HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19981123APPROVED 2116199
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 23, 1998
MINUTES
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met
in joint session on Monday, November 23, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom,
new County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of
holding a joint Public Hearing.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret Brown, and Commissioners
Alice Gordon, Moses Carey, Jr., and Steven Halkiotis.
COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner William L. Crowther.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows
and members Nell Andrews, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., James Selkirk, Robert
Strayhorn, and Elizabeth Walters.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M. Brooks, Libby
Searles, and Runyon Woods
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy
Baker. All other staff will be identified as necessary.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Brown requested that an item be added to the Agenda regarding Carrboro's intent to
repeal the junk car provision in their Ordinance. If this provision is repealed it would become the
responsibility of Orange County to enforce the County's provision regarding junk automobiles.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to add
this item to the agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Brown indicated that she would Chair Items C.1 and C.2.b and thAT Karen Barrows,
Chair of the Planning Board would Chair the remainder of the items.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
QPUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Road Name Change
Q:\19981123.doc0
a) Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road (SR 1009)
This item was presented by Transportation Planner Slade McCalip for the
purpose of receiving citizen comments on the proposed name change of SR 1009 (Town of
Hillsborough to New Hope Church Road) from Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough Road to Old NC 86.
He mentioned that the residents who live along this section of the road presented a petition at the
May 6, 1998 Board of County Commissioners meeting requesting this name change. He
indicated that the petitioners had requested that the name be changed to Old Hwy. 86 and that
staff, after discussion with the EMS Director, was recommending the name be changed to Old NC
86 instead of Old Hwy 86.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
None.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD:
None
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS:
Ms. Donna Miller, a resident of this portion of the road, repeated their request to have the
road name changed. She indicated that they had no problem with the change being to Old NC 86
rather than Old Hwy. 86.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked those in attendance who support this name change to
please stand. Ten people stood in support of this name change. After a brief discussion there
was consensus on this name change.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
close the Public Hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
rename Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough Road to Old NC 86.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Zoning Atlas Amendment
a) ® Z-5-98 L. J. Rogers Trucking Co.
This item was presented by Jim Hinkley for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a
Planning Staff request to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas in Cedar Grove Township. The
proposed rezoning involves a 3.44 acre parcel (Tax Map No. 2.17..1 C) and a 2.06 acre portion of a
184 acre tract (Tax Map No.2.17..1) at 7818 NC 49. Operations of L.J. Rogers Trucking Company,
Inc., including its general offices, dispatcher facility, training and safety operations, maintenance
shops, outdoor storage of semi-trailers, and parking for semi-tractors are situated on these parcels.
An error in zoning was discovered when the company applied for a building permit to add a 60' X
100' fleet maintenance shop to the complex. The firm was unable to build the new facility because
the property is zoned AR. This is a part of a larger agricultural tract of approximately 184 acres.
Q:\19981123.doc®
The original zoning mistake occurred as a result of oversight or perhaps when it was transferred to
the permanent map. This business is located in the Back Creek Watershed. The impervious
surface now existing, including the new proposal, is 67%; the allowed amount is 80%.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
None.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD:
None.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS:
None.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer
the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned
no sooner than February 2, 1999.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b) Z-3-98 Lawrence Park Subdivision
This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a
Planned Development, Class A Special Use Permit and rezoning application for the Lawrence Park
Subdivision. The property is located in Eno Township on the east side of Lawrence Road (SR
1709) between Interstate 85 and US Highway 70A. the current zoning is Rural Residential (R-1)
with a portion in the major Transportation Corridor. Adjacent land uses are residential, including
Colonial Park zoned (R-4) and Colonial Hills zoned (R-2) subdivisions. The Adjacent zoning to the
north and east is R-1, Lawrence Road Baptist Church is located across Lawrence Road. The Rock
House, a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is at the southwest corner of US
70A and Lawrence Road. This proposal involves rezoning an area from R1 to R2 along the new
entrance road off US 70A. This involves 3.275 acres with 7 residential lots proposed. Four lots are
proposed on the east side and three on the west side of the entrance road.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
Chair Brown ask Mr. Kirk to explain the rationale for why these lots were created in this way.
Mr. Kirk indicated that the zoning on US 70A is R-1.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
None.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS:
None.
A motion was made by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the
application to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than February 2, 1999.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Q:\19981123.doc®
c) PD-3-98 Lawrence Park Planned Development
Chair Brown asked all citizens and staff who wish to speak on this item to come forward to be
sworn in by Deputy Clerk Kathy Baker. The following citizens and staff were sworn in by Kathy
Baker Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners: Jim Singleton, Jim Ray, Scott Ray, Bob
Bateman, Bill Hendrickson, James Klemk, Lawrence Bohs, Larry Meisner, George Krichbaum,
Scaco Murray, Tom Heffner, Paul Thames, Slade McCalip and Eddie Kirk.
This item was presented by Planner Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on
a Planned Development, Class A Special Use Permit and rezoning application for the Lawrence
Park Subdivision. The property is located in Eno Township on the east side of Lawrence Road (SR
1709) between Interstate 85 and US Highway 70A. The current zoning is Rural Residential (R-1)
with a portion in the major Transportation Corridor. Adjacent land uses are residential, including
Colonial Park (zoned R-4) and Colonial Hills (zoned R-2) subdivisions. The Adjacent zoning to the
north and east is R-1, Lawrence Road Baptist Church is located across Lawrence Road. The total
acreage of this proposed Planned Development is 83.25 acres. There are 237 lots proposed.
There are three areas recommended to be reserved for recreation areas in the parcel with a total of
31 % open space including 7.07 acres of improved recreation area. The Rock House, a site listed on
the National Register of Historic Places, is at the southwest corner of US 70A and Lawrence Road.
The total acreage to be subdivided is 87.27 acres. It is not located in a protected watershed and is
designated twenty-year transition in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the western half of the
property is cultivated as a hay field. The eastern half and the southern boundary is wooded with a
mixture of mature pines and hardwoods. During Concept Plan approval, the staff recommended an
additional access. The Developer has proposed an additional access from the south to Lori Drive.
He mentioned that the Planning Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners close
the Public Hearing and refer the application to the Planning Board to return a recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners no earlier than February 2, 1999 or that this Board adjourn the
Public Hearing to a date and time certain if there is need to hear additional evidence.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Gordon asked why the procedure Mr. Kirk outlined was being used. Mr. Kirk
indicated that it is a requirement of the Planned Development regulations.
Planning Board Chair Barrows asked about a letter from the developer to Ms. Cameron
regarding the connection to Lori Drive. Mr. Kirk stated that one of the conditions would be that Lori
Drive be improved all the way to Lannie Drive. There is a statement in the packet from NC DOT
indicating that they would accept that provided it's constructed to Lannie Drive.
Chair Brown asked for clarification on the drainage issue for the entire site.
County Engineer Thames addressed this issue. He indicated that the site is categorized
primarily by two ridge areas on the east and west side. Drainage areas run from the west to the
east, to about the center of the site; from that point to the north there is another drainage area from
the center of the site and then to the south. He pointed out the existing drainage areas on the map,
Q:\19981123.doc®
including those that flowed north and south. He pointed out the peaks on the site. He also
referred to the two planned detention ponds. The information submitted by the developer indicates
that one of the ponds is a "wet" pond, meaning that it is expected to hold water all of the time, the
other pond could be a "dry" pond. A portion of the drainage area is characterized as a flood plain
area consisting of flat, poorly drained soil. In response to a question, he stated that it is possible to
build on that type of soil without a great deal of problem. There would not be structural problems
but where there are flat slopes the water does not drain well. The water stays on lawns and is not
good for them. When it rains, the water tends to drain slowly.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD:
Planning Board member Katz stated that the builder has proposed "clear cutting" for ease of
construction. There is the possibility that there would be significant earth movement in this event.
He asked how that might affect the drainage, or if in fact, at the time they were doing construction
they could make some remedies to address potential drainage issues.
Mr. Thames stated that it was possible that they could make some remedies. He mentioned
that the information he has seen does not show the proposed grading plan. Essentially the elevation
of the outlet creeks set the limits. He said that you cannot steepen the grades to such an extent to
get good drainage in the upper areas because by the time you get to the lower areas there would
not be enough grade to work with.
Mr. Katz stated that when you have an area with trees, at least during the warmer months, you
have some moisture loss due to the trees. When there are heavy vehicles in an area that has clay
soil, the texture of that soil is affected as well as the drainage potential of that soil.
Mr. Thames agreed with that statement.
Mr. Katz asked Mr. Thames if the plan to "clear cut" to make the construction easier would have
any impact, harmful or helpful, on the drainage of that area.
Mr. Thames stated that it is certainly possible that it will impact the imperviousness of the soil.
Clay soils typically, in their natural state, allow surface water to percolate down through them. Once
the soil is disturbed it becomes plastic and less permeable to water.
Chair Brown had questions about the sewer connections. Part of the developer's statement is
that the Town of Hillsborough was willing to extend water and sewer because the nearby mobile
home park has had problems with septic systems. She asked about the issue of how that mobile
home park would be able to connect to the water and sewer system of this development and what
needs to be done to assure that happens.
Mr. Thames indicated that the sewer line does not show on the map. He pointed out the pump
station which would receive all of the drainage from the entire Lawrence Road project. From there,
a force main would pump the drainage to the top of the hill, where, apparently it would flow back
down toward Meadowlands by gravity feed. The mobile home park in question is in this area. The
Q:\19981123.doc®
plans for the sewer shows a sewer line and a manhole essentially at the property line. He
assumed that it was located there primarily to accept sewer flow from the mobile home park. What
is not clear from the plans is how the mobile home park would be sewered. He assumed sewer
could be provided in a manner similar to the way the Lawrence Park project itself is sewered, where
you have gravity collection internally and then it is pumped away. The other possibility is to run the
sewer line sufficiently deep so that it could accept gravity flow from the mobile home park. He
repeated that he did not know what was planned. It would be more expensive to make the line
deep enough to accept gravity flow, but it could be accomplished because of the pump station. In
other words, it does not really matter from a mechanical standpoint how deep the pump station is. It
matters from an expense standpoint. The Town of Hillsborough, from his understanding, has
proposed in its water and sewer agreement with the developer, to allow them a credit against their
capital facilities fees for the additional expense of sizing this pump station to accept flow from fifty
(50) dwellings which he assumed would be the mobile home park; and possibly from the extension
of the gravity sewer from the Meadowlands which was not absolutely necessary for the Lawrence
Road project.
Chair Brown asked if the information pertaining to the mobile homes hooking onto the sewer
lines was in the agenda material. Mr. Thames indicated that he did not know if it was or not. He did
know that he didn't personally have the information. The Water and Sewer Agreement between the
developer and the Town of Hillsborough has not yet been executed, however, the provision to allow
the mobile home park to have access to the sewer would be included .
Planning Board member Nell Andrews asked if written assurance had been received from the
Town of Hillsborough that this subdivision would have sufficient water supply to take care of fires.
Mr. Thames indicated that there was a provision in the water and sewer agreement to install a
booster pump, to boost water pressure. The water and sewer agreement says "if it is needed".
Ms. Andrews stated that she wanted to make sure that the residents out there, if there are going
to be three or four an acre, have sufficient water pressure to extinguish fires.
Mr. Thames repeated that there is a provision for a booster pump. Its very nonspecific and it is
unclear to him if the booster pump is meant to provide normal operating water pressure and flow or
whether it is meant to provide fire flow. Fire flow pumps are different than the general water service
booster pumps. The water and sewer agreement is not clear on that. He mentioned that it was also
not specified where the booster pump would be located. He stated that he assumed that the Town
of Hillsborough, their engineer, and the developer's engineer would locate the pump where it is
needed. The Town of Hillsborough would be responsible for the maintenance of the pump.
Chair Brown asked several questions of Slade McCalip regarding the traffic conditions. She
mentioned that as she reviewed this material she saw where it apparently says that all streets will
be inspected by NC DOT for maintenance. She asked about capacity because she did not see
addressed in the material what the current capacity of the roads are now.
Planner McCalip indicated that they were carrying 2400 trips a day and 2500 trips a day
respectively on US 70 Business and US 70A and Lawrence Road.
Q:\19981123.doc®
Chair Brown asked if there was a particular designation. Mr. Slade indicated that the level of
service is documented in the traffic impact study. They meet the current level of service that is
required by our subdivision regulations.
Chair Brown stated that she wanted to understand what the level of service was now on the
roads and if this project would increase it to another level of service.
Mr. McCalip indicated that in Orange County service level "D" is the minimum level of service in
urbanized areas and level "C" is the minimum level of service for rural areas. The existing condition
of US 70 Business and Lawrence Road in the morning is level service "A" and in the evening it is
level service "A". At 2003, with the buildout condition of this development, the evening service
would be level service "A" for both roads. He also stated that the existing conditions for NC 86 and
Old 10 in the morning were level service "A" and also "A" in the afternoon. At buildout, NC 86 and
Old 10 would be "F" in the morning. Actually, they revised their assessment to "D" because in their
original traffic impact study they did not include the percentage of trucks. When they did include
the percent of trucks, the default value was higher than the actual truck traffic. That intersection will
definitely warrant a traffic study at buildout, if not before. There would be level service "A" in the
evening. Then, US 70 By Pass and US 70 Business, at buildout, will be "B" in the morning and "A"
in the evening. Lawrence Road and Old 10 are currently at "A" in the evening; it will be "A" in the
morning and evening at buildout in 2003. He stated that this report was completed by Kimley-Horne
and Larry Meismer, the traffic consultants for the developers.
REPORT FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Mr. George Krichbaum stated that he was the President of Planned Community Development,
Inc., and a consultant with the applicant for purposes of planning and development of the Lawrence
Park Project. He stated that over the years he has been involved in literally dozens of public
hearings both as a participant and as an observer. He would be less than candid if he didn't say
that he did not enjoy them very much. They are not fun for the proponents or opponents and he
was certain that they were not fun for the people who have to make the decisions on the, oft times,
competing interests that are expressed at the meetings. The process sometimes becomes
personal, emotional and stressful and as a result his company tries to be judicious in its involvement
in these processes. They try to come before these public bodies with as much open and factual
information as they can, in hopes that it will bring some clarity to the subject. They come to this
meeting basically guided by three assumptions: 1) That Orange County has an R-3 zoning
category and development ordinances which govern it because R-3 is an acceptable land use in the
county. If that was not the case, it would save a good deal of time and trouble to know that. He
assumed that it was a correct assumption on their part; 2) they assumed that a change in zoning
from R-1 to R-3 is allowable in Orange County by virtue of the existence of a process to accomplish
it. Again, if that is not the case, it would save a good deal of time and energy to know that. He
assumed that it was a safe assumption on their part; and 3) they assume the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan has been and remains the County's primary tool for evaluating where and
under what circumstances such changes should and will be made. Whenever they consider the
potential development of a parcel of land the fundamental question that they must ask is what is the
highest and best use of the property, both in its market context and how it fits in with the expressed
Q:\19981123.doc®
desire of the jurisdiction in which it is located. For example, they are not asking to place a high rise
office building on this piece of property because the marketplace would not support or sustain that
use even if the Board of County Commissioners was inclined to approve it. By like token, they are
not seeking to put a paper processing plant on this property because, although the market place
might be willing to support that use, the jurisdiction would not. They are asking for a change in
residential zoning from R-1 to R-3. This is a change that they believe the market will accept as the
highest and best use for the property. The market will buy houses in this location and in the
proposed price range on lots of this proposed size at a pace that will justify the cost of the
improvements and the development risks required to produced the project. They also believe that
their request is absolutely in keeping with objectives of Orange County. He then read as follows
from the Comprehensive Plan.
"Among the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan is the desire to minimize the existing
energy inefficient and land consuming pattern of rural sprawl. The Land Use Element is
premised on two basic strategies. - activity nodes and infill development. Unlike the rural
areas, these urban areas are presently served, or are scheduled to be served, by
municipal water and sewer systems and contain other urban support services which allow
for higher density, higher intensity development patterns. The infill development strategy
is premised on the desirability of encouraging development to occur first within the
corporate limits of the towns and then, when appropriate, within those areas surrounding
the towns which are in transition from rural to urban development patterns. The
achievement of a higher rate of infill development than experienced in the past requires a
combination of incentives and disincentives to development activity which include, but are
not limited to
• Allowing higher densities and intensity of land uses within urban areas and urbanizing
areas
• Allowing only low intensity uses outside of these areas
• Streamlining development review processes for high intensity uses
• Requiring development standards in transition areas similar to those in urban areas,
and
• Phased extension of urban services.
The successful achievement of the infill policy would result in more compact and
efficient urban form, lead to reduced transportation and energy cost, reduce public
services cost, and minimize the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses as a result
of development pressures."
He stated that this related to Lawrence Park and the proposal before the Board of County
Commissioners in the following ways:
• This is clearly an infill location. They are surrounded on all sides by existing residential
development. Further, the area of Lawrence Park itself was placed in a 20-year transition area in
the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out the Lawrence Park area on the map. There are
existing residential areas both to the west and to the south in the 10-year transition zone.
He then read again from the Comprehensive Plan for a definition of the 20-year transition
zone.
Q:\19981123.doc®
"The 20 year transition area is land located in areas that are in the process of changing
from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban type densities and should be provided
with public utilities and services within the second 10 year phase of the plan."
He noted that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1981, which would suggest that
Lawrence Park is right on schedule. The Comprehensive Plan further defines the characteristics
of these transition zones, relative to eleven criteria, all of which he felt were as strongly, or more
strongly met, in 1998 than they were in 1981.
These criteria include,
¦ Land slope - There are no significant slope or topographical problems that would
unreasonably increase the cost of extending water and sewer lines. There is no such problem at
Lawrence Park that the development itself is not willing to deal with.
¦ Hydrology - It is located outside of the 100-year flood prone areas as identified by the Core of
Engineers. There is no problem in the development of Lawrence Park in terms of avoiding and
having no development contact with these areas, if they in fact exist on the property.
¦ Flora and Fauna - Located away from sites, which would, if developed, create a threat to
unique and endangered species as identified by the State and Federal government. There are
no such species identified at the Lawrence Park area.
¦ Soil Conditions - Located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for urban uses
because of soil drainage characteristics and low bearing capacity for site development. The
Lawrence Park soils are shown as generally slight to moderate for limitation of construction and
more severely constrained for septic, which he stated made R-1 zoning without utilities
somewhat impractical in this location.
¦ Public services and utilities - Located in areas which are, or could be, reasonably and
efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities. Lawrence Park is close to existing
public services. It is less than three miles from where the courthouse is located. Hillsborough
water and sewer service will be extended to it. Additionally, the sewer facilities are being
designed to accommodate connection by an additional fifty adjacent dwellings that are currently
experiencing septic tank failures.
¦ Transportation systems -Should be located in areas that have very good road access as well
as service by rail lines. These areas should have the most complete transportation network in
the County's planning jurisdiction. Lawrence Park is located at the Intersection of US-70
Business and Lawrence Road. Both are shown as minor arterial, which equates to major
thoroughfare roads in the Comprehensive Plan. It is roughly Y2 mile from the merge with US-70
By Pass. It is within % mile of Old NC 10 and one mile from NC 86 South. It is also only a few
hundred feet from 1-85 although access to that road is currently a problem. He stated that his
point was that the area could hardly be situated better in terms of its transportation facilities.
¦ Energy use -located less than five minutes commuting time from small-scale commercial
uses and five to ten minute commuting time from major commercial uses or an urban area.
Lawrence Park is Y2 mile from the town limits of Hillsborough and clearly qualifies under this
particular stipulation. This maximizes benefit to the County from a tax standpoint while
concentrating the need for services in a confined space.
• County Public Safety Services - Lawrence Park is located close to these services.
¦ School Transportation - It is compact from the perspective of school transportation.
Q:\19981123.doc®
¦ Municipal Services - These are being extended at its own expense and will cost $890,000 in
tap fees, which arguably should contribute to better facilities and less cost to existing users. It is
providing the means to replace the failing septic systems for a number of residences in the area.
¦ Traffic - Most of the traffic would be directed away from existing developed areas. It has
direct access to major thoroughfares and will make road improvements along its frontage to
lessen impact on existing traffic.
He stated that in 1981, the people who pioneered this Comprehensive Plan knew that the
area proposed to be Lawrence Park was a logical and appropriate place for moderate density
development. In the succeeding years this view has been suspended in the face of numerous
amendments to the plan. All of the conditions and circumstances on which this assessment was
originally made are still valid. It seemed to him, based on all of the foregoing evaluations, that if
growth is to occur in Orange County in a sensible, none-sprawl fashion, and if the County's
Comprehensive Plan is to be considered relevant and credible, then it is not logical, reasonable,
or judicious for the Lawrence Park application not to be approved.
He stated that this is a good plan for the surrounding areas for the following reasons:
¦ It provides a high-quality neighborhood in the infill of the existing residential neighborhoods.
¦ It is of particular advantage to those neighborhoods adjacent to it which are currently
experiencing septic failure.
¦ It provides upgrades to the existing water system and provides the Town of Hillsborough with
$890,000 to apply to other improvements if the Town so determines that they are needed.
¦ It will either enhance or maintain the value of all of the adjacent properties in the area.
He then introduced Tom Heaffner, real estate appraiser, to speak to this issue. Mr. Heaffner
indicated that the developer asked him to look at the contiguous properties in terms of the
potential impact that this development might have on them. Most of the adjoining properties to
the south generally are occupied by mobile or modular homes. Those are the properties that are
on Lanning Drive, Lloyd Drive and Jay Circle. Properties adjoining to the east, west and north
are made up of a mixture of mobile homes and single family residential properties. As a general
rule the majority of the properties that adjoin this proposed subdivision are in a price range that
are equal to or less than the probable price range of the houses in this subdivision. The
proposed development also provides a 100-foot landscape buffer around the perimeter of the
subdivision. He felt that this additionally served to mitigate any adverse impact that the
development might have on adjoining property values.
Mr. Krichbaum expressed concern that it is not clear to the public in general what the nature
of this development is, what kind of housing will exist in the development, if approved, and the
overall concept behind the development. He stated that they would like to explain the
development from the inside-out in the hopes of providing better understanding as to what is
being proposed. He introduced Scott Murray who is associated with the Lawrence Park planning
and development team so that he could provide some information about the basic planning
concept and the elements within the community.
Mr. Scott Murray, a landscape architect, referred to a color rendering of the plan. He
indicated that the first step in planning a community is to look at the adjacent property and the
Q:\19981123.doc®
impact it will have on those properties. In looking at Lawrence Park and the surrounding areas.
There is clearly a residential area to the north with some higher density residential development
to the west and south. The plan that they developed proposes a 100-foot buffer. Part of the
buffer is in existing vegetation. Where there is open field now, it is proposed to plant buffer
vegetation that will be allowed to grow back into a natural wooded area. The community that
they envision is one that would be pedestrian orientated. The streets are interconnected; there
are five-foot sidewalks proposed for both sides of all streets; this provides a very walkable
community. This community would provide amenities for neighboring communities as well. The
primary land component of this proposed community is that of active recreation. There are
several different types of recreation areas proposed for this community and the surrounding
neighborhoods. These include small pocket parks of 1Y4 to ?Y2 acre, larger playing fields and one
large 3-acre central park. The large park would have volley ball, badminton, and horse shoes.
People could walk to this park, bring their children and dogs, and enjoy active recreation. There
are storm water management ponds which are a primary feature of the plan. The ponds would
be buffered by hedge and vegetation, which would help to screen them from the adjacent
residents.
Commissioner Gordon asked for further clarification regarding the pedestrian-friendly nature
of this development.
Mr. Murray stated that in his opinion there are three components that make a neighborhood
pedestrian friendly. Those are that the streets are interconnected so that you can walk down a
street and not have to turn around and go back the same way. You can cross through and go
over another block. Sidewalks on both sides of every street is another component. The
minimum requirement is something less than the five-foot minimum, which is being proposed.
The final component is that you have to have destinations, such as parks or ball fields.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the proposed clearcutting and asked would it all be
clear-cut or would there be variations on the type of land clearing.
Mr. Murray explained that over ?Y2 of the property is already open property. There is an old
tree line that runs through the property and that is proposed to be protected and maintained. He
pointed to other areas where the tree growth would be left. He pointed out an area where trees
are to be planted in locations that are currently open fields now. Red buds, Virginia pines, and
other native plants would be planted to allow a woods type environment to revegetate in those
areas. He pointed to another portion of the tract where the largest clearing would occur. The
County has a landscape ordinance that requires revegetation or replanting of trees both large
and small, based on street frontage. That is what is proposed. There are approximately 3 or 4
trees per lot that would be replanted. Any time you see a medium to high density residential
area, there is a significant amount of clearing that takes place. Once the homes are in, if you go
and look at older neighborhood, most of the trees you see were planted when the homes were
originally built.
Planning Board member Katz asked if there was a policy about what would be done along
the sidewalks and street frontage in terms of planting. He asked about types and size of trees.
Q:\19981123.doc®
Mr. Murray indicated that sugar maples, willow and other varieties that would have large
canopies would be planted. The smaller trees are flowering trees such as dogwood, red bud,
crab apple, and crape myrtle. The size of planting would be 1 Y2 to 2-inch caliber at a minimum.
After the initial planting each lot will have two shade and two flowering trees at the very minimum.
In addition to that, there will be other landscaping features that will be provided for each home
which are more foundation plantings and things of that nature.
Planning Board member Katz asked about the possibility that the soil may not drain well and
that the trees would be planted in soils that tend to remain moist and would therefore lose their
oxygen. He asked if the developer actually knew for a fact that the types of trees that they
wanted to plant would survive in those types of soil.
Mr. Murray stated that the red maple, sugar maple and other trees would do well in this soil.
Chair Brown asked for more detail regarding the size of the parks and what would be
available in each.
Mr. Murray stated that there are four parks in the plan. At the entrance to the community,
off of Lawrence Road, there is a small pocket park which would have benches and a hedge
surrounding it. It is designed for sitting and enjoying the garden type area or visiting with
neighbors. Another park is a children's "tot lot" with small sliding boards and other equipment
designed for children from three to seven years old. After that age they lose interest and want to
play elsewhere. The larger park is shown on the plan with a wooded buffer. He indicated that
some clearing would occur and additional shade trees would be planted. An environment would
be provided for picnic tables, badminton, volleyball, horseshoes. A Sunday afternoon picnic for
the community could be hosted in this area. This would be approximately 2.7 acres and is
connected by sidewalks to several portions of the community. The last park would be a ball field
or a soccer field with parking provided. These parks are not lighted.
Planning Board Chair Barrows mentioned that at the last Planning Board meeting the
question came up about the surrounding neighbors using these park areas. She remembered
that at that time the developers said that would be discouraged because these recreational areas
would be primarily for the subdivision residents. She asked for clarification about that.
Mr. Murray indicated that the intent was not to discourage use by the surrounding
properties. He indicated, however, they would not expect people to drive in from across town
and have organized soccer games. This is designed more for pick-up-type soccer, or baseball,
for the people in the surrounding neighborhoods close at hand, outside of Lawrence Park, but not
across town. They have a community in Durham where they were able to have four or five
soccer fields. They were able to host leagues, but that can become a large happening and tends
to crowd out the immediate residents and neighbors if your not careful. Mr. Murray then
distributed copies of a document showing the types of houses that are proposed for Lawrence
Park. A copy of this handout is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
Q:\19981123.doc®
Mr. Krichbaum stated that he asked himself "what were the concerns about Lawrence
Park." To date he has heard four primary concerns. The first is added traffic. He reminded
those in attendance of the existing conditions with US 70 Business experiencing an average of
2400 daily trips and Lawrence Road at approximate 2500 trips in the vicinity of Lawrence Park.
These roads are categorized as major thoroughfares and would be expected to carry 8,000 to
10,000 trips daily in their two-lane configuration. The trip distribution for Lawrence Park is such
that the maximum additional trips due to Lawrence Park on any stretch of the external roadway is
1200 trips moving between the entrance on US 70 Business toward the east to the merge with
70 Bypass. That would bring the total number of trips, including Lawrence Park traffic, to 3600.
That is far, far below the intended capacity of roads with this designation. Both right and left turn
lanes would be added to the two primary entrances to Lawrence Park allowing for a smooth flow
of through traffic in this area. The primary and secondary intersections serving Lawrence Park all
perform, after buildout, at level of service A or B. The only intersection that Lawrence Park
influences, that will have level of service less than A or B is at the intersection of NC 10 and
Highway 86. That intersection would be dealt with by signalization if the warrant exists.
The second concern was water pressure and volume. He indicated that from his
conversations with Hillsborough, it is not clear the nature of this problem and to what degree the
problem exists. He suggested assuming that it is a problem and it's a problem today. He asked
who would pay to correct the problem. In the absence of any change, the answer is obvious, the
current customers are going to pay for the problem. He asked how Lawrence Park figured into
this equation. He reminded everyone that the cost of extending services to and through
Lawrence Park is being borne by Lawrence Park. Do not think that after having spent several
hundred thousand dollars to extend these services, and after having provided 247 new rate
paying customers, that Hillsborough might be willing to allow them to tap on for free. As he
indicated earlier, that is not the case. In fact, they will be paying double and they will be
generating $889,200 in tap fees to the town which Hillsborough may use to improve their facilities
as they need. That is money that would otherwise not be available in the absence of a project of
the density and with the utility connections that Lawrence Park proposes.
The third concern is increased runoff. Virtually all of the runoff from Lawrence Park exists at
one of two locations. One of the locations is in the northeast corner and the other location is on
the south side of the property. At each location, detention facilities have been designed to catch
and release storm water at a rate not to exceed the pre-development, 25-year storm event, in
conformity with County policy. In addition, the northern pond, has been designed so that it will
serve as both detention and retention from the stand point of being a "wet" pond that will serve
for water quality purposes, since this is the only area of the property that is in a designated
watershed, although not a critical watershed.
The final concern that he has heard is that it is too dense. He does not know how to answer
that because it is what the County's Comprehensive Plan says should be there and it is at a
density that would, by any normal standard, be considered moderate, certainly not high in terms
of its use. It is a well-planned community, well conceived, with a use and housing type that
enhances the adjacent property without competing with it. They believe it is the project that the
Comprehensive Plan contemplated when it designated this to be a 20-year transition zone. They
Q:\19981123.doc®
think that it is a density that is certainly compatible with the adjacent R-1 and R-2 uses. It is a
plan that will provide significant good for the county with a minimal amount of disruption and
harm. They trust that the County will agree with them and they thanked the County for their time
and attention.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
Mr. James Singleton asked everyone who is a citizen of Orange County to stand.
Those in attendance who were citizens of Orange County stood. He asked them to stand
because he recently received a pamphlet in the mail which stated that the Board of
County Commissioners is the one body representing all Orange County citizens. The
people who just stood are the people who elected the Board of Commissioners. They are
the people that the Commissioners represent. None of the developers stood at that
particular moment. The reason they are here is that someone wishes to develop an open
piece of property. That is the American way. The developers are here for one purpose,
and one purpose only, greed. That is the same reason he himself is here. They are here
to make money and he is here to try to protect the value in his property. They say to the
Commissioners, through a licensed appraiser, that it is not going to affect the adjacent
properties. He spoke to a licensed appraiser, who is also a professional realtor and a
member of the County Commissioners in another County. His comment was that there is
absolutely no way that a sane person would believe that it is not going to affect his
property. It will significantly affect his property. Quite frankly, he is in favor of that piece of
property being developed. He has said in open meetings that this development is
beautiful. They have done a marvelous job - for Asbury Park, N.J. or Teaneck, but not
Hillsborough. We do not need as compact a situation as we've got here. He has been in
a number of places where beautiful neighborhoods existed in communities. He has never
seen a community be designed to go into a neighborhood, however, until this one. Also,
in previous sessions, the gentleman did say that none of these amenities would be
available to the neighbors. That was stated back in July. What we have here is a
designed community in which the residents will be of white, socio-economic stature, living
in like ticki-tacki houses all in a row, what we have here is Orange County's first planned
ghetto. If you read Webster's Dictionary, a ghetto is defined as an area in which a similar
socio-economic group of people live. That's a ghetto and that's what we have here - a
planned ghetto. A very nicely planned one, but a ghetto non-the-less. How will this affect
his property. Quite frankly, very, very much. You are talking about $110,000 to $25,000
houses of approximately 1,100 square feet. He pointed out that the visitor area of the
courtroom was approximately 1,100 square feet. We are talking about 240 houses of that
size being dropped down to one very small area. That will affect the whole area. When
you get that many people trying to leave two exits at the same time in order to get to work,
there will be major problems on those two streets. No sane person can look at that and
say that you can get that many people out of there between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. without a
major calamity. We used to call it the "accident de jour" down on Lawrence Road and US
70 where he lives, because on Saturday in the summer he would hear them coming over
the hill, slamming on the brakes, and going straight through the intersection without being
able to stop. It happens roughly about twice a month. He is not against developing the
Q:\19981123.doc®
property, but asks that the developer and the county be reasonable about what gets put
into that property. That is all he is asking. About three months ago a piece of property in
this neighborhood was designated to be one of only two "occupied" historic landmarks in
the county. One is right across the street from this proposed development. That will
affect the value of this house. The eloquent presentation by the developer was so good
he started wishing he lived there and then he realized what was being discussed. They
are very professional in their presentation and they are good developers. He is against
this development as it is designed now.
Mr. Scott Ray stated that he lives less than one mile away from this proposed
development. He is not opposed to the development. It could be less dense with more
area around the houses. He understands that they are trying to maximize their profits off
of this piece of land. There are a couple of concerns that no one has raised yet. One of
those concerns is character. It does not fit into the character of the surrounding area.
That many houses in that small area is out of the character of the community. His second
concern is not the amount of water to fight fires, but rather the amount of personnel
available to fight fires. There needs to be some comment from the Emergency Services
Director or the fire chiefs as to whether or not they can adequately supply the personnel to
fight fires in that area, especially with the OSHA regulations for "two-in and two-out".
There would have to be at least five people on the scene before the fire can even be
fought, with two people each on the pipe line and on the line outside the residence.
Hillsborough currently runs three or four First Responder calls a day and Eno also runs
First Responder calls. Those will be the standard Mutual Aid departments. He is not sure
that they will have the personnel to fight the fires. On a 7,000 square foot lot you better
get fire fighters there in a hurry or you will burn several houses down. The development is
lacking in common sense. The Comprehensive Plan may say that it could contain that
many homes, but it does not necessarily say that it should contain that many homes.
Mr. Jim Ray stated that putting 237 houses in this small area is going to cause an
excess of drainage toward the north. He operates a golf course to the north of this
property and he estimates that they will get 2/3 of the drainage from the development.
They use that water for irrigation. They now have a problem from the years that this has
been a farm. Every time it rained during plowing season, the drainage came to their
property. They have ponds deep in muck now from the runoff. When they start building
this development they will have much more runoff making this problem much worse during
the entire time they are building until buildout is complete. They say that they will put in a
pump station; if the pump station ever malfunctions, the runoff will go to his irrigation pond.
Vandalism is another concern to him. Each of these homes will have approximately 2
children. They will need a place to play. There are not many places for them to play in
this area. Soccer fields are next to the neighbors, not in the middle of the community, so
the noise will affect the people who already live there, not the new residents. They
already have a problem with vandalism and this will make it worse. This is also going to
impact the schools. The roads cannot handle this additional traffic. He mentioned that he
thought that "infill" was intended to start in town and move out from there. He does not
think that starting in the county and moving back into town is what is meant by "infill"
Q:\19981123.doc®
Commissioner Brown asked where his golf course was located. Mr. Ray pointed out
his course on the map. He felt that this could have ruined his golf course if it had been
built last year when El Nino was active.
Planning Board Chair Barrows asked Mr. Ray to elaborate on his concerns regarding
the potential run-off problem. Mr. Ray mentioned that the pond would be a "wet pond"
which would mean that it would be practically full all of the time. When it rains it is going to
run over that. When its dry it will catch the rain and prevent it from going to his property
and when the land is already holding moisture it will overflow the pond and go to his
property.
Commissioner Brown asked for clarification of the location of his property. She read
from the proposal that "all run-off from the site is collected by three intermittent streams;
two of the streams on the northern half of the property join off site and go north
approximately 2.5 miles to the Eno River. She asked if that was where his property was
located. Mr. Ray indicated that was the location of his property. He stated that he would
have thought more of this development if the man who owned the land would attend any
of these hearings. He hasn't attended any of them to date. He mentioned that he tried to
buy water from Hillsborough and they told him that it would be a bad political move at this
point. They were within days of losing every green that they had at that time.
Mr. Bob Bateman stated that he had a bad dream the other night, he dreamed that
he had a housing development near him. Here tonight that dream has become a reality.
He heard a little about the pocket parks. He remembered that the University Station
project was killed because of a lack of open spaces and they had a golf course. He does
not see open space in this project. Some of the speakers who have already commented
that if this was developed in R-1 it could be a pleasant development to have in the
community. At R-2 it could probably be abided, however, at R-3 it is totally despicable to
the neighborhood. He mentioned the school impact of a development of this size; if there
are 244 houses with 1.5 children, which is the figure the County uses, you would have 366
children. If you use 2 children per house, which is another figure that is frequently used,
you would have 488. If you use 2.5 which is more realistic and more probable, you end up
with 610 children. As you know, our schools are overcrowded. The three that would
probably be impacted by this development would be New Hope Elementary which is
currently overcrowded; Cameron Park which is at capacity; and Grady Brown which is at
capacity. He did not hear the developers say anything about giving the School Board
twenty five acres to build an Elementary School which is a very popular idea in the
development field these days. If they reduced the density to R-2 or R-1 they could
probably accommodate a neighborhood school in that area. We could live with it out there
but we would want it to be less dense, have more open space, and for the developers to
give the School Board twenty-five acres for a school.
Mr. James Klemk, of 70-A East near Lawrence Road, stated that when he first heard
of the proposed development on Lawrence Road he was not bothered or surprised. After
Q:\19981123.doc®
he heard that it was for 240 homes he was very disturbed. We are here to discuss not a
builder building homes but a builder with a plan run amok with greed and an unacceptable
attitude of callousness toward our neighborhood. That the property at this location will
have something built on it is obvious. It is important that it be done in the context of
peaceful and sane growth. The extreme density of this project is an outrage and would be
tantamount to a cancer in our midst. The project would probably necessitate a new
school and an increase in traffic in an already busy area. The builder has provided a
statement from a Chapel Hill Realtor saying that the property would increase our property
values. He felt that he was in error. They would suffer diminished values to their real
estate which for many of them is the backbone of their savings. The builder also provided
a traffic report at prior meetings showing minimal traffic at Lawrence Road and Highway
70. When he came home today at 2:50 p.m. he stopped and in 5 minutes counted 31
cars going through the intersection and that is not a particularly busy time of day. The
builder is not here for the good of the community; he is here to make money. The
members of this community have clearly let their objections to this project be known. He
presented a petition with 129 signatures which he and a few others had taken to some of
the nearby neighbors. Not one person who was asked to sign failed to do so. Each of
those people who was asked to sign expressed their objections. Every signer of the
Petition asked that you, the County Commissioners we elected to represent us, do so by
denying the request for approval. He read the petition, as follows: "We the undersigned
are aware of the proposed housing development that is Lawrence Park Subdivision. With
our signatures, we are voicing our opposition to it being given approval to proceed. While
we understand the need for sustained growth we strongly feel that the high density of this
development would radically change the character of our community for the worse." He
presented the petitions to the Deputy Clerk to the Board. The original of this petition is in
the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
Mr. Bill Hendrickson stated that his wife wrote a letter to one of the principals in this
group who happens to live on Lawrence Road, expressing her concern. He wrote a nice
letter back and one thing he said was that Scott Murray would be in touch with us directly
to speak with us. This did not happen. He also said that this would increase the value of
our land. This has been indicated by the appraiser from Chapel Hill, as well. He asked
the Board of Commissioners if it would be appropriate for them to seek a study of land
values of a similar project in a similar surrounding area before you vote on this
development. He recommended that they seek some written documentation to this effect
before they accept the word of someone who is involved with the organization. He does
not doubt the person, but he thinks that it would be appropriate that the Commissioners
would have written documentation in the record that a similar development in a similar
surrounding area in North Carolina did allow for either increased or decreased value of the
land. His second suggestion was that some documentation be solicited from the School
Board as to the impact of these potential numbers of children being added to the school
roles and what the cost would be in include them on the rosters. The Commissioners and
the citizens should know what the financial impact would be to our school system by the
addition of these children. It is important that the Planning Board and Commissioners
have this information and make it public before this project is finally voted on.
Q:\19981123.doc®
Mr. Lawrence Bolls indicated that he lives about two miles from the proposed
subdivision. He expressed opposition to this development and read from a prepared
statement, as follows: "Such a large and dense development would have a significant
impact on local traffic. That has not been completely studied. For example, he drives
along 70 Alternate on his way to work in Durham and the traffic at Pleasant Green Road
toward Hillsborough can be backed up for a mile or more on weekday mornings. This is
going to make that significantly worse causing people to take NC 10 and Business 70
Alternate. He wondered how long it would be before all of the intersections need traffic
lights if we start putting in these kinds of dense developments. Secondly, such a large and
dense development would severely impact the character of this area. The instant town of
250 homes would bring in 500 to1000 new residents, probably closer to 1000 residents.
All of these people would need places to shop, eat and work. These numbers would
overwhelm the current facilities and would drive further commercial development. Those
residents who moved to this area because of its relatively quiet character would have to
look elsewhere. He is not arguing against development but only against this type of
development. Finally, he asked if this development would improve the quality of life for
area residents. He cannot understand how traffic congestion, dramatic increase in
pollution from automobiles and surface runoff which will occur because of the large
percentage of impervious surface in this development and the change in the quiet
character in this area, would be an improvement. He asked the Commissioners to reject
this plan.
Planning Board Member Katz asked what the typical number of bedrooms per
dwelling would be. Mr. Krichbaum indicated that he was not in the building end of the
business but he believed that they would be two and three bedroom, mostly three
bedroom dwellings.
Planning Board Member Katz asked if there was a way for him to predict how many
individuals would be in each dwelling and how many of those would be children. Mr.
Krichbaum stated that he could only rely on the County averages that suggest that it is 2.5
persons per dwelling. Mr. Katz asked if that meant less than one child per household. Mr.
Krichbaum stated that was his understanding of what the typical relationship would be.
Some of them would have 3 or 4 children, some "empty nesters", with the norm being
one/two children. Mr. Katz asked if there could be some determination of how many
children are really involved and what the consequences would be with regard to schools
and the adequacy of the recreation facilities for the number of children one would expect
to be in that area. He has concerns about whether or not there is enough open space to
provide activities for the number of children that might be there. That is one issue. We
need some answers to these questions. The question has also come up about property
values of adjacent neighborhoods. There is concern from neighbors as to whether or not
their property values would diminish or remain the same. We heard Mr. Heaffner state
that the property values would not be harmed. He wondered if there is a semantic issue
here in that the houses around this large development would become less desirable for
people because they would be associated with an area that has a high density
Q:\19981123.doc®
development. Therefore, the individuals who own these houses are concerned about the
fact that they would lose potential buyers because people who want to buy their houses
don't want to live next to a high density area. On the other hand, as Mr. Heaffner might
state there would be no loss of value because the value of the land adjacent to this high
density area would increase for a developer's purposes, but not necessarily for someone
who would be interested in living in the houses that exist there. It might be seen as an
opportunity to create another high density development in that area because it is a good
commute and because it would be zoned correctly and because there is sewer, etc., so
that the tax value of the adjacent neighborhoods might increase because of the value of
the land but in fact the individuals who might want to sell a particular house might have
even greater difficulty in selling because it is located near a high density area. Does this
address the conflict that might be between the people who live in the neighborhood versus
the people who want to develop this land at a higher density?
Mr. Krichbaum stated that only those properties that are immediately to the north of
Lawrence Park are zoned R-1; the ones opposite the property to the west are zoned R-2;
the ones south of Lawrence Park are R-4 and to the east are R-3. He indicated that the
notion that they are out-of-sync with the prevailing zoning of the area is questionable. The
facts would contradict that. From a standpoint of values, in the course of developing
various properties, they have developed lots not dissimilar to these which were adjacent to
train tracks and people bought them. They have developed adjacent to sewage treatment
plants and people bought those as well. If housing is properly priced, there is a market for
almost all housing, including the housing that will be adjacent to this. The values in this
neighborhood, if he is any judge and he thinks he is, with the average price of $132,000
(with a low end of $120,000 and a high end of $160,000) there are not many houses in the
surrounding area that would sell today at that price even without any development. It is
difficult for him to understand the inflationary nature of this. Would this allow certain
people, particularly the R-1 properties to subdivide their lots? Would that be more
possible or would it be possible to change their zoning from Farm/Residential to some
other use along Highway 70A over time. Probably and there is certainly value in that. He
is struggling to see how this devalues their property by the presence of homes, no matter
how dense, that are higher priced than the ones that exist there today.
Mr. Katz indicated that his point was that while the area adjacent to Lawrence Park
may be zoned R-3 or R-4, presently the density is less than that, and that land may
become more valuable for further development. In that sense, you can sustain the value
but the desirability for people who want to live on property where there is less density
diminishes by the presence of this type of development.
Mr. Krichbaum disagreed.
Mr. Katz indicated that he see the value of this property because of its proximity for
commuting. The location for people to find relatively affordable housing and be able to
commute to work makes this property desirable. One would expect that there would be
further development in that area.
Q:\19981123.doc®
Commissioner Halkiotis referred to page 116 of the agenda document where Sheriff
Pendergrass documented that he has received 2,100 response calls in that area in the
last 12 months. He states that providing service for an additional 800 plus persons will
increase the service load for the current allotted personnel. He clearly states that
providing service to the Lawrence Park Subdivision will require a minimum of one deputy
and one vehicle plus equipment. He is hard for him to balance that against the statement
by the Orange County Emergency Management. They do not seem to answer the
question regarding the possibility of needing additional staff and or equipment. He asked
if there would be an impact for EMS and fire services. He has noticed this same response
coming from EMS for many past proposal. The Board of County Commissioners is
lookingmfor more than geographical information.
Planning Board Member Strayhorn asked a question regarding impervious surface.
He is still not satisfied. It looks like there is a tremendous amount of question regarding
this. He cannot understand how a wet pond is going to slow down much of the run off.
Mr.Krichbaum stated that the impervious surface on the site as a whole is 25%. That
area would exceed the limit, as 24% is the cut-off point for requiring a detention facility in a
critical watershed. In spite of what it may look like, when they have 30% open space
outside of the area of the lots, then 25% impervious surface is not very great. As it relates
to the wet detention pond, that pond is built with a storage area and then above that an
area that holds back run off above the limits of the normal ponds. So that basically, it has
a pool area and an impoundment outside the pool that is there to catch the run off, hold it
and then release it at a constant rate. It is the standard type of pond that is used
throughout the state. It is prescribed by the state Division of Environmental Management
for use in these situations. The only reason there is a wet pond, is to allow the water to
stand for a period of time prior to discharge so that suspended particulates and impurities
in the water will be given chance to settle before they discharge down stream. As he
indicated, in the case of a higher rated storm event (a fifty-year or one hundred-year storm
event) all of the ground essentially becomes impervious, it becomes saturated and the
water stands on top of the ground everywhere. In that case, the difference between pre-
development and post-development in these larger storm events is very negligible. There
is almost no representative statistical difference in the amount of run-off for a storm of that
magnitude. It all runs-off. He also pointed out that there is an existing culvert under US
70A; he thought it was a moderately sized culvert. He did not know if it had ever run full
but he does know that in spite of how much it might rain, and in spite of how much
impervious surface there is on this project, no more water is going to get through that pipe
than can get through it today. The idea that there is some type of down stream event that
will wash the golf course away is restricted by the fact that no more water can get down
stream than can get through the pipe at US 70 right now.
Mr. Katz asked if the wet-pond would be functioning during construction time. Mr.
Krichbaum said it would and that they would have other sedimentation and control actions
in place. They will be complying with all of the County's ordinances. Orange County is
Q:\19981123.doc®
reputed to be, and he agrees, the most restrictive County in North Carolina as far as
sedimentation erosion control enforcement is concerned. The suggestion that we are
going to funnel tons of mud downstream is not based in fact. It cannot and will not
happen.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Kirchbaum to point out the poorer soils which he did
point out on the map. He mentioned that he did not have any information which would
point to these areas being unsatisfactory for general construction.
Commission Brown asked for further clarification of the soil being allocated for the
soccer fields. She pointed out that many times in the past the athletic fields have been
located in the poorer soils which do not drain well. She wondered if this is an area that is
not suitable for playing fields so that they would be wet most of the year. Why was this
area picked, especially since they are nearer to the outside neighbors, rather than within
the subdivision itself.
Mr. Kirchbaum stated that it is within the subdivision but on the outer perimeter. He
stated that the field would be completely regraded Once that happens and a grass
medium is introduced to it, it will have fine drainage. There is no reason to think that it will
not. From a locational standpoint, it was a matter of balancing buffers, facilities and
access to those facilities. This was an area that is flatter and higher than some of the
other areas and it lent itself to that kind of use.
Chair Brown stated that there were several options at this time. One option is to
close the public hearing and refer to the Planning Board. The second option is to keep the
public hearing open for more information.
Commissioner Gordon asked if it were possible to adjourn this public hearing for
three months and still make the timeline.
Attorney Gledhill stated that there was no timeline on this rezoning request.
Commissioner Gordon suggested adjourning this to the next Joint Public Hearing on
February 22, 1999 so that the questions that have been raised could be answered.
Planner Kirk stated that the Planning Board has 60 days within which to prepare and
submit a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner Gordon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, that
the Public Hearing be adjourned to the Board of County Commissioners Quarterly Public
hearing on February 22, 1999 to receive further information from the Planning Board and
sta ff.
Chair Brown asked for more information on the storm water management issue and
how it would effect adjacent and contiguous properties. She also asked for information on
Q:\19981123.doc®
the EMS impact of service, as well as additional information on the recreation needs for
the proposed number of people and the impact on the schools. Additional information on
accident and traffic reports on Lawrence Road would be useful as well. Also, any traffic
information that staff could generate would be helpful. She also asked the developer to
bring information about other similar homes they have built in North Carolina.
Commissioner Gordon asked that a report be given on similar property development
in other areas of North Carolina or the County. She did not feel that the County should do
this but it would be helpful for the developer to bring to the next meeting. She asked the
attorney to explain to the citizens what they need to do in order to introduce evidence.
County Attorney Gledhill stated that assuming that the County Commissioners are
inclined to change the zoning of this property, they will also be considering issuing a
Special Use Permit for this Planned Development. In that context, there are a host of
findings they will have to make. He felt it was impractical to go through all of them at this
time. He recommended anyone who is interested in knowing what they are to contact the
Planning Staff who will provide a list of those findings. Among those findings are that the
applicant would have the burden of showing that the project maintains or enhances
adjacent property values and that the project is in harmony with the area where it is going
to be developed. The bottom line is that before the permit can be issued there must be
substantial material and competent evidence of all of the facts required by the Ordinance.
There are other requirements besides the two he mentioned above. Anyone interested in
knowing what all of them are could get a printout from the Planning Staff which would
include the staffs recommendation regarding each one. If the Board of Commissioners
reach the determination that the property should be rezoned to R-3 or to any other zoning
district other than what it is now, then they will have to get to the point of making the
findings that the Special Use Permit process requires.
Chair Brown also asked for a complete understanding of the Homeowner Association
responsibilities. What those responsibilities would be and how they would be responsible
for maintaining all of the infrastructure.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b) Z-4-98 James and Patricia LaTorre
This item was presented by Planner Karen Lincoln for the purpose of receiving evidence
and public comment on the proposed rezoning from Primary Economic Development to
Secondary Economic Development of a 19.96 acre lot located in the 1-85/Buckhorn Road
Economic Development Activity Node, and identified on Tax Map 44, Cheeks Township, as
parcel 2A. Th subject property is owned by James and Patricia LaTorre and is locate on the
north side of West Ten Road approximately 1.25 miles east of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114). The
owners are requesting Secondary Development area designation for the property. This
designation is intended to provide a "step-down" or land use buffer between Primary
Development Areas and residentially zoned or developed properties. A limited number of
residential and office uses are allowed within Secondary Development Areas. Where residential
Q:\19981123.doc®
development is contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four dwelling units per
acre are permitted. Adjacent properties to the west, north and east are within the 185/Buckhorn
Road EDD; properties south of West Ten Road are in the R-1 Rural Residential Zoning District.
The entire area is within the U-ENO-PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District. A
Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District extends southward 1,250 feet from 1-40 & I-
85 right-of-way and covers the northern third of the subject property. Use of land within the MTC
Overlay District for single family and two-family dwellings is not subject to the provisions,
requirements and restrictions of that overlay district.
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:
Ms. Mabel Allison, a resident of West Ten Road in Efland, owns property on the East and
North side of this property. She feels that changing the zoning of this property will effect their
land. They are concerned and opposed to the rezoning of this property.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be
returned no sooner than February 2, 1999.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
a) Cane Creek Watershed Overlay Districts
4 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment
a) Flexible Development in Cane Creek Watershed
These items were presented together by Planner David Stancil for the purpose of
receiving citizen comment on proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance and to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new development
standards for Cane Creek Watershed. Changes are proposed to Section 2.2 (Definitions) and
Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the Zoning
Ordinance to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. These
changes, along with the companion amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, result from a
three-year study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority
(OWASA) and subsequent recommendations by the OWASA Board of Directors in October,
1997. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would offer two sets of development standards
for protecting water quality. The first option would change the minimum lot size for new
development in the watershed from two acres to five acres, with a provision allowing up to five
lots as small as two acres in size for all lots of record. A second option is available for Flexible
Development in Cane Creek watershed. In this special option, new major subdivision
development could occur at the current two-acre lot density, but new proposed standards for the
County's Subdivision Regulations would change the amount of open space from 33% to 50%.
Q:\19981123.doc®
Specifically, the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would alter a definition and change the
existing protected watershed (CANE-PW) and critical area (CANE-CA) overlay districts for Cane
Creek. The changes to the definitions section would reflect the special 50% open space
standards for the Flexible Development option within the watershed. The changes to the overlay
districts would apply a minimum lot size of five acres in the watershed, and allow for up to five lots
as small as two acres in size for lots of record as of January 1, 1999. Also, changes are
proposed to the Flexible Development section of the Subdivision Regulations to implement these
new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. Specifically, these amendments
to Section IV.B.10 of the Subdivision Regulations would amend the open space standards of
Flexible Development to recognize these special standards in Cane Creek Watershed, and also
clarify other subsections which specify the previous open space percentage.
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:
Mr. Bill Strom, a member of the OWASA Board of Directors, spoke on behalf of the
OWASA Board. He stated that forty counties in North Carolina contain portions of WS-II water
supply watersheds. Of these forty, Orange County contains almost twice as much in both
absolute area and percentage within its jurisdiction as any other county within the State of North
Carolina. It is therefore appropriate that Orange County's watershed protection requirements are
the most progressive and proactive in the State of North Carolina. OWASA staff provided him
with a map showing that aside from certain critical Class I Watersheds, Class II are considered
the most important watersheds to protect. A copy of that map is in the permanent agenda file in
the Clerk's office. In Orange County we are the stewards of 100% more than any other county in
North Carolina. That is the driving force behind this request for rezoning. A copy of his
comments along with the map, in their entirety, are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's
office.
Ms. Marie Albright, a resident of this area, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She felt
that her land would lose a great deal of its value if this were adopted. She could not give her
children anything. She asked the Board of Commissioners to consider her concerns when
making their decision.
Ms. Joyce Stanford, a resident of Stanford Road, stated that they have been stewards of
this land for over 200 years. They have defended the property against the British, the
carpetbaggers, and Yankees. For the last 30 years she has been defending this property against
OWASA. They have taken her home, dairy business and land. Now they seek to deny her
further use of the land left in the watershed by asking for 5-acre zoning. This is a "taking" from
her and her descendents. The 5th amendment of the Constitutions guarantees no private
property being taken for public use without just compensation. The 5th and 14th Amendments
Q:\19981123.doc®
uphold the Constitution core idea that man's life, liberty and property not being subject to
uncontrolled power of the state. This is not a benefit to her or her property. She asked that the
two acre minimum be upheld and that the five-acre minimum be denied.
Mr. Alan Spalt, a Carrboro resident and a member of the Cane Creek Watershed Study
Committee, stated that that Committee undertook a thorough, balanced and open study of the
watershed water protection situation. Its too much to expect that everyone agree with the results
but it is fair to say that people went into this with the expectation that measures substantially
different that those required for University Lake would be required to protect Cane Creek. They
learned when the first phase of the consultants report came back, that although Cane Creek is a
high quality water supply, it is not as high as was originally expected nor is it free from substantial
vulnerability from activities in the watershed both natural and from agricultural and development
use. There is stratification of the water and high manganese content in the lower water that is
somewhat problematic. There is also the potential for and actuality of algae blooms in the water
that make it such that it requires more protection than was anticipated. When the technical work
was done they were faced with the situation that instead of being substantially different than
University Lake it turned out to be comparable. The recommendations that are before you, which
probably seem familiar, are comparable to those in University Lake. They have attempted to try
to provide measures of compensation to deal with issues affecting the community. However, they
are faced with a situation where prevention, through watershed protection, is by far the best
measure. It is the safest way to protect the water supply. Engineering solutions are used in
treating the finished water but the end of the pipe kinds of solutions are not as good or as reliable.
As water standards become tighter, the prevention strategies are more desirable. The phrase
that the "current watershed protection that is in place now is insufficient to prevent deterioration of
the water quality" is the key. The kind of recommendations that are before you are to provide that
protection for the water quality. In regard to the Flexible Development Plan he asked that they
look very carefully at the record of Community Water Systems and Waste Water Treatments
Systems, before approving any kind of proposal that would allow that kind of system. He
mentioned the situation in University Lake where a company described as "the Cadillac of private-
public utility companies" installed alternative systems. In the last ten years, every one of the
systems installed by that company has gone bad and has been bailed out by local governments
or residents. The company itself is bankrupt. These are problematic systems.
Mr. Carl Shy stated that the issue here is one of disequity in the treatment of the people
who are residents in the Cane Creek Watershed. They would lose some of the economic
potential for development of this land. There are no provisions being made for the loss of this
economic opportunity. The issue is protecting the watershed which is based on the amount of
discharge. Two five-acre properties could have more discharge than five two-acre properties.
The real issue is to protect the watershed from discharge. There must be other options that would
limit discharge so that there is not an excess of discharge from the two-acre lots. Technology
could be used to limit the discharge. The Air Quality Act is a good example of an emission
budget being issued. Then emissions were considered as a whole in the budgeted area.
Something similar could be established with regard to the discharge within the entire watershed.
People could decide on their own if they wanted to develop at two-acres. People with more land
could be compensated if they did not develop. If this proposal is implemented, there would be no
Q:\19981123.doc®
benefits to the people who live there now. The benefits are all going to the consumers of the
water supply.
Ms. Peggy Ritch, of 4211 Dairyland Road, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She stated
that if it was passed, the average person who grew up in Orange County would not be able to
afford to live here. This is not fair.
Mr. Barry Jacobs stated that the open space option that does allow two-acre lots seems to
be forgotten in this discussion. He was told that although the Planning Staff has not found other
jurisdictions who have used open space development for watershed protection, he suggested that
they should look at Howard County, Maryland and places in California. He asked that this be
included in future considerations. He also pointed out that the problems with off-site septic or the
County's current flexible development ordinance, can be addressed. Those problems are not
necessarily fatal flaws.
Ms. Lucy Baldwin stated that her mother's estate is near the watershed. She opposes the
five-acre option because it would not be possible to divide for the children.
Mr. Lonnie Kirk stated that the majority of these land owners are farmers or have been
farmers in the past. This land is the retirement for these people. OWASA is negatively affecting
their retirement. He stated that this proposal would take money out of the home owners pockets.
These landowners are concerned about the quality of the water but they do not want to give up
their retirement income for the OWASA customers. He was opposed to the five-acre minimum lot
size.
Mr. Patrick Mulkey, a resident of the Cane Creek community, spoke in opposition to this
request to rezone this area to a five-acre minimum lot size. He stated that Orange Water &
Sewer Authority requested a five-acre minimum lot size for Cane Creek. The Board of County
Commissioners agreed to a two-acre lot minimum for the entire 18,000 acre watershed. In the
meantime, Orange Water & Sewer Authority commissioned another $100,000 study which has
come up with the original recommendation of five-acre lots. He felt that this finding was a
foregone conclusion because it was what Orange Water & Sewer Authority wanted in the first
place. He referred to a friend of his, Jim Smith, who retired from a career in the water resources
field and recently passed away, who reviewed this study. Mr. Smith stated that each Orange
Water & Sewer Authority customer could pay $0.10 more each month and get the same amount
of protection without changing the minimum lot size. He felt that Orange Water & Sewer Authority
has pushed their way into this community and have disrupted the way of life. The farmers are
having to get permits to shoot deer on their land because of the explosion in the deer population.
In spite of this problem, Orange Water & Sewer Authority does not allow any hunting on their
land. They already own 3000-plus acres in Bingham Township and now want another 1,200
acres. They pay no taxes. Although Orange Water & Sewer Authority did offer land to the
schools for a park, he felt that they knew it was a sure bet that the offer would not be accepted.
There is a great need for a park in Bingham Township; Orange Water & Sewer Authority has land
that could be used for a park. He distributed a copy of a memo he sent to Orange Water &
Sewer Authority addressing this need. A copy of this memo is in the permanent agenda file in the
Q:\19981123.doc®
Clerk's office. He asked the Board of County Commissioners if they were going to become a
party to this injustice or stop this injustice now.
Mr. Edward Mann, of 8525 Stanford Road, stated that his wife is a Stanford, and they own
some property which will be affected by the proposed change in the zoning ordinance. He served
for 8 years on the Orange Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors. He does understand the
need for water protection - water quality protection. He served on the Orange Water & Sewer
Authority Board when they acquired the property and began construction of the Cane Creek
Reservoir and is very familiar with some of the issues involved in that acquisition. He has lived on
Stanford Road since 1970. He goes to church in the community and has become friends and
neighbors with a number of farmers who have a lot more at stake in the proposed rezoning than
he does. As he said, he owns some property that would be affected but he and his wife are not
developers and have no plans to do any developing. Their concern is creating the proper and
needed and justified controls on water protection. The five-acre standard has become a standard
without justification. He and his wife attended some of the meetings with the Orange Water &
Sewer Authority Board when this notion was first introduced and a number of possible solutions
were suggested. He asked some questions at that time, that he still has not gotten satisfactory
answers to; are there trends in the development in the water shed that have lead us to believe
that we need to put some controls in at this time? Information that was presented at some of
those meetings was that there has been some accelerated development in the Cane Creek
Watershed. Average landmass per dwelling is about 5-acres. That's without putting in any
additional components. He felt that our present zoning is obtaining the desired result, so why
change it? Another question is, is there documented deterioration in water quality that would lead
us to believe that we need to make some changes. He stated that Mr. Spalt mentioned that
maybe the water quality was not as good as was anticipated but he did not say that it was a
degradation that was caused by the development that is taking place. He merely mentioned that
there are chemicals in the water, maybe, that were not known to be there prior to the study. If that
is coming from farm runoff then this acreage change is not going to have an effect on that. You
heard earlier tonight some talk about impervious surfaces and runoff. Dr. Shy talked about
discharges. He felt that those are the sort of things that we should be concerned with. He did not
fee that five-acres is a magic figure. It may be that two-acres is perfectly satisfactory. He asked
for some sort of scientific justification for five-acres. Its been mentioned that that is what has
been used over at University Lake. University Lake's development pressures are highly different
than the development pressures around Cane Creek. University Lake is near town, adjacent to
Chapel Hill and Carrboro with a lot of development pressures. We are a different community.
We do not have the water and sewer facilities that are available in town. So, to try to justify five-
acres for Cane Creek because they have it at University Lake - its not apples and apples. Its
been mentioned before, but who should properly pay for clearing up the water? Should it be the
people who use it or should it be the people who, by accident, live in the vicinity of the water
supply. That's an equity issue that he wanted the Board of County Commissioners to think about
too.
Mr. Wes Cook indicated that he did not live in the Cane Creek Reservoir, but that he did
oppose this request. He is a resident of Little River Township which is presently zoned for
Q:\19981123.doc®
2-acre lots. The Durham County line is approximately'/4 of a mile from his house. That area is
zoned 1-acre lots and is in the same watershed as his property. Also, Alamance County is 1-acre
lots as well. He mentioned that there is a nuclear power plant at Lake Norman, which is the
drinking source for Charlotte. That area is zoned for one-acre lots. He mentioned that New
Orleans gets their water from the Mississippi River. He strongly recommended that this request
be denied and the lots be left at 2-acres.
Mr. James Thomas, a farmer residing in the Cane Creek Watershed, spoke in opposition
to this proposal. In 1972 he bought a farm that was split by Tom's Creek. He has farmed on that
land since that time. He, and his neighbors have paid in order to provide this water to Orange
Water & Sewer Authority customers, although they do not receive any of the benefits of this
water. He felt this rezoning would cut the value of his farm in half. He asked the Board of County
Commissioners to deny this request.
Mr. Alton Thomas, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this request. He asked the
Commissioners not to approve this request. He stated that he, and other family members, would
be losing much of the value and use of their land.
Planner David Stancil stated that if this land is rezoned, parcels that have less than 12
acres in size will not see any change. Owners could have five two- acre lots, assuming that the
land perked. He also mentioned that the five-acre option would be only one of the options;
another would be the cluster option with 59% open space and the same number of lots.
A copy of a Resolution was received from the Town of Chapel Hill reiterating the
Council's support for water quality in the Cane Creek watershed and supporting the
proposed zoning changes. This Resolution, in its entirety, is incorporated herein by
reference.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer
this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner
than February 2, 1998.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ENFORCEMENT OF CARRBORO'S JUNK AUTOMOBILE PROVISION:
Interim Planning Director Gene Bell stated that Town of Carrboro will be holding a Public
Hearing on December 1, 1998. At that hearing they will receive comments regarding their intent
to repeal the junk car provision in their Ordinance. If this provision were to be repealed it would
then be the responsibility of Orange County to deal with junk automobiles. Although the
timeframe is very short, it would be possible to send Carrboro an official notice of opposition to
this action. He mentioned that this short timeframe was an oversight on Carrboro's part.
Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that the County object to this action.
Q:\19981123.doc®
County Attorney Gledhill stated that the objections would have to be on the basis of the
10 day turnaround. He indicated that there is a larger problem involved here in that this is not
compatible with the Land Use Plan. He felt that the County should object to the larger issue.
County Manager John Link stated that this is a legal matter and the County needs more
than 10 days notice. It should be communicated that we request at least a 30 day notice for this
type of action.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
approve the County Attorney and Interim Planning Director to draft a letter to the Town of
Carrboro requesting a minimum of 30 days notice before action is taken.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to adjourn
the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners will be held on
Tuesday, December 1, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, new County
Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Margaret W. Brown, Chair
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
Q:\19981123.doc®