The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 07-07-1981 s � _• AGENDA-JOINT MEETING ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY JULY 7, 1981 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 1. The Board will appoint the Orange County Tax Supervisor and the Orange County Tax Collector. a. Public Hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance, Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas. /r.„J',,7 29* P/1 7-5�// f.. � I J r.l I, William T. Laws , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as tax supervisor of Orange County, North Carolina, and that I will not allow my actions as tax supervisor to be influenced by personal or pol- itical friendships or obligations, so help me God. mow/v �� • 4 • I, John T. Horner , do solemnly swear that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as tax Collector of the County of Orange, North Carolina, and that I will not allow my actions as tax collector to be influenced by personal" or political friendships or igati, s, so help 'e God. e�✓ A Si_ ature • 7- sir UNOFFICIAL CITIZEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD JULY 7, 1981 ON THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE COMMENTS 1ENTS ON THE LAND USE PLAN Paula Bree • She commended the objectives of the Land Ube Plan, Bingham Township particularly the protection of rural and agricultural areas. She cited the goal and policy directed at providing local ,jobs for local people. She further expressed concern regarding the proposed midway airport and indicated a desire to see it considered in a regional context and in relation to the implications of an airport in that area for further road development, especially the "Southern Loop". John Payne: Mr. Payne was representing the interests of the University Deputy Director of in regard to the airport issue. He gave a broad overview Administration of the AHEC Program. Be further indicated the need for an airport in the vicinity should Horace Williams Airport close. He cited four suitability criteria: a) adequate facilities, b) adequate safety provisions, c) adequate physical facilities and d) assurance of financial solvency over. time. Question (Kizer) : Does Duke University participate in the program? Response: Yes. Question (Gustaveson): How many flights does the program average per day? Response: One per day. Question (Gustaveson): What percentage of the flights in and out of Horace Williams are associated with the Program? Response: Unsure, perhaps 5-6%. Question (Barnes): Does the University plan to phase out the Program? Response: Question (Shanklin) : What are the mileage figures for the Program? Response: Information is unavailable at this time. Dan Edelman: I support the deletion of the last paragraph in the Bingham Township Transportation section on page 152 of the Bingham Township Plan. Stanley Bennett: He indicated that although adequate facilities to meet Chapel Hill Township University needs in terms of aircraft use were essential, a shifting away from Horace Williams would be an added_..- expense and have adverse affects elsewhere in the County. Be felt the airport proposed for Bingham Township was not in the public interest, nor was the industrial park associated with the airport. Barry Jacobs: He indicated that after hearing the comments on both side Cheeks Township of the airport issue made during the two Public Hearings, the issue warranted further public discussion. He also suggested that the University consider using the seaplanes considered for use in Jordan Lake. Mary Penta: She stated that as a professional user of the Program, Chapel Hill Township she valued the flexibility in performing her job. However, as parent and property owner, she opposed the increase in the use of the airport by those not associated with the University or the Program. Question (Gustaveson): Response: She perceived a marked increase in air traffic and felt Horace Williams was badly located. COMMENTS ON THE ZONING ATLAS Jim Ray: Why has Article 2.2.3 been changed? Why does it include Hillsborough Township non-zoned townships? Why are the Towns included in the Board membership? Response: (Walker): There is a problem with the lack of representation from certain townships, particularly Little River. Response (Kizer) : The membership formula seeks to assure adequate local representation of local needs and concerns. The Planning Board is not a judicial body. Response (Irvin): I voted against having two representatives from each township in the Planning Board. It is not fair to have equal representation when some townships have requested that they be excluded from the application of Zoning Ordinance. I feel the Board membership should reflect and respond to growth pressures as they occur. For example, Bingham Township is currently experiencing strong growth pressures and should have greater representation at this time while Cheeks may experience strong growth pressures in the futur and would desire a larger Board representation. Question (Whitted) : Are you questioning having representation from incorporate areas? Response (Ray) : Yes. tr Cy Hogue: Representing James Freeland. He addressed the zoning of the tract on Old #10, north of the railroad tract as R-1 ie.as a non-conforming use. He indicated the preferred zoning would be I-3 as the land does not perk and does not have sewer and water services. Response (Lunsford): She asked if he would desire the 1-3 zoning if he lived next door to the tract and emphasized the existing resi- dential landowner's investment in his home. Paul Sephardt: He noted that there are existing commercial structures Hillsborough Township in the area. Calvin P±eford: Co-owner of one of the commercial properties. He felt Hillsborough Township he had the right to use the property as it is and noted they had taken measures to buffer it near the residential property. Question (Willhoit) : What measures do you have to get rid of wastewater? Response: The structure is not yet finished. That particular _ parcel will perk and they have a health permit for a septic tank. Question (Lansford): What about the impact of traffic in the area due to these commercial activities? Response: These are existing structures. My problem will be trying to re-sell the property when it is not easily convertible to residential use. Alois Callemyn: If land will not perk what other use is there for it but Hillsborough Township commercial or industrial.. If its commercial use is not allowed, tax base will be lost. One major commercial neec is storage. Commissioner Barnes: Identified some mail items for the public hearing: 1) Letter from Nello Titer regarding the non-conforming use designation of their asphalt plant in Bingham Township. 2) Citation of letters both in support of and in oppositi to the AR zoning in Bingham Township. COMMENTS ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT. No comments on individual articles. _ Josephine Barbour: Are you accepting written comments and for how long? Eno Township Response (Crawford): It depends on the action taken by the Planning Board tonight. • Josephine Barbour: Has the Planning Board considered a cost-benefit analysis of the ordinance? How much value is lost with constrained land? Will the County automatically reduce the value of these restricted parcels? She indicated that environmenta impact studies should be done for each PID area. Stanley Bennett: The Zoning Ordinance can have promoting effects on propert Chapel Hill 'Ibwnship values as well as negRting effects. He felt the general effect of the ordinance is to protect land value. Barry Jacobs:: Why were some of the townships excluded? Cheeks Township Response (Crawford) : Political pressure. Barry Jacobs: He made some general comments regarding excluding some townships because of initial opposition and the potential for spillover impacts of the application of zoning. 29t � . � v 7 i V \ �'St- " N. '' _fit •< -•l. L. \,,(\,, C'‘,t..S, !Tt; : i �� ' r, J' .may C S � ih lT (� } - rt.., ,,R.. k t' - .',..-, a C ;-_ ^� 0 r n ^L • r a �� s �. - R A \ i� . ,, fi i3W 7'7 70 77 _ 4 e r-L el7 0-) 1 , ,2 _ C./ e<e< c .2'73".2