Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19890522l~ MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTX PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MAY 22, 1989 The Orange County Baard of Gammissioners met in Special Session on Monday, May 22, 1989 at 7:00 p.m, in the Superior Court Room, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, NC, for tiie purpose of discussing the proposed airport. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Don Willhoit, Shirley Marshall, Steve Halkiotis and John Hartwell. ATTORNEY: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Economic Development Director Sylvia Price, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bell, Emily Crudup, David Stancil, and Eddie Kirk, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. 1. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS fiY CHAIRMAN Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., stated that this special meeting was called to discuss the issue of the proposed airport. He indicated that he called a Special Meeting rather than having a press conference so that official action could be taken if the Board wished to do so. However, the meeting was not called to cancel the Public Hearings on the airport which are scheduled for the 24th and 25th of May. He stated that he recognized that by having a Special Meeting, the Board runs the risk of having some peaple in the County feel disenfranchised due to the Commissioners sharing their views on the remaining site prior to the Public Hearings. This risk is an acceptable one if corntnents by the Board can influence people at the Public Hearings to focus on what is wanted in Orange Gounty in'terms of the Boards' goals and how to reach those goals. Eighteen months ago he was convinced, after talking to many people in the County, that an airport was a necessary ingredient in achieving the economic development goals of improving job opportunities and diversifying the County's tax base. He was sufficiently convinced that he voted to hire a consultant to study the issue and enter into a planning process which would allow the Gounty to determine whether an airport was necessary to achieve those goals and if so, where would it be located. He stated that tonight he is no longer convinced that a general aviation airport is a necessary ingredient in achieving these long-term goals. He believes there are other alternatives. He indicated that he is committed to studying the alternatives with others in the County. He also stated that lie was not convinced that Site #11 was a suitable airport site and he is prepared to vote against it. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that when he became involved in this process, it was out of an interest in looking at the safety consideration of Horace Williams. He indicated that these planes fly over his house near Calvander every night, and he has no problem with that airport staying where it is, at the same size it is. He mentioned that he has been under the impression for quite some time that there was a serious interest on the part of the University to shut Horace Williams down. He believed that was one of the reasons, along with economics, that this issue was addressed. The newspaper headlines recently which stated "UNC unlikely to shut-down its airport" extremely distressed him, as did the plans for the addition of 500 feet of runway and an above ground jet fuel storage tank. He indicated that he has spoken with concerned citizens in the southern end of the County who will be going to the Chapel Hill Town Council meeting to voice their concerns this evening. This process has afforded citizens an opportunity to speak up and it concerns him when he sees people the County considers responsible making statements which indicate they believe that the $oard of Commissioners do not have a good view of spending taxpayers money. He indicated that the Commissioners did go after the State and Federal funds because it was necessary to look at the safety issues at Horace Williams. He mentioned that it may have been that the schools and homes were built there because people expected the University to close the airport. He received about 500 letters with only 3 wanting an airport. He believes that it is very clear that the citizens of this county do not want an airport, especially in light of the fact that the University does not plan to shut down the one they have. He stated that he would vote against an airport and he would like to do it tonight. He also indicated that he would like to forego the Public Hearings. He challenged each of the many citizens who, care about the environment and this county to understand that to protect the earth means money must be spent. If money is not spent, nothing can be protected. Commissioner Hartwell stated that he visited site 11 after it was chosen as the most likely site for an airport. He clocked the distance from the interchange at Buck Horn Road and Interstate 85 and found it to be three miles. The runway would be one mile long with the site being a total of 2 1/2 to 3 l/2 miles. The second thing he found was that there were 17 homes that would fall beneath the runway. He also saw well drilling rigs which indicated that there would soon be more homes in that area. He indicated that while this site ranked the best on the list, it was still a very intrusive choice. The next issue he addressed was the site itself. He stood on a knoll that would lie under the runway. To the northwest he could see Bushy Cook Road and to southeast he could see Seven Mile Creek, both of which were not more than 1/4 of a mile away. That means there is very little flexibility at the site. After a parking lot, building, apron, taxi strip, and runway are put in this area, it would be completely used up. It would allow no room for engineering choices. The airport would have to be laid out according to the dictates of the land available. Finally, there were two cleared knolls with a tributary into Seven Mile Creek that runs through a deep ravine. Construction of a runway across that ravine would be problematic. For all of those reasons, he concluded that there was not a suitable site. He suggested that the upcoming Public Hearings be used as an opportunity to hear some of the citizens motivations. He mentioned that it was clear to him that a very small percentage of the citizens who have participated in this process understand the difficulties in the central part of this county. He feels that they look at 2.9$ unemployment countywide and think that everything is okay. This employment figure does not mean that employment is full or that underemployment is not a terrible problem, particularly in the central part of the County. There are still hundreds of people unemployed since the closing of the last mill. Unemployment among black males, age 25 to 35, is well over 10~ and probably as high as 16-18~. This is a really serious issue. A public hearing would allow a discussion on this issue. He stated that it is his opinion that some people who have actively opposed an airport do understand the necessity for getting on with a strong, modern economic base in this county. There is a need for the sort of jobs which will enable a person to buy a home, raise a family, pay his taxes, educate his children, hold his head up and not have to have a Ph.D in order to do it. He mentioned that many of the people with wham he had met would be willing to pour energy and expertise into implementing the strategies that are called for in the Economic Development Plan. That would be very significant for this County. He is not interested in putting an airport at Site 11 but is interested in continuing the public discussion at the upcoming Public Hearings. i, M1.,. - ~:.y 1 Commissioner Willhoit stated that he is opposed to making a decision prior to the "~ Public Hearings because the County has entered into a public process in considering an :alternative to the Horace Williams Airport. This process started with the establishment of a task force which met for a long period of time to consider the issue. They made a recommendation and the $oard moved ahead with applying for a Planning Grant based on that recommendation. He stated that he believes making a decision at this time would preclude meaningful public hearings on the matter. There has been exaggeration and di.startion in the information which has been provided to many of the people who are opposing the airport, which is confirmed by the content of many of the letters. A meaningful process would be to go ahead with the Public Hearings and evaluate the data which is provided at that time. This process was undertaken with the hopes of achieving maximum public participation. Often it is not until after the Public Hearing is held and the Planning Board has given the Commissioners its recommendation that the citizens raise their objections. This issue has energized the citizenry and he indicated that he would like to follow through the normal course of events. Commissioner Marshall stated that when she looked at the matrix last Monday night, she came to the conclusion that there was not a suitable site. She mentioned that although she enjoyed the letters, she also felt saddened that people would not listen and understand the process. Phase II would have provided additional information about a particular site. It wouldn't be until the end of Phase II that a decision would need to be made. The public would have known fully about the cost. They would have adequate time to study detailed plans of the siting. Many people complained about an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) not having been done. The EIS would have been a part of the Phase II process. It would not be practical to do an EIS until .a site is selected. She indicated that she was encouraged by the number of people who want the ,~ Commissioners to pursue the kind of planning they have tried to pursue. In the past they have gotten a lot of criticism about planning and it's good to know that there are citizens who are in agreement with the type of planning that the Commissioners believe -' is necessary. She asked the citizens to please be aware of what is happening, and let ' the Commissioners hear from them and be aware that there are quarterly Public Hearings. Come and tell the Commissioners what you want because they want and need to hear from everybody. It would be helpful and it will make citizens active participants in Orange County Government. Chairman Carey indicated that the process is working because it has gotten many people involved even before the Fublic Hearings have been held. He shares the concern of some of the Commissioners that a formal decision is going to make the Public Hearings irrelevant. He stated the $oard will be considering other issues in the future, some of which are going to be equally upsetting to some people. He does not want to encourage people to think a process will be stopped because there is a public outcry in the middle of it. The County ,has been working on a plan to preserve the rural character in this County for several months and many of the people who have written have not been involved in that process. Many of the letters indicate that the citizens are as concerned about what is happening in the rural areas of Orange County are the Commissioners. He pointed out that it is not too late to get involved in the process. He indicated that he would like to have the public hearings held. Commissioner Hartwell stated that he would like to have the Public Hearings regardless of whether or not a vote is held on the airport issue. He indicated that he would like to make a clear statement that he is not prepared to move forward with the airport. •.a~~' A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, that based an the fact that the Orange County Board of Commissioners have examined the .--•-.~, facts presented by the airport planning consultants and the public related to a proposed new county general aviation airport, they have determined that there is no site in Orange County which is suitable for a new airport. The Board is further convinced that the goals of economic development and diversification of the tax base in Orange County can be achieved by means other than an airport. The Board is eager to involve the public in a partnership to develop these alternatives. Commissioner Willhoit stated that the purpose of a Public Hearing needs to be advertised. The Public Hearings on May 24 and May 25 were advertised for discussion on the proposed airport. The substance of this motion will preclude a meaningful consideration of the matter that was to go to public hearing. Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he had met with citizens on this issue and tried to get past the positions held by individual citizens which were to the interests of the individuals. He discovered that the interests, in terms of what kind of place did they want to.live in, what kind of job opportunities they want to have, how they want to fund schools, what did they want to do about trash, was vary much in common with his own interests. He wants to push aside the positions and get to the common interests. Commissioner Willhoit stated that a meaningful public debate will be precluded by a vote to stop the airport process at -this time. Commissioner Marshall stated that she believes that some people will feel left out of the process by a vase against the airport. She indicated that she had tried not to influence anyone last Monday night but had just voted and shared her reasons why. It is quite evident that there are at least four members of this Board who have gathered enough information that they do not think there is a suitable site. She stated that she would love to hear the public debate that Commissioner Willhoit is talking about but questioned whether that would happen at a hearing that is held by a Hearing Officer. There is the Rural Character Study and there will be Public Hearings held. All these people are needed to make positive statements about what they want in Orange.County and how they will help make a better life. Living is getting too unaffordable and it is going to get worse if people are not educated about needs and there are not different jabs. Commissioner Halkiotis called the question. VOTE: AYES - 4 NOES - 1 (Commissioner Willhoit) Ab.70URNMENT With no further items for consideration, Chairman Carey adjourned this Special Meeting. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly Blythe, Clerk - MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING MAY 22, 1989 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, May 22, 1989 at 7:30 p.m, in the Superior Court Room, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, NC. COMMISSIONERS P ESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Don Willhoit, Shirley Marshall, Steve Halkiotis and John Hartwell. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs, and members Amanda Garol Cantrell, Steve Yuhasz, Dan.Eddleman, Chris Best, Jean Hamilton, Elizabeth Eidenier, and Pegge Abrams. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link Jr., Economic Development Director Sylvia Price, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bel]., Emily Crudup, David Stancil, and Eddie Kirk, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. A. BOARD COMMENTS - None B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Chairman Carey announced that all citizens who desire to speak will have an opportunity at the appropriate time when the item appears on the agenda. -" C. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey, Jr, read the public charge. NOTE: Chairman Carey presided over the meeting. 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 the title of each item will be a brief summary of the presentation with the citizen comments in more detail. D. FUBLIC HEARING 1. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS a. Rural Route 10 _ Chapel Hill The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comments on the postal service routes proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned house numbers for Route 10, Chapel Hill. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. MR. PAUL LUSH, a resident of The Trails, spoke in opposition to the proposed change of address. One serious concern he had was in reference to emergency personnel responding to a call and not being able to find the new address. CHAIRMAN CAREY stated that one of the objectives for assigning new house numbers was to assist with emergency rescue and response. The goal is to increase the ,.., .J J r, probability that the EMS people will get to the emergency quickly. 1_,,,, MR. DALE WALL, a resident of The Trails, stated that only residents of Summerwind had received notices about the proposed change. He also mentioned that the development is over l0 years old and already have assigned house numbers. He opposed changing the house numbers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. CHAIRMAN CAREY indicated that some time ago the Board of Commissioners changed its advertisement on these house numbering items so that the public would not be misled. The County does have a policy of moving in the direction of changing house numbers in the county to 4 digit numbers. The purpose of these Public Hearings is for the public to bring up special problems to enable the County to address those before final action is taken. b Rural Route 3 = Hillsborou h The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on the postal service routes proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned hause numbers for Rural Route 8 - Hillsborough. COMMISSIONER HALKIOTIS requested an answer to the question about why all the homes were not notified. PLANNER DON POWELL stated that a complete mailing went out to all residences in The Trails Subdivision. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. MR. .7AY ZARAGOZA, owner of houses at 2303 and 2319 New Sharon Church Road, indicated that these houses are off the road. He asked that consideration be given to the numbering of those houses that are back off the road so that those on the road will be numbered properly. DON POWELL stated that this indicated that he would go over the appearance of jumping around development should occur. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS GLOSED. jumping around is not actually what is happening. He this specific problem with Mr. Zaragoza. The reason for is to allow far future fill-in off the road if A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A-240 for Item Dl(a) and D1(b). VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS a. LUP-7-89 Philp Scott (Rural Residential to l0-year Transition) The presentation was made by Planner David Stancil. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The property is located west of Rigsbee road and University Static Road in Chapel Hill Township. This area is currently zoned R-1 Residential and is - '7 --, designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment to the plan would reclassify these sites to the 10-Year Transition Plan category. This amendment would apply to the Chapel Hill Township component of the plan. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD COMMISSIONER WILLHOIT requested and Stancil sketched out the boundaries of the Hillsborough service district. COMMISSIONER MARSHALL stated she felt it ironic that the next item on the agenda is to update the overall view of the Zoning Ordinance and details the process followed in order to bring organized planning to this process. Long before the airport people made their feelings known, there was a planning process in place. None of these changing conditions had been brought forth in August. Any changing conditions would have had to take place since August of 1988. Most people have said that they have bought their houses and are where they are because they believe in the planning process that Orange County has put into place. There is a need for the people to have a part in.this process. These new plans were in the works by August of 1988 and if the feeling was that this should be transition, it should have been brought to the people at that time. She also indicated that she was interested in the water and sewer policy becoming a part of this document because the water and sewer policy also says that approval of new development should not take place until it is known that the services can be provided. Hillsborough has an ambitiously carved out water and sewer area but it has not been done in conjunction with Orange County which has not had any input. The question of whether the Land Use Plan or what a municipality would like to do should take priority has come up in the past. Both Mayor Sheffield of Hillsborough and Mayor Gulley of Durham gave promises that they understood that the Land Use Plan was of uppermost importance. This assumes that all the people who are making plans, if this is approved, will follow them out. If the Land Use Plan is changed, it is changed even if the plans it was changed for are never completed. She stated that this ad hoc planning is very disturbing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIG COMMENTS. MS. GWEN GAGEL of Rigsbee Road stated that the 10 year transition would not help their community. People purchased their land with the belief that it would stay zoned as it is. MR. PHILLIP SCOTT, owner of the property in question, indicated that there is access to one of the parcels and negotiation is underway for access to the other. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to come back to the Board no earlier than August 1, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. LUP-8-89 Land Use Element Text (Section 2.0 county-Wide Profile/Section 3.0 Land Use Plan.) The presentation was made by David Stancil. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on the proposed text amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the sections of the Land Use Element that this amendment would update are as follows: (1) Section 2.0, County Wide Profile, and L ~.w -'~ _~ v ~i (2) Section 3.0-3.5, Land Use Plan. ~-~ UES4~ FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE PLANNING BOARD i GOMMISSIONER WILLHOIT requested that the cover on the document be changed. MR. EDDLEMAN asked what the time span for updating a Land Use Plan should be in order for the plan to be valuable. MR. STANCIL stated that many COt~'meframe has been chosen.upTheemosorcommonly useds growing so rapidly that a five yeax up-date is five years. THERE WERE NO CITIZEN GOMMENTS. A motion was made by ChairmaB ardeforsacrecamuc-endationstoacomeMbackato~theaBoardsno item be referred to the Planning earlier than August 1, 1989• VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. LUp_g_gg Land Use Elegy M~ (Pr°tected Watershed Overlay) The presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this iteortioneofg presented for the purpose of receiving public comment on a proposal to add a p the southeast corner of the ompletenBo ndary of thetUpperlEnarWatershedaonrthedLandrUse District and delineate the c p Element. ''~ THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT. ALLEN SPALT stated that he recently discovered that there seems to be a problem in the characterization of impervious surface in Orange County. He commented that having such surfaces include concrete or asphalt does not go far enough. There are other impervious surfaces, such as unpaved, or gravel surfaces. He suggested that gravel areas for commercial use with 30$ of the area being graveled that it include a significant amount of impervious surface. This needs to includes gravel surfaces as well. MS. SCEARBO stated that that could not be addressed at this time since the advertisement did not include gravel surfaces. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Ghairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board no sooner than August 1st. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3.a. Z- 5-89 PW-II PROTECTED WATERSHED OVERLAY The presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item is being heard for the purposth~fUreeTi~nogWatershed toetheopWllpProtected WatershedrOverlay t southeast corner of pp District and delineate the complete Boundary of the Upper Eno Watershed on the Land Use Plan. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD. THERE WERE NO CITIZEN COMMENTS. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board far a recommendation to be returned to the Board no sooner than August 1st. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Z-6-89 Thomas Whisnant/Gary Phillips The presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on a rezoning request submitted by Thomas Whisnant and Gary Phillips. The property in question is located on the north side of NC 54, at and west of the intersection of NC54 and White Cross Road. The area to be rezoned is along the frontage on NC 54 at a depth of about 255 feet. There are three zoning changes proposed for the 2.65-acre area. 1. One acre, located at the southwest corner of the tract, fronting on Hwy. 54, is proposed to be rezoned from R-1 to NC-2; 2. .65 acres on the southeast corner of the tract, fronting NC 54, and directly across from White Cross Road, is proposed to be rezoned from R-1 to LC-1;, and 3. One acre, also fronting on NC 54, located between the two areas described -. above is proposed to be rezoned from NC-2 to LC-1. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE PLANNING BOARD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS. MR. BOB HARTFORD, a property owner in this area, indicated that his property is presently being turned into a residential subdivision, named Oak Hollow. He is representing himself and Mr. Vernon Davis. He stated that he is requesting that rezoning not be granted until the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board can be fully assured that Section 4.2.8a and Section 4.2.8b of the Zoning Atlas will be observed. He was made aware that a non-maintained community sewage disposal system is being operated an this tract of property. The Bingham School and six residences and a one-story stucco building is adjacent to this property. About 30 feet to the north of the stucco building is a 30' square gravel pit with a rusted 10 inch pipe running into it. Raw sewage is running into the gravel pit, running through the pit, down the hillside in a gully and eventually joins a creek that separates two sections of the property: He submitted ten photographs of this condition. He mentioned that Mr. Davis called Mr. Rick Airs, the Environmental Engineer with the NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Mr. Airs met with them at the site at 9:00 a.m. on Friday. He indicated that he could not find a permit far the system. He contacted Mr. Whisnant and Mr. Phillips. He has advised them that they need to have an Engineer submit a plan to the State that would show them how sewage could be disposed of. The existing system would have to be brought up to standard. COMMISSIONER HALKIOTIS asked for clarification on the statement that the Health Department stated that this was State approved. MR. HARTFORD stated that the County has nothing to do with this and the State says that there has been no inspection or record of a permit being issued. The system is 30'~"~; square and full of stone. It should have 4 to 6 inches of washed sand on top of the stone. There should also be an effluent distributor that spreads the effluent over the ';~ surface of the filter pit. MR. GARY PHILLIPS distributed a copy of a letter from Ballentine Associates, P.A. who were retained by Mr. Phillips to begin the process of obtaining a DEM permit. A copy of this letter is made a permanent part of these minutes by reference and is located in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. He indicated that they contacted the County and were told that they had no jurisdiction over the property. DEM said they had no record of the property and therefore could not inspect it. He asked them to do a search for the permit. DEM replied that the County must have issued a permit and therefore were responsible. After repeated calls which did not solve the problem, he called DEM and requested that they advise him on how to get this system inspected. They told him to hire an Engineer to evaluate the system and have him contact DEM and make a recommendation as to repair and maintenance. He also mentioned they spent over $2500.00 for renovations to the system. He indicated that the intention behind this request for an amendment is to close a small gap between two commercial properties. Historically, this property has been used for commercial purposes. He stated that they owned the six homes mentioned earlier. Because the system is a simple sand system, it is not certain whether DEM will require a license to operate. He stated that they were prepared to go with whatever DEM suggested. COMMISSIONER HALKIOTIS questioned the sentence in Mr. Sallentine's letter which stated that "available data indicates that the existing system has performed satisfactorily." He asked if they would say that it is performing satisfactorily at thE,,:,. present time. He also questioned if he had heard correctly that there was a 10,000 gallon underground tank. '::::'~ MR. PHILLIPS stated that he did feel that it was performing satisfactorily.. The adjoining property owner, Mr. Everett Blackwood, has agreed to give up to eight (8) acres of repair area for the project. Also, there is a 10,000 gallon concrete tank. MR. TOM WHISNANT, property manager at White Cross School and the six houses, stated that they have been working diligently to up-date the system. The system was installed by Orange County and did meet standards at that time. The system is in better shape than it has been in quite some time. COMMISSIONER WILLHOIT stated that the system was owned by the school system, not the County. In answer to a question from Dan Eddelman, Mr. Whisnant stated that they had enlarged the parking area which was one of the reasons they were requesting this rezoning. They are trying to develop a Regional Arts Center and are having some success doing so. The success of this project is creating new problems. Expanding the parking facilities is one way of solving some of those problems. In order to do this expansion, they will need a parking facility in an R-1 zone for a NC-2 which is what they have currently. They are trying to correct this because they believe it was an error in the Zoning Atlas. In addition to rezoning the R-1, they are trying to-rezone the LC-1 so as the school continues to grow they will be able to continue to comply with zoning. If the rezoning request is successful, they will have one acre of additional parking which should handle any event that is scheduled. MR. BEST asked Mr. Kirk what the difference is between LG-1 and NG-2 and he indicated that NC-2 allowed more uses. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS GLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to come back to the Board no sooner than August 1st. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. PD-1-89 McLennan's Farm 'The presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on the proposal for a Planned Development-Special Use Permit for McLennan's Farm. Mr. Leon Todd submitted an application for a residential Planned Development in the Rural Buffer. The plan for McLennan's Farm includes fourteen (14) lots to be served by a community low pressure system for sewage disposal. The County contracted with Hazen and Sawyer, consulting engineers, to prepare a study on the advisability and effectiveness of alternative systems for sewage disposal. This report was presented to the Gommissioners on August 22, 19$8. COUNTY ENGINEER PAUL THAMES stated that he has reviewed the engineers plan for the alternative sewer system for McLennan's Farms. He indicated that the design of the system includes septic tanks and pump tanks for each individual house, a force main to a central pumping system and a low pressure nitrification field which is a good design in general. He did, however, have specific problems with the use of the concrete block construction for the central pumping structure in that it would be hard to waterproof. He indicated that it would be better to use one large, or a series of smaller, precast concrete septic or pumping tank type structures. The design of the lower pressure field allows the liquid to be pumped out into 3000 linear feet of piping. This will create a problem which will cause the field to fail in a short. period of time. Piping to 1000 or 1200 linear feet would be a better option. The size of the field is set at a minimum of 2.7 acres. They apparently have 2.75 total acres of satisfactory area where the low pressure field can be located. They do not have any allowance for buffers, for corrections that are necessary in the field to avoid steep slopes, or low areas where the field can hold water. Generally, between 5$ and 10~ of an overall area that is satisfactory is needed to be used for corrections due to sloping, etc. This 5~ to 10~ would put this over the 2.75 available acres. The last major problem is the way the system is proposed to be owned. Each individual homeowner will be responsible for his own individual septic tank and pumping tank. The homeowners association will own the remainder of the equipment which will be operated by a licensed utility operator. This would result in very irregular installations of individual homeowner's septic tanks, pumping systems and so forth. These will be different types of pumps and equipment. It would be better°if a licensed utility operator owned the system, including the forced mains and the individual lot's septic tanks and pumping facilities. These problems are fairly serious and if left to the existing design on the alternative system would flaw it to the extent that it would not be a reliable system. However, the problems can be solved by some adjustments to design and the way the ownership is handled. They also can increase the size of the field by cutting down the number of houses or decreasing the number of bedrooms per house. The system is sized for 120 gallons per bedroom for 3.5 bedrooms per house for 14 houses. COMMISSIONER MARSHALL referred to Paul Wilms' letter about Amberly. She indicated that she did not know how that would effect these permits in the future. She read a portion of Mr. Wilms letter which is incorporated into these minutes by reference and is located in the permanent agenda files in the Clerk's office. The report which was addressed by Mr. Thames has been received by the Planning Staff and they are in the =--~ process of trying to deal with the aspects raised in that report. } CHRIS BEST, Planning Board member asked for clarification on 8.2.4c on page 125. PLANNER MARY SCEARBO stated that the application did not contain information regarding the existing traffic volumes and conditions around the site. BEST questioned whether or not the revised plans requested by NCDOT have been received. SCEARBO stated that there were requirements for site triangle easements at the intersection of Bowden Raad and also site easements within the development. She also indicated that the revised plans have not been received. That is one of the things that needs to be completed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS. KANI HUROW, President of the League of Women Voters of Chapel Hill/Carrboro, stated that the League has a long history of concern for the conservation of natural resources, especially protection of sources .of drinking water. The League has made many public statements in support of watershed protection. The citizens of Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Orange County are fortunate that Orange County has two watersheds with the classification of WS I. These are wonderful natural resources that must be managed and protected. The University Lake Watershed Study recommends action that must be taken if our drinking water quality is to be protected. The Study rates "community" systems as "~, more risky than septic tanks or sewer extensions and recommends against experimenting ,; with such technology in an environmentally sensitive drinking-water watershed. The ._ League is particularly concerned that approval of the proposed "community Iow-pressure- pipe" wastewater system, with its risk of failure would set a precedence for use of this type of system in a watershed. The League of Women Voters of Chapel Hill/Carrboro urges the Board of Commissioners to chose safe, proven technology and long-term reliability and effectiveness in any decision relating to drinking-waters watershed. She requested, on behalf of the League, that this request for a special use permit for McLennan's Farm be denied because of the risks it would pose to the drinking water for the more than 55,000 consumers in Orange County of water from University Lake. MR. DAN JEWELL, a landscape architect from Chapel Hill, spoke on behalf of Leon Todd, the developer of this project. Mr. Jewel indicated that he is the designer of most of this project with the exception of the wastewater system. He stated that the only issue with this project is the "community nitrification field". If it were not for this issue the project would have been approved over a year ago. The nature of this site forced them to go with the system in question. The suitable soils are all lumped into two large areas on the site. The State generally frowns upon multiple field locations in a project so they chose to concentrate on the larger field and use that for the septic disposal system. The design is a dual-alternating system where there are two fields which are alternately dosed and allowed to rest, plus an additional area with at least that. much again, which is called a repair area. The repair area is used as a reserve in the event that the system does develop problems. He stated that 18 months ago they presented what they felt were good arguments and information which under normal circumstances would have been sufficient to show the Board that the system is a viable one. In spite of this, OWASA and the public have indicated that they believe that thF systems have high failure rates, and have too many unknowns. These unknowns are the main reason the Planning Board voted 4-3 against the project on the issue of public safety and health and welfare. During the discussions at the Planning Board meeting, it was recommended that the county hire an independent consulting engineer to study alternative wastewater systems and the viability of allowing them in rural areas of the county. In April, 1988, the Commissioners hired Hazen & Sawyer to do such a study. In August, 1988, that study was presented to the County Manager. One of the statements from that study said "the technology of alternative treatment systems is technically sound and can also be a reliable method of wastewater treatment and disposal if properly designed, constructed and operated." It appears, from the comments Paul Thames made, that he is in need of more information from their designer, since he felt the system was poorly designed. Also, OWASA made the comment that the existing regulations controlling the operation of these systems were not sufficient. However, the Hazen and Sawyer report states, "the design criteria of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Management and the North Carolina Department of Human Services, which review the applications are generally adequate to insure acceptable operation of all alternative systems". He stated that although they were very anxious to bring this matter back before the Soard of Commissioners, the Planning Staff recommended that they wait until after the Board had adopted the Water and Sewer Policy. That policy has been adopted and it states "the elimination of administrative and informative barriers to the use of safe, sanitary alternative waste water treatment systems within the county should be encouraged." The policy also states, "the use of these systems will be permitted, consistent with the applicable laws and regulations, only in a few conditions. One of these conditions applies to McLennans's Farm. That is, land unsuitable for conventional wastewater treatment systems and not served by public sewer facilities. He stated that the two policies that came out of the county in the last year, the Hazen & Sawyer Report and the Water and Sewer Policy, both state that these systems should be utilized where feasible. To deny a project simply because it is in a watershed would impact a substantial part of Orange County. Public water and sewer is not available to this project. To arbitrarily deny this request is not fair. Finally, he commented that there were many differences between this project and the Amberly project. These differences include size, design, and monitoring plans. MR. CRAIG MORGAN, the consulting engineer for this project, indicated that the important question is how wastewater treatment will be handled in a safe manner in the watershed area. Morgan indicated that he designs residential low pressure pipe systems in Orange County, as well as large cluster systems on the beach. In Orange County most residential low pressure pipe systems have an excess of 800 or 900 linear-feet of pipe and more likely in excess of 1200 feet of pipe for a single family residence. It is true that the smaller the system, the better it may be to limit the flow. However, larger systems are designed hydrologically. They are balanced hydrologically and they work on a uniform basis. He stated that he had a number of large systems on the beach that are balanced to a uniform pressure of 2 feet of pressure with a balanced differential of less than 4 inches. He indicated that if the subdivision was approved for 15 lots, it did not necessarily mean that it is going to be a 15 lot subdivision. The size is determined by the maximum, safe capacity of the draining field. If that is only for 5 houses, then that is all that could be designed. It is possible that one house or some bedrooms may have to be dropped from this plan. He stated that the big problem appears to be in trying to convince everyone that these types of systems are safe. The Hazen & Sawyer people reviewed a number of large, low pressure pipe systems in the state of North Carolina. They found that the overwhelming evidence of system failures were the result of operation and maintenance performance. He stated that he believes that the operation and management structure which is being set up for McLennan Farm is the most sophisticated that has ever been used in Orange County for Subdivisions. The proposal calls for the system to be clustered with a centralized ~~ .~ -.. drain field and individual on-site septic tank, pump tank systems. The utility that will be brought on board will be licensed by the State of North Carolina's Utilities '~"~~ Commission. The Utility operator will not own the facil-ities because owning the `i facility might be a disadvantage because of the unit's size. It is difficult to sell a ~! 15 lot subdivision with a maximum utility rating price of $18.00 per month to a utility. They do not want to bother with the little subdivision. Therefore, they altered the proposal so that the Homeowners Association would own the drain field and would lease, in perpetuity with a strong no termination clause, to the Utility. The only way the Utility Operator can be terminated is by negligence, failure or abandonment of the project. If this happened, he would have already posted a $10,000 bond, which would be revoked at that time. A second operator would be brought on to maintain the system. He indicated that they also believe that it is to the benefit of all subdivision lot owners to own their own septic tank and systems. However, they intend to build all l5 units with a Utility Operator overseeing and supplying the equipment. They will not be built by independent manufacturers supplying whatever is available at the time. They will be built under a strong specification. Each lot will place a certain amount of money in an escrow account. This account will be overseen by the Homeowners Association and the Utility Operator. In the event of system or equipment failure, the money in the account will be used for repair. The access to the account will be by double signature by the President of the Homeowners Association and the President of the Utility. He indicated that they are trying to build in safeguards for residential habitation of this area and to allow the development of land without the total restriction and abandonment of this project. He asked if no development is going to occur in the watershed, who is going to own it and maintain it? GOMMISSIONER HALKIOTTS asked why the central pumping tank would be built of concrete block? MIL. MORGAN stated that he had built 25 to 30 concrete pumping facilities in Dare ;::a County, Kill Devil Hills, and Nags Head. He indicated that 95~ of them are 70~ below the water table. He indicated that a full tank in a water table is not going to infiltrate and exfiltrate. It is hydrostatically balanced. The only time there is an imbalance is when the water table drops below the level of the tank or the tank is empty. Concrete block is not impervious to moisture penetration but compound is.put on the blocks to help reduce any moisture and to further waterproof these tanks. He assured the Commissioners that there would be no interchange between the tanks and the groundwater table on the outside, unless there is an imbalance. That could be caused by the tank above the ground being full or the tank empty and below the water table. At that point he would be most concerned about floating. He stated that precast concrete tanks have a reputation for leaking which is why they do not use them. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that a concrete block structure that was built for a school in this county because of the imbalance came to the surface. MR. MORGAN indicated that the concrete block tank will be set on a minimum slab of 12" reinforced. The tank has reinforcing rods, and it is poured and filled with 2500 pound concrete. Mr. Morgan stated that the structural integrity of a concrete block will withstand the stress of water, earth pressures, cracking or overburdened to do the job intended. MR. BEST questioned whether the difference in the soils at the beach and in Orange County would have a great impact on the construction and operation of a system. ~~ - .~~ ~s _. MORGAN indicated that the construction was simpler in clay. The operation was quite different. In this proposed project, loading would be at 1/10 of a gallon per square foot per day. Because of the high water table at the beach, treatment of the water is done in the upper zones of the soil on the beach. It is also done in the upper zones of the soil for the clay. Clay in this particular site is more than 36" below the ground. The clay is no more difficult to contend with at 36" below the surface than is the water table on the beach. The problem is in loading the upper horizon in a safe loading manner and getting the treatment in the top 36". The minute clay is encountered, it will run along the top of the clay rather than seep down into it. Clay will not absorb-any great amount of water. BEST asked if Morgan had done any projects of this size in the type of soil present in this area and he indicated that he had not personally handled a system in Orange County of this size. CANTRELL asked if bells and buzzers actually went off if there was a problem with the system and Morgan answered that they do actually have buzzers that go off in the house which indicate that there is a problem in the pump house. The system is designed with a minimum of 12 hours of reserve capacity so that when the alarm buzzer goes off, there is still residual time within the system before there are any major problems. YUHASZ asked for an explanation as to the essential difference between Mr. Morgan's system and an individual low pressure system. MORGAN indicated that essentially there is no difference between how a single family low pressure pipe system and how this system will operate, other than the fact - that it is a larger concentration of units. Spreading the wastewater disposal over the entire subdivision might be abetter idea in some peoples ideas. In this particular -..,.,,,,~ case, that cannot be done because the soils in the other axeas will not tolerate it. In answer to a question from Steve Yuhasz about the typical loading rate Morgan indicated that the general rate in suitable soils is about .15 gallons per square foot per day. They ga up to as high as .4. ALLEN SPALT, a member of the Protect Our Water group, reminded the Commissioners that several years ago there was an intensive controversy about Carrboro's approval of development in the University Lake Watershed. Everyone agreed that the Amberly project, as then proposed, posed an unacceptable risk to the public water supply. McLennan's Farms was proposed about the same time. He stated that Protect Our Water members feel it is no better. They believe that a public water supply is not an appropriate place for research on alternative waste systems, nor is it an appropriate place to experiment in how to manage those systems. He mentioned that during the last election in Carrboro all of the elected officials who favored Amberly were defeated and replaced by candidates who favored greater protection of the watershed. Carrboro has adopted a moratorium on the development of alternative systems or development using more than 4 individual septic tanks pending consideration of the OWASA study. Orange County adopted the Rural Buffer designation with one unit per 2 acre minimum lot size. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management classified University Lake as a WS-I watershed. This is its highest rating. OWASA's study by Camp, Dresser and McKee concluded that protection of the already threatened University Lake required, among other things, minimum standards of development of no greater than one unit per five acres or density of one unit per two acres with structural "best management" practices. It also required no use of alternative wastewater systems in the watershed. Paul Wilms, Director of Environmental Management, turned down Amberly's permit, stating that the development :! ~~ would allow urbanization of the watershed and was therefore not compatible with the requirements of a WS I watershed. The developer of Amberly has recently announced his „_w, intention to xedesign the project to make it consistent with the recommendations of the OWASA study. The McLennan's Farm proposal has been resubmitted in essentially the same form as it was initially submitted. The only difference is in the organization of how the waste system will be managed. The proposal does not meet the State's rules for a WS-I watershed. It is not in conformity with the OWASA study. It threatens the quality of a major pubic water supply. McLennan's Farm should be rejected and the recommendations of the Camp, Dresser, McKee report should be adopted. BOB PECK, Chairman of the OWASA Board, read a statement to the Board. A copy of this statement is incorporated herein by reference and may be found in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. He recommended that the Board of Commissioners deny the Special Use Fermit application for McLennan's Farm based on findings that the project will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located in the University Lake watershed, and if developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. MARTIN MANDEL reemphasized the rating of the watershed.. He stated that the Board has governmental jurisdiction over 80~ of this area, She asked the Commissioners to please make wise decisions. The citizens will support you. MARGARET BROWN strongly urged the Commissioners to take a long view of this issue and protect the drinking water. If it is not protected, there will be the burden of heavy taxation and the demoralizing task of cleaning up the water supply. She urged the Commissioners to deny this request. THE PUBLIG HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, that the Public Hearing be continued to June Sth to give the County Engineer and the McLennan Farm's engineer an opportunity to meet and further discuss the alternative wastewater treatment system and for the County engineer to provide a complete evaluation of the system at that time. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Article 12-Landsca in & Screenin Requirements The purpose of this item is to receive public comments on proposed amendments to Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, Landscaping and Screening Requirements. The purpose of the proposed amendments to Article 12 is to provide more consistency between the subdivision landscape regulations and the requirements for landscaping and screening contained in the Zoning Ordinance. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board no sooner that August 1st. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. .Article 7.20.4) Mobile Home Parks (Landscaping & Screening Requirements). The purpose of this item_is to receive public comments on proposed amendments to Article l2 of the Zoning Ordinance, Landscaping and Screening Requirements. The purpose of the proposed amendments to Article 12 is to provide mare consistency between the subdivision landscape regulations and the requirements for landscaping and screening contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Article 7.20,4J, Landscaping and Screening (Mobile Home Parks), is the only section of the Ordinance which refers to a specific requirement contained in Article l2. The language of this section will be amended to reflect the proposed buffer standards while maintaining the original intent of the buffer around mobile home parks described in Article 7.20.4J. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiatis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board no sooner than August lst. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Section III-B - Subdivision Classification ' The purpose of this item is to receive citizen comments on the proposed amendment to Section III-B of the Subdivision Regulations to revise the definition of "Minor Subdivision". The proposed amendment would establish a twenty-four (24) month time period during which a maximum of four (4) new lots may be created from an existing lot. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. A motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board no ' sooner than August lst, VOTE: UNANIMOUS b, Section IV-B-10 ~ Cluster Subdivisions This proposed revision is a minor change to the application requirements for Cluster Subdivision to provide consistency in requirements between major and minor subdivisions. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, second by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board no sooner than August 1st, VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to consider, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on June 5, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, NC, Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Beverly Blythe, Clerk