Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-30-1985 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 COMMISSIONERS ROOM HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 7:30 P.M. A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. MINUTES D. APPOINTMENTS E. REPORTS AND PROCLAMATIOg _ . Delivery of the 1984/85 Audit PAGE # F. ITS FOLDEcIgION--CONSENT AGENDA A motion to approve various ordinances and motions (any item may be removed for separate consideration) 003 1. Jail Inspection Report 009 2. Advertisement of Proposed Amendments to the Sedi- mentation and Erosion Control Ordinance 018 3. Ordinance for the Control of Massage and Massage Establishments 041 4. Space Feasibility Study 055 5. Budget Amendment--Sheriff Personnel and Equipment 057 6. Efland Sewer Resolution G. PUBLIC BEARING CONTINUATION AND ITEMS FOR DECISION-- OTHER 063 7. Board Member Attendance at Public Hearings on Special Use Permit Applications 066 8. Sup-1-85 Bingham School Inn 091 9. Proposed Secondary Amendment to the Land Use Plan Requested by Chandler Concrete Company 160 10. PD-4-85 Chandler Concrete Company 206 11. Z-2-85 (Rezoning Request) Dr. Khye Weng Ng and Wife Guat Chang Ng 214 12. Z-3-85 (Rezoning Request) Robert A. and Rachel S. Scholar 223 13. Property of John and Vida Tubiolo--Preliminary 228 14. Infrastructure Survey Revisions H. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILk BE POSTP0NED UNTIL OCTOBER 15. 1985 IF NOT TAKE UP B�ORE 10. 0 P M. 231 15. Gasoline Tax Increase 233 16. Agency Agreements 234 17. Old Courthouse Contract Change Orders I. ADJOURNMENT (10:30 P.M.) • - - . MAIZE COMITY * 00 1 _ . BOARD Cre Ca.ZUSSIONMS Action rsextria . . ItRattlo.: ej ACCON MaNTIIN ITO4 YIEMORACT • . • IMETD:G tvrE September 30, 1985 • - . _ Subdect:: MINIMS Dapartirent: Board of Coun , Commissioners • Publi •C Hearing: yes T no , • • . , . • . . - . - . Attachment(s) : Irlforit41on. Cbatact: Beverly A. Blythe " . - • - - USER SEPARATE COVER • - Itioneliumber: 732-8181, 968-11501, 227-0231 . . . • PURPOSE: . To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: . . - 5/16/85 - Special Meeting 5/21/85 - Regular Meeting 6/3/85 - Regular Meeting • 6/4/85 - Budget Work Session . --. ... 6/6/85 - Budget Work Session • 6/11/85 - Joint Planning Area . . 6/17/85 - Budget Work Session 6/18/85 - Regular Meeting . 6/19/85 - Budget Work Session 6/24/85 - Budget Work Session - 6/25/85 - Budget Work Session 8/26/85 - Joint Planning Public Hearing , . 9/10/85 - Joint Planning Area . . . • NNW: Approval so the minutes may be entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. ' . . - I RECOMMEND _ . ATION: ' 1 As the Board decides. , . ; • . 1 . - • ; . • - CCX1NTY 002 BalLRO OF COMISSION&RS Action, Agenda Itentb.T) AMON' AGENMA ITE4 ABSTRACT • r.mb-TmG DATE September 30, 1985 stibjec • APPOINTMENTS • • Departerent: Board. of County Commissioners . Public Hearing: yes y 110 • . • . - Attachment(s) : Informat.1011 Contact?. Beverly A. Blythe UNDER SEPARATE COVER • Phone Number: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To'maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for consideration of appointment. All vacancies have been duly advertised. A-4 - COMMISSION FOR WOMEN. 1 vacancy; 1 recommendation has been received. • B-10 - NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 1 vacancy; no nnmination has been received from a nursing home administrator. • B-11 - SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE -; no additional resumes have been receiVed. B-15 - SCHOOL MERGER STUDY CCNNISSION - no additional resumes have been received. • • IMPACT: To maintain 100% membership on Commissioners' appointed Boards and Commissions. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. • • s,. 003 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COZMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 SUBJECT: JAIL INSPECTION REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: _Jes _L.No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough -- 732-8181 JAIL REPORT Chapel Hill -968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To review semi-annual jail inspection report. NEED: On September 3, 1985, the Department of Human Resources-- ! Division of Facility Services inspected the County Jail. All jail facilities were found to be in compliance with State regu- lations except for one incident of overcrowding. IMPACT: Corrective actions are not required. it RECOMMENDATION(S): Accept the report and commend the Sheriff and his staff for having received an excellent inspection report. 3 • D`FS-7023 . 004 (Rev. 6/81) - LOCAL CONFINEMENT FACILITY SEMIANNUAL INSPECTION NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES. JAIL AND DETENTION BRANCH Post Office .Box 12200 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 • Inspection bate September 3, 1535 Time 11:45 ;3:-a ' Facility Orau:ry County Jail - County Cr3 i e Address 125 Court Sc., Hillsborough, NC Sheriff/Chief of Policed"Y L'eu;zeIW:455 Chief Jailer Capacity 42 Date Built 190= • No of Confinement Levels 2 Total Jail Staff 1J Jailers: Male Female a Staff on Duty: Male 1 Female 2 • Inmates Confined: Male 3u Female . • • Facility Staff-Schedule: 8-hour shifts 12-hour shifts - Other • 1st shift: 7:00 am — 7:00 ,,m 1 male, 1 female • ' 2nd shift: 7100 pm -- 7;GO am 1 male, 1 female • • 0 • C STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES OR INADEQUATE PROGRAM SERVICES IN THIS BLOCK o may jeopardize the safe custody, safety, health, or welfare of persons con-- m fined •in the facility and thus result in an immediate order for corrective m' 0 I 1 action or closure as provided in G.S. 153A-223. The governing body shall : I p n i cqnsider the entire report at the first regular meeting after receipt of n n tube report and shall promptly initiate any action necessary to bring the a • c facility into conformity with the standards as provided by G. S. 153A-222. e - . e • e A. SUPERVISION • • Continuous supervision is provided to the following types of inmates as required • by G.S. 153A-224, Section .1500 of the North Carolina Minimum Standards for the Operation of Local Confinement Facilities: • • 1. Adult Males- • _ •y . 2. Adult Females (must be supervised only by female jailers 3. Juvenile Males Smust be supervised only by male jailers t . 4. Juvenile Females (must be-supervised only by female jailers • B. MEDICAL CARE • The unit has a written medical plan properly posted which functions effectively as required by G.S. 153A-225 and Section .1800 of the North Carolina Minimum Standards for the Operation of Local Confinement Facilities. 7 • C. SANITATION The sanitation -of the unit is maintained in accordance with rules and regulations adopted under G.S. 153A-226 to effectively protect the health of inmates and public D. FOOD SERVICE The diet is adequate as required by Section .1700 of the North Carolina Minimum Standards for the 0peration of Local Confinement Facilities. • DFS-7023 (Rev. 6/81) 005 Page 2 C I STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES. OR INADEQUATE PROGRAM SERVICES IN THIS BLOCK May jeopardize the safe custody, safety, health, or welfare of persons con- fined in the facility and thus result in an immediate order for corrective I P 5- action or closure as provided in G. S. 153A-223. The governing body shall 1 n - T consider the entire report at the first regular meeting after receipt of i a a the report and shall promptly initiate any action necessary to bring the • facility into conformity with the standards as provided by G. S. 153A-222. E. FIRE SAFETY • 1. There are at least two complete sets of facility and emergency exit keys as required by Section .1401, Paragraph a , of the Minimum Jail Standards. (There are 2 • sets of keys in the facility.) • - - X 2. One complete set of facility and emergency exit keys not in use is stored in a safe place but accessible to supervisory personnel for use in an emergency as required by Section .1401, Baragraph b, of the Minimum Jail Standards. , • 3. Approved, permanently identified mattresses in good condition are pro- . vided as required by Section .1412 of the Minimum Jail Standards. • X -'4. Sufficient fire extinguishers are available as required by Section .1413- .1415 of the Minimum Jail Standards. 5. Fire extinguishers bear a current inspection tag and are maintained in a fully charged and operable condition as required by Sections .1416 and .1417 of the Minimum Jail Standards. • 6. Means of egress in sufficient number comply with N.C. Building.-Code and G.S. 69-12 for each level- • X • . 7. Emergency exit doors are approved type, 'keyed .to .both sides, are. func-,. • • tional, and comply with N.C. Building • ,• 8. The-confinement-facility-is of fire-resistive construction materials and . . unattached to any structure of less than fire-resistive construction unless separated--by an'approved fire wall as specified by the N.C. - Building Code. • 9. There is a plan for the emergency evacuation of inmates as required by Section .1506, Paragraph a, of the Minimum Jail Standards. 10. The facility has a master fire plan posted as required by Section .1506, . Paragraph a, of the Minimum Jail Standards. 11. Jailers have been trained in the use of fire fighting equipment as re- quired by Section .1506, Paragraph b, of the Minimum Jail Standards. 12. Fire drills are conducted at 'least quarterly and recorded as required by Section .1506, Paragraph b, of the Minimum Jail Standards. 13. Sufficient number of smoke detectors with automatic audible alarm and • test capability, in operating condition, to monitor all inmate occupied areas„as required by Section .1419 of the Minimum Jail Standards. • - 1ft-7023% • ' • (Rev. 6/81) ' 006 Page 3 ;i1 6. 0 0 • ,. 1 41 Zal . . 1. Construction Materials as Required by Minimum Standards . . A. Paint , - .. . R. Bunks . x• C. . Floors 0 Walls . . - E. Ceilings - ' ' - • I . F. Windows all _______ G. Security Screens • H. Doors and Integral Locks • 111 ' - • I. Dayroom Equipment --., J. Steel Grating - - • K. Wiring and Electrical Fixtures L. Safety Vestibules . • . 111 N N. Multiple Door Lockin . Mechanisms 'with Mechanical Override . , N. Floor Drains Accessible to Inmates are Provided with Secure . . Fasteners x . - . 2. ' Grouping of Prisoners . . . . . A. Segregation of Females (U.S. 153A-228, G.S. 14-261, Minimum • . Standards) X • . B.. Segregation of Juveniles (U.S. 153A-221.1 Minimum Standards) - 3. Safety and Security. Features . , . A. Local Fire .Department Has Been Requested to Inspect Facility In-- " -- Its Fire Prevention Ins.ection Program • N B. Mirrors Comply With Standards •-- MI - C. Safety-Type Razors for Shavint are Provided D. Visiting Areas are in Compliance with Standard Requirements _ E. Conference Area is Provided for Attorneys and Clergymen . 111 F. Medical Clinic Area is Provided G. Booking Area Provides Proper Security H. All Locks are Kept in Good Working Order I. Heat, Lights, Windows, or Controls are Not Accessible to Prisoners"! J. Security Section Doors are Kept Locked K.. Facility is Hazard Free • • 4. Space Utilization , . A. Approved Holding Area is Provided and Properly Equipped . .- B. Plan is Provided to Handle Excess Population Should Overcrowded Conditions Exist in the Facility - C. Overcrowding Does Not Occur MOM . . . _ • r , ... — . . Dr -7O . . - - (Rev. 6/81) 007 Page 4 - • . I 1 0 z. JITIC1) g e) ' 0 -4..) U, 0 Zil 0 • ' . - rfil 41 4 . . . -, a g c:. 0 i -, " . 0 „...,. .. • ,._. , I-I 41,. a) .- I-I . • . . 5. Structural Arrangements and Accommodations • . - A. Single Cells Conform in Size to Minimum Standards- B. Multiple Cells Conform,th Size to Minimum Standards C. Cell Areas Utilizing a Common Dayroom Do Not Exceed • - . . . . Multiples of twenty-four (24Y Persons • , D. If Facility Has Dormitory-Type Confinement, Size Conforms to - -- Standards No More Than Sixteen 16 Persons are Held in -Any Dormitory • • E. Facility Has Sufficient: . . 1. Number Of Commodes . . • 2. Num .ber of Lavatories . 3. Sanitary Drinking Water 4. Number -of Showers -- 5. Tempered Water 6. Dayroom Space • • :. F. Sufficient Storage Space is Provided - • • ,.- . . . . 6. Heat, Light and Ventilation • • . . . A. Heat (Type: Gas • ) is Adequate • - 3 , B. Ventilation (Type:' Air; ) is Adequate C. Lighting (Artificial yi;s Natural 7(.:s • ) is Adequate . . 7. Personal Hygiene and Comfort • :". . • ..-. , •..__. , • , A. Clean and Adequate Bedding is Provided , - B. Necessary Towels and Soap for Bathing are Provided - - C. Juveniles are Provided Toothpaste, Toothbrush, Soap, Towels, . Bedding and Combs . . . 1 D. Adequate Laundry Services are Provided • . ... . . 8. Medical Care - - A. Supervisors Understand Responsibility and Requirements in . Submittin5 heath Reports _ B. The Mentally Ill are Properly Observed and Expeditiously Transferred to a Medical Facility C. Inmates with Infectious or Contagious Diseases are Segregated 9. Food and Sanitation A. If Food is not Prepared at the Facility, Food Catering is Handled by Written Agreement as Prescribed B. *risoners are 'rovi.ed T ree 3 Adequate eals Per Day MEM C. Diet and Meal Schedule are in Compliance with Minimum Standards 151111111 . D. RITEEFFIppears ean an. Sani ary MINIM !.. - . . .• DF6770275 - " :s. (P •ei/ 6/81) • Page 5 ' • • '01 0 Ii w7 4 0 U 0 'LI a 4.1 c.3 I : 9. • a 44 " 0-1 41 k7 9. Continued E. Kitchen Equipment is Adequate —AIMS • ' F. Clean-up Stations and Equipment are Provided G. Jail A. .ears to be Clean and Sanitary X 111111 • . H. Sanitation Ins.ection Recommended: Yes No X . I. Reports are Submitted as Prescribed (G.S. 108-81 • . . 10. Are there any plans for new construction or major renovation: Vp4 If yes, describe: D.V.I. section pij3cn. d an f.n nroctress. • 11. Name(s) of Person(s) Contacted: Chief Depwzy .Paul Co :, Jat1r Curtis Aus::11,, :!Iatron Lynette ',Mire 12. Comments: NO ENTRY INDICATES ITEM NOT APPLICABLE • • Chiof Deputy ?eu1 Co0 k. stated that be is aware.of his responsibilities under the Federal Civil Rights. Act. regarding segregation-by race. . "0:2,11 4,C: Overcrow .-3ness toes occw: due to D.W.I. (veekends);at no time sl'oule.. there b 1.oused (slepc) clan 'there nrb ripDrovod bunks to accori.moce them. • , • . , . Jail Consultant Distribution: nr. Eon.=11(.; C')unl.y d of Conlis3..,,w-1,:-=. Kenna ti. Tholy.2,on, C:ran (7: CGun;.y :,aor • T1' 009 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date September 30. 1985 Action G nde Item 0 SUBJECT: Advertisement of Proposed Admendments to the Sedimentation end Ero- sion Control Ordinance DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No Attachmentts7 Information Contact : Warren Faircloth Legal Notice • Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968--4501 PURPOSE: To review the legal advertisement for matters to be presented at the Special Public Hearing on November 4, 1985. . NEED: The Board of Commissioners has expressed a desire to review any proposal for text amendments to the County Ordinances and the legal notices advertising the same prior to advertisement . The North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission has ap- proved a revised Model Local Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance to make it consistent with changes to the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and its Regulations . The Commission has requested that all Local governments administer- ' such ordinances revise their local ordinance to conform to the Model Ordinance . IMPACT: Review of the proposed advertisements would ensure that the Legal notice of the public hearing is in a form that can be understood by persons not familiar with the subject . RECOMMENDATION: Accept as to farm . I 1 • 010} NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY, N .C. • Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Commissioners Room in the Orange County Courthouse on Monday November 4, 1985 at 7:30 p .m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the adoption of proposed amendments to the Orange County Sedimentation end Erosion Control Ordinance. These proposed changes have been requested by the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission in • order to make the Local ordinance conform to recent ;.. changes to the State 's Mode! Ordinance. The amendments under consideration are as follows: 1 . Section 2 Purposes Amend Section 2 to include the prevention of water pollution and damage to public and private property. 2. Section 3 Definitions Amend Section 3 to add or revise the definitions of Act, Person Responsible for the Violation, Person Conducting Land Disturbing Activity, Siltation, Sedimenta- tion , and Working Days. 3. Section 4 Scope and Effect Amend Section 4 to resolve conflicts be- tween federal, state or local Laws in favor of the more restrictive provision . 4. Section 8 Mandatory Standards for Land— disturbing disturbing Activity Amend Section 8 to refer to "mandatory" standards, to provide for "protection from" accelerated erosion, and to require prior 011 approval of an erosion control plan before starting the land—disturbing activity. 5. Section 9 Permanent Downstream Protection of Stream Banks and Channels Amend Section 8 to correctly refer to the table of parmissable velocity contained in this section . O. Section 13 Responsibility for Installation and Maintenance Amend Section 13 to include responsibility for installation , as well as maintenance, and rearrange the section for clarity. 7. Section 15 Existing Uncovered Areas Amend Section 15 to require mailing notices by registered or certified mail and not re- quire ground cover on cleared reservoir sites unless Left undisturbed for an un- reasonable Length of time. 8. Section 17 Permits Amend Section 17 to specify what activities do not require permits. 9. Section 18 Erosion and Sedimentation Con- Amend troL 18 to set time limits on review of erosion control plans; define what constitutes a complete plan; require revisions to approved plans when a risk of erosion or sedimentation exists; to require a statement of financial responsibility and ownership with the plan; and to require that a copy of the approved plan be kept on the site. 10. Section 19 Appeals Amend Section 19 to allow the first appeal of a plan denial to the Planning Director and to refer final appeals to the Sedimen- tation Control Commission . 11 . Section 21 Inspections and Investigations Amend Section 21 to notify responsible persons of violations; specify measures 012 necessary for compliance; and give a deadline for compliance. 12. Section 22 Penalties Amend Section 22 to notify violators by registered or certified mail; describe the violation; specify a reasonable time for corrections; and warn that failure to respond will result in enforcement action . This section will also be amended to determine the amount of penalty based on the harm and cost of rectifying the damage. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and dis cussions at the hearing . Citizens unable to attend the hearing may express their views by writing to the Erosion Control Officer, Orange County Planning Department , 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278. For your concerns to be fully considered, they must be received by the Planning Department prior to the public hearing . Questions regarding the amendments should be directed to Warren Feircloth , Erosion Control Officer, in the Orange County Planning Department . Copies of the full amendments are available in the Planning Depart- ment for public review. The Planning Department is located in the New Courthouse, 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough . Office hours are from 8:00 a.m . to 5:00 p .m. , Monday through Friday. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: October 23, 1985 October 30, 1985 • • --- - -• • , • • (Th •••• 44'0.4 ft •. tt . 04.3 . • • • .• e A. • State of North Carolina Der.rtment of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Land Resources 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Camlira 27611 James G. Martin, Governor July 24, 1985 Stephen C. Conrad. S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director Donald Willhoit - Chairman Orange County Commissioners 203 Lexington Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear Mr. Wi/lhoit: On June 25, 1985 the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission approved a revised Model Local Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. The revision was necessary to make the Model Ordinance consistent with changes made in the SedimPntation Pollution Control Act and its Regulations. The Commission further moved to rlquire all local governments administering such ordinances to revise treirlredi.oan.ce crEaTillaTTE57-iellqct said amendments within 180 calendar days. A copy of the revised Model Ordinance is included which contains the subject changes.- The.changes themselves have been underlined and are noted by an asterisk in the page margin opposite the revision. Please note that the revised Model Ordinance as approved currently represents the minimum requirements for local ordinance documents. Revisions at the local level must meet and may exceed those contained in the Model. Revised local ord" ._. m_st be receivedytha—stallE the Lan. sue it Section no later than January 1, 1986, for tLeir review alia—FOinment back to the local government a._ necessary. e Land Quality Staff will present all revised local ordinance documents to the Sedimentation Control Commission for consideration and final approval in March, 1986. The Commission urges you to address these required changes at your earliest possible convenience to avoid time constraints. Until such time as the local ordinances have been amended and approved all local erosion and sediment control programs shall operate under the terms of their current documents. P.O.Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 276u-7687 Telephone 919-733-3833 An Equal Oppornmity Affirmative Action Employer • 014 • P1: se verify receipt of this transmittal wit:. the Land Quality Sectior. de soon as possible. If you have questions regarding this 17-....tter please advisa either the LE.Id Quality Staff or myself. Your cooperation in this matt ..r is appreciated. • Srely, • Lo! 20ee. Jos..(:,:h A. Phillips, Chairman Sedimentation Control Commission JAP:SCD:cjh cc: Hr. Warren Faircloth Mr. Steve Conrad Hr. Charles Gardner. Mr. Harlan Britt Mr. T,..t.71or Currin Mr. George Kaneklides Mr. Dan Oakley Enclosure • • 015 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 8 Shanklin expressed concern that sight distance in itself is not the answer . He felt we are creating places for accidents to happen . Yuhasz asked if DOT would comment . Smith responded that DOT does not comment on private roads or minor subdivisions . Gordon inquired if DOT certification was required. Smith responded this applied to "public" roads , especially new roads or a non—residential subdivision for driveway permit purposes . VOTE: In favor: Gordon , Pitkey, Miller , Shanklin , Kramer, Best, Jacobs Against: Pearson , Walters , Yuhasz. AGENDA ITEM #7: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING — NOVEMBER 4, 1985 a . Erosion Control Ordinance Amendments Presentation by Warren Faircloth This agenda item is to review and discuss proposed revisions to the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance. The North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission has approved a revised Model Local Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance to make it consistent with changes to he Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and its Regulations . The Commission has requested that all local governments administering such ordinances revise their local ordinance to conform to the Model Ordinance . The proposed revisions to the Ordinance will noteffect the application or enforcement of the Ordinance. The revisions are mainly minor changes to the wording of the Ordinance . Several definitions will be added to the ordinance and the wording of others changed . Revisions are being made to the administrative procedures for contacting property owners concerning violations . A time Limit for the 016 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-18-85 10 plan review process has been added along with requiring a statement of finaal responsibility and ownership . The Erosion Control Officer has added a change to the appeal process that is not requested by the Sedimentation Control Commission . The change in Section 19 allows the first appeal of a denial by the Erosion Control Officer to be made to the Planning Director instead of first holding a public hearing on the matter. The proposed revisicins to the Ordinance along wth explanatory notes are included in the 'attachments . The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed revisions be sent to the special November 4• Public Hearing . Shanklin inquired about the "pollution of water" referenced in Section 2 Cl ) . Faircloth responded this covered pollution generated by • earth moving activities . Gordon noted that this tracks the State definition . . ShankLin also questioned Section 4 about the more restrictive provision . Smith responded that the enabling legislation is both enabling and prescriptive . Faircloth responded that some activities are regulated by the State and others by the County . Gordon questioned Section 17 a(2) as to why no permit is needed for stock piling of raw or processed sand , stone or gravel . Faircloth responded this prevents double erosion control permitting as these activities are already permitted by the State. He noted that this probably addresses a problem the State has with enforcement : Gordon asked Faircloth to check with State to see if we can require a permit . Faircloth responded that these permits come under the State's jurisdiction under a Mining Act . Gordon noted in Section 18 f, the reference to "his" attorney should be his/her attorney. Gordon questioned Section 22 Penalties , as to whether the $100 penalty is set by the Commissioners . Faircloth responded that this • o DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 11 was negotiable. This could be a daily fine up to $100. Determination after this point could be set by Commissioners . Gordon asked why the appeal process was through the Planning Director . Smith responded this enabled an internal appeal process since the Planning Director is not involved in the day- to—day enforcement activities of this division . Pilkey inquired the reasons for the changes. Faircloth responded that in his opinion these changes address enforcement problems experienced by the State. Faircloth continued there were many more changes , but most of them were already in our ordinance which the State apparently used as their model . AGENDA ITEM #9a) : SUP-1-85 BINGHAM SCHOOL INN Yuhasz abstained due to professional conflict of interest . Presentation by Susan Smith.. The purpose of the agenda item is to consider for recommendation a request for a Class A Special Use permit for the non—residential use of the historic. Bingham School submitted to public hearing on August 28 , 1985. The planning staff recommends approval of the request with conditions as follows : 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit • shall post with Orange County , in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit . As improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements . 018 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE FOR THE CONTROL OF MASSAGE AND MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _I .No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE OR COUNTY ATTORNEY MASSAGE ORDINANCE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough -732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To give second reading consideration to the proposed ordinance. NEED: Attached is the Board adopted ordinance that was adopted September 17, 1985. It includes the following agreed upon changes: 1. Amend See 1-4, (B), (1) to add the disclosure of any aliases, address changes over the prior 10 years (both owned businesses and residences), sex, social security number (optional), and past military number; 2. Substitute a new Sec 1-4, (C) to wit: The applicant shall submit as part of the application two recent photographs of the applicant's head and shoulders, of a size and quality prescribed by the County Manager; 3. Delete Sec 1-4 (C), 1 and substitute a new Sec 1-4 (D) which reads: If after completing the preliminary investigation of the applicant using the information obtained from the applicant required above, the Sheriff shall deem it necessary to positively identify the applicant in order to confirm a fact necessary for the applicant to be licensed, the Sheriff shall present the information upon which he had made this determination to one of the Judges of the District Court in the 15B Judicial District. If the Judge shall determine, from the information presented by the Sheriff, that there is probable cause to believe that a fact revealed in the Sheriff's investigation would dis- qualify an applicant from receiving a license under this ordinance, shall order and authorize the Sheriff the Judge a, th to confirm that fact by the use of fingerprints. When such an order is issued, it shall be the added responsibility of the applicant to submit his or her fingerprints, taken by 01-9 the Orange County Sheriff's Department, as part of the application required in subsection (B) hereof; 4. Add an additional "Section 1-12. Transfer of License Prohibited"; 5. Add similar revisions as outlined in 1 through 4 above to licensing requirements under Section 1-3. Licensing of massage business operators; 6. Add five year limit under which a prior conviction would prevent award of license to Section 1-3, D, 2. RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt the ordinance as revised. 020 RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTROL OF MASSAGE AND MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. Pursuant to authority provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 153A-121, 153A-123 and 153A-134 the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby resolves and ordains as follows: Sec.-1-1. Definitions. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following terms shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them: BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF MASSAGE: The massage or treatment of any person for a fee or in expectation of a gratuity from the person massaged. MASSAGE: The manipulation of body muscle or tissue by rubbing, stroking, kneading, or tapping, applied by hand, arm, foot or mechanical device. MASSAGE BUSINESS: Any establishment or business wherein massage is practiced, including establishments commonly known as health clubs, physical culture studios , massage studios and massage parlors. 1 021 MASSAGE PRACTITIONER: Any person engaged in the business or profession of massage. Sec. 1-2. Scope. The therapeutic application of massage is one of the oldest healing arts known to humankind; a practice which can provide many benefits to an individual's state of well-being. To protect public health, safety, welfare and morals, the following privilege license provisions and regulations are ordained for the privilege of carrying on the business, trade, or profession of massage practitioner and for the operation or carrying on of the businesses, trades, or professions commonly known as massage clinic, massage parlor , health salon, health club, physical culture studio, or similar establishment wherein massage or physical manipulation of the human body is carried on or • practiced. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to a regularly established and licensed hospital, sanitarium, nursing home, nor to an office or clinic operated and regularly used by a duly licensed physician, surgeon, osteopath, chiropractor , physical therapist or podiatrist in connection with the practice of medicine, chiropractic, osteopathy, physical therapy or podiatry. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to: 2 022 A. physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, osteopaths, physical therapists or podiatrists duly licensed in North Carolina; B. registered or practical nurses duly licensed in North Carolina working under the supervision of a licensed physician, chiropractor, osteopath or podiatrist; C. cosmetoligists, barbers or beauty culturists duly licensed in North Carolina who do not give, or hold themselves out to give massages other than are customarily given in barber shops and beauty shops solely for the purpose of beautification. Sec. 1-3. Licensing of massage business operators. (A) No person shall operate a massage business as herein defined unless such person shall have first applied for and received the license provided by this section. A license issued pursuant to this section is a privilege license issued to the applicant only and is not transferable. (B) Every application for the privilege license prescribed herein shall be upon a form approved by the County Manager and shall be filed with the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. Every such application shall be made under oath and shall contain the following information: 3 023 (1) If the applicant is a person, the name of the applicant, any aliases ever used by the applicant, the age, the sex, social security number (optional) and past military identification number of the applicant; the residence address of the applicant and the residence addresses of the applicant for the 10 years preceding the date of the application. If the applicant is a partnership, corporation or association, the following information regarding each person having any legal or beneficial interest in such applicant: name, any aliases ever used, sex, social security number (optional) and past military identification number , the residence address and the residence addresses for the ten years preceding the date of the application; and (2) The address of the premises where the massage business shall be located; and (3) A complete statement of all convictions of any person whose name is required to be given in subparagraph (1) above of any crime involving sexual misconduct, including but not limited to N.C. Gen. Stat. Secs. 14-177 through 14-202.1 4 024 (Article 26, Offenses Against Public Morality and Decency) , ' N.C. Gen. Stat. Secs. 14-203 through 14-208 (Article 27, Prostitution) , any section of this ordinance, any federal statute relating to prostitution or any law or ordinance of any governmental unit concerning the business of massage; and (4) A complete statement of any revocation, by any governmental unit, of any license and the existence of any license to operate a massage business or to engage in the business or profession of massage held or formerly held by any person whose name is required to be given in subparagraph (1) above; and (5) A complete statement of any conviction of any person whose name is required to be given in subparagraph (1) above for violation of any statute, law, ordinance or regulation of any government concerning the operation of a massage business or the business or profession of massage; and (6) The name and address of any massage business or other establishment owned or operated by any person whose name is required to be given in subparagraph (1) above wherein the business or profession of massage is carried on; and, 5 025 (7) A description of any other business to be operated on the same premises or on adjoining premises owned or controlled by the applicant. (C) The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners shall transmit a copy of the application to the Sheriff's Department for an investigative report. If after completing the investigation of the applicant using the information obtained from the applicant required above, the Sheriff shall deem it necessary to positively identify the applicant or any person having any legal or beneficial interest in the applicant in order to confirm a fact necessary for the applicant to be licensed, the Sheriff shall present the information upon which he has made this determination to one of the Judges of the District Court in the 158 Judicial District. If the Judge shall determine, from the information presented by the Sheriff, that there is probable cause to believe that a fact revealed in the Sheriff's investigation would disqualify an applicant from receiving a license under this • ordinance, the Judge shall order and authorize the Sheriff to confirm that fact by the use of fingerprints. When such an order is issued, it shall be the added responsibility of the applicant or any person having a legal or beneficial interest in the applicant to submit his or her fingerprints, taken by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, as part of the application required in subsection (B) of this section. 6 026 The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners shall also transmit a copy of the application to the Department of Inspections to determine compliance with all zoning and building regulations and ordinances. The Sheriff's Department in co- operation with the respective fire district chief shall determine compliance with any law relating to fire protection. The Sheriff's Department shall, within a reasonable time, not to exceed forty-five (45) days, report the results of its examinations to the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. (D) An application in proper form, accompanied by all reports required by this section; shall be submitted to the County Manager; who shall approve such application if such officer determines that: (1) The application contains no misstatement of fact; and (2) The applicant, or any person having any legal or beneficial ownership interest in the applicant, has not been convicted, for the five-year period preceding the date of the application, of any crime listed in Section 1-3 (B) (3) of this ordinance; and (3) The applicant conforms to all requirements of applicable zoning, building, and fire prevention codes; . 7 • ' O2' (4) The applicant or any person having a legal or beneficial interest in the applicant has not, for the three-year period preceding the application, had a previously issued license for engaging in the business or profession of massage revoked. (E) Upon approval of the application by the County Manager, and upon receipt of a seventy-five dollar ($75.00) license fee, the Collector of Revenue shall issue a privilege license to the applicant. (F) A license issued pursuant to this section shall be revoked by action of the County Manager if the County Manager determines that: (1) The licensee has violated any provisions of this ordinance; or (2) The licensee, or any agent of the licensee, employs or permits to be on the premises of the applicant's massage business any person practicing the business or profession of massage who has not been issued the privilege license required by Section 1-4 hereof, or whose license under Section 1-4 has been revoked; or 8 02 0 (3) The licensee, or the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in the licensee is, after the license under this section is issued, convicted of any crime listed in Section 1-3 (B) (3) of this ordinance; or (4) Any employee of the licensee is, after the license under this section is issued, convicted of any crime listed in Section 1-3 (B) (3) of this ordinance; or (5) The licensee violates any zoning, building or fire prevention ordinance; or (6) The licensee is guilty of fraudulent, false, misleading or deceptive advertising, including the use of the term "massage" to describe , promote or advertise any type of business activity or service which is prohibited by this ordinance or which is not massage as defined in this ordinance. (G) A license issued pursuant to this section shall be revoked by the County Manager if the licensee ceases for thirty (30) consecutive days "operating a massage business" at the location required to be stated in the application for license pursuant to subsection (B) (2) of this section. 9 o20 (H) Any person whose application for a license is denied by the County Manager pursuant to subsection (D) of this section or revoked pursuant to subsection (F) or (G) of this section may appeal such decision to the Board of County Commissioners. An appeal is taken by filing written notice of such appeal with the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners within ten (10) days following the date of the decision. The Board of County Commissioners shall set the appeal for hearing in the manner provided by Section 1-7 of this ordinance. The Board may affirm, modify or reverse the County Manager's decision. Sec. 1-4. Licensing of massage practitioners. (A) No person shall engage in the business or profession of massage unless such person shall have first applied for and received the license provided by this section. A license issued pursuant to this section is a privilege license issued to the applicant only and is not transferable. (B) The application for the license required by this section shall be upon a form approved by the County Manager and shall be filed with the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. Such application shall be given under oath and shall contain the following information: 10 •030 (1) The name of the applicant, any aliases ever used by the applicant, the age, the sex, social security number (optional) and past military identification number of the applicant; the residence address of the applicant and the residence addresses of the applicant for the ten years preceding the date of the application; and (2) A complete statement of the previous business or occupation of the applicant for the two (2) years immediately preceding the date of application, including any massage establishment experience; and (3) A complete statement of all convictions of the applicant for any crime listed in Section 1-3 (14) (3) of this ordinance; and (4) A complete statement of any revocation of any license granted by any governmental unit to the applicant to engage in the business or profession of massage; and (5) The date and place of the applicant 's birth and the names of the applicant's parents. (C) he applicant shall submit, as part of the application required in subsection (B) of this section, two (2) recent 11 031 photographs of the applicant's head and shoulders, of a size and quality prescribed by the County Manager. The information required by this subsection shall be provided at the applicant's expense. (D) The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners shall transmit a copy of the application to the Sheriff for an investigative report. If after completing the investigation of the applicant using the information obtained from the applicant required above, the Sheriff shall deem it necessary to positively identify the applicant in order to confirm a fact necessary for the applicant to be licensed, the Sheriff shall present the information upon which he has made this determination to one of the Judges of the District Court in the 15B Judicial District. If the Judge shall determine, from the information presented by the Sheriff, that there is probable cause to believe that a fact revealed in the Sheriff's investigation would disqualify an applicant from receiving a license under this ordinance, the Judge shall order and authorize the Sheriff to confirm that fact by the use of fingerprints. When such an order is issued, it shall be the added responsibility of the applicant to submit his or her fingerprints, taken by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, as part of the application required in subsection (8) of this section. The Sheriff's Department shall, within a reasonable time, not to exceed forty-five (45) days, report the results of 12 • 032 its investigation to the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. (E) An application in proper form shall be submitted to the County Manager together with all reports required by this section. The County Manager shall approve such application if such officer determines: (1) That the applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and (2) The application contains no misstatement of fact; and 1 (3) The applicant has not been convicted, for the five-year 'period preceding the date of the application, of any crime listed in Section 1-3 (B) (3) of this ordinance; and (4) The applicant has not, for the three-year period preceding the application, had a previously issued license for engaging in the business or profession of massage revoked; and (5) The applicant has not been previously convicted of any violation of any provision of this ordinance. (F) Upon approval of the application by the County Manager, and upon receipt of a fifty dollar ($50.00) license fee, subject, 13 • • . 033 however, to the provisions of Section 1-11, the Collector of Revenue shall issue a privilege license to the applicant. (G) A license issued pursuant to this section shall be revoked by action of the County Manager if the County Manager determines that: (1) The licensee has violated any provision of this ordinance; or (2) The licensee is, after the license under this section is issued, convicted of any crime listed in Section 1-3(B) (3) of this ordinance; or (3) The licensee is guilty of fraudulent, false, misleading or deceptive advertising , including the use of the term "massage" to describe, promote or advertise any type of business activity or service which is prohibited by this ordinance or which is not massage as defined in this 1 ordinance. (H) Any person whose application for a license is denied by the County Manager pursuant to subsection (E) of this section or revoked pursuant to subsection (G) of this section may appeal such decision to the Board of County Commissioners. An appeal is taken by filing written notice of such appeal with the Clerk to 14 1 034 the Board of County Commissioners within ten (10) days following the date of the decision. The Board shall set the appeal for hearing in the manner provided by Section 1-7 of this ordinance. The Board of County Commissioners may affirm, modify or reverse the County Manager's decision. Sec. 1-5. Employer to use only licensed employees. No person licensed under Section 1-3 of this ordinance shall allow or permit any person to massage or treat any person upon the premises operated by the licensee unless the person giving such massage or treatment is licensed under Section 1-4 of this ordinance. Sec. 1-6. Posting of license. (A) Every massage practitioner shall post his or her massage practitioner license where he or she is carrying on the business of massage. If the license cannot be posted, then the massage practitioner shall have the license in his or her actual possession at the time of carrying on the business of massage. (B) Every person licensed under Section 1-3 of this ordinance shall display such license conspicuously at the place where the massage business is carried on. 15 gb, 035 Sec. 1-7. Notice and hearing. Before the County Manager revokes a license issued pursuant to this ordinance, or before the Board of County Commissioners considers an appeal, pursuant to Section 1-3 or Section 1-4 of this ordinance, from a decision of the County Manager denying an application for a license, the Manager or the Board as the case may be shall cause a written notice to be sent by certified mail to the licensee affected or applicant affected, at the address stated in the license or application. This notice shall advise the affected party of a right to appear before the Manager or the Board as the case may be, with or without legal counsel, at a stated time and place, for the purpose of presenting any evidence relevant to such revocation or denial, and for the purpose of hearing all evidence submitted and examining or cross-examining any person providing such evidence. Sec. 1-8. Hours of operation. (A) No person licensed as a massage practitioner under Section 1- 4 of this ordinance shall massage or treat any person or engage in the business or profession of massage, before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. , prevailing time. (B) No person licensed under Section 1-3 of this ordinance shall admit customers or prospective customers, or remain open for 16 oat; business, or allow, or permit or condone any massage or treatment of any person upon the premises before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. , prevailing time. (C) No person in charge of managing a massage business upon the premises shall allow, permit, or condone any massage or treatment of any person before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. , prevailing time. Sec. 1-9. Patronage of massage businesses by minors; employment of minors. (A) No person licensed as a massage practitioner under Section 1- 4 hereof shall massage or treat any person under the age of eighteen (18) years, except when the parent or guardian of the person under eighteen (18) accompanies the person under the age of eighteen (18) during the massage treatment or upon written permission of the parent or guardian of the person under eighteen (18) or upon written order of a licensed physician, osteopath, chiropractor, podiatrist or registered physical therapist, such order being dated and in the possession of the massage practitioner giving the massage or treatment. (B) No person licensed under Section 1-3 of this ordinance shall allow, permit or condone the massage or treatment of any person under the age of eighteen (18) years upon the licensed premises, 17 037 except when the parent or guardian of the person under eighteen (18) accompanies the person under the age of eighteen (18) during the massage treatment or upon written permission of the parent or guardian of the person under eighteen (18) or upon written order of a licensed physician, osteopath, chiropractor, podiatrist or registered physical therapist, such order being dated, and a true copy of such order being in the possession of the licensee before administration of any massage or treatment. ; (C) No person licensed pursuant to Section 1-3 of this ordinance shall employ any person under the age of eighteen (18) years in the operation of a massage business. Sec. 1-10. Massage of private parts for hire prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to massage or to offer to massage the private parts of another for hire. "Massage" means the manipulation of body muscle or tissue by rubbing, stroking, kneading or tapping, applied by hand, arm, foot or mechanical device. "Private parts" means the penis, scrotum, mons veneris, vulva or vaginal area. Sec. 1-11. Privilege license annual. The licenses required under this ordinance are annual privilege licenses. 18 The annual privilege license fee for the second and subsequent years of continuous operation of a massage business shall be $15.00 . The annual privilege license fee for the second and subsequent years of continuous practice of a massage practitioner shall be $10 .00. A massage practitioner who is a sole practitioner and who is not employed as a massage practitioner by a massage business operates a massage business and shall be required to be licensed as both a massage business and a massage practitioner. However, such a sole practitioner shall only be required to pay the privilege license fees prescribed herein for a massage business. Fees for the licenses shall be due and payable in the same manner as prescribed for other privilege license fees of Orange County pursuant to the license and privilege tax ordinance of the County. Sec. 2.1. Remedies. (A) Violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable as prescribed in N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 14-4. (B) Injunctive Relief: (1) Whenever the Board of County Commissioners has reasonable cause to believe that any person is violating or 19 039 threatening to violate this ordinance or any rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to this ordinance, or any term, condition, or provision of a license issued pursuant to this ordinance, it may, either before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this ordinance, institute a civil action in the name of Orange County for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation. (2) Upon determination by a court that an alleged violation is occurring or is threatened, it shall enter such orders or judgments as are necessary to abate the violation or to prevent the threatened violation. The institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to such proceedings from any civil or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of this ordinance. Sec. 3.1. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate , independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of any other provision hereof; and to that end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. 20 040 Sec. 4.1. Effective date. This ordinance shall be effective on November 4 , 1985. Applicants for license under this ordinance shall have sixty (60) days from its effective date to apply for a license. No massage business or massage practitioner shall be deemed in violation of the licensing requirements of this ordinance during the sixty (60) day period following the effective date of this ordinance. No massage business or massage practitioner that has made application for a license within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this ordinance shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance during that license application process through the point in time of the County Manager ' s decision on the application. 21 041 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.1 Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 SUBJECT: SPACE NEEDS IN CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes jNo ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 YES Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider whether to accept Chapel Hill's request that the Town and County explore the feasibility of developing a city county complex for meeting present and future space needs of the two jurisdictions. NEED: Attached is a report and minutes of meeting from a presentation 1 on the Town of Chapel Hill's capital needs. The County was subsequently approached by the Town Manager September 5, 1985 to discuss aspects of the report which affect the County. In essence the Town is faced with insufficient space for offices, libraries and public meeting rooms. The Town Manager has made five suggestions to Council for addressing the matter: 1. Take back charge of the Old Police Building when its lease with the County expires July 12, 1987. 2. Renovate it to meet some of the space needs of the Town. 3. Address the rest through new construction on land owned by the Town which is adjacent to the Old Police Building. 4. Invite the County to evaluate its space needs in Chapel Hill at the same time and consider the feasibility of the Town and County joining together to construct a building of sufficient size to accommodate both sets of needs. It would be referred to as a local government center. Conceivably each government would own a portion of the space similar to the Local Government Center in Raleigh which houses the Association of Counties and the League of Municipalities. Some space, such as for a Board of Commissioners and Town Council, meeting room, would be jointly owned and used. While it has been estimated that 16,000 to 18,000 square feet of added space will be needed by the Town to the year 2000, no specific amount has been projected to meet County purposes over the same period. At present the County is renting 14,825 square feet in Carrboro and Chapel Hill. A little over 9,245 of this 042 (used to house probation officers, public defender, Sheriff, JTPA, and Social Services, juvenile court counselors, child support and Section 8 Housing Program) would be displaced by the Town's action to use the Old Police Building after July 12, 1987. The remaining 5,580 at Carr Mill Mall (used for health clinics and the environmental inspections staff) is costing the high rental rate of $9.75 per foot, adjusted annually to the rate of inflation. As mentioned in a report to the Board in November 1984 it would be better for the County to be making payments on an owned building than to be paying the combined cost of $1Q5.155 per year for rental space in Chapel Hill ($50,750) and Carrboro ($54,405). An owned 20,000 square foot building would cost in the range of $1.2 to $1.5 million. It is not clear whether the Colombia Drive/Rosemary Street loca- tion is the best site or whether a joint venture would be the best arrangement. There are, however, some pluses in the pro- posal that are readily apparent. 1. The site is more suitable for diverse governmental purposes than County-owned land in what is termed the Northside neighborhood of Chapel Hill. 2. Sufficient parking should be available with 1,000 current and planned spaces. 3. For the Town and County to locate in a manner to allow sharing of public meeting rooms would avoid the duplication of each developing separate facilities for such. 4. Preliminary calculation shows that enough land is available to meet Town and County needs at the site and still meet height and ratio of land to building requirements of the Town. Regardless of whether the Board accepts the Chapel Hill proposal of doing a combined feasibility study it is time for the County to begin deliberating on whether to construct a building for County functions in southern Orange and what the size that building should be. IMPACT: Cost to the County of using a consultant to do a space study would be approximately $6,000. Proposals have been requested from consulting firms. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. Authorize that the County join with Chapel Hill in under- taking a study of (a) each jurisdiction's space needs, and (b) the feasibility of using the Colombia/Rosemary site as a possible location for a future local government center. 2. Authorize the County Manager to participate with the Town Manager in engaging a consulting firm to assist in develop- ing a report on the options available, at a County cost not to exceed $6,000. ' _ . . . 043 • MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor and Council FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager , SUBJECT: Major Capital Needs I *DATE: August 26, 1985 ' - r . Introduction i Ouestions concerning the Town's facility space needs, particularly for 1 library services, have been discussed for several years. . I In this memo, we propose some specific answers with the intent of structuring discussion, decisions and actions. This memo is meant to ; summarize issues and alternatives. We feet that Council discussion, 1 negotiation with the County and an additional consultant study of specific cost and design questions are needed before making long-term decisions. We think that decisions regarding major capital needs, especially space needs, wilt be influenced more by policy objectives than by details of t cost or design. For example, the Town's role or presence in the downtown area Is a central policy question. Council's guidance on such issues is needed before staff can continue its analysis. Background • A consensus by Council emerged, with the adoption of the 1985-86 Capital improvement Program, that there are four major capital needs to be addressed: l• -southern park , . -southern fire station -library . -meeting facility/municipal offices • Council has also discussed the need to acquire open space for preenways, • entryways, vistas, parks, etc. Needs ......„„_.,.,. Southern Park and Fire Station We feel that a southern community park and a fire station to serve the southern part of Town should be located on and designed for the same site. A plan Is needed for financing, site selection and acquisition. Although staff has had some preliminary conversations with property 044 REVD AUG 26 1985 • AGENDA TOWN COUNCIL CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 7:30 p.m. Monday, August 26, 1985 Municipal Building Meeting Room Est. Time. 10 min. 1 . Petitions a. Presentation by Ms. Venus E. Alexander of petition from S. Graham Street residents and businesses. re Inter-Faith Council plans for soup kitchen and shelter. b. Others. 5 min. 2. Minutes of June 24 and 28; and July 1, 8, 9, 15, and 23. 15 min. 3. A resolution concerning major capital needs (authorizinc.- negotiations with Orange County regarding a Local Govern- ment Center, a consultant study of the Old Police Building site, discussions concerning purchase of land for a south- . . ern park and fire station; and requesting recommendations from the Library Board of Trustees). (85-R-146a) . Manager recommends adoption. Alternate resolution 85-R-146b would authorize Manager to issue request for proposals to buy the Old Police Building from the Town. 5 min. 4. A resolution regarding a proposed Development Ordinance Text Amendment on site plan review (to remove from Sep- tember 16 public heari na agenda). (85-R-147). Council Member Howes. 5 min. 5. Request for work session September 24 to discuss the site plan being prepared for Rosemary Square. Manager. 10 min. 6. A resolution endorsing the naming of 1-40 in Orange County for Ms. Harriet Morehead Berry (requested by Orange County Commission for Women. (85-R-149) . Mayor Pro-tem Kawalec. 5 mi n. 7. A resolution calling a hearing September 16 on amending various sign regulations. (85-R-150). Manager recommends adoption. • 5 min. 8. A resolution approving a request to allow payment in lieu of recreation space for Cooper Square, Phase I I (amount to be determined following appraisal of 3,647 square feet of required recreation space) . (85-R-151a). Manager recommends adoption. Alternate resolution 85-R-151b would deny request. - I . _ . • - . . • - 045 - \ . - . i . •• owners about the availability of certain tracts, we do not have a • recommendation regarding a specific site. We can provide more infor- mation about costs, financing and acquisition after we have a specific location. Library 111110011MA il*111110.. . • We believe the need for additional library space is clear. The 1979 study by Josh • Gurlitz and Gary Giles, guidelines issued by the American . ' Library' Association, and patterns of use indicate the inadequacy of the . . present facility for present and future needs. . Experience at the existing Library tells us the space problems are: , 1,.. -Lack of space for expanding the book collection. (Please see at- . tached statistics on comparative use .. . . 2. Insufficient parking for patrons and staff. . . . • . . Meeting Room and Municipal Office Space • Our experience over the past few years has included several meetings each year for which the present meeting room was clearly inadequate. Additional public meeting space is needed to accommodate citizens. Additional municipal office space is also needed to allow space for Town - . staff to meet the public and to work more efficiently. Orange County needs room for both public meeting space and governmental office space in southern Oranoe County. The . County._ 1.1s recently indicated ni anterest in..a._Loc-at2Governmeat___center. ,...—..._ _ 1 . • Resources Ave i table ' • . woxne*,■,.....,,Olislosell.I•■■■■•■••■■••■••••••P The Town owns several buildings; the two mentioned below present the best potential for space for these needs. . . . . •.. Post Office/Court • • ,........—........---- The basement might be made available, although the Teen Center and the nistrict Attorney's Office now use most of the space. The County has indicated its intent to build a holding cell in the remaining space there. We think the Court and related offices will likely expand to use all of the • available space in this facility, and that these are ppropriate uses. •. Old Police Building Present use: Leased to Orange County until July 12, 1987, for govern- mental and non-profit agency use. There is a 120-day cancellation .1 clause. 1 1 1 Our previous memos on this subject stimulated some public discussion as to whether the Town should set I the property or retain ownership and, if the latter, to what use it should be put. 1. - • . . 046" Structural analysis: A recent engineering study (attached) indicates the interior could be witted and completely rebuilt to accommodate efficiently a wide variety of uses. The cost of interior renovations would be $350,000 to $450,000, according to the consulting engineer. This new information changes our thinking of the past 2 years. The earlier staff opinion had been that the interior walls were load-bearing and major internal rearrangement of space would be nearly impossible. Previously, we had recommended that Council consider a sale or lonci-term lease of the Old Police Building to a private party with facade easements and possibly other deed restrictions. The recent engineering analysis indicates a user could substantially alter the building interior to suit a variety of possible uses, while the exterior appearance could be maintained to conform with Town requirements. The advantages of sale to a private party include: -adding the site to the tax base, -increasing the supply of office and/or retail space in the Town Center, and -retaining the exterior character of a building which is a • significant part of Chapel Hill history. • -proceeds of the sale would be available to partial' offset the cost of providing space elsewhere. The following is a hypothetical estimate of potential tax revenue without the benefit of a current appraisal. • If the renovated property were valued at $6001000 for tax purposes, the total annual ad valorem revenue would be $B4O46 based on the current combined Town, County and City Schools tax rate of $1 .441 per $100. Of this amount, the Town would receive $4,110 at a rate of 68.50/$100. In addition, private ownership would involve a small amount of privilege license tax revenue from businesses using the facility. If the private uses increased overall County sales tax revenues (rather than redistri- butino receipts within the County), the Town would also share in the •• increase under the population formulas in State law. The actual amount of revenue would depend on market conditions and County tax appraisals and local tax rates in future years. Proposed Use of Resources Library We believe the library site should be in or near downtown. The attached article f ray r- the summer, 1985 issue of Public Libraries lists the following factors to consider in locating library facilities: 04 h • • 1. An area that is frequently visited by all segments of the community during daily activities. 2. Location on busy primary streets or arterial highways, with the library located at an intersection or corner locatio'n and with easy access to the site. 3. An area of high pedestrian traffic. , • - 4. . Convenient access to public parking. 5. High visibility and identification with the area. . , 6. Located on or close to public transportation in those corn- - munities where such transportation exists. • 7. A part of or immediately adjacent to a retail commercial area. Several options in central Chapel Hill are available: • 1. Expansion at the present site. Adjacent properties to the west and north are both available. A facility can be designed that would be in full harmony with the present building and the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, a single facility would • maximize efficiency of operation. 2. • Old Police Building. This facility is a viable option for a main • or branch library. However, it may be a better location for the • Local Government Center. 3. "Pearsall" Property (Church Street Parkin() Lot). -Could be redeveloped after immediate use to meet parking needs, so as to accommodate both a library and public parkin°. • 4. Parkin° Lot No. 2 site (east of Columbia Street). Same as the Pearsall property. — • 5. Purchase of the Southern Bell (Belk) building. This 30,000 sq. ft. building is for sale. It would be large enough to house a • single central library facility. We feel there would be significant advantages in having one main library rather than 2 separate structures. The operation of a single facility would be more efficient, and less costly. • - If a one-building library system does not remain at the present site, with expansions, the question of re-use of the existing library building arises. Future use of the present building, without addition of the - adjacent lots, would be indexed _the existing_liTited parkin° available and, the kinds of----use—s---- approodate in a FJThTirily • residential a-rea. • 046 Old Police Building We believe the continued presence of local government In the Town Center is appropriate. Therefore, we suggest the following: 1. Renovate Interior (and exterior as needed), add elevator (building .7. now lacks access for handicapped persons) and make a major addi- lion to the building. 2. Use the remodeled, expanded facility for a meeting place, some • euriicipal office space, and/or library space. Administrative office space needs are outorowina the Municipal Building. • One or more components, such as the 3 development-related departments, or the offices of the Mayor, Council, Manager and Attorney, could be transferred to the Old Police Buildina. Recent conversations with County officials have included the suggestion of ' . sharing this site with the County for a local government center. The County needs a meeting facility, as welt as office and service deliv- ery space, in southern Orange County. A local government center would allow the sharing of capital and operating costs as well as of a meeting rooro: and other space. 'A combination of uses on this site would be convenient to residents, an efficient use of the site, and a commitment to maintaining the vitality of downtown. Many questions would need to be answered. A consultant would reed to determine the specific space needs of both the Town and County, and would then need to determine the adequacy of the site to accommodate space and parking needs. Discussions would also be necessary between the staffs and governing bodie.s. Proposed Courses of Action Southern Park and Fire Station Authorize the Manager to explore the area and continue discussion with owners of potential sites, and to report to Council on November 25. - Library Ask the Library Board of Trustees to evaluate the five expansion options listed earlier and to report to Council on November 25. Public Meetino Room and Office Space Authorize the Manager to negotiate with the County regarding a Joint • Local Government Center at the Old Police Building; and authorize the 049 employment, jointly with the County, of a consultant to estimate space needs and costs, to analyze the Old Police Building and surrounding area, and to prepare a preliminary site plan, and to report to Council on November 25. Bond Referendum Consider holding a bond referendum in May or November, 1986 to fund some or all of these projects. (Once most of the cost figures and prelimi-- • nary plans are ready, about 4 months is necessary to call and prepare for a bond referendum.) • • • Recommendation: That Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Manager to carry out the courses of action outlined above. Also attached is an alternate resolution authorizing the Manager to: 1 . Issue a request for proposals to purchase the Old Police Build- ino from the Town with an exterior facade easement making the Town's approval necessary for any changes to the exterior of the building. 2. Prepare an alternate plan to provide for the public meeting room and municipal offices at the site of the present Municipal Building. 3. Request the Library Board of Trustees to evaluate four options . for expansion of the library. 4. Explore the area suitable for a southern park and fire station and continue discussion with owners of potential sites. 050 •Deleting One-Way Traffic Restriction for the Alley COUNCIL MEMBER INAN E$ 85-0-38 MOVED SECONDED MOT COUNC IL D UNANIMOUSLY, TO �',OPT ORD I The ordinance, as adopted, reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES (85-0-38) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill: SECTION I • That Section 21-10 of the Town Code of Ordinances, "One-Way Streets, • is amended by deleting paragraph (c) which reads "Traffic on alleyway situated in the block bounded by East Franklin Street, North Columbia Street, East Rosemary Street and Henderson Street, must enter at its western intersection with Rosemary Street, and proceed southwardly St�eetthen st its eastwardly and intersection emerging on East Rosemary U. S. Post Office after making a complete stop." and 4inserting the following therein: (c) Reserved - SECTION I1 • This ordinance shall be effective beginning the first day of July, 1985. SECTION III All ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repeated. This the 1st day of July, 1985. • Renewal of Lease of Old Police Building Manager Taylor made a brief presentation on the proposed renewal of the lease on the Old Police building. He said the staff planned to present to Council a need/use report with options for Council to review on the building in early fall . He said the proposed lease was with the County for two years with a 120 day notice of termination clause. Mr. Taylor said the lease included a payment of $6 per square foot for all portions of the building except the basement which would be leased for $4 per square foot . He said he felt the Council and County should look at needs for each in southern Orange with the possibility of a joint local government facility. Manager Taylor recommended adoption of resolution 85-R-127. Council Member Thorpe said he felt the lease should be only for one year. r'. I 1 Council..._Member - Pa.sguini said he wanted the opt i-onsto � be presented by the Manager -rega-rdii 9 future use of Old Police • - building t-o—'i-nclude the possibi 1 i ty of • s'- fe ling the building. Council Member Smith stated he wanted the Manager to explore fully the possib l i ty of a _joint•, County-City .project . COUNCIL MEMBER HOWE5 MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BOULTON TO - ADOPT RESOLUTION 85-R-127. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (8-0) . The resolut i on, as adopted, reads as follows: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TH �NOLO POLICE BUILDING EXECUTE AT 100 WEST RENEWAL.LEASE WITH ORANGE COUNTY FOR ROSEMARY STREET (85-R-127) WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill wishes the Old Police Building to be of use until a decision is made regarding its long-term future; and WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill wishes to continue to cooperate with Orange County in its provision of service to the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Manager is authorized to execute a lease with Orange County which includes the following stipulations: 1. The County shall lease the entire building at 100 W. Rosemary Street, identified as Lots 10 and 11 of Block H of Chapel Hill Town- b, ship Tax Map 85, commonly known as the Old Police Building. 2. . The County shall have use of the approximately 25 parking spac!t3.. on the upper lot and the Town shall retain use of the spaces in the lower lot. 3. Rent shall shall $50,750 increase e e n annum, to costs coverfany utility rate heat. It shall increas increases. - 4. The County shall be responsible for janitorial services and the Town shall be responsible for maintenance of te and electrical and maintenance of the heating, plumbing, systems. 5. Internal alterations only shall be allowed with the prior approval of the Town Manager, and at the expense of the County. 6. The County and any sublessors shall be liable for and shall hold the Town harmless against any claim, cost, expense, liability, action or judgment arising out of or related to any personal injury, death, or • property damage at 100 W. Rosemary Street which arises out•of or is caused by the negligence of the County; and the County and any sublessors would have the Town named as co-insured on the insurance policies ie5 obta ined on the p roperty. 7. The lease shall run for 2 years. 8. The lease may be cancelled upon 120 days prior written notice by either the Town or the County. This the 1st.day of July, 1985. .. . 052 . . , . A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO TAKE CERTAIN STEPS TOWARD MEETING THE MAJOR SPACE NEEDS OF THE TOWN (85-R-146a) WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill recognizes the need for a community park and fire station to serve the southern part of Town; the . need for expanded library facilities; and the need for additional public meetino space and municipal office space; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel. Hill that the Manaaer is directed to: 1. Explore the area in the southern part of the community and . • continue discussions with owners of potential sites for a corn- . • . munity park and fire station; • 2. Request the Library Board of Trustees to evaluate the following options as sites of potential library facilities: expansion of the present site, the Old Police Building, Church Street parking lot, 's '- • . Parking Lot #2, the Southern Bell Building, 3.- tee.iitrra with the County reoardino a Joint Local Government Center at the Old Police Building; and emOloy, with the County, . a consultant to estimate space needs and costs, to analyze the Old Police Building site and surrounding area, and to prepare a preliminary site plan. 4. Report to Council on these topics by November 25, 1985. - - This the 26th day of August, 1985. - . • - . . • „ • (over) . _ . . • 05e.C4 COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JULY 9, 1985 AS, CIRCIJLATED. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (9-0) . COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BOULTON TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JULY 15, 1985 AS CIRCULATED. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (9-0) . COUNCIL MEMBER ROUES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PASQU1N1 TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF JULY 23, 1985. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (9-0) . Major Capital Needs • • Manager Taylor made a presentation on the Town' s capital needs. He listed four specific items. These included a southern park and fire station, a library, and a meeting facility/municipal offices spaces. He said the Town was outgrowing its present office, storage and meeting facilities and mentioned two potential resources to meet these space needs: the Post Office/Court facility and the Old Police Building. He said the Old Police Building could be viewed for actual use or as a means of funds through its sale. Manager Taylor further stated that there were several options available to answer the space needs problem for the Library and included using the Old Police Building, expanding the present facility, building on parking lot #2 or the Pearsall property, - • and .purchasing the Southern Bell building. • Manager Taylor stated that this represented. a status report on capital needs and suggested the proposed courses of action as: exploring possible sites for a southern park and fire station, request the Library Board of Trustees to evaluate the five expansion options listed above, negotiate with the County regarding a joint Local Government Center, employ jointly with the County a consultant to estimate County and Town space needs and costs to provide them, and to consider holding a bond referendum in May or November, 1986 to fund some or all of these projects. Manager Taylor said this report represented a change in the staff ' s thinking with regard to the Old Police Building. A recent engineering study of the building revealed the design of the interior space would allow flexibility in renovations, which was not previously believed possible when it was thought that • many of the walls were load bearing. Council Member Godschalk said he felt it might be too constricting to limit the Library Board to review options only in the downtown area. He also felt, the proposed space needs consultant should examine the Municipal Building as well as the Old. Police Building for potential expansion uses. • h 054 Mayor Nassif said he did not think expansion of the present Municipal Building was a viable option, especially with respect to providing additional parking for any increased use and the ‘ • potential loss of many trees. . Council Member Tharpe-said he was against expanding the Library '-aT=tat-s'pii;-g-&11 location. He also said it should be made clear tc the County that the Town was interested in and planned to move forward on the expansion of meeting- facilities, so it was • important for . the County officials to let the Town know in a timely manner if they were interested in a joint proposal . ( Pasqu_irii in support of selling the Old e-oriCre Building and other unused Town property and in support of . • a southern park and fire station. He also spoke against limiting the Library expansion to downtown and a ainst a ' otnt_lasality wi_tit___theCountyAt_this time. He suggeste sending the report back to the Manager. COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES TO ADOPT RESOLUTION S5-R-146A. Council Member Howes agreed with Council Member Godschalk that the Library Board of Trustees should be given more leeway in ' selecting potential sites for Library expansion. . COUNCIL !EMBER HOWES, MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON TO ANFND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE UNDER ITEM 2 THE ADDITION OF THE PHRASE "AND SUCH OTHER SITES AS THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE. " • Mayor.--Nassiff spoke against the amendment because he felt the -L4b-i.a.ry. _-Aould located in the downtown area where the transportation system is centered. He said that Chapel Hill was • attempting to revitalize the downtown area and to place the Library outside of the population center would be remiss of the Council . Council Member Preston said she felt the downtown areas suggested in the memorandum were inappropriate because of the traffic • volume and because the University has several libraries already in use in the downtown area. She said expansion of the present Library site was not favored because it is in the Historic District. She said the public transportation system would go to wherever the Library was situated. Council Member Preston suggested the University Mall area as a potential location. THE MOTIONsPASSED, (7-2) WITH MAYOR NASSIF AND COUNCIL MENBER SMITH VOTING AGAINST. COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD TO ITEM #3 "TO ANALYZE THE OLD POLICE BUILDING AND MUNICIPAL BUILDING SITES AND SURROUNDING AREAS. " • • • ' ORANGE 'COUNTY D 5 4 • • .BOARD.OF COMMISSIONERS •• - - ACTION AGENDA - - - ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.Q5 • • MEETING DATE September 30, 1985 - SUBJECT: Budget Amendments - - PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO ` : ` tDEPARTP1t: Flnanc� • AITACHMENT(S): Proposed.- Budget .INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Wagner . • Amendments. PHONE-NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH •732-8181 • * : HILLSBOROUGH" •• 732-9361 _ • - - CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 - - • MEBANE -• 227-2031 ' : " ' DURHAM 688-7331• •• PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed- budget amendments.". . • - - NEED: To, budget for the costs o.f. fund•ing additional Law enforcement • personnel.' Costs .include -funding 3 -Deputy II-•positions, 1 _No-Com - Radio: at• $2,500 and 2 vehicles at $4,500 tack. . - - - IMPACT: This amendment will increase the Sheriff Department' s budget with - . a transfer from the Capital Project .Fund, a transfer from-the DWI • Safe Roads Act funds and a transfer from ,the Commissioners' - _ . Contingency. _ - - - • - RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve motion to ammend 1985--86 Budget. • • 056 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1985-86 BUDGET AMENDMENT The 1985-86 Budget and Capital Project Ordinance as adopted on July 3, 1985, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND Appropriation: Sheriff $1,778,518 $60,460 $1,838,978 Source: Transfer from Capital Projects Fund 0 11,500 11,500 DWI - Safe Roads Act 0 26,500 26,500 Contingency 54,499 22,460 32,039 To budget for additional personnel and equipment. . 100 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION- AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date SEPTEMBER 30. 1985 Action 4,ge®da SUBJECT: P0-4-85 CHANDLER CONCRETE, CO. Item (1 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING —,_Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH SEE 8-26-85 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA & HANDOUTS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS DRAFT 8-26-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 9-18-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5-28-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES & EVIDENCE (SEE LUP AMENDMENT ABSTRACT) 8-28-85 LETTER FROM J.S. HARDER PHOTOGRAPHS: SITE & ENVIRONS (CONTACT STAFF) MAY 28, 1985 LETTER FROM P. H . CRAIG Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 888--7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider for decision a request for a Planned Development Industrial III Special Use Permit for 1 .41 acres of property owned by the Chandler Concrete Co . submitted to public hearing on August 28 , 1985. To receive the Planning Board's recommendation on the request . NEED: The applicants are requesting the issuance of a Special Use Permit for a Planned Development — Industrial III designation for 1 .41 acres adjacent to the existing Chandler Concrete facility zoned Industrial—III . The 1 .41 acres of property is Located east of the existing facility on the south side of Old NC 10 and is referenced as Tax Map 45, part of Lot 32 in Hillsborough Township . The applicants previously submitted a proposed secondary Land Use Plan amendment for the entire 4.34 acres of property. This request for an amendment from Rural Residential to Transition Area and Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node was submitted to public hearing on May 2B, 1985. In the Board of Commissioner's review of the request for decision, the Board _ _ . • 1-61 P0-4-85 CHANDLER CONCRETE, CO. SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 PAGE 2 determined that too much new information had been submitted after the public hearing and directed that the request be sent back to public hearing as a new request on August 28, 1985. The Board also directed that the rezoning requst for the same property be considered at the same public hearing. IMPACT: Approval of the rezoning request, pending approval of the Land Use Plan amendment,, would allow Chandler Concrete to utilize property which it owns adjacent to the existing plant on Old NC 10 for runoff control facilities, parking and access. RECOMMENDATION: A Planning Board motion for approval of the request resulted in a4-4 vote with one abstention . The Planning Board reviewed the application , the site plan and all supporting documentation and found that the applicant complied with the specific rules and required regulations with the exception of screening, Landscaping and Lot size requirements. Given the nature of the request and the intent to limit the area of expansion to the minimum necessary to provide for the runoff control facilities and • parking associated with the vehicles to be cleaned on the site, and the potential pollution problem to be addressed by the proposal, the Planning Board recommends that the Board recognize the limits of the applicant 's ability to satisfy the minimum Lot size requirements specified in the planned development provisions and make the following finding under Section 7.3: "where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accordance with applicable PD or general regulations, but the Board of County Commissioners make a finding, in the particular case, that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greeter degree, the Board of County Commissioners may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case The Planning Board recommends that if the Board approves the request that the following conditions be attached: 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executad construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit.. As improvements are completed a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security arewIMMIS . . _ . . P0-4-85 CHANDLER CONCRETE, CO. SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 PAGE 3 instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabili- zation of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travelways only, and Landscaping. 3. Roads, parking areas and Landscaping shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 4. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained. E. That screening and landscaping requirements as provided in Articles 7 and 12 be provided along the full Length of the eastern property Line and along the rear property Line. G . A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 7. The final site plan and narrative of the project , incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit . Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department . Grading and building permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit . B. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions . 9. That suitable fencing be installed around the holding ponds to prevent access by animals and children . [Planning Board added 9-15-85) FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION PD-4-85 CHANDLER CONCRETE CO. r Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses as well as those set forth In Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: '(1) Specific regulations governing individual Special uses as set forth In Article 8.8 These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.2 3 refers to Article 7 standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4). (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional , Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements). Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding the application In question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the BOC_ C In Its deliberations. " ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("YES" indicates cam (lance• "NO" Indicates noncom dance) Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Find'ngg s Based on i Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findirigs BOCC FINDINGS • I 8.6 - Application submitted on _Yes No Application, narrative and site plans Yes No forms providing full and accurate submitted by applicant. description of proposed use, Including location, appearance and operational characteristics 8.8 a) twenty-six (26) copies of the X _Yes No 26 copies of the site plan submitted site plan prepared by a registered b the applicant. Site plan was Yes No N.C. land surveyor or engineer containing: y pp a prepared by Philip Post & Associates, Inc. 1. North point, scale and date X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No 2. Extent of area to be developed X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No 3. Location and width of all ease- `— • merits and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the site X Yes No Shown on site plan. — Yes No ARTICLE 8.8.23 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 0.8.23 Indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 - Planned Development ARTICLE ] - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) PlanOing Poar Findings on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support findings BOCC FINDINGS Article 7.4 indicates the applica- tion must first comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements Include: 20,3.2 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Provided with application. yes No property at scale of not less 1 than 1" - 100' nor more than I" Q 201. i 20,3.2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Provided with application. Yes No property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No No error alleged. Yes No error, If any, to be corrected — _ _ by proposed amendment Though DEM Is magdating the 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if Yes No control of wash water and wastewater any, which make amendment reasona- '— from the existing concrete plant, _Yes No ably necessary to promote public Motion for positive the Issue of whether this constitutes a changing healdi, safety and general welfare finding resulted in a condition Is unresolved. The proposal 4-4 vote. substantially addresses potential pollution 20.3.2 e) Manner In which proposed Yes No impacts on nearby streams and residential areas. amendment will carry out purpose " Applicant is requesting a Land Use Yes No and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan amendment to Commercial-Industrial Activity Plan Node. If approved, this designation provides for the district proposed. • t CT. r � ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Board Findings Based on �• j Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS 1,. Location of all existing or pro- X Yes No No structures are proposed. Detention Yes No posed structures on the site basins are shown on site plan. .• 1 { 5. Location of all areas on the site X Yes No There are no flood prone areas on Yes No ' subject to flood hazard or Inunda- the site according to the FEMA-FIA ti on as shown on flood reaps or maps and soils maps. soil maps I 6. Location of all water courses X Yes No No water courses present on site. Yes No on the site, Including the direction of flow 7. ExIsLing topography at a contour Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No Interval of five (5) feet based _ on mean sea level datum 8. proposed or existing fencing, XYes No Shown on site plan. Yes No screening, gates, parking, —"" --"" service and storage areas 9. Access to.slte Including sight _I_Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No distances on all roads used for access 10. Elevations of all structures X Yes No No structures are proposed. Yes No proposed to be used In the development . II. Names and addresses of owners X Yes No Submitted with application. Yes No and app 1 I can Ls -- '- 12. A fee, as set by the Board of Yes No $150.00 application fee paid. _Yes No County Conmissioners ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Pia gin Board ' Ordinance Requirements Fin i.ngg Baseu on Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings BQCC FINDINGS Article 7.11 then Indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Develop- ments. These include: 7.1 .1 so located with respect to X Yes No Proposed- use has direct access or streets and mass transit Yes Na Major Old NC 1QtSR 1710} a road facilities and designed so as not classified as a collector in the to create traffic on minor streets Land Use Plan. Use will not create In residential districts adverse traffic impacts on minor residential streets. 7.4.2 so located with respect to X Yes No Proposed use will not require Yes No water, sewer, and storm drainage system use or expansion. ` facilities that enlargement or extension will not result in higher net public cost or earlier Incursion of public cost and So located with respect to X Yes No Proposed use will not require Yes No police,fire and rescue services, services. and schools and parks so as to • have access In the saute manner i as permitted under the existing Zoning 7.4.3 Site suitable for develop- X Yes No No critical development areas Yes No ment without hazard from flooding, are present on site. erosion, and soil subsidence or slipping Q: tT ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES {"Yes'.' indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Q� Planning Board Findings Based on Ordinance Re9uirements BOCC FINOIN6S Submitted AEplication Evidence Submitted to Support Findings . Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant Lo address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision Yes No Not applicable. Yes No for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service b) Method and adequacy of pollee, _Yes No Not applicable. Yes No fire and rescue squad protec- — tion i. i c) Method and adequacy of vehicle X Yes No Access to site is proposed via.. Yes No access to Lhe site and traffic Old NC 10 (SR 1710). Three driveways conditions around the site presently serve the site. The applicant is proposing to construct a fourth driveway referenced as Drive D and close an existing driveway referenced as Drive C to provide a safer entranceway to the site. NCDOT has commented that the driveway, as proposed, is adequate and meets sight distance requirements. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED OEVELOPMENTS (Continued) lagiin r oard i.n In ase on BQCC Fl N01 NGS Ordinance Requirements Submitted App ication Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Article 4.2 Identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the appli- cation of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a PD-I-3 designation, The criteria for that district are set forth In Article 4.2, and are as follows: a) Site is located outside the Yes No Applicant is requesting a Land Yes No Chapel Hill Joint Planning Use Plan amendment to Commercial- — — Area and within an area designated Industrial Transition Activity Industrial Transition Activity Node. Node. b) Water and sewer mains exist or Yes No Yes No will be made available as " — Not applicable to proposed use. _ part of the development process. ' c) Access consists of direct X Yes No Site has direct access to Old NC 10 Yes No vehicular access to arterial "— (SR 1710), a road classified as a or collector. collector in the Land Use Plan. d) Yes No Yes No e) Yes No Yes No U; ARTICLE'4 - 'ESTABLI5IIMENT`OF'PERMITTED USE TABLE AND SCIiEDULE (' Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance Pia q�in Board Fin an Based on ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support 'Findtdq!�' BOCC FINDINGS P Article 4,3 Permitted Use Table Use is a permitted use or requires the issuance of a special use permit to 'locate In the PD-I-3 _ Yes No Applicant is requesting amendment district, to the Land Use Plan for designation of the property as Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node. This designation, ; if approved, allows the full range of commercial-industrial districts, upon rezoning. i . ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) fiac3:}in Board inaingg $ased on ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BOCC FINDINGS Article 7.17 sets Forth develop- ment standards with which an applicant must comply as follows: a) PD-I districts must be X Yes No Proposal satisfies provisions Yes No established in accordance with and intent of district. J the provisions of Article 7 7.4 - 7.9 and with the intent of the district as expressed In 7.17. 1. b) Minimum net land area for the Yes X NQ Proposal includes 1.41 acres of _ Yes No use is 2 acres; the minimum land fronting on a road classified frontage requirement Is 200' as a collector. (RECOMMENDATION OF on an arterial street. SECTION 7.3) c) PD-I districts must be Yes X No Applicant meets the requirements of 'des No established in accordance. these districts with the exception of with Articles 4,$,6,9,10 the lot size, landscaping and screening and 12. requirements. {RECOMMENDED APPLICATION OF SECTION 7.3 AND CONDI T'I'ON 1/5) d) electrical/telephone service Yes No Not applicable. Yes No lines are underground; e) Applicant must comply with ,X Yes No Applicant's submittal complies _Yes No site planning standards with specified standards. specified for PD-1 districts 7.15.10 c_ ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) f l aau in§ %oa rd ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Suamit ed Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BOCC FINDINGS , Section 7.15.10 provides that the application must comply with the }°a following site planning standards: •� 4—� q) External Relationships 1. Uses and structures are XYes No Proposed use is oriented away from Yes No oriented away from minor minor residential streets and separated residential streets and from residential neighborhoods by residential neighborhoods. street and railroad rights-o€-way. 2. Vehicular access points are X Yes —No Applicant proposes to 'open a driveway Yes No designated to encourage smooth in exchange for closing an existing -" traffic flow and controlled driveway to reduce traffic conflicts turning movements. Merging, at the site. turn-out lanes, traffic dividers NCDOT has indicated approval of this etc. shall be required where proposal. needed and may be included In the required yard setbacks, except landscaped portions. Pedestrian access Is, where practical, sep prated from vehicular access points. 3. External yard of 35' must be X Yes No Applicant provides for 35' yard setback Yes No provided along perimeter, except along front, rear and eastern property where they adjoin other comm./ lines. Ind, districts;and landscaped as follows: a. Along collector or arterial X Yes No Applicant provides for a 18' landscaped Yes No streets or frontage streets the-- strip along the frontage of the property —' nearest 15' to the ROW shall be as shown on the site plan. landscaped; where a turn-out or merging lane Is profl ded, the land- scaped area shall be 101. The remainder may be used for off-street parking. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planr}ing Board Findings Based on ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BOCC FINDINGS b. Along side property lines X Yes No Applicant proposes 18 ' landscaped strip Yes No adjoining a residential -` along eastern property line for distance --- district and not separated of ' 46 feet to the rear of the by an intervening street, proposed drainage basins. Standard requires the nearest 15' to the property a landscaped strip 40' in length. line shall be landscaped for a distance equal to the minimum front yard depth of the adjoin- Ing residential district. c. Where a residential dis- _Yes No Not applicable. Yes No trict faces this district -- -- across a minor street, the 10' nearest to the ROW within the district shall be landscaped and no off-street parking permitted. d. The nearest 10' of all other X Yes No Applicant indicates existing vegetated yes No yards, not adjacent to a strip along the rear of the property. The "- commercial or Industrial rear property line serves as the centerline district, shall be landscaped for a 200' railroad right-of-way. to reasonably conceal parking, service areas and undesireable views. Fences, walls, hedges, etc. may be required to protect against adverse Impacts of noise, lights or undesireable views. b) Internal Relationships 1. Plan provides for a unified, X Yes No Plan, as proposed, satisfies this Yes No well organized arrangement of standard. -- buildings and use areas. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage-, and development Intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD-1-3 designation. The stars ands for that district are set forth in Article 5.1. 2 and are as follows: a) Min hnum lot area X Yes No Applicant proposes minimum lot area Yes No per use 20,000 sq.ft. of 1.41 acres or 61,409.60 square feet.— b) MinimOum lot width - X Yes No No setback requirement specified for this •Y-es ho sq. ft. PD-district. C) Required front setback - Yes No No setback requirement specified for this Yes No 0 ft. PD-district. d) Required side and rear XYes No No setback requirement specified for this Yes No setbacks - 0 ft. PD-district. ""- e) Maximum building height - Yes No Not applicable. No structures are _Yes No 45 ft. '- proposed. Compliance with lot coverage and development Intensity standards is addressed in Article 6. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION Of DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliances "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 6,12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (Lill) system. a) Minimum gross land Yes X No (RECOMMENDED APPLICATION OF SECTION 7.3) Yes No area - 623, 144 sq. ft. -- b) Maximum gross land Yes No No maximum specified for district. Yes No area - sq. f L. -- c) Maximum floor area ratio - Yes No Not applicable. No structures are proposed. Yes No .459 _ -- -- Maximum floor area permitted - sq. ft. d) Required minimum open X Yes No Applicant proposes 61,409.60 square feet of Yes No space ratio - .72 open space. Required minimum open space - 44,214.91 sq. ft. e) Required minimum pedestrian/ X Yes No Applicant proposes pedestrian/landscape area in Yes NO t landscape ratio - .25 Required minimum pedestrian excess of the minimum required. landscape area - 15,352.41 square feet w • ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION Of DIMENSIONAL REOUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Board Findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted ApplicationEyidence Submitted,To Support findings . 130CC FINDINGS Article 6.24 contains those t'Ft standards applicable in the MTC-Major Transportation Corridor district. These , standards include the following: a) Minimum of 25% of total Yes No Yes No lot area shall remain uncovered. b) 100-foot buffer _Yes No Not applicable. Yes No required adjacent to edge of Interstate highway right-of-way. Slept in natural state or landscaped in accordance with approved landscape plan. e) front, rear, and Yes No Not applicable. Yea No side yard setbacks required as followss 1. 100 feet adjacent to Interstate right- of-way, 2. 50 feet adjacent to other property lines. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED) Planning Board ` Findings Based on OCC FINDINGS ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS a Article 6.24 Standards i (continued) d) Off-street parking and X Yes No Applicant satisfies requirements. Yes No loading shall conform —.- with the requirements of Article 10, e) Signage shall conform Yes No No applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No with the requirements of -- Article 9. f) Landscaping shall conform Yes R No Applicant meets all landscaping Yes No with the requirements of with exception of Class A Screen '—' — Article ID, along rear and side property lines. i -�i C7. ........................... . ARTICLE 9 - SIGNS ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Findings Based on ' ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Submitted ApplicatioRVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BOCC FINDINGS a a. Signage Is erected out- _Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No side of sight preserva- tion triangles, ROWS, and district setbacks. ! b, sign area does not Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No exceed 72 square feet -' c. signage Is limited to Yes No Not applicalle. No signage proposed. Yes No two single or double- ., faced signs ! t d, signage does not exceed _Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No twelve (12) feet In height e, signage meets setback _Yes No Not applicable. No signage proposed. Yes No requirements of feet T from ROWi feet From side/rear property lines; feet from adjacent residential district. ARTICLE 10 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING ("Yes" Indicates compliance; `.'No" indicates noncomplinace) Plianning Board Findings Based on BOCC FINDINGS ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Sdbmitted Application EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS ' Off street parking shall conform with the requirements of Article 10. 1. The off-street parking _ . Yes No Applicant is proposing 10 Yes No standard for the 12 x 30 parking spaces, proposed use is as follows: Parking standard is not applicable as no structure is proposed on this parcel. 1 Apace per employee on shift of maximum employment. (Alternative standard: 1 space per each 2 employees + I space per App Ica't9%nc%'1P1V vehicle standard results in a requirem nt of (See comment} spaces. 2. The off-street loading _Yes No Not applicable. Yes No standard for the pro- posed use Is as follows: Application of the standard results In a requirement of spaces. Atl71CLE 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING e'Yes" indicates compliance; "No" Indicates noncompliance-) Planning Board Findings Based on l!"+ Ordinance Requirements•� Submitted A pplication Evidence Submitted to Su pport Findings BOCC FINDINGS i rf The development shall con Porn► wi ch the requirements of Article 12 - Landscaping and Screening. These standards are as follows: 1. Street frontage land- X Yes NO Applicant provides an 18 foot landscaped Yes No , scaping must Include strip along the frontage of OLD NC 10 which a 10-foot landscaped satisfies the standard. area planted with one tree per t10 feet, a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet In height and grass or ground cove r. 2. Peripheral landscaping X Yes No must include a 10-foot -'` Applicant provides an 18 foot landscaped _Yes No landscaping area planted strip along the eastern property line which with one tree per 60 feet, satisfies this standard. a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet In height, and grass or ground cover. ; 3. h►terior landscaping must X Yes No Appiicant ,provides for additional 8 feet Yes No provide coverage of at of landscaping adjoining the proposed —- --- least S$ of any parking area. vehicular use area. ARTICLE 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (continued) Planning Board • Ordinance Requirements Findings Based an Submitted Agglic t on Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS No more than 10 Yes No Not applicable. Yes No parking spaces Y allowed In a con- tinuous row without C division by land.- scaped nxsdlan strip. i Every fouall row of Yes No Not applicable. Yes No i parking separated by il-fout median w tit at least oiie tree for each 60-feet of medlar 1 ength. h. Type _A screen is _Yes X No _ Yp _ Applicant satisfies screening requirement Y::s No i required. Standards along front and two=thirds of the eastern 1 " for that type Include property line extending to rear of proposed 1 the following. drainage basins. Screening is not proposed ' within lower third of eastern side and rear A screen opaque from the ground to property lines located within the 200' railroad ! a height of (b) feet, with inter- right-of-way. (SEE CONDITION OF APPROVAL #5) mittent visual obstructions to a height of (20) feet. May be composed of wall, fence, berm, existing or ! planted vegetation. Intended to exclude j visual contact and create impression i of spatial separation. Cc C• ,it 3.$1 5 ' Joyce Garrett, ' attorney for Chandler Concrete Company, spoke stating that the purpose for the amendment to the LUP was the requirement imposed by DEM regarding runoff control. This is based on changes in the environmental agency position in the last ten years and not based on changes in the use of the facility. She noted this was a secondary amendment and she reviewed the criteria for a secondary amendment. She stated that when the LUP was developed it was simply an arbitrary decision that the boundary was the boundary line of the Chandler Concrete Company. She noted that other commercial type activities had developed along SR 1710 and residential and industrial areas can co-exist side-by-side. She noted that the operation of the concrete plant could only go forward with respect to compliance with the requirements of DEM. Representatives from DEM were on the site when it was raining; according to the direction of the flow of runoff, they told Chandler where to place the ponds. She continued that Chandler originally petitioned for 4 + acres with the intention of expansion, as well as environmental control. Since it is clear that the community does not wish this expansion, Mr. Chandler is only requesting an amendment for sufficient land to control the runoff problem. The effort to control the problem does not constitute an expansion of the business. The community should not be able to dictate if an environmental problem must continue to exist. She continued that the driveway proposed in the Planned Development has been endorsed by NCDOT as a safer entrance. Chandler stated in his opinion it is a bad precedent if the County is not flexible in helping residents and responsible people comply with the ordinance. He noted that the County cannot anticipate an increase in the sales tax as there will be no expansion of the business. He expressed concern about the irresponsible action of the opposition in referencing that the Rhines' were "tricked" and that somehow he was involved. He noted that he did not buy the property from the Rhines, but was solicited by a subsequent owner of the property who approached him regarding its availability for purchase. He continued that he was not aware of the sequence of events leading up to the sale. He emphasized that the stated requirement that the property be used only for residential use was not part of the public record. He-continued that the deed does not show that the property came from the Rhine Estate. He continued that he felt it was important not to have the comment regarding being "tricked" linger in the Boards' mind. 4114* �. PD�4-85 CHANDLER_CONCRETE C gNy The presentation was made by Susan Smith. She informed the Boards that the screening and lot size requirements had not been satisfied, but continued that staff would recommend that the lot size requirements be modified under Section 7.3 given the nature of the request. She continued that staff had been in contact with DEM as of this morning and that DEM verified that a three pond system was required to satisfy their requirements; that a runoff control system in this location was necessary as an immediate measure to address runoff in this area; and that the proposed recycling system is a long term proposal to address the applicant's needs beyond the control of runoff. She noted that DEM had approved the submitted plans with the exception of a freeboard requirement which the applicant has subsequently indicated he will comply with. Thomas Chandler requested that all materials submitted for the Land Use Plan application be made part of the record on the rezoning request. He also requested that his written comments be made part of the record. The Board concurred. Chandler subsequently read the letter from Jon Harder. Phil Post, engineer for the applicant, spoke on the project and clarified that he would address what will happen to the runoff on the site and the nature of the materials in the ponds. He noted that the materials are not • • • 186 • 6 hazardous and that they will not be leaving the site which would substantially improve the current situation. He described the recycling facility noting that the solids and liquids derived from the system will be reused in the plant as recycled materials. . • Until this system is in place accumulated solids will be removed by trucks. Post cited a map prepared to illustrate the nature of the request noting . the actual acreage to be utilized for the operation is very limited once you identify right-of-way, open space and screening proposed. Eve clarified that the . area designated in pink is the use area and includes .711 acres. Post clarified that the applicant must meet the specifics of the site plan upon development of the site. He continued-that maintenance of facilities installed is also required as a condition of approval and that this would address landscaping and the integrity of system. • Fritz Brunssen, engineer for the applicant, addressed traffic flow. He noted that driveway C is in the middle of the turn and has limited sight. . distance and that the applicant proposes to use Driveway B to enter and load the vehicles and then use Driveway D to exit the tract. Be continued noting • that NCDOT accepted the proposed driveway as having safer sight distance and that the driveway is higher than the road. He noted that truck parking will not be seen. from the road and that those on the other side of the railroad cannot see the basins due to a combination of plant material and fencing. • He summarized that the proposal would result in improved traffic arrangements, improved landscaping and total compliance with environmental regulations. Plantains Board member Kizer inquired about the total concentration of the liquid in the ponds. Chandler responded that there are 10 parts water to . 1 part muriatic acid. He informed the Boards that this acid is purchased and stored in 55 gallon drums and diluted on a 10-1 basis for utilization. . Kizer inquired how much acid is used a month. Chandler responded that they use 5.5 gallons a month generally, but that use is not determined on a scheduled basis. This is determined by the plant manager and related to the number of trucks out of use. He clarified that they use 550 gallons of diluted muriatic acid monthly. Kramer inquired about the structures to be located above ground associated with the ponds. Post responded that the pumps will be placed underground. He described the process indicating that the water would flow from the wash area in the plant area to the first pond and that the liquids will be pumped out of the second basin. The third basin would accommodate a storm event. Liquids would be pumped to- an existing. overhead tank. • Yubasz asked the applicant to describe the recycling system. Post indicated that it utilizes a conveyor belt which scoops heavier material out of a bin filled with water laden material. Chandler indicated that there are many models on the market and that they are generally 16-20 feet long and 8 fbet wide. Yuhasz inquired how close landscaping may be placed to the railroad • tracks before the railroad company objects. Brunssen responded 15 feet. He continued that existing vegetation in the area is not to be disturbed and that additional vegetation will be added. Best inquired if the sand and gravel reclaimer mentioned is also the recycling facility. Post responded yes. Best asked how high is such a facility. Chandler responded six feet. Pilkey inquired about projected water usage and the depth and rate per minute of the well. Chandler responded that the well was installed when the plant was built and though he did not know how deep it is, it was installed by the Dodson Well Co. He indicated that he had replaced the pump once since acquiring the plant. He noted that the facility was also connected to city water, but that well water was preferred as the temperature of the water is - constant. He noted there was a storage tank on site. 18 7 Chandler reviewed his decision to apply for a planned development versus a general rezoning as a means to "clear the air" and put into writing and on plans what he intended to do with the property. P.H. Craig, appraiser, reviewed his appraisal credentials and noted be had a long term familiarity with the property. He noted that he had observed the "acid pits" and the long section of stripped property. He indicated that there was an adverse impact on the property values of the Rhine property, property which by its use and the owners' actions is an asset to Hillsborough. Craig cited a map prepared to show on which parcel he was commenting. He noted that the area designated in blue was the property in question. He cited the topography of the Rhine property which has 1200' of road frontage with 400' immediately adjoining the Chandler property. The yellow area on the map indicated possible building sites. He maintained that the Rhine property had been damaged a minimum of $30,000.00. He continued that the bomeplace had some intervening vegetation,, but that Ms. Laura Feather's 40 acres was entirely impacted and that the value could not be added back to the property once so severely damaged. Kizer asked Craig if in his professional opinion the proposed screening and runoff control facilities would further devalue the property. Craig responded that the property was already devalued when the Chandler property was stripped of vegetation adding that the industrial use of the property had damaged. the Rhine property. Kizer repeated his question noting that Craig had not responded to the question posed. Craig responded that the screening will help, citing the blue green area on the map. Kiser- again asked if in Craig's professional opinion the proposed runoff control facilities would' further devalue the property. Craig responded that in. his appraisal comment be had not concerned himself with the runoff question. " - Be noted his concern was with the aesthetics of the possible pond sites. Kizer asked if the proposed screening is an inprovement. Craig responded yes. Commissioner Lloyd asked if Craig addressed the value of the property before and after development in his appraisal comment letter. Craig responded yes. Commissioner Lloyd asked whose property was devalued $30,000.00. Craig responded that the heaviest damage was to Sally Feather's property as potential building sites look down a ravine into the Chandler site. Commissioner Lloyd asked if she was entirely affected by the $30,000.00. Craig responded that the topography allowed for no space and screening between the lake and the road. Commissioner Lloyd asked how much land Ms. Feather had. Craig responded that she has 40.93 acres of land which includes the right-of-way and pond. Commissioner Marshall inquired what happens to the "acid ponds" built and constructed without permission. Smith responded that the ponds cannot be used until approval is obtained. Commissioner Willhoit inquired if ponds can be put in otherwise. Smith responded that the ponds cannot be used except as permitted, but that property can 6 enerally be cleared and ponds constructed without regulation. Commissioner Willhoit inquired if most of the devaluation was due to the denuding of the property as opposed to the construction of the ponds. He further inquired if there would be devaluation if screening was installed. Craig responded that the industrial zoning devalues the property. Commissioner Lloyd asked if Craig was referring to the 1.41 acres proposed or the entire plant. Craig responded that the 1.41 was the only part he took into consideration. Commissioner Lloyd cited Harder's letter and Craig responded he took exception to Harder as an appraiser. Gordon asked Gledhill how much weight could be given to Harder's letter. Gledhill responded that the letter was introduced for the "truth of it" and 18 8 • was, therefore, hearsay evidence. It is admissible so long as there is no objection and that the weight attributed to the letter is the choice of the Board members. Commissioner Lloyd inquired if Mr. Harder exists. Craig responded that he is a licensed contractor. Robert E. Rhine questioned if approval should be given by the Board after the fact. He asked what Mr. Chandler would have done if the land had not been available for purchase. He reviewed the history of the ownership and sale ' of the property.- He noted that the family had listed - a 19 acre tract with James Rae Freeland of Apple Creek Realty and that he had inquired of him the Cooing of the property to which Freeland bad responded Residential. He had not Out a .proviso in his listing to the effect that it could only be used as such. • He noted that due to irregularities in their relationship he had sought the • assistance of the Real Estate Board. Mr. Rhine further addressed the engineering aspects of the project,- • citing his qualifications to address such a matter. With regards to "space" he • noted that the area to the west was utilized for the storage of concrete • barriers which he numbered to be 1000. These barriers are 12 feet long, 2.5 feet high and 2 feet wide at the base. He noted that if,this property were unavailable, Chandler would have to store the barriers elsewhere and reorient . the use of the property within the confines of the industrially zoned portion. He addressed "slope of the -land/flow of water" by noting that the land can be made lower or raised. He addressed "washing/cleaning" commenting that on July 15 Chandler bad indicated he needed 200 gallons to wash and clean 15 trucks and that they were cleaned every, two weeks. In regards to "flow of traffic" he cited the potential' removal of the stored barriers for use of driveway A as a • regular entrance and exit for the plant. He cited the truck circulation map noting that no comment had been made regarding the use of driveway A versus ; D. He addressed "parking" noting that 15 trucks had been parked at the facility • over the weekend. He addressed "noise" asking how much noise the conveyor system' will generate. When Rhine addressed "facility layout", he maintained that the directive to be given to the engineers is to show how and why more land is needed versus how to operate within the confines of the industrial land already owned. He addressed "business/return on capital" commenting that Chandler had said he had been led to believe that industrial uses were permitted, but that he had not commented on when he was notified that the land could.only be used for residential uses. He expressed concern that the County would change the zoning to accommodate Chandler's expenditures. Be continued that Chandler has found or will find a way to operate if the land was not available for purchase or is still zoned residential. 'Commissioner Lloyd commented inquired about the barricades. Chandler responded that W. C. English Construction Co. is constructing the interchange of I-40 and I-85. This company had requested storage space from local businesses for the concrete barriers and that Chandler Concrete Co. had complied with their request. He noted that the barriers are used to divert traffic at the interchange, Chandler commented that he had not initiated the purchase of the property and that he had dealt with the same individual as the Rhines and was guilty of the same lack of foresight. He indicated he had cooperated with the State investigation of the real estate firm. He continued that be did not do . anything with the property from the time of purchase of the land in September and recordation in October until he was contacted by DEM and told that he had to control the runoff and suggested where to locate the control facilities. He was contacted by the Planning Department in March regarding the improper use of the property and the requirement that all activity cease until he had applied for approval. He noted he had received a permit to grade the site and construct the pond prior to being informed of the violation of the Zoning Ordinance,during the last week in March. • 18 9 Smith noted that all property owners within the study area were notified of the development of the Central Orange Area Study, notices were posted on local properties and notices were published in the local newspaper. . Commissioner Carey inquired if the boundary for the zoning lots was an arbitrary boundary. Smith reviewed the history of the development of the plan, noting that zoning boundaries did not necessarily follow property lines, that the drainage basins for public water and .sewer service were an important criteria in determining the boundary for certain planning designations, that there was considerable community opposition from those residing at the intersection of NC 86 and Old #10 to nonresidential development in the area; And the designation of the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node area was • linked. to those areas. designated as Transition; and that the indentification of a potential service area for public water and sewer 'given drainage basin boundaries had limited the designation of Transition and, • subsequently, Industrial areas. Gordon inquired' why a Soil and Erosion Control permit was issued. . Smith responded that clearing. of property and control of runoff from adjacent properties may or may not relate to the uses permitted. Sbe noted that upon further- review by staff, the staff determined that, in this case, the runoff control. facilities. could not be disassociated from the industrial use. Commissioner Lloyd inquired if the whole tract is zoned. Smith responded that the designation of a zoning lot does not necessarily correspond with the ownership of the property, but generally relates to the use area. Kizer indicated that the Board had been persuaded to "grandfather" in this use' when Hillsborough was zoned given that the lot area was small, there was no room for expansion and given the plant's fifteen year history at that location. Chandler commented that the topography does not allow for the use of the land for trucks to turn away from the plant and utilize driveways A or B given the presence of the railroad tracks. On the other side of the plant are Pixel tanks. The only possible exit for loaded trucks is Driveway C which has been used since the plant was constructed. Driveway A was constructed by English Co. to get to their barricades, not by Chandler Concrete. Commissioner Willhoit inquired about screening requirements. Smith responded that the screening requirements are specifically stated in the ordinance. She described the applicant's proposal commenting that the applicant had indicated during the public hearing his desire to comply with all the requirements. 4. 2.245 (REZONING REOUEST) DE. KHYE WENG NG AND WIFE GNAT CHANG NG Smith cited the letters from the Town of Hillsborough regarding water and sewer services availability, noting that the following comments are applicable to all of the subsequent projects to be considered at this public • hearing. She informed the Board that the Town of Hillsborough Board had endorsed their previous commitment to service these projects and bad also adopted amendments to the water and sewer extension policy which were suggested by the Orange County Planning Staff to address concerns with the procedures for • Town 'approval of service extensions. She noted that the Town Board had determined that only new submittals would be subject to the revised policy. Gordon inquired why the projects were continued and why this item had been continued from the February public hearing. Smith reviewed the . history of subsequent action on this matter noting it was the staff's and applicant's desire to resolve the water and sewer issue with the Town of Hillsborough to assure compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Gordon asked for the Attorney's opinion on the satisfaction of the zoning criteria by the most recent letter from the Town of Hillsborough. Gledhill responded that his opinion did not matter as the Board had accepted a similar letter on a previous development request. • • - 186' DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 18 through approval of the amendment and given that the planned development process provides control . AGENDA ITEM #8C: P0-4-85 CHANDLER CONCRETE Smith reviewed the request noting that the applicant had not satisfied the lot size and landscaping requirements which could , however, be addressed through conditions of approval . MOTION: . Yuhasz moved positive findings on 8 .8 and 8 .8 . Pearson seconded the motion . VOTE: a in favor. Miller abstained . MOTION: Yuhasz moved positive findings an 20.3 .2 al , b1 and d1 . Pearson seconded the motion . Smith noted that the Board could address te1 on the basis of their previous decision . She advised the Board that they were to review the evidence and comment on it as part of the process in making the findings . Pearson commented an (d1 that staff had determined the DEM stipulation to constitute a changed condition . Jacobs responded that the problem was due to wrong actions by the applicant . Pearson noted there were no previous regulations , Kramer added that change must be made if one is told to stop a certain activity. VOTE: In favor : Kramer, Pearson , Yuhasz, Shanklin Opposed: Jacobs , Pilker , Welters , Best Abstention: Miller MOTION: Pearson moved positive findings on 20 .3 .2 a1 and bl . Jacobs seconded the motion . VOTE: 8 in favor. Miller abstained . Pearson commented that concerns with On reflect the discussion and vote on the Land Use Plan amendment . MOTION: Pearson moved positive findings on 7 .4; 8 .2.4; 4.2 and 4.3 . Shanklin seconded the motion . VOTE: 8 in favor. Miller abstained . • • • DRAFT PUNNING BOARD MINUTES. 9-16-85 19 MOTION: Pearson moved positive findings on 7.17 al . Yuhasz seconded the motion . VOTE: 8 in favor. Miller abstained. Smith reviewed the staff recommendation and Section 7 .3 of the Ordinance. MOTION: Pearson moved negative findings on 7.17 b] and c) with the stipulation that these provisions be addressed through conditions and the application of Section 7 .3. Yuhasz seconded the motion . • VOTE S in favor . Miller abstained . MOTION: Kramer moved a positive finding on 7 .17 e. Pearson seconded the motion . VOTE: 8 in favor. Miller abstained . Walters questioned compliance with 7 .15.10.1 . Pearson responded that no structures are proposed and that uses proposed are separated from other property by both road and railroad rights—of—way . MOTION: Pearson moved positive findings on 7.15.10 a] 1 , a, 3a] . Kramer seconded the motion . VOTE: B in favor. Miller abstained . MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on 7.15 .10a] 3b ; 7.15.10b] ; and Article 5 . Pearson seconded the motion . VOTE: 8 in favor. Miller abstained . MOTION: Shanklin moved a negative finding on a] and positive findings on d] and e] with the stipulation that the negative finding be addressed through Section 7.3 . Pearson seconded the motion . VOTE: 8 in favor. Miller abstained. MOT/ON: Shanklin moved positive finding on 6 . 24d and a negative finding on 6 .24.f with a stipulation that the negative finding be addressed through a condition . Pearson seconded the motion . VOTE: 8 in favor. Miller abstained . DRAFT PLANNING. BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 20 MOTION: Shanklin moved that the Board find that the applicant does comply with the general standards . Pearson seconded the motion . Yuhasz clarified that a "yes" vote on this matter would dictate that if the Land Use Plan amendment is approved, the planned development is appropriate. VOTE: In favor: Kramer, Pearson , Yuhasz, Shanklin Opposed: Best , Pilkey, Walters, Jacobs Abstention : Miller MOTION: Pearson moved that if the Planned Development is approved that the conditions as recommended by staff be attached . Shanklin seconded the motion . Yuhasz asked that staff explain 06 . Smith clarified it referred to a property description by plat . Pilkey expressed concern about the Location of the ponds in the railroad right—of—way, rather than on property the applicant owns .. Yuhasz clarified that Chandler owns the Land in the right—of-way. He added that he had raised the question regarding how close structures can be to the railroad at the public hearing. Pearson commented he could see no difference in the Location of the ponds in or out of the right—of—way. Jacobs suggested that a condition be attached requiring the ponds to be fenced to keep out children and animals . Yuhasz indicated this would restrict maintenance activity . Jacobs felt that a physical barrier is needed . Shanklin questioned the liklihood of children on the property . Best commented that he had seen 6 children , in three groups of two on Sunday on the property. The Board discussed fencing materials . Jacobs clarified that he desired "suitable" fencing to stop small children from accessing the ponds . MOTION AMENDMENT: Pearson amended the motion to include the condition that suitable fencing be installed around the holding ponds to prevent access by children and animals . Shanklin accepted the motion amendment . 1.8i1 • • DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-18-86 21 Pilkey inquired if a letter had been received from the railroad company . Smith advised the Board to look at the evidence of this public hearing . VOTE: 8 in favor . Miller abstained . - AGENDA ITEM #9d : Z-2-85 REZONING REQUEST OR KHYE WENG NG AND WIFE GUAT CHANG NG Pearson abstained from voting due to professional conflict of interest . Presentation by Susan Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recommendation a proposed rezoning request submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and continued to August 28 , 1985 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request. Smith reminded the Board this was a rezoning request from R-1 to R-3 . She noted the information to be considered was only that presented at the public hearing and that which is in the agenda packet . MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on all specific standards. Seconded by Yuhasz. Pilkey inquired what the Town of Hilsborough comment was on the zoning request . Smith responded there was a unanimous vote from the Town Planning Board that the Wang request was appropriate for the area . Kramer inquired about the Letter regarding water and sewer service for the rezoning request area Pilkey responded a Loop system had been proposed . Jacobs reminded Board members that the figures twelve to eighteen months was the time period given before water and sewer service would be available . Smith clarified that the Letter from the Town specified a willingness to serve the development and noted that the issue for the County was not the engineering of the system . MOTION: Adjournment time was reached . Yuhasz moved to extend the meeting time fifteen minutes to • 191:7 • DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 22 complete the discussion in process . Seconded by Pi lkey . VOTE: Unanimous . Jacobs inquired if the reason for rezoning from R- 1 to R-3 was changing conditions and growth in Hillsborough . If this were the case it is a circular argument . Yuhas.z commented changing conditions meant more people entering the area and. more growth . Smith noted that this area was subject to a Land Use Plan amendment previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners . She continued that many of the issues being raised were discussed during consideration of the Land use plan amendment . She added that growth and development patterns in the area were documented by the staff at that time and that few properties in the area were undeveloped,- many of them undeve topab le due to soi Is Limitations . Jacobs clarified that his concern was with Leapfrog development into rural areas . Smith noted that the Board of County Commissioners had requested that a study be dons of the area because of the growth of and interest in the area and the limited avai labi lity of bui 1dab te lots for residential use. VOTE: In favor 7. Abstained 2, Mi 1.ler — new member, Pearson AGENDA ITEM #9e: Z-3-85 REZONING REQUEST ROBERT A . & RACHEL S SCHOLAR Yuhasz abstained due to financial interest . Presentation by Susan Smith The purpose of this agenda Item is to consider for recommendation a proposed rezoning request submitted to pub lic hearing on February 25 , 1985 and continued to August 28 , 1985 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request . . _ • • - - - 191 VERNON,VEragoN,Wocrrrag,Bracing & ANDREWS.P.A. ATTOFIYariS AND COVICSELLORS 6T LAW .Mietw vaittroar,aa. Gammas caw= 6* SOOTS tiammorcrro m AMEN1733 JO ler 2g.vszacas, 06 COO 000.563.SOW. "mars P.Mar= BURIMMTON,NORTH CARox.rtre. 66031LIM.21106TE camorzare. 1.40,366 nitcnnvont. taracosatra ozwens J10,7012rf J..400312E1611 TZZEPHON211 sts-esur-asea R.JO=caSZSiErr Aux.rtiN3 66201:660 T.P.400:6=24.603789 P.O. =MO ITOSIXIC6706.2%.C.,=bi-0048 August 27, 1985 Ms. Susan Smith, Planner (2 CHU zE) Orange County Planning Department 0-020-4 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Ms. Smith: • In accordance with the consent granted by Mr. Don Wilhoit, we are submitting the comments made by Mr . Tom Chandler during the public hearing on the Land Use Plan Amendment to be made part of the public record of the rezoning hearing. I should appreciate you forwarding these written comments to the appropriate person so that they may be appropriately incorporated into the documents relating to the rezoning hearing. if you have any questions, please contact me. • Yours very truly, /(447iv„ R. (4yce Garrett RJG:lbw cc: Mr. Don Wilhoit, Chairman Orange Co. Board of Commissioners Mr. Tom Chandler • WORK16:8/27/85 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AUGUST 26, 1985 Members of the Planning Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners My name is Tom Chandler, president of Chandler Concrete. Your staff has reviewed with you my application for an Amendment of the Land Use Plan and rezoning of a 1.41 acres tract of land contiguous with my concrete company. The concrete plant has operated in substantially the same manner for thirteen years. In January it was brought to my attention by the Department of Environmental Management that a potential environmental problem exists relating to water run-off. The water run-off comes in part from washing of our concrete trucks and also from the natural run-off of rain water across the land. The reason the new application which is for only 1.41 acres is before you tonight is to ask your help in solving a significant problem. As you are aware, I purchased the property adjacent to my concrete plant in September 1984 . The purchase of the property resulted from my being contacted by the then owner of the property and asked if I was interested in the purchase. It is my understanding that the property would merge with the property on which my concrete company now exists. After purchasing the property I obtained all necessary permits and had • . _ _ _ • 19ta-4 ponds built on the corner of the property. The reason for construction of the ponds was to enable me to comply with environmental regulations pertaining to water run-off. In operation of my business, we wash concrete trucks at the end of each day. Approximately twice a month, the washing involves use of a dilute muriatic acid. The acid combines with limestone in the cement which is a base. That combination causes a neutralization of the acid with the base. However, the result of the combination of the acid and the base is that there is a whitish residue produced. Although the wash water from our trucks results in a potential problem, it was discovered that as water runs across our property the water itself becomes acid because of the nature of the land - the land is high in acidity. The Department of Environmental Management has required us to prevent the run-off of the residue and the acid leached from the earth. DEM recommended both the use of holding ponds and the location of the ponds . We built the ponds in the lowest area of the property and were in the process of installing a recycle pump so that the water can be recycled for use in our plant, thereby preventing run-off. We have invested approximately $43,000.00 in the construction of these ponds . The ponds are located in the railroad right of way. Representatives of Southern Railway are aware that the ponds exist and have not objected to their location. As of this date Public Hearing Comments: 2 • - • • 194 however, we have not obtained formal, written approval for the use of the ponds in the railroad right of way. It has been my experience that approval of any use in a railroad right of way takes approximately six to eight months. In Durham I have used railroad right of way for a variety of uses and the Railroad has always consented to the uses. The amount of land under consideration, approximately 1. 41 acres, is the minimum amount which will be adequate to enable us to meet the environmental, regulations. In the event we should have to move the ponds from the right of way, we can merely shift them forward without having to relocate the recycling equipment. As you are aware, in May we proposed a modification of the Land Use Plan for the four acre tract next to the concrete plant. Originally I had intended to expand my business in addition to taking care of the potential environmental problem. However, as a result of the public hearing, I now realize that expansion of my business operation is not now desired by the community. I accept that decision. As a result of the public hearing held in May several concerns of the community were brought to my attention and I would like to briefly comment about those concerns . One concern was the effect of an expansion of my business on the community, specifically with reference to land value and to the impact on traffic on SR 1710. Public Hearing Comments :3 19C I wish to emphasize that the present proposal does not include an expansion of our business - it provides merely for control for a water run-off problem. Upon the amendment of the Land Use Plan and rezoning as requested there will, not be an increase in the number of trucks at my plant; there will not be an increase usage on SR 1710. However, there will be an improvement in the traffic situation on SR 1710 because the requested change in driveways will, improve access giving better visibility on SR 1710. Mr . John Watkins, Division Engineer of the North Carolina DOT has submitted a statement that the new driveway provides a greater sight distance and is safer than the one now being used. With regard tc land values, the requested modification of the Land Use Plan and rezoning as proposed will not have an adverse effect on the value of surrounding property. A letter has been submitted from Mr . Jon Harder, a land developer who is knowledgeable of residential property values to this effect. [Introduce letter] Another concern pertains to the contents of the ponds, their appearance, and the possibility of overflow. The design of the ponds is such that an overflow possibility has been eliminated by addition of a third pond. The design and construction of the ponds have been approved by DEM and accepted as a solution to the potential environmental problem. [Introduce letter] Public Hearing Comments:4 • . - - • -- - - - • The water in one pond may be slightly colored; however, there is no 'hazard involved and its view will be obstructed from outside the premises by the screening proposed as part of our rezoning application. Comments have been made that I have lowered the surface of land around the basins to make the land more usable. That, however, is not accurate and I have asked Mr. Phillip Post to explain to you exactly what has been done on the property and the reason that the location of the ponds was originally and still is the optimum location. r have also asked Mr . Post to present to you information on the traffic flow patterns and details of the design of the recycling system. I am asking for a minor modification of the Land Use Plan so as to designate the 1.41 acre tract which is contiguous with my plant as Ten Year Transition so that it may be rezoned to a Planned Development Industrial Node designation. The Amendment we requested is of the secondary type and is based on an extension of a designated use onto contiguous property and on changing conditions . The land we are interested in having reclassified is more suited and appropriate for the Ten Year Transition classification. It satisfies the criteria set forth in the Land Use Plan. There is a water line to our existing property. The land slope presents no significant problems . It does not create Public Hearing Comments :5 • - • • - • ' 19i a threat to plants or animals. The general soil conditions are suitable. It has good road access and service by rail lines. It is located within minutes of the major commercial area of Hillsborough. It is a transition area between rural and urban uses. It would not have an adverse affect on agriculture and forestry uses. The requested rezoning is appropriate in that after the Amendment of the Land Use Plan the proposed use of the land would be in compliance with the general standards, specific rules and standards set forth by Orange County and its use as proposed would promote public health, safety and general welfare and would not have an adverse affect on the value of the contiguous property. My concrete plant has been a part of this community since 1972. We have tried to be a good corporate citizen and neighbor . I intend to continue to operate the plant at its present location. Currently we employ nineteen persons . Our payroll is approximately $275,000.00 and in 1974 we paid Orange County approximately $42,000.00 in sales tax based on sales in Orange County. I am not asking for this modification of the Land Use Plan and rezoning in order to expand my business. This modification is being requested so that we may merely bring our operation into compliance with the regulations of the Department of Public Hearing Comments :6 - - - . . - 19c Environmental Management so as to meet environmental regulations which are now imposed upon us. I now ask Mr. Phillip Post of Phillip Post & Associates to speak with you briefly concerning this application. D14:8/26/85 Public Hearing Comments:7 . . . • dijiON P.48),*1,0 State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Raleigh Regional Office James G. Martin, Governor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT August 22, 1985 Mr. Thomas E. Chandler, President Chandler Concrete Co. , Inc. P.O. Box Drawer 1239 Burlington, North Carolina 27215 Subject: Chandler Concrete Company Industrial Washwater Recycle Facility Orange County Dear Mr. Chandler: This will acknowledge receipt of four (4) sets of the plans and specifications and the appropriate application fee ($50.00) for the recycle system to serve the Chandler Concrete Plant in Orange County. The plans and specifica- tions appear to be satisfactory. Upon satisfactory review of the plans and specifications, it is reasonable to assume the facility could be permitted. If you have any questions or need additional assis- tance, please contact Ms. Carolyn McCaskill at 919/733-2314. Sincerely, Lo• KoT, -10 R.W. Van Tilburg Regional Supervisor Raleigh Regional Office RWV:DTA:bas cc: Ms. Susan Smith Ms. Carolyn McCaskill Mr. Gil Vinzani 3$00 Barrett Drive, P.O.Box 27687. Raleigh. NC 27611-7687•Telephone 919-733-2314 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • • . 20C • 1 ' -s v- ly • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES G.MARTIN Greensboro, NC 27429-0278 GOVERNOR August 23, 1985 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E.HARRINGTON SECRETARY Ms. Susan Smith, Planner Orange County PIA/Irving Department Rillsbarough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Smith: This has further reference to Trrf letter to you dated August 21, 1985 concerning the proposed driveway on SR 1710 for Chandler Concrete Company. The proposed driveway "D" has a greater sight distance and is a safer entrance than the driveway that is currently being used. Sincerely, ,07. W. Watkins DIVISION ENGINEER JwW:m4j cc.: 14r. Tom Chandler lir. D. 8. Kelly • An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer • • • • • • • . . . • • • J. S. HARDER & ASSOCIATES 201 INCORPORATED - GENERAL CONTRACTORS - CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA 27514 TF.1.1:1'HON 1 POST OFFICE BOX 761 010..4114,J7h 1777DURHAM-CHAPELHILLB::: • • August 26, 1985 Mr. Don Wilhoit, Chairman • The Orange County Commissioners Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 . . Subject: Application of Chandler Concrete Company Dear Chairman Wilhoit and Members of the Commission: The undersigned is a resident of Orange County, as well as the owner of property near the subject site. I am a land dealer and broker, developer and builder in Orange County; additionally, I perform. economic impact. and- feasibility analysis for financial lending institutions. I am familiar with area land values, as well as ordinances and statutes relating to this application. After examination of the Chandler Concrete Company plant, and the adjacent and nearby properties, it is my opinion that the applicant has satisfied all criteria to support the application. Specifically, it is my ormolu- sion, after review of plans for intended environmental management prac- tice, that surrounding property values would not be adversely affected. If I can provide further data, please do not hesitate to call upon me. Sincerely, Jon S. Harder JSH/rtm • • . P. H. CRAIG REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES P.0.BOX 553 CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 REALTOR. (919) 942-7234 RESIDENTIAL SALES,NEW CONSTRUCTION. INVESTMENTS&APPRAISALS Zr nPv, iSSS Tror!: Craig, .Lppraiser '4,-o: Dr. J. P.:-ine heirs St j : .zppraisal daroe , az a result of procpective rezoning of cer- tain tract across z. n. 1710 nov zoned Residential, to Commercial Industilal* • cone: Ala a result of Industrial use and- or rezorinr7 on the identified tract' on $ove. side of Z. R. 1710, eye decrease in value of the kesideutial zoned property of J. Rhine beirs will amount te $30,000.0C 1:otes: Tract under consideration is identified ae amendment LUP-2-65 Chandler Concrete Co. Inc. uitL apprmzimntely fa0 frort feet directing faci the e 120e ft of road frontage elonvine.T to J. r. 1.1.hinc heirs. • 1. the particular topo,7raphy and lake frontarle exneses almost t!:e e-tire tract to the view of t Chandler adfition. 2. the hone place itself directly faces ele area stripped entirely of all top soil. 3. because of lake little if any effective screening can be rade to prospective home sites ever across the lake from the Chandler addition* 4. almost tile entire area is zoned residential. • S. all frontage on S. R. 1710 will be adversely effected by the - commercial-industrial use and or rezoning. C. The economic impact will decrease the value of the above 46 acre tract by at least $$30,000.00 • P. . Craig, • • • • • • \•-•i • .• • • —-" ' - • '" • . . - ' . . • • 2 BS :11121MOKUr • • - . . e.- ' i . . • - - A'. .• 1 . •• •ro • . • P. .*., Li ' a,. 'C.. • la 11.4 . • -.. to• . • - w ... • •• . a 1'a" Z . 1 , _ ...., C.) • - . R. • .r, Z •-•■• iits .7 4. •... 7. -.: I.. • • .is . . ..• .. '7 / • -- • 11.1 is o ..74 to,. • • , —: 2 ;,3 _ ..... ..... • r.. " • -..-..... ,,„ • • ....: 4; -le ..... . • • C Id mil • Z 2 q. ....' Ild ;t- el. all - ••• 10 ir. in .:-_ • C: It • ........... _ is .... a . 16. 44,• . """*.P•ma .7.7. Z • Z .7.. .-• 1. • ,,_ : . _ • . arr...... • a. •.:::: . a- 11. • le .• a • = • -... .... 70 . • Mr 'tit . - ..--- it .ti 411/ • - gi ,• Pt 1. 4. 0. ; • m : IM 4.. .m s• ... ••• 4-.. • ._.,_ .,.' "lila) •=0 •4bit .W. .C 1g •• -- •••• ".• ,2▪:64: .... 1 I ' i ... ... . t.,..OM. •■••••• • • ".•2-•asaaanamomarammumansianat. ..............0 , ft=•'....... •% .. . t IX 411? t • : .r—,14? '„1 ! /Pi ..... . >. 010, tio .1.. "V' ,,,., WIIII••••• b eltil to ••• '.... • 1 •40. -..••..........„. sr t • I Vit". i 1..! ti...40....M...... . il`z■ ....... . \7.\) • A ("13 44109 UI C.;........'' ''''''''''''' 4•111,,:'0•"0"!....,,,.2' " •I 1 0 :V•hi .:.. ■•b. itel•••"', • 2 'a,-.. . itliv .....,...e.; ; , if:\ ....— -:.1.-- Lyra -.......i'.. ---4' .,...9/...... • -i,• 7 , • - -4r1 i.....:47-0, Finn . i • . 11' \1.. .... § 164 im ....•"°.... i '. • 'elf: 0.1.1ti. ' 1 ilx;%,""*.er... " I a :: Ycct n ..1r4 • :.-til -'' • • " M- tr4.-,..!.-. •-. 'cr. er "...•r•- • : 11) ...... ''''... •.i. _,, . W.,...........:. .. awl ••••:, Arn..."Vu '41'. ...„12•• •• •4 '''' . •C'''. • ..... a ... :.. j. ii; 7. No .e . = .. ,s........, .....0.— ..-. ,,:... -...:./44.: fr de at. Vi) *I „ .a"i,..E... 0 Ii2•. „,"t IV:. '71 .,..., ...;:' : ... •• I, wi • gm.' ! am.... i '9". S t. Vi. ; j • e• ••• `V Int ,,,. C 4 1.......... ..,LB : 77•••14.7- -- 1:+ : , r. , ••• ,..,; ..: - . to: k"..•,:/ .'1 j,!*„...........: .1 •• C... 2.7.4 45 2 Il ...itt; . A • .........../ es. . /I M.,z t •m,.. ... .0 • *rm. , .7 94:i mt $11 • fti %,) , ■ . ., I. :. i : 6mm...I 0 1172: : 7,7, • . . :7 - ' 1 • ■ ; . ■ : " , ■;pm: : , • r• ®;; .1.. .:7 ...t. 7 = (17. .a . . ..... • • •• ! ' : ' : li 8 1 ' : .•a••••1•L : : .•. s t se. a . ilk • VI • • I ' ...mm•.•z 2.-1.....1 1 sPa.......... -4 ...... V. t Olt IA{ V i %Y. . .4I . ,. .11•••••■ Ziet t 1.4. a.: 11.......1. .....0.- a . . • •• ill %.• w• • . :2:: .4.6...i. 111400 ? • .. ■ • • ••:. • :3 , •• . • 1 i gii, ., • • G • .. •.• = . 2 41: • • ....i 0; . : ' I. ' . ..."4• .% • • 1 . _ ' T. 4.1%. • \ 111. Vs •11. „„. '1. 1 1 I t \ - 4 1 tz", ‘, • . . . _ • .• - .. r.v.. ■••• . , ,......,,,,,,,...**'....•ft* \ • .1. \ .02. ri",,, - • , . .., .. , . w . .... , 14.. ,. „.„ • ... , \ .. . . . . . . .. .7.-/ 7,.. .-. : ....... : , ... .... • . \ 1 ..... -1144.1. I" 1, Mb. ,t.„.\t. \ .., •• : i• . \ ''''• \ '4. 11 \ 1 11 0' \ i i 1 I . • • : \ .4.;.....L.' 0,0.* . .\.. "S. • . .. \\.4 \ ..._ • • • • \ ...\\\ ..... I ••••■•••• .. ... 1. al. \ ...:. - \ ■••." ‘1. _ ; 2U e -47 '9",,,. .4% - r '.".. I • ° o • N w • • 4.R:FREELAND • • is c • Eie, . • t TRACT a' 1• • . 40.93 AC. ; \ •-v( Intl. R/w) 01ANOLER , CONC. CQ `• - E • ,a• • M �: J q • ' ' :m ?'4-t \\ i �7 221.64 t�r� r.i' •1 s i i0 E t `�� a. 5Z // . • •. i' r y rp ; , --I \ \ ' , TRACT a,�a °��3F .t .0 AC. / E t • ;7 \' . •4.. AC.• 22 4-. . O 4" _�� pa-. ..,; S ss AC. w o•JOPPA OAKS- `.. - �' �� t A./' ��.r�es. 'o .> SEC. 5 21 QJ b >,so.c y (P.6. 24153? _ Z `ttp :ate, ` 0 4Jel y 19 TRACT 4 `."A� ► N 19.78 AC. IFI !incl. R/W) % T' 1 NORMAN ' . ' aoQ • 2s • .5 I 245- -- - . .......................___,.................................................__- , 'V.:-?RI 8 0 . •....."E , --■ IA ' V . . ■•■•............m.............■...........................■....................................—=....................--...... lir p- co LUP-3-85 N 05 10 I, 41.11.111ft. APPLICANT: Chandler Concrete Co. REQUEST: Secondary Land Use Plan Amendment 740 CURRENT DESIGNATION: Rural Residential REQUESTED DESIGNATION: Ten Year Transition/ I' it.: I.— to ***o c+ Commercial-Industrial to 0_ Scale: 1" = Z00' Transition Node r... CO 01.77,Nes""........"---........... ---- ,s7. ..., .....4„. _, -... . .,:................"■...............,-- ' ---. u) tr) - es -----._ z Z ----„. , • I Of 0 - , , .„,.... --, . 1. .., —..,.., —.. ......... i; — .. • - ,•, .• .. , • ti 1,,.. 0, x __ 1 • !eel If' I ../ i •33? " 1 ....... .--' •; , ,,<ssis • I 19 • 13 82-Ac 0 .;, t. 1 .09 AC. SEE. MAP 21- 744. ENO P/0 40 93 AC -„ - " ..„,...... 1 a - .tr tOR4NGE a s.- . -2039 , • :.- 4,0c,stes c21,91- IDC'4,44.....1.----' . 0,c. 1 ; 34 . IC(71/4); ' --7"-------"'-----. :/ . N838,000 / . I. 194,'A ........ ''''''..— • .1 -4-1241: ?' .- t -...a.tg RA:L-c A n -• .„--.0.... , /6958 . .-- .: , s"----""------ s''''I'-..L .....,, •. e> r - •..../0 %`... . ......,„ ,....-„. \ •,. .• -- '-'-'---- — .•--- i. .„, . • s . .......-7,................ - • --/// :-/ . ..... - - - .s. ‘•:,\. ---. ..:-// ,./ i ,----- •• *•, :..:: :7 1: ""■...............; • • . ..7... i I . ....„ • - -..,... : • 206 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Data SEPTEMBER 30. 1985 Action enda Item SUBJECT: Z-2-85 (Rezoning Request) Dr. Khye Wang Ng and wife Guat Chang Ng DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK SEE 8-26-85 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ' PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS DRAFT 8-26-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 9-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider for decision a proposed rezoning request submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and continued to August 26, 1985. To receive the Planning Board's recommendation on this request . NEED: The applicants have requested a rezoning for 41 .86 acres of land located at the southvtest corner of N.C. 86 North and Coleman Loop Road (S.R. 1332) . The purpose of the request is to permit higher density residential development than is presently allowed. The property in question is lot 28 of Orange County Tax Map. 3 Hillsborough Township . The present zoning classification is R-1 Residential, while the requested designation is R-3. The property is located within an area designated as 10 year Transition . IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow a density of 15,000 sq. ft . per dwelling unit instead of the 40,000 sq. ft . that is presently allowed. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the request . i 01278. _ � \\ 1 4.52 8 7 4 \` 5 AC 20 N n 3116 (2) N\\ 2050 80 ezo 20 1 60 .� • WE NG NG & wife GUAT CHANG DR. KHYE WCN NG Q2q, Applicant: Frank Pearson & Associates Zoning: R- 1 Requested: R- 3 � 3568 25AG.3 - WP Designation : 10 Year Transition AC. Scale : 1 400 ki • • ;. - \ 6393 (z...\ MAJOR BUSINESSFO lS \\ ,, e - X03 PC' 7.57 PC' Z5 F84. `�� �.r./ .6701 \\\?3 C• 21 AC• ��,, o. cA 919A \ 6' _ . 3..5.z. �- /2$ \\ � .\\. . „........ ......;---,---, „T.,. - �--- ._._: --- =---" `\ 68 �� r z7 a 5 • \\ 1 - - 696'2 5:C. C \�� , •1 / 2.1 5.0• N . f I 1 0\pG AG ` 1 i 766 q�ry92 �. ‘v . • 16 \ i I 1 174 575 • Ac• � Ac. \\, ..10.32 .-.' = \'•, - t84y1 r - .-\ •II 1 • ":'...' ,,. 1 l 6895 - �:./ • . ....41,-- ti ,� rc ■ r.� rAmor ��1, 15.02 AC . _ .. -. . , .• . . . .. .:. - _ - ./i- / . " - • • \ \ - . . •- 58' - Q • _ 5=52. _ \i •`\ 5232 , L• +..:. .d. K:`• � t ^ s' ' � : - 'i � .!tw' � ,.+ . - ' 3. X= c+:• FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: Z-2-85 Dr. Khye Wen} Ng and wife Guat Chang Ng BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THERE I•S EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATiONIREZONING ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" indicates com iiance,- "No" indicates Noncompliance PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS BASED ON SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements The application must comply with all requirements speci- fied in Article 20 - Amend- ments. Those requirements include: 20.32 a) Map showing affected Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of Yes No property at scale of not less 1"=100, than 1 '= 100" nor more than 1'= 20' ; 20.3.2 b) Legal description of _t Yes No Description provided with application Yes No property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No No error alleged Yes No _ error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if _Yes No Applicant has indicated that Hilisborough.---Yes No any, which matte amendment reasona- is growing and there is a shortage of bly necessary to promote public moderately priced residential lots in health, safety and general welfare. the Immediate area. 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed Yes No Applicant indicates the property Is Yes —No amendment will carry out purpose located In a ten-year transition area. N Q and intent of adopted Comprehensive tY� Plan. i i ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA j PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS BASED ON Ordinance Requirements SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SU8�i1TTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BOCC FINDINGS Article 4.2 Indentifies the criteria which wit 1 normally be used to determine the application of a zoning-district ' designation. The applicant has • applied for a R-3 ' designation. The priteria for that district are set forth in Article -4.2.3 and are as follows: i Indicated the property a) Designated by the adopted Land xYes No Applicant has Yes No Use Plan as a Transition Area, is In a Ten Year Transition area. which can reasonably be expedted t o be annexed by a mun 1 cl pal i ty In the ensuing 10-20 years. b) Water and sewer lines should . x Yes No: Applicant has submitted a letter from the Yes No j exist at site or be assured of Town of llill•sborough stating that water and, installation as part of the sewer is .available. on Aug. 12, 1985, the i develo meet process. Town B and re-endorsed its lettter•as a.s ate- P P meat or commitment to serve the site wit public wat-er--and-sewer services upon extension of lines by ap�pplicant. c) Vehicular access must consist X Yes No Applicant does have direct access to Yes No of direct access to a street N.C. 86 which is classified as an arterial. classified as either arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. i • I 840645 ter. 921 ' Smith. noted that all property owners within the study area were notified of the . development of the Central Orange Area Study, notices were posted on local properties and notices were published in the local newspaper. Commissioner Carey inquired if the boundary for the zoning lots was an arbitrary boundary. Smith reviewed the history of the development of the plan, noting that zoning boundaries did not necessarily follow property lines, that the drainage basins for public water and sewer service were an important criteria in determining the boundary for certain p3annfng designations, that there was considerable community opposition from those residing at. the intersection of NC 86 and Old #10 to nonresidential development in the area; • • and the designation of the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node area was linked to those areas designated as Transition; and that the • indentification of a potential service area for public water and sewer given drainage basin boundaries. had . limited the designation. of Transition and; subsequently, industrial areas. • Gordon inquired why a Soil and Erosion Control permit was issued. Smith responded that clearing of property and control of runoff from adjacent . properties may or may not relate to the uses permitted. She noted that upon farther review by staff, the- staff determined that, in this case, the runoff control facilities could not be disassociated from the industrial use. • Commissioner . Lloyd inquired if the whole tract is zoned. Smith • responded that the designation of a zoning lot does not necessarily correspond with the ownership of the property, but generally relates to the use area. Kizer indicated that the Board had been persuaded to "grandfather" in this use when Hillsborough was zoned given that the lot area was small, there was no room for expansion and given the plant's fifteen year history at that location. • Chandler commented that the topography does not allow for the use of the land for trucks to turn away from the plant and utilize driveways A or B given the presence of the railroad tracks. On the other side of the plant are fuel tanks. The only possible exit for loaded trucks is Driveway C which has been used since the plant was constructed. Driveway A was constructed by English Co. to get to their barricades, not by Chandler Concrete. Commissioner Nilihoit inquired about screening requirements. Smith responded that the screening requirements are specifically stated in the ordinance. She described the applicant's proposal commenting that the applicant had indicated during the public hearing his desire to comply with all the requirements. i •.,P i xa ► i :1;,' • ko N!' - _ ' . +; L. _ ~Smith cited the letters from the Town of Hillsborough regarding water and sewer services availability, noting that the following comments are applicable to all of the subsequent projects to be considered at this public hearing. She informed the Board that the Town of Hillsborough Board had endorsed their previous commitment to service these projects and had also adopted amendments to the water and sewer extension policy which were suggested by the Orange County Planning Staff to address concerns with the procedures for Town approval of service extensions. She noted that the Town Board had determined that only new submittals would be subject to the revised policy. Gordon inquired why the projects were continued and why this, item had been continued from the February public bearing. Smith reviewed the history of subsequent action on this matter noting it was the staff's and applicant's desire to resolve the water and sewer issue with the Town of Hillsborough to assure compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Gordon asked for the Attorney's opinion on the satisfaction of the zoning criteria by the most recent letter from the Town of Hillsborough. Gledhill responded that his opinion did not matter as the Board had accepted a similar letter on a previous development request. 211 To A.W. Kenyon, resident of Hillsborough, spoke to both the Weng and Scholar projects. He referred to the question of the availability of water and sewer services to the projects. He reviewed the history of Town action on these requests and their discussion of the availability of services. He noted that the Town Board bad been told by Horace Johnson of serious defects due to water pressure north of Town. He noted that the Town Engineer had been directed to study the problem and then submit a solution to the Town Board for coesideration by July, 1985. He indicated that Horace Johnson had stated that both.a storage tank and pumping station would be necessary. He continued that the hoard bad been informed that it would be 12-18 months after the receipt of the engineer's report before the solutions posed would be put into effect. He noted there was a postponement in the arrangement with the Town Board. He questioned why there would be a shorter period for implementation of a solution snow. He stated that the Town Engineer had brought a report before the Town Board in July that indicated that the only feasible solution would be a 300,00a gallon storage tank at Frank Perry's farm with 8" service lines and • construction of at least one pump station. He noted that the Town Board had accepted the report unanimously and called for a 12-18 month delay. He continued that at the August 12, 1985 meeting of the Town Board discussions were conducted on the possibility that new developments would not worsen the situation and that the Mayor bad seemed skeptical of that outcome. He noted that, as in February, the Town Engineer had not been consulted nor were plans approved for either development. He expressed concern about a tentative promise of service from the Town and asked why the most recent letter from the Town was acceptable given that the attorney had advised that previous letters were unacceptable. He asked that the approvals wait until service was available and that the projects be considered on the merits of conditions then prevailing. - Vance Brooks, resident of the Coleman Loop Road area, expressed concerns that he had mixed feelings about the project and felt he had received bad information. Smith reviewed the development request, citing the density of residential use requested. Brooks asked what type of residential units would be constructed. Smith responded that the applicant had not specified the type of units, but had only indicated that the lots would be moderately priced. Z-1-85 (REZONING REQUEST) ROBERT A. AND RACHEL S, SCHOLAR No additional staff presentation was made. Rick Cannity, agent for the applicant, indicated that his client wishes to proceed at this time with the project, but would be willing to delay for more information from the Town of Hillsborough. He cited the "Practice of Local Government Planning", a manual for planners, which indicated on page 201 that with the reference to utility services provision, the economics of such • improvements requires the development of property into quarter acre lots, otherwise the profit margin is marginal. Cannity cited the recently approved rezoning immediately to the south in the Town's jurisdiction which is currently under development by the applicant. Kenyon reiterated his previous comments. In addition to his concerns on the water difficulties he cited problems with the wastewater treatment plant. He also noted a concern with traffic along US 70 and the intersection rated by NCDOT as the 37th most dangerous section. Commissioner Lloyd asked that he clarify which intersection he was referring to. Kenyon responded the intersection of Corbin and Geer Streets at the Snake Den. Commissioner Lloyd indicated he was impressed with the development by the applicant currently under construction. j,- ?-10-85 BEZONZNQ REOUEST FOR CORNWALLIS HILLS _ . .. . . 1 214 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-86 21 Pilkey inquired if a letter had been received from the railroad company. Smith advised the Board to look at the evidence of this public hearing . VOTE: 8 in favor . Miller abstained . AGENDA ITEM #9d : Z-2-85 REZONING REQUEST DR. KHYE WENG NG AND WIFE 44 GUAT CHANG NG Pearson abstained from voting due to professional conflict of interest . Presentation by Susan Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recommendation a proposed rezoning request submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and continued to August 26 , 1985 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request . Smith reminded the Board this was a rezoning request from R-1 to 8-3 . She noted the information to be considered was only that presented at the public hearing and that which is in the agenda packet . MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on all specific standards .- Seconded by Yuhasz. Pilkey inquired what the Town of Hilsborough comment was on the zoning request . Smith responded there was a unanimous vote from the Town Planning Board that the Wang request was appropriate for the area Kramer inquired about the letter regarding water and sewer service for the rezoning request area . Pilkey responded a Loop system had been proposed . Jacobs reminded Board members that the figures twelve to eighteen months was the time period given before water and sewer service would be available. Smith clarified that the Letter from the Town specified a willingness to serve the development and noted that the issue for the County was not the engineering of the system . MOTION: Adjournment time was reached . Yuhasz moved to extend the meeting time fifteen minutes to . .. . _ - . • DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-18-85 • 22 compdate the discussion in process . Seconded by Pilkay . VOTE: Unanimous . Jacobs inquired if the reason for rezoning from R- 1 to R-3 was changing conditions and growth in Hillsborough . If this were the case it is a circular argument . Yuhasr commented changing conditions meant more people entering the area and more growth . Smith noted that thia area was subject to a Land Use Plan amendment previously approved by the. Board of County Commissioners . She continued that many of the issues being, raised were discussed during consideration of the land use plan. amendment. She added that growth and development patterns in the area were documented by the staff at that time and that few properties in the area were undeveloped, many of them undevelopable due to soils Limitations. Jacobs clarified that his concern was with Leapfrog development into ruraL areas. Smith noted that the Board of County Commissioners had requested that a study be done of the area because of the growth of and interest in the area and the Limited availability of buildable late for residential use . VOTE: rn favor 7. Abstained 2, Miller - new member, Pearson . AGENDA ITEM #9e : Z-3-85 REZONING REQUEST ROBERT A 8. RACHEL S . SCHOLAR Yuhasz abstained due to financial interest . Presentation by Susan Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recommendation a proposed rezoning request submitted to public hearing on February 25 , 1985 . • and continued to August 2S , 1985. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request . 214 - O R A N G E C 0 U N-T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Data SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 Action 4enda Item #(.1, SUBJECT: Z-3-85 (REZONING REaUEST) ROBERT A. & RACHEL S. SCHOLAR DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK SEE 8-26-85 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS DRAFT 8-2685 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 9-16-95 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-9181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider for decision a proposed rezoning request submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and continued to August 28, 1885. To receive the Planning Board recommendation this request . NEED: Robert A. and Rachel S. Scholar have requested a rezoning for 12.40 acres of Land located along Harper Street (SR 1385) and Dixie Drive north of Hillsborough . The purpose of the request is to permit higher density residential. development than is presently allowed. The property in question is part of Lot 17 of Orange County Tax Map 5, Hillsborough Township . The present zoning classification is R-1 Residential, while the requested designation is R-4. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition in the Orange County Land Use Plan . IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow a density of 10,000 sq. ft . per dwelling unit instead of the 40,000 sq. ft. that is presently allowed. 21c SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 Z-3-85 REZONING REQUEST PAGE 2 A 1982 traffic count on Harper Street at the entrance into Northern Fairview indicated 300 trips per day. If this 12.40 acre tract is developed at an R-4 density an additional 274 trips per day would be added to the streets' in Northern Fairview. If Highland Woods is completely developed, approximately 415 trips per day would be using Harper Street from this subdivision . If the remainder of Mr. Scholars' property does not gat developed this would put approximately 898 trips per day on the streets in Northern Fairview. If the remainder. is developed at an R-4 density, this would provide approximately 1005 trips per day concentrated on North Dixie and Harper Street unless another entrance is considered. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the request. 1 I - ..„21014/FR------ ' . \\ , . :, ' • ". a - - • . ""'�.,. ,��`' --....,_ 5232 • 21 6" 5?52 4E3 AC. (:)? • • ���`'�-„ • '--.„• �� 2 AC. •A 1 • • ,, l PROPERTY OF ROBERT SCHOLAR 1 • •• - - !0 f t_ • • ' AND WIFE RACHEL SCHOLAR . -/- .. . . - 1 7 Applicant: Robert & Rachel Scholar /,".i h / Zoning: AR Requested R4 • .,(!� MAP a t • LUP Designation: 10 yr Transition `e, (HrcH ooas) ' Scale: 400 t N � c-`�i dr ...•—:LINEN-OCtIVE_•_ %- 1 y _� "...AL. C:). ' .." . /'• . . ,i' • 47.28 AC- ' \\ -` ©I •• 3287 8242 1 F-'s ' . A • tc. * ,1 : .- . i: :i 41.75 AC. . - • ::, -921 • � � �\1St, .1 . '...,:,:‘: '•. • - • • 0 ORANGE COUNTY " 1662 \�'• 5 s84 29 26 7625 _ ' 9.9 AC. I8.74C. .$417 - 1 834701 I • • I . col • CB - - , 6144 S' ;` 9035 I I •� °` 4 AC (D) asa�� tss.aa.AG1 . .- \ •` ,I._` \Ls 9A 5. . 3920 �'3! e 20 7• � 2�A. 2.57 AC. N i 2-32I.6 II• 1 ( AC. 1 25 452:• i ,` _ \.J'ITI 72�C ,; 21 -. \ AC. I 0 • _1.54C. � 9X86 4C.?4.7AC. 94 74.•' •• �-•,.. 1'zz .75.4C120A, • . - •._ ,,7 v 454 ; 't ' .' II i \ N. N.i 162 - 1 i FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: Z-3-85 ROBERT A. RACHAEL S. SCHOLAR kr' 1T BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING - BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING Article 20.3.2 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 20 ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS BASED ON Ordinance Requirements SUBMITTED APPLICATION Evidence Submitted To Su2port Findings BOCC FINDINGS The application must comply with all requirements speci- fied in Article 20 - Amend ments. Those requirements nnclu e: 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of 1" a 100' ' _Yes No property at scale of not less than 1" = 100' nor more than I" = 20' 20.3.2 b) Legal description X Yes No Description provided with application _Yes No of property _._._. 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged X Yes No No error alleged Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, If X Yes No Applicant has indicated the development Yes No any, which make amendment reasona- _..._ Is adjacent to property currently zoned bly necessary to promote public R-10. health, safety and general welfare 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed •X Yes ' ' No Applicant indicated the property is located Yes No amendment will carry out purpose in a Ten-Year Transition area. and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan ................... i ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA Planning Board i Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a R-4 designation. The criteria for that district are set forth In Article 4.2.3 and are as follows: a) Designated by the adopted Land = X Yes No Applicant has indicated fhe.property Yes No Use Plan as a Transition Area, is in a Ten-Year Transition area. which can reasonably be expected to be annexed by a municipality In the ensui.ngj:• 10-20 years. b) Water and sewer lines should X Yes No Applicant has submitted a signed water Yes No exist at site or be assured of and sewer extension easement/agreement ` Installation as .part of the with the Town of Hillsborough. development process. c) Vehicular access must consist X.Yes No Applicant does not have direct access Yes No of direct access to a street to a street classified as either arterial classified as 'either arterial or collector if considered as an Isolated or collector as designated tract; however, if considered as part of. the by' the adopted Land Use Plan. Northern Fairview subdivision, direct access is provided, Harper Street serves a resl- dential subdivision and by definition of the Zoning Ordinance would be considered a subcollector based on the number of trips per day and the number of units served, although It Is not listed as a collector in the Land Use Plan classification system. iV i-? - 2 10 A.W. Kenyon, resident of Hillsborough, spoke to both the Wang and Scholar projects. He referred to the question of the availability of water and sewer services to the projects. He reviewed the history of Town action on these requests and their discussion of the availability of services. He noted that the Town Board had been told by Horace Johnson of serious defects. due to water pressure north of Town. Be noted that the Town Engineer had been directed to study the problem and then submit a solution to the Town Board for consideration by July, 1985. He indicated that Horace Johnson bad stated that both a storage tank and pumping station would be necessary. He continued that the Board had been informed that it would be 12-18 months after the receipt of the engineer's report before the solutions posed would be put into effect. He noted there was a postponement in the arrangement with the Town Hoard. He questioned why there would be a shorter period for implementation of a solution now. , He stated that the Town Engineer had brought a report before the Town Board in July that indicated that the only feasible solution would be a 300,000. gallon storage tank at Frank Perry's farm with 8• service lines and construction of at least one pump station. He noted that the Town Board had accepted the report unanimously and called for a 12-18 month delay. He continued that at the August- 12, 1985 meeting of the Town Board discussions were conducted on the possibility that new developments would not worsen the situation and that the Mayor had seemed skeptical of that outcome. He noted that, as in February, the Town Engineer had not been consulted nor were plans approved for either development. He expressed concern about a tentative promise of service from the Town and asked why the most recent letter from the Town was acceptable given that the attorney had advised that previous letters were unacceptable. He asked that the approvals wait until service was available and that the projects be considered on the merits of conditions then prevailing. Vance Brooks, resident of the Coleman Loop Road area, expressed concerns that he had mixed feelings about the project and felt he had received bad information. Smith reviewed the development request, citing the density of residential use requested. Brooks asked what type of residential units would be constructed. Smith responded that the applicant had not specified the type of units, but had only indicated that the lots would be moderately priced. - -8 '2r0 '_ '1 RO:ER zal► ;. ;!' _ H•- • No additional staff presentation was made. Rick Cannity, agent for the applicant, indicated that his client wishes to proceed at this time with the project, but would be willing to delay for more information from the Town of Hillsborough. He cited the "Practice of Local.Government Planning", a manual for planners, which indicated on page 201 that with the reference to utility services provision, the economics of such improvements requires the development of property into quarter acre lots, otherwise the profit margin is marginal. • Cannity cited the recently approved rezoning immediately to the south in the Town's jurisdiction which is currently under development by the applicant. Kenyon reiterated his previous comments. In addition to his concerns on the water difficulties he cited problems with the wastewater treatment plant. He also noted a concern with traffic along US 70 and the intersection rated by NCDOT as the 37th most dangerous section. Commissioner Lloyd asked that he clarify which intersection he was referring to. Kenyon responded the intersection of Corbin and Geer Streets at the .make Den. Commissioner Lloyd indicated he was impressed with the development by the applicant currently under construction. • ; •i -0' •;.. A . t 0._ 22e 10 ILL, Kenyon, resident of Hillsborough, spoke to both the Meng and Scholar projects. He referred to the question of the availability of water and sewer services to the projects. He reviewed the history of Town action on these requests and their discussion of the availability of services. He noted that the Town Board had been told by Horace Johnson of serious defects due to water pressure north of Town. He noted that the Town Engineer had been directed to study* the problem and then submit a solution to the Town Board for consideration by July, 1985. Be indicated that Horace Johnson had stated that both.a storage tank and pumping station would be necessary. He continued that the Board had been informed that it would be 12-18 months after the receipt of the engineer's report before the solutions posed would be put into effect. Be- noted there was a postponement in the arrangement with the Town Board. He • questioned why there would be a shorter period for implementation of a solution now. He stated that the Town Engineer had brought. a report before the Town Board in July that indicated that the only feasible solution would be a 300,000 gallon storage tank at Frank Perry's farm with 8" service lines and construction of at least one pump station. He noted that the Town Board had . accepted the report unanimously and called for a 12-18 month delay. He continued that at the August 12, 1985 meeting of the Town Board discussions were.- conducted on the possibility that new developments would not worsen the • • situation and that the Mayor had seemed skeptical of that outcome. He noted that, as in February, the Town Engineer had not been consulted nor were plans approved for either development. Be expressed concern about a tentative promise of service from the Town and asked why the most recent letter from the. Town was acceptable given that the attorney had advised that previous letters were unacceptable. He asked that the approvals wait until service was available and that the projects be considered on the merits of conditions then prevailing.' - Vance Brooks, ' resident of the Coleman Loop Road area, expressed concerns that he had mixed feelings about the project and felt he had received bad information. Smith reviewed the development request, citing the density of • residential use requested. Brooks asked what type of residential units would be constructed.' Smith responded that the applicant had not specified the type of units, but had only indicated that the lots would be moderately priced. Z-3-85 (REZONING REQUEST) ROBERT A. ANN_RACHEL S. SCHOLAR • No additional staff presentation was made. Rick Cannity, agent for the applicant, indicated that his client wishes to proceed at this time with the project, but would be willing to delay for more information from the Town of Hillsborough. He cited the "Practice of Local Government Planning", a manual for planners, which indicated on page 201 that with the reference to utility services provision, the economics of such improvements requires the development of property into quarter acre lots, otherwise the profit margin is marginal. Cannity cited the recently approved rezoning immediately to the south in the Town's jurisdiction which is currently under development by the • applicant. Kenyon reiterated his previous comments. In addition to his concerns on the water difficulties he cited problems with the wastewater treatment plant. He also noted a concern with traffic along US 70 and the intersection rated by NCDOT as the 37th most dangerous section. Commissioner Lloyd asked that he clarify which intersection he was referring to. Kenyon responded the intersection of Corbin and Geer Streets at the Snake Den. Commissioner Lloyd indicated he was impressed with the development by the applicant currently under construction. �.:; ' • ..• - • ..r -0' •;.j,A- . +- • 221 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 22 complete the discussion in process . Seconded by Pitkey . VOTE: Unanimous . Jacobs inquired if the reason for rezoning from R- 1 to R-3 was changing conditions and growth in HilLsborough . If this were the case it is a circular argument . Yuhasz commented changing conditions meant more people entering the area and more growth . Smith noted that this area was subject to a Land Use Plan amendment previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners . She continued that many of the issues being raised were discussed during consideration of the land use plan amendment . She added that growth and development patterns in the area were documented by the staff at that time and that few properties in the area were undeveloped, many of them undevelopable due to salts Limitations . Jacobs clarified that his concern was with leapfrog deveLopment into rural areas. Smith noted that the Board of County Commissioners had requested that a study be done of the area because of the growth of and interest in the area and the Limited availability of buitdabLe Lots for residential use VOTE: In favor 7. Abstained 2, Hitler — new member, Pearson . !#C AGENDA ITEM #9e: Z-3-85 REZONING REQUEST ROBERT A . & RACHEL S . SCHOLAR Yuhasz abstained due to financial interest . Presentation by Susan Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recommendation a proposed rezoning request submitted to public hearing on February 25 , 1985 and continued to August 2S , 1985. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request . 222 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16—S5 23 Walters questioned the classification of Faucette Mill Road noting that although it was not listed as a collector road on the Land Use Plan classification map , the road in fact serves es a collector given the amount of traffic it carries . PiLkey questioned higher density feeding into low density. Smith responded this was an extension of a development already approved by the Town and the area was developed for single family units at a comparable density. • Jacobs noted that the Town of Hillsborough had recommended an R-3 designation . Smith responded that since the Town had approved an R-4 density for the same applicant for property he owned immediately south of this project, staff could not justify denying the rezoning to R-4. Pearson noted that the area surrounding this project was R-4 density , but that there was a desire for larger lots by some of the Town residents . MOTION: Pearson moved agreement with staff findings and approval of the rezoning . Seconded by Shanklin . VOTE t In favor 7. Abstentions 2, Millar — new member, Yuhasz. Meeting adjourned 10 :50 p .m . ORANGE COUNTY 22a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date SEPTEMBER 30.. 1985 Actionotaenda Item #4113 SUBJECT: PROPERTY OF JOHN AND VIDA TUBIOLO — PRELIMINARY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: JANE ATWATER CHECKLIST VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAFT 9-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 888-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for the property of John and Vida Tubiolo . To receive the Planning Board recommendation . NEED: The property in question is Located on SR 1555 (Miller Road) in Hillsborough Township . The property is referenced as Lot 2A on Tax Map 6 , Block A. This tract was crested by deed on March 1 , 1983 and did not go through subdivision procedures in effect at that time It is bordered by residential development . The tract is designated as AgriculturaL- Residential on the Land Use Plan . There is one lot proposed, the size is 4.6 acres excluding the right—of—way . The property is zoned A—R (Agricultural— Residential) . Fire protection for the property in question is provided by the Orange Rural Fire District . Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis . IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommended approval of this subdivision on September 16, 1985. • 2 2 4 • ii / . • _... .....-- ///_// J:oiwli1/414 4:„...9:_. . , iJA eANr: .7804 ilaal" -2299 z \........ __,-- "A's ' / ZoliAter: AIL AGoicuLniAt4.0 am ty......— /I ZAP PE4KAAnott t A642.4ttuoddit. asSwagnAl. • c 4 I I .1. 0 ru •5210 / 10 ... C) 65 16AC . •" a 1 / ,...\ • 10,65AG- . / / • eltil IA 5970 A - , ,4',, „ 4.38:6, _ .2:9 AC- 07 b 5.64AC. ; \ • 61 °'-., 2.I AC- 'lit. t;:''.// . - n on 4 I /4.. 4e, v Arz, 120-2S t In 465.7. 4S 144: ::1:Oa r *- 1..G. ., • . .•r■ -4 4 \- '- ‘A6:1'134 . Z eriiii.4 %0- 3 ••,., ••• • .. ca • -- , Ph \,0.. ‘.(•.' • -* a AC 29 .""..........„„. 39.188 _____ ;-• PANTHER COURT ___ _ _(:)_____ _ o . t.......4-a ( _ 1 1557 . '6\i \•■ # 129.6 7 AC. ___ N 40. orm . ,:ub, ..,.—..,. la / . // A . .). I 1 wA,„ • \ I ' figillwili1111111111 ... \ FU ' 10.1111.thall0111 I 1,110 . I: 101,11)011111010"-- \ B i . ® 3894 1 i L ...,.....jr il \ 4.16 AC. ' ‘ .------\ c/,---- \ \ \ *1\\ \ \ ■ \ . _Jr, 0 \ z . , ,,, , \ \ \\ 326.5 AC. \ \ \\ OC4LE: i it= 00,0 ii •- - -----.. E. MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION Property 'of John Vida Tubiolo OWNER OR DEVELOPER John Tubiolo ADDRESS Rt. 4,13ox 95, Hillsborough, NC 27278 TOWNSHIP Hillsborough TAX MAP 6 BLOCK B LOT 2A NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Alois Cal lemyn 1 To be developed in phase(s) . Total number of acres 5.0 Total number of lots � . Typical dwelling units at present or proposed X WATER SUPPLY. Public {Name) Commnnity Individual . SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public -Community Individual Septic tank SCHOOL DISTRICT Orana_g o+n Y FIRE DISTRICT Orange Rural Access onto State Road # 55 15 Road Standard: Public—x or Private Class A_ . B____-�• C Existing critical areas such as streams (X), Flood prone areas ( ), Watershed { ), Historic Sites { ) , Other {X ) Explain: Creek along southern property IT intermittent stream Land uses in the general area SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) $-27-$5 Approved ( } Recommended Changes ( ) PRELIMINARY 'PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 9-5-85 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Erosion Control Officer Preliminary Review by Health Department_ $ 27 $4 Qavid Necht j(.x.R. 9-16-85 Board of Educatio lingigr Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible Other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough {if possible} -Orange/Alamance (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board A roved 9-16-85 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) { ) All lots were approved by the Health Department { } Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat { ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable). Approved . { ) Improvements have been provided for; completed; bond, letter of credit, cash. Date { ) Final OWASA approval (where applicable) on'all plans & specifications, Date ( ) Final DOT approval on plat { } Final action by the Planning Board Az • 22k DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-18-85 • 5 Presentation by Kirk. This agenda item is to consider approval of the Final Plan for North Fork Phase II . The Preliminary Plan was approved by the County Commissioners on August 5, 1985 with the following conditions: — access to Sweet Drive be restricted by note on the plat or by a restricted access easement of 15 ' along Sweet Drive. — NCDOT approval . NCDOT is waiting for Phase T to be replattad with property lines to the • edge of the right—of—way and re—recorded with NCDOT stamp . Both of these conditions have been meta Planning Staff recommends approval . • Best inquired the reasoning for developing projects in "phases" . Smith responded that the developers were phasing their investment to the project. thereby Limiting the "up—front" capital needs and providing an opportunity to develop in line with current market conditions . MOTION: Pearson moved approval. Seconded by Shanklin . VOTE: Unanimous . � - f. PROPERTY OF JOHN AND VIDA TUBIOLO — PRELIMINARY Presentation by Atwater . This agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for the property of John and Vida Tub i o to . The property in question is located on SR 1555 (Miller Road) in Hillsborough Township . The property is referenced as Lot 2A on Tax Map 6 , Block A. This tract was created by deed on March 1 , 1983 and did not go through subdivision procedures in effect at that time . It is bordered by residential development . The tract is designated as Agricultural—Residential in the Land Use Plan . There is one lot proposed ; the size is 4.6 • 22t/ DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-65 6 acres excluding the right—of—way. The property is zoned A—R (Agricultural—Residential) . Fire protection for the property in question is provided by the Orange Rural Fire District . Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department . It will be patrolled on a 24—hour basis . Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area . - The Planning Staff recommends approval of this subdivision . Gordon inquired about erosion control and DOT comments . Smith responded it was approved by S E as designed and NCDOT had made no comment . Gordon asked about the reference to the deed on March 1 , 1983. Atwater responded that the Register of Deeds is required to record all documents brought to them . However , this is not a legal subdivision until it goes through the subdivision process . Smith explained that dividing the property by deed only created an improper or illegal subdivision . She added that such subdivisions cannot be "undone" , but no additional development permits would be issued for the property until properly subdivided. Pilkey asked how intermittent is the stream on the property . Smith responded it is an • intermittent stream on all available maps which drains east to Stroud Creek which is a perennial stream feeding the Eno River . MOTION : Pearson moved approval. Seconded by Shanklin . VOTE: Unanimous . g . SOUTH FORK SECTION III — PRELIMINARY Presentation by Kirk . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for South Fork Section III . • 226. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. 0 Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 SUBJECT: DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY REPORT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: _Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 YES Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To determine if there are any changes the Board wishes to make in the content pertaining to Orange County prior to the report being finalized. NEED: The survey is an attempt to set forth from past studies an inventory of current and project capital facilities (infra- structure) as a means to begin assessing the adequacy of these to accommodate growth. It covers a seven year period from 1985 1992 and establishes several classifications of facilities for data gathering. These include water (source, treatment storage and distribution, sewage (collection and treatment); transportation (streets, highways, bridges, off street parking, public transit, airports), community facilities (office and administration courts, police and fire, recreation and parks), education facilities, health facilities, and special needs. Per request at the August 20 meeting, enclosed in the agenda packet is the supporting information for the data contained in the report. Also enclosed in the agenda packet are the pages which Commissioner Marshall has called to the Board's attention. Suggested revisions are attached to address each area within these pages that has been singled out for clarification. RECOMMENDATION(S): Authorize submission of the suggested revisions and any other changes desired by the Board to reflect its position on the infrastructure needs and plans. 22 SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT • Suggested Revisions. I-4 Add an asterick to the word "unincorporated'' in Table 1-1 and an addi- tional footnote which notes "This assumes that muniqipalities will continue to actiyely annex areas." I-6 Change Figure 1-3 column headed "water" to indicate inadequate under Orange County. 1-8 Add footnote to indicate "E,pture use of bonds by. Orange County will depend upon the_rate at which school facilities are inspected by growth in the elementary grades K-6." 1-12 Make a change in the second paragraph beginning with the third sentence, to read: Completion of the Cane Creek project will provide adequate water for southern Ornage County for the period and release of the Eno River water now used by OWASA will lessen the danger of serious, water shortage for northern Orange County at this dime. However,, development of one or more additional sources in northern Orange Cpunty • - t ' . ' - •r! • x•-. _ • •• •,- • 4 q .• - • . . . • •• • - - jlnmediate_consideration as even without the OWASA diversion jhere is inadequate safe yield supply for growth andippjream flpy in the Eno. River. It should be kept in mind that a lag time of ten years may be expected between the decision to develop a reservoir and the reservoir becoming operational. II-2 Change paragraph 2 to be consistent with I-12. Beginning with the second sentence the wording should be 'When OWASSA no longer needs ws3ter wpm Hillsborough, the Eno River, supplementer !?y Late Orange which is •.i >! • • . •u • •_. • - -• _ - _. • • • • . , - •• •st e_ r • d • • • • •- • • to - • • .r 0 •1 • }- 111 -.�, .—._ ,,-.e - 4, C.rr.a,• . - _• c• - • *4. periods of normal rainfall. However, in time of drought it is • - .-i•en •• • • _ c . • ' •II J . • • !.". •, if • • • 0 - t,• • fl- l! - • :. c •u t- - • • •. - • • • •.• • • ! • : • r i •u _ . - Orapgg to downstream users hampers_the County's abilj.ty to menage scarce supply. Orange County is developing a management plan to , ..c -. _ . - -• Y' • . - - • • •- - n. _ . • • - • =_•. • impoundments can hold and_how to bring additional supply seances into existence. 11I-58 Sewer. Change; "Estimated cost - Phase II" to Estimated cost -Phase II thru Phase VI ... $1.59. III-60 Solid Waste. After the listing of number of containers add the words: 4.• . • 0. of the coup •y a 62 present site smations. 1I1-60 Education, Change cost estimate to reflect: Scheduled are Expanded unit in County system $3.3 Expanded unit, Chapel Hill/Carrboro 2_3, 23i; $5.6 million Anticipated New school in County system or addi- tional classroom additions at both systems $3.3 111-61 Bpalth. Delete scheduled and insert instead the words Anticipated is: Building to house public health and other human services agencies $1.3 million 111-61 Services. 1985-1992. The chart should reflect adjusted figures in the columns: Need Scheduled Unscheduled Water 12.63 12.63 Sewer 2.74 1.15 1.59 Solid Waste .36 .04 .32 Community Fac. 5.67 .38 5.29 Education Fac. 7.60 4.30 3.30 Health Fac. 1.30 1.30 Total 30.30 5.87 24.43 057 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No ( Qs Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 SUBJECT: EFLAND SEWER RESOLUTION DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER - PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 RESOLUTION Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider adopting an additional resolution on the project which sets forth certain assurances. NEED: The resolution is required by the Local Government Commission for it to review and approve an application by Orange County for permission to authorize and issue general obligation bonds. IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt the resolution with the Clerk to enter the number of ayes and noes. NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS the Efland-Cheeks Elementary School, one of the schools in the Orange County School. System, has . experienced and continues to experience serious problems with its wastewater treatment facilities in that those facilities have failed in the past and now, although functioning, are not doing so • properly; and WHEREAS the improperly functioning wastewater treatment facilities are discharging incompletely treated sewage into McGowan Creek, a stream that is part of • the Upper Eno watershed with a II-A nutrient sensitive classification by the State; and WHEREAS incompletely or poorly treated sewage is also entering McGowan Creek and other streams that are part of the Upper Eno watershed as the result of malfunctioning or non-functioning septic tanks in the Efland Estates Subdivision and other areas in the watershed; and WHEREAS the cause of the improperly functioning wastewater systems is the pervasiveness of soil types in this region of Orange County which do not provide a geologically suitable medium for subsurface wastewater treatment systems; and WHEREAS the Upper Eno watershed provides the raw water supply- for Corporation Lake, the source of raw . - water for the Orange-Alamance water system and for Lake Ben Johnson, the source of raw water for the Hillsborough town water system which in turn is a source of treated water for the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, in times of drought; and . • WHEREAS all of the above has created and continues to create a health hazard that affects a substantial number of the people of Orange County; and WHEREAS on September 13, 1984 the Board of Commissioners, recognizing the risk to the health, safety and welfare of the people of Orange County affected by the conditions stated above, found that an emergency existed which warranted the issuance by Orange County of net debt reduction, general obligation bonds in connection with and for the purpose of repaying a $200,000.00 loan from the Farmers Home Administration which loan has been approved in principle by FMHA along with a grant to Orange County in the amount of $598,300.00 for the 2 construction by Orange County of a sewer collection and treatment system to serve the area of Orange County identified as the principal source of the risk to the health, safety and welfare of the people of the County; and WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners now has agreed on the conditions under which the sewer collection and distribution system will be constructed. IT IS. RESOLVED THAT: 1. Orange County intends to construct a sewer - collection and treatment system [hereinafter the Project' to - serve existing dwellings, businesses and the Efland-Cheeks Elementary School in the Efland area of Orange County according to the Revised Preliminary Engineering Report of the Project prepared by Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. , Engineers and provided the Project or any of it can be constructed within • the-$1,154,300.00 capital budget established by Orange County • for the Project. A copy of the Revised Preliminary Engineering Report is available at the office of the Orange County Manager. 2. The necessity both in absolute terms and in "time-terms" is described above in the various "Whereas" • paragraphs of this Resolution. Inaddition, The Orange County Board of Education has a limited amount of time to 3 • _ correct the poorly functioning sewage package plant located • at its Efland-Cheeks Elementary School. This time limitation, imposed by consent order with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Management, can be met by the prompt construction of the Project. 3. The following sources of funds are proposed - for the construction of the project: FMHA grant $598,300.00 FMHA loan 200,000.00 N.C. Clean Water grant 170,000.00 Orange County "loan" 136,000.00 - Orange County grant 50,000.00 $1,154,300.00 The $200,000.00 FMHA loan is proposed to be repaid by the sale of general obligation, net-debt reduction bonds. This amount is the maximum and minimum FMHA loan available for the Project under FMHA guidelines. 4. Orange County has made all debt service payments on a timely basis as evidenced by its audit reports for the years ending June 30, 1980-84. 5. According to Orange County's audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1984, its budgetary and fiscal management policies have been carried out in compliance with law. 6. No increase in the Orange County property tax will be necessary to meet the increase in debt service occasioned by the repayment of the bonds proposed for the funding of the Project. 4 7. The proposed consumer rates for the Project will be sufficient to pay the increase in Orange County debt service occasioned by the bonds proposed. 8. The Orange County Finance Director shall prepare the application to the North Carolina Local Government Commission for approval of the bonds proposed for the funding of the Project. 9. Coleman, Bernholz, Dickerson, Bernholz, Gledhill and Hargrave is hereby authorized to employ the law firm of Brown, Wood, Ivey, Mitchell and Petty, One Liberty Place, New York, New York, 10006 to represent Orange County in the authorization and the issuance of the bonds proposed for the funding of the Project. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County this the 30th day of September, 1985. Ayes: Noes: 5 063 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. 3 1 Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 SUBJECT: BOARD MEMBER ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes LNo ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: COUNTY ATTORNEY LETTER DATED Hillsborough -732-8181 SEPTEMBER 25, 1985 Chapel Hill -968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider adopting a policy or procedure to matters which come before the Board in its quasi-judicial capacity when one or more Board members is absent during the presentation of evidence on the matter. NEED: September 25, 1985 letter of County Attorney is attached. IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. 064 •CourumBinuumzE4cKERsoN, • BERNUOLZ. GLEDHILL & HARGRKVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 110 CHURTON STREET HILLSBOROUGH.N.C.27276 919-732-2196 919-942-8000 september 25, 1985 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20,FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRANNLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 919-929-7151 ALONZO B.COLEMAN.JR. Donald Willhoit, Chair STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ Moses Carey DONALD R.DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ Ben Lloyd GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE Shirl Marshall MARTIN BERNHOLZ Norman Walker RICHARD J.SNIDER.JR. JANE G.de USSOVOY Orange County Board of Commissioners G.NICHOLAS HERMAN LYNN A.ANDREWS 106 E. Margaret Lane olawrow Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 BONNER D.SAWYER (1902-1912) Re: Board member absences during special use permit public hearing Dear Board Members: A person interested in the outcome of an application for a Class A Special Use Permit has raised the question of the Board's policy/procedure when a Board member is absent from the public hearing or any portion of the public hearing during which evidence is presented for and against the application. This issue has not been addressed by the Board. It should be addressed and a procedure adopted. The pertinent law is as follows: 1. N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 153A-340 says, in pertinent part: "When issuing or denying special use permits. .. , the board of commissioners shall follow the procedures for boards of adjustment except that no vote greater than a majority vote shall be 'required for the board of commissioners to issue such permits. . . ." 2. Section 2.1.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance says, in pertinent part: "The Board of Commissioners when considering applications for approval of Special Uses, sits in a quasi-judicial capacity and shall be bound by the same requirements as the Board of Adjustment acting on similar matters." 3. The Board of Adjustment "requirements" are contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 153A-345 and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.3. Neither the statute nor the ordinance section prescribe a rule governing the absence of board members from public hearings on special use permit applications. 065 Board of Commissioners Page Two September 25, 1985 4. The court decisions in North Carolina, generally do not require every member of a board or agency sitting in a quasi-judicial (fact-finding, law concluding and decision making) capacity to attend every meeting of the board or agency during which evidence is received by the board or agency. However, where a board member does participate in the decision of the board, there is a very clear directive that the board member know the evidence presented. Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that the Board can establish one of two policies to address this issue. They are: 1. exclude a board member who has not attended a public hearing during which evidence has been presented from participating in the decision before the Board; or 2. authorize the board member to vote on such an issue with the requirement that the absent board member review all of the documentary evidence presented and hear all of the testimonial evidence by listening to the tapes of the public hearing. It is my recommendation that the latter alternative be chosen in order to minimize the risk that no decision can be made because of a tie vote and because a decision requires a majority of the members of the Board, regardless of the number actually voting. By xerox copy of this letter I am requesting Mr. Thompson to place the following action item on the Board's September 30, 1985 agenda: Establish Board policy for deciding matters which come before the Board in its quasi-judicial capacity when one or more Board member is absent during the presentation of evidence on the matter. Very truly yours, 44(- 411111r."-. -% e . Gledhill GEG/lsg xc: Marvin Collins Ken ThompsonN, 066 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Data SEPTEMBER 30. 1985 Action A enda Item Air SUBJECT: SUP-1-85 BINGHAM SCHOOL INN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH SEE 8-26-85 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS DRAFT 8-26-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 9-16-85. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 I ' PURPOSE: To consider for decision a request for a Class A Special Use Permit for the non—residential use of the historic Bingham School submitted to public hearing on August 28, 1985. To receive the Planning Board recommendation on the request . iI NEED: The applicants Robert M. and Jane B . Kelly have requested a Class A Special Use Permit for a Non—Residential Mixed Use/Reuse of an Historic Structure for the property commonly known as the Bingham School. The property is located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of NC 54 and Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007 in Bingham Township . The property contains 9.98 acres or 434,728 .8 square feet . The purpose of the request is to allow for the development of a bed and breakfast country inn . The property is known as Tax Map 17 Lot 19 in Bingham Township . The property is located within an area designated Agricultural—Residential. That designation allows the consideration of a development application for uses permitted in the Agricultural Residential and Agricultural Services zoning districts. The present zoning 067 SUP-1-85 BINGHAM SCHOOL INN SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 PAGE 2 classification of the property is Agricultural Residential rfi 1A—R) . The use of the property, as proposed, requires the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit . Certain development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained for the development to proceed. IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow for the use of Bingham School for commercial purposes as a bed and breakfast facility for a maximum of twelve occupants. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the request with conditions (See Attachment) . 068 Article 8.2.2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found, in some specific manner, that: 1 . The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed end developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contigous property; 3. The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan , or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners . The burden of proving one or more of the above findings is on those opposing the application . The proof must also be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. No information has been received which would establish grounds for making one or more of the above findings . The Planning Board has reviewed the application , the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the gene-rat standards, specific rules, and required regulations . Staff recommends approval of the request . The Planning Board does , however, recommend the attachment of conditions to the approval as follows: 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit . As improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improveme nts . 2. Security shalt be provided for the grading, and stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travetways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways ; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; and Landscaping . 1 ... .... 069 3 . ALL necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County and/or Chapel Hill to serve this development] installation , servicing and hookups to the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. Final utility plans shall be approved by the County Manager and/or applicable utility company prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit . ALL lines shall be underground . 4. • That a driveway permit be obtained from NC Department of Transportation prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit . 5. Roads, parking areas , walkways, utilities , recreation facilities and sites and Landscaping shall be maintained as constructed . All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 6 . That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Signs following issuance of a building permit. No sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceway to the development . 7. Grading an the site shall be kept to a minimum. In Lieu of planted Landscaping , existing vegetation shall be maintained between units . 9. Supplementary base planting shall be installed within the parking area around the existing specimen trees . 9 . That alt structures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following submittal for and issuance of building permite. 10. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer . 11 . The final site plan and narrative of the project , incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit . Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department . Grading and building permits , upon application , will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 12. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions . . . • k T (11o) ...\ 10186 AC. 17rj .3298 � / , Fu \\ 21.51;AC (CAkt_ t i ALA W � Fu 36AC V u� r. ! �\ , 39.36 AC, z z ``\ 4357 / . / ..t.v`` �� SEE 57 35 AC. \ (1 MAP 24-9 P/0122.53 AC CAL. `� ALA CO 9.3244 i396' AC, \r 1 2 9 _ Dies (3) FU { � 1 y :G rl8 ' 1EAAt \ !.t His AC 1tTT'AI tl A5a't}ALA 1X1 } is I ut WLM , \ 8 AS31JA1! tl tYl Qua _... - -- - -, r' 4946 1 846„ t i 12s'nc trtA:rcr�• �• a+: 1 301 AG.CAi -! Tara •l.l� � �,r � t f 1 � 1 C,14 i -SITE PLAN- z 1 choof Ynn v/CINIIY StwlP ' &,V6HRM TWA;MWCF CM fiMTTI C4RO M .dR Y 12.1.985 aQ =stir A Al o d \ of A , : •w.r • �� afca(erc H .in.cu/v...r Gamwr,nl �— � 1•• q �{']fl�hC TfNR 2�1r//••��}} •� I Q must NGUft ,r' kc j i •;�"?-. .ill � � Ir Vf is j VOTE 9uuaGaT iN/"MawN fa• j j t c• of o weu..r+,.i//" /n om�j j •. ` W 1 C..L.: ::a 5 f n,,.,.o�.•H.u,l.•, .<n.�C::e:w FINDINGS Of THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION SUP-1-85 BINGHAM SCHOOL INN Development must comply with general and specific standards as set forth In Article 8 for Special Uses., t as follows: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article $.8 These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which Include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board In its deliberations. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("YES" indicates compliance; "NO" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board i di s B sed on Evidence Submitted to Sypport•Findings BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements u�mi� ed plication s - 8.6 - Application submitted on X Yes No Application narrative and site plan Yes No forms providing full and accurate provided by applicant. description of proposed use, Including location, appearance and operational characteristics 8.8 a) Twenty-six (26) copies of the X Yes No 26 copies of the site plan provided by applicant. Yes No site plan prepared by a registered Site plan was prepared by ENT Land Surveyors, Inc.` '- N.C, land surveyor or engineer containing: + 1. North point, scale and date X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No 2. Extent of area to be developed X Yes No Shown on site plan. _Yes No 3. L oc a Llon and width of all ease- counts and rights-of-way within or adjacent to tike site X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No to ARTICLES 8.b AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Board i Findin s Based on BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Submit ed Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings en 4. Location of all existing or pro- X Yes No Shown on site plan. Applicant proposes to Yes No C,;, posed structures on the site utilize existing structures for bed & breakfast facility. 5. Location of all areas on the site X Yes No There are no flood prone areas on the site Yes No subject to flood hazard or Inunda- according to the FEMA-FIA maps and soils -" tion as shown on flood maps or maps. soil maps L. Location of all water courses X Yes No No water courses present on site. Yes Na on the site, including the direction of flow %. Existing topography at a contour XYes No Topography at five foot contours is shown Yes No Interval of five (5) feet based on the site plan. —' on mean sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, X Yes No Parking area, fencing and screening are _Yes No screening, gates, parking, indicated. No other service areas are service and storage areas oroposed. 9. Access to site Including sight X Yes No Access to site is off Mebane Oaks Road. Yes No distances on all roads used for u (SR 1007) distances are indicated on plat. access 10. Elevations of all structures X Yes No Development summary describes existing Yes ' No proposed to be used in the -' buildings. No new structures are proposed. development. i 11. Names and addresses of owners XYes No Provided on application. Yes No and applicants 12. A fee, as set by the Board of XYes No $180.00 application fee paid. . . . Yes No County Commissioners ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes`.' indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board ' Findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted -Application EviJence Subn�itteJ to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS Article 0.2.4 requires the applicant ; to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision 8 Yes No Letter from Health-Department addressing Yep No for sewage disposal facilities, adequacy of facilities for proposed use solid waste and water service provided. Facilities serve a 2 bedroom i residence and a 4 bedroom boarding house. b) Method and adequacy of police, K Yes No Letters from police, fire and rescue _Yes No fire and rescue squad protec- ? services provided. tion f c) Method and adequacy of vehicle X Yes No Access to site is by private drive from _Yes No access to the site and traffic Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007). The proposed .� conditions around the site use will generate 38.32trips per day (9.58 per occupied room). !NO -DOT 1981 traffic data for this area is 500 trips per day. This count was taken immediately north of the intersection of NC 54 and Mebane Oaks O Road OR 1007) ARTICLE 8.8.24 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/ HISTORIC STRUCTURES-NON-RESIDENTIAL•REUSE/141XED•USE Article 8.8,24.1 Indicates that die following information is required to be submitted as par4 of the application: I C) Planning Board •� , Findings Based on Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS CS1 Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application. pp g - -- a. site plan containing the following: I)location, width, and X YES NO Details provided on site plan. YES NO type of all Internal vehicular and pedestrian cl rcul at-ton 2)location and dimensions X YES NO Details provided on site plan and in YES NO of on-site signage narrative. 3)boundarles of site and X YES NO Details provided on site plan. YES NO distance to nearest residences b, description of proposed uses of site and structure Including the following: 1)amount of area allocated X YES NO Details provided in narrative. YES NO to each use 2)number of full/part-time X YES NO Details provided in narrative. Site YES NO employees will employ two full-time and one part- time employees. 3)number of clients/ occupants X YES NO Details provided in narrative. Number of YES NO applicants will not exceed 12 guests. 4)proposed hours of operation X YES NO Site will be occupied 24 hours per day. YES NO c. building plans including X NO Details provided in narrative. YES NO � description of impact on historic features d, landscape plan X YES NO Details provided on site plan. YES NO ................... ARTICLE 8.8.2 + - SPECIFIC STANDARDS (continued) Planning Board Fipdin s B se$ on , Ordinance Requirements Submi.tfed Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS e, service agencies X YES NO Letters submitted with application. YES NO comments on adequacy of water/wastewater system proposed f. service agencies X YES NO Letters submitted with application. YES NO comments on fire, police and rescue protection g. listed on National X YES NO Letter of authorization submitted with " " YES NO Historic Register or application. Recognized by NC Dept. of recognized by N.C. Cultural Resources commencing in 1941. as place of historic Recognized in National Register since 1978. interest h, proposed development X YES NO Described in narrative. schedule for site YES NO a .-J ARTICLE 8 8 24t 2 STANDARDS OF EVALUATION ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" Indicates noncompliance) d Article 8.2.24.2 indicates that the following standards of evaluation be used in deciding on an application for this use: Planning Board Findings Based on Ordinance Requirments Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS a. site plan meets X YES NO Site plan meets all requirements as specified. YES NO requirements of 8.8 and 8.8.24 b.proposed uses and X YES NO Proposed bed 6 breakfast country inn YES NO facilities are in Bingham School?presently utilized as a complementary and residential structure does not conflict with compatible with agricultural/residential uses of area; preserves isurrounding area; the historic character of the site; and generates use preserves historic no adverse inpact except the provision of parking character of site and facilities which will be screened from the road building; development and adjacent properties. has no adverse Impact beyond building, except for parking facilities c.historic character of X YES NO Historic character of building is preserved YES NO building is preserved as evidenced in narrative and photographs. d.protective and water/ X YES NO Proposed services are adequate as evidenced YES NO wastewater services by letters documenting service- capability are adequate issued by the servicing agencies. e.recreational/service/ X YES NO ' Proposed recreational/service/parking and YES NO parking areas and screening facilities are adequate. screening are adequate 1 ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMEN'T'S ("Yes" indicates compliance; O'No" indicates noncompliance) Planning(:Board Findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted ,To Support Findings SOCC FINDINGS Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, Tot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage; and development Intensity. The applicant has applied for a Class A SUP - AR designat on. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5.1. 2 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per use X Yes No Site contains 9.98 acres. Yes No - 40,000 _ sq.ft. b) Minimum lot width - X Yes No Lot ranges from 355 to 1100 feet in width. No 150 sq. ft. __.. There is no setback requirement for Yes No C) Required front setback - Yes No NIA ft. a planned development. d) Required side and rear Yes No There is no setback requirement for _Yes No setbacks - N/A ft. a planned development. e) Maximum building height - X Yes No Applicant is proposing no new structures. Yes No 25 ft. T Existing residential structure is 35' in T height. Compliance with lot coverage and development Intensity standards is addressed In. Article b. . O -�I cry ' ART ICLE'4'='ESTABLISHMENT`01"PERMITTED'USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE ("Yes" Indicates compllance; "No" indicates noncompliance Planning Board Findings Based On Ordinance Requirement's Submitted Application 'Evidence'Submitted" td'Support 'EiAdiAgS' BOCC FINDINGS r O Article 8.8.24.2 indicates � the application must comply with all requirements specified In Articles 4,5,6,8,9,20 and 12. v • Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table Use is a permitted use or requires the issuance of a special use {permit to locate in the A-R X Yes No Site is located in area designated district. —" Agricultural-Residential and zoned Agricultural-Residential. ARTICLE 8.8.24.2 STANDARDS OF EVALUATION (continued) Planning oard Findin s aselt ou BOCC FINDINGS Ordlnance• Requlrements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings f. sit•a is served by Site has direct access via. private drive direct access to through property to Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007). t a state-maintained road X Yes J No Internal vehicular and pedestrian j g. internal vehicular/ circulation is adequate. pedestrian circulation adequate X Yes No h. all applicable All requirements of the referenced requirements of articles have been satisfied. Articles 4,5,60 8,9 10 and 12 have been satisfied. X Yes _ No O co ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "Ho" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Findings Based on- Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To _Sqpp2rt Findings BOCC FINDINGS CO ' Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. i Article 6.12 contains those development Intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUO system. a) Minimum gross land X Yes No Site contains 9.98 acres or Yes No area - 80,000 sq. ft. -' 434,728.8 square feet. Gross land area is 442,539.24 square feet. b) Maximum gross land Yes No Not applicable to Planned Developments Yes No area - N/A sq. ft. in this district. "- c} Maximum floor area ratio - X Yes N.o .058 i- -- Yes Ho Applicant proposes 11,000 sq. ft. of Maximum floor area floor area or 43Z of the maximum allowed. permitted - 25,667.28 sq. ft. d) Required minimum open X Yes No Yes No space ratio - .84 Required minimum open Applicant proposes 432,000 sq. ft. or space -371,732.96 sq. ft, 16% more than the maximum requirement. e) Required minimum pedestrian Yes No Not applicable to planned developments. landscape ratio - N/A ___ - — within this district. Required minimum pedestrian landscape area - N/A square feet " .._....... . I ARTICLE 9 - SIGNS ("Yes" Indicates compliance= I'No" indicates noncompliance) i i Planning Board j Findings Based on BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings a. sign 1q exected X YES NO Sign is to be attached to gate post at YES NO outside of sight entrance to private drive. j preservation triangles b. sign area does not X YES NO Proposed oval sign is 36" x 24". YES NO exceed 16 square fleet c. signage Is limited X YES NO A single double-faced sign is proposed. YES NO to one single or double-faced sign d. sign does not .exceed X YES NO Proposed sign is three feet in height. YES No j six feet in height and installed on gate post. O Oo t�� ARTICLE 10 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "No" Indicates noncompliance Planning Board Findings Based on ! Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application EyIftnce Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS 00 Cw Off-street parking X YES NO Applicant proposes 4 parking spaces YES NO sha11 conform- with within a gravel parking area, which is the requirements of designed to allow parking for an additional Article 10. 16 vehicles. The off-street parking standard for the proposed use Is as follows: I space per loding unit i Application of the standard results In a requirement of 4 spaces. one space per bedroom ARTICLE 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING ("Yes" Indicates come liance; "No" indicates noncompliance•) — i. Planning Board • Ordinance Re Findings Based on Tqurlrements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings 8OCC FINDINGS The development shall conform with the requirements of Article 12 - Landscaping and Screening. These standards are as follows: i 1. Street frontage land- X Yes No Applicant proposes to screen the Yes No scaping must Include .� parking facilities from Mebane Oaks a id-foot landscaped Road utilizing a board fence and , area planted with one American Boxwoods. Remainder of the tree per Flo feet, a 10' landscape strips to be grassed or trudge or other durable mulched. landscape material at least 3 feet In height and grass or ground cove r. 2. Peripheral landscaping X Yes No Applicant proposes to screen the Yes No must include a 10-foot r' parking facilities from adjacent landscaping area planted properties utilizing an existing j with one tree per 60 feet, Multiflora Rose hedgerow and a hedge or other durable American holly trees. Remainder of landscape material at of the 10' landscape strips to be least 3 feet In height, grassed or mulched. and grass or ground cover. 3. Interior landscaping must X Yes No Existing vegetation satisfies requirement. Yes No ' provide coverage of at Supplementary base plantings are recommended. least 5% of any (SEE CONDITION #8) vehicular use area. 0 00 . ARTICLE 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (continued) Pla �}in Board Fi.n�i.ng� Basea un BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings" ' • • No more titan 10 X Yes No Applicant proposes only 4 fixed parking stalls. Yes No parking spaces No landscaped medians are required. allowed In a con- sinuous raw without division by land- soaped median strip. Every fourth row of _Yes No Not Applicable yes No parking separated by 8-fout median with at least one tree for each 60-feet of median length. 4. type screen is Yes No Not Applicable Y:.s No required. Standards for that type include Elie following: E I I i . . 086 • 1 t . i. MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . • JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ' AUGUST 26, 1985 1 She Orange County Board of Commissioners met #n joint session with the Planning Board for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing on August 26, 1985, • 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse, . . 1 Hillsborough, North Carolina. , $S PRA Chair Don Wilihoit, and Commissioners Shirley •Marshall, Moses Carey and Ben Lloyd. • CaelEAMMLAIZNU Commissioner Norman Walker. ,TAFF PRESENT!• County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Planner Susan Smith, I Planner Gene Bell, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. .. PLA~ n eft MBMBEBS PRESENTS Alice Gordon (Chair),. Chris Best, Barry - Jacobs, Steve Kizer, Peter Kramer, Betty Margison, Frank Pearson, Sharlene i Pilkey, Carl Walters, and Steve Yuhasz. I 4 MIN( BOARD)4F,MBERS aSBNT. David Shanklin • A. BOARD COMMENTS . NONE. - B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS NONE. C. P.0 LIC BEARING ITEMS, 1-.. SUP.-1..85 Bjnrham_SchooL1nn � The presentation was made by Planner Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a request for a Class A Special Use Permit for the non-residential.use of the historic Bingham School. The applicants Robert M. and Jane B. Kelly have requested a Class A • Special Use Permit for a Non-Residential Mixed Use/Reuse of an Historic Structure for the property commonly known as the Bingham School. The property is located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of NC 54 and Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) in Bingham Township. The property contains 9.98 acres or 4341,728.9 square feet. The purpose of the request is to allow for the development of a bed and breakfast country inn. . The property is known as Tax Map 17, Lot 19 in Bingham Township. The - . property is located within an area designated Agricultural-Residential. That designation allows the consideration of development application for uses permitted in the Agricultural Residential and Agricultural Services zoning districts. The present zoning classification of the property is Agricultural Residential (A-R). The use of the property, as proposed,- requires the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. Certain development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained for the development to proceed. Approval of the request would allow for the use of Bingham School for commercial purposes as a bed and breakfast facility for a maximum of twelve occupants. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request with conditions- (Attachement on pages of these minutes). Commissioner Marshall expressed a concern that there was no Mural- . nation planned for a sign that would not be easily seen by night travelers. She noted this was a safety concern for the Planning Board to address. Mr. Kelly spoke noting that his primary interest is renovation and preservation of the historic value of the Bingham School for the general public. Pilkey inquired about fire precautions. Smith responded that Mr. Kelly • had been working with the Inspections Division over the past year as to the requirements for residential/commercial use in all applicable building code areas. . i ,,, 08' • 2 NO one spoke in opposition to the request, • 7s •;{)a ;4v i• jr,vs:44 • : " .e r ; . - ..�!► i CONCRETE COMPANY. _I . The presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive public comment on a proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan for 1.41 acres of a 7.25 acre tract (inclusive of street and railroad rights-of-way) owned by Chandler Concrete Company, Inc. Tlie: property in question is located on the south side of Old NC 10 (SR 1710), approximately one.-half mile from the intersection with NC 86. The property is referenced as Tax Map 45, Lot 32 in Hillsborough Township. The request for redesignation of the 1.41 acre site from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition/Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node has been submitted to legally address wastewater runoff problems from an ! existing concrete plant site. Under a directive from the NC Department of Natural. Resources and Community Development - Division of Environmental Management (DEM), the applicant attempted to contain runoff with retention basins. The basins were constructed on property owned by the applicant and which were located in an R-1 zoning district. The applicant erroneously thought the site was zoned for industrial purposes and the use of the property for retention basins as well as for truck parking resulted in a- zoning violation. Upon official notification ! • • from the Planning Department, the nonconforming use of the property ceased. The request is a new application. The applicant previously submitted a . proposed. amendment for 4.34 acres of the property to public hearing on May 28, 1985. In the Board of Commissioners review (August 5, 1985) of the request for decision, it determined that new information had been submitted after the public hearing and directed that the request be sent back to public hearing as a new-request on August 26, 1985. The Board also directed that the rezoning request for the same property be considered at the same public hearing. The proposed amendment would change the Land Use Plan (LUP)designation of the 1.41 acre portion • of the property from Rural Residential to Ten Tear Transition/Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node making it compatible for rezoning to PD 1-3. Rezoning would make it possible for the applicant to legally pursue on-site wastewater retention and recycling. The Plinii*+g Staff- recommends approval of the request. Bell continued listing procedures for amending the Land Use Plan and the three reasons for which the Plan may be amended as follows: (1) Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County (2) To correct an error or omission is the Plan (3) In response to a change in Land Use Policy The applicant cites #1 as his reason for request for amendment and lists several changes of a nonresidential nature which have taken place in the area since the concrete plant was established. A condition not mentioned by the applicant nor brought out in the Central Orange Area Study is run-off from the concrete plant site. It seems logical to assume that runoff has been a condition associated with the concrete plant site since it was established in 1982. Likewise, the recent recognition of . the the runoff as a problem by DEM would seem to qualify as a "changed or changing condition". Pilkey inquired if a letter had been received from Southern Railroad and Bell responded no. Commissioner Marshall inquired if there had been any statement how the amendment, would carry out the intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan as this was not addressed in the application. Bell agreed that this had not been addressed. Hell continued that the procedures for amendments said "should" not "shall" or."must". in that regard. - 088 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES S-16-65 11 was negotiable. This could be a daily fine up to $100. Determination after this paint could be set by Commissioners . Gordon asked why the appeal process was through the Planning Director. Smith responded this enabled an internal appeal process since the Planning Director is not involved in the day— to—day enforcement activities of this division . Pilkey inquired the reasons for the changes . Faircloth responded that in his opinion these changes address enforcement problems experienced by the State. Fairolath continued there were many more changes , but most of them were already in our ordinance which the State apparently used as their model . 1kC AGENDA. ITEM #9a] : SUP-1-85 BINGHAM SCHOOL INN Yuhasz abstained due to professional conflict of interest . Presentation by Susan Smith . The purpose of the agenda item is to consider for 'I! recommendation a request for a Class A Special Use permit for the non—residential use of the historic Bingham School submitted to public hearing on August 26 , 1985 . The planning staff recommends approval of the request with conditions as follows : 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County , in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit . As improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" m portion of the improvements . 14 O8 ' 43 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-18-85 12 2. Security shell be provided for the grading , and stabilization of all cleared areas , streets and other vehicular travelweys; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; utility installation • and hookups; recreational facilities ; and Landscaping . 3. ALL necessary easements to permit utility • (electricity, telephone and cable • television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County and/or Chapel Hill to serve this development) installation , servicing and hookups to the development shall be provided at no cast to the utility provider . Final utility plans shall be approved by the County Manager and/or applicable utility company prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit . All Lines shall be underground. 4-. That a driveway permit be obtained from NC Department of Transportation prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit . 5. Roads, parking areas, walkways , recreation facilities and sites and Landscaping shall be maintained as constructed . All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner . 8'. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Signs following issuance of a building permit . No sign may be • erected within the sight triangles for • the entranceway to the development . 7 . Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum . In Lieu of planted landscaping , existing vegetation shall be maintained between units . 8 . Supplementary base planting shall be installed within the parking area around the existing specimen trees . 9 . That all structures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following submittal for and issuance of building permits . 09C' DRAFT PLANNING BOAAQ MINUTES 9-18-85 13 10. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer . 11 . The final site plan and narrative of the project, incorporating all changes , deletions, and additions through the final approval of the project , are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with- the Orange County Planning Department. Grading and building permits , upon application , will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 12•. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions . Smith noted that this application met all require— manta, MOTION: Pearson moved positive findings on all specific I standards . Seconded. by Pi lkey . VOTE: En favor- 7. Abstentions (Miller—new member , Yuhasz) . Best was out of the room during this vote . MOTION : Pi lkey moved general findings have been satisfied . Seconded by Pearson . VOTE: In favor 7. Abstentions (Miller — new member , Yuhasz) . Best was out of the room during this vote . MOTION; Pearson moved approval of the special use permit with staff conditions . Seconded by Jacobs . VOTE: In favor 7 . Abstentions (Miller — new member , Yuhasz] . Best was out of room during this vote . Agenda Item #Sb : LUP-3-8S_ Chandler Concrete Company . • 091 • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date SEPTEMBER 30. 1985 Action Awinda Item # ( , • SUBJECT: PROPOSED SECONDARY AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN REQUESTED BY CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) Information Contact : GENE BELL SEE 8-26-85 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA AND HANDOUTS DRAFT 8-26-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 5-28-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 8-26-85 LETTER FROM J. S. HARDER PHOTOGRAPHS: SITE & ENVIRONS [CONTACT STAFF) II DRAFT 9-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES • Telephone Numbers Hi L isborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan for 1 .41 acres of a 7 .25 acre tract [inclusive of street and railroad rights-of-way) owned by Chandler Concrete Company, Inc . The property in question is located on the south side of Old N.C. 10 (SR 1710) approximately one-half mile from the I . intersection with N. C. 86 . The property is referenced as Tax Map 45, Lot 32 in Hi l Lsbo rough Township . To receive the Planning Board recommendation on the request . This item was submitted to public hearing on August 26 , 1985. NEED: The request for redesignation of the 1 .41 acre site from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition/Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node has been submitted to LegelLy address wastewater runoff problems from an existing concrete plant site Under a directive from the N .C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development - Division of Environmental Management (DEM) , the applicant attempted to contain runoff with retention Basins. The basins were constructed on property owned by the applicant and which were located in an R-1 zoning district. The applicant erroneously thought the site was zoned for industrial purposes and the use of property for retention 092 PROPOSED SECONDARY AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN REQUESTED BY CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 Page 2 basins as well as as for truck parking resulted in a zoning ! violation . Upon official notification from the Planning Department, the nonconforming use of the property ceased. The request is a new application . The applicant previously submitted a proposed amendment for 4.34 acres of the property to public hearing on May 28, 1985. In the Board of ; Commissioners review (August 5, 1985) of the request for decision , it determined that new information had been submitted after public hearing and directed that the request be sent back to public hearing as a new request on August 26, 1985. The Board also directed that the rezoning request for the same property be considered at the same public hearing . 1 1 IMPACT: The proposed amendment would change the Land Use PLan I designation of the 1 .41 acre portion of the propertyfrom Rural. I Residential to Ten Year Transition/Commercial — Industrial Transition Activity Node making it compatible for rezoning to PD t-3. Rezoning would mke it possible for the applicant to legally pursue on—site wastewater retention and recycling . RECOMMENDATION: A Planning Board motion to approve the 1 .41 acre request resulted in a 4 to 4 vote with one abstention . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request . •• ._ . . _I 09 ti*" ,...,i , . . •-.:: _ , ...• • . c.„.. _------- • - - • -.71 — ..i ....... _ ....„• • - _ • • ._ _ . _ . _ _ • . -. __• - . - • , . . leo .. _....j.„..i.. _ .. . I .• .. _ . . 1., _ . ... _ . . , • • „. . , . fti.. I . • e4ST. - - -.... •..c.,...,„ '., , ... •••...,„.„. •A . • \ -.•-- .6,5 ...•• i . . >• ....-,7 \ •--. ' . S. .- '. -... 1 \ i --- \ • ---... ;. . -..„ ., • -.... : s., / . .- -.....,. I s. , .,. • --...,,,, \• • 1.-- ! — '. , • • i4.0....."7• • ' ..-„.. '•..9..,<: \, s...2.e i•C ■ ., ■• , ■-•,,,,,7.••• •, 757S i :.. :... ..._ i'i e•pv - : . • 8 -<499*% .. -,(---, I I , ; ''':•//'-'. .62... ' If;„ ' .• ..203s t ,• tf.....e.:,•Fi i ..-.:96 •BA -'44Cry . •-••• ..,...- : 'cIN.- • ,. I.:7Ac , \ • tiAC-11108:mos, • „, ac. .5 9052-...-, I -- • t... ...-., 4R.3-----.57 - '.// •I':A- 1.47`-',".tI6A is' •:-..----.,_ *-021',••_._,,,_••- .' . 1 ---------___442. 1 1 -- :..._;,:'.."•',..:-.,-;. .,..„.„!'—'5" "" -..'''''''"•:•:-44,,•`•!:25.65:?•,. • .. • ----------,•-•\.......4......... pi,4 ,-„ L:.7.-...C..$'74:, .__" _ ---‘-:)"■,'"7:_..7..."- i ••"' 7----. , „ ...r.e(40 ,..-., .:D952 -.........,_ 3. i:-.. •S 7.-- s • := .. . . ---.....). ri.....,....... ,.. •'•:.,••:- ••••---/-„,----T1 F: 45.-.C,AL, ---, ''' • . 1 ,,,,. ... 2,533,i ........... ..1 , , . •. .. t o•Sc's t%.• 1. . , c ..,,.. • ..- 20 _A- r •,. ..,.. . _ - ' -- • • 1 •, , . ----, ••_-,..-4,-- - , t . : •I".: --•5ZZG I 1 -.-. .., • "t's. , ,. . / \ , 1 4.04447 ,. SEE .MAP az.,.... i'l- _ SEE '.'-,--5:. • -••, .•. ,.....:•:-,..,:f... v.:::PP4 Jape'. • :1\ , :,,,..f.:1-1 -••: .....- \ 1 p,c / , sec,...- _ ,;.10•=fr 6,,cari,,, '...-zr.:S..:•••5 ,f,r:;: --.. SE:E., ?. s s. ..... ..• ..... . i '-,-•—,, ...a ‘4,438, . - . \ •• •,..7., :it...,: ,,. se.*;•,,,2DV.r.:J•62 - /-..."-"f•' ' 1:31(71. : 31. :5.'.: , ,:... ...;..z 4.e. i.Se -41'1:.z411111E.2-7-1 :c5:.--7..::-' .\......."‘:-. -..t.j.::...:;..e.- •• ._::P \ : .• • , 1 . -) - ..... „,.....,""'•••„.• SEE.4b....- / ,..• ■.•"1"-.) --• v• ...I., •• 456 4-=_.,.,:3....;... 11 , • . ', ....-.... :.-.:,.. _,-.. • ........7..........4 •1 z. ..5...e5: 4 \, ,,, ,•4F.•,.-‘'.• '.• / / .,..../ . I ... .• 1 . s .... • • - „.5.5•0,_ •--- ..... .. .• -.4,...-;* : ■ . -i EE !AAP......."'■ .15.6 2 6 -,,r,.- , ••-:?-• 71 45. ''-4/.. . . i 1 •r. 1 / I • ..1•,isp.V.:j."....:••: . ■,I6A: r€ .32 1 1 si :;2,9' ;:.., ,- wu_ woaa • / 382,--5E3. . ,• 4 • ' •.."-- 1 .41...• ' / . ' .... ............ . 9 68 i •-...-_ .. s..1.-:-. az. --71 / I '-- — I - - /45e ■ 2 5 .. r W...*:::* I . t L_ __----- _- -----.--T----1--- I _ •. . _ _ — ---- • . • _ _ ... _ _ 84Patit-as m_ No one spoke in opposition to the request. 7�. •2I) =v);0)viDitif • V;t" ; ; j• Il'.'1+4 +! -!' ; ; 0) CONCRETE CO:iPANt.. INC. The presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive public comment on.a proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan for 1.41 acres of a T.25 acre tract (Inclusive of street and railroad rights-of-way) owned by Chandler Concrete Company, Inc. The property in question is located on the south side of Old NC 10 (SR 1710), approximately one-half mile from the intersection with NC 86. The property is referenced as Tax Map 45, Lot 32 in Hillsborough Township. The request for redesignation of the 1.41 acre site from Rural Residential to Tea Year Transition/Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node has been submitted to legally address wastewater runoff problems from an existing concrete plant site. Under a directive from the NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development - Division of Environmental Management (DEE), the applicant attempted to contain runoff with retention basins. The basins were constructed on property owned by the applicant and which were located in an R-1 zoning district. The applicant erroneously thought the site was zoned for industrial purposes and the use of the property for retention basins as well as for truck parking resulted in a zoning violation. Upon official notification from the Planning Department, the nonconforming use of the property ceased. 1 The request is a new application. The applicant previously submitted a proposed amendment for 4.34 acres of the property to public hearing on May 28, 1985. In the Board of Commissioners review (August 5, 1985) of the request for decision, it determined that new information had been submitted after the public hearing and directed that the request be sent back to public bearing- as a new request on August 26, 1985. The Board also directed that the rezoning request for the same property be considered at the same public hearing. The proposed amendment would change the Land Use Plan (LUP)designation of the 1.41 acre portion of the property from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition/Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node making it compatible for rezoning to PD I-3.- Rezoning would make it possible for the applicant to legally pursue on-site wastewater retention and recycling. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request. Bell continued listing procedures for amending the Land Use Plan and the three reasons for which the Plan may be amended as follows: (1) Because of changed or changing conditions is a particular area or areas of the County (2) To correct an error or omission in the Plan (3) In response to a change in Land Use Policy The applicant cites #1 as his reason for request for amendment and lists several changes of a nonresidential nature which have taken place in the area since the concrete plant was established. A condition not mentioned by the applicant nor brought out in the Central Orange Area Stu d y is run-off from the concrete plant site. It seems logical to assume that runoff has been a condition associated with the concrete plant site since it was established in 1982. Likewise, the recent recognition of the runoff as a problem by DEM would seem to qualify as a "changed or - changing condition". Pilkey inquired if a letter had been received from Southern Railroad and Bell responded no. Commissioner Marshall inquired if there had been any statement how the amendment would carry out the intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan as this was not addressed in the application. Bell agreed that this had not been addressed. Bell continued that the procedures for amendments said "should" not "shall" or "must" in that regard. 09 3- Gordon asked how the change in the request (regarding amount of land) affects the staff recommendation. Hell responded that staff looked upon runoff as an existing condition recognized by DEM as a public health,. safety and welfare hazard that does represent- a changing condition that was not addressed in. the Central Orange Area Study. Commissioner Marshall noted that these were undesirable existing conditions, not conditions brought about by other things happening in the neighborhood. Bell continued that the procedures in the plan were not very specific regarding ."changing conditions* and it was the staff interpretation that Conditions had changed sufficiently to warrant amendment. 'Commissioner Marshall requested that the May 28, 1985 public hearing minutes be entered into the record (An aattachment on page of -these minutes.) Tom Chandler, applicant and president of Chandler Concrete,, spoke. He noted he had operated. the business in substantially the same manner for 13 years. He was notified by DEM in January concerning the problem of water runoff. He noted the reason for the new request for 1.41 acres was to ask for help in solving the water runoff problem. He continued noting that the Railroad representatives were aware of the existence of the ponds, but that it usually took six to eight months to get. a. III letter of approval from Railroad officials regarding right-of-way encroachments. If it becomes necessary to move the ponds from the railroad right-of-way, they could be shifted forward without having to relocate the recycling equipment. Mr. Chandler stated that there would be no expansion of his business operation, no increase in the number of trucks or use. There will be an . improvement in the traffic conditions due to the relocation of the driveway. He cited a letter from J. W. Watkins stating that the proposed driveway has a greater sight distance and is a safer entrance than the one now being used. He also cited a letter from Jon S. Harder concerning land values. He submitted these two letters along with a letter, from DEM dated 8/22/85 to the Board as evidence. (Copies of these letters are on pages of these . minutes). Chandler continued addressing the concern regarding the contents, appearance and overflow of the ponds. He noted the purpose of the third pond was to take care of any overflow. The design and construction of the ponds has been approved and accepted by DEM as a solution to the environmental problem. Chandler referenced the comment that he had graded the property to make it more usable and noted this was inaccurate. He called on Philip Post to explain exactly what had been done on the property and the design details as well as the traffic circulation pattern. Philip Post explained that there were three sources of runoff: truck washing, runoff from the making of concrete, and rainwater; the latter being the primary source of'runoff. He noted that other than the technical problem regarding water runoff, there were three other benefits from this site plan: (1) additional landscaping, (2) access improvements and (3) eventual recycling of materials used in the operation so there would be no solid or liquid waste removed- from the site. At this point Wilihoit asked that the applicants only address those things relating to the Land Use Plan amendment at this time. Post noted that most of his remarks were specific to the site plan. Regarding the Land Use Plan amendment he continued that DEM required total detention of water runoff at this site. .The liquid waste contains materials III used in making concrete. This proposal requires 1.41 acres as an absolute minimum area to accomplish the requirements of DEM. Kizerqu inquired what the anticipated results were if the request for LUP amendment is denied. Post responded that if the request were denied, the 096 applicant could not comply with DF2I requirements and closure of the plant could eventually occur. Gordon read the reasons for making a Land Use Plan Amendment. Post noted that his client was responding to a state requirement and he felt this was a changed condition. Harry Harkins, an attorney from Chapel Hill, representing the Rhine family who own the land surrounding the Chandler Concrete plant, spoke. He noted there-would be three additional speakers is opposition to the amendment to the LUP. Be continued expressing more firmly the opposition to the amendment for three reasons: he felt it was bad policy, set a bad precedent„ and it was not necessary to the operation of the Chandler Concrete plant. He stated that from meeting to meeting the applicant had changed his needs- or reasons for the requested amendment. He felt only two lagoons were needed and the proposed driveway. was unnecessary. He also felt that a way could be found for location. Of the lagoons on land that Chandler already is using and that the barriers that are being stored by contractors working on 1-40 could be stored anywhere. He and his clients greatly oppose the expansion of industrial use into this residential area. Harkins continued stating that Chandler had purchased land without checking into the zoning and had begun using the land in violation of the zoning regulations. Harkins' clients, the Rhine family, bad to report the • nonconforming use to the County before the action was corrected. He further stated that he and his clients felt that this was simply a means to expand the operation of the existing concrete pl ant. He read from the Zoning, Ordinance the reasons for change and noted that he did not view the situation as "changed conditions", but simply an expansion of the use after purchase. He also reminded the Boards that Commissioner Marshall had asked for the May 28 public hearing evidence to be placed in the record. Commissioner Marshall noted that she only asked for b the minutes to be entered into the record and if Mr. Harkins had some particular item of record to be entered be would need to make that request. Harkins then requested that all evidence presented by the opposition at the May public hearing be entered as part of• the record of this hearing. Dr. Sally Feather spoke expressing the concern that her property was the most affected by the requested LUP amendment. She noted that the use and enjoyment of her land has been seriously jeopardized by the concrete plant already. She continued noting she had registered her property as a National Wildlife area and the wooded area was placed in a forest management program. She is also participating in the nutrient sensitive watershed program operated by the State Division of Water Resources. She felt that the hard work done on one side of the road to preserve and protect the land had been destroyed by the fact that just on the other side of the road trees had been destroyed and land • cleared. Betsy Rhine spoke stating that she had been living across the road from Chandler Concrete property long before it was a concrete plant. She continued that everyone in the area who are concerned ire here to stay. She expressed concern that the request for less land in this amendment request was supposed to be a compromise, but yet it seemed that everything Mr. Chandler wanted originally was included in this site plan. She expressed concern with traffic safety, health and welfare of the area. She also stated that residents of Joppa Oaks complained of stinging, burning eyes from the acid solution used to clean the trucks. She continued that the hazardous acid solution should be protect the County. Use Plan left as is to ec y the Land se dumped elsewhere and P mp Alan Fields, a resident of Strayhorn Hills, inquired if after the ten year period the property in question could be used for any purpose or if it must stay with this same use. Gordon responded that the Ten Year Transition Area is a land categorization meaning the land is expected to go from rural to ' urban in a ten year period. 09`i 5 Joyce Garrett,, attorney for Chandler Concrete Company, spoke stating that the purpose for the amendment to the LUP was the requirement imposed by DEM regarding runoff control. This is based on changes in the environmental agency position in. the last ten years and not based on changes in the use of the facility. She noted this was a secondary amendment and she reviewed the criteria for a secondary amendment. She stated that when the LUP was developed it was simply an arbitrary decision that the boundary was the boundary line of the Chandler Concrete Company.. She noted that other commercial type activities bad developed along SR 1710 and residential and industrial areas can co-exist side-by-side. She noted. that the operation of the concrete plant could only go forward with respect - to compliance with the requirements of DEM. Representatives; from DEM were on the site when it was raining; according to the direction of the flow of runoff, they told Chandler where to place the ponds-. She continued that Chandler originally petitioned for 4 + acres with the intention of expansion, as well as environmental control. Since it is clear • that the comity does not wish this expansion, Mr. Chandler is only requesting an amendment for sufficient land to control the runoff problem. The effort to.control the problem does not constitute an expansion of the business. The community should not be able- to dictate if an environmental problem -east. continue to exist. She continued that the driveway proposed in the Planned . Development has been endorsed by NCDOT as a safer entrance. Chandler stated in his opinion it is a bad precedent if the County is not flexible in helping residents and responsible people comply with the ordinance. He noted that the County cannot anticipate an increase in the sales tax as there will be no expansion of• the business. He expressed concern about the irresponsible action of the opposition. in referencing that the- Rhines' were "tricked" and that somehow be was - involved. He noted that he did not buy the property from the Rhines, but was solicited_by a subsequent owner of the property who approached him regarding its availability for purchase. He continued that he was not aware of the sequence of events leading up to the sale. He emphasized that the stated requirement that the property be used only for residential use was not part of the public record. He continued that the deed does -not-show that the property came from the Rhine Estate. He continued that he felt it was important not to have the comment regarding being "tricked" linger in the Boards' mind. • 1._ PD.4-85 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY • The presentation was made by Susan Smith. She informed the Boards that the screening and lot size requirements had not been satisfied, but continued that staff would recommend that the lot size requirements be modified under Section 7.3 given the nature of the request. She continued that staff had been in contact with DEM as of this morning and that DEM verified that a three pond system was required to satisfy their requirements; that a runoff control system in this location was . necessary as an immediate measure to address runoff in this area; and that the proposed recycling system is a long term proposal to address the applicant's needs beyond the control of runoff. She noted that DEM had approved the submitted plans with the exception of a freeboard requirement which the applicant has subsequently indicated he will comply with. Thomas Chandler requested that all materials submitted for the Land Use Plan application be made part of the record on the rezoning request. He also requested that his written comments be made part of the record. The Board concurred. Chandler subsequently read the letter from Jon Harder. Phil Post, engineer for the applicant, spoke on the project and clarified that he would address what will happen to the runoff on the site and the nature of the materials in the ponds. He noted that the materials are not • O91 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 13 • 10. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer . 11 . The final site plan and narrative of the project, incorporating all changes , deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit . Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department . Grading and building permits , upon application , will be issued after • approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 12. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions . Smith noted that this application met all require- ments . • MOTION: Pearson moved positive findings on aLL specific standards . Seconded by Pilkey . VOTE: In favor 7. Abstentions (Miller—new member , Yuhasz) . Best was out of the room during this vote . MOTION: Pilkey moved general findings have been satisfied . Seconded by Pearson . VOTE: In favor 7. Abstentions (Miller — new member , Yuhasz) . Best was out of the room during this vote . • II MOTION: Pearson moved approval of the special use permit with staff conditions. Seconded by Jacobs . VOTE: In favor 7. Abstentions (Miller — new member, Yuhasz) . Best was out of room during this vote . Agenda Item #9b : LUP-3-95 Chandler Concrete Company . 095 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD. MINUTES 9-16-85 14 Gordon informed the Board she needed to leave and turned the Chair over to Carl Walters. Gordon read a prepared statement as follows : "CHANDLER CONCRETE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REaUEST" "Comments prepared by Alice Gordon for September 16 , 1985 Planning Board Meeting" "Because I view the decision on this Land Use Plan Amendment and Planned Development request to be very important and because I will not be able to attend the part of the meeting during which the items are to be discussed , I would Like to have the following comments read before any vote is taken on the Land Use Plan Amendment . I have attended both of the public hearings and the Planning Board meeting at which the Chandler Concrete Land Use Plan Amendment request was discussed , and carefully reviewed the materials related to the request . In my opinion , the request has not met any of the three conditions necessary for a Land Use Plan Amendment. Amendments are to be made [1 ] because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County, (23 to correct an error or ommission in the Plan and (3) in response to a change in land use policy. With respect to practical considerations, I have two comments . First , concerning the public safety question , I have not been persuaded of the necessity to use the existing pits . It seems the pits could be located on property which is already allowed to have such industrial uses . The fact that the- company has already constructed the pits does not argue in favor of granting the permit . In fact , there was prior illegal use of the pits which has now ceased . Second , concerning the desirability of granting the permit and planned development , it is argued that buffers could be required. I feel this argument does not outweigh the arguments presented above . In time, Nature will cover the scars and provide the landscaping . 100 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 15 I feet we must deny this amendment (and subsequent planned development) to maintain the integrity of our Land Use Plan and Plan Amendment process, and to maintain the commitment we have to our citizens to protect their residences in such situations. Gordon left at 9 :10 p .m . Pearson stated that he felt the procedure followed by Gordon in presenting her statement was illegal • due to the fact that it was not presented at the public hearing end rebuttal would not be allowed by the applicant . Shanklin stated that since Gordon would not be present for the vote, how she would or would not have voted should not influence the decision . Walters asked if Gordon 's comments could be considered. Smith responded she would not be exercising her position by voting and that her comments could be considered in like manner as any other Board member comments heard on the item . Smith informed the Board that there are no "findings" to be made on the amendment request . MOTION: • Pearson moved approval of the Land Use Plan amendment . Shanklin seconded the motion . Yuhasz questioned if areas are designated Rural Residential "forever" of if there are holding areas subject to change as conditions change in an area . Walters reviewed the procedures for change and noted that the evidence presented and people commenting influence the decision . Shanklin indicated it was obvious that the Boards intended to make changes as the mechanism for change was incorporated in the document . Jacobs noted that at the public hearing staff reviewed how the area was zoned . Pearson responded that in this case the zoning went with the property line . Jacobs continued that many people view the R-1 zone as a guarantee, a protection of their life style and of rural areas and modest residential areas . In this case the Land Use Plan was viewed as a guarantee given citizen comment . He • . • 101 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8-16-85 18 continued that there was not enough evidence that the conditions were satisfied to warrant changing the Land Use Plan . Pilkey added that someone must look out for the neighborhood and that there was not sufficient justification to change the adoption of the Land Use Plan . Shanklin responded that at the time the compromise was made on the zoning lot, if Chandler had owned the additional property, it likely would have been . included in the industrial zoning . Yuhasz commented that he was not opposed to buffer or rural areas, but that he was concerned there is a misconception that all undeveloped areas constitute rural buffers . Jacobs felt that they are unless there is a compelling reason to change the area Pearson responded the applicant was operating under a DEM directive and that the ponds were proposed for a Logical Location . Best questioned whether the ponds could be placed on the west side. Pearson responded that all the structures are presently on the east side of the Lot. Best responded that the property could be regraded . Pearson questioned the- feasibility al* this without dismantling the plant . Pilkey cited comments on page 4, paragraph 2 of the August 28 , 1985 public hearing minutes . Pearson clarified that different types of facilities were being referenced and that the proposed improvements would leave the residential areas better off. He added that the damage was done years ago when the plant was installed . He continued that the proposed screening and driveway arrangements would address both aesthetic and safety concerns . He felt the proposal would result in improvement of the genera ! area Pearson questioned the petition submitted by opponents citing signatures of high school children Living 1/2 mile away from the site Kramer added that though the petition was well intended , it paints the issues in "black and white" . . . 102 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9-16-85 17 Shanklin commented he had heard no testimony regarding an expansion of the operation . Best commented that incorporation of the additional area constituted "expansion". Shanklin noted the applicant would be conducting the same volume of business . Jacobs recognized the applicant was responding to the OEM directive, but felt a question remains whether all the alternatives had been exhausted on the existing property . He noted an exception here would be an example to others . Pearson felt the applicant had operated fully within the law until he came in for his permit at which time it became a question of space . Pilkey indicated she was not willing to change the Land Use Plan to guarantee a buffer . She also noted that the Hillsborough Planning Board had recommended denial and that the Board must be aware of their wishes and desires . Pearson asked what the logic was in the Town ' s position if they then grant approval for an asphalt plant within the Town Limits . Kramer called the question . VOTE: In favor: Yuhasz, Pearson , Kramer, Shanklin Opposed : Pilkey, Jacobs , Welters , Best Abstention : Miller Pilkey expressed concern that this is a precedent setting issue and that the neighborhood 's concerns should be taken into consideration . Yuhasz emphasized that a decision needs to be made between areas which are to be permanently rural or buffers end those which are holding areas for change, particularly in regards to the 11-1 designation . Pearson commented that by definition Transition Areas are areas of change. Walters commented that while he is usually for business , he is always against approving extensions into residential areas if the majority of the residents of the community oppose it . Shanklin indicated he voted in favor of it since most of the objections raised could be addressed I _ 104 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AUGUST 26, 1985 Members of the Planning Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners My name is Tom Chandler, president of Chandler Concrete. Your staff has reviewed with you my application for an Amendment of the Land Use Plan and rezoning of a 1.41 acres tract of land contiguous with my concrete company. The concrete plant has operated in substantially the same 1 manner for thirteen years . In January it was 1 brought to my attention by the Department of Environmental Management that a potential environmental problem exists relating to water run-off. The water run-off comes in- part from washing of our concrete trucks and also from the natural run-off of rain water across the land. The reason the new application which is for only 1.41 acres is before you tonight is to ask your help in solving a significant problem. As you are aware, I purchased the property adjacent to my concrete plant in September 1984. The purchase of the property resulted from my being contacted by the then owner of the property and asked if I was interested in the purchase. It is my understanding that the property would merge with the property on which my concrete company now exists . After purchasing the property I obtained all necessary permits and had DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES• 9-18-85 i 8' . through approval of the amendment and given that the planned development process provides control . AGENDA ITEM #90: P0-4-85 CHANDLER CONCRETE Smith reviewed the request noting that the applicant had not satisfied the tot size and landscaping requirement's which could, however , be address-ad through conditions of approval . MOTION: Yuhasz moved positive findings on 8 .8 and 8 .8 . Pearson seconded the motion . VOTE: a in favor. Miller abstained. • MOTION : Yuhasz moved positive findings on 20.3 .2 al , bl and C . Pearson seconded the motion . Smith noted that the Board could address ( el on the basis of their previous decision . She advised the Board that they were. to review- the evidence and comment on it as. part of the process in making the findings. Pearson commented on Cdl that staff had determined the OEM stipulation to constitute a changed condition. Jacobs responded- that the problem was due to wrong actions- by the applicant. Pearson noted there were. no previous regulations , Kremer added that change must be made if one is told to stop a certain activity . VOTE: In favor: Kramer, Pearson , Yuhasz, Shanklin Opposed : Jacobs , Pilkey , Walters , Best Abstention : Miller MOTION: Pearson moved positive findings on 20 .3 .2 a) and bl . Jacobs seconded the motion . VOTE: 8 in favor . Miller abstained . Pearson commented that concerns with Cd] reflect the discussion and vote on the Land Use Plan • amendment . MOTION: Pearson moved positive findings on 7 .4; 8 .2.4; 4.2 and 4.3 . Shanklin seconded the motion . VOTE: 8 in favor . Miller abstained . . _ • 106, ponds built on the corner of the property. The reason for construction of the ponds was to enable me to comply with environmental regulations pertaining to water run-off. In operation of my business, we wash concrete trucks at the end of each day. Approximately twice a month, the washing involves use of a dilute muriatic acid. The acid combines with limestone in the cement which is a base. That combination causes a neutralization of the acid with the base. However, the result of the combination of the acid and the base is that there is a whitish residue produced. Although the wash water from our trucks results in a potential problem, it was discovered that as water runs across our property the water itself becomes acid because of the nature of the land - the land is high in acidity. The Department of Environmental Management has required us to prevent the run-off of the residue and the acid leached from the earth. DEM recommended both the use of holding ponds and the location of the ponds. We built the ponds in the lowest area of the property and were in the process of installing a recycle pump so that the water can be recycled for use in our plant, thereby preventing run-off. We have invested approximately $43,000.00 in the construction of these ponds . The ponds are located in the railroad right of way. Representatives of Southern Railway are aware that the ponds exist and have not objected to their location. As of this date Public Hearing Comments:2 [ • • - however, we have not obtained formal written approval for the use of the ponds in the railroad right of way. It has been my experience that approval of any use in a railroad right of way takes approximately six to eight months. In Durham I have used railroad right of way for a variety of uses and the Railroad has always consented to the uses. The amount of land under consideration, approximately 1.41 acres, is the minimum amount which will be adequate to enable us to meet the environmental regulations . In the event we should have to move the ponds from the right of way, we can merely shift them forward without having to relocate the recycling equipment. As you are aware, in May we proposed a modification of the Land Use Plan for the four acre tract next to the concrete plant. Originally I had intended to expand my business in addition to taking care of the potential environmental problem. However, as a result of the public hearing, I now realize that expansion of my business operation is not now desired by the community. I accept that decision. As a result of the public hearing held in May several concerns of the community were brought to my attention and I would like to briefly comment about those concerns. One concern was the effect of an expansion of my business on the community, specifically with reference to land value and to the impact on traffic on SR 1710 . Public Hearing Comments :3 . . - - - • -- • .10 I wish to emphasize that the present proposal does not include an expansion of our business - it provides merely for control for a water run-off problem. Upon the amendment of the • Land Use Plan and rezoning as requested there will not be an increase in the number of trucks at my plant; there will not be an increase usage on SR 1710. However, there will be an improvement in the traffic situation on SR 1710 because the requested change in driveways will improve access giving better visibility on SR 1710 . Mr. John Watkins, Division Engineer of the North Carolina DOT has submitted a statement that the new driveway provides a greater sight distance and is safer than the one now being used With regard to land values, the requested modification of the Land Use Plan and rezoning as proposed will not have an adverse effect on the value of surrounding property. A letter has been submitted from Mr . Jon Harder, a land developer who is knowledgeable of residential property values to this effect. (Introduce letter] Another concern pertains to the contents of the ponds, their appearance, and the possibility of overflow. The design of the ponds is such that an overflow possibility has been eliminated by addition of a third pond. The design and construction of the ponds have been approved by DEM and accepted as a solution to the potential environmental problem. [Introduce letter] Public Hearing Comments :4 - - - - • 108 The water in one pond may be slightly colored; however, there is no hazard involved and .its view will be obstructed from outside the premises by the screening proposed as part of our rezoning application. Comments have been made that I have lowered the surface of land around the basins to make the land more usable. That, however, is not accurate and I have asked Mr . Phillip Post to explain to you exactly what has been done on the property and the reason that the location of the ponds was originally and still is the optimum location. I have also asked Mr . Post to present to you information on the traffic flow patterns and details of the design of the recycling system. I am asking for a minor modification of the Land Use Plan so as to designate the 1.41 acre tract which is contiguous with my plant as Ten Year Transition so that it may be rezoned to a- - Planned Development Industrial Node designation. The Amendment we requested is of the secondary type and is based on an extension of a designated use onto contiguous property and on changing conditions. The land we are interested in having reclassified is more suited and appropriate for the Ten Year Transition classification. It satisfies the criteria set forth in the Land Use Plan. There is a water line to our existing property. The land slope presents no significant problems . It does not create Public Hearing Comments:5 • • -• 109 a threat to plants or animals. The general soil, conditions are suitable. It has good road access and service by rail lines . It is located within minutes of the major commercial area of Hillsborough. It is a transition area between rural and urban uses. It would not have an adverse affect on agriculture and forestry uses . The requested rezoning is appropriate in that after the Amendment of the Land Use Plan the proposed use of the land would be in compliance with the general standards, specific rules and standards set forth by Orange County and its use as proposed would promote public health, safety and general welfare and would not have an adverse affect on the value of the contiguous property. My concrete plant has been a part of this community since 1972. We have tried to be a good corporate citizen and neighbor . I intend to continue to operate the plant at its present location. Currently we employ nineteen persons . Our payroll is approximately $275,000 .00 and in 1974 we paid Orange County approximately $42,000.00 in sales tax based on sales in Orange County. I am not asking for this modification of the Land Use Plan and rezoning in order to expand my business . This modification is being requested so that we may merely bring our operation into compliance with the regulations of the Department of Public Hearing Comments :6 . • 1 . - Environmental Management so as to meet environmental regulations which are now imposed upon us. I now ask Mr . Phillip Post of Phillip Post & Associates to speak with you briefly concerning this application. 1 1 D14:8/26/85 Public Hearing Comments :7 • _ _ . . 111 1 • MINUEM1 4 , MANGE =NW BOA COKRISSIONERS anur PUBLIC BEARING MAY 28, 1985 .The Orange County Board of . Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County Planning Board for the purpose of a Joint Public Bearing on May 28, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina- CathUSSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willboitr ari Commissioners Shirley* Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. PLNNNING BOARD mEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Alice Gordon and members Chris Best, Valerie Greenberg, Peter Kramer, Betty Margison, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl Walters, andSteve Yuhasz- • SAPP PRESENT County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Director of Planning Marvin Collins, Planners Susan Smith. and Gene Bell, Director of Economic Development Sylvia Price, Planning Secretary Joanna Bradshaw and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. 1. Lr3P-2-85 nhaq5ler ConcreteComnanv, Inc. (Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition and Conmercial-Iniustrial Transition Activity Node.) * Presentation was made by Gene Bell. This request by Chandler Concrete Company, Inc. is for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan man for a . 4.34 acre tract of land on the south side of Old NC 10 MR 1710) about 1/2 mile from the intersection of new tr 86 referenced as Tax Map 45, Lot 32 in Eillsborough Township. It is currently classified Rural Residential with R-1 zoning. Mr. Chandler is requesting the designation. of Ten Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Transition Node. The tract is adjacent to a 1.47 acre tract of land which contains Chandler's existing ready-mix concrete operation and is zoned 1-3, The main events that led to this request were listed as follows: . _ 112 03PID or =CRETE — • za moo,,,Iv_o_ksy igr_ USE PLAN 10-3-84 Chandler Concrete merged undeveloped 4.34 acre tract to 1.47 acre tract containing their concrete plant. 1-7-85 Grange County Health Department and N.C. Division of Environ- Rental, Management MO offiriAls visited Chandler's new tract in response to citizen complaints about wastewater runoff. 1-10-85 Mr. J. C. TUttle of Chandler Concrete was advised by a letter from DEM that they (Chandler Concrete) were illegally discharging wastewater and that a permit was required. DEM requested written plans by 2-1-85 for management of wastewater either by recycling on site or treating and dismharging. 1-17-85 Application forns were sent to Chandler by DEM for discharge and on site management of wastewater. 1-30-85 Chandler responded to DEM and indicated intent to comply with DEM requirements. 2-8-85 Major transportation corridor (DE) site plan was submitted to • ()range County Planning Department. 2-13-85 Chandler received a permit from the Orange County Sediitentation & Erosion Control Division to clear and grade new site. In con- junction with clearing and grading site, two retention ponds were constructed. Chandler planned to recycle water from lower pond back through concrete plant by use of pumps. This was an - • . _ . . . . 3 1.1 Cri option suggested by DEM but Chandler did notiobtAin required state permits. 2-14-85 !LC site plan approval was issued by the Planning Department in conjunction with grading and clearing activities permitted by Sedimentation and Erosion Control Division. 3-25-85 A citizen's complaint was received- by the Orange County Planning Department concerning Chandler's use of new tract for washing and parking concrete trucks. 4-9-85 Chandler officials net with the Planning Department and were advised that their use of the new tract was non-conforming since the use was an. extension of their existing 1-3 operation and the new site was zoned R-1. Washing and parking trucks and run-off retention were both non-conforming uses. They were advised to apply for a Land Use Plan amendnent mil if successful, rezoning. They were warned against further use of the property until it was brought into compliance with zoning ordinance. 4-17-85 Application for amendment of Land Use Plan received from Chandler. • 5-8-85 Chandler Concrete was notified by attorney for Dr. Sally Feather and Ms. Betsy Rhine of pending legal action if non-conforming uses not terminated. 5-16-85 Complaint filed with Orange County Planning Department by attorney for Dr. Sally Feather and Ms. Betsy Rhine. 114 4 5-17-85 Chandler barricaded new driveway connecting site to Old NC 10 and ceased non-conformtng use of property. 5-20-85 Planning Department met with DEM to discuss project hiStorY, options, enforcement action, etc., and to conduct site visit. 5-20-85 Chandler was formally notified by the Orange County Planning Department that all non-conforming uses of the 4.34 acre tract must cease immediately until such time as properly zoned. * This reflects main events and does not include all correspondence or tele- phone calls regarding rhpriAler Concrete, State Agencies and opponents to the rezoning request. - Bell stated that as of May 20, 1985 DER still had not received necessary application materials from Chandler. DEN also noted that they had not advised Chandler to go off site with the retention facilities; in fact, they had suggested they use the western portion of their tract which was being used to store concrete barricades at the tire. The procedures for amending the LJP states three reasons for which the LUP may be arended. These are: (1) because of changed or changing conditions in a . particular area or areas of the County; (2) to correct an error or omission in the Plan; (3) in response to a change in land use policy. In response to the first test, Staff contends that this area has been undergoing changes and that the Central Orange Area Study adopted in vember 1983 adequately addressed these changes. In response to the second, staff maintains that no errors or omissions regarding the Chandler property were made in the Central Orange Area Study. . . 1 JL In response to the third test, there has been no change in /and use policy that would justify an amendment. Applying the Locational Criteria contained in Section 3.4 of the LI1P, staff finds that the site meets all requirements of I:Zara/ Real/demi:Lai except Eneriy Use which states that Rural. Residential areas should be at least five minutes commuting time frbm an activity node. This site is closer than five minutes. With regard to the Locational Criteria for Ten Year Transition, staff finds it does not net the test for Public Service/Utilities which states: Located in areas which are or could be reasonably and efficiently served by centrAlimed public services and utilities. There are Tbwn of Hillsborough water lines which serve surrounding properties. However, these lines suffer from flow and pressure limitations. Providing sewer to the area would be costly because of topographic limitations which would require the use of pump stations. Locationat Criteron for Transportation System states: Located in areas that have very good road access, as well as service by rail lines. These areas should have the most complete transportation network in the County's planning jurisdiction. This site does have direct access to rail lines in that the western boundary of the property is Southern Railway. However, the road system is somewhat limiting. Frontage is on Old NC 10 (SR 1710) which is classified as a collector. The Locational Criteron for Existing Land Use states: Located in areas which are in transition from rural or low density uses to urban or higher density uses. Staff contends that the tract in question is located adjacent to such areas, but not in them. The final Locational Criteron for Ten Year Transition is Population Density, which states: .116 . 6 located in areas with moderate to high,population densities. Cnce again, staff contends that the tract in question is located. adjacent to such an area but not in one. Tbe Locational Criteria for a Commercial Industrial Transition Rode are basideLty the same as those for Ten Year Transition except the Existing Land Usecriteriastates: ' • Located within identified Ten or Twenty Year Transition. Areas, .which thesite currently is not. The Planning Department recommds denial of the request. The treaties. • properly classified in the Central Orange Area Study. Their opinion is that the . area delineated by I-85 to the north, Orange Mobile !toe Park to the west, and Southern Railway to the south is correctly classified as Rural Residential per the Locational Criteria previously enumerated. • Bell further noted that staff received many letters of opposition on this amendment request. Copies of these letters were included in agenda packets or distributed at the meeting tonight. most of the opposition has come from surrounding property owners. Orange County Health Department and Town of • Hillsborough Planning Board have also expressed opposition. . 13=1C:handler, President of Chandler Concrete Company, made the following . presentation: His operation has been in Hillsborough since 1972. At that time, other surrounding businesses an mobile home parks were not in the area. Be was contacted in August of 1984 about the availability of land adjoining his tract. Be noted that he was led to believe that the property was already in the Land Use Plan as commercial property. Nothing was done with the property until. • January 1985. ' At this time, representatives of DER visited the site and informed Mr. Chandler that they had received a report that acid was being used and present in the runoff from this property. DER did find high acidity levels and from that point on, Chandler was told to take steps to control the flow of ° 7 111 the water that was coming from the washing out of the trucks. Chandler asked for assistance from DEM and forms were sent to apply for permits.. These permits have been filed with DEM in Raleigh. A permit was issued by Soil and Erosion for grading and clearing of land and a firm was hired to do this grading, slope the land and put in the ponds. At the time Chandler was notified that the property could not be used for the purpose of parking the vehicles, so parking was stopped. Mr. Chandler continued that when he put the grading plan into effect, a gravel drive was constructed that comes out onto SR. 1710. This drive would give mach better visibility and safer access due to the fact that the current exit is in a curve. This new entrance has been blocked and is not being used in accordance with ruling by the Planning Department. Chandler felt justified in applying for the amendment to the LDP by several factors as follows: The criteria given to him when he first talked to Planning Department Members indicated, justification for asking for the amendment because: 1. there was adjoining land and the company would not be expanding the use more than 10 acres; 2. company has been in area for 13 years, belonging to the Chamber of Commerce and felt that they have been good corporate citizens in their support of area projects such as school projects and United Way, 3. company has 18 employees and 15 ready-mix trucks; which have brought payroll taxes and sales tax and property tax into Orange County. Mr. Chandler continued by addresing the runoff problem. Be explained that the concrete remover used to clean the trucks does contain wuriatic acid but when mixed with concrete dust will be neutralized. If he is allowed to continue to use the ponds on the property he can set up the reclaiming system he needs to separate the sand and stone from the slurry. The lime would then settle out and could be used for application to agricultural lands. Gordon inquired if Mr. Chandler would like to address the Locational Criteria as referred to by Bell. Chandler responded that he felt the land was 1 ii B weU suited to the Ten Year Transition plan, there was water to the property, it is not in the 100-year floodplAin, the land slopes are no problem, it has good access both by road and railroad, is only a few minutes from center of Etillsborough, it is no threat to plants or animals, with no bad effect. on • forestry or agriculture and it is already in the transition area between urban and rural areas. Gordon inquired about changing conditions. Bell explained this step again. Chandler's response to tbic was the changes were commercial as the mini-warehouses and a convenience store have come into being since Chandler • Concrete Plant was put into effect- - Harry Harkins, attorney representing Dr. Sally Feather and Ms. Betsy Rhine, spoke in opposition stating that his clients felt that this request went to the very essence of why Orange County needs the Land Use Plan. It would 1 destroy the buffer zone between the concrete plant and the residential area. Harkins noted that Chandler did not acquire this land from the Rhine heirs. The property was sold to a real, estate agent who later sold it to Chandler Concrete. The Rhine heirs would never have sold this property for commercial use. • Laura Feather, daughter of Dr. Sally Feather, then read a letter (2k. cow of the descriptive narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the office of the Clerk to the Board) from Dr. Sally Feather in opposition of the amendment to the LUP. Ms. Feather continued, speaking in her own behalf. She felt the concrete company had shown a lack of regard for the well-being of the residents in the area. She continued that she felt it had been misused as an industrial waste • disposal site and that it did jeopardize comfort, health and safety of the neighbors. She also expressed concerns with traffic safety given the number and size of vehicles and the narrow road. The concern for screening and buffer area was again expressed. 119 9. Betsy Rhine, whose home is directly across the road fronChandler Concrete Co., then spoke. She stated that from her driveway she could view the entire project. She noted the lack of trees and stated that this helped to magnify the noise from the project. She stated that last summer the property was divided among the heirs and her brother went to Apple Creek Realty to talk to Mr. James Rae Freeland about the possibility of selling his property and Mr. Freeland assured him that the zoning woad remain Residential-1. Ber brother, with this reassurance, sold the land to James Freeland in late August of 1984. In early March 1985, she noted the property was completely cleared and stripped of all vegetation and it was evident that Chandler Concrete was expanding its operation. Ms. Rhine noted that she then contacted the Planning Department. She indicated it was two weeks before work was stopped on the site. She continued that the applicant had continued to use the land for cleaning the concrete trucks and emptying out into the pits. A. petition was circulated among residents and she noted that almost everyone bad complaints. She cited a letter from Ma Nichols expressing concern over the destruction of her driveway by the trucks- Gordon reminded citizens at this point, that this was only a request for a LUP amentrent. If the amendment was implemented, then a request for rezoning would come forth. A real estate appraiser from Chapel Fill, P. B. Craig, was retained by the Rbines and be presented the following findings: Se referenced maps regarding potential bomesites and noted that they would look straight across to the pits and the lake precludes effective screening, all topsoil has been stripped and pits are easily visible. All frontages on SR 1710 will be adversfy effected by the use or rezoning. He felt the whole 46 acres would suffer about $30,000 damage. M. C. Allison, a resident in Strayhorn Hills since 1978, spoke for residents of his immediate neighborhood. Be noted damage done to vehicles due to rocks being thrown by concrete trucks. There were places where the cement bad been emptied on the side of the road. seeserem ._ 121 10 Willard Cates,. resident of Byrdsville for 12 years, expressed concezzt with traffic problem, debris and concrete spillage on sides of the road and near stop sign. 2. Z-7-85 GEORGE HORTON REZONING The presentation was made by Director of Planning Marvin Collins. This agenda item is to consider a rezoning request for George Horton. C. D. Hogue is requesting a rezoning for George Horton on 86.51 acres out of 103 acres of lard located along Highway 70 Business southeast of ili'llsbarough. The remaining 16.49 acres will not be changed from present R-1 zoning designation. The property is referenced as Tax Map 40 Block A Lots 11 and 14 of Hillsborough Township. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and. Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Orange County Lath Use Plan. I ' The present zoning is R-1. The applicant is requesting 26.65 acres to be rezoned to 0-I and 59.86 acres to be rezoned I-1. Approval of the request would allow Office-institutional uses on the 16.65 acres and. Industrial-1 uses on the 59.86 acres. A 1984 traffic count on Business 70 indicated 1200 trips per day. Cb. N.C. 86 between Business 70 and Valley Forge Road (SR 1200) a 1984 traffic count indicated 4200 trips per day. If the 59.86 acres proposed to be zoned I-1 were developed approximately 3,137 trips per day could be generated. If the 26.65 acres proposed to be zoned 0-I were developed, an additional 3,866 trips would possibly be generated. Unless some other type of access is obtained, all of this traffic would be directed to U.S. 70 Business. According to the Department of Transportation (Dar) , U.S. 70 Business is presently classified at service level C or better. At the current speed limit of 45 MPH and given a 20' travelway, the capacity of U.S. 70 Business at service level C is estimated to be 5,770 trips per day. 121 aRANG: E CO NT" Y BOA= OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA. IT! ABSTRACT Meeting; Date 1' 2985 Action- Agenda. Item' # C -/ SUBJECT': SECONDARY AMENDMENT TO THE- LAND USE PLAN- REQUESTED. BY CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY DEPARTMENT:. PLANNING: PUBLIC HEARING . Y'es. No Attachment(s) Information Contact: GENE' BELL. SUMMARY SHEET APPLICATION MATERIALS VICINITY MAP COMPARISON SHEET- AGENCY & OTHER LETTERS CHRONOLOGY OF' EVENTS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough. - 732 .8181 Durham;. - 68S-7331 Mebane -- 227-2031 ChapeL Sill -- 968--4501 PURPOSE- To receive public comment on proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan for 4.34- acres of a 5.81 acre tract located on the south side of Old. L.C. 10 (SR 1710) about one-half mile from its intersection, with New N.C.. 86.. NEED: Chandler Concrete has requested a secondary amendment to the Land use Plan for a recently merged portion of Lot 032, Tax Sap #45, located in Hillsborough Township and containing 4.34 acres. IMPACT: The proposed amendment would change the Land Use Plan designation of the property from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node making it compatible for commercial or industrial rezoning. I RECOMMENDATION: The planning staff recommends denial of the request. 122 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNEVG DEPART31:ENT EILLSBOROrGE NORM CA,Rormiti 27278• wool Er• e sago'` REFERENCE: LUP-2-85 APPLICANT: CHANDLER CONCRETE TYPE OF REQUEST: SECONDARY AGENT: T. E. CHANDLER SPECIFIC REQUEST: TEN YEAR TRANSITION/ STAFF ASSIGNMENT: GENE BELL COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION NODE PUBLIC SEARING .DATE: MAY 28, 1985 *************** 2TRIFICATION OF A.1:TUCAT/ON AS COMPLETZ The applicant has submitted the required application materials which include: a. application forms - completed b. fully dimensioned tax map with parcel to be redesignated highlighted c. letter of request - narrative riggaziousma_p_agall The property is located on the south side of old N.C. 10 (SR 1710 about one- half mile from its intersection with new N.C. 86. It is referenced as tax Map 45 Lot 32 Hillsborough Township. The tract to be redesignated contains 4.34 acres. It was merged with the existing Chandler Parcel (1.47 acres) on October 3 , 1984. Total parcel acreage is now 3.81 acres. 11:3SUr.$ This application raises the following land use issues for consideration: 1. Appropriateness of area for industrial uses and implications of rezoning. 2. The relationship between the application and the overall Land Use Plan and policies for the County. 3 . The relationship of this request to the Town of Hillsborough' s annexation plans and the willingness of the Town of Hillsborough to annex the site 4. Impacts of the use on SR 1710 . RECOMMENDATION the Planning staff recommends denial of the request. . - - . • ---. dlawN\ -•,.•; I -.4 . i: -.• . "'Illadi....".re4,." . 1 1.iirs0010.7digb_aillitlig ' 1 1 A 1 . , APPLICANT: Chandler Concrete Co. 1 •• ..-;‘, -Oh, REQUEST: Secondary Land Use P 1 an 0017000, r , .• -178L,.., . ......,„ Amendment ' IV. ---AA- '44/0"' --,,,7,'„v•-VT.%I' , • CT i •••••%1 CURRENT DESIGNATION: Rural Res identi a 1 -- -• ,*.a _,. r • *41.1:410,40 --. / ri - 4 '2 -...;*„ REQUESTED DES I GNATI ON: Ten Year Trans i t ion/ l .. 7,5. ",_ 1 111101411;r41PO" . )... -dit, ' • Commercial-I ndustria 1 P'40Mir' -- -....!' • -.:1 , - 4***( I •,,,, Scale: 1" = LOW . Transition Node / 1 'po Na•ga. p .. . ......, .s. 90 f •• 'II I„0.` 4 r• ....., ... 0.0.... / • . . -■ ,,.. es ---,.... cA. V C.,,,.. 6 47 . . -............... -",..,.. ....... I. ___, ......1Alb.,„, cr„..Kr/ '''"".„ ; ... . \ 1 - 'NM.? .- ca ult g.:5 : el ss , . ----r.•• ' -..7... . - '— . .• i ,*9 ' - 3 /770 '41-, cq •1144.1.• .aro .• I ' IN t/'tItiltit,1. • ' . / 1 1 / • i = .... •''o ,,,m .• ii• . . 3.- J4k7.7,,,,, 4,0 ......a: .1 et. .. ./ II 1.-. ' s ° . / N \ / \ 0 .0 1 t [77•.'' I), --- ,- \ 104: ....\ '.•'IP! .. .. ) X " 17 I 19 \ ;• 1. $ \\ ., z.9 . c' .. -W ,."* - S 1! i / \nye.- , .s.\ ..c....s...:„T.5 75 \ I ''. 13.62 AC.fiI ■O-09 . •i.. :;.::::.;, :::............ . -... \ 1 / ti 1 --.)4L3 il Loc.,ATIchl MA.A I • I ,.9„2„..:•v, 1, Q...0) / ''''-'- ',-:-._ - bB'S ;/ t.: t;re: ,40Cinte 1 I 1 ...•:',,/-0.... \k \‘ i,..^."`.. •• ••••....••••-•-• I •yi 90527 I - til i •0 /"..). s' \\ 'oifil.0/(f cs)01C6 .". ' "~-... •C, 1- :-.1 5"x z 5 000 ,//;•:"','", , 1. , • ----.403AC j-- 1::••I5 ---- ---- ''' -' ,I 97AC. ac. , ' 2 • . ----. . •., _ , ,, ..,..,, • \ • 'i ..: A:L?,,- ---.40--C: * ., 19959 '.--- --.„.. \ • 1 i ----........... . _ ----- - • 32 ./:,..•/,,.,,.,/,,.1,,/,,i,7,,,7. .. .„, ;////. - I .. 2-51 AC.CAL-. ..„:•,„ : /J./../..•. . . '.i ; '/1 . . - \0,V,.i///.7 • /.. „00/1 ei• 6..56 1 .....,_„,_,12:711...., - • 1,--• \ ,//,'/./-','"/ //P.."' • ' " ,J c) k . „ SE E.ENG Z; C) / --.... -..,. -91111=■,. ` •- - 1 1 t -- , ,... ...... o.. ...„, ' • "61 ,\ - 74 „t„....._I/ i 1 P...., WORk-- "..* / i • , 1 ..... kAtt --- IwitioN... -... ...., I I I ■. ... , •11.11.` ..‘ -...\ 30 1 1 i I .. \ . 7.07 gi 1 ... iiik-\\. , AC N V'''....'''...........1 1 i I I \ \ I 1 I I ( allik 4;04-AC. I l SEE; (MAP 45A I I I 1 11111116. \ i I • ! 1 •MIN?-- I , ' I i 1 1 I I ..• / Ay 6i0F124 OAKS, , i 1C/OPRI OAKS,il la i; AXP1:31 OAKS,SECS, .59.. • , \\\\\\ , 44a81. / - sec 1, •,, SEC.21 i El, > 1 I Lt'. •4-'19C . • a \\\ (4`,0 2 I 0 -. - 11 W538 2. , 1 I • ' i i I 1 I d 4AC • ,\,_.. . \ \ 4 ,-%■ . A . \ ., \ cc' A% ''.■•• n s /• ..S\ \ •• , ,,„, , ..,, ' ''.N.... ()) I \‘'''•'••••...4. : \ \ • . 1 • 4AT' 117 AC. -,-- . 1 / ..,. :g 5,..,-E lt 5 4 I [ - , , ....,. -- (.14)1,195 s.i. •.. .326i ,.... 2 AC. -- /..;••^ N737:6.7.;■::: (dOPPA OAKS, . t ' 1 AC_-__1 SEC.3) . SEE i : W.AP crce "ler 7"117 7 -roc- T - i • 4 (1;\ I fQ ir ! / •' . .. • . . - - - - ORANGE COUNTY-PLA.11NNEVG DIIP 124 . BILZSBOROVGXE 70ECCEL CA.ROLIZT.A. 272.713- voskit • /11011111.■ 4. • ok• 400 • • LAW USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPL1.CAT1ON All persons requesting- an amendment to the Land Use Plan. of Orange County are required to complete the folloWing; application as completely as possible:. - • • OFFICE USE ONLY REQUEST• —?S DATE RECEIVED: 44- — STAFFPERS ON(S) RESPONSIDLEr-G-6-1/6* • GENERAL DATA:. • Chandler Concrete Co . ,- Inc. Property. diner(s) Name: - Mailing Address: • P ; 0. ()rawer 1239, Burlington , N. C. 27216 * Burl - Phone; 919(Home) 726-1181 ('work) 4..P•oro..91q-732-6121 • Agent(s) Name: Thomas E. Chandler, President Ma T.Ting Address: P . 0. Drawer L239, Burlington , N. C . 27.216 Phone: 919 226-1181 • • • . SPECIFIC DATA - • Tax Reference: Township Hillsborough rax Map 4.5 Block Lot 32 Public/Private Road Name: State Rd- 4 1710 Lot Size: Acreage 4. 34 Square Footage Lot Frontage 975 . 30 ft . Lot Depth 269 . 03 ft. • • • • • . . _ 12 SPECI Fl C OATA (continued.) : current Plan Category Designation(s) ' General Rural Residential Activity Node Watershed Joint Planning Area Describe Land. Uses In the General Area: Rparly Mixpd Cnne,rtzto hrprAtinn Trailer park, Convenience Store, Mtni Whse. - On Adjacent Parcels of Land: Ready Mixed Concrete Plant Hwy # 1710, Southern Railroad and a manufactered home.. • - REQUEST,: Land'Use Plan Category Designation(s) Requested: Commercial Industrial Type of Amendment: Primary Secondary "3 ' * * * * * * * * * * * This application should be submi tted. with the following' materials: Fully dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel , Or portion thereof, in question. - • Legal description- of the parcel, or portion therof. . Letter of request to include: o the•tax reference, general location and owner of the parcel a tbarcurrent and requested, land use plan category designation(s) o a: narrative stating the manner in. which the proposed amendment- - wilt carry-out" the intent and purpose of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof • o a statement of any other circumstances, factors and reasons • which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment o statement of the changed or changing conditions in the area, or in. the County generally,. which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary. I fig,*; the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this application. are true to the best of -my ivreri knowledge and that the app) ication as submitted is complete. - • Al?La. -44rAf -e.. ' e. . • . NAME OF APPLICANT(S) SIGNATURE. OFT APP L I CANT DATE . _ CHANDLER CONCRETE CO., MC. 1 )6 READY MIXED CONCRETE �r Parr Domes DRAWER 1220 9URLINOTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (9190 226.1181 • April 16, 1985 • Grange County Planming Department Hillsborough , North Carolina Re: Hillsborough Township Map # 45, Lot 32 Dear Sir: Our company is the owner of the above referenced property. It is located on state road 1710 and bounded by our plant on the west , state road 1710 on the north, Southern railway- to the south and a manufactured home to the east. The current use of the land is rural residential and we request it be changed to commercial/industrial transition node. We have recently graded this property and would like to use it to park our vehicles and for any water run off from our property. We received a grading permit from the county' and have bordered the prop- erty on the east with trees . The grading of this property also allows better visability for our trucks entering highway 1710 and elimated some risk for accidents . We have owned the adjoining property since 1972 and we were able to purchase this property in 1984 after the estate of J . B . Rhine was settled. Our request is based on the procedure for amending the Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of Orange County Commissioners , 11/1/82 under the category of secondary amendments item "B " which reads , "extension of� any plan area where the additional area is contiguous with the existing area and does not increase the existing area by more than 100 acres . The land adjoining our property has been designated commercial /industrial and is currently being used for this purpose. Our company therefore requests approval of our plan to change the designation of our re- cently acquired property. Very truly yours , CHANDLER CONCRETE CO . , INC . T. E. Chandler TEC : nd President ass rausl 12 7 •C=anted SCAT- WARa/1N1Y n�G.Form WB401 _ Printed and far sale b+ user Wiliama C Co..Ina Yadkia n le.N.C. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, _----. WWI County. THIS .19 .by add be+rsa.J ' T. F9EELAND S shale) and JAMES LANDON•FREELAND (single) of Orange .Cotner and st,n of Nsdt rmwsd.beds. elkd Gwoter.and_L$ANDL ER CONCRETE COMPANY. INC. of. ,County and State of North C+elios.heemafter al'.vitasie...fle-penman marling address es P. 0. Ora rev lZ39a 9urlineton+.,North earaigni..2Z21S WlTNEsSETH:That the Greece.for eo and n nsdetam,of that sum of -Y Dallas nd odor goad and valuable entuederations to hie in head paid be the Grantee.the receipt whereof is hereby a ledge d.has Bneo.grated.hulloed.sold and eon•eyed.sod by don presence doe,pre.gnus.bops.tea.aunty and cow=unto the Gr+oree.his ears andla weeesora and awns.Mimes is F'tfO Towedip ORAf1`iFy� Coumy.North Carolina.dtsotnbed as fWlthed 9:73.$7 Sstc 4 4. S`.•7s.: may e /$73-407-.3444 Consisting of 4.34 acres as shown on the plat entitled "Property Surveyed for-Chandler Concrete Counts ', dated September 19, 1984, by Steve P. Tubas:, 8egiateeed Land Surveyor (a portion of which survey is attached as Exhibit A) lying on the. Southwest side of North Carolina Secondary-geed No. 1710 (known-as .. - old N. C. 10) and described particularly as follows: SSOZONING at a control iron net in the Northwestern property Line of Lac 9 of BERC8W0OD BEND at the Soachaascern right-of-way line of North Caroline Secondary Road No. 1710 and running thence South 54 degrees 41 minutes 03 seconds West 222.13 feet to a point in the center line of the right-of-way of Southern Railroad; chance North 28 degrees 09 ninnces 55 seconds West 275.02. feet.to a point; thence•in a Northveecwardly direction 483.27 feet along the arc of a circle with a radius of 1,845 feet (the chord of the said circle running North 35 degrees 40 minutes 09 seconds West 481.89 feet) to anoint. in the Eastern line of property now belonging to Chandler Concrete Company, and running thence North 09 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds Ease 311.34 feet to an iron Ls the-center Line of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710; running thence with the center line of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710 South 35 degrees 18 minutes 57 seconds East 975.3 feet to an iron sec is the center Tine- of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710; thence South 54 degrees 41 minutes 03 seconds West 30 feet toe control iron, the paint and place of the SEGINNINC. This property is co become a part of the property Located on the Westernmost line which presently belongs to Chandler Conerets Company, Inc. There is•no subdivision intended by the conveyance of this lot." The about land we conveyed to Grantor by. .See Book TO HAYS AND TO HOLD The above described premises.antis all the appurtenances thereonto belongiay.or in any were app.ttaaunb.unto die Grantee.his .eirt sailor nouns=and assign*forever. And the Grantor en enaoes the he is mond of aid monism in fee.and has the rghr to comm.the awe in fee dmple that teid monism are free front en. nobs-owes(..;dt the excepnoee abo..tweed,if amyl;and that he will warrant and defend the wad tide to the same soma the'Willi vans ai aB persons When reference is made to the Cramer or Grantee,the singular shall include the olunl and the maceline shall occlude the iorenane or the neuter. Jt{ y s O q yraotar hereunto ter he hand and seal.the day and year-jute aiw.e ern •. -� • • (YVj� .L . .�4t.t�J ORALi i' \ .�ri �!^, i!r' ' :yes iSEALI ;SPA.(.) — -- •TATS Of NORTH CAROLINA as - •--- COUNTY. ------ — Col u>6vyrt r clan 4 .a Notary Public of said County.do hereby a- _w; an atat ..P - :ranter.personally appeared berate me this day and acerowledeed the execution of the romping deed. �: • Wheat my hand;red noon al seal.tph eta, h 1 day of =. _ - >e I ter' Cowwistion Expires: )„,the. - '1 _ TATS OF NORTH CAROLINA�. • ._. -couNTY. l Meaty Public of road Cooney,do hereby certify Q. JAMES LafNDON FREELIND (single) 5o :rancor.personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the mention of the *nom;deed. NOTAR' inane my hand and mensal real.Viin the. .�CM. day of -- - .1 — j .ty Cammtsaoo Eapa�.. )•�oJs"•'�+ • ' =4i+P" ) •TATS OF NORTH CAROLINA. rte NW. --- CLrir v — The foregoing cattficatdst of_ s(an)certified to be correct.This iaeromenc we presented for regbaranon that day of .19.x. t. A.N..P.N..and duly recorded an the ofleo ache Register of Deeds of .Conte, coeds Ceahbn..in Book Page.... Air day of - A.0..19—.. n y ' .fi 11_ •1..Ate.... Repstsr+f Deeds -a o Deeds • This Dead de,.m by '- f !A 1's ' N _ f s y 8. • 12E. T o 1 MANSTIVII • NOM: • ad;doe.. Located on• Lead S'iooe. So s''.. ..:._czszr Viand Slope. Located on act wt A as overall slope- or =paw-aptly przbl. '.aid 4tzh slopes of Lass ace of less than 1.5a t«az would. '.r.-reasonaaly La- tbazn L5r. grade_ a e.. =ease tte cases or tatead as . stater anct. sewer Lames. S.Td-^tipsy. Located cuz- 3roia:ea. Located. out.- ' sue or 1.00-year flood de or i.00...year flood. =vd -any. vented outztda ;vane areas as tdeati.r.ed. :ne areas as identified or .600-year ;"t..aad ?rose by ate Cor;s or ?Rgi-;serf. the Cares at F-g'-sera. arema as-LdrM rind• by tta Camas: at Zara:sera. Flora and Fauna. Locate vies and Fauna. L.ocered away franc =ear that would, ay frizz, ata.s that mod,. ?Tara wad Fauna- Located t developed, create a. developed, C.-'Sate• a assay et:. sates tha.c would, threat to unique ar oes►t=taw rem: ea unique ar endan- :.r developed, =eat? a. seabed species a - amaltled reed sceeles as identatlat _teat: to uatq ra ar mss- - t7t the- state ar :edema the staza or federal danaana. species as Ldenzt- &oversaw:az. . ver-.sent. ed b:'' ttr.- state or +ederal. gover=ent. Soil Condittons,. Located t?. Condit_ar.5. Located In areas w ere g+ raL soal . areas wne s aeneral soil Soil. CordL-tens; Located cond'itians are suitable for ad_.tions Ira su;:able• ftr in areas s #ter• general soil. u_rtaa: uses• becauze of good .-mite sewas a disposal ! • cand:.tto=a are suitable for cage,charza•=r'lsz'..ca stems. u.-tan. uses because at good and load bear''.. aapa.C.ry dra aage- c arazze_r.a•+ tics for sate develop:sest. .bl_o Sery aes/rnbtltties. and Load bearitng casac itt far' car,9a am a.-was that wall rata: d3velonate.^t_ . ?tail& Services/Uttlities. t ream a u."-ttaa-47na iacazea La areas walc: are acres. . ?ublic��Ser ees/ ailattes ory czuLd be r:azana{b�,ly.mad ..-..._.• • -_ . .. Located in aras +males a'ra effectively served b aLaa- i or caul.be r:sscrsab.la and aLxed public sea-rtces 2nct • •±'�"ee etiy se_ 7ed ay test- utilities. • =la:ea public services .. _. . . _-. • .*__. . and ut'..L:.t.tes. r . I . spar-atio3 Svstast. lo Tr S^�sta.». Loci ed . . .+-..rssaerta:as:s 3/stem. acdes •la.].uawioa. La areas. Chas nave .ems Good , on one Lazz_"sac.iaa of a'"':e_"i • ro adCa. eLsine s a s �wele 8 a3 sr ice i and/or collector highways ant .s-"J Use. -7Cat?d. i areal eztan ^ .5 was beyond suc. should. eve the :os4 easo,_a a - 3easz j manures tod uz. tatersec Ions or :rites one .-e Cron as act:7irF code. transportation ..error t in the mila of an Late state antar- . Camara's plaaa4-g ,lur_sdazaton. a ae and wi.thin L000 Cast t ristina Land Use. Locate La raa . 7.:..nes. ;soc;az,ca -atom otter Low • L7�1 Use. t caCLG ia' S =lay ":ral era nv'+i mse$ a e Use. Located within ere :z°o�..t y to developed less tzar: a' 5 nu;a ccaasti.:g less therm �a 1.0 oia�:ze cam- ' . develop=ta ac»:.w_ty sodas. time :rt'n scat -state cocaerc±:t auZang tame e_ota an Urbars uses and a 5-L3 .-'iW.n t:e comauaang area. -_icultu-e ,nd ?o~°s La.. =de f:.a ta„or c ra�.L uses :cad away �o areas :azc or an Urban ��°=- a_ ataa tend *se. tocazad. II, mld, if developed, have a. .,. ` t ^ .� 0 within tdenatraed '.an or :C-."t�.en al 7i aces on prtduc- 5.....nm ..and t+se. Lac...t..d. am Twenty-Tear T••^amsation areas. .a?w r o areas .+n1.a are— .= `t ansiaion sa landi.:.i..+l .std savaged era= rural or lose-derssata uses A..^i culture and Forestry. L to urtan or baser density uses. areas cateo: away tram .. xr..,._ :oulaiton Tensity. :.aca.ad develoaaent would have a. dets areas of r era Tensity; ation Acric hues and ?eraser-r• mental Lapact: on prcducz.'re . ::sit?, generally one dire?.'lag Located away _zzc areas where .-a.cul»u - uses and tai d .it per acre. developmant would have + det+._-. forest 1,:nd- aentaL : pact on _rcduc- ire ' z. icu:.tur7ai. uses ar.d. managed ?onulartor. Density. Located 4 crest: land. i =aerate :.i i.a. air� reeves racte._.,e to .._g, oau__c:.an Qe..si population dersiales. • ? , r.acated .n areas watt =aerate to high population de.^.s_ttes. ' . - ?'±sweat and Cultural . Located. away :roc areas where deve l oonent . would :ace a detr .^.cal j ada on state or ferias't9 acic:owl•�3ed h ism r to-cu.L' u al st.tee or Coup-r identified Publaa _..;eavest Areas. , - - 126 1 Coot os OF EVENTS* CHANDLER CONCRETE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT (LUP-2-85) 10-3-85 Chandler Concrete merged undeveloped 4.34 acre tract to 1.47 acre tract containing their concrete plant. 1-7-85 Orange County Health. Department and N.C. Division of Environmental. Management (DEM) officials visited Chandler's new tract in response to citizen complaint about wastewater runoff. 1-10-85 Mr. I. C. Tuttle. of Chandler Concrete advised, by letter from DEM that they (Chandler) were illegally discharging wastewater and that a permit was required. DEM requested written plans by 2-1-85 for management of wastewater either by recycling on-site or treating and. discharging.. 1-17-85 Application forms sent to Chandler by DEM for discharge and on-site management of wastewater.. 1-30-85 Chandler responded to DEM and indicated intent to comply with DEM requirements. 2-8-85 MTC site plan submitted to Orange • County Plahning Department.. 2-13-85 Chandler received permit from Orange County Sedimentation & Erosion Control Division to clear and grade new site. In conjunction with clearing and grading site 2 retention ponds were constructed. Chandler' s plans were to recycle water from lower pond back through concrete plant by use of pumps. This was an option suggested by DEM but Chandler did not obtain required state permits. 2-14-85 MTC site plan approval issued by the Planning Department in conjunction with grading and clearing activities permitted by Sedimentation and Erosion Control Division. 3-25-85 Citizen complaint received by Orange County Planning Department concerning Chandler's use of new tract for washing and parking concrete trucks. • * This reflects main events and does not include all correspondence/phone calls re opponents and Chandler and - Sealth Department etc. 2 4-9-85 Chandler officials met with Planning Department and were advised that their use of the new tract was non-conforming since the use was an extension of their existing 1-3 operation and the new site was zoned R-l. Washing and parking trucks and run-off retention were both non-conforming uses. They were • advised to apply for Land Use Plan amendment and, if successful,, rezoning. They were warned against further use of property until it was brought into compliance with zoning ordinance. 4-17-85 Application for amendment of Land Use Plan received from Chandler. 5-8-85 Chandler Concrete notified by attorney for Dr. Sally Feather and Ms. Betsy Rhine of pending legal action if non-conforming uses not terminated. 5-16-85 Complaint filed with Orange County Planning Department by attorney for Dr. Sall y Feather and Ms. Betsy Rhine 5-47-85 Chandler barricaded new driveway connecting site to Old NC 10 and ceased non-conforming use of property 5-20-85 Planning Department met with DEM to discuss project history, options, enforcement action etc. and conduct site- visit. 5-20-85 Chandler formally notified by Orange County Planning Department that all non-conforming uses of 4.34 acre tract must cease immediately until such time as properly zoned. • II - • • -:-- •--- • : -• . tj amommilLeU Ej 131 • . 5*- g- gr • •... -.7. v.Air-. 300 W. Tryon Street r ... 0 -. •.:, • _ . HilistOM141. 14.1 272:78 732-8181 732-9361 ext.305 Chapel lil ine- 967-9251 ',. •.',' HEALTH DEPARTMENT ---4,0Q..,or 968-4501 Mebane One Z27-2032 Durham line 688-7333 688-7331 Carr Mill Mat Suite 225 • 100 N. Greensboro Street • Carrboro.N.C.27510 . 942-4155 ' . . . ferry Robinson, M.P.A. 11E1DRANDUM " ' Oireaor TO Jerry Robinson FROM: Tony Laws. - DATE: May 7, 1985 - . . SUBJECT: Land. Use Plan Amendment Applications (Chandler Concrete) tn an April 26 memo from. Gene Bell to Jerry Robinson, the mention is made that. Chandler Concrete Company has requested a redesignation of ..• I land use for some recently purchased property adjacent to their exist- Lug business. t assume. that they are planning to expand their concrete operation. Sometime ago (maybe 3 months), we received a complaint from a neighbor across the railroad tracks saying that Chandler was washing down their- concrete delivery trucks with some kind of acid and that the runoff was • comming onto their property. I checked out the complaint and found that this was true and that a lot of sediment was being deposited in the ditches and streams in the area as- well. I contacted the Orange County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Depart- ment and the State Department of Natural Resources and Community Devel- opment, Division of Environmental Management. I accompanied Ms. McCaskill and Mr. Adkins of DEM to the plant where the local managers and the Production Manager acknowledged that they were using muriatic acid to wash down the trucks and agreed to present the Division of Environmental Manage-. ment with plans for containing the substance on the property and for proper disposal. To my knowledge that situation has not been corrected. • Before the operation is allowed to expand, I feel that the runoff problem needs to be appropriately addressed. • If I can be of further assistance please let me know. Thank You. TL:va . -c-CA4 Sodist 6w7rAtifil .<TA.; =12••• /).11' elwx.-1 ;:ks PP-1-7 ". 4 t.,tk . 1,z.,....Q .4 lig, A... mi 7Lreal, -7i- ir-vg/"---t.-=-Y‘ /4.1'1`. ' • .. • . aser,,,,,.., , ..„ ch,..,...yr."6.1 . . . • 1 - I • 0 ' Moan; 132 Xituirt of 34111.013nruuritt Affirm Town Clerk Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Agatha Johnson HILLSBOROUGH; NORTH CAROLINA 21273 Commissioner Supt. Water Works Lynwood J. Brown James Pendermaph Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. 40,soroc,-* Allen A. Lloyd L. D. Wagoner • Remus I. Smith Chief of Police Rachel H. Stems I Arnold W. Hamlett */4•• 9 Fire Chief • ptly John Forrest -14411osok.. May. 8, 1945• Gene Bell Planner 1 . Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Gene: The Fillsborough Planning Board considered the information m2 the LATIA Use Plan amendment application submitted by Chandler Concrete Company which you sent at their May 2, 1985 meeting. Their recolumendation to the Orange County Planning Board and Orange County ConnissionerS. ia as follows: the 7illAborough Planning Board. recommends that this application by Chandler Concrete Company for a clIange to Ten. Year Transition and to Commercial-Industrial Transition Node for an additional 4.34 acres on Old. N.C. 10 be turned down due to the following reasons: 1- Pollution of the surrounding waters, i.e expected to continue and increase. 2- This expansion of almost three times the existing use which is 1.47 acres is not appropriate due to the residential housing nearby including a mobile home park across the road as well as a mobile home park.and housing to the east. 3- The narrow road is not appropriate for this expansion. The trucks are now a hazard. Expansion would increase the hazards. 6- There are no sewer lines in the area. The Town has no plans to erpand sewer into the area. If you have any questions about this recommendation, please let me know. S". Ka. Maitbie Z.. '.g Officer • • .... _ _ E E 1-1 s- 8 ssr 1.711 STATE OF NORTH' CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES a MARTIN Greensboro, NC 27429-0278. GOVERNOR Apra 30, 1985 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAmESE.HARRINGTON SECRETARY Mr.. Gene Bell, Planner Orange Coto:Mg- Planning Department FltlIcborough, NC 27278 • Dear Mr.. Bell:: This has reference to your recent letter concerning a tend Use Plan Amendment submitted by ChmmilerConcrete Company on Sa. 1710 in Orange County.. This is to advise that we do not have any comments concerning this application. Sincerely, 74/7 J. W. Watkins DIVIS/ON ENGINEER JWW:tudd cc: Mr. S. R. Jones I An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer . . _ - • 134 To: Orange County Plannin Dept. From ItabertIt. Rhine 106 E. Margaret Lane Mexico.aty Plant. G.M.C. .ICSY , Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 IIIttg. Desch, MI 4112DZ V.S* 1:165 0 5'1-- • May 16, 1985. Re: Rezoning of Land on South Side of old N.C. #10 and East • of Existing Chandler Concrete Co. (4.34 Acres) . Dear Sirs: - In the matter referred above I would. like to make the following comments:. 1. I expect. to retire on 1aw0565 and build and live in Orange County on the land. just east of Lawerence Road and north of- Old N.C. #10 on a. part (Tract 3) of the homestead passed to me by my parents, Dr. 6 Mrs. J. B. Rhine who bought the land in. 1952. The land. I own is very close- to. the 4.34 acres now in question and owned by Chandler Concrete Co. 2. On 5 July 1984,. I listed with Apple Creek Realty, represented by Mr. James Rae. Freeland, Tract . #4 of "Portion of J.B. Rhine Estate" of 19.78 ac, which was sold to James J. Freeland and wife, Maxine H. Freeland .(PIN 9873.46-4833) who later apparently sold the 4,34 acres in question to Chandler Concrete Co. 3. At. the time. I listed the property for sale on 5 July 84, I spe- cifically questioned the zoning and use of the land in the future, - and I was advised that it would have to continue as residential . I accepted the answer and perhaps unwisely did not propose to add. any restrictions or covenants in the selling agreement to insure continued residential use (if such restrictions are legal) . 4. my interest in the future use of Tract 4, especially the part between the railroad and old N.C. #10 was and is based on the following: A. Tract #2 of J. B. Rhine Estate, is directly- across (North . side) N.C. #10, contains a beautiful . lake built by my father and many fine trees. This tract now belongs to my • sister, Dr. Sally Rhine Feather, and I would certainly not want to see her land value or beauty harmed by industrial development. B. Tract #1 of J. B. RhineEstateis also directly across (on north side of) N.C. Po, and contains among other things, the old farm house bought by my parents in 1952 (their home for over 30 years) and many beautiful trees. This tract now belongs to and is the home of (since 1952) my sister, Ms. Betsy E. Rhine. I certainly would not want to see Betsy's 1 135 - 2 - • • home, place, either value or beauty harmed by industrial development. C. As mentioned earlier, I own and plan to retire and build 3,3 Tract on • just east of Lawrence Rd. and on nort* side of N. C. #10. I do not want any increased development other than residential near my retirement home. • 5.. A few other points: A. It appears that Orange County existing zoning has been violated. S. It appears that grading, filling, and removal of trees and bushes has taken place, perhaps in violation of ordances, • • C. Expansion of the concrete operation will mean more heavy • trucks, more. noise, more. pollution, more wear and tear on the secondary roads, more spilled concrete and gravel on the roads (jUst look at intersection of N.C. #86 and old N.C. #10) , reduced value, and reduced positive environmental aspects of living in rural Orange County. Accordingly-, I ask the Planning Department and County Commissioners not to approve any change in the zoning, have the area continue as residential , and fruther at your discression consider,,, ordering that the land be restored to its earlier condition; the last to serve notice to all that Orange County Zoning Regulations are not . to be violated, but are to be respected. Will our Orange County enforce zoning (N.C. Law G.S. 153A-123)? Please let the answer be "yest". Thank you, • Robert E. Rhine. • cc: Ms. Betsy E. Rhine, Route 5 Box 690, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278. 1 ti. F �" — (2.--_____5 ,0--,.. ../1...( 47 ,'_ (2,-,.....,-/j2-1, .'-u."'• =.?• - - .. ._._..__..._ `i --- • _ _-_ _c,.r/Z. r7 t 0, u t.vi' --- ,........1/....,�r--•JJ - 'rr"`rC7 y,+ . T-?..,, __ _ . 4 &L.P.,-..5. C . SIG...-__________..___ - - - _ _ I.i � (-224"4-4,-.11,--.. - 12',.,-,rte __._n '�-s--L'-�-' _-_ - - ____ -... .1.[-:-.-19.... R..."7 i it _ + ( . ._ _ .. . _ r_ -4.t _.:7.---1-- -___-_fire. _,4 -. .A __. _c d :a,. .. �--.._7D._.C_: -/• 9f-7 Gt.c,4•s -�.-. Ai !I I -‘1"-6" / _-s�,. __. 7 "7�7•�•-1 `��.►�./�,� ..1-.- '.�/Y'�" .w,._ _..�+ "T i ''2-" / :..'f`-t li - - - III- --. .--- _.. ._ - _ - _.. . . _ ___ ,. , . - 'i; F�► ate.` off- . . A-ODG-!C.-?"?Jra... - ,�s _ f-ltrA,_-- _, _ _. ..--�—y�7 • ill I} • I:- :- iii Il • ;;. ,° T . . . 1 137 4: • c$RomTAGY OZ EVENTS*, rl. ; alb y1: • a K . 011 II 't 2' _ a . k2F.4 a4► s!" +.; IQ-3.8%14- Chandler Concrete merged undeveloped 4.34 acre tract to 1.47 acre tract containing their concrete plant.. . 1-7-85 Orange. County Health Department and N.C. Division of. Environmental,Management (DEM) officials visited Chandler's new tract is response to citizen complaint about wastewater runoff. 1-10-85 Mr. S. C. Tuttle of Chandler Concrete advised by letter from DEM that they CChandler) were illegally discharging wastewater and that a permit was requited.. DEM requested written plans by 2-1-85 for management of wastewater either by recycling on-site or treating. and discharging. 1-17-85 Application. forms sent to Chandler by DEM for . discharge and on-site management of wastewater. 1-30-85 Chandler responded to DEM and indicated intent to comply with DEM requirements. 4[. . 2-8-85 MTC site plan submitted to. Orange , County Planning Department. . • 2.13.85 Chandler received permit from Orange County Sedimentation & Erosion Control Division to clear and grade new site. In conjunction with clearing and grading site 2 retention ponds were constructed. Chandler' s plans were to recycle water from lower pond back through concrete plant by use of pumps.. This was an option suggested by ' DEM but Chandler did not obtain required state: permits. . 2-14-85 MTC site plan approval issued by the Planning Department in conjunction with grading and clearing activities permitted by . Sedimentation . and Erosion Control Division. . 3-25-85 Citizen complaint received by Orange County Planning Department concerning Chandler' s use of new tract for washing and parking concrete trucks. * This reflects main events and does not include all correspondence/phone calls re opponents and Chandler and Health Department etc. . • 2 13t • 4-3-85 Chandler officials met with Planning Department and were advised that their use of the new tract was non-conforming since the use was as extension of their existing E-3 operation and the new site was toned R-1. Washing and parking trucks and run-off retention. were both non-conforming uses. They were advised to apply for Land Use Plan amendment and, if successful, rezoning. They were warned against - further use of property until it was brought into - compliance with zoning ordinance. -17-85 Application for amendment of Land Use Plan received fromc Chandler. 5-8-85 Chandler Concrete notified by attorney for Dr.. Sally Feather and Ms. Betsy Rhine of pending legal action. if non-conforming uses not terminated. 5-16-85 Complaint filed with Orange County Planning Department by attorney for Dr. Sally Feather and Ns. Betsy Rhine. 5�-17-85 Chandler barricaded new driveway connecting site to Old NC 10 and ceased non-conforming use of property -- 5-20--85 Planning Department met with DEM to discuss project history, options, enforcement action etc. and conduct site visit. 5-20-85 Chandler formally notified by Orange County Planning Department that all non-conforming uses of 4.34 acre tract must cease immediately until such time as properly zoned. I - . .- .. . .. .. - '..• . . . . - • - - c.— .. .:, .1.3.i . . • • - • --7-- i:: . - .. . . .. . . • • ::: , 6,-, eT-,- . -. i:. i.; r III i [1 .. .......Y.-17,9-A-0,4,.........43,..- .1A... .....--.11.. -A-a,z 174, .. .„,.. - 11. _ ._ .. . ._..._._._... _ _ _ .. _C2.7). bo-c...0........ ._. ..P4 ....._ Ce -0bet 0-70- e -"-_ --1c-.1*- ._.-rea ...0.'7_'..:-A .- 1 . - 0"...."' t ....e.,4_....04Z—A..... . .- 1 -- —- - . I_ ___C6.)._ ......0-..--. --.. 6...-afwg.Y.7 cy!7._ .°_.P.i.:":,-..:<...^. ..-4,....",.. y.t`,... 14. / /o.-... ... ...... I 1, cc---) ..04^."'" %LCe-StP°r`--E-. . -1.., -9..1/4.--. _,...._...„1........„.4,-....e.L.6,....p.„1'eZ:so, . _ . . ____ _. . ...2.1,:.„.._-.v.-___..s . __..__..-1-,,._______±.4.F....„..... ___4.1,F., • 4D---,-?-- '-\eese',7".- ":L.:-. . 1.4...40-ev .:,-Y'Ld* ' 1 ... _ . 1 er"-e"-.0--e- ../7 _ ok,.....„-eli . ____±.44'.......1--. --1—"AG.R.* -*C, 744.. 0 I , - --— A . ".-r. it/0 -e: ?9' Z 01--1-lif-11 ""/"-e-P---1- rz,Zte___,„zj., - ,11 ill a . _ _ . ____ ___ ________._ .. . . .... . .. _ _ • - . __._ , r - --e--zpeN7-,L.._ ...._710______.1L--e7„, J......,....,„/, 771. el--- , , 1. _ 0-,,,y-0.;,' 7__ _0.v.-: _ _o v.4....wf--,r,--9 'r 4-1-1-.I.-(/i/It si---i--,-...... — - . Irt a..,.....„0/..- ,K:-.. fv—,tax-it.y. . , II .. .. . .. II . ill . Ir. ., i - . , „,•,....• , ...s...2„, 1;I i: 1) ..A, ".... .,,..24-^ . •:"4"'" .-. ita;:/-)-4-4,•-1 s2C-1--1*#-- :"."-y,..-2,:,/ " .,r,) li „..... 3 ...4.-1 !!,...2 •:..-...-9.--- 0.47'..2.0•`-14- 1.- ' 11: I I i I i• •,. :.. . 1 _... • ,1 .._ ..114 e - -.,-- . . 1' Il . . , . . ( i7 ,4/7ZA -.-- , ............ ..7.51-,...÷--r..-, 2 . r.h. 4 +43-**- ..,\-1 P v.0'1.-- II I +9,--r...--- / '-'.'- ).1-74-.4.42 0,-.0. !i! ill arl5 /2,...V.tg—fdl P—a--1 (.1i.-lc:41r?ir-e—. —2ixr c.2./P+_. • QA-E-1.,_y Cess-st. - ----- Ill ----- -- — "--- .. -----.--,—....... __ ... _ill__ V,"%d•-$01.A.I.*--lo _.CA"""""4"Pti" . . 1 _ ____. t . ......._e_."7.4034-4t...., T.Nier e.)"'v. _ 0-*0"..• ____ .a.*-7...'"/..--"kr`r;(1-," _._e_!:r..2_c"___!!..17._). .....77*-- __._ _ il t. , _____... . 11, . _ . . sl ek.....2 .0-4‘ • t,i.r.,,r... t-e.---,,,,0---- _ . ,.:r. 1,,,- .......71/4„. .:; II! __ r______ I __________1______I"J___)2'/_'1'..t-_ __-_'''.3.2t2fizAr__ d -6,_ ttf:•__ Zo „).t..,.,....? c,,,,,,le-t, ,,,,c,,, c ...-- y r 1 ii_./0_ _ i f,b4-1 ' . " - • . • 1., • _ . .... _ ._ .. .. .,; 1.1 11- . 0,-2,...,4_ . 1.,,-.14•4:-.2.. c,,r5t_ t.Ty-_..c4r,4,_.1_ ..! . , 1,:l . . _ ../;,..,1 .2irly.4..c.1-.-e6L S2• -tr4-7/ tAy 1;1 . i 1 1I. C4L.041--c:4) .``Ic2-ci Pil4j14-"C - C,At\/".".4 G''''-bi 11! 111 _ . _ ..... 1 i I. _ .. i.L..1r,-;"iefe.- 0••••:":e...._ _ , 1,3 ULA"" CP•JO ., /47-Pi-A!?IVO U-14/eN . C.A..04.-9 ...t.e.....1.,,..4.! c.,.....-",...-2 , . -- • _ _ _ ll'isst/velf-k- s L„.--....-3,..,....ik...-5 re-,y)..,,f-L-2.:. ......A..,.. pa,-,4-e....--ge..-; i .7 , . i i:;■7'4...11Z7"?' 'FY:C):71... 4:'''7) ird o......, ey-,...7-17',•./t/ ,,_. ...i•Ant,:...rt +LA.:p.-1 ... t . .. 1 1 , VI Cii /"f` C7-0,„" 1"... ' ...-1-1-•-•.3— , .... 4-04..„,r C—r -Q.....:A. .:,‘„,,..........Z.,...„./ L-tp,.... ::c co +if 1.1. ,... .., r..........--,6•?...0.ii.44C- :-/-42 '1/4J 71'''' ' .'fv%4*-1'''''' -&—/-71-r1-74-''' -- ' . . • t - , . . •: • _ . . - - • 1 - 14:i 1 J • -- � C....+. y. a,- Cp .,-` ,4,, ' . ? ., ,. 't.:,„ c , - 2 /- 11-- _____ ---E}`. -- • an Cit;.-...Y'0Q-c4 -Erb. -1. -•4_...? . 0-1°x- tJ�4.1. -- r–"__`�^,-- - - -— --- ' _.._.__..-- -ll"r't-�-?. .-.. `_�/' _. ..!_ • r ~l-�' . . . .,...__ .5� 0 fir-61` -c,ue•_ _ i< i t-. -- - __CvW- ►,/ . _ .Iifi -- _ - --___. _._-_. --- -. . - Ili .5:-LP yttras/2 ICA...,..-s: 04 1 1/12-d- 0-0--t.e.----1..... I.-n:1._ ___ 11 ... r.°--r-, • -- -- ._ ‘e O-eA Svc-Le- -,- / C _ -r d`r""°..,,.. ... - _ t= 1 ;', _ 1 ! ). V-Pe,---t. . ILA zia--',j 1 r -C.-1. ."'''d ;",!.: --- '-.-.. b'-`- . .A o , .0.—'"'-4.... . cy r -.- E; e 'Or.— �r�..�r-c-2- o,- jot,.. . �!. -- -� v��..2-2 -i-D CL.'b,L,„� iil 0.r �� �.-= a.-.,, ' ea ' i r. J 1 - - • n T, ,., . I _.„ . • • .. Ito 5-- • • - • 1 . . • . • : i ---r„z. t P ' ..........v.„.....,-P, _ 20 c,,,...1-1.4.,.....P : ..,..-...y- ,40.......,, . ...... f% ......„ ... i 0 re.....:.4-K. _ - • :.- lb A-11./r 1 TV.)r-f E.: e....?" ,4%.--, fax.,---......if,./ -1-A.:6 .1'4:--tr-, .,....____„...4_, • _ L • ±0 4)-‘.--:,•41. f,..o p--e0---4t-A,-.1 .i._,,vi---1....?(-1.-c-ii ' ., _____:. i .... .........._ i . .... . • -• ---- ----- I 0 r....e-g..... — "'".% I •41---. C4,-- -d "tea.-../- +*k.- +-c..,.74— i 41?.... .._57,:e-e-.4......0-4-•.....___ L. - f--% __ -- cr.r?s- ., L itio.)., e"'t 0 ,..........---d. c.......-4-1.- .....7 . i . . 47 (...,,,-"' L'...i .i ,- Av- CD Pe! Pil ...-4t C/1 i:".r....--'• Cr.'"eAg ., L___A7 -c,_.--3-4 _ .. 7.-- . so,..-4-..._ ..0,.. .. . ..714-v- 1,.. -I P YG71.411..._. . 17P-.4--t3s en. A),"? . , I 6 — .6. e/ 0-4-IP • lil 1 ...., t. .. . --... . 1 f ,j....:.t.j ..._ . 11 • '414,\I.,d2 Y-2-i.r■-/- erv-et.,,,-,4,',- ..v.-'ce-,....--1. li : ..., ,...ito , • . - - - - 111.1"... • pl .,y_ , C.A..A..)%rrei-JAZ r- _;-, .„. 1 . . .. .__. ..... .. . _ _ p! .- .:: . _ Itl - !II . ;,.. li• 1: I,. !I. :!! 1:! i.: .:: . . 1.1 _ . 111 . '. .. . i,- ;.: •• }' •.. ... V• ll 14 I III - - ,`• : '�I"�f�c�l� /'-?'141 - - - - • - - --- - HI . u,,,- . rS. -. '-. ??�_.._.... - ' ___I! C kr0-e. * --,..... pia-p4,4\/ - ' --,.. . - -- _ �' � .*12.7 - . - - fa..,.,, _..�C .tie/---z..A /__ . 4, _- " - '.. I�� A . ill.____ it:4__..,_!" ,..'k..,._ _•24....vr4.•• _i---- __4,.06.1,..- ____ ,Pia. ... -74...).-- -°- ..._. ". !_' �9._ ILI -So, U•-2.iie~e‘ tiez..L.L.s. r.t.,r, , ipi- . _ -"' ._ _ La c,.. 'r-r,A,-._ . i' °_-�'_t,.c,..-____- !"./%-^fiy,._ ..l�.r d^eme ✓ 1, I� - (T ir i'' _- -_- - 11l`- -U - - ----_ — -i•�i-.•.L''.1.+-.... -r- _ L""p✓/ .—. 4 / t^k; . iIll / y '/.�-u--,1�_C+�`- -- --*^. .. f _. i '� . .©L'_ _.C)/ /..•T?"/La.,. _ i4 - . ii.!j S vii✓n v_.- .- f'r` (1,z ✓ -jk q•-• •^-4)--! O ,"'r-``7 �' - - -- _ iiir4—°-a-u-A., V,--D, - ..—^J. V, C . ! 1G+-11-- �C._ /02-'---7971.. 4, __ r i / , I:: " V �;r • 14 4 - 1131E C,E RUE 12 2,9- Lti,11 Orange County Commissioners c/o Planning Department Billsborough, N.C. Dear Sirs: I an against letting Chandler Concrete Company expand along old 2t. 10. I have had repeated trouble with their trucks which, when turning from at. 10 onto N.C. 36, have come onto my property again and again, making a deep trench in my driveway and obstructing my mailbox. When I spoke to Dlr. Chandler about it he said nothing could be done. In desperation we then put bricks and boards with nails in likcdriveway. After that the trucks didn't cane • onto my land again until some time later when someone / didn't see took the bricks and boards away. With more trucks my problem with Chandler Concrete would get worse. Please co not let this happen. Sincerely, ri2( Ada Nichols . . • IDECEIMEAM IblEna I am the owner of the land directly across Highway 10 from the 4.54 acres in question. My parents, Dr. and Mrs. J. 3. Rhine, bought all of this land as part of a larger tract back in 1952, as a sanctuary where the air was clean and there was some peace and quiet from the traffic and noise of nearby Durham. It was painful for them to endure the noise and air pollution which. Chandler Cement Company brought into this area during their later years, but they were too old and feeble to battle this industrial intrusion so near to their residence. Now, ue three Rhine children who own the land feel that it is time to stop the further expansion of Chandler Cement Company in our own backyard. As the owner of 40 wooded acres and a sizeable fishing lake within a stone's throw of Chandler's new land, I am particularly sickened by the expansion of this loud and ugly neighbor. I am scared by the operating tactics they have already displayed, by the surreptitious manner in which the land was begun to be used for industrial purposes while it was clearly zoned residential. I am worried about how their water use and waste dis- posal might be affecting our grougd water and I am very glad that my two grandchildren live several miles away from that ominous pit with, the sickly green liquid which even as I. write this is sitting right out on this land with no protectibe barrier. When I acquired my land last summer I immediately had it registered as a N.C. Wildlife Refuge and placed it in a forest management program with the U.S. Forest Service. Both of these efforts were to help protect and preserve the land to keep it an attractive location for the home that I plan to build back in the woods overlooking the lake, as well as for possible 14€ other home sites that I might wish to develop. If Chandler is allowed this expansion, it would be a personal disaster for me, and I think would ruin this land for any high-quality residential use. But in addition to my personal concerns, I think there is a larger issue involved. If the existing land-use plan can be so easily disregarded, I think it is a. clearcut negative message being given to present and prospective tax-paying residents of Orange County. While I know that we need to plan for expanded industrial development in Orange County parti- cularly as Highway 40 enters our county, is this the way we want it to come--haphazardly by the backdoor? If so, then Eno Township and Orange County will not be safe for any of us. In fact, speaking of safety, if any of you have recently driven down the narrow corridor between this land in question and my lake and narrowly missed being hit by one of Chandler's ever-increasing number of big trucks, you will know quite graphically how unsafe it already is. Sally ahina Feather, Ph.D. Joppa Oak Homeowners Assoc.,Inc. 14`t P.O.Box 1054 Hillsborough.S.C.27278 E?E C riyIEE) Orange County Planning Department 104 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 May 14, 1985 Dear Members of the Planning Department, The Joppa Oaks Homeowners' Association wishes to protest the rezoning of Lot 32 on Orange County Tax Map #45 for Hillsborough Township . We feel that rezoning of this property from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition and Commercial -industrial Transition Activity Node is ill -advised for several reasons. Chandler Concrete Company does not have a positive record of concern for the physical environment surrounding. their immediate property. They have demonstrated this disregard for nearby property owners by willfully dumping dangerous chemicals and waste in such a manner as to pollute not only their own property but the property of other citizens of Orange County. Environmental impact studies need to be conducted concerning the damage this company may have already done to residential property in the surrounding area. It is important that these tests be conducted. to measure not only the ground and water pollution problems associated with Chandler Concrete Company, Inc . , but also the possiblility of a very real threat of air pollution and consequent breathing disorders to the inhabitants of the surrounding residential areas because of the constant dust generated from Chandler's - operations. Chandler's operations have increased in scale and activity recently. With these increases have come increases in both noise level and traffic congestion . What is in store for nearby residents when this operation expands even more? Has anyone in the Planning Department been near a large concrete company and seen first hand what happens to the surrounding areas? Perhaps statements from residents of people who live in similar areas need to be taken into consideration? There are many other ways an industry of this sort lowers the general quality of life of the area in which it is located. For example , Chandler has taken wooded property which was zoned Residential and stripped it of all trees. No consideration was given to the people who must look at this scalped and desolute land. A buffer zone of trees would have made the environment at least LOOK more pleasant . For these and other reasons, The Joppa Oaks Homeowner's Association asks that the Orange County Planning Department deny the rezoning request of Chandler Concrete Company, Inc . Sincerely, Lee Ricketts President Joppa Oaks Homeowners' Association, Inc . - • • • •-- - • 146 fit-CL/1/4:0 Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough , NC 27278 May 23, 1985 Dear Members of the Planning Department , As residents and property owners in Joppa Oaks we wish to protest the rezoning of the new Chandler Concrete Company property from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition and Commercial —industrial Transition Activity Node . We think that allowing this rezoning to take place is NOT to the benefit of the surrounding community of residential property owners for the following reasons. We feel that Chandler Concrete Company has clearly shown its lack of regard for the safety and welfare of nearby property owners by carelessly dumping corrosive chemicals and waste products not only on their own property but also on that of others. For example, In order to dispose of acid waste , Chandler recently polluted several lots in Joppa Oaks as well as a stream which runs through our property. One resident's lot was literally submerged in muriatic acid / concrete waste for several months before Chandler took corrective action--and only then because of a complaint to the Orange County Health Deartment and the County Manager's Office . It has also been reported to us that this pollution caused a fish kill where the stream empties into a private lake in Byrdville . Has anyone in the Planning Department Cooked into this matter? Also, we and our neighbors have noticed a good deal of dust coming from Chandler's operations and floating over Joppa Oaks. (This has become all the more noticeable since the roads in Joppa Oaks have been recently paved. ) For these reasons, we feel that the Planning Department should have environmental impact studies conducted concerning this sort of damage by Chandler's latest expansion . Only then do we believe the Department will have the facts upon which to base a rational decision concerning the industrialization of what has traditionially been a residential area in Orange County. In the absence of such studies, the Planning Department would be authorizing a change in the planned development of this area which would almost definitely (given Chandler's lack of environmental awareness) have negative consequences for the surrounding community. . . . . . . 14E. Aside from the maJor complaints already mentioned,. we feel we can look forward in the near future to other inconveniences. Chandler's expanded operations and activities would no longer classify as a light industry. We are not protesting against the expansion of a corner drug store or some other small commercial establishment. The constant roar of the concrete trucks and other heavy machinery wakes us almost every weekday. The general noise level and traffic congestion surrounding Chandler Concrete Company is already anything but residential . What else do we have to look forward to when this operation expands even more? If any member of the Planning Department or one of the County Commissioners was a residential neighbor of Chandler , we doubt that this rezoning would be likely. Specifically, as regards the property Chandler wishes rezoned, we think we have a fair indication of the company's concern for the well -being and property values of this neighborhood. Even before any rezoning had been brought up , the land was stripped of all vegetation and a large pit dug to store environmentally unsafe waste . So this property, which is still zoned residential , has been deliberately used as an industrial waste disposal site . This action seems highly • irregular and perhaps illegal . U9 think the public has a right to know who in the Planning Department allowed such de facto rezoning to occur BEFORE a public hearing could take place If this is standard practice , why have a public hearing at all ? Part of the responsibility of the Planning Department is to PLAN development for all the citizens of Orange County and not Just to cater to a local industry. For these reasons, we would like to ask that the Orange County Planning Department deny the request of Chandler • Concrete Company. Property values will be lowered; hazardous wastes will be generated; and the neighbors will have to endure the inconveniences listed above if Chandler is allowed to expand its operations onto residential land. Since we will be unable to attend the public hearing in person , we would appreciate it if the Planning Department would make copies of this letter available to those who do attend. Sincerely, • • _. . 15( i. . We, the undersigned, strongly oppose any change in the Land Use Plan which. would allow the. industrial expansion of Qandler Concrete Company. As Orans'e County residents and voters we take seriously the safety, health and/comfort of our community. We, ask that our elected officials protect our neighborhood by maintaining the residential zoning of the land next to Chandler Concrete Company. i c , 111 liev 0 • . .. . ...42.1-et r. "te ..., W2g:1-c - . v--ppdc_a?(t( i , 72,1 , . ...„,.. 0 • 1,.1,,,u . L.,..t.k.t: 1_: ,,,a,3__. ...ii, z.,, ......... , q..- (\\\C \ S1 (./ 1••• k.1,(4V-- • :t , 1... / f.,.. ..... f,...e...., ...„,, ,, ). cA R IN --1 - V -•-■ , \ 10"1 i ,,,o*Atjvri"tietr. / QM\ Avolwv/yrr -\., 1 • ? . q„,,,,„A„....._ C9t4,1N.,_ I id, Jr . , 1 , eteelkt, OCAAL V 4 -- A " I._ _ • andirt.Le.„ 01-04._ a--20-upt,. 1.,..•/ is, ...... ............„ /1 4 il l . , / • -.._ . -.... ,...,..0%...... i ',. _r ..,....,..... _ . . ._... _ . . .__ .. • _ 7 • . . 1. . 1.5 i ilrievir*Irit P=ITION ' ****/r/rir* 'ele, the undersigned, strongly oppose any c' nga in the Land Use Plan which would allow the industrial ex:pansion. of handler Concrete Company, As Orange County residents and voters we take seriously the safety, health and comfort of our community. tire ask that our elected officials protect our neigb_borhood by maintaining the residential zoning of the land next to handler Concrete Company. ealt., 74444A-.1.... .. l •••-• / ' - •• - 1 1--...'•I •*; - :-: -•-"-*-'***-; ''..• " 7 . .j ;' ..:•-/ "......s,'''..:.'ri-'-• ' ! r. ) /...,■••••:( , - I...' • . - • I ,,-"' , „,... ......,-.4...-.; - --':.. ...„1-_,-7...,--....- • „.....‹.4.0.-.....:1- ( .(....".• is..••••• - .; / --'2:./...,i'-•-•"•/•;-- --?...:1.4.'-..e."...4-A-4_ :"•••=:„.:16.7t,„, •• '"•-', - _a- /T 7.- 4--/ .;;• : . IV tk.'-------: ,i r j 1 i / • a 'á .."'” .... -, , •• , 4' / ..C‹-• --,.1,/...-1, Ir" •• "'s - .., ..• '".7 -•!".•/- /'.2 :( ' , ., • . ,/:,/ /.; ,/ 'i. ,•• ....., .." . . --,...... ..'....,, .... • :-.- • -!, 7....;....!,,,L1..d./...-..r_J_: • „„>c::::-.4----z--4--t..,:,......!,:-•p%.„...4..(... \I ,•,• 1"-• 3 "--- I,...." **\ 9 3 3 _i%LcsiazzatTi-f. :1\f,Q__. ii -.‘ :-/- 7: 1 •...• /2 / . .. . / r...--, .:'•• : i 1/ 154 ****** PSZITION ****wveleir We, the undersigned, strongly oppose any change in the Land. Use Plan which would allow the industrial expansion of Chandler Concrete Company, As Orange County residents and voters we take seriously the safety, health and comfort of our omrnunity. ',4e ask that our elected officials protect our neighborhood by maintaining the residential zoning of the land next to Chandler Concrete Company. r . 1..4744,..41, "47, Trim We, the undersigned, strongly oppose any change in the Land Use Plan which would allow the industrial expansion of ( idler Concrete Company. As Orange County residents and voters we take seriously the safety, health and comfort of our community. We ask that our elected officials protect our neighborhood by maintaining the residential zoning of the land next to Chandler Concrete Company. Vti.) `711/1L7 471ree,727 .) I 141/4 ///fL 2)r --.7 zfiL," 1L Ili 0 /3r d ›'7 7! j . IL;11;■1 11.1'21(.76 -L771 fiz /• ,e / .7"'" • - J' /24:1441 aiz , 154 ****** r.S712/011. *******Ir We, the undersigned, strongly oppose any change in the Land Use Plan which would allow the industrial expansion of Chandler Concrete Company. As Orange. County residents and voters we take seriously the safety, health and comfort of our community. We as that our elected officials protect our neiahborhood br maintaining the residential zoning of the land next to handler Concrete Company. C,0,dva..." 4utzbelL 4 ./ / g7 g r 11 & cry ' DilineAt Ivit---- 0Z/AL/vree/7"--fiez-vre --- \\C3 CDCI-N, I , A 44 tat. e 71( I 6 0 _ . , .1,..„. ..._. /„...Afr / .. ... . ..._ , • 41,47 4iii.es ./ Ad_i_.. 6ri-;97e.6.14-14 1 5 ****** PET/TION *w****** 4e, the undersigned, strongly oppose any change in the Land Use Plan which would allow the industrial expansion of Chandler Concrete Caspany, AS Orange County residents and voters we take seriously the safety, health and comfort of our community. We ask that our elected officials protect our neighborhood by maintaining the residential zoning of the land next to Chandler Concrete Company. -Mkt,x.4k4s* L.1,1 ate74.44. C, 156 r ****** P=ITION We, the undersigned, strongly oppose any change in the land Use Plan which would allow the industrial expansion of alandler Concrete Cmvany„ As Orange County residents and voters we take seriously the safety, health and comfort of our community,. Wa asM that our elected officials protect our neighborhood by maintaining the residential zoning of the land next to Chandler Concrete Company, le/.../... -4-- .... 1.:eat --c _. ,/ 2 ••• -- . C Zo0,( 9zy .....- , -, -A a• Or '' ' 7ri-4,1 • 71,/11 4-7--cAL - 4-41,4,1 9 / 442 ,.° 00,1.4,14v.424et (1 L • DCSLI/1• ••.0" .„1 -.4.12.76) ; ‘""nft/I . t VI/VI)• 4 , 11 •/144142*/ • ,---) . b t)cA-d-- -firt0 :-?-21?,/,,,,ti 7•Y e'Z' iL cl, si-•19--iit- . . • ' 15i ***** PETITION AAAAA* We, the undersigned, strongly oppose any change in the Land Use Plan which would allow the industrial expansion of Chandler Concrete Company. As Orange County residenta and voters we take seriously the safety, health and comfort of our community. We ask that our elected officials protect our neighborhood by maintaining the residential zoning of the land next to Chandler Concrete. Company, , et,E43 44/ ' ' IV 4 • .../ (Th, a2/1 1 i / / celk„," , , 60.4- ai . & cLA-4 j1144,0.-ci ,0111L)\-41 . /1-. . ,,,,,,. ., ,4-1,0------ A coivva F. Ilgtiva --)14: ,...i',■-•L..-....--- ccilt-tithi, r:Y ' Alagda ),Ifta, Z,\ St A,JI/LIA44; (2710( " Ai:0"c_/31:**.el f112:4-,....A......- 7 - 7 ... .. , 3--( 7...-,-, _(-all— -:..... 1*. 4....t-u 19 C 64.4,■*1 r.".., OPPA k* it ... . Acr2•2.6L 6) giteil'') 1 .012. (°1-4 t0740r ' %Jr ''..1- 1 ,01 ' r 10 A.A ::0,977-414 26)51/2"i't-I C-1---- 6276.4, coF 15 F. H. CRAIG • REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES P. 0. BOX 553 CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 REALTOR.' (919)942-7234 RESIDENTIAL SALES,NEW CONSTRUCTION, INVESTMENTS&APPRAISALS 28 May, 1985 From: P. H. Craig, Appraiser To: Dr. J. B. Rhine heirs Subj: Appraisal damages, as a result of prospective rezoning of cer- tain tract across S. R. 1710 now zoned. Residential, to Commercial Indus y 4iial. Cone: As a result of Industrial use and or rezoning on the identified tract on South side:.of S. R. 1710, the decrease in value of the Residential zoned property of J. B. Rhine heirs will amount to $30,000.00 Notes:. Tract under consideration is" identified as amendment LUP-2-85 Chandler Concrete Co. Inc. ' ith approximately 720 front feet directing facing the 1200 ft of. road frontage belonging to J. B. Rhine heirs.. 1. the particular topography.and lake frontage exposes almost the entire tract to the view of the Chandler addition. 2. the home place itself directly faces the area stripped entirely of all top soil. 3. because of lake little if any effective screening can be made to prospective home sites even across the lake from the Chandler addition. 4. almost the entire area is zoned residential. S. all frontage on S. R. 1710 will be adversely effected by the commercial-industrial-use and or rezoning. 6. The economic impact will decrease the value of the above 46 acre tract by at least $$30,000.00 P . Craig, ppraiser [� • • • • - P. H. CRAIG REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 553 CHAPEL HILL.NORTH CAROLINA 27514 R EA LTQ I (919) 942-7234 RESIDENTIAL SALES.NEW CONSTRUCTION. INVESTMENTS&APPRAISALS January 1984 APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS Graduate of UNC 1959 BS Industrial Relations Graduate work in School of Business Admin:UNC. 1961-63 Graduate work in UNC School of Law 1963-65 Licensed Real Estate Broker since 1962 GRI (Graduate Realtors Institute) UNC 1969 Salesman and Sales Manager Foushee Realty 1965-71 Certified. Real Estate Appraiser, Nat. Assoc Real Estate Appr. 71 GSA (Gov. Serv. Admin) Roster of available appraisers 1971 Appraiser for Dept. of HUD Federal Housing Admin (FHA) 1970 Appraiser, Compliance Inspector Veterans Admin 1971-84 FHLMC approved NCNB 1972 Owner P. H. Craig Real Estate since 1973. Chapel Hill Board of Realtors VP 1979; President 80-81 Director, N. C.. Assoc .of Realtors 1980-82; Community Development Chairman for N. C. 1982 Licensed N. C. General Contractor 011146 . member Durham-Chapel Hill Homebuii.ders Assoc. member RNM= (Realtors National Marketing Institute) qualified Expert'Witness in Real Estate Appraising in Orange Durham and Alamance courts and NC Board of Tax Appeal; Appraised for IRS casualty losses, estates, Realtors, Attorneys Bank Appraisals: NCNB, COB Northwestern, Wachovia, First Union, First Citizens, Builders Federal S&L, Cameron Brown, Stockton White, First - Federal Savings Mebane, Lomas and Nettleton, Gulf State Mtge, Allstate, Great Century, Bankers Life, First Atlantic Appraised for Chapel Hill School Board, Chapel Hill-Town.Council, Orange Co. Commissioners, Orange Co. Tax Supervisor, Shefiff, Town of • Chapel Hill, Town Attorney, Town of Carrboro, Chapel Hill Redevelop- ment Commission, OWAS Authority, UNC Other clients Eli Lilly, General Electric, Western Electric, Home i er Homerica, Record Data, Commercial Credit, Barclay America Wleyerhaeus � FNMA clients: NCNB, Record Data, Beneficial Finance, Northwestern Mtge corp. , Commercial Credit P. H. Craig ialq/e441 • • I - ORANGE COUNTY • - .231 - = • . • .BOARD.OF COMMISSIONERS - . ACTION A EUDA .• • . • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT • ITEM HO._ �J • MEETING DATE September 30. 1985 • -SUBJECT: GASOLINE TAX INCREASE „-- • • DEPARTMENT: Board of, County Commissio er 'U3LIC HEARING: . YES X ' HO • • ATTACHMENT(S): Reso�utiQn' INFORMATION CONTACT': Beverly A. Blythe - - • ' ' . .. ' PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH -- 732-8181 - • • • . : HILLSBOROUGH •- 732-9361 . • • CHAPEL HILL. - 967-9851 • • MANE -- 227-2031 ' VURHAM -- 688-7331 • • • PURPOSE: To adopt the attached. Resolution recommending 'that •the gasoline - : tax be increased by five dents per gallon. . • • • • - NEED: A five cent• increase in the gasoline tax is needed -to generate • NEED: • revenues necessary' for the• cdnst'ruc•tion and maintenance of. highways. in order''to' prevent pressure on'County governments to . • . provide- funds from °other 'sources for 'hi'ghway needs. - IMPACT: Adoption of this Resolution would put the Orange- County •Board . - • of Commissioners on record as _favoring a five cents increase • - in the gasoline tax. .• - RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides. . • - - • • . . rte ! • • ■COUNTY OF WAKE MALEtG ,. NGtC 71.1 CI'SFiOLINA . : . • September 10, 1985. . • • 'lBs. Thinald Willboit, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners . Canrthouse i. :.Billsborough, Borth Carolina 27278 • umbers of the Wake County Board of Commissioners are concerned about the circ tancers-which are developing concerning our increasing need for new s and the maintenance. of existing highways and Low all of this will be financed.'-- It is apparent that the revenues currently derived• from the gaa line tax will not keep pace with the need that bas been expressed. If the gpg between the requirements and the financing widens, there �i3.1: . - be contimelog pressure . on County governments to commit funds from ether . sources to meet highway needs. As we all know there are enough competing • needs at the local level without adding another major competitor such as • a with the likely are faced. highways. . This is even more telling now that we a y _ demise of General Revenue Sharing. Inclosed is a copy of a Resolution, unanimously adopted by our Board of Commissioners, which recommends that the gasoline tax be increased by five cents per gallon in order to generate the needed revenues and keep in place .. the-. traditional ,funding, relationships for construction and maintenance of. highways. We bave forwarded copies.•to Governor Martin, members of the.leader— . ship of the General Assembly, and our own legislative delegation. - - • The long range problems which could result from inaction today make this an issue which must be addressed. We ask you and your Board to consider Orange County's position with respect to future—highway—maintenance and construction needs. If you feel as we do, we would urge you to make that feeling known to your legislators and Governor Martin. . Sincerely, • . . E.--S1'1.- J• • • . N. Edmund Aycock, Chairman Wake County Board of Commissioners MEA/RAS/wid . Enclosure. - • • ' Post orrice Boot ma.1 a1+.Nart i Carorna 27602 • 5-172 RESOLUTION REGARDING GASOLINE TAX WHEREAS, the construction and maintenance of the state _ • highway system is essential to the economic well--being of this . state, and - - WHEREAS, there are substantial funds needed to finance, new- roads within the state in addition to the cost of ongoing . . maintenance and upgrading of existing roads, and _ 1OESSAS, construction of the state highway system is within the exclusive domain of the State Department of Transportation, and WHEREAS, the state legislature determined as early as 1921 that the state highway system should be constructed 'at the . -. expense of the entire state,' and created a highway system "to relieve the counties and cities and towns of the state of this II burden", and V it is the policy of this state to finance public road construction and maintenance from the proceeds of the • gasoline tax, and _ WHEREAS, it is apparent that the growth and the revenues collected from the gasoline tax as currently levied is • - insufficient to keep pace with the repair, maintenance and construction needs of the state highway system, and WHEREAS, construction and maintenance of the state highways. is of concern to the general public and elected officials a: all levels of government,. and - V WHEREAS., it is recognized that the principle of °user pays" is an equitable one and that the gasoline tax is paid by the users of the state highways. . - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Wake County Board of Commissioners that: - _ The Governor of the State of North Carolina and the General Assembly are hereby strongly urged to .support an increase in the current tax levy on gasoline by five cents ($.05) per gallon. Commissioner Adcock moved the adoption of the foregoing resolution. Commissioner Stout seconded the motion and, upon vote, the motion passed unani. , this the 3rd day of September , 19 85- The • ri - voxi aPr 232 RESOLUTION REGARDING GASOLINE TAX WHEREAS, the construction and maintenance of the state highway system is essential to the economic well-being of this state, and WHEREAS, there are substantial funds needed to finance new roads within the state in addition to the cost of ongoing maintenance and upgrading of existing roads, and WHEREAS, construction of the state highway system is within the exclusive domain of the State Department of Transportation, and WHEREAS, the state legislature determined as early as 1921 that the state highway system should be constructed "at the expense of the entire state," and created a highway system "to relieve the counties and cities and towns of the state of this burden", and WHEREAS, it is the policy of this state to finance public road construction and maintenance from the proceeds of the gasoline tax, and WHEREAS, it is apparent that the growth and the revenues collected from the gasoline tax as currently levied is insufficient to keei) pace with the repair, maintenance and construction needs of the state highway system, and WHEREAS, construction and maintenance of the state highways is of concern to the. general public and elected officials at all levels of government, and WHEREAS, it is recognized that the principle of "user pays" is an equitable one and that the gasoline tax is paid by the usersof the state highways . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that: The Governor of the State of North Carolina and the General Assembly are hereby strongly urged to support an 'increase in the current tax levy on gasoline by five cents ($ .05) per gallan. Commissioner moved the adoption of the foregoing resolution. Commissioner ' — %* . seconded the motion and, upon vote, the motion , this the 30th day of September, 1985. 23a ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. 1114, Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 SUBJECT: NON-DEPARTMENTAL AGENCY AGREEMENTS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 AGENCY AGREEMENTS ARE INCLUDED TELEPHONE NUMBER: IN AGENDA PACKETS Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider authorizing a formal monitoring system for all non- departmental agencies. NEED: In the past, non-departmental agencies receiving initial or regular annual funding are reviewed during the County's budget preparation period. In essence, the budget staff reviews infor- mation included on the non-departmental budget request form which is completed by each agency. Specific budget recommenda- tions for each agency are derived from the budget request form. Under the proposed system, agencies would sign a performance contract outlining various responsibilities, complete a quar- terly report and receive site visits to ensure conformity. The proposed system would enable staff to compile more information for the Board during budget deliberations. Hyconeechee Library, OPC Mental Health, JOCCA and municipal support agencies have been omitted because of the unique and complex arrangements with these agencies. A monitoring system for the excluded agencies will be forthcoming. IMPACT: Establishment of a monitoring system would provide a consistent/organized method to review agencies. RECOMMENDATION(S): Authokize execution of performanco'agreebents,ancl-guarterly- reporting.for none,departmental agencies. - 234 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. J1 1 Meeting Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 SUBJECT: OLD COURTHOUSE CHANGE ORDERS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _ZJIo ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: YES Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider three change orders (P.1, G.02, HAC.1 and E.01) to the scope and timing of the work. NEED: change Order P.1, requested by the contractor July 17, 1985 and recommended by the Architect September 18, 1985, would (1) add a drinking fountain, (2) reroute a 4" waste line in the basement, (3) replace deteriorated lines and upgrade water supply to the building, (4) install a different type water closet, and (5) extend the contract time by an additional 66 days due to asbestos and concrete wall removal. If approved the changes would add $3,313.89 to the original plumbing contract sum of $13,000. Change Order G.02, requested by the contractor July 17, 1985 and August 12, 1985 and recommended by the Architect September 18, 1985, would allow (1) installation of steel stabilizing rods to the outside wall, (2) installation of a new concrete floor in Room 109, (3) replacement of a portion of damaged wall, (4) increasing the depth of the A/C condenser pit, and (5) replace- ment of a 10 ft. portion of deteriorated cornice. If approved the changes would add $4,030.67 to the adjusted general contract sum of $253,931.50. Change Order HAC.1, and E.01 recommended by the architect September 18, 1985, likewise requests an extension of 66 conse- cutive calendar days to the electrical and heat/air condition contracts. It is due to the time required for asbestos and concrete wall removal in the vault area of the first floor. If approved the new date for completion would be moved from November 5, 1985 to January 10, 1986. 236 IMPACT: Combined cost to the County of P.1 and G.02 would be $7,344.56. A County staff representative has monitored the work daily and screened these changes to come before Board. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve change orders P.1, G.02, HAC.1 and E.01 and authorize the transfer of $7,344.56 from the capital improvement fund to the Old Courthouse project account. • • II 1 . lnotte. ciih2 atatz. 0, 6.72.51,,_. . . ' • P.O.Box 513 I. Haw River,North Carolina 27358 • . . • ' • 2 3 i Jrt. dt.t5ttial .Alainienance & Supplg, inc. . . Ilre0 4,r, Z . R-S" July 17, 1985 . . . • . • . . James. M Webb AIA, Architect 201 E Rosemary Street . . . Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 • . • . Attention: Roman Kolodij - . . . . . . Re: Renovations Orange Co. Courthouse . - Adding (1) Electric Water Cooler . Elkay Model #EHF8 with SS Cabinet . . . • Below is a change order add to add one electric water cooler. . • . MATERIALS - QTY UNIT PRICE- TOTAL PRICE Water -Cooler • 1 • 512.50 512.50 3 x 2" Y No Hub 1 3.65 3.65 2" 1/8 Bend No Hub .1 . 3.10 ' 30.0 3" No Hub Bands 2 • 1.95 3.90 20 No Hub Bands 10 . 1.60 16.00 2" 1/4 Bend No Hub • 1 3.10 3.10 2" Vest Tee No Hub 1 • . - 4.62 • 4.62 , . 2" No Hub Pipe ' 20' . 1.54 30. 80 1 3" No Hub Pipe 3' 1.90 5.70 11/2 x 11/2 x 4 CC Tee 1 3.10 3.10 V' CC 90's • 4 .24 .96 . . 1/2" CC Cap 1 .22 : .22 . . 1/211 Pipe 6' .42 2.52 11/2 x 14 P Trap 1 9.70 . 9.70 • 1/2" Angle Stop • • 1 3.80 3.80 3/8" x 12" Long Supply • 1 1.90 1.90 • . 2 x 2 x 11/2 San Tap Tee No Hub 1 4.60 4.60 . 11/2 Galv Drainage 90 l • . 2.80 2. 80 612.97 Tax - 24.52 637.49 LABOR 1 Mechanic 4 hrs. 11.50/hr 46.00 • 1 Helper • 4 hrs. 8.00/hr 32.00 78.00 Total Labor & Material 715.49 Plus 25% Overhead & Profit 178.87 - Total Change Order Add Request: $894.36 i INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE & SUPPLY, INC. • C.. . 1-• ./tT-t. ( , ,,,,-,,-,..._, .sz_x--x-r.-. .40-r-- • , • ' SAMMY LEE MCBRIDE Project Estimator . . . .... . . • P.O.Box 513 . 236 Phone: t919) Haw River,North Caroline 27258 226-1685 ineht5ttial *Maintenance & Supply, itric. July 17, 1985 • • • - James M Webb AIA, Architect 201 E RoSemary Street ' - Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 - Attention: Roman Kolodij • • RE: Renovations Orange Co: Courthouse -Rerouting 4" Sewer Line in Basement Dear Mr. Kolodij: Below is a change order add to reroute 4" sewer line in basement. • . MATERIALS QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 4" Cast Iron Pipe 30' 2.35/ft 70.50 • 4" Cast Iron Longsweep 3 7.80 ' 23.40 4" Cast Iron 1/8 Bends 3 5.95 17.85 4" Cast Iron Test Tee 1 8.40 8.40 4" No Hub Bands 12 2.48 29.76 • RENTALS • Air Compressor & Hammer 2 days 96.00/day 192.00 Concrete Saw 2 days 54.00/day 108.00 Concrete 1 yd 48.33 48. 33 498.24 Plus Tax 19.93 • 518.17 - LABOR • Mechanic 29 hrs 11.50/hr 333.50 Helper 29 hrs 8.00/hr 232.00 • 565.50 Total Material & Labor 1,083.67 . Plus 25% Overhead & Profit 270.92 • Total Change Order' Add Request: $1,354.59 INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE & SUPPLY, INC. • SAMMY LEE MCBRIDE C7 . •-(3\--( Project Estimator • • • - P.0.Box 513 239 Phone: (519) • . Flaw River,North Carolina 27255 - 226-1685 . . • 3m/ft.:filial _Maintenance & Supply, inc. . . • July 171 . 1985 . . . . . . . • James M Webb AIA, Architect . . . 201 E Rosemary St • . . Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 . • Attention: Roman Kolodij • . • - - Re: • Renovations Orange Co Courthouse Change Water Piping From Specified to . . . New Drawing Supplied From Engineer • . • Dear Mr. Kolodij : Below is a change order request to change water piping from what was specified to new drawing supplied from engineer. . , • • MATERIALS QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2" Type K Hard Copper 40' • 3.30 • 132.00 2" Type L Hard Copper 80' 2.33 • 186.40 2" Gate Valve - Sweat 1 20.00 • 29..00* • . 2" CC 45 2 1..64 • 3.28 . 2 x 11/2" Reducer CC 1 2.55 2.55 2x1x2 Tee CC . 1 5.20 5.20 2" 90 's CC . . 6 2.98 17.88 2x2x1Tee CC 1 4.86 - . 4.86 2" Couplings Cc 2 1.50 3.00 2 x 11/2 x 1 Tee CC 1 5.20 5.20 • 11/2" Type L Hard Copper 80' • . 1.78 • 142.40 11/2 90 's- CC 6 1.81 10.86 . 11/2x1x1Tee CC 1 3.10 3.10 11/2 Couplings 2 1.28 2. 56 2" Armaflex • 80' 1.37 109.60 11/2" Armaflex 80 ' 1.05 • 84.00 741.89 Tax- • . 29.68 771.57 - . Labor - Extra . . 1 Mechanic 8 Hrs. 11.50/hr 92.00 1 helper . 8 Hrs. 8.00/hr ' 64.00 - 156.00 • • Total Change Order Add: $927.57 1 . • 1 • . . .. . . • , I `■ P.0.Box 513 - - Phone: (919) 4 Haw River,North Carolina 27258 . 246 2264685 A •; ..9nduattial -Maintenance & Supply., inc. July 17, 1985 - - i . . James M Webb AIA, Architect 201 E Rosemary St "4 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 . . . . Attention: Roman Kolodij - Re: Renovations Orange Co Courthouse Change Tank Type Closets to Flush Valve ' Dear Mr. Kolodij: . - . Below is a change order add request to change tank type closets to 1 flush valve type. 1 MATERIALS QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Eljer-Sanus Water Closets Model #111-115 with Flush Valve & Seat 4 180.63 722.52 Tax 28.90 Total Change Order Add: 751.42 Deduct Water Closets Tank Type As Specified 4 96.50 386.00 Tax 15.44 Total Change Order Deduct: ( 401.44) - Total Change Order Add Request: $349.98 . INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE & SUPPLY, INC. --- SAMMY LEE MCBRIDE Project Estimator C7", '-'' It4-.3Nf et . . • „. I 241 James M Webb AIA, Architects -2 Deduct i MATERIALS QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1-” Type K Hard Copper 40' .92 36.80 . 1" Type L Hard Copper 80' .71 56.80 1"-Gate Valve Sweat 1 16.15 16.15 1" 90 CC 12 1.09 13.08 1" Tee CC 4 1.41 5.64 1" Coupling CC 4 .69 2.76 • 1" ArMalfex • 120' .61 73.20 • 204.43 Tax . 8.18 Total Change Order Deduct: (212.61) Total Change Order Request: $714.96 • INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE & SUPPLY, INC. t ..,........ SAMMY LEE MCBRIDE Project Estimator - - . _ _ CHANGE Distribution to: • • •ORDER ER O HRECr IN 236 • MA DOCUMENT G707 CONTRACTOR FIELD 0 OTHER 13 FILE • PROJECT: RENOVATIONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: p,I .(name.address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE INITIATION DATE: AUG .15, 1985 TO (Contractor): HILLSBOROUGH NC INDUSTRIAL t11AINTENAt+ICE •A--• ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: oC.at - . SUPPLY, INC ' CONTRACT FOR: PLUMBING - P.O. BOX 513 • HAW RIVER NC 27258 CONTRACT P.O. ID NO. 7740 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20. 1985 • You are directed to make the following changes'in this Contract: coNrRACTOR's ITEMIZED .A O 'I ATTACHED • 1. ADD DRINKING FOUNTAIN AT UPPER FLOOR LOBBY (RM 202) TOGETHER WITH RELATED SUPPLY AND WASTE LINES: , V 715.49 • 2. REROUTE 4" WASTE LINE I N BASEMENT TO AVOID CONFLICT ' WI FLOOR DRAINS , 51083.67 3. UPGRADE WATER SUPPLY/SERVICE TO BUILDING TO MEET PROPER STANDARDS FOR REQUIRED PRESSURE AND TO REPLACE DETERIORATED LINES ACCORDING TO DESIGN FURNISHED BY . CONSULTING ENGINEER: , E 714.96 4. I NSTALL FLUSH VALVE TYPE WATER CLOSETS t N NEW TO I LETS ' IN LIEU OF TNEK TYPE ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED: , 5 3349.98 ' SUB-TOTAL , 52864.10 OVERHEAD & PROFIT , $ 449.79 C.0. AMOUNT: . 53313.89 5. E3CTEM CONTRACT TIME BY SIXTY-S IX (66) DUE TO ASBESTOS REMOVAL (51 DAYS) AND G.C. 'CONCRETE WALL REMOVAL (15 DAYS - C.O. G.01) Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicate,his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time The original (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed-Maximum Cost)was $ 13 000.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders . 00 The(Contract Sum) (Guaranteed-Maximum Cost) prio to this Change Order was $ 13 000.00 • The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Mauirntlm-Gust) will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order $ 3 313.89 • The new(Contract Sum) ( )including this Change Order will be• $ 16 31 3.89 . The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( 66 )Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is JAN. to t 986 Authorized: . ROMAN KOLOD1J 'JAMES WEB COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCHITECTS CONTRACTOR OWNER NORTH CAROLINA Address Address Addr / 201 E ROSEMARY S7 1 E MARGARET LANE L HILL NC 27514 : HILLSBOROUt H NC • BY f j�,�g�i r gY. BY ,T.-,� .t . . f`r, .. -- 'r DATE °„ / , DATE DATE /..... 2 p AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANCE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIAR • 0 1976 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE..N.W.,WASHINGTON.D.C.2noK, G701—1978 . - •CHANGE Distribution to: • ORDER ARCHITECT Si AM DOCUMENT G707 CONTRACTOR ta - - FIELD 0 • OTHER IN FILE PROJECT: RENOVATIONS: • - CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: c.a2 (name,address) O c HI�IC INITIATION DATE: AUG 15, 1985 TO (Contractor): HILLSBCROUOM NC • DURHAM CONls'tiiLICTION CO ma ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: OC.81 . 112 BRITTANIA AVE • CONTRACT 1OR: • P.O. MD' 1X028 CONS RU T'Ot�N DURHAM NC 27704 0028 • • comma= P.O. ID NO. 7747 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20. 1985 i • You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CONTRACTOR'S ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN ATTACHED I. INSTALL TWO (2) STEEL. WALL STABILIZING RODS,LOCATIONS AS DIRECTED BY ARCHITECT: S 5 32.72 2. INSTALL NEW CONCRETE FLOOR IN ROOM 109 TO REFUGE • • • DETER'ORATED EXISTING WOOD AN® BRICK SUBFLOOR. S. 654.00 3. REPLACE DAMAGED PORTION OF EXISTING 12 IN BRICK • WALL AT R M. 105, WITH 12 IN CONC. BLOCK AND INSTALL - REV PLASTER FINISH: • S 997.50 4. INCREASE DEPTH OF A/C CONDENSER PIT BY 1•.0" TO A DEP'T'H OF 8 FT TO ACCOMODATE REVISED A/C EQUIPMT. $ 486.00 5. REPLACE 10 FT PONT I ON OF DETERIORATED CORNICE AT • EXTERIOR EAST WALL WITH NEW MATCHING CONSTRUCTION: , S 622.70 • SUB-TOTAL: 3296.42 • OVERHEAD & PROFIT 734.26 C.O. AMOUNT: • , $ 4930.67, 6. EXTEND CONTRACT TIME BY 551 CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS DUE TO REQU I RED ASBESTOS REMOVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF HAZARD ABATEMEI' • Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time The original (Contract Sum) (toaranteed-MaximurrrCost)was $ 247 700.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders 6.01 $ 6 231.50 • • The(Contract Sum) (Guaranteed"WtaxinlurrT Cost)prior to this Change Order was $ 253 93! .50 The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed-Maximum•Gast) will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) 4 030.67 • by this Change Order $ . The new(Contract Sum) (Guaranteed-Memimum Cost)including this Change Order will be $ 257 962.177 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged)by ( 51 )Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is JAN, 1 o 1906 • . Authorized: ROMAN KOLODEJ JAMES WEBB DURHAM CONSTRUCT ION CO. COUNTY OF ORANGE •. . ARCHITECT ARCHITECTS CONTRACTOR - OWNER NORTH CAROLINA Address Address J Address 2 p t E ROSEMARY ST P.O. BOX 1 5 0 2 8 t o s E.NMARGAF2ET LANE -EL HILL, NC 27514 DURHAM NC 27704 0028 HILLSBOROUGH a NC V j • • DATE ".'''7:' w c=55. DATE 2.-42 51, DATE //--/A --, ,S AIA DOCUMENT.G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIA6 • ©1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE..N.W.,WASHINGTON.D.C.20006 G701 -1978 • • 1 CHANGE• Distribution to: 24A ORDER OWNER RCHITECT Si AMA DOCUMENT C701 CONTRACTOR ® . FIELD 0 - OTHER at FILE PROJECT:• RENOVATIONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: G.02 (name,address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE INITIATION DATE: . AUG 15, 1985 TO'(COntractor): HILLSBOROLIGti NC DURHAM CONSTRUCTION CO INC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: oc.as 112 BRITTANIA AVE CONTRACT FOR:. . GENERAL P.O. BOX 15028 . CONSTRUCTION • DURHAM NC 27704 0028 • CONTRACT P.O.' ID NO. 7741 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH-20, 1985 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: CONTRACTOR'S ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN ATTAcHE;D 1. INSTALL. TWO (2) ,STEEL WALL STABILIZING RODS,LOCAT I ONE AS DIRECTED BY ARCHITECT: t $ 533.72 2. INSTALL NEW CONCRETE FLOOR IN ROOM 109 TO REPLACE . • DETERIORATED EXISTING WOOD AND BRICK SUBFL.00R: ' . 6 654.00 3. REPLACE DAMAGED PORTION OF EXISTING 12 IN. BRICK . WALL AT Ieit• 105, WITH 12 IN. CONC. BLOCK AND INSTALL NEW PLASTER FINISH: . 6. 997.50 4.. INCREASE DEPTH OF A/C CONDENSER PIT BY 1'.0" TO • A DEPTH OF 8 FT TO ACCOMODATE REVISED A/C EQUIPMT. 6 489.00 . 5. REPLACE 10 FT PORTION OF DETERIORATED CORNICE AT • ' EXTERIOR EAST WALL WITH NEW MATCHING CONSTRUCTION: . 6. 622.70 SUB-TOTAL: 3296.42 OVERHEAD 8: PROFIT 734.26 • • C.O. AMOUNT: . . S 4030.67 6. EXTEND CONTRACT TIME BY 51 CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS DUE TO REQUIRED ASBESTOS REMOVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF HAZARD ABATEMENT. • Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith,including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract Sum) (GuaranteedIviaximumCost) was $ 247 700.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders 0.01 $ 6 231.50 The(Contract Sum) (Guaranteed-Maximum Cost)prior to this Change Order was $ 253 931.50 • The (Contract Sum) (Guerantetd•Moximum{post) will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) - 4 030.67 by this Change Order . $ . The new(Contract Sum)(Guitranleed•Mexitllurn Cost)including this Change Order will be $ 257 962.17 . The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged)by ( 51 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is JAN. TO 1986 • Authorized: ROMAN tOOL OD t r 'JAMES WEi - • COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCHITECTS CONTRACTOR OWNER NORTH CAROLINA Address Address Address 201 E ROSEMARY ST 1 0 E MARGARET LANE .4,21.- . . _ c. 4 HILLSBOROUGH NC . , ! : i 4'" - BY .-..�..��.� �/..._ BY BY DATE "•`-, .' w Ct55 DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1971 EDITION • MAR • 0 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE.,N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.20094 G701--1978 • UMIANUt 0 A 4 Distribution.to: - ORDER A CHi ECr ID • AlA DOCUMENT 0701 CONTRACTOR El • FIELD ❑ s OTHER NI FILE PROJECT:. RENOVATIONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: HAC.1 (name,address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE INITIATION DATE: • AUG 15. 1985 • . TO(Contractor): HIL1.SSOROUCEI RC • Beas7oar ENGINEERS INC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO OC.81 • • P.O E1o0t; 2995 CONTRACT FOR - HEATING/ DURHAM NC 27705 0995 - AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACT P.O. ID ND. 7756 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20, 1985 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: . • • EXTEND THE CONTRACT TINE BY SIXTY-SIX (66) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS . DUE; TO ASBESTOS RI VA1. (5 t DAYS) AND COMPLETE WALL REMOVAL (C.0.. G.01 15 DAYS). • Not valid until signed by both the Chvner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicate%his agreement herewith,including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. • _ The original,(Contract Sum) ( )was $ 80 629.00 ,• Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ oo . The(Contract Sum)( Cost)prior to this Change Order was $ 80 629.00 . The(Contract Sum) (Guara.ntes444aximiern Cost)will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order $ o o The new(Contract Sum)( )including this Change Order will be $ so 629.0 o The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (inchlt ed)by - ( 66 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is .. JAN. 10 1986 . Authorized: ROMAN tcDLOD 1 J •JAMES WEBB COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCH I TEC'r5 CONTRACTOR ' OWNER NORTH CAROLINA Address dress 201 E ROSEMARY Sr S'r Address 106 E MARGARET LANE •.......,0:- .. _ • • HILLSBOROUGH NC - i' , , :% �i+_/y BY BY _ – �Y, DATE "}-, a DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT 0701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIA' • D 1978 . THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK.AVE..N.W..WASHINGTON,D.C.2 Dos 6701—1978 • ;.... ; Nos arm'slump Distribution to: • . li ORDER . . OWNER - 21 - ARCHITECT 51 • MA DOCUMENT C701 - • 24 G CONTRACTOR 21 . . • . ' FIELD 0 • . ' OTHER . 21 FILE . . . . - - PROJECT: RENOVAT I ONS: . CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: E.*: . • (name,address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC • COURTHOUSE • INITIATION DATE: AUG 15, 1985 ,.. TO(Contractor): PULLSBORGIX44 NC ADAMS AND T ILLEy ELECTRIC co us= ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: OC.131 •• 1008 CALVIN bl air.A.A CONTRACT FOR: • Esscrk MAL P.O. 90X.12417 ' - corternakaT tots . . "RESEARCH,TRIANGLE PARK PIC 27709 CONTRACT P.O. ID 7739. CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20. 1085 , . • NO. . . • You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: . . . . . . , • EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME ST SIXTY-six (GO CORISECUT WE CALENDAR DAYS • • . am To ASBESTOS REMOVAL. (5 t DAYS) AND CONIIRSTE WALL REMOVAL (c:o. .a.cit its nays). .. • ' . . - . . • . 1 • . . ' . „ . . . . ' - . . - .. ' - • . • . . , * . • Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith,including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. . • . The original (Contract Sum) (Guarameed-M.ardnrum-Gest)was $ 34 240.00 . Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ -.0 0 • The(Contract Sum) (Guaranteed-Marchnurn-Cest)prior to.this Change Order was $ 34' 240.00 . . ' The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed-Maximum-Gest)will be (inCreaSed) (decreased)(inielianged) . ' '0o- - by this Change Order - . $ . . The new(Contract Sum)(Guasanteed-Maninnun-Cest)including this Change Order will be $ 34 244•00 The Contract Time will be(increased) (decreased) (unchanged)by . ( 66 ) Days. , . The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is IjAN. 10 1986 . Authorized: ROMAN KOLODIJ •awes =ea COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT • ARcHITEers CONTRACTOR . OWNER NORTH CAROLINA I - Address 201 E ROSEMARY ST Address • Address 106 E MARGARET LANE 1•p• • - NI I. NC 2751 4 - . 1411 LLS130DOLIGH NC• . „ .../ , Aw • I, . . - . By . ...---.Y.Z/..././.., ../dr.f.' ..3'..,2...‘leir_ BY BY /* __:: '1,,142- ....,,,,., • DATE '''V-0 .,, ,• 00:« DATE DATE • AIA DOCUMENT C701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AM, • 0 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS.1735 NEW YORK AVE,N.W..WASHINGTON.D.C.20006 . G701—1978 .. • . • • • • • 244 • - • Durham Construction Company, Inc. 112 Britania Avenue Post Office Box 15028 ' Durham, North Carolina 27704 . • August 12, 1985 Roman Kolodij Architects • 121 South Estes Drive • Suite #103 Chapel Hill , North Carolina 27514 • Re: Orange County Courthouse • Hillsborough, North Carolina Dear Mr. Kolodij: • There are some questions on the above project that need to be . answered in order for us to proceed. A. Asbestos Time Extension Please issue us a change order for the time lost in the county having the asbestos insulation removed - from the building. Our records show that seventy- eight (78) days -April 22,1985-July 8, 1985-were lost. • B.. Color Selections Please make the color selections for the painting, ceramic tile, and resilient tile as per our request - of July 2, 1985. C. Main Floor Condition Please give us some instructions on what approach you would like for us to use in leveling the • existing floors for tile. The existing conditions • seem totally unacceptable for the finish floor materials. D. Ceiling in Room 109 • A portion of the existing ceiling in Room 109 had to be removed when we discovered that the existing ceiling joists were not anchored into the existing brick wall . Please advise us on what type of ceil- ing you would like for us to install in this area. . E. Finish Hardware Allowance . Please get with S. H. Basnight & Sons and make the final hardware selections so that the hardware and the hollow metal can be ordered: We need the hollow metal frames immediately. Bill Basnight informed us that it will take five to six weeks to fabricate the frames. This delay will hurt the job's pro- gress. • 2 4 0, •.01.7.221 Durham Construction Company. Inc. Phone 919/471-4497 ",g toy 112 Britania Avenue , Post Office Box 15028 N.C.Lic.#6533 Durham,North Carolina 277040028 April 24, 1985 Mr. Roman Kolodij, Architect 701 East Rosemary Street Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Re: Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina Dear Mr. Kolodij: We were informed Tuesday, April 22, 1985, by Skip Higgins, Project Manager for Comfort Engineers, Inc., that there was asbestos insulation covering the existing heating pipes. The degree of risk involved remains undetermined at this time; however, I am sure you can understand my concern. We are not willing to expose our crew to such a potentially dangerous working environment. Therefore, I am requesting that you have this situation evaluated immediately, and advise us on how to proceed. Sincerely yours, • Kenneth A. Hunt President KAH/lrs • • __ 24 -6 • L4 0 FO T** _ - -- Mechanical Contractors ENGNEERS- - A Subsidiary of Koppers Col4Panuc The. P0 BOX 2955 •4008 NEAL 11040 • DURHAM,N.C.27705-095•TELEPHONE 019/3834502 • • • April 24, 1985 Roman Kolodij 201 E. Rosemary Street Chapel Hill, N C 27514 Re: Orange County Courthouse • Dear Roman: I was called to the job site on Friday the nineteenth concerning the insulation on the steam pipe. After taking a sample to an insula- tion company in Durham we found out this material is asbestos. I contacted the engineer's office late Friday but he had already left for the day. He returned my call on Monday the twnety-second. I informed him of what we had found. He said he will get in touch with you. As of April 22, 1985 we have stopped all work until further notice. Respectfully yours COMFO EgGINEERS, ±NC Skip Higgins, Project Manager SH:sk • • . 1 -., 245 1 . - . . - RICIRTHROP-SERVICES, INC. A Subsidiary of Northrop Corporation P.O.Box t2313 Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709 • -,t ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES . Telephone:(919)549-0611 , - . - . • . 1 • - -• . 4160-85-2-2748 . • - June.12; 1985 • . , • . . _ . . . . . • . . . • . . . .. . - • . Mr. William Laws . • • ORANGE 'COUNTY • 106 East Margaret Lane .Millsborough, North Carolina 27278 . . • Re: Air Monitoring for Asbestos - Old Courthouse . . . . • Dear Mr. Laws: - - Enclosed are the results of air monitoring performed by Mr. Dan. . Strait-on June 6 and 7, 1985, at the Old Courthouse in Hillsborough, NC. I --. -.-- . A statement of charges will be forwarded under separate cover. NSI-ES appreciates.the opportunity to serve you. If we .can be of further • • service,, please do not hesitate to call. • Sincerely, cii-s•'•-•4.4- a ,L4 til4. , . 1 - James A. J hke, PhD- Manager Environmental Technology Programs JAJ/gc . Enclosures • - . - . . • _ . . • _ . • . . . . . . . . • - . - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . . * • September 27, 1985 Mr. Roman Kolodij 121 S. Estes Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Dear Mr. Kolodij: I have received your September 18, 1985 recommended change orders to the plumbing and general contracts for the old Courthouse. The plumbing contractor's request for these was formally communicated to you Jury 17, 19$5 while the authorization form bears the date of August, 1985 and you I!, signed it September 18, 1985. I also note that all but three of the items have already been undertaken without the approval of the owner as required under our April 14, 1983 Agreement. Section 1.5.3 states: "The Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner Only to the extent provided in the Contract Documents unless otherwise modified by written instrument in accordance with Subparagraph 1.5.16." Section 1.5.16 states: "The extent of duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of the Architect as the Owner's representative during construction shall not be modified or extended without written consent of the Owner, the Contractor and the Architect." Section 1.5.14 states "The Architect shall prepare Change Orders for the Owner's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents, and shall have authority to li order minor changes in the work not involving an adjustment in the contract sum or an extension of the Contract Time which are not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Documents." All three of these sections have been violated by letting work embodied under the change orders proceed without the prior, written approval of the Owner. You were under expressed instructions from me to submit any and all changes II END September 27, 1985 Page 2 to the Board of Commissioners and only proceeding with major additional work as authorized by that body. I hasten to add that I agree with each item you have recommended and find your explanation satisfactory as to need. The aspect that is deficient and must be corrected is the prior approval action on work that is beyond the scope of the contracts. The change orders will be considered by the Board on September 30, 1985. I ask that you be in attendance to answer any questions. Sincerely, Kenneth R. Thompson County Manager cc: James Webb Board Members I . Ili Date: September 30, 1985 To: Orange County Board of Commissioners From: Marcia Hawk, practitioner of Massage Therapy and resident/ landowner in Orange County I am sorry I am unable to be present at this meeting tonight due to a prior committment. Thank you for listening to my com- ments in this statement form. I would like to encourage you to set the one time $75 fee for massage therapists at a lower level:: I understand that there is some concern that money will have to be spent on investiga- tions to determine when and where prostitution is occuring. As a massage therapist, I do not feel responsible for the fact that prostitutes attempt to disguise themselves as members of my profession. I don't think I should be made to bear the costs of the necessary investigations. Surely, it does not make sense to single massage therapists out as being connected with such crimes. As a society we must all bear the costs involved in the investigation of crimes. Meanwhile, massage thera- pists should be charged a fee that is commensurate with those charged other professionals. PJLeM.'tQnt 4( 56- eie0 1/41.0:481150.-tr M FINDINGS, OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNI MG PERTAINING TO BXL Aolau APRLICATLON SUP-1 -85 BINGHAM SCHOOL INN Development mast comply with general and specific standards as set forth In Article 8 for Special Uses., .' as follows: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth In Article 8.8 These regulations are divided Into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards (2) Other requirements as set forth In the Zoning Ordinance I • Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding.,the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the 'Board In its deliberations. ARTICLES 8.6 AkO $ 8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("YES" indicates compliance; "NO" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Board Ordinance Requirements ,up ttfedEippIi°cation Evidence Submitted to Support 'findirigs BOCC FINDINGS 8.6 -'Application submitted on X Yes NO - Application narrative and site plan Yes No forms providing furl and accurate provided by applicant. description of proposed use, Including location, appearance and operational characteristics 8.8 a) Twenty-six (26) copies of the X Yes No 26 copies of the site plan provided by applicant. —I Yes No yry site plan prepared by a registered Site plan was prepared by ENT Land Surveyors, Inc. `"- N,C, land surveyor or engineer containing: 1 . North point, scale and date X Yes N No Shown on site plan. ' CZYes No 2, Extent of area to be developed X Yes No Shown on site plan. -Wes No 3.• Ltir_at i mi and width of all ,ase- vents and rights-af-way t l thin or ad,jacene to. toe site X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No ......_..... f ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Board _ Fin-din m t s Based on Evidence Submitted to Support findings _ BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Submit ed Application It. Location of all existing or pro- X Yes No Shown on site plan. Applicant proposes to X Yes No a posed structures an the site utilize existing structures for bed & breakfast facility. 5.. Location of all areas on the site X Yes NO There are no flood prone areas on the site x Yes No subject to flood hazard or Inunda- according to the FEMA-FIA maps and soils tion as shown on flood maps or maps' soil maps 6. Location of all water courses X Yes No No water courses present on site. Yes No on the site, Including the direction of flow 7. Existing topography at a contour XYes No Topography at five foot contours is shown Yes No interval of five (5) feet based on the site plan. on mean sea level datum Q. Proposed or existing fencing, X Yes No Parking area, fencing, and screening are �G Yes " No screening, gates, parking, indicated. No other service areas are service and storage areas proposed. 9. Access to.site. including sight X Yes No Access to site is of are Oaks indicated on plat. Yes No distances on all roads used for (SR 1007) access 10. Elevations of all structures X Yes No Development summary describes existing 2�Yes No proposed to b , e used in the `— buildings. No new structures are proposed. development . Il . Names and addresses of owners XYes No Provided on application. x Yes No and applicants 12. A fee, as set by the Board of XYes No $180.00 application fee paid, Yes � No County Commissioners ' loll 111111 ARTICLE 8.2,4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes`.' indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board_ Findings Based oil Ordinance Requirements SubmittedApplieation Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision R Yes No Letter from Health-Department addressing ' X Yes No for sewage disposal facilities, adequacy of facilities for proposed use solid waste and water service. provided. Facilities serve a 2 bedroom residence and a 4 bedroom boarding house, b) Method and adequacy of police, X Yes No Letters from police, fire and rescue x Yes No . fire and rescue squad protec- services provided. tion c) Method and adequacy of vehicle X Yes No Access to site is by private drive from Yes No access to the site and traffic —' Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007). The proposed conditions around the site use will generate 38.32trips per day (9.58 per odeupied room). INC :DOT 1981 traffic data for this- area is - 500 trips per day. This count was taken immediately north of the intersection of NC 54 and Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) ARTICLE 8. 8.2 4 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/ HISTORIC STRUCTURES-NON-RESIDENTIAL-REUSE•/M i.XED•US.E Article 8.8.24.1 indicates that1he following information is required to be submitted as part of the application: Planning _Board _,i -- findings Based on BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements �hmi t ed A 1 1 i nat i on_ Evidence Submitted to Support Findings,____.____ _ a, site plan containing ; the following: ' - - -_ _ �—�.._ -- ----------- -- ]) location, width, and X YES NO Details provided on site plan. YES NO type of all Internal vehicular and pedestrian ci rcul at.i,on 2) location and dimensions * X YES NO Details provided on site plan and in >( YES NO of on-site signage narrative. 3)boundaries of site and X YE'S NO Details provided on site plan. _ YES NO distance to nearest residences b, description of proposed uses of site and structure— including - -_- --•- • _ . including the following: - 1)amount of area allocated X YES NO Details provided in narrative. g YES NO to each use 2)number of full/part-time X YES NO Details provided in narrative. 'Site X YES NO employees will employ two full-time and one part- time employees. 3)number of clients/ occupants X YES No Details provided in narrative. Number of -.Y,.. YES NO applicants will not exceed- 12 guests. O proposed hours of operation X YES ' " NO Site will be occupied 24 hours per day. _< YES ^^ NO c. building plans including X NO Details provided in narrative. - YES NO description of impact on historic features d. landscape plan X YES NO Details provided on site plea. YES NO ARTICLE 8.13.24 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS (continued) Planning_- Board Tindin s Base on Ordinance Requirements Submit ed Apt) Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS e. service agencies X . YES NO Letters submitted with application. YES NO comments on adequacy of water/wastewater system proposed f. service agencies X YES NO Letters submitted with application. Y, YES NO comments on fire, police and rescue protection g. listed on National X YES NO Letter of authorization submitted with . . . )c YES NO Historic Register or application. Recognized by NC Dept. of recognized by N.C. Cultural Resources commencing in 1941. as place-of historic Recognized in National Register since 1978, Interest h. proposed development X YES NO Described in narrative. % YES No schedule for site ARTICLE 8 8 24 2 STANDARDS OF EVALUATION {"Yes" Indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompl.i,ance) Article 8.2.24.2 indicates that the following standards of evaluation be used in deciding on an application for this use: - -. Planning . Board Findings Based oti Ordinance Requtrments Submitted Application. Evidence Submitted to Support Findings BOCC FINDINGS a. site plan meets g YES NO Site plan meets all requirements as specified. YES NO requirements of. 8.8 and 8.8.24 b.proposed uses and X YES NO Proposed bed & breakfast country inn }C YES NO facilities are in Bingham Seboollpresently utilized as a coniplemeritary and residential structurejdoes not conflict with compatible with agricultural/residential uses of area; preserves surrounding area; the historic character of the site; and generates use preserves historic no adverse inpact except the provision of parking character of site and facilities which will be screened from the road building; development and adjacent properties. has no adverse impact beyond building, except for parking facilities c.historic character of g YES NO Historic character of building is preserved YES NO building Is preserved as evidenced in narrative and photographs. d.protective and water/ X YES NO proposed services are adequate as evidenced YES NO wastewater services by`letters documenting service- capability are adequate issued by the'servicing agencies. e.recreational/service/ YES NO Proposed recreational/service/parking and x YES NO parking areas and screening facilities- are adequate. screening are adequate ARTICLE 5 - d1MENS10NAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" Indicates nonco(ppliance) Planning];Board .._ Findings Based on BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted •To Support Findings Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building Height and lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a Class A SUP - AR designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5.1. 2 and are as follows: a) Minimum 1'ot area per use X Yes No Site contains 9.98 acres. 'Yes No - 40,000 sq.ft. b) Minimum lot width - X Yes No Lot ranges from 355 to 1100 feet in width. Yes No 150 sq. ft. C) Required front setback - Yes No There is no setback requirement for Yes No N/A ft. a planned development. d) Required side and rear Yes No There is no setback requirement for Yes No setbacks - N/A ft. a planned development. ...._ e) Maximum building height - •X Yes No Applicant is proposing no new structures. Yes No 25 ft. Existing residential structure is 35' in height. Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed In. Article b. ART ICLE'4 ' • 'ESTABCISNMENT`OF'PERMITTED'USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "Noll indlcdt.�s•- noncompl.lance • Y Planning Board Findings Based On Ordinance Requirement-s Submitted Application Ev i ddAce•Submitted• to•Supp6et •F Ind lr%gt' ---.BOCC.-F1 NDI NGS Article 8.8.24.2 indicates the application must comply withal I requirements specified in Articles 4,5,6,8,9,20 and 12. Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table Use is a permitted use or requires the Issuance of a speclal . use permit to locate in the A-R X Yes No Site is located in area designated No district. "— Agricultural-Residential and zoned �jES Agricultural-Residential. ARTICLE 8.8.24.2 STANDARDS OF EVALUATION (continued) Planning Board Findin s Base�t-on---- BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance• Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to SupRort Findings _ f. site is served by Site has direct access via private drive direct access to through property to Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007), a state-maintained road X Yes No internal vehicular/ Internal vehicular and pedestrian g• circulation is adequate. pedestrian circulation adequate X Yes No X V 5--'N6 h. all applicable All requirements of the referenced requirements of articles have been satisfied. X Y 'No Articles 4,5,6,8,9, 10 and 12 have been satisfied, X Yes No , ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" Indicates compilance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning $oa rd Findings Based"'ori BbCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Article 6 Mists specific standards which apply to various types of development a¢p1i cat Ions. Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system. a) Minimum gross land X Yes No Site contains 9.98 acres or Yes No area - 80,000 sq. ft. 434,728.8 square feet. Gross land area is 442,539.24 -square feet. b) Maximum gross land Yes No Not applicable to Planned Developments Yes No - -gross sq. ft. in this district. area ...� c) Maximum floor area ratio- X Yes No k Yes No - .058 Applicant proposes 11,000 sq. ft. of Maximum float area floor area or 43% of the maximum allowed. permitted - 25,667.28 sq. ft. Yes No d) Required minimum open X Yes No space ratio - .84 _ ' Requited minimum open Applicant proposes 432,000 sq. ft. or 16% more than the maximum requirement. space -371,732.96 open ft. e) Required minimum pedestrian Yes No Not applicable to planned developments - landscape ratio within this district. Required minimum pedestrian landscape area - N/A square feet r ' ARTICLE 9 SIGNS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board._ Findings Based on BOCC FINDINGS x Ordinance Requirements :Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings __ a. sign Ap erected X YES No Sign is to be attached to gate post at YES NO outside of sight entrance to private drive. preservation triangles b. sign area does not X YES No Proposed oval sign is 36" x 24". X YES", NO exceed 16 square feel: c. signage is limited X YES NO A single double-faced sign is proposed. x YES NO to one single or double-faced sign d. sign does not exceed X YES NO Proposed sign is three feet in height. )4. YES NO six feet in height and installed-on gate post. ARTICLE iO OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING (("Yes" i nd i-cates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Aqard F i nd i ngs Based on-° - - •— Ordinance Requirements Submitted. Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings _ BOCC FINDfNGS - Off-street parking X YES NO Applicant proposes 4 : parking spaces _X YES NO shall• conform• v)i th within a gravel parking area,• which 'is the requirement's of designed to allow parking for an additional Article 10. 16 vehicles. The off-street parking standard for the proposed use is as follows: i space per loding unit Application of the standard results in a requirement of 4 . spaces. one space per bedroom • I 1 ........................ ARTICLE 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 1"Yes" inc.lcates compilance; "No" indicates non comp I Ian ce•) Planning Board Findings Based on BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings ._ _ The development shall conform with the requirements of Article 12 - Landscaping and Screening. These standards are as follows: 1. Street frontage land- X Yes No Applicant proposes to screen the 'X Yes No scaping must include parking facilities from Mebane Oaks a i0-foot landscaped Road utilizing a board fence and area planted with one American Boxwoods. Remainder of the tree per 40 feet, a 10' landscape strips to be grassed or hedge or other durable mulehgd. landscape material at least 3 feet in height and grass or ground cover. 2. Peripheral landscaping X Yes No Applicant proposes to screen the Yes No must include a 10-foot parking facilities from adjacent landscaping area planted properties utilizing an existing with one tree per 60 feet, Multiflora Rose hedgerow and a hedge or other durable American holly trees. Remainder of landscape material at of the 10' landscape strips to be least 3 feet in height, grassed or mulched. and grass air ground cover. 3.. Interior landscaping must X Yes No Existing vegetation satisfies requirement. Yes No provide coverage of at y Supplementary base plantings are recommended. least 5% of any (SEE CONDITION 8) vehicular use area. ........_._.............. ARTICLE 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (continued) •Pja in -.Boa rd FinRi.ngf Ba§ea-vu• BOCC FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support. Findings— No Na more than 10 x Yes Applicant proposes onlp 4 fixed parking stalls. x Yes No parking spaces No landscaped medians are required. allowed in a con- tinuous row wi thout division by land- scaped median strip. Every fourth row of Yes No Not Applicable Yes No parking separated by 8-foot median with at least one tree for each 60-feet of median length. 4. Type screen is _Yes Na Not Applicable Yos No required. Standards for that type include the following: I CHANGE Distribution to: BIRDER . OWNER RCHITECT lia • • AJA DOCUMENT G701 CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ OTHER lg FILE PROJECT: RENOVATI OHS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: £.01 (name,address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC . COURTHOUSE INITIATION DATE: AUG 15. 1985 TO (Contractor): HILLSBOROtJ 1 NC . auras AND TILLE.Y ELECTR1C CO INC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: OC.Elt . 1000 CALVIN Salty-us ' CONTRACT FOR: ELECTRICAL P.O. B X 12417 ' CONSTRUCTION TRIANGLE PARK NC '27709 . • • CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20. 1989 • COPMEAIGT P.O. ID NO 7739 , You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract:. . EXTEND THE CONTRACT TINE BY SIXTY-SIX (66) CONSECUTIVE CALEM)AR DAYS DUE TO 'Assisi= REMOVAL (51 DAYS) AND ODADRETE WALL. REMOVAL (Coo. a.or - 15 DAYS). . • . Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. • • Signature of the Contractor indicate'his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract-Sum) ( )was • ' $ - 34 240.00 . Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 00 The(Contract Sum) ( ) prior to this Change Order was $ 34 240.00 The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed-Maximum-Cost) will be (increased) (decreased)•(unchanged) $ 00 by this Change Order 34 240.00 The new(Contract Sum) ( )including this Change Order will be $ The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (hanged)by ( 6.6 ) Days.. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date'of this Change Order therefore is JAN. 10 1986 - Authorized: • ROMAN KOLOO I J • JAMES WELSH ADAMS & T I L L E Y ELECTRIC COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCHITECTS CONTRACTOR COMPANY I NC OWNER NORTH CAROLINA I Address 201 E ROSEMARY ST Address P.O. SOX 1 2 4 1 7 Address 106 E MARGARET LANE �,M - -E ,� 7 4 DURHAM NC 2 7 7 0 9 , HILLSBOROUGH NC /r / r DATE , at ♦S DATE �`� P3_"•., ATE ./ MA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1979 EDITION • AJAR • 0 1978 G707.9978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE.,N.W.. WASHINGTON,D.C.2000(. • • 24d . Page 2 August 12, 1985 • F. Please issue an approval or disapproval on our let- , ter of July 17, 1985 on the following items. 1. Adding two 3/4" tie rods located at Rooms 108 and 106 to keep the exterior wall from buckling out. • Subtotal $533.72 - • ' 2. Concrete floor in Room 109• • Subtotal $854.00 . • • 3. Remove cracked portion of existing 12" brick • wall between Rooms 105 and 106. • Subtotal $997.50 • 4. Adding l '-0" to condenser pit depth. Subtotal $489.00 • • 5. A 10'-0" portion of the east exterior wall cor- nice was found to be rotten. Garland Woodcraft • • Co. made the new material needed far this • portion. • a. Garland Woodcraft Co. $313.50 • • b. Removing rotten material 50.00 - - c. Installing new material 259.20 Subtotal $622.70 6. Subtotals of changes $3496.42 DCC overhead 10% . 349.64 DCC profit 10% 384.61 • • Total for changes $4230.67 • Mr. Kolodii, please give us a call if there are any questions on the above items. Sincerely yours. Kenneth A. Hunt • . President • • • . • • • • • ` OFFICIAL COPY 1 .1 [ 85 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD CP COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners net in regular session on September 30, 1985, 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Roos at the Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 1 s, t;RUEr1T: Chair Don Willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, bases Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. anCE Pte'• Geoffrey Gledhill. BTAELAAMMEL County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Manager Albert Kittreli, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, and Planners Susan Smith and Gene Bell. 16.-13PAIRMIEgla Commissioner Lloyd expressed concern that a letter was written and sent to PCX without his knowledge. He felt he should have had some input. Chair Willhoit indicated he wrote a letter expressing concerns of the Board noting in the letter the historical nature of the transfer of the land to the cooperative and stressed the importance of the continuation of the livestock market to the area. No commitments were made. Commissioner Walker stated concern that two public hearings had been held on the belt line that is suppose to deadend at the Orange County Line and he would like to be informed of such hearings. Commissioner Marshall indicated the Planning Board plans to discuss this item at their meeting scheduled for October 8. Chair Willhoit indicated he requested that the Transportation Advisory Council take no action on the beitline until the Board of Ccxnmissioners could be represented. 11. ALDIRM 8 cxEaIFR1S None C. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the minutes for May 16, 1985 as corrected. VOTE: UNANI MOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Coasissioner Carey to approve the minutes for May 21, 1985 as circulated. VOn'E. UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Cbomissioner Marshall, seconded by Ccmuuissioner Lloyd to approve the minutes for June 3, 1985 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the minutes for June 4, 1985 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve the minutes for June 6, 1985 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by C'nissioner Carey to approve the minutes for June 11, 1985 as circulated. VOTE: UNAAMMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the minutes for June 17, June 18, June 19, June 24, June 25, August 26, and September 10, 1985 as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. i: xB cattasagazgutom 2 Motion was made by Cbamissioner Marshall, seconded byCammissioner Carey to appoint Sally Jeanne Marshall to the Commission. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. REpORT - 1984-85 huolp Postponed F3 ITMRSIMORDMISION - CONSENT APENDA The County Manager recommended the following action by the Board: Acceptance of the sema-annual jail inspection report that took place on September 3, 1985 by the: Department of Human Resources, Division of Facility Services. _ ;!//`•P", 012L ' 'Asia' •.41Di 141 ^irro te) NDECP--CMragdSgMtagZ Accept as to form the legal advertisement for the pdblic hearing on the proposed amendments to the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance. O1I)INAN7 400, 6k.. or ___ • ;4_2-4021.1.06 (Copy of the approved Ordinance is in the official Ordinance Book in the office of the Clerk to the Board) Adopt the proposed Ordinance for the Control of Massage and Massage Establishments as revised and presented at the September 17, 1985 meeting to become effective Noveiber 4, 1985. fikMUMP_ISEOLIEBOILZEM (The resolution is recorded in full in the minute book on pages ) . Adopt a resolution on the project which sets forth certain assurances. Motion was made byCtandssioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the forgoing action be taken by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ALBEAMMESDISIMILIMPLCABEZEQ Commissioner Lloyd expressed a preference to look at all sites and not just the old Police Station site. He asked if the town mold be willing to do a study of other sites also. Chair Willhoit stated the Town has proposed a specific project. The study will identify the County space needs and after receipt of the feasibility report, the County will then need to make a decision about their space needs. The County Manager and City Manager must both agree on the firm selected to assist in developing the report. Commissioners Marshall and Carey both endorsed the joint study proposal indicating it a good opportunity for the County to get a determination for the use of that property. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Walker to authorize that the County join with Chapel Bill in undertaking a study of (a) each jurisdiction's space needs, and (b) the feasibility of using the Coluubia/Rosesnary site as a possible location for a future local government center and authorize the County Manager to participate with the Taal Manager in engaging a consulting firm to assist in developing a report on the options available, at a County cost not to exceed $6,000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. JrMEzu1ya' . Commissioner Lloyd expressed concern for making the three additional positions in the Sheriff's office permanent and suggested making the positions temporary until budget time and then reevaluate the situation and, if necessary, make then permanent at that time. Chair Wilhoit noted that in the recruitment process, it is desirable to advertise the positions as permanent. Commissioner Carey noted that if the County is going to invest in training new personnel, the County should plan on keeping those people. Chair MIllhoit indicated and Sheriff Pendergrass confirmed that if 3 there is a surplus of deputies at budget time, the staffing needs would be evaluated at that time. Sheriff Pendergrass emphasized there is no danger of overhire because of the turnover within the department. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to amend the 1985-86 budget as follows: Appropriation-Sheriff $ 60,460 Source-Transfer from Capital Projects Fund $ 11,500 Source-Transfer from DWI Safe Roads Act $ 26,500 Source-Contingency $ 22,460 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. __0 c1 _ .•.ic i P 0141:_z_4.; .���2.1r.S«_. ` .i���_�... .��i rte._ �:+ "t4LiA Commissioner Marshall requested that newly appointed members be added to the policy. She questioned how a requirement that an absent Board member review all documentary evidence presented and hear all testimonial evidence by listening to the tapes of the Public Searing could be verified. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill indicated that at the time the requirement has been met, it could be so documented in the minutes. He noted that it is each Board members duty to vote on everything that comes before the Board in which they don't have a financial interest. The point is that when you are considering matters for which evidence is taken and sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, you need to know what the evidence is before you can take part in the decisions. If you miss part of the public hearing then it becomes a Board policy to exclude you from voting or establish a policy by which you become familiar with the item. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adopt the recommendation of the County Attorney to "authorize the Board member to vote on such an issue with the requirement that the absent Board neither review all of the documentary evidence presented and hear all of the testimonial evidence by listening to the tapes of the Public Hearing" as the official policy in situations where a member of the Board does not attend a public hearing. VC E: UNANIMOUS. 8._ $UP--1-85 BINGHAM SCH004 JNN(Public Hearing to receive the Recommendation from the Planning Board.) Planner Susan Smith presented for decision a request for a Class A Special Use Permit for the non-residential use of the historic Bingham School submitted to public hearing on August 26, 1985. The Planning Board reaonmends approval with the attachment of twelve (12) conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS DECLARED tom. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey that a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, that the application should be approved because it is found that the use will promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and the use is in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners and evidenced by the findings of fact as for Special Uses. Attached to the approval are the set forth in Article 8 r aPP et � following conditions: 1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification 4 by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. As improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, and stabilization of all clearned areas, streets and other vehicular travelways; sidewalks and other Pedestrian walkways, utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; and landscaping. 3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County and/or Chapel Bill to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. Final utility plans shall be approved by the County Manager and/or applicable utility company prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. All lines shall be underground. 4. That a driveway permit be obtained from NC Department of Transportation prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit. 5. Roads, parking areas, walkways, utilities, recreation facilities and sites and landscaping shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 6. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Signs, following issuance of a building permit. No sign maybe erected within the sight triangles for the entranceway to the development. 7. Grading on the site shall be kept to a mininunt. In lieu of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. S. Supplementary base planting shall be installed within the parking area around the existing specimen trees. 9. That all structures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following submittal for and issuance of building permits. 10. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvenets shall be recorded by the developer. 11. The final site plan and narrative of the project, incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made apart of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Grading and building permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 12. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. VOTE: UNMAIMOUS. 9. PROPOSED mammy AMENDRENT TOME LAND USE PLAN RECUESTED BY glanaLSCNBREFLMMEL (Public Hearing for receipt of the Recommendation from the Planning Board) Planner Gene Bell presented for consideration a proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan for 1.41 acres of a 7.25 acre tract owned by Chandler Concrete Company. The request for redesignation of the 1.41 acre site from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition/Commercial-Industrial Ttansistion Activity Node has been submitted to legally address wastewater runoff problems from an existing concrete plant site. The Planning Board 5 motion to approve the 1.41 acre request resulted in a 4 to 4 vote with one abstention. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request. PUBLIC REAR= WAS DECLARED CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded byConadssioner Walker to approve the recommendation of the Planning Staff. Commissioner Marshall stated that the three conditions required by the Ordinance have not been met. The request is not to correct an error or omission in the plan, and it is not in response to changed or changing conditions and is not a response to changes in the Land Use Policy. Commissioner Carey noted the only justification the applicant could • have for requesting a change in the Land Use Plan would be a change in the conditions, and he is not convinced that the change in conditions asserted by • the applicant were conditions that the Board had in mind when the plan was adopted. Be feels, however, there is a significant risk of damaging the environment surrounding the area if the problem is not corrected. Geoffrey Gledhill indicated that the request is a change to the Land Use Plan and not a change to the Zoning Atlas. A change to the Zoning Atlas would occur upon the approval of the Planned Development application. Chair Wilihoit stated that under the current Land Use Plan and with the current zoning designation, Chandler Concrete could relocate the ponds to other portions of the existing plant site, and no further permits or approvals would be required. Be proposed that this item as well as item G-10 relating to the Special Use Permit be tabled and referred to the Planning Staff for the development of a landscape plan that would specifically address those concerns brought out at the public hearing. Planning Director Marvin Collins indicated the screening as proposed by the applicant does meet the requirements of the Ordinance. The only concern is that the screening is not extended around to the rear of the property adjacent to the railroad. Commissioner Lloyd questioned the need for additional screening requirements. Geoffrey Gledhill stated that the Board must make the decision on the land use designation independent from the Special Use Permit consideration. In this particular case, the Board may impose additional screening requirements that go beyond the requirements in the Ordinance. VOTE: AYES, 3; NOES, 2 (Commissioners Marshall and Carey) . 10. PD-4-85 HANDLER COMMIE COMPANY (Public Bearing to receive the recommendation of the Planning Board) Planner Susan Smith presented the recommendation of the Planning Board on a request for a Planned Development-Industrial III Special Use Permit for 1.41 acres of property owned by the Chandler Concrete Co. The request was submitted to public hearing on August 26, 1985. A Planning Board motion for approval of the request resulted in a 4-4 vote with one abstention. The Planning Board recommends that if the Board approves the request that nine conditions be attached. PUBLIC BEARING WAS DECLARED CLOSED. Chair Willhoit expressed a concern for the lack of screening around the rear of the property. He proposed that the Planning Staff develop additional screening requirements and submit them at the next meeting. The Board could then impose these additional screening requirements as part of the • special conditions imposed on the project. • =rtuglelThe :1=11 bStyaffCcliviliscangbi°rneingr Lloyd to ttiotilthrld=1=2:881 forth specific recommendations on additional screening requirements at the next meeting. There was various discussion on whether or not to permit those in the audience to speak on this item. The question was called. VOTE ON THE QUESTION: UNANIMOUS. 6 VOTE ON THE MOTMDN: UNANIMOUS. Geoffrey Gipahul informed the audience and Board members that the Special Use Permit process is not generally a public process. The rule is that a public hearing is held for the purpose of hearing evidence as to whether or not the conditions that are required by the Ordinance are met. As a general rule, the Board has open meetings where people are allowed to speak whenever they want. Excluding people from speaking on Special Use Permits is new and required by law once the public hearing has been closed, because it is only the evidence presented at the public hearing that maybe considered. Commissioner Walker noted that people need to be educated as to the process and it should be put in the advertisement. Chair Mallhoit suggested that the advertisement be more explicit and that the agenda abstract indicate whether or not a public bearing is appropriate or not. • +111421 Alks- AND ACE e.P.44 410; _ (Public Hearing to receive the recommendation of the Planning Board) Planner Susan Smith presented for decision a proposed rezoning request submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and continued to August 26, 1985. The applicants requested a rezoning for 41.86 acres of land located at the southwest corner of N.C. 86 North and Coleman Loop Road. The present zoning classification is R-1 Residential while the requested designation is R-3. The Planning Board recoumends approval of the request. PUBLIC BEARING WAS DECLARED CLOSED. Motion was made by Cbcmissioner Carey, seconded by Connissioner Lloyd to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board and the positive findings of fact for Article 20.3 and Article 4.2. VOTE: MINIMUM. 1:1-10AW, 1.2A1E.." 1ALDAN 4 4AN 14AWN_ '6LC (Public Hearing to receive the recommendation of the Planning Board) Susan Smith presented for decision a proposed rezoning request submitted to public hearing on February 25, 1985 and continued to August 26, 1985. The request is for rezoning of 12.40 acres located along Harper Street and Dixie Drive north of Hillsborough. The present zoning classification is R-1 Residential while the requested designation is R-4. The Planning Board recommends approval of the request. PUBLIC HEARING WAS DECLARED CLOSED In answer to a question fromaandssioner Marshall, Smith indicated that the Planning Board did consider the Hillsborough recommendation. The decision of the Board was based upon previous decisions by the Town of Hillsborough where a portion of the property is in the Town's jurisdiction. The Planning Board choose not to make a distinction at this stage to lower the density, since the Town had approved higher densities in similar instances. Motion was made by Cbcmissioner Marshall, seconded byCbcatissioner Carey to approve a rezoning of the property owned by Robert A. and Rachel S. Scholar to and the positive findings of fact in accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance. A substitute motion was made byanadssioner Lloyd to approve the R- 4 rezoning. VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: AYES, 2; NOES, 3 (Chair MI3)hoit and Commissioners Marshall and Carey) . VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION: AYES, 4; NOES, 1 (Cbccissioner Lloyd). 13iErREEMM-AMJAR.3101.2Mitinan Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for the property of John and Vida Tubiolo. The property is located on SR 1555 (Miller Road) in Hillsborough Township. Che 4.6 acre lot is proposed. The Planning Board recomnended approval of this subdivision on September 16, 1985. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Cbmmissioner Marshall to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board. w 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 14 D*r''' Via, (A complete copy of the report and list of suggested revisions is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) Ken Thomson summarized revisions to the report for the Board's consideration. Commissioner Marshall noted it is very difficult to predict population figures for the County at this time but that it is highly unlikely that the population will decrease as indicated in the report. She emphasized the importance that the report reflect as much as possible those many proble s that are forthcoming on which decisions have not been made. She feels the report should not reflect planned improvements when none exist. Chair Willhoit suggested that as part of the document a statement be inserted indicating the report represents a staff projection of needs and the actual timing and implementation of the specific projects will depend upon. budget and Board decision. After further discussion it was the consensus of the Board to add the above caveat to the report and to change the projected services for 1985-- 1992 for water, sewer, community facilities and transportation to inadequate. 17D 11.--QTAMETESMENIMKMMS Raman Kolodij explained that the change orders which are being presented for approval had not received any prior approval by the Board before the work was completed. The work was done so that the project could proceed on schedule. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the change orders identified as P.1, G°02, BAC.1 and 5.01 and authorize the transfer of $7,344.56 from the capital improvement fund to the Old Courthouse project number. VOTE: ONANIMOUS. 5. C. .Snr.fl mnx sSE It was the consensus of the Board to table this item until additional information is received. i..B EPA[ LAT. 7,®IC AC ES Postponed. Aa7'CUIlI' Chair Wilihoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on October 15, 1985, 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Still, North Carolina. Beveri Blythe, Don Willboit, Chair A. ythe, y Clerk