Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19980824APPROVED 10120198 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 24, 1998 MINUTES The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, August 24, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret Brown, and Commissioners William /L. Crowther and Stephen H. Halkiotis. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., and Alice M. Gordon. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows and members Nell Andrews, Leo Allison, S. A.M. Brooks, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., Renee Price, Libby Searles, James Selkirk, Elizabeth Walters, and Runyon Woods. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Robert Strayhorn. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker and Planners Don Belk, Emily Cameron, David Stancil and Eddie Kirk. Other staff members present will be identified in the minutes as appropriate. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Commissioner Margaret Brown convened the meeting and introduced Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows. Chair Barrows will Chair items C.1. and C.3. The remaining items will be Chaired Brown. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Brown dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CP-4-98 Duke University This item was presented by Planner David Stancil for the purpose of receiving public comment on a request to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. An application to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan has been received from Duke University for a 62.65-acre parcel of land west of Hillsborough along US 70 in Cheeks Township, adjacent to land owned by Orange-Alamance Water Systems containing Corporation Lake. The applicant proposes that the property be re-designated in the Land Use Element from its current category of Public Interest Area (Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area) to Agricultural Residential (Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area). The property is zoned Public Interest District (PID), and is adjacent to other lands zoned PID owned by Duke and Orange-alamance Water Systems. Orange-Alamance Water Systems provided written comments on the proposed amendment. Public Interest Area is defined as "'lands containing public or quasi-public uses such as publicly owned land, research forests, or known archaeological or historic sites." This property and the adjoining properties have been designated Public Interest Area since the Land Use Plan (now Land Use Element) was created in 1981. It was zoned Public Interest District in 1984 with the initial zoning of Cheeks Township. Prior to 1985, this property was part of the same parcel containing Duke University lands south of US 70. The Zoning Ordinance lays out three reasons for amending the plan: • changed or changing conditions in the area an error or omission in the Plan, and in response to a change in policies or principles governing the plan. The applicant's letter does not specifically address these reasons for amending the plan, and instead notes the plans of Duke University to sell this property because it does not have significance to the forestry program at Duke. This is consistent with a 1988 Duke University Study that classified the University's land holdings into four categories. This parcel was identified as Class IV - Residual Endowment Land, which was "'no longer to be considered part of Duke Forest" and should be used to generate financial return for the University." Staff has evaluated this proposal against the locational criteria for both current and proposed categories in the Plan (shown of pages 15-16 of the agenda). The property complies generally with the criteria for both categories. Of particular note is the finding that this and adjacent properties were identified in the Triangle Land Conservancy's 1988 Inventory of Natural Area and Wildlife Habitats as part of a suggested wildlife corridor connecting the Eno River and other important natural areas. If this amendment is approved, a request for rezoning to Agricultural Residential could be submitted. With the Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area overlay remaining in place, AR zoning could allow residential lots of two acres in size, along with ancillary uses such as greenhouses, some kennels and telecommunication towers (with a special use permit). Orange-Alamance Water Systems request that the County be aware of their interest in ensuring high quality water from Corporation lake, and of plans to raise the lake dam four feet in the future, which might make this property adjacent to the lake itself. The County Planning staff recommendation is that this amendment be tabled. First of all, based on the locational criteria and reasons for amending the plan, there appears to be no compelling reason for the amendment at this time - and a change in ownership is not a reason for amending the plan. The property generally meets criteria for both Public Interest Area and Agricultural Residential, and no changing conditions, errors in the plan or changes in land use policies are cited by the applicant, nor is staff aware of any. Also, second, there is insufficient information from the applicant or existing documentation to determine whether there are sites of natural, cultural or archaeological significance, or whether there are viable forest research opportunities on the property. The 1988 Inventory of Natural Area and Wildlife Habitats does not show a site on this property, but there is one on the adjacent Duke University lands. The 1988 Inventory is incomplete, and it is possible this site may have been overlooked. Finally, while the Inventory of Natural Areas did not mention a site on the property, it does show the proposed wildlife corridor containing this site as an important conduit to the Eno River to protect flora and fauna. Staff recommends that further research be undertaken to assess whether any sites of natural, cultural or archaeological significance exist here. Since forest research is only one of the permitted uses in Public Interest Areas, they also recommend that research be gathered in the following areas: ¦ Possible implications for the Eno River and Corporation Lake ¦ The strategic significance of the wildlife corridor on this property ¦ An assessment of any historic or archaeological sites ¦ An assessment of flora and fauna on the property Finally, staff recommends tabling the proposed amendment because of insufficient information currently available to evaluate the status of natural and cultural resources present on the site. Further research into this question is recommended. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Judson Edeburn, a representative of Duke University, spoke in support of this proposal. He indicated that Duke University has identified parcels that have no research value. This is one of those parcels and they would like to sell this parcel. Mark O'Neal, with Picket Sprouse Real Estate, spoke in support of this proposal. He indicated that Duke University was not aware of the original rezoning of this parcel which occurred in 1984 and were consequently unaware of the restrictions that were being placed upon this land. Its only use as it is currently zoned is for a public facility. This parcel is unmarketable. Duke University believes that the 1984 rezoning of this parcel was done in error and would like to see that error corrected at this time. He expressed concern about the delay that would be caused by tabling this item. In response to a question, Planner David Stancil mentioned that the Board of Commissioners have several options for when to review this. It does not necessarily mean a long delay if it is tabled at this meeting. In response to a question, Mr. O'Neal stated that Duke has been aware of the PID designation for approximately one year. It is currently being advertised as "residential - contingent on the rezoning". He will make that clear to any potential buyer. He also mentioned that Duke contends that they were not properly notified of the original rezoning. Commissioner Halkiotis commented that it was incomprehensible to him that Duke University would be unaware of the original rezoning. These matters are extensively advertised in several local papers. County Attorney Gledhill stated that as far as he is aware all affected parties were notified and normal procedures were followed. Will Endres, a 12 year resident of Orange County, spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. He stated that he has been a naturalist and herbalist for the past 23 years and is an expert at assessing the overall environmental health of a tract of land. This is a unique area that is critical to the water supply of our community. This land needs to be protected in its natural state for the health of our community. Wayne Cash, President of the Eno River Association, spoke in opposition to this proposal. The Eno River Association has recently received funds to study the Upper Eno. This study should take between 9 months to a year to complete. He asked that no action be taken until the study is completed. Ben Lloyd, an adjoining landowner, spoke in support of moving this from Public Interest District. He did mention, however, that his property is a dairy farm and occasionally they spread manure on the fields. He wants to make sure that if this land is developed for residential uses, that the new homeowners are aware that they occasionally will have to deal with the smell associated with the spreading of manure. Hervey McIver, of Hillsborough, spoke in opposition to this amendment. He mentioned that this land is extremely close to the Eno river. Development of this property would jeopardize the water quality and harm everyone. The wildlife corridor for both McGowan Creek and the Eno are located in this area. Finally, he mentioned that Steve Hall indicated that he did not believe that anyone visited this site for the Natural Area Section of the Inventory. In response to a question, David Stancil mentioned that not all of Duke's property was zoned in this manner. S.A.M. Brooks asked if any local governments or water providers were approached about the possibility of their purchasing this land. Mr. O'Neil replied that Orange-Alamance was approached, however, they did not have the funds for this type of a purchase. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to table the proposed amendment in order to evaluate the status of natural and cultural resources. The Eno River study mentioned by Hervey McIver will be included in this evaluation VOTE: UNANIMOUS County Manager John Link mentioned that this will be returned for Public Hearing as soon as the review is complete, possibly as early as November. 2. CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMITS The following Class A Special Use Permits were Chaired by Commissioner Margaret Brown. All participants in the following Special Use Permits were required to take an oath prior to giving their testimony. A list of those taking the oath given by Deputy Clerk Kathy Baker follows: Planner Eddie Kirk, Russ Townsley, Edward M Mann, Jr., Rob Davis, Violet DeKnikker, David Kronener, Gregory Moors, Joe Smathers, Jim Cain, Francois Deprez, Christine Deprez, Marina Heatiz, John Davis, Ken Carter, Dan Southwick, Richard Bessley, David W. Smith, Fred Stipe, Ann Pearson, Alex McIver, and Inna Deng. a. SUP-1-98 Gearon Communications (site east of Lloydtown Road) This item was presented by Planner Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving evidence on a Class A Special Use Permit application for the construction of a telecommunication tower. The property is located in Bingham Township approximately 450 feet east of Lloydtown Road (SR 1960) with the access proposed from a 50' private easement. The entrance from Lloydtown Road is approximately 2000 feet south of N.C. 54 West. A 4.4 acre tract is proposed with a 10,000 square foot leased area and an additional area designated as a fall zone easement. The property is zoned Agricultural-Residential (AR) and is not located in a designated watershed. The applicants are requesting a Class A Special Use Permit under Article 8.8.17a of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to construct a 270 foot telecommunication tower, an equipment cabinet, and an area for future additional telecommunication carriers. The tower will be a free standing lattice structure and light steel gray in color. A type C 40 foot landscaped buffer will be provided around the facility with Leyland Cypress and Loblolly Pines to be planted. The site is in an open field with a tree line located along the northern property line. This tree line will be left undisturbed. There are no existing towers within one mile of this site on which the applicants could co-locate, however, the application indicates this tower can structurally accommodate 5 users. Gearon has indicated they are willing to negotiate with other users to attach additional communication facilities provided they do not interfere with the primary purpose of the tower. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Halkiotis asked how many of the towers listed in the report are taking advantage of collocation. Eddie Kirk indicated that he did not know but would find out and report on that. He also mentioned that the guarantee that the tower will be removed if it ceases to be used is assured with a bond. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT: Jim Cain, is an employee of Gearon Communication, spoke in support of this proposal. He indicated that it now common to collocate for both financial and environmental reasons. Most communication companies are no longer building their own towers, but rather turning to companies like Gearon Communication to provide the towers. He mentioned that this tower would be built to accommodate 5 users. One result of collocation is that the towers are considerably taller due to the FCC space 4 requirements for different users. He referred to the application for the Special Use Permit for the Lloyd Town Road proposal. He reviewed this proposal, a copy of which is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Joseph Smathers, Jr., with J.F. Smathers & Company - Real Estate Appraisers, spoke in support of this proposal. They have conducted studies which indicated that this type of structure does not have a negative impact on the property values of surrounding property. He reviewed the Impact Investigation report in detail which is incorporated in these minutes by reference. Ken Carter, with Gearon Communication, indicated that this structure is needed by BellSouth Mobility for in-house and in-car services for their customers. He also mentioned that they do not presently have other towers in Orange County but they are expanding and expect to have other towers in the future. They are also aggressively marketing each of the towers that they install so that they will be used by multiple users. Cellular carriers and EMS would both be good candidates for locating on the lower portions of their tower. He mentioned that they cannot locate on existing transmission lines because their signals must be transmitted from higher locations that the transmission lines. tower County Manager Link indicated that EMS has not made comments to staff regarding this proposed Planning Board member Brooks asked if the County was assisting Gearon's marketing plan by insisting on multiple users? There was also a concern voiced that a monopoly could be created by approving one company's request and denying others. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: Alex McIver speaking on behalf of his Aunt and Grandmother asked that this request be tabled. They have hired an independent Real Estate Appraiser to review this proposal and need additional time. Ann Pearson also spoke as a representative of the McIver property and stated that she opposes this proposal. She requested that they consider locating on an adjoining tract of land. Edward Mann, Jr., a local resident and cellular phone user, spoke in opposition to this site being used. His objection was that the proposed site is in an unprotected area which would make the base quite visible. These towers need to be tucked away so that they are shielded from view. He mentioned that he and the builders did look at another site nearby and he hoped that they would consider that site. Francois Deprez, owner of the Bingham School which he has renovated as a bed and breakfast, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He mentioned that the Bingham School has received a designation as a historic site. His guests come to rest and relax and enjoy the rural setting. He stated that he could see the test balloon through 4 of the five room of the Inn. He read from a Flexible Development plan of his property prepared by UNC planning school students which discusses maintaining the beauty of the community. He felt that the balloon test was flawed because although he could see the balloon from the Inn, the color of the balloon faded into the trees. That is not a fair representation of the impact the tower will have. He asked that the visual impact be considered and that this request be denied. He also mentioned that his entire community opposes this proposal. Commissioner Brown asked that the Flexible Development material be considered by the Planning staff and Planning Board when they review this request. She also requested that Mr. Deprez ask the members of his community to communicate their concerns to the Commissioners in writing. 6 Marina Heatig, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She mentioned that she was not given sufficient notice of the balloon test. She felt that this tower would ruin the character of the area. She was very much in opposition to this proposal. Planner Kirk indicated that he had recheck the list of neighbors notified to make sure that all local neighbors were notified. Christine Deprez spoke in opposition to this proposal. The Bingham School is used only as a Bed and Breakfast. The visual impact of this structure will be very detrimental to their livelihood and to the overall character of the area. Gregory Moors, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He moved to this area because of its unique rural character. He asked that this item be denied. Jim Cain, the attorney representing Gearon, indicated that the site mentioned as a possible alternative is not suitable because of its location. He also mentioned that the balloons used were the only color available. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, 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 November 4. 1998. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. SUP-2-98 Gearon Communications (site north of Highway 54) This item was presented by Planner Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving evidence on a Class A Special Use Permit application for the construction of a telecommunication tower. The property is located in Bingham Township approximately 1155 feet north of NC Highway 54 with the access proposed from O'Day Drive, an existing private road. The entrance from NC54 is approximately 600 feet west of Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road (SRI 104). A 2.77 acre tract is proposed with a 10,000 square foot leased area and an additional area designated as a fall zone easement. The property is zoned Rural Buffer (RB) and University Lake Protected Watershed (UNIV-P". The applicants are requesting a Class A Special Use Permit under Article 8.8.17a of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to construct a 250 foot telecommunication tower, an equipment cabinet, and an area for future additional telecommunication carriers. The tower will be a free standing lattice structure and light steel gray is color. A type C 40 foot landscaped buffer is provided around the facility with existing trees meeting the buffer requirement. The site is presently wooded and existing vegetation will only be disturbed to accommodate the tower and entrance road. There are no existing towers within one mile of this site on which the applicant could collocate. However, an application has been received from Spectrasite Communication, Inc. for a 199 foot telecommunications tower approximately 1.33 miles east of this site. That proposal will be heard before the Board of Adjustment in the September meeting. The application indicates this tower can structurally accommodate 5 users. Gearon has indicated they are willing to negotiate with other users to attach additional communication facilities provided they do not interfere with the primary purpose of the tower. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM APPLICANT: Joseph Smathers, Jr., with J.F. Smathers & Company - Real Estate Appraisers, spoke in support of this proposal. They have conducted studies which indicated that this type of structure does not generally impact on the property values of surrounding property. He reviewed the Impact Investigation report in detail. A letter received by the Planning Department from Carolyn Briggs, Zoning Manager with Gearon Communications, was entered into the record. Ms. Briggs' letter requested that the application for the telecommunication facility be revised from a 250' structure to a 230' structure. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: David Kronener, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He asked the Board of Commissioners to come up with guidelines for these towers He also stated that he disagrees with the appraisers conclusions regarding property values. Violet DeKnikker, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She expressed concern about the impact of the tower lighting, the loss of privacy and property values. She also mentioned that American Stone creates a negative impact on this community and this tower will only add to that. Rob Davis, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He purchased this home because of the view from his living room. He recently showed his home to potential buyers and they were dissuaded from their consideration due to this proposal. He also felt that they were already carrying a burden because of the stone quarry. This would be an unfair impact on this community. Russ Townsley, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He stated that the Impact Investigation completed by Mr. Smathers does not adequately address the tower issue. In particular, the comparable neighborhoods used in the comparison study do not resemble the Greenfield subdivision at all. This tower would practically be in his back yard and quite visible from his solarium. A copy of his comments in their entirety are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Fred Stipe, a local resident and co-President of the Greenfield Association, spoke in opposition to this proposal. There is unanimous neighborhood opposition to this proposal. He mentioned that the notification of the balloon test was ineffective and the photographs used to defend their position are inadequate. You can barely see the balloons but that is not a representation of the impact of the tower. An independent appraiser's report is needed. Planning Board Chair Barrows stated that written information should be sent directly to the Board of Commissioners. Geof Gledhill said that the public hearing would be adjourned so that the Board of County Commissioners can receive any additional information into the record. A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to adjourn this public hearing to a meeting that will be held on November 4, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Courtroom.E VOTE: UNANIMOUS County Manager Link said that property owners would be notified of the date and time and place of the adjourned public hearing and that will be the time to present additional information. c. SUP-3-98 Orange Regional Landfill (Modification of SUP-3-97 This item was presented to receive citizen comment on a modification to a Class A Special Use Permit for an addition to the Orange Regional Landfill which is located on the north and south sides of Eubanks Road north of Chapel Hill. It is zoned Rural Buffer and designated Rural Buffer on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The existing landfill is in the Chapel Hill Transition Area on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The applicants are requesting a modification to a Class A Special Use Permit issued on the above referenced property on May 5, 1997. The Special Use Permit included the construction of a 4000 square foot vehicle maintenance building, the processing of yard waste and storm debris on an ongoing basis, and the processing of recyclable materials which included white appliances, tires and scrap metal. The proposed modification will add an area to be used for recycling glass and metal cans. Currently access to the site is provided through the existing landfill. There is no direct access to Eubanks Road. A 100 foot buffer is provided around the perimeter of the site, except along the eastern border, next to the existing landfill. A condition of approval was added to the original Special Use Permit to insure that all vegetation within the 100 foot buffer will remain undisturbed QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: In response to a question, Mr. Kirk indicated that metal cans and glass will be added to the conditions of the original Special Use Permit. Gayle Wilson, Director Of Solid Waste Management, indicated that the reasons for the request is that a savings of $300,000 would result from this additional recycling in the urban and rural areas. However, it would require this additional space for sorting the materials. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Inna Deng, a local property owner, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She felt that the landfill presented a fire hazard. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than November 4, 1998. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT 2 Section IV-B-8-1 Landscape and buffer Requirements - Applicability This item was presented by Planner Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to defer application of landscape and buffer requirements to a lot greater than ten (10) acres in size when that lot is shown as a residual parcel in a subdivision subject to the regulations. On a regular basis, the Planning Department reviews proposed subdivisions that consist of one or two near-minimum size lots being created from a larger parcel more than 15-20 acres. Generally, the owner's intent is not to sell or develop the residual parcel. Often it contains an active farm operation, acreage under a timber management program, or the family "homeplace" and may be owned in common by several heirs of an estate. With such applications, the standards for subdivision approval apply to all the lots in the subdivision, including any residual tract larger than ten acres. Specifically, the landscape and buffer requirements may involve planting additional trees and always include tree protection requirements that limit the removal of existing healthy trees. These requirements, along with the buffer provisions, may conflict with the current use of the land for agriculture, timber production, or as an existing, sometimes historic, residential landscape. The proposed amendment would add language to Section IV-B-8-a to defer application of landscape and buffer requirements to new subdivision lots that are larger than ten acres. Any further subdivision of the residual parcels into lots smaller than ten acres would be subject to all applicable standards in the Subdivision Regulations, including landscaping and tree protection requirements. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: None. A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than October 20, 1998. VOTE: UNANIMOUS MATTER NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - WILDWOOD SUBDIVISION: Myron Martin, a resident of Wildwood Subdivision and a past Hillsborough Town Commissioner, asked for help from the Board of Commissioners. They have serious drainage problems in this subdivision and nothing is being done to resolve them. He mentioned that they oppose any development on the ridge bordering this area. He mentioned the recent annexation and the rezoning in this general area. They feel that an increase in development will have a harmful impact on Wildwood. They also have concerns about traffic patterns and how changes might negatively impact their community. He specifically was concerned about Oakdale Drive. He asked the Board of Commissioners to come to Wildwood and see the problems for themselves. He asked if they would consider working with them to resolve some of their concerns. Chair Brown asked the staff to look at the Oakdale Drive issue. F. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on Tuesday, September 1st in the New Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Margaret W. Brown, Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk