HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-1999-016 Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment Z-3-9 Ernie McBroom ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 19, 1999
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) N
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jim Hinkley, 245-2584, X2584
1) Applications
2) Vicinity and Site Maps TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
3) General Information Memorandum Hillsborough 732-8181
4) Public Hearing Minutes - Chapel Hill 968-4501
5) Planning Board Minutes (Draft) Durham 688-7331
6) Article on Zoning Hearings Mebane 227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider the request of Ernie McBroom to rezone his property in Cedar Grove
Township from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS Agricultural Service. This application requires a
legislative zoning decision. The public hearing is completed. All testimony offered in oral and
written form is entered into the record and will be duly considered by the Commission. All
written testimony is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners. There is no need
for further testimony.
BACKGROUND:
Request That a 10.01-acre tract be rezoned from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS
Agricultural Service.
Location The proposed zoning lot is accessed at 750± Sawmill Road West (Tax Map No.
2.34..51), approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road (SR
1507).
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: The existing property is a 10.01a lot with access from the south side of Sawmill
Road. The tract currently is fallow cropland.
Zoning:
• The property and all surrounding properties lie within Orange County's jurisdiction-and
are zoned AR(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural-Residential (Little River Protected Yvatershed)
in accordance with the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2
• The minimum lot size is two acres.
• Permitted uses include agricultural activities, single family dwellings, duplexes on
twice the minimum lot size, and those uses which are supportive of residential
development such as churches, fire stations, utilities, etc.
• The NCDOT 1995 average daily traffic count was 800 for Sawmill Road at the
intersection of NC 86.
Proposed: The proposed zoning lot meets the 2-acre minimum lot size. A 12 percent (12%)
impervious surface limitation for non-residential uses in the watershed would be imposed. BMP
(Best Management Practices) would not be allowed to satisfy watershed requirements.
• The proposed zoning for the 10.01a site is AS(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural Service (Little
River Protected Watershed).
• Minimum lot size is two acres.
• Permitted use includes rural non-farm, non-residential development which supports
the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of AR districts as listed in the
attached General Information Memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners.
Development Processes. Schedule, and Action
• Public Hearing August 23, 1999: The proposed zoning atlas amendment was referred to the
Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than
September 21, 1999. Please refer to the minutes of the public hearing attached to this abstract.
• First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered the
matter at its regular meeting of September 1, 1999. After considerable discussion and 1estimony�
from representatives of the community, the vote was 3 yeas and 3 nays. Therefore, the
proposal is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with no recommendation. Please
refer to minutes of the September 1, 1999, Planning Board meeting attached to this abstract.
• Final Action: The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the
proposed amendment until sixty days after the first date of the public hearing or until the
Planning Board makes this recommendation, whichever comes first. In making its decision, the
Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint public
hearing, and any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its
recommendation.
New evidence which was not presented in writing to the Planning Board may not be considered
by the Board of Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public hearing is reopened
to receive said evidence, and the item is re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning
Board for recommendation.
3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Board Recommendation
The Planning Board makes no recommendation.
Administration Recommendation
The Administration recommends denial of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone
10.01 a of the Ernie McBroom property from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS Agricultural Service.
• Not all uses permitted by right in the AS Agricultural Service Zoning District, as listed in the
attached General Information Memorandum, are suitable for this location given the density of
residential development that has taken place in the surrounding AR Agricultural-Residential
District.
NOTE: Amendments to the Zoning Atlas are legislative zoning decisions. Findings of fact are not
required. For more information on zoning decision proceedings, please refer to the
attached article beginning on page 20.
The public hearing is completed. All testimony offered in oral and written form is
entered into the record and will be duly considered by the Commission. All written
testimony is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners and may be
reviewed in that office. There is no need for further testimony.
g:Jim\cc101999.doc\10.5.99\10.12.99yrh
. 4
RANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROL. ��a
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT C
Date : , 1995
f0 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning At Las of
Orange County as hereinafter requested .
1 . The property is Located on the \Ybul-A side of S.R .#
( /\ LWhj U4V Street/Road) between -4;=:R . # and
S.R .# Is01 - . It is known as Lot (s) 2-0 Block — , of
Orange County Tax Map 34 —Pr -- Township . It has a frontage
of feet and a depth of feet , and contains
square feet or Io.O\ acres .
2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing. property be rezoned
from AR- to AS
•3..- The ..fa L Lowi ng. i n f rmati on has bean - attached . .i n-_. support of the
application for changing the Zoning Atlas (* — required on all
applications) .
•a. A fully dimensioned map at -a scale of not Less than one (1) inch
_ equals one—hundred (1013) feat nor were than one (1) inch equals.
twenty" t2VI •feet--shod-n•g•---ths Land --which is proposed to be
rezoned.
*b. A Legal description of the Land proposed to be rezoned.
*c. A statement of ,Justification addressing one or more of the
foLLowing:
(1) The alleged error in the Zoning ordinance, if any, which
would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed
explanation of such error in the Zoning At Las and detailed
reasons how the proposed amendment wiLL correct the error.
(2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or
in the County generaLLy, which make the proposed amendment
reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health,
safety and generaL weLfars.
*(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out
the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part
thereof.
*(4) ALL other circumstances, factors and reasons which the
applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment
including, but not Limited to, documentation from service
agencies (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies)
assuring services provision capability to the development.
d. A List of aLL individuals, firms or corporations owning property
adjoining or within five hundred (500) feet of the property
sought for rezoning is attached. The List is current as of
.(OataJ
I ~ certify that alt information furnished in thi"ppLicatien is accurate
the best of my knowledge .
p l i c a n.t (s) : F•n,1t W��� _ c�/ .c �°
d r e s s : 2.uo fe NNLl..&,;r- �ohfl
one : '73 L- (os13
5 .
� ? it
/ \ ° k
A § o r
%
$ f Sol � w
%
# ■ � ¥ o o ■ �
. � � ■ � _ � �
% l
C., ®
, \ k
� ¥
k
c
k
0
c 7 r" 0 p .
tp
7 5
� ^
to ƒ
w 0 ƒ k §
co
to 7 Va
k . m .a .
% 0
o
ri
\ '
m �. A
Vo
CD IP ° 7.
P.
. . � to
f / 0
to m
(D '
k ,
k
�
�
. �
6
REZONING REGUEST
PROPERTY OF ERNIE McBROOM
bk
PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: Lot E,"Division of Property of Ernie McBroom"as w
shown on plat recorded in the Orange County Regi
in Plat Book 83 page 101.
JUSTIFICATION:
1. No error alleged.
2. The closing of private landfills and the decreasing capacity of the Orange
County Landfill has increased the need for a site where landscape debris
(stumps and tree limbs)can be processed and recycled. This use is
appropriate for the rural areas of the County and would be allowed under an
AS zoning designation.
3. This rezoning would locate a use supportive of horticultural and agricultural
activities in an area convenient to the supported uses.
4. This site is located near NC 86,on a collector road,and would be readily
accessible to emergency services. No need for other public services is
anticipated given the location and limited uses allowed under this Zoning
designation.
7 .
P
\� r 1510
el
\ 1 08
H KINS RD 1508 SQ
yN �S 11 1508
S EAST
ON
OLIN
�v d LITTLE RIVER CHU
ZM 1g44
STORE g Rp i
p 1547
O / I
SCHLEP
WOO
'71 4 �- J RQ
Ll � 5P�
o� 1323 1,
LAT
W
.. -Z f` RD.
Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM
REZONING REQUEST --- GENERAL AREA
1" = 4,000' 11 N r'
8
...::................
..........................
...................
�: :.....
:::. ::::
;:.
r ..:...... ....:...:...
Kati
".,
:
w
:::...:..::...
t�.
t
Y'
•
f:
:..::::::.� ..::::.::.::•:nom.•:::::.:�.
......:.:.
.............:: :.r
. .. :::.
:�.
....... .......
.............
r .
Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM
REZONING REQUEST --- VICINITY
1„ = 401 - r- 11N
\ " 856.3
I II
1 I sse� • ,
I I
.I I
wm, I I
I I (345)
I �
\ \ M
1 \ S■M � � \1 I \
I
• oil, 1
Wirt A � � ■ba \ � I
p►D 1 ■■■% 1 1
I IMA .2■M 2m% I ,
/
MR I
3M■ ca AR I
\ +e � on j �, ■ 1 J
I I
na 1
+o �
um
USK
■ yy
4
AIR
i -
4
■ 41
F P63/19
4 23
x ! /MM
\ moa ..r —
10
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
ea°•tr x w
• v s
MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Planning and Inspections Staff
DATE: October 5, 1999
SUBJECT: Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM REZONING APPLICATION
The contents of this memorandum are about the request of Ernie McBroom to rezone
his property on Sawmill Road in Cedar Grove Township from AR Agricultural-
Residential to AS Agricultural Service.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Ernie McBroom, Sr.
OWNER: Ernie McBroom, Sr.
2606 Miller Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
LOCATION: 750± Sawmill Road (Tax Map No. 2.34..51)
PROPERTY SIZE: 10.01 acres
PROPOSED ZONING LOT: 10.01 acres
EXISTING LAND USE: Open and wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE IN GENERAL AREA: Wooded, open and residential
NORTH - Residential, wooded, and open
WEST - Wooded and residential
SOUTH - Wooded and open
EAST - Wooded and open
11
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
DATE: October 5, 1999
PAGE: Two
TRAFFIC COUNT: The latest NCDOT average daily traffic count for Sawmill Road was
800 taken in 1995 at the intersection of NC 86.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Agricultural-Residential
(Little River Watershed)
EXISTING ZONING: AR(LITTLE-PW) —Agricultural-Residential (Little River
Protected Watershed) zoned in accordance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan
REQUESTED ZONING: AS(LITTLE-PW) —Agricultural Service (Little River Protected
Watershed)
AS DISTRICT DEFINITION, INTENT, AND PERMITTED USES:
Sec. 4.2.24 AGRICULTURAL SERVICE(AS) DISTRICT
DEFINITION
Commercial activities offering goods and services which support production of
agricultural products or processing of those products to make them marketable.
Examples include, but are not limited to, soil preparation, animal and farm
management, landscaping and horticultural services, specialized commercial
horticulture, specialized animal husbandry, biocide services, retail sales of farm/garden
products, supplies and equipment, equipment rental and repair service, tack shop,
farmer, blacksmith, welding shops, facilities for animal shows, animal sales and
auctions, agriculture-based clubemeeting halls, storage and processing plants for
agricultural products including wineries and canneries.
INTENT
The purpose of the AS Agricultural Service District is to provide sites in the rural portion
of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural,
silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR Agricultural-Residential districts. The AS
district is usually applied where the following conditions exist.
1. The site is within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural-Residential,
2. Lot sizes for individual uses are appropriate to the method of water supply
and sewage disposal, and
3. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned AS at any location shall not
exceed ten acres.
12
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
DATE: October 5, 1999
PAGE: Three
PERMITTED USES
Accessory Uses
P2 Botanical Gardens &Arboretums
P4 - Bus Passenger Shelter
P7 Church
P10 Govemmental Protective Services (Police &Fire Stations) Rescue
Squads,
Volunteer Fire Departments
P17C Stealth Telecommunication Towers - 75 Feet or Shorter*
P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations
S2 Agricultural Service Uses
S3 Animal Hospitals, Veterinarians
S10 Farm Equipment and Sales
S11 Feed, Seed, Storage and Processing
S13 Greenhouses (No On premises Sales)
S14 Greenhouses (On premises Sales)
S18 Commercial Feeder Operation
S19A Class l Kennels
S48 Sawmills
S49 Stockyards
S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoors
The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit:
P11 Land Fills (Two acres or more)
P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub-stations, Switching Stations, Telephone
Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants
PI 7B Telecommunication Towers- 200 Feet or Taller
The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit:
P12, Land Fills (Less than Two Acres)
P17 Elevated Water Storage Tanks
P17A Telecommunication Towers- 199 Feet or Shorter
P22 Transmission Lines
S20 Class 11 Kennels, Riding Stables
13
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
DATE: October 5, 1999
PAGE: Four
SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS
The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to:
• Accommodate the establishment of an agricultural service business permitted by the Zonin
Ordinance; and
• Implement the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th
property as Agricultural-Residential.
The property is zoned AR. This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities
(agriculture, forestry) are related to the land in an appropriate location for the continuation of thes
uses. The proposed rezoning to AS, therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
For development of the subject property, the following AS requirements would apply:
• The lot width must be a minimum of 200 feet.
• The front building setback must be a minimum of 50 feet;
• Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet;
• A 75-to 100-foot Land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon
the use proposed; and
• The maximum impervious surface shall be no more than 12 percent, including all structural
"footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted outside storage
areas.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SCHEDULE, AND ACTION
Public Hearing
• No decision is made at this stage.
• Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning atlas amendment request was
referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County
Commissioners no earlier than September 21, 1999.
PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS
The application for the rezoning of the tract from AR to AS has been reviewed by Planning Staff.
Findings required by Article 20.3 Procedure for Submission and Consideration of Applications for
Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance follow:
14
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
DATE: October 5, 1999
PAGE: Five
• There was no error made with respect to the property when zoning was adopted for Cedar
Grove Township on January 1, 1994.
• The property was zoned AR in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Rezoning the property to AS would be compatible with the stipulations set forth
for an Agricultural-Residential plan category use given in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Plan would not need to be amended to accommodate AS zoning.
• Seventeen uses are permitted by right in the AS district. Three require a Class A
Special Use Permit with approval of the Board of County Commissioners, and
five require a Class B Permit with approval of the Board of Adjustment. Any of
these uses, either by right or by Special Use Permit, could be allowed on the
proposed zoning lot. Permitted AS uses are listed above.
Uses permitted in AS not permitted in AR
0 Uses Permitted by Right. Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural
Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians; Farm Equipment Sales; Feed
and Seed Storage.and Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. Please refer to the
above list of Permitted Uses.
• Uses requiring Class A Special Use Permit(SUP). All uses requiring a
Class A SUP within an AS district are also permitted with a Class A SUP in the
AR district. Please refer to the above list of Uses Allowed with a Class A Special
Use Permit.
• Uses requiring a Class B Special Use'Permit(SUP). All uses requiring a
Class B SUP within an AS district are also permitted with a Class B SUP in the
AR district. Please refer to the above list of Uses Allowed with a Class B Special
Use Permit.
g:\jim\zatlasamend\mcbroom\ccinfomemo\10.5.99\jrh
MOTION: Selkirk moved to accept the criteria as delineated by Planning Staff. Seconded
by Strayhorn.
15
VOTE: Unanimous.
DRAFT
(2)Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom,Cedar Grove Township
Presented by Jim Hinkley.
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment requested by Ernie McBroom for
his property in Cedar Grove Township.
BACKGROUND:
Request That a 10.01-acre tract be rezoned from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS
Agricultural Service.
Location The proposed zoning lot is located at 750± Sawmill Road West(Tax Map No.
2.34..51),approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson
Road(SR 1507).
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: The existing property is a 10.01a flag lot with access on the south side of Sawmill-
Road.The tract currently is fallow cropland.
Zoning:
• The property and all surrounding properties lie within Orange County's jurisdiction
and are zoned AR(LITTLE-PW)Agricultural-Residential(Little River Protected
Watershed)in accordance with the adopted Land Use Element of the .
Comprehensive Plan.
• The minimum lot size is two acres.
• Permitted uses include agricultural activities,single family dwellings,duplexes on
twice the minimum lot size,and those uses which are supportive of residential
development such as fire stations,churches,utilities,etc.
• The NCDOT average daily traffic count was 800 for Sawmill Road taken in 1995
at the intersection of NC 86.
Proposed: The proposed zoning lot meets the 2-acre minimum lot size.A 12 percent(12%)
impervious surface limitation for non-residential uses in the watershed will be
imposed.BMP(Best Management Practices)will not be allowed to satisfy
watershed requirements.
• The proposed zoning for the 10.01a site is AS(LITTLE-PW)Agricultural Service
(Little River Protected Watershed).
• Minimum lot size is two acres.
• Permitted use includes ruraCnon-farm,non-residential development which supports
the horticultural,silvicultural,and agricultural uses of AR districts.
8
Development Processes,Schedule.and Action 16
• Public Hearing August 23,1999: The public was heard and the proposed zoning atlas
amendment was referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners no sooner than September 21, 1999.Public comments can be seen in the copy
of the draft minutes of the public hearing attached to this abstract.
• First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board has 75 days within
which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be
considered as a favorable recommendation.
• Final Action: Board of County Commissioners will consider an amendment to the
Orange County Zoning Atlas no sooner than September 21, 1999.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Zoning Officer Recommendation
The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the rezoning.
• The request complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposal meets all dimensional requirements.
• Permitted uses listed for the proposed AS district are appropriate to service the
surrounding agricultural uses.Please refer to the attached Information
Memorandum.
Hinkley stated that the public hearing oral part is over for this particular item but the books are
open for people to write letters. He distributed letters to the Board received from interested
citizens(copies attached). He discussed the concerns raised at the public hearing. He noted that
Mrs.Ralph Berry's issue of not being informed of the meeting was legitimate. He stated that this
was an error on the part of the staff because the land was shown on a different tax map. He noted
that staff recommendations are noted above.
McAdams stated that since Mrs.Berry was not notified, if she decides to bring this up to the court
system,it could invalidate the Planning Board's findings. Benedict responded that there is a
potential to that but that Mrs.Berry did have the opportunity to participate in the public hearing.
Mrs.Berry stated that the apology letter she received,which said that everyone was notified,was
also illegal.
Selkirk asked again about what type of use will be on the rezoned property. Hinkley stated that
the use can be discussed and if the property were rezoned it would be in no way bound to the use
that was discussed. It would be bound to the uses that are permitted in the district,those by right
and by Class A and Class B Special Use Permits.
Bill Harrington,a member of the community,asked at what point the definition of the uses of the
Agricultural Service zoning can be contested. Hinkley responded that it can be contested before
the Board of County Commissioners in requesting them to consider changes in the list of uses that
are permitted or to change the zoning text.
Harrington stag that he thinks that the proposed use is not appropriate for the district: He stated
that this is an industrial use and what has been proposed is not at all conducive to an agricultural
environment.
9
Jim McCallum questioned one of the requirements for an AS district which states that frontage 17
shall be a minimum of 200 feet. Hinkley responded that he should have used the term lot width,
shall be a minimum of 200 feet,and not frontage.
Mrs.Berry expressed concern that there will be a lot of traffic at her yard. An unidentified lady
stated that there is a family near Quiet Acres with newborn twins and an eight year old who will
be strongly impacted by the noise and safety issues. She also expressed concern with the school
buses.
Robin Clark stated that there are over 83 houses with driveways on Sawmill Road. She stated
that according to OSHA,the decibel level for the type of equipment required for a landscape
recycling operation would be above what is considered harmful to the human ear which is 100-
110 decibels. She stated that this would give the residents nearby a constant sound which would
be equivalent to a string trimmer or leaf blower.
Allison asked what are the dimensions of the Iot. Yuhasz responded approximately 350 feet
across. Allison also asked about buffer requirements. Hinkley responded that for a use such as
this next to a residential use is 100 feet around the property.
Strayhorn asked about noise requirements. Hinkley stated that within certain districts there are
regulations on noise but AS is not listed as one of those districts. The districts that are listed are
Neighborhood Commercial,General Commercial,Community Commercial,Existing
Commercial,Industrial II and Industrial III. He further stated that the Noise Ordinance is
enforced by the Sheriff s Department.
McBroom provided a brochure on the noise level for grinding. Hinkley corrected his previous
statement and stated that noise levels for AS districts are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. He
stated that if an AS district is next to a residential district then there are decibel limits during
certain hours of the day. During the hours of 7:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.the noise limit is listed at 45,
for commercial 60 and for industrial 70. He stated that during the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.
for an AS district next to a residential district the decibel value would be 50.
The Board went through each of the following findings of fact:
10
Katz asked how many school children or buses are on the road. The response was there are 83
houses but not sure of the number of kids or buses. $
MOTION: Katz moved to reject the classification change. Seconded by Selkirk.
VOTE: 3 in favor(Barrows,Katz, Selkirk)
3 opposed(Allison,McAdams, Strayhorn)
MOTION: McAdams moved approval. Seconded by Allison.
VOTE: 3 in favor(Allison,McAdams,Strayhorn)
3 opposed(Barrows,Katz, Selkirk)
Benedict stated that the vote results in a neutral recommendation. Barrows stated that this item
will go before the Board Commissioners on September 21, 1999.
b. Text Amendments Related to Watershed Protection Measures in Cane
Creek(November 23,1999 Public Hearing)
(1) Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
(a) Article VI,Section 6.23 Extra Requirements in Cane Creek
Watershed
(b) Article 22 Definitions
(2) Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations
(a) Section IV-B-10 Flexible Development
Presented by Craig Benedict.
PURPOSE: To prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners concerning
proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new development standards
for Cane Creek watersheds.
BACKGROUND:
Request
Amendments, resulting from a three-year study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the
Orange Water and Sewer Authority(OWASA),propose changes to Article 22 (Definitions) and
Article VI, Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts)
of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV-B-10, Flexible Development, of
the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new watershed protection
measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes incorporate subsequent recommendations
made in October, 1997,by the OWASA Board of Directors.
Location
The proposed amendments will affect future development within the Cane Creek watershed.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: • Maximum density: 1 du/2 acres.
• 33%open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions
using the conservation or cluster option(conservation-cluster).
Proposed: r-0- Maximum density: 1 du/five acres;Lots of record existing on date
C of adoption may contain up to,but no more than, five lots as small as
two acres in size.
Overall density of 1 du/2 acres allowed in flexible developments using
the conservation or cluster(conservation-cluster)options provided 50%
of total area is reserved as open space.
11
Oct 08 99 10: 43a Huck Tredwa4 19191 644-024S 19
2
Planning Director Craig Benedict spoke about site plan regulations,which
he feels should adequately address some of the concerns of nearby residents.
Karen Lincoln addressed tho issue of kdnncle alroady boing allowod in tho
AR district.
(3) Audience Comments: None.
A rrwtlurt was made by Commissioner Halklotts,seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned
to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 21, 1999.
VOTE:UNANIMOUS.
b• Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom, Cedar Grove Township
Planner Jim Hinkley made the presentation, stating that much of what he said
about the first rezoning request is relevant to this request.
Commissioner Brown requested more information on the property.
Mr. Hinkley stated that the property is cleared,with access to the north and west,
as well as other venues,with subdivisions nearby. There are low-lying wetlands and unusable portions
of the property:
Planning Board Member Barry Katz asked about the residences in place there
now.
(1) Audience Comments:
Charity Smith, 1015 Saw Mill Road,stated that residents did not want to
see their neighborhood turned into a city. She suggested landscaping and recycling.
Robin Clark,003 Saw Mill Road,asked about the amount of land to be
rezoned.
Margaret Barry, 800 Saw Mill Road, stated that she lives across from this
proposed rezoning and that she would not like to see anything change this residential area. She further
stated that neighbors are concerned as to what will be placed on the property.
Robin Clark asked as to what type of notification for the rezoning had been
given. Planner Jim Hinkley stated that everyone who resided within 500 feet of the rezoning area was
notified. Planning Director Craig Benedict verified this procedure. Margaret Bang stated that she did not .
receive a letter and a follow-up is to be conducted.to ascertain why she did not receive notification,
A motion was made by Commissioner Halklotts, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
refer this proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned
to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 21. 1999.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
I Orange County Zoning Ordinangj!+xt Amendments
a. Amendments Related to Child Care Facility Provisions
(1) Article 4, Section 4.3 Permitted Use Table;
(2) Article 6,Section 6.27 Large Day Care Homes;
(3) Article 8,Section 8.8.16 Day Care Facility;
(4) . Article 22 Definitions.
Planner•Jim Hinidey presented these text amendments.
Commissioner Jacobs had several questions as to the amendments.
Manager Link asked Planner Hinkley to consult with Marti Pryor-Cook and ensure
the language is consistent and correct.
PI nn ng Board Member Onte'Lea also had questions as to the amendments.
Planning Board Member Karen Barrows questioned what the terminology was for
someone who is taken care of less than four(4) hours per day.• _
County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill spoke regarding the definitions of day care.
Planning Board Member Howard McAdams asked how many nonconforming day
care centers we would have if these regulations were approved. Planner Hinkley stated that those day
care centers are certified by the state,so there would be none.
:)pular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.=c.edulplanning/pgsp93.htm
25
Zoning Hearings:
Knowing which Rules to Apply
David W. Owens
This material is copyrighted by the Institute of Government Any form of copying for other than the Individual user's
personal reference without express permission of the Institute of Government Is prohibited Further distribution of this
material is strictly forbidden,including but not limited to,posting,e-mailing,faxing,archiving in a public database,
redistributing via a computer network or in a printed forte
Aimed with petitions,lapel pins,and lawyers,200 agitated citizens crowd into the courthouse to voice
their objection to a proposed rezoning. They have been writing and calling the county commissioners
ever since the notice of the hearing appeared in the local paper a few weeks ago. How should this
hearing be conducted?Must everyone be allowed to speak for as long as he or she wants?May the board
consider the strong personal opinions.it is about to hear?What about the petitions and the calls the
commissioners got last week?If the board decides on a compromise that gives petitioners only part of
what they want,is another hearing required?When it comes time to make a decision,does the board
have to justify its conclusion?
Consider another situation. On the same night,a few miles away, a city council is holding a hearing on a
special-use permit application for a controversial project. This hearing room is also packed with angry
neighbors,and the council members have to struggle with most of the same questions,plus a few more.
Does everyone who speaks need to be under oath?Does there have to be a transcript of the hearing?
Since the city's zoning ordinance calls for this decision to be made by the city council instead of a board
of adjustment, can informal procedures be used?
The answers are different in these two situations.They illustrate the two different types of zoning
hearings,which have different purposes and rules of conduct.Because both types are commonly called
"public hearings,"the difference is confusing to those attending as well as those conducting the hearings.
Zoning decisions can profoundly affect landowners,neighbors,and the entire community--often with a
significant impact on property values,the character of neighborhoods,and even the future quality of
community life--so the law imposes special requirements to assure the opportunity for full and open
discussion of proposed zoning decisions. These requirements go well beyond what is required for most
other city and county ordinances.
This article distinguishes the two main types of zoning hearings and lays out the ground rules for how
each should be conducted.W
Types of Zoning Decisions
Local governments are called upon to make myriad zoning decisions,ranging from a planning board's
decision to recommend adoption of an initial zoning ordinance to a zoning enforcement officer's
decision to issue a notice of violation when the terms of the ordinance have not been followed.
Two types of zoning decisions--legislative and quasi judicialal--require formal public hearings.
Legislative zoning decisions affect the entire community by setting general policies applicable
through the zoning ordinance. They include decisions to adopt,amend,or repeal the zoning
ordinance(including the zoning map).
Quasi-judicial decisions involve the application of zoning policies already established in the
ordinance to individual situations--for example,variances, special-and conditional-use permits
(even if issued by the governing board),appeals,and interpretations. Quasijudicial decisions
26
Popular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm
involve two key elements:the finding of facts regarding the specific proposal and the exercise of
some discretion in applying predetermined policies to the situation.
Advisory zoning decisions,such as review of a rezoning petition by a county planning board,do not
require a formal hearing.Nor do administrative decisions, such as staff issuance of permits for permitted
uses,initial ordinance interpretations, and initiation of enforcement actions.
Types of Proceedings
Government uses two different types of proceedings to formally obtain comment on proposed zoning
decisions: legislative hearings and evidentiary hearings. Legislative hearings are sessions mandated by
statute or ordinance to secure citizens' comments on a specific policy proposal. Legislative hearings
must be conducted in a fair,orderly manner so as to allow citizen opinion to be expressed directly to
those making zoning policy decisions. Evidentiary hearings are an even more formal means of gathering
evidence before a decision is made in the application of a zoning ordinance to an individual situation.
These hearings are much like a court proceeding--witnesses present testimony, exhibits are submitted,
detailed minutes are kept, and a formal written decision is rendered. Legislative hearings are required for
legislative zoning decisions,while evidentiary hearings are required for quasi-judicial zoning decisions.
Both types of hearings are open to the public and are intended to solicit comments,but they have
different standards for the notice required prior to the hearing, as well as for who can speak,what issues
are appropriately raised,the formality with which the hearing must be conducted, and the records that
must be maintained.
Why Are There Different Rules?
Matters certainly would be simpler if there were just one generic "zoning hearing" that could be used
whenever a city or county was required to hold a public hearing on a rezoning, a special-use permit,or a
variance. Local officials could learn one set of rules and follow them for all zoning hearings. But that is
not the way things work, and there are good reasons that different requirements must be followed for
different types of zoning hearings.
Because legislative zoning decisions such as a rezoning have such widespread impact,the state statutes
authorizing local government zoning require broad public notice of the proposed decision. The policy
choices in a zoning ordinance affect landowners,neighbors,business and industry,and all citizens
concerned about the future character of the community. The statutes encourage full public discussion
and deliberation before these decisions are made and leave substantial discretion in the hands of local
elected officials regarding what these public policies should be.
In quasi-judicial zoning decisions (such as a variance petition),on the other hand,while the hearing and
deliberation must be open to the general public, the focus is on gathering relevant evidence and
protecting the rights of the specific parties before the board.No new policies affecting the entire
community are being created, so there is no need to'broadly solicit public opinion. But since the rights of
the parties are being determined,the courts have imposed fairly strict requirements to assure an impartial
decision based solely on legitimately acquired and considered evidence. The courts further require a
clear rationale for the decision,because any appeal of the local board's decision to superior court will not
result in a new hearing on the facts--the courts must use the record developed before the local board.An
expeditious judicial review ensures that these required protections of individual rights have been
observed.
These different types of c6nsiderations result in different statutory and constitutional due process
requirements for the various types of zoning decisions.The purpose of a hearing on a legislative zoning
decision is to gather public opinion;the purpose of a hearing on a quasi judicial zoning decision is to
gather evidence.Therefore different types of notice are required,and different types of hearings are
conducted. (See Table 1 for a summary of differences between.legislative and quasi-judicial zoning
decisions.)
27
opular Government Spring 1993 http.//ncinfo.log.unc.edu/planningipgsp93.htm
When to Apply Both Sets of Rules
Local governments imposing special-or conditional-use district zoning must be especially attentive to
these differences,because such district zoning involves simultaneous application of a legislative zoning
decision(the rezoning to a new zoning district with no permitted uses,only special uses) and a
quasi-judicial zoning decision(the decision on the special-use permit for a particular project).Therefore
both types of hearings are required, and the local government must exercise particular care in observing
whichever rules apply to each stage of its decision making.
Rules for Zoning Hearings Informal Public Meetings
A local government may decide that it is advisable to hold informal public meetings on zoning issues
prior.to conducting the required legislative or evidentiary hearing.These may be held for a variety of
purposes:to gather public opinion prior to an update of the zoning ordinance or the land-use plan,to
discuss potential policy changes,to explain a new provision of the ordinance, or to discuss a particularly
controversial projector policy.They.maybe conducted by the governing board,the planning board,
staff, or a neighborhood advisory group.
An informal public meeting is just that.It is not a formal hearing;it is not mandated by statute.While it
needs to be conducted in a fair and reasonable manner,it is not subject to the legal restrictions that apply
to the legislative and evidentiary hearings discussed below.F31 So the local government is free to set
whatever reasonable ground rules it chooses for publicizing and conducting these public meetings.
Legislative Hearings
As mentioned above,state statutes and court decisions have established some detailed rules for hearings
on legislative zoning decisions,which must be followed whenever a zoning ordinance is adopted,
amended, or repealed.The requirements for notice of the hearing,its speakers,the information
presented, and when an additional hearing is required are set out below.
Requirements for a Hearing
Since its adoption in 1923,North Carolina's zoning enabling statute has mandated a formal public
hearing prior to the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance, as well as prior to repeal of
zoning-M This hearing must be held by the governing board; a hearing by the planning board alone is
not sufficient.(51 The hearing may be conducted as part of the governing board's regular meeting or it
may be held as a special meeting at a separate time and place. The planning board may also hold formal
public hearings,but it is no longer required by state law to do so.j61
Newspaper Notice
A local government must publish notice of the governing board's required public hearing on the
proposed adoption, amendment,or repeal of a zoning ordinance. G.S. 160A-364 for cities and G.S.
153A-323 for counties require that the notice be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
community once a week for two successive calendar weeks,with the first notice being published not less
than ten nor more than twenty-five days prior to the hearing.The advertisement is usually run as a legal
ad in the classified section of the newspaper,but some local governments purchase larger display ads to
provide more prominent notice. While news stories about forthcoming zoning hearings are also
common,they cannot take the place of the formal advertisement. Likewise,publication in a
homeowners' association newsletter or other informal publication is permissible but may not substitute
for newspaper publication. State statutes do not require posting of a sign on the site of a proposed
rezoning, although a number of zoning ordinances add that requirement.
The published notice must be sufficiently detailed to allow a citizen to determine what is being proposed
and whether he or she would be affected.M This does not mean that it must contain a legal description
28
Popular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm
of the property affected,M nor that the text of the proposed ordinance be published.j9] But enough
detail must be printed to let a person know the nature of the zoning change being proposed and to clearly
describe the property involved(for example,by giving the street address).Just listing the ordinance
number with the date and time of the hearing will not suffice;the court of appeals held such a notice to
be inadequate.
By reading the notice, even the most diligent owner of property . . . would have no reasonable cause to
suspect that his property might be affected by the City's contemplated amendment to its ordinance.To be
adequate,the notice of public hearing required by G.S. 160A-364 must fairly and sufficiently apprise
those whose rights may be affected of the nature and character of the action proposed.r 10
Individual Mailed Notice
In 1985 the General Assembly amended G.S. 153A-343 and 160A-384 to require individual mailed
notice to those parties most directly affected by certain legislative zoning decisions: "zoning
classification actions." In 1987 this provision was amended to exempt the total rezoning of an entire
community from the mailed-notice requirement.This exemption was itself modified in 1990 to require
mailed notice in total rezonings if the rezoning involves "down zoning" or zoning to a less intense
use.r 11 (See Table 2.)
Most aspects of the mailed-notice requirement are clear.The notice should include the same information
contained in the published notice, should advise persons of the proposed zoning change,and should be
mailed in time for receipt a reasonable time before the hearing. The mailed notice need only be made by
first-class mail. It does not have to be registered or return-receipt mail. Some zoning ordinances go
beyond this to require certified mail,and some zoning offices do so as,a matter of office policy,but that
is not required by statute. Also,the notice is to be mailed to the owners as identified by the county tax
records;an updated title search is not required.If there are no tax maps available for the area, the
mailed-notice requirement does not apply. 12
All rezonings that amend zoning district boundaries require mailed notice.In general,it is also required
for the application of new overlay zones,the application of zoning to new extraterritorial areas,and the
initial adoption of zoning.Mailed notice usually is not required for most routine zoning text changes,
since they do not affect the basic zoning classification of property.r 13
The.mailed notice also must be sent to all "abutting" property owners.As a matter of practice,some
cities send a mailed notice to all who would qualify to sign a protest petition whether or not they have
technically abutting parcels of land. This generally includes the owners of both the property being
rezoned and the property within 100 feet(excluding abutting"rights-of-way)of that property.
The statute does not require the local government to do the mailing if it is not initiating the rezoning..
Several zoning ordinances place much of the administrative and cost burden on the party requesting a
rezoning,by requiring that person to provide a certificate that the mailing was done or to provide
stamped,addressed envelopes to the local government to deposit in the mail.Many other local
governments require that a list of those to be mailed notices be provided as part of any petition for a
rezoning.
The mailed-notice requirement has been subject to more modification by local legislation than any other
mandated zoning procedure. Given the high cost of individual mailings when a substantial rezoning is
proposed, eighty-five local governments have sought and received legislative relief.The most common
modification has been to substitute publication once a week for four weeks of a large display
advertisement in a local Aewspaper in lieu of mailed notices.r 14
Speakers and ividence
Public hearings on legislative zoning decisions must be conducted in a fair and impartial manner,but the
formalities of an evidentiary hearing--oaths,exhibits, cross-examinations,avoiding gathering evidence
29
opular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning pgsp93.htm
outside of the hearing,and the like--need not be observed. After all,with these hearings the governing
board is receiving comments,not hearing evidence.
The general statutory guidance for legislative public hearings is G.S. 160A-81 for cities and G.S.
153A-52 for counties. The statutes allow the governing board to
adopt reasonable rules governing the conduct of the public hearing,including but not limited to
rules(i)fixing the maximum time allotted to each speaker, (ii)providing for the designation of
spokesmen for groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions, (iii)providing for the
selection of delegates from groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions when the
number of persons wishing to attend the hearing exceeds the capacity of the hall, and(iv)
providing for the maintenance of order and decorum in the conduct of the hearing.
Therefore reasonable rules can be established to limit the number of speakers and the amount of time
each speaker is given,provided that the hearing is conducted in a fair and reasonable fashion.An
example is provided in Freeland v. Orange County, 15 in which 500 citizens attended the required
public hearing on the adoption of zoning for the Chapel Hill township.The chair allotted one hour each
to the proponents and opponents of the zoning ordinance,with each side also having fifteen minutes for
rebuttal. Some sixteen proponents and fifteen opponents were heard.By a show of hands,it appeared
that those at the hearing were opposed to the adoption of zoning by a four-to-one ratio.About 200
persons indicated that they wished to speak but were not allowed to because of the time limitation.The
court upheld this procedure,ruling that the legislative intent was to mandate a hearing and provide a
"fair opportunity" for those in attendance to present their views.The governing board is allowed,
however,to establish an"orderly procedure" for the hearing, as "[t]he General Assembly did not
contemplate that all persons entertaining the same views would have an unqualified right to iterate and
reiterate these views in endless repetition."r 16
Given that the purpose of a legislative hearing is to broadly solicit public opinion,there is no problem
with receiving petitions,hearing personal opinions, or with board members'talking to members of the
public about the issue prior to the hearing.This is an important.distinction between a legislative hearing
and an evidentiary hearing. Also,unlike evidentiary hearings,no written findings of fact or explanation
of the decision is required.
Additional Hearings
A question frequently arises as'to whether readvertisement and rehearing are required if changes are
made in the proposed ordinance at or after the hearing. The general rule is that an additional hearing is
required only if there are substantial changes in the proposal after the initial notice.
A.1971 case,Heaton v. City of Charlotte, set the standard for determining whether an additional hearing
is required.The court held:
Ordinarily,if the ordinance or amendment as finally adopted contains alterations substantially
different(amounting to a new proposal)from those originally advertised and heard,there must be
additional notice and opportunity for additional hearing.However,no further notice or hearing is
required after a properly advertised and properly conducted public hearing when the alteration of
the initial proposal is insubstantial. Alteration of the initial proposal will not be deemed
substantial when it results in changes favorable to the complaining parties. Moreover,additional
notice and public hearing ordinarily will not be required when the initial notice is broad enough to
indicate the possibility of substantial change and substantial changes are made of the same
fundamental character as contained in the notice, such changes resulting from objections,debate
and discussion at the properly noticed initial hearing.flj7
In this instance,the court noted that the notice was broad enough to indicate that changes might be
made,the changes were consistent with the fundamental character of the noticed proposal,and the
changes were made as a result of comments received at the hearing.This led the court to conclude that
an additional hearing "could have resulted only in repetitive statements by the same parties or parties
30
Popular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog,unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm
similarly situated. . . .The very purpose of the public hearing was to guide the City Council in making
changes in the original proposal consistent with the views reflected at the public hearing. This is exactly
what was done."ji sl So, if in response to comments raised at the hearing the city council rezones less
land than was requested or rezones it to a less intense category, a new hearing generally is not required.
Occasionally lengthy legislative zoning hearings are recessed and continued at a subsequent meeting.In
this situation no additional public notice is required. G.S. 153A-52 and 160A-81,the general provisions
on public hearings, specifically allow hearings to be continued without further advertisement.r 19
Many zoning ordinances limit additional hearings after a decision is made on a rezoning proposal by
establishing a minimum waiting period between consideration of rezoning proposals.A typical provision
would be that once a rezoning petition has been considered for a particular parcel,no additional rezoning
petitions will be considered for a set period,most frequently six or twelve months. These mandatory
waiting periods have been upheld by the courts.r201
Evidentiary Hearings
It is important to remember the purpose of evidentiary zoning hearings.Unlike legislative hearings,they
are not designed to solicit broad public opinion about how the board should vote on the matter before it.
Rather,they provide an opportunity for the board to gather the facts it needs to apply policies already set
in the ordinance. Therefore, while the notice requirements are not as broad,the standards on gathering
evidence are much more strict than they are for legislative hearings.
Requirements for a Hearing
Quasi-judicial zoning decisions arise in-those situations where the decision maker must investigate facts,
draw conclusions from them,and exercise some element of discretion in applying standards that
previously have been set in the zoning ordinance to a specific situation. This includes decisions on
variances,special-and conditional-use permits, and appeals of administrative determinations. These
decisions may be made by the governing board,the board of adjustment, or the planning board,
depending upon how the individual zoning ordinance involved is structured.
The courts have held that the constitutional requirements of due process mandate that all fair trial
standards be observed when quasi judicial zoning decisions are made,no matter which local board is
making the decision.This includes an evidentiary hearing with the right of the parties to offer evidence,
cross-examine adverse witnesses,inspect documents,have sworn testimony,have the decision based
only on evidence that is properly in the hearing record, and have'written findings of fact supported by
competent, substantial,and material evidence.r2 1
Notice of Hearings
The notice requirements for an evidentiary zoning hearing are narrower than those for a legislative
rezoning hearing. The purpose of the notice for these evidentiary hearings is not to let the entire
community know about a proposed policy being debated but to alert those most directly affected about
an opportunity to present relevant facts to those who are applying a policy already set in the ordinance.
This is true even though there may be broad public interest in the outcome of the decision.
Still,the constitutional guarantees of due process must always be observed: the parties to the matter
must be given reasonable notice of the hearing. Thus an individual mailed notice to the applicant and
any affected party who has requested notice must be provided.It is also a good idea to provide
individual mailed notice to adjacent property owners,even though it may not be legally required.
F- Owever,the detailed newspaper notice and individual mailed-notice provisions in the zoning enabling
statute do not apply to evidentiary hearings for quasi-judicial zoning decisions. Some local governments
have voluntarily put these same requirements into their zoning ordinances for evidentiary hearings, and
once in the ordinance those notice requirements are binding.
31
opular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm
Speakers and Evidence
The principal difference between legislative and evidentiary hearings arises in how speakers and
evidence are handled. Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to carefully gather relevant facts to
aid in decision making,restrictions on what can be heard and how it can be heard are applied to these
hearings. These standards apply to any board making a quasi-judicial zoning decision, even the
governing board.This places a particular burden on city councils and county boards of commissioners,
which are usually more accustomed to conducting less formal hearings on legislative matters.
In the leading case on this subject,Humble Oil &Refining Co.v. Board of Aldermen, which involved
the denial of a special-use permit for a gas station by the governing board in Chapel Hill,Justice Susie
Sharp set forth the key requirements for an evidentiary zoning hearing:
Notwithstanding the latitude allowed municipal boards, . . .a zoning board of adjustment,or a
board of aldermen conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, can dispense with no essential element of a
fair trial: (1) The party whose rights are being determined must be given the opportunity to offer
evidence,cross-examine adverse witnesses, inspect documents, and offer evidence in explanation
and rebuttal; (2) absent stipulations or waiver such a board may not base findings as to the
existence or nonexistence of crucial.facts upon unworn statements;.and(3) crucial findings of
fact which are "unsupported by competent,material and substantial evidence in view of the entire
record as submitted" cannot stand. 22
If critical factual findings in a quasi-judicial zoning matter are based on unswom testimony or hearsay
evidence,the decision may be overturned by the courts and the matter sent back for a new hearing.1231 If
all the parties agree,however,the right to have witnesses under oath may be waived. 24
A question arises occasionally as to whether attorneys need to be under oath when making a presentation
in an evidentiary hearing.If the attorney is just summarizing evidence presented by others and making
legal arguments for his or her client,there is no need to be under oath. On the other hand,if the attorney
is offering evidence directly,he or she would need to be sworn like any other witness. The court
tolerates but strongly discourages an attorney from serving both as a witness and an advocate in the
same case.251 Likewise,if the city or county staff is presenting evidence to the board in an evidentiary
hearing,they should also be under oath.
Oaths for witnesses testifying at these evidentiary hearings may be administered by the chair of the
board or any notary.f261 Witnesses may affirm rather than swear. All individuals likely to testify can be
administered the oath together at the beginning of the hearing in order to expedite matters. If this is
done,each witness should be reminded of the oath at the outset of his or her testimony.
Additional rules apply to assure that evidentiary hearings are conducted fairly.All of the parties to an
evidentiary hearing have a right to know all of the evidence being considered by the board.Therefore it
is improper for a board member to discuss the case or to individually gather evidence outside the
hearing. If a board member has prior or specialized knowledge about a case,that should be disclosed to
the rest of the board and the parties during the hearing.f271 Also, it is inappropriate in an evidentiary
hearing to consider nonexpert personal opinions or hearsay testimony.
At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing,the board making the decision must adopt written findings
of the facts upon which it is basing its decision. This contrasts with legislative zoning decisions,where
no findings are required--those decisions are left to the sound discretion of the governing board, and the
board is not required to explain why it made a particular decision.But since the purpose of an
evidentiary hearing is to produce well-documented evidence to support a decision,the parties are entitled
to know what the board concluded are the facts.Any judicial review of the decision is based on the facts
as determined by the board making the decision, so the courts also need to know what the board
concluded. This is done by requiring written findings of fact.
Since any subsequent judicial review is based on the record established in this hearing,it is important to
keep detailed records of evidentiary hearings. Sound recording or a verbatim transcript of these hearings
32
Popular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm
is not required.122-81 Many boards do make audio tapes of these hearings in case a transcript is later
desired. However,handwritten records and detailed summary of the testimony received are acceptable.
Special care should be taken to ensure that the clerk to the board retains exclusive custody of any
exhibits presented.The exhibits and record of testimony should be retained for at least the period within
which a judicial challenge can be filed--thirty days after notice of the decision is filed and communicated
to the parties--and the matter resolved.
Additional Hearings
With quasi-judicial land-use decisions, such as variance requests and special-use permits,the doctrine of
res judicata applies;and a board may not reopen and rehear a case previously decided.IZ91 There is an
exception if there is some material change in conditions, such as a new road being constructed at the site,
additional development near the site over time, and the like. 30 Also, appeals of quasi-judicial zoning
decisions go directly to the courts.It is not appropriate to seek a second evidentiary hearing before a
different local board,such as appealing a board of adjustment decision to the governing board.
Conclusion
Zoning hearings can be controversial,emotional, and confusing. Often the stakes are high for everyone
involved. It is therefore important that these hearings be conducted in a fair and lawful manner. This
requires that the local government body responsible for the hearing always keep in mind what type of
zoning decision is involved, what type of hearing is required for that type of decision,and what the
ground rules for that hearing are. 31
It is also important that this information be communicated clearly to the participants in the hearing.
Landowners,neighbors,and citizens need to understand what these rules are and why they exist-in order
to participate effectively in zoning decisions. Each zoning hearing should open with a brief explanation
of the rules that must be followed and their purpose. A written summary of the hearing ground rules can
also be provided in advance to the parties to the hearing.
There will never be complete agreement on how zoning decisions should come out, and there will
always be rooms full of people eager to make their strong opinions known to the boards making these
decisions. However, the boards'being mindful of the standards for conducting zoning hearings fairly and
clearly communicating these standards to all involved will help make zoning hearings more
understandable,more efficient,and fair for all concerned.
Addendum
After this article was published,the 1993 General Assembly adopted amendments to G.S. 153A-343 and
160A-384 regarding individual mailed notices(1993 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 799). This statute repealed all
of the local laws providing exemptions for mailed notices of proposed zoning classification changes,
including nine additional exemptions that had been adopted earlier in the 1993 session. This new statute
is effective January 1, 1994 (effective January 1, 1995,for Forsyth County and its municipalities). Local
governments have the option of moving up this effective date to any time after July 23, 1993, simply by
adopting an ordinance setting forth the earlier date.
The new statute creates five exceptions to the requirement of sending an individual first-class mailed
notice when a zoning classification action is proposed. The five exceptions are:
I.-�a total rezoning of all property within a city or within a zoned area of a county,unless the
rezoning is to a less intensive category;
2. 2. an initial zoning of an entire zoning jurisdiction area;
3. 3. a zoning classification action that directly affects more than fifty properties,with at least fifty
different property owners;
4. 4. a reclassification that is a zoning text amendment; or
33
opular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planningtpgsp93.htm
5. 5. a zoning classification done as part of adopting a mandated water-supply watershed protection
program.
Where these five exceptions apply,a substitute notice is required in lieu of the individual mailed notice.
The substitute notice consists of both publication of a half-page newspaper advertisement for four
successive weeks and the posting of a prominent sign at the site of the proposed rezoning.Also,
individual mailed notice still has to be provided to those affected landowners who reside outside the
newspaper's circulation area.
Also,the Supreme Court handed down a decision in County of Lancaster v. Mecklenburg County,
N.C. 1993 N.C.LEXIS 403 (Sept. 10, 1993),after this article was published.In this case the court
reaffirmed that evidentiary hearings are required for quasi-judicial zoning decisions.The court
emphasized that it is the nature of the type of decision--rather than what it is called in the ordinance or
who makes it--that controls whether this more formal decision-making process is required. Those zoning
decisions that involve findings of fact and application of discretion(typically special-and
conditional-use permits,variances,and appeals of administrative decisions) are quasi-judicial. The court
in this case also addressed the standard for avoiding conflicts of interest in zoning decisions.The court
held that with legislative zoning decisions, where there is a specific, substantial, and readily identifiable
financial impact on a member,nonparticipation is required.Additional considerations beyond these
financial interests require nonparticipation in quasi-judicial zoning decisions.A fixed opinion that is not
susceptible to change may well constitute impermissible bias,as will undisclosed ex parte
communication or a close familial or business relationship with the applicant."Id. at
Table 1
Key Differences between Legislative and Evidentiary Zoning Hearings
Legislative Evidentiary
Notice of Both newspaper notice and mailed Only notice to parties to the matter is required
Hearings notice to owners and neighbors are unless-ordinance mandates otherwise.
required.
Speakers at Number of speakers,time for Witnesses presenting testimony can be limited
Hearings speakers can be reasonably to relevant evidence that is not repetitious.
limited.
None is required;members are Substantial, competent,material evidence must
Evidence free to discuss issue outside be put in the record;witnesses are under oath,
hearing. subject to cross-examination;no discussion of
the case outside the hearing is allowed.
Findings None are required. Written findings of fact are required.
Detailed record of testimony is required;clerk
Records Regular minutes are satisfactory. should retain all exhibits during period of
potential appeal.
Table 2 Summary of Requirements for Mailed Notice of Proposed Zoning Classification Actions
Triggered by: Zoning classification action
Sent to: Owner of parcel and abutting parcels, as shown on county tax listing
How mailed: First class
Exceptions: Not required for total rezonings of entire jurisdiction(but even here must be sent to any
property that is put in less intensive zone)
Verification: Certification to governing board of mailing to be provided by person making the
mailing
Popular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/pl nepgsp93.htm
Notes
1. A more detailed discussion of the legal issues addressed in this article can be found in the author's
forthcoming Institute of Government publication,Legislative Zoning Decisions:Legal Aspects. The
book will be available in summer 1993.
2. In many respects this distinction is similar to the distinction between rule-making decisions and
contested case decisions under the state's Administrative Procedures Act, G.S. Ch. 150B.
3. The open meetings statute does apply to these meetings and should be observed.See G.S. 143-318.9
to -318.18. Where a majority of the members of a board,council, or committee gather to conduct
business or to deliberate,notice of the meeting must be provided and it generally must be open to the
public.
4. The statutes that mandate hearings, G.S. 153A-323 and 160A-364,explicitly refer to adoption and
amendment of zoning ordinances.The court has held that this also includes repeal of zoning provisions.
Sofran Corp. v. City of Greensboro, 327 N.C. 125, 393 S.E.2d 767(1990); Orange County v. Heath,278
N.C. 688, 180 S.E.2d 810 (1971). -
5. Keiger v. Board of Adjustment,281 N.C. 715, 190 S.E.2d 175 (1972).See G.S. 153A-344 and G.S.
160A-387.
6. Johnson v. Town of Longview,37 N.C.App. 61,245 S.E.2d 516,rev. denied, 295 N.C. 550,248
S.E.2d 727 (1978).The county zoning statute does require a mandatory referral of a proposed zoning
amendment to the planning board,but it is not required to hold a hearing. A number of zoning
ordinances, however,still require planning board hearings;others provide for joint planning board and
governing board hearings on rezoning proposals.If the zoning ordinance itself requires a formal
planning board hearing,it must be held and should generally follow these rules for a legislative hearing.
7. Helms v. City of Charlotte,255 N.C. 647, 122 S.E.2d 817(1961); Walker v. Town of Elkin,254 N.C.
85, 118 S.E.2d 1 (1960); Capps v. City of Raleigh, 35 N.C.App.290, 241 S.E.2d 527 (1978). These
cases held that actual personal notice of a proposed rezoning is not constitutionally required nor is it
sufficient to substitute for compliance with-statutory requirements.
8. Capps, 35 N.C. App.at 290,241 S.E.2d at 527.
9.Though not explicitly required by the statute, a copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance or
amendment should be available for public inspection at the time the notice is published.
10. Sellers v. City of Asheville,33 N.C. App. 544, 549,236 S.E.2d 283,286 (1977). By contrast, in In
re Raynor, 94 N.C.App. 91, 379 S.E.2d 884,rev. denied, 325 N.C. 546, 385 S.E.2d 495 (1989),the
court upheld the adequacy of a notice that stated its purpose was "to consider proposed zoning and
proposed long-range land use plans within the area recently added to the Town's extraterritorial
jurisdiction." The notice went onto provide a"rough description" of the area affected,using major
streets as boundaries.
11. The legislature has also extended this mailed-notice requirement to some land-use regulations other
than zoning.G.S. 143-214.5(d)requires cities and counties that adopt water-supply watershed protection
ordinances under their general police powers to use the mailed-notice provision if the ordinance imposes
requirements more stringent than the statewide minimum standards adopted by the Environmental
Management Commission.
12. Frizzelle v.Harnett County, 106 N.C.App. 234,416 S.E.2d 421,rev. denied, 332 N.C. 147,419
S.E.2d 571 (1992). In this case,however,the ordinance itself required mailed-notice and posting,which
was not done.
'opular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planninglpgsp93.htm
13.Note that a zoning text change that substantially changes the range of permitted uses in a district can
have the same practical effect as a map change and in those instances may be covered.
14.Many of the modifications are of only temporary duration.This trend of local modification is
continuing. Some thirteen bills were introduced in the 1993 General Assembly to provide mailed-notice
exceptions to thirty-three local governments. A bill is also pending that would extend these alternatives
to mailed notice to all local governments.
15.Freeland v. Orange County,273 N.C.452, 160 S.E.2d 282 (1968).
16. Freeland,273 N.C. at 457, 160 S.E.2d at 286.
17.Heaton v. City of Charlotte,277 N.C. 506, 518, 178 S.E.2d 352, 359-60 (1971).
18. Heaton,277 N.C. at 518-19, 178 S.E.2d at 360. See also Walker v.Town of Elkin,254 N.C. 85, 118
S.E.2d 1 (1960);In re Issuance of CAMA Permit to Worthy, 82 N.C. App. 32, 345 S.E.2d 699(1986).
19.Also, G.S. 160A-71(b1)provides that regular and special meetings of the governing board may be
recessed or adjourned to reconvene at a time and place certain(the comparable county provision, G.S.
153A-40,contains a similar provision for regular county board meetings). G.S. 143-318.12(b)(1)in the
state's open meetings law provides that if the time and place for reconvening are set in the properly
noticed original meeting,no additional public notice is required.
20. See George v.Town of Edenton;294 N.C. 679,242 S.E.2d 877(1978);Nelson v. City of
Burlington, 80 N.C. App. 285,341 S.E.2d 739(1986); Clark v. City of Charlotte,66 N.C.App. 437,311
S.E.2d 71 (1984).
21. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v.Board of Aldermen,284 N.C.458, 202 S.E.2d 129 (1974); Jarrell v.
Board of Adjustment,258 N.C. 476, 128 S.E.2d 879(1963). .
22. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 284 N.C. at 470,202 S.E.2d at 137 (citations omitted).
23. See, e.g., Jarrell,258 N.C. at 476, 128 S.E.2d at 879;Brummer v.Board of Adjustment, 81 N.C.
App. 307, 343 S.E.2d 603,rev. denied, 318 N.C.413, 349 S.E.2d 590 (1986).
24. Craver v. Board of Adjustment,267 N.C. 40, 147 S.E.2d 599 (1966);Burton v.New Hanover
County Board of Adjustment,49 N.C. App. 439,271-S.E.2d 550,cert. denied, 302 N.C.217,276 S.E.2d
914 (1981); Carter v. Town of Chapel Hill, 14 N.C. App. 93, 187 S.E.2d 588,cert. denied, 281 N.C.
314, 188 S.E.2d 897 (1972).
25. Robinhood Trails Neighbors v.Board of Adjustment,44 N.C. App. 539,261 S.E.2d 520, cert.
denied, 299 N.C. 737,267 S.E.2d 663 (1980).See also Rule 5.2,Rules of Professional Conduct of the
North Carolina State-Bar. This rule prohibits a lawyer from testifying as a witness in a case he or she is
handling unless the testimony relates solely to an uncontested matter,is related to legal fees,or if refusal
to testify would work a substantial hardship on the client because of the distinctive value of the lawyer in
the particular case.
26. A standard oath may be used,such as, "Do you swear(or affirm)that the evidence you give shall be
the truth,the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,so help you God?"
27. Crump v.Board of Education, 326 N.C. 603, 392 S.E.2d 579 (1990).It is important to distinguish
personal knowledge,which can be considered if disclosed,from personal bias,which disqualifies a
member from participation.Personal bias is present if the member has a fixed opinion that is not
susceptible to change regardless of the evidence presented.Also,in Rice Assoc. v. Town of Weaverville
Bd. of Adjustment, 108 N.C.App.346,423 S.E.2d 519 (1992),the court held that participation of a
member with bias does not invalidate the decision if the applicant is not entitled to a permit under any
36
Popular Government Spring 1993 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm
circumstances.
28. Burton v.New Hanover County Board of Adjustment,49 N.C.App.439,271 S.E.2d 550, cert.
denied, 302 N.C. 217,276 S.E.2d 914(.1981).The court of appeals has noted that while a verbatim
transcript is not required, its presence would facilitate appellate review.In re City of Raleigh Parks and
Recreation Dept., 107 N.C. App. 505,421 S.E.2d 179 (1992).
29. Little v. City of Raleigh, 195 N.C. 793, 143 S.E. 827(1928).See also In re J. H. Carter Builder,Inc.,
95 N.C.App. 182, 381 S.E.2d 889,rev. denied, 325 N.C. 707,388 S.E.2d 458 (1989) (rehearing by
board of adjustment six weeks after original vote,made because chair wished to change his vote after
reviewing the minutes,held improper because there had been no substantial change in the facts,
evidence, or conditions).
30.In re Broughton Estate,210 N.C. 62, 185 S.E.434 (1936).
31. There are other important differences in how legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions are made
beyond the differences in hearings discussed in this article. For example,there are different standards on
conflicts of interest, voting majorities required,creation of vested rights, imposition of conditions, and
the time limits for seeking judicial review.
The author is an Institute of Government faculty member who specializes in land-use law.
Return to the N.C. Planning� ome page
Go to the Institute of Government home page M
Last Updated. 2-Jan-1997 by Susan Dunn
DISTRIBUTED
S-dp ac C �
Ms. Margaret Brown Rev. Gabriel a
Orange County Commissioners 5500 Old Nob Z. 3-y_�
POB 8181 Cedar Grove I 4!- 2Nfc-
Hillsborough NC 27278 September 1
Re: September 21 meeting, Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom z
Dear Ms. Brown: _
We'd like you to know that Mr. Ernie McBroom, who sold us our and had
assured us that we would be living in an area(on both sides of Grassy Creek)
zoned agricultural/ residential. This March he decided to request rezoning,
for one section, a 10 acre parcel, as ,aariul_tural.servic?.,. Since we at
Grassy Creek subdivision have invested almost $1 .5 million in homes on 11
lots sold by Mr. McBroom, we are dismayed that the Planning Board would
change the zoning to our great detriment. Their motivation escapes us.
Mr. McBroom, however, has made clear that he is very displeased with being
forced by the Zoning Officer, Mr. Hinkley, to clean up a stream buffer area
behind two homes in our subdivision. Instead of simply factoring the cost of
tree removal and disposal at a proper site, Mr. McBroom attempted to bury
108 truckloads of trees on the property sold to two of our neighbors. His
expressed chagrin and his present attempt at rezoning may be interpreted
as motivation to devalue the property of those he once esteemed as
customers.
Mr. McBroom plans to install a tree stump grinding and a mulching operation
on this property. The noise would be horrendous, and the traffic along
Sawmill Road, where many school children reside, would drastically change
our neighborhood.
We do not understand the workings of the Planning Board, nor the arrange-
ment that allows a tie vote to imply approval of any request. Their
"decision" flies in the face of any invitation Orange County makes for people
to settle in this area. It is inconsistent with anything that can be remotely
defined as "planning". We hope that you and the other Commissioners will
put an end to this ill-considered zoning request.
Please vote in our favor on September 21.
Sincerely,
NB: COPY ALSO BY E-MAIL
es 14.1- -m,.. A fin..,.
0-1 T U1
�icM bne isi,idsD .%j!)q nW013 'et",
bGo33 eldoV NO M e vinuctO S(yli3gO
010 .9voi@ isheO r8 ,8 aOq
Ve f r6 l -tadme1q:32 CINS' S OVI
-
moolaom &ie)I-'I et?-N-S me:fq92 :OA
.nwola .?m lse(l
bsd J)nGI iuo ,!J bio;2 or1w rnooiSoM eim3 -W Isdi woriA of tjoy 9A b'sVI
w2i&iD �c) tobia diod nose w cis ni pr,0
vil ed Wooliv aw 101 zu bsivaar.bsbish :=r AT
cat
Jr, ow Qfi q 9io 01 s tn0i1 3 5a. !3 00 -1 ol
m) nmod rit rloiilirn ?. r j?,omir belawn! --vt3d rolzivibdu2 : 5—oi ► yzes-i@
bluovv bigo8 prifflne-M gril lsiil be'lamab ei;s .-N yd bloa ?lot
-09HT jnsrmhw-t A lr,�op inc) of pmros tmt 5pp!7,,d.�)
dj;iw b!9am-flq�-Ob y,kt)v ?.i 90 isdi isslo qb aj -asd i!,ivewori fnOO18DM 'Im
s6v i9lbid
:10 laoo "aril r ni iolcts'? ylqrnie to bsw-r,.1 iibdua )u,,. rii -?offioti Owl bniiit5d
m 1rz -Plb 9,11
\i-,ijd o-.t belqrlv�,.% momSoM :04 isqoiq G --) . oq,' bnt, ;svombi 9
2H -ivo to owl of bk);a yj-ioqoiq idl no asq-r) to ?b9oi,-),:xj-11 801
1,1 V-�
b!)mnqiqvfl sd yf,,rn pnir oxtr -!,s jame.jis insea)q cid bns rihp.-Ho bazae'iqxa
as bsmtIf)ja gono 9H geodl to yjloqo-r; edl equliweb of noijnvilcm, ak3
.aiarralauo
8 bras Onibnhq qrnuI2 sell G llpjani oj- �-nsiq rnoo,18-,)M .'tM
Crofs ntiis)j aril brig: ?tjobnst-nod sd bluow 9;?iocl sdT ,Mawa eiri'J no
qgni3r,°, 'Or")iJamb bloow ti!eoblido locrf:)2 ypsm �)i5n'w tbsoq ItimwG2
-boorfio0O.,-.,iswiuOr
c, z-, wir
-09(ISTI, Aj ior, -insiq ofil to eil! bos.f�iobnttj Ion ob 311.q
yr G m voiqqs ,�Iq of olov sit E ,!,-rolls is-11 m9m
,
coscl IcA 29*3=,n y1n
ijo:) noijelivnif 410 3osl aril ni agift ":i6ab5b"
,,13100151 �33 l8rl't pnittlyno e-! if it altmqp col
11iw 901 btF) uo,,j
zidl 01
S I a drf) r,,0 1 Ov 611 u C) ri i I C,v az Se 1
M11+3 Y8 02-iA YcIO,-) :610
Rev. Gabriel and Mary DesHa
rnais
5 500 Old Noble Road
Cedar Grove NC 27231
September 23, 1999 ` ;
Mr. Craig Benedict
The Director of Planning
POB 8181
Hillsborough NC 27278
Dear Mr. Benedict:
Thank you for seeing me this afternoon. I think I understand better the
complexities surrounding planning in this county. Such knowledge, however,
has not allayed our anxiety. You mentioned that the initial petition and the
procedure enacted by the Planning Dept. had some defects which may or may
not be substantial. We would expect that failure to inform people of the
rezoning application when those people are living within 500 feet of the area
in question is more than an oversight, but, in fact, represents a failure of
the system.
-Another alarming problem is that the fate of communities from which land
sellers have profited is totally ignored in the process of rezoning. Our
understanding is that the person who sold us the property must be held
responsible for the nature of that property. So, too, the county that
approved of land use, well-drilling, and all other attendant expenses which we
undertook, is not devoid of responsibility to protect those invited to live in
such an area. If the general trend of land sellers and the county is to
develop a residential community, it flies in the face of all reason and trust
for that county to enact a minimalist zoning law to up-end the status of all
who have invested in this area.
We were relieved to learn that future land use considerations will include
the presence of residents in this area. We've all been invited to make our
homes here. We think any change in zoning is a very grave matter and we
appreciate your promise to keep us informed of our rights.
Sincerely,
Lisa A.Clarke and Rome D.Clark RIM.
803 Sawmill Rd.
Cedar Grove,North Carolina 27231
Home Phone(919)732-2644
Email sawmi11803 @AOL.com
August 30, 1999
Orange County Planning Board Members
Planning and Inspections Department
306F Revere Rd.
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Dear Planning Board Members,
We are writing you to express our concerns regarding the rezoning of the Ernie McBroom
property on Sawmill Rd. Our concerns are as follows:
1. Safety
2. Noise
3. Roads
4. Pollution
If Mr. McBroom were to create a landscape recycling center as his request for rezoning states, we
feel that neighborhood safety would be a concern. There are approximately eighty-three houses
on and associated with Sawmill Rd. The majority of these houses area at on.the first half mule.of.
the road west of the McBroom property:- any-ofthese.houses have:children that wait for-and
disembar -the--whoo bus.#Oy. Children wait by the roadside at the end of his/her driveway for
the bus. Can we assure their safety with an increased number of large tonnage trucks traveling at
speeds of 45 mph, which is the posted speed limit. How can we be assured that debris will be
properly secured on these.trucks.
Sawmill Rd. is a quiet residential neighborhood and the noise that would be made by heavy
machinery such as chippers, shredders,bulldozers and large trucks coming and going would no
longer guarantee quiet in places where-people seek it most--the rural countryside: According to
OSHA,the:dBA level for the type of equipment required for a landscape recycling operation
would be above what is considered harmful(100-11OdBA)for those working the equipment,
which in turn would give the residents near by a constant sound equivalent to the sound of a
string trimmer or a leaf bi. wer. We moved to the countryside for'L,Ie peace and quiet of rural
living, and a landscape recycling operation would destroy that tranquillity.
Although NC considers all roads to be safe to carry all types and sizes of vehicles, Sawmill Rd. is
narrow and if you look at the road you call tell it was not made for heavy traffic. Evidence of this
type of damage can be seen on Sawmill Rd. near the intersection of NC 86 ,where the road was
recently damaged by heavy trucks.
_Pollution is a major concern to the air in the form of airborne particles that would be emitted from
the equipment. Additionally,we realize that a diesel tank completely buried underground is
allowable, however, all residents of Sawmill Rd. obtain his/her water from a well. A large portion
of this land was once under water due to a beaver dam. What would it take to flood this land
again?
We pay a premium to live here. We paid a premium for our land and for our home. If you allow
the rezoning to go through, that premium is lost.
Sincerely,
Lisa A. Clarke&
Robin D. Clark
r "
Aug-31-99 10: 52A USPS-NNSC Raleigh, NC 919 501 9724 P.02
August 31, 1.999
RE: Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom
Dear Sirs,
It was only two days ago that we learned of plans for rezoning property behind ours. As we were
not notified in advance or given a chance to speak at your meeting it now becomes necessary for
us to register our disapproval of this proposed rezoning.
When we purchased our home in the McBroom development of Grassy Creek, located off
Sawmill Rd., we were told by the builder, Gary Whicker, and Ernie McBroom, the developer, that
there were 50 undeveloped acres behind our property which would one day become part of our
development. In other words, 25 more 2+acre lots in a subdivision similar to ours. Something
that we could definitely live with,as we like our comer of Orange County.
We feel that the rezoning of this property would allow Mr. McBroom to use the property in ways
that could have adverse affects on the community as well as the environment:
• Sawmill Rd is a low tonnage road—frequent traverse by heavy equipment including trucks
loaded with landscape debris would cause serious damage to this road'.
• Numerous children live along Sawmill Rd who ride the public school bus—heavy equipment
and trucks on this road would put children's lives in danger.
• The potential environmental hazards(noise, dust,etc.)generated by the activities that this
rezoning would allow would be a great annoyance to residents In the area.
• In addition, the possible pollution of the streams and groundwater in the area has not been
addressed—Grassy Creek borders this property as well as that of residents of the Grassy
Creek subdivision.
The bottom line, members of the Planning Commission, is that we do not want anything behind
our property other than what was originally proposed to us.
Sincerely Yours,
6--ee -c
�
Ed and Donna Vaughn
�
5507 Old Noble Rd
Cedar Grove NC 27231-9730
W
I
E�
Aug. 30", 1999
Orange County Planning Board
306 Revere Rd
Hillsboro, NC 27278
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is in regard to the rezoning of 10 acres on Sawmill Rd. by Mr. Ernie
McBroom. We would like to state for the record that we are very much opposed to this.
Our reasons for this are as follows:
1. It will decrease the property value for land owners in the area.
2. It will cause traffic problems.
3. We feel it could put the children in the area who ride school buses in danger.
4. The noise will be disturbing.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. John D. Bradsher
133 Bradsher Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
�y �E
Ao
lid
j/Vo
UL
. ��°2� l.�'�•'�,yL-�,�':LL Y^ f'-c•/-j/_/,,".')'7 1�_..� �` t-�'--y( �.�-a c� 11`?'`-�-',/�',�%�`.' S
ItUij ZV44��/Lj ZL
11002
09/•01/99 WED 17:13 FAX 5105455
C�()S)ck-Q C-O. P\as�
----- -._........ -.... ....... _.
Aj (j2
LQ
(v(QA- Ccxxcll�
safe, Oo--- c\� ice n u
6--ary),e eu4�-A
LIM, i
i
09/A1/99 WED 17:13 FAX 5105455 VA oos
�. __.. _.. ., -...---..,_........_.._.. .. ......._... . _. ..__.. ...
It
1�
MBA Y\�4\01- .O5 0 . -.E &w,+�-
Al TY-JL
\'QLA�
P .
004
09/91/99 WED 17:14 FAX 5105455
I
_.. _..............,._.0
Akz)LA) Vz>
O�k \�Z& Vvas\(2. L-obA L), (A)G-
t f-k D J-SA CLb D L YOU r
I
rC) .
r
r
Rev. Gabriel A. DesHarnais
5500 Old Noble Road
Cedar Grove NC 27231
Mr. John Link September 10, 1999
The County Manager
POB 8181 °
Hillsborough NC 27278
Dear Mr. Link:
. I am writing to ask for a reopening of the first phase of Mr. Ernie
McBroom's request for rezoning. I,ask this because the implications of the
county acceding to such a request would have broad negative impact.
Further, I am surprised that tie votes by the planning commission are viewed
as consensual. It hardly seems a responsible way to deal with such issues.
With this being the present law, there is probably little we can do about such
motions. I also understand that the administration of this County has the
power to quash this zoning request. I would ask you to seriously consider
using your administrative power in this manner.
I myself did not hear of Mr. McBroom's petition, apparently made in March
of this year, until September 3. 1 was dismayed that the mechanisms for
communication are so limited that one could miss an important notice by not
reading the Hillsborough paper. While I do read it quite frequently, I do feel
that direct communication by mail is far more effective.
I understand that the zoning ordinance seeks to.notify only those within
500 feet of any property to be rezoned. When the repercussions are so
massive both as to traffic and noise, a much broader and effective
notification would seem to be in order. Mr. McBroom sold me this property
with assurances that he owned other property for residential development
across from Grassy Creek. Then he decides to change the nature of that
land usage in such a way that my property would be devalued. This is, indeed,
strange behavior for a land developer who presents himself as supplying land
for homes.
I can only guess at Mr. McBroom's motives based on his actions with the
zoning officer and state laws regarding stream buffers. My hope is that
rancor and revenge have not motivated him to so threaten those to whom he
sold property now worth about $1 .3 million. These homes are modest enough
individually, but they represent a great deal of trust in our county and a
2.
great deal of disappointment arising from Mr. McBroom's behavior.
I hope you, as County Manager, will see this project for what it is and decide
in favor of those of us who are invited here by Mr. McBroom's offering of
this land.
Please let me know whether you can quash this request as lacking merit or
at least hear from us our deep concerns.
Sincerely,
Gabriel A. DesHarnais .
copies to:
Craig Benedict, Director of Planning
Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney
Mary B. DesHarnaij
5500 Old Noble Road
Cedar Groue, NC 27231
September 10, 1999
Mr. John Link
City Manager s
POB 8181
Hillsborough NC 27278
Dear Mr. Link,
My husband, Reu. Gabriel DesHarnais, has already written to you
expressing our desire to haue Mr. McBroom's rezoning request denied
by administratiue decree or, at the very least, to haue the hearing
process reopened. I would like to add my own concerns in this
matter. 1 am deeply dismayed that Mr. McBroom would care so little
about the people to whom he sold his property.
Not only am 1, along with many others in this neighborhood and
along Sawmill Road, concerned that the traffic will be heaug and
noisy, but also that the noise of the giant chipping machine he will
need to use will destroy the uery peace and quiet we were seeking by
` buying and building in this area.
Please glue serious consideration to our request.
Thank you.
Mar y B. DesHarnais
copies to:
Craig Benedict, Director of Planning
Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney
Craig Benedict
Director, Planning Department
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough NC 27278
September 9, 1999
Dear Mr. Benedict,
I had no opportunity to speak at the public hearing held August 23, 1999, in the
new courthouse, concerning the rezoning of property behind my home.
According to Zoning Ordinance Article 20.7.2, this letter now becomes new
evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing for Ernie McBroom's rezoning
request.
Respectfully,
Donna Vaughn r„
5507 Old Noble R („
Cedar Grove NC 27231
J`
I�A
Craig Benedict
Director, Planning Department
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough NC 27278
September 9, 1999
F-7
Dear Mr. Benedict,
I had no opportunity to speak at the public hearing held August 23, 1999, in the
new courthouse, concerning the rezoning of property behind my home.
According to Zoning Ordinance Article 20.7.2, this letter now becomes new
evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing for Ernie McBroom's rezoning
request.
Respectfully,
Ed Vaughn
5507 Old Noble Rd
Cedar Grove NC 27231
SEPTEMBER 9,1999
CRAIG BENEDICT
DIR.PLANNING DEPT.
306F REVERE RD.
HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278
t"a
9 rte.
DEAR SIR(S);
MY NAME IS MIKE GORMAN MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 5506 OLD NOBLE RD. IN CEDAR.
GROVE NORTH CAROLINA. WE ARE WRITING TO YOU TO EXPRESS OUR
DISSAPPOINTMENT IN THE COUNTY'S DECISION TO REZONE OUR COMMUNITY.
IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE REZONING OF OUR COMMUNITY
WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THE MAIN EXAMPLE IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRIVATE LANDFILL AT THE LOCATION
OF PARCEL OF(436,036 SF)IN CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP.
AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE THIS PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO OUR QUIET AND PEACEFUL
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LANDFILL IN QUESTION IS ONLY TO BE
USED FOR LANDSCAPE DEBRIS i.e. Tree limbs,tree trunks and other natural debris.
SHOULD THIS COME TO PASS .WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW THE FOLLOWING WILL BE
MONITORED:
• HOW DOES THE COUNTYISTATE PLAN TO CONTROL THE NOISE POLLUTION
GENERATED BY THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT?.i.e. dumptrucks,woodchippers,bulidozers etc.
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO CONTROL THE EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC ALONG
SAWMILL RD? WHICH WILL BE THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ACCESSING THE SITE.
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO REGULATE AND INSPECT THE PROPOSED
LANDFILL SITE?
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE NATURAL WATERSHED TO
PREVENT FLOODING?
• WILL THE COUNTY/STATE GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE NO UNLAWFUL
DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT THIS SITE?
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL BE NO
ILLEGAL DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON THE PROPOSED SITE?
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY
SOIL OR WATER CONTAMINATION DUE TO ANY UNLAWFUL DUMPING OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS?
+ HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO CONTROL. .THE INCREASED DUST
POLLUTION DUE TO THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT TRAVELING ON THE DIRT OR GRAVEL
ROAD LEADING TO THE PROPOSED SITE?
• HAS THE COUNTY/STATE ADEQUATELY NVES-IIGATED THE BACKGROUND OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPER? IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR EPA VIOLATIONS AS
WELL AS STATE VIOLATIONS FOR RUNNING AN ILLEGAL LANDFILL ELSEWHERE.
• IF THE ABOVE BEING TRUE. WHAT DOES THIS SAY FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
DEVELOPING PARTY? CAN THIS PARTY BE TRUSTED TO RUN THE LANDFILL
ACCORDING TO GENERAL FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES?
WE WILL CLOSE THIS LETTER BY SAYING WE MOVED TO THIS AREA SO THAT WE WOULD
NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE EXCESSIVE NOISE AND TRAFFIC OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
WE ALSO WANTED TO LIVE IN A PEACEFUL AREA FREE OF THE DISTRUBANCES OF HASTY
COUNTY PLANNING. AS A TAXPAYERS AND CITIZENS OF THE LOVELY TOWN OF CEDAR
GROVE, .I WANT TO GO ON THE PUBLIC RECORD AS STRONGLEY OPPOSING SUCH
REZONING OR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NATURE. WE DO NOT WANT OUR PROPERTY
VALUES DEPRICIATED NOR DO WE WANT TO LIVE IN SUCH AN UNPLEASANT
ENVIRONMENT. FURTHER SINCE THE PROPERTY IN THE EFLAND DISTRICT HAS ALREADY
BEEN ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY WHY CAN'T THIS SITE BE LOCATED IN THIS
DISTRICT?
WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE NEWS PUBLICATIONS FOR THIS COUNTY, THEREFORE
WE WILL BE EXPECTING YOU TO NOTIFY US OF FUTURE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS
MATTER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER
MIKE AND BRENDA GORMAN
5506 OLD NOBLE ROAD
CEDAR GROVE,NC 27231
CC
JOHN M.LINK
COUNTY MANAGER
P.O.BOX 8181
HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278
GEOFF GLEDHILL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
P.O DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278
Director of Planning
Craig Benedict
3067 Revere Rd.
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Jayme Hanzak
5502 Old Noble Rd.
Cedar Grove,NC 27231
Dear Distinguished Board Member,
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter on the proposed zone change Z-03-99.
This is Mr. McBroom's request.
First of all,I would like to apologize for missing the first meeting on this matter. I
understand that there were several notices of the zone change in the newspapers, none of
which I get regularly. I find the news coverage of Orange county to be"FAIR"at best. So
I do not subscribe to them.
I also heard that a public notice was posted in our area for a short time. One day from
what I understand. I would have to believe this because I have a daughter that I run
around to various activities through out the week, and I never saw a notice about the
rezoning of the land on Sawmill Rd. I am sure if one was posted, my wife and I would
have definitely noticed it. The word,"REZONING?'does command attention. Is this a
common practice in Orange County?Working for the PBS station, It reminds me of a
program we air called, "Wish Bone". In one of the episodes, a developer puts up a public
notice and some how that notice was knocked down. So the rezoning passes because
nobody is aware of the meeting, Very cloak and dagger.
My wife and I bought a house in the Grassy Creek subdivision a little over two year ago.
We are very pleased with our purchase and love the area very much. We have great
neighbors,the peace and quiet is wonderful. This little subdivision off Sawmill Rd. is a
dream come true for my family. Especially for my daughter, she loves the horses and the
wildlife.
Mr. McBroom wrote some covenants for the Grassy Creek subdivision. The covenants
are fair not only to the residents of Grassy Creek; but are respectful to all the Citizens on
Sawmill Road as well.1-have enclosed a copy of these covenants to let you see for
yourself how fair they are.
I would like to draw your attention to Covenant#8. The Nuisance Covenant.Please note
the first sentence.
8.Nuisances. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any Lot nor shall
anything be done thereon which may be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the
NEIGHBORHOOD.
Mr. McBroom wrote this covenant himself for the Grassy Creek subdivision,but the
Sawmill Rd. area is our neighborhood. Now Mr. McBroom is proposing to build a
chipping plant in the middle of a Residential Area. I'm sure I don't have to explain the
noise that will be produced by this plant. Even little chippers are noisy. This plant will be
a Nuisances to all the Residents in the area,NOT only on Sawmill Rd.,but all the
Residences and Farms in the area.
The Sawmill Rd. area is a Residential/ Agricultural neighborhood. There are better than
50 HOMES with in a quarter mile of Mr. Mcbroom's proposed chipping plant. Fifty
homes where children play, go to school, Infants sleep and average citizens just want to
have a QUIET,PEACEFUL neighborhood. Mr. McBroom is the only one asking for the
zone change. Everyone I've talked to is against it.
Passing this rezoning request would destroy this treasure and rob hundreds of a
wonderful neighborhood. It would benefit one man and would,go against the wishes of
MOST if not ALL of the Citizens of Orange County in and around the Sawmill Rd. area.
Please deny the rezoning request. There are better places for a chipping facility where the
land has been zoned for industry. In the middle of our neighborhood is not the place.
With much thanks,
And I hope you read this.
Jayme Hanzak
Jhanz��c�nctv.or�
(919) 644-2564
(919) 549-7281
J.
Prepared by and return to xanet$. Dutton, P.O. Drawer 1529, FrMsborough, NC 27278
STATE OF NOM CAROLINA DECLARATION OF RESTRIC-flVE
AND PROT =rVE COVENANTS
COUNTY OF ORANGE AND CONDITIONS
THIS REC.L.ARATION OP RFffMICTIVE AND • PROTEE=VE COVENANTS AND
CONDITIONS, made and entered into this the day-Of MaxCh, 1994y by and between
IERNIE MCBROOK SR. and wife, IANICE M. MCBROOM (hereinafter MCBROO? ISJ;
PROSPECTrM PURCHASERS of Lots NO& 1 through 12,inclusive,as shown and delineated on a plat
entitled KNAL PLAT - GRASSY CREM a subdivision located in Cedar Grove TuwnsWp, Orange
County, North Carolina jherelaafter PURCHASERS},
y�TITNESSETH: -ta
WIiE0W,Eruie McBroorn, Sr. has heretofore~acquired title to a certain tract or parcel of land
which has been subdivided into lots numbered 1 through 12,inclusive,according to•a certain snap or plat
entities FINAL PLAT-GRASSY CREEK(hereinafter iomc tdmes referred to as the subdivision"),which said
map appears ofrecord in t'he office of tt a Register of Deeds of Orange County,in Plat Book 70,-Page. 1$2;
and.
WHEREAS,.MCBROOMS intend to convey said numbered lots as the same are shown and
delineated on the above-mentlaned-map. by deeds, deeds of trust, mortgages, and other instruments to
vaxiaus persons, firms andtor corporations. subject to certain restrictive and protective covenants and
conditions which are deemed to make the subdivision afore desirable and to be for the benefit of all those
who acquire title to any one or more of said numbered lots to ft end that the restdetive and protective
Covenants and COKUdpns hfXdn'set Out sllsil Inure'to the benefit of each person.fhnr ,or corporation which
may acquire title to'any or all of said numbered lots-and which shall be binding upon each such p=en,
firm, or corporation to whom or to which MCBROOMS may hereaitr oonvey'any of said numbered lots
by deed, mortgage,deed of trust, or other instrument.
NOW,THERMM in consideration of the premises, MCBROOMS hereby covenant and agrees
with said Prospeove Purchasers that each of-the afo=wntloned numbered lots shall be held, sold,
encumbered and conveyed subject to ttte restrictive,and protective covenants and con0tions bere agftet set
forth and said restrictive and protective covenants and conditions siWII beeotne a part of each Instrument
conveying any of said numbered lots as fully and.to the same extent as if set forth therein. As a coaditiou
Of the sale or conveyance of any of said.nuubered lots,the purChasers agree and covenant to abide by and
conform with said restrictive and protective covenants and conditions_
11 E RES=CT IVE AND LROTECTIyIa COVENANTS
AIVU t ONDITICINS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Lot The word"Lot"as used herein shall mean the saparately m mb=d parcels depicted
on the above-m Honed map. Provided,however,that the owner of all of a numbc=d parcel on said map-
may comWne with such numbered parcel,parts or portions of another numbered parcel or parcels and the
• 1 E`I L.�T.'r
30 MAR 1994 t 10 s i 9:?r,aF'�P°!
eti-ok 1230, 9 Mle -466 469
_} 0: X230 ma 467 '
aWegate shall be considered as one PLoV for the purposes of these restrictive and protective covenants and
conditions.
2. Land Use and Ilm'ldina Tvoe. No structure shall be erected,alteredplaced or permitted to
remain on any Lot other than for use as a siagle-family residential dwelling and only Che single-family
residential dwelling skull be erected or permitted to remain upon any Lot. No mobilehomes maybe erected
or permitted to remain u&a any Lot. R private garage,outbuildings as herein expressly permitted and an
ovabead story for servant's quarters not rented,leased or utilized for any remuneration are permitted. -No
outbuilding shall be erected upon any Lot unless same is incidental'to the residential use of said Lot. It is
provided,however, that the party of the first fiait,during the development stage,may maintain a dwelling
for'use as a model home to.aid sales in the subdivision, After development bas been completed,na such
model home may be maintained in the subdivision.
3. . Dwelling Size.
(a) Any one-story dwelling erected upon any Lot shall contain not less Om 1100
square feet,outside measurement,of enclosed floor heated area,exclusive of openn porches
and garages.
(b) Any one and one-half scary dwelling erected upon any Lot shall contain Dot Iess
than 1300 square fad,*outside measurement, of enclosed floor heated area, exclusive of
open porches and garages. Such dweltimg shall contain not less than 700 squa& feet.
,outside mcasurennertt,of enclosed floor heated area on the ground fluor,exclusive of open
porches and garages.
(a) Any two-eta two and one-half story dwelling erected upon any Lot shall contain
not -less thaa'•1300 square few% outside measurement; of enclosed floor heated area,
exclusive of opens porches and garages. Such dwelling shall contain not less Man 700
square feet, outside measurement, of enclosed floor heated area on the ground floor,
exclusive of open porches and garages. .
4. DwelUng Quality. All dwellings and ouftild!ngs erected upon any Lot sleep be constructed
of material of good grade,quality and appearance, and alt construction shall be peftmed In a good and
workmanlike manner. The exterior construction of'any.dwelling shall net be of asbestos•shlogle siding,
imitation brick or st onmdll siting, or of concrete blocks. No "shell borne," as the term is generally
understood at this time in We areal,shall be erected or allowed to remain on any of said Lots. The outside
surface of beams,'walls,and roofs of any appurtenant structures located on aay Lot shall be of material and
. quality of construction comparablo in cost,design,and quality to the outside surfaces of the dwelling located
ou said Lot. No-metal storage shed or barn shall be located on any Lot. Any storage shed or barn shall
'be designed,consuvcwd and maintained so as to be aesthetically compatible with the dwelling located on
said Lok
S. Setback Lines. No building shall be erected or permitted to remain nearer to any street in
said subdivision than fire street setback lines as shown on the recorded plat or said subdivision. No building
shall be located nearer ihan 100 feet fYom the right of way of S.R.1545,50'from the right of way of Noble
Road,or 3l)' from any side or rear lot line. It is pMvided,however,that eaves,steps,stoops and fireplace
chaises shall not be ConSidered a pout of the building for the purposes of intetpteting this paragraph of this
2
Declaration. An error in the placgnent of structures,in an amount less than ten percent of the setback
requirement in,question is not a violation of this Declaration or of the provisions of the recorded.plat
6. Easements. Easements for the installation and maintenance ofutilitles and drainage fac uties .
are reserved over the front and recur ten fleet of each of tim aforesaid Lbts. A drainage and utility easement
five'feat in width is reserved along each sideline of each Lot Additional drainage easemments and utility
casements are reserved as more particularly shown and delineated oft the recorded map of the subdivision.
Within said easements so reserved,no structure,planting or other materials shall be placed or permitted to
remain which may damage or lntcrfere with remain which may damage or Interfere with flue installation and
maintenance of Utilities or.which,may interfere with drainage and the flaw of water within the'easement
areas. 7be owner of each lot shall malr4aln that portion; of said Lot lying within the easement area as
defined herein and shall maintain such improvements as may be located thereon except those improvements
installed and maintained by a public authority or utility company.
Drainage easements are reserved as more particularly showu and designated on the recorded map
of the subdivision.
7. Garbage atyd Refuse Disposal, No Lot shall be used or mainti dned.dn.an unsightly manner
or as a dumping ground for rubbish,trash or debris. Rubbish,trash,debris,.garbage and otw waste shall
be kept only in saDitary containers. All incinerators, containeis or other equipment for the storage or
disposal of such waste materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.•
S. u' ances. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any l.at nor
shall anytWng.be done thereon which may be or bccome a nuisance or annoyance to the neighborhood. No
truck or commercial vehicle In excess-of three-quarter ton load capacity shall be parked or permitted to
remain on any Lot. No wrecked or junked motor vehicle or vehicle without current license plates and
registration shall be permitted to remain upon any Lot. No trailer,mobile-how camper or like;recreatYonid
vehicle shall be oearYnitted to remain upon any Lot unless it is located so as not to be visible from any street
or road within the subdivisions.
9. Temporary Structure. No structure:of a temporary character.trailer,baseicnerst, tent,shack.,
barn, or other.outbuilding shall be used on any Lot at any time as a rrsidence tither temporarily or
pernnameartly_
Liz. Siena. No signs of any kind shalt be displayed to the public view ou any Lot_ however,
one sign of not mom than. five %pare feet advertising the property for sale or rent and signs used by
a builder to advertise the property during construction and sales period are permissible
11. Livestock and Poultry. No animals,livestock,or pohtltry.of any kind shall be raised,
bred, or kept on any Lot, except. that dogs, cats, or other household pets may be kept providing
they are not kept, bred, or maintained for commercial purposes.
12. Time. These covenanus are to run with the land and shall be binding on all.persons
acquiring title to any of the aforementioned Lots-for a period of twenty years from the date of
these covenants, 1995,at which tinte said.covenants shall be automatically extended for successive
periods of twenty years;unless by a written-instrument:executed by a majority of the then-owners
of the said Lots,and duly recorded in the Office of the Register of needs of Orange County within
3
«:F
ih
three months of any anniversary date of any such automatic renewal;it is agreed tb change said.
covenants in whole or in pare."
13, Lnforcernent, • -Enfowernent of these restrictions and conditions shalt be, by .
pioce6ding at law or in equity agehst any person or persons violating or attempting to violate:any
covenant or condition, either to restrain violation thereof or to recover damages therefor.
Injunction shall not issue to compel the•removal of car movMg of any completed M-51dence for
violation of side setback or front setback restrictions,the sole remedy of any offended pm6n being
a suit fok damages,
14, Severahility Invalidation a Anyone of these covenants or conditions by judgment
or order of any court shall in no way affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full
force and effect. '
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, MCBROOMS have hereunto set their hands and seals
this the day and year first above written.
ERNlE MCBROOIA•SR,
JkME M. MCBROOM
S'T'ATE OF NORTA CAROLINA
I, a Notary Public of said State and County,.do hereby certify that Emig McBroom, Sr.
-and Janice'M. McBroom personally appeared before me this day and arlmowledged the due
execution of the foregoing instrument.
Witness nay hand and notarial seal,,this the day of Pi=h, 1994.
v
tl0rft.
otary Wile
sign. expires: 5tats�of Northsrnlis�a-prangs County
\ 1 _ i'no aregoing cenrilcateN of
+w. ��i,*' .net:••B.'Thx'Ctan'
�.•` A loots
G'dL �. �Y' dat Public for the ted a
a�•.a.at.+s` 4un is is twx*c be oOrlwGt. Fil>� ham.
Be ft dp
ReQi
OK
of 0166"
Mr. Craig Benedict - Planning Director Rosetta L. Glover
306 F. Revere Rd. P.O. Box 881
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
September 19, 1999
Dear Benedict:
We own property directly across the road from this site. We have
secured a building permit to build a home. Our property was acquired some
twenty years ago for the expressed purpose of building our retirement home
in a peaceful setting similar to other neighborhoods in this area. All of the
residents in this immediate area are opposed to this rezoning.
It would be very unfair to the home owners to allow this commercial
business to come in and create a nuisance with excessive noise and
excessive traffic along Saw Mill Road. This will create a traffic safety
hazard for the children in this area, especially during the school hours.
It is little doubt that the loud noise created by this business will be-out
of harmony with the neighborhood. The noise level will surely be above the
maximum noise level now in affect by the zoning department for this area.
New evidence has surfaced that lead us to believe that a denial or to
reopen the joint hearing per article 20.7.2 of the zoning ordinance would be
appropriate.
Many citizens in this area work at night and would need to sleep
during the day. This noise operation will create a serious problem for these
citizens and others who purchased homes in this area expecting peace and
quietness.
We are requesting your assistance in helping to keep our
neighborhood a safe and peaceful place for children to play and adults to
live in harmony with the surroundings.
Thanks so very much for your thoughtfulness and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
(%& �-PA,
Rosetta L. Glover
Mr. Craig Benedict- Planning Director Willie L. Glover
306 F. Revere Rd. P.O. Box 881
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
September 19, 1999
Dear Benedict: TR'
9 C7
We own property directly across the road from this site. We have
secured a building permit to build a home. Our property was acquired some
twenty years ago for the expressed purpose of building our retirement home
in a peaceful setting similar to other neighborhoods in this area. All of the
residents in this immediate area are opposed to this rezoning.
It would be very unfair to the home owners to allow this commercial
business to come in and create a nuisance with excessive noise and
excessive traffic along Saw Mill Road. This will create a traffic safety
hazard for the children in this area, especially during the school hours.
It is little doubt that the loud noise created by this business will be out
of harmony with the neighborhood. The noise level will surely be above the
maximum noise level now in affect by the zoning department for this area.
New evidence has surfaced that lead us to believe that a denial or to
reopen the joint hearing per article 20.7.2 of the zoning ordinance would be
appropriate.
Many citizens in this area work at night and would need to sleep
during the day. This noise operation will create a serious problem for these
citizens and others who purchased homes in this area expecting peace and
quietness.
We are requesting your assistance in helping to keep our
neighborhood a safe and peaceful place for children to play and adults to
live in harmony with the surroundings.
Thanks so very much for your thoughtfulness and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Willie L. Glover
LAW OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E.TRYON STREET
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278
919-732.2196 FROM THE DESK OF
FAX 919.732.7997 GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL
September 23, 1999
Ms . Mary B. DesHarnais
5500 Old Noble Road
Cedar Grove, North Carolina 27231
Dear Ms . DesHarnais :
I received your letter dated September 10, 1999 concerning
the McBroom rezoning request and have forwarded it on to the
Orange County Planning Department for consideration.
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & RGRAVE, P.C.
frey G hill
GEG/lsg
xc : Craig Benedict
John M. Link, Jr.
mydocuments/mcbroomrezfrm.1tr
Mary B. DesHarnais
5500 Old Noble Road SEP 9 1999
Cedar Groue, NC 27231
September 10, 1999
Mr. John Link
City Manager
POB 8181
Hillsborough NC 27278
Dear Mr. Link,
My husband, Reu. Gabriel DesHarnais, has already written to you
expressing our desire to haue Mr. McBroom's rezoning request denied
by administratiue decree or, at the uery least, to haue the hearing
process reopened. 1 would like to add my own concerns in this
matter. I am deeply dismayed that Mr. McBroom would care so little
about the people to whom he sold his property.
Not only am 1, along with many others in this neighborhood and
along Sawmill Road, concerned that the traffic will be heauy and
noisy, but also that the noise of the giant chipping machine he will
need to use will destroy the uery peace and quiet we were seeking by
buying and building in this area.
Please giue serious consideration to our request.
Thank you.
a
Mary B. DesHarnais
copies to:
Craig Benedict, Director of Planning
Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney
1
A� �e
LAW OFFICES �(
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E.TRYON STREET
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278
919-732.2196 FROM THE DESK OF
FAX 919.732-7997 GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL
September 23 , 1999
Rev. Gabriel A. DesHarnais
5500 Old Noble Road
Cedar Grove, North Carolina 27231
Dear Rev. DesHarnais:
I received a copy of your letter to John Link dated
September 10, 1999 concerning the McBroom rezoning request and
have forwarded it on to the Orange County Planning Department
for consideration.
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C.
eoff E. edhill
GEG/lsg
xc : Craig Benedict /
John M. Link, Mr.
mydocuments/mcbroomrezfrm.1tr
RECEIVED
SEP '.S 1999
Rev. Gabriel A. DesHarnais
5500 Old Noble Road
Cedar Grove NC 27231
Mr. John Link September 10, 1999
The County Manager
POB 8181
Hillsborough NC 27278
Dear Mr. Link;
I am writing to ask for a reopening of the first phase of Mr. Ernie
McBroom's request for rezoning. I ask this because the implications of the
county acceding to such a request would have broad negative impact.
Further, I am surprised that tie votes by the planning commission are viewed
as consensual. It hardly seems a responsible way to deal with such issues.
With this being the present law, there is probably little we can do about such
motions. I also understand that the administration of this County has the
power to quash this zoning request. I would ask you to seriously consider
using your administrative power in this manner.
I myself did not hear of Mr. McBroom's petition, apparently made in March
of this year, until September 3. 1 was dismayed that the mechanisms for
communication are so limited that one could miss an important notice by not
reading the Hillsborough paper. While I do read it quite frequently, I do feel
that direct communication by mail is far more effective.
I understand that the zoning ordinance seeks to notify only those within
500 feet of any property to be rezoned. When the repercussions are so
massive both as to traffic and noise, a much broader and effective
notification would seem to be in order. Mr. McBroom sold me this property
with assurances that he owned other property for residential development
across from Grassy Creek. Then he decides to change the nature of that
land usage in such a way that my property would be devalued. This is, indeed,
strange behavior for a land developer who presents himself as supplying land
for homes.
I can only guess at Mr. McBroom's motives based on his actions with the
zoning officer and state laws regarding stream buffers. My hope is that
rancor and revenge have not motivated him to so threaten those to whom he
sold property now worth about $1 .3 million. These homes are modest enough
individually, but they represent a great deal of trust in our county and a
2.
great deal of disappointment arising from Mr. McBroom's behavior.
I hope you, as County Manager, will see this project for what it is and decide
in favor of those of us who are invited here by Mr. McBroom's offering of
this land.
Please let me know whether you can quash this request as lacking merit or
at least hear from us our deep concerns.
Sincerely,
Gabriel A. DesHarnais
copies to:
Craig Benedict, Director of Planning
Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney
Geoff Gledhill
County Attorney
PO Box 8181 SEP 1.5 1999
Hillsborough NC 27278
September 9, 1999
Dear Mr. Gledhill,
I had no opportunity to speak at the public hearing held August 23, 1999, in the
new courthouse, concerning the rezoning of property behind my home.
According to Zoning Ordinance Article 20.7.2, this letter now becomes new
evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing for Ernie McBroom's rezoning
request.
Respectfully,
onna Vaughn
5507 Old Noble Id
Cedar Grove NC 27231
Geoff Gledhill DECEIVED
County Attorney
PO Box 8181 SEP f..51999
Hillsborough NC 27278
September 9, 1999
Dear Mr. Gledhill,
I had no opportunity to speak at the public hearing held August 23, 1999, in the
new courthouse, concerning the rezoning of property behind my home.
According to.Zoning Ordinance Article 20.7.2, this letter now becomes new
evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing for Ernie McBroom's rezoning
request.
Respectfully,
Ed Vaughn
5507 Old Noble Rd
Cedar Grove NC 27231
IVED
S to � 1 1999
Mr. Geoff Gledhill - County Attorney Willie L. Glover
P.O. Drawer 1529 P.O. Box 881
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
September 19, 1999
Dear Mr.Gledhill:
We own property directly across the road from this site. We have
secured a building permit to build a home. Our property was acquired some
twenty years ago for the expressed purpose of building our retirement home
in a peaceful setting similar to other neighborhoods in this area. All of the
residents in this immediate area are opposed to this rezoning.
It would be very unfair to the home owners to allow this commercial
business to come in and create a nuisance with excessive noise and
excessive traffic along Saw Mill Road. This will create a traffic safety
hazard for the children in this area, especially during the school hours.
It is little doubt that the loud noise created by this business will be out
of harmony with the neighborhood. The noise level will surely be above the
maximum noise level now in affect by the zoning department for this area.
New evidence has surfaced that lead us to believe that a denial or to
reopen the joint hearing per article 20.7.2 of the zoning ordinance would be
appropriate.
Many citizens in this area work at night and would need to sleep
during the day. This noise operation will create a serious problem for these
citizens and others who purchased homes in this area expecting peace and
quietness.
We are requesting your assistance in helping to keep our
neighborhood a safe and peaceful place for children to play and adults to
live in harmony with the surroundings.
Thanks so very much for your thoughtfulness and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Willie L. Glover
RECEIVED
5 E P [ 1 1999
Mr. Geoff Gledhill - County Attorney Rosetta L. Glover
P.O. Drawer 1529 P.O. Box 881
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
September 19, 1999
Dear Mr.Gledhill:
We own property directly across the road from this site. We have
secured a building permit to build a home. Our property was acquired some
twenty years ago for the expressed purpose of building our retirement home
in a peaceful setting similar to other neighborhoods in this area. All of the
residents in this immediate area are opposed to this rezoning.
It would be very unfair to the home owners to allow this commercial
business to come in and create a nuisance with excessive noise and
excessive traffic along Saw Mill Road. This will create a traffic safety
hazard for the children in this area, especially during the school hours.
It is little doubt that the loud noise created by this business will be out
of harmony with the neighborhood. The noise level will surely be above the
maximum noise level now in affect by the zoning department for this area.
New evidence has surfaced that lead us to believe that a denial or to
reopen the joint hearing per article 20.7.2 of the zoning ordinance would be
appropriate.
Many citizens in this area work at night and would need to sleep
during the day. This noise operation will create a serious problem for these
citizens and others who purchased homes in this area expecting peace and
quietness.
We are requesting your assistance in helping to keep our
neighborhood a safe and peaceful place for children to.play and adults to
live in harmony with the surroundings.
Thanks so very much for your thoughtfulness and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Rosetta L. Glover
LAW OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E.TRYON STREET
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278
919.732.2196 FROM THE DESK OF
FAX 919-732.7997 September 23, 19 9 9 GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL
Mr. Craig Benedict
Orange County Planning Director
Orange County Planning Department
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Craig:
Enclosed is a "batch" of letters that I have recently
received. I will forward any future letters that I receive
concerning the McBroom rezoning request to you. Before the
McBroom rezoning request goes to the Board of Commissioners for
consideration we should review together the procedural
questions raised by these letters. I also think it would be
appropriate for someone from the County to respond concerning
the incorrect information contained in one or more of these
letters . For example, Mr. and Mrs. Gorman' s letter expresses
their disappointment "in the County' s decision to rezone our
community. "
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C.
frebE. edhill
GEG/lsg
Enclosures
xc : John M. Link, Jr.
mydocuments/benedict##4.1tr
SEPTEMBER 9,1999
GEOFF COUNTY ADTTORNEY RECEIVED
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 SEP 1 U 1999
DEAR SIR(S);
MY NAME IS MIKE GORMAN MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 5506 OLD NOBLE RD. IN CEDAR
GROVE NORTH CAROLINA. WE ARE WRITING TO YOU TO EXPRESS OUR
DISSAPPOINTMENT IN THE COUNTY'S DECISION TO REZONE OUR COMMUNITY.
IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE REZONING OF OUR COMMUNITY
WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THE MAIN EXAMPLE IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRIVATE LANDFILL AT THE LOCATION
OF PARCEL OF(436,036 SF)IN CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP.
AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE THIS PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO OUR QUIET AND PEACEFUL
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LANDFILL IN QUESTION IS ONLY TO BE
USED FOR LANDSCAPE DEBRIS i.e.Tree limbs,tree trunks and other natural debris.
SHOULD THIS COME TO PASS. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW THE FOLLOWING WILL BE
MONITORED:
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO CONTROL THE NOISE POLLUTION
GENERATED BY THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT?.i.e.dumptrucks woodchippers,bulldozers etc.
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO CONTROL THE EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC ALONG
SAWMILL RD? WHICH WILL BE THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ACCESSING THE SITE.
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO REGULATE AND INSPECT THE PROPOSED
LANDFILL SITE?
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE NATURAL WATERSHED TO
PREVENT FLOODING?
• WILL THE COUNTY/STATE GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE NO UNLAWFUL
DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT THIS STTE?
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL BE NO
ILLEGAL DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON THE PROPOSED SITE? .
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY
SOIL OR WATER CONTAMINATION DUE TO ANY UNLAWFUL DUMPING OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS?
• HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO CONTROL_ THE INCREASED DUST
POLLUTION DUE TO THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT TRAVELING ON THE DIRT OR GRAVEL
ROAD LEADING TO THE PROPOSED SITE?
• HAS THE COUNTYISTATE ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED THE BACKGROUND OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPER? IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR EPA VIOLATIONS AS
WELL AS STATE.VIOLATIONS FOR RUNNING AN ILLEGAL LANDFILL ELSEWHERE.
• IF THE ABOVE BEING TRUE. WHAT DOES THIS SAY FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
DEVELOPING PARTY? CAN THIS PARTY BE TRUSTED TO RUN THE LANDFILL
ACCORDING TO GENERAL FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES?
WE WILL CLOSE THIS LETTER BY SAYING WE MOVED TO THIS AREA SO THAT WE WOULD
NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE EXCESSIVE NOISE AND TRAFFIC OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
WE ALSO WANTED TO LIVE IN A PEACEFUL AREA FREE OF THE DISTRUBANCES OF HASTY
COUNTY PLANNING. AS A TAXPAYERS AND CITIZENS OF THE LOVELY TOWN OF CEDAR
GROVE, I WANT TO GO ON THE PUBLIC RECORD AS STRONGLEY OPPOSING SUCH
REZONING OR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NATURE. WE DO NOT WANT OUR PROPERTY
VALUES DEPRICIATED NOR DO WE WANT TO LIVE IN SUCH AN UNPLEASANT
ENVIRONMENT. FURTHER SINCE THE PROPERTY IN THE EFLAND DISTRICT HAS ALREADY
BEEN ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY WHY CAN'T THIS SITE BE LOCATED IN THIS
DISTRICT?
WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE NEWS PUBLICATIONS FOR THIS COUNTY, THEREFORE
WE WILL BE EXPECTING YOU TO NOTIFY US OF FUTURE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS
MATTER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER
M1KE AND BRENDA GORMAN
5506 OLD NOBLE ROAD
CEDAR GROVE,NC 27231
CC
JOHN M.LINK
COUNTY MANAGER
P.O.BOX 8181
HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278
CRAIG BENEDICT
DIRECTOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE RD,
HQ.LSBOROUGH,NC 27278
RECEIVED
County Attorney
SEP 01999
Geoff Gledhill
P.O. Drawer 1529
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Jayme Hanzak
5502 Old Noble Rd.
Cedar Grove,NC 27231
Dear Distinguished Board Member,
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter on the proposed zone change Z-03-99.
This is Mr. McBroom's request.
First of all, I would like to apologize for missing the first meeting on this matter. I
understand that there were several notices of the zone change in the newspapers,none of
which I get regularly. I find the news coverage of Orange county to be"FAIR" at best. So
I do not subscribe to them.
I also heard that a public notice was posted in our area for a short tune. One day from
what I understand. I would have to believe this because I have a daughter that I run
around to various activities through out the week, and I never saw a notice about the
rezoning of the land on Sawmill Rd. I am sure if one was posted,my wife and I would
have definitely noticed it. The word,"REZONING" does command attention. Is this a
common practice in Orange County?Working for the PBS station, It reminds me of a
program we air called, "Wish Bone". In one of the episodes, a developer puts up a public
notice and some how that notice was knocked down. So the rezoning passes because
nobody is aware of the meeting, Very cloak and dagger.
My wife and I bought a house in the Grassy Creek subdivision a little over two year ago.
We are very pleased with our purchase and love the area very much. We have great
neighbors,the peace and quiet is wonderful. This little subdivision off Sawmill Rd. is a
dream come true for my family. Especially for my daughter, she loves the horses and the
wildlife.
Mr. McBroom wrote some covenants for the Grassy Creek subdivision. The covenants
are fair not only to the residents of Grassy Creek,but are respectful to all the Citizens on
Sawmill Road as well. I have enclosed a copy of these covenants to let you see for
yourself how fair they are.
I would like to draw your attention to Covenant#8. The Nuisance Covenant. Please note
the first sentence.
8.Nuisances. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any Lot nor shall
anything be done thereon which may be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the
NEIGHBORHOOD.
Mr. McBroom wrote this covenant himself for the Grassy Creek subdivision,but the
Sawmill Rd. area is our neighborhood.Now Mr. McBroom is proposing to build a
chipping plant in the middle of a Residential Area. I'm sure I don't have to explain the
noise that will be produced by this plant. Even little chippers are noisy. This plant will be
a Nuisances to all the Residents in the area,NOT only on Sawmill Rd.,but all the
Residences and Farms in the area.
The Sawmill Rd. area is a Residential/ Agricultural neighborhood. There are better than
50 HOMES with in a quarter mile of Mr. Mcbroom's proposed chipping plant. Fifty
homes where children play, go to school, Infants sleep and average citizens just want to
have a QUIET, PEACEFUL neighborhood. Mr. McBroom is the only one asking for the
zone change. Everyone I've talked to is against it.
Passing this rezoning request would destroy this treasure and rob hundreds of a
wonderful neighborhood. It would benefit one man and would go against the wishes of
MOST if not ALL of the Citizens of Orange County in and around the Sawmill Rd. area.
Please deny the rezoning request. There are better places for a chipping facility where the
land has been zoned for industry. In the middle of our neighborhood is not the place.
With much thanks,
And I hope you read this.
Jayme Hanzak
AaWakedwnctv.ar�
(919) 644-2564
(919) 549-7281
Prepared by and return to ranet B. Dutton, P.O. Drawer 1529, Hillsborough, NC 27278
STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA DECLARATION OF RES'IRICIZv
AND PROTEI r[VE COVENANTS
COUNTY OF ORANGE AND CONI.)ITJONS
THIS DECLARATION OF R1?.S'ICTIVE ANli PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND
CONDITIONS, made and entered into this the day-of March, 1994,by and between
cm
PIZNIE, l+►t'CBROOM, SR. and wife, JANIC:,E M. MCBROOM (hereinafter MCBROO} 4S); and, a
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS of Lots Nos. 1 through 12,inclusive,as shown and delinneate on a plat
entitled RNA.L PLAT - GRASSY CREEltti, a subdivision located in Cedar Grove Township, Orange
County, North Carolina(hereinafter PURCHASERS); � r—
W fTNESSETH:
UD
WHEREAS,Ernie McBroom, Sr. has beretofore acquired title to a certain tract or parcel of land
which has been subdivided into lots numbered I through 12,inclusive,according to'a certain,maxi,or plat
entitled RNAL PLAT-GRASSY CREEK(hercluafter sometimes referred to as the subdivision"),which said
map appears of record in the office of MdRegWar of Dwds of Orange County,in Plat Book 70,-Page 1$2;
and.
WMMREAS,.MCBROOMS intend to convey said numbered lots as the same are shown and
delineated on the above mentioned-map, by deeds, deeds of trust, mortgages, and other instruments to
various persons, firms and/or corporations. subj= to certain restrictive and protective .covenants and
conditions which are deemed to make the subdivision more desirable and to be for the benefit of all those
who acquire title to any one or more of said numbered kits to the end that the restrictive and protective
covenants and conditions 13erela'set out shall inure-to the benefit of each person,firm,or corporation which
may acquire title to'any or all of said numbered lots•and which shall be binding upon each such person,
firm*or corporation to whom or to which MCBROOMS may hereafter convey any of said numbered lots
by steed, mortgage,deed of trust,or other instrument.
NO'W'.THEREF6RE,In consideration of the premises, MCISROOMS hereby covenant and agree
with said Prospective Purchasers that each of-the afotementione-a numbered lots shall be held, sold,
encumbered and conveyed Subject to the restrictive.and protective covenants and contlitivns hereinafter Set
forth and said restrictive and protective covenants and conditions shall become a part of each JuSaument
conveying any of said numbered lots as fully and'to the satire extent as if set forth therein.. Asa coaditiou
of the sate or conveyance of any of said numbered lets,the purchasers agree and covenant to abide by and
conform with said restrictive and protective covenants and conditions.
M REST1tTCTiVE AND PRMCTIVE,Ct?VF.NANTS
AN])CONDMONS ARE AS FOLLOWS. _
L Lot. The word"Lot"as used herein shall mean the separat%eiy nmb=d parcels depicted
on the above-mentioned map. Provided,however,that the owner of is of a numbered parcel on said map.
may combine with such numbered parcel,parts or portions of another numbered parcel or parcels and the
• 2 t`Il.EI'j
30 MAR 1-494. rat to 19:.7,f„-rf'4m
R-;;lok 12307 Pagen 466 4c_9
n 467
1230 i
aggregate shall be considered as one"trot"for sire purposes of these resWctiva and prratecixve covenanfs and
conditions, .
2. Land i•Tse;__and lim'Idina'ltiM& No structard shall be erected,alWed placed or p emitted to
renudn on any Lot other than for use as a single-fancily residential dwelling and only ode siagle'ftnun1y
residential dwelling shall be erected or permitted to remaltx upon any Lot. No mobile hcbes may be erected
or perwIdad to restrain u&a any Litt. Alprivate,garage, outbuildings as herein expressly permitted and an
Ovcd3md story ft servant's quarters not rented,leased or utilized for any remuneration ace permitted. No
outbuilding shall be evected upon any Lot unless same is incidental tip the residetntlal use of said W. It is
provided,however, that the party of the first gait,during the development stage,may malntain a dwelling
for'use as a model home to aid sales in the subdivision. After development bas been completed,no such
model home may be maintained in the subdivision.
3. Dwelligg Size.
('a) Any one-story dwelling erected upont any Lot sbali contain not less than 1100
square feet,outside measurement,of enclosed floor heated area,exclusive of open porcices
and gamgm,
(b) Any orie and one-half story dwelling erected upon any Lot shall contain not Iass
than 1300 square,feet,'outside measuremeL of enclosed floor heated area, exclusive of
open prxdtes and garages. Such dwelling shall contain net less than 700 squaw ka.
.Outside nxeasurtmnent of enclosed floor heated aria on the ground floor,exclusive of open
porches and garages.
(c) Any tw �-storvltwo and one-half story dwelling exerted upon any Lot shall contain
not less than'.1300 square &yet, outside measurement; of enclosed tlocr heated airea,
exr,Iuslve Of opens porches and garages. 'Such dwelUng shall contain not less diets 700
Square feet, outside Measurement, of enclosed floor heated area on ale ground floor,
exclusive of open porches and garages. . ,
4. . Dwellin Ouslitz. All dwellings and outbuildings erected upon any Lot shall be constructed
of material of good grade,quality and appearance, and an construction shall be performed in a good and
workmanlike manner. The exterior ConsUUCdO*n of'any dwelling shali.nat be of asbestos•sifgle Ming,
imitation brick of stoneroll siding, or of concrete bloclrs. bTo "shell home," art the terns is generally
understood at this time in this area,shall be erected or allowed to remain on any of said Lots., The outside
surface of beams,••walls,and roofs of any appurtenant structures located on airy Lot shall be of material and
. quality of construction comparable in cost,design,and quality to the outside swdaces of the dwelling located
on said LoL No metal storage shed or bani shall be locau•d on any Lot Any storage shed or barn shall
'be designed,consftucted and maintained so as to be acsthetically compatible with the dwelling located on
said Lot
5. Setback Lines. No building shall be erected or permitted to remain.nearer to any street inn,
sold subdivision than the street setback lines as shown on the recorded plat:or said subdivision. No bWldtng
shall be located nearer than 100 feet fmm the right of way of S.R.1545,50'from the right of way of Noble
Road,or W from any side or rear lot line. it is provided,however,that eaves,steps, Stoops and fireplace
chaises shall not lie considered.a part Of the building for the purposes of interpreting this paragraph of this
Declaration. An error in the placgment of structures.in an amount less than ten percent of the setback
requirement in,question is not a violation of this Declaration or of the provisions of the recorded,plat
6. Eas, enients Easements furthe installation and maintenance ofutilities and drainage facilities
are reserved over the front and rear ten feet of each of tim aforesaid Lots. A drainage and utility easement
five foct!a width is reserved'.along each sideline of each Lot Additional drainage easements and utility
easements ace reserved as more particularly shown and delineated on the recorded map of the.subdivision.
Within said easements so reserved,no structure,planting or other materials shall be plated or permitted to
remain which my damage or interfere with remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and
rnalatenance of utilities or•which,may inkxfem with drainage and the flow of water within the'eas meut
areas. The owner of earn lot shall maintain that portion,Of Said Lot lying within the easement areas as
defined herein and shall maintain such improvements as may be located thereon except thow improvements
installed and maintained by a public authority or utility company.
Drainage easements are reserved as more particularly showu and designated on the recorded map
of the subdivision.
7. Garbage and Refuse Disposal. No Lot shall be used or maintalned.in.an unsightly manner
or as a dumping ground for rubbish,trash or debris. Rubbish, trash,debris,garbage and otlw waste shall
be kept only in sanitary containers. All incinerators, containers or other equipment for the storage or
disposal of such waste materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.'
8, Nuisances. No noxious or off+ebsive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any Lot nor
shall anything.be done lhereon which stay be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the neighborhood. No
track or commercial vehicle in excess. three-quarter ton load capacity shall be parked or permitted to
remain on any Lot. No wrecked or junked motor vehicle or vehicle without current license plates and
registration shall be permitted to remain upon any Lot. No trailer,mobile home,camper or like recreational
vehicle shall be permitted to remain upon any Tot unless it is located so as not to be visible from any.strut
or Read within ft subdivision.
9. Temporary Structure. No structure of a teatparary character,trailer,basement, tent,shack,
barn, or other,outbullding shall be, used on any Lot at any time as a residence either tempdr&2y or
perma><r ady_
1•-0. S'jtrns. No signs of any land shall be displayed to the public view ore any Lot. however,
one sign of not more than. five 6quare feet advertising the property for sale or rent and signs used by
a builder to advertise the property during construction and sales period are permissible
11. Lives mic and Pot lM& No animals,livestock,or paultryof any bind shall be raised,
bred, or kept on any Lot, except that dogs, cats, of other household pets may be kept providing
they are not kept; bred, or maintained for commercial purposes.
12. Time. These cove=ts,are to run with the land and shall be binding on all persons
acquiring title to any of the aforementioned Lots-for a period of twenty years from the date of
these covenants, 1995,at which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive
periods of twenty years,unless by a written•instrument executed by a majority of the then-owners
of the said Lots,and duly recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County within
3
aamiI230 rifE 469
three months of any anniversary date of any such automatic renewal.;it is agreed change said..
covenants in whole or in pare.
11 Enforcement. Enfomerrtettt of these restrictions and conditions small be by .
proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or auempting to violate,any
covenant or condition, either to restrain violation thereof or to recover damages therefor.
Injunnction shall not issue to cornpel the• removal of-or rnoving of any completed residence for
violation of side setback or front setback restrictions,the soIe remedy of any offended pexsun being
a suit four damages. '
14. Severabili ty. Invalidation' of any one of these covenants or conditions by judgment
or order of any court shall in no way affect any oaf the othex provisions which shall remain in full
force and effect. '
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, MCBROOMS have hereunto set their hands and seals
this the day and year.first above written'.
ERA MCBROOM,SR.
S CB M. MCBR.00M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
COUATY OF offea=b►..,k ---
I, a Notary Public of.said State and County,do hereby certify. that Ernie McBroom, Sr.
-and Jaa ce-M. McBroorn► personally appeared before me this day and aclmowledged the due
execution of the foregoing instrument.
Witness my hand.and notarial seal,this the "--day of March, 1994.
00TA , ---- 1' lie
e bk s* EX $#a*of North Carolii-orange Cauftexpires: Tho tnregclrV eeafff"tow Of
ngt-B.•Dutton
A!V'vtarY'# [*4 Public for the Hated Nava
Thfs the y Rum
Betty,tu
• Aapteoar of Oeede
SEP 4 1999
09109'99
Re: New Evidence,MCBroon)Rezoning Issue
Dear Mr. Gledhill;
In the following pages of the public handout titled Notice of Public Hearing grange County Board of
Commissioners Orange County Planning Board,that was given out at the new courthouse in Hillsborough
on August 23, 1999,before,during and after the meeting,I will attempt to show just cause,and new
evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing regarding the McBroom rezoning.
I have tried to go page by page,to reveal misleading statements of fact,inaccuracies,omissions of
standard and actions in violation of the ordinance. Pictures,plat maps and newspapers are available for
viewing on request.
This was all merely public information,obtained through research,purchases and observation,most of
which,my fellow community members are aware and have first hand lmowledge.
I will forward later,my personal view with concerns about the McBroom rezoning,as well as whatever
else I might find.
Again my purpose here,is to request you to deny the McBroom Rezoning application or to reopen the
joint public hearing about the McBroom Rezoning as suggested in Article 20.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
Manual and to make my letter part of the public record.
Sincerely,
Pamela 7AIexan er
5531 Old Noble Road
Cedar Grove,NC 27231
919-732-8870
Email: talexa9550@aol.com
cc_ Craig Benedict-Director,Planning Dept.
John Link-Jr.-County Manager
file
001
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New
Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday,
August 23, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to
speak for or against the following items:
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
1. Z-02-99 Johnny Cates
Johnny C. Cates requests that a 2.8 acre (121,968 SF) portion of his 5.1 acre property at 3102
West Ten Road, Cheeks Township, be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS
Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the
rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural,
silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. . Permitted uses within the AS District that
are not permitted in the AR District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales);
Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed,
Storage & Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is approximately 2,200 feet east of Mt.
Willing Road interchange with 1-40/85 and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records
Office by parcel identification number 9854-14-8385.
2. Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom
Ernie McBroom requests that his 10.01 acre (436,036 SF) parcel in Cedar Grove Township be
rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the
Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural
non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural
uses of the AR districts. Permitted uses within the AS District that are not permitted in the AR
District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses;
Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing;
Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is located on the south side of Sawmill Road West (SR
1545) approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road, SR
1507) and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification
number 9868-43-4251.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Orange County Planning Staff and NC Child Care Commission propose amendments to
Article 4, Section 4.3 (Permitted Use Table), Article 6, Section 6.27 (Large Day Care Homes),
Article 8, Section 8.8.16 (Day Care Facility), and Article 22 (Definitions) that change language
in ordinance provisions for child care facilities to .conform with language in North Carolina
General Statutes regarding licensing provisions for child care facilities.
g:lklinco InO899phad.doc\8-4-99Ud
003
2. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to revise the
time constraints in Article 2 (The Board of County Commissioners and its Administrative
Mechanisms), Article 3 (Establishment of Zoning Districts and Atlas), Article 6.29.3
(Development Standards for Economic Development Districts), Article 8 (Special Uses), and
Article 20 (Amendments). Proposed amendments will:
• Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable
agencies prior to completing reports to boards;
• Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and
• Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations
if processing time cannot be met.
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to
revise the time constraints in Section III (Application and Approval Procedures), Section IV-13-7
(Sites for Public Use), and Section V11 7-D-4 (Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing).
Proposed amendments will:
• Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable
agencies prior to completing reports to boards;
• Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and
• Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations
if processing time cannot be met.
• Revise,process for appeal of staff decisions concerning subdivision classification (minor vs
major) nd approval of minor subdivisions.
2. Orange County Planning Board and planning staff propose amendments to the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations Section IV-13-10 Flexible Development: a. to amend D-1
Estate Lot Option to 1. reduce minimum loft size from 4.0 acres to 3.0 acres with average lot
size of 3.5 acres; 2. provide a 150 ft. buffer along state maintained roads adjacent to
subdivision boundaries; 3. restrict lot access to internal subdivision roads; and b. to amend
D.3 Cluster Option to clarify that any transfer of density within a cluster development will not
result in a greater density within any speck zoning district than the average density allowed
by zoning restrictions within that specific district including overlay districts (eg. flexible
development proposals spanning the critical area (CA) and the balance (PW) of a protected
watershed cannot shift density from a higher density zoning (PW) to a lower density zoning
(CA)).
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be
received during the public hearing. Fallowing the close of the public hearing, only evidence
received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and
discussion at the hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department
located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
g:Udinco1n10899phad.dock8-4-99W
Page 004
Item 1.) Publication of announce1Tient of public hearing
Although it is true, that in each of the stated News of Orange issues, the public
notice of hearing appeared, neither issue of the Chapel.Hill Herald, carried the
public notice.
Ali four complete issues are available Ior viewing on request.
Although the legal requirement was met, (Article 20.6.1), the information given is
misleading the public into believiing that it was published four times.
i
004
Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181
(Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 1 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031
(Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff
member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH: News of Orange Cha2gi Hill Herald
August 11 1999 August 12, 1999
August 18, 1999 August 19, 1999
g:Udtncolnko899phad.docl8-4.991k1
Orange County shall be adopted by reference as though fully
set forth herein. Any map amendments adopted by Orange
County shall be officially denoted on the County Zoning
Atlas . where there is inconsistency between the amendment
procedures contained in this Article and those contained in
the Jai t Planning Agreement, the provisions of the Joint
Plannina Agreement shall apply.
20.4 Kef2rral 21 Amen ent AR2 5 t+�.ida 12 planning Agard
.Amended The Zoning -Officer- shall submit -any application for
3/18/86 amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board at the
first regular meeting after the expiration of the 30-day
period specified in 20. 3.3 or any extension thereof . This
provision shall not apply to any application for amendment
to the Zoning ordinance text.
20.5 MW DQarcl S1 CQ.�Y $ Qne a 4� . P1ann Daard
Shah 141A A Pgbll& 112MILAS
The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board
shall hear applications for amendments to this ordinance in
a Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular
meeting in August, November, February and May.
20.6 Public nearina and Notigg TherA
20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County
Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to
Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be
7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a
newspaper of general circulation inie County, stating the
time and place of such hearing and the substance of the
proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said
newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice
appearing not less than ten ( 10) days nor more than twenty-
five (25) days before the -date set for the public hearing.
in computing- the notice period, the day of publication is
not to be included,. but the day of the hearing is to be
included.
'., 20.6.2 l The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning
atlas shall post on the ap21icant's affected property a
notice of the public heai:ing at least ten days prior to the
date of .
20.6.3 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written ,
notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected
Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less
11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date, Adjacent
property owners are those whose names and addresses are
currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose
property lies within five hundred feet of the affected
property.
if amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the
county, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all
20-3
Page 025
Item 2.) Location-Tax Map Number
Under the heading of Location, the Tax Map Number is stated to be 2.34..51.
Ho«ever, the flat recording the 10.01 acre lot (Plat boot. 83 page 19)
indicates the Tax.Map No. 2.34..20.
Plat book 83 page 19 available for viewing upon request.
The stated TM No. is incorrect.
r
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 025
AND
PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 23, 1999
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM
)EPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN)
%TTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jim Hinkley, X2584
\pplications
/icinity and Site Maps TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
veneral Information Memorandum Hillsborough 732-8181
,ertificate of Mailing Chapel Hill 968-4501
3)taff Findings Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336 227-2031
'URPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment requested by
:rnie McBroom for his property in Cedar Grove Township.
1ACKGROUND:
'e quest That a 10.01-acre tract be rezoned from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS
,gricultural Service.
ocation The proposed zoning lot is located at 750± Sawmill Road West (Tax Map No.
.34..51), approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road (SR
507).
xisting and Proposed Conditions
xisting: The existing property is a 10.01 a flag lot with access on the south side of Sawmill
.oad. The tract currently is fallow cropland.
Zoning:
• The property and all surrounding properties lie within Orange County's jurisdiction and
are zoned AR(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural-Residential (Little River Protected Watershed)
in accordance with the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
•. The minimum lot size is two acres.
Page 025
Item 3.) Existing 10.01 acres Flag Lot
It is staged that the existing Flag Lot has access on the south side of Sawmill Rd.
The existing lot has no current access, only proposed access.
a.) Flag Lots come wider subdivision regulations per Article 22, page 22-9
Subdivision Regulation Sec. H Defuution
b.) A'-I3-5 (a-c) indicates a flag lot is to be part of a subdivision. 'I'lli.s one is not.
c.) IV-13-5-d paragraph(t)states "no flag lot will be allowed if it increases the
number of access points onto an arterial or collector street. This flag lot
should not have been allowed.
d.) IV-13-5-e states all criteria must be islet, this does not. There is no existing
road of driveway(2)
e.) Page 33-B IV-13-5-d states nlaxirnunn length allowed on ally flag lot is 700
feet. Map dirnensioits on Plat. book 83 page 19 indicate west flag lot length
1,259.52 feet long and east flag lot length is in excess of 900 feet in length.
The length is excessive for this flag lot and should not have been approved or
permitted.
ORANGE COUNTY
2J�
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS '
AND
PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 23, 1999 .
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN)
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jim Hinkley, X2584
Applications
Vicinity and Site Maps TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
General information Memorandum Hillsborough 732-8181
Certificate of Mailing Chapel Hill 968-4501
Staff Findings Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336 227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment requested by
Ernie McBroom for his property in Cedar Grove Township.
BACKGROUND:
Reauea That a 10.01-acre tract be rezoned from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS
Agricultural Service.
Locgtion The proposed zoning lot is located at 750± Sawmill Road West (Tax Map No.
2.34..51), approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road (SR
1507).
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: The existing property is a 10.01 a flag lot with access on the south side of Sawmill
Road. The tract currently is fallow cropland.
Zoning:
• The property and all surrounding properties lie within Orange County's jurisdiction and
are zoned AR(LITTLE-PW)Agricultural-Residential (Little River Protected Watershed)
in accordance with the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The minimum lot size is two acres.
activities listed above, including residences for the owners, operators or employees of the farm
^� and their families. General livestock and poultry includes those animals involved which are
.J customarily and traditionally.raised on farms, such as beef and dairy cattle, hogs, sheep, goats,
rabbits and horses, mules,ponies, chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese for the purpose listed
above. Farming does not include agricultural services and processing, avocational farming,
specialized commercial horticulture, and specialized commercial animal husbandry.
5
Farris,Bonafide-The use of land for farming meeting one of the following criteria:
(1) composing two or more acres on one or more tracts owned or,leased by the bonafide farm
unit;
(2) average annual sales of$1,000 for the preceding three years; or a minimum of twenty of
forest land for which a management plan has been prepared.
Farming Definitions-(See Farming,Avocational Farming, Specialized Horticulture,
Specialized Animal Husbandry, Commercial Feeder Operation, etc.)
Amended Flag Lot-An irregularly shaped lot where the buildable portion of the lot is
7/5/88 connected to its street frontage by an arm of the lot(see Figures 1 to 4 on page 33c of the
Subdivision Regulations).
Amended Flexible Development-A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design
?-1-96 creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and
cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through
development approaches. At lease one-third(33%)of the land within a Flexible Development
subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through:
(a) An"estate lot"approach where all land is subdivided into Iots four(4) acres or greater in
size,building limits(50%) are established for each lot, and the land area outside such limits
is preserved as open space; or
(b) a"conservation"approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open space is preserved
through the use of conservation easements applied to portions of individual lots; or
(c) A "cluster"approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions
is preserved as open space; or
(d) A"village"or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered around a village
green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded by open space; or
Rte..
V'
22-9
SECTION II.DEFINITIONS
Unless otherwise stated the following words shall, for purposes of this Ordinance,
have the following definitions. Words used in the present tense shall be.
understood to include the future tense. Words used in the singular shall be
_ understood to include the plural.
ALLEY-A roadway which affords only a secondary means of access to abutting
property and not intended for general traffic circulation.
DEDICATION-A gift,by the owner, of land for a specified purpose, or
purposes. Because a transfer of property is entailed,dedication must be made by
written instrument and is completed with an acceptance.
*Amended *DWELLING UNIT -A room or group of rooms forming a
10-4-82 single independent habitable unit with facilities used or intended to be used for
living,sleeping, cooking and eating by one family; for owner occupancy or for
rental, lease or other occupancy on a weekly or longer basis, and containing
independent cooking, sanitary and sleeping facilities. Units otherwise meeting
this definition but occupied by transients on a rental or lease basis for periods of
less than one week shall be construed to be lodging units.
Mobile homes and modular units are to be considered dwelling units under this
definition.
*Amended *EASEMENT-A grant of rights by the property owner to
1-17-79 a portion of land for a specified purpose.
*Amended *FLAG LOT-An irregularly shaped lot where the
7-5-88 buildable portion of the lot is connected to its street frontage by an arm of the lot
(see Figures 1 to 4 on page 33c).
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT-A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry
lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might
otherwise be lost through conventional development approaches. At least one-
third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set
aside as open space which may be preserved through:
(1) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4)
acres or greater in size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot,
and the land area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or
(2) A "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open
space is preserved through the use of conservation easements applied to
J portions of individual lots; or
(3) A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved
through such reductions is preserved as open space; or
IV-B-5. LOT LAYOUT
*IV-B-5-a. The shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate to the location of
*Amended the subdivision and the development intended. Interior lot lines
7/5188 extending from a street should be approximately perpendicular or radial
1/4/94 to the street right-of-way line. .Lot lines shall be located to permit
efficient installation and maintenance of utility lines on utility
easements, to maximize buildable area, and, where applicable, to
provide a suitable area for septic systems. Commercial and industrial
lots shall be of sufficient size to include off-street service facilities, and
off-street parking of all vehicles used by all patrons and employees.
*IV-13-5-b. Each lot shall abut a publicly dedicated street except in subdivision
*Amended approved with private roads. In the latter situation, each lot must abut
1/4/84 a private road or a state maintained road which is shown on the
approved plat and constructed pursuant to the standards set by Orange
County. Upon recommendation of the Planning Board and approval of
the County Commissioners, the construction of the access road may be
postponed until building or market development is undertaken.
In this case the lots shall be designated on the plat: "This lot may not
be sold, nor a building permit issued, until the access road has been
built as specified for this subdivision." Except where reverse frontage
is desirable, double frontage lots should be avoided.
*IV-B-5-c. All requirements shall conform to each and all of the requirements of
*Amended the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for the zoning district and any
1/4/94 overlay district in which they are located.
33
*IV-B-S-d. Flag Lots
a) Intent
*Amended
7/5/88 Orange County discourages and restricts forming flag lots (as
8/6/90 defined in Section II- Definitions). A flag lot shall be
9/4/90 permitted if necessary to allow a property owner reasonable use
and benefit from his land or to alleviate situations which would
otherwise cause.extreme hardship for him.
b) Lot Standards
Flag lots are allowed only:
(A) where necessary to eliminate access onto arterials (See
Figure 1);
(B) to reasonably utilize irregularly shaped land (See Figure
2);
(C) to reasonably .utilize land with difficult topography (See
Figure 3);
(D) to reasonably utilize land with limited sites suitable for
septic tank nitrification fields (See Figure 4);
Y
(E) where it is unlikely that a road created in lieu of a flag
lot would ever be extended, or otherwise needed to
provide access to adjoining parcels (See Figure 5); or
(F) to provide for the protection of significant natural or
cultural resources.
No flag lot will be allowed if it increases the number of access
points onto an arterial or collector street.
The length of a flag lot between the street onto which it has
access and the point where a lot dimension parallels the street
shall be based on the size of the proposed regular lot. The
following table indicates the allowed length of the flag portion
of the lot based on the required minimum width of the regular
lot (see example).
33-a
*IV-B-5-e. 'All lots created after the effective date of this provision shall be
*Amended composed of contiguous land area,and that area shall not be divided
10/3/88 by street right-of-way or other lots. A private road easement may divide
10/18/94 a new lot only if all of the following criteria are met:
10/1/96
1. the land underlying the easement in the same ownership as the
remainder of the lot; and
2. the proposed easement contains an existing road or driveway
;which.is to:be:used.for.access to new lots;.OR the,proposed
easement if located along a property'line will have an irregular
shape; and
3. the minimum lot area requirement can be met on one side of the
road easement but not both sides.
Those lots with land area divided by a public road right-of-way prior to the
effective date of this provision shall not be further subdivided in a manner
which creates any additional lots with divided area.
L
33-d
r
W
4!
Amended
4n 7-5-88
8-6-90
-i
a .
kr
t ,
LOCAL STREET
( FIGURE t )
too
of ,
see '
,,e ,
STREET
r
SrRFE r ( f 1 CURE 2)
( FIGURE 3 )
R 1
SEPTIC
TANK
NITRIFICATION
FIELD
w
to
ce 1
Ln
STREET
�1
f�
STREET (FIGURE 4)
( F igure 5 )
-33-c .
Size of Regular Required Minimum Length of Flag
Lot Width of Regular Staff Allowed
Lot
40, 000 sq.ft. to 1 acre 130 feet 308 to 336 feet
1+ acres to 2 acres 130 feet 337 to 671 feet
2+ acres 130 feet 672 to 700 feet
maximum length
allowed
FLAG LOT
REGULAR LOT I
length of flag staff allowed
width of regular lot
F-. 130 feet ---►
S T R E E T
EXAMPLE
The maximum length allowed on any flag lot is
700 feet. The lot width and street frontage
of a flag lot may be reduced to 35 feet. The
Planning Director may approve further
reductions to a minimum of 20 feet where
topographical conditions permit the
construction of an adequate driveway within
that width. The Planning Director may also
require greater widths where necessary to
` insure adequate access .
-33-B-
Page 026
Item 4.) First Action: Plaiuiing board tuning.
It is stated, the Planning Board has 75 days within which to Prepare and submit...
In Article 20.7.1 paragraph 2, the board has 60 days to subinit.
Tlds is inaccurate information, possibly leading to a failure of reconu-nendation
which could be then cowsidered a favorable recoimuendation per falicle 20.7.1.
• Permitted uses include agricultural activities, single family dwellings, duplexes on
026 twice the minimum lot size, and those uses which are supportive of residential
development such as fire stations, churches, utilities, etc.
"roposed: The proposed zoning lot meets the 2-acre minimum lot size. A 12 percent (12%)
npervious surface limitation for non-residential uses in the watershed will be imposed. BMP (Best
lanagement Practices) will not be allowed to satisfy watershed requirements.
• , The proposed zoning for the 10.01a site is AS(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural Service (Little
River Protected Watershed).
• Minimum lot size is two acres.
• Permitted use includes rural non-farm, non-residential development which supports
the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of AR districts.
evelcgment Proposes. Schedule. and Action
Public Hearing August 23, 1999: No decision is made on the proposed amendments by
either the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing.
First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board has 75 days within
which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Failure
of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered
as a favorable recommendation.
• Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance
r,'ECOMMENDATIONS:
ning Offcer Recommendation
rho Zoning Officer recommends approval of the rezoning.
• The request complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposal meets all dimensional requirements.
• Permitted uses listed for the.proposed AS district are appropriate to service the
surrounding agricultural uses. Please refer to the attached Information Memorandum.
Administration Recommendation
The Administration recommends that the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment be referred to
the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned no sooner than September 21, 1999.
1:l iml zatiasamendl z-3-99mcbroomlphabstractl8-13-991jrh
affected property owners and to a12 adjacent property
owners within 500 feet as provided above . _
The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such
notices to the Board of County Commissioners.
20.7 UtIon subsequent to 1—hl pate —01 huahlic Hearing
20.7 .1 . Fallowing the date of the public hearing, all proposed
amendments shall be referred to the Planning Board for its
Amended consideration and -recommendation. Evidence not presented
2/5/90 at the joint public hearing (hereinafter called "new
evidence" ) may be submitted in writing at or prior to the
Planning Board meeting at which the recommendation to the
Board of Commissioners is made. , The Planning Board may
consider oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of
presenting information also submitted in writing.
The Planning Board shall within sixty days after the date
of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of
County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the
disposition of any application submitted by the public.
Said time limit may be extended upon request of the
applicant. Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not
be subject to time limitations other than those specified
by the Board of County Commissioners during the public
hearing process.
Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation
within the required time shall be considered a favorable
recommendation, without conditions .
20.7.2 The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider
enactment of the proposed amendment until sixty days after
Amended the first date of the public hearing or until the Planning
2/5/90 Board makes this recommendation, whichever comes first. in
making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall
consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint
public hearing, and any new evidence which was considered
by the Planning Board in making its recommendation.
New evidence which was not presented in writing to the
Planning Board may not be considered by the Board of
Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public
hearing is reopened to receive said evidence, and the item
is re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board
for recommendation.
20.8 fit srawal 21 A2211cati2u
An applicant may withdraw his or her application at any
time by written notice to the County Manager. However, any
withdrawal of an application after the giving of the first
notice as required in 20. 6 shall be considered, for the M
purposes of Article 20, a denial of the petition.
20-4
l'ago 026
Item 5.) Under Development, Processes, Schedule and Action
Article 20.7.2 indicates Process and Action could include New evidence not
presented to Planning Board in Writing. Anoint public hearing Inay be reopened
and or referred hack to the Planning Board.
Information on public handout was incorrect as it omitted this possible action
and Verbalization with zoillng department (lid not indicate any type of possible
further action prior to Cominission ineeting and dote.
• Permitted uses include agricultural activities, single family dwellings, duplexes on
026 twice the minimum lot size, and those uses which are supportive of residential
development such as fire stations, churches, utilities, etc.
Imposed: The proposed zoning lot meets the 2-acre minimum lot size. A 12 percent(12%)
npervious surface limitation for non-residential uses in the watershed will be imposed. BMP (Best
rtanagement Practices) will not be allowed to satisfy watershed requirements.
• The proposed zoning for the 10.01 a site is AS(LITTLE-PW)Agricultural Service (Little
River Protected Watershed).
• Minimum lot size Is two acres.
• Permitted use Includes rural non-farm, non-residential development which supports
the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of AR districts.
gyeigpment Proc ss s, Schedule. and AlWan
Public Hearing August 23, 1999: No decision is made on the proposed amendments by
either the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing. -
First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board has 75 days within
which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Failure
of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered
as a favorable recommendation.
Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDATIONS:
>F;1 a Offiesr Recommendation
The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the rezoning.
• The request complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposal meets all dimensional requirements.
• Permitted uses listed for the.proposed AS district are appropriate to service the
surrounding agricultural uses. Please refer to the attached Information Memorandum.
Administration Recommendation
The Administration recommends that the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment be referred to
the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned no sooner than September 21, 11999.
g:yimlzatlasamendlz-3-9gmcbroomn phabstractl3-13-991jrh
affected property owners and to all adjacent property
owners within 500 feet as provided above. - �
The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such
notices to the Board of County Commissioners .
20.7 Action Subleguent to the Date _o public firing
20.7.1 Following the date of the public hearing, all proposed
amendments shall be referred to the Planning Board for its
Amended consideration and -recommendation. Evidence not presented
2/5/90 at the joint public hearing (hereinafter called "new
evidence" ) may be submitted in writing at or prior to the
Planning Board meeting at which the recommendation to the
Board of Commissioners is made. , The Planning Board may
consider oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of
presenting information also submitted in writing.
The Planning Board shall within sixty days after the date
of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of
County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the
disposition of any application submitted by the public .
Said time limit may be extended upon request of the
applicant. Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not
be subject to time limitations other than those specified
by the Board of County Commissioners during the public
hearing process.
Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation
within the required time shall be considered a favorable
recommendation, without conditions .
20.7.2 The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider
enactment of the proposed amendment until sixty days after
Amended the .first date of the public hearing or until the Planning
2/5/90 Board makes this recommendation, whichever comes first. In
making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall
consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint
public hearing, and any new evidence which was considered
by the Planning Board in making its recommendation.
New evidence which was not presented in writing to the
Planning Board may not be considered by the Board of
Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public
hearing is reopened to receive said evidence, and the item'
is re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board
for recommendation.
20.8 Withdrawal gf AARRUcation
An applicant may withdraw his or her application at any
time by written notice to the County Manager. However, any
withdrawal of an application after the giving of the first
notice as required in 20 . 6 shall be considered, for the i
purposes of Article 20, a denial of the petition.
20-4
Page 026
Item G.) Recommendations Bullet three.
Stated permitted uses list in memorandum page 035 of handout.
hiaccurate and misleading information given in inemorandurn. Refer to page 035
with attachments.
• Permitted uses include agricultural activities, single family dwellings, duplexes on
026 twice the minimum lot size, and those uses which are supportive of residential
development such as fire stations, churches, utilities, etc.
'roposed. The proposed zoning lot meets the 2-acre minimum lot size, A 12 percent (12%)
npervious surface limitation for non-residential uses in the watershed will be imposed. BMP (Best
lanagement Practices) will not be allowed to satisfy watershed requirements.
• - The proposed zoning for the 10.01 a site is AS(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural Service (Little
River Protected Watershed).
• Minimum lot size is two acres.
• Permitted use includes rural non-farm, non-residential development which supports
the horticultural, silviculturai, and agricultural uses of AR districts.
axeloome tProcasafin. Schedu e.and Action
Public Hearing August 23, 1999: No decision is made on the proposed amendments by
either the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing.
First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board has 75 days within
which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Failure
of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered
as a favorable recommendation.
Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider amendments to the orange
County Zoning ordinance
,,ECOMMENQATIONS:
Recommendation
'he Zoning officer recommends approval of the rezoning.
• The request complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposal meets all dimensional requirements.
e Permitted uses listed for the proposed AS district are appropriate to service the
surrounding agricultural uses. Please refer to the attached Information Memorandum.
kdministEatinn Reconmrigndation
ya�aa.w.«
i'he Administration recommends that the proposed.Zoning n sooner than September 21,1 99.
he Planning Board for recommendations to be returned
:l l ml zatlasamendl z-3-99mcbroomlphabstracN8-13-991rh
Page 027
Item 7.) Applicant & Signature
XJr., McBroorn filled out and sided application, however property is jointly
owned by Janice M. MCBroonl per County Registry Boot: 1158 page 325.
.Application and signatures should be from loth owners.
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA '
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT
Date : JI 1
n I lill
'0 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
)RANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The -undersigned do hereby make application to chang-a the Zoning Atlas of
]range County as hereinafter requested .
9 . The property is Located on the \Tou—To side . of S.R .# 1341'
(JAMWILi1 Rw�D S t r e e t/Road) between '�R .#NNc, 8(13 and
S :R .# t„To It is known as Lots) ?O Block -- of
Orange County Tax Map 34 —C_%Q&&QROVti Township . It has a frontage
of feet and a * depth of feet , and contains
square feet or 1n.01 acres .
2. It i is Aged and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned
from 3..- The ..foLLowing. information has barn - attached . .in support of ' the
application for changing the Zoning Atlas (* -- required on aLL
app lications] .
.`a. A rutty dimensioned map at •a vast* of not Less than one (11 inch
equals one—hundred (10131 rest nor more then one (1) inch equals.
— twent'f" X201 'rest"showl-irg•---tha Land --which is proposed to be
rezoned.
Ob. A Legal description of the Land proposed to be rezoned.
'c. A statement or Justification addressing one or more of the
fo Ltowi ng:
(11 The alleged error in the Zoning ordinance, if any, which
would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed
explanation or such error in the Zoning Atlas and detsiLed
reasons -how the proposed amendmsnt will correct the error.
(2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or
in ths. County genersLLy, which make the proposed amendment
reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health,
safety and general welfare.
0(31 The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out
the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part
thereof.
*(41 ALL other circumstances, rectors and reasons which the
applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment
including, but not Limited to, documentation from- service
agencies (e.g. firs, poLica, rescue and utilities agencies)
assuring services provision capabiLity to the development.
d. A List of all individuate, firma or corporations owning propmrty
adjoining or within five hundred (3001 feat of the property
sought for rezoning is attached. The List is current as of
'I cartify that all information furnished in this application is accurate
to the best of my knowledge . `
-APP Li cant ( s] : i"ixM WIN)Yutc►r - ���`/c�.1't�tr9 yi'r
A d d r e s s ; ?—Mfe y(AL"IX,- SZOhn
Page 028
Item 8.) Owner and Proposed purpose
a.)Property is jointly owned and space one should reflect that ownership.
b.)Landscape Recycling, the proposed use of lot is not specifically mentioned
iii permitted uses, however this type of business would require storage of
petroleum products (for macllinely) :Article 4.3 S31 cvlucli is not permitted
for AS zoning, storage of goods outside (mulch, recycled product).
Article 4.3 S50 wMeli is not permitted for AS zoning, possibly storage of
wareliousilig:rnside building, Article 4.3 S51 which is riot pern:iilled for AS
zoning, possibly wholesale sales, .Article 4.3 S53 which is not pern-uUed for
AS zoning.
Because of the type of business, with the above possible need of that
business and their unavailability under the AS zoning, it makes till's type of
business inappropriate for the area.
Y
028
L
L 41
Sri
N� S u u vui
a r ;z all
w a •ca
u w
A a
.-s a ,?
•s
w •• rc a
QC r4 m w
Y L tt ca
R . N W 4S
w N• t0 L 41 co
tHn R C d
a OU m
w O a c� 1
U �q k
•9
U3 0 41
C7 to W N
O
GG w W cu
Ad p � u y °
4 u b
C7
ca r1 A
0 0 a -r ca i
lV f-t
G*3 d ii C} .
In -Li to
8 ra-f C W
f: W E 41
r-1 0 � d ✓
ca H a�
Ai to
O A H ' d
E� a O) twq +C
to 14
to N
`� 11 U)
0
.x a v
v 4 � °' �+ w d w o
n
bc •r1 u w 0�
p
z N a Cd c.
0 r4
L 7 it 41 •� W u RS
O v H H rc d u A C
LI-I
u
w w to 1.2 — V� R
— O 10 Jo J O� to f�+ IJ O �7 �
%D Y -J O
r. ro N r. r. O O M1 r N ti
4 F rt M1 M1 O
M1 n C r G M1 n
-Ci C n P• ^�' O .�-'. .v. OD" O' C 7 Z „^v„ ry v v
ry
a M1 M1
� � � � '= _ �oo � n �• in � c�
_ c
M1 C 'n' v• �' n'a `<' V P 3 =: � o rt � rn
n O O t! z
7 '
O
N C-
>
P A
x
> P
> P
> p w
p > P
Pa •
+-
,`�„ > P A n r m
> > 7 m
m
>
i
P z' mC m
�.. n • > P n mrm m
m p
n • > P • to m
N
m m
! �
Cv
n • • !7
ti v.
O O
> P
m I''
to • ♦ t
rn
> P
W ♦ w
m
v
O
C �
61-4
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N �owi. -• v� .- ws
w lh w �h Ln N N N N Ni A A A A A
OD J fT N A W N + -+ O �O O♦ J O� N .- W
• v V A r 0 w J ft J C6 9
N o 0 � 0 0 a A S N Loa c c N m a 5
-�
to o
A' v p�
fJ
O � 0
� a
> w to a
A p
to a
v� In n B b v
y N
a�
to
,NO d
nryy o
n n r r m m
N • • N �a m
�-1 y
n
n n mm
n
W W
r"
A
O p
m m
•
N • • • D N
Enw yf
a a
m m
v o
_ b
d p
Page 029
Item 9.) Property to be zoned
Stated as Plat Book 83 page 101
Actual -Plat Look 83 page 19
Plat available for viewing upon request.
029
REZONING REGUEST
PROPERTY OF ERNIE McBROOM
PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: Lot E,"Division of Property of Ernie McBroom"as iJ
shown on plat recorded in the Orange County Reg'
in Plat Book 83 page 101.
JUSTIFICATION:
1. No error alleged.
2. The closing of private landfills and the decreasing capacity of the Orange
County Landfill has increased the need for a site where landscape debris
(stumps and tree limbs)can be processed and recycled. This use is
appropriate for the rural areas of the County and would be allowed under an
AS zoning designation.
3. This rezoning would locate a use supportive of horticultural and agricultural
activities in an area convenient to the supported uses.
4. This site is located near NC 86,on a collector road,and would be readily
accessible to emergency services. No need for other public services is
anticipated given the location and limited uses allowed under this Zoning
designation.
030
4
,000 (
R0. l we
F_"T
LrrTLE RIVER CHU
VWAEWST
13'y2
6� $ RD.
1547 4 R c
Q' SCHLEY .� mo
LOCI
Ra
\ LAT
fat
Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM
REZONING REQUEST —GENERAL AREA
1" 4,000' 11 N
! I area 258.3 r
0�3
uar 1 !
! I
(345)
1
\ \ aca
OVA
t _ ,2
w w� `3a � � � ''• .
I 1 \
) cma
I 20% 'm1 \ I
/ :°�
/ ION aR sA
\ e , \ " 1
„ ! 1
�3 1
.td I
to
54@ t fM1. a. •' a y _
a ?s'
q is
e
a P83It9
xat
1 124
(�r
032
n.. ...•.... ,..,,w,T,..n»rw T.. ................................. .....
.............
... 4..:V:. � .. .. ......rw.r.....n♦.+.......r...n\..wMnn..,.n.v.nM..w.M..♦n. ... ,N...xn\.Nrn r..N..r.....wv...M a.-T.iv.wt�v.+.rl.
�.M+.•...w.� �vn,..w�.v wwvw w/.m MM Mnn Hw w••,v
Mw v.V .+..w. eMVM,M.wr M•♦
n w,.,�:n T....vv.l.I.•N`�n•.,♦♦.�.rN'wM�'M.F N M.r.nrw MMY.,.n.+ �•••••�A' ww.•» .1
,.•Ilrr .�. n Mnirw•n.M w\.♦"'l••M: • ..•MN``�nM.. �. '..n,w.A�,,.,wW.M•.. ♦..wr nvM`
'nO.M ,•nvvnw,n.�. �Ywn,.V: M•MVY ..wAVMiw.w,w.'M ��WMAVw»vf r M,.+.vwMMVMiv N«NM.1�Mwwv •vN.wM..+n'�.•T
M.,� .wA' »M•�MMww, .fw..Mwnv. ••f.N.NN .....,N+w.rw.w.vn�+w.w'
' l7+VW.v\V^ 1 .J♦ r.vM..vw,NwNNV.wwn w"' µ Hwr.MV T.ww. .wwNM.MMV�.♦M.rw.w
:7fv..NV.: M..,w�wrNMVw.MwM•www ^`w."`••"�„��rV _
li...Mr ....nrT� M,•...,.n».w.r�vwn` ''�'�"� `v NwwA1Y^^^" ^Fwn•.wNVn`^ .�w�.w.Mw.».r��'iw,'�Nw�..w..`v.
�'�' �� »AV. "�'•-- ♦.\,•n„w.ww\vv.N ..nr...,.,r...r;�`"(.r++",.nN�.+MVVnrwN.•w•I.n'
• '.+,MMV+.rN�My ��'M'"�,v'vi4.7, �••\ e�.+.r••..,„r.n"„n„",\,•.+rvr NM.vn\vw,�".W.a.v♦.w
n iN.'YA A.m.Nr`•�pp•.��yppwwM✓•nMrTwSr«. •AN M., �`��M,..f� .vM.•R � ww.ww•��M vw..,
�ww,�[1µr��y�.� ,�4•GwV.rwv. M\N\,\.♦.vA. vrwvwrvw.wrw „n,,.w.nw wwwHMwwVnwv ,vKM
.w,\.w.r.M.�eS�1�/NCM w wM.w.M'MM•FVwi Mw..MN• '�� TwwwMwn
.w,Vwrr»Iw. N\wvwr'M M♦�Yw,v...• .ww M..wwvw
,nTvF ♦�-n �:.Mnwn.,w. n.wMN,NNw\�r wMw.YS vMUw\,V1\vnr•
M..�M\,•q{ \,wwNVN.'/w',w. AVM.wwv.MNwwN MM.MM
vnrrrnw ♦ ♦ v
�nV.AL.•\ Mv...v/..MMT TMwM.Nw'.. vwa'♦.nwr•.Y♦ Y .fe♦/r!v
M nwM\ •n,\N ,r, y.,\•wwvwNVwMiw,VA\µms ,NFNnMM M�IMN♦ry , ♦ ♦
JnAV „Nfw.M0. MwwN��,M•M\ .M,MV.•w.•yVw.MNA YwY•I/,.'..wHYti'. A \„rvN •. �Mr.•.vA\,v _
AvwwwN\wM'n +wwM,M www.wllthwwwM ^ �.M �„,�♦w•
rv.. MwM ,w;w'eM�.M.. .M..�.M,..w"'�""`.,w�n• ANs.�w•
r.N w.w � ww.o
..vnv.r v..+ ..w..l.,f.wM+•v..v•.r +wF Mv+
M,...nw,..w....w •.�
M,.r .nY..M • ,T�,..N«�.... w
,.�'"'' rAnw.rw.r "i`"�, ..+.»" rwr.Y. w»�'M•.
•..\��:n TM.NTw
,n. � nt•. T.,�r.,w,�r.^w�"'.� M,wMrwN\»µw.....
/ ••y!w,•' .w.w� MNwMi•`^"^nlvwnf•Nw.\MM .wn\ _ �.T.wY
•"� .M. \wfw.�M\f N��M..M TM. w •v`�Mi\•••.FN ANw
.h. ..avM nvw ww'w M•M.M �
M .1n, N..w'.w.M.�.•�, 'Y� ♦nNr.nM.Y.ww� .M.r.v.Mn.vw.Tn,vN..+v
L.'.N v•.1+w ��NwAn~»M M NAV w ANN•AwrwrmI�Nv
♦..w�w'wvMMY
nVMM...rMw.wA,N
N n `r•Y^n,�.,,'7.+v h,�•v . \ �.�w..vM..nw 4n.Il,��
•rwAN\NM.M•..Mn.�•n.MM...n.n.n.M♦.N.nwn w:ww.. �T•w.v,NR�.0+•.,vM.M.Mrww M„
�.M..��y.`w ...Mw. �"��Mfw.w..wA'.+::+.^�....wn♦.Mnw.v..w.w •.www.wwM,w,.r.wYw.\MrwNwr'
Mr.♦MV�V.�'M Yn.MrN.'.•..'.TwVnvM\.n'�.'MM My.•M•♦.wMw•.rrnVwrwn•M....,♦�,v
w��..� ••m MY„Y•�; vw�wv.v�.�•a ♦MwwvAVnM..wM••q M�i`n`.nwNNwn,.,v.+ .rr.,iwv wn•.w.•v+•'♦.✓•,v,MM•
v,. 4•�.�..-�w wJwwwlu'.nMMMµt,�w\wvin.nvn\....MAV.+.nr �.n.�MVry..vT P�wNry
.wAA.�.. •wwM«.w.M,. .w...v�.w.... ♦M. ';^ ..�w...':.:..�.s:�..'"`.a n"":�::•
.: ;; M«.�"wn.��..»»«�»N....w...wl.•M.MwMN•MN''n.`.Mrw,�~�wn.....M...:M..M,MTn.::,vT.v, v«r .µ
M M,M,N\,Mn.NMww,v♦•� «.lM..,.w,.MAr. M....MVA•..M..,w.w•.n....w..Mwwn
� �..r.,\..+♦...v. MNwMTMw.MnfTwMwwwv..nn•M.w...wvM..nw♦n A...;^w:'M1;:'..� :..�r�.w::.mm �
nTAVMNM' wMMWMw,M\F,N,NAVw W. Mw\MM,•,.w/m _
A✓A.,MM\Mn.AwNMM'.N Wj♦MwW^•,Mww.w+..M
��,»�,»„`"" ♦Mwvw•wv.+nlwA♦.M.r»..v.'.\v.Mw\\n'.v'w"/
�\nPM��n..:Yr, wwNWMrwwYTN�M`wY MwwhM1M...M•fMt.,w n.•nwwr♦Mw.wAMMrM+nM�.en.Mn '.'•'/
,fR.+.AM,MNww,..TFNw w.MrAVF M,I.M.N. M•M NMMN•Tw.A,w.T
,N,\AWn 'Mw..rn„V•vwM wvn .M.WXn.MµlMMVA\w\Mrnw.v.w..ww rN M•nw.Tn•.vMAN,NN\ve..r♦n.♦r+:
..�\r•A••I�r,w;wAV.,M,•Mww. .M•MMIM MrwwvA M•♦..•
r.WwAI„w,MW, .M in A.r.vM MN`.YM ..vv..w•..MM\,NV..
ITwwlwwvw.W. MN/nr•,v.r.M..»•V.,vy.nww,rMM n♦.Mr,.,ww..rM.Mrfn,
M,NTI�\w. nnrlrw`wr.\ ""^��•nN'..'..1•N.Ww M,� �`�
nMAV,`i.w.•.yv+v+M'M♦M'wVn��♦.:M..wrM. ww..wrM.n. nww�• rN.Y'/WN1y M� 'w.YwMM\wM ♦.vn\i.�.�. r.w.
'..wMMwMr.A'♦MWM'.nn.n Mr.N.Nn.,v+wwr.v.+ Mw'.wwhq, T n./FrMIwI. /NTry.!i
' �`�w` Mv.MYw..» .wr.nr.wnAYFMV .M\ •`.,r..w.v
IN•V TnwM.win »�M�+M�w�M• M M.��•..v�M � .wM n. n`,I.n r�♦I�\\ w v.vn w.♦
.w.MM .�nM.%W+M.M r�¢•� � vn,.MYnmf.vn nw
n•,A �.w4f• A�
,nfwN Mw:.w:.�.vn..... w,....w«w.�.vw�w.Nw.M..y.,•uw.v.
Mi.n
........r,..»......•.... r;;:i::........,.... ..FA..N.,«.M .M.fw.. .nnwnNn......w..w\. .n,... ..A...,.«.....,
Z-3-99 ERN IE MCBROOM
REZONING REQUES ■ --- VICINITY
1' = 400' n N
Page 033
Item 10 Illeinoranduin
a.) Tai Map Number stated 2.34..51
However, from plat book 83 page 19 Tax Map Number is 2.34..20
b.) Surrounding land use in general area.
West- should include protected watershed and residential (Grassy Creek Sub)
South- should include residential(Bradslier property building in progress)
East - should include residential, (subditrided lots and Clark-Clarke)
As stated, it misrepresents surrounding area that will be effected by business
as proposed.
Plat book 83 page 19 available for viewing upon request.
' t1
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 033
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
v s
� c..``,
MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD
FROM: Planning and Inspections Staff
DATE: August 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM REZONING APPLICATION
The contents of this memorandum are about the request of Ernie McBroom to rezone
his property on Sawmill Road in Cedar Grove Township from AR Agricultural-
Residential to AS Agricultural Service.
SzENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Ernie McBroorn
OWNER: Ernie McBroom, Sr.
2606 Miller Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
LOCATION: 750± Sawmill Road (Tax Map No. 2.34..51)
PROPERTY SIZE: 10.01 acres
PROPOSED ZONING LOT: 10.01 acres
EXISTING LAND USE: Open and wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE IN GENERAL AREA: Wooded, open and residential
NORTH Residential, wooded, and open
WEST - Wooded and residential
SOUTH - Wooded
EAST - Wooded and open
034
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board
DATE: August 13, 1999
PAGE: Two
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Agricultural-Residential
(Little River Watershed)
EXISTING ZONING: AR(LITTLE-PW)—Agricultural-Residential (Little River
Protected Watershed) zoned in accordance with the adopted
Comprehensive,Plan
REQUESTED ZONING: AS(LITTLE-PW)—Agricultural Service (Little River Protected
Watershed)
AS DISTRICT DEFINITION, INTENT,AND PERMITTED USES:
Sec. 4.2.24 AGRICULTURAL SERVICE(AS) DISTRICT
DEFINITION
Commercial activities offering goods and services which support production of
agricultural products or processing of those products to make them marketable.
Examples include, but are not limited to, soil preparation, animal and fans
management, landscaping and horticultural services, specialized commercial
horticulture, specialized animal husbandry, biocide services, retail sales of fame/garden
products, supplies and equipment, equipment rental and repair service, tack shop,
farrier, blacksmith, welding shops, facilities for animal shows, animal sales and
auctions, agriculture-based clubs/meeting halls, storage and processing plants for
agricultural products including wineries and canneries.
INTENT
The purpose of the AS Agricultural Service District is to provide sites in the rural portion
of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural,
silvacultural, and agricultural uses of the AR Agricultural-Residential districts. The AS
district is usually applied where the following conditions exist.•
1. The site is within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural-Residential;
2. Lot sizes for individual uses are appropriate to the method of water supply
and sewage disposal; and
3. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned AS at any location shall not
exceed fen acres.
Page 035
Item 11.) List
Stated Permitted Uses Per Article 4.3 Table Mlowed Not Allowed
P2 Yes
P4 YeS
P7 Yes
P 10 Yes
P17c NA No( found in zon-ingy book
P25 NA Not found in zoning book
S2 Yes
S3 Yes
S l0 Yes
S i 1 Yes
S13 Yes
S14 Yes
S18 NA Not found in zoning book
S19a NA Not found in zone' Ig book
S48 Yes
549 Yes
S50 Storage of goods, outdoors NO
Class A Special Use Permit:
PH Yes A
P16 Yes A
P17b NA Not found in zoning book
Class B Special Use Permit
P12 Yes B
P17 NA Not found.in zoning book
P17a NA Not found in zoning book
P22 NA Not found in zoning book
S20 NA Not found in zoning book
One not allowed but stated, would be important to this business.
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board
DATE: August 13, 1999
PAGE: Three
PERMITTED USES
Accessory Uses
P2 Botanical Gardens &Arboretums
P4 Bus Passenger Shelter
P7 Church
P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police & Fire Stations) Rescue
Squads,
Volunteer Fire Departments
P17C Stealth Telecommunication Towers - 75 Feet or Shorter*
P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations
S2 Agricultural Service Uses
S3 Animal Hospitals, Veterinarians
S10 Farm Equipment and Sales
S11 Feed, Seed, Storage and Processing
S13 Greenhouses (No On-premises Sales)
S14 Greenhouses (On-premises Sales)
S18 Commercial Feeder Operation
S 19A Class 1 Kennels
S48 Sawmills
S49 Stockyards
S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoors
The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit:
P11 Land Fills (Two acres or more)
P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub-stations, Switching Stations, Telephone
Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants
PI 7B Telecommunication Towers - 200 Feet or Taller
The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit:
P12 Land Fills (Less than Two Acres)
P17 Elevated Water Storage Tanks
PI 7A Telecommunication Towers- 199 Feet or Shorter
P22 Transmission Lines
S20 Class 11 Kennels, Riding Stables
TT—t,
a = = y 0% w P. w ' N
u N N r O pi m
a �
9tt S G1 'af o p t7 s v g
n o rn o O W W o 2 W o W rc a E t a o a m
n c n m 9 o Ow m re a' o rr b lu ;� Ir• W a c IW ;.°• h. `� m�C
W n O
m a 0 o r• O a N tT 'p r r N N r n A yp
N rA A O N n n O O m m r \
O rY C N a a �p n N A w D O rt N ray
no x •rrt �' rat n qn, W W u1 m N
O oar o era at w m n x va�tA rW N..
G' s� n m 0 C 01-- O
m m m ID v M 0 0 O m 'r O a
———————
t7 W a
0 WO
I-+ 0 A O w er 1 � � f. jJOONYrNr
u rMr r mR m a
W ry N {D W 'CJ
OD co I I I
w n 0 O •. "rl bC O N a tiG A'r w Q co m co
0 W O N LA N
� aW W n n W a w rI
w .-. raj Iw+ w• •C C. r�D
N rrr C M n
a +t W 0 w \ O
fOD r•n r m
O O
O m
M 7 rq
M h
IUD a O
cr I N W M fD t7
M 9 n
ct R `0 G
a r m V W
Io 3 0 K ID
r
W
et A
IW
"•'t7J # # W CD rt rt # # s tSl W
y my
* * to oo rt # # # * dD 7o n e n
to
N # # t9 tb # rt # # rt rt N N N 7D
1.43 C
w # # W to * rt rt rt rt * to W N y p lea
a # # #
to # m * rt w * # # tti .1' A A N 1@
H"M �m
ODD # # tb • y Ct rt rt rt # rt s
to W N N
rte+
rn
H
t7 n
2
N # m # * # rt * rt N t+7 t+1
nn ao aD
n # y # rt C7 * rt # # rt• • f1 vim•
u W
� ry �► W * CTJ rt rt # rt M # �► H
LEI
r * N
N ~
N s N
H ~
W # W
� y
in H
*
Tn4 cn., ual do Sn' - 7 aT CZ a�aN o
o. 4A j w N p
^0.
w..a
Q r u n w to
~ to c
> 0
Ov
n En
� G
iv > • to > • to • N • t. • > a0
> > to > • > bD • • m • > >W
A > tC > • w • w • to • > A
W > • w • W • W
a , • • � • m • tD • A
day
�, > • CD IX • to • in
> • • W • m • t0 • A
W
> • • r0 • CD • CD • A �� �� ��
w �
W
rr � „
r !n Cn
• • • • • m • z Cn (n ►i
,dy
W rr � e
• • • • • • • •
cn ►��y
a 1'Sr ►��y 1 l'�
n > to
N
' r rn-
rr
to m vo Ovo
W > to > a a w^
y > m a a ,
y
W d WL ISI(I( )Iu Pwdo aiaQ ocw um m
of rPRP S mdc Iae •6 9 OF iuy el JaJ y d
40 P_j D. N w
C) C) o n m > > C)
Ij
co P6
F F, cr cr P-
o c = F r)
0
.P6
Oa
0 cv
a
o C) <
° gN
10 o
Cc;
m
Z En Jo
r* "n
A ,gyp
tz
u 11
LQ
z
tv
C.
m to 00 00
>
Cl
S�:)wsl(j ( g) upmdoj;Aa :)I OU00
Jo l spy rpus s I Ow 012A;
Ll
O V Ol to w N C V
a
JL J
rl
n c c.vGa G 7 Z G. rt
rtn v — ti
n ' _ rt' rt w v c rt<. P y
�. -'i •O A n.
o = w c- w H ry. n < H .
ft
> > P y
a P
y P
D P i
Py
rrm -o
D a z m
m
a P a _m rn o
r Dym cn
n • a p n r" r m
Z Cz
rrr, m y
z - r
nni • D P • n
� nn
0o a
n . . q ao • n
o
m r.,
N • �')
P
> P
q Y
r..
p G
61-9
V! N N N N N N N N N N
U A A A A 0.
to A W N M O %0
OC J O. J 'C 4D 6 T tr w �• OC
to
� Q �y v � aA Ob V JO�H�
V n n 'ti x f1 _+ N lT1J fwll N N d tT [S P
F a a n n n G
p S H n a. Coin p °o o '< �' c b'
trl
v C. .y X r• S
SA.
d n 0
r�
90 2 aye. � C
o
W >
> to >
>
� A
A
as
oho Oho N N
cn
m
W C p
(7�N
> > m N
• n r'r m
N
mm
n • > A
A
m m
M
o °
•
� m
N N
u
w > .
a
N
v v
E5
-o 'O
Yage 036
Item 12.} Specific zoning requirements
Bullet one states to accommodate the establislunient of an agriculture sencice
business permitted by zoning ordinance.
This is inisteading - Landscape recycling is not specified but subjective
interpretation by Zoning Officer of stated intended use. Rather, stated untended
use would require usage not permitted by code. Example: 550, 551, 552, S53
Article 4.3 Tables.
036
T0: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board
DATE: August 13, 1999 ,
PAGE: Four
SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS
The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to:
. • Accommodate the establishment of an agricultural service business permitted by the Zonin
Ordinance; and
• Implement the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th
property as Agricultural-Residential.
The property is zoned AR.This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities
(agriculture, forestry) are related to the land in an appropriate location for the continuation of thee
uses. The proposed rezoning to AS, therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
For development of the subject property, the following AS requirements would apply:
• Frontage shall be a minimum of 200 feet.
• The front building setback must be a minimum of 50 feet,
• Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet;
• A 75-to 100-foot Land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon
the use proposed; and
• The maximum impervious surfare shall be no more than 6 percent, including all structural
"footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted outside storage
areas.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS SCHEDULE,AND ACTION
Publlc Hearing
• No decision is made at this stage.
• Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning sties amendment request Is
referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County
Commissioners no earlier than September 21, 1999.
PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS
The application for the rezoning of the tract from AR to AS has been reykewed by Planning Staff.
Findings required by Article 20.3 Prgggl_dum far Submission and Qgnalderagon of Anclication, f,r,
a #
Refer to ti 1e .2 - ve qp en . Sta Ida for
iA v
.1
M
N
M # th
H
H
M ,
Q
Ln
w « « # « « to # W
b
Pl
* « «
as z « « w «
u z
�c e
N y a
ao a m « « « * # # la a # w # #
as
a a In m .0 « « # # # m a m # In
oa►,H cr a
aa�w a w « # « # « # m « w « # « v
a
•sm a `° « « « # s « m w « # a
a w « # « # « m m « « a
m
a m w « « « # « m as « « CO
M�
G
m
lx
w t0 4f J
a a a m c rl w
.,
a G, a U JV V•
" J w 4 tTCw
w ro •roi b °
-14 m
� 3 -4
w �+ 3 ^a •� fu u 5 C N
ra to
N!n N O a Is >r w it ro w O M M
CO W co N 01 .4 tf M 0-4 O a �+
1 I f CC m 0%� ► w G4 •.I 41 41 At
O 1 O I I 1
ro 41 -I
1
ch ON l + •+ o U u + o o M
to
o
•.+ A w to m x .+ m tl A w�. a
O 4. a 41 H W O O G
O h
CJ] z U
ro 4 aA, 01 a p m
ro 4+ O •4 D+C O
:*q ro u 41 •.�.�4 s . o-,41 ro m x
a m tr Is a+ o+ u m ro N w w ro V a
w c
►+ .a fr c C u •4 c GI ro ro•"1 0 4J O
Y+ •I N a o C w w�+ o U m m
N u u �i .I .-I rl a A O O IV n U —1 to
c >+r~ >f a a m a B o A it to z p s to 0 w 0 u
01 ro O ro 2 Z 3 3 ro w a O 01 G 8 m a G 0%w O U
0 A x C a a E E t-4 w 0 E a
� C4 xCh"". x x x x x
f 1 4-11
O W ♦ M N •� O
M �•
x-2
� � a
A A a
v+ R >
> • W > ` > • • " IX " >
yp > • • to • aS • tr7 • gp�
Pv
iyJ � • • ps • CD • C7 • W
♦ yypp
7p > • • !0 • W • Etiy • � 11 N A
�_ • CA c
w • • . • • • to • f/Z G!
d
+ I
vim', > • • N � y
> • LO > •
N
> ay >
W
> • " •
> > > "
to
siQ( lu who atiaQ DiW
�z p I IPJOP S w4 J.IADI 6 9 21 u1+ Jn) ?t
G •
}, N _N N N N _N N N W N N N N N N N to
S I A A W N C �D Oe O� in A W N
O. ti
O.
7 tri C �in 1fn 3 n• 6
V rJ rS ?' S G N R7 O O Q T L•. 7
CLp n b
B -2
LQ
N
� � n
N C N
r 'i7 v M O
r
Co
7d • • 70
A a
�o a �•
W W nib
Cal • • a s • • ♦ • • • • • a a • t) (�
A M u
lam\ �1]r•� h";
L^�
rr
O p
• • w a
m to �o ovo
N • • a �r • • y
N v s OI si ( g) ua dol na of ouoa v
�o spy pue S aut olan Q- Z a{�i
V >>a a
-o
[7 0
61-4
En U] V7 to N N Vl to 0 0 w w w N 0 O �j �O W .O• N w V
0• �d O� N A W N � O �O OD J P
M �•y [� �] V bPyb O aO J y OPN
O a ''i7 S '�"'' _' C O O y m tS �T tT Q 7
y L OOC ^� oa O O Y7 .. ..
N v v
O 2
O 0
a
> co m
� a
a a
W 9
a n a a
nnv Li
00 Do
W W Abp
m C
n n r" r�•' m
• • N `i� rW
w • • • w M m
w v
a �
N N
O O
m m
W y w
� a
0o p C
.9
p
p p
Page 036
Item 13 Bullet three Frontage 200'
Stated: Frontage shall be minimum of 200'
Per Plat book 83 page 19, Frontage is not 200' as above stated requirement.
ll misstated to public, planning board and com nission in writing, it should be
correcte(I to accurate Wording of situation in writing and resubmitted. IV1Usleads all.
Plat book 83 page 19 available for viewing upon request.
036
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board
DATE: August 13, 1999 ,
PAGE: Four
SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS
The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to:
. • Accommodate the establishment of an agricultural service business permitted by the Zonin
Ordinance; and
+� Implement the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th
property as Agricultural-Residential.
The property is zoned AR. This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities
(agriculture, forestry) are related to the land in an appropriate location for the continuation of thes
uses. The proposed rezoning to AS, therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
For development of the subject property, the following AS requirements would apply:
w Frontage shall be a minimum of 200 feet.
• The front building setback must be a minimum of 50 feet;
• Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet;
0 A 75-to 100-foot Land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon
the use proposed; and
• The maximum impervious surface shall be no more than 6 percent, including all structural
"footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted outside storage
areas.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SCHEDULE,AND ACTION
Public Nearing
• No decision is made at this stage.
• Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning atlas amendment request is
referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County
Commissioners no earlier than September 21, 1999.
PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS
The application for the rezoning of the tract from AR to AS has been reviewed by Planning Staff.
Findings required by Article 20.3 Procedure fnr SIbmisljoa and QgOsideratlon of Arc glicatons for
T
Page 036
Item 14.) Bullet 6 Land use Buffer
Stated: a 75 to 100 loot laird use buffer adjacent to residential uses is required,
depending upon the use proposed, and
We have the use proposed, (Landscape Recycling). What is the hesitation in
picking footage for a land use buffer? Is this to mislead, confuse or what?
Subjective by zoning officer at best.
ors
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board
DATE: August 13, 1999
PAGE: Four
SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS
The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to:
. • Accommodate the establishment of an agricultural service business permitted by the Zonin
Ordinance; and
• Implement the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th
property as Agricultural-Residential.
The property is zoned AR. This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities
(agriculture, forestry) are related to the land in an appropriate location for tha continuation of thes
uses. The proposed rezoning to AS, therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
For development of the subject property, the foilowing AS requirements would apply:
• Frontage shall be a minimum of 200 feet.
• The front building setback must be a minimum of 50 feet;
• Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet;
• A 75- to 100-foot Land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon
the use proposed; and
a The maximum impervious surface shall be no more than 6 percent, including all structural
"footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted outside storage
areas.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SCHEDULE,AND ACTION
Public Hearing
0 No decision is made at this stage.
• Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning atlas amendment request is
referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County
Commissioners no earlier than September 21, 1999.
PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS
The application for the rezoning of the tract from AR to AS has been reviewed by Planning Staff.
Findings required by Article 20.3 P%.cpdutM for Subrolssian and Coomidamlion of Annlications_for
Page 036
Item 15.) Bullet 7 hlaxinium Lnnpei-vious Surface 6%
1 acre = 43,560 square feet
10.01 acres = 436,035.6 square feet
6"4.Nlaximum Impervious Surface of 436,035.6 square feet +26,162.136 square beet
26,162.136 square feet also equals .6006 acres.
Driveways, aprons, compacted outside storage (mulch piles, yard waste to be
recycled), building footings, fuel storage and pumping facility would be
impervious surfaces necessary=to a.cconunodate this business. Include parking and
loading areas and you don't have enough impervious surface to acconunodate the
business' needs. Application is impractical, not feasible for proposed business
on proposed lot.
036
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board
DATE: August 13, 1999 ,
PAGE: Four
SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS
The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to:
• Accommodate the establishment of an agricultural service business permitted by the Zonin
Ordinance; and
• Implement the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th
property as Agricultural-Residential.
The property is Zoned AR.This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities
(agriculture, forestry) are related to the land In an appropriate location for the continuation of thes
uses. The proposed rezoning to AS,therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
For development of the subject property, the following AS requirements would apply:
• Frontage shall be a minimum of 200 feet.
• The front building setback must be a minimum of 50 feet;
a Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet;
• A 75.to 100 foot Land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon
the use proposed; and
e The maximum impervious surface shall be no more than 6 percent, including all structural
"footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted outside storage
areas.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SCHEDULE,AND ACTION
Public Hearing
• No decision is made at this stage.
• Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning atlas amendment request is
referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County
Commissioners no earlier than September 21, 1999.
PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS
The application for the rezoning of the tract from AR to AS has been reviewed by Planning Staff.
Findings required by Article 20.3 Pggcedure far Submission aCd Qg13111deratioof Anaiicatgns f2r,
Page 037
Item 16.) Bullet 4-7 Permitted Uses
To keep from becoming too redundant but with the same complaint, please
refer to page 035 and 036 along with Article 4.3 tables.
037
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board
DATE: August 13, 1999
PAGE: Five
Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance follow:
• There was no error made with respect to the property when zoning was adopted for Cedar
Grove Township on January 1, 1994.
• The property was zoned AR in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Rezoning the property to AS would be compatible with the stipulations set forth
for an Agricultural-Residential plan category use given in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Plan would not need to be amended to accommodate AS zoning.
• Seventeen uses are permitted by right in the AS district. Three require a Class A
Special Use Permit with approval of the Board of County Commissioners, and
five require a Class B Permit with approval of the Board of Adjustment. Any of
these uses, either by right or under special conditions, could be allowed on the
proposed zoning lot. Permitted AS uses are listed above.
Uses permitted in AS not permitted in AR
• Uses Permitted by Right. Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural
Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians; Farm Equipment Sales; Feed
and Seed Storage and Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards.
• Uses requiring a Class A Special Use Permit. All uses requiring a Class A
SUP within an AS district are also permitted with a Class A SUP in the AR
district.
• Uses requiring a Class B Special Use Permit. All uses requiring a Class B
SUP within an AS district are also permitted with a Class B SUP in the AR
district.
g:\jim\zatlasamend\mcbroom\infomemo\8.3.99\jrh
Page 038
Item 17.) Certificate of Mailing
Notarized statement by Zoning Officer suggests, properties within 500' of
the affected property of Mr PvIcBroom were notified by certified mail.
Article 20.6.3 indicates procedure and ordinance for notification and certifying
that notification, however I I—s Mat-garett Berry having 2 lots within 500' of
affected property of Mr. McBroom was not notified. The explanation for his
en-or is stated as her property being oil a different neap.
IIe was again in error in his letter to I1Irs. Berry not only with the hearing date
not being that of August 24, 1999 but he also stated and more uziportantly, that
her property on the north side of Savvniill was not within the 500' require
distance, which by Us own map you can see is also incorrect because you call
easily see by the neap that he sent her with the letter of apology, that property
too, is easily within the 500' limit.
038
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
I,'James R. Hinkley, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:
On or about August 6, 1999, I sent by Certified Mail, postage prepaid, a Notice
of a Public Hearing to be held on August 23, 1999, at 7:30 pm in the F. Gordon
Battle Courtroom of the New County Courthouse at 106 E. Margaret Street in
Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of providing all interested citizens
an opportunity to speak for or against a proposal by Ernie McBroom to amend
the County Zoning Atlas by rezoning his 10.01-acre property (Tax Map No.
2.34..51) on the south side of Sawmill Road (SR 1545), approximately 4,600 feet
east of the NC 86 and approximately 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road (SR
1507), from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The notice
was sent to 13 owners of parcels lying within 500 feet of the McBroom property.
A list of parcels and their owners is attached. .
`";,`"
James R. Hinkley, AICP
Zoning Officer
North Carolina
Orange County
I, Debra M. Graham, a Notary Public, for said County and
State, do hereby certify that James R Hinkley appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of
ill/l if itl
!foregoing instrument.
`
•,
_<6 °~~....'�(t�tap�ess my hand and official seal, this the 6th day of August
TA
iom �
r Nc ary Public
iission expires May 29, 2002.
���I'Illrullllt�`�
g:\jim\zatlasamend\mcbroom\mailcert\8-6-99\jrh
Orange County shall be adopted by reference as though fully
set forth herein. Any map amendments adopted by Orange
County shall be officially denoted on the County Zoning
Atlas . Where there is inconsistency between the amendment
procedures contained in this Article and those contained in
the Jo i t Planning Agreement, the provisions of the Joint
Plannin Agreement shall apply.
20.4 Referral of Amendment Aplication tq Planning BoaLrd
Amended 'The Zoning *Officer' shall submit -any application for
3/13/86 amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board at the
first regular meeting after the expiration of the 30-day
period specified in 20. 3 . 3 or any extension thereof. This
provision shall not apply to any application for amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance text.
20.5 TM SoaL4 gl Cgunty CommissLonerl and the Planning Board
Shall Hold A Pubjkc Hearing
The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board
shall hear applications for amendments to this ordinance in
a Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular
meeting in August, November, February and May.
20.6 P x ' ig fearing and Notice Thereof
20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County
Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to
Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be
7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the
time and place of such hearing and the substance of the
proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said
newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice
appearing not less than ten ( 10) days nor more than twenty-
five (25) days before the date set for the public hearing. .
In computing the notice period, the day of publication is
not to be included,. but the day of the hearing is to be
included.
... ........
+' 20.6.2 \ The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning
atlas shall post on the applicant' s affected property a
notice of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the
date of said hearing
20.6.3 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written .
- notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected
Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less
11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent
property owners are those whose names and addresses are
currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose
property lies within five hundred feet of the affected
property.
If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the
County, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all
20-3
rr
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
�..a .r�•
7' 4
Tuesday, August 24, 1999
Mrs. Ralph H. Berry
800 Sawmill Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231-9299
In the matter of: McBroom Rezoning Request (AR to AS)
.pear Mrs. Berry:
Thank you for coming to the McBroom rezoning public hearing in the New
Courthouse in Hillsborough on Monday, August 24, 1999. Your comments were
well taken.
I regret that you did not receive an individual notice about the public hearing. It
was discovered that your property is shown on a different map than where the
McBroom property is shown. I was not careful enough to assure that you receive
personal notice as your neighbors did. The southwestern tip of your property
does fall within 500' of the northeastern tip of Mr. McBroom's access road across
Sawmill Road. Please see the enclosed map of the properties.
I enjoyed talking with you and your good neighbors in the parking lot after the
hearing. It was good of them to bring you to the hearing,
McBroom's rezoning request has now been referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation. The Board will meet at 7:30 pm on Wednesday, September 1,
1999, in the County Agriculture and Planning Building at 306 Revere Road in
Hillsborough. You end your neighbors may wifsh to attend that meeting also.
Thank you for your good citizenship and especially for your patience with me.
Please call at 732-8181, X2584, if you have questions about the matter.
Sincerely,
James R. Hinkley, AICP
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Enclosure: Map of Berry and McBroom Properties
g:\jim\zatiasamend\mcbroom\letter\8.24.991rh
rl
l
\ e
- 1
i
f \
,off
g ap"
-
\ • .• _ ,,.. per'
\ A ✓
✓✓
i
' i 1
Pages 039 and 040
Item 18.) Lists of affected property owners
Illrs. Margarett.Berry AKA Ix/h-s. Ralph H. Berq, does not appear on either list
of navies of affected property owners.
She is an affected property owner of 2 affected properties. Although her
neighbors brought her to the public hearing, she was not notified by certified
mail 15 days minimum, before the hearing, which would have allowed her
more time to evaluate the proposed rezoning and bring forth more before the
joint public hearing.
If just having shown up for the meeting were to be enough, no matter when
you found out, I would suspect a sign or handbill would be enough, rather
than code Article 20.6.3.
033
Z-3-99 Cedar Grove Township
Atlas Amendment Proposal of Ernie McBroom
AFFECTED.PROPERTY OWNERS
within 500 feet
Page One of Two
Tax Map Number/Acres Property Owners
2.24..12 63.91a Melvin Durwood Smith
1009 Sawmill Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
2.24..12A 5a Audis & Nannie S. Sanderson
607 Orange Heights Loop
Hillsborough, NC 27278
2.24..12B 5a Robin D. Clark & Lisa A. Clarke
803 Sawmill Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
2.34..18 < 1a Eugene Breeze
512 Sawmill Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
2.34..19A < 1a. Mack Leonard Torain
600 Old Sawmill Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
2.34..19B 0.92a Willie S. & Shirley Cates
518 Sawmill Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
2.34..19C 0.46a Alphonzo & Dorothy Poteat .
524 Saw Mill Road
Cedar Grove, NC.27231
ti
40
Page Two of Two
Taa Man NLmbe_r/ACres ]!rouerJvOwners
2.34..19F 16.41a Willie L. & Rosetta L. Glover
PO Box 881
Hillsborough, NC 27278
2.34..19G J 5a• Alfred Roy & Quetta U. Long
624 Sawmill Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
2.34..19M / 10.02a James & Carol Wood
5820 Quiet Acres Drive
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
2.34..21 / 89.87a Dennis Roy Walters
405 Hidden Valley Road
Wilmington, NC 28409
2.34.:30 / 31.71a Benjamin Earle Bradshear, Jr.
5018 Hurdle Mills Road
Hurdle Mills, NC 27541
2.34..31A J 28.98a Nancy F. Worley
PO Box 3242
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
g:\jim\zatlasamend\mcbroom\mailcert\8-6-991jrh
Orange County shall be adopted by reference as though fully
set forth herein. Any map amendments adopted by Orange
County shall be officially denoted on the County Zoning
Atlas . Where there is inconsistency between the amendment
procedures contained in this Article and those contained in
the Joint Planning Agreement, the provisions of the Joint
Planning Agreement shall apply.
20.4 Referral of Amendment AR21icat on to Planning eoar4
Amended 'The Zoning •Officer- shall submit 'any application for
3/18/86 amendment- to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board at the
first regular meeting after the expiration of the 30-day
period specified in 20. 3.3 or any extension thereof. This
provision shall not apply to any application for amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance text.
20.5 The Board of Co�aty Commissioners and the Planning Board
Shall Hold A Public gearing
The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board
shall hear applications for amendments to this ordinance in
a Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular
meeting in August, November, February and May.
20.6 Public Bearing #R4 Notice Thereof
20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County
Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to
Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be
7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a
newspaper of general circulation in" the County, stating the
time and place of such hearing and the substance of the
proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said
newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice
appearing not less than ten ( 10) days nor more than twenty-
five (25) days before the 'date set for the public hearing. .
In computing the notice period, the day of publication is
not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be
included.
20.6.2 ` The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning
atlas shall post on the applicant's affected property a
notice of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the
ate of said hearing.
20.6.3 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written
notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected
Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less
11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent
property owners are those whose names and addresses are
currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose
property lies within five hundred feet of the affected
property.
If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the
County, notice shall -be sent by first class mail to all
20-3
Page 0-t 1
Item 19.) Specific Standards for Evaluating Rezoning
Form used in Plaruung Board meeting and checked off there. Items a-e.
Article 20.3.2 has in addition to a through e two omitted items which are f and
9.
Item f deals with traffic and Article 13 which states the purpose - a study
required of site plans, to identify any traffic problems associated with access
from the site to emsiing trwisporta.tion network, and potential problems.
Conducting and applicability with regard to this, Article 22 page 22-30
Traffic Generation low, inedium and high. Per ItiL•. IlinIdey at the plaiutuig
board
ineeting of 09101!'99 stated that a DOT study done 3 years ago indicated that
Sawmill road West generated 300 trips per day. This puts us then at the medium
to high level for traffic generation establishing need for a.study for suspect
problems and public safety.
041
d
0
z z z z
N 0 1
0 cm
w �Ln
Vf C C
N - ea
C
in
~ Om � aai "
cc
10 tn
St
ra c A
^ c ��
N ]C
v� W `~°
R d m •d ° R
LL Q O a v oo CL
c o ev V a
Q cWj �� a CL cu aJFA.9
Zz o•�o c b
cn o
t4i. W Z w
L
O � a
a
2z H o
w ° z N I
-
t¢-
X l
a � �
vi LU z X`
awl
a- m
a
CA
N
N
A
O Q�
b
o"n o ' e a `' •H =6th
O u O C
•o � c o
O . t•3
v d °'
C7 39 ° eL ea C a
C6 — E 1. tea$ `° m ° =' '.c
�3 a� F 33 w St
z O w Q N A R e A G u w N G C
��4t a► N Yy
Ob H M Q n C1 N M C
LU
ARTICLE 20. AMENDMENTS
20.1 Statement of intent
For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound,
stable and desirable development within Orange County this
ordinance shall not be amended except to correct a manifest
error in the ordinance or, because of changed or changing
conditions in a particular area or in the county generally,
or to extend the boundary of an existing zoning district,
or to rezone an area either to a different zoning district
or to a corresponding Planned Development district, or to
change the regulations and restrictions thereof . These
amendments shall be reasonably necessary to promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare and to achieve
the purposes of the adopted comprehensive plan or part
thereof.
20.2 Amendment Initiation
Subject to the limitations of the foregoing Statement of
Intent, an amendment to this ordinance may be initiated by:
a) The Board of County Commissioners on its- own motion;
b) The Planning Board;
} c) Application, by any person or agency.
20.3 Procedure ,ARE smhmissign sad Coasidermtioa gJ Ann irations
fasendmeat
20.3 . 1 Application Submit ed tg Zouing Officer
All applications for amendments to this ordinance shall be
in writing, signed and filed, two copies with the Zoning
Officer and one copy with the County Manager for
presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. (For
Planned Development amendments see Article 7; for Special
Use Permits see Article 8) .
The Zoning Officer shall, before accepting any amendment
application, ensure that it contains all required
information, as specified in this ordinance. Applications
which are not complete, or otherwise do not comply with the
provisions of this ordinance, shall not be accepted by the
Zoning Officer, but shall be returned to the applicant,
with a notation by the Zoning Officer of the deficiencies
in the application.
20.3 .2 Contents of Application
Amended Applications for amendments to the Zoning Atlas and/or
-' 3/18/86 Zoning 'Ordinance text, without limiting the right to file
additional material, shall contain at least the following:
20-1
For amendments to the Zoning Atlas , a fully
ay at a scale o£ not less than one
dimensioned map �
hundred feet to the inch showing the land which would 1,..
be covered by the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment, and
a legal description of the land;
b) For amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text, a copy of
the existing text provision(s) which the applicant
proposes for :amendment, and a written statement which
describes in detail changes which the applicant
proposes to -make to, the text of, the Zoning Ordinance;
C) The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning
Ordinance text which would be corrected by the
proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such
error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text
and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will
correct same;
d) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the
area or in the County generally, which makes the
proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text
amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the
public health, safety and general welfare;
e) The manner in which the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or
Zoning Ordinance text amendment will carry out the
intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan
or part thereof; and
*Amended *f) A traffic impact study as required by Article 13 .
2/1/88
*g) All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the
applicant offers in support of the proposed Zoning
Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment.
20.3.3 ASOR.Iig 011C.O FreAre§ Analysis and Regol"ndation
Amended The Zoning Officer shall, within 30 days of the receipt of
3/18/86 an application to amend the Zoning Atlas, cause an analysis
to be made of the application and, based upon that
analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the
Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners . The
30-day period may be extended with the written consent of
the applicant, up to a maximum of 60 days . The 30-day
provision shall not apply to applications for amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance text.
20.3.4 Applications f ,= Amendments-Joint Planning Area
Amended Applications for amendments to the Orange County Zoning
10/18/88 Ordinance and Zoning Atlas for the purpose of incorporating
the provisions of the Chapel Hill Land Development
Ordinance (and Zoning Maps) and/or the Carrboro Land Use J
Ordinance (and Zoning Maps) shall be as specified in this
Article and as specified in the Joint Planning Agreement
adopted November 2, 1987 . Any text amendments adopted by
20-2
* ARTICLE 13. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
13.1 $uK229e
A traffic impact study shall be required of special use
permits and site plans as defined in this Article. The
study will enable Orange County to assess the impact of a
*Amended proposed-special- use permit or development on the highway
2-1-88 system when that system is at or near capacity or a safety
8-21-90 problem exists. Its purpose is to insure that proposed
developments do not adversely affect the highway network_
and to identify any traffic problems associated with access
from the site to the existing transportation network. The
purpose of the study is also to identify solutions to
potential problems and to present improvements to be
incorporated into the proposed development.
13.2 coudug&
A traffic impact study shall be prepared by a qualified
*Amended professional traffic engineer and/or. certified
8-21-90 transportation planner with previous traffic study
experience.- The procedures and standards for the traffic
impact study are set forth in Section 13 .4 of this
Ordinance.
1 Prior to the preparation of a traffic impact study, a
scoping meeting shall be held, including the planning
staff, the applicant, and the preparer of the study. The
discussion at this meeting should set the study
parameters, including the study area, planned and committed
roadway improvements (by NCDOT or others) , road links and
intersections to be analyzed, preliminary traffic
distribution, other planned developments to be considered,
traffic growth rate, available data, periods for which
analysis is to be performed, and other staff concerns . The
qualifications of the preparer may be discussed at or prior
to this meeting.
13.3 Applicability
*Amended Except as described below a traffic impact study shall be
8-21-90 required for all special use permits and site plans that
meet the following criteria:
Special Use Permit: estimated traffic generated by
the permit exceeds 800 trips/day
Site Plan: estimated traffic generated by the
development exceeds 800 trips/day
• 'l
13-1
Temporary Use Building-A building, not intended for residential use,
consisting of one or more modules constructed off the ultimate site of use. The ,
building is also not attached to a permanent or semi-permanent foundation.
Ten-Year Transition, Land - Land located in areas that are in the process of
changing from rural to urban,and are suitable for urban-type densities, including
the provision of public utilities and services within the first ten year phase of the
Plan.
TauristHorne A-buildingor.group.of attached or.detached.buildiugscontaining,
in combination, three to nine lodging units for occupancy for daily or weekly
periods, with or without board, and primarily for occupancy by transients,as
distinguished from rooming houses, in which occupancy is primarily by residents
rather than transients.
Amended Traffic Generation: Low-Uses which generate an average of less than 200
2/7186 vehicle trips per day.
Amended Traffic Generation: Medium -Uses which generate an average of between
2/7/86 200-800 vehicle trips per day.
Amended Traffic Generation: High-Uses which generate an average of more than 800
2/7/86 vehicle trips per day.
Amended Transmission Lines-
11/2/81 a) For lines carrying electrical energy,transmission lines are those which
carry 45,000 volts or more.
b) For lines which carry liquids or gases,transmission lines are those
operating or designed to operate at pressures of one hundred pounds per
square inch or greater.
Amended Travel Trailer-A structure that is(i) intended to be transported over the
3/18/86 streets and highways (either as a motor vehicle or attached to or hauled by a motor
vehicle) and(ii)is designed for temporary use as sleeping quarters,but that does
not meet the definition of a manufactured home.
Amended Trip Generation Rates -The total count of trips to and from a study site per
2/1/88 unit of land use as measured by parameters such as dwelling units, acres, etc.
Twenty-Year Transition Land-Land located in areas that are in the process of
changing from rural to urban, and are suitable for urban-type densities including
the provision of public utilities and services within the second ten year phase of
the Plan.
Urban Land-Land within the corporate limits of a town(and is therefore under
the jurisdiction of the Land Use Plan for the town).
22-30
Page 0.12
Item 20.) Form used by Planning Board at 09101/99 meeting regarding criteria.
Stated.Article 4.2 inore specifically 4.2.11 a and b 1, 2 and 3.
Article 4.2.11 is for zoning district GC-4, General Coimnercial 1N'zoning.
The votinW indings of this page are not valid due to siting of wrong zoning
ordinance. Remember this was not merely an internal menio where everyone
knows what should be there. This was public information, distributed by the
August 23, 1999 7:30pni County Commissioner's Public IIearing. We were
nnisi.formed, misled and shocked to be expected to find errors after the fact.
.Q4:Z-
OR z z
y`
z
z
jig � � p
41 In
w 92
A
Ali
0.t
.r w d ii
p •-
u I!D'q v N C ,� Q
� s
�. a � � _-Ll
lip
4.2.11 General Commercial-IV (GC-41 District
i
a) Intent
The purpose of the General Commercial-IV (GC-4)
District is to provide suitable situated and sized
sites in Eno and Hillsborough Townships that allow a
broad range of commercial, office and service uses.
Performance standards will be used to insure the
absence of adverse impacts beyond the zoning district
boundary.
b) Application Criteria
This district will usually be applied where the
following conditions exist:
*Amended *1 . The site is within an area designated as either
4-22-86 Commercial or Industrial Transition Activity
4-4-88 Node, by the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
2 . Water and sewer mains exist at the site or are to
be made available as part of the development
process or the lot size for individual uses are
appropriate to the method of water supply and
sewage disposal.
*Amended *3 . All property to be designated for new development
4-4-88 under this classification shall have direct
access to major collector streets, as designated
by the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
*4.2. 12 Existing Commercial-V E� C-51 District
*Amended a) Intent
10-4-82
4-4-88 The purpose of the Existing Commercial-V (EC-5)
District is to provide a district to be used only
during the application of zoning to previously unzoned
townships to accommodate existing commercial uses or
in zoned townships to previously zoned commercial
property which is not located in areas designated as
Activity Nodes by the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
b) Application Criteria
*Amended This district will be applied to existing commercial
4-4-88 uses in unzoned townships and previously zoned
commercial property located in areas not designated as
Activity Nodes in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
This designation shall only be applied to property
used for existing commercial at the time of
application of this ordinance.
4.2. 13 RESERVED
4-6
Pictures
Item 21.) Placement of public hearing sign notice, oil affected property.
Per Article 20.6.2 zoning officer is to place notice of public hearing on affected
property.
Sign was PIaced on pole amid (lie .tour subdivided lots of Mr. McBroom which
is adjacent property, it was removed shortly after placing by persons uril nowil
and replace only on 09.101/99 121 the afternoon in the sable place originally set.
Pictures (6) available for viewing upon request.
Orange County shall be adopted by reference as though fully
set forth herein. Any map amendments adopted by Orange
County shall be officially denoted on the County Zoning
Atlas . Where there is inconsistency between the amendment
procedures contained in this Article and those contained in
the Joint Planning Agreement, the provisions of the Joint
Planning Agreement shall apply.
20.4 Referral of Amendment Application to Planning Board
Amended 'The Zoning 'Officer- shall submit any application for
3/18/86 amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board at the
first regular meeting after the expiration of the 30-day
period specified in 20 . 3 . 3 or any extension thereof . This
provision shall not apply to any application for amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance text.
20.5 The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board
Shall Hold A Public Hearing
The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board
shall hear applications for amendments to this ordinance in
a Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular
meeting in August, November, February and May.
20.6 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof
20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County
Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to
Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be
7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the
time and place of such hearing and the substance of the
proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said
newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice
appearing not less than ten ( 10) days nor more than twenty-
five (25) days before the 'date set for the public hearing.
In computing the notice period, the day of publication is
not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be
included.
20.6.2 The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning
atlas shall post on the applicant's affected property a
notice of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the
date of said hearing.
20.6.3 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written
notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected
Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less
11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent
property owners are those whose names and addresses are
currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose
property lies within five hundred feet of the affected
property.
If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the
County, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all
20-3
VOTE: AYES, 4; NO, 1 (Commissioner Carey) c
d. Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment -Z-3-99 - Ernie McBroom
The Board considered a request by Ernie McBroom to rezone a 10.01-acre tract in Cedar
Grove Township from Agricultural-Residential (AR) to Agricultural-Service (AS).
Craig Benedict gave an update on this situation. He said that there was a public hearing on
August 23rd. The staff and administration have considered all written materials provided by the applicant
and the residents. The staff recommendation is to deny Ernie McBroom's request to rezone his 10.01-
acre tract from AR to AS.
Mr. McBroom asked if the Board reviewed the plat of what he wants to do. He wants to dump
stumps and brush from another 50 acres of land that he owns, and then bring in the equipment to grind
this debris for mulch. He was told that the tract had to be rezoned to do this. His intent was to get rid of
stumps and brush in a legal way.
Pam Alexander said that she represents the community, those who are present, and those
who could not be here tonight. She presented a petition of 160 names asking for a denial of Mr.
McBroom's request. She said that they have sent emails, made telephone calls, and written letters to the
Board of County Commissioners. She urged the Board to listen to the concerns they have expressed.
She asked the County Commissioners to consider their pleas and deny the request for rezoning.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked the citizens for their emails. He said that when the rezoning
first came before the Board, several Commissioners mentioned to the staff that they were concerned
about the uses permitted in an agricultural service district. He does not feel this tract is a place for a
commercial business, especially a sawmill.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve
the staff's recommendation to deny Mr. McBroom's request to rezone a 10.01-acre tract in Cedar Grove
Township from Agricultural-Residential (AR) to Agricultural-Service (AS).
Commissioner Halkiotis said that Mr. McBroom had made the comment in submitting his
application that there is no place in the County to put debris of this kind. He feels the County has a
responsibility to do something with stumps and brush. He feels that by using GIS the location of
residential growth can be tracked in the urban areas of this County. He feels that the idea was good and
there is a need for this kind of facility in Orange County.
Commissioner Brown feels that what the citizens have brought forth is the recognition that the
County's Land Use Plan is out of date, and that these permitted uses do not reflect what neighbors can
live with anymore. She agreed with Commissioner Halkiotis in that the County needs to look at these
permitted use tables and get a good understanding of the neighborhoods. She feels that it is clear that
this is not a good use for this area.
Chair Gordon said that she has always thought that community protection was important. She
also thinks that Mr. McBroom had a right to bring this request forward.
VOTE: AYES, 4; NO, 1 (Commissioner Halkiotis)
Craig Benedict announced that Jim Hinkley would be retiring from the Planning and
Inspections Department on November 1St, and this would be his last public meeting. He has worked in
Orange County for 10 years.
e. Accept Continuation of Grant Funds for Syphilis Elimination Project and Establish New
Public Health Educator Position
The Board was to consider accepting continuation of grant funds in the amount of$43,000 for
the syphilis elimination project and establishing a new permanent full-time public health educator position
to provide education and outreach services, but it was postponed to a future meeting.
f. Creation of Task Force to Develop a Northern Human Services Center Plan
The Board was to consider establishing a task force to develop a long-range plan for the
Northern Human Services Center and surrounding property, but it was postponed to a future meeting.
g_ Community College Task Force - Charge, Composition and Timeline