HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19890828X
_'J J
A rip oved:10-2-~9 MINUTES V ,
ORANGE CUUNTY BOARD OF CO!~-'fISSIONEF:S` _ ..
-AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 19$9
The Orange County- Board of Commissioners mEt in Joint 5rssion pith t1Te OratigF Cowztt-
Planning Board for the Quarterl~• Public Hearing on :1u~ust 28, 1959 at i:30 p.t:. in
Superior Caurtraom, new County Courtl•-ouse, Hillsborough, tiC.
COUNTY CONt~iISSIONEF.S PRESENT: Chairman doses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen
Halkiotis, John Hartwell, and Shirley 1`iat•shall.
COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT': Commissioner Don H`illhoit
PLANNING BOARD MEM(3ERS PitESF.NT: Chairman Barrr Jacobs, ~'ir~iltia Boland, Bctt~
Eidenier, Clint Burl:lin, Jean Hamilton, Amanda Carol Cantrell, Peggy Abrams, Uan
Eddleman, Cttris Best, 5teti•e Yuhasz, at;d glil:e Let:is.
PLANNING PAARD ME~IBF.RS AI:SENT: ;gone.
COUN'1'X ATTOI~NEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill
STAFF PRF,SENT: County ,tanager John A1. Link, Jr. , Plannin; Director *far~•in Collins,
Planners Emilz Crudup, Eddie hirl:, 1.1ar~• 5cearbo, and Don Powell, Clerk to the Board
Bel~erly B1ti*the, and Deputg Clerk to tl,e Board )1ath~° Baler.
A. BOARD COMMENTS
None.
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
1. MATTEP.S ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
Those who wish to speal; trill be recognized at tite apuropriate time.
2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRIT.TED AGEA'DA
None.
C. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chairman Moses Carer, Jr. read the Public Ci7ar7E.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS
a. RURAL ROUTE 4-CHAPEL HILL
The presentation t. as made bz• Plar;•in Collins. In summar3 this item t.as
presented to~ receiti•e citizen cotument on the proposed house and building numbers to lae
assigned to Orange County Rural Route :1 seri•ed btr the Chapel Hill Post Office. Route ~
includes an area west along Dairy~land Road from Calrander, continuing earth to Albert
Road, then south elan; Union Gra~•e Church 1?aad to intersect again with Dairyland Road;
then south along Bethel-Hicl:arv Groz•e Church Road to ?;C 5~ kest, zricluding Jo :iac Road
and Hackney* Road; then east along NG ~~, south along tieville Road, east along Old
Greensboro Road and earth along Hatch Paad, to conclude on ':C ~1.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROI+i THE BO.'iRD OF CO.~iI SSI ONEI~S OR PLANir I NG BOARD.
THE PUBLIC HEAPING WA5 OPEN FOR CITIZEN CO1+~fEh'T5.
:~
RACHEL RO5ENFELD of 123 Robin Road spoke against cl-,antint her address to 508
Robinette Court. She is in fa~•or of changing the gural Routes. HoFe~'er, sloe does riot
support changing the name of roads.
STEPHEN DllNCAN of 127 Robinette Court spoke in opposition to chanting his address.
He stated that the local mercY,ants will nvt want to cash a check where the Drivers'
License disagrees with the checks. The Uri•:ers' License will need to be chanced within
30 dares..
LYNNE pllNCAN of 127 Robinette Court spoke in opposition to chanting her address.
CUh~iISSIONER MARSHALL asked Collins to brieflti* explain wh~• the house numbers were
changed to :,00 rather than bein; left in the 100's.
CULLINS indicated that this is probabl~* the principle concern that has been
expressed thus fsr. The system is based on a grid and the major caordinants for the
grid basically split the county in quarters. He indicated on the map the divisions.
He stated that by the time you get to the Southern end of the count-, if a person lives
on a street that runs in a.north/south direction the numbers mad- be up in tl,e 1700.
House numbers are assigned on ~D foot increments, so that if anti- subdit-ision of the
propertzr occurs, sufficient latitude is left far additional l~,ouse numr~ers.
Di1NCAN stated that his major concern has not that the numbers were so hitii, but
rather that existing street numbers which were warl~ing perfectly- well wsre bEin;
changed. He felt that public serrices would not be impx•ot-ed.
CHAI&b;AN CARER commented that in the long run when t;,e area is built up, the new
house numbering system is intended to enable emergence- ~~eiiicles to find ti~eir
designationbeatherlast timeethathresidentsrHouldshamehtolchangeltheiraaddresses,that
this would
COMMISSIUNERSHARTWELL stated he still belie~-es that a computer system could hate
two different "look ups" without significantly increasing the cost or complexity of the
computerized emergenc1 dispatch system. He mentioned that he felt that the line would
have to be drawn at some point. For example, Cobb Terrace would probably never be
renumbered. Consequentlt, any system will have to make provisions for
leaning the grid system at some point. He su;gested that there would be wisdom in
leaving the grid sz-stem w•henet•er it best serves the interests of the residents.
RICHARD REAM of 5311 Hidawa~- Tirive spoke in opposition to the proposal to chance
the addresses.
THE Pi1BLIC HEARING WA5 CLUSED.
A motion has made b~~ Commissioner *isrshall, secarded b;r Chairm'n Care', to appro~•e
-...,:-;
...,,-.y
WILLIAM TUW of 100 Carl Urive spal:e in ofposition to tl-,e : ssigr,ment of house YY ..
numbers. He feels it an incorn-enience and an unnrcessar•~- e~PEnse for t.".° Count- and for
the citizens. He asked that this cl~at,te not occur.
ANN CRAh'FORaDtioned whrfherrnumbereonoWarrenhCourt~wasrbein~uchsnged~~ouSLenasled~.
However, .,he q
that 1,ex• number remain 117 ~rsrren Court.
y
s
;,
3
^
the proposed house and~buildirg numbers, followed b~- notification oi' the Chanel Hill Y .
;:Postmaster. and the ti.C. Department of Transportation, as required bg G.S. 131-?y0. = -
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. RURAL ROUTE 2-HILLSBOROUGH
The presentation was made br hiarvin Collins. In summarti• this item Has
presented to recei~•e citizen comment on the proposed house and building nun:be.rs to Y,e
assigned to Orange Count~* Rural Route 2 serti~ed b~• the Hillsborough Post Office. RoutE ?
includes an area north along )`C 5-r from Hw~= 70 up to and including Edmund Latta Road and
Phelps Road; then north again from Hwu r0 along tiC 86 to *1cDade Store Road, southward
along McDade Store Road, continuing south along Efland-Cedar Gro~•e and Highland Farm
Road to and including Coleman Loop, as well as I;enion Raad, Lal:e Dran;e Ruad grid a
portion of h'alnut Grove Church Road.
THERE h'ERE NO RUESTIONS Olt CDbLMEN'I'S PROM THE BOARD OP COMFiI55I0NERS, PLANtvING BD1~ItD OIt
CITIZENS.
COMMISSIONER MARSHALL repeated a suggestion made by Commissioner Hall:iotis some
time a.go, that a document explaining the grid s~-stem and the GIS s~-stem be prepared and
distributed to interested citizens. ,
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman Car•ez, to alprove
~. the proposed house and building numbers, followed bty notification of the Hillsborough
Postmaster and the N.C. Department of 'Transportation, as required bti• G.S. 153,-210.
-.:~ VOTE: UNANIMOUS
u. ~.~;a'
2. ZONING ATLAS AMEIr'DAfENTS
a. VERNON P. DAVIS - DELETED
b. Z-8-89 ENVIRDTEK, INC.
The presentation was made bz- Marvin Ga11_ins. In ~:ummar~- this item ~.as
presented to receit•e citizen comment cn the prcposed request b~ En :•irotel., Inc. to
rezone 265 acres on the west side of I--10, north of tieF Hope Church Road froci the Rural
Buffer (RB) to Agricultural Residential (AR). The prapertr is located on the west side
of I-~10, between I;ew Hope Church Road and Old ?~C 85., It is known as Lat D and a portion.
of Lot 12 of Tax ?~;ap 9, and Lot Z1 of Tax ^iap ? of Chapel Hill Township. The total area
proposed for rezoning. is 265.38 acres. If approved, the requested zoning would decrease
the minimum lot size from 2 acres to 40,000 square feet. Both the Joint Planning area
Land Lise Plan and the Orange Count~• Comprehensive Plan identify the Rural Buffer as
being "verb low density-". The Rural Buffer district was established and implemented in
order to earr~~ out the intent of bath plans. Tf approved, the reauested r~zaning would
permit uses which are not compatible witY, law density residential uses. Collins pointed
out that the Carrboro Board of ?,lderman's recommended denial of this pro}-~osal at their
august 22nd meetin?.
;r'AYNE PHEARS spoke on berialf of the applicant, :cello Leer who owns the property-.
This is a request so that a mining operatics can be put an this site. tiello Teer
purchased the land in 1981 and at the time of purchase it.was cGrrectlt* zoned for a rucl_
auarr~* with a Special tise Perr~it. tie set forth getting the property read- for
permitting by the State. He stated that this application is nerfectl~- consistent will:
'.~> 1,
the Land t~se Flan. Fart of the County's plan is the deyelogn;ent and retention of openY =
space. Contrar~• to popular m~`th, the use of a site such as this ultimately` involres the
use of very little of the property. This property cot,sists of approximately 2G8 acres
on which there would eventually he a hole that could someday be a la};e in the range of
~0 acres. The rest of the property is the same as any otl-er property-. It is regraded •.
and reve;etated. Even during the life of the facilitti-, not the quarry- but tL-e facility,
anotl~,er AO or 50 acres in additior- to the area that hill be mined Hill be used. T}tere
will be very largo buffers and a great deal of open space ~.hich he belieti•es is perfectly
consistent. If this application here approved, tl~ey hauld file a Special Use
application which would address the special issues hhich would be raised including
blasting, noise, dust, traffic, and all the things that go with a mining operation.
MICliAEL JOLLY stated in regard to Carrboro's vote on a similar application, with a
different acreage that went before them in ?.pril, the message was the same, the
arguments were the same, and the citizens were opposed to this request then, just as
they are now. He also stated that he was opposed to tl~,is rezoning ar,d would continue to
oppose it eac}t time it is presented. HE mentioned that he feels that it violates the
land Use Plan for tl;e Rural Buffer, and would decrease property 1•alues. lastly, he
expressed his regret that Commissioner 'Marshall has decided not to run for re-election:
He than}:ed her~for her tireless and dedicated efforts to preserve tl~,e environmental
quality of the county. He thanked all of the Commissioners for their keen appreciation
of the fact that the citizens of Orange County care where they live and care about
maintaining environmental quality.
5T]SANNA TREVINO spoke in apposition to the rezonin7. She asked that the
Commissioners help to assure that nothing be allowed to change the character of this
area.
RITCHIE BELL spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. He commended the
Commissioners for the position they tool: in f1pril and ur;ed them to deny this rezoning
request.
PHXLLIS A. DURHAM spoke in opposition to this rezoning request.
CEO:tGE CHOCELEY of Cedar Grote Township spoke in support of this rexonin; reaueCt.
He stated he belie;-es that the Orange Count~* government has been trying t.o remove the
rights of property owners. He indicated that he was speaking in an effort to help
pre'rent further erosion of his Constitutional rights to do as he sees fit with his
property. He also.~-entioned that although everyone likes goad food, travel by airline
and interstate highway, they don't like the smells and odors associated with farming,
the noise associated with air travel, or the rock quarries necessarS* for road
construction. He believes that the goti•ernment is not .conforming to the wishes of the
people and the people need to turn that trend around. He requested that I;ello Teer be
granted this rezoning and Special Lse Fermit.
DAVID LAKIN, a local resident, spoke in apposition to this rezoning request. He
indicated that this has al~:a;•s been a peaceful place to lire and I-10 has not changed
the character of this area to any great extent. Hs also mentioned that the upcoming
elementary school needs special consideration for road safety in that vicinity.
-'`, I
MARY ELLEN PRIESTLY stated that she and her husband purchased thirt~•-•tho acres of
forest land in 1972 that is just north of the zoned land. I-~0 cut their land in two so
that they have 12 1/2 acres that joins the proposed rezoning and 1~ acres further away.
,,~ ...;.
She stated that the~• have become forest managers. Th~~• want to preserve the ~ -
tnvironment and planning and zoning was tl,e only war to take care of that. Decisions - -
must be made based upon what is in the best interest of mist people. She indicated that
she and her husband are ~-ery much opposed to this rezonin; request. Che also addressed
the statement that Envirotel; made about how propert~° ~-alues have plumc:~ted along I-y0 ". "
between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough and that this area is not a good place far human
habitation. She indicated that she went to the Count}- appraiser in the County ~,ssessor•s
office to asl: about residential property along I-10 betweer! Chapel Hill and
Hillsborough. The Appraiser indicated that propert~• values have gone up from 198 to
1988. She requested that the Commissioners deny- this rFZOning request.
L~'DIA IiERNODLE spoke in opposition to this rezoning request.
TRAWICK WARD spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. He mentioned that he
heard more noise from Old 86 .than l,e does from I-~0. He stated that I-a0 runs throng], a
virtual tunnel at the intersection of Ivew Hope Road. There is a granite embankment
which is r:, to 100 feet high on either sidE. t11so, adjacent to that tunnel a mature
hardwood forest extends entirely do,,n the periphery of the property being considered
tonight. The noise issue is actually not a problem. He stated that he, his wife and
children built their home with their own hands and strongly oppose changing the
character of the area.
JAMES SWENBERG spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. He su;;ested that
Hello Teer attempt to sell the property to see if they could get market value for it.
If they are unsuccessful, people might be interested in listening to them discuss the
'~ financial burden that is being placed upon them by their inability to use this land as
',~= they originally intended. The New Hope Church interchange is the only non-commercial
`~ interchange in the county and he hopes that preserving the rural character in the county
will be a priority here tonight. He stated that if rezoning tal~:es place it will add
ammunition to tl~,e fire far getting that interchange rezoned cammercial.
LESLIE MACHOWIC spoke in oplosition to the rezoning request.
MS. LEIGH PEEK spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. Shs also indicated
that the Wildwood Homeowners association will be meeting next wEel: and she expects them
to pkss a resolution on this subject. She read tl~,e resolution into the record, a cafe
of which is incorporated herein b~• reference and may be found on page- of these
minutes. The resolution mad- be found in the permanent agenda file in tl7e Clerk's
office. She mentioned that her figures indicate tiello Teer has invested approximatelti
5500,000 in this property and at 55,000 an acre, which is the fair market ti•alue, they`
could make S800,000 if then sold this property today.
DAN COLLINS spoke in favor of this rezoning request. He indicated that he felt
that property owners should be allowed to decide how to use their land. He also agreed
with ?+ir. Phears that there is very little use for this land other than to deti°elop it in
the manner su~oested by Hello Teer.
JOHN CHARLTON, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He indicted that his property
has increased in value due to I-40. He n,entior~ed that I-~0 has made access to Ghar~el
Hill and RTP much easier
STEPEHN LEVINE urged the Board to rote a;ainst this reuuest.
WAYNE RIGGINS spa];e in support of this rezcning reauest. He stated he believed
P ti.1
r
that the
area to
citizens property rights were being trampled on and .t~,at people who panted tPiis~~ ~"~~~'
;;
stay rural needed to purchase the property. - '
LES BROWN stated that he sometimES travels to wort: past the _lmerican Stone Company
where a steady stream of 20 ton trucks enter the hi;hway and traffic drops to 5 miles an '.
hour. The same situation could. potentially happen on Aew Hope Church Road. at the end
of that road there will soon be a school. Futtin; a commercial enterprise there with
sloe: mos•ing trucks creates a great potential for disaster.
PHEARS stated that he understood tl,e citizens who wanted to keep thins the way
there were but it can't be done. He indicated that lie agreed that people who want to
keep this land as it is need to attempt to purchasF it. Howes-er, they need to l:,urchase
it at its fair market price not at a lower price caused by zoning making it unusable.
He also indicated that he believes these are constitutional rights and the decision on
this request needs to be made on that basis. It is not something that slaould be decided
by majority vote. He also stated that the Planning Director and his staff told the
Commissioners that the zoning was not appropriate. ,
BETTY EIDENIER asked i•ir. Phears to explain what he meant by "life of the property."
PHEARS indicated that -.•hat he meant was tl~e life of a quarry a•as 3D to 50 years
depending on how quickly the stone ~.as sold.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halltiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to
refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board
of Commissioners no sooner than October 2, 1989.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Z-9-89 HARTFORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
The presentation was made br Emir- Crudup. In summary this item was
presented to receive citizen comment on the proposed rezoning request submitted by
Hartford Construction Company. The property iri question is located on the north side of
NC Highway ~4 near h`hite Cross, approximatelti• 800 feet west of Oal: Hpllaw Raad +~:hich is
a new public road. It is known as part of lot 11,7 sho++n on Tax ?slap 30B in Bin;l:am
Township. It is also a portion of lot 10 in Oal: Hallow 5ubdi~-ision which was a major
subdivision appro~°ed in July of this z*ear. The zonin; designation requested is Local
Commercial-1, The maximum amount of land which may be zoned LC-1 in any actirity node
is five (5) acres. At present, there are 3.~5 acres of LC-1 in the k~hite Cross tiode.
If the proposed rezoning is approved, the total acreage of LC-1 will be 4.fi5. The
Comprehensive Plan states that the land use category of "Rural Community* Actiritt°2~ode -
identifies rural crossroad communities throu,hout the Cauntz* where small scale
commercial activities sert•ing the community and surrounding area are appropriate. The
applied zoning districts include: LC-1 and NC-?." Therefore, the proposed rezoning to
Local Commercial--1 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
QUESTIONS OR COiyLkIENTS FROM THE BOARD OF C01'iMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONER HALY.IOTIS asked if Lot 10 would be dirided into two lots.
bis. Crudup explained that only a portion would be rezpned; the remaining portion would
remain R-1. The result is that there would be two zoning lots altliou~h it.is one
subdivision lot. She also indicated that the remaining fronta5e on H+:i- :,~ is the
minimum 130 feet. In response to another Question, she indicated that the Plan
includes nine lots and it was a condition of subdivision approral that lots 1 through 9
--. _,
... ~~ .J
::11 access tt,e r,ew subdi~-ision road.
BOB HARTFORD, of Hartford Construction, indicated that the purpose of the tract has
not to create two lots where tlcere Has one. If enough of LC1 had been left for all of
that propert}• to be zoned LC1 that is what they would l~at~e preferred. However, the _ •_
Planning Department said its not a matter of number of lots. It is so mantic square feet,
literally, that can be rezoned commercial and the size of that piece of property- simplS-
didn't conform to tl~e amount of commercial property left.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COt~'Q~iENT
None.
A motion was made by Commissioner ^farshall, seconded b~• Commissioner Halkiotis, to
keep this Public Hearing open for the purpose of receiti•in; the Planning Board's
recommendation no sooner than October 2, 1989.
VOTE: U\r1NIA10US
D. Z-11-89 BOBBY LEE COBB SR.
The presentation was made by Eddie kirk. In summary this item was presented
toyreceive citizen comment on the proposed rezoning request submitted by Bobby Lee Cobb,
Sr. The property in question is located on the north side of LS 'r0 approximately 670
feet west of the intersection with Richmond Road (SR 1312). It is knot;n as Lots 9A, 11,
and 17, Block A, Tax hlap 31 of Cheeks Township. The current zoning on the property is
R-I (Rural Residential) and Pii--II (Protected Watershed). The proposed zoning is R-~
(Residential-4) and PW-II (Protected Watershed). The R-~1 zoning allows s minimum lot
'size of l0,OD0 square feet. Other lots in the vicinity range from a 10.5 acre lot north
of this property to a ?0,000 square foot lot east of the property. Lots in Efland
~~ Estates range from 39,900 square feet to 1.22 acres. The area is desi;nated as Ten Lear
Transition and Water Supply h'atershed in the Land Use Plan.
THERE h'ERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOAI:D OF CO.uL*fISSIONERS OR PLANNIIIG BOARD
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COAiriENT.
ANN HATLEY df Efland Estates asked chat affect this would have an Efland Hei;hts.
She asked what the Planning Board had in mind for the 7 acres that was going to be
rezoned.
~ACOBS stated ,that the Planning Board did not necessaril3~ know what the uses would
be at this point. They are simpl~• considering the zoning for lot size. Depending on
the uses they would hate different affects.
COMMISSIONER MARSHALL stated that when Public water and sewer becarrie available it
was safe to put a higher densit~• on the land. It will not affect ~1s. Hatlet-'s property-
in any c.ay. However, the subditi•ision has already been laid out and one cannot divide it
after the subdivision has been approved. Brin;in; the sewer out there because of the.
serious problems in Efland Estates has made it possible to de~'elop at more density than
Efland Estates was zoned. That could also help keep the water bill down.
A motion was made b~* Commissioner Hall.iotis, seconded bs- Commissioner Hartwell, to
keep the Public Hearin open for the purpose of recei~•ing the Planning Board's
recommendation no sooner than October 2, 1989.
VOTE: UA'ANI!~iOUS
~_
' ~ ,~ ..
E. SPECIAL USE PERMIT - THE OLD PLACE
The following persons were sc.~orn in: Murray Lrnch, Doris Lynch, Joe Rice,
~Sary Scearbo and Marvin Collins. The presentation r;as made b~- 'Mary Scearbo. In summar~-
this item was presented to recei~•e citizen comment on the praposNd request for a Class A '.
Special Use Permit for a Bed and Breal:f.ast. Joseph Rice has requested approval of a
Special Use Permit to operate a Bed and Breakfast ir, an historic log cabin. The Table
of Permitted Uses identifies this use as "Historic Structures }ion-Residential Mixed
Use". The property is located in Cheeks Township on Saddle Club Road near 'Mebane. a
log cabin is located on the property and is on the ?rational Register of Historic Places
as the Paisley-Rice Lo; House. The house is now located an a ~;-acre parcel. The
applicant will record an exempt subdivision plat as a condition of approval to create an
11-acre parcel to be under the control of the Special Use Permit. Frontage will be
provided on Saddle Club Road. The facility will proti•ide food and lodging for up to four
guests at any given time. The facilit3- hill be ad~-ertised in Trati°el publications, and
all guests will call ahead for appointments. The propertti• owner has access rights to an
easement along the southeastern corner of the property to Saddle Club Road. The
easement currently provides access to tl,e log house. The width of the Easement and
travelway does not appear to meet County standards, but is adequate for the minimal
traffic which will be generated, and is adequate for emergency vehicles. The parcel
will contain adequate frontage on Saddle Club Road, so that a separate driveFa~• could he
utilized if any problems, with the existing access easement arise in the future.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMbiISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD
COMMISSIONER HARTWELL asked if the plan was to use the existing easement far access
unless that became problematic at a future time at which time the proposed driveway
shown on the plat could be built. Ms. Scearbo stated that the applicant has indicated '
that at some future time he intends to have a driver: a3- directly onto Saddle Club Raad
through that area.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT
DORIS LYNCH asked rchy her property tias ;Ding to be rezoned and was adt-ised by *is.
Scearbo that neither her property- nor the Old Place c:as going to be rezoned.
JOE RICE the or.°ner of this property indicated that there is no zoning proposal
against Ais. Lt*nch's land. He stated that his propert~• is r:ithin 500 feet of ~1s. Lynch's
property and they want to know if she has an~° problems pith a Bed and Brealfast being
located so close td her-property. He plans to use this property for people who traz•el
to this area as members of his church, such as evangelists and/ar missionaries.
LYNCH indicated that she has no problem with the intended use of ?~ir. L~•nch's
property.
MARYIN COLLINS stated that this does not involve any rezoning of property-. The
issuance of a Special Use Permit is what is being considered here so that a Bed and
Ereakfast can be operated an this propertti-.
A motion has made by Commissioner Hall:iotis, seconded bs• Commissioner HartwEll, to
adjourn this meeting to the time and date set certain of Octobsr ?rid for the purpose of
receizing the Planning Board recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
~- _
3. EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE A.*SENDME?iTS - - Y .
a. Section 18 Erasion Control Plans -
b. Section 18.1 Erosion Control Standards
c. Section 22 Penalties
The presentation was made by barren Faircloth. In summary this item was
presented to receive citizen comment on the proposed amendments to tl~,e Erosion Control
Ordinance required by the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission and suggested
bt= the County Attorney. On February 8, 1989 the Sedimentation Control Commission
approved, with modifications, the Ordinance amendments adopted by the Board of
Commissioners an January 3, 1989. The modifications were required to bring the Oran;e
County's Ordinance into conformance with the State's ^todel Ordinance (Sections 1$ and
22) and to address concerns by the Commissioner's legal staff tl-iat the County's erosion
control manual not conflict with the mandatory standards in the Ordinance (Section
18.1). The County Attorney recommends deleting portions of Section 22 relating to
determining the amount of fines. These deletions were overlooked in January tihen
discretionary fines were deleted.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF C0~'UIISSIONERS OR PLANNING 130ARD.
THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
keep the Public Hearing open far the purpose of receiving the Planning Board's
recommendation no sooner than October 2, 19$9.
VOTE: 1]IrANIAlOUS
~4. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDAiENTS
a. Regulation of Principal Uses
(1) Article 22 - Definitions (Principal Uses)
(2) Article fi.3 - Regulation of Principal Uses
In summary this item was presented to recei~-e citizen comment on the
proposed amendments to the definitia,YS pertaining to uses, structures and buildings, and
regulations pertaining to use of non-residential zoning lots. As presently worded,
Article 6.2 states "Except as permitted as part of a Planned De~~elopment, there shall be
only one principle structure permitted per non-residential zoning lat." A principle
building is currently defined as "?. building, or where the context so indicates, a group
of buildings in which is conducted the main or principle use of the lot an which said
building is situated." It has historicallz= been the interpretation of the Plannin;
Department that more than one building may be permitted on a non-residential zoning lot
without appravaT as a Planned Development, if all buildings are an integral component of
a single principle use. The phrase "as the context so indicates has been interpreted
to refer to the context of the particular project. This interpretation has been
questioned bz= the County Attorney, as being in conflict with the requirement in article
6.3 that there be onlt= one principle structure per non-residential zoning lot, except as
permitted as part of a Planned Development.
b. Stop Work Orders
(1) Article 2.3.3 - Beard of Adjustment Administration
(2) Article 2.A.1 Planning Department Duties
(3) Article 21 -- Administration
u :~ `.~;)
~+
(~1) Article 23.2 Penalties ~ ~` ~ - ~,
In summary this item was presented to recei~~e citizen comment on the
proposed amendment to the Zonin; Ordinance to authorize issuance of Stop ~'orl: Orders for
alleged violatior-s of the Zoning Ordinance. A bill to amend G.S. 1~3A-1r3 to authorize _
a County to issue Stop pork Orders for ~•iolations of land use ordinances has been
ratified. The legislation allows a Zoning Officer to issue s Stop ~rorl; Order if it is
determined that irreparable injury would occur if the alleged ~~iolation is riot
terminated immediately. Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance is needed before the new
legislation can be implemented.
c. Site Plans
(1) Article 19 - Site Plan Approval Procedures
(2) Article 8.8 -- Regulations Governing Special Uses
In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed
section to the Zoning Ordinance which would establish a set of standards for site plan
applications, as well as a proposed amendment to Article 8 in~-olring site plans for
Special Uses. Site plan approval is required in order to obtain a zonin; permit for
most non-residential development and for multi-famil~• residential projects. Currently`
there are no standards in the Ordinance for preparation and evaluation of site plans for
permitted uses. The proposed Article I4 will list specifications for drawin;s as well
as criteria for evaluations of projects. Article 8.8 lists additional information
required for Class A and Class B Special Use Applications including items to be shown an
the site plan. The proposed amendment will make reference to the more detailed site
plan specifications listed in Article 1~1. The staff is recommending that the time limit
be ~5 days rather than 10 days to alloh time for sufficient comment b~* the agencies
reviewing these site plans. As a result, Special Use Applications will haze the same
type of site plan information as permitted uses, but in more detail than is currently
required.
CDMMISSIONER MARSHALL asked tih3 the process could not start earlier. She indicated
that she s. as concerned that time ~.ss being added to the process and this is one of the
principle objections of the developers and builders.
CRUDUP indicated that the staff could horl; hitli 30 da~•s rather than ~5 days.
However, in certain cases, for example Duke Power and D.O.T., these documents ha~~e to be
sent. to the Regional office which takes additional time.
COMMISSIONER HALKIOTIS suggested that those companies focus on service to their
customers and that the amount of time be set at 20 dat-s and nv mare.
CHAIRbLAN CAREY requested that 1.2.2- on page 139 ask for a more specific
number of copies. Requiring "no less than ~" is vague.
CRUDUP indicated that the purpose of this wording is because these requirements are
not in writing. The zoning and dimensional requirements are scattered throughout the
ordinance. This brings the question of hog: to prepare and submit a site plan to;ether
so that citizens will know ahead of time what will be required. For an addition to a
church ~ copies would be enough but for a large industrial structure more could be
needed.
COMMISSIONER MARSHALL asked hoF a citizen hill I:now what to do if it is not clearl~-
stated and Crudup explained that often the number of copies needed is not known until
after the process was begun.
- {-
COMMISSIONER HALI:IOTIS indicated that expectin; to have~~~-'preapplication contact
~witlt the developer" was part of the proL-lem. Hhen someone hho is not a deti-eloper and .` -
wants to develop their own personal property comes into the Planning Department they
expect to complete the process. Instead they come in and are told that they are havir:g
"preapplication contact." In the case of a simple request it would be very desirable far "
a person to come in and complete the process, or at the very least, find out on that
contact exactly what gill be required. Tl,e big developers are earning their mor,e~• Hhen
they come to the Planning Department. Howez-er, the individual is taking time off from
work and they do not need to be burdened by repeated trips back to the Planning
Department.
COMMISSIONER MARSHALL suggested grouping certain types of applications and
indicating how many copies each group would be required to submit.
COMMISSIONER HALKIOTIS agreed that the citizens perceive that it is getting more
complicated to do simple things in county government. He indicated that they feel
County Government is getting more bureaucratic and less user-friendly-.
CRUAUP indicated that the staff has several projects aimed at becoming more
assessible. One of those projects is a handout brochure. There is one on mobile homes
and one on building permits. Hopefully, if this is approved, anoti~er one will be done
on site plan approval procedures. These will prove very helpful to the citizen.
COMMISSIONER MARSHALL indicated that these brochures are one of the handouts that
'.need to be at the Commissioners meeting to be distributed to the citizens.
_ COMMISSIONER HARTWELL asked that the Planning staff think through the site plan
approval procedures with special care. This is the worse interface with the citizens
that is encountered.
GOUNTY MANAGER JOHN LINK commented that many of these problems have to do with
individuals who want minor subdi~-isian plans approved. He suggested that there be
written a step by step procedures. The example mentioned here involved an individual
who wanted to convey 5 acres to a family member. This involves someone who has never
been to the Planning Department before and matt not use this service a;ain for 10 rears.
This is an area that needs to be improved.
COMMISSIONER HARTWELL mentioned that the requirements for minor and major
subdivisions are not different at this time. The difference is in who has to sign off
an them. He sugges=ted that this be re-thought at this time and different requirements
be established for a minor subdil•ision.
JAGOBS suggested that the Commissioners make the Planning Staff or Eoard aware of
any particular Ordinances that have caused problems for people. The Ordinance Review
Committee can lank at these and try to make these less burdensome on indiz°iduals.
COMMISSIONER HARTWELL suggested taking the situations as they arise which cause
individuals unnecessary problems and use them as test cases to avoid future problems in
that particular area.
COMMISSIONER MARSHALL suggested that the procedure for passing on recommendations
to the Plannin; Staff be structured so that onlz- the Chairman and/ar the Counts*?~iana;er
be the contact person with the planning staff.
'n ; a'~~
d. Affordable Housing Y.
(1) Article 7.14.q -- Density Bonus for Affordable Housing - -
In summary this item was presented to receiti•e citizen coacment on the
proposal to provide incentives for tl-e de~'elopment of affordable housing to low and
moderate income families. The Report of the Low-!Moderate Income Housing Tasl: Force,
completed September, 1981, included a recommendation to amend the Zarin; Ordinance to
increase incentives for new construction of low and moderate-income housin;. The
proposed amendment represents one tool hhich may be used to achieve that Baal. It is
proposed that a density increase of up to 3p% be permitted if a percentage of the lots
or units are reserved for occupancy b~•, or sale to households which qualify as being in
the low or moderate income bracket. The proposed pro~•isions are most likel}~ to be
utilized by r-on-profit organizations already intending to develop affordable housing, or
b~* de~~elopers/ landowners with suitable land of lesser ~-alue to donate in exchange for a
density increase. Amore comprehensive and effectiti~e approach to the long-ran;e
affordability of housing involves other major growth mana]en-ent issues being studied or
discussed at this time, including waterslyed issues, the rural character, water and sewer
exte~,sions, and environmental impact.
e. Public Hearing Procedures
(1) Article 20.6 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof
In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on the
proposed amendment to the public hearing regulations to require that once opened, ant°
public hearing remain open until a final decision is made by the Board of Count-
Commissioners. The testimony received at a Public Hearing is on record as information
considered by the Hearing Body in rendering its decision. Testimony received outside o£
the Public Hearing may not be considered. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to
assure that all information received prior to the decison of the Board of County
Commissioners can be considered. If approved, the amendment Mould deem a public hearing
as open, from the initial hearing date until the time of the final decision.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN ~'ACOBS, indicated that he had concerns about the-Public
Hearin; procedures. Specifically, the notion of how the Public Hearing is left open.
He stated that it seemed to him that the process is becoming more difficult and the
Planning Board is making less informed and effective recommendations. 'he?•hatre
already entertained, in Public Hearin;, all the pertinent information that the Planning
Board is to consider and theti- do not need to rehash evert•thing that l~,as happen before..
Thew make a recommendation based on all the information the Board of Commissioners will
receit°e so that it adheres as closelg as possible to the materials the Commissioners
will see. The changes that are proposed will ne;ate a lot of the efficiency of the
process unless it ^is specified that the Public Hearin; will remain open only to hear new
information. He asked that if the Public Hearing is left open for new information that
one of the stipulations be that the Commissioners would determine hhether the
information was significant enough to refer it back to the Plannin; Board.
CDMMI55IDNER MAP.SHALL indicated that her understanding was that written information
could be accepted up until the time a decision is made but that verbal communication
could only be received up to the last Planning Board meeting. She indicated that she
was in agreement with that procedure. Also, citizens sometimes felt that they- did not
need to ,o throu;h the process if the Commissioners will accept information up until the
last moment.
CHAIRMAN CAREY indicated that he agreed pith Commissioner Marshall. He stated t};at
he felt it should be limited after the Public Hearing to either written information cr
limit it altogether or l;eep it open altoether. Beeping it open for new information and
-.
~~~/
making a judgment about "hat's si;nificant enough to be referred back to the Planning
;'hoard doesn't Rork. Obviously-, it will be referred back on one occasion and not on - -
otl~~ers and the citizens Will have difficulty understanding >;h~' one thing has referred
and another was not.
COUNTY ATTORNEY GEOFFREX CLEDHILL, stated that a possible solution would be to
leave the Public Hearing open solely for tl~e purpose of hearing the Planning Board's
recommendation. He indicated that the concern Wliich caused him to write the letter was
that in reviewing the Planning Board's meeting minutes it became apparent that
information was coming into the Public Hearing process that was not a part of the Public
Hearing, either through staff reports or otherwise. All of that should occur before the
public ]rearing is closed because it is pertinent, valuable information. However,
deciding hoh to get it into the process is the problem. Leaving the Fublic Hearing open
until all that is left is a decision is one watt of getting this information into the
process. Limiting the last round of the Public Hearing is a way of accomplishing that
by stating that nothing will be heard at that point except the Planning Board's
recommendation. The Planning Board's recommendation could contain whatever information
had come to it outside of the Public Hearin .
LINK suggested that the statement be made that the 'Public Hearing is held open
until the Commissioner's receive the Plannin; Board's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CAREY stated that "hen it is held open for the Planning Board's
recommendation it must be advertised as a Public Hearin.
GLEAHILL stated that if the meeting was adjourned until no new information Was
expected than it is not necessary to readvertise.
STEVE YUHASZ, Plannin Board member, stated tYrat he hoped that any information
coming before the Planning Board would be written and not verbal because the meetings
are barel~• able to cover all pertinent information as it is. If mare verbal comments
Were included they would not be able to complete the meetings in one evening.
GLEAHILL stated that it is the area of written comments, and in particular
technical information, that really is important here.
CHAIRMAN CAREY indicated that what he was hearin; was that the Commissioners wanted
to close the hearing and entertain the Planning Board's recommendation.
f. Nan-Residential Development Standards (1) Article 5.1.2 - Schedule for
Non-Residential Development
In summary this item Was presented to receive citizen comment on the
proposal to proti-ide floor area ratio (FAR) requirements for non-residential uses
permitted in residential zoning districts Which are consistent With the actual floor
areas of existing facilities. Controlin; the intensity of a land use or the degree to
which a property is used is one of planning's goals. Residential land use regulations
almost alwa;e°s deal With dcnsit~-. In non-residential districts, intensity is most often
controlled through the use of standards that regulate the bulk of a building. Floor
area ratios (F~,Rs), in conjunction With height limitations, are the principal standards
used in the Orange Countt- Zoning Ordinance to control building t•olume. Floor area ratio
is defined as the maximum floor area permitted for each square foot of land area. In
recent years, the Orange Countt• School Board has submitted tko requests for a variance
of FAR to permit an Existing school to e~:pand or a new school to be built. The
inability of the School Board to complp with the FAR requirements without purchasing
sizable land tracts lzas raised the question as to Hhether or not the ratios are too log:,
-
particularly in residential zoning districts which permit nor•-residential uses. The
proposed amendment to article 5.1.2 would increase the FAR requirements in the RB,
~,R, R-1, and R-Z zoning districts to 0.888 for individual lots and 1.000 for planned
developments. The FaR requirements are the same as currently required for the R-3
district and are mare in beeping with t}~e actual floor area of e3:isting facilities
located in rural areas.
A motion was made b~- Chairman Caret-, seconded by Commissioner 'Marshall, to refer
these Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to the Planning Board. for a recommendation to be
returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 2nd.
VOTE: U:~A1\IAiOL'S
5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
a. Section IV-B-6 Reservation of Space far Utilities
In summary this item Has presented to receive citizen cor,~mcnt pn the
proposed amendment to require dedication of water and sewer easements as a condition of
approval for subdivisions within 10 or 20-Year Transition Areas. The Orange County
k'ater and Sewer Policy allows extension of public water and sewer facilities to serve.
subdivisions hitlrin 10-20 Year Transition-~lreas. }•loweti-er, use of public utilities is
not required. Subdivisions within Transition areas which utilize individual wells and
septic tanks are not presently required to provide easements where public facilities
will not be utilized in the subdivision itself. This practice can create easement gaps
which could create difficulties for future water and .sewer extensions. The proposed
amendment would allow for utility easements as a requirement for subdi~•isions approved
with designated Transition Areas.
b. Section IV-B-10-b Cluster Development Application Criteria
In summary this. item was presented to receive citizen comment an the
proposed amendment to the application criteria for cluster subdivisions to include a
minimum tract size within the Rural Buffer Zonin; District, and to exclude private road
right-af-way in calculating the number of lots permitted. Article It`-B-10-b(a) requires
a minimum tract size of100,000 square feet in the AR (.agricultural Residential)
district, and 200,000 square feet in the R-1 (P.ural Residential) district. Fluster
developmerts in all other districts must contain a miminum of 80,000 square
feet. The propsed amendment would require 400,000 square feet for cluster developments
in the Rural Buffer, as is required in the AR (agricultural Residential) district.
Article IV-B-10-b(c) excludes public road right-of-way from the acrea;e calculations
used to determine the number of lots permitted in a cluster subdivision. It is proposed
that private road right-of-wai- be excluded as well. These changes are in keeping with
the intent of the application criteria set forth in Article I1~-B-10-b, and would proti-ide
greater consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
c. Section VII-D Amendment Procedures
In summary* this item c. as presented to receive Citizen comment on the
proposed amendment to the public hearing regulations to require that once opened, any
public hearing remain open until a final decision is made bt- the Board of County
Gammissioners. The testimony received at a public hearing is on record as information
considered by the hearing body in rendering its decision. Testimony received outside of
the public hearing may rot be considered. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to
assure that all information received prior to the decision of the Board of Count
Commissioners can be considered. If approved, the amendment would deem a public hearin;
as open, from the initial hearin; date until tl~e time of the final decision.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE PAARD OF COI~L-dISSIONERS AhD PLANNING BOARD
-~
-... ,.,acne. - - Y
A mation has made bl Cammissianer H:~rtkell, seconded b~- Cammissianer Caz~cr, to
refer these Subdi~•ision Regulations Test :lmendments to the Flsnning Board far a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissiar,ers r,a sooner that', October 2nd.
E. ADJOt]RitMENT
h'ith no further items far Board cnnsidEration, Chairman Carer adjourned the meetin;
The nest regular meeting z:ill be l~,eld on September ~, 1989 at i:30 in the Courtroom
of the old Courthouse, Hillsbarougl,, tiort:h Carolina.
Moses Garet-, Jr., Chairman
$everiz A. B1~°the, Clerk
e