Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19850528 MINUTES 0 0 0 O J O ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MAY 28, 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County Planning Board for the purpose of a Joint Public Hearing on May 28, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. PLANNING BOARS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Alice Gordon and members Chris Best, Valerie Greenberg, Peter Kramer, Betty Margison, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl Walters, and Steve Yuhasz. STAFF PRESENT County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Director of Planning Marvin Collins, Planners Susan Smith and Gene Bell, Director of Economic Development Sylvia Price, Planning Secretary Joanna Bradshaw and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. 1. LUP-2-85 Chandler Concrete S'.o=any. Inc. (Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node.) Presentation was made by Gene Bell. This request by Chandler Concrete Company, Inc. is for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan (LUP) for a 4.34 acre tract of land on the south side of Old NC 10 OR 1710) about 1/2 mile from the intersection of new NC 86 referenced as Tax Map 45, Lot 32 in Hillsborough Township. It is currently classified Rural Residential with R-1 zoning. Mr. Chandler is requesting the designation of Ten Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Transition Node. The tract is adjacent to a 1.47 acre tract of land which contains Chandler's existing ready-mix concrete operation and is zoned I-3. The main events that led to this request were listed as follows: CHANDLER CONCRETE - SECONDARY AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE PLAN 10-3-84 Chandler Concrete merged undeveloped 4.34 acre tract to 1.47 acre tract containing their concrete plant. 1-7-85 Orange County Health Department and N.C. Division of Environ- mental Management (DEM) officials visited Chandler's new tract in response to citizen complaints about wastewater runoff. 1-10-85 Mr. J. C. Tuttle of Chandler Concrete was advised by a letter from DEM that they (Chandler Concrete) were illegally discharging wastewater and that a permit was required. DEM requested written plans by 2-1-85 for management of wastewater either by recycling on site or treating and discharging. 1-17-85 Application forms were sent to Chandler by DEM for discharge and on site management of wastewater. 1-30-85 Chandler responded to DEM and indicated intent to comply with DEM requirements. 2-8-85 Major transportation corridor (MTC) site plan was submitted to Orange County Planning Department. 2-13-85 Chandler received a permit from the Orange County Sedimentation 000001 Erosion Control Division to clear and grade new site. In con- junction with clearing and grading site, two retention ponds were constructed. Chandler planned to recycle water from lower pond back through concrete plant by use of pumps. This was an option suggested by DEM but Chandler did not obtain required state permits. 2-14-85 MTC site plan approval was issued by the Planning Department in conjunction with grading and clearing activities permitted by Sedimentation and Erosion Control Division. 3-25-85 A citizen's complaint was received by the Orange County Planning Department concerning Chandler's use of new tract for washing and parking concrete trucks. 4-9-85 Chandler officials met with the Planning Department and were advised that their use of the new tract was non-conforming since the use was an extension of their existing I-3 operation and the new site was zoned R-1. Washing and parking trucks and run-off retention were both non-conforming uses. They were advised to apply for a Land Use Plan amendment and, if successful, rezoning. They were warned against further use of the property until it was brought into compliance with zoning ordinance. 4-17-85 Application for amendment of Land Use Plan received from Chandler. 5-8-85 Chandler Concrete was notified by attorney for Dr. Sally Feather and Ms. Betsy Rhine of pending legal action if non-conforming uses not terminated. 5-16-85 Complaint filed with Orange County Planning Department by attorney for Dr. Sally Feather and Ms. Betsy Rhine. 5-17-85 Chandler barricaded new driveway connecting site to Old NC 10 and ceased non-conforming use of property. 5-20-85 Planning Department met with DEM to discuss project history, options, enforcement action, etc., and to conduct site visit. 5-20-85 Chandler was formally notified by the Orange County Planning Department that all non-conforming uses of the 4.34 acre tract must cease immediately until such time as properly zoned. * This reflects main events and does not include all correspondence or tele- phone calls regarding Chandler Concrete, State Agencies and opponents to the rezoning request. Bell stated that as of May 209 1985 DEM still had not received necessary application materials from Chandler. DEM also noted that they had not advised Chandler to go off site with the retention facilities; in fact, they had suggested they use the western portion of their tract which was being used to store concrete barricades at the time. 000092 The procedures for amending the LUP states three reasons for which the LUP may be amended. These are: (1) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; (2) to correct an error or omission in the Plan; (3) in response to a change in land use policy. In response to the first test, Staff contends that this area has been undergoing changes and that the Central Orange Area Study adopted in November 1983 adequately addressed these changes. In response to the second, staff maintains that no errors or omissions regarding the Chandler property were made in the Central Orange Area Study. In response to the third test. there has been no change in land use policy that would justify an amendment. Applying the Locational Criteria contained in Section 3.4 of the LUP, staff finds that the site meets all requirements of Rural Residential except Energy Use which states that Rural Residential areas should be at least five minutes commuting time from an activity node. This site is closer than five minutes. With regard to the Locational Criteria for Ten Year Transition, staff finds it does not meet the test for Public Service/utilities which states: Located in areas which are or could be reasonably and efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities. There are Town of Hillsborough water lines which serve surrounding properties. However, these lines suffer from flow and pressure limitations. Providing sewer to the area would be costly because of topographic limitations which would require the use of pump stations. Locational Criteron for Transportation System states: Located in areas that have very good road access, as well as service by rail lines. These areas should have the most complete transportation network in the County's planning jurisdiction. This site does have direct access to rail lines in that the western boundary of the property is Southern Railway. However, the road system is somewhat limiting. Frontage is on Old NC 10 (SR 1710) which is classified as a collector. The Locational Criteron for Existing Land Use states: Located in areas which are in transition from rural or low density uses to urban or higher density uses. Staff contends that the tract in question is located adjacent to such areas, but UQL in them. The final Locational Criteron for Ten Year Transition is Population Density, which states: Located in areas with moderate to high population densities. Once again, staff contends that the tract in question is located adjacent to such an area but not in one. The Locational Criteria for a Commercial Industrial Transition Node are basically the same as those for Ten Year Transition except the Existing Land Use criteria states: Located within identified Ten or Twenty Year Transition Areas, which the site currently is not. The Planning Department recommends denial of the request. The tract was properly classified in the Central Orange Area Study. Their opinion is that the area delineated by I-85 to the north, Orange Mobile Home Park to the west, and Southern Railway to the south is correctly classified as Rural Residential per the Locational Criteria previously enumerated. Bell further noted that staff recieved many letters of opposition on this amendment request. Copies of these letters were included in agenda packets or 000003 distributed at the meeting tonight. Most of the opposition has come from surrounding property owners. Orange County Health Department and Town of Hillsborough Planning Board have also expressed opposition. Tom Chandler, President of Chandler Concrete Company, made the following presentation: His operation has been in Hillsborough since 1972. At that time, other surrounding businesses and mobile home parks were not in the area. He was contacted in August of 1984 about the availability of land adjoining his tract. He noted that he was led to believe that the property was already in the Land Use Plan as commercial property. Nothing was done with the property until January 1985. At this time, representatives of DEM visited the site and informed Mr. Chandler that they had received a report that acid was being used and present in the runoff from this property. DEM did find high acidity levels and from that point on. Chandler was told to take steps to control the flow of the water that was coming from the washing out of the trucks. Chandler asked for assistance from DEM and forms were sent to apply for permits. These permits have been filed with DEM in Raleigh. A permit was issued by Soil and Erosion for grading and clearing of land and a firm was hired to do this grading, slope the land and put in the ponds. At the time Chandler was notified that the property could not be used for the purpose of parking the vehicles, so parking was stopped. Mr. Chandler continued that when he put the grading plan into effect, a gravel drive was constructed that comes out onto SR 1710. This drive would give much better visibility and safer access due to the fact that the current exit is in a curve. This new entrance has been blocked and is not being used in accordance with ruling by the Planning Department. Chandler felt justified in applying for the amendment to the LUP by several factors as follows: The criteria given to him when he first talked to Planning Department Members indicated justification for asking for the amendment because: 1. there was adjoining land and the company would not be expanding the use more than 10 acres; 2. company has been in area for 13 years, belonging to the Chamber of Commerce and felt that they have been good corporate citizens in their support of area projects such as school projects and United Way, 3. company has 18 employees and 15 ready-mix trucks; which have brought payroll taxes and sales tax and property tax into Orange County. Mr. Chandler continued by addresing the runoff problem. He explained that the concrete remover used to clean the trucks does contain muriatic acid but when mixed with concrete dust will be neutralized. If he is allowed to continue to use the ponds on the property he can set up the reclaiming system he needs to separate the sand and stone from the slurry. The lime would then settle out and could be used for application to agricultural lands. Gordon inquired if Mr. Chandler would like to address the Locational Criteria as referred to by Bell. Chandler responded that he felt the land was well suited to the Ten Year Transition plan, there was water to the property, it is not in the 100-year floodplain, the land slopes are no problem, it has good access both by road and railroad, is only a few minutes from center of Hillsborough, it is no threat to plants or animals, with no bad effect on forestry or agriculture and it is already in the transition area between urban and rural areas. Gordon inquired about changing conditions. Bell explained this step again. Chandler's response to this was the changes were commercial as the 000094 mini-warehouses and a convenience store have come into being since Chandler Concrete Plant was put into effect. Harry Harkins, attorney representing Dr. Sally Feather and Ms. Betsy Rhine, spoke in opposition stating that his clients felt that this request went to the very essence of why Orange County needs the Land Use Plan. It would destroy the buffer zone between the concrete plant and the residential area. Harkins noted that Chandler did not acquire this land from the Rhine heirs. The property was sold to a real estate agent who later sold it to Chandler Concrete. The Rhine heirs would never have sold this property for commercial use. Laura Feather, daughter of Dr. Sally Feather, then read a letter (A copy of the descriptive narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the office of the Clerk to the Board) from Dr. Sally Feather in opposition of the amendment to the LUP. Ms. Feather continued, speaking in her own behalf. She felt the concrete company had shown a lack of regard for the well-being of the residents in the area. She continued that she felt it had been misused as an industrial waste disposal site and that it did jeopardize comfort, health and safety of the neighbors. She also expressed concerns with traffic safety given the number and size of vehicles and the narrow road. The concern for screening and buffer area was again expressed. Betsy Rhine, whose home is directly across the road from Chandler Concrete Co., then spoke. She stated that from her driveway she could view the entire project. She noted the lack of trees and stated that this helped to magnify the noise from the project. She stated that last summer the property was divided among the heirs and her brother went to Apple Creek Realty to talk to Mr. James Rae Freeland about the possibility of selling his property and Mr. Freeland assured him that the zoning would remain Residential-1. Her brother, with this reassurance, sold the land to James Freeland in late August of 1984. In early March 1985, she noted the property was completely cleared and stripped of all vegetation and it was evident that Chandler Concrete was expanding its operation. Ms. Rhine noted that she then contacted the Planning Department. She indicated it was two weeks before work was stopped on the site. She continued that the applicant had continued to use the land for cleaning the concrete trucks and emptying out into the pits. A petition was circulated among residents and she noted that almost everyone had complaints. She cited a letter from Ada Nichols expressing concern over the destruction of her driveway by the trucks. Gordon reminded citizens at this point, that this was only a request for a LUP amendment. If the amendment was implemented, then a request for rezoning would come forth. A real estate appraiser from Chapel Hill, P. H. Craig, was retained by the Rhines and he presented the following findings: He referenced maps regarding potential homesites and noted that they would look straight across to the pits and the lake precludes effective screening; all topsoil has been stripped and pits are easily visible. All frontages on SR 1710 will be adversly effected by the use or rezoning. He felt the whole 46 acres would suffer about $30,000 damage. M. C. Allison, a resident in Strayhorn Hills since 1978, spoke for residents of his immediate neighborhood. He noted damage done to vehicles due to rocks being thrown by concrete trucks. There were places where the cement had been emptied on the side of the road. Willard Cates, resident of Byrdsville for 12 years, expressed concern with traffic problems, debris and concrete spillage on sides of the road and near stop sign. 000095 2. Z-7-85 GEORGE HORTON REZONING The presentation was made by Director of Planning Marvin Collins. This agenda item is to consider a rezoning request for George Horton. C. D. Hogue is requesting a rezoning for George Horton on 86.51 acres out of 103 acres of land located along Highway 70 Business southeast of Hillsborough. The remaining 16.49 acres will not be changed from present R-1 zoning designation. The property is referenced as Tax Map 40 Block A Lots 11 and 14 of Hillsborough Township. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning is R-1. The applicant is requesting 26.65 acres to be rezoned to 0-I and 59.86 acres to be rezoned I-1. Approval of the request would allow Office-institutional uses on the 16.65 acres and Industrial-1 uses on the 59.86 acres. A 1984 traffic count on Business 70 indicated 1200 trips per day. On N.C. 86 between Business 70 and Valley Forge Road (SR 1200) a 1984 traffic count indicated 4200 trips per day. If the 59.86 acres proposed to be zoned I-1 were developed approximately 3,137 trips per day could be generated. If the 26.65 acres proposed to be zoned 0-I were developed, an additional 3,866 trips would possibly be generated. Unless some other type of access is obtained, all of this traffic would be directed to U.S. 70 Business. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. 70 Business is presently classified at service level C or better. At the current speed limit of 45 MPH and given a 20' travelway, the capacity of U.S. 70 Business at service level C is estimated to be 5,770 trips per day. The Planning Staff recommends denial given potential traffic impacts and demands on public water and sewer facilities. Collins reviewed the criteria for rezoning as required by the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the finding of the Planning Staff was that the applicant has not complied with the criteria in that water and sewer mains are not presently available to serve the site. A letter from the Town of Hillsborough has been received stating that the Town is willing to permit the owner to connect to the Town water system providing all necessary requirements are met. County Attorney, Geoffrey Gledhill, indicated to the Planning Department that such a letter does not assure the connection to the Town of Hillsborough water and sewer system in that it is not approved on the part of the Town of Hillsborough. He also stated that the Ordinance specifies that the area zoned 0-I shall not exceed 5 acres. Applicant is requesting 26.65 acres be zoned 0-I. The criteria for I-1 has been met. Walker inquired of the reasoning for a Planned Development since traffic and water/sewer problems would still exist. Collins responded that Planned Development would require a Special Use Permit and under the special use process, the planning staff, Planning Board and Commissioners could address the adverse impacts of excess traffic generation, needed thoroughfare improvements and assurance that water and sewer lines are adequate to serve the property. Walker asked if this condition could be added. Collins responded that conditions could not be added to a general rezoning. Collins noted that the County would lose all control over the area if the property were zoned now. 000096 Collins noted that DOT had traditionally relied on local government to set down conditions to address traffic impacts. Walters inquired if the Commercial Industrial Activity Node surrounding the I-85 NC 86 interchange covered this property. Collins responded yes. It is clear in the LUP that this area is suitable for commercial and/or industrial development. Planning Staff felt that a Planned Development would give the County more control. Frank Pearson, Planning Board member, inquired if this property was in the MTC corridor and Collins responded yes. Pearson asked if the district provisions could not address the concern. Collins noted that the only thing that could be addressed through the MTC requirements was the provision for 1001 buffer adjacent to I- 85. The landscaping and screening requirement would apply to any commercial/industrial activity of this type. Collins noted a letter had been received in opposition from Bob Perera, adjacent property owner. Horace Johnson, Water Commissioner for the Town of Hillsborough, asked to clear up misconceptions on water and sewer for this project. He noted that he would personally endorse this project for the economic benefits and the increase in the tax base for the Town of Hillsborough. The Town has a checklist of 14 steps to go through in installing lines. Water pressure is good in this area and available less than 1000 feet from the project. Also, less than one mile away is a force main which can hook onto the waste treatment system. If there are situations that need correcting, the developer takes care of all of these to be able to connect to the system. The water pressure in this area is much greater than in any other part of Hillsborough. He noted there were pressure problems north of town and at present there is a moratorium in that area. Gordon asked if the Town can confer with the County and reach an agreement on a stronger letter about the availability of water and sewer service. Mr. Johnson referred again to the checklist and Gordon asked if it would be possible to get an idea how well the developer could meet the checklist. The water superintendent and Mr. Johnson go over the checklist with the developer and after he has met all the conditions, plans are sent to the State for approval before approval by the Town Board. Mr. Johnson noted that the Town Board fully endorses this project. George Horton, applicant, stated that he is a developer of residential property and that he moved to Hillsborough from New Jersey in June 1984. He has been working with Sylvia Price and all of the people involved and wants to develop this unique property in a way so that as much as possible will be preserved. He is aware of the traffic problem and has hired Rimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Raleigh to do a traffic analysis and report of potential traffic problems. At the present time, it is not known just what the market is and flexibility is needed to present to potential customers building designs to fit their needs. He continued that he felt the only way the site could be developed is through a rezoning. He sees extreme difficulties in trying to adhere to a Planned Development. The development would be a multiple of buildings. He also is aware that sewer service could be a problem, but sewer lines could not be brought to the site until Horton is sure he has a project. The traffic problems would vary due to the types of industry locating in the project. Mr. Horton expressed desire to have quality development, preserving as much of the site as possible. 00U097 Rufus Colter. planner for Mr. Horton, expressed the thought that the industrial park concept prevailing throughout the project is what is desired by the applicant. He felt this type development would sustain the high value of the site and be profitable to the Town of Hillsborough. Planning Board Chair Gordon reminded citizens that the issue seems to be whether to go for straight rezoning or planned development. She explained the differences in the two approaches. Lynn Moredock, of NC Museum of Science, spoke regarding plant rescue and requested that the pond site be preserved for the sake of the wildlife area around it. Michael Drown expressed concerns regarding traffic and basic supply of water for the area. He also had concerns with buffer zones. He noted that Mr. Horton had gone out of his way to meet approval of local residents and listen to their concerns. Drown also expressed the desire for a Planned Development. Mayor Sheffield spoke in support of the Horton rezoning for the Town Board by reading the recommendation from the Board. (A copy of the descriptive narr- ative is in the permanent agenda file in the office of the Clerk to the Board.) He noted he would be in favor of Planned Development only if the desired flexibility can be retained for the Industrial Park. He felt straight rezoning was the best way to go and that the water/sewer extension is under control. Traffic needs to be addressed and DOT assistance can help stay ahead of this problem. He expressed confidence in Mr. Horton to provide and assure a high quality development. Nelson Butts owns property adjoining the Horton track and he feels more confident in the kind of project Mr. Horton is proposing than others he has seen. Traffic, in his opinion, is a major problem. Sylvia Price, Economic Development Commission Director, reviewed the reasons for which the Board of County Commissioners created the EDC. The EDC was given the mission to provide job opportunities for the citizens of Orange County and to expand the tax base. This can be done in three ways: (1) help existing firms; (2) encourage new start-ups; and (3) attract suitable firms of the right type to move into Orange County and give us the diversification of new jobs we need. To do all three, even to help existing firms which have outgrown their existing locations, you need a place to put them. First, the planning process has identified sites as suitable for this type of development. The Land Use Plan guides me in determining where I would look for a suitable site. Second, you need good access, particularly interstate access. The firms want it and you do not need to funnel traffic through back roads. It happens that most of the sites designated in the Land Use Plan have it. Third, you need sites that are zoned because when you are trying to attract industry it is competitive. Everyone else has zoned sites; Orange County needs zoned sites. We have a few zoned sites in Orange County. These are individual sites. We need to provide a range of facilities that will make firms look at Orange County. One approach to this is an industrial park. Some firms want indi- vidual sites to develop in their own style. Two good examples of these are Brady Company and Wilmore Electronics. Both are a credit to the community. Other firms want to move into an image by buying into an area with a good image and where they will fit in. We need both. Last year the EDC decided to promote the establishment of quality indus- trial parks to complete the package of what we have to offer. However, we need both isolated individual sites and the park-type setting. All of these are to be located in correct areas in respect to the Land Use Plan and in taking 000098 account of the environment. Again, we need a choice because Orange County is on the fringe of the Research Triangle Park. Research Triangle Park is basic- ally for research and research applications. Things associated with it tend to locate around the edges of the park, particularly in industrial parks located on the fringe. If a company is looking for a park location, they do not look at Orange County because we have no industrial park. Therefore, we need both individual sites and industrial park sites and we need them properly zoned. Competition requires this. The kind of companies we want are choosy. We need to be able to offer them the choice to get them to look at Orange County so we can look them over too. We are choosy too. We want non-polluting, high quality, good paying jobs and a range of skills. We can be choosy on who we accept. But, we need to attract them so we can be as selective as possible. She indicated that the Horton project met all the criteria of the Land Use Plan and the needs of the area, including quality development. She urged the Boards to support this rezoning so that the County can go after the type of industry she described for northern Orange County. Cormann Drumm, NC Dept. of Commerce, stated that industrial parks, with restrictive covenants, are becoming popular within the state. Industrial parks, when properly graded, preserve the aesthetic value of the property. He cited some parks around the state that are good examples of quality developme nt. He stated that he feels rezoning is mandatory. If the zoning is not available, prospective clients do not even consider an area. Businesses looking for industrial parks go to the State for guidance. This, too, would help assure Orange County that unsuitable industry would not be directed this way. Valerie Greenberg inquired if Mr. Drumm felt that would hinder the goals that EDC had mentioned. Drumm responded that he felt that a planned development of this type is very difficult when you don't know all the types of industry that may be interested in development in the area. Sylvia Price also was asked this question of planned development versus straight rezoning. She responded that this was not like a subdivision. You do not know the exact size, shape, and number of buildings. Basically, you need to be able to tell clients you will build to meet their individual needs. Walker noted the question of whether planned development would be detrimental had not been answered. Price responded that in a project such as this you could not do an accurate or adequate planned development. If the clients didn't want the kind of building shown on the plan, the whole process, which kills client relationships, would have to be worked through again. Willhoit noted that the EDC had been concerned for a long time with having land that was prezoned. He understood the Planning Board's desire to have planned development applications so that many of the features of development can be reviewed and so that it can be determined if it is the type of devel- opment the County wants. Given that the request was presented as a straight rezoning and granted that approval cannot be given conditionally the County has, however, been presented witha lot of information that goes beyond what we might ordinarily get in a rezoning request. He assumed that the EDC has worked closely with Mr. Horton in terms of the concept and, recognizing the importance of the parcel at the entry to Hillsborough, that there is a desire to make it a model type development which will really set the pattern for future economic development. 000099 He continued that the Planning Board needs to take a look at planned devel- opments, noting the four major parts of a planned development include: access (roads); screening; building and parking; and landscaping, though there may be other things considered also. Wilhoit continued that there may be an intermediate step in prezoning where it may be a rezoning, but also a planned development that would at least address access and screening. He understood that that may not be practical in this case. Price responded that the criteria mentioned would have to be met prior to actual development of the site. She noted that potential clients would not look at sites that were not zoned. Wilhoit continued that landscaping depends on the type of buildings proposed. But it was clear that this project was not at the stage of recommending buildings and that appears to be the reason why a planned development is not proposed. Sylvia Price again stated that clients will not look at Orange County unless the sites are zoned. They then want to know the requirements for development of the site. She continued that they want to know if they can actually do the deal and are looking for a reason to scratch Orange County off their list of potential sites. Willhoit clarified that he was trying to suggest that a way to look at planned developments in the future for industrial parks would be for the planned development to deal with access and screening questions which are independent of the type of development that goes on within the tract of land. Perhaps for industrial parks that would be sufficient if we address those and perhaps some limit on the number of vehicles or square footage without specifying design of individual buildings. Price noted that at the moment she was operating in a vacuum. Wilhoit noted that perhaps planned development standards do not fit well with industrial park type development, but were oriented more for other types of development. Marshall noted that it may be worthwhile for the Board to look at what it could do to facilitate this development. particularly when it's in a major transportation corridor. The group of regulations may not be complete, but there will still be some control over the rezoning, rather than just looking at industrial parks alone. Price urged the rezoning and monitoring the development closely. John Gastineau, chairman of EDC, spoke of the need for industrial parks. This site has been identified as the best choice for the first park in the County. He feels the Horton project meets all the important criteria for quality development of the kind Orange County is seeking. Henrietta Auman, an adjoining property owners stated she had lived in this area for forty years. She expressed concern with the buffer zone and she asked for assurance of supervision once the work begins. 3. Z-8-85 SCOTSWOOD (Rezoning from Residential-1 to Residential-2, Residential-4 and General Commercial-IV.) The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Collins expressed a staff preference that development of this property be pursued as a planned development. Collins cited the comments of George Vaughn received by phone in opposition to the project. Sharlene Pilkey inquired about the traffic counters near the site. Susan Smith responded that the counters were being used to provide data for the Secondary Roads Improvements Program. 000100 Valerie Greenberg inquired about the letter from the Town of Hillsborough. Collins reviewed the letter. Greenberg asked if there was a guarantee of a solution to the water pressure problem. Collins responded .that no solution had been received in writing. Alice Gordon asked if the site was in the Hillsborough problem area, citing the connection moratorium. Mr. Johnson of the Town of Hillsborough clarified that the problem in this specific area is the flow from the hydrant and the low pressure due to a small 6" line size. He reviewed the history of expansion of the system in this area. Steve Yuhasz inquired what would likely result from approval without assurance of public water and sewer availability. Johnson responded that there would be no development without such approval. He noted Hillsborough was requiring 8" pipe for all new development. He also noted that the state must give approval for expansion of the Town system. Gordon noted that the project could otherwise be developed on well and septic system. Pilkey inquired where the nearest 8" line is located. Johnson responded that a 6" line along St. Mary's Road is 12 miles away. He again indicated the state would be requiring 8" lines. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a problem with larger lines feeding smaller lines. Johnson responded it would be likely that parallel lines would be run. John R. McAdams, representative for the applicant, made a presentation. He asked for a continuation of the public hearing noting that he and his client were not aware of any problems with the application until last week and would like an opportunity to address these problems. He noted that the rezoning has merits and that he was not aware of the staff recommendation of a planned development; however, he maintained that staff had directed them to pursue a straight rezoning early in the discussion on the project. He indicated his client was not in a rush on this project. McAdams continued that he was not aware of any capacity problems along U.S. 70 and that though the letter regarding water and sewer from the Town was cautionary, there was no real problem cited. He described the property and noted it was in a transition area. Reid Roberts indicated that neither he nor C.D. Smith nor Jery Van Webster were notified of the public hearing. Planning Staff member Susan Smith responded that all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property were notified and that in the case of Scotswood, labels for certified, return receipt notices were prepared by Data Processing. McAdams expressed a desire to negotiate with staff and receive futher imput. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey seconded by Commissioner Marshall to continue the public hearing until July 1, 1985. Attorney Coleman advised the Board to readvertise the public hearing and renotify adjacent property owners. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. Z-9-85 JAMES L. FREELAND (Rezoning from Residential-1 to Residential-4.) The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Barbara Page,representive of the Hillsborough Planning Board, noted that the public water and sewer lines for this area were unapproved and subject to a connections moratorium. There were no further comments on this item. 004. 101 5. PD-3-85 WEST TEN MOBILE PARR (Rezoning from Residential-1 to Planned Development Residential-1 with Class A Special Use Permit.) The presentation was made by Susan Smith. Smith introduced the May 24, 1985 letter from Philip Post and Associates into the record and introduced five photos submitted by the applicant of existing parks comparable to the proposed park. Six people were sworn in. Vickie Bledsoe, property owner along Squires Road, expressed opposition to the project, specifically addressing each of three general findings. She cited concerns with traffic, outdated trip data and compatibility with existing uses. She submitted an appraisal comment prepared by John W. Sharpe. She also entered into the record five photographs of the site area and one photograph alleged to be of the mobile home park owned by one of the applicants. She continued addressing general finding 03 indicating that if the project is in compliance with the Land Use Plan then she is not supportive of the plan citing aesthetics inconsistencies with a stable neighborhood; lack of site vegetation and screening/landscaping details; desire for reduction of the number of units to one per five acres; and a desire to redesign the park to locate the units further back on the site. Darrell Garrett, applicant, made a presentation on the project. He described the site and adjacent development. He rebutted Bledsoe's comment that the submitted photo was a photo of a mobile home park owned by his partner. He noted he had visited all adjacent property owners within 500' except two he could not reach, citing that he had not utilized a back door approach to the project. He noted there is a strong need for well-planned mobile home parks in the County. He continued that the park proposed would be subject to restrictions/rules of tenancy; all homes would be new, including replacements over time; that he had surveyed local mobile home dealers to determine need and type of homes feasible; that units for sale or over eight years old must be removed from the park; that a cluster method was utilized which resulted in a 250' buffer on three sides and a 100' buffer in the front; that an improved recreation area of 12-14 acres was proposed; and addressed traffic on West 10 Road, noting traffic was light. Garrett submitted two letters from individuals living near mobile home parks stating they had no concerns regarding the parks and submitted a photo of an existing park typifying the park he was proposing. Commissioner Lloyd inquired about the rules of tenancy. Garrett responded that he had developed them through incorporating the best park rules he could obtain and adding some of his own. Commissioner Carey asked if the pictures he submitted were of a park he owned. Garrett responded no, but were examples of his intentions with this development. He noted he would not like to disturb the back side of the property. Commissioner Lloyd asked if the picture submitted by Bledsoe was of a park owned by the applicant. Garrett responded it was not adding that the park that his partner owned was built in the 1960's and that some occupants had been there 25 years and that their units were old. Commissioner Willhoit noted the site was an open field and inquired of the applicant's intentions to landscape the project. Garrett responded he intended to landscape the front side with the largest trees which could be physically planted with a backhoe for the earliest possible growth; he intended to fence and plant shrubs and cedar trees along the sides, noting he cannot plant trees within the drainage fields. Willhoit asked how wide a visual buffer was proposed. Garrett responded in the front 100' and the sides 201. C. E. Squires, Jr. indicated he did not understand the standards cited on page 102. He questioned possible area devaluation; cited road hazards and speed limits on West Ten Road; expressed his concern that this project was not in the best interest of the neighborhood; and asked that if approved the Health Department would investigate the park within thee months. David Squires, Jr. expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts and childrens activities in the area; about the quality of people likely to reside in the park, and the quality of water supply in the area. Michael Chiorazzi expressed concerns regarding the sketchy plans, site slope and visual problems, traffic, and the nature of the present community to be changed by the park. Rent Mann indicated he felt this was a better approach and provided more control that individual lot or subdivision development. Garrett questioned the appraisal submitted, noting it was a guess and questioned the materials made available to the appraiser. He expressed concerns with not being able to question the appraiser. He noted the appraiser needed access to drawings and plans and cited landscaping plans he had that Tom Squires was given access to, but that he had not received a request for from the appraiser. Bledsoe responded that the appraiser had access to everything she had received from staff. 6. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDM EIS PRIVATE ROADS The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Carl Walters cited the problem encountered by his neighbor in subdividing property. Alton Cummings described his concern and inability to subdivide his land to give his sons homesites with a 30' right-of-way versus a 60' right-of-way. Commissioner Wilhoit asked if a variance could be granted. Smith responded there were no variances granted to Subdivision Regulations. Commissioner Carey questioned the 60' right-of-way. Susan Smith responded 50' was required. Cummings noted the land was to be used for family only. Commissioner Lloyd asked how planning staff could address this. Smith responded staff had proposed this amendment to address similar problems. Lloyd asked Cummings to contact planning staff to see if what is being proposed will allow him to subdivide his land. Henry McDonald noted he is presently unable to subdivide a lot so as to receive a building permit on land he purchased by deed as he is unable to secure additional access beyond a 121 right-of-way. WATERSHED STANDARDS The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. Yuhasz questioned the difference between the Town proposal which applies the stream buffer standard from the stream versus the County proposal which applies it from the edge of the flood plain. Collins responded staff proposed that current County Standards dictate. Yuhasz expressed concern with utilizing United States Geological (USG) maps for applying this standard as they are not intended for this purpose. Commissioner Lloyd noted that this could result in restricting use of many acres of land in certain areas. JL 03 Yuhasz expressed concern with unnessarily restricting uses allowed under the current floodplain ordinance from occurring and that these proposals are not thought out well. 7. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS The Presentation was made by Planner Susan Smith. Willhoit questioned regulating toxic materials. Smith responded it was a provision desired by the Planning Board. Chris Herndal described the needs of the Health Sciences Consortium. Willhoit asked the relationship between use of the facility for staff versus a retreat facility. Herndal responded 20 - 30 full time staff were proposed with some use of the facility for training purposes. No formal presentation was made nor comments received on the remaining public hearing items: Amendments to Article IV-Establishment of Permitted Use Table, Article VIII-Special Uses, Article XXII-Definitions, Article XI Non comformities, Article VI Application of Dimensional Requirements, Article XX Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance and Section IV-B-3-C-2 Partial widths, Section IV Required Minimum Design Standards of the Subdivision Regulations. D. ADJOURNMENT Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m. The next regular meeting will be held on June 3. 1985 in the Commissioners' room in the Court- house in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary