Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19930524 Y - 332 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MAY 24, 1993 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board held a quarterly public hearing on May 24, 1993 at 7 : 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Carol Cantrell and members Betty Eidenier, Virginia Boland, William Waddell, Joan Jobsis, Kent Scott, Jean Hamilton, Paul. Hoecke and Larry Reid. COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Assistant County Manager Rod Visser, Economic Development Director Ted Abernathy, Planner Gene Bell, Planner Emily Cameron, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Economic Development Assistant Oli Devaud, Administrative Assistant Y Debra Graham, Planner David Stancil, and- Planner Mary Willis NOTE: All background information is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CLERK Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint Debra Graham as Acting Clerk. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked that those citizens who want to make comments to sign up on the clipboard as provided. the B. PIIBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. C. PIIBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. PIIBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that this item is being presented for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a system of impact fees which, if established, would be used to help finance a portion of the 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. This is the second public hearing on a system to impose impact fees. The first was held in May, 1992 and at that time, rather _than adopt the system of fees that was proposed, the Board of Commissioners chose to investigate other options for financing school capital needs. After 333 looking at those options, the Board decided to conduct a second public hearing. The system that is proposed for , consideration includes fees th?'- range from $500 to $750 on average per residential unit. Mr. Collins brief outlined the growth in the student population which has led to a need for two ` new elementary schools. Revenues from such a fee range would generate approximately $770, 000 to $1. 2 million for both school districts during the . first year. It would take an increase in the property tax rate of 1.8 to 2 .8 cents to raise similar amounts. In terms of general ordinance administration, existing homes would not be required to pay impact fees. Credits are also possible for developers who donate land for school sites and/or install utilities which would serve proposed school sites. The fees would be collected at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and distributed to the school district in which collected. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR OUESTIONS FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS DIANE POZEFSKY, Co-President of the Ephesus PTA in Chapel Hill, spoke in favor of the impact fees. She stated that the classrooms today are inadequate and there will be additional students next year. She noted that the price of housing is not an issue with many people when looking for the best school system in the area. She feels that impact fees will not hurt the home buyer but will help improve the schools. SCOTT RADWAY spoke in support of the schools but against the impact... fees. He feels that the impact fee will not generate what is needed and being done on the backs of a few people who can least afford it. The growl. rate for the last five years has been half of the projected 3% growth rate. This means that less money will be generated than anticipated. He stated that the big demographic change in the community and the one driving major increases in school enrollment is not the new housing units but the changeover of the existing housing units. This proposal does not address this issue. By using the average family size and single family dwelling units, it would take 2,200 units a year to generate 670 students from new housing. He favors paying an additional property tax to fund. the schools that are needed. CARL WALTERS noted that he has studied the effects of imposing impact fees in other areas and found that impact fees did not slow growth or put a burden on low income families. This will help hold down the property tax rate and provide the needed facilities for schools for the next few years. HARVEY GOLDSTEIN, Vice-President of the PTA Council of the Chapel Hill./Carrboro Schools, spoke in support of the impact fees to partially finance a new elementary school. He noted that the schools are overcrowded. The impact fee is appropriate because facilities are already at or over capacity. Additional growth requires a large capital outlay for facilities. He feels that the impact fee would have a very slight impact on housing affordability. Using a fee of $1, 000 and a $100, 000 house, the homeowner would pay an additional six to nine dollars a month in their mortgage payment. In terms of development, there is no evidence across the country that irpar' fees of this magnitude adversely affect economic growth or econom development. In the Chapel Hill/Carrboro school district, the demand does not decrease if the price of the house increases. This is because of the very 334 high quality school district which will lead to economic growth for the County. NANETTE FIELDS, President of the Board of Realtors, feels there is a fairness issue. The developer is paying fees from the very beginning of the process to build a house. These fees are then passed on to the homeowner. She would rather pay through her property taxes than .to impose another fee. Everyone benefits from the burden and should share it equally. She urged the Board to promote economic development and to encourage everyone to be better stewards of the County's tax money. She hopes that -the Board does not send a message that only people who can afford the higher price of housing can live in Orange County. KEN TOUW, resident of Chapel Hill and school board member feels that the impact fee will have very little impact on the sale of homes and the price range on these homes. He stated that the impact fee is fair and equitable because at the present time all citizens are being asked to pay the entire price associated with additional residential units and this fee will allow some of the additional capital cost to be paid by owners of new houses causing these additional costs. It is true that the student population is growing faster than the population of the County as a whole which is not all due to new, housing. This fee will begin to address the increased capital needs associated with the additional houses. HARVEY SADOFF, Principal of Glenwood Elementary School, spoke in favor of the impact fee. He told of the situation at Glenwood Elementary School -. with inadequate space in the cafeteria and other areas of the school. The school is not overcrowded but needs to be renovated, repaired and expanded. They are considering year-round school using single-tract planning, not multitract. The practical aspect of this fee is that for every person the school does not succeed with, it will cost money later due to crime, unemployment, job training, etc. It is a question of paying for education now or buying a security system for your house later. People who are interested in quality education for their children will not be deterred because of the impact fee. He feels that it is important. to provide a professional working environment - - for -all the hard working teachers and a quality learning environment- for every child. R. ALEX ZAFFRON, Second Vice-Chair of the Orange County Democratic Party and speaking for himself, noted that the platform of the party calls for taxation to be applied fairly, equitably and progressively. This fee has Placed another obstacle in the path of ordinary working people who are struggling to buy their first home. The primary argument against this fee is that its implementation would add yet another barrier to one of the pressing problems in the County which is the creation of affordable housing. He agrees that the County should provide adequate funding for the schools but feels the sources of funding should be provided fairly, equitably and progressively. This proposal remains unfair, inequitable, unprogressive and runs counter to the solution of affordable housing. He urged the County Commissioners to find a better way to fund the schools. RUSS DAVIS, Executive Vice President of the Homebuilders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill, read some comments that their Governmental. Affairs 335 Committee made on the impact fee issue. Although, they are concerned with the physical structures that house the student population and overcrowds_- classrooms, they do not feel that impact fees are the answer to the probler. An impact fee is a tax that is placed on a small segment of the community while the entire community receives a benefit. They feel that the basis for the school system is that everyone is entitled to a free education, funded, by a broad based tax that is shared equally by everyone. All new homes do not. generate a new burden on the school system. By looking at the enrollment patterns, the older existing neighborhoods will produce more children per household than new developments. Not all people moving into the area move into new homes. In summary, the Homebuilders Association feels that impact fees are very regressive, inflationary in nature, and an unfair tax on a small segment of the market that hurts the inability to provide housing for middle class families. The Homebuilders Association supports building the needed schools, if they are truly needed, but feel that public education is public and should be funded by broad based taxes paid equally by everyone. A copy of Mr. Davis' comments is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office. WOODY CLARIS spoke in support of the comments made by Mr. Russ Davis. KENT SCOTT, local builder, spoke about the high price of lumber. Over 50% of the homes he builds are for retirees. The impact fee will only raise a little over $300, 000 per year for the Orange County school district. He presented figures for Orange County schools which indicated that there has been little growth in the last 20 years -- from 5, 054 students in 1973-74 to 5, 088 in 1991-92. During this same period the allocation per student_ increased from $815 per student to close to $5, 000. The school budget wer from $4, 120, 000 to a little over $25, 000, 000 in 20 years. He feels that th4. .. County has the money to fully fund education. VIC KNIGHT stated that this impact tax will provide funds for only a portion of the overall capital needs of the schools. He feels that this tax will affect the affordability issue of providing low to modern income housing. He noted that no member of the Orange County Board of Education spoke either in support or against this tax. Their absence indicated to him that they do not openly support it. A letter was received from Kathleen M. Clarke-Pearson in support of the impact fees on newly . developed residences. A copy of her letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. s NOTE: Attached to these minutes on pages are the comments received at the May 18 , 1993 meeting which are hereby made a part of these minutes by reference. Chair Carey suggested and it was the consensus of the Board to consider this item at its meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 27 for decision. 2. VOLUNTARY FARMLAND PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mr. Collins stated that the proposed amendment to the Voluntar. Farmland Preservation Ordinance would add a provision which would allow t1. county to round off acreage to the nearest whole acre in determining whether or not a particular piece of farmland would qualify in meeting the 80 acre 336 contiguous requirement. The Agricultural District Advisory Board recommended approval. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko to approve the proposed amendment as presented. VOTE: AYES, 4; NOS, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) NOTE: Commissioner Gordon voted "No", because, while she favors the substance of this amendment, she objects to the procedure by which the vote was taken. She believes that matters presented at a public hearing should not be decided at that hearing, but rather should be presented for decision at a subsequent meeting. 3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Planner Emily Cameron stated that the proposed amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance are changes recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office to insure compliance With standards for Certified Local Government status. The changes would make the Historic Preservation Commission responsible. for investigating and preparing reports on historic landmarks in districts and make the ordinance consistent with the General Statutes regarding the provisions for delaying the demolition of landmarks and buildings within historic districts. ,..-THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer these amendments to the Historic Preservation Commission for a decision to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than June 7, 1993 . VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS a. CP-1-93 Economic Develo ment Activity Node Land Use Plan Category_ 5. ZONING ATLAS (MAP)_ AMENDMENTS A-.- Z-1-93 Economic Development Districts 6. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS A. Economic Development Districts Marvin Collins stated that in 1990, the Board of Commissioners adopted a Strategic Economic Development plan. One of the goals was to identify parcels for prezoning for economic development purposes. In February, 1993 , a series of proposals were presented at public hearing which targeted four areas of the County for economic development purposes. These included: 1. The northeast quadrant of the I-85/Buckhorn Road Interchange; 337 2 . The I-40/Old NC 86 Interchange; 3 . The I-85/US Highway 70 Interchange including NC 10 and N� 751; and 4 . The NC Highway 54-West area near White Cross and Morrow Miles Road At the public hearing held February 22, 1993, a number of citizen comments were received and these are listed in the agenda abstract. Since that time, the proposals have been revised in an effort to address as many of the concerns as possible voiced at the February 22 public hearing. Collins showed on a map the three proposed economic development districts. They are listed as 1, 2, and 3 above. Each district has a primary development area with 40 permitted uses ranging from industrial to retail and service facilities. There is then a secondary development area with 20 permitted uses. Marvin Collins explained that associated with the changes to the Comprehensive Plan are proposals which seek to apply a revised "Economic Development District" zoning category to specific target areas in the County. Associated with the. rezoning proposal is the establishment of performance standards and streamlined approval procedures applicable within those districts. He gave several examples of how specific requests would be handled. P q COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD. Commissioner Insko asked that the Planning Board take the followir items into consideration when reviewing this proposal: (1) The size of the I-40/Old NC 86 Interchange is 900 acres. She would like to have that scaled back. (2) The standards have no specifics related to the environment. She would like to have guidelines included that address the environmental design of the building like heating, lighting and . .air conditioning and other_ building design components that promote environmental development. (3) She would like the focus to be on promoting small businesses from within the current work force instead of attracting big businesses from outside the County. (4) She asked that several documents be reviewed in considering the proposal. They include If Growth is so Good Why are My Taxes GoingUp and The Myth of Growth. Commissioner Gordon asked that the proposed district for the I- 40/Old NC 86 Interchange be smaller and that anything the Planning Board recommends be environmentally responsible to economic development. She emphasized that any economic development should be fiscally responsible. In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Marvin Collin• stated that flea markets are not listed in the present permitted use table bu they are considered a retail use. There are some differences between indoors and outdoors in terms of impacts beyond the bounds of the building or beyond 338 the bounds of the lot or beyond the bounds of the building but not beyond the bounds of the zoning district which could include several lots. Commissioner -Willhoit asked that recycling facilities be mentioned specifically in the . ?ermitted use table in an effort to encourage that type of industry. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS STEPHEN RIDDLE, President of the Homeowners Association of Stagecoach Run, made comments about the I-40/Old NC 86 District. Stagecoach Run is the major road that runs from New Highway 86 westward into the Economic Development District. The homeowners are concerned that this road would become a major thoroughfare. They have specific concerns about the size of the lots. They are sensitive to the needs of the developer because much of this area will not perk. He feels that if Orange County wants to lower the tax base for the residents, they must increase the opportunity for economic development. DWIGHT NICHOLS spoke in support of the Economic Development Districts. He feels the buffer should be 50 feet instead of 100 feet. He thinks the tax base is needed in Orange County. He suggested using Highway 10 as the boundary for the I--85/US Highway 70 Interchange: RUFUS BLACKLEY spoke in support of the I--40/Old NC 86 Interchange. This area is ready for economic development. He does not want this area reduced in size. JOEL SIPRESS, representing the orange County Greens, cited three reasons to encourage economic development: (1) to minimize the tax burden on : residential taxpayers, (2) provide jobs for the unemployed and the underemployed of Orange County and (3) increase the wage levels for the working people of the County. The Orange County Greens support these three goals. They ask that the County consider whether traditional industrial recruitment strategies will achieve these three goals. He asked three questions: (1) will the employers provide a significant number of jobs for Orange County residents or will most of the new jobs go to newcomers moving into the County, (2) will those in Orange County who need or want these new jobs have the means to_ get- t-o the proposed economic development zones and (3) will the cost of servicing the new development outweigh the tax revenue generated. There are studies that indicate that these traditional industrial recruitment models at best break even in terms of taxes versus services. He noted that when taking into account the full cost of services to commercial and industrial development plus the cost of servicing any -new residential development generated, at best this strategy breaks even. Mr. Sipress made three proposals: (1) before considering the full scale proposal for economic development zones, do a smaller demonstration project to see if whether in fact it works. By doing this the County will see what type of businesses will locate here, what type of employment these businesses will generate and if they will employ Orange County people. A study will be able to be done on the impact of services and revenues. (2) He suggested as a criteria for participation that businesses submit a local work force development plan which would include a discussion of how many County residents this business intends to employ and how they plan to employ them. The plan would discuss what kind of training they are going to make available so that the people of the county who need and want work will be able to get jobs with the new .employers and be 339 able to discuss the opportunities for people to take management positions. Such a plan could include a discussion of how they intend to transport peopl.­ from places where the unemployed and underemployed worker lives to t1 economic development zones. (3) Set as a criteria for participation tha-L - businesses will be attracted that will use the services and resources of Orange County and the region. This will have a multiplier affect on orange County. A copy of Mr. Sipress' statement is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office. LARRY BAKER made reference to the line that runs through some of the properties on Old NC10. This line was originally all the way down to the railroad track and he had supported not splitting the properties. He would like to see this entire area in the primary development area as originally proposed or at least under secondary development. He has a mobile home park on this seven acres. If this boundary stays as proposed half of his property will be under secondary development and half will be residential. Under the secondary development - guidelines, if he has a mobile home spot vacant more than 6 months, he cannot put another mobile home on that spot. Marvin Collins clarified that the mobile home park would be nonconforming and the whole park would have to be vacant for six months for this to affect him. R. ALEX ZAFFRON spoke in support of this project. He hopes that the need to plan for economic development in the county is not lost and that the basic fundamental idea of planning for economic development in an environmental and economically responsible way is continued and that this project does go forward. PATRICK CLAYTON stated that he and his family own eighty acres a interchange at I-40 and 86. The taxes for 1986 were $813 . The taxes for 1987 were $5, 755 and for 1992 they were $7,500. They support this going forward. They have received inquiries about this property. JIM HOWIE reinforced the concerns noted above by Commissioners Insko and Gordon. He feels they have not been fully informed in Cornwallis Hills about what is happening. He expressed a concern about the quality of life and his desire to keep it- like it is. He is for growth but. wou-ld like for it to be controlled within the plan itself. He asked - to have additional communication with all the parties affected and a meeting has been scheduled. He asked the Board to consider the quality of life when considering economic development districts. VIC KNIGHT stated that the Board of Realtors support the concept of the economic activity nodes as presented. VIC CUNNINGHAM lives next to Mr. Jim Howie. He agrees with the comments made by Mr. Howie. He is interested in knowing what will be next to then at the I-40, old NC 86 Interchange. HAROLD HARRIS owns land at the intersection of I-40 and Old NC 86. He stated that this land is not suited for residential use because of the noise from the traffic on I-40. Economic development will be more suited for this area. Commissioner Insko noted that multi-family is a permitted use in the secondary development area of the economic development node. 340 LINDSAY EFLAND, Chair of the Economic Development Commission, noted that in terms of total land area in Orange County, the proposed plan would rezone 1500 acres out of approximately 400 square miles. It will probably sake at least 20 years to build out this area. The Economic Development Commission is in favor of reasonable growth. DOROTHY WILSON, resident of Cornwallis Hills, noted that with the proposed economic development zoning, her property is bordering on the proposed node. She is concerned with the type of development that may be generated. She is not against economic development but asked that consideration be given to the type of development since it will be so close to a residential area. KEITH COOK noted it is time to move along on this economic development. DON LEATHERS lives in the I-85/US Highway 70 Interchange. He feels the plan is a good one. He asked that his entire acreage be included in the primary development district. Commissioner Willhoit asked that consideration be given to what the buffer requirements will be if the size of .the acreage is reduced and then increased at a later time which would change the relationship on the buffers and other residential areas. It would be very difficult to expand the area later especially if there has been some residential development in the area. He would like to make the decision on what is the appropriate size of these Economic Development Districts and provide the appropriate buffers at the same ime. LETTERS RECEIVED AND BY REFERENCE ENTERED INTO THE MINUTES OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING A letter endorsing the Economic Development District rezoning of the area between I-85 and I-40 was received from Samuel T. Bratton. His family currently owns 193 acres in the middle of this proposed district and will be directly affected by this decision. A letter signed by 22 members of the Stagecoach Run Homeowners, Association asked that , three amendments be- made to the Zoning Atlas-,; Amendments: (1) The finger of land east of Stagecoach Run development, .located south of the proposed Oakdale Drive extension, Tax Map 4SE, Block A, Sec 3 , be zoned for 40, 000 square foot residential lots. (2) That lots 1, 2 , 3, and 4 on Tax Map 4 SE, Sec 3 , Block A, located on Plat Book 27, page 5 be included in the Stagecoach Run development. (3) That the area beyond the extreme southwest boundary of the Stagecoach Run development be zoned R-2 with a 100 foot buffer. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 4 , 1993 . "TOTE: UNANIMOUS b. CP-2-93 Louis and Joe Berini 341 Planner David Stancil introduced this item for the purpose of receiving public comment. This amendment to the Land Use Element of th� - Comprehensive Plan was submitted by Louis and Joe Berini. The site consis-, of 11.9 acres in Eno Township, containing the Caroline Mobile Home Park. The park is located on the north side of Interstate 85 at the Orange-Durham County line. The applicant is requesting that this area be redesignated in the Comprehensive Plan from Rural Residential to Twenty-Year Transition. Although within Orange County, the property is accessible only via the City of Durham. Water and sewer is now available to the site by the City of Durham. Concerns cited by County Engineer Paul Thames about the system design and the adequacy of the sewer lines would be better addressed at the rezoning level of this process. Louis and Joe Berini would like to add some additional lots on this land with this amendment. Louis Berini, part owner of the Caroline Mobile Home Park, noted that he and his brother want to develop the unused portion of their property. The 11.9 acres was purchased in 1965. By 1967 they had developed 44 lots. A large portion of the unused land would not perk according to the standards in 1967. By 1990, the City of Durham put water and sewer within 200 feet of their property which gave them the opportunity to install water that year and by 1992 made plans to install the sewer. This took a lot of planning, time and money. They want to add to the park in an effort to increase their revenue. He feels this amendment is reasonable and asked that the Board approve it as presented. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon asked that the Planning Department prepare . a report on what they did after they found out that this request violated tY; water and sewer policy. THERE WERE NO CITIZEN COMMENTS Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer this item to the Planning Board and to adjourn the public hearing until 7 : 30 p.m. on August 17, 1993 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. ZONING ATLAS SMAp1 AMENDMENTS a. 2-1-93 Economic Development Districts This item was considered under item 4a above. b. 2-2-93 Marilyn and David Liner Planner Emily Cameron presented for citizen comments a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Efland. The property is located on the west side of Efland-Cedar Grove Road approximately 650 feet north of US Highway 70 on the south side of McGowan Creek. The total area proposed for rezoning contains 4 .18 acres. In the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the property is designated Ten Year Transition in the Efland Center Commercial-Industrial Node. The current zoning is Residential-1 and Protected Watershed II. The zoning district proposed is Residential-3 . The property does have access to public water and sewer and Efland-Cedar Grove Road is collector road. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR MEMBERS OF - 342 THE PLANNING BOARD. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS. Lindsay Efland spoke in favor of this proposal. Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board and to adjourn the public hearing until 7: 30 on August 4, 1993 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Economic Development Districts This item was considered under item 4a above. b. Nursing Homes Planner Emily Cameron presented this item to receive public comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would create a land use category and development standards for nursing homes. Under the current Zoning Ordinance provisions, a nursing home facility for more than . fifteen unrelated individuals must comply with standards for a rehabilitative care facility. The Planning Staff proposes a new land use category and appropriate standards for nursing homes to be included in Articles 4, 8, 10 and 22 which would allow nursing homes as a Class A Special Use Permit. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF PHE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board and to adjourn the public hearing until 7:30 on August 4, 1993 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Co Site Plan A royal Zonin Com liance ' Permit Planner Emily Cameron presented this item to receive public comment. This proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment would add language to Article 14 -and Article 21 of the Zoning Ordinance to clearly explain that a site plan approval with or without a zoning compliance permit does not establish a vested right to develop a project in the absence of an approved Site Specific Development Plan. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board and to adjourn the public hearing until 7:30 on August 4, 1993 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. `TOTE: UNANIMOUS 343 d. impervious Surface Standards Planning Director Marvin Collins presented this item to receiv.• . public comment. The purpose of this amendment would add a provision t. . Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance which would permit property owners to- satisfy impervious surface ratios in protected watersheds through provision of a perpetual conservation easement on adjoining property. This particular amendment was generated by a request from the orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department and has implications for the County's recycling center sites and it may have implications for other rural fire. departments or similar public uses. It does allow conservation easements for meeting the requirements of the impervious surface standards. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon questioned how this would work and Mr. Collins referred to an example in the agenda abstract and explained how this amendment would apply to a parcel of land. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Edward S. Johnson, President of the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company, stated that the zoning requirements have put the Fire Company in a box for about eight years. They wanted to enla-rge their building eight years ago and asked for a variance which was denied. The fire station is beyond site. capacity at this time and they urgently need to expand. The only other alternative is for them to purchase additional land. They plan to purchase some additional land but do not want to buy two acres. Charles Snipes explained that he is willing to give up a small parcel of land for the expansion of the fire station but does not want to givC. ,;.; , up two acres. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko to refer this item to the Planning Board and to adjourn the public hearing until 7: 30 p.m. on August 4, 1993 to receive the Planning Board recommendations. VOTE: UNANIMOUS -D. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered by the Board, Chair Carey adjourned the public hearing. The next regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners will be held on May 27, 1993 at 7 : 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Debra Graham, Acting Clerk Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk