HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-26-1995 - IX-A 1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 26, 1995
Agenda Abstract
Item # IL-
SUBJECT: I-40/OLD N.C.86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendments Planning Director X 2585
11/30/94 Public Hearing Minutes
12/19/94 Planning Board Minutes PHONE NUMBERS:
1/17/95 Commissioners Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181
Orange County/Hillsborough Mebane 227-2031
3/15/95 Work Session Minutes Durham 688-7331
Written Citizen Comments Chapel Hill 967-9251
Draft 6/19/95 Planning Board Minutes
PURPOSE: To consider an amendment to the I-40/Old NC Highway 86 Economic Development District(EDD)
to include the area on the west side of NC 86 between Cates Creek and Oakdale Drive.
BACKGROUND: On January 17, 1995,the Board of Commissioners approved a 720-acre EDD in the vicinity of the
I-40/Old NC 86 interchange. The initial approval of the EDD did not include a strip on the west
side of NC 86 between Cates Creek and Oakdale Drive,containing approximately 24 acres adjacent
to Cornwallis Hills Subdivision.
The owners of the property adjacent to NC 86 had asked that the land within this strip be
included in the EDD, since the property was considered unsuited for residential use. The
Cornwallis Hills property owners were concerned with the possible impacts of non-residential use,
particularly on those lots adjacent to the EDD.
Several meetings were held by the Cornwallis Hills homeowners and the NC 86 property owners.
On January 11, 1995, representatives from both groups met with the Planning Director and the
Economic Development Director in an attempt to develop an acceptable compromise. Although
there was agreement on some points, a compromise solution was not reached (see attached
Mediation Session Summary).
Both groups generally agreed that the properties along NC 86 should be included in the EDD.
However, there was not agreement concerning the permitted uses. Cornwallis Hills residents
favored designation of the area as Secondary Development Area. The NC 86 property owners
favored designation of the area as Primary I Development Area.
Inasmuch as the affected property owners were unable to derive a solution, the Planning Staff
recommends that the area north of Cates Creek be included in the EDD as Primary Development
Area, subject to overlay standards (Primary Transition Overlay Area) which apply additional
2
restrictions to minimize impacts on adjacent residential areas. The strip along NC 86 was
considered for a Primary I area designation at the November 31, 1994 public hearing. Discussions
with the County Attorney have indicated that the use of an overlay approach would not require
a new public hearing. The creation of an entirely new zoning district (for example, Primary III)
would require that the proposal be re-advertised and presented at a new public hearing.
The proposed Primary Transition Overlay Area was considered by the Planning Board at its June
19, 1995 meeting. Residents of the Old NC 86 area as well as Cornwallis Hills Subdivision were
given an opportunity to voice their opinions concerning the proposed overlay approach. Following
citizen comment,the Planning Board compared each,permitted use proposed in Primary Transition
Overlay Area with those allowed in a Secondary Development Area(as preferred by the Cornwallis
Hills residents). The Planning Board supported the Primary Transition Overlay approach and
voted on each questionable use.The Planning Board's list of recommended uses as well as the vote
on specific uses is shown on the following attachment.
The proposed Primary Transition Overlay Area as recommended by the Planning Board is
described in the attached revisions to the Economic Development Districts Design Manual text and
permitted use table and includes:
• Exclusion of the following permitted uses:
- manufacturing and wholesale trade
- kennels
- parking as principal use
- nightclubs, bars, and pubs
- restaurants
- retail trade in freestanding building
- research facilities
- places of assembly (less than 300 person capacity)
- hotels/motels
• Limit on the hours of operation for any permitted non-residential use permitted to the
hours between 6:00 am. and 11:00 p.m.
RECOAUdENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed Primary Transition Overlay
Area,including the Table of Permitted Uses as recommended by the Planning Board and
limitation on hours of operation.
The proposal does not address any requested boundary or design standard changes.Such
revisions would require a new public hearing(August,1995)and have been referred to the
Ordinance Review Committee for consideration and recommendation.
3
COMPARISON OF PERMITTED USE OPTIONS
I-40/OLD NC HWY 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT
Old NC 86 Cornwallis Planning Planning
Land Use Staff Group Group Board Board
Proposal Pro sal Proposal Proposal Vote
RESIDENTIAL
Dwelling,single—family Only in designated x x 9-1-1
Dwelling,two—family locations and subject x x 9-1-1
Dwelling,multi—family to design standards x x 9-1-1
Dwelling,mobile home (For replacement of x x 9-1-1
exfsting mobile home
Temporary mobile home For custodial care B B B B 9-1-1
Temporary mobile home (For occupancy during
construction of permanent residential unit and for x x 9-1-1
30 days after issuance of Certificate of Occupancy)
AGRICULTURE,FORESTRY&FISHING
Animal hospital/veterinarian x x x x 11-0
Class I kennel
Class II kennel
CONSTRUCTION
Building contractors x x x x 11-0
Plumbing,heating,electrical,and similar trade x x x x 11-0
contractors
MANUFACTURING,ASSEMBLY,AND PROCESSING
Food Products see listing below
— Dairy
— Bakery
— Bottling plants
— Miscellaneous food preparation; e.g.,coffee
roasting,condiments,confectionary products,etc.
Paper Products see listing below
— Converted paper and paperboard products
— Paperboard containers and boxes
Furniture and Fixtures see listing below
— Household and office furniture
— Miscellaneous furniture and fixtures
Printing and Publishing Establishments
Pharmaceutical Products
Rubber and Plastic Products see listing below
— Rubber and plastic footwear
— Rubber and plastic hose and belting
— Miscellaneous plastic products;e.g.,plastic pipe,
packaging materials,etc.
Stone,Glass,Clay,and Concrete Products
see listing below
— Flat glass
— Glass and glassware
— Pottery and related products
— Cut stone products
4
COMPARISON OF PERMITTED USE OPTIONS(Continued)
I-40/OLDNC HWY 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT
Old NC 86 Cornwallis Planning Planning
Land Use Staff Group Group Board Board
Proposal Proposal Proposal I-P!qpsal Vote
MANUFACTURING,ASSEMBLY,AND PROCESSING Cantinued
Fabricated Metal Products see listing below
— Metal cans and shipping containers
— Cutlery and hand tools
— Heating equipment,except electric and warm
air;and plumbing fixture
— Fabricated structural metal products
— Nuts,bolts,screws,rivets,and washers
Industrial Machine see listing below
— Engines and turbines
— Farm/garden machinery and equipment
— Metalworking machinery and equipment
— Special industrial machinery; e.g.,textile
machinery
— General industrial machinery and equipment;
e.g.,purification equipment,ball and roller
bearings,etc.
— Office,computing,and accounting machines
Electronic Equipment see listing below
— Electric transmission and distribution
— Electrical industrial apparatus
— Household appliances
— Electric lighting and wiring equipment
— Radio and television receiving equipment
— Communications equipment
— Electronic components and accessories
Transportation E ui ment see listing below
— Motorcycles,bicycles,and parts
— Miscellaneous transportation equipment; e.g.,
motor vehicle components
Instruments see listing below
—
Measuring,analyzing, and controlling instruments
—
Photographic,medical,and optical goods
— Watches and clocks
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
(see listing below)
— Jewelry and silverware
— Musical instruments
—Toys,sporting,and athletic goods
— Pen,pencils,office,and artist supplies
— Miscellaneous manufacturing industries; e.g.,
costume jewelry,novelties,buttons,etc.
TRANSPORTATION,COMMUNICATIONS,AND UTILITIES
Rail/bus passenger shelter x x 11-0
Bus terminals and garages x 11-0
5
COMPARISON OF PERMITTED USE OPTIONS(Continued)
I-40/OLDNC HWY 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT
Old NC 86 Cornwallis Planning Planning
Land Use Staff Group Group Board Board
Proposal Proposal Proposal [Proposal Vote
TRANSPORTATION,COMMUNICATIONS,AND UTILITIES Continued
Surface and structure parking as principal use
(When associated with a local or regional x x 10-1
transportation goal such as mass transit or
ark—and—ride
Public utility stations and sub—stations,switching A A A A
stations and telephone exhan es
Radio and television transmitting and receiving
towers
Elevated water storage tank (Permitted as B B B 6-5
accessory use without Special Use Permit
Transmission lines B B B B
Water and sanitary sewer pumping stations x x x x
Motor freight terminals
Postal and parcel delivery services x
Storage and warehousing,inside building x
Storage of goods,outdoors (Accessory only and
subject to screenm
WHOLESALE TRADE
Durable Goods see listing below
— Automotive parts and supplies x
In an enclosed buildin
— Furniture and home furnishings x
— Lumber and other construction materials x
— Electrical goods x
— Sporting,recreational, photographic, x
and hobby goods;toys and supplies
— Hardware,plumbing, and heating equipment x
and supplies
— Machinery,equipment,and supplies x
Non—Durable Goods see listing below
— Paper and paper products x
— Pharmaceuticals and cosmetics x
— Apparel and piece goods x
— Groceries and related products x
— Beer,wine,and distilled alcoholic bevera es x
RETAIL TRADE
Storage and distribution of petroleum products
(Facilities for local distrbution and sales only—
bulk terminals and tank farms prohibited)
Farm equipment sales
Motor vehicles,new and used,sales and rental
Motor vehicle service station
Nightclubs,bars,and pubs (Only as accessory use x
to hotel,motel or restaurant)
6
COMPARISON OF PERMITTED USE OPTIONS(Continued)
I-40/OLD NC HWY 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT
Old NC 86 Cornwallis Planning Planning
Land Use Staff Group Group Board Board
Proposal Proposal Proposal Pro sal Vote
RETAIL TRADE Continued
Restaurants(carry—out,drive—in, and general)
m a separate,free—standing building
Restaurants(carry—out,drive—in, and general)
when located in a service building, court or plaza,
or enclosed mall consisting of multiple uses x x 9-1-1
(Drive—in restaurants arenotpermitted in the
I-40/01d NCH 86EDD2
Retail trade,sales and rental of durable and
convenience goods,merchandise,and equipment, A-PD
including mail order houses,in a separate,free—
standing buildin
Retail trade,sales and rental of durable and
convenience goods,merchandise,and equipment, x x x 6-5
including mail order houses,when located in a
service building,court or plaza,or enclosed mall
consisting of multiple uses.
FINANCE, INSURANCE,AND REAL ESTATE
Banks,savings and loans,and credit unions x x x x
Credit agencies and institutions x x x x
Security and commodity brokers,and investment x x x x
offices
Insurance carriers and agents x x x x
Real estate agents and brokers x x x x
SERVICES
Day care facility x x x x
Large day care home x x x x
Hotels and motels x
Churches x x x x
Community center A A A A
Schools,elementary,middle,and high x 7-2-2
Schools,vocational x x x 9-1-1
Schools,dance,art,and music x x x x
Beauty and barber shops x x x x
Clubs and lodges,and social,fraternal,and union A-PD A-PD 9-1-1
clubhouses
Indoor theaters x x 9-0-2
Funeral homes x x x x
Health services,including doctors and dentists x x x x
offices,and medical and dental laboratories
Laundry,dry cleaning,and shoe repair services x x x x
Libraries x x 8-0-3
Golf driving and practice ranges
Art/photographic studios x x x x
Recreational facilities Non—profit) A-PD A-PD 9-1-1
Recreational facilities Profit A-PD A-PD A-PD A-PD
7
COMPARISON OF PERMITTED USE OPTIONS(Continued)
I-40/OLDNC HWY 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT
Old NC 86 Cornwallis Planning Planning
Land Use Staff Group Group Board Board
Proposal Proposal Proposal Proposal Vote
SERVICES Continued
Repair service,electronic and appliance x x x x
Research facility x x 7-2-2
Assembly facility— less than 300 person capacity x x x 6-5
Assembly facility— 300 or more person capacity x x 8-3
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair(body shop)
Other offices and personal services;e.g.,attorneys,
watch and jewelry repair,computer programming
and data processing,employment and travel x x x x
agencies,advertising agencies,and accounting,
engineering,architectural,and surveying offices
GOVERNMENT
Governmental protective services
(Police and lire stations, rescue squads,and x x 11-0
volunteer lire departments)
Parks,public and non—profit x x x x
Governmental facilities and office buildings x x 6-4-1
(Includ(bg solid waste collection centers
OTHER USES
Accessory uses x x x x
Historic buildings for non—residential/mixed use A A A A
8 '
9
MEDIATION SESSION SUMMARY
CORNWALLIS HILLS HOMEOWNERS AND OLD N.C. 86 RESIDENTS
JANUARY 11, 1995
On January 11, 1995,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.
• 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
10
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 tmd ideas, the two groups could not find
a basis for compromise. The Old N.C. 86 residents desire to have their property designated Primary I
Development Area, while the Cornwallis Hills residents wish to have the property designated Secondary
Development Area.
11
OLD NC 86 NEIGHBORHOOD PROPOSAL
Interests
1. To be included in the Economic Development District if
satisfied with the proposed uses. As a group, they may be
asked to be excluded at this time rather than be designated
as "secondary". The decision will be partially based on
information they hope to gather concerning the value and
market demand for their property for multi-family use which
is allowed in ,"secondary".
2 . To be zoned equally with the road front properties on the
east side of Old NC 86. They feel similar permitted uses
and regulations are necessary. They also want the east
side to be part of the Economic Development District.
3. - To reach a- joint neighborhood solution without being
required to go back through another public hearing.
4 . To modify side buffers which are contiguous to streets
rather than residential property.. Although they are not
totally happy with 100 foot buffers between uses and feel
that some of that buffer should be the residents
responsibility, they understand the need for such buffers.
5 . To reach a compromise for permitted uses.
12
Areas Where Old 86 Neighborhood Is Willing 12o AcLree
1 . Noise from business required to be contained within
building.
2 . Outside storage is prohibited.
3. Limited traffic impacts, particularly behind buildings.
4 . Encourage, but not require, larger parcel developments.
Agree that curb cuts should be limited within legal
parameters. They point out that 7 lots; currently only have
5 driveways.
5. Encourage uses that do not depend on night hours.
Proposal
1 . Create a new zoning category (perhaps Highway Frontage)
which is neither primary or secondary.
.
2. Modify permitted use table to exclude all manufacturing,
rail/bus passenger shelters, bus terminals, clubs and
lodges, libraries, recreational facilities (nonprofit) , and
governmental uses. This will address the unknown nature of
manufacturing and eliminate some high traffic uses that may
13
result in "hanging-out".
3. Allow the retail uses under the current 11primaryll
designation, recognizing that free-standing restaurants, car
sales, and motor vehicle service stations are not allowed
and that other free-standing retail will still require a
Class A Special Use Permit, with a public hearing.
4 . Reduce side buffers that do not abut residential uses to 25
feet and in return agree that if rear traffic is expected
(i.e. loading dock) that a 6 foot masonry wall will be
required to address noise concerns and further protect the
neighborhood.
14
CORNWALLIS HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD
Interests and Proposal based on meeting January 19, 1995
Interests:
1) to get Hillsborough to adopt EDD Guidelines for the area within their Extra-territorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) so that its development matches development in area south of Cates Creek
and on the west side of Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough Road;
2)to get EDD zoning approval without having to return to the Board of County
Commissioners and ask for another Public Hearing; expedite the process and work within the
existing zoning classifications, potentially modified;
3) to ensure that the area along the west side of Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough Road is included
in the EDD, and that EDD Guidelines relating to landscaping, noise, light penetration, waste
generation, site volume, etc are adopted for the area;
4)to protect and buffer the neighborhood from new non-residential development;
5) to ensure that noise from business development be contained within the buildings;
b)to ensure the outside storage is prohibited; any storage outside of a fully enclosed building
should be within a three-sided shed;
7)to ensure that a 100 foot buffer is maintained between existing neighborhood and new non-
residential development, and between Lafayette Drive and new non-residential development;
8)to limit traffic into new non-residential development, particularly behind the buildings;
9)to ensure that businesses with a limited customer base (ie, by appointment) are developed
rather than businesses that depend on attracting traffic driving by (this is meant to limit
"uninvited" customers from simply "hanging around");
10) to limit the creation of many roadway accesses for business use; to limit the potential for
conflicting traffic patterns caused by too many driveways exiting onto Old Chapel Hill-
Hillsborough Road; and
11)to encourage uses that do not depend on nighttime hours of operation or deliveries.
Proposal:
1) add to the list of permitted uses in this area:
- Animal Hospitals/Veterinarians
-Building Contractors (no storage yards)
-Plumbing, Heating, Electrical, and similar Trade Contractors (no storage yards)
- Schools, elementary, middle, high
-Funeral Homes
2) strongly encourage the consolidation of existing driveways, and/or the sharing of access
roads between businesses;we suggest that the seven driveways that now exist between
Lafayette and Oakdale Drive be consolidated to create 3 or 4 shared driveways; and
3) strongly encourage that development within this area be limited to having a minimum lot size
of three (3) acres.
15
Development Areas
Introduction
The purpose of Economic Development Districts is to provide
locations for a wide range of light industrial, distribution,flex
space,office,service, retail,and residential uses. In choosing
the location of such districts,the following major factors were
considered:
1. Adjacent and with access to an interstate highway by
way of a major arterial or collector street;
} ' r �, 2, Adjacent to rail facilities forthe movement of goods
and which offer transit service potential;
T
J.• � � �k"� � 3. Public wader and sewer service is available or capable
�7� � of being extended;and
4. Large, buildable tracts are available for development
1 J N J or division into a range of building site sizes.
Three Economic Development Districts have been established
in Orange County. One is located near the western boundary
of the county where Buckhorn Road crosses Interstates 85
and 40.Another district is centrally located south of
Hillsborough where Old N.C. Highway 86 (Churton Street
�'"'✓��- Extension)crosses Interstate 40.The third district is located
at the easten boundary of the county where U.S. Highway 70
Ecan�am�L�r�+k�anx4nf Tar�f�Pn4as� and Interstate 85 intersect
Schematic Plans
For each of the three Economic Development Districts,
schematic plans have been prepared to illustrate the desired
balance of economic development, and environmental or
"Amended I-17-S5 neighborhood protection.These goals are accomplished
Ec&oink DeveAVmnt Distracts Des&n A wxW Page 2.r.1
16
through the use of three principal land use categories: Primary
Development, Secondary Development, and Open Space
Areas.
Primary Development Areas. Primary Development Areas
are intended to accommodate the full range of light industrial,
distribution,retail,office, and service uses. To assure that land
for such development is available in the future, residential
uses,other than those presently existing,are not allowed.
Uses permitted in Primary as well as Secondary Development
Areas are identified in the following section, 2.2- Permitted
Uses.
In the case of the 1-40/Old NC 86 District, the Primary
Development Area has been divided into 'Primary I",
"Primary Transition Overlay", and 'Primary II"areas. In the
Primary 11 Area, the range of permitted uses is similar to that
of the Primary I Development Area,with only retail uses being
limited.Another significant difference is the higher landscape-
to-building ratios required in a Primary II Development Area."
The Primary Transition Overlay Area also limits the
range of permitted uses because of the proximity of
existing single-family homes.While hours of operation
are limited,the same landscape-to-building ratios
applicable within a Primary I Development Area are
required,
Secondary Development Areas. Secondary Development
Areas are intended to provide a 'step-down"or land use
buffer between Primary I and II Development Areas and
residentially zoned or developed properties.'Within these
areas,only a limited number of residential and office uses are
allowed.Where residential development is contemplated,
moderate densities ranging from two to four dwelling units per
acre are permitted.
"Amended r-17-915
In some instances,specific densities have been identified to
assure that the proper "step-down"is provided between
existing residential development and more intensive uses.As
an example,an R-2 designation or density limit of two dwelling
Economic DeveA piwnt Distracts Design M&val PVe 2.r.2
17
units per acre has been assigned to land adjacent to the
Stagecoach Run Subdivision where lot sizes of one-and-
one-half acres are common."
Open Space Areas. Open Space Areas include land which is
generally characterized by steep slopes,floodplains,natural
areas,recreational and wildlife corridors,historic sites,and
other similar features. Criteria for the preservation of such
features are provided in section 3.2 - Landscape Design.
On the following pages, the schematic plans for the three
l 1 Economic Development Districts are presented,including a
description of the Primary, Secondary,and Open Space Areas
M � �
associated with each.x To implement the schematic plans,
developers and property owners, particularly those with large
a_ c s tracts of land,are encouraged to prepare specific project
` J01- e plans which not only reflect market forces but provide a
-� coordinated blend of compatible uses.
e
1-831Buckhom Road District
The 1-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District is
` comprised of 300 acres located on the northeast corner of
R the interstate interchange. This acreage is distributed among
Econamk 00wkpnwtDisb kt the three principal land use categories in the schematic plan as
follows:
Primary Development Area 220 Acres
Open Space Area 51 Acres
Rights-of-Way 29 Acres
Access to interior portions of the district is proposed through
extension of a service road being constructed as part of the
1-8511-40 widening. The service road will terminate on the west
side of Buckhorn Road,and any collector road extended to
serve the district must align with it.
Transit access is also proposed through a centrally located
park-and-ride lot or similar facility with access to both rail and
thoroughfare systems. Design criteria for these systems are
presented in section 3.3, Circulation & Parking.
Land uses in and adjacent to the district range from single-
"Amended I-17-s5 family residential to a variety of non-residential uses.The
Ecown*Development Distracts Des rr Mw al PCVe 2.1.3
18
1-40/01d NC 86 District*
The 1-40/101d N.C. 86 Economic Development District
encompasses all four corners of a major interstate interchange
south of Hillsborough. The area consists of 724 acres,
distributed among the principal land use categories in the
schematic plan as follows:
Primary Development Area
Primary 1 200 Acres
Primary TrU nsition Overlay 24 Acres
Primary 11 115 Acres
Secondary Development Area 106 Acres
Open Space Area 207 Acres
RigMs-of-Way 92 Acres
The district is characterized by widely scattered single-family
a residential development, consisting of low-density subdivisions
-`> and a mobile home park.Two subdivisions which adjoin the
district, Stagecoach Run and Cornwallis Hills, deserve special
attention.
off"-6 0 ° °s ° • •,`�
Lots in Stagecoach Run average approximately one-and-
o ne-half acres in size. Because of the law-density of the
subdivision,a Secondary Development Area has been
designated adjacent to its boundaries where residential
■��� densities are limited to two dwelling units per acre. Areas
within which this density limit applies have been identified on
the schematic plan with an T-2 designation.
O/Od�N.C.Hg7di way B6 The Secondary Development Area has been extended around
Eaavramfc G�Prkanwnt D&**t the full circumference of the district except where it abuts
Cates Creek, the northern boundary of the district.The
floodplain and the steep slopes bordering Cates Creek and its
tributaries allow a Primary I Development Area to be located
adjacent to Cornwallis Hills,a moderate-density subdivision
with densities of three dwelling units per acre.
Because this 'hatural buffer"may not be sufficient to eliminate
land use impacts such as noise,site plans must include
mitigation devices for this purpose. Criteria for the
"Amended i-r7-815 preservation of the floodplain as well as other natural features
are discussed in section 3.2- Landscape Design.
Econ4r k Devek p rant Districts Des47n A4arwkaf PcVe 2.1.s
19
Techniques for reducing noise levels are highlighted in 2.4 -
Environmental Factors.
The northern portion of the district includes a
"finger-like"projection along the west side of Old NC
Highway 86,extending from Cates Creek to Oakdale
Drive.Because of its proximity to existing single-family
homes in the Cornwallis Hills Subdivision,that portion of
the district has been designated as a Primary Transition
Overlay Area. Manufacturing and wholesale trade uses
are not permitted, as well as certain types of retail
establishments.While hours of operation are limited,the,
landscape-to-building ratios are the same as required in
the Primary I Development Area,
Access to the four quadrants of this district is generally
available from Old N.C. Highway 86 or byway-of service
roads paralleling 1-40. Primary.I Development Areas on the
north side of 1-40 are focused on these thoroughfares
because they link directly with 1-40 and provide the most
efficient means of moving people,goods, and services in and
out of the area. Nevertheless, because of the potential for
strip commercial development, access is limited to certain
locations. These access points as well as a collector road
system and transit access point are identified on the schematic
plan for the district. Standards for intersection and roadway
design are explained in greater detail in section 3.3,
Circulation & Parking.
To the south of 1-40, a Primary II Development Area has been
designated adjacent to the interstate highway and its
intersection with Old N.C. Highway 86.While the range of
permitted uses is similar to that of the Primary I Development
Area., retail uses are limited,and higher landscape-to-building
ratios are required.These ratios and their application are
explained in detail in section 2.3- Land Use Intensity.
Two significant resources existing within the boundaries of the
district include a bottomland hardwood forest bordering Cates
Creek and the remnants of the "New Chapel Hill Road". The
old roadway,illustrated on George Tate's 1891 map of the
Econor*DevedV► nt Disftft Des4;n M&x W pale 2.1.7
•
WES'
Ike� I ��► 1 I
long
41
ANN
Ak
%O
!V091*11
wi-zb lair
FA
MWAWAIW
20b
county, is also shown on the US GS quadrangle map of the
area. The forest,identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas
and Wildlife Habitats as Site *E07,is located on the west side
of Old N.C.86 where it intersects with Cates Creek. Rather
than eliminating such features from design consideration, they
should be recognized and used as a focal point for the
development. Criteria for this purpose are discussed in
section 3.2- Landscape Design.
1-851U.S. Highway 70 District
The 1-85/U.S. Highway 70 Economic Development District
extends almost two miles along either side of 1-85 and is
located in the Lower Eno River Watershed. Like the
1-85/Buckhorn Road District,land uses are subject to
watershed protection standards governing impervious surface
and the control of stormwater.lmpervious surface limits and
standards for detention basin construction and maintenance
are discussed further in section 2.3 - Land Use Intensity and
Appendix C-Wet Detention Basin Standards,respectively.
This District is distinguished by many existing uses, ranging
from single-family and mobile home park developments to
small-scale service and commercial operations. Although
existing development is scattered and vacant land is
available,in-fill development will characterize new growth in
lei the area.Acreage in the schematic plan is distributed among
the three principal land use categories as follows:
Primary Development Area 287 Acres
Secondary Development Area too Acres
i Open Space Area 186 Acres
Rights-of-Way so Acres
1 / 1 Rhodes Creek is the major drainageway in the District,flowing
/ in a northerly direction to the Eno River. Its floodplain is
18511IShfgOway 70 extensive in places and could limit development in some
Eearam�G��k�onx=v�fDislr- f locations. In addition,steeper slopes adjacent to Rhodes
Creek and its tributaries could be somewhat restrictive for
"Amended 10-s-94 development. Overall,though,the gently rolling topography of
the District poses no problems.
Access to all sites is generally available from U.S. Highway 70,
but steep slopes adjacent to some portions of the roadway
Ecorron*Deve%pwnt Distracts aeso?MwxW PiVe 2.1.9
21
Permitted Uses
Ptrngffa d tms As noted in the preceding section, Economic Development
Districts are divided into two major development categories:
As shown on page 2.2.7, offriaes and
personal servile estabfhments are Primary and Secondary. In Primary Development Areas, a
permitted by right Err both Pnirray and wider range of acceptable nonresidential uses is permitted.
Secondary DevelopnrrentAreas In the However,since Secondary Development Areas are provided
I-G&Buckhom Road aa'sftt. Plans as a 'step-down"or transition between Primary Development
for devek prnentof the"case study" ,areas and neighboring residentially zoned or developed
Site 41Nia'thus be reviewed and&Woved
by County staff. If the proposed property, the range of permitted uses is limited to office and
office complex was to be located In residential uses.
the I-95/U.S.Howay 70 dD'strrct,
development of the site would requ#v In the table presented on the following pages,individual uses
the approval as a Plarrrred Developrrrent
(see Article 7 of the Zon#g OraPinww). permitted in the Primary and Secondary Development Areas
are identified for each Economic Development District. The
In ad0tion to the Permitted Use male, rationale for distinguishing between each district is as follows:
the developer checks Section 2.4,
Envlrrarrrrrental Factors, to#?sure that 1. I-85Buckhom Road- The intent in this district is to
the prmosed offte complex is create an industrial park setting. Light industrial
pernWt W by r4ht.Specific*, a and distribution establishments are thus permitted
threshold estWshed for low water by right, but other uses such as office,service,and
usage is chucked to be sum it is retail establishments require the approval of a
not exceeded. Special Use Permit as a Planned Development.
For a7uses, the ffiresholdis 30,000 2. I-85M.S.Highway 7'0- Because of the number of
gakns per aay.(GPD). Based on water existing uses in this district,nearly all uses of an
cormpp ion records for shirt, industrial,wholesale,retail,office or service nature
protects constructed by the developer, are permitted by right.
the average a*usage is 15 gaffs per
day per errployeeor510 GPD (15 x 34). 3. I-40/011d NC Highway 86 -The intent in this district is to
The threshold is not exceeded, the create a business park setting. Light industrial and
oMe corrlotex is consedered a use by distribution establishments are permitted, and service
nt►ht,and approval as a Planned * and retail establishments normally associated with such
DevelVnwnt wN not be requhV. parks are also allowed. In an effort to control strip
commercial development, free-standing retail,service
station,and restaurant buildings are not permitted.
"Amenai'ed 1-17-s15
Econornk DeveAVment Districts Desj�n MwxW Page 2.2.1
22
3. I-40/011d NC Highway 86(Continued)*- This district is
different in that the Primary Development Area has been
divided into three categories: Primary I, Primary Transition
Overlmand Primary II. One difference between the Primary
I and II categories is that retail establishments are not
permitted in the Primary I I Development Area located south
Of 1-40.Another difference is that higher Site Volume Ratios
(SVR) are required in the Primary 11 Development Area,
resulting in less intense development (building volume) and
more landscaping.The intent of the Primary II area is to soften
the transition between the Primary I area and residentially zoned
areas to the south.
The difference between the Primary I and Primary
Transition Overlay areas is based on similar
reasoning. The Primary Transition Overlay Area
includes that portion of the 1-40/Old NC 8s
Economic Development District north of Cates
Creek and south of Oakdale Drive.Situated on
the west side of Old NC Highway 86,that portion
of the District backs up to a number of residential
lots in the Cornwallis Hills Subdivision. For this
reason, manufacturing and wholesale uses, as
well as certain retail establishments, are not
permitted.Hours of operation for permitted uses
are also established (see the following Permitted
Use Table).
Where an "X"appears in the column entitled "Permitted by
Right';the use is allowed, and plans for the development of
that use will be reviewed and approved by the County staff.
Where the column is vacant, the use is not permitted.
Likewise,if a specific use is not listed in the table,the use is
not permitted.
If the letters "A'; "A-PD"or '8"appear in the column,the
use is allowed,but only after a public hearing is conducted,and
the use has been approved by either the Board of County
Commissioners as a Class A Special Use ("A")or a Planned
Development("A-PD"),or by the Board of Adjustment as a
Class B Special Use(B).
Each application for approval of a Special Use Permit will be
evaluated in terms of the design criteria and performance
"Amended 1-17-95 standards contained in this Manual as well as the general
conditions governing such uses as identified in Article 8 of the
Ecorwnk Devekpwnt Distracts Desl�n A wxW Pave 2.2.2
23
Zoning Ordinance.
For uses requiring approval as a Planned Development,
applications will be evaluated in terms of the conditions
identified in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the
criteria and standards contained in this Design Manual. The
Planned Development approval process includes the
approval of a Class A Special Use Permit, site plan, and
rezoning to a"PD"or "Planned Development"
class cation. In the case of properties located in one of the
Economic Development Districts,the zoning classification
would be "PD-ED".
Another important point to note is that a threshold has
been established in Section 2.4,Environmental Factors,
for low wader usage.Proposed uses which exceed that
threshold will be required to secure approval as a Planned
Development.
Ecorwffic Developwnt Distncts-Des&n MaemW Page 2.2.3
24
25
a
O N
y 1 b 3 C x k x
in
a.
k
y Q ►w.i G.� Vy1
x x k
A b v o w x A as i! x x
Z .U+ y U
W W O y b as z �
cis
Cry A � .a 'v � 'd •a �"� � �v
C �
.r 3
O
c
D •�
w b Q+ C 0. 064
�r etf '•+ � � � � .SQ .., dq '�
y ° a
3
V) ro h M b C p
ci.Al
w� � Q" y V ea a O ,O r0 � � �� •� � '� cz � 4
ao p p K cz
lo
z y 4)
w =
ip
Ei sn
w rC„ '� GAS 00 O E O .p
o 3 � 0 3 W y $ E rl
� � � ¢ UUUr� a
26
o �+
3 o ai
4
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
A R Q p x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Z o .6 o U
a � .d 6z
sm
co 0
a0 > �
zQx x x x x alxxx xx x x x x o
O
W � •� c. � c � g
A c a rA
M Cc W
� o � qj x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
A cc cz h
Q > U
.sa O y a
CO
C, a
.52 cc
cc
a � u .• o : 'o �
,�yy y r.� p 1 n .� y y Ar 7 ~ `V
n7 'rJ rJ" `u ^" cd v t3 � O
Oq i b b b .d o A: W 0. b b o U A ao •v c
o .. c a a�
3 0 3 Q eo o ° o c b a y y a m q
cg a o
C6 I I I I
27
� a o
y a.
w
O • �j O
W 6 Z `Q
O 3 d x k x x x x x x x k x x o
w >
C
ca cd tN�� ems `, R,
A o y
aw d a� '� o A v
Ln
b
cr 04
Ws� y H o
y o a> «+ 3 ee 0 � b ca cc
ta
E� � xo tZ k
X0 m2 10L Wtx 8 Z S * O
c
w i i ► i i i i i i i i w i i i i i i
28
A b cv
A t% 4
.aid a
w y
� � M p
00 y
a�
Wa � d Z ro
a � •-° °
a
'1 O a
b
W b S A � Q
3 b c 'f 2 S
� V O
y i
� � a 8
> a. °
m A 9 o
H '4 ;
w b Q w x
a� > U o
� .� o
IT P
O '� �. 0..O M lull .QO
CZ
rz
U :: :C a a 'w c� y
() RS p u hh
cl
3 ° .� ° U > 'i y 'may ° yFj c Q.� A sa
O � w ba3 .s� ytiE° a ° �- 3b o
z
29
A b N
00 d m co as x x x k x x x k x x x
h
E.
o
GZ a '� '° 8 Z •�
a O a
Wb Q `o d co ca iC
' F4
wa
t , �
Q y d d cq m k x a! x k x k o
C =
u b $
a>i
F b �
0
y o o`�io F d ra co 0 x x k x x i! A k i! x
A a
Q 5 cz n
aw, y �� $ $
OU
.0 C vim! O W
h
$ U � b
�o .5 F a s v ' o . q •S v a a �e 1° a t� •o
10; 03
C � •R ��" � � "". .� � fi y � •�"' b �'.. ° 'ri � y i. � ,� .0 Vi •� y� � .� � g� ,4�5 1'
3 0 3 a s3 b 3 0 0 wao r� C$7 ° go .o a 4 cc cqs
z ; y .. ^ ` o y
30
I
a
w Qy
C6. U
Y � o
A
Q ax 0 x
a u O a '
O R b
W 'o ,~ R S
� � a 8
O yid x x x x x o
O
U
� a e
E~ . C m
R
� _ y
R
b
o <
CA
t` "
o
b
d h t8 y b b a? aso
Q
b CL
as
ra ro a� o
ja
ow
O
Z aaadCfiCA
a � wz x a
31
o >+ o
Q p N
a o 3 c k k x x x x x x d k x
d " sp
� y
W y
aV 4q
W 0. L7 m z
w •� oo ~ �" F
O y Q k k a! a! x d a! o
v
U � Q
aw ow aw a, a d a �d
W o 05 ca b v C C d d
F b .w
ow a s 96 a6 w w 96 ai
O � �_ � •� �; p; d d d d d d d d d d
a o �
C
a, a y 'yamy o IS.
Or 78
v Q A �e A
y
rA
cc
cc
ej
tj
..
if raj " •° a v ,�° v
ej
� "0 •� � 0 O 0
32
o �
add 3 0 xa k x x °" °" x
_
N y
U
x x k
V
D! k' k iC x x x >! x i4
3
W
8
Z c v d d d
CC A a
b
a o. A. A. w a. C. o. A. a. a A. a A. a
94
cz
0 co
Jw
CZ
Ci. b ca d «• ap CQ D O
� � y v � �+ � tO I v � � y � � .r •d � •'r �
9 U y
It p `c° $ b
h
o. y a UO b b w �
cOO y y o. y Q\
= it 0 VI p .� '�'' .� ° cz
�. .
�v ccaU C� I I .� .sq ,Lcy O q
VJ vi a� ..�� ��.. W CC � ~
y o y .Sd 5o U `° ° a� � 2 y a 0 y T
° O a c c w w w w cOV O
rnaaU " � wx ° � .ac7a� r� xxoc � a� 0 W
33
a .d 3 c x x x k C N
xt
O y
a 00 k k x k C
w
H Q iC k x x 6
IOU Q
A g
O d ~ x x x x o
A °c
b '5a
pq `'
o00 x x x x C
W 2 `� `°
q
cc
��r• .7 v � y � � U �
o
� � ,V1 � � � ti O •4+ � w IV � �
ICI �
a"
� o � �
4ZE Cl `�
0
z 4 0
C? C7 a. 0 ~ 0 Q x �
34
The importance of the Site Volume Ratio (SVR)is that it sets
the land use intensity standard that projects in the Economic
Development Districts must meet.A minimum SVR has thus
been established for each category of land use permitted in
the Economic Development Districts. Proposed development
must meet or exceed the following ratios:
dlr
Minimum Required Site Volume Ratios
Required SVR
Primary,Primary Transition
Overlay,Primary 1,and
Land Use Secondary Areas Primary 11 Areas
Residential 2.0 3,0
OfceAnstitutional 2.0 3.0
Service/Retail 1.0 2.0
Flex Space 1.0 2.0
Distribution/Wh0lesale 3.0 4.0
Industrial 1.0 2.0
NOTE: Industrial use is considered to be any use which involves the assembly,production or manufacture of
goods or materials.The intensity or impacts of industrial use depends on the nature of the specific
activity. For example,electronics assembly would be considered an industrial use,but would have
littlepotential for pollution,high water use or other impacts which are often perceived as being
associated with industrial activity.
"Amended 1-17-915 Wth the exception of residential uses,the site volume ratios
were selected after an intensive study of the design features
and land use intensity ratios of selected sites in the Research
Triangle and Piedmont Triad regions.The study involved at
7TJOt;'Lase SftAdy-Cafa&ft least three sites from each of the land use categories,and the
We VVANW MAD ratios established above are representative of the average
SVR for each category.
SVR=LVR-8W
Although studies were not conducted of residential uses, they
Lar dwWe MdmtNw RC§o 2.399 have been assigned the same SVR as office and institutional
LBSS.&,A"7o ' va*# 1oE uses.The rationale for this approach is that land uses in
f£RND a277 Secondary Development Areas are limited to residential and
officellnstitutional uses, thus the same landscape to building
Site Volume Ratio 2.122 ratio;e.g.,site volume ratio,was desired.
A final point to note is the landscape volume ratio obtained in
the preceding section when comparing wooded sites with sites
devoid of tree cover. The site volume ratio for the case study
site (2.122)exceeded the minimum required SVR for office
and institutional uses because of the forested areas on the
rear portion of the site. If the forested areas had been absent
Ecorwrk Development Distracts Des07 Mawaf PVe 2.3.1 2
35
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 generall:,, 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 I-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,
dC14L-
fred G. and Jo Soulier
112 Pointe Place
Hillsborough, NC
2317 Old Chapel Hill Road 36
Hillsborough, NC 27278
December 14, 1994
Mr. William J . Waddell , Jr. ,
Chairman,
Orange County Planning Board
6513 Meadow View Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Mr . Waddell , Members of the Planning Board :
I am writing to you and members of the Orange County Planning
Board on behalf of the landowners who live on the West side of
Old NC # 86 in the I-40/11-)ld NC Hwy. 86 Development Area recently
incorporated into the Economic Development Schematic Plan as
recommended by the Economic Development Work Group appointed by
the Orange County Commissioners last spring . This action was
taken as result of a petition signed by all the landowners in
this area and constant requests on our part to be included in
the Economic Development Plan.
The Economic Development District Work Group met all through the
summer and into the fall to discuss and decide on a recommendation
to the Commissioners which was presented at the Public Hearing
on November 30 , 1994 , at the County Courthouse over which you
presided . You will recall that the Work Group recommended that
our properties be included in the Primary I Development Area .
Having attended all of the Work Group ' s meetings , we were ex-
tremely pleased with this recommendation.
We were also extremely pleased that the Cornwallis Hills Home-
owners Association supported us for Primary I development as
evidenced by the statement made by Mr. Guy B . Massey, President
of that Association at the Public Hearing. I personally spoke
with Mr . Massey on three occasions after the Public Hearing in an
effort to get our two Homeowners Associations together to discuss
this issue, but , unfortunately, Mr . Massey was going to be out of
town and unable to meet with us . He did assure me, however, that
he would send a letter to you, the Planning Board, stating that
their Association does indeed support our properties for Primary
I development . I trust that he has done this and that you have
that letter in hand at this time .
I would like to list for you the landowners who signed our
original petition and support us in the endeavor . Beginning at
37
Mr . William J. .Waddell , Jr . , Page Two
Chairman, Orange County Planning Board
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 December 14, 1994
Oakdale Drive and moving South to I-40 , the landowners are :
Mr . and Mrs . Cliff Isaacs
Mr . and Mrs . Robert E . Smith
Mr . and Mrs . James Williams
Mrs . June J . Haas
Mrs . Juanita S . Sturdivant
Mrs . Margaret Underwood
Mrs . Audrey Miller
Mr . and Mrs . James W. Smith
Mr . Thomas Horne
Mr . and Mrs . James C . Rippy
We would like to point out to you, as briefly as possible , our
reasons for wishing to remain in the Primary I Development Area :
I . The Town of Hillsborough has contr=ol of development
from I-85 to Cates Creek on the East Side of Old NC
Hwy. 86 , and it is all zoned commercial . We were told
by Frank Ray, Chairman of the Town of Hillsborough
Board of Adjustment, that they have no choice but to
grant permits for commercial deveopment in that area .
This was a result of our concerns for that Board ' s
granting the permit to Cary Oil Company to build the
Quickie Mart and Car Wash across the street from our
homes . This means , until the Town of Hillsborough
votes to also include that area in the Economic Devel-
opment District, all requests for permits for commercial
building will be granted because they are zoned for
commercial development with no restrictions . This has
greatly distressed all of us who have lived here for so
many years with no commercial development closer than
I-85 .
2 . In order to be competitive with the properties on the
East side of Old NC 86 , we would greatly prefer to
remain in the Primary I Development Area as recommended
by the Work Group. At least under the Economic Devel-
opment District Plan, controlled growth would take place
in our area , and we would still be able to sell our
properties to retail businesses , if we so desire, who
would be in a better position to compete with the un-
controlled commercial development across the road .
You have to admit that it would not be fair to land-
owners on the West side of the highway to have limited
Mr . William J. Waddell , Jr. , 38
Chairman, Orange County Planning Board Page Three
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
December 14, 1994
options when the time comes to sell our properties .
It is quite possible that our homes could be sold and
used as offices , clinics , and even retail shops , but at
least we would have that option. Being in Secondary
Development would greatly restrict our options . Please
consider this point carefully.
3 . The resale value of our property would not be nearly as
great if we are not included in the Primary I Development
Area . As someone said after the Public Hearing, our
resale value could be cut in half if we are restricted
from selling our properties for retail purposes . This
means a great deal to all of us who are faced with un-
controlled commercial development across the road .
4 . Quoting from the recommendations of the Economic Devel-
opment Work Group: "The Secondary Area provides a buffer
between Primary I and II Areas and existing residential
neighborhoods and is limited to residential , office, or
institutional uses" . As you can see , this type zoning
would not be appropriate for our properties where no
buffer whatsoever exists between us and uncontrolled
commercial development across the road .
5 . We landowners understand the concern for having so many
driveways along the road, but we feel confident that
this problem can be controlled to everyone ' s satisfaction
by the Orange County Planning Department and the Economic
Development Commission.
We simply ask that you and the Planning Board please take a long,
hard look at our situation in making your decisions and put your-
selves in our shoes . We urge you to please recommend that our
properties remain in the Primary I Development Area of the
Economic Development District Plan to be voted on by the Orange
County Commissioners at their Jan meeting.
Si cerely
rs . June 9. Haas ,Chairman
I-40/Old NC 86
Homeowners Association
j jh
cc: Members , Orange County Planning Board
Members, Orange. County Commissioners
Mr. Ted Abernathy, Director, Economic Development Commission
Mr. Marvin Collins, Director, Orange County Planning Department
Members, Homeowners Association , and CorniJallia u; , , - r�..�
uc�-,�-t»� t�+•vJ PItL KHbHK l b P.01
39
Cornwallis HM property Owners'Association
P.O. Box 1013, HillrbaroUgIr. NC 27278
ocrmber I G, I yy4
Mt.
Mavis,Coffins, Qitcctur I')
()range C:.xsnty Planning;llcpartzricric
306-F Revere Roil
Hillsborough, Nth 27278
Dcar Mr. Collins:
Our Property Owixcrs' A•suciation would like to comrrxnd the Planning thpsrtmcnt for ncr
excellent worts done in preparing a plan fnr rtmtrol cd derelopmcat in the 1-40 101d NC 86 nags.
As bore for s decision on its adoption draws amr,we would likc to 2ddras s new issue char has
surfaced since our last letter on the topic.
Ilw sled,of laud Jcn.g Old NC:86 wbieh suety just post Rippy Lane.crosser our main:entrance
and coatinucs to Oakdale Drive that has recently beta added to the F<oa,)mie Dereloprseat
Diaries causes great concern for us. '('his snip borders couch of Cornwallis NWs and any
developusent within it impacts our neighborhood directly. Whilc we appreciate that development
here will be controlled uadcr the EIM plan,we strongly urge you and everyone else involved in the
decision,to consider the xoniug carefully. We would ask for this area to be roucd in a way that
wouldn't detract frota the f2mily-oricntcd wry of life in Cornwallis Hills. Ilndcr the dar=t
Primary I toning slated here, retail businesses would be allowed. This means loager hours of
operation.often until late at night,Atuwting puny types of pe uPle and morn"stop and gv,
traffic. Establishments such as contractors' yards operating lard heavy madiinery or atanufacturera
with loading docks would also advaselr affect our acighborhood. Excluding these typt3 of
businesses would leave this area open to something like a library or office deyelopmc,rt that would
have limited tnffie and hours,and be a good buf it around our houses similar to the baffCr around
Stagecoacls Run. This would also encourage a developer to combine the parcels for a single use,
consolidating driveway and service areas. 26 lots in our neighborhood are disYttly adjacent to chc
EDD: that's almost one quarter of our subdivision. Please consider the sarcty of our families when
You atakc your dc6sioa to adopt tic EDD platy.
The ktm fro,a Mrs.June Haas,dated December 14. 1994,daa not accurately state the position
of our Auncistinn. We hope this letter will cl.rifj our stance: we.support tlu incluaivn of th_e
parcels in the FDD,but with limitcd.ud wcUgAwned t.—.allowed.
Sincerely,
)o Joulier, Vicc-PMsidcnt I)izc-cton,
�•C 4 ��II!! �� �'vw'
�: �A�1�! �hs,t3Srtit7�n
TOTAL P.01
DEC-19-1994 12:44
'F'T cu.cks
RFATTOIr
December 19, 1994
Mr. Marvin CoTTins,Director
Orange County Planning Department
306-F Revere Rd.
Hillsborough.N.C. 27278
Dear Mr. Collins:
As the General Partner of Old 86 Limited Partnership.the developers
of Cornwallis Hills Subdivision.I have watched ,with understandable
intere4tjprogress of the rezoning of the I40-Old 86 Node from its
present zone of AR and R-1 to ED-Economic Development District. I
believe you are on the right path in this rezoning as Orange County
does need more land available for economic development.
I understand that your staff (and you) met with property owners in
Cornwallis Hills,and the reports I have received are very poitive in
regard to the considerations shown for the good and welfare of the
Cornwallis Hills res i dents.However,there is one major concern expressed
and I share that concern.
Part of the rezoning plan includes the propert that borders Old 86
on the West side and adjacent to the entrance to Cornwallis Hills,
both North and South of it. On the North side.the property extends
a considerable distance in depth and therefore is adjacent to the rear
lot lines of several of our residents. The use of this portion of the
rezoned property therefore becomes a concern of those residents. It is
also a concern of mine, as the developer,as we have a remaining 48 acres
to develop and the entrance to the community is very importsnt when
trying to attract buyers. An undesireable development on this particular
property would be harmful both to the existing residents and to the
developer for future buyers.
If it is at all possible to prevent retail/strip development from taking
place on this particular property and permit only uses that would need
to use a large area with a ratio of open space to developed space ,so as
to protect the adjacent propert owners,this would give the owners of those
parcels some benefit from the rezoning without harming the neighbors in
Cornwallis HiIls.present and future_ It may not be the maximum benefit
they could getfrom rezoning.but it would certainly be- better than their
present zoning. I think it is a fair solution to a potential problem.
I do hope you and your staff will take this suggestion under careful
consideration,
Melvin F Aashkis
415 Clayton Road Chapel Hill,Noah ComlinA 27514 (919)968-8545
TOTAL P.01
41
Cornwallis Hills Pro er Owners 'Associatio
p � n
P.O. Box 1013, Hillsborough, Nortb Carolina 27278
January 13, 1995
Mr. Marvin Collins, Director
Orange County Planning Department
306-F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr..Collins:
We sincerely thank you and Mr. Abernathy for your assistance at the meeting
between Cornwallis Hills representatives and the homeowners along Old 86 on
Wednesday,January 11. After discussing it with our*Board of Directors, our position is
still strongly in favor of Secondary zoning for the two strips of land most recently
included in the EDD plan. We are concerned about maintaining the aesthetic appearance of
the major corridor leading to the Town of Hillsborough. Perhaps limiting the amount of
Primary I area would encourage the Town to follow the County's lead and mirror
controlled development in order to preserve some of the rural character of this entrance.
Also, with much of the node in the EDD zoned Primary I, there is no shortage of space for
commercial development; on the other hand, office space is at a premium in Hillsborough.
Having much of the east side of Old 86 developed commercially is as good an argument
as any to keep a transitional buffer for our established neighborhood, which we have
maintained through restrictive covenants so as to be an asset: to this area of the County.
Cornwallis Hills is bound on three sides by the EDD - this directly affects 26 lots,
and indirectly all 125-plus homes; we are concerned for the safety of our 116 children.
While we appreciate the efforts of the work group to put many safeguards into the EDD
plan, we do not believe that commercial development surrounding a residential family
neighborhood makes good sense for our community or Orange County.
Sincerely,
Jo Soulier, President
Cornwallis Hills Property Owners' Assn.
42
January 31, 1995
Mr. Marvin Collins, Director
Orange County Planning Department
306-F Revere Road
Hillsborough,NC 27278
Dear Marvin:
As discussed within our conversation earlier this week, I would like to request a review by
the Planning Board of the proposed buffers for the property beginning on Oakdale Drive
and moving South to I-40 on Old NC 86. It is obvious from the decisions made by the
County Commissioners that the original recommendation for assignment of Primary I to
these properties will not be acceptable.
The I-40/Old NC 86 Homeowners Association is working diligently to develop a
compromise utilization of our land that would reflect a conscientious effort to meet the
Planning Board and Commissioners' objectives. However, we would like for your group
to consider a reduction of the buffers, since the original Primary I zone has been deferred.
It is especially important that buffer restrictions for corner lots be explored, since buffers
are required on the front, back, and side. This reduces useable land tremendously without
any compensation. An example would be my property which adjoins the Cornwallis Hills
Subdivision on the South side of the main entrance to the subdivision. It is imperative that
buffer concessions be explored by the Planning Board as a reflection of their joint
commitment to reach a compromise zoning for our land.
Thanks again for your assistance and support in working with our association for
resolution of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Tom Horne
2611 Winningham Road
Chapel Hill,NC 27516
cc: Members, Old 86 NC Homeowners Association
r'
Cornwallis JL61(s _ 43
Property Owners Association, Inc.
P.O.BoX 1013,1,61sbo=gh,Njx'2 72 78
March 7, 1995
To the County Commissioners:
Re: Two strips of land adjacent to Cornwallis Hills at the 1-40/Old 86 node, as yet
unapproved for the EDD pending talks between landowners on Old 86 and Cornwallis
Hills residents
We appreciate the opportunity to negotiate among both parties the best use of this
land. The Planning Staff has trade several attempts to keep the two groups talking, hoping
to reach a compromise. Ultimately, each meeting ends at the salve roadblock:
commercial/retail or not. We feel further discussion is futile and ask that you review the
situation and make a decision soon.
The many families of Cornwallis Hills feel that our safety is threatened by
businesses directly adjacent to our subdivision that attract casual passers-by and keep late
hours; no feasible modification of buffer requirements under Primary zoning can allay that
fear. Other less densely populated residential areas abutted to the EDD have buffers
provided by Secondary zoning. First impressions arc the strongest. We hope that visitors
to Hillsborough will continue to be greeted by at least some of the rural character now
present just north of I-40. While we'd like to see an expansion of the tax base for the
county, we feel these two areas are such a small percentage of the EDD node here and
would better serve as much-needed office space. We ask that the areas in question be
classified under Secondary zoning in the EDD plan. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Cornwallis Hills Property Owners' Association
�Lb�,
o Soulier, President Vic Cunnirfghwn, Vice President
Tony Whitaker, Secretary ennis Whirling, Treasurer
Ed Gill, Director Mel Rashkis-,,Di cto nd Ejejelpper
m Ti irec r Director
o emann> D to Dc e iscn
cc: Orange County Planning Board /
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
Ted Abernathy, EDD Director
June Haas, Old 86 homeowners
44
Members of the Planning Commission,
As a resident of Cornwallis Hills I would like to voice my opinion
about the impending Economic Development slated for the area
around our homes.We all know that at this point, it's going to happen.
I would like to ask the board to reconsider the zoning to be changed
to secondary versus primary.
We recently moved to Hillsborough from Orlando Florida. This
town is what we always wanted to bring our children up in. After 16
years in Orlando you can imagine the growth and changes that we
witnessed. Not all of them good. I don't think that this plan is what
this town needs. How many banks and restaurants are needed for a
town of this size?
I don't want to see Hillsborough turned in to a "DRIVE-THRU"
town!
Thank you for your time and please consider changing the
zoning to benefit all of us who would like to bring their children up in
the nice place that Hillsborough is.
Once Again Thank You,
Jim Fuller and Family
105 Lafayette Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
4F
Brent & Ellen Mitchell
111 Lafayette Dr.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Marvin Collins
Orange County Planning Director
306 F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr. Collins,
We are writing to express our concerns regarding the zoning of the newly added EDD
strip along Old NC 86 between Oakdale and Lafayette Drive. Our home is the sixth lot in on
Lafayette and the last in the block to be directly affected by the proposed zoning.
We have attended neighborhood meetings with your staff and the most recently held
public hearing. We understand that the residents along Old NC 86 are very anxious to get
the best deal for their property. It seems reasonable from what we have learned concerning
the restrictions on the land to ask that the land be zoned for commercial use rather than retail.
We know the residents argue that they should be zoned retail since there is retail across the
street. However, the land across the street will not likely butt up against residential property.
Our most specific personal concern is that I (Ellen) have a home daycare business. Our
backyard is constantly in use by my children and other children in our neighborhood who are
also in home daycare situations. I am concerned about the safety factor of having a lot of
traffic and/or people coming and going from a mere 100 feet away.
We also echo the concern over the number of driveway entrances from businesses that
could create a traffic nightmare for us and the other residents in our neighborhood. We ask
that you please take this into consideration when deciding on the allowances for the lots in
question.
Thank you for your hard work and your consideration of Cornwallis Hills in the ongoing
process of rezoning.
Sincerely,
Brent Mitchell
Ellen Mitchell
46
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 30, 1994
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County
Planning Board met on November 30, 1994 at 7 :30 p.m. in the new County
Courthouse, Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for a joint
quarterly public hearing.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and
Commissioners Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, Don Willhoit and Verla -Insko
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Planning
Director Marvin Collins, Planner Mary Willis and Deputy Clerk to the Board
Kathy Baker.
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair William Waddell, and
members Karen Barrows, Joan Jobsis, Elizabeth Walters, Cheryl Howie, Kent
Scott, Clint Burklin, and Margaret Brown.
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Hoecke, Cherie Rosemond,
Virginia Boland and Larry Reid.
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE LOCATED IN THE
PERMANENT AGENDA FILES IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE
A. OPENING REMARKS
Chair Carey opened the meeting and introduced Planning Board Chair
Bill Waddell.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. The
meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Amendments Related to Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
a. Article 6.23 .2 - Residential Density
This item was presented by Mary Willis in order to receive
citizen comments on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which
would allow the transfer of dwelling units across common boundaries of
adjoining lots of record for cluster subdivisions within the University
Lake Watershed.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner
Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board
of Commissioners no sooner than January 17, 1995.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
1. Amendments Related to Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
b. Article 6. 23 .7b - Permitted Use in Stream Buffers
C. Article 6.23 .8 - Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities
d. Article 6. 23 . 10a - Applicability/Existing Development
47
e. Article 6. 23 . 10c - Applicability/Existing Lots
f. Article 6.23 . 11 - Administration
Items C1 (b-f) were presented by Mary Willis in order to receive
citizen comments on proposed amendments which would allow for the reduction
of setbacks adjacent to streams and reservoirs to the extent necessary to
allow development of an existing lot of record.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD
Commissioner Willhoit requested statistics on the frequency of pump
failures and on the length of time between failure and completion of
repairs. The localized effect from leaking tanks and/or nitrification
fields needs to be considered.
Mary Willis indicated that she would request this information from the
Health Department and forward to the Commissioners. She commented that
current Health Department standards require the septic tank and
nitrification field to be 100 feet from the reservoir which exceed the
state standards.
Kent Scott indicated that each pump is equipped with an alarm which
sounds when there is a failure. This is intended to immediately advise
homeowners of the failure of their system.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
MOLLIE S. JOHNSON, a Lake Orange homeowner, thanked the Orange County
Planning Staff, Health Department and Board of Adjustment for their work on
this project. She urged that these amendments be approved.
GARY LUBARSKY, a Lake Orange homeowner, spoke in support of these
proposed amendments. He indicated that on January 1, 1994 the existing
structures and undeveloped lots on Lake Orange became non-compliant.
Property owners were upset about the prospect of being required to use the
Board of Adjustment process and pay those fees. He believes that these
proposed- amendments protect the existing property owners as well as the
lake front property.
MARILYN FAST, a Lake Orange property owner, thanked the Planning Board
for their work on these proposed amendments, and requested that the Board
of Commissioners approve them. She stated that it is important to the
property owners that existing development be considered conforming. These
amendments protect water quality without placing an undue burden on
homeowners.
TYSON CLAYTON, a Lake Orange property owner, spoke in support of these
amendments and requested the Board of Commissioners approve them.
BOBBY NICHOLS, requested that the Board of Commissioners approve these
amendments.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner
Insko, to refer these items to the Planning Board to be returned to the
Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 17, 1995.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO I-40/OLD N.C. 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
48
DISTRICT
a. CP-5-94 I40/OLD N.C. 86 Economic Development District
(Comprehensive Plan Amendment)
b. Z-5-94 I40/OLD N.C. 86 Economic Development
Districts (Zoning Atlas Amendment)
C. Article 6.29. 3 - Economic Development Districts Design
Manual (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments)
These items were presented by Marvin Collins to receive
citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning Atlas, and Zoning Ordinance to implement the recommendations
of the I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development Districts Work Group.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING -BOARD
In response to a question from Chair Carey, Marvin Collins indicated
that there was one property split by the district boundary. This occurred
because the line follows Cates Creek. Where the line crosses Cates Creek
the land becomes steeper and less suitable for development. The area west
of Old NC 86 has been added to this proposal since the time of the original
public hearing. This area is adjacent to Cornwallis Hills and includes
property that fronts along Old NC 86 between the entrance to Cornwallis
Hills and Oakdale Drive. These properties were added at the request of the
individual property owners.
Commissioner Gordon mentioned that south of I-40, the I-40/Old Hwy. 86
Work Group's intention was to reduce the impact of development so that
there would be a gradual transition into the Rural Buffer. Although this
is outside the scope of the Economic Development District she hoped to
preserve the one dwelling unit per acre toward the Rural Buffer. The
difference between Primary Development I and Primary Development II is that
the southern-most portion does not have retail and requires a different
site volume ratio.
Marvin Collins indicated that step-outs or pipes have not been
installed under I-40 through which sewer lines could be run. If sewer were
extended in that location it would require boring under I-40. Extension of
water would require boring and casing pipes unless the sewer line borings
were used. OWASA does own a 16" water line which is connected to the
Hillsborough system at Old NC 86. Old NC 86 might provide an easier means
of getting from the north side to the south side of I-40 in lieu of having
to bore the roadway itself. However, it would be extremely expensive.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS
EVELYN LLOYD, Commissioner for the Town of Hillsborough, indicated
that the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners strongly recommends that the
Orange County Board of Commissioners approve the rezoning for the proposed
Economic Development District and the Design Manual with the stipulation
that development is allowed to extend public water and sewer within the
entire Economic Development District, including the area south of
Interstate 40. This extension should be allowed without a time limit or
build-out requirement. A written copy of this statement is in the
permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
PATRICK CLAYTON spoke in support of the Economic Development District
proposal. He voiced a concern about the Primary II designation and about
49
the water issue. He and his family request that water be provided to the
entire area. He feels that the south side will be penalized if water is
not provided.
MARY AYERS indicated that she was speaking for herself as well as the
Ayers and Harris families. She stated that water and sewer needed to be
extended into the entire Economic Development District.
BILLY SMITH requested that this proposal be adopted.
J. W. SMITH did not speak.
JAMES WILLIAMS, a resident of Chapel Hill/Hillsborough Road, requested
that these Amendments be adopted.
JUNE HAAS, requested that her property be included in this proposed
District and that the Board of Commissioners adopt these amendments.
GUY MASSEY spoke as President of the Cornwallis Hills Property Owners
Association. The association requested that the property on both side of
the entrance to Cornwallis Hills be included in the district and that the
proposed Hillsborough Economic Development District be included in the
Orange County Economic Development District guidelines as set forth in the
Design Manual.
TONY WHITAKER, a resident of Cornwallis Hills, encouraged preplanning
the driveway locations which will feed into Hwy. 86 so that traffic
problems can be avoided. He recommended that the Primary II designation be
used for this area.
VIC CUNNINGHAM, a Cornwallis Hills resident, spoke in support of the
Primary II designation.
JO SOULIER of Cornwallis Hills spoke in support of the Primary II
designation.
MIKE DODSON stated that he is concerned that water and sewer be
provided to the south side of this proposed district. He also supports
retail being permitted in this area.
DON COLLINS stated that he does not own property in the area in
question, however, he does have an interest in the traffic. He supports
the limitation on-" retail in the southern section of this proposed district.
RICHARD ALLISON, a resident of Cornwallis Hills, supported the Primary
II designation for the area which joins Cornwallis Hills.
BOB BRIDGES, a Cornwallis Hills property owner, spoke in support of
the Primary II designation being assigned to the area that joins this
development. He requested that water and sewer be installed in both
Primary I and Primary II.
STICK WILLIAMS a member of the Public Water and Sewer Work Group,
commented that the process used by this group was very effective. Having
the Town of Hillsborough participate was critical to the process. He
50
supports this proposal, although, he would like to see water and sewer
extended south of I-40. This is something that the Planning Board will
have an opportunity to review and the Board of Commissioners will decide.
The properties that join Oakdale and Cornwallis Hills were carefully
considered. Those residents need to be considered in this process.
SAM BRIGHTON, owner of the southeastern corner of the proposed
district, stated that, his request was for his entire property to be in the
district and that water and sewer be provided.
JACK SMYRE, Director of Planning with the John McAdams Company, spoke
as a representative of the Carolyn Barnes property. Their concern is
specifically focused on the small portion of land between the two R-2 -
areas. He requested that one land use be established and that the required
width of the buffer be discussed.
An unidentified citizen indicated that his property adjoins the
Clayton property and requested that the amendments be adopted.
ALLEN ADDISON spoke in support of the adoption of these amendments.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner
Willhoit, to refer these items to the Planning Board to be returned to the
Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 17, 1995.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
a. Article 4. 1 - Establishment of Use Regulations
(Telephone/Fiber Optic Equipment)
This item was presented by Mary Willis, to receive citizen
comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would reduce
restrictions related to the placement of cabinetized telephone equipment.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner
Willhoit, to refer these items to the Planning Board to be returned to the
Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 17, 1995.
VOTE: Unanimous
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further items to be heard, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting.
The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on
Monday, December 5, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the old County Courthouse,
Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Moses Carey. , Jr. , Chair
Kathleen C. Baker, Deputy Clerk
Excerpt from 12/19/94 Planning Board Meeti g
after inquiring into possibilities for creating a
cluster subdivision on -two existing lots in the
University Lake Watershed.
There were no citizen comments when the amendment
was presented for public hearing on November 30,
1994 .
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed amendment.
Brown asked why this applies only to University
Lake Watershed. Collins responded this was the
only watershed with a basic five-acre minimum lot
size requirement.
Brown asked the reason :for not dealing with all
of the watershed overla, amendments at the same
time. Collins responded that this is a minor
technical amendment. The County Attorney had
questions following the public hearing about the
need for some more precise standards on some of
the other amendments and he is continuing to work
with Mary Willis on the legal wording of those
amendments.
MOTION: Burklin moved approval of the recommendation as
presented by the Planning Staff. Seconded by
Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
b. I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development District
( 1) CP-5-94 I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development
District (Comprehensive Plan Amendment)
(2) Z-5-94 I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development
District (Zoning Atlas Amendment)
(3) Article 6.29.3 - Economic Development
Districts Design Manual
(Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments)
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
The abstract information is an attachment to
these minutes on pages
Collins noted one clarification: the meeting
between Old N.C. 86 and Cornwallis Hills
residents referred to on page 98 of the agenda
materials has not taken place. Several attempts
have been made to schedule such a meeting, but
conflicting schedules have made it impossible
prior to this meeting.
Collins distributed copies of letters that have
52
been submitted/received since the public hearing
and copies are attachments to these minutes on
pages l�rf%sue
Collins continued that the Planning Staff is
recommending approval of the Land Use Element,
Zoning Atlas, and Ordinance Text Amendments as
presented at the November 30, 1994 public
hearing. Using a map, he indicated the locations
of the development areas - Primary I, Primary II,
and Secondary - and reviewed allowed uses in each
area. Planning Staff is also recommending
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.
Collins reviewed the adjustments being proposed
for public hearing at the March 29, 1995
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 NC 86 adjacent to
the right-of-way line. The buffer requirement
is not necessary since the property across
Old NC 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.
Discussion followed of the uses and the lots/
properties that would have to be combined to meet
development requirements.
Barrows asked for the reasons that some people were
opposed to the extension of water and sewer. Collins
responded there are a series of concerns. One
involves the Rural Buffer. It is felt by some that
extending water/sewer south of I-40 would create
pressure to extend those facilities into the
northern part of the Rural Buffer and interfere with
the Joint Planning Area Agreement with Chapel Hill
and Carrboro.
Another concern was the desire to create a "hard
53
line" to form the boundary of Hillsborough area
similar to the use of I-40 for the Chapel Hill and
Carrboro area.
Collins noted there are also other studies in
process, Rural Character, Open Space, and Flexible
Development. If those studies were completed and
design standards in place, citizens might be more
comfortable with extension of water/sewer south of
I-40. Some persons felt that alternative systems
could provide either a long term or interim solution
to the issue of water and sewer. Collins continued
that the Staff position reflects concerns of some
regarding the use of alternative systems. If there
is a choice between an alternative system and public
sewer, the best long term solution is public sewer.
In regard to the effect on the Joint Planning Area
and Rural Buffer, Staff feels that there is
sufficient will on the part: of the governing boards
for review and discussion before such extensions
would take place.
Howie asked how much additional right-of-way would
be required if Old NC 86 is widened from two lanes
to four lanes and the affect on adjoining
properties. Collins responded that the Hillsborough
Thoroughfare Plan has not yet been adopted by Orange
County. The increase would be from a 60-foot right-
of-way to a 100-foot right-of-way, and the right-of-
way would be taken equally from both sides. If and
when that occurs, it would affect any property
fronting on Old NC 86.
Jo Soulier, Vice-President of Cornwallis Hills
Property Owners' Association, asked what the
Planning Staff considered when they recommended that
the proposed EDD remain as it was presented at
public hearing. Collins responded that he had hoped
that the neighbors could reach consensus on some way
that the area could be developed which addressed all
of their concerns even if it would require some
other designation. Collins continued explaining that
the Design Manual itself would address some of the
concerns. He noted that there is no way to deal
with the some of the issues: short of acquiring
property, recombining, and then developing as a
single, large-scale development. He felt, when the
tradeoffs were considered, this was best in view of
the design standards.
Richard Allison, resident of Cornwallis Hills,
suggested that the existing zoning remain and the
property owners be allowed to sell to office parks
and not require any additional landscaping. Collins
54
responded that if the district was cut at Cates
Creek, it could be rezoned Office-Institutional,
which is a district already in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Allison continued that his recommendation to the
Planning Board is to leave the zoning as is until
such time as the road is widened and perhaps changes
uses.
Mark Johnson, resident of Cornwallis Hills on
Bonaparte Drive, made three points. One, he was in
favor of some kind of planned development in the
area rather than simply allowing sprawl; two, get
the pink area on the map into the Town; and third,
he would like to see fairness in property values
(something less than Primary I, but marketable) .
Guy Massey, president of the Cornwallis Hills
Property Owners' Association, read the letter from
the Association which was distributed by Collins. (A
copy of the letter is an attachment to these minutes
on pagej? . )
Mr. 'Massey indicated the location of his property on
the map and spoke in favor of a different
designation that would give the residents a chance
to do as they wished with their property. He noted
that he did not mind some type of retail development
so long as it did not stay open 24 hours a day. He
indicated an office park or business in a home would
be all right as long as there were reasonable hours.
He noted he would not be in favor of a business such
as another mini-mart or a contractor's office.
June Haas, I-40/Old NC 86 homeowners' group
representative, stated that the preference of the
seven property owners that she represented is to
stay in the same location and have it remain as is.
However, three of the seven property owners are
widows and are concerned greatly with the inability
to compete with the properties on the east side of
Old NC 86. (The letter from Ms. Haas is an
attachment to these minutes on pages�'s -,S�p and
landowners who signed the petition are listed. )
Ms. Haas referred to a business she had had in
Daniel Boone, indicating that at some point she
might wish to open a shop on her property. However,
if the property is not allowed to remain in Primary
I, that would not be possible. She continued
expressing her concerns with the loss of property
value regardless of the desire or need was to sell
those properties.
James W. Smith expressed concern that his property
55
will be annexed by the Town of Hillsborough and felt
that he and his neighbors should be able to profit
as well as those owners directly across the road.
He expressed concern with the amount of commercial
development that may be permitted by Hillsborough
and felt the property should remain in the Primary I
area.
Jo Soulier stated that there were over 100 young
families on that side of the road and it should not
be Primary I. Mr. Smith responded that it would all
probably be annexed by the Town of Hillsborough
anyway.
Edward Gill, Cornwallis Hills resident, stated he
understood the concerns of the residents along the
strip because they would probably be forced out of
their homes. It is also understandable that they
would like to get the most possible out of their
property if and when they have to sell. He continued
that they would be gone and the people in Cornwallis
Hills would still be there and did not want to be in
the same position as those residents ten years from
now.
James Rippy stated that he had been paying taxes on
his property for fifty-five years and a great deal
of his property is in wetlands. He expressed hope
that it would remain in Primary I so that he could
get some financial benefit in his sunset years.
Juanita Sturdivant, landowner on Old NC 86, stated
agreement with statements made by Ms. Haas and added
the concern that twenty extra feet that will be lost
when NC 86 is widened. She felt that anything less
than Primary I would leave them with very little
land. She agreed with Ms. Haas that she would like
to remain on her property but felt that they would
all be pushed out because of the kind of development
that will be occurring across the road.
Tony Whitaker, Cornwallis Hills resident, stated
that his property adjoins the Primary area. He
expressed lack of understanding for the argument
that the Planning Hoard or the County has an
obligation to make land prices competitive with
those of other landowners. He noted that he would
like for the residents to be able to sell their
property at a fair value. He expressed care and
concern about the use rather than the price. He
expressed support for the letter from the Cornwallis
Hills Homeowners' Association. He expressed support
for Secondary uses for the ,area, because he felt
those uses were the most consistent with what needs
55
to happen in that area. He felt what was happening
on the east side of NC 86 was as good an argument as
any to make the west side Secondary.
Mr. Whitaker stated that he would prefer that the
Primary areas be designated Secondary and reduce the
buffer requirement. He felt that would give the
properties more marketability. Collins responded
that was certainly an option and that a zoning
classification of Office and Institutional was
another possibility.
Howie asked what type of buffer is required for
Office and Institutional. Collins responded fifty
feet.
Jobsis asked the number of acres in the two strips.
Collins responded fourteen acres. Jobsis asked if
multiple dwellings would be permitted if the area
should be designated Office and Institutional.
Collins responded that multiple dwellings are
permitted now in Office and Institutional.
Burklin asked about the process, particularly the
time, for rezoning the properties to Office and
Institutional. Collins responded that it would have
to go to public hearing scheduled for March 29,
1995.
Howie asked the difference between Office and
Institutional and Secondary in terms of dwellings as
a permitted use. Collins responded there was little
difference. The point that Mr. Whitaker was making
was is there a way to have something on the order of
a Secondary Development Area with a lesser buffer
requirement to allow the use of the property to a
greater extent.
Collins suggested that one possibility is to cut the
proposal at Cates Creek now and have the Planning
Board prepare a recommendation on the larger area
south of the creek. He noted that it may be
possible to work something out within the framework
of the proposal that has already been to public
hearing. It could then be considered by the
Planning Board at its January 23 meeting. Waddell
agreed, noting that he felt they were very close to
an agreement. He felt there was an area of
compromise, but he would prefer that the neighbors
meet and determine that compromise.
Vic Cunningham, Cornwallis Hills resident, asked the
location of Cates Creek. Collins indicated the
location on the map in relation to Mr. Cunningham's
57
property.
Waddell stated that he would like to have the two
groups of residents meet and come back to the
Planning Board with a recommendation that is
agreeable to both. He asked for a show of hands
from the audience for agreement, and there seemed to
be a majority interested in such a meeting.
Ms. Haas stated that she did not feel the issue is
reconcilable in that discussion has been going on at
least three years. Waddell responded that he really
felt that the two groups could come to a reasonable
compromise that would be an acceptable solution for
both groups. He felt the two groups were not as far
apart as Ms. Haas felt they were.
MOTION: Burklin moved to address the area south of Cates
Creek tonight and the area north of Cates Creek at
the regular January 23, 1995 meeting. Seconded by
Hoecke.
MOTION: 8 in favor.
1 opposed (Brown - felt there was sufficient
information to continue and make a recommendation) .
Burklin asked the status of the discussion on
utility service areas. Collins responded that the
Task Force working on that issue has delineated
three service areas and he located the boundaries on
the map.
Adjournment time was reached.
MOTION: Hoecke moved to extend the meeting ten minutes to
complete the discussion. Seconded by Burklin.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
1 opposed (Brown) .
Burklin stated that he would like for Orange County
and Hillsborough to complete the agreements on
utility service areas and the Rural Character
agreements before moving very aggressively on water
and sewer extension.
Jobsis asked if it is viable to designate the area
EDD if the extension of water and sewer is not
available. Collins responded that he felt it is
developable, but it will be a lower density
development with wells and septic tanks. An
alternative system could be a possibility. If there
is a choice of public water and sewer or alternative
system, the choice would be public water and sewer.
5�
Waddell expressed concern with the possibility of
insufficient water supply.
Walters indicated she was not in favor of any kind
of business using an alternative system. She very
much favored public water and sewer services.
Brown asked why public water and sewer is allowed in
the other EDDs. Collins responded that the EDDs are
in Transition Areas, and water and sewer extensions
are allowed in transition areas. Collins continued
that it was determined too restrictive to require
mandatory extension of public water and sewer.
MOTION: Jobsis moved that public water and sewer be made
available throughout the EDD as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Walters.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
1 opposed (Brown) .
(Barrows left the meeting at 10 :30 p.m. )
Brown indicated she had more questions but since the
motion has already been made she would pass her
questions and concerns on to the Board of
Commissioners.
Brown continued that she had some questions about
permitted uses and why day care and mobile homes
were excluded. If anyone is interested in affordable
housing, she could not understand excluding the one
form of affordable housing that can be provided.
She also expressed interest in pursuing a policy for
the district to include an environmental analysis on
an on-going basis and a fiscal impact how to get
large businesses to bear the cost of solid waste
disposal. She also wanted a cost-benefit analysis.
She expressed concern about economics. She wanted to
be sure that wages that would be paid by businesses
in the district would at least meet the federal
guidelines.
She continued, expressing concern with the water use
question. She would like to have information about
the average water use for all of the new businesses
in Cary.
She stated that she was not in favor of public water
and sewer extension below I-40. She also asked
about the cost of running water and sewer lines
under the interstate. Ted Abernathy responded that
County Engineer Paul Thames had estimated $50, 000-
59
$100,000.
Adjournment time was reached.
MOTION: Burklin moved to extend the meeting for the one
remaining item. Seconded by Walters.
VOTE: 7 in favor.
1 opposed (Brown) .
c. Other Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
( 1) Article 4 . 1 - Establishment of Use
Regulations (Telephone/fiber optic equipment)
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance which would reduce
restrictions related to the placement of
cabinetized telephone equipment.
The Zoning Ordinance lists uses allowed by right
in all districts. A number of those uses are
related to the distribution of utility services.
Some also require compliance with certain design
standards such as those pertaining to screening
and lot size.
Planning Staff has been contacted by Mebtel
concerning requirements for certain telephone
equipment. The equipment. in questions is
cabinetized, or containerized, telephone or fiber
optic equipment placed on a concrete pad to
provide local distribution of service. Currently,
such equipment is required to be located within a
5,000 square-foot easement.
Due to advances in technology, the equipment can
be contained in a smaller area. The equipment
addressed by this amendment is contained within a
3 1/2-foot wide by 7-foot long cabinet. The
proposed amendment would: allow the equipment by
right with no additional. restrictions. It would
also allow the setback of such equipment to be
reduced to 20 feet in the AR, R1, and RB
districts if the equipment is screened from view
by landscape material.
No comments were received at the public hearing
on November 30, 1994 .
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed amendment.
Eccerpt from 1/17/95 Boas ' of Commissioners Minutes 60
B. I-40 1OLD NC 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
2 Planning Director Marvin Collins presented for Board consideration
3 proposed amendments to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Atlas and
4 Zoning Ordinance through which to implement the recommendations of the I-
5 40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development District Work Group. The recommendations
6 reached by consensus are listed in the agenda as well as the Planning Staff
7 recommendations, Planning Board recommendations and the Neighborhood Mediation
8 Session between the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association and the Old N.C.
9 86 property owners. The Planning Board recommended approval of the area south
10 of I-40. They did not make a recommendation for the area from Oakdale Drive
11 to Cates Creek. A compromise was not reached in that area.
12 With regard to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis, Marvin
13 Collins stated that in order for a Comfort Inn to be built in the Cornwallis
14 Hills area, a person would need to buy up all the land, clear the site and
15 start from scratch which is not likely to happen. Hillsborough has adopted
16 a resolution of intent in their long-range plan for annexation of Cornwallis
17 Hills.
18 In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Collins said
19 that if NC86 is widened, DOT will take 20 feet from each side of the road.
20 With regard to driveway cuts, Commissioner Crowther said that Hillsborough has
21 a driveway regulation permitting no more than one driveway cut per 1, 000 feet.
22 Commissioner Willhoit feels that one option for the area from
23 Oakdale Drive to Cates Creek is to develop a category between Primary and
24 Secondary like "Highway Commercial" . He suggested referring this back to the
Planning Board and staff and asking that they, along with the Economic
( Development Commission, bring back a recommendation.
27
28 PUBLIC COMMENTS
29 Mark Johnson, resident of Cornwallis Hills, stated that they live in
30 a residential area that will stay residential. He feels that if they have
31 industry surrounding them, their property values will decrease. He would like
32 to see the Secondary category approved for this area because he feels it would
33 be more appropriate.
34 Jo - Soulier, President of the Cornwallis Hills Property Owners'
35 Association, said that she fears for the safety of her children. They have
36 an established neighborhood of 134 families with children. This EDD will
37 directly affect 26 of their lots. She feels that Secondary is a good
38 compromise position. She is concerned that there will be development from I-
39 40 to the Courthouse. A copy of her complete statement is in the permanent
40 agenda file in the Clerk's office.
41 Cheryl Howie expressed concern about this area and the traffic that
42 will be generated by the development. She feels that further discussion is
43 necessary to come to a compromise solution.
44 June Haas, resident of Old 86, stated that putting these homes in the
45 Secondary category means that their property will be the only property from
46 Hillsborough to I-40 that is not retail. She asked that the Board vote their
47 conscience and to not be influenced.
48 Richard Williams stated he does not own property in this area but
49 participated as a member of the Economic Development Commission and a member
of the working group. He noted that the citizens who live on Old 86 came to
every meeting and asked for their help. He asked that the Board not limit
5Y what these people can do with their property.
61
Bob Smith, resident of Old 86, said that he wants to be able to
2 sell his land. He wants to find a place to raise his children away from the
3 traffic and congestion. He stated that no one in the seven houses on Old 86
4 wants to create additional problems for those who live in Cornwallis Hills.
5 He asked to be treated equal. He feels that eventually, DOT will build a 4-
6 lane road in this area.
7
8 Chair Carey said he is concerned with both sides of the issue. The
9 County Commissioners' responsibility will be to make the best decision for
10 those who live in this area. He hopes the Board can proceed with the area
11 south of Cates Creek and that a compromise can be reached north of Cates
12 Creek.
13 Commissioner Halkiotis agrees with the creation of a new category
14 between Primary and Secondary or expanding the Secondary to provide more
15 options.
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner
17 Crowther to approve the proposed EDD south of Cates Creek, including the
18 extension of public water and sewer within the entirety of the EDD as
19 recommended by the Planning Board.
20 Commissioner Gordon feels that the extension of water and sewer
21 south of I-40 will cause increased development pressures on the rural buffer.
22 Therefore, she does not 'feel that the area south of I-40 should be an Economic
23 Development District.
24 VOTE: AYES, 4; NOS, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
t . A motion was made by Commissioner Gcrdon, seconded by Commissioner
27 Willhoit that daycare should be a permitted use in all zones of this EDD.
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 With regard to the area north of I--40 along Old 86, Commissioner
31 Gordon suggested approving this area as Secondary now and then referring it
32 back to the Planning Board so they could consider whether it was appropriate
33 to add a new category which allowed other permitted uses in the Cornwallis
34 Hills area. She does not recommend expanding the definition of "Secondary"
35 since it is used appropriately in other sections of the I40/01d 86 EDD.
36 Geof Gledhill said that if a new category is created, a new public
37 hearing will be required. If uses are moved around between Secondary and
38 Primary, a new public hearing will probably not be required.
39 John Link suggested that discussion on the area north of Cates
40 Creek be continued from an "interest" perspective instead of a "position"
41 perspective for both parties. The interest include the intensity of traffic,
42 safety, lighting, density of development, hours of operation, competition in
43 the options and uses of the property located. on Old 86. He feels these
44 interest can be •- addressed through the Secondary, Primary or a new or
45 combination category specific to this area.
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
47 Willhoit to refer back to the Planning Board and Staff the proposed EDD north
48 of Cates Creek to work with the citizens on both sides of the issue and, if
49 necessary, take the results to public hearing on March 29.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
52
62
\47 With regard to the two parcels not included as part of this node,
2 Commissioner Willhoit feels there is no justification for including these two
3 parcels. The Planning Staff will look at these two areas and make a
4 recommendation.
5
6 C. BLACK WALNUT FARM - PRELIMINARY PLAN
7 Planner Mary Willis presented for approval the Preliminary Plan for
8 Black Walnut Farm. This property is located on the east side of Baldwin Road
9 at the intersection of. Baldwin and St. Mary's Road in Eno Township. The area
10 proposed for development is 44 . 3 acres with 25 lots. Access to the property
11 is from Baldwin Road. A public road is proposed to serve the subdivision.
12 There are two historic properties, Maple Hill Farm and Sunnyside, which will
13 be affected by this subdivision. Other concerns voiced by the neighborhood
14 include the increased traffic that will be generated and the density of the
15 subdivision. The applicant has talked with DOT about the realignment of
16 Baldwin Road and Lawrence Road but no commitment has been received.
17
18 PUBLIC COMMENTS
19 Stewart Barbour asked that the Board reject Black Walnut until the
20 boundary dispute is settled. He states that there are three boundary disputes
21 -- one with Barbour, one with Baldwin and one with Hollandsworths. His other
22 main concern is that this subdivision will adversely impact the two
23 immediately adjoining historic sites -- Maple Hill Farm and Sunnyside. He
24 feels the integrity of these two sites should be maintained for their obvious
tourism value as well as for their wide recognition as important cultural
t links with the past. He asked that the awkward dog-leg from Lawrence Road to
27 Baldwin Road be adjusted with future traffic problems in mind.
28 Laura Baldwin clarified that her house is Sunnyside and is adjacent
29 to the road on the proposal. The right-of-way will come within 12 feet of her
30 chimney. She would like for the road to be moved over at least 80 feet . The
31 Department of Transportation has not agreed to move the road or to pave it.
32 She feels that 25 homes in a rural historic area is too dense. She asked that
33 the Board consider the remainder of the property and the total development.
34 She would like to see a plan for St. Mary's Road which will include cluster
35 development and open space to maintain the rural historic area. This
36 subdivision is something they don't want to see happen in a rural historic
37 area of Orange County.
38 Stephen W. Roberts, developer, distributed a map showing the
39 realignment of Baldwin Road and Lawrence Road. He does not have a commitment
40 but is willing to continue pursuing this issue with DOT. He plans to provide
41 housing ranging from $200, 000 to $300, 000 in price. He asked the County
42 Commissioners to help him negotiate an agreement with the Department of
43 Transportation. He did meet with the neighbors and heard their concerns. He
44 said that Mr. Barbour's concerns have nothing to do with this property. He
45 is willing to meet with Mr. Barbour and compromise and give within reason
46 wherever Barbour says the property line should. With regard to this
47 subdivision, Mr. Roberts feels the road should not be an issue and it should
48 be approved using the dirt road as is.
49 After a discussion of these issues, a motion was made by Commissioner
RO Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to table this item to give staff
C time to talk with the Department of Transportation and resolve the issue of
52 the road and the realignment with Lawrence Road.
63
_ 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
3 HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 WORKSESSION
5 MARCH 15, 1995
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with
8 the Hillsborough Town Commissioners on March 15, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the
9 meeting room of the Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron Street
to in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
11
12 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and
13 Commissioners Don Willhoit, William L. Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, and
14 Stephen Halkiotis.
15
16 HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Horace Johnson and Town
17 Commissioners Evelyn Lloyd, Catherine Martin, Remus Smith and Richard
18 Simpson.
19
20 ORANGE COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Economic
21 Development Director Ted Abernathy, Planning Director Marvin Collins,
22 Planner Slade McCalip and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker.
23
24 Chair Carey convened the meeting and both he and Mayor Johnson
25 welcomed the participants.
26
7 HILLSBOROUGH'S PROCESS/TIMEFRAME FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE
.8 STANDARDS AND DESIGN CRITERIA RELATIVE TO I-40/OLD 86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
29 DISTRICT (EDD) NODE: Hillsborough's Town Manager Eric Swanson reported
30 that Ted Abernathy presented a report to the Hillsborough Planning Board.
31 The Town staff will make a recommendation to the Town Commissioners at the
32 April Quarterly Public Hearing. May is the earliest timeframe for
33 consideration by Hillsborough's Town Board.
34
35 Commissioner Crowther mentioned that the qualifications for the
36 newest EDD district are equal to, or more stringent than, the new overlay
37 district that Hillsborough has adopted. He asked if Hillsborough has
38 implemented that overlay district.
39
40 Commissioner Smith indicated that the board would review the area
41 from the EDD nodes at Old Hwy 86 and the I-4,3/Hwy 86 into Hillsborough.
42 The Town is very interested in preserving the entryways into Town.
43
44 Commissioner Lloyd mentioned that there had been discussion about
45 including the property on which the Massage Parlor is located in the EDD
46 node at I-40/Hwy. 86. She also mentioned the possibility of extending the
47 node into the Cornerstone Park community.
48
49 Commissioner Willhoit mentioned that one of the justifications for
5o re estin rezoning in the neighborhood at the Old Hwy 86 node was because
51 or e plans for the property across the road. Also if the road is
'2 'Uidened widened it will impact on the setbacks etc. He asked about the prospects
3 for devero-pment along the road and if there is a need for the Coun Y o
54 rezone rom residential to business or will it be developed in such a
ss manner that it will not have additional impacts on those residents. He
64
1 indicated that his concern was rezoning the area from Oakdale Drive to I-
2 40. _
3
4 Ted Abernathy indicated that the site plan submitted by Mr.
5 Stephenson to the Hillsborough Planning oard for the area in estlon
6 would require Primary I zoning. There would be one curb cut on Old 86
7 and one additional access road on the east side. Most of the businesses
8 would front on the access road instead of Old Hwy 86.
9
10 Commissioner Crowther asked why Hillsborough was not considering the
11 annexation of that strip of Orange County land at this time.
12
13 Hillsborough Town Manager Eric Swanson indicated that the criteria
14 being used by the Town for involuntary annexation was that the parcel must
is already be served by water and sewer and that property is not vet served.
16
17 Pommissioner Halkiotis mentioned that across the street in the
18 County's jurisdiction, the land use is TI-t-e different. He indicated that
19 he was concerned about the lack of similar planning.
20
21 Commissioner Smith stated that this area, along with the new Hwy 86
22 area, would be the next logical areas for joint planning. Hillsborough
23 does want to preserve the entranceways, however, it is commercial
24 property. They do not want fast food restaurants or drive through
25 facilities.
26
27 Ted Abernathy indicated that the Cornerstone facility, off of Valley
28 Forge Road, is approximately 25, 000 sq. ft. of flex-type buildings.
29
30 WHERE DO THE COUNTY AND HILLSBOROUGH GO NEXT ON THE COOPERATIVE PLANNING
31
32 Chair Carey mentioned the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Work Group on
33 which the Town of Hillsborough had recently declined participation.
34 Commissioner Lloyd mentioned that the Stoney Creek area was outside
35 of Hillsborough's planning jurisdiction. The meetings that were held in
36 that area last year regarding the University Station proposal were
37 difficult and unproductive. She stated that she did not feel that the
38 Stoney Creek meetings would be useful for Hillsborough Commissioners to
39 attend.
40
41 Marvin Collins distributed the Charge that was developed for the
42 Stoney Creek Basin Planning Work Group which was approved by both the
43 Hillsborough and Orange County Boards.
44
45 Mayor Johnson said that the last cooperative agreement with the
46 County left Hillsborough feeling that its hands were tied. For instance,
47 the County had to agree prior to the Town being able to act on proposed
48 annexations. Hillsborough is willing to cooperate but is not willing to
49 be restricted. In looking at the proposed plans in and around
5o Hillsborough, he would like to see consensus reached by everyone involved.
51 He suggested that the Planning Boards work together on a Comprehensive
52 Plan that would enable timely review and communication without
53 restrictions being placed on Hillsborough.
54
55 Commissioner Lloyd asked what happened to the plan to form a
65
1 committee consisting of two members of both governmental boards to study
' the text of the Cooperative Planning Agreement? She stated that
3 cooperating with the County is important for both County and
4 Hillsborough's citizens.
5
6 Chair Carey said that an agreement to do cooperative planning by its
7 very nature is a statement that each unit of government is going to work
8 to develop a land use plan with a growth pattern that can be agreed upon.
9 Part of that includes planning how growth is going to occur and how
to property will be annexed and then adhering to those decisions. That gives
11 Hillsborough input into County decisions in areas Hillsborough is
12 eventually going to annex. This type of agreement places limits on the
13 type of change a unit of government is able to implement without
14 discussing those changes.
15
16 Commissioner Crowther volunteered to serve on a Cooperative Planning
17 Committee and help get it back on tract.
18
19 Commissioner Willhoit mentioned that he was disappointed about
20 Hillsborough not participating in the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Work
21 Group. The larger issues remain to be discussed. He hoped that a plan
22 would be created that would define the ultimate boundaries of the Town
23 and its service district. If Hillsborough extends water and sewer to the
24 University Station area, that could lead to extensions into the Rural
25 Buffer. A land use plan which would define those boundaries needs to be
26 completed and the participation of the Town is critical to its ultimate
-7 success.
s
29 Commissioner Halkiotis agreed with Commissioner Willhoit's comments.
30
31 In response to a question from Commissioner Crowther, the
32 transportation element to the Comprehensive Plan was discussed. The
33 County could adopt Hillsborough's plan. However, in order to protect the
34 right-of-ways, a similar plan would need to be incorporated into the
35 regional plan.
36
37 Margaret Hauth, Planning Director for the Town, indicated that this
38 plan is scheduled for adoption after the Town's Public Hearing in April.
39 She indicated that the new road and road widening priorities will be
4o determined by cost per benefit and other factors.
41
42 Commissioner Crowther mentioned that the County recently required
43 an alignment of Baldwin Road as part of a subdivision application. The
44 developer has the right to chose the recommended alignment or to allocate
45 right-of-way in the alignment process.
46
47 John Link indicated that John Watkins, the D.O.T. Division Engineer,
48 wants to discuss this issue with Hillsborough and the County staff so that
49 there is agreement on the alignment.
50
51 STATUS OF ANNEXATION OF CORNWALLIS HILLS BY HILLSBOROUGH
r,2 Eric Swanson reported that the public hearing was held in February
; and the Town Commissioners were scheduled to consider this for adoption
54 at the next meeting. If it is approved, it would be a year at the
55 earliest before the annexation could actually occur.
a
66
1 COORDINATING WITH HILLSBOROUGH ON THE DESIGN AND FUNDING OF A TOWN/COUNTY
2 RIVERFRONT PARR ALONG THE ENO
3 Chair Carey requested feedback about whether there was interest in
4 creating, through a joint venture, a riverfront park on the Eno.
5
6 Eric Swanson said that someone had indicated to him that the Chamber
7 of Commerce -might have an interest in participating in such a project.
8 They may have already raised some money to be used for a project in this
9 area.
10
11 Commissioner Crowther indicated that Hillsborough has a newly adopted
12 Parks and Recreation Plan and the County has a similar plan. He said that
13 both of these plans mention this site as a possible location for a park.
14
15 Mayor Johnson said N.C. State University students completed a plan
16 which included a park and gazebo on the river. He hoped that the County
17 and Town would be able to work jointly on this plan. He suggested using
18 inmate labor to prepare the land. Those plans will be located and
19 distributed.
20
21 Chair Carey suggested putting a group together which would include,
22 among others, citizens from the Chamber and both Recreation and Parks
23 Advisory Councils.
24
25 Commissioner Willhoit agreed that this was important, but he asked
26 that the proposal to look at future school sites not be fogotten. He
27 raised caution about the prospects of County money being spent for a Town
28 park during the current financial climate. However, the County could
29 possibly provide the land, the public sector could raise the money and the
30 Town provide the labor.
31
32 Chair Carey asked that the Managers contact the Chamber and explore
33 the possibilities for this land.
34
35
36
37 LANDFILL SITE:
38 In response to a request, Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the
39 Landfill Search Committee is gathering data and is expected to make its
40 report in the fall. After the report is finalized, the elected officials
41 for each of the towns and the County will consider the recommendation.
42
43 HILLSBOROUGH'S RESERVOIR:
44 Eric Swanson reported that the financing has been approved in the
45 amount of $5.8 million in General Obligation Bonds. The first step have
46 been taken in approving the surveying work. They anticipate purchasing
47 land in the summer.
48
49 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next
5o regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners is March 21, 1995 at 7:30
51 P.M. That meeting will be held in the Community Meeting Room, Orange
52 Water and Sewer Authority, Carrboro, NC.
53
54 Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
55
DC� p
67
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC SEARING (11/30/94)
a. I-40/01d NC 86 Economic Development District
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
This item is to consider an amendment to the
I-40/Old NC Highway 86 Economic Development District
(EDD) to include the area on the west side of NC 86
between Cates Creek and Oakdale Drive.
On January 17, 1995, the Board of Commissioners
approved a 720-acre EDD in the vicinity of the
I-40/Old NC 86 interchange. The initial approval of
the EDD did not include a strip on the west side of
NC 86 between Cates Creek and Oakdale Drive,
containing approximately 24 acres adjacent to
Cornwallis Hills Subdivision.
The owners of the property adjacent to NC 86 had
asked that the land within this strip be included in
the EDD, since the property was considered unsuited
for residential use. The Cornwallis Hills property
owners were concerned with the possible impacts of
non-residential use, particularly on those lots
adjacent to the EDD.
Several meetings were held by the Cornwallis Hills
homeowners and the NC 86 property owners. On January
11, 1995, representatives from both groups met with
the Planning Director and the Economic Development
Director in an attempt to develop an acceptable
compromise. Although there was agreement on some
points, a compromise solution was not reached.
Both groups generally agreed that the properties
along NC 86 should be included in the EDD. However,
there was not agreement concerning the permitted
uses. Cornwallis Hills residents favored designation
of the area as Secondary Development Area. The NC 86
property owners favored designation of the area as
Primary I Development Area.
Insomuch as the affected property owners were unable
to derive a solution, the Planning Staff recommends
that the area north of Cates Creek be included in
the EDD as Primary Development Area, subject to
overlay standards (Primary Transition Overlay Area)
which apply additional restrictions to minimize
impacts on adjacent residential areas. The strip
along NC 86 was advertised as Primary I area for the
November 30, 1994 public hearing. Discussions with
the County Attorney have indicated that the use of
an overlay approach would not require a new public
68
hearing. The creation of an entirely new zoning
district (for example, Primary III) would require
that the proposal be re-advertised and presented at
a new public hearing.
The proposed Primary Transition Overlay Area is
described in the revisions to the Economic
Development Districts Design Manual text and
permitted use table (attachments to these minutes on
pages ) and include exclusion of manufacturing
and wholesale trade, rail/bus passenger shelters,
clubs and lodges, libraries, non-profit recreational
facilities, governmental uses, and hotels/motels.
The NC Highway 86 property owners proposed to
exclude all of these uses except hotels/motels.
Limits on the hours of operation for any permitted
nonresidential use to the hours between 6: 00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m.
The Board of Commissioners asked that the Planning
Board and Planning Staff deal with this issue and
present a recommendation at the Board of
Commissioners' meeting on June 26, 1995.
Mary Willis and Ted Abernathy (Economic Development
Commission) met and reviewed the history of the
issue. Abernathy reviewed the permitted uses that
seemed to be acceptable to both sides (Cornwallis
Hills residents and Old NC 86 neighborhood) . They
discussed other limitations that had been discussed
by the two groups and a Staff recommendation has
been provided for the strip.
Using a large scale map that focused on the strip,
Collins explained that the recommendation is to
create an overlay area. He indicated it would be a
primary development area with an overlay which
restricts the number of permitted uses and
establishes the limitation of hours of operation
from 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. He reminded the
Board that this recommendation applies only within
this strip. The overlay approach is one that the
County Attorney indicated can be utilized without
further presentation at public hearing regarding
design standards or range of permitted uses.
Collins distributed a listing of permitted uses
entitled "Permitted Uses Proposed Primary Transition
Overlay Area" (an attachment to these minutes on
pages ) . This is a listing of all of the
permitted uses in the overlay area. He noted the
uses that have been deleted such as manufacturing
uses and all wholesale trade uses. Retail trade is
limited to those uses located in a service building,
69
court or plaza, or enclosed mall consisting of
multiple uses. No free-standing retail building
would be allowed (including restaurants) . He
continued that this is similar to a secondary
development area with the exception being the
inclusion. The other limitation is one from the
Cornwallis Hills neighborhood regarding hours of
operation which are from 6: 00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m.
Collins indicated a letter had been distributed to
Cornwallis Hills residents and provided a copy for
Planning Board members. The uses referred to are not
allowed.
The Planning Staff recommerLds approval of the
proposed Primary Transition Overlay Area, including
the list of permitted uses and limits on hours of
operation.
Collins continued that the recommendation from Staff
is an attempt at a balancirLg act. It is an attempt
to take into account the feelings and concerns of
both sets of property owners to reach a position
where both parties stand to gain and not everyone
loses.
Reid asked about the depths; of the lots in the strip
on Old NC 86. The response from the property owners
was 500 feet in the upper area and 400 feet in the
lower area.
Collins commented that the proposal being considered
does not address any of the! boundary adjustments
that have been requested. He continued that due to
the fact that the Town of Hillsborough had adopted
the EDD across the road from the strip adjustments
should be made in the buffers across the front. The
recommendation will be made to eliminate the buffer,
it is not needed since it is directly across from an
EDD, and adhere only to building setbacks and
landscaping requirements along the road frontage.
The landscape buffer is twenty-five feet. Collins
emphasized again that these adjustments have not
been addressed.
Reid asked about the widening of Old NC 86. Collins
responded that it is provided for the in Design
Manual. Hillsborough's Thoroughfare Plan calls for
it to be widened to a fifty-foot right-of-way which
would be twenty feet on either side. If any of these
lots are developed they would have to provide the
additional twenty feet of right-of-way.
Howie noted that the last time the Planning Board
70
discussed this issue it was stated that the
Ordinance Review Committee would be meeting to
discuss the issues. She expressed appreciation to
Collins for explaining the action taken by the Board
of Commissioners and the Town of Hillsborough at the
January 17 work session asking for Planning Staff
and Planning Board recommendation. Collins responded
that it was not the course of action Planning Staff
and Planning Board had recommended so it was a
learning experience when he sat in on the work
session.
Brown asked about the implication of the EDD on the
other side of the road and how that would change
everything. Collins responded that what is being
considered at this time is an overlay district for
the strip. If that were to be adopted by the Board
of Commissioners, it would have no impact on what
would come forward later such as the request that
the remaining portion of the Addison property be
included in the EDD. It has also been requested
that the Moren property across the street be
included in the EDD and all in one classification
rather than two. The other adjustment is the buffers
around an EDD. Those issues can be dealt with later
without affecting anything that may be recommended
from this meeting. Brown asked why Hillsborough
adopting the EDD affected anything across the
street. Collins responded that there would be no
need for a 100-foot buffer across the street from an
EDD, only a 25-foot buffer with landscape
requirements. The only adjustment of a buffer would
be along the road frontage.
Price asked if Old NC 86 would be widened to four
lanes. Collins responded that the Hillsborough
Thoroughfare long range plan is for Old NC 86 to
become four lanes at least as far as I-40 with a
center turn lane. The design manual calls for a
landscape median with turn lanes only at controlled
points. Price continued expressing concern with the
increase in traffic between I-85 and I-40. In
response to further concerns by Price, Collins
explained that the residents in the strip have
requested to be included in the EDD, while the main
concern of the residents in Cornwallis Hills is the
range of uses that would be permitted in the strip.
Price expressed concern with the recommendations
from the Planning Staff regarding retail and asked
what the Cornwallis Hills residents wanted. Collins
responded that they wanted it to be secondary, but,
that was not the desire of the Old NC 86 residents
living in the strip. He emphasized again that the
71
recommendation is an attempt to address the concerns
and views of both sets of residents. If the Planning
Board wants to make a different set of
recommendations that is its prerogative.
Waddell stated that the question is not whether to
go primary or secondary, but, rather a compromise
between the two.
Katz asked the difference between profit and non-
profit recreation and why n.on-profit was excluded
from the list of permitted uses. Collins responded
that non-profit recreation was on a list that was
developed by the Old NC 86 residents and Ted
Abernathy. When that list was reviewed, the non-
profit was deleted. The only way that a for-profit
recreational facility could. be approved would be a
planned development approach which would require a
public hearing before the Board of Commissioners.
Collins noted that he did not know the rationale for
removing non-profit recreation.
Price expressed concern with the view from the road
and possibly more strip development like that from
I-85 to Hillsborough. Collins responded that the
design manual addressed the issue of landscaping and
the case study included in it may provide more
insight.
Jobsis noted that the whole idea behind EDD was to
provide standards that would not allow for strip
development but allow for beautiful development such
as the lay of the land will allow. Waddell reminded
members that the size and number of lots under
discussion would not allow for extremely large
development. He also noted. that the standards in
the design manual address those concerns.
It was the consensus of the Board to hear public
comment. Waddell reminded those wishing to speak
that public comment had already been heard and asked
that the comments be limited to new information not
that which had already been, heard except for
emphasis or clarification. He asked that they focus
on the proposed recommendation and how a compromise
might be achieved.
Mark Johnson, Cornwallis Hills resident, expressed
concern with the risks involved with retail and the
increased traffic. He noted the significant change
was the deletion of manufacturing and hotel/motels.
He expressed concern that even when businesses are
closed that does not keep people from "hanging
around" in parking lots and. perhaps causing trouble.
72
He stated that everywhere there is economic
development, a large area of secondary separates it
from residential except in this area. He felt there
were still too many things in the proposal that
would create safety risks. He noted that he felt
secondary development is appropriate and fair and
asked that the Planning Board recommend secondary
rather than accept the proposal of the Planning
Staff. He felt the other residents would realize
substantial profit if the land was sold for
secondary development. He felt that the concerns of
the residents of Cornwallis Hills have not been
addressed by the Planning Staff recommendation.
Cindy Mihok, Cornwallis Hills resident, read a
letter from Jo Soulier, president of the Homeowners'
Association. Concerns were expressed regarding the
fact that most areas have secondary development or
open space between EDDs and residential development
and requested the same for Cornwallis Hills. The
concern was also raised that increased property
values was the main concern of the residents of Old
NC 86. The letter also expressed fear of strip
development. The letter indicated that the 20 acres
involved in the strip would be more beneficial as
office space for professionals. Such a use would not
create so much traffic and would keep more
reasonable hours.
Ms. Mihok referred to a newspaper article that had
quoted one of the property owners on Old 86 that it
was only fair that they be zoned Primary I since the
land across the road had been zone Primary I. She
expressed concern with the term "fair" .
Richard Allison, Cornwallis Hills homeowner,
referred to the January 17 work session and stated
that he did not feel this was the compromise that
was directed by the Board of Commissioners. He felt
the Planning Staff recommendation did not address
the concerns of Cornwallis Hills residents. He noted
that Dr. Gordon had made a motion at the meeting and
there was a second, to designate the area secondary.
There were questions at that point and there was a
charge to come up with a modified secondary. He felt
that this recommendation was more a modified primary
and did not address any of the concerns of
Cornwallis Hills residents. He asked that the
Planning Board go with secondary or the modified
secondary as proposed by Cornwallis Hills residents.
Laverne Williams, resident on Old NC 86, stated that
she felt the land uses as presented by the Planning
Staff are fair uses. She felt it was quality growth
73
that is much needed by Hillsborough and Orange
County. Ms. Williams expressed concern living
between two major interstates such as I-85 and I-40.
She felt there were sufficient buffer zones for
Cornwallis Hills and asked the Planning Board to
study and approve the recommendation by the Planning
Staff noting again that she saw it as quality growth
for the area.
Billy Smith, resident on the corner of Oakdale Drive
and Old NC 86, stated that a buffer zone has already
been given to Cornwallis Hills; the Old NC 86
residents are all road frontage with no buffers. He
indicated that no concessions have been made for his
group. He felt the recommendation by the Planning
Staff is as fair as anything could be for both
groups concerned. He also noted he felt this would
be the quality growth that is needed for this end of
Hillsborough.
Eric Lilly, Cornwallis Hills resident, expressed
appreciation for the amount of time the Planning
Board has worked on this issue. He noted that he did
not wish to take anything away from anyone and
stated he sympathized with the concerns of the Old
NC 86 residents. He did not want to find himself in
the same position that they are in. He felt that a
secondary, without retail, would be fair and would
give those residents the opportunity and profit to
relocate in an area where they are not across from
commercial properties. He expressed interest in
preserving the quality of the neighborhood and the
quality of Orange County. He also expressed concern
for the safety of children in the area.
Tom Horne, Old NC 86 Homeowners' Association, stated
that he lives in Chapel Hill but owns three acres
abutting the entrance to Cornwallis Hills. He noted
that he had worked with Mr. Rashkis when he was
developing Cornwallis Hills. He noted that nobody
had asked for development; :he had not asked for
Cornwallis Hills. At the same time, they did not
present opposition. We must have growth and look to
the future for balance. He :felt that emotions have
become so involved that things cannot be looked at
fairly and practically. He felt that the
recommendation proposed by the Planning Staff is a
fair and good compromise. He reminded developers of
the fact that he had given a 100-foot buffer to give
an entrance to Cornwallis. He also reminded
Cornwallis Hills residents that the interstate
highways were in place when they purchased their
property and they do have buffers that the Old NC 86
residents do not have.
A
t
74
Bill Smith, Old NC 86 resident, stated that he also
owns a home in Cornwallis Hills. He stated that this
process began in May, 1992 and the residents of
Cornwallis Hills had given their approval until
November of 1993 when Ms. Soulier became involved.
Mr. Smith continued that a lot of the problems
began when a lot was cleared. He stated that the
public would not have access to Cornwallis Hills as
they feared. There will be fencing/wall to prevent
that. He expressed concern with being able to get
onto 86 from his driveway. He asked that the
Planning Board approve the recommendation of the
Planning Staff.
Vic Cunningham, resident of Cornwallis Hills, stated
that he lived at the end of a cul-de-sac adjacent to
the approved EDD. He expressed concern that the Old
NC 86 residents are talking dollars and intend to
sell and move and the residents in Cornwallis Hills
will be staying. He expressed concern with safety.
He noted that they are trying to create for
Cornwallis Hills the problems that they have now
with safety. He asked that Cornwallis Hills be given
the same consideration of other developments that
there be secondary development between the EDD and
them. He expressed concern that the Old NC 86
residents are only interested in selling and getting
big bucks for their property. He continued that the
clear cutting that Mr. Smith referred to was done by
Mr. Rippy in an area that should not have been cut
since it is in the creek bed/floodplain. He asked
that the Planning Board consider what is best for
Hillsborough and Orange County and recommend
secondary development rather than the proposal
presented by the Planning Staff.
Tony Whitaker, Cornwallis Hills resident, stated
that his lot adjoins the area being discussed. He
stated that Cornwallis Hills had written a letter
supporting economic development in the area south of
Cornwallis Hills, not the area that is now under
consideration. He said it is not exactly true that
the residents on Old NC 86 have given up 100 feet
of their property for a buffer. They cannot do what
they want to do now, the buffer is simply a
tradeoff.
James Rippy, Old NC 86 resident, explained that his
property was cut in two by the EDD. He stated that
he was cutting timber on his property and one of the
Cornwallis Hills residents complained that the
value of his property was cheapened due to the
timbering by Mr. Rippy. He indicated his response
was that he had owned the property for many years
75
and had not received anything for it. He had given
the developer of Cornwallis Hills a strip of land
for a power line easement. He felt he had treated
everyone as he would like to be treated. Mr. Rippy
continued that the man had said he didn't care what
Mr. Rippy did on his property except he did not want
him to cut the trees. Mr. Rippy indicated his
response was that the man's house was built right
up to his property line and that he would continue
to timber his property. At that point, someone was
called who came out with a deputy and told Mr. Rippy
he would have to stop timbering and he did stop. He
continued that he did receive permission to clear
cut the property but he chose not to do so. He did
wish his property could all be included in the EDD,
and he did hope the Planning Board would accept the
recommendation as presented by the Planning Staff.
Juanita Sturdivant, Old NC 86 resident, stated that
her property is in the middle of the upper section.
She expressed concern that the statement had been
made that money was the objective of the residents.
She noted that she intended to stay in her home as
long as possible; she did not desire to move. But,
if she did have to move she wanted the best price
for her property just as the residents of Cornwallis
Hills would want. She indicated that she felt that
her group should be willing to take less for their
properties so that Cornwallis Hills residents could
have what they want regardless of the loss of
others.
Ms. Sturdivant continued that the area being
considered is such a small percentage that it would
not create sufficient increase in traffic to cause
more safety concerns. She felt it was not fair,
with just 100 feet between the Old NC 86 residents
and EDD Primary I. not to at least allow what has
been presented by the Planning Staff. It is less
than they wanted but they are willing to accept the
recommendation.
Pamela Rippy, Cornwallis Hills resident, stated that
the reason she had moved to the area was the easy
access to I-40 and I-85 and the beauty of the area
along Old NC 86. She expressed sympathy for the
homeowners and appreciation for the way they had
maintained the beauty of the area that Cornwallis
Hills residents can share. She did not wish the area
to become more commercial, wanted it to be secondary
in order to maintain the beauty of the area. She
said it was sad that it seemed to be "us vs. them" .
Cindy Mihok asked that the Planning Board not look
r
76
at "the good guy vs. the bad guy" , but look at the
issues. She felt that was the closest thing to fair
for everyone.
With no one else wanting to speak, Waddell closed
the public comments at 10:00 p.m.
Waddell noted that the Planning Board had several
options for recommendations to the Commissioners:
Primary I with none of the exclusions as proposed by
Staff; Primary Transition Overlay with exclusions as
proposed by Staff; Secondary; Modified Secondary;
or, some other recommendation addressing individual
uses as preferred by the Planning Board.
It was determined that a summary of the modified
secondary list was on page 120 of the agenda package
and that list is an attachment to these minutes on
page . Collins reviewed the list noting that some
primary uses had been added to secondary.
Waddell suggested that the Planning Board discuss
the modified secondary listing and the permitted
uses and send forward to the Commissioners a
recommendation including votes on the permitted uses
as listed in the agenda materials. The Board agreed.
Howie noted that the modified secondary had been
presented at public hearing. She noted also that
Commissioner Gordon had recommended secondary and
suggested that daycare be added to the list of
permitted uses.
Price asked about the difference between primary,
secondary and the overlay. Waddell responded that
secondary has fewer uses than primary and larger
setbacks. The overlay is between the two. The
modified secondary would fall somewhat between
secondary and overlay.
Walters suggested that the Board review the list of
permitted uses, compare the differences and
determine agreement/disagreement and vote on each
one. Waddell agreed that it was a good suggestion.
Price noted that she would propose secondary
expressing concern for what could happen in the
future and adapt it more to the residential area.
MOTION: Price moved approval of the modified secondary with
the addition of daycare.
Brown indicated that some of the permitted uses
presented by Staff are in conflict with the modified
r
77
secondary. She suggested that the dwellings along
Old NC 86 could be office use which would be
profitable but have a more pleasing appearance than
some of the permitted uses., She also expressed
support for daycare in economic development areas.
Collins noted that daycare is included in secondary
so it is not an issue.
Barrows seconded the motion by Price.
Howie expressed concern that such a small area would
attract strip development. Due to the lay of the
land, she felt that primary would encourage strip
development.
Waddell pointed out that Howie is a resident of
Cornwallis Hills and referred to the State law
regarding conflict of interest. Howie responded
that she did not feel she had a conflict of
interest. She was appointed as Hillsborough
representative and her concern is Hillsborough. She
expressed concern that so few comments were made
regarding the impact of the development on
Hillsborough.
Barrows stated that there .should be a step-down
between primary and residential and she felt the
motion did address that concern.
Walters stated that the Planning Board should
consider compromise on each side and try to make a
recommendation that would address as many concerns
as possible. That was the reason for her suggestion
that the list of permitted uses be discussed and
voted on individually.
Brown expressed agreement with Barrows' statement
that there should be a secondary buffer around EDDs.
VOTE: 5 in favor.
6 opposed.
Adjournment time was reached.
MOTION: Howie moved to extend the meeting to complete this
item. Seconded by Allison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
The Board determined to review the list of permitted
uses, vote on them individually and include the list
and vote with the recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners.
r
78
(See attached list of votes on permitted uses. )