Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19850312 026 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 12, 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners continued in joint session with the Planning Board on March 12, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, NC for the purpose of holding a Joint Public Hearing. Commissioners Present: Chair Don Willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey and Ben Lloyd. Commissioner Absent: Norman Walker. Planning Board Members Present: Chair Alice Gordon, Chris Best, Steve Kizer, Nancy Laszlo, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl Walters, John Wilson, and Steve Yuhasz. Planning Board Members Absent: Ruth Burnette, Valerie Greenberg. Planning Staff Present: Susan Smith, Gene Bell and Joanna Bradshaw. Attorney Present: Geoffrey Gledhill. Staff Present: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, and Clerk and Administrative Assistant to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. I. REZONING REQUEST Z-2-85 DR. KHYE WENG NG AND WIFE GUAT CHANG NG 2. REZONING REQUEST Z-3-85 ROBERT A. & RACHEL S. SCHOLAR On both of these items the applicants requested a holdover until the May 27th public hearing so that water pressure problems can be addressed and possibly resolved. These requests were both held over. 3. PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT - WIL-C M TRUCK LINES This request was withdrawn by the applicant for two reasons: First, the applicant would like to work out arrangements for possible extension of sewer and water lines to his site for residential development as permitted in the Land Use Plan as amended in the West Orange Area Study and, secondly, the applicant was not prepared to speak to this item at this time. 4. Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment for Clarence Wayne Doby The Presentation was made by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a Zoning Atlas amendment for Cheeks Township. The proposed Zoning Atlas amendment addresses property located in Cheeks Township that was not included in the list of non-residential uses which was submitted to public hearing in November 1983 and approved in October 1984. This amendment for Clarence Wayne Doby refers to a greenhouse that came into existence following the November 1983 public hearing and was, therefore, not included on the list of non-residential use submitted to public hearing. Under the current Residential-1 zoning retail sales associated with a greenhouse are not permitted. An Existing Conv ercial V zoning will permit this 027 use. Consideration for this use for non-residential designation in the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Township would address the concern regarding the current nonconforming status of this use. Approval of the requested amendment would allow retail greenhouse sales. The recommendation from staff is that the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Tbwnship be amended as follows: Clarence Wayne Doby (Greenhouse) -Existing Commercial V for portion of lot dimensioned 2001x200' including structure measured from the southwestern corner along the southern western property lines. Commissioner Lloyd stated that the applicant gave him the dimension 2001x300' instead of the 2001x200' indicated on the abstract. Smith responded that the applicant had requested 2501x300' but that the staff's opinion was that a 2001x200' lot was sufficient to accommodate the use. Planning Board member Wilson stated that he thought the greenhouse was an agricultural use and was permitted. Smith responded that a greenhouse without on-premise sales was permitted in this zoning district, but that this greenhouse would have on-premise sales. Commissioner Lloyd requested that Smith explain again the reason for Planning Staff's recommendation of 2001x200' instead of the 2501000' requested by applicant. Smith responded that in staff's opinion, 2001x200' would accommAdate the existing structure and any parking and access requirements associated with that structure. It was also staff's opinion that 2501000' would be excessive. Planning Board member Shanklin asked Smith to check to be sure BC-5 would be the correct district given that it was not in existence as a business prior to the Zoning Ordinance taking effect. Smith responded that the structure was in existence and the applicant had indicated that the purpose for the structure was to have a commercial operation. There was no public continent. 5. PLANNED DEVEMPMENT PD-1-85/0AKWOOD ESTATES The Presentation was made by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a proposed Planned Development/Special Use Permit application. Chuck Sneed has requested a Planned Development-Housing (PD-H) designation for 34.7 acres of land from a 40.0 acre tract located west of SR 028 1450 Craig Road in Eno Township. The purpose of this request is to permit construction of a 32 unit mobile home park. The property in question is known as Lot 24A of Tax Map 16 in Eno Township. The property is partially located within Lebanon Township in Durham County. The applicant is requesting approval of those units wholly within Orange County. A subsequent request will be made to Durham County for the remaining units. The property is located within an Agricultural-Residential area as designated on the Orange County Land Use Plan. That designation permits single-family residential housing. The present zoning classification of the property is Agricultural Residential (A R). The requested designation is PD- H-A-R. Certain development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained for development to proceed. Approval of the request would allow a 32-unit mobile home park to be constructed on the site. The Durham district DOT has recommended a single entrance and 10' x 70' sight triangles with 50' tapers. A letter from Durham County Planning Department was cited which provided a courtesy review of the request and indicated they had no problems with the application. A letter from the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department was also cited which addressed some of the concerns raised by staff concerning the recreation area. (This letter is in the permanent agenda file.) A letter from Samuel M. Holton who owns 65 acres of land in Durham County directly across from the proposed Oakwood Estates was then cited which was in opposition to the mobile home park. Smith noted that the applicant has satisfied all findings required for a Planned Development Special Use Permit. The applicant also complies with all general standards rules and regulations; therefore, Planning Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the attached conditions. These reconanendations and conditions are provided as follows: MCCINMENDATIONS Article 8.2.2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found, in some specific manner, that: 1. The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; 029 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; 3. The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The burden of proving one or more of the above findings is on those opposing the application. The proof must also be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. No information has been received which would establish grounds for making one or more of the above findings. The Planning Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the general standards, specific rules, and required regulations. Staff recommends approval of the request. The Planning Staff does, however, recommend the attachment of conditions to any approval which are specified in the abstract and which are as follows: REMMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase that phase and a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travelways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; erection of street signs; utility installation and hookups and "tot lot"; landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units. 3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County to serve this development) , installation, servicing and hook-ups to the development and to each unit within the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 4. Roads, parking areas, walkways, street signs, utilities, recreation facilities and sites, landscaping and mulching around units shall be 030 maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 5. The grantee shall promulgate rules and regulations governing tenancy in the development which shall restrict accumulation of trash and rubbish outside of the mobile home units, shall restrict storage of goods outside of mobile homes and which shall further prohibit the storage of junked or unregistered motor vehicles. The grantee shall file with the Orange County Planning Department a copy of the rules and regulations promulgated under this condition and maintain an up-to-date copy of the rules and regulations in the Orange County Planning Department. 6. All roads within the mobile home park shall be hard surfaced with both entranceways designed according to Department of Transportation recommended road connection standards. 7. All roads within the mobile home park shall be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange County. Road name signs constructed to Orange County standards shall be erected at all intersections. 8. Removal of snow and ice from the roads in the development and the sidewalks within the development shall be the responsibility of the grantee. Such removal shall be completed promptly. 9. There shall be at least two (2) parking spaces per mobile home unit in the development. 10. Cluster mailboxes shall be provided close to each entrance, but far enough into the development to prevent traffic problems on Craig road. A pulloff shall be provided and the mailboxes set back off the main entrance roads. The entrance roads and pull-offs shall be of sufficient width to allow three or four cars to stop and get mail while others continue to pass. The mailboxes shll not be located in a place that would require cars to cross traffic, make unnatural turns or go against the flow of traffic. Cluster mailboxes shall be located outside of sight triangles for entranceways. 11. Prior to the initiation of construction activity, the Orange County Health Department final approval of the well and septic systems mast be obtained. 12. 100' radius easements for each well site must be designated on the site plan and the wells installed prior to issuance of any building permits. No residential unit may be located within the well easement. 13. The recreation areas shall be constructed as provided in the application and submitted site plan. The recreational facilities shall include an improved tot lot designed as recommended by the Orange County Recreation Department. The pedestrian paths serving the individual units and the recreation areas shall be a minimum of 5' wide and be composed of surface materials recommended by the Orange County Recreation Department. The 031 pedestrian paths shall be extended around the westernmost units to the recreation area and a pedestrian crossing provided to the north of the proposed recreation parking area. The recreation parking area shall be designed as an interior parking area with a single driveway access of main road. 14. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Signs following issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit. No sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development. 15. That the applicant satisfy all the standards for landscaping and screening provided in Article 12. 16. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. 17. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Division prior to the initiation of any construction activity. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on-going work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 18. Drainage easement shall be shown in a continuous manner and extended 30' into Lot #5. No structure may be located within the drainage easement. 19. The project must remain inunitary ownership and no lots can be sold to individuals. 20. A unit numbering system and corresponding unit location shall be filed with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permit. This system shall be used in obtaining and issuing any building permit. Any change in the unit numbering system mast be filed with the Orange County Planning Department. 21. A final boundry survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 22. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made a part of the final site plan and narrative shall be on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Grading and building permits, upon application, shall be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 032 23. The development shall be built and operated according to the site Plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. Smith particularly noted condition #6, which addresses roads within the mobile home park, and condition #13 which addresses recreational areas, as they address courtesy review recommendations received. Kizer inquired if there was a stub out to the western property line. Smith responded no. Kizer further inquired what was on the other side of this property and Smith responded that there was a large tract of undeveloped land behind this tract. Kizer asked why this request came in as a planned development rather than a straight subdivision. Smith responded that a planned development was required to pursue a mobile home park. A straight subdivision would provide for individual lots for sale or lease. Kizer noted that there would be less units in the planned development than in a straight subdivision. Smith responded this was correct and that, in addition, there was a 100' buffer proposed around the perimeter of the property. Carey inquired if the existing house near the entrance to Craig Road was going to remain and Smith responded yes. Commissioner Lloyd questioned whether the applicant chose the planned development as his option rather than subdivision and Smith responded that the applicant chose to pursue a planned development application. Willhoit stated that the proposal assumed that the soil was suitable for septic systems. Smith noted that the applicant worked with the Health Department before designing the property. The areas set aside for recreation and open space are areas that are not suitable for septic tanks. Willhoit inquired if data were available as to the number of school age children that would be in a development such as this. Smith responded no data was available. Willhoit further suggested a turnoff or waiting area for school buses. Smith noted that no precedent had been set for waiting areas. Willhoit noted it could be hazardous for school children waiting for buses. Wilson inquired if the school district was Orange or Durham County and Smith responded Orange County. Wilson inquired about Health Department approval for septic tanks and Smith responded Preliminary approval had been given by the Health Department. Shanklin asked the approximate distance to Willowhaven Country Club. Smith did not have this information. 038 The following people were sworn in for public comment: Amos Umstead, Samuel Holton, Carl Walters, Charley Bunipass, Peggy Bauer, Jeff Hale, Margaret Umstead. Amos Umstead, a resident of Craig Road, stated there were already two mobile home parks in the vicinity and he felt there was no need for another one. He expressed concerns with the increase in traffic, pollution and trash and he also had a concern that non whites might be excluded from the development. Commissioner Marshall asked if Mr. Umstead was objecting in regard to public health, safety and welfare. Umstead responded yes but he noted also that he was concerned with discrimination. Samuel Holton, owner of 65 acres across the street from this proposed development, expressed concerns with destruction of property, the dumping of trash, destruction of roads by trail bikes, thefts, etc. He has spent money to have his property cleaned up and the dumping of trash and destruction of property continues. He felt this would be a "slum" on the edge of Willowhaven and that a more desirable residential area could be developed. Planning Board member Wilson inquired of Mr. Holton if his point was that this development would be a threat to the value of his property and Mr. Holton responded that that was his number one concern and, secondly, he was addressing his perception of the welfare of the community. Planning Board member Yuhasz inquired of Mr. Holton what evidence he had that this development would be worse or contribute more problems than if it were developed as a single-family development with the higher density permitted in terms of numbers of units. Mr. Holton responded that the evi- dence was, he supposed, his opinion. His perception was the mobile home parks have more impact on public health, safety and welfare than other developments. Commissioner Willhoit asked the County Attorney for clarification on the question of the impact on the value of property and specifically if an appraiser's opinion is needed to certify the question of property value. Gledhill responded that one may consider as evidence the testimony of the property owner's opinion as to the value/impact on his own property. There would still be the question of how much weight to be assigned to the testimony. Gledhill continued that what he had heard was somewhat speculative, particularly in the context that this same property could be subdivided into 40,000 sq. foot lots and mobile homes could be placed on these lots. He had not heard anything that says that this proposal would effect the value more than subdivision into individual lots. He suggested experts would need to address the question of value. Planning Board member Kizer noted that given that this development was being discussed under the terms of the Special Use Permit, then the burden of proof shifts to the opposition regarding documented evidence and substantiated opinion. 034 Gledhill pointed out that since this was not a request for rezoning but for issuance of a Special Use Permit, it was fact not opinion oriented. Kizer inquired of Mr. Holton just what material went to him in his notification letter. Holton responded there were no specifics regarding the manner of evidence to be submitted. Kizer further noted that if a property owner felt his property value was being lessened by a particular dollar amount then expert opinion is required. Kizer continued that perhaps this could be explained in the notification letter in the future. Mr. Holton responded that it would be helpful if the notification letter read that way. Mr. Holton expressed concern regarding technicalities vs. personal approach to presenting evidence. Kizer stated that one aspect of this procedure that was very important is that the consideration of the application for Special Use Permit is conducted as a hearing. If conditions are met, that is specific standards and evaluations are satisfied, then the Board is bound to approve the permit unless opposition can provide specific evidence that it does not meet the standards. Wilson asked Holton to address the impact on property values of other development. Holton responded that in his perception the existing mobile home park deminished his property values and the proposed development further threatens property values. Pearson questioned that Holton had no expertise in land values. Gledhill noted that the law allowed a lay person to testify to the value of his own property and that this was an exception to the general rule regard- ing an expert opinion. Commissioner Marshall stated it was important to advertise the status of the evidence needed in these matters. Willhoit asked that the Planning Department meet with the attorney to determine the nature of the evidence needed. Carl Walter, resident of the area off Craig Road, noted that he had the impression that the arguments presented thus far were legally academic. He also was concerned with the traffic and trash problems. He presented a petition with the signatures of 24 property owners objecting to the development. Marshall inquired if the objections were for specific reasons. Walter responded traffic, trash, etc. Planning Board Chair Gordon asked Mr. Walter to read the petition. The petition cited a memo prepared by Philip Post and Associates dated February 25, 1985 regarding traffic analysis. Mr. Walter questioned the validity of the analysis. He also inserted photographs regarding trash into the record. 035 Planning Board member Wilson inquired of Mr. Walter if he were testifying that, in his opinion, this development would diminish the value of his property and Mr. Walter responded yes. Commissioner Carey inquired about the distance of Mr. Walter's property from the proposed development and the response from Mr. Walter was approximately 3000 feet. Charley Bumpass, property owner to the north (72 acres adjoining proposed development) , testified that he felt that he would lose the use of his property. He expressed concern about transient populations with no pride in home ownership. He felt there was potential for great individual residential development and that the proposed development would be destroying the tax value. Peggy Bauer, resident on Craig Road, had several letters from neighbors who were unable to attend the public hearing. She also read a letter from a realtor (Joan Austin) which stated that a mobile home park would not maintain or enhance the value of single family homes in and area. Ms. Bauer also expressed concern with traffic. Planning Board member Kizer inquired if the letter was signed and Bauer responded yes. Willhoit inquired of the attorney whether the signed letter was suffi- cient or if the person must be present and sworn in. Gledhill responded that this was hearsay, and an out-of-court statement offered for the truth in the statement. It was objectionable, but if there was no objection to it, it could be considered as evidence. Jeff Hale, a resident at 6512 Craig Road, stated that he lived approxi- mately one-half mile from the current mobile home park. He stated that in his opinion the property values would not be enhanced by the mobile home park and his preference was for single-family homes. He also cited problems with noise and dirt bikes in regard to the current mobile home park. Margaret Umstead, resident of 5808 Craig Road, noted there were already traffic problems on Craig Road that she considered hazardous. She expressed concern with theft and noise from dirt bikes. Phil Post was then sworn as a represetative for the applicant. He presented a revised site plan and stated residents had received copies of it two weeks ago. He stated the applicant meets all requirements and accepts and will comply with the 23 conditions recommended by staff. He believes this revised site plan meets all the conditions in the staff comments plus one other comment. NC DOT reviewed the plan and noted they would prefer only one entrance onto Craig Road. They felt this would be sufficient for the size of the tract. The applicant had two entrances shown on the plan thinking this would possibly be an advantage for such as emergency vehicles access. DOT sees this as a low volume traffic generator with an estimated 173 trips per day. The applicant had revised the plan to show one access. 036 Post continued noting some of the advantages of this planned development versus a subdivision for mobile homes on individual lots. He noted the recreational areas, paved roads, to state standards, and the joint water system. Preliminary Health Deartment approval has been granted for individual septic systems. Post noted the 100' buffer, the open space and clustering of mailboxes which would not be provided with an individual lot subdivision. He continued that there would be all weather parking surface for each unit. He cited this was not a rezoning, but this kind of development was a permitted use under the current zoning of the area. He noted, also, that the existing mobile home park was built in the late 1960's and many of the current adjacent residents came to the area with full knowledge of its existence. He entered a request from the applicant for a continuation of the public hearing to present appraisal data. Planning Board member Kizer inquired of Mr. Post as to the location of the dumpsters. Post responded that refuse collection would be by contract with a private firm for individual pick-up at the homes. Kizer continued by inquiring of Mr. Post what would be done with the property if the Special Use permit were not approved. Post responded that he could not speak for the applicant, but that the property had capabilities of being developed for single family residences. Planning Board member Pilkey asked if the lots would be sold or rented. Post responded that the whole parcel would remain under unitary ownership and supervision. The owner must provide certain services throughout the life of the Special Use Permit. Pilkey asked if they would be renting the lot or the mobile home. Post deferred to Mr. Sneed and the response was that he would do both, but usually the individual lessee had his own mobile home. Pilkey indicated her inquiries were specifically directed at tax base concerns. Post responded that the property value should be enhanced by the improvements of roads and street lights. It would be more valuable than as a single unimproved parcel. Kizer inquired who was responsible for grounds upkeep since there were no designated lot lines. Post responded that the holder of the permit is obligated by stipulations to maintain the property. Mr. Bill Sneed was sworn in to answer Planning Board questions. Pilkey inquired of Mr. Sneed the specific nature of the park in regard to rentals of mobile homes by Sneed or ownership by individuals. Sneed responded that at the present time he has no plans to place any units on the property himself. The plans are for the homes to be double-wide and modular type units. Sneed continued there are set rules that are signed by the homeowners that specify they must mow the grass and keep the grounds clean or pay a fee to Mr. Sneed for him to do this. Marshall asked how this arrangement was established. Sneed responded that each lot in the existing park has 60' frontage and 8' behind the mobile home. The boundaries are known at the time of rental and home owners sign statements to this effect. 03 i Marshall inquired about rules for trail bikes. Sneed responded there were no trail bikes allowed in the park. Sneed noted that he could control them in his park but not outside the park. He clarified that the trail bikes could not be operated within the park, but could be pushed to designated trails. Kizer asked if there had been any complaints from adjacent neighbors about trail bikes and Sneed responded he didn't think so. He noted his son operated this park but he had not heard any complaints. Gordon inquired if the adjacent park was developed under a Special Use Permit and Sneed responded it was put in before zoning and under Orange County Health Department regulations 4 units per acre with lot sizes 60' x 1401. Sneed added that the water system has been promoted by the State of NC as an example for other parks. Also, post office officials expressed to Mr. Sneed that the "post office" in his park was well designed and the most useful in any park in North Carolina and had advertised it as such in a circular. At this time Chuck Sneed and Brenda Stephens were sworn in. Kizer asked if Sneed had received complaints from surrounding land owners regarding dirt bikes, trash, etc. Mr. Sneed noted he had more trouble keeping others out of the park and to his knowledge he had received no such complaints. Pilkey inquired of the number of homes in the existing park. The response was 84. Pilkey also asked why the road into the park was paved and only a portion of the road around the back was paved. Sneed responded it was being paved in sections. Carl Walter inquired of Mr. Sneed that, if the area residents could prove that some of the trailer park residents were dumping trash on Craig Road, would he take decisive action and Sneed answered yes. Brenda Stephens, owner of property adjoining the existing mobile home park, stated that she lived there before the trailer park came into existence and it was her opinion that the traffic problem and trash came about after the trailer park was developed. She felt most of the people were short-term residents with no regard for personal property of others. She was also concerned with discrimination as the park was an all white area. Commissioner Lloyd asked if the trail bikes were coming from the park and Stephenson responded yes. Willhoit asked if there was a provision for a fence in the proposed mobile home park and Smith responded none was submitted. Mr. Bill Sneed stated that he would stipulate in the new park that there would be no motor bikes, but he could not control others outside the park. He further expressed concerns that the people in these mobile home parks are the 038 sons and daughters of people who live in Willowhaven and that this was an opportunity for a young couple to become homeowners. He felt that young people who could not afford to purchase a home were being penalized. Carl Walter indicated he had no problem with how Mr. Sneed runs his mobile home park, but was objecting to problems outside the park that he felt stem from the park. Kizer inquired if Mr. Sneed would have any objection to a fence around the new park. Mr. Sneed responded that a buffer zone of 100' had been provided and he could not see where a fence would be necessary. 6. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMEN)ME ARTICLE 4 (EXTRACTIVE USES) The Presentation was given by Planner Susan Smith. Planning Board member Kizer inquired about the reason for the change. Staff member Smith responded the purpose was to tighten the provisions of the ordinance. Planning Board Chair Gordon inquired about the recommended deletion of this use from commercial zones. Smith responded that this type of use did not reflect Land Use Plan policies and would have substantial impact on desireable commercial areas. There were no further comments. 7. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ARTICLE 8 (EXTRACTIVE USES The staff presentation was made by Smith. There were no further comments. 8. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMEN MENr-DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION The staff presentation was made by Smith. Planning Board Chair Gordon asked staff to further elaborate on the differences in wording. Attorney Gledhill reviewed the general enabling legislation and Orange County Subdivision Regulations indicating that the former no longer required plats, but did require subdivisions to occur either by recorded deed or recorded plat. Gordon asked what "plat" referred to. Gledhill responded a surveyed drawing. Gledhill noted that the change in enabling legislation both broadened and narrowed the definition of subdivision. He indicated that prior to the change lots could be created only by plat, but the change, though not requiring a plat, required the instrument creating the lot (either plat or deed) to be recorded. Before Subdivision Regulations, property was subdivided as one wished. Subdivision Regulations require an approved, recorded plat. Commissioner Carey asked what impact this change would have. Gledhill responded it both narrows and broadens the definition of subdivision for purposes of combinations and recombinations. OW) Gordon noted that as of approval of this amendment, unrecorded subdivision plats would then not meet the requirements for recordation without further review and approval. Gledhill clarified that this approach is not new in that it was enforceable upon amendment of the general enabling legislation. He further clarified that Orange County is simply conforming its Subdivision Regulations to the change in the state enabling legislation. Gordon asked Gledhill to clarify what is meant by "deed" and "recorded". Gledhill responded a deed was a document and recorded meant the process of registering an instrument with the Register of Deeds. Gordon questioned the validity of the Orange County provisions. Gledhill responded that the Court would amend our regulations to conform with State law. Yuhasz inquired what "previously", refers to. Gledhill responded previous to a change in law. Yuhasz further questioned if it was previous to the recombination attempt or previous to the ordinance, citing the example of recombination of an illegal subdivision. Gledhill responded that previous refers not to the recombination attempt, but to the change in the law. Kizer suggested it would be clearer to put the date in. Gledhill responded he did not recommend changing the definition to read other than what the General Statutes provides as Orange County cannot affect the definition of a subdivision. Yuhasz asked what the General Statutes state. Gledhill responded this was a verbatim transcript. Yuhasz inquired about interpretation of it. Gledhill responded it would mean previous to the adoption of Subdivision Regulations. He noted there was no simple answer and decisions would be made on a case by case basis. Commissioner Lloyd asked if a plat, unless recorded, is invalid. Gledhill responded the subdivision would not entitle the property owner to a building permit withhout going through the planning process. Lloyd asked if the owner could go ahead if it was a recorded plat. Gledhill responded affirmatively. Commissioner Carey asked if the owner could go ahead under the old definition. Lloyd clarified if it was recorded or unrecorded. Gledhill responded affirmatively. He cited unrecordable subdivisions and noted that a primary purpose of Subdivision Regulations is to straighten out land records. There were no further comments. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENPMEDTP ARTICLE 8 (SITE PLAN SUBMITMLS The staff presentation was made by Smith. Commissioner Lloyd asked why 20 copies were needed. Smith responded the amendment provides for 26 copies which are needed to meet Boards' and agencies review needs. Commissioner Lloyd indicated this was a burden on the applicant. Smith indicated that it was preferable to burdening the general public with this cost. Commissioner Willhoit asked Lloyd how the latter would be fair. Carl Walters, Planing Board member, supported the applicant bearing this cost. Dr. Steve Kizer, Planning Board member, indicated this represented a minimal portion of the application costs. Commissioner Lloyd responded this made development expensive. There were no further comments. 10. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 3 (ZONING ATLAS REPLACEMENTS The staff presentation was made by Smith. There were no further comments. MOTION: Commissioner Carey moved that these items be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous. Smith asked the Board to clarify their action regarding the Weng and Scholar rezonings. Willhoit directed staff to readvertise the public hearing. Gledhill clarified that the advertisement clearly state that the public hearings were adjourned to a date specific and not closed to avoid complications regarding new application requirements. MOTION: Commissioner marshall moved to adjourn the public hearing on these two items to May 27. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous, ADJOURNMENT Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on March 19, 1985 at the Old Post Office on Rosemary Street in Chapel Hill at 7:30 P.M. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk