Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19870824~.. APPROVED_SEPTEMBER 22. 1987 Victor Germino Ted Latta - Owners and Operators of Mike Kirby Facilities VOTE: UNANIMOUS. H. APPOINTMENTS The following appointment was approved by the Board: ABC BOARD Bob Brown ADDED ITEM RESPONSE TO THE UTILITIES COMMISSION (A copy of the letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office). Chair Marshall presented for approval a response to the North Carolina Utilities Commission for Docket No. P-10, Sub 428. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the letter and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. I. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to adjourned the meeting. The next September 8, 1987 in the Courtroom Carolina. come before the Board, Chair Marshall regular meeting will be held on Monday, of the old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Shirley E. Marshall, Chair ' ; Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CQMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY MEETING AUGUST 24, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint session for a quarterly public hearing on August 24, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, John Hartwell, Stephen PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Best, Virginia Boland, Dan Eddleman, Pilkey, Steve Yuhasz. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT• Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners 3alkiotis and Don Willhoit. Chair Barry Jacobs, and members Chris Peter Kramer, Betty Margison, Sharlene Excused: Prince Taylor. Unexcused: Tim Hubbard, Mike Lewis and Brenda Swann. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw, Planner Gene Bell, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planner Emily Crudup, Planners Eddie Kirk, Don Powell, and Greg Szymik. A. BOARD COMMENTS None. ~l ~'~ B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS --, Those who have signed. up to speak were recognized at the time their item appeared on the agenda. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Marshall read the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS - RURAL ROUTE 2 Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented for receipt of public comments the proposed assignment of house and building numbers on Rural Route 2 in Orange County. Per an agreement reached in January, 1986 between the County Manager and the chapel Hill Postmaster, a joint project between the County and the U.S. Postal Service was undertaken to convert rural box numbers to permanently assigned house numbers. Two rural routes (5 and 8) have been converted to house numbers, and, since the adoption of the House Numbering Ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners on April 21, 1987, residents have been using the assigned numbers for their addresses. Rural Route 2 has now been prepared for conversion to house numbers. The route encompasses an area north of Chapel Hill including Blackwood Station, a portion of N.C. Highway 86, Hideaway Estates Subdivision and portions of the following State roads: Mt. Sinai, University Station, Old N.C. 10, New Hope Church Road and Old N.C. 86. General Statute 153A-240 requires that a.public hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have peen sent to all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and in at 'Least two public places in Chapel Hill Township (Estes Drive and Franklin `'_~treet Post Offices and Sunrise Farmers Market on N.C. Highway 86). A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of the public hearing. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed house and building numbers be approved and that notification he done as required by G.S. 153A-240. CHARLES EDELMAN resident of Hideaway Drive, stated that for more than ten years, Hideaway Drive has had house numbers. He indicated that the numbers already in use are three digit numbers and that changing to four- digit numbers would not provide faster or better emergency service. He stated that having to remember four digit numbers rather than three digits would be much more confusing, especially fora child in an emergency situation. He suggested that Hideaway Drive be eliminated from the new numbering system and that the house numbers already in place be retained. He also suggested that three digit numbers be used rather than four digit numbers. Marvin Collins explained that the four digit numbers assigned were determined by scaling 50 foot increments on county tax maps, southward along old NC 86 from its intersection with Hwy 70, to a point of horizontal alignment with Hideaway Drive's northern tip. From that point on Hideaway Drive addresses were assigned to residences at 50 foot intervals. The system allows the assignment of comparable numbers to roads which run parallel; in effect, a type of grid system. Mr. Edelman reemphasized the simplicity of a three digit number versus a four digit number. He also presented a petition signed by thirty- nine residents of Hideaway Drive which is on file in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. RICHARD REEM of 233 Hideaway Drive indicated that Hideaway ~. : ti;~ Estates was included in the numbering system simply for consistency and that it will not help postal service or emergency service personnel. He stated he felt it would only create considerable inconvenience and confusion for those residents who must notify others of the address change. He asked that the Board vote to keep the numbers that are in place. ~-- GARY McDEVIN of University Station Road expressed concern that those living on Sandy Road, a non-State-maintained .road, were assigned numbers for University Station Road and questioned the outcome if Sandy Road should later become a State-maintained road. Mr. McDevin expressed support for house numbering rather than using a rural route. CARMINE PRIOLI , representing the Stoney. Creek Neighborhood Association, noted that there are three digit numbers at the present time in Stoney Creek. While he expressed concern about the wide margin between the numbers, he basically indicated support for the new assignment of house numbers. EILEEN SEEGER of 125 Hideaway Drive questioned the rationale for changing house numbers instead of using a system that provides more of a directional address to help in locating the property. RICHARD REEM asked if it would be helpful to the Board to have input from the Sheriff's Department and Emergency Management Services before making a decision on this item. Chair Marshall indicated that there are several questions that must be answered before a decision will be made and especially the question about Sandy Road. Regarding the grid system, it is a standardized procedure that can be applied uniformly throughout the County. It is preferable to have such a unified system applied rather than allowing exceptions for individual subdivisions and/or property owners. Once applied the numbers become more permanent. JOHN ROGERS of 210 Hideaway Drive concurred with his neighbors and asked about the feasibility of integrating the house numbers with the zip code, resulting in a nine digit number to indicate their position on the' grid system. He felt such a system would satisfy the postal authorities,'=,. the emergency services, and the property owners. BILL HUTCHINS of Falls of New Hope Subdivision indicated there is not a consistent numbering system in place but that everyone chose their own number. He asked if the grid system sufficiently provided for infill. Chair Marshall indicated that the grid system provides sufficient space for growth and that numbers assigned would be permanent. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CIASED. The staff was requested to provide more detailed information and a recommendation. 2. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - LUP-1-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY The Staff presentation was made by Planner Gene Bell. He stated that on October 10, 1985, Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning, and Class A Special Use Permit for ]..41 acres of land on old NC Highway 10. The request was prompted by State-mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant. An adjoa.ning property owner subsequently challenged Orange County's approval in court. On December 12, 1986, the court ruled that the Special Use Permit was invalid since the applicant did not meet the required two acre minimum lot size standard, and since evidence had not been pre- sented which proved that the project would maintain the value of existing properties in the area. The affect of the court ruling was to place Chan- dler Concrete Company in violation of the Orange County Zoning ordinance. To correct its nonconforming status, Chandler Concrete is requesting that the Ten Year Transition area and Commercial Industrial Activity node be expanded by an additional 0.59 acres which when combined` with the 1.41 acres currently in the same designation, would meet the two-- acre lot size requirement. If the proposed Land Use Plan amendment is approved, Chandler Concrete Company will .submit a Planned Development ~~pglication for the entire two acres. Current policy does not permit Land ~7se Plan amendment and Planned Development (or rezoning) applications to be ;candled concurrently. The procedures for amending the Land Use Plan states three reasons for which the Plan may. be amended: (1) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; (2) to correct an error or an omission in the plan; or (3) in response to a change in land use policy. The Land Use Plan amendment application does not adequately address any of these reasons. Evaluation of a plan amendment also requires conformance with the locational criteria for the plan designation being requested as specified in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan. The criteria includes land slope, hyd- rology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public services/utilities, trans- portation system, energy use, existing land use, agriculture and forestry, population density, and historic and cultural features. Evaluation of the criteria indicates partial conformity with public services/utilities and nonconformance with existing land use and population density. The Planning Staff recommends denial of the request based upon: (1) the reasons for amendments in the Procedures for amending the Land use Plan are not addressed; (2) conformity with all applicable locational criteria in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan is not demonstrated. The Planning Soard will prepare a recommendation on the proposed C,and Use Plan amendment at its September 21, 1987 meeting. The Board of '^.,~ommissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. THOMAS CHANDLER , President of Chandler Concrete Company, presented background information which led to the request for this Land Use Plan amendment. In late 1984, it was brought to Chandler's attention by the N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), that environmental problems existed relative to water runoff from the plant site. The water runoff came from washing the trucks as well as runoff of rain water across the land. A meeting with an agent from DEM identified the lowest point on the property where the water would run prior to entering the stream. That point was on the adjoining property which was recently purchased. Mr. Chandler indicated he was not aware that the recently purchased property was nvt properly zoned for a retention pond and reclamation site. At that point, he secured from the County the proper permits to prepare the site for correction of the environmental problem. It was brought to his attention that the property was zoned Residential--1 and it would not be permissible to operate the retention ponds for the benefit of the commercial property. He petitioned the Orange County Commissioners for a Secondary Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning of the property. After numerous meetings and appearances before the Orange County Planning Board, the final application was for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan and a rezoning for a 1.41 acre tract contiguous with the plant. The 1.41. acre tract of land was the minimum area upon which the retention and recycling activity could be performed. Subsequently, the secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan was granted and necessary rezoning and authorization for a Special Use Permit aas received. During the public hearing there was much community opposition to the proposal because of a misunderstanding that the plant's operation would be expanded into the residential area. The only intent was to correct the c'= w~ environmental problem in order. that the plant might continue to operate as it had for the past fifteen years. Mr. Chandler continued that he was advised by the Planning Staff at that time to seek an amendment only for the minimum area needed to correct environmental problems. He added that had he known of the two acre minimum lot size requirement, he would have included ~-~ the .59 acre for which he is now seeking an amendment. The courts reversed ~. the action of the Commissioners on two bases: (1) The minimum area which could be rezoned was two acres rather than the 1.41 acres, and (2) there had not been sufficient showing in the record that the use of the property would not cause an adverse effect on the surrounding property. Mr. Chandler noted that he had complied with all the requirements of the Special Use Permit before such time as the court overturned the decision. He added that since the time of the Court order he had talked with members of the community, explaining the necessity of the retention ponds and the benefit of the reclamation activity which would be continued. In order for the property on which the reclamation ponds are situated to be properly zoned, he must add to it an additional 0.59 acres of land to meet the minimum two acre requirement. The purpose of the request for an amendment to the Land Use Plan is to designate an 0.59 acre tract of land adjoining the concrete plant from Rural Residential to Ten-Year Transition/Commercial Industrial Activity Node. If the Land Use Plan is amended, he will apply for rezoning and a Special Use Permit to permit a retention and recycling facility critical to the operation of the concrete plant. The request does not constitute an extension of the commercial activity. Mr. Chandler reemphasized that his original request for a Land Use Plan amendment was solely to meet DEM requirements for the control of _ runoff. He noted that it was late in 1984 when it was discovered that the' runoff was an environmental problem. He continued that when the Land Use' Plan was adopted in 1981, the property line of the concrete plant was~,__, designated as the line separating Rural Residential from Commercial. Based on the use at that time, such designation was both natural and reasonable. Based on technological advances and on increased sensitivity to the environment, it has been determined that the runoff of surface water from the plant site is undesirable. The nature of the natural runoff is now believed by the Division of Environmental Management to be a hazard to public health, safety and welfare. Based on environmental standards when the Land Use Plan was adopted, no detrimental effect was recognized. He noted that the newly recognized hazard presents a changed condition which should be the basis for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan. The granting of a secondary amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the Land Use Plan by enabling continued operation of the commercial business in the area clearly designated for commercial use in the original Land Use Plan. Although it would be possible to prevent man-made situations which create runoff into the stream, there is no remedy short of the proposed retention ponds which will prevent the natural runoff. He stated this was a changed condition over which he has no control. The Planning Staff has recommended that the application for redesignation of 0.59 acres from Rural Residential to Ten-Year Transition Area and Commercial Industrial Activity Node be denied. He indicated that his understanding of the basis of the recommendation was that he failed to adequately state the changed conditions on which he based his request for a secondary amendment and that an 0.59 acre tract does not, in Planning Staff's opinion, at this time meet certain location standards. He apologized if his explanation of the changed conditions was not sufficiently clear and noted that before today, he was not aware that the application was considered deficient on that basis. He asked that the comments he made at this public hearing regarding changed conditions be incorporated into the application to remove the deficiency. Regarding the location criteria,-.,h~:-' noted the following: One of the areas which was deficient was the public service/utility area. The plant has access to public water. The property cannot be sub- -divided and sold. It should be deemed to have the same service availability ~s the present plant'. The reclamation activity will lessen the water consumption because the plant can reduce the stress on the water system. He added that during the drought .last year, his plant voluntarily switched from public water to a well system maintained for a backup water supply. The existing land use and the population density in question appear to be a subjective evaluation as to whether the area is in or is adjoining higher density area. His contention is that it is in the higher density area. Mr. Chandler continued that these same criteria were in effect in 1985 when an application for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan was made pertaining to the 1.41 acre tract located between the 0.59 acres and the concrete plant. Recognizing the critical need resulting from the changed conditions and environmental problem, the Land Use Plan amendment for the 1.41 acre tract was granted. Mr. Chandler proceeded with slides of the property in order to show the location of the 0.59 acres and the surrounding commercial uses. There were also slides of the retention ponds and reclamation system. Mr. Chandler indicated that when he submits an application for rezoning and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit he would make a detailed presentation concerning the exact location and the nature of the retention ponds and the recycling equipment `and the effect of such uses on neighboring property. He noted that such a detailed presentation was not appropriate at this hearing. He asked that Phil Post, the project engineer, talk about the conditions which created the necessity of the retention ponds and Tom Cape- well, an appraiser, speak concerning the fact that the secondary amendment to the~Land Use Plan will not create a situation which will result in there ;being an adverse effect on the fair market value of the surrounding area. PHIL POST, the project engineer, gave background information regarding the changed conditions, and the technical reasons why the original request was brought to the Board and approved, and added further information about the Planning Staff's questions with respect to the appropriateness of the Land Use Plan change. Post addressed the concern of the existence of public services and utilities. He indicated that there is in place water lines, power lines, and telephone lines. There is an excellent location for the road transportation system and the railroad transportation system as well. Post stated that the surrounding and existing land uses were compatible with what would be a very small expansion of the concrete plant operation. Population density does not seem to be applicable in this case as one of the criteria. The primary impetus for the request is to bring the plant into compliance with the most up-to-date environmental guidelines. He explained how the runoff would be captured by the ponds and recycled to be used in .making concrete. Post reemphasized that. the system required by DEM is in place and operating as intended. This request, if approved, would bring the applicant in compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The 0.59 acre tract of land would be used as a permanent buffer to bring the plant further into compliance with the buffering requirements that have been added. Planning Board Member Chris Best asked what was being stored on the western end of the property and Mr. Chandler stated that nothing is on the land at this time. Previously, concrete barriers used in the construction ~f I-40 were stored in the area. In answer to a question from Best on the location of the ponds, Post Zoted that the present location of the ponds would allow all runoff components to be contained on one site. Chandler explained the process used in washing down the concrete trucks at the end of the day. Commissioner Willhoit asked that Phil Post address the fact that the ponds, if located on the western side of the property, could have resulted in them being part of the. land already properly zoned and would not have required any further action for compliance. Post explained that the natural runoff would flow by gravity in volumes that cannot be efficiently pumped. ~-~~. By the change that was approved previously and the installation of the three ponds, there was enough room for landscaping and the additional 0.59 acres would add to the present landscaping. In response to Planning Board member Dan Eddleman, Chandler said that the ponds were in operation in accordance with the State environmental protection laws to retain the water in ponds and not let it go into the stream. He emphasized the need to be able to operate the ponds and the reclamation system to keep the concrete plant in.operation. Commissioner Halkiotis~asked if the water in the ponds could be used to water grass and flowers. Posts response was that the water was not caustic but may need to be diluted slightly. Mr. Chandler indicated that the water e felt a better job was being done by handling all runoff from one location. Planning Board Member Steve Yuhasz questioned why all the discussion was centered on the operation of the concrete plant and the location of the ponds, stating that Chandleros request is due to court action which found- him in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated he felt the discussion should be centered on extension of the zoning to bring Chandler into compliance with the two acre minimum requirement. Chair Marshall noted that the recommendation of the Planning Staff is for denial and therefore the background information is relevant. Planning Board Member Eddleman questioned the changed conditions in the immediate area. Post responded that although the area is changing the major change in conditions are environmental regulations by DEM. Another changed condition would be that of buffer requirements. JOHN CAPEWELL, an appraiser, spoke to the question of area changes. He' ; noted that five parcels in the immediate area have changed to PD-OI, CC3 ands CC4. Chair Marshall noted that those changes were not inconsistent with the Central Orange Area Study. MR. ROBERT E. RHINE, owner of land across from Chandler Concrete, stated that he and his sisters were the ones who opposed the original Land Use Plan amendment and initiated court action against Chandler Concrete. Since that time, an agreement has been reached between Chandler Concrete and the Rhine family which states that if Chandler is granted the amendment, replanting of the 0.59 acres will be done with loblolly pines. He summarized the contents of the agreement, noting that there would be no change or expansion of the commercial activity (the concrete plant). He continued reading the entire:agreement, noting that the restrictions and the affirmative obligations on Chandler would become effective only upon approval by the orange County commissioners of the above specified amendments to the Land Use Plan and Special Use Permit. Mr. Rhine expressed concern that if the amendment is not granted, Mr. Chandler will be legally forced to leave the area, and no replanting will be done. While he does not enthusiastically support the amendment as requested by Chandler, he realizes that without: the approval, the area could remain bare which would be more detrimental to the surrounding property. County Attorney Gledhill informed the Board that the agreement between Mr. Rhine and Mr. Chandler should not be considered as evidence in this public hearing. _ Commissioner Willhoit asked why the original request was not for the full two (2) acres as required. Gledhill stated that he had advised the . Board to waive the two-acre minimum lat size. Since there is an expressed reduction provision in the ordinance of 10~; a further reduction through a general provision was not allowed. The 1.41 acres was determined to be the minimum amount of land on which to build the three ponds. Gledhill .,~ continued that he knew of no provision in the Ordinance that permits Land Use Plan amendments to correct prior actions of the Board. Commissioner Hartwell asked if a Land Use Plan designation was necessary, since the land on which the Chandler Plant is located is already - designated in the Land. Use Plan correctly and totals more than the two (2) acre minimum. Mr. Chandler explained that there were two tracts of land with two different zoning designations. The concrete plant is zoned I-3 which is not the same as the property on. which the ponds are located. Gledhill stated that by including portions of the existing concrete plant in the I-3 zone, a Land Use Plan amendment would not be necessary. The 1.41 acres is already properly designated in the Land Use Plan. Joyce Garrett, the attorney for Chandler Concrete, spoke to inconsistencies in the minutes of prior public hearings about the location of the ponds. The permits for timbering and grading were secured, and the ponds were placed in accordance with the directive from DEM. She spoke to the economic contributions that Chandler makes to the community and stated that a substantial amount of money has been expended to meet and to protect against the potential environmental problem. It is Chandler's desire to keep the ponds where they are located. She asked that the request for an amendment to the Land Use Plan be granted. Marvin Collins clarified that no permit was needed for timbering, and the permit Mr. Chandler received was for grading. Ms. Garrett acknowledged this correction. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5. +TOTE: UNANIMOUS. ,,, 2. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. Z-3-87 The Meadowlands Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed request by Meadowlands Associates to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The property is located along the south side of U.S Highway 70 Business east of N.C. 86 in Hillsborough Township. The applicant is requesting a realignment of the existing Office Institutional (0-I), Industrial-1 (I~-1), and Rural Residential (R-1) zones, previously estab- lished by the Board of Commissioners on July 1, 1987. The purpose of the change is to match zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land use designations. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones: (O-I) zone (I-1) zone (R-1) zone Existing Zoning 25.4 acres 62.3 acres 22.4 acres Proposed Realigned Zone 15.81 acres 72.57 acres 21.73 acres Difference -9.59 acres +10.27 acres - .67 acres The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes xn the Zoning Atlas for the following reasons: 1) The proposed change would match the zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land designations. 2) The property is- located in a designated Commercial-Industrial transition activity node and therefore consistent with the Land Use Plan. `- 3) The Town of Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed changes. 4) The Town Board, .in .their August 1~, 19 ons to the existing 12-inch water line dry sewer lines to be used at a future 5) General Office uses generate twice as industrial-uses. Therefore, traffic would be considerably reduced. B7 meeting, approved tap and the installation of date. much traffic as light generation on the site Szymik indicated on a map the existing zoning and the proposed realigned zoning. The owner has submitted a request for zoning patterns consistent with their Master Development Plan. He noted that there were no new zoning classifications proposed. Planning Board. Member Pilkey asked about buffer requirements. Szymik responded that the buffer requirement along the I-85 right-of-way (also the MTC zone) is 100 feet. The current plan for the property shows a 50 foot buffer along the east, west and north property lines. Planning Board Member Kramer asked about, the zoning for the heliport shown on the plan. Szymik responded that the heliport would require a Class A Special Use Permit. Lee Capps, Project Manager for Meadowlands, stated that he had copies of the Master Development Plan for distribution. He noted that restrictive covenants have been recorded for the Meadowlands with buffer' requirements more restrictive than those set by the Zoning Ordinance. He '. _.. stated that there is no need at this time to pursue construction of the heliport. He noted that NCDOT requirements would also have to be met if the developer should decide to pursue the heliport construction. Planning Board Member Pilkey expressed concern with the removal of three large sycamore trees along the right-of-way.' Capps expressed sympathy with the concern but that the developer was not able to avoid removal of those trees. Pilkey continued, asking about the number of trees to be replaced. Capps noted that the restrictive covenants require trees to be placed at 50 foot intervals. Planning Board Member Kramer asked if there were plans to preserve the existing dairy barn, noting it is a prime example of local architecture. Capps responded that the dairy barn and manor house are on the portion of the property to be developed by TECAN, noting that they are very zealous of environmental issues and he did expect they would be very sensitive to community feelings regarding preservation of those buildings. Sylvia Price, Economic Development Director, read and submitted a statement which is a part of the minutes on pages ~5104,d . Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked that a copy of the restrictive covenants be supplied for the Boards. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit and seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Z-4-87 Autowerks Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a ~, proposed request by Charles Miller and Merle Dancy to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The property is located on the east side of NC Highway 86 north of New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) and south of Old NC 10. The applicants are requesting a rezoning on a portion of lot 1 of Tax Map 2 - Chapel Hill Township. The property that would be rezoned contains 41,480 square feet or 0.95 acres. The current zoning is Rural Residential (R- 1). The proposed zoning is Existing Commercial. (EC-5). The property is the present location of Autowerks auto repair garage. The area is designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan a The applicants maintained that the existing use was in operation in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was zoned and that an error was made at that time in that the property was zoned R-1 and should have been designated Existing Commercial (EC-5). Szymik continued that it is not clear from the 1981 zoning maps what the intent was for that property. Tt was not zoned EC-5 nor was it included on the list of properties with non-conforming uses. It is clear in viewing the existing land use patterns and the existing building patterns that there-are no unusual circumstances with regard to this property. Planning Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezoning for the following reasons: (1) The lot proposed to be rezoned is totally surrounded by an R-1 residential zone. (2) The lot is not located in or near a commercial transition node on the Land Use Plan. The closest node is the Harmon Young node which is~4,400 feet or eight-tenths of a mile north of the property. (3) The existing use can continue to operate at its present size and do business as a non-conforming use. Planning Board Member Best asked if there was proof that the business was in operation before September, 1981. Szymik stated there were attachments in the. agenda which would indicate that Autowerks was in business, billing for services, and paying NC sales taxes prior to September 1981. Best continued, asking the difference between an EC-5 designation and a non-conforming. Szymik responded that EC-5 is a zoning classification which permits the change of use or expansion, and as non- conforming the garage would not be allowed to expand. Planning Board Member Yuhasz asked if there would be a problem in rezoning the property to EC-5 at this time. Szymik responded that the procedure would be to identify that an error had been made in the original zoning, and EC-5 zoning should have been applied to the property at that time. Szymik stated that the work maps indicated there was a non- residential use on the property at the time that the 1981 zoning changes were being prepared, but they did not indicate the intent in regard to the property. Planning Board Member Best asked why the applicant desired a rezoning. Szymik responded that with an EC-5 zoning classification, there is an opportunity for expansion and change of use. Planning Board Member Pilkey asked what the previous use of the structure was. Szymik responded that it was previously a convenience store. .;~ ~' Planning Board Member Eddleman asked the County Attorney if the applicant's statement of justification which stated that the ordinance requires that the EC-5 district must be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships .was correct. Gledhill responded he would pro- vide that answer in time for the Planning Board meeting. Bob HaQeman~, Attorney for Autowerks, presented the following background for Autowerks:- This past spring the .owners of Autowerks decided to improve and increase the size of the auto repair shop. It was then found that the property was zoned R-1 rather than EC-5. Mr. Hageman noted that the three reasons given for denial by..the Planning Staff are true statements and if it were not for the unusual history .of this case, there would be no question but to deny the rezoning request. He continued that those three statements by themselves ignore -,the history which is very important to this matter, Mr. Hageman stated that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy were operating Autowerks prior to the zoning of Hillsborough Township in September 1981. He noted that prior to Autowerks another auto repair shop was in residence for approximately a year and prior to that time, the building did contain a convenience store. He continued that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy do not own the property now nor did they own it in 1981, so they did not receive notification of the zoning classification in process. He read from the Zoning Ordinance Article 4.2.12 b) Application Criteria: "This district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships and pre- viously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan. This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing commercial at the time of application of this ordinance." He stated that the .intent of the Commis- sioners in 1981 was that the classification of EC-5 be applied in a non- discretionary manner once it was determined that those existing commercial uses were not in an activity node. Mr. Hageman stated that he felt one of the reasons for Autowerks not being zoned EC-5 was the fact that the tract of ].and upon which it is located lies in Chapel Hill Township as well as Hillsborough Township. He noted that with the possibility of different planning personnel working on the two different townships and the undeveloped portion of the property being in Chapel Hill Township, it was possible that it was assumed the property was all R-1. He noted that the Duke Power easement was all that was on the portion in Chapel Hill Township. He continued that he felt the incorrect zoning was simply a case of the property being overlooked. In regard to the idea that the property should be non-conforming, Mr. Hageman noted the following: (1) According to his reading, EC-5 had to be applied to existing commercial properties not in an activity node; (2) Every existing commercial use along Highway 86 in 1981 except Autowerks was given a commercial classification; (3) If the intent was to make Autowerks a non-conforming use, why did it not appear on the May 14, 19.81 memorandum from the Planning Staff to the Planning Board. Mr. Hageman requested that the Planning Board recommend to the Board of Commissioners to honor Autowerks rezoning request. This request is consistent with the comprehensive plan although the area is not identified as an activity node, since the plan clearly contemplated EC-5 classifications outside of activity nodes. They also believe that this rezoning would not, in any way be a violation of the comprehensive plan. - -~~ -" -- ' i He concluded that he felt the failure to grant the rezoning request for Autowerks would constitute spot zoning. Chuck Miller , co-owner of Autowerks, indicated the owner of the property would be willing to sell the portion of the property on which Autowerks is located if the rezoning request is approved. He indicated that the desire is to make improvements to the business with one (6,000 to 7,000 square ft.) building in order to accommodate more than one automobile at the same time. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell and seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. c. Chandler Concrete Com an Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed rezoning request by Chandler Concrete Company. The property is located in western Cheeks Township on the south side of US 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway. This 3.43 acre parcel is approximately 860 feet east of the intersection of Frazier Road (SR 1310) and US Highway 70. The Land Use Plan designation is Commercial-Industrial Ten-Year Transition. The current zoning of the property is Residential-1 with an overlay district of Protected Watershed II in the Seven Mile Creek Watershed. Adjacent land uses include the railroad, utilities and industry. The request has been made for rezoning to Community Commercial- III. The Planning Staff recommends against rezoning of the property from Residential-1 to Community Commercial-3. The property is located in a Protected Watershed II overlay district and is proposed for non-residential use. A planned development approach, including site plan approval and the issuance of a Special Use Permit provides better control over such development in a watershed. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked for an explanation of the changed conditions in the findings of fact. Szymik responded that the allegation is that the land uses in the general area are compatible with those in CC-3 zoning. There is EC-5 zoning on property to the west .and E- T on property to the east. Since there are existing commercial and industrial activities in the area, this property is no longer suitable for residential purposes. Mr. Thomas Chandler president Chandler Concrete Company, stated his desire to have the property zoned CC-3 primarily for the storage of excess plant equipment such as bins and hoppers. None of the equipment stored would be mobile and could only by moved with the aid of a crane. He noted that Planning Staff had recommended that he apply for a CC-3 zoning which would be proper for the use he intended. He continued that at no time had Staff indicated to him that CC-3 was inappropriate or that they would not recommend approval of the requested rezoning. He noted that he felt all of the documentation was supportive of a CC-3 zoning classification. Mr. Chandler presented a map showing the location of his property and indicated that the majority of surrounding properties are industrial. He indicated that there was no water course across the property and the proposed use does not present a problem of water pollution to the reservoir. He addressed documentation included in the agenda which indicated a CC-3 rezoning would be appropriate. Planning Board Member $est asked why I~r. Chandler did not know about the Planning Staff recommendation for Planned Development before this date. Planning Director Marvin Collins responded that he changed the recommendation prior to agenda-delivery. Mr. Chandler indicated that he was in attendance at the Planning Board meeting on 8/17/87 and expressed his willingness at that time to answer questions on the items going to public hearing for Chandler Concrete. He noted that no questions were asked at that time by Planning Board members or Planning staff. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked what Mr. Chandler's response would have been to a previous recommendation of planned development. Mr. Chandler noted that he did not care for a planned development, noting that such a recommendation.would~require screening and buffers which he did not need simply for the storing of stationary equipment. Planning Board Member~Yuhasz asked if this were to be long-term storage. Mr. Chandler responded that he did not know, since several factors would be involved in the possible use of the equipment at another point in time. He noted that the property was maintained by mowing. John Ca ewell real estate appraiser reemphasized the fact that this property was bordered on both sides with commercial and industrial uses. He noted that he felt Residential zoning of this property is inappropriate. Joyce Garrett attorney representing Chandler Concrete, restated that the basic criteria for a CC-3 zoning had been met. She addressed the concern with protection of the watershed. She indicated that a change in the underlying zoning should not have an affect on watershed protection. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked that Mr. Collins explain his recommendation. Collins responded that he was concerned with future use of the property and future protection of the watershed. With a straight rezoning, the County would lose control of the future development of the site. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners an October 5, 1987. VOTE: Unanimous. d. PD-3-87 Occoneechee Point Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed Planned Development-Commercial-by Wildwood Corporation. Wildwood Corporation has submitted an application for PD-C-GC4 (Planned Development - Commercial - General) classification on 11.8 acres located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange of I-85 and NC 86. The project is to contain a convenience store/gas. station, car wash, restaurant and motel. The Board of Commissioners approved a Planned Development-Special Use Permit for this site on November 5, 1984. Although the PD-C-GC4 zoning remains on the property, a revised site plan was not submitted, and a Special Use Permit was not issued. The approval thus became void,' requiring a new approval in order to develop the site. The property is currently zoned PD-C-GC4 (Planned Development- Commercial-General Commercial 4) and R-1 (Rural Residential). The property is also located in the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) adjacent to 2-85. Tt is designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan, Central Orange Study as 10 Year Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Node. These designations are placed on land that is in areas ..w ! ~ .:L that are in the process of changing from rural to urban and are appro- priate for retail and other commercial uses. The applicant has responded to Staff review of the application with a revised site plan and additional information that substantially addresses Staff concerns. However, review agency comments had not yet been received at the time the agenda was prepared. The Staff recommends that citizen comments be received on the application, but that the public hearing be continued to October 5, 1987 to allow Staff to include review agency comments in their evaluation of the application. A Staff recommendation will be presented at that time. Szymik continued noting Staff concern that a two-lane highway such as NC 8fi could not handle the increase in traffic. There was also the concern with the large volume of turna.ng activity into the other commercial uses on each side of NC s~ as well as the large trucks turning into the truck stop. Szymik stated that Staff had recommended to the applicant that a three-lane section be constructed on NC 86 with a travel lane in each direction and a continuous left turn lane in the center. Staff also recommended that the entrance-only drive to the convenience store be eliminated, that only two driveways be approved to the project, that there be deceleration lanes for each driveway, and that the northernmost drive be realigned to intersect NC 86 at ninety degrees. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which addresses all but one of these recommendations, and it places left turn bays on NC 86 instead of a continuous left turn lane. He noted that these recommendations were consistent with NCDOT's response to the original project in 1984. The applicant has submitted an agreement with the Town of Hillsborough that grants access to the Town's water and sewer facilities. The Staff, however, has requested documentation establishing the Town's ability to provide water and sewer and any conditions the developer may have to meet to obtain access. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the loading bay at the con- venience store. Szymik responded that he felt that was an appropriate location for a loading bay for the smaller trucks making deliveries to the store. The location would place the trucks out of any-immediate flow of traffic. Commissioner Halkiotis asked the distance of the railroad from the building site. Szymik responded that the track would be 1100 feet from the southern line of the planned development zone. To the rear, the distance to the railroad would be fi00 feet from the development, and the hotel would be approximately 750 feet from the railroad track. Commissioner Carey asked if the access road to the site would be a public road. Szymik responded that Staff had recommended a public road to provide a service road to the motel and restaurant as well as access if there should be further development to the south. Commissioner Willhoit asked about plans for reforesting the MTC, noting that he felt a very detailed landscaping plan should be submitted to restore the buffer which had previously been removed. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked about the restrictions regarding signs on the sides of the buildings. Szymik responded that in the MTC zone each parcel of land is allowed two signs with two additional signs (4 square feet in size),flush-mounted on the sides of the building. Planning Board Member Pilkey expressed concern that the Town of Hillsborough would not be able to provide the amount of water to be used by the car wash as well as the remainder of the project. Szymik indicated that he had not received a response from the Town of Hillsborough regarding its capacity to provide services to the project. Pilkey asked that it be specified that the response come from the Town Engineer. Planning Board Member Eddleman inquired about the widths of internal roadways. Szymik responded there would be ten foot directional ... -~ :~ ~`~ travel lanes which is an acdeptable standard. Planning Board Member Margison asked about the restoring of the well and its possible use for the car wash. Szymik responded that the well was to be a decorative feature not a water source. Commissioner Carey inquired about the stub-out to the R-1 property to the rear of the .motel. Szymik indicated that it would not be used as access unless the property zoned R-1 was incorporated into the project. In answer to questions about. impervious surface and planning of parking lots, Szymik responded that a stormwater management plan and a landscaping plan would be provided. Fritz Brunssen, the project engineer, spoke regarding the site plan for Occoneechee Point. He indicated that the developer was in agreement with the .Planning Staff to provide turning lanes and deceleration lanes. He addressed the proposed private road, noting that it was to be used for the benefit of anticipated bus traffic, turning movements, and parking. He said the well is not to be used as a water source but only as a decorative feature. He indicated on the plan where buffers were to be placed. He noted a willingness to work with the Planning Staff to provide any required buffering. He indicated that Mr. Freeland did have a water/sewer service agreement with the Town of Hillsborough and that the question of capacity is currently being studied. He said a letter to the County from the Town of Hillsborough would arrive soon. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to continue the public hearing on Occoneechee Point until October 5, 1987 to receive additional information. ~: VOTE: UNANIMOUS. e. Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Limits Planning Director Marvin Collins presented for receipt of public comment the rezoning of property affected by the revision of the Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction. The Town of Mebane has revised its extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction limits to follow property lines. As a result, parcels of land which were divided between Mebane and Orange County zoning will be placed entirely within Mebane's zoning jurisdiction or within orange County's zoning jurisdiction. For those parcels that will.be placed entirely under Mebane's jurisdiction, it will be necessary for Orange County to relinquish its jurisdiction. This will be done by separate action. For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Orange County's jurisdiction, it will be necessary to zone them in accordance with Orange County's Zoning Ordinance. Seventeen (17) Town of Mebane zoning under Orange County parcels of land that are presently split between and Orange County zoning would be placed entirely zoning. The County proposes to extend its existing zoning classification ove parcels that are presently County, AR zoning would previously zoned by the presently zoned R-1 (Rural would be extended to the Town of Mebane. r the remainder of each parcel. For those zoned AR (Agricultural Residential) by Orange be extended to the portion of the parcel Town. of Mebane. For those parcels that are Residential) by Orange County, R'1 zoning portion of the parcel previously zoned by the No change in zoning classification on property presently under. Orange County zoning will be made. The proposal is limited to extending the r ~~ . ~.--~.r' ~=~'S existing Orange County zoning pattern to include land formerly under the Town of Mebane's zoning ~urisdiction.~ Collins identified the affected parcels on a map. He indicated that - Mebane released those parcels as of June 1 1987, so they are currently unzoned. There are twelve parcels to be zoned AR and five parcels to be zoned R-l. Planning Staff recommends that the parcels be zoned as indicated. THERE BEING NO COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis and seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to accept the Planning Staff recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (Crematoria as a Permitted Use) Article 10.4 - off Street Parking (Off-Street Parking - Crematoria) Planner Greg Szymik presented for receipt of public comment proposed amendments to Article 4.3 and Article 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. At present, crematoria are not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would make them a permitted use in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 (Industrial) zoning districts. The amendment to Article 4.3 would add crematoria to the Permitted Use Table. The amendment to Article 10.4 would establish parking requirements for crematoria. The Planning Staff recomme*~ds approval of the proposed amendment. Planning Board member Sharlene Pilkey asked about the parking and Szymik indicated that one space per employee has been proposed. DOROTHY BANE stated with regards to the parking requirements that memorial services are usually held at the Church and not at the Crematoria. She feels the land should be commercial and not industrial. There has been a 25~ increase in the demand for these services and in 25 years, it is expected to increase another 25$. Crematoria are checked periodically by the EPA, there is no odor or smoke, and they have very complicated filters. There are less pollutants than in a funeral home. Szymik stated that the crematoria does have to meet certain emission requirements. THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation for consideration to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Article Article Article Article Article Greg Szymik references in the Zonis which was created in 5.16.6 - Home occupations (Rural Buffer) 5.23.4 - Impervious Surface Ratios (RB) 7.2.1 - PD Districts (RB) 9.11 - Permitted Signs (RB) 12.10 - Landscaping/Screening (RB) stated these amendments would complete the zg Ordinance to the new Rural Buffer zoning district January, 1987. They add Rural Buffer to these sections, and they do not constitute a substantive change in the way the land zoning classifications would be handled. ~\ THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. _-,~ Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by ~ Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation for consideration to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Section IV-B-8-c Landscaping (Effective Date)_ Greg Szymik stated-.that on March 24, 1987 the Board of Commissioners adopted regulations to clarify the effective date of the amendments. At that. time, questions were asked about the treatment of subdivision applications received by the County during the suspended period. Section IV-B-8-C would be amended by adding an effective date of March 24, 1987. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Section V -~ Im rovements Greg Szymik explained that Section V identifies the forms of security that may be used to guarantee construction of required improvements in approved subdivisions. The amendment would delete cash as an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of security for required improvements. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. -B-3-c-8 - Marai ~ev4ion iv-~-v-ice urivewd 5 Greg Szymik explained that Section IV-B-3-c-8 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by specifying forms of common or restricted access to lots in new subdivisions along major streets. Section IV-B-3-c-10 would place restrictions on the number and location of driveways that will be allowed in new subdivisions. The amendments are intended to provide more control on the number and location of driveways along major roadways, reduce conflicts between through traffic and turning vehicles, and maintain the safety and traffic carrying capacity of major streets. Barry Jacobs referred to page 245 of the agenda and the three items relating to driveways and stated that the spacing from the intersection addresses a Chapel Hill requirement, the access to a road with a lower classification addresses a condition that is often put on subdivision during the approval process and the common drive is more of a I~ definition. The proposed amendment YV-H-3-c-8 Access Restrictions , based on traffic counts, precludes most of the roads in Orange County. Jacobs noted that a lesser number should be considered. Szymik explained that the reason for using 5,000 vehicles per day is that on a standard 2-lane highway that 5,000 vehicles per day represents the volume of traffic which would represent traffic level "C" which is the level of service that can be carried before problems occur. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item - 5b Subdivision Regulation Amendment, section V Improvements to the Planning Board for a recom- mendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA - AMBERLY DEVELOPMENT (A copy of the Attorney's letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill responded to a request from the Board to determine. what Orange County can legally do in response to the voluntary annexation of land, the zoning of that land pursuant to Carrboro's Zoning Ordinance and the issuance of a conditional use permit by Carrboro, which actions together authorize the development of the Amberly Subdivision project. With reference to the annexation, the zoning action taken by Carrboro and the Conditional Use Permit action taken by Carrboro, he concluded that it would be unlikely that Orange County could withstand a challenge to pursue this matter. There is no law in North Carolina which address whether one local government can sue another over these points. There is no limitation. on the ability of towns to annex and very little room for challenge of those decisions. _ With reference to zoning and the Conditional Use Permits, the standard seems to be that only the "aggrieved party or aggrieved parties" who have special damages as a result of the. action and which damages are different from that suffered by the general public may pursue the matter. If action is to be taken to challenge the action taken by Carrboro, it must be brought by the right people with focus on the merits of the issue and not distracted by any side issues. Gledhill made the point that his comments are not to discourage any private citizen who may have standing to pursue those avenues that .are available for challenges to zoning and planning decisions. The area where the County may become involved is in the approval process of the wastewater disposal system. The County could request the Environmental Management Commission or the staff people of the EMC who will be reviewing the permit fora public meeting, and if coupled with a petition from concerned citizens in the area also asking for a public meeting would almost guarantee that one would be held. The statutes suggest that the only people who can appeal the staff decision on the permit are the ones who would be the recipient of the permit. However, there may be an opportunity for the County to intervene in this process. once the permit is issued, the County may then have some appeal rights if the County is unhappy with the process. In conclusion, Gledhill mentioned that the Environmental Policy Act authorizes local governments to require any private developer of a major development project to submit detailed statements of the ~ environmental impact of such projects. It was suggested to Gledhill by Milton Heath of the Institute of Government that the County might implement it by ordinance applicable to all major development projects as defined in the statute and in the ordinance. Gledhill stated that probably the best way to implement an ordinance would be for the Board to decide what projects would be subject to environmental impact statements. The statute permits counties to place this requirement on major development projects greater than two acres in size. Chair Marshall indicated that this requirement could only be done in the County~s jurisdiction and once the annexation takes place the development is not in the County's jurisdiction. Gledhill noted that the County does have jurisdiction countywide in such areas as health regulations and is limited in other areas. Commissioner Willhoit expressed concern about the safety of the type of disposal system and that frequently the law that the state or local agencies are able to enforce lags behind what the scientific knowledge indicates. He suggested that the question of safety be examined through a public meeting. At the conclusion of the comprehensive study, it may indicate that sewer line extension is the way to go. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to request that the County Manager write the Environmental Management Commission to request a public meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered by the Board, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting at 12:35 p:m. The next regular meeting will be held September 8, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary Shirley E. Marshall, Chair MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 8, 1987 at 7:3o p.m. in the Courtroom .of the old Court- house, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall, and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. Commissioner John Hartwell arrived at 8:1o p.m. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Albert Iiittrell, Assistant County Manager William T. Laws, Interim Assistant County Manager Beverly Whitehead, Interim Manager Analyst Andi Reynolds, Finance Director Gordon Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Director of Community and Housing Development Tara Fikes, Planners Don Powell and Greg Szymik and Budget Analyst Donna Wagner. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS Chair Marshall announced that the bicentennial will be held on Sep- tember 18 in Superior Courtroom and invited the public to attend. A proclamation was added to the end of the agenda. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None