Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19890227__ ~ ti.- 'J ,_ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT QUARTERLY MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1989 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, February 27, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, New Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ghair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley E, Marshall and Don Willhait. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs, and members Chris Best, Michael Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey, Virginia Boland, Amanda Carol Cantrell, Steve Yuhasz, Dan Eddleman, Jean Hamilton, Abbie Dickinson, and Elizabeth Eidenier. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRE_SENT_~ County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Planner Gene Bell, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Crudup, Eddie Kirk, Don Powell and David Stancil. A. BOARD COMMENTS - NONE B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS _ Chairman Carey announced that all citizens who desire to speak will have an opportunity at the time the appropriate item appears on the agenda. _ _:_' C . PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey, Jr, read the public charge. NOTE: Chairman Carey presided over items one, two, and three. $arry Jacobs chaired items four, five, and six. All items were advertised in accordance with the procedure as outlined in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The background information for all items is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. Stated below each item will be a brief summary of the presentation with the citizen comments in more detail. D. PUBLIC HEARING 1, ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS a. Rural Route 1 _ Chapel Hill The Presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Route 1 served by the Chapel Hill Post Office on Estes Drive. Route 1, Chapel Hill encompasses an area in the extreme southwest corner of Orange County, bounded generally by NC 54 W from White Crass to Oaks Community on the north, Alamance County line on the west, Chatham County line on the south, and Butler Road on the east. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD None PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS ~~ U WENDY KIMBALL, resident of White Cross community, requested that Old Greensboro Road be corrected to read Old Greensboro Highway. ~-~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Chapel Hill Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation as required by G.S. 153A-240 with the correction of Old Greensboro Road to Old Greensboro Highway. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 'b. Rural Route 1 = Hillsborough The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Route 1 in the County, served by the Hillsborough Post Office. To be considered is that portion of St. Mary's Road northeastward from New Sharon Church Road to Durham County, and including Durmont Drive, Oak Knob Court, Cedar Trail and Stagg Road. Also included is that portion of Guess Road from Durham County to Walker's Farm Road, including Summer Lane and Deerfield Road; westward along Walker's Farm Road to New Sharon Church Road, including Devonwood Road, Lansdale Road, Island Road and Russell Circle, then south along New Sharon Church Road to Schley Road and including Richard Lane. NO COMMENTS WERE MADE A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the house and building renumbering as recommended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. c. Rural Route 13 (Partial) - Chapel Hill The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Route 13 (Partial/Smith Level Rd) in the county served by the Chapel Hill Post Office on Estes Drive. Rural Route 13 (Partial/Smith Level Road) Chapel Hill consists of that portion of Smith Level Road southward from NC 54 Bypass to Chatham County, and including Clarence Drive. The houses that are in Carrboro's postal jurisdiction have been removed from this item. These houses will be assigned numbers by the town of Garrboro. NO COMMENTS WERE MADE A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman Gorey, to approve the house and building renumbering as recommended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to receive public comment on an Environmental Impact Ordinance. Development occurring in environmentally sensitive areas, or development which may have detrimental environmental impacts, would be required to submit an Environmental Assessment. If review of the Assessment indicates that significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the project, then an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. The Ordinance specifies criteria to be used if submittal, of an Environmental -- ., Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is required. Written comments have been .... received from the Town of Carrboro, and verbal comments have been received from the Planning Director far the Town of Ghapel Hill who indicated he saw no real problem with the Ordinance. His only concern, which was also a concern expressed by Carrboro, was where the Ordinance would apply. Would it apply only in Orange County's jurisdiction, or would it also apply within the corporate limits and zoning and planning jurisdictions of the various towns. Since that issue is not resolved, Collins recommended that the Ordinance apply only within Orange County's jurisdiction. He noted that when the County adopted the Erosion Control Ordinance, it applied countywide, because there was an agreement that it be applied on that basis. If we are going to have a countywide ordinance approach far the Environmental Impact Ordinance, this same type of agreement could be initiated. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that there are different ways this can be accomplished. Milton Heath suggested that it be done in the County's own planning jurisdiction and only upon request would it be enforced in the municipalities. Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill mentioned that the Chapter under which this Ordinance is being enacted does not state whether it applies within the entire County or just within that portion of the County not within a town. There needs to be legislative clarification. The questions of its applicability can be handled in the interim by agreement among the towns and the county. The problem with attempting to say that a Countywide Ordinance only applies outside of the towns is that unless Statues give the County authority to do that, it raises a question about whether or not the Ordinance is applicable anywhere. Collins summarized the contents of the Environmental Impact Ordinance which is a part of the permanent agenda file in the Glerk's office. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance. . QUESTIONS O,13 COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Hartwell questioned if there was a provision for exemption for agricultural lands. Collins stated that agricultural and/or farm uses would not be affected by this Ordinance. Gledhill's legal opinion was that this ordinance did not exclude farm uses. If the farm use fell into any of the categories mentioned in the Ordinance it would be subject to this Ordinance. If the county wants farm and/or agricultural uses to be exempt it will need to make these exclusions. Commissioner Hartwell asked that agricultural and/or farm uses be exempted. Steve Yuhasz asked if someone had IO acres and wanted to put in a pond would they fall under the environmental assessment or would that be considered a normal exception to residential use? He also asked about clearing 4 acres of land for a horse pasture. Collins indicated that the specifics of the size of the pond and how much land it disturbed would have to be considered. However, in reading .the ordinance it appears that it would "fall out" in terms of the first review, and it would not require an assessment. In the case of clearing land for a horse pasture the specifics would need to be reviewed, but that also appears to be another case where it would be unnecessary to submit an assessment. ~~~ Yuhasz raised a question about clearing 4 acres of land for a horse pasture and Collins again indicated that he believed it would not require an assessment, however, '~"} the specifics would need to be considered. Yuhasz asked Collins to clarify whether or not the "Application for Environmental Assessment" was apart of the Ordinance. He questioned the necessity of the three questions on noise/vibrations, traffic impact and visual impacts as they have no direct impact on the environment. Collins indicated that it was merely a form developed by the staff to assist people going through an assessment. The questions lead them through step-by-step. He stated that the assessment form is a carry over from the initial public hearing. There could be some significant impacts related to traffic, noise and vibrations which might cause the staff to request an environmental impact statement. It would have to be a very significant impact. In response to a statement from Steve Yuhasz that there is no provision within this ordinance to allow the staff to make that judgment, Collins stated that the Ordinance is structured to determine if a project has a significant impact and items on the form under subsection #3 (noise, traffic and visual impacts) probably should not be included. Yuhasz asked how this Ordinance would be amended as there is no provision in the Ordinance for creating amendments. Collins replied that the county is granted, through the General Statutes, what is entitled General Ordinance Making Power. Whatever provisions the Statutes call for in terms of conducting Public Hearings for the purpose of amending Ordinances or deleting them entirely, are contained in those Statutes. There were none contained within this specific Statute dealing with the Environmental Review Procedures, so it would be dealt with by the General Ordinance Making Powers that are granted to cities and counties. Yuhasz asked if a Public Hearing would be required to amend the Ordinance and Collins indicated it would not be necessary. Gledhill stated that the enactment of this Ordinance does not require a Public Hearing and any amendment or repeal of this Ordinance would not require a Public Hearing. However, it has become the practice, almost the policy, of the Soard of Commissioners to hold Public Hearings on all amendments to its Ordinances. Commissioner Marshall suggested that all public hearing items state whether a public hearing is required or not. Planning Board Chairman Barry Jambs stated that 2.2:7b indicates that one of the assessment concerns would be sites identified in the Inventories of Natural Areas or the Cultural and Historic sites. These sites, which might be impacted by adjoining development and therefore traffic, vibrations, and visual impact would seem to be applicable in those circumstances. He questioned Carrboro's comments on page 59 regarding public hearings and implementation in the requirements for a project. Collins referred to the issue of incorporating Carrboro's comments into the County's development application approval procedures and stated that the basis far the Ordinance, or enabling legislation, in the first place was to make this information available to the public. The second point was to utilize this procedure to work with the developers to get them to mitigate the impact of their projects on the environment. However, it would not be used as an attempt to deny projects. If that is what Carrboro is alluding to in terms of incorporating .it into its design review approval procedures, these concerns cannot be addressed unless the focus of the Ordinance is changed. If it is only a matter of design and review, we would hope that would occur within Orange County's jurisdiction and the County that would have the environmental assessment or impact statement in advance of the formal project submission. This would allow ample time so that the impact could be determined. There would then be time for revisions so that after formal submission it would go through the process without delay. Chairman Carey. asked about Carrboro's question concerning the 60 day waiting period before construction can commence and the significance of that provision. Collins replied that the state officials who administer their own environmental review procedures indicated that 60 days was a good turnaround time from when the Environmental Impact Statement is submitted until all of the agencies involved could review it and make their findings. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZENS COMMENTS. Ted Latta, Orange County citizen, asked about the provision for lots under two acres. His understanding was that someone could have a 1.9 acre lot and be exempt. However, if he split the lot in half it would then fall under the jurisdiction of the Ordinance. Collins assured Mr. Latta that if a lot was less than 2 acres it did not come under the jurisdiction of this Ordinance. Latta spoke in opposition to the Ordinance. He asked what generated the need far this Ordinance. He stated that he feels the Ordinance is going to add to the cost of building homes, which will be passed onto the buyer. He asked if anyone has figured • out the cost in county salaries to hire people to process the paperwork. Chairman Carey indicated that the county was aware that it would cost the county • money to administer this Ordinance if it was approved. The exact figures have not • been worked out. Ben Lloyd, Orange County citizen, spoke in opposition to the Ordinance. He stated he spoke to an executive of a large southeast corporation who indicated that his company had to look at costs. The executive told Mr. Lloyd that Environmental Impact studies are so expensive his company ,would not locate where ane is required. Lloyd asked that the Board of Commissioners keep in mind when reviewing this ordinance that Orange County will be passed by if it is too expensive to locate here. Jim Mitchell, a citizen, spoke in opposition to the Ordinance. Some of his concerns included the parameter of 2 acres being too strict. He feels this ordinance becomes another hurdle for economic development and that we already have too many zoning rules and regulations. Housing prices will go up because of this Ordinance. He also questioned where the professionals would be found to do these statements, and who will settle disputes. John McKee, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, indicated that detailed comments will be forthcoming from the EDC committee reviewing this Ordinance and asked that a decision be delayed. He then read a statement, a summary of which follows. "The Orange County Economic Development Commission, after reviewing the draft ordinance, would like to offer these comments and supply more detailed comments in writing to the Board within a week from todays date. Our state and federal government have set in place numerous environmental laws and regulations to achieve the purpose stated in the Ordinance. The complexities of implementation of state and _'_ .~' federal laws result from the requirements which must be quantified to be effective. ,. The vast resources and expertise available on the staffs at the federal and the state level are already in place and functioning for our protection with criteria tuestions , scientifically justified and backed by enormous budgets. The EDC seriously q the need for an Ordinance that would largely duplicate their efforts and which would require a whole new staff of scientific engineers to process, implement and make judgements of a scientific nature at a local level. The EDC believes in the planning process, including planning for jobs, affordable housing, and a higher tax base. We feel that this is a vital function which has environmental implications. However, we believe that our present developmental ordinances, coupled with state and environmental laws should be sufficient protection for the County. If certain minor amendments are necessary to development or land use ordinances for this purpose then those should be made upon their merit, by you, the County Commissioners. There is no question that the implementation of this Ordinance will create cost to the County, to the developers and ultimately be passed onto the citizens. Time delays which are necessary as spelled out in the Ordinance are only to prolong the already long, tedious and arduous process necessary to get a project through. The more complicated the process, the longer the time of debate, the more costly it is and this is eventually passed onto the people doing the buying." McKee commented on the implementation process. He stated that the EDC works. very hard to get prospects to show them Orange County. His hope is that the process could be streamlined. In item 4.2.1 alternatives is the subject. This item requires that a person submitting an impact statement furnish all the alternatives that led to his conclusion to submit a project. They are also asking for the processes used in decision making. The additional requirements placed here on each of those alternatives cause each of them to be a mini-environmental statement. This causes the justification to be a long and arduous process. It seems that the focus should be on the main project. It needs to. stand alone. If it has to be mitigated, then a decision needs to be made between the project developer and the governing body. The idea of presenting alternatives indicating how you reached your conclusion, and debating among ourselves over this is a terrible exercise in time, energy, and money. He asked that this part of the Ordinance be reviewed very closely. For example, each alternative has to include an assessment of the social and economic impacts. Impact should be quantified for each alternative where feasible but where quantification by standard economic foals is not feasible, or intangibles are involved, the description of each impact is required. He stressed that these requirements are for the things that are not being used. These are for the alternatives. Chairman Carey asked Collins to direct his attentian to Item 4.2.1b. Mr. Collins said that these would occur only after the issues have been identified as a result of the environmental assessment being performed, so there would not be any further questions about the remaining issues. The only issue will be the impact that will occur. McKee agreed with this statement and commented that this is when you submit your environmental assessment papers, upon which the first judgment is rendered on that submission. Chairman Carey indicated that there would be no doubt when you have gotten to this point what the impact is and what the issues are that remain. McKee disagreed, stating that if he gave the county an environmental assessment today, that before the county responded he would not know the areas of controversy. L~ Chairman Carey pointed out that he would not have to do an environmental impact statement unless the assessment had bnenlsoon the EnvironmentaltlmpacttStatement. indicating the section under discuss g Wade Parrish, Orange County citizen, spoke in opposition to the Environmental Impact Ordinance. He disagreed witterseandtthey do notlneedetoebeeduplicatedaby is taking care of regulating these ma Orange County. A motion was made by Chairman C~sepublic Hear ng wil~llremainropensto receiveefer this item to the Planning Board. Th written comments until Marehd totthewBoardiofaCommissionerstno soonernthanaAprle3rd. This matter will be return VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS a. LUP-1-89 Land Use Element - Section 4.0 Plan Categories-Zoning District Matrix The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary-this item is to receive citizen si~eplan aTheopropos de amendment would reviseoSectiona4a0Uof thement of the Comprehen Land Use Element to: 1. Reflect the zoning of Cheeks Township; 2. Reflect the adoption of zoning plans for Chapel Hill and Carrboro Transition Areas; 3. Reflect the application of the Rural Buffer zoning district and associated development standards to the Rural Buffer area designated on the .joint Planning Land Use Plan; and 4. Reflect proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text and atlas establishing and applying two distinct Public Interest District Zoning district designations. - PID-1 and PID-2. NO COMMENTS WERE MADE. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissionez Marshall to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners,no sooner than April 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. LUP-2-89 Activity Node E-2 - Eno Township - See also Item # D.5.e (Rural Residential to 20-Year Transition) The presentation was made by Planner David 5tancil. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The area in question contains six lots and a portion of another north of the Interstate 85/U.S. 70 interchange in eastern Eno Township near the Durham County Line. The 25.44-acre area fronts on Interstate 85, however, it is accessed through Laurel Ridge Road and Pleasant Green Road. The Eno River is located less than 1/4»mile to the north. The proposed amendment, if approved, would change the Land Use '~ .~:;. Element designation of the property from Rural Residential to 20-year Transition. ,~ Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted for Eno Township on July 5, 1988 and staff- initiated rezonings to promote consistency with the Land Use Element of the Plan would have changed the zoning on Mr. Johnny Kennedy's property from GC-4, the classification it has had since 1981, to EC-5. The Staff analysis presented to the Commissioners at their January 3rd meeting indicated this property was outside the activity node and was incorrectly zoned in 1981. The Staff proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments that would broaden the scope of the EC-S district. Mr. Kennedy was not pleased with this suggestion and was instructed to meet with the Planning Staff to discuss alternatives. At that meeting an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was identified as the only alternative which would provide consistency between the Zoning Atlas and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.Kennedy indicated his approval of this suggestion. The proposed amendment would enlarge the existing 20-Year Transition Area that abuts the area on the south and which includes the other three quadrants of the U.S. 70/I-85 interchange. Property other than that owned by Mr. Kennedy is included in the proposal, since it adjoins the access road which parallels U.S. 70 and I~$5, is in the path of Durham's urban growth corridor, and would result in a uniform expansion of the Transition Area to the south. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissianer.Hartwell indicated that there appears to be a used car lot on this property and requested clarification as to its exact location of the parcel the cars are located on. Mr. Stancil indicated that there is a residential use near the corner of Pleasant Green Road and U.S. 70. The ten acre tract is currently used by Mr. Kennedy as a school bus repair operation which is a GC4 type use. He was not aware of the presence of a used car operation. There are some commercial uses across Pleasant Green Road such as Su11 City Radiator. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that Mr. Kennedy does not repair school buses, but sells parts.to school systems to repair their own buses. That is the mail order component of the operation. There are seven or eight automobiles and trucks parked in the driveway area as you approach Mr. Kennedy's property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZENS COMMENTS. Mr. Kennedy clarified that he does have a small used car operation which started out as bus sales but that the Insurance Commissioner stopped that business due to the fact that churches and private institutions are unable to afford the cost of insurance on their buses. The used car lot is to recoup part of the money he was receiving from the used and new bus sales. Kennedy stated that he met with Mr. Collins and his staff about the proposed changes. They agreed with him that the County was in error in thinking that Laural Ridge Road was a private road rather than a public service road which is part of Highway 70. When he got a building permit to build his building he had to go to DOT and give them copies of plans showing that Laural Ridge Road is part of Highway 70 and serves as a service read to that tract of land. Mr. Collin's office admits there was . an error. Kennedy stated he tried to this error corrected last summer. He asked that he be allowed to stay in the GC-4 zoning classifications and be allowed to operate his business and make a living. Ms. Carol Tingley, representing the Division of Parks and Recreation, stated concern about the implications of this proposed land use change. The Eno River State Park is very close to this property. Some of the 25 acres is adjacent to land which is proposed for acquisition in the master plan for the Park. Any type of high- intensity commercial or industrial use at this location could be detrimental to the park. Facilities which could result in excessive noise, polluted runoff, smoke, odors, or tall buildings would significantly reduce public enjoyment of the river and the park. Although Mr. Kennedy's plans may not change, changing the Land Use Plan leaves the door open to future development of this kind. The County's current Land Use Plan is very clear that this particular quadrant of the intersection should be treated differently than the other quadrants because of its proximity to the park. The existing Land Use Plan indicates that the areas including the park and the Xiver should be protected from adverse development pressures. In referencing the activity node at the I-85 and U.S. 70 interchange, the plan indicates that the Eno River State Park, as well as the flood plain along the Eno River, are located north of this interchange and therefore industrial and commercial development should be confined to the area south and east of the interchange. In a letter to the Division of Parks and Recreation last March, the County indicated its commitment to maintain the land use designation in the Land Use Plan which will provide low density, non-intensive uses around the parks periphery. She asked that the Land Use Plan not be changed. However, if this amendment is approved it needs to include a provision to protect this land from future intensive uses which are not a part of the present proposal but which "" could be available to a land owner if the Land Use Plan is changed. Examples would include a limit on building height, protections from noise and excessive lighting, etc. Garry W. Dean of Route~l, Dove Creek Road in Orange County spoke in support of Mr. Kennedy's request stating the land was sold to him as GC4 and he should be able to use and maintain it as GC4. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Board of Commissioners are in agreement that when the County makes a mistake it must do everything possible to correct the mistake without hurting the property owner. The Board of Commissioners did agree on another approach that will be presented later on the agenda that would certainly show respect for the State Parkland and the Board's commitment to that quadrant: A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3rd, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. LUP-3-89 University Station Associates - (Rural Residential/Agricultural/Resource Conservation to 10-Year Transition) The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan submitted by University Station Associates. The property is located south of the Southern Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. _. ~:;* 10 (Sr 1710). The site is further referenced as lot 20 of Orange County Tax Map 27, Eno Township; lots 20 A, 47 and 48 of Orange County Tax Map 26, Eno Township; and lot "-"'~' 13 of Orange County Tax Map 3, Chapel Hill Township. The property which contains 575 acres is located primarily in Eno Township with the southernmost boundary crossing into Chapel Hill Township, The property fronts on New Hope Church Road for a distance of 2900 feet and old N,C, 10 for 4920 feet. The area is currently zoned R-1 Residential and is shown as Rural Residential-Agricultural Use and Resource Conservation on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment to the plan would reclassify this site to the 10-Year Transition plan category. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMTSSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD. Commissioner Marshall asked when the update of the Comprehensive Plan for the Eno and Chapel Hi11 Township was approved and was told by Collins that it was in July, 1988. Commissioner Marshall questioned if the staff and the Planning Board looks at the three reasons (changing conditions, error and omissions and changing policies) when making recommendations to the Board for the annual update of the Plan. Mr. Collins indicated that they da look at those conditions and in particularly to see which conditions have changed, With the construction of I-40, the potential for greater demands for development in this area, particular at higher densities, could be seen. However, at that time there appeared to be some agricultural use of the property, and because of the proximity of Duke Forest, it could go either way. It was decided to approach it on the side of caution rather than on the side of proposing the extension. Commissioner Marshall expressed concern about the integrity of the Land Use Plan and the process by which changes are made. She stated she does not recall discussing this aspect of the Plan. She stated her understanding of the process is that the Plan is. up dated every 5 years so that the County has a direction for the future. If these changes were adopted in July or August, there would need to be changing conditions that have occurred since that time to necessitate a change in the Land Use Plan. This update was ,just made and certain criteria have been established for what the County expects of Rural Residential. One thing that was not expected in a Rural Residential area was a full range of urban services. However, Rural Residential is clearly identified by saying that rural areas are to be developed as low density and low- density residential. The applied zoning district is R-1 Low Density Residential which says nothing about changing conditions. Commissioner Marshall stated she cannot think of anything that is going to change conditions more than such a large area suddenly being taken from something that has been reaffirmed a few months earlier as Low- Density Residential and putting this kind of a planned development on it. This is the way suburbs are created and all the things which are undesirable, Collins stated that there are a couple of things which have changed during that time span. One is the whole issue of the school. It was not determined for sure if the school was going in that location. An argument could be made that a school in a rural area is not anything new, but sometimes a school by its very nature brings on connotations of more development in an area. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the school will be filled the minute the I door is open. Mr. Collins agreed. Another change may occur when a water/sewer service area !with the various utility providers is established. There is a gap between what our transition areas show and what the various utility providers indicate they would like to see for their 20 year service areas. The point could be argued that the utility providers should match up with the transition areas instead of the County extending out to their proposed boundaries. At any time, an applicant may come into the office and ask to have the Land Use Plan or the Comprehensive Plan amended. They may have specific ideas in mind and things may have happened, like the adoption of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan or the issuance. of a Natural Areas Inventory, and you begin to see -that perhaps an amendment like this may be okay. There are certain goals that are contained in the Comprehensive Plan that could be achieved if something like this is developed. What happens in the process is that all the work put into updating the plan is wasted. As things change and new information is available it affects thinking as well. Commissioner Marshall indicated that she felt these was not enough flexibility in the Plan. The way the plan is proposed the people who have the resources to put together a huge amount of acreage have an advantage. This then breaks down the expectations that people have built up about the plan as well as the credibility of the Board itself. Where water and sewer is available, development can be controlled by way of the Land Use Plan. It is important to work out the meaning of integrity and how to maintain it. Steve Yuhasz commented that he thought that to some extent the County failed to anticipate properly the growth that will occur within Orange County at the time the Land Use Plan was adopted. This was pointed out at the time the Land Use Plan was ~i~.,.a discussed, Some of the difficulty in maintaining the integrity o£ the Land Use Plan '='~ is a result of adopting a plan that is overly conservative initially. If abetter job could be done in anticipating where the growth is going to occur and then include that data in a Land Use Plan, the integrity would have a better chance of being maintained. Chairman Carey pointed out that Gollins mentioned changed circumstances in the County rather than changed circumstances in that particular area and questioned the intent of this statement. Collins stated that there have been changing conditions in this area. This property has very little chance of continuing in its agricultural use. The property does have some development limitations in terms of soils that are unsuited for septic tanks. There is the presence of alluvial substandard sails in the flood plains and along Stony.Creek which limits the extent to which the property could be developed. Collins stated he felt that sometimes too much emphasis is placed on whether ar nat conditions have changed in a specific area, when sometimes there are larger issues to look at such as what is going on in the Caunty as a whole which may justify a change. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan is a good example even though there is a specific site recommended here. The school and perhaps even the Environmental Impact Ordinance that was discussed earlier would cause changing conditions. Barry Jacobs asked if under the proposed Water and Sewer Policy an R-1 development would be allowed in this area, and if a water line passed by it, would he be allowed to take advantage of the opportunity to tap into that line. Collins answered that if there was a water and sewer line extended by this development to serve a public purpose, such as a school, or to an emergency situation, (subdivision with failing septic tanks), then this particular site could access a public water and sewer line and maintain a density of one unit to the acre. Jacobs stated that it would therefore not necessitate a higher density in order to make available water and sewer. Collins agreed that it would not. The assumption is that public water and sewer would be extended by this development for one of those two purposes stated above. Jacobs asked how the limits of this transition area were being defined stating that already the adjacent property owner to the east has made it known that he would like to change to a transition area. Jacobs asked how far the transition area along Old Highway 10 would be extended. Collins stated that the railroad spur that comes off the Southern Railroad and runs down to Chapel Hill might be an appropriate dividing line. To the southeast is existing residential .development. Jacobs indicated that that was at one unit per acre. He asked if conditions change would other properties have an opportunity to change their Land Use designation and Collins stated that they would always have the option of making that request. Jacobs asked when property is sold in this transition area if the new owner could request any zoning density from two units per acre to 13 units per acre. Collins. agreed with that statement. Commissioner Willhoit commented that the R-1 classification has to do with a lack of availability of water and sewer and that water and sewer services are not expected within the 10 to 20 year time frame. Therefore, one unit, per acre becomes the density criterion because that is what is required in the absence of water and sewer. He stated that as water and sewer is extended and therefore becomes available it would seem to be a candidate for change because one of the basic criterion then of R1 no longer applies. It seems that the more basic question of how far you go and at what speed has to do with the ability to provide urban services. The availability of water and sewer should not be the only criteria that is used in making these decisions. One of the things that is of concern here is that the logical growth meet the land use plan as it relates to the availability of urban type services. In answer to a question about the placing of a sewer line so that it will not disturb the wildlife trail, Collins indicated that the creek bisects the property in a southwest-northeast direction. The property falls on both sides toward the creek. One way to install the sewer lines and avoid the wildlife corridor is to have parallel systems which would parallel both sides of the creek, the wildlife corridor and the development on either side flowing into it. Another way is to have the sewer lines further away from the wildlife corridor. This would depend on the layout of the roads. If the roads follow the natural fall of the land, the sewer lines could do likewise. Jacobs asked what the minimum requirement would be and Collins stated that there was none and that it presently could not be required. The inventory just recommends that a minimum requirement be considered but there is no provision in the ordinance to require it. - • v. t In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit about water and sewer and the designation of transition areas, Collins stated that one way is to say this looks good as a transition area as it is in the path of urban growth. Then you designate it without any consideration of anything else. The way this is done and the way that it was addressed in the Hillsborough Comprehensive Sewer Plan, is to project the population for that area. Then that population is converted to the land needed for new housing units based on some assumptions about densities. Those densities may be on an average in the range of two and one-half units per acre for transition areas. The outcome of this is protection based on population projections. This is then allocated around the community based on where growth is likely to occur or where you want to see growth occur. Jacobs asked about what would be the limit in terms of extending the transition area. Collins stated that this would actually, with the exception of a few parcels immediately adjacent on the east, be the limit of the transition area from a 20 year planning perception, because therein lies the limit of the 20 year Hillsborough service area. Beyond that point, is another drainage divide and the cast for service into an area like that becomes more prohibitive than serving this particular project because your pumping over one ridge and then over another ridge. This project, if developed, would require the installation of pump stations. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that Hillsborough created this plan without consulting with Orange County about what we expected to do for land use. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CzTIZEN COMMENTS Gordon Brown, an attorney representing University Station Associations and a resident of Orange County, stated that the Land Use Plan Amendment was first brought forward in July.. It was heard at a Gommissioners meeting in August and then withdrawn by the applicant in September. The driving farce behind this withdrawal was a concern that the County's water and sewer policy had not yet developed to the point that the developer could ascertain whether the project would be feasible in relation to public ' water and sewer. The hallmark of these developers is they want to do this project right. They believe that public water and sewer should be available. They share the distrust of a lot of people about package plants and community water systems. The technology to date just may not be there. The soils on some of this project do not lend themselves to septic tanks and drainage fields. They feel that to get a quality development there, and one that is reliable and in the public interest, that public water and sewer should be available. That explains the hiatus between the summer and today. The County's water and sewer policy is a long way toward realization and with respect to that realization the developers felt that they should take advantage of the once a year Land Use Plan Amendment which this hearing is on tonight. Consequently, they are applying for a change to bring this property within the transition area which is also coterminous with Hillsborough's 20 year water and sewer plan. It is important to realize that in the fall there was no guarantee that whatever was done on this property, the public water and sewer would be extended to it. Under the proposed water and sewer policy, water and sewer can be extended to this project if it is in a 10 year transition area. This does not mean if this is changed to a transition area, that developers can come in and automatically alter the density in this area. They would came in under the existing R1 classification that allows approximately 1 lot per acre. A lot of things would then have to be looked at to determine what they apply for as the next stage. One option available is to simply apply for a planned development at a density of one unit per acre. Another option would be to apply for a rezoning change to a higher density. If that happens then it would be for only very specific reasons. It may be to take advantage of the affordable housing policy that the Board may be in the process of adopting now. It could want to take advantage of - .~ .. ., ?:J bonus densities afforded by providing more recreational amenities. It may be influenced by the cost of bringing water and sewer to the project itself and making it generally available to other parcels including some of the neighboring subdivisions and mobile home parks that are already existthat~co ldsinfluencelthenquestiontof Strayhorn Hills. There are a lot of thing considering a higher density but the important thing is that the Board of Commissioners has controls at the rezoning level where the criteria for discussion are different than what they are tonight. Collins and his staff have looked over this application and determined that conditions have changed and are changing and will probably continue to change. They have looked at the location criteria and daeeerm3no~ that this property is suitable for a more urban density. Hillsborough, °rovide water the agenda, has indicated that, provided it has the capacity, they will p and sewer service to this project. This is within the 20 year water and sewer plan far Hillsborough. For all of these reasons, Mr. Brown asks positive consideration of this application. He stated that what this developer wants is to make sure that this project is developed properly and that there are adequate safeguards in the planning process. The question of the ultimate density of the project and how it is developed still needs to be addressed. With reference to_this application, Brown stated that he believes that the Land Use Plan is served and is .consistent with its application. Patricia Mazza of Craig Associates indicated that each of the Commissioners were sent a copy of her letter which supports this amendment dated February 23, 1989. This letter is made part of these minutes by reference and is a part of the permanent agenda file in the Glerk's Office. Clint Burklin of the Stonycreek Neighborhood Association is the Chairman of their committee on zoning and land use planning issues. The Association requests that the , County Commissioners reconsider the recommendation that this area be changed to a l0 -, year transition area. Changing to a 10 year transition zone opens this area up for a wide range of passible uses. These include very high densities and support services. The University Associates have changed their proposal at least once and are now undecided about many of the original assets that had been explained as being in their plans. Because of this flexibility, we are very concerned about this redesignation. Burklin pointed out several things. This property is adjacent to Auke Forest. It is adjacent.to.the Rural Buffer. Changing to 10 year transition is not compatible with the current development that has occurred in the area. It is not .a logical extension of the 10 year transition zone around Hillsborough which should be a uniform transition zone movement. It is a finger that reaches way out and there is a fear that this is going to be an island of high-density in what is now a low-density area with a mixed use and it is not compatible. He also pointed out that this area is very 13.kely to be impacted by the outcome of the rural characterization study that is being done at this time-. The findings of this characterization study are going to be out shortly. The Stonycreek Association recommends that you uphold the current Rural Residential designation and leave the Land Use Plan intact as it stands right now. The plan is good and the Association does not think it needs to be changed. Jim Mitchell, of Strayhorn Hills lives directly behind this proposed development. He stated that one of the reasons for the meeting tonight is th.e Impact Tax for the park system. He does not think it will be passible to get 25 acres donated for a park if 2S or 30 different developers go out and develop this piece of property in a disorganized fashion. Large scale planning is generally better. He asked that this point be considered. He indicated that he spoke with quite a few of his neighbors and that he did not find any opposition to this development. }.~ -:~ .Alan Seiferheld agreed with Commissioner Marshall's comments. The. plan for the ;area was rural low-density. He moved to this area eight months ago partly because it was close to the new interstate and is rural. The possible density using three people per family means that the minimum number would be 1700 and the maximum could be 22,440. Seiferheld stated he did not move from Cary to be in the middle of an area like that. Approving this recommendation opens this area up to high-density. The voices you hear supporting this change are motivated by a desire to develop this area for profit. George Brumley, owner of 30 acres across the street from the proposed new subdivision disagreed strongly with the previous speaker. He feels that new families in this area will be to our advantage. He does not want to see his property values diminished. Relating to Mr. Mitchell's concern, a park is very desirable for this area. A large scale development offers the potential to acquire a park, whereas there is not that opportunity with the smaller developments. Spence _Dckinson felt that this property was naturally in the Rural Buffer Area. In the past"18 years the farm mentioned as not being used has been a dairy farm, a horse farm, a summer camp and last year it was farmed for crops. This property has $300,000 to-$~400,000 worth of agricultural. buildings, It is filled with wildlife. He is not opposed to planned development but is opposed to 20,000 people moving into this area. He is-also opposed to more farmland being destroyed. Putting in sewer is not a negative. However, having a large number of people is unacceptable. .Toe Woodson, President of the Stonycreek Neighborhood Association, spoke for that Association. They are not opposed to residential and commercial development in Orange ,.. Gounty. They are very concerned about any large development which would alter the _' character of Orange County including the Rural Suffer and Duke Forest. This 575 acre tract .is in an extremely important rural area that protects the towns of Chapel Hill, Durham and Hillsborough from growing together into a big urban sprawl. Any change in the Land Use Plan that would allow another city to spring up within the next decade makes a mockery of the plans that have been nurtured by the Commissioners over the course of the past decade. He asked that the Board not allow such a breach to occur. The best way to control that is to control the density of the land use over a long period of time. Todd Yarning, a resident of the N.C. 10 area along Strayhorn Hills, encouraged the Commissioners to leave the Land Use Plan intact. He stated that the attorney for the University Station Associates paints a very attractive picture but there is no guarantee about what they will really do with this land. He noted the development could end up with ,7,000 homes. He asked what will this do to services and the roads. This is a part of the rural nature of Orange County. This area deserves attention and preservation. He asked that the Board please leave the current Land Use Plan intact. Peter Pippens, resident of Orange County, was told by the Planning Department that 10 year transition means that in 10 years the transition area would be Hillsborough City limits. He expressed apposition to this. Collins clarified this stating that it means that the character of the development in that area would be urban in nature. If it did develop urban and the Town of Hillsborough was serving it with public water and sewer, it could be brought into their corporate limits by annexation. Ray Roth of the Stonycreek Area spoke in opposition to this development. He ~ .~.,~. stated that roads are already at capacity and cannot handle an increase in population. ..;,_,.,` Also, a new school is going into this area. He asked what criterion was not in compliance with the Planning Boards' regulations. A. T. Carrington of Strayhorn Hills mentioned that Old #10 is a curvy road with a very dangerous underpass. It will need to be upgraded because it will be the access into Hillsborough. Anew water main will be required for this development. He asked who will pay for the water and sewer. Collins indicated that the developer would pay for extension of water and sewer unless the Town of Hillsboxough would share the cast. THE PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer this mattex to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be xeturned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3rd. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Zoning Atlas Amendments a. Z-1-89 Richard Andrews The presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary, this item is to receive citizen comment on the proposed rezoning request submitted by Richard Andrews. The property is located on the north side of NC 54, just east of Morrows Mills Raad. It is known as Lot 127.5 of Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The existing lot contains 2.94 acres and is currently in the AR-Agricultural Residential Zoning District. The applicant is requesting that 1.92 acres be rezoned to NC-2 - Neighborhood Commercial ~,_,_.,, District. THERE BEING NO UES~ONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD `''" THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Greg Shepard of Shepard Design Associates spoke as a representative of the developer. He stated that the balance of this ,property shall remain zoned AR to meet the dimensional requirements of the AR Zone and remain zoned in that way. The resultant area of 1.92 acres proposed to be zoned will ensure compliance with the intent of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance in not exceeding the 5.0 acres which is set as a maximum limitation. In regard to the other criteria as set forth in section 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, the property is located within the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. The permitted uses within the NC2 zoning classification are designed to serve the neighboxhood population. There are performance standards within the Ordinance that would ensure that any adverse impact would not go beyond the immediate space occupied by the building or the boundaries of the property. The subject property has frontage on Highway 54 which is an arterial as shown on the Land Use Plan. Confirmation has been received from the Orange County Health Department approving water and sewage disposal systems on site. The Orange County Sheriff's Department, Orange Grove Fire Department and Emergency Medical South Orange Rescue Squad have indicated they could serve the property. Commissioner Hartwell asked if this property was east of White Cross Road and Shepard indicated that it was west of White Cross on the north side of 54. Located opposite the P&5 Sporting Goods and the north side immediately adjacent to this property there is a white concrete block building which.is presently vacant. The previous use was Town and Country Homes. THE PU$LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED B:\C A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3,.19$9. VOTE; UNANIMOUS b. Z-2-89 Public Interest Districts - See Item # D.S.a. The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to (1) receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text for the Purpose of protecting lands of public interest and (2) a proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas which apply zoning district designations and standards to land identified as Public Interest Areas in the Orange County Comprehensive Flan. He stated that it is necessary to zone properties designated as Public Interest Areas to comparable and compatible zoning districts. The majority of land designated as Public Interest is owned by Duke University. Three classes of the proposed land classification system recommended in the Duke Forest report affect portions of Duke Forest in Orange County. They include the following; Class l - Permanent Research Forest Class 2 - Research Project Land Class 3 - Institutional Land Class 4 - Residual Endowment band There are two Public Interest District zoning districts proposed. The PID-T District is applied to Duke Forest lands designated as Class 1 - Permanent Research ;Forest, The existing uses are expected to continue for at least 20 years. For those :areas designated Class 2 - Research Project and the planning horizon is less than 20 ,'.'years and a PTD-IT classification is applied. Class 3 - Institutional Land is land located in Durham County and earmarked for campus expansion. Class 4-Resid Endowment Land would be placed in the same residential zoning classificationaas adjoining parcels. For example, if it was Buffer, the tract would be recommended fox rezoningetobR,gparcels zoned RB-Rural Properties other than those owned by Duke University proposed for designation as Public Interest Areas are: Eno River State Park; Moorefie~lds Estate; Land surrounding Corporation bake, University Lake, and Lake Michael; County-owned land at the Seven-mile Creek reservoir site; UNC Botanical Gardens; and Land awned by the Army Corps of Engineers in the southeast corner of the County. PID-T zoning is proposed for all of the above areas. In addition to the rezonings.Zoning Ordinance text amendments are proposed. The amendments are summarized below. 1. Article 4.2 - District, Statements of Intent A lication Crime Provides a detailed description of the PID-I and PID-IT Districts. 2. Article 4.3 - Permit Use Table Incorporates specific land uses permitted in the new PTD districts 3. Article 5.1.2. - Dimensional Re uirements for Non-Residential Develo ment Reflect restrictions in lot size, minimum lot width, setbacks, height, and floor ,i ~..~ -_ area ratio (FAR). 4. Article 6.26 - Buffer Requirements Ad~ac_ent to Public Interest Districts A 100-foot buffer is proposed on lands adjacent to areas in the PID-1 district Criteria are proposed to allow for reduction in buffer width by the Planning Department. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Hartwell stated disagreement with the Permitted Use Table as proposed which would permit single family dwellings, with or without efficiency apartments, in PID districts (pg. 201) ar would allow for governmental facilities and office buildings (pg 204). Neither of those things seem to be within the spirit of Public Interest District, particularly if that is a district which would require that the adjoining property owners be subject to some buffering requirements. Public Interest Districts that he would support would modify the Permitted Use Table from the existing PID only to the extent that it is necessary to allow for legitimate research activities such as the University would want to carry out. In his opinion, that would not include governmental or office structures or single family dwellings. ,_..-: Chairman Carey noted that the agenda referred to the time period that the PID-II property is expected to remain in research uses as a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 20 years. He asked if that means that the expectation is that the owner would keep it in that use for that period of time after which they anticipate some other use. He thought that when this concept was considered earlier, a 50 year and a 20 year period was indicated, rather than a 5 and a 20 year period. ___, Collins responded that the PID-I classification was discussed in the Duke Forest Management Study with a 50 year time period. This was not included in. the proposal because the planning horizon is 20 years. Also the 5 year limit was used. However, in reviewing the Ordinance proposals with Duke University as it related to PID-II it doesn't clearly reflect the intent they were trying to convey in their management study. The 5 year figure came from our understanding that the Class II lands (Research Project Lands) would remain in that classification for 5 years. There is no certainty that those properties will stay in that classification for that length of time. That section will be revised to make it reflect what the intent of the Management Study was trying to convey. Commissioner Marshall indicated that her understanding is that the periods in the Land Use Plan represent floating time. There is not something that says exactly when to do things. Unless some action is taken the concept floats along with the years. Unless something happens down the road, that designation is still expected not to change. Steve Yuhasz asked if the intention of .the PID-II designation was to allow for a subdivision at that property. Collins indicated that that could be a possibility. The reason single-family dwellings were included as a permitted use was related to the concerns of the representatives of Duke University. Class I lands are fixed in terms of long term use by the University. They might want to develop lots for University professors and their families. Duke did want to convey a clear distinction between Class I and Class II. Class TI could change tomorrow and puke officials felt, and Collins agreed, that if there was some other use than strictly public uses, Class II would convey the message that this was a transition area and that transition could _. ~ .._'~ occur at any point. It could change from a research oriented goal to one that is mix and could go either way to one that is residential. Yuhasz asked what effect, from a property tax aspect, would the PTD designation have. If it was currently being taxed and then was designated PID what would be the effect. Collins indicated that he did not know of any lands currently in the PID designation, or to be considered for the future, that were taxed at this point. The question was asked by an unidentified citizen regarding who requested a Buffer .. Collins stated that the idea for the 100 foot Buffer stems from the joint planning efforts with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. There is a portion of Duke Forest north of Carrboro known as the Blackwood Division. In the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan there is a substantial transition of urban growth designated north of Carrboro. There was a concern having that transition area abut Duke Forest; what was decided was to have a 400 foot set distance between Duke Forest and the transition area border which would be apart of the Rural Buffer. Within that 400 foot strip there would be a 100 foot setback buffer for any development that occurred within that area. 'That was set in place as a part of the joint planning efforts with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. That situation is different than in other portions of the County where the lot size requirements are not as large. In ,the Rural Buffer there is a two acre minimum and in the majority of the remaining part of the County there is a minimum of one acre ax less. The recommendation tonight is to take the same standard, the 100 foot buffer, and carry it forward, instead of trying to surround all of these proposed PID districts with a lower density residential development. This provides a measure of protection, primarily to Duke Forest, but. does allow someone to develop their '~ adjoining property. Hillsborough submitted a letter today requesting that their small piece of Lake Michael not be included in a PID designation. The reason for that is that a yeaz or more ago they requested that an adjustment be made in their zoning boundary. In one instance the County gave up some territory and in another Hillsborough gave up some. This small piece of Lake Michael should have been included within their zoning jurisdiction. They have requested that the County consider at a later date releasing that area into their zoning jurisdiction. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Ervin W. Allen had no comment after hearing that Lake Michael would not be involved in this action. Tom DeLoache spoke in opposition to the 100 foot buffer. He indicated that the county should pay for this land if they want to make it useless. He intended to develop this land but current regulations are making that all but impossible. Rufus Boswell, Durham resident, spoke an behalf of his mother, opposing the 100 foot buffer. She has 1100 feet of her property contiguous to the park. He considers this a "taking" because of the limits on what is allowed on the buffer portion of the property. Cutting of trees in the buffer is prohibited. He emphasized that the County should pay for this land if they want to use it. David Lakin, of Save Duke Forest, spoke in favor of the PID zoning for Duke Forest. He suggested asking Duke what th~±y are doing an the land and use that information to amend the Permitted Use Table--accommodate their needs and stop there. He sees no need for two types of PxD zoning. He asked that the Board stay with the original plan. ~~_._~ ~; Jesse Summers, a landowner on the Eno River, spoke in opposition to the Buffer. His well and garage are in the 100 foot buffer zone and he indicated a strong stand against it being in a buffet zone. Gordon Brown addressed the concept of the PID on behalf of his mother. The idea of the PID is being expanded to include the reservoir areas. His family owns l60 acres of land in Orange Gaunty at Seven Mile Creek. It abuts to the south some of the land Orange County acquired. The proposal is to make this a PID-I because it is associated with a Reservoir and he opposes this action. The Agricultural Zoning, Watershed Protection, and Water Quality Critical regulations all apply to this area. A PID is totally unnecessary. Another problem is that the language is confusing. It indicates it will be applied on a voluntary basis only. He asked if this means it is voluntary for the people within the PID area itself or does it mean Orange County is the only party to whom the decision to designate this land a PID district is voluntary. Since there is an overlap of a 100 foot buffer, would this mean all the parties affected by it would also have to consent. That is not addressed in the Ordinance. If all the parties have to consent, the Brown family will not. He asked if "land associated with a public reservoir" means a reservoir on the drawing board or one that is built? He asked if it applies since a reservoir site has not been selected. Also will it mean a reservoir built by the County or a venture between Hillsborough and the Orange-Alamance Water people. The PID zoning setback is only 50 feet, yet a l00 foot buffer is imposed on adjoining land owners which is not equal. He suggested cutting back on the extent of the buffer. Another reason he is against -'~~ this proposal is that the voluntary nature of opting into a zoning classification is foreign to him. This may be zoning by consent. He feels it may be spot zoning and therefore illegal. He emphasized that the PID-I designation is ,just not needed for land that is within a water quality critical area. This 100 foot buffer appears to be a taking. If the shore line of the Seven Mile Creek azea is 10 miles you might have a prospective taking of a strip of land that is 10 miles in length and 50 feet wide. That is 60 extra acres that the County may have to purchase. The Water Quality Critical Area already addresses so many of the problems the buffer is also addressing. It is unnecessary. Joe Wittman, member of Save Duke Forest and an Orange County resident, commented that as the proposal applies to Duke Forest there seems to be a wide disparity between PID-I and PID-II. These lands need to be protected for more than five years. He proposed that Class II lands be designated for 20 to 25 years. He opposed residential and/or commercial use of PID-II or PID-I lands. He reminded the Commissioners that Duke could change their plan at any time and that lands publicly designated are more difficult to change. He asked that the Board adopt a Land Use Policy consistent with Dukes' own proposal and vision foz the use of land in Orange County. Myrtle Boyce, an Orange County landowner, stated that on three and one-third sides her land is surrounded by Duke Forest. She spoke in opposition to the 100 foot buffer proposal. Marvin Couch, an Orange County resident spoke in opposition to the buffer zone. He spoke for his brother John Couch, and sisters Irene Godwin and Lucille King. He asked how this Iand is going to be taxed if the buffer goes into effect and if taxes will go down on Iand that had the buffer requirement. The land he is concerned about is bound on the north by the railroad, Duke University on east, south and 50~ on the west. He suggested that the buffer zone be on Duke's land rather than the citizens. However, he does not believe a buffer is necessary. In order to build anything in the County a citizen first must go to the Planning Board to get approval. No further regulation is needed. Warren Womble, a spoke in opposition to lands. The 11.5 acre their land. landowner on University Lake and a citizen of Orange County, the buffer zone and if it is necessary to put. it an Duke Forest requirement to build would effectively keep citizens from using Sim Efland, a citizen of Orange County, spoke in opposition to the buffer zone. This would take valuable land from citizens and it should be purchased. Duke should furnish the 100 foot buffer because the citizens already have a 20 foot setback. That would provide a 120 foot buffer and not take the citizens land. He asked the Board not to take private property for this buffer. Ben Lloyd, an Orange County citizen, asked the purpose of the buffer and if it will be left in its natural state. Collins indicated that the buffer serves as a visual .screen and as a natural vegetative strip which will filter run off. It will be left in its natural state. Lloyd suggested putting the buffer on Duke Forests' Land. He asked who intends to pay for this 100 foot buffer? Chairman Carey indicated that the County is not intending to take any property, and therefore, does not intend to pay for any. T. .Y. Forrest, President of Orange Alamance Water, read a letter from Orange- Alamance Water System, Inc, to the Board of Commissioners indicating opposition to the ." PID and asked to be removed from the proposal. A copy of this letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. Pearson Stewart, an Orange County citizen, suggested that the provision for residences should be retained in PID-II. He spoke in favor of PID-II being a research district and his understanding of Glass 4 as being land primarily for trade, sale .or income. PID-II lands axe entirely private lands, although they do belong to puke University. He felt very apprehensive about restricting the use of private land to the extent of PID-I. He suggested that Duke should have the right to build the residences. One of the permitted uses is a sewage pumping station or treatment plant. The ramifications for upstream locations are not clearly understood. George Brumley, a citizen and land owner, strongly opposed the 100 foot buffer. He believes it is a "taking" and if a buffer is created the land should be purchased and paid for by the County. Max Wallace, Associate Vice-President of Duke University and Associate University Counsel, stated that Duke has serious concerns as a private property owner and the only private property owner being placed involuntarily in this PID district. Duke has worked carefully with Marvin Collins and the members of the Planning Staff to find a suitable compromise which would treat Duke as a private property owner. Duke owns over 5,000 acres of land in Orange County and has been a good steward of this land. They willingly made planning a public process. The Land Use Plan shows that they intend to do certain things with Duke's land, currently zoned residential, agricultural-residential, rural buffer, etc. The PID zones which are proposed significantly diminish what Duke could do with their land. Even though they do not intend to do many of the things with their land that they are currently zoned to do, Wallace indicated that it was unacceptable to have those zoning rights arbitrarily removed. Duke is facing a zoning based not on the characteristics, or location of the land, but rather because they happen to own large tracks of land. They want to be zoned consistently with the land around it. They would then find other ways to assure the county that they would continue to use it responsibly. Entering into agreements with Duke regarding possible land uses down the road is another more acceptable solution. The PID designation is a permanent deprivation of Duke's right, which would require Duke to come to the County and request dispensation to get their rights back. The 100 foot buffer was not at Duke's request, and while it may offer some type of protection to the forest, he indicated that it was not something that Duke had militated for. Duke feels that a careful zoning pattern that deals with the forest in ways that are on a larger scale and fit in with a rational zoning process makes more sense than an arbitrary l00 foot buffer. The buffer could have some good effects on the forest but it does not have a uniformly good effect and does not necessarily address the problems seen by Duke. Judson Edeburn, Duke's Forest Research Manager, addressed land management issues in the forest.. Commissioner Marshall asked Wallace if Duke pays taxes on this property. Wallace indicated that they pay tax on a fair amount of property. The property they do not pay taxes on fits clearly within the tax exempt statutes. Gommissioner Marshall indicated that her question had to do with her understanding that tax exempt land should have some public interest or benefit to the public. Wallace indicated that this is fully carried out by the full scale teaching and research that is done on these lands. He also offered to show the Commissioners the maps that indicate the intensity of research and teaching that takes place on these lands. Ted Latta, an Orange County citizen, spoke in opposition to the buffer. He mentioned that. neither the Duke Forest land by Corporation Lake nor Cane Creek is an the map. He asked why there is no PID land around Gane Greek? The buffer should be on Duke's land not the adjoining land. The court case of Nolen vs. California Coastal Commission deemed action similar to this as a taking of land. He stated that unless compensation is made, this will be a violation of the 5th and the 14th Amendments. Wade Parrisha a landowner and citizen of Orange Gounty, indicated that Duke surrounds his land on two sides. He spoke in opposition to the buffer zone. Jay Murrey, a citizen of Orange County, spoke in opposition to the buffer zone. An unidentified female citizen spoke in favor of Mebanes' request to be exempt. Her property is located in one corner of Lake Michael. She spoke in opposition to the buffer zone. Paul Parcell, a citizen of Orange County and landowner, spoke in opposition to the buffer zone. ~, Carol Tingley, a citizen of Orange County and a landowner, made reference to the land at Seven Mile Creek and stated that she and her siblings have lots that are less i than 11.5 acres each, She asked if they will be able to build homes and if they are burned out will they be able to rebuild? Collins indicated that the 11.5. acre minimum was for the PID-I and PID-II districts themselves, not for adjoining property. They would be able to rebuild, if that was necessary. Tingley said that she and her siblings are totally against the buffer zone, Richard Calder, speaking for his in-laws Myrtle and Floyd Boyce who own land surrounded by Duke Forrest, agreed with Mr. Wallace's suggestion of looking at the boundaries of the forest and protecting the watersheds by using existing zoning laws. He opposed the 100 foot buffer. Duke Forest land is private land and this zoning applies with a certain time limit to it. Duke could come in and ask to develop its land into 5 acre plots. The five acre plots could build on the line and use the 100 foot buffer on his parents side to protect their land. This seems wrong to him. Spence Dickinson spoke in opposition to the buffer, He asked if the County could legally take this property and what the lawyers' position is on this. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill stated that he did not have a position at this time. He indicated that he would review all the information and give the Commissioners an answer. Dickinson also asked to have the intent of this buffer explained to him. His initial understanding of the reason for the PID designation was to force Duke to go to a Public Hearing if they wanted to do anything other than research, Now it appears that with the PID-II designation they would be able to do many different things with their land, Chairman Carey indicated that the intent mentioned above has not changed, Sam Wilburn spoke in opposition to the buffer. Chairman Carey entered into the record a letter from Mr. Wayne Jones, Acting Vice-Chancellor for Business and Finance at the University. The letter indicates that the University is not in opposition to this, however, the portion of that area referred to as the Parker property is not a part of the biological reserve. This land lies within the Town of Chapel Hill R-l zoning jurisdiction. They request that the Parker property also be zoned R-1. This letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office and is made a part of these minutes by reference. THE PU$LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be brought back to the Commissioners no sooner than April 3rd. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (4) Article 6.16 - Buffer Requirements Adjacent to Public Interest Districts b. Kennels (1) Art. 22 - Definitions (2) Art, 4.3 - Permitted Use Table Y .:,.~ (3) Art, 8.8.11 '-. Kennels (Class B Special Use Permit) The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to kennels, in order to (l) develop consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and Animal Control Ordinance, and (2) to include provisions for wildlife rehabilitation. The current definition of kennel provides for the lodging and boarding of domestic pets. There is no reference in the ordinance pertaining to breeding.of animals. The effect of the Animal Ordinance is to prohibit breeding kennels in the zoned townships. The Planning Department believes that this was not the intent of the ordinance. The amendment was also proposed by the Animal Protection Society to allow for rehabilitation of wildlife. The Animal Protection Society has submitted plans for an animal shelter which includes facilities for rehabilitation of birds and other wildlife, The Planing Staff is proposing to define a Class I kennel consistent with the Class I Kennel Permit (Animal Control) and a Class II Kennel consistent with the Class II Kennel Permit (Animal Control). Class I Kennels would be permitted by right in certain residential (RB, AR, R1) and commercial (CC3, GC4, AS) zoning districts. Class II Kennels would be permitted in those same zones with approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. All kennels included under the current definition must be located in those zones and have Class B Special Use Permit approval. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Owen Door spoke in apposition to these zoning amendments, He spoke representing his father-in-law.Ted Green and wife Cindy Door who are partners in a kennel. Through the new amendments, their kennel is a Class II kennel, He asked what zoning district they are iri? Collins indicated that they were zoned Rural Buffer. Door stated that 13 years ago they were given approval to operate the kennel. They are licensed and inspected by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and the State of North Carolina. They feel they are over-regulated. He asked that their kennel, Green Valley Farms Kennel be exempt from the requirement to procure a Class B Special Use Permit. Mr. Jacobs stated that because it would be a non-conforming project, as long as the existing facilities and operations are not expanded nothing would need to be done, ..Door asked if it was necessary that he continue to be inspected by Orange County even though he is ,USDA licensed and inspected. Chairman Carey indicated that he would need to continue obtaining the licensing and being inspected as it is a requirement of the Animal Control Ordinance which is separate from the County's zoning regulations. Don Ingram, on behalf of the Animal Protection Society, asked that the Board favorably consider the recommendations regarding amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to expanding the kennel operations definition to include wildlife rehabilitation. Ted Latta indicated that Alma Johnson asked him to make several remarks for her. He commented on Class I - 8.8.11.2 (a) referring to the site size to protect adjacent properties. Latta stated that Ms, Johnson believes that a noise limit needs to be included in this section to protect adjacent property owners from barking dogs. Also, on Class II - 8.8.11,3(x) referring to building plans being reviewed by the Animal ~. --.. ~ Control Officer prior to issuance of a building permit, the Building Inspector should - be included in that requirement, He also indicated that Ms, Johnson believes that some thought should be given to the manner in which enforcement of the ordinance will 'be carried out, Rayford Mayes indicated that he applied for a Class II kennel permit last year. Ms. Johnson inspected his kennel and indicated that it was an excellent kennel in every way. He asked what he will have to do to get this extra permit., Jacobs indicated that he would not need to do anything to be in compliance. An existing facility would not do anything unless it expands. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to b.e returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989, VOTE: UNANIMOUS c, Solid Waste Container Sites (1) Art, 4,1 - Establishment of Use Regulations (2) Art. 6.16 -Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses No presentation was made. In summary this item is to receive public comment on a proposal to include solid waste disposal collection sites as a use permitted by right in all zones, subject to minimum design standards. The proposal amendment seeks to permit solid waste collection sites with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet in all zones, Specific site development standards are also - proposed. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Gommissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioner no sooner than April 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. d, Mobile Home Parks (1) Art. 22 - Definitions (2) Art. 7.20.2 - Planned Developments/Mobile Home Parks The presentation was made by Marvin Collins: In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on the proposed amendments to Article 7,20,2 (Area Requirements for Establishment of District) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance by clearly identifying a size limit for mobile home parks and to make the definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 consistent with 7.20.2. This would change the cap on mobile home parks from 50 acres to 50 units, THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Sheryl Moody asked if. this amendment applied to new as well as old parks and Collins indicated that it applied to new parks only. --- -- Moody recommended that the wording be made clear that this is for new parks only. The Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force increased the acreage to 50 acres and -~"! it seems that this staff is working against that. Mobile Home Parks are an excellent way of providing low and medium cost housing. This amendment is fighting against it. It places more restrictions on private property. Roger Stephens, a park owner in Orange County, spoke in opposition to the amendment. A copy of his written comments are made a part of these minutes by reference and are located in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Joey Cockley, Durham resident and Orange County Mobile Home Park owner, requested clarification that this applied only to planned, new parks. He read and accepted that the one change was going to be from acres to units. However, when he read the proposed amendment it went a step beyond by requiring a 100 foot perimeter buffer which he opposes. He indicated that he perceived a double standard in the Gounty with little encouragement being given to the development of low income housing. Forrest Heath, a mobile home park owner, asked that it be spelled out in the Ordinance that this amendment applies to new parks only. He also feels that the County is setting double standards for mobile home parks. He indicated that he could develop a subdivision and expand it at a later date. However, with a mobile home park he would be required to create a park. The size of a subdivision is based on its merit, but mobile home parks are restricted arbitrarily. He asked that the Board consider letting the size of a mobile home park also be decided upon it merits. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANTMOUS e. Retail Trade (1) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table - See also Item # D.3.b. No presentation was made. In summary this item is to receive public comment on proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments combining sections of the Permitted use Table to eliminate duplication of text and to correct a typographical error in Section 5~3. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNTNG BOARD Commissioner Hartwell commented on the proposed change to EC-5 stating that this addition might suit not only the particular location that caused it to come to the Boards' attention, but could be compatible with other areas of the county that are Existing Commercial. This would be a wise thing for the Board to adopt. THERE WERE NO CITIZEN GOMMENTS. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ~- -- _'~ 6 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Section IV-B-7-b Recreation Sites (Dedication/Payment-in Lieu Provisions) There was no presentation. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regulations which would extend dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions countywide. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. . A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Commissioners no sooner than April 3," 1989.. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting will be held on March 8, 1989 at 7:30 in the Courtroom of the Old County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk