HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-06-2012 - 6a ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 6, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Land Use and Zoning
Amendments
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
See List of Attachments on Pages 7 and 8 Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2575
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on County-initiated amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Zoning
Atlas.
BACKGROUND: This item was heard at the February 27, 2012 and May 29, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearings. The proposed action consists of the following:
Land Use — Attachment 1 , page 8
1. Change Land Use for 55.9 acres from Commercial Node to 10-Year Transition
2. Change Land Use for 130.8 acres from Commercial Node to Economic Development
3. Change Land Use for 181.3 acres from Rural Residential to Economic Development
(Plus 125.5± acres of right-of-way in the interstate and rail corridor)
Zoning —Attachment 2A, page 9
(Zoning amendments were reduced from the February 27 and May 29, 2012 proposals)
A. Change Zoning for 159.25 acres from R-1 (Rural Residential) to EDE-1 (Economic
Development Eno Lower Intensity)
B. Change Zoning for 21± acres (including right-of-way) from R-1 (Rural Residential) to
EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity)
There are overlaps of the land use and zoning amendments, so these amendments do not
exactly encompass the same lands.
A second public outreach meeting was held on April 25, 2012. Additional public
comment along with the original public hearing comments have prompted an amended
planning staff recommendation to withdraw several properties (over 95 acres) south of
the railroad tracks and another area west of Stoney Creek from the zoning amendments.
The changes are shown on new maps on Attachment 2A shown as area C — N/C (N/C
signifies no change to existing zoning).
After the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing, input from the public showed concern
for the rezoning of a mobile home park (i.e. Mobile Home Acres) from R-1 to an EDE-2
zoning designation because of the higher intensity use.
2
Planning staff and the Planning Board recommend deleting this area also (also shown on
Attachment 2A as B — N/C).
Although this 65 acre site (MHP plus 1-85 right-of-way total 77 acres) is clearly buffered by
• 1-85 and other EDE-2 to the north
• High Power Electric transmission lines and under-developed adjacent property (EC-5) to
the west
• An existing mobile home park to the south and further south, a railroad corridor
• Existing EDE-2 uses and Mt Herman Church Road to the east,
It may be prudent to forego this rezoning at this time and reanalyze some of the EDE-2 uses
or develop a new mix of zoning uses and a different Eno Economic Development District
designation such as an Economic Development District-Eno (EDE-3) to implement this
unique area. The Eno Small Area Plan (SAP) noted how future land use programs may
involve new zoning hybrids.
Future Land Use Map Changes
(Area 1)
• Change 55.9 acres from Commercial Node to 10-Year Transition (i.e. Urban Residential).
This is the area that comprises Whispering Pines subdivision.
If approved, this established residential area will have an underlying future residential
land use which creates consistency with the existing use.
The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) for these 55.9 acres are as follows:
9893910204 9893902442 9893700229 9893806742 9893806227
9893809927 9893804345 9893803290 9893902746 9893707211
9893803906 9893809399 9893802155 9893803793 9893805573
9893801992 9893705268 9893808198 9893700687 9893705584
9893709834 9893911241 9893700118 9893902655 9893800468
9893708847 9893912145 9893805077 9893804588 9893706488
9893902848 9893818273 9893808086 9893704588 9893808442
9893805724 9893902959 9893816073 9893803070 9893801473
9893705742 9893815030 9893806885 9892890994 9893707483
9893706647 9893900936 9893704736 9892797873 9893704315
9893809760 9893800876 9893703663 9892793874 9893700421
9893803661 9893808846 9893700525 9893809478 9893704381
9893809650 9893902340 9893902544 9893801306 9893708160
9893703339 9893807204 9893807766 9893805331 9893709160
9893806076 9893900119 9892793773 9893702648 9893708389
9893901121 9893800151 9893817195 9893802646 9893706244
9893703073 9893705048 9893804918 9893707652 9893703272
9892891986 9893703193 9893707829 9893708557 9893901232
9892798990 9892795738 9893807847 9893709563 9893801153
3
9893807291 9892797963 9893703811 9893807469 9893707016
9893707198 9892793983 9893809890 9893806572 9893804073
9893902164 9892795910 9893800735 9892799992 9893700007
9892699764 9892790923 9892892988
NOTE: 113 properties averaging less than 1/2 acre each.
Future Land Use Map Changes
(Area 2)
• Change 130.8 acres from Commercial Node to Economic Development.
(Area north of the rail corridor and along Old NC 10)
Economic Development land use allows some residential and `soft' non-residential such
as office which exists in the area and removes the commercial element.
The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) for these 130.8 acres are as follows:
0803002614 9892998862 0803100109 9893604939 9893909606
9893608557 0803007438 0802092905 9893618051 9893608242
0803207282 0803004553 0803100055 9893603521 0803102261
0803107244 9892996872 0803001017 9893602164 0802394949
0803307352 9892699764 9892798476 9892790923 0803003547
0803006178 9892894495 9892990026 0803303393 0803109390
0802093923 0803300153 9892892121 0802094831 0803104242
0803202254 0802090955 9892991685 9892698891 9892895043
0803101210
Future Land Use Map Changes
(Area 3)
• Change 181.3 acres from Rural Residential to Economic Development.
(Area north of Old NC 10 and west of the railway underpass)
The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) for these 181.3 acres are as follows:
9892691494 9892693355 9893302785 9893333390 9893202889
0803307443 9892698435 9893501063 0803307352 9893403551
9892599833 9892696503 9892593907 9893214750
9892594954 9893229506 9893524275 9893313471
9892596828 9893420409 9892691711 9893313471
In addition, the following road right-of way (no PIN) is proposed to be changed (125.5±
acres):
• Approximately 11 acres from Commercial Node to 10-Year Transition.
• Approximately 29.2 acres from Commercial Node to Economic Development.
• Approximately 85.3 acres from Rural Residential to Economic Development.
(Primarily 1-85 and railroad right-of-way)
4
Zoning Atlas Changes
The Zoning district for a number of parcels in the same geographic area is also proposed
to be changed. The following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), comprising
approximately 205 acres, are proposed to be changed from R-1 (Rural Residential) to
EDE-1 (Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity):
(Area A)
R1 to EDE-1 0803101210 0.4 9892894495 6.42
Pin Acres 0803102261 0.67 9892895043 0.8
0802090955 1.33 0803104242 1.01 9892990026 1.82
0802092905 2.29 0803107244 1.37 9892991685 20.48
0802093923 1.37 0803109390 0.92 9892996872 2.38
0802094831 1.16 0803202254 7.18 9892998862 3.52
0802394949 6.48 0803207282 5.87 9893602164 5
0803001017 0.23 0803300153 2.13 9893603521 4.99
0803002614 2.44 0803307352 0.17 9893604939 4.67
0803003547 1.26 0803307443 0.22 9893608242 3.22
0803004553 1.13 9892698891 0.03 9893608557 3.16
0803006178 1.33 9892699764 2.13 9893618051 7.21
0803007438 4.29 9892790923 2.17 9893909606 2.73
0803100055 5.85 9892798476 9.9 ROW 28.74
0803100109 0.37 9892892121 0.41 159.25
These were recommended for removal from rezoning at the May 29, 2012 Quarterly
Public Hearing (included both EDE-1 and EDE-2):
(Area B) (Area B- N/C)
R1 to EDE-2 To remain R1
PIN Acres PIN Acres
ROW 20.98 9893420409 0.99
20.98 9893524275 3.05
9893229506 61.55
65.59
(Area C- N/C)
To Remain 9892691711 2.09 893403551 23.66
R1 9892693355 1.73 9893501063 1.48
PIN Acres 9892696503 2.45 9893556457 8.68
9892593907 1.68 9892698435 1.19 9893333390 0.16
9892594954 1.6 9893113171 1.44 ROW 23.34
9892596828 1.25 9893202899 22.25 105.48
9892599833 1.92 9893302785 4.55
9892691494 1.78 9893313471 4.23
5
The purpose of the proposed amendments is to align Orange County land use and
zoning classifications with the City of Durham's Urban Growth Area located within
Orange County. In addition, implement recommendations of the Eno EDD Small Area
Plan (2005-2008) and implement aspects of the Stoney Creek Basin Study (1994-1996).
The City of Durham is concurrently amending land use designations within their
Comprehensive Plan [i.e. part of their Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)] to be consistent
with these amendments and will wait until Orange County completes its process.
Joint neighborhood information meetings with City of Durham staff were on February 22,
2012 and April 25, 2012 at The Murphey School (3717 Murphey School Rd., Durham, NC
27705). Interested persons were encouraged to attend these neighborhood information
meetings to learn more about this proposal. Comments are part of Attachment 5.
Quarterly Public Hearing(s): Excerpts from the February 27, 2012 minutes and the draft May 29,
2012 minutes are attached.
Procedural Information: In accordance with Sections 2.3.10 and 2.8.8 of the Unified
Development Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in
writing prior to the Planning Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be
considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also
submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the
BOCC receiving the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Planning Board's Recommendation: The Planning Board recommended approval of the land
use amendments (10-1) and zoning amendment (9-2). An excerpt from the draft minutes of the
August 1, 2012 Planning Board meeting is attached.
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of this
rezoning based on the following:
i. The land use and zoning are consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, which
designates the parcels as being located within the Commercial-Industrial Transition
Activity Node or with this amendment Economic Development Land Use.
ii. The rezoning is consistent with various Principles, Goals, and Objectives of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan (see attachment 14).
Staff has been made aware of a recent State Supreme Court decision impacting how zoning
atlas amendments are processed and acted upon. In the past, staff has produced an Ordinance
amending the zoning atlas containing a statement detailing how the amendment is consistent
with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest.
The State Supreme Court in Wally vs. City of Kannapolis (2012) has determined governing
bodies are required to take two separate actions acting on a proposed atlas amendment,
specifically:
• Adoption of an Ordinance approving or rejecting the proposed atlas amendment, and
6
• Adoption of a separate statement denoting the atlas amendment complies with an
adopted comprehensive plan. This statement must describe whether the action is:
`consistent with any controlling comprehensive plan and explain why the action is
reasonable and in the public interest'.
It should be noted that according to North Carolina General Statute, this statement is not
subject to judicial review.
Staff has revised the standard practice and provided the required statements consistent with the
Court's decision. Please refer to Attachment 15 for the Ordinance amending the zoning atlas
and Attachment 17 for the resolution denoting consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact at this time beyond planning staff
analysis, mailings and cost of a community meeting. However, these amendments prepare for
appropriate land use and zoning categories that can bolster economic development
opportunities in the County and its utility/urban growth partnership with the City of Durham.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation
2. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the:
a. Future Land Use Map, and
b. Orange County Zoning Atlas
3. Consider and approve the various resolutions and ordinances contained herein,
specifically:
a. Resolution Amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as
contained within Attachment 14;
b. Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as contained within
Attachment 15; and
c. Resolution Concerning Statement Consistency with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
as contained within Attachment 17.
7
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
1. Map — Land Use Changes (numbered)
2. Map
a. Zoning Changes (lettered)
b. Current and Proposed Zoning (acreages)
3. Comprehensive Plan/Future Land Use Map and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Amendment Outline Form
4. Analysis of the Land Use Transportation and the Environment
5. Eno EDD Neighborhood Information Meeting Citizen Comments
6. Notice of Neighborhood Information Meeting & Public Hearing
7. Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area
a. Overall Plan
b. Subject Focus Area
c. Text
8. Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity (EDE-1) & Economic Development Eno
Higher Density (EDE-2) Permitted Use Comparison
9. Comparison Table of Land Use Element/Map between Orange County and the City of
Durham
10.Landscape Comparison within Eno EDD District per Section 6.8.12 of the UDO — Light
Industrial/Manufacturing Use
11.Submitted written comments
12.Excerpts from February 27 and Draft May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes
13.Excerpt of August 1, 2012 Planning Board Meeting Draft Minutes
14. Resolution Amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
15. Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas
16.Ordinance Denying Amendment to Orange County Zoning Atlas
17.Resolution Concerning Statement of Consistency with the Adopted 2030 Comprehensive
Plan
8
18.Resolution Concerning Statement of Inconsistency with the Adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan
Eno EDD Area -Current and Proposed Future Land Use Classifications
0,
,, ,p ,o,
,/ V ■ r 1...... ...isi
‘4,4, ® al ■
.. lo i47k PP, `4•°1
441- 1
.,40 Ip \/W
7-41! a a „z(v..,0 _, Air .
, _ limmor I ___.... .,0 - ...„ ___ _ ___ ,z . -cs rim
NAco
rirra.,., _, 11.111■.. ._41.......-4:7 _ --____.._ !—
&M08/44. 7K+
.I _,._=. 141-1112
1p,wisirAlupwarlip-
0,5
`'O' CURTV 4c,RD 0 CR4� 4
O
1 Illmc,K,6 Obi ..-41111 ,
rik .-----_______.....
ei \���
I_ lill i�, o�I(,)04/0, a •
re I.o V IT ■■•■ q ,n' R� r_ ■ RU _RD N�' \ , LD w SB OO i� r/�ono i Mt.-� D O C'ice
It NEW-LEgF�' \y�R�h { '—'= lO
Pi
Efirf 1.,....t..,9_ tipit N iiiii4k.0,„0,
re P ini--- ........ CI
millirti, iti it L...44011 ® 9,.....<,
am aim,oa 4.. 4 * ,c, i ''' ..
WU" L''''
awaslark
almatINiik 1, ilk IV i ''''%%...„.._" ----- ----..._....will P-- z
al& 11111111114 ..)�9 1 • II
1��® ��� ����,V� PIS
Proposed Changes Future Land Use Classifications ■ County Boundary
OCommercial Node to 10 Year Residential Transition Rural Residential •j Durham Urban Growth Area
1 . Commercial Node to Economic Development Agricultural Residential — Streams
- Water Bodies N co
O Rural Residential to Economic Development Economic Development t' i� 1 inch=1,300 feet
Water Supply Watersheds 1 +e Kr.
I City Limits _ 0 300 600eet
El Public Interest Areas
Commercial Node Resource Protection Areas
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
, ■■ GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.7/31/2012
Eno EDD Area - Current and Proposed Zoning
r wzR7wave 7 .0 Ai alay \ ANN.TAprit,Ini■Lim
Iv -1-/A),7■■ 04, ini
A .„. , . 7ipi-ipiipe.
try i,.. k,
* '1)0 NA3 #10..mpro■--- Q_ _....... .....,.____________ ..z,
tr.,..„, _ Iti
.< .,
ss,„
4 I .
, ,
-7-. 4%ititiol*A/ 111,.;_,] 111 trk77_4-4"v-PP----" ,.......,
.jam
Ilir.,„
_ _ �1 (..- -_,(5--41--- AO _
A B MO G LO `���
• J 4
IiF � �+.� Oq \� _ol_11J
r,„.„„....„-s„ _,,
.0
�=�- A EMS I g.
co
i�
rii :11, ��� 1 0A„.. 'Am im 11, O'► _ _ O ,P% _FRo..�?►_ _ 1111Wa--■IL ■■t J 40
���2. J ` =I��, N/C Ij .ip•
HILLSBORO�c'HG� ..•-_,... .
ILowerEno Protected 1 ��Ii ' ! " ' '. O i, y'z. am
II
� � �� J� � _ __�
."ILI' _� _ N�.��1 a M
Proposed Changes Durham Urban Growth Area AR .. PDHR4 pp`SC14 9- ° irMij
.R1 to EDE-1 City Limits EC5 PID , N Incb=l,3oo feet
j.
.R1 to EDE-2 ETJ
EDE-1 R1 r o 300 soo
Watersheds mFeet _
Return to R1* - EDE 2 R2 °
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
Major Transportation Corridor GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.7/26/2012
r-��._-.---- w... 11-
*It is recommended that these areas should be removed from the Feb. 27, 2012 recommendations and return to R1 zoning as part of the May 29, 2012 recommendations.
Eno EDD Area - Current and Proposed Zoning
1",' 0, 1:22 . ..,....
,
8.54 -=____,
ip,,,,..
Acres AIM
4111, if■
� ■ ■ la 1
-- 9:49---- Ill WI
kili 77.08 Acres . >
rr
(D
isimsfrik..., rr
/� N
,,,,Aro. 95.72 �i. ii`�1ti- 1 .ilt w
Acres ► ti
■ ��
/NW- iii 4111* : 11.4414:14.1 i��.• � L.---------111- .�+�.IT Lovver:Eno Protected 1 •. 159.25. ar
saals111/4
' ' Acres Mir
NI That rAll...b I I 144'411116/railin
Proposed Changes AR =- PDHR4
PIM
.R1 to EDE-1 EC5 PID 1 nor =1,300 feet
In R1 to EDE-2 EDE-1 j R1 =��'_� o 300 soo
®Feet
OReturn to R1* EDE-2 R2 Orange County Planning and Inspectons Department
IIMA.,7.../MINDa■■■ / X /"N 1111\ GIS Map Prepared by Bnan Carson.4/13/2012
kV J
* It is recommended that these areas should be removed from the Feb. 22, 2012 recommendations and return to R1 zoning as part of the May 29, 2012 recommendations.
Attachment 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
CP & Zoning-2012-10
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
X Land Use Element Map:
From: Commercial Node
To: 10-year Transition — 55.9 acres (Area 1)
From: Commercial Node
To: Economic Development— 130.8 acres (Area 2)
From: Rural Residential
To: Economic Development— 181.3 acres (Area 3)
Zoning Map:
From: R-1 (Rural Residential)
To: EDE-1 (Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity) — 159.25 acres (Area A)
From: R-1 (Rural Residential)
To: EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Density) — 86.57 acres (Area B)
I Other:
Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Text:
UDO Text:
UDO General Text Changes
UDO Development Standards
UDO Development Approval Processes
Section(s):
Other:
1
13
B. RATIONALE
1. PurposelMission
To create consistency between the City of Durham's UGB and the Orange County
Land Use Plan wherein both areas would suggest an urban growth pattern.
Thereafter a zoning change would be made to a consistent implementing zoning
district that would regulate with standards, permitted uses and processes the form of
development.
2. Analysis
This area is within the Orange County WASMBPA primary utility service area.
This area is within City of Durham's UGB.
This area can be served by an existing utility service agreement with the City of
Durham that can be extended to this area because of topographic sewer shed. The
Eno Small Area Plan (SAP) anticipated urban/suburban densities in this area. Many
existing Mobile Home Parks are in the area at higher densities than typical non-public
sewered areas creating a fragile yet important housing segment. Some parks have
marginal private septic systems that could be prone to failure at such densities and
limited soils percolation. This area is within or adjacent to the Eno ED zone which
primarily supports non-residential and could provide an adjacent residential
component for the urban transition work force. (Update: Orange County and City of
Durham have adopted a utility service agreement in January 2012)
(See also further analysis attached)
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
ED-1.1
Focus public education efforts on sustainability issues, looking at the social,
economic and environmental contributions of local businesses.
ED-1.2
Form partnerships both within and outside the County to create a stronger business
climate and market the changes to existing and potential employers.
ED-2.1
Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by water and
sewer.
ED-2.2, ED-2.5, ED-2.6, ED-2.7, ED-2.10, ED-3.5
Ensure that County workers and those preparing for the workforce have access to
transportation, childcare, elder care, and affordable housing.
H-1.5
Ensure that a variety of housing types can be developed throughout the County in a
sustainable manner that locates housing near employment centers and commercial
centers and that efficiently uses existing and planned public services.
H-3.3
Expand assistance in the retrofitting, repair, and maintenance of existing homes
owned by financially challenged households, particularly those that are senior
citizens.
H-3.6, H-4.1
2
14
Continue to permit HUD code-compliant manufactured housing as a form of
affordable housing in the County.
LU-1.1
Coordinate the location of higher intensity/high density residential and non-residential
development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial
and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and
sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with
protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing
allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate
public services are available.
LU-2.2, 2.3, 2.7, 2.9, 3.2
LU-4.1
Support the use of individual manufactured housing units as a useful housing
resource in the County by increasing the opportunities where these units can locate
by-right.
WW-2
Coordinate the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer services with the
County's Land Use Plan and Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning
Agreement and Land Use Plan, targeting these services to urban, transitional, and
economic development districts in a manner that does not endanger environmental
resources.
NACS-Goal 1
Energy conservation, sustainable use of non-polluting renewable energy resources,
efficient use of non-renewable energy resources, and clean air.
NAGS-Goal 6
Sustainable quality and quantity of ground and surface water resources.
NAGS-Goal 7
A balanced and healthy diversity of native plant and animal populations.
NAGS-Goal 8
Networks of protected natural, cultural, and agricultural lands.
These goals are promoted by creating urban areas that are more efficient in the use
of human resources while taking pressure off natural resources in other areas.
4. New Statutes and Rules
Not applicable.
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
November 1, 2011
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
February 27, 2012 and May 29, 2012
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
3
15
February 7, 2012 and May 3, 2012 — approval of legal ad
d. Other
Community Meeting February 22, 2012 and April 25, 2012 at the Shared Vision
Retreat Center on Murphey School Road.
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Miission/Scope. The Quarterly Public Hearing public involvement process shall be
consistent with North Carolina State Statutes and UDO requirements.
a. Planning Board Review:
February 1, 2012 (preview of item)
March 7, 2012 (recommendation)
May 2, 2012
b. Advisory Boards:
Written Update to Economic
Development Commission
(when organized)
c. Local Government Review:
City of Durham
(Ongoing)
d. Notice Requirements
In accordance with NCGS
e. Outreach:
►1 General Public: February 22, 2012 and April 25, 2012 at Shared Vision
Retreat Center
® Small Area Plan Workgroup: Send note to past SAP participants living or
owning property in the affected area.
Other: ; i ° 4:,='}; 'itc:..
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Orange County has committed utility investment in these areas to assist in economic
development infrastructure. These amendments advance and support public
investment.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
4
16
Amend Orange County/City of Durham Utility Services Agreement to comport with new
Land Use and Zoning Boundary. Continue to analyze Eno EDD SAP and amend as
necessary to create a comprehensive program of development and environmental
compatibility.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Primary Staff Contact:
Craig N. Benedict
Planning & Inspections
919-245-2585
cbenedict@co.orange.nc.us
5
17
Attachment 4
ENO EDD AREA
LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
Land Use, Transportation and Environmental Analysis
HISTORY
The majority of the area bounded by the NCRR Railway and I-85 and west has been
designated as an urban growth area since 1981 because of its proximity to
transportation (Interstate, US Highway and Rail), adjacency to an urban area such as
the City of Durham which can provide urban services such as water and sewer.
This pattern of growth was reconfirmed in the 1988 land use plan and economic
development land use and zoning amendments for the majority of the area in 1994.
The majority of these areas were designated for non-residential commercial office and
industrial uses although limited higher urban density housing is also permitted.
In the late 90's (1994-96) the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan added certain
additional lands to the west and southwest of the urban area for higher intensity and
intermediate intensity. Only the higher intensity area is partially included in these
amendment areas.
JUSTIFICATION
The analysis within the ENO SAP (which is on the County's Planning website) explains
and supports the importance of this general area for higher intensity activity while
preserving environmental and cultural resources of the Eno River to the north and
Stoney Creek Basin to the west. The advent of public sewer will lessen the potential for
septic systems to create nutrient runoff. In addition, Orange County has improved its
floodplain regulations and stormwater techniques to further the protection of the Lower
Eno Watershed which supports City of Durham's water supply.
Attachment 5
Eno Economic Development District (EDD)
Neighborhood Information Meeting
February 25, 2012
Citizen Comments
Stoney Creek Basin EDE-1 vs. EDE-2
The EDE-2 is suggested by staff because of the frontage along 1-85 and its relative
isolation between the interstate, Mt. Herman Church Road, railroad tracks, and high
voltage primary electric transmission lines. The opposite side (east) of the road is
also presently EDE-2. Also to the east is Existing Commercial zoning (EC-5).
2. Resource Protection Areas (RPA)
RPAs are a layer of the land use plan and are still operational in the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) to protect environmental areas (i.e. stream buffers,
steep slopes, etc.).
3. What is light industrial; compare Orange County and Durham County?
The uses were discussed during the Eno EDD SAP meetings and comparability was
achieved. Uses are not of the higher impact industrial. List of specific uses were
added to webpage.
4. Why now public utilities?
This area has been noted as an urban growth land use since 1981 and reconfirmed in
1994 and 2008. Recommendations in the Eno Small Area Plan suggested an
agreement with the City of Durham which was accomplished in January 2012. Orange
County is facilitating the proposed land use pattern since any one small or large
business could not afford to build infrastructure. Job growth is more important than
ever in designated areas. 84% of the county is rural and only 16% including cities and
along interstates is designated as Urban.
5. Annexation
These land use and zoning amendments do not create annexation programs. If a
new business or resident wants public water and sewer, they will sign a voluntary
annexation form and if the City of Durham decides the petition meets state law and is
fiscally feasible then it may be annexed. (See annexation monograph from City of
Durham)
6. Why are there two plans Orange County and City of Durham?
There are two land use plans (Orange County and City of Durham) and one zoning
plan (only Orange County). The area is within Orange County which has a land use
and zoning program. If a city also has an area of county within its future urban growth
boundary (UGB) then they also have a future land use plan map. Land use
comparability is key in these urban but non-extraterritorial jurisdictions (non-ETJ).
7, Mobile Home Parks
The northern mobile home park is being rezoned to EDE-2 which has frontage on 1-85.
The southern mobile home park will remain Planned Development HR 4 zoning since
its approval contains special 'Planned Development' conditions until such time a
different project is proposed. The future land use and existing zoning would allow
residential to remain and/or be upgraded.
Attachment 6
NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and
Zoning Atlas (Map) Amendments
Orange County DURHAM
City of Durham
Planning and Inspections Department City-County Planning Department
'
131 W. Margaret Lane I Suite 201 r 101 City Hall Plaza I Durham, NC 27701
P 0 Box 8181 I Hillsborough, NC 27278 *A * 919.560.4137 1f919.560.4641
(919)245-2575 If(919)644-3002
1 8 6 9 www.durhamnc.gov
www.co.orange.no us
T OF C r+L
April 13, 2012
*UPDATE - This letter reflects community and elected officials interest to
reengage the public regarding land use and zoning changes in your area based
on the prior meetings of February 22, 2012 and February 27, 2012.
Dear Property Owner:
This letter is to notify you of two NEW upcoming events pertaining to proposed changes
to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map and Zoning Atlas
(Map), and the Durham Future Land Use Map in the area near the Interstate 85/US
Highway 70 interchange in eastern Orange County. Your property is within the area
impacted by one of these proposed changes. The proposed changes, summarized
below, are intended to support the goals and objectives of the Orange County :oard of
Commissioners and the Durham City Council with consideration of community input.
Information and
Neighborhood Information Meeting ap Sent
The first new event is a neighborhood information meeting to readdress comments,
learn about and provide input on proposed land use and zoning map changes for the
area. The meeting will be jointly hosted by the Orange County Planning and_
Inspections Department and the Durham City-County Planning Department and ilia-lake
place on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 6:00 pm at the Murphey School (3717
Murphey School Rd., Durham, NC 27705). Interested persons are encouraged to attend
this neighborhood meeting to learn more about this proposal and/or amendments to the
original proposal. A map of the area to be addressed is included.
Community and public hearing comments will also be discussed and evaluated at this
meeting.
Oran.e Count Joint Public Hearing
The second new event is a Joint Public Hearing of the Orange County Board of
Commissioners and Orange County Planning Board on the proposed changes on
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Department of Social Services, located at
113 Mayo Street (Hillsborough Commons Shopping Center) in Hillsborough, North
Carolina. Interested persons are invited to address the boards with their comments
regarding the proposed land use and zoning map changes at this Joint Public Hearing.
Page 1 of 3
20
Summary of proposed Zoning Atlas (Map) Amendments
Orange County is proposing Zoning Atlas Amendments that are compatible with the
proposed Land Use Element Map Amendments. Reference the table below and the
attached maps to see the proposed changes.
Existing Proposed Acreage
R-1 (Rural Residential)' EDE-1 (Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity) 205 ac.
R-1 (Rural Residential) EDE-1 (Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity) 50 ac. (ROW)
R-1 (Rural Residential) EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity) 74.3 ac.
R-1 (Rural Residential) EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity) 17 ac. (ROW)
EC-5 (Existing Commercial) EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity) 4.2 ac. (ROW)
Public Interest District EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity) 0.6 ac. (ROW)
One parcel located in Stoney Creek Basin Overlay Total: 35.11
2 Three parcels located in Stoney Creek Basin Overlay acres
The City of Durham does not have zoning jurisdiction in this area. Therefore, there are
no zoning changes to be made for the City of Durham.
Changes from original proposals are anticipated
Community input to date has prompted reanalysis of the amendments to add clarity and
increase the specificity of future uses. The new proposals will be discussed.
More Information
Maps and other information regarding the proposed Land Use Element map and zoning
changes can be viewed at the following website after Tuesday, May 17, 2012:
http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/SpecialProiect.asp
If you cannot attend the Joint Public Hearing and the website does not answer your
questions about the proposed land use and zoning map changes, you may call the
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department at (919) 245-2575 during regular
business hours and you will be directed to a staff person who can assist you.
Sincerely,
Craig N. Benedict, AICP Hannah Jacobson
Orange County Planning Director Durham City-County Planning Department
Page 3 of 3
21
Eno EDD Area - Current and Proposed Zoning
,M me '
4k!�' 7 �- ��� ►:a
• toow �� ���i 7presp-,.,,,,,
I MF ti.„. ♦ �c0 al i_eio..
���
_____� 4 n •II 1
�` ■ a ����� it _ ,. = j lit
Au
J `\ nc— - °ow,.s
Moe, ., o �\� 85
As
IFF
11 CURYVS HAa�,RD `/O c�BrRF �I�I�1�� j e�S ZQE W Iri Rpm CK, MI .Z,��
sr
I po ♦Nt`M� �� ��1` = g
Vi�a rR OR t IN
GHG�°� r
\ i��1 - �\ �woo,.4, �pH11.1-SB�RC
Ex
_� � M, QCrrrurr11►•
Lower�Eno Protect"��II �-
�i. 1L5b :f z___me,,(47: ci 0,141 i
16,41,1„....... l rir f
�Pro used Changes ��Durham Urban Growth Area � � AR PDHR4
R1 to EDE-1 I I City Limits L EC5 [ f PID ' N
1 inch=1,300 fee[
.R1 to EDE-2 ETJ
EDE-1 R1 0 3M 600
Watersheds CM=Feet
h EDE-2 ll
rA
Ibm- ._----- -_'r `-_ - R2 =range County Pr Planning and lnsarson.s13/ZO Department
Major Transportation Corridor GIS Map Prepared by BNan Carson.4/13/2012
Attachment 7A
Stoney Creek Basin
Planning Area
i ..„ i.2
I I,- , ,-I \
4 ' M -
r�
�rAT ,111 1G /..-r-V w 1 �1 ��- 4, .. ;r,, ', bar .41 i-- - /�.,
r: e.I, filiyAs i<J4,
_ i ',� I Il a r.f�r,,, i T .7Q f,��Sit�'� X r....<,7,„ iiii_.t..'',, , '),—..\f,'7, .;'..le::.: '4,,iN''."!:;.i:,,',7., i- l'w , - ' , 1 1:10,93T-\):E:— t t 03\ 1� 7
a mi • //- ' .-. I it,•,.,.,.,..„-. \ \,.....-c,_z_ r,
(lest \Too SM. - ' .,.-... '.,'Ill 711;;.: 4 i ��S I �,1
I ,F,4 /�L,Y%s(1 ''''e-X,`! 1�- 1:-. '..‘,-.- }t Y,btb�,77 7
W� -' .,-7;i.3'n T-'/`rte " ',{i.r , G}' 77... / ��Y.,b.. .,',!I-/./ Ifs:7
M� > -
^ .r e.,•,,,,,,:2.-",...:,,•• > v w .!Si . - fu ._g_ �r.r �ts(
..4141 , , .°P. _— L _—: °,.. ',.----, .-..f 41 ,,,./it . . _-. fitipy74 —
�r
,:-\---- -. i• -, .\ ..
t _u % , i `\ �ii_Ti.,,._ !_ls.. r ,, ..,‘.... i ,..t, . pro. r• r --?C
.�/`' �LL I
,t.,:v ti „._.. _____
... \ , r.-;•''',.s.'''4'''...),W-IA. .- II • . r
/y‘.. N - ,
i il .'. --f ' Yp �y � ,� 1-
; , ,,t,• �; '� may, III 1\\ 11 �p t3 i rf. II 1 ,- I r - G a _
Attachment 7B
Stoney Creek Basi
Planning Area
( enlarged Eastern Area )INF Ni,%
• , _
. . „,,,. / ,.....„, .-
...1
.. •-. .N.,,,,,„.„.
. ... , ,
• ,
. . . . . •-- :.!
IL.,,,,,,,,,,....
. .,. . .,•,, %.„ .
‘It i,
'!k' ..t
• (f S { 10,,,,,......S— . r -..11
11 i fl Ili 1
•,'a a s }. T },„.• .4.
-Y' t a
„
., •P .7.1 4 11
T
1 ev }
— yr_ . , P �. ' J
F' r r �
L \; ..J. , s
3 _Li! '. . ...„.. sail
IA' a .1 t le.. r '4
— -
rg :.'_
., L ,...r,r_..� —111 :-'—
. ....,..,....„_.., ,
iiii lit II 11
ui ; f I 1 sir ••�i �1 i P.
. 17.?„ . A r -,,-,..„ ii—..._ A.,...1
Attachment 7C
Stoney Creek Basin
Small Area Plan
Land Use Intensity Categories
A. Higher Intensity Areas
These areas are generally synonymous with the
ten and twenty year transition areas in the
existing Land Use Plan (adopted 1981, amended
1988) or they are adjacent to areas proposed for
future development on an urban scale. At some
future date, they will most likely be incorporated
into the municipalities of Hillsborough and
Durham through the annexation process. A mix
of land uses is possible in these areas and they
will be served by water and sewer. They could
be viewed as "receiving areas" for lower density
areas to the south.
B. Goals
1. Preserve landowners' rights to get fair value
for the property; and
2. Protects the area's "rural character".
25
Attachment 8
Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity (EDE @1 )
EDE-1 Allows:
Finance
Government
Residential (Urban)
Services * (Office)
Transportation
Miscellaneous
EDE-1 Doesn't Allow:
Agricultural
Commercial/Retail
Construction
Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
Recreation
Wholesale Trade
Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2)
(Existing and proposed primarily along 1-85 and US 70)
EDE-2 Allows:
Agricultural
Construction
Finance
Government
Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
Commercial/Retail
Services
Transportation
Wholesale Trade
EDE-2 Doesn't Allow:
Recreation (New/Outdoor) A Special Class A
Residential (New— except by conditional use rezoning) B Special Class B
C# Conditions
Source: Orange County Planning— February 2012
Comparison Table of Land Use Element/Map
Orange County vs. Durham City-County
Orange County Durham City-County
10-year Transition: Zoning Districts: Density: Residential: Zoning Districts: Density:
Lands located in areas that are in the • R1 • 1 DU/acre Land designated for buildings • RS-20 • 2 DU/acre
process of changing from rural to • R2 • 2 DU/acre consisting only of dwelling units. • RS-10 • 3 DU/acre
urban densities and/or intensities, • R3 • 2.9 DU/acre • Very Low Density(2 DU/acre) • RS-8 • 5 DU/acre
that are suitable for higher • R4 • 4.3 DU/acre • Low Density(4 DU/acre) • RS-5 • 8-10 DU/acre
densities/intensities and could be • R5 • 5.8 DU/acre
provided with public utilities and • R8 • 8.7 DU/acre
services within the first 10-year • R13 • 14.5 DU/acre
phase of the Plan update or where
such utilities are services are already
present or planned.Non-residential rt
rr
uses implemented in accordance *Information from *information from Durham P)
n
with small area plans and/or overlay Durham Unified Unified Development
*Information from 2030 *information from *Information from Durham Comprehensive districts may be appropriate. P Development Ordinance,Article 6.3
ment Comprehensive Plan, Orange County UDO, (D
*Information from 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Plan,Chapter 2,Land Use Element, Ordinance,Article 4.2.2, Residential Suburban
Appendix F:Land Use Article 3 Development Teir,pg 2-18&19; Chapter 18 Residential Suburban Development rt
Chapter 5:Land Use Element,Section 5.3,pg and Zoning Matrix,pg.F-
5-15. Appendices,pg.8-12 Density
3
Lo
Economic Development: Zoning Districts: Density: Industrial: Zoning Districts: Density:
Land in transition areas of the • EDE-1 • No requirement. The manufacture, production,and • Industrial • 30,000/sq.ft.
County which has been specifically • EDE-2 Density based processing of consumer goods. • Industrial Light • 25,000/sq.ft.
targeted for economic development compliance with Industrial is often divided into
activity consisting of light industrial, site ratio "heavy industrial" uses,such as
distribution,office,service/retail requirements. construction yards,quarrying,and
uses and flex space(typically one • Open space, factories;and "light industrial"
story building designed,constructed, floor area, uses,such as research and
and marketed as suitable for use as ped/landscaping development and less intensive
offices but able to accommodate warehousing and manufacturing.
other uses such as a warehouse,
showroom, manufacturing,
assembly,or similar operations).
Such areas are located adjacent to
interstate and major arterial
highways,and subject to special *Information from 2030 *Information from *Information from Durham
design criteria and performance Comprehensive Plan, Durham Unified Unified Development
Appendix F:Land Use *Information from Durham Comprehensive Development Ordinance,Article 6.10,
standards. *Information from Plan,Chapter 2,Land Use Element, Nonresidential District
and Zoning Matrix,pg.F- Ordinance,Article 4.3.6
'Information from 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 3 Orange County UDO, Development Teir,pg 2-18&19; Chapter 18 and 4.3.7, Development Intensity
Chapter5:Land Use Element,Section 5.3,pg Article 3 Appendices,pg.8-18 Nonresidential District rn
5-16.
Attachment 10
.,yam~ .�,- W -•""2.F i
If_
l
L 1- within ENO EDD district,
Landscape Comparison � _ r , .
Per-Section 6.8.12 of the UDO Jr,
tll ' •
Light Industrial/Manufacturing Use—j Pi
GROUGHO� ` I
! .., .., ..1.1„.. t�� �� Ate_ •�", , � �. -----
OCAj�,
r
Roa tr 4 t,
1 /". .
C7overnment r i4
pp, r
1Land Use, /000,,,,,...,. •.'~ - + , "
•r �
... i4 it1 1,
t Buildin Parking 4'
. 9
Light Industrial MMfti 1 space for every �y
/40)ft � employee on d•
shift of maximum 4.1413.:esidential
'��,., employment and;Use
(Section 6.9.7) tt
Lower Eno 4;, , i ' ....
Protected ::::h/ ..i' 4
r 2.0 ft'(minimum.requiredlordundevelopedrparcel) -., 4..r•
• * .r ~• _ ��: - �j ♦. +, \ 4� et 5, 'i.•
4 . .<, Undeveloped Parcel � !
•-• .,... .- -1-- 44;01?(,-.1 -
...80.1:.c, :, k .. . .
,�}}k
._' � r ; "'�r �t1 Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County
GIS and is for reference only.
• '� � -'h - r .t'ri� 1g _ - • Exact locations and boundaries should be verified.
y -S s- - Map prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections
alai.
, '' ' - ,, •y -_ _- r,
USGS Water Feature O Parcels cil Zoning L_I 100 YR Floodplain(Effective 02/02/07) c'ii12''- N
ji—' Soils Survey Water Feature („n Township ® City Limits Floodway(Effective 02/02/07) ..p
Em OC Updated Water Feature School System Boundary 1_ ETJ L 500 YR Floodplain(Effective 02/02/07)
O Water Body Contours Conservation Easements O Buildings
M Held by Others 1 inch=80 feet
Cl River Basins C=? County Boundary ®Water and Sewer Boundary
®Watershed ;:4 Soils im Orange County 0 30 60 120eet
Conservation Easements
28
Attachment 11
Submitted Written Comments
to date
29
Darcy Willson
5315 Old Hillsborough Rd
Durham, NC 27705
darcywillson @yahoo.corn
919-612-7442
The negative financial and social impacts to area residents are too great to allow this
proposed zoning change to move forward.
This zoning change will greatly reduce the buffer between new non-residential
development and existing small residential properties. By incorporating existing small
residential properties currently outside the Eno Economic Development District into the
District, the buffers that would help protect these properties from the commercial and
industrial development will be reduced from the current 100 ft. to as little as 25 ft. There
should not be any zoning changes that reduce or eliminate the current protections to
existing small residential properties. Reducing the buffer will have a huge negative
impact on the quality of life of affected residents.
County properties are taxed at the "highest and best legally permitted use". If a
property changes from Rural Residential zoning to Economic Development district
zoning, the tax value as an Economic Development District zoned property will certainly
be greater than the current legally permitted residential use. Many affected residents
will be unable to afford the property tax increases that would result from this zoning
change.
The area affected by the zoning change has a high percentage of affordable housing.
The average home price and incomes in this area are both well below the county
average. Orange County is already lacking affordable housing. If the zoning change is
approved people will most likely have to move to another county to find comparable
affordable housing.
As far as the large landowners and developers are concerned, this zoning change
means increased profits due to the greatly reduced buffers, and leverage to buy out the
small residential property owners who will be unable to afford the higher property taxes.
To me and the rest of the small residential property owners who would be negatively
impacted by this proposed zoning change, it means the destruction of our homes and
the community that we live in.
It would be an injustice to area residents to allow this proposed zoning change to move
forward. The negative financial and social impacts are too great. In this time of
economic uncertainty for many people it is vital that those at the lower end of the
economic spectrum be protected. The consequences to me personally would be
devastating. I urge the County Commissioners to not let this community be destroyed.
The Eno Economic Development District Small Area plan states that "development in
the Eno Economic Development District is intended to occur under Orange County
30
development regulations with coordination with the City of Durham". The interlocal
agreement between Orange County and the City of Durham for construction and
operation of water and sewer facilities in the Eno Economic Development zone of
Orange County does not include provisions for this to occur. It needs to be amended so
that it complies with the Eno Economic Development Small Area Plan regarding this
matter.
31
f
i
.. . . ... L 1.1' . .1,-. E.i_a_412(ato ,-.- 41'. 44. , ._1-a'-te.... A 4.5.. -ete,A a_,),__ce
-
-- fib/ -/ ---7dk./- -- .1/4-i ct
_l
4d o d
-- k.J _a/kg-_ . ) # _____C/C - ✓ " a3t L. 4. 4..tIC Q7(921- .. -.- _.
t J)
' . . ._ ._. i
.. . *a.r-P io--70 d v1 /6 . -e--: ct%..-.)-Q:'- _.Z •. _. . •
1 Lt e . vritZcZ,(_p,_ J hd ? e_1_. 2z &.c,u-e.__4(. ._._
i 19 ifi d? LPG rc .. ca-__ ./15- .1.ca . .,e icy
► ___ __-. ... _.._
LM _ - t �M ( i C-. C-0.k- ) �. z E _ .G4T1 C-: .-_. . .-- -
i ,.Moat ,_� / 's ...1 _ Ce-.'. a-/ ...
u
e .f _. Nom , Li ��2h"2 �!JG : it�cc
? _ 1cC�f� CO.
_. . .. .---- l ..„h, . i? . , .64i L „tt - c.%' Jc y .. yJ,1.e_me_G�i' .- .
r
\kO c e.e l. ( G.0"d c 1 e 4 c 4 j..4...x --1 z_c c t_�sf - . . .
v
' 32
, .
. .
,_JI
ak(.11 ei - —A/ici/74a--e
. ....._,. . ... _ .. .. .•_ ..._ _.,(_ ..„:.. _ ___.,......_ .„...: _._., : ,...,,,, -.):,.).. .5._?,&2_46.4o).1-;
ct6td d_da.e ...h.tili_.,-0.e ...0.-u_a-2(16
a1 -/- --- • -
L. _ficw__.0_,AA. _.(.1.,:t6 ,140-04:ci' . i±.4-/), 4e) __.
.--7,
txcbz.
• 411.-
b )
1 I
, .,6...L1-g..1, __. __. .. ..
7
f- 1
.- ..,r.
..._..._____..._.
ef0M-tAt.pj U4 • de"
. ,
33
Dr. Jon H.Arvik
213 Weldon Ridge Court
Durham,NC 27705
919-597-8891
jharvik(a,aol.com
July 18,2012
To the Board of County Commissioners:
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Pam Hemminger,Vice Chair
Valerie Foushee, Commissioner
Alice Gordon, Commissioner
Barry Jacobs, Commissioner
Earl McKee, Commissioner
Steve Yuhasz, Commissioner
Cc: Craig Benedict,Director,
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
I have recently addressed you in person during the citizen's input sessions of the
BOCC, and have also participated in the Planning Department's input sessions. These
contacts were about my concerns with the proposed rezoning and land use status of the
Eno Economic Development (EDD) program. To follow up on lessons I have learned
during those discussions, I met with your Planning staff and have had contacts with
County and State health and environmental authorities. I hasten to thank all of the
members of the BOCC, the Department Heads and staffs of several of the County
Departments, and members of the Planning Committee who have taken the time to
inform and guide me in the ways of the County administrative processes. These processes
are little different from those I have encountered throughout my professional career while
working with similar agencies.
I am distressed to find that though Orange County has a strong program for
protection of it's water quality, we do not have comparable efforts in terms of protections
of our residents from airborne materials. Our County Codes state that we will rely on the
State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
regulations, yet there are no DENR air sampling facilities in the County or within
reasonable distances of the existing EDD residential areas. Those that are active do not
sample a broad range of types of materials, nor are State sampling resources utilized by
the County to obtain data upon which our authorities can base planning decisions.
The DENR air quality programs depend highly upon specific fixed-location
facilities that are adequate for broad-area snapshots, but are inadequate for the
consideration of localized airborne particulates of types of minerals and suspended
organic materials which are recognized as significant human health hazards.
Examples of the results of inhalation of these toxins include pulmonary cancers,
asthma, emphysema, allergic reactions, cardiac diseases and a multitude of other
respiratory problems (please see Appendix I for additional information). Numerous
34
studies suggest that mortality and disease rates for neighboring residents are significantly
higher in areas of industrial activity, such as outdoor materials storage and processing,
transportation of uncovered materials, and particularly near such facilities that operate
without paved operations areas, with unpaved roads and few mitigation efforts. The
situation becomes worse if these activities allow movement of fugitive dust from their
areas of operations, and if transportation of raw and finished products flow through
residential areas.
The most significant human and animal responses to airborne materials are those
caused by inhalation of very fine particles. It is appropriate to note that these are the
particles that are most easily picked up and carried long distances by even slight breezes
or during transportation, especially if the winds are turbulent, such as those passing over
and through rough ground, past elevated structures including buildings, highway and
powerline rights-of-way and through forested transportation routes. Please note that this
describes rural Orange County quite well, and is specific to the area of concern of the
EDD south of Highway 70 and inclusive of all of Old NC 10, along which three
commercial particulate sources (a concrete mixing plant, a precast concrete manufacturer,
and a concrete, asphalt, and organic materials grinding operation) are located. Though all
three are probably operating "within Orange County Codes", there is no evidence that
they meet basic mitigation or "best practices" responsibilities, and there is no evidence
that the County has the capability to measure the danger to it's citizens in areas of risk.
The gist of this discussion suggests that the Planning Department and the Board
are being asked to make decisions on programs and projects that may severely impact the
well-being of Orange County residents, without valid and reliable data to determine what
that risk may be. Data abounds in the scientific and health communities that clearly
describe the effects of airborne particulates on humans, animals, vegetation, and indeed,
water quality in the vicinity of producers of such particles; yet, they are not being used to
evaluate such facilities in land-use or zoning decisions, nor are they being used to require
known, effective mitigation practices to reduce or eliminate risk.
The OC Economic Development Department confirms that there has been no
objective analysis of the overall economic benefit that the proposed EDD EDE-2 heavy-
industry category would offer for the County; nor is there sufficient information to allow
evaluation of the economic loss to the residents by becoming neighbors to the operations
of additional pollution-creating, high-traffic, heavy-machinery facilities. However, it can
be easily proved that there are significant threats to the local residents, and through
review of published scientific reports suggest the increased levels of risk to them.
Without an understanding of the potential benefits there is no opportunity to evaluate the
risk/benefit equation, and there are no public assurances as to which takes precedence,
the risk or the benefit. This presupposes a "if you build it, they will come" situation;
however, if you recall the movie "Field of Dreams", the only place "they came" was to
the specific location where "it" was built, it was for a very brief time, and no benefit
accrued to anyone else.
The difficulties causing my concerns are likely caused by a long-running series of
related but not coordinated decisions that could have been improved upon with the
application of knowledge from readily available and proven technologies. My first
exposure to the movement of airborne materials came in 1959 as a field worker for the
US Department of the Interior. Since then, I have frequently been involved in the
2
35
creation, measurement, tracking, and effects of airborne materials. I have also
participated in management and direction of large programs focused on increasing
economic opportunity, and the operation of commercial businesses. I believe that I have
a reasonably good understanding of the issues whereof I speak.
As a result, I am convinced that the current press of the County to find expanded
economic development to move away from a dependence on property taxes is laudable,
and I congratulate the County for the progress made in that regard. However, I strongly
disagree that an EDE-2 zoning within the EDD is appropriate.
The current movement towards completion of the Eno EDD reminds me of
another piece of American culture, a paradox called "The Road to Abilene". A group of
individuals, none of whom really wants to take the long, hot trip, individually agree with
the suggestion that they should go to that city, only because they each believe that the rest
of the group really does want to go, and that they themselves are the only one that doesn't
want to. Not wanting to be contrary,they do not demur, and off the group goes on a very
uncomfortable trip in which none of them sees value. In the case of the EDD, there is no
demonstrated value inherent in the project, but there has been so much footwork done by
so many for so long that there must be a pony in there somewhere. Perhaps Durham
County and the City of Durham really do want to go to Abilene, though a majority of
Orange County/Eno Township residents do not. I have been there and there is no
compelling reason to return.
As a resident of Orange County with a home in immediate proximity to the EDD
now being considered, I must object; my concerns are real and have not been adequately
addressed.
May I recommend that the decision-making process for land use/rezoning changes
include the following?
1. Disallow the granting of an EDE-2 or any rezoning/land use
designation in the proposed Eno EDD (or any) location, unless and
until factual safety and economic impact information is made available
to the citizens, the Planning Committee and to the Board of
Commissioners for any location that allows increased heavy-vehicle
traffic volume, dissemination of fugitive dust or toxic materials within
reasonable distances from, or via transportation through, adjacent
residential areas.
2. Advise and involve the residents at potential risk (physical or
economic) that proposals have been submitted or are being discussed
between their proponents and the County much earlier in the process
than is done currently. A great deal of time, resources, and angst could
be prevented if all of the affected populations could be included before
the County has expended effort to move a project forward against the
will of affected constituents.
3. Place in the County Codes/regulations a process that requires a special
use permit review of any proposals that have the potential to
negatively impact the health, tax rates, personal property value, or
quality of life for County residents; that review would include sworn
testimony by independent, qualified experts in appropriate fields who
3
36
would provide assessments of the validity and reliability of the
proposal information provided to the County, as well as providing
unbiased professional opinions of the impact of the project. Such
individuals can be made available from tax-supported institutions and
from independent private sources on a pro bono publico basis at little
or no cost to the County.
4. Require execution of detailed mitigation plans for any installations that
use, create, or release known toxic or nuisance materials or processes
within the County.
5. Perform periodic no-notice inspections of operating facilities'
mitigation programs to insure compliance with County standards.
6. Require proof of current operator's performance against Federal, State,
County, and local regulations/requirements prior to proceeding with
evaluation of plans for expansion or modification of their operations.
(Please note that items 4,5, and 6 are routine requirements in permit
approval processes in many other agencies outside of Orange County.)
7. Review the County Goals and Priorities with a stronger intent to
safeguard the health of the population and the quality of life issues not
now being addressed.
In no case should land use or rezoning changes be approved without regard to the
public safety, detrimental economic impacts to the current and future residents of a
proposed area, esthetics of the area, or the quality of life within the County. Certainly
decisions of this magnitude deserve a comprehensive analysis of potential effects to
evaluate the potential for otherwise unforeseen consequences. Systems can be easily be
put into place to allow these analyses with neither significant disruption of current
County operation nor significant added costs. If it truly is the intent of the Board of
County Commissioners, the County Manager, and the County Departments to protect our
quality of life while providing economic growth and stability, changes must be made;the
current system is inadequate.
We did not move to the source of risk, it has moved to us, and more may continue
to do so if not curtailed. Let us remember the Orange County Mission Statement:
"Orange County exists to provide governmental services requested by our Citizens or
mandated by the State of North Carolina we must: Serve the Citizens of Orange
County - Our Citizens Come First." It is a collective request of the residents
surrounding the Eno EDD that the EDE-2 classification be stopped; there is no mandate
by the State to continue.
If you wish additional details or supporting information,please advise. All of the
information upon which this communication is based was taken from published agency
documents or peer-reviewed research publications.
Sinc- y,
Jon H. / ,
4
37
APPENDIX 1:
Factual information concerning airborne particles
1. The most significant risk to humans from airborne solids is inhalation of very
small particles, which lodge inside the lung, causing respiratory trauma and
disease. These particles are roughly ten times smaller than the width of a human
hair, and are literally invisible to the human eye.
2. Particles of the sizes of concern to major regulatory programs by health
authorities and the EPA are PM 2.5 and PM 10. The "PM" numbers identify the
rough diameter of the particles in microns, and 2.5 and 10 are used as convenient
snapshots within the wider range of particulates in fugitive dust (airborne
materials that escape the boundaries of a particular site or operation). A micron is
one-one millionth of a meter. There are over 600 microns across the period at the
end of this sentence. Many bacteria are smaller than PM 10. PM 2.5 particles can
only be seen with powerful microscopes.
3. Breezes of less than ten miles per hour can pick up these and even larger particles
and move them considerable distances, particularly when turbulent wind currents
are encountered. For example, particles of PM 10 and smaller have been
measured hundreds of miles from their point of origin.
4. Fugitive dust is primarily caused by physical processes: crushing of materials by
application of mechanical force such as repeated heavy-vehicle traffic,unconfined
material storage, grinding and crushing operations, and aerial entrapment of dust
particles by the action of wind across an exposed surface.
5. Common sources of fugitive dust include unpaved roads, unprotected materials
storage piles, transportation of unprotected materials, and heavy materials
processing operations. Once fine particulate materials have left the desired
containment area,they cannot be controlled.
6. Larger dust particles are gradually deposited, falling in response to gravity as
"nuisance dust" closer to the source,with the smaller particles continuing to move
with the wind. If the source of the dust is continuous or repeated, there will be
continuous exposure to fine particles at a given location as long as the source is
not mitigated.
7. PM 2.5 and PM 10 particles are so small that they respond more to wind speed
and turbulence than to gravity, and hence appear in all locations downwind for
considerable distances. Fog droplets (roughly PM 25), mist (PM 40), fine spray
(roughly PM 60), very light rain (PM 1000, or one millimeter) and similar liquid
aerosols can help us to recognize how tiny PM 10 and smaller particles really are.
5
38
8. The predominant wind directions centered on the EDD area vary between roughly
northeast and southwest, with lesser amounts from the west and east. This directs
the fine particles across and through major residential areas 100% of the time.
9. PM 2.5 and PM 10 pollutants have the ability to enter deeply into the human lung
and remain there, causing physical damage, blockage of the airways, and
chemical reactions with the fluids of the lung. Lung damage may be acute,
(causing immediate effects from a large, short-term exposure); subchronic,
(causing damage and disease at low rates over somewhat longer exposures); or
chronic, (causing damage and disease at later dates due to repeated exposures
over the lifetime of the individual).
10. Adverse reactions of the lung, throat, and nasal passages are common following
exposure to airborne particles. Examples include our annual spring and summer
exposures to broadleaf weed, grass, and tree pollen giving rise to allergic
responses. Significant physical and chemical reactions to mineral particles such
as are in fine-ground stone and concrete dust include asthma, emphysema,
bronchitis, silicosis, reduced pulmonary function, and ultimately, cancers of
various types. The elderly, children, and people with chronic lung disease,
influenza, or asthma, are especially sensitive to the effects of particulate matter.
11. Fugitive dust from crushed gravel processing, stone-grinding, concrete-grinding,
mixing or crushing, and pulverized road sand and gravel contain high quantities
of shardlike, sharp-edged particles of glasslike material that easily penetrate and
damage interior lung tissue. Sample studies done by the USEPA for typical EDE-
2 facilities show that very fine dust can be emitted from operations and storage
activities at rates of several pounds per acre to double-digit quantities per day.
6
39
February 23, 2012
{Orange County Commissioners}
Dear Commissioner
I received a letter dated February 10, 2012, notifying us of two scheduled neighborhood
meetings. I have attended the first meeting. Regarding proposed changes,that letter states, in
bold print, "Your property is not impacted...". I must respectfully differ with the statement that
what you propose will not impact my property at 4411 Hwy 70 E, Durham, NC 27705, located
immediately west of the Duke Energy and Piedmont Energy high lines. All activities adjacent to
one's property logically affect that property as well.
Previous zoning changes have already affected my property, through the arrival of a company
offering "concrete and asphalt recycling". We have also watched as a small mountain of fill dirt
has grown alongside and beneath the power high lines. There is occasional, sometimes
continuous, intense noise pollution caused by heavy earth-moving equipment. Sounds like gun
shots, as dump trucks slam their tailgates, and the noise of engines and back-up warning signals
of other heavy earthmoving equipment not only lowers our property values, but it degrades the
quality of life for all near this designated "light industrial" zone.
Also, in recent years, we have observed many changes along the section of Stoney Creek that
runs through our property, and none of them were good. We have seen greater sediment load
from upstream, increased water turbidity, more frequent and more severe flooding and much
more erosion from the creek banks. The new mountain of earth and recent tree-clearing in the
power line right-of-way, within 100 meters upslope from the creek, is likely to exacerbate this.
We feel that the further proposed changes can only continue to have a similar negative impact
on Stoney Creek.
Further development such as you are proposing, of areas draining immediately into Stoney
Creek, will create additional opportunity for sheet runoff,flooding, and point source pollution.
This will further degrade wildlife habitat, destroying aquatic plants, fish, amphibians, mollusks,
and crustaceans. These are essential components of a healthy ecosystem. As the stream health
declines, surrounding habitat also declines. Currently this habitat supports deer and other
mammals and a great variety of birds, including wild turkeys.
40
Stoney Creek leaves our land, flows north beneath Hwy 70, and enters the Eno at the Eno River
State Park. Ecosystems do not stand alone;they are interconnected. Further degradation of
water quality, land, and wildlife habitat along Stoney Creek, by connection also affects the Eno
River, Falls Lake Reservoir, and the Neuse River. Various agencies and entities are entrusted
with protection of watersheds and stewardship of North Carolina's resources on behalf of the
state's citizens. As an example,The Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor was designated for low-
intensity use and connects the Eno River State Park to Duke Forest (Reference: Stoney Creek
Basin Small Area Plan: Chapter 3, Pages 12-13—approved by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners on August 5, 1996)
I can understand the need for controlled development. I can understand the need to expand
county and city tax bases. What I cannot understand is promoting those goals at the sacrifice
of important life-giving ecosystems—particularly our watershed system. I implore you to
reconsider the changes that you propose and to furthermore restrict commercial activities
directly adjacent to drainage into Stoney Creek and the Eno River. Such activities damage
essential and protected watershed ecosystems and, by extension, are detrimental to all citizens
of the state. Please take this recommendation under advisement prior to approving irreversible
development in this ecologically sensitive area.
"Environmental Responsibility in County Government" adopted as an Orange County Goal,
December 5, 2005 is laudable.The goal statement reads as follows: "Perform all County
governmental functions, both internal and external, with a sensitivity and ethic that promotes
environmental responsibility and leadership, and an understanding of the actions of government
activities as they affect the natural and cultural resources of the County, region, state, nation
and world."
Because I must be out of town on business February 27, 2012, I cannot attend the second
meeting. Therefore, in lieu of my in-person comments, I ask that you please enter this letter,
imploring you to reconsider your proposed plan, into the meeting minutes.
Thank you for considering my concerns as you plan an orderly development of this area. I
encourage you to establish a broader buffer between commercial development and the vital
water resources of the people of Orange County and of the State of North Carolina. I and
others will work toward that end.
Sincerely,
Charles P. Gunter
P.O. Box 507
Hillsborough, NC 27278
41
May 9, 2012
Ms. Renee Price, Chairman
Committee for the Environment (LETTER MAILED TO ALL 15 MEMBERS OF
1701 Riverside Dr COMMITTEE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND
Hillsborough, NC 27278 COPIED TO OTHERS)
Dear Ms. Price:
As citizens of Orange County, my family and I live on a special piece of property along the banks
of Stoney Creek—4411 Hwy 70 E. Because of our location, we are the beneficiaries of an
ongoing display of a great variety of wildlife and natural beauty associated with a stream. We
view ourselves as stewards as well as owners of this property.
Stoney Creek flows through the middle of our property, which is located one-half mile south of
the Eno River State Park. We live in what Orange County Commissioners have designated the
Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor. This corridor connects parts of Duke Forest with the Eno State
Park. The importance of protecting and maintaining this corridor is stated in various official
documents adopted by the Orange County commissioners.
The Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor was designated for low-intensity use and connects the Eno
River State Park to Duke Forest (Reference: Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan: Chapter 3,
Pages 12-13—approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 5, 1996)
Because of zoning changes approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners in 2008
and more zoning changes in the Eno District that will be considered by the Commissioners at
the May 29, 2012, public hearing,the viability of this corridor is being destroyed. It has already
been damaged by attracting the type of businesses that contribute to water, air, and noise
pollution.
The photos enclosed here illustrate some of the environmental impact of one such business.
When this company arrived,they clear-cut the timber on the Stoney Creek/Eno watershed and
then began to stockpile dirt of an unknown origin uphill from Stoney Creek. That material now
constitutes a small mountain. Storm-water runoff is already creating a man-made "tributary" to
Stoney Creek, which is within 100 yards of this pile of stuff.
Dirt and debris overwhelmed the original small silt screen. A new barrier, erected in March of
this year, has already been breached. Given the configuration and angle of repose of that
created mountain, it is doubtful that anyone will ever be able to contain the stormwater runoff
there. Stormwater runoff translates as increased particulate matter and pollution flowing
directly into the Eno River,through its tributary, Stoney Creek. Obviously this ultimately
impacts the Upper Neuse River water supply.
Page 1 of 3
42
To prevent additional destruction of this unique corridor, which if decimated might never be
restored, I encourage you to voice your opposition to the zoning changes that will be
considered May 29th. Further, I implore you to encourage the Orange County Planning
Commission to restrict expansion of the current activities of Gorilla Materials, Inc, located on
Mt. Herman Church Road. Gorilla Materials is the business that continues to build the dirt
mountain within yards of Stoney Creek.
If Gorilla Materials, Inc. is allowed to expand operations, of if another company of this nature is
allowed to do business on the Stoney Creek/Eno River watershed,then the destruction of this
wildlife habitat will be assured. Increased stormwater runoff from the dirt mountain can only
have detrimental results:
• Increased pollutants leached from the dirt mountain
• Increased turbidity caused by silt and clay particles flowing directly into Stoney Creek
• Increased impervious and exposed soil surface areas
• Increased flooding due to vegetative denudation
• Increased non-point;source pollution
"Stormwater pollution:
So why do we care about stormwater?
Quite simply...North Carolina's number one water quality problem is stormwater runoff
pollution. As stormwater flows across impervious (i.e.paved) surfaces or exposed soil, it
picks up various pollutants, such as oil &grease, excess nutrients, bacteria and
sediment. Polluted stormwater flows down our storm drains and ditches where it is
discharged, untreated, into our streams, rivers, and lakes. Stormwater runoff pollution
causes adverse impacts to aquatic ecosystems,poses human health risks, and can greatly
increase the cost of treating our drinking water.
For more information about stormwater pollution and stormwater resources, contact the
Stormwater Resource Officer,Terry Hackett"
[Source: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/erosion.asp#Stormwater ]
More business activities of the aforementioned nature will only accelerate and exacerbate an
already deteriorating situation. It is up to environmentally concerned citizens and to the
Orange County Board of Planning and the Orange County Board of Commissioners to protect
this fragile environment.
Orange County already has an environmentally sensitive and comprehensive plan for this area
adjacent to Stoney Creek. Please encourage the Commissioners to refer to their original plan
and do their duty to protect the Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor from destruction.
Page2of3
43
The Orange County officials have a difficult decision to make. Your support will be invaluable in
helping the planning department and the commissioners to make an obvious and wise decision.
It seems obvious that environmental degradation in the form of stormwater runoff pollution
"adversely impacts aquatic ecosystems, poses human health risks, and can greatly increase the
cost of treating our drinking water". This zoning change to allow greater industrial development
on the assumption that it might generate additional tax dollars sounds like a poor risk and a big
mistake
I close with a direct quote from the Orange County website:
A statement of"Environmental Responsibility in County Government" was adopted as an
Orange County Goal, December 5, 2005. The goal statement reads as follows: "Perform all
County governmental functions, both internal and external, with a sensitivity and ethic that
promotes environmental responsibility and leadership, and an understanding of the actions of
government activities as they affect the natural and cultural resources of the County, region,
state, nation and world."
Thank you for your concern, your consideration, and your help.
Sincerely,
Charles P. Gunter
P.O. Box 507
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Cc: Stoney Creek—Old NC 10 Property Owner's Association
Mr. Frank Clifton, Orange County Manager
Orange County Commissioners
Orange County Planning Department
Eno River Association
Enclosures
Page 3 of 3
44
May 11,2012
TO: Orange County Commissioners
Orange County Planning Department
Orange County Attorney
FROM: Charles P. Gunter
4411 Highway 70 East, Durham, Orange County, NC
SUBJECT: Gorilla Materials, Inc.—Permits for Expansion of Operations
Tuesday afternoon, May 8th, I became aware that the subject company has purchased an
additional eleven (11) acres of land adjacent to and north of their existing operation at 7012
Mt. Hermon Church Road.
As a concerned citizen, representing many other concerned citizens in the Eno District of
Orange County, I implore you to cease any and all additional permitting for any expansion of
the operations of Gorilla Materials, Inc. until adequate studies are made regarding the
environmental impact of the operations of this company.
Detrimental effects of existing operations include, but are not limited to:
• Excessive stormwater runoff into Stoney Creek/Eno River/Upper Neuse River
• Increased non-point source pollution into our drinking water supply due to leaching of
unknown materials stockpiled in open areas
• Increased particulate pollution introduced into the air in the sensitive Hwy 70 and 1-85
junction (refer to EPA alerts)
• Heavy truck traffic on Hwy 70 E, Mt. Hermon Church Road —destroying road surfaces
and causing dangerous traffic problems
• Extreme level of noise created by uncovered and non-noise abating rock grinders and
tree shedders
• Excessive noise from dump trucks slamming tailgates to dislodge materials
• Excessive diesel engine noise caused by the use of heavy highway earth moving
equipment in a residential area
Attached is a letter sent to members of the Orange County Committee for the Environment,
concerning some aspects of the problems currently caused by the operations of Gorilla
Materials, Inc. That letter was sent before I learned of the planned expansion of operations.
45
I urge you, as elected officials representing all of the citizens of Orange County, and as Orange
County planning officials,to stop Gorilla Materials, Inc., from expanding their operations in this
location. Surely the greater good here, for residents, wildlife, and the land itself in this portion
of the Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor is not the expansion of an operation that is already
problematic. One look at the conditions already existing at this site suggests the devastation
planned for the recently purchased 11 adjoining acres. In addition to averting more
degradation of the environment, I urge you to seek ways to mitigate damage already occurring.
For businesses and residents to productively and peacefully coexist, a permanent solution to
the incessant and excessive noise problem must also be implemented.
I anticipate much more concerned comment from your constituents on this matter at the
quarterly public hearing scheduled for May 29, 2012.
Your help is needed. Thank you for doing your duty and for your service to Orange County and
its Citizens.
Cc: Various citizens, citizens groups, and environmental protection and advocacy
organizations
46
May 21, 2012
[LETTER MAILED TO ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND COPIED TO OTHERS]
Dear Commissioner:
First, I'll thank you for your service to the citizens of Orange County. At times, your job as
County Commissioner must be a daunting task. You are charged with balancing the various
interests of the citizens of a very diverse county. Economic development and the protection of
the environment are always in a state of tension. Regarding those issues, I know that some
decisions are much more difficult to make than others. All decisions must be made with
integrity and with an adherence to common sense and in the spirit of the longer term good of
all citizens and the long-term protection of our delicate environment.
Today, I write to you concerning the Eno District zoning regulations, both those existing
presently and the recently proposed changes. First of all, I am not anti-Gorilla Materials;
however, I feel that this business was located in an inappropriate place. This is not the fault of
the owners of Gorilla Materials. It is due to a mistake caused by zoning changes made in 2008.
For reasons that have become apparent, noisy EDE-2 activities with increased heavy vehicle
traffic flow should never be allowed to exist next to rural residential areas. These type
companies should also not be permitted to operate on steep slopes adjacent to
environmentally sensitive watershed areas such as the Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor.
For thirty-one years, I have owned and operated a business. I am for economic progress and
sensibly directed and controlled development. I am pro Gorilla Materials—in the right location.
For the past six years, I have also served as a trustee managing the operations of another
business. This second business operates heavy equipment and machinery, often located in
environmentally sensitive (watershed) areas, and often near residential areas. Being cognizant
of the environmental problems that might result from our operations, and being aware of how
our operations might negatively affect and disrupt the lives of our residential neighbors, we do
everything possible to mitigate the damages that we might cause to the environment and to
people.
Page 1 of 3
47
Following zoning regulations implemented by the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
Gorilla Materials has invested money to start up their operations and to expand their
operations. It is unlikely that they will voluntarily choose to relocate. Their operations are
noisy, dusty, and are located partially on a steep slope immediately adjacent to Stoney Creek, a
major tributary to the Eno River/Upper Neuse watershed.
From my business experience, I have some suggestions to share with you for your
consideration. These are suggestions that the owners of Gorilla Materials, as potentially good
neighbors, might consider,too.
I: Do everything feasible to mitigate possible damage to the Stoney Creek watershed. Work
with Orange County officials, and adhere to the "spirit" of the rules and regulations designed to
protect the environment. By "spirit", I mean not just adhering to the minimum technical
compliance, but using empirical evidence and common sense to address problems and
potential problems as they occur- not just once a year on a compliance check.
II: To attenuate the noises radiating from Gorilla Materials, construct sound walls or enclosures
around shredding, crushing, and grinding equipment. These walls should be covered with
sound absorbing acoustical foam or equivalents. All heavy equipment and engines should be
fitted with "hospital mufflers"to help lower the decibel level caused by those machines.
[Note: In my business we build and insulate sound walls around the heavy pumping equipment
we use, and we install "hospital mufflers" on all equipment located near residential areas. This
make for good neighbors and peaceful coexistence. In the long run, it also saves money.]
Also, prohibit the large dump trucks from slamming their tail gates trying to dislodge materials
in the truck bed. This sounds like gunfire to the neighbors and to wildlife. The record to date is
nine slams in rapid succession by one truck.
III: Do whatever possible to reduce particulate air pollution from diesel engines and dust
generation created by shredding, grinding, and crushing, and dust caused by heavy equipment
movement. I believe that the intersection of US Highway 70 and 1-85 is located in an area
designated by the EPA as an area of particular concern related to particulate air pollution.
IV: Amend zoning regulations to prohibit noisy, dusty, high traffic businesses from locating or
expanding operations in this rural residential area. There are other geographical locations
better suited to this type business activity.
My business experience has taught me that there are two kinds of mistakes: (1) big ones, and
(2) small ones. No one wants to make a mistake, but,from time to time, we all do it. I have
found it best, if possible,to make only small mistakes and to correct the big mistakes as quickly
as possible.
Page 2 of 3
48
In 2008,for what I feel certain were honorable motives, possibly related to economic
development, a big mistake was made. The EDE-2 zones were expanded into the Stoney Creek
Wildlife Corridor. These changes in zoning regulations have allowed a business, ill suited to a
rural residential setting, to open and operate too near to residential and environmentally
sensitive watershed areas.
As an Orange County Commissioner, you have an opportunity to correct an existing big mistake.
Just as importantly, you can avoid making another big mistake—the approval of the proposed
zoning change.
Secondly, to prevent making another big mistake, why not take a gamble on possibly making
only a small mistake by tabling this matter of rezoning until quality of life and environmental
issues can be appropriately quantified and addressed; and current problems mitigated.
The choice is yours—big mistake or small mistake. The citizens of Orange County rely upon
you to make the best decision for them and for the environment they must live in.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Charles P. Gunter
P.O. Box 507
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Cc: Stoney Creek—Old NC-10 Property Owner's Association
Orange county Commissioners
Mr. Frank Clifton, Orange County Manager
Mr. Craig Benedict, Director, Orange County Planning Department
Members of Orange County Environmental Committee
Eno River Association
Gorilla Materials, Inc.
Page3of3
Excerpt of Minutes Attachment 12
APPROVED 3/22/2012
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 27, 2012
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners
Valerie P. Foushee, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice M. Gordon
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Vice Chair Larry Wright,
Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Johnny Randall, Andrea Rohrbacher,
Lisa Stuckey
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine
Mitchell, Alan Campbell
Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford announced the agenda and read the public charge.
1. Unified-Development-Ordinance--(UDO) Text-Amendments----Ta-reuiew-gouer-nment-_.
ir►hilted-amendments-tatha-text_of thaUDO_to-add-a_conditionral_zcaning.district_(REDA,
CZ-4)-that-would-be-applicable lo-the-geographic_area_addressedin_theNC_Highway
571 Sp.eedway_Area_Small_Area_P1an.and_ather neces.sary_amendments to implement
recommendations-made-in-the-small-area-plan.
Planner-Glenn-Bowles made-a-P--owerP_oint-preseatation.
Uni€ied Development-Ordinance-Text-Amendments
N C_Highway_57_Rural_EconamicDevelop me.ntArea_(REDA).
Conditional-User(REDA-CZ4)-District
• Encourage-compatible,-nc n esiden.tiaLdeuelopment,
50
problematic areas and identify potential soliitinns to allow the Board to see the pro and con
impact. Also, identify where there could he methods where we could modify what is being
propoccd to addrecc a roal life scenario and at the same time, encohragP any new development
• -• _ • •..._ •• _•.- -• • ••- •
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
( - • _ •• - • - • - _ •-• • • - •• — • _••• •••_ 0•11.011 • — )
s
A motion was made by Chair Pelllssler, sPrnnded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn
•- • • • ••• • • 11 - 1 •• • •- • - - - . 1• . -• a- . 11.10 i•.rd's•
recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments — To
review government-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map and to the Zoning Atlas to change the land use classification of approximately 493.5
acres in the vicinity of the Interstate 85/US Highway 70 interchange (in the vicinity of the
Eno Economic Development District near the eastern county line) and to change the
zoning district of approximately 351.5 acres of property in the same area
Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. He said that last Wednesday, the County
held an outreach meeting and it was very robust. It was a wonderful facility. There were also
planners from the City of Durham at the meeting because this area is within the Urban Growth
Boundary.
Orange County
Quarterly Public Hearing
February 27, 2012
Agenda Item C-2
Eno Township and Economic Development Area
Land Use and Zoning Amendments
• Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area
Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
Land Use Intensity Categories
Higher Intensity Areas:
These areas are generally synonymous with the ten and twenty year transition areas in
the existing Land Use Plan (adopted 1981, amended 1988) or they are adjacent to areas
proposed for future development on an urban scale. At some future date, they will most likely
be incorporated into the municipalities of Hillsborough and Durham through the annexation
process. A mix of land uses is possible in these areas and they will be served by water and
sewer. They could be viewed as "receiving areas"for lower density areas to the south.
Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity(EDE-1)
EDE-1 Allows:
• Finance
• Government
51
• Services *
• Transportation
• Miscellaneous
EDE-1 Doesn't Allow:
• Agricultural
• Construction
• Information
• Manufacturing, Assembly& Processing
• Recreation
• Wholesale Trade
• Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2)
EDE-2 Allows:
• Agricultural
• Construction
• Finance
• Government
• Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
• Retail
• Services
• Transportation
• Wholesale Trade
EDE-2 Doesn't Allow:
• Information
• Recreation
• Residential
Recommendations
1. Receive the proposal to amend:
a. Land Use
b. Zoning
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and receive public, BOCC and Planning Board comments,
3. Refer the matter to Planning Board to be returned for BOCC action by April 17, 2012,
4. Adjourn the Public Hearing until April 17, 2012 to receive any written comments between
February 27, 2012 and Planning Board recommendation.
Eno Neighborhood Meeting
Citizen Comments
1. Stoney Creek Basin EDE-1 vs. EDE-2
The EDE-2 is suggested by staff because of the frontage along 1-85 and its relative
isolation between the interstate, Mt. Herman Church Road, railroad tracks, and high
voltage primary electric transmission lines. The opposite side of the road is also
EDE-2.
2. Resource Protection Areas (RPA)
RPAs are a layer of the land use plan and are still operational.
3. What is light industrial compare Orange County and Durham County?
The uses were discussed during the Eno EDD SAP meetings and comparability was
achieved.
4. Why now? Public utilities
52
This area has been noted as an urban growth land use since 1981 and reconfirmed
in 1994 and 2008. Orange County is facilitating the proposed land use pattern since
any one small business could not afford to build infrastructure and jobs growth is
more important than ever.
5. Annexation
These land use and zoning amendments do not create annexation programs. If a
new business or resident wants public water and sewer, they will sign a voluntary
annexation form and if the City of Durham decides the petition meets state law and is
fiscally feasible then it may be annexed.
6. Why are there two plans Orange County and City of Durham
Where are these two land use plans and one zoning plan? The area is within
Orange County which has a land use and zoning program. If a city also has an area
of county within its future urban growth boundary (UGB)then they also have a future
land use plan map.
7. Mobile Home Parks
The northern mobile home park is being rezoned to EDE-2 which has frontage on I-
85. The southern mobile home park will remain Planned Development HR 4 zoning
since its approval contains special 'Planned Development' conditions until such time
a different project is proposed.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked if any conforming uses would be rendered non-conforming by
any of these changes. Craig Benedict said that he has analyzed the complete list and there would be
no non-conformities.
Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners received a letter for the record from
Charles Gunter. She gave this letter to the Clerk,which is shown below:
February 23, 2012
Ms. Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
4516 Mystic Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Bernadette Pelissier:
I received a letter dated February 10, 2012, notifying of us two scheduled neighborhood meetings. I
have attended the first meeting. Regarding proposed changes,that letter states, in bold print, "You
property is not impacted...". I must respectfully differ with the statement that what you propose will
not impact my property at 4411 Hwy 70 E, Durham, NC 27705, located immediately west of the
Duke Energy and Energy high lines. All activities adjacent to one's property logically affects that
property as well.
53
Previous zoning changes have already affected my property,through the arrival of a company
offering"concrete and asphalt recycling." We have also watched as a small mountain of fill dirt has
grown alongside and beneath the power high lines. These are occasional, sometimes continuous,
intense noise pollution caused by heavy earth-moving equipment. Sounds like gun shots, as dump
trucks slam their tailgates, and the noise of engines and backup warning signals of other heavy
earthmoving equipment not only lowers our property values, but it degrades the quality of life for all
near this designated"light industrial"zone.
Also, in recent years,we have observed many changes along the section of Stoney Creek that runs
through our property, and none of them were good. We have seen greater sediment loan from
upstream, increased water turbidity, more frequent and more severe flooding and much more erosion
from the creek banks. The new mountain of earth and recent tree-clearing in the power line right-of-
way,within 100 meters upslope from the creek, is likely to exacerbate this. We feel that the further
proposed changes can only continue to have a similar negative impact on Stoney Creek.
Further development such as you are proposing, of areas draining immediately into Stoney Creek,
will create additional opportunity for sheet runoff,flooding, and point source pollution. This will further
degrade wildlife habitat, destroying aquatic plants,fish, amphibians, mollusks, and crustaceans.
These are essential components of a health ecosystem. As the stream health declines, surrounding
habitat also declines. Currently this habitat supports deer and other mammals and a great variety of
birds, including wild turkeys.
Stoney Creek leaves our land,flows north beneath Hwy 70, and enters the Eno at the Eno River
State Park. Ecosystems do not stand alone;they are interconnected. Further degradation of water
quality, land, and wildlife habitat along Stoney Creek, by connection also affects the Eno River, Falls
Lake Reservoir, and the Neuse River. Various agencies and entities are entrusted with protection of
watersheds and stewardship of North Carolina's resources on behalf of the state's citizens. As an
example,the Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor was designated for low-intensity use and connects the
Eno River State Park to Duke Forest(Reference: Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan: Chapter 3,
Pages 12-13—approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 5, 1996).
I can understand the need for controlled development. I can understand the need to expand county
and city tax bases. What I cannot understand is promoting those goals at the sacrifice of important
life-giving ecosystems—particularly our watershed system. I implore you to reconsider the changes
that you propose and to furthermore restrict commercial activities directly adjacent to drainage into
Stoney Creek and the Eno River. Such activities damage essential and protected watershed
ecosystems and, by extension, are detrimental to all citizens of the state. Please take this
recommendation under advisement prior to approving irreversible development in this ecologically
sensitive area.
"Environmental Responsibility in County Government"adopted as an Orange County Goal,
December 5, 2005 is laudable. The goal statement reads as follows: "Perform all County
governmental functions, both internal and external,with a sensitivity and ethic that promotes
environmental responsibility and leadership, and an understanding of the actions of government
activities as they affect the natural and cultural resources of the County, region, state, nation, and
world."
Because I must be out of town on business February 27, 2012, I cannot attend the second meeting.
Therefore, in lieu of my in-person comments, I ask that you please enter this letter, imploring you to
reconsider your proposed plan, into the meeting minutes.
54
Thank you for considering my concerns as you plan an orderly development of this area. I
encourage you to establish a broader buffer between commercial development and the vital water
resources of the people of Orange County and of the State of North Carolina. I and other will work
toward that end.
Sincerely,
Charles P. Gunter
P. O. Box 507
Hillsborough, NC 27278
PUBLIC COMMENT
Edward Hill lives on Live Oak Trail, which is off of Mt. Herman Church Road. His property is
within 100 yards of the RE-1 area (??). He said that he was not able to attend the February 22nd
meeting because he did not know about it. He asked about the notification requirements. He
became aware of these actions when the signs went up at the corner of Old NC 10 and Mt. Herman
Church Road.
Craig Benedict said that staff notified by letter people within 600 feet of all rezoning, and the
last tax record owner of the property is used.
Edward Hill said that his comment is that the area that he lives in is residential, R1. He would
like to see the Planning Board remove this section below the railroad tracks,which was expanded at
the request of Durham County. He understands the mobile home park's property owners' desire to
have the potential for municipal sewer access, but he does not see any reason for Durham City to be
dictating to Orange County where the zoning limits are.
Phillip Rhew said that he is worried about bringing water and sewer by his house because of
the requirement to hook on to this.
Dianne Rabalais lives on Old Hillsborough Road within Whispering Pines. She said that she
moved to Orange County not to be in Durham County. She is concerned about Durham County
annexing this property. She said that she moved to Orange County for her children to go to Orange
County Schools. If the water and sewer will be brought from Durham for certain people to develop
their lands, then these people need to pay for this.
Craig Benedict said that these residents will remain within Orange County Schools no matter
what happens, even if the City of Durham does come into Orange County. There will be two layers
of taxes—Orange County and Durham City. This is similar to places in Hillsborough. The water and
sewer program is not intended to be put through the middle of any existing development. It is
primarily a backbone to serve undeveloped properties or underdeveloped properties.
Darcy Willson read a prepared statement.
Darcy Willson
5315 Old Hillsborough Road
Durham, NC 27705
darcvwillson(a�vahoo.com
919-612-7442
The Eno Economic Development District has many natural and manmade attributes that should be
protected and enhanced by any future development.
55
Zoning and land use policies should take into consideration the established residential housing. The
emphasis should be to protect existing residential housing, and create a blend of new single family
housing, new multifamily housing, retail, office, and industrial areas. New single family residential
and multifamily residential housing should be encouraged in the E. D. 2 and E. D. 1 areas so that the
residential aspect of this area is not overshadowed by any new non-residential development.
This area should be a mixed use development similar to Waterstone in Hillsborough. It should not be
a large industrial complex.
Duke Forest,the Eno River and Stoney Creek and new and existing housing should be buffered from
Industrial Development. Using open space and transition zoning from residential, to office/retail and
then industrial would help preserve quality of life for existing and new residents. Facilities that
enhance quality of life should be strongly encouraged. Schools, a senior center, community center,
daycare facility, medical center, library, arts space and outdoor recreation should be part of this area.
Follow Guidelines Shaping Orange County's Future including the following:
1. The availability of affordable housing for low and moderate income households is a critical
requirement.
2. Create multi-use community facilities that would enable a variety of functions such as a
school, community center, senior center, senior care facility, adult learning center,teen
center, day care facility, medical center, branch library, arts space and outdoor recreation.
3. Ensure that affordable rental and owner occupied homes are available for low and moderate
income households.
4. Create high density mixed use development.
5. Land use patterns should be designed to enhance desirable aspects of community character
in new and old neighborhoods.
6. We need to manage development and create land use patterns that maintain quality of life
and help to build community.
7. Integrate uses(residential, commercial, light industrial and commercial).
8. Continue current efforts to guide growth away from public water supply watersheds to prevent
new discharges into these watersheds.
Eno Economic Development(EDD)Area Small Area Plan
1. Ensure that zoning text and map changes are completed in such a way that residential uses
that were constructed as conforming uses in the current Secondary EDD area are not made
nonconforming uses under any new zoning designation.
2. Ensure that if existing mobile home parks are redeveloped into other uses that the property
owner and county work together to help displaced residents find suitable, decent, alternative
housing.
3. If the region pursues commuter rail in the future,the spur line to Chapel Hill would likely
become an important connector within the rail network.
4. The ability to have a commuter train station in the future should be explored. A station could
serve the existing Amtrak service or a station could be incorporated into the future Triangle
commuter rail system.
56
5. How land is used is a major factor in many aspects of people's lives. Land Use directly
affects people's quality of life in a variety of ways. Community character, traffic generation
and flow, availability of services and the quality of the natural environment are all affected by
Land Use decisions. Indeed, one of local government's principal powers is the authority to
control land development so that growth is managed in such a way that negative impacts are
minimized and mitigated.
6. Preserve stream corridors and create a network of publicly-accessible trails between
developed areas and the Eno River State Park to the north of the focus area and Duke
Forest to the south of the Focus Area.
Last week residents were informed about an interlocal agreement with Durham that had been
recently made. I can find no mention of this agreement anywhere on Orange County's website. This
agreement and the process that led to it should be made public. It concerns me that local residents
weren't informed that an interlocal agreement was being negotiated with the City of Durham.
Affected residents should have been informed and invited to be a part of the process. If the
agreement does not include provisions for the City of Durham to abide by the recommendations and
policies set forth in Shaping Orange County's future and the Eno Economic District small area plan
this should be added to ensure that Durham's policies are aligned with Orange County's.
Questions:
1. How will buffering and transitioning of existing and possible future, nonresidential
development be accomplished to avoid impacts on existing and new residences?
2. What types of additional nonresidential land uses are to be considered for the area and how
will their impact be mitigated?
3. What will be done to protect the environmental integrity of Duke Forest, and 'Eno River State
Park and Stoney Creek?
Robin Jacobs spoke on behalf of the Eno River Association. She is the Executive Director.
She served as the Chair of the Carrboro Planning Board for a little over ten years while the University
Lake Watershed Agreements and the Joint Planning Agreement were issued. She distributed a
handout. She pointed out a resource protection area that is along Stoney Creek. She said that the
Stoney Creek Plan does talk about higher, middle, and lower intensity uses. The plan is totally
focused on residential development and is not talking about higher intensity industrial uses. Her
concern is that Stoney Creek will have more industrial use. She said that just because there are
regulations, it does not mean that the County can control what happens.
Jennifer Gunter verified that her father's letter was received and entered into the record.
Jim Brown said that it was stated that there is currently no development proposed that is
pushing these zoning changes and that this is all in the planning phase. It was answered yes.
Jon Arvik asked about a sewage lift station. He has lived within ten miles of one of these at
one time. He is concerned about this. He would like to know where this station is and he would like
to have public input. He wants to know what it will look like, sound like, smell like, etc. He asked
what authority Orange County would have to resist the annexation by Durham. He said that he
moved here for a reason and he would like to maintain the quality of life.
Craig Benedict said that Orange County would not be choosing a consultant for engineering
design until later this summer.
57
Todd Orr spoke against the plan to rezone the area north of Old NC 10 and south of the
railroad to ECE-1. It is inconsistent with the current residential character or undeveloped character of
this area. He said that this area is proposed by Durham to be low-density residential. He does not
understand why Orange County would be proposing a more intense development of that area.
Chris Kelsey said that the maps are very confusing. He suggested that the maps be clearer.
He said that he moved into Orange County to be in a more rural environment. He suggested limiting
the amount of industry.
Commissioner McKee asked for an answer to a question about forced hookups to water and
sewer. Craig Benedict said that no lines would be extended to specific properties in the residential
neighborhoods. There will be a policy similar to the City of Durham's sewer policy.
John Roberts said that several people mentioned annexation as a concern. He said that
annexation is not a County function. He said that the General Assembly has made annexation a little
more difficult for cities to do involuntarily. Cities now have to provide notice to counties when they
cross county lines. Property owners do have the ability to some extent block involuntary annexation.
For the most part, cities will only annex on a voluntary process.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the western portion of what is being proposed beyond where
it was recommended by the Eno EDD group.
Craig Benedict said that the western portion was not within the original Eno Economic
Development boundary. When the Durham interlocal agreement was brought forward, it was found
that there was an urban growth boundary outside of the Eno and it was suggested to bring forth land
use plan amendments to backfill the urban growth boundary.
Commissioner Jacobs said that last week when the Board considered the advertisement for
this public hearing, he specifically asked if this exactly followed what the Eno EDD Work Group
recommended and Craig Benedict said yes. He said that this is, in fact, not true, but it is an
amplification to match what Durham put on the map of Orange County. It is not what the EDD work
group recommended to the Board of County Commissioners.
Craig Benedict said that aspects within that Eno Economic Development zone, especially
around Whispering Pines,were within the district. That part is correct. There were areas outside of
that, and if he was not as clear,then he apologizes.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he started on the Planning Board in 1985 and this is one of
the most poorly presented proposals that he has seen. There was a small area plan in which the
Board of County Commissioners had no presentation and members of the public had to bring it up at
the community meeting. There is still no copy. The maps are very confusing. There was not one
word mentioned by staff about environmental impacts. There was not one word mentioned by staff
about rural character impacts. There was barely a mention of neighborhood impacts. He said that
this is a County where these are the values (applause). He does support economic development
and he has worked on virtually all of the small area plans, but to rush to do something without doing it
thoroughly and openly is a mistake. He suggested getting some written responses from Durham
about what happens when the water line crosses individual properties. All of the issues of
annexation need to be in writing. He wants to be honest with people that they will be in the City of
Durham at some point.
58
Commissioner Yuhasz said that there is a lot going on here and the maps are confusing. He
thinks that it is important to look at the entire scope of what is reasonable to serve regarding water
and sewer. He is not suggesting rushing this, but the infrastructure needs to be in place to allow for
reasonable and considerate development of this property over the next 20-30 years. He thinks that it
will be short-sighted not to move forward at this point.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he wants to take a particular exception to the way in which
staff is proposing the impact on Stoney Creek. He said that the thought that this should be higher
intensity industrial is preposterous. He does not know why Orange County would be so insensitive to
the environment.
Craig Benedict said that no matter what land use or zoning category that is applied to the
lands in and around creeks, they will adhere to the highest standards applicable. Those impacts will
be monitored equally no matter what type of use. The reason the EDE-2 is suggested is that
because it does have 1-85 frontage and is near an intersection and isolated by railroad tracks to the
south. Also, the uses across from the mobile home park are industrial in nature. He said that the
staff will continue to take comments from the County Commissioners and the public and work with
the Planning Board to come up with recommendations.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Craig Benedict said that one of the
higher intensity areas in the Stoney Creek Basin plan is similar to areas where there is an existing
truck stop and additional retail opportunities. It is a mix of land uses and not just residential or non-
residential.
Commissioner Jacobs said that it would have been helpful to have a small area plan on the
website or in the packet.
Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs'comments about the Stoney
Creek area. She said that she does believe that had the task force had the opportunity to look at that
area in particular, there would be no recommendations to include this part. She does think that the
task force agreed to what is proposed here otherwise, but not this particular area of Stoney Creek.
Commissioner Hemminger said that this is very confusing to her and she does not feel
comfortable making a decision. She thinks that this should be reworked. She would not be ready by
April 17"'.
Chair Pelissier said that the Board could change this to another date.
Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board would like an opportunity to extend this item.
The Planning Board will need three or four meetings to really work this through.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to defer
this item to be heard again at the Quarterly Public Hearing in May and direct staff to address the
concerns that have been raised and bring them back to public hearing. If staff chooses to have
another public information meeting, the materials can be presented then.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz)
Chair Pelissier pointed out that a motion was missing on Item 1. This motion was added to
the end of Item 1.
End of Item
59
Excerpt of Minutes
1 DRAFT
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 May 29, 2012
8 7:00 P.M.
9
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
12 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
13 Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice
16 Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
20 Michael Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be
21 identified appropriately below)
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:, Vice Chair Larry Wright, Pete Hallenbeck, Mark
23 Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Andrea Rohrbacher, Lisa Stuckey, Maxecine Mitchell, and
24 Tony Blake
25
26 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Rachel Phelps Hawkins,
27 Alan Campbell, and Johnny Randall
28
29 Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:04:05 PM.
30
31 ****************************************
32
33
34 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
35
361. 5. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments —To
37 continue review of government-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
38 Map of approximately 493.5 acres in the vicinity of the Interstate 85/US Highway 70 interchange
39 (in the vicinity of the Eno Economic Development District near the eastern county line) and to
40 change the zoning district of approximately 245.82 acres of property in the same but limited
41 general area. This item was continued to the May quarterly public hearing from the February 27,
42 2012 quarterly public hearing.
43 Craig Benedict introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation.
44
45 Agenda Item C.5
46 Eno Township and Economic Development Area
47 Land Use and Zoning Amendments
48
49 Contextual Plans and Agreements
60
1 1. 1981 Orange County Land Use Plan map (Durham's Urban Growth Boundary)
2 2. 1988-1993 Land Use Elements Updates
3 3. 1994 Land Use Plan Map Amendments to Economic Development
4 4. 1994-1996 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
5 5. 1996-2001 Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement
6 (WASM P BA)
7 6. 2006-2009 Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan
8 7.a. Orange County/Durham County Utility Service Agreement (2011-2012)
9 b. BOCC Consensus to proceed with land use amendments to provide consistency with
10 Orange County Land Use and Durham City Urban Growth Boundary— November 2011
11
12 OUTREACH MEETING DATES
13 PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETINGS
14 FEBRUARY 22, 2012
15 and
16 APRIL 25, 2012 - Pictures
17 0 Rail looking east from Mt. Herman
18 0 Industrial opposite Mobile Home Acres
19 0 Mt. Herman looking north, Caddy Shack on east side, 1-85 Overpass in the distance
20 0 Mt. Herman looking south, 1-85 in background
21 0 Stonegate MHP off Mt. Herman with Industrial Warehouse use across road
22 0 dac Awnings opposite Stonegate MHP
23 0 Old Hillsborough Road looking east; Whispering Pines on north and some residential
24 and undeveloped on South
25 0 Old Hwy 10 from Mt. Herman looking west
26 0 Old Hwy 10 from Mt. Herman looking east
27 0 High Power Transmission Substation off of US 70
28 Eno Neighborhood Meeting
29 Citizen Comments
30
31 1. Stoney Creek Basin EDE-1 vs. EDE-2
32 The EDE-2 is suggested by staff because of the frontage along 1-85 and its
33 relative isolation between the interstate, Mt. Herman Church Road, railroad
34 tracks, and high voltage primary electric transmission lines. The opposite side
35 (east) of the road is also presently EDE-2. Also to the east is Existing
36 Commercial zoning (EC-5).
37
38 2. Resource Protection Areas (RPA)
39 RPAs are a layer of the land use plan and are still operational in the Unified
40 Development Ordinance (UDO) to protect environmental areas (i.e. stream buffers,
41 steep slopes, etc.).
42
43 3. What is light industrial; compare Orange County and Durham County?
44 The uses were discussed during the Eno EDD SAP meetings and comparability was
45 achieved. Uses are not of the higher impact industrial. List of specific uses were
46 added to webpage.
61
1
2 4. Why now public utilities?
3 This area has been noted as an urban growth land use since 1981 and reconfirmed
4 in 1994 and 2008. Recommendations in the Eno Small Area Plan suggested an
5 agreement with the City of Durham which was accomplished in January 2012.
6 Orange County is facilitating the proposed land use pattern since any one small or
7 large business could not afford to build infrastructure. Job growth is more important
8 than ever in designated areas. 84% of the county is rural and only 16% including
9 cities and along interstates is designated as Urban.
10
11 5. Annexation
12 These land use and zoning amendments do not create annexation programs. If a
13 new business or resident wants public water and sewer, they will sign a voluntary
14 annexation form and if the City of Durham decides the petition meets state law and is
15 fiscally feasible then it may be annexed. (See annexation monograph from City of
16 Durham)
17
18 6. Why are there two plans Orange County and City of Durham?
19 There are two land use plans (Orange County and City of Durham) and one zoning
20 plan (only Orange County). The area is within Orange County which has a land use
21 and zoning program. If a city also has an area of county within its future urban
22 growth boundary (UGB) then they also have a future land use plan map. Land use
23 comparability is key in these urban but non-extraterritorial jurisdictions (non-ETJ).
24
25 7. Mobile Home Parks
26 The northern mobile home park is being rezoned to EDE-2 which has frontage on I-
27 85. The southern mobile home park will remain Planned Development HR 4 zoning
28 since its approval contains special `Planned Development' conditions until such time
29 a different project is proposed. The future land use and existing zoning would allow
30 residential to remain and/or be upgraded.
31
32 0 Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity (EDE-1)
33
34 EDE-1 Allows:
35 • Finance
36 • Government
37 • Services *
38 • Transportation
39 • Miscellaneous
40 • Residential
41 EDE-1 Doesn't Allow:
42 • Agricultural
43 • Construction
44 • Information
45 • Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
46 • Recreation
47 • Wholesale Trade
48 EDE-2 Allows:
62
1 • Agricultural
2 • Construction
3 • Finance
4 • Government
5 • Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing
6 • Retail
7 • Services
8 • Transportation
9 • Wholesale Trade
10 EDE-2 Doesn't Allow:
11 • Information
12 • Recreation
13 • Residential
14
15 Recommendations
16 1. Receive the proposal to amend:
17 a. Land Use
18 b. Zoning
19 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and receive public, BOCC and Planning Board comments,
20 3. Refer the matter to Planning Board to be returned for BOCC action by September 6,
21 2012,
22 4. Adjourn the Public Hearing until September 6, 2012 to receive any written comments
23 between May 29, 2012 and Planning Board recommendation.
24
25
26 Commissioner Gordon asked why the County was doing the land use amendments and
27 the zoning amendments.
28 Craig Benedict said that the UDO allows government-initiated amendments to have a
29 land use and zoning change together. Also, the differentiation between land use and zoning to
30 the general public is a nuance. For clarity, it is better to bring them forward together.
31 Public Comment:
32 Charles Gunter said that he has written a number of letters to the elected officials and
33 his concern with this matter. He said that he is not opposed to economic development. He has
34 owned a business for 31 years. This is a heavy construction business. He is concerned that
35 there are unintended consequences that can occur. He said that Stoney Creek from Gorilla
36 Materials runs through his property. He does not want to see the County make another mistake
37 by inviting other businesses that might also follow that same pattern. He asked the Board to
38 look at this further and to look at the effects that this one business is causing and consider how
39 other ones like that might affect the people there. He said that in the future it should be
40 proposed to the public differently. It should be explained and then the questions that should be
41 asked by the public should also be brought forward. He asked the County to do further
42 investigation on this.
63
1 Darcy Willson said that one of the things that concern him is that some residential areas
2 have been removed and others have not. He said that this does not seem fair. He said that he
3 would like to be removed as well. He said that the negative financial and social impacts to area
4 residents are too great to allow this zoning change to move forward. He said that this zoning
5 change will greatly reduce the buffer between new non-residential development and existing
6 small residential properties. He said that by incorporating the small residential properties, it will
7 reduce the required buffers from the current 100 feet to as little as 25 feet. He said that the tax
8 value of the residential properties will go up and many people will be unable to afford the
9 increases. The areas affected by this change have a high percentage of affordable housing.
10 He said that the Eno economic Development District Small Area Plan states that"development
11 in the Eno Economic Development District is intended to occur under Orange County
12 development regulations with coordination with the City of Durham." The interlocal agreement
13 between Orange County and the City of Durham for construction and operation of water and
14 sewer facilities in the Eno Economic Development zone of Orange County does not include
15 provisions for this to occur. He said that it needs to be amended so that it complies with the
16 Eno Economic Development Small Area Plan regarding this matter.
17 Babette Brown lives in Weldon Ridge and her house backs up on Old NC 10. She said
18 that she is here to voice her concern about the proposed zoning changes. She said that they
19 moved here because of the rural character and the great school system. She is worried that the
20 entire character of the area will change, particularly on Old NC 10. She referred to the letter
21 from Ms. Kelsey (??), which the County Commissioners received. She said that she supports
22 the points on the character of the rural residential area. She said that this area does not seem
23 to fit with commercial development. She said that a lot of this seems to be requested to benefit
24 one or two large landowners. She said that there seems to be some space to do economic
25 development north of the railroad tracks. She asked about any legal implications for the County
26 if the property values decrease. She said that she wonders if Commissioner Yuhasz has a
27 conflict of interest because he also does work for the largest landowner, who was his largest
28 contributor. He said that one of his other contributors owns Cardesec, the business.
29 Jim Brown said that he agrees with his wife, Babette Brown. He made reference to the
30 access to 1-85 and NC 86 and said that this property has not been used. He made reference to
31 the impact of high speed rail, which will use the existing tracks. This rail will bisect EDD. He
32 asked if this has been taken into account.
33 Sarah Glass lives in Weldon Ridge also and has lived there for about a year. She spoke
34 about the rural character and the close proximity to places like RTP, Duke, Durham, etc. She
35 said that at the time the house backing up to Old NC 10 was not a big issue. She said that she
36 did call someone before they bought the house and was assured that there was not going to be
37 any changes happening around this area in the near future. She said that the Planning Board
38 has not been forthcoming with information. She said that the negative environmental impacts
39 need to be explored, especially the species of wildlife. One of the major issues that bother her
40 is that the proposed changes seem to be driven by some financial interests of a few landowners
41 in the area. She said that it is not equitable to allow one landowner to benefit at the cost of a lot
42 of the residents surrounding the area.
43 Oliver Glass (husband of previous speaker) spoke of the rural character of this
44 development. He said that the proposed amendments to the zoning and land designation will
45 take away all of the enjoyment living at Weldon Ridge and negatively impact the future of quality
46 of life of his family. Environmentally, the amendments will destroy the natural habitat of
47 numerous wildlife species.
64
1 Matthew Edwards also lives in Weldon Ridge. He thanked Craig Benedict and the
2 Planning Board for all of the work and for changing the zoning from ED-1 back to R-1.
3 However, he is concerned with the future land use change because it sets a permanent
4 precedent. He said that his family decided to move to this area because of the rural character.
5 Robin Jacobs is the Executive Director of the Eno River Association and an Orange
6 County resident. She came to represent the Eno River Association and herself. She applauded
7 the Planning staff for modifying the recommendations that were initially made to rezone
8 property. There are some proposed changes that she thinks are unnecessary. The area that is
9 proposed to be zoned EDE-2, the more intense zone, is right next to Stoney Creek. She made
10 reference to Attachment 7-c and said that it shows the boundary of the Stoney Creek Small
11 Area Plan. This property is in the small area plan for Stoney Creek and that is why it was not
12 included in the EDD when it was zoned several years ago. It was left out on purpose. She said
13 that the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan was strictly talking about residential development and
14 there was nothing about commercial development in there at all. One of the guidelines is
15 protection of natural terrain and features and sensitive ecological areas including Duke Forest,
16 wildlife corridors along Stoney Creek, and other identified natural areas. Another one of the
17 guidelines is protection of the character of existing neighborhoods from incompatible uses,
18 densities, and direction of growth not rural in character. She pointed out one of the bullets
19 under that, which says, "no new commercial development in the planning area." This is the
20 Stoney Creek Overlay area, which is now proposed to go from Rural Residential to EDE-2. She
21 said that, in reality, there is an agreement that can legally provide for water and sewer, but this
22 will be really expensive. It means that some developer will have to acquire enough property and
23 have big enough lands to run the lines all the way into this district, or the County will have to find
24 the money somewhere. She asked about the EDE-2 at the mobile home park and if that would
25 make the current use non-conforming.
26 Blythe Ardyson has lived on Mt. Herman Church Road on 13 years. She spoke about
27 the yellow area, C. She is also concerned about the dark purple areas, A, where commercial is
28 being brought into residential areas. She said that they moved into this area specifically
29 because of the rural residential character. She knew that there were commercial centers
30 nearby when she moved here, but this would change the nature of the neighborhood
31 tremendously and would hurt the quality of life. She said that her family bikes every weekday
32 around here and this commercial development would pose a danger. She said that there are
33 underutilized or not yet developed areas with easy interstate access that are very close by, such
34 as Waterstone.
35 Janet Arvik lives in Weldon Ridge. She said that this development has become special
36 in more ways than just being small. She said that it is a mixed age community that gets along
37 well with all of the neighbors. She asked the Board to please not commercialize the area.
38 Heidi Hackney lives in Weldon Ridge. She read a letter from the Crabtree builders. This
39 letter was sent to the County Commissioners prior to this meeting.
65
1 "On behalf of?? Crabtree Home Building, we would like to express our concerns
2 regarding the proposed zoning change along Old NC 10 and Orange County. Several years
3 ago, we chose to develop a small community that would complement the current character of
4 Old NC 10 and would be important to the long-term land use plan and current zoning. The
5 neighborhood is called Weldon Ridge and consists of nine homes, each built on one-acre lots.
6 Those would purchased property in our neighborhood did so because they wished to live in a
7 rural Orange County neighborhood. The proposed zoning changes, which would allow
8 numerous enterprises to be established on this rural residential road are simply not consistent
9 with the character of Old NC 10 and will significantly compromise the charm and appeal of this
10 part of the County. As a homebuilder, we chose this area in part because of the current zoning
11 and long-term land use plan. If non-residential entities are allowed to be mixed among homes
12 along this road, this will seriously compromise home values and severely diminish the desire for
13 future homebuyers to purchase properties in this part of the County.
14 I would strongly suggest that the County Commissioners, in conjunction with the
15 Planning Board, retain the current long-term land use plan and current zoning for Old NC 10.
16 Sincerely,
17 Gail Crabtree"
18 Jon Arvik is a retired research scientist and a resident of Weldon Ridge. He said that he
19 and his wife hope this is their final home in rural Orange County. He said that this zoning
20 change will cause significant noise and air pollution. He said that the last 30 years of his career
21 included growth studies in urban, suburban, and rural areas, as well as environmental
22 management. This experience has led him to express his concerns. His primary concern is the
23 EDE-2 zoning. The commercial operations that will be permitted here will result in high rates of
24 particulate, which cause increases in cardiac and respiratory diseases. He is also concerned
25 about traffic, which could triple or quadruple.
26 Ray Hackney lives in Weldon Ridge. He said that he is concerned about the safety of
27 their children. In the neighborhood, there are seven children under the age of 8 and more on
28 the way. The proposed rezoning would bring businesses that could present some hazards for
29 their children. He urged the Board to reconsider these changes.
30 Chris Kelsey lives along Old NC 10. He spoke to Amendment#3. He said that this is a
31 beautiful, quiet, historic, rural residential road. He said that Craig Benedict has indicated that it
32 has been proposed by the Planning Department to retain the rural residential zoning along this
33 road. He wholeheartedly agreed with this decision. However, it is still proposed to change the
34 land use classification along Old NC 10 to EDE-2, which allows a number of non-residential
35 enterprises. This inconsistency will lead to future tension and discord. Furthermore, the
36 Durham long-term plan calls for the same area in yellow to be residential. This is a discrepancy
37 between the zoning, the land use plan, and Orange County's plan and the City of Durham's
38 plan. He said that EDE-1 would allow government, real estate, banking, and other commercial
39 enterprises to be added haphazardly among rural residential neighbors.
40 Christi Kelsey is a stay-at-home mom and she lives in Weldon Ridge. She has three of
41 the seven children mentioned before. She spoke against the zoning change in this rural
42 residential area. She said that she grew up in the city where she could easily walk to
43 commercial industry and she did not feel safe. She said that she moved to Orange County to
44 get away from this.
66
1 Emily Bane said that her mother is Dorothy Bane. She said that part of the property that
2 was removed in the yellow is her family's property and the other part was the mobile home park.
3 She said that the family is appreciative that the County values the property that her mother sold
4 that is Weldon Ridge. Her mother has been a wonderful steward of the property in that area
5 and she is a large landowner. She said that property that is changing, which is Mobile Acres 2
6 in the B section, does not belong to her mother. She said that this would not be a conflict of
7 interest. She said that she appreciates everything that Commissioner Yuhasz has done for
8 them as a surveyor and a friend. She said that the landowners in this area care deeply about
9 this area.
10 Kristen Smith is the Director of Public Policy and Member Engagement at Chapel Hill-
11 Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. She is an Orange County resident. She said that she is
12 representing 1,100 local lawyers who employ about 80,000. She thanked the Board and
13 encouraged the County Commissioners to continue to strengthen the County's positioning on
14 availability for economic development, extending a real invitation to businesses to come and
15 grow in Orange. She said that they support the proposed rezoning and increasing the County's
16 commercial tax base, reducing the tax pressure on the homeowner, and retaining and recruiting
17 employers in Orange County, and increasing work opportunity for the children of the community.
18 She said that Orange County identified EDDs and locations for economic development over 25
19 years ago and today is the right time to take the steps needed to rezone them for that long plan
20 and much needed economic development opportunity, including job opportunities.
21 Jennifer Sharpe is a single mom and she pointed to where she lives on the map. She
22 works for the Orange County Health Department. She lives in her grandmother's house, which
23 was bought in 1965. She moved there in 2003. She said that she lives exactly halfway on Old
24 NC 10 and people turn around in her driveway. She said that she has done a lot of research to
25 oppose this rezoning and said that this road is rich in history.
26 Barbara Robertson said that she did not find out about this except through their neighbor
27 and they have lived in the neighborhood for 34 years. She spoke about sustainability and said
28 that the County should really be thinking about this. She spoke against the rezoning.
29 Laura Streitfield was representing the citizens of Preserve Rural Orange. She thanked
30 the staff for the maps because in the past she has found some of the proposed maps a little
31 confusing. She said that all of the residential properties should be reconsidered. She has a list
32 of 137 affected property owners. She said that 500 feet in a rural area is not very much in terms
33 of who is actually affected. She urged the staff to make sure that everyone that is affected is
34 contacted before reaching any kind of decision. She said that there needs to be a lot more
35 information about the purpose for these changes.
36 Todd Orr lives in Weldon Ridge neighborhood. Agreed with his neighbors about the
37 inconsistency between the land use plan and the zoning does not make sense. He requested
38 that the section in yellow be removed from the EDD area or create something else besides
39 EDE-1 or EDE-2. He said that there should be a residential land use plan.
40 Donna Underwood submitted a prepared statement:
41 "I am writing to respond to the rezoning of NC 10. We are a concerned family that lives
42 at 4010 Old NC 10. We are right beside the middle railroad tressel. We have twin 8 year old
43 girls and a 15 year old boy. Right now, the speed is 55 mph. I do not let the kids ride the bus,
44 letting off on the other side, the traffic coming over the hill would not be able to stop.
45 The road is already heavy with traffic, which is not wise to check mail from 3pm —7pm
46 daily. Now, there are more and more bicycles sharing the road and they are extremely narrow.
47 Many would have to be spent to widen the road and widening and raising the railroad tresses.
67
1 The schools here — New Hope Elementary, Stanback, and Cedar Ridge are our only
2 schools for this area. They are already crowded, so new ones will have to be built.
3 When I found out about the rezoning that Mrs. Bane wants approved, I became so
4 stressed with worry. We moved here 15 years to take advantage of the wonderful schools. The
5 traffic back then wasn't as bad.
6 I know Mrs. Bane has a lot of land and it would benefit her financially. She would break
7 her land into smaller pieces and sell. It would not benefit any of us. Thank you for reading my
8 letter since I had to work. Please consider the feelings and safety of the families that live in this
9 little neighborhood, unless Mrs. Bane is willing to pay for the new roads, tresses, and schools."
10
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked Craig Benedict to go back to slide 4 (a map of Eno EDD
12 Area Small Area Plan —Area Perspective). He said that it looks like continuous development
13 from Hillsborough to the Durham County line.
14 Craig Benedict said that this was a map that came out of the Eno Small Area Plan.
15 There has been a modification since then with the Strategic Growth Plan with Hillsborough. The
16 boundary has been contracted and the larger green area is a long-term interest area.
17 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 23 and different intensities based on
18 EDE-1 and EDE-2. He asked about the asterisks next to "services."
19 Craig Benedict said that"services" means it is not commercial or retail. For example,
20 banks are in the services category.
21 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the Eno EDD that was adopted after the small
22 area planning effort and asked how far west the EDD went.
23 Craig Benedict said that it was suggested to go out to the Stoney Creek Basin. It was
24 suggested by the small area plan that the area south of Old NC 10 switch to a soft economic
25 development zoning category.
26 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 5 and said that he would like to see links
27 to the Eno EDD Small Area Plan, the Stoney Creek Basin study, and the City of Durham's
28 Urban Growth Plan that goes into Orange County.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would also like to see the meeting notes from
30 February 25th. Craig Benedict said that he would provide those.
31 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the comments from citizens about the railroad
32 crossings and the non-conforming uses. He asked that these questions be answered in writing
33 when it is discussed by the Planning Board and the County Commissioners.
34 Craig Benedict said that he took notes during the public comment and he will provide the
35 answers during the Planning Board meeting.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said that he has worked on the NC 57 Small Area Plan, the
37 Hillsborough EDD, the Buckhorn EDD, and to some extent on the Eno EDD. He said that in
38 none of those cases did the County go in defiance of the people who lived in the area. He just
39 wanted to report this to the Board.
40 Commissioner McKee asked about road construction on Old NC 10 and Mt. Herman
41 Church Road. He said that he understood that this was a sight line improvement and a safety
42 issue. He does not think it has anything to do with potential development. He asked about
43 residential development in EDE-2.
68
1 Craig Benedict said that no new residential development could happen in EDE-2. Any
2 existing residential development such as the mobile home park would be a legal non-
3 conforming use.
4 Commissioner McKee asked about the impact of the high speed rail on the crossings.
5 He asked if these crossings would be closed.
6 Craig Benedict said that he would give formal responses at a later time.
7 Commissioner Gordon reiterated that she would like to have the links to the information
8 sources and the questions asked by the citizens should be answered formally.
9 Commissioner Gordon asked about the thinking for changing the zoning in these
10 residential areas.
11 Craig Benedict said that all through the Eno Economic Development Small Area Plan
12 and going back to the mid-80's, Area 2 was designated as a commercial, non-residential node.
13 For 30 years, those two areas have been intended for non-residential activity. It was actually
14 changed so that there could be mixed uses and residential development allowed.
15 Commissioner Gordon said that it would be helpful if some alternatives to the proposed
16 zoning are given for the Planning Board and the County Commissioners to consider, along with
17 the pros and cons.
18 Commissioner Yuhasz said that everyone needs to recognize that change will occur and
19 the alternative to changing some residential areas to commercial use is to maintain exactly the
20 same kind of residential to commercial tax base that the County currently has. This has been
21 damaging to the County's ability to provide the services that people want without having an
22 exceedingly high property tax rate. He said that the County is trying to get a handle on the
23 property tax rate that every resident of Orange County has to pay. In order to expand the
24 commercial tax base, the County needs to expand opportunities for commercial enterprises to
25 locate in the County.
26 Mark Marcoplos said that a couple of people mentioned that they thought the Planning
27 Board let them down a few years back and did not warn the citizens about things happening in
28 the neighborhood. He said that the Planning Board had the information when the staff brings it
29 at the appropriate time. He said that they only got this information a couple of months ago
30 before the last public hearing.
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
32 receive this proposal, refer the matter to the Planning Board to return to the Board of County
33 Commissioners for action by September 6, 2012 and adjourn the public hearing until September
34 6, 2012 in order to receive any written comments between now and the Planning Board
35 recommendation.
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 *****************************************
Excerpt from Draft Attachment 13 69
Planning Board Minutes DRAFT
1
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
4 AUGUST 1,2012
5 REGULAR MEETING
6
7
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks
9 Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township
10 Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township
11 Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township
12 Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Mark Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township;
13 Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township
14
15 MEMBERS ABSENT: Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative;
16
17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love,
18 Administrative Assistant II
19
20 OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director; David L. Neal and Tom O'Dwyer, Commission
21 for the Environment; Phillip Gunther, Darcy Wilson,Jenny Simchock
22
23 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
24
25 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
26 a) Planning Calendar for August and September
27 b) August 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing Legal Ad
28
29 Tina Love: We have switched to Outlook to create the meeting calendar. The Quarterly Public Hearing location has
30 been changed to Senior Citizens Center at Meadowlands.
31
32 Larry Wright: We have to maintain a quorum for each item heard at the quarterly public hearing meetings.
33
34 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
35 JULY 11,2012 ORC NOTES
36 JULY 11,2012 REGULAR MEETING
37
38 MOTION made by to Lisa Stuckey approve the July 11, 2012 ORC meeting notes. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell.
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 MOTION made by Pete Hallenbeck to approve the July 11,2012 meeting minutes. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell.
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 Michael Harvey: Reviewed Legal Advertisement for Weekly Homes LLC for Quarterly Public Hearing.
45
46 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS To AGENDA
47
48 Mark Marcoplos: I think it is important for any board to have a formal process for electing officers. I propose we
49 adopt this process. A month before the election of officers, there is a committee formed of three people. Those
50 people contact all the members on the Board and gauge interest from anyone that would like to serve and gauge
51 support for those people. Most of the time it results in a slate everyone agrees on. It is an open process that is
52 accountable to the public.
53
54 Larry Wright: Could you outline that and send it to the Board.
1
70
DRAFT
55
56 Mark Marcoplos: This will be my last meeting. I would like to thank everyone for the opportunity to serve.
57
58 Larry Wright: Could someone spearhead this? I don't want to see it die.
59
60 Peter Hallenbeck: I will do that.
61
62 Larry Wright: Mark, I hate to see you go; you have contributed to this Board immensely
63
64 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
65
66 Introduction to the Public Charge
67 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
68 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development
69 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
70 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
71 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
72 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
73 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
74 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
75
76 PUBLIC CHARGE
77 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its
78 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with
79 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this
80 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual
81 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting
82 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
83
84 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
85
86 Larry Wright: I would like to introduce our newest member, Dr. Dawn Brezina and our Vice-Chair, Pete Hallenbeck. I
87 will not permit my name to be considered for nomination for Chair next year.
88
89 Larry Wright: I would like to stress the importance of attendance at the Quarterly Public Hearing. Is everyone
90 satisfied with the delivery of the agenda? This seems to be working well. I have also asked staff to send a current
91 list of the Planning Board members.
92
93 AGENDA ITEM 7: Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments-To make a
94 recommendation to the BOCC government-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
95 Future Land Use Map of approximately 493.5 acres in the vicinity of the Interstate 85/Us
96 Highway 70 interchange (in the vicinity of the Eno Economic Development District near the
97 eastern county line) and to change the zoning district of approximately 180± acres of
98 property in the same but limited general area. This item was heard at the May 29, 2012
99 quarterly public hearing after being heard at the February 27,2012 quarterly public hearing.
100 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
101
102 Craig Benedict: Presented Eno Economic Development District(EDD)Area Land Use and Zoning Amendments.
103
104 Larry Wright: On page 47, the handwritten letter, this person and a number of people were concerned about traffic.
105 One thing that comes to mind is that Commissioner Yuhaz said that things were going to change here which means
106 traffic will change. There will be an impact on Highway 10 and the trestle. How does NCDOT and the railroad come
107 together to handle a situation like this?
108
2
71
DRAFT
109 Craig Benedict: Orange County has a good relationship with NCDOT. On a regular basis,we analyze the speeds of
110 a road based on activities built on property accessing the road. There will be no commercial traffic, which has a
111 higher trip generation than office traffic. The majority of the commercial activity will be on Highway 70. We will work
112 with NCDOT to analyze the increase in traffic and if we find out turning is difficult, right or left turn lanes can be put in
113 or the blinking light could turn into a regular light.
114
115 Larry Wright: She also talks about the railroad trestle. Did you have any comments on the railroad situation?
116
117 Craig Benedict: There may be restrictions of truck traffic. There can be additional signage. We will address it with
118 NCDOT and our partners at the NC Railroad Division.
119
120 Larry Wright: There is also a letter from Dr. Arvik. When NCDOT announced the extension of Highway 147, there
121 was an outcry and a lot of opposition. They tried to stop it and they could not. NCDOT did put it through. We do
122 have an EDD and it is part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and there will be commercial traffic there. It is realistic
123 for the town to conduct essays as requested and monitor them forever?
124
125 Craig Benedict: The state regulates air quality. Occasionally, they do put monitoring stations through the state. We
126 will contact them to get a baseline. We have a program through the Durham/Orange County/Chapel Hill MPO to
127 make traffic work better. We will monitor air quality based on traffic situations and they can pick up background that
128 is not associated with transportation that would be associated with an area. We will not be mandating these
129 particular stations to be put in.
130
131 Larry Wright: For example, if it does get into Orange area, there would not be any way to mitigate it?
132
133 Craig Benedict: Mitigation due to transportation, there are programs that can be brought forward, i.e. Commuter rail.
134 When you look at air quality, you focus on development in one area and relieving the burden in other areas.
135
136 Johnny Randall: When you have a Code Orange and the primary pollution is ozone is not particulates.
137
138 Craig Benedict: You are familiar with our Environment and Resources Conservation Department that monitors the
139 level in wells.
140
141 Johnny Randall: I read the letters and many seemed to be valid concerns. If there is a parcel for sale in this area
142 and a real estate agent doesn't want to advertise this is an EDD area is there a way that the public can be flagged
143 that alerts them to this potential.
144
145 Craig Benedict: The only flag is if they look at the website, speak with staff, or comes to our office. Largely, it is up
146 to the realtors.
147
148 Mark Marcoplos: In thinking of the whole concept of the EDD and how the people who live near them, how they have
149 learned about them, fifteen years ago, we were talking about EDD and what to do with them and the sense was we
150 couldn't do much. They were just there.
151
152 Craig Benedict: They originated in 1994. Prior to that, there were Commercial Industrial Transition Nodes and
153 Commercial Nodes so this EDD theme in 1994 was a reinvention of what had been there.
154
155 Mark Marcoplos: So these districts are sitting there and someone could easily buy a home there and no one would
156 know. It seems we have accepted something that was drawn on the map and kept in an office somewhere and now
157 we are getting ready to impose zoning on these areas. I think it is a problem. There should be signs to let people
158 know they are entering into a zone. I think it is up to the County and not the realtor.
159
160 Maxecine Mitchell: Being a licensed realtor myself, the law,we have to make sure the property can be used for what
161 the buyer wants to use it for and secondly to look into upcoming changes that may affect the use of the property.
3
72
DRAFT
162 One thing we do run into is if a realtor has a person who works for them and may not necessarily be a licensed
163 realtor and not be held to the same standard. Will they share the same information with you? May or may not.
164
165 Craig Benedict: All counties in North Carolina don't have a land use plan or zoning. It is something new.
166
167 Johnny Randall: This would be a great field trip site.
168
169 Andrea Rohrbacher: I would be curious to know about signage if I had a home in the area and it was developed for
170 one of the permitted uses,will I have an ugly sign near my home.
171
172 Craig Benedict: Any site plan that comes forward to develop in this area would have to adhere to our sign code.
173
174 Maxecine Mitchell: I have driven US 10, could they reduce the speed?
175
176 Craig Benedict: We do have a meeting with NCDOT we discuss the safety uses.
177
178 Lisa Stuckey: When you go from Agricultural to EDE-1, are the property values affected?
179
180 Craig Benedict: They stay the same until people start selling their land and someone thinks it is more valuable.
181
182 Peter Hallenbeck: There is nothing more dangerous than buying a house. There are many issues. The letters we
183 have here are people currently living here and the task is to figure out a balance between future directions with the
184 people who are already there. There was a similar issue when I was on the Efland Small Area Plan where residents
185 were concerned about Economic Development. One thing that came out is that even though this area is planned for
186 this doesn't mean it will happen overnight. If you are in a house and something comes up next to you the buffer is
187 larger. We have the state and its rules and the county is not in a position to do anything about that. The people who
188 are on the fringes of these falls back to when does it happen, when do you get the development and what are the
189 buffers? I do like Old NC 10 being moved up to the railroad tracks and keeping that residential because I think that
190 addressed some of the concerns. In fire department districts, depending on which side of the road you live on
191 depends on which fire department you get. Having Old NC 10 as a boundary is odd because if you are on one side,
192 it is residential and the other is business.
193
194 Craig Benedict: The procedure is during the public hearing process, individuals can contribute their thoughts about
195 the application and by the Planning Board meeting, and they submit material in writing. If you would like to speak to
196 a specific point you have submitted it in writing,you are allowed to speak.
197
198 Larry Wright: I am confused with the Commercial Node to Economic Development and the use EDE1 and EDE2.
199
200 Discussion about maps and colors.
201
202 MOTION made by Alan Campbell to approve the resolution as proposed by the planning staff for the future land use
203 map changes. Seconded by Buddy Hartley.
204 VOTE: PASSED 10-1 (MARK MARCOPLOS OPPOSED)
205
206 Mark Marcoplos: I am not comfortable with doing this so soon in the process. I think there is a lot more that needs to
207 be heard from the neighbors. There is too much energy in the community that doesn't understand or approve.
208
209 Maxecine Mitchell: I need some clarification. I sort of agree with him but I was going to wait for the zoning part
210 because that is where the particulars come in. Land use is a broad use and you have the particulars the individual
211 has to meet when they come to the BOCC and the Planning Board.
212
213 Craig Benedict: The zoning will say how high, how far from the property lines based on this ED1 category.
214
4
73
DRAFT
215 Maxecine Mitchell: Would that address the concern Dr. Arvik about the air quality, would that come into play during
216 the zoning part.
217
218 Craig Benedict: It if is a special use permit, in and EDE1 category,we have performance standards. Does it address
219 to the complete degree in the letter, probably not. We will discuss with the air quality division of DENR about how
220 those issues could be researched and address.
221
222 Peter Hallenbeck: This is all about page 26.
223
224 Dawn Brezina: Could you state what we are voting on?
225
226 Craig Benedict: We are voting to change 159 acres from RR to EDE-1 for the Area A zone.
227
228 Rachel Hawkins: Is anything there now?
229
230 Craig Benedict: There are residential structures. They can remain as long as they would like and are consistent with
231 the zoning category.
232
233 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve the Area A from R-1 to EDE-1 for approximately 159 acres. Seconded by
234 Buddy Hartley.
235 VOTE: PASSED 9-2(MARK MARCOPLOS/MAXECINE MITCHELL OPPOSED)
236
237 Mark Marcoplos: I could get comfortable with most of these changes if I knew the community was on board with
238 them as well and I am not convinced they are and it is an unwise decision to make such changes against the will of
239 the community.
240
241 Maxecine Mitchell: The same concerns for me. I would like to be sure they are comfortable with the response from
242 staff.
243
244 Agenda Item 8: Outline and Brief Discussion of Future Goal Setting Meetings and Coordination with
245 Advisory Boards(this will be a full agenda item in Sept-Oct)
246 Presenter: Larry Wright, Planning Board Chair and Craig Benedict, Planning
247
248 Craig Benedict: Each year, the BOCC asks the different advisory boards about some of the work products they have
249 had in the previous year and what they look forward to doing in the upcoming year. In my conversations with the
250 chair, to align some of our priorities with some of the other advisory boards, we will probably formulate how we can
251 get together with some of the others before we all throw in 10 things we would like done to the BOCC to meet ahead
252 of time and see if we can find some priorities to meet multiple goals and boards. If we get a more compact list that
253 crosses these lines we may be more affective in achieving them in the coming year. In September,we will be talking
254 about formulating our future work plan and trying to meet with some of the other boards to see if there is something
255 mentioned in the Comprehensive Planning process and the Unified Development process that would meet their
256 interest we can have a sufficient program to achieve some things in the coming year.
257
258 Larry Wright: In our discussions, I am very sensitive to people's time here. It is a volunteer board. There will be a lot
259 of work to be done as we go through zoning. My term expires in March and this will fall on many of you. How do we
260 bring all these silos together? The rules and procedures, it states the meetings start at 7:30 and end at 10:30. Since
261 we start at 7:00 I am going to make sure you are out of here, unless there is a serious issue, by 10:00.
262
263 Lisa Stuckey: Are you suggesting that we are getting into this is a little beyond our purview would take a lot of time?
264
265 Larry Wright: I am not saying that at all. I am not addressing any particular issue.
266
5
Attachment 14 74
RESOLUTION # RES-2012-075
A RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
WHEREAS, Orange County initiated an amendment to the Orange County 2030
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, as established in Section 2.3 of the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), to reclassify areas within the Eno
Township, and
WHEREAS, these land use amendments are further described as follows:
I. Change 55.9 acres of property from the current land use designation of
Commercial Node to 10-Year Transition involving properties with the following
Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN):
9893910204 9893902442 9893700229 9893806742 9893806227
9893809927 9893804345 9893803290 9893902746 9893707211
9893803906 9893809399 9893802155 9893803793 9893805573
9893801992 9893705268 9893808198 9893700687 9893705584
9893709834 9893911241 9893700118 9893902655 9893800468
9893708847 9893912145 9893805077 9893804588 9893706488
9893902848 9893818273 9893808086 9893704588 9893808442
9893805724 9893902959 9893816073 9893803070 9893801473
9893705742 9893815030 9893806885 9892890994 9893707483
9893706647 9893900936 9893704736 9892797873 9893704315
9893809760 9893800876 9893703663 9892793874 9893700421
9893803661 9893808846 9893700525 9893809478 9893704381
9893809650 9893902340 9893902544 9893801306 9893708160
9893703339 9893807204 9893807766 9893805331 9893709160
9893806076 9893900119 9892793773 9893702648 9893708389
9893901121 9893800151 9893817195 9893802646 9893706244
9893703073 9893705048 9893804918 9893707652 9893703272
9892891986 9893703193 9893707829 9893708557 9893901232
9892798990 9892795738 9893807847 9893709563 9893801153
9893807291 9892797963 9893703811 9893807469 9893707016
9893707198 9892793983 9893809890 9893806572 9893804073
9893902164 9892795910 9893800735 9892799992 9893700007
9892699764 9892790923 9892892988
75
and further described as `Area 1' on maps provided to the Orange County Board
of Commissioners at its February 27, 2012 and May 29, 2012 quarterly public
hearings and their September 6, 2012 regular meeting.
II. Change 130.8 acres of property from the current land use designation of
Commercial Node to Economic Development involving properties with the
following Orange County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN):
0803002614 9892998862 0803100109 9893604939 9893909606
9893608557 0803007438 0802092905 9893618051 9893608242
0803207282 0803004553 0803100055 9893603521 0803102261
0803107244 9892996872 0803001017 9893602164 0802394949
0803307352 9892699764 9892798476 9892790923 0803003547
0803006178 9892894495 9892990026 0803303393 0803109390
0802093923 0803300153 9892892121 0802094831 0803104242
0803202254 0802090955 9892991685 9892698891 9892895043
0803101210
and further described as `Area 2' on maps provided to the Orange County Board
of Commissioners at its February 27, 2012 and May 29, 2012 quarterly public
hearings and their September 6, 2012 regular meeting.
III. Change 181.3 acres of property, including 125.5 +/- acres of interstate and rail
corridor right-of-way, from the current land use designation of Rural Residential
to Economic Development involving properties with the following Orange County
Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN):
9892691494 9892693355 9893302785 9893333390 9893202889
0803307443 9892698435 9893501063 0803307352 9893403551
9892599833 9892696503 9892593907 9893214750
9892594954 9893229506 9893524275 9893313471
9892596828 9893420409 9892691711 9893313471
and further described as `Area 3' on maps provided to the Orange County Board
of Commissioners at its February 27, 2012 and May 29, 2012 quarterly public
hearings and their September 6, 2012 regular meeting.
and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.3 of the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) have been deemed complete, and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the Future Land Use Map amendments will
carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Eno Economic Development District
(EDD) Area Small Area Plan and is internally consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, or part thereof, including, but not limited to, the following:
76
Principle 7: Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity
Economic Development (ED) Overarching Goal: Viable and sustainable economic
development that contributes to both property and sales tax revenues, and
enhances high-quality employment opportunities for County residents.
Objective ED-2.5: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion
and growth of commercial and industrial uses.
Objective ED-2.9: Consider industrial sites in Agricultural-Residential areas along
the U.S. 70/1-85 highway and rail corridor.
Objective ED-2.10: Extend public water and sewer into all three Economic
Development Districts.
Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and
designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent
with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
Objective LU-3.5: Encourage energy and water use in an efficient manner by
industries and encourage energy efficient industries to locate or expand in the
County in Rural Industrial, Commercial/Industrial, and Economic Development
Nodes.
Objective LU-3.6: Establish consistency between the Land Use Plan and the Water
and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement and Map.
Objective LU-3.8: Develop a process for implementing small area plan
recommendations through the revision of County policies and regulations, and
WHEREAS, the amendment is consistent with the Water and Sewer
Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of
Orange County, North Carolina, that the Future Land Use Map, provided in Chapter 5 of
the Land Use Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is hereby amended as
described herein.
77
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the aforementioned 2030
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map amendments were adopted this the
day of , 2012 and shall become effective upon
adoption.
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
78
Attachment 15
Ordinance #:ORD-2012-036
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments, and impacted properties, are identified as
follows:
I. The following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), comprising approximately 159
acres or property, changed from R1 (Rural Residential) to EDE-1 (Economic
Development Eno Lower Intensity) and as further denoted on maps labeled `Area A'
within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6, 2012
agenda packet:
R1 to EDE-1
Pin Acres Pin Acres Pin Acres
0802090955 1.33 0803102261 0.67 9892894495 6.42
0802092905 2.29 0803104242 1.01 9892895043 0.8
0802093923 1.37 0803107244 1.37 9892990026 1.82
0802094831 1.16 0803109390 0.92 9892991685 20.48
0802394949 6.48 0803202254 7.18 9892996872 2.38
0803001017 0.23 0803207282 5.87 9892998862 3.52
0803002614 2.44 0803300153 2.13 9893602164 5
0803003547 1.26 0803307352 0.17 9893603521 4.99
0803004553 1.13 0803307443 0.22 9893604939 4.67
0803006178 1.33 9892698891 0.03 9893608242 3.22
0803007438 4.29 9892699764 2.13 9893608557 3.16
0803100055 5.85 9892790923 2.17 9893618051 7.21
0803100109 0.37 9892798476 9.9 9893909606 2.73
0803101210 0.4 9892892121 0.41 ROW 28.74
TOTAL 159.25
II. The following 20.9 acres or right-of-way, changed from R-1 (Rural Residential) to
EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity) and denoted on maps labeled
`Area B' within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6,
2012 agenda packet:
R1 to EDE-2
PIN Acres
ROW 20.98
20.98
1
79
and,
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) have been deemed complete, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be
reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange
County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the aforementioned parcels to consistent
with the information contained herein.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
80
Attachment 16
Ordinance #:ORD-2012-037
AN ORDINANCE DENYING AMENDMENT TO
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments, and impacted properties, are identified as
follows:
I. The following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), comprising approximately 159
acres or property, changed from R1 (Rural Residential) to EDE-1 (Economic
Development Eno Lower Intensity) and as further denoted on maps labeled `Area A'
within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6, 2012
agenda packet:
R1 to EDE-1
Pin Acres Pin Acres Pin Acres
0802090955 1.33 0803102261 0.67 9892894495 6.42
0802092905 2.29 0803104242 1.01 9892895043 0.8
0802093923 1.37 0803107244 1.37 9892990026 1.82
0802094831 1.16 0803109390 0.92 9892991685 20.48
0802394949 6.48 0803202254 7.18 9892996872 2.38
0803001017 0.23 0803207282 5.87 9892998862 3.52
0803002614 2.44 0803300153 2.13 9893602164 5
0803003547 1.26 0803307352 0.17 9893603521 4.99
0803004553 1.13 0803307443 0.22 9893604939 4.67
0803006178 1.33 9892698891 0.03 9893608242 3.22
0803007438 4.29 9892699764 2.13 9893608557 3.16
0803100055 5.85 9892790923 2.17 9893618051 7.21
0803100109 0.37 9892798476 9.9 9893909606 2.73
0803101210 0.4 9892892121 0.41 ROW 28.74
TOTAL 159.25
II. The following 20.9 acres or right-of-way, changed from R-1 (Rural Residential) to
EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity) and denoted on maps labeled
`Area B' within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6,
2012 agenda packet:
R1 to EDE-2
PIN Acres
ROW 20.98
20.98
1
81
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.8 of the UDO and to Section 153A-
341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds there is insufficient documentation
within the record supporting the proposed atlas amendment or that the rezoning will carry out
the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed
Orange County Zoning Atlas, as detailed herein, is denied.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
82
Attachment 17
RES-2012-077
RESOLUTION CONCERNING
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED
ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments, and impacted properties, are identified as
follows:
I. The following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), comprising approximately 159
acres or property, changed from R1 (Rural Residential) to EDE-1 (Economic
Development Eno Lower Intensity) and as further denoted on maps labeled `Area A'
within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6, 2012
agenda packet:
R1 to EDE-1
Pin Acres Pin Acres Pin Acres
0802090955 1.33 0803102261 0.67 9892894495 6.42
0802092905 2.29 0803104242 1.01 9892895043 0.8
0802093923 1.37 0803107244 1.37 9892990026 1.82
0802094831 1.16 0803109390 0.92 9892991685 20.48
0802394949 6.48 0803202254 7.18 9892996872 2.38
0803001017 0.23 0803207282 5.87 9892998862 3.52
0803002614 2.44 0803300153 2.13 9893602164 5
0803003547 1.26 0803307352 0.17 9893603521 4.99
0803004553 1.13 0803307443 0.22 9893604939 4.67
0803006178 1.33 9892698891 0.03 9893608242 3.22
0803007438 4.29 9892699764 2.13 9893608557 3.16
0803100055 5.85 9892790923 2.17 9893618051 7.21
0803100109 0.37 9892798476 9.9 9893909606 2.73
0803101210 0.4 9892892121 0.41 ROW 28.74
TOTAL 159.25
II. The following 20.9 acres or right-of-way, changed from R-1 (Rural Residential) to
EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity) and denoted on maps labeled
`Area B' within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6,
2012 agenda packet:
1
83
R1 to EDE-2
PIN Acres
ROW 20.98
20.98
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341
of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the
record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, or part thereof including but not limited to, the following:
a. The Land Use Element Map.
b. Chapter 3 — Economic Development, including:
1. Objective ED 1.1: Focus public education efforts on sustainability issues,
looking at the social, economic and environmental contributions of local
businesses.
2. Objective ED 1.2: Form partnerships both within and outside the County
to create a stronger business climate and market the changes to existing
and potential employers.
3. Objective ED 2.1: Encourage compact and higher density development in
areas served by water and sewer.
c. Chapter 4 — Housing Element, including:
1. Objective H-1.5: Ensure that a variety of housing types can be developed
throughout the County in a sustainable manner that locates housing near
employment centers and commercial centers and that efficiently uses
existing and planned public services.
2. Objective H-1.6: Promote innovative approaches to housing that are
responsive to the needs of Orange County, maintain quality and human
scale, increase energy efficiency, and reduce construction and
maintenance costs.
3. Objective H-3.3: Expand assistance in the retrofitting, repair, and
maintenance of existing homes owned by financially challenged
households, particularly those that are senior citizens.
d. Chapter 5 — Land Use Element, including:
1. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location,
pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County
services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's
population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan
element goals and objectives.
2. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity/ high density
residential and non-residential development with existing or planned
locations of public transportation, commercial and community services,
and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed
internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with
protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by
84
increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts
where adequate public services are available.
3. Objective LU-4.1: Support the use of individual manufactured housing
units as a useful housing resource in the County by increasing the
opportunities where these units can locate by right.
e. Chapter 6 Natural and Cultural Systems Element, including:
1. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 1: Energy conservation, sustainable
use of non-polluting renewable energy resources, efficient use of non-
renewable energy resources, and clean air.
2. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 6: Sustainable quality and quantity
of ground and surface water resources.
3. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 7: A balanced and healthy diversity
of native plant and animal populations.
4. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 8: Networks of protected natural,
cultural, and agricultural lands.
f. Chapter 8 Services and Facilities Element, including:
1. Objective WW-2: Coordinate the provision of potable water and sanitary
sewer services with the County's Land Use Plan and Orange County-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan,
targeting these services to urban, transitional, and economic development
and,
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be
reasonable and in the public interest as it promotes public health, safety, and general welfare
by adopting the goals and purposes of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed
zoning atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be consistent with the
goals and policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the BOCC
hereby adopts this statement of consistency signifying same.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
85
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
86
Attachment 18
RES-2012-078
RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATEMENT OF
INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED
ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments, and impacted properties, are identified as
follows:
I. The following Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), comprising approximately 159
acres or property, changed from R1 (Rural Residential) to EDE-1 (Economic
Development Eno Lower Intensity) and as further denoted on maps labeled `Area A'
within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6, 2012
agenda packet:
R1 to EDE-1
Pin Acres Pin Acres Pin Acres
0802090955 1.33 0803102261 0.67 9892894495 6.42
0802092905 2.29 0803104242 1.01 9892895043 0.8
0802093923 1.37 0803107244 1.37 9892990026 1.82
0802094831 1.16 0803109390 0.92 9892991685 20.48
0802394949 6.48 0803202254 7.18 9892996872 2.38
0803001017 0.23 0803207282 5.87 9892998862 3.52
0803002614 2.44 0803300153 2.13 9893602164 5
0803003547 1.26 0803307352 0.17 9893603521 4.99
0803004553 1.13 0803307443 0.22 9893604939 4.67
0803006178 1.33 9892698891 0.03 9893608242 3.22
0803007438 4.29 9892699764 2.13 9893608557 3.16
0803100055 5.85 9892790923 2.17 9893618051 7.21
0803100109 0.37 9892798476 9.9 9893909606 2.73
0803101210 0.4 9892892121 0.41 ROW 28.74
TOTAL 159.25
II. The following 20.9 acres or right-of-way, changed from R-1 (Rural Residential) to
EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity) and denoted on maps labeled
`Area B' within the Orange County Board of County Commissioners September 6,
2012 agenda packet:
1
87
RI.to EDE-2
PIN Acres
ROW 20.98
20.98
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section
153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the applicant has not
submitted sufficient documentation denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and
purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment is not
reasonable and is not in the public interest as it will not promote public health, safety, and
general welfare,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed zoning
atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be inconsistent with the goals and
policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is not reasonable, and is
not in the public interest as it will not promote the public health, safety, and general welfare,
and the BOCC hereby adopts this statement of inconsistency signifying same.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2012.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2012 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners