Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19880222¢.~ MINUTES ' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 19$$ The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint session on February 22, 19$8 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT; Cha~.r Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., John Hartwell and Stephen Halkiotis. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT; Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT; Chairman Barry Jacobs and members Chris Best, Carol Bilbro, Viriginia Boland, Carol Cantrell, Abbie Dickinson, Dan Eddleman, Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey and Steve Yuhasz. Prince Taylor arrived at 7:50 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABSENT; Brenda Swann. ATTORNEY PRE SENT Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT; County Manager John M. Link, Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Planner Gene Bell, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board, Beverly A. Blythe, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw, Planners Emily Crudup and Don Powell. A. BOARD COMMENTS None. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda. None. 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda. None. C. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Shirley E. Marshall read the public charge. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Master Recreation & Parks Plan ~~ -...~ Chair Marshall reviewed the public hearing and recommendation process for the public. She noted that a great deal of research and thought goes into items before they are advertised and brought to public hearing. Citizens concerns and comments are heard and questions answered. The items are then referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. At the meeting for deliberation and decision, the Board may or may not allow further input. In the case of the Recreation and Parks Plan, one public hearing has already been held followed up by County-wide informational meetings to address concerns presented at the public hearing. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee has tried to respond and answer questions and this is the second public hearing on the plan. Since this is the second public hearing on the Master Recreation and Parks Plan, it is very unlikely that the Board will allow additional comments at its meeting for deliberation and decision. Presentation was made by Mary Anne Black, Director of Recreation and Parks. The proposed Master Recreation & Parks Plan was presented at public hearing on November 23 and, as a result of citizen and advisory board concerns, revisions to the original document are being proposed. The Master Recreation & Parks Plan is designed to become one element of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with other county land use plans and ordinances. The Plan recommends that Drange County concentrate its efforts in the provision of four types of recreation and park facilities: (1) community parks (serving the more densely populated unincorporated areas of the county); (2) district parks; (3) greenways (linking parks, rural residential areas, and urban activity centers); and (4) swimming pools. Revisions to the Plan and text were discussed at Planning Board and Recreation & Parks Advisory Council meetings following the initial public hearing, and an January 25, 1988 the Planning Board recommended that the Plan be submitted again to public hearing. On February 1, 1988, the Board of Commissioners concurred with the recommendation and set February 22, 1988 as the public hearing date. Four public informational meetings were held during the week of February 8, 1988 in the county's four leisure service districts. The purpose of the meetings was to acquaint the public with the proposed "recreational trails" system. Proposed revisions affect only the greenways element of the Plan, delineating only those areas proposed for active recreational trails. Proposed "natural conservation areas" have been deleted from the Plan and will be addressed as part of the Natural Areas Inventory and/or Open Space Plan. The attachments outline revisions proposed to the text, and exhibits 6-2 through 6-8 of the Plan document highlight the proposed recreational trails system. The Recreation & Parks Director and Planning Director recommend approval of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan including: 1. Community parks 2. District parks 3. Swimming pools 4. Recreational trails The following text is recommended to be to be substituted for all text appearing in the draft Master Recreation and Parks Plan, Chapter 6, County-Wide Proposals and Recommendations, Greenways section (pages 6-7 through fi-9). -Greenways A final county-wide recommendation is for the county to develop a greenway system, composed of recreational trails. The system is to be based upon guidelines provided to the county by the Triangle Land Conservancy and greenways plans included in the Jvint Planning Area Land Use Plan adapted October 1986. It is also proposed that the county coordinate its greenway plans with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro on a local level, and the Triangle J Planning Area on a regional level, to assure proper connections with other systems in the area. Orange County is also within the path of the "Mountain to the Sea" trail being developed through the State of North Carolina. It would be beneficial to connect with this trail system where possible to become a member of a unique and historic recreational activity. The final recommendation on the development of a greenway system is that it be planned compatibly with other systems as recommended by the President's Commission an American Outdoors (PCAO) which emphasizes the creation of a "National Greenway Network." Areas designated on the individual township maps show the areas recommended for recreational trails (graphically depicted by an asterisk pattern) which are accessible to the public and managed by the County, and are developed with _.....,j walkways or trails. -Recreational Trails Recreational trails in more urbanized areas or accessible to relatively large numbers of people, ar which connect two ar more identified significant areas should take the form of corridors of land with a paved or prepared walkway (these trails can provide walking connections and opportunities for bicyclists and joggers) or with well--marked and maintained unpaved trails. These corridors should be a mina.mum of sixty feet (60') wide or the width of the 100 year floodplain whichever is more, providing the user with the impression of being away from urban development.. The recreation trails will require operational management such as litter and security patrol with appropriate vehicular restrictions enforced. For recreational trails for which county ownership may not be necessary or appropriate, conservation easements and mutual covenants between the landowner and the county or another land management group like the Triangle Land Conservancy, may be useful. The above-described system would be developed using the methods for acquisition and development described in the Plan's section entitled the same, beginning an page 7-6, and should provide a special public-private partnership to ensure that the uniqueness of Orange County is preserved for future generations. Barry Jacobs, Planning Board Chair, noted that the Planning Board had been involved in the development of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. He indicated concern with the misimpression from previous meetings that the rural part of Orange County has no representation in the deliberations regarding this Plan. He stated that the majority of the Planning Board members are residents of rural Orange County and are sensitive to the concerns expressed by rural citizens. He noted that he felt the Board of Commissioners are responsive to the concerns presented to them by the Planning Board. He continued that it was the PlanninBoard to Soard's concern in that regard that led the Planning ask far another public hearing to allow citizens another opportunity to speak on matters .regarding the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. He felt there had been some inadequate explanations at times but also felt that a plan acceptable to the Hoards and citizens could be achieved. Betty Compton presented a statement for Dwight Compton, member of the Recreation & Parks Advisory Council and Cedar Grove farmer. The first question ~.s how or why private land can be taken for public use; secondly, Mrs. Compton referenced a meeting in the Cedar Grove area of the parks representatives and noted that no one at that meeting voted in favor of greenways. She continued explaining the concern regarding greenways in rural areas. She noted that wildlife is deprived of the undisturbed safe access to the water's edge, farmlands are affected because the access for irrigation and continued conservation is taken away by having the water's edge no longer accessible for the farmer. She also stated that the landowner who desires to hunt or allow hunting an his property can no longer do so due to safety hazards. She asked who would monitor the greenways providing maintenance, mowing and general clean up. She continued posing questions about which Mr. Compton is concerned such as haw the landowner would be protected when he provides greenway access to his property and, what incentives such as tax breaks are available to the landowners for the donation of lands. She suggested that the Gaunty purchase the land it needs for parks and greenways and leave the farmlands alone. While realizing that the rural areas will be affected by growth, let it come naturally and require greenways only as the residential development occurs. The conclusion~of Mr. Compton's concerns was that the natural habitat be preserved and greenways are not wanted or needed in the Cedar Grove area. The final comment regarding a meeting on the water critical issue was that it had been made very clear that the farmers did not own the water that was behind the dams on their farms, his comment is that no one else owns it either; the land is privately awned, how can it be taken for public use. James R. Smith, a resident of Bingham Township, presented a statement from the citizens of rural Orange County and submitted printed concerns to be entered into the public hearing record (an attachment as part of these minutes). Mary Johnson indicated her concerns had been addressed and she would not speak at this time. Lynwood Hobgood stated he felt he could see disbelief and concern on the faces of those citizens present whose private property ownerships appear to be at the point of being invaded. He continued expressing concern with the present form of government and the possibility of what it may do. He expressed concern with the reasoning behind the formulation of the plan indicating that he felt those involved simply needed "something to do." He also expressed concern with the projected cost of the twenty-year plan and the fear of under- estimation. He felt the only possible way the County could ._ __,7 afford such a plan would be through tax increases. He also expressed the concern that property would be devalued by the easements along the waterways. He indicated that perhaps a district vote would be one way tv solve such issues. Chair Marshall spoke to the issue of district representation and having a Commissioner from each township. She stated that the Federal Government demands one man, one vote. The concentration of people is in the lower urban area, thus there is no way within the Federal Law to have a Commissioner from each township. She noted that it had generally been the feeling of the Board that the people in Northern Orange County have a better chance of promoting someone. and getting them on than if there were district division since most of the districts were in the urban areas. Because of the situation of the voters and the demographic distribution, the Board is very careful tv see that each township is represented on all boards and commissions. She noted that less than 5~ of those people volunteering to be on boards or commissions are from the rural areas or from other townships other than Chapel Hill or Hillsborough, It is extremely important to get the demographic distribution that cannot be allowed even if the district system was observed. Dennis Hils, a resident of Cheeks Township, stated that he worked as a volunteer with kids programs for fifteen--twenty hours per week and in response tv Mr. Hobgood, it was not because "he needed something to do". He encouraged others to volunteer their services to the Recreation Department and indicated that he felt a commitment from Orange County for community recreational services and facilities is as important as or even more important than capital or physical plant infrastructure. He encouraged adoption of the Plan as an opportunity to preserve much of the beauty of Orange County. B.W. Pittman expressed the thought that the plan was "ridiculous" and there were far greater needs in Orange County than recreational needs. He stated that less than 10~ of the total population of Orange County would benefit from or use the facilities. He expressed concern with the destruction of private properties and the loss of farmlonout along the waterways. He asked that the Commissioners g and view the actual areas being referenced in the Plan. Mr. Pittman also used the word "communism" in reference to the Plan. Ted Latta, resident of Eno Township, indicated he was in favor of a parks plan for Orange County but that a plan such as proposed was an unaffordable luxury for the county. Mr. Latta expressed concern that if the original proposed ~~ greenways had been acquired as ].00-foot easements, Orange County government would become the largest landowner in the county with land in excess of 5,000 acres. He noted the fear that Orange County government would also become the. landowner of all the water in Orange County. He continued, that with regulations such as those in force now, the land will be taken by a type of forced condemnation with no compensation. He expressed the concern that the county would be owner of small pieces of land all over the county with no means of maintenance and. patrolling and no means of "tying into" any kind of system. He stated he felt the best thing to do at this point would be to "scrap" the plan and "write-off" the funds already expended. Commissioner Hartwell stated that he is constantly hearing that the County is going to "condemn and take" land and asked the Recreation & Parks Director, Mary Anne Hlack, if that statement has been made or written anywhere in the Plan. Ms. Black responded that it has not been mentioned and is not in the plan. Commissioner xartwell expressed concern that so many citizens seem to believe that condemnation of land will take place in order to have land far greenways. He continued by asking Mr. Latta where the information came from regarding condemnation. Mr. Latta responded that the Subdivision Regulations require a dedication of land for recreation and he felt that was a "taking of private land without compensation". Ms. Black responded that the Subdivision Regulations, in a major subdivision, does require the dedication of land far recreation/open space or payment- in-lieu. Commissioner Hartwell continued that he would like far everyone to understand the means by which the County intends to acquire land for greenways. Ms. Black listed methods of acquiring land for greenways and parks as captained in the Plan as donations by private landowners for parks, through continued private ownership and allowing easements across that property far a trail, through designation of private property for conservation easements which would also allow for recreational activities or the out-and-out acquisition by the County of that property. A citizen asked about the power of eminent domain. Chair Marshall stated that it is and has always been Board policy that condemnation would only take place in the most dire conditions for public safety. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, stated that the Plan being presented does not contemplate that land would be taken through the exercise of eminent domain. He continued that the only time that the County would obtain property that haS ~~ ....,,'y not been offered to it for sale or gift by the property owner would be in the instance of a major subdivision and if part of the plan (greenways, accessways), is within the subdivision. There is a requirement within the Subdivision Regulations for a donation of 1/35th of an acre for each lot in the subdivision. A thirty-five acre subdivision would thus require that one acre be donated. That is not any different at all than the requirement that has been in place for years regarding access to the lots in the subdivision by dedication of a public road or in some instances a private road. The underlying basis for requiring the dedication is to provide recreation space. There are differing opinions about the need for public recreation. However, there is no question but that it is within a local government's authority to require recreation because the courts have, for a long time, regarded acquisition of property for public recreation and for private recreation in the case of developments, as being for a public purpose. Gledhill stated that if nothing is ever to be done with the property in the way of subdivision, there .is nothing "threatening" in the Plan. There is nothing that is being presented in these documents for consideration by the County Commissioners which contemplates acquiring property without it being offered and without the County either receiving as a gift or paying for it. Mrs. Mary Johnson, speaking from the audience, noted that the property set aside in a subdivision for recreational purposes is to be used for private recreation for that particular subdivision. The County Attorney responded that in most cases, the requirement for recreation space within the subdivision will be for the people in the subdivision. The only time that the recreation area will also be made available to the general public will be if the recreation area happens to correspond with the proposed greenway system. Tf you are planning to develop your property and divide it into lots, you will be required to provide recreation. If the recreation area happens to align with the park system, the public may have access to that area. Mrs. Johnson stated that she agreed with the setting aside of land in a subdivision for use as a recreational area for those within the subdivision. She continued, however, that allowing people to have access across private property would be unconstitutional because it takes away the right of property owners to decide who has access to their property. Chair Marshall responded that until the land is subdivided, the greenway would be a line on a map. Chair Marshall continued that this is a plan for the future as urban development occurs. Mrs. Johnson continued that someone had spoken at a„previous meeting and stated that land had already been taken from them. She asked for a clarification. Chair Marshall responded that was in relation to development in the portion of Bingham Township that is within the Joint Planning Area where an adopted greenways plan is already in place. Attorney Gledhill stated that the government can require you to publicly dedicate a certain amount of Yousafetd andat it regards as necessary for the public health, Y welfare), before it allows you to make lots available for sale. The purpose of this is to provide you with whatever things it deems necessary in order for that subdivision to be a place where people can safely and happily live. That is the underlying philosophy behind what are known as exactions in development work. He stated that he felt no one would argue with the County requiring a public road for access but when that requirement is made, it has became a part of the public. The same principle applies in recreation andblicis not unconstitutional for the government to require p access to some reasonable amount of your land if Y°ulots going to be developing it for the purpose of making available for sale ar for any other reason. The amount that the government can take from you in the development process or require you to dedicate for public use in the development process must be a reasonable amount and must be related to the impact that your subdivision has on the overall county. That is why only major subdivisions are required to make dedications far park purposes. Commissioner Carey asked that Attorney Gledhill explain what constitutes a major subdivision. Gledhill responded that a major subdivision in Orange County is a development of five lots or more from a tract of land. Gledhill emphasized again that there is nothing in the proposed plan that contemplates that Orange County will use eminent domain power to acquire property. Chair Marshall emphasized again that no greenways will be developed on property unless it is given to the County ar bought by the County or where a major subdivision is proposed. Existing farms or existing open space in single ownership are not involved. Tom Wagner, Little River Township, noted that the map indicated a park in his area or on his property and asked about the acquisition of land for parks. Gledhill respoross that the area on which parks are shown on the map is a g area. The aetuaGledhilltcontinuedtthatoittwouldrnotnbecome not been mad I I i I recreation land under this plan until the owner wants to donate or sell it to Orange County. Mr. Wagner continued voicing his concern that in the future perhaps the Board would change its mind ar another Board would view the option of eminent domain in a different light and consider condemnatian. Chair Marshall stated that condemnation is not easy. The Soard cannot simply make a decision for a park and condemn the land nor can the Board set the price. She continued that the County could make an offer on an appraisal. The property owner has an appraisal and there is a third appraiser who checks for differences in the appraisals. All those appraisals ga into court and that is where the question of condemnation is settled. Carol Riggs, Little River resident, expressed concern that deeding land to her children would constitute a major subdivision and a donation of land for recreation would be required. Ms. Riggs indicated that she felt that the giving of land to her children should not require "giving 1/35th" of each lot to the County. Commissioner Hartwell clarified that it is not 1/3Sth of land but 1/3Sth of an acre for each lot that is created. He asked ~~ Ms. Riggs if she would oppose giving up land for roads or just for recreation. Ms. Riggs responded that she was in opposition to the donation of land for recreation only. Commissioner Hartwell noted that he felt that was an important statement to make and hoped that others would be as clear about their feelings about recreation. Ms. Riggs continued that with beaches and mountains only three hours away and a State Park only one hour away in Raleigh, she saw no need far the arguments or discussions. A man from the audience asked, if the intent is not to use the power of eminent domain, why was this not included in the Plan for easier understanding. Commissioner Hartwell stated that since he so thoroughly abhorred the idea of condemnation or government's taking of anybody's private property for any purpose that it would not come to his mind to put it into the plan one way or the other. Patrick Mulkey, a resident of Bingham Township who holds a degree in Parks & Recreation Administration, indicated his concern was with the 75-acre proposed district park at Cane Creek Reservoir. He noted he had conversations with Pat Davis of OWASA and Mr. Davis indicated that the most likely site would be in the northwest portion of the lake. Mr. Mulkey continued that he and Ms. Black were in agreement that one of the criteria of a park of this magnitude is that it .. ,,y 4~ ; must have easy access to major traffic arteries in the County. The site described by Mr. Davis has access onto Bradshaw Quarry Road which connects Mebane Oaks Road and Orange Grove Road and is twelve to sixteen miles from the Carrboro/Chapel Hill area. Mr. Mulkey expressed concern that such a location would be more easily accessible and more utilized by non-residents of Orange County. Mr. Mulkey referenced a survey for the Bingham Land Use Plan Update which asked the three biggest problems in Bingham Township. He noted that only 2~ listed too little open or recreational space. To the question of the biggest problems ten years from now only 7~ listed too little open or recreational space. He noted that discussions with other Bingham residents and family members indicated there was no need for a district park in that area. Mr. Mulkey concluded that he did not consider recreation as one of the more essential services that a county should provide and it should not be placed ahead of or alongside of law enforcement, schools or certain social services. When it comes to the question of funding for the Master Parks & Recreation Plan, the voters of Orange County should make that decision. Chair Marshall responded that indeed the voters would make the decision because bonds would be necessary to do a large park and the voters of Orange County would have to vote on -- bond issues. Dolly Hunter, former teacher of physical education in the public school system for eighteen years, indicated support for public recreation in the form of parks and urged that the issue of greenways be separated from that of parks and pools. She noted that at the present rate of growth it is projected that the population will double within the next seventeen years and there will be a great demand for recreational space. She noted that her experience and research had indicated an insufficient number of soccer fields for Orange County players and encouraged that funding for the Master Recreation & Parks Plan be directed toward contained parks rather than greenways. Ms. Walker expressed concern with the health and safety issues along greenways. She also noted fear of liability if injuries occurred on those greenways. She noted also that it creates an additional financial burden for developers which inflates the cost of lots to individual home buyers. She urged that the Board listen to the citizens' opposition to the greenways and delete them from the Plan. Sam Hobgood, Cedar Grove resident, noted that he was a new homeowner in that area and had already encountered problems with subdivision buffer requirements indicating he was required to put in plants which would have to be removed if the proposed greenway was approved. He noted that while the taxpayers of Orange County recognize the need for public facilities and the upgrading of those facilities, they do not feel that the needs and wants of rural Orange County have been fairly represented by the Planning Department nor the Recreation Department. He expressed concern with the cost of the preparation of the Plan and noted that at the informational meeting held in Cedar Grove that all those in attendance unanimously agreed that all proposals within the Plan should be dropped. He continued expressing the concerns of the rural community of Cedar Grove such as funding, individual landowner liability, property damage and the feeling that the rural property owners are being treated unfairly by the Board. He concluded asking that the rights of property owners in rural Orange County be protected. Chair Marshall asked that the Recreation Director consider seeking a wider representation on the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board perhaps similar to that of the Township Advisory Councils. Barbara Burger expressed concern that the public seek help from the Commissioners in the stewardship of land in Orange County. She indicated she felt that now is the time to implement the Master Recreation and Parks Plan in order to safeguard the rural landscape. She urged the Board to accept and approve the Plan. Tim Blake, resident of Bingham Township, asked how the total acreage for parks and greenways compares with the State average of park allocation per citizen. He indicated he felt there was no need far a district park and greenways in Bingham Township and listed those parks (Carrboro Cvmmuna.ty Park, Jordan Lake, Rerr Lake, Falls Impoundment) already in place. He felt the majority of the users would not be Orange County tax payers. He indicated that he felt there would be very little donation of land and no help from civic organizations in maintaining the greenways. He expressed concern with property damage and the idea of a state-wide greenway linking the mountains to the ocean. He asked that careful consideration be given to this aspect and that all landowners be treated fairly in the deliberations. Gene Williams, resident of Bingham Township, White Cross Community, stated that all of the residents of the White Cress Community are totally opposed to the greenways system being proposed. He asked why the citizens of Orange County had not been sufficiently informed of the proposed greenways system. Chair Marshall responded that it is very difficult, no matter how much it is advertised in local newspapers and 47 ~! local radio stations, unless citizens are alert and willing to listen and read and inform other citizens who do not access the local stations and newspapers. Mr. Williams noted that those citizens are in attendance now and asked if the Board is listening to them and their concerns. He asked also if the people involved in developing the greenways system were lifelong residents of Orange County, owners of single lots or large landowners of the County. Ms. Marshall responded that, some of all those groups were involved. Mr. Williams expressed doubt that this was true. Mr. Williams expressed concern that land will not be donated or sold to the County for the greenways system. He indicated that he felt establishment of the greenways was a contrived way of taking land from the taxpaying landowners for the primary purpose of providing access to privately owned lands in rural Orange County for the use of the non-taxpaying student population of UNC at Chapel Hill and the Chapel Hi11 area. Ms. Marshall responded "absolutely not". Mr. Williams continued expressing non-belief and stated that he felt the monies required for the Plan could be put to better use for the citizens of Orange County within the school system. Ms. Marshall responded that the choice is not between the schools and out-of-state students at uNC. She stated that the schools must be funded but if the County is to develop and get the kind of economic industrial development that many ___, want to help the tax base, the amenities that really fine industrial people look for are schools and recreational opportunities. This is a requirement far the high class tax base that many in Orange County would like to have. Mr. Williams responded that the residents of rural Orange County have means of recreation and noted again that he felt the greenways were solely for the students of the Chapel Hill area. Mr. Williams stated that he had been informed, as a recent member of the Board of Directors of White Cross Recreation Association, that the statement had been made that the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department was going to take-over the White Crass Recreation Association .when it went broke and asked Ms. Black if that was a true statement. Ms. Black responded that it was not. He noted that there had been mention of a joint effort of development between the White Cross Recreation Association and the County Recreation Department and he expressed opposition to such an endeavor. He noted that the community center was built through volunteer efforts with no assistance required from the County and that the white Cross Community residents are totally opposed to the greenways as an unnecessary and ridiculous idea. Bill Ray referenced the fifty-foot stream buffer noting that the greenway requirement would be an additional sixty feet. He cited a California case and stated that the greenways ~~ requirement would be a taking of land without due process and compensation. He expressed concern with the loss of privacy and noted that he knew of no landowners in favor of the greenway portion of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan and asked that the Board not adopt that portion of the Plan. Lloyd Wentler, Bingham Township, indicated that he felt it is not sufficient for this Board to say that it will not use the power of eminent domain to acquire land for greenways and asked that it be put into writing within the Plan that the power of eminent domain will not be used. He indicated that he felt the discontent and hostility that would be created by the. money being spent for the greenways would far outweigh the intent or good that would be created. Chair Marshall suggested and indicated that the Planning Hoard Chair was in agreement that a set of policy statements could be written and made as a preamble to the Plan and adopted as a part of the Plan to address those concerns regarding eminent domain. Pearson Stewart, Chapel Hill resident, expressed support for the principles of the district parks, community, parks and pools. He indicated he had attended the Hillsborough informational meeting and received the impression from the presentation that the greenways portion of the Plan was indeed a long-range plan (ten, twenty, thirty years), and he expressed support for that time frame noting that at this time Orange County does not need the greenways. He continued that with the growth he anticipates for the County, the need fvr the greenways will be great. He noted that the County must be prepared to accept complete responsibility for the maintenance of the parks as well as the greenways system. He addressed the concerns of privacy and security noting that he felt very strongly that a greenway system, which is well- maintained, works to prevent such problems from occurring. He felt that the greenways would be more used by adjacent property owners than those students from Chapel Hill. He indicated he lives adjacent to two greenways which are in constant use and in a twenty-eight year period, he had only experienced one instance of improper use of the greenway. David Baird, Jr., Cheeks Township resident, asked of Commissioner Hartwell if he was willing to donate land for greenways and Commissioner Hartwell seemed to be in agreement. Mr. Baird indicated he felt all questions had been raised and that he was opposed to the greenways proposals. He suggested that land be purchased from Duke University for the creation of one large park and that all other aspects of the Plan be dropped. Vern Miller, Little River Township, expressed concern that the citizens have not been heard; he felt if this had been the case, the subject of greenways would have been deleted from the proposal after the November, 1987 public hearing since greenways was the point of opposition at that time. Mr. Miller continued that.he felt that the-Plan should be tabled until such time as the budget could be brought under control where taxes would not have tv be continually raised to take care of present expenditures. Josephine Barbour, Eno Township resident, expressed concern that the Eno River State Park which consists of 1200 acres in Orange County and 800 acres in Durham County, had not been listed by any of those speaking about local or area parks. She expressed concern that her family property. has been under the threat of condemnation far the past .fifteen years and have been through three court battles in order to preserve that family land. She stated that the land can be c$h~emned from a health standpoint or the welfare of others. indicated that the public meetings she had attended did not. address funding and when the question regarding funding was asked, she was told that it was not being discussed. She stated that trails along the river were discussed as long ago as fifteen years and the width of those trails was thought to be fifteen to twenty feet wide. Those trails actually have to be fifty feet wide in order far rescue vehicles to be able to access them if necessary. Later on, this same linear park was to become a part of the mountain to the sea trail. Ms. Barbour expressed concern that to build the trails outside of the floodplains would include removing trees in order to provide fifty foot trails and this would not be preserving but destroying land and the habitat for wildlife. She expressed concern with security noting that in the past that police officers had told citizens to "know their neighbors" but how could one know their neighbors when the land is open to the public. She concluded with the concern of how to keep people on the greenways and away from private property. Stewart Barbour expressed concern that condemnation would take place in order to acquire land for greenways and gave the following statement from the Eno River Group to the Hoard of Commissioners: "Few doubt Eno River should be saved, Few think Eno can be saved, A few think a state park will save Eno River, A few think a greenway will save Eno River, A few think a mountain to sea trail will save Eno River, Many think a park, greenway, mountain to sea trail will indeed save Eno from a much needed reservoir at Cabes ~!9 ,~ Ford to the detriment of many thirsty citizens of the Hillsborough Triangle to the benefit of a few." "We're growing wall-to-wall with thirsty citizens here, we need jobs for our children, for the jobs we need industry, for the industry we need water, there is an excellent reservoir site just west of town and one even larger at Cabes Ford." Carl Lloyd, Bingham Township resident, noted that he had subdivided and created nine 5-acre lots and had to donate 1/35th of an acre for recreation and he thought it was for recreational purposes of those homeowners in his subdivision. He continued that this 9/35th of an acre had become about two acres out of fifty on the creek with about a 70 to 90 foot easement to Orange County. He felt this was about ten times the requirement as listed in the Subdivision Regulations. He indicated that this was a "taking". George Chockley, Cedar Grove Township resident, noted that he was very much against the greenways proposal. He indicated that he had attended the public meetings on greenways and was told by the Recreation and Parks Director, Mary Anne Black, that the citizens wishes would be conveyed to the Commissioners. He stated that a newspaper had quoted Ms. Slack as saying "that everyone liked the new revised report". He indicated this was not the public feeling at the meeting he attended; nobody liked it. Chair Marshall responded that the Commissioners had received reports from each of the public meetings. Mr. Chockley indicated he felt the feelings of the people had been misrepresented and that they were definitely not in favor of the greenways. Tom Wilson, Cedar Grave Township resident, expressed concern that with the elaborate plan and the length of the greenways, there would be no way to acquire all the land needed to connect the various parts without condemning land. He felt a great deal of money had been spent unnecessarily since he felt there was no conceivable way to connect the greenways. Tom Wagner stated that his family were owners of a large certified tree farm in grange County with no intent to subdivide. He expressed concern with the future security of greenways and parks and the implementation of a Plan which would create many problems in the future which could never be solved. Sue Hobgood, property owner in Cedar Grove Township, expressed concern that the proposed greenways would divide her property. Ms. Hobgood felt that giving property to family members did not constitute a subdivision. Chair ~~ Marshall noted that no distinction was made between the subdivision of land for family members and subdivision for sale to the general public. Ms. Habgood continued with concerns regarding a recent subdivision of her family property and felt that unfair demands were made in the buffer requirements. She felt if this could be required on property that had been in her family since 1913, then land could be taken for greenways without the consent of the landowner. Nick Gregoris, Bingham Township resident, expressed concern that those willing to donate time or land and have taxes increased were not those already paying large amounts of property taxes. He also expressed concern with the cost of the study prepared for the Master Parks & Recreation Plan. He cantinued that he felt it would be more appropriate to charge a user fee and let those desiring to use parks and recreation areas pay their way. He also expressed concern that per capita and per taxpayer are not the same thing and that taxpayers are providing services for non-taxpayers. Mr. Gregoris expressed concern with easements already on his property for utilities and indicated he did nat buy. the property he owns to provide recreation for the general public. Thomas Smith, Bingham Township resident, expressed concern that security would be provided for the greenways. He noted previous problems with service from Orange County Sheriff's Department and expressed the fear that vandalism would occur that would not be repaired. He concluded asking if the Commissioners would fight for those citizens against the greenways as much as they were fighting far the greenways. Chair Marshall responded that the process is to refer this issue back to the Planning Board and the Planning Board will prepare a recommendation. The Commissioners will review the Planning Board recommendations and those comments received at the public hearings. Ms. Marshall noted that no one is "fighting"; a public ,hearing is simply being held on a proposed plan. Edna Smith expressed a complaint with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Chair .Marshall asked that the County Manager, John Link, follawup this complaint. Olivia Perelli, Cedar Grove Township, asked how the greenways would be built, but yet preserve the natural habitat and protect against litter and abuse. She felt these are only a few reasons why the greenways will not work. Chair Marshall responded that the greenways would be developed as the area becomes urbanized and recreational facilities are needed. Ms. Perelli expressed concern that the confined park areas are not utilized but yet are not maintained and kept clean. ~~ Vic Knight expressed concern that only the greenways had been addressed and he desired to see and hear discussions regarding proposed community parks and district parks. He indicated the need to have those items discussed separately. He asked that the Board listen closely to the public comments particularly since those speaking from the rural area of the County seemed to be totally opposed to the proposed greenways. Mr. Knight continued expressing concern for the safety of those using the greenways as well as those with property adjoining the greenways. He noted that a large creek borders his property and an adjoining large farm and that on several occasions he had been forced to call the Sheriff's Department to have people removed from those areas late at night. He continued that safety will always be a concern regarding the greenways as well as the potential for liability on the part of the property owners. Ann Joyner, resident of Cedar Grove Township, expressed concern with the consistent use of the phrase that the "greenways will be built and will be used for a certain purpose and asked for assurance from the Soard that those speaking will be heard. Ghair Marshall responded that the use of the word will was simply used to indicate how the Plan, if adopted, would be implemented. Ms. Joyner continued asking if the entire Board was willing to be openminded and listen to the citizens' concerns and not with the determination that the greenways will be built. The response was yes and Commissioner Hartwell commented that he had come to the meeting suspicious of greenways and was still suspicious of greenways. Ms. Joyner continued that she is a developer and does intend to subdivide the land available to her and expressed the concern that those property owners who would purchase the lots for homes which she would subdivide would have the same concerns for greenways across their lots that are being expressed by the present property owners. She continued that she felt the concerns would remain the same regardless who the property owners are or the amount of property that is owned. Hervy McIver, resident of Hillsborough Township, indicated that he was in favor of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan, but also expressed doubts and suspicions with certain aspects of the Plan. He indicated that he felt the Plan addressed a long-range and farsighted vision of what Orange County will become under the increasing pressure of growth. He continued that the County had experienced a tremendous amount of growth in the period from 1968 to 1988 and he expected that growth to accelerate during the next twenty years. He continued that he felt the best stewards of the land were private landowners but that development pressures would demand that greenways be developed. He felt that greenways would prevent the encroa~~ ortado tionlofmthe Plan byethelSoard ifrvotedson and would P favorably by the residents of the County. Lawrence Kirkland inquired if the policy statement was placed in the Master Plan that condemnation of land would not be a means of acquiring land for greenways, would it be binding on future boards for the next twenty years- Chair Marshall responded that she dial not think that anything is binding on one board. One must be careful who they elect. He continued asking if such a policy statement would be worthwhile or if the Board could upset it in the future. Chair Marshall responded that as the Comprehensive Plan was updated every five years, beginning with public hearings, policy changes could occur as needed to meet development and land use changes. Commissioner Hartwell noted that any law that a Board had the right to make, it would also have the right to change. The advantage to having such a policy statement in writing is that it must be dealt directly with before any future change could take place. Robert Nichols expressed thanks to Planner Gene Bell for ~- notifying him of the proposed greenway lines on either side of Lake Orange. He continued that in the operation of Lake Orange, fishing is not allowed from the banks unless restroom services are available noting also that septic tanks .are not allowed. He continued that there is not sufficient easement to allow walking around the lake and expressed concern with bikes along the greenways. Chair Marshall responded that until such time as the rural areas were no longer rural, then the greenways would develop as the property is developed. Mr. Nichols expressed concern with the potential health problems and noted that he did not know of anyone who had property to donate for greenways. He asked for what the 43 million dollar figure would be used. Ms. Black referred Mr. Nichols to Table 7.2 which outlines the cost per facility aver a course of the Twenty Year Plan. She noted that those figures were the cost if there is no community involvement at all. Mr. Nichols stated he felt land should be purchased for any proposed greenway system. Mr. Wentler spoke again asking how compatible the proposed greenway system was with the clean water system. He expressed the concern that everyone is in somebody's watershed and that he has witnessed littering in such areas. He noted that he had a pond which he had opened to the public for fishing but that he had to close it due to the littering by the public. He expressed concern that the public was ~~ i~ e €~ being given easy access to the streams and litter would be a major problem. Sen Lloyd noted that he owned property along the Eno River, McGowan's Creek and Seven Mile Creek and indicated that the greenway system would not be built to the west of Hillsborough since he did not intend to donate or sell land - to be used for greenways. Mr. Lloyd referenced a conversation he had with Ms. Black in which she indicated she expected land and equipment donation; he indicated he did not ;. expect such donations to occur. He noted that he supported the concept of zoning and land use planning if it is utilized as it was originally designed, as a protective measure but he felt the Zoning Ordinance had been turned into a monster of complete control. He agreed with the concern of loss of private property rights. He also spoke to the cost implications. He noted that over the past six years the citizens of Orange County have experienced an increase in excess of 20~ per year in property taxes and in 1987 there was an increase of over 4a~ and an article he referenced in the Durham Morning Herald indicated a higher increase is expected. He .noted the concern of elderly couples who fear they will be unable to pay property taxes in the future in order to maintain their homes. Mr. Lloyd also commented on - the retroactive status of salary increases for County employees. He closed with the comment that "unless the direction changes in orange County, the older folks, the - young folks and the less fortunate are going to have to move out of Orange County due to their inability to pay their taxes." He expressed concern that the citizens' comments be heard and heeded. Jerry Harris, Eno Township resident, presented a graph he had made regarding his property taxes and increases since moving into Eno in 1973 and agreed with Mr. Lloyd regarding tax increases. He indicated that from 1973 to 1983 taxes had doubled every 6 1/2 to 7 years and during the last four years it has .doubled every 3 1/2 to 4 years. He expressed concern that such an increase to support the Recreation and Parks Plan would create much public resistance to more important expenditures. Mr. Harris continued that the expenditures were listed in the Plan per capita and this could be a considerable amount per family. He also expressed concern that the creation of greenways for a large number of people would destroy the area rather than preserve the area. He suggested that if the band issue states that no part of the money shall be used for eminent domain or condemnation then it could never be used for that purpose by anyone. Wayne Meadow, a resident of West Hillsborough expressed the thought that there may be a need for parks but there is no ~~ need for greenways. Virginia Tate, Cedar Grove resident asked if an environmental impact statement was needed before such a Plan could be implemented. Ms. Black responded that before any facility is developed a specific site plan will have to be prepared, reviewed and approved before the facility is built. Jim Plymire expressed concern with the figure of 95 miles of greenways. He felt that to be an extreme amount for Orange County. Chair Marshall noted that taken in small portions it would not be considered extreme. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, that the Master Recreation and Parks Plan be referred to the Planning Hoard for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on April 4. Vote: unanimous. Chair Marshall indicated that the april 4 meeting would be for Board deliberation and with the amount of public comment received it would be unlikely that a decision would be made - at that time. 2. Assignment of House Numbers a. Rural Routes 2 and 3 - Rougemont The presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment an proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Routes 2 and 3 in the County, served by the Rougemont Post Office. Per an agreement reached in January, 1987 between the County Manager and the Chapel Hill Postmaster, a joint project between the County and the Postal Service was undertaken to convert rural box numbers to permanently assigned house numbers. Since the adoption of the House Numbering Ordinance by the Board of Commissioners on April 21, 1987, three Chapel Hill rural routes, 2, 5 and 8, have been converted to street addresses. Rougemont Rural Routes 2 and 3 have now been prepared for the next conversion to house numbers. These two routes are located in Little River Township in northeastern Orange County and include the community of Caldwell and portions of Highways 57 and 157 and Guess Road. The area is bounded generally by the following roads: Kiger, New Sharon Church, Bill Poole, McSroom, Bunny, Sawyer, Hall Dairy, Holly Ridge, Brown, Breeze, Mary Hall and Blalock. General Statute 153A-240 requires. that a public hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and in at least two places in Little River Township (Caldwell Stare and Rougemont Past Office). A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers fallowing the conclusion of the public hearing. The Administration recommends approval of the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Rougemont Postmaster and the NC Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A-240. Best asked about the response of the Rougemont Postmaster. Don Powell responded that he was in favor of the number assignment. Jeff Russell, Eno Township resident, expressed concern with the system of assigning house numbers. He reviewed the problems he has had with the assignment of the number for his new home in November. He noted that the address he was given was 5211 Shady Lane. He indicated this was just one mile inside the Orange County line and he is served by the North Durham Post Office. One of the problems is that there is also a 5200 block of Shady Lane in Durham and his mail has been held due to the Post Office not knowing where to deliver the mail. He noted also that there is a Shady Lane in Chapel Hill and this means there are three Shady Lane addresses with his name (this was learned after a false alarm went in from his burglar alarm system the previous weekend). He expressed concern that all bordering counties should be contacted before numbers ~7' are assigned in order to prevent duplications. Chair Marshall responded that the system as implemented will continue and there will be no change in the grid system. A resident of Rougemont indicated she is in favor of the change for Rougemont as they have been experiencing difficulties with mail for some time. She expressed the opinion that the assigning of house numbers would be much mare efficient for the Rougemont area. Chair Marshall asked the County Manager to investigate why orange County assigned a house number far a new home which is served by a Post Office in Durham-. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the the Administration's recommendation as presented. Vote: Unanimous. 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Comprehensive Plan (1) Article 2 - Administration (Statement of Intent/Amendment Procedures) (2) Article 22 - Definitions (Definition of Comprehensive Plan) The staff presentation by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.12 - 2.2.14 (Comprehensive Plan) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance. Existing references in the Zoning Ordinance refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County's Comprehensive Plan, new issues are emerging which warrant special recognition and study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated for such treatment are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility- services and transportation. To recognize the special nature of such issues yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re-definition of the Plan is proposed. The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use Plan), recreation, transportation, housing, open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed. While the proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.12, 2.2.13, and 22 seek to re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed amendment to Article 2.2.x.4 would incorporate the Procedures for Amendin the Land Use Plan (adapted November 1, 19$2) into the Zoning Ordinance. The procedures have been altered only to address the Comprehensive Plan rather than the Land Use Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Commissioner Hartwell, regarding 2.2.13, asked haw adopting by resolution differed from the way the Land Use Plan is adapted at the present time. Bell responded that historically the Land Use Plan has been referred to as the Comprehensive Plan although it primarily dealt with land use and land use policies. Going into the Comprehensive Plan concept, we are going to have plans that address each of the elements previously mentioned. Bell continued that his understanding for having a resolution on each of these is so that there can be an adopted comprehensive plan but also add to it from time to time and the adding to is done in the farm of a resolution when a new element is completed or amended. Chair Marshall indicated she would like for the County Manager and County Attorney to go over these changes for streamlining to make sure that they are all compatible. The County Manager stated that he would review those changes with Staff and Mr. ~..'..~ :; ~: ~I ~~ r .._ ' Gledhill. Commissioner Hartwell continued that his concern was not with streamlining but to insure due process. County Attorney Geof Gledhill responded that it is a matter of terminology and that it is not envisioned that resolutions would be adapted to change the Comprehensive Plan which have not been to public hearing. Gledhill continued that there is a statute which addresses ordinances or resolutions that affect ordinances regarding County government. Ted Latta questioned the number of days far advertising (fifteen and twenty-five). ,7acobs responded that this time frame was consistent with the other ordinances. Chair Marshall also noted the change was consistent with the change in enabling legislation. Gledhill indicated that the enabling legislation changes regarding advertising schedules occurred about two years ago. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chair Marshall that the public hearing be held open for the purpose of receiving the Planning Board's recommendation at the Board of Commissioners meeting on April ~. Vote: Unanimous. (3) Article 4-Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule and Article fi -Application of Dimensional Requirements (References to "Land Use Plan") The staff presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment proposed amendments to Article 4 (Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) of the zoning Ordinance. The zoning Ordinance currently contains references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re-define the nature ~~ ~, and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Zoning Ordinance, all references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. The following subsections of the Zoning Ordinance refer to the adopted Land Use P1~ the Land Use Plan, the ado ted Count 'de Land Use Plan or the Orancze County Land Use Plan. Article 4.2.1 b) 1. 4.2.2 b) 1. 4.2.3 b) 1. 4.2.4 b) 1. 4.2.5 b) 1 and 3. 4.2.8 b) 1 and 5. 4.2.9 b) 1 and 5 4.2.1.0 b) 1, 4 and 7. 4.2.11 b) 1 and 3. 4.2.12 b) 4.2.16 b) 1 and 5. 4.2.19 b) 1. 4.2.20 a) and b) 4.2.21 b) 1 and 3. 4.2.22 b) 1. 4.2.23 b) 1. 4.2.24 b) 1. 4.2.27 b) 1. 4.2.28 b) 1. 4.2.29 b) 3. 4.2.30 a) and b) 1. Article 6.20.1 The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance change all of the above citations tv the ado ted Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the public hearing be held open to receive the Planning Soard's recommendation at the Commissioners meeting on April 4. Vote: Unanimous. !.~ 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. Designation of Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan The staff presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citiaen comment on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would designate the Orange County Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing references in the Zoning Ordinance refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County's Comprehensive Plan, new issues have emerged which warrant special recognition and study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated for such treatment are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility services, and transportation. To recognize the special nature of such issues yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re-definition of the Plan has been proposed. The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use~Plan), recreation, transportation, housing, open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed. Proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance would re-define the purpose, intent, and method of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Article 2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that one element of the Comprehensive Plan be a Land Use Element which designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other ~~ categories of public and private uses. Article 2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof from the Planning Board, adopt them by resolution. The OrancLe County Land Use Plan adopted on September 2, 1981 as amended, fulfills the purpose and intent of the Land Use Element o~ the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the attached draft resolution would implement the Zoning Ordinance amendments through re- adoption and designation of the Oran e Count Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends adoption of the draft resolution. (An attachment to these minutes on page ). Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4. Vote: Unanimous. b. .Designation and incorporation of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan The staff presentation was made by Gene Sell. This item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would designate the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreatio Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.12 through 2.2.14 of the Zoning Ordinance would re-define the purpose, intent and method of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Article 2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that one element of the Comprehensive Plan be a Recreation EleAt which designates a system of areas and public sites for recreation, including parks and playgrounds, recreational trails, and other similar areas. Article 2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance,. if amended; would provide that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof from the Planning Board, adopt them by resolution. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan fulfills the purpose and intent of the Recreation Element of the Com rehensive Pl n~ Adoption of the attached draft resolution would implement the Zoning Ordinance amendments through adoption and designation of the Ma ter Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Com rehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends adoption of the draft resolution. (Attachment on page of these minutes. Commissioner Hartwell noted that no citizen has spoken yet regarding pools and only a very few have addressed district and community parks. He expressed the desire to hear public .comment on the other aspects of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. Commissioner Carey agreed that he also would like to hear public comment on other parts of the Plan. It was the consensus of the Board to defer action until other parts of the Plan had been discussed at a public hearing. Ted Latta indicated that he had attended three out of the four Township meetings and that he felt that at least 80$ of those in attendance were opposed to any recreational plan due to the cost. County Manager Link indicated he would review dates with Staff for another public hearing on the other elements of the Plan and report his findings to the Board on March ].. 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Access Restrictions 63 ..., (].) Section IV-B-3-c-8 - Access Restrictions The staff presentation was made by Eddie Rirk. This item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-3-c-8 (Access Restrictions) of the Subdivision Regulations. As land along major County highways develops, both the amount of traffic on such highways and the number of driveways increases. The. result is increasing conflicts between vehicles turning into and exiting from driveways and through traffic. The conflicts create safety problems and could lead to eventual widening of the highways as a means of resolving the problems. Increasing concerns about the effects of driveways on major highways in grange County prompted the Planning Soard to draft proposals which would strengthen access restrictions for parcels of land created during the subdivision review and approval process. During the process, the number and location of driveway locations could be controlled. Alternatively, lot configurations could be developed which require access to major highways other than through individual driveways. As examples, marginal access streets could be designed which funnel subdivision traffic to a common entrance/exit or access to a side street of lower classification (and away from major highways) could be required. The Flanning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Vic Knight asked about a definition for major highways. Jacobs responded that this was included in Article XV-B-3-c-8 (street classified as arterial or collector). Ann Joyner asked about the guidelines in the reviewing of driveway applications. Kirk responded that the previous ordinance provision referring to heavily traveled street has been changed to a heavily traveled street classified as arterial or collector and basically "heavily traveled" would be a ~~ ' judgment call on the part of Planning Staff, Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners, but it would be a street classified as arterial or collector. Joyner continued asking the criteria for access location of the driveway. Rirk responded that the possibility of common driveways would be considered, marginal access street parallel to the arterial or collector street or reverse frontage. Each subdivision would be reviewed for driveway .access on an individual basis., Josephine Barbour expressed her opposition to shared driveways. Vic Knight expressed concern with the additional cost to individual buyers when shared driveways present problems with closings on properties. Jacobs responded that shared driveways was simply an option for developers. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chair Marshall, to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the -~-~ Commissioners on April 4. Vote: Unanimous. b. Private Road Standards (1) Sectian IV-B-3-d - Private Roads The Staff presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-3-d (Private Roads) of the Subdivision Regulations. Recent events involving the interpretation of the private road standards contained in Section IV-B--3-d of the Subdivision Regulations have indicated a need to insure consistency of application. On December 9, 1987, the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee met with the Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Board for the purpose of discussing the private road standards. Based on the discussion, a draft ~~ policy resolution was prepared which emphasized the following points: 1. The preservation of the rural character of Orange County; 2. The use of restrictive covenants to prevent further subdivision, thereby maintaining the approved density and decreasing the likelihood of NCDOT acceptance of roads for maintenance purposes; and 3. The use of design features for watershed protection, natural/historic areas preservation, and the retention of scenic view and natural vegetation. At its January 18, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board considered the recommendations of the two committees and adopted the proposed policy resolution. Subsequently, the Board of Commissioners adopted a similar resolution on February 1 and set February 22 as the public hearing date for the purpose of incorporating the provisions of the policy resolution into the Subdivision Regulations. If approved, the new provisions would be administered until a more detailed study of private road standards could be completed and additional amendments proposed. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Jacobs noted that the time frame for further consideration is envisioned as part of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Commissioner Hartwell noted that he preferred to see the lot count in the provisions. Chair Marshall noted that #2 in the proposed provisions is a more workable provision than the one indicating the number of lots. Hartwell agreed. (Copies of the existing and proposed provisions included as attachment to these minutes on pages ). Ted Latta expressed concern that #la was too ~~ vague and needed clarification. Commissioner Hartwell agreed with Mr. Latta noting that the developers needed clarity and help now. Commissioner Carey expressed concern with restrictive covenants asking if it should be provisions restricting further subdivision rather than restrictive covenants. Kirk responded that it is understood in zoned townships and rural buffer that minimum lot size is already set and further subdivision is prohibited. Ann Joyner, developer, expressed concern with the lack of specific guidelines. Hartwell responded that while there still are some problems with vagueness that this interim policy does take care of some immediate problems. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Cammissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4. Vote: Unanimous. c. Comprehensive Plan (1) Section IV - Minimum Design Standards (References to "Land Use Plan") The staff presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. This item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV (Required Minimum Design Standards) of the Subdivision Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations currently contain references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Subdivision Regulations, and, to provide consistency between the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, all ~~ ,y references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. The following subsections of the Subdivision Regulations refer to the Land Use Plan, major thorou hfare p,lan~ Orange Countv thorau hfare ~la~ the adopted Land Use Plan or the Orancre Counter Land Use Plan. Section IV-B-1 IV-B-3-a IV-B-3-d C) IV-B-7-a-1 IV--B-7-b-2 IV-B-7-b-3 IV-B-7-b-3 (a) IV-B-7-b-5 IV-B-9-a The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations would change all of the above citations to the adopted Cam~rehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Motion was made by Chair Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board far recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4. Vote: Unanimous.. With no further business to come before the Boards, the melting was adjourned. Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna M. Bradshaw, Adm. Secretary