Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19960826APPROVED 10/15/96 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 26, 1996 MINUTES The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, August 26, 1996 at 730 p.m. in the Superior Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Stephen Halkiotis, and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Don Willhoit, and Bill Crowther. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Karen Barrows and members Arnie Katz, Bob Strayhorn, Leo Allison, Cheri Rosemond, and Renee Price. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Joan Jobsis, and members Paul Hoecke, S.A.M. Brooks, Elizabeth Walters and Margaret Brown. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planners Mary Willis, Emily Cameron and Eddie Kirk, and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN Vice-Chair Halkiotis convened the meeting. He stated that the Vice-Chair of the Planning Board, Karen Barrows, would chair Items C. 1 through C.3. He would chair Item C.4. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Vice-Chair Halkiotis read the Public Charge. Karen Barrows requested that Mary Willis present the first item. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. 1. Zoning Atlas Amendments (a) Z-5-96 Efland Set Back Overlay District This item was presented by Mary Willis to consider the creation of a new Overlay Zoning District which would allow lesser setbacks than generally required in the underlying zoning district, and to apply the new Overlay district to Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas in the Efland Area. These proposed overlays would allow setbacks of 20 feet from road right-of-way and 8 feet from side and rear property lines, with provisions for zero-lotline development in the interior of a subdivision. The proposed setbacks are comparable to the setbacks currently allowed in the R-5 zoning districts. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: Elvira Mebane, a resident of the Efland community, spoke against the approval of this request. She displayed a map of the area from 1919 which showed that the lots were originally so small that two or more lots were required in order to build. She spoke on behalf of many local residents who felt that it was not in the best interest of the community to lower these standards. The residents of this community feel that it is unsafe, and unnecessary, to lower the setback requirements. She presented a petition supporting her position which had 117 signatures of local residents. John McCormick, the property owner who requested this change, owns six lots on Gains Chapel Road He stated that it is a hardship to require 40 foot setbacks for this property. He is trying to build affordable housing in the Efland area and has devised a house plan that would fit the lots. These setbacks would make it impossible to build the number of units which he has planned. He stated that current setbacks for one acre lots are unreasonable. He has already built three homes and has building permits for 3 more units. He asked that this area be zoned to densities similar to those for in-town development. Renee Price, Planning Board member, asked if there were other similar requests from property owners in the area. Mr. McCormick indicated that he had not actually heard similar complaints but he was assuming that he was not the only property owner facing this difficulty. He stated that he is building 1200 square foot homes which are listing for $98,400. He mentioned Lloyd Road which is a gravel road that runs parallel to Gaines. It is 20 feet wide and has been inexistence for 20 years. He did not feel that he had a responsibility to improve this road. He said that if he did combine lots in order to meet current zoning requirements, he would have to combine three lots to build one home. Mary Willis mentioned that there are other residents who have non-conforming lots, however there are no other homeowners who have building permits or homes in progress. Samuel English, an Efland resident, felt that it was a mistake to zone any of this area to R-5. R-1 is a designation meant for a city, not an area like Efland. This community is not ready for this type of development. There is not enough water and sewer available for current residents. Allowing this change in the zoning would mean that homes would be built too close to each other. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners not approve this request. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996 VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) Z-6-96 - Charles Davis This item was presented by Eddie Kirk to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Hillsborough Township. The property proposed to be rezoned is located on the east side of Old NC 86 and is bounded by Cates Creek and the Town of Hillsborough Zoning Jurisdiction to the northwest and the 1-40/NC 86 Economic Development District to the south. The 105 acres which is in Orange County's jurisdiction is currently zoned Rural Residential (R-1). The applicant proposes to rezone the property to Residential-3 (R-3). COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Judy Brown, a resident of Stage Coach Run, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment changes for certain lots which she felt were actually a part of Stage Coach Run and could not be changed without permission from the Home Owners Association. Mary Willis explained that there was originally a part of Stage Coach Run which did extend into the area mentioned by Ms. Brown. However, that area was recombined, eliminated from Stage Coach Run and put back into one tract. Geof Gledhill mentioned that private restrictive covenants do not restrict the County from rezoning. However, the residents do not have to allow the denser development in their community. The original covenants can be enforced by the Home Owners Association regardless of the zoning. Dean Lategan, a resident of Stage Coach Run, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment change as they would effect Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 in Section A and Lot 1 in Section B. He stated that those lots are actually a part of Stage Coach Run. He did not believe that Mr. Davis has the right to exclude any lots from the subdivision without permission from the Homeowners Association. The Association is willing to take this matter to court if necessary. They are opposed to rezoning the lots which were originally a part of Stage Coach Run. They do not have an opinion on the other lots. Geof Gledhill mentioned that if the lots are a part of the subdivision, the restrictions apply unless changed by the Homeowners Association. Arthur Cogswell, the project planner, stated that the density of development for these lots is not an issue for them. They have not formulated plan at this time, however, they intend to work with the community. They will be in communication when they do develop a plan. Mr. Charles Davis stated that the lots in question were originally sold to Center Point and were reclaimed by him when Center Point went bankrupt. He did not want to take them back but did not have a choice. The lots were eliminated from Center Points plan in the 1980s. The County Tax Maps do not show these lots as a part of Stage Coach Run. He also mentioned that the lots are not subdivided and are, in fact, one tract. Mary Willis stated that there was originally an area that extended to where those lots were platted. However, a large area was recombined and put back into one tract. A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (a) Efland Setback Overlay District 1) Article 4.2.26 District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria 2) Article 6.24 Efland Setback Overlay District This item was presented by Mary Willis to consider the creation of a new Overlay Zoning District which would allow lesser setbacks than generally required in the underlying zoning district, and to apply the new Overlay district to Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas in the Efland Area. These proposed overlays would allow setbacks of 20 feet from road right-of-way and 8 feet from side and rear property lines, with provisions for zero- lotline development in the interior of a subdivision. The proposed setbacks are comparable to the setbacks currently allowed in the R-5 zoning districts. This item was presented along with Item 1.a. The motion was made in item La above as restated below. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996 VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) Temporary Events 1) Article 8.8.14 Special Uses (Temporary Events) 2) Article 6.16.17 Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses 3) Article 4.2 Permitted Use Table 4) Article 22 Article 22 Definitions This item was presented by Mary Willis to consider a citizen request to create a new use category called "Temporary Events" which would be allowed in residential districts with approval of a Special Use Permit. Examples of this kind of use are commercial craft shows, carnivals, festivals, concerts, medical or veterinary clinics, and outdoor social events hosted by a business such as a restaurant or caterer. Temporary events such as those described above would not be considered a principal use when they take place at a site normally associated with the activity. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. Commissioner Gordon asked which residential districts were included in this request. Mary Willis indicated that all districts up to R-13. She indicated that this was being proposed for a Special Use Permit so that issues such as parking availability could be looked at for each request. Also, there would be a Public Hearing required for each request. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Paul Tripodi, an Orange County resident, stated that he was applying for permission to hold small outdoor events, such as wedding receptions. He was not interested in any of the larger scale events mentioned in the presentation. They would never have events that lasted several days or evening events which would require outdoor lighting. He has been working with the State and County Health Departments to determine what needs to be done to meet health requirements and water availability. Commissioner Gordon commented that although there does not appear to be off-site impact at this particular location, that might not be true of other applicants. At issue here is the essence of a residential area and whether or not this would generally be an appropriate residential enterprise. Mary Willis commented that this was not considered a "home occupation because it would have an impact greater than that expected from a home business, For that reason, staff developed the "Temporary Events" category. Ann Peterson, a friend of the Tripodi's, asked that the Board grant the Tripodi's request. She mentioned that the Temporary Event category is much broader than that which was requested. The Tripodi's main concern is the inconvenience and time problems associated with having to apply for a Special Use Permit for each of these events. Jim Glover, also a friend of The Tripodi's, asked the Board of County Commissioners to approve their request to hold small catered weddings on their rural property. Most of the allowed activities in this "temporary Event" category are much larger than anything that the Tripodi's would ever schedule. Patti Tripodi mentioned that there are several horse farms, a dairy farm and a brick mason in the immediate vicinity. She felt that their area was actually more commercial than residential. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners approve their request. Commissioner Gordon felt that it was very important to pay close attention to anything that would create a non- residential impact in a residential community. Commissioner Willhoit asked the County Attorney if it would be possible to limit this type of event by the number of acres involved. For example, 3 people could be allowed for each acre. Geof Gledhill replied that he would research the legality of this way of determining how many people would be allowed. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. The Planning Board is also requested to consider how they would deal with offsite impacts such as density, number of vehicles and setbacks and density. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (a) Section IV-B-5-e Lot Layout This item was presented by Mary Willis to consider a proposed amendment to clarify Section IV-B-5-e by substituting the word "divided" for the word "separated". The proposed amendment would provide more clarity in the text. It would not result in a substantive change to any regulation. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS - None A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) Securing Subdivision Improvements 1) Section III-E (new) Improvements (was V-D-8) 2) Section III-C-2e Application Requirements (Minor Subdivisions) 3) Section III-D-2-a.(7) Application Requirements (Preliminary Plat) 4) Section III-D-3a Application Requirements (Final Plat) This item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations to relocate provisions regarding required improvements from Section V, "Plat Specifications," to Section 111, "Application and Approval Procedures," rewrite the section for clarity and to add language regarding construction costs estimates and financial guarantees. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS - None A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (c) Cluster Subdivision Provisions 1) Section IV-B-9 Cluster Developments 2) Section 111-D Approval Procedures for Major Subdivisions 3) Section V-A Specifications for Plat Drawings This item was presented to consider a proposed amendment to re-adopt cluster subdivision provisions and Concept Plan application and approval procedures in the Rural Buffer. The flexible development provisions are applicable in all residential zoning districts except the Rural Buffer. Deleting the previous cluster regulations and Concept Plan application and approval procedures had the unintended result of eliminating those provisions in the Rural Buffer. The Planning Staff recommends that the previous provisions be re-adopted to apply to that district only. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS - None A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Vice-Chair Halkiotis resumed the responsibility for Chairing this meeting. Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners swore in Emily Cameron and John McGovern, an employee of the Carolina Friends School. 4. Special Use Permit (a) PD-1-96 Carolina Friends School (Modification) This item was presented by Emily Cameron to receive citizen comment 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 and modified in 1992. The current request is for 3500 square feet additional floor area for a library/arts building, a 1200 square foot addition to the Middle School for a multi-purpose room and faculty offices; 1000 square feet of office and storage space at the Early School; and enclosing a 400 square foot porch for expanded reception and office area at the Center Building. The proposed construction constitutes a major modification to the Special Use Permit issued in 1990 and amended in 1992. Article 8.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that such a change be considered by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing. DEM indicates that the current permit for sewage disposal will be unaffected by the school's expansion because staff and student enrollment will not be increased. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS - None A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to refer the application to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Vice-Chair Halkiotis noted that the Planning Board would make a recommendation no sooner than its meeting of September 4, 1996 and The Board of Commissioners would consider the items for decision no sooner than October 1, 1996. D. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on Tuesday, September 3, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. at the Caldwell Community Center, Rougemont, North Carolina. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk