Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19900529MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY HEARING May 29, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint Session with the orange County Planning Board for the regular Quarterly Public Hearing on May 29, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis (excused at 10:05), John Hartwell, Shirley Marshall and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: William Waddell, Jr., Elizabeth Eidenier, Chair, Carol Cantrell, Chris Best, Barry Jacobs, Vice-Chair, Dan Eddleman, Jean Hamilton, ]Larry Reid, Virginia Boland and Pegge Abrams. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Lewis and Clint Burklin. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr.,Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Crudup, Don Powell, Eddie Kirk, Mary Scearbo, Sheriff's Deputy Archie Daniels, and County Engineer Paul Thames. NOTE: All documents referenced in these minutes are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. A. OPENING REMARKS: Chairman Carey welcomed everyone and made introductory remarks. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Carey read the Public Charge. C. ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. Z-2-90 Zonin Atlas Amendment - Elite Auto Body Sho This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this item was presented to consider a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment-in Bingham Township. On September 2, 1981 an Existing Commercial (EC-54. designation was approved for an existing auto paint and body shop on the north side of old Greensboro.Road (SR 1005) approximately one half mile east of White Cross Road (SR 1951). The subject property is also-known 67 as lot 30 on tax map 35 of Bingham Township. The surrounding land useF: are residential, and the adjacent zoning is Agricultural Residential. In 1981 the EC-5 zoning lot was drawn incorrectly on the Zoning Atlas. The auto body shop is on the western portion of the property. The . zoning lot was shown 243 feet east of the body shop on an undeveloped part of lot 30. The proposed rezoning is to: 1) correct an error in the Zoning Atlas by shifting the EC-5 district west to its proper location and out of the right-of-way; and 2) extend the district three (3) feet to the north so that the structure and a proposed addition will meet required setbacks. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by commissioner Marshall, seconded by commissioner Hartwell, to approve the proposed rezoning from AR to EC-5 as per the Planning Board's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE & BUILDING NUMBERS 1. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborou h 2. Rural Routes 1 & 7 - Durham This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. in summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to orange County Rural Route 7 served It the Hillsborough Post Office and Rural Routes 1 and 7 (partial) served by the Durham Post Office. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he has received inquires about road names. Collins informed the Board that if a road was previously named, a Public Hearing would be needed to change the name. For a road without a name, the wishes of citizens who live on that road would be taken into account. Chris Best stated that he felt the Emergency Management employees would greatly benefit from a one-time training class which would explain the new Enhanced 911 system. They need to have a thorough understanding of the grid system in each district so that they can continue to serve the public in the shortest amount of time possible. Chairman Carey indicated that he had received several letters from citizens who were scheduled for address changes. These people do not feel confident that this will be the last time their addresses will change. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS 68 Mr. Bob Haas indicated that when he first moved to this area the road he lived on was called old Chapel Hill Road. Over the years the road has gradually come to be known as Old 86. He spoke in opposition to this road being officially named Old 86. He stated that he believed it - was confusing to have two roads with such similar names. Mr. Mark Johnson, a Chapel Hill resident and a member of the Cornwallis Hills Property Owners Association, spoke in opposition to the renumbering in their development. He suggested that the numbers not be changed in that portion of Cornwallis Hills which is developed. A letter from the Cornwallis Hills Property Owners Association outlining their opposition to this renumbering is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Norman Patterson, of Patterson Road, indicated that his road has been named but a street sign has not been erected. He asked if the county would put up a road name sign. Mr. Collins indicated that because this is a private road the residents are responsible for erecting the sign and the county will then maintain it. Mr. Joe Taylor indicated that in March of 1989 he was given a permanent address of 2511 Old NC 86 South. He asked for clarification as to why his number was being changed again. He was advised that this was a human error which is now being corrected. Mr. B. C. Brooks, a resident of Scarlett Mountain Road, indicated that Scarlett Mountain Road is a public road which does not have a road sign. He asked that consideration be given to the proper placement of this sign when it is erected. Commissioner Willhoit asked for clarification on.the present road signs on Old 86. He was advised that it is called.Greensboro St, and then old 86. Commissioner Halkiotis pointed out that strong support has already been received from the residents of the Calavander area to name this road NC Old 86 and their wishes need to be considered when a final decision is made. Commissioner Hartwell.indicated he was in agreement with naming at least a portion of this road old Chapel Hill Road. He indicated that New Hope Church Road could be the dividing line. He suggested delaying a decision on this until the wishes of the community can be heard. He also spoke in support of not renumbering the houses in Cornwallis Hills. Commissioner Marshall suggested that before this item is brought back to the Board of Commissioners, Mr. Haas circulate a petition to the residents of this road to see how much interest there is in this renaming issue. These petitions should be received in the Clerks's office before July 15th. It was the consensus of the Board to delay action for 60 days on 69 Orange County Rural Route 7 until a Public Hearing on the name is held.: ` This may be scheduled for August 27th during the regularly scheduled Quarterly Public Hearing. A motion was made by commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the proposed house and building numbers for Rural Routes 1 and 7 (partial) followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster, the Durham Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G. S. 153A.240. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE 1. Environmental Impact-ordinance 2. Related Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Article 8.8 Special Uses b. Article 14 Site Plan Approval 3. Related Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Section III-C Approval Procedure-Minor Subdivision b. Section III-D Approval Procedures - Major Subdivisions c. Section IV-B-2-e Resource Protection d. Section IV-B-5-d Flag Lots e. Section IV-B-8 Landscaping & Buffers f. Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments g. Section V-D Final Plat Specifications These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo. In summary, a proposed Enviromental Impact Ordinance (EIO) and related amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning ordinance were presented for receipt of public comments. The North Carolina General statutes give local governments authority to require the preparation of documents disclosing the environmental impact of a major development project. An Environmental Impact Ordinance (EIO) has been developed to implement these provisions, allowing orange County to require preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for certain projects. The EIO would require preparation of an EA or an EIS for non-residential development projects which meet specific applicability criteria. The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations involve the protection of resources identified in the "Inventory of sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, & Geological Significance in the unincorporated Portions of Orange County", and the "Orange County Inventory of Natural Areas." Zoning ordinance amendments pertain to review procedures for Site Plans and Special Use Permits. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Betty Eidenier indicated that this ordinance is in response to a request from the State for local governments to take control of the environmental impact in their own area. She stated support for adoption 70 of this ordinance. Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he had received a letter from Neil Littman. Mr. Littman raised questions concerning Sections 2.3.5- and 3.1.5. Commissioner Hartwell suggested changing the wording as Mr. Littman requested. A copy of this letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. He indicated in the letter that this ordinance will give some assurances to orange County citizens concerning the industrial and commercial enterprises which are coming to orange county. Commissioner Hartwell stated that the difficulty with this ordinance as it is now written is with non-commercial and non-industrial projects that bear little threat to orange County citizens. An example of this type of project is the pond which he is putting on his land. Along with obviously needed information, certain information such as Deed Book and Page number, were requested. In addition to this stumbling block he pointed out that if his pond had been one square foot larger than 2 acres, the steepness of the slopes on the whole property and what percentage of the whole property is affected by the slope steepness would have had to be provided The cost for such a topographic survey would be thousands of dollars. This would cover the cost of the assessment only, not the impact statement itself. These types of regulations could make it impossible for citizens to build ponds. They need to be addressed before this ordinance is approved. He suggested that requesting the application of the slope criteria should be applied only within a certain proximity of the area to be disturbed. Larry Reid asked if this ordinance would be applicable to municipalities where lots larger than 40,000 were being cleared. Scearbo indicated that it is not applicable in municipalities. Bill Waddell asked how a development which was impacted by Articles 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4 and/or 2.2.9 could also come under the"i.nfluence of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) He questioned why the Environmental Assessment (EA) would be required if it was clear at the outset that the EIS would not be required. Scearbo indicated that for those types of projects the Planning Department would want some of this information regardless of whether an EIS would be needed. This would enable contact to be made with other State agencies to ensure that all permits that are required for the state and the county would be obtained. This would also help the applicant because he would be made aware early in the process of any additional permits he might need. If an EIS is going to be required, the project would not fall into any of the categories in 2.1. In response to a question from Mr. Waddell pertaining to sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.2 , Ms. Scearbo explained that if 220 pounds or 1/2 of a 55 gallon drum of hazardous waste is generated in one month a State permit for a "small generator of hazardous waste" is required. If you create more than 220 pounds or 1/2 of a 55 gallon drum it is classified as a "large generator of hazardous waste". The county Planning Staff decided to require the EA for small and large generators so that it can contact the State and require the EIS only if it is a facility that is actually storing hazardous materials. 71 Commissioner Willhoit questioned what procedure the county would follow for companies that initially did not exceed the 220 pound limit, but grew in size to where they did exceed that figure? Scearbo indicated that at the very least a site plan for expansion would have been filed and in going through the site plan review this issue would surely come up. The applicant would be notified about the limitations again at that time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT Mr. Lindsay Efland, a representative of the Economic Development commission, and a member of the EDC's Environmental Impact Ordinance Review committee, stated that the EDC supports the need to have environmental regulations to minimize environmental damage. However, they are concerned that the Draft Environmental Impact Ordinance will adversely affect business coming into Orange County. The EDC would like to see the requirements included in the EIO be incorporated into existing local development ordinances to avoid and additional level of regulations. They also suggest that the threshold for requiring an IA be adjusted so that builders/developers could be informed of EA requirements within 15 days of submittal of the project. A copy of this statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. In response to a question from Mr. Efland, Scearbo indicated that if. the total project was less than two acres it is automatically exempt. If the project is more than two acres and involved 40,000 feet of grading the project may be subject to this requirement. Mr. Efland stated that the Economic Development Commission believed that the County needs to move toward developing one comprehensive Development Ordinance. He indicated that the EDC expressed concern about the trend toward adding successive layers of regulations. A motion was made by commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to refer the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and related amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS F. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS 1. Z-3-90 BINGHAM TOWNSHIP This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Bingham Township. The purpose of the rezoning is to make the Zoning Atlas consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. When the Land Use Plan for Bingham Township was updated on September 6, 1988, portions of the Agricultural Residential 72 areas were changed to Rural Residential. To make the Zoning Atlas - consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Residential areas must be rezoned to Residential-1. Most of the property proposed for rezoning is located on the south side of NC Highway 54 near the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node. A smaller portion is located on the north side of Dairyland Road (SR 1177) west of Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102). The current Zoning is Agricultural Residential. Residential-1 zoning is recommended to provide the consistency referenced above. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Hartwell indicated that the question is what to do with specific parcels. The Land Use Plan and the Zoning Atlas need to be in compliance with each other. Amending the Land Use Plan is a viable option here for excluding the parcels in question. In response to a question from commissioner Willhoit, Crudup indicated that the reason for not permitting on-premises sales was that R-1 is primarily for residential purposes. With on-premises sales you increase the intensity of land use in a residential area. This additional traffic is expected in Agricultural zoning. Bob Goggins indicated that he does have a road maintenance agreement. The primary purpose of his greenhouse is to grow vegetables to sell at the Farmer's Market. However customers occasionally do come directly to the greenhouse. His goal is to assure that on-premises sales are allowed. A copy of his statement is in the permanent agenda file in the clerk's office. Commissioner Hartwell mentioned that AR, not R-1, was established for agriculture. AR permits a wide range of businesses, including greenhouses. It would appear to be an appropriate zoning category for the operation under discussion. Mr. Craig Burch asked for clarification of the restrictions for on- premises sales. Mr. Collins explained that when an area is designated R-1 it is a statement that the area is going to become predominantly residential. The goal is to protect the residential integrity of neighborhood's that developed in that area. Commercial operations are restricted as a result of this goal of protecting the residential character of the area. Commissioner Halkiotis was excused from the meeting at this time. A motion was made by commissioner Marshall, seconded by chairman Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. PD-1-90 WOODSEDGE MOBILE HOME PARK (MODIFICATION) This presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary this item 73 was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed modification to: the existing Planned Development for Woodsedge. The applicant is requesting a modification of the.existing Planned Development (PD-H-RI) for Woodsedge Mobile Home Park. The existing park contains 57 mobile , home spaces. The proposal is to remove four (4) mobile home spaces from the existing park, add a residence for the park manager, and relocate the required 25 acres of open space from the west side of the existing park to the south side of the park. By relocating the open space, the property west of the park would be unencumbered. In a separate application, the applicant is proposing a new mobile home park, "The Woods", on the property west of the park. Everyone who planned to speak was sworn in by the Clerk. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD In response to a question from the Planning Board, Kirk indicated that the open space located west of the existing park will be moved south of the park. That would allow the area west of the park to be developed. He also indicated that this park is currently served by Hillsborough sewer and water. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner:-- Marshall,. to approve the modification with the following conditions: (1) The project, including the residence for the park manager, must remain in unitary ownership. (2) A final boundary survey of the amended Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. PD-2-90 THE WOODS MOBILE HOME PARK This presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Planned Development Mobile Home Park. This park would be located west of Woodsedge Mobile Home Park off NC 86 and east of Interstate 40 corridor. The proposed park would contain 53 mobile homes spaces and receive access through existing paved streets in Woodsedge Mobile Home Park. It is known as part of lot 13, Block B of Tax Map 49 in Hillsborough Township, and part of lots 29G and 16 of Tax Map 2 in Chapel Hill Township. The present zoning of the property is R-1 (Rural Residential). The proposed zoning is PD-MHP-R1 (Planned Development Mobile Home Park). QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Hartwell questioned whether or not,the 3" forced main sewer line which would serve these 126 trailers wasn't already allocated to serve other developments as well. Kirk indicated that the 5 horse power pump was put in Woodsedge with the intention that these additions units would eventually be served. 74 Paul Thames, County Engineer, indicated that there was some question as to what would happen with the New Hope Elementary School which will use the Woodsedge pump station. Extra precautions have been made for the school so that it pumps at night when the normal sewer use is at its lowest. Eventually this land will have to be surveyed topographically and considerable engineering and construction work will have to be done. That should be specified in the grading and erosion plan. E. C. Brooks asked how the restrictions placed on this property will be recorded so that a Title Lawyer won't pass the title to someone who would think they could buy this open land. Kirk indicated that this park, including the open space, recreation and park area, must stay in unitary ownership. Those restrictions would be placed on the Special Use Permit. It could be changed only if it become 10 or 20 year transition and then an application would need to be filed for a different planned development at a higher density rezoning. Charles Smith, a real estate appraiser, indicated that in his professional opinion the value of adjoining properties would be neither enhanced nor devalued. Rogers Stevens, the applicant, indicated that he owns Oakdale Mobile Home Park and Woodsedge. He stated that when he went into business he decided to build the type of park that he would be proud to live in. His parks have large lots, city sewer and water, paved roads, recreation areas, pools, garbage pickup, lawn mowing service, storage buildings and jogging trails. He indicated that his parks offer young couples an opportunity to build equity in their own mobile home, and establish a credit rating, while living in a pleasant environment. He read a letter from Steve Medlin who has been a resident of his park for 7 years. Mr. Medlin indicated that living at Oakdale Mobile Home Park has been a way for he and his wife to save money for a home and accumulate equity in their mobile home at the same time. He stated that Mr. Stevens mobile home parks are well planned and maintained. He urged the Board of commissioners to approve this request. A motion was made by commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chairman Carey, to adjourn this item to June 26, 1990 for receipt of the engineering report from the Town of Hillsborough. VOTE: UNANIMOUS G. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. University Lake Watershed Protection a. Article 6.25.7 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities Required be Article 6.15.2 Interim Development Standards 2. Definitions be Article 22 Septic Tank System/Alternative Septic System These presentations were made by Marvin Collins. In summary these items were presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to clarify the application of Article 75 6.25.7 to existing dwellings and uses. The current standards would .. ! prevent land owners with failing septic systems and no suitable repair area on the same lot from locating nitrification fields on a separate lot. Definitions are also provided of "septic tank system," "alternative septic system," and "community alternative system." The latter definition was inadvertently omitted when revisions to the interim development standards for University Lake watershed were adopted. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he believes this was meant to address the repair of existing systems. However, it is not stated that way in 6.25.7. In response to this comment, Collins stated that a new system will eventually be considered an existing system. That system could then end up with a failing septic system and would need the latitude provided by this amendment. A motion was made by commissioner Willhoit, seconded by commissioner Marshall, to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS G. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 2. DEFINITIONS a. Article 22 Efficiency Apartment This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the definition of "efficiency apartment" to allow flexibility as to the location of such units. NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS A motion was made Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS H. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. Definitions a. Section II Subdivision b. Section II Minor Subdivision These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo. In summary these items were presented to receive public comment on a-proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow the combination or recombination. of non-conforming lots. Item H-1-b proposes an amendment to the definition of minor subdivision in Section II of the Subdivision Regulations. 76 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Carey, to refer these amendments to the Planning Board to the Board of commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS commission be returned to 2. Appeal Procedure a. Section III-C-5 Minor Subdivision b. Section III-D-1 Concept Plan/Major Subdivision c. Section III-D-4 Final Plan/Major Subdivision These presentations were made by Emily Crudup. In summary these items were presented to receive public comment on proposed amendments to section III of the Subdivision Regulations - Application and Approval Procedures. The proposed amendments include a time limit on appeals of minor subdivisions, and major subdivision concept plans and final plats. NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Flag Lots A. Section IV-B-5-d Road Access/Extension This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to expand the criteria used in permitting the creation of flag lots. NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS A motion was made by commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. 4. Street Access/Dedication a. Section IV-B-3 Streets b. Section V-D-3-b Certificates of Dedication & Maintenance These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comments on proposed amendments to sections IV-B-3-d-2 and V-D-6-b-2, and to add Section V- D-6-b-3 to the subdivision Regulations. The amendments would clarify access requirements for each lot and provide for a certificate of Dedication when land is publicly dedicated. NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS 77 A motion was made by commissioner Hartwell, seconded by chairman. Carey, to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Subdivision Re lations Text Amendment a. Section III-C-1 Concept Plan Approval This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow Concept Plan submittal for Minor Subdivisions to be optional instead of mandatory. NO.QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS I. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for consideration, Chairman Carey adjourned the, meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on June 4, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the old courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk