Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-05-1987 S , ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1987 7:30 P.M. OLD COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS 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. MINUTES 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 person to leave the meeting until that indivi- dual 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 # PUBLIC HEARING 002 1. Northern Fairview Community Development Program D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS E. REPORTS F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 007 * 1. Indirect Cost Plan Contract 0i- * 2 . Readoption of Local Sales Tax--Public Hearing PAGE # G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA 013 1. Dal-Rae Forest--Preliminary Plan 030 2 . Ram's Woods--Preliminary Plan 054 3 . Sykes Glen--Preliminary Plan 070 4. LUP-1-87 Chandler Concrete Company--Land Use Plan Amendment 096 5. Z-3-87 The Meadowlands 163 6. Z-4-87 Autowerks 221 7. Z-5-87 Chandler Concrete Company, Inc.--Rezoning Request 2'a1 8. PD-3-87 Occoneechee Point 216 9. Town of Mebane--Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Revisions 262 10. Zoning Ordinance Amendment--Crematoria Article 4.3 (Permitted Use Table) Article 10.4 (Off-Street Parking Requirements) 278 11. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments--Articles 6.16.1, 6.23 . 4, 7 .2 .1, 9.11, & 12 .10 296 12 . Subdivision Regulation Amendment--Section IV-B-8-C Landscaping Standards 301 13 . Subdivision Regulation Amendment--Section V Improvements 306 *14. Request to Initiate Legal Action--Jehue Edwards 327 15. Policy Statement--Duke Forest Properties Access Via County Greenways 329 *16. Appendix to Proposed Joint Planning Agreement 332 17. Funding Senior Citizens Arts/Crafts Classes 335 18. Continuation of Intergovernmental Work Group 336 *19. Animal Control Licensing Fees 339 20. Project to Develop Support for Emotionally Troubled Preschoolers 345 21. Formation of and Charge to Short-Lived Fact Finding Committee on Equity Funding H. APPOINTMENTS I. ADJOURNMENT (*) Indicates items that need immediate attention. 1 APPROVED NOVEMBER 2 , 1987 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, October 5, 1987 in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall, and Commissioners Moses Carey, Stephen Halkiotis and John Hartwell. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Commissioner Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell, Assistant County Manager William T. Laws, Interim Assistant County Manager/Personnel Director Beverly M. Whitehead, Interim Management Analyst/Commission for Women Coordinator Andi Reynolds, Finance Director Gordon Baker, Planner Gene Bell, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes, and Planner Greg Szymik. A. BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS Chair Marshall pointed out on the back wall of the courtroom a picture of the USS Constitution which was presented to the County by Mary Ellen and Gerrard Priestley in celebration of the bicentennial. She announced that on 14 October at Culbreth Jr. High, a Joint Public Hearing will be held between Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County on the Joint Planning Agreement. Chair Marshall indicated applications for the County Manager vacancy would be accepted as long as they are postmarked by September 30. One hundred twenty one applications have been received. A profile and list of general questions will be reviewed by the Board. She asked the members of the Board to do individual screening of those applications received and provide a list of candidates to Beverly Whitehead. Commissioner Carey stated that the reason the Rencher Street application was not approved by the State was that the local funds were not in an account that Raleigh considered to be local funds. This caused the application to lose points and not be accepted for funding. He recommended that the Administration come forward with a recommendation on when these funds should be moved to the appropriate account. Commissioner Hartwell asked that a discussion on the tax listing form be added to item G19. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Those who have indicated a desire to speak will be recognized at the time their item appears on the agenda. 2 . MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Mr. Squires distributed to the Board members a copy of a court injunction which stated: "That poultry waste from Piedmont Egg Ranch, Inc. or any poultry production unit presently operated by Kent Mann in Orange and Alamance counties shall be dispersed, disposed of and operated in 2 Orange County under the terms and conditions of this consent order" . He stated that Mr. Mann has violated this court order time and time again and asked why it was not being enforced by Orange County. Chair Marshall asked the Administration to investigate this situation and to respond to Mr. Squires in writing the results of that investigation. C. MINUTES The minutes will be corrected and resubmitted for approval at the next meeting. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Marshall read the public charge. PUBLIC HEARING NORTHERN FAIRVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Tara Fikes gave a summarization of the project activities for the Northern Fairview CDBG Program. The County was awarded a Community Revitalization Grant in the amount of $938,000 in FY 1982. Presently all project activities proposed in the original grant application have been completed. A public hearing is required for all projects as part of the official closeout process. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE MADE AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS DECLARED CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to (1) approve the Certification of Completion and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board and (2) authorize the Chair to sign a Certification of Public Hearing to include all comments received at this public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS None. E. REPORTS None. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Consent Agenda as listed below: 1. INDIRECT COST PLAN CONTRACT To approve a contract with David M. Griffith and Associates for the preparation of the County's Indirect Cost Plan for a sum not to exceed $8, 000 and to authorize the Chair to sign. 2 . READOPTION OF LOCAL SALES TAX - SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING To set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m. October 20, 1987 in the courtroom of the Old Post Office in Chapel Hill for readoption of the local sales tax. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 1. DAL-RAE FOREST - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration of approval the prelim- inary plan for Dal-Rae Forest. The tract is located in Bingham Township on the south side of Borland Road and 1/3 mile east of the intersection with Dodson's Crossroads. Seven two-acre lots are being subdivided out of the total 69.60 acres. The property is zoned Rural Buffer and the Land 3 Use Plan designation is Rural Residential. The Planning Board recommended that the preliminary plan of Dal-Rae Forest be denied and that the plan be resubmitted with Dal-Rae Forest Road designated as a public road and designed according to State standards. The Administration recommends denial of the application and resubmission as recommended by the Planning Board. Szymik explained that one of the main reasons for the road to be public is the potential for further development to the south which is currently landlocked. Alois Callemyn, surveyor, indicated that when the sketch plan was approved that anything less than nine lots did not have to be paved and he was told by the Planning Staff that a Class B road should be submitted on the preliminary plan. The developer does not want a through road and plans to control this with a restrictive covenant. Chair Marshall stated that Mr. Gledhill had correctly pointed out that the policy of the County as adopted was for public roads -- perhaps it has been changeover in staff that has identified the criteria so that private roads are taken as a right -- we have not changed the criteria but have moved back to their intended meaning. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the recommendation for denial. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2 . RAM'S WOODS - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration the preliminary plan for Ram's Woods, a proposed cluster subdivision. The tract is 15 acres and located at the end of Crossroads Church Cemetery Road. The property is zoned Residential-1 and designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan. Seven lots are proposed surrounded by 6.94 acres of common open space. The Planning Board recommended approval subject to five condi- tions: (1) Dedicate Ram's Way as a public road to be constructed to State standards. (2) Provide restrictive covenants for review by the County Attorney. (3) Revise the vicinity map to show the location of the sub- division and the road names. (4) Provide a separate plan which indicates all the required recreation improvements (0.42 acre) . (5) Increase lot #7 in size to provide 0.92 acres (40,000 sq. ft. ) , since it will be dependent upon its own onsite wastewater disposal system. The Administration recommends approval with the amendment of condition No. 1 as follows: Dedicate Ram's Way as a public road designed and constructed to State standards. Discussion ensued on private versus public roads. The applicant James Collins asked that a private road be approved. He stated that the subdivision is at the very end of an unpaved State road with a cemetery on one side, a power right-of-way on one side, a small subdivision on one side and undeveloped land on the fourth side. A road maintenance agreement would require that the property owners be respon- sible for maintaining the road. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the prelimi- nary plan for Ram's Woods with conditions 2, 3, 4, and 5 as stated above. MOTION DIED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commis- sioner Carey to approve the preliminary plan for Ram's Woods with condition No. 1 as amended by the Administration and Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 as listed above. VOTE: AYES, 3 ; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Hartwell) . 4 3. SYKES GLEN - PRELIMINARY PLAN Greg Szymik presented for consideration the preliminary plan of Sykes Glen. The 120.332 acre tract is located in Bingham Township on both sides of Oak Grove Church Road north of the fork where Vernon Road joins Oak Grove Church Road. The tract is zoned Agricultural-Residential and Protected Watershed Ii. Nine lots are proposed. The Planning Board recommended approval of Sykes Glen with a Class B private road and subject to three conditions: (1) Provide a copy of the restrictive covenants for review by the County Attorney to insure that a condition is included to prohibit further subdivision of the proposed nine lots. (2) Realign the entrance and clear for the sight distance as per NCDOT recommendation. (3) Access to Sykes Glen Trail should be restricted to only the nine lots in the subdivision. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the preliminary plan for Sykes Glen subject to three conditions as listed above. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4. LUP-1-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY - LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Planner Gene Bell made the presentation. Chandler Concrete was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for 1.41 acres of land on N.C. Highway 10 on October 10, 1985. This approval was challenged and on December 12, 1986, the court ruled that because the requirement of the two-acre minimum lot size was not met that the Special Use Permit was invalid. To correct its nonconforming status, Chandler Concrete is requesting that the Ten- Year Transition Area and Commercial-Industrial Activity Node be expanded by an additional 0.59 acres. The Planning Staff recommended denial for the following reasons: (1) The reasons for amendments in the Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan were not addressed; and (2) Conformity with all applicable location criteria in Section 3 .4 of the Land Use Plan was not demonstrated. The Planning Board recommended approval of the request. The Administration recommends denial based on the Staff's recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the application for an amendment to the Orange County Land Use Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. Z-3-87 THE MEADOWLANDS Greg Szymik presented for consideration a request by Meadowlands Associates to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The Property is located along the south side of U.S. Highway 70 Business east of N.C. 86 in Hillsborough Township. The proposed realignment would result in the following realignments: EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED REALIGNED ZONE (0-1) zone 25.4 acres 15.81 acres (1-1) zone 62.3 acres 72 .57 acres (R-1) zone 22.4 acres 21.73 acres Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve positive findings on Article 20. 3.2a, b, c, d, and e and on Article 4.2a, b, and c, and on Article 4.2 .3a,b,c, and e. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the application as recommended by the Planning Board and the Administration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 6. Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS Greg Szymik presented for consideration a request by Charles Miller and Merle Dancy to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The pro- perty is located on the east side of N.C. Highway 86 north of New Hope Church Road and south of Old N.C. 10. The applicants maintain that the existing use was in operation in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was zoned and that an error was made at that time. The property was zoned R-1 and should have been designated Existing Commercial (EC-5) . The Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed revision and the Administration concurs. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve positive findings on Article 20. 3 .2a, b, c, e and Article 4.2a and b. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the application as recommended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 7. Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. - REZONING REQUEST Greg Szymik presented for consideration a rezoning request from Chandler Concrete to rezone a 3 .43 acre parcel from Residential-1 to Community Commercial-III. The property is located in western Cheeks Township on the south side of U.S. Highway 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway. The Planning Board recommended against rezoning stating that the property is located in a Protected Watershed II overlay district and is proposed for non-residential use. A planned development approach, including site plan approval and the issuance of a Special Use Permit provides better control over such development in a watershed. The Administration concurs with the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Chandler stated that this Community Commercial-III zoning is listed as a non-residential use and he was advised by the Planning Staff to submit this request on that basis. Motion was made by Chair Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to deny the application for rezoning. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 8. PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT For information only - the application was withdrawn. 9. TOWN OF MEBANE - EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION REVISIONS Greg Szymik presented for consideration the rezoning of affected by the revision of the Town of Mebane ExtraterritorialrZoning Jurisdiction. For those parcels that will be placed entirely in Orange County, it will be necessary to zone them in accordance with Orange County's Zoning Ordinance. Seventeen (17) parcels of land that are pre- sently split between Town of Mebane zoning and Orange County zoning would be placed entirely under Orange County zoning. The Planning Board recom- mended the proposed zoning for the following parcels: PARCEL TO BE ZONED PROPOSED TAX REFERENCEL ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3 . 1. .21 AR* 3 .1. .37 3 . 1. . 38 AR 3. 1. . 39 `` R 3 . 6. .8 AR AR 3 . 6. .10 6 AR 3.6. .11 AR 3. 6. .25 R-1* 3 .6. .29 R-1 3. 6. .33 AR 3. 6. .34 AR 3 . 11. .4 R-1 3.11. .6 R-1 3. 11. .18 R-1 3 .21.A.24 AR 3 .21.A.25 AR 3 .42. .5 AR *AR (Agricultural Residential) *R-1 (Rural Residential) Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 10. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CREMATORIA ARTICLE 4.3 (PERMITTED USE TABLE) ARTICLE 10.4 (OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Greg Szymik presented for consideration proposed amendments to Article 4. 3 and Article 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment to Article 4. 3 would add crematoria to the Permitted Use Table and the amend- ment to Article 10.4 would establish parking requirements for crematoria requiring one space plus one space per employee. The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendments as recommended by the Planning Board with an effective date of October 5, 1987. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as recommended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 11. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS - ARTICLES 6.16.1, 6.23 .4, 7.2. 1, 9. 11, AND 12. 10 Greg Szymik presented for consideration proposed amendments to Articles 6.16. 6, 6.23.4, 7.2.1, 9. 11, and 12. 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. These amendments will include reference to the new Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district in the above listed Articles. The Administration recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments with an effective date of October 5, 1987. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 12. SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT - SECTION IV-B-8-C LANDSCAPING STANDARDS Greg Szymik presented for consideration a proposed amendment to Section IV-B-8-c of the Subdivision Regulations. This amendment will add to this Section the following: "Amended Effective March 24, 1987". The Administration recommends approval of the amendment as recommended by the Planning Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chair Marshall to approve the recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 13 . SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT - SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS Greg Szymik presented for consideration a proposed amendment to Section V of the Subdivision Regulations which would remove cash as an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of 7 security for required improvements. The Administration recommends approval of the amendment as recom- mended by the Planning Board with an effective date of October 5, 1987. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 14. REQUEST TO INITIATE LEGAL ACTION - JEHUE EDWARDS Greg Szymik presented for Board consideration a request to initiate legal proceedings against Jehue Edwards of Rt. 4, Box 370, Chapel Hill. The property is zoned Rural Buffer and is being used as a landfill. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commis- sioner Carey to approve the initiation of legal proceedings against Jehue Edwards. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 15. POLICY STATEMENT - DUKE FOREST PROPERTIES ACCESS VIA COUNTY GREENWAYS By consensus, the Board approved the following policy and asked the Manager to forward the draft policy to Duke University officials for their comments: "It is the policy of the Orange County Board of County Commis- sioners to encourage recreation access onto Duke Forest properties via designated greenways only at roads, firetrails or other points of entry mutually agreeable between Orange County and Duke University. No site plan and no subdivision plat of property adjacent to the Duke Forest properties and showing any portion of the Orange County greenway system (as outlined in the Orange County Land Use Plan and/or the Orange County Master Recreation & Park Plan) shall be approved which designates or shows the property as having recreation access to Duke Forest unless it is via a road, firetrail or other point of entry approved by Orange County and Duke University. " 16. APPENDIX TO PROPOSED JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT (A copy of this agreement is attached to these minutes as pages ) • Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the appendix to the proposed Joint Planning Agreement. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 17. FUNDING SENIOR CITIZENS ART/CRAFTS CLASSES Director of Department on Aging Jerry Passmore reported that five senior citizen arts/crafts classes will be terminated as of October 15 as a result of a change in Durham Technical Community College's regulations and funding formula. To continue the classes through June 30, 1988 it would cost from $4,679 to $11, 696. Several senior citizens spoke of the importance of these programs and asked the Board to find a way to continue the arts/crafts classes. Chair Marshall spoke highly of the senior citizen programs. She explained that there is a very small amount of money in contingency and that other programs were not funded because of a lack of funds. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to request that the Manager work with the two Department Heads to determine if funds can be taken from their budgets and if a budget amendment is necessary that it be brought back to the Board for consideration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 18. CONTINUATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORK GROUP This item was postponed until the next meeting. 8 19. ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSING FEES After an extended discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt differential licensing for dogs and cats as follows: License fee of $5. 00 for spayed and neutered dogs and a $15.00 fee for unspayed or unneutered dogs and a license fee of $2. 00 for spayed and neutered cats and a $10. 00 fee for unspayed or unneutered cats. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Commissioner Hartwell asked that a sentence be put on the tax form that says there is differential licensing and that money can be saved if a sworn affidavit states that the animals have been spayed. Additionally, Commissioner Hartwell asked that a sentence be placed on the tax listing form advising the citizens of the possibility of having land taxed at its use value rather than at market value. Assistant Manager Laws commented that in the early years of the program an effort had been made to publicize this possibility but that not much had been done recently. Chair Marshall concurred in the recommendation, commenting that many citizens in the towns were unaware of this provision. 20. PROJECT TO DEVELOP SUPPORT FOR EMOTIONALLY TROUBLED PRESCHOOLERS Chair Marshall stated that the Ad Hoc Committee for emotionally troubled preschoolers would like to proceed with organizing as an Inter- agency Committee to plan, develop support for, and implement a program that will begin to address the goals formulated by the Committee. The 1987-88 County Budget includes $25,000 for this program. Albert Kittrell requested that Deanna Shaffer from the Social Services Department and Beverly Whitehead be added to the list of committee members. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commis- sioner Carey to appoint Advisory Committee members nominated by the Ad Hoc Committee plus the two members suggested by Albert Kittrell, authorize the Advisory Committee to add other members, subject to confirmation by the Board of Commissioners and authorize the Advisory Committee to proceed with implementation of the consultative service as outlined in the letter dated September 22, 1987 from Susan McClanahan. The Advisory Committee members are: Lynda Baddour, Lorna Chafe, Paula Clarke, Elaine Foster, Florry Glasser, Nathalie Harrison, Lynne Johnston, Betty Matthews, Susan McClanahan, Fabretta McNeil, Jodie Pierce, Susan Russell, Daisy Satterwhite, hattie Scott, Don Willhoit, Irene Zipper. Ex-officio members are: Deby Dihoff, Deanna Shaffer and Beverly Whitehead. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 21. FORMATION AND CHARGE TO SHORT-LIVED FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON EQUITY FUNDING Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the formation, charge and composition of a short- lived fact-finding committee on equity funding. The committee will be chaired by Shirley Marshall and the membership will include: (1) the Chairs of both systems, (2) Interim County Manager or his designee, (3) the Superintendents of both systems or their designee, (4) a teacher from each of the teacher organizations in each system and (5) the Financial Officers of both systems and the County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. H. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were made: 9 COMMISSION FOR WOMEN - Sarah Fisher COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD ON AGING - Robert E. Seymour SUPERINTENDENT'S BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE - Moses Carey I. ADJOURNMENT With no other items to be considered by the Board, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on October 20, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Shirley E. Marshall, Chair ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE October 5, 1987 Subject: MINUTES Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Under Separate Cover Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe one Numbers: 7328181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PULSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: September 22, 1987 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 has the legal duty 53A-42 of the General Statutes, 'journal of hee legal y to approve all minutes that are entered governing proceedings, - ntered into the official As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. fNi, -MEETING DATE October 5, 1987 SUBJECT: Northern Fairview Coinnuni ty Development Program 06 2 *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: HOUSING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING X YES : ''NO ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: TARA FIKES Program Y EXT 425 Certificate of Completion PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DURHAM 688-7331 ************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To receive citizen and board comments prior to official closeout of the Northern Fairview Community Development Program. BACKGROUND: In FY 1982, the County was awarded a Community Revitalization Grant in the amount of p938,000 for Northern Fairview Community Development activities in Northern Orange County. Presently all project activities proposed in the original grant application have been completed. In order to complete the official closeout process, the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) requires that a public hearing be held prior to official closeout to assess the per- formance of the County in administering the grant program. Addition- ally the County is required to submit the following documents to NRCD. 1) Certificate of Completion 2) Certification of Public Hearing by the Chief Elected Official 3) Copy of the Final Audit Upon submission of the Certificate of Completion and the Certification of Public Hearing, the grant may be closed contingent upon the receipt of the final audit. The program accomplishments are outlined in the attached Program Summary. All comments received during the hearing should be reviewed to determine the level of consistency with program goals. Additionally, all com- ments received shall be reported to NRCD along with the Public Hearing Certification. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approve the Certification of Completion and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. 2) Authorize the Chair to sign a Certification of Public Hearing to include all comments received at this public hearing. 8 - 003 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION I1. NAME OF RECIPIENT County of Orange 3. PROJECT NUMBER C-1 - 2. GRANT NUMBER 82-C-6285 4. PROJECT NAME Northern Fairview 5. FINAL STATEMENT OF COST TO BE COMPLETED BY RECIPIENT TO BE COMPLETED BY NRCD PROGRAM ACTIVITY CATEGORIES PAID UNPAID TOTAL COSTS APPROVED COSTS COSTS (COL.b&c) TOTAL COSTS (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Activity a. Acquisition 37,077 b. Disposition 37,077 _ c. Public facilities & improvements _ (1) Senior & Handicapped centers (2) Parks, playgrounds & recreational facilities 233,897 233,897 _ (3) Neighborhood facilities - (4) Solid waste disposal facilities (5) Fire protection facilities & equipment (6) Parking facilities ' (7) Public utilities, other than water and sewer (8) Water and sewer improvements (9) Street improvements • (10) Flood & drainage improvements (11) Pedestrian improvements (12) Other public facilities d. Clearance activities - 6,600 • r e. Public services 6,600 f. Relocation assistance 15,410 g. Construction, rehabilitation and preservation activities 7-5.410 (1) Construction or rehabilitation of commercial and industrial bldgs. r (2) Rehabilitation of privately owned dwellings 536,233 (3) Rehabilitation of publicly owned dwellings 536,233 (4) Code enforcement (5) Historic preservation h. Development financing _ _ (1) Working capital _ (2) Machinery and equipment i. Removal of architectural barriers j. Other activities k. SUBTOTAL _ I. Planning 82.9,217 829,217 ' m.Administration n. TOTAL _ 110'883 , 110,883 940,100 940, o. Less: Program Income Applied to Program Costs 940,100 _ 2,100 p. Equal: Grant Amount Applied to Program Costs - 2,100 _ 938,000 938,000 _ 6. COMPUTATION OF GRANT BALANCE TO BE TO BE COMPLETED BY COMPLETED BY RECIPIENT NRCD DESCRIPTION APPROVED (a) AMOUNT AMOUNT (1) Grant Amount Applied to Program Costs (From Line p) - (b) (c) (2) Estimated Amount for Unsettled Third-Party Claims 938,000 j (3) Subtotal _ _ (4) Grant Amount per Grant Agreement(s) 938,000 _ (5) Unutilized Grant to be Cancelled (Line 4-minus 3) - g ' (6) Grant Funds Received (7) Balance of Grant Pa able (Line 3 - minus 6)* 938,000 *If Line 6 exceeds Line 3, enter the amount of the excess on Line 7 as a negative amount. This amount shall be repaid to NRCD by check, unless NRCD has previously approved use of these funds (describe in block 8 below). "-,0---1iP /7 nn•. • 7. UNPAID CO5TS & UNSETTLED THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS -1 List any unpaid costs and unsettled third-party claims against the recipient's grant. Describe circumstances and amounts involved. N/A ❑ Check if continued on additional sheet and attach. 8. REMARKS 9. CERTIFICATION OF RECIPIENT It is hereby certified that all activities undertaken by the Recipient with funds provided under the grant agreement identified on page 1 hereof, have,to the best of my knowledge, been carried out in accordance with the grant agreement;that proper provision has been made by the Recipient for the payment of all unpaid costs and unsettled third-party State of North Carolina is under no obligation to make any further Recipient ent under identified theigr on page 1 hereof;in excess that s of the amount identified on Line 7 hereof; and that every statement and amount set in this instrument tis, to then best of my knowledge, true and correct as of this date. DATE TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF RECIPIENT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE U HORIZEE REOF PRESENTATIVE RESE RECIPIENT'S Shirley E. Marshall, Chair AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Orange County Board of Comm]-SSioner 10. NRCD APPROVAL This Certification of Completion is hereby approved.Therefore,I authorize cancellation of the unutilized contract commitment and related funds reservation and obligation of$ (from Section 6, line 5 less$ previously authorized for cancellation. page 1) DATE TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF NRCD AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL SIGNATURE OF NRCD AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL CDBG#118 (3-84) 00f: NORTHERN FAIRVIEW CDBG PROGRAM SUMMARY PROPOSED ACTIVITIES PROGRAM RESULTS AC UISITION Acquire nine (9) dilapidated dwellings and Nine (9) dilapidated one (1) Right-of-Way; dwellings and one (1) Right-of-Way was acquired. TOTAL COST - $37, 077 PARKS PLAYGROUNDS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITES Clear and grade a 40 acre park The 40 acre park site was site; construct a community park; cleared and One of graded and Phase park construction completed. TOTAL COST - $233,897 CLEARANCE Demolish nine (9) dilapidated dwellings; Seven (7) dilapidated dwellings were demolished. *Two dwellings, which were trailers, were sold. TOTAL COST - $6, 600 RELOCATION Relocate nine (9) families from dilapidated dwellings; Six (6) families were relocated to standard dwellings. *Two units were vacant and one tenant moved from a dilapidated dwelling prior to beginning Community Development relocation activities. TOTAL COST - $15,410 REHABILITATION Rehabilitate sixty-two (62) sub- standard dwellings; Sixty five (65) substandard dwellings were rehabilitated to standard conditions accord- ing to HUD's Model Property Rehabilitation Standards. TOTAL COST - $536,233 ROC NORTHERN FAIRVIEW CDBG PROGRAM SUMMARY PAGE 2 ADMINISTRATION Provision of ongoing administration of program activities via County Staff TOTAL COST - $110,883 1. Total Program Costs - 2. Total Program Income Applied to Program Costs $42, 100 3. Total Grant Amount (No. 1 - No. 2) - $ 8,000 $938, 000 007 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A enda Item No. 1L ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October. _5, 1987 SUBJECT: Indirect Cost Plan Contract DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes x No Finance ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Finance Director Ext. 496 Contract TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To continue contracting with David M. Griffith & Assoc. for the preparation of the County's Indirect Cost Plan. The contract amount is for a sum not to exceed $8,000. • • BACKGROUND: 0MB Publication A-87 requires. the County to develop a new cost allocation plan each year. This plan allows the County to receive reimbursement for local funds expended to administer federal programs. Reimbursements per our plan have exceeded $150,000 in the past. RECOMMENDATIONS) : Approve the contract with David M Griffith & Assoc. and authorize the Chair to sign. QV3 FY 87 A V AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES TO Orange County, North Carolina THIS AGREEMENT , entered into this day of 19 and effective immediately by and between David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (hereinafter called the "Consul- tant") and the County of Orange , State of North Carolina (hereinafter called the "County") , WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the County has programs which it operates with Federal funding , and WHEREAS , the County supports these programs with support services paid from the County appropriated funds , and WHEREAS, the Federal government and the State will pay a fair share of these costs if supported by an approved cost allocation plan , and WHEREAS , the Consultant is staffed with personnel knowledgeable and experienced in the requirements of developing and negotiating such governmental cost allocation plans , and WHEREAS, the County desires to engage the Consultant to assist in developing a plan which conforms to Federal requirements and will be approved by their representatives NOW THEREFORE , the parties hereto mutually agree as follows : 1. Employment of Consultant. The County agrees to engage the Consultant and the Consultant hereby agrees to perform the following services. 2. Scope: of Services. The Consultant shall do, perform and carry out in a good and professional manner the following services : a. Development of a central services cost allocation plan which identified the various costs incurred by the County to support and administer Federal programs. This plan will contain a determination of the allowable costs of providing each supporting service such as purchasing , legal counsel , disbursement processing , etc . b . Negotiation of the completed cost allocation plan with the representatives of the state or Federal government , whichever is applicable . c . Assistance in preparing the initial claims for recovery of funds due the County . d. Prepare indirect cost proposal for vyo 9 p and CETA. Additional) °r $ocial Services Additionally , rates for EPA and HUD if necessary . indirect cost 3 . Time of Performance. The services to be performed hereunder by the Consultant shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure their expeditious completion and best carry out the purposes of the agreement. All services requried hereunder shall be completed by .,�/y4c _9/ cost allocation plan will be available by __ The your review and our negotiation with Federal and •State representatives. 4. Compensation. The County agrees to pay the Consultant a sum not to exceed eight thousand dollars ($8 , 000) for all services required herein, which shall include reimbursement for expense incurred. Consultant agrees to complete the project and all services provided herein for said sum. 5. Method of Payment. The Consultant shall be entitled to payment in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. The Consultant agrees to undertake this engagement with the following advantages to the County. First, the Consultant will not require any compensation for services until a cost allocation plan has been prepared and is acceptable as a basis for filing claims. Second, Consultant's fees are to be paid from recoveries paid by Federal programs to the County as well as recoveries from Enter- prise Funds. Recoveries due solely from the plan will be shared equally by the County and the Consultant until Consultant's fees are paid in full. Then all additional funds are paid to the County. Payment to Consultant will be made within four weeks of receipt by the County of funds realized from the plan. 6. Chan es. The County may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of the services of the Consultant to be performed hereunder. Such changes , which are mutually agreed upon by and between the County and the Consultant, shall be incorporated in written amendment to this agreement. 7. Services v ices and Materials to be Furnished Count The County shall locally furnish the Consultant with all available necessary information , data , and material pertinent to the execution of this agreement. The County shall cooperate with the . Consultant in carrying out the work herein and shall provide adequate staff for liaison with, the Consultant and other agencies of County government . 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If, cause, the. Consultant shall fail to fulfill in timely tanouph any manner his obligations under this agreement , the County shall thereupon have the right to terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and Page 2 of 3 U1V specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination . 9. Information and Reports. The such time and in such form as the County ma tan shall, u such periodic reports concerning the status of the require , fu P statements, certificates, approvals proposed and ect, snd executed plans and claims and other information relative to the project as may be requested by the County. t shall furnish the County, upon request, with copiese ofonalltdocuments and other materials prepared or developed in relation with or as part of the project. Copies of workin conjunction with the cost allocation g papers prepared in plan the County for safekeeping if requested may be turned over to 10. Consultant Liability If Audited. The Consultant will assume all financial and statistical information provided to the Consultant by County employees or representatives is accurate and complete. Any subsequent disallowance of funds County under the plan is the sole responsibilit paid to the However , where a disallowance had an impact f nhe County. he computation , the computation will be recalculated p on and any be returned portion of the fee will toh and any Additionally, the Consultant will urned to the client. should an audit be undertaken of Countydindirectncosts_the County to 11 . Notices. Any notices , bills , invoices , or reports required by this agreement shall be sufficient if sent b its parties in the United States mail, postage paid, to the y the noted below: address County of f David M. Griffith & Associates /t 1 100 Logger Court , Suite D-700 L C. Raleigh , North Carolina 27609 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Consultant have executed this agreement as of the date first written above . ---- .4Z6 County , C_ By : ( County Official) ATTEST: David M. iff ' A ociates David R. Maz `mss instrument bas been preaudited in the Vice P r e s i d e manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. �"t /(7,. Page 3 of 3 Finance Officer of Oran ,c Co- onnty„ ORANGE COUNTY 0 11 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: OCTOBER 5, 1987 SUBJECT: READOPTION OF LOCAL SALES TAX--PUBLIC HEARING DATE DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S MEMORANDUM OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To set a public hearing date for readoption of local option sales taxes. BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 944 (ratified as Chapter 832 of the 1987 Session Laws) changed the definition of site of sale in the Local Government Sales and Use Tax Act. In order to accommodate this change in definition every county must readopt the local option sales taxes. The readoption process requires the Board to conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution reenacting local government sales taxes within the County. The resolu- tion must be adopted by February 1, 1988. The attached memorandum highlights S.B. 944. The actual Bill will be available for review before the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Set October 20, 1987 as the date for Readoption of Local Sales Taxes Public Hearing. 4,004 at FINANCE DEPARTMENT ,y ORANGE COUNTY GORDON R. BAKER DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: Acting County Manager From: Finance Director Subject: New Sales Tax Law Date: September 30, 1987 The new sales tax law changes the definition of the "point of sale". The previous law referred to a sales and use tax. Under the old law, a consumer in one County that ordered merchandise from a vendor in another County only paid the 3% State sales tax with the purchase. The consumer was required to voluntarily report this transaction to the Department of Revenue and pay the local "use" tax to the State for the benefit of the County in which the goods were actually to be used. Needless to say, most consumers did not report and pay this tax. (This happens when an- individual makes a purchase by mail order from a vendor in a County other than the County in which that individual resides.) The new law will require the vendor to collect the local option tax at the point of sale for the County in which that vendor is located. The new law contains a formula designed to factor a County's collection up or down so that every County will realize a 2 to 2.2% increase in sales tax collections beginning with the quarterly distribution received in August, 1988. This formula will benefit Orange County. Otherwise, this law would have had a negative impact for ... us. Also, a committee will study the benefits of consolidating the local option sales into a single State sales tax levy. If consolidation occurs, local governments would receive a share of the State excise tax on liquor (approx. $9.5 mil) . 106 EAST MARGARET LANE • HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • 919/732-8181 ORANGE COUNTY 013 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 5L J987 Action Lsenda Item # 4L SUBJECT: DAL-RAE FOREST - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: November 10, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Private Road Justification Staff Private Road Evaluation Draft Planning Board Minutes, 9-21 -87 TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough -- 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of the preliminary plan for Dal -Rae Forest. BACKGROUND: The tract is located in the northeast corner of Bingham Township on the south side of Borland Road (SR 1127 ) 1 /3 mile east of the intersection with Dodson ' s Crossroads (SR 1102 ) . Seven two-acre lots are being subdivided out of the total 69 .90 acres. The applicant has proposed that the lots be served by a Class A private road . The property is zoned Rural Buffer, and the Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential . The adjacent land use is primarily residential . All agencies have reviewed Dal -Rae Forest . The Department of Transportation commented that Dal -Rae Forest Road does not meet their design standard for minimum centerline radius . At its September 21 , 1987 meeting, the Planning Board recommended that the preliminary plan of Dal -Rae Forest be denied . The Planning Board further recommended that the plan be resubmitted with Dal -Rae Forest Road designated as a public road and designed according to State standards . RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends denial of the application and D14 resubmission as recommended by the Planning Board . If the Board of Commissioners wishes to approve the preliminary plan with the private road as proposed, the following should be added as conditions of approval : ( 1 ) Submit payment- in- lieu of dedication of recreation/open space ( $341 .00 ) prior to final plat approval . (2 ) Provide additional land area for lot #1 for sewage disposal purposes. (This may be accomplished by combining that portion of lot #2 south of the creek in with lot # 1 and moving the common line between lots 1 and 2 to the northwest to provide a two-acre minimum lot size for lot #2. ) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) 6/b7 Y PPI I^F.r N FppR P. 015 F. ORANGE COUTY DATE: T�3--Vc`?7 SUBDIVISION NAME: L / i LOCATION: .'r- ca/` .s r-/ +r &..i ia ., , 7.- ci.. OWNER/DEVELOPER: A9ZT411-- Pe F0 '/LE ADDRESS: G y'-i- ,4; TELEPHONE NO. : �!//5 e.,9.-Gp cr AGENT/CONTACT: f1/-7i_ �7..//4---?-rr/ /I TELEPHONE NO. : 7..=2 ". A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map 1'- Block — Lot(s) z / Township Zoning District( s) : Clig. .1-- E )P-P Total Number of Acres: Cne.S.0 Phases: Total Number of Lots : 7 Average Lot S1ze:Z Ac Mlnlmum Lot Slze Number/Type of Structures; ( existlno) AVA ( proposed) Lineal Feet In Streets: -1-95DLP Acres in Open Space Water Supply: Public (specify) Community ✓ Individual Wastewater Disposal : Publlc( speclfy) Community .- Individual School District: DgAgrp opirry Fire District: General Land Uses In Area: E .-5I7El1TTAL Critical Areas: ✓stream/drelnaoeweys flood prone areas watershed ( specify) historic sites other (explain) B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one Inch equals two-hundred feet ( 1"m2001 ) and no larger than one Inch equals fifty feet ( 1"=50 ' ) and must contain the following information: 2 subdivision name building setback lines ::-:,P%; name of ovner(s) :.;a&• . by notation or typical lot } name of surveyor, layout engineer or land - - existing and Planner •: ri:r-:: 9 proposed easements (drainage, -L_ :: :: (title) Prellminery utilities, roads. etc.) ' Plen }i• 'z -:' • existing. proposed and :�G_ scale, north arrow adjoining rights-of-way (North et Top of map) Including dimensions and _if- - ,,,44••: date ( Including street names and state revision dates) :•?:::::. road numbers .•-r township, tax mep- existing nd r ti. block-lot references ' g proposed boundary described utilities. Including type, : ::: escribed sizes, hydrants, valves with bearings end manholes distances total acreage of the .,. existing end proposed culvert Including sizes O -.17'....-?:': tract and acreage of end grades lots, Including and - "^•:"• typical street cros 4 excluding area within 5eC1Io and Intersection V7 rights-Of-wa y details including veslgn_ , tonTroi corner and width of Trevelwey proposed lot lines end shoulders in U : :;�F::: with dimensions horizon-rel alignment and E — =:: lot numbers - ::„.x.. general curve data (publ Ic y ` phasing lines roses) Topopre n et ten foot r p y permanent features such as : (10) Intervals buildings, Cemeteries. rater bodies, streams, : raj W floadwey and flood- historic lentlmarks _ plat"s - :' adjoining lot layout names stream buffers and of adjoining property _ owners end subdivisions G . notation Indlceting C L restricted development ✓ 01 Potential :::w Township, corporate end extra-terriTorlel plannln V �} Tlpn Imes which cross The property 9 Jurisdic- d rp N ' IY• location end : .: size of parcels dedicated for public use or -C L reserved In common V .= U.:;: location and size of lots of restricted development potential and npTeTlon on plat regarding some — ' -- sTOrmweter mena?emeht plan Indlceting provision for control i of the first 1/2 Inch of runoff from Impervious surfaces please complete reverse side 016 C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1 . Twenty-seven ( 27 ) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map ( one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked) . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a $105 . 00 fee ( subdivisions of 1 -5 lots) , $210 . 00 fee ( subdivision of 6-9 lots ) , $315 . 00 fee ( sub- divisions of 10-25 lots ) or a $420 . 00 fee ( subdivisions of 26 lots or more) is due at the time of application . A $5 . 00 per lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation. G !Y 6 f 1 SfI PPLICANT' S SIGNATURE OWNER' S SIGNATURE Y/—?//8 DATE DATE FEES : Amount +a(d ' ob Date Paid 7-3L-s7 Receipt 94-0625 �o�T� pi!L� - ► Fo `T M4P Alor TO SCALE- o 5 PrY of PALT MJ F er-0 K�CJdEL P.11 E .,,j5:/ zo�ulk q : fzv�,aL SOFFEe 217 06 2.97AG !'• 5K ►►z7 al 7 _ Ir ; ,......64. 210 =o f '\1 p I MTh \ \ 102 AC ��''10.2 AC • TS i O , ` `AL�- - ` loss Ac. • 1}6 �J 2w `� .''q E Zjla37AC. i,- -u, , 10.2 AC- 1 O • 1 .x173AC. I i 1 42 AC. .� I • • /� 10.29 AC. I 21 =e / 10.39 AC. - % . _ , I0.2IC. 1 - 11 III: O O III 14.02 AC. 0 II 28 nose 148 168 'y I - T- 63.79 AG 1 11 O � IOW 25.6AC. ll •,477 I I 99 AL •ApT ► + r O I 1 v I AOS•96 AC.CAL. .S 15.4 3 AC. I 4 __ _ ___ 4eruvc Mitivrs ,'15 ea4v 3 Co„, „ . — — — — - I 3.3 AC. 3 - _ _-- --1 J - _ --- - I w.6 -•>. O t... r I 22.3 AC. 901 K e wY 1•1 "" O Sea AC f•- . w 44.79 At e Pr _ 9s-xrAe. •6611 �i°' /��_L / 1 1"S —iL — — t'l .r.. w!• "r J 7. E5cl*.l ■ AA. 1..74 11 LEGtNO _J. -c,AA[nett►ft..4•IAA.At M. 1 3 i.� _ ! OR Qr `t.0 C•CC■ ••1•.1�D..A j ti...r.rr __�� �� _ r_____ e _d n[wTA tl.►•SMK I- ,.a.It_,�A.114 I! __ w� — — -' =... .A.,• --- j pA[L:1A� ?� i.+.q�n -.0w 11• •w..42 —• _._ �.� ' ..1111.+ __. ,.-.�_ ,'• 018 DAL-RAE FOREST 11 /85 CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRELRIMIINARYOPLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: _ Emily Crudup SKETCH PLAN : Received 5-8-87 5-13-87 Reviewed PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 7-31 -87 8-5-87 Reviewed REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 9-9-87 Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 9-3-87 CERTIFICATION J. M. Mi ll s, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE CERTIFICATION UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE Certification OTHER : Recreation Advisory Council M.A. Black 9-10-87 '(Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel HiII (Date) Carrboro Amy Parker 9-10-67 _(Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham Other - Health (Date) Tom Konsler 9-11-87 (Date) - S & E W. Fa i rc1 oth 9-8-87 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date 9-21-87 Approval Approval with Conditions Denial X BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date Approval Approval with Conditions _ Denial �`-,,.57ATE w ,7 r �A,.� y �aC.c - Z LL Y -1 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN September 1, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, RE SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 2727& Subject: Dal-Rae Forrest Off SR 1127 (Borland Road) Dear Ms. Crudup: This is to advise that sight distance is adequate for the subject development. Since the entrance curve does not satisfy our minimum radius criteria of 230 feet, the preliminary plan is approved as a private road. If you have any questions, please advise. Yours very truly, /� . M. Mills, P. E. DISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh An Eoual O000rtunity/Affirmative Action Employer p co& NOrange County Recreation and Parks Department * %� . •1\w4 300,West Tryon Street • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 4T,�,Qv )020 Lfe.Beinit. Mary Anne Black, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planning Department FROM: Mary Anne Black DATE: September 10, 1987 RE: Courtesy Review -- Dal-Rae Forrest Sykes Glen Ram's Woods Upon review of the preliminary plan for the proposed Dal-Rae Subdivision, I would recommend payment-in-lieu of dedication be accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. In that neither Sykes Glen nor Ram's Woods are located within the Joint Planning Area, no comment is provided. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their next scheduled monthly meeting and will forward to you any changes/additions they may have. MAB/pbl Telephones: 919 732-8181 • 919 967-9251 • 919 688-7331 • 919 227-2031 021 ;- LM r�� �,�,• Wes- rvIa ra • `0'.N. Q'9 c5 t,.--DC. cy,,o. 442-;;5a• ` ' c4 Ae .5" /1 -S 7 Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Dept . Revere Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Dal-Rae Forest subdivision review Dear Ms. Crudup If this subdivision were within the Town of Carrboro ' s jurisdiction, it would more than likely be zoned R-80 for residential use. The lot size and layout would be in conformance with our requirements in that zoning district . The Town would require locations of proposed septic systems and wells to be indicated on the plans. Our ordinance requires that any road serving more than three lots be paved and built to town road standards. Proposed road grading would also be required on the plans. Proposed building locations would be -requested, and maximum protection of the stream area would be emphasized. If you need further information, please call . Si erely, f A /% ,J � i2) Amy Pa ker Development Coordinator ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH 022 NORTH CAROLINA 27278 �.no rr 1R'11 = Yr`" N Coo' MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner II FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Dal -Rae Forrest DATE : September 8, 1987 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements by using large lots, limited additional impervious surfaces on each lot, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perim- eter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff . 023 f ALOIS CALLEMYN LAND SURVEYOR 104 N. CHURTON STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 TELEPHONES. 732-3883 • 682.6240 September 8, 1987 Orange County Planning Department 306 Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Private Road - Justification for Dal-Rae Forrest Subdivision Dear Sir: We feel that a private road would fulfill the desired character of Dal-Rae Subdivision for the following reasons: 1 . Traffic volume would be small. Dal-Rae Subdivision consists of less than 10 lots off Borland Road, which is a low density traffic area. Borland Road has only recently been paved and is neither collector nor arterial road. 2. The smaller travel way acceptable_ in a Class B private road would better preserve the existing hardwood forest and discourage excessive traffic by its secluded appearance. The private road would also encourage a slow travel speed, which is important to families. 3. A private road would be in character with the adjacent subdivision to the east which is also served by a private road. 4. The State would not be burdened with this road since the developers and prospective buyers prefer to maintain the road themselves. In summary, we feel a private road would better preserve the nature of the area and the desires of the private citizens, while still conforming to the Orange County Private Road Standards. Sincerely, Alois Callemyn AC:sld FARM, LOT, BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHIC LOAN. AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS • SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND LAYOUT 4)24. ' ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEiQRMLQu1 TO: Orange County Planning Board FROM: Orange County Planning Department SUBJECT: Dal -Rae Forest - Preliminary Plan Private Road Evaluation DATE : September 10, 1987 BACKGROUND Private roads may be allowed in a subdivision when the following conditions have been found to exist. 1 . The nature and location of the subdivision, includ- ing such considerations as topography, the surrounding area, present and future road plans, and public safety access Justify private roads, and 2. One or more of the following conditions exist: a) the subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10 ) lots; b ) the subdivision preserves a natural area through deed restriction and special design features; c) the subdivision does not include or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan or the thoroughfare plan of an Orange County munici - pality, or does not lie within a designated transition area determined by the County; d) the subdivision Joins or extends an existing subdivision where the streets are private or unpaved and when 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 area; and Q?S 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 requirements that the subdivision cannot meet. EVALUATION In applying these conditions to Dal -Rae Forest, the Planning Department notes the following : 1 . The proposed subdivision involves only 14. 03 of the total 69.90 acres in this tract. Dal -Rae Forest Road has the potential to be extended south to serve the remaining 54.73 acres as well as an adjacent 63.79 acre parcel to the southwest which appears to be landlocked. 2. a) The subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10 ) lots. b ) The subdivision does not preserve a natural area. c) The subdivision does not include or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan or on the thoroughfare plan of an Orange County munici - pality. It does not lie within a designated transition area determined by the County. d) The subdivision does not extend an existing subdivision where the road is private or unpaved, and will not be connected with the private unpaved road in the subdivision adjacent to the east. e ) The horizontal alignment of Dal -Rae Forest Road as shown on the preliminary plan does not meet the State standard for minimum centerline radius. If redesigned to the State standard, the road could be accepted by the State for maintenance because it could comply with the State density requirement. o26 3 RECOMMENDATION During the sketch plan review of Dal -Rae Forest, the Planning Staff recommended a public road to serve the sub- division . The preliminary plan was submitted with a Class A private road designed so as not to meet State standards. The Staff recommends that Dal -Rae Forest Road be redesigned so that maintenance. it could be accepted for State DRAFT 2 August 17, 1987 0 Jacobs noted a misspelling on page 5, paragraph 9 - area should be are. Yuhasz noted a misspelling on page 6, the vote should list Yuhasz as abstaining due to professional conflict of interest. MOTION : Best moved approval with corrections . Seconded by Kramer . VOTE : Unanimous. (These corrections have been made) . AGENDA ITEM #4: COMMISSIONERS BRIEFS Informational only. AGENDA ITEM #6 : CHAIR COMMENTS Jacobs referenced the minutes of the Board of Commissioners meeting of September 18 regarding restrictive covenants in rural buffer areas . He noted that his understanding was that the Board desired ordinance amendments requiring restrictive covenants in the preliminary plat approval process for all subdivisions . Jacobs also noted that consideration of the Proposed Water/Sewer Policy was deferred until late October. It did not appear that the policy would be heard at the November public hearing. INNOw AGENDA ITEM #8 : SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS a . Preliminary Plats (Total - 80 Lots ) 1 . Dal -Rae Forest Subdivision (7 Lots - Bingham Township) . Presentation by Emily Crudup. This tract is located in the northeast corner of Bingham Township on the south side of Borland Road (SR 1127 ) 1 /3 mile east of the intersection with Dodson ' s Crossroads (SR 1102) . Seven two-acre lots are being subdivided out of the total 69 .90 acres . The applicant has proposed that the lots will be served by a Class A private road. The property is zoned Rural Buffer and the Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential . Adjacent land use is mostly residential . DRAFT 3 021- All agencies have reviewed Dal -Rae Forest. The Department of Transportation commented that Dal -Rae Forest Road does not meet their design standard for minimum centerline radius . The Planning Staff recommends that the preliminary plan of Dal -Rae Forest be denied and that the plan be resubmitted with Dal -Rae Forest Road designated as a public road and redesigned according to State standards . If the Planning Board elects to approve the preliminary plan as presented, the Staff recommends the following conditions of approval : ( 1 ) Submit payment in lieu of dedication of recreation/open space ( $341 .00 ) . (2) Lot 11 will need an easement or ownership of area south of the creek on Lot 12 for septic tank disposal . Best asked if approval could be granted adding a third condition that Dal -Rae Forest Road be designated as a public road . Crudup responded that would require substantial changes to the plat with the shifting of lot lines . MOTION : Best moved denial of Dal -Rae Forest as recommended by Planning Staff . Seconded by Pilkey. Jacobs asked for clarification of the Planning Staff private road evaluation regarding the statement that the subdivision does not preserve a natural area. Crudup explained that this was due to a different interpretation of a natural area. She noted that the applicant' s point was true in regard to tree preservation . Yuhasz asked about the short curve. Alois Callemyn, Surveyor, stated that the road had been designed by NCDOT employees and indicated it should meet NCDOT standards. Callemyn continued that the reason for the particular design of the road was to fit an existing ridge to allow drainage on both sides of the road and would provide the necessary sight distance. Callemyn indicated the developers and prospective buyers much prefer the privacy of a private road and are willing to maintain it as such . He noted that the developer is in agreement with the other Planning Staff conditions. He indicated that restrictive DRAFT 40 29. covenants would be recorded that would allow for very low-key development and the ten-acre tracts would remain as ten-acre tracts. Callemyn explained that to provide for a state road would require extensive cutting back of trees for a sixty foot right-of-way plus more for a power easement which must run on the edge of the right-of-way. With a private road, the power lines would run along the shoulder of the road . Yuhasz stated that he felt that no good purpose would be served by requiring a public road. Best stated that he felt good cause was not shown for a private road and indicated that eventually owners would want the road paved. Pilkey asked how far this subdivision is from Carrboro' s Jurisdiction . Crudup responded that it is in the Rural Buffer and did require courtesy review from Carrboro. Eddleman indicated he felt the minimum lot size was inconsistent with the surrounding area since that immediately surrounding this subdivision is all ten-acre tracts . Yuhasz indicated that he felt another private road was suitable as the majority of the other roads in the area were private roads . Best noted again that a public road was the standard and a private road is the exception and that he felt this subdivision did not show good cause for a private road . VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed (Yuhasz, Lewis, Swann - all felt a private road was suitable for this subdivision ) . 2. Woodstone Subdivision (Withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the applicant) . 3 . Rams Woods Cluster Subdivision (7 Lots - Chapel Hill Township ) Presentation by Emily Crudup. The proposed location of Ram' s Woods is 15 acres at the end of Crossroads Church Cemetery Road ( SR 1131 ) in the extreme northwest corner of Chapel Hill O R A N G E C O U N T Y Q30 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 5, 19$7 Action nda Item �--_ SUBJECT: RAM'S WOODS ACTION BY: November 10, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Site Analysis Preliminary Plan Certification Ram ' s Woods Cluster Narrative Staff Findings Private Road Justification Staff Private Road Evaluation Draft Planning Board Minutes, 9-21 -87 TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of the preliminary proposed cluster subdivision . plan for Ram' s Woods, a BACKGROUND: The proposed location of Ram' s Woods is 15 acres at the end of Crossroads Church Cemetery Road (SR 1131 ) in the extreme northwest corner of Chapel Hill Township. The property is zoned Residential -1 and designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan. Seven lots are proposed surrounded by 6 .94 acres of common open space. The average lot size is 0 .91 acre. The appli - cant has proposed that the lots will be served by a Class A private road . Six lots will use common nitrification fields located in the shared open space for septic tank disposal . Lot #7 will include an individual drain field . All agencies have reviewed Ram' s Woods. NCDOT has commented that Ram' s Way may be approved as a private road. It should not be considered an extension of SR 1131 because the hori - zontal alignment of the two roads does not produce a smooth transition curve. ' 081 The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on this proposal . The Planning Board recommends approval of Ram' s Woods with the following conditions: ( 1 ) Dedicate Ram' s Way as a public road to be constructed to State standards. (2) Provide restrictive covenants for review by the County Attorney . (3) Revise the vicinity map to show the location of the subdivision and the road names . (4) Provide a separate plan which indicates all the required recreation improvements (0 .42 acre) . (5) Increase lot #7 in size to provide 0.92 acres ( 40,000 sq. ft. ) , since it will be dependent upon its own on- site wastewater disposal system. RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends approval of the application as recommended by the Planning Board with the amendment of condition ( 1 ) as follows : ( 1 ) Dedicate Ram' s Way as a public road designed and constructed to State standards . a PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) 6/E7 APPI IA 7- I •N F R c'' I V i c. N A.PPR P.! DRANGy OOUNTY r_ ., . ,,�� DATE: SUBDIVISION NAME: ,f/19/) �L Y ' /.----- L OCAT I ON: cam" {"," ;. 1 l'"'e--_rr r—f . (2-'JT'•" "/ /"L //�' ",' A OWNER/DEVELOPER: -.71-i-77,2,---- lc-////7S , KeZ-7-1- ca- /9. f�< / ',.-1v''''%%/Q' ADDRESS: Qf isc&--•- y' F TELEPHONE NO. : -- -7"/- a' 1)---:- A" //S /�,e,..--a Ks AGENT/CONTACT: /94,,� filer/(4-0-%■ TELEPHONE NO. : 7? � - - S!9y_ A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map .)/ Block -- Lot(s) 3& Township 7 Zoning Distrlct( s) : CES1 /UT14L- I Total Number of Acres: ---s-- .dr-e— Phases: Total Number of Lots: 7 Average Lot Size: . ? _Minimum Lot Size . Z Number/Type of Structures; ( existing) MMOK1s✓ ( proposed). Lineal Feet in Streets: P5' `I Acres in Open Space . r. 94/ Water Supply: Public (specify) Community Individual Wastewater Disposal : Public( specify) Community, ' Individual School District: ocA 4'F_ coual-r-( Fire District: General Land Uses 1 n Area: .e.--" r'' //.. ...-- - <<-- ', . - -`f Critical Areas: 451 streem/dreinaoeweys flood prone areas watershed (specify) historic sites other (explain) _ B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet ( 1"=200' ) and no larger than one inch equals fifty feet ( 1 "-50' ) and must contain the followin--gff information: .,::::„0::.tisubdivision neme •+! :' : building setback lines +� :;yn• eme of owner(s) by notation or typical lot :::.:: name of surveyor, — � . • layout engineer or land _ :▪ ::;: existing end proposed dienner ebsements (drainage. :: :•. (title) Prellminery _ 4-• utilities, roods, etc.) ' Plan .-'.l-::: existing. proposed and "Y•::::: scale, north error adjoining rights-of-way `/ (North at top of map) Including dimensions end `'-:: date ( including�� •.wrr: 9 street names and state revision Oates) �i road numbers• ;: :: township, tax map- ,i__ : : existing end proposed �.l_.,j block-lot references utilities Including type, ::. .::: boundary described sizes, hydrants. valves }.:.x.: with bearings end h� :.. manholes J d• istances : ;: existing and proposed : :; total acreage of the culvert Including sizes T• ract one acreage of and graces O lots, Including and Y- -:•,{: typical street Cross- -":'=:'' excluding area within sections and Intersection W m rl g hts-gf-wa y details including oeslgn 7 f .:;`.. control corner • and width of 1 way ::a : proposed lot lines ::: end shoulders • witn dimensions horizontal alignment end E v J :'' ' lot numbers—. E general curve dere (public d) _ N : • phasing lines roads) a'• I tope ra h at Ten foot 1/".;:x.: — p •: :; 9 p Y : permanent features Such as -`-t�� (ID) Intervals ""'' buildings, Cemeteries, v s- �� :: 9l: bodies, streams. ':::_: `.- historic landmarks i r� floodwey end flood- ::_VV- . edjolning lot layout names plelns of adjoining properly • N :: stream buffers end owners end subdivisions G d notation indicating " " E• L restricted development ����� potential :• k:: townshlp, corporate end extra-territorial planning Jurlsdlc- x :' t• ion lines which cross the property U : location end size of percels dedicated for W f0 public use or s --�y��(.� reserved In common V ___ lit. location end size of lots of restricted development potent i e l ✓ ' and notetlon on plat reperding same ;; :; 5tormweter menegement plan Indicating provision for control ::.;.x.:...: of the first 1/2 inch of runoff from Impervious surfaces please complete reverse side 033 C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1 . Twenty-seven ( 27 ) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. Two full size copies of an Oranoe County Tax map ( one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked) . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each lot. I , the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a $105 .00 fee ( subdivisions of 1 -5 lots) , $210 . 00 fee ( subdivision of 6-9 lots) , $315 . 00 fee ( sub- divisions of 10-25 lots) or a $420 . 00 fee ( subdivisions of 26 lots or more) is due at the time of application . A $5 . 00 per lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation . 9e,„eg., ();2 A LICANT' S3SIGNATURE OW RIS SIGN TURF �'3 �� �7 7-3/ - g7 DATE DATE FEES : Amount 42-10'00 Date • Paid 7'31 -$ 1 Receipt k 417-) NO2rN K Q M �S W 0 �..� . , 075. PeoPECTY w �' OK JArlEs Cau5 iQEBE�e-A ALTS H7 9863 Mai nlor zoNIA.1 : E.ESIPeArnAL 1 To 5C+41.-iE 4•U•P. ; QOELL. eesipeArnAL ' O CI I P/0 3A m (h il` q Z ■ ` SEE HILLS TWP 3 E ` 'P 47-B-5C p` SEE HILLS. TWP. 16.27 AC- 6703 € i:G �1 V, 47.B. 15 01' O 12.7 AC. ■ or ED 0614 {.►ILL.-'5 f5oeo O- ' 2419 TOW - ,1 Cr4APl L MILL r.,wA sal P `1 s¢gr4P5 HQ' - I1 _ _ ___ o zones 1 4 0122 4 2.86 AC 11 IA 3B c-.),.-. \\ 0136 _ ,a ■ 1 2 A*1 272 AC �p 30 \W No 40.63 AC. 3.77 AC\ r „, 1001 5052 t� 111 � s rESS£ Mouse +o-�I . Ft/w 37v16q/ a : D KE po,NER 1653 �C/ 5 AC. I "EMPr • i� 61----aaAO BAPTIST mai m 66.73 AC. ------/----- 9233 Q . IJI -.121. 18`•66 AG C C 91 • SEE MAP IA • CLEM JOHNSON I i 36 3°2. 6 28 1 0937 I 08 47 AC. -- 0 I 1 ,05 Ac. •L ft 035' RAM' S WOODS 11 /85 ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS -- PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Crudup SKETCH PLAN: Received 6-9-87 Reviewed 6-11-87 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 7-16-87 Reviewed 7-23-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 7-31-87 Reviewed 8-5-87 NCDOT: DATE 8-31-87 CERTIFICATION J. M. Mills, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 8-21-87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE Certification OTHER : Recreation Advisory Council (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough _(Date) Durham Other - Health Ron Holdwa (Date) y 9- -87 (Date) S & E W. Faircloth 9-8-87 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date 9-21 -87 Approval Approval with Conditions X Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial ,144* • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN September 1, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Ram's Woods Off. SR 1131 (Crossroads Church Cemetery Road) Dear Ms. Crudup: This is to advise the subject preliminary plan is approved as a private road. It is recommended the property line follow the dedicated right-of-way line on SR 1131. This road appears to meet- the minimum horizontal alignment standards for subdivision roads and, therefore, may be designed as a State maintained road. However, it is not recommended that this road be an extension of SR 1131 as the alignment on both roads cannot satisfactorily tie in to form a smooth transition curve. This office will not recommend as to whether the road should be public or private. We will review the plans based upon the developer's decision on the road's status. If you have any questions, please advise. Yours very truly, JMM/SPI:jbh M. Mills, P. E. DISTRICT ENGINEER An Eoual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer D37ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 e -1vi1 _ w •• tit coo MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner II FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Ram 's Woods DATE : September 8, 1987 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements by using large lots, limited additional impervious surfaces on each lot, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perim- eter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff . 038 RAM'S Woods Cluster Development Subdivision RAM'S Woods Cluster Development Subdivision is located on 15 acres in a rural area of Chapel Hill Township Orange County North Carolina. Common areas are 46 percent of the total acreage. The immediate vicinity consists of undeveloped areas and single family homes, most of which are built on tracts of one acre or more. On the east RAM'S Woods abuts the Crossroads Baptist Church Cemetary and state road 1131. To the south is a Duke Power right of way and the property of Florence Garland (undeveloped) . The property of Jesse House (undeveloped) borders the west boundary of RAM'S Woods. Reddy Woods subdivision lies along the north boundary of the proposed cluster housing subdivision. Nine of the ten lots in Reddy Woods subdivision are owned by James J. Collins and Rebecca A. , McDiarmid--the applicants for approval of the cluster development that is the subject of this application. Mr. Collins and Ms.McDiarmid have lived on lot 8 of Reddy Woods since 1979 and plan to continue to reside there. They are therefore interested in maintaining the quality and stability of the area for single family middle and upper middle class housing. SUBDIVISION COVENANTS A master covenants agreement will be drawn up and recorded simultaneously with the subdivision plat. This document will spell out the subdivision restrictions and it will detail the obligations of lot owners for the maintenance of the road, the nitrification fields, the developed recreational areas, and other subdivision common areas. Each lot owner will be obligated to participate in costs of maintaining the road, the developed recreational areas, and other common areas. The lot 7 owner will be excused from maintenance of the nitrification fields because that lot will employ a gravity flow waste water system entirely within the boundaries of that lot. Additional land use limitations are indicated on the Preliminary Plan and are discussed later in this document. 039 SLOPE No slope in RAM'S Woods is greater than seven and one-half percent. VEGETATION AND TREES The 15 acres that constitute RAM'S Woods are covered with mature trees, most of which are hardwoods. Included are oaks, hickory, sweeet gum, poplar,and maple. Flowering dogwood and red bud trees are plentiful . Mature and young pine and cedar trees are interspersed throughout the hardwood forest. Forest floor vegetation is indigenous to the area. As indicated on the Preliminary Plan, lot owners will be prevented from removing trees from the shaded areas on the lots. Common area trees will be kept in tact except as necessary to develop improved recreational areas. The goal will be to retain as many trees on lot and common areas as is possible. DRAINAGE The Preliminary Plan locates a drainage area toward the rear of lots 4 and 5 and notes the drainage easement that will apply. Also drainage from RAM'S WAY will be directed down the line between lots 4 and 5 to drain east. FLOODPLAIN Not applicable. SIGNIFICANT ROCK OUTCROPPINGS Not applicable. SIGNIFICANT SCENIC VISTAS Not applicable. ,040 SOILS LIMITED FOR WATER SITES Nitrification fields shown on the Preliminary Plan will be reserved for the exclusive use of lots 1 through 6 as indicated.. Each of these lots will have a dedicated nitrification field in compliance with the requirements of the Orange County Health Department. As much as possible nitrification fields will be kept in their natural state. Lot 7 will employ a gravity flow waste water system completely within the boundaries of that lot. This plan has been discussed and approved in a preliminary way by the Orange County Health Department. The subdivision covenants will require that each lot owner will be obligated to maintain nitrification fields in the cases of lots 1 through 6 and the gravity flow system in the case of lot 7. PLAN FOR WATER AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT Individual wells will serve each lot. Waste water will be pumped to the nitrification fields for lots 1 through 6. These fields will be staked out and dedicated in consultation with the Orange County Health Department after which a plan will be formalized. These plans have already been discussed with the Health Department. Lot 7 will use a gravity flow waste water system in compliance with Health Department requirements. PLAN FOR IMPROVED RECREATIONAL AREAS Improved recreational areas will contain a minimum of .42 acres. Improved recreational areas will not be located on nitrification fields. A jogging trail will circle the boundary of RAM'S Woods just inside its boundaries. Two exercise stations will be installed along the jogging trail with equiptment to permit stretching and strength exercises. The approximate length of the jogging trail will be 0.4 miles. The jogging trail and exercise stations will include approximately 15,000 square feet. A basketball court will be installed in the common area in the west 041. section of the common area. The basketball court will include approximately 2,500 square feet. A horseshoe pit will be installed in the common area adjacent to SR 1131. All lots will have direct access to the developed recreational areas. Developed recreational areas will be maintained collectively by lot owners as detailed in the subdivision covenants. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PLAN TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIORNMENT The 15 acres on which the proposed cluster subdivision is sought could have been developed for as many as 13 lots. Instead 7 lots are proposed. The cluster development plan has been designed to minimize impact to the natural enviornment and to develop a small community that will be attractive and will encourage resident's feeling of community and pride in the attractiveness of surroundings. The natural enviornment will be disturbed as little as possible. All residents will have access to shared greenways. Developed recreational areas will enhance the value of the subdivision for pleasant and healthful outdoor activities that are compatible with the natural enviornment. FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 09 PERTAINING TO RAM' S WOODS Q IIERIA ELUDING IV-B-10-b Application Criteria a) The tract is a minimum of 400,000 a) The tract is 653,400 square square feet for the AR district, feet, 453,400 more than the 200,000 square feet for the R-1 minimum required. districts and 80, 000 square feet for all other districts. b ) Approved water supply and b) Each lot wi l l be served by wastewater treatment systems are individual wells to be approved available and each lot is served by by the Orange County Health separate water supply and sewerage Department. Individual septic connections. tanks for lots 1-6 will he pumped to common nitrification fields. c) The total number of lots proposed Lot #7 will have an individual for the tract, excluding parcels of gravity flow disposal system. reserved recreation/open space, is Permits for these systems will be not greater than the number issued based on the approval of determined by dividing the gross the Orange County Health Dept. land area, excluding public road c) Gross land area = 15.00 acres rights-of-way, by the minimum lot size requirements for the zoning Total acreage in d i s t r i c t established 1 n the Orang public( is road R/W - 1 .16 County Zoning Ordinance. In the - 13.B4 areas of Orange County not zoned, the minimum lot size requirement Residential -1 minimum lot size = 40,000 sq. ft. (0.918 ac. ) shall be forty thousand (40,000 ) square feet. Maximum number of lots permitted 13.84 . 0.918 = 15 lots d ) The recreation/open space reserved Preliminary plan proposes 7 lots within the tract conforms with the d) Public recreation required by recreation and open space standards IV-B-7-b-2 (Not appl icable) established in Section IV-B-7-b. Minimum required recreation space I V-B-7-b (Article 5. 1 . 1 and 6. 12) R-1 .028 x 15.00 acres = 2. Dimensional Requirements 0.42 acres The preliminary plan does not If the application of the show all the required recreation provisions of Article 5 . 1 . 1 improvements. The cluster (Requ i red Minimum Recreation narrative describes how 0.42 Space Ratio) and Article 6. 12 acres wi 11 be provided. A plan (Land Use Intensity System) showing the improvements will be of the Orange County Zoning required for final plat approval . Ordinance results in a greater amount of land, then the difference between the application of the standards above and those of Article 2 t)43 �. 5 . 1 . 1 and Article 6. 12 shall be established as private recreation for the use of the residents of the development. 3. Site Suitability Land provided or dedicated for passive recreation and open space purposes shall be of a character, slope and location suitable for use for walking, Jogging, reading and similar quiet activities, and the preservation of natural features and cultural resources such as steep slopes, rock outcrops, native plant life and wildlife cover, mature woodlands and water resources. Criteria for evaluating the suitability of proposed recreation areas shall include but not be limited to the following : a. LQQatiQa, Land dedicated a. Location - The land set aside for recreation purposes - for recreation is part of the sha l I be located so as to open space system which surrounds serve the needs of the the lots. It is equally accessi - immed iate residents of the ble to all lots. The slopes are subdivision . Recreation less than 7.5% and the area pre- areas sha l I be centrally serves mature forest. located so as to provide, insofar as possible, equal accessibility to all residents of the subdivision ; provided, however, recreation areas may be approved in other locations where land more suited for recreational purposes due to shape, level slopes and/or dry soil conditions is present. Where proposed park sites are shown on the adopted Land Use Plan, and a subdivision contains a portion of the park site, then the recreation area may be located at the edge of the subdivision so 3 044 that additional land may be added as adjacent land' is subdivided. b. Ua1tt: Land dedicated b. Unity - The improved recreation for recreation purposes area is part of the continuous shal I be a single parcel open space system which unifies except where it is it with all the common area. determined that two (2 ) or more parcels are suited to the needs of a particular subdivision . The Planning Board may recommend, and the Board of Commissioners may require, the dedication of a connecting path in addition to the land required in Section IV-B-7-b-2 of this Ordinance. Where a connecting path is necessary, a path of up to fifty (50 ) feet in width may be required, but in no case shall the path be less than thirty (30 ) feet in width. C. 6aceaaltilil = Land c. Access i b i 1 ity - Because it is dedicated for recreational - part of the open space system, purposes shal I have at the recreation area is equally least fifty (50 ) feet of accessible to all residents. frontage on at least one In addition it has over 100 ( 1 ) street within the feet of road frontage, more subdivision. than the minimum required. 4. Site Improvements Private recreation faci I i- The preliminary plan does not ties, either required or provide the required 0.42 acres of provided at the option of the improved recreation space. A new applicant, shal I meet the plan showing compliance with standards for improvements : Section IV-B-7-b has been recommended as a condition of approval . Half-court basketball , Jogging trail , exercise stations, horseshoes. Half-court basketball should be at least 56 'x47 ' including 5 ' of unobstructed space on all sides. Horseshoes 240 sq . ft. , 6 ' square pitchers box. Steel 4 045 stakes 1 " diameter, 14" above ground, spaced 401 apart. Long axis north-south. r 5. MIthQ __Qf_Eroxs lign_gJ=.Algd_L Q&t1.QII Land dedicated for public Refer to page one of Staff Findings. recreation area as required Under Section IV-B-7-b-2, if appli- by this Ordinance sha l l be cation of Articles 5. 1 . 1 and 6. 12 of designated on both the pre- the Zoning Ordinance is used to I iminary and final plat( s ) of determine the amount of land, it the subdivision and must be shall be established as private dedicated to an appropriate recreation for the use of the resi- un i t of local government. dents of the development. e. The minimum amount of land reserved Sum of all reductions in minimum as recreation/open space shal I be lot area the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area as a result of the 0.522 acre = sum of all reductions cluster form of development and/or 6.94 acres of open space is the minimum recreation/open space proposed. required in Section IV-B-7-b, whichever is greater. IV-B-10--c Reductions in Lot and Setback Requirements For lots created as part of a cluster development minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements specified in Section 4. 1 .2 may be reduced as follows : a. Minimum lot area requirements may 5 of the total 7 lots have been be reduced by fifty percent (50% ) reduced an average of 11 .5%. but shall be no smaller than 5000 square feet. b. Minimum lot width requirements may Lot widths meet the minimum be reduced by twenty percent (20% ) , requirements. but shall be no less than fifty (50 ) feet. c. Minimum front setback requirements Front setbacks have not been may be reduced by twenty-five reduced. percent (25% ) except where the front lot line forms an exterior boundary of the cluster develop- ment. d. Minimum rear and side setback Rear and side setbacks have not requirements may be reduced to ten been reduced. ( 10 ) feet except where the rear or side lot line forms an exterior No lot lines form an outside boundary of the subdivision. 5 046 boundary of the cluster development. IV-B-10-e Approval of Preliminary Plan a. Individual lots, buildings and The layout of the subdivision streets sha l I be designed and takes existing topography into situated to minimize alteration of consideration. the natural site features to be preserved. b. The usab i l i ty of cluster Open space/recreation area is open/recreation space shal I be located and designed to be determined by the size, shape, usable to all lots in the topographic and location subdivision. requirements specified in Section IV-B-7-b. c. Cluster open space sha l l include Mature woodlands and drainage irreplaceable natural features such areas are preserved by the open as, but not limited to, streams, space area. significant stands of trees, individual trees of significant size and/or species, uncommon plant communities, wildlife habitats and rock outcroppings. d. Cluster recreation space shal I be Open space and recreation areas easily accessible to pedestrians, are connected by the jogging including the handicapped. -trail which is also accessible from Ram's Way. e. The suitability of cluster open space intended for scenic value The most significant natural sha l l be determined by its features on the site are preserved visibility from adjoining by the open space area layout. properties and streets and shall seek to lessen the area devoted to motor vehicle access . f . Diversity and originality in lot The layout allows all lots direct layout sha l I be encouraged to access to open space areas. achieve the best possible relationship between the land and the development. g. Up to one-fourth of the land with There are no slopes over 15%. slopes greater than fifteen percent ( 15%) may be removed or altered only when such slopes are small and isolated and do not otherwise adversely affect the design of the development. h. At least twenty percent of the 46% of the gross land area is gross land area is designated as designated open space. common open space. 047 JUSTIFICATION FOR A PRIVATE ROAD IN RAM'S WOODS The character of the subdivision and the location of RAM'S Woods make it preferable that a private road serve the subdivision. • the secluded nature of the subdivision at the final ending of state road 1131 (a gravel road) suggests a private road is appropriate; • because the subdivision is bounded on three other sides by a cemetary, a power line right of way, undeveloped land, and a small 10 lot) subdivision, a private road is consistent with the setting; • the subdivision will include a large percentage (46 percent) of common area maintained under covenants by the lot owners. A pri vate road is more consistent with this arrangement than a public road would be; • the subdivision owners plan to minimize public access to the sub- sivision; • as shown by the accompanying photographs, the proposed road is not a continuation of SR 1131, but comes off this road at approx- imately a 75 degree angle; • the area immediately adjacent to the end of state road maintenance has been been served for many years by private access to the Crosswords Baptist Church Cemetary; • the subdivision plan to maximize retention of the mature forest is more consistent with a private than a public road; • there have been numerous burglaries in the area of the proposed subdivision. The applicants for this approval live in the area and their home has been burglarized four times in the last five years; A public road would decrease safety from crime in the area by increasing public access to private homes. In addition, the proposed road and subdivision plan meets conditions set forth in Orange County's private road criteria in section IV-B-3-d. Namely: 4 A. The subdivision consists of seven lots. B. The subdivision preserves a natural area through deed restrictions and special design conditions. C. The subdivision does not embrace or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan and does not lie within a designated transition area. D. This condition does not apply th the proposed subdivision. E. This condition does not apply to the proposed subdivision. In summary because of the characteristics of the area, the nature of the subdivision, past private access to the area, crime safety, and consistency of a private road with county regulations, the RAM'S Woods subdivision should be served by a private road. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 049 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 0 MEMQBAKUM TO: Orange County Planning Board FROM: Orange County Planning Department SUBJECT: Ram ' s Woods - Preliminary Plan Private Road Evaluation DATE : September 11 , 1987 BACKGROUND Private roads may be allowed in a subdivision when the following conditions have been found to exist. 1 . The nature and location of the subdivision, includ- ing such considerations as topography, the surrounding area, present and future road plans, and public safety access Justify private roads, and 2. One or more of the following conditions exist: a) the subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10 ) lots; b ) the subdivision preserves a natural area through deed restriction and special design features; c) the subdivision does not include or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan or the thoroughfare plan of an Orange County munici- pality, or does not lie within a designated transition area determined by the County; d ) the subdivision joins or extends an existing subdivision where the streets are private or unpaved and when 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 area; and e) the subdivision roads, even if constructed to 2050 State Standards, would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or some other State requirements that the subdivision cannot meet. EVALUATION In applying these conditions to Ram ' s Woods, the Planning Department notes the following : 1 . The proposed subdivision is located adjacent to the right of way of SR 1131 which is unpaved. However, NCDOT has commented that the road should not be considered as an extension of the State road. 2. a) The subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10 ) lots. b ) The subdivision preserves a natural area through a system of common open space as a feature of the cluster design . c) The subdivision does not include or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan or on the thoroughfare plan of an Orange County munici- pality. It does not lie within a designated transition area determined by the County. d ) The subdivision does not extend an existing subdivision where the road is private or unpaved. However, access to Ram ' s Woods is via an unpaved State road. The proposed road is not an extension of SR 1131 . e) If constructed to State standards, the road would be accepted for maintenance by NCDOT. RECOMMENDATION The evaluation of the proposed road in this subdivision indicates that a public road should be required. The subdivision satisfies three of the six conditions for the designation of a private road. The nature and location of the subdivision does not in itself Justify private road status. The subdivision does not meet condition d, extension of an existing subdivision, and condition e, NCDOT acceptance. NCDOT density requirements for acceptance call for at least four (4) developed parcels on a cul -de-sac. When fully developed, this subdivision will have seven (7 ) developed parcels. The Planning Staff recommends that Ram ' s Way be dedi- cated public and constructed to State standards. DRAFT 1D51 4 covenants would be recorded that would allow for very low-key development and the ten-acre tracts would remain as ten-acre tracts . Callemyn explained that to provide for a state road would require extensive cutting back of trees for a sixty foot right-of-way plus more for a power easement which must run on the edge of the right-of-way. With a private road, the power lines would run along the shoulder of the road . Yuhasz stated that he felt that no good purpose would be served by requiring a public road . Best stated that he felt good cause was not shown for a private road and indicated that eventually owners would want the road paved. Pilkey asked how far this subdivision is from Carrboro' s jurisdiction . Crudup responded that it is in the Rural Buffer and did require courtesy review from Carrboro. Eddleman indicated he felt the minimum lot size was inconsistent with the surrounding area since that immediately surrounding this subdivision is all ten-acre tracts. Yuhasz indicated that he felt another private road was suitable as the majority of the other roads in the area were private roads . Best noted again that a public road was the standard and a private road is the exception and that he felt this subdivision did not show good cause for a private road . VOTE : 8 in favor . 3 opposed (Yuhasz, Lewis, Swann - all felt a private road was suitable for this subdivision ) . 2. Woodstone Subdivision (Withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the applicant) . 3 . Rams Woods Cluster Subdivision (7 Lots - Chapel Hill Township ) Presentation by Emily Crudup. The proposed location of Ram' s Woods is 15 acres at the end of Crossroads Church Cemetery Road (SR 1131 ) in the extreme northwest corner of Chapel Hill DcmcmFT 5 V r Township. The property is zoned Residential -1 and designated as Rural Residential on the Land Use Plan . Seven lots are proposed surrounded by 6 . 94 acres of common open space. The average lot size is 0 .91 acre. The appli - cant has proposed that the lots will be served by a Class A private road. Six lots will use common nitrification fields located in the shared open space for septic tank disposal . Lot #7 will include an individual drain field . All agencies have reviewed Ram's Woods . NCDOT has commented that Ram ' s Way may be approved as a private road. It should not be considered an extension of SR 1131 because the horizontal alignment of the two roads does not produce a smooth transition curve. The Planning Staff recommends approval of Ram ' s Woods with the following conditions : ( 1 ) Dedicate Ram' s Way as a public road to be constructed to State standards . * (2) Provide restrictive covenants for review by the County Attorney. (3 ) Revise the vicinity map to show the location of the subdivision and the road names . (4) Provide a separate plan which indicates all the required recreation improvements (0 .42 acre) . (5) Increase lot #7 in size to provide 0.92 acres (40, 000 sq . ft. ) , since it will be dependent upon its own on- site wastewater disposal system. If the Planning Board elects to approve the preliminary plan with a Class A private road, move the western property line shown at the centerline of SR 1131 to the eastern edge of the right-of-way. Yuhasz asked the purpose of the condition that the restrictive covenants be provided for review by the County Attorney . Crudup re- sponded that the Board of Commissioners wanted restrictive covenants for clusters to insure DRAFT 6 maintenance of the open space. Yuhasz asked 053- if there was authority in the Subdivision Regulations to require road names . Crudup responded that it is not on the checklist but that it is a request of the Board of Commissioners . Jacobs noted that a condition did not have to be a requirement of the regulations . MOTION : Best moved approval with the five conditions as recommended by Planning Staff . Seconded by Kramer . Yuhasz noted that with the clustering the density is lower than that which is allowed and he felt a private road was adequate. Jacobs asked if Crossroads Church Cemetery Road could be aligned so that Ram ' s Way would be a reasonable extension . Alois Callemyn, Surveyor, stated that it would be extremely difficult to align the roads due to the existing right-of-way which should be main- tained for cemetery access. Rebecca McDiarmid, owner , stated that she felt the area would be safer with a private road . She indicated it is a very short road and the area in front of the subdivision is all wooded . Eddleman asked Ms. McDiarmid if she would consider a lower density in order to have a private road . Ms . McDiarmid indicated she felt this question was taken care of by clustering. VOTE: 6 in favor . 5 opposed (Lewis, Swann , Jacobs, Margison, Yuhasz - all felt that a private road would be adequate for this subdivision ) . 4 . Sykes Glen Subdivision (9 Lots - Bingham Township) Presentation by Emily Crudup. This 120.332 acre tract is located in western Bingham Township on both sides of Oak Grove Church Road (SR 1117 ) north of the fork where Vernon Road ( SR 1118 ) joins Oak Grove Church Road. The tract is zoned Agricultural -Residential and Protected Watershed II (Cane Creek ) . The 42 .3 acre portion of the tract on the west side of SR 1117 is being subdivided into nine lots which average 4 . 5 acres in O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS n ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 0 54., Meeting Date October 5, 1987 Action enda Item SUBJECT: SYKES GLEN - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: November 10, 1987 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes ^x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Preliminary Plan Certification Agency Comments Rationale for a Private Road at Sykes Glen Staff Private Road Evaluation Draft Planning Board Minutes, 9-21 -87 TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of the preliminary plan of Sykes Glen . BACKGROUND: This 120 .332 acre tract is located in western Bingham Town- ship on both sides of Oak Grove Church Road ( SR 1117 ) north of the fork where Vernon Road (SR 1118) joins Oak Grove Church Road. The tract is zoned Agricultural -Residential and Protected Watershed II (Cane Creek) . The 42.3 acre portion of the tract on the west side of SR 1117 is being subdivided into nine lots which average 4 .5 acres in size. The applicant has indicated on the preliminary plan that the lots will be served by a Class B private road . All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan of Sykes Glen. NCDOT has requested realignment of the entrance and clearing to improve the sight distance at Oak Grove Church Road . The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on this proposal . The Planning Board recommends approval of Sykes Glen with a Class B private road and with the following conditions : ( 1 ) Provide a copy of the restrictive covenants for review 055 by the County Attorney to insure that a condition is included to prohibit further subdivision of the proposed nine lots . (2) Realign the entrance and clear for the sight distance as per NCDOT recommendation. (3) Access to Sykes Glen Trail should be restricted to only the nine lots in the subdivision . RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends approval of the application as recommended by the Planning Board. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ( INK ONLY) 11/85 - 055 AP,r_CATION_ Faa sueaIL?sT4N APOAOVAL ORANGE COUNTY (714 \ OATS: - . ? ;, n SUBDIVISION NAME: Sk.a k.,ra (. L r ps� it") d LOCATION: ? 11 I l c' AI'S 6-57).4. C h.AAtc.t. Z3 OWNER/DEVELOPER.:. ALEN NI e i,\Ira . S1p,r` r S • l .)AROL1µ 4- \,4I Fire-.) I_..Su7)E-1-% ADDRESS: s- PA L L1rF� M.--to I TELEPHONE NC. : ,,P1�''�1 �vlr-_k.i37 • tv ft L,r c t 3rAr.4- ) \it. 345 (.1 AGENT/CONTACT: n� %CMSL_c. mt --- TELEPHONE NO . :(q,q) 133 1179 1c ;L, 0 ,e +,r,Ti7D -41; ••• •::„1- CSR P t-L_ tie,_ ,t4-C,,.. ..2-1 -1.-1, A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map .. . Black Latta) .9.- Townshi �►�c.�.aanc. Zoning Districts) : _ Age?c �c_ri10 LZF ; 17Fftk IT►/AL, / PLY v Total Number of Acres •`t - hol_c_- 0 o •, Phases: , . Tota L. Number of Lots: Average Lot Si z � �- Minimum Lot Size . / c.S Number/Type- of Structures: (existing) 741" (proposed), - Lineal Feet in treets: ..- i&ab i-PAcres in Open Space Water Supp Ly: \4�1l (s') Pub li e(speel fy) Community Individual. Wastewater Oi sposa,l: -rim, _ Pub Li c(speci fy) Cammun i AI Individual. Schap L Di st.ri ct:: Fi re District: Ant Crc.ci_ General Land Uses in Areal nc 1S Frvi-i 1.cS•dkrr�c 'Kua.AL (Ad R.L.,,s.+wr� CriticaL. Areas: streear/drainatieways 6 f Load pron§ areas FW1 A e azsEtwate rshadtepecify) 4/6- historic sites other(expLaird_ -.'---- B. ALL p..Lata must be submitted on sheet no smatter than one inch aqua Ls two— hundred feet (1 '1=200 ' 1 and. no larger then one inch aqua Ls fifty feet (1w=501 ) and must contain the following information : •• snadlwisian nap .0 building setback lines A name of awmsr(s) �iii;�y by notation or typical let 'neck 1 terns name• of surveyor, engineer or i•{:''• Layout Land planner '.. c 'slating and 3mpleted) P.' ttisLml Preliminary tah d Proposed srra- s. :s y .:3:•%- manta (drainage. utilities, ebale. north arrow (Morse at roads.. etc.) { top of seal i .ff: stlatinq, proposed and - - data (including revision antes; adjoining rights—of—way .,.�. =-4 v township, tax map-.block—tot : including dimensions and : . references a�{'� strains noses and road �. ---••• boundary described with numbers • St bearings and dintenoas sainting and proposed tatal scrooge of tom trues ■ • utilities, including and serengw of lets, includia 9 type. ■izmm, c:• and excluding area within J hydrants. valves and ' :. ::e righsa■of�sy amino les —.,. i, • control garner sainting and proposed culvert •^ % Proposed Let lines with la4 including sizes and gradms .j' :-' dimlaione c%4 typical street eroes—esgtion■ • lot cumbers- �. . �; sad into ramction dotal Ls phasing lines �.' including design and width tepogrepny it tee foot (101 .. of traveleey and shoulders :: r:, lmtar7r La ee ri J. s Ligament and - . ,z- meter bodies. streams, flood. �. r garter-al ourva data (public ' roads( esy and f LOOap lei na :fi5 S` . ='• • stream buffers and notation �. perwrnent features such ae ^..• 'indicating rictad .•::v::• bpi Ldin r : . development :.:•' o camstarlea. petantirL 4"y hlatorib 1 - •cf_r tomoebic. aarporsta and ewers.. __ adjoining tot layout ' territorial planning - names of adjoining property jurisdiction lines which *gnome and subdivisions Cross the property • ,,;,;,k Location Sod site of parcels dedicated for public use or roger-red "•:: in common ...,.. Location and aiza of lots of restricted development patentlel Sad g:'; antenna on plat regarding same atareester sanageeant plan indicating provision for control of the float 1/2 inch of runoff f.oe t.oarviaua aureaces 0.57 Z. OTHER SUBMITTAL REWJIRENENTS: 1 . Twenty—six (25] copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map (one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked] . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available , a lettar from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each lot. the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand- that a $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 15 lots or Leas] ar a $370.00 fee (subdivisions of Ilots or more] is due at the time of app Lication . A $5.00 per lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation . • ' If/ APPL.I 'S SIGNATURE X -� :�. �_w.� � 011fNE- S -IGNA URE ATE DATE - • FEES: Amount 2 ) O.00Oate Paid - `3 ( 7 Rece ipt 1+g3-75 • , 0 0 O s 5iK5 L i N. on � s P oPF�TY OF COLENN 5-(Ke5 E CdC.OLYAJ L.1 Ai LE Zti1IAq : Ae/PW7c --L . .. o 820,000 20 40 NoeTN ! P AZT To .5Gr4l 7$ .03 ACfE5 IFf I erAllll(CI .\ 1 .Yr*°° P.P 042.3 QC)J20.33,2AC.�X8,000 //+ as �,e . 92A 2C //:: 7a 2 0. // o LII 2 AC. 1 / � a' 0 3701 ' r � i n 2.59AC a 6 sa07e 7287 I AVBC,C IA o4 � /�1\ 43.09 ,4„- 9 //// 10 � // a 6617 ,'" / 6.91 Ac_ ,'a /// "� // 1567 i I QV // I _ . -0482 // w 35 // A 12.2079 1 /// ac. cQL �i P. 5.5'Z C- // ' t6,oa0 034 // 11 1 45-59 AC. //// 1\ 146 3 a // --\., i 1897 AC. // �� I w/1 059 SYKES GLEN 11 /85 ORANGE QQIJNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPRQVALS - PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emily Crudup SKETCH PLAN: Received 12-5-86 Reviewed 12-10-86 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 7-31-87 Reviewed 8-5-87 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT; Received _ Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 9-9-87 CERTIFICATION J. M. M i l l s, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill -Carrboro) : DATE 8-21-87 CERTIFICATION N/A UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE Certification OTHER : Recreation Advisory Council (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro _(Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham (Date) Other - Health Tom Konsler 9-11 -87 (Date) - S & E W. Fa i rcl oth 9.8-87 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date 9-21 -87 Approval Approval with Conditions X Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial --M A7 a 471;,;1 060 iu :)'. , ,,.s.,..... .,,,,i ,,. .4 ,z,,,..,2i.,,f," STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA _ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN September 9, 1987 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Orange County Ms. Emily Crudup Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Sykes Glen Preliminary Plan. Off SR 1117 Dear Ms. Crudup: I have attached a copy of the subject preliminary plan with the following recommendations noted in red: 1. Re-align Sykes Glen Trail to intersect SR 1117 at a right angle. This will require a curve with a radius of approximately 2,000 feet. 2. Area along west side of SR 1117 is to be cleared to provide adequate sight distance. Please have the above revisions placed on the plans and resubmit for approval. If you have any questions, please advise. Yours very truly, J M. Mills, P. E. ISTRICT ENGINEER JMM/SPI:jbh Atta. An Equal O000rtunity/Affirmative Action Employer . ,., . . • ,y-- 0.01 - \ \ 1 650-- .......\ \ \ VIRGINIA S. I PERRY \ (D.B. 28C-7) . \ 1 : I GLENN T. SYKES et CAROLYN LINDELL I . (Da 378 -578) 41111 • -00 FIELID-----' - i I 46..\\... -- Nciti \s. . ,, ....„ C.N.. -----... N \ . \ \ .L., _ le lc - \ , I 1 N"" I f'` 15.4 AC. incl - / :_— . -`\ (61 15.2 . - : ,i 5.3 AC. cl.)W I. 7 2 t . .1------. 5.0 AC excl. /W I lb Public V., D' ,/ / -ly I ) • . Icol I_ IYa. ,./ I. I 1 C _ b a -„ it - / 43p- .1 j /---_. Pi (5) _,-,.... ...) L / ii_____ 25' -- w - • . -.......atariary ....., ■ ____ ----":1"fterarioup,„__---.Pirito ' ....---\-- -----' ( I ---- / FLARE AT I NTERSE( i I 4, RI s i .. ,............ '" ■.........„ I 2.9 A:. erei v/R/ l ------ ._ R es,.., 2000 / cal) 1 N t ........._ i \ / .,9 ....... pLEN IT. SYKES, JR. a . n7A:-4 -. lb Gpi / opi., LINDELL .fif / /.. (CT 13. ' 9 - 26) . • c't ' / /1/ /■ 65/ / 4, .,„ A 4ze-o- - -0 ...... - fl 1 ., 4( 4,J.„... ri) _. ____________.________________/=- 4' / 11* ' / . X2-.:Lee-i-td .5 -/ /--g•:-7 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT raLLSBOROUGU NORTH CAROLINA 062. 27278 m 741:-.1=1 11PF N too MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Crudup, Planner II FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Sykes Glen DATE : September 8, 1987 This subdivision meets the Ordinance requirements by using large lots, limited additional impervious surfaces on each lot, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perim- eter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff . 1/611//21 r. : /,' d ____ 063 Rationale For a Private Road at Sykes Glen Subdivision The Sykes Glen Subdivision off Oak Grove Church Rd. in western Orange County has been planned to be a small rural residential area. The owners, Glen Sykes and Carolyn Lindell , wish to preserve the natural beauty of the rolling terrain and to maintain the rural character of the area. Although Carolyn and Glen do not live in this area they grew up visiting kin here and continue to visit with relatives in the Orange Grove region of Orange County.They have watched the area develop and are aware of the existing small subdivisions which have grown up west of Chapel Hill and which access through private roads ( Twin Streams, Western Park, Covered Bridge, Collins Creek to name a few ) . In planning Sykes Glen the owners will prepare and record Restrictive Covenants on the lots which address the issue of further subdivision. Under these covenants only one single family dwelling per lot is permitted. Setbacks, minimum square footage and easements for utilities and drainage facilities are also provided for. Lots will be restricted against further sub- division. In justifying a private road the owners have reviewed the conditions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section IV -B - 3 - d and have planned Sykes Glen to meet the following conditions : A. ) Sykes Glen consists of nine lots ranging in size from 3.4 to 6.4 acres each of which by recorded covenant may support only one single family dwelling. The lots may not be further subdivided. B. ) Sykes Glen is designed with a private road to preserve as many of the mature hardwoods and pines as possible. It is located in the protected Cane Creek watershed and a portion of each lot will indeed be restricted use according to the impervious surface in this watershed. The private dirt and gravel road will serve to also preserve this watershed. Conversely, a paved public road would require 28,800 square feet ( .66acres ) of pavement which is not consistent with restrictionson the impervious surface in the Cane Creek watershed. C. ) This subdivision does not embrace or abut any part of a thorough- fare plan or a municipality 's thoroughfare plan within the County and does not lie within a designated transition area. D. ) Sykes Glen does not extend an exisiting subdivision. B. ) The owners of the lots at Sykes Glen Subdivision will belong to . a Homeowners Association which will collect annual fees for maintanence of the private road. John Northen has been contacted and will act as attorney to draw up such documents as are necessary to assure maintanence of this private road.The individual owners of the lots will understand the nature and purpose of the private road. They will understand that the road can not be extended and that it will not be upgraded at a future date for dedication for public use:.- These conditions will become part V 6 4 of the road maintanence agreement to be reviewed and signed by each owner at the time of purchase of the property. Based upon the factors described above the owners are requesting acceptance of this plan for subdivision with access by a private, Class B road. Submitted By : Michele Martin Agent for Glenn Sykes and Carolyn Lindell 065 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 0,,p0 " MEMGRAULUM TO: Orange County Planning Board FROM: Orange County Planning Department SUBJECT: Sykes Glen - Preliminary Plan Private Road Evaluation DATE : September 11 , 1987 BACKGROUND Private roads may be allowed in a subdivision when the following conditions have been found to exist. 1 . The nature and location of the subdivision, includ- ing such considerations as topography, the surrounding area, present and future road plans, and public safety access Justify private roads, and 2. One or more of the following conditions exist: a) the subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10 ) lots ; b ) the subdivision preserves a natural area through deed restriction and special design features; c) the subdivision does not include or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan or the thoroughfare plan of an Orange County munici- pality, or does not lie within a designated transition area determined by the County; d ) the subdivision Joins or extends an existing subdivision where the streets are private or unpaved and when 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 area; and 2066 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 requirements that the subdivision cannot meet. EVALUATION In applying these conditions to the preliminary plan for Sykes Glen, the Planning Department notes the following : 1 . The proposed subdivision is located in a rural area of the Cane Creek Watershed in which unpaved roads are compatible and impervious surfaces are limited. Some of the existing topography is at a gradient of 15%. However, the proposed road could be con- structed at a 10% slope within the 50 ' right of way shown. 2. a) The subdivision consists of less than ten ( 10 ) lots. The nine lots proposed will be covered by restrictive covenants to prohibit further subdivision of those lots. b ) The subdivision will preserve a natural area. The property is located in the Cane Creek Protected Watershed area, which limits the amount of impervious surface allowed. If Sykes Glen Trail were paved, it would create 0.66 acre (28, 800 sq. ft. ) of impervious surface. A portion of each lot will remain undisturbed in its natural state as required by Article 6.23. 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. c) The subdivision does not include or abut any part of a thoroughfare or street shown on the Orange County thoroughfare plan or on the thoroughfare plan of an Orange County munici- pality. It does not lie within a designated transition area determined by the County. d) The subdivision does not Join or extend an existing subdivision where the road is private or unpaved. e) If constructed to State standards, Sykes Glen Trail may be accepted by the State for main- tenance since it could meet the density requirement of 2 houses per 0. 1 mile. However, DOT has commented that the sight distance at SR 1117 is minimal even with realignment and clearing of vegetation . 067 3 RECOMMENDATION The evaluation of the proposed road in this subdivision indicates that a private road is appropriate. Private roads are appropriate for subdivisions with large lots such as this one . The road proposed will serve this property and will not be part of an existing or proposed street system. The subdivision satisfies four of the six conditions for the designation of a private road. The subdivision does not meet condition d, extension of an existing subdivision, and almost fails to meet the requirements for acceptance by NCDOT. The Planning Staff recommends that Sykes Glen Trail be permitted private road status in order to be consistent with the Orange County standards for watershed protection . D ? AFT 6f68 maintenance of the open space. Yuhasz asked if there was authority in the Subdivision Regulations to require road names . Crudup responded that it is not on the checklist but that it is a request of the Board of Commissioners. Jacobs noted that a condition did not have to be a requirement of the regulations . MOTION : Best moved approval with the five conditions as recommended by Planning Staff . Seconded by Kramer . Yuhasz noted that with the clustering the density is lower than that which is allowed and he felt a private road was adequate. Jacobs asked if Crossroads Church Cemetery Road could be aligned so that Ram ' s Way would be a reasonable extension . Alois Callemyn, Surveyor, stated that it would be extremely difficult to align the roads due to the existing right-of-way which should be main- tained for cemetery access. Rebecca McDiarmid, owner, stated that she felt the area would be safer with a private road . She indicated it is a very short road and the area in front of the subdivision is all wooded . Eddleman asked Ms. McDiarmid if she would consider a lower density in order to have a private road . Ms . McDiarmid indicated she felt this question was taken care of by clustering. VOTE: 6 in favor. 5 opposed (Lewis, Swann, Jacobs , Margison, Yuhasz - all felt that a private road would be adequate for this subdivision ) . i` 4 . Sykes Glen Subdivision /-, (9 Lots - Bingham Township) Presentation by Emily Crudup. This 120 .332 acre tract is located in western Bingham Township on both sides of Oak Grove Church Road (SR 1117 ) north of the fork where Vernon Road ( SR 1118 ) joins Oak Grove Church Road. The tract is zoned Agricultural-Residential and Protected Watershed II ( Cane Creek ) . The 42.3 acre portion of the tract on the west side of SR 1117 is being subdivided into nine lots which average 4 . 5 acres in • Et at.T k. _. ti g 7 fit 069 size. The applicant has indicated on the preliminary plan that the lots will be • served by a Class B private road. All agencies have reviewed the preliminary plan of Sykes Glen . NCDOT has requested realignment of the entrance and clearing to improve the sight distance at Oak Grove Church Road . Following the Staff Private Road Evaluation , the Planning Department recommends approval of Sykes Glen with a Class B private road and with the following conditions : ( 1 ) Provide a copy of the restrictive covenants for review by the County Attorney to insure that a condition is included to prohibit further subdivision of the proposed nine lots . (2) Realign the entrance and clear for the sight distance as per NCDOT recommendation . Best stated that he felt this subdivision was an example of an exception to a public road. Eddleman noted that the larger lot sizes and impervious surface ratio in the watershed indicated a private road is in order . MOTION : Best moved approval with the conditions as recommended by Planning Staff . Seconded by Pilkey. Margison inquired about access for adjoining lots through Sykes Glen Subdivision. By consensus, an amendment to the motion to restrict access to the nine lots in Sykes Glen Subdivision was accepted . VOTE : Unanimous . b . Final Plats (Total - 27 Lots ) 1 . Fairfield Estates - Section I (8 Lots - Cheeks Township) Presentation by Emily Crudup The property is located in the northeast portion of Cheeks Township, south of O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 070 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 5. 19$7 Action nda Item SUBJECT: LUP-1 -87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY - LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes K No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell Application Materials Copy of "Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan" Locational Criteria Memo to Marvin Collins Town of Hillsborough 8/10/87 Comments Draft 8-24-87 Public Hearing Minutes Draft 9-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of an application for an amendment to the Orange County Land Use Plan. This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . BACKGROUND: On October 10, 1985 , Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for 1 .41 acres of land on N. C. Highway 10. The request was prompted by State mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant. An adjoining property owner subsequently challenged Orange County ' s approval in court. On December 12, 1986, the court ruled that the Special Use Permit was invalid since the applicant did not meet the required two-acre minimum lot size standard, and since evidence had not been presented to indicate the project would maintain the value of existing properties in the area . The effect of the court ruling was to place Chandler Concrete Company in violation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. To correct its nonconforming status, Chandler Concrete is requesting that the Ten-Year Transition Area and Commercial - Industrial Activity Node be expanded by an additional 0.59 acres . Combined with the 1 .41 acres currently in the same designation, the two-acre lot size requirement could be met. If the proposed Land Use Plan amendment is approved, 071 Chandler Concrete Company would submit a Planned Development application for the entire two acres . Current policy does not permit Land Use Plan amendment and Planned Development (or rezoning) applications to be handled concurrently. The Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan state' three reasons for which the Plan may be amended : ( 1 ) Because of changed or changing conditions in a parti - cular area or areas of the County ; (2) To correct an error or omission in the plan; or (3) In response to a change in land use policy. The plan amendment application does not adequately address any of these reasons . Evaluation of a plan amendment also requires conformance with the locational criteria for the plan designation being requested as specified in section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan . The criteria include land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public services/utilities, transportation system, energy use, existing land use, agriculture and forestry, population density, and historic and cultural features . Evaluation of the criteria indicates partial conformity with public services/utilities and non- conformance with existing land use and population density. The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987, to consider the request. The Planning Staff recommendation was for denial based upon : ( 1 ) The reasons for amendments in the Procedures for Amend- ing the Land Use Plan were not addressed ; and (2) Conformity with all applicable location criteria in Section 3 .4 of the Land Use Plan was not demonstrated . The Planning Board recommended that the request be approved. RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends denial of the request for the reasons cited by the Planning Staff . There is no time limit for Board action on this request. L • • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROIIGH NORTH CAROLINA 072 27278 :/// LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION All persons requesting an amendment to the Land Use Plan of Orange County are required to complete the following.. application as completely as possible: OFFICE USE ONLY REQUEST #LUP- / - g-7 DATE RECEIVED: 7-ui_y is , lei P7 STAFFPERSON(S)• RESPONSI SLE: . GcNE cE L_l- GENERAL DATA: Property OWner(s) Name: Chandler Concrete Co. , Inc. Mailing Address: P. 0. Drawer 1239, Burlington, N. C. 27216 Phone: (Home) (Work) 226-1181 Agent(s) Name: Thomas E. Chandler Pres. Mailing Address: P. 0. Drawer 1239, Burlington, N. C. 27216 Phone: 919 226-1181 SPECIFIC DATA: Tax Reference: Township Hillsborough Tax Map 45 Block Lot 32 Public/Private Road Name: State Road 1710 Lot Size: Acreage 4.43 Square Footage Lot Frontage Lot Depth REQUEST #LUP- 1 - F*7 073 SPECIFIC DATA (continued) : Current Plan Category Designation(s) : General Rural Residential Activity Node Watershed Joint Planning Area Describe Land Uses In the General Area: Garage) Convenience Store Mini Warehouses, Mobile Home Park, Pond, Railroad, Concrete Plants On Adjacent Parcels of Land: Ready Mixed Concrete Plant Hwy 1710, Railroad and a Manufactured Home REQUEST: Land Use Plan Category Designation(s) Requested: Planned Development III _ Type of Amendment: Primary _ Secondary X * * * * * * * * *. * This application should be submitted with the following materials: Fully dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel , or portion thereof, in question. . Legal description of the parcel, or portion therof. Letter of request to include: o the tax reference, general location and owner of the parcel o thercurrent and requested land use plan category designation(s) o a narrative stating the manner in which the proposed amendment will carry-out the intent and purpose of the adopted. comprehensive plan or part thereof o a statement of any other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment o statement of the changed or changing conditions in the area, or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary. I (We) , the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this application are true to the bestof •my (our) knowledge and that the application as submitted is complete. Chandler Concrete Co. , Inc. _ 7_ J NAME OF APPLICANT(S) SIGNATURE OP APPLICANT(S) / 7/07 7 DATE - . ,.,, N4 w.TTED C 8 6D c i6E a /5 fl74 t_ 6C Or . /7A 21 - W V r N LUP - 1-87 t C APPLICANT: Chandler Concrete Co. 000 REQUEST: Secondary Land Use Plan Amendment CURRENT DESIGNATION: Rural Residential REQUESTED DESIGNATION: Ten Year Transition/ Commercial-Industrial Scale: 1" = 400' Transition Node 1 �iv - 6658 _ . 4TE o. 113- _ _tn E / �_� e� 5 \ _ z z / _ \ a� o / 8159 1— I NI N I . \ i _ � _ 1 i� x ,JAI I I SEE MAP � C3,-/' I I 19 21- 74A ENO 2,9 AC. !6516 I p/0 40.93 AC \ � I 5 8 \�75 / 13.82 AC. 1 i 10 0 oA 3 92\ \ I D =� 2 39 / 1 o roq� ET' -AC. _ . I p 9052 \� I:IAG R0.106 1 Q N 838 000 \ I ''` 62 rr,*._.� 1.37 AC. -,19A ~ �`� � r - - ` 30=5 ' = - L=-. AC. / / 1.03AC. -2 • I.97AC•/,6958 • 2.51 iAC.CAL. N.\ / i 41o71A / O 6 D AC- I __ _ _ \\ / / SEE ENO 2 I � 20 I 1 �` ' i���1R0 a_ \ 74 ,� II ' ;RKMAH �� r- \ I z 11 1--�/ I __`� \ '707 �p 5330 I I l I I \ Ac -J i 1 1 1 \ 4:04AC 1 sEE 1 I MAP 45A 11 `►\ r J / I 1-.s=A (✓opPA �xs. -- I W I (JOPPA OAKS,I,,,I (JOPPA OAKS, SEC.5i _ �\ 1 AI SECO ,� SEC.2J c I I I C- 483 / x c 1 1 1 4 -5799 SEE \\'Q,(� I I I , A O\' 0 i, CENTRAL ORANGE AREA STUDY ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN - LEGEND, 10 YEAR TRANSITION 20 YEAR TRANSITION E RURAL RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST ® COMMERCIAL- INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION NODE PROPOSED FOUR LANED ROADS m � m PROPOSED NEW ROAD SCAL E: 1"= 120CY 0 1200' 0 Q CA, WARRANTY DEED-Form II/D.601 __• Ynmed and fur n146y James Williams Si Co.,Inn Ydkintrille STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,.- _*__ PI NCE _County. 84 THIS DEED,Malt*Ms -dayefa� 1117/".,"1+ .19- .by and bet.seen JACK I. FREELAND (t,inele) JAMES LANDON FREELANO (single) or Orange _c and state of North Carolina.hereinafter called Grantor,and CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY. INC. 6 0 Its of___._ . _•-- .County and State of North Carolina.here V r v • .•iled Grantee.whose permanent'trading address is...h,..0.s...P1al r.1232 a_$ 1l ui1 g.tLn�!4rtk C.arialLna _27215 C WITNESSETH: That the Grantor,for and set consideration of the sum of_-�_-._STET)` and other good and valuable considerations to him m hand paid by the 4nntec,the script whereof w hereby acknowledged,has 1 and conveyed,and by these presents does give.grant,bargain,sell,convey and so,,Pon unto the Grantee.1 is heir,andlor successors'aand assigns,sa,pits saafgn*,prcm ENO. _.. T.,.ntalup,_--- ORANGE. . Cnunty,North Carolina,described as f • Consisting of 4.34 acres as shown on the plat entitled "Property Surveyed for Chandler Concrete Company', dated September 19, 1984, by Steve P. Yuhasz, Registered Land Surveyor, (a portion of which survey is attached as Exhibit A) lying on the Southwest side of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710 (known as old N. C. 10) and described particularly as follows: • BEGINNING at a control iron set in the Northwestern property line of Lot B of BEECHWOOD BEND at the Southwestern right-of-way line of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710 and•running thence South 54 degrees 41 ainutei 03 • seconds West 222.13 feet to a point in the center line of the right-of-way of .Southern Railroad; thence North 28 degrees 09 minutes 55 seconds West 276-02 feet to a point; thence in a Norchweecwardly direction 483.27 feet along the • - arc of a circle with a radius of 1,845 feet (the chord of the said circle running North 35 degrees 40 minutes 09 seconds West 481.89 feet) to a point in • the Eastern line of property now belonging to Chandler Concrete Company, Inc., and running thence North 09 degrees 50 ainutes.26 seconds East 311.34 feet to • an iron in the center line of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710; running thence with the center line of North Carolina Secondary Road•No. 1710 South 35 degrees 18 minutes 57 seconds East 1,221.41 feet to an iron set in the center line of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710; thence South 54 degree• 41 ' minutes 03 seconds West 30 feet to a control iron, the point and place of the BEGINNING. Thiel property is to become a part of the property located on tbs- . Westernmost line which presently belongs to Chandler Concrete Compny, Inc. There is no subdivision intended by the conveyance of this lot. ■ J . . The share land-al conveyed to Grantor by • __ `''h . TO HAVE AND TO HOLD The above described premises,with all the a,pnrrrnauees tltereune belonging, •Sp t' ( 'eq._� helix•'idler succeaton and assign*forever. T or in soy wits •t .a, -the Grantee•• And the Grantor earenrints that he is seised of said premises in lee,and has the right to comet'the some in fee simplelshst Ia1d I cumbrcumbrances(wish the cecepeiom above stated,if any):and that he-will wa r r a n t and defend uhf pfd title to the some ! re(gas 4on -r^._ a ter. tip Bla its0(allpen•,+•,,•;^•^",,,•�,.,,•d-„-••-.•.-•�.�--�-^..- When reference is made to the Grantor or Grantee.the.iungular shell include the plural and the mescelme than include In 1 Sr -- „• - •�• S WHE OF,Th ,raptor s hereunto set his hand and seal,the day and year est*bore welt ' - - ;SEAL) r! I (SE .��_ __ (SEAL) .,�. , ' STATE OLIN NORTH C AR A-_ _- .,6.01• COUNTY. I • -"t,.as1 J I. u�.L1re.L ^• �__ �.-- - --_ ,a Notary Public of said County,do heeeby•- . M_ .. - .. ------- -----J.9CLI.�EE1,AM__Csingle) ,�IR Grant,personally appeared before rite this day and acknowledged the execution of the egvini deed. -•� ( . . witness my hand and notarial seal,r. tie- malt= --_ _,.day of...(' _ 1 M>'Commisnon Etptr. -,-i.t 1JU` �___ � '. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA—. >"f .f,�. COUNTY, .r I. .„.,_ -- --—_ . ..�__w a Notary Peblie of mid County,do hassy - •`'f: `., . :� .. JAMES LANDON FREELAND • • .) ,•i..:7,µ- 414, grantor,personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the vuecasioa of the • e ) W unto nay hand and notarial real, ns the.—,.f (, -_, w�' - -':i . My CC ummuston Eapiers: - 5Jad��4a�.� t"P t:: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,_�� • The foregoing cenincate(s)of , -- - -• 'f-e' • - n(ie)certified to be correct-This instrument was for registration - •g�----r.. :•u ri='.,•4� ,, pretested eaY soon chi, bE'== '• r .197 at_ .T A.M P..�M....and duly recorded to ths-of4es of the Refiner of Daeda et :--- :~-:i-: .- -,i 1 n- .-' _ North Carotene In boob 4� ,Page J v_. a "-.'1 i'4'..M;:.�:-..11i•ti•..,:-�-Ct_'1 .`� - .. This the day e - A - ._._. �•t-. -L: :GaaL7: ;:;:-;`} t�j '__• :. .� • - _ • T - — 4�tmi: .II a, it • ti:i"9 by +t::_r ,' 4,0 ;_ !e r.Il i' - .?C.-s .1∎•-. . _ . . Register of Deeds r .... _ ... 4 Llydr Tim Deed drawn by C. D. Hogua a..I II. HOGUE £_STRIg J 1Q - is:; sue.-rte, ti -_ ----- .. ... dS,G:rr.„re e...a�ir__,_ - - -' ? - •tt(r.a%•'..-:+:-, . ..,F:i.a o dow.:.. -. ..._ ,.,�� . 077 CHANDLER CONCRETE CO., INC. READY MIXED CONCRETE POST OFFICE DRAWER 1239 BURLINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (919) 226-1181 July 10, 1987 Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, North Carolina Re: Hillsborough Township Map #45, Lot 32 Dear Sir: Our Company is the owner of 4.43 acres in Hillsborough Township. It is located on state road 1710 and bounded by our plant on the west, state road 1710 on the north, Southern railway to the south and a manufactured home to the east. The current use of the land is rural residential and we request that 2.00 acres be changed to commercial/industrial transition mode and the balance of 2.43 acres remain rural residential. We have owned the adjoining property since 1972 and we were able to purchase this property in 1984 after the estate of J.B. Rhine was settled. In 1985 this property was the subject of an amendment to the Land Use Plan and Rezoning. It is my understanding that 1.41 acres of- the land was changed in the Land Use Plan. Also, this same amount of property was rezoned PDI-III. This rezoning has reverted back to the original zoning by court action. Our company has met all of the requirements of the original zoning. These include constructing ponds to catch the water, stockade fencing on the north and east sides of the property and chain link fencing around the south and west sides. We have done all of the landscaping that was required. We also have a new driveway which gives us better visibility and safety. We don't need to make any changes in the above mentioned area. We do need an additional .59 acres rezoned to meet the minimum required for PDI-III zoning. We are proposing to reforest the entire remaining land from the fence on the east boundry to the end of our property with Loblolly pine trees. We feel that this new growth in years to come will protect and shield our plant from those families that live nearest to our property. Site Plan "B" prepared by Phillip Post & Associates is attached and details what our company plans to do with your permission. 078 Page Two Our request is based on the procedure for amending the Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of Orange County Commissioners, 11/1/82 under the category of secondary amendments item "B" which reads, "extention of any plan area where the additional area is contiguous with the existing area and does not increase the existing area by more than 100 acres". The land adjoining our property has been designated commercial/industrial and is currently being used for this purpose. Our company therefore requests approval of our plan. Very truly yours, CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. T.E. Chandler President TEC/gn 079 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNLNG DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 PLANNING BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE °4■110% PROPOSAL 9/30/82 Review and Recommendation by Planning Board 10/18/82 F Adopted by the BOCC 11/1/82 PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN PURPOSE The Orange County Land Use Plan (Plan) was adopted by the Board of Commissioners on September 2, 1981 . The act of adoption formalized the Plan text and map as County policy in land use matters. The plan will need to be amended from time to time to reflect changing conditions in the County. This document proposes procedures by which the Plan will be amended. REASONS FOR AMENDMENTS The plan may be amended for the following reasons: a) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; b) to correct an error or omission in the Plan; c) in response to a change in land use policy. SOURCES OF AMENDMENTS Proposed amendments to the Plan may originate from: a) the Board of Commissioners; b) the Planning Board; c) an amendment application made by any person or agency. CATEGORIES OF AMENDMENTS Amendments are classified as principal or secondary amendments . Principal amendments include: a) additions to or modifications of goals and policies; b) creation of new activity nodes or additions to existing node areas exceeding 10 acres; • 080 2 c) proposals for new freestanding plan areas or additions to existing areas that exceed 100 acres. Secondary amendments include: a) revision of a node area where the additional area is contiguous with the existing area and does not increase the existing area by more than 10 acres; b) extension of any plan area where the additional area is contiguous with the existing area and does not increase the existing area by more than 100 acres; c) correction of any error or ommission in the Plan; d) revisions to any factual or descriptive material in the Plan. WHEN AMENDMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED Principal amendments to the Plan shall be considered once a year at the quarterly joint public hearing in February. Secondary amendments to the Plan may be considered four times a year at the quarterly joint public hearings in February, May, August and November . However, no principal amendment is to be considered in conjuction with a rezoning request for the same property. Such rezoning requests may only be considered at subsequent hearings or meetings. (Note: after September 2 , 1983, n.Q Land Use Plan amendments are to be consid- ered in conjunction with a rezoning request. ) REFERRAL OF AMENDMENTS Amendments proposed by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Board or an amendment application made by a person or agency shall be referred to the Orange County Planning Department. Amendment applications should contain a description of the changed or changing conditions which justify the requested change, or the error or omission in the Plan which the amendment seeks to correct, or the changed land use policy which necessitates an amendment. STAFF REVIEW For each proposed amendment to the Plan, the Orange County Planning Deparment shall carry out an analysis of the proposed amendment and its effect on land use in the particular area of the proposed change and the County as a whole. Based on its analysis, Planning Staff shall prepare a recommendation on the proposed amendment. PLANNING BOARD PRELIMINARY REVIEW The proposed amendment along with the analysis and recommendation of the Planning Staff shall be considered by the Planning Board at a regularly scheduled meeting. The Planning Board may refer the proposed plan amendment to 081 3 its Township Advisory Council (s) in the area of the County to be affected by the change: a) on its own motion; b) on a request from the chairperson (s) of the Township Advisory Council (s) in the areas to be affected; c) in response to a request from Planning Staff. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING For all amendments to the Plan, the Board of Commissioners shall hold a joint public hearing with the Planning Board. When a public hearing is held, notice shall be given by publishing the time, place and substance of the proposed amendment at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the County. This notice shall appear in the 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. RECONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD Following a joint public hearing on a Plan amendment, the proposed amendment shall be referred back to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION The Board of Commissioners shall decide by formal vote, on the request for a Plan amendment following the final Planning Board recommendation. LAND USE PLAN ANNUAL REPORT The Planning Board at its regular meeting each November shall hear a report prepared by the Planning Staff on the status of the Land Use Plan including: a) a summary of proposed amendments to the Plan over the past year and their disposition; b) an analysis of current and potential land use issues in the County and how well the Plan addresses these issues; c) staff recommendation for possible changes to the Plan. Based on Planning Staff' s report, the Planning Board may direct Staff to prepare specific amendments to the Plan or, if in the Board' s opinion the changes needed in the Plan are extensive in scope and number, the Board may recommend to the Board of Commissioners a wholesale revision of the Land Use Plan. PLAN CATEGORY: TEN AND TWENTY YEAR TRANSITION Land Slone. No significant Transportation System. Located slope or topography problem in areas that have very good that would unreasonably in- road access, as well as service crease the cost of extending by rail, lines. These areas 082 water and sewer lines. should have the most complete transportation network in the Rvdrology. Located outside County's planning jurisdiction. of 100-year flood prone areas as identified by the Corps of Engineers. - Energy Use. Located within less than a 5 minute commuting Flora and Fauna. Located time from small-scale commercial away from sites that would, uses and a 5-10 minute commuting if developed, create a time from major commercial uses threat to unique or en- or an Urban area. dangered species as identi- Pied by the state or Existing Land Use. Located in federal _government. areas which are in transition from rural or low-density uses Soil Conditions. Located to urban or higher density uses. in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for Agriculture and Forestry. urban uses because of good Located away from areas where drainage characteristics development would have a detri-. and load bearing capacity for mental impact on productive site development. agricultural uses and managed forest land. Public Services/Utilities. Located in areas which are Population Density. Located or could be reasonably and in areas with moderate to effeciently served by cen- high population densities. tralized public services and utilities. Historic and Cultural. Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental Impact on state or federally acknowledged historic-cultural sites or County identified Public Interest Areas. • PLAN CATEGORY: COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE Land Slope. Located on Transportation System. Focused lanh slopes of less on the intersection of arterial than 15% grade. and/or collector highways and extending .5 miles beyond such Hydrolomy. Located out- intersections or within one side of 100-year flood mile of an interstate Inter- - prone areas as identified change and within 1000 feet of by the Corps of Engineers. rail lines. Flora and Fauna. Located Energy Use_. Located within away from sites that would, less than a 10 minute com- if developed, create a muting time from an Urban threat to unique or endan- area. gered species as identified by .the state or federal Existing Land Use. Located government. within identified Ten or Twenty-Year Transition areas. Soil Conditions. Located in areas where general soil Agriculture and Forestry. Lo- conditions are suitable for eaten away from areas where urban uses because of good development would have a detri- drainage characteristics mental impact on productive and load bearing capacity agricultural uses and managed for site development. forest land. Public ServicesfUtilities. Population Density. Located Located in areas which are in areas with moderate to high or could be reasonably and population densities. effectively served by cen- tralized public services and utilities. - Historic and Cultural. Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on state or federally acknowledged historic-cultural sites or County identified Public Interest Areas. 083 ORAN GE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 soon .i aql" vil O R A N G E C O U N T Y INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8708-1103 TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Gene Bell , Planner III SUBJECT: Analysis of Chandler Concrete Land Use Plan Amendment Application (LUP-1-87 ) DATE : August 19, 1987 I have reviewed the Chandler Concrete Land Use Plan amendment application in accordance with "PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN" adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on November 1 , 1982, and with applicable portions of the Qt$IIsa QQJ<tntx Lunt Use elan.. My findings are: 6EELICLI1QIY ( Complete, but some deficiencies) ( 1 ) On page 2 of the application form under REQUEST, the requested zoning classification has been entered instead of the requested land use designa- tion. However, the requested land use designation is stated correctly in the letter of request. (2) In the letter of request, how the amendment would carry out the intent and purpose of the comprehen- sive plan is not addressed. (3) Also in the letter of request, The " . . .changed or changing conditions. . . " which make the amendment necessary are not addressed. BE6SQII_EQE_AMENDEEK "PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN" list three reasons for which the Plan may be amended . These are : ( 1 ) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8708-1103 Analysis of Chandler Concrete Land Use Plan Amendment a Application (LUP-1 -87 ) 0 4 August 20, 1987 Page 2 area or areas of the County; (2 ) to correct an error or omission in the plan; and (3 ) in response to a change in land use policy. The applicant does not address any of these as the reason for the requested amendment. In their 1985 request for an amendment to the Plan, Chandler Concrete cited ". . .changed or changing conditions. . . " as the reason for the amendment. it is my opinion that such conditions were addressed adequately by the Qaatcal QLanag 6Lga Etudx in November, 1983 and that the 0.59 acre area currently being requested is correctly classified as Rural Residential . CQMEeElaQh_QE_LQCerlQt_IILLUE U Analysis of a Land Use Plan amendment requires that the requested designation be compatible with the applicable Locational Criteria in Section 3. 4 of the Laai LLe Elan . In the table below, YES means that the area being evaluated is compatible with the locational criterion and NO, of course, means that it is not. Additional explanation is provided where the response is not a clearcut YES or NO. LQQ6I121116L_QElIEEl6 1QlaQ_YEBE_IEW1Ij2N QQMMEEQl6Lf101/5.IEl6L Land Slope Water lines already YES exist in area. Slope is away from Hills- borough sewage treat- ment plant. If sewer extended would probably require pump stations. Hydrology YES YES Flora & Fauna YES YES Soil Conditions YES YES Public Services/ Utilities Already served with Already served with water. I f sewer water. I f sewer extended would extended would probably require probably require pump stations, pump stations. Transportation System YES YES Energy Use YES YES • 085 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8708-1103 Analysis of Chandler Concrete Land Use Plan Amendment Application (LUP-1 -87 ) August 20, 1987 Page 3 Existing Land Use No, adjacent to an area NO (would be compati - in transition, but ble if land use de- not in it. signatlon changed ) Agriculture 8 Forestry YES YES Population Density NO, adjacent to an NO, adjacent to an area with higher area with higher population densities, population densities, but not in it. but not in it. Historic S Cultural YES YES gEQQMMEgQ6IlQl!i - Based on the foregoing, it is my recommendation that the request for redesignation of the 0.59 acre tract from RURAL RESIDENTIAL to TEN YEAR TRANSITION/COMMERCIAL- INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE be denied. cc: Greg Szymik, Current Planner Mayor CJuwn of i11abur li Q Toa 86k Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Agatha Johnson Commissioners HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Supt. Water Works Myron L. Martin James Pendergraph Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd rk'ir„? L.D. Wagoner Remus J. Smith ' -1er Chief of Police Rachel H. Stevens '+rivi = Arnold W. Hamlett Fire Chief John Forrest August 10, 1987 Gene Bell, Planner 306F Rever St. Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Gene On August 6, 1987, the Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed the Chandler Concrete Company Land Use Plan Amendment as a ,:courtesy review. The Hillsborough Planning Board recommends disapproval as rezoning would promote future encroachment toward the neighboring residential properties to the east. The reasons stated for the changes, that is, rezoning the property and planting trees, appear- to be inconsistent as trees can be planted in the current zoning and it would appear that plant operations could continue to with the existing zoning. If more information is available on this project and you would like the Board to reconsider its decision, please forward the material. If you have any questions, please call me between 8: 30 A.M. and 12: 30 P.M. at 732-2104. Sincerely yours, Janet V. Rigsbee. Planning Director D °M X187 3 Input from the Sheriff 's Department and the Emergency Management Services Department before making a decision on this item. Chair Marshall indicated that there are several questions that mast be answered before a decision will be made. Chair Marshall and Commissioner Halkiotis asked for additional information on the grid system used in the assignment of these house numbers. • ,iIIlmuBl mas , 210 Hideaway Drive concurred with his neighbors and questioned the feasibility of integrating the house numbers with the zip code resulting in a nine digit number which would then indicate their position on the grid system. He felt such a system would satisfy the postal authorities, the emergency services and the property owner. RILL_JillICULHE Fails of New Hope Subdivision, Indicated there Is not a consistent numbering system in place but that everyone chose their own numbers. He asked if the grid system sufficiently provided for infill and Marshall Indicated that the grid system does provide sufficient space for growth and that those numbers assigned would be permanent numbers. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The staff -was requested to provide more detailed information and a recommendation. 2.._LAK_US.E_ELAU_AMEN.QMEUIE_ LUE=L-$Z_CUAN.QLEl3-CQI�CEEIE_COMEAta The Staff presentation was made by Planner Gene Bell . He stated that on October 10, 1985 Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for 1 .41 acres of land on Old NC Highway 10. The request was prompted by State mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant. Count �s a An adjoining property owner subsequently challenged Orange Y pproval in court. On December 12, 1985, the court ruled that the Special Use Permit was invalid since the applicant did not meet the required two acre minimum lot size standard, and since evidence had not been presented the project would maintain the value of existing properties in the _ area. The affect of the court ruling was to place Chandler Concrete Company in violation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. To correct its nonconforming s Chandler Concrete 1s requesting that the Ten Year Transition sareaand Commercial Industrial Activity node be expanded by an additional 0.59 acres. Combined with the 1 .41 acres currently in the same designation, the .two—acre lot size requirement could be met. If the proposed Land Use Plan amendment is -approved, Chandler Concrete Company would submit a Planned Development application for the entire two acres. Current-,- policy does not permit Land - Use Plan amendment and Planned Development- (or- rezoning) - applications to be handled concurrently. _ The • procedures for amending the Land Use. Plan states three reasons for which the Plan may be amended: - (1 ) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; - _ (2) to correct an error or an omission in the Plan; or (3) in response to a change in land use policy.. The plan amendment application does not adequately address any of these reasons. £23 E ip ir Evaluation of a plan amendment also requires conformance with the Iocational criteria for the plan designation being requested as specified in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan. The criteria Include land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, transportation system, energy public services/utilities, forestry, population density, usand existing land use, agriculture and Evaluation of the criteria ndicates historic and cultural heapubesc services/utilities and nonconformance withaexistin conformity with public density. g population The Planning Staff recommends denial of the request based upon: (1 ) the reasons for amendmends in the Procedures for amending the Land use Plan are not addressed; (2) conformity with all applicable Iocational criteria in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan is not demonstrated. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the Land Use Plan amendment at its September 21 , 1987 meetin Paodosod . Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October h5,B1987 .1987. I M __Qd.6NQLEN , President of Chandler Concrete Company, presented background information which led to the request for this Land Use Plan amendment. In late 1984, it was brought to their attention by the N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) , that environmental problems existed relative to water runoff from the plant site. The water runoff came from washing the trucks as well as runoff of rain water across the land. With the agent from DEM, the lowest point was identified where the water would run prior to entering the stream. That adjoining property which was recently point indicated at the was not aware that the recently y Purchased. Mr. Chandler indicated he was a retention y purchased property was not properly zoned the a County the proper and reclamation site. Al- that point he secured from P permits to prepare the site for correction of the environmental problem. It was brought to his attention that the property was zoned Residential and it would not be permissible to operate the retention ponds for the benefit of the commercial property. He petIond the Orange County Commissioners for a Secondary Land Use Plan amendmentiand rezoning of the property. After numerous meetings and appearances before the Orange County Planning Board, the final application was for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan and contigious with the plant. The 1 .41 acre tractoofnlandowas 1-he 4minimumtarrea acre upon which the retention and recycling activity could be Subsequently, the secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan was granted and necessary rezoning and authorization for a Conditional . Use Permit was received. 7--- During the public hearing there was much community opposition to the proposal because of a misunderstanding that the plant's operation would be expanded Into the residential area. The only intent was to correct the environmental problem in order that the plant might continue to operate as it had for the past fifteen years. Mr. advised by Planning Staff at that time to seek Chand the was minimum area needed to correct environmental problems. He added that had he known of the two acre minimum lot size requirement, he would have included the .59 acre for which he is now seeking an amendment. The courts reversed the action of the Commissioners on two bases: (1 ) The minimum area which could be rezoned was two acres rather than the 1 .41 acres, and (2) there had not been sufficient showing in the record that the use of the property would not cause an adverse effect on the surrounding property. 089 D e Mr. Chandler noted that he had complied with all the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit before such time as the court overturned the decision. He added that since the time of the Court order he had talked with members of the community explaining to them the necessity of the retention ponds and the benefit of the reclamation activity which would be continued. In order for the property on which the reclamation ponds are situated to be properly zoned, he must add to It an additional .59 acres of land in order to meet the minimum two acre requirement. The purpose of the request for an amendment to the Land Use Plan is to redesignate .59 acre tract of land adjoining the concrete plant from Rural Residential to Ten-Year Transition Commercial Industrial Activity Node. If the Land Use Plan is amended, he will apply for rezoning and a Conditional Use Permit which will allow for a retention and recycling facility which is critical to the operation of the concrete plant , and does not constitute an extension of the commercial activity. Mr. . Chandler reemphasized that his original request for a Land Use Plan amendment was solely to meet DEM requirements for the control of runoff. He noted that it was late in 1984 when it was discovered that the runoff was an environmental problem. He continued that when the Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981 , the property line of the concrete plant was designated as the line separating Rural - Residential from Commercial . Based on the use at that time, such designation was both natural and reasonable. Based on technological advances and on Increased sensitivity to the environmental factor it has been determined that the runoff of surface water from the plant site i-s undesirable. The nature of the natural runoff is now believed, by the Department of Environmental Management, to be a hazard to public health, safety and welfare. Based on the standard for environmental control when the Land Use Plan was adopted, no detrimental effect was recognized. He noted that the newly recognized hazard presents a changed condition which should be the basis for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan. The granting of a secondary amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan by enabling continued operation of the commercial business in the area clearly designated for commercial use in the original Land Use Plan. Although it would be possible to prevent man-made situations which create runoff -into the stream, there is no remedy short of the propsed retention ponds which will prevent the natural runoff. He stated this was a changed condition over which he has no Control . The Planning Staff has recommended that the application for redesignation of .59 acres from Rural Residential to Ten-Year Transition Area and Commercial- Industrial Activity Node be denied. Mr. Chandler Indicated that his understanding of the basis of the recommendation was that he failed to adequately state the changed conditions on which he based his request for a secondary amendment and that a .59 acre tract does not, in Planning Staff 's opinion, at this time, meet certain location standards. He apologized if his explanation of the changed conditions were not sufficiently clear and noted that before today he was not aware that the application was considered deficient on that basis. He asked that the comments he made at this public hearing regarding changed conditions be - incorporated into the application so as to remove the deficiency. Regardin the location criteria, he noted the following. g One of the areas which was deficient was The plant has access to public water. The propertyicannotvbeesubdividedrand sold. It should be deemed to have the same service availability as the present plant. The reclamation activity will lessen the water consumption because the plant can reduce the stress on the water system. He added that during the drought last year, his plant voluntarily switched from ublic water to the well system maintained for backup water su l p The existing land use and the population density p q� Y n question appear to Il TA D, v . 1190 be a subjective evaluation as to whether the area is in or adjoined to the higher density area. His contention is that it is in the higher density area. Mr. Chandler continued that these same criteria were In effect in 1985 when an application for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan was made pertaining to the 1 .41 acre tract located between the .59 acres and the concrete plant. Recognizing the critical need resulting from the changed conditions and environmental problem, the Land Use Plan amendment for the 1 .41 acre tract was granted. Mr. Chandler proceded with slides of the property in order to show the location of the .59 acres and the surrounding commercial uses. There were slides also of the retention ponds and reclamation system. Mr. Chandler indicated that when he submits an application for rezoning and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit he would make a detailed presentation Concerning the exact location and the nature of the retention ponds and the recyclying equipment and the effect of such use backing up to neighboring property. He noted that such a detailed presentation was not appropriate at this hearing. He asked that Phil Post, an engineer, speak regarding the conditions which created the necessity of the retention ponds. He also noted that Tom Capewell would be speaking concerning the fact that the secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan will not create a situation which will result in there being an adverse effect on the fair market value of the surrounding area. ed.iL-!QSIL engineer, gave background information regarding the changed conditions, the technical reasons why the original request was brought to the Board and approved and to add further information to Planning Staff 's questions in respect to the appropriateness of the Land Use Plan change. Post addressed the concern of the existence of utilities. He indicated the existing water lines, lines, telephone services one lines, the excellent location for the road transportation systemandthe railroad transportation system. He continued stating that the surrounding and existing land uses were compatible with what would be a very small expansi-on of the concrete plant operation. Population density does not seem to be this case as a criteria. The quite as applicable in the plant into compliance with +heimost uppto—dater environmental guidelines. He explained how the runoff would be captured by the ponds and recycled to be used In making concrete. Post reemphasized that the system required by OEM is In place and operational as intended. This request, if approved, would bring the applicant in compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The .59 --, tract -of land -would be used as a permanent buffer which would bring the plant more into compliance with the buffering requirements that have been added. Planning Board Member Chris Best asked whet was being stored on the western end of the property and Mr. Chandler stated that nothing is on that land at this time. Previously concrete barriers used In the construction of 1-40 were stored In this area. In answer to a question from Best on the location of the noted that the present location of the ponds, Post components to be contained In one site. Ponds would allow all runoff Chandler explained the process used In washing down the concrete trucks at the end of the day. Commissioner Willhoit asked that Phil Post address the fact that the ponds, If located on the western side, could have resulted in them being part of the land already properly zoned and would not have required any 091 Efl3T . tfl 17 ir further action for compliance. Post explained that the natural runoff would flow by gravity in volumes that cannot be efficiently d. the that was approved previously and the installation of the pump ponds, three py change was enough room for landscaping and this additional .59 acres would add to the present landscaping. In answer to Planning Board member Dan Eddleman, Chandler responded that the ponds were in operation in accordance with the State Environmental protection laws to retain the water in stream. We need to be able to operate the ponds and not let it go into the in order to keep the concrete plant in operation. and the reclamation system Commissioner Halklotis asked if the water in the ponds could be used to water grass and flowers. Post's response was that the water was not caustic but may need to be diluted slightly. Mr. Chandler indicated that the water is used to water trees and shrubs as well as used in the making of concrete. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs asked that some documentation be provided from DEM stating their previous there seems to be some differences relating position and present position as to be retained. Post indicated that his lients ' desireowasutof contain wall runoff not dust that produced by the washing of trucks. He that controlling the runoff from truck washing could be handled on the eQwestern side but that he felt the better job was being done by handling all runoff from one location. Planning Board Member Steve Yuhasz was centered on the operation of the concretet why all the discussion plant and the location of the ponds stating that Chandler's request is due to court action which found him in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He continued that he felt the discussion should be centered on extension of the zoning to bring Chandler into complainance with the two acre minimum requirement. Chair Marshall noted that the recommendation of the Planning Staff is for denial and therefore the background information is relevent. Planning Board Member Eddleman t n immediate area. Post responded thatg the arreadishchangi�ngdbutnthat°theimajorr change in conditions are environmental requiring regulations by DEM and another changed condition would be that of buffer requirements. John Capewell who is an appraiser spoke to the question of area changes. He noted that five parcels in the immediate area have changed to PD-01 , CC3 and CC4. Chair Marshall noted that those changes were not inconsistent with the Central Orange Area Study. Mr. Robert E. Rhine, owner of land across from Chandler Concrete, stated that he and his sisters were the ones who opposed the original Land Use Plan amendment and initiated court action against Chandler Concrete. Since _- that time, an agreement has been reached between Chandler Concrete and the Rhine family which states therein that if Chandler granted the amendment, replanting of the .59 Is loblolly pines. He summarized the contents acres gill be done with there would be no change or expansion of the the commercial activity (the agreement noting that concrete plant). He continued retdin restrictions and the affirmative obligations on shall become effective only approval agreement. These - -- effective onlydm pvLbydtheeOrange County Cal seiPer Permit.. the above Mr. Rhine expressed concern that If the amendment sisPenottgranted, Mr. Chandler will be legally forced to leave the area and no replanting will have to be done. While he does not enthusiastically support requested by y pport the amendment as y Chandler, he realizes that without the approval , the area could remain bare which would be more detrimental to the surrounding area. County Attorney Gledhill informed the Board that the agreement between IIMII-13 Mr. Rhine and Mr. Chandler should not be considered as evidence in this public hearing. Commissioner Willholt questioned why the original request was not for the full 2 acres as required. Gledhill stated that he had advised the Board to waive the 2 acre minimum lot size. Since there Is an expressed reduction provision in the Ordinance of 10%, a further reduction through a general provision was not allowed. The 1 .41 acres was determined to be the minimum amount of land on which to build the three continued that he knew of no provision In the Ordinance ponds. Gledhill Use Plan amendments to correct prior actions of the Board. permits Land Commissioner Hartwell asked If a Land Use Plan designation was necessary since the land on which the Chandler Plant is located is already included in the Land Use Plan with the right designation which totals more than the 2 acre minimum. Mr. Chandler explained that there were two tracts of land with two different zonings. The concrete plant itself is zoned 1-3 which is not the same as the property on which the ponds are located. Gledhill stated that by Including portions of the existing concrete plant in the 1-3 zone, a Land Use Plan amendment would not be necessary. The 1 .41 acres Is already properly zoned in the Land Use Plan designation. Joyce Garrett, Attorney for Chandler Concrete, spoke to inconsistencies In the minutes of prior public hearings about the location of the The permits for timbering and grading were secured and the ponds were paced in accordance with the directive from DEM. contributions that Chandler makes to the communit She ssube a nt al mount of ic money has been expended to meet and to protect against amount of environmental problem. It is the desire to keep the Pheentirl p located and asked that the request for an amendment to the sLand rUsehPlanabe granted. Marvin Collins clarified that no permit was needed for timbering and the permit Mr. Chandler received was for grading. Ms. Garrett acknowledged this correction. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Willholt, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. z..�ZQ INE_6IL61_6LlEUDEIEEIIE a....._Z =EZ Ihg_bi ;3d.Qx1nads. Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public proposed request by Meadowlands Associates to amend the OrangemmCounty Zoning' Atlas. The property is located along the south side of U. S Highway 70 Business east -of N.C. 86 In Hillsborough Township. The applicant is requesting a realignment of the existing(R-1 ) lzones, previously (stlb, . lished by the Board of Commissioners on Jul 1 , 1987. prevuopole oftthe change is to match zoning district boundaries with the The Master Plan land use designations. The property is located in an area d esignated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial industrial Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan, The proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones: Existing Proposed Zoning Realigned Zone Difference 093 -.- , 2 IL AGENDA ITEM 110 : MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING - 8/24/87 a . Land Use Plan Amendment LUP-1 -87 Chandler Concrete Company Presentation by Gene Bell . On October 10 , 1985 , Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for 1 . 41 acres of land on N . C. Highway 10 . The request was prompted by State mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant . An adjoining property owner subsequently challenged Orange County ' s approval in court . On December 12, 1986 , the court ruled that the Special Use Permit was invalid since the applicant did not meet the required two-acre minimum lot size standard, and since evidence had not been presented to indicate the project would maintain the value of existing properties in the area . The effect of the court ruling was to place Chandler Concrete Company in violation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. To correct its nonconforming status, Chandler Concrete is requesting that the Ten-Year Transition Area and Commercial - Industrial Activity Node be expanded by an additional 0 .59 acres . Combined with the 1 .41 acres currently in the same designation, the two-acre lot size requirement could be met. If the proposed Land Use Plan amendment is approved, Chandler Concrete Company would submit a Planned Development application for the entire two acres . Current policy does not permit Land Use Plan amendment and Planned Development (or rezoning ) applications to be handled concurrently . The Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan state three reasons for which the Plan may be amended : ( 1 ) Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; (2 ) To correct an error or omission in the plan ; or (3) In response to a change in land use policy . The plan amendment application does not adequately address any of these reasons . Evaluation of a plan amendment also requires conformance with the locational criteria for the plan designation being requested as specified in section 3 . 4 of the Land Use Plan . The criteria include land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public services/utilities, transportation 1 -. r>.pw-. r- P.- r--91 91 - , system, energy use, existing land use, agriculture and forestry, population density, and historic and cultural features . Evaluation of the criteria indicates partial conformity with public services/utilities and non- conformance with existing land use and population density . The Planning Staff recommends denial of the request based upon : ( 1 ) The reasons for amendments in the Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan are not addressed ; and (2) Conformity with all applicable locational criteria in Section 3 . 4 of the Land Use Plan is not demonstrated . The Planning Board recommendation will be referred to the Board of Commissioners for decision on October 5, 1987 . Eddleman asked the linear feet that the 0 . 59 acres is on the road frontage. Phil Post, engineer on the project, responded that it was approximately sixty feet additional road frontage . MOTION : Best moved to accept Planning Staff ' s recommendation for denial . Seconded by Margison . Kramer asked about the conformity with locational criteria . Bell responded explaining the locational criteria for 10-Year and 20-Year Transition Areas and Commercial - Industrial Areas . He noted that these locational criteria are used on all of the Land Use Plan designations . Yuhasz indicated that he felt the requested land use designation was in order, would bring the existing use into compliance and presented no danger to surrounding uses . Best disagreed noting that the minutes from the public hearing indicated a Land Use Plan amendment was not necessary since sufficient acreage needed already was in the tract of land . Kramer indicated he felt the changing condition of the neighborhood uses would indicate this change is in order . Phil Post, engineer for Chandler Concrete, indicated on a map of the property, the location of the holding ponds and reclamation activity and noted again that the 0 . 59 acres would create the two-acre minimum lot size needed to meet Ordinance requirements and would not expand the use of the property . VOTE : 4 in favor (Best, Jacobs, Margison , Pilkey) . 7 opposed (Boland, Eddleman, Kramer, Lewis, Swann, Taylor, Yuhasz ) . MOTION : Yuhasz moved approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment as requested by Chandler Concrete Company . Seconded by Kramer . rAIEE - 095 14 VOTE : 7 in favor ( Boland, Eddleman, Kramer, Lewis, Swann, Taylor, Yuhasz ) . 4 opposed (Best, Jacobs, Margison, Pilkey ) . b . Zoning Atlas Amendments ( 1 ) Z-3-87 The Meadowlands Presentation by Greg Szymik. The property in question is located along the south side of U . S . Highway 70 Business east of N. C. 86 in Hillsborough Township. It is known . as Tax Map 40, Block A, Lots 11 and 14 . The applicant is requesting a realignment of the existing Office Institutional (0- I ) , Industrial -1 ( I .1 ) , and Rural Residential (R-1 ) zones, previously established by the Board of Commissioners on July 1 , 1985 . The purpose of the change is to match zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land use designations . The proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones : Existing Proposed Zoning Realigned Zone Difference (0- I ) zone 25 .4 acres 15 .81 acres -9 . 59 acres ( I -1 ) zone 62 .3 acres 72. 57 acres +10. 27 acres (R-1 ) zone 22 .4 acres 21 .73 acres -.67 acres The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes in the zoning atlas for the following reasons : I . The proposed change would match the zoning district boundaries with- the Meadowlands Master Plan land use designations . 2 . The property is located in a designated Commercial - Industrial transition activity node and therefore con- sistent with the Land Use Plan . 3. The Town of Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed changes . 4. The Town Board, in their August 10 , 1987 meeting, approved tap on to the existing 12 inch water line and the installation of dry sewer lines to be used at a future date. 5 . General Office uses generate twice as much traffic as Light Industrial uses . Therefore, traffic generation on O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 096 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 5, 19$7 Action genda Item SUBJECT: Z-3-87 THE MEADOWLANDS ACTION BY: No time limit DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x__ No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Application Project Summary Vicinity Map Agency Comments Certificate of Mailing Findings of Fact 8-24-87 Public Hearing Minutes 9-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel H i l l - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of a proposed request by Meadowlands Associates to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . BACKGROUND: The property in question is located along the south side of U .S . Highway 70 Business east of N.C. 86 in Hillsborough Township . It is known as Tax Map 40, Block A, Lots 11 and 14 . The applicant is requesting a realignment of the existing Office Institutional (0- I ) , Industrial -1 ( I -1 ) , and Rural Residential (R-1 ) zones, previously established by the Board of Commissioners on July 1 , 1985 . The purpose of the change is to match zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land use designations. The proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones : Existing Proposed Zoning Realigned Zone Difference (0- I ) zone 25 .4 acres 15 .81 acres -9 .59 acres ( I -1 ) zone 62.3 acres 72. 57 acres +10 .27 acres (R-1 ) zone 22 .4 acres 21 .73 acres -.67 acres The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the �� Orange County Land Use Plan . The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on the proposal . The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed changes in the zoning atlas. The recommendation is based on positive findings of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends approval of the application as recommended by the Planning Board. CAAhGE :CUN7Y NCP7m R�L NL APPL.CAT: RN FOR CHANGE OF :ON:NG ::STR::T 098 Date : Ju1v 9 , ' 9E7 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMM:SE:ONERS ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CARDLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to chance the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is located on the south side of S .R . # US-70 ( Street/Road) between S .R . # N. C_ Rf and Lawrence Rd, It is known as Lot Is ) i1 , block r F� of Orange County .Tax Map An "p, " 1 : t has a frontage of 0Q.0 feet and a depth of 1600 feet , end contains square feet or 110 acres . 2. :t is desired end reouested that the foregoing property be rezoned from boundary_a~lianment with recommended master development plan (portions P.-1, 0-1 , I-1 ) The -following information has been attached in support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas I ' — required on all applications) . _.,._�_.._... ._----- -• •a. A fully dlwsneionee asp at a scale of not lees than ens 17) inch e quals one—hundred 1700) feat nor wort then one 17) inch 'Douala ' twenty' 120) fist showing the lend white is pr000sed to be rezoned. •b. A legal description of the Lend proposed to be retoneg. •c. A etatseent of justification •caressing one or sore of the following: (1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be eorrecteC by the propocee ■w : with a petalled ■tOlanation of such error In the Zoning Atlas and dsteiled reasons how the propoaee asenoaent will correct the error. (2) The changer or changing tOneiticnc, If any, in the epee or in the Lounty generally, ■high sake the proposed sseneeent reasonably net y to the proection of the puolic health. safety and general welfare. •12) The wanner in which the proposed ewendwent will carry out the intent end purpose of the POOOtaC Lane Use Plan or pert thereof. *IA) All Other tireusstarmac, factors ■nC which the applicant offers in support of the proposed awenewsot including, but not 1'i•itee to, OOOIJcehtetion Tree service agencies (a.;.- fire, police, rescue and utilities spencisa) in; services provision capability to the Cevslbpssnt. O. A list of ell individuals, Tires or cbrporatidns owning property •Cjclning or within five hundred (600) feat of the property scrgn. fCr Asson;ing is ettacnec. The list is torrent se of c/ r 1. [. r ILeteY i certify that ell information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge . App li cent I s) • Meadowland s Associates efr .� Address : At . z , r,"-V IT-2A t'•. r .. i✓✓� .% i Phone : 732-5CS c4%-nP57 REZONING RD QUEST Ci1CCKLIST Marsmenflow Inc. and f ownit'5 NAiiii Me_as1v_W_ a id'.R Assnr.iaf-per _ ADDRESS Rt: S, Sox 1376, Ilillsboroug , N.C_ Current zoning It-1, ❑_ .i_1 Total number of acres 11011 Current land use pasture conformity With r.ecomme Type of rezoning regiiested-ilast:er r.le ,Q lc pniPnF pla..��gi���ed land use Research, Ottice Industrial :'ark Tax mnp A 40 Block d Ff Number of lots I - -yroposed Water Supply: Public x Community Individtirl Proposed Sewage. Trentmentt Public x 1 Community Individual septic tank x Access onto state road A US 70-A Avernge daily traffic. count on the state road 1200 TPD Describe existing critical areas: flood prone areas Poorly drained areas Streams outer-sensitive areas Describe land usen int General Area 111clUstria1, commercial, mobile home nark. residential Sep attar-hoo, si a analysis; I _ &"II . Adjacent parcels of land West - I-2. Ng_KLh - Mobile An m_P_r_k R t , East - A /R1. Sn nth-MTC ' i r...7--__ g ' to w / e, HpN1M1 - , / - _ _ iii;r3tr) / 1 p 17 U - J 7 /� �. Q co/ . W N I' Q1 : W r _-- t / C / / / r U a Cr. "' m v - c i a) co \\•.)' , r+ = sy 7* Tr •-•er / cii.c.d., crV r7 Q / in—i_ / • / / ? 0 0 / / _- ��;9�a. / / .;--7.6.r) t:" . ----- -9,7 / / Q .s-on ti • Q rp/ .� \ G �, N OF . \ , cu / / U'� -!F' / N ry / ` sy / 30c2 n / 1 n U / _ / / ///44/46k% . . ' ..■ , ..T...............› / / .0 O U , / Q c to N .n / CD `-'"V ® l'-: < •te) crOcp '28 // r ..-- --- ..... - " / _ •"'- " (..0 C-1 Irk /� 1 ,11 ) i / -�. • Ii �c ` G I ' //l//CY / a I / , _... I I ''... 2/ .- \ / /I( ROU r� 86 o C'. Q I ! i. r �l /('' r r . 1�--� .+dn ,1 I / � � N J c N .....- -..---=,.. \- -- / \ v MEAMMININIMMEMINIMINIp CHECKLIST: ATTACHMENT I JMadowlanci& it Analysi5 Prepared By: Orange County Planning Dept. Attachment I Spring 1985 X02 SECTION I SITE ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The property being considered for an industrial park is the Beard tract located northeast of the I-85/N.C. 86 interchange. The property has a frontage of approximately 3 ,000 feet on I-85 and a frontage of approximately 2,910 feet on U.S. 70-A. The current zoning of the. property is R-1 Residential, but it is located in a Commercial-Industrial Transition Node as designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. To the north of the site are scattered single-family and mobile homes. To the south is I-85 , across which is located Chris' s Truck Stop and the Orange Mobile Home Park . To the west are several single-family homes, the Esquire Health Club, an antique store and Hines Lumber Yard. East of the tract is the Colonial Hills Subdivision consisting of single-family and mobile homes. The above mentioned uses as well as the Beard tract are identified on Exhibit A, an existing land use map taken from the Central Orange Area Study. That study, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on November 7 , 1983 , contains an amendment to the Land Use Plan which involves a much larger area. However, because of the location of the Beard site in this area, maps from that study have been used where possible to identify site characteristics and surrounding property features. This section presents an analysis of factors which will influence development of the site, then concludes with recommendations regarding the most appropriate method of site utlization. SITE FACTOR - COMMENT Topography Elevations on the site range from 660-670 (See Exhibit B and feet above mean sea level (M.S.L.) along Site Analysis Map) the eastern property line to 580-590 feet along the western property line. This represents an elevation drop of 80 feet from east to west. Characterizing the site is a pond located centrally on the tract. Extending from the west, north and south are drainage swales which carry surface runoff to the pond. Slopes along these swales as well along the westen property line (where a stream exists) present limitations for development in that they generally exceed 10% . Slopes of 5% or less are most desirable for industrial development, but 10% has been used as a maximum cutoff in this report to allow more site utilization. • 103 Vegetation Existing vegetation is somehat limited (See Exhibit C and in that the tract was used for many Site Analysis) years for farming . Vegetation is concentrated along the western property line , along a drainage swale extending from the eastern property line , and in a large grouping located in the south-central portion of the site. The limited tree cover is an advantage in terms of site grading and develop- ment, however , additional plantings will be needed to supplement that vegetation already existing. Drainage Drainage patterns within the area are also shown on Exhibit C and on the Site Analysis. As indicated previously, the major drainage feature is a swale extending from east to west through the site, interrupted only by an existing pond. To the west of the pond a stream flows to the western property line, then turns northward to drain eventually into the Eno River . Approximately 60% of the site drains to the pond, and that feature acts like a retention pond, collecting stormwater runoff and releasing it gradually downstream. This characteristic as well as the visual aspects of the pond is worthy of retaining as site development occurs. Soils The soils- on the site are (See Exhibit D) characterized by Georgeville, Herndon and Tatum associations. These soils are primarily silt loams and have slight to moderate limitations for development. Shown on Exhibit D are soils grouped according to suitability for urban purposes. Only one area stands out as having limitations for development and this is due to excessive slopes. Table A presents a summary of the various limitations by suitability grouping. The one area of development limitation is a presents problems for small commercial buildings. Transportation As indicated before , the site (See Exhibit E) fronts on both I-85 and U.S.70A. It is also near the I-85/N.C.86 PAGE 3 interchange , thus having good access to the Interstate . Adjacent to the Interstate, the land 104 drops dramatically in places , so access via a marginal access road within the I-85 right-of-way seems impractical. Slopes along the U.S.70A frontage are gentle , and access to the site could be provided easily at two or more locations . The distance to the I-85 interchange via U.S.70A and N.C.86 is approximately three-fourths of a mile. Access will also be available to I-40 as soon as that facility is built. Access will be available via an inter- change with I-85 approximately 2.5 miles to the west or via N.C. 86 To another interchange near Chapel Hill. The relationship of the Beard tract to major transportation routes is shown on Exhibit E. Utilities Public water lines belonging to (See Exhibit F) the Town of Hillsborough are available to serve the site . A 12-inch water line extends down U.S.70A across the full frontage of the property. Sewer service would also be provided by the Town of Hillsborough. However, service to the site is not presently available. Several options are present in terms of service. First, a gravity flow line could be installed which would follow the stream leaving the site. The line would continue northward toward the Eno River and the Town of Hillsborough sewage treatment plant. The line would, at some point near that facility, have to tie into an existing pump station or a new station be installed to pump the effluent to the plant. The second alternate would be to collect the effluent at the western property via a gravity line, then pump it down U.S.70-A and Brady Road to the sewage treatment plant. A consulting engineer has been asked to look at the entire area in terms of sewer service, since several PAGE 4 JAM 5 development applications have been submitted for approval, others approved, and the Beard site selected as a possible industrial park . Completion of the report will not only resolve questions about service to the Beard tract but 7 a larger growth area. 1 Aesthetic Factors Features on-site and surrounding (See Site Analysis) the tract which can visually contribute to or detract from the end product have been touched on previously. These include topography, vegetation, etc. A central feature on the site is the pond and if the industrial park is to have a park- like setting, orientation of the buildings around this feature is desirable. The slope of the land is such that vistas or views toward the pond are present from nearly every portion of the site. Several structures exist on the site including the old farm home and various outbuildings. The outbuildings can be removed to make way for development of the site. However , the home place could be retained as it sits on a knoll overlooking the remainder of the tract. It could have use as a park office or serve as the corporate headquarters for an industrial firm whose plant is situated in the park . Another factor which must not be overlooked is the MTC or Major Transportation Corridor requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance . Basically, the district requires a 100-foot buffer adjacent to the Interstate with 50-foot setbacks around the remainder of the site. The use of existing vegetation to provide buffers and meet setback requirements can be easily accomplished while retaining a park-like atmosphere. As the tract was farmed previously, additional landscaping is recommended to supplement that existing. This will also screen the park from adjacent residential properties. PAGE 5 106 RECOMMENDATIONS - SITE UTILIZATION The 105.0 acre site presents definite limitations and possibilities insofar as site development is concerned. These features are summarized below and presented on the Site Analysis map. 1. Areas with slopes of greater than 10% should be avoided for building construction. These areas will create additional expense in terms of site preparation and grading. Slopes of 5% or less are used as in general rule of thumb in the identification of suitable industrial sites . 2. Areas which serve as natural drainageways or swales should be kept free of development to allow water to follow it ' s existing path. These areas also happen to be characterized by steeper slopes and should be avoided for reasons given in #1 . 3. Existing farm outbuildings should be removed to make way for development of the site. The existing homestead should be given consideration for retention as an office facility and to retain some of the character of the original farm use. 4. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible and supplemented with additional landscaping to meet MTC requirements, screen the park from adjacent residential uses and provide for a park-like atmosphere. 5. The pond should be utilized as a focal point for the development with buildings oriented around it . Any construction near the pond should be undertaken in such a manner to protect it. The pond also serves a useful stormwater detention purpose by collecting and releasing runoff at lower rates. 6. Access to -the site should be limited to U.S.70-A since slopes to I-85 limit access to any future marginal access road. Construction costs would also be limited. Traffic generated by the facility may require the installation of a traffic light at the U.S.70-A/N.C.86 intersection. 7. The most usable portions of the site should be developed first. These include the area surrounding the farm home and extending in a north-south direction toward 1-85, and the area located in the southeast portion of the tract. Another small area adjacent to homes fronting on U.S.70-A can also be developed, but given the presence of the home, it should be used for a lower-intensity use such as DAry c • offices. This site should also be developed last and 107 only if the market demands its use. Care should be taken to provide adequate screening/buffers between the homes and any office or industrial use in that location. 8. If development of the site appears evident, a detailed sewer report should be prepared identifying various alternative methods to serve the site and the residential development beyond (Colonial Hills Subdivision) . • nhr:r CHECKLIST: ATTACiMENT II 108 PEadowland8 INDUSTRIAL/RESEARCH/OFFICE PARK Master Development Plan 109 The Meadowlands Master Development Plan Report Prepared by RS&H of North Carolina, Inc. Architects/Engineers/Planners Greensboro, North Carolina - THE MEADOWLANDS is a development of CONSOLIDATED VENTURES CORPORATION 600 Franklin Square Chapel Hill, NC 27514 919/967-0857 List of illustration 110 s Master Development Plan 7 Site Inventory 11 Zoning and Land Use 13 Soils Analysis 15 Slope Analysis 17 Topography& Storm Runoff 19 Traffic Impact Analysis 21 Site Analysis Summary 23 1 site Location The Meadowlands site in Orange County, North Carolina, near the Town of Hillsborough, is a 110 acre tract of land located between US 70A and 1-85 with access approximately one mile away via NC 86. The site is less than 15 miles from downtown Durham (to the east) and Chapel Hill (to the south) with excellent accessibility to Research Triangle Park via the new 1-40 extension that is nearing completion. Raleigh and Greensboro, the second and third largest cities in the state, are within a 45 minute drive. The site's terrain is typical of North Carolina Piedmont landscape— rolling countryside with a good mixture of vegetation and grassland. Because of the property's centrally-located lake, the site has a distinctly picturesque quality.The Meadowlands site is an excellent location for the campus-like facility planned. A1111: I-ES HILLSBOROUGH. ey_ bus 4, TO GREENSBORO ■ • p 1111 DURHAM 1111 A o Z ♦y�, LS RALEIGH — DURHAM AIRPORT CHAPEL HILL 4.140 Greensboro 41 Mlles RESEARCH ir Chapel Mill 10 Miles TRIANGLE PARK 'mac Durham 8 Miles RALEIGH Raleigh 35 Miles Research Triangle Park 19 Miles J\ adcw1ands 2 jV1adow1apd5 112 itc Conceptualization 113 Develament Conce:DL8 The following fundamental design goals were defined by The Meadowlands prior to planning and have been incorporated into The Meadowlands' Master Development Plan. 1.The Meadowlands is envisioned to be a quality industrial/research/office park. 2.The plan should, at a minimum, incorporate the following: • Industrial Tracts • Office Tracts • Recreational Amenities • Efficient Traffic Circulation System •Water and Sanitary Sewer Service to All Lots 3. It is strongly felt that the existing house and barn could be restored and incorporated into the overall concept. 4.The existing lake should be preserved and protected and become a focal point for the development. 5.The Meadowlands master plan should be conceived with flexibility in mind in order to respond to the market demand. 6.While striving for quality, development costs need to be considered to allow the project to be competitive. 7. Imageefrom 1-85 is very important and should be a top priority in conceptual planning. 8.The natural beauty of the site should be preserved as much as possible by leaving the existing tree-lined drainageways undisturbed. 9.Access onto US 70A should be kept to a minimum with sight distance being of prime importance in considering entry/exit locations. 10.The ultimate site design goal is to produce a product that we all can be proud of while at the same time have that product be very successful and a source of pride for the community, county and state. Aemadowland8 5 114 Ma8ter ry De\elo p ent Plan The Master Development Plan was prepared in accordance with the decisions of the management panel at The Meadowlands' two-day "charette," a final master planning wrap-up session. The site has been divided into sixteen unique parcels encircling the lake; the parcels range in size from two to twenty-six acres, thus allowing significant size flexibility. A loop road or lakeside drive intersects US 70A in two places and provides the major access through the site. A minor loop road encircles the existing manor house and adjoining landscape. Recreational amenities will be located along the southern perimeter of the lake, providing both a pleasing focal point to the campus, as well as a practical central location for recreation. The most important advantage of a plan that revolves around the lake is the ability to develop the entire site with minimum alterations. An efficient use of the existing vegetation, natural drainage and the rolling terrain has maximized the corporate park image of the site while minimizing construction costs. JW3dow1and5 6 adml 1 C91 a SITE STATISTICS DEVELOPABLE AREA Tale •eaeeal B 31 l •�•.V �. C 59 D 4.3 ac E 31 H 80 t 1 49 .41 A9 L 4.4 M 20 y •�_—..—==----••— f ,yam N 20 4.0 [Anil O 62 P Bq lolal Acres 91.8 91.8 Road Alghl-of Way 1,9 �a r Aevaa ti.n Area 11.1 t Q 1. v Tofsf Aosa 110.1 M r T ar �j �r •I f, x N'10, c r Devc1opfuc i t Plan - 01 L The site is located in the MTC or Major Transportation Corridor. According to the zoning ordinance, the district requires a 100 foot buffer adjacent to the Interstate with fifty foot setbacks around the remainder of the site. The use of existing vegetation to provide buffers and meet setback requirements can be easily accomplished while retaining a park-like atmosphere. The property is served by a 12" waterline provided by the Town of Hillsborough along US 70A. The sewage treatment plant is located to the northwest of the site, so a gravity line is planned to run out of the west part of the site to an existing or new pump station and then be pumped north to the plant. Electricity and gas can be easily obtained and storm drainage will be handled through the existing lake and its drainageways. Yleadox'land5 9 117 @Site inventory The Meadowlands site is unique because it affords selected views into the property as well as outward to surrounding areas. There is approximately ninety feet of fall from the eastern to the western end of the property. From US 70A, a commanding view of the site's central lake is backdropped by the higher elevations and existing vegetation of the site.The entrance to the existing house and outbuildings is located upgrade to the west of this view of the lake. Three residential properties separate the site's frontage from US 70A at the northeast section. The west part of the site is bordered with trees, and a creek that stems from the central lake divides the site from NC 86. Views from the site out to 1-85 are best at the southwest corner of the property. From the southeast, views into the site are restricted because the Interstate is approximately 20 feet lower than the existing trees. The eastern part of the site is lower and tree-lined. Adjoining development is within view at times. Views of the lake are directed by an existing swale and filtered by more existing trees. This lower elevation area has a sense of privacy, as does the northeastern part of the site which is surrounded by wooded buffers. The site is partially open and partially wooded, which is typical of previously farmed property in the area. Heavy tree vegetation is commonly found along prominent swales and creeks, while the higher, flatter areas are clear because of earlier farming. The site is currently used as pasture. The majority of vegetation found in the swale and floodplain are hardwoods such as oak and elm. Intermixed in these wooded areas are a great deal of dogwood, redbud and other smaller ornamental trees and shrubs. As natural drainage and a certain amount of screening are desirable, this vegetation should be retained wherever possible. The site's central five acre lake is surrounded by a variety of evergreen trees and hardwoods. The lake-front areas have a slightly different atmosphere from the rest of the property. Selective clearing and thinning of this area will create a quite pleasant area for development. The Meadowlands property, because of its good mixture of open grassland, wooded areas, and the existing lake as a central focal point, is an ideal site for the development of a campus-style industrial/office park. J111adowland.5 10 �. y d o land.5 LAKE r CPM mw SITE: 108.5 ACRES �. LOCATED WITHIN STATE[MTCf ^'•.•, 'J` ! I: MAJOR TRAFFIC CORRIDOR � ••�,,� ticar sorr c .., c51 Le I nvcftory _ _ 1 , • lor-ling Lanci L5C On the following page is a map of The Meadowlands' "Zoning and Land Use," as of January 1987. Detailed analyses of the factors that determine the project's development potential- including the site's soils, topography, drainage and transportation requirements - follow the Zoning and Land Use Map. AC"adowJands 12 filecadowlmd8 ,. R �+ r` v. ZONING i i} O.1: ollicel residential w ; , R 1: residential •,. ! I: Industrial ' ,_.•_ /\ l�onEn timid Ube January 1987 14. o5oils Ana1yis The various soils that make up the first six feet of material found on The Meadowlands site have been grouped according to their limitations for the construction of buildings, roadways, parking lots and utilities. The limitations have been categorized as slight, slight-moderate and moderate. A slight limitation category indicates that soil properties are favorable for development and any limiting factors are easily overcome. A slight-moderate category limitation indicates that soil properties are favorable for development and the limiting factors can be overcome with minor considerations. A moderate category limitation indicates that soil properties and site features are not favorable for development but the limiting factors can be overcome or minimized by special planning and design. The soils on the site have been identified as Georgeville, Herndon and Tatum series. Georgeville soils are found over approximately seventy-five percent of the site and typically consist of a well-drained soil on broad ridges and upland areas. The Herndon soils are found in two areas of the site, roughly north and south of the existing lake. The Tatum soils are found primarily within the drainage depression east of the lake. Both the Georgeville and Herndon series typically exhibit a depth to bedrock greater than sixty inches and a depth to groundwater deeper than seventy-two inches. Tatum soils exhibit a depth to rock of approximately forty to sixty inches and a depth to the water table of between forty-eight and seventy-two inches. Shallow rock may be encountered in several areas of the site, thus, the depth of excavations within these areas should be minimized to reduce the potential for rock excavation. Trench excavation into partially-weathered rock or competent rock typically requires blasting to expedite construction. ��r j eadoyland5 14 adowlands LAKE so DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS SLIGHT r� �� I�i f ''��'""S � l:Ir•;Ff�S �i:,',.��',.-cf;fit . r rit;f. . 4 SLIGHT-MODERATE 3 �?. t MODERATE TaD csoiks s 123 S1ooe Ana 1 Tsi� The Meadowlands' topography is rolling with slopes averaging zero to ten percent over approximately eighty percent of the site. The remaining twenty percent of the site is comprised of steeper areas around the existing drainageways and at the corners of the site cut for the highway. Very little area has slopes over fifteen percent; therefore, the entire site can be developed utilizing good construction practices. A slope of zero to five percent is considered flat and is very good for developing large structures and parking lots. Approximately thirty percent of the site is comprised of these flatter slopes. A slope of five to ten percent is considered a gentle slope. These areas are good for parking lots, roadways and walkways. Approximately fifty percent of the site contains these gentle slopes. A slope of ten to twenty-five percent is considered a moderate slope. These areas can best be used as open space or transition areas between development. Because they contain much of the site's existing vegetation, these areas should be retained wherever possible. A slope of zero to ten percent is considered ideal for development with only slight limitations. Slopes of ten to twenty-five percent are considered satisfactory for development with moderate alterations or special planning necessary for development. Slopes of twenty-five percent and greater are considered poor development potential areas. Only with special engineering requirements or a great deal of alterations to the existing terrain can these steep slope areas be developed. These areas should be avoided if possible and are considered to have severe development limitations. jV'1eadwland�� 16 - -- ------- �./ fic"`adowlmd,5-------- _, v �' ----- °�� fie , `I PENCENT _ OF SLOPE 5%- 10% ,, >�,r�•:5_ .�:, ® 10%- 15% H POINT "'� •..�� .. 15% c5lopc Analois Y t � 1.2'5 Ion o rT3h Lcrn Qunoll Elevations on The Meadowlands site range from 670 feet above sea level along the eastern property line to 580 feet along the western property line. This is an elevation drop of ninety feet from east to west. The major drainage feature is a swale extending from east to west through the site, interrupted only by the existing lake. A stream flows from the lake to the western property line, then turns northward to drain eventually into the Eno River. Approximately sixty percent of the site drains into the lake: this acts as a retention area, collecting stormwater runoff and releasing it gradually downstream. NAe eadowilands 18 i i ti ficadowlwd,5 f . .... y' - ✓ 1 :ir urn l- • '- `� ELEVATION 570-600 + 600.630 630-660 680 ��� � .- '1..,,�• F Ulrecllon of Flow ��• o� oa ocSLoriil Qunorr 127 Tranortation Trallic Impact The Meadowlands site is served by the 1-85/NC 86 interchange and the US 70A/NC 86 intersection. The site fronts on US 70A and 1-85. Access to the property is direct to US 70A and a connector to NC 86 is under consideration. Trip generation, distribution, and assignment analyses were completed using the proposed land uses and the illustrative site plan. The Meadowlands will have 2,095 trips to and away from the site on a.typical day.The afternoon peak hour (4:45 PM to 5:45 PM) will have 115 trips to the site and 435 trips away from the site on an average day. 1984 Average Daily Traffic counts were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 1985 PM peak hour turning movement counts were undertaken at the intersection of US 70A and NC 86. In addition, the year 2002 Average Daily Traffic estimates • were obtained from the NCDOT. PM peak hour traffic and average daily traffic to and from the project were assigned to the highway network. A capacity analysis of the intersection of US 70A and NC 86 was undertaken for both existing and future conditions. Under existing conditions, all legs of this intersection operate at a high level of service in the afternoon peak hour except the south approach, which operates at a moderate level of traffic flow. With full development of the project, this intersection will operate at level of service A under signalized conditions. Given full development without signalization, the south approach will operate at a level of service F in the afternoon peak hour. Future traffic growth (as indicated by the year 2002 NCDOT traffic projections), combined with the traffic from The Meadowlands,will require stabilization of this intersection. The added Average Daily Traffic (ADT) to each link of the highway network serving this project is shown.The link of NC 86 between US 70A and 1-85 will require widening to accommodate lett turn movements along this segment of roadway when The Meadowlands is fully developed and the future projected ADT volumes occur. When the project is fifty percent developed, signalization will be required at the US 70A/NC 86 intersection to ensure a high level of traffic service. The signalization of this intersection might be delayed if the proposed additional connection between The Meadowlands and NC 86 is provided. If a connection from the site to NC 86 is provided, it should be a three-lane facility allowing for a lett turn lane at its intersection with NC 86. A left turn lane should also be provided off of NC 86. j\1eadoVwland5 20 (87 ADT) 5600 ADT FUTURE 1• ficcidowlmd8 TRAFFIC SIGMA! • (4938 ADT).f . 1200 ADT t ! Nt 14067 ADT) {ANE 4200 ADT •� ► L MEADOWLANDS TRAFFIC r , 2905 INS (In Parenlhesks) '�r ► ` 2905 OUTS f •� 1 N (5810 TOTAL) (811 ADT) �.• uss N I' 41182 ADT) 30.000 ADT \ "I t r. �. OUTSIDE LINE SHOWS EX.TRAFFIC PLUS MEADOWLANDS TRAFFIC (1743 ADT) 29.700 ADT 1182 ADT) %'iibl,,.. 7000 ADT I96;ADT I AVE RAGE DAILY 7RAFFICI COUNTS BY N.C.DOT •\, �� {l,raffic Impa d Ancglys18 129 3veJornent Potential The development potential of The Meadowlands site is illustrated on the Site Analysis Summary map. It is a synthesis of all the separate analyses. The map is divided into four categories based on the limitations of the various existing and man-made features of the site. Eighty percent of The Meadowlands site has high to moderately-high development potential, thus it is highly suitable for development as a campus-style industrial/office park. The Zone 1 areas have the best potential for development and total approximately sixty percent of the site. These areas have flat to gentle slopes, good soils, good views and accessibility. They can be developed with least disturbance to the site. The Zone 2 areas are of moderately high potential for development and make up approximately twenty percent of the site. These areas are made up of gentle to moderate slopes with slight-moderate limitations. They are most often located adjacent to the high development potential areas and can be readily incorporated into their development. Much of this area is tree-covered and can serve as transition areas between more intense development. The Zone 3 areas have moderate potential. They contain steeper slopes associated with drainage swales. _ Zone 4 areas have low potential. They primarily border on the existing drainageways that enter or exit the lake. Besides having developmental constraints, these areas should be preserved as functional amenities of the site. Aea" dowlands 22 I r T. e�do�vland8 OKI. W ° •�-......... ' LAKE DEVELOPMENT •�•• b POTENTIAL 1 HIgh _` • .' 1 2 Moderately High 3 Moderate 4 Law .,.... rA Nk iLe Ana y*s 6ummary �. 0 -• ATTACHMENT 3-A 1 31\1 t ,whment. 3-A A fully dimensioned map .:at e scale of not less than one ( 1 ) inch equals one-hundred ( 100 ) feet nor more than one ( 1 ) inch equals twenty ( 20 ) feet showing the lend which is proposed to be rezoned . ) ATTACHMENT 3-B 132 At.Lachhent 3-kB 1 A legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned . t 1 1 1 133 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 1 of 1 THE MEADOWLANDS (TRACT 1) A tract of land being a part of that certain parcel of land surveyed by Callemyn Surveying Company also known as The Meadowlands located in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, near Hillsborough, North Carolina, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said property known as The Meadowlands, said corner also being the northeast corner of B. J. Johnson as recorded in Deed Book 224 at pages 757 and 844 and on the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 70A, thence S 66° 12' 36"E along said southerly right-of-way line a distance of 1335.00 feet to the point of intersection with the centerline of a proposed roadway said point being the true point of beginning; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line, along the centerline of said proposed roadway S 23° 47' 24"W a distance of 369.14 feet to a point of curve; thence departing said centerline S 66° 12' 36"E a distance of 103.00 feet, thence S 01° 17' 24"W a distance of 130.00 feet to a point on a curve whence the center of said curve bears S 50° 29' 06"W; thence along said curve to the right having a central angle of 50° 45' 02" and a radius of 150.00 feet a distance of 132.87 feet (chord bearing S 14° 08' 23"E a distance of 128.56 feet) to a point of reverse curve; thence along the arc of said reverse curve to the left having a central angle of 83° 10' .08' and a radius of 110.00 feet (chord bearing S 30° 20' 55"E a distance of 146.02 feet) a distance of 159.67 feet; thence N 57° 08' 05"E a distance of 479.00 feet to a point that is the southwest corner of the Carter property, thence N 04° 33' 05"E along the westerly line of said Carter property a distance of 296.84 feet to the point of intersection with said southerly right-of-way line of U.S. 70A; thence along said right-of-way line N 67° 17' 15"W a distance of 224.35 feet; thence continuing along said southerly right-of-way line N 66° 12' 36"W a distance of 291.29 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 6.70 acres more or less. 134 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 1 of 1 THE MEADOWLANDS (TRACT 2) A tract of land being a part of that certain parcel of land surveyed by Calleymn Surveying Company also known as The Meadowlands located in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, near Hillsborough, North Carolina, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said property known as The Meadowlands, said corner also being the northwest corner of Glen Auman and on the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 70A; thence along the easterly boundary line of said The Meadowlands S 04° 34' 46"W a distance of 286.18 feet; thence continuing along said easterly boundary line S 04° 48' 03"W a distance of 581.08 feet to the northwest corner of Colonial Hills as recorded in Plat Book 15 at page 120 of the Orange County Register of Deeds, thence departing said northwest corner N 67° 15' 43"W a distance of 721.54 feet to a point on a curve of the centerline of a proposed roadway whence the center of said curve bears N 31° 27' 55"W; thence along the arc of said curve to the left having a central angle of 42° 08' 51" and a radius of 675.00 feet (chord bearing N 37° 27' 39"E and a distance of 485.42 feet) a distance of 496.54 feet; thence N 16° 23' 14"E a distance of 316.60 feet to the point of intersection with southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 70A; thence S 73° 36' 46"E a distance of 367.30 feet to the point of beginning containing 9.11 acres more or less. 135 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 1 of 2 THE MEADOWLANDS (TRACT 3) A tract of land being a part of that certain parcel of land surveyed by Callemyn Surveying Company also known as The Meadowlands located in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, near Hillsborough, North Carolina, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said property known as The Meadowlands, said corner also being on the southerly right-of-way line of U. S. Highway 70A and the northeast corner of B. J. Johnson as recorded in Deed Book 224 at pages 757 and 844 of th Orange County Clerk and Recorders Office; thence S 66° 12' 36"E along said southerly right-of-way line a distance of 1335.00 feet to the point of intersection with the centerline of a proposed roadway; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line, along the centerline of said proposed roadway the following nine (9) courses: 1) S 23 47' 24"W a distance of 369.14 feet to a point of curve; 2) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 50° 15' 00" and a radius of 375.00 feet (chord bearing S 48° 54' 54"W and a distance of 318.45 feet) a distance of 328.89 feet to a point of reverse curve; 3) Along the arc of said reverse curve to the left having a central angle of 66° 00' 00" and a radius of 223.49 feet (chord bearing S 41° 02' 24"W and a distance of 243.45 feet) a distance of 257.44 feet to a point of tangent; 4) S 08° 02' 24"W a distance of 108.76 feet to a point of curve; 5) Along the arc of said curve to the left having a central angle of 37° 45' 00" and a radius of 175.00 feet (chord bearing S 10° 50' 06"E and a distance of 113.23 feet) a distance of 115.30 feet to a point of tangent; 6) S 29° 42' 36"E a distance of 14.10 feet to a point of curve; 7) Along the arc of said curve to the left having a central angle of 59° 30' 00" and a radius of 455.00 feet (chord bearing S 59° 27' 36"E and a distance of 451.56 feet) a distance of 472.50 feet to a point of tangent; 8) S 89° 12' 36"E a distance of 577.57 feet to a point of curve; 9) Along the arc of said curve to the left having a central angle of 32° 15' 19" and a radius of 675.00 feet (chord bearing N 74° 39' 44"E and a distance of 375.00 feet) a distance of 380.00 feet; Thence departing said proposed centerline S 67° 15' 43"E a distance of 721.54 feet to the northwest corner of Colonial Hills recorded in Plat Book 15 at page 120 of the Orange County Clerk and Recorders Office; thence along said Colonial Hills S 05° 10' 50"W a distance of 982.00 feet; thence continuing along said Colonial Hills N 87° 54' 10"W a distance of 78.00 feet; thence south continuing along said Colonial Hills 00° 55' 06"W a distance of 49.78 feet to the point of intersection with the northerly right-of-way line 136 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 2 Of 2 of Interstate 85; thence N 66° 31' 56"W a distance of 1042.98 feet; thence S 25° 57' 22"W a distance of 19.71 feet; thence continuing along said northerly right-of-way of Interstate 85 N 66° 30' 41"W a distance of 897.16 feet; thence N 59° 05' 45"W a distance of 350.61 feet; thence continuing along said northerly right-of--way line of Interstate 85 N 51° 37' 26"W a distance of 523.00 feet; thence departing said right-of-way line of Interstate 85 N 00° 53' 49"W a distance of 414.64 feet; thence N 00° 33' 17"W a distance of 654.79 feet; thence N 00° 00' 50"W a distance of 613.03 feet to the point of beginning containing 72.57 acres more or less. 137 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 1 of 2 THE MEADOWLANDS (TRACT 4) A tract of land being a part of that certain parcel of land surveyed by Callemyn Surveying Company also known as The Meadowlands located in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, near Hillsborough, North Carolina, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said property known as The Meadowlands, said corner also being on the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 70A; thence S 66° 12' 36"E a distance of 1335.00 feet to the point of intersection with the centerline of a proposed roadway; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line along the centerline of said proposed roadway S 23° 47' 24"W a distance of 369.14 feet to the true point of beginning; thence departing said proposed centerline S 66° 12' 36"E a distance of 103.00 feet; thence S 01° 17' 24"W a distance of 130.00 feet to a point on a curve whence the center of said curve bears S 50° 29' 06"W, thence along said curve to the right having a central angle of 50° 45' 02" and a radius of 150.00 feet (chord bearing S 14° 08' 23"E a distance of 128.56 feet) a distance of 132.87 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence along the arc of said reverse curve to the left having a central angle of 83° 10' 08" and a radius of 110.00 feet (chord bearing S 30° 20' 55"E a distance of 146.02 feet) a distance of 159.67 feet; thence N 57° 08' 05"E a distance of 479.00 feet to a point that is the southwest corner of the Carter property; thence S 74° 01' 45"E a distance of 551.12 feet to the southeast corner of the Butts property as recorded in Deed Book 315 at page 626 of the Orange County Clerk and Recorder Office; thence along the common line of said Butts property and said Meadowlands property N 04° 04' 49"E a distance of 293.26 feet; thence along said southerly right-of-way line of U. S. Highway 70A S 73° 36' 46"E a distance of 183.74 feet to a point of intersection with the centerline of a proposed roadway; thence along said proposed centerline the following nine (9) courses: 1) S 16° 23' 14"W a distance of 316.60 feet to a point of curve; 2) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 74° 24' 10" and a radius of 675.00 feet (chord bearing S 53° 35' 19"W and a distance of 816.23 feet) a distance of 876.54 feet to a point of tangent; 3) N 89° 12' 36"W a distance of 577.57 feet to a point of curve; 4) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 59° 30' 00" .and a radius of 455.00 feet (chord bearing N 59° 27' 36"W and a distance of 451.56 feet) a distance of 472.50 feet to a point of tangent; 5) N 29° 42' 36"W a distance of 14.10 feet to a point of curve; 6) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 37° 45' 00" and a radius of 175.00 feet (chord bearing N 10° 50' 06"W and a distance of 113.23 feet) a distance of 115.30 feet to a point of tangent; 7) N 08° 02' 24"E a distance of 108.76 feet to a point of curve; 8) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 66° 00' 00" and a radius of 223.49 feet (chord bearing N 41° 02' 24"E and a distance of 243.45 feet) a distance of 257.44 feet to a point of reverse curve; fi. 138 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 2 Of 2 9) Along the arc of said reverse curve to the left having a central angle of 50° 15' 00" and a radius of 375.00 feet (chord bearing N 48° 54' 54"E and a distance of 318.45 feet) a distance of 328.89 feet to the true point of beginning containing 21.733 acres more or less. AIM ATTACHMENT 3-C 139 At.t..Achment 3-r A statement of justification addressing one or more of the following : 1 . The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance , if any , which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error . 2 . The changed or changing conditions , if any , in the area or in the County generally , which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. 3 . The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part thereof . 4 . All other circumstances , factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including , but not limited to , documentation from service agencies (e.g .fire, police , rescue and utilities agencies ) assuring services provision capability to the development. 140 - Attachment 3-C C-l . The existing Lori 1 ny Atlas reflects 103 acres , the existing tax map reflects 108 . 4 acres , the property apparently is 110 . 1 acres according to survey prepared for Meadowlands Associates Master Planning Review. The amendment corrects the zoning deficiency by recognizing the correct number of acres in the Meadowlands Industrial/Research project. C-2 . The Meadowlands property is within the industrial corridor designated by the Orange County Planning Department in its growth studies completed in 1983 . The planning documents and the completion of 1-40 are general and specific influences which support the zoning request . Furthermore , The Meadowlands Associates in February 1986 employed the services of RS&H of North Carolina to conduct a land use evaluation for the specific site. In May , 1986 a charette on the Meadowlands property was conducted for two days involving soil specialist , engineers , county and regional planners , NCDOT engineers , NCDOC industrial/economic developers , utility providers , fire department representataives and elected officials to develope a master land use plan for the site. This change of zoning request reflects the conclusions of the 1986 studies and charette. C-3 . The adopted land use plan and the zoning alignment are in complete accord. The plan list the Meadowlands property as transitional to commercial /industrial . C-4 . Essentially the elements supporting the change have not changed since the initial re-zoning request of July 1985 . The applicant requested that the documentation supporting the 1985 decision be continued as support documents for this re-alignment of the zoning and potential road boundaries . The re-alignment is necessary due to recommendations concluded via the slope and soil analysis and a decision to concur with the Orange County Planning Department Spring 1985 study for the present farm pond to serve as the focal point for the site. New documentation between the Orange County, Town of Hillsborough, and RS&H of North Carolina are attached which specify the quality of the internal utility system and soil and erosion plan for the site . ii J. ATTACHMENT 3-C IV � m I of North Carolina, Inc. Oak Branch Drive,Slide Two A(27407) P.O.Box 77354 Greensooro.NC 27417-7354 Phone(9)9)852-6152 June 23, 1987 Mr. Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Erosion Control Plan The Meadowlands Development Orange County ASP NO: 86-511-000 Dear Mr. Faircloth: We are herein responding to your letter of comments dated June 15, 1987 on the subject project. Also enclosed are three (3) sets of revised drawings. We trust these revisions are acceptable for your approval and issuance of a grading permit to the project owner, Consolidated Ventures Corporation, and their contractor, Nello Teer of Durham. The following responses to your comments are listed respectively: 1. Construction notes listing construction activities, and temporary and permanent erosion control measures added to sheet C-1. 2. Construction sequence outlining steps in construction process added to sheet C-1. 3. Yes, this plan covers only the street and utility construction. Prior to any additional construction or subdivision, appropriate erosion control plans will be submitted at that appropriate time. 4. The rip rap pads at the storm drain outlets are sized in accordance with Appendix C of "Guide for Sediment Control on Construction Sites" , by U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC. Rip rap pad detail added to sheet C-8. 5. None Architects/Engineers/Planners Warren iaircloth 142 rune 23, 1 957 Wage Two 6. Requirements for temporary stabilization (silt fencing, sediment pits) are indicated on the drawings; and temporsrr and permanent stabilization requirements (rip rap pads, a ecing) are also noted on drawings and fully specified in the Project Manual Technical Specifications — copies enclosed of Erosion Control and Seeding and Mulching. 7. Limits of construction activities and disturbances will be contained within road rights—of—way, sanitary sewer easements and drainage easements as stated in the construction notes added to sheet C—l. 8. ' Synthetic filter fabric only, not burlap, is required for silt fencing as designated on the silt fence detail on sheet C-8. Please promptly advise if you have any further comments. Sincerely C. D. Heiser, PE CDH:sh Enclosures cc: Mr. Lee Capps Project No 86-511-000 141gUNEFIRC 5 1' ATTACHMENT 3-C IV 3111111-11511E1 reynolds, smith and hills 2:00 pm Local X L.D. Placed Recd X Date 7/10/87 _ C. D. Heiser Conversed with David Cain Of Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout Regarding Water & Sewer Approvals/The Meadowlands Mr. Cain called to state that our response to their water and sewer review comments are complete. Cain is recommending that the Town of Hillsborough execute the water and sewer permit applications immediately so that they can be forwarded on to the appropriate State agencies (N.C.D.H.S. and N.C.D.O.T.) in order that permits may be issued. C- t C. D. Heiser, P.E. Distribution: RS&H FORM 102 11/72 MIMMEINIMIMIIMMINIIIMINEK ATTACHMENT 3-C IV O 1 144 .17:2 of North Carolina, Inc. Oak Branch Drove,Sure Two A(27407) P.O. Box 77354 Greensboro,NO 27417-7354 Phone(919)852-6152 June 23, 1987 Mr. L. Harding Hughes, Jr. , Administrator Town of Hillsborough 101 East Orange Street r Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Water and Sewer Approvals The Meadowlands Development Orange County AEP NO: 86-511-000 Dear Mr. Hughes: We are herein responding to the Town Engineer' s letter of comments dated June 12, 1987 on the subject project. Also enclosed are eleven (11) sets (three (3) for •NCDHS, Three (3) for NCDEM and five (5) for NCDOT) of revised drawings, NCDHS Application for Approval of Plans and Specifications for Water Supply Systems, NCDEM Non-Discharge Permit Application with $25.00 Application Fee and Gravity Sewer Design Checklist, and NCDOT Right-of-Way Encroachment Agreement for the water line extension under US 70-A. We trust these revisions are acceptable for your approval, execution and submittal to the appropriate state agencies. The following responses to Finkbeiner, -Pettis and Strout, Ltd. comments are listed respectively: 1. The tenants and their building sites and water demands at this development are presently unknown. Once a tenant is secured, they will submit plans and request domestic and fire protection water demands at that time. The proposed 8-inch water line loop is based on the Master Development Plan showing maximum building-up: A. 756,000 SF total Off./Inst. bldgs. @ 250 SF/Person s 3028 People 389,600 SF total Ind. bldgs. @ 1000 SF/Person m. 390 People 3418 3418 People x 25 GPD/Person/Shift x 1.5 shifts/Day /12 hr/day/60 min./hr. 5- 178 GPM x 2.5 peaking factor 4- 445 GPM peak domestic water use. Architects/Engin.ars/Piwnnara 145 Mr. L. Harding Hughes, Jr. June 23, 1987 Page Two B. Min. 1500 GPM @ 20 psi residual fire fighting demand. 2. All water lines shall be DIP class 50. 3. All sewer lines shall be extra strength vitrified clay pipe, or DIP where conditions require such. DIP shall be cement mortar lined. r- 4. See Item 1 concerning water and sewer demands, all based on the Master Development Plan. The gravity sewers will be capable of handling these anticipated flows. 5. All utility easements shall be min. 20-foot in order to conform to Town standards, as revised on drawings. 6. Conditions prevent an 18-inch vertical separation between the 6-inch DIP water line stub at STA 27+60 over the 8-inch DIP gravity sanitary sewer, while maintaining a 36-inch cover over the water line. Such an installation is acceptable in accordance with the Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, NC Administrative Code, Subchapter 10D-Water Supplies, NCDHS, Section .2106(6), copy attached. 7. All individual sewer service lines shall enter the main line at wyes as revised on the drawings. 8. The correct slope between manholes C and D is corrected to be 0.50%, and is redrawn correctly. 9. The profile between manholes G and H is correctly redrawn to show the 1.0% slope. 10. The drawings have been revised to show the location of Manhole A only, to be installed later by others. The lines leading to this manhole will be installed as indicated and marked to identify the correct locations and elevations. 11. The sewer line between manholes C and C-3 is designed at the designated depth (C-3 invert el. 648.31) in order to provide positive gravity service to Lot P with a minimum floor elevation of approximately el. 654 at 200 feet away. 146 Mr. L. Harding Hughes, Jr. June 23, 1987 Page Three 12. The present elevations are datumuonethe' xecordmdrawings prioroto will be corrected to US GS final Town acceptance of the water and sewer facilities. Please promptly adivse if you have any further comments. w Sincerely, C. D. Heiser, PE CDH:sh Enclosures cc: Mr. David Cain, FPS Mr. Lee Capps ORANGE COUNTY PLA\\1NG DEPARTME\T 147 496F RE's ERE 80.41) HILLsBOROt (:H. NORTH C .4RO1.I\4 27:7R M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM EDDIE KIRK, PLANNER DATE: JULY 29 , 1967 SUBJECT: 2-3-87 THE MEADOWLANDS GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Meadowlands Associates Route 5 , Box 1376 Hillsborough , NC 27278 LOCATION: Highway 70 Business REQUESTED ACTION : The applicant is requesting a realion- meat of the existing Office Institutional ( 0- I ) , Industrial -1 ( I -1 ) , and Rural Residential ( R-1 ) zones . This proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones : Existing Proposed Zoning Realigned Zone Difference ( O- ! ) zone 25 . 4 acres 15 . 81 acres -9. 59 acres ( 1 -1 ) zone 62 . 3 acres 72. 57 acres -10. 27 acres (R-1 ) zone 22 . h acres 21 . 73 acres -. 67 acres PURPOSE: To allow less Office- Institutional use ( 15 . 61 acres total ) and more Licht Industrial -1 use (72 . 57 acres total ) . It would also reduce the amount of the Residential -1 ( R-1 ) zone by . 67 acres. LOT SIZE: 103 total acres with 86. 51 requested to be rezoned. EXISTING LAND USE: Farm tract with two houses, various buildings and a pond . Z-3-87 THE MEADOWLANDS PAGE 2 148 SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING : The property in question is located in the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) . Zoning designations are identified below for surrounding property. NORTH - R-1 zone across U . S. 70 Business with one small EC- 5 zone SOUTH - Interstate 85 EAST - R-1 zone and Colonial Hills subdivision zoned R-2 WEST - R-1 zone , Hines Liner Company zoned 1 -2 and Merritt Marine zoned GC-4 LAND USE PLAN : Designated 10-year Transition and Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node . The permitted uses allowed in each district will remain as permitted under the existing R-1 , I -1 and 0- I zoning districts. FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: Z-3-87 THE MEADOWLANDS BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS : CO ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" indicates com liance• "No" indicates Noncompliance PLANNING BOARD BOARD FINDINGS BASED ON OF SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS COMMISSIONERS Ordinance Requi cements FINDINGS The application must comply with all requirements speci- fied in Article 20 - Amend- ments. Those requirements include : 20.32 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of Yes No property at scale of not less 1"=100' than I '= 100" nor more than l '= 20' 20.3.2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Description provided with application Yes No property 20. 3.2 c) Explanation of alleged X Yes No No error aT leged Yes No error, i f any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions , if X Yes No Yes No any, which make amendment reason a- The f-1 property is located next to the a necessary r to Interstate and other property zoned 1-2 and GC-4. Y y promote public The Ol property would be buffered from the present health, safety and general welfare, 1-2 zone by the 1-1 and located along US 70 Business. 20. 3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No The property is located in a Ten-Year Yes No _ amendment will carry out purpose Transition Area and Commercial Industrial and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan. Transition Activity ;Node. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA PLANNING 'BOARD BOARD OF FINDINGS BASED ON COMMISSIONERS Ordinance Requirements SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Article 4.2 Identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a 1 -1 designation. The Criteria for that district are set forth in Article +4.2.21 and are as follows: a) The site is located outside of X Yes No Applicant has indicated the property is Yes No the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area in a Ten-Year Transition area and and within an Industrial Transition Commercial/Industrial Transition Activity Node or a Rural Industrial Activity Node. Activity Node. b) Lot size for individual uses X Yes No Applicant has submitted information Yes No shall be appropriate to the method concerning water & sewer extension from of water supply and sewage disposal . the Town of Hillsborough and has indicated that public services will be utilized. The proposed lot size exceeds requirements for on-site septic systems. c) Access would consist of direct X Yes No Site has direct access to a street Yes No vehicular access to streets designated classified as an arterial . Oral comments either arterial_ or collector by the previously received from NCDOT indicate Land Use Plan. Access to rail service that site access and road improvements for is desireable but not required. US 70 be carefully considered during driveway permit process. CD ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF FINDINGS BASED ON COMMISSIONERS Ordinance Requirements SUBMITTED APPLICATION ' EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Article 4.2 indentifies the c r i t e r i a which w i l l normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district 011 designation. The applicant has applied for a 01 designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2.3 and are as follows : a) Designated by the adopted Land X Yes No Applicant has indicated the property Yes No Use Plan as a Transition Area, is in a Ten Year Transition area and which can reasonably be expected Commercial/Industrial Transition Activity Node. to be annexed by a municipality in the ensuing 10-20 years. b) Water and sewer lines should . Yes X No Applicant has submitted information con- Yes No exist at site or be assured of cern ing water & sewer extension from installation as part of the the Town of Hillsborough. deveiopment process. c) Vehicular access must consist X Yes No Applicant does have direct access to a Yes No of direct access to a street street classified as an arterial . classified as either arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. d) Site would provide a buffer or Yes No Not applicable. Yes No step down in intensity of land use in a Neighborhood or Community Activity Node. e) Normally the maximum amount of X Yes No Applicant is requesting to reduce the Yes No land zoned to this 0/1 classification amount of existing 01 zone at this shall not exceed five acres. node by 9,59 acres. — ATT _ C-3—Iv HILLSBOROUGH FIRE DEPARTMENT i July 7 , 1967 Mr . Lee Capps Consolidated Ventures Corporation 600 Franklin Square Ch.:pel Hill , N . C . 27514 Dear Mr . Capps , I have reviewed the proposed changes that you are submitting for the Meadowlands development on U . S . 70-A in Hillsborough. The insignificant changes that you have requested will not affect the ability of the Hillsborough/Orange Rural Fire Department to protect anticipated types of occupancy of this development . Best wishes for your project . If we can be of any further service to you , do not hesitate to call on us . "17 Sincerely , ...". "-Zei::::77nx.'''''. ___________, Mark Gordon , Chief LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough North Carolina, 2:278 ii Orii(e Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 1' 3 Chanel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: •929-5535 To: Eddie Kirk, Orange County P1 ,.ning From: Sheriff Lindy Fendergras , Re: Meadow Lands Development Date: July 31, 1987 Jr. Kirk, I have reviewed the proposed changes for the Meadow Land Development realigning of the property lines for the new road. These changes will not affect our services to this property, nor increase our work load. L_P:rf ORANGE COUNTY ('HTH (•.AHi)1,3NA EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Exiahhshr d /:'52 PEPIDRANDOm TO: Mr. Lee Capps FROM: Bobby Faker RE: EMS Coverage, Meadowlands DATE: August 5, 1987 Per your request, this is to confirm that Orange County Emergency .Medical Services and Orange County Rescue Squad will provide medical and rescue services for your proposed Meadowlands Development. 15.5 Mayor rTwfl uf �i!IS��r�IIL Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Town Cierk HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA :7;7$ Agatha Johnson Commissioners Supt. Water works Myron L. Martin James PendcrRraph Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd Skit L.D. Wagoner Remus J. Smith Rachel H. Stevens Chief of Pohce Arnold W. Hamlett • \ i Fire Chief John Forrest August 10, 1987 Eddie Kirk, Planner 306F Revere Rd. Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Eddie: On August 6, 1987 , the Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed the Meadowlands Rezoning Request as a courtesy review. The Hillsborough Planning Board recommends approval of the rezoning request. If you have any questions , please call me between 8: 30 A.M. and 12: 30 P.N. at 732-2104. Sincerely yours , Janet V. Rigsbee Planning Director ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILL S1-10 h NORTE( CAROLI A 1Cb' 272 �g . 1= r'.14:!' l CERTIFICATE OF MAILING REZONING REQUEST ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1 , Edh-1-a__Kick Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 7, 1987, I mailed, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the Ra alaa__Leauaat__h _Ih€_daadatiand.a=_tLllla= tcmpuah_ImmahiRg _Iaa,__dau_4QZ__ ¢ __ _ _ __ each property owner as required byArrticLle8tSectionn8. 4. 4 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance . The notice mailed specified the date, of the Public Hearing on the Rezoning requestlace and subject WITNESS my hand, this the loth day of Euau5.t, _12$Z.- C_az' XI Eddie Kirk ZONING OFFICER , 1 CPI J_tl P M M 1 if B Mr. Rhine and Mr. Chandler should not be considered as evidence in this public hearing. Commissioner Wilihoit questioned why the original request was not for the full 2 acres as required. Gledhill stated that he had advised the Board to waive the 2 acre minimum lot size. Since there is an expressed reduction provision in the Ordinance of 10%, a further reduction through a general provision was not allowed. The 1 .41 acres was determined to be the minimum amount of lend on which to build the three ponds. Gledhill continued that he knew of no provision in the Ordinance that permits Land Use Plan amendments to correct prior actions of the Board. Commissioner Hartwell asked if a Land Use Plan designation was necessary since the land on which the Chandler Plant is located is already Included in the Land Use Plan with the right designation which totals more than the 2 acre minimum. Mr. Chandler explained that there were two tracts of land with two different zonings. The concrete plant itself is zoned 1-3 which is not the same as the property on which the ponds are located. Gledhill stated that by including portions of the existing concrete plant in the 1-3 zone, a Land Use Plan amendment would not be necessary. The 1 .41 acres is already properly zoned in the Land Use Plan designation. Joyce Garrett, Attorney for Chandler Concrete, spoke to inconsistencies in the minutes of prior public hearings about the location of the ponds. The permits for timbering and grading were secured and the ponds were placed in accordance with the directive from DEM. She spoke to the economic contributions that Chandler makes to the community. A substantial amount of money has been expended to meet and to protect against the potential environmental problem. It is the desire to keep the ponds where they are located and asked that the request for an amendment to the Land Use Plan be granted. Marvin Collins clarified that no permit was needed for timbering and the permit Mr. Chandler received was for grading. Ms. Garrett acknowledged this correction. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Willholt, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this Item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 0 Z�_._ZDUINE_LILLI—M till nl a..._Z:z_F Ihe_Me.alQrcliza. Planner Greg Szymlk presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed request by Meadowlands Associates to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The property is located along the south side of U.S Highway 70 Business east of N. C. 86 in Hillsborough Township_ The applicant Is _: requesting a reallgnme,nt of the existing Office Institutional (0- 1 ), : industrial-1 ( 1-1 ), and Rural Residential (R-1 ) zones, previously estab- lished by the Board of Commissioners on July 1 , 1987. The purpose of the change is to match zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master - Plan land use designations. The property is ..located In an area desionated as Ten Year . Transition and Commercial industrial Activity Node in the Drange County Land Use Plan. The proposed realignment would result In the following difference in zones: Existing Proposed Zoning Realigned Zone Difference c . D (0- 1 ) zone 25.4 acres 15.81 acres ( I- 1 1 ) zone 62.3 acres 72.57 acres 0. acres (R-1 ) zone 22.4 acres +10.27 acres 21 .73 acres - .67 acres The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes in the Zoning Atlas for the following reasons: 1 ) The proposed change would match the zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land designations. 2) The property is located in a designated Commercial- Industrial transition activity node and therefore consistent with the Land Use Plan. 3) The Town of Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed changes. 4) The Town Board, in their August 10, 1987 meeting, approved tap on to the existing 12-inch water line and the installation of dry sewer lines to be used at a future date. 5) General Office uses generate twice as much traffic as Light Indus- trial uses. Therefore, traffic generation on the site would be considerably reduced. Szymik indicated on a map the existing zoning and the proposed realigned Zoning. The owner has submitted a request for rezoning patterns consistent with their Master Development Plan. He noted that there were no new zoning classifications. Planning Board Member Pilkey asked about buffer requirements. Szymik responded that the buffer requirement along 1-85 right-of-way (this Is also the MTC zone) is 100 ' . The current plan for the property shows a 50' buffer along the east, west and north property lines. Planning Board Member Kramer asked about the zoning for the heliport shown on the plan. Szymik responded that the heliport would require a Class A Special Use Permit. Lee Capps, Project Manager for Meadowlands, stated that he had copies of the Master Development Plan for distribution. He noted that restrictive covenants have been recorded for the Meadowlands with buffer requirements more restrictive than those set by the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that there is no need at this time to_ pursue construction of the heliport. He noted that NCDOT requirements would also have to be met if the developer should decide to pursue the heliport construction. Planning Board Member Plikey expressed concern with the removal of three laroe sycamore trees along the right-of-way. Ca sympathy with the concern but that the developer was not able to removal of those trees. Pllkey continued asking the number of trees to be replaced. Capps noted that the restrictive covenants require trees to be placed at 50' intervals. Planning Board Member Kramer asked if there were plans to preserve the existing dairy barn noting that it is a prime example of local architecture. Lapps responded that the dairy barn and manor house are on the portion of the property to be developed by TECAN noting that they are i 15U Did very zealous of environmental issues and he did expect they would be very sensitive to community feelings regarding preservation of those buildings. Sylvia Price, Economic Development Director, reed and submitted a statement which is a part of the minutes on pages Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked that a copy of the restrictive covenants be supplied for the Boards. • A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit and seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of proposed request by Charles Miller and Merle Dancy to amendicthemmOrange a County Zoning Atlas. The property is located on the east side of NC Highway 86 north of New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) and south of Old NC 10. The applicants are requesting a rezoning on a portion of lot 1 of Tax Map 2 - Chapel Hill Township. The property that would be rezoned contains 41 ,480 square feet or 0. 95 acres. The current zoning on the property is Rural Residential (R-1 ) . The proposed zoning is Existing Commercial (EC-5 ) . The property is the present site of Autowerks auto repair garage. The area is designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan. The applicants maintain that the existing use was in operation In 1981 when Hillsborough Township was zoned and that an error was made at that time. The property was zoned R-1 and should have been designated Existing Commercial (EC-5) . Szymik continued that it is not clear from the 1961 zoning maps what the intent was for this property. included on the list of properties with inon-conformiingduses. 5 it oIswclear in viewing the existing land use patterns and the existing building patterns that there are no unusual circumstances with regard to this property.. Planning Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezoning for the following reasons: ( 1 ) The rot proposed to be rezoned is totally surrounded by an R-1 residential zone. (2) The iot 1s not located in or near a commercial transition node on the Land Use Plan. The closest node is the Harmon Young node which is 4,400 feet or eight-tenths of a mile north of the property_ (3) The existing use can continue to operate at its present size and do business as a non-conforming use. Planning Board Member Best asked if there was business was in operation before September, 1981 . S proof that the y were attachments in the agenda which would indicate that hutowerksewashein ... _ ' 60 VOTE : 7 in favor ( Boland, Eddleman , Kramer , Lewis, Swann, Taylor, Yuhasz ) . 4 opposed (Best, Jacobs, Margison, Pllkey ) . b . Zoning Atlas Amendments ( 1 ) Z-3-87 The Meadowlands Presentation by Greg Szymik . The property in question is located along the south side of U . S . Highway 70 Business east of N. C. 86 in Hillsborough Township . It is known as Tax Map 40, Block A, Lots 11 and 14 . The applicant is requesting a realignment of the existing Office Institutional (0- I ) , Industrial -1 ( I -1 ) , and Rural Residential (R-1 ) zones, previously established by the Board of Commissioners on July 1 , 1985 . The purpose of the change is to match zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land use designations . The proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones : Existing Proposed Zoning Realigned Zone Difference (0- I ) zone 25 . 4 acres 15 .81 acres -9 . 59 acres ( I -1 ) zone 62 .3 acres 72. 57 acres +10 . 27 acres (R-1 ) zone 22 .4 acres 21 .73 acres - . 67 acres The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes in the zoning atlas for the following reasons : I . The proposed change would match the zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land use designations . 2. The property is located in a designated Commercial - Industrial transition activity node and therefore con- sistent with the Land Use Plan. 3. The Town of Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed changes . 4 . The Town Board, in their August 10 , 1987 meeting, approved tap on to the existing 12 inch water line and the installation of dry sewer lines to be used at a future date. 5 . General Office uses generate twice as much traffic as Light Industrial uses . Therefore, traffic generation on 161 15 the site would be considerably reduced . The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5 , 1987 . Best asked why the Planning Staff did not recommend that the Meadowlands be submitted as a Planned Development. Szymik responded that the decision about whether the Meadowlands should be a Planned Development was answered by the Board of Commissioners when they agreed to hear the proposal as a straight rezoning request in 1985 . The Staff recognized the Board of Commissioners action and accepted the rezoning request. Pilkey asked if it was really necessary to cut down the three large sycamore trees along US 70 . She also asked if the County had approved plans that resulted in the trees removal . Szymik responded that removal of the trees was necessary in order to meet NCDOT design requirements. The original rezoning of the property did not include a develop- ment plan . A detailed Master Plan for Development (con- tained in the agenda) was prepared subsequent to the rezoning resulted in road locations which when constructed to NCDOT standards required the removal of the trees . He also noted that, to date, the only activity that had occurred at The Meadowlands was review of erosion control plans prior to issuance of a grading permit. FINDIi4GS OF FACT MOTION : Yuhasz moved positive findings on Article 20 (Specific Standards for Evaluation/Rezoning). Seconded by Margison . VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION : Best moved positive findings on Article 4 .2 .21 (criteria - page 289 of agenda ) . Seconded by Yuhasz . Kramer asked if there were problems with the water line. Szymik responded there were none. Kramer asked also if there were problems with the sewer line. Szymik responded that the Town had still not clearly demonstrated availability of sewer . Dry lines are being installed but on-site septic tanks are currently being used. VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION : Yuhasz moved positive findings on Article 4 .2.3a ( designated transition area ) . Seconded by Jacobs . VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION : Best moved negative findings on Article 4 .2 .3b (existing water and sewer lines ) . Seconded by Margison . Best indicated that he felt the Town of Hillsborough does not yet have sewer lines available to the site. 16 6? Pilkey stated that a letter should be received from the Town of Hillsborough stating that the sewer line is in place. VOTE: 10 in favor. 2 opposed (Taylor & Yuhasz ) . MOTION : Best move positive findings on Article 4 .2.3 c, d, e (access , buffer and size) . Seconded by Yuhasz . VOTE : Unanimous . Best asked if anyone else would have preferred a planned development rather than a rezoning . Pilkey indicated she would have preferred a planned development. Kramer stated that he was in favor of a rezoning in 1985 and he still preferred a straight rezoning. His major concern was with the water lines . MOTION : Kramer moved approval of the proposed changes in the zoning atlas for Meadowlands. ' Seconded by Eddleman . VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to extend the meeting in order to complete the items heard at public hearing on August 24 . Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous . (2) Z-4-87 Autowerks Presentation by Greg Szymik . The property in question is located on the east side of NC Highway 86 north of New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) and south of Old NC 10 . The applicants, Charles Miller and Merle Dancy, are requesting a rezoning on a portion of lot I of Tax Map 2 Chapel Hill Township. The property that would be rezoned contains 41 ,480 square feet or 0 .95 acres. The current zoning on the property is Rural Residential (R-1 ) . The proposed zoning is Existing Commercial (EC-5) . The property is the present site of the Autowerks auto repair garage. The area is designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan . The applicants maintain that the existing use was in operation in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was zoned and that an error was made at that time. The property was zoned R-1 and should have been designated Existing Commercial (EC-5 ) . The Planning Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezon- ing for the following reasons : 1 . The lot proposed to be rezoned is totally surrounded by an R-1 residential zone. O R A N G E C O U N T Y 163 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 5, 1987 Action/ gsnda Item #V (s _ SUBJECT: Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS ACTION BY: No time limit DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes _x__ No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Application Project Summary Vicinity Map Agency Comments Certificate of Mailing Findings of Fact 8-24-87 Public Hearing Minutes 9-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 ' Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of a proposed request by Charles Miller and Merle Dancy to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas . This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . BACKGROUND: The property in question is located on the east side of N. C. Highway 86 north of New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) and south of Old N. C. 10 . The applicants, Charles Miller and Merle Dancy, are requesting a rezoning on a portion of lot 1 of Tax Map 2 - Chapel Hill Township . The property that would be rezoned contains 41 , 480 square feet or 0 .95 acres . The current zoning on the property is Rural Residential (R 1 ) . The proposed zoning is Existing Commercial (EC-5 ) . The property is the present site of the Autowerks auto repair garage. The area is designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan . The applicants maintain that the existing use was in operation in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was zoned and that an error was made at that time. The property was zoned R-1 and should have been designated Existing Commercial (EC-5 ) . The County Attorney has responded to two questions posed at the public hearing . The first was whether zoning the parcel to EC-5 would constitute spot zoning . His response is that zoning a commercial use to a commercial zoning classification would not be spot zoning . The second ♦�' question was whether, as the applicant maintains, EC-5 1 6 4 zoning must be applied to existing commercial uses when property is initially zoned . His response is that the wording in the Ordinance requires such zoning when property is initially being zoned. It would not be mandatory within the context of this decision about rezoning. The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on the proposal . The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed revision . The recommendation is based on a positive finding that an error has been made in the zoning atlas. RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends approval of the application as recommended by the Planning Board . Law OFFICES FAISON, BROWN, FLETCHER & BROUGH 165 c 4/I7LUXCL91(41/11 L To: Orange County Planning Department FROM: Robert E. Hagemann DATE: July 10, 1987 s u E.JECr: Application for Change of Zoning District - Autowerks Property Enclosed please find the following which comprise Charles Miller' s and Merle Dancy' s application for rezoning. 1. Application for Change of Zoning District 2. Rezoning request checklist. 3. Map showing the land proposed to be rezoned. 4. Legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned. 5. Statement of Justification. 6. Letters from the Hillsborough Fire Department and Orange County Emergency Services assuring services provision capability (Orange County Sheriff' s Department is sending a letter directly to the Planning Department-). 7. Rezoning mailing address request list (all individuals, firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within 500 feet of the property sought for rezoning). 8. Letter of acknowledgement from the property owner, Beth Braxton. 9. Photographs of the site. 10. Documents evidencing Autowerks' existence and operation in 1981. 11. Application fee of S125. - /dwc Enclosures :RANGE IC::hTY, NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FDR CHANGE OF ZONING C.:STRICT J.fb Date : i;�i„ oa7 (arnenaec ,;4iy 2C, .967) TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is located on the _ side of R . # ag Street/Road ) . etween S .R . # 1 2� and � � E .R . # n1G 1(j it is known esrL`otls ) -„_�_, Block of Orange County Tax Map 2 - 1-1411chnrnuoh Township . It has a frontage . of 17n feet and a depth of 2L4 feet , and contains "' -^A^ square feet or acres . 2. It is desired end requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from R-1 to 4C_5 • • . « .• The ..following information hes been attached ...in_ support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas 1e - required on ell applications ) . .aa. A fully Ci..nsiened moo at s seals of not less than ens 111 inch_Y-_ *ousts one—hunared 11O01 fur: nor more than one 111 inch aquela Swent7` 120) fee: - shoring--- the land onion is proposed to be rezoned. - eb. A legal asecrlpti.n of the land propoaad to be rezoned. ac. A ststasent of juatiflestlen ins ene or sore of the following: (11 The alleged error in the Zoning Orel , if any, which would be c tad by the proposed esanasant with s oatelled saplanetlen of such error in the Zoning Atlas one oeteil.d rsssen. how the p : e1.11 correct the error. (21 The changed is changing eendiTions, If any, in the erne Or in the County gener.Lly, which ■eke the proposed asancsent rweeenobly y to the promotion of the public heal th, • safety end general golfers. e13) The ■enner in which the proposed scenes ant will carry out the intent and purpose of the scooted Land Use PLen is per: thereof. e1i) All ether circumstances, factors end reasons snip') the spplicen: offers in supper: of the p d 00000 slant lncludiny,• but net llsitee Sc , eocuuent.:ion fro. service *pencil's l.._g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies) assuring services provision cspab111t) to the rival . C. A list of all 1ndivieu.t*, Tiros or co :ions owning property adjoining or within five hunted 15CGJ feet of ins property sought for rezoning Is •:tachec. The list 1s current ■e of i,. V 1 0;7 {Gate] I certify the% ell information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge . App ti cent (s) : Charles "l ier! ,. "'.cola Darcy Address : °r" c r pnv f)nr" ' IJ= lei-nr�nr�ni 'or Phan : t∎;-, ^•,er i` ITZ011111G Ft s-gUEST CHECKLIST OSrlrrt i s 14A11>y Re Eh lirax losr ADDRESS :'I au Le 5 Dcrx 204 II i i l sborou h I I t r Current zonin R-1 s �'� '•� ' i Total number of floes_ n_qr< Current land uae Auto Repair Shop Type of rezoning requested EC-5 Fropor+ed land use Auto Rej+a it• S11op Or t oil fix map 2 Block A _ flan+Der of lots i -reoposed water Supplyt rublic Community. Individi+•al X rraposed Sewage Treatments Public s Casnmustit . - Y Individual septic tank_ y Access onto state rand A OG Average daily traffic •count on the state road 1.400 Describe existing critical nreass Flood prone areas ►+�a ; roorly drained areas n/a Streams Other sensitive areas Ir/a . •nescribe land uses ins General Area I'Ipc_f_ly clsrgje_fi jvrlrtnuec nn tali+r-r l:,rpP lr,l On Ad jncent parcels of land Power _Limes; f Iq ras-111. Single-raid l y llv1rse. Ili(ihwav a6 [1211 21U,S f l P Il l SllwaY and a s Ingle-raril iy 1101ne) :: , 168 Lying and being in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, North Carolina,. and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the existing northwestern corner of the Property of Beth Braxton Underwood according to plat of survey entitled "Physical Survey for Beth Braxton Underwood" dated 30 July 1984 by Alois Callemyn, RLS, said point also being located along the eastern right-of-way of N.C. Highway 86, and running thence (1) South 85-18-00 East 244.0 feet to a point along the northern property line of Beth Braxton Underwood; running thence (2) along a line parallel to N.C. Highway 86, South 04-30-52 East 170.0 feet to a point; running thence (3) along a line parallel to the northern property line of Beth Braxton Underwood, North 85-18-00 West 244.0 feet to a point located along the eastern right-of-way line of N.C. Highway 86; and running thence (4) North 04-30-52 West 170.0 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING, and being a rectangular tract of land located on the east side of N.C. Highway 86, containing 41,480 square feet. • Q . r ] s9• O •. - - '� ��r• my". — -�.•_;''.r_..M+S F_�.. +.e. - _ . F .__ ;. - ' �.iC�f1y .��r� :•°-' -.y °' _ _ ,�_�.;��;' .. . •-Nom. y- -.- ��•.�:-.7:. :�' - `� :t _ _ _ - ,ty^ .y;•,t� _ - �!;7Se..Wit." ^r.-'_ri', 4o- •'y .:r.ira,,,.Y. •_ ', vr. _ My= •. • r " ! •-,7.- „� +.•• .- .... _ . ' .�' '`?:.w _ . ' • +7 . t ; .,:!;14.74..4'..;',:-; c: 'a` :_.J,.; • - s-. ct - _ •'•44`lt< -*"."11,---"--."''''-'4" .'�_YY•;i¢: -! -'_-: ---1 i ',L . , 170 ' 1 1 g i 1 I tz _s2 zz le Av. ' I I 4892 1 1 wow:00 72 it- 1 1 • •+ 11• \ I 'I 1 \ 11 N ri191 . �� saasa ..1 1 _ • a1 • 0 1.I4C. • ti G.3S A.^.. 1 1 O 0999 --ii •11 1 —C)- �, 3-8O2 Ate. �, L . 11 SEE 7.Z.., 1I ' cc • ///A Q • All i!sr/c ofv,... •Tow^,SHit) . - - / ,, 1 1, u� c .Q. 04152 �/W L. 7 A.C. -,.:.f f`Z. fir? . TOWNSHIP - • 13.8 AC. 1 ``M 4 � �/,�� 1 \\ \\S ans. 913 ' \ \;.... 8.6E A:. _ .. _ ..`.1014 I .. ®1120 14 LZ 1 � I a 7. 6 AC. 6 AC. $ 1 \\ ` B•a1I e o - �'�' ' 12.6 6 A C. 4 394 • SI;isi 1 1~ - 1 1 r \, 1`1 --L-7;-. :::.'..........::::- - .3619 :171)626 � n ��� - • -:=-..�‘ne.c.1, 10 1 2 4: .\,=\0 DYit 11.7 4...- ..; 4 9 !7.:, X.._ Iltrl\\* ti STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION 171 BACKGROUND In the fall of 1981, the Orange County Board of Commissioners took several significant steps toward improved planning in Orange County. Among these were the adoption of a new comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas. One result of these actions was the application of zoning to Hillsborough Township for the first time. The Land Use Plan provided that commercial activities were appropriate in certain identified activity nodes and generally inappropriate outside these nodes. However, the Planning Staff and the Board of Commissioners apparently believed that provisions should be made for then-existing commercial uses which were not within an activity node. The vehicle to provide for these uses was the EC-5 (existing commercial ) classification, which was intended to be applied to existing commercial uses in previously unzoned townships. Part of the Planning Staff' s preliminary work on the Zoning Atlas included the preparation of maps purporting to identify the then-existing commercial uses. These maps are currently in the -possession of the Planning Department. The majority of the commercial uses depicted on these maps were assigned a number corresponding to numbers on charts prepared by the Planning Staff (Orange County Commissioners' Minutes Book 14, Pages 507-512 (attached)) . These charts assigned commercial zoning classifications to each of the numbered uses on the maps. However, several uses identified on the maps as commercial were not assigned numbers. It has been suggested that these uses were intended to be nonconforming, and this interpretation garners support from Planning Board Memoranda .. 2 issioners' Book 14, Pages 513-514 (attached)) which refer to certain nonconforming uses represented on the maps as unnumbered commercial uses. In the fall of 1981 Charles Miller and Merle Dancy owned and operated Autowerks, a business specializing in the repair of foreign automobiles. Autowerks is located on the east side of Highway 86 on the northwest portion of a seven acre parcel owned by Beth Braxton (thus Ms. Braxton, and not Mr. Miller or Mr. Dancy would have been notified in 1981 of the proposed zoning). This business had been in continuous operation on that site since May, 1980. This seven acre tract is split by the Chapel Hill Township-Hillsborough Township line. The entire portion of -the property which is in Chapel Hill Township is a power easement owned by Duke Power Co. The Autowerks operation is located wholly in Hillsborough Township and has continued at this location to the present. The seven acre tract on which Autowerks is located was identified as a commercial use on the 1981 Chapel Hill Township map of existing commercial uses (documentation evidencing the existence and operation of Autowerks at this location in September, 1981 is included in this application), even though, as indicated above, the entire Autowerks operation is located in Hillsborough Township. However, a number does not appear on the map at the Autowerks location nor do the charts which assigned commercial zoning classifications to existing commercial uses include Autowerks. Finally, Planning Staff Memoranda do not list Autowerks as a commercial use intended to be nonconforming. JUSTIFICATION_ A careful reading of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance reveals that the Ordinance required EC-5 zoning to be applied to the property in 173 3 question when Hillsborough Township was initially zoned in 1981. Section 4.2.12 of the Ordinance states that the EC-5 "district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships and previously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan (emphasis addded). " For virtually every other zoning district, the Ordinance provides that "this district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist. . . . " Thus it is clear that unlike these other districts, the applicaton of EC-5 was intended to be nondiscretionary. The ordinance mandates the application of EC-5 to all commercial uses not within an activity node which existed on September 2, 1981, and the failure to zone the property on which Autowerks is located EC-5 was a clear violation of the Ordinance. Of course the applicant does not contend that the County' s failure to zone the Autowerks property EC-5 was an intentional violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Rather, it is likely that an oversight or unintentional mistake occurred. Several facts support this theory. As indicated above, the seven acre tract was identified entirely on the Chapel Hill Township map, even though the only commercial activity taking place on the tract was in Hillsborough Township. Since Chapel Hill Township was already zoned, and since that portion of the seven acre tract in Chapel Hill Township consisted of a utility easement, it is easy to understand that residential zoning of the portion of the tract in Chapel Hill Township continued under the new ordinance. Then, since the tract was not depicted on the Hillsborough Township map of existing commercial uses, when previously unzoned Hillsborough Township was analyzed for zoning classification, no thought would have been given to assigning a- commercial zoning 1741 4 classification to the land occupied by Autowerks. This scenario is further supported by the fact that, as indicated above, Autowerks is not listed on either the charts assigning commercial zoning classifications to existing commercial uses or the Planning Staff Memoranda of nonconforming uses. Even assuming that the Autowerks property could have legitimately been made a nonconforming use, there would have been no reasonable basis for doing so. An examination of the charts assigning commercial uses and the Planning Staff Memoranda of nonconforming uses contained in the Commissioners' Minutes, in conjunction with the 1981 township maps, reveals that every existing commercial use on Highway 86 other than Autowerks was assigned a commercial classification. In fact, the only existing commercial uses purportedly made nonconforming were located on smaller Secondary roads. Intentionally singling out Autowerks in light of these facts would clearly have been unreasonable. Finally, an examination of the Autowerks site reveals its inappropriateness for residential use. Autowerks is bounded on the south by a 150 foot power easement on which is located large power transmission line structures and on the north by property which has been used as a pig farm. Clearly this property is not the most desirable of residential sites. CONCLUSION The granting of this rezoning request would correct an error made in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was originally zoned. Furthermore, such an amendment would be in full compliance with the Land Use Plan which, although generally limiting commercial uses to activity nodes, contemplated EC-5 zoning for commercial uses in existence in 1981. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1981 175 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session 1 ' on Wednesday, September 2, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Commissioners' i Roan, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Commissioner Anne : „__es, Chair, and Con- . missioners Norman Gustaveson, Norman Walker, Richard Whitted and Don Willhoit. Commissioner Barnes presided and stated the purpose of the meeting which was to review and possibly act on the Zoning Ordinance, Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas presently before the County and to review the Water Resources and Agricultural Task Forces Reports. The Board first discussed the proposed Zoning Ordinance, with Planning Director Polatty and Planning Staff Mr. Rick Cannity explaining the errata sheet (see page of this book) . Commissioner Wilihoit I moved, seconded by Commissioner Nhitted, that Section 2.2.3 be worded to reflect that every member of the Orange County Planning Board be a resident of Orange County and that each township in the County shall be represented by at least one resident of that township on the Orange County Planning Board. The Board discussed this issue at length, with Dr. Alice Gordon, Planning Board member, clarifying the Planning Board's position on this issue. Mr. James Ray spoke against those townships not being zoned at present having representation on the County Planning Board. Commissioner Walker moved to offer an amended motion regarding Section 2.2.3, that is, all members of the Orange County Planning Board shall be residents of the County's planning jurisdiction and each township within the County shall be represented by at least one resident but not more than three residents of that township on the Orange County Planning Board; Can- missioner Gustaveson seconded the motion. Discussion continued with sane members of the Board expressing the opinion that a comprehensive plan for Orange County and joint planning with municipalities was the goal of planning and that the intensity of develocment outside the limits of the municipalities has a great impact on those municipalities: and that those who live within municipalities are also bona fide residents of the County. C Other members of the Board agreed with Dr. Gordon's explanation of • the Planning Board's reasoning, that is, those who live in the County can't • zone the municipalities therefore the municip sties Should not be allow- • ed input into zoning in the County. Vote on Commissioner Walker's substitute motion: Ayes, 2 (Com- • missioners Walker and Gustave son) ; noes, 3 (Commissioners Barnes, Whitted and Wilihoit) . • Vote on Commissioner Wil]hoit's motion: Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Barnes, • Whitted and Wil hoit) ; noes, 2 (Commissioners Gustaveson and Welker) . • Messrs. Cannity and Polatty continued through the errata sheet. • Commissioner Barnes moved to change the definition of a bona fide farm • in Section 22.4 to that recommended by the Agricultural Task Force Report; • that is,"10 or more acres or one or more tracts, owned or leased by a • bona fide farm unit with average annual sales of $1,000 over the preceeding • three years or a mininnml of 20 acres in forest land for which a management ▪ plan has been prepared;" Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. The Planning Staff was reminded that the Board had requested this Change earlier. Commissioner Barnes introduced a list of suggestions/recatmiend tions requested by Mr. Jahn Kincaid, District Manager for Duke Power Company. Commissioner Wil7hoit moved to delay consideration of those suggestions until the Board goes to public hearing; the Board felt no motion_ was necessary on this question. Commissioner Wilihoit withdrew his motion. The Board referred these suggestions to the Planning Staff and Board for review. Messrs. Johnson and Ward also of Duke Power Company were present. Commissioner Wilihoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to strike the first sentence in Section 2.4.2.2 regarding the rules and reg- ulations necessary for the Board of Adjustments Advisory Committee. Comn- missioner Wilihoit withdrew his motion. Commissioner Wilihoit moved that the Director of Planning is to convene and Chair the Development Advisory Committee for the purpose of receiving comments and advice and further that Minutes of those proceedings are to be kept and maintained as a separate document in the nature of public documents in the issuing office." Carr missioner Whitted seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. a 11 �y • Commissioner Willhoit questioned Section 2.2.6 regarding the rulesrf 1. / 7 • of procedure for the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners asked • the County Attorney to clarify what constitutes rules of procedure for • the conduct of a meeting. Commissioner Wilihoit moved that Section 7.1, paragraph 3, line four down, be changed to specify "that portion of the Upper Eno watershed as • 3esig ated in the adopted Lan,' Use Pan." Motion died for lack of a second however, the Board expressed a consensus that the Planning Staff institute that change. Commissioner Whitted moved that language indicating that the Board of Commissioners "encourages" or "strongly encourages" the planned develop- ment concept as the preferred method of development be struck; Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Barnes, Walker, Niitted and Willhoit) ; noes, 1 (Commissioner Gustaveson) . Commissioner Wilihoit referred to page 22.29 regarding service stations and moved to require service stations provide water for radiators, air for tires and bathroom facilities. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Polatty told Commissioner Willhoit that would result in making existing stations non-conforming; however, it could be required that new stations provide those services. On page 22.35 referring to the definition of variance, the Board instructed "literal" be inserted in ".. .relaxation of the 'literal' terms...." Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to approve the Zoning Ordinance Text as amended tonight and in the past. Upon the advice of the County Attorney, Commissioners Willhoit and Whitted accepted an amendment to their motion and second, that is Section 2.3.6.1 c, paragraph 2 reads the same as Section 8.2 c, to delete Section 8.2.c. The County Attorney further advised the Board to delete Section 8.2.:, saying the concept needed clarifying; he did not understand it as it is worded. Commissioner Barnes offered a friendly amendment to Commissioner Willhoit's original motion to adopt; that is, to delete this Section 8.2.3 and to reserve it for rewording at a later date; Camrissioner Whitted seconded the motion to amend. vote on Commissioner Barnes' friendly amendment: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Barnes, Gustaveson, Whitted and Willhoit) ; noes, 1 (Can- C so _ 178 missioner Walker) . Vote on Carinissioner Willhoit's motion to adopt the Zoning Ordinance Text as amended tonight and in the past: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. The Board of Canmissioners adjourned for a ten minute break and • resumed deliberations in the same room on the Zoning Atlas. Mr. Cannity reviewed the Zoning Atlas with the Board. Mr. Hogue, • an attorney, and Mr. Hereford spoke concerning the designation of some property at Highway 86 and Highway 10 as residential rather than camiercial or industrial. Mr. Polatty noted that the residences pre-dated the camercial • industrial utilization of the properties with the exception of the concrete plant. He said the industrial/commercial aspect of that area had increased since the November 24, 1980, Public Hearing. The Board discussed with • Planning Staff the implications of various designations for that area. • Canmissioner Wilihoit roved, seconded by commissioner Barnes, to • designate Asco and the MiniMart EC-5 and the Welding shop E-I (with the • designation of the concrete plant remaining unchanged fran that recommended by Planning Staff) . Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. The Board asked the Planning • Staff to bring these Changes to public hearing. The Board considered a request from Nello Teer Carpany to change the • Zoning Atlas designation of its property from R-1 to E-I. Mr. Polatty • told the Board that was not a valid designation for an asphalt plant; the • Board did not change the designation of that affected property. The Planning Board recommended to the Board of Commissioners that • American Stone Canpany be granted a speria1 use permit for its plant on • Highway 54 West. The Board expressed reservations about adopting a special use permit within the context of the Zoning Atlas itself; saying, that the • Board had just adopted the Zoning Ordinance Text which specified steps • which are to be followed in granting a special use permit. Carinissicner Wilihoit roved to table this recommendation fran the • Planning Board. Motion died for lack of a second. Ccumissioner Wilihoit moved to adopt the Zoning Atlas as amended tonight without the special use request from American Stone Company with that property affected to be zoned A/R; Carmissioner Barnes seconded the motion. Discussion followed. • Commissioner Willhoit amended his first motion as follows: to adopt 1 • the Zoning Atlas as amended tonight to include the 118 acres affected by 1 9 • the special use permit requested by American Stone Company to be zoned A/R • and excluding consideration of the special use permit request and to con- • tinue this meeting until 9:30 A.M. Tuesday, September 8, 1981. Commissioner • Gustaveson seconded the amended motion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. • During discussion r:.ae Board notea the effective date ; of the adoption of • the Zoning Atlas is immediately with the amendments earlier stated and • the special use permit excluded. The Board continued with the discussion of the Land Use Plan. Com- missioner Whitted moved adoption of the Land Use Plan; Commissioner Willhoit seconded the motion. During the discussion which followed, Carmissioner Willhoit said the Land Use Plan read only existing and potential and he thought it should read "existing and potential reservoir sites and watersheds." Commissioner Barnes referred to page 101, goal 12.6, and objected to "... } before another general aviation facility is built;" she felt that the tro- posed airport now pending might be shortcircuited and not be properly re- viewed awaiting the feasibility study in goal 12.6. Commissioner Whitted moved to delete Goal 12.6. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Barnes moved to amend this Goal 12.6, to read ".. .under- take a feasibility study to determine the level of need for a general aviation facility and to examine locational alternatives given the de- terminations. of these needs;" seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Commissioners Barnes, Gustaveson, Walker and Willhoit) ; noes, 1 (Commissioner Whitted) . Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Carrnisssioner Whitted, to adopt the language recamrended by the Planning Board for page 152, paragraph 6, beginning "The construction of the proposed...." Vote: Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Gustaveson, Whitted and Wilihoit) ; noes, 2 (Carr- missioners Barnes and Walker) . Vote on Commissioner Whitted's motion to adopt the Land. Use Plan as amended this evening: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. ie 1430 Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Camuissioner Whitted, to adjourn this meeting until 9:30 A.M., Tuesday September 8, 1981, in this roan. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Anne Barnes, Chair Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk 181 PROPOSED ZONING ORDITNA_IM ORANGE COUNTY JUNE 29, 1981 ERRATA Article 2 2.2.3 Qualifications • . . membership of the Board by at least one resident of that . . . . . date. Adjacent property owners are those vfnose property lies within 500 feet of the affected property and ,;:hom are - currently -listed as property c-;:aers in the Oranf;e County ta: records. Article 4 4.2.8 a) . . . insure the absence of adverse imPacts beyond the i=diate space occupied by the. buildinR. 1 4.2.20 b) . . . to any use that has adverse impacts beyond the immediate space,occunied by the buildinc_7. 4.2.21 a) . . . adverse impacts beyond the immediate space occupied by the building. 4.2.21 b) throUgh 4.2.25 b) 'I. were omitted; see attached sheets. 4.3 Permitted Use Table 16-1 . beyond the imnediate space occupied by the buildin . S-28 . . . beyond the immediate space occupied by the buildi=. . beyond the immediate space occupied by the bu-lidinF where S-45 - . . beyond the immediate space occupied by the build-1-1.7. where Article 5 SOFFDTULF, FOR FES=TILL DE=0P1•777 R-2 should he 13-1 Add the rollowing numbers across the t:.-2.ble after LOT 20,000 100 30 15 25 P -1 20,000 — — 25 45,003 26 .076 .82 .70 .022 PD-2 20,000 — — 25 45,000 23 .081 .82 .72 .033 182 Add 25 to the table under the -. xiran building height colur_ for all residential districts. 5.2 SCHEDULE FOR NON -L 510E\I I L DE ELOP : Add 35 to the table under the maxim= building height column for LC-1, MC-2, and OZ districts. Add 45 to the table :rder he = ---m building; height column for the C:,--3 district. Article 6 6.21 Within any zoning district the height of a building may exceed the . . . 6.3.1 There can be more than one principal structure on commercial or industrial lots . . . 6.16.6.3 Home Occupations in the AR -- RI Districts (minimum 200,000 square foot lots) 6.20 Large Ground Absorption Systems (3,000 gals. ner day) and Pac'_o.-4o Sewage 'treatment Plants Prohibited in AR Districts,_ :. Ground absorption systems with a design canacit7r of 3.000 gals. per day or rare and package treatment plants for sanitary sewage - disposal. . . 6.21.3 . . —water systems, parking areas, and mobile home pads. P ticle 7 7. 4.2 . . . PD Districts shall be so located with respect to necessary public services and facilities (as for example, fire, police, rescue services, schools, parks and playgrounds. . . Article 8 8.2 General Standards 8.21 Before any application. . CDelete 8.2.21 8.4.4 . . . not less than 15 nor more than 25 days, prior to the date of the hearing. The Zoning Officer shall nost on the a plicant's a 1e': e.. o ner--- a notice of the ouclic hearing at le:-.ct 10 , s prior t'.:- d of said hearinM Written notice shall be sent b7, certified r-^'1 to all ad lit rco_r y o.rier.3 not less than 15 e,ayz before the -. c u o- 183 Adjacent rrooerty owners are those whose property lies within 5 a) feet Of the affected property and whose names and :ddzesse 3 are currently listed in the Grange Counter taw: records. 8.4.5 Delete the last two Para aphs. GE:ERA;., ADDITIONAL OE IA ICN: 8.8 Additional Information required for all Special Use Applications: a) Three copies of the Site Plan prepared by a recistered North Carolina land surveyor or engineer which shall contain the •following: 1) North point scale and date. 2) Extent of area to be developed. 3) .Locations widths of all easements and rioints-0f-way within or adjacent to the site. 4) Location of all existing or proposed structures on the site. ' t • 5) Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood raps or soil's reps, 6) Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. 7) Existing topography at a countour interval.of 5 feet based on mean sea level datum. 8) Proposed or existing fencing, screening gates, daring, service and storage areas. 9) Access to site ir-cludng site distances on all rows used for access. 10) Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. 11) Names and addresses of owners and applicants. 12) A by ga un ty and of n fee, as set y ;'ne C'ra.'7�,... CC' V� i..o.� o:: Coe: rte ss_'"' "u. 8.8.1.1 a) The three copies of the site plan p:,ecared by a North Carolina registered land surveyor or engineer, shall coct-_n #2 becom-s the f o_lcr-iin -- - f„ f�7 becomes ;r2 it( #8 becomes #3 #10 becomes r'11 becomes -5 184 The remaining mentS ha-:e been s'rrt tch_ed to 8.8. c) #5 and s-7 have been switched to 3.8. 8.8.8.1 f) Certification that all Federal Aviation A.*^ir:istr3 t ion and State standards have been met. • 8.8.12 Temporary Use of a Residential Nooile Home (Class B Special Uae) 8.3.12.1 Additional 1:f format ion In addition to the information required in subsections 8.2 and 8:8:1.1 the following shall be submitted as part Of-the application. 8.8.21.1 c) delete . . . and orespectives Article 9 9.11 In tie margin of the table add . . . Ci Premise Signs . . . for the first 11 rows. Add . . . Outdoor Advertising Signs . for the last 5 rows. Article 22 Dwelling _in; A lot a building containing . . . Dwelling Unit . . . shall be construed to be lodging units. Nubile homes and. modular units are to be considered Yd:ell ing units L „e r tlls .definition. Family Care Facility-. A facility licensed by the aonropriate state acen_y, as a "family care 'facility for from 1 .„o si unrelated — `'-: duals. Junked or Wrecked Notor Vehicles . . . of North Carolina, do not have curse t North Carolina inspection stickers or either: Mobile le home . . . over eight feet In width. i"oa le homes are o-;-el l y_ , units when used as a resid-ntal resident structure. Bar An establish._-rent that allows food alcoholic dr�:'� and/ i•i�nt Club, Ba` or :ab _ or entertainment. Pa.ha ,- Tr atmnt Plant Privately owned and operated sewage treatment facility. These plants are prefaicated by the manufacturer and delivered as conmlete units to the clients. to sort r .-;,1.4-1Y,7 Rehabilitative Cary Facility addicted o 21 _ or d=��°., - -.. _ Pro fessicna health care . - Service Station, t:'otc,. eh-1cl 0) State motor vehicle in pections. 185 h) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: r ' - The site is located outside of the Chapel Rill Joint Plann- ing Area and within an T"dustrial Transition Activity node or a px:ral Industrial activity Node. • 2_ It size for individual uses. shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. 3. Access would consist of direct vehicular access to streets designated either arterial or collector by the Land Use Plan. Access to rail service is desirable but not required- 4.2.22 Medium Industrial--Il_ (I-2) District L'. a) Intent • The intent of. the Medium Industrial-II (I--2) District f_. to • �. provide locations for enterprises engaged in processing, creating, repairing, renovating, tainting, cl ing, and assembling of goods, - or ec.*uip. ent. per- formance standards will be used to insure of absence of. -- ? verse impacts beyond the lot boundaries of the use - _ b) Application Criteria • • This district will usually be applied where the _ollow'ngg conditions exist: - 1. Site is located outside the Chapel Hill Joint Planning ;_,.�,. but within areas designated by the adopted Land Tice Plan • - as Industrial Transition Activity Node- 2. Water and sewer mains e,ist at the site or he made available as part of the development process. 3. Access would consist of direct vehicular access to a street classified as either arterial or collector. Access to m-a _ . service is desirable but not required. 4.2.23 Heavy Industrial-III (T-3) Listrict a) Intent The aurcose of the Eea.-y Industrial-TIT. .--3) `isiric:: to provide locations for enterprises engage. i: a `^ ,_mod n7-7,g, of manufacturing, processing, creating, repnirin ;, painting, cleaning, or assembling of gcc ,., or equipment_ Performance. stn_* ,-, s will b^�nsnc t:, -•_-.• h absences of adverse impacts beyond the zonir , :if4t 'ict h0anda___ _ b) Application Criteria i '• 186 This district will usually be applied where One following conditions exists: l Site is located outside the Chanel :?ill Joint Planning Area, but within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan asr:Industrial Transition Activity Node_ 2. Water and sewer mains exist at the site or be made available as part of the development process_ 3. Access would consist of direct vehicular access to a street classified as either arterial or collector. Access to rail service is desirable but not required. 4_2.24 Acricultural Service (AS) District . a) Intent - The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non--farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, sylvicultural, and .agricultural uses of the AR districts- b) ' Annlication Criteria • This district will usually be applied where the following j conditions exist: 1_ Site is within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as Agricultural Residential_ 2. Lot size for individual uses would be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal_ 3. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned AF., at any location shall not exceed ten acres_ - 4_2.25 Public Interest (pID) District a) Intent ..-. .. The purpose of Public Interest (?SID) District is to p--ez.,ve. and protect certain public land and private educational lends, deemed environmentally sensitive and of major scientific r_ search significance from the impacts of development. In ad1-- itior:, these lands will be managed in ways that will prevent any intentially generated adverse impacts from affecting surrounding property_ b) Application Criteria This district will be applied to the following: 1. All Du..:_ Forent lands, the Eno River State Par-k, all Un_vc,r- sity of North Carolina lands, and all other public or private educational lands deemed to be environmentally se:r_ z4{•:_ and of major scientific or re .carc?: cic�nifi cane 4-13 - ._ 187 d C. 4.3 PER'::-In USE TAB= . • 0 namS'f"'D USZ A - =SS A FFECMAI. CIS3 (A3TZ.E 3) B + CLASS 8 S?STIAI. cS? (A 3SC"_ a) . AR1?4 32!?3124tP5IP.3)?L3l w1(:;C2tCC3(GC.13 C-510X1 £T_(Il(=2tI11AS(EDIP:7 I __ - - - 1 ' El Day Nursery, Dayca=e, Pri- vate 3irdsr- garden 8 8 1 3 1 3 8 3 8, B • • • • • 32 Dwelling; Single I I f I • 'I 'I • I •I "I I HlL - Family r 1 1 I E3 Dwelling; Two I I I I I I I i I Family •I •1 • " • •I •I • 'I ' ' I ' 1 F[4 Multiple Family I I I wl .I wI wI w • I a . I ` sI I I g: : ll •[• i •! • .1 I I I I r 1 8S Dwelling; abi_e L. 1 .I I 1 I I .I _ I .I •. I rl 1 H6 Family Car_ Fore I'' It '1 °I .j •.j •� .1 •9I >1 l •j 1 I .1 87 Group Care?atilst?}H 131 8I 81 3I 81 al 81 81 31 31 31 E1 81 • I ! Ea °ehabilati•.e Care I I •! I i I Facility IM ` w •` I 119 Motels S Motels I I ' I I I I = I I `I °1 I I I I j I i 810 Residential _atel I j I I 1 i 1 (Fraternities. ,� I{ I 1 i i Soren- '+5 s 1 DDrrti torie9) , t A I A. A .+. t Ell Rooming Eouse I i I I I _I .I "1 ' I ! I '1 F12 Temporary Yaail I ( 1 I i j tom . 3 .7I BI 8, 3 I I 2- 1 ' B . . 313 Tourist .:aae 1 I. 11 ' ' I ' I •I 1 - 1 •I' I II 1 I .. Accessory Uses 1I ` •I •( . •j - I •I 'I '1 '1 •I 'I •I • ` ' I 'I ' 1 L I341321P3IV- 1^51231?131LC11::021CG31774 1=-5107 I F.7.[IT IT_31L:1.ssI t i7 S-10 --- PI.-. TAX MAP BINGHAM TOWNS TOTAL SIZE OF ZONING LOT ZONING USE NO. USE NAME BLK/LOT LOT SIZE includes h of R W DISTRICT SR 1 Cook's Dairy Bar 1-4A Less Than 1 Acre Whole Lot + h R/W EC-5 1007 2 Mebane Oaks Store 1-21 3 Less Than 1 Acre Whole Lot + � R/W EC-5 1007 Morris Store 1-14 13.87 1 Acre + s 4 Buckhorn Meat Processing 1A-7 5 Old Leather Works , + R/W Whole 1120 200 x200, �Whole Lot + R/W I-1 1120 5-35A Less Than 1 Acre Whole Lot + k R/11 NC-2 1006 6 Garage Garage 26-3 9.23 acre 2001x200' + R/W GC-4 NC 54 7 Garage 5-14 1 Acre Whole Lot + ; R/W GC-4 1002 8 Dixie Auto Service 5-148 6.73 Acre 2001x200' + R/t � ^1 EC-5 NC 54 9 Marvin's Sure Fit Auto Center 5-40 e r 1.08 Ac 10 MDK Whole Lot + �, R/W rC-5 1128 13-11A 3 Acre Whole Lot + ; R/W EI 1102 11 Lloyd's Grocery 14-14 Less Than 1 Acre Whole Lot + R/W EC-5 1006 12 Adam & Eve 26-28 8.37 Acre 450'x350' + R/W GC-4 NC 54 13 Tumbleweed 26-6 18.33 14 Tar heel Food Mart 2001x260' + ;; R/SV NC-2 NC 54 26-30 5.24 Acre 210'x400' Inc. 15 Allen's Exxon 26-19 R/tV NC-2 NC 54 16 16.98 Acre 2001x200' + ;; R/W EC-5 NC 54 Classic Car Salon 27-8 267.61 Acre 305'x150' includes R/W Zoning Lot Starts 17 JW's Place 100' S. of N. Prop. I,n.F�C-5 1102 28-18 3.78 Acre 1 ac. 285'54 Frontage 18 Branson's Sawmill + 54+1=2 R/W NC-2 1002 28-16 5.95 Acre Whole Lot + R/W AS 19 Lucas Antique R-pair Shop 29-11 NC 59 63.47 Acre 20 White Cross Auto Repair 29-3 2001x200' + ; R/W EC-5 21 Larry's Alignment 30-15 19.78 Acre 200'x206' + R/ta NC-2 NC 54 22 Gulf Station Conv. Store 30-20 .86 Acre Whole Lot + �, R/W NC-2 NC 54 23 Triple C Auto Sales •B8 Acre Whole Lot + �, R/W NC-2 1952 30-7B 24 Old School Less Than 1 Acre Whole Lot + R/W NC-2 1952 30-8 7,27 Acre 310'x175' includes R/W-ZOnin9 Lot Starts 135' K of E.Prop. Ln. NC-2 NC 54 25 Ray's Auto Repair 308-5 10 Acre 2001x200' Lot is 165' S. of N. Prop. Ln. CO 26 Kluka's Paint & 11ody Shop 35-30 200' E. of R/11 CC-5 1952 27 3.53 Acre 305'x150' + � R/w EC-5 1005 C 28 rawfor ra Cabinet 37-24 33.1 Acre 200'x330' Inc. R/W EC-5 1005 ford's Repair 40-13 ;;29 Farm Gallery Antiques 17-11 16.75 Acre 200'x230' Inc. � R/W EC-5 -! 1956 229-34 Acre 310'x175' Inc. h R/pi EC-5 00 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP USE TAX NAP TOTAL SIZE OF EXISTING PROPOSED S.R. NO. NAIL OF USE BLK/LOT LOP SIZE ZONI4IFG LOT ZONING ZONING 1! 1 Auto Repair 2-27 1.27 ac. Whole Lot RC EC-5 1009 2 Old Store 4-36 11.46 ac. Approx. 1.5 ac. RC EC-5 1716 (all of lot S. of 1716) 3 Corner Grocery 5-16 .75 ac. Whole Lot RC EC-5 17111 & 1716 14 Lockridge 16C Approx. Whole Lot P.iJ.D. PD-1-73 1730 50 ac. 5 Lockridge Sec. B 8G 38 ac. Whole Lot P.U.D. PD-1-77 1730 6 Woods Coumunity Store 14-ioB 13.99 Approx. 1 ac. GC NC-2 N.C. 86 S. 7 15A-A-11 23.31 410,000 sq. Ft. RC EC-5 1.803 8 Hollow Rock Store 16-22 1.88 ac. Approx. 1.5 ac. RC EC-5 17314 9 17-10 4.09 ac. Whole Lot GC CC-3 N.C. 86 S. 10 Industrial 18-6A 20 ac. Whole Lot Ind. 1-1 1.727 & 1725 11 Warehouse 1817 210T x 210' Whole Lot RC NC-2 1'127 12 18-21 10.7 ac. 1 ac. RC EC-5 1727 13 Farm House Restaurant 19-5 22.5 ac. Whole Lot GC NC-2 1725 14 Allen & Son I3BQ 19-5 22.5 ac. Whole Lot GC NC-2 N.C. 86 S. 15 Bug House 19-7 1.15 ac. Whole Lot GC NC-2 N.C. 86 S. 16 214-41A 18.9 ac. Whole Lot GC CC-3 1777 & N.C. 86 s. 17 Real Estate Office 24-27A Less Than iao .Less Than 112 ac. RC NC-2 N.C. 86 S. 18 Cot- ' i ore 110-17 58.75 ar-,, - 1 acre GC LC-1 1117 i USE TAX MAP TOTAL SIZE OF EXISTING PROPOSED S.R. 140. NAME OE USE BLK/LOT LOT SIZE ZONING LOT ZONING ZONING # 19 Old Ser. Sta. 110-17 58.75 ac. 1 acre RC LC-1 1009 20 Gates Garage 113-11 7,63 ac 112 ac. RC GC-11 N.C. 54 21, Conv. Store 115-19C 1 ac. Whole Lot RC GC-i4 I005 22 120-19 10.8 ac. Whole Lot (Co, GC CC-3 1919 Planning Area) 23 Blackwood Store 130-B-19 6,16 ac. 200' x 200' RC EC-5 1.008 24 Store 130-C-12 6 ac, 1 ac, + RC EC-5 1008 0 Q3 z ENO TOWNSHIP USE TAX MAP TOTAL SIZE OF EXISTING PROPOSED S.R. NO. NAME OF USE BLKAOT LOT SIZE ZONING LOT ZONING ZONING fl 1 Tom's Quick Stop 5-11 1.38 ac. Whole Lot RC NC-2 U.S. 70-A 2 Rural Processing 8-32A 2.3 ac. 300' x 40' RP AS 15511 125' From 155�1 3 12-4A 122.39 ac. Approx. 1 ac. RC EC-5 1002 4 Tinnen's Groc. 16-24B 1110' x 190' Whole Lot RC EC-5 Craig RE. 5 Kountry Kitchen 21-39 4.7 ac. Whole Lot RC NC-2 U.S. 70 E 6 Laws Exxon 21-30 264' x 90' Whole Lot RC NC-2 U.S. 70 E 7 Motorcycle Works & 25-4 & 5A Approx. 2 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-4 U.S. 70 E Jacobs Glass 8 Nursery 25-24 10.14 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-4 158 Z 9 Skyland Motel 25-69 5.62 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-)I U.S. 70 E 10 Latta Const. Co. 25-67, 8.1 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-1I U.S. 70 E 67A, 68 11 A.K. Jackson Prop. 25-61, 63;6 Whole Lot GC GC-4 U.S. 70 E 65, 66 12 25-42 15.27 Approx. 2 ac. GC GC-11 Orr U.S. 70E 13 Leman's Truck Sales 25-46 250' x 150' Whole Lot GC GC-4 U.S. 70 E 14 Auto Repair 25-145 1301 x 260' Whole Lot GC GC-4 U.S. 70 E 15 Bobby Den Plumbing 25-136 Approx. 1 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-4 U.S. 70 E 16 Frank's Produce 25-105 1.6 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-11 U.S. 70 E 17 Dixie Stores 25-102, 8.32 ac. Less Than CC U.S. 70 E 102A 1 ac. each USE TAX PAP TOTAL SIZE OF EXISTING PROPOSED IS.R. NO. NAPE OF USE BLKAOT LOT SIZE ZONING LOT ZONING ZONING !1 18 25-103 Less Than Whole Lot GC GC-4 U.S. 70 E 1 ac. 19 Orange Co. ABC 25-8518 .96 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-4 I1.S. 70 E 20 C & P Auto Repair 25-85 4.39 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-1I U.S. 70 E 22 Gulf Station 25-811 1.83 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-'I U.S. 70 E 23 Groucho's Rest. & Sanple 25-83 Approx. 2 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-4 U.S. 70 E Case 24 Exxon 25-82 160' x 150' Whole Lot GC m-4 U.S. 70 E 25 Confederate Im 25-81 6 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-11 11.S. 70 E 26 Iieavy Equipment 25-76 9.05 ac. Whole hot GC GC-4 I1.S. 70 E 27 Bane Property 26-35 260 ac. 105 ac. GC GC-I1 1812 28 Carolina Builders 25-75A 3.82 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-11 1812 29 Lamb Dist. Co. 25-75B 3.01 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-1I 1.812 30 s Griffin's Store 26-27B 2.3 ac. 1 ac. RC EC-5 U.S. 70 E 31 Marshall's Paint & Body 26-40 2.8 ac. Whole Lot GC EC-5 1710 Shop 32 26-39 9.5 ac. 200' x 400' GC EC-5 1710 33 Blackwelder's Upholstery 4-9 2.76 ac. Whole Lot GC EC-5 U.S. 70 E Shop Q� f �. HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP PROPOSED r1 TAX MAP TOTAL SIZE OF ZONING LOT ZONING USE NO. NAME OF USE BLK/LOT LOT SIZE (includes of R/W) DISTRICT SR 1 Ridge Rd. Store, Launromat, Thompson's Grill 1-B-16 23.5 Acre 230,x200' Inc. R/W NC-2 NC 06 2 Ship Ahoy Dinner Club 1-C-32 2.02 Acre 1 ac. S.W.PT. 250' W. of R/W NC-2 NC 86 3 Gas Pumps Vacant !',tore 1-B-3 2.14 Acre 1 ac. + 200' E. of R/W EC-5 NC 86 4 Major Business Fcrms 3-25 20.38 Acre 430'x400' 225' from NC 86 R/W 1-1 NC B6 5 McGhre's Used Auto Parts 2-5A 13.5 acre 2301x200' 175' from E. Boundary EC-5 1551 6 Pantry Conv. Store 22-C-1A 1.73 Acre 1.73 Ac. + � of R/IV NC-2 US 70 7 BotsFord's Radio & TV Repair 22-L'-6 1 Acre 1 ac. + 1- R/W R1 1002 B Family Supermarket & Sea Shanty Restaurant 23-D-1 1 Acre Lot + h RIW EC-5 US 70 9 Colfax Salvage Fu!niture 37-8-2 3.9 Acres Whole Lot + ►y R/id NC-2 US 70 10 Wheelers Welding shop 40-B-3A 250'x175' whole Lot + R/14 EC-5 US 70-A 11 Hines Liner Lumber Co. 40-A-9 27.77 Part in Town Area Not in Co. Plann- Planning Area ing Area I-2 NC 86 12 Carolina Activities Antiques 40-A-9B 3.08 Acre Whole Lot + k R/W GC-4 NC a6 13 Esquire Health Parlor 40-A-9C .76 Acre Whole Lot + 11 R/W GC-4 NC 86 14 Beauty Salon 32-A-14 1.27 Acre Whole Lot + h R/W EC-5 70 15 Harmon Young Truck Stop 45-11A 37.97 Acre 162,500 sq.ft. + R/W CC3 NC 86 16 Gene's Conv. Store 45-11A 37.97 Acre 45,000 sq.+ y R/W CC3 NC 86 17 Gas Station 45-11A 37.97 Acre 1 Acre + % R/W CC3 NC 86 18 Mr. Bob's Conv. Store 45-34 .62 Acre Whole Lot + ; R/W EC-5 1710 19 Orange Concrete Co. 45-32 1.47 Acre Whole Lot + h R/W I-3 1710 20 Woods Bros. Office Southern Comfort 45-24 4.94 Acre 2.94 ac. + b= R/W EC-5 NC 86 21 Paulines Grocery 46-3 4 acre 200'x200' + � R/W EC-5 1006 51 i LSBOROUGH , . NORTH CAROLINA 27278 194 4 9 1 .N1 t ryi 600 YEMO TO: Planning Board FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: List of Proposed Non-Conforming Uses of Land, Uses of Major Structures and Premises, and Structures DATE: May 6, 1981 In order to clarify how the Staff has handled non-ccnformir uses in Orange County, enclosed is a list of the nen--conforming uses we have identified, EVO TOWNSHIP ZONE TAX#59 Gates Septic Tank • Re Ar 20-29A 1502 Welding_Shop R-1 21-H HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP US 70 #2 Triangle Cre: rprium R-1 43_B-14 1133 #9 Orange Concrete R-1 45-32 1710 #72 R & J Specialty Co. - R-1 23-A-10 1560 #77 Bowmans Pool Hall- . AR 7-A-7 1395 #79 Moose Lodre • AR 32-A-2B US70 Asco/Warehouses/Welding Shop R1 45-19 Old #10, BINGHAM TCWNSHIP -• #12 MDK AP. 13-11A 1102 #29 Nello L. Tear Asphalt Plant R-1 28-9 NC 54 #24 J.W.'s Place NC-2 28-18 NC 54 #44 Tumbleweed NC-2 26-6 NC 54 CHA M, H7LL TOWN= #3 Castaway Club R-1 4-92 1710 #5 GaragA F.-1 5-23A 1714 #6 Gary W. Dean R-1 5-LA 1714 #7 Dean's Truck'& Coach R-1 5-50 1715 #8 Sass Welding R-1 5-55 & 56 1715 Glass Company R-1 5-43 off 1716 #25 National Chemical Lab R-1 19-17A NC 86 i - Planring Board Morn a May 6, 1981 Page 2 ZCNF TAX MAP SR CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP #53 r+3�-Pnt:ne-Ayers Eng. 1�1 23-15 Hwy 54 #63 Hill Country =urn tu±e �1 �?5-1 Hw5r.54 'SW ATTACHMENT C 1 95 ORANGE COUNTY PLANND G DEPARTMENT EILLBBOROUGH ` NORTii CAROLL A 1 j 27278 6604 4,i m b;ItL , ;a7 —i- 4. h, wadi MEMO TO: Planning Board FROM: Planning Staff DATE: May 14, 1981 SUBJECT: Staff recommendations on proposed non-conforming uses in unzoned . Township. Hillsborough Township: Bingham Township: #2 Triangle Crematorium #12 #9 Orange Concrete #24 MD #79 Morose Lodge #24 J.W.'S. Place Warehouse on old #10 #29 Mello L. Teer Asphalt Plant Warehouse on old #10 TM44 Tumbleweed SUBJECT: Special Use Permit for American Stone Company ' The Staff recommends approval of Class A, a Special Use Permit for ex- tractive use to American Stone Company, provided that item 8.8.1_1 a) is shown on the site plan. SUBJECT: Prezoning of Vacant Land Staff stands by its previous recommendations that vacant land not--be zoned for any use other than residential SUBJECT: Zoning of Land to Higher Density Residential Staff recommends that the following subdivisions or properties be zoned to the zoning districts indicated. West Side of N. Fairview Colonial Hills R-4 Joppa Oaks P.-2 R-2 Fred Cates- Property on Orange�J R-8 Grove Road SUBJECT: Treatment of existing industrial uses in Unzoned Townships 196 REZONING, SPECIAL USE, !•AILING ADDRESS REQUEST LIST TOWNSHIP TAX MAP BLOCK LOT TOWNSHIP TAX MAP BLOCK LOT Hillsborough 49 C 4 Hillsborough 49 C 5 3.25 acres 1.1 acres Marvin L. Workman James Warren Hicks Route 5 Box 208 Route 6, Box 375 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough 49 C 6 Hillsborough 49 B 26 3.8 acres 16.8 acres Owner unknown Alfred H. King Route 5, Box 148 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough 49 B 25A Chapel Hill 2 2 8.35 acres 8.68 acres Lillie Yancey Mangum Marshall H. and Cora Edgeil Box 729 Route 3, Box 452 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Chapel Hill 2 3 Chapel Hill 2 15 12.66 acres 13.8 acres Trevilian D. , Jr. and Thelma C. Eaton Duke Power Company Route 5, Box 198 Old Highway 86 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Chapel Hill . 2 14 Chapel Hill 2 13 8 acres 5 acres Advisory Board of the NC District Church Anne G. Richardson of Nazarene, 7609 Linda Lake Drive 2247 Walton Street Charlotte, NC 28215 Petersberg, Virginia 23805 Chapel Hill 3 1 Trace 735087 and 726768 IFP Associates 112 Carolina Forest Chapel Hill , NC 27514 *4 .2 . 12 r • �_ , �.. . 9' 1+/w.�P� • s � —t/ I� �G + C+ T.) Intent *Amended The 1mende2 District of the Existing CommercIaI -y EC s is to rcviC (EC-5 ) { p e a district to be used only curing he application of zoning rc previously un2oned Townships to accommodate existing commer- cial uses or in One townships -o previously zoned commercial property which is not located in areas designated es Activity Nodes by the adopted Land Use ? ; an , b) Aza' - ca- on CF �e�ia 7':.is district will be applied to existing:.n =zoned �ams3:� x'S C e"ja1 uses townships and p-ev ious'-y zC_! a aa.�erci ' ropes-v located in a~eas not desi;r4a;.ed as Activity Nodes in zne aaopred Land Use Plan. desiFl$tion s:.a': only to property used for ors in 5 conaeroial a: the time of appli- cation cation o= _s ordinance. - .• . . • „ • . . . . 198 •_ I *41.. 311 ti 1,11 '`. • « • r •-.7. . • • . - . • I.• . . _ ._ . . • .' • IMAM Pi if= \. 11.•• ■mme.111c.7., DI 1111WW:- 47 . — alb .• . • • ..• .• . . ._._. • 7-_ , . _.._ / / .. • , - .• 04 . , . ...., I • / , .....:.•.41, • / --7......:•-...• , , / ■ up — -... - // 7 u... . ... . , ,.•..-• - 1 9 9 , ilk 6:114y4 • "' • / . , .. . . . . i . ,- . ... •. .., • ..,_. . . . , • . . . ._ . • ,./ . ,_ ,.• • , / ; .....gr -— _ .:,,.-- . -. -_ ...„.... • . ,..:._ --,a. '- -"---- 'CO-' 4 I' "Irj."..r. - .'....--.:2-; ... ....W.0. - ' - , — • _ • . . . _.. _ . . . .. • - . . • • .__ . • • • _ - - / • iiiic- ...-i.: .---. _-- . -... •--,.«= 7'".4 ' ....: blifi . . - . ...'...- .0. • -.7-• ALI . . . .,.7 iv,. M - 7 . C r -1- w - • . . • • - ' - --_. --..----_ ,„ - - •- !tk......." .-.,--1=1-'-':."---- -L..= _ . ••":..-m.-,... Iliv_7.i........._-. --.._ - 'Ii. •--7-7:,.--'-"C7.°Ct* -.— _.... ---- ...—•.- . . ... -: --. . • " - _ - ._ . ... . . ,. • .-. . ..., - :3116-----,•:,..7- - •- I.'. -4n!..-" 'N- ••;.L. "-A.-,..---.7',"---:"...--'."1:::. :4-.._......... .. . . '•-_ ...- — .-'--' -'''...-7---.--"-: - •".7-7-._- - ---..... .----11°I.I•e!!''`'-%.,---_-- '-'-a-ILL:" ---.i... --. ------ -. ..., ----ftwomp-.--__ - 1 . ---- .. ._. _. , ..,_.. .. .... . .. . . _.. . .. ._. _q/y/s;)- 200 _____ Jo coh. m if - fY1ay aicer/1, _ 13e _ . /1 Khic .. 6Gc.liter" esK Q ix ey /.._ iocatech CA - JSf,-Lu . SAS, C 1 14;l( r 4rs1, rr .P - 104 I, a m 1 L .Cx.c,xu - s'-. I r e6.4e_s n/I.WI, 10 0, - , nM ALDw 5 ) crc. - sim.a.G 1_ �07 ,- �-� Prb P� 7 TO be . r- n r I / cuAd _(Al proix 1" A...z tr--. g 1.4Sr , . f7)Cer J `�h- ray.Tch :;r:e-±,r;!I:r: :a'`ZVr tI:11IAUSEb' �. f� + 1 I REI11IR O .UU QUAN, PART NO. DESCRIPTION PRICE 55? GG ? ftfo f RT. 3 BOX 185A - NEW HWY.86 P 113 s HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 f�- 919-732-8240 NAME V IF � 011!F ?� ADDRESS PROMISED A.M- I P.M. CITY PHONE fTe; _�(� tfRMS onl)f n l•nni i r. F� MAKE]] MODEL YEAR SER, NO. �L aLICENSE NO. MILFA,F MTR. NO. REPAIR ORDER INSTRUCTIONS n n•.;1 US V__--RICAIT ❑ OI1.NGE ❑ DIL FILTER ❑ TRANS. ❑ DIFf H ❑ WASH u POLIS" L) r _ I OUTSIDE REPAIRS -- — { BROUGHTFORWARD U A T r'T'A 1.•'.D Ht P r�Y Ou 40NT 1Y0 1[love 0O Nl ADY: Yo V-"'V P IOU-r-I L."l! g .S. HONE WHEN RE [] TIfICA[OII TIIVCR NI PlINOI[t[IA[O DN T.+Ir LTa,NIO/'wAYT ON r1!lwuF[!•O[TNr TOTAL PARTS rUIL•D51 OI II I I PHO•NO—Iwir I C T ION.AN VI XP At Ir uI CHA 0C'7 L'IH Ir Nr ArAY I� •C[HO.YLl00lOOM AIIOYl CA.0. uc.IOrrCVpt}IH A_u",pf llErlulS TNr Ai 10 TOTAL LABOR /Y■] I H£*I£HY W+{TVE MY RIr1TTT TO REC£IV£A WRETTEP,ESTIMATE -- — nUAN ACCES.NO. ACCESSORIE5 PRICE OI TIr 1,PRICE TO COMPLET£TILE REOV CS RfI AIRIS1. TOTAL PARTS ' 7�r� I�,yy /J/71 x 1` _� `u&e�? ACCE530flIES GAS,OIL AND GREASE PRICE GAS,OIL IL GRE ASE MCI RESPORMOLE - - -- ran 1.051OR0A11 GALS.GAS OUTSIDE REPAIRS AOT lO CARS OR AP Rrt"LEI III ---- - --• CARS IN CASF 01 OiS.OIL @1 r ° C- -_- FIRE. THEFT OR ANY",R O USE BEYOND OUR CON LOS.aRf ASE 01 ,!/ n x Sh InRt. (P–S'- TLO B11 TOTAL ACCESSOflIES 101 AL GAS,OIL AND ORE A"- /to )UNT !�� ' ►jJ -- INVOICE Renic-ar-- SALES AND SERVICES SUPPLIED C DATE TO: ,r:UT s~o a K s Towel & Uniform Service PT 2 EGX ley—A 3X4191) CRAwER 538, 012 PCCCY OR LS1.1%L.. GkAHA� NI�.LSBGRC'tlGH hC NC 272_? 0273E PNCNE — 22E-0533 ROUTE DAY ACCT, ESTOP NO Misc.iN5Tave-noN5 YDUR PURCHASE NO. TEAMS ACCOUNT NO. INVOICE 21 k 1057 CASH 0000C N MBER■ 0 IND. INDIVIDUAL SERVICED AND/OR , 468044 INVENTORr ND. COLOR OR MIN. OUANTETY UNIT InF•rvIINEp P SERVICES DESCRIPTION smo rs!PANTS DESCRIPTION PRICE I BILLED PRICE I PRODUCT J EM CHARGES S � P CODE-1 -MEMO Sr ALL REC TWL Cl. 100 5.25 7e,.C525 _ _5_ .251 2 CO • _.__.- _ - -fir- . —_ - __.._.. . . ` .... .___-" .;.. _ CUSTOMER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 1.UNIFORMS 4.EXEC.SERVICE CHARGES .� . 5 ALL ITEMS RENTED FROm US, 5 SIGNED BY USED IN HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS z TOWELS 66 e E.WALK OFF MAT �+x`.+D40 BY ALL EMPLOYEES. M 21 S.DUST CONTROL E.FENDER COVER PLEASE PAY` S.46 ��� ALL DELIVERIES ARE MADE PURSUANT TO CONTRACT „.ew.•.w- . . AUTOWERKS -- = r PHONE 732-8240 •- C ; 0 1 ROUTE 3, BOX 185 0 i HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 _ _ 66-AF y i ^ I rl 19iD3 .... 1 ORDER OF E I \Cl.; l.. 1- /4L,� I J /�1 r., :�„r-: :41/ ... iBCAROI.II�A _ •. ; -� v+Rs 11• CHAPKL R[i.L.NO lI CAkOLiNA X781{ "�\ ri . " ,... Li ic: .._(:': roo oSD3�►I -1:053 10046 ' ;� 5�,. 2fl ip4 2 296 ' •"00000 3 50 0 0.o • • , . r 4AUTOWERKS}: j _, _ r 4--,. '''-- - _ - - - 0.• _ - -.` _ _ :fl^l-R.OPIJH7OE N$E. 7B3O2X421480 b-A". � . r.^;`rw : 1 FAISON LAW OFFICES C RDON BROWN FAISON, BROWN, FLETCHER & BROUGH GEORGE L. FLETCHER MICHAEL B. BROUGH SUITE 1400 RALEIGH OFFICE WILLIAM W.BUNCH. 111 UNIVERSITY TOWER SUITE 210 A. REXFORD WILLIS. III 3101 PETTY ROAD NOR71I CAROLINA FEDERAL BUILDING RALPH B.STRICKLAND,JR. POST OFFICE BOX 2800 49W FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD BRENDA M. FOREMAN DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA 27705 POST OFFICE BOX 19409 W. ROBBINS COX. RALEIGH.NOR't71 CAROLINA 27619-9409 WILLIAM D.BERNARD TELEPHONE (919)489-9001 TELEMIONE(919)878-8060 A. VANN IRVIN TELEPHONE(919)968-I III TELECOPY 1919)878-8062 TIMOTHY C. BARBER TELECOPY (919)489-5774 JEFFREY N.MASON REGINALD B.GILLESPIE,JR. MARTHA LEANN NEASE FWYD B. McKISSICK,JR. JOHN C.SCHAFER JAMES E. IIARDIN.JR. FRAYDA S. BLUESTEIN ROBERT E.HAGEMANN July 7, 1987 THOMAS N.COCHRAN JAMES C.FRENCH.JR. Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass 144 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Sheriff Pendergrass: I represent Mr. p . Chuck Miller, owner of Autowerks, an automobile repair shop located on Highway 86 since 1980. Mr. Miller is currently seeking to have this property rezoned from R-1 to EC-5. As part of the application for rezoning, the Orange County planning staff requires a letter from the Sheriff' s Department confirming that the Department will be able to provide service should the property be rezoned. Mr. Miller is seeking this rezoning in order to expand the buildings located on the site. The proposed expansion would not significantly increase the operation, however it would enable Mr. Miller to move virtually the entire operation under one roof. In 1981 when this property was originally zoned, Orange County applied R-1 zoning to this property. It is our contention that either a mistake or an oversight was made, as the zoning ordinance required EC-5 (existing commercial ) zoning to be applied to all then-existing commercial uses. The Orange County planning staff has verbally indicated their tentative support for our position. As we are faced with a July 10, 1987 application deadline, I would appreciate your immediate attention. Thank you for your assistance and should you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, FAISON, BROWN, FLETCHER & BROUGH Robert E. Hagelann REH/dwc ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 CC EMERGENCY SERVICES O v 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Established 1752 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Greg Szymix FRO:: Bobby Baker SUBJECT: E.M.S. Coverage DATE: July 8, 1967 Per your request, this is to confirm that Orange County Emergency Medical Services and Orange County Rescue Squad will provide medical and rescue services to Autowerks located on Highway 86 in Orange County. The proposed chances would not have any impact on our services at the present time. BB/pdg cc: Mr. Bob Hacmann Hagmann,Faison, Brown PO Box 2800 Durham, NC 2770$ 206 HILLSBOROUGH 2235 c�Ldg-cams-ASE- ° 0 60x30 FIRE DEPARTMENT •.,,L_see„.„G" 272-'e ESTA9 .I5•+E0 1937 July 7 , 1987 Mr . Don Hagemann Faison ,Brown , Attorneys at Law P . 0. Box 2800 Durham, N . C . 27705 Dear Mr . Hagemann , The Hillsborough/Orange Rural Fire Department will be able to provide rated fire protection to the property on N . C . 86 South for which you propose rezoning . This property is currently know as Autowerks , and I understand the proposed use to be an expansion of the automobile repair facilities located thereon. If I can be of further service to you , do not hesitate to call on me . Sincerely, 7/(A-1.1 Mark Gordon , Chief 7E-E=.-ONE .9' 702•75. . _ _nrs == 7. . LINDY PENDERGRASS 20:7 Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-3535 Robert E. Hanemann Suite 1400 University Tower 3101 Petty Road Durham, NC 27705 Dear Mr. Eagemann, I foresee no problems in providing service for the rezoned property, formerly R-1. also known as Autowerrs. If we can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. Sincerely, ald,e4 ,(0ii(07 Lindy Pendergrass Sheriff of Oranoe County ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 208 H•TLLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 c a n �. \� CERTIFICATE OF MAILING REZONING REQUEST ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , Es.d1e__Kitk , Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 7, 1987, I mailed, postage prepaid , a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the Rezoli11g_Leah, 1t__hX_huilaKed s.L_Qhaael__t1111 Lama.lAL_I;34AA2_24 _2pLtlsta_Qi_1Qt_1 to each property owner as required by Article 8 Section 8. 4. 4 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the Rezoning request. WITNESS my hand, this the 1Qth day of 6ugl.s.tt_12 @Z.. /../ei /74/ Eddie Kirk ZONING OFFICER ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 209 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY -PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE : JULY 30, 1987 SUBJECT: Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS QEIYEEaL_llEQUTALMt APPLICANTS : Charles Miller and Merle Dancy Route 5, Box 206 Hillsborough, NC 27278 LOCATION: Located on the east side of NC 86 south of Old NC 10 (SR 1710 ) and north of New Hope Church Road (SR 1723 ) in Hillsborough Township. REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Existing Commercial -5 (EC-5 ) Rezoning Request PURPOSE : To allow for Autowerks to become conforming. LOT SIZE : 0.95 acres or 41 ,480 square feet. EXISTING LAND USE : Autowerks garage SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING : NORTH - Undeveloped wooded land zoned R-1 EAST - Undeveloped land zoned R-1 SOUTH - Duke Power overhead line, undeveloped wooded land zoned R-1 WEST - NC 86, undeveloped wooded land zoned R-1 LAND USE PLAN: Designated Rural Residential Area in the Land Use Plan 2-10 MEMORANDUM Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS JULY 30, 1987 PAGE 2 ZONING: The property is presently zoned Residential -1 . The intent of the Existing Commercial -V (EC-5 ) is provided in Article 4.2. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance . a) Intent The purpose of the Existing Commercial -V (EC-5 ) District is to provide a district to be used only during the application of zoning to previously unzoned townships to accommodate existing commer- cial uses or in zoned townships to previously zoned commercial property which is not located in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted Land Use Plan. b ) baalltatiszn_CLitania This district will be applied to existing commer- cial uses in unzoned townships and previously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan. This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing commercial at the time of appli- cation of this ordinance . The following is a list of permitted uses in EC-5: H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single-Family dwelling w/wo efficiency apartment H5 Mobile Home dwelling H6 Family Care Home Accessory Uses P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police and Fire Stations ) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S3 Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians S6 Banks and Financial Institutions S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S10 Farm equipment and sales S13 Greenhouses ( no on premises sales ) S14 Greenhouses (on premises sales ) S15 Health Services: Under 10, 000 sq. ft. S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S24 Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair (Body Shop) S25 Motor Vehicle Sales Rental ( new and used ) - -211 MEMORANDUM Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS JULY 30, 1987 PAGE 3 S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building S33 Printing and Lithography S39 Restaurants : Carry Out S40 Restaurants : Drive In S41 Restaurants: General S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where : A) Operations Are Designed To Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use . B) Low Volume Traffic Generation ( 0-200 Trips/pay ) _ C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage S43 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Boundaries of Lot Where The Use Is Located. A) Medium Traffic Generation (200-300 Trips/Day ) S44 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Zoning District. High Volume Traffic Generation S45 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where : A) Operations Designed To Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premise Other Than Employees of the Principle Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day ) C) All Operations Within A Fully Enclosed Building & No Storage Or Display of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S46 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries of the Lot With Medium Traffic Generation (200-800 Trips/Day ) No Storage Or Display Of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S50. Storage of Goods, Outdoor $51 Storage and Warehousing, inside Building S53 Wholesale Sales The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit: P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub-stations, Switching 212 MEMORANDUM Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS JULY 30, 1987 PAGE 4 Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treat- ment Plants The following uses are allowed with a Class . B Special Use Permit: H7 Group Care Facility P3 Buildings ; Portable P22 Transmission Lines FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING WARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS : ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates Noncompliance PLANNING BOARD BOARD FINDINGS BASED ON 01= SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS COMMISSIONERS Ordinance Requi cements FINDINGS The application must comply with all requirements speci- fied in .Articie 20 - Amend- ments. Those requirements include : 20. 32 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of Yes No property at scale of not less 1"=60' than 1 '= 100" nor more than l '= 20' 20. 3.2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Description provided with application Yes No property 20. 3.2 c) Explanation of alleged X Yes No An error in the zoning atlas is Yes No error, i f any, to be corrected by proposed amendment alleged since this property was not zoned EC-5 in 1983 20. 3.2 d) Changed conditions , if Yes No Changed Applicant Ind.icates that site is Yes No any , which mare amendment reasona- conditions adjacent to property being used for bly necessary to promote public not alleged.a power transition line to the. south health , safety and general welfare. and a previous pig farm to then orth. 20. 3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No This area is designated Rural-Residen- Yes No amendment will carry out purpose tial . Applicant indicates the amend- and intent of adopted Comprehensive ment would be in compliance with the Land Use Plan which contemplated EC-5 -+ Plan. zoning for commercial uses in 1981 . W ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA Ordinance Requirements N Article 4.2 identifies the •+ criteria which will normally rP► .. be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for an Existing Commercial-5 (EC-5) designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2. 12 and are as follows: a) District will be applied to X Yes No Evidence has been submitted which Yes No existing commercial uses in indicates that this was an existing unzoned townships and previously Commercial use in an unzoned township zoned commercial property located prior to 1981 . in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the Adopted Land Use Plan. b) Designation can only be X Yes No Evidence has been submitted which Yes No applied to property used for indicates that the use was in existing commercial at the existence at the time Hillsborough time of application of this Township was zoned. ordinance. El J1] W If 2.1.5 10 very zealous of environmental issues and he did expect they would be very sensitive to community feelings regarding preservation of those buildings. Sylvia Price, Economic Development Director, read and submitted a statement which is a part of the minutes on pages Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked that a copy of the restrictive covenants be supplied for the Boards. A motion was made by Commissioner W1llholt and seconded by Commissioner Carey. to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 1/.___Zl471.2._6utQtaclia Planner Greg Szymlk presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed request by Charles Miller and Merle Dancy to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The property is located on the east side of NC Highway 86 north of New Hope Church Road ( SR 1723) and south of Old NC 10. The applicants are requesting a rezoning on a portion of lot 1 of Tax Map 2 - Chapel Hill Township. The property that would be rezoned contains 41 ,480 square feet or 0.95 acres. The current zoning on the property is Rural Residential (R-1 ) . The proposed zoning is Existing Commercial (EC-5 ) . The property is the present site of Autowerks auto repair garage. The area is designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan. The applicants maintain that the existing use was in operation in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was zoned and that an error was made at that time. The property was zoned R-1 and should have been designated Existing Commercial (EC-5) . Szymlk continued that it is not clear from the 1981 zoning maps what the intent was for this property. It was not zoned EC-5 nor was it included on the list of properties with non-conforming uses. It is clear in viewing the existing land use patterns and the existing building patterns that there are no unusual circumstances with regard to this property. Planning Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezoning for the following reasons: ( 1 ) The lot proposed to be rezoned is totally surrounded by an R-1 residential zone. - 12) The lot is not located in or near a commercial transition node on the Land Use Plan. The closest node is the Harmon Young node which is 4.400 feet or eight-tenths of a mile north of the property. (3) The existing use can continue to operate at Its present size and do business as a non-conforming use. Planning Board Member Best asked if there was proof that the business was in operation before September, 1981 . Szymik stated there were attachments in the agenda which would indicate that Autowerks was In 2.6 j) d If business and billing for those services as well as 11 paying NC sales taxes prior to September 1981 . Best continued asking the difference between EC-5 and non-conforming. Szymlk responded that EC-5 is a zoning classi- fication which permits the change- of use or expansion and a non-conforming would not be allowed to expand. Planning Board Member Yuhasz asked if there would be .a problem to rezone the property to EC-5 at this point in time. Szymik responded that the procedure would be to identify that an error had been made in the original zoning and EC-5 zoning should have been applied to the property at that time. Szymik stated that the work maps indicated there was a non- residential use on the property at the time that the 1981 zoning changes were being prepared but did not indicate the intent in regards to this property. Planning Board Member Best asked why the applicant desired a rezoning. Szymik responded that with an EC-5 zoning classification, there is an opportunity for expansion and change of use. Planning Board Member Plikey asked what the previous use of the structure was. Szymik responded that It was previously a convenience store. Planning Board Member Eddleman asked the County Attorney if the applicant' s statement of Justification was correct in stating the ordinance requires that the EC-5 district must be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships. Gledhill responded that he would have the answer for the Planning Board before it was to consider approval of the request. @1211__UagemaaL attorney for Autowerks, presented the following background for Autowerks: This past spring the owners of Autowerks decided to improve and increase the size of the auto repair shop. It was then found that the property was zoned R-1 rather than EC-5. Mr. Hageman noted that the three reasons given for denial by the Planning Staff are true statements and if it were not for the unusual history of this case, there would be no question but to deny the rezoning request. He continued that those three statements by themselves ignore the history which is very Important to this matter. Mr. Hageman stated that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy were operating Autowerks prior to the zoning of Hillsborough Township in September 1981 . He noted that prior to Autowerks another auto repair shop was in residence for approximately a year and prior to that time, the building did contain a convenience store. He continued that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy do not own the property now nor did they own it In 1981 so they did not receive notification of the zoning classification In process. He read from the Zoning Ordinance Article 4.2. 12 b) Application Criteria: "This district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships and pre- viously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan. This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing commercial at the time of application of this ordinance. " He stated that the intent of the Commis- sioners in 1981 was that the classification of EC-5 be applied in a non- discretionary manner once it was determined that those existing commercial uses were not in an activity node. Cji 1 Mr. Hagemam stated that he felt one of the reasons for Autowerks not being zoned EC-5 was the fact that the tract of land upon which it is located lies in Chapel Hill Township as well as Hillsborough Township. He noted that with the possibility of different planning personnel working on the two different townships and the undeveloped portion of the property being in Chapel Hill Township, it was possible that it was assumed the property was all P-1 . He noted that the Duke Power easement was all that was on the portion in Chapel Hill Township. He continued that he felt the incorrect zoning was simply a case of the property being overlooked. In regard to the idea that the property should be non-conforming, Mr. Hageman noted the following: ( 1 ) According to his reading, EC-5 had to be applied to existing commercial properties not in an activity node ; (2) Every existing commercial use along Highway 86 in 1981 except • Autowerks was given a commercial classification; (3) If the intent was to make Autowerks a non-conforming use, why did it not appear on the May 14, 1981 memorandum from the Planning Staff to the Planning Board. Mr. Hageman presented the request that the Planning Board recommend to the Board of Commissioners that they honor Autowerks rezoning request. They believe that this request is consistent with the com- prehensive plan although the area is not identified as an activity node since the plan clearly contemplated EC-5 classifications outside of activity nodes; therefore, they believe that this rezoning would not be in any way a violation of the comprehensive plan. He concluded that he felt the failure to grant the rezoning request for Autowerks would constitute spot zoning. Chutk. Elllet , co-owner of Autowerks, indicated the owner of the property would be willing to sell the 'portion of the property on which Autowerks is located if the rezoning request is approved. He Indicated that the desire is to make improvements to the business noting that the area of buildings was probably 2500 square feet each and he wished to have one building of 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in order to have more than one auto inside under repair at one time. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell and seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for consideration on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed rezoning request by Chandler Concrete Company. - The property Is located in western Cheeks Township on the south side of US 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway. This 3.43 acre parcel is approximately 860 feet east of the intersection of Frazier Road (SR 1310) end US Highway 70. The Land Use Plan designation is Commercial-Industrial Ten-Year L. * 18 16 Pilkey stated that a letter should be received from the Town of Hillsborough stating that the sewer line is in place. VOTE: 10 in favor. 2 opposed (Taylor & Yuhasz ) . MOTION : Best move positive findings on Article 4 .2.3 c, d, e (access , buffer and size) . Seconded by Yuhasz . VOTE: Unanimous. Best asked if anyone else would have preferred a planned development rather than a rezoning. Pilkey indicated she would have preferred a planned development. Kramer stated that he was in favor of a rezoning in 1985 and he still preferred a straight rezoning. His major concern was with the water lines . MOTION : Kramer moved approval of the proposed changes in the zoning atlas for Meadowlands. Seconded by Eddleman . VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION: Yuhasz moved to extend the meeting in order to complete the items heard at public hearing on August 24. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE : Unanimous. (2) Z-4-87 Autowerks Presentation by Greg Szymik . The property in question is located on the east side of NC Highway 86 north of New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) and south of Old NC 10 . The applicants, Charles Miller and Merle Dancy, are requesting a rezoning on a portion of lot I of Tax Map 2 - Chapel Hill Township. The property that would be rezoned contains 41 ,480 square feet or 0.95 acres. The current zoning on the property is Rural Residential (R-1 ) . The proposed zoning is Existing Commercial (EC-5) . The property is the present site of the Autowerks auto repair garage. The area is designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan. The applicants maintain that the existing use was In operation in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was zoned and that an error was made at that time. The property was zoned R-1 and should have been designated Existing Commercial (EC-5) . The Planning Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezon- ing for the following reasons : 1 . The lot proposed to be rezoned is totally surrounded by an R-1 residential zone. d 17 219 2. The lot is not located in or near a commercial transition node on the Land Use Plan . The closest node is the Harmon Young node which is 4,400 feet or eight-tenths of a mile north of the property . 3. The existing use can continue to operate at its present size and do business as a non-conforming use. The item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987 . Szymik relayed the following comments from the County Attorney in answer to questions asked at the public hearing. ( 1 ) The zoning of Autowerks to EC-5 would not be spot zoning. (2) The application of EC-5 to commercial uses outside a node is only mandatory when zoning is first being applied in an unzoned area. Under the current situation, EC-5 zoning is not mandatory. Szymik noted that the decision before the Board is whether a zoning error occurred in 1981 and if that determination Is made then the Board must decide what the correct zoning is for the property . Eddleman asked if it was an error if Autowerks was in operation when zoning was first applied. Szymik responded that Planning Staff ' s position was that no error was made in 1981 and therefore based its recommendation on that position . Eddleman indicated he felt it had been established that an error was made and that the property should be rezoned EC-5. Best asked what effect zoning this property to EC-5 would have on the existing use. More specifically, what can the owner do under EC-5 that he cannot do. now. Charles Miller, co-owner of Autowerks, responded that he wanted the property rezoned so he could expand his business . He noted that the auto repair had outgrown its present facilities and he wished to expand to meet the present and future needs of the growing business. Margison asked Mr. Miller if he owned the property as well as the business. Mr . Miller responded that he did not but does have an option to buy the property If it is rezoned as requested. FINDINGS OF FACT MOTION : Yuhasz moved positive findings on Article 20 .3 .2 a, b, c, (map, legal description & explanation of alleged error) . Seconded by Eddleman . 20 I 18 VOTE : Unanimous . MOTION : Eddleman moved positive findings on Article 20 .3 .2 e (manner in which amendment will carry out intent of the plan) . Seconded by Yuhasz . Best commented that the County Attorney ' s opinion that all commercial uses existing prior to zoning be zoned EC-5 rather than non-conforming changes his outlook. He indi - cated that he thought as a non-conforming use the need to expand would cause the business to move to an area zoned for commercial use. He felt it is confusing to think that in future zoning of presently unzoned townships, all businesses now in operation would be zoned Existing Commercial . Boland stated that she felt an error had been made and that the applicant is being penalized. She continued that she felt the error should be corrected . Bob_ Hageman, attorney for Autowerks, noted that if it is found that an EC-5 zoning for Autowerks is not consistent with the intent of the Land Use Plan, then he felt all those properties zoned EC-5 are inconsistent with that intent. VOTE: 7 in favor (Eddleman, Kramer, Pilkey, Yuhasz, Boland, Swann ) . 3 opposed (Margison, Best, Taylor) . MOTION: Yuhasz moved positive findings on Article 4.2 (criteria) . Seconded by Kramer . VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to recommend for rezoning to EC-5 as requested. Seconded by Swann. VOTE: 8 in favor (Boland, Eddleman, Jacobs, Kramer, Pilkey, Swann, Taylor, Yuhasz) . 2 opposed (Margison - would like to see the zoning revert to R-1 , Best - felt the business should move to a properly zoned area if expansion is desired) . (3) Z-5-87 Chandler Concrete Company Presentation by Greg Szymik. The property is located in western Cheeks Township on the south side of US Highway 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway. This 3.43 acre parcel 1s approximately 860 feet east of the intersection of Frazier Road (SR 1310) and US Highway 70. It is referenced on Tax Map 28 as Lot 211 . The Land Use Plan designation is Commercial - Industrial Ten- Year Transition. The current zoning of the property is O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 221 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 5, 1987 Action enda Item SUBJECT: Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. - REZONING REQUEST ACTION BY: No time limit DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes , x _ No ATTACHMENT(S ) : — INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map Agency Comments Certificate of Mailing 8-24-87 Public Hearing Minutes 9-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of a rezoning request submitted by Chandler Concrete Company, Incorporated . This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . BACKGROUND: The property is located in western Cheeks Township on the south side of U . S . Highway 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway. This 3 . 43 acre parcel is approximately 860 feet east of the intersection of Frazier Road (SR 1310 ) and U . S . Highway 70 . It is referenced on Tax Map 28 as Lot 211 . The Land Use Plan designation is Commercial - Industrial Ten- Year Transition. The current zoning of the property is Residential -1 with an overlay district of Protected Watershed II in the Seven Mile Creek Watershed . Adjacent land uses include the railroad, utilities, and industry. The request has been made for rezoning to Community Commercial - 111 . The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on this proposal . The Planning Board recommends against rezoning of the property from Residential -1 to Community Commercial - III . The property is located in a Protected Watershed II overlay 222 district and is proposed for non-residential use. A planned development approach, including site plan approval and the issuance of a Special Use Permit, provides better control over such development in a watershed . RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends denial of the application as recommended by the Planning Board, including the use of a planned development approach . ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZDNING CISTR:CT • 223 Date : /7 /P7 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is located on the South side Of S .R . ;E Hwy 70 ( Street/Road ) between S .R . # and S ,R . # It is known as Lots) 21 1 , Block , of Orange County • Tax Map 28 - Cheeks Township . It has a frontage of 150 ' feet and a depth of 825' _feet , and contains 14°1410 • 8 square feet or 3.43 acres . 2. It is desired and re uested that the foregoing property be rezoned from Residential — 1 0 CommP,-vial 1 I 1 a ._ The .following information has been attached in support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas ( w - required on e l l applications) . •a. A fully dimensioned met at a scale of not lass than one 11) inch equals one--Hundred 1100) feat nor mere then ohs II) inch equals twenty' 120) Teat showirig - -the lend which is proposed to be rezoned. 'b. A lapel Description of the land propoaad to be rezoned. •c. A statement of Justification addressing one or more of the following: 11) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, If any, which would be corrected by the proposed emanocent with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and aeteilad reasons how the proposed aaencmant will correct the error. 12) The changed or cnanping conditions, if any, in the eras or in the tountypener.LLy, which wake the propoaad smenomens reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. 'I3) The wennar in which the proposed eaanoasnt will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Lana Use plan or part thereof. '14) All other circumstances. factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, Documentation from service agencies le.g. firs, police, rescue and utilities agencies) assuring services provision capability to the °evolvement. d. A list of ell individuals, firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred i5D0) feet of the property soups: for rezoning is attachec. The list is current es of 7/7/x7 _• ID•ts) T certify that all informetion furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my kno le Applicant ( s ) : Chandler CDT'1rr=Ta rr ' )C Address : P. 0. Drawer 2?9 5urlinctor,. N. r. '7791; Phone : 919-226-1181 ` REZONING RE VEST bIKCKLIST 01dNCR'5 NAIiFi Chandler Can;_-eta C-^-- - Inc- - - ADDRESS. : Current land use Vacant Current xoningmlv6NTIAL-I fV11�Total number of acres,3.43 . - AJO PJ Type of rezoning Yegssested III Proposed land use u. ��eti Tax map A 28 Block fl number of lots_ 21.1_ '-Proposed Water Supply: Publ c X Community.- Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public Community _ Individual septic tank Access onto state road A 0570 Average daily traffic count on the state road Describe existing critical areas: Flood prone areas Poorly drained areas Streams Other, sensitive areas Describe land uses in: General Area CL0VjHrKCAAL- Adjacent parcels of land Public Service Gas Co Sub 5tatinn nrann7a_ Water Sewer Asst`---"" 0€ficP Tank, ilancor Inc. 8' -- i� A� .° T1, WNc' _ r � �NE - - - - - - l .� - � k.``i� ►I, z -- - _ --- _ _ - - - .---, �c SEE 15 it SEE MAP 12 A \.,1 214 \-, ----( 0961 15 ' G3 1 26 9867 •' SE. ' - x :4798 ,...\ A/�i E5 -4C- .47-66 MAP 12-31 1 �� ' ` 1 a 19.7 AC.CAL. � ,5.64 A;. �21J �; 7 �� , :7 U �u31A1 iI �K44,1( 22 (;1 77AC. I I 4 9575 ,0 ill I�/7527 ` CI �'/„ .314C. 2.5 AC 4°2.12 U S G� 1 �� \-------------- -- ����___ 017- -- / Aso - Pow.) r oo 1�0/f 9�� a s _ ._'_ 2.° —,.°11�,;�_ 2252 /`2 C1 yicQ�' ° L Nz 52 WO ,NC "1°6 7" 2 '57AC Nc 6 �o1 i/ 21P / 4.23 Bi57 "'7 a / 7617 'I ' a° 22A / AC. 160 E 25 C- '' �� 13.97 AC -CAI 429.5 C �T) 1 I 2(21 ) � 7914 / . 3b61� 37; 35 21G) 1874 9 .98AC Q' / r�ow[,sER �: 1 • 9GG.GAL. A P /1, 1807 n►aRTW 41.0ReLCA 10 8 AC.1 - a' 2072q 19923 � // ceRP 1 - __ _ 1 _ 144.14COR,11. .(E_ 1 -- ` 1• > > — SOUTHERN �- � WGY —11 II Z-5-67 APPL1 CArJT : CNAMPL CoAILCETt GoMPAW, izc. 11 `� L.-UP: GdlMerZC1AL-1�1D05T iAL I I � , MAP 27 TM.1 YEA Z T IZA NSITI O►J 1 Gurtgr_aJT mom ik.aq: QC5117.1niAL –I P�TeCTrt7 WAT ' ', P CSE7 ZOIJ lfr :Got-1M UIJ ITY COMM= L-3 \ 711 tioeT+� sc�1E=l 4-be PicarcGTn WAT 51"t>�p . \\ I \, 23?4 \ 1 _ -_� 20 S�+A 1 y�2 �c Au y"WS AC. \ / \ \ i 48 . 1 \ 1 Ss- tit r 1 _ -� / /..."'n4 i4 Cil.iep �` � � . F.DC 2 9Se CAL- 3.6 AC 4219 . re,.\,N 226 357 218 DiIBIT "A" A certain tract or parcel of land in Cheeks Township, Orange County, N. C. , adjoin- . ing the lands of R. A. Boone, Ruby Corley, Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. , Wiley B. Perry and Public Service of North Carolina, and bounded as follows: BEGINNING at a concrete monument on the North side of U. S. Highway No. 70-A, a corner with R. A. Boone, Ruby Corley, and Wile Ruby Corley and Wile B. ,, ) B. Perry, and running thence with Y Perry s line and the North right of way line of U. S. High- way No. 70-A, South 86 deg. 42 min. East, 141. 92 feet to a point on the extension of Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. West line; thence South 05 deg. 19 min_ East 60. 81 feet to an iron stake, thence South 05 deg. 19 min. East 200 feet to an iron pipe, a corner with Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. and Wiley B. Perry; thence with Wiley B. Perry's new line South 00 deg. 39 min. West 643. 55 feet to new iron stake on the North right of way line of Southern Railroad; thence with its line North 77 deg. 40 min. West 179. 22 feet to a concrete monument, a corner with Public Service of North Carolina; thence with their East line North 01 deg. 06 min. 30 sec. East 813. 03 feet to concrete monument on the South right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 70-A, thence North 01 deg. 06 min. 30 sec. East 60. 00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3. 425 Acres, according to survey and map made by N. Glenn Walker Surveyors, inc. , October 12, 1967. • This conveyance is subject to right of way for U. S. Highway 70-A. CHANDLER CONCRETE CO•, INC. PEAD'e "'ICED CONCE'E 227 POST OFFICE DRnwER 1239 BURLINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (919) 226.1181 July 10, 1987 Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Chandler Concrete Company requests that the 3.43 acres that it owns in Cheeks Township be rezoned from Residential to Commercial III. This property is in an industrial/commercial transition area. It is bound on the east by Hancor, Inc. and the Orange Water & Sewer Authority offices. It is bound on the south by Southern Railroad. It is bound on the west by the Public Service Gas Company and used for a sub station. It is bound on the north by U.S. Highway 70. There are additional businesses in the area. The property is vacant. Since this property is in industrial/commercial transition mode the rezoning of the property would be more compatible with the surrounding land. Respectfully requested, CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. T.E. Chandler President TEC/gn ORANGE COUNTY 228 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Established 1752 !SUM TO: Thomas E. Chandler FROM: Bobby Baker 64../.3. d. RE: Fire and EMS Coverage DATE: July 28, 1987 Per your request, this is to confirm that Orange County Emergency Medical Services and Orange County Rescue Squad will provide medical and rescue services for Lot #211, Map 28 in Cheeks Township. This is also to confirm that Efland Fire Department will provide fire protection for this area. BB:js 229 LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 07-28-87 Mr. Thomas E. Chandler PO Drawer 1239 Burlington, N.C. 27216 Dear Mr. Chandler: I foresee no problems in providing patrol services for the newly zoned area, known as Lot 211 Map 28 in Cheeks Township. I foresee no assitional costs to the county' as a result of the service we would provide. Sincerely, - o• CLC/ -(. dULc/ya Lindy Pendergrass u Sheriff of Orange County' 230 M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 3, 1987 SUBJECT: Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. GENERAL _INFORMATION Applicant: Chandler Concrete Company, Incorporated P. 0. Drawer 1239 Burlington , N. C. 27216 Location : Western Cheeks Township, on the south side of U . S. Highway 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway, 860 feet east of Frazier Road ( SR 1310 ) . Lot size: 3 . 43 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Surrounding Land Use: North - U . S. Highway 70, across U . S. 70 is vacant East - Industry ( Hancor, Inc. - manufactures plastic drainage pipe) , Utility offices and water tower (OA'dA) South- Southern Railway West - Utility substation (Public Service Gas Co. ) Land Use Plan Designation : Commercial - Industrial Ten Year Transition Area 2qi MEMORANDUM Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. AUGUST 3, 1987 PAGE 2 Zoning : Current - Residential -1 Protected Watershed II Proposed - Community Commercial -3 Protected Watershed will remain as overlay district The intent of the Community Commercial - III ( CC-3 ) is provided in Article 4.2 . 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) The purpose of the Community Commercial - III District is to provide suitably located and sized sites for commercial , office and service uses including limited automotive, convenience, durable goods , and other similar uses. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the zoning district boundaries of the use. The following is a list of permitted uses in CC-3 : H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single-Family dwelling w/wo efficiency apartment H3 Two-family dwelling H4 Multiple-family dwelling H6 Family Care Home H8 Rehab i latative Care Facility H9 Hotels and Motels Accessory Uses P2 Botanical Gardens and Arboretums P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P8 Community Center P10 Governmental Protective Services ( Police and Fire Stations ) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P13 Military Installations ( National Guard and Reserve Armory ) P14 Parks, Public and Non-Profit P15 Parking as Principle Use, Surface or Structure P20 Schools : Vocational P21 Schools : Dance, Art and Music P23 Universities, Colleges and Institutes P24 Governmental Facilities and Office Buildings P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S3 Animal Hospitals ; Veterinarians S4 Assembly Facility Less Than 300 S5 Assembly Facility Greater Than 300 S6 Banks and Financial Institutions 57 Beauty and Barber Shops S8 Clubs or Lodges ; Social ; Fraternal or Union Clubhouses 512 Funeral Homes MEMORANDUM Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. AUGUST 3 , 1987 PAGE 3 S13 Greenhouses ( No on premises sales ) S14 Greenhouses ( On premises sales ) S15 Health Services : Under 10 , 000 sq . ft. S20A Massage, Business of S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S22 Libraries S24 Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair (Body Shop ) S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S27 Nightclubs, Bars, Pubs S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building S29 Offices and Personal Services That Generate Medium Traffic Volumes and Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Lot Boundaries S30 Offices and Personal Services That Generate High Traffic Volumes and Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Zoning District Boundary S32 Postal and Parcel Delivery Services S33 Printing and Lithography S35 Recreational Facilities ( Profit/Non-Profit) : Golf Club and Golf Club Country Club S36 Recreational Facilities ( Profit) S37 Repair Service Electronic and Appliance S38 Research Facility S39 Restaurants : Carry Out S40 Restaurants: Drive In S41 Restaurants : General S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The• Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed To Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. B ) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage S43 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Boundaries of Lot Where The Use Is Located . A) Medium Traffic Generation (200-300 Trips/Day) S44 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Zoning District. High Volume Traffic Generation S45 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: ., , -. MEMORANDUM 23 Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. AUGUST 3 , 1987 PAGE 4 A) Operations Designed To Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premise Other Than Employees of the Principle Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation ( 0-200 Trips/Day ) C) All Operations Within A Fully Enclosed Building & No Storage Or Display of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building 546 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries of the Lot With Medium Traffic Generation (200-800 Trips/Day ) No Storage Or Display Of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S47 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries of the Zoning District. High Traffic Generation S53 Wholesale Sales FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING BOARD W RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates Non-compliance PLANNING BOARD BOARD FINDINGS BASED ON OF SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements The application must comply with all requirements speci- fied in Article 20 - Amend- ments. Those requirements include: 20.32 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site plan provided at scale of Yes No property at scale of not less 1"=60' than 1 '=100" nor more than 111=20i 20.3.2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Description provided with application Yes No property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No No error alleged Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 2 0.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if X Yes No Applicant has indicated that land uses Yes No any, which make amendment reasona- in the general area are compatible with bly necessary to promote public uses permitted by the proposed CC-3 zoning helath, safety and general welfare. designation 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No Applicant has indicated the property is Yes No amendment will carry out purpose located in a Ten Year Transition area. and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTENT AND APPLICATION CRITERIA PLANNING BOARD BOARD' FINDINGS BASED ON OF SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS COMMISSIONERS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a Community Commercial-III designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2.10 as follows: 1 . To be applied to community X Yes No The applicant has indicated the Yes No commercial type developments property is in a Ten Year Transition on sites that are within areas area and in a Commercial/Industrial designated by the adopted Land Transition Activity Node. Use Plan as Commercial Transi- tion Activity Nodes. 2. Use would serve a market area X Yes No The location of the site near an Yes No population extending to major interstate highway as well as on a segments of the county and its designated arterial road and a rail- municipalities. road makes the site accessible to the entire county. 3. Generally, for property de- X Yes No The applicant has indicated that Yes No signated Transition in the water service is available to the adopted Land Use Plan, urban site. Sewerage service may be made services such as water supply available if required during the and sewerage would exist or be development process. made available as part of the development process. 4. Lot size for individual uses X Yes No The lot size (3.43 acres) exceeds Yes No would be appropirate to the requirements for on-site septic method of water supply and systems. sewage disposal . G3 Cr. ARTICLE 4 - APPLICATION CRITERIA (cont'd) PLANNING BOARD BOARD ' FINDINGS BASED ON OF W SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS COMMISSIONERM FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 5. Normally, the maximum amount X Yes No Currently there are no CC-3 designa- Yes No of land zoned CC-3 at any node tions within this Commercial-Industrial shall not exceed 29 acres. Activity Node in Cheeks Township. The proposed rezoning would establish 3.43 total acres of Community-Commercial-111 . b. All property to be designated X Yes No The site has direct access to U.S. Yes No for new development under this Highway 70 which is designated as an classification shall have direct arterial road by the Land Use Plan. access to major collector streets as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. ORANC—; ( lZt:FAE.-1 ;:N 23'? ; 41:r 1? T' Ca!i'!�`a CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , ELUQC __aZxmit , Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 7, 1987, i mailed, by certified mail , postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the t@QIleat_iQt_teZQn1a _Qf_i3 1...41_aate__Patcel__la_Shook.t_IQidmzhiR_itQm__8ea1siantizi=1__to CQmmuilitx_CQmmQtQ1Q1_1 , to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20. 6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance . The notice mailed specified the date , time , place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand , this the at-V'..1- day of dsigus.t,r12E.Z.. • GREGORY SZYMIK ZONING OFFICER 238 © .1t� 1 If 12 Mr. Hagemam stated that he felt one of the reasons for Autowerks not being zoned EC-5 was the fact that the tract of land upon which it is located lies in Chapel Hill Township as well as Hillsborough Township. He noted that with the possibility of different planning personnel working on the two different townships and the undeveloped portion of the property being in Chapel Hill Township, it was possible that it was assumed the property was all R-1 . He noted that the Duke Power easement was all that was on the portion in Chapel Hill Township. He continued that he felt the incorrect zoning was simply a case of the property being overlooked. In regard to the idea that the property should be non-conforming, Mr. Hageman noted the following: ( 1 ) According to his reading, EC-5 had to be applied to existing commercial properties not in an activity node; (2) Every existing commercial use along Highway 86 in 1981 except Autowerks was given a commercial classification; :. (3) If the intent was to make Autowerks a non-conforming use, why did it not appear on the May 14, 1981 memorandum from the Planning Staff to the Planning Board. Mr. Hageman presented the request that the Planning Board recommend to the Board of Commissioners that they honor Autowerks rezoning request. They believe that this request is consistent with the com- prehensive plan although the area is not identified as an activity node since the plan clearly contemplated EC-5 classifications outside of activity nodes; therefore, they believe that this rezoning would not be in any way a violation of the comprehensive plan. He concluded that he felt the failure to grant the rezoning request for Autowerks would constitute spot zoning. Chl�l:�k_M�lle� , co-owner of Autowerks, indicated the owner of the property would be willing to sell the portion of the property on which Autowerks is located if the rezoning request is approved. He indicated that the desire is to make improvements to the business noting that the area of buildings was probably 2500 square feet each and he wished to have one building of 6,000 to 7,000 square feet in order to have more than one auto inside under repair at one time. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell and seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for consideration on October 5, 1987. �� VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Planner Greg Szymlk presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed rezoning request by Chandler Concrete Company. The property is located in western Cheeks Township on the south side of US 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway. This 3.43 acre : parcel is approximately 860 feet east of the intersection of Frazier Road (SR 1310) and US Highway 70. The Land Use Plan designation is Commercial- Industrial Ten-Year D 113 l'n\ 239 Transition. The current zoning of the 13 overlay district of Protected Watershed oIIIrtinis the slSeven aiMile itCreek Watershed. Adjacent land uses include the railroad, utilities and industry. The request has been made for rezoning to Community Commercial- III . The Planning Staff recommends against rezoning of the property from Residential-1 to Community Commercial-3. The property is located in a Protected Watershed it overlay district and is proposed for non-residential use. A planned development approach, including site plan approval and the issuance of a Special Use Permit, provides better control over such development in a watershed. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked for an explanation of the changed conditions in the findings of fact. Szymik responded that the allegation is that the land uses in the general area are compatible with those in CC-3 zoning. There is EC-5 zoning on property to the west and E- I on property to the east. Since there are existing commercial and industrial activitls in the area, this property is no longer suitable for residential purposes. ME,_Itomas_ahaadLec president Chandler Concrete Company, stated his desire to have the property zoned CC-3 primarily for the storage of excess plant equipment such as bins and hoppers. None of the equipment stored would be mobile and could only by moved with the aid of a crane. He noted that Planning Staff had recommended that he apply for a CC-3 zoning which would be proper for the use he intended. He continued that at no time had Staff indicated to him that CC-3 was inappropriate or that they would not recommend approval of the requested rezoning. He noted that he felt all of the documentation was supportive of a CC-3 zoning classification. Mr. Chandler presented a map showing the location of his property and indicated that the majority of surrounding properties are industrial . He indicated that there was no water course across the property and the proposed use does not present a pollution to the reservoir. He addressed documentation rinceludedfinwathe agenda which indicated a CC-3 rezoning would be appropriate. Planning Board Member Best asked why Mr. Chandler did no know about Planning Staff recommendation for Planned Development before this date. Planning Director, Marvin Collins responded that the recommendation was changed by him prior to agenda prepartlon and delivery. Mr. Chandler indicated that he was in attendance at the Planning Board meeting on 8/17/87. asnd expressed his willingness at that time to answer questions on the items going to public hearing for Chandler Concrete. He noted that no questions were asked at that time by Planning Board members or Planning Staff. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked what Mr. ' ati= would have been to a previous recommendation of plannedChdeveelopment. Mr. Chandler noted that he did not care for a planned development noting that such a recommendation would require screening and buffers which he did not need simply for the storing of stationery equipment. Planning Board Member Yuhasz asked if this were to be long-term storage. Mr. Chandler responded that he did not know slnce several factors would be involved in the possible use of the equipment at another 240 L point in time. He noted also that the property was maintained by mowing. .t.ahn_Capekell real estate appraiser reemphasized the fact that this property was bordered on both sides with commercial and industrial uses. He noted that he felt Residential zoning of this property is inappropriate. .lQxce_aatc€tt attorney representing Chandler Concrete, restated that the basic criteria for a CC-3 zoning had been met. She addressed the concern with protection of the watershed. She indicated that a change in the underlying zoning should not have an effect on watershed protection. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked that Mr. Collins amplify his recommendation. Collins responded that he was concerned with future use of the property and future protection of the watershed. With a straight rezoning, the County would lose control of the future development of the site. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation for consideration on October 5, 1987. VOTE: Unanimous. Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed Planned Development-Commercial by Wildwood Corporation. Wildwood Corporation has submitted an application for PD-C-GC4 (Planned Development - Commercial - General ) classification on 11 .8 acres located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange of I-85 and NC 86. The project is to contain a convenience store/gas station, car wash, restaurant and motel . The Board of Commissioners approved a Planned Development-Special Use Permit for this site on November 5, 1984. Although the PD-C-GC4 zoning remains on the property, a revised site plan was not submitted, and a Special Use Permit was not issued. The approval thus became void, requiring a new approval in order to develop the site. The property is currently zoned PD-C-GC4 (Planned Development- Commercial-General Commercial 4) and R-1 (Rural Residential ) . The property is also located in the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) adjacent to 1-85. It is designated In the Orange County Land Use Plan, Central Orange Study as 10 Year Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Node. These designations are placed on land that is in areas that 'ere in the process of changing from rural to urban and are appro- priate for retail and other commercial uses. The applicant has responded to Staff review of the application with a revised site plan and additional information that substantially addresses Staff concerns. However review agency comments had not yet been received at the time the agenda was prepared. The Staff recommends that citizen comment be received on the application, but that the public hearing be continued to October 5, 1987 to allow Staff to include review agency comments in their evaluation of the application. A Staff recommendation will be presented at that time. ��- p 241 18 VOTE : Unanimous . MOTION : Eddleman moved positive findings on Article 20 .3 .2 e (manner in which amendment will carry out intent of the plan) . Seconded by Yuhasz . Best commented that the County Attorney ' s opinion that all commercial uses existing prior to zoning be zoned EC-5 rather than non-conforming changes his outlook. He indi - cated that he thought as a non-conforming use the need to expand would cause the business to move to an area zoned for commercial use. He felt it is confusing to think that in future zoning of presently unzoned townships, all businesses now in operation would be zoned Existing Commercial . Boland stated that she felt an error had been made and that the applicant is being penalized. She continued that she felt the error should be corrected . Bob_ Hageman, attorney for Autowerks, noted that if it is found that an EC-5 zoning for Autowerks is not consistent with the intent of the Land Use Plan, then he felt all those properties zoned EC-5 are inconsistent with that intent. VOTE: 7 in favor (Eddleman, Kramer, Pilkey, Yuhasz, Boland, Swann) . 3 opposed (Margison, Best, Taylor) . MOTION : Yuhasz moved positive findings on Article 4.2 (criteria) . Seconded by Kramer. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to recommend for rezoning to EC-5 as requested. Seconded by Swann. VOTE: 8 in favor (Boland, Eddleman, Jacobs, Kramer, Pilkey, Swann, Taylor, Yuhasz) . 2 opposed (Margison - would like to see the zoning revert to R-1 , -Best •- felt the business should move to a properly zoned area if expansion is desired ) . (3) Z-5-87 Chandler Concrete Company Presentation by Greg Szymik. The property is located in western Cheeks Township on the south side of US Highway 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway. This 3.43 acre parcel is approximately 860 feet east of the intersection of Frazier Road (SR 1310) and US Highway 70 . It is referenced on Tax Map 28 as Lot 211 . The Land Use Plan designation is Commercial - Industrial Ten- Year Transition. The current zoning of the property is 242 ;` : 19 Residential -1 with an overlay district of Protected Watershed II in the Seven Mile Creek Watershed. Adjacent land uses include the railroad, utilities, and industry. The request has been made for rezoning to Community Commercial - II1 . The Planning Staff recommends against rezoning of the property from Residential -1 to Community Commercial III . The property is located in a Protected Watershed 11 overlay district and is proposed for non-residential use. A planned development approach, including site plan approval and the issuance of a Special Use Permit, provides better control over such development in a watershed . The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5 , 1987 . Jacobs asked how the surrounding properties in the area are zoned . Szymik responded that property to the east Orange/Alamance Water Authority is zoned Office- Institutional , to the west Hancor is zoned Existing- Industrial and Public Service is not zoned - it is a public utility . FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION : Best moved positive findings on Article 20 (Specific Standards) . Seconded by Taylor. VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION: Yuhasz moved positive findings on Article 4 .2 (Application Criteria) . Seconded by Swann . VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION : Best moved to accept Planning Staff ' s recommendation for denial of the rezoning request. Seconded by Pilkey. Kramer asked what requirements Staff would recommend for a planned development. Szymik responded that buffer require- ments were set by the Ordinance and landscaping requirements could vary. The site plan would require management of the first one-half inch of runoff . Kramer continued asking the current status of the site and Szymik responded that It Is currently undeveloped. Yuhasz commented that it seems to be the policy of the Board of Commissioners to zone commercial only where commercial already exists, i .e. , there is no undeveloped commercial land available. VOTE: 8 in favor . 2 opposed (Boland - indicated everything surrounding this property is commercial , Yuhasz - indicated he felt it is a bad policy to require that commercial rezoning be a planned E.' ....!,..... _.. .... 6 .:.... w 2e4 3 development) . Mr . Chandler stated he was not against the recommendation but he was concerned that the Staff recommendation was changed at the last minute and he was not notified . Jacobs explained that he felt the Board was only trying to be extra cautious in a watershed. Mr . Chandler continued that he felt there should be a process for faster approval on requests rather than Just quarterly. (4) Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Limits Presentation by Greg Szymik. The Town of Mebane has revised its Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction limits to follow property lines. As a result, parcels of land that were divided between Mebane and Orange County zoning will be placed entirely within Mebane' s zoning Jurisdiction or within Orange County ' s zoning Jurisdiction . For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Mebane' s jurisdiction, it will be necessary for Orange County to relinquish its jurisdiction. This will be done by separate action . For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Orange County ' s Jurisdiction, it will be necessary to zone them in accordance with Orange County ' s Zoning Ordinance. Seventeen ( 17 ) parcels of land that are presently split between Town of Mebane zoning and Orange County zoning would be placed entirely under Orange County zoning. The County proposes to extend its existing zoning classification over the remainder of each parcels. For those parcels that are presently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential ) by Orange County, AR zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. For those parcels that are presently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential ) by Orange County, R-1 zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. No change in zoning classification on property presently under Orange County zoning will be made. The proposal is limited to extending the existing Orange County zoning pattern to land formerly under the Town of Mebane' s zoning Jurisdiction. The Planning Staff recommends the proposed zoning for the following parcels: PARCEL TO BE ZONED PROPOSED (TAX REFERENCE ) ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3. 1 . .21 AR* 3 . 1 . .37 AR • ORANGE COUNTY 244 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 1982 Action Alinda Item / 0 SUBJECT: PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Applicant' s letter of Withdrawal TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Inform the Board of Commissioners of the status of planned development application PD-3-87 Occoneechee Point. BACKGROUND: On August 24, 1987 , a public hearing was held to receive public comment on a proposed planned development-commercial (PD-C-GC4) named Occoneechee Point. The public hearing was continued until October 5, 1987 to allow for receipt and consideration of comments on the proposal from NCDOT and information concerning water and sewer service from the Town of Hillsborough . On September 18, 1987, the Planning Department received a letter from the applicant withdrawing the application . RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information. No action necessary. .�� ' ���`� ��_ �\ 7�BRUNSSEN �� ''ENG|NEERIN� 245 ' -' , = `n ��� ^ / ! \ SERVICES, PA _q' /?, V7 j^—/ � ENGINEERING,PLANNING.CONSULTING 36[HUR[MVNEU'[T ' DURH/M.NC37713 919/544-1159 September 9, 1987 Greg 3yzmi�k . Orange County Planning Department 306 F Revere Road Hillsborough , N. C. 27278 Re: Occoneechee Point Dear Mr. Syzmick: Per our discussion , the developer would like to withdraw the application for the Occoneechee Point project. Sincerely , r : Brunssen / �� �~��� ' ��n � v - -w 40 nes Freel$y6d lowood Corporation Hillsborough , N. C. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 246 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 5, 1987 Action Agenda Item #� SUBJECT: TOWN OF MEBANE - EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION REVISIONS ACTION BY: No time limit DEPARTMENT: PLANNING — PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Vicinity Map List of Parcels to be Zoned and Proposed Zoning List of Affected Property Owners G.S . 160A-360 Certificate of Mailing 8-24-87 Public Hearing Minutes 9-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of the rezoning of property affected by the revision of the Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction . This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . BACKGROUND: The Town of Mebane has revised its Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction limits to follow property lines . As a result, parcels of land that were divided between Mebane and Orange County zoning will be placed entirely within Mebane' s zoning Jurisdiction or within Orange County ' s zoning jurisdiction . For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Mebane' s Jurisdiction, it will be necessary for Orange County to relinquish its jurisdiction. This will be done by separate action . For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Orange County ' s jurisdiction, it will be necessary to zone them in accordance with Orange County ' s Zoning Ordinance. Seventeen ( 17 ) parcels of land that are presently split between Town of Mebane zoning and Orange County zoning would be placed entirely under Orange County zoning. The County proposes to extend its existing zoning classification over the remainder of each parcels. For those parcels that are presently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential ) by Orange 247 County, AR zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. For those parcels that are presently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential ) by Orange County, R-1 zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. No change in zoning classification on property presently under Orange County zoning will be made. The proposal is limited to extending the existing Orange County zoning pattern to land formerly under the Town of Mebane' s zoning Jurisdiction . The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on this matter . The Planning Board recommends the proposed zoning for the following parcels : PARCEL TO BE ZONED PROPOSED (TAX REFERENCE) ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3 . 1 . .21 AR* 3. 1 . .37 AR 3 . 1 . .38 AR 3 . 1 . .39 AR 3.6. .8 AR 3.6 . . 10 AR 3 .6. . 11 AR 3 .6. .25 R-1 * 3 .6 . .29 R-1 3.6 . .33 AR 3 .6. .34 AR 3. 11 . .4 R-1 3 . 11 . .6 R-1 3 . 11 . . 18 R-1 3 .21 .A.24 AR 3.21 .A.25 AR 3.42 . . 5 AR *AR (Agricultural Residential ) *R-1 (Rural Residential ) RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends approval of the proposed zoning as recommended by the Planning Board. MEBANE ( ETJ) --. EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION I . - - - EX 1 S T 1 NG ETJ itv, \ ‘ ma"— PROPOSED ETJ248 N. 7.,� • PROPERTY TO BE 1 \ ZONED BY ORANGE CO. I . 1\41s,i w��l`' . A` . \ 1 \.. 01116 \ ,."'"' \.: — %maws 0- • \ - \\ \ \ t • 6 .. . 7;17: -- -sty - - .- �� ...++�:;-.= � pis ��sa�� -� '-~ jam ..14 ...- ;a _ �1�� E r- s,, .i-1,-.• ,. . ,,_.] _vr. m. ,. ,44et. jpir-- . e -. .r) , ......„_ 4,.. ..... ih, , ' :All I L; L..1- - .. , 1 ` 1 • 1 y 1\1 . „, \---______,___\ 77 ' _..... I �.• M---...._... --(; i ..• .. ' I) • ■ \ ` 1 •\ a -ors /5 70 �e ^j,.,"y fro/ tors rs ri)e , , .n\ A.'.11cie 1! 5ecf/on G9e, of J. . " to the iorrn n� Mex. exrre. Norris Zo��' a G rec, o aaoprec! Jane .3, 1968, " k.• • 1 .. � ATTEST , il . -,-...f _ z.: ---Y. L¢�'" '.'. • 00,.. ...te,..,•,.... ••41•41........ . . 70-... ..-- - ti '•. % 4.ii.-— •or,' - - 1 W H w _ 1 • +.• rm' yr_ .•-,5-1`.7. �r.‘;••41 b: -a-_. -.. -�' _ -. . •-C- - _- ._. -4.•:-•--!'-, _ -• �r-- - .-.0............_-_-..... ��•.t�-. •-_3 _-z �z`s"rs fir- ti��yri. i .. - iw. .., �` _.•; _- :: -'.-, .- - '- �. - ._��:-- • - •�-`_• •.�-:.rh �yt. ±•/•- ` `. �SJ-mow..•.:.- ���•• ��• • _ - �•- .�,--.f `..: ..y. �- .. °,/d .; 't - - ----i...- Jc=2.15•O 104 - -• - - "S :q .ti;•• ........... ---- l 1- 1.itt 1 - - ` {- •l',..:4,1. it - . J - -i - _ _ _ - -• a. _ • • ,- w i :---... -L�� - - S° r_ M1 _.i'7. '9 -`•.r.�•�. ..,•a•.. ..?," ` _ .. =Isa 1. r—r +. . 1.. -' "=1B r•'- ---• nr' • - r•-A'-°- .:''!••••-"-.�rti' 7.-.-- .:•�a�.. � _ r : :... �_•cam ../ .t ,:. 1,-, •. -......- z _- . ------ - a. _•„ • , . +• r_ ''*, J.' '=„-'=c ` Fes -. - '•-c- - - _ - - _ ...:••- • ' - •./.• .. - •w. � r- s = 9/s• -._ ems yr.r- ----_ F.��• /I•'r�+st o �• r -„ "ice!-�,s�• _r r_ •ter...--a ...-e.:� .'•7!•- j • • • -`\ ---:-...- C•E • tip ': - 1.Tr��- I C . 4":„------_, •••• .,._ .............„......,,.,...--- - , r. ?3 t•-1 I . , , ..:'-j. : ',,, ir ..„.,./„.....■77 , _ ._ -•4merterjg .,.2.- .....; ..-....iiiir.■;ssU41•1&7■• s■ .-.k.- - -4.. . .X . - -..." '--.- .- ' - 4 . sr"..'-4:Str17.-e. • . - --11:......-:::, ..:,..--........ :KIT =_....... :-.......- .....75,0ft-.... .. ,__ )_ ...57..... = I Z .: ...A..,' ire 4.- 4'_- . - 1 r. •.-.,•:"--...-:.'-•••.-' ,_ •rr,........ ...rrk.,,..LT..., "A ---'-..,.. .5, "•11 ' •- ..- ..".L..%14f 1 i -'.2.-- - '•:.1111,-....• ..-.... 0 1 = L■ _-,.....L5±-.-,_-;.... 7.•'7-•: - . 250 ,,e1 - •. .f-, 'L 0 . 0 - Lu . ...,.......,...........-,. ____,....,- - .. . . . o -. 141.•do" . -...-..7:c i- -..!..7 •• " •,, a ,,, ,. . ,-z. fik . . . .7 _,:,,, .....,_ :.411. . . • . < 11 Z . - : a2 I •.< ... • • , ..- _,. • • i. ''' • . 2• - _ . • a .. .. , •. _ . , .-_ . . - - ■ ,, • • - 4 •r, ...' , 7. . . .1--.7.-_,--... ....,-- '.... '..' .. ', .------. •,. '' 1 - - - - ..... . - . .: . '. '• -- - - ... . _ DI2,..,.kr - • IR . • ...•-• . - . • . . .- - --:, : -.,---. . ••fr ' •- -• 1 '• ' - 3-.-:-- - . ." ' 4:••E ' ' - ' . . - • .. ..- • -r.• - %••-4. ',••""- .....•,..r....0. ... -.•-• ..-.A. • rr...- '4.7 -- - • .• - .. . • • ..- - •• - CO4217-1.7'Tr ..Ir• e-,-.'r...°1'.1%-.'-.:..C.!''''' El sc --- . - •,4 '- ' ' PP.011;tre- F-17.'" '--- -.' . . .-:.-1;;;1-,.' •...- • r•r..- - .: • le .. .._,. t. :, •- .. . .....;..'7''''" ' -•-c•::. -. '.:- ... o • - , .0 Posinc-ii a 1-,L -:-. -.. ..ta$ , , • „, I . • . • \ ,,,-..,....„ „...,,,,Ir • . 4:, .4'1' • r- -.•••::: , f.4■4:., ''''' •....;..,S;17,ss. ...• ::,.•, -. . i..As .--..., • 4, ' • ., r••-•, T ••rer.ir.r.b...4.5104 1. •- • . .. • : •• ' \7.-.■.•Vi..1!:',74- S.'::r.4,„ d,.- •',-•44•.•.....7..N,•,,,.0.rorr.r,-I !,..,•' 7• . .I..;..... _ t . . ..... ....., -•, .., ..:. , -rau•-■••....■•.:".-.r,''..';.- ",■r• C., .•-•-•...-' '• " -:- 1 " - ..-- 7'1 ." -- -. .. . - ' - .." . ::.. 'L•r:- '....,_ -. :.,. -•_._-_-,- 7.•_...-_1..-_-;:-...,.-.._ 1.--.....-..._..: ....7 ., ....• , ,• .;4,..■•::s: ,, ...,. ••• _ .22:TN.A..-■•41...ir.14.:..: :R.1. „ .. .1.,......'t,Lia,.....„4:.,,, 4:77.;"L.,"■-7;..:,,-..,p........-........A... ■-...... ..."....r•-•:-'!"!, ...•." .....,.. '..- .....-..--1. -'._...-T.h.-k.:c.-.....it.g.-...cra -4. "S-...,....'41,,,--,,k.r..0-.-.7 .r.•.;,..",..',7"•..;•., 1- ‘ ••••••.2-L.;i w'..-- t,:•••■•.716•1;4: •• • ••;.'F;::-•••-..-. ..-•■C'r `,..T .'••..'"' •' 'z•-•:••, .C r.,b: -... :_., ..•., ..1'..-- ..•-,.,.,- •••••,...'' -' ' -r... .... t.4,"-w• : 7!.....:;•.,............•- -r_. .... I i.N' •.....•.A.gtr•-•'0.-.. '‘ ....Y.or.:....,:.-' "'"!. ..re-•-17' "".. -.-'':;...4-4,--...-7.., :..,:': -re .7 h..'-.1 -.7.64.'-'`,-;•..• "...:•' : r'' '' 7'2.rer=.7.... ..:,...ir -:••; .c.-...._,.,..,.....,,z.-4,-,.....; ...12.7:,(„TA.1.4.la;"I;r.';--' -.4.7...p.-... --.4.`..".....:'..--1"..! .....J.--•.• - ....A.........-:: 7-... ....:In. 7.....!:;=.4.7 . . ,.,...11••■•• .1.•.■■..V.A..,.......Kr• ...'.......M.- !w...7.7.....1.,...,..-..:7,• •■•'r ....'.-r.VW.1.1.....I.:. •-.. ..77.=7;7;1 6....4.T.4,■,./.0.9:21,.7 :Z.• ....,:::ZY4F....ISLZ.Z.,■... 'f: ....;4...•7...1.1.4.,;:v.4.,....._M.,:,7,7;7.i.'"r;.-49.5-..:......, ,- F.;..-`..1'74........:-Uft ... •••Zw■rii: . :1•.;,..,..4..z.v•-•,,:-.••••• ....7..... .c•••••• .z..t,---...f,.......- --.....,;.-...:, ,...-:---.... „,.-=...yrnw...1,...7. ,,, .:•';,...• -.-'-' •-' ...:4'. • ,,,, ,,,_ a.re. .. ..tr..,......• ........-...... .r,••••-••••-• ........!•7.• .' , .. 1-• 11.14‘..-1•• .14,..m4:. ' •".'S. - . ..---,• .s..- .11:•'-'- ''''#-•- .'"'"f---"•••"'" - rr- rs' ."- ......•-r.:;.r.C.:-..... ....C4 „ ...W..,••>1=',='-::.- •• .4•••• •■■•"44.•:+•••''i 47.-1-•*"..:■:.4> e-''. ke4.44.4,61-:./..4•1. ' .4.'- 44s ', -. 51., _ft-4.441:4' -CU-. .4.--7. 4..W.W.t2...... 7.1Ze'...:•;.:/: 44•••■••■•4.'L.1-.''...."..."2:. . ..r....',_____...:«4•--e.:?-'.........i.".".__,-V4::".....A6+....,_•".;1:4".1. ;i . .11it..,. 1`...4;.•.:'4.,4•4.' ..---T:...._, - •.. ._1.-._a.: 4.-01-.. ....1/2:0.-...-.A.....-.7-A.^-----t--..-..z..7,s,...i•o---,-..-L•-.! er,-;-.'c."..‘-.--. ."7:-.' ... . ..., ........ %A.,-,...."Ws 4 •••••••■•••..wr. .7,_•T.44.A....L...0..-4,2p...10."4- ..---.-• .474....•- or.w. lb 4400. W11‘.2.4.1t.... %J.;- ..,.......:„..r...,,..„.p._....icr.-i. r-,„ ..'''. ..:.ttf.i.fr:,7,.., ft%_, :r..,..L.-,„,••••....-- rier• rwor r,...,--' ...;--r-d-rcr5- '7'..--:. - '" ' -- .r.z-` ..--"•-4-04,-64.1-.....-.1„ •14/".1.-4,0,.riP&T;3.0.1Thire.,,_ -1". rg"0-.1:.••■•*--.:4•-."... ...g--- ..• • •-r-.7%4. •■.•:.' v .:^r•n.. .1- -... .......-- :. ,..41.6...,-.....••....*........z. ...,........4. -r• ..... ..,..kr.0,4 44_44. .. •44:7.9 4•••••,•'' 4..44 1. ...:.•. ..■••••1•••••.4 - f.,.‘•g..4fr...4)0.4;1%II F.:•::-'...45,:r.-'1.CAZ.-'----ov- - -.1-. -, :..-......:-.4.r-.....- -2,,,... ...... -...: ....17 4,;:r,- - :.:....r'Lu..1, ::-......;_,:t.:?-,. .......-:.i....-,01 V.474.,"...z••-:••eie'--•••,,,...... 0%-;-...:•--..-..%..z.r.,.----,;.-:... . ,,,,,. _._,, • • ..,•••;-?.:..,.... 4.4• .,.., .r.•7 ".. .-.'.7'"'FV,6:•-•-or.;:1,.-•-f-.."''"Tx-- .... -; -.."-.'"--'"•-- '•••.. .-'.•-: . ' .,.,..; e,....:. -....-,.. .1...• • z....7...........t...A•-•? .,-.e" ••-v---•.?-. -A.-..A.--: ■?g-:•=!,-- ..'"" .-'=.‘. -..- -.11 z --' ... '... ....- :.....-0•4"••-•-.. ..7.:i•- .........T.-- •+••. ,-...--1... ;.....1..• :.,..1.........LL........; 'r .-: '....--; r --.• • • ' ...-"". -.-""" -'''"fi;,-A2-■.."7',..147`irr'.•r-,tr:,::;: IP:jr--'74.:?M".4.-!":e.:;:. 7;7-4 if..(k...'"'`..Pir•rr""''IA.-.-..-2''!7- :..":::'.7-•--3.:. r.Z...--!..,--• '"'",- .I-...T. 7-. .,!.;7- 71.2"--:.L.I;;;;V;•I..1-SPI'r.-14--;.:..:17:.;71;'.t:W;11-.4--Li._."-! ric:-/.1',77 ,r.;•••=r__•"2;Afr's:;:a4,-t:Ir...I:Z.i;,...:,:.:,,:''''''.7--..-i'-'7....,...•, -'''Zi: .i.":":-...! r 1 .-gre......r.,...,.....e.:•...-:-.1.1.0‘.?‘-.. ........•'--.T..-4air 1 -r•-.-..•-•".:0'..'.7.,...'47-:- -:zr;;;;; 7.-•=-••-• -'1... #$.---' • - ..--.7 ".'".:•.:..---- •". •--." _.0,1•....-.:--..=•-...434. 0 ar, ..;......-.4- -X':.:.%.,rekt: ••'..•.r.'7 , Yrs-'...iSf......7.- . ..'• s' '4.4'.-:744 ..-• : •.' ••••-•'•■ ',.■•• • ••-4•::'• •-...••..%.44..... ......:1...... '-''.'":....'''':'•"rr •,..__'••■ " -•'!" '!. IV.! -• .I. --..5:. .:•' -.•-• ' ' ' ,7; ".'•'. r` ,..:,...z...:...,T .i.4,T.,.t..1.:::::,41",74,....;.,-., : ...k:_...7744:".:-.7......i.„.„,...::"..A.L77.„'.4.-........„...' '1.;!: -..„...,-.....,.:T..:.......- :-- -,-, -_,...,:,-...j-:.::t..7.•-.,••:::„.._ 0-7•77.---"14' • ".1.-:-.7.;-7 r•:" t-:r. 7M-,:,-..••:?-- '...--ra-.-..:....! •-. ...-- •,:-- ....; :-.-: .-... • - ....1.-..k"nr---..-_,!.L. c•-•Fr:f.1.......;;-.,.....-..'..; ...-•---•"--...:.•:.-..-,......k.I T.*- . ••••••-" -:.- - -- , .. : '• _. ..- . 1 . I - •_ ......• • . - _ .... :.;._,-;: •;-7-..,;._ .........._,7..g .•■••.- '• •". :'. ;...,.:•_?:,:z.... ''... . .... ,J...:: I-74-1-..;,-,-------• --:- ::".-21.'rat :. 7:. ..--'--i•: •-- ,.• -' .... - - ------ •-,--, • 1 5 a•r•44:-...7.-7-.., ._ .. -- - •• . . . - • -- :- •--- : - T- - • - . . - • • a * - • 251 TOWN OF MEBANE - EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION REVISION PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY ZONING PARCEL TO BE ZONED PROPOSED (TAX REFERENCE ) ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3. 1 . .21 AR* 3. 1 . .37 AR 3. 1 . .38 AR 3. 1 . . 39 AR 3. 6. . 8 AR 3 . 6. . 10 AR 3. 6. . 11 AR 3. 6. . 25 R-1 * 3. 6. .29 R-1 3. 6. . 33 AR 3. 6. .34 AR 3. 11 . . 4 R-1 3. 11 . .6 R-1 3. 11 . . 18 R-1 3.21 . A. 24 AR 3.21 . A.25 AR 3. 42. . 5 AR *AR (Agricultural Residential ) R-1 ( Rural Residential ) The zoning classification proposed for these parcels is the same classification that is on the portions of the parcels currently under Orange County zoning Jurisdiction . 252 . ti SPLJT PARCJLS - FROM TOWN QE MEB.ANE ID ORANGE BOUNTY 3 . 1 . .37 Beckner, Winifred E. & Betty 4641 Plnedale Drive Durham, NC 27705 3. 1 . .38 Beckner, W. E. & Betty 4641 Pinedale Drive Durham, NC 27705 3. 1 . .39 Thompson, Archie H. Rt. 5 , Box 129 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 1 . .21 Shields, Odell Rt. 5, Box 132 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6 . .8 Kenion, John J. Hrs. c/o Viola Grubbs 8668 Richmond Hwy. Alexandria, VA 22309 3.6. .34 Shanklin, David Rt. 5, Box 648 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6 . .33 Carter, Frances Rt. 2 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6. .29 Edwards, A.G. Rt. 5 , Box 617 Mebane, NC ' 27302 3.6 . .25 Freeland, James Rae, et al & Betty James M. P. 0. Box 896 Hillsborough, NC 27278 253 3 .6 . . 11 Ashley, Douglas C. & Ilene H. Rt. 5 , Box 642A Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . .4 Town of Mebane 3 . 11 . .6 Deloache, Thomas B. & Sarah 2918 S. Fairway Burlington, NC 27215 3. 11 . . 18 Adams, Clarence H. & Mary Frances P. Rt. 5, Box 238 Mebane, NC 27302 3.21 .A.24 Martin, Dennis J . Rt. 2, Box 643 Mebane, NC 27302 3.21 .A.25 Wynn, Fred J. & Bernice Rt. 2 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6 . . 10 Hauser, James P. 919 Turrentine St. Burlington, NC 27215 3.42. . 5 Wilson, Ben F. Sr. Hrs. Rt. 6, Box 37 Mebane, NC 27302 SPLIT PARCELS = FROM ORANGE COUNTY TO TOWN OF MEBANF 254. 3.6 . . 35 J .D. Yancey Rt. 5, Box 650 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . .24 Tyson Patterson 730 Heather Rd. Burlington, NC 27215 3. 11 . .34A Leo G. & Beulah Hoover Rt. 5, Box 222 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . . 18D Leo G. & Beulah Hoover Rt. 5, Box 222 Mebane, NC 27302 3.23. C. 14 Mary S. Wood Box 264 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . .4 Town of Mebane 255 Planning and Regulation of Development ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION Chapter 160A. Cities and Towns. ARTICLE 19. Planning and Regulation of Development • . Part 1. General Provisions. • I60A•360. Territorial jurisdiction.—(a)All of the powers granted by this Article maybe exercised by any city within its corporate limits. in addition,any city may exercise these powers within a defined area extending not more than one mile beyond its limits. With the approval of the board or boards of county commissioners with jurisdiction over the area,a city of 10,000 or more population but less than 26.000 may exercise these powers over an area extehding not more than two miles beyond its limits and a city of 25.000 or more population may exercise these powers over an area extending not more than three miles beyond • its limits. The boundaries of the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction shall be the same for all powers conferred in this Article.. No city may exercise extraterritorially any power conferred by this Article that it is not exercising within. its corporate limits. in determining the population of a city for the purposes of this Article,the city council and the board of county commissioners may use the most recent annual estimate of pulation as certified by the tm Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Administration. Ib) Any council wishing to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction under this Article shall adopt. and may amend from time to.time. an ordinance specifying the areas to be included horsed upon existing or projected urban development and areas of critical concern to the city. as evidenced by officially adopted plans for its development. Boundaries shall he defined.to the extent feasible.in terms of geographical features identifiable on the ground. A council may. in its • discretion. exclude from its extraterritorial jurisdiction areas lying in another county, areas separated from the city by barriers to urban growth. or areas whose projected development will have minimal impact on the city. The boundaries specified in the ordinance shall at all times be drawn on a map.set • forth in a written description. or shown by a combination of these techniques. This delineation shall be maintained in the manner provided in G.S. 160A-2' . for the delineation of the corporate limits. and shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of each county in which any portion of the area lies. Ic) Where the extraterritorial jurisdiction of two or more cities overlaps.the • jurisdictional boundary between them ,hall be a line connecting the midway points of the overlapping area unless_ the city councils acree to another 2.977 • 256 1.10 hirundar, it r rt' an a rya-e•d urw,n existing or projected pattern-of deg, . i4ilirlit•n1 rdi If a city fails t, adopt an nrdinancc specifyinit the houndarres of its extraterritorial iuri-.riirtirrn. the count% of %e•hiCh it i. a hart shall he authorized to exercise the powers granted by this Article in any area beyond the city's corporate limits. The county may also, on request of the city council, exercise any or all these powers in any or all areas lying within the city's corporate limits or within the city's specified area of extraterritorial jurisdiction. tel No city may hereafter extend its extraterritorial powers under this Article into any area for which the county at that time has adopted and is enforcing a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations and within which it is enforcing the State Building Code. However, the city may do so where the county is not exercising all three of these powers, or when the city and the county have agreed upon the area within which each will exercise the powers conferred by this Article. (f) When a city annexes, or a new city is incorporated in, or a city extends its jurisdiction to include, an area that is currently being regulated by the county, the county regulations and powers of enforcement shall remain in effect until (i) the city has adopted such regulations, or (ii) a period of 60 days has elapsed following the annexation, extension or incorporation, whichever is sooner. During this period the city may hold hearings and take any other measures that may be required in order to adopt its regulations for the area. (h) When a city relinquishes jurisdiction over an area that it is regulating under this Article to a county, the city regulations and powers of enforcement shall remain in effect until (1) the county has adopted this regulation or (ii) a period of 60 days has elapsed following the action by which the city relinguished turisdiction, whichever is sooner. During this period the county may hold hearings and take other measures that may be required in order to adopt its regulations for the area. (g) When a local government is granted powers by this section subject to the request, approval, or agreement of another local government, the request. approval, or agreement shall be evidenced by a formally adopted resolution of that government's legislative body. Any such request. approval, or agreement can be rescinded upon two years' written notice to the other legislative bodies concerned by repealing the resolution. The resolution may be modified at any time by mutual agreement of the legislative bodies concerned. (h) Nothing in this section shall repeal, modify, or amend any local act which defines the boundaries of a city's extraterritorial jurisdiction by metes and bounds or courses and distances. (i) Whenever a city or county, pursuant to this section. acquires jurisdiction over a territory that theretofore has been subject to the jurisdiction of another local government, any person who has acquired vested rights under a permit, • certificate, or other evidence of compliance issued by the local government surrendering jurisdiction may exercise those rights as if no chance of jurisdiction had occurred. The city or county acquiring jurisdiction may take any action regarding such a permit, certificate. or other evidence of compliance that could have been taken by the local government surrendering jurisdiction pursuant to its ordinances and regulations. Except as provided in this subsection, any building. structure, nr other land use in a territory over which a city or county has acquired jurisdiction is subject to the ordinances and • --' - • regulations of the city or county. (ji l.epeaied by Sessior. Laws 1973. c. 669, s. 1. (1959. c. 1204: 1961, c. 103; c. 54E. ss. 1, 1'/a; c. 1217; 19M,ec.519. 889, 1076, 1105; 1965, c. 121; c. 346, s. 2: c. 450,s. 1: c.. 864,as. 3-6; 1967.cc. 15, 22, 149; c. 197,a.2; cc.246, 685;c. 120$.s. 3; 1969, cc. 11, 53; c. 1010.s.5:c. 1099: 1971, c.69€,s. 1; c. 1076,s. 3; 1973, c.426,s. • 56:t.525:L. 669,s. 1.1 160A-361. Planning agency. -- Any city may by ordinance create or designate one or more agencies to perform the following duties: (1) Make studies of the area within its jurisdiction and surrounding areas: (2) Determine objectives to sought in the development of the study area: 1977 ORANGE eOt..�_. ; PLANNING DEPAETMENT 257 :.LsitououGTT .1•TI3 C'ATZOLT'A ;07278 �a'd.q • A CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , aLeaQLx--aZYmik , Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 7 , 1987 , I mailed, by certified mail , postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the rgp.ueat__fQL__ZQala9._Qf AaLasla_affgated_hx__the_ze mla1Qn__Qf__thQ_Ion__a__Mehana_ . ExttafaLL1toLia l_lutia diztion_llmlta_in_Qtanat_CQunty s_ChaeLa Ia/11511u , to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20. 6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change . WITNESS my hand, this the 1$th day of ± ._19. L. ' XITrj TGREGORY SZYM I IC ZONING OFFICER Lu tiiii n ti' -11 , . . . 25& Internal roadways. Szymik responded there would be ten foot directional travel lane which is an acceptable standard. Planning Board Member Margison asked about the restoring of the well and possible use for the car wash. Szymik responded that the well was to be a decorative feature not a water source. Commissioner Carey inquired about the stub-out to the R-1 property • to the rear of the motel . Szymik indicated that it would not be used as access unless the property zoned R-1 was incorporated into this project. In answer to questions about impervious surface and planning of parking lots, Szymik responded that a Stormwater Management Plan and a complete Landscaping Plan would be provided. Fritz Brunsen, engineer, spoke to the site plan for Occoneechee Point. He indicated that the developer was in agreement with the Planning Staff in regard to turning lanes and deceleration lanes. He addressed the concern regarding the road to remain private noting that it was to be used for the benefit of anticipated bus traffice, turning around and parking. He addressed the question regarding the well noting that it is not to be used as a water source only as a decorative feature. He Indicated on the plan where buffers were to be placed. He noted willingness to work with the Planning Staff to provide any required buffering. He addressed the question of water and sewer stating that Mr. Freeland did have an agreement with the Town of Hillsborough for the provision of water and sewer services indicating that the question of capacity is being studied at the present time. He felt a letter would be coming to the County very shortly from the Town of Hillsborough. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to continue the public hearing on Occoneechee Point until October 5, 1987 for any additional information. VOTE : UNANIMOUS. 0 e�.—IRrt.n._af_Me t an€_Extzatemzitatlal_laziaslizt1Qa_Llmita Planning Director Marvin Collins presented for receipt of public comment the rezoning of property affected by the revision of the Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction. The Town of Mebane has revised its Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction limits to follow property lines. As a result, parcels of land that were divided between Mebane and Orange County zoning will be placed entirely within Mebane 's zoning jurisdiction or within Orange County's zoning jurisdiction. For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Mebane' s jurisdiction, it will be necessary for Orange County to relinquish its jurisdiction. This will be done by separate action. For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Orange County' s jurisdiction, it will be necessary to zone them in accordance with Orange County's Zoning Ordinance. • Seventeen (17) parcels of land that are presently split between Town of Mebane zoning and Orange County zoning would be placed entirely under Orange County zoning. The County proposes to extend its existing 259 � C If 17 zoning classification over the remainder of each parcels. For those parcels that are presently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential ) by Orange County, AR zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. For those parcels that are presently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential ) by Orange County, R-1 zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. No change in zoning classification on property presently under Orange County zoning will be made. The proposal is limited to extendirg the existing Orange County zoning pattern to land formerly under the Town of Mebane's zoning Jurisdiction. Collins demonstrated those affected parcels on a map. He indicated that Mebane released those parcels as of June 1 , 1987 so they are currently unzoned. There are twelve parcels to be zoned AR and five parcels to be zoned R-1 . Planning Staff - recommends that the parcels be zoned as indicated. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis and seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to accept Planning Staff recommendation. VOTE : UNANIMOUS. 4�_�Q�.11ls�_IE�I_6f�EN�ME�1I� a. Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table ( Crematoria as a Permitted Use ) Article 10. 4 - Off Street Parking (Off-Street Parking - Crematoria) Planner Greg Szymik presented for receipt of public comment proposed amendments to Article 4.3 and Article 10. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. At present, crematoria are not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment amendment would make them a permitted use in the 1 -1 , 1-2, and 1-3 ( industrial ) zoning districts. The amendment to Article 4.3 would add crematoria to the Permitted Use Table. The amendment to Article 10.4 would establish parking requirements for crematoria. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Planning Board member Sharlene Pilkey asked about the parking and Szymik -indicated that one space per employee had been proposed. DOROTHY awe stated with regards to the parking requirements that memorial services are usually held at the Church and not at the Crematoria. She feels the land should be commercial and not - industrial . There has been a 25% increase in the demand for these services and in 25 years, It Is expected to increase 25% more. The crematories are checked periodically by the EPA and there Is no odor or no smoke and they have very complicated filters. There are less pollutants than in a funeral home. - Szymik stated that the crematoria does have to meet certain emission requirements. 20 260 development) . Mr . Chandler stated he was not against the recommendation but he was concerned that the Staff recommendation was changed at the last minute and he was not notified. Jacobs explained that he felt the Board was only trying to be extra cautious in a watershed . Mr . Chandler continued that he felt there should be a process for faster approval on requests rather than Just quarterly. NiPw (4) Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Limits Presentation by Greg Szymik. The Town of Mebane has revised its Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction limits to follow property lines. As a result, parcels of land that were divided between Mebane and Orange County zoning will be placed entirely within Mebane' s zoning jurisdiction or within Orange County ' s zoning Jurisdiction . For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Mebane ' s Jurisdiction, it will be necessary for Orange County to relinquish its jurisdiction. This will be done by separate action . For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Orange County ' s jurisdiction, it will be necessary to zone them in accordance with Orange County ' s Zoning Ordinance. Seventeen ( 17 ) parcels of land that are presently split between Town of Mebane zoning and Orange County zoning would be placed entirely under Orange County zoning. The County proposes to extend its existing zoning classification over the remainder of each parcels . For those parcels that are presently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential ) by Orange County, AR zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. For those parcels that are presently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential ) by Orange County, R-1 zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcel previously zoned by the. Town of Mebane. No change in zoning classification on property presently under Orange County zoning will be made. The proposal is limited to extending the existing Orange County zoning pattern to land formerly under the Town of Mebane' s zoning jurisdiction. The Planning Staff recommends the proposed zoning for the following parcels: PARCEL TO BE ZONED PROPOSED (TAX REFERENCE) ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3. 1 . .21 AR* 3. 1 . .37 AR DRArT 261 21 3 . 1 . .38 AR 3 . 1 . .39 AR 3 .6. .8 AR 3 .6. . 10 AR 3.6. . 11 AR 3.6. .25 R-1 * 3 .6 . .29 R-1 3 .6 . .33 AR 3 .6. .34 AR 3 . 11 . .4 R-1 3 . 11 . .6 R-1 3 . 11 . . 18 R-1 3 .21 .A. 24 AR . 3.21 . A.25 AR 3 .42. .5 AR *AR (Agricultural Residential ) *R-1 (Rural Residential ) MOTION : Kramer moved approval of Planning Staff recommendation . Seconded by Yuhasz. Best asked if there were any comments on this item at the public hearing. Szymik responded none. VOTE: Unanimous . c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Article 4 .3 (Permitted Use Table) Article 10 .4 (Off-Street Parkilig Requirements) Presentation by Greg Szymik. The purpose of the amendment is to allow crematoria as a permitted land use in Orange County. At present, crematoria are not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would make them a permitted use in the I -1 , 1 -2 and 1 -3 ( industrial ) zoning districts. The amendment to Article 4 .3 would add crematoria to the Permitted Use Table. The amendment to Article 10.4 would establish parking require- ments for crematoria requiring one space per employee. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. MOTION: Best moved approval of amendment to Article 4.3 . Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. Pilkey expressed concern with parking requirements asking if there would be any time that more than two attendants would be on duty. Eddleman asked what the minimum parking requirements are in other industrial areas. Szymik responded that the require- ment is one per employee. He continued that at the time he O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 262 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 5, 1987 Action ge�n d a Item # L4 7��_ SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -- CREMATORIA ARTICLE 4 .3 (PERMITTED USE TABLE ) ARTICLE 10 .4 (OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS ) ACTION BY: No time limit DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x__ No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Existing Ordinance Proposed Revisions 8-24-87 Public Hearing Minutes 9-21.-87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of proposed amendments to Article 4.3 and Article 10 .4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . BACKGROUND: The purpose of the amendment is to allow crematoria as a permitted land use in Orange County . At present, crematoria are not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would make them a permitted use in the I -1 , 1 -2, and 1 -3 ( Industrial ) zoning districts. The amendment to Article 4.3 would add crematoria to the Permitted Use Table. The amendment to Article 10.4 would establish parking require- ments for crematoria . The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on this proposal . The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Article 4 .3 (Permitted Use Table) . The Planning Board recommends approval of a revised amendment to Article 10 . 4 (Off-Street Parking Requirements ) . The Planning Board recommends adoption of a parking requirement for crematoria of : one space plus one space per employee rather than the one space per employee parking requirement recommended at public hearing . RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends approval of the amendments as recommended by the Planning Board with the additional recommendation that the effective date of the amendment be October 5 , 1987 . PROPOSED ORDINANCE AM.ENDVENT 263 ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 4 .3 - Permitted Use Table Article 10 . 4 - Off-Street Parking Requirements ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC x l i c Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _Middle_x, Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24 , 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Article 4 . 3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow Crematoria as a use by right in zoning classifications 1 -1 , 1 -2, and 1 -3. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : This amendment arose from a citizens re- quest. The request was for an ordinance amendment that would allow Crematoria as a permitted use. At present, Crematoria are not included in the permitted use table. There is no similar use in the table under which Crematoria may be included . As such, they are not permitted in the portions of Orange County where the Zoning Ordinance is applicable. A review of other local Ordinances shows that Crematoria are allowed as a use by right in industrial zones by Carrboro and Durham County . The Chapel HiII Ordinance does not address them. Orange County currently has a crematorium in operation in Hillsborough Township on Oakdale Drive. Information obtained from that operation indicates that crematoria are not large facilities. A typical facility will be 2,400 square feet in size. They are regulated by both the N. C. Board of Mortuary Science and the N. C. Environmental Protec- tion Division. . They are required to have an emissions permit from N.C. Environmental Protection Division and are regularly checked for emission of smoke and particles . It was also reported that crematoria produce little traffic, no noise, and are not visually distinguishable as crematoria. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : None . Crematoria are not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: See attached portions of Article 4 . 3 - Permitted Use Table and Article 10 . 4 - Off- Street Parking Requirements . 'k PERMITTED USE A - CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) B - CLASS 8 SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) I'.f3 AR RI R2 R3 R+� R5 R8 R1 LC 1 NC2 C3 GCh EC Ql El 11 12 13 AS ED PID S+18 Sawmills — — — — S49 Stockyards — — t S50 Storage OF Goods Outdoor — — ,� -A ,t S51 Storage 9 Warehousing: — — — — Inside Building S52 Waste Management Facility; _ Ilazardous & Toxlc — S53 Wholesale Sales A A A — — _ ft h -A 5511 fll storic Structures — — — r Mor►ResI dent la1/Mixed Use (1) A A A S55 Assembly and Packaging — — — — — — Operations Including Hail Order flousesp But Excluding On-Premises Retall Outlets (2) Sk ® S56 Crematoria — — :s 4 ;L Amendments: (!) 4-1-135 RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1' 13 LC1 11C2 rj GC4 C5 OI EI 11 I? 1j A5 ED PID (2) 3-18-86 (3) (3) 1-5-81 266 USES MINIMUM SPACE RExL=REMEA"='S 5-43 Retail trade, sales, and rental One space per 300 square of convenience goods, feet of gross floor area merchandise and equipment S-44 Retail trade, sales and rental One a s ce of convenience goods P per 200 square feet of gross floor area merchandise and equipment 8-45 Retail trade, sales, and rental One space per 300 square of durable goods, merchandise and equipment feet of gross floor area 5-46 Retail trade, sales and rental of durable One space per 300 square goods, merchandise feet of gross floor area and equipment 5-47 Retail trade, sales and rental One space per 200 square of durable goods, merchandise feet of gross floor area and equipment 5-48 Sawmills One space per employee 8-49 Stockyards One snare per employee 5-50 Storage of Goods: Outdoor One space per employee S-51 Storage & Warehouse: Inside Building One space per employee 5-52 Waste Management Facility, One space per employee on Hazardous and Toxic shift cf maximum emp laymen t 5-53 Wholesale Sales One space per employee on shift of maximum employment k5-55 Crematoria One space per employee 267 � ; ~�'� Countp of aurbam Jam, oo• :q,�f ��� PLANNING. CONING A INSPECTION DEPT. 1 'x !7 r : = ;Durham, .ortlb Carolina rr..v.� •" TRANSMITTAL ". TO: air. Wall (.4)&rd ATTN : 1.0. BOX 3351 ` DATE � �s C haft t 14-al , N .C. RE :. Cremit • ri 27515 b... ATTACHED ARE THE FOLLOWING: 1 l NUMBER DESCRIPTION TAI I I - Z 0giNA AJCe V. Co oRDI cg 1 • I Cr REMARKS:r. as ,. ` y i r C� .4 ' 1. • b ti • • .-P__W_tfl/I ih ni_____e_re WA t12• rilL n____K_C . Qr...__! .C.8 54. '5 � 's r?bf ffteC. II' v PE..P3ND TO: 441 dress fe BY •: __24511442AgeleleliA, COPIES TO: ______. 201 EAST MAIN STREET DURHAM, NORTii CAFCL. n 688-1396 SECTION XIX 268 I-2 : HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT : The following regulations shall apply in all I-2 Districts : 1. USES PERMITTED: (a) All uses not otherwise prohibited by law, EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: Abattoirs or slaughter houses Ammonia, bleaching powder or chlorine manufacture Animal black , lamp black or bone black manufacture Apartment houses Blast furnace , except cupulas or converters used in foundries Campground , except as provided in Section XXXV. Creamatory Creosote treatment or manufacture Disinfectant , cattle dip , exterminator, or insecticide manufacture , but not prohibiting the compounding of same Distillation of coal, petroleum, refus , grain , wood or bones , except in the manufacture of gas Dyestuff manufacture • Fertilizer manufacture , including compounding Fireworks or explosive manufacture Gelatine , glue , or size manufacture or process involving recovery fish Or animal material Gunpowder manufacture or storage Hotels Incineration , reduction , storage , or dumping of garbage , dead animals , offal or refuse , except by Durham County , and except private incineration of garbage and trash by apartment houses or industries where approved by the Board of Adjustment. 61 269 SECTION XIV VC: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS : The following re gulations shall apply in all VC districts ; 1. USES PERMITTED: A. Agriculture or farming, including processing or sales of prod on premises, B. Amusements , commercial , including but not limited to mini atu r I golf, bowling lanes , indoor, outdoor, and drive-in theatres. C. Banks , business , and Professional offices. D. Broadcasting studios , radio or television. E. Carpenter, plumbing, ' g tinsmith blacksmith , electric , uphol- stering shops , linen supply service , and similar uses. F. Churches or Temples. G. Contractors storage except salvage. H. Dental Laboratories. I. Exhibition buildings ,g , galleries , or show rooms. J. Gasoline service stations and repair garages includi and fender re airs ng body P and car washes. K. Golf courses , golf -courses (Par-Three) ,, and golf driving rang( L. Hotels and motels. M. Laboratories , analytical , experimental , testing, or industria_ processes, N. Medical Laboratories. 0. Medical , dental , or related offices. P. Millwork shops ,P , canneries and light industrial uses. Q. Offices. R. Parking areas. S . Parking structures , commercial. T. Police or fire stations. 37 U. Printing or binding., 270 V. Sawmills , upon the issuance of a Use Permit therefor, d•. Service uses such as (but not limited to) barber shops , beauty shops , laundries , restaurants and similar uses. X. Stores for the conduct of retail and wholesale business , includ- ing storage - Y. Services , including but not limited to barber shops , self- service laundries , repair shops and rental shops, Z. Sign manufacturing. AA. Utilities . public or private . (Telephone , electric E etc. ) 5B. Veterinarian facilities, CC. Vocational schools. DD. Welding shop (light fabrications) . 2, BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT: Three stories but not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height. 3 . MINIMUM RE UIRED YARDS No building shall be less than fifty (50) feet from any street right-of-way line, or tw enty-five (25) feet from any side yard property line or fifty (50) feet from any rear property line, 4. LOT ABUTTING UPON A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR THE SITE OF AN INSTITUTIONAL USE ; Where ever a Village Commercial District abuts upon a residential district or site of an institutional use , with no intervening street or highway; any building or any use of land in said district shall be set back from the boundary of such residen- tial district or site of an institutional use not less than fifty feet, C50) 5 , OFFSTREL'T AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACE All residential , commercial , and industrial uses permitted in district are subject this 7-ct to the provisions hereinafter set forth in Section XXV , "Automobile Parking Space" , 37A 271 SECTIONV XIII HC : HIGH-WAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT The primary intent of the Highway Commercial District (HC) is to provide in appropriate locations, sizes and mixtures, commercial and office uses designed to serve the users of major highways and thoroughfares. The Highway Commercial District is intended to encourage more efficient use of land resources and to protect visual quality as viewed from the public roadway. The uses of this district shall be controlled by development standards designed to protect abutting land uses, to provide for clustering compatible usesrandrto limitothetible number of driveway connections onto the major highway. 1. PLANS REQUIRED (a) SKETCH PLAN - Prior to submitting a Detailed Site Plan the applicant may wish to submit a non-binding sketch plan to the Planning Director for review comment and discussion. (b) DETAILED SITE PLAN - The developer shall submit to the Durham Coun and Inspections Department a Detailed Site an or review. When the Detailed Site Plan is found to be in compliance with the development standards for the HC District a Building Permit shall be issued. Site clearing, grading shall not be permitted until a Building ermitbiisnissued. The Detailed Site Plan shall include: 1 ) A vicinity map clearly establishing the location of the proposal with readily recognizable county landmarks; 2) A development summary including number of acres in the development, proposed use (s) of building (s) , total building square footage, required parking spaces and parking spaces provided; 3) An accurate drawing of property boundaries; 4) Existing topography, tree cover, water courses and water bodies, flood plains and floodways; 5) Identification and location of all existing site improve- ments including streets, water, sewer, buildings and other significant site featuresdrainage, 6) Location of proposed buildings, driveways, parking areas buffers; 9 s 7) Location of trash dumpsters and required screening; 8) Grading, drainage, erosion and sedimentation control , la ou and utility plans with necessary permits; y t 9) Landscaping Plan; and 34 10) Name of the project, owner, name and address of engineer, 72 architect, planner or landscape architect, scale, date and north arrow. 2. PERMITTED USES (a) Gasoline service stations with sales limited to retail , service and repair limited to minor accessory parts and refreshments limited to self service machines. (b) Restaurants. (c) Offices, banks, clinics (with both inpatient and outpatient services) , veterinary office, medical and dental laboratories. (d) Retail stores. (e) Barber or beauty shops, shoe repair shops, printing shops, laundry establishments and dry cleaning with or without drive-in windows, and related service uses. (f) Motels and hotels. 3. USES PERMITTED BY USE PERMIT FROM THE DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (a) Recreation establishments including theatres, riding stables and bowling alleys. (b) Carwash. (c) Utility substations and telecommunication towers. (d) Day care centers and private schools. (e) Wholesale distribution and truck terminals provided that goods and freight are stored within a building; that maintenance of vehicles is limited to refueling and the repair and replacement of minor accessory parts incidental to the operation. (f) Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing buildings within Highway Commercial zoning as applied before the adoption of this ordinance shall be permitted with a Use Permit. (g) Outside sales lots, such as car dealerships, mobile homes, and recreational vehicles. 4. USES PROHIBITED (a) The parking or storage of automobiles or similar vehicles which is not incidental to the operation of a principle use. Automo- biles or similar vehicles shall not be parked or stored for the purpose of removing parts or for the purpose of making major or extensive repairs. (b) Fabricating or manufacturing operations. (c) Salvage, junk or automobile graveyard operations. 3L-A 273 (d) No more than twenty five percent (25%) of a residential structure may be used for commercial or business purposes. The residential - structure and lot shall be maintained in a residential character and no accessory buildings may be used for commercial use. Once property is proposed to be developed to greater than twenty five percent (25%) commercial use, all existing residential structures shall be removed from the site. 5. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (a) Building height - Three stories not to exceed thirty-five (35) feet except as authorized by obtaining a Use Permit from the Durham County Board of Adjustment and as required under (c) Yards below. (b) Lot coverage - Buildings, parking and other impervious surface on any lot shall not cover more than seventy-five (75) percent of the area of such lot. (c) Yards 1 ) Setback shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any street right-of-way. 2) Setback shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from any abutting properties. 3) No building shall be built at a distance from any abutting property line less than the height of the building. (d) Parking 1) All retail and commercial uses not specifically listed herein shall be provided 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area. 2) Restaurants shall= be provided 15 spaces plus one additional space per 50 square feet of floor area. 3) Offices, banks, clinics, medical and dental laboratories shall be provided with 3 spaces per 1000 square feet of leasable area. 4) In addition to 1) and 2) above, laundry, and restaurants with drive up windows shall provide at least 3 additional stacking spaces per drive up window. Drive in bank service, 4 stacking spaces per teller, Planning Department may require more at critical locations. 5) Hotels and Motels; one space per room,. plus employee parking. 6) Recreation establishments; a. theatre; 1 space for each 4 seats b. bowling; 3 spaces per lane c. health spa; 1 space per 50 sq. ft. of floor area d. swimming; 1 space per 140 sq. ft. of pool area 34-B e. skating; 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area f. tennis and racketball ; 2 spaces per court 274 7) Minimum dimensions or parking areas: minimum parking space width shall be nine (9) feet with a minimum length of eighteen (18) feet except that however 20% of the total parking required may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact cars are eight (8) by sixteen (16). Minimum isle width between spaces shall be 24 feet. 8) Parking lots shall be setback from all right-of-ways and prop- erty lines a minimum of 10 feet. Parking lots which exceed two (2) parking bays. in width shall be provided with a plant- ing island between parking bays of at least five (5) feet. (e) Points of Access 1) Driveway access onto public roadways shall be limited to one (1 ) per four hundred (400) feet of street or road frontage. 2) Points of access and egress shall consist of a driveway or roadway of at least twenty (20) feet in width and shall be a sufficient distance from another intersecting street or highway to minimize traffic hazards, inconvenience and con- gestion. 3) All driveways shall be approved in writing by the State Highway Commission prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. (f) Signs 1 ) Billboards, roofsigns and any off premises advertising signs shall be prohibited. This prohibition deletes HC from Section XXXIII-C-1-(a) of this ordinance. 2) Ground signs, memorials and entrance monuments shall be permitted and shall 2not exceed seventy five (75) square feet in area, eight (8) feet in height or one per lot. Ground signs must be setback from the right-of-way line a minimum of ten (10) feet and must meet vision clearance requirements for safe driving. 3) Pole signs, flags and newspaper tubes or any sign or symbol projected on a singular pole shall be permitted. The height of pole signs shall not exceed 20 feet measured from the elevation of the roadway directly in front of the sign or the elevation of the actual grade at the base of the sign, which- ever is higher and shall not contain more than seventy five (75) square feet and shall be limited to one (1 ) sign per 400 feet of roadway frontage or one (1 ) per ment on the premises, whichever results inm the xleast snumberhof signs. 34-C , _ MM1 C� zoning classification over the remainder 17 parcels that are presently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential ) by range County, AR zoning would be extended to the y parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. For pthOSe°n parcels s t parcel presently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential ) by Orange County,arcels thzo are would be extended to the portion of the parcel previousl zoned by Town of Mebane. y the No change in zoning classification on pro ert County zoning will be made. The P y Presently under Orange existing Orange County zoning pattern to formerlly Town the ndrg Mebane 's zoning jurisdiction. Collins demonstrated those affected parcels on a ma that Mebane released those parcels as of 1987 He indicated th yaare currently unzoned. There are twelve June 1 , 1ned AR and five parcels to be zoned R-1 . parcels to be zoned AR and five Planning Staff recommends that the parcels be zoned as indicated. A motion was made by Commissioner Halklotis and seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to accept Planning Staff recommendation. r) VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ..__ZOLLUE_IEXI_EMEI DMELIZ a. Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (Crematoria as a Permitted Use ) Article 10. 4 - Off Street Parking (Off-Street Parking - Crematoria) Planner Greg Szymik presented for receipt of proposed amendments to Article 4.3 and Article 10. 4 of o public comment Ordinance. of the Zoning The ameAtmeresent, crematoria are by and 1-3 ( industrial ) zoning districts, permitted use Zoning Ordinance. add crematoria to the Permitted Use Table. Theenamend to Article tt 4.3 would 10. 4 would establish parking requirements for crematoria. to Article 10. 4 The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. , Planning Board member Sharlene Pilkey asked about the Szymik Indicated that one space per employee had been e parking and Proposed. 12.0112 /__Baa stated with regards to the memorial services are usually held Parking requirements Crematoria. at the Church and not that She feels the land should be commercial and not industrial. There has been a 25% increase in the demand for these services years, It is expected to increase 25% more. and a ed periodically by the EPA and there is no odor or oresmokelan are they have very complicated filters. There are less pollutants then and ln they have home. a funeral Szymik stated that the crematoria does have to meet certain requirements. emission DRAFT . 21 3. 1 . .38 AR 76 3 . 1 . .39 AR 3.6 . .8 AR 3.6 . . 10 AR 3.6. . 11 AR 3.6. .25 R_1 * 3 .6. .29 R-1 3 .6. .33 AR 3 .6. .34 AR 3. 11 . .4 R-1 3. 11 . .6 R-1 3 . 11 . . 18 R-1 3 .21 .A.24 AR 3.21 .A.25 AR 3 .42. .5 AR *AR (Agricultural Residential ) *R-1 ( Rural Residential ) MOTION: Kramer moved approval of Planning Staff recommendation . Seconded by Yuhasz . Best asked if there were any comments on this item at the public hearing. Szymik responded none. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Article 4 .3 (Permitted Use Table) Article 10 .4 (Off-Street Parking Requirements) Presentation by Greg Szymik. The purpose of the amendment is to allow crematoria as a permitted land use in Orange County . At present, crematoria are not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would make them a permitted use in the I -1 , 1 -2 and 1 -3 ( industrial ) zoning districts. The amendment to Article 4.3 would add crematoria to the Permitted Use Table. The amendment to Article 10 .4 would establish parking require- ments for crematoria requiring one space per employee. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. MOTION: Best moved approval of amendment to Article 4.3 . Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. Pilkey expressed concern with parking requirements asking If there would be any time that more than two attendants would be on duty. Eddleman asked what the minimum parking requirements are in other industrial areas. Szymik responded that the require- ment is one per employee. He continued that at the time he 277 AFT 22 visited Triangle Crematorium there was only one attendant on duty. There was general concern that the parking requirements would not provide enough parking. MOTION : Best moved approval of the minimum of one parking space plus one space per employee. Seconded by Taylor . VOTE: Unanimous . rte_ O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 278 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date OctQb9r. 5 , 1987 Action enda Item SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ARTICLES 6 . 16 .6, 6 .23 .4, 7 .2 . 1 , 9 . 11 , & 12 . 10 ACTION BY: No time limit DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Existing Ordinance Provisions Proposed Revisions 8-24-87 Public Hearing Minutes 9-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of proposed amendments to Articles 6 . 16 .6, 6.23.4, 7 .2. 1 , 9 . 11 , and 12 . 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . BACKGROUND: When the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district was created in January, 1987, some articles in the Zoning Ordinance were overlooked for revision to include reference to the new zoning district. The amendments will correct the oversight by adding references to the Rural Buffer (RB) district to: Article 6 . 16 .6 - REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS, AS AN ACCESSORY USE Article 6 .23 .4 - TABLE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS Article 7 .2 . 1 - ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Article 9 . 11 - PERMITTED SIGNS : SIZE, NUMBER, HEIGHT, AND LOCATION OF Article 12. 10 - TABLE OF SCREENING REQUIREMENTS The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on the proposal . The Planning Board recommends approval of the approved amendments . RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends approval of the amendments as recommended by the Planning Board with the additional recommendation that the effective date of the amendment be October 5, 1987 . 279 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 6 . 16. 6 Regulations Concerning Home' Occupations, As an Accessory Use Article 6 .23 . 4 Table of Impervious Surface Ratios Article 7 .2. 1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts Article 9. 11 Permitted Signs : Size, Number, Height and Location Of Article 12 . 10 Table of Screening Requirements ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High_x_.._.Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend appropriate Articles of the Zoning Ordinance to include the new Rural Buffer ( RB) zoning classifi - cation. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : When created on January 5 , 1987, the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning classification was intended to permit the same uses of land as the Rural Residential ( R-1 ) zoning classifi- cation . The chief difference between the zoning classifications is the minimum building lot size. A close review of the Zoning Ordinance has identified several references to R-1 districts. In order to make the Ordinance consistent in treating land uses in the R-1 and RB districts in the same manner, amendments are proposed that will result in the RB district being added for treatment in the same fashion as the R-1 district. The articles proposed for this type of amendment are: 6. 16.6 - Home Occupation Regulations 6.23.4 - Table of Impervious Surface Ratios 7.2. 1 - The List of PD Districts 9. 11 - Chart of Sign Requirements 12. 10 - Screening Requirements for Site Plans In all cases, the amendment consists solely of adding the RB district to the ordinance L 280 2 so it will be subject to the same require- ments as the R-1 district. They are pre- sented together because they all make the same type of change. The impact of the amendment is to make provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for treatment of the RB district in a manner that will allow for land uses in that district that are the same as in the R-1 district. The amendment will prevent any confusion that may result from the RB district not being referenced. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : 6. 16. 6 Regulations CQncecni_ng Home 9ccup,ti,ns, As. An Accessory Use 6. 16 .6. 1 Home Occupations In AIJ Residential QJstri_Cts Except AR and R-1 The following restrictions shall be applied to all home occupations in all residential districts, except AR and R-1 : a) No external evidence of its existence shall be visible, except a sign as permitted by Article 9. b) No more than thirty-five percent of the floor area of the dwelling unit or five hundred square feet, whichever is less, can be used for the home occupation. c) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause noise, vibration or glare detectable to the normal senses at the lot lines in the case of detached dwelling units or outside the dwelling unit, in the case of attached dwelling units. d ) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods. which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) All activities shall be conducted within the dwelling unit. f ) No more than 1 individual , not residing in the dwelling unit, may work in the home occupation. 6. 16. 6.2 HQm_e_ O c.u R.a t i on s_ I D The AR and_ R-1 P i s_t r i_c t s The following restrictions shall be applied on home 281 3 occupations in the AR and R-1 districts on lots less than 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 1 ,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation . This floor area can be a detached accessory structure. b ) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9. *c) The on premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d ) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration , or glare detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. f ) No outside storage of goods, or materials. 6. 16.6.3 Home 0ccup_afi9ns Ip The AR-R1 Districts (Min, 200,009 square fopj- Lots ) . The following restrictions shall be applied to home occupations in the AR and R-1 districts on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 2,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation . This floor area can be in a detached accessory structure. b ) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9 . *c) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d ) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration or glare detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation . f ) If an accessory structure is to be used for the home occupation the following criteria must be met: 1 . The accessory building shall be set back at least 282 4 30 feet farther from the road than the residence. 2. The accessory building shall not be closer than 40 feet to the side and rear lot lines. 3. The accessory building shall be adequately screened from view of the road and adjacent property by a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. 4. Any outside storage of materials for use in the home occupation shall be totally screened from the road and from adjacent property in the same manner as the accessory structures. The storage area shall not exceed 1 ,000 square feet. The setback from the side and rear property lines shall be the same as for an accessory building for use as a home occupation. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 6. 16 .6 Regulafion5 Concerning Hom, %cApation , As An Accessory Us_e 6. 16.6. 1 Ezce,f RB, AR pnd E-1 The following restrictions shall be applied to all home occupations in all residential districts, except E , AR and R-1 . a) No external evidence of its - existence shall be visible, except a sign as permitted by Article 9. b ) . No more than thirty-five percent of the floor area of the dwelling unit or five hundred square feet, whichever is less, can be used for the home occupation. c) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause noise, vibration or glare detectable to the normal senses at the lot lines in the case of detached dwelling units or outside the dwelling unit, in the case of attached dwelling units. d ) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises - is prohibited, except in the case of the ,delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) All activities shall be conducted within the dwelling unit. f ) No more than 1 individual , not residing in the dwelling unit, may work in the home occupation. 283 5 6. 16.6.2 Nome Occupations in The RB, 6R an.d R-1 Distrl cts The following restrictions shall be applied on home occupations in the RB , AR and R-1 districts on lots less than 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 1 ,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation . This floor area can be a detached accessory structure. b ) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9 . *c) The on premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d ) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration, or glare detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation . f ) No outside storage of goods, or materials. 6. 16. 6.3 home Occupations In The RB, AR rLd R-1 Districts (Min . 200,000 square foot lots ), The following restrictions shall be applied to home occupations in the $B , AR and R-1 districts on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 2, 000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be in a detached accessory structure. b ) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9. *c) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d ) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration or glare detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. 284 6 f ) If an accessory structure is to be used for the home occupation the following criteria must be met: 1 . The accessory building shall be set back at least 30 feet farther from the road than the residence. 2. The accessory building shall not be closer than 40 feet to the side and rear lot lines. 3. The accessory building shall be adequately screened from view of the road and adjacent property by a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. 4. Any outside storage of materials for use in the home occupation shall be totally screened from the road and from adjacent property in the same manner as the accessory structures. The storage area shall not exceed 1 ,000 square feet. The setback from the side and rear property lines shall be the same as for an accessory building for use as a home occupation. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : Article 6.23 . 4 Table of Impervious Surface Ratios is a full -page chart. See attached existing chart. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 6.23 . 4 Table of Impervious Surface Ratios is a full -page chart. See attached proposed chart. EXISTING 285 *Amended * 6 .23 .4 MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS 11-19-85 ZONING DISTRICT WQCA PWII PWII (PUBLIC WATER/SEWER (PUBLIC WATER/SEWER UNAVAILABLE) AVAILABLE) AR 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-1 6 .0% 12.0% 30 . 0% R-2 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-3 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-4 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-5 6 .0% 12 .0% 30 .0% R-8 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-13 6 .0% 12 .0% 30 .0% LC1 NA 12.0% 30 .0% NC2 NA 12.0% 30 .0% CC3 NA 12.0% 30 .0% GC4 NA 12.0% 30 .0% EC5 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% 0I NA 12 .0% 30 .0% EI 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% I-1 NA 12 .0% 30 .0% 1-2 NA NA NA 1-3 NA NA NA AS 6 .0% 12.0% 30.0% ED NA 12.0% 30 .0% PID 6 .0% 12.0% 30 . 0% NA = Uses permitted in these districts are not permitted in the Protected Watershed-II or Water Quality Critical Area overlay zoning districts . 0-29 PROPOSED 286 *Amended * 6 .23 . 4 MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS 11-19-85 ZONING DISTRICT WQCA PWII PWII (PUBLIC WATER/SEWER (PUBLIC WATER/SEWER UNAVAILABLE] AVAILABLE) RB 6.0% 12.0% 30.0% AR 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-1 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-2 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-3 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-4 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-5 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-8 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-13 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% LC1 NA 12.0% 30 . 0% NC2 NA 12.0% 30 .0% CC3 NA 12.0% 30 .0% GC4 NA 12.0% 30 . 0% EC5 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% OI NA 12.0% 30 .0% EI 6 .0% 12.0% 30.0% I-1 NA 12.0% 30 .0% 1-2 NA NA NA 1-3 NA NA NA AS 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% ED NA 12.0% 30 . 0% PID 6 .0% 12.0% 30 . 0% NA = Uses permitted in these districts are not permitted in the Protected Watershed-II or Water Quality Critical Area overlay zoning districts . 6-29 287 7 EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : *7.2. 1 Planned Development districts that correspond to the following , district authorized as in Article 4 are hereby created : *Amended R-13 - PD-H - R-13 11/2/81 R-8 - PD-H - R-8 11 /20/84 R-5 - PD-H - R-5 R-4 - PD-H - R-4 R-3 - PD-H - R-3 R-2 - PD-H - R-2 R-1 - PD-H - R-1 LC-1 - PD-C - LC-1 NC-2 - PD-C - NC-2 CC-3 - PD--C - CC-3 GC-4 - PD-C - GC-4 01 - I - PD - 01 - I I -1 - PD - I -1 1 -2 - PD - 1 -2 1 -3 - PD - 1 -3 PWI - PD - PWI PD-MU PD-R PROPOSED AMENDMENT: *7.2 . 1 Establishment Of The Planned Development District Planned Development districts that correspond to the following district authorized as in Article 4 are hereby created : *Amended R-13 - PD-H - R-13 11 /2/81 R-8 - PD-H - R-8 11/20/84 R-5 - PD-H - R-5 R-4 - PD-H - R-4 R-3 - PD-H - R-3 R-2 - PD-H - R-2 R-1 - PD-H - R-1 RB - PD-H - RB LC-1 - PD-C - LC-1 NC-2 - PD-C - NC-2 CC-3 - PD-C - CC-3 GC-4 - PD-C - GC-4 01 - I - PD - 01 -1 I -1 - PD - 1-1 1 -2 - PD - 1 -2 1 -3 - PD - 1 -3 PWI - PD - PWI PD-MU PD-R 8 288 EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : Article 9 . 11 Permitted Signs : Size, Number, Height and Location Of is a full -page chart. See attached existing chart. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 9. 11 Permitted Signs : Size, Number, Height and Location Of is a full -page chart. See attached proposed chart. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : Article 12 . 10 Table of Screening Requirements is a full - page chart. See attached existing chart. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 12 . 10 Table of Screening Requirements is a full - page chart. See attached proposed chart. 9. 11 PERMITTED SIGNS: SIZE , NUMBER, HEIGHT AND LOCATIO14 OF EXISTING Residential Commercial Induntrial Districts Districts Districts ARM ALL 0111ER LC-1 NC-2 CC-3 GC-4 EC-5 01 E1 1-I 1-2 I-3 AS ED 'Ameoided 1/3/811 MAX NO. Of SIGNS" 1 1 2 3 5 5 5 2 3 3 3 5 3 3 *Amended MAX Nil. to SIGNS IN HIC" 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6/4/84 I111At 5(1. F I. roll" All SIGNS h 4 85 loll 200 201) 200 05 100 100 100 200 lOn 05" MAX Sri, I'1. SHE" 00 IIIII ANY SIG14 2 2 05 100 200 200 200 05 100 100 100 200 10n 05 CD MAX Sil. F 1. SIZE IN MIC" F1111 ANY SIGN 2 2 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 14AX III IGIII DF" SIGN IN FFE1 NIA NIA 30 35 40 40 40 30 35 35 35 40 35 30 MAX IIF 1(311 IN MIC" 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 r X 11 NS I ON A0i1VE 111 DG. VARAVI I IN I FF_1 N X x X X 10 10 10 X 10 10 10 10 X X I'R0.11 C i I ON I RUM B1111 DING WALL" X x X X YES YES YES X YES YES YES YES X x II I.II111NAIFD SIGNS AlI Owl W x x YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YE5 YfS 1'111 f-141111N 11 D SIGNS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 i° 4 f 1CA f I ON DF SIGN IN SO I BAIT( X X X x x X X x K X x X X X I illlNI DISFANrr 1 111111 II/W F I. 1 1 1 15 10 10 10 15 10 25 25 25 15 25 S I DI /RE AR I PON 111401ItItIY 1INE 1 1 10 11) 10 10 in 15 10 25 15 15 if) 15 51 MIACK IO AL)JACLN1 01 S. ZONE" NIA N/A 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 111111)(1i1R AI)VFIIIISING IN M1C" X X X x X X X X X x X X X x Z IJOIDOOR ADVERIISING YES X x x x YES YES X x x YES YES X x H x 01111DOOR ADVERTISING > °;E 1:N5 NlII1111 R } N/A N/A NIA N/A 1 1. MIA NIA N/A 1 I NIA N/A ° ';I IOA(* I mni RlrMl Of kAY 660 NIA N/A N/A N/A 660 660 N/A N/A N/A 660 6611 NIA N/A CO: ARIA IN SQ. F F E I AD.IACLNI 10 o 115 70, NI: 06, NC 57 200 NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 200 200 N/A N/A III IG111 IN IEEI" 25 N/A N/A NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A 25 25 N/A NIA ° 'WACING RE31)IRLMUNl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1000' 1000 N/A N/A N/A }"DO' 1000' N/A N/A X - Not Allowed N/A - Not Applicable 'Svc appropriate section of Article 9 PROPOSED 9. 1 1 PERH I F1 EU SIGNS: S 12L , 1411!'113111!, I IL I G11 i r�,iu LULM 1 044 OF �l= Ilnnirlrnl in1 ". Cnonwrelsil hnh:+:I 1101 i1 y z; 1) ul.ricl.s Moirict.0 1)1 RI.rIcI n !-; RBI Will All 01111111 LC-1 NC-2 CC-3 GC-4 LC-5 Dl CI 1-1 1-2 I-3 AS *AmcAded t/]1611 "AX NII. 01" 51GN5+ .,# 1 t 2 3 5 5 5 2 3 3 f 5 3 3 AAmefrded MAX NIL (11 SIGNS IN IIIC+ ' ;'v. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6/4/84 i lHAL 511. r i. 11111+ All. SIGNS ` }' 4 4 85 100 2011 21R) 200 115 lot) 1110 IIIU 21111 11111 115 MAX !ill. r 1. SI IL-* Volt ANY SIGN 2 2 05 100 21HI 20U 200 05 too 1011 4!111 2110 1110 05 NAx Sfl. r 1. 5111: 114 NrC+ f[11l ANY 51GN A 2 2 72 72 72 77 72 12 72 72 72 72 72 11 MAX nt,n:ll1 r1r+ SIGN IN IIrl N/A N/A 30 35 40 40 40 30 35 35 35 411 HAx 114.11111 IN 1410 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 I2 I:x l M OIN Al1UVE 111.1% ! ' PAIIAPI 11 N 11.1111 x x x 10 10 10 x 10 10 10 10 x x 1111t1X C I I IIN I RUM INIlL01HG WA F '' x x X X YLS YES YES x YLS YES YLS YI5 x x ;..4: II0IIIINAlC11 SIGNS X X YES YES YES YLS Yr..S YLS YES Yl_5 Vt.S Yl5 Y#-5 Yf S. Al L Ull!0 l'111.1.-lllltx4110 Slim, i' tOCAIIIIN Nr SIGN }. IN r&.IIIACIt !' X x X X X x x X X x x x x X 1101N1 OISIANCE 11{rM1 1{/N 1 I. 1 1 1 15 10 10 411 15 10 25 25 25 IS 21., I; S I DI'/I!C AR f 1{I IH I'IIiX'fftlY I1NI: 1 1 III Ill IU 111 10 15 10 25 15 15 111 1', St:I UAl;K 10 At1JACLNI HIS. IIINL+ N/A NIA 20 30 30 30 311 30 30 30 30 311 30 SU 0111131IU1t A11VI.11115ING IN NIC+ j k X X X x x X X X x X x x x U Z 0111110011 ADVL1tI151NG YES X X X X YLS YLS x X X YES YL.S X X H in e~ r1UlUR1111 ADV4.1111SING > SIGNS Nl111111It } 1 NIA N/A N/A NIA I 1. N/A MIA N/A ! t NIA NIA MAIM* 116111 1{11411 (it MAY 660 N/A N/A NIA NIA 6,60 660 NIA N/A N/A GGO 1,611 NIA N/A a ARIA IN SO. r 1;F:l AI),IACLNI It) o US 711, NC 116, fVI' 57 Itlll N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA N/A 2011 2011 NIA N/A I- 10-IGIll IN IIEF+ i 25 NIA NIA N/A N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A 25 25 NIA N/A ° --'J'AC INI: 111.11TH RL I1LN1 +, NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A MINI, lu0n, NIA NIA NIA 111110' 111111W NIA NIA X - Not Allied N/A - flnE Altplivnbin OSee nplornprint-n rectltx+ of A0.1r.In 7 a cc O �1t EXISTING ARTICLE 12.10 - TABLE OF SCREENING REQUIREMENTS "ADJACENT USE" ZONING DISTRICT AR R1 R2 R3 Rh R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 cc4 EC5 01 PID AR R-1 R-2 iV CO R-3 R-4 A B $ R-5 A A B R-8 A A A B B B B R-13 A A A A B B B B P4 (-I LC-1 A A A A A A B B B B H R NC-2 A A A A A it B B B B CC-3 n A A A A A A A B B B A N cc-II A A A A A A A A B B B A s EC-5 n A A A A A A A B A 01 A A A A A A B B A o E1 A A A A A A A A B B B A A a 11 A A A A A A A A B B B A n '' 12 A A A A A A A A n B B B A A 13 A A A A A A A A A A B B B A A AS B A A A A A A A ED A A A n A A A A A A PID PROPOSED ARTICLE 12.10 - TABLE OF SCREENING BEQUIREMENTS ADJACENT USE; ZONING DISTRICT RB AR III is R2 R3 1111 R5 Ra R13 LCl NC2 CC3 GCh EC5 01 PI D RB nn R-2 R-3 3. 10# B A B B 11-5 A A A '; B R-S A A A A ED B B B I1-I.3 A A A 'A A B B B B LC-1 A A A IA n A A B B B B (A NC-2 A A A :; A A A B 13 B CC-3 A A A in A A A A A B B 13 A N GC-II A A A A A A A A A B B B A EC-5 A A A A A A A A A B to ''. :! Ol A A A El A A A A A A A A A B B B A A 0 n A A n A A A A A A B B B A A Pr; — P` 12 A A A '. A A A A A A A B B B A A 13 A A A A A A n A A A A B B B A A AS B B A A A A A A A ED A A A '. .'A n A A A A A A PID i 4 .iti 293 UfLL \ 11J 18 THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. . Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation for consideration to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 0 b. Article 6. 16.6 - Home Occupations (Rural Buffer) Article 6.23.4 - Impervious Surface Ratios (RB) Article 7.2. 1 - PD Districts (RB) Article 9. 11 - Permitted Signs (RS) Article 12. 10 - Landscaping/Screening (RB) Greg Szymik stated the purpose of these amendments would be to complete the references in the Zoning Ordinance to the new Rural Buffer zoning district which was created in January, 1987. These amendments would add Rural Buffer to these sections and does not constitute a substance change in the way the land zone classification would be handled. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Wilihoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation for consideration to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE : UNANIMOUS. L___111@ 1211111 Qa_@EEULLIlBQl_IEZI_LMENDMENIL a..___Iaztim_IL=E=EzQ_Laz aaaaimQ_aliestixe_patel Greg Szymik stated that on March 24, 1987 the Board of Commissioners adopted regulations to clarify when the amendments went into effect. At that time it was questioned how subdivision applications that were received by the County during the suspended period would be treated. This Section would be amended by adding an effective date of March 24, 1987. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE : UNANIMOUS. 12...._-_iat aa_Y_=_lmuraxemaata Greg Szymik explained that Section V identifies the forms ---.-, of security that may be used to guarantee construction of required improv,ements . in approved subdivisions. The amendment would delete cash ^ an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of security for required improvements. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, �. 1957. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Z ar tl�lY-fi�=].a-atixattaY >Anal_6aag_a_�t=g€ta._i6mandL6d�_lYax Greg Szymik explained that Section 1V-B-3-c-8 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by i specif n Y g forms of common or restricted access to lots in new subdivisions along major streets. _�. . 2294 August 17, 1987 Jacobs noted a misspelling on page 5 , paragraph 9 - area should be are . Yuhasz noted a misspelling on page 6, the vote should list Yuhasz as abstaining due to professional conflict of interest. MOTION : Best moved approval with corrections . Seconded by Kramer . VOTE : Unanimous . (These corrections have been made) . AGENDA ITEM #4 : COMMISSIONERS BRIEFS Informational only . AGENDA ITEM #6 : _ CHAIR COMMENTS Jacobs referenced the minutes of the Board of Commissioners meeting of September 18 regarding restrictive covenants in rural buffer areas . He noted that his understanding was that the Board desired ordinance amendments requiring restrictive covenants in the preliminary plat approval process for all subdivisions . Jacobs also noted that consideration of the Proposed Water/Sewer Policy was deferred until late October. It did not appear that the policy would be heard at the November public hearing . AGENDA ITEM #7 : CONSENT AGENDA a . Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Articles 6. 16 .6, 6 .23 . 4, 7 .2 . 1 , 9 . 11 & 12 . 10 When the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district was created in January, 1987, some articles in the Zoning Ordinance were overlooked for revision to include reference to the new zoning district. The amendments will correct the oversight by adding references to the Rural Buffer district. This item was presented at public hearing on August 24 , 1987 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5 , 1987 . b . Subdivision Regulation Amendment 3 295 ( 1 ) Section IV-B-8-C Landscaping Standards This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . Amendments to the landscaping standards contained in Section IV-B-8 of the Regulations were adopted by the Commissioners on March 24 , 1987 . To clarify when the amendments went into effect, Section IV-B-8-c will be amended by adding the follow- ing language : Amended Effective March 24, 1987 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5 , 1987 . (2 ) Section V - Improvements Section V identifies the forms of security that may be used to guarantee construction of required improvements in approved subdivisions . The amendment would delete cash as an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of security for required improvements. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5 , 1987 . MOTION : Yuhasz moved approval of the consent agenda . Seconded by Pilkey . VOTE:' Unanimous . Yuhasz suggested that perhaps final plats could be placed on the consent agenda in the future . AGENDA ITEM #8: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS a . Preliminary Plats (Total - 80 Lots ) 1 . Dal -Rae forest Subdivision (7 Lots - Bingham Township ) Presentation by Emily Crudup. This tract is located in the northeast corner of Bingham Township on the south side of Borland Road ( SR 1127 ) 1 /3 mile east of the intersection with Dodson ' s Crossroads ( SR 1102) . Seven two-acre O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 296 Meeting Date October 5, 1987 Action e a Item SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT SECTION IV-B-8-C LANDSCAPING STANDARDS ACTION BY: No time limit DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes _x^ No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Existing Regulation Section IV-B-8-c Proposed Revision to Section IV-B-8-c 8-24-87 Public Hearing Minutes 9-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of a proposed amendment to Section IV-B-8-c of the Subdivision Regulations . This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . BACKGROUND: Amendments to the landscaping standards contained in Section IV-B-8 of the Subdivision Regulations were adopted by the Board of Commissioners on March 24, 1987 . To clarify when the amendments went into effect, Section IV-B-8-c will be amended by adding the following language: Amended Effective March 24, 1987 . The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on the proposal . The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends approval of the amendment as recommended by the Planning Board . 297 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: IV-B-8-c Landscaping Standards IV-B-8-c-1 Required Landscaping IV-B-8-e Recommended Standards for Installation and Maintenance � _Staff.�x_..,__Planning Board ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x x_YBOCC _Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _xHigh _Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Section IV-B-8-c-1 of the Subdivision Regulations and related sections to address concerns regard- ing the number, location and cost of plants to be installed in new subdivisions . IMPACTS/ ISSUES : On March 24, 1987 , the Board of Commis- sioners approved revisions to Section IV-B- 8-c-1 . Subsequently a question arose about whether the new requirements would apply to subdivision applications that were in process when the requirements were adopted . The County Attorney recommended that Section IV-B-8-c-1 be amended by adding the effective date as March 24, 1987 . ids would clearly identify subdivision app l tions submitted between December 1 , 1986, the date the landscape provisions were suspended, and March 24, 1987 , the date new provisions were adopted, as being exempt. On June 19, 1987 , the Board of Commis- sioners adopted a policy to this effect. The ordinance revision would establish it as part of the ordinance. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : The existing provisions would be unchanged . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Section IV-B-8-c will be amended by adding the following : * 1V-B-8-c Landscaping Standards *Amended Effective (March 24, 1987) D .ill If 298 18 THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. . Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation for consideration to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE : UNANIMOUS. b. Article 6. 16.6 - Home Occupations (Rural Buffer) s=' Article 6.23.4 - Impervious Surface Ratios (RB) Article 7.2. 1 - PD Districts (RB) Article 9. 11 - Permitted Signs (RB) Article 12. 10 - Landscaping/Screening (RB) Greg Szymik stated the purpose of these amendments would be to complete the references in the Zoning Ordinance to the new Rural Buffer zoning district which was created in January, 1987. These amendments would add Rural Buffer to these sections and does not constitute a substance change in the way the land zone classification would be handled. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Willholt, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation for consideration to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE : UNANIMOUS. L____Ell.EiZlYlIlM13E ULLIIDUI .IEXI_ SENDMEULS ate___Easy.tin_lY�>'��$_!r._Laa>j.s.�aRing._iEffgswti�cg_Qatg� Greg Szymik stated that on March 24, 1987 the Board of Commissioners adopted regulations to clarify when the amendments went into effect. At that time it was questioned how subdivision applications that were received by the County during the suspended period would be treated. This Section would be amended by adding an effective date of March 24, 1987. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE : UNANIMOUS. E�_�EaatlQa_Y_�1matQY€mant� Greg Szymik explained that Section V identifies the forms �----� of security that may be used to guarantee construction of required --- Improvements In approved subdivisions. The amendment would delete cash as an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of security for required Improvements. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. c...___ .aatiaa_lY=E_1=t=_ _Maralnal_Aaaa._Etza€tL_i6m€ndadd_hgE SactiBa_lYcfl�a�llL...)Zr_3aca.�c ads Greg Szymik explained that Section iV-B-3-c-8 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by specifying forms of common or restricted access to lots in new subdivisions along major streets. 2 299 August 17 , 1987 Jacobs noted a misspelling on page 5 , paragraph 9 - area should be are . Yuhasz noted a misspelling on page 6, the vote should list Yuhasz as abstaining due to professional conflict of interest . MOTION : Best moved approval with corrections . Seconded by Kramer . _ VOTE : Unanimous. (These corrections have been made) . AGENDA ITEM #4 : COMMISSIONERS BRIEFS Informational only . AGENDA ITEM #6 : CHAIR COMMENTS Jacobs referenced the minutes of the Board of Commissioners meeting of September 18 regarding restrictive covenants in rural buffer areas . He noted that his understanding was that the Board desired ordinance amendments requiring restrictive covenants in the preliminary plat approval process for all subdivisions . Jacobs also noted that consideration of the Proposed Water/Sewer Policy was deferred until late October . It did not appear that the policy would be heard at the November public hearing. AGENDA ITEM #7 : CONSENT AGENDA a . Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Articles 6 . 16 .6, 6 .23 .4, 7 .2 . 1 , 9 . 11 & 12 . 10 When the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district was created In January, 1987 , some articles in the Zoning Ordinance were overlooked for revision to include reference to the new zoning district. The amendments will correct the oversight by adding references to the Rural Buffer district . This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987 . b . Subdivision Regulation Amendment f �� Ir 3 :goo ( 1 ) Section IV-B-8-C Landscaping Standards This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . Amendments to the landscaping standards contained in Section IV-B-8 of the Subdivision Regulations were adopted by the Board of Commissioners on March 24, 1987 . To clarify when the amendments went into effect, Section IV-B-8-c will be amended by adding the follow- ing language : Amended Effective March 24, 1987 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987 . (2 ) Section V - Improvements Section V identifies the forms of security that may be used to guarantee construction of required improvements in approved subdivisions . The amendment would delete cash as an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of security for required improvements. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987 . MOTION : Yuhasz moved approval of the consent agenda . Seconded by Pilkey . VOTE-: Unanimous . Yuhasz suggested that perhaps final plats could be placed on the consent agenda in the future. AGENDA ITEM #8: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS a . Preliminary Plats (Total - 80 Lots ) 1 . Dal -Rae Forest Subdivision (7 Lots - Bingham Township ) Presentation by Emily Crudup. This tract is located in the northeast corner of Bingham Township on the south side of Borland Road ( SR 1127 ) 1 /3 mile east of the intersection with Dodson ' s Crossroads (SR 1102) . Seven two-acre 4 / ORANGE COUNTY 301 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 5, 1987 Action nnda Item # SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT - SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS ACTION BY: No time limit DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes -_x- No ATTACHMENT( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Existing Regulation Section V Proposed Revision to Section V 8-24-87 Public Hearing Minutes 9-21 -87 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : Consideration of a proposed amendment to Section V of the Subdivision Regulations. This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . BACKGROUND: Section V identifies the forms of security that may be used to guarantee construction of required improvements in approved subdivisions. The amendment would delete cash as an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of security for required improvements . The Planning Board met on September 21 , 1987 to make its recommendation on the proposal . The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends approval of the amendment as recommended by the Planning Board with the additional recommendation that the effective date of the amendment be October 5, 1987 . 302 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE : Section V lmorovement1 ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other : STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High M i d d l e xLow Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24 , 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise the first paragraph of Section V of the Subdivision Regula- tions by eliminating cash as a form of security that may be posted to provide for the completion of improvements required in subdivision and establish- ing escrow accounts as a form of security . IMPACTS/ ISSUES : When improvements are required in subdivi - sions as a condition for Final Plat approval , Section V - requires that those improvements be constructed or a form of security be posted to provide for their completion . The County Attorney has in- formed the Planning Staff that a form of security currently included in Section V , cash , cannot be accepted as security. This amendment would remove cash from the regula- tions as an acceptable form of security and would add escrow accounts as a new form of security. This change would make the Subdivision Regulation consistent with the County Attorney ' s advice. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS Before a final plat of a subdivision shall be approved, improvements shall be provided as follows , or a security bond, or cash , or a satisfactory, irrevocable letter of credit by an approved institution and as approved by the Orange County Attorney shall be posted with Orange County by the subdivider to provide for the completion of the re- quired improvements . ( First paragraph of Section V only . ) PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 303 SECTION V IMPROVEMEN71 Before a final plat of a subdivision shall be approved, improvements shall be provided as follows , or a security bond, or Issrat agreement, or a satisfactory, irrevocable letter or credit by an approved institution andoras approved by the Orange County posted with Orange County by the subdivider to provide for the completion of the required improvements . ( First paragraph of Section V only . ) MMI � cY1 . THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMMIT NTS AN PUBLIC 1 8 D THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell Halkiis to refer , seconded b for consideration to this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation f 18137. presented to the Board of Commissioners on October VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Article 6. 16. 6 - Home Occupations (Rural Buffer) Article 6.23. 4 - Impervious Surface Ratios (RB) Article 7.2. 1 - PD Districts (RB) Article 9. 11 - Permitted Article 12. 10 Land Signs (RB) Landscaping/Screening (RB) complete tGeegrefemekCstaied the purpose of these amendments would zoning district which was Zoning Ordinance to the new Rural Buffer to would ads Rural Buffer as created in January, 1987_ amendments substance change 1B the wa to these sections and does These amendmenta Y the land zone classification nwould obethandled. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made b Commissioner Hartwell to refer y Commissioner Willhoit, Commissioner this Item to the Plannin seconded by Commissioners onfOctobers5, 1987�n to be Planning board with a VOTE: presented to the Board of UNANIMOUS. Lii a,_,._Saa-ri�e!1'=E�=_Ln>zs�Jra��_bfOM�>ar= Greg Szymik stated that in�`L�ffaLt.i_Ya_�ata2 Commissioners adopted regulations to on March 24, Commissioners At that time clarify 19nd the board of Ime it was questioned y wubn the amenments went into were received by the County how subdivision applications were received would - be y during the suspended period would betreated. 1987, be amended by adding an effective date of March 24, Motion was made b Commissioner Hnikiwas to refer by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded Cemmissiontion to be item to the Planning Board by recommendation presented to the Board of Commissioners on oier fie VOTE : UNANIMOUS. October f, t.-___SaztiQa_l_- Greg 5z m 1 k�aLgY�an'*a of security Y explained that Section V of security In may be used to iructiieo the approved subdivisions. The construction would delete forms an acceptable form of security required es amendment agreements rent would dalnew corm of security for re Y and add escrow a reements required Improvements. g as a new form of Commissioner Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, C mmissi ner Halkbiotis to refer this Item to the seconded by 1987, presented to the a Pia"Wing Board with a Board of Commissioners on October . VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5, s ��---S�ticn_1� Sa i2t. =iE=Z=1 $= =t= - - Vaal_ t Greg 't-fit-?���Y; S�.�a�_�za>:Iz�mg>atiL6tit_�4at Regulations Is proposed explained that proposed to explained Section 1V-S-3-o-8 access amended by specifying of the of Subdivision to lots in new subdivisions along forms or c tree o. along major streets. ETPaw- & - '"��-' ^-tea 3 305 ( 1 ) Section IV-B-8-C Landscaping Standards This item was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1987 . Amendments to the landscaping standards contained in Section IV-B-8 of the Subdivision Regulations were adopted by the Board of • Commissioners on March 24, 1987 . To clarify when the amendments went into effect, Section IV-B-8-c will be amended by adding the follow- ing language : Amended Effective March 24, 1987 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987 . MMb (2 ) Section V - Improvements Section V identifies the forms of security that may be used to guarantee construction of required improvements in subdivisions . The amendment would delete cash as an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of security for required improvements . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987 . MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of the consent Seconded by Pilkey . agenda . VOTE: Unanimous . Yuhasz suggested that perhaps final plats could be placed on the consent agenda in the future. AGENDA ITEM #8: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS a. Preliminary Plats (Total - 80 Lots ) 1 . Dal -Rae Forest Subdivision (7 Lots - Bingham Township ) Presentation by Emily Crudup . This tract is located in the northeast corner of Bingham Township on the south side of Borland Road (SR 1127) 1 /3 mile east of the intersection with Dodson ' s Crossroads (SR 1102) . Seven two-acre O R A N G E C O U N T Y 306 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October t287 Action e a Item SUBJECT: REQUEST TO INITIATE LEGAL ACTION - JEHUE EDWARDS (ACTION BY October 5, 1987 ) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Powell or Complaint/ Inquiry Record Warren Faircloth Vicinity Map Letter Dated August 28, 1985 Letter Dated October 29, 1985 Letter Dated May 8, 1987 Letter Dated June 3, 1987 Letter Dated September 2, 1987 Zoning Ordinance Provisions Erosion Control Ordinance Provisions TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Ext. 345 Mebane - 227-2031 or Chapel HiII - 968-4501 Ext. 351 PURPOSE : Consideration of a request to initiate legal proceedings against Jehue Edwards of Rt. 4 Box 370, Chapel Hill , in N. C. The property in violation is on Jo Mac Road in Bingham Township . It consists of 10 .02 acres, and is zoned Rural Buffer. BACKGROUND: The zoning complaint extends back to 1985, and complaints related to erosion control and use of the property as a landfill were received in 1987 . Field inspections revealed derelict mobile homes and the dumping of stumps, soil , concrete, junk, construction debris, fuel tanks, and some garbage. A certified letter dated August 28, 1985 and subsequent letters apprised property owner of violations and indicated measures required to comply . A notice of violation of the Erosion Control Ordinance sent May 8, 1987 included suggested corrective action on the part of the owner to resolve the violations. Repeated attempts have been made to resolve the situation by discussing the situation with Mr. Edwards to persuade him to cease using the property as a landfill and stabilize the 307 disturbed area . Mr . Edwards has failed to respond to these initiatives and a stop work order and continues to allow and even encourage dumping in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and the Erosion Control Ordinance. The Planning Department continues to receive complaints from residents on Jo Mac Road about the use of the property as a landfill , increased truck traffic, and mud and debris on the road. RECOMMENDATION : The Administration recommends initiation of legal proceedings against Jehue Edwards. • Cr/ s °°°'° Orange County a` �e El .�, 8 °�; `� ,.. cOMPLAINT/ INQUIRY RE&ORD b �. COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY: alul. 1 . J Jt)LLtt. DEPARTMENT I� _, .4 � ]ATE: - 23'e7 TIME: A.M. 3. 15 P.M. COMPLAINT RECEIVED: _ X. PHONE LETTER IN PERSON NAME OF np . i COMPLAINANT: 1 f1 ., , 1.�...,I f • 9 y PHONE NO. - ADDRESS: CON FI DEN nA L Do NOT gi X 3'4' PEzEAsE 1N1=d12MAtdr THE COMPLAINT: Oikje-i- LiU.a bit, 1 li ' ' r 94,01..... l Ate). ,-1- , 1 Lpt(A(44. _-4E)-,4),0:(--1A4L 4'-4k4fr)i iia-t?;)t4.4,..)/ (' ''1‘., ' kh Le-17 . ) I ° ! ' thaittt) 14I ).JL ' .kL & v (/`6 r 24 Q j—E LOCATION: At 1 �/ ----- p,_ .4kikt Ara, (k //00 ; /14± _„44.10., q Asa tu--h,J R. p REFERRED TO: DEPT. DATE 7-29-8 7 ACTION TAKEN: /G•0 Z /-G / 7 y. 3 r . Pig -,7,45-x A 2q /; fZ•!/ J/& /7) : Zir✓ AgC fir27. G/1 7 5u • S/r \Z. r,/!v4k i)S / /-r $1/? //77?- >f , f3 W- 7/A/ f 41•52/AW4/� 4Y ye Tj7Phk/E Foes /7 (Z 1if ot-d o ' / 'Le.. Sri-G t . ��Gr /-7 i/2 ( �_ . SIGNED: DATE: 309 q- 3a -37 4-T 4i/777' C�✓&-49y~o, �7avyTzY ev,P-ff a'. r/577i2 1 m ,4ry ro,'O, 3 /f/M b'/re r/-,& 1]c P 6,4 /iy c‘,0/P1/rf,5/7c C1 .41/,edVe7-1' S - v/c 7 71-71/47 (7141e /z5 '/7r 7-'1)//,5,c 7,7a0Ze7,7.5,- /: fi T cns /.icier rriryi97 ///s /A, -7‘)'7/ z4' .✓A/./7 4$ p /1 ,LY /,-/ is2 /"/2o4 e./77/75 a TI-5/57 Pa //031/-4 4.4.7a " J //T y/riti * /3Fc/N elf-7,-"A" "azio r-vvedv7�j it )56/j Q/G Tongs A/449 7P,31c /M4/4# ' ,9,057;,/CLTl./F' G77/ 402 /7l�'75 C.Fiv -ez-/T2/fi, (/. /26r4/hfQf/ S/ 6)/ ( T// so/G ' j-r-r 7 L,'-7 7 72 dr 1//FLI7/eN 407AvGei- 4//7/74 . jeczUT/,1 54WIL77/X F , espy d -4,47-7Y-17e_ 57c-N7 7 mod /,Y*ry7. - S7 1/7- a/r�,zi1r7� Nniii,w 5T/'G Fjli//q Gam'— .p!!✓a Ff-oi7 3/7F royfleT/'5 7 /1 .p.ao ®s zz-' 7 5/ 7& r/isi 7— 7e44s,2o//%I Atf —No wore--5- 7/2/164.5 i7 /f fL/Ivf 6- 87 5 7 crnOe,2 )sue a// e- ri f s Fbcoe 17-/r-r2 07/Alf 17201/0-404,5 a, cd/r7PL/, ycf iefee D&l /f/c`fee n X Tc rara6 t/ 2:12_±,7 /y7 stY/Y Oz, f/LJL//y75 X1.34,7 j a /u/7-C /' is/F- 5 5 Piebv/ 7y /z/45 1ae,v 4S J 179,41 c 7r S . P6gierci ?tom r TuAffS E 7`C. 7r Evlcox 2 - L/ENO pi 11 Ara ,21,s 4/SF /=r&7,7 Ave. .Oe.,9 Z 25 7'z ",eO5 / c . ELOPMENT 94RUE �EA� Ak OG CAS NUMB R 'F L E APPLICA ACTION MAP BLOCK L T I6 DEPARTMENT PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPLICATION TYPE ❑ BUILDING PERMIT ❑ MINOR SUBDIVISION ❑ MAJOR SUBDIVISION ❑ REZONING. ❑ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ❑ CLASS A SPECIAL USE ❑ CLASS B SPECIAL USE ❑ ARIANCE O OTHER FILINS DATE FEE RECEIPT N0. REMARKS COMMENT PUBLISHED ADVERTISEMENT PROPERTY LOCATION V' INITIAL ��` `- ,,�� � �J �5�1!03 ft W vir►�-Gl�,,� A ,A , p, 'Q, 2 G�.(i•C A-..'• k �h-Q.. �J .f.�.�. !�{JC� ADDRESS N E NO. 910 N iVyIC_! PRESENT RING f T0J PROPOSED 20NIH0 *14Y.R.44,1 J T.r'V�-xLuv hkL' I PUBLIC HEARING DATE {a � lJ�L1 v DATE PROPERTY POSTED if DATE PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED CDcc�t�.� rit FC ��,fJ �Tf Nfj 015CL A+M� Fqf PREVIOUS CASES '1183YMDQ E88l Apr'1l8t wio3 t �C 9' O D 0 A w N CERTIFIED RECEIPT NO(S) R if ° o0 0 8 � `g8o g ID-24-�5 C IIIrr� �;�� �.�c�t. Vic.►".�r�0. ��, o v g - C C4 w r � N h ° , � yi 311 1 ".8) Y F �5� • QE1 4E p '- s lI H ►� z Arc \., NPR; apprre lop ' e • p-f.. /L ORANGE COUNTY PLAN LNG DEPARTMENT RILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 312 :t • August 28, 1985 Jehue Edwards Route 4, Box 370 Chapel Hill , NC 27514 RE: PROJECT LOCATION Jo Mac Rood SR 1103 TOWNSHIP :Bingham MAP REFERENCE: 21 . . 14 ZONING DISTRICT : Residential —1 (R-1) � The Orange County Zoning Officer inspected the above referenced premises on August 28 . 1985 The following provision (s) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance appear to be violated : Section 21 .4 — Zoning Compliance Permit Required Section 6 . 3 — Regulation of Principal Uses (both enclosed) Please contact the Planning Department so a determination can be made as to whether a violation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance has actually occurred end , if so , how you can correct the violation . When you contact the office , you may do so in person by coming to the Orange County Courthouse (the office is on the basement floor) located at 106 East Margaret Lane in Hillsborough , North. Carolina or by calling one of the following numbers [ depending upon your telephone exchange) : 732-8181 Hillsborough 967-9251 Chapel Hill/Carrboro 688`7331 Durham 227-2031 Burlington/Graham The person you should speak with is Jane Atwater . She wilt assist you by explaining the alleged violation ( s) of the . I A 31.3 . August 2B , 1985 Page 2 Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the steps to be taken to correct the violation including the processing of any applicable materials , if necessary . Please give this matter your immediate attention . Sincerely yours , ts Marvin E. Collins Planning Director NOTE: The Orange County Board of Adjustment is empowered to rule on the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and to grant variances when a difficulty or hardship exists . Appeal form may be obtained from this office . ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT • HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27275 314 AM R•� L' October 29, 1985 Jehue Edwards Route 4, Box 370 Chapel Hill , NC 27514 RE: PROJECT LOCATION Jo Mec Road SR 1103 TOWNSHIP : Bingham MAP REFERENCE: 21 . .14 _ ZONING DISTRICT : R-1 . (Rural Residential The Orange County Building Inspector inspected the above referenced premises on October 25 . 1885 The following provision (s) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance appear to be violated : Section 6 .3 Regulation of Principal Uses Section 21 .4 Zoning Compliance Permit Required Please contact the Planning Department so a determination can be made as to whether a violation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance has actually occurred and , if so , how you can correct the violation . When you contact the office , you may do so in person by coming to the Orange County Courthouse (the office is on the basement floor) Located at 106 East Margaret ' Lane in Hillsborough , North Carolina or by calling one of the following numbers (depending upon your telephone exchange) : 732-8181 Hillsborough 967-5251 Chapel Hi LL/Cerrboro 668-7331 Durham 227-2031 Burlington/Graham The person you should speak with is Jane Atwater . She will assist you by explaining the alleged vioLation ( s) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the steps to be taken to correct the violation including the processing of any applicable materials , if necessary . 315 October 29 , 19E5 Page 2 Please give this matter your immediate attention . Sincerely yours , APW-tA; arrikAA; Marvin E. Collins Planning Director NOTE: The Orange County Board of Adjustment is empowered to rule on the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and to grant variances when a difficulty or hardship exists . Appeal form may be obtained from this office . 4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HII.I SBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 316 r T .r' w r May 8, 1987 Jehue and Pearline Edwards 29 Lake View Trailer Park Chapel Hill , N.C. 27514 Subject: Land Disturbance, Filling, and Waste Disposal on Jo Mac Road Bingham Township, Tax Map 21 , Lot 14 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Edwards: This letter is to document our meeting et your home on Thursday April 30, 1987 to discuss your use of the property and how It conflicts with Orange County Ordinances. Y ) Even though it is your land, you cannot use it for a dump because it violates the laws . of Orange County. Clearing and grading the property without erosion control permits violates the Erosion Control Ordinance. Disposing of stumps, junk, and_ construction materials is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance which controls how you can use your property. These violations must stop, and if you want to to use your property for a dump, you must get permits to do so. You can correct this problem in one of two ways: 1 . You can stop all dumping on the site Immediately and not allow any more to be hauled in or bring in any yourself . Where you have dug up the front of the property and dumped construction materials you must smooth it out and sow grass. In the back and along the sides of the property where you have dumped stumps and junk you must clean out the stream, smooth out the area, and saw grass. You must also remove the old fuel tanks and carry them to a scrap yard. These things must be done within 90 days, before August 15, 1987 . 2. if you want to continue using your property as a dump and to extend it across the stream you must get a Special Use Permit from the County. To get the Permit you will have to apply to the County and present your request at a public hearing before the County Commissioners. You would have to hire an engineer to I draw plans of how you would fill in the property and pipe the l 317 Jehue and Pearline Edwards May 8, 1967 Page 2 stream under the fill . In my opinion, the County Commissioners are not likely to give you permission to use your property as a dump. Your neighbors would object, and your property drains to University Lake and using it as a dump might have a bad effect on the water in the Lake. I recommend you follow the suggestions first mentioned in item fl above. I am having a copy of this letter hand delivered to you and a copy sent by mall . I need a written answer from you telling me what you propose to to correct this problem. Please contact me with your answer before Friday May 22, 1987 . • • L OOMS^Mhz-6-A 214xa,ge, Warren Falrcloth Don owell Erosion Control Officer Planner • • • 1 L ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLIN.A 27278 318 June 3, 1987 Jehue Edwards 29 Lake View Trailer Park Chapel Hill , N. C. 27514 Subject: Land Disturbance, Filling, and Waste Disposal Site on Jo Mac Road Bingham Township, Tax Map 21 , Lot 14 STOP WORK _ORDER Dear Mr. Edwards : Today I have authorized the posting of a STOP WORK ORDER on the above mentioned property. All land-disturbing and dumping activity must cease immediately , and must not start again until the necessary permits to operate a landfill are obtained. In previous letters and conversations, members of my staff have explained what permits are necessary for you to operate a Iandfill . The STOP WORK ORDER is being posted for the following reasons : 1 . Failure to submit and get approval of an erosion control for clearing, grading, and filling the pro pert Plan Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor, for additional information. ) 2. Failure to obtain the necessary permits to operate a landfill . ( Contact Greg Szymik, Planner III , for additional information. ) 3. Failure to follow the course of action recommended in a letter to you of May 8, 1987 to resolve this situation. Failure to observe the STOP WORK ORDER will result in additional enforcement action. Inspections will be made to insure that you observe this order and that the dumping stops. Sincerely, 1\16401k.) Marvin Collins Planning Director cc: County Manager County Attorney - Planner III ( Current Planning) 1...-"Erosion Control Supervisor ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 318 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 r'M CEBIlElE ALIL @EIWBIY_EECEleI_EEQUESIEQ September 2, 1987 Jehue Edwards Rt. 4 Box 370 Chapel Hill , N. C. 27514 Re : Violation of Agreement made May 8, 1987 and STOP WORK .. ORDER of June 3, 1987 Continued Use of this Property as a Landfill Mr. Edwards : The planning Department has recieved many calls about your landfill this week complaining that you are continuing to use this property as a dump for stumps, junk, construction waste, and other debris and that mud was being tracked onto Jo Mac Road by trucks leaving the site. Upon investigation of these complaints, I observed trucks dumping limbs, stumps, and construction debris in violation of your agreement to cease dumping, cover the dump with soil , and stabilize the entire area. The deadline of August 15, 1987 has past and most of the site has not been stabilized. in order to correct this violation, it is necessary for the Planning Department to take additional action against you and bring this site into compliance. Unless you agree to the following conditions, the Planning Department will refer this violation to the the County Attorney for legal action against you. The conditions. are: 1 . That you immediately cease allowing the dumping of all limbs, stumps, vegetation, junk, and construction debris. Only good fill material (soil free of debris) can be dumped to cover the existing debris and establish vegetation. 2. That you post a sign with letter at least 4" high with the following notice: 320 Jehue Edwards September 2, 1987 Page 2 NO DUMPING ALLOWED CLEAN FILL ONLY 3 . That you complete the stabilization of this site by October 31 , 1987 , 4. That you sign the statement at the end of this letter acknowledging that you have read the letter or had someone read it to you, understand the conditions set forth in the letter, understand the consequences of failure to observe the conditions, agree to observe these conditions, and return a signed copy of this letter to the planning department. I will hand deliver a copy of this letter to you and send one through the mail to be sure that you receive it and under- stand its contents. Sincerely, O Warren Faircloth Don `owell Erosion Control Supervisor Planner I c: Marvin Collins, Planning Director Don Powell , Planner 1 I , Jehue Edwards, have read this letter or have had someone read it to me, understand its contents, and agree to follow the conditions set forth in it. I also understand that legal action will be taken against me If I fail to follow these conditions. Signature of Jehue Edwards Signature of Witness if not signed by Jehue Edwards 4.3 PERMITTED USE E * = PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE a) G3 B - CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE g) °D AR RI R2 'R3 R§ R5 Ra R1 LC1 NC2 C 3 GC4 EC 01 El PI Airport, General Aviation, 11 12 13 AS ED ID lief iports, S.T.D,L. A A A P2 Botanical Gardens & Arboretums A A A A P3 Buildings; Portable B B B B B a B B B P4 Bus Passenger Shelter B B $ B B s4 F5---Bus Terminals & Garages Pb Cemetery — P7 Church B B B B B B P8 Community Center * 1� r B B B B B _'. F9__Extraction of Earth Products(l) A � P10 Governmental Protective A A A Services (Police & Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments' -A P11 Land Fi11s (2 Acres or More ) A A A P12 Land Fills ..(Less Than 2 Acres) g g g A A A A A P13 Military Installations B B B B g (National Guard 9 Reserve Armory) P14 Parks, Public & Non-Profit P15 Parking As Principle Use, Surface or Structure Plb Public Utility Stations & 'F Sub-Stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, A A A A A A Water & Sewage Treatment Plants A A A A A A A A A A A A A RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 RP 1 LC1 NC2 C A A Amendments: (1) �-1-$5 � 3 (2) 1-5_87 (2) 3 CC' C5 or EI ! 1 I? 13 AS ED PID ARTICLE VI . APPLICATION. OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 6. 1 Regulations Encumbering Land Required To Satisfy Regulations 322 It No portion of a lot , used in connection with an existing or proposed building , structure or use, and necessary for compliance with the dimensional regulations of this Ordinance shall , through sale or otherwise, be used again as a part of the lot required in connection with any other -building, structure or use. 6.2 Height Limitations 6.2. 1 Except as provided in this ordinance, all structures shall conform to the height limitations established in Article 5. Within any zoning district the height of a building may exceed the maximum building height established in Article 5 provided that one foot additional front and side setbacks are provided for every two feet of additional height. 6.2.2 The height limits of this ordinance may be modified upon appeal to the Board of Adjustment. The Board, when approving an application for modification to the height limitations , may affix to that approval reason- able conditions to protect the public health , safety, and general welfare. 6.3 Re ulation of Principal Uses Ar- *6.3. 1 It is the express intent of this ordinance to regulate the number of T d 6.-6-82 Principal structures constructed on each lot wi � ...:d 2-19-85 shall be only one single family residence thin Orange County. There temporary mobile homes for custodial care or during ethepinstallationeor of construction of a second permanent unit on -the same lot as provided in Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table and Article 8.8. 12 Temporary Use of a Residential Mobile Home Class B Special Use Permit constructed on lots that have twic t e he required lot area pofx the mzoning district in which the lot is located. This provision does not apply to approved multi-family developments . There can be more than one principal structure on commercial , office- institutional or industrial lots provided that the structures existed prior to the application of this ordinance or the structures are part of a Planned Development. 6.4 Corner Lot Setback on the Side Street Any corner lot in a residential Zoning District having an abutting interior lot on its side street, shall have a minimum required open space of the Zoning District in which it is located; ment does not reduce the width suitable for ad building or,any this recoide- less than 25 feet (SEE DIAGRAM 1 ) . building on any lot of record 6-i 21.4 ,Lor.i cg LOIIID X11 . re=1 w Kec7uircu It shall be unlawful to begin the excavation for the construction, the moving, alteration, or repair, except ordinary repairs, of 323 any building or other structure, including an accessory structure, ' costing more than $100 or exceeding one hundred square feet in area, until the Zoning Officer has issued for such work a Zoning Compliance Permit which includes a determination that plans, specifications and the intended use of such strucutre does in all respects, conform to the provisions of this ordinance. Also, it shall be unlawful to change the type of use or type of occupancy of any building, or to extend any use of any lot on which there is a non-conforming use, until the Zoning Officer has issued for such intended use a Zoning Compliance Permit, including a determination that the proposed use does, in all respects conform to the provisions of this ordinance. 21.5 Certificates Of Occupancy No building, structure, or zoning lot for which a Zoning Com- pliance Permit has been issued shall be used or occupied until the Building Inspector has, after final inspection, issued a Certificate of .Occupancy indicating compliance has been made with all the provisions of this ordinance. However, the is- suance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall in no case be con- strued as waiving any provision of this ordinance. 21.6 Health Department Approval Prior To Issuance Of Certificate Of Occupancy The Building Inspector shall not issue a Certificate of Occupancy for any use of a structure or Land served by wells for potable water and ground absorption seweage disposal systems until the Orange County Health Department has approved the water supply and sewage disposal systems serving that use. 21.7 Fees Before any Zoning Compliance Permit shall be issued covering building or other operations regulated by this ordinance, a fee in an amount fixed by the Board of Commissioners shall be paid. 21.8 Administrative Regulations The County Manager is authorized and directed to propose and promulgate administrative regulations, including but not limited to the type and amount of data required for a completed applica- tion, in order to implement the provisions of this ordinance. 21.9 RESERVED 21.10 RESERVED 21.11 RESERVED 21.12 Administration And Enforcement Of Performance Standards 21-2 ARTICLE 23. VIOLATIONS, PENALTIES AND REMEDIES ' 23.1 Violations 324 Whenever, by the provisions of this ordinance, the performance of any act is prohibited, or whenever any regulation, dimension or limitation is imposed on the use of any land, or on the erection or alterations or the use or change of use of a struc-. tore, or the uses within such structure, a failure to comply with such provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a separate violation and a separate offense. 23.2 Penalties An person adjudged in violation of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in G.S. 14-4. 23.3 Remedies If a building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted, roved or maintained, or any build- ing, structure of land is used in violation of this ordinance, the Zoning Officer, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or proceedings to prevent the unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration., repair, conversion, IDovimg, maintenance or use, to restrain, correct or abate the violation, to prevent occupancy of the building, structure or land, or to prevent any illegal act, conduct business or use in or about the premises. 23-1 ORAL AGE COLI'( FT S ION CONTPOL o pIVEE 7 � c. Limit Time of Exposure - all land-disturbing activities are to be ,`�2;j planned and conducted to limit exposure to the shortest feasible time. d. Control Surface Water - surface water runoff originating upgrade of exposed areas should be controlled to reduce erosion and sediment loss during the period of exposure. e. Control Sedimentation - all land-disturbing activities are to be planned and conducted so as to prevent off- site sedimentation damage. f. Manage Storm Water Runoff when the increase in the peak rates and velocity dl storm water runoff resulting from a land-disturbing activity is sufficient to cause accelerated erosion of the receiving watercourse, plans are to include measures to control the velocity and the rate of release at the point of discharge so as to minimize accelerated erosion of the site and increased sedimentation of the stream. Section 8 Mandatory Standards for Land-Disturbing Activity No land-disturbing activity subject to the control of this ordinance shall be undertaken except in accordance with the following mandatory standards: a. Buffer Zone - no land-disturbing activity shall be permitted in proximity to a lake or natural watercourse unless a buffer zone is provided along the margin of the watercourse of sufficient width to confine visible siltation within the twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer zone nearer the land-disturbing activity, provided that this subsection (a) shall not apply to a land-disturbing activity in connection with the construction of facilities to be located on, over, or under a lake or natural watercourse. b. Graded Slopes and Fills - the angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no greater than the angle which can be retained by vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control devices or structures. In any event, slopes left exposed will within 30 working days of completion of any phase of grading, be planted or otherwise provided with ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient to restrain erosion. c. Ground Cover - whenever land-disturbing activity is undertaken on a tract comprising more than 20,000 square feet, if more than 20,00000 contiguous square feet are uncovered, the person conducting the land disturbing activity shall install such sedimentation and erosion control devices and practices as are sufficient to retain the sediment enerated by the land-disturbing activity within the boundaries of the tract during construction upon and development of said tract? and shall lant or otherwise provide a permanent ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion after completion of construction or development within 30 working days or 120 calendar days following completion, whichever period is shorter. d. Design and Performance of Control Measures - Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices shall be so planned, designed and constructed as to provide protection from accelerated erosion and sedimentation from the calculated maximum peak rates of runoff from the ten-year frequency storm. Runoff rates shall be calculated using the procedures in the USDA Soil Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices " or other calculation procedures acceptable to the Erosion Control Officer. e. Prior Plan Approval - No person shall initiate any land-disturbing activity if more than 20,000 square feet are to be uncovered unless thirty or more days prior to initiating the activity, an erosion and sedimentation control plan for such activity is filed with, approved by, and a Grading Permit obtained from the County. Section 8.1 Additional Standards for Land-Disturbing Activity in University Lake Watershed The provisions of Section 8 shall apply to land-disturbing activity within the University Lake Watershed. In addition, the design, construction, and maintenance of drainage systems in developments within the University Lake Watershed shall also be consistent with the following standards? and these standards shall control to the extent that they are more restrictive than those set forth in Section 8. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 (/� 328 a'� mil A RETURN RECEIPT REOUSTED September 25, 1987 Jehue Edwards Rt. 4 Box 370 Chapel Hill , N. C. 27514 Re: Request for County Commissioners to Initiate Legal Action Mr. Edwards : This letter is to notify you that the Orange County Board of Commissioners will consider a request to initiate legal action against you for violations of land use ordinances on your property. These violations include use of the property as a landfill and failure to stabilize the disturbance on the property. This notice is being sent to give you an opportunity to attend the meeting and present your comments, if you wish . Enclosed is a copy of the agenda abstract to be presented at the meeting. The Commissioners will consider the request at their meeting on Monday October 5, 1987 . The meeting will be held at 7 :30 p.m. in the Orange County Court House located at 106 East Margaret Lane in Hillsborough . Si cerely 44/4af4P Warren Faircloth Don Powell Erosion Control Supervisor Planner 3 2~i ORANGE COUNTY da BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag� Item No. ACTION ENDOctober 5,STRlA�87 Meeting Date: SUBJECT: Policy Statement Duke Forest Properties Access Via Greenways County Yes DEPAR'T'MENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: No INFORMA'T'ION CONTACT: M AGE ATTACHMENT(S) : Policy Statement TELEPHONE NUMBER: 732-8181 Hillsborough - 968-4501 Chapel Hill - 227-2031 Mebane Durham - 688-7331 a policy statement concerning position the county's P t To adopt of the Duke Forest PURPOSE: the preservation or adjoins these regarding tion of the integrity properties when a county g reenway abutts and/ properties. subdivisions adjoining Duke Forest have BACKGROUND: Recently proposed designated greenways as providing referenlced the county's oints of entry access to the Duke forest PrOe�t1esearensuitablepfor recreation into the Duke Forest P p requested that a policy statement access, however. The Board ergo concerning this situation be drafted. • RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. 328 POLICY STATEMENT It is the policy of the Orange County Board of County Commis- sioners to encourage recreation access onto Duke Forest properties via designated greenways only at roads, firetrails or other points of entry mutually agreeable between Orange County and Duke University. No site plan and no subdivision plat of property adjacent to the Duke Forest properties and showing any portion of the Orange County greenway system (as outlined in the Orange County Land Use Plan and/or the Orange County Master Recreation & Park Plan) shall be approved which designates or shows the property as having recreation access to Duke Forest un- less it is via a road, firetrail or other point of entry approved by Orange County and Duke University. IF q 29 p 3 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. G 1Q ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEE'T'ING DATE October 5. 1987 Subject: APPENDIX TO PROPOSED JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: YES Information Contact: Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968.4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To consider approval of Appendix to the proposed Joint Planning Agreement. BACKGROUND: The Appendix contains the agreements reached in the "thirteen points" that are not appropriate for the Joint Planning Agreement. While this Appendix will become operative on execution of the Joint Planning Agreement following a joint Public Hearing, and adoption, -First, by the municipalities and then by Orange County, the Intergovernmental Work Group requests by unanimous vote that the three jurisdictions approve this Appendix as soon as possible. RECOMMENDATION: To approve the Appendix of the pP pp proposed Joint Planning Agreement. • 330 APPENDIX TO, JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT AMONG ORANGE COUNTY, CHAPEL HILL AND CARRBORO WHEREAS, A Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group, including represen- tatives of the Town of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and Orange County, developed an "Outline of Agreement in Principle" containing thirteen (13) statements of principle; and WHEREAS, the governing boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County have, by resolution, each approved in concept the "Outline of Agreement in Principle" ; and WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Agreement to which this Appendix pertains implements those matters in the "Outline of Agreement in Principle" upon which there is agreement among Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County except as provided in this Appendix; and WHEREAS, Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County wish to fully implement those matters in the "Outline of Agreement in Principle" upon which there is agreement. Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. They have requested OWASA to commission a University Lake Watershed carrying capacity study. They will request OWASA to commission a carrying capacity study for the Cane Creek watershed. The University Lake Watershed study shall be completed as soon as reasonably possible. 2 . For the period of time ending ninety (90) days following the completion of the University Lake carrying capacity study the following restrictions on Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County shall apply: a. Except pursuant to the written consent of all three parties, neither municipality may annex into the University Lake Watershed (whether by involuntary or voluntary annexation or any other method authorized by law) nor shall either town seek special legislation accomplishing such annexation. b. Except pursuant to the written consent of all three parties, no party shall seek or approve or encourage extension of water and sewer lines into the University Lake Watershed. 3 . The University Lake Watershed is, for the purpose of this Appendix, defined in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and located outside of the corporate limits of Carrboro as those limits exist on the date this Appendix is executed. 4. It is the intent of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County to jointly discuss watershed planning and protection procedures, standards and/or regulations which may be incorporated into ordinances and into the Joint Planning Agreement. 1 .331 This Appendix entered into this 5th day of October, 1987. Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners Attest: Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill Attest: Town Clerk Mayor, Town of Carrboro Attest: Town Clerk 2 • ORANGE COUNTY 3 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A ends ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. 's AG Meeting Date: October 5, 1987 SUBJECT: Funding Senior Citizens Arts/Crafts Classes DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Aging/Senior Citizens Board Yes x No ATTACHMENT(8) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Memo - Durham Technical Community College Jerry M. Passmore TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider the Senior Citizens Board's request for County Commissioner emergency funding of five senior citizen arts/crafts classes. This is the result of a change in Durham Technical Community College's regulations and funding formula. The amount of County funds required to continue the classes (3 days a week) beginning October 15 through June 30, 1988 would range from $11,696 to $4,679, depending on the option chosen. Three options seem to be available: (1) to fund the total instructional cost of $11,696. The funds would be distributed to the County and municipal recreation Departments for hiring the instructors and managing the classes, (2) To provide 40% ($4,679). of the instructional cost for the classes through an agreement with DTCC. The balance of the funds would come from DTCC's FTE reimbursement funds, (3) To request each Recreation Department to continue the classes in their service area out of their current budget. This could be either full cost or 40% through agreement with DTCC. BACKGROUND: For over ten years, DTCC has provided craft classes to low income elderly at five senior centers/nutrition sites supported by state funds. In fact, the state pro- hibits, by law, charging elderly students fees for all types of classes. However, two new rules and regulations regarding state support/fundings enacted by the 1987 North Carolina General Assembly and implemented by the State Community College System President have created the following situation: (1) The State F.T.E. (Full Time Equivalency) reimburse- ment rate to DTCC has been drastically reduced to 350 per student hour for avocational classes. (2) All continuing education classes now must also be completely self-supporting from State FTE funds and local reyistraticn fees. (3) Since serior citizens can't pay for classes, the classes are dependent on the FTE fund rate. The Orange County Senior Citizens Board recommended option #1 and also requested the County Commissioners to seek a change in the Statutes governing the way Community Colleges provide services to older North Carolinians. Department on Aging and Recreation and Parks budgets can not support the amount needed to continue services. RECOMNENIDATION(S): As the Board decides. Option Two is recommended by Aging and Recreation Departments. If approved, funds would be expended from commissioners contingency. Durham Technical Community College Education That Works September 9, 1987 MEMDRANDtiM F1)M: Calvin Gillie, Dean of Adult and Continuing Education Durham Technical Community College SUBJECT: Continuing Education courses previously classified as Academic Extension, Avocatienal or Practical Skills It is with sincere regret that Durham Technical Community College must reduce its commitment to continuing education classes that were previously classified avocational, practical skills or academic extension. This curtailment of service is especially painful in that it affects many of our services to senior citizens who traditionally have looked to Durham Tech as a major community service of personal enrichment. These changes were brought about by new rules and regulations regarding State supported funding which were enacted by the 1987 N. C. General Assembly and inpleuented by the President of the North Carolina Community College System. In essence, the newly established funding formula does not provide sufficient reimbursement to cover the costs of the classes. In past years, the funding formula has reittbursed each community college through an FTE formula (Fall Time Equivalency) that did not differentiate be- tween avocational, practical skills, academic and occupational extension courses. Each year that formula changes (normally insignificantly up or down) and we have tradition- ally made minor adjustments to our procedures to accommodate the changes (hold down instructor salaries, supplies, materials, etc) . This fiscal year (1987-88) the value of FTE generated through offering of avocational, practical skills and academic courses was lowered to the point where it is impossible for us to recover our direct costs without a substantial charge to the participants. This situation creates a multi-faceted problem for us in our service to senior citizens. • (1) We cannot recover our direct costs (indirect costs not withstanding) in most avocational, practical skills and academic extension classes where we cannot charge a registration fee. (2) Senior citizens (65 and over) are entitled by law to exemption from the re- gistration fees required of those in younger age groups. (3) Not only are senior citizens entitled to exemption fram registration fees, we are forbidden to accept registration fees from them (directly or indirectly) even if they are financially able and willing to pay. (4) Since we cannot require or accept fees from senior citizens, the only way we can recover our direct cost outlays for teacher salary, classroom supplies and materials, etc. is to look to other students (those under 65) to provide the difference between our costs and the small reiMbursement provided by the State. 1637 Lawson Street Durham, North Carolina 27703 (919) 598.9222 Durha—Technical Cr'rnmunity College is an Affirmative Action/Equal C)ptxxtunity.Section 504 Institution/M•F, - 2 - 3 3 4 (5) If the class is composed of all or mostly senior citizen students it is nearly impossible to recover the costs of those particular courses without reducing the teacher hourly salary rate by as much as 50% in many cases. (6) Aside from the course classifications listed above (avocational, practical skills and academic extension) we are allowed only two other continuing education course classifications - occupational extension and literacy skills. (7) The intent of any course that we classify as occupational extension must be job preparation or job giIRli fication enhancement. Therefore, we must very carefully ensure that those occupational extension courses as well as others will withstand an audit. Consequently, we have very few opportunities to offer continuing education occupational extension courses that are specifically targeted to senior citizens. (Senior citizens are entitled to fee exption from occupational extension courses as well as all other classifications but normally they would avail themselves of that en- titlement by enrolling in a public offering that is designed to meet the needs of a specific working population) . To introduce you to our funding formula for avocational, practical skills and academic extension courses, I would like to use an example: This past year we paid a crafts instructor at a nutrition site $10.50 per hour. We also contributed the employer share of social security which is 7.15% of the salary ($.75 per hour in this case) . Therefore, our total salary outlay for this class was $11.25 per hour. This particular class of senior citizens (which is our larg- est class among the five nutrition sites in Orange County and con- sequently provides the highest rate of return) averages about 20 students each cycle. The new State FTE formula for this avocational class reimburses Durham Tech $.35 per student meri7ership hour. From the actual direct cost figures mentioned above we know how much honey we must get back from the State in order to recover our outlays - $11.25 per hour. When we apply the State formula in this case we find: 20 students X $.35 = $7.00 or a net loss of $4.25 per hour. The above example is atypical in that most classes for senior citizens bring a lower rate of return. In addition, we incur other costs such as classroom supplies and materials, travel and administrative costs which were not considered here. The above example clearly demonstrates the very difficult situation we face. In order to provide continued service to our senior citizens we can only resort to the following situations (all of which are tuition/registration fee exempt for those citizens 65 and older) : Literacy skills for those who do not have a high school diploma or ®; regular curriculum credit courses; occupational extension courses that are normally designed and targeted for the working population; and those avocational, practical skills and academic extension courses that we will continue to offer to the public at large as we identify needs, plus those very large classes specifically for senior citizens that will bring a rate of return that will pay the class expenses. We hope you understand the situation as I have described it and I invite you to contact me if you have any comments or questions. ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. 011 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT DING DATE October 5, 1987 335 ' Subject: CONTINUATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORK GROUP Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ' Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: None Information Contact: Shirley E. Marshall Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To discuss the continuation of the Intergovernmental Work Group BACKGROUND: The working members of the Intergovernmental Work Group agree that: ( 1 ) there are many issues of concern to the three jurisdictions that can benefit from a mechanism by which representatives of the jurisdictions discuss and propose resolutions to them; (2) that a mechanism should exist among the jurisdictions to address issues that are not now identified, but which may arise and create dissension in the future; (3) that no further issues should be addressed until after the municipal elections, and (4) that the future of the group be discussed by the several jurisdictional boards as soon as possible. The members of the group do not agree that the present mechanism providing for a fixed representation, bi-weekly meetings, and internal agenda setting is the best mechanism. While a formal vote has not been taken, it appears that four members would like to continue on with no change and four members would prefer that: (1 ) all jurisdictions agree to talk on issues of mutual concern; (2) that each issue or, group of issues, be identified by the jurisdictional boards and that the members be appointed to discuss and propose resolutions to them who are most qualified and/or most interested in that issue, or, particular set of issues; (3) that an appropriate calendar of meetings be set for each issue, or group of issues, and, (4) that no meetings be held except to discuss such identified issues. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and adopt a method of procedure. 336 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.41% Meeting Date: OCTOBER 5, 1987 SUBJECT: ANIMAL CONTROL LICENSING FEES DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGERS 1987 TAX LISTING ABSTRACT OFFICE,X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider differential licensin establishing a new fee schedule. g for dogs and cats and BACKGROUND: The Animal Control Task Force recommended a more restrictive animal control ordinance and differential licensing for cats and dogs. The Task Force also that licensing would encourage licensing for note classifications iof cats and dogs. On July 6, 1987 the Board approved animal control fees of $5. 00 for do s ayd/n(spayed/neutered unspayed/unneutered) and referred the matter to the Board of Health. On September 24, the Board of Health reviewed the matter and recommend the following to the Board of Commissioners. (1) Differential licensing for dogs and cats; (2) License fee of $5. 00 for spayed and neutered dogs and a $25. 00 fee for unspayed or unneutered dogs; and (3) License fee of $2. 00 for spayed and neutered cats and a $10. 00 fee for unspayed or unneutered cats. If differential licensing is approved, we will need to modif the County 1988 Real and Personal Pro ert g P Abstract. An abstract is attached as a point y fax erenc e, section D identifies dogs. The deadline onincorporatingnany change to that form is October 15,1987. In addition, to stimulate responsible pet ownership by those residents who want to have their cannot afford to, a low cost s apets neutered or spayed, but mended by the Task Force. p y/neuter program is recom- RECOMMENDATION(5) : Approve Health Board recommendation. 1 987 -- . ORANGE COUNTY IMPORTANT:THIS FORM IS NOT FOR LISTING O RBUOSINE BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY OF JANUARY 1,1987 1 ,� A— SEX M AGE MARRIED SEC. DO NOT WRITE IN SHADED AREAS ►j r ❑SINGLE.DIVORCED SOC.SEC• 3 TOWNSHIP TC SEPARATED.OTHER NO. 8— NAME OF EMPLOYER OR HOW SELF EMPLOYED PREVIOUS YEAR■ TOWNSHIP LISTED TO AVOID 10%LATE CHARGE,THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED,SIGNED AND MAILED OR RETURNED ND LATER THAN JANUARY 31, 1987 TO:TAX SUPERVISOR—208 SOUTH CAMERON STREET— HILLSBOROUGH. NC 27278 ACCOUNT HOME NUMBER - PHONE WORK C` NAME PLEASE LASTy�."......--.-- FIRST MIDDLE PHONE CORRECT _ �� -- _. MAILING ' &DORESS - . INCORRECT ADDRESS - --- _ F D — DOGS _ --TOTAL NUMBER CITY STATE UN-NEUTERED ZIP CODE _ -` MALES&FEMALES —TOTAL NUMBER NEUTERED E� - --MALES&FEMALES '' PARCEL(DENT.N0�' IIIIMMEME _.... __ - REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ACRES/LOT ASSESSED VALUE F— VEHICLES,CAMPER&TRAILERS(UTIL/BOAT TRAILER TOTAL PER.PROPERTY MM1AYNEEDTo ' MV TITLE NO. TAX OFFICE USE BE CORRECTED VEHICLE I.D.NO. - - TO SHOW r TOTAL BUSINESS 7TDR VEHICLES NNED BY YOU ON r JAN.1.1887. OA OUT EAROAS r HOMESTEAD EXEMP, OA App MOTOR - __ VEHICLES THAT r pACQUIRED. "" - rGNANp TbiAL_ r r TITLE IN THE NAME OF: G-- MOBILE HOMES,BOATS&MOTORS,AIRPLANES �VEHICLES H— IS THIS RENTAL PROPERTY WHERE YOU OWN ANY HOUSEHOL /EgUIP. YE R casT TAX OFFICE USE _ � PU�� FURNISHINGS,i.e.STOVE,REFRIGERATOR OR FURNITURE? YE5❑ NO r�� IF YES,GIVE VALUE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AT THIS LOCATION. . - rr. T $ �� . _ _ — I—IF YOU DO NOT LIVE ON YOUR LAND,GIVE NAME AND ADDRESS OF LANDOWNER OR NAME OF MOBILE PARK OR APT.AS OF JANUARY 1,1987 FOR LOCATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY. � r�� LANDOWNER'S NAME ��� LANDOWNERS �� ATYISTA r CITY/STATElZIP r r�� K—NOTES IF NEEDED J` FOR LANDOWNERS ONLY ARE THERE MOBILE HOMES LOCATED ON THIS LAND? YES ❑ NO 0 NUMBER IF"YES',LIST OWNERS'NAMES&ADDRESSES BELOW NAME&ADDRESS NAME&ADDRESS NAME&ADDRESS NAME&ADDRESS NAME&ADDRESS L—NEW CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENTS FROM JAN. 1, UNDER PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW,I HEREBY AFFIRM THAT TO 1986 THROUGH DEC. 31, 1986(DESCRIBE IMPROVEMENTS) THE REST OF MY KNOWLEDGEAND BELIEF THIS LISTING,INCLUDING ANY ACCOMPANYING STATEMENTS,INVENTORIES,SCHEDULES,AND OTHER INFORMATION IS TRUE AND COMPLETE. *SEE REVERSE SIDE SIGNATURE DATE / ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST WHEN COMPLETED PERCENT 1987 S COMPLETE ON M _ 0. DAY JAN.1,1987 SHADED AREAS FOR TAX OFFICE USE = 9 IMPORTANT ,a DO NOT WRITE IN SHADED AREAS- FOR TAX OFFICE USE ONLY 1 9 8 7•Z IMPORTANT:THIS FORM IS NOT FOR LISTING BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY M`DO YOU USE THE FOLLOWING FARM EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCTION OF INCOME? YES ❑ NO v N MACHINERY TYPE YEAR • c 38 j TRACTORS MODEL PURCHASED COST TAX OFFICE USE• ��7 �I BULLDOZERS �� • GRAIN HARVESTER � RIDING TOBACCO �� HARVESTER • linil O- VALUE OF ALL OTHER FARM EQUIPMENT(NOT INCLUDED IN SECTION "N"ABOVE)AND LIVESTOCK TRACTOR PLOWS&HARROWS S CULTIVATORS `� - MILK TANKS 5 �� OTHER DAIRY ~ BEEF CATTLE NUMBER TAX OFFICE USE CORN PLANTERS EQUIPMENT MEM —�� ENSILAGE CUTTERS STEERS/BULLS.... _ TRACTOR WAGONS&TRAILERS COWS MIMI TOBACCO STRINGERS...-...... i_~ ENSILAGE BLOWERS �— DUMP WAGONS HEIFERS TOBACCO CURERS.....,,.,,. UNDER YR MIME IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT HAY BALERS...........•......... �� HAYBINES ~� DAIRY CATTLE MOWERS&RAKES —�� COWS BUSH HOGS,'BCADES&LOADERS ��� FEED MILLS MI �� HOGEOUIPMENT..-.....- �� 1-2 YEARS MANURE SPREADERS UNDER 1 YR IIIIIIIIIIIII LIQUID SPRAYING RIGS �� POULTRY EQUIPMENT•• ��� NUMBER TAX OFFICE SWINE GRAIN DRILL/LIME SPREADERS HOGS " TRANSPLANTERS �~ POULTRY ....... FEEDER PIGS r wrs �� ANIMALS PIGS maim PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR ELDERLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED PERSONS. North Carolina under G.S.105.309(F)excludes from property taxes the first twelve thousand dollars ($12,000)in assessed value of certain property APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY _or totally and permanently disabled whose disposable income does llnot rexceed seleven thousand (1) Is the AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED PERSONS G.S.10,$.p77,) hidollars or her permane t residence.Disposable ab real property allbmoneysrece received other thaowner ifs of ( ) P pe y(or property listed on this abstract your permanent residence? ( ) inheritances received from a spouse,lineal ancestors,or lineal descendants. YES NO) A. If you received this exclusion in 1986 you do not need to apply again unless you have changed (2) What is your date of birth? your permanent residence. ' •• • t' B. If you received the exclusion in 1986 and your disposable (3)Did your disposable income for 1986 exceed$11,000? • thousand dollars(511,000),you must notify the taaxsau bpennso income 1986 was above eleven C. If you received the exclusion in 1986 because you were totally and (YES)-( NO ) are no longer totally and Y permanently disabled and you (4) Enter your disposable income HUSBAND g Y permanently disabled,you must notify the tax .-- If the person receiving the exemption disabled,able has died,the person r supervisor. WIFE TOTAL property must notify the the supervisor. required by law to list the If this application is based upon total and permanent disability,attach a certificate that -Failure to make any of the notices required certifies that you are totally and permanently disabled from a physician licensed as a •result in penalties and interest by the above sections before April 15 will medical doctor in North Carolina or a governmental agency authorized to make such - E. If you did not receive the exclusion in 1986 but are now eligible,you ma determination. on the application to the right.It must be filed by April 15. y aPPIY for the exclusion F. Any person who fails to give the notice SIGNATURE Any of person who f fails bgi also to notice a required pmv G.S.yy G 09(f)s 11 not nonly also rf subject is the penalty provided in G.S. 105-310. For the purpose TELEPHONE levied,whenever a taxpayer has received an exemption under determining 105 whether 7 . one taxable — year but the property of taxpayer penalty is that fact to the tax supervisor on not it 15 shall exemption ton t t year,nonce given of ORANGE COUNTY TAX SUPERVISORS OFFICE April considered as timely filed. HILLSBOROUGH 208 SOUTH CAMERON STREET — --..-. ._.._..... HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEBANE DURHAM I " 732-818, 227-2031 227-2032 688-7331 CHAPEL HILL 732-9361 967-9251 1. 968-4501 333 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A da Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: OCTOBER 5, 1987 SUBJECT: PROJECT TO DEVELOP SUPPORT FOR EMOTIONALLY TROUBLED PRESCHOOLERS DEPARTMENT: COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: DON WILLHOIT GOALS FOR SERVICES X505 AD HOC COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE PROPOSED ADVISORY COUNCIL TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Authorize the Ad Hoc Committee to proceed with organizing as an Interagency Advisory Committee to plan, develop support for, and implement a program that will begin to address the goals that have been formulated by the Committee. BACKGROUND: The Ad Hoc Committee has previously presented to the Commissioners, Goals to establish a program for Emotionally Troubled Preschoolers (attached) . The 1987-88 County Budget includes $25, 000 for this program. Although the funding is not at the level requested, it will enable the group to ini- tiate the program. The group is excited, eager, and ready to start and awaits authorization from the Board of Commissioners to do so. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 1. Appoint Advisory Committee members nominated by the Ad Hoc Committee. 2 . Authorize the Advisory Committee to add other members, subject to confirmation by the Board of Commissioners. 3 . Authorize the Advisory to proceed with implementation of the consultative service as outlined in the attached letter from Susan McClanahan. ti r 3 O EMOTIONALLY TROUBLED PRESCHOOLERS Goals for Services: Year One As an outgrowth of a Community Forum held September 27, 1986,where issues related to supporting the emotionally troubled preschooler were discussed, four committees began working to develop goals for consultation services,a therapeutic preschool, resource development and the coordination and funding of all services. While each committee covered different content,all committees worked with the following prem 1ses: 1. All children and families have strengths. All professionals working with them should seek to recognize these strengths. 2. A wide variety of family forms(single parent,extended family, etc.)and cultural traditions (urban, rural, Black,Asian,etc) are valid and appropriate settings for raising physically and emotionally healthy children. Resources for troubled children and their families should respect diversity of family form and culture. Services should be culturally appropriate and acceptable. 3. Services must recognize the needs of low income children and families and therefore be both affordable and accessible. 4. Resources must be developed to serve all of Orange County and not be limited to the Chapel Hill- Carrboro area. 5. The child must be seen as "embedded" to an ecological system involving her/his family,day care/preschool staff and significant others. Therapeutic interventions must address the child and family in these contexts and work with those "others." 6. While there is a commitment to the development of broad programs that are preventive in nature, the initial focus of this effort is children in child care(day care or preschool) settings who are seen as having troubling behaviors. Resources for child care staff are a top priority. 7. While there is much to be done to develop the full array of services that are needed, there is a recognition that this initial effort must start small,develop a few services well and then expand. 8. Significant effort must be made to involve minority professionals and citizens in this effort. The following is a summary of the goals for service developed by each of the four committees: A. Coordination And Funding of All Services - 1. An Interagency Advisory Committee should be formed to support and evaluate the development and operation of services for emotionally troubled preschoolers. This committee should maintain the broad representation involved in this planning process and include but not be limited to membership from both school systems,OPC Mental Health Center, the Mental Health Association, the Orange County Day Care Coalition, NCMH Department of Psychiatry,a pediatrician or other child health professional,other agencies involved in the delivery of services to preschool children,and some individuals who served in this planning process. 2. While services may be initially targeted to children, family and staff in child care centers in the county, no child, family or child care teacher should ever be denied services. In particular, no mental health services should ever be denied to a child, her/his family or child care program because of income. No barriers should Impede a low income family's ability to access these services. 3. While ideally the goal would be for the simultaneous development of consultation services and a therapeutic preschool, the creation of consultation services is seen as the top priority because the greatest number of children can be helped at the least cost. However, in-order for the consultation services to have the necessary support,a therapeutic preschool needs to be developed within six months of the beginning of consultation services to serve those children who can not adequately be served by consultation services provided in a regular child care setting. 4. At the end of the first year of service delivery to emotionally troubled preschoolers and their families and child care centers,a thorough evaluation should be completed that includes recommendations for changes in the current delivery of services as well as the development of additional services. This evaluation should also reflect the recommendations of this planning process for second and third year services. A ~ 5. Because services for young children and their families have been so fragmented in Orange County,all services need to be administratively housed under existing one agency, using multiple sources of public and private funding and coordinated by one full time early childhood specialist whose sole responsibility is to-oversee this entire program by: a. Developing and coordinating all services; b. Hiring and supervising all staff; 3 41 c. Promoting good public relations and awareness; d. Developing funding resources; e. Evaluating and planning services;and f. Promoting interagency cooperation. B. Consultation Services 1. Initial contact should be made with each day care center and preschool in Orange County. 2. Services to child care centers should then be prioritized based on the severity of need. 3. A minimum of 1.25 full time equivalent consultants are needed to serve all of Orange County. 4. Consultants should have child care teaching as well as assessment and treatment experience. 5. Consultant services should have the consistent involvement of a single psychologist and a single family counselor. 6. Consultant services should combine a wide variety of interventions including observing children experiencing emotional problems in child care settings,consulting with child care teachers about classroom management,coordinating teacher/parent training with available community resources, recommending and evaluating classroom intervention strategies to help reduce problematic behaviors,conducting developmental and behavioral assessments,and facilitating communication and coordination of services between the parent,center staff and other community agencies and professionals involved with the child. C. Therapeutic Preschool 1. Two part-day therapeutic preschool classrooms should be developed to serve 5-6 children each,one to operate.in Southern Orange County and one to operate in Northern Orange County. Staff should be shared between the two sites. 2. The goals of these classrooms should be to: a. Provide millieu based group treatment to seriously emotionally/ behaviorally disordered preschoolers in the least restrictive environment; b. Provide milieu based group treatment to children who have experienced serious environmental trauma and/or those at risk for serious emotionally disturbance, in the least restrictive environment; c. Prevent the hospitalization of seriously emotionaly disturbed preschoolers;and d. Return the preschoolers with emotional/behavioral problems to the "normal"setting as soon as possible. 3. An extended day capacity needs to developed initially for all enrolled children and for nonenrolled children within one year. 4. Classroom teachers should include both a clinical social worker and a early childhood special education teacher, both supported by the services of a psychologist. D. Resource Development 1., In the development of new services for emotionally troubled preschoolers,care should be taken to not duplicate, but rather enhance,existing services. 2.. Wherever possible, public resources should be maximally used. 3. Efforts should be made to encourage the contribution of private resources to support consultation and therapeutic services and thus increase the availability of these services to low income families. 4. A compendium of resources currently available in Orange County has been completed and should be updated and used as a resource as additional services are developed for emotionally troubled . preschoolers, their families and child care programs. Project to Develop Support for Emotionally Troubled Preschoolers 342 c/o Susan McClanahan 1106 Willow Drive Chapel Hill , NC 27514 Commissioner Don Willhoit September 22 , 1987 203 Lexington Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear Commissioner Willhoit, On behalf of the ad hoc committee members who have worked on the Project to Develop Support for Emotionally Troubled Preschoolers in Orange County, we heartily thank you and your fellow Commissioners for your contribution of $25,000. A general meeting of Project organizers was held on Monday, August 31, 1987 at the Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center, in order to determine our course of action. Working in concert with Peter Badami and other representatives of the OPC Mental Health Center, the following initiatives have been undertaken: 1 . A committee has drafted a job description for a full time Coordinator/ Educational Consultant. A hiring committee will be formed consisting of representatives from the ad hoc committee and from OPC Mental Health. If all proceeds on schedule, this individual will be hired at 100% for eight months beginning November 1st. 2 . A budget is being drafted which will project how our total of $30,000 will be spent. ( Incidentally, we are fortunate in that Senators Wanda Hunt and Russell Walker have secured an additional $5,000 from Discretionary Funds for the Project this year. ) There are many other similiar tasks that will need completion in order to implement the Project. Our ad hoc committee 's strong commitment and enthusiasm for the Project have already generated hundreds of volun- teer hours on its behalf. Because we have isolated the problem and for- mulated its solution, we as a group bring a special dedication to its success. Realizing that success during the Project 's first year is crucial to its survival, organizers from this ad hoc committee are willing to act as an official body which will guide and support the proposed Consultation Service. For these reasons, we would like to respectfully request that the Commissioners officially appoint the attached list of individuals as members of the Project 's Advisory Council . As an official body, would also like the leeway to elect our own Chairperson and to invite others to join the Council as the need for their input arises. Generally speaking, this Council will streamline the implementation of the Consul- tation Service by: a• setting policy objectives b. preparing and monitoring the program budget in conjunction with the Coordinator c. preparing staff job descriptions and contracting for the services of staff d. seeking additional support funds e. reviewing and evaluating implementation of the program f. routinely communicating and coordinating with program staff g. updating the Commissioners on the program's progress via monthly reports h. recruiting and coordinating volunteer efforts for the program i . performing whatever functions are necessary in order to have a successful program Emotionally Troubled Preschoolers 2 343 Since many of us have been working on this Project since the Spring of 1986, we would appreciate the opportunity to officially use our collective experience in order to insure that the service will meet the needs as our county 's constituents have defined them. We anticipate a strong and congenial working relationship with representatives of our host agency, the Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center. They share our enthusiasm for the potential of this Project and are clearly dedi- cated to supporting our efforts to help implement it. We are grateful for the support and guidance that you personally have given us. Since you have invested much time and energy in the Project, we would like to invite you to continue your involvement by serving as a member of the Advisory Council . It would be helpful for the progress of the Project if you could let us know the Commissioners ' response to our request as soon as possible. By providing this all-important seed money, the Commissioners have made a significant investment in the mental health of our county 's preschool children. We cannot thank you enough for providing the funds that will allow us to build the foundation of a program that will evolve into a strong support system for our preschool children, their families, and their teachers. Thank you for giving us a beginning. We promise that all of Orange County will thank you too. Sincerely, Susan McClanahan on behalf of the Project ' s Ad Hoc Committee Enclosure: List of Advisory Council nominations cc: Peter Badami , OPC Mental Health Persons on the Advisory Council list I Proposed Advisory Council for the Project to Develop Support for Emotionally Troubled Preschoolers in Orange County 344 1 . Lynda Baddour, Director University Presbyterian Preschool and Kindergarten 2 . Lorna Chafe, Director Community School for People Under Six 3 . Paula Clarke, Child Mental Health NC State Government 4. Elaine Foster, Educational Consultant Project Enlightenment 5 . Florry Glasser, Policy Advisor NC State Government 6 . Nathalie Harrison, Director of Special Education Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools 7. Lynne Johnston, Family Counselor 8 . Betty Matthews, Director of Special Education Orange County Schools 9 . Susan McClanahan, Co-Director Safety Connection 10. Fabretta McNeil , Teacher Glenwood Elementary School 11. Jodie Pierce, Parent & former Preschool Teacher 12 . Susan Russell , Policy Consultant NC Day Care Section 13. Daisy Satterwhite, Teacher Headstart Program, CH-C City Schools 14. Hattie Scott, Director Child Care Networks 15 . Don Wilihoit Orange County Commissioner 16 . Irene Zipper UNC School of Social Work Ex officio member: 17. Deby Dihoff, Orange-Person--Chatham Mental Health Center 345 ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. 21 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE October 5, 1987 Subject: FORMATION OF AND CHARGE TO SHORT-LIVED FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON EQUITY FUNDING • Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Tnformation Contact: NONE Shirley E. Marshall Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To create a short-lived, narrowly-focused fact-finding working group to: 1 . first define and then to explicate "equity" as proposed in the School Merger report; 2. to identify the questions that are being raised about "equity" within the official school community: the Boards, the Administrations and the teachers; 3. to describe the Orange County career ladder pilot program: its present impact on salaries, as well as future impacts both should the program be adopted statewide and should it be scrapped. BACKGROUND: The County Commissioners created the School Merger Task Force in response to our observations that: 1 . the amount of money available to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools would, in the immediate future, be larger than the amount provided to each school system by the per capita allocation; and 2. the uneven distribution of the taxbase no longer made the choice of sup- plemental support for the school systems an equal choice for taxpayers of the separate systems. (At present, a 2 tax on each $100 valuation would need to be paid by taxpayers in the Orange County School District to raise the same number of dollars that taxpayers in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro schools can raise by a 1 tax on each $100 valuation. ) The report of the School Merger Task Force recommended that merger not be pursued at this time. It is my sense that the county community and all three Boards agree with that conclusion. In addition, I do not sense that either the community nor any Board wants to pursue merger unless and until the General Assembly refuses any longer to fund more than one system in a county. The Merger Task Force did, however, in the strongest possible terms, ask us to address some other issues - among them equalizing the funding in the two school systems in the terms of long standing state funding policy. The appropriate time to address financial policy is during the budget process, a statement I made on accepting the report. r 345-a Discussions surrounding equity during the budget hearings raised many questions and some fears. As Chair of the Board I agreed to convene a working group to develop a working definition of equity and to identify the questions that are of concern. I do not perceive this group as one that will recommend policy nor one that will address a wide variety of issues. Subordinate questions cannot be addressed until we agree on exactly what we are considering. The larger questions can only be developed over time and within a logical step progression. I should like to Chair this working group and would ask to have serve with me The Chairs of both systems The Interim County Manager or his designee The Superintendents of both systems or their designee A teacher from each of the teacher organizations in each system The Financial Officers of both systems and the County. The report of this working group should be made by 1 December and should be brought to the proposed goals and objectives setting of the Board of Commissioners in December for discussion and direction on the next steps. RECOMMENDATION: To form the working group. 346 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag da Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE October 5 1987 Subject: APPOINTMENTS Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes % no Attachments: Under Separate formation Contact: Beverly A. Blythe parate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancy is announced for the first time for information only: C-8 - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - 1 resignation (Tim Hubbard) . The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration. A-4 - COMMISSION FOR WOMEN - 3 vacancies. 1 resume is submitted for consideration. A-5 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - 1 vacancy. A-12 - PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL - 1 vacancy for a Rehabilitation Representative. 13-4 - COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD ON AGING - 4 vacancies. Resumes are on file for co B-5 - DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE consideration. 3 vacancies. B-6 - HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD - 1 vacancy. 11-7 - HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION - 2 vacancies. B-10 - NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 1 vacancy. SUPERINTENDENT'S BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE - Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools have a task force and request that a County Commissioner serve on this committee. formed RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. �`-f/, Se 1-0r- C'r_ •o • , /987 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA 1987 SESSION RATIFIED BILL CHAPTER 832 SENATE BILL 944 AN ACT TO INCREASE THE EXCISE TAX ON SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR AND TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL SALES TAXES SHALL BE LEVIED BY THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE RETAILER IS LOCATED WHEN THE PROPERTY SOLD IS DELIVERED TO THE PURCHASER IN ANOTHER COUNTY. Whereas, the 1985 General Assembly during its 1986 -Session enacted additional law enforcement retirement benefits which costs may have exceeded available financial resources across the State requiring that additional revenue be expended; and Whereas, it is the intent of the General Assembly that the additional revenue that will accrue to local governments as a result of this act be used to the extent necessary to fund the additional law enforcement retirement benefits; Now, therefore, The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Section I. G.S. 188-208(b) reads as rewritten: "(b) Special Fund. A special fund in the office of the State Treasurer, the ABC Commission Fund, is created. On and after November 1, 1982, all moneys derived from the collection of bailment charges and bailment surcharges shall be deposited in the ABC Commission Fund for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Chapter. The ABC Commission Fund shall be subject to the provisions of the Executive Budget Act except that no unexpended surplus of this fund shall revert to the General Fund. The Commission shall fix the level of the bailment surcharges at an amount calculated to cover operating expenses of the Commission and tlic ALE Di visiulL and the retirement of bonds issued for construction of a Commission warehouse and -offices. The Commission may impose a bailment surcharge only when revenue bonds issued under this section are outstanding. All moneys credited to the ABC Commission Fund shall be used to carry out the intent and purposes of the ABC law in accordance with plans approved by the North Carolina ABC Commission and the Director of the Budget, and all these funds are appropriated, reserved, set aside, and made available until expended for the administration of the ABC law." Sec. 2,. G.S. 105-113.80(c) is rewritten to read: "(c) Liquor. An excise tax of twenty-eight percent (28%) is levied on liquor sold in ABC stores. Pursuant to G.S. 18B-804(b), the price of liquor on which this tax is computed is the distiller's price plus (i) the State ABC warehouse freight and bailment charges, and (ii) a markup for local ABC boards. This tax is in lieu of sales and use taxes; accordingly, liquor is exempt from those taxes as provided in G.S. 105-164.1 3(37)." Sec. 3. Operating expenses for the ALE Division shall be paid from the budget of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety. • • . : l Sec. 4. The last paragraph of G.S. 105-467 reads as rewritten: "The local sales tax authorized to he imposed and levied under the provisions of this Article shall he applicable to such retail sales, leases, rentals, rendering of • services, furnishing of rooms, lodgings or accommodations and other taxable transactions which are made, furnished or rendered by retailers whose place of business is located within the taxing county. The tax imposed shall apply to the furnishing of rooms, lodging or other accommodations within the county which are rented to transients. • a , . a • • : — • • • • • • . • . U. • ' • . • • • • lctatilc.r o► hi. a6c.uut, u& by t cOTmiidtr L.ni►c.►: For the purpose of this Article, the situs of a transaction is the location of the retailer's place of business." Sec. 5. Section 4 of Chapter 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws, as amended, is further amended by deleting the sentence at the end of that section that begins "No tax shall" and substituting the following: "For the purpose of this act, the situs of a transaction is the location of the retailer's place of business." Sec. 6. G.S. 105-4S6 reads as rewritten: "§ 1O5-486. Distribution of additional taxes. (a) County Allocation: The Secretary shall, on a quarterly basis, dial►ilrutc allocate the net proceeds of the additional one-half percent (1/2%) sales and use taxes levied under this Article to.the taxing counties on a per capita basis according to the most recent annual population estimates certified to the Secretary by the State Budget Officer. (b) Adjustment. The Secretary shall then adjust the amount allocated to each county under subsection (a) by multi pl in the amount by the appropriate adjustment factor set out in the table below: County Adjustment Factor Dare 1.49 Brunswick 1.17 1•Orange 1.15 Carteret and Durham 1.14 Avery 1.12 Moore 1.11 Transylvania 1.10 Chowan, McDowell. and Richmond 1.09 Pitt and New Hanover 1.07 Beaufort, Perquimans. Buncombe, and Watauga 1.06 Cabarrus, Jackson, and Surry 1.05 Alleghanv, Bladen, Robeson, Washington..Craven, Henderson, 04 Onslow, and Vance 1.L04 Gaston. Granville, and Martin Alamance, Burke, Caldwell, Chatham, Duplin, Edgecombe, Haywood, 1.02 Swain, and Wilkes Hertford. Union , Stokes, Yancey,. 1.01 Halifax. Rockingham, and Cleveland Alexander, Anson, Johnston, Northampton, Pasquotank, 1.00 Person, Polk, and Yadkin Catawba, Harnett. Iredell, Pamlico. 0 99 Pender, Randolph. Stank/. and Tyrrell Cherokee, Cumberland, Davidson, Graham., Hyde, Macon, Rutherford. Senate Bill 944 2 s■ Scotland, and Wilson 0.98 Ashen Bertie, Franklin, Hoke, Lincoln, Montgomery, and Warren 0.97 Wayne, Clay, Madison. Sampson, Wake, Lee, and Forsyth 0.96 Caswell, Gates. Mitchell, and Greene 0.95 Currituck and Guilford 0.94 Davie and Nash 0.93 Rowan and Camden 0.92 Jones 0.90 Mecklenburg 0.89 Lenoir 0.88 Columbus 0.81 (c) Distribution Between Counties and Cities. The amount dist1iLut4J to u allocated to each taxing county shall then be divided among the county and its municipalities in accordance with the method by which the one percent (1%) sales and use taxes levied in that county pursuant to Article 39 of this Chapter or Chapter 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws are distributed. If any taxes levied under this Article by a county have not been collected in that county for a full quarter because of the levy or repeal of the taxes; the Secretary shall distribute a pro rata share to that county for that quarter based on the number of months the taxes were collected in that county during the quarter." Sec. 7. G.S. 105-493 reads as rewritten: "§ 105-493. Distribution of taxes. The Secretary shall, on a quarterly basis, diJtl allocate the net proceeds of any one-half percent (1/2%) sales and use taxes levied under this Article in accordance with G.S. 105-486. For purposes of the dist.ibutiui& allocation under G.S. 105-486, a county that levies one-half percent �- (1/2%) sales and use taxes under this Article is considered a taxing county under that section. To make the disc,iLuiiun allocation required by G.S. 105-486 and this section, the Secretary shall add the net proceeds of local sales and use taxes levied under Article 40 of this Chapter and under this Article, and shall then distiibut4. allocate this amount to the taxing counties on a per capita basis as provided in G.S. 105-486. The amount di-,t.ibutLd allocated to•a county that levies one-half percent (1/2%) sales and use taxes under this Article shall be adjusted by multiplying it by the appropriate adjustment factor set out in the table in G.S. 105-486(b) and then divided among the county and its municipalities on either a per capita or an ad valorem tax basis, as designated by the board of county commissioners in a resolution adopted pursuant to G.S. 105-472. If any taxes levied under this Article by a county have not been collected in that county for a full quarter because of the levy or repeal of the taxes, the Secretary shall distribute a pro rata share to that county for that quarter based on the number of months the taxes were collected in that county during the quarter." Sec. 8. G.S. 105-501 reads as rewritten: "§ 105-501. Distribution of additional taxes. The Secretary shall, on a quarterly basis, distiibut.. allocate the net proceeds of the additional one-half percent (1/2%) sales and use taxes levied under this Article to the taxing counties on a per capita basis according to the most recent annual population estimates certified to the Secretary by the State Budget Officer. The Secretary shall then adjust the amount allocated to each county by multiplying the amount by the appropriate adjustment factor set out in the tahle in G.S. 105-486(h). The amount LhstliLut...d to a allocated to each taxing county shall then be divided among the county and the municipalities located in the county in accordance with the method by which the one percent (1%) sales and use taxes levied in that county pursuant to Article 39 of this Chapter or Chapter 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws are distributed. Senate Bill 944 3 If any taxes levied under this Article by a county have not been collected in that county for a full quarter because of the levy or repeal of the taxes, the Secretary shall distribute a pro rata share to that county for that quarter based on the number of months the taxes were collected in that county during the quarter." Sec. 9. The hoard of commissioners of any county may, by resolution, after 10 clays' public notice and a public hearing held pursuant thereto, adopt the expansion of the local sales tax levy provided in this act. Upon adoption of such a resolution, the board of commissioners shall forward a copy of the resolution to the Secretary of Revenue. Pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 105-483, 105-490, and 105- 498, adoption of the expansion of the Local Government Sales and Use Act provided in Section 4 of this act constitutes adoption of an equivalent expansion of the local sales taxes levied under Articles 40, 41, and 42 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes. Sec. 10. if a county fails to adopt the expansion of the Local Government Sales and Use Tax Act provided in Section 4 of this act on or before February 1, 1988, the sales and use taxes levied by the county pursuant to Articles 39, 40, 41, and 42 are repealed effective March 1, 1988, because they will be inconsistent with the scope of the levies authorized by those Articles as amended effective March 1, 1988: If Mecklenburg County fails to adopt the expansion of Section 4 of Chapter 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws provided in Section 5 of this act on, or before February l.. 1988, the sales and use tax levied by Mecklenburg County pursuant to Chapter 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws is repealed effective March 1, 1988, because it will be inconsistent with the scope of the levy authorized by that Chapter as amended effective March 1, 1988, and the sales and use taxes levied by Mecklenburg County pursuant to Articles 40, 41, and 42 are repealed effective March 1, 1988, because those Articles will no longer apply to Mecklenburg County, as provided in G.S. 105- 482, 105-489, and 105-497. If the sales and use taxes levied by a county are repealed as provided in this section because the county failed to adopt the expansion of the local sales tax levy, the county may on or after March 1, 1988, levy local sales and Y use taxes in accordance with the provisions of Articles 39, 40, 41, and 42 of Chapter 105 of. the General Statutes and Chapter 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws, as applicable. Sec. 11. This act does not affect the rights or liabilities of the State, a taxpayer, or other person arising under a statute amended or repealed by this act before its amendment or repeal; nor does it affect the right to any refund or credit of a tax that would otherwise have been available under the amended or repealed statute before its amendment or repeal. Sec. 12. It is the intent of the General Assembly that a Select Committee composed of members of the General Assembly shall be appointed to study the impact on local sales and use tax revenue and the administrative cost savings to the State of consolidating the local sales and use taxes levied under Articles 39, 40, 41, and 42 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes and under Chapter 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws, as amended, with the State sales and use tax levied under Article 5 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes. It is further intended that the Select Committee shall report to the 1987 General Assembly on the first day of the 1988 Regular Session. Sec. 13. It is the intent of the General Assembly that if the local sales and use taxes levied under Articles 39. 40, 41, and 42 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes and under Chapter 1096 of the 1967 Session Laws, as amended, are at a later date consolidated with the State sales and use taxes levied under Article 5 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes, then the legislation enacting the consolidation shall also change the method of distributing the proceeds of the excise tax on liquor levied under G.S. 105-113.80(c) from the current formulation to a new method that would 4 Senate Bill 944 distribute one-eighth (1/8) of the total proceeds of that excise tax to local governments in the same manner as the State sales and use tax proceeds that are distributed to local governments under the legislation that consolidates the local sales taxes with the State sales tax. Sec. 14. Sections 1 through 3 of this act shall become effective October 1, 1987. Sections 4 through 8 of this act shall become effective March 1, 1988, and apply to sales made on or after that date. The remainder of this act is effective upon ratification. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 14th day of August, 1987. ROBERT B. JORDAN III Robert B. Jordan III President of the Senate LISTON B. RAMSFY Liston B. Ramsey Speaker of the House of Representatives f Senate Bill 944 5 puke gniversii • DURHAM NORTH CAROLINA 27706 SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST TELEPHONE(919)684-2421 October 19, 1987 Ms. Mary Anne Black, Director Orange County Recreation and Parks Department 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mary Anne: I have reviewed the recreation policy statement you sent with the Duke Forest Advisory Committee and Mr. Max Wallace of the Counsel's Office. We appreciate your initiative and concern in protecting the teaching and research values of the Duke Forest. We endorse this policy as being a very positive step towards protecting these values. I look forward to providing input to you and the Commissioners in the future. Sincerely, 04-6,V-art Judson Edeburn Duke Forest Resource Manager JDE/as cc: Dr. Norman Christensen, Duke Forest Advisory Committee Mr. Max Wallace .r' CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS LINCOLN CENTER, MERRITT MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 Telephone: (919) 967-8211 September 21 , 1987 GERRY HOUSE,Superintendent Ms. Shirley Marshall , Chairperson Orange County Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Marshall : The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District is about to undertake an ambitious study of the future of public education in our community at the elementary and secondary levels. We would very much like for a representative of the County Commission to be a part of a Superintendent's Blue Ribbon Task Force which will develop the strategic plan. To be more specific, this Task Force will engage in an eight-month study of each of the major functions of our school district. In each planning area, the present performance will be assessed, major trends which may impact this function will be analyzed, and broad goals for the next decade will be formulated. The end result will be a "Vision for the Nineties" of public education in the Chapel Hill -Carrboro City School District. This study, scheduled for completion in May, 1988, will serve as a guide for the School Board to use in setting more specific, shorter range goals during this same time span. An outline of the study is enclosed which identifies the twelve planning areas as well as major trends which will be investigated. I am requesting that you identify a representative who can assume a key leadership role on the Superintendent's Blue Ribbon Task Force. This Task Force will coordinate the study, provide insight into local issues, review subcommittee reports, and issue the final report. I would estimate that the Task Force will need to meet on approximately ten evenings between October and May. Once you identify a representative, the individual 's name, address, and phone number should be sent to Neil Pedersen, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, who will be coordinating the Task Force. Neil 's office is at Lincoln Center, and he can be reached by telephone at 967-8211 Ext. 202. I would appreciate it if you would forward this information to Neil by the end of September. We would like to hold our first meeting before the end of October. Thank you in advance for your support and interest in assisting us in our development of a "Vision for the Nineties" for education in our community. If you have any questions or need further information, don 't hesitate to contact either Neil or myself. Sincerely, ,444-11■ VIVt144-4„_■ (Mrs. ) Gerry House, Superintendent a CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS VISIONS FOR THE NINETIES 1990 - 1999 I. PLANNING AREAS A. School Board Operation B. School District/Building Administration C. Curriculum & Instruction D. Pupil Personnel Services/Exceptional Education E. Co-Curricular Activities F. Community Relations/Services G. Personnel H. Finance I. Technology J. Pupil Transportation K. Facility and Fleet Maintenance/Replacement L. Food Service II . TRENDS A. Demographic 1. National a. Public School Enrollment b. Racial /Social/Economic Composition c. Family Structure 2. Chapel Hill /Orange County a. Population b. Public School Enrollment c. Racial /Social/Economic Composition d. Family Structure e. Community Forces B. Financial 1. Funding of Public Education a. Federal b. State c. Local d. Private Sector Support 2. Financial Tnreats a. Need to Increase Teachers ' Salaries b. Energy Costs c. Escalating Fringe Benefit and Risk Management Costs d. Facility Maintenance e. Facility Construction (Replacement/Expansion) 3. Teaching Profession a. Shortages b. Teacner Preparation Programs c. Career Ladders d. Incentives to Enhance Profession C. Federal and State Mandates . _.._._ -2- D. Curriculum 1. Preparation for Careers in the 21st Century 2. Preparation for Higher Education 3. Preparation for Post-Secondary Employment 4. Social/Cultural Needs of Students 5. Preparation of Lifelong Learners 6. Pre-School Education 7. Adult/Community Education E. Instruction 1. Methodology 2. Grade Level Organization F. Student Characteristics G. Technology H. Political 1. Merger (CHCCS and Orange County) 2. Equalization of Funding (Orange County) 3. Community Support for Education 4. Community Use of School Facilities I. Review of Major, National Reports on Education J. Management Style/Effective Schools � 4� ..I • o'rrs CAROLINA - i TEE CENIMAL COURT OF JUSTICE D: .t ORANGE COUNTY 80}C Court Division �� 499 it r JERRY ROBINSON IN HIS ) • +1 t ?ACIiY AS ORANGE COUNTY ) -)1( A. HEALTH DIRECTOR, ) 5laintiff ::s. ) ) CONSENT JUDGMENT KENT MANN d/b/a ) ?IED:IONT EGG RANCH ) Defendant ) • s THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard this '' the llth day of Y .;nne. 1951, before the undersigned Judge or.esidin^y at thin • session of th? Ora a nge County Superior Court, and the plaintiff ''as present in court and represented by Alonzo Brown Coleman, Jr. , and the defendant was present in court and represented by :- aay Joseph !;hoeler, nd Jr.,r the carti2s and their attorneys _ having reached an agreement as to all matters and things and issues in _.._ announced such to the court, and by - n and_ :�it:t the consent of the parties It is hereby ordered, adjudgad and Decreed: 1. That poultry waste ',from Piedmont Egg Ranch, Inc- , or any cultr� r production unit presently ,operate in Orange and Alamarce counties stall be dispersed, disposed of and operated in Orange County under the terms and conditions of =i s consent order. 2. That no ?Dolt°,• t:as `� -=o titer ` � Defendant's '_trance Count: pou1try operation be sn. eac goon the fiefs of Defcrnda::t s ae Coun-y o:ar- titan .ahicn ?djain state -. :o_ (a= cor_EHnw.asa.-HO�z ___..•'an=' .. . _:, `ha D,q�asoK. �'NOLZ. , ^' .___.._..c•; County ccul tr�r operation may `�.= =' in s a;cer.:ar -, n y �r,_a + IOLLSE OL/01VLAw -- � `iald whits is located nQar and South t;f •._,.; CHAPEL HILL N.C. r>d-:Cu iZOc: - n ---^ WLLSLOAOVaq.N.C. : 13.37 the r..c:-tnn of ro•rer^b-■r, December. January, _,.,,ru ry ar_. r-:arr_':; in_luaiva, - t I J iw nefenciant's Orange County poultry operation may be spread in the :)efand'ant's field which is located near and south of Rural ;''paved Road 4 1137 in the remaining months, but no closer thin 1000 feet to the residence of Jerry Cates. That all such spreading must be before 2:00 a.m. each day. 4. That only poultry waste from the Defendant' s Orange County poultry operation may be spread on the Defendant's fields adjacent to State Road #1144; that such spreading''sbalI` be allowed in the months of November, December, January ,' : February and .arch only; that such spreading must be before 2:00,' p•m. each day spreading is done; that no spreading is . .� ..;: 9 permitted • e:ccept on Monday, Tuesday, and : y, :•,ednesday and Thursday; that Should an emergency exist requiring spreading of fluid chicken manure i from the Orange County poultry operation that the same must be ! spread in the _'star_ ernr. o:e_ portion :,f `"� Defendant's 4 j acre 9 tract (whereon his chicken houses are located) South of State i z a s Road 11 _ and all such emergency spreading must be accomplished by a Flail Spreader. d r° __ .. 5. The spreading ead_r.. of any fluid or liquid poultry waste } must be by !'laii Smreafer. ;: S. o fluid or liquid manure from the Alamance County poultry operation may be brought to Orange County. 1 7. All precautions shall be 7.1a;3e to prevent any poultry waste from being spilled cr littered on the public highways and roads of Orange County; no dead animal carcasses shall be spread or dumce4 on any of the )efendant's fields in i the ccariun!ty; no 3?_uaci_ , shall an p• r fitted within 150 feet of any resi_:_no._ the the community; all spreading in the community must be acc_ _� _� ' :,_•.r,' S, aare:. :inc evenly and thinly 4 and broken un so ao tc not b- - r. y L. _ , i.•..:_ -,:,7.-.:,::::t the De±zn:a-it frtn CAN. ':":".-:. 7y BERNHo^ 2. in Ors- County CLIDHiti .7.::2':: a .■. , Z .:3 i:;tC out of the I EL HAISA AVE c,.:..:_mn i day . _ _ .. AT7Dg�TS AT LAW -f any aV O± any t7� ?1:.. CHAPEL HRL N.0 1 Htussomouat N.G. I ',• i 1 1 a 1 i'. _. -4_ =,r.-s :his Consaat Jud meat shall Subject the _ef_nc,ant to contempt .rroo.:sdincs. I -1 This the 1.7, day of June, 1931. - mimes H. ?ou Haile ..Idce of the superior Court CONSENTED TO: ih//Pet 4 P------ gent Mann, Defendant ....14.-- 1 -:. Gb J �, ler, A ek,.or fendant v (::?,,ZJNIT.n /- / . :: '1,.; Jer, inson, , Oran. e unty Health. Director • s i i $lonzo Brown Coleman, Jr. , ? Attorney for Plaintiff i i 4 • • • I I f t a j? i CO.6>UN.BERM4PLZ. i DLCXERSON.BERNIIOIU. • f GLEDHILL j &HARGRAVE I ATTORNFY5 AY LAW CHAt£L KILL.N.0 MULLSaCPOUCH.N.C. . I ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY,JR. STEPHEN H.HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL DON WILLHOIT October 20, 1987 John W. Downs CDBG Program Director N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Community Assistance P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 - 7687 Re: CDBG Grant Number: 82-C-6285 Dear Mr. Downs: This correspondence transmits the following required documents for official closeout of the above referenced grant: 1 - Certificate of_Completion;` .`; 2 - Copy of-the Final Audit. _ =Also, this letter..serves as-certification that a final Public Hearing was held on Monday, October 5i- 1987 in Hillsborough, N.C. during a regular Commissioners Meeting to receive citizen comments regarding the County's performance. in administering the grant-program.`- No comments from the public were received. . Housing Services-Directo 19) 732-8181 If you need additional information,. lease:contact Tara L. Pikes, r_at=.(9 Extension .425.. Sincerely, Shirle Marshall Chair SEM/ Enclosure CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FILE COPY 1. NAME OF RECIPIENT county of Orange 3. PROJECT NUMBER C-1 2. GRANT NUMBER 82-c--C285 4. PROJECT NAME Northern Fairview 5. FINAL STATEMENT OF COST TO BE COMPLETED BY RECIPIENT TO BE COMPLETED BY NRCD PROGRAM ACTIVITY CATEGORIES PAID UNPAID TOTAL COSTS APPROVED COSTS COSTS (COL.b&t) TOTAL COSTS (a) (b) Activity (c) (d) (e) a. Acquisition 37,077 b. Disposition _ 37,077 c. Public facilities & improvements (1) Senior & Handicapped centers (2) Parks, playgrounds & recreational facilities 233,897 233,897 (3) Neighborhood facilities (4) Solid waste disposal facilities (5) Fire protection facilities & equipment (6) Parking facilities (7) Public utilities, other than water and sewer (8) Water and sewer improvements (9) Street improvements (10) Flood & drainage improvements (11) Pedestrian improvements (12) Other public facilities d. Clearance activities — 6,600 e. Public services 6,600 f. Relocation assistance 15,410 15,410 g. Construction, rehabilitation and preservation activities (1) Construction or rehabilitation of commercial and industrial bldgs. (2) Rehabilitation of privately owned dwellings " 536,233 536,233 (3) Rehabilitation of publicly owned dwellings (4) Code enforcement (5) Historic preservation h. Development financing —(1) Working capital (2) Machinery and equipment i. Removal of architectural barriers j. Other activities k. SUBTOTAL I. Planning _ 829,217 )329,217 m.Administration _ n. TOTAL 110883 - 110,883 o. Less: Program Income Applied to Program Costs - 940,100 940,100 2.100 2,100 p. Equal: Grant Amount Applied to Program Costs 938,000 938,000 6. COMPUTATION OF GRANT BALANCE TO BE TO BE COMPLETED BY COMPLETED BY RECIPIENT NRCD DESCRIPTION APPROVED (a) AMOUNT AMOUNT (1) Grant Amount Applied to Program Costs (From Line p) (b) (c) (2) Estimated Amount for Unsettled Third-Party Claims 938,000 (3) Subtotal 000 (4) Grant Amount per Grant Agreement(s) 938, (5) Unutilized Grant to be Cancelled (Line 4-minus 3) 938 (6) Grant Funds Received (7) Balance of Grant Payable(Line 3 - minus 6)* 938,000 *If Line 6 exceeds Line 3, enter the amount of the excess on Line 7 as a negative amount. This amount shall be repaid to NRCD by check, unless NRCD has previously approved use of these funds (describe in block 8 below). 7BG#118 (3-84) • 7. UNPAID COSTS & UNSETTLED THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS List any unpaid costs and unsettled third-party claims against the recipient's grant. Describe circumstances and amounts involved. N/A ❑ Check if continued on additional sheet and attach. 8. REMARKS 9. CERTIFICATION OF RECIPIENT It is hereby certified that all activities undertaken by the Recipient with funds provided under the grant agreement identified on page 1 hereof, have,to the best of my knowledge, been carried out in accordance with the grant agreement;that proper provision has been made by the Recipient for the payment of all unpaid costs and unsettled third-party claims identified on page 1 hereof;that the State of North Carolina is under no obligation to make any further payment to the Recipient under the grant agreement in excess of the amount identified on Line 7 hereof; and that every statement and amount set forth in this instrument is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct as of this date. DATE TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF RECIPIENT'S SIGNATURE OF RECIPIENT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORIZED REPRES NTATIVE Shirley E. Marshall, chair Orange County Board of Commissioner 10. NRCD APPROVAL This Certification of Completion is hereby approved.Therefore,I authorize cancellation of the unutilized contract commitment and related funds reservation and obligation of$ , less S. previously authorized for cancellation. (from Section 6, line 5, page 1) DATE TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF NRCD SIGNATURE OF NRCD AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL .CDBG#118(3-84) NORTHERN FAIRVIEW CDBG PROGRAM SUMMARY PROPOSED ACTIVITIES PROS RESULTS ACQUISITION Acquire nine (9) Nine (9) dilapidated dilapidated dwellings and one (1) Right-of-Way; dwellings and one (1) Right-of-Way was acquired. TOTAL COST - $37, 077 PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITES Clear and grade a 40 acre park The 40 acre park site was site; construct a community park; cleared and graded and Phase One of park construction completed. TOTAL COST - $233,897 CLEARANCE Demolish nine (9) dilapidated dwellings; Seven (7) dilapidated dwellings were demolished. *Two dwellings, which were trailers, were sold. TOTAL COST - $6,600 RELOCATION Relocate nine (9) families from dilapidated dwellings; Six (6) families were relocated to standard dwellings. *Two units were vacant and one tenant moved from a dilapidated dwelling prior to beginning Community Development relocation activities. TOTAL COST - $15,410 REHABILITATION_ Rehabilitate sixty-two (62) sub- standard dwellings; Sixty five (65) substandard dwellings were rehabilitated to standard conditions accord- ing to HUD's Model Property Rehabilitation Standards. TOTAL COST - $536,233 • • NORTHERN FAIRVIEW CDBG PROGRAM SUMMARY PAGE 2 ADMINISTRATION Provision of ongoing administration of program activities via County Staff TOTAL COST - $110,883 1. Total Program Costs 2. Total Program Income Applied to Program Costs - $942,100 3. Total Grant Amount (No. 1 - No. 2) - $ 8,000 - $938,000 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION 1. NAME OF RECIPIENT County of Orange 3. PROJECT NUMBER C-1 2. GRANT NUMBER 82—C{285 4. PROJECT NAME Northern Fairview 5. FINAL STATEMENT OF COST TO BE COMPLETED BY RECIPIENT TO BE COMPLETED BY NRCD PROGRAM ACTIVITY CATEGORIES PAID UNPAID TOTAL COSTS APPROVED (a) COSTS COSTS (COL. b&c) TOTAL COSTS Activity (b) (c) (d) (e) a. Acquisition b. Disposition 37,077 _ 37,077 c. Public facilities & improvements (1) Senior & Handicapped centers (2) Parks, playgrounds & recreational facilities 233,897 (3) Neighborhood facilities - 233,897 (4) Solid waste disposal facilities (5) Fire protection facilities & equipment (6) Parking facilities (7) Public utilities, other than water and sewer (8) Water and sewer improvements (9) Street improvements r (10) Flood & drainage improvements (11) Pedestrian improvements (12) Other public facilities d. Clearance activities 6,604 e. Public services 6,600 f. Relocation assistance 15,410 15,410 g. Construction, rehabilitation and preservation activities (1) Construction or rehabilitation of commercial and industrial bldgs. (2) Rehabilitation of privately owned dwellings 536,233 (3) Rehabilitation of publicly owned dwellings 5 .233 (4) Code enforcement (5) Historic preservation h. Development financing (1) Working capital (2) Machinery and equipment i. Removal of architectural barriers j. Other activities k. SUBTOTAL _ I. Planning - 829,217 m.Administration n. TOTAL 110,8$3 110,883 o. Less: Program Income Applied to Program — 940,100 , 940,100 rogram Costs 24 100 • 2,100 p. Equal: Grant Amount Applied to Program Costs 938,000 6. COMPUTATION OF GRANT BALANCE 93$,Q00 TO BE TO BE COMPLETED BY COMPLETED BY RECIPIENT NRCD - DESCRIPTION APPROVED (a) AMOUNT AMOUNT (1) Grant Amount Applied to Program Costs (From Line p) (b) (c) (2) Estimated Amount for Unsettled Third-Party Claims 938,000 (3) Subtotal _ (4) Grant Amount per Grant Agreement(s) 93$,000 _ (5) Unutilized Grant to be Cancelled (Line 4-minus 3) 9 '0CX) (6) Grant Funds Received (7) Balance of Grant Payable (Line 3 - minus 6)* 938,000 *If Line 6 exceeds Line 3, enter the amount of the excess on Line 7 as a negative amount. This amount shall be repaid to NRCD by check, unless NRCD has previously approved use of these funds (describe in block 8 below). CDBG#11 B (3-84) 7. UNPAID COSTS & UNSETTLED THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS List any unpaid costs and unsettled third-party claims against the recipient's grant. Describe circumstances and amounts involved. N/A D Check if continued on additional sheet and attach. 8. REMARKS 9. CERTIFICATION OF RECIPIENT It is hereby certified that all activities undertaken by the Recipient with funds provided under the grant agreement identified on page 1 hereof, have, to the best of my knowledge, been carried out in accordance with the grant agreement;that proper provision has been made by the Recipient for the payment of all unpaid costs and unsettled third-party claims identified on page 1 hereof;that the State of North Carolina is under no obligation to make any further payment to the Recipient under the grant agreement in excess of the amount identified on Line 7 hereof; and that every statement and amount set forth in this instrument is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct as of this date. DATE TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF RECIPIENT'S SIGNATURE OF RECIPIENT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORIZE REPRES TATIVE /0/1-0/,P Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 10. NRCD APPROVAL This Certification of Completion is hereby approved.Therefore,I authorize cancellation of the unutilized contract commitment and related funds reservation and obligation of$ less$ previously authorized for cancellation. (from Section 6, line 5, page 1) DATE TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF NRCD SIGNATURE OF NRCD AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL CDBG#118 (3-84) INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION Prepare original and two copies with original signatures. All dollar amounts which are entered on this form must be shown to two places past the decimal. Example: $25,000.00. Section 1. Name of Recipient— Enter the name shown in Block 1 of NRCD Funding Approval Form. Section 2. Grant Number— Enter the number shown in Block 2 of NRCD Funding Approval Form. Section 3. Project Number— Enter the number shown in Block 3 of NRCD Funding Approval Form. Section 4. Project Name— Enter the name shown in Block 3 of NRCD Funding Approval Form. Section 5. Final Statement of Cost Column (b) Lines a thru m —For each applicable program activity category listed, enter paid costs charged to the approved grant amount or to program income and claimed as eligible for inclusion in the total program cost. Do not include costs which are charged to other fund sources, such as other State grants, Federal grants, or local funds. Line n — Enter the sum of lines a thru m. Line o— Enter the amount of program income used to pay program costs. Line p— Subtract the amount on Line o from n and enter the difference. Column (c) Lines a thru m —For each applicable program activity category listed,enter unpaid costs chargeable to the approved grant amount or to program income and claimed as eligible for inclusion in the total program costs. Unpaid costs are firmly determined costs for which payment has not as yet been made(i.e.,accounts payable and relocation payments owed_in the future). Do not include amounts budgeted for unsettled third-party claims. Line n — Enter the sum of Lines a thru m. Line b -- Enter the amount of program income to be applied to the payment of unpaid program costs. Line p— Subtract the amount on Line o from n and enter the difference. Column (d) —Enter the sum of the amounts in Columns (b) and (c). Column (e) —For NRCD use only. Section 6. Computation of Grant Balance Column (b) Line 1 -- Enter the total amount shown on Line p,'Column (d). Line 2 — Enter the amount budgeted for unsettled third-party claims against the recipient's grant. Unsettled third-party claims are liabilities which are contingent on the outcome of disputes involving the recipient and third-parties.This amount shall not be included in Section C. Line 3 -- Enter the sum of Lines 1 and 2. Line 4— Enter the sum of the grant amounts shown on NRCD Funding Approval Form. Line 5 — Subtract the amount on Line 3 from 4 and enter the difference. Line 6— Enter the amount of grant funds received to date through a letter of credit or other grant disbursement mechanism. Line 7 — Subtract the amount on Line 6 from 3 and enter the difference. Column (c) -- For NRCD use only. Section 7. Unpaid Costs and Unsettled Third-Party Claims— List any unpaid costs and unsettled third-party claims,and describe the circumstances and amounts involved.The total amount of unpaid costs described must equal the amount shown on Line n,Column(c),and the total amount of unsettled third-party claims described must equal the amount shown on Line 2, Column (b). Section 8. Remarks — Self-explanatory. Section 9. Certification of Recipient— Self-explanatory. Section 10. NRCD Approval — For NRCD use only.