Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19871123eYt ~_. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 23, 1987 MINUTES The orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board met in joint session on November 23, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and members Chris Best, Virginia Boland, Abbie Dickinson, Dan Eddleman, Peter Kramer, Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey, Brenda Swann, Prince Taylor and Steve Yuhasz. ...~ ~ ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell, Planner Gene Bell, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Crudup, Eddie Kirk and Brad Torgan. A. BOARD COMMENTS Albert Kittrell, Interim County Manager, announced that the next meeting of the Board of Commissioners would be held in the Superior Courtroom rather than the Old Courthouse due to boiler problems. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None. 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Vern Miller asked to speak to the tax situation in Orange County. He expressed concern with the way tax monies are being spent and tax increases. He commented that balancing the budget should occur without the raising of taxes. He expressed concern with the real estate transfer tax, and the tax on unneutered and unspayed dogs which is called animal control. He indicated he felt the raising of taxes to provide for schools is due to poor budget balance and control. Chair Marshall responded that the Board appreciated Mr. Miller's concerns and that the Board would be working on a long range plan instead of a year-by-year plan. She suggested that Mr. Miller carefully observe the budget process and attend the public hearings on the money issues and make comments as appropriate. C. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Shirley E. Marshall read the Public Charge. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN (The Master Recreation and Parks Plan Draft proposal is on 301 file in the Clerk to the Commissioners' office, the Planning Department and the Recreation and Parks Department.) Mary Anne Slack, Recreation and Parks Director, addressed the Boards and the citizens to introduce the Draft proposal for the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. In April of 1987, work was begun on the preparation of a Master Recreation & Parks Plan for Orange County. The preparation of the plan was carried aut by the consulting firm of Woolpert Associates, in conjunction with the Master Recreation and Parks Plan Advisory Group. Following nine months of work and a series of public meetings, the completed draft plan is being presented at public hearing for public comment. In preparing the Plan, community input through public meetings, coupled with a review of typical recreation and park standards, aided in identifying immediate and long-range recreational needs of the County. These needs put into quantitative terms, provided a guide in determining land requirements for various types of recreation and park facilities. Standards were then. used to formulate the direction of future recreation and park development. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan is designed to became one element of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with other County land use plans and ordinances. The Plan recommends that Orange County concentrate its efforts in the provision of four types of recreation and park facilities/areas: (1) community parks (serving the more densely populated unincorporated areas of the county); (2) district parks; (3) greenways; and (4) swimming pools. A crucial element in the success of the Master Plan is the effectiveness of cooperative efforts between Orange County and the two school systems, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, the University of North Carolina, Duke University (forest properties), and the municipalities. The Master Plan envisions providing park facilities and recreation opportunities for all citizens of Orange County and will require a long-term commitment and coordinated action on the part of these and other agencies. The Recreation and Parks Director and the Planning Director recommend approval of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan and incorporation by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County. Ms. Black introduced Gary Stewart and Carl Armanini of Woolpert Consultants to present the proposed plan. Gary Stewart stated that the Master Recreation and Parks Plan was prepared jointly by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department, the Orange County Planning Department and Woolpert Consultants. He listed the six major components of the plan as follows: (1) Goals and Objectives, (2) Current and Projected Factors Pertinent to Orange County, (3) Inventory of Current Recreation Programs and Park Facilities, (4) Recreation Standards and Commun~.ty Needs Assessment, (5) 3oz Plan Proposals and (6) Recommendations and Plan Implementation. He indicated the focus at this time would be on the Plan Proposals and Recommendations and the Plan implementation. The planning process began in March with a purpose statement. This involved assessing the recreational needs of the County,, insuring there would be ample open space for generations to come (2o years from this point) and also be sure that sound planning principles and procedures are followed. Goal: To provide the citizens, elected officials and staff of Orange County a 20 year course of action that adequately addresses the needs of all citizens within the community regardless of age, sex, race, handicap or income and provides an economically attainable time table for acquiring, developing and administering recreation and park resources, programs, and facilities adequately. Objectives: 1) To involve the public throughout the planning and implementation process by soliciting input as to their wants and needs. 2) To insure that the Master Plan is consistent with other county comprehensive plans and ordinances. 3) To accurately and adequately assess and analyze the county's existing and potential recreation and park facilities and programs, so as to set forth attainable schedules for development, maintenance and funding. ~4) To ensure that the Master Plan is responsive to the county's projected population characteristics and is adequately flexible but responsive to the challenges of~,;; changing government's ability to preserve, protect and defend the recreational needs of the public. 5) To structure the Master Plan to provide a framework for orderly and consistent policy development and decision making as it relates to recreation and park issues. 6) To structure the Master Plan to ensure it's utilization as a management tool for the Recreation. and Parks Department in administering resources, programs and facilities through adequate staffing, funding and programming. 7) To identify useful mechanisms for the funding of proposed additional recreational facilities or programs (i.e. donations, government programs, etc.). Carl Armanini began his presentation with Chapter Three: Current and Projected Factors Pertinent to Orange County. These factors were sorted into two areas, cultural and natural features. Cultural factors would be land use, roads, economy, and population. The natural features would be physical and environmental features, water resources and natural areas. He indicated that it is understood haw important the agricultural areas are to the county and there are some rural residential areas that will have recreational needs in the future. He indicated the County would need to meet recreational needs for urban development around Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. Meeting the recreational needs for future growth is a primary concern. 303 Mr. Armanini continued with Chapter Four: Inventory of Current Recreation Programs and Park Facilities He presented slides identifying the locations of existing recreational programs and placing them in the categories of public, private and quasi-public. These also were identified on a township basis. Once the inventory was done, the next step was Chapter 5: Recreation Standards and Community Needs Assessment The allocation of recreation land and facilities for a community or special population is determined by standards established in the recreation and parks industry. The importance of establishing and using recreation standards is recognized as: * A guide in determining lan types of park and recreation * An expression of minimum citizens of a community. * A means by which recreational spatial requirements within system. * A comprehensive guide and assist * A tool to justify d requirements for various areas and facilities. acceptable facilities for needs can be related to a recreation and parks planning element that can be used to development. recreational needs within communities. Once a set of standards was developed, an identification of a park system was made. The types of parks identified were Mini-Parks (Vest Pocket Park), Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, District Parks (large park), Regional Parks and Unique/Special Areas. He continued giving a description of each type of park (on pages 5-3 and 5-4 of the Draft Plan). The needs assessment encompassed a need for 3,000 acres public parkland to be developed by the year 2005. Standards were also developed for individual facilities. (These are described on pages 5-4 through 5-8 of the Draft Plan). Also in the Draft Plan are tables and exhibits showing the different types of parks. The next step is Chapter Six: Plan Proposals and Recommendations. This chapter discusses the responsibilities or roles of the providers of the facilities. The proposals and recommendations by township are also discussed at length in Chapter Six. Most important is to concentrate on the county-wide responsibilities. This would be the development of community parks .for the unincorporated places, district parks, swimming pools and current existing facilities such as the Homestead Building in Chapel Hill Township, Central Recreation Center in Hillsborough and the North Human Services Center. Mr. Armanini explained that a typical community park would have approximately twenty-five acres with facilities such as tennis and basketball courts, play area, ball fields, etc. There would be some passive recreation such as a lake for fishing and a nature trail. A community park is easily accessed by being located on a residential collector street with parking provided. A district park would be a park of over seventy-five acres with ball fields, camping areas, picnic areas, fishing and 304 possible greenways which must be located by a thoroughfare. Since Eno River State Park is in Orange County, the need for a regional park would probably not occur prior to the end of the twenty year planning process. A State Park would include many natural areas for fishing, boating, nature trails and, camping areas. Many different types of greenways are proposed. The more urban areas may have paved greenways which connect activities. Unpaved greenways are trail systems and natural areas to be saved are the types. of greenways throughout the rural areas of the county. He continued presenting slides which identified the locations for the different types of parks proposed for Orange County. The implementation of the Plan has been divided into a twenty year Captial Improvements Program which has been further divided into individual park sites and a twenty year plan has been done for each site. An operation budget was proposed outlining staffing, maintenance and any other items which operating the park would entail. Methods of funding were reviewed such as revenue sources, federal assistance, contributions, fees and partnerships. The Twenty Year Capital Improvements Program was approximately twenty-two million dollars which included acquisition and development of all proposals. When the operations budget was included, the total was forty-three million dollars for the twenty year planning period. The overall cost per orange County resident is estimated to be $15.19 per year over the twenty year planning period. A priority schedule was set by the Advisory Committee. This schedule as well as cost and all other pertinent information, regarding implementation are found in Chapter Seven of the ' Draft Plan. Swimming pools and greenways were concerns expressed at every public information meeting. The swimming pools would be dependent on the schools cooperation. Greenways can be planned for throughout the twenty year period without any development occurring. Gary Stewart stressed that the process was fair and objective which involved professional staff, individuals that are familiar with park planning and also input from citizens of the community. He noted that the Plan presented was for the minimum facilities which will be required of Orange County in the next twenty years. Planning Board member Dan Eddleman asked if all the green lines on the maps indicating. greenways were active or developed greenways. Mr. Stewart responded that there are various types of greenways. Some will be developed such as walkways and bikeways in the areas where the pressure for urban development is high at the present time. The greenways in rural residential areas are to be conserved and reviewed in the subdivision review process but not necessarily to be developed. Commissioner Carey asked. if the greenways were included in the 3,000 acre figure which the Plan estimated would be required by the year 2008. Mr. Stewart responded that the 3,000 acres was just the parkland which would be needed to meet the minimum standards for the parks which would be required. Barry Jacobs, Planning Board Chair, explained that the circles indicating possible park sites on the maps designate general locations and not actual properties targeted for park sites. As one involved in the process, he also noted that North Carolina is 50th in per capita spending for parks and with federal and state funding being cut, the County's obligation for the provision of parks would be greater. He stated that the opportunity to provide volunteer labor in implementing the Master Park Plan would be seriously considered. He indicated that several citizens had stated during the planning process that they would rather offer their time than see taxes increased. He noted that he felt the most unique, natural area in the County, Occoneechee Mountain had not been adequately addressed in the plan. Another area, property already owned by the .County along Seven Mile Creek and identified by consultants as a significantly unusual area, could be designated as park land. He stated that Pegge Abrams, Chaa.r of the Cheeks TAC, had informed him that Cheeks residents were very much interested in recreational facilities that provided picnic areas and tot lots for children and desired to see walkway/greenway areas and swimming pools. Chair Marshall asked Mr. Stewart if the reports that Corporation Lake may silt up completely have been considered. Mr. Stewart responded that that report as well as others were considered in the planning process. Lorraine Parker, Chair of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council, expressed pride that the project was almost completed. She stated that the purpose of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan is to assess the current and future recreation and park needs for Orange County citizens. Well planned recreational activites and facilities have an impact on the quality of life in a community by providing space for the release of stress created by every day demands on people. Also, a well planned system for recreation contributes to the stabilization of a community, a neighborhood and a county. A recreational system facilitates interaction of residents, promotes community awareness and creates a sense of pride among the residents. She continued that the Plan will guide community leaders in the orderly and adequate provision of leisure opportunities. She stated the Plan must be adopted, not just accepted, and used in daily planning. It was designed to become an element in the County's Comprehensive Plan. It was written to be flexible but responsive to the preservation and protection of the recreational needs of Orange County cit~.zens. She reminded the Boards that the recreation needs and demands are greater now than in 1974 when a previous plan was written. She expressed the concern that Orange County must have long-range goals in every area of human services to provide for its citizens. Richard Ward presented the steps in the process of the creation of the Draft Plan beginning with the assembling of 306 the project team to the awarding of the contract to Woolpert and Associates in late March. He referenced the public information meetings and noted that comments and concerns from those meetings were incorporated with the final draft being presented at this public hearing. He expressed thanks„ ,, to the public for their attendance and noted that everyone who had taken a part in any capacity in the process should be recognized. Kathy White, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, stated that she would speak to the importance of the park and recreation master plan, to having an adequate leisure service system and to the state funding of park and recreation areas. She continued that NRCD administers the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF Program) which is a federal grant program providing grants to local units of government for acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities. In North Carolina, each project submitted for LWCF funding is evaluated, rated and ranked by established criteria and a point system. If the Comprehensive Master Plan is adequate it will directly or indirectly increase the points given to every question in the grant rating system. She noted that the most points can be awarded in the planning consideration section of the evaluation. Points are given to a project according to the extent. the applicant has planned parks and recreation. Additional points are given to the applicant when the governing body has formally adapted the plan. She stated that a Comprehensive Master Plan shows the services available for the citizens and is a planning tool to avoid duplication of services. Each project is scored according to its relationship to existing, complimentary and competing recreation opportunities. An adequate master plan will guide the proper selection of programs and activities and the proper placement of the facilities.. The questions used to evaluate each grant proposal are: (1) To what extent is the site suitable for the intended development; (2) xs access to the site adequate; and (3) To what extent is the site enhanced or hindered by its location and by the effects of the adjacent properties. If a sound comprehensive recreation and parks plan is adopted and implemented it is obvious how a proposed project would receive the highest possible scores for these questions. Thus, County parks can be on suitable sites with good access for users, the parks will be good neighbors and adjacent properties will not negatively affect the park. Proper placement of facilities also assures compatible uses, more efficient maintenance and the most potential revenue. Next is the administrative consideration section of the scoring. The same administrative considerations are addressed in the comprehensive plan, such as staffing, support services, adequate financing, etc. Ms. White noted that her objective has been to share the direct correlation between comprehensive planning and the granting of LWCF funds in North Carolina. She challenged the Soard to adopt the Plan, use it as a funding tool to determine where the county will spend its development and acquisition dollars for parks and recreation, make it the management and planning tool and guide that it can be and not a dust collector. It should allow flexibility to initiate new concepts and implement ~~~w programs as needs change. She continued challenging the Board to prepare individual park master plans with considerations given to all the. findings and recommendations in the larger comprehensive plan and the same challenge would be presented for a Greenway/Open Space Master Plan. She concluded asking that the plan be updated and be used to determine the level of leisure services Orange County will be providing. Lindsey Efland, speaking as a property owner whose property will be affected by the Plan, indicated he appreciated the County's efforts to provide .parks for its citizens living outside municipalities but expressed objections to the proposed greenways system. He stated he felt this proposal diverts attention from the acquisition of land for community and district parks. He continued that Orange County is not ready for a mandated network of greenways involving private land and that most citizens would view this as a taking of property rights. Mr. Efland continued expressing concerns that resources are not available to adequately control and administer such a plan. He cited the Efland Sewer Project as an example indicating it is a necessary and worthwhile project but has, in his opinion, been poorly administered. He indicated that he had some slides that showed the destruction of a creek in Efland with the implementation of the sewer project. He noted that had a private developer been responsible for such environmental destruction, he felt the County would have secured a court injunction stopping construction until good practices were restored. He expressed concern that Orange County is not acting as a good steward of the land in this. case. He continued that he felt the language of the Master. Plan is too vague for his support of the greenway plan. Mr. Efland stated that while the County needs to be aware of the continuing development pressures, the government mandated public access across private land is not the answer. He asked that the committee concentrate on the location and development of specific park projects so that the. public can focus positively on that process rather than react negatively to the entire package primarily because of objections to greenways. Mr. Efland, as an Orange County School Board member, stated that he felt a representative of Parks and Recreation should make a presentation to the school board explaining how these proposals will affect property owned by the school system. He indicated that some staff had participated in discussions of the plan but his concern was that there had been no direct address to the school board. At this. point, he presented the slides demonstrating that there is a thirty to fifty foot cleared space at the location where the property owners had signed to the County a twenty foot right-of-way. He stated that the creek is completely dammed up with debris and proper erosion control actions have not been taken. He indicated he felt this damage would not or could not be rectified. This erosion and destruction is 30$ clearly visible from Efland-Cedar Grove Road at the crossing of McGowan Creek, one-half mile from US 70. Chair Marshall. asked that County Manager Kittrell prepare a report of this project; what has happened and why and what will be done to resolve the situation. Commissioner Willhoit asked if Mr. Efland had reported this damage to any County employee or Commissioner. Mr. Efland stated that the project had been on-going since mid-August. Willhoit continued asking how long Mr. Efland had known of the erosion that had occurred. Mr. Efland responded that he had been watching. the project since it began. Willhoit expressed concern that this problem had not been reported prior to such extensive damage. Mr. Efland added that the County Staff seemed to be able to pinpoint the misdeeds of private developers and felt that this was all in the context of greenways and stewardship of the land. Chair Marshall expressed concern that the problem had not been reported so that action could have .been taken earlier. Doug Efland commented that as he was taking the photographs for the slides, two county vehicles had passed on the road. He also noted concern that there was an open culvert approx- imately ten-foot deep that would present danger to any child. Grainger Barrett spoke in support of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan and commended those involved in the preparation of the Plan. He indicated that his view, particularly regarding his family's use of parks and ~. recreational facilities, is that recreation and parks have become a necessity of life rather than a luxury. He noted that he is a resident of Chapel Hill Township and expressed concern that many of the existing parks have become so crowded. The completion of I-40 will allow for easy access to many of the parks being planned. He noted that he felt that good recreational facilities and parks that are accessible to municipal residents will help to share a sense of community and bonding. Regarding funding, he noted that it would only become more costly in the future and now is the time to set aside the space for parks and recreational facilities. He felt the per capita cost is not an unreasonable figure. Again, he expressed. enthusiasm for the Master Plan and encouraged adoption of the plan. Ralph Warren, while commending the amount of work involved in preparing the plan, felt he could not recommend adoption of the plan until a significant amount of work is done on the greenway definition. He indicated that definitions of pre- existing conditions must be used as a base for the wide- spread greenway that was defined. He noted that the greenway program implies general public use of land without public ownership and there was no indication of how the conflicts and concerns might be resolved. He felt with much of the land being considered for greenways being under residential ownership, the only mechanism to enforce that part of the plan would be condemnation and this is a costly and socially unacceptable solution. He expressed concern with preservation of natural habitats which cannot withstand human intrusion yet are included within the greenway system. 309 Chair Marshall stated that the Board felt that condemnation of land was a very serious issue and there is no intent to condemn land for the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. With an adopted plan, there is a way to acquire those lands under the Subdivision Regulations or the Planned Development procedures. Also, payment-in-lieu of recreational space, enables the building of a fund to buy land that may be vital to the Plan a Mr. Warren responded that he felt such options should be "spelled out" in the plan. Ms. Marshall concurred. Linda Heitzer expressed concern and opposition to the greenway plan. A copy of her comments in a letter to the Durham Morning Herald is in the permanent agenda file in the clerk's office. Laura Lloyd stated that her family are property owners in the Joint Planning Area and Bingham Township. She expressed opposition to the proposed .greenway system which would allow the unsupervised public to walk up and down most of the creeks in Orange County. She asked that the portion of the Plan be omitted which called for the taking of private lands for a public greenway system. She expressed concern that she had already had to donate easements on her property with a five-acre lot subdivision in order to have the subdivision approved with a private road. She felt that the County did not have the right to take private land for public use and she did not desire to have people walking along her property which is in a protected watershed. She continued asking if the County would be securing the stream buffer easements from private property owners in the same manner it had with her subdivision. Max Kennedy, member of the Orange County Board of Education, expressed concern with priorities. The two that he was most concerned about were education and water. He was concerned with the figure of $43,000,ooo.p0 to be spent on recreation over a period of twenty years when he felt that education and water are not adequately addressed both in the current and capital point of view. He questioned whether or not parks could be maintained for the figures presented even if park lands were donated. He expressed concern that the schools had been mentioned as one of the agencies involved in the development of the plan. He noted that the orange County School Board had not been involved in the project even though some personnel have contributed information for those involved in the plan development. He emphasized that his Board had neither endorsed nor condemned the Plan at this point nor were they part and parcel of the Plan. Mr. Kennedy continued in reference to the comment that greenways would develop as adjacent property is developed, that it would be required of the individual developers to donate to the County as a provision of the Subdivision Regulations. He expressed concern that the rights of property owners are subordinate to those desiring to walk on their property. X10 Dawson lather indicated he has been working with the Triangle Land Conservancy and Orange County to survey the remaining natural areas in Orange County. His concern was for the wildlife and botanical .greenways. He noted that Orange County -- does have some outstanding natural areas and outstanding. population of wildlife and his hope was that those streams followed by the wildlife and connecting the greenways system would be protected. He noted that Occoneechee Mountain and the Seven Mile~Creek~area are very important for several species of plants which are not found elsewhere in the county. Patrick. Mulkey,~;~ a~,~resident of .Bingham Township, expressed concerns with the district park proposed for Cane Creek reservoir. He felt that there had been sufficient concerns expressed for watershed protection that a district park. should not be considered for the reservoir area. He stated that the community park proposed for the White Cross area would fullfill the recreational needs of Bingham Township. B. 8. Olive, Triangle Land Conservancy Board member, referenced a Recreation and Parks Plan from June, 1974, indicating there were several important differences between the 1974 plan and the current proposed plan. He expressed the desire for both plans to be reviewed and possibly combined in order to present the best possible plan tv the citizens of Orange County. He indicated a desire for the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board to meet with trustees of Duke Forest properties and ask that they allocate some lands for the greenway system. He expressed concern that the School: ~. Boards had not been consulted in the process. He suggested that a delegation from the Wake County Recreation Department.. be asked to address a joint. session of the School Board, ~~ Planning Board and Board of Commissioners and present the plan in which they are involved with the schools. He noted that Durham County is involved in a greenways program and suggested contact be made with a representative from Durham for information from their program. He referenced his association with the Eno River Task Force and noted that at that time, according to the history of the State Parks Commission, land had never been condemned in the state of North Carolina to establish a state park. Forrest Heath, resident of Chapel Hill Township, expressed support for the Master Recreation and Parks Plan provided the County can properly fund, manage, maintain and patrol those facilities. He indicated strong opposition to the greenways system as proposed in the Plan. He felt the County could not properly manage, maintain and patrol the greenways. He expressed concern for the private properties adjacent to those greenways. He was concerned that in a recent subdivision he was required to donate an easement to the Recreation and Parks Department prior to approval of his subdivision. Ms. Marshall asked if this requirement was more than that required in the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Heath responded that the requirement was a part of the Subdivision Regulations which he considered a "taking" of his private property for public use. He read from a Supreme Court decision in Los Angeles County, California, that stated: "Consideration of the compensation question must begin with direct reference to the language of the Fifth Amendment which provides in private property shall not be taken for just compensation." He suggested that review this issue and indicated he felt against the County in the future for the property. 3>> relevant part that public use without the County Attorney there would be suits "taking" of private Ms. Marshall noted that the County Attorney is doing extensive research on those recent Supreme Court decisions regarding planning issues. Don Cox expressed the desire to re-enforce the wildlife habitat needs along the greenways as indicated by Dawson Sather and emphasized the responsibility man has to those creatures within- the wildlife habitats. The active development of greenways and putting sewer lines along streams destroys the wildlife. He expressed support for the idea of greenways and the setting aside of stream buffers throughout the County but in most cases for the preservation of the wildlife habitat, active greenways should not be along stream banks. He addressed the historic values of some of the areas and asked that those values be considered from the standpoint of preserving wildlife habitat and also a greater enhancement and understanding of the history for citizens of these areas. He informed the Boards that the land which is indicated as being in Eno River State Park lying between I-85 and US 70 is in private ownership and has not been parkland for several years. - James Plymire indicated he felt the Plan was a very workable and attainable plan with the exception of the proposed ' I greenways system. He noted that he felt such an extensive - line is not attainable, is not manageable and not supportive maintenance wise. He urged the Boards not to hold up or 'bog down" a workable plan with one such element. Carl Walters, Cedar Grove Township resident, expressed concerns that conservation methods will be destroyed by greenways. The invasion of public access will destroy the wildlife as well as agricultural preservation. Stewart Barbour, representing the Eno River Group, spoke from a prepared statement (A copy of the statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office). Rev. George Allison, pastor of Mt. Bright Baptist Church, asked what barometer was used to determine the location, the size of the parks and the number of parks throughout the County. He also asked what impact the Recreation and Parks Plan will have on agriculture use, residential use and commercial use of the land. The third question he asked was what impact the Plan would have on residential development in the future. Mary Johnson, Cedar Grove resident, expressed concern with the source for the money ($15.00 per capita) to establish and operate the park in Cedar Grove. She noted the pride in ownership of land and the desire to keep it private. She indicated that she felt freedom was being taken from property owners to allow public use of their land. She stated that 312 there was no need for a park in the Cedar Grove area. Dennis Hills, (Cheeks Township resident, Chairman of the Parents Advisory Council of Efland-Cheeks School, Executive Director for the Orange County Soccer Association and coach-,:~ for the Hillsborough Rainbow Soccer Program), expressed the concern that the #1 resource of the County, the children, had ~ been focused on by only one person. His concern was the lack of permanent, multi-use athletic fields and parks for those children to play and participate in team sports. He asked that the Boards consider very seriously the need for basic and fundamental recreational facilities in Orange County. Ben Lloyd, Cheeks Township resident, concurred with the concerns expressed by other citizens regarding greenways and their locations. He noted that he was pleased that there was no intent of condemning property for the parks, particularly since he owns property on both sides of McGowan Creek and both sides of Seven Mile Creek. He indicated it was a well designed plan but there were problems. He expressed concern that, this year, the taxpayers of Orange County would be paying the largest tax increase in the history of the County. He expressed concern that the fund balance was at an all time low. He stated, that with the need for funds from Chapel Hill School System and Orange County Schools, he felt it was unrealistic to anticipate the kind of burden the Recreation and Parks Plan would place on the taxpayers. Ms. Marshall stated that the fund balance did not hit the 3.1~ low that was anticipated but is now 5.25 and perhaps should be back to 8~ by the end of the year. Pat Davis, Acting Executive Director of OWASA, summarized his~~' prepared statement on the Draft Master Recreation and Parks Plan. (Copy of complete statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.) Ron Hyatt spoke as a member of the Master Plan Advisory Group. He referenced the former Recreation Plan and noted that only three parks had been built since that time and that none of them conform to that plan. He indicated he felt total county planning had been involved in the development of the Plan. He expressed to the Orange County School Board members present that there seemed to be a breakdown in communications since one of the Assistant School Superintendents had attended several of the planning sessions. He assured those members that information would be sent to the School Board. He noted that all the meetings were public and everyone-was invited to comment and make recommendations. The intent is to have the best for the citizens of Orange County and provide for the children of our future a place to play that is wholesome and safe where fun can be had. Oscar Compton, Cedar Grove resident, expressed concern with the cost of the parks and questioned the. need for so many, ~ parks in such a rural county. He stated that recreational facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and lighted ball .fields were already in existence in Cedar Grove Township and were not being utilized anywhere near to capacity. He expressed the concern with the amount of money proposed to be 313 spent on recreational facilities when there is a lack of funds for educational purposes in the county. Commissioner Marshall stated that many good and thoughtful comments had been presented at the hearing. There were areas ' that need to be reviewed in more detail and there are areas that need more explanation. With these questions unanswered, it is much too soon to consider adoption of the plan. She continued asking the County Manager to outline a process to receive those answers and proceed to place the plan on an agenda for discussion. She noted also that portions of the plan would be discussed as the CIP is discussed over the next six weeks. Commissioner Willhoit asked if the plan was to be referred to the Planning Board or Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Marshall responded that she felt it more appropriate for the County Manager to develop the process. Commissioner Willhoit commented that he felt the groups involved in the development of the plan should have the opportunity to address those concerns presented. Marshall agreed, but desired the Manager to develop the process by which this would be handled. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE - DELETED 3. LAND USE AMENDMENTS - CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN The staff presentation was made by Planner Gene Bell. When the Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, a five year update schedule was specified by the County Commissioners. Tn accordance with this schedule, work begun on updating the Little River Township Plan in the spring of 1986. As the work on Little River was nearing completion in May 1987, data collection and analysis was started for Cedar Grove Township. The plan update process for. Cedar Grove began officially on July 21 at a TAC meeting where the plan update strategy was presented. This was followed by a public information meeting on August 11 to present background data and distribute a questionnaire, a meeting on October 6 to discuss alternative plans, and a final meeting on October 27 to present the Draft Plan. With one major exception, the Draft Plan is not different from the 1987. Plan. The major change is the designation of additional water supply watersheds in the Township, in particular, the Back Creek and Little River drainage basins. This increases from 28.5 to 88~, the amount of township land area designated water supply watershed. Township activity nodes and the designation of the entire township as Agricultural-Residential are unchanged from 1981. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and its incorporation into Section 3.6 of the Land Use Plan. The Planning Board will consider the TAC recommendation and 314 prepare a recommendation on the amendment at its December 21, ].987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on January 4, 1988. A detailed summary and analysis, included in the agenda -~.. materials, is an attachment to these minutes in the permanent agenda file. Planning Board member Peter Kramer stated that, the Planning Bvard expressed the concern that the population - projections for Cedar Grove were too low considering the impact the Board felt would occur with the completion of I-40. Carl Walters, resident of Cedar Grove Township, stated that he would prefer to see land in his immediate area remain agri- cultural. He noted, however, that he felt the growth pro- jection of 1.25 is too low and his expectations are that the completion of I-40 will bring considerable growth to Cedar Grove. He continued expressing the concern that the pro- tection of water quality is not for the Cedar Grove area but for surrounding areas and that protection should be aimed at the individual's investment in house and lands. He stated that he felt the updating of the Land Use Plan alone was ridiculous and the only real help for the landowner would be the zoning of Cedar Grove Township. He urged the Board of Commissioners to follow the Update of the Land Use Plan with zoning. Oscar Compton, resident of Cedar Grove Township, began by stating that he is very much opposed to zoning. He indicated that there is no land available for sale in Cedar Grove Township and he does not foresee there being any land for sale. He noted that he felt that the population projections ;, by the Planning Staff of 1.25 would more likely be just 1/2~ of 1~ rather than higher as Mr. Walters indicated. Hei continued that the residents of Cedar Grove Township do not -' anticipate any growth during the next twenty year period. He urged the Board of Commissioners not to consider zoning for Cedar Grove Township until such time as the majority of the residents had a desire for zoning. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, that the public hearing be closed and the Update of the Land Use Plan for Cedar Grove Township be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. VOTE: Unanimous. 4. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. PD-2-87 Chandler Concrete The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Chandler Concrete Company has submitted an application for a PDI-I-3 (Planned Development-Industrial-3) zoning classification on 2.0 acres of property located on the south side of old NC Highway 10 east of NC Highway 85. The property is currently zoned PDI-I-3 and R-1 Residential, and is designated Ten-Year Transition and Commerical Industrial Activity Node in the Land Use Plan. The request has been made in order to bring an existing washwater recycling facility and the use of the site for truck parking into compliance with the Orange County Zoning ordinance. 3~5 A history of the request, recommendation and conditions of approval are an attachment to these minutes. Collins noted that there was no designation on the plan to ( indicate whether or not the recycling facility is to be served by electricity and whether the utility would be underground. Thus, a 9th condition has been added that underground utilities must be provided. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked what the effect would be to change the proposal from PDI-I-3 to PDI-I-I. Collins responded that all the uses. permitted in PD-I-3 are also permitted in PD-I-l. The question is one of impact. In this particular use, no structure is involved, it is all open use of land. An I-1 district would entail slightly more restrictive control. Phil- Post, consulting engineer .for the Chandler Concrete Company request, reviewed for the Boards the project describing the recycling facility, parking facility and the reforestation to complete the project. He noted that the applicant agreed with the conditions imposed but stated that the only utility used would be for the single phase pump and that has been placed underground. He reviewed the reasons for the project which was to bring it into compliance with the Department of Environmental Management. John Capewell listed his qualifications as a real estate appraiser. He indicated that it is his professional opinion that the rezoning request will not have an adverse effect on ~;,;~ surrounding properties. (A copy of Mr. Capewell's report is an attachment to these minutes). Tom Chandler, applicant, presented his request to the Boards. (A copy of his statement and permit from DEM are included as attachments in the permanent agenda file.) Robert E. Rhine, adjoing property owner, stated that he and his two sisters (also adjoining property owners) were the major opposition for the original rezoning request of Chandler Concrete. He stated that they no longer oppose the request and are confident that, upon approval, Mr. Chandler will reforest the area as promised. Planning Board member Pilkey asked if it is Mr. Rhine's understanding that the land will not be reforested unless the rezoning is approved. Mr. Rhine indicated that he felt if the rezoning is not approved, the land will not be. used nor reforested. Pilkey asked if Mr. Rhine agreed with the appraiser's statement. He responded that he really was not qualified to agree or disagree with that opinion, he had faith that Mr. Chandler would replant trees as proposed. Moreland Claytor, property owner on US Highway 70A across from the old Hines Liner Company, indicated that lack of water from the creek on her property for her cattle was her concern. She indicated that there was a significant amount of concrete in the stream which prevented the flow of water to her property. Commissioner Halkiotis asked where the concrete was coming 316 from. Ms. Claytor responded that concrete had been poured down a bank and covered the stream. Mr. Chandler stated that a firm had been contracted to begin the replanting of trees as soon as the rezoning is approved.- •, In response to Ms. Claytor, he indicated that the concrete she referred to is on private property across from the old... ;j livestock market owned by a marina. He continued that the -' owner had allowed the washing on that property approximately two years ago. He stated that no further washing of trucks would be conducted anywhere other than the property owned by chandler Concrete. He also noted that the reclamation ponds have been cleaned out and the .concrete removed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, that the public hearing be closed and the Chandler Concrete rezoning request be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. VOTE: Unanimous. b. PD-4w87 McLennan's Farm The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Comments received from OWASA and the Town of Carrboro were received too late for the Planning Staff to adequately review and consult with the applicant and agencies about necessary changes tv the plans. For this reason, the Planning Staff recommends that citizen comment be received on the application, and that the public hearing be continued to- ~. January 4, 1988. Recommendation will be presented at that time. The public comments received will be included in the minutes for January ~, 1988. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to continue the public hearing on McLennan's Farm to January 4, 1988 for the receipt of a staff and Planning Board recommendation. Vote: Unanimous. 5. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Home occupation Provisions - Revision of Article 6..16_.6 The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Collins noted that the requirements for home occupations vary according to the zoning district in which they are located and also the lot size. Recent complaints concerning the operation of home occupations resulted in ordinance Review Committee recommendations for strengthening the ordinance provisions. The recommendations included the following: 1. In all residential zoning districts except RB, AR and R-l, add a provision limiting traffic generation by a home occupation and requiring off-street parking other than in a required yard area. 3~7 2. In RB, AR and R~l zoning districts where the minimum lot size is 200,000 sq. ft. or less, add the following: a. Limitations on the size of a detached accessory `-"~ structure .in which a home occupation is conducted to ;' 1,000 sq. ft. b. A requirement that the accessory structure as well .as off-street parking be screened by means of an evergreen hedge or a combination of a stockade fence and deciduous plant materials. c. Limitations on the effects of odor and electrical interference on adjoining properties. d. A requirement that outside storage of materials must be screened and the storage area limited to 500 sq. ft. e. Limitations on traffic and off-street parking as described in #l above. 3. In RH, AR and R-1 zoning districts where the minimum lot size is over 200,000 sq. ft., add the following: a. A requirement concerning screening as described in #2-b above. b. Limitations on the effects of odor or electrical interference on adjoining properties. One of the major additions was an effort to be more specific in the requirements for application materials. In addition to the present application, there must be a full description of the nature and extent of the home occupation. A provision is also being added that allows the Planning Staff to add conditions to the approval after the review of the application materials much like conditions which can be recommended by the Planning Board and approved by the Commissioners. Those conditions must address specific deficiencies in the application or address some specific impact which may result from the operation of the home occupation such as hours of operation, number of vehicles which can be parked on the premises, etc. Another provision is that once the permit is in a form for approval, the applicant must also sign the permit. This serves as real evidence that the applicant has reviewed and agrees with. the conditions of approval. A sketch has also been provided which indicates guidelines in the preparation of a site plan. Henry Morris stated that he felt an auto repair shop should not be considered a home occupation and also that a home occupation should not be permitted in a development which is served by a private road. 31~ Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey, that the public hearing be closed and the amendment for Home occupation Provisions be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Soard of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. -' VOTE: Unanimous. b. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions (The descriptive narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) (1) New Article 13 - Traffic Impacts (.2) New_Article~5.17 - Traffic Impacts (3) Renumbering - Article•8.8 a) (4) New Article 8.8 e) ~- Traffic Impacts ~(~) Renumbering - Article 20.3.2 f) (6) New Article 20.3.2 f) - Traffic Impacts (7) Addition to Article 22 - Definitions 6. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS - MARVIN COLLINS a. Traffic Impact Analysis Provisions (The descriptive narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) (1) Renumber Section IV-B-3-d (2) Renumber Section IV-B--3-e (3) New Section IV-B-3-e - Traffic Impacts (4) Addition to Section II ~- Definitions Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to dispense with the presentations for Items 5(~'': ~(a) and refer to the Planning Board for recommendation to the. Board of Commissioners on January 4, 1988. . VOTE: Unanimous. with no other items to be considered, Chair Marshall adjourned the public hearing at 12:1(1 a.m. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary