Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-17-1995 - IX-B 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 17, 1995 Agenda Abstract Item SUBJECT- I-40/OLD N.C.86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEPARTMENT- Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: Work Group Charge Planning Director X2592 Work Group Recommendations (includes draft plan/ordinance amendments) PHONE NUMBERS: Correspondence received since Hillsborough 732-8181 11/30/94 Public Hearing Mebane 227-2031 Draft 11/30/94 Public Hearing Durham 688-7331 Minutes Chapel Hill 967-9251 Draft 12/19/94 Planning Board Minutes PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Atlas,and Zoning Ordinance through which to implement the recommendations of the I-40/Old N.C.86 Economic Development District Work Group. BACKGROUND: On April 19, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners established a Work Group consisting of representatives from the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County to develop recommendations concerning an Economic Development District in the vicinity of Old NC Highway 86 and I-40. The Charge for the Work Group as adopted by the Board of Commissioners is attached. The Work Group held its first meeting on July 12, 1994. The Work Group concluded its work on October 24, 1994, and its recommendations are summarized below. Recommendations Reached by Consensus 1. Approve an Economic Development District (EDD) in the vicinity of Old NC Highway 86 Highway and I-40 as shown on the attached map (Attachment 1). The proposed district contains approximately 744 acres. 2. Differentiate areas within the EDD as Primary I, Primary H, and Secondary. The attached Permitted Use Table(Attachment 2)indicates the uses allowed in each of these areas. • The widest range of commercial and industrial uses is allowed in the Primary I area. • The Secondary area provides a buffer between the Primary I and II areas, and existing residential neighborhoods and is limited to residential, office or institutional uses. i 2 • The portion of the EDD south of I-40 is proposed as Primary II. Uses in the Primary II area are identical to those in the Primary I area, with the exception of retail use,which is not permitted. The Primary II area also requires a higher site volume ratio for all uses,which will result in more landscaping or less building volume than would be required in the Primary I or Secondary areas. The intent of the Primary II area is to soften the transition between the Economic Development District and area of residential zoning to the south. Proposed revisions to Section 2.1 (Development Areas) through which to implement this recommendation have been included as Attachment 3. 3. All development within the existing and proposed Economic Development Districts is subject to the requirements of the Economic Development District Design Manual, adopted on March 1, 1994 and amended on August 8 and November 5. Thee Work Group recommended that a statement be provided regarding the feasibility of permitted uses listed in the Permitted Use Table. The Table contained in Section 2.2 has been revised to include such a statement. (Attachment 2) 4. Amend Section 2.3 of the Economic Development Districts Design Manual to increase the Site Volume Ratio by 1.0 for all development within the Primary II area. This would have the affect of requiring additional landscape volume to soften the transition between the EDD and residential areas to the south. A draft revision to Section 2.3 (Land Use Intensity) has been included which addresses this recommendation. (Attachment 4) 5. Amend requirements in the Design Manual related to the use of communication equipment. The Design Manual currently prohibits communication equipment which would be considered a principal use, such as radio or TV transmitting towers and cellular telephone towers in Economic Development Districts. Roof-top radio, TV, and microwave antennas and towers which are accessory to the principal use are also.prohibited. In order to be more responsive to current technology, the Work Group recommended that communication equipment which is accessory to the principal use be allowed as follows: • Dish antennas would be allowed on the ground or on roof-tops. If on the ground, landscape screening would be required. If on the roof, screening would be accomplished through architectural design of the roof. In both cases, visibility of the antennas would be minimized. • Tower antennas would be allowed on the ground or on roof-tops,with a height limit of 15 feet. Higher towers would require approval of a Special Use Permit. Revisions to Section 3.4 (Service and Storage) and 3.1 (Architectural Design) have been prepared to address this recommendation. (Attachments 5 and 6) 6. Use a different means of identifying high water use. The Design Manual currently requires approval of a Special Use Permit or Planned Development 3 if water use exceeds an industry average. The Work Group recommended that a specific number,in terms of gallons per day,be used to define the limit above which approval by the Board of Commissioners would be required. Town and County staffs recommended a threshold of 30,000 gallons per day, which is approximately 1% of the daily capacity of the existing Hillsborough water treatment plant. Flynt Industries, which uses approximately 500,000 gallons per day, is the only existing industry served by Hillsborough which exceeds the proposed threshold. A proposed revision to Section 2.4 (Environmental Factors) is included to implement this recommendation. (Attachment 7) Options to Address Issues on Which Consensus was not Reached The Work Group did not reach consensus on whether or not water and sewer service should be extended to serve the south side of I-40. The southernmost boundary of any sewer service from Hillsborough would be the ridgeline forming the boundary of the Cates Creek drainage basin. The Work Group identified the following options and possibilities: 1. Limit public water and sewer service to the north side of 1.40, delaying extensions to the area south of I-40 until specified development thresholds are met. Development thresholds discussed by the Work Group included specifying a percentage of area within the remainder of the EDD which must be developed or planned, or specifying a time period which must pass, after which the issue could be revisited. In the interim, allow alternative wastewater disposal systems on the south side of I-40. Discussion of the Work Group on this issue focused on the perception held by some citizens that the extension of public services to the south side of I-40 would create development pressure at the intersection of I-40 and New Hope Church Road,resulting in extension of water and sewer service from OWASA through the Rural Buffer. Terms of the Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and the Orange County Water and Sewer Policy currently prohibit extensions into the Rural Buffer except as necessary to address a public health emergency or serve an essential public service,such as a school. Concern was expressed that future development pressure in or near the Rural Buffer could result in changes to the Agreement which could compromise the Rural Buffer. An example of a development threshold is to limit public water and sewer service to the north side of I-40,delaying extensions to the area south of I-40 until at least seventy-five (75%) of the gross land area on the north side of I- 40 consists of any combination of the following. • Residential areas in Secondary Development Areas are developed or site specific development plans (site plans or preliminary subdivision plans) are approved for development at a density of at one unit per acre or less; 4 • Streets,roads,and utility easements located outside of lot boundaries; and/or • Lots or tracts used and/or site specific development plans (site plans or preliminary subdivision plans) are approved for permitted commercial, industrial, institutional or governmental purposes. 2. Limit public water and sewer service to the north side of 1-40 for a two-year period during which county-wide issues such as those relating to open space, rural character, and farmland preservation are resolved. In two years, the issue of water and sewer south of I-40 would be reconsidered.In the interim, allow alternative wastewater disposal systems. This option responds to the concerns addressed in#1 above by allowing time to develop strategies for preserving the rural character of Orange County. Once such strategies are in place, there would be greater assurance to the public that the existing character of the county could be maintained if water and sewer were extended. 3. Allow development to extend public water and sewer within the entirety of the EDD, including the area south of I-40. This option recognizes the ridgeline of the Cates Creek drainage basin as the maximum extent of water and sewer service from the Town of Hillsborough. It also recognizes the fact that regardless of which action is taken by the Board of Commissioners at this time,there remain circumstances under which property within the drainage basin could be annexed by the Town of Hillsborough (see #4 below). 4. The Work Group acknowledged the possibility that, under certain circumstances, any property within the EDD,including the area on the south side of 1.40 could be annexed by the Town of Hillsborough. The likelihood of annexation occurring could be great if a developer proposed to extend water and sewer mains to serve the project. In that case, the property owner could request voluntary annexation, and the Hillsborough Town Board could approve the annexation. The Work Group recommended that both Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough adopt the Economic Development District Design Manual,including the Table of Permitted Uses.The permitted uses and development standards would then be adhered to by the County, and also by the Town of Hillsborough, in the case of annexation, based on a joint interlocal agreement, Public Hearing Comment At the November 30, 1994 public hearing, a number of comments were made by interested citizens and property owners. The comments are provided, immediately following this abstract. Correspondence received at or prior to the public hearing is also provided. 5 Additional Correspondence/Meetings On December 5, the Economic Development Director met with the property owners fronting on the west side of Old N.C. 86. He explained the proposed EDD, answered questions, and encouraged the residents to meet with the adjoining Cornwallis Hills neighbors. Subsequently, Old N.C. 86 and Cornwallis Hills residents met to discuss solutions to the question of acceptable land uses in the area along the west side of Old N.C. 86. The Economic Development Director has been informed that a letter will be provided by the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association supporting the EDD as proposed. If the letter is received, it will be distributed at the meeting. There are, however, still property owners living adjacent to the proposed EDD who favor a Secondary Development Area along the west side of Old N.C. 86. Correspondence has been received(copy attached)from Dr.W.Allen Addison and his wife requesting that all of their property be included in the proposed EDD. Planning Staff Recommendations At the Planning Board's December 19,1994 meeting,the Planning Staff presented the following recommendations: • Approval of the Land Use Element,Zoning Atlas,and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments for the proposed I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development District as presented at the November 30 public hearing, and • Approval of Option#3 which allows the extension of public water and sewer within the entirety of the EDD, including the area south of I-40. The Planning Staff also recommended that the following adjustments to the proposed I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development District be considered at the March 29 quarterly public hearing. • Adjustment of the EDD boundary to include all of the property of Dr. W. Allen and Sally Ann Addison; • Adjustment of the EDD boundary to include all of the property of Hugh and Carolyn Moren; and • Adjustment of the 100-foot buffer requirement along the west side of Old N.C.86 adjacent to the right-of-way line. The buffer requirement is not necessary since the property across Old N.C.86 is within Hillsborough's planning and zoning jurisdiction and zoned for commercial use. It is also the area within which Hillsborough proposes to apply the Economic Development District design manual standards. Planning Board Recommendations At its December 19, 1994 meeting,the Planning Board received verbal comments from residents along Old N.C.Highway 86 as well as Cornwallis Hills Subdivision.The basic difference between the two groups of residents is that those persons residing along c 6.1 Old N.C. Highway 86 wish to have their property remain in the proposed Primary I Development Area. The residents of Cornwallis Hills Subdivision wish to have the property fronting on Old N.C. 86 changed to some other designation such as Secondary Development Area which limits the range of permitted uses to office and institutional.Correspondence received from both groups of residents which identifies these concerns have been included as part of the agenda materials. Given the concerns of the residents, the Planning Board voted (8-1) to consider only that portion of the proposed Economic Development District south of Cates Creek. The area of concern; e.g., north of Cates Creek, would be considered at the Planning Board's regular January meeting so that the neighboring residents could meet to try to agree upon an acceptable development plan. With regard to the area south of Cates Creek and the adjustments recommended by staff, the Planning Board voted (7-1) to recommend as follows: • Approval of the Land Use Element,Zoning Atlas,and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments for the proposed I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development District as presented at the November 30 public hearing; and • Approval of Option#3 which allows the extension of public water and sewer within the entirety of the EDD, including the area south of I-40. • Consideration of the following adjustments at the March 29 quarterly public hearing. o Adjustment of the EDD boundary to include all of the property of Dr. W. Allen and Sally Ann Addison; o Adjustment of the EDD boundary to include all of the property of Hugh and Carolyn Moren; and o Adjustment of the 100-foot buffer requirement along the west side of Old N.C.86 adjacent to the right-of-way line.The buffer requirement is not necessary since the property across Old N.C.86 is within Hillsborough's planning and zoning jurisdiction and zoned for commercial use.It is also the area within which Hillsborough proposes to apply the Economic Development District design manual standards. Neighborhood Mediation Session On January 11,1994,four representatives each from the Cornwallis Hills homeowners association and the Old N.C. 86 property owners group met to discuss their interests in an attempt to develop an acceptable compromise plan.The Economic Development Director and the Planning Director met with the residents to answer questions and discuss alternative solutions. Interests identified by the Old N.C. 86 property owners group were as follows: • Desire to have property rezoned for commercial purposes in a manner comparable to the property on the east side of Old N.C. 86 in Hillsborough's zoning jurisdiction. 6.2 • Recognize that they will be giving up substantial lot area to provide for eventual right-of-way widening (20 feet) and for 100-foot buffer along rear (and some side) property lines adjacent to Cornwallis Hills. • Development of property across Old N.C. 86 for commercial purposes has created undesirable situation, and they are seeking relief, e.g., ability to sell property, when necessary, and move to more desirable location. • Many residents are at or nearing retirement age,including some widows,and are concerned about the future; e.g., ability to provide for their well-being. Interests identified by the Cornwallis Hills homeowners association were as follows: • Desire to avoid strip development pattern, maintain the quality of life, and protect property values. • Desire to have uses which are compatible with adjacent residential uses in Cornwallis Hills Subdivision. • Recognize that traffic is inevitable on Old N.C. 86 but concerned about potential number of driveway entrances from that street and unsafe turn situations that will occur. • For families that stay at home during the day, safety is a concern.Lights and noise at night are also a concern. Alternative solutions considered by the two neighborhood groups included: • Amending the permitted use table to establish a range of uses acceptable to both groups, including a new Development Area designation. • Retaining the proposed Primary I designation and list of permitted uses but limit the size of manufacturing uses; e.g., maximum number of employees, floor area, etc. • Retaining the proposed Primary I designation but requiring certain uses to secure approval of a Special Use Permit. • Changing the proposed Primary I designation to Secondary Development Area. Both groups felt that Primary II was the least desirable of the Development Area designations for different reasons. The Cornwallis Hills residents felt that Primary II was not acceptable due to manufacturing uses being retained in the permitted use table. Old N.C. 86 residents did not accept Primary II because it limited building space and required more landscape area. Discussion between the two groups also involved a review of examples of existing development in the Triangle area, with particular emphasis on design standards and the Site Volume Ratios achieved by different uses. Although there was considerable discussion and sharing of interests and ideas,the two groups could not fmd a basis for compromise.The Old N.C.86 residents desire to have their property designated Primary I Development Area, while the Cornwallis Hills 6.3 residents wish to have the property designated Secondary Development Area RECOHMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the adjustments identified by staff'and recommended by the Planning Board be presented at the March 29 quarterly public hearing for citizen comment. The notice of public hearing which includes these adjustments will be presented to the Board of Commissioners for consideration at its March 8, 1995 meeting. With regard to the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element, Zoning Atlas, and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments for the I-40/01d N.C. 86 Economic Development District (EDD), the Administration recommends the following options for the Board's consideration: • Approval of the proposed EDD south of Cates Creek, including the extension of public water and sewer within the entirety of the EDD as recommended by the Planning Board; and refer the area north of Cates Creek to the Planning Board for consideration at its January 23, 1995 meeting.The Planning Board's recommendation could then be presented to the Board of Commissioners at its February 6, 1995 meeting. [OR] • Approval of the proposed EDD south of Cates Creek, including the extension of public water and sewer within the entirety of the EDD as recommended by the Planning Board.The Board may also elect to pursue approval of the remsindwof the proposed EDD north of Cates Creek as either Primary I or Secondary Development Area As noted above, a Primary H designation is not an acceptable option to either neighborhood group. Excerpt from 11/30/94 Public Hearing D �( 7 Minutes u 1 amendments protect the existing property owners as well as the 2 lake front property. 3 4 MARILYN FAST, a Lake Orange property owner, thanked the 5 Planning Board for their work on these proposed amendments, and 6 requested that the Board of Commissioners approve them. She 7 stated that it is important to the property owners that existing 8 development be considered conforming. These amendments protect 9 water quality without placing an undue burden on homeowners. 10 11 TYSON CLAYTON, a Lake Orange property owner, spoke in 12 support of these amendments and requested the Board of 13 Commissioners approve them. 14 15 BOBBY NICHOLS, requested that the Board of Commissioners 16 approve these amendments. 17 18 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT 19 20 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by 21 Commissioner Insko, to refer these items to the Planning Board to 22 be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 23 17, 1995. 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 25 26 2 . AMENDMENTS RELATED TO I-40/OLD N.C. 86 ECONOMIC 27 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 28 a. CP-5-94 I40/OLD N.C. 86 Economic Development 29 District (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) 30 b. Z-5-94 I40/OLD N.C. 86 Economic Development 31 Districts (Zoning Atlas Amendment) 32 C. Article 6.29.3 - Economic Development Districts 33 Design Manual (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments) 34 These items were presented by Marvin Collins to 35 receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Orange 36 County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas, and Zoning Ordinance to 37 implement the recommendations of the I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic 38 Development Districts Work Group. 39 40 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR 41 PLANNING BOARD 42 43 In response to a question from Chair Carey, Marvin indicated 44 that the one property was split by the district boundary. This 45 occurred because the line follows Cates Creek. Where the line 46 crosses Cates Creek the land becomes steeper and less suitable 47 for development. The area west of Old NC 86 has been added to 48 this proposal since the time of the original Public Hearing. 49 This area is adjacent to Cornwallis Hills and includes property 50 that fronts along Old NC 86 between the entrance to Cornwallis 51 Hills and Oakdale Drive. These properties were added at the 52 request of the individual property owners. 8 1 Commissioner Gordon mentioned that south of I-40, the I- 2 40/Old Hwy. 86 Work Group's intention was to reduce the impact of 3 development so that there would be a gradual transition into the 4 Rural Buffer. Although this is outside the scope of the Economic 5 Development District she hoped to preserve the one dwelling unit 6 per acre toward the Rural Buffer. The difference between Primary 7 Development I and Primary Development II is that the southern- 8 most portion does not have retail as well as there being a 9 different site volume ratio. 10 11 Marvin Collins indicated that step-outs or pipes have not 12 been installed under I-40 through which sewer lines could be run. 13 If sewer were extended in that location it would require boring 14 under I-40. Extension of water would require boring and casing 15 pipes unless the sewer line borings were used. OWASA does own a 16 16" water line which is connected to the Hillsborough system at 17 Old NC 86. Old NC 86 might provide an easier means of getting 18 from the north side to the south side of I-40 in lieu of having 19 to bore the roadway itself. However, it would be extremely 20 expensive. 21 22 COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS 23 24 EVELYN LLOYD, Commissioner for the Town of Hillsborough, 25 indicated that the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners strongly 26 recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approve 27 the rezoning of the proposed Economic Development District and 28 the Design Manual with the stipulation that development is 29 allowed to extend public water and sewer within the entire 30 Economic Development District, including the area south of 31 Interstate 40. This extension should be allowed without a time 32 limit or build-out requirement. A written copy of this statement 33 is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. 34 35 PATRICK CLAYTON spoke in support of the Economic Development 36 District proposal. He voiced a concern about the Primary II 37 designation and about the water issue. He and his family request 38 that water be provided to the entire area. The south side will 39 be penalized if water is not provided. 40 41 MARY AYERS indicated that she was speaking for herself as 42 well as the Ayers and Harris families. She stated that water and 43 sewer needed to be extended into the entire Economic Development 44 District. 45 46 BILLY SMITH requested that this proposal be adopted. 47 48 J. W. SMITH did not speak. 49 50 JAMES WILLIAMS, a resident of Chapel Hill/Hillsborough Road, 51 requested that these Amendments be adopted. 52 9 1 JUNE HAAS, requested that her property be included in this 2 proposed District and that the Board of Commissioners adopt these 3 amendments. 4 5 GUY MASSEY spoke as President of the Cornwallis Hills 6 Property Owners Association, The association requested that the 7 property on both side of the entrance to Cornwallis Hills be 8 included in the district and that the proposed Hillsborough 9 Economic Development District be included in the Orange County 10 Economic Development District guidelines as set forth in the 11 Design Manual. 12 13 TONY WHITAKER, a resident of Cornwallis Hills, encouraged 14 preplanning the driveway locations which will feed into Hwy. 86 15 so that traffic problems can be avoided. He recommended that the 16 Primary II designation be used for this area. 17 18 VIC CUNNINGHAM, a Cornwallis Hills resident, spoke in 19 support of the Primary II designation. 20 21 JO SOULIER of Cornwallis Hills spoke in support of the 22 Primary II designation. 23 24 MIKE DODSON stated that he is concerned that water and sewer 25 be provided to the south side of this proposed district. He also 26 supports retail being permitted in this area. 27 28 - DON COLLINS stated that he does not own property in the area 29 in question, however, he does have an interest in the traffic. 30 He supports the limitation on retail in the southern section of 31 this proposed district. 32 33 RICHARD ALLISON, a resident of Cornwallis Hills, supported 34 the Primary II designation for the area which joins Cornwallis 35 Hills. 36 37 BOB BRIDGES, a Cornwallis Hills property owner, spoke in 38 support of the Primary II designation being assigned to the area 39 that joins this development. He requested that water and sewer 40 be installed in both Primary I and Primary II. 41 42 STICK WILLIAMS a member of the Public Water and Sewer Work 43 Group, commented that the process used by this group was very 44 effective. Having the Town of Hillsborough participate was 45 critical to the process. He supports this proposal, although, 46 he would like to see water and sewer extended south of I-40. 47 This is something that the Planning Board will have an 48 opportunity to review and the Board of Commissioners will decide. 49 The properties that join Oakdale and Cornwallis Hills were 50 carefully considered. Those residents need to be considered in 51 this process. 52 © LN 10 1 SAM BRIGHTON, owner of the southeastern corner of the 2 proposed district, stated that his request was for his entire 3 property to be in the district and that water and sewer be 4 provided. 5 6 JACK SMILES, Director of Planning with the John McAdams 7 Company, spoke as a representative of the Carolyn Barnes 8 property. Their concern, due to the acreage requirements for 9 development, is the shape of the property. The two planning 10 jurisdictions are specifically focused on the small portion of 11 land between the two R-2 areas. He requested that one Land Use 12 be established and that the required width of the buffer be 13 discussed. 14 15 An unidentified citizen indicated that his property adjoins 16 the Clayton property and requested that the amendments be 17 adopted. 18 19 ALLEN ADDISON spoke in support of the adoption of these 20 amendments. 21 22 END OF PIIBLIC COMMENT 23 24 25 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 26 Commissioner Willhoit, to refer these items to the Planning Board 27 to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than . 28 January 17, 1995. 29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 30 31 3. OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 32 a. Article 4 . 1 - Establishment of Use Regulations 33 (Telephone/Fiber Optic Equipment) 34 This item was presented by Mary Willis, to receive 35 citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 36 which would reduce restrictions related to the placement of 37 cabinetized telephone equipment. 38 39 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR 40 PLANNING BOARD 41 None 42 43 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS 44 None 45 46 END OF PIIBLIC COMMENT 47 48 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 49 Commissioner Willhoit, to refer these items to the Planning Board 50 to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than 51 January 17, 1995. 52 VOTE: Unanimous Town of H 12 Hills gh sip vs4 November 29, 1994 Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O.Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioners Carey, Gordon, Halkiods, Insko, and Willhoit, At the November 21 Town Board meeting, we discussed the details of the proposed Economic Development District to be located at the intersection of Old NC 86 and Interstate 40. Our board strongly recommends that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approve the rezoning of the proposed Economic Development District and the Design Manual with the stipulation that development is allowed to extend public water and sewer within the entirety of the EDD, including the area south of Interstate 40. This extension should be allowed without a time limit or build out requirement. This recommendation was made by Commissioner Evelyn Lloyd and seconded by Commissioner Catherine Martin and passed by a unanimous vote. At such time as the Orange County Board of Commissioners approves the EDD as stipulated, the Town will begin implementing the same zoning and design manual to the area of the node which is in Hillsborough's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. At that time we will also be happy to begin discussions with the Orange County Board of Commissioners about other cooperative planning issues. As discussed at our joint meeting, this might include cooperative planning with a small area planning focus. We look forward to positive action from the County Commissioners on this item. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact any one of us. Sincerely, Hillsborough Board of Commissioners Horace H. Johnson, Sr., Mayor Evelyn P. Lloyd, Mayor Pro Tem Allen A. Lloyd Catherine S. Martin Richard O. Simpson Remus J. Smith, Jr. cc: John Link, Orange County Manager Bill Crowther, Commissioner-elect 101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 919-732-2104 • Fax: 919-644-2390 A 12 NflisbarourA Arta T4atnber of Tommierce 150 East King Street * Phone 732-8156 * Hillsborough, NC 27278 1?ec. 8, 1944 (range County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough;NC 27278 Dear Commissioners: The Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce at its Dec. 8 meeting discussed the proposed Economic Development District for the area of Old N.C. 86 and Interstate40 and its possible impact on the area. We recommend the county approve the EDO in the area under discussion. We also support the extension of water and sewer fence south of 140. We also endorse retail zoning south of 140 to extend allowable gas stations to service traffic flow and mi nnun congestion in the district. The establishment of the EDO would streamline the approval process for developers,and we wholeheartedly favor it. Sincerely, Dan Bturnmitt President, Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce Visit Historic Hillsborough . Chartered Seventeen Hundred fifty-Nine TOTRL P.01 13 December 6, 1994 Mr. Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 After attending the public hearing on November 30, we would like to comment on the EDD plan. We in Cornwallis Hills have been following the development of the EDD with great interest, as you might imagine. We are generally pleased with this carefully thought out plan; anticipating the continuation of"Hamburger Row" hasn't been a pleasant thought. We wish to thank the work group for making this great cooperative effort to finally control the development of this area. In reference to the two small strips bordering Cornwallis Hills on Old NC 86, crossing our entrance and continuing to Oakdale Drive, which have recently been added as primary development: I cannot blame those homeowners for requesting to be included in the EDD plan. However, is it necessary to designate them as primary, to include retail businesses, when so much of the EDD is already so zoned? Secondary would seem to better suit those properties, since the land is too narrow to make it worth building anything to accomodate retail. The ultimate widening of Old NC 86 may take even more space. Under a secondary designation, the houses could easily be converted to offices and serve as a buffer to our established community, much like the buffers in the current proposal planned around Stagecoach Run and the rural buffer south of 1-40. Many retail businesses are open until late, which would bring traffic and noise literally into our backyards. We also fear the encouragement of crime. At the public hearing, these six or seven homeowners pleaded, wrung their hands, or outright demanded that this area remain primary. They minced no words in telling us after the meeting they are only interested in selling to the highest bidder and getting out. That leaves a lot more people here to deal with the consequences after they are gone. Leaving these strips as primary for the sake of these landowners makes a mockery of everything the work group strove to do - these landowners don't care what kind of development goes in as long as they get their money and get out. We have enough jobs up the street to keep teenagers busy- perhaps there should be more emphasis on development that provides full time jobs, rather than spreading Daniel Boone Village further down the road. In any case, we urge you to adopt the EDD plan soon. It has a sound premise, and we're afraid of more Citgos coming down this way because there is no plan in place. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, fred G. and Jo Soulier 112 Pointe Place Hillsborough, NC DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 14 W.Allen Addison,M.D. P.O. Box 727 Walter L. Thomas Professor 3115 Rippy Lane Division of Gynecologic Specialties Hillsborough, NC 27278 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology November 28 , 19 9 4 Moses Carey, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: We appreciate the time and effort which has been directed by the Commissioners of Orange County and other officials toward orderly development designed to ultimately benefit the entire county. No one would prefer to see the rural atmosphere of Orange County left entirely undisturbed more than we would. However, with the Interstate Corridors and the growth of this strategic vicinity, development will come. It must be carefully nurtured so as to afford the county clean industry, acceptable commerce and decent salaries for its citizens. This equates to a worthwhile tax base for the county. With appropriate care -- as that which seems to be being exercised -- this can be accomplished without unacceptable alteration of the environment. Most of our farm, which we have worked hard to develop and had hoped to live on indefinitely, has been included in the economic development district under current consideration. The northwest corner (shown in red) was excluded, we understand, because the lines were drawn to follow natural barriers. After careful recent personal reconnaissance, we maintain that no significant natural barrier warrants this. We therefore urgently request that this area of our property be included in the I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development District in order to avoid split use of our property and the creation of a parcel of land without access. Sincerely yours, W. lien Addison, M.D. Sally Ann Addison WAA:dfd Box 3296-Durham,North Carolina 27710-Telephone(919)684-4272-FAX(919)681-7483