Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-22-1988 ORANGE COUNTY --BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD • AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1988 7:30 P. M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, M both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any t irne should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Page D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5 1. Master Recreation & Parks Plan 17 2. Assignment of House Numbers a. Rural Routes 2 and 3 - Rougernont 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 25 a. Comprehensive Plan ( 1) Article 2 - Administration (Statement of Intent/Arnendrnent Procedures) (2) Article 22 -Definitions (Definition of Comprehensive Plan) • ; 3. .._. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (Continued) a. Comprehensive Plan 43 (3) Article 4 --Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule and Article 6 - Applicaticor, of Dimensional Requirements (References to "Land Use Plan" ) 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 47 a. Designation of Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan 51 b. Designation and incorporation of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 55 a. Access Restrictions ( 1 ) Section IV-B-3-0--8 -- Access Restrictions 61 b. Private Road Standards (1 ) Section IV-B-3--d -- Private Roads 71 c. Comprehensive Plan (1 ) Section IV - Minimum Design Standards (References to "Land Use Plan" ) E. ADJOURNMENT • • /k APPROVED APRIL 4, 1988 ` f ' 4. 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1988 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in North at 7 : 30 p.m. in Superior Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT; Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr. , John Hartwell and Stephen Halkiotis . BOARD MEMBER ABSENT; Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD. MEMBERS PRESENT VChairrman BarrydJacobs and members Chris Best, Carol Bilbro, g Cantrell, Abbie Dicki5ZOn,PDincedTaylor� arrivedeats7 .50ap�mne Pilkey and Steve Yuha PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABS Brenda Swann. ATTORNEY PRESENT; Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT; County Manager John M. Link, Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Planner Gene Bell, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board, Beverly A. Blythe, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw, Planners Emily Crudup and Don Powell. A. BOARD COMMENTS None. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 . Matters on the Printed Agenda. None. 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda. None. C. PUBLIC CHARGE </N Chair Shirley E. Marshall read the public charge. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Master Recreation & Parks Plan AMMEMEMOMMEMMIll 2 Chair Marshall reviewed the public hearing and recommendation process for the public. She noted that a great deal of research and thought goes into items before they are advertised and brought to public hearing. Citizens concerns and comments are heard and questions answered. The items are then referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners . At the meeting for deliberation and decision, the Board may or may not allow further input. In the case of the Recreation and Parks Plan, one public hearing has already been held followed up by County-wide informational meetings to address concerns presented at the public hearing. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee has tried to respond and answer questions and this is the second public hearing on the plan. Since this is the second public hearing on the Master Recreation and Parks Plan, it is very unlikely that the Board will allow additional comments at its meeting for deliberation and decision. Presentation was made by Mary Anne Black, Director of Recreation and Parks. The proposed Master Recreation & Parks Plan was presented at public hearing on November 23 and, as a result of citizen and advisory board concerns, revisions to the original document are being proposed. The Master Recreation & Parks Plan is designed to become one element of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with other county land use plans and ordinances. The Plan recommends that Orange County concentrate its efforts in the provision of four types of recreation and park facilities: (1) community parks (serving the more densely populated unincorporated areas of the county) ; (2) district parks; (3) greenways (linking parks, rural residential areas, and urban activity centers) ; and (4) swimming pools. Revisions to the Plan and text were discussed at Planning Board and Recreation & Parks Advisory Council meetings following the initial public hearing, and on January 25, 1988 _ . the Planning Board recommended that the Plan be submitted again to public hearing. On February 1, 1988, the Board of Commissioners concurred with the recommendation and set February 22, 1988 as the public hearing date. Four public informational meetings were held during the week of February 8, 1988 in the county's four leisure service districts. The purpose of the meetings was to acquaint the public with the proposed "recreational trails" system. ►, r - 3 the greenways element of the those areas proposed for active Proposed revisions nea ing affect only conservation acts areas" Plan, delineating proposed ' natural eve been trails . the Plan and will beSaddressad . The attachments outline revisions proposed as part r and/or Open P havt beNn deleted from and of the Natural Areas inventory to the text, highlight and 6-2 through 6-8 of the la document hig exhibits trails system. the proposed recreational Director & parks Director and Planning and Parks Plan The Recreation Recreation recommend approval of the Master including: 1 . Community parks 2 . District parks 3 . Swimming pools 4. Recreational trails substituted for text is recommended to be to be all following in the draft Master Recreation k all text pppraring u wide Proposals and Recommendations, Plan, Chapter 6 , County-Wide throug Greenways section (pages h 6-9) . -Greenways O -wide recommendation is for the county to final p aounty system, composed of recreational trails.the il reenway Y guidelines provided s plans develop a g and gvided to P The system is to be le Land Conservancy adopted a included d the Triangle Area Land Use Plan coordinate 1 included rn the Joint Planning and Carinate It is also proposed that the county October away on a �' its greenway plans with the Towns of Planning Area on a local level, and the Triangle regional level, to assure proper connections with systems in the area• path of the "Mountain to the the P is also within the State of North trail Ora" trail Cil being developed through with North Sea" trail being to connect unique and possible to become a member of a Carolina. It would be beneficial recommendation on system where P The final planned system is that it be thed ve rpm ntto fnaal greenway .y recoil that it by bee the dtvblypmett stems as which atibly with °then sy erican Outdoors (PCAO) compatibly Network. " creation of a "National Greenway President' s Commission on Am emphasizes the maps show the i nated on the individual township map Areas recommended for recreational trails (graphically depicted a pattern) which are accesssble to the areas an asterisk pa public by ed by the County, and are developed public and managed i 4 walkways or trails. -Recreational Trails Recreational trails in more urbanized areas or accessible to relatively large numbers of people, or which connect two or more identified significant areas should take the form of corridors of land with a paved or prepared walkway (these trails can provide walking connections and opportunities for bicyclists and joggers) or with well-marked and maintained unpaved trails . These corridors should be a minimum of sixty feet (60 ' ) wide or the width of the 100 year floodplain whichever is more, providing the user with the impression of being away from urban development. The recreation trails will require operational management such as litter and security patrol with appropriate vehicular restrictions enforced. For recreational trails for which county ownership may not be necessary or appropriate, conservation easements and mutual covenants between the landowner and the county or another land management group like the Triangle Land Conservancy, may be useful. The above-described system would be developed using the methods for acquisition and development described in the Plan's section entitled the same, beginning on page 7-6, and should provide a special public-private partnership to ensure that the uniqueness of Orange County is preserved for future generations . Barry Jacobs, Planning Board Chair, noted that the Planning Board had been involved in the development of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. He indicated concern with the misimpression from previous meetings that the rural part of Orange County has no representation in the deliberations regarding this Plan. He stated that the majority of the Planning Board members are residents of rural Orange County and are sensitive to the concerns expressed by rural citizens. He noted that he felt the Board of Commissioners are responsive to the concerns presented to them by the Planning Board. He continued that it was the Planning Board's concern in that regard that led the Planning Board to ask for another public hearing to allow citizens another opportunity to speak on matters regarding the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. He felt there had been some inadequate explanations at times but also felt that a plan acceptable to the Boards and citizens could be achieved. Betty Compton presented a statement for Dwight Compton, 5 member of the Recreation & Parks Advisory Council and Cedar Grove farmer. The first question is how or why private land can be taken for public use; secondly, Mrs . Compton referenced a meeting in the Cedar Grove area of the parks representatives and noted that no one at that meeting voted in favor of greenways . She continued explaining the concern regarding greenways in rural areas . She noted that wildlife is deprived of the undisturbed safe access to the water' s edge, farmlands are affected because the access for having and continued conservation is taken away by g the water' s edge no longer accessible for the farmer. She also stated that the landowner who desires to hunt or allow hunting on his property can no longer do so due to safety hazards. She asked who would monitor the greenways providing maintenance, mowing and general clean up. She continued posing questions about which Mr. Compton is concerned such as how the landowner would be protected when he provides greenway access to his property and, what incentives such as tax breaks are available to the landowners for the donation of lands. She suggested that the County purchase the land it needs for parks and greenways and leave the farmlands alone. While realizing that the rural areas will be affected by growth, let it come naturally and require greenways only as the residential development occurs . The conclusion of Mr. Compton' s concerns was that the natural habitat be preserved and greenways are not wanted or needed in the Cedar Grove area. The final comment regarding a meeting on the water critical issue was that it had been made very clear that the farmers did not own the water that was behind the dams on their farms, his comment is that no one else owns it either; the land is privately owned, how can it be taken for public use. --- James R. Smith, a resident of Bingham Township, presented a statement from the citizens of rural Orange County and submitted printed concerns to be entered into the public hearing record (an attachment as part of these minutes) . Mary Johnson indicated her concerns had been addressed and she would not speak at this time. Lynwood Hobgood stated he felt he could see disbelief and concern on the faces of those citizens present whose private property ownerships appear to be at the point of being invaded. He continued expressing concern with the present form of government and the possibility of what it may do. He expressed concern with the reasoning behind the formulation of the plan indicating that he felt those involved simply needed "something to do. " He also expressed concern with the projected cost of the twenty-year plan and the fear of under- estimation. He felt the only possible way the County could 6 afford such a plan would be through tax increases . He also expressed the concern that property would be devalued by the easements along the waterways. He indicated that perhaps a district vote would be one way to solve such issues . Chair Marshall spoke to the issue of district representation and having a Commissioner from each township. She stated that the Federal Government demands one man, one vote. The concentration of people is in the lower urban area, thus there is no way within the Federal Law to have a Commissioner from each township. She noted that it had generally been the feeling of the Board that the people in Northern Orange County have a better chance of promoting someone and getting them on than if there were district division since most of the districts were in the urban areas . Because of the situation of the voters and the demographic distribution, the Board is very careful to see that each township is represented on all boards and commissions . She noted that less than 5% of those people volunteering to be on boards or commissions are from the rural areas or from other townships other than Chapel Hill or Hillsborough. It is extremely important to get the demographic distribution that cannot be allowed even if the district system was observed. Dennis Hils, a resident of Cheeks Township, stated that he worked as a volunteer with kids programs for fifteen-twenty hours per week and in response to Mr. Hobgood, it was not because "he needed something to do" . He encouraged others to volunteer their services to the Recreation Department and indicated that he felt a commitment from Orange County for community recreational services and facilities is as important as or even more important than capital or physical plant infrastructure. He encouraged adoption of the Plan as an opportunity to preserve much of the beauty of Orange County. B.W. Pittman expressed the thought that the plan was "ridiculous" and there were far greater needs in Orange County than recreational needs. He stated that less than 10% of the total population of Orange County would benefit from or use the facilities. He expressed concern with the destruction of private properties and the loss of farmlands along the waterways. He asked that the Commissioners go out and view the actual areas being referenced in the Plan. Mr. Pittman also used the word "communism" in reference to the Plan. Ted Latta, resident of Eno Township, indicated he was in favor of a parks plan for Orange County but that a plan such as proposed was an unaffordable luxury for the county. Mr. Latta expressed concern that if the original proposed 7 greenways had been acquired as 100-foot easements, Orange County government would become the largest landowner in the county with land in excess of 5, 000 acres. He noted the fear that Orange County government would also become the landowner of all the water in Orange County. He continued, that with regulations such as those in force now, the land will be taken by a type of forced condemnation with no compensation. He expressed the concern that the county would be owner of small pieces of land all over the county with no means of maintenance and patrolling and no means of "tying into" any kind of system. He stated he felt the best thing to do at this point would be to "scrap" the plan and "write-off" the funds already expended. Commissioner Hartwell stated that he is constantly hearing that the County is going to "condemn and take" land and asked the Recreation & Parks Director, Mary Anne Black, if that statement has been made or written anywhere in the Plan. Ms . Black responded that it has not been mentioned and is not in the plan. Commissioner Hartwell expressed concern that so many citizens seem to believe that condemnation of land will take place in order to have land for greenways . He continued by asking Mr. Latta where the information came from regarding condemnation. Mr. Latta responded that the Subdivision Regulations require a dedication of land for recreation and he felt that was a "taking of private land without compensation" . Ms. Black responded that the Subdivision Regulations, in a major subdivision, does require the dedication of land for recreation/open space or payment- in-lieu. Commissioner Hartwell continued that he would like for everyone to understand the means by which the County intends to acquire land for greenways . Ms . Black listed methods of acquiring land for greenways and parks landowners for contained in the Plan as donations by p r parks, through continued private ownership and allowing easements across that property for a trail, through designation of private property for conservation easements which would also allow for recreational activities or the out-and-out acquisition by the County of that property. A citizen asked about the power of eminent domain. Chair Marshall state tht it place sine Board themost policy that dire conditions for public safety. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, _stated that the Plan being presented does not contemplate that land would be taken through the exercise of eminent domain. He pconttinuedhthatas the only time that the County would obtain property 8 not been offered to it for sale or gift by the property owner would be in the instance of a major subdivision and if part of the plan (greenways, accessways) , is within the subdivision. There is a requirement within the Subdivision Regulations for a donation of 1/35th of an acre for each lot in the subdivision. A thirty-five acre subdivision would thus require that one acre be donated. That is not any different at all than the requirement that has been in place for years regarding access to the lots in the subdivision by dedication of a public road or in some instances a private road. The underlying basis for requiring the dedication is to provide recreation space. There are differing opinions about the need for public recreation. However, there is no question but that it is within a local government's authority to require recreation because the courts have, for a long time, regarded acquisition of property for public recreation and for private recreation in the case of developments, as being for a public' purpose. Gledhill stated that if nothing is ever to be done with the property in the way of subdivision, there is nothing "threatening" in the Plan. There is nothing that is being presented in these documents for consideration by the County Commissioners which contemplates acquiring property without it being offered and without the County either receiving as a gift or paying for it. Mrs. Mary Johnson, speaking from the audience, noted that the property set aside in a subdivision for recreational purposes is to be used for private recreation for that particular subdivision. The County Attorney responded that in most cases, the requirement for recreation space within the subdivision will be for the people in the subdivision. The only time that the recreation area will also be made available to the general public will be if the recreation area happens to correspond with the proposed greenway system. If you are planning to develop your property and divide it into lots, you will be required to provide recreation. If the recreation area happens to align with the park system, the public may have access to that area. Mrs. Johnson stated that she agreed with the setting aside of land in a subdivision for use as a recreational area for those within the subdivision. She continued, however, that allowing people to have access across private property would be unconstitutional because it takes away the right of property owners to decide who has access to their property. Chair Marshall responded that until the land is subdivided, the greenway would be a line on a map. Chair Marshall continued that this is a plan for the future as urban • 9 development occurs . Mrs. Johnson continued that someone had spoken at a previous meeting and stated that land had already been "taken" from them. She asked for a clarification. Chair Marshall responded that was in relation to development in the poAreanwherelanhadoptedsgreenwayslplan within already Joint in Planning Area place. Attorney Gledhill stated that the government can require you to publicly dedicate a certain amount of your land (what it regards as necessary for the public health, safety and welfare) , before it allows you to make lots available for sale. The purpose of this is to provide you with whatever things it deems necessary in order for that subdivision to be a place where people can safely and happily live. That is the underlying philosophy behind what are known as exactions in development work. He stated that he felt no one would argue with the County requiring a public road for access but when that requirement is made, it has become a part of the public. The same principle applies in recreation and it is not unconstitutional for the government to require public access to some reasonable amount of your land if you are going to be developing it for the purpose of making lots available for sale or for any other reason. The amount that the government can take from you in the development process or require you to dedicate for public use in the development process must be a reasonable amount and must be related to the impact that your subdivision has on the overall county. That is why only major subdivisions are required to make dedications for park purposes. Commissioner Carey asked that- Attorney Gledhill explain what constitutes a major subdivision. Gledhill responded that a major subdivision in Orange County is a development of five lots or more from a tract of land. Gledhill emphasized again that there is nothing in the proposed plan that contemplates that Orange County will use eminent domain power to acquire property. Chair Marshall emphasized again that no greenways will be developed on property unless it is given to the County or bought by the County or where a major subdivision is proposed. Existing farms or existing open space in single ownership are not involved. Tom Wagner, Little River Township, noted that the map indicated a park in his area or on his property and asked about the acquisition of land for parks. Gledhill responded that the area on which parks are shown on the map is a gross area. The actual identity or location of the parklands has not been made. Gledhill continued that it would not become 10 recreation land under this plan until the owner wants to donate or sell it to Orange County. Mr. Wagner continued voicing his concern that in the future perhaps the Board would change its mind or another Board would view the option of eminent domain in a different light and consider condemnation. Chair Marshall stated that condemnation is not easy. The Board cannot simply make a decision for a park and condemn the land nor can the Board set the price. She continued that the County could make an offer on an appraisal. The property owner has an appraisal and there is a third appraiser who checks for differences in the appraisals . All those appraisals go into court and that is where the question of condemnation is settled. Carol Riggs, Little River resident, expressed concern that deeding land to her children would constitute a major subdivision and a donation of land for recreation would be required. Ms . Riggs indicated that she felt that the giving of land to her children should not require "giving 1/35th" of each lot to the County. Commissioner Hartwell clarified that it is not 1/35th of land but 1/35th of an acre for each lot that is created. He asked Ms. Riggs if she would oppose "giving up" land for roads or just for recreation. Ms . Riggs responded that she was in opposition to the donation of land for recreation only. Commissioner Hartwell noted that he felt that was an important statement to make and hoped that others would be as clear about their feelings about recreation. Ms. Riggs continued that with beaches and mountains only three hours away and a State Park only one hour away in Raleigh, she saw no need for the arguments or discussions . A man from the audience asked, if the intent is not to use the power of eminent domain, why was this not included in the Plan for easier understanding. Commissioner Hartwell stated that since he so thoroughly abhorred the idea of condemnation or government' s taking of anybody's private property for any purpose that it would not come to his mind to put it into the plan one way or the other. Patrick Mulkey, a resident of Bingham Township who holds a degree in Parks & Recreation Administration, indicated his concern was with the 75-acre proposed district park at Cane Creek Reservoir. He noted he had conversations with Pat Davis of OWASA and Mr. Davis indicated that the most likely site would be in the northwest portion of the lake. Mr. Mulkey continued that he and Ms. Black were in agreement that one of the criteria of a park of this magnitude is that it • 11 must have easy access to major traffic arteries in the County. The site described by Mr. Davis has access onto Bradshaw Quarry Road which connects Mebane Oaks Road and Orange Grove Road and is twelve to sixteen miles from the Carrboro/Chapel Hill area. Mr. Mulkey expressed concern that such a location would be more easily accessible and more utilized by non-residents of Orange County. Mr. Mulkey referenced a survey for the Bingham Land Use Plan Update which asked the three biggest problems in Bingham Township. He noted that only 2% listed too little open or recreational space. To the question of the biggest problems ten years from now only 7% listed too little open or recreational space. He noted that discussions with other Bingham residents and family members indicated there was no need for a district park in that area. Mr. Mulkey concluded that he did not consider recreation as one of the more essential services that a county should provide and it should not be placed ahead of or alongside of law enforcement, schools or certain social services . When it comes to the question of funding for the Master Parks & Recreation Plan, the voters of Orange County should make that decision. Chair Marshall responded that indeed the voters would make the decision because bonds would be necessary to do a large park and the voters of Orange County would have to vote on bond issues. Dolly Hunter, former teacher of physical education in the public school system for eighteen years, indicated support for public recreation in the form of parks and urged that the issue of greenways be separated from that of parks and pools. She noted that at the present rate of growth- it is projected that the population will double within the next seventeen years and there will be a great demand for recreational space. She noted that her experience and research had indicated an insufficient number of soccer fields for Orange County players and encouraged that funding for the Master Recreation & Parks Plan be directed toward contained parks rather than greenways. Ms. Walker expressed concern with the health and safety issues along greenways . She also noted fear of liability if injuries occurred on those greenways. She noted also that it creates an additional financial burden for developers which inflates the cost of lots to individual home buyers. She urged that the Board listen to the citizens ' opposition to the greenways and delete them from the Plan. Sam Hobgood, Cedar Grove resident, noted that he was a new - homeowner in that area and had already encountered problems with subdivision buffer requirements indicating he was • 12 required to put in plants which would have to be removed if the proposed greenway was approved. He noted that while the taxpayers of Orange County recognize the need for public facilities and the upgrading of those facilities, they do not feel that the needs and wants of rural Orange County have been fairly represented by the Planning Department nor the Recreation Department. He expressed concern with the cost of the preparation of the Plan and noted that at the informational meeting held in Cedar Grove that all those in attendance unanimously agreed that all proposals within the Plan should be dropped. He continued expressing the concerns of the rural community of Cedar Grove such as funding, individual landowner liability, property damage and the feeling that the rural property owners are being treated unfairly by the Board. He concluded asking that the rights of property owners in rural Orange County be protected. Chair Marshall asked that the Recreation Director consider seeking a wider representation on the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board perhaps similar to that of the Township Advisory Councils . Barbara Burger expressed concern that the public seek help from the Commissioners in the stewardship of land in Orange County. She indicated she felt that now is the time to implement the Master Recreation and Parks Plan in order to safeguard the rural landscape. She urged the Board to accept and approve the Plan. Tim Blake, resident of Bingham Township, asked how the total acreage for parks and greenways compares with the State average of park allocation per citizen. He indicated he felt there was no need for a district park and greenways in Bingham Township and listed those parks (Carrboro Community Park, Jordan Lake, Kerr Lake, Falls Impoundment) already in place. He felt the majority of the users would not be Orange County tax payers. He indicated that he felt there would be very little donation of land and no help from civic organizations in maintaining the greenways. He expressed concern with property damage and the idea of a state-wide greenway linking the mountains to the ocean. He asked that careful consideration be given to this aspect and that all landowners be treated fairly in the deliberations. Gene Williams, resident of Bingham Township, White Cross Community, stated that all of the residents of the White Cross Community are totally opposed to the greenways system being proposed. He asked why the citizens of Orange County had not been sufficiently informed of the proposed greenways system. Chair Marshall responded that it is very difficult, no matter how much it is advertised in local newspapers and • 13 local radio stations, unless citizens are alert and willing to listen and read and inform other citizens who do not access the local stations and newspapers . Mr. Williams noted that those citizens are in attendance now and asked if the Board is listening to them and their concerns . He asked also if the people involved in developing the greenways system were lifelong residents of Orange County, owners of single lots or large landowners of the County. Ms . Marshall responded that some of all those groups were involved. Mr. Williams expressed doubt that this was true. Mr. Williams expressed concern that land will not be donated or sold to the County for the greenways system. He indicated that he felt establishment of the greenways was a contrived way of taking land from the taxpaying landowners for the primary purpose of providing access to privately owned lands in rural Orange County for the use of the non-taxpaying student population of UNC at Chapel Hill and the Chapel Hill area. Ms. Marshall responded "absolutely not" . Mr. Williams continued expressing non-belief and stated that he felt the monies required for the Plan could be put to better use for the citizens of Orange County within the school system. Ms . Marshall responded that the choice is not between the schools and out-of-state students at UNC. She stated that the schools must be funded but if the County is to develop and get the kind of economic industrial development that many want to help the tax base, the amenities that really fine industrial people look for are schools and recreational opportunities . This is a requirement for the high class tax base that many in Orange County would like to have. Mr. Williams responded that the residents of rural Orange County have means of recreation and noted again that he felt the greenways were solely for, the students of the Chapel Hill area. Mr. Williams stated that he had been informed, as a recent member of the Board of Directors of White Cross Recreation Association, that the statement had been made that the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department was going to take-over the White Cross Recreation Association when it went broke and asked Ms . Black if that was a true statement. Ms. Black responded that it was not. He noted that there had been mention of a joint effort of development between the White Cross Recreation Association and the County Recreation Department and he expressed opposition to such an endeavor. He noted that the community center was built through volunteer efforts with no assistance required from the County and that the White Cross Community residents are totally opposed to the greenways as an unnecessary and ridiculous idea. Bill Ray referenced the fifty-foot stream buffer noting that the greenway requirement would be an additional sixty feet. He cited a California case and stated that the greenways 14 requirement would be a taking of land without due process and compensation. He expressed concern with the loss of privacy and noted that he knew of no landowners in favor of the greenway portion of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan and asked that the Board not adopt that portion of the Plan. Lloyd Wentler, Bingham Township, indicated that he felt it is not sufficient for this Board to say that it will not use the power of eminent domain to acquire land for greenways and asked that it be put into writing within the Plan that the power of eminent domain will not be used. He indicated that he felt the discontent and hostility that would be created by the money being spent for the greenways would far outweigh the intent or good that would be created. Chair Marshall suggested and indicated that the Planning Board Chair was in agreement that a set of policy statements could be written and made as a preamble to the Plan and adopted as apart of the Plan to address those concerns regarding eminent domain. Pearson Stewart, Chapel Hill resident, expressed support for the principles of the district parks, community parks and pools. He indicated he had attended the Hillsborough informational meeting and received the impression from the presentation that the greenways portion of the Plan was indeed a long-range plan (ten, twenty, thirty years) , and he expressed support for that time frame noting that at this time Orange County does not need the greenways . He continued that with the growth he anticipates for the County, the need for the greenways will be great. He noted that the County must be prepared to accept complete responsibility for the maintenance of the parks as well as the greenways system. He addressed the concerns of privacy and security noting that he felt very strongly that a greenway system, which is well- maintained, works to prevent such problems from occurring. He felt that the greenways would be more used by adjacent property owners than those students from Chapel Hill. He indicated he lives- adjacent to two greenways which are in constant use and in a twenty-eight year period, he had only experienced one instance of improper use of the greenway. David Baird, Jr. , Cheeks Township resident, asked of Commissioner Hartwell if he was willing to donate land for greenways and Commissioner Hartwell seemed to be in agreement. Mr. Baird indicated he felt all questions had been raised and that he was opposed to the greenways proposals. He suggested that land be purchased from Duke University for the creation of one large park and that all other aspects of the Plan be dropped. 15 Vern Miller, Little River Township, expressed concern that the citizens have not been heard; he felt if this had been the case, the subject of greenways would have been deleted from the proposal after the November, 1987 public hearing since greenways was the point of opposition at that time. Mr. Miller continued that he felt that the Plan should be tabled until such time as the budget could be brought under control where taxes would not have to be continually raised to take care of present expenditures. Josephine Barbour, Eno Township resident, expressed concern that the Eno River State Park which consists of 1200 acres in Orange County and 800 acres in Durham County, had not been listed by any of those speaking about local or area parks . She expressed concern that her family property has been under the threat of condemnation for the past fifteen years and have been through three court battles in order to preserve that family land. She stated that the land can be condemned from a health standpoint or the welfare of others . She indicated that the public meetings she had attended did not address funding and when the question regarding funding was asked, she was told that it was not being discussed. She stated that trails along the river were discussed as long ago as fifteen years and the width of those trails was thought to be fifteen to twenty feet wide. Those trails actually have to be fifty feet wide in order for rescue vehicles to be able to access them if necessary. Later on, this same linear park was to become a part of the mountain to the sea trail. Ms . Barbour expressed concern that to build the trails outside of the floodplains would include removing trees in order to provide fifty foot trails and this would not be preserving but destroying land and the habitat for wildlife. She expressed concern with security noting that in the past that police officers had told citizens to "know their neighbors" but how could one know their neighbors when the land is open to the public. She concluded with the concern of how to keep people on the greenways and away from private property. Stewart Barbour expressed concern that condemnation would take place in order to acquire land for greenways and gave the following statement from the Eno River Group to the Board of Commissioners : "Few doubt Eno River should be saved, Few think Eno can be saved, A few think a state park will save Eno River, A few think a greenway will save Eno River, A few think a mountain to sea trail will save Eno River, Many think a park, greenway, mountain to sea trail will indeed save Eno from a much needed reservoir at Cabes 16 Ford to the detriment of many thirsty citizens of the Hillsborough Triangle to the benefit of a few. " "We're growing wall-to-wall with thirsty citizens here, we need jobs for our children, for the jobs we need industry, for the industry we need water, there is an excellent reservoir site just west of town and one even larger at Cabes Ford. " Carl Lloyd, Bingham Township resident, noted that he had subdivided and created nine 5-acre lots and had to donate 1/35th of an acre for recreation and he thought it was for recreational purposes of those homeowners in his subdivision. He continued that this 9/35th of an acre had become about two acres out of fifty on the creek with about a 70 to 90 foot easement to Orange County. He felt this was about ten times the requirement as listed in the Subdivision Regulations . He indicated that this was a "taking" . George Chockley, Cedar Grove Township resident, noted that he was very much against the greenways proposal. He indicated that he had attended the public meetings on greenways and was told by the Recreation and Parks Director, Mary Anne Black, that the citizens wishes would be conveyed to the Commissioners . He stated that a newspaper had quoted Ms . Black as saying that everyone liked the new revised report" . He indicated this was not the public feeling at the meeting he attended; nobody liked it. Chair Marshall responded that the Commissioners had received reports from each of the public meetings. Mr. Chockley indicated he felt the feelings of the people had been misrepresented and that they were -definitely not in favor of the greenways. Tom Wilson, Cedar Grove Township resident, expressed concern that with the elaborate plan and the length of the greenways, there would be no way to acquire all the land needed to connect. the various parts without condemning land. He felt a great deal of money had been spent unnecessarily since he felt there was no conceivable way to connect the greenways . Tom Wagner stated that his family were owners of a large. certified tree farm in Orange County with no intent to subdivide. He expressed concern with the future security of greenways and parks -and the implementation of a Plan which would create many problems in the future which could never be solved. Sue Hobgood, property owner in Cedar Grove Township, expressed concern that the proposed greenways would divide her property. Ms. Hobgood felt that giving property to , family members did not constitute a subdivision. Chair 17 Marshall noted that no distinction was made between the subdivision of land for family members and subdivision for sale to the general public. Ms . Hobgood continued with concerns regarding a recent subdivision of her family property and felt that unfair demands were made in the buffer requirements. She felt if this could be required on property that had been in her family since 1913, then land could be taken for greenways without the consent of the landowner. Nick Gregoris, Bingham Township resident, expressed concern that those willing to donate time or land and have taxes increased were not those already paying large amounts of property taxes . He also expressed concern with the cost of the study prepared for the Master Parks & Recreation Plan. He continued that he felt it would be more appropriate to charge a user fee and let those desiring to use parks and recreation areas pay their way. He also expressed concern that per capita and per taxpayer are not the same thing and that taxpayers are providing services for non-taxpayers. Mr. Gregoris expressed concern with easements already on his property for utilities and indicated he did not buy the property he owns to provide recreation for the general public. Thomas Smith, Bingham Township resident, expressed concern that security would be provided for the greenways. He noted previous problems with service from Orange County Sheriff's Department and expressed the fear that vandalism would occur that would not be repaired. He concluded asking if the Commissioners would fight for those citizens against the greenways as much as they were fighting for the greenways . Chair Marshall responded that the process is to refer this issue back to the Planning Board and the Planning Board will prepare a recommendation. The Commissioners will review the Planning Board recommendations and those comments received at the public hearings. Ms. Marshall noted that no one is "fighting" ; a public hearing is simply being held on a proposed plan. Edna Smith expressed a complaint with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Chair Marshall asked that County Manager, John Link, followup this complaint. Olivia Perelli, Cedar Grove Township, asked how the greenways would be built, but yet preserve the natural habitat and protect against litter and abuse. She felt these are only a few reasons why the greenways will not work. Chair Marshall responded that the greenways would be developed as the area becomes urbanized and recreational facilities are needed. Ms. Perelli expressed concern that the confined park areas are not utilized but yet are not maintained and kept clean. 18 Vic Knight expressed concern that only the greenways had been addressed and he desired to see and hear discussions regarding proposed community parks and district parks . He indicated the need to have those items discussed separately. He asked that the Board listen closely to the public comments particularly since those speaking from the rural area of the County seemed to be totally opposed to the proposed greenways. Mr. Knight continued expressing concern for the safety of those using the greenways as well as those with property adjoining the greenways . He noted that a large creek borders his property and an adjoining large farm and that on several occasions he had been forced to call the Sheriff' s Department to have people removed from those areas late at night. He continued that safety will always be a concern regarding the greenways as well as the potential for liability on the part of the property owners. Ann Joyner, resident of Cedar Grove Township, expressed concern with the consistent use of the phrase that the "greenways will be built and will be used for a certain purpose" and asked for assurance from the Board that those speaking will be heard. Chair Marshall responded that the use of the word will was simply used to indicate how the Plan, if adopted, would be implemented. Ms. Joyner continued asking if the entire Board was willing to be openminded and listen to the citizens ' concerns and not with the determination that the greenways will be built. The response was yes and Commissioner Hartwell commented that he had come to the meeting suspicious of greenways and was still suspicious of greenways. Ms. Joyner continued that she is a developer and does intend to subdivide the land available to her and expressed the concern that those property owners who would purchase the lots for homes which she would subdivide would have the same concerns for greenways across their lots that are being expressed by the present property owners. She continued that she felt the concerns would remain the same regardless who the property owners are or the amount of property that is owned. Hervy McIver, resident of Hillsborough Township, indicated that he was in favor of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan, but also expressed doubts and suspicions with certain aspects of the Plan. He indicated that he felt the Plan addressed a long-range and farsighted vision of what Orange County will become under the increasing pressure of growth. He continued that the County had experienced a tremendous amount of growth in the period from 1968 to 1988 and he expected that growth to accelerate during the next twenty years. He continued that he felt the best stewards of the land were private landowners but that development pressures would demand that 19 greenways be developed. He felt that greenways would prevent the encroachment of development into the wildlife corridors and would favor adoption of the Plan by the Board if voted on favorably by the residents of the County. Lawrence Kirkland inquired if the policy statement was placed in the Master Plan that condemnation of land would not be a means of acquiring land for greenways, would it be binding on future boards for the next twenty years . Chair Marshall responded that she did not think that anything is binding on one board. One must be careful who they elect. He continued asking if such a policy statement would be worthwhile or if the, Board could upset it in the future. Chair Marshall responded that as the Comprehensive Plan was updated every five years, beginning with public hearings, policy changes could occur as needed to meet development and land use changes. Commissioner Hartwell noted that any law that a Board had the right to make, it would also have the right to change. The advantage to having such a policy statement in writing is that it must be dealt directly with before any future change could take place. Robert Nichols expressed thanks to Planner Gene Bell for notifying him of the proposed greenway lines on either side of Lake Orange. He continued that in the operation of Lake Orange, fishing is not allowed from the banks unless restroom services are available noting also that septic tanks are not allowed. He continued that there is not sufficient easement to allow walking around the lake and expressed concern with bikes along the greenways . Chair Marshall responded that until such time as the rural areas were no longer rural, then the greenways would develop as the property is developed. Mr. Nichols expressed concern with the potential health problems and noted that he did not know of anyone who had property to donate for greenways. He asked for what the 43 million dollar figure would be used. Ms . Black referred Mr. Nichols to Table 7 .2 which outlines the cost per facility over a course of the Twenty Year Plan. She noted that those figures were the cost if there is no community involvement at all. Mr. Nichols stated he felt land should be purchased for any proposed greenway system. Mr. Wentler spoke again asking how compatible the proposed greenway system was with the clean water system. He expressed the concern that everyone is in somebody's watershed and that he has witnessed littering in such areas. He noted that he had a pond which he had opened to the public for fishing but that he had to close it due to the littering by the public. He expressed concern that the public was 20 being given easy access to the streams and litter would be a major problem. Ben Lloyd noted that he owned property along the Eno River, McGowan's Creek and Seven Mile Creek and indicated that the greenway system would not be built to the west of Hillsborough since he did not intend to donate or sell land to be used for greenways . Mr. Lloyd referenced a conversation he had with Ms . Black in which she indicated she expected land and equipment donation; he indicated he did not expect such donations to occur. He noted that he supported the concept of zoning and land use planning if it is utilized as it was originally designed, as a protective measure but he felt the zoning Ordinance had been turned into a monster of complete control . He agreed with the concern of loss of private property rights . He also spoke to the cost implications . He noted that over the past six years the citizens of Orange County have experienced an increase in excess of 20% per year in property taxes and in 1987 there was an increase of over 40% and an article he referenced in the Durham Morning Herald indicated a higher increase is expected. He noted the concern of elderly couples who fear they will be unable to pay property taxes in the future in order to maintain their homes. Mr. Lloyd also commented on the retroactive status of salary increases for County employees. He closed with the comment that "unless the direction changes in Orange County, the older folks, the young folks and the less fortunate are going to have to move out of Orange County due to their inability to pay their taxes. " He expressed concern that the citizens ' comments be heard and heeded. Jerry Harris, Eno Township resident, presented a graph he had made regarding his property taxes and increases since moving into Eno in 1973 and agreed with Mr. Lloyd regarding tax increases. He indicated that from 1973 to 1983 taxes had doubled every 6 1/2 to 7 years and during the last four years it has doubled every 3 1/2 to 4 years . He expressed concern that such an increase to support the Recreation and Parks Plan would create much public resistance to more important expenditures. Mr. Harris continued that the expenditures were listed in the Plan per capita and this could be a considerable amount per family. He also expressed concern that the creation of greenways for a large number of people would destroy the area rather than preserve the area. He suggested that if the bond issue states that no part of the money shall be used for eminent domain or condemnation then it could never be used for that purpose -by anyone. Wayne Meadow, a resident of West Hillsborough expressed the thought that there may be a need for parks but there is no 21 need for greenways . Virginia Tate, Cedar Grove resident asked if an environmental impact statement was needed before such a Plan could be implemented. Ms . Black responded that before any facility is developed a specific site plan will have to be prepared, reviewed and approved before the facility is built. Jim Plymire expressed concern with the figure of 95 miles of greenways. He felt that to be an extreme amount for Orange County. Chair Marshall noted that taken in small portions it would not be considered extreme. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, that the Master Recreation and Parks Plan be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous . Chair Marshall indicated that the april 4 meeting would be for deliberation and decision wouldcbe comment made rec receivved d at that time. 2 . Assignment of House Numbers a. Rural Routes 2 and 3 - Rougemont The presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Routes 2 and 3 in the County, served by the Rougemont Post Office. Per an agreement reached in January, 1987 between the County Manager and the Chapel Hill Postmaster, a joint project between the County and the Postal Service was undertaken to convert rural box numbers to permanently assigned house numbers. Since the adoption of the House Numbering Ordinance by the Board of Commissioners on April 21, 1987, three Chapel Hill rural routes, 2, 5 and 8, have been converted to street addresses. Rougemont Rural Routes 2 and 3 have now been prepared for the next conversion to house numbers. These two routes are located in Little River Township in northeastern Orange 22 County and include the community of Caldwell and portions of Highways 57 and 157 and Guess Road. The area is bounded generally by the following roads: Kiger, New Sharon Church, Bill Poole, McBroom, Bunny, Sawyer, Hall Dairy, Holly Ridge, Brown, Breeze, Mary Hall and Blalock. General Statute 153A-240 requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and in at least two places in Little River Township (Caldwell Store and Rougemont Post Office) . A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of the public hearing. The Administration recommends approval of the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Rougemont Postmaster and the NC Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A-240 . Best asked about the response of the Rougemont Postmaster. Don Powell responded that he was in favor of the number assignment. Jeff Russell, Eno Township resident, expressed concern with the system of assigning house numbers. He reviewed the problems he has had with the assignment of the number for his new home in November. He noted that the address he was given was 5211 Shady Lane. He indicated this was just one mile inside the Orange County line and he is served by the North Durham Post Office. One of the problems is that there is also a 5200 block of Shady Lane in Durham and his mail has been held due to the Post Office not knowing where to deliver the mail. He noted also that there is a Shady Lane in Chapel Hill and this means there are three Shady Lane addresses with his name (this was learned after a false alarm went in from his burglar alarm system the previous weekend) . He expressed concern that all bordering counties should be contacted before numbers 23 are assigned in order to prevent duplications . Chair Marshall responded that the system as implemented will continue and there will be no change in the grid system. A resident of Rougemont indicated she is in favor of the change for Rougemont as they have been experiencing difficulties with mail for some time. She expressed the opinion that the assigning of house numbers would be much more efficient for the Rougemont area. Chair Marshall asked the County Manager to investigate why Orange County assigned a house number for a new home which is served by a Post Office in Durham. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the the Administration' s recommendation as presented. Vote: Unanimous . 3 . Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Comprehensive Plan (1) Article 2 - Administration (Statement of Intent/Amendment Procedures) (2) Article 22 - Definitions (Definition of Comprehensive Plan) The staff presentation by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Articles 2 .2.12 - 2.2 . 14 (Comprehensive Plan) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance. Existing references in the Zoning Ordinance refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County's Comprehensive Plan, new issues are emerging which warrant special recognition and study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated for such treatment are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility services and transportation. 24 To recognize the special nature of such issues yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re-definition of the Plan is proposed. The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use Plan) , recreation, transportation, housing, open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed. While the proposed amendments to Articles 2 .2 . 12 , 2 .2 . 13, and 22 seek to re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed amendment to Article 2 .2 . 14 would incorporate the Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan (adopted November 1, 1982) into the Zoning Ordinance. The procedures have been altered only to address the Comprehensive Plan rather than the Land Use Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Commissioner Hartwell, regarding 2 .2 . 13, asked how adopting, by resolution differed from the way the Land Use Plan is adopted at the present time. Bell responded that historically the Land Use Plan has been- - referred to as the Comprehensive Plan although it primarily dealt with land use and land use policies. Going into the Comprehensive Plan concept, we are going to have plans that address each of the elements previously mentioned. Bell continued that his understanding for having a resolution on each of these is so that there can be an adopted comprehensive plan but also add to it from time to time and the adding to is done in the form of a resolution when a new element is. completed or amended. Chair Marshall indicated she would like for the County Manager and County Attorney to go over these changes for streamlining to make sure that they are all compatible. The County Manager stated that he would review those changes with Staff and Mr. 25 Gledhill. Commissioner Hartwell continued that his concern was not with streamlining but to insure due process . County Attorney Geof Gledhill responded that it is a matter of terminology and that it is not envisioned that resolutions would be adopted to change the Comprehensive Plan which have not been to public hearing. Gledhill continued that there is a statute which addresses ordinances or resolutions that affect ordinances regarding County government. Ted Latta questioned the number of days for advertising (fifteen and twenty-five) . Jacobs responded that this time frame was consistent with the other ordinances . Chair Marshall also noted the change was consistent with the change in enabling legislation. Gledhill indicated that the enabling legislation changes regarding advertising schedules occurred about two years ago. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chair Marshall that the public hearing be held open for the purpose of receiving the Planning Board' s recommendation at the Board of Commissioners meeting on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous . (3) Article 4-Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule and Article 6 -Application of Dimensional Requirements (References to "Land Use Plan" ) 'The staff presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment proposed amendments to Article 4 (Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance currently contains references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re-define the nature 26 and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Zoning Ordinance, all references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. The following subsections of the Zoning Ordinance refer to the adopted Land Use Plan,_ the Land Use Plan, the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan or the Orange County Land Use Plan. Article 4.2 . 1 b) 1 . 4 .2 .2 b) 1 . 4 .2 .3 b) 1 . 4.2 .4 b) 1. 4 .2 .5 b) 1 and 3 . 4 . 2 . 8 b) 1 and 5. 4 .2 .9 b) 1 and 5 4 .2 .10 b) 1, 4 and 7 . 4 .2 . 11 b) 1 and 3 . 4 .2 . 12 b) 4 .2 .16 b) 1 and 5. 4.2 .19 b) 1. 4.2 .20 a) and b) 4 .2 .21 b) 1 and 3 . 4.2 .22 b) 1. 4 .2 .23 b) 1 . 4 .2 .24 b) 1. 4 .2 .27 b) 1 . 4 .2.28 b) 1. 4 .2 .29 b) 3 . 4 .2 .30 a) and b) 1 . Article 6.20.1 The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance change all of the above citations to o ted Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the public hearing be held open to receive the Planning Board's recommendation at the Commissioners meeting on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous. 27 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. Designation of Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan The staff presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would designate the Orange County Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing references in the Zoning Ordinance refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County's Comprehensive Plan, new issues have emerged which warrant special recognition and study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated for such treatment are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility services, and transportation. To recognize the special nature of such issues yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re-definition of the Plan has been proposed. The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use Plan) , recreation, transportation, housing, open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed. Proposed amendments to Articles 2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance would re-define the purpose, intent, and method of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Article 2 .2 . 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that one element of the Comprehensive Plan be a Land Use Element which designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other • 28 categories of public and private uses . Article 2 .2 . 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof from the Planning Board, adopt them by resolution. The Orange County Land Use Plan adopted on September 2, 1981 as amended, fulfills the purpose and intent of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the attached draft resolution would implement the Zoning Ordinance amendments through re- adoption and designation of the Orange County Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends adoption of the draft resolution. (An attachment to these minutes on page ) . Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous. b. Designation and incorporation of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan The staff presentation was made by Gene Bell. This item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would designate the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element. of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed amendments to Articles 2 . 2.12 through 2 .2 . 14 of the Zoning Ordinance would re-define the purpose, intent and method of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Article 2.2 . 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that one element of the Comprehensive Plan be a Recreation Element which designates a system of areas and public 29 sites for recreation, including parks and playgrounds, recreational trails, and other similar areas. Article 2 .2 . 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof from the Planning Board, adopt them by resolution. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan fulfills the purpose and intent of the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the attached draft resolution would implement the Zoning Ordinance amendments through adoption and designation of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends adoption of the draft resolution. (Attachment on page of these minutes) . Commissioner Hartwell noted that no citizen has spoken yet regarding pools and only a very few have addressed district and community parks . He expressed the desire to hear public comment on the other aspects of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. Commissioner Carey agreed that he also would like to hear public comment on other parts of the Plan. It was the consensus of the Board to defer action until other parts of the Plan had been discussed at a public hearing. Ted Latta indicated that he had attended three out of the four Township meetings and that he felt that at least 80% of those in attendance were opposed to any recreational plan due to the cost. County Manager Link indicated he would review dates with Staff for another public hearing on the other elements of the Plan and report his findings to the Board on March 1 . 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Access Restrictions 30 (1) Section IV-B-3-c-8 - Access Restrictions The staff presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. This item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-3-c-8 (Access Restrictions) of the Subdivision Regulations. As land along major County highways develops, both the amount of traffic on such highways and the number of driveways increases. The result is increasing conflicts between vehicles turning into and exiting driveways and through traffic. The conflicts create safety problems and could lead to eventual widening of the highways as a means of resolving the problems . Increasing concerns about the effects of driveways on major highways in Orange County prompted the Planning Board to draft proposals which would strengthen access restrictions for parcels of land created during the subdivision review and approval process . During the process, the number and location of driveway locations could be controlled. Alternatively, lot configurations could be developed which require access to major highways other than through individual driveways . As examples, marginal access streets could be designed which funnel subdivision traffic to a common entrance/exit or access to a side street of lower classification (and away from major highways) could be required. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Vic Knight asked about a definition for major highways. Jacobs responded that this was included in Article IV--B-3-c-8 (street classified as arterial or collector) . in the Ann Joyner asked about the guidelines . Kirk reviewing of driveway applications. responded that the previous ordinance provision referring to heavily traveled street has been changed to a heavily traveled street classified as arterial or collector and basically "heavily traveled" would be a 31 judgment call on the part of Planning Staff, Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners, but it would be a street classified as arterial or collector. Joyner continued asking the criteria for access location of the driveway. Kirk responded that the possibility of common driveways would be considered, marginal access street parallel to the arterial or collector street or reverse frontage. Each subdivision would be reviewed for driveway access on an individual basis . Josephine Barbour expressed her opposition to shared driveways . Vic Knight expressed concern with the additional cost to individual buyers when shared driveways present problems with closings on properties . Jacobs responded that shared driveways was simply an option for developers . Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chair Marshall, to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous . b. Private Road Standards (1) Section IV-B-3-d - Private Roads The Staff presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-3-d (Private Roads) of the Subdivision Regulations. Recent events involving the interpretation of the private road standards contained in Section IV-B-3-d of the Subdivision Regulations have indicated a need to insure consistency of application. On December 9 , 1987, the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee met with the Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Board for the purpose of discussing the private road standards. Based on the discussion, a draft 32 policy resolution was prepared which emphasized the following points : 1. The preservation of the rural character of Orange County; 2 . The use of restrictive covenants to • prevent further subdivision, thereby maintaining the approved density and decreasing the likelihood of NCDOT acceptance of roads for maintenance purposes; and 3 . The use of design features for watershed protection, natural/historic areas preservation, and the retention of scenic view and natural vegetation. At its January 18, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board considered the recommendations of the two committees and adopted the proposed policy resolution. Subsequently, the Board of Commissioners adopted a similar resolution on February 1 and set February 22 as the public hearing date for the purpose of incorporating the provisions of the policy resolution into the Subdivision Regulations . If approved, the new provisions would be administered until a more detailed study of private road standards could be completed and additional amendments proposed. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Jacobs noted that the time frame for further consideration is envisioned as part of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Commissioner Hartwell noted that he preferred to see the lot count in the provisions. Chair Marshall noted that #2 in the proposed provisions is a more workable provision than the one indicating the number of lots. Hartwell agreed. (Copies of the existing and proposed provisions included as attachment to these minutes on pages ) • Ted Latta expressed concern that #la was too • 33 vague and needed clarification. Commissioner Hartwell agreed with Mr. Latta noting that the developers needed clarity and help now. Commissioner Carey expressed concern with restrictive covenants asking if it should be provisions restricting further subdivision rather than restrictive covenants. Kirk responded that it is understood in zoned townships and rural buffer that minimum lot size is already set and further subdivision is prohibited. Ann Joyner, developer, expressed concern with the lack of specific guidelines. Hartwell responded that while there still are some problems with vagueness that this interim policy does take care of some immediate problems . Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous . c. Comprehensive Plan (1) Section IV - Minimum Design Standards (References to "Land Use Plan" ) The staff presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. This item is to receive citizen comment on proposed. amendments to Section IV (Required Minimum Design Standards) of the Subdivision Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations currently contain references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Subdivision Regulations, and, to provide consistency between the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, all P. 34 references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. The following subsections of the Subdivision Regulations refer to the Land Use Plan, mai°r thorou hfare lP a� Oran a Count thorou hfare plan, the duo ted Lana Use Plan or the =nag County_ Land Use Plan. Section IV-B-1 IV-B-3-a IV-B-3-d C) IV-B-7-a-1 IV-B-7-b-2 IV-B-7-b-3 IV-B-7-b-3- (a) IV-B-7-b-6 IV-B-9-a The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations would change all of the above citations to the ado ted Com rehe live Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments . Motion was made by Chair Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey recommendationxtomthe the Planning Boa rd April 4 . Commissioners on Vote: Unanimous . . With no further business to come before the Boards, the meeting was adjourned. Shirley E. Marshall , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna M. Bradshaw, Adm. Secretary APPROVED APRIL 4, 19RR MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1988 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint session on February 22, 1988 at 7 :30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT; Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr. , John Hartwell and Stephen Halkiotis . BOARD MEMBER ABSENT; Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT; Chairman Barry Jacobs and members Chris Best, Carol Bilbro, Viriginia Boland, Carol Cantrell, Abbie Dickinson, Dan Eddleman, Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey and Steve Yuhasz. Prince Taylor arrived at 7 :50 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABSENT; Brenda Swann. ATTORNEY PRESENT Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT; County Manager John M. Link, Assistant County Manager Albert Kittrell, Planner Gene Bell, Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board, Beverly A. Blythe, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw, Planners Emily Crudup and Don Powell. A. BOARD COMMENTS None. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 . Matters on the Printed Agenda. None. 2 . Matters not on the Printed Agenda. None. C. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Shirley E. Marshall read the public charge. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Master Recreation & Parks Plan Chair Marshall reviewed the public hearing and recommendation process for the public. She noted that a great deal of research and thought goes into items before they are advertised and brought to public hearing. Citizens concerns and comments are heard and questions answered. The items are then referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners . At the meeting for deliberation and decision, the Board may or may not allow further input. In the case of the Recreation and Parks Plan, one public hearing has already been held followed up by County-wide informational meetings to address concerns presented at the public hearing. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee has tried to respond and answer questions and this is the second public hearing on the plan. Since this is the second public hearing on the Master Recreation and Parks Plan, it is very unlikely that the Board will allow additional comments at its meeting for deliberation and decision. Presentation was made by Mary Anne Black, Director of Recreation and Parks . The proposed Master Recreation & Parks Plan was presented at public hearing on November 23 and, as a result of citizen and advisory board concerns, revisions to the original document are being proposed. The Master Recreation & Parks Plan is designed to become one element of Orange County' s Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with other county land use plans and ordinances . The Plan recommends that Orange County concentrate its efforts in the provision of four types of recreation and park facilities: ( 1) community parks (serving the more densely populated unincorporated areas of the county) ; (2) district parks; (3) greenways (linking parks, rural residential areas, and urban activity centers) ; and (4) swimming pools . Revisions to the Plan and text were discussed at Planning Board and Recreation & Parks Advisory Council meetings following the initial public hearing, and on January 25, 1988 the Planning Board recommended that the Plan be submitted again to public hearing. On February 1, 1988, the Board of Commissioners concurred with the recommendation and set February 22, 1988 as the public hearing date. Four public informational meetings were held during the week of February 8, 1988 in the county's four leisure service districts. The purpose of the meetings was to acquaint the public with the proposed "recreational trails" system. Proposed revisions affect only the greenways element of the Plan, delineating only those areas proposed for active recreational trails. Proposed "natural conservation areas" have been deleted from the Plan and will be addressed as part of the Natural Areas Inventory and/or Open Space Plan. The attachments outline revisions proposed to the text, and exhibits 6-2 through 6-8 of the Plan document highlight the proposed recreational trails system. The Recreation & Parks Director and Planning Director recommend approval of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan including: 1 . Community parks 2 . District parks 3 . Swimming pools 4 . Recreational trails The following text is recommended to be to be substituted for all text appearing in the draft Master Recreation and Parks Plan, Chapter 6, County-Wide Proposals and Recommendations, Greenways section (pages 6-7 through 6-9 ) . -Greenways A final county-wide recommendation is for the county to develop a greenway system, composed of recreational trails. The system is to be based upon guidelines provided to the county by the Triangle Land Conservancy and greenways plans included in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan adopted October 1986. It is also proposed that the county coordinate its greenway plans with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro on a local level, and the Triangle J Planning Area on a regional level, to assure proper connections with other systems in the area. Orange County is also within the path of the "Mountain to the Sea" trail being developed through the State of North Carolina. It would be beneficial to connect with this trail system where possible to become a member of a unique and historic recreational activity. The final recommendation on the development of a greenway system is that it be planned compatibly with other systems as recommended by the President's Commission on American Outdoors (PCAO) which emphasizes the creation of a "National Greenway Network. " Areas designated on the individual township maps show the areas recommended for recreational trails (graphically depicted by an asterisk pattern) which are accessible to the public and managed by the County, and are developed with walkways or trails . -Recreational Trails Recreational trails in more urbanized areas or accessible to relatively large numbers of people, or which connect two or more identified significant areas should take the form of corridors of land with a paved or prepared walkway (these trails can provide walking connections and opportunities for bicyclists and joggers) or with well-marked and maintained unpaved trails . These corridors should be a minimum of sixty feet (60' ) wide or the width of the 100 year floodplain whichever is more, providing the user with the impression of being away from urban development. The recreation trails will require operational management such as litter and security patrol with appropriate vehicular restrictions enforced. For recreational trails for which county ownership may not be necessary or appropriate, conservation easements and mutual covenants between the landowner and the county or another land management group like the Triangle Land Conservancy, may be useful. The above-described system would be developed using the methods for acquisition and development described in the Plan's section entitled the same, beginning on page 7-6, and should provide a special public-private partnership to ensure that the uniqueness of Orange County is preserved for future generations . Barry Jacobs, Planning Board Chair, noted that the Planning Board had been involved in the development of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. He indicated concern with the misimpression from previous meetings that the rural part of Orange County has no representation in the deliberations regarding this Plan. He stated that the majority of the Planning Board members are residents of rural Orange County and are sensitive to the concerns expressed by rural citizens. He noted that he felt the Board of Commissioners are responsive to the concerns presented to them by the Planning Board. He continued that it was the Planning Board's concern in that regard that led the Planning Board to ask for another public hearing to allow citizens another opportunity to speak on matters regarding the Master Recreation & Parks Plan. He felt there had been some inadequate explanations at times but also felt that a plan acceptable to the Boards and citizens could be achieved. Betty Compton presented a statement for Dwight Compton, member of the Recreation & Parks Advisory Council and Cedar Grove farmer. The first question is how or why private land can be taken for public use; secondly, Mrs. Compton referenced a meeting in the Cedar Grove area of the parks representatives and noted that no one at that meeting voted in favor of greenways. She continued explaining the concern regarding greenways in rural areas. She noted that wildlife is deprived of the undisturbed safe access to the water's edge, farmlands are affected because the access for having irrigation and continued conservation is taken away by g the water's edge no longer accessible for the farmer. She also stated that the landowner who desires to hunt or allow hunting on his property can no longer do so due to safety hazards. She asked who would monitor the greenways providing maintenance, mowing and general clean up. She continued posing questions about which Mr. Compton is concerned such as how the landowner would be protected when he provides greenway access to his property and, what incentives such as tax breaks are available to the landowners for the donation of lands . She suggested that the County purchase the land it needs for parks and greenways and leave the farmlands alone. While realizing that the rural areas will be affected by growth, let it come naturally and require greenways only as the residential development occurs . The conclusion of Mr. Compton's concerns was that the natural habitat be preserved and greenways are not wanted or needed in the Cedar Grove area. The final comment regarding a meeting on the water critical issue was that it had been made very clear that the farmers did not own the water that was behind the dams on their farms, his comment is that no one else owns it either; the land is privately owned, how can it be taken for public use. James R. Smith, a resident of Bingham Township, presented a statement from the citizens of rural Orange County and submitted printed concerns to be entered into the public hearing record (an attachment as part of these minutes) . Mary Johnson indicated her concerns had been addressed and she would not speak at this time. Lynwood Hobgood stated he felt he could see disbelief and concern on the faces of those citizens present whose private property ownerships appear to be at the point of being invaded. He continued expressing concern with the present form of government and the possibility of what it may do. He expressed concern with the reasoning behind the formulation of the plan indicating that he felt those involved simply needed "something to do. " He also expressed concern with the projected cost of the twenty-year plan and the fear of under- estimation. He felt the only possible way the County could afford such a plan would be through tax increases. He also expressed the concern that property would be devalued by the easements along the waterways. He indicated that perhaps a district vote would be one way to solve such issues . Chair Marshall spoke to the issue of district representation and having a Commissioner from each township. She stated that the Federal Government demands one man, one vote. The concentration of people is in the lower urban area, thus there is no way within the Federal Law to have a Commissioner from each township. She noted that it had generally been the feeling of the Board that the people in Northern Orange County have a better chance of promoting someone and getting them on than if there were district division since most of the districts were in the urban areas . Because of the situation of the voters and the demographic distribution, the Board is very careful to see that each township is represented on all boards and commissions. She noted that less than 5% of those people volunteering to be on boards or commissions are from the rural areas or from other townships other than Chapel Hill or Hillsborough. It is extremely important to get the demographic distribution that cannot be allowed even if the district system was observed. Dennis Hils, a resident of Cheeks Township, stated that he worked as a volunteer with kids programs for fifteen-twenty hours per week and in response to Mr. Hobgood, it was not because "he needed something to do" . He encouraged others to volunteer their services to the Recreation Department and indicated that he felt a commitment from Orange County for community recreational services and facilities is as important as or even more important than capital or physical plant infrastructure. He encouraged adoption of the Plan as an opportunity to preserve much of the beauty of Orange County. B.W. Pittman expressed the thought that the plan was "ridiculous" and there were far greater needs in Orange County than recreational needs. He stated that less than 10% of the total population of Orange County would benefit from or use the facilities. He expressed concern with the destruction of private properties and the loss of farmlands along the waterways . He asked that the Commissioners go out and view the actual areas being referenced in the Plan. Mr. Pittman also used the word "communism" in reference to the Plan. Ted Latta, resident of Eno Township, indicated he was in favor of a parks plan for Orange County but that a plan such as proposed was an unaffordable luxury for the county. Mr. Latta expressed concern that if the original proposed greenways had been acquired as 100-foot easements, Orange County government would become the largest landowner in the county with land in excess of 5, 000 acres . He noted the fear that Orange County government would also become the landowner of all the water in Orange County. He continued, that with regulations such as those in force now, the land will be taken by a type of forced condemnation with no compensation. He expressed the concern that the county would be owner of small pieces of land all over the county with no means of maintenance and patrolling and no means of "tying into" any kind of system. He stated he felt the best thing to do at this point would be to "scrap" the plan and "write-off" the funds already expended. Commissioner Hartwell stated that he is constantly hearing that the County is going to "condemn and take" land and asked the Recreation & Parks Director, Mary Anne Black, if that statement has been made or written anywhere in the Plan. Ms. Black responded that it has not been mentioned and is not in the plan. Commissioner Hartwell expressed concern that so many citizens seem to believe that condemnation of land will take place in order to have land for greenways . He continued by asking Mr. Latta where the information came from regarding condemnation. Mr. Latta responded that the Subdivision Regulations require a dedication of land for recreation and he felt that was a "taking of private land without compensation" . Ms. Black responded that the Subdivision Regulations, in a major subdivision, does require the dedication of land for recreation/open space or payment- in-lieu. Commissioner Hartwell continued that he would like for everyone to understand the means by which the County intends to acquire land for greenways. Ms . Black listed methods of acquiring land for greenways and parks as contained in the Plan as donations by private landowners for parks, through continued private ownership and allowing easements across that property for a trail, through designation of private property for conservation easements which would also allow for recreational activities or the out-and-out acquisition by the County of that property. A citizen asked about the power of eminent domain. Chair Marshall stated that it is and has always been Board policy that condemnation would only take place in the most dire conditions for public safety. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, stated that the Plan being presented does not contemplate that land would be taken through the exercise of eminent domain. He continued that the only time that the County would obtain property that has not been offered to it for sale or gift by the property owner would be in the instance of a major subdivision and if part of the plan (greenways, accessways) , is within the subdivision. There is a requirement within the Subdivision Regulations for a donation of 1/35th of an acre for each lot in the subdivision. A thirty-five acre subdivision would thus require that one acre be donated. That is not any different at all than the requirement that has been in place for years regarding access to the lots in the subdivision by dedication of a public road or in some instances a private road. The underlying basis for requiring the dedication is to provide recreation space. There are differing opinions about the need for public recreation. However, there is no question but that it is within a local government's authority to require recreation because the courts have, for a long time, regarded acquisition of property for public recreation and for private recreation in the case of developments, as being for a public purpose. Gledhill stated that if nothing is ever to be done with the property in the way of subdivision, there is nothing "threatening" in the Plan. There is nothing that is being presented in these documents for consideration by the County Commissioners which contemplates acquiring property without it being offered and without the County either receiving as a gift or paying for it. Mrs. Mary Johnson, speaking from the audience, noted that the property set aside in a subdivision for recreational purposes is to be used for private recreation for that particular subdivision. The County Attorney responded that in most cases, the requirement for recreation space within the subdivision will be for the people in the subdivision. The only time that the recreation area will also be made available to the general public will be if the recreation area happens to correspond with the proposed greenway system. If you are planning to develop your property and divide it into lots, you will be required to provide recreation. If the recreation area happens to align with the park system, the public may have access to that area. Mrs . Johnson stated that she agreed with the setting aside of land in a subdivision for use as a recreational area for those within the subdivision. She continued, however, that allowing people to have access across private property would be unconstitutional because it takes away the right of property owners to decide who has access to their property. Chair Marshall responded that until the land is subdivided, the greenway would be a line on a map. Chair Marshall continued that this is a plan for the future as urban development occurs . Mrs . Johnson continued that someone had spoken at a previous meeting and stated that land had already been "taken" from them. She asked for a clarification. Chair Marshall responded that was in relation to development in the portion of Bingham Township that is within the Joint Planning Area where an adopted greenways plan is already in place. Attorney Gledhill stated that the government can require you to publicly dedicate a certain amount of your land (what it regards as necessary for the public health, safety and welfare) , before it allows you to make lots available for sale. The purpose of this is to provide you with whatever things it deems necessary in order for that subdivision to be a place where people can safely and happily live. That is the underlying philosophy behind what are known as exactions in development work. He stated that he felt no one would argue with the County requiring a public road for access but when that requirement is made, it has become a part of the public. The same principle applies in recreation and it is not unconstitutional for the government to require public access to some reasonable amount of your land if you are going to be developing it for the purpose of making lots available for sale or for any other reason. The amount that the government can take from you in the development process or require you to dedicate for public use in the development process must be a reasonable amount and must be related to the impact that your subdivision has on the overall county. That is why only major subdivisions are required to make dedications for park purposes . Commissioner Carey asked that Attorney Gledhill explain what constitutes a major subdivision. Gledhill responded that a major subdivision in Orange County is a development of five lots or more from a tract of land. Gledhill emphasized again that there is nothing in the proposed plan that contemplates that Orange County will use eminent domain power to acquire property. Chair Marshall emphasized again that no greenways will be developed on property unless it is given to the County or bought by the County or where a major subdivision is proposed. Existing farms or existing open space in single ownership are not involved. Tom Wagner, Little River Township, noted that the map indicated a park in his area or on his property and asked about the acquisition of land for parks . Gledhill responded that the area on which parks are shown on the map is a gross area. The actual identity or location of the parklands has not been made. Gledhill continued that it would not become recreation land under this plan until the owner wants to donate or sell it to Orange County. Mr. Wagner continued voicing his concern that in the future perhaps the Board would change its mind or another Board would view the option of eminent domain in a different light and consider condemnation. Chair Marshall stated that condemnation is not easy. The Board cannot simply make a decision for a park and condemn the land nor can the Board set the price. She continued that the County could make an offer on an appraisal. The property owner has an appraisal and there is a third appraiser who checks for differences in the appraisals . All those appraisals go into court and that is where the question of condemnation is settled. Carol Riggs, Little River resident, expressed concern that deeding land to her children would constitute a major subdivision and a donation of land for recreation would be required. Ms . Riggs indicated that she felt that the giving of land to her children should not require "giving 1/35th" of each lot to the County. Commissioner Hartwell clarified that it is not 1/35th of land but 1/35th of an acre for each lot that is created. He asked Ms. Riggs if she would oppose "giving up" land for roads or just for recreation. Ms. Riggs responded that she was in opposition to the donation of land for recreation only. Commissioner Hartwell noted that he felt that was an important statement to make and hoped that others would be as clear about their feelings about recreation. Ms. Riggs continued that with beaches and mountains only three hours away and a State Park only one hour away in Raleigh, she saw no need for the arguments or discussions. A man from the audience asked, if the intent is not to use the power of eminent domain, why was this not included in the Plan for easier understanding. Commissioner Hartwell stated that since he so thoroughly abhorred the idea of condemnation or government's taking of anybody's private property for any purpose that it would not come to his mind to put it into the plan one way or the other. Patrick Mulkey, a resident of Bingham Township who holds a degree in Parks & Recreation Administration, indicated his concern was with the 75-acre proposed district park at Cane Creek Reservoir. He noted he had conversations with Pat Davis of OWASA and Mr. Davis indicated that the most likely site would be in the northwest portion of the lake. Mr. Mulkey continued that he and Ms . Black were in agreement that one of the criteria of a park of this magnitude is that it must have easy access to major traffic arteries in the County. The site described by Mr. Davis has access onto Bradshaw Quarry Road which connects Mebane Oaks Road and Orange Grove Road and is twelve to sixteen miles from the Carrboro/Chapel Hill area. Mr. Mulkey expressed concern that such a location would be more easily accessible and more utilized by non-residents of Orange County. Mr. Mulkey referenced a survey for the Bingham Land Use Plan Update which asked the three biggest problems in Bingham Township. He noted that only 2% listed too little open or recreational space. To the question of the biggest problems ten years from now only 7% listed too little open or recreational space. He noted that discussions with other Bingham residents and family members indicated there was no need for a district park in that area. Mr. Mulkey concluded that he did not consider recreation as one of the more essential services that a county should provide and it should not be placed ahead of or alongside of law enforcement, schools or certain social services. When it comes to the question of funding for the Master Parks & Recreation Plan, the voters of Orange County should make that decision. Chair Marshall responded that indeed the voters would make the decision because bonds would be necessary to do a large park and the voters of Orange County would have to vote on bond issues. Dolly Hunter, former teacher of physical education in the public school system for eighteen years, indicated support for public recreation in the form of parks and urged that the issue of greenways be separated from that of parks and pools . She noted that at the present rate of growth it is projected that the population will double within the next seventeen years and there will be a great demand for recreational space. She noted that her experience and research had indicated an insufficient number of soccer fields for Orange County players and encouraged that funding for the Master Recreation & Parks Plan be directed toward contained parks rather than greenways. Ms. Walker expressed concern with the health and safety issues along greenways . She also noted fear of liability if injuries occurred on those greenways . She noted also that it creates an additional financial burden for developers which inflates the cost of lots to individual home buyers. She urged that the Board listen to the citizens' opposition to the greenways and delete them from the Plan. Sam Hobgood, Cedar Grove resident, noted that he was a new homeowner in that area and had already encountered problems with subdivision buffer requirements indicating he was required to put in plants which would have to be removed if the proposed greenway was approved. He noted that while the taxpayers of Orange County recognize the need for public facilities and the upgrading of those facilities, they do not feel that the needs and wants of rural Orange County have been fairly represented by the Planning Department nor the Recreation Department. He expressed concern with the cost of the preparation of the Plan and noted that at the informational meeting held in Cedar Grove that all those in attendance unanimously agreed that all proposals within the Plan should be dropped. He continued expressing the concerns of the rural community of Cedar Grove such as funding, individual landowner liability, property damage and the feeling that the rural property owners are being treated unfairly by the Board. He concluded asking that the rights of property owners in rural Orange County be protected. Chair Marshall asked that the Recreation Director consider seeking a wider representation on the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board perhaps similar to that of the Township Advisory Councils . Barbara Burger expressed concern that the public seek help from the Commissioners in the stewardship of land in Orange County. She indicated she felt that now is the time to implement the Master Recreation and Parks Plan in order to safeguard the rural landscape. She urged the Board to accept and approve the Plan. Tim Blake, resident of Bingham Township, asked how the total acreage for parks and greenways compares with the State average of park allocation per citizen. He indicated he felt there was no need for a district park and greenways in Bingham Township and listed those parks (Carrboro Community Park, Jordan Lake, Kerr Lake, Falls Impoundment) already in place. He felt the majority of the users would not be Orange County tax payers . He indicated that he felt there would be very little donation of land and no help from civic organizations in maintaining the greenways. He expressed concern with property damage and the idea of a state-wide greenway linking the mountains to the ocean. He asked that careful consideration be given to this aspect and that all landowners be treated fairly in the deliberations. Gene Williams, resident of Bingham Township, White Cross Community, stated that all of the residents of the White Cross Community are totally opposed to the greenways system being proposed. He asked why the citizens of Orange County had not been sufficiently informed of the proposed greenways system. Chair Marshall responded that it is very difficult, no matter how much it is advertised in local newspapers and local radio stations, unless citizens are alert and willing to listen and read and inform other citizens who do not access the local stations and newspapers . Mr. Williams noted that those citizens are in attendance now and asked if the Board is listening to them and their concerns . He asked also if the people involved in developing the greenways system were lifelong residents of Orange County, owners of single lots or large landowners of the County. Ms. Marshall responded that some of all those groups were involved. Mr. Williams expressed doubt that this was true. Mr. Williams expressed concern that land will not be donated or sold to the County for the greenways system. He indicated that he felt establishment of the greenways was a contrived way of taking land from the taxpaying landowners for the primary purpose of providing access to privately owned lands in rural Orange County for the use of the non-taxpaying student population of UNC at Chapel Hill and the Chapel Hill area. Ms. Marshall responded "absolutely not" . Mr. Williams continued expressing non-belief and stated that he felt the monies required for the Plan could be put to better use for the citizens of Orange County within the school system. Ms. Marshall responded that the choice is not between the schools and out-of-state students at UNC. She stated that the schools must be funded but if the County is to develop and get the kind of economic industrial development that many want to help the tax base, the amenities that really fine industrial people look for are schools and recreational opportunities . This is a requirement for the high class tax base that many in Orange County would like to have. Mr. Williams responded that the residents of rural Orange County have means of recreation and noted again that he felt the greenways were solely for the students of the Chapel Hill area. Mr. Williams stated that he had been informed, as a recent member of the Board of Directors of White Cross Recreation Association, that the statement had been made that the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department was going to take-over the White Cross Recreation Association when it went broke and asked Ms . Black if that was a true statement. Ms. Black responded that it was not. He noted that there had been mention of a joint effort of development between the White Cross Recreation Association and the County Recreation Department and he expressed opposition to such an endeavor. He noted that the community center was built through volunteer efforts with no assistance required from the County and that the White Cross Community residents are totally opposed to the greenways as an unnecessary and ridiculous idea. Bill Ray referenced the fifty-foot stream buffer noting that the greenway requirement would be an additional sixty feet. He cited a California case and stated that the greenways requirement would be a taking of land without due process and compensation. He expressed concern with the loss of privacy and noted that he knew of no landowners in favor of the greenway portion of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan and asked that the Board not adopt that portion of the Plan. Lloyd Wentler, Bingham Township, indicated that he felt it is not sufficient for this Board to say that it will not use the power of eminent domain to acquire land for greenways and asked that it be put into writing within the Plan that the power of eminent domain will not be used. He indicated that he felt the discontent and hostility that would be created by the money being spent for the greenways would far outweigh the intent or good that would be created. Chair Marshall suggested and indicated that the Planning Board Chair was in agreement that a set of policy statements could be written and made as a preamble to the Plan and adopted as a part of the Plan to address those concerns regarding eminent domain. Pearson Stewart, Chapel Hill resident, expressed support for the principles of the district parks, community parks and pools. He indicated he had attended the Hillsborough informational meeting and received the impression from the presentation that the greenways portion of the Plan was indeed a long-range plan (ten, twenty, thirty years) , and he expressed support for that time frame noting that at this time Orange County does not need the greenways. He continued that with the growth he anticipates for the County, the need for the greenways will be great. He noted that the County must be prepared to accept complete responsibility for the maintenance of the parks as well as the greenways system. He addressed the concerns of privacy and security noting that he felt very strongly that a greenway system, which is well- maintained, works to prevent such problems from occurring. He felt that the greenways would be more used by adjacent property owners than those students from Chapel Hill. He indicated he lives adjacent to two greenways which are in constant use and in a twenty-eight year period, he had only experienced one instance of improper use of the greenway. David Baird, Jr. , Cheeks Township resident, asked of Commissioner Hartwell if he was willing to donate land for greenways and Commissioner Hartwell seemed to be in agreement. Mr. Baird indicated he felt all questions had been raised and that he was opposed to the greenways proposals. He suggested that land be purchased from Duke University for the creation of one large park and that all other aspects of the Plan be dropped. Vern Miller, Little River Township, expressed concern that the citizens have not been heard; he felt if this had been the case, the subject of greenways would have been deleted from the proposal after the November, 1987 public hearing since greenways was the point of opposition at that time. Mr. Miller continued that he felt that the Plan should be tabled until such time as the budget could be brought under control where taxes would not have to be continually raised to take care of present expenditures. Josephine Barbour, Eno Township resident, expressed concern that the Eno River State Park which consists of 1200 acres in Orange County and 800 acres in Durham County, had not been listed by any of those speaking about local or area parks. She expressed concern that her family property has been under the threat of condemnation for the past fifteen years and have been through three court battles in order to preserve that family land. She stated that the land can be condemned from a health standpoint or the welfare of others. She indicated that the public meetings she had attended did not address funding and when the question regarding funding was asked, she was told that it was not being discussed. She stated that trails along the river were discussed as long ago as fifteen years and the width of those trails was thought to be fifteen to twenty feet wide. Those trails actually have to be fifty feet wide in order for rescue vehicles to be able to access them if necessary. Later on, this same linear park was to become a part of the mountain to the sea trail. Ms . Barbour expressed concern that to build the trails outside of the floodplains would include removing trees in order to provide fifty foot trails and this would not be preserving but destroying land and the habitat for wildlife. She expressed concern with security noting that in the past that police officers had told citizens to "know their neighbors" but how could one know their neighbors when the land is open to the public. She concluded with the concern of how to keep people on the greenways and away from private property. Stewart Barbour expressed concern that condemnation would take place in order to acquire land for greenways and gave the following statement from the Eno River Group to the Board of Commissioners: "Few doubt Eno River should be saved, Few think Eno can be saved, A few think a state park will save Eno River, A few think a greenway will save Eno River, A few think a mountain to sea trail will save Eno River, Many think a park, greenway, mountain to sea trail will indeed save Eno from a much needed reservoir at Cabes Ford to the detriment of many thirsty citizens of the Hillsborough Triangle to the benefit of a few. " "We're growing wall-to-wall with thirsty citizens here, we need jobs for our children, for the jobs we need industry, for the industry we need water, there is an excellent reservoir site just west of town and one even larger at Cabes Ford. " Carl Lloyd, Bingham Township resident, noted that he had subdivided and created nine 5-acre lots and had to donate 1/35th of an acre for recreation and he thought it was for recreational purposes of those homeowners in his subdivision. He continued that this 9/35th of an acre had become about two acres out of fifty on the creek with about a 70 to 90 foot easement to Orange County. He felt this was about ten times the requirement as listed in the Subdivision Regulations . He indicated that this was a "taking" . George Chockley, Cedar Grove Township resident, noted that he was very much against the greenways proposal. He indicated that he had attended the public meetings on greenways and was told by the Recreation and Parks Director, Mary Anne Black, that the citizens wishes would be conveyed to the Commissioners. He stated that a newspaper had quoted Ms. Black as saying "that everyone liked the new revised report" . He indicated this was not the public feeling at the meeting he attended; nobody liked it. Chair Marshall responded that the Commissioners had received reports from each of the public meetings. Mr. Chockley indicated he felt the feelings of the people had been misrepresented and that they were definitely not in favor of the greenways. Tom Wilson, Cedar Grove Township resident, expressed concern that with the elaborate plan and the length of the greenways, there would be no way to acquire all the land needed to connect the various parts without condemning land. He felt a great deal of money had been spent unnecessarily since he felt there was no conceivable way to connect the greenways . Tom Wagner stated that his family were owners of a large certified tree farm in Orange County with no intent to subdivide. He expressed concern with the future security of greenways and parks and the implementation of a Plan which would create many problems in the future which could never be solved. Sue Hobgood, property owner in Cedar Grove Township, expressed concern that the proposed greenways would divide her property. Ms. Hobgood felt that giving property to family members did not constitute a subdivision. Chair Marshall noted that no distinction was made between the subdivision of land for family members and subdivision for sale to the general public. Ms . Hobgood continued with concerns regarding a recent subdivision of her family property and felt that unfair demands were made in the buffer requirements. She felt if this could be required on property that had been in her family since 1913, then land could be taken for greenways without the consent of the landowner. Nick Gregoris, Bingham Township resident, expressed concern that those willing to donate time or land and have taxes increased were not those already paying large amounts of property taxes. He also expressed concern with the cost of the study prepared for the Master Parks & Recreation Plan. He continued that he felt it would be more appropriate to charge a user fee and let those desiring to use parks and recreation areas pay their way. He also expressed concern that per capita and per taxpayer are not the same thing and that taxpayers are providing services for non-taxpayers. Mr. Gregoris expressed concern with easements already on his property for utilities and indicated he did not buy the property he owns to provide recreation for the general public. Thomas Smith, Bingham Township resident, expressed concern that security would be provided for the greenways. He noted previous problems with service from Orange County Sheriff's Department and expressed the fear that vandalism would occur that would not be repaired. He concluded asking if the Commissioners would fight for those citizens against the greenways as much as they were fighting for the greenways. Chair Marshall responded that the process is to refer this issue back to the Planning Board and the Planning Board will prepare a recommendation. The Commissioners will review the Planning Board recommendations and those comments received at the public hearings. Ms. Marshall noted that no one is "fighting"; a public hearing is simply being held on a proposed plan. Edna Smith expressed a complaint with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Chair Marshall asked that the County Manager, John Link, followup this complaint. Olivia Perelli, Cedar Grove Township, asked how the greenways would be built, but yet preserve the natural habitat and protect against litter and abuse. She felt these are only a few reasons why the greenways will not work. Chair Marshall responded that the greenways would be developed as the area becomes urbanized and recreational facilities are needed. Ms. Perelli expressed concern that the confined park areas are not utilized but yet are not maintained and kept clean. Vic Knight expressed concern that only the greenways had been addressed and he desired to see and hear discussions regarding proposed community parks and district parks. He indicated the need to have those items discussed separately. He asked that the Board listen closely to the public comments particularly since those speaking from the rural area of the County seemed to be totally opposed to the proposed greenways. Mr. Knight continued expressing concern for the safety of those using the greenways as well as those with property adjoining the greenways. He noted that a large creek borders his property and an adjoining large farm and that on several occasions he had been forced to call the Sheriff's Department to have people removed from those areas late at night. He continued that safety will always be a concern regarding the greenways as well as the potential for liability on the part of the property owners. Ann Joyner, resident of Cedar Grove Township, expressed concern with the consistent use of the phrase that the "greenways will be built and will be used for a certain purpose" and asked for assurance from the Board that those speaking will be heard. Chair Marshall responded that the use of the word will was simply used to indicate how the Plan, if adopted, would be implemented. Ms. Joyner continued asking if the entire Board was willing to be openminded and listen to the citizens ' concerns and not with the determination that the greenways will be built. The response was yes and Commissioner Hartwell commented that he had come to the meeting suspicious of greenways and was still suspicious of greenways . Ms. Joyner continued that she is a developer and does intend to subdivide the land available to her and expressed the concern that those property owners who would purchase the lots for homes which she would subdivide would have the same concerns for greenways across their lots that are being expressed by the present property owners. She continued that she felt the concerns would remain the same regardless who the property owners are or the amount of property that is owned. Hervy McIver, resident of Hillsborough Township, indicated that he was in favor of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan, but also expressed doubts and suspicions with certain aspects of the Plan. He indicated that he felt the Plan addressed a long-range and farsighted vision of what Orange County will become under the increasing pressure of growth. He continued that the County had experienced a tremendous amount of growth in the period from 1968 to 1988 and he expected that growth to accelerate during the next twenty years . He continued that he felt the best stewards of the land were private landowners but that development pressures would demand that greenways be developed. He felt that greenways would prevent the encroachment of development into the wildlife corridors and would favor adoption of the Plan by the Board if voted on favorably by the residents of the County. Lawrence Kirkland inquired if the policy statement was placed in the Master Plan that condemnation of land would not be a means of acquiring land for greenways, would it be binding on future boards for the next twenty years. Chair Marshall responded that she did not think that anything is binding on one board. One must be careful who they elect. He continued asking if such a policy statement would be worthwhile or if the Board could upset it in the future. Chair Marshall responded that as the Comprehensive Plan was updated every five years, beginning with public hearings, policy changes could occur as needed to meet development and land use changes. Commissioner Hartwell noted that any law that a Board had the right to make, it would also have the right to change. The advantage to having such a policy statement in writing is that it must be dealt directly with before any future change could take place. Robert Nichols expressed thanks to Planner Gene Bell for notifying him of the proposed greenway lines on either side of Lake Orange. He continued that in the operation of Lake Orange, fishing is not allowed from the banks unless restroom services are available noting also that septic tanks are not allowed. He continued that there is not sufficient easement to allow walking around the lake and expressed concern with bikes along the greenways . Chair Marshall responded that until such time as the rural areas were no longer rural, then the greenways would develop as the property is developed. Mr. Nichols expressed concern with the potential health problems and noted that he did not know of anyone who had property to donate for greenways . He asked for what the 43 million dollar figure would be used. Ms. Black referred Mr. Nichols to Table 7 .2 which outlines the cost per facility over a course of the Twenty Year Plan. She noted that those figures were the cost if there is no community involvement at all. Mr. Nichols stated he felt land should be purchased for any proposed greenway system. Mr. Wentler spoke again asking how compatible the proposed greenway system was with the clean water system. He expressed the concern that everyone is in somebody's watershed and that he has witnessed littering in such areas. He noted that he had a pond which he had opened to the public for fishing but that he had to close it due to the littering by the public. He expressed concern that the public was being given easy access to the streams and litter would be a major problem. Ben Lloyd noted that he owned property along the Eno River, McGowan's Creek and Seven Mile Creek and indicated that the greenway system would not be built to the west of Hillsborough since he did not intend to donate or sell land to be used for greenways . Mr. Lloyd referenced a conversation he had with Ms. Black in which she indicated she expected land and equipment donation; he indicated he did not expect such donations to occur. He noted that he supported the concept of zoning and land use planning if it is utilized as it was originally designed, as a protective measure but he felt the Zoning Ordinance had been turned into a monster of complete control. He agreed with the concern of loss of private property rights . He also spoke to the cost implications. He noted that over the past six years the citizens of Orange County have experienced an increase in excess of 20% per year in property taxes and in 1987 there was an increase of over 40% and an article he referenced in the Durham Morning Herald indicated a higher increase is expected. He noted the concern of elderly couples who fear they will be unable to pay property taxes in the future in order to maintain their homes. Mr. Lloyd also commented on the retroactive status of salary increases for County employees. He closed with the comment that "unless the direction changes in Orange County, the older folks, the young folks and the less fortunate are going to have to move out of Orange County due to their inability to pay their taxes. " He expressed concern that the citizens ' comments be heard and heeded. Jerry Harris, Eno Township resident, presented a graph he had made regarding his property taxes and increases since moving into Eno in 1973 and agreed with Mr. Lloyd regarding tax increases. He indicated that from 1973 to 1983 taxes had doubled every 6 1/2 to 7 years and during the last four years it has doubled every 3 1/2 to 4 years . He expressed concern that such an increase to support the Recreation and Parks Plan would create much public resistance to more important expenditures. Mr. Harris continued that the expenditures were listed in the Plan per capita and this could be a considerable amount per family. He also expressed concern that the creation of greenways for a large number of people would destroy the area rather than preserve the area. He suggested that if the bond issue states that no part of the money shall be used for eminent domain or condemnation then it could never be used for that purpose by anyone. Wayne Meadow, a resident of West Hillsborough expressed the thought that there may be a need for parks but there is no need for greenways. Virginia Tate, Cedar Grove resident asked if an environmental impact statement was needed before such a Plan could be implemented. Ms. Black responded that before any facility is developed a specific site plan will have to be prepared, reviewed and approved before the facility is built. Jim Plymire expressed concern with the figure of 95 miles of greenways. He felt that to be an extreme amount for Orange County. Chair Marshall noted that taken in small portions it would not be considered extreme. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, that the Master Recreation and Parks Plan be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous. Chair Marshall indicated that the april 4 meeting would be for Board deliberation and with the amount of public comment received it would be unlikely that a decision would be made at that time. 2 . Assignment of House Numbers a. Rural Routes 2 and 3 - Rougemont The presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Routes 2 and 3 in the County, served by the Rougemont Post Office. Per an agreement reached in January, 1987 between the County Manager and the Chapel Hill Postmaster, a joint project between the County and the Postal Service was undertaken to convert rural box numbers to permanently assigned house numbers . Since the adoption of the House Numbering Ordinance by the Board of Commissioners on April 21, 1987, three Chapel Hill rural routes, 2, 5 and 8, have been converted to street addresses. Rougemont Rural Routes 2 and 3 have now been prepared for the next conversion to house numbers. These two routes are located in Little River Township in northeastern Orange County and include the community of Caldwell and portions of Highways 57 and 157 and Guess Road. The area is bounded generally by the following roads: Kiger, New Sharon Church, Bill Poole, McBroom, Bunny, Sawyer, Hall Dairy, Holly Ridge, Brown, Breeze, Mary Hall and Blalock. General Statute 153A-240 requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and in at least two places in Little River Township (Caldwell Store and Rougemont Post Office) . A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of the public hearing. The Administration recommends approval of the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Rougemont Postmaster and the NC Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A-240. Best asked about the response of the Rougemont Postmaster. Don Powell responded that he was in favor of the number assignment. Jeff Russell, Eno Township resident, expressed concern with the system of assigning house numbers . He reviewed the problems he has had with the assignment of the number for his new home in November. He noted that the address he was given was 5211 Shady Lane. He indicated this was just one mile inside the Orange County line and he is served by the North Durham Post Office. One of the problems is that there is also a 5200 block of Shady Lane in Durham and his mail has been held due to the Post Office not knowing where to deliver the mail. He noted also that there is a Shady Lane in Chapel Hill and this means there are three Shady Lane addresses with his name (this was learned after a false alarm went in from his burglar alarm system the previous weekend) . He expressed concern that all bordering counties should be contacted before numbers m. are assigned in order to prevent duplications. Chair Marshall responded that the system as implemented will continue and there will be no change in the grid system. A resident of Rougemont indicated she is in favor of the change for Rougemont as they have been experiencing difficulties with mail for some time. She expressed the opinion that the assigning of house numbers would be much more efficient for the Rougemont area. Chair Marshall asked the County Manager to investigate why Orange County assigned a house number for a new home which is served by a Post Office in Durham. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the the Administration's recommendation as presented. Vote: Unanimous . 3 . Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Comprehensive Plan ( 1) Article 2 - Administration (Statement of Intent/Amendment Procedures) (2) Article 22 - Definitions (Definition of Comprehensive Plan) The staff presentation by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Articles 2 .2 . 12 - 2 .2 . 14 (Comprehensive Plan) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance. Existing references in the Zoning Ordinance refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County's Comprehensive Plan, new issues are emerging which warrant special recognition and study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated for such treatment are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility services and transportation. To recognize the special nature of such issues yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re-definition of the Plan is proposed. The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use Plan) , recreation, transportation, housing, open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed. While the proposed amendments to Articles 2.2 . 12, 2 .2 . 13, and 22 seek to re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed amendment to Article 2 .2 . 14 would incorporate the Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan (adopted November 1, 1982) into the Zoning Ordinance. The procedures have been altered only to address the Comprehensive Plan rather than the Land Use Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Commissioner Hartwell, regarding 2 .2 . 13, asked how adopting by resolution differed from the way the Land Use Plan is adopted at the present time. Bell responded that historically the Land Use Plan has been referred to as the Comprehensive Plan although it primarily dealt with land use and land use policies. Going into the Comprehensive Plan concept, we are going to have plans that address each of the elements previously mentioned. Bell continued that his understanding for having a resolution on each of these is so that there can be an adopted comprehensive plan but also add to it from time to time and the adding to is done in the form of a resolution when a new element is completed or amended. Chair Marshall indicated she would like for the County Manager and County Attorney to go over these changes for streamlining to make sure that they are all compatible. The County Manager stated that he would review those changes with Staff and Mr. Gledhill. Commissioner Hartwell continued that his concern was not with streamlining but to insure due process. County Attorney Geof Gledhill responded that it is a matter of terminology and that it is not envisioned that resolutions would be adopted to change the Comprehensive Plan which have not been to public hearing. Gledhill continued that there is a statute which addresses ordinances or resolutions that affect ordinances regarding County government. Ted Latta questioned the number of days for advertising (fifteen and twenty-five) . Jacobs responded that this time frame was consistent with the other ordinances. Chair Marshall also noted the change was consistent with the change in enabling legislation. Gledhill indicated that the enabling legislation changes regarding advertising schedules occurred about two years ago. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chair Marshall that the public hearing be held open for the purpose of receiving the Planning Board's recommendation at the Board of Commissioners meeting on April 4. Vote: Unanimous . (3) Article 4-Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule and Article 6 -Application of Dimensional Requirements (References to "Land Use Plan" ) The staff presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment proposed amendments to Article 4 (Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance currently contains references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Zoning Ordinance, all references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. The following subsections of the Zoning Ordinance refer to the adopted Land Use Plan, the Land Use Plan, the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan or the Orange County, Land Use Plan. Article 4.2 . 1 b) 1 . 4.2 .2 b) 1 . 4 .2 . 3 b) 1 . 4 .2 .4 b) 1 . 4.2 .5 b) 1 and 3 . 4 .2 . 8 b) 1 and 5. 4 .2 . 9 b) 1 and 5 4 .2 . 10 b) 1, ' 4 and 7 . 4 .2 . 11 b) 1 and 3. 4 .2 . 12 b) 4 .2 . 16 b) 1 and 5 . 4 .2 . 19 b) 1. 4 .2 .20 a) and b) 4 .2 .21 b) 1 and 3 . 4 .2 .22 b) 1. 4 .2 .23 b) 1 . 4 .2 .24 b) 1. 4 .2 .27 b) 1. 4 .2 .28 b) 1. 4 .2 .29 b) 3. 4 .2 . 30 a) and b) 1 . Article 6 .20 . 1 The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance change all of the above citations to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments . Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the public hearing be held open to receive the Planning Board's recommendation at the Commissioners meeting on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous. 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. Designation of Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan The staff presentation was made by Gene Bell. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would designate the Orange County Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing references in the Zoning Ordinance refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County's Comprehensive Plan, new issues have emerged which warrant special recognition and study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated for such treatment are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility services, and transportation. To recognize the special nature of such issues yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re-definition of the Plan has been proposed. The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use Plan) , recreation, transportation, housing, open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed. Proposed amendments to Articles 2 .2 . 12 of the Zoning Ordinance would re-define the purpose, intent, and method of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Article 2 .2 . 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that one element of the Comprehensive Plan be a Land Use Element which designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses. Article 2 .2 . 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof from the Planning Board, adopt them by resolution. The Orange County Land Use Plan adopted on September 2, 1981 as amended, fulfills the purpose and intent of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the attached draft resolution would implement the Zoning Ordinance amendments through re- adoption and designation of the Orange County Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends adoption of the draft resolution. (An attachment to these minutes on page ) . Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4. Vote: Unanimous . b. Designation and incorporation of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan The staff presentation was made by Gene Bell. This item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would designate the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed amendments to Articles 2 .2 . 12 through 2 .2 . 14 of the Zoning Ordinance would re-define the purpose, intent and method of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Article 2 .2 . 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that one element of the Comprehensive Plan be a Recreation Element which designates a system of areas and public sites for recreation, including parks and playgrounds, recreational trails, and other similar areas . Article 2 .2 . 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof from the Planning Board, adopt them by resolution. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan fulfills the purpose and intent of the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the attached draft resolution would implement the Zoning Ordinance amendments through adoption and designation of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends adoption of the draft resolution. (Attachment on page of these minutes) . Commissioner Hartwell noted that no citizen has spoken yet regarding pools and only a very few have addressed district and community parks. He expressed the desire to hear public comment on the other aspects of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. Commissioner Carey agreed that he also would like to hear public comment on other parts of the Plan. It was the consensus of the Board to defer action until other parts of the Plan had been discussed at a public hearing. Ted Latta indicated that he had attended three out of the four Township meetings and that he felt that at least 80% of those in attendance were opposed to any recreational plan due to the cost. County Manager Link indicated he would review dates with Staff for another public hearing on the other elements of the Plan and report his findings to the Board on March 1 . 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Access Restrictions ( 1) Section IV-B-3-c-8 - Access Restrictions The staff presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. This item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-3-c-8 (Access Restrictions) of the Subdivision Regulations . As land along major County highways develops, both the amount of traffic on such highways and the number of driveways increases. The result is increasing conflicts between vehicles turning into and exiting from driveways and through traffic. The conflicts create safety problems and could lead to eventual widening of the highways as a means of resolving the problems. Increasing concerns about the effects of driveways on major highways in Orange County prompted the Planning Board to draft proposals which would strengthen access restrictions for parcels of land created during the subdivision review and approval process . During the process, the number and location of driveway locations could be controlled. Alternatively, lot configurations could be developed which require access to major highways other than through individual driveways. As examples, marginal access streets could be designed which funnel subdivision traffic to a common entrance/exit or access to a side street of lower classification (and away from major highways) could be required. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Vic Knight asked about a definition for major highways . Jacobs responded that this was included in Article IV-B-3-c-8 (street classified as arterial or collector) . Ann Joyner asked about the guidelines in the reviewing of driveway applications. Kirk responded that the previous ordinance provision referring to heavily traveled street has been changed to a heavily traveled street classified as arterial or collector and basically "heavily traveled" would be a judgment call on the part of Planning Staff, Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners, but it would be a street classified as arterial or collector. Joyner continued asking the criteria for access location of the driveway. Kirk responded that the possibility of common driveways would be considered, marginal access street parallel to the arterial or collector street or reverse frontage. Each subdivision would be reviewed for driveway access on an individual basis. Josephine Barbour expressed her opposition to shared driveways . Vic Knight expressed concern with the additional cost to individual buyers when shared driveways present problems with closings on properties. Jacobs responded that shared driveways was simply an option for developers. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chair Marshall, to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous . b. Private Road Standards (1) Section IV-B-3-d - Private Roads The Staff presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. This agenda item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-3-d (Private Roads) of the Subdivision Regulations . Recent events involving the interpretation of the private road standards contained in Section IV-B-3-d of the Subdivision Regulations have indicated a need to insure consistency of application. On December 9, 1987, the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee met with the Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Board for the purpose of discussing the private road standards . Based on the discussion, a draft policy resolution was prepared which emphasized the following points: 1. The preservation of the rural character of Orange County; 2 . The use of restrictive covenants to prevent further subdivision, thereby maintaining the approved density and decreasing the likelihood of NCDOT acceptance of roads for maintenance purposes; and 3. The use of design features for watershed protection, natural/historic areas preservation, and the retention of scenic view and natural vegetation. At its January 18, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board considered the recommendations of the two committees and adopted the proposed policy resolution. Subsequently, the Board of Commissioners adopted a similar resolution on February 1 and set February 22 as the public hearing date for the purpose of incorporating the provisions of the policy resolution into the Subdivision Regulations . If approved, the new provisions would be administered until a more detailed study of private road standards could be completed and additional amendments proposed. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Jacobs noted that the time frame for further consideration is envisioned as part of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Commissioner Hartwell noted that he preferred to see the lot count in the provisions. Chair Marshall noted that #2 in the proposed provisions is a more workable provision than the one indicating the number of lots. Hartwell agreed. (Copies of the existing and proposed provisions included as attachment to these minutes on pages ) . Ted Latta expressed concern that #la was too vague and needed clarification. Commissioner Hartwell agreed with Mr. Latta noting that the developers needed clarity and help now. Commissioner Carey expressed concern with restrictive covenants asking if it should be provisions restricting further subdivision rather than restrictive covenants. Kirk responded that it is understood in zoned townships and rural buffer that minimum lot size is already set and further subdivision is prohibited. Ann Joyner, developer, expressed concern with the lack of specific guidelines. Hartwell responded that while there still are some problems with vagueness that this interim policy does take care of some immediate problems . Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous . c. Comprehensive Plan (1) Section IV - Minimum Design Standards (References to "Land Use Plan" ) The staff presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. This item is to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV (Required Minimum Design Standards) of the Subdivision Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations currently contain references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Subdivision Regulations, and, to provide consistency between the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, all references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. The following subsections of the Subdivision Regulations refer to the Land Use Plan major thoroughfare plan, Orange County thoroughfare lap the adopted Land Use Plan or the Orange County Land Use Plan. Section IV-B-1 IV-B-3-a IV-B-3-d C) IV-B-7-a-1 IV-B-7-b-2 IV-B-7-b-3 IV-B--7-b-3 (a) IV-B-7-b-6 IV-B-9-a The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations would change all of the above citations to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments . Motion was made by Chair Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Commissioners on April 4 . Vote: Unanimous . . With no further business to come before the Boards, the meeting was adjourned. Shirley E. Marshall , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Joanna M. Bradshaw, Adm. Secretary . = ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT to_ 01 306F REVERE ROAD • HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 V„-,„-w.41 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED MASTER PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN, ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO ROUGEMONT RURAL ROUTES 2 AND 3 , AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Sections 240, 323 and 343, Article 20 - Sections 20. 5 and 20. 6 of the Orange County • Zoning Ordinance, and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse ( New ) , 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, or Monday, February 22, 1988, at 7 :30 p. m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: GRANL1E COUNTY MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN The purpose of the Master Recreation and Park Plan is to assess the current and future recreation and park needs of Orange County citizens. The plan is organized into five major components, including the following : ( 1 ) Goals and Objectives (2) Current and Projected Factors Pertinent to Orange County (3 ) Analysis of Current. Recreation Programs and Park Facilities, Development of Recreation Standards, and Community Needs Assessment (4) Plan Proposals and Recommendations ( 5) Action Plan Implementation III Of particular importance are components 4 and 5 . Component 4 proposes a system of district and community parks and greenways for the County, along with a proposed time =IIMIMMEIW ( O ' 02 PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE • schedule for implementation. Component 5 itemizes the facilities and costs associated with developing each proposed park or greenway. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan was initially presented at public hearing on November 23 , 1987 . Proposed revisions to the Plan made since the initial public hearing will be identified . ASSICzhmaII QE HOUSE BERS Rural Routes 2 and 3, Rougemont, are proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned house numbers. The two routes encompass an area within Little River Township, Including Caldwell and portions of Highways 57 and 157 and Guess Road. The follow- ing roads, either in their entirety or portions thereof , the general boundaries for the area: Kiger Road, New Sharon Church Road , Bill Poole Road , McBroom Road , Bunny Road , Sawyer Road, Hall Dairy Road, Holly Ridge Road , Brown Road , Breeze Road , Mary Hall Road , and Blalock Road . s -A I ' NI P The proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan are as follows: 1 . Designate the Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is based on a new definition of the Comprehensive Plan . 2. Incorporate the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is based on a new definition of the Comprehensive anNEL COUNTY ZONING. ORDINANCE The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance under consideration are as follows: new 1 . Amend Articles 2• 2. 12 through 4 foor provide the statement of intent procedures Comprehensive Plan for Orange County. 2. Amend Article 22 (Definitions) to provide a new definition of Comprehensive Plan. 111 4 03 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PAGE 3 3 . Amend Articles 4. 2. 1 through 4. 2. 30, 6 . 20. 1 , 7 . 1 : . 1 through 7 . 19. 1 , and 22. 0 to change all references to "Land Use Plan", "Thoroughfare Plan", "Road Classification Plan", and "Plan" to "Comprehensive Plan". The proposed amendment is based on a new definition of Comprehensive Plan and is necessary to insure consistent terminology throughout the Zoning Ordinance. ORAr .E COUNTY lilBD I Vi SION REGIJLATtoNS The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations under consideration are as follows: 1 . Amend Section IV-B-3-c-8 by adding access restrictions, including common driveways, marginal access streets or reverse frontage lots, where a proposed subdivision adjoins a heavily traveled arterial or collector street. 2. Amend Section IV-B-3-d by providing new standards for determining when private roads will be permitted in subdivisions. The new standards stress the preservation of the rural character of the County through larger lot sizes, the retention and/or provision of landscaping, the use of clustering to preserve open space, the maintenance of scenic views, and the use of restrictive covenants to maintain approved project densities. 3 . Amend Sections IV-B-1 , IV-B-3-8, IV-B-7-a-1 , IV-B-7-b--2, IV-B-7-b-3, IV-B-7-b-6, and IV-B-9-a to change all references to "Land Use Plan" and "Thoroughfare Plan" to "Comprehensive Plan". The proposed amendment is based on a new definition of Comprehensive Plan and is necessary to insure consistent terminology throughout the Subdivision Regulations. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment must be received during the public hearing. Those wishing to oppose the proposals must provide competent material and substantial evidence as to the specific manner in which they are opposed to the amendments. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence presented at public hearing will be examined by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which • reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to • aw PAGE 4 , PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE g the Orange County Planning Department. Orange Planning Department is located in 306F Revere Road , III Agricultural /Environmental Center, Hillsborough, N. C. Office hours are from 8 : 00 a. m. to 5 : 00 p. m. , Monday through Friday. YlJ c '��`�' ' \ Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: February 10, 1988 February 17 , 1988 current-plan : 2/22-phnotice III ► 05 III ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.D-1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 22, 1988 SUBJECT: MASTER RECREATION & PARKS PLAN X Yes No L DEPARTMENT:�ING PUBLIC HEARING: • Mary Anne Black INFORMA'T'ION CONTACT. Gene Anne ATTACHMENT(S) : TELEPHONE NUMBER: 732 8181 Proposed Text Revisions Hillsborough - Revised Greenway Map Chapel Hill = 732 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 To receive citizen comment on previsions to the proposed Master Recreation PURPOSE: and Parks Plan for Orange County The proposed Master Recreation & Parks Plan was presented at public hearing on November 23 and, as a result of citizen and advisory board III concerns, revisions to the original document are being proposed. The Master Recreation & Parks Plan is designed to become one element of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with other county land use plans and ordinances. The Plan recommends that rangeaCountynd concentrate its efforts in the provision of four types park facilities: (1) community parks (serving the more densely populated rpo n s unincorporated areas of the county); (2) district parks; (3) g pul Y (linking parks, rural residential areas, and urban activity centers); and (4) swimming pools. Revisions to the Plan and text were discussed at Planning Board and Recreation & Parks Advisory Council meetings following the initial public hearing, and on January 25, 1988 the Planning the Plan be submitted again to public hearing. On February 1, 1988, the Board of Commissioners concurred with the recommendation and set February 22, 1988 as the public hearing date. Four public informational meetings were held during the week of February 8, 1988 in the county's four leisure service districts. The purpose of the meetings was to acquaint the public with the proposed "recreational trails" system. Proposed revisions affect only the greenways element of the Plan, delineating only those areas proposed for active recreational trails. Proposed "natural conservation areas" have been deleted from shed/PPlan and will be addressed as part of the Natural Areas Inventory • Open Space Plan. The attachments outline revisions proposed to the text, and exhibits 6-2 through 6-8 of the Plan document highlight the proposed recreational trails system. • V U RECOMIE1IDATION: _ The Recreation & Parks Director and Planning Director recommend approval of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan including: 1. Community parks 2. District parks 3. Swimming pools 4. Recreational trails Ul ORANGE COUNTY MASTER RECREATION & PARKS PLAN } The following text is recommended to be substituted 6,for all t Y text Wide appearin i the ad draft Master -Recreation and Parks Plan,6 Chapter hrough 6-9) . Recommendations, Greenways section (pages -Greenways A final county-wide recommendation is for the county to develop a greenway system, composed of recreational trails. The system is to be based upon guidelines provided to the county by the Triangle Land Conservancy and g Y plans included in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan adopted October 1986. It is also proposed that the county coordinate its greenway plans with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro on a local level, and the Triangle J Planning Area on a regional level, to assure proper connections with other systems in the area. Orange County is also within the tNar path ral�the „It would be beneficial trail to connecg developed through the State o with this trail system where possible to become a member of a unique and historic recreational activity. The final recommendation on the development of a greenway system is that it be planned compatibly with other systems as recommended by the President's Commission on American Outdoors (PCAO) which emphasizes the creation of a "National Greenway Network." Areas designated on the individual township maps show the areas recommended for recreational trails (graphically depicted by an asterick pattern) which are accessible to the public and managed by the County, and are developed with walkways or trails. -Recreational Trails Recreational trails in more urbanized areas or accessible to relatively large numbers of people, or which connect two or more identified significant areas should take the form of corridors of land with a paved or prepared walkway (these trails can provide walking connections and opportunities for bicyclists and Joggers) or with well-marked and maintained unpaved trails. These corridors should be a minimum of sixty feet (60' ) wide or the width of the 100 year floodplain whichever is more, providing the user with the impression of being away from urban development. The recreation trails will require operational management such as litter and security patrol with appropriate vehicular restrictions endorsed. For recreational trails for which county ownership may not be necessary or androtheatc, Cons or or another easements a land management group 1 k between the Triangle and and the county Conservancy, may be useful. The above-described system would be developed using the methods for acquisition and development described in the Plan's section entitled the same, beginning on page 7-6, and should provide a special public-private partnership to ensure that the uniqueness of Orange County is preserved for future generations. • L . 08 • •. ( - • ._' 0 9 AIarncr ce • • 1= ' 4.S. k ipidill1+"� ' 1 ee, ., ..±. , .„._...t.A . 41k#* 1 ' ,: k v Or - .,_ , ii 11% Iiii—"I‘q:... '‘ 1 i 111.' - .4° -. 1 -I= ' 11, - - i r 4 4- of r ,&g.,.---2>,:3y1-7 a- o , / '''''-i18 . r/ > 1 - \ -Zbvl .1 -2--- * r/-1 r. 5) . 06 • ' , „,sigit4— . - 0 4-F-i 7,!,, /- ,-- , • , 1r \ . .„ I 4,71 --g-- - - r .■;134'.' I , illieb■ -,. isOr 1614 1111* '' .. �� q r ► Iy !71 wfw-a4 ,,,, r_ • . - ---_,- ... 4, . i • „ ,4. • I . :„_„._. ....„rmoiopme.., ,3 N-- 4111/4",, -"ft : a' _ . I -•is -� ' a. ;- I iliilr _. — -a-vie; ! ( "411,14,,,,. .. O - .. - 4a 4,41 :4* . T -I : -Ik'. - --• - !It ', Ok._.. . /IL ' Atfr I . .. 01-- Ai..? r_ . I _ . . r. , a *, w - - _ , t _ . : _ le- . . - . i ji A--:-.,4 ,.. 1,-.. 1 . t N V' • _ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ,..,„ CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP REVISED 2-I-N • / ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN EXHIBIT 6-2 A 10 . • tiSS . . Ir2s cR>r BREEZE 13a . _ _..s. _ . rel i8 1 1 j k. 16'1 r P ...Th. 1 4,-1 -f "_ t © 1 • .� i t'k,t`C MEE RD. ) I - BETHIDAii‘ STORE RD. ' 11100:41 r I517 > .4114„ *lb Sao. 7 \,. v (-- . ...._ , ill . PIPPOSED 1 1 % \ , ..--4\csAArtery � ■ �3ROVE- I • a • �I a ,Q� �•�17-� RIVER !ke1�iA PIA t al, D ROPkpo •1• 111111 �-� \ 4.. • ,if-i { -, No •` • olsrRlcr N - 4 - to. - f '4 • egg_ PARK 't 7 l �"�� IIIIEY i g , s ) ) " ' i : 4 ‘ ii L0 P _vgR I wPo o A M �.Y" 154! \ / ) I 1 F mamas K '- o - •. ( HY I a ► e ar 4-,. rpe I . / \ \\74/". i % 4e:', ...„,1-%'. 46 ..... . mon PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS / \ LITTLE RIVER TOWNSHIP WALE trar.271 REVISED 2-548 Ilir . ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN EXHIBIT 6-3 • 11 0 MOM rr� MATCH I - — r rr- 1 1 ND. ,3 , i n 1 ~ -/ - v th -, el 1 1 . , 4. : ,,,. 4 f,!, -,,.... r.--- II -.1 - ., iithiiillt / . •a ..../ r 1 MOM 1 y rsrsioar g "-,A,X/ v 11, 111, • , C; 111 P-C Ka--, \ v4111,-. _ '.,,, ( 1 ' ,: _ . _ 411.‘ , --...._...."` ' `�""°" E. , I .111' 'III '1•M �n Nils •• . . ► 11 PROPOSED 1 ■ , a i / , 1 f DISFRICT PARK III ti I■ 1•` , _ ' �. - Y �� - 'I .'104'-'11. 1). , , .�• 'a1�:n„11111''._11... ...„,(t4 .. 1T' 4 ti a 0a:.0 owe _ 0 i Elt l'- ° op.,• .,, ,.;,14.....A : ____, ;lel - .. ..4„/ __ 4v- • R�RJ S� 1=-LAB , a - - ■-,..... -411"11 cp . - • • . _.....401Lh.,. • '- Appip..“Es7 my • „En __ ,....,_ 40.0, a A' '''''..- illy ' 4 ,.moo ”` x• ..... ... . .,.. . iv 11," ALT' . I. . -,::-.- ‘. 1 . .... --, .,_.,..., , 1 . i k .../ . b . 0-40 ra. � 1 4.• 4:::::24: ). 11 1 ge-,:;-"' ...."-" Iry• - kliCie ______6_,...., __. I ■• ■ ■ rwrrr r.rrIwrr_M.•• _Lrr PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ,A\ • CHEEKS TOWNSHIP o x-e-ee Aily ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN EXHIBIT 6-4 1a 0 .■ 77 'FF.F1•- ..ROAR GROVE :_NC"' 1 f / fi"ILi.dS ° QR @,+UG �i 1Y 15/ // i . �. 11W =a i+ur� . • •it; omen - 1. ii RVIEW «mim IY " y� �rN 'ii.."!, "" f,C ,i j %r! 'lie' 1_,IVICK • q' . dall , ,. 1pip 1...,-. ,i: r;ITZ:' .V H -H -=•-• c. -'- ' ti. • s,;. .46 , : ,o, , . li,,- X11', dr,,7 ii "r lra K.ma '► I' 1 1 1 arue.. 41, lit.1 [-- 2 ' :3] \ 1 1 1 r 1 1 Q 1 1 b rte. IY . lli,.. ,I,A,,,y4 __i��tta t:( ; LINE w rw-...L ..r. =';.. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP '�"E REVISED 2-11 O W 0 RANGE NTY COU , N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN EXHIBIT 6-5 t�CH WE FINE 13 E ` ; f , � I I ( , 21-41 "t% -4 It I s ( [Ewa depligiVo. -c" 14t: - ri ; -% rd 40.11 211E7e 1 .7" ( r.0 $ ) 1 uL i .„� :17. _ F . . ...„„ 1 $ illilOp. ) 1 , )- .. ''' � _-_f = " ---i.,N ria \ ( ,_...-■.,.., 1lyq • ! `� _.4 sT " 4 J a, i� t i�Md!!_ .et J iwd► o ` -T —ate r / \i— 444 I 4 I I I 14#1:1-\\4 I I I I*h l'' I 1 Ift*ItAi -'' 4t-41104.cv, i i Ar,,,,, ,,,-lb, yr:_ . , , _ 1.-;4-r.,. ;',1-47t-, '4.1 ,N pre ' ' -#40:1:7- .., , i6;., ', • • PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - . .ENO TOWNSHIP 'G" REVISED 2-8-08 - ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN EXHIBIT 6-6 14 .- -crE;�KS . '` -'.-'T"`-- - -- -T \\ IAATCM L!E QiEEKS T1Mr. - I ,-cli"Itte O. . -- / --- )' c .- •-•... go—. 4114 . 1 r \ & .4,,,, ,, , r...e., ii...—dio *__... . _ i OP .. ji :0---\.... I # yi-----,. 4. ...'....% 00.0 ii UM . 4. '-' %.''.. __Ai . . , , . , , , . ,1/4.... , ilf, r„... .....,......., ,.. ..... ,.. • ....._ :, ,... , . ., . . . „_. ,.. .,.......,....! 7 .... IP �4 P :ors , I _.–.-_ dr. . 0 , r a _ • ''' alll •I• - ' '._;441'1, \ '... . 1 9alt% 1 / , i ( 1.c \.1 O . oaks _111111 uI'I"•' * r--00,tea ar ,�� - B'INGNAM TWPa 7 I 1103 ,'/ i . N• t.... —....,-, . .i, , it „c,. . • _:ems Q*11 ' 1 0 { PARK . .� , I �� c. # _1� -,. , i Y l , /....4,.. .., ( t.‘ . il • - ..... ii. ii _ - /b i ,1 F►�l d � e (j),,m 1 Chatham 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BINGHAM TOWNSHIP sw. REVISED 2-S N . • ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN • EXHIBIT 8-7 • .. x. _ -- --- -.. . 15 . - r ro=�4"'' 7-4.zi r -_ - P. "__ ----- ---- -- -_-_-- - -- - r ' ;°.ate ... -- •�-.•"••••. 0 . -".•• '• Z ill.P.'-•"..--- • -4- • o .:'""" -ri . .... ve-- , 4,1S, im , g ,\ - •_., „,044.0111106_,.: •iir. i.‘. -rot v, 1' 1 • +4_+ A-,-� <�' r f~ '�"'a'srK �! ,;? . �, i ,,,.„ rn OW Nit y •. w j_jz, ..... •} • l rte A il �' ' ' 0011LO 50. 1,•-mou, lro ' ,...... ....,_ • _ , .......,la 7.• .'' 1 PIM "e li i C"IN r i'l .. :%"")lco *4 I z... me Li k i A,PEL HILL - y l 7 p,w,q� .��' DIY I �" s"s1 •IMI&•Ti \ Gf' r\e\iriler %°1.) 1 I ���� � l r . : .,,,,...,...4 Bp ice 1,./71....:"C © . ¢14‘it'l 5 ms`s �� ri• )'' ' o D , l ti t7 �. . ,r. ..., - i, - Ike TAii Aiiiiti"...... int e''.., . \ill'" i' . ' ' '': Lir ' A:4 ..,-;r___ 1,P4mt r .. .. _ ... ..,, ,, g . A , .. _ 4 ,i„.._ . .,.. ...,, ) ,.,, 4, ■,..r J ilr.t\A' Al‘‘ `_ +� _2 OP /, \mil' ��I �� • 'x•17 Mai - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS O CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP ""' REYI{[D i-{-{{ . Ilif ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN EXHIBIT 8-8 a T t • c. 16 0 • _ O R A N G E C O U N T Y. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IIM ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date __LebL.11.A . 22 . 1988 Action Agenda Item t D-2 SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING x. _Yes — No���� ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins G. S. 153A-240 Location Map Notification Letter Legal Notice Letter to Orange County Postmasters TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 •URPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Routes 2 and 3 in the County, served by the Rougemont Post Office. BACKGROUND : Per an agreement reached in January, 1987 between the County Manager and the Chapel Hill Postmaster, a joint project between the County and the Postal Service was undertaken to convert rural box numbers to permanently assigned house numbers. Since the adoption of the House Numbering Ordinance by the Board of Commissioners on April 21 , 1987 , three Chapel Hill rural routes, 2, 5 and 8, have been converted to street number addresses. Rougemont Rural Routes 2 and 3 have now been prepared for the next conversion to house numbers. These two routes are located in Little River Township in northeastern Orange County and include the community of Caldwell and portions of Highways 57 and 157 and Guess Road. The area is bounded generally by the following roads: Kiger, New Sharon Church, Bill Poole, McBroom, Bunny, Sawyer, Hall Dairy, Holly Ridge, Brown, Breeze, Mary Hall , and Blalock . General Statute 153A-240 requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned . Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and in at least two public places in Little River Township ( Caldwell Store and Rougemont Post Office) . A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners -' OU 18 •2 f may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion cif the hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Rougemont Postmaster and the N. C. Department of Transportation, as required by G. S. 153A- 240. - 153A•236 CH. 153A. COUNTIES � 153A-tau 9 I.r,1 111. til, set the duties of any person appointed or designated as a fire prevention 1,`,r4. inspector. A fire prevention inspector shall not make electrical inspection: unless he is qualified to do so under GS. 153A-351. (1965,c.626; 1965,c.1064. J i 11« b. 3; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.) ; ..Aw . §t 153A-236 to 153A-238: Reserved for future codification purposes. ; , A ARTICLE 12. Ca LIT 'i tlno Roads and Brides. i„i;,: • The § 153A-239. Public road defined. auc� In this Article "public road" or " that has been irrevocab eet. highway, cited to t rC� thoroughfare, or other way of passage wan= u: t the public or in which the public has acquired rights by w rru 1 1 rru Iregard to whether it is open for travel. (1973, c. 622, s. 1.) I put Loral Modification. — Brunswick: 1979. 5 ur 1 opt 2nd Seat.. c. 1319: Calm-rug: 1981. c- 566, inl amending 1975.2nd Seas..c- 1319. cur • _ cur $ 153A-240. Nanning roads and assigning street numbers ixi cu ow iuc unincorporated areas. t, A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road mbers for ii:* of county and not within a city,and ma. assign or reassign on such a road. In naming or renamii io public t. a county aya not at (1) Change the name.if any,given rtatian agrees; (..,s Lion, unless the Board of Transpo (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Transporse. a cu Lion_ Dut may give the road a name in the name of am tr (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively .. other public road in the vicinity. or reassign scree: 3 :; A county shall not name or rename a road o. assign a matter.reassign tees; p • numbers of a road until it has held a public hearing mmissioner` shall cal 10 days before the day o. the hearing. r notice of the time,place, and subject matter of the hearing to ae prominently � lc . = posted at the county courthouse, in at least two public places in the townsiup J or townships where the road is located' and shall publish a notice of surd of general circulation published in tie ;. bearing in a: least one newspaper e ` • county. After naming or renaming a public road. ar assigning or reassignini i 1 street numbers on a public road. a county shall cause notice o. its action to iven to the local posttmsster with jurisdiction over the road. to the board o given 1 Transportation- and to any city within five miler of the road. - This section does not repeal or modify Chapter 945 of the Session Laws a • • 1953, whirr, per airs w naming streets in Rannapoiis. (1957,c. 1068; 1972.c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1; 1981, cr- 112, 516_) . Local !Acidification- — Brunswick: 1979. been wbs%iwtrd for'Stale liignwa`'Cow" . 2nd Sess.. c. 1319: C.aoarrus: 1961. a. 56E. awn" and for "Commission- u' ails seam* amending 197E. 2nd Seas-. s_ 1319. Forrstr.: enacted by Session Laws 1973.a. 82`.. i 75.c?S• —Tne firs: 1'_•:i 196:,c_55E:Guilford 19 )~tied of wmrnanieatc. L. tt Editor's Now,—Pursuant to Session Laws aihenament suasutuird`at the County Gad' 1973.c.50 s.E."board or'7ransp rta ion"has ham`. in at sear, two public v►rees IL ti. , _ t 76 I. V 1{Q / -f a. A.- y ,A ( r. :A/ ► ti,vm.i •���! r`rN■ aim i . ' di j e:...Iec \\ 1M•II.• W..../ '41" '--�� / t Jam 0r ... •-_4 riles O.:� + g �������,..+ / t "a' mf ...' . L..---.1 - ' .I,'.1 T M L . . ■ 1 / • jr 4 -,,- r r 1 • , . AM V .671.4) ! i• Alik- ..... . .." .a..■•411 a Cr _.�1 •war 1 / l nis M ' . ~ C►i i 1 r Axis ..- - --- \ .11.7.0..-2-. .. . v ..,, ..., _.....„....„ _...___,.., \ ... . . .. ,...1.- 5-7-7a--1-- .11 .4---\ ri ' ' It r fl f �� �,�.; ���51 -`— .• it i- / ► S A ;.,_ md _�J- 4.. .__�4( • fir ,0} JR ,r.�- •.! t it i. %Illiciii:m.. I ..----14. 4,2F-P* 5... ..:Nr...e.- %,..- ad, "". • ' • " .2.. ' ' eft"a‘Lo 7:4`6(...c,' ..:1\ i .. y / • S f� }� Cam' f ' !.�..�r - C .474. J.r. r,QC F� �✓ � _,. F I- -� �- - - . , 7 w - .., - • Rougemont P4 c l �'= - i ,� • .,� . ". 4 --), .. . . R.R. 2 Mm v+. /f' 1 1 \ , ,� ` ; \ R.R. 3 if---r----,...„... 1 -. ....... • ...;„1--..-.:_y,4,7....1 77,,,,„......, i • C .1 w t w oil J * C 0 V 14 7 t . • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 21 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA-27278 • Dear Citizen : On April 21 , 1987 the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the House Numbering Ordinance as required by NC General Statute 153A-240. This statute authorizes the conversion to house numbers from rural route and box numbers of all Orange County addresses. Postal routes in their entirety are being used to effect address changes. Rural Routes 2 and 3 , Rougemont are now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On February 22, 1988 a public hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on Rural Routes 2 and 3 served by the Rougemont Post Office. The hearing will be held at 7 :30 p. m. at the old County Courthouse in Hillsborough, N. C. If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural route and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least 1 inch high. The proposed change affecting your address is as follows: OLD ADDEE15 NEW ADDRESS, If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal , please attend the public hearing. We welcome your comments. If there are questions, please contact Don Powell or Miriam Coleman Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: 732-8181 , Ext. 345 or 575 Sincerely, • Marvin Collins Orange County Planning Director 2 P) ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA- 27278 • 11 b NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO ROUGEMONT RURAL ROUTES 2 AND 3 I N ORANGE COUNTY , N. C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of N. C. , Chapter 153A, Section 240, notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held in the old County Courthouse in Hillsborough, N. C. on Monday, February 22, 1988 at 7 :30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the assignment of house numbers on Rural Routes 2 and 3 served by the Rougemont Post Office in northeast Orange County ( Little River Township) . ASSIENMLI Qf ±iQUSE NUMBERS Rural Routes 2 and 3 , Rougemont are proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned house numbers. These two routes encompass an area within Little River Township, and including Caldwell and portions of Highways 57 and 157 and Guess Road. The follow- ing roads, either in their entirety or portions thereof , form the general boundaries for the area: Kiger Road, New Sharon Church Road , Bill Poole Road , McBro.om Road , Bunny Road , Sawyer Road , Hall Dairy Road, Holly Ridge Road, Brown Road , Breeze Road , Mary Hall Road , and Blalock Road . All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard . Public comment must be received during the Public Hearing. Changes may be made in the advertised proposal which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing .. Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to Don Powell in the Orange County Planning Department. The Planning Department is located at 306E Revere Road in Hillsborough, N. C. Office hours are from 8 : 00 a. m. to 5 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. Planning Department telephone number is 732-8181 in Hillsborough, Extension 345. Marvin E. Collins Planning Director ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEN-T U L 23 mLLsBOROUGH NORTE CAROLINA - • - -tS rte! ►• ep'rember 14 , 19E7 Postmaster U.S. Postal Service Hillsborough, h: 27278 Deer Fostmester : F.s you probably know by now, Orange County has adopted an ordinance providing for the change-over from rural route addresses to house numbers. In its initial effort the Planning Department has been working most closely with the Chapel mill Post Office on Estes Drive. Lntire postal routes, those most affected by "growing pains" , nave been chosen by the :nape ) Hill Postmaster for house number assign- ment. To bete, three Chapel Hill routes - 2, 5, and E - heve been cnenged, with public hearings, posting of notices end The otner requirements of N. C. General Ststute 15.3F-2AC. Initially, it was decioet to involve only `hose Post Offices in whose jurisdiction address changes were being effected. l nesmucn as the high/ cro.'th areas exist primarily in the soLtnern part of the County, i t was felt that the Chapel H i l l Post Office would be a sole working partner with County Planning for the first months of the project. l t was I tier determined that this would hold -rue only if postal routes in their entirety, were assigned house numbers. hell into the project it was decided The newly constructed buildings, erected after the Ordinance went into effect, should also be assigned numbers ccf;fo'rming with the overall , County-wide system. This would preclude et additional actress change for tlht resident further down The line. But it would also bring- into the picture postal jurisdictions other than Cnape l M i l l . lie now are at . the point where those other postal Jurisdic- tions and Drente County planning msst meet to coordinate the address assignments relative to specific postal g:ortrols. • Em� S' e Der 14, 15E7 =epe 2 me Cr F',1riam :oler,.en 1n may ! suoaes` -ne.r you contact either convenient far you y t mee inp most co III tills department to se! uc + we X111 1111 you In • 1 `n end your s'e`f • er your I oce r 1 or.. our plan end me progress TO cote , and receive your comments and suggestions to make erne transition Mork Pest for your , urlsdlctlon. ;nenk you for your cooperation, and we look forward TO wOrklnp r1Tn you. - Sincerely, ‘n P el I , ° lenner 712.41E1 , Ex' . X45 177Amit.01... ?k.. /..0,t..... MIrtam :olemen, Planning `ecnniclen 72:2-E1EI EXT. r,5 DP/MD/cm; . cc: Marvin Gal11r►S► planning Director Albert };itTre11 . Interial yovn;y Manager Z!77 $ 56.477- 7 : Rags."�C r /f/G I- • 10 x5ero _ , . pro i • , i , 0 L& /y 7<GS 7i.08�� ,mot _ • . 1/= 07zhit, ' L)1/7\--; -4.. li L ,G 0 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS -- - ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 111 Meeting Date: February 22, 1988 Action Agenda Item # 3a ( 1 &2) SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (ARTICLES 2. 2. 12-2. 2. 14 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) (ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS) . DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: ,X__Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Proposed Ordinance Amendments Land Use Plan Amendment Procedures Article 20 (Amendments) -- Zoning Ordinance TELEPHONE NUMBERS: - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-9251 Durham -- 688-7331 Mebane -- 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Articles 2. 2. 12 - 2. 2. 14 (Comprehensive Plan) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance. •CKGROUND: Existing references in the Zoning Ordinance refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County' s Comprehensive Plan, new issues are emerging which warrant special recognition, and study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated for such treatment are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility services, and transportation. To recognize the special nature of such issues yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re--definition of the Plan is proposed. The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use Plan) , recreation, transportation, housing, open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed. While the proposed amendments to Articles 2. 2. 12, 2. 2. 13, and 22 seek to re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed amendment to Article 2. 2. 14 would incorporate the Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan (adopted November 1, 1982) into the Zoning Ordinance. The procedures have been altered only to address the Comprehensive . Plan rather than the Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. 26 0 • PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 2 .2 . 12 (Comprehensive Plan, Intent) Article 2 .2 . 13 (Comprehensive Plan Adoption) Article 2 .2 . 14 (Amendment of Adopted Comprehensive Plan ) Article 22 (Definitions) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X__ Staff Planning Boardd_ BOCC Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High '__ Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 22, 1988 ****************************************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise the statement of intent concerning the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County and incorporate adopted procedures for its amendment into the Zoning Ordinance. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : Existing references in the Zonin Ordinance generally refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan . Furthermore, procedures for the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan (or Land Use Plan) have been approved by the Board of Commissioners but not incorporated into Article 2.2 . 14 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County ' s Comprehensive Plan, new issues are emerging which warrant special study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated to receive special study are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility services, and transportation. To recognize the special nature of such issues or subjects yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re-definition of the Plan is proposed . The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use Plan ) , recreation, transportation, housing, Gl_ 28 open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed . Within this context, the Comprehensive Plan could be considered a puzzle with each element comprising a specific piece or part thereof . COMPREHENSIVE FLAN ELEMENTS Economic Development Lard Use :., Flaud 5 nQ Open SPace !I!!!!!:;; IIIIIiii Tmteportalton ibemelten 4111 II 111441*Iilli.EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : etc.. III 2 .2 . 12 G20prehensiig_Eian, I ntemt The Comprehensive Plan, which includes, the land use plan , maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, task force reports, official statements which are officially approved by resolution of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, and are part of the underlying policy of the County, shall constitute the Boards recommendation of the physical development of that portion of the County under County Jurisdiction . The recommendations shall address in whole or part such things as the general location, character, extent of streets, bridges, boulevards, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, and other public ways, grounds, and open spaces; the general location and extent of public utilities and terminals, whether publicly privately owned or operated, for water, light, sanitation , transportation, communication, power, and other purposes; the removal , relocation, widening, narrowing, vacating, abandonment, change of use, or extension of any of the foregoing ways, buildings, grounds, open spaces, property, utilities, or terminals; the most desirable pattern of land use within the area, including areas for residential uses, for farming and forestry, for manufacturing and industrial uses, III commercial uses, for recreational uses, for open spaces, and for mixed uses. In preparation of these recommendations the Board shall ever be mindful of the need to balance the public interest with the needs of private interests, particularly in the conservation of 29 surface and underground water resources, soil resources, and natural growth resources of the county and the efficient use of the renewable and non-renewable sources of energy. 2 .2 . 13 CompL_ehgnliY.e_a_an,_.Asi2.ti211 The Board of Commissioners upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and portions thereof from the Planning Board shall consider such recommendations and adopt them by resolutions, either unchanged or with modifications. Prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Board of Commissioners shall hold a public hearing thereon . Notice of the public hearing shall be given by publishing said notice at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County, stating the time and place of such hearing, and the substance of the proposed plan . This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than fifteen days nor more than twenty-five days before the date set for the public hearing. 2 .2 . 14 LmgnAm2nf._Qf_A d 9ptO d ComAr p e n s i v e P.A.n. Proposed amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan, if not initiated by the Planning Board, shall be referred to it by the Board of Commissioners for recommendation. The Planning Board shall have sixty days from the date of referral in which to make such recommendation . Failure to make a recommendation within the sixty day period shall be considered approval of the proposed amendment by the Planning Board . Adoption of all amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan shall be made only after a public hearing with notice as specified in 2 .2 . 13 . Article 22 - Definitions Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan, maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, task force reports, and official statements which are officially approved by resolution of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The plan shall address in whole or part such things as the general location, character, extent of streets, bridges, boulevards, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, and other public ways, grounds, and open spaces ; the general location and extent of public utilities and terminals, whether publicly or privately owned or operated, for water, light, • sanitation, transportation, communication, power, and other purposes; the removal , relocation, widening, narrowing, vacating, abandonment, change of use, or extension of any of the most desirable pattern of land use within the area, including areas for residential uses, for farming and 30 • forestry, for manufacturing and industrial uses, for commercial uses, for recreational uses, for open spaces, and for mixed uses. ( See also attached Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan) PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 2 .2 . 12 CompEehga;xlY.e. PwI.1A.A._lIltgaf The Comprehensive Plan shall constitute an internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the long-term, physical development of that portion of Orange County under County Jurisdiction . The Comprehensive Plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include maps and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards and plan proposals for physical development. The Comprehensive Plan shall be comprised of the following individual elements: a) A lgn. gg__glgmgat which designates the general distribution, location , and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses. b ) A itAnspor tl4Il_glgment which identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major highways, scenic roads, railroads, transit routes and facilities, bikeways and pedestrian facilities, airports, and other public and private transportation facilities. c ) A h4pslau eLemIgnt which contains an evaluation of housing problems and sets forth a program to alleviate unmet needs, including standards and plans for the improvement of housing and the provision of adequate sites for housing . d ) An open space__k1gmgnt which identifies the location and extent of existing and proposed open space for the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. e) A regrgn.tl2g_glement which designates a system of areas and public sites for recreation, including parks and playgrounds, recreational trails, and other similar areas . f) An gconomig_AgYgLQ. m nt_..glement which contains an analysis of the local economy and projections of future economic activity. The economic development element may also identify existing and proposed sites for new and expanding businesses and industries, and the facilities needed to serve them. g) A ggtylggg and faci_litieg_gigment which identifies 31 existing and proposed service areas and improvements for water, sewer, refuse disposal , education, emergency services, and other utilities and service facilities. h) Such additional elements dealing with other subjects which in the judgment of the Board of Commissioners relate to the physical development of the County. Such elements may include, but not be limited to, the subjects of historic preservation, community or rural design, growth management, etc . As part of the Comprehensive Plan, area plans may be prepared which focus on a portion of the County such as a township, a watershed or an interstate highway interchange. Likewise, technical information and/or task force reports prepared as part of a plan element or an area plan may be incorporated as part of the appendix of or as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan . In preparation and adoption of a plan element, area plan or other similar document, the Board of Commissioners shall ever be mindful of the need to balance the public interest with the needs of private interests, particularly in the conservation of surface and underground water resources, soil resources, and natural growth resources of the county and the efficient use of the renewable and non renewable sources of energy. 2 .2 . 13 C o rnprg h en s i v e ?i an���fj4n The Comprehensive Plan shall be so prepared that all or individual elements and parts thereof may be adopted by the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof from the Planning Board, shall consider such recommendations and adopt them by resolution, either unchanged or with modifications. Prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof, the Board of Commissioners shall hold a public hearing thereon . Notice of the public hearing shall be given by publishing said notice at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County, stating the time and place of such hearing, and the substance of the proposed plan . The notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than ten ( 10) days nor more than twenty-five (25) days before the date set for the public hearing. 2 .2 . 14 Amendment of Adopted Comprghensi.ve Pl,a,p, For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and desirable development within Orange County, the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall not be amended except as follows : a) Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; ..0 C; 32 b)-- To correct an error or omission ; or c ) In response to a change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County. 2 .2 . 14 . 1 I_n i i i a ti411_Qf_AffigA.dfg n t s. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof ,may be initiated by: a) The Board of Commissioners on its own motion; b ) The Planning Board ; or c) Application, by any person or agency, which accurately and completely sets forth the reason ( s) for the proposed amendment as prescribed in Article 2 .2 . 14 above. 2 .2 . 14 .2 Cli5aiiikt1..2Il_21__AmanAmsail Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof are classified as "principal " or "secondary" amendments. Principal amendments include: a) Additions to or modifications of policies, objectives, principles or standards; b ) The creation of new activity nodes or additions to existing activity nodes which exceed ten ( 10) acres in land area; or c) Proposals for new freestanding plan areas or additions to existing areas that exceed one hundred ( 100) acres in land area. Secondary amendments include: a) The expansion of an activity node where the additional area is contiguous to an existing node and does not increase its land area by more than ten ( 10) acres; b ) The expansion of a designated plan area where the additional area is contiguous to the existing plan designation and does not increase its land area by more than one hundred ( 100) acres; c) A correction of an error or omission ; or d ) Revisions to any factual or descriptive material . 2 .2 . 14 .3 GQnalieraiiQn_Qf_Ang.asimania Except as noted herein, the submission and consideration of applications for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall be governed 33 by the procedures contained in Article 20 of this Ordinance. Principal amendments shall only be considered once each year at the quarterly joint public hearing in February. Secondary amendments may be considered four (4 ) times each year at the quarterly joint public hearings in February, May, August, and November. No proposed amendment is to be considered in conjunction with a rezoning, planned development or special use permit request for the same property . Requests for a rezoning, planned development and/or special use permit may only be considered at subsequent hearings or meetings following approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan . Article 22 - Definitions aSmpreh2nli . __Elan An internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the long term, physical development of that portion of Orange County under County jurisdiction, consisting of a statement of development policies and maps and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards and plan proposals for physical development. The Comprehensive Plan is be comprised of the following individual elements: a) A lug' ALse element which designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses . b ) A ±LA.n.sporta.tlon element which identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major highways, scenic roads, railroads, transit routes and facilities, bikeways and pedestrian facilities, airports, and other public and private transportation facilities. c) A housing element which contains an evaluation of housing problems and sets forth a program to alleviate unmet needs, including standards and plans for the improvement of housing and the provision of adequate sites for housing . d ) An open spac.e__. lement which identifies the location and extent of existing and proposed open space for the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. e) A recreation element which designates a system of . areas and public sites for recreation, including parks and playgrounds, recreational trails, and other similar areas. f ) An economic development element which contains an analysis of the local economy and projections of �. 34 future economic activity. The economic development element may also identify existing and proposed sites for new and expanding businesses and industries, and the facilities needed to serve them. g ) A agLYic. a_a 1.A_Ilc11.Lfiga_gi€ID.an± w h i c h i d e n t i f i e s existing and proposed service areas and improvements for water, sewer, refuse disposal , education, emergency services, and other utilities and service facilities. h) Such additional elements dealing with other subjects which in the judgment of the Board of Commissioners relate to the physical development of the County. Such elements may include, but not be limited to, the subjects of historic preservation, community or rural design, growth management, etc . The Comprehensive Plan also consists of adopted area plans which focus on a portion of the County such as a township, a watershed or an interstate highway interchange. Technical information and/or task force reports prepared as part of a plan element or an area plan and incorporated as part of the appendix of or as a supplement are also considered part of the Comprehensive Plan . ******************************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: FEBRUARY 1 , 1988 amend :complan-2 .2 . 12 • ^ •. ORANGE C OLI"TY PL&NI I G D EPARTM: NT 3 5 ataT Bost GZ NORM CL.BOLTL PING BOARD S' O:ft i" ' =7=113 • PRCEOSAL 9/30/82 • Revie and t n by by Planing Boars. 10/18 ,82 1: ` wed by 11/1.182. PROPOSED PLS IOR AteMIG .LAND [SE PLAN C PUROSE • The Orange Cowry Ted Use Plat (Plan) was adopted by the Board of Co=rssiare rs ca. September 2, 198E The act of adoption. formalized i the Plan tea= and map as County policy is land use rs. Tne Plan will need to be amaided.fo=. =1.132. to tame to rpflAte- changing. condicos is the County. This document proposes procedtmes by the Plan will be atanded. FOR AtEettISNIS - The Play may be amo®ded for the fo]lowiag reasons: ) 'because of changed. or changing conditions in a. pard.cular area or area: of the County; b) to =act an error or ozai.ssi= in the Plan; • c) is response to a. change in, land use policy. WORMS Or Proposed.. eaencinani to the Plan may originate from: . a) the Boa=t of Ccazoissicormos• b) the Planoing Board; c) as amendt app1icatzm made by say person or agency. OSIER OP Ame admeat s ace c3 a tad as Fr:acical or secros"IL-y atendmaans.. Pao-pat saclzak: = -. a)- ' "+ate•to orlticlirn.caiittris of goals and.policies; -b) .;creation. ef.aeR*aezez4ity nodes or addi. to exi.stiag node areas - g 1 aczet..: • . - •- - _ ppor.insals for near fzeestanding plat'areas.mr addit:Was. to ezd swag . areas*that 100 ate. - - r • • r'-• Paly82. • Secondary amendannts include: • •a) revision of a no& area where the addittal area is c=tivnts - with the existing area dces no increase the existing area by-more than 10 acrw; b) extmsica of any-plan area 'where the adr74-;s^al area is onngas tize existing area and does not increase the entf-svg area, by ra=e than 100 a=rtm; c) correction of aur error or oats' sloe. in the Plan; ol) revisions. to any factr21. or deseniFd.ve mamrial in. the Plan. • - C4IEN •Ma.Essrz MAY BE CCNS=ERED 4 . -t•-• P.4.12.d.pa1 CCM dana=s to the Plan shall be vonsidered an a year at the quarterly joint public hearing in February. Secondary amendrears to the Plan . • may be o=sidered bur ta. es a year at the quarterly joint ptblic hags Februay, May, August and November. Ecmiever, no principal mead:neat is to be considered irn coajun=i=.with a reioning request for the same prow:cry: Such zing requests may- only be considemi at subsequent hearings or m: tioy.p. (N.ate: at= September 2, 1983, no Land tbe Plan =endue= are to be =siderite. in conjun=ion a rezoning request). . • REEMPAL. of - - • .1*(Ce.Ii. k o a n d m e n t s p r o p o s e d b y t h e B o a r d of C r ers or the Planning Board;Or. amendnent Epplicarti.on made by a pe or agency shall be refetred to the -- Orange C:=7 Planning Dyer:1nel= Azendment applications should' . =teem a des=ipti.on of the changed or chaFghng condition vizi& justify the reqmsted • cbange, or the =or or omission = the Plan which the anseadment seeks to correct, or the changed Lsoci use policy which rme_ssitates an amendment- _ - - ST.117-1tEtriWT : - ' ' -• : - - - • • - -• • - . • _ For each"proposed.azilocin eint.to the the Oreage County-. PLenr-ing leper:rent shall cii=7 out on analysis7Tof thi Proposed amendient and its eteect an laze use in the parnimazt. area of the-proposed change and the Cot '. aq 8. 14201e. Based an. i= analysis; planning_Staff sha11-prepare., a racciFigidi.040:st:i the proposed amead- malt. - • - ' • :7 r• - - • _ ZUMZENG. 1364170 PRELYMNAltr IEVIEA• • • • -•.• • . • _ • The,•-'-iii=pcised 'amendiant the"-ana19iit and re=mmatdaelrzt of the • .. Pla=ingStaa'shall'be considered by.the Pla=litg.Boerd at a reguLwly schndUled resting.. The Plamning Board may refer the proposed Plan adman= to ..1= Twnship • . • . - . . . - - . . • ■ * w '' :wry COuld.1-(s) in. the area of the County to be affected by the ��7,-/gp. AOa) oa its own motet; b) on a request arm the arson (s) of the Tow ship. Advisory Counali (s) is the areas to be affected; c) in response- to a rat from Ping Staff_ JO= PCB= EMT=For all amao.ch eats to the. Plan. the Board of C__ ssioners shall hold a joint -. per:is hearing with the Pl=.ing Bo=d.. din a pt is hearing is held, no�.ce - shall be given by publishing the time, place aad subs a ce of the.proposed a:md- :'meat at least =rim in a newspaper of general circulation in the Copy. This :"'notice shall appear in. the newspaper for taav successive weeks wig the firs=notd,ce apaeazing not less the fifteen days nor more than- twenty-five days before the date set for the public hearing_ by the. PIS BOARS PoLlowing a joint public shall be back the Pegg an a Plan anea�at, the proposed =daunt Planning Board for its review and vir `� � The Board of shah dacide by formal vote, on the request. for a Plan ateadorant folloaiag the final Planning Board reccaae a .oii • LAND LEE PLAN ARlIIAt. REPO= The PAP P1 the g Board S its meeteing each November shall heal a report g tafF an . t stews of the Lana Use Play mc7.vdirg . . a) add :P •to t hel Plaar over the past?eear _ thedx.• b) as analysis of and potea'ts.al land use .issues 3n .the~ - aid bow the_P1arr:addresses these:issues; :;j .,' �=O.tatg:.. c) std :fort possible ebail.67 rs ..to the s '11 Prepare Based cu. t3 to the Plzl� o=' Board $tom t� � : 1n t Board's opinion the C ges neeckd in the Plan.are extensive in .scdpe and mer, the Board may recd d..ta the Board of Cnnoi sio a•wholesale revision of the Land Nse P1 ... yti • - • UL 38 • • 39 ARTICLE 20 . AMENDMENTS 20 . 1 Statement of Intenl, For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound stable g � s e and desirable development within Orange County this ordinance shall not be amended except to correct a manifest error in the ordinance or , because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the county generally , or to extend the boundary of an existing zoning district , or to rezone an area either to a different zoning district or to a corresponding Planned Development district , or to change the regulations and restrictions thereof. These amendments shall be reasonably necessary to promote the public health , safety , and general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof. 20 .2 Amendment Initiation Subject to the limitations of the foregoing Statement of Intent , an amendment to this ordinance may be initiated by: a) The Board of County Commissioners on its own motion; b) ._The Planning Board ; 1 c) Application , by any person or agency • 20 .3 For Amtndm j n.•� 20 .3 . 1 Application Submitted To Zoning Officer All applications for amendments to this ordinance shall be in writing , signed and filed , two copies with the Zoning Officer and one copy with the County Manager for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners . (For Planned Development amendments see Article 7 ; for Special Use Permits see Article 8) . The Zoning Officer shall , before accepting any amendment application , ensure that it contains all required informa- tion , as specified in this ordinance . Applications which are not complete , or otherwise do not comply with the provisions - of this ordinance , shall not be accepted by the Zoning Officer , but shall be returned to the applicant , with a notation by the Zoning Officer of the deficiencies in the application . - - - 20 .3 .2 f ; Amended 3-18-86 Applications for amendments to the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text , without limiting the right to file additional .f, material , shall contain at least the following : • 20-1 40 • a) For amendments to the Zoning Atlas , a fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch showing the land which would be covered by the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment , and a legal description of the land ; b) For amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text , a copy of the existing text provisions) which the applicant proposes for amendment , and a written statement which describes in detail changes which the applicant proposes to make to the text of the Zoning Ordinance; c) The alleged error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct same; . d) The changed or changing conditions , if any , in the area or in the County generally , which makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health , safety and general welfare ; e) The manner in which the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part- thereof;• and f) All other circumstances , factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment . 20 .3.3 Zoning Orrice- Prepares Analysis and Recommendation. Amended _ 3-18-86 The Zoning Officer shall , within 30 days of the receipt of an application to amend the Zoning Atlas , cause an analysis to be made of the application and , based upon that analysis , prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning - - .- Board and the Board of County Commissioners . The 30-day period may be extended with the written consent of the - applicant , up to a maximum of 60 days . The 30-day provision - . shall not apply to applications for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text. - - 20 .4 gefezral Of Amendment_ Annlication To Planning Board, Amended 3-18-86 The Zoning Officer shall submit any application - for amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board at the first_ regular meeting after the expiration of the 30-day period specified in 20 .3 .3 or any extension thereof. This provision shall not apply ' to any _ application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text . - - 20-2 20 .5 • The Board of County Commissioners shall hear applications for amendments nto this Planning Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular meeting in August , November , February and May . 20 .6 L1i.0—Rg.ari 20 .6 . 1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County Amended Commissioners before adoption of an 7 -2,84 this ordinance . Notice of the Y pr oposed amendment to by publishing said notice at least itwice riin a hnewspapervof general circulation in the County , stating the time and place of such hearing and the substance of the proposed amendment . This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than ten ( 10) days nor more than twenty-five (25) days before the date set for the public hearing . In computing the notice period , the day of publication is not to be included , but the day of the hearing is to be included . 20 .6 .2 The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the atlas shall post on the applicant 's affected ztying notice of the public hearing at least ten days rroreroy . a p date of said hearing . Y prior to the 20 .6 .3 Amended 11 -19-85 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas , written notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected owner and all adjacent property owners not less thanpfifteen days before the hearing date . Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property. If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed b y notice shall be sent by first class mail to all eaffected property_ eers and to all adjacent property owners within - 500. feet as provided above . The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such notices to the Board of County Commissioners . 20 .7 ti i The Planning Board shall within thirty days after the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the application . Failure of the Planning Board to within the required time shall be submit recommendation , without conditions . 20-3 I. ; 42 20 .8 B Qa r d __2:Cs1laIY—Qmm1al14Ll Z s R e c e.l. .e s R e c o m_taakl aa_al I1Llra..12Lza The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed amendment until thirty days after the date of the public hearing or until the Planning Board makes this recommendation , whichever ,comes first . 2o .9 Kill d-r ai+'S.1._Lr..AD.aSs..Sa An applicant may withdraw his or her application at any time by written notice to the County Manager . However , any withdrawal of an application after the giving of the first notice as required in 20 .6 shall be considered , for the purposes of ARTICLE 20 , a denial of the petition . 20 . 10 =let of Denial ,Qn_aubse.ouent Pgtltipns. When the Board of County Commissioners shall have denied an application or the application shall have been withdrawn after the first notice of the public hearing thereon , the Board of County Commissioners shall not receive another application for the same or similar amendment , affecting the same property or a portion of it until the expiration of a one year period , extending from the date of denial or withdrawal , as appropriate . 20 . 11 1.1-tit III Fees for filing application for amendments shall be set by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners . 20 . 12 C.StmA.:ehgnsive Revigyr Qf Chanter, The Planning Board shall from time to time , at intervals of not more than five years examine the provisions of this ordinance and the location of Zoning District boundary lines and shall submit a report to the Board of County Commissioners recommending changes and amendments , if any , which are desirable in the interest of public health, safety , and general welfare , mindful of the intent expressed in Subsection 20 . 1 . 0 20-4 u , 43 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February :2,- 1988 • Action Agenda Item # 3a (3) SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (ARTICLE 4 - ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE) (ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING:: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Proposed Ordinance Amendments TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-9251 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Article 4 (Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance. •BACKGROUND: The Zoning Ordinance currently contains references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Zoning Ordinance, all references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. The following subsections of the Zoning Ordinance refer to the adopted Land Use Plan, the Land Use Plan, the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan or the Orange County Land Use Plan. Article 4. 2. 1 b) 1. 4. 2. 2 b) 1. 4. 2. 3 b) 1. 4. 2. 4 b) 1. 4. 2. 5 b) 1 and 3. 4. 2. 8 b) 1 and 5. 4. 2. 9 b) 1 and 5. 4. 2. 10 b) 1, 4 and 7. 4. 2. 11 b) 1 and 3. 4. 2. 12 b) 4. 2. 16 b) 1 and 5. 4. 2. 19 b) 1. 4. 2. 20 a) and b) • 4. 2. 21 b) 1 and 3. 4. 2. 2; b) 1. 4. . 23 b) 1. 4. 2. 24 b) 1. :r r • 44 Article 4. 2. 27 b) 1• 4. 2. 28 b) 1. 4. 2. 29 b) 3. 4. 2. 30 a) and b) 1. Article 6. 20. 1 The rc� osed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would change • P P all of the above citat ions to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. • 5 UL 45 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 4 - ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE ARTICLE S APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff -_-- Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X_High Middle Low Comment : EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 22, 1988 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To change all references to the Land Use Plan and/or related documents to the Comprehensive Plan. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Zoning Ordinance currently contains references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Zoning Ordinance, all references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. EXISTING PROVISIONS: The following subsections of the Zoning Ordinance refer to the adopted Land Use Plan the Land Use Plan. the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan or the Orange Comnty Land Use Plan. Article 4. 2. 1 b) 1. 4. 2. 2 b) 1. 4. 2. 3 b) 1. 4. 2. 4 b) 1. 4. 2. 5 b) 1 and 3. 4. 2. 5 b) 1 and 5. 4. 2. 9 b) 1 and 5. 4. 2. 10 b) 1, 4 and 7. 4. 2. 11 b) 1 and 3. 4. 2. 12 b) 4. 2. 16 b) 1 and 5. 4. 2. 19 b) 1. Article 4. 2. 20 a) and b) . . 4. 2. 21 b) 1 and 3. 4. 2. 22 b) 1. 4. 2. 23 b) 1. 4. d. 4 b) 1. 4. 2. 27 b) 1. 4. 2. 28 b) 1. 4. 2. 29 b) 3. 4. 2. 30 a) and b) 1. Article 6. 20. 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT; The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would change all of the ,;bcive citations. to the adopted, Comprehensive Plan. .x***u***************************************. ***** ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: February 1, 1988 • ORANGE • COUNTY 47 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V � ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 22 1988 Action Agenda Item # 4a SUBJECT: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (DESIGNATION OF LAND USE PLAN AS LAND USE ELEMENT) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: — - �X�Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Draft Resolution TELEPHONE NUMBERS: - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-9251 Durham - 688_7331 -- Mebane - 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would designate the Orange County Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: Existing references in the Zoning Ordinance refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County' s Comprehensive Plan, new issues have emerged which warrant special recognition and study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated for such treatment are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility services, and transportation. To recognize the special nature of such issues yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re-definition of the Plan has been proposed. The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use Plan) , recreation, transportation, housing, open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed. Proposed amendments to Articles 2. 2. 12 through 2. 2. 14 of the Zoning Ordinance would re-define the purpose, intent, and method of adopt ion of the Comprehensive Plan. Article 2. 6. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that one element of the Comprehensive Plan be a Land Use Element which designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, • business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses. ses. • Article 2. 2. 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, if arnended1 I receipt of�i �$ would provide that the Board of Commissioners, p` a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof from the -Planning Board, adopt them by resoLut ion. The Orange Count Land Use Flan adopted on September 2, 1981,0 as amended, fulfills the purpose and intent of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive, Plan. Adoption of the attached draft resolution would implement the Zoning Ordinance amendments through re-adopt ion and designation of the Or_ rage. County, Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends adoption of the draft resolution. • • RESOLU INUIFT TION N OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AND DESIGNATING THE LAND USE PLAN AS THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Orange County Land Use Plan on September 2, 1981 ; and WHEREAS, the Beard of Commissioners has from time-to-time adopted amendments to the Orange County Land Use Plan because of: 1. Changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County: 2. An error or omission in the Plan. or 3. A change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to Articles 2. 2. 12 through • 2. 2. 14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance were presented at public hearing on February 22, 1988 which re-defined the nature, intent and method of adopting the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners adopted the proposed amendments on , 198 ; and WHEREAS, Article 2. 2. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that one element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be a Land Use Element which designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Land Use Plan adopted on September 2, 1981, and as amended, fulfills the purpose and intent of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. and WHEREAS, Article 2. 2. 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and 50 portions thereof from the planning_ Board, shall adopt them by resolutions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on February 22, 1988 III for the purpose of designating the Orange County. Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of_ the Comprehensive Flc and WHEREAS, following conclusion of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners wishes to designate the Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that : 1. The Oran e County, Land Use plan, adopted on September M, 1988, is hereby re-adopted and designated as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County, N.C. ; . All amendments to the Orange County Land Use Plan made since its adopt ion on September 2, 1981, including all amendments to the plan text and maps as well as area studies which focus on a particular portion of the County, are hereby re-adopted and designated as part • of the Land Use, Element cComprehensive !f the Plan for grange County,,_ N. C. day of ,, 198__. IIIAdopted this Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 51 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 22, 1988 Action Agenda Item # 4b SUBJECT: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (DESIGNATION OF MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN AS RECREATION ELEMENT) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _XYes No �� ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Draft Resolution TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-9251 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would designate the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: Existing references in the Zoning Ordinance refer to the Comprehensive Plan for the County as the Land Use Plan. While the Land Use Plan has served well as the County' s Comprehensive Plan, new issues have emerged which warrant special recognition and study. Among the subjects which have received or are contemplated for such treatment are recreation and parks, open space, housing, utility services, and transportation. To recognize the special nature of such issues yet incorporate them as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a re-definition of the Plan has been proposed. The Comprehensive Plan would consist of several documents or plans, each dealing with a specific element of physical development and each adopted by resolution as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed elements would include land use (the current Land Use Plan) , recreation, transportation, housing, open space, economic development, services and facilities, and additional elements as needed. Proposed amendments to Articles 2. 2. 12 through 2. 2. 14 of the Zoning Ordinance would re-define the purpose, intent, and method of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Article 5. 2. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, would provide that one element of the Comprehensive Plan be a Recreation Element which designates a system of areas and public sites for recreation, including parks and playgrounds, recreational trails, and ether similar areas. P' Article 2. . 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, if amended, 52 would provide that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt'-c , 'vv a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof from the ._Planning Board, adopt them by resolution. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan f u l f i l l s the purpose and intent of the Recreation Element of the Cornpr e'her�sri, ye Plan, Adoption of the attached draft resolution would implement the Zoning Ordinance amendments through adopt ion and . designation of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation in Element of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends adoption of the draft resolution. • ig _��... 53 t!31i31A 11 It RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AND DESIGNATING THE MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN AS THE RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. WHEREAS, the Beard of Commissioners adopted the Orange County Land Use Plan on September 2, 1981 ; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has from time-t.-o--time adopted amendments to the Orange CciuntY Land Use Plan because of; 1. Changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County: 2. An error or omission in the Plan or 3. A change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to Articles 2. 2. 1 2 through 2. 2. 14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance were presented at public hearing can February 22, 1988 which re-defined the nature, intent, and method of adopting the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion, of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners adapted the proposed amendments on , 198 ; and WHEREAS, Article 2. 2. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that one element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be a Recreation Element which designates a system of areas and public sites for recreation, including parks and playgrounds, recreational trails, and other similar areas; and WHEREAS, the Ma stern Recreation and Parks Plan fulfills the purpose and intent of the Recreation Element ment of the Comprehensive Plan. and WHEREAS, Article 2. 2. 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, states that the Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan and portions thereof from the Planning Board, shall 411 adopt them by resolutions; and �'' WHEREAS, a public is hearing was conducted on February �.-�., 1988 for the purpose of designating and incorporating the Master Recreation and Parks plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Elanl and WHEREAS, following conIc1usion of the public hearing and the receipt of the Planning Board recommendation, the Board of Commissioners wishes to designate the Master Recreation and Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that : 1. The Master Recreation and Parks Plan is hereby adapted :designated as the Recreation Element oaf the Comprehensive Plan for Orarg�e Cr,unty, N. C. Adapted this day of , 198 . ... 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 22, 1588 Action Agenda Item # 5a SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT (SECTION IV-B-3-c-8 - ACCESS RESTRICTIONS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Proposed Amendments TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 568-9 :51 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane -- 227--2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-3--c-8 (Access Restrictions) of the Subdivision Regulations. BACKGROUND: As land along major County highways develops, bath the amount of traffic on such highways and the number of driveways increases. The result is increasing conflicts between vehicles turning into and exiting from driveways and through traffic. The conflicts create safety problems and could lead to eventual widening of the highways as a means of resolving the problems. Increasing concerns about the effects of driveways on major highways in Orange County prompted the Planning Board to draft proposals which would strengthen access restrictions for parcels of land created during the subdivision review and approval process. During the process, the number and location of driveway locations could be controlled. Alternatively, lot configurations could be developed which require access to major highways other than through individual driveways. As examples, marginal access streets could be designed which funnel subdivision traffic to a common entrance/exit or access to a side street of lower classification (and away from major highways) could be required. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. new 56 - 1 • 4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT S ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section IV-B-3-c-8 Access Restrictions ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff XC__ Planning Board BOCC w`T Public Other STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _C_ Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1988 ************************************************************* PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend IV-B-3-c-8 Section IV-B-3 c 8 of the Subdivision Regulations to strengthen access controls on arterial and collector streets. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : There has been increasing concern among Planning Board members about the effect of driveways on major highways in Orange County. The Planning Board is concerned that as land along major County highways develops, both the amount of traffic on the highway and the number of driveways will increase. There will also be increasing conflicts between vehicles turning into and out of driveways and through traffic. These conflicts will create a safety problem and, potentially, a need for road widening that might be avoided if some control is placed on the location of driveways. These concerns can be addressed by creating or strengthening access restrictions to major County highways from parcels of land created under the Subdivision Regulations. It is during subdivision review and approval that the number and location of driveways can be controlled. It is also through subdivision review and approval that lot configurations can be developed that will allow for access provisions other than individual driveways and lot dimensions that w ill permit desirable driveway locations w ith regard to intersecting streets. • Being part of the subdivision regulations, these requirements would apply to only the mmi1 creation of new lots. Existing lots would not be made non-conforming as would be the case if these provisions were incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance. This is consistent w ith the concern that additional development w ill create the conflicts cited above. This item was considered at public hearing on August 24 , 1987 . Subsequent to the hearing, the Planning Board recommended that the proposed amendment be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for further study . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : IV-B-3-c-8 Maralaal_AQQ& _S.tL1 Where a subdivision adjoins a heavily traveled street, in the interest of highway safety, the subdivider may be required to provide either a marginal access street parallel to said heavily traveled street or reverse frontage on a smaller street. Where access is available to any internal subdivi- sion street, whether by reverse frontage or other lot arrangement, private driveways shall not have direct access to said heavily traveled street. It is the intent of this • section to minimize the number of points of egress and ingress to main roads within Orange County. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : IV-B-3-c-8 AQQess RegtrictiQns. Where a subdivision adjoins a heavily traveled street classified as_arterial_QL co I J e ctQL1n_th a Prange _cAni.Q.ty-5lam¢Leh.enalyQ Elam , in the interest of highway safety, the subdivider Qhall be required to provide a common slriy.eway , a marginal access street parallel to the artetlgl or =hector, or reverse frontage on a smaller street .ham t h g only A c cess to t h Q s u bsiix t�.i4� 1Lh� from an, Ortarill 9r cQlleotot_ Leet Where access is available to any internal • 4 59 subdivision street, whether by reverse frontage or other lot arrangement, private driveways shall not have access to the 1 �Li�l�r s.2,11.eSor. I t is the intent of this section to minimize the number of points of egress and regress to main roads within Orange County. ******************************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: January 21 , 1988 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: January 25, 1988 BOCC REVIEW: February 1 , 1988 amend : access-street amp L 60 O R A N G E E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 6 1 _ - _ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT U Meeting Date: February. 22 1988 Action Agenda Item # b SUBJECT: . PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (SECTION IB-B-3-d - PRIVATE ROADS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _X__Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Collins Proposed Amendments Commissioners 4-1-88 Resolution TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-9251 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-3-d (Private Roads) of the Subdivision Regulations. BACKGROUND: Recent events involving the interpretation of the private road standards contained in Section IV-B-3--d of the Subdivision Regulations have indicated a need to insure consistency of application. On December 9, 1987, the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee met with the Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Board for the purpose of discussing the private road standards. Based on the discussion, a draft policy resolution was prepared which emphasized the following points: 1. The preservation of the rural character of Orange County; 4. The use of restrictive covenants to prevent further subdivision, thereby maintaining the approved density and decreasing the likelihood of NCDOT acceptance of roads for maintenance purposes; and 3. The use of design features for watershed protection, natural/historic areas preservation, and the retention of scenic views and natural vegetation. At its January 18, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board considered the recommendations of the two committees and adopted the proposed policy resolution. Subsequently, the Board of Commissioners adapted a similar resolution on February 1 and set February 22 as the public hearing date for the purpose of incorporating the provisions of the policy resolution into the Subdivision Regulations. If approved, the new provisions would E �2 be administered until a rncore detailed study of private road standards could be completed and additional amendments proposed. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. Si I 63 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT i ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section IV-B-3-d (Private Roads) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X _ Staff _ Planning Boardd_ BOCC Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High —_ Middle Comment: Low EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: .February 22, 1988 ****************************************** PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To incorporate standards for determining situations in which private roads will be permitted in subdivisions. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : Recent events involving the interpretation of the private road standards contained in Section IV-B 3-d of the Subdivision Regulations have indicated a need to insure consistency of application . On December 9, 1987, the Transportation Advisory Committee met with the Ordinance Review Committee to discuss the private road standards. Both groups agreed that an interim policy regarding the interpretation and application of the standards was needed until a detailed study could be completed and revisions prepared . A draft policy resolution was prepared which contained the major points identified by the two Committees at the December 9 meeting. Emphasis was placed on the preservation of the rural character of Orange County; the use of restrictive covenants to prevent further subdivision, thereby maintaining the approved density and decreasing the likelihood of NCDOT acceptance of roads for maintenance purposes; and the use of design features for watershed . protection, natural/historic areas preservation, and the retention of scenic views and natural vegetation. At its January 18, 1988 meeting, the Planning Board approved the policy resolution and recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve a similar resolution . At its february 1 , meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved such a resolution and set February 22 as the public hearing date to consider incorporating the policy into the Subdivision Regulatiions. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : Section IV-B-3-d Private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where: 1 . In the judgment of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision , including such considerations as topography, the surrounding area, the present and future road plans, and access by public safety vehicles are such that a private road is justified ; and 2 . If one or more of the following conditions are met : a. The subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10 ) lots. b . The subdivision preserves a natural area through deed restrictions and special design features. c. The subdivision does not embrace or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County Thoroughfare Plan, or a municipality ' s thoroughfare plan within the county, or does not lie within a designated Transition Area as determined by the County. d . The subdivision joins or extends an existing subdivision where the streets of the subdivision are private or unpaved, and the new subdivision shall be platted to connect with the streets of such existing subdivision and be compatible with and in harmony with the surrounding community . e. The subdivision roads, even if constructed ttoeState standards, would not be accepted by the maintenance due to density or some other State requirement that the subdivision cannot meet For a subdivision to be approved with private roads, it should meet as many of the above criteria as possible; provided, however, the meeting of one or more of the specified conditions will not insure automatic approval of private roads . PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : IV-B-3-d Prlvgtg_Roadg The following design features will be considered in determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions : 65 1 . The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through : a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines greater than required by ordinance provisions; b . The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads and/or maintain a wooded or forested character; c. The maintenance of scenic views, including vistas of open farmland and/or forested hills and mountains; and/or d. The clustering of dwelling units to preserve wildlife, botanical , historic, archeological and/or recreation sites; 2 . The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirement; 3 . Restrictive covenants are proposed which prevent further subdivision of the property and the same shall be made a condition of approval , thus maintaining project density; 4 . Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical , wildlife, historic and/or archeological sites, are to be dedicated and/or preserved through restrictive covenants in amounts greater than required by standards for recreation/open space dedication; and/or 5 . Larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other design features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. Public roads will usually be required where it is found that: 1 . The subdivision roads, if constructed to State standards, would be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirement; or 2 . The subdivision streets Join or extend existing streets which are public; or 3 . The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an area designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or MEL 66 4 . A proposed street is designated as an arterial or collector street on an approved Thoroughfare Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan . It shall be the responsibility of the applicant for subdivision approval to supply a written statement justifying the reasons for private roads in the proposed subdivision . Compliance with one or more of the above standards does not insure approval of either a public or private road within a proposed subdivision . ******************************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: February 1 , 1988 amend : new- iv-b-3-d K'' V L 6 7 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS CONTAINED IN SECTION IV-B-3-d OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WHEREAS, Orange County adopted Subdivision Regulations which apply county-wide on February 27, 1978, and the effective date for application of the Regulations was established as March 13, 1978; and WHEREAS, Section IV-B-5-b of the Subdivision Regulations requires that each lot in a subdivision abut a publicly dedicated street except in subdivisions approved with private roads; and WHEREAS, Section IV-B-3-d of the Subdivision Regulations states that private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where: 1 . In the judgment of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision, including such considerations as topography, the surrounding area, the present and future road plans, and access by public safety vehicles are such that a private road is justified; and 2 . One or more of the following conditions are met: a. The subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10) lots. b. The subdivision preserves a natural area through deed restrictions and special design features. c. The subdivision does not embrace or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County Thoroughfare Plan, or a municipality ' s thoroughfare plan within the county, or does not lie within a designated Transition Area as determined by the County. d . The subdivision joins or extends an existing subdivision where the streets of the subdivision are private or unpaved, and the new subdivision shall be platted to connect with the streets of such existing subdivision and be compatible 68 with and in harmony with the surrounding community . e. The subdivision roads, even if constructed to State standards, would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or some other State requirement that the subdivision cannot meet; and WHEREAS, Section IV-B-3-d also states that for a subdivision to be approved with private roads, it should meet as many of the above criteria as possible; provided, however, the meeting of one or more of the specified conditions will not insure automatic approval of private roads; and WHEREAS, clarification of the interpretation of the private road standards is necessary to insure consistency of application and expeditious handling of subdivision applications; and WHEREAS, an interim policy for the interpretation and application of the private road standards is needed until specific ordinance amendments are prepared and considered for approval : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that : 1 . The following design features will be considered in determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions: a. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through : ( 1 ) The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines greater than required by ordinance provisions; ( 2) The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads and/or maintain a wooded or forested character; (3) The maintenance of scenic views, including vistas of open farmland and/or forested hills and mountains; and/or (4) The clustering of dwelling units to preserve wildlife, botanical , historic, archeological and/or recreation sites; 69 b . The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirement; c. Restrictive covenants are proposed which prevent further subdivision of the property and the same shall be made a condition of approval , thus maintaining project density; d. Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical , wildlife, historic and/or archeological sites, are to be dedicated and/or preserved through restrictive covenants in amounts greater than required by standards for recreation/open space dedication; and/or e. Larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other design features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount 411 of impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. 2 . Public roads will usually be required where it is found that: a. The subdivision roads, if constructed to State standards, would be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirement; or b . The subdivision streets Join or extend existing streets which are public; or c. The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an area designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or d. A proposed street is designated as an arterial or collector street on an approved thoroughfare plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan . 3 . It shall be the responsibility of the applicant for subdivision approval to supply a written statement Justifying the reasons for private roads in the proposed subdivision; and 4 . Compliance with one or more of the above standards does not insure approval of either a public or private road within a proposed subdivision . Adopted this 1st day of February, 1988 . marvin : p/p-bocc O R A N G E C O U N T Y 71 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 22, 1988 O Action Agenda Item # 5c SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (SECTION IV - REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X�Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin, Collins Proposed Ordinance Amendments TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - E,8-9..51 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comrner,t c,r, � IV (Required Minimum Design Standards) ofe the eSubdivisiion,1c'n Regulations. BACKGROUND: The Subdivision, Regulations currently contain references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive • Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re-define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Subdivision, Regulations, ar,d, to provide consistency between the Subdivision, Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, all references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. The following subsections of the Subdivision Regulations refer to the Land Use Flan. major thorou hfare lar, Orange Ce2unty thorc,u hfare lan the adc,cted Land Use Plan or the Oranq_e County_ Land Use Plan. Section IV-B-1 IV-B-3-a I V-B- ,-d C) IV-B-7-a-1 I V-B-7-b-2 IV-B-7-b-3 IV-B-7-b-3 (a) IV-B-7-b-6 I V-B-9-a The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations would change all of the above citations to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. 72 • 7 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION IV - REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X-- Staff — - Planning Board . EOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low Comment : EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 22, 1988 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To change all references to the Land Use Flan and/or related documents to the Comprehensive Plan. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Subdivision Regulations currently contains references which cite the Land Use Plan in one instance and the Comprehensive Plan in another. Amendments are being proposed to the Zoning Ordinance which re- define the nature and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To provide consistent terminology throughout the Subdivision Regulations, and, to provide consistency between the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, all references which cite the Land Use Plan and/or related documents are proposed to be changed to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. EXISTING PROVISIONS: The following subsections of the Subdivision Regulations refer to the Land Use Plante major thoroughfare plan, prang County thoroughfare plan, the adopted Land Use Plan or the Orange County Land Use Plan. Section IV-B-1 I V-B-3-a I V-B-3-d C) IV-8-7-a-1 IV-B-7-b-2 IV-B-7-b-3 IV-B-7-b-3 (a) IV-B-7-b-6 IV-B-S-a '74 PROPOSED,_AMENDMENT: The proposed amendment to the Subdivision, Regulations would charge all of the above citations to the adopted. Comprehensive Plan. **************************************vi********** ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: February 1, 1988 PREFACE TO NOTICE OF CONCERN . TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT CITIZENS OF RURAL ORANGE COUNTY • Members ;of .the Orange. County Board of Commissioners: oners: A number. '.of ci ti yens. .f rom -rural Orange recent series_ of "public hearings" on g County have attended the Parks Plan. The ` ]:evel your Master Rc+'eation and of. ; attendance at these meetings is a result of::community_ action.. `:' Information was Personal.:contacts: and -at church`-services. Sufficient t oesayhtha, the attendance, ,:_ althou h Church-.services. to sa the _at g not:. nearly say that that attended the four` meetings rheld during far exceeded your "study". . .(See page '572 of -the Master Plan) . g the course of obvious that the effort made..b It seems Parks De _ Y the staff of the Recreation and Pas Parks minimum rent . toeinform the citizens of necessary to 'comply with the law. Orange County Notice of meetings (circulation eetingn) .Were published in the Orange County News for the In view of the importance of this issue certainly reasonable response atdele recent hearings, it is to quickly complete a deliberate effort w could be mustered. plan before any was made You seem Y substantial opposition notices of tax to have no difficulty endeavors increases, necessary to finance these sort of to the property owners in rural not use the same procedures in distributing tOaxniincreasetn� Wh that were used in Why that_ advertising public meetings for the Master ' publish a small obscure notice in the Oran e Only those who saw the notice should 9 County News) ^ increase in taxes. be revuired to pay the At least a small number of had the opportunity to reviiewplo in rural Orange County have now because we were able Your Master Flan. This meetings. Mar to obtain a copy at one of is only meeies so be y Anne Black was generous enough the public passed around for review to hand out two ace was approximately eview during the one hour meeting (attendance she 75 to 100 people) : but she insisted must have them back ! One was retained and a few copies have been reproduced and havesb en. At reproduced distributed to people in opportunity own hips a small number of _ the dotal to review it. people now have had the The plan is coneconceived, an exercise in misinformation. ived solution proposed, and poorly It is Poorly in search of Presented. It is a,r, � Problem- It dues not lurch-y • Page a need. It does not define a myriad of serious problem. It does not address the myriads to an questions and problems that should be clearly fails to addressvthe most mfundamentaldevelop such a Proposal. Ia t concept. The information issues inherent in such a effectiveness, and cost benefit Pesented as cost analysis, cost indefensible. In short, is either totally lacking or even - if It -was only an academicoexerciseconsieewou unsatisfactory it- a.. grade of - !�F��_ One would have to give Clearly it is not an academic exercise. It is a blatant= :attempt to gain control of all of Orange County_ The most revealing section of the Master Plan is Chapter 6 which includes; -the fold-out- maps of each township. When together they tell the entire stor pieced can, see -at a Y for rural Orange County. One glance that the Greenwav plan includes practically every small . stream. in rural - Orange County. The acquire a strip of land along each stream extending 50 dfeetwfrom the bands on each side 1 total. of 100 feet plus the width of the stream) . Recreation trails would be developed along each strip of land. - The strip of land would be right of .way. . Rural Oran a declared a public g (i .e. , a Chapel Hill Park) . Caunty would become an Urban Park The plan does not address the total miles of recreation depicted an the township maps. Based on a cursory ermine e would conclude that the total miles of Y equal anc to glance, or greater than the total miles of roads in the county. This suggests that those who developed the plan consider the needs in each case to be of equal priority. One can g et a _ Onrectai ver using estimate of the total miles of 9 the scale an the map, fixing the spread the of two fingers and walking the trails as shown on the map. A method equal to or more analytical methods used in developing thetMasterhPlan. Thisiwas done and an estimated total of 400 to obtained. Assuming that the strip is s only mies of trail was 100 ignoring the width of the stream, i translates ces wi nt. approximately 5000 to 6000 acres of land, choice land in rural Orange County. By virtue of load, as the distribution of the strips of shown on the maps, complete control of all rural townships in Orange County would be acquired. This is indeed a large domain over which the Recreation and Parks Department proposes to rule. Not only the land but all of loyal sub iects living within. � ' the courteous and cooperative. They subjects should be nice, benevolent wa ey will be admonished, albeit in a y, to work hard. Pay taxes on time, and be prepared to respond quickly when the Master Plan calls for new people' s land. The Master Plan provides orderly uses in flow to use ones leisure time to enio guidance ir, how trails.o The rural. y the serenity and bear tty of the population will not have much opportunity to page take advantage have little time of these "leisure opportunities" since they will them by the Master aeorking to pay the taxes levied upon on freedom for and b Plan. This does not describe a nation based Y the eo le. I'm sure you might think that it would be nice owners in rural Orange County if the property and the streams to the Recreationouand dParks these strips or sell it now "at a price the county afford. " Department, or sell the cost of acquiring y can afford. This would eliminate amount of quiring the land by other means taxes the property owners and reduce the privilege of having their land confiscated. hs. Black pay for that the no ones land will be taken against their will, youck snot want to sell then we will you do not want dust. go around. Recent government actions in Orange County highory of Y does n of confidence for those who not instill a high level speaks for itself_ have governed. The Master Plan The concerns of all the citizens of rural Orange Count the Greenway Plan are expressed in County regarding presented to the NOTICE OF CONCERN you, the Board of County Commissioners on this night of February 22, 1988. Our misunderstood. We do not andowillonotsacceetr your should not Pl be P your Greenwav Plan. • • NOTICE OF CONCERN TO THE • ILANNING Lariotalath BY THE CITIZENS OF RURAL ORANGE COUNTY We. the citizens of rural Orange County. Master Recreation and Parks Plan. We find the proposed reviewed your elan completely unacceptable, on the basis of these ef fundamental principles: Rights of property owners are being violated Confiscation of property without due process Invasion of privacy Endangering the security of homes and families. The plan -is unacceptable and cannot be made acceptable. It AS an idealistic solution in search of a problem which does not exist. The practical issues of concern which make the plan unacceptable and unworkable are: -The Greenway Plan would result in the government end bureaucracy of Orange County having rural Orange County at the expense and- detriment oofrtheocitizzens.a of -Funds would be obtained by raising real and personal property taxes and hence place an intolerable burden on owners. All this for the "privilege" of having prope confiscated. ng their land nd -The overall cost of the ability of Orange County to pay the citizens involvedxfordtheir the land. -A need has not and cannot be justified: -The security of homes And property cannot be secured. -vandalism will be promoted. -Litter and pollution will deface the land. nd. -Remaining property values would be adversely effected.cted. the cesll/benefit ratio unacceptable?opmant of the Alen- would make -Operation and maintenance cost (personnel and dollars) would be prohibitive -Liability problems would place an intolerable financial burden on the property owners. For the reasons stated above County consider this an unworkable r taxpayers of rural Orange workable. program which cannot be made In conclusion, the citizens that the Orange Count of rural Orange County recommend that the y Recreation and Parks Department and the Ora County Planning . Department on using the government facilities and lands concentrate available to them. ( For example, according evailebla to Orange Water and � to the data in the 6reenwaY Plan Sewer Authority (OWRSA) has to 2000 acres of lend already acquired citizens further around Cane Creek Reservoir. ) The. citizens County that insist that you demonstrate to their resources is an efficient are capable of planning he people of efficient and responsible mannerministratinp • LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY ACTION NOTIC.:E. FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS, YOUR LAND, YOUR HOMES AND YOUR FAMILIES ATTEND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING HILLSBOROUGH COURTHOUSE 7:30 P. M. FEBRUARY 22, 19$8 BURY THE greenway MASTER PLAN WE THE CITIZENS OF OR APPROXIMATELY CI ELY. C ' _ RURAL ORANGE COUNTY WILL LOSE 5000 TO 6000 MORE ACRES OF OUR LAND AND 400 TO 450 MILES OR OUR STREAMS RURAL ORANGE COUNTY WILL BECOME AN URBAN PARS. THE URBAN BOARD THAT D OFCOMMISSIONERS (THE RURAL TOWNSHIPS HAVE NO COMMISSIONER) ' ' 'AND THEIR MASTER PLANNERS WILL HAVE ABSOLUTE AND DICTATORIAL CONTR - OVER ALL OF RURAL ORANGE COUNTY OL COME TO HILLSBOROUGH ON FEB. 22 AND BE HEARD LIBERTY FOR THE RURAL CITIZENS OF ORANGE COUNTY • LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY _ - • OF•Er!i iC :=7-4-77=N7 1- THE .F =- _._ COUNTY E fARL, O -__ ate-- Z_S' 11 USy. .7M:Tt caReLIVA CoMM:.__ICr•JE-._- er Master r.,I±b -y of reprooL:c_ng a small rural townships�' u a:�l-:s i an for d _t copies of .ips ti Orange County. 1 �-hat the c the i ° C. t 4 e ant funds ar-ohib� tE� distribution the r� �.. r e r? that j stri lack of ty. bLltion o all citizens of Orange A number of Through a people have reviewed the Flan 9 concerted effort in Throug of _t by rural communities,its entirety- ci citizens are now farm with the o a much larger of the Plan familiar ar wi �h the most important arger n and its real objectives. Portant �__ _ives. We find the C'r°enwa and fr d, Y program proposed in the Plan completely unacceptable - it will not accept cannot be made acceptable be totally '� Pt it. - we We have stated our position br;Efl We ha , b of .__ens y and clearly in a t Y the citizens z of rural Orange Notice Ce of County hoard of Commissioners- g County to the Orange this Notice and ask Commissioners.n s entered now present of this meeting. into theyoffilth a copy of official record It is clear that the ma?ori ty of the citizens of County have no representation on of Commissioners,y v o rural Drn oa but we the present Orange County board of cause ask that you consider our consequences of failure may Position very We demand that '� be very grave. vies, the welfare you cease this raid upon our r it now. of +bur familiQs, and our fights, our proper- ties, - and cease Thank you. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1988 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked. ) 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Page D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5 1. Master Recreation & Parks Plan - SM - Mary Anne Black 17 2. Assignment of House Numbers - SM - Gene Bell a. Rural Routes 2 and 3 - Rougemont 25 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - BJ - Gene Bell a. Comprehensive Plan (1) Article 2 - Administration (Statement of Intent/Amendment Procedures) (2) Article 22 - Definitions (Definition of Comprehensive Plan) Page 43 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (Continued) a. Comprehensive Plan (3) Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule and Article 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements (References to "Land Use Plan") 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments BJ - Gene Bell 47 a. Designation of Land Use Plan as the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan 51 b. Designation and incorporation of the Master Recreation & Parks Plan as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments - BJ - Eddie Kirk 55 a. Access Restrictions (1) Section IV-B-3-c-8 - Access Restrictions 61 b. Private Road Standards (1) Section IV-B-3-d - Private Roads 71 C. Comprehensive Plan (1) Section IV - Minimum Design Standards (References to "Land Use Plan") E. ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS: 1, 3, 4, 5 - Refer to the Planning Board for a recommendation to come to the B/C on April 4. 2 - Approve as stated on page 18. PROCEDURE FOR JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Presentation by staff. 2. Comments or questions from the B/C or Planning Board. 3. Presentation by applicant. 4. Comments or questions from citizens. 5. Recommendation. :/r I • f OPENING STATEMENT to the ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Hillsborough, North Carolina February 22, 1988 COMMISSIONERS: We took the liberty of reproducing a small number of copies of your Master Recreation and Parks Plan for distribution to the rural townships of Orange County. We regret that the lack of time and funds prohibited distribution to all citizens of Orange County. A number of people have reviewed the Plan in its entirety. Through a concerted effort by rural communities, a much larger number of citizens are now familiar with the most important elements of the Plan and with its real objectives. We find the Greenway program proposed in the Plan to be totally and completely unacceptable. It cannot be made accept- able. We will not accept it. We have stated our position briefly and clearly in a Notice of Concern by the citizens of rural Orange County to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. We now present you with a copy of this Notice and ask that it be entered into the official record of this meeting. It is clear that the majority of the citizens of rural Orange County have no representation on the present Orange County Board of Commissioners, but we ask that you consider our position very carefully. The consequences of failure may be very grave. We demand that you cease this raid upon our rights, our proper- ties, the welfare of our families, and our liberties - and cease it now. Thank you. L r NOTICE OF CONCERN TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION RND P(j] KS DEPARTMENT ORANGE COUNTY PLJjNNING DEPARTMENT BY THE CITIZENS OF RURAL ORANGE COUNTY We, the citizens of rural Orange County. have reviewed your Master Recreation and Parks Plan. We find the proposed pireenwav Elan completely unacceptable, on the basis of these fundamental principles: Rights of property owners are being violated Confiscation of property without due process Invasion of privacy Endangering the security of homes and families. The plan is unacceptable and cannot be made acceptable. It is an idealistic solution in search of a problem which does not exist. The practical issues of concern which make the plan unacceptable and unworkable are: -The Greenway Plan would result in the government and bureaucracy of Orange County having supreme control over All of rural Orange County at the expense and detriment of the citizens. -Funds would be obtained by raising real and personal property taxes and hence place an intolerable burden on property owners. All this for the "privilege" of having their land confiscated. -The overall cost of the program would exceed the ability of Orange County to pay the citizens involved for their land. -A need has not and cannot be justified. -The security of homes mnd property cannot be secured. -vandalism will be promoted. -Litter and pollution will deface the land. -Remaining property values would be adversely effected. -Acquisition for and development of the plan would make the casld/benefit ratio unacceptable. -Operation and maintenance coat (personnel and dollars) would be prohibitive -Liability problems would place an intolerable financial burden on the property owners. For the reeeona stated above, the taxpayers of rural Orange County consider this an unworkable program which cannot be made workable. In conclusion. the citizens of rural Orange County recommend that the Orange County Recreation And Parks Department and the Orange County Planning Department concentrate their efforts on using the government facilities and lands currently available to them. ( For example, according to the data in the Greenway Plan Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) has already acquired 1500 to 2000 acres of land around Cane Creek Reservoir. ) The citizens further insist that you demonstrate to the people of Orange County that you are capable of planning and administrating their resources in an efficient and responsible manner. PREFACE TO NOTICE OF CONCERN TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT BY CITIZENS OF RURAL ORANGE COUNTY Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners: A number of citizens, from rural Orange County have attended the recent series of "public hearings" on your Master Recreation and Parks Plan. The level . of attendance at these meetings is a result-'of: .community,.action. . Information was passed by telephone, personal ;contacts and - at church services. Sufficient to say that the attendance, . although not nearly great enough, far exceeded the 55 . that attended the four meetings held during the course of your "study". '(See page 5-2 of the Master Plan) . It seems qite obvious that the effort made by the staff of the Recreation u and Parks Department to inform the citizens of rural Orange County was the minimum necessary to 'comply with the law. Notice of meetings were published in the Orange County News (circulation unknown) . In view of the importance of this issue for the people, and their response at the recent hearings, it is certainly reasonable to assume that a deliberate effort was made to quickly complete a plan before any substantial opposition could be mustered. You seem to have no difficulty getting notices of tax increases, necessary to finance these sort of endeavors, to the property owners in rural Orange County. Why not use the same procedures in distributing tax increase notices that were used in advertizing public meetings for the Master Plan (i . e. , publish a small obscure notice in the Orange County News)? Only those who saw the notice should be required to pay the increase in taxes. At least a small number of people in rural Orange County have now had the opportunity to review your Master Plan, was because we were able to obtain a copy This is only meetings. Mary Anne Black was at one of the public cpies etin s. be generous enough to hand out two Passed around for review during the one hour meeting (attendance was approximately 75 to 100 people) ; but she insisted that she must have them back ! One was retained and a few copies have been reproduced and distributed to people in the rural townships. At least a small number of people now have had the opportunity to review it. The plan is an exercise in misinformation, conceived, poorly proposed, and It is poorly idealistic solution in search of a poor l y presented. I t: is an problem. It does not justify page 2 a need. It does not define a problem. It does not address the myriad of serious questions and problems that should be clearly obvious to anyone attempting to develop such a proposal . It fails to address the most fundamental issues inherent in such a concept. The information presented as cost analysis, cost effectiveness, and cost benefit is either totally lacking or indefensible. In short, it would be considered unsatisfactory even if it was only an academic exercise. One would have to give it a grade of "F". Clearly it is not an academic exercise. It is a blatant attempt to gain control of all of Orange County. The most revealing section of the Master Plan is Chapter 6 which includes the fold-out maps of each township. When pieced together they tell the entire story for rural Orange County. One can see at a glance that the Greenway plan includes practically every small stream- in rural Orange County. The county would acquire a strip of land along each stream extending 50 feet from the bands on each side ( a total of 100 feet plus the width of the stream) . Recreation trails would be developed along each strip of land. The strip of land would be declared a public right of way. Rural Orange County would become an Urban Park (i .e. , a Chapel Hill Park) . The plan does not address the total miles of recreation trails depicted on the township maps. Based on a cursory glance, one would conclude that the total miles of trail is equal to or greater than the total miles of roads in the county. This suggests that those who developed the plan consider the needs in each case to be of equal priority. One can get a very crude estimate of the total miles of recreation trails by using the scale on the map, fixing the spread the of two fingers and walking the trails as shown on the map. A method equal to or more precise than the various analytical methods used in developing the Master Plan. This was done and an estimated total of 400 to 450 miles of trail was obtained. Assuming that the strip is only 100 feet wide, ignoring the width of the stream, this translates into approximately 5000 to 600:) acres of land, choice land in rural Orange County. By virtue of the distribution of the strips of land, as shown on the maps, complete control of all rural townships in Orange County would be acquired. This is indeed a large domain aver which the Recreation and Parks Department proposes to rule. Not only the land but all of the loyal subjects living within. These subiects should be nice, courteous and cooperative. They will be admonished, albeit in a benevolent way, to work hard, pay taxes on time, and be prepared to respond quickly when the Master Plan calls for new uses of the people' s land. The Master Plan provides orderly guidance in how to use ones leisure time to enjoy the serenity and beauty of the trails. The rural population will not have much opportunity to F page take advantage of these "leisure opportunities" since they will have little time left after working to pay the taxes levied upon them by the Master Plan. This does not describe a nation based on freedom for and by the people. I 'm sure you might think that it would be nice if the property owners in rural Orange County would donate these strips of land and the streams to the Recreation and Parks Department, or sell it now "at a price the county can afford. " This would eliminate the cost of acquiring the land by other means, and reduce the amount of taxes the property owners would have to pay for the privilege of having their land confiscated. Ms. Black says that no ones land will be taken against their will , if you do not want to sell then we will just go around. Recent history of government actions in Orange County does not instill a high level of confidence for those who have governed. The Master Plan speaks for itself„ The concerns of all the citizens of rural Orange County regarding the Greenway Plan are expressed in the NOTICE OF CONCERN presented to you, the Board of County Commissioners on this night of February 22, 1988.. Our position is clear and should not be misunderstood. We do not and will not accept your Greenway Plan. February 22, 1988 Orange County Board of Commissioners Dear Commissioners, I am writing this letter as a concerned property owner who lives along the Eno River . I have read the initial Parks and Recreation Master Plan document at the library, attended the first Public Hearing, and attended the local Cheeks Township meeting . Although I support the Park proposals of the plan I cannot support the priority of the swimming pools having learned of their estimated cost per pool . I also cannot support the Greenway System in its revised form. Realizing that it is no ones intention on either the present Board of Commissioners, or Parks and Recreation department to pressure a land owner to participate, I find it troubling that language cannot be included in the document to protect a landowner of their right to decline to participate . I find it troubling that 96 linker- miles have been proposed of which no one has assesed or surveyed its suitibility . I find it troubling that these same 96 miles are your principle water scource and wildlife corridors in the county. I find it troubling that no assesment has been made as to how it will impact rescue, fire and surely law enforcement needs and costs to the county. Simply, a commitment by the County of such scope needs to be based on more than a concept . It needs to be based on concepts coupled with acheivable goals and realistic data. Thank you, Doug and Mars a Efland February 22, 1988 Mrs. Shirley Marshal Chairperson, Orange County Bd . of Commissioner� Re: Public Hearing on Parks and Recreation Plan .Dear Mrs. Marshal ; Due to the fact that the Orange Count meeting tonight , I am unable to b un y Board of Education is Parks and Recreation in person. e at the public hearing on part of the record of the on^ please consider this lettn nearing, er I would like to make three points. First , even under the amended l p an concerning greenways brought to the public last 100 miles of trail proposedweek ' there is still approximat l last Wednesday night At the Efland-Ch�eks hea i � y statement that wildlife Feb .^ 17th ' M . Mary Ann Black m r ng consideration in the� e corridors had been dropped f aoe the people and their needs. find that it would only dearomith that I have a concern~^hat ' �no t�at Position unfort^n�te i best corridors for wildlife^ tne plan now will pre-empt n county and reserve the� for movement that we have in-t ~e obligation in Orange Cunty people activities. We have wildlife and their ne ~ e�o m�intain an awareness o� our people. �qs' even as we plan for the need e s of Secondly, I have not heard anyone point t see in greenways. That danger is f ou a danger that I woodlands that would be involved orest fires. I have about public access to those dan� I have genuine concerns fire problem. As a volunteer woo lands as it relates to the the danger is real ' inasmuch efireman, I can tell you that much as our department routinely that it would involve with several fires per year and the Forest Service nd now laid out , lve extensive woodlands as the trails are Thirdly, in view Gofthe continuing intensely negative reaction my conc r over the ' �e n�ay proposal , I would like t on any ern about what I perceive to be a "spill o register pr school bond issue. I am genuine that they wiepublic will become so angered by the �y a raid that th ImArove� l _ �ash out, at all elements of the proposal that iss ment Plan' even though each eleme t county's Capital ue would clearly be voted on as se n o� such a bond separate issues. In closing, I would like to reiterate the last public hearing I era e my Position taken at ^ the support the concept to establish parks for the county and it very much in�the bzuentified communities, but I drop further consideration ofest eznterest of that proposal to in "' enways until the public expresses a desire and willingness to support the oncep / ^' Pree ,4LTomes s41 OPENING STATEMENT to the ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Hillsborough, North Carolina February 22, 1988 COMMISSIONERS: We took the liberty of reproducing a small number of copies of your Master Recreation and Parks Plan for distribution to the rural townships of Orange County. We regret that the lack of time and funds prohibited distribution to all citizens of Orange County. A number of people have reviewed the Plan in its entirety. Through a concerted effort by rural communities, a much larger number of citizens are now familiar with the most important elements of the Plan and with its real objectives. We find the Greenway program proposed in the Plan to be totally and completely unacceptable. It cannot be made accept- able. We will not accept it. We have stated our position briefly and clearly in a Notice of Concern by the citizens of rural Orange County to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. We now present you with a copy of this Notice and ask that it be entered into the official record of this meeting. It is clear that the majority of the citizens of rural Orange County have no representation on the present Orange County Board of Commissioners, but we ask that you consider our position very carefully. The consequences of failure may be very grave. We demand that you cease this raid upon our rights, our proper- ties, the welfare of our families, and our liberties - and cease it now. Thank you. NOTICE OF CONCERN TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONER ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY THE CITIZENS OF RURAL ORANGE COUNTY We, the citizens of rural Orange County, have reviewed your Master Recreation and Parks Plan. We find the proposed Ojrgenbev Elan completely unacceptable, on the basis of these fundamental principles: Rights of property owners are being violated Confiscation of property without due process Invasion of privacy Endangering the security of hones and families. The plan is unacceptable and cannot be made acceptable. It is an idealistic solution in search of a problem which does not exist. The practical issues of concern which make the plan unacceptable and unworkable are: -The Greenway Plan would result in the government and bureaucracy of Orange County having supreme control over all of rural Orange County at the expense and detriment of the citizens. -Funds would be obtained by raising real and personal property taxes and hence place an intolerable burden on property owners. All this for the "privilege" of having their land • confiscated. -The overall cost of the program would exceed the ability of Orange County to pay the citizens involved for their land. -A need has not and cannot be justified. -The security of homes rind property cannot be secured. -Vandalism will be promoted. V I -Litter and pollution will deface the land. -Remaining property values would be adversely effected. -.Acquisition for and development of the plan would make the cost/benefit ratio unacceptable. -Operation and maintenance cost (personnel and dollars) would be prohibitive -Liability problems would place an intolerable financial burden on the property owners. For the reasons stated above, the taxpayers of rural Orange County consider this an unworkable program which cannot be made workable. In conclusion, the citizens of rural Orange County recommend that the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department and the Orange County Planning . Department concentrate their efforts on using the government facilities and lands currently available to them. ( For example, according to the data in the Greenway Plan Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) has already acquired 1x00 to 2000 acres of land around Cane Creek Reservoir. ) The citizens further insist that you demonstrate to the people of Orange County that you are capable of planning and administrating their resources in an efficient and responsible manner. PREFACE TO NOTICE OF CONCERN TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT BY CITIZENS OF RURAL ORANGE COUNTY Members -of the Orange. County Board of Commissioners: A number of citizens. from rural Orange County have attended the recent series- of "public hearings" on your Master Recreation and Parks Plan. . The - level , 'of- attendance at these meetings is a result °of: .community: actian. -- Information was passed by telephone, personal -;contacts and - at- church.- services. Sufficient to say that the attendance, _ although not _ nearly great enough, far exceeded the .55 that attended- the four meetings held during the course of your "study". -(See page 5-2 of the Master Plan) . It seems quite obvious that the effort made by the staff of the Recreation and Parks Department to inform the citizens of rural Orange County was the minimum necessary to comply with the law. Notice of meetings were published in the Orange County News (circulation unknown) . In view of the importance of this issue for the people, and their response at the recent hearings, it is certainly reasonable to assume that a deliberate effort was made to quickly complete a plan before any substantial opposition could be mustered. You seem to have no difficulty getting notices of tax increases, necessary to finance these sort of endeavors, to the property owners in rural Orange County. Why not use the same procedures in distributing tax increase notices that were used in advertizing public meetings for the Master Plan (i . e. , publish a small obscure notice in the Orange County News) ? Only those who saw the notice should be required to pay the increase in taxes. At least a small number of people in rural Orange County have now had the opportunity to review your Master Plan. This is only because we were able to obtain a copy at one of the public meetings. Mary Anne Black was generous enough to hand out two copies to be passed around for review during the one hour meeting (attendance was approximately 75 to 100 peOple) ; but she insisted that she must have them back ! One was retained and a few copies have been reproduced and distributed to people in the rural townships. At least a small number of people now have had the opportunity to review it. The plan is an exercise in misinformation. It is conceived. poorly proposed. and poorly idealistic solution in search a poorly presented. It is an problem. It does not iustify r page a need. It does not define a problem. It does not address the myriad of serious questions and problems that should be clearly obvious to anyone attempting to develop such a proposal . It fails to address the most fundamental issues inherent in such a concept. The information presented as cost analysis, cost effectiveness, and cost benefit is either totally lacking or indefensible. In short, it would be considered unsatisfactory even if it was only an academic exercise. One would have to give it a grade of "F". Clearly it is not an academic exercise. It is a blatant attempt to gain control of all of Orange County. The most revealing section of the Master Plan is Chapter 6 which includes the fold-out maps of each township. When pieced together they tell the entire story for rural Orange County. One can see at a glance that the Greenway plan includes practically every small stream- in rural Orange County. The county would acquire a ' strip of land 'along each stream extending 50 feet from the bands on each side ( a total of 100 feet plus the width of the stream) . Recreation trails would be developed along each strip of land. The strip of land would be declared a public right of way. Rural Orange County would become an Urban Park (i .e. , a Chapel Hill Park) . The plan does not address the total miles of recreation trails depicted on the township maps. Based on a cursory glance, one would conclude that the total miles of trail is equal to or greater than the total miles of roads in the county. This suggests that those who developed the plan consider the needs in each case to be of equal priority. One can get a very crude estimate of the total miles of recreation trails by using the scale on the map, fixing the spread the of two fingers and walking the trails as shown on the map. A method equal to or more precise than the various analytical methods used in developing the Master Plan. This was done and an estimated total of 400 to 450 miles of trail was obtained. Assuming that the strip is only 100 feet wide, ignoring the width of the stream, this translates into approximately 5000 to 6000 acres of land, choice land in rural Orange County. By virtue of the distribution of the strips of land, as shown on the maps, complete control of all rural townships in Orange County would be acquired. This is indeed a large domain over which the Recreation and Parks Department proposes to rule. Not only the land but all of the loyal subjects living within. These sub iecl.s should be nice, courteous and cooperative. They will be admonished, albeit in a benevolent way, to work hard, pay taxes on time, and be prepared to respond quickly when the Master Plan calls for new uses of the people' s land. The Master Plan provides orderly guidance in how to use ones leisure time to enjoy the serenity and beauty of the trails. The rural population will not have much opportunity to page 3 take advantage of these "leisure opportunities" since they will have little time left after working to pay the taxes levied upon them by the Master Flan. This does not describe a nation based on freedom for and by the people. I 'm sure you might think that it would be nice if the property owners in rural Orange County would donate these strips of land and the streams to the Recreation and Parks Department, or sell it now "at a price the county can afford. " This would eliminate the cost of acquiring the land by other means, and reduce the amount of taxes the property owners would have to pay for the privilege of having their land confiscated. Ms. Black says that no ones land will be taken against their will , if you do not want to sell then we will Just go around. Recent history of government actions in Orange County does not instill a high level of confidence for those who have governed. The Master Plan speaks for itself„ The concerns of all the citizens of rural Orange County regarding the Greenway Plan are expressed in the NOTICE OF CONCERN presented to you, the Board of County Commissioners on this night of February 22, 1988.. Our position is clear and should not be misunderstood. We do not and will not accept your Greenway Plan. _ Nasole- CPA.se. gm. 7i) _ 2.-7440e / j'it44 cam &I/)Ij 4tiebi_ 114, 9. _ t r 4-7 ie - /0#r_y_ Jah,rsa. Q A/ • ..hot- q .1� /Z . �" TNi . 7- S LL CHAS (Y1-7.7 , w ,'%7it-/r -.0 , .97 L 0 1P , z .l 4/ ,4 -- &404) '• ) a• . SA kAtAci C.c c9 d/.P192 C2ovg I3.. @GO6ar a, BUIr .ei� I I `f, . I I'm 14 fc 6_7,t, ( g_,6 - - , 7 e p FA/7L6- lar405/Af,,� /gr.-AO Z47704 Y4/67 1/0.15 400.1, .o y e �P/e.se eeoe.. ),„ Yai-// % % ,y(7) _ _ ii&L; r.‘4;e,46 6,44 ,Aivis- vvili , r Attt. - pirr _ gi.-4,fie /14,1,4, Et„, 04,z/va _ _ 1?" 'elA° * Alt4-04A-( fr/adYA6t-o4 _ Tetp — - 9:614-4 fir144'44 g2s."_ _ _ . . ---Z----"Z FF ----RLA--.5.,5"C ) A -- .. ..('('.P.,\<, 't r•-• Kt . -.7.- c .-.7.--,..-,._e-e-r- - _. d , ,4ss/�.N.r.•,,� • " _ I/4.0"/e- . gy,T. . . ../74:of Li (1?)4 t‘g- oer-i. 5 1 I L L rI t-ilte . . . . . . . . . y'p Orange County Recreation and Parks Department �" 12 d N it i or\�`C 300 West Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North . ' ' 3 Carolina 27278 or- L.ife.Beinit. Mary Anne Black, Director TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Mary Anne Black fr)44 DATE: February 17, 1988 RE: Master Recreation & Parks Plan Public Information Meetings Discussion at the public information meetings basically focused on two (2) main issues. Those issues and staff response are presented here for your review. I. ACQUISITION METHODS Concern was expressed as to the methods that would be utilized to acquire the property for parks and trails. Staff outlined the methods of purchase, dedication, donation, and easements. Citizens were assured , ,A, " , that condemnation was not being recommended as a method to acquire the land needed. Some citizens asked that that fact be "put in writing" in • the document. Staff stressed the importance adequate design/planning (of trails especially) so that effort be made to route the trails along V►' •/ the desired topography, routes and as availability well as of a route(via donati ons,compatible with land ease- use, 1 ' / land "" 7 ments and/or purchase methods). dedications, 1 pi-MI. DEVELO / IL L COST lijiJ ' Concern was expressed as to the cost of development and operation of the recreation facilities (pools, parks, and trails). Staff assured the 1 citizens that facilities would not be recommended for construction if operational monies were tiiot assured as well. These operational monies would include funding for litter clean-up and security patrol. Citizens were assured that detailed facility planning was yet to be done and that some of their "deta'r il" concerns (location of parking and sanitary facilities, etc.) will be resolved at the time of specific site planning. MAB/pbl Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 N Orange County Recreation and Parks Department -AK 300 West Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 A - rtfe ' a ;. ,,,,,. e.Beinit. Mary Anne Black, Director Dear Citizens Attending the Public Information Meetings Concerning the Master Recreation and Parks Plan, I want to thank each one of you for attending last week's meeting concerning the proposed Master Recreation and Parks Plan. The community pride and spirit exhibited at those meetings was refreshing, and our department appreciates your input into our planning efforts. Attached please find a summary of the notes taken by county staff members at your township meeting. This summary is also being provided to the County Commissioners for their information. Planning for our needs today so that we have adequate resources tomorrow is so very important. It is my hope that each of you will stay involved in our planning so that your community can be the best it can be for you and your family. Sincerely, c ',1.Q-L N-ie- Lorraine Parker, Chair Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Mary Anne Black, Director MAB/pbl cc: Board of County Commissioners Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 M Orange County Recreation and Parks Department �• �N- • • 300 West Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 rey . . .82unit. Mary Anne Black, Director The following is a summary of comments expressed at the public information meetings held by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Department to allow for community discussion concerning the proposed Master Recreation and Parks Plan with discussion focused can the "greenways" element of the Plan. The meetings were held on the following dates and times: Monday, February 8, 1988 -- Hillsborough / Eno Townships 7:00 pm Library Conference Room, Hillsborciugh Tuesday, February 9, 1988 -- Bingham / Chapel Hill Townships 7:00 pm Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Dept. Wednesday, February 10, 1988 -- Cheeks Township 7:00 pm Efland-Cheek Elementary School Thursday, February 11, 1988 -- Cedar Grove / Little River Twsps. 7:00 pm Northern Recreation Center, Hwy 86N Citizens were notified of these meetings via public service announcements in the local newspapers, newspaper feature articles, a radio feature spot, and a direct mailing to citizens who had attended other meetings concerning the issue, and others who asked to be placed on the mailing list. (Please excuse the differences in type-face in the attached information. Timely distribution prohibited uniformity in the typing of the information from the two departments. ) Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 •919 227-2031 N Orange County Recreation and Parks Department ;",, •• Air®�; 300 We Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 • ~ `. ,. Life.Beinit. Mary Anne Black, Director TO: Bingham/Chapel Hill Township Residents who attended the Master Recreation and Parks Plan meeting on Tuesday, February 9th at the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department FROM: Mary Anne Black, Director Orange County Recreation & Parks Department DATE: February 17, 1988 RE: Sys in the Joint Planning Area I want to thank each one of you for attending last week's meeting concerning the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. At that meeting many of you wanted to express your concerns about the greenways that have been designated in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan along the corridors of Phil's and Neville Creeks. In that these greenways are not included in the recativns of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan, last week's meeting was not the appropriate meeting at which to express your concerns. Please note that a meeting has been scheduled concerning this very issue and I hope you will schedule to attend to voice your thoughts and suggestions. Mark your calendars for: Date: Wednesday, April 13th at 7:30 pm Location: Grey Culbreth Junior High School 225 Culbreth Road This is a public hearing scheduled by Joint Planning (Orange County, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill) to address proposed changes to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. In that the greenways along the Phil's and Neville Creeks are a part of this plan, your comments are needed at this (April 13th) meeting. Again, I thank you for your interest in our planning efforts, and hope you will continue to be involved. Sincerely, `'J �� G'Ln,xL ,G cr�4.-■ Mary Anne Black MAB/pbl cc: Board of County Commissioners Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919688-7331 • 919 227-2031 COMMENTS/CONCERNS FROM THE HILLSBOROUGH/ENO MASTER PARK PLAN MEETING HELD IN THE PUBLIC LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM FEBRUARY 8, 1988 AT 7 :00 P.M. ATTENDANCE STAFF: Mary Anne Black Tim Lutenski Gene Bell PUBLIC: See attached list (Approximate attendance: 18) 1) Fear on the part of several people that condemnation will be used to acquire park/greenway land even though it has been publicly stated by Shirley Marshall and Mary Anne Black that it will not be used. 2) Support for recreational trails and greenways in district parks. but not in favor of using them to connect parks. 3) Skepticism expressed about County "going around" a land owner holding out on a greenway link; fear that County would condemn if system was more-or-less complete and there were only a few landowners still holding out. 4) Some support expressed for non-impervious walking trails. but concern expressed about trails being used by dirt bikes, three-wheelers. and four wheel drive vehicles. As an alternative to stream banks, suggestion was made to explore old roadbeds, railroad rights-of- way, and colonial trails, i.e. . Indian trading path. as possibilities for walking trails. 5) Skepticism over how greenways would help the environ- ment; would seemingly invite more people and cause environmental degradation. 6) Concerns expressed about County being able to properly maintain and police a greenways system. 7) Comment that now is the time to start setting aside and preserving greenways and trails. Twenty years from now when the need is great will be too late, i.e. . "we' ll be sorry later if we don't start now." 8) Priorities! Parks and recreation competing with school systems for limited amount of dollars; schools should be first priority. 9) Greenways and trails would require strategically placed restroom facilities; otherwise going to create public health hazard along trails. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 1 •2-S-B8 MAST R. RE 47701.x/ PAI KS PLAN --PLA.blL T,-Rr-not Me n� "1-- 8:o o p,,, A , 11 _ ' _ 5 3 uGI,Ccr-, FC�e6.. ,,, Z/`'-/ B:c . 5c, eidi L3,Jk- e (:),-,.-4 :e'./-1 b,, 614„ 0 / J I /1 ' ''f ' Q-aNat`D It C )( 1.2_2 . QuEetk S,%, i Att.L.saoeox,s 4/e,-,"? (97s rn _5--„ .e . 4..x4-,-e 1)r, , /74,r/-;,-7----e ( '/ ( 1; 7 a 0 G ✓ . -1 fear. /1448" D EQ--zJQ% L t 11c9 Qe-C_m T, 117;7152 BCi 'r1 l 0 ki--1.\-_ co^-12-- 7. i(ii K r Y io K S 2 o #(A, Ids uL l-} D N't-;(;_, "(r/ cor, A ,( 40, 5—) .z, rt (A-f-tou6-6/ . 0 � ✓_ � fig / , , , */ 5 s) ,>,/te:,w ►-7.14 ti r� 4il S l , Pny C� ' 3c:'X S �' . e J5- 7 r� - __ .r_ _ _._ ■ __ E ADD 26s5 ;-•_.' - I-'', ,' ,L. 2 i C 2 ? gt-04.--; 47, 7/911 ceoz.Zr- 2. a e.4. r-6,--a- P-- . /• it i ii).,t, Ir, j._._, ,7 5- 10 ,.. ,-.=.,u 11,_ __,nr.. 7y,._-,' 4,-et. \ ,, , r---r'/' /a . c,-,_ 4. / /-) ,G ) .)L)(4-- r _, o'er Q ?-2,4„-a) ,v ea-4-1.4- ,-) a9. 4)ate )7a._ a7:477,5"/ 0 c ex. 0,_,,\. , 4 Z o=- 1---6 RL. �Go- l wL, rU_C, Z 7 76 7 . 5 V 0 (I) CUMMENTS/CONCERNS FROM THE Ei I NGHAM/CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIPS MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN MEETING HELD AT THE ORANGE GROVE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTME=N T FEBRUARY 9, 1988 AT 7 :00 .1. M. STAFF: Mary Anne Slack Wilma 'Finney PUBLIC: See Attached List (Approximate attendance: 75) Summary f r� Comments: _ s • Incoporate trails within large parks, not in the greenways +� What is the total rnilage of greenways being proposed? Greenways may not be economical to maintain • Subdivision regulations requiring dedication of land for public recreation purposes may not be constitutional. • When can we express our concerns about greenways designated in the Joint Planning Area? • Not adequate notification to landowners about the plan * Support for parks and pools The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.m. 2-q--g8 MATE. ' ce A 77 4;1 PAR..K$ PLA I• l�/nMt� J hd,x 5"3 2 cil a he,«" ry . z7.0 C /415162/6,-. 2774 ,�� 3 7 /9e.-A. ,' 4 °It d/t4 77J. 3 gu , Yiee4.4-1-2-e-at 2-7 alAKMA j Lnsats- t 3 3.,K s-12 Rt (30A D C , lfe a "7 2-13 C. Z � u GZTH� $ok 5-3o �7 " - ; Ir ;��1►ti� goa�lz,� N�� 2r 3 x S Z N bare) 2-7 275 5 -41 14- 4 80 e".vk ? )'-'wwei- � 757,‘ c764(4^-1 dPO:Cile /6211/A-041-0 s r r 01 C a-1 b . CI-Ark R (/U'� ( r►a �k "j'� \- '4,AtC4S) Rte 2 glax 33° Mse-.0,sC 21302 dec, 11 ; . Calo-Ps , / 4.9( /5 3 �G )?C , 17S%6 /A .t.xT_ ‘ .7;%Na. "ff, 151 F00,44 ) tzisQ*3 kr II Ferry 1'[' C , r� 1 e.ip_t row ��O c on-Q-5 -J-IMMEN Sq - C.,(1+ kJ-& -2)/a Linden-9 1770 ie7i. 4 be)5-33 a, a7516 r � -�. :-��-)1a7�r �i, 1���'�--a�2 /G{ v7hie { �/7rale'-r �� lef3 /90XJam,' ` �rl'. (10(2.::- .:71;-; .1 1c �6/ - (7 3 • 7 COMMENTS/CONCERNS FROM THE CHEEKS MASTER PARK PLAN MEETING HELD AT EFLAND-CHEEKS SCHOOL ON FEBRUARY 10 , 1988 AT 7 :00 P.M. ATTENDANCE STAFF: Mary Anne Black Lynn Hecht Gene Bell Emily Crudup PUBLIC: See attached list (Approximate attendance: 55) 1) Fear that landowners would be liable for injuries suffered by users of greenways. 2) Need for recreational facilities in Efland expressed; difficult to take children to Hillsborough or Chapel Hill. Indoor facility for all age groups is needed in area. 3) Where is money for greenways coming from? and for pools ? 4) Fear that greenways and trails will create a litter problem. 5) Fear that users of greenways would not go around. but rather through. the property of land owners withholding land from the greenway system. 6) Fears expressed that condemnation would be used to acquire land. 7) Concerns that greenways would have a negative effect on wildlife. 8) Enough recreational trails already exist in Duke Forest and Eno River State Park. 9) Dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions in Subdivision Regulations same as extortion. 10) Fears that greenways would not be compatible with livestock farming. 11) Comments about public not being able to buy copies of Master Park Plan text and thus become better informed. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. COMMENTS/CONCERNS FROM THE CEDAR GROVE/LITTLE RIVER MEETING ON THE MASTER PARK PLAN HELD AT THE NORTHERN ORANGE HUMAN SERVICES COMPLEX ON FEBRUARY 11, 1988 AT 7 :00 P.M. ATTENDANCE STAFF: Mary Anne Black Bob Jones Gene Bell PUBLIC: See attached list (Approximate attendance: 46) 1) Most projected growth is in the southern park of the County; focus park/greenway efforts there. 2) Swimming pools would be major liability for County. 3) Show of hands for those in attendance supporting pools, parks, and greenways; unanimous opposition to all three proposals. 4) Fear of litter along greenways. 5) Fear of people straying off greenways onto private property or crossing property not part of the greenway system because it is the shortest distance between two points. 6) Comments that greenways work nicely in an urban area (Greensboro cited as example) , but are inappropriate for rural areas like Cedar Grove and Little River. 7) Concerns on funding for parks and greenways. 8) Statement that . dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions were unconstitutional. 9) Comment that dedication/payment-in-lieu was appropriate for urban areas where development projects were usually large and done by out-of-state developers. However, developments in rural areas were usually smaller and often involved giving land to family members. 10) Feeling that rural property owners were being unfairly treated by Planning Board. 11) Fear that landowner would be liable for injuries suffered by users of greenways. 12) Whole process seemed to be a case of taxation without representation. PAGE 2 13) Pull Little River and Cedar Grove out of the system of parks and greenways. 14) Hunting is a traditional and popular pastime in Cedar Grove and Little River; fear that users of greenways might be injured. 15) Master Park Plan documents not available for public to purchase; difficult to become properly informed prior to meetings. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. 16) Concern that their taxes would be funding facilities in other areas of the county. Interest in having their own tax district for recreation and parks. Z-//-.88 C6 fL k MA5, PAU5 pc,�a r./ L rna LcsJ s 1 i , piny 4,02-- toelte. / JO. fij e, .e 6,01/4 -2-14 /it // Rtr L 1/A wb • , / 3 ' 1,4 ar / a ije7 //5r 11, , VC. 5. 4R ( 3oX 17 a E, CP0-cry 11 ,P, j / ,/ , ,/' G// • so-Q- f r l - ,i '( OG 6S �t•k oA.'Z' b CedAr ‘rov. 'J. c. // U ,�/ � r 0.7.1 31 lo. , 4 // ,' 3 zc , 77 (-Q___l k. 1 , 70 / ; .ZOO x - ' Eci,itivP 14 Ilk ut, tlida ° 1 at !'i a9Z 1.010101-- ccP-jor- o-FtiLne... 13. I./ ,' �' i , ' I as_ i.v ili...ei___,_e___- 14.. to M 1LL, ,tI &9 ' /co '— N/LL513 M" i5- ‘ § ' ct_U› aciLte, cl' eA) aGV q.9.0„,A 77.-' A V no. -: _// 1 ,fir ‘r -�YaC /7 -2,t).4...1 _, 1?0,4_, .. , /4-7( .. a 5- qe,„,,,,p )7. C. l /8 O k w...r..i eD a • / 4,1( 3g -A C.. c/a 6e/DDG" 1 e f. 24$44/afteA .uttitd 6 qr I ev,10-2_ .11,41.4,.< . c.7- 710,6-1/rd-r X698 r,6 %4 /7q___ - P/y ,i,zek.4,4c- • Q 6. z ,(4.y66 11-G Az. ,61. ,00 -..:1 Ale 24464_ fi 4'i/30-7,- , 3 e.4,44 -%,:.._e (_, 00-3 riii3,-‘ffe,_ 1 A:3 /* 3/ ![4.s-mceauc f' „✓. , --Z7 tik, 5ked..4:t,/ /4. a-- 301 �,( 4 , ,lc. 2 / eq 3/7 Ai;//d- bor�o k 2/ 272.7,F- 26.- ihy /it 1/ // 4# oz �Z . z frz,..eb 4'c, a 7.R 4?i-� 7 C ° ' At/ A2,--x. .3 -3 j d eta-r - r a a-c/1'z.C. t--1-2-31 de- _,e,e4- .>%* r ..$ - 7%W oql 712' I . /-, 4-"i 7/ Catafe 6rcn ve // C .2 7641 3 0 Q, -- Q / ,I. `mo0,1-3,2..,.) N . 27.1.--4, -31 . TDAv; LS, e.A, Ye . '12+- ► i3og z`t5 E 1 JA,„4, .4.. 2.12413 3,z, clice.. 4foI G///1I1qyT,rry "e/. 6 v;Lim /17?:°1-?"_ 3 Cam- t.0. ' - R7Lz 6xzzrJ &7z /5 3 A. 80414_ ILL. 11 '1 ISA , R 7- 31 2(-e- - 727I ,, -.5_ -Zke , S . 7-11----4.--4 /z/.1,46--s.-/y e.zaiarif'-/-k#-3-41,L., . -.7. -- / 7L /...".-)/IJ,gJ' J t eJ' bra. 8 4-94 .Viii Sa..ro vd 4:c. .7,-2 , n ,..,.,, L .,,vv-,4.).----e-,,,,:4_,40..) X14.. -. 3.1 39■ , t i 1lsbar o•.1 N,, a).C. 7.ei L 7 kT ,19 9,2.0..1.-L 4,1- .t4 2- /147.- 7 Fe 474020,- --ika..,--e— A P 2--rt ' t LetIfik ' 2 7 Y° irdt4"A- • I t ' i � �' / a d&da4' 6-tr...._,/4/1,g. 7. 7 3 Afrgef ‘,• . 'd 774/ Z ky.rer Crade itlG 2722/ ,, M, ..z? Pe lex ck- ��� � �. , 135-A t`-r sue_ 3.0 ze_y re4r-- v/ t —,�,�g a ; &E‘,< a 4� � pil e 2--2'1■4 Ze_Leet96.._ ,e1-1 7 sZ,64.2014v-ede Ft. -re "re:7441, , ,a- Rz. //2-` , A e 2 7.2,L3 potir ri) t k T4 v :R 5 ,Q,m • .r- f „4-5c/..14,4 /✓G'. 02)Z �►3 - , Z2t •4, ' 7£5q (-fIsbak- A 37 Cam' ( 'Lc< 9"7 f - . e. �7frs ,ds.g. .217 egy-eg.-4, >r. f f0-=et) MA 57ER t?Ecleagn cr..) pl PAkiesS PLAN /. ,)ctirAy OF,/ a'av 9. 130 Z 7L fL "\t,) s 6E = 13o:G q " YA c, x.23 a /' 140 g h e,IPi3 0 e/-‘5 ", rx t .fic -rl,t,&,,,,,_k_Aelcv -'730t. ARS..174 A --el/04.t9--xl< ptorotkiF% Ne__ .4 49e,Q& /p'/ oz 7 cz "4-3 5 ',eve 71,...424,. AZe. 9ri a-444-/ eg; 4r.tp- / /6-L1-4434- //7A1 7 d d z z 7 'L ,e70 4494 a° 7 5 717 jp 3 1 Po On( etg C.0 . 2_\4 sky-miLiz, / 4o 27Z '`3 0 QAP9 &12-d �Z 73.2-7v5:5�y'S /l°a�--s L I 146-t, .- , 'fg 4 9 3 2-77 5-i 60 ,4e £M i !V ��. �? �`//�ape ? , ,P/ 3-377p /4 di2t 4 a -- f o. is 14C . 272 D /03 •x. . /6 - 7" 71'(1- 7eic I7 ~� ��� � P S,° 6'4 '; A73� el / (.o _ 04 / /z/7Z 7C /Joy o-/ 4*Aj a. lc.1 5 13x Y-2 /// i.h.r.i,.. ;L. <-.7.3c . .7044-4/ /4 ' 5 ,f e A' / lox i , C (72/ 4.245 4/4 ■71.4.71.. 041,14" 'm °2#71 /A)11.4"4- "rfr407.-4-- ti..?2' .2- 4'07C a er.f. 7)1.2,art44 c o. - lAcAkk_ 1).0 41006 9,64 Al, z 024 /S ex .24 7 Abi) Pm/Sfax-ea -16149.307 'J Z8 /fideA.N 64 ., 14 f ne?4 2x /sy, 4-24:44,a.;4(a .z,.ey3