Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19970825APPROVED 3117198 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 20, 1997 AUGUST 25, 1997 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on Monday, August 25, 1997 following the Quarterly public hearing, in the Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of considering the remainder of the items from their August 20, 1997 regular meeting. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair William L. Crowther, and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon and Stephen H. Halkiotis BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner Moses Carey, Jr. 1. ITEMS CONTINUED FROM 8120197 COMMISSIONERS MEETING a) Community Revitalization Loan Fund This item was presented by Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes for the purpose of approval of the operational guidelines for the newly established Community Revitalization Loan Fund. A Community Revitalization Loan Fund was created in the 1997-98 Orange County HOME Consortium program design to provide funds to assist low/moderate income families purchase existing housing. This was done in direct response to citizen comments received during the development stage of the program design. Funds can be used for acquiring property, rehabilitating the property, and/or second mortgage assistance. A total of $60,000 has been allocated for this program this year. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to approve the implementation guidelines for the Community Revitalization Loan Fund. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b) Mill Pointe Subdivision Preliminary Plan, Phases 3=7 This item was presented by Planner Eddie Kirk for the purpose of considering the Preliminary Plan for Mill Pointe Subdivision. The property is located on the east side of Mill Creek Road (SR 1343) at the Cedar Grove-Cheeks Township line between High Rock Road (SR 1340) and Charlie's Dead End Road (SR 1347). Current zoning is Rural Residential south of the township line, Agricultural Residential north of the township line, and Back Creek Protected Watershed. Phases 1 and 2 of Mill Pointe are located across Mill Creek Road and were completed in 1995. The Planning Board approved the conventional and conservation Concept Plans for Mill Pointe Phases 3-7 on March 6, 1997. On July 2, 1997 the Planning Board, in a 9 to 3 vote, recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan for Mill Pointe Subdivision Phases 3-7 subject to the conditions contacted in the Resolution of Approval. That Resolution is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Commissioner Halkiotis commented that he was very interested in the number of actual children residing in each of the homes in new subdivisions after they are completed. He felt that it would be far greater than the number projected by this Preliminary Plan. Commissioner Gordon referred to the fiscal impact template. She commented that the average sale price is anticipated to be between $103,000 and $105,000. At that price, the County loses money since the cost for County services exceeds the revenue obtained from the development. This is an important issue to continue to discuss. Commissioner Halkiotis requested that projected enrollment figures be rechecked as those figures are probably low. He asked that the new enrollment figures be included here. Commissioner Gordon agreed with Commissioner Halkiotis' comments and suggestion. She mentioned that it is clear that development often costs the County more than it produces in revenues. County Attorney Gledhill mentioned that the County would obtain a deed for the stub-outs and would hold that deed until the stub-out is completed. He indicated that it was possible but very unlikely that the buyer would not be aware that a road could be cut through their property. Planner Kirk pointed out that the main difference between the conventional and conservation options was the inclusion of open space in the conservation option. Commissioner Brown suggested that the open space plan be reevaluated to determine what criteria developers use in making their final decisions regarding which option to choose. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the Preliminary Plan for Mill Pointe Subdivision per the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c) NCDOT's Public Involvement Process for Improvements to Homestead Road This item was presented by Transportation Planner Slade McCalip for the purpose of considering information that may change the design and construction schedule of planned improvements to Homestead Road. The proposed improvements programmed in the 1998-2004 State Transportation Improvement Program include widening the road to a three lane facility with four foot paved shoulders to accommodate bicycles. On June 25, 1997 NC DOT held an informational meeting at the Chapel Hill Town Council Chambers for elected officials concerning planned improvements to Homestead Road. At the meeting NC DOT staff proposed four different cross-section designs for Homestead Road. As the meeting progressed, it became apparent that there were three main issues of concern to local officials. These included: 1) the adequacy of the proposed capacity improvements for moving vehicles (i.e., are five lanes needed now instead of three), 2) whether or not sidewalks would be provided, and 3) whether or not bicycle facilities would be included in the proposed improvements. If additional lanes, curb and gutter, etc. are requested, then construction will be delayed until additional funding for such improvements can be secured. Also, DOT requires that local governments partially fund approximately 30% of new sidewalk construction. Because this road is physically located outside the city limits of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and because NC DOT does not maintain sidewalks, a local government would have to agree to accept and maintain the newly constructed sidewalks. The option that is currently funded is Option #3 which includes 112 of a three lane road having 14' wide lanes (for bicycles) with a sidewalk on the same side with a 4' paved shoulder on the opposite lane (for bicycles) with no sidewalk (the intent of this design type is to provide a sidewalk on one side of the road and also to prepare for the eventual need to widen the road to five lanes with the widening occurring only on the side of the road which has the paved shoulder). County Manager Link indicated that the turn lane that the Town of Chapel Hill is requiring at the entrance to the new County facility will be fully explained at the next Board of Commissioners meeting. This turn lane will be required regardless of which design option is chosen for the road. Commissioner Gordon suggested referring this information to the Town of Chapel Hill to coordinate the project request with them and to determine if they wish to include sidewalks in this project. Their agreement would be necessary as they would be required to maintain the sidewalks. Planner McCalip indicated that this project is currently scheduled for the year 2001. There would be no clear time frame for the project to begin should it be delayed at this time. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to Chapel Hill for comment to be returned to the Board of Commissioners at their September 16, 1997 meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d) Substantial Equivalency Policy for School Facility Funding This item was presented by Commissioner Gordon for the purpose of establishing a school funding policy that would state that all schools in Orange County, whether new or existing, should meet the basic standards established for new schools or be substantially equivalent. Construction standards have been developed for new elementary and middle schools and an intent has been stated to develop standards for high schools. However, there are no stated County standards for existing schools. Thus there appears to be a growing gap between new and existing schools. In funding school facilities the Board of County Commissioners will pursue the goal of providing substantially equivalent facilities for all children in both the Orange County (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro (CHCCS) school systems. The target standard for equivalency will be the county "Basic School" standards developed for new school construction or standards that are substantially equivalent. Once approved, the standards for substantial equivalency will be utilized in decisions for funding school renovations, school additions and/or school replacement. To implement this policy the Board of Commissioners would pursue the following steps: 1) Confer with the School Boards concerning this policy. 2) Formally adopt a substantial equivalency policy for school facility funding. 3) Request the OCS and CHCCS to evaluate their schools using the "Basic School" standards for new schools and provide that evaluation to the Commissioners, along with estimated costs for bringing the schools up to the basic school standards. 4) If it is not practical to meet the letter of the basic school standards, then work with the School Boards to develop substantially equivalent standards for existing schools. Some of the following items could be considered. a) decide whether additional standards should be included for categories such as technology or playgrounds, b) list the top priority changes needed to meet as many of the standards as possible, and give their associated costs, and c) suggest facilities that could compensate for a particular school's deficiencies, so that substantial equivalency is achieved. 5) Establish a target date for making all school facilities in the OCS and CHCCS substantially equivalent. A potential time frame to achieve this goal might be 10 years. Commissioner Halkiotis supported this proposal as a broad concept but declined to adopt it this evening. He felt that the Board could not have a clear understanding of this issue without looking specifically at each school site. After a thorough review it may be clear that some facilities would not be realistic candidates for this type of upgrade. Commissioner Brown asked if this was intended to change how capital needs for renovations are handled. Commissioner Gordon indicated that it would not necessarily change how things are currently being handled. Also, it could be that it would not be practical to meet the letter of the basic school standards. The County could work with the School Boards to develop substantially equivalent standards for existing schools keeping in mind the need for practicality in this effort. It is important to solicit input from the school boards before this project gets underway. She suggested referring this item to both School Boards. It could then be discussed jointly at the September 30th Board of Commissioner - School Board Work Session. County Manager Link commended the intent of this proposal. He mentioned that the overcrowding situation will be addressed by the year 2006; however, the success of that effort depends on the current schools remaining useable. 4 The County Manager and the School Board Superintendents were asked to review this proposal and come up with a list of questions to be discussed at a joint meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to both school boards for future discussion at the September 30th Work Session VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ADOPTION OF BOND ORDERS FOR NOVEMBER 1997 REFERENDUM This item was presented by County Manager John Link for the purpose of considering the adoption of five Bond Orders and to formally set the ballot questions and referendum date, as required by the Local Government Bond Act, and in accordance with the timetable established for the proposed November 4, 1997 bond referendum. On August 4, 1997, the Board introduced Bond Orders required for the proposed November 4, 1997 bond referendum. At that time, the date for the required public hearing on the Bond Orders was also established. The public hearing took place on August 20, 1997. All of the actions required by the Local Government Bond Act have occurred in accordance with the Board's established timetable. The requirements of the Bond Act state that after the hearing, the Board must adopt the Bond Orders and formally set the ballot questions and the date for the referendum. Adoption of the Bond Orders establishes the final amounts of the proposed bonds that will go before the voters. The ballot questions and the date of the referendum will be formally set by adoption of the attached resolution, as prepared by the County's Bond Counsel, containing the language necessary for compliance with the statutes. Once adopted, the Clerk to the Board must send a copy of the resolution to the County Board of Elections within three days. The Clerk will also publish the Bond Orders. County Manager Link recommended that the amounts be adopted along with the resolution formally setting the bond question. Any additional actions regarding how the Board decides the money should be spent could be included in a separate resolution. Commissioner Gordon mentioned the voters need to know how the money will be spent. GENERAL OBLIGATION SEWER EXPANSION BONDS A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the Bond Order authorizing the issuance of General Obligation sewer expansion bonds of Orange County, North Carolina, in the maximum amount of $1,200,000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS OBLIGATION LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING BONDS A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to approve the Bond Order authorizing the issuance of General Obligation low and moderate income housing Bonds of Orange County, North Carolina, in the maximum amount of $1,800,000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC BUILDING BONDS Commissioner Gordon felt that if part of this money was intended to support the Chapel Hill Senior Center, then it should be clearly stated. She mentioned that her memory was that they had already determined that there would be support for the Chapel Hill Senior Center. She also asked about the needs of the Skills Development Center in Chapel Hill. Commissioner Brown asked if it should be established that there would be funds for a Senior Center in Chapel Hill and one in the northern portion of the County. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to approve the bond order authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Public Building Bonds of Orange County, North Carolina, in the maximum amount of $4,600,000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITY BONDS Commissioner Gordon requested that the Southern Village Park be specified as a use for a portion of this money. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to include $500,000 for the Southern Village Park. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to approve the Bond Order authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Parks and Recreation Facilities Bonds of Orange County, North Carolina, in the maximum amount of $6,000,000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS SCHOOL BONDS: Assistant County Manager Rod Visser, at the request of Commissioner Gordon, reviewed the history of the progression of funding for school renovation needs. He mentioned that the Board of Commissioners had expressed a desire to balance the needs for new schools with the need to renovate older facilities. Commissioner Gordon questioned if the rationale had been lost in the allocation for renovation. She supported the concept of allocating this money for pre-1990 schools. She also mentioned that it appeared that both school systems needed between $25 and $30 Million Dollars over the next 10 years. Commissioner Halkiotis felt that the Orange County Schools need the 4.8 Million dollars for renovations and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools need at least the $3 Million dollars for renovations, if not more. He strongly felt that the schools need to be visited individually to determine their specific needs. County Manager John Link mentioned that the $7.8 Million for renovations have already be incorporated into the C.I.P. and could be kept as a part of the entire bond package. The education campaign could stress that these figures do not meet the already documented needs for renovation of pre-1990 schools. He also mentioned that the Fiscal Control Act requires that the Board of Commissioners adopt each capital project with its own project ordinance. To date, each project has been scrutinized. In the future ground rules could be established to evaluate each project based on its meeting certain criteria. It is important to stress to each school system that they must address the priority needs as they become apparent. Both systems already have projects scheduled which must be taken into account. Commissioner Halkiotis voiced opposition to lowering the Orange County amount and indicated that he would consider increasing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro amount after the needs have been reviewed and documented. In response to questions about the Capital Budget, John Link indicated that the funding for the current year, in this case 1997-1998, is all that can actually be committed. The Capital Budget is for current funding. The County Commissioners have authority to appropriate Capital Funds as they deem appropriate. It is a good idea to specify that renovations would address pre-1990 schools or schools that have not been built with bond money since 1988. Commissioner Brown indicated that she wanted to make sure that the $7.8 Million does not diminish, in any way, Chapel Hills $3 Million or Orange County's $4.8 Million. If agreement could be reached to lump together for this bond the $7.8 Million for the Capital renovations that would be the best way to go about it. Commissioner Gordon commented that it could be stated that the $7.8 Million would go into the CIP revenue stream to be used for renovating the schools, or the exact uses of the entire amount could be established. County Manager John Link stated that the Board of Commissioners could stress that the total amount of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system would be $24 Million Dollars and the Orange County system would receive $23 Million. Commissioner Gordon stated that the fact that Orange County would receive $4.8 Million for renovations compared to Chapel Hill-Carrboro's amount of $3 Million needed to be justified to the public. Citizens will have questions that need to be answered concerning the rationale for this allocation, since the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system is the larger system. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon that the countywide school renovations money should be used for schools built before 1990 and that the amount should be $7.8 million. The motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to list the breakdown for the school systems as presented and stated below: SCHOOLS - POTENTIAL PROJECTS Chapel Hill/Carrboro $24 million • New Middle School $18.0 million • Expansion-East Chapel Hill $3.0 million High • Renovations $3.0 million Orange County $23 million • New Elementary School $5.7 million • New High School $12.5 million • Renovations $4.8 million VOTE: AYES, 3 NAYE, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) County Manager John Link stated that the total amount for each school system is $24 Million for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and $23 Million for the Orange County schools. The actual cost of specific projects may change according to the bids received. It is important to stress the total amount for each school system. Secondly, since the $3 Million and $4.8 Million for renovations are already incorporated into the C.I.P., along with other pay-as-you-go funds, it might be most effective to keep the bond package as it has been presented. Then the education campaign could stress that the renovation money that has been allocated is not nearly enough to cover the needed renovations. Commissioner Gordon felt that it was important to be able to justify the amounts to the citizens as to why one school system is receiving more money per pupil than the other system. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the Bond Order authorizing the issuance of General Obligation School Bonds of Orange County, North Carolina, in the maximum amount of $47,000,000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to adopt the Resolution regarding publication of Bond Orders, establishing the date for referenda, November 4, 1997, and setting the ballot questions. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. UNIVERSITY LAKE EXTENSION POLICY Commissioner Gordon requested that this issue be discussed at the September 2, 1997 Board of Commissioners meeting. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on Tuesday, September 2, 1997 at the Old Court House, Hillsborough, North Carolina. William L. Crowther, Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk APPROVED MARCH 17. 1998 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 26, 1997 MINUTES The Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Orange County Planning Board, and the Orange County Historic Preservation Commission met in joint session on Monday, August 25, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair William Crowther, and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Steve Halkiotis and Margaret Brown. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Moses Carey, Jr. ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Allison and members Jean Anderson, Cynthia Satterfield, Patricia Samford, Todd Dickinson and Carl Lloyd. ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Rich ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows and members Paul Hoecke, Howard McAdams, Jr., Leo Allison, James Selkirk, Robert Strayhorn, Elizabeth Walters, Arnie Katz, and Nell Andrews. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M. Brooks, Renee Price and Libby Searles COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker and Planners Mary Willis, Don Belk, Emily Cameron, Slade McCalip and Eddie Kirk. Other staff members present will be identified in the minutes as appropriate. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Crowther convened the meeting. He indicated that Tom Allison, Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission would preside over the first two agenda items and Karen Barrows, Chair of the Planning Board would preside over the third item on the agenda. At that time the Public Hearings will be closed, except for written comment. The Board of Commissioners will then reconvene immediately to hear several items that were continued from the August 20th Regular meeting. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Crowther dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. HISTORIC LANDMARKS DESIGNATION PROGRAM Chair Allison introduced Planner Don Belk and requested that he present the first item. Don Belk presented this item in order to receive citizen comment on the proposed Historic Landmark Designation Program. He mentioned that the Ordinance creating the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) of Orange County, adopted in April 1991, authorizes the HPC to recommend designation of individual buildings, structures and sites as "historic landmarks." Local landmark designation is the formal recognition of a property's importance to the history and cultural heritage of Orange County, and is fundamental to implementing the goals and objectives of the Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. A report was presented, entitled Preserving the Orange Tradition: A Landmarks Designation Program for Orange County, which provides an in-depth discussion of the historic landmarks designation program. This report reviews the authority for instituting such a program, the process of local historic designation, and examines the costs of the program. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to refer the Historic Landmarks Designation Program to the Historic Preservation Commission for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 16, 1997. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION (a) HP-1-97 Cedar Grove Rural Crossroads Historic District This item was introduced by Tom Allison to receive citizen comment on the nomination of the Cedar Grove Rural Crossroads Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. He introduced Kaye Graybeal, a Rural Historic District Specialist, and the author of this nomination. Ms. Graybeal stated that the National Register of Historic Places, established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is the nation's official list of buildings, structures, sites, and districts that are worthy of preservation for their significance in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture. There are over 62,000 listings across the United States and its territories. In North Carolina, there are approximately 1,900 listings, including some 250 historic districts. For owners of historic properties, National Register listing is a prestigious honor. A property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places has been deemed important to the Nation's heritage. The listing of a property in the National Register places no obligation or restriction on the private landowner using private resources to maintain or alter the property. Owners of National Register sites may benefit from the availability of federal tax credits for rehabilitation of income-producing properties, such as rental and commercial buildings. Eligible private residences within a National Register district can also qualify for state income tax credits. National Register sites are given a higher level of review by the state and federal government when federally funded projects, such as road construction, may adversely affect the area. Ms. Graybeal mentioned that the Cedar Grove community is one of these beautiful resources which could be protected by this program. She described the geography of the district and discussed the many reasons that this area is an excellent candidate for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on whether or not restrictions would be placed upon an individual home or land owner as a result of this designation. Don Belk indicated that there are no restrictions placed on homeowners as a result of this designation. The home or landowner is in no way restricted in terms of alterations and/or demolition of structures on their property. He also mentioned that if a project, such as a new highway, were to be considered for an area with a Historic District designation, the area would receive a higher level of review. It is possible that an alternative route would be suggested and/or larger buffers could be recommended to mitigate the road's effect. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tom Allison mentioned that this area was identified in 1994 as a candidate for this designation. The Board of Commissioners allocated funds to hire a consultant to prepare a report on the nomination of the Cedar Grove Rural Crossroads Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places. Kaye Graybeal met with the HPC several times over the last several years and has prepared the nomination for this designation. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Marie Vargo-Flynn, a resident of Cedar Grove, spoke in support of this designation. A copy of her letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Reverend Robert Brizendine, the minister of the Eno Presbyterian Church in Cedar Grove spoke in support of this project. He mentioned that he was speaking for himself and for other members of his church. A petition in support of this designation, with 29 signatures, has been received from the Eno Presbyterian Church of Cedar Grove. A copy is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. A petition in support of this designation, with 35 signatures, has been received from the Cedar Grove United Methodist Church of Cedar Grove. A copy is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. A petition in opposition to this designation was received from several residents of the Cedar Grove area. Those residents were Sallie Mae Ligon, Irene Pender, Pauline Lloyd, Elese Nickles and Crisp Oliver. A copy of this petition is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerks office. Commission Brown asked for clarification regarding the citizens who are opposed to this designation. Don Belk mentioned that the T.L. Oliver heirs, property owners in the Cedar Grove district, have expressed opposition to being listed on the National Registry. They did not give a specific reason for this opposition other than a desire to have things remain as they are. The State would take this into consideration when the National Registry Advisory Committee meets. If a majority of property owners were in opposition the property would not be listed on the National Register. However, the National Registry Advisory Committee would issue a determination of eligibility. In that case, the property would be eligible to be listed. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the Cedar Grove Rural Crossroads Historic District National Register nomination to the Historic Preservation Commission for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 16, 1997. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows chaired this portion of the Public Hearing and asked Emily Cameron to present Items #3 a)1 and 3 b)1 and 2. 3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (a) Golf Courses 1) Article 8.8.7 Special Uses (Golf Courses) Planner Emily Cameron presented this item to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to 1) provide consistency in the ordinance regarding expansion and modification of existing golf courses and 2) to establish appropriate criteria for evaluating changes to Special Use Permits issued for new golf courses. On May 21, 1997, the Board of Commissioners added standards and approval procedures for golf courses to the Zoning Ordinance. During preparation and review of the new regulations, the Golf Course Amendment Review Task Force (GolfCART) and the County Attorney recommended two revisions to provide consistency with the new golf course standards. The first revision pertains to changes to existing golf courses and will eliminate conflicting ordinance provisions. Existing golf courses are those which were in operation prior to May 21, 1997, when golf courses were permitted uses in most zoning districts. A second proposed change pertains to new golf courses, those approved with a Special Use Permit under the new regulations. There are no new golf courses at this time. Article 8.7.1 contains standards for revisions to all types of Special Use Permits. This section is used to identify which revisions require a public hearing and which may be approved by the Planning Department. The proposed amendment adds a similar set of standards to the golf course regulations in Article 8.8.7.1 to specify which changes to a golf course Special Use Permit require a public hearing and review by the Board of Commissioners. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Crowther asked if the GolfCART was recommending these changes? Ms. Cameron indicated that both the GolfCART and the County Attorney were recommending these changes. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, 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 November 3, 1997. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) Agricultural Services 1) Article 4.3 Permitted Uses 2) Article 22 Definitions This item was presented by Planner Emily Cameron in order to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to uses allowed in the Agricultural Service zoning district. During the last public hearing cycle, two requests were submitted for rezoning to the Agricultural Service Zoning district. One of the applicants intended to build a mini-warehouse storage facility, a use which is inconsistent with the intent of the AS district but is included in the list of permitted uses. Several years ago a similar rezoning request in the White Cross area was denied. The Planning Staff initiated an ordinance amendment to refine the scope of the Agricultural Service district before more requests for rezoning are submitted. Staff examined the intent of the district and the list of land uses permitted within it. The recommended changes to the ordinance are summarized as follows: Revisions to Definitions: *The proposed revision to the definition of agricultural services will describe that type of land use in general and provide additional examples of uses such as a welding service and retail sales of farm and garden products, supplies, and equipment. *A definition of riding stable is also proposed to clarify that the category in the Permitted Use Table refers to a commercial use, not a private facility. Revisions to the Permitted Use Table *To allow Agricultural Service uses in the General Commercial zoning district. *To Delete the following uses that are not consistent with the intent of the AS district: **S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoor **S51 Storage and Warehousing: Inside Building **S51 a Studio (Art) COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification of item P9 Extraction of Earth Products. Ms. Cameron indicated that this extraction of earth products is a land based use and is currently allowed as a Special Use in the Agricultural Residential Zoning District. Planning staff felt that it was consistent to allow it in the AS district because it is land based and is allowed in the same land use plan category with a Special Use Permit. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None A motion was made by Commission Brown, seconded by Commission Gordon, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than November 3, 1997. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. END OF PUBLIC HEARING Chair Crowther indicated that the Public Hearing would remain open, for written comment only, until the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Board meet to discuss these items. ADJOURNMENT OF QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING With no further public hearing items for consideration, Chair William L. Crowther adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on September 2 at 7:30 p.m. in the Old County Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. William L. Crowther, Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk