Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-03-1980 I i AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NOVEMBER 3, 1960 1 COMMISSIONERS ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 10:00 A.M, I 1 . Does an Bard Member desire to modify this agenda? E 2. Does any member of the audience desire to comment about: A. Matters on this agenda? B. Matter's not on this agenda? 3. The Clerk submits minutes of a meeting held October 21 , 1980, for Board consideration. i 4. The Tax Supervisor submits petitions for-, Tax Refunds A. Lula Bell Swann $ 18,00 i B. Robert H. & Barbara H. Frey 157.09 i C. Lanie N. Crabtree 43.55 D. W. G. & Joy Thomas 710.20 l E. Robert A. Vaillancourt 227.80 E F. McCullagh Leasing, Inc. 54.40 E Tax Releases A. Richard B. Copeland 18.84 B. Cynthia Ann McDonald 20.80 jC. W. H. B. Development i D. Robert J. Shankle E. Residential Services, Inc. : 5. The Manager requests permission to apply for a grant from the Governor's Highway Safety Program to assist in erecting road signs in Orange County. 6. The Manager recommends the Board approve an agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County for the use of Community Development Funds to improvela portion of the Northside Multipurpose Center. i 7. The Manager recommends acceptance of a grant of $30,000 from the State Council on ;Aging to continue a Homemaker-Home Health Aide program, now operated by; the County's Department on Aging. i 1 - k i I 8. The Planning Board recommends the Board of Commissioners approve the preliminary plan of Lebanon Heights subdivision. 9. Appointments : A. one vacancy exists on the Carrboro Board of Adjustments. 10. Continued discussion of cable television franchising in certain non-incorporated areas of Orange County. I I 1 I i I I I I i I I Jr AGENDA ITEII_W4 VEqUEST FOR TAX REOM Auo-st> 1.981 x 1.Bel. Swm= P. O. Box 27 Ca=roms N. C. 27510 ► Chapel Hj2j Town5111p7 (A,-co=t #36552 (1979) - rfs. Swam spas arse: sexl Caxrbaro C:.ty T= for 1979 althrn ) she xe:��c1e oi*side the city vitbin the SOIX'h Orange Fire Djztr3.ct. Remd of 3.979 tax requested: CarhOro City Tax $1.9.60 leas Smith granges lore Dlsb)ict rent collected $ C3C3 Total: Date Order i n RiIST Ra TAX Rn,UND September 71 1980 Robert H. Barbara H. Frey Route 7s Box 655 Old xystra Road $haeac - Ii11 r Ii. C. 2753 i Chapel W1.1 TO=sh"Ps Aacrnu�tb-,#2=9 Fox' 3.980 the Fret's 1 ed two automobiles, a 1979 $�f53'cad a 1976 'Mercedes—Benz. The SSW, adeatified as a two..doOr coupe by the Freysy was assigied a valuat3.on _ tst : y.. 32.) a tvx)-door sed= Cwde $22,950 (mfldel. 6.33=) a7,tho ,h it 3s actually l. should. have a vadua�.an of•$1©1023- The Mercedes1 ident3 it ou1d have s v'a'laxa na was assigxed a va"luatdcn of $a:675 (model 28Q) although of $9,375 (model. 300D). Requested :def & of 1980 Tax" $ County Tax 3. -64 Chapel. Hill — Garrboro School D3-strict Tax $15--- Ta Orden Data i� 1 107 F=UEST FM TAX SID September 8, 1980 2lrs. 7. zie N. Crabtree Route 7, Box 165 Durham, North Carolina 27707 - y chapel Hall-Township Tax Flap 26, Parcel. I, Tract #3407 Th3.s trams has been ma PP ed and taxed 54 acres althou& ah coat�x►s only 49.4 acres.. Mrs. Crabtree is requester a tax refund based upon tam difference in val4A' 41 of $118W. Refund requested- 1979 Tax county Tax $16.�A Chapel. H:LU Carrboro School 1.86 District Tax 1.44- New Hope Fire District Tax. 1978 Tax County Tax 15.12 Chapel. Hin-�t;arxi�ara Sahaa7 4.59 .District Tax New Hope Fire Mr;.trict Tax- 1" Total ' 6 Order _ Date I . - a Tti1112 G joy Thongs Tax Iian a9 A.104 T'ne House was appraised as a 2 stox7 dweIM--I;;-- It Ms.- in fac- - 1 stormy vl -i a "half basema—nt 1-dth a J"tii ni sh ;?am a '70uM resr37� 3a a di.fXerence in total. value of 10,600- The dO rentioy -':'as ;wade Tor 9 . The oviner is regnest'ing a rey�d. used o,-I the 10;600 a�=M- for 1.979z 1978, and 1977- Ref'and Requested: 1979 Tic Cam-ity Tax=$95.49 Cha-ael. fii.11 City-122.96 chgpel HM Sebool..= 28.62 197u Tax County Tai--$89.04 Chapel. H:.L City--118.72 C_zayo°7. HiL7 Sdhool,= 27'.-G3 ` 1977 Tax .6 Chavel.. Hill. School= 27»05 To:al. $71.0-2") f _ l Nz Uvil 21, 1980) i .. �. iioberL A. Vaillancourt F 1017 Rolling Road Chapel 93..11., iyoruh Carolina 2751.4 Chaaal iii.Ll. Tov aslAp s1 Tax :lap 43, Block G, Lot 11, Tract A371 �11 Accowit x:'32'.33 j A 1980 nevi evi of the appraisal of this parcel. diz;closed that the %OWS'e• j Y,,-&ILatioa established in the 197.3 revaluatioa was err�xeous iu Viet. it included j basement area trhlen dial not e;dst, resu tins; in ari ov arva3zhta,aza;i-I the amount R=,'i3kTD REQUME D 1979 Tax County Tar. $30.60 Chapel, Hill. City Tax 39.1Tc� Chapel xia ll Carrboro School District 'Tax 9.10 1978 Tak County a ax Cha --1 FZJ- .7. City Tax 3a.o0 Chapel. Mill Carrboro School District Tax S.67 1 1977 Tax County Tai:. 26.52 Chapel Ull. City Tax m 3a^.pS Chapel ii11 Carrboro School District Tax x.07 TOTS $227.80 j 1 Order _ Date I � i 1 REQUEST FOP, TAX REFUND (October 14, 1980 Mcqullagh Leasing, Inc. Chapel hill Township Account #43329 This corporation listed an automobile for 1980 which was garaged and registered in New 'Yorx. State as of January 1, 1980. Refund requested (1960 tax): County tax $26.87 Chapel Hill Carrboro School District tax 29. Tot 83 alaoro City tax . Total $6440 Order ___ _ Date �. __ .n i 1 =IjEST FOR TAX RIB September 2, 1980 Riobara B. copel•and Hill..sbarovgh To;OZhap, AcCOinit " 5� listed an ta¢obale and $7.03.0 V;or$h of other glrsonal tfr. Copeland �perty for 1980 and now claiW he 33.ves -with US mother and the only tbing he shavla be taxed 3ror is the aat000b5l.e. Requested re'Lease of 1980 tax' ccn=ty Tax $10.00 co�mty Late Listing Penalty 1.91 BiJ.3,sbarcrugh city Tax . 3ii.7ys'boroo.gh bate �.?st�g penalty Total: Date Order ir^ g)Equr,-T R-a TALC RET .Eimer: - August 23, 1980 McDmald Cynthhi.a A= ..- C&anJ. Hill TomshiP, Acca=b #46865 � - ti NS Mclk aid made a tamely listing for X980 ($8m yjorth of persona - s- .. property) X1nLX �'�[1C5�.S �iha�. }1Pr accC3t1�t be llcanae�edit t1eCEiL1.' 9 S�7 P. k i as a gra&xat s student l!viag with her mother and otins no PTOPOTty- Rec sted Release of 1.980 Tax: -- County'Tax $7.96 Chapel. Hill -- Carrboro Sahool. Di.str-Lot Tax 2. 2 Chapel. Hi3i City Tax �- $20.80 Total.: Date order � A e 1 t ==T FOR TX RELEASE September 26, 1980 George Secretary-Tre=lrer UO Development, Inc. Chap--I Hill Township Tax clap 114D PaarC.1 11 Tract' rS onV+braok} (2.5 .Acres, 1,ot 18 24ap 3 stoney brook) M,& reTie:sts that the current tax valrat:L= Of M03 1c�c tb3� jot be reduced because the Armge Caurxty Health DepaitmeAt has dcterrff=4 that it is not suitable for a seg" system. i n i RE,QUEST FOR TAX RASE september 16, 1980 - Robert J. Shankle Chanel.. Hill TOWnship Tax Flap 72 Block B parcel 6A Tract #9642 2.23 flares (Lots 3, 1,, 12 Cnasa Farm), Oteys Road., Chap:l Hill m � Ih'. SFzarsicLe requests that the Mrent $9:OW va:l3a.at�.on of this - property be c0ns3derab3g reduced because the Orange County Health Department has conned (September 3, 1980) that the prope!rty is =5ultab'l_e for septic taxes and the cost of providing city serer _ is prohibitive ($171000}. REQUEST FOR TAX RELEASE (August 7, 1980) John T. Stewart for Residential Services, Inc. (formerly Orange County Group Homes, Inc Chapel Bill Township Tax Map 30 Block F Parcel]. 11, Tract 8088 The corporation acquired a house and lot on Umstead Drive from an individual on February 2, 1980 and seeks exemption for 1980 from the date of acquisition. i •l P7 Co1.WAN,BERNHU1.7.AND UICKEKSON A7'n MHEYS AT 1.AW CHURTC7^I STRFCr CIIAPV.L HIM OFFICE UN'Lf)IS C[ILEMAti,JII 111Lt.tilu.NUUL;H NOW111 CAKLI1 INA 17!7x SVrrF 20.FRANKL114 ULTILDING 949 73'---2176 T37 EAST FRANKLIN[TREEr EVEN A.REKNHULZ 911942 KLU11. ,.UC;ER 11,6ERNHUL2: CHAPEL HILL.NORTH CARC)LL^IAr 175 C4 UUNALUR,DICK EI1St1y1 October 6, 19BO 91991471St CEOFF KEY E.GLEDHILL UUUGLAS HAKUKAVE LECALCUNW5 MARTPN J._$ERNH[ILZ FATKtaA STANFURU HUNT ,1,EAST ISTRATEVE OFFICE U(G�unxl Wb EA57(LUSE1.lARY STREET Bl3NNER A.SAWYER CHAPEL FRLL,NORTH C1tRULRSA 17514 ((962 19711 9F9 a2q-py9a Mr. Richard E. whitted Chairman orange County Board of Commissioners orange County Courthouse lob Margaret Bane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: * Tax Status of 334 Umstead ?give, Chapel fill, North Carolina on January 1, 1980 Dear Richard: You recently gave me a letter dated August 7, 1980 from John Stewart concerning the tax status of 334 Umstead Drive, Chapel Hill. I have enclosed the original of that letter for your reference. First of all, in all likelihood, property owned by Residential Services, Inc. i.s 'enti.tled to tax exemption under G.S. ,5105-278.6 (real and personal xroperty used for charitable purposes) or 5105-278.7 (real_ and personal property used for educational, scientific literary or chari- table purposes) . Both of these sections exempt property from taxation if wholly owned by a qualified owner and if wholly and exclusively used by its owner for non-profit, etc.. purposes- The problem here is that the tax status must be, by law, determined as of January 1 of each year. If the owner on January 1 of any given year is not a qualified owner then the property is taxable for the full. ,year. The specific statutes which are applicable are detailed below. N.C. Gen. Stat» 5105-282.1(a) states that the owner has the burden of proving entitlement to an exemption. That statute further provides" that the owner shall annually, durincr the listing_period, file an application therefor with the tax suberv'isor. Subsection (b) provides that if the application is denied by the talc supervisor the owner may appeal the decision to the Board of Equalization and Review or the Board of County Commissioners, whichever is appropriate. Notification of the denial must be given by the Tax Supervisor to the owner in time for the appeal. subsection (c) of that Statute provides that if - e n E V �.l T1.F.11Art, (SERNFOIZAND DICKEttSf 7%' Mr. Richard E. Whitted October 4, 1980 Page two upon appeal to the County Board the owner demonstrates that the property meets the conditions for exemption, exemption may be approved by the Board at that time. These latter two subsections indicate that the Board of County Commissioners can consider an application for an exemption at any time. However, the Board must make the determination as to tax exempt status on the date as of which the property is to be listed and appraised. G.S. §105-285(d) provides that the; ownership of real property shall be determined annually as of January 1 except in the following situations: When any real property is acquired after January V but prior to July 1, and the property was not subject to taxation. on January 1 on account of its exempt -status, it shall be listed for taxation by the transferree as of the date of acquisition...-." This statute provides for-taxing property acquired after January 1 when a non-exempt owner acquires the property from an exempt owner, However, the reverse is not authorized. That is, when an exempt owner acquires the property from a non-exempt owner after January 1 there is no authority for exempting the property from the date of acquisition or for any other portion of the year of acquisition- Finally, G.S. §105--302 provides that taxable real, property shall be listed 1,n the name of the owner. . . . For purposes of this section, the Board of County Commissioners may require that real property be listed in the name of the owner of record as of the day as of which property is to be listed under G.S. §105-285. In practice this is what occurs it Orange County. That is, as a matter of course, all real property is Listed in the name of the owner of record as of January 1 of each year. This requirement is mentioned only to lend support to the notion that the owner on January 1 1 determines the taxable status of the property and not to suggest that this section provides some basis for exempting the property in question here. In fact there is no question- of the ownership of the property on January 1, 1.980. It is the contention of the new owner, Residential Services, 'Inc_, that it should be tax exempt as of February 2, 1980_ Simply put there is no statutory authority to pro-rate the taxes to that date in this situation. E � r I think Mr_ Stewart's letter should be treated as an appeal of the tax supervisor's decision to deny the exemption. It should be cal.endared for consideration by the Board as other appeals are calendared. I have taken the 71 Col.ENIAN.BERNHOM AND D1C3£lt5l7N Lr, Richard B. Whitted October 4. 1980 Page three liberty to send a carbon copy of this coxrespondeuce to ~ Mr. Laws for his use in calendaring the appeal._ ► Very truly yours. COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DXCKERSON BERyHOLZ, GLEDHILL AND HARGRAVE ; Ge, fray E. Gledhill GEG/jac cc: Mr. William T. Laws Enclosure �F1 AGE1 LD A TTE" .. . PERFORMANCE. AGREEMENT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN W CHAPEL HILL, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS OW ", ORANGE COUNTY, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "COUNTY." WHEREAS it is a goal of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement program to ensure that elderly, lower-income residents of the Town's community development areas have available to them a decent, safe, and sanitary senior citizen activity space, and WHEREAS the County has made available senior citizen activity space at the Northside Complex, and WHEREAS the Council has determined that the Town should use Community Development entitlement funds to support the renovation of this senior citizen activity space, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the aforesaid and the mutual covenants and conditions hereafter set forth, the Town and the County agree as follows: 1. The County will renovate the senior citizen activity space in the Northside School building at the Northside Complex. Renovation work shall include at minimum: a new front entrance for handicapped access; the addition of interior doorways; painting; the installation of the floor and drop ceiling; provision of cabinets; sinks, lighting and room dividers; and repair of restrooms. Work performed with assistance provided under this contract shall be limited to the floor space labelled "CD Funds" as shown on the attached floor plan (see attachment 1). 2. The County agrees to establish a work plan for achieving the renovation project and to submit such plan for approval to the Assistant Town Manager by December 10, 1980: Such worts plan will specify the work to be accomplished, provide detailed specifications with cost estimates, and indicate the manpower resources to be used on the project. The County shalt develop this plan with the objective of using CDBG funds principally for materials and using available manpower from other sources to the greatest extent possible. 3. 1 The specifications for rehabilitation work shall be designed to eliminate code deficiencies and prolong the economic life of the structure to the i maximum extent possible. All alterations, re0airs and other improvements shall be harmonious and tie in with existing materials to remain in an acceptable manner. quality materials shall be selected. 4. Renovation work on the senior citizen activity space shall begin no later than January 10, 1981 and shall be completed no later, than June 10, 1961. "Completed" is defined as passing final inspection and receiving a certificate of occupancy from the Town Building Inspector. s •7 72f . County agrees that the senior citizen activity space as designated on the izen attached floor plan will be made available primarily ears fromrthetdate activities and direct services for a minimum of five farther agrees that such of completion of the renovation work. The County activities and direct services shall principally bitlower-income residents of citizen residents of the Town of Chapel Mill, especially the Northside-years P o6 shall Development he designated rseniorcit citizen actiivity space minimum five y government, including be used as a facility for the general conduct of g county office space. 6. The Town agrees to pay the cost of renovating the activity space from 1979-80 CDBG entitlement funds, uorttionaof themnecessary 6ma�nPower toward agrees to provide $2,500 and a P both parties that jOCCA will the total project cost. it is understood by contribute $33006 toward improvements to the resndin iscapproved' its application for Title Ill-C Senior Citizens Program funding 7. The Town will pay the County for renovation work performed Tn accordance with the terms of this contract upon p resentation of proper invoices showing work performed. Invoices for r Manage under this agreement sha documental o1n.bA submitted to the Assistant Town n Manag final payment amounting to a maximum Of ten the theGTown will be held in reserve pending Building Inspector. The County agrees to provide monthly progress reports to the Assistant Town Manager, on the status of work Performed €o date. 9. Payments will be federa Icertif sates contained Development III the Agreement funds. Therefore all for Community ©eveloprnent Block Grant Program between thmadewapPliable i Department of Housing asnattac attached hereto {see! attachment y2). References to to the County 1 to the County, including the grantee therein shall be deemed to apply prohibition against disc age; ales. or ag andl thefrequ rementrto payo all sex, handicapp e. employees doing similar work at the same wage sc orginal, 10. Pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 as required by 24 CFR 670.6(16, the renovation work shall comply with the requirements of the 5American Standard Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessciable to,and Standards Institute PI ei(ANS1 Number A-117,.1 PRb11971).l by the Ame a 11. County agrees that it will maintain and keep in good repair the renovated senior citizen activity space for the minimum five year period specified in Section 5 above. 12. Any amendments to this agreement that may be necessary shall be made by letter of agreement and signed by the parties set forth below. In the event that the County shall fail to maintain a steady rate of progress or to render a satisfactory accounting as provided herein, then and in that event the Town may terminate this agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereunto cause this agreement. to be executed in their respective names. This the day of , , 1980- TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL. a Municipal Corporation Bye Town Manager ATTEST: Town Cleric ORANGE COUNTY Bye County Manager ATTEST: County Cleric Approved as to form: This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Finance Officer \ . -7-77+k - �! « �0,ry%, 2�& � « 7=� \ ` . (e F=6) \ \ / ��` � ��-�-� _ _ � . . ■ �� G | e � . ! . • \ Ow w - ! t . . � (_ ) �| . ON u! M �oa� a (c F=©) d CD| C « F=6) | In; FI=6> . 4 10 - AGENDA ITEM 8 ORANGE CUUrTTY PLA I�r DEPAR'nMNT HIMSDOROUGa 27'278 f: v lh C>tpL�, r�fo T0: ?sir. S. M. Gatti$, Country J%nager FROM: Orange County Planning Department DATE: October 31, 1980 RE: Planning Board xeco=endation on,Preliminary Plan. for Lebanon Heights Case Subdivision. This case was referred to the Planning Board for their consideration at the Oct. 20, 1980 meeting of the Planning Board. The Planning Board recommends: e Planning Staffs' Recommendation A I ' e 0P..ANGE COUNTY P7L.ANNMCx PTPART"NrEhT �x,s�oao�rc� NORM CAROLINA 27278 b LT f �� IP a4 9-10-80 Preliminary Plan Recommendation on Lebanon Heights 1. The Orange County Planning Staff recommends approval of this Preliminary Plan with the restrictions as noted on the Plan. .f ! Jaci: Phelps P, 4. Sox 424; Mebane, NC 27302 MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST Lebanon Heights Frances S. Carter Ot1NER OR DEVELOPER' b124E OF SUBDIVISION DDRrss Rt. 2, Box 320 Mebane, NC 27302 a[tiTSHIP Cheeks TAX MAP 6 BLOCK LOT 33 „ .Fire District fast Alamance 4114E OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINE Robert A. Jones Associates otal number of tats 10 To be developed in phas(s f Total number of°acres 11.53 or proposed y ypical dwelling units at present Community Individual A ATER SUPPLY: Public(name) Community Individual Septeic tank x SCHOOL DISTRICT Cheeks Et4AGE TREATMENT: Public 1345 _--� Road Standaxd: Pub or Private Class A , B Othex-- j, Explain: .ccess onto State Road x Flond zone areas ( ),.Historic Sites ( )� -- ;xisting critical areas such as streams ( )� p stream w/a small watershed flows through part of this svbdiv'sion ,and uses in the general area: rest entia an a ricultural ;KETCH PLAZA RECEIVED (Hats) 2-19-80 Approved ( ) Recommended Changes E ) �RELITiTNARY PT.AN RECEIVED (Date) -S REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED iBate} r Doug olyfield Erosion Central Officer 5-850 MWB ?reliminary Review by Health Department an Lunsfor 8-19 $0 Department of fixansgortatian Board of Education OIdASA (if possible) -Mebane (if passible) )t hex Soil Canservatian-Service - Bob t -Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if possible) - ?reliminary Action by the Planning Board Unanimous Recommended A rava _ .. preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT UCUM (Date) ( } All lots were approved by the Health Department ( ) hots failing health Departments approval are combined or listed rapexly on the Plat ( } 'Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable), Approve ( ) Improvements have been provided ioxbleamoneal �plrng letter specifications. Date Dace -•- --�--- ( ). Final OWASA approval (Whexe Applicable) j Final DOT approval on plat Final action by the Planning Boar /, - /7 7 0945 ,r✓ �/ 15.119 AC" a sTS2 �\ r3 E9„34 AC.CAL ANY R/w 1 f� 4140 .. i 4111 J 1 52 Ac. n 695& 35 - I3L. u t Salo A7 t / I .B2 A-L z � 33 AC. n 8727 4528 f� 33 � } 14.42 AC. 809 . za t869 I i5 � IB AC. _ 12,5 RC- - }t„x �a✓�a`�.61- 36 T9O2 37tf say's- •G 3$$ h f 1 2 0417 29 8351 DoT 7409 `1 36 AC- ,X F .i It � •wl � aC it 36.2 AC. It It It tk _ f; O .ANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAFTAMNT �S3t3pRE7T7'CH NOR= CAROLINA. b�Qe,n or o 1r i 1z . �tb Cttt .. PLAUMING BOARD MiNEi MS October 20, 1990 Members Present: Ms, Pat Crawford, Dr, Logan Irvin;..Ms. HazelLunsford, bs_ Claudine Harris, Dr. Steve Kizer, Art Cleary' Dr. Vice Gordon, Paul Gates Jim Polatty, Rick Cannity, Brian Benson, Sue 11agoner Staff Present: Others Present: Ms. Josephine Barbour, Dr, Jerome Harris, Randall Waugh Agenda item #1 The following were additions to the agenda: Dr. Gordan asked that a memorandum regarding Public Notification of Rezoning be added to the agenda. The Board agreed. Di. Jerome Harris ,presented a citizens Petition concerning a commercial a, and asked this be added to the agenda, recreation activity in a residential are The Board agreed. Agenda Item Jt2 The minutes from the October 7, 1990 meeting were approved with the following corrections: Dr. Kizer asked that in Item 6 it be shown that approval. was unanimous_ Dr. Irvin shoved approval as corrected. Mr. Cleary seconded_ a Dr. Irvin commented on the extension of the old prdinance in Bingham Towns'Ivp-. He stated that the Commissi oner 'to Bingham Township- extend had decided not to proceed. with the decision. to the present zoning ordinance xn.:Item 7 the word "dhenn*-arras deleted. The scale for the proposed zoning maps should have been shown as 1" = 2,000' *******Agenda Item u3 Staff recor[mended approval of the subdivision. Dr_ Irvin moved the Subdivisi.On be approved subject to any finding 'which wouls shots an incorrect line showing some planning Board Minutes October 20, 19BO Page 2 lots as substandard. Cleary^seconded the motion, Motion unanimously approved•. 7. Agenda Item 5. Mr.. Benson thanked the planning Board for an enjoyable experTence woxkix+g with orange County and the Planning Board, Mr.wide summary then 3presented�instatus Me- report on the county Land Use Plan, A County _ paration stag=s.' The various township components are All c]xaft fora and have been distributed to bath the Planning Board and Boaxcl'Of county p�,.+w,i.ssa•oners. Mr. Benson began a township by township dicusson of the Land use Ilan. Cedar Grove -- 1�1r. Benson'indicated that this would be watershed for -01 township zoned Agriculturalthis R idential- aThea water viorlprotectior, district upper Eno is partly zoning. The ese-r ii.ng Staff wi11 xecommencl would probably overlay the primary g' additional development requirements for water iVit supply watershed district:, fie Town- indicated that there arerural co=un Odes_acTheyt arddmembers=askedrthe follow- ship and also several rural �y a ing questiond r ,• :i, i::°.o - . Dr. Kizer asked what the basis for the growth:projections were, k1r, Benson answered that a field survey of homes was done in 1975 and this was supplemented by Building Permit information and a' projection formula for future growth Mr. Benson made a brief statement about the Land Use plan for Little river Township. Dr, Gordon made the statement that there was a mistake on page 39 concerning the Chapel 1i11 Township.Plan, The parker Road activity" center Ian does to designated in the Chapel Hill Lend Use P ntCOUntysPlan. a County Activity node and should be removed from the Orange Dr. Viiison made the comment that the Mr u ��Cates Observed that. there were several absolute or maximum population figures. dairy farms in Little River and one egg farm, Cheeks Townships was presented by Mr, Benson with the following comments, the a Town of Mebane had a large extraterritorial planning jurisdiction and that the Y-85 7o corridnr� through the town§hip wouldv)btt=:considered-paxt othat ilni twenty year transistion area. The township advisory Council felt that similar types o£ development as presently exists should be allowed in the corridor, The Council was also concerned about the market ability of the land for residential i purposes. Dr. Gordon asked if commercial. and inedustrdial uses could be al. dwyes' the area and still protect the water supply ro riate but that standards for E de was development cou that certain uses would problems for other uses that were basic-�-- t development could alleviate many p ally acceptable. no comments or questions about the Land Hillsborough Township- There wree Use flan for Hillsborough. y 'township was discussed next and Mr,, Benson indicated that Eno park of Durham City's urban transition area will encrouch on Eno Township- Bingham Township, Mr. Benson indicated that the major questions about this 75 ORANGE C©UNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT �s�o�eouG� NORTH CAROLUTA 27278 r`atq rs m 3L 7 PLANNING BOARD,--l ZINUTES., SEPTEMBER 15, 1980 Members Present: pat Crawford, Paul Gates, Hazel-Lunsford, Logan Irvin, Art Cleary, Nancy Laszlo, Steve Kizer, Claudine Harris.. Staff Present: Jim Polatty, Brian Benson, Rick Cannity_ ITEM 02 The minutes were approved on a motion by Logan Irvin and signed by Dr.. Kizer- Lebanon Heights Subdivision was added to the agenda. ITEM 03 Mr. Cannity presented Lebanon Heights subdivision to the Board, observinc that the subdivision meets all the minimum requirements of the ordinance Staff walked the subdivision in an effort to find the cemetery', but coulc not locate jt.= 'Mr. Cannity indicated that ].4t seven (7) failed the Soil test. Mr. David Shanklin addressed the Board, objecting to the subdivision, on three grounds; 1) the property boundary is incorrect on the northwest corner between his property and the subdivision; 2) the neighborhood is not ready for one acre lots, because it is not in keeping with the character of the area; and, 3) protective covenants should be required to prohibit mobile homes and hopefully to require a minimum size house. The cemetery question was not why Mr. Shanklin attended the meeting. Mr. Shanklin felt Mr. Carter or Mr. Phelps could indicate where the gravesites'az located. He stated that the newest gravesite is around 1860' or 189D and the oldest is rumored to be English soldiers killed in the revoluntary war. Mr. Jack Phelps, who represented Mr. Carter, spoke to the Board, saying he had found no evidence of a cemetery. in eeference to the minimum lot size, i the lots comply with the subdivision ordinance_ Concerning protective covenants, he said that had been discussed and that they could be drawn up. The question of an incorrect property line is a question for the courts to decide, Mr.-Phelps said. Mr. Shanklin produced a 1958 survey of the property showing what he felt was the correct property line_ Mr. Polatty presented staff recommendations concerning the points under question. 1 Planning Board - Minutes September 15, 1986 Page 2 Br. Irvin observed that lots B, 9 and 10 could be undersized if that particular property line.were incorrect. Dr- Irvin felt. the property � line issue should.be resolved before subdivision approval- Both Mr. Phelps and Mr. Shanklin stated that each had attempted to resolve the - boundary problem, but that the other would not cooperate- Mr. Cannity showed the Board the surrounding land uses_ iris. Cranford asked if one acre lots were in character with the area. Dr. Irvin moved and Mrs. Lunsford seconded the motion that the Board defer approval for 30 days to allow Mr. Shanklin and Mr. Carter to resolve the question of the property lane. Mr. Cleary protested saying: while he agrees the property line issue should be resolved, the staff has recommended approval of the subdivision and a registered surveyor has certified the accuracy of they line. 'Dr. Kizer agreed with Mr- Cleary. Ms. Crawford said that it might set a dangerous precedant Ms. Lunsford felt the property line problem should be resolved. Dr. Kizer said the crux of the issue was whether the property line would create- substandard (� .92 acre) lots i.f it were incorrectly drawn. Dr. Irvin said that he agreed with Dr. Kizer but felt that deferring this 30 days would not set a bad precedent. Dr. Irvin suggested that the 30 day period would give Mr_ Shanklin time to hire a surveyor and bring more information to the Board. The question was called and the motion passed unamiously: ITEM u4 Joint Planning Report Mr. Benson briefly stated the entire Joint Planning Program started with Chapel Hill's request to extend their extra-territorial planning juris- diction. mt. Polatty added, that the earlier discussion concerning the Grange Comprehensive Planning Council antecedent of Joint Planning. Mr. Benson presented the report. The first section was the Administrative Mechanism. ' He pointed out the number of administrative bodies that review development proposals, where there would be joint review of proposals, with the final approval given by the County. The Joint Planning agreement will be between Orange County, Chapel hill and Carrboro. Ms. Crawford asked what problem would be created with any changes in the jurisdiction's various ordinances and how they would be handled under joint Planning. Ms. Crawford asked how orange County could be assured that the policy would be carried out within other jurisdications. Brian Benson replied that this had been set out in this document. The courtsey review of development proposals was the main policy tool.