HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-12-1996 - X-B �l 1
ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5, 1996
Action Agenda
Item # X—o
SUBJECT: SUP(A) -1-95 REBA AND ROSES, INC.
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X_ No
ATTACHMENT(S) INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley
X2584
Findings of Fact
Application TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Site Maps
Public Hearing Minutes 11-29-95 Hillsborough - 732-8181
Planning Board Minutes 12-18-95 Durham - 688-7331
General Information Memorandum Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider a Special Use Permit Application for
non-residential use of a historic structure .
BACKGROUND: This Special Use Permit Application is submitted
by Laura Baldwin to continue the operation of Reba
and Roses gift and garden shop/greenhouse at 112
Baldwin Road. The business is located in a former
farm building on a historic property known as
Sunnyside. The non-residential use of the
property is currently in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance. However, non-residential use of
historic structures is allowed with approval of a
Special Use Permit .
The Baldwin property is located on the northwest
corner of St . Mary' s Road and Baldwin Road. It
consists of two parcels (5 .14 . .21 & 21A) totalling
56 .24 acres . Reba and Roses is located on a five-
acre portion of lot 21 . The property is zoned
Agricultural Residential . Other features of the
property include the historic residence and
smokehouse, and a chestnut tree orchard. Beef
cattle are also raised on the property.
r
2
Historical Significance of Property
Sunnyside was purchased by Captain John Berry in
1845 . It was enlarged and remodeled by Captain
Berry and is now a 2 1/2 story frame house known
for its double brick chimneys on each gable side.
The house now belongs to Laura Baldwin, and has
been in her family since the 19201s . Uses of the
property since the 1920 ' s have included, farming
of cotton, corn and lumber, and the raising of
chickens and quail . The home has been identified
by the County Commissioners as a site of historic
significance in "An Inventory of Sites of
Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological and
Geological Significance in the Unincorporated
Portion of Orange County". The North Carolina
Division of Archives and History recognizes
Sunnyside and has indicated that further study
regarding its eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places is warranted (see the
attached letter) .
Reba and Roses is located in a farm building
previously used to raise chickens and quail, and
is located several hundred feet to the rear of the
residence.
Surrounding Land Uses
Properties to the north, east, and south are zoned
AR Agricultural Residential . Property to the west
is zoned PD-H-R2 Planned Development District-
Rural Residential (Scotswood) and is designated in
the Land Use Element as 10-Year Transition Area.
Access
Access to Reba and Roses is from Baldwin Road (SR
1554) an existing unpaved State-maintained
secondary road. Traffic generation estimates
submitted by the applicant, based on use in
previous years, indicated that traffic volumes
-- - --- -_ range--from a low of 4 to 5 trips per day An
January, February, July, August and November, to
30 trips per day on week-ends in the remaining
months . Exceptions to these figures would be for
special events which may occur three or four times
per year. At these times traffic could increase
to about 50 trips per day. By comparison, a
single-family residence generates an average of 10
trips per day.
On February 21, 1995, the Board of Commissioners
approved the Preliminary Plan for Black Walnut
3
Farm, located on the east side of Baldwin Road
adjacent to Reba and Roses . Due to the
anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed 25-lot
subdivision, the subdivision approval included a
provision that Baldwin Road be realigned to the
east, if possible, to connect with a realignment
of Lawrence Road. In the event that Baldwin Road
and Lawrence Road could not be connected, then the
owner of Black Walnut Farm would be required to
dedicate and pave Baldwin Road to the east of its
existing location. If Baldwin Road were
realigned, then Reba and Roses could continue to
be accessed by the existing road, which would
function as a private drive, or access could be
provided directly from the realigned Baldwin Road.
The developer of Black Walnut Farm spoke at the
public hearing on November 27, 1995, and requested
that the applicant be required to participate in
the paving of Baldwin Road.
Traffic counts submitted by the applicant indicate
that the business generates an equivalent of five
single-family residences (50 trips per day) on the
days of heaviest use. Planning Staff finds that
these volumes are not significant to warrant a
requirement to improve Baldwin Road as a condition
of Special Use Permit approval .
Planning Board and Staff Findings
The application for a Class A Special Use Permit,
Historic Structure - Non-Residential Reuse/Mixed
Use, as provided for in Section 8 . 8 .24 of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance, has been reviewed
by the Planning Staff . Findings follow:
1 . An error was not made with respect to the
property when zoning was adopted for Eno
Township on March 2, 1970 .
2 . The-property was zoned AR on March 2, 1970,
in accordance with the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan.
3 . Issuing a Class A Special Use Permit and
developing the Special Use, in accordance
with the provisions stipulated in Section
8 .8 .24 and herein, would allow for Reba and
Roses to continue as a special use which will
maintain or enhance:
a. the public health, safety and general
4
welfare; and
b. the value of contiguous property.
4. The location and character of the use, if
developed according to the site plan
submitted, will be in harmony with the area
in which it is located.
5. The use will be in compliance with the plan
for physical development of the County as
embodied in these regulations and in the
Comprehensive Plan.
November 27, 1995 Public Hearing Comments
Several citizens spoke in support of the Special
Use Permit.
One neighboring property owner felt that the
business is not suitable for the area. He did
request that the Commissioners approve the Special
Use Permit, provided that the applicant be
required to participate equally in paving Baldwin
Road, and that the facility be inspected for
building code compliance. (See also comments under
"Access" heading. )
Minutes of the hearing are attached.
Planning Board Action
On December 18, 1995, the Planning Board
recommended approval of the Class A Special Use
Permit by a 7-3 vote, with the condition that the
structure be approved for commercial use by the
Orange County Inspections Division. (See attached
Minutes. ) Compliance with Federal and State
Building Codes is a requirement of Special Use
Permit approval. The applicant has retained a
registered engineer to determine the integrity of
the structure. The applicant intends to fulfill
the recommendations of the consulting engineer.
The Orange County Inspections Division will
inspect the premises and notify the applicant of
any required improvements to the structure and for
physically handicapped accessibility. These
improvements must be completed before the Special
Use Permit may be recorded.
RECOIrIIrIENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
proposed Class A Special Use Permit Application.
� W
r d
eo y
3 wyd
� ow F
3 4t e
b a
°
SZ a
Ca
4t ° ca °i
r A °
8d � „ .aa• 0 c
F
w to
p� M N Wa
z N LU g U a
p4 H °a = e►i w O
° o" a o
dL r
rA ui r
FA
r
CA
a � a et
41 ° ° "" 0 T et g ue
rl
fA
0
4a "_ .-. .-• � Cat M Y � � � � ar°r O a
Ga, �
y ` by a
Q C W "°"'
Od
p
6
i Q
-q0.
,4 Ct
'too �p � "� y� � y
a a � ,tyy4 ;
�c7 �°, `pia+ � ,a �aQ• � `n aa�0
a
Fa y, y a O t•` y O � 'C�� ,Q � 'ry � O s
e � v" � y ° � �� o
.�i v n�io� � m � r� O w tA
?
-404 k-71"
W
� g
Z, x
�t
PA - -
'Co Vol F � � "�� � � �► �o � ° ay o
i"'
a �'a A o o 0 4 a s
,,. d - O� a L1
Jim
40
0
o Z'
o
w
.+ e
a� v
as
N
dd
y Lei v A o
93•j°� y N
d �*
.o f, r �
�a 4, vot
100 °? a O tl VZO,
e .05 a' d p,
m y
aJA � g
�a tea "
3 �,,s,. V .p i
400 0, `ter t '$
to
OA 00
ds
�, °a
8 ,
W z z z z
` o
z
� a 3
a ..
� ' � oo eAt ^q• � w �
H � � z z z z zi z
�1
z
---------- - ---- --
o 0
ono w Z t, amt a a a^e a-
oho as Jo a, j :: o
.. ea a w a k s.
-11oa ° 3aA ° `� taawo �
.60 100 9 AA d �
°� ol moo c
- 9
z zi z1 z °
z
c�
z y J
y
Z
bCb as
aA
Jul $ a. s 'd a as ..
10 _ I W. � o
a ma o o 3
� a � o
a C4 O sq b !e '°
CIO if
O C6 ad .� a o �e
Z I ..p° b° v
aa °�'
QQ S!
p�7H Me H o° ® x z o..
� W
IIA 1. IIA ;I
� a >
�I I �I
z a � o � 11 f I I
Q F ° pp
� ea �
y 'C G C a
V as e4
U
�q••i � o 8o a�. a O ,o � Otg 99� �o Z cq��,o
c. & a�a l � 8$d �.o+
,pv�
a
x
a
x op
a A
a v ye
0
8 ti ag
OR
dt
�clsp4 � 8 a y ► $ boas xx
feA
IVA
OD
W a
x
a
a
�r
'u w
'off OA� � °
ioF
41 �
'�
"; 6 �acad � `� � `' ° a � o �► � A eta
ls
° IPA
All
ZO
0
°
x
_ x d
H
\ � d
7 , p'
I at �' �• G ea o w
N e4'a � G rA 4 u Al.-pG
3 o a rn
'I t a0 Q►% ;'erg
VIP
ton
va
iC
it
V ! ✓
o
w
� aap `" �+� °
40 0
VA
CA 4.
12
� z z
z M y�
q
7
L
C3 u
�1 y
ppqq �
EA 5 �
L
z x
H
z o
Ic
q
Iv
a o�
0 19
Sit aI
1�
13
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88
O
APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT It
ORANGE OU;TY B ARD OF COMMISSIONERS O
DATE: lo / /
APPLICATION NUMBER: PD-
I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permlt as pro ided for in Article of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance for
The following information is provided in support of this request: �J
A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: 1,44 Z�, /
Street Address or Location: 112-BALDWIIJRI
�{ Orange County Tax Ma lock 2—ILk- 21 Lot(s) Township CNQ
Zoning District(s): Kcoldw
Lot/Parcel Size: acres or 014.4-M square feet
Number of Existing Buildings: ross Floor Area: % _C u2f square feet
Number of Proposed Buildings: _Gross Floor Area:_ square feet
Water Supply: t _ Public (Specify) — Community Individual
Wastewater Disposal: Public (Specify) Communit //individual
�- School District: Fire Distri t: 5
General Land Uses in Area:
Critical Areas: Stream/Drainageway lood Prone Area
Watershed (Specify) SwIAA 54 6 Historic Site
Other (Explain) U
B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION:
Twenty-six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a rettistered North Carolina ✓ ;,W
surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the
following information:
North point, scale, and date.
/ Extent of area to be developed.
Locations and widths of all easements and rights-of-way-within-or adjacent to
the site.
Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site.
Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown
on flood maps or soils maps.
/ Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow.
i Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea
level datum.
Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage
areas.
Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access.
(PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE)
C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: 14
�.; re4v�aj ns of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
o (2) full-size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) copy
with the property in question clearly marked.
The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and/or applicant(s), and the
names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred
(500) feet of the property in question.
Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
— ' Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by
Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating:
1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid
waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not
available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department
certifying the suitability of the existing and/or proposed
wastewater treatment system for the property.
2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection.
3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting
documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our)
responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony,
exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the
Class A Special Use Permit.
APPLICANT SIGNATURES)
I
DATE
NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in-the-name of-the applicant(s),
please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request.
#i#tt•i##tii•ii•it##i•##flit►#tttttt#ittttti##iti#i##t##t•ttii#►tii#ti#i##iiiit
FEES: Amount $ � ��r Date Paid: I l Receipt #
W
/�.. RD. s7
^� PHELPS- 1BW S RD. 15
---- ------ ----- ---------- 1_--- — -:—� ----- ------- -- — ----------- --`
E
`�. jai 1. �� KA
C3 t 1
6 0 0 �p2
Rio 133
A
a� BURKE
1536 a? 4b 9i ; ! 1
.iJ yf� W -..�
SOL na
wuec y� r.
r OAA09 RD. \� , Eno '
ull ` � ' p .�'O•e � I /
v[/
Dl,nlec+� ENO Mt.RA � 1 � � s O — •—,
1110
d0
Bra r0l1 /AL
e.vmLTV IIa` a N. e NNIO tlR US�Df J �� A � oA va
TIN M
OAKDA&E DRIVE ` �Q L'`� ` =71► VS
AA1100 M.
O 9 \� ••k "ti„ ;L",�.t ;s`::ti;;?t at 177
CLASS A SPECUL, USE PER&HT APPLICATION
SUP(A)-1-95 Laura G. Baldwin N
Scale l"= 4,000'
16
2,46AC 4
9A
CL 0-
in cn
s _ _
s
✓~D`v' I
s'�.::r.-:� '•' 2402
•_ .
99 AC'
2.4 AC 3
..7:.�;`:I'r'•nx"�,'..•gt "�"•�ti�'.:.:aiz:9eS
AP 6-4SOCK B
M
p/0 326.g AC. _
HiLLSBORO TOWNSHIP ,
o
goo � � •
..,ir•L i /i
o f �-
� W Il
NANCY -
42107 ti
App
USE
r MSS A SPECIAL USE 1'P T
Si1P(A)-1-95
Lar' G. Baldwin
Scale 1"= 400'
��� ow 19 6; --- _ - -
�- 17
AppLiCATION
•� ' ' �" �y U$E pEJ� in
A $pEC Lea G.
Cj p)-1-95
o Scale 1
250'
a
atV Q w°o
v>d
w
21 T M- 514.21 PIN- 9885-02-449! OO
I
TM,- 5.!4..21A 01N- 9885-01-5067 10
® ENLARGEMENT OF SHOP AREA MICHAEL R. WHITFIELD`!
FOR REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
P EBA AND POSES, INC. 62TW CENTER ST,
MESA NE N.C.
NOTE: SUBJECT PROPEP.T Y IS ZONED AR (919) 304-4106
SCALE r.30'
NOTE:No SOLO WASTE DESPOSAL 0 Sa 100' Isa
SITE ON-ROPERTY OWNER 2 a
RECYCLES
NOTE:PROPERTY TO NORTH.WEST,
AND SOUTH ZONED AR AM loT Ms1 -2.0 -CO IAA[ 4!1 ON066 "411 8IW67 LU W%80011 NE9 1p1 N[0 rn
PROPERTY TO EAST ZONED AAEA PQ lOt �OCNT SOE 6 ■D0. LAND LAND NA7710 ANEA aPEN P2DESTRIN
Pp-H-R2. Uq WpTll ![itAC1f errs CN 1E16NT VPs ONLYI Woo"
sm M �M
S0.FT.
A[OOM[O AR LoT .0,000 l7C .0 20 25 22 213.5$4 110.1.242 114,.e
ACTUAL All l0T 5634 AGE6 1 750. 412 220 15 — 22 sm 2057.$" 202..000
'Mmm"LK
JO
u N
V
It
V
226.0
9.8 .Sl6'
J MOBILE lIOAE
1 1
PANIOI6!
!AC[ 1
I 4
! C=" 4PIh q�
i W. V
T
OC TAN1
I �AL�
1
I L
500, 1
SSTT �
SOB. sACt
°RY
so r
4 PAI.OR SPACES
�u
X20• 25Ts nm m.
`\ 1
`\ 1
'ON POW GARDEN �
AREA `1
1 1
Raw -
301 TREE BUFFER
•� EXSTING CEDARS IELEAGNUS
---��
SR 1554 rB TO BE PLANTED BY OWNER! A r-4M
L 60'
RAW
SnN
w'
2 g
POST
19
F
n
4
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
I, James R. Hinkley, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:
On or about November 10, 1995, I sent by Certified Mail,
postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on
Monday, November 27, at 7:30 pm at the A.L. Stanback Middle
} School at 3700 NC 86, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the
t purpose of providing all interested citizens an opportunity to
speak for or against a Class A Special Use Permit Application
SUP(A)-1-95' requested by Laura G. Baldwin owner of Reba and
Roses, Inc. , to allow for continuation of operation of a gift
shop and greenhouse on her 56.24-acre property at 112 Baldwin
Road (Tax Map No. 5.14. .21A & 21B) . The notice was sent to eight
f property owners who hold title to eight parcels lying within 500
feet of the Baldwin property requested for rezoning. A list of
these parcels and their owners is attached.
c James R. Hinkley, AICP
- - Zoning Officer
ATTEST:
- - - - Kay--Evans--
Notary
0
i
i
20
SUP(A)-1-95 ENO TOWNSHIP
Reba and Roses, Inc.
Laura G. Baldwin
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
Page One of One
Tax May Number Property Owners
4 .6.B.4 John W. Graham & A.H. Graham, Jr.
PO Box 2088
Durham, NC 27702
5. 14. . 19E Garry C. & Sylvia S. Whicker
1809 St. Mary's Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
5.14. . 19C Clarence Dupree Smith
1715 St. Mary's Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
5. 14. .22 Reid Roberts
2100 St. Mary's Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
5. 14. .22A Gary Dean Hughes
PO Box 891
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
5.14. .22B William Leonard and Shatzie F. Crowder
372 St. Mary's Road
Hills borough, NC 27278
5. 14. .22C Royce David & Wendy M. Marion
211 Lawrence Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
5.14. .39 Randolph Dudley Fox
2726 Croasdale Drive, Suite 1012
Durham, NC 27705
21
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES November 29, 1995
1 Jones' behalf and waived the fee. He commended them for their initiative. He requested that
2 the zoning be changed.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner WIlhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to
5 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than
6 January 16, 1996.
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 10 3. SPECIAL USE PERMITS
10 (a) SUP(A)-1-95 Reba and Roses (Non-Residential Use-Historic Structure)
11 The following people were sworn in to speak on this item: Mary Willis, Laura
12 Baldwin, Jo Barbour, Stephen Roberts and John Hartwell. This item was presented by Planner
13 Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a Class A Special Use Permit Application for non-
14 residential use of a historic structure. This Special Use Permit Application was submitted by
15 Laura Baldwin allowing her to continue the operation of Reba And Roses gift and garden
16 shop/greenhouse at 112 Baldwin Road. The business is located in a former farm building on a
17 historic site known as Sunnyside. The non-residential use of the property is currently in
18 violation of the Zoning Ordinance. However, non-residential use of historic structures is allowed
19 with approval of a Special Use Permit.
20
21 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
22 None.
23
24 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
25 A Planning Board member asked why the Special Use Permit was not requested several
26 years ago.
27 Mary Willis stated that when this business started it was simply a greenhouse and did not
28 require a Special Use Permit. It has evolved into a business that does require a Special Use
29 Permit.
30
31 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS.
32 Mary Baldwin, owner of Reba and Roses, spoke in support of this request. She is
33 committed to preserving the rural character or the area. She provides a place for local artists to
34 display their work. She also sells products that fit in with the atmosphere of rural character.
35 She distributed-pictums-of-# greenhouse, the-converted chicken house and surrounding land.
36 She stated that this is a commercial enterprise and a labor of love. Their customers come to
37 shop and to relax and visit. She requested that she be allowed to continue the business.
38
39 Jo Barbour lives in the area of Reba and Roses and is a customer. It is a wonderful
40 place to go and visit. She requested that this request be approved. She urged that the Board
41 of Commissioners support cottage industries.
42
43 Stephen Roberts indicated that he shares the property line and road with Reba and
44 Roses. He felt that this business is not suitable for the area, however, he requested that the
45 Commissioners approve the Special Use Permit with one condition. That condition would be
22
1 that Ms. Baldwin would be required to participate equally in paving the road and the right-of-
2 way from St. Mary's Road to Reba and Roses. He also asked that the Reba and Roses
3 facilities be inspected to assure that they meet all State safety standards and Federal handicap
4 accessibility standards.
5
6 John Hartwell spoke in support of this Special Use Permit. He stated that he has
7 discussed this request with most of the neighbors and each one of them supports her request.
8 The neighborhood wants to see this approved. He did express concern about necessary
9 improvements to the road and the intersection at St. Mary's. He requested that the
10 Commissioners consider apportioning the road costs so that those who will benefit from the
11 improvements are required to help with the costs.
12
13 Laura Baldwin requested that the Commissioners take into account that the cost of road
14 improvements for subdivisions are factored into the cost of the homes. It is not possible for her
15 to pass on the cost of improving this road to her customers. It would be an unreasonable and
16 devastating economic hardship on her. She also felt that only she bears the burden'of traffic to
17 Reba and Roses.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
20 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than
21 January 16, 1996.
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 4. Zoning_Ordinance Text Amendments
25 (a) Article 8.8.17 Telecommunications
26 This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis to receive comment on a
27 proposed amendment concerning Special Use Permit requirements for telecommunication
28 towers. The proliferation of telecommunication towers is an issue of concern to Orange County
29 as well as other jurisdictions nationwide. After reviewing provisions which have been adopted
30 in a number of other jurisdictions, the Planning staff recommends a proposed amendment. The
31 key aspects of this amendment are as-fo8ows: Telecommunication towers would be
32 established as a separate use and would require approval of a Class B Special Use Permit by
33 the Board of Adjustment. The set back to non-residential property lines could be reduced to
34 50% of the height of the tower if the remaining distance were included within an easement on
__—35_ __adjoining property._A_type-C Land-Use-Buffer(40 feet in-width) would need to be provided.-
36 Specific documentation to indicate that efforts to co-locate on an existing tower were- -
37 unsuccessful must be provided. Issues of tower color, lighting and view from historic site,
38 scenic road and major view corridor must be resolved. Obsolete towers must be removed.
39
40 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
41 None.
42
43 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
44 Planning Board member Bill Waddell asked about the request that engineers could
45 provide evidence that a setback includes the potential collapse zone.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12-18-95
23
The application has been reviewed by the Planning
Staff with the following findings:
1. An error was made with respect to the
property when zoning was adopted for Cedar
Grove Township on January 1, 1994;
2. Rezoning to EC-5 would be compatible with the
stipulations set forth for businesses in
operation on the effective date of zoning.
The Comprehensive Plan would not need to be
amended to accommodate EC-5 zoning.
3. Thirty-three uses are permitted by right in
the EC-5 zoning district. One use requires a
Class A Special Use Permit with approval of
the Board of County Commissioners, and three
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.
At the public hearing on November 27, 1995, one
statement was made in support- of the rezoning by
Mr. Mark Sheridan, Attorney for Mr. Jones. He
stated that a building on the premises had burned
down and needed replacing. When Mr. Jones applied
for a building permit, the zoning oversight was
discovered by the Planning Staff. No statements
were made in opposition to the rezoning request.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
rezoning request per findings. (A copy of the
findings is an attachment to these minutes on
pages . )
MOTION: Barrows moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
c. Special Use Permits
( 1) SUP A-1-95 Reba and Roses
(Non-Residential Use - Historic Structure)
Presentation by Jim Hinkley.
The abstract information and findings are
attachments to these minutes on pages
(Letters received regarding this request are
attachments to these minutes on pages . )
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
Class A Special Use Permit Application per the
24
findings, with the condition that the structure
be approved for commercial use by the Orange
County Inspections Division. Compliance with
Federal and State Building codes is a requirement
of Special Use Permit approval. The applicant is
in the process of obtaining certification from a
registered engineer regarding the integrity of
the structure. After review of this information
by the Orange County Inspections Division, the
applicant will be notified of any required
improvements to the structural and physically
handicapped accessibility requirements. These
improvements must be completed before the Special
Use Permit may be recorded.
Willis distributed a letter from Thomas R.
Magnuson of The Piedmont River Fords Project
citing the historic nature of Baldwin Road and
requesting that it not be paved. (Copy an
attachment to these minutes on page . j
Rosemond asked if the business would be allowed
to expand in the future if the Special Use Permit
is approved. Hinkley responded that they would
be held to the present plan. There is a six year
limitation on the Special Use Permit; it must be
renewed every six years. If they should wish to
expand, they must submit an application and
plan and go through the permitting process again.
Katz asked for clarification regarding compliance
with Federal building codes. Hinkley said that
standards of Federal Physically Impaired Access
Acts enforced by the State must be met. Katz also
asked if they must comply with the same codes as
for new commercial buildings. Hinkley noted that
they must comply with those codes regarding
safety and fire. Willis noted that the applicant
and Planning Staff have been working with a
private structural engineer and Inspections Staff
to determine what improvements must be made to
comply with the building code relating to fire,
safety, and handicap access.
Reid asked if the applicant would be subject to
any changes that might occur in building codes
if a request for renewal is presented in six
years. Hinkley responded that the applicant would
have to go through the process as if it were a
new application for a Special Use Permit.
Brown asked about the six year time limit and
whether the intent of that time limit was known.
Willis responded that she did not know the
25
intent. She continued that one purpose may be
because the use is to be tied with promoting the
historic character of the area and to assure that
the character is preserved.
Price asked for clarification regarding the issue
of Lawrence Road and Baldwin Road. Willis
responded that the issue arose when the
subdivision Black Walnut Farm was presented.
There was discussion of realignment for a better
configuration of the intersection. The attempt
was to move Baldwin Road further from the
historic structure. The issue has arisen again
because Reba and Roses uses Baldwin Road for
access. Willis emphasized that that access would
continue even if there was some alignment of
Baldwin Road.
Price expressed concern with the increase of
traffic with the growth of the business. Willis
responded that with the Special Use Permit there
would not be an expansion of the business.
Barrows asked if the road was to be paved to the
entrance of Black Walnut Farm when that
subdivision was presented. Willis responded that
before the last phase of the subdivision could be
done, the right-of-way must be dedicated and the
road paved. She continued that Staff was
attempting to build in some flexibility until
such time as NCDOT may be involved in paving the
road and also to allow some flexibility in terms
of obtaining right-of-way for the realignment of
Lawrence Road. Before the entire subdivision, 25
lots are created, there would have to be some
resolution in terms of road construction.
Barrows asked if the Planning Board had included
that as a condition of approval. Willis
responded that a condition in the Resolution of
Approval did address that concern.
Steve Yuhasz, surveyor, updated the Board on the
realignment of Baldwin Road. He noted that the
condition was that a commitment to pave the road
in some location other than the current location
after the creation of the ninth lot. There was a
potential for the property on the south side of
St. Mary's Road coming into the ownership of Mr.
Reid Roberts which would have allowed the
realignment. However, there is a new owner of
that property and it is very unlikely that a
realignment will occur. Thus, the condition the
developer is working under is that the road be
26
road so that it is entirely on the Roberts'
property. This would occur prior to the creation
of the tenth lot.
Howie asked if this then would have to be a
shared road because of the Special Use Permit
and allowing for commercial use. The concern was
with two driveways being created so close
together. Waddell responded that it was to be
public and the old road would be abandoned. Mr.
Yuhasz continued that NCDOT would require that
any connection between St. Mary's Road and the
realignment of Baldwin Road be broken somewhere
along the existing Baldwin Road right-of-way.
Thus, one could not get from the current entrance
to Baldwin Road to Reba and Roses on the existing
Baldwin Road; but could on the realigned Baldwin
Road. Waddell stated that since the paved road
would abut Reba and Roses, it made sense that
they would be able to use the paved road.
Howie referred to discussion of Black Walnut Farm
Subdivision regarding paving of the road 200 feet
beyond the entrance to the subdivision. Waddell
noted that was a condition of approval. Howie
asked why it was to be paved 200 feet beyond the
subdivision unless it was to be for the use of
Reba and Roses. Laura Baldwin responded that her
entrance was directly across from the
subdivision. Waddell noted he remembered the
discussion was in regard to protecting an
historic structure.
Laura Baldwin, owner of Reba and Roses, addressed
the issue of the request for a Special Use
Permit. She noted that the issue of the road does
create confusion regarding the Special Use Permit
but, she explained that there are two separate
issues.
Ms. Baldwin continued that the business of Reba
and Roses is her home and she makes a concerted
effort to fit the environment. She noted that
people visiting the business asked how it
happened and her response was that it came out of
what was already there. She stated that she had
taken the rural setting and created a lively
economic entity while still maintaining the
historic quality. She stated that her goal is to
make a good thing of Reba and Roses while keeping
the rural setting and quality. She noted that
when she first applied for the permit, she
anticipated being a nursery/greenhouse and a
cottage industry ware with onsite artists
27
painting and the public and the land grew the
business. She continued that the tremendous
growth over the last three years has not been
because of the desire for commercial gain, but,
for the land to fit into the rural character.
Ms. Baldwin stated that she did not cherish the
thought of seeing a great number of houses in the
immediate area; however, she clarified that she
accepted the fact that Orange County is going to
be developed, so she must find a way to live
within those bounds. Her efforts have been to
take her farmland and make it into an entity that
will fit within the area. She stated "I do not
deny the Roberts' the right to develop their
land, but I do deny them the right to put a road
next to my living room. " She continued
expressing her concern that the homeplace is
right on Baldwin Road and did not want Baldwin
Road to be paved and she understood that all it
would take from her to NCDOT would be that she
not grant the right-of-way needed to pave Baldwin
Road. The reason that the stipulation was made
that Baldwin Road be moved and she did not agree
to it being paved as it was, was mainly because
if it was paved, it became a State owned road
which had a thirty foot right-of-way on each side
which put it right next to the chimney and would
take up most of her side yard. The paving of the
road was requested because of the types of homes
that would be built in the subdivision. The
developer felt that the lots would not be
saleable if there was a dirt road. She continued
that whether or not Baldwin Road is paved, is not
an issue. The issue was, if the road is to be
paved, move it over.
Ms. Baldwin stated that she was willing for
Baldwin Road to go into the subdivision
entranceway; it would also be a throughway over
to Miller Road. She noted that, in monitoring the
traffic going by Reba and Roses, there was a
substantial increase and the majority was the
large trucks going to the develops being done on
Miller Road. There is a lot more traffic going by
Reba and Roses than stopping. She continued that
comments had been made that she should be
required to help pave the road and she had stated
that she could not economically do that. She
could not afford to pave the road and her
customers did not want the road to be paved. They
drive slowly to view the scenery, so they do not
require a paved road. She noted that there was
much more development going on than Black Walnut
28
Farm and Reba Roses.
Price expressed concern with the increase in
traffic and asked about another access from St.
Mary's Road. Ms. Baldwin responded that there was
access from the back from Miller Road, but that
is also a dirt road. There will be other families
impacted by that. There is also a DOT regulation
that there must be entranceways every 400 feet.
That was also a problem for Black Walnut Farm.
In the issue of Lawrence Road - Baldwin Road
realignment, there are several groups who are
working on plans of how to bypass the traffic.
One plan was that the Town of Hillsborough had a
Thoroughfare Plan that showed Lawrence Road
connecting with Baldwin Road so that you could
get traffic from 70 over to 86 and 57. There are
a lot of decisions that do not seem to connect.
She noted that NCDOT has stated that is not in
their plans. She expressed concern that
thoroughfares only bring more traffic and safety
is a big issue.
Price noted that her main concern was trip
generation on St. Mary's as well as Baldwin Road.
Ms. Baldwin responded that her business is
seasonal and as more is produced on Reba and
Roses, there will be fewer trucks delivering to
her business. The trucks delivering to her
business are no larger that the sewage treatment
truck that passes two to three times per day.
She stated that Baldwin Road is a detriment to
her home and her home is an asset to the
community. She agreed that she would be
responsible for some increase in traffic, but,
she was willing to accept the traffic and the
land to be impacted is her land. She also noted
that there were other greenhouses and nurseries
on dirt roads and they have not been required to
pave roads.
Steven Roberts, developer of Black Walnut Farm,
reviewed the history of his development noting
the criteria had all been met for a 24-lot
subdivision on a dirt. He continued that he had
contacted the Baldwins at the very earliest stage
of the subdivision and asked if they wished to
participate in the paving of Baldwin Road. This
was done out of courtesy to the neighbors. He
continued that he felt the paving of the road
would be an asset to the entire community. In
the process of obtaining approval for Black
Walnut Farm, there was a concerted effort of
newspaper articles trying to stop the development
29
any way it could be stopped. Mr. Roberts
continued that he and his family did not
participate in any rebuttals or editorials. The
Black Walnut Farm Subdivision was approved in
February 1995 and the stipulations had already
been reviewed by Mr. Yuhasz. He noted that the
cost that will be incurred by his development for
the paving will be $2600.00 per lot and, even
though they did not like it, they will abide by
the stipulation regarding paving if they can
afford it. The loss of prime real estate by
moving the road is one and one-third acres to
move the road away from an historical structure.
He noted respect for the historical nature of the
area and the neighbors.
Mr. Roberts continued that in all of the
discussion and disagreements regarding Black
Walnut Farm, he, nor his family ever brought to
the County's attention that there was a
commercial operation at the Baldwin home. He
noted it was a very nice operation and felt it
should be allowed to continue. He felt Reba and
Roses had a lot to offer to the community. He
noted also that he was a commercial inspector and
was well aware of the regulations that Reba and
Roses must meet with regard to the Fire Code and
Handicap Codes.
Mr. Roberts noted that he represented twenty-five
family members and what he wanted for his family
and development is fairness and consistency. He
felt it was not, by any means, fair that Black
Walnut Farm should bear the burden of the total
cost of moving and paving Baldwin Road. He felt
it was for the public good and Ms. Baldwin should
participate in the costs involved. He indicated
that the total cost would be in excess of
$50,000. He noted that the road was a shortcut
for trucks going to Fox Hill Farm and other
developments. He stated that his family did want
the request for the Special Use Permit to be
granted, but, asked that the Planning Board be
fair and consistent. He noted that both would
benefit, and it was only fair that both
participate in the costs of moving and paving
Baldwin Road. He emphasized again that he, nor
his family, was responsible for bringing the
issue of non-compliance of Reba and Roses to the
Planning Department. He asked only for the
fairness and consistency that the Planning Board
provides for all of Orange County and what is
expected by the public.
30
Barrows referred to Black Walnut Farm Subdivision
and the original request of the Roberts' that
there be a road that accessed right to St. Mary's
Road instead of Baldwin so that there would be
the connection to pavement. She noted that she
had felt that coming out Baldwin Road would be a
safer plan than "dumping" onto St. Mary's Road.
She asked if the Roberts were concerned with the
lots in the subdivision going from a gravel road
to a paved road and request the paving. Roberts
agreed that the first concept plan did come out
within proximity of Lawrence Road by seventy-five
to one hundred feet. He noted that he did discuss
this with NCDOT first and they felt it would work
if the Planning Department would pass it.
However, Planning felt that it would not work and
he reworked the plan to bring the entrances in as
it is now approved. His family's concern was that
it be an up-scale development and they felt there
would not be market for such development on a
dirt road. While, he did want the road paved, he
did not feel it should be a condition of
approval. It was a recommendation of the
Planning Board that the road be moved and paved.
Mr. Roberts emphasized again his request for
fairness and that Ms. Baldwin be required to
participate in the moving and paving of Baldwin
Road.
Jobsis asked what proportion of the cost that the
Roberts family was requesting and the response
was one-half the cost. He noted that he
estimated that the cost of moving and paving the
road would be approximately $18,000.00 plus a
$35,000.00 loss of property.
Katz asked if the Roberts would not have had to
pay for the cost of paving a road with the
original concept plan. Mr. Roberts responded
that it would have been an individual subdivision
road and would not have cost nearly as much since
it would not have had to meet NCDOT standards.
The use would have been for a twenty-four lot
subdivision, not the general public.
Adjournment time was reached.
MOTION: Reid moved to continue the meeting to complete
the request for a Special Use Permit for Reba and
Roses limiting the speakers who have not yet
spoken to three minutes and those who have
already spoken be limited to thirty seconds.
Seconded by Price.
31
VOTE: 10 in favor.
1 opposed - Brown.
(Brown left the meeting at 10:35 p.m. )
There was concern from the audience regarding the
issue of Flexible Development on this agenda.
Waddell responded that he would ask that Flexible
Development be the first item on the Long Range
Planning Board agenda for January 9, 1996 and the
second item on that agenda will be the Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment for Article 6. 16 - Home
Occupations.
Jay Zaragoza, spoke in support of Reba and Roses
noting that he felt it outrageous that Ms.
Baldwin would be expected to cost share for the
moving and paving of Baldwin Road. He recommended
that, if she did share in the cost of paving, she
also share in the profits from the subdivision.
He noted that the paving of the road would
enhance the value of the subdivision by at least
a quarter million dollars and emphasized again
that such a requirement of Ms. Baldwin would be
outrageous.
Sandy Ray, expressed support for Reba and Roses.
She noted that she had contacted NCDOT and had
spoken with Mr. Mike Mills. She was informed that
Baldwin Road was #92 on their list for paving.
She continued that she was told they will only
pave through #32 in 1996 and they will review and
reprioritize the list in December of 1996 and
January of 1997 . It is possible that Baldwin
Road could be moved up on the list. Also,
because there is a historical structure so near
the road, an Environmental Impact Study and a
Historical Impact Study will be required before
NCDOT does anything. There also are no plans to
realign Lawrence and Baldwin Roads and if the
request was presented to them, they would study
it.
Ms. Ray continued expressing support for Ms.
Baldwin and the efforts she has made to have Reba
and Roses the asset to the community that it is.
Price asked if Staff felt there would be much
impact on the maintenance of Baldwin Road and St.
Mary's with the approval of the Special Use
Permit. Willis responded that the traffic that
would be generated is no different than the
traffic that currently exists. She felt that the
moving and paving of Baldwin Road was not
germane to the issue of the Special Use Permit.
32
MOTION: Price moved approval of the request for the
Special Use Permit with agreement with the
findings as presented by the Planning Staff.
Seconded by Reid.
Barrows stated that she would have problems
voting in favor of the Special Use Permit without
stipulations. She remembered the discussion when
Black Walnut Farm was presented and the concerns
that led the Planning Board to recommend paving
of the road. She agreed with Mr. Roberts that
there should be some sharing of the cost of the
paving of the road, but, probably not with the
loss of land in the subdivision.
Katz stated that he felt paving the road would
definitely increase the value of the subdivision
but does not increase value of Reba and Roses,
rather it would detract from what is created by
Ms. Baldwin. He did not see the issue of
fairness since they would not be gaining value.
Price stated that she felt that the unpaved road
does add to the historical value of the Baldwin
property.
Jobsis stated that she remembered discussion of
the Black Walnut Farm Subdivision and one concern
was with the dust that would be created by those
in the subdivision if the road were not paved.
Ms. Baldwin responded that dust was not an issue,
that her concern was that she did not want the
road paved right beside her chimney. She
continued that there is also archaeological value
to Baldwin Road and she wishes to retain that
value.
Walters stated that she remembered that there was
concern expressed with the additional traffic.
Ms. Baldwin responded that the additional traffic
was not an issue. She emphasized again that she
was against the paving of the road right against
her home.
Mr. Roberts stated that there is documentation
that Ms. Baldwin did express concern with dust.
Howie stated that she had reread the minutes of
the meeting at which Black Walnut Farm was
presented. She continued by saying that the
developer had volunteered to pave the road but
did ask for participatory paving. However, all
that the Planning Board could do at that point,
was to encourage DOT to have participatory paving
33
and encourage the Commissioners to do the same.
She continued that paving was not asked for by
anyone
except the developer.
Waddell noted that the Commissioners took action
requiring paving of the developer.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
3 opposed (Barrows - reasons already stated;
Walters - agreed with Barrows, also some of the
comments from the original meeting and
tonight's meeting do not agree; Waddell - was
concerned that if it were a different person
with a different approach, he might not approve
it - thus, on principle, he must oppose it) .
Waddell reminded the Board that Flexible
Development and the Home Occupation amendment
would be presented, in that order, at the Long
Range Planning Board meeting on January 9, 1996.
Meeting adjourned 11: 10 p.m.
Prepared By
Approved By
Date
{ 34
SURVEY/PLANNING-NCSNPO TEL :919-715-4 t)1 Oct 09 '95 16 :38 N0 .005 P .0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James 13. Hunt, Jr„ Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain,Secretary William S. Price. Jr.. Director
October 26, 1993
Ms. Laura Baldwin
112 Baldwin Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: "Sunnyside" (John Berry-Baldwin Farm)
Orange County
gear Ms. Baldwin:
At your request, the above-referenced property was presented to the North
Carolina National Register Advisory Committee (NRAC) at its meeting in Raleigh
on October 14, 1993, for a preliminary assessment of the property's
eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The NRAC
is a board of professionals and citizens with expertise in history, architec-
tural history, and archaeology, and meets quarterly to advise me on the
eligibility of properties for the National Register and the adequacy of
nominations.
The committee determined that this property is potentially eligible for the
National Register and warrants further study. Accordingly, the property has
boon added to the Study List of potential, nominations to the National Regis-
ter, Placement on the Study List is the first stop in the National Register
listing process. Please note that placement on the Study List does not meat
automatic nomination to the National, Register. The next step, preparation of
-- - -- - -the-nomin-ation,- must-be initiated-by you. The enclosed set of National Regis=
ter FacL Sheets briefly explains the nomination and listing process.
If you wish to have your property nominated, we can provide a list of
qualified private consultants with whom you may contract to prepare the
nomination, our staff will advise property owners who wish to prepare their
own nominations, but because of the complexity of technical requirements and
standards of documentation, most nominations are prepared by historians or
architectural historians experienced in the nomination process. When a tech-
nically complete and adequately documented nomination is submitted to this
offico, staff can provide timely review and processing. However, we cannot
rewrite or make substantial revisions to inadequate nominations or provide in-
depth historical research services.
F 35
SURVEYiPLANNING-NCSHPO TEL :919-715-4801 Oct �j '95 16 :39 No .005 P .03
October 26, 1993 Page 2
Listing in the National Register is largely an honorary designation. It also
provides a measure of protection from any state or federally funded or
licensed project that might affect the property. In addition, the Tax Reform
Act of 1986 provides federal income tax incentives for the rehabilitation of
income-producing properties (commercial or residential rental) that are listed
in the National Register. The tax incentive program does not apply to owner-
occupied private residences, Please note that National, Register listing does
not restrict a private owner's use of his or her property.
Please let us know if the ownership of the property changes, if it is moved,
or if it is altered in any significant way. If you have questions about the
National Register program, please contact Ms. Linda H. Edmisten, National Reg-
ister Coordinator, Survey and Planning Branch, State Historic Preservation
Office, 109 Z. Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601-2807, 919/733-6545.
Sincerely,
�);SI-C,44 : ).?A�CA
William S. Price, Jr.
State Historic preservation Officer
WSP,Jr./sam
enclosures
ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
P.O. BOX 8181 36
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
27278
9-1-1 Communications Emergency Medical Services
24 Hour Warning Point Fire Marshal
7328161 • 933-2600 Hazardous Materials
Fax Machine 644-3030 • %8-2050
967-9026
November 17 , 1995
Q
TO: Jim Hinkley
Planning Department
FROM: Nick Waters, Director
RE: 112 Baldwin Road 0 St Mary 's Road
Hillsborough, NC
Fire and EMS Coverage
The Orange Rural. Fire Department provides fire coverage to
the referenced location; Jimmy Summey is the Chief. EMS
Coverage is provided by Orange County Emergency Management -
Division of EMS .
Please contact us if you need additional information.
Located at 1914 New Hope Church Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
SCOTT W. DO;RSETT - REALTOR • REAL ESTATE APPRAISER I CONSULTANT
133 E. King Street • P.O. Box 987, Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 732-3311 37
November 20, 1995 0
yl
Orange County Planning Dept.
Q
c/o Mr. Jim Hinkley
Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Planning Staff:
On November 17, 1995 1 personally inspected the Laura Baldwin
property located at 112 Baldwin Road, known as Reba and Roses,
and further identified as Tax Map 14 Lot 21A Eno Township,
containing 16 acres. During my inspection, I also drove around the
surrounding area, including Baldwin, St. Mary's, and New Sharon
Church Roads.
My inspection found the Reba and Roses structure to be a 200' x 31'
frame building, with a detached greenhouse behind the main
building. The rustic nature of the building allows it to blend in very
well with the surrounding viewscape. The structure is sitting over 250
feet off of Baldwin Road and there is a natural buffer of mixed pines
and hardwoods that are located along the front of the property. The
gravel parking lot is located in front of the structure and has the
capacity for 12-14 cars. The parking lot is long and narrow and like
the structure, is buffered from the roadway viewscape by the existing
trees and vegetation.
The subject neighborhood consists of mostly vacant farmland and
woodland, with scattered residential homesites, several churches,
and an occasional business or farming operation. Traffic appears to
be typical of other parts of Orange County, and Reba and Roses
38
does not appear to adversely impact the surrounding properties due
to increased traffic flow.
In my opinion the Reba and Roses business has no adverse
influence on any adjoining property. Land prices in this area are
appreciating as fast as any in northern Orange County. While the
Reba and Roses structure is above average in size at 6,200 square
feet, the structure is much more aesthetically pleasing to the eye
than older, dilapidated farm buildings like those located across the
road.
In conclusion, it is my opinion as a realtor and real estate appraiser,
that the Reba and Roses business shall maintain the value of
contiguous property. It's continued operation will not adversely affect
the public health, safety, or general welfare of any resident or
landowner in the area.
Respectfully Submitted,
�
�&VF�
Scott W. Dorsett
Realtor-Appraiser-Consultant
OInange County 94edth I' epotment
39
Daniel B.Reimer,MPH, Director
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION `"tat? of
ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION O, PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISION
P.O.Box 8181, Revere Rd. b°� * o P.O.Box 8181,300 W.Tryon St.
Hillsborough,N.C..C.2 7278 DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
2 Hillsborough,N.C.27278
tt 5�
�e.
ILLSBOROUGH CHAPEL HILL t4 date``pe MEBANE DURHAM
(919)732-8181 (919)967-9251 (919)227-2032 (919)668-7333
November 27, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Willis
FROM: Ron Holdway
RE: 5. 14. .21A
The above referenced property at 112 Baldwin Road has an old barn
building which was converted into a commercial business (Reba & Roses)
sometime during the early nineties.
There was a septic system installed in Aril of 1992 for that
conversion that will accommodate up to nine employees per day (owner
included) . The system was permitted by and the installation approved
by this office.
Please give me a call if you have any further questions concerning this
matter.
SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE: Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225, 100 N.Greensboro St., Carrboro,N.C.27510, (919)942-4168
40
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1996
SUBJECT: SUP(A)-1-95 REBA AND ROSES, INC. APPLICATION FOR A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CLASS A) FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES --
NON-RESIDENTIAL REUSE/MIXED USE
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Laura G. Baldwin
Reba and Roses, Inc.
112 Baldwin Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
LOCATION: 112 Baldwin Road (Tax Map No. 5.14..21A & 21B)
LOT SIZE: 5-acre site on a 56.24-acre tract
EXISTING SITE LAND USE: Commercial
LAND USE SURROUNDING 5-ACRE SPECIAL USE LOT:
- - NORTH ----_- Woods----_- - _ _ - -- ----- - -
WEST - Woods
SOUTH - Agricultural-Residential
EAST - Residential -- Black Walnut Farm Major Subdivision (In the
midst of the approval process)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Agricultural-Residential
e
EXISTING ZONING
41
AR Agricultural-Residential
BACKGROUND
Laura Baldwin received a Home Occupation Permit on March 11, 1992, to
operate an Arts and Crafts Studio on her property. On January 31, 1995, the
Planning Office received a complaint concerning the operation of Reba and Roses.
Inspection by this office on March 8, and March 14, revealed that:
1. Reba and Roses is a retail sales complex (gift, flower, plant, and garden
shop, greenhouse, outside display gardens, and parking), conducting
business and open to the public six days per week at 112 Baldwin Road;
and
2. Two off-premises commercial signs are evident: (1) a Reba and Roses sign
has been erected on the northwest comer of St. Mary's and Baldwin
Roads; and (2) a Reba and Roses -=D sign is posted on a tree in the curve on
Baldwin Road when approaching the entrance to the parking lot from St.
Mary's Road.
CURRENT USE/ZONING STATUS
Reba and Roses is a commercial establishment, currently operating in violation of
the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the owner has been cited for
the following use and sign violations:
1. This use of the property for retail sales of goods not manufactured on the
premises is in violation of the provisions of Section 6.16.6.3 Home
Occupations in the RB. AR and R-1 Districts of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance.
2. The use of the property for commercial activities in the AR Agricultural-
Residential Zoning District is in violation of Section 4.3 Permitted Use
Table (S42) of the Zoning Ordinance. Business use in the AR District is
permitted only where valid Home Occupation Permits or Special Use
Permits have been issued.
3. The abovementioned signs are in violation of Sections 9.5 Sia—ss Sub.ject to
Control and 9.11 Permitted Sign: Size Number Height. and Location Of
in the Zoning Ordinance.
The Zoning Enforcement Officer discussed four options with the owner to bring
the property into compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. These
are listed below:
1. Closing the business and using the property as permitted by right in the
AR Agricultural-Residential Zoning District;
42
2. Appealing the violation ruling of the Zoning Enforcement Officer to the
Orange County Board of Adjustment;
3. . Declaring the business to be solely for bona fide farm purposes, as
described in the North General Statues § 153A.340. Grant of Power.
Bona fide farm purposes include the production and
activities relating or incidental to the production of crops,
fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy,
livestock, poultry, and all other forms of agricultural
products having a domestic or foreign market.
and reducing the scope of the business to operate within the
bona fide farm parameters established by the General Statutes.
Bona Fide farms are exempt from Orange County zoning
regulations.
4. Applying for a Class A Special Use Permit for an Historic
Structures --Non-Residential Reuse/Mixed Use.
This Application represents the owner's choice of Option Number 4.
PROPOSED CLASS A SPECIAL USE
Historic Structures - Non-Residential Reuse/Nfixed Use
Provisions and standards of evaluation for Historic Structures - Non-
Residential Reuse/Mixed Use (Class A Special Use) are found in Section
8.8.24 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Intent
The purpose of the Class A Special Use Permit for Historic Structure -
Non-Residential Reuse/Mixed Use is to provide for the non-residential
productive use of historical and culturally significant properties which
is complimentary and compatible with surrounding areas and
appropriate in location with the given character of surrounding
development.
Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an
application for this use:
a) The site plan meets all requirements specified in Sections 8.8
(a) and 8.8.24.1(a) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
b) Proposed uses and facilities are complementary and compatible
with surrounding areas, and appropriate in the location
proposed given character of surrounding development. The 43
proposed use of the historic structure shall be of such a nature
so as to preserve the historic character of the site and the
building. Development of the site as proposed would have no
adverse impact beyond the building except for appropriate
parking facilities.
c) Structural alterations of historic structures shall be of such a
nature as to preserve the historic character of the building(s).
d) Fire, police and rescue services and water supply and
wastewater treatment methods are adequate to serve the
proposed uses and facilities.
e) Recreational areas, service areas, parking and screening are
adequate for the proposed use(s).
f) The site is served by direct access to a State-maintained road.
g) Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation is adequate for the
proposed use(s).
h) Applicable requirements of Articles 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 122
have been satisfied.
This use is to be a Class A Special Use Permit in the AR Agricultural-
Residential District. If approved, the permit is valid for six(6) years.