The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to .conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until. that individual regains personal control. should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time,. that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. C. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS -- COUNCYLMAN DAVID GODSCHALK - ALDERPERSON JUDITH WEGNER Chair Marshall opened the public hearing and indicated that Councilman David Godschalk of Chapel Hill and Alderperson Judith Wegner of Carrboro would make introductory comments. Their presentations would be followed by comments by Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director. At the close ~f his presentation citizen comments would be heard. Presentation b David Godschalk Councilman Town of Cha el Hill "I am very pleased to be able to speak to you on behalf of the group A..y ..j 3 that attempted to negotiate solutions to a number of conflicts that have come up. I am aJ.so very pleased that we have such a ~.arge crowd in attendance tonight because I believe this is one of the more important issues that governments of our three jurisdictions will work on. I believe that it is important not only because of the substance of what we are going ,;._~ to be talking about here tonight but also because of the process that we went though to try to come to this agreement. To my knowledge, this is the first time that the three governments have engaged in such a long negotiating process in which we attempted to recognize the interests of each community as well as our joint interests and put them together into a unif~.ed set of agreements. During the past four months, an eight member task force of elected officials from Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County met six times and a three person subcommittee held another dozen meetings to work out an agreement dealing with a number of related issues concerning further watershed protection and joint planning. The group prepared a 13 point agreement in principal designed to deal with these issues in a coordinated manner. The agreement has been adopted by each of the three governments and wi7.1 be discussed tonight at this public. hearing. I think that it should be stressed that this was put forward by representatives of each of the three jurisdictions, but it a.s by no means an accomplishment of any one person. xn order to put this public hearing in context for you, I would like to speak briefly about the major issues that we worked on in that negotiation process. only two of those issues are going to be discussed in detail here tonight, but they are related to the other issues. I think it is important to understand the whole package in order to understand the two matters that are being heard tonight. The first issue is that not enough is known about the capacity of our..., water supply watersheds to tolerate development without harming the water supply. Growth is occurring in the watershed. The proposal made by the. group was to commission a study of the carrying capacity of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. The alternative to that proposal would be to continue to rely on existing local government development standards, that is the standards of orange County and Carrboro in these watersheds. The second issue is that Carrboro desires additional space for growth, but the residents of Calvander and other rural areas want to maintain the status quo. This has brought a conflict.. The proposal that the committee came forward with is to redirect Carrboro's growth away from the University Lake watershed where it historically has held extraterritorial jurisdiction to the Bolin Creek drainage basin to the north where public gravity sewer can be provided and where future developers will not endanger the water supply watershed. The Committee suggests three possible ways to do this. One of them is to exchange the extraterritorial jurisdiction from the University Lake watershed on either a per acre or dwelling unit equivalency basis, i.e., to exchange it from Un~.versity Lake watershed to the .Bolin Creek drainage basin. A second possible proposal ass to extend Carrboro's transition area to a transition area under the joint planning agreement further north into the Bolin Creek drainage basin. The third proposal is to defer further requests from Carrboro for annexation and water and sewer extensions into the watersheds until the capacity study is complete. The alternative to this would be to maintain Carrboro's present extraterritorial jurisdiction and transition areas which the committee feels would leave a great deal of pressure on the University Lake watershed. The third issue is maintenance of the rural buffer which could be threatened by the extension of urban densities into it either by annexatiori~ by Carrboro or Chapel Hill or by extension of public water and sewer lines. However, this area continues to be attractive to growth. The proposal is that both communities agree to protect the rural buffer and not to annex ~_nto it voluntarily or involuntarily, and carry out a rural buffer study to •.ook at the standards for maintenance such as a water and sewer extension policy and the acquisition of conservation easements. The alternative to ghat is to use present county zoning and planning standards to guide future use of the rural buffer and to allow urban annexations to occur. Before we can be concerned where the line should be drawn between Carrboro and Chapel Hill regarding review of future development, the proposal is that joint courtesy review be established in the northern rural buffer area west of Interstate 40 in a strip about 4000 feet wide to the line used on the joint agreement map. Carrboro and chapel Hill would share this area in terms of joint courtesy review to the County. The alternative would be that Chapel Hill alone would review and comment to the County who holds final authority. zssue number five is: should the individual local governments or should the orange Water and Sewer Authority decide future growth patterns or should this be done in the joint fashion. The proposal is to use a joint planning committee to work out future plans and review the role of OWASA in the process. The ,alternative would be continued use of individual approaches. Issue number six is: should the proposed cluster development called Amberly be approved and annexed by Carrboro even though it lies within the University Lake watershed. We did not come to an agreement on this. W.e agreed to disagree perhaps and felt that Carrboro should continue to review the project which is already in the application process. Orange County and ..Chapel Hill may not necessarily support this construction. The alternative .o that would be that Carrboro and Orange County could defer action on ~mberly and all other development proposals in the water supply watersheds '~`'antil the capacity study is complete. Everyone has had the opportunity to pick up this one sheet flyer as well as an agenda for the meeting. The one sheet flyer has the 13 points of our agreement on the back. Item number seven includes the public hearing items which are printed in all capital letters and a map of the area of concern is printed on the back side. We realize that these are complicated issues. It is hard even for experts to keep track of all of these things. we have tried to bring them together on this one sheet so that you would have a copy of something you could refer to during the hearing. If you will look at the map on this sheet, you will see that west of Carrboro next to University Lake is the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Carrboro which extends out part way into the watershed. Orange County maintains the rest of that jurisdiction of the watershed. You will see north of Carrboro an area that is in diagonal stripes which are slanted from the upper right to the lower left. This is the transition area proposed now under the joint planning agreement and then a dotted line further north up toward Duke Forest which is where that is supposed to be extended further into the Bolin Creek basin in order to give Carrboro extra growth. There are also two straight dashed lines across that area. The lower one is just under Homestead Road and would be the extraterritorial jurisdiction line for Carrboro on an equivalency basis, i.e., the same number of dwelling units ghat could be built under the present capacity of the University Lake watershed would be built in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. The next 3otted line north would be the extension on an acre per acre basis. Those are the alternatives. I think we will get further into them tonight. 2 realize that this is a fairly complicated matter, but we have tried to work ~: +] ~o'u.~.a a number of our problems through this one negotiating process." Presentation b Judith We ner Alder erson Town of Carrboro "Y am going to explain to you briefly what the focus of tonight's ~_,-.,a discussion is. As you see on the flyer that Mr. Godschalk referred to, item number seven is in capital letters and that principally is what we are going: to be talking about tonight. I want to try to clear up some fairly abstract concepts here so you all have basic information, and you will know what the terminology means that we are using. The first issue that we're talking about tonight has to do with the boundary line between the transition area and the rural buffer area as indicated on the map on the other side of the flyer.. You should first understand that the transition area is a concept being used in the joint planning process by the various jurisdictions. It means a designated land that is in the process of changing from its rural character to land that may also be served by utilities and be developed at a somewhat higher density during the planning period in question (approximately a twenty year period). You should know that the plans for the area designated the .transition area would be that these be used for residential purposes only and that. they would be developed at a density of no more than five units per acre. A lower level of density would be possible, depending on the. .carrying capacity and character of the land. That would be determined at a later point when we finally get down to the specific development of the zoning ordinance. - You should also know that the process for resolving the regulations and the application of regulations within areas designated as transition areas. It specifies in the joint planning agreement that the County would adopt the Town development regulations in a transition area. The Town would, then handle the permit applications that might come in for land in that area' and would be responsible for enforcing regulations within that area. The' County, however, would have what is called courtesy review which is a time period in which they could comment on and respond to any permit applications in that area. The transition area may be compared to what is called a rural buffer area. The rural buffer is adjacent to the transition area and is rura]. in character and is to be maintained in that character at a very low density. zn this area, the process used for decision making would be that of the County, including the approval of applications in that area. Permit application and enforcement would be handled by the County but the Town would have an opportunity to comment on any permits that are sought in that area. one question for discussion tonight is where the line should be drawn between the transition area and the rural buffer area. The recommendation from the committee that has been working on this. is to see that. two basic principles should be observed.- First, there should be sufficient area specified for transition areas to ensure that there is no undue pressure on the University Lake watershed and no undue pressure to the developments within the rural buffer area. Secondly, we hope that there could be a permanent line drawn between the transition area and the rural buffer area so that as time goes on we don't see a roll back of erosion of the rural buffer area. We hope that rural buffer could be established with permanent rural development protected far a long time. The committee has therefore recommended that the line be returned to where it had been earlier before the latest change by the County, back to the Bolin Creek watershed line. The reason for this in part is that where you have the Bolin Creek watershed line, there would be no extensions of water and sewer lines across the drainage divide, and OWASA would not provide water and sewer service to the rural buffer area beyond that line. We feel that could be a permanent line ~ 1 ~~ observed in the future . '~ "- There are specific areas which may draw comment from you. One is the Duke Forest area just north of Eubanks Road. There has been some concern that there be adequate buffering around that area. I don't think that the :ommittee has specifically addressed that but T don't see that there would ~e any objection to a lower density area around that Duke Forest area indicated on the map. I think there may be some questions as Duke has engaged in lumbering on that area now and what approach should be taken. That could be studied within the context of the decision we are talking about tonight. In addition, there has been some question raised about the area between Rogers Road and Eubanks Road and it is not marked in any dark color on your map. Within that area there is a subdivision called Fox Meadows with lots currently at a one unit per acre density. When the county considered going to a two acre minimum lot size within the rural buffer, a great deal of concern was expressed by the residents. It may be appropriate to comment on whether that area, which is developed at one unit per acre, should be included in the transition area. That is the first issue for discussion tonight. The second question is one that has caused more comment from the community. zt is the concept of where the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Carrboro should lie. You should know that extraterritorial jurisdiction is a concept established by State statute. For all towns in the State, there can be an area, depending on population size, between one and three m~.les out from their corporate limits which is the area in which urban services might ultimately be provided. There are also statutes specifying certain conditions for such areas to be designated `extraterritorial jurisdiction. _. In .an extraterritorial area the Town would have more autonomy in establishing regulations because the.Town may ultimately serve that area and it would be important that the Town be assured that the roads and services conform to Town standards. A thought here would be more autonomy for the Town in establishing land use regulations in that area, that would also be the case under the transition area concept. In return, the Town would be obliged to provide an opportunity for residents in its extraterritorial jurisdiction to be represented on its planning board. There has also been ..some discussion whether the County could be heard during the review or permit applications within this area. That is something that seems to be warranted. You should also understand that the designation of extraterritorial jurisdiction now in effect within the watershed area is not something that was done in recent years. I don't have sufficient information on how this came about but at some time it was thought that this was an appropriate way to designate an area outside the Carrboro Town boundary for possible control in regard to land use regulations. Chapel Hill has an area designated for extraterritorial jurisdiction so agaa~n I would like for you to understand that this is not a new concept. The question tonight for your consideration and discussion is whether the County should trade extraterritorial jurisdiction in an area outside the watershed in order to control what is now Carrboro's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Carrboro feels that it is acting responsibly and is prepared ~o continue to do so within the area previously designated as its extraterritorial jurisdiction. As some of you may know, there was a watershed task force that looked into this at length in 1982 and 1983, and p~~~ '~'h~re were ordinance provisions setting densities in the neighborhood of two acres per unit for 75~ for the watershed, and one acre per unit for the area furthest from University Lake. The subcommittee and the committee representatives of all the jurisdictions thought that there could be something gained by having the~~~T~ extraterritorial exchange take place. First, there would be a simplified scheme in which only the County would have regulatory authority in the ~' watershed area. I would like to clarify for anyone who is in doubt that simply because this area is in the University Lake watershed and designated as extraterritorial jurisdiction, that does not mean that there is a desire for expansive development and growth. This matter was discussed in principal as you see on the thirteen points on the back of the map. It was agreed to have the planning staff establish some possibilities for. us. Carrboro has indicated that it would willing to undertake an acreage swap as indicated by the bolder line to the north. There was also some consideration whether there should be a density swap. Carrboro had felt that since the density is already at a low level because of efforts to restrict development within the watershed, that is not something it wants to pursue at this point. The last thing I want to do is clarify some things that are not at issue. First, it is clear that designation as transition or designation as extraterritorial jurisdiction does not set densities for development and 'that is something that would be done in the context of establishing land use regulations. Second, you should know that extraterritorial jurisdiction and the designation as transition area do not have the force of creating some sort of an annexation to occur in the future. Annexation in North Carolina is controlled by state statute and if there were to be involuntary annexation this is something that is specifically controlled by statute and require certain use characteristics and/or density of population and subdivision within the area to be annexed." D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Land Use Plan Amendments a. JPA Land Use Plan -- Expansion~of Suburban Residential Land Use Classification b. JPA Land Use Plan - Boundary Designations for Transition Area and Rural Buffer 2. Orange County-Carrboro Zoninq Jurisdiction Boundary Presentation_bv Marvin Collins, orange County Planning Director Collins stated that rtem la has to do with the expansion of the transition area. He pointed out on a map the first Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan taken to public hearing in August of 1986 and on another map the joint planning area plan that was adopted by Chapel Hill and Orange County in October of last year. The proposal for the expansion of the transition area would extend the line for the transition area to include approximately 1500 additional acres. The area would extend north from NC 86 and Buckhorn Branch to Duke Forest with some existing properties left between Duke Forest and the northern boundaries of the transition line. 'The map shows in orange the transition area that is being proposed. which essentially is that which was presented at public hearing back in August of last year, excluding certain high density areas and also a major industrial center. By comparing the two maps the proposed expansion of the transition areas is evident. ~-, ,-.s j~`~ rLs; Collins continued that Item lb has to do with an actual designation of the transition area and rural buffer boundaries. Since the plan was adopted, there has been continued reference to the transition area versus the rural buffer. The orange area on the map, including interspersed green areas or resource conservation districts would constitute the transition area. The outer boundary of the orange area would be the transition area ,~oundary line. Everything within it, as was pointed out by. Alderperson Wegner, would be subject to the Town of Carrboro's jurisdiction if the County adopts their land development ordinances. and zoning map. The rural buffer would be everything beyond that line and would encompass all the arEa shown in a cream color-as well as the interspersed green areas which are Duke Forest and the Resource Conservation District. The grey areas on the map show the existing corporate limits as well as the existing extraterritorial areas. North of Carrboro the cross hatched areas represent two possible alternatives for jurisdictional exchange which Alderperson Wegner has already discussed. Collins then pointed to the maps that showed the same areas on the Carrboro zoning maps that were prepared by the Town of Carrboro for discussion purposes only and to show the range of possibilities. He pointed out the elongated orange colored area at the top oriented in a northwest-southeast direction as the existing Univeristy Lake watershed of approximately 1800 acres under Carrboro's jurisdiction. The lighter area just north of Carrboro's jurisdiction represented one end of the continuum and is based on an exchange using a density capacity of five units per acre. 2f that approach were used, 228 acres would be needed to accommodate the number of dwelling units that can be built in the Town of Carrboro's zoning jurisdiction under the present zoning ordinances in the University Lake watershed. An acre- for-acre swap, the light area to the northwest of Carrboro as well as the dark area together would encompass 1800 acres, and could extend almost up to Eubanks Road. That would accommodate again on an ~,~~~acre-for-acre basis the same number of units permitted in University Lake watershed plus a great more if the transition area is extended. Collins stated that the Planning Staff of Orange County takes no position on either proposal at this time. The matters are for discussion on behalf of the citizens. Bar Jacobs Chair of the Oran a Count Plannin Board , explained the process of land use planning in Orange County, noting no decisions are to be made at the hearing. The only purpose of the hearing is to present information and to allow the citizens an opportunity to digest it and to express their thoughts. After the hearing, the matter is referred back to the Planning. Board which also confers with the Township Advisory Council, in this case from Chapel Hill Township. The Planning Board will then make a decision or recommendation and present it to the commissioners. Steve Yuhasz Oran a Count Plannin Board member , asked what the effective difference in the transition area between having extra territorial jurisdiction. and just being a party to the Joint Planning Agreement would mean to Carrboro. Collins responded that Alderperson Wegner alluded to this issue in her presentation. One difference would be that Carrboro would have legal authority and thus more autonomy based on State Statutes if extraterritorial jurisdiction were granted. Councilman David Godschalk indicated he would like to make just a brief statement in support of these matters on behalf of the Chapel Hill Lorain Council. "The Chapel Hi11 Town Council strongly supports watershed protection and joint planning which are the two main reasons for this hearing. Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel H~.11 now have the opportunity to: (1) Cooperate to protect our watersheds and thereby the communities drinking water and public health and; (2) cooperate in the planning and ~_-,.~ managing future growth and thereby the quality of life and public welfare. The representatives of the county and towns put before us share a need for watershed protection. Stewardship of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds is a matter which transends jurisdictional lines. These representatives have discussed possible solutions in pursuit of goad stewardship principles. We will best protect the water supplies if we minimize the amount of asphalt roads, the potential for erosion and sedimentation, and the amount of impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement. It is very important to control carefully the location and site design of land disturbing .activity. Retaining areas with natural vegetation and ground covers provide for naturally clean stormwater before it reaches streams feeding the reservoir. Two key aspects of the thirteen point statement of principles are before us for hearing. One is change of Carrboro's extraterritorial jurisdiction; and two is the extension of Carrboro's transition area further north into the Solin Creek drainage basin. We believe that the exchange of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the extension of the transition area are in the best interest of the whole community, since they provide sufficient solutions for future utility service, an environmentally sound area for future growth, and they take development pressure off the University Lake watershed. Together with the study of the carrying capacity of the watersheds and the identification of appropriate land use controls and standards, these approaches can maximize watershed protection and wise growth as we plan together. To summarize, we believe this plan to be in the entire community's interest, although the geographic area of extraterritorial jurisdiction and transition area is a small portion of southern Orange County. Many people who now and in the future use our ~==~ public water system will benefit from this comprehensive watershed protection strategy." Commissioner John Hartwell indicated that he thought a clear difference. between extraterritorial jurisdiction and the transition area under joint planning was that in the extraterritorial jurisdiction it would be possible. for the municipality to decide to change the land use plan and make high density residential or commercial in the future if they saw fit. The whole purpose of joint planning, as he understood it, was that the municipalities would be charged. with the administration of specific permits, but they would not be allowed to change the land use plan without a joint approval process such as was being conducted at this moment and indeed the final adoption of zoning would be by County ordinance. He asked if he were correct in that distinction. Collins responded yes. Hartwell continued, inquiring about the cross hatched area on the map in the agenda packet. Collins responded that the cross hatched area is the amount of land that would be subtracted out of the northernmost extension to account for land owned by the University of North Carolina. Chair Marshall placed a.nto the record a letter from Sally Nussbaum who couldn't attend the meeting. A copy of the letter is included in the permanent agenda in the Clerk's Office. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS Virginia Cunningham , President of the League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement. A copy of the statement is included in the permanent agenda located in the Clerk's Office. Ms. Linda Roberts read a letter submitted by J.V. and Opal C. Brockwell, Calvander residents. A copy of the letter is included in the permanent agenda in the Clerk's Office. Ms. Roberts then introduced herself and commented as follows: "I am a 26 year resident of Calvander and a member of the Calvander Community Association. I am one. of those so-called selfish Calvander residents. My roots go back in Calvander many years to my dad's 5o-year residence and my mom's 47-year residence as well as my grandparents who lived in Calvander from 1925 until they passed away. During that 60-year period they purchased the Calvander homeplace, the Calvander School site and other surrounding property totaling approximately 70 acres. Carrboro is now trying to take control of us and destroy that. My husband and I have raised our three children here and they appear to love it just as much as we do. we have some very good neighbors and are very thankful for it. We all enjoy being rural residents. As a land owner and tax paying citizen of Orange County, I would like everyone here tonight to know that I am bitterly opposed to Carrboro having any control of Calvander whatsoever, much less total control. We have absolutely no representatives from Calvander in Carrboro. As it is now, we have you as County Commissioners, who are elected by us, county residents, ~o represent us. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for ,diving us this chance to speak. All residents whom I have talked with feel as I do about the swap. The very idea of Carrboro trying to swap the watershed area for total control of 1805 acres of land is ludicrous. They have the watershed now and if they can't handle that, let them give it back to the County. It is grossly unfair to try to use us as their bargaining chip. Y think one of the most important questions we need to ask here tonight is has Carrboro really been a good steward. I think most would have to agree that the answer is no. If they had, they would not be trying to go into the watershed with their development. They planned to put a road across Morgan Creek which is less than a mile from University Lake just so they could connect Hwy. 54 with Airport Road. It took several meetings and speeches from environmental experts to make them understand how that would severely damage the drinking water of by polluting it with lead from the road runoff. If Carrboro gained total control, I wonder if the people of Calvander can expect our community to look as bad in a few years as Carrboro does now with buildings and apartments piled on top of each other in every direction you look, streets that are so crowded and tarn up they are always impassable. Well, we all know what a mess it is for approximately two square miles which they now control and we don't want that to happen to our community. These are only a few examples of why it is so important to us ~o remain in the County's jurisdiction. This is not a slap against the general population of Carrboro. It is placed toward government which the people there are stuck with. The °Carrboro officials have enough to keep them busy for the next 25 years if they want to clean up their own back yard and stay out of ours. If we wanted to live in their kind. of environment, we would all move to Carrboro. Maybe that would make Carrboro officials happy, for they would not have to take control of Calvander to enjoy the pleasure of our company. It would really be a shame for Carrboro to get control of us and destroy our countryside and farm land, or planning new land uses in order to annex it like they did Barrington Hills. That is exactly what they would do in order to increase their tax base and double our taxes. What would we get in return? Nothing, except the privilege of living inside the Carrboro city limits. Y can remember when the Tripp property to Barrington Hills was rural residential but in Carrboro's planning and zoning jurisdiction. I don't blame people like Mrs: Tripp for selling her property, because the Carrboro government was worrying the poor lady half to death trying to take it from her for a park. Barrington Hi11s residents tried every way to keep Carrboro from involuntarily annexing them, but Carrboro took them anyway. Now they are working their way out to our Calvander. My parents and I have no fond memories of our dealings with Carrboro officials in years past. About 10 years ago Carrboro had planned, unknown to us, to condemn the service station building and surrounding land and take it for a place to build a proposed future fire station. A friend who happened to be in Carrboro or involved in one of the night meetings found out about it and told my parents who hired a lawyer to check it out. Once they found out that we were on to them, they tried to deny everything and dropped the whole idea. Last year, a neighbor found out, through the grapevine of course, that Carrboro had an industrial park planned for the middle of Calvander, plus all surrounding properties to be rezoned for high density housing which could be 12 to 15 units per acre. We started attending their meetings and finally asked the County Commiss~,oners to call for a public hearing, and we got rid of the industrial park and the rezoning was cut down to five units per acre. So we've been keeping pretty close tabs on Carrboro ever since. T have heard the area referred to as North Carrboro by some Carrboro officials. I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Mayor Porto said a few weeks ago he was trying to look out for the best interests of Carrboro. Well, we are looking out for the best interests of Calvander and the needs of all Orange County residents. So be a good sport, Carrboro and give up the watershed to the County but don't try to bargain with something you don't have and that is the Calvander community: We are going to fight for what is ours and for many of us our heritage until all the cows come home. Calvander residents are not selfish people as they were referred to on the radio today. To our elected County officials we strongly urge you to vote against the swapping of the watershed for our right to be represented by our elected County officials. Please save us from the clutches of land hungry Carrboro." 5-eCO~tt}-}ewe}-~~A~1-.attempterLin_it@1ri_ ~~~~2318755~ CONTINUED ON PAGE 39 - ,.» Councilman David Godschalk indicated he would like to make just `'a`-" brief statement in support of these matters on behalf of the Chapel Hill Town Council. "The Chapel Hill Town Council strongly supports watershed protection and joint planning which are the two main reasons for this ....hearing. Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill now have the opportunity :o: (1) Cooperate to protect our watersheds and thereby the communities irinking water and public health and; (2) cooperate in the planning and '.nanaging future growth and thereby the quality of life and public welfare. The representatives of the county and towns put before us share a need -for watershed protection. Stewardship of University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds is a matter which transends jurisdictional lines. These representatives have da.scussed possible solutions in pursuit of good stewardship principles. We will best protect the water supplies if we minimize the amount of asphalt roads, the potential for erosion and sedimentation, and the amount of impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement. It is very important to control carefully the location and site des~.gn of land .disturbing activity. Retaining areas with natural vegetation and ground covers provide for naturally clean stormwater before it reaches streams feeding the reservoir. Two key aspects of the thirteen point statement of principles are before us for hearing. One is change of Carrboro's extraterritorial jurisdiction; and two is the extension of Carrboro's transition area further north into the Bolin Creek drainage basin. We believe that the exchange of extraterritorial. jurisdiction and the extension of the transition area are in the best interest of the whole community, since they provide sufficient solutions for future utility service, an environmentally sound area for future growth, and they take development pressure off the University Lake watershed. Together with the study of the carrying capacity of the watersheds and the identification of appropriate land use controls and standards, these approaches can maximize watershed protection ind wise growth as we plan together. To summarize, we believe this plan to ~e in the entire community's interest, although the geographic area of ``extraterritorial jurisdiction and transition area is a small portion of southern Orange County. Many people who now and in the future use our public water system will benefit from this comprehensive watershed protection strategy." Commissioner John Hartwell indicated that he thought a clear difference between extraterritorial jurisdiction and the transition area under joint planning was that in the extraterritorial jurisdiction it would be possible for the municipality to decide to change the land use plan and make high density residential or commercial in the future if they saw fit. The whole purpose of joint planning, as he understood it, was that the municipalities would be charged with the administration of specific permits, but they would not be allowed to change the land use plan without a joint approval process such as was being conducted at this moment and indeed the final adoption of zoning would be by Caunty ordinance. He asked if he were correct in that distinction. Collins responded yes. Hartwell continued, inquiring about the cross hatched area on the map in the agenda packet. Collins responded that the cross hatched area is the amount of land that would be subtracted out of the northernmost extension to account for land owned by the University of North Carolina. Chair Marshall placed into the record a letter from Sally Nussbaum who couldn't attend the meeting. A copy of the letter is included in the permanent agenda in the Clerk's Office. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS "'~~7{ Vir inia Cunnin ham , President of the League of Women Voters, read a 4 •.~!' prepared statement. A copy of the statement is included in the permanent agenda located .in the Clerk's Office. Ms. Linda Roberts read a letter submitted by J.V. and Opal e. __ Brockwell, Calvander residents. A copy of the letter is included in the permanent agenda in the Clerk's Office. Ms. Roberts then introduced her- self and commented as follows: "I am a 26 year resident of Calvander and a member of the Calvander Community Association. I am one of those so-called selfish Calvander residents. My roots go back in Calvander many years to my dad's 60-year residence and my mom's 47-year residence as well as my grandparents who lived in Calvander from 1925 until they passed away. During that 60-year period they purchased the Calvander homeplace, the Calvander School site and other surrounding property totaling approximately 70 acres. Carrboro is now- trying to take control of us and destroy that. My husband and I have raised our three children here and they appear to love it just as much as we do. We have some very good neighbors and are very thankful for it. We all enjoy being rural residents. As a land owner and tax paying citizen, of Orange County, I would like everyone here tonight to know that I am bitterly opposed to Carrboro having any control of Calvander whatsoever, much less total control. We have absolutely no representatives from Calvander in Carrboro. As it is now, we have you as County Commissioners, who are elected by us, county residents, to represent us. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for giving us this chance to speak. All residents whom I have talked with feel as I do about the swap. The very idea of Carrboro trying to swap the watershed area for total control of 1805 acres of land is ludicrous. They have the watershed now and if they can't handle that, let them give it back to the County. It is grossly unfair to try to use us as their bargaining chip. I think one of the most important questions we need to ask here tonight is has Carrboro really been a good steward. Z think most would have to agree that the answer is no. If they had, they would not be trying to go into the watershed with their development. They planned to put a road across Morgan Creek which is less than a mile from University Lake .just so they could connect Hwy. 54 with Airport Road. It took several meetings and speeches from environmental experts to make them understand how that would severely damage the drinking water of by polluting it with lead from the road runoff. zf Carrboro gained total control, I wonder if the people of Calvander can expect our community to look as bad in a few years as Carrboro does now with buildings and apartments piled on top of each other in every direction you look, streets that are sa crowded and torn up they are always impassable. Well, we all know what a mess it is for approximately two square miles which they now control and we don't want that to happen to our community. These are only a f`w examples of why it is so important to us to remain in the County's jurisdiction. This is not a slap against the general population of Carrboro. It is placed toward governme;~t which the people there are stuck with. The Carrboro officials have enou;~~ to keep them busy for the next 25 years if they want to clean up tixcir own back yard and stay out of ours. If we wanted to live in their kir~,_i o£ environment, we would all move to Carrboro. Maybe that would make Carrboro officials happy, for they would not have to take control of Calvander to enjoy the pleasure of our company. It would really be a shame for Carrboro to get control of us and destroy our countryside and farm land, or planning new land uses in order to annex it like they did Barrington Hills. That is exactly what they would do in order to increase their tax base and double our taxes. What would we get in -eturn? Nothing, except the privilege of living inside the Carrboro city limits. I can remember when the Tripp property to Barrington Hills was aural residential but in Carrboro's planning and zoning jurisdiction. I don't blame people like Mrs. Tripp for selling her property, because, the Carrboro government was worrying the poor lady half to death trying to take it from her for a park. Barrington Hills residents tried every way to keep Carrboro from involuntarily annexing them, but Carrboro took them anyway. Now they are working their way out to Calvander. My parents and I have no fond memories of our dealings with Carrboro officials in years past. About l0 years ago Carrboro had planned, unknown to us, to condemn the service station building and surrounding land and take it for a place to build a proposed future fire station. A friend who happened to be in Carrboro or involved in one of the night meetings found out about it and told my parents who hired a lawyer to check it out. Once they found out that we were on to them, they tried to deny everything and .dropped the whole idea. Last year, a neighbor found out, through the grapevine of course, that Carrboro had an industrial park planned for the middle of Calvander, plus all surrounding properties to be rezoned for high density housing which could be 12 to 15 units per acre. We started attending their meetings and finally asked the County Commissioners to call for a public hearing, and we gat rid of the industrial park and the rezoning was cut down to five units per acre. So we've been keeping pretty clpse tabs on Carrboro ever since. I have heard the area referred to as North Carrboro by some Carrboro officials. I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Mayor Porto ;aid a few weeks ago he was trying to look out for the best interests of :~arrboro. Well, we are looking out for the best interests of Calvander and the needs of all Orange County residents. So be a good sport, Carrboro and give up the watershed to the County but don't try to bargain with something you don't have and that is the Calvander community. We are going to fight for what is ours and for many of us our heritage until all the cows came home. Calvander residents are not selfish people as they were referred to on the radio today. - To our elected County officials we strongly urge you to vote against the swapping of the watershed for our right .to be .represented by our elected County officials. Please save us from the clutches of land hungry Carrboro." Ms. Ruby Blackwood presented a statement, a copy of which is filed in the permanent agenda located in the Clerk's Office. Mr. Randy Danziger presented a petition containing more than 100 names of citizens opposed to the land swap. He noted those names were all residents of the Calvander community. He continued that the Calvander residents do endorse anew water supply watershed study and certainly do endorse a rural buffer study. The residents also endorse a uniform zoning and sewer/water policy in the watershed. In particular, they wished to endorse the policy of no water and sewer going into the watershed if the zoning is to be kept at one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet. He felt that a practical application would be one unit per five acres noting this could be a conservative and safe solution during the two years it will take nor a water quality study to be completed. Mr. Danziger indicated he supports the joint planning process but felt it could only work if all participants were committed. He expressed concern with considering extraterritorial jurisdiction for a body whale ~ 7 -concerns were in opposition to all others regarding the watershed. He expressed the thought that the only way to deal with the watershed was for everyone to deal with it responsibly. He felt it was unfair to take a public health issue and turn it into apolitical football. He continued that he felt Carrboro was not willing to take the conservative water protection measures that the County and Chapel Hill are willing to take. Mr. Danziger indicated that he did not see the plan as being wrong in its general ideas but was concerned with the comments he had heard that if all the points were not agreed to as Carrboro wished, that the entire plan would become "unraveled". if this be so, he felt it was a very unreasonable position. Mr. Dave Rutter , a Calvander resident, expressed concerns that a growth directed city is being threatened by and is threatening its awn borders. He continued, noting that Carrboro's growth is being directed to the west and north. He stated that the revised Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan densities were much more acceptable to the Calvander Homestead Road residents. He indicated he felt the prospect of gradual growth to the north and west was such a disappointment to the Carrboro administration that it could hold the water supply for much of southern Orange County hostage until their territorial demands are met. He stated that the Association Far A Better Calvander supports joint planning in the transitional areas. They do not support Carrboro's unilateral jurisdiction over the extensive Calvander neighborhood. He continued that Calvander residents do support and recognize planning for natural grawth in the community for the future. They do not support Carrboro's efforts to extort from Chapel Hill and the County so-called acre- for-acre or density .swaps because the challenge of this whole process is reaching terms for a joint future land use plan. The compromise leaves the Calvander residents completely out of the process. He expressed concern that the swap would simply meet Carrboro's fiscal needs and none of those of the Calvander residents. He indicated he felt that the more economical solution would be for the County to pick up the planning tab for Carrboro's future growth and let zoning in the transitional area remain subject to the County board. Ms. Dee Stewart expressed her family's love for the Calvander area in which they live and noted concerns with the effects of development on those who wish to live in rural areas as well as its effect on property taxes. She indicated the desire to continue with representation to whom she could present her concerns and felt this would not be the case if annexation by Carrboro should. take p place. She continued, expressing concern with current vacancies on the Carrboro Planning Soard and the lack of citizen input into these questions. She also noted concerns with the overcrowding in schools and the lack of funding availability for a new elementary school. She indicated strong opposition to the 13 point plan. Mr. Jod,,,y Roberts stated his family had been Calvander residents for four generations. He expressed concern that his community was becoming a trade-off for politicians noting that the Calvander community had no desire to become apart of Carrboro. Ms. E11en Kepley presented remarks to the Bosrd. A copy of her presentation is filed in the permanent agenda in the Clerk's office. _Mr. Jan Pinnev buildings, the ~ quality Carrboro's jurisdiction. by whatever direction it Road have the landfill, more Carrboro planning expressed concern with the number of apartment of construction and the quality of inspections in He indicated he felt Carrboro is intent on grawth must take. He noted that Calvander and Eubanks and he felt this was indeed enough without having for the area. He indicated surprise that Chapel Hill is in support of such a plan. He asked that it be practiced rn~:~ Calvander what Chapel Hill preaches and not what is politically expedient. Mr. Pinney noted that much of the Calvander area is in large tracts and those property owners are not interested in development or selling for development. This being the case, he felt that Carrboro would very soon again need room in which to expand. Ms. Debra Keena~Levin stated she is a homeowner in the Fox Meadow Subdivision and is opposed to the land swap between Orange County and Carrboro. She expressed the feeling that every citizen in Orange County is morally responsible for the watershed and that it is unacceptable to use it for land bargaining purposes. As a resident of Fox Meadow she expressed opposition to the change of land use classification from rural residential to suburban residential. She felt that neither classification reflects the character of the neighborhood which is one unit per acre and the intent is to see that this is preserved. Mr. Neal Kaplan stated he is a homewoner in the Fox Meadow Subdivision and is opposed to the land swap with Carrboro. He noted opposition to Carrboro having jurisdiction over his neighborhood which would mean-having no representation or input into what is decided about the future use of the land. He continued that he felt annexation would be sure to follow such a land swap. He indicated agreement with protection of the watershed and joint planning but not at the expense of putting development pressure on the Homestead Raad area. He could see no :benefits to his community from a land swap with Carrboro and wished to go on record as utterly opposed to the swap. Ms. Suzanne Allen expressed opposition to the land swap with Carrboro but is supportive of watershed protection and joint planning. She ~zoted that with Fox Meadow not having representation in Carrboro, she is ,:,;;uncomfortable with Carrboro having planning jurisdiction aver the area. She indicated that she felt Carrboro desires the swap only because it cannot develop the land in the watershed. She continued that she felt this swap is the first step toward annexation by Carrboro and she does not wish to be annexed by Carrboro because of its pro-grwth, high tax rate and its reputation of poor service. In summary, she desired to go on record as being opposed to the land swap and wished to remain under the current planning jurisdiction of Orange County. Jef began by pointing out what he considered to be errors in the map as related to the boundaries between rural buffer and transition areas. He spoke in general opposition to the extra- territorial jurisdiction swap. He indicated he was not anti growth but felt protection of the watershed was of foremost importance. He suggested deferring action until results of the proposed study of University Lake Watershed were available - a period currently estimated to be two years. He felt the ultimate answer was a greater spirit of compromise among the various governing bodies in orange County. Finally, he indicated that he didn't think the best interests of Calvander residents were being considered by Carrboro. Mr. Arlin Scott indicated he moved into the Rogers Road/Homestead Road area from Ohio within the last year. He felt that if annexation were to take place it should be by Chapel Hill and not Carrboro since he lives fearer to Chapel Hill than Carrboro. He expressed the feeling that services from Chapel Hill would be better than those coming from Carrboro. _3e asked to go on record as having no desire to be annexed by Carrboro. Mr.___John Hartlev a resident of Calvander, expressed concern with 3 protection of the watershed noting that "we all live downstream". He indicated Carrboro had not been planning properly and sporadic planning for high density over the entire area seems to be the case. He felt that annexation is the ultimate goal and wished to go on record as being opposed to being annexed by or being a part of Carrboro. ~, Mr. Vance Elderkin stated he is a resident of Fox Meadow Subdivision. He expressed concern that officials whom he could not vote for would have planning jurisdiction for the future of his community if the land swap takes place. Mr. George Woodgates stated he is a resident of Barrington Hills. He indicated that he was very suspicious of a move where Carrboro is going to take over the responsibility for an area such as the Calvander area. He indicated he felt this was just another move on Carrboro's part to take over and annex an area with or without its consent. He stated he felt watershed protection was .priority, and no expansion should be considered until such time as the .study is completed. He presented a petition which stated the residents of Barrington Hills were strongly opposed to any plan to include Calvander as a part of Carrboro. Mr. Richard Ellin ton expressed opposition to the land swap. He had several questions concerning the proposed 13 point agreement. His first question regarded the study of resolution of positions. There was no time period specified for completion of that study. With no time periad specified, residents of the transition area would be left "in limbo". His second question was. whether the County or Chapel Hi11 opposed extraterritorial jurisdiction far Carrboro in the University Lake Watershed when it was established. Shirle Marshall Chair of the Board of Commissioners responded in answer to the first question that at the end of the public hearing the topics discussed would be referred to the Orange County Planning Board for their recommendation. The orange County Board of Commissioners would receive that recommendation at the April 6 meeting. In response to the second question, she indicated that the extraterritorial jurisdiction for Chapel Hill and Carrboro was a remnant of times when the County did not have enabling legislation. At that time, only cities could plan, zone, and enforce building. codes. Cities were granted extraterritorial jurisdiction for first up to one mile and then up to three miles from their city limits for these functions. After the County was given enabling legislation for comprehensive planning, subdivision regulation and building code enforcement, the County did not have to give extraterritorial jurisdiction. Some ten years ago, additional extraterritorial jurisdiction was requested and the citizens of the County said no. This was the time when joint planning was initiated. Geoffre Gledhill Caunt Attorne , added that the rectangular boundary around Chapel Hill and Carrboro except as distorted by annexation is the result of an act of the General Assembly. It was established before the County was in the business of planning. Don Willhait Commissioner , said that it was initially designated in the 1950's and was set aside as Chapel Hill area. It was subsequently split into Chapel Hi11 and Carrboro. The issue of watershed protection initially arose in 1971. Mr. Ellington continued by expressing his concern not only for the proposed Amberly Subdivision but also Laurel Springs and development of the watershed in general. While in same areas restrictions on development at one unit per five acres are in effect, Carrboro's plans would allow fo~~- densities much higher than that. Allowing higher densities in the transition area north of Carrboro can only increase development pressure on the watershed. He urged the County not to approve extension of the extra __._territorial jurisdiction north of Carrboro. Mrs. Margaret Holton presented a statement, a copy of which is filed in the permanent agenda located in the Clerk's office. Mr. sa Zara oza expressed concern that the 13 point plan was not a land use plan but wasteful thinking. He urged the County to devise a plan for sewer lines. He stated he felt if the governing bodies could get a grip on where the sewer and water lines will go, you will have a grip on land use planning over the County. Mr. Everette Billingsley. Executive Director of OWASA presented a statement, a copy of which is filed in the permanent agenda in the Clerk's Office. Mr. Warren L. Ganona presented a statement, a copy of which is filed in the permanent agenda in the Clerk's Office. Ms. Kathy Harris presented a statement, a copy of which is filed in the permanent agenda in the Clerk's Office. Mr. Pearson Stewart noted that he had conflicting ideas in his mind concerning the future of the Calvander/Homestead Road area east of the University Lake Watershed. He stated that he is very supportive of the residents goal to keep the Calvander/Homestead Road area as rural and very low density. Consequently, he strongly supports the concept of joint ~~lanning for the area south of Duke Forest. He noted that there was a big iifference between the Bolin Creek Watershed and the University Lake ;`;~~':_~::~atershed. The University Lake watershed is very inappropriate for development and the Bolin Creek Watershed is very appropriate for development. He expressed support for the extension of the extraterritorial jurisdiction and the placing of University Lake Watershed under County jurisdiction. He did note that these were two conflicting concepts concerning the future of the Calvander/Homestead Road but each is realistic and realizable. Mr. Michael Hartlev , a Bingham Township. resident, indicated. there are two watersheds in Bingham Township-Cane Creek and Collins Creek. The treatment of these two watersheds is very different. The water supply from Bingham which goes to Chapel Hill is substantially protected. The Collins Creek drainage which lies between Cane Creek and University Lake watersheds is used by Chapel Hill and receives a substantial amount of sewage from the treatment plants of Chapel Hill in the form of treated sludges which are applied to the lands in the Collins Creek basin. He indicated he felt any statement of what was acceptable in one drainage basin but not another is premature. He felt that the Collins Creek basin should also be included in any study of watersheds. He strongly opposed the concept of trading off an unprotected watershed for the protection of another. We indicated the need to look beyond reservoirs to groundwater and to that body of the public who do not consume water which is piped in but draws it untreated through private wells. Ms. Jean Earnhardt a resident of Calvander, stated that her family awns 400 acres of land north of Calvander on Union Grove Church Road. She agreed with Mr. Pinney that there is not a trend for selling and developing land in the Calvander community. She noted that about loo of these acres could be in the acre-for-acre swap, while another 200 acres would be in the proposed transition area. She continued, noting that her family is very interested in protecting the watershed. She indicated two purposes would be served if the swap takes place-the watershed would be protected and Carrboro would be given the license to grow but there is no sense of equity for those residents of the Calvander area. She urged the Commissioners not to diminish the way of life of the Calvander residents forever. Mr. Henry_Whitfield indicated he did not own property in the area being considered for the swap. He expressed a concern over public confusion and lack of knowledge in the general public about planning. He expressed concerns that County planners were not aware of the impact of their planning efforts on the property owners/taxpayers of the County. He indicated he felt there would be a two-acre checkerboard over the entire county. He noted concerns that he felt planning was being done without the property owners having benefit of input. He indicated he felt pressure would not be so great on planners if there were only one planning office for the whole of Orange County. Chair Marshall asked Mr. Whitfield to please speak only to the issues on the public hearing agenda. Mr. Whitfield indicated he felt he was speaking to the transition area on the agenda. He expressed concern that he was not able to, present his problem, indicating he felt the meetings were not properly set so all property owners could participate before decisions were made. He suggested that the entire County be under one planning jurisdiction and the problem of jurisdiction would be solved. Mr. David Moreau spoke in favor of the concept of the 13 point plan in so far as it offers development in the Bolin Creek Watershed as a alternative to development in the University Lake Watershed. He noted that growth is occurring at a very rapid rate and the consequence of this is the transition of lands from lower to higher densities. He indicated the proposal represents a logical step to accommodate growth while minimizing the adverse effects of growth and minimize the cost of providing sewer service. He indicated that wherever growth occurs, the problem of what to do about areas that are undergoing transition from lower to higher densities is an ongoing question. He indicated he felt that in addressing those issues it is appropriate that one consider the welfare of the larger community. in the County and minimize the impacts of growth on ever-gone. Mr. Jay Bryan stated he is a resident of Carrboro and noted he could sympathize with the current government's need to try to reach .out for some more property. He did not feel it is appropriate to use the method of swap to do this. He felt that if the Amberly project is approved, it will set a precedent that the County will not be able to overcome. Tt will allow development to come in and affect. adjoining property values and cause land value to be reduced as density is increased. He felt any project proposed for the watershed should be kept under a moratorium until the watershed study is completed. He expressed the desire that oWASA take a mare protective stance in terms of being the real advocate for water. Mr. Dan Okun encouraged water management. He noted that development will be taking place but asked that it not be allowed to take place in the watershed. University Lake Watershed is not only supplying water for Chapel Hill but will be a water supply for the entire southeastern region of Orange County. The only way to protect the watershed is to prevent development in the watershed. He urged that a good example be set as a portion of Chatham County is also in the University Lake watershed. _M.r. David Lanese stated he is a Calvander resident and opposes the land swap. He noted that everyone who spoke has been in favor of protection of the watershed. He indicated also that he could understand that Carrboro has a legitimate interest in expanding. He expressed the feeling that there is a lack of a principal argument in favor of the swap itself. He noted that the linkage between these two propositions does not depend on any principled argument advanced thus far by anyone. He noted that the linkage seemed to be grounded in political expediency, and he submitted that this is insufficient to justify the swap which is proposed. He asked for a reasonable affirmative base for the swap rather than palitical expediency. Ms. Helene Ivey encouraged watershed protection and suggested a County-wide bond issue to buy land necessary for watershed protection. Mr. Larry „Reid expressed concern with the location of this public hearing in view of the fact that the majority of the citizens affected would be nearer Chapel Hill High School as a meeting place. He spoke in favor of joint planning but strongly opposed the proposed land swap. He inquired why the County could not maintain extraterritorial jurisdiction over the area and give Carrboro the right of courtesy review. He noted that the swap would create "taxation without representation". He indicated he felt the swap goes against the Joint Planning Agreement. Mr. Skip Mendler stated that the watershed needed to preserved at all costs. •He expressed the concern that Carrboro has no direction in which to grow. He felt that Calvander, Carrboro. and all the surrounding areas have interdependent relationships. that must be preserved. Future focus-the need to plan far ahead-is a fact. Perhaps it is not true that Large urban development will continue to occur. He encouraged communi ration and cooperation far joint planning affects everyone, not just .~alvander and Carrboro. Ma or James Porto of Carrboro reminded those present that Carrboro residents are citizens of Orange County and that between Carrboro and Chapel Hill, they make up two-thirds of the citizens of Orange County which is near 45,000 people. This fact needs to be remembered when one speaks of representation. He stated that his Soard endorses the 13 point plan. Mayor Porto continued, stating that Carrboro's growth strategy over the years has not been one of unbridled growth. He noted that Carrboro recognizes they cannot develop very intensely, in the watershed, but they can develop there at a price. He noted that Carrboro was the first jurisdiction in the State to have a watershed ordinance of such magnitude. He noted that Carrboro had downzoned the watershed area to about what the County is trying to achieve for the rural buffer area. He indicated Carrboro's watershed ordinance is a model ordinance for many other jurisdictions. He stated that if Carrboro is to remain a viable community in the future (40 to 50 years from now) it must have a direction in which it can grow .logically, orderly and not rapidly or rampantly; the only available area is to the north. He indicated that the only way to assure that one's land is not sold or developed in later years by decendants is public dedication. He felt this is a fact. In referring to the land swap and statements from the public regarding annexation, Mayor Porto stated that Carrboro could not annex for six years unless it is a voluntary annexation. He noted also that there are certain density requirements which must be met for annexation that cannot be met by Calvander. Thus, it does not mean annexation will take _:~'~~~, place anytime in the near future. what it does mean is that when the decendants of Calvander residents sell the land and petition the Board for rezoning, then Carrboro's Soard would hear the case instead of the County Commissioners. Another concern is that there is no place in southern Orange County ~,~ for businessmen who wish to expand ar offer more services to the County. Mayor Porto noted that statistics now show that Orange County residents are going to Durham County to shop and buy services since there are no places for expansion in Orange County. This means a lot of Orange County money is leaving the county. Mayor Porto stated that he and Carrboro have tried very hard to balance out the individual rights of property owners with. the interests of the whole community. He noted that a balance had to be found seven years ago when the area was downzoned to accommodate the watershed. A balance must be found which most meets the needs of all County residents. Mr. Bob Peck expressed sympathy with the residents of Calvander. He also indicated he could understand and appreciate the position of Carrboro where they are practically landlocked unless some provision is made for them to grow. He noted that OWASA has two responsibilities--that of providing water and sewer to answer the needs for growth of .Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County, and the responsibility of protecting the watershed. He spoke in favor of the swap because it would take the pressure off development in the watershed and put that same pressure into the .Bolin Creek Watershed which can better handle development. It is good planning for Orange County to encourage growth where it can best be handled. Sa11y Messabaumer presented a statement to be entered into the record and is filed in the permanent agenda in the Clerk's office. Mr. Herb Posner referred to an old story regarding the city coming out to the country, noting that there are now newer methods for moderating the effect of the communities. Perhaps some of these could be taken into effect to moderate and ease the transitional phase for the residents of Calvander. The pressure of growth is great and so is the need for water. He concluded that he felt the negotiations could be spread a little more and perhaps resolve the issues. Mr. David Earhnardt stated he lives on Union Grove Church Road approximately one-half mile from Calvander. He noted his family is four generations strong in the area. He commented on the natural beauty of the area and a desire to see it remain so. He noted that a certain amount of growth is inevitable but there are many things which can be done to affect growth. He asked that the Commissioners please remember that they represent all the people of the County and take Hate of the opposition of Calvander residents. He felt the wishes and desires of the residents are not selfish ones but "represent the pursuit of our happiness". There being no further comments, Chair Marshall closed the hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer items one and two to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on April 6, 1987. VOTE: Unanimous 3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ~~`- a. Article 11.7 Nonconforming Lots (RURAL BUFFER) The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Article 11.7 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that nonconforming lots of record, in the same ownership and with continuous frontage, be combined to create conforming lots. On January 5, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the Rural Suffer (RB) zoning district designation and its application to 38,000 acres of land surrounding the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. Data fram the Orange Caunty Land Records Office indicates that 244 lots (5.7~ of all lots) would have to be combined to meet the two-acre minimum lot size requirement. Of these lots, 142.(3.3% of all lots) are developed. A moratorium on enforcement of Article 11.7 was approved by the Commissioners, pending a public hearing to consider revisions to the requirements. Any amendment would be applicable in all zoned townships. Approval of the amendment would allow the construction of single-family detached dwellings and customary accessory structures on nonconforming lots of record. As applied to the Rural Buffer district, the amendment would affect 102 lots (2.4~ of all lots). .Collins stated that the ordinance amendment, if approved, will :delete the requirement to combine non conforming lots in the-Rural Suffer or any other portion of the County. It would allow any individual who owns anon- conforming lot of record to build on that lot provided building setback requirements are met for the district in which it is located. Steve Quint spoke representing twelve members of the Homeowners Association in the Fa11s of New Hape Subdivision. He expressed concern that the present law is a very obscure one which only devalues property. It takes away the individual's right to develop his property as he desires. He commended the objectives of the regulation but noted that individuals had purchased adjoining lots in the hopes of maintaining the rural character of the area. Chair Marshall clarified Mr. Quint's position as speaking in favor of the amendment which deletes the requirement to combine lots in order to make them conforming. Mr. Quint agreed with the clarification. Chris Best asked about building on non-conforming lots that are not contiguous and consist of only one acre. Collins responded construction would be permitted, providing the ownership is not the same as adjoining property. Sest inquired if there would be other non conforming lots at a later date. Collins responded there would be no more non-conforming created unless the Zoning Ordinance were amended. In answer to a question from that acquisition by a public agency, could create a non conforming situation. which could be addressed by the Board of a variance. John Hartwell, Collins stated such as for road right-of-way, This would create a hardship Adjustment through approval of THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED -~°~~-~ b. Article 7.20 PD-MHP Planned Development Mobile Home Park District The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. New mobile home parks must be approved as planned developments ~~`~°; and require the issuance of a special use permit prior to construction. Article 7.20 of the Zoning Ordinance contains design standards applicable to such parks. The standards were adopted March 18, 1986. Since November 3, 1986, the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee has been working with mobile home park owner/operators in reviewing the design standards. The proposed revisions represent changes to Article 7.20 as applicable to new .mobile home parks. Approval of the amendment would allow more flexibility in the design of mobile home parks while addressing public health and safety concerns. The proposed standards provide for: smaller mobile home spaces; foundation enclosures of uniform design; unit access per State Building Code standards; flexible setback standards; street design standards; unit/street numbering as well as traffic control signs; properly maintained grounds; recreation areas; and landscaping limited to buffer standards and dumpster screening. One owner/operator had expressed concern with the sign size "advertising mobile home parks - 16 sq. ft. vs. 32 sq. ft. Another concern was the size of the mobile home park. The standards approved last year set a minimum of ten acres and a maximum of twenty-five acres. The North Carolina Manufactured Housing Board has indicated they would not like to see a maximum size set for mobile home parks. The Ordinance Review Committee would like for the Low and Moderate Income Task Force to set the maximum size. Collins indicated the Task Force has not yet addressed this issue. Jacobs made reference to the skirting requirement noting that it was the recommendation of the Ordinance Review Committee that a time limit of 90 days be set for installation and that the skirting be of a solid nature. Commissioner Hartwell inquired whether the reduction of lot size would have any effect on the recreation space that must be provided. Collins responded that the controlling factor was the underlying zoning which set the density. Commissioner Carey questioned the statement that each time a mobile home is replaced, patios and decks would have to be shifted. Collins explained that this regulation would allow the latitude for the shifting of entranceways to accommodate the varying sizes of mobile homes. Sharlene Pilkey inquired about the reason far decreasing the lot size for a mobile home from 10,000 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. Collins responded that the existing ordinance set a ceiling of four units per acre in a mobile home park. Rather than use the individual lot size to control the density, the decision was to made to allow the zoning district to control. This would encourage clustering. Vernon Davis expressed concern that the mobile home park owner with less density would be required to have as much open space as dc.! with higher density. He noted that recreation is determined by people rather than land. Collins responded that this was a concern expressed by mobile home park. owners as well. He noted that the recreation facilities must be geared to the needs of the mobile home park residents. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 4. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS Z-1-8~ W. E. and Ruby Blackwood (R-1 to LC-1) The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. W. E. and Ruby S. Blackwood are requesting rezoning of a 2.0 acre parcel located on the north side of NC 54 opposite its intersection with .white Cross Road (SR 1952). The property is known as Lot 9 of Tax Map 30B for Bingham Township. The property is lacated within an area designated Agricultural Residential and Rural Community Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification of the property is Agricultural Residential (AR). The applicant is requesting the lot to be rezoned to Local Commercial 1 (LC-1). Approval of the request would allow development of the full range of commercial uses for the LC-1 district at this location. Properties to the south and west are currently zoned NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial, comprising a total of 4.35 acres of land. Rezoning of the property would allow for the expansion of commercial areas near the :.;~ intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road. `:;:;~ Planning Staff recommends denial due to the fact that the applicant fails to meet traffic generation criteria for the LC-1 Local Commercial zoning district; specifically, uses that are permitted in the LG-1 district have to have traffic generation of less than 200 vehicles per day from the site. The site was reviewed, and it was estimated there were 350 to 450 trips per day based on the building size indicated in the application. Collins indicated a positive recommendation could be considered, but the Planning Staff would limit the building area so that no more than 200 trips per day would result from the site. The only other zoning district that could be NC-2 or Neighborhood Commercial district. The to 800 trips per day. The Zoning Ordinance has acres in any rural activity node, and there are alr~ for NC-2 purposes leaving only about two-thirds of be used for that purpose. be applied for would district permits 200 a limitation of five Cady 4.35 acres zoned an acre which could Collins continued, noting that if the rezoning request was approved, Planning Staff would be required, through the Zoning Ordinance provisions limit the building size based on the amount of traffic generation proposed. Steve Yuhasz inquired how many of the uses listed for NC- 2 would generate less than 200 trips per day. Collins explained that it would depend on the size of the business. °~.~=~ Vernon Davis indicated his desire to speak in favor of the rezoning request because of a need for a hardware store in the area but expressed a need fora turning lane at the intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road. Randy Danzinger expressed support for the need of such a neighborhood business. County Attorney, Geaf Gledhill cautioned the Planning Baard and Commissioners not to consider the specific use in a rezoning request unless it is a Special Use Permit application. There is no power in a general rezoning to require on-site improvements. .Commissioner Carey inquired about the reduction in building size needed to accommodate the trip generation allowed in the zoning district. Collins responded that the Health Department comments received were based on a building size of 9600 square feet. A reductian of building size by.half would be needed. 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS a. Section IV-B-8 Landscaping and Buffer Requirements The prresentation was made by Marvin Collins. On December 6, 1986, the Board of Commissioners suspended enforcement of Section IV-B-8-c-1 of the Subdivision Regulations, pending further study of standards requiring installation of plant materials in building setback areas and on parcels designated for recreation/open space use. Concern had been expressed by land owners and developers about the high cost of complying with the standards. Clarification of application was also required. The Planning Soard Ordinance Review Committee has been working with a developer, forester and landscape architect in reviewing the --~ design standards. The proposed revisions represent changes to Section IV-B-8 as applicable to new subdivisions.. Approval of the amendment would allow more flexibility in the installation of required plant materials. Street frontages are required to have a canopy comprised of at least one (1) large tree per lot, with additional landscaping comprised of large and/or small trees. side/rear yards as well as recreation/open space. areas are still. required to have one (1) tree per 1,000 sq. ft. area, but tries may be grouped and large and small trees may be installed. Coupled with reductions in required plant sizes, the new standards result in lower installation costs. Emphasis is given to installation of healthy plants and proper maintenance rather than plants reaching designated heights within specified time periods. Furthermore, areas in which buffers are required or utility/drainage easements provided are excluded from compliance. In answer to a question from Mike Lewis, Collins responded it was never the intent of the ordinance to control landscaping or removal of vegetation beyond the point that ownership of the property was transferred from developer to owner. Collins continued that the original emphasis was to protect existing vegetation. Steve Yuhasz noted that this would encourage developers to develop wooded land rather than open land.. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by ' ~ Commissioner Halkiotis to refer to the Planning Board items 3a, 3b, 4 and 5 for a recommendation to be received at the regular Board meeting on April 6, 1987. VOTE: Unanimous. _ 6. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The presentation was made by Greg Szymick. On August 25, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published final. rules revising National Flood Insurance Program (NFTP) criteria. The criteria became effective October 1, 1986 and require, as a continued validity, that communities revise their floodplain management regulations to make them consistent with NFIP criteria within six months of the effective date. Orange County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance must be revised to bring it into compliance no later than April 1, 1987. .- The proposed revisions provide for: changes in the definitions of "mobile Names" (now "manufactured homes") and "start of construction"; flood proofing of mechanical and utility equipment; the use of openings in enclosures below a structure's lowest float; the use ~., of available flood data; and certification of floor elevations. WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commis- sioner Carey to refer the proposed amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to the Planning Board for their recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on March 24, 1987. VOTE: Unanimous. With no further business to come before the Boards, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on March 2, 1987, 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary