Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 199205268 27 APPROVED 6-29-92 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING MAY 26, 1992 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board held a Quarterly Public Hearing on May 26, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in superior Courtroom, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko, and Don Willhoit. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe., Deputy Clerk Kathy Baker, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Cameron and Mary Scearbo, and County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Amanda Cantrell, and members Joan Jobsis, Betty Eidenier, Jim Gray, Bill Waddell, Kent Scott, Clint Burklin, and Jean Hamilton. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Hoecke, Virginia Boland, and Larry Reid. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE NOTE: THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING WILL BE LEFT OPEN UNTIL THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION IS RECEIVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. A. OPENING REMARKS Commissioner Halkiotis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He stated that everyone who wants to speak will be given an opportunity at the appropriate time. He requested that comments be limited to three minutes or less. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Commissioner Halkiotis read the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. PUBLIC SCHOOL impact fees This item was chaired by Vice-Chair Halkiotis and presented by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a technical report and implementation-procedure for a system of impact fees to help finance a portion of school capital needs in Orange County. For several years, Orange County has pursued an objective of helping to fund school capital needs created by growth. During the 1987 session, the General Assembly authorized the County to levy impact fees in its planning jurisdiction for a number of needs, including school capital. A joint governmental work group investigated the possibilities of an impact tax in the county in 1988-89. The County proposed legislation in the 1991 Session of the General Assembly seeking authority to impose an impact tax for school capital needs. The legislation was withdrawn due to local opposition. However, the County did receive authority in the 1991 Session to impose impact fees for school capital needs throughout the county, not just within 828, the County's planning jurisdiction. Impact fees are still a relatively new funding mechanism, and case law concerning them is still developing. Ther --,-, are some complicated statutory and constitutional considerations involvin setting an impact fee. For this reason, the County staff prepared a., technical report which outlined the methodology for calculating a system of fees. The initial draft of the report was presented to the Board. of Commissioners in January of 1992. Subsequently, the draft report was distributed to the municipalities in the county, the two school boards, the Homebuilders Association, the Board of Realtors, the Community Housing Corporation, and the Chambers of Commerce. In March, 1992, meetings were held with representatives of the organizations to discuss impact fee levels, methods of collection, and other concerns. Upon request, presentations were also made to municipal governing boards. In April, 1992, a report summarizing the results of the meetings was presented to the Board of commissioners, including options for raising specific amounts of capital to finance public school improvements. In May, 1992, a public hearing was held to give the citizens of orange County an opportunity to voice their opinion on establishing a system of impact fees. The technical report provided with the agenda materials represents a revision to the initial draft. It seeks to address the discussion, debate, and concerns identified during the series of meetings held in March, April, and May of 1992. In addition, the methodology and calculations used in the initial draft have been reviewed to insure consistency and accuracy. At the conclusion of the hearing and upon receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of Commissioners may decide on whether or not to include a schedule of impact fees in the FY 1992--93 budget. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD JAMES GRAY stated he understands a mobile home owner would be paying the largest percentage of impact fees. He feels the property tax is more equitable. Mr. Collins indicated that because the property tax is geared to a specific type of structure, it is a more equitable tax. The rationale for using an impact fee is that what a family actually uses in terms of services will determine the amount they pay. The assumption is that more children live in homes with a larger .number of bedrooms. He also mentioned that the Courts have interpreted the law in such a way that the impact fee cannot address differences in the value of housing units. BILL WADDELL asked if a retirement community would be expected to pay impact fees if they did not allow children as residents? He feels that affordable housing will be even more difficult to-achieve if the impact fee is approved. Also, capital expenditures in the school system are often used for replacement facilities as well as for new construction. He asked how that would be taken into account when the monies are allocated? Mr. Collins indicated that only skilled nursing care centers would be exempt from this fee. He also reiterated that the money collected from the impact fees would be used for new construction. He agreed that a system of impact fees would have some negative effect on affordable housing and that that issue needs to be discussed further. He also mentioned that residential communities do not pay for the full cost of services provided to them in Orange County. The capital needs of the schools are extremely expensive. The expansion of existing facilities would be covered under sales taxes, public school tru! funds and past bond issues. New schools would be funded through future bony. referendum and impact fees. 829 In response to a question from commissioner willhoit, Mr. Collins indicated that additional work needs to be done on the generation rates which were calculated from the census data. He also mentioned that this fee would be charged for each occupancy. A quadplex would generate an impact fee for each unit in the quadplex. Commissioner Halkiotis explained that because the Board of commissioners has an obligation to explore new revenue sources, the impact fee is being explored. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS ALEX ZAFFRON, a resident of Carrboro and a native of Orange county, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He stated that most of his friends have purchased homes in other counties because they could not afford to live here. He asked the Commissioners to return to the General Assembly and ask for a progressive impact tax with exemption for low income families. He also mentioned that the impact fee could become difficult to enforce because builders could increase the number of family rooms and dens and decrease the number of rooms designated as bedrooms. GARY WICKER, a building contractor and Orange County native, spoke against the impact fees. He believes it would cause a hardship for the very people who most need help. He indicated that he tries to keep his money in this county by using subcontractors who live here. He suggested cutting expenditures, expanding schools, and looking carefully at how money is currently being spent. He indicated that he is not opposed to raising taxes if it is equitable. MARY BUSHNELL, Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education, indicated that the County Manager suggested that the technical needs of the new schools come from pay-as-you-go funds, including impact fees. She mentioned that projections are that enrollment will increase. Additional units of housing do increase the number of children, and, therefore, it seems fair to tie a portion of the cost of the increased need for school facilities to the building of those homes. VICTOR TRIPP spoke against the proposed impact fees. He asked that the Board of Commissioners use the property tax to increase revenue. GREG SHEPARD spoke against the proposed impact-fee-;--.He believes that most of the people who are buying new homes already live here.- If the county needs to collect additional money they need to collect it from some other source. DOROTHY BAIN spoke against this proposal. She indicated that the residents in hoer mobile home park would not have been able to purchase their mobile homes if this fee had been in effect. ROGER STEPHENS, an Orange County resident, spoke against this proposal. He stated that this would discriminate against the lower income resident. The residents in his mobile home parks could not afford an additional fee of this magnitude. He stated that the housing industry is in trouble in this community and anything that adversely affects the housing industry also affects many other types of businesses. STEVE SHEPARD spoke against this proposal. He stated that not only are lower income residents adversely effected by this fee, but that middle income families may be forced to choose a neighboring county because of'this additional cost. He mentioned that renters may be discouraged from becoming home owners. 830 SCOTT RADWAY, of Radway & Weaver, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He is a resident of orange County and a planning and developmen} consultant. He submitted a report challenging the premise that new housin is the major influence in increased school enrollment. A copy of his report is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office. - ROBERT BRYAN spoke on behalf of the Chapel Hill Board of Realtors. He read a resolution endorsed by the Board stating their opposition to this fee. A copy of the resolution is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office. VIC KNIGHT spoke in opposition to this proposal. He mentioned that he agreed with many of the points already presented. He commented that increasing the price of new construction would cause an increase in the cost of older homes. MARK MARCOPLOS spoke against this proposal. He agrees that there are real needs in the school systems. However, this is not an equitable proposal for increasing the revenue source. He believes that there is a need to research a more equitable solution to these financial needs. He also stated there is a need to reevaluate the financial demands being made by both the State and Federal Government which he feels are unfair and unreasonable. EVERETT GREEN, an orange County resident and building supply owner, spoke against this proposal. He indicated that the cost of lumber has increased 40% and that this is one of the factors removing home buyers from the market. Imposing an impact fee will only compound the difficulties that the building market is experiencing in this community. MR. MADDOX indicated that he relocated to orange County several years ago. He now has three children and is planning to build a new home. If this proposal is implemented he may be forced to move to an adjacen''` county. LARRY CARROLL spoke on behalf of the Durham/Chapel Hill Builders Association. This Association is against this proposed fee. He stated that they believe this fee will cause fewer homes to be built which will have a major impact on employment in Orange County., In response to a question from commissioner Willhoit he indicated that the Association does supports an impact fee for roads and other similar needs. They do not support this fee for schools. JEFF PELOQUIN spoke against this proposal. JOE".PHELPS.spoke in opposition to this fee T--- BEN LLOYD spoke in opposition to this proposal. The following citizens wrote letters opposing these proposed impact fees: Gary Whicker of Whicker Enterprises;_ Dale Martin, President of Capital Area Manufactured Housing Association; Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Tello; Kenneth Touw, and D. Tyson Clayton, of the Hillsborough Savings & Loan Association. Commissioner Willhoit stated that it is clear that growth has outstripped resources. There is a need to address that issue. He indicated that he was gratified to hear support for increased taxes as an alternative to the impact fee. Mr. Collins and Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that Mr. Radwav would be contacted for further discussion on the statistics he presented. In response to a suggestion from Commissioner Halkiotis, 831 Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the..,County has previously tried to tax the University facilities and the Court system declared it unlawful. Commissioners Insko and Gordon both indicated that there is a need to research innovative ways to increase revenue. It was also suggested that the number of new homes which are being sold to buyers who are already orange County residents be reflected in the statistics. Planning Board Chair Carol Cantrell indicated that she has lived here since 1976 and is actively involved in the schools as a teacher. For as long as she can remember the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System has exceeded their student projections. She feels the County needs to plan for this growth. Commissioner Gordon stated that the school needs have been documented and already exist. Mr. Radway's information needs to be reviewed. She noted that documentation at -the end of the technical report on impact fees shows that what. residents pay on taxes is less than the value of the county services they receive. Several comments 'were made which suggested the Planning Board consider capping the fee, as well as, give very serious consideration to whether or not this is an appropriate fee. A motion was made by commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. 2-2-92 P AND S SPORTING GOODS, INC. -ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT This item was presented by Planner Emily Cameron. The property in question is located on the south side of NC highway 54 between Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) and Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). The total area proposed for rezoning contains 3.98 acres and is described as part of Lot 28 Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The current zoning is Agricultural Residential. The proposed zoning districts are Local Commercial--1 for 2.06 acres and Neighborhood Commercial-2 for 1.92 acres. In the adopted Land Use Element of -the- Comprehensive Plan, the property is designated Agricultural- Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. The proposed rezoning will maximize the five-acre allotments of NC-2 and LC-1 zoning at this activity node. Each of the proposed zoning lots will have direct access to NC Highway 54, an arterial. Each lot also has suitable area for ground absorption sewage treatment as proposed by Orange County Environmental Health. Adjacent property to the south and west is undeveloped and zoned Agricultural Residential. To the east is PHE, Inc., a mail order facility zoned General Commercial-4. Across NC Highway 54 to the north is undeveloped land zoned AR and LC-1. The Planning Staff has made positive findings. on the application for rezoning to LC-1 and NC-2 as required by Article 20 and Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The list of permitted uses in the proposed districts is included in the attachments. The applicant has no plans for developing the property in question. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD. 832 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS MADELINE CURL, a White Cross resident with property adjoining and S Sporting Goods, spoke in opposition to this request. A copy of her comments are in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerks Office. GREG SHEPHARD, a representative of P. and S Sporting, spoke,im support of this request. He indicated that all of the Planning regulations and requirements have been met. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. PD-1-92 CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL ..Beverly Blythe, Clerk,to the Board, swore.in Planner Emily Cameron who presented this item.- It was presented for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on a proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School which would allow expansion of the existing private school approved as a planned development in 1990. Carolina Friends School is an existing private school located on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) and west of Friends School Road (SR 1719). The property contains 32.94 acres and is zoned PD-RB, Planned Development -Rural Buffer. In August of 1990 a Class A Special Use Permit was issued for Carolina Friends School to allow construction of a wastewater disposal system in the Rural Buffer. Article 6.20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a large ground absoption system with a design capacity over 3000 gallons per day ma-''. be allowed in the RB district only through approval of a planned development'_ The Board of Directors of Carolina Friends School adopted a five-year master plan in 1991 for development of the school. The plan calls for expansion of the facility with a 9500 square foot resource center adjacent to the upper School, a 200 square foot office addition, four 120 square foot storage sheds, handicapped accessible bathrooms, and road widening with additional parking. Student enrollment is projected to increase by twenty students. The proposed construction constitutes a major modification to the Special Use Permit issued in 1990. Article 8.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that such a change be considered by _the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing. The proposed expansion of the school complies with most of the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance that are attached to the current Special Use Permit. Conditions have been included in the Planning Staff's recommendation to address deviations from the approved findings and to insure compliance with' all State and local regulations. The existing sewage disposal system has a capacity of 4000 gallons per day and is regulated by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Based on the State's standards, the potential system flow is 10 gallons per day per student. Current daily flow is about 2400 gallons for 368 students, or 6.5 gallons per student per day. Projected enrollment at Carolina Friends School will not exceed 394 students. The resulting potential for a 3940 gpd flow through the system is still within the 4000 gallon capacity permitted by DEM. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by commissioner Insko, second by commissioner 833 Gordon, to refer this item to-the Planning Board for a recommendation to be -.returned to the Board of Commissioners on August 3rd; 1992. ,.,VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEST AMENDMENTS A_. HOME OCCUPATIONS ARTICLES 6.16.6 AND 22 This item was presented by Mary Scearbo for the purpose of receiving citizen comments. This proposed zoning ordinance text amendment will create more performance-oriented standards for home occupations. The substantive changes proposed in the amendment pertain to setbacks and square footage limits for accessory structures on lots larger than 200,000 square feet (Article 6.16.6.3). The proposed standards would allow greater flexibility in the location of home occupation accessory buildings if the site contained wooded areas or topographic features which provided effective screening. In contrast, the location of structures in open areas would be more restricted In some instances.. other proposed changes involve the use of large existing structures for home occupations activities. The amendment was originated by the Planning Staff to address problem situations which have been encountered in administering home occupation -regulations. A recent example involved a deep lot about 11 acres in size, with the residence located almost 1000 feet from the road. Current regulations required the home occupation structure to be located in an unsuitable location to the rear of the residence. The desired location was. in a wooded area, several hundred feet from the road. The home occupation could not be approved, even though. the use would have been very heavily screened, and would not be visible from the roadway. These proposed amendments begin a more comprehensive overhaul of home occupation standards. The issues addressed at this time will resolve situations which are more commonly encountered. Staff will be proposing in a subsequent amendment changes to requirements for smaller lots, specific standards related to traffic impacts, and additional standards for home occupations which could potentially create nuisance impacts. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Willhoit asked for clarification regarding the number of persons who would be allowed to be employed in the-.home. Ms. Scearbo indicated that' the deftnition is interpreted to mean that two full-time persons (FTP) may be employed at any one time. That could include part-time positions equaling two full--time positions. Commissioner Gordon provided written comments on this text amendment and will provide further details to the staff at a later date. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURES This item was presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. This procedure would change the certificate 834 required on a final subdivision plat by the owner of the property being subdivided. The Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance is a. requiree-_-,,. statement on the Final Plat and on the Declaration of Restrictions an Requirements which is signed by the owner(s) of the property being ` subdivided. By signing the certificate, the owner certifies that he or she is the owner, that all easements, rights-of-way, and common areas are duly granted for the purposes stated on the plat, and that all improvements/ common areas will be maintained until taken over by a public agency or homeowners association, etc. The current language in section V-D-6-b of the Subdivision Regulations for the certificate only implies that -the person signing is the owner of the property. The proposed amendment will expressly state the certification of ownership. THERE WERE NO QUESTIO BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion Commissioner Gordon, for a recommendation than August 3, 1992. and second. No vote NS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of-Commissioners no sooner Commissioners Willhoit and Gordon withdrew their motion was taken. Betty Eidenier stated that this item was not presented to the Planning Board according to the established procedure. She indicated that she perceived this as a serious problem. The Ordinance Review Committee did not review this and send it to the Planning Board. The first mention she heard of this proposed amendment was at a Regular Board of County`-"',, commissioner's meeting. Marvin Collins indicated that he did not totally disagree with Ms. Eidenier's comments. However, this proposed project has great potential for a positive impact. Orange County has not had a project with this great a potential for positive results in quite some time. He indicated that the County needs to be more flexible in their attitude toward development. John Link indicated that staff was not trying to circumvent the procedures., however, he supports Mr. Collin's comment that the County needs to be more responsive. After discussing various options, including hearing these amendments monthly, Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments quarterly rather than annually appears to be a reasonable compromise. A motion was made by commissioner Gordon, seconded by commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT a. CERTIFICATES OF DEDICATION & MAINTENANCE Section V-D-6-b This presentation was made by Emily Cameron for the purpose c receiving citizen comment on the proposed amendment to the subdivision Regulations which would change the certificate required on a final 835 subdivision plat by the owner of the property being subdivided. The Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance is a statement required to be placed on the Final Plat and on the Declaration of Restrictions and Requirements which is signed by the owner(s) of the property being subdivided. By signing the certificate, the owner certifies that he or she is the owner, that all easements, right-of-way, and common areas are duly granted for the purposes stated on the plat, and that all improvements/ common areas will be maintained until taken over by a public agency or homeowners association, etc. The current language in Section V-D-S-b of the Subdivision Regulations for the certificate only implies that the person signing is the owner of the property. The proposed amendment will expressly state the certification of ownership. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by .Commissioner Insko, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on June 1, 1992 at .7:30 p.m. in the old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk