Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20040524APPROVED 06!23!2004 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA May 24, 2004 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session for a public hearing on Monday, May 24, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordan Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs, Margaret Brown, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Moses Carey COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill, S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Hunter Schofield and members Craufurd Goodwin, Barry Katz, Sam Lasris, Ted Triebel, Renee Price, Nicole Graysmith, Noah Ranells and Bryan Dobyns, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Maria Tadd 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 Jacobs called the meeting to order. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CLASS A (BOCC Public Hearing) SUP-A-1-04 Oranae County Middle School #3 Board of County Commissioners public hearing on the proposed Orange County Middle School #3 located in the Buckhorn EDD on the north side of West Ten Road (SR 1144) and approximately 1.5 miles west of Mt. Willing Road. The 66.88 acres tract is located in the Cheeks Township and is composed of four parcels identified by the Orange County Land Records Office as Parcel Identification Numbers 9844-06-2013, 9844-14- 0552, 9844-15-0506 and 9844-04-4953. The proposed middle school is intended to serve 700 students, have 100 employees, and contain 123,000 square feet of floor area. Accessory facilities include 120 parking spaces, two athletic practice fields, softball field, baseball field, and combination footballlathletic field and track. The Planning Board recommendation was made at its April 7, 2004 meeting. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the purpose of this item is for a public hearing on this issue and to hear testimony from the applicant and the public. He explained the process of the special use permit. Architect Ken Redfoot was representing the Orange County School Board. He described the school building that would be built on West Ten Road. The school board opted to reuse a plan that was originally built in Chapel Hill. It is 123,QQQ square feet. It is a one-story building that utilizes full day lighting throughout the entire building. The school will accommodate 7QQ students, it will have 24 academic classrooms, three self-contained exceptional classrooms, a media center, foreign language classrooms, work force development classrooms, and a full auditorium with 3QQ seats with a working stage with lighting and sound systems. There will also be visual, vocal, and theatrical arts classrooms as well as a 8,5QQ-square foot gymnasium and a bleacher system of 6QQ seats. The cafeteria will accommodate 25Q students at one time. He showed how the building would sit on the site and how the traffic would move through it. The site is approximately 67 acres. There is a large athletic practice field (double-sized), an athletic stadium with a track, a baseball field, and a softball field. He said that the way the site was laid out was all about the safety of the students. The back area of the athletic fields is away from all of the traffic and the students would not have to cross any vehicular areas. There is a forested buffer area from the interstate. They are also kept far away from wetlands areas. Commissioner Gordon asked about the process. Craig Benedict said that the Administration recommendation is that after all testimony is considered, then a decision can be made or delayed. Commissioner Gordon said that at first the Planning Board recommended denial of the special use permit and then later it appeared that the Planning Board had approved it with additional conditions. She asked what this was all about. Craig Benedict said that at the conclusion of this item, he was going to explain the changes from the original submittal. There were three items that were changed. One change had to do with the unknown of the adjacent parcel and not knowing if there could be shared use opportunities. Since then, the County has purchased this site and has hired a consultant to examine the concept plan. This has been resolved. The second issue was the preservation of the environmental area. The two playing fields were shifted to the west so that there is a ridge-line. The Planning Board was also concerned about whether the school board knew about the environmental considerations. The other issue was that the Planning Board was not sure about the appropriateness of a school in this area. Staff commented that it was the decision of the County Commissioners that schools are a reasonable use in this area with a special use process. Since the changes, it was brought back to the Planning Board informally, and the board members were satisfied with the changes. Commissioner Gordon asked again about the informal process and Planning Board Chair Hunter Schofield said that it was not clear at the April meeting that this would not return to them. Commissioner Gordon verified that unless it gaes back to the Planning Board, it would not be voted in the affirmative. Commissioner Gordon said that she did not know that the special use permit process would even allow a decision to be made the night of the hearing. She does not think this is proper. She hopes that it is taken back to the Planning Board. Commissioner Brown asked about the habitat analysis and page 42 where it says that it is most critical to protect the drainage areas into the vernal pools and the surrounding Dry Oak-Hickory Forest. She asked if this was the case. Ken Redfoot said that the ridgeline is now protected and the drainage is protected as it goes dawn into the vernal pools. Commissioner Brown asked if there were any other recommendations far protection that are not being met and Craig Benedict said no. Commissioner Halkiotis said that everybody knows that he works for the Orange County Board of Education. He asked if the Planning Board was told that the school board went back and bought the timber rights because the landowner was planning to timber this property. Craig Benedict said that the he did not personally tell the Planning Board. It may have been in the letter that came back from the school board and the applicant. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he just wanted to make this known because it is an important point that someone went beyond the call in preserving the natural habitat. He thinks the Planning Board should have been told this because it is a sign of good stewardship. Commissioner Brown said that she did not know that and asked haw they were going to protect that area when the bulldozers come in and start building. Craig Benedict said that they would have barriers during the process. Noah Rannels said that the Planning Board did have some concerns about the undeveloped area (approximately 5 acres) adjacent to the school. The Planning Board asked about shifting the fields further down to preserve more pine forests. Craig Benedict said that when the plan was taken back to the school board, they said that the alternative was the shifting of the site to preserve the drainage basin and still leave the area open for other potential opportunities for school or County uses. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, Geaf Gledhill asked Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt to swear in Marge Limbert. Marge Anders Limbert spoke on behalf of The Village Project, Inc. She read a prepared statement from James Carnehan from The Village Project. Before green building must come green siting. Ecologically, it is preferable to build on land that has already been disturbed or has the greatest amount of disturbance. In the case of this site, this previously disturbed land includes even the pond, aman-made feature. She said that the current proposal does not adequately recognize the most important habitats on the site. They urge the County Commissioners to consider leaving the pine forests intact and building more on the southern part of the property, even including filling the pond if necessary. They support the recommendation of Mr. Moore and Ms. Buck, who did the environmental assessment, to preserve the northern portion of the soccer facility. They also urge that shared parking be utilized. She said that they wonder where the smart growth planning was in the selection of this site. This site is isolated from other activities. She suggested increasing residential density as well as encouraging employment within walking distance of this new school. As it stands, this school would be a generator of low density, car dependent residential development in surrounding rural areas. She said that if such mixed use, including residential, is not feasible at this site, then this site is not suitable for the proposed use because it guarantees a pattern of development they would rather not see coming to Orange County. Ken Moore was sworn in. Ken Moore said that he has been part of the North Carolina Botanical Garden for over 30 years. He recently retired into a new position as a part-time teacher for K-5 at the Schoolhouse of Wander at the West Point on the Eno in Durham. He is very passionate about the children. He was very excited when doing the environmental assessment because he saw that there was already an outdoor science laboratory on this site with the vernal pools. He said that this was an incredible resource just waiting to be utilized if it is not eliminated in the process of siting and building the school. He congratulated the County Commissioners for being good stewards in saving what has been saved already. He thinks this is an opportunity to continue saving the valuable biological part of this site. He went to the map of the site and pointed out some of the features. He said that their recommendation is to avoid the forest area when there is already some disturbed area. Craig Benedict said that the hickory forest is being preserved approximately 95%. The reason the fields are not being shifted down to the open space and the pond is not being drained is that they are trying to get synergy with the fields and the recreational activities on the other side. The parking would be central to the activities on both sides. The school board has discussed the pond being an educational opportunity also. They are not saving every tree, but they are saving the vast majority of the environmental lands in this area. Melinda Braddy was sworn in. Melinda Braddy asked if the road would be widened and Craig Benedict said yes and that there will be continuous left-turn lanes. There is also aright-turn acceleration lane that will come into the bus parking in the back. Melinda Braddy said that she lives directly across from the school entrance and she asked if they would be taking any of her land. Craig Benedict said that there is sufficient right-of-way to make the accommodations. Melinda Braddy said that the stream buffer runs under the road and she asked if there would be accommodations made to protect this stream buffer. It was answered that the road improvements begin past where the stream goes through. Carol Ann McCormick was sworn in. Carol Ann McCormick said that she wanders haw many baseball and soccer fields are needed in one place. She understands and supports the need for physical education, but it seems like a lot in one place. She asked about having the baseball field and the athletic stadium as part of the soccer complex. Larry Wiley was sworn in. Larry Wiley owns the property adjacent to the pond and to the highway. There is a beaver swamp across the road that keeps the water backed up all the time and his property floods a lot. He asked if there would be any change to allow the water to drain. He has seen this road four foot deep in water with a hard rain. Chair Jacobs said that he does not know if there is an answer, but he thinks that if there is a school there and if there are problems with the road being obstructed, it will be dealt with. Craig Benedict made reference to the findings of fact on pages 7-20. He went through the conditions recommended by the Administration. The conditions are an pages 22-23. Regarding the smart growth aspects, he said that the economic development sections of the County are the highest intensity uses allowed. At this time, there are no residential uses planned in this area. There are also public transportation opportunities that OPT is examining in this corridor. The building is using a prototype design and day lighting, and this is also smart growth. Administration recommends approval as soon as possible. Chair Jacobs asked if there was any interest in making a decision tonight before it has been referred back to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Commissioner Carey said that this is the first he has heard that they could approve this tonight. He asked about the timing and what impact it would have in referring it back to the Planning Board. Craig Benedict said that referring it back to the Planning Board would not change any of the evidence that has been submitted tonight. This could came back to the County Commissioners later in June. Chair Jacobs asked Superintendent Shirley Carraway about this. Dr. Carraway said that any delay would hurt the school system. The changes have already delayed them to some extent and any further delay would push them. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he was not going to vote for this tonight because he sees something between staff and the Planning Board that he does not like. He suggested bringing it back before the Board breaks for the summer. He said that voting for this tonight would be diminishing the role of the Planning Board. He would also like to see same photographs of this site. He said that no one has brought up the safety issues of moving playing fields closer to the roadways. There are many issues related to the traffic. Chair Jacobs would like to refer this back to the Planning Board. Commissioner Gordon said that as a farmer Planning Board chair, she would like to make sure that this process is fixed so that the Planning Board cannot be bypassed in the Special Use Permit process or any development process. Commissioner Gordon asked about the smart growth aspects of the school and what can be done to take into account the public comment tonight. Also, the standard for a middle school is 22 acres and this is on 41 acres. The standard for an elementary school is 16 acres. She said that if this is worked right, there could be an elementary school and a middle school. She understands that na elementary school is needed right now, but it would be smart to think about. She would like to make sure that this site is designed so that an elementary school could be put here if needed. Geof Gledhill suggested that the Board keep this public hearing open until whatever date the Board decides. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be nice if the two sites could be designed together. Commissioner Brawn asked if this was a standard amount of athletic fields for a middle school. Commissioner Halkiotis said that for years middle schools only had a baseball field. He said that to be Title 9 compliant today, a softball field needs to be built for the women. Commissioner Brown said she would appreciate that kind of thinking involved in the information that the Board gets. Commissioner Halkiotis said that 22 acres is a minimum size for a middle school layout for 700 students. Commissioner Brown said that it looks like a third of the land is being protected anyway. Chair Jacobs summarized the issues brought up by the Board as follows: overlay maps of the changes that the school board has made to accommodate the environmental situation on the site; overlay maps of the environmental components and what the site looks like; tracking safety concerns regarding traffic; vicinity map with dwellings; show the beaver pond to DOT; siting the fields and the pros and cans of where they would be located; the issue of how the two sites would work together; and address the issue of the smart growth principles and whether the footprint can be reduced. Barry Katz said that his recollection in the March Planning Board meeting was that they focused on the site. There was very little concern about the actual structure of the building. They expressed concern about the pond and that it is man-made and if it was drained and the building moved, then the valuable educational facility could be used in the back. He said that there are things that could be done to make the two sites work together. He sees the pond as very dangerous and someone could fall into it and drown. Hunter Schofield said that he would share same of the concerns about the pond. He said that he does not think the students would be able to resist going into the pond. He said that the school board did take some action to try and ameliorate some of the concerns and scale back on the impact of the forested areas. There was disagreement on the Planning Board about the configuration, but there was unanimity in terms of the appreciation to the school board in responding to the concerns. He thanked the school board for this. Chair Jacobs asked if the Planning Board would consider having another meeting besides June 2"d if it would give the consultant more time to work on the changes and displays. Craig Benedict said that on June 9t" they could have a special meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to continue the public hearing to June 23`d and to refer this to the Planning Board for a recommendation back to the Board of County Commissioners no later than June 23`d VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (BOCC and Planning Board Public Hearings) -PLANNING BOARD CHAIR HUNTER SCHOFIELD WILL CHAIR THESE ITEMS. 1. Master Telecommunications Plan Map -Page 13v Amend the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to Article 6.18 and Article 8.8, and specifically Article 6.18.5, entitled "Master Telecommunications Plan", and Article 8.$.17a, entitled "Telecommunications Towers", to allow for the adoption of a "Master Telecommunications Plan" Map ("MTP"} that will identify sites within the County where Telecommunications Tower facilities already exist and also pre-identified properties {"Pre-identified Properties") whose owners have expressed an interest in locating Telecommunications Towers in the future, subject to all Orange County Zoning Ordinance requirements. Craig Benedict said that the Boards have seen renditions of this since April 1999. The purpose of an MTP is to identify potential sites far telecommunications towers. Also, a pattern could be developed that fulfills public safety needs. There are 40 to 50 sites within the County. There are a lot of weaknesses in coverage in the County. The MTP is a guidance map with some potential sites far public sector and private sector purposes, but they would still have to go through the same approval process. There would be a meeting with the industry once a year to discuss the needs far the coming year. This would provide better opportunities to co-locate. Craig Benedict said that they have talked with the public in general about this in having public hearings and they have coordinated with County departments. They have also developed better coordination with the stakeholders (public sector departments and the private sector). He showed a picture of telecommunication facilities on existing power lines. They are still promoting this as a stealth facility. The industry has noted that they are willing to put tower attachments on other things that are unseen {silos, bell towers, etc.). At the Economic Development Commission meeting last week, the board voted to support the Master Telecommunications Plan. The staff suggests that the Board refer this to the Planning Board for the final recommendation, to be returned back to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 2004. PUBLIC COMMENT: Bob Hetterly lives an Thunder Mountain Road in Efland. He commented about the process far the special use permit. His neighborhood was involved in a class B special use permit last year. He entered into the record a short email that he sent to Commissioner Brown and Chair Jacobs. He said that they went through asix-month process. He read the email. In 2003, his neighbors were involved in opposing an application by AT&T Wireless for a special use permit to erect a cell tower in their neighborhood. They prepared comments and went to the public hearing before the Orange County Board of Adjustment to voice their opposition. They did not know that their comments would be considered useless. They came to learn that this was aquasi- judicial procedure and that they had little or no standing because they did not have legal counsel. They felt that the granting of this application would have adverse impacts on the values of their properties and the general quality of life in the area. The hearing was continued to the following month and in the interim they were able to engage legal counsel, licensed real estate appraisers, and engineers to assist in their opposition. The fees for these services amounted to thousands of dollars. They recognize that the County has hired a professional engineer to provide counsel and guidance regarding cell towers and they believe that this assistance is necessary and should be necessary to the Planning Department and the Board in the future. They think that there should be a way to more actively involve citizens who might be impacted by the application with the experts. The bottom line is that they feel that the special use permit application process is weighted in favor of deep-pocketed applicants and against the citizens of the County. They feel that citizens should have a way to have their voices heard without having to spend thousands of dollars in the process. With regard to the ordinance, they would suggest that the requirement to notify parties about a cell tower application be expanded beyond the 1,000 feet. He made reference to the standards for approval and said that only looking at the contiguous properties does not appear to deal with the reality that a much wider band of properties will be impacted. He said that considerable progress has been made aver the years with regard to the application process, but more work needs to be done. Commissioner Brown asked how much of the report in the packet addresses the issue of impacts on neighbors. She said that this has been a constant problem. She thought that more of the towers were going to be brought to the County Commissioners instead of the Board of Adjustment. Craig Benedict said that they have made the modification that towers 150 feet and over would go to the County Commissioners. The higher the tower, the more possibility far co-location and the better coverage. If the towers are lower, then more towers are needed. He said that Orange County's regulations are the most restrictive that he believes the federal government would allow it to put forward. The 1,000-foot notification requirement is twice what it is in other areas. The MTP may limit the amount of random tower locations. Commissioner Gordon asked how a property owner would get accepted into the MTP. Craig Benedict said that if they signed a letter of intent, then it becomes part of the plan. They still have to go through the special use process, but it becomes a guidance to show sites that are better suited. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 153 and read, "If the Board of County Commissioners so directs, text amendments may be considered in the future to adopt additional substantive requirements to further address these environmental issues as they relate to the public health, safety, and general welfare." He asked if the Board was supposed to direct the staff to make the guidelines more operational. Craig Benedict said that this is a two-step process -step one is adoption of the MTP and step two is further direction on the other environmental aspects. The staff can bring back the other items in August. Chair Jacobs said that, within the law, he would hope that if there are examples that diverge from the Board's intentions that they would not move forward before they adopt the other standards. Craig Benedict agreed. Chair Jacobs said that he appreciates the effort put into the issue of what the towers do to migratory birds. It seems clear that there is a substantial adverse impact. Chair Jacobs asked if Emergency Services was always welcome to co-locate on a tower or if they would have to compete with other users. Craig Benedict said that if it is on private property, they have to compete with other users. If it is on public property and the County holds the lease, it can set special conditions. Chair Jacobs asked to put into the plan that Emergency Services would have an opportunity to co-locate on towers located an County property. Chair Jacobs said that there are also Board of Education and municipal sites and a letter may need to be written to these entities to see if they would be willing to participate in a similar way in terms of agreeing in advance for Emergency Services co-location. Chair Jacobs asked if some of Mr. Hetterly's concerns could be addressed in the amendments that come back that have to do with the general welfare. Craig Benedict said that they could see about the notification requirements in other areas. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he has a feeling that the County has as much control over this as it does the cable TV industry which is very little control. He would like to see exactly what has been tested and has stood the court of law. Craig Benedict said that he could clarify the language. He said that the intent with agricultural lands was that they were typically forested areas along with the crops and sometimes the towers can be used as a backdrop on the fringe and not affect the farming operation. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer the Proposed Amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Land Clearina Waste Facility (LCWF1 - Paae 211 Amend the zoning ordinance to create a new definition in the ordinance entitled `Land Clearing Waste Facility' to allow the creation of an LCWF of less than 2 acres in size. An LCWF will be able to accept only land clearing debris such as stumps, roots, topsoil, yard waste debris, limbs, etc. An LCWF will not be allowed to accept inert debris such as bricks, asphalt, and concrete products. The Table of Permitted Uses will be amended to allow a LCWF as a permitted use by right in the AR, AS and RB zoning districts. Section 6 will be amended to create a new section establishing the use conditions upon approval of a LCWF. Planning Supervisor Robert Davis said that this is a zoning text amendment for a new classification in the zoning ordinance for land clearing waste facilities. In the last few years, there has been the land filling category, but the State has reclassified certain types of landfills. The County's ordinance only classifies landfills one way. This amendment is to pull out certain things that are now classified in the landfill category that may be best suited in another area without the same approval process. Any type of landfill over two acres would be a class A special use permit. This amendment would remove the asphalt, concrete, and wood and limit it only to materials such as limbs, stumps, dirt, and natural rocks. This amendment would apply to landfills less than two acres. This would not apply in the economic development districts and the commercial districts. He read the standards on page 212. Robert Davis said that with the County's passage of the no burning ordinance and the high tipping fees, it has gotten very expensive and developers are looking for other options. PUBLIC COMMENT: Howard Carter said that North Carolina has a good solid waste program with oversight, staffing, and quality control. He said that the proposed two-acre sites would not have this and there would be increased truck traffic. It does not seem to him that there would be sufficient aesthetic care for the dump site. He said that a yearly check for drainage is not enough. He urged the County Commissioners not to break away from the existing solid waste program, which is very successful and not to put the County at risk for scattered dump sites. Alois Callemyn said that he was here to speak on behalf of other members of the audience. He spoke in support of the ordinance. He is a licensed land surveyor. He spoke about Orange County farms. He is a supporter of farm preservation and he said that this is one way that the County can do goad by the people that have land. He said that the last cash crop that a farmer has is his land when he cannot make money raising products. He said that the landfills can be done right and there is staff to enforce the rules. He said that most farmers want to be good neighbors. He cautioned staff that the land needs a boundary survey and it needs to be put on record. Regarding the site size, he thinks that if it is done right, that the size could continue on with a much larger site. He asked who would review and approve the plans and what the turnaround would be. He also asked about the fees (one-time or annual). He said that there would be truck traffic, but there would be a lot less road miles, which would hold down pollution. Chair Jacobs said that he wanted to acknowledge Dianne Reid, Economic Development Director, who also worked on this. He understands that the Solid Waste staff would like to locate a large facility that would accommodate these kinds of materials in central and northern Orange County. This could also accommodate storm debris. In the interim, this amendment provides many advantages for landowners to realize some small income stream and to encourage people to do things the right way. Chair Jacobs made a clarification on page 212 where it says, "the property must be accessible from astate-maintained or a private road with a road maintenance agreement." He said that it does not have to be astate-maintained road and a farm road is fine. If it is a private road, there just needs to be some assurance that all parties to the private road maintenance agreement have agreed that it is ok. Commissioner Halkiotis asked why the property must be in the use value program. Robert Davis said that they decided they did not want these landfills in places where they would not be suitable. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if all large tracts of land in the County were in the use value classification and Robert Davis said no. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to some developers from Cary that came in and dumped a lot of things, mostly poison ivy. He said that we are adding to the cost of housing in the County and hurting a lot of people because of some bad people who do not live here. He said that DOT is finally paving the last bit of Lawrence Road and they are hauling the good material to Alamance County because they cannot afford to dump it in Orange County. This is evidence that this stuff is being hauled out of the County with the diesel-powered trucks. This is sending dollars out of the County. He would like to see where all of these sites are in the County. He said that there are responsible citizens in the County and they deserve respect. He said that he and Chair Jacobs went out and visited some sites and they were very responsible. Robert Davis said that the State is coming around and trying to educate people on these facilities. The State has put together some brochures of steps to take to get the notification and come into compliance. Commissioner Gordon asked if a farmer wanted to clear same mare land to farm, would that farmer be permitted to push the stumps and the rocks and other things someplace else on their land and bury it and Geof Gledhill said yes. Commissioner Gordon said that she does not understand how this proposed LCWF amendment is an additional help to farmers. Geof Gledhill said that the farmers can sell the availability of these sites. Commissioner Gordon read from the first page which stated the problems with an LCWF such as igniting underground and above ground fires, environmental contamination, filling of drainage ways, increased truck traffic on rural roads, and dumping of materials other than land clearing waste. She said that the Planning Department has had a lot of trouble getting one elderly gentleman to get rid of his junk. She is not sure how this would work successfully. She is especially concerned about the dumping of materials other than land clearing waste. She said that it may be that a larger lot size could be required and that these LCWF sites should not be allowed in the higher density residential areas, including the Rural Buffer. She said that this is a potential nightmare and she feels really uncomfortable about it. Barry Katz asked about the organic material and if it had to be ground up. Robert Davis said that it could not stay over ground for more than 30 days. Barry Katz said that he is concerned about the amount of truck traffic. There is a commercial element that should not be mixing in with residential activities. He spoke about erosion and grading. Robert Davis distributed the pamphlets and said that there are stiff penalties an not following the rules. John Link said that the recommendation is to refer this to the Planning Board and they can discuss it further at that time. Commissioner Carey asked about the process if a farmer fills his two acres and wanted to do another one on another part of his property. Robert Davis said that they could subdivide and create another tract and do it again, but they could not have more than one LCWF on one tract, no matter how big it is. This is a State rule. Hunter Schofield said that he has buried many trees on his property. He said that 10 acres, which is the use value standard, is not that large and it may become a nuisance. Commissioner Brown asked about setbacks to other properties. Robert Davis said that if it is located more than 500 feet from adjacent roads or properties, there is no required buffer. If it is closer, a 100-foot buffer is required. Commissioner Brawn said that a lot more information is needed. This is not a farming activity, but it is a way to make income. However, she said that she could not imagine how it would be a good idea to allow these LCWF sites. She asked if there was a need for a lot more of these landfills. Robert Davis said that there are active sites in the County and this is a way to get a better hold on them. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordan to refer the Proposed Amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Barry Jacobs, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board