Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19960528APPROVED 815196 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MAY 28, 1996 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County Planning Board on May 28, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners William L. Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, and Don Willhoit COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner Stephen H. Halkiotis PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joan Jobsis and members Paul Hoecke, Karen Barrows, Elizabeth Walters, S.A.M. Brooks, Cheryl A. Howie, Renee A. Price, Arnie Katz, Cherie Rosemond, Leo Allison, Margaret Brown and Robert Strayhorn COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting and outlined the procedure for presenting items and receiving public comment. He mentioned that Commissioner Halkiotis is not in attendance because he is attending an awards banquet at Orange High School where he is principal. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Public School Impact Fee Ordinance Geoffrey Gledhill presented the information as included in the agenda. In summary the proposed amendment is to increase the impact fee in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District from $1,500 to no more than $3,000. No increase in the impact fee in the Orange County School District is proposed. The technical report is the basis of establishing the fee. Mr. Gledhill summarized the technical report which stated that in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District each new housing unit that comes into the district has an $11,593 impact on school construction. In the Orange County School District this figure is $3,404 for each housing unit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS P. H. CRAIG spoke in opposition of this increase in the impact fee. He feels the impact fee is not fair and is doing severe damage to the economic development in this County. He feels it is progressive with the bank getting their share. He said that the real problem is no economic development. He does not feel that everyone that comes to Chapel Hill has the kind of money it takes to live in this community. JUDY MARGOLIS distributed information from Nancy Salmon. She spoke in support of a sliding scale for applying the impact fee. She made reference to the data generated last year by the Planning interns and said that she feels the impact fee should be higher for 4 or more bedrooms and lower for 3 or less bedrooms saying this is more complicated but much fairer. Without a formula for a sliding scale or for number of bedrooms, she supports the proposed $3,000 impact fee for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District. COLLEEN CARLUCCI-ADAMS, local builder and realtor, asked that the Board not approve the proposed increase in the impact fee. She suggested that the County Commissioners shorten the time between reevaluations to allow for appropriate increases in property values to be reflected in the increase in the tax base that occurs. She feels this fee is not a fair tax. WAYNE PARRISH, Vice-President of Governmental Relations with the Home Builders Assoc. of Durham and Orange Counties, spoke against this proposed increase in the impact fee. He feels the fee is inequitable and divides citizens against each other. He feels the County Commissioners should move to a funding mechanism that will generate substantial revenue with minimal impact on taxpayers. He asked the Board to support an additional sales tax to be dedicated to capital construction costs. An increase of 1/2 cents will raise $3,000,000 for the schools. Chair Carey noted for everyone that the County Commissioners have no authority to implement a sales tax. This must be authorized by the General Assembly. MARY BUSHNELL, Vice-Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, said that impact fees are a way to pay for a portion of the school infrastructure needs brought about by growth in the entire community. She noted that impact fees will only generate about $850,000 per year at the present rate or $4,300,000 over the next five years. Their capital construction needs during that time period will be $50,474,000. The impact fee is a way to raise only a portion of what is needed for school construction. She is in support of the County expanding its refund eligibility for affordable housing. She asked that the impact fee be set at a level that can realistically address the infrastructure demands generated by residential growth. BEA HUGHES WERNER, member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, urged the County Commissioners to vote for an increase in the impact fee . She noted that schools need money and they need it from varied sources and she supports the proposed increase. HARVEY GOLDSTEIN, member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, spoke in support of the proposal to increase the impact fee. He reminded the Board that hundreds of communities across the country use impact fees on new residential units to finance infrastructure made necessary by residential growth. Increasing this fee to $3,000 is one way to diversify the capital funding for the schools. He does not feel that the impact fee should become the major source of funding for new schools. He feels that there are ways to justify a sliding fee based on house size. GREG ISENHOUR, home builder, does not support this increase in the impact fee. He feels that the issue is not impact fees but how can the community raise the necessary money to fund new schools. He feels that the schools are a benefit and should be paid for by all citizens. Orange County does have a tax base problem which limits revenue sources. He feels that the County needs to generate tax base properties that do not generate school children. He encouraged the County Commissioners to look at the big picture. With reference to affordable housing, the County regulations demand more open space and more stringent guidelines for infrastructure which prevents Orange County from offering affordable housing. NICK TENNYSON, Home Builders Association of Durham and Orange Counties, said he read the technical report and questions the calculated cost per student. He feels that some sort of life cycle analysis of amortization of capital cost that is actually in the building would mean a lower cost than what is in the report. He noted that the second highest generated rate for students in the schools is from apartment dwellings. MATTHEW BARTON spoke in support of the proposed increase in the impact fee. He feels that every property owner benefits by an increase in the impact fee. He supports rebates for low cost housing. The Seawell Elementary PTA passed a resolution asking the County Commissioners to use impact fees as a part of funding for schools. SOS supports planning and cooperation by all the governing bodies. LINDA MEWS, taxpayer, feels this proposed increase in the impact fee is not fair. She stated that new construction does not impact the schools, children do. She suggested taxing the number of children in the household. This tax would be fair, easy to assess and easy to collect. Another suggestion is to broaden the base to include an Impact Tax at the time the title to property is transferred. LEE RAFALOW agreed with comments made about the sliding fee based on bedrooms and other suggestions for alternatives to the Impact fee. He feels that this is a subsidy for the developers who will pass this tax on to the citizen. NICK DIDOW, member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, said that it seems to him that there is a short-term crisis and a long-term problem. An appropriate level of Impact fee is simply one way to diversify the funding sources given the tools and options available now. PETER MARGOLIS noted that overcrowding is currently the most pressing threat to educating the children. Raising the Impact fee will help. He said that it has been proven that smaller class sizes in early grades improve students performance in basic reading and math scores. This report indicated that people are willing to pay more to live where the schools are better. GARY SALEEBY, President of the Chapel Hill Board of Realtors, spoke against this method of providing for a high quality school system. He does not feel that it has been proven that purchasers of new homes have brought new children into the school system. There are a lot of cross county moves. He urged that the County Commissioners pursue another alternative to fund a quality school system. He supports local legislation for an additional sales tax for schools. KEITH COOK, member of the Orange County Board of Education, spoke in support of the proposed increase in the fee for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District. The need is here right now. Impact fees do take the pressure off of people who live here. He feels that those in Orange County who are first-time home buyers and are trying to get ahead should be exempt from paying this fee. RON WEBBER, builder and developer in Chapel Hill, said that it is very clear that there is a division between the builders and developers and those who favor this increase. He feels that this is a lot of money. He understands that the options are limited but he feels there must be a better answer. He feels it is not fair. He ask that the County Commissioners find some better answers. Chair Carey closed the public hearing and indicated that action will be taken on this item at their regular meeting scheduled for next Monday, June 3, 1996. Commissioner Willhoit asked that staff look at the issue about whether a higher fee could be justified on the basis of higher than three bedrooms. 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (a) CP-2-96 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Since March 16, 1995, a 22 member Planning Group of neighborhood representatives plus elected and appointed officials and seven alternates worked on a Stoney Creek Land Use Plan that achieves two goals: (1) Preserves landowners' rights to get fair value for their property, and (2) protects the area's rural character. Planner Gene Bell presented the information as stated in the agenda. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Gene Bell said that in the Flexible Development proposal, developments that preserve more than 44% open space are entitled to bonus units. The proposal is that for developments that preserve from 33 to 50%, half of the bonus units they would be entitled to could be used in the Stoney Creek area and half somewhere else. He showed some of the different densities on the map. There are currently no receiving areas in the Stoney Creek Area. However, there are other transition areas in the County where this 25% could be applied. Karen Barrows asked if this would require a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and Gene Bell said that it could be done based on the Flexible Development proposal. Sherri Rosemond asked about informational meetings with the developers and Gene Bell indicated that plans are in place to hold such meetings. He noted that the Planning Group will also continue to meet to deal with issues that may come up within the neighborhood and also with developers. In answer to a question from Joan Jobsis about receiving areas for density bonuses, Gene Bell said that the Flexible Development proposal defines areas that could accept density bonuses as transition areas as identified in the County's Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Other receiving areas would be proposed water and sewer areas, transit corridors, and within 3/4 mile of an interstate corridor. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS LEE RAFALOW, member of the Small Area Plan Work Group and several of the subcommittees, thanked Planner Gene Bell and the Planning Staff for their help in this process. He said that the consensus they have is based on their understanding of the Flexible Development options and the Rural Design Guidelines. He noted that there were some last minute changes in the Flexible Development Plan that the Small Area Planning Group have not considered in their recommendations. They tried to create a balance wherein the benefits of density and the destruction of density were contained in the same area. CURTIS BANE, member of the Small Area Plan Work Group, made comments about the University Station area and the subdivisions which have been approved for that area. The homes will be priced from $150,000 to $250,000 which is out of range for most young couples. He favors a water and sewer system for the entire area. He wants the roads in the Stoney Creek basin to remain as they are now with these 600 new homes using a newly designed thoroughfare that will access the main roads. He wants to maintain the country flavor of the area. MASCAR KAVORI noted he just purchased a house on Stagecoach Road as shown on the map between the Economic Development District and the 1-85/NC86 Activity Node. He asked what industries would be permitted in both areas and if the adjacent property owners will be informed that there may be industry in that area. Gene Bell made reference to the Zoning Ordinance and the table of permitted uses. He noted that safeguards and design guidelines have been built into the process, especially in terms of buffering residential properties from different land uses that will be near them. He will give Mr. Kavori his phone number so they can talk further about his specific situation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, 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 5, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) CP-3-96 Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Expansion (3b) Z-3-96 Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Expansion (4d) Economic Development District Design Manual Planner Mary Willis said that one goal of the Board of County Commissioners for 1995- 96 was to look at the possibility of expanding the Economic Development District at Buckhorn Road. The existing district is on the north side of 1-85 and contains about 300 acres of land for primary development. The area they looked at for proposed expansion is on the south side of 1-85 and bounded by Mt. Willing Road, West Ten Road, Buckhorn Road and the Interstate. All property owners within the area and outside of the area were invited to attend meetings to voice their concerns. Two of the concerns were the provision of water and sewer for this area and a desire to maintain the neighborhood's existing residential character. Other concerns are listed in the agenda. Mary Willis showed on a map the area being proposed for this Economic Development District. Two developed areas would be excluded from the district and the buffer would be expanded from 100 feet to 150 feet around these areas. Commissioner Gordon asked about the reference to sewer disposal on page 65 of the agenda. Mary Willis explained that Buckhorn Road forms the ridgeline as the boundary between the Haw Creek Watershed and the Upper Eno. All of the drainage within the district is suitable to be included in the Efland sewer system. Gravity flow could accommodate all the corridors leading to one pump station which would pump up to Highway 70. County Engineer Paul Thames said that it would be less expensive to just develop the northern section and put in four or five pump stations. However, pump stations are mechanical and prone to failure. The overall best design is to have one pump station with everything going to it by gravity. He noted that they would hope to find industry with low water use. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about allowing residential development while waiting for this area to develop, Mary Willis said that allowing residential development of any large tract would defeat the purpose of the district. Ted Abernathy stated that development will probably not happen in this area for another ten years or more. What they are trying to do is to put safeguards in this area by using the guidelines for Economic Development Districts. This zoning would restrict subdivisions in this area. Planning Board Member Renee Price asked if the support in this area is mostly to leave it residential or to designate it as an Economic Development District. Ted Abernathy said that when the County was doing Comprehensive Land Use Planning, it was decided that some land needed to be set aside for non-residential uses and this area was chosen. It is near an interstate and close to water and sewer which makes it a prime area for non-residential use. Planning Board Member S.A.M. Brooks said that she supports this type of planning and feels that these areas will eventually attract industry. She feels that the only reason there is not industrial growth in this area is the unavailability of water and sewer. She feels the County needs to pursue providing these services. Commissioner Willhoit stated that the County has limited land designated for commercial and industrial purposes and that this is a strategic location along an interstate. Residential development would preempt long-range planning because residential development can go in without public water and sewer. The County has the ability to extend the Efland sewer line to this area and he supports moving ahead with this project. The same situation exists with the Economic Development District at Old NC86. Joan Jobsis asked about the timeline for the availability of water and sewer into this area. Paul Thames indicated that they have looked at a basic sewer design. However, no easements or construction plans have been done. John Link stated that there are ways to partner with private business, primarily through the State's economic development block grant process. Another issue is whether or not the County wants to make the Efland sewer system economically feasible. Right now the fees would not provide enough monies to expand the system. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT OWEN ALLISON spoke in support of the Economic Development District. He owns property in this area and wants to develop it in such a way as to attract a business that would provide good jobs for local citizens. His intention is to attract business that would "pay a living wage" to its employees. DAVID PERMAR asked that the area where the Amoco Station is located on Buckhorn Road be excluded from the plan. He is concerned about the impact the Economic Development District would have on making renovations. He supports an Economic Development District but not for services such as motels, restaurants and those types of businesses. He suggested moving another 500 feet down Buckhorn Road and excluding a little more area close to the interchange that would not be included in the Economic Development District. The other alternative would be to reduce the setback along Buckhorn Road to 50 feet which it already is and let service station type uses be permitted as a matter of right. He noted that most uses would have to go through a special use permit process. 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 5, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Zoning Atlas Amendments (a) Z-2-96 Neal and Betty Tapp Planner Eddie Kirk outlined the information as included in the agenda. The property proposed to be rezoned is approximately 4.8 acres out of a 28.46 acre tract. It is bounded by 1-40 to the west and Mill House Road to the east and is located at the north intersection of these two roads. The 28.46 acre tract is currently zoned NC-2. The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 4.8 acres of the tract to RB (Rural Buffer). Commissioner Gordon asked why they want the rezoning and Eddie Kirk said that the applicant has indicated his intention to apply for a Class B Special Use Permit for a communications tower. However, the staff has not received an application. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT JERRY EATMAN spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that this application is consistent in all respects with the code. Mr. Tapp has been approach by a company to buy this property for a communication tower, though the project is not guaranteed. NEAL TAPP said that this property is in the woods and this use would cause the property to remain wooded and the tower would not be seen from the road. EVE OLIVE, President of the Emerson Waldorf School, which is close to this area, said that if there is going to be a telecommunications tower on this property, she is concerned about the health impact on the children. She stated that there has been a lot of evidence concerning the high incidence of leukemia in children living near power lines. She asked that this health impact be stated in the Zoning Ordinance and that the regulations limit the proximity of radio towers to areas where there are large numbers of younger children. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill clarified that the County Commissioners have a responsibility to look at all the possible uses in making their decision on a rezoning. The Board would be endorsing these uses if they approve the rezoning request. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 5, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) Z-3-96 Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Expansion (HEARD ABOVE WITH 2b) 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (a) Telecommunication Towers 1) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table 2) Article 8.8.17 Radio and Television Transmitting and Receiving Towers and Elevated Water Storage Tanks (Class B Special Use) 3) Article 8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers (Special Use Permit requirements) 4) Article 6.3.1 Principal Uses 5) Article 6.18 Administrative Approval of Stealth Telecommunication Towers (new) Planner Mary Willis presented the information for this item. She summarized her response to the concerns heard at the November 27, 1995 public hearing. She outlined the changes in this proposal which are listed in the agenda abstract. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Mary Willis said that all the changes with the exception of the notice to citizens are less stringent. She clarified some of the new language used in the proposed changes. In answer to a question from Chair Carey about a study showing adverse health impacts from communication towers, Mary Willis said that everything she has read indicates that there is no identifiable health risk associated with communication towers. She will provide documentation to the County Commissioners. County Attorney Geof Gledhill stated that he feels that the 1995 Cable Communications Act takes the County Commissioners out of the business of making a decision based on safety issues concerning communication towers. Congress made the decision that they were safe. He will provide information to the Board on this issue. Karen Barrows asked about the minimum setback and Mary Willis said that the full setback of 100% will be required. However, if the adjacent property owner did not object to a lesser setback, that could be approved. This provides for flexibility. Renee Price noted that there have been studies about health impacts from communication towers and that she is also concerned about this issue. S.A.M. Brooks asked about the setbacks for the adjoining property owners and noted that it would be difficult to know the impact on adjoining property until after the tower is built. Mary Willis indicated that they do have photographs which help in determining what impact towers of varying heights would have on adjoining property. In answer to a question from Margaret Brown, Mary Willis said that the 500 foot notice is from the boundaries of the property on which the tower would be located. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS EVE OLIVE reiterated the views she expressed earlier about the health dangers of communication towers and asked that this issue be addressed and considered for including in the regulations. ALBERT BENSHOFF, Associate General Counsel for 360 Degrees Communications Company, which used to be Sprint Cellular, made reference to several sections and made comments. (1) 8.8.17a.1 requires "a listing of all towers within a one mile radius for towers which are 200 feet or taller." He noted that most search ranges for towers are 114 mile. He has no problems with providing any reasonable information for other towers within their search range. However, any information on towers outside of that search range is irrelevant for determining sharing of towers or minimizing the number of towers. He suggested that the information be limited to information within the search range. (2) 8.8.17a1(d) requires that "the applicant provide a laundry list of information on all existing towers in the search range and assess whether the existing tower could be structurally strengthened or whether the antennas' transmitters and related equipment could be protected from electromagnetic interference, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower." He said that they are prepared to provide that information. He suggests that they may want it only if it is relevant. For example, if a tower owner refuses to lease space on an existing tower at a commercially reasonable rate, it is really unnecessary for the County to receive that information. These are fairly detailed and expensive engineer studies. (3) 6.3.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance - Principal Uses - to his knowledge, this is the only County that interprets the General Statutes to require that leased property be subject to the Subdivision Ordinance. Most cell sites are on leased property. He requested some relief from this interpretation. With reference to residential setbacks, he understands that setbacks may be reduced to no less than the tower height if easements for the remainder setback distance is granted by adjoining property owners. An easement is a property right which must be negotiated and purchased. BARRY JACOBS, Caretaker of Moorefields in Hillsborough, applauded the County for their efforts in regulating these towers. The OWASA Board, of which he is Chair, have had an occasion to deal with a request on one of their water tanks, which they approved. He has some concerns with removing the requirements for "Unreasonable Interference with View". He suggested that the wording "significant adverse impact" be used instead of "Unreasonable". He suggested that under the "Special Use Permit Findings" where reference is made to adverse impacts on contiguous property, that contiguous property may not be the only property that is adversely impacted. Therefore, this would not be a consideration under a Special Use Permit. The idea that maintenance and enhancement of property values is maintained is subjective. He suggested that the County may want to actually use balloons to help visualize how high the tower would be and what it may impact from that height. With reference to health effects, they found that there are no proven health risk from communication towers. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 5, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Willhoit asked that the communication companies be requested to provide information on the health impact of communication towers - - what the standards are, energy level, and if they are directional or focused and the power level compared to the standard. Mr. Benshoff added that what the Communications Act of 1996 does is establish a safety standard. It does not take the County out of the business of regulating it. It says that the American National Standards Institute, the Institute that sets safety guidelines for everything from towers to bicycle helmets, has established a safety standard where all this evidence we have been referring to indicates it is safe. What the Telecommunications Act says is that the County must look at this standard and use that standard and so long as the facility meets that standard, that it is the standard applicable for local governments. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey to adjourn this meeting to June 26, 1996 at a meeting that begins at 7:30p.m. at OWASA in Carrboro. The items listed below will be heard at that time. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) Article 6.16.6 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations (c) Article 8.8.24 Special Uses - Use of Historic Structures (d) Economic Development District Design Manual (HEARD ABOVE WITH 2b) v. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (a) Section III-C-4 action Subsequent to Approval (minor subdivisions) (b) Section III-D-3(c) action Subsequent to Approval (major subdivisions) ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey to adjourn this meeting to June 26, 1996 to begin at 7:30 p.m. at OWASA in Carrboro. The remaining items will be heard at that time. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk