Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 05-29-2001APPROVED 11!712001 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD May 29, 2001 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordan Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordan, and Barry Jacobs PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray and members Crauford Goodwin, Howard McAdams, Rachel Preston, Hunter Schofield, Bob Strayhorn, Theodore W. Triebel and Runyon Woods COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (all other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Halkiotis outlined the agenda for the meeting. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Halkiotis read the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (County Commissioners Only) 1. Proposed Amendments to Ordinance Prohibiting the Keeping of Animals Dangerous to persons and Property within Orange County Health Director Rosemary Summers made the presentation. In the summer of 2000, the Committee on Animal and Human Safety appeared before the Board with a request for the County Commissioners to consider an ordinance that would ban the display of exotic animals. This request was referred to the Board of Health. The Board of Health's Animal Control Environmental Health Committee took up that issue on August 16, 2000 and met several times to consider the ordinance. The committee noted that the 1993 ordinance to prohibit the keeping of wild and dangerous animals had not been amended. The committee proposed amendments to the ordinance that do not change the substance of the ordinance. The physical enclosure restrictions have been eliminated to make it much clearer that the intent of the ordinance is to prohibit the keeping of wild and dangerous animals. There are presently no known wild or dangerous animals being kept in the County. This ordinance only applies to the unincorporated areas of the County. Commissioner Brawn asked a clarifying question about the difference between this item and the next item. The first ordinance is prohibiting the keeping of wild animals dangerous to persons and property and the second ordinance is prohibiting the display of wild and exotic animals. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the new abstract and Rosemary Summers said that she and the County Attorney reviewed the language of the document and did not change anything in the intent, but only cleaned up some of the language. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dr. Lauren Powers, an exotic pet veterinarian in Chapel Hill and a board member of the Orange County Animal Protection Society, stated the position of the Orange County APS. They are in support of the two ordinances banning the ownership of bath wild and dangerous animals in Orange County. She said that there was some concern over the last few months from some of her clients and colleagues about whether this will affect ownership of exotic pets that are not necessarily wild or dangerous to people or property, including ferrets and iguanas. She said that it has been made clear to her that the ordinances should have no bearing on exotic pet ownership in Orange County. Emily Villanova made reference to Section 2, Keeping of Wild and Dangerous Animals Prohibited. She said that she was concerned that this was too broad. She asked if it included feeding squirrels and birds out of a bird feeder. She asked that the language be narrowed. Rosemary Summers said that this ordinance would only apply to animals that are wild and dangerous. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill said that the term "wild and dangerous animals" is defined in Section 2 and would not include birds. Sitha Bigger, manager of the Triangle Metro Zoo in Franklin County, said that the ownership of exotic animals, whether dangerous or not, is not necessarily a bad thing. She said that some dogs and cats are more dangerous than the animals on the list. She would also like to address the point that there are small businesses making a living by selling exotic animals and this ordinance would affect those businesses. Larry Seibel, owner of the Triangle Metro Zoo, said that he was an animal control officer in a large city in the Midwest for five years and he never came across a problem with exotic animals. He feels the definition of wild and dangerous is too broad because mast wild animals are animals that are raised in captivity. The facilities are inspected without any notice to make sure the animal is well cared for and that the people are safe. He said that when he was an animal control officer, there were many dog bites and some farm animals were dangerous. He is opposed to this ordinance. Vaughn Compton, poultry farmer in northern Orange County, noted that if these rules are passed that he could not start an alligator farm. He said that this is a way that the farmers are recycling their dead chickens. He distributed some brochures and explained the recycling process. Robert Nichols asked if this ordinance includes snakes. He feels that it should include snakes if it does not. Rosemary Summers said that the ordinance does include snakes that are poisonous or crushing and greater than six feet long. Rosemary Summers said that she spoke to Vaughn Campton about the alligator farms and she thinks there should be some research into the kinds of things that chickens may transmit to alligators. Dori Canner said that she read somewhere that if the Commissioners see a reason to include more animals in the future, then they could be added. She asked if this would require another meeting or a vote. Rosemary Summers said that the ordinance speaks to this. She read from the ordinance as follows: "Additions to or deletions from the animals regulated herein may be made only if the Board determines after receiving evidence that such animals, because of habit, made of life, or natural instinct are either capable or incapable of being domesticated; requires the exercise of art, farce, or skill to keep them safely in subjection; and would or would not create a reasonable likelihood of a hazard to the public." This would require Board approval and a public hearing. Melissa Lozoff said that she would not feel comfortable living next door to an alligator farm. Commissioner Carey said that he does support this ordinance. He is willing to wait until some of the questions that are mentioned above are answered before voting to approve the ordinance. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to defer consideration of this ordinance until some of the questions raised by citizens are answered. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Rosemary Summers said that the primary purpose of this ordinance is to protect the welfare and safety of the public. There are a number of small circuses that travel through same of the neighboring counties with scheduled performances. There have been two injuries in North Carolina in the past 10 years due to circus animals. Both of these happened to be leopards. Worldwide, since 1990, there have been 44 human deaths and aver 100 injuries as a result of attacks by captive elephants, and 75 attacks by captive wild felines. Roughly one-third of these have resulted in fatal injuries. These numbers are not large, but they do indicate that there is a risk to public safety. One point of clarification is that this ordinance does not prohibit the ownership of wild and exotic animals, but only the display of wild and exotic animals for purposes of entertainment and amusement. Commissioner Brown made reference to page five and the enforcement of the ordinance. She said that it would be difficult in the event of traveling shows to notify someone by mail as to a violation. Geoffrey Gledhill said that civil penalties would not be effective for traveling circuses. Commissioner Carey asked why the civil penalty of $50.00 per animal was selected. He feels that this may not be a significant penalty. Geoffrey Gledhill said that this amount was consistent with some other ordinances that the County has that have civil penalty provisions. Geoffrey Gledhill said that the only way that a county could permit a traveling circus is to provide far that process through the ordinance. John Link clarified that this ordinance only applies to the unincorporated areas of Orange County. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board of Health would pursue requesting the municipalities to consider adoption of the ordinance and was told that the ordinance will be forwarded to the municipalities but not actively promoted. PUBLIC CtJMMENTS Ellen Whitaker, member of the Committee for Human and Animal Safety, spoke in support of this ordinance stating that wild animals that are used for entertainment are forced to exist in conditions which cause them to suffer. These animals are denied the expression of natural behavior patterns that are essential for their wellbeing. She said that it was standard practice to train and control them using pain and fear even within the mast famous circuses. She read a prepared statement. She spoke about the documents from the committee that include letters and sworn testimony from former circus employees, USDA inspectors, zoo officials, public safety officials, and veterinarians, as well as USDA inspection reports, newspaper articles, eyewitness accounts given under oath, and various legal documents. She said that there was strong local support for this ordinance. She presented a petition with 1,000 signatures of people from Urange County. Bab Blackmar said that he travels with a children's zoo. He said that the ordinance should be rejected because the majority of exotic animals that are now being exhibited by traveling zoos and many circuses are captive-bred and are not wild or dangerous. He feels that the banning of all wild and dangerous animals is too broad. There are all kinds of exotic species and the ordinance needs to be clarified. He feels there is no risk and no imminent threat to the citizens of grange County. As a resident of Orange County and one who has been active in the exhibition of these animals, he asked that the ordinance be rejected. Ed Ellesson spoke in support of this ordinance. He said that since 1993 he has been involved with wildlife rehabilitation in North Carolina with a lot of hands-on interaction. He believes that animals feel pain and suffer and that when they are hurt or sick or afraid they have the same kinds of feelings that humans have in similar circumstances. He said that what the public sees in the circus performances does not reveal to them how the animals are trained. He said that you have to hurt and abuse wild animals to get them to do things. The circuses put chains on the animals and damage them with hooks. The only way to stop the abuse is to stop the performances. Vaughn Compton asked if any of these rules would affect the Efland Rodeo and it was answered that it would nat. Dietrich Hawgwitz said that he has lived in this County for thirty years. He expressed his support for this ordinance. His reasons include the statistics about captive animals and the injuries to humans. He spoke about the endless use of abuses and haw the animals are kept in tiny cages and have to endure extreme heat and cold. Another reason he opposes the performances is because the animals are isolated specimens and it is exactly the wrong kind of education for our young children. He said that we do not want to put anyone out of business. He said that the people who are opposed to this ordinance came from outside business interest. He said that there were a growing number of circuses without the exploitation of animals. Heidi Herriott, Circus Unit Manager for the outdoor Amusement Business Association and a third generation of a family of American animal trainers, said that they were opposed to this ordinance for the following reasons: • circus animals were regulated by the state, local, and federal level •:• circus animals were subject to unbelievable scrutiny • abuse of animals was recognizable and some of the documentation on the Internet about abuse was inaccurate, and • they were federally licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture She said that she was a believer in animal welfare and animal welfare celebrates the bond and the interaction between animals and humans. She said that there were only a handful of communities who have passed this kind of ordinance. She said that she is here because she works with animals and she cares about her animals and this ordinance would prohibit her and her members from appearing in grange County and providing something they are very proud of, which is live, safe, affordable family entertainment. She said that she could speak to some of the questions about contacting circuses and the permitting processes. Cam Cridlebaugh is a realtor in High Point, secretary of the Circus Fans Association of America far the North Carolina branch, a member of the Circus Historical Society, and has a small traveling circus that works with elephants. He said that his animals were not abused and were trained with the use of sugar cubes and marshmallows. This small traveling show has a capacity of 1,500, which means that the kids can get up close to the performers and kids and parents have a fantastic time. He said that this bill would be disastrous to the small traveling shows. He said that if this ordinance was passed, the first thing you know it will be against the law to eat Kentucky Fried Chicken, and you can forget about McDonald's. Sitha Bigger with the Triangle Metro Zoo urged the committee to oppose the ordinance. Their zao provides education and entertainment to the children in the Triangle. She asked that the County Commissioners came and visit their zao and watch the children interact with the animals before making a sweeping condemnation of businesses like hers to meet a political agenda of others. She distributed same brochures. Larry Seibel, owner of the Triangle Metro Zao, said that he is 46 years old and has had animals his entire life. He said that he has never used force to train animals but only rewards after repetition. He said that they do have some mobile zoos with baby zebras, baby camels, and kangaroos for people to enjoy. He has been involved with animals since 1982 as a professional without incident. They have bears, tigers, zebras, giraffes, and many others. He is not sure if we are looking at the safety of people ar the ethical treatment of animals. He said that there are responsible people out there that have and love animals. He is very much opposed to this ordinance. Melissa Lozoff spoke in support of the ordinance. She has actually seen cruelty to animals. She said that she has seen a lot of evidence that sites Ringling Brothers many times but nothing ever comes of it. This evidence is from the USDA. She said that persistent violations are never prosecuted. She is against abuse and cruelty to animals but she is not against circuses. David Aman strongly supports the ordinance because of the misinformation that is sent about the animals that are displayed and about their place in the environment. He said that public display of wild and exotic animals contradicts sound environmental education and sends very distorted messages to students by casting these animals in a very artificial way. Joshua Lozoff said that it is not surprising that we have citizens who have an interest in taking a stand and speaking against the cruelty and abuse of animals because Orange County has an impressive combination of traditional and progressive thinking. He strongly supports this ordinance. Lisa Robinson Bailey, a member of the Committee far Human and Animal Safety, said that she has personally seen animals abused in the area. She has videotaped these kinds of abuses. She spoke about the types of abuses. She said that the statement that elephants are trained using sugar cubes and marshmallows insults the intelligence of everyone. She said that abuse of elephants for training was standard practice in circuses. She distributed a list of communities that had similar ordinances. Carrie Monet, resident of Orange County since 1978, said that she has read some of the information from the Humane Society of the United States, which is one of the mast mainstream, moderate, non-militant animal welfare groups in the U. S. She said that she trusts this organization and she believes that they are the foremost experts on issues of animal welfare in the U. S. She urged the County Commissioners to pass this ordinance. Casey Martin spoke in support of the ordinance. She has lived in Carrboro for ten years. She has worked with animals for the past eight years. She said that animals in confined conditions do not do well aver time. She said that animals could not be caged without becoming cage crazy. This is not only about animal welfare but human safety. She is in graduate school and is conducting a study on how people think and learn about animals. She has interviewed students and some of the comments that students have made about the animals in these industries are that the animals looked bared. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to postpone the decision of this item to a future Board of County Commissioners meeting in June or August. VOTE: UNANIMOUS JOINT MEETING OF BOCC AND PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon said that items 3 and 4 under 5a were not advertised. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to strike items 3 and 4 under 5a from the quarterly public hearing agenda. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that during the discussion of the advertisement for the public hearing, the issues about connectivity of streets were not listed as a specific written item but part of the discussion about clarifying. He agreed with Commissioner Gordon that it would be best to bring it up at another time. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment a. Identification of Potential School Sites Planning Director Craig Benedict made introductory remarks. He said that this was a request to hear public comment to consider putting potential school sites on the land use element of the comprehensive plan. There have been na sites noted on any plan since 1986. This proposal has been taken to the Schools and Land Use Council. Notices were sent out to property owners of land that was Hated as a potential school site. Also, notices were sent out to property owners adjacent to land that was noted as a potential school site. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Gene Bell made reference to some handouts and described them. The first handout was an excerpt from the Orange County subdivision regulations, "Sites for Public Use." The second item was a table that identifies potential school sites for inclusion in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. The last item was a series of maps showing the potential sites. He said that if school sites are designated in the comprehensive plan and adopted by the Commissioners, then when a subdivision proposal comes in on a piece of property where a site is designated, the school board has the option of saying whether or not they are interested in the site for a school. If the school board is interested, then the board has 18 months to purchase the site. He talked about the process the Planning Department used in identifying proposed school sites. They used the County's GIS system to search for proposed school sites. They looked for property that was not environmentally constrained. They used a series of acreage ranging from 16 acres up. The first round of searches resulted in 187 potential sites. They then narrowed that dawn by deleting properties awned by the state, Orange County, Duke University, utilities, churches, and other quasi-public entities. They then looked at the shape of the property to be sure the shape was conducive to a school site. They also looked at safety of the access roads. They then narrowed this to 54 sites, which is what has been presented tonight. The administration recommends acceptance of staff and public input into the public hearing record and transmittal to the Planning Board for a recommendation back to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 21, 2001. The tentative date far Planning Board consideration is July 3, 2001. This item differs from mast planning items in that a recommendation from the Orange County school board on the sites that they might have an interest in seeing included in the plan would have to be made to the Commissioners. QUESTIONS FROM THE BUCC AND MEMBERS QF THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Jacobs made reference to flora and fauna on page five and said that he does not understand why we would want to consider sites where there would be development impacts on state or federally-acknowledged unique or endangered species. He thinks this is counter to what is asked of private developers. He verified that the sites have been checked with the natural areas inventory. Regarding the transportation system, he said that there was no conception of any smart growth or sprawl principles. There is also no mention of public transportation. He thinks that public transportation is a very important criterion. He said that this promotes more traffic and more people driving to the schools. There should be some reference to public transit. Also, when we talk about existing land use we should be discouraging the spread of development to areas with minimal support by public infrastructure. He said that we are pushing the development as far out as we possibly can because that is where the cheapest land is available. He said that this was contradicting what we are trying to do, which is to locate development where it is most easily served. He would at least like to see same consideration of these kinds of concerns within these criteria. He said that it should be made clear to people that this process does not guarantee that a school will go on their property. Craig Benedict said that over the next thirty years, there are only 7 or 8 additional schools anticipated for the Orange County School System. Commissioner Gordon noted that even if a site is selected that it would still need to be purchased. It would be acquired by paying the fair market value. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon on the maps that were distributed, Gene Bell said that there are six maps, which show the sites that have been identified as proposed sites. He explained that map one is north of the Efland area, map two is directly north of Hillsborough, map three is to the northeast of Hillsborough, map four is due east of Hillsborough, map five is southeast of Hillsborough, and map six is south of Hillsborough. Commissioner Gordon said that we need to consider the transportation system if we are going to include public transit. She said that right now there is no public transit system in this area of the County except far occasional service by TTA. Commissioner Jacobs feels that since we are talking about twenty-five years, that he is making some assumptions that there will be public transit by that time. Commissioner Brown made reference to map five and the small area plan for southeast Hillsborough and if it called for a school site in that area. Gene Bell said that the Stoneycreek subdivision did not call far a school site. He said that the small area plan recommended various densities of residential development. Commissioner Brown asked about the acreage of the schools and Gene Bell said that the acreage was from the State Department of Public Instruction. Commissioner Brown would not like to be locked into such a vast amount of acreage unless it corresponded with a park development. Hunter Schofield asked at what paint would someone be notified that their property was designated as a potential school site. He expressed a concern for the expenses a landowner would incur at the early stage of a subdivision application that ultimately might be lost to the landowner. Gene Bell said that if the site is identified in the plan, the first thing we would do is to alert the school board that we have received an application for a subdivision on that site. If the school board is not interested, that designation would be lifted and the subdivision process could continue. If the school board were interested, that school system would contact the developer and would have 18 months to acquire the site. PUBLIC COMMENTS Roy Roth spoke representing the Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association. He spoke to one site on map five. He read into the record a letter from the Stoneybrook Neighborhood Association, which is incorporated herein by reference. In summary, the association has some concerns about the potential school site designated as "Site 18c." This site is immediately adjacent to New Hope Elementary and A. L. Stanback Middle School. Their concerns are that the 46-acre site would not be sufficient for a high quality high school. Also, three schools adjacent to each other would create major traffic challenges. A high school on the proposed site would be adjacent to and back up to residential neighborhoods. Site 18c was recently reforested following Hurricane Fran and clearing it for a school would seriously impact the area environmentally, and placing a third school on this site seems incompatible with the spirit of the Stoneycreek small area plan. He requested that site 18c be reevaluated and withdrawn as a potential new school site. Emily Villanova made reference to 23c, 16b, 25c, and 11 a on map five. One of the main considerations she has is Old NC 10 and the roadway, which is not adequate far additional traffic. If the road had to be widened, she would lose all of her road frontage because her house is so close to the road. She is very concerned about the impact that a school or multiple schools would have on this area. Gene Bell said that there were some sites like 11 a and 16b that would work best when considered together. Dorothy Bane said that her concern was how the County would pay for the school sites. She made reference to the impact of $.00829 per hundred dollars of property valuation. She suggested bringing in big business that would pay big tax dollars. Kevin Hunt voiced his opposition to the proposed school sites on 17c, 19c, 21 c, and 13b. He is not interested in living next to a school. He is afraid that the value of his property might decrease. These sites are designated on map #4. Don DeBlanc lives on Mt. Herman Church Road. Lots 16b and 11a are also tied to a piece of land that has now been proposed far a group home. He said that the school board should recognize this. Edward Hill made reference to map #5, sites 16b and 11 a. He is an adjacent property owner on Live Oak Trail. He said that his concern would be traffic. He has lived in this area for two years. There have been at least three accidents in the sharp curve on Mt. Herman Church Road since he has lived there. He is also aware of at least two accidents at the corner of Old NC 10 and Mt. Herman Church Road. He requests that the County Commissioners consider removing 16b. He is concerned that the regulations do not stipulate haw long the school board has to consider a site if it is interested. Dennis LaRue lives on Live Oak Trail and is greatly concerned about the traffic in this area along Mt. Herman Church Road and Old NC 10. He has seen a lot of accidents in this area. He asked if any consideration had been given to interested parties who may want to sell property for a school. Geoffrey Gledhill said that there is nothing in this process that speaks to condemnation. That decision would have to be made by the school board. Valleri Reames lives on St. Mary's Road. She made reference to sites 26c, 22c, 19a, and 14e on map #4. She said that demographic planning is very important. Another concern of hers is in the process. She feels that identifying potential school sites can actually undermine the inherent value of homes in the area. She said that setting aside proposed sites was unfair. Sharlene Pilkey has major concerns about traffic in the Eno area and the transitional areas around Hillsborough. She is happy that the County is planning this far ahead. We really need to plan for the infrastructure. She said that site #26 on US 70 is a good place for a school site. Kim Callemyn made reference to map #2 in the area north of Hillsborough and asked about sewer. She and her husband will be putting in a sewer pipe and she wants to be sure it is the right size. Craig Benedict clarified that someone could offer his or her land as a potential school site to the school board. Jack Lamb said that, strictly from a selfish standpoint, he is against site #23c on map 5 being a proposed school site because it is directly across the street from his house. There are two schoals at the end of New Hape Church Road. He said that the traffic is horrendous here now. He said that the subject of eminent domain has came up several times and it is in the plan and it is something that everybody should be concerned about. He made reference to the statement that this is a 30-year plan and asked Craig Benedict about a statement that he made on the radio that Orange County needed one school per year. Chair Halkiotis clarified that this statement was in regards to Chapel Hill- Carrbaro and that it would need an estimated 12 schools in the same time period that Orange County is projected to need seven schoals. This is a little under a school per year. Jack Lamb said that there is a need for schools and it is not going to stop. He thinks that there is a better way. He said that the County should go and find someone that wants to sell property far a school. Chair Halkiotis said that both school systems have been doing that for over 25 years. Clint Burklin said that he supports the planning process and that it is goad to look ahead and identify sites. He asked that the County Commissioners consider adding criteria about thinking through transportation and the impacts and what makes the site mast desirable. Also, he feels it would be good to review the ordinances to design schoals. There is only a 24-foot setback and a 10-foot setback for other items. For something as large as a high school, that is a lot of activity close to the boundary of a home. He said that there should be same additional planning and site requirements. He thinks that this would reduce the concern of the neighbors who live close to any of the proposed school sites. George Johnson owns tract 5a on map #2, which is landlocked. He lives on the tract between 5a and NC 86. He asked why site 5a was chosen as a potential school site. Gene Bell said that it was picked because of the shape, acreage, and proximity to NC 86. Marie Bordon lives on US 70A across from the Meadowlands. She feels it will cost a lot to clear all the trees that are down from hurricanes and tornadoes. This land is also hilly and has gullies. She said that there is also a lot of traffic from the Meadowlands that is already an 7~A east. She said that 70A could not handle that much mare traffic. She suggested that the County Commissioners walk this property. It would cast a lot to clean it up and smooth it out to place anything on that property. She was referring to sites 13b, 17c, and 19c on map #4. Gene Bell said that they would look to the Planning Board and the School Board for narrowing these sites down. The staff will do same topographical analysis of these sites. Robert Nichols said that education is important and anywhere you go in this County there will be problems with transportation. He also feels that when these sites are identified that it will have a real impact an everyone else in that area. He is a firm believer in the willing buyer and willing seller process. Also, regarding the eminent domain, he would like to see this taken out of the language. Jim Richmond made reference to map #1, site 4c on Richmond Road and Lebanon Church Road. He and his brother own this tract. He said that these designations, in effect, do give the school board the right of first refusal. He has no problem with his property being designated. He does feel that there needs to be a reasonable limiting on the school board making a decision as to whether or not they will pursue the identified property far a school site. Around site 4c there has been a lot of properties designated. Once the school board has selected one of these sites, he would like the other properties to be removed from the process. James R. Fault lives on Lebanon Road in Mebane in Orange County. He lives on Lebanon Road. He said that we desperately need a middle school and a high school in this area of the County. This area is growing. He asked that the railroad be considered for transportation. The schools should be energy efficient. Also, he said that there is Mebane city water and sewer in this area, which would substantially decrease the costs of the school. He supports the long range planning of the Planning Board. He feels the selections should be narrowed. He said that this part of Orange County always gets left out and it provides a significant amount of the tax base. Bill Harald asked about the definition of ETJ and it was explained to him. He asked about map #4, site 27c and why this was chosen. Craig Benedict said that this parcel is within the 50-year water and sewer boundary for the Town of Hillsborough. That is why the area was included on the list of potential school sites. Peter Walsh said that he lives on NC 57next to site 12b. This is in a cluster of five farms that are active right now. He said that if schools were brought into this area, which would require water and sewer, the farms would not be able to continue. He said that this was ahigh-speed road. He would like this site to be removed. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Boards of Education by state statute have the right of eminent domain and Geoffrey Gledhill said yes. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that school boards could act independent of the County Commissioners up to the point that they have to pay for a piece of property. He said that the County Commissioners were not giving the school board anything or taking anything away. He said that he is still not clear about the answer to the question about jurisdictional concerns with Hillsborough. Gene Bell said that they did not look within Hillsborough's jurisdiction primarily from the standpoint of appropriateness. Geoffrey Gledhill explained that Hillsborough's city limits and its extraterritorial jurisdiction are planned solely by Hillsborough. Orange County has no authority to designate, in its comprehensive plan, school sites within the towns' extraterritorial planning jurisdiction in Orange County. He also made reference to the process and said that tracts in the ordinance require that a decision by the Board of Education, once the property is presented by development, is to be made promptly. Legally speaking, this means that the school board cannot "sit an it." This would be na mare than six months. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to accept the staff and public input into the public hearing records and to transmit it to the Planning Board far a recommendation to come back to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 21 St, 2001. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Clive Branch Inn Special Use Permit Class A Historic Sites Non- residential Mixed Use a. Bed and Breakfast Use The following three people were sworn in by Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe: Craig Benedict, Tina Moon and Betty Davidson. Planner Tina Moon made the presentation. The purpose of this item is to receive evidence and public comment regarding the application for a class A special use permit to allow the existing structure to be used as the Olive Branch Inn Bed and Breakfast. She said that bed and breakfast establishments are permitted upon approval of the class A special use permit by the Board of County Commissianers under use category S54, Historic Sites, Nan-residential, Mixed Use in article 8 of the zoning ordinance. She made reference to the property on the County map stating that it is located on NC 57 in Caldwell. The zoning is rural residential, or R1 and it is in the Little River Protected Watershed. The surrounding adjacent property use is essentially R1, rural residential and agricultural residential, AR. The property contains 47.17 acres. The applicant is requesting the use of three rooms with restroom facilities and a common dining roam area. Na changes to the house are proposed as part of this application. Per section 2.28 of the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance, the applicant was required to submit an environmental assessment since the property was identified in an inventory of sites of cultural, historic, recreational, biological, and geological significance in the unincorporated portions of the County. This house has been placed an the National Register of Historic Places. The Planning staff has forwarded the EA and supplemental materials to the North Carolina State Clearinghouse and is awaiting comments. Subject to the comments from the state clearinghouse, the application appears to meet the County requirements at this point. Therefore, the Planning Department is recommending approval of the class A special use permit subject to the eight conditions. The administration is recommending that the Board refer the class A special use permit to the Historic Preservation Commission to determine whether the proposed use maintains the historic character of the house and property as required in the Orange County zoning ordinance and then to the Planning Board for a recommendation on the SUP to be returned to the County Commissianers no sooner than August 21, 2001. Commissioner Carey asked about the significance of condition #7, which is the requirement to dedicate the property within the right-of--way and the small portion on the eastern side of the right-of--way to NCDOT or Orange County prior to commencing operation. Craig Benedict said that when the applicant submitted the application the deed included the entire roadway. There had not been any right-af--way easements acquired by NCDOT. With any new proposal that comes in, that is the time to acquire the right-of--way. Commissioner Brawn asked about a piece of property down the road from her where the people own the property across the intersection and they do not pay taxes on that portion. Craig Benedict will get an answer to this question. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it was standard for special use permits to be valid far six years. Geoffrey Gledhill said that Orange County's ordinance limits the period of a special use permit to six years. Commissioner Jacobs asked about landscaping as mentioned on pages 42 to 45 and asked for an explanation of the partial landscape waiver for a visibility corridor. Craig Benedict said that the purpose of a partial landscape waiver far the frontage is so that the historical view of the house can still be maintained. There will also be a place for a conservative sign and the sign will not obstruct the view of the house. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to condition #4 and said that he is aware of at least three instances where the Fire Marshall was not included in the process of approval in a timely fashion so that people had to redo things and had to do things that were counter to policies that we were pursuing. He would like to be sure that there is better coordination between the Fire Marshall and the County's Inspection staff. Chair Halkiotis asked how much land is involved across NC 57. Craig Benedict said that it is approximately one acre of land 75 feet wide through a portion of the property. It is an issue we have been discussing with the Department of Transportation to correct the situation. This is prevalent throughout the County. Chair Halkiotis said that he has a problem with forcing the issue on this property. He wants to know if this is a fair process and the impact the taking of this right-of-way has on this property owner. He does not have a problem with asking DOT to pay for this land. He said that we need to do a better job of coordinating the County departments. Commissioner Gordon questions the taking of land without paying far it. She made reference to the 12-foot gravel drive and asked about the utility pole in the middle of this driveway. Craig Benedict said that when DOT looks at the final driveway permit, if there is a relocation of a utility pale, they would make these arrangements with the property owner. Commissioner Gordon would like more information on this issue. Betty Davidson, applicant far the Special Use Permit, said that the process has been daunting. She has tried to comply with the ordinance. She submitted a prepared statement of responses to the proposed eight conditions. Regarding condition #4, she feels that minimally she needs fire extinguishers and mobile escape ladders far anyone staying upstairs. Regarding condition #6, she has a question about the efficacy of solar- powered lighting. She would like to look into this to see if it would be enough light in order to see the sign. Regarding condition #7, which has to do with the dedication of the right-of- way, she does not accept this. She believes it is unreasonable and unacceptable. This is family and historic land and she thinks it is offensive and improper to give up this land without compensation or explanation of reason. She said that she is not creating a subdivision and should not be asked to comply with an article of an ordinance pertaining to another use. She has spent in excess of $6,000 in her attempts to comply with all provisions of the class A special use permit. She is paying taxes an the 1.17 acres. Also, regarding the recommendation to refer the application to the Historic Preservation Commission, she thinks this is a duplicative effort and is a very scary proposition after coming this far in the process. She proposes that this be done when an applicant first approaches the County. She also made reference to a letter to Craig Benedict regarding a waiver of land use buffer requirements. A partial waiver was granted in a return letter. She requests that the tree line be either eliminated or re-designated. One hundred feet measured perpendicular to the road on either side of the house would still pose a safety hazard and would alter the historic landscape. She thinks the Olive Branch Inn and Farm will offer a very unique rural experience. Commissioner Gordan feels that this is the sort of establishment we are trying to foster and she appreciates the applicant's efforts. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordan, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer the proposed Class A Special Use Permit to the: 1 } Historic Preservation Commission to determine whether the proposed use maintains the historic character of the house and property as required in Section 8.8.24.b of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 2} Planning Board for a recommendation on the SUP to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners na sooner than August 21, 2001. VOTE: UNANIMOUS NOTE: The items listed below were continued to an adjourned meeting for May 31 at 7:00 in the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Orange County Subdivision Amendments a. Modify Section IV-B-# Streets 1. Amend Section IV-B-3-d-1 Roads 2. Amend Appendix A Private Raad Standards, Purpose 3. Amend Section IV-B-3-a 4. Amend Section IV-B-3-b b. Amend Section III-C-0~ (Approval Procedures far Minor Subdivision} c. Amend Cluster Provisions 6. Orange County Zoning Text Amendments a. Establish Rural Guest Establishment b. Amend Detailed Table of Contents 1. Amend article 22 Definitions 2. Amend Section 4.3, Permitted Use Table 3. Amend Article 8 Special uses 4. Amend Article 9 Signage 5. Amend Article 10 Parking 6. Amend Article 12 Landscaping 7. Amend Article 7 Planned Development Requirements c. Amend Section 6.23.3 Stormwater Infiltration and Detention 1. Impervious Structure and Detention Pand Requirements a) Residential Development b) Non Residential Development 7. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn this meeting to 7:00 p.m. on Thursday evening, May 31St, at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, CMC