Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 02-27-1989
. rte" ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM • ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NEW) 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE, COMMENTS 1. Matters an ILig printed agenda (If anyone wishes to speak to matters on the agenda, we would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked.) 2. Matters not 2 the printed agenda C. PUBLIC CHARGE AK- The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Page D. PUBLIC HEARING . 1. Assignment of House Numbers 009 a. Rural Route 1 - Chapel Hill 017 b. Rural Route 1 - Hillsborough 025 c. Rural Route 13 (Part) - Chapel Hill . 033 2. Environmental Impact Ordinance 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 061 a. LUP-1-89 Land Use Element - Section 4.0 Plan Categories-Zoning District Matrix 073 b. LUP-2-89 Activity Node E-2 • Eno Township - See also Item # D.5.e. (Rural Residential to 20-Year Transition) 121 .c. LUP-3-89 University Station Associates (Rural Residential/Agricultural/Resource Conservation to 10-Year Transition) 4. Zoning Atlas Amendments 165 a. Z-1-89 Richard Andrews 5 b. Z-2-89 Public Interest-Districts - See Item # D.5.a. t Page —• S. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (Items grouped together by topic rather than ordinance section) 285 a. Public Interest Districts'- See also Item # D.4.b. (1) Art. 4.2 - District Statements of Intent/Application Criteria (2) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (3) Art. 5.1.2 - Dimensional Requirements for Non-Residential Development (4) Art. 6.16 - Buffer Requirements Adjacent to Public Interest Districts 229 b. Kennels (1) Art. 22 - Definitions (2) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (3) Art. 8.8.11 - Kennels (Class B Special Use Permit) 24 3 c. Solid Waste Container Sites (1) Art. 4.1 - Establishment of Use Regulations (2) Art. 6.16 - Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses 249 d. Mobile Home Parks (1) Art. 22 - Definitions (2) Art. 7.20.2 Planned Developments/Mobile Home Parks 257 e. Retail Trade (1) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table - See also Item # D.3.b. 6. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 267 a. Section IV-B-7-b Recreation Sites (Dedication/Payment-in Lieu Provisions) E. ADJOURNMENT Note: The Planning Board will prepare its recommendation at its meeting of March 20, 1989. The Board of Commissioners will consider the items for decision on April 3, 1989. 009 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 27, 1989 Action Agenda Item 4 'D-I -o- SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS (RURAL ROUTE 1 - CHAPEL HILL) DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: 8 Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: G.S. 153A-240 Don Powell Location Map Notification Letter(s) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Legal Notice Hillsborough - 732-8181 Information Brochure Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Route 1 served by the Chapel Hill Post Office on Estes Drive. BACKGROUND: Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the Chapel Hill Post Office, all rural box numbers are being converted to house numbers in the area of Orange County served by the Chapel Hill Post Office. The conversion is a continuation of the project begun in 1987 to change all County addresses to permanently assigned house numbers. To date, eight Rural Routes have been converted (Chapel Hill routes 2,5,8,11 and 15; Rougemont routes 2 and 3; and Hurdle Mills route 1) . pute 1, Chapel Hill encompasses an area in the extreme southwest corner of Orange County, bounded generally by NC 54 W from white Cross to Oaks Community on the north, Alamance County line on the west, C atham County line on the south, and Butler Road on east Roads either partially or in their entirety, contained in the route change, are as follows: Orange Grove, Teer, Stanford, Morrow Mill, Gold Mine Loop, Milliken, Orange Chapel Clover Garden, Old Greensboro, Collins Mountain, Wildcat Creek, White Cross, Dawson, Collins Creek Drive, Bracken Lane, Crawford Dairy, Tidwell, Wildcat Lane, Bobcat, Puma Lane, Lapin Lane, and Whipporwril• Lane. 010 General Statute 153A-240 requires that a Public Hearing be held on the proposed house 11, and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and two other public places within the proposed area. A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the • proposed house and buildings numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of the hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed • house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Chapel Hill Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation as required by G.S. 153A-240. 411 tr.- r� ' w\-\ '''`i- \I'''-;!..-z„Niz.....t. „,..\1/4 1 S\.... ..,:d* \ -it N. •*,';v l':',..,,, oil A/ ala ' . Alo . . . V:;27:t'•!" . *%2‘,1"",,, \-*":-% 7;■Iih,lt- 1 •‘ .. ... 1 i ...• '1.. „ i 46.'%.* 4N. ' WI \...114 * %WI. .„ q c v , :,.., .,--,,,... ,,...- . -. .efh. t 8; 00,4/, ' = .Ay, -- ... , i ,,,L.* . ;...----104,.‘\\v..s..444. . ,,,I �` " `� .^F.1. r`. - ''mss !NI, -..„ A\s, - -..\ ma mat• �.�.. . Hwy `�:.. _ Ifk fan 1 y,►t • - 1 , • r Ifa Name* .G�, i,;.,, sue. ,,.` "` /• - ,r -.... 0 :• •, ' . z • : i ' ---,:: 1 AXib =,' . *r - I 4—7 * • • - f al_ v 41 01 2ta.•� • sm./ T�"f � me• •y�! as sas F 0 . .t. um. .. • ,1., t -Vf ** ••■■ Y! �iiii +(w •11 W i . .... \ s am so. an. 0.• ,,,,,,, . .... , s ,,,......,. .4%* f 4,1101r..." %""gil ter... ' �Owe J ��' ` `=Cii� .w ✓' • �"- • �-�' ���1 `mil • AS • taw Ugg •• ^. .. t1� . t� .. a - ~.1 �i . . Tv as l/ r▪ r , /eV.. iiiiir.SI:g., 4* ' ." ' ; t tk.:.".11.‘4( ''' ....e.***/ . • a• bn : . 1:::"...-•,•-,..!■:.........."..1.'w....•.S.e:SIII. V """4". v s„ , -4. -,,,„c„, •.:4.:. f .,4...Iv -1 -,....44 4 \16. .‘ in .. . ...,, .....$5,.. , : i • =1 :.-;;; ' r� - a, Completed A �'� LILI F 1, Chapel it: _ , r I ..\.‘,...1-4., 1 ,,vi, 1 '..4 / II .t I ; . 1....... - , ` IF f. i NIL• .6.,d"'.: ~ " ,'I' 1c0uMt t �r; . ._ I • § 153A-236 CH. 153A. COUNTIES § 153A-240 012 cil, set the duties of any person appointed or designated as a fire prevention inspector. A fire prevention inspector shall not make electrical inspectiorth unless he is qualified to do so under G.S. 153A-351. (1965, c.626; 1969,c. 1064. s. 3; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.) • §§ 153A-236 to 153A-238: Reserved for future codification purposes. ARTICLE 12. Roads and Bridges. § 153A-239. Public road defined. In this Article "public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway, thoroughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without regard to whether it is open for travel. (1973, c. 822, s. 1.) Local Modification. Brunswick: 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, amending 1979.2nd Sess.,C. 1319. § 153A-240. Naming roads and assigning street numbers in • unincorporated areas. -A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road within the county and not within a city,and may assign or reassign street numbers for us on such a road. In naming or renaming a public road, a county may not (1) Change the name,if any,given to the road by the Board of Transporta- tion, unless the Board of Transportation agrees; (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Transporta- tion, but may give the road a name in addition to its number; or (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicinity. A county shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street numbers on a road until it has held a public hearing on the matter. At least 10 days before the day of the hearing, the board of commissioners shall cause notice of the time,place, and subject matter of the hearing to be prominently posted at the county courthouse, to at least two public places in the township or townships where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of suc ' hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation published in the county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to be given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of Transportation, and to any city within five miles of the road. This section does not repeal or modify Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of 1953, which pertains to naming streets in kannapolis. (1957, c. 1068; 1973,c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1; 1981, cc. 112, 518.) . Local Modification. — Brunswick: 1979, been substituted for"State Highway Commie • 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, sion" and for"Commission" in this section amending 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Forsyth: enacted by Session Laws 1973, c. 822. 1981,e.558; Guilford: 1979,c. 283. Effect of Amendments. — The first 1951 Editor's Note.—Pursuant to Session Laws amendment substituted"at the County Coun- 1973,c.507.s.5,"Board ofTransportation"has house, in at least two public places in ILL 78 013 Dear Resident: In April, 1987, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange County addresses. To date eight postal routes have been converted to street addresses. Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have been assigned street addresses adhering to the county-wide system. All addresses are computer-maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions (voter registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal service areas. Within the next two years, all of Orange County will have street addresses and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past. Chapel Hill Rural Route 1 is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Monday, February 27, 1989, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on Rural Route 1 served by the Chapel Hill Post Office on Estes Drive. The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough. If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural route and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least one (1) inch high. The proposed NEW ADDRESS which reflects the physical location of your residence at tax map reference is as follows: OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask, however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned house number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning Department staff members below. Don Powell (Extension 345) or Miriam Coleman (Extension 575) Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 • Phone: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Sincerely, Marvin E. Collins Planning Director • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 014 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 `rpir .r e � UI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO RURAL ROUTE 1, CHAPEL HILL IN ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of N.C. , Chapter 153A, Section 240, notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough, N.C. at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 27, 1989 for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the assignment of house numbers on Rural Route 1 Chapel Hill. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS Chapel Hill Rural Route 1 is proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned house numbers. Route 1, Chapel Hill, encompasses an area in the extreme southwest corner of Orange County, bounded generally by NC 54 W from White Cross to Oaks Community on the north, Alamance County line on the west, Chatham County line on the south, and Butler Road on the east. Roads either partially or in their entirety, contained in the route change, are as follows: Orange Grove, Teer, Stanford, Morrow Mill, Gold Mine Loop, Milliken, Orange Chapel Clover Garden, Old Greensboro, Collins. Mountain, Wildcat Creek, White Cross, Dawson, Collins Creek Drive, Bracken Lane, Crawford Dairy, Tidwell, Wildcat Lane, Bobcat, Puma Lane, Lapin Lane, and Whipporwril Lane. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment must be received during the Public Hearing. Changes may be made in the advertised proposal which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to Don Powell in they Orange County Planning Department. The Planning Department is located in the Agricultural- Environmental Center, 306-F Revere Road in Hillsborough. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. The Planning Department telephone number in Hillsborough is 732-8181 - Extension 345. Marvin E. Collins • Planning Director _ _ ___•_______.____... _ . .__ ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY DE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS OBTAINED FROM: 1-1 O 'U 1. Q. Now will I know when to begin using my new address? A. For entire Route MIRIAM COLEMAN conversions, The Planning D a R epartment will notify you or [EN 'N M B by mail of the effective date to begin using your DON POidELL N du new address. For new construction and individual at the house address changes, the ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING date is the date DEPARTMENT 15:2 4 24 CC the assignment is made upon 306-F Revere Road ie Drive request to the Planning Hillsborough, North Carolina 17 V 13 Moll Department. 212?8 52 2. When. do I lace the �, e�2�� Q p TELEPHONE: I-ne *2 assigned numbers on my mail box? chapel (till 968-4501 A. Within 30 days after Durham ------------ 688-7331 _. you have been notified. ltillsborough--------- 732-8161 (omcc cotIA rr t LAllrl� IN Mebane -------------- 227-2031 _ aim 3. Q. What happens to mail with my old address on it? un�j al A. The Post Office guarantees • delivery of all mail labeled with either � �"Fl? s the old or new address for �t ' .a 052 _ at least a year. , 4. Q. Do I have to throw away my checks with the. old °rr4 case address on them? A. No. Use up your old checks, and only then order checks which have your new ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT 3061' REVERE ROAD, 111080ROUG11, 11 C.27?78 address on them. • tr1 HOUSE NUMBERS ARE REPLACING IN ADDITION TO ROUTE RURAL ROUTE AND BOX NUMBERS IN CONVERSION, NEW HOUSES ON . ORANGE DEPARTMENT,O FROM WITH HELP NTHE • �Zj�7 � �, / � SINGLE LOTS ARE ASSIGNED STREET ADDRESSES AT THE TIME U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BEGAN THE THE BUILDING_ - PERMIT IS ISSUED. PROJECT IN THE SPRING OF 1987, 4/5 SUBDIVISION LOTS ARE NUMBERED AFTER THE BOARD OF COUNTY .sF y��A C DURING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONERS ADOPTED AN REVIEW PROCESS SO THAT FINAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PLATS HAVE PRE-DETERMINED CONVERSION TO STREET NUMBERS FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENT. ADDRESSES. THE OBJECTIVE 'IS COMPUTERIZED LISTS ARE TO GIVE PERMANENCY AND MAINTAINED DAILY, AND UPDATED CONSISTENCY TO A SYSTEM THAT ADDRESS FILES ARE FORWARDED TO WILL ALLOW MORE EFFICIENT MAIL : . IMPORTANT COUNTY FACILITIES DELIVERY TO AN ADDRESS THAT (911, POST OFFICES, UTILITIES, WILL REMAIN CONSTANT, EVEN AS ETC. ) . . POSTAL TERRITORIES CHANGE. -- - -- - --- 4 THE SYSTEM WORKS LIKE' THIS: ��� p 1704 8316 8320 TWO INTERSECTING BASE LINES ' (ROADS) ARE DEFINED -TO ;a ESTABLISH A POINT OF ORIGIN R «y FROM WHICH MEASUREMENTS ARE I7�O9 8322 {r ; MADE AT 50-FOOT INTERVALS AS 831 r ONE MOVES AWAY FROM THE ZERO 7 1 POINT. WHERE HOUSES EXIST, A 1711 NUMBER IS ASSIGNED CONSISTENT Hwy 70 _ WITH THE DISTANCE MEASURED 8317 1IILCUK FROM THE BASE INTERSECTION. u i NON-RESIDENTIAL ROAD FRONTAGE 1713 1715 ` IS SCALED FOR FUTURE FILL-IN ' AND THE NUMBERS ARE RESERVED Q FOR FUTURE GROWTH. BLOCK Q, NUMBERS CHANGE EVERY 600 FEET. BY ITS VERY NATURE THE PROJECT CHAPEL !!! THUS, THE FURTHER AWAY FROM IS DETAIL ORIENTED AND TIME � ILL THE INTERSECTING BASE LINES CONSUMING. SEVERAL YEARS WILL (HIGHWAY 70 AND. HIGHWAY 86) BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE ' THE HIGHER THE HOUSE NUMBER. TASK. THE END RESULT WILL BE THIS ACCOUNTS FOR NUMBERS IN WORTH THE EFFORT, HOWEVER, CARRBOE�O ' ..... THE THE HIGH FOUR-DIGIT RANGE NEAR �� WITH A COUNTY-WIDE SYSTEM OF CALVANDER - AND NUMBERS* WHICH PERMANENT HOUSE NUMBERS BASED APPROACH THE 9000 RANGE NEAR ON COHERENT AND WELL REASiMED THE PERSON COUNTY LINE. PLANNING. 017 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 27, 1989 Action Agenda Item $ SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS (RURAL ROUTE 1 - HILLSBOROUGH) DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: G.S. 153A-240 Don Powell Location Map Notification Letter(s) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Legal Notice Hillsborough - 732-8181 Information Brochure Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Route 1 in the County, served by the Hillsborough Post Office. BACKGROUND: Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the U.S. Postal Service, all rural box numbers are being converted to house numbers in the area of Orange County served by the Hillsborough Post Office. The conversion is a continuation of the project begun in 1987 to change all County addresses to permanently assigned house numbers. To date, eight Rural Routes have been converted (Chapel Hill routes 2,5,8,11 and 15; Rougemont routes 2 and 3; and Hurdle Mills route 1) . Hillsborough Rural Route 1 consists of that portion of St. Mary's Road northeastward from New Sharon Church Road to Durham County, and including Dumont Drive, Oak Knob Court, Cedar Trail and Stagg Road. Also included are that portion of Guess Road from Durham County to Walker's Farm Road, including Summer Lane and Deerfield Road; westward along Walker's Farm Road to New Sharon Church Road, including Devonwood Road, Lansdale Road, Island Road and Russell Circle; then south along New Sharon Church Road to Schley Road and including Richard Lane. General Statute 153A-240 requires that a Public Hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and two other 018 public places within the proposed area. • A Planning Board recommendation is not required on • the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of the hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A-240. 410 411 vak; .01\ 1\-‘i,..'S \ VTPA\ $ O19 as. : ...ilk• 4.1.. ." to ile;„:4 A 1: Xk..\ A- . R..... .,,.....) . -..i..- ; - . ‘.. ., .I '"' •• y ) f " a• • V lw • ' . a' q1 * vt\t .. 0.0.0 / - I- I .. , ... i .„,L..* _ ,„.„,kNa., \,....Asik. . ,„, . , ., ..... ..„,;„ ... la. ‘qk N,... 446,., • /r 1111\ .4 t1► 4► w„,...i. 4\--• \ 111 N. Pim T. . �1 8f�. , I AI / • : 4pAiih:......r..246 .u. 1 4 • ••ij �T am wows ;.fr .or t'.ip 4 K i... �. / '' ,.w an / � _m. ar, I .... Axis 4 Ewa o..� 1 ' �.�' G• 5‘: ;r w •', S V s `� - , ` . v ` • 1• d,,.• AL • us g. • ., -, �� �'`� N. .tom ”'sue/1- it ,... ().1......: ,.., 1.- 0 . _ . 44 -N / , • jsp..%. 'Ili:.\,,,*.kitv% III t',„ .____":', \,- b I'• ''''f'. \ li".. e. 4 ,,,�, t N•_ �. L,L s� 1,�`'-T[ti rye• _1 :r,i WL G 3Yi ,yr lr_ �, g `- s N. „- a .....*--4X.,...„,...) /6-i......\4 -c: V2;4^4•11.W"."94A74.81* ..0, N..,j, Wet ,q .1 i i _ .—s ,.. 4 .,.....,--. . i - AL ' /. � ! i- a—'—ao. --•-% • ••. kw i ....., '" • • • � ;- . s. ���Vii: ` � . �',', . � ' 1 /"I 'i ! s 4:::.a.,„:„.,,,,„ RR 1, Hillsborougl- ~ 4 \`rte t 0 J - 11 'I' \ ♦. .. .. ' I ! Pt M A T I, A .t� w 1 F - C O A w T T V 1 L • • • § 153A-236 CH. 153A. COUI\"rIES § 153A-240 020 • cil, set the duties of any person appointed or designated as a fire prevention inspector. A fire prevention inspector shall not make electrical inspection= unless he is qualified to do so under G.S. 153A-351. (2965,c. 626; 1969,c.1064. s. 3; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.) • §§ 153A-236 to 153A-238: Reserved for future codification purposes. ARTICLE 12. Roads. and Bridges. § 153A-239. Public road defined. In this Article "public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway, thoroughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without regard to whether it is open for travel. (1973, c. 822, s. 1.) Local Modification. -- Brunswick: 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, amending 1979, 2nd Sess.,c. 1319. § 153A-240. Naming roads and assigning street numbers in unincorporated areas. A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road within the county and not within a city,and may assign or reassign street numbers for use on such a road. In naming or renaming a public road, a county may not (1) Change the name,if any,given to the road by the Board of Transports' tion, unless the Board of Transportation agrees; (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Transporia• • Lion, but may give the road a name in addition to its number; or • (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicinity. A county shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street numbers on a road until it has held a public hearing on the matter. At least 10 days before the day of the hearing, the board of commissioners shall cater notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing to be prominently posted at the county courthouse, in at least two public places in the township or townships where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of such hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation.published in tit county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning ' street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to to given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of Transportation, and to any city within five miles of the road. This section does not repeal or modify Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of 1953,which pertains to naming streets in Kannapolis. (1957, c. 1068; 1973,c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1; 1981, cc. 112, 518.) . • Local Modification. — Brunswick: 1979, been substituted for"State Highway Comm 2nd Sess., c. 1319: Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, sion" and for "Commission" in this section amending 1979, 2nd Sess.. c. 1319; Forsyth: enacted by Session Laws 1973,c. 822.' 1981,c 558; Guilford: 19 79,G 283. Effect of Amendments. -.— The first 19i: Editor's I`ote.—Pursuant to Session Laws amendment substituted"at the County Coua- 1973,c.507.s.5,"Board of Transportation"has house, in at least two public places in tL. 78 021 Dear Resident: In April, 1987, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange County addresses. To date eight postal routes have been converted to street addresses. Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have been assigned street addresses adhering to the county-wide system. All addresses are computer-maintained and are uow being used to support the vital functions (voter registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal service areas. Within the next two years, all of Orange County will have street addresses and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past. Hillsborough Rural Route 1 is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Monday, February 27, 1989, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on Rural Route 1 served by the Hillsborough Post Office on King Street. The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough. If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural route and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least one (1) inch high. The proposed NEW ADDRESS which reflects the physical location of your residence at tax map reference is as follows: OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS, If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask, however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned house number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning Department staff members below. Don Powell (Extension 345) or Miriam Coleman (Extension 575) Orange County Planning Department . 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Phone: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Sincerely, Marvin E. Collins Planning Director ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 022 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 e VOW NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO RURAL ROUTE 1, HILLSBOROUGH IN ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of N.C. , Chapter 153A, Section 240, notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough, N.C. at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 27, 1989 for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the assignment of house numbers on Rural Route 1 Hillsborough. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS Hillsborough Rural Route 1 is proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned house numbers. Route 1, Hillsborough, consists of 411 that portion of St. Mary's Road northeastward from New Sharon Church Road to Durham County, and including Dumont Drive, Oak Knob Court, Cedar Trail and Stagg Road. Also included are that portion of Guess Road from Durham County to Walker's Farm Road; westward along Walker's Farm Road to New Sharon Church Road, including Devonwood Road, Lansdale Road, Island Road and Russell Circle; then south along New Sharon Church Road to Schley Road and including Richard Lane. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment must be received during the Public Hearing. Changes may be made in the advertised proposal which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding thp proposal should be directed to Don Powell in the Orange County Planning Department. The Planning Department is located in the Agricultural-Environmental Center, 306-F Revere Road in Hillsborough. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. The Planning Department telephone number in Hillsborough is 732-8181 - Extension 345. Marvin E. Collins Planning Director 41, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY DE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS OBTAINED FROM: 1. Q. How will I know when to oubL begin using my new address? H , A. For entire Route MIRIAM COLEMAN conversions, The Planning BI- Department will notify you or i[NU I by mail of the effective date to begin using your DON POWELL new address. For new construction and individual at the house address changes, the effective date is the date ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING --the assignment is made upon DEPARTMENT [[2�4 24 J]� request to the Planning 306-F Revere Road , , t� e D Department. Jtillsborough, North Carolina }; 57 �3 27278 2. Q. When do I place the t. 3 assigned numbers on my mail, TELEPI[ONE. Lan box? Chapel ]fil l ------h.- 960-4501 A. within 30 days after Durham ------------ 688-7331 you have been notified. Iiillsborough ------ 732-8101 © CIUA,f?, PLf�A�h`fC Mebane -------------- 227-2031 3. Q. What happens to mail with my old address on it? A. The Post office t,untr ar 01' guarantees delivery of all �� mail labeled with either sa IIIN.�.Ix the old or new address for at least a year. r. 4. Q. Do I have to throw away ,2. p• my checks with the old °'�b r-640 % address on them? A. No. Use up your old checks, and only then order checks which have your new address on them. ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT 306F REVERE ROAD. IIILLSOGROUC119 110.2018 O • IV HOUSE NUMBERS ARE REPLACING IN ADDITION TO ROUTE RURAL ROUTE AND BOX NUMBERS IN ,,,,,.�'' CONVERSION, NEW HOUSES ON ORANGE COUNTY. THE PLANNING SINGLE LOTS ARE ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT, WITH HELP FROM THE STREET ADDRESSES AT THE TIME U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BEGAN THE THE- BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. o PROJECT IN THE SPRING OF 1987, /�., rS SUBDIVISION LOTS ARE NUMBERED AFTER THE BOARD OF COUNTY DURING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONERS ADOPTED AN REVIEW PROCESS SO THAT FINAL ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PLATS HAVE PRE-DETERMINED . CONVERSION TO STREET (- NUMBERS FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENT,. ADDRESSES. THE OBJECTIVE IS u COMPUTERIZED LISTS ARE TO GIVE PERMANENCY AND , MAINTAINED DAILY, AND UPDATED CONSISTENCY TO A SYSTEM THAT = ADDRESS FILES ARE FORWARDED TO WILL ALLOW MORE EFFICIENT MAIL 4 . IMPORTANT COUNTY FACILITIES DELIVERY TO AN ADDRESS . THAT } (911, POST OFFICES, UTILITIES, WILL REMAIN CONSTANT, EVEN AS ETC. ) . POSTAL TERRITORIES CHANGE. THE SYSTEM WORKS LIKE THIS: 1743 Q 1704 8318 8320 + TWO INTERSECTING BASE LINES (ROADS) ARE DEFINED TO ESTABLISH A POINT OF ORIGIN 1709 p � 8322 00 FROM WHICH MEASUREMENTS ARE (T MADE AT 50-FOOT INTERVALS AS 8311 �► POINT ONE -MOVES WHERE HOUSES EXIST, RA 1711 Hwy 70 NUMBER IS ASSIGNED CONSISTENT WITH THE DISTANCE MEASURED 8317 „�"�""'-" "•;,• },���C� �U��i FROM THE BASE INTERSECTION. ? NON-RESIDENTIAL ROAD FRONTAGE 1713 1715 1 IS SCALED FOR FUTURE FILL-IN AND THE NUMBERS ARE RESERVED 1 FOR FUTURE GROWTH-. BLOCK �j NUMBERS CHANGE EVERY 500 FEET. BY ITS VERY NATURE THE PROJECT CHAPEL THUS, THE FURTHER AWAY FROM IS DETAIL ORIENTED AND TIME " ILL THE INTERSECTING - BASE LINES CONSUMING. SEVERAL TEARS WILL (HIGHWAY 70 AND HIGHWAY 86) BE REQUIRED -TO COMPLETE THE THE HIGHER THE HOUSE NUMBER. TASK. THE END RESULT WILL BE THIS ACCOUNTS FOR NUMBERS IN WORTH THE EFFORT, HOWEVER, GARRB4R0 ' THE HIGH FOUR-DIGIT RANGE NEAR WITH A COUNTY-WIDE SYSTEM OF CALVANDER AND NUMBERS WHICH PERMANENT HOUSE NUMBERS BASED APPROACH THE 9000 RANGE NEAR ON COHERENT AND WELL REASONED THE PERSON COUNTY LINE. PLANNING. 025 410 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OP COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February. 27,, 1989 Action Agenda Item # 1,-1-e SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS (RURAL ROUTE 13 - CHAPEL HILL) DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC BEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: G.S. 153A-240 Don Powell Location Map Notification Letter (s) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: • Legal Notice Hillsborough - 732-8181 Information Brochure Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 • Chapel Hill - 967-9251 410 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Rural Route 13 (Partial/Smith Level Rd) in the county served by the Chapel Hill Post Office on Estes Drive. BACKGROUND: Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the Chapel Hill Postmaster, all rural box numbers are being converted to house numbers in the area of Orange County served by the Chapel Hill Post Office. The conversion is a continuation of the project begun in 1987 to change all County addresses to permanently assigned house numbers. To date, eight Rural Routes have been converted (Chapel Hill routes 2,5,8,11 and 15; Rougemont routes 2 and 3; and Hurdle Mills route 1) . Rural Route 13 (Partial/Smith Level Road) Chapel Hill consists of that portion of Smith Level Road southward from NC 54 Bypass to Chatham County, and including Clarence Drive. • General Statute 153A-240 requires that a Public Hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have been sent to 411 all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and two other public places within the proposed 026 . area. A Planning Board recommendation is not required on !II the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of the hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Chapel Hill Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A-240. • 411 ■•., ,.. _ i no i &‘ \ ' 1•r1 i,.41'n' 6/05.-1*..'.. "• ' ,.i0t.•. .: E. 1t.o..P..a.tt,0t•" '24 1.' • 1'1/4 3lb ....'.i.l.•V%-v 1ti1,i•glC ii k*i. %Itok \1 4 ‘,.t..*,.•%., N `0 27 . • •,- - • - 11"L k VAN VI,. 1,31 • VII • Ilk\ 7 a".• gellitirt ! •/ , tfiL \ so%No% • • ."• I" • -..* A N.L., • l„,,,,1,., .,„„ 4. . -... , .... ■ ■A 4..\-\6\710k.ANk A ' '" 6•111•11* I • t•• 114‘'S't- V.'114‘ VIVAlp.ti': i . . _ . - ....."4.....„,"... , ( . . ay.a...aart . . ••• ....tilS■Z"... Os .. /1,:„ ..., •314%, ..AP V. N \No. le - • a. ..ialr.....,....... i t . t m°' ■••. w'\ -J --4\ U.-Vosima,.w.A., ' 1 • •■ Idi mi.,.si I GE. , ma ii .. 1" ."` 1.N*••-•/-1. 0 U. . . ‘ . .‘,. .,:,--/`1"-- 'Ae. i • : 1 a.'/ - . •,,, ,dr ‘ j . . .. _ # . . . /-...- "S ,.,1 .. .„..7. ... , / J. . Rck. ii : A-0 "I\(- t.g."-; r.r-Nk... - - /4 ..- ii aura .111..•• .. . or. .., = MI,144.1, ■ 0, • • t • • •12., ... .........--.....1.1...L.S'i d .... moilla t 7,-..,,, ,Lcov . ...• iil ........• . r Jr eau lika ri. 2 ,.... . ... .3..; _ i 0 L. •••• ... •■•• • ' . 1 ar . . 1 0111,clalmi• I P _ .• X I am,. I •a .. ■ ''`.... . .E t .."-..,.... ....`' . ; . ha' . .t. .. I " W0.14,,,, \ i "...,... ,.. •• • •• 1 . j... Gem"t1 A • 1•-•..I I, fivagr:. lk 1 I. IP • 1 _AMY. OOP.. •••• a /61b *AL IMP . „fie& ai .10. WIL si . 41‹,,,, . , • r ..,. .._ ... ...... ..,... ,..._ --milikl.,..., .........:, , ...f. • g " qa '',... '‘• 0%oIre•r"../ .11 MA• • ma* • 4•11 . 10. * I \ - •ir 047A,.......„.1 r AL th. r . - i oat ea 1.,.. 4444 --- . ..,... -;,.=.1..,...._ . - . . ",,,, N 4,.-'in , •,•• • /I am . • - )-1 d 4,. ‘Iltly 74.1.3etrrl... • -s- „„, w• I ' i•bh, •wo.....4.33.Hri b • Z alla loo alair Nksza. lia* ci., I II• % %, )sit 4, II a. :. • to...L....osar.„\ ,t titt'l. kiii8lt. ,. \....../ ,,.., IN IL, :4 - ' 1 wit / si. I 4r...e0o.•...vr-N,;... \kip, li • _ • , it ,; .....• . ' 1, VN.N, i■ :/ ctah.,.07 (.4.....r.-- -......" \ ..ttv,, ,e, • . . , ...... MIL A. :gm. .....7.\ sr. .. . . ; 4.... ) .. _ , ..... AL ...NAP::,,, ,f4N. N. 1 . M•••F.m.....a k., _ It A ,•■•..11,,,,e7,, ,, = at& r"•' 4.. r.opeer t=". A Z 4 Z.01 •Arsa 11,,,..\ " •. m.. .. ,,- . ' MA. _..L.,,,,....k. 411i2.R.SVa sig.)lk % ,,. WI' 1.1 I: ....1_4_4„..„ ,. , . —7•;::- ‘ 10."''''w-.4%."- \44.4.40 :01..,,, c44..c.....0,5 \. - ---.----,•-•.‘3,1V--11. AMR -4), ./ •+ i 4,.......... ...„ . ''. • 1",.,74j,0) ., . • i I .2 •c... ma. ..,,....•. 1 . an j - - _r. -' SYK1 4$ ; \)::4 :.,-N7 r-, i • `'■......t I r.,. mai 14.....kar'w•-aa',;' 47 - • I -•,•;.‘" — ' • 1 ant . j &IR 4,- , ..-7•.%,s.-,..J•-tti. ...,/ . r• .• ..1 i.t 1 04.4•.41 4,0••;•...-7I,\ 3i.„m-i 1,.%.....,....•4.. vt...\,, ,.i•.i s,.\•...,-,.4,.c-i.,,. A , ,, ;4i,,..•„Jd.,i.,L i.1.;..,....,.rN-4--"-r.-,'..T I,-...-;Q.■.■,• -i,,„-.2i.4..•.:.,:•„1,.:...,.,.,''-.'..,'_..i..•,•,..•.1•. •o;• i _ v1: r e *, v. Completed 1 k 10, 1....)'..r• .. ..... 4Cm.a'r i- • —• "v.:\ X ,.. 19•..A.or •- qp -N. . '....4.../ . ...... . • , ,,..■ .., 4 *NAT... •- • • ....„„. ."-k, . _ 44 „..ol ' .. / 4,1-f I.N.1._ "\,,, •'.0..:_ A.L_II*T-, — :71,.,A. AY r t=f4re. 4 ....V. •,,,r. -1: fs.v/....,. X10. :r. ., . , •.• , , ...: . .... , tip....,i4.3.- RR13, Chapel Hill i .(Smith Level Road) .,.. ...1.-r'•11 I ,” % • 3 . ,./ -7\1; v■ N, , ••-■0,i ' :•” ; k; e . :. I vial . 1 ti • / .f; .. ! t D C al A T 11 . . 1 C 0 t/ K 7 1 L." .1.'. .7'\•••■.,....' ""7" / 153A-236 CH. 153A. COUNTIES § 153A-240 028 set the duties of any person appointed or designated as a fire prevention . inspector. A fire prevention inspector shall not make electrical inspections unless he is qualified to do so under G.S. 153A-351. (x965,c.626; 1969,c. 106.1. • . s. 3; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.) • §§ 153A-236 to 153A-238: Reserved for future codification purposes. ARTICLE 12. Roads and Bridges. § 153A-239. Public road defined. In this Article "public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway, thoroughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without regard to whether it is open for travel. (1973, c. 822, s. 1.) Local Modification. — Brunswick: 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, • amending 1979, 2nd Sess.,c. 1319. § 153A-240. Naming roads and assigning street numbers in . unincorporated areas. A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road within the county and not within a city,and may assign or reassign street numbers for use on such a road. In naming or renaming a public road, a county may not (1) Change the name,if any,given to the road by the Board ofTransporta- tion, unless the Board of Transportation agrees; (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Transporia- tion, but may give the road a name in addition to its number, or (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicinity. A county shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street numbers on a road until it has held a public hearing on the matter. At lent 10 days before the day of the hearing, the board of commissioners shall cause notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing to be prominently posted at the county courthouse, in at least two public places in the township or townships where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of such ' hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation published in the county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to be given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of Transportation,'and to any city within five miles of the road. This section does not repeal or modify Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of 1953, which pertains to naming streets in Kannapolis. (1957, c. 1068; 1973,c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1; 1981, cc. 112, 518.) . Local Modification. --r Brunswick: 1979; been substituted for"State Highway Commie 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, sion" and for "Commission" in this section amending 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Forsyth: enacted by Session Laws 1973,c. 822. 1981,a 558;Guilford: 1979,c.283. Effect of Amendments. — The first 1951 • Editor's Note.—Pursuant to Session Laws amendment substituted"at the County Cour,. • 1973,c.507,s.5,"Board of.Transportation"has house, in at least two public places in tk, •• 78 . 029 • Dear Resident: In April, 1987, the Orange County. Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange County addresses. To date eight postal routes have been converted to street addresses. Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have been assigned street addresses adhering to the county-wide system. All addresses are computer-maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions (voter registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal service areas. Within the next two years, all of Orange County will have street addresses and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past. Smith Level Road (partial Chapel Hill rural route 13) is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Monday, February 27, 1989, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on Rural Route 13 (Partial) served by the Chapel Hill Post • Office on Estes Drive. The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in - Hillsborough. If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural route and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least one (1) inch high. The proposed NEW ADDRESS which reflects the physical location of your residence at tax map reference is as follows: OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask, however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned house. number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning Department staff members below. Don Powell (Extension 345) or Miriam Coleman (Extension 575) Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 • Phone: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Sincerely, Marvin E. Collins Planning Director • • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 030 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO RURAL ROUTE 13 (Partial/Smith Level Road) CHAPEL HILL IN ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of N.C. , Chapter 153A, Section 240, notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough, N.C. at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 27, 1989 for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the assignment of house numbers on Smith Level Road (partial Chapel Hill rural route 13) . ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS Smith Level Road (including Clarence Dr. ) is proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of 111 permanently assigned house numbers. Smith Level Road extends southward from NC 54 Bypass to Chatham County and includes Clarence Drive. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment must be received during the Public Hearing. Changes may be made in the advertised proposal which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to Don Powell in the Orange County Planning Department. The Planning Department is located in the Agricultural-Environmental Center, 306-F Revere Road in Hillsborough. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. The Planning Department telephone number in Hillsborough is 732-8181 - Extension 345. Marvin E. Collins Planning Director 0 �. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS OBTAINED FROM: 0 V 0 U 1. Q. How will I know. when to - begin - using my new address? A. For entire Route MIRIAM COLEMAN conversions, The Planning a Ar _ Department will notify you or by mail of the effective ' date to begin using your DON POWELL new address. For new construction and individual at the house address changes, the ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING effective date is the date the assignment is made upon DEPARTMENT F[03Mon request to the Planning 306-F Revere Road ,� Department. Ilillsborough; North Carolina 1 :' 27278 t 52 2. Q. When d,o I place the assigned numbers on my mail TELEF11OHE: box? Chapel 11111 ------- $68-4501 A. Within 30 days after Durham ------------ 688-7331 110 1 you have been notified. ilillsborough ------ 732-8101 t7R���G f ��U�,j r, �C��,�r'�r� Mebane -------------- 227-2031 3. Q. What happens to mail with my old address on it? un�r al _ A. The Post Office �,° o*1s guarantees delivery of all °o the old or new address for st mail labeled with either �-�.� u at least a year. 4. Q. Do I have to throw away my checks with the old address on them? A. No. Use up your old checks, and only then order checks which have your new 3 address on them. ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT 30Gf Runr Itow, HILLSDOROUGH, 11&2i?18 (OUSE NUMBERS ARE REPLACING IN ADDITION TO ROUTE tURAL ROUTE AND BOX NUMBERS IN CONVERSION,' NEW HOUSES ON )RANGE COUNTY. THE PLANNING l?j�7 `� / / SINGLE LOTS ARE ASSIGNED ►EPARTMENT, WITH HELP FROM THE STREET ADDRESSES AT THE TIME I.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BEGAN THE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. 41ROJECT IN THE SPRING OF 1987, . -</-!:5 SUBDIVISION LOTS ARE NUMBERED AFTER THE BOARD OF COUNTY .S.f DURING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT !OMMISSIONERS ADOPTED AN �•S�•f REVIEW PROCESS SO THAT FINAL . )RDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PLATS . HAVE PRE-DETERMINED :ONVERSION TO STREET NUMBERS FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENT. `►DDRESSES. THE OBJECTIVE IS COMPUTERIZED LISTS ARE eo GIVE PERMANENCY AND MAINTAINED DAILY, AND UPDATED :ONSISTENCY TO A SYSTEM THAT _ _ ADDRESS FILES ARE- FORWARDED TO BILL ALLOW MORE EFFICIENT MAIL IMPORTANT ' COUNTY FACILITIES oELIVERY TO AN ADDRESS -THAT (911, POST OFFICES, UTILITIES, •MILL REMAIN. CONSTANT, EVEN AS ETC.) . POSTAL TERRITORIES CHANGE. - - --- THE SYSTEM WORKS LIKE THIS: 1703 4 1704 8316 8320 TWO INTERSECTING BASE LINES (ROADS) ARE DEFINED TO �a ESTABLISH A POINT OF ORIGIN 1709 (Y3 FROM WHICH MEASUREMENTS ARE Q ��� 0% MADE AT 50-FOOT INTERVALS AS 8311 ONE MOVES AWAY FROM THE ZERO F POINT. WHERE HOUSES EXIST, A 1711 Hwy 70 NUMBER IS ASSIGNED CONSISTENT _ WITH THE DISTANCE MEASURED FROM THE BASE INTERSECTION. 7 •7 ��'� I�ILL����U�I� NON-RESIDENTIAL ROAD FRONTAGE 1 t 13 1 1 15 IS SCALED FOR FUTURE FILL-IN 1 AND THE NUMBERS ARE RESERVED O FOR FUTURE GROWTH. BLOCK Q. NUMBERS CHANGE EVERY 600 FEET. BY ITS VERY NATURE THE PROJECT 1 CHAPEL THUS, THE FURTHER AWAY FROM IS DETAIL ORIENTED AND TIME ILL THE INTERSECTING BASE LINES CONSUMING. SEVERAL YEARS WILL (HIGHWAY 70 AND HIGHWAY 86) BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE ' THE HIGHER THE HOUSE NUMBER. TASK. THE END RESULT MILL BE THIS- ACCOUNTS FOR NUMBERS IN WORTH THE EFFORT, HOWEVER, CA�I����� THE HIGH FOUR-DIGIT RANGE NEAR WITH A COUNTY-WIDE SYSTEM OF CALVANDER AND NUMBERS WHICH PERMANENT HOUSE NUMBERS BASED APPROACH THE 9000 RANGE NEAR ON COHERENT AND WELL REASONEPCj - THE PERSON COUNTY LIRE. PLANNING. C�J ZV Y . ORANGE COUNTY 033 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 411 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 27, 1989_ Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Proposed Ordinance Draft Application for Environmental Assessment Town of Carrboro Comments TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 410 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on an Environmental Impact Ordinance. BACKGROUND: A draft Environmental Impact Ordinance was presented for public hearing on October 10, 1988. The Board of County Commissioners had some major concerns, including the breadth of the criteria for applicability and the applicant's costs in terms of time and money. The Ordinance Review Committee has met on several occasions to continue with development of the Ordinance, with the assistance and input of a committee which included a County Commissioner, the County Manager, County Attorney, County Engineer, Chair of the Environmental Affairs Board, a representative of the Economic Development Commission, and several other individuals not employed by Orange County who offered expertise in areas of environmental concern. Most of the discussion by the Committee focused on identifying issues and areas of environmental sensitivity, and establishing criteria by which to 411 determine if a project has an environmental impact. Development occurring in environmentally sensitive areas, or including activity which could have O34 . detrimental environmental impacts, would be required to submit an Environmental Assessment. If review of the Assessment indicates that significant environmental impacts will occur as result of the project, then an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. The Ordinance (attached) specifies • criteria to be used in determining if submittal of an • EA or EIS is required. Copies of the Ordinance have been sent to the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Mebane for comment. Input from the other jurisdictions is necessary in order to determine exactly where, within Orange County, the Ordinance would apply. RECOMMENDAT/ON: The Planning Staff recommends approval of an Environmental Impact Ordinance. 035 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has authorized the governing bodies of all cities, counties, and towns acting individually, or collectively, to require any special-purpose unit of government or private developer of a major development project to submit detailed statements reflecting the environmental impact of such projects (North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A-1 et seg. , more specifically N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A-8) ; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Administrative Code contains - provisions interpreting the authority of local governments pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A-8, and the role of State Government with respect to this authority (N.C.A.C. Title I, Ch. 25, .0100 et seg. ); and WHEREAS, Section .0802(c) of Title I, Chapter 25 of the North Carolina Administrative Code specifically provides that "In processing applications for state permits, state agencies shall consider any information generated by the local government pursuant to" the Code's 41, provisions; . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina: SECTION 1. PURPOSE Pursuant to the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopts this ordinance establishing a County policy to encourage the wise and productive use of the county's natural resources; to encourage a public and governmental awareness of our environment and of the consequences of development which affect it; to require that a full disclosure be made as to the anticipated effect of proposed development on the resources of the county; and to permit and facilitate full enforcement of all ordinances and regulations concerning the environment in an efficient, coordinated and comprehensive manner. The intent of this ordinance is to provide a mechanism for full disclosure of anticipated impacts of developments as herein defined and to make such information publicly available so that citizens of the county may have input into developmental issues before they become moot. More specifically, it is the intent of this ordinance to require the preparation and evaluation of environmental impact documents for projects that either require certain state permits, or require a local land use permit for development within environmentally sensitive areas, as provided in Section 2 of this ordinance. MH-1 carom, O36 SECTION 2. APPLICABILITY 2.1 Exemptions The following projects are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, and no Environmental Documentation is required: 2.1.1 Any project involving a total area of 2 acres or less. 2.1.2 Routine repairs and housekeeping projects 2.1.3 Routine grounds maintenance and landscaping. 2.2 Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment is required for non-exempt projects within the County's jurisdiction under the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act that: 2.2.1 Are expected to generate more than 220 pounds (one- • half of a 55-gallon drum) per month of hazardous • wastes, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, part 261, Subpart D; and/or 2.2.2 Involve water usage as an integral part of the operation of a commercial or industrial activity. Domestic water (25 gpd per employee) , and water used 410 for climate control (air conditioning and heating) is not considered an integral part of commercial, or industrial activity. Environmental Assessment is not required for any activity where the total water usage is less than 10,000 gpd; and/or 2.2.3 Require grading in excess of 40,000 square feet, • exclusive of roads, for non-residential or attached residential development; and/or • 2.2.4 Require grading in excess of 40,000 square feet, exclusive of roads, for non-residential components of residential development (golf courses, recreation facilities, and the like); and/or 2.2.5 Require any of the following Environmental permits: ' (a) A Mining Permit pursuant to the North Carolina Mining Act. (b) A State NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit, as administered by the NC Division of Environmental Management. (c) A Non-Discharge Pbrmit (for wastewater treatment systems with design capacity of more than 3000 gpd, and for land application systems) . . MH-2 037 (d) A permit for an Oil Refining Facility 410 (administered by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management); and/or 2.2.6 Require Environmental Documentation by a State or Federal agency. 2.2.7 Require a Special Use Permit, Site Plan, or Subdivision approval, and are located within, or • contain one or more of the following environmentally sensitive areas: (a) The Water Quality Critical Area of the Water Supply Watershed, as defined in the Land Use component of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) Sites identified in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or "Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina" ; and/or • (c) Lands with slopes in excess of 25% outside of drainage easements or stream buffers, as determined by USGS Topographic maps, at a contour interval of 10 feet. The Environmental Assessment (EA) shall consist of a document designed by the Planning Department and completed by the applicant. Upon completion, the EA will address the environmental issues of County concern. If the EA reveals no "significant environmental impacts", as that term is defined in this ordinance, the Planning Department shall issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) . 2.3 Environmental Impact Statement For projects which require submittal of an Environmental Assessment, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will also be required if the project has a significant environmental impact. A project has a significant environmental impact when it : 2.3.1 Involves a Mining Permit, or extractive activity 411 which requires removal of surface or sub-surface material in excess of 40,000 cubic feet, excluding roads: and/or MH-3 038 2.3.2 Will generate more than 2200 pounds (five 55-gallon drums) per month of hazardous materials, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261, Subpart III D; and/or 2.3.3 Requires an EIS by a Federal or State agency; and/or 2.3.4 Disturbs any site identified in an Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, & Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" and the Orange County Inventory of Natural Areas. "Disturb" shall include any physical alteration or activity on the Inventory Site, as well as alteration or activity on adjacent land area which could have a quantifiable negative effect on the site. 2.3.5 Involves a wastewater treatment system with design capacity of more than 3000 gpd, or land application system, within the Water Quality Critical Area of Water Supply Watersheds as defined by the Orange County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2.3.6 Involves water usage as an integral part of the operation of a commercial or industrial activity, excluding domestic water (25 gpd per employee) , and water used for climate control (air conditioning and heating) , and excluding projects for which total water usage does not exceed 50,000 gpd. SECTION 3. REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 3.1 Review of Environmental Impact Statements 3.1.1 The County Planning Department shall transmit to the State Clearinghouse an is prepared pursuant to this ordinance which requires a state permit identified in Section 2.2.5. The State Clearinghouse provides for review by appropriate state agencies. The Planning Department shall transmit with the EIS any additional information or comments that the county wishes to be considered by the state agencies. 3.1.2 The County Planning Department will review the adequacy of any EIS required pursuant to Section 2.3 and shall advertise the availability of the document for public review at the Planning Department. A report shall be presented to the Board, of County Commissioners, and said Board may elect to hold a public hearing. 411 MH-4 missznanammeal 039 3.2 Other Documents Deemed Acceptable 411 Any EA and/or EIS prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or GS 1134-A, and reviewed through. the State Clearinghouse process, may be submitted in total or partial compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Any areas of environmental concern, as specified in Section 2 of this ordinance, which are not included in the Federal or State document, shall be addressed by supplementing the EA or EIS. Orange County reserves the right to require preparation of an EIS pursuant to Section 2.3, notwithstanding a Finding of No Significant Impact on the part of Federal or State agencies. SECTION 4. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EIS 4.1 Purpose The primary purpose of an EIS is to serve as a decision- making tool to ensure that the purposes and policies defined in the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (G.S. 113A) are given full consideration in the ongoing programs and actions of state and local government. It should provide a full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and should inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize 411 adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the environment. 4.2 Requirements Preparers should use a format for EIS's which will encourage good analysis and clear presentation of all alternatives, including the proposed activity, while minimizing length and complexity. These documents should not exceed 50 pages and should include site location maps. 4.2.1 Format and Content: (a) Cover Sheet. A single cover sheet including the following information; (1) designation of the document as a draft, • supplementary or final statement; (2) title of the proposed activity that is the subject of the statement; (3) list of any involved cooperating entities, (4) name, address, and telephone number of the person who can supply further information. (b) Summary. An adequate and accurate summary of the statement stressing the major conclusions, areas 411 of controversy, and issues to be resolved. The summary shall also list all federal, state, and local permits, licenses, certifications, and other MH-5 • 040 approvals which must be obtained in implementing • the proposal. If there is any uncertainty about whether any one of these is necessary, it should be so indicated. (c) A completed Environmental Assessment document • (d) Purpose and Need. The underlying purpose and need for the proposed activity. (e) Alternatives including proposed activity. Based upon information and analysis presented in the following sections on the affected environment and environmental consequences, it should present the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed activity in comparative form. To the extent possible the comparison of alternatives should quantify how the purpose and need would be satisfied by each alternative and the proposed activity. It should also: (1) explore and evaluate all reasonable alternatives; (2) discuss the reasons for the elimination of alternatives from detailed study; (3) identify the agency's preferred alternative(s) in the draft statement •and identify such alternatives in the final statement, unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference; (4) include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the alternatives; and (5) assess the social and economic impacts of each alternative. Impacts should be quantified for each alternative, where feasible, but when quantification by standard economic tools is not feasible or intangibles are involved, a description of each impact is required. (6) Affected Environment. The EIS must describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected and the environment to be created by the alternatives under consideration. The description should be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. • (7) Environmental Consequences. The EIS should describe: • (a) direct effects and significance; MH-6 041 (b) indirect effects and significance; 410 (c) possible conflicts between the proposed activities and the objectives of federal, state, and local plans, policies, and controls for the affected area. (8) List of Preparers. The EIS shall list the names and qualifications of the persons who were primarily responsible for preparing the EIS. (9) Appendix. If an appendix is included in an EIS, it should meet the following requirements: (a) consist of materials substantiating any analysis fundamental to the principal document, as distinct from material of lesser significance that may accompany the document or be incorporated by reference; (b) normally be analytic and relevant to the decision to be made; 411 (c) shall not be counted in the EIS 50 page limit; and (d) be circulated with the EIS or be readily available upon request. SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT. 5.1 Injunctions and Equitable Relief. Pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. 153A-123(d) and (3) the County may seek an injunction or other appropriate equitable remedy against any violation of this ordinance or to require compliance with any provision of this ordinance. 5.2 Effect on Other Permits and Actions. 5.2.1 Construction or installation of any major development project shall not be commenced until sixty (60) days subsequent to the filing of a completed EA pursuant to Section 2.2 of this ordinance. 5.2.2 No building permit, subdivision approval, zoning action or other governmental sanction shall be 411 furnished for any major development project requiring approval of a State permit identified in Section 2.2.5 which further requires an EIS pursuant to Section 2.3 MH-7 ammeammr.....r. 042 of this ordinance until 60 days after the completed EIS has been transmitted to the State Clearinghouse. 5.2.3 No building permit, subdivision approval, zoning action or other governmental sanction shall be furnished for any major development project requiring approval of a local permit pursuant to Section 2.2 which further requires an EIS pursuant to Sectidn 2.3, until 30 days after the County Planning Department has accepted the EIS as adequate. SECTION 6. DEFINITIONS As used in this ordinance, unless the context indicates otherwise: (1) "EA" - an Environmental Assessment. (2) "EIS" - an Environmental Impact Statement. (3) "FONSI" - a Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact. (4) "Completed EA" - an Environmental Assessment that has been accepted by the County Planning Department as technically acceptable for purposes of this ordinance. (5) "Completed EIS" - an environmental impact statement 411 that has been accepted by the County Planning Department as technically acceptable for the purpose of being transmitted to the State Clearinghouse or for being reviewed for adequacy by the County Planning Department. (6) "County" - Orange County. (7) "County Planning Department" or "Planning Department" means the Orange County Planning Department. (8) "Environmental Document" - an EA, EIS or FONSI, or all of them. (9) "Land Use Permit" means a zoning permit or subdivision approval. (10) The term "major development project" shall include but is not limited to shopping centers, subdivision and other housing developments, and industrial and commercial projects, but shall not include any projects of less than two contiguous acres in extent. (11) "Public water supply" means a water supply system that serves a city or town located partly or entirely within Orange County that has a population in excess of 2,500. (12) "Special-purpose Unit of Government" - includes any MH-8 043 special district or public authority. (13) "State agency" - includes every department, agency, institution, public authority, board, commission, bureau, division, council, member of Council of State, or officer of the State government of the State of North Carolina. (14) "State Clearinghouse" - the clearinghouse agency established by the North Carolina Department of Administration under the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. (15) "Watersupply Watershed" - Land draining to existing reservoirs which serve as public water supplies for the County, or to potential reservoir sites which have been designated for protection against treats to the water quality of future water supplies. (16) "Water Quality Critical Area" - Land draining directly to existing or future watersupply impoundments by overland flow and interflow, called shorelands, and draining into the main channels of trunk streams emptying into the impoundments, called non-basin drainage areas. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon and after its adoption. 410 MH-9 -. ....1.111011111.1010111 045 411 APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Project Name . Applicant Address Phone Owner Address Phone Location of property Acreage Township . Tax Nap Reference Parcel Identification Number(s) FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY - Date received Reviewed by • Date accepted/rejected Summary comments: 046 I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT, 411 WITH ASSISTANCE FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS NEEDED A. Zoning and use of adjacent property. North South East West B. Topography: highest elevation lowest elevation general direction of slope Estimate % of property with 0 - 5% slope 5 - 15% slope 15 - 25% slope more than 25% slope C. Drainage Are there any streams or drainage easements located on the property? Is any of the site located within a floodplain? If yes, attach map. D. Existing traffic conditions: • Road Name Classification Capacity Current volume of traffic Future traffic volume if project is approved 411 047 E. Does the site contain any of the following Inventory Sites: 411 (As identified in the Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County or the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina. ) yes no a. cemeteries b. archaeological sites c. historic sites d. areas of geological significance e. designated natural areas f. designated habitat g. other For each answer above, please indicate location on map and attach, and complete the following: (1) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page 411 Description of Resource (2) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description of Resource 00.IP (3) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description of Resource 048 II. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 411 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Describe proposed use of property 2. Number of lots 3. Number of structures residential non-residential 4. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units (excludinf roads, but including parking areas) 5. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non- 411 residential use (excluding roads) 6. Estimated area to be graded for roads 7 . Class of road proposed (if private) Total road length 8. Hours of operation for commercial or industrial use B. STATE PERMITS REQUIRED 1. Does the project involve the mining of earth products? How many cubic feet of material is expected to be excavated? Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to NCDRCD? Attach map indicating extent of proposed activity. 111 049 2. Does the project involve generation of hazardous or toxic 411 wastes, as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency?. (A listing of all hazardous materials is available from the Planning Department) Describe the wastes to be generated. How much material is expected to be generated per month? Where will disposal of the material take place? 3. Will the project involve a land application system for treatment of wastewater? If yes, describe Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange County Department of Environmental Health? 4. Is a septic tank system proposed which has a design capacity of more than 3000 gallons per day? If yes, describe Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange County Department of Environmental Health? 050 C. IMPACTS 1. Noise/vibration Will the proposal result in noise or vibration beyond the property line? Yes No If yes, describe Proposed mitigation 111 2. Traffic Impacts Automobile Traffic: Average daily trips generated Truck Traffic: Average daily trips generated Approximate weight of loaded trucks Indicate anticipated truck routes and schedules 411 051 3. Visual Impacts Describe visual impact of project on surrounding area 4. Water Usage (Applicable to Non-residential use only) a. Estimated no. of employees X 25 gpd = gpd b. Estimated water use for climate control gpd c. Process water gpd % consumed % discharged to septic system % dischaged to sanitary sewer system % discharged to surface (including storm sewers) (describe: ) 410 % evaporated % reclaimed/reused % other 100% U. Water use for cooling, heating, etc. , in gpd association with production or manufacturing % reused % consumed % discharged (describe: % other 100% gpd Total Water Usage e. Describe source of water 411 052 f 5. Complete the following for each Inventory Site identified in I.E above: (1)a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development b. Proposed Mitigation ■■•■••••.•• ••••••■AN•N.•1••••••■••• (2)a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development b. Proposed Mitigation 411 (3)a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development b. Proposed Mitigation 411 (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) 053 FEB 22 1565 3e- arrboro February 22, 1989 Mr.John Link Orange County Manager PO Box 8181 • Hillsborough,NC 27278 . Dear Mr. Link: At their February 21, 1989 meeting,the Carrboro Board of Aldermen reviewed the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. These ordinances were referred to the Town for comment under Section 2.6 of the Joint Planning Agreement. The Aldermen voted to refer to you and to the Board of Commissioners the enclosed staff and Carrboro Planning Board comments on the proposed amendments. In addition to these comments,the Aldermen wished to stress the importance of the first of the Planning Board's comments on the Environmental Impact Ordinance. The Aldermen would like the question of the intended applicability of the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance answered definitively before the public hearing scheduled for February 27. If the intent is for the ordinance to be applicable within Carrboro's planning Jurisdiction,including the Transition Area,there are several changes that must be made in the ordinance;if not the ordinance should clearly state that intent. Sincerely, Robert Morgan Town Manager Enclosures • rwmlabw 054 CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 16, 1969 • RE: County Environmental Impact Ordinance Draftl . • MOVED BY OLIVIA LUDINGTON,and SECONDED BY CHARLES RIGGSBEE: To request that the Aldermen forward to the County the following Planning Board comments about the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance: The Carrboro Planning Board is vivified in its views on several issues related to the current County ordinance draft,although the Planning Board is somewhat divided on the issue of whether the concept of an Environmental Impact Ordinance is appropriate for the County and potentially for Carrboro. • . The Board wishes to forward to the Commissioners the following comments: L Is this ordinance intended to apply everywhere in the County,including areas within the Carrboro and Chapel Hill planning jurisdictions? If so,it should be clearly stated in the ordinance,and a great deal more input should be solicited from the Towns before a draft is adopted. If not,the ordinance :should clearly state that that is not the intent,or clearly state•that the Towns have the option of enacting the ordinance if they so choose. Carrboro should 0- certainly have more opportunity to be a partner in the drafting of any County ordinance that is intended to apply within the Town's planning ' jurisdiction. 2. Although the Planning Board understatids that the County's public -- - hearing process is intended to generate public comments to assist in the drafting of a final ordinance,the Planning Board feels that neither it nor the Town staff have had enough time to adequately digest the ordinance and its implications. Certainly is too early in the process for the the County to take any action on the proposed ordinance. As of the planning Board's meeting, a final draft of the ordinance was still not available from the County. The Carrboro Planning Board would like the opportunity to review a final draft, and to hear presentations from the County staff and the Southern Environmental Law Center about the justification for and pros and cons of the ordinance,before providing comments. This is especially important if • the County intends the ordinance to be applicable in Carrboro. 3. The Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement (EA/EIS) process should be formally connected to some requirement of the 1 • 055 t system. if an EA/EIS process is going to be implemented at the pernxt provisions to County level or the municipal level,or both,it should is identified as part of ensure that it is effective. For example,if an impact EIS process,the County ought to be able to require that it be mitigated as part of the actual project development. This requires the modification of County Zoning and Subdivision ordinances,which should occur simultaneously with the adoption of the Environmental Impact Ordinance. 4. The Planning Board notes that while there is opportunity for public review of Environmental Impact Statements,there is no required public hearing as part Impact Statement process. There is art of the Environmental also no requirement that public comment or opinion be taken d draft t cc u It in I the adequacy of a document,or preparing seems that the EA/EIS process is primarily set up to generate information that the County staff can use in its negotiations with developers. The • Planning Board wonders if that purpose alone is sufficient to justify requiring this additional level of process of developers. period following the filing of an 5, Why is there a 60 day waiting pe Environmental �� Environmental Impact Statement is not required,before additional work can be done on a poject? Section 5.2 is very confusing on this issue. s 6. Has the County made any estimate of the potential home e�? the ordinance represents to developers and eventually entiai costs? expected environmental benefits outweigh the potential 8-0 (Absent or Excused: Woolley,Okun. One vacant seat) • 2 • • • 056 MEMORANDUM • TO: Robert Morgan,Town Manager CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN . . PLANNING BQ4.RD.ktEMBERS FROM: Ann Weeks DATE: February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Proposed Orange County Ordinance Amendments Affecting Development in the Rural Buffer The Town has received a package of proposed amendments to the texts of the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and also a copy of a proposed . Environmental Impact Ordinance which would be free-standing as part of,the County Code. Our review and comment is being solicited by the County as required under Section 2.6 B of the Joint Planning Agreement between the Towns and the County. That portion of the Agreement requires that all proposed changes to the County's ordinances that are applicable within the Rural Buffer areas that are part of the Joint Planning Area shall be referred to Carrboro and Chapel Hill for review, and that the towns shall have thirty (30) days in which to comment. We received notification of the proposed changes on January 25, and the County has scheduled its public hearing on the ordinance amendments for February 27, 1989. As of today,the Environmental Impact Ordinance is still being revised by the County's Ordinance Review Committee,so the draft included here is not the final draft, but is the only version we have to make our comments from. Aside from the EIS Ordinance, the County is proposing four text amendments to its • Zoning Ordinance and one text amendment to its Subdivision Ordinance. Briefly, the changes include: , Orange County Zoning Ordinance • 1) Changes to the County's Public Interest District (P ID)zone to enable the County to rezone portions of Duke Forest in accordance with Dv.ke-University's Report and Recommendations of the Land Resources Committee; 2) Changes to the size limits for Mobile Home Planned Developments; 3) Changes to the Permitted Use Table and Definitions to permit breeding kennels • and wildlife rehabilitation centers in zoned areas of the County; 4) Changes to the Permitted Use Table categories dealing with retail trade. • • 1 • • 057 Orange County Subdivision Ordinance 1) Changes to extend to all subdivisions,county-wide, the requirement to dedicate recreation land (where such land is called out on the County's Land Use Plan Recreation Element or Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as desired for recreation/open space purposes) or payment in lieu of dedication (where the subdivision does not include such lands). The following sections describe the proposed ordinance amendments in more detail, and also five the Carrboro Administration's comments on them. • 1. Proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance (DRAFT), This Ordinance would stand alone as part of the County Code -- it is not an amendment to the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances. The Ordinance lays out the process by which the County can require a review of the environmental impact of various projects, under the authority granted by the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act,especially NCGS 113A-8. OVERALL COMMENT CONCERNING THE ORDINANCE'S APPLICABILITY: The Town is concerned about the proposed applicability of the Ordinance to projects within the Carrboro Planning Jurisdiction, including the corporate areas, ETJ and Joint Planning Transition Areas. As it is currently worded,the County EIS Ordinance would require environmental review for certain projects "...within the County's jurisdiction under the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act...". There is no specific statement that that requirement will not apply within the planning jurisdictions -- including the Transition Areas --of municipalities within the County. This is of great concern to the Town. The Town's agenda for the fall of 1989 includes continued review of a local Environmental Impact Ordinance, on which the Town wants a full local and joint planning public hearing process to occur before a decision is made as to whether it should apply within Carrboro's planning jurisdiction. As it is currently written,the County ordinance would likely be applicable within Carrboro's planning jurisdiction, although Carrboro will have had very little or no opportunity for input to the Ordinance drafting or review processes. The Town has no difficulty with County unilateral actions that affect only areas within-the.County's planning and zoning jurisdiction, but does object to County unilateral actions that directly affect areas within Carrboro's planning and zoning jurisdiction. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDINANCE The Ordinance requires that an Environmental Assessment form be filed for all non-exempt projects that: * require State permits: a Mining Permit, NPDES permit, State Non-DiScharge Permit or State permit for Oil Refining;or • are required by a state or federal agency to file environmental documentation;or 2 • • 058 , • • are expected to generate more than 220 pounds (one-half of a 55 gallon drum)of hazardous wastes per month;or * involve (within the Eno River Basin)water usage as an integral part of the operation of the facility;or • are required to have a Special Use Permit, Site Plan, or Subdivision approval and are located or include lands within a water supply Watershed,lands with slopes - greater than 25 outside of drainage easements or stream buffers,or sites identified in the Orange County Inventories done by the County and the Triangle Land Conservancy. Projects that are exempted from Environmental Assessment review include: any project involving a total area of 2 acres or less; or • routine maintenance and repairs to property. Once submitted, the Environmental Assessment form would be reviewed by County staff, and a decision made about whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. That decision would be made on the basis of the expected environmental impact of the project-- all projects for which that impact is expected to be significant would require an EIS. If a project is not determined to produce a significant environmental impact, the County will issue a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact), and the project can proceed with the development process. A project is expected to have a--significant environmental impact, as defined in the Ordinance,and therefore would require an EIS,when: • it includes 25,000 square feet or more in a single structure, or • is a non-residential development or a non-residential component of a residential development that requires 40,000 square feet or more of grading, or • requires disturbance and or removal of more than 40,000 square feet of surface or Subsurface material, or will generate more than 2200 pounds per month of hazardous materials,or • requires a state or federal EIS, or • disturbs any site identified as significant on the County's or the Triangle Land • Conservancy's inventories, or -- • involves a septic system with design capacity of more than 3000 gallons of waste per day located within the water quality critical areas of water supply watersheds, or . • involves excessive water usage (greater than 50,000 gallons per day).• • The Ordinance includes technical requirements for EIS documents, by which the County is to judge their ''adequacy- -- and also describes the process by which they are reviewed to determine whether or not they are "adequate". The County staff will review all EIS documents that do not involve permits issued by the state. Those will be reviewed to determine their adequacy tcy the State Clearinghouse. • 3 I . 059 Once the EIS has been accepted as adequate, the project in question can proceed with the development approval process after 30 days have passed:.from the County • acceptance, in. cases where the County determines adequacy;or after 60 days have passed from the transmission of the completed document to the State Clearinghouse, where the Clearinghouse makes the determination of adequacy. PROPOSED TOWN COMMENTS: 1) Applicability As described above, the Town is concerned about the ordinance's proposed applicability. If the County does not want the ordinance to be applicable within municipal planning and zoning jurisdictions, it should clearly state that in the • ordinance. If the County does want the ordinance to be applicable within municipal planning and zoning jurisdictions, the Town feels strongly that the County should not be drafting and approving such an ordinance unilaterally,and in fact that such unilateral action is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Joint Planning Agreement between the County and the Towns. • 2) Effect. As it is currently written,the effect of requiring an Environmental Impact Statement will be to collect information about the expected environmental impacts of proposed projects that might otherwise not be known. There is no public hearing required on an Environmental Impact Statement as part of the determination of its adequacy,however, although the Commissioners may elect to hold one. Most importantly, once an EIS has been determined to be adequate,there is no provision for requiring that the proposed impact mitigating measures laid out in the EIS be incorporated into the subsequent design arid permitting processes. In • other words, a project can go through the EIS process, laying out alternatives, and stating the measures necessary to mitigate the impacts inherent in each alternative, and once the EIS is found to be adequate,can continue with design and permit review processes, all the way to construction, without including those mitigating measures. The County should consider incorporating in the ordinance some mechanism for tying the results of EIS preparation and review into the permit processes for the developments which require them. • • • • • Proposed Changes to the County Zoning Ordinance • A. Changes to the County's Public Interest District(PID). . • Eplanation of Proposed Change: The County is proposing to amend its current Public Interest District (PID) to reflect the recommendations of Duke University's Land Resources Committee Report. The Report classifies Duke Forest lands into four different categories --Permanent Research Forest, Research Project Land, Institutional Use Land, and Residual Endowment Land (see the attached map). Right now,all those lands are zoned County PID,and as the County PID is written S 4 • oeseensegemenansimmen...—. • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION COMMENTS March 22, 1989 General Points. 1. Purpose. The overriding consideration is this question: What does this proposed ordinance protect against that our • existing local ordinances and State laws do not cover? or • cannot cover? If certain minor amendments are necessary to our local development ordinances, then those should be made on their merit. 2. Costs. Implementing the ordinance will impose costs on the County for professional staff and costs' on property owners (which will be passed on to citizens) both for preparing the statements and because of the delays built into the process. The time delays as spelled out in the ordinance only serve to prolong an already long and tedious process and delays cost money. • 3. Need for Timetable. Each step in the process requires a clear timetable for action by County Staff and/or elected • officials. 4. Is this really a "maior projects, ordinance"? The • E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments March 22, 1989 Page 2 ordinance is written as though most projects were of the nature of a massive TVA project, yet it covers everything over two acres or which grades 40,000 square feet or more. These are ridiculously low thresholds for "major projects". 5. This ordinance will have an entirely negative effect on economic development in the county, adding yet another layer of delay and hassle and uncertainly. Quality economic development prospects acknowledge the benefits of good zoning and planning and are ready to comply. An ordinance with no clear purpose except delay, and which relies too often on value judgments, serves only to obstruct development, both good and bad. E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments March 22, 1989 Page 3 DETAILED POINTS Section 2. Applicability 2.2.1 If a developer had a 100 acre (or a 2.1 acre) site • which he was splitting into lots of less than 2 acres, would each individual lot be exempted? It seems to hang on what • constitutes a "project", i.e. whether it is the parcel size of the individual end product or the starting size of the parcel. The ordinance needs'to be clearer on this point. 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 What does "routine" mean? • Section 2.2. Environmental Assessment. This layer is not needed. We believe most applications would result in a FONSI. We will need extra professional staff to review projects. (See point above regarding costs.) Section 2.2.3 Require grading in excess of 40,000 sal. feet, etc. We believe 40,000 square feet is too small an area to be the threshold. Section 2.2.4 "and the like" - This is vague. Does it include a farmer clearing land and grading for a pasture? a E.I. Ordinance,. EDC Comments • March 22, 1989 Page 4 • Section 2.2.7 (b). Sites listed in inventories. We question the legal status of these inventories, especially when value judgements are involved, and we question whether this could or should apply to both public and private land. Section 2.2.7 (c) "Land with slopes in excess of 25%, etc." What is the reason for this? Site plans and erosion control measures are already required. Section 2.2.7 (Last Paragraph) "...the Planning Department shall issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)." When? Needs a deadline; we suggest two weeks is sufficient. Section 2.3 Environmental Impact Statement. Section 2.3.4: "Disturbs any site identified in an inventory of sites, etc." We believe this should apply only to items in the public domain. What does "disturb" mean? If an historic site shows 150 acres on its deed and the adjacent site is 150 acres also, a development on the adjacent site is compelled to have an Environmental Impact Statement even if it is 3/4 mile away from the historic focal point. It would be better to specify a linear distance from the historic focal point. • E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments March 22, 1989 Page 5 Section 3. Review of environmental documents Section 3.1.1 "The County Planning Department shall transmit to the state clearinghouse..." This section needs a time table. The document should be transmitted within one week of receipt. • Section 3.1.1 Third line from the end: "the Planning Department shall transmit with the Environmental Impact Statement any additional information..." Replace "shall" with "may", and delete "with the Environmental Impact Statement." The County Planning Department should transmit the document to the state according to a timetable (immediately or within one week) and if there are any other documents they wish to transmit they should do that later, i.e. not hold up transmission of the documents to the state while they assemble various information they would like to include. E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments March 22, 1989 Page 6 Section 4. Technical Requirements for an Environmental Impact Statement Section 4.1 "...should inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the environment." This is the function of professional staff. It is an absurd requirement for the applicant. Section 4.2 "preparer should use a format... and clear presentation of all alternatives..." This is nonsense. Section 4.2.1 Format and Content "Summary. An adequate and accurate summary of the statement stressing the major conclusions, areas of controversy, issues to be resolved. The summary shall also list all federal, state, and local permits, licenses, certifications, and other approvals which must be obtained in implementing proposal..." This is nonsense: there is no controversy until one arises. This requires the preparer to read many people's minds. • "and other approvals" - it continues to be a question as to what is required of a developer in Orange County. How can a developer know this (what other approvals) at the beginning of the process? V 4 • E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments March 22, 1989 Page 7 Section 4.2.1 (e) Alternatives includin4 proposed activity. The basic premise is wrong, subjective; there is no end to it. Delete all of this section, i.e. 4.2.1 (e)(1) - 4.2.1(e)(9). Section 5. Enforcement 5.2.1 "Construction or Installation of any major development project Shall Not be Commenced Until Sixty (60) Days..." If there is a PONSI, the project should be able to start immediately. 5.2.3 "other governmental sanction". What does this mean? Reference to last word of the sentence: "adequate" Should be replaced with "as complete". Once the statement is a • complete statement, action should be permitted unless there is to be a public hearing. (See Section 3.1.2.) The permit process has its own separate timetable. E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments March 22, 1989 Page 8 Section 6 - Definitions. (10) Definition of "major development project" This definition is inadequate. "Shall include but is not limited to" leaves to someone's discretion what should be deemed a "major development project" - and this could be any project of 2 acres or more - a ridiculous threshold. (11) Public Water Supply. Under this definition Orange Alamance Water System is not a public water supply. (16) Water Supply Watershed and Water Quality Control Areas. These definitions should reference the Land Use Plan, and the definitions should be quoted verbatim from the Land Use Plan. i I • E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments March 22, 1989 Page 9 Application Forms I. Site Information ID Existing traffic conditions including road name, classification, current volume of traffic, future volume of traffic. Comment: The Planning Department should know this better than a developer. I.E(1) Type of Resource - What does "resource" mean? II.A.4 and 5. Square Footage to be Graded. Unattached residential is excluded. Is this intended? II.B.3 "Will the project involve a land application system for treatment of waste water?" Does this include roof or parking lot run-off? II.C.2 Traffic Impact We question whether these are • environmental impacts. II.C.3 Visual Impacts These are not environmental impacts. II.C.5(1)a. "Impact on Resource from Proposed Development" What is meant by "resource"? rtD r . 443 °J bci 3P • a rrbo ro z,, ,�«�. :..�. 281 • February 22, 1989 Mr.John Link Orange County Manager PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Link: At their February 21, 1989 meeting, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen reviewed the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. These ordinances were referred to the Town for comment under Section 2.6 of the Joint Planning Agreement. The Aldermen voted to refer to you and to the Board of Commissioners the enclosed staff and Carrboro Planning Board comments on the proposed amendments. In addition to these comments, the Aldermen wished to stress the importance of the first of the Planning Board's comments on the Environmental Impact Ordinance. The Aldermen would like the question of the intended applicability of the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance answered definitively before the public hearing scheduled for February 27. If the intent is for the ordinance to be applicable within Carrboro's punning jurisdiction,including the Transition Area, there are several changes that must be made in the ordinance;if not the ordinance should clearly state that intent. Sincerely, • Robert Morgan Town Manager Enclosures rwm/abw 2 8 2 C. Changes to the County Permitted Use Table to Permit Breeding Kennels and Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers Explanation of Proposed Changes: This amendment would allow breeding kennels INV and wildlife rehabilitation centers as permitted uses in all zoned areas of the County where boarding kennels are now permitted. This is in response t6 a request by the Animal Protection Society and also to remove existing inconsistencies between the CoUnty's Zoning Ordinance which does not permit breeding kennels,and the County's Animal Control Ordinance, which does issue breeding kennel permits. • Town Comment: This proposed amendment seems appropriate and,in keeping with the desire to preserve a rueatenviromnent in. the Rural Buffer areas of the County. Dathanges to the County Permitted Use Table Dealingyith Retail Trade categories Explanation of Proposed Changes: The County seeks to combine two sections of its Permitted USE,'Table, dealing with retail tra.de, in order to reduce the number of pages in the permitted use table. Right now there are two classes of retail trade establishments -- Retail Trade of Convenience Goods and Retail Trade of,Durable Goods. All of the subcategories of convenience goods retail trade are permitted in the same districts as the same subcategories of durable goods retail trade, and the County sees this as needless duplication. The proposed amendment would combine retail trade of convenience and durable goods into one class instead of two. Town Comments: The TO1A7/1 of Carrboro generally supports these ordinance amendments, unless the County originally intended that convenience goods and durable goods be classified separately for some reason that is not reported in the County'S staff report, and still holds that original intent. The original intent rjfl not be satisfied by combining the two classes ofiuse. 3. Proposed Change to the County Subdivision Ordinance A. Dedication of Recreation Space and Payment in Lieu Explanation of Proposed Chanm The County preposeeate-make the dedication of recreation space,or payment-in-lieu thereof by new subdivisions a requirement everywhere in the County. It is not a requirement now. As proposed, the County would require that recreation space be dedicated where land that is called out on the County's Land. Use Plan as recreation or open space land is included in a ,;.'eavelopMent, and payment in lieu required where it is not To 'n Comments: Th.e TOW11 of Carrboro generally supports this ordinance amendment. • 6 •!, 073 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date February 27, 1989 Action Agenda Item # 3-kD SUBJECT: LUP-2-89 ENO-2 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING _X_Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: - Analysis of Proposed Amendment David Stencil, Extension 566 - Public Notice Gene Bell, Extension 565 - Agency comments - 8-22-88 PH Minutes - 1-3-89 BOCC Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment 410 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: The area in question contains six lots and a portion of another north of the Interstate 85/U.S. 70 interchange in eastern Eno Township near the Durham County line. The 25.44-acre area fronts on Interstate 85, but it is accessed by Laurel Ridge Road and Pleasant Green Road. The Eno River is located less than 1/4-mile to the north. The proposed amendment, if approved, would change the Land Use Element designation on the property from Rural Residential to 20-Year Transition. Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted for Eno Township on July 5, 1988 and staff-initiated rezonings to promote consistency with the Land Use Element of the Plan would have changed the zoning on Mr. Johnny Kennedy's property from GC-4, the classification it has had since 1981, to EC-5. The Board of Commissioners withheld a decision on the property at its December 20, 1988 meeting following comments by Mr. Kennedy's attorney that it was his understanding that the property was in the activity node and was correctly zoned. The Planning Staff was directed to investigate the node status of the property and report back to the Commissioners at their 074 meeting on January 3, 1989. The Staff analysis presented at the January 3 meeting indicated that the property was outside the node and was incorrectly zoned in 1981. As a means of addressing Mr. Kennedy's concerns about non-conforming status, zoning ordinance text amendments broadening the scope of the EC-5 district were proposed. Mr. Kennedy was not pleased with this suggestion and was instructed to meet with Planning Staff to discuss alternatives. Mr. Kennedy met with the Planning Director and Planner III's on January 18 to discuss the case. He again indicated his opposition to the proposed rezoning of his property to EC-5. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was identified as the only alternative which would provide consistency between the Zoning Atlas and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kennedy indicated his approval of this suggestion. The proposed amendment would enlarge the existing 20- Year Transition Area that abuts the area on the south and which includes the other three quadrants of the U.S. 70/1-85 interchange. Property other than that owned by Mr. Kennedy is included in the proposal, since it adjoins the access road which parallels U.S. 70 and 1-85, is in the path of Durham's urban growth 411 corridor, and would result in a uniform expansion of the Transition Area to the south. Because of the origin and nature of the request, the Planning Staff conducted two separate evaluations of the area. The first included the entire 25.44-acre area at the intersection of Pleasant Green Road and U.S.70. The second analysis included only the property of Mr. Johnny Kennedy (10.14 acres) . Both evaluations are included as attachments to this agenda abstract. RECOMMNDATION: The Planning Staff recommends against changing the Land Use Element designation on the 25.44-acre area due to anticipated adverse impacts on the Eno River. However, the evaluation of the Kennedy property only (10.14 acres) indicated that while impacts could be expected, opportunities for mitigating them were much greater. The Staff thus recommends approval of changing the designation on the Kennedy property from Rural Residential to 20-Year Transition. A related proposal (See Item #D.5.e. ) to amend the Zoning Ordinance text is also available for the Commissioners consideration. That amendment, if approved, would permit mail order houses in commercial 410 07'5 zoning districts. The amendment would permit Mr. 411 Kennedy to continue his school bus parts mail order business. 411 DK2:ENO2NODE.DOC 077 MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN M. LINK, COUNTY MANAGER ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: DAVID STANCIL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNER II RE: ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT LUP-2-89, ENO-2 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE ************OPTION #1 - 25.44 ACRE AREA************ DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1989 This proposed amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive . Plan is submitted by the Planning Department, in order to promote consistency between the Plan and the Orange County Zoning Atlas. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The area in question is located north of the Interstate 85/U.S. 70 interchange and east of Pleasant Green Road. Lying in Eno Township, this land is situated near the Durham County line (as can be seen on the attached map) . The total area is comprised of six lots and a portion of a seventh fronting on Interstate 85. The area contains a total of 25.44 acres and is currently zoned GC-4 (General Commercial-4) and R-1 Residential. It is designated at this time on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Residential. This amendment would expand an existing 20-Year Transition Area to include these 25.44 contiguous acres. This . designation would make the current zoning and land use of the area consistent with the Plan. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The methods and means by which the Comprehensive Plan may be amended are set out in Articles 2 and 20 the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, those issues applying to this amendment are listed below: 1. Article 2.2.14 states the reasons, for which the Comprehensive Plan may be amended. a. Because of changed on changing conditions in a particular area or areas, of the county. 078 In this case, the area proposed for amendment is located along one of North Carolina's "Strategic Corridors" as 411 defined by the N.C. Department of Transportation. As such, development pressures over the last 20 years have impacted and changed the area from a rural residential sector to an evolving non-residential node. Another factor which will surely add to the changing climate in this vicinity is the future possibility of municipal water and sewer service from the City of Durham. As of this date, the City of Durham's corporate limit lies less than one and one-half miles from this area. This corridor is shown on the City's 2005 Comprehensive Plan as lying on the fringe of the City's Growth Boundary. ( (b. To correct an error or omission in the Comprehensive. Plan. At the time of the 1981 adoption of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a node was established at the intersection of Interstate 85 and U.S. 70. This node, the "Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Node" was designated to accommodate non-residential development because of the strategic location of the intersection. Three quadrants of the interchange were thus given the plan designation of 20- Year Transition Area with a Commercial/Industrial Transition Area overlay. The northeastern quadrant was not designated as either but left as Rural Residential. At the time of plan- related zoning changes in 1981, the area was inadvertently 411 zoned GC-4, a zone that was consistent with the designation on the other surrounding areas - but inconsistent with a Rural Residential Area. The proposed amendment would rectify this situation by allowing this property to enter the plan designation of 20- Year Transition Area, a designation consistent with the surrounding area. In so doing, the GC-4 zoning for this property, which has been utilized in the interim period since 1981, would fit the Land Use Element. ) ) L. Article 2.2.14.2 differentiates between, aging:12AI and, secondary, amendments to the Plan. As defined in this section, this proposed amendment would fall into the secondary amendment category. Subsection (b) states that "The expansion of a designated plan area where the additional area is contiguous to the existing plan designation and does not increase its land area by more than one hundred (100) acres" is to be considered a secondary amendment. As previously stated, at this interchange a substantial amount of land designated as 20-Year Transition exists within the "Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Node" . The area proposed for measaseotaeoloome=1111111 079 amendment is presently contiguous to this plan designation on two sides. The total acreage of these lots is 25.44 acres, well within the 100 acre limit proscribed in the plan. Subsection . of this same section relates that _a correction of an error or omission" to the plan is also a secondary amendment. Using the rationale given previously for creating a plan amendment, a case can also be made on this criteria. Pursuant to Article 20.3.2, anv amendment to the Plan should provide a map and legal description and also indicate the manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.. This amendment does not appear to carry out the intent and purpose of the Plan in that the adopted 1981 Plan document for the Eno Township component states the following in regard to the Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Transition Area: 'New commercial and industrial uses should generally be confined to the areas south of the {Interstate 85 and U.S. 701 highways in order to reduce negative impacts on Eno River State Park. ' In reading this statement carefully, the term "environmentally-sensitive development" appears to exemplify the intent and purpose of the Plan on this northeast quadrant of the interchange area. By using the words "should generally", the plan recognizes the absolute need to protect the integrity of the nearby Eno River - but doing so without categorically denying any non-residential land use on this quadrant. This amendment would achieve a level of cautious compromise between the environmentally-sensitive areas to the north and the strategic location of an interchange for two major thoroughfares. Perhaps a case could also be made that the amendment conforms to this concept by achieving a desired level of consistency between the Plan and the zoning Atlas. In an area where a node and 20-Year Transition Area designations exist, this amendment might allow for a more comprehensive manner of defining the transition area. The entirety of the area is located at an interstate interchange, which by itself introduces tremendous growth pressures. It is further located in an area that has seen non-residential uses locate in the vicinity, and in fact the area is currently used for non- residential purposes almost entirely. The City of Durham's future growth boundary could introduce a third development factor into the equation, that of municipal services. The map and legal description required are provided by staff. 080 COMPARISON WITH LOCATION STANDARDS All Comprehensive Plan amendments are to be measured and evaluated for compatibility with the Locational Criteria set forth in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Listed below are the criteria for 10 and 20 Year Transition Areas, with an assessment of how the proposal complies or fails to comply. SLOPE. (No significant slope or topography problem that would unreasonably increase the cost of extending water and sewer lines. ) QUESTIONABLE. Topographic mapping of the area indicates that there are areas of moderate to steep slope on the eastern fringe of the area in question. This is not unusual given the proximity of the site to the Eno River, and possible erosion potential does exist along these eastern boundaries. Even so, this slope should not inhibit water and sewer lines which would most likely gravity flow to Durham. HYDROLOGY. (Should be located outside designated 100-year flood prone area as defined by Corps of Engineers. ) COMPLIES. There are no areas within this proposal which lie in either the 100-year or 500-year floodplain. Floodplain does exist in close proximity, however, to the north and east of the site along the Eno River and Rhodes Creek. FLORA AND FAUNA. (Located away from sites that would, if developed, create a threat to unique or endangered species as identified by the State or Federal government. ) DOES NOT COMPLY. PLEASE SEE HANDOUT FOR BOARDS ONLY. THIS DATA IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD IN DEFERENCE TO THE TRAINGLE LAND CONSERVANCY'S DESIRES TO PROTECT .THE INTEGRITY AND. SENSITIVITY OF A DESIGNATED NATURAL AREAS SITE. SOIL CONDITIONS. (Located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for urban uses because of good drainage characteristics and load-bearing capacity for future development. ) COMPLIES. The predominant soil type in this area is Georgeville silt loam, which has 2-6 percent slopes and is generally not inhibitive to development potential. The portion of this area at the intersection with Pleasant Green Road contains Enon silt loam soils, which are clayey and have severe shrink-swell characteristics. These soils account for a small portion of the overall area, however. PUBLIC SERVICES/FACILITIES. (Located in areas which are or could be reasonably and efficiently served by centralized 411 • 081 public services and utilities. COMPLIES. As previously mentioned, this area is shown by the City of Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan as lying on the fringe of the City's Future Growth Boundary, a designation which will eventually introduce Durham water and sewer lines into the interchange area. However, it is not clear from the Durham Plan that this quadrant of the interchange area is planned to be served. A literal interpretation of the Durham Plan would classify the proposed amendment area as outside of the Durham Future Growth Boundary. Given the proximity to this boundary, however, the potential does exist for the property in question to be incorporated into the Growth Boundary at minimal cost to the municipality. Furthermore, a proposed Hillsborough-Durham water network line could make water service available to the entire area in the near future. No other means of public service provision can be foreseen at this time. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. (Located in areas that have very good road access, as well as service by rail lines. These areas should have the most complete network in the County's Planning jurisdiction. ) COMPLIES. The area is served by two existing major thoroughfares in Interstate 85 and U.S. 70, and is part of a designated Strategic Road Corridor for the state. In addition, Pleasant Green Road is proposed to serve as a major thoroughfare at some point in the future, further increasing 411 access to the site. Rail service from the Southern Railroad line south of the interstate is located less than one mile away. ENERGY USE. (Located less than a 5-minute commute time from small-scale commercial uses and 5-10 minute commute time from major commercial uses or an Urban area. ) COMPLIES. The area is located in the midst of several small commercial uses at the interchange, and is less than 10 minutes from Durham and Hillsborough for major commercial uses. EXISTING LAND USE (Located in areas which are in transition from rural or low-density uses to urban or higher-density ' uses. ) COMPLIES. Transition from rural low-density uses has actually been occurring in this interchange area over the past 15 years, and this general trend is expected to continue given the strategic location of the roads and spillover growth from the city of Durham. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY (Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on productive agricultural uses and managed forest land. ) 411 DOES NOT COMPLY. No actively-used agricultural land is located in or in the immediate vicinity of this area, 082 therefore impact to agriculture would be minimal and indirect. However, the managed forest lands of Eno River State Park are within in close proximity both upstream and downstream of the amendment area. These woodlands could be adversely affected by further development at this interchange. POPULATION DENSITY. (Located in areas with moderate to high population density) . COMPLIES. This area by itself does not contain a significant population. When considered as part of the 179,000-person Durham urban area however, which it effectively functions as, the area is part of a • more densely-populated region than the more rural areas to the north and west. Since the general area is designated as a commercial/industrial node by both Orange County and Durham, the emphasis has been and will continue to be on non- residential uses in this vicinity. Any residential uses in this area under Durham's plan would be of the high-density variety (6 units per acre and up) . HISTORIC AND CULTURAL. (Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on State or Federally-acknowledged historic or cultural sites, or County- identified Public Interest Areas. ) DOES NOT COMPLY. Three sections of the linear Eno River State Park, a county Public Interest Area, are within close proximity to the area in question. While they do not border the proposed amendment area, the park sites could be impacted by further development at this interchange. In addition, the aforementioned Natural Areas Inventory has identified a site in the vicinity of the proposed amendment area. A second site is located less than one mile downstream. Given the sensitive nature of both the State Park and Natural Areas, the amendment could adversely impact this land. AGENCY COMMENTS A letter from Carol Tingley, North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, is attached expressing concern over the impact this amendment could potentially have on the Eno River State park. RECOMMENDATION This proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, LUP-2-89 (Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Node) is recommended for denial by staff. The reasons for this negative recommendation can be summarized as threefold. 1) The proposed amendment is contradictory to the adopted 083 1981 Eno Township Plan. Page 3.10.16-17 of the Eno Township element describes the proposed distribution of Plan categories. The Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Transition Area narrative contains the following statement in closing: 'New commercial and industrial uses should generally be confined to the areas south of the {Interstate 85 and U.S. 70} highways in order to reduce negative impacts on Eno River State Park. ' Given this specific statement, it is clear that the original intent of the Plan was to protect the environmentally- sensitive northeast quadrant of the node by discouraging intensive land uses. In this context, the proposed amendment does not meet the provisions set out in Article 20.3.2 which require a Plan amendment to carry out the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and should therefore be denied. 2) This amendment could have numerous potentially-adverse impacts on both the environmentally-sensitive Eno River State Park and an equally sensitive Natural Areas Site. The nature of both these sites require protection of the surrounding land use intensity - a process that this Plan amendment cannot ensure. 4IM 3) It is not clear that the provision of utility services from the City of Durham will reach far enough west to make service available to this site. The City's designated Future Growth Boundary is flexible as to interpretation and certainly subject to change. But the fact remains that a technical interpretation of the Durham Plan does not show the proposed amendment area as being within the Durham plan area. For these reasons, this amendment appears to be inconsistent with the. Plan in both intent and application. it is therefore recommended by staff that the amendment be denied. 411 085 MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN M. LINK, COUNTY MANAGER ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: DAVID STANCIL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNER II RE: ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT LUP-2-89, ENO-2, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE ************OPTION #2 - 10.14 ACRE AREA************ DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1989 This proposed amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan is submitted by the Planning Department, in order to promote consistency between the Plan and the Orange County Zoning Atlas. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The area in question is located north of the Interstate 85/U.S. 70 interchange and east of Pleasant Green Road. Lying in Eno Township, this land is situated near the Durham County 410 line (as can be seen on the attached map) . The total area is comprised of three lots which abut Interstate 85. The area contains a total of 10. 1 acres and is currently zoned GC-4 (General Commercial-4) . It is designated at this time on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Residential. This proposed amendment would expand an existing 20-Year Transition Area to include these lots. This designation would make the current zoning and land use of the area consistent with the Plan. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The methods and means by which the Comprehensive Plan may be amended are set out in Articles 2 and 20 the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, those issues applying to this amendment are listed below: 1. Article 2.2.14 states the reasons for which the Comprehensive Plan may be amended. a. Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the county. In this case, the area proposed for amendment is located 410 along one of North Carolina's "Strategic Corridors" as 086 • defined by the N.C. Department of Transportation. As such, development pressures over the last 20 years have impacted and changed this interchange area from a rural residential sector to an evolving non-residential node. Another factor which will surely add to the changing climate in this vicinity is the future possibility of municipal water and sewer service from the City of Durham. As of this date, the City of Durham's corporate limit lies less than one and one- half miles from this area. This corridor is shown on the City's 2005 Comprehensive Plan as lying on the fringe of the City's Growth Boundary. b. To correct an error or omission in the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of the 1981 adoption of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a node was established at the intersection of Interstate 85 and U.S. 70. This node, the "Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Node" was designated to accommodate non-residential development because of the strategic location of the intersection. Three quadrants of . the interchange were thus given the plan designation of 20- Year Transition Area with a Commercial/Industrial Transition Area overlay. The northeastern quadrant was not designated as either but left as Rural Residential. At the time of plan- ! related zoning changes in 1981, the area was inadvertently zoned GC-4, a zone that was consistent with the designation on the other surrounding areas - but inconsistent with a Rural Residential Area. The proposed amendment would rectify this situation by allowing this property to enter the plan designation of 20- Year Transition Area, a designation consistent with the surrounding area. In so doing, the GC-4 zoning for this property, which has been utilized in the interim period since 1981, would fit the Land Use Element. — 2. Article 2.2. 14.2 differentiates between, principal and secondary amendments to the Plan., As defined in this section, this proposed amendment would fall into the secondary amendment category. Subsection (b) states that "The expansion of a designated plan area where the additional area is contiguous to the existing plan designation and does not increase its land area by more than one hundred (100) acres" is to be considered a secondary amendment. As previously stated, at this interchange a substantial amount of land designated as 20-Year Transition exists within ,. Node". proposed for The area the "Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Node T p p amendment is presently contiguous to this plan designation. The total acreage is 10.1 acres, well within the 100 acre 087 limit proscribed in the plan. Subsection of this same section relates that _a correction of an error or omission" to the plan is also a secondary amendment. Using the rationale given previously for creating a plan amendment, a case can also be made on this criteria. Pursuant to Article 20.3.2, any amendment to the Plan should provide a map and legal description and also indicate the manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. This amendment does carry out the intent and purpose of the Plan. In the adopted 1988 amendment to the Land Use Element, Eno Township component, the following statement is found in regard to the Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Transition Area: 'New commercial and industrial uses should aenerally be confined to the areas south of the (Interstate 85 and U.S. 70} highways in order to reduce negative impacts on Eno River State Park. ' In reading this statement carefully, the term "environmentally-sensitive development" appears to exemplify the intent and purpose of the Plan on this northeast quadrant of the interchange area. By using the words "should generally", the plan recognizes the absolute need to protect the integrity of the nearby Eno River - but doing so without categorically denying any non-residential land use on this quadrant. This amendment would achieve a level of cautious compromise between the environmentally-sensitive areas to the north and the strategic location of an interchange for two major thoroughfares. Furthermore, this amendment conforms to this concept by achieving a desired level of consistency between the Plan and the Zoning Atlas. In an area where a node and 20-Year Transition Area designations exist, this amendment might define in a more comprehensive manner the transition area. The entirety of the area is located at an interstate interchange, which by itself introduces tremendous growth pressures. It is further located in an area that is currently used for non-residential purposes almost entirely. The City of Durham's future growth boundary could introduce a third development factor into the equation, that of municipal services. • The map and legal description required are provided. COMPARISON WITS LOCATION STANDARDS All Comprehensive Plan amendments are to be measured and evaluated for compatibility with the Locational Criteria set 088 forth in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Listed below are the criteria for 10 and 411 20 Year Transition Areas, with an assessment of how the proposal complies or fails to comply. SLOPE. (No significant slope or topography problem that would unreasonably increase the cost of extending water and sewer lines. ) COMPLIES. Topographic mapping of the area indicates that there are areas of moderate to steep slope on the eastern fringe of the property in question. Even so, this area does not drain directly into the Eno, and slope should not inhibit water and sewer line placement which would almost certainly gravity flow to Durham. HYDROLOGY. Should be located outside designated 100-year flood prone area as defined by Corps of Engineers. COMPLIES. There are no areas within this proposal which lie in either the 100-year or 500-year floodplain. Floodplain does exist in close proximity to the north and east of the site along the Eno River and Rhodes Creek. This site does not drain directly into the Eno River, but rather drains east into Rhodes Creek - which provides a natural one- ' half mile filtering system into the Eno. FLORA AND FAUNA. Located away from sites that would, if ' developed, create a threat to unique or endangered species as identified by the State or Federal government. OUESTIONABLE. HANDOUT FOR BOARDS ONLY. THIS DATA IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD IN DEFERENCE TO THE TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY'S DESIRES TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY AND SENSITIVITY OF A DESIGNATED NATURAL AREAS SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. Located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for urban uses because of good drainage characteristics and load-bearing capacity for future development. _ COMPLIES. The predominant soil type in this area is Georgeville silt-loam, which has 2-6 percent slopes. This soil generally does not inhibit development potential. PUBLIC SERVICES/FACILITIES. Located in areas which are or could be reasonably and efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities. COMPLIES. As previously mentioned, this area is shown by the City of Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan as lying on the fringe of the City's Future Growth Boundary, a designation which will eventually introduce Durham water and sewer lines into the interchange area. However, it is not clear from the 411 089 Durham Plan that this quadrant of the interchange area is planned to be served. A literal interpretation of the Durham Plan would classify the proposed amendment area as outside of the Durham Future Growth Boundary. Given the proximity to 1 this boundary, however, the potential does exist for the property in question to be incorporated into the Growth Boundary at minimal cost to the municipality. Furthermore, a proposed Hillsborough-Durham water network line could make water service available to the entire area in the near future. No other means of public service provision can be foreseen at this time. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. Located in areas that have very good road access, as well as service by rail lines. These areas should have the most complete network in the County's Planning jurisdiction. COMPLIES. The area is served by two existing major thoroughfares in Interstate 85 and U.S. 70, and is part of a designated Strategic Road Corridor for the state. In addition, Pleasant Green Road is proposed to serve as a major thoroughfare at some point in the future and early proposals for the Durham Outer Loop location have it passing nearby to the west. Rail service from the Southern Railroad line south of the interstate is located less than one mile away. ENERGY USE. Located less than a 5-minute commute time from small-scale commercial uses and 5-10 minute commute time from major commercial uses or an Urban area. COMPLIES. The area is located in the midst of several small commercial uses at the interchange, and is less than 10 minutes from Durham and Hillsborough for major commercial uses. EXISTING LAND USE. Located in areas which are in transition from rural or low-density uses to urban or higher-density uses. COMPLIES. Transition from rural low-density uses have already occurred in this interchange area over the past 15 years, and this general trend is expected to continue given the strategic location of the roads and spillover growth from the city of Durham. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on productive agricultural uses and managed forest land. OUESTIONABLE. No actively-used agricultural land is located in the immediate vicinity of this area, therefore impact to agriculture would be minimal and indirect. The forest lands of Eno River State Park are within in close proximity of the amendment area. These woodlands could be • 090 adversely affected by future development on this site, but mitigation measures could be applied if any new development were requested and approved. POPULATION DENSITY. Located in areas with moderate to high population density. COMPLIES. This area by itself does not contain a significant population. When considered as part of the 179,000-person Durham urban area however, which it effectively functions as, the area is part of a more densely-populated region than the more rural areas to the north and west. Since the general area is designated as a commercial/industrial node by both Orange County and Durham, the emphasis has been and should continue to be on non- residential uses in this vicinity. Any residential uses in this area under Durham's long-range plan would be high- density (6 units per acre and up) . RISTORIC AND CULTURAL. (Located away from areas where development would have a. detrimental impact on State or Federally-acknowledged historic or cultural sites, or County- identified Public Interest Areas. ) QUESTIONABLE. Sections of the linear Eno River State Park, a county Public Interest Area, are within close proximity to the area in question. While they do not border the proposed amendment area, the park sites could be impacted by further development on this site. Mitigation measures could be applied to any new development that would minimize threats to these natural areas. AGENCY COMMENTS A letter from Carol Tingley, North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, is attached expressing concern over the impact this amendment could potentially have on the Eno River State park. This letter is written regarding an earlier version of this request, containing a larger proposed amendment area of 24 acres that includes the current 10-acre amendment site. RECOMMENDATION This proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, LUP-2-89 (Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Node) is recommended for approval. The reasons for this recommendation can be summarized as follows: 1) This proposed amendment complies with eight of the 11 Location Requirements set forth for consideration. While • y r • • 091 there exists some question as to the compliance of the Flora/Fauna, Agriculture/Forestry and Historic/Cultural sections, measures of mitigation are available to minimize negative impacts on the natural areas within Eno River State • Park. 2) This amendment is located in an area where significant transition to non-residential uses has already occurred. One of the three tracts involved in the amendment is currently a non-residential use. The area is located along a statewide Strategic Corridor at its intersection with another major thoroughfare. In addition, Pleasant Green Road is scheduled at some point in time to be upgraded to major thoroughfare status, and the Durham Outer Loop may pass nearby, creating another interchange with the Interstate. Furthermore, the provision of, water/sewer services from the City of Durham appears to be a very real possibility for the future. In light of these factors, a strong case can be made that the area is indeed the "area of transition" that the proposed amendment would designate. 3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It represents a means of allowing limited development on an interstate quadrant that is in relatively-close proximity to sensitive natural features. The Land Use Element of the Plan seemed to have this type of compromise in mind when it recommended that commercial/industrial development should generally be steered on the south side of the interchange area. Since this is an amendment to the Land Use Element, and not an amendment .to the zoning or development regulations, this proposal in itself will not physically impact the surrounding properties. Any new development in this area would be required to conform to the regulations and protective measures of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Given this fact, this proposed amendment, considered only for what it is, . provides for better consistency between the Zoning Atlas and the Comprehensive Plan while still acknowledging the importance of nearby natural areas. • • 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 092 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ri! eity0 February 10, 1989 Dear Property Owner: The enclosed legal notice is being sent to you because you are listed as owning property within five hundred (500) feet of an area being considered for amendment in the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the amendment is to promote consistency between the Plan and the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The amendment is referenced as LUP-2-89 Activity Node E-2 - Eno Township. Please see item 3 under cOMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS on pages 2 and 3 of the legal notice for a description of the proposal. A property map of the proposed amendment is included on the back of this letter. The proposed amendment would enlarge the existing 20-Year Transition Area at said interchange by approximately 25 acres. Three lots are currently zoned GC-4 (General Commercial) . it is these three lots which have created the need to consider revision of the boundaries of the Transition Area. By virtue of being included in the Transition Area, owners of the other lots would be eligible to apply for rezoning to other non-residential zones which are compatible with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. If you have questions about the proposal, you may call the Planning Department between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm at 732- 818]. (Hillsborough) , 688-7331 (Durham) , or 967-9251 (Chapel Hill) and ask for David Stencil (extension 566) or Gene Bell (extension 565) . 411 DK2:EN0500.DOC O �N t aJ � *)•r oat t .6411 .� ti Rt i, . Jra } / . w tl oilfu 17 4 w. .141 K LUP-2- 9 y /.,K 1y ENO-2 COMMERCIAL/IP11?USTRIAL 2�OI}E Ms - 2004 K 1• t '� • laCCa. it �, �— J •'._!. Yut7d \ r 1 ,. ••�.,,,�` riU W 14 O 141' .IJ .w J .7K `. •:%-' ri.ap. • i .,. - Proposed Expansic ransiti \tK atv/ •i' ". U r. t _ •aa>:` _a,rt of 20-YR T i n rr „ •�! f M C4 . iK •: tt �. It Existing g 20-YR. at.KUa `\\�\ tau �' - ` ,• 1. acti ,�,�" Transition Area 2000 feet inch One =� OIl i,t KGC � n s«�1 .,„ � � it!d•� �• S� N. ,• ,4, ! t !741 ®Ma '• 01 ,rt tl of If a[ ul ' ;.` t / C•� 1J CAL b�itf•aAC lC�/K/ 7K \.\�\ I• / 1 \ j- 1 tt `� \ ® `+i; /n BK.w \\` ./ I.t� ` i1µ• .•�' + 447aC r YI. tr. \ m Is `�. \ i0t'ItIN- ....C. �.��� a ♦,\ `^=�i� ti"' to FAL `\`` .,�� � �.n=— __J\=�=^_..n>;;�`1 -'mi t is •^'. ' �:b1J,� d� nas \� �i piK J/ ,\� �\ �ql Yt • ' M At 1 1.1 no MW 414C Lags ,p�i`'f\ •7ttt ANC �.� i&04C Nw y I. tt 10,At IW Sol ICCat _ ry all it K Q J1 rant 7< K tt iCtbtl�) '•'-� `1 Y 9 116E 11 t r/ • ' _ JKG.!'i ', fwo tyA �� ! fat f t r C rt!-7 ,w t `'1° r \ ,silt 'a( c, 0 ,i, °— ( tt 1� � + + Tom. .n �J'..i r r 7 i/ K.' at/�K \ — •— IMARIPPIltaaamw .P.SIA2rq Ag 094 44; va If r AV" ...,-- ,..,A .. e It": El 140-14;11,6 In, '......„...te g 4017 W AI . Tot Nag 2: 0 • ...7 11111& 1N7 '• Te State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Developm Art a II' Division of Parks and Recreation 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor ' Dr. William W Davis William W Cobey,Jr., Secretary . Director February 10, 1989 Mr. David Stanch Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Stancil: • Re: Your memorandum of January 30, 1989 We have received notification of a proposal to amend the Orange County Land Use Plan. The amendment would involve changing the • designated use of a 24-acre parcel in Eno Township from Rural Residential to 20-Year Transition. This parcel is very close to the Eno River and the Eno River State Park. In fact, the land proposed for the land use amend- ment is immediately adjacent to land proposed for acquisition by the park. The park's Master Plan calls for the development of a canoe launch and river access point at this location. High intensity commercial or industrial uses at this location could be detrimental to the aesthetic and recreational values of the park. Facilities resulting in excessive noise, polluted runoff, smoke, odors, or tall buildings would significantly reduce public enjoyment of the river and the park. The County's current Land Use Plan notes that the State "has designated certain areas along the Eno River for development in its Master Plan for the Eno [River] State Park. These areas should be protected from adverse development pressures. " In discussing the activity node at the I-85/U. . 70 Interchange, the plan says "the Eno River State Park as well as the floodplain along the Eno River are located north of the 1-85 interchange at this tode. Therefore, industrial and commercial development should be confined to the area south and east of this inter- change." PO.BOX 27687,Raleigh,North Carolina 276H-7687 Telephone 919-7334181 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 095 Mr. David Stancil Page Two February 10, 1989 The current Land Use Plan recognizes the importance of protecting the river and park. The designation of the northeast quadrant of the I-85/U.S. 70 interchange as a land use category different from the other three quadrants is clearly appropriate. We recommend against the proposed Land Use Plan amendment. Si erely, William W. Davis, Ph.D. WWD/CT lOct 411 410 Mal HU=01111■11.1111/ . . . 1 . . 8-2 -88 PUBLIC HFARING lvIDIUTES -. ' ' .• . PAGM9TOB ',.. ., . . . . . . . . .._. - . .. • There was no Board or public comment. .. - . .• . - C.c Z-3-88 Eno Township • . . Staff presentation was by Brad Torgan. ' -‘e3 . . . The 'Eno Township Land Use Plan was also• adopted July 5, 1988 and made several changes from the plan first adopted in 1981. These changes included designating . •the Little River Watershed as a water Supply watershed because it serves as a water supply for the City of Durham and reclassifying a large area of . central Eno Township from Rural Residential to . . Agricultural Residential. . • . . Eno River State Park and Duke Forest were originally classified as Public Interest Areas in the 1981 . plan. This was reaffirmed in the Central Orange . Area Study which covered a small portion. of western . • . . - Eno Township and was adopted in 1963- and in the 1988 • ..... pan. . • • , . . • . l - . . . . • ' • • ' • . . ' ' One of the policies embodied in the Land se Element _ . . • - - - ' ' • - of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan is that. . .. • • -. • . , . -. .• . :.- -..-..: . - • commercial activity should be confined to activity . - . ., .. - -- - ' . nodes, . generally. focused on major intersections. . • • One. such node..in Eno Township adopted in 1981. • • • • .. •• •.. .. - . • ' • .:• :.:: :. centered on_the intersection of 1-85 and US 70. The •••-,,: -- • • • • .. . . : • ' 1988- plan rolled back the• node, making .1-85 and US .._ .• - ••••-. -:.- -• -•••••-• 70 its northern boundary.' . Three commercial parcels -. - -• - -- . . on the north side of 1-85- are stilled zoned as .: . _ . . .. . .. . --:L-7-•'---: ''''- • '.;-: though.;they•were .inside aliTactivity. node. -• . _, _ . _:-.•, . . • •-• . ., -.. . • . •.::••.••:•-•,..-1.-.--.- •-;..:•'-•:-: .: - -.•• -'•.:--•:'17z•- --••;:. •'. - • .•-::*:"•:;-%."-.7.-::.: = -'4 ,;,-.. -:". - .--A portion•-of one-.parcel: on-. St.... Mary's. Road.. zone , ........., _. ..71.-7f'1...'''''.. .'-' ...."(r..•'* .. EC-5 no-longer• contains' a.-..dommercial-:.--ise. ., Because :...7-.._, ::::-".:. = -::." •-::•-•=1-:---:,-7.:*.i.; acit..inI:a.:•nociii,. Staff: proposes that the- zoning- ----=----- ,-• : -. '''s-r•-• *----- --:-.-'•-•"--------7,-,'"-revert':tci-,;the-surrOuliding:-residentit.I-:._.........._-4-..__:,.....:-...,_.--_-_-.....-. 4,._....:,- . -7.', ..- • -..".-••:'--.-:'....':-:=4.. .;- "...f.r.t*,. .7:77.---, -. . .7,--classificationr....:•••:4- , 4 -1.7.- -.---;.,- '-':: '.: -.--,I"..:.-. -.1"--1-::::: -. - - - .- r'.--'. "'• •: -- - --.-:--.T.E.--77"-::-- -'--'-i rezonings ' -- - -• L . been sec17-on. 4--hat: backgroiand .se vera __,.have . ., ., - - - -- - - • --.-- propose --zzrEnc-Township--.-zzThs---orde.,.-•tO----bi-1-ng7-•the-.---.•------ -:_' _____ -,..;---_-:-;•,•-,;-•z--,7_-•-.L-..••`.:-:=•_.:T---;;;- Orancre••••County:::-Zoning ktlag-...into, conformanci with.. the -.: *:-:„...„--7....•...,...,.. . .-- .-.•-•'''•"7''''-7,•°-•------'7.----=-Ef,-,---r7--'-7,, -.t•::_l‘iiigkUs =E-lesient,-.of•••,,tht.Or4ige...County,.comprehensive --. .---_-• __-.f.:1'-•:--;.:-.:•••-.7.f.-.:,::::.f.::• :-21.4:;,•=:..z..,:ii.:••••....i.::::?-1-afi.7..71T-t.1,-r-.4,--,ftm•277_•••=,-,::;,-:--,---., ••:..„. -.••••-:,-.:..,.. ....7.-...:._ :....... . - , .-:•..,-.... ::;:-.,__:_._..,7 ,-...:. , _.., :• ._• .2,2 ..... : - -:-.:,••-.E.&:-.:• : -:-...-_ 7-r?--.7•--=----_, __. ..t_.„ ,,,..„„...2754.-. 7:4:-':--:..:'..-. ..-::.-- .:-.2-7 74: ''.....'..."-..."_. 7.:.1.... -..:--...7.--:- 7.:-.7...7.z.-:.-. :...::. 7.•:-.---.:....:...".---• : -.7g'-....,_.,;..,,,,,,1:...7.1:::..:7..-,:•• -...,...:::....-:-.•-....:,.....e4.7„-...1.,:s-..---,:7,x...... -'•!•-•••.771,f..:?-••i•-..:*...;.4......7 - -.,-,e.-.....;,....:,•4-__... .. ...:.••-••••.-..--.----,---;;..-_--•• •-i._:- .....„--......7•••••-•-. `:•• "=•:-.":”.-..ti.Z."4,••••,•=-*.i..:77..'7:1:-7-:• 7'.--'- '---%1-.tna.774Z,-:.:••-..''''...;....;.0••*`' '"..-'•1':..--- •• .---. •. - •.:--...:-..-:.r..-6.- ....b--e--, Lz.....-Te----Iti-ver7w114,,,e-rs.inect ....,_ +-..:-- •,..- '-'--'''''..-.'t?":'' -e."" ..r- ".''.."'ih.' .--'-' 4.Tbe-7,i•IrSt:-TIA:::-t•P,..Cte,SIU 13/41“. 2-...-k. . .2- - 4••‘•'■.-- • :: :!-=- :.L.....-..,,„--- •.-,.1,•,_74„,.:4,.,,_„_.„-,-t•-:,:., .,2__„.„-_--.,,,, ,•••Is:- •i----PW;II:7-overlayr:-distrzcr.,;•zr•-the-_--sam-- elmann. •-•3.-1.-_,•-_._,_„._...:7,,÷..,-;,-.•__•_ •:..•--,,_._..,„..- .....„.1:-. ...-T.--•:-..c........t.-..„-_-._:_,::-.,:•..:14.:;:s:,.;._::„.;-i =-__- .,-.... -- — -. - *--•7•7 •".".:7•- •--7- --•-•". ---- 2.:-Fli•eien-g7.,::iicioii*--71.nz:Bills-biorangli.4-Townshsp_ . ..,_4_1,_- --•-•:-,•••••,--.--,-..--,-„;;,.n."■■•■••4-%;:...-- -::-. -=:.-....... - :-,..--.-, -....--.'',' ,:,-.=--r--,=..-••••'''..7,..1,.. ' ' . ..4,,,,,.."--FIF*11, •"-....-.4.,.---.41.4...-....-,..... .,--' • -• . ...-.., -"-,,,"*•'--- --.7.7-• , . ..._,.. .:,,,,.:,.... ,,=1:'z......7.7 :-. 7.:-. ..",. ."." -•••.. -....tex.......- .. ....- .+-I.,. _.,,,.....t.C.,..1.....--..,...-_^.---..= ..■,.."... ' 1 ':--"; Th-eFi—ic-oriit-f-tiiiiiite,t-wcitilcV...-beto4-rtzone.,a1-1-:•Duke:7*-76Fiv5 ...--.,•..- =-"=, ...7.t-.-.:.-;,...,.:Y-1-=71.47-1-,41.-,7-,==-- 7EILands,.-in,;„the township,...74.1 obg:With:E_xi, of_RiVer,„Sta_t_e_,....L-_,,,.:.-.•,-:_7: __,-....:-_........., 7.:**: !•••••-•.'•'"•----:77': '-:--44;414:- ...7...:•-,-•--.: Park-,:4, ciin.'•eithe,--R-1 Residential' or Agri#.1t•u. - --- ..: -:-•-• .,,. .„...--:-•,...,,,-;::-..„:-_- : -....- 7 -L."--.,- - from-• _.either- :.•••= 1:4.--2"--::-•'-::::"::T2-7.- to-Publid.--,-I-nteresr:.District-f.'...:-•:; :: ,,,. ....:...-,,-_.,-: • • - • ••-• _ .• • . . ••••• _ --,:..„--,.: 47•7:4-:-..-- :-..-••=.,,;- -;-••••:•,-'.:- _ . - _1“ -••• •::-A,- :....:.,-.. --177-',- ---2=-•-•:-..'---7-•7------ --".-.--- •-•, ---.--••• --—-- •.-.',. --. - --. ' ., - ' -...-..,t;'---,'-',".k,,e-'1'.."`"?.'";',.:.74V-%---":7":":--.7,",.=-----%.4. -'*--=, .........._ '-'1'-..,:iy,,,t9.40".L....,--''".".--Stl... -7,-.2-,..:...--L-46.-7-..-.. --,-;-:.-i.,.,.:."..f.: -.:'-'"-•7,,,, -:,--.....-..;-.1.7,4----9..-_...---,gzz.-:.-.... .....,,,f...,...,-... .,- -,,.....=..--ett...,01.7.. ..7.-.:77...... .1......,.....,--.........-,,..- ,......... ...;c-....,.gt•e'..-Z,I;.r. :.'-'/1-..--.:.:....'"---."-77•V.I.i?.,;--,1.-:t•;- .v•'''.......-:-":.'*-_,-... ."-... --"r:=-+---=',--•;-%1:-.7:7--:..,•,...'t•=it -.-....-•:•:-..•---qg- .--.-''•-.-.:,•• •..- •?•-•::-•.•'.• -----7:••,:::,-;1-----::.7--7-.:•.-----.----...:,-:•.:-.....,'-.-1-,-...-•,-'--;•.---:7--.::/,',.:.•-,.. .:;':•.r:.-:-:-',-,--.-..-•.•_.•7-.;-, -:-----:-_•:.'-'-,..-=:--:.:,-.. - - '-• ••-'.:- , :••••••,:- .:-,:.• - • - • . : . • _ . , , i . : . . .................... • r' �.�... - _ ------:-==-.-----_• .�;�_ �-�=-_:...- -_ - -._.:-? -_ ��a - � :_.=,: -��..�--y PAGE.�1,7._��� ima . . .._ prox tely 1500 acres in an area roughly bounded . , = - _ - --"by._Palmers_Grove Road on-the _west,--US "70_ on the --.• - - - -- - -•=south,°:-Pleasant Green -Road -on the east,--and an AT&T - - 7-:-. - - -- _.,easement on-=the-north;:-excluding-Brigadoon 2--,,_•--..1.- __ 5 4,-._~: -,-; -,:::_:;%:. • • ,Subdivision,_-.is .proposed to_be changed .from-R-1 ='=�,`_'_ __ :6: _ -_ _-= - -- -=Residential to -Agricultural Residential:': -The change - _-7: _-__ _=' - i.n_the land;use. plan that__led -to this-_,P --- ` 8 '_ _ :{ _` involved 'a slower:growth.:rate_.than-other_:rural _�-=,: s �• 9-777-7-.-,-: - - --portions'of-the township:rer+s1-a_desire=to�use roads-�_ =_==-- - - 10=- - __ -__ ;rather-than-:easements-es--district:boundaries the- 7- 1 IT -- =-------:-L----- _'fourth=change would be to rezone Whispering Pines -- . _.. :=` 12 ._-: - _ -= _ ---:: Subdivision from-R-1:Residential to_R-2 Reside ntial. , __ • 13 ` -. :� .._ ... :_. Whispering Pines was built prior'to zoning in--Eno - ' _ " 14 _- -- Township`-at lot -sizes=less-than-the current R-1 -;- ' - --= -- 15-r_ _ -_ __-`-__ zoning•making-.the=area=non=confon ing.=T1 i R change -_------=-7 - - 16 - --- °- =-`--would-eliminate -the 'non-conforming designation. "=-• -. -_==-:- 17 _ _� . -_ -- = Even.though =lot -sizes are only required to be -20,000—.7,--.= 18 :_- -_ -i .._.,- ` `-.square.-feet-in R--2, as opposed to--40,000. square feet 19 : _ - - _ - .- -in R=1; the subdivision is fully platted and almost--T . 20 -. - - - -- - _-`fully developed reducing the impact of the •zoning_ - _- _ . change on the-area.-• - -. --- -.. - ___ - - .-- •.. 23 ._ A total of four •commercial=properties are proposed .-• -.-__.. 24 ' ' for changes, all downzoning. -•• None are located in -an _ ..7-._ 25 activity node and one is currently, vacant.-- _-. . 26 - -..- 27 - The three parcels north of I-85 -and east-of Pleasant -'--- . Green Road totalling 10.14 acres which are no longer in the activity node whose boundaries were altered III in the 1988 amendments is proposed to change from 31 . • General Commercial-4 to Existing Commercial-5. 32 . _ .,_ 33 • Finally, a portion of one parcel on the north side 34 of St. Mary's Road, totaling approximately one acre, 35 is proposed to be changed from Existing Commercial-5 - 36 to Agricultural Residential (AR) . The property is 37 no longer a commercial use. . 38 39 Planning Board Member, Sharlene Pilkey, asked the 40 rationale for changing 1500 acres from R-1 to AR. 41 Torgan responded that it is currently taxed as 42 forestland under the Use Value Taxation Program 43 rather than at market value under the County's . 44 existing program. Pilkey asked if this property was 45 being considered for a possible landfill. Torgan 46 responded that the consultants working on the 47 landfill project had requested information on 48 several properties in the County and that was one of 49 them. - 50 • ' 51 • Public Comments - - - 52 Pete Dubose, Jr. stated that a 15-acre tract adjacent to the Brigadoon Subdivision proposed to be 56 . 57 • - 58 59 - . _. PAGE 18 - • . . . . - - . •. •• , - • - AR should be designated R-1, the same designation as • Briga.doon. He expressed concern with the comment • that AR and R-1 are almost the same except for the •- -- • • 20-foot difference in required road frontage noting that could be a ,significant difference at some point '„ - in the future in "laying out" a subdivision. Even . though the tract.is presently used as a timber farm, actively havesting and replacing timber, he was concerned with zoning changes and encouraged that the current zoning be maintained. He also expressed concern that the Eno River was not more clearly . designated on the map. • aohnny Kennedy presented a prepared statement (an attachment to these minutes on pages ) . Donald Cox asked if a Memorandum of Understanding . is in existence between Orange County and Eno River State Park. Commissioner Hartwell indicated that the Board of Commissioners had seat a letter rather . than the Memo of Understanding to Eno River State . - . Park: Mr. . Cox also asked if plans had been received % 1 - -- : : — • by the County for the proposed re-design of the 1- . - - 85/US 70 interchange and would this affect Mr. . .• . • Kennedy's property. Planning Board Chair Barry _ . . . -. .. . '- . 0*acobs sted that there is no Memo of Understanding . . .._ . . , __ . ,. . : between Eno River State Park and Orange County Ail : - .- :...-,, -- although there is a sense of agreement to maintain -• 1111 :....: - :: : common goals in regard to the protection of no . - .. . River State Park. Planner Brad Torgan responded . . that the Planning Department had received plans for . • • . • . _ .-. . -. - -- - '. -:•--"-----• ' the widening of 1-85 but it is not known howthis , , .... . . _ _ - - • *--' -•::'-', -• . -•:•--..: ---.. -, would affect Mr. Kennedy's property. - . • .- ' - •• • ....._ • _.---'----.:- - •-.---7:--- --..-MrCo-x.Continued that, the: Kifinedy_property-.1ies -_,- '-•_. ,......._ . ,_• . ..,•---'*----,:-... : _ -:•••:,L - .... very•near:-one of the .more-marrow parts:: of. the Eno. , .._ . _.....„. .. •-•-•-. '-:.---:.-:.-.-----'---:.-:. Rivertate Park .ancV1-is *adjacent to• -property that --- -... ..... • , .: '':.Li"---1-.±':::-:174-.-2,-----:"-•••::::.--':;:__-7-::--ma-y-at. s-o-MeTpo-int-- beladditibnal Dark'land--; Be felt . _ , . _ . -,:77-:-•:"'7-:":: :-.that:z**1.-.11-e=iiiterchange7-vrould- af.:fectr.:.-.-:-.Kenndy'S---.4.z--'. . 7 _ . . .... - • 7:--L..--'::-7:- ....,-1;-":::.:_,:r-',--.4...-.'Z'i-71-,:-'-::--7.1.--iilroDerty,and::aiked._tiat: there be no_ixpan-sion,,:of:7_,__...:_.......__............„:.7 •-`77.: 1511:*-a.;75-2"Z's:::;-4;":"7-'1= 4"-:-;±-cilinom-- -e.ici --:itroi)erty-7i,b47,:illowed.i7. :1-41;:-th is,z'ar.- 11::"El'------.--- -:-:::::---.1 -- - - - . d- 1 ^ :-.. k 4 -supncr;- of the Public - - --- --, ,7"-•&--• :.-',".7--__,.-4‘...,..-17.!--'.- R1Cbar : He wig-spo e,...-n4.: -4-7 . . ;"--;:1• :":7'''''''';'6-initefririi.".2-:DiStriSitiniiiii- bi:j-,-Duke:::Foreat-prOp_e,--lci_es. ......:-..-,:_::.„,...z. ....,: .•:..: -------•.:7;..*----7-7:-- --z:.,---:-:••••.--...4-*:------,,:_57:?-... , •- _ *,- ._ .....-.4.• •- ., '."':-.::--:: -- zno .1:ownsna.p.,----,-------.-.--.,.::.--_-.--::::,:. -L...-2.,....:. _ - , . - -- -, .-, ..'22• .- ',.,,, ..'*".',:',....-..-, ,..,...•••:::::..:'', ..:.• .....%tt-- e- ::.:.e.;4.-:-.: t--.. ?. 4ir,V,- ...:.;' . .:.-----.- •,-...----:. ..... -. ....:.-..--;_-,•,—_:::..,s........,-,.........=,__,_._.....--,...;.....f,_ :,--,, -"-..4...:= :-._r,-7:!...&-,...=-,....-==.•-: r....=„_:..,.4 .c..--;,.....-„,--,,, _-7F7fr _,.-.72"*„........--$. `'.._ .--":" . -.--7 - •...._ ' • ' "-- a •-- -:---.-; : ''^ - : ,..:1•5_ ..--,,,,=-4 ,...- •....It:SS,.•••1 .. ...** -•-..^- ..... .- - e=--c- toipinzdtizig.-0.-. :---. .- :-.-,-,•;•,--n• -•?:.----;-----.--....:•„,-___7.,,,:-.„-----;-:E-riti.itililli--..--_-_expressed;:concer;r-Aritth ,. __._. - - . V-----,- -,':.47-------..-,-. " --:---::•fif:-iNhisfi-ering_Pines„Subdi3iis- :ion. and.arOsecr•where:..;the--/%---. ,_-•;:-.•.-- - -':'-'.:•_-_ ... - ' ---.....-.,:-.„-t-..-..c-.1-2-...:-:;„:-.7-2;z-tz,_•t!t_f___ ..._ _,..._. - ,,..1...-..-..7.-nr_jab-dkir i soion-t-.±Lpiarcner:"*.i.Bria•:. •• .---,_..;----- -"777--- " --:: - -----;--------:••,•-•-=-:.•-c -ire-1-er draineci7+.ronr_lkni.s.7-7 ..b ,_ .,• - *.-- - 7-_, --r.- -::.. .-4....4..:7-?;--.V"-`,,...-.-'0"---;;--- -,'71-_-3,--; .4. - lit.-7-..-.4-_-- --.4---7 _ :-..":-A----- •f:-'::&_-- ---- -?-=-`'''.t.•.:-.7—:11-"-'7';'---'''7''-''''.17Tiiititi-Crr estionded at.Fdrainicilto-f".tiietpaoi..-Ri. ;'.-•:,f77„. .• 7...77-.:•.:7::-,-.--?....-:. -.-----.-41-,7:,;-:.•!,!--,-;•. •- •.-_7.---7:-.,=.7.-'727-:27-7.:1-';:'-',-'_'':-''-.'-;'•::.":-"r. .:7---''_'•::77---:4.7:7!"=..:±.7'',4.174:t.*:--17;-.F":.1........7;:.-,:A.,.- M—.il l s felt that d w nzonai-ji.aurd -e---feate tdre -='..:...- creinage.probiems., 7/laziner ..17•.::--::...- Torgan ,...-- . . ._ . .....*'-__•-•:':,,,--m-'&•-:,_'.":-." •:- Whisper iug loinestf-is _r-currentlY -located. in. a_,:.:.,,,-..- -:::--::: .---;-- ----::'"ransition Area-LandriS also noted in: theEDurhira':City : -_-__._ ...t.:.-:;-.=---,---r‘ .-- . ...- E.::-.--,,-..-: ----_:.--:= , . ..-,----,a,....2.-..-=-,;:-.::_-..•:- ,. - ..7'-f t t''''-'-:-F-77•7"-K- - - . :. • _. .' -•. .', --. , -,"-,, - • ''':.:"....:::::;."?.>;:::.--.1---:--;•-•••:::-;- ---=';:''4,114-- -4;:--Z--,:•t,.',.,..;.--l'-•—-• . '... ----r.- --'`.:..---•-•14-•'.-- • ' 7----:'-' •-... : •-.•.'...-7 L 7.L ."..1.".. ..f:".::.r.--T.: :7::•__: 1-1 ,. • . :--------i-••::. :•1--...-: .;•,- -7--.7`•*- -.1-r-,..,•'''''''''''':i"--7----:.,:i.'.:.,. ..-7,:::: ,- ,,.=_1...:;,;;;-•-:--:,--''-`:=7:".;:...;::::%--...7.--,:•.. :,•;:-.4--,--;-,ar.---.-7. r.:÷747•.:5-1F-41,=5-. 14-:,.---,-,:: , '''-'77;;;?::24=ii.rr-Tzr .z•F:'i-: -=,2'.-FT';76.;'I": "'':-:::;:'i':b:.. .''T.:".-TE, :-:'-.t'qk7-k''':•'_-;'---;'—,...,"--1:7 -:-.t.---: 7;-'1`..-:'..r-':t:.'-:-z-':-:7.-.::::'!•=:':'_:'—."...:': ' .,-..-.,-..:.. .......:7; , ...:...77.::,:"T.,?:-.:7-...--::73P:751::.`:: 5;:-.-.',I:.:..",:::_,::-:-.-k=;-71:::,!:4 -r„,--',-2.2:;`*:-`:1"-- --.-:-.1!'-'::::;Z:741:1::-•;r:"'''..: :--'---.--- :-:::-':-tr7-.-.',.-. 'I' ---4..:=:' ' :-.7. - _ ---;;7. -:—:- •-...-.7:--.. : . ___.:::--.7..- 7`..,;t;•.-tf.!.f;,: -: ,...,:_•:-" ; ...`..;t:=1,7'.7--1..1-q'‘'.':'...;,;!-:•'.7:'''.''''' ,'' ' • - -:----••-:;:- • -- - . - . .-, -. •- - . ., ',; • - _ G _. - - - r-'G?:{J_{! __ :.- - :: - -.:mss" =PAGE •19•===3==- - - .: - _ . Comprehensive Plan as being in their urban growth • - - = - -area -which means they expect to serve that .area- of-=-_ .__ :: '~ _ " -___ - •• --Eno Township.with -water-and _sewer•within the next _.,._... :-:- '-'. - '- -.-. :::twenty_years.- 'Hr,_ _Mills=asked that. a :change.of-•• - 5 - : _ : zona.ng be�c elayed_until:such time as-water-and sewer'-:---- 6 __ = __- -_ -=is=provided-bythe-_City_ ..of -Durham..__ = •______ _ -== '- ._. -7 - -•- -- _ • -_-- - - - - - _ .8= --=- _--,--• __ - :Mrs--_Margaret`-Coils;stated-:that- sheT-is `-own_ er°oft-;l7O =_ _ - =•- 9 -- :=__ -- - ____ acres bounded=on=thi north :by-1`172=miles-of.the•,v_�__- 10 = - --- Eno River_ancLoa_the_south by US_b -arid--_-10-_..85.-7•-•--7- -- : .11, -.:172.7-.. --:_ ' ?: . noted that her property-borders Mr.-Kennedy's_-on-:-_= -- =-- 12 . - 1 '__-..-_ : three- sides- and is zoned--residential _She ,expressed_- --13 -. -``-' ' - ' --• concern with the commercial use by-Mr._•Kennedy and 1----- 114 - •_^ - - - .- asked--that--it be_zoned Existing Commercial-5 'so -that-- `- 15 w-= _ _..-- �-:=..v;.no,�expansion f-- hecommercial use -would -be--allowed.:._T;' - 17 -- -- ---'_-------_..J. --B. -Brame.=-president of-Bramco-which^awns-;- ___ -.---• .18..:.: _.m;'7 ."`-..' - - . approximately 200 .acres in *orange County;-urged-that.--777.•: -- :719..: - . :. ` '' - ---- - - the proposed rezoning.not 'be-approved and expressed-- --•:- _ X20= — concern with the serious impact of the additional -_.=-_ _: 21- • - - -. twenty-foot road -frontage •requirement.= •_ -. ..-7,.z.",.. .. 1-.--.----71. - - 23 Bill Clayton, property owner within -500:.feet of .:.: : - •- - - 24 ' Whispering Pines Subdivision,.:expressed opposition -•_ 25 to the rezoning from R-1 to R-2. His concerns -were -_ 26 with traffic impact, -poor perk conditions •and:the 27 • altogether negative impact -on -the -community. - - - --. 411111 % Planner Brad Torgan responded that no change in development activity is expected based on the zoning - change of Whispering Pines. He noted that 31 development can already occur on the existing lots 32 under the R-1 designation so long as required 33 setbacks can be met. Health Department.requirements 34 0 for septic tank suitability must be met. • 35 36 Vice-Chair Moses Carey read a letter submitted by 37 Mr. Jphn R. Kennedy which is an attachment to these 38 minutes on page . . 39 40 d. Z-4-88 Chapel Hill Township • 41 43 ' Staff presentation was by Brad Torgan. 44 The • proposed rezonings for Chapel Hill Township 45 are based on two Land Use Plans - the Joint 46 Planning Area Land Use Plan, adopted in .1986 and 47 the Land Use Plan for that portion of Chapel Hill 48 Township north of the JPA and Rural Buffer adopted 49 in July 1988. 50 ` 51 The most significant policies of these two plans 52 • as they relate to the proposed rezonings is the reaffirmation of publicly and quasi-publicly owned lands used for public purposes such as recreation, 56 57 - - - 58 59 • • 100 STATEMENT OF JOHNNY KENNEDY gt1G L T- 221 1"1 cs S POLK i E-ARING FOR SUBMISSION TO AGENDA THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD • FOR CONSIDERATION CONCERNING THE REZONING OF THREE PARCELS BELONGING JOHNNY KENNEDY FROM GC-4 TO EC-5 DEAR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD: I moved to Orange County in 1985 with the specific' intention upon purchasing the property in question of running my business there. Since t time I have been involved in manufacturing and selling parts for s of buses, doing mechanical work on school buses, refurbishing school ses, selling used buses, selling used parts and remanufactured parts for buses, repairing and servicing electronic blinkers for school buses, and assembly and packaging operations for out of state and in state delivery. I sell school bus parts to every county in North Carolina, I sell directly into five states, wholesale into 10 states, and have WATS lines which incorporate all of the United States east of the Mississippi River. --- When I moved to Orange County I specifically chose this bite because of the way it was zoned. Since that time my business has grown and the space needs of my business have grown. In 1985 I did $404,008.00 in gross sales, in 1986 $479,151.00 in gross sales, and in 1987 $506,809.00 in gross sales. Our projections for 1988 are at least $550,000.00 in gross sales. Orange County school buses have purchased from me on a regular basis, rebuilt differentials and transmissions, I have sold rebuilt front-ends to Durham County and Wake County. 101 I have tried to satisfy Orange County schools many times on short notice. • When the school buses were vandalized over Christmas some years ago we opened on the weekend in order that the Orange County school bus fleet could be back on the road and functioning as soon as possible. In 1987 my company paid $8,949.63 in sales tax, a portion of which returns to Orange County for the benefit of Orange County. The property taxes that we pay to Orange County will total for 1988 $1,264.18. My company employs five people full time. I have attached to this statement a petition signed by at least 15 people in our neighborhood which have no objections to my operations or my continuing to be zoned as GC-4. This includes people who are in residents near my property, and share Laurel Ridge Road. In order for Orange County to prosper growing businesses need to be nurtured and allowed to grow. a) If I am rezoned from GC-4 to EC-5 I will no longer have the right under the P-5 classification to enlarge and expand my bus terminal and garage operations. b) If I am rezoned GC-4 to EC-5 I will no longer have the option under the S-19 classification to request a special use permit in order to carry a more complete inventory of bus parts. c) If I am rezoned from GC-4 to EC-5 I will no longer have the right under classification S-37 to enlarge and expand any electronic repair service that I do on premises for the flasher units for the Orange County and other bus systems. d) If I am rezoned from GC-4 to EC-5 I will no longer have the right under classification S-55 to expand and grow in my assembly and packaging operations. 102 These four classifications are the heart and sole of my business. } I have attached to this petition a letter from a realtor showing that the value of my property will be decreased by this rezoning. While I am not arguing that the commissioner's don't have a right to zone property as is in the best interest of good planning, I feel that I am injured by such a rezoning as this. I respectfully submit to the commissioners and the planning board that mine is the only commercial property at this intersection which has been subjected to this rezoning and that all of the other commercial uses on the north side of U. S. Highway 70 have been allowed to remain within the commercial, industrial, and transition node. Why is my property any different from theirs; I feel that I am being treated prejudicially! I had no specific notice about the change of the node shape at this intersection and I assure you that had I known of it, I would have sought to keep:this from happening. But it has happened and I am the one who loses - not those people who live in residential houses within the new node - an existing growing business moved here specifically because of the zoning is now told it can't expand in areas that are the heart of its operations. I would ask the commissioners and planning board to consider strongly that performance standards and the major transportation corridor requirements can be used in order to protect the people around me from any kind of problems resulting from the use of this property under the GC-4 classification. .1 want the members of both boards to know that I will do everything possible in order to protect my business and to insure that my business will be an asset to Orange County, to the people that work for me, and to the people that live around me, and indeed to all of the people who use my services within this state and country. • 103 Thank you for your consideration and I would ask that this letter be entered into the minutes of your meeting. While I am up here I would like to respond to any reactions or thoughts you may have about what I have said. Sincerely, / JOd KENNEDY 104 • Council & Hampton Real Estate, Inc. . 1809 Chapel Hill Road Durham, North Carolina 27707 Telephone (919)489-7461 August 22, 1988 Orange County Planning Board Hillsborough, N. C. Dear Sirs: In November of 1984, acting as agent for John M. Durner and Samuel W. Durner, I sold a parcel of land containing approximately 10.14 acres to John R. Kennedy and wife, Helen W. Kennedy. This property is located at the Northeast intersection of 1-85 and 410 Highway 70 in Orange County. The land at that time was zoned by the Orange County Planning Board as General Commercial, GC-4. Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy purchased the property in good faith, assuming that they could conduct their business and expand it in the future, if the opportunity presented itself, since this would be allowed under the permitted uses in a GC-4 zone. The Orange County Planning Board proposes to down zone the Kennedy property from GC-4, General Commercial zone to a EC-5, Existing Commercial zone. Under- a EC-5 zone, there are approximately 31 less permitted uses of the property than under a GC-4 zone. It is my understanding that the Kennedys will not be permitted to expand their present business under the EC-5 zone. I believe to down zone this property would drastically reduce the value of the property and restrict its resale potential. In my opinion, the highest and best use of this property is best represented under a GC-4 zoning. Very truly yours, James W. Warren JW/w v . 105 ....... 0 AUG. 18,1988 WE THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS, HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPERTY OF JOHNNY R. & HELEN W. KENNEDY LOTS 24A, 24B, & 24C, BETTER KNOWN AS THE OLD PLEASANT GREEN NURSERY PROPERTY REMAINING AT ITS PRESENT ZONING AS GC4 COMMERCIAL. NAME DATE ADDRESS OCCUPATION x/&-ret,zi e ta-r,_--t-- byiye /36 ALTA F 1-i v...(‘A fAt gl-..2., f3 1/4..X. sAfq 3t,rt vi,A).1. Sopyys • 1 # F.00 lid4ii- Net-er- • )06z4z. 3 71 7 . 44z4.406A1 0 MART 9 b-.3,7_,4,4,...vdv -1NFEDERATE ibiL 70 itil-,--42 — i,L,(1492,,I,,,—.- .444.4.44..,-) r „,re.„. ii, '70 62/1.,04.--/-' , i , r ./..„ , a..., 4,,,,,.... 6 .), ) .1 . - '114- divill . fit 7.0 &kr/. 41-4,r, /r.A. - 1 c7 1 -)::t- 7 0. #12-"4"4” e. I 4 2 4 0)4 ir 4.4 ezoirtAL ,,,,e2suitAzt 65 tzet-Jzto feit 13 cR a 7 1 .4,t ...u. -20," 6.. ei........ 4 .. - -- ft -ze,(4 56-5- D " "---. a . . ,,,,,, ,,_ ize- ,a f3t-y 6-6 0 134•4"- V) /21.....6,7 /4(.5.-- . ale-htE.-txr-,--Ca. Ry ,,, ,-.. R i/ 600),- -2 ee-A' .40•-.9, .0•° ,...: .,,,e_ / ,d) 0249-griqs.6447a0ii D-t 1 at.e■Yv7,(6., :or, ,i-,,.....-•....- ..- ,„:0-.00.- 40., ....„ 1-3-8 BCCC MINUTES . / • . . . , PAGE 3 .. . der to the county's master Land Use Plan. Third is a new governing structure for :1 -lands, changing the structure from being under the Forestry School' to under the - , ... /atria University's Administration. He reviewed the policy recommendations as stated in the report on pages 10-13.- 0- - :Wallace then summarized the proposed land classification system and described the four .- / land classifications: These are listed on pages 14 and 15 of the report. Section five of the'report covered proposed land classifications which classified each parcel of / forest lands utilizing the proposed land classification system. Wallace showed these 9 parcels on maps indicating the proposed classification of each parcel. 10 In conclusion, Wallace stated that the goals, policies, and management 11 strategies recommended in the report are intended to provide a comprehensive framework 12 for the future use of Duke Forest and other non-campus lands for the benefit of Duke 13 University and its constituents. He expressed concerns with the Public Interest . • - 14 District (PID) zoning and expressed a desire to work with the County in solving those 15 concerns.. 16 Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to 17 accept, the report from Mr. Wallace and to proceed with the work plan as adopted at the 18 December 20, 1988 meeting. . ' 19 • VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ' 20 . . 21 . 2. Reservoir Report from Hazen and Sawyer . • . . 22 • ' _ (A copy of the report is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office and 23 • in the Commissioners' Library).• . . . 24 ; Don Cordell, P.E. Associate with Hazen and Sawyer, presented a summary of the-. 25 ... report: The report presents updated property requirements and casts for potential • . 26 'reservoirs on Seven Mile Creek and on the Eno River above McGowan Creek. The updates 27 , . are based upon new topographic maps that have been prepared by Piedmont Aerial Surveys.- . - 28% - The maps allowed Hazen and Sawyer to refine their estimates on the volume at each • 29.-.". -. contour and to update the construction.work that will be required at each site. .The 30 .-- information on the affected structures was also updated with the- use of the new maps.. ... „ INIF 31-•.-.... He continued his presentation by the use of overhead slides showing the. assumptions . . 32 •-• made before the topographic maps were available and the revisions and adjustments made : 33. :Y after the maps were done: Be reviewed the conclusions as listed on pages.7. and 8 of the•_ •• • - • . . • . . . 35 . -----....-..."_ •. . After%a series. of questions' from the .Board which were answered by Mr. Cordell,- .• . . 36 •- motion was made by.Commissioner Hartwell,: seconded by Commissioner Marshall to accept : -- . 37 .... the report...from Hazen':and Sawyer and to* proceed_with the plan.approved at the,Decemberi..-.:-i• 38.,-.:- , 20 meeting tO. involve:the':utilities*, towns,and the public in the process of deciding,on -: _..:.. 39 -,..... the site and other detaili-of a.-neir- reservOir.and set:a public hearing:for•January 30,• ;..T._......:.. 40-1--?.::1989:at 7;30 Superio-i:COUrtroom,-_Hillsborough;;North'Carolina. ;..L..•-z-,... ....7.' :„...:•_T.'..-:.;.: .'..:_ 41%-f-:;" VOTE::•11NANI.MOUS:.-P:1,*:;..5-;:-.::::...•_,..,_;„7....i.:,:::::-:..:.;-::..-.1,..--:.:„:,,-_-:.-.7 .::'--::;..".•,_:...:.---:_.::- .........:::.:-::- ....-- ,-.--: 14 2,..-..--,- -.,. ..: ""•' •-:---.-....,-..4-.-•- --...•..";".*•ar It- : ".f*::.:'...4:'•''''''' 1...*:•-•'•■ ■•••-',;. ••-•.::.!•"7 4f:,:-';-1:••- ......:___-..• . -.•__:::.."..-;:::.. ,...;•4.1:.11.-7..:::::..q.7-.1:.2...:._.7..._•.:,7,.::_s•-.:'.."-.,..,:a:i....;: ._. 43 .1. . _..". 3.. Work Plant2anfig- Historyz.,Johnny:Kennedy property...-. . ...• .--• . .- • _,..,-.•:-_-.:.-•-! •. ,,,-:: --..,-•,_,..- 44::„.7:.?7:7:::::-:'-.7 Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that.at-the last meeting. the property ,•. _ 145-= -.of Mr: 'Johnny:Kennedy-was considered as part of the comprehensive rezoning in Eio:'...-'4'.,.-:7::i..::"..--..!=' - 467-7,j: Township::: . His property was being--proposed for rezoning fronr.:-,GC-4-2tC-EC-5.' . TWor,.-- -..i.:7--:-,--...:::-,:—.. 4777_ questionr;LAgerq;_xaite4.41) aa-tbe.property-Fproperly-,zoned back-in 1981 when the':tand...=..."i.---...,..q. 48 -:...,,Use Plan-"ii.0.7:4-dopiect-:and 7-the-2tErient--Zaning-.0rdinance-:w4:.1ipdai-ed. and (2) whetherzOr,T ;_:.=.4.:..,.- 49 noi:r.cert-iin-amendmenia--ciiald....he:made'-to;:-the.permitted--U.Ses_sectiOn_lof.. the 2onin _FI :; 3Z-..-,.. 5077"-Ordinante:that::woui*aiidtess-iii--:',Xtennedy s:concern.7.-:... ..--.,.. . ...:*.:.-:--.-•.::-.:::::-.:t. : =,..-.. ::-_-- 51:-...- - :, -;----7,...7-3. colliti-stated7tliat there was an error made -it.198i7.*at-the time' this property;tiL--;7:7- . . ... 52,:...7. -Was placed in the-Gd=.4'C.•attgo--fiaiiilliCt-•this property•Was;iiiitTfin..the Commereia17.—;:.:- ::::.:.- 53-:-f-7 industilaf.a.EtiVi-ty node a-entered-7On"Itie-etieite-85*.and. US. 70. intersection.:- For-thif."...1:1.',.;.7--;.. ' 541.-..:;-.reason GC-4 district._was carried.'forward Astral.. recently when the-rezoning of GO.•14---,to:11::::-;.;-..••••-.. • = .. .. . . . .. . . . . . : . . .i • , .. .. ... . . . . . . ., .. .. . •- • . _ . • . r... . ,. 107 .. , • . PAGE 4 . • • . ' 1 EC-5 was proposed. Also recommended is a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance 2 text - specifically to the permitted use table. If this amendment is accepted and if _ 0 this property were placed in the EC-5 classification, Mt. Kennedy's current operation would be allowed to continue as well as a proposed mail order establishment. He would • be allowed to not only continue his current operation he could expand the operation in 6 the future if he so desires. Collins noted that since Mt. Kennedy's acquisition of 7 the property, it was subdivided from one to three lots. One of the lots contains the 8 business establishment, another his residence and another is undeveloped. He suggested 9 that the EC-5 designation be applied only to the lot on which the business is located. 10 The rezoning could be approved now and the zoning amendment considered at the February 11 Quarterly Public Hearing or the Board could wait until after the public hearing to 12 consider both. 13 Commissioner Marshall emphasized that the County has a responsibility in a' 14 situation where property is zoned incorrectly by the County to address the issue and if 15 possible to correct the situtation. 16 Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to 17 ' hold a public hearing on the rezoning of the three parcels - one to EC-5 and two to R-1 18 '. and on an amendment to the permitted use table in the Zoning Ordinance. ' 19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. . . 20 . ' . • • 21 ' F. ITEMS, EaR pEcISTON--CONS Dio AGENDA . . • • . 22 ' : • (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 23 - ' Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to 24 : approve the items as listed on the Consent Agenda and as stated below: • . • , . .• • • • . . . . 26. . ... .. :-. 1. Documentation for Grant from NC DOT--Aviation- ' . . - : : • • 27 ::- ,.-, -....." To authorize the Chair to sign the designated form which will be submitted to . - - - . . . . --: • _ . . • . . ,••.• .. . . . . ...: State as follow up" documentation to the recently approved grant request. , . . • .--.. . 2. Approval. of State Contracts-for Elderly Services'. _ 1 .-. . . . . . . .. ... _ •. • 32 .,..-...`'..'-.: . - To approve•and authorize 'the Chair to sign state -fun'ded 'contracts available - 33 .":-... under Senate Bill 1559 from the Triangle .7 Council of Governments; October 1,-. 1988 3 if..'<,through June 30.,-...1989.''.'._State.funds allocated to Orange County are (1) Chore service-. ' 35. : under' In-Home Support.7 $7,896, (2) Respite Care under Caregiver Support - $13,143, . (3) ... 36 .i..- Minor Home' Repairs under Title:III-D State Supplemental'.:- $2,193. (requires 'a $244 local 37............match) and• (4): Outreach under -regional Neighborhood-Advisor Project t $6,627. ..-7 38.:::;:::.:-....:7:::;::3 -.,"7--Dr3..ver, ContrantRevision with.Oi'CitHC!s:Children's.:Learning-Center;'=r' .-;7:•:".:;,-..--:...... .. Tol-itiprovel and-authorize the Chair-to sign the revised driver-Pritiv-iiii-oii.-'77-77 • . ' - 141;-'-..k agreement WithlOPC Mental-Health:Center:"' The contract revision clarifies'ftirtherj$:. ' . • .... .. , __. 142-."-4 Orange:County's:.and:OPCHHC:"-ttre4:617--siliillireaTi: -"--:":::...... .:- --7_ -----'.-..--:-.- .-.7.--'.---...--- '.7:---. .---'.-- -..-. -- -..--'--::.,-.---- -• ----_L_-. -_--'.-:z.:7-77.--:-.--7.7. :- ....:,:z.z.4..,_::::_i7--7: -.7.-7527....S.:?-.. -. -..-7--....7-.-- _.:7-..7----,-, - • - 144 .77-..4::::). BOCC:Policy It.0030:;iiiiblic.Hearing Minutes 5".7Y7:.:-..7:: i. ......- : ..7::-- --'..;-,.5......-77 --::::.-._ ..._ '• '1.'.: 4 5..;:zi,:4..i.....--;,--:.,:l_f.:tr,To-Cleliti.--BOCC.:Policy #0030 vhich. staiiiEfilei: th-ePlanning Staff shall-hei-,- -'.! - 146 ....‘jc-responsible`for'.-transeribing the Joint Public-Heijiing-iinUtes. :.The Clerk shall_be:- .- --• _.:,.. 147.i,.;II) respi..iniihli.::...for.7.1.doinethet.-e7--m-iiin.tei :,:...,.----,,,:- , - :7:- ' -,:. " ' - ....... --:-•-. .:::. - ---- - 7, -.....77. ...t.,-4:-.:-%:;:::-.7-3---- ii....._-:::.-5,--:-.;--...:....,...--s i.-. .:-.-23.E.F.....,,..:- ..---t-_-::::_.-.::.-:. ...---• : -777 .7f-4.:-..i '. .7.'.•' ;43"F-_=:-.,- 5Transportetion.Agreemeut-for#CDOT Sectidic1Kreilding :-.. -:-:::4"..4:,.'--;-- -.;::-7.:-..... _-'7'-'1:-.1-1 17-7: 50...;-::::,':.-..1.3.;', -,-_ a:filic c e.-pi.'..an--d•authorize=the-:Cheir-FtiF:sigica7S-0.--afori.-18;trafispertatie-fit:agtiem-eritr'7'.'---;..-i' . 51:7-`'.F:.if4h.F-..chit'North.:Carolina-Department 'Of- Trans-portaiicin'...:::-The agreement a:wards-Orange--'.7-.:-.:- • 52 7-::County $.65;lop for_two:.van conversions with lifts. and two van-rehabilitations,- The_-:.- —. 53..--.'n-local-matching-funds-'tetal..$6;510..-s;7--.7:77:::• -,...'' •..-, •-•• •'''- : •"• ""'• '.• . ' •: ---.'.'"- •- - - - - • ' . . . . . .,_ . _ . . - . . . .... . . ... _ . - . . . . . . _.•. - - • . - _ '. ., ''• ="'-'----.;.--,- •_,•:•.,...7,'• • ==• •-.2._._,-;.,..:.;.7.-- :--__..._." ....-:--.7-.,....f--...L.-:; ...,:.,,,_-....,:;;.7.--___.._..., -..”:.:.' ...;•-•...,..,-- ....-::7-:4.:'.7*----•':,--.=7. .•-•:••.;••- F-''- . -..,-- - -'..;a''.5t.7..!:.1.r•;17-':-'2!--:-...'",-.. i=:7.:7:72::::-''::. ...-7.-='=','-- ...-:-.2"..:'•LT;•---'-'7•-•=:-:;':_:=•- •.--':'-':••••-.-:-F-'--,-'-'-',. -7 1•.-; :='' ...:'•-•,,.-"' -••-. ...• :.-...• - •.•, , • - • • • _ . -• _ ••,-- - • ..• .-• ._ _ .- • .........--- ORANGE COUNTY 108 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date January 2, 1989 111 Action Agenda Item # En3 SUBJECT: WORK PLAN/ZONING HISTORY - JOHNNY KENNEDY PROPERTY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: 12-29-88 Planning Director Planning Director - Extension 346 Memorandum TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider information requested at the December 20 meeting relative to the proposed rezoning of Mr. Johnny Kennedy's property from GC-4 to EC-5. BACKGROUND: Recently adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments for Eno Township and staff-initiated rezonings to promote consistency with the Land Use Element could possibly make Mr. Kennedy's business operations on lots 24, 24A, and 248, tax map 25, nonconforming. -- At the Commissioners meeting on December 20, Mr. Kennedy's attorney, Cyrus Hogue, questioned the propriety of rezoning Mr. Kennedy's property, since it was his understanding that the property was in the activity node. A repesentative of the Planning Staff • stated that the property never had been in the • activity node. The Commissioners asked for further clarification on the history of the node. Mr. Hogue also stated that the EC-5 zoning district was not consistent with Mr. Kennedy's business and would not permit expansion. The Board asked staff to investigate possible amendments to the table of permitted uses for the EC-5 district which would address these concerns. The Planning Staff has responded to the Commissioners concerns through the attached 12-29-88 memorandum to the County Manager. RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 2 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 .,%1111111016N 111 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNTY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1988 SUBJECT: JOHNNY KENNEDY PROPERTY (1) ZONING HISTORY (2) ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS COPIES: COUNTY ATTORNEY • PLANNER III (CURRENT) PLANNER III (COMPREHENSIVE) - 1•101 , AIN■Mia■MI The following information is provided in response to inquiries by the Board of County Commissioners at its • December 20, 1988 meeting regarding the property of Johnny Kennedy. 411 ZONING gismax The property is located on the north side of the off ramp leading from 1-85 to U.S. Highway 70 West. The property is known as lot numbers 24 (2.44 acres) . 24A (1.52 acres), and 24B (6. 18 acres) of Tax Map 25- Eno Township. Lot 24 contains a 56' x 64' aluminum warehouse (3,584 sq.ft. ) . A minor subdivision of the property was approved in March, 1985 which divided the original 10.14 acre lot into the three parcels described above. (See Attachment A. ) _ 1. The property in- question was- zoned GC-4 General Commercial-4 on September 2, 1981, the date of adoption of the updated Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. Prior to that time, the property was zoned GC - General Commercial. The property was being used as a plant nursery at the . time of adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance_and Atlas. (See Attachment B. ) _ 2. The Orange County Land Use Plan was adopted on September. 2, 1981. The I-85/U.S. 70 intersection was designated in the Plan as a Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (Eno-2) . Eleven different criteria are used ifi defining a 411 110 3 Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node. The outer limit or boundary of the node is defined by following standards pertaining to transportation 410 systems: a. Focused on the intersection of arterial and/or collector highways and extending 0.5 miles beyond such intersections. OR b. Within one mile of an interstate interchange and within 1000 feet of rail lines. The application of these standards is shown on Attachment C. The real limiting factor are the standards for land uses which include land located within identified Ten or Twenty-Year Transition }areas. The Twenty-Year Transition Area is shown on Attachment C. For a lot or parcel to be located within the node, it must satisfy at least both of the above criteria. The criteria as well as the remaining nine are shown on Attachment D. The overall Land Use Plan for the County is shown on Attachment E. The node area derived from the application of the 110 criteria is also shown on Attachment C. The Kennedy property is outside of the node, and it can be concluded that the property was erroneously zoned GC-4 in 1981. It should have been placed in an EC-5 zoning district category. 3. On July 5, 1988, the Land Use Plan for the Eno Township Component of the Comprehensive Plan was amended. The designated Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node boundary is shown on Attachment F. The Kennedy . property is not located in the Node and should be zoned EC-5 to provide consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT The placement of the Kennedy property in an EC-5• zoning • district designation will make the existing use of the property (retail/mail order sales of school bus parts) nonconforming. To make the current use a permitted use, the " following Zoning Ordinance text amendment is proposed: 1. Amend the list of permitted uses in Table 4.3, including S42, S43, S44, S45, S46, and S47 to add the wording, including mail order operations, after the word 4 .1.1 "equipment" in each. (See Attachments G and B. ) The amendment, if approved, and the fact that retail uses are currently permitted in EC-5 would allow Mr. Kennedy to use his property in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance provisions. The "mail order operations" would be controlled in size the same as retail establishments; i.e. , through the use of traffic generation performance standards. The amendment would also be consistent with the Standard Industrial Classification system which classifies mail order houses as "miscellaneous retail" . As an additional consideration, the Board of Commissioners may also wish to consider zoning only that portion of Mr. Kennedy's property used for commercial purposes EC-5 instead of all three lots. The lot in question is Lot A on Attachment A, also known as Lot 24 of Tax Map 25 - Eno Township. The anticipated public hearing date on any proposed amendments would be February 27, 1989. Yil...(24.(14,(142.L42) Marvin Collins Planning Director 411 ------- Ac t5 6 A - 1 t wl 1 • � . G.IS tK. Mrtuowa 4ow Q.i.t t 1.44 AC.tocanoluc. W.0•I.w � •—°-`{ a.r; +• •�•^° a/••• Z ! 'i .� g�1_wwt��.auwo �+tw ? lt..l C.t1 Rc. tatt•r .�, � i ( 1 Z.t+?Rr. yRR �✓✓ 1 ~ `t OZAtr ARCH r • ! �' + � i a TtLAt;,TS iO.t4AG. ol J t 9iax IZ4.11 1 O PAwsrra ltowv Bo� V it.ts9• D 1 .�� �`Al�,� 7� i� wit\ A „�o'•""�_' ssa�`• •it}.r! �t Z 1 , , ,•,� 1 e �' ��1 r.��s Sc a�:�Oo_w' s aOt ♦C/.� 2 '"•� 4rw��a �., .� J f. .� � � { Nto oa '+• \� o�.a o All °pL atnuc+t N G-1 4s•°°- ._-�t1s2 a 41 r""t• £ ._- Z. L h I is • t--~-m p Ch~.a Rol•Cc)gkCR SE�� Al FTI � W CS_ZED •:M �'{,•�• r.S-s p,out+o t.wt+t�� :,: i ra:,+ ' �• ` ' j i !' '�.c-:'�•�• � . . ti EMC} To4mclip Use TAX M!►i' rnL NO. Nim- Ola UsE E3LIVMAP SIZE OP EXISTING PROPOSED LOT SIZE ZO!lING IUT ZONING ZONING V.R. 1 Toni,S Quick Stop t! 5-li 1.38 ac. Whole Lot RC NC-2 U.S. 70-A 2 flural Processing 8-32A 2.3 ac.. loaf x 4a !L!' As 155�1 125 From 1554 3 ' 12-4A 122.39 ac. Approx. 1 ac. EC CC-5 1002 4 TInnen's Give. i 16-248 140' X 190'9 Whole Lot HC EC-5 Craig fu. !Country Kitchen 21-39 4.7 ac. Whale Lot RC NC-2 G Laws Exxon 21-30 2611 , U.S. 70 E X 90 Whole Lo�1 RC . NC-2 7 Motorcycle Works G 5 1 5 U.S. 70 E Jacobs Glass 2 -! �` n Approx. 2 ac. 1�txrle Lot t;C GC`11 U.S. 70 E 8 Nursery 25-24 10.14 ac. Whole Lot 0C 9 Skyland Motel 25-69 1 J8 2 5.62 ac. t+lhoie Lot GC GC-11 10 Latta Const. Co. U.S. 70 E l 25-67, 8.1 ac. t ,. 67A, 68 Whole Lo GC GC-1: U.S. 70 C 11 A.K. Jackson Prop. 25-61 1 . 65, 63.6 Whole Lot GC GC-+1 U.S. 70 !: 12 1 25-12 15.27 Approx. 2 ac. GC GC-4 13 L man's Truck Sales : 25-116 1 Orr U.S. 70E i 250 x 150' * Whole Lot GC GC-11 11 Auto Repair 1 U.S. 70 E 25-15 130' x 260'' `. Whole Lnt �... 15 Bobby Den Plunbin Ge GC-4 U.S. 70 E 8 ' 25'136 Approx, 1 ac. Whole Lot 16 lorar�lc's Produce ' .,,- GC GC-4 U S. 70 E 25_105 1.5 ac. 1 Whole Lot ' 17 D1x1e Stores GC GC-11 U.S. 70 fs + 25-102, 8.32 ac. Less Than iL: ��:a + 10211 1 ac. each CC G�:-11 U.S. 70 s °' 24 ♦' © wa �r.. sr. ■..R.• ' I ., w �jfl.�� e ++ �earr ++ .,��L•� •■. s.w - --- I �._ �air+�+1'.R"�3�f€1`!ili�� -+`at. sSr.0 ica�a L�¢�=.Z-r .i�_-alas.n.ass■■...z2: s:ae.a_� _-s:zasL:rraz ?aa� ��_��S��F�'��—:; _ �3 Lx4=aeaszsa_rrea:�rz ECEE GG._-L..G.Z=- i-'- {y✓r 1 Q ' • ° r as p . � � -t_q '—• - -.• (*} t g arc^`_ om _ i". who i �•—�� • .+.ate 1 LAND . U5E PLAN . - 2• •��" 0 ACT IVITY Zo:.:`�EAR---7TAMSIII4N :A EA AcT1 v 6TY oD E.__sou Nb' �. � �� :tBo��D ot��rrtisuBax;YeT�oru �Ys-t�.•t cat�•c�ttia or.u.�•t -- ••-... .. ...---- - - . - KIE V NEDY .. PPJO P ERTY .. _ �t�lSED.dL�KdNSFbR't'bYtCAI 4110 LAMD. �Kt l� _) __c2tti' � Aft it - 115 $ If.................................. . r 1 410. -and 5.tae. Located cn "-are.or.siren System. ? talc vt-z slopes or less stems• ec:xsed than 1i�i g.-ode. "•• '3e intersect of a ter tai and/or collector htgnways and ='�ccro. :nested out- extending .5 :ties Dey cnd sues s:ce a -yea= flood =tie or wi=»sa one rune areas as Sdert"Fred .tie of an .ntersea:e Inter- prone t-he Cerpa of :mincers. era:sge and within 1000 feet of ra;l linos. IFlora ant Fauna.away from rites :satewau:d ='',tee-�-';mss-e.• Located w_thir► :f , .ess son a 10 -••note cam- develaped, create a muting .. Urban three: to ntque or endan- .y time :rock an • gered species as identified ells. 1 by the state or federal ?x_stiaR Land Use. Located government. - w' :-.a •centtf led r t e c. 5a:1 Ccnd,t:ans * Twenty-Yea.- :r anateion areas. . Located tr. areas where general soil a.. ,t ConCi::ans are suitable far Ac'--u••ure ar.0 rotes::-•r. ;,a_ tenet uses aeeasue of pad ca:ec away ::ap a. eaa +r:ere g aevelopmen:..would have a deer:- drainage ehaeae:erist:cs mental • - and load bearing capacity ��apse: a pr:duct:ve agri cultural uses and managed for slit development• II forest land. ?s�lse Serw.cesMt_1-treat P elte er '.._-es wilCn are b-aula:ten•Delany. Located' or could be reasonably and alas v-,,.• moeerate to high effectively served by Can- population deaaities. t:al.: 4 public semi:es and - w .. umilligs. -• _.._ _._ n`e..e-r:to and Cultural. Located away from areas where development - - ir hies ornaveuatact en;al impact on state or federally aaicsavle ,,ed _.al s_tes or County idea:_fled Public :merest Areas.. . __ r RURAL COMUN:TY ACTZVTUY,NODE land Located on z'so cr:att_r c:cacs t er.. Focused IF - - - lan wLa �lootel an 'ne :ate:etc f ar ter ran t g:ode and/or aolleoter b. nways and =yd:-clery. Located out- extending .5 miles beyond such�. - sly`;r Openeda a flood • ersee::or.. _ •_. rra::C areas as identif' by the Ccr slat Engineers. Eterry .• No evil ax:ar,. _ - Flera and ?sifts. ; LocateQ ?xist:ne Land Dse. Lots:Ion -- -• -__._s. o na••acter..:e: C- - away .from sizes that would, - - that serves as a focal - -- :. developed, create a r ea.. alea _ . eat to unique Cr endan- fa population aid nta s _ . tree .ec... .s -_-" a-fired spec es asf denetfied'• - tree or erecomma:1: + - - the state or .ederal gave:: - t_ ae cr •- _ . •- -- -• _ -ae-t.- ,.!• - u t::ticnae land uses. - _ • ..... -t._ .+; Forestry. - __. ScarCard2:_ans.;=s.oc - ' - L_ s::».� � �_ � .�.. _.- - r ateg- bate: at s - _ .. •- .... •..' — areas where general sa'+ _.. .:es x:::. « :oral " :'. • re -e..._-.:< areas. :bat would not L.• - . _ cend tors are sul:acle for _ - a_easa ou eason.aely- - - . s.te sewage ehsal- -._ _ _ .ands upon :. -;�-_-systems. nape c..at-serer. _ _ =Sb4"e.se1-!�0e'3/Cta.l'.:!aC _ `coulee:ten Density. .�.oea:ed _ - ..aC°- atta =„� a.•etS :»a: x'_i n ar easa wajen woo.d serve he net re;uire r:,:l:.--type surtov:C_.4 low-density rural . sery:;es.. and a,: euwturel population,- • . generally 1000-5000 persons. Eo_torte and Cultural.. Located away from areas where develet en. » 1:le nave a cetr..eatal �••• or or de a.G es; eC-ed • • - hist:rte-c•�t::ral sties Couney�•clentified�g•-1•"^ nteres:lAreas. • 1 ,b,`i1114r 116 • \ os i t rio River"_ k` M! g y i I 1):,i1-<. '-V ippioi .1,_ \ �1 I�1 ` .l ' r Cam, "Y{.. "� 1 1-� ) k. I, . I ''F 1 if I kl ii\ \--, ,/lair rj . . , ' LM= r/ Chss i Top. , '�� r' ,i.� I i.MM HULL 1 . rt.. . I t----.... 104 Iv %,„e.. .4 f - i..i.r.,4114. iiii-IgE47s7.4,-.0 Akio- .- tt.mnow".....2.= -11:Ir.;gi.:?;. Ars/.:41.1jorf,;: ,,,,,>,) . 111E ..' „ . a ,1 III! /11 .;� .�► , i TIN . Ill III, w* �c "' '_... I Wi Hmiwi� �Na 1 1.111 �� 0 i I w 0 2 1 3 I l• IJIL' .,.-f.:1 '+}•b :tl._ ;~y-r•'• `. .• 1 k• 1 IlikiliNDITCA, '4111.: •.1":1::*A. ' --' . I. ' ("1: - "' illb 1 ill . Riai." :,:i14." -4::. :. 0 .. ......./- II i ahrwil 0 xt,,,a741,,,...,:,„„ri,:_ , • j 7y` � r � ..ice" , - (i lit ,1 li illtliti;:M..;-'f'.357;-,7-7;,.=:-.40''' :. . . .� .._ r LAND USE PLAN - - , ;•� . pl.AN CATEC : "•� SZE weaPl lAW gyst.0 NT:eV AMA AFak.044L conTA.IVTr --'• es v...EAR TRoAterro4 C warE-1a SLPq.v waTERS.e.12 0 FLJIiA14.NEIGI-C4uPC7O EihovEaa +sypnorta., ACTNTTv Nrew Q octoczaro uogiAls, ©aiul. e1umgeR Ca Lxiwu, ocAL Tela etrIVN •exlerl,hG LiaB N SCALE 0 .cod woos maw AG .L rtI R, P c. O g L7A1.NJ.FTta01.• sEoT: e+ +.w•.... . ." n.......n.,. • 7 k ' R88 LAND U5E PLA14 ci 4-M- ."' + } - r r ra,a Ma•r a � T � � p �- ^ at�r � 1 Qt. \ •FI3a �+:at: [.'mss ... `) �•a - �� dtt'n'�€�;� =i s�rS�r °+ i� '�R� -t>H'! i '�:i.�S�sass.r.r■aa..rss» anzesaazsaaas rwi rra resa:� a:asa rays =a:ii— � a rz��je raaasssa eases-• Ra J• jj a r. On •' �r � aaww - - ' 20 " `YEAR 'RAR'51TION AREA � .ww..s. o ACT IV !TY NODE sOLit4D/Ry o 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE a PERMITTED USE A .. CLASS A.SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE g) B - CLASS 8 SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) AR Ri R2 Rj RIt R5 G9 Rl LCI NC2 C3 GC11 EC5 at El 11 12 13 AS ED 1D S42 Retail Trade, Sales, a Rental —of Convenience Goods, Her- chandlse-b Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupled By TI+e Oullding Miere: s s s A} Operations Are- Designed To Attract 6 Serve Few Customers Or Clients On-Premises Other. Than Employees Of The Principle Use. B} Low Volume.-,Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day) C} All Operations Entirely Within A fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage 5113 Retail Trade,-Sales. & Rental of Convenience Goods, tier- chattdise b Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Boundaries or Lot Where Ilia Use Is Located. I A} Hellum Traffic Generation (200-300 Trips/Day) h A S44 Retail Trade, Sales, Rental Of Convenience Goods, Her- chandlse, E: Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Or The Zoning District. high Volume Traffic Generation � Amendments: (1) 1-5-87 RB AR RI R2 R3 REt RS LC 1 I 11C? ,t;3 GCl�_C5 1 of E I 1 1? 13 AS Eft PIE? —ne"—IN AR -a V --I= -M .. • 1 soon am" ihman ONO t+•3 PERM-ITTED USE TABLE A��� ��'�° PERMITTED,USE A - CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) 8 - CLASS B SPECIAL. USE (ART.ICLE R) 90 AR R R2 R3 Rh RS R9 RI' tC I — NC2 .0 GCh C EAI El S45 Retai l Trade, Sales, 12 3 AS ED 'IO enta Of Durable Goods. Merchandise t Equipment where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Immediate Space Occupied By The Building 4iere: A} Operations Designed To fi * A * A Attract 6 Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premise Other Titan Employees of the Principle Use, 0) tow Volume Traffic Genera- 1 11011 (0-200 trips/Day) �a C) All Operations within A Fully Enclosed Building t No Storage Or Display of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S46 Retail Trade Sales, a Rental. Of Durable Goods. Merchandise 6 Equipment where No Adverse impacts Occur Beyond The .. Boundarles of the lot with Medium Traffic Generation (200-800 Trips/Day) No Storage' Or Display Of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building. $117 Retail Trade, Sales. Rental of -- Durable Goods.Merchandise 6 _ Equipment where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries of The Zoning Distri t. * s 111911 Traffic Generation. no AR RI R2 R; R4 JR5 RP I; ICI NC? r, 1 Amenriments; (1) 1=5-$f } GC f C5 01 El ! 1 I? I j 115 ED Ptt} (1} N ' cs . . 121 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Februarx 27, 1989 Action Agenda Item # 1D-16 -c. SUBJECT: LUP-3-89 UNIVERSITY STATION ASSOCIATES DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT - Staff Analysis Marvin Collins, Extension 346 - Application Materials - Map of Site - Letters from adjacent property TELEPHONE NUMBERS: owners Hillsborough - 732-8181 - Staff response to adjacent Durham - 688-7331 request Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan submitted by University Station Associates. BACKGROUND: The property requested for amendment by University Station Associates is located south of the Southern 411 Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. 10 (SR 1710) . The site is further referenced as lot 20 of Orange County Tax Map 27, Eno Township; lots 20A, 47 and 48 of Orange County Tax Map 26, Eno Township; and lot 13 of Orange County Tax Map 3, Chapel Hill Township. The property contains 575 acres of land and is located primarily in Eno Township - although the southernmost boundary crosses into Chapel Hill Township. The property fronts on New Hope Church Road for a distance of 2900 feet and Old N.C. 10 for 4920 feet. The area is currently zoned R-1 Residential and is shown as Rural Residential-Agricultural Use and Resource Conservation on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment to the plan would reclassify this site to the 10-Year Transition plan category. This amendment would apply to both the Eno Township and Chapel Hill Township compdnents of the Plan. The purpose of this request is to allow the applicant to make application for approval of a planned residential community. Additional information is provided in the attached staff analysis. A less comprehensive version of this amendment was submitted in August of 1988 and later withdrawn. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 123 1 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNTY MANAGER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PLANNING BOARD FROM: DAVID STANCIL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNER II RE: LUP-3-89, UNIVERSITY STATION ASSOCIATES Analysis of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1989 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The property in question is located in Eno and Chapel Hill Townships on both sides of Old N.C. 10 (SR 1710) , south of the Southern Railroad. It is referenced as lot 20 of Eno Township Tax Map 27; lots 20A, 47, and 48 of Eno Township Tax Map 26; and lot 13 of Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 3. The property contains 575 acres of land and fronts on New Hope Church Road for a distance of 2900 feet and Old N.C. 10 for a distance of 4920 feet. The current zoning of the property is R-1 Residential. The applicant is requesting that the property be redesignated in the Eno and Chapel Hill Township Components, Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Rural Residential-Agricultural Use and Resource Conservation to Ten-Year Transition. The purpose of this request is to allow the applicant to make application for approval of a planned residential community. - -� - An application for Plan amendment on 100 acres of this site was received from the applicant on July 8, 1988. This proposed amendment was heard at public hearing on August 22, 1988 and subsequently withdrawn by-the applicant on September 19, 1988, citing a desire to await a decision on evaluation of the. County's Water and Sewer Policy. APPLICATION RE9UIREMENTS Application requirements for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are contained in Articles 2 and 20 of the Zoning Ordinance. Listed below are the requirements, and the Ii 124 2 Planning Staff analysis of information supplied by the applicant (shown in bold) . 1. Article 2.2.14 states the reasons for which the Comprehensive Plan may amended. a. Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; The applicant has cited the changing nature of the use of this and surrounding properties as one reason for amending the Comprehensive Plan. A dairy farm that occupied part of the site has been inoperable for years. Although shown on the Eno and Chapel Hill Township Land Use Plans as agricultural, the classification was based on the use value designation of the property. The applicant also cites the fact that many of the neighboring tracts that were once agricultural have already made the transition to residential use. The planned development option would also provide the applicant with the ability to "master plan" the site in a manner which could preserve the rural, open character of the area despite the changing conditions. b. To correct an error or omission in the Comprehensive Plan; (No error or omission in the Comprehensive Plan has been cited.) c. In response to a change in policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County. (No change in policies, objectives, principles or standards has been. cited.) - " 2. - Article 2.2.14.2 differentiates between principal and secondary amendments. - Principal amendments include: a. Additions to or modifications of policies, objectives, principles or standards; (This provision is not applicable.) - -. b. The creation of new activity nodes or additions to existing activity nodes which exceed ten (10) acres in land area; or 125 3 (This provision is not applicable.) c. Proposals for new freestanding plan areas or additions to existing areas that exceed one hundred (100) acres in land area. The proposed amendment would fall into this category as a principal amendment to the plan since the total acreage in the request is 575 acres. The applicant is proposing the expansion of an existing Ten-Year Transition Area, which was approved as part of the update of Eno and Chapel Hill Township components of the Comprehensive Plan on July 5, 1988. The property in question is contiguous with the Strayhorn Hills Subdivision, an existing residential development located in a Ten-Year Transition Area. These properties are contiguous for a distance of approximately 750 . feet along the Southern Railroad. 3. Article 20.3.2 also requires the submission of the following additional information: a. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred (100) feet to the inch showing the land which would be covered by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, and a legal description of the land; Given the size of the property in question, a map at a scale of one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet was provided in lieu of the map specified above. The previously submitted Concept Plan of the entire project (See Attachment C), shows residential areas, a proposed golf course and public park, and proposed lakes. At this point, the applicant still plans the residential areas and park shown, but is undergoing reconsideration of the golf course option. The applicant has also provided the required legal descriptions of the property and a •composite reduction of property maps showing the tract.- -- -- - - b. The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has cited in the narrative the articulated purpose of the Plan to "manage the • forces of change to insure an appropriate and 126 4 - desired pattern of land use." A transition toward moderate density residential development is occurring in this area, which falls within the proposed Hillsborough future water and sewer service area. Transition Areas are defined as "areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, are suitable for urban densities and should be provided with public utilities and services" within 10 years. It appears that the area proposed for amendment does meet the intent and purpose of the plan in this regard. The proposed amendment is also consistent with the Recreation and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan. As part of that Element, a community park is proposed in the University Station Road area of Eno Township. The Recreation and Parks Element also cites the need for two (2) 18-hole golf courses and five (5) nine-hole or par 3 courses by the year 2005. (See Attachment D.) The proposed golf course (if pursued) and park site as shown on the Concept Plan are indicative of the manner in which the proposed amendment is consistent with both the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has stated his intention to adhere to the proposed park dedication whether the golf course remains an option or not. COMPARISON WITH LOCATION STANDARDS In an analysis of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the requested designation is evaluated for compatibility with the applicable Locational Criteria in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. In the table below, COMPLIES means that the area being evaluated is compatible with the locational criterion. DOES NOT COMPLY means that it is not. Additional explanation is provided where the response is not clearcut. 10 & 20 Year Transition Criteria Land, Slope. No significant slope or topography problem that would unreasonably increase the cost of extending water and sewer lines. COMPLIES. Areas of steep slope (>15%) lie immediately north of the subject property. There are also scattered areas of steep slope along Old N.C. 10 and along Stony Creek. However, this should not make the extension of public utilities prohibitive. In fact, because of the site's slope, the Stony 127 5 Creek corridor should provide an ideal location for a gravity flow sewer line. Hydrology. Located outside of 100-year flood prone areas as identified by the Corps of Engineers. COMPLIES. The proposed development is bisected by Stoney Creek, which does create a diagonal floodplain area across the site. This area is, however, planned for open space dedication or recreational use, thereby mitigating impact from development. The use of retention ponds would further delay and filter runoff into Stoney Creek. This area is not part of a protected watershed. Flora and Fauna. Located away from sites that would, if developed, create a threat to unique or endangered species as identified by the State or Federal Government. POTENTIALLY COMPLIES. No unique or endangered species have been identified on the property. However, approximately one- half mile upstream of the property lies a recently-documented Natural Area site within the Eno Division of Duke Forest. Duke Forest does not border the proposed amendment area, but is separated only by New Hope Church Road and approximately 500 feet of land. The aforementioned natural site would not be affected by runoff from increased development of this amendment area, as it is located upstream. However, significant buffers may be in order to maintain and protect the integrity of this site. Soil Conditions. Located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for urban uses because of good drainage characteristics and load bearing capacity for site development. COMPLIES. The predominant soil type found on this 575-acre site is that of Georgeville sandy loam, which is generally conducive to development. There are smaller areas of Tatum soils, which have good development capacity but severe septic tank suitability; and Enon soils, which are not well-suited to either buildin g or septic potential. The Stoney ar e wet soils are of the Chewacla and Congaree type, and are not suitable for any development. On the whole, however, the site does contain suitable soils for development. The septic tank constraints of the small concentrations of Enon and Tatum soils seem to be consistent with the plan to utilize public water and sewer. - I Public Services/Utilities Located in areas which are or could be reasonably and efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities. 128 6 COMPLIES. The site is proposed to be served by a sewer force main and gravity flow system. As stated in the previous section, it appears that some sections of the site would be hard-pressed to utilize septic tank development, thereby making public services more reasonable. Water lines currently exist to the north in the Strayhorn Hills development, and the Town of Hillsborough has committed in principle to serve this project with water. Transportation System Located in areas that have very good road access, as well as service by rail lines. These areas should have the most complete transportation network in the County's planning jurisdiction. COMPLIES. Both New Hope Church Road and Old N.C. 10 are designated as collector roads in the Land Use Element of the plan. Furthermore, interchanges with Interstate 40 and 85 are a short distance away. Although not needed, the Southern Railroad borders the northern portion of the site. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Transportation Plan, currently under review, could impact this site significantly. The most recent version of this plan shows the proposed Durham Outer Loop traversing the easternmost portion of this property. At present, this major thoroughfare is not a scheduled project in the current planning horizon through the year 2010. This schedule is subject to change, however, and there is some indication that the Durham Outer Loop may be moved up into the 2010 scenario for design and construction. This thoroughfare's exact location would be examined at length during any Planned Development review. Any location of this major thoroughfare in the general vicinity will substantially add to the transportation network that — this site has available. A development of the magnitude of that shown on the concept plan would have a significant impact on New Hope Church Road and Old N.C. 10 in their current capacity. The issue of these potential road improvements would be properly addressed at site plan review stage. Energy Use Located within less than a 5-minute commuting - • time from small-scale commercial uses and a 5-10 minute commute to major commercial uses or an urban area. COMPLIES. The site is within a five-minute drive of small commercial uses at the I-85/Old N.C. 86 intersection. The site is also within 10 minutes of Durham, Hillsborough or Chapel Hill urban areas. II 129 7 Existing Land Use Located in areas which are in transition from rural or low- density uses to urban or higher density uses. QUESTIONABLE. At present, the Strayhorn Hills area to the north is the only area that meets this criterion, with an average lot size of approximately one unit/acre. The other surrounding properties are still rural residential in nature. Looking at the big picture, however, a case can be made that recent development in the general area and the newly- introduced development factor of 1-40 have precipitated a transition to urban or higher density uses in this area. Agriculture and Forestry Located away.from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on productive agricultural uses and managed forest land. QUESTIONABLE. The applicant states that restoration of this former agricultural land to a productive agricultural use is highly unlikely. Furthermore, over the past 20 years a significant conversion of agricultural lands to non-farm uses has occurred in this area. The managed forest lands of Duke Forest are situated to the northeast, and the protection of these areas are of particular concern given the quality of both the forest land 0 and natural areas contained within. The applicant has proposed a buffer be established between the proposed site and Duke Forest land, noting the significance of the Duke Forest land and proposes appropriate buffers as part of the PD approval process. A substantive buffer would be of critical importance to protecting the quality and integrity of the Duke Forest natural areas. Population Density. Located in areas with moderate to high population densities. COMPLIES. Areas to the north (Strayhorn Hills) and northwest along Old N.C. 10 meet this criteria. In addition, the applicant cites the projected 43 percent population increase for Eno Township between 1987 and 1995, the majority of which is expected to occur in the area of the Township in which the proposed amendment is located. 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 areas of Public Interest. QUESTIONABLE. The Eno Division of Duke Forest is located west of the site and has been included in the Natural Areas 130 8 Inventory due to rich, mesic forests and natural sites. However, a 150-foot Duke Power easement and overhead electric power transmission line bisects the proposed Transition Area. Given the presence of the power line easement and buffer requirements applicable to planned developments, the impact of the proposed development may be negligible. Furthermore, a historic cemetery is located on or near the property. The 1988 Inventory_ of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Hioloaical and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions o/ Orange, County, references a family cemetery from the period 1836-1905 that is located on the north side of Old N.C. 10 0.2 miles west of University Station Road. The document states that this is "a small family cemetery. . .situates in a field, marked by a clump of sassafras and redbud.trees. The trees and a dense undergrowth of honeysuckle, periwinkle and brambles totally obscures the headstones. Large slave cemetery supposedly situated on nearby hillside." This slave cemetery, if it exists, could also be located on the property in question. AGENCY COMMENTS No written agency comments were received on this amendment. The only agency verbally commenting on this amendment was the N.C. Department of Transportation. Assistant District Engineer Pat Ivey stated that the Department's previous comments submitted in August 1988 were still applicable. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the application requirements of a Land Use Element amendment. A strong case can be made for the changing, transitional nature of this area in Eno Township-.which lies between the two major interstate highways of 40 and 85. There are significant examples of transition away from rural, agricultural uses in the area to low and moderate density residential uses in the immediate vicinity, -and the proposed location of a new elementary school at New Hope Church Road and New N.C. 86 is further testimony to that fact. Using the definition of Transition Area from the Land Use Element, this proposed amendment appears to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal complies with seven of the 11 location. .13:1 9 criteria, potentially complies another and does not expressly fail any. Although there are three categories of special concern, methods of mitigation can be imposed and applied at the site plan level. The existing land use of the area is undergoing change at this time, and will undoubtedly continue to do so whether this change is piecemeal as it has been in the past, or part of a master plan. Another major area of concern is for the areas of natural and historical significance that are located near the site. The Duke Forest land and natural site contained within are fortunately located upstream from the proposed area. Significant buffers can be imposed at the site plan level to protect this valuable resource, and the applicant has indicated a willingness to do so. Similarly, methods of protecting the nearby family cemetery and possible slave cemetery can be implemented at the site plan level as the need arises. This proposed amendment, and the subsequent planned development, would unquestionably impact New Hope Church Road and Old N.C. - 10. This type of impact has been foreseen by the County and N.C. DOT, as referenced by the inclusion of both as future major collector roads. impact on these roads and possible improvements by the developer would be assessed and required in the planned development approval process. 3. The agreement of the Town of Hillsborough to provide this planned development with public water and sewer services indicates further the transition that this area is undergoing. Water service from Hillsborough currently exists in Strayhorn Hills, an adjacent one unit/acre subdivision. In addition, the proposed park dedication is consistent with the Parks and Recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Both the extension of water and sewer service and the proposed park are indicative of an area in .transition from rural agricultural to low density residential. • 133 411 January 23, 1989 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 306 F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Letter of Request Dear Mr. Collins: This Letter of Request is being submitted on behalf of University Station Associates (the "Partnership") . The Partnership 0 has acquired control of five parcels totaling approximately 575 acres situated in Eno and Chapel Hill Townships (the "Property") . A listing of the parcels involved, their record owners and tax map references is shown on Addendum B to the Application. The Property is currently subject to the Eno and Chapel Hill Township Plans of the Orange County Land Use Plan (hereafter "LUP") . The bulk of the Property is, however, in Eno Township. The purpose of this letter is to request that the LUP be amended such that the. Property is reclassified, from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition. The Paktnership intends to develop the Property in a manner consistent with the transitional character of the area. Much time and many resources have been devoted to a comprehensive study of optimal development plans for the Property. As may be recalled, the Partnership initially applied for an LUP amendment from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition on July 8, 1988. This application covered only 100 of the 575 areas, however. After submission, it became apparent that the then-existing policies limiting public water and sewer extensions into Transition Areas affected project feasibility. The Partnership's application for an LUP amendment was allowed to be withdrawn pending completion of the revised water and sewer policy by the County. 411 - ,_____ 1 3 4 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director January 23, 1989 ?age .2 1. The Proposed Amendment Will Carry Out the Intent and Purpose of The LUP. The Partnership is proposing a principal amendment to the LUP since it seeks an "addition to existing areas that exceed[s] one hundred acres in land area." Article 2.2.14.2c. Accordingly,' Article 20.3.2b. requires a statement as to the manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted LUP. The articulated purpose of the LUP is to manage the forces of change to insure an appropriate and desired pattern of land use." (Preface to LUP at xv) . THe LUP is, in 'turn, "an analysis of economic and demographic forces contributing to the existing land use pattern." (1ft.) . The Partnership respectfully submits that its requested amendment is entirely consistent with the objective of managing the forces of change. The Property, now designated as Rural - Residential, is gravitating toward more , moderate density residential development where urban services (water and sewer) will become significant ' over the next ten years. Therefore, the Property meets the definition of a "Ten-Year Transition" area: Land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban 'type 410 densities and should be provided with public utilities and services within the first 10 year phase of the Plan. (LUP at 3.3-2) . Evaluation of how the redesignation of the Property as a Ten Year Transition Area is consistent with the Land Use Goals set forth in Section 3.5 of the LUP is best seen by applying the specific locational criteria set forth in 3.4: Land Slope. Under this criterion, there should be "no significant slope or' topography problem that would unreasonably increase the cost of extending water and sewer lines." The LUP specifies that slopes exceeding 15% "offer some degree of constraint to the potential use of that land and are generally considered unsuitable for intensive development. . .". (emphasis supplied) . However, the presence of "steep slopes does not in itself prohibit land use.. .". (LUP at 2.2-3) . Only a very small portion of the Property is designated as having "steep slopes" on the Environmental Constraints map published by the Planning Department. The twenty year sewer plan for the Town of Hillsborough depicts a force main to the southwest of Old N.C. 10, evidencing a determination that extension of water and sewer lines is feasible. While there are some areas of steep slope located in the 41 135 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director January 23, 1989 411 Page 3 Property, this geographic feature does not appear to present any major obstacle to the extension of water and sewer lines. Hvdrolooy. This transition criterion provides that the Property should be located "outside of 100 year flood prone areas as identified by the Corps of Engineers." The bulk of the Property qualifies under this consideration. However, the southeast boundary of the proposed transition area is Stony Creek. Any plan or development, however, will respect the boundaries of any 100 year flood prone area. In addition to the 100 year flood plain consideration, the Property also compares well to the other hydrology criteria, namely drainage patterns, water resources and stream systems. The Property drains into Stony Creek which, in turn, is part .of the Meuse Basin. The Property is not located within any designated protected watershed, such as Seven Mile Creek, Cane Creek or University Lake. Flora and Fauna. The Property should be "located away from sites that would, if developed, create a threat to unique or endangered species as identified by the State or Federal Government." To the best of the Partnership's knowledge, there are 411 no known biological or geological features on the Property which make conservation and protection of those features important. For example, the Partnership knows of no plant or animal sites which may be considered "endangered," "threatened" or "special" as defined at 2.2-6 of the LUP. Nor is the Partnership aware of any plant communities which are either unique or of a particularly high quality, or of geologic formations of a particularly high quality or unknown to the area. Appendix D of the LUP sets forth an inventory of, among other things, biologically or geologically important sites. No reference appears thereon to any site located within the Property. Duke Forest does border the Property to the west. Appropriate buffers will be proposed as part of the PD approval process. The Property is also bisected by Stony Creek, and approximately 89 acres will have to be subjected to some form of conservation or dedicated to open space. $oil Condition. The subject property should be "located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for urban uses because of good drainage characteristics in load baring capacity for site development." The Property qualifies. A band of alluvial soils do border the Stony Creek flood plain. As mentioned above in conjunction with the hydrology criteria, this feature will 411 be taken into account in the overall planning of the site. The rga........r.....„.--.....—.....--_._ . , . , ,... ., . . Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director • January 23, 1989 Page 4 411 remainder of the site is predominantly Georgeville soil which have only slight to moderate limitations for site development. Public Service and Utilities. This transition criterion specifies that the subject property should be "located in areas which are or could be reasonably and efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities." Electric service is already to the Property. Water lines have already been extended to the Strayhorn Hills Subdivision. The Town of Hillsborough, in a letter dated July 6, 1988, has confirmed that its Board of Commissioners has agreed in principal to extend water and sewer service to the Property. The engineering will involve a sewer force main with a gravity flow system. TransnortattAaa_iSystem. The subject property should be "located in areas that have very good road access, as well as service by rail lines. These areas should have the most complete transportation network. in the County's planning jurisdiction." When compared with this criterion, the Property certainly qualifies. Both New Hope Church Road and Old N.C. 10 are designated as collector roads in the LUP. (See 2.6-4) - Though not needed, the site is also bordered to the north by the Southern Railroad. Er_Ler_MIL-..iag. The subject property should be "located within less than a five minute commuting time from small scale commercial uses and a five to ten minute commuting time from major commercial uses or an urban area." The Property is located within a five minute drive of small commercial uses at the intersections of Interstate 85 and Old and New N.C. 86. The site is also within a five to ten minute drive of Hillsborough, Durham and Chapel Hill. plisting_Lwad_gse. This criterion specifies that the subject property should be 'located in areas which are in transition from rural or low-density uses to urban or higher density uses." This area of the County has always been predominately rural. However, the transition from rural, agricultural use to low and medium density suburban use is evident. To the north, the Strayhorn Hills Subdivision has an approximate density of one unit per acre. There are a number of other developments in the area, including the Stony Creek Subdivision off of New Hope Church Road. Agriculture and Forestry. The development should be "located• away from areas where it would have a detrimental impact on productive agricultural uses and managed forest land." The Property is currently under a use value taxation for agricultural purposes. Because of the current and long range forcastS for the agricultural economy, full restoration of this Property to profitable agricultural use appears highly unlikely. A portion of 1 i 1 'A _.----.■••••°"•=282AMMIMIMMUMSIMMIMMMIMM" 137 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director January 23, 1989 Page 5 the Property is an old dairy farm but is no longer being used as such. The Eno Township Plan acknowledges that "(w)hile agriculture is important to the Township, the conversion of agricultural lands to non-farm uses over the last three decades has been continuous • and significant." LUP at 3.10-5. Crop and pasture lands are, from all available evidence, diminishing. Id. According to the land utilization charts appearing in the LUP, only 15% of the Township's land is being used for agricultural purposes; another 23.5% is in managed forests. (LUP at 3.10-8 and 9) . • Population Density. The property should be "located in areas with moderate to high population densities." In this respect, population projections forcast an increase in the population of Eno Township of over 43% between 1987 and 1995 (from 5,489 to 7,874) and an additional need for 1,473 housing units. (LUP at 3.10-12 and 13, Tables 3-13 and 3-13a) . According to the LUP, the bulk of these additional dwelling units is allocated to the southern side of the Township where the Property is located: "Low density non- farm residential development is most appropriate in the southern tier of Eno Township." (LUP at 3.10-14) . strayhorn Hills certainly meets this criterion as well as other pockets of 411 development around the Property. With regard to the policies adopted in the Eno Township Plan, the extension of Ten Year Transition to the Property is entirely consistent with the goal that "low density residential development should be the predominant land use in the southern portion of the Township." (LUP at 3.10-11(2) ) . At present, the Ten Year Transition Area has been extended down Old N.C. 10 to service the subdivisions which are already served by Hillsborough water. (LUP at 3-10.16) . With the likelihood that water and sewer service to the County's new elementary school on New Hope Road will come via Old N.C. 10, the same rationale would call for the Ten Year Transition Area to be extended as well. Under the Zoning Ordinance, "low and medium intensity residential" allows a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 20,000 square feet under R-2 zoning, 15,000 square feet under R-3 zoning and 10,000 square feet under R-4 zoning. See Articles 4.2.4(a) and 5.1.1 (R-2, R-3 and R-4) . "Low density" as envisioned by the Eno Township Plan would be consistent with R-2 zoning allowances. Historic and Cultural Considerations. • The final criterion specifies that the subject property should be "located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on state or federally acknowledged historic cultural sites or county 410 identified public interest areas." There appear to be no state or 1=4=1211..1110102■11, • Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director 138 January 23, 1989 Page 6 federally acknowledged historic or cultural sites adjacent to the Property. The Eno Division of Duke Forest is located west of the site and is included in the Natural Areas Inventory. However, a 150 foot Duke Power easement and overhead electric power transmission line runs across the Property and in fact traverses the southern boundary of Duke Forest. Because of the applicable buffer requirements relating to planned developments, the impact of development within the Property can be controlled and rendered negligible. No reference appears to any culturally or historically important site located on the Property in Appendix D to the LUP. 2. Other Circumstances. Factors and Reasons Support The Proposed Amendment. • Planned Use. The Partnership proposes to develop the Property as a "planned development" ("PD") pursuant to Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. As the Ordinance recognizes, this approach "offers distinct advantages to the public, while affording private property owners greater flexibility in the development of their land. . .". Article 7.1. The ordinance goes on to provide that the PD technique "may be used in rural portions of Orange county where the size or complexity, or both, of the proposed development 411 warrant its use." Id. Assuming its request for reclassification is approved, the Property will likely be the first development to be constructed in the newly-designated Ten Year Transition Area. Because of the important safeguards built into the PD approval process, the public will be protected from irresponsible development. Conservation. Bisecting the Property is Stony Creek. Approximately 89 acres of the Property should, because , of this physical feature, be conserved in some form of open space. By reclassifying the Property to Ten Year Transition, the chances of having a "wildlife" or other open space corridor (whether natural or constructed) traverse the entirety of these otherwise separate parcels is greatly enhanced. Recreational Amenities. As apart of its original submission, the Partnership proposed a community park and outlined its thoughts on a Concept Plan. It also sketched its intent for an eighteen hole golf course. While the golf course may or may not become a part of the final PD site plan, the proposed community park will be retained. The Recreation and Parks Element of the LUP calls for a community park to be located in the University Station Road area of Eno Township. Provision of this park by the Partnership would be consistent with both the intent and purpose of the LUP. 13 9 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director January 23, 1989 410 Page 7 Alternative to Manufactured Housing. A disproportionately large number of Orange County's total manufactured home spaces are situated in Eno Township. While Eno Township comprises 9% of the County's Land Area, 33% of the County's manufactured homes are located there. (LUP at 3.10-1 an 3.10-10) . Many of "these spaces are in parks of high density, reaching in some instances over six units per acre, which are served by private or community wells and septic systems. Given the generally poor nature of Eno Township soils for septic suitability, the potential for widespread contamination of private water supplies exists and could eventually require emergency extensions of public services from neighboring municipalities." (LUP at 3.10-10) . By extending the Ten Year Transition Area to the Property, the County would enhance the feasibility of conventional housing which utilizes public water and sewer. In addition, public water and sewer service could be made available to existing manufactured home communities located near the new lines. 3. Chancina Conditions in the Area and in the County Make the Proposed Amendment Reasonably Necessary. Orange County has seen and will continue to see unprecedented growth. The area of the County in which the Property is located is similarly affected. Interstate 40, opened last October, is just 2.1 miles away by surface street. The Orange County School Board has decided that the population in this part of the County has grown (and will continue to grow) enough that it has committed to build an elementary school facility only 1.1 miles from the Property. Historically, the Property has been used primarily for agricultural purposes. The neighboring properties were once similarly used. Most of these tracts have now made the transition from agricultural to residential use. It is quite unlikely that the Property can continue to be used for agricultural purposes. The economics are just not there. Consistent with the LUP, it is far preferable that this acreage make the transition as a low density (R-2) planned development than to allow the Property to be . fractionalized into smaller tracts and developed in an uncoordinated fashion. Finally, the long awaited water and sewer policy appears to be nearing completion. Pursuant to its provisions, public water and sewer may be extended into the County. With the construction of the new elementary school near the Property, it is likely that public water and sewer will be run to the Property. Under these circumstances, it makes good sense for the Transition Area to be co-extensive with the utility service area. ' 411 140 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director • January 23, 1989 Page 8 • Additional information and justifications will become available prior to the February 27 hearing date. For example, more data on the proposed reservoir (and hence Hillsborough's water service capacity) will be available after the hearing on January 30. The Partnership respectfully reserves the right to supplement this Letter of Request with additional evidence in support of the rationales and justifications outlined above. On behalf of the Partnership, I thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely yours, I . 4. 7 D. Cooper, Jr. / f University Station Associates 8886.01\L\003COLL1 11/ .6•: H-�i,, 6 !!�t \ I .. .t .fir \� •r ft ' .._ .. , , u. - __4._ ..s.,„,eji, , ....--.-�f Y 1 ' 1 1 — — :, r•r 1 1 ar Old N.C. 10 I ,..t 1. t _ 1 1 1 f: »K IIr • K we�w•T 1 / `� t I �� ff„a< a I l^71,-... Co 1 •..t .a.a »• \-.•1 4Q i i i non m..t O— s _ ____ — 7 " o �tt7% � ______t...----- �p T•, ly ■ I II I 1.4.6671..... t d./ - O w tf[ .`, •r� -ft* q17 i. ......... Q aauac tr I 0 •MH � � �' *Is rHare ya -•6•e .' � �'"{� • �N ^IV d/� (y 0----,..'' 'he - \, 1 oq , •� I 2 P at�t: , ........ , ,.... .... 6,,k, " awi II 1 t� 7 if... / , WO a -"A -; -11Ellift.... :. 9 . r - 4.1,4i/ -0 4. INK rat•e ∎' 1 14•\c as V c .If'. ' , /, . / Q . .c • Q w G / •� `•, , { r•C »ad.4'...c _ . —1-"-w 1 • - a•~� �,. _ . F/fin MMi • l ... • •,-,,, .. " . \ a•• sr. w. %6 I .anti�-'�'" ■s•o\'t— I.% .-® ; y•te:-.,E UNIVERSITY STATION ASSOCIATES REQUEST FOR . I 1 -- i ""` AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE PLAN FROM TO N ( aa. 0 i w } MWi Rural Residential 10 Year Transition ,.a p/�t Y ' kY) 6,-.) f ' — r • i 'ts Feb. 1, 1989 Scale: 1 — 1000' L DEMMEMENIENEEPOMEMIMMINMONNfiassomasesisale ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 142 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLI%A 27278 I 1. 1 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: 111■1111•m 01••••••■■MMM•■•■•■11.•••■ ../0010.0.111.11•mo.41.1011•■■•■•mean• ■•■■•■■•••1••••■••••■ OFFICE USE REOUEST - 81. DATg t/r6113q magiLsi. eer,e V5e„,t‘ pTAt See Attached Addendum A Property Owner(s) Name: Mailing Address: Phone: (Home)vommoua .....••■••■■••MIPONN■••■•■•••11M■■•• (Work).111*.aliffIllaII.m.o.*•■■■■•■•Now.tal■■•■■ Agent(s) Name: John D. Copier, Jr. c o Amerivest Pro.erties Inc. Mailing Address: 4601 Six Forks Road Suite 108 Raleiih NC . 2 609 Phone: 919 787-7400 SPECIFIC DATA - - -See Attached Addendum B - Tax Reference: Township Tax Map_____ Block_ _ Lot__ Public/Private Road Name.: New Hope Church Road (NCSR 1723) and Old NC 10 NCSR 1710) Lot Size: Acreage 575 Sauare ootage" 25,047,000 New fOreChMlen-Roaa 2,900 feet _ Lot Frontage 0:11S1021.2212 Lot Depth Current Plan Category Designation(s) : General Rurallricultural Activity Node watershed Joint Planning Area 143 • REQUEST OLUP- - 3PECIFIC DATA (continued) : •scribe Land Uses in the General Area: Rural Residential , Ten Year Transition On Adjacent Parcels of Land: Rural Residential REQUEST: and Use Plan Category Designation(s) Requested: Ten Year Transition Type of Amendment: Primary x Secondary * * * * * * * * * * * * This application should be submitted with the following materials: x Fully dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel, or portion thereof, in question. x Legal description of the parcel, or portion thereof. 40 x Letter of request to include: o the tax reference, general location and owner of the parcel o the current 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 and to the best of my (our) knowledge and that the application as submitted is complete. University Station Associates ig2°* AmiNANE OF APPLICANT GNATUP:4 R CANT(S) II/ January 23, 1989 DATE 144 Addendum A to Land Use Plan Amendment Application of University Station Associates 411 1. Property Owner(s) Name: Mrs. Frances C. Parker et. ux, Sam Parker, Jr. Mailing Address: 1202 Harding Avenue Kinston, NC 28501 Phone: Home: 523-5369 Work: 527-0007 2. Property Owner(s) Name: Mrs. Eleanor Boyd et. ux, Harry Boyd Mailing Address: 1620 Sterling Road Charlotte, NC 28209 Phone: Home: (704) 376-2215 Work: N/A 3. Property Owner(s) Name: Central Carolina Bank & Trust Company, Trustee for Henry C. - Carr, heirs ATTN: Mr. Jason Dove, Trust Department Mailing Address: 111 Corcoran Street Durham, NC 27702 Phone: Home: N/A Work: 683-7543 4. Property Owner(s) Name: Russell N. Barringer, Jr. , David M. Barringer, Amerylis B. Costner and Norma B. Nichols Mailing Address: _2825 Chelsea Circle Durham, NC 27707 Phone: Home: 489-9409 Work: 383-7451 5. _ Property Owner(s) Name: Craig Associates, a North Carolina general partnership Mailing Address: P. O. Box 2971 Durham, NC 27705 Phone: Home: 493-8066 Work: 493-4166 8886.01\L\005ADDEN.A I - AMMO 145 Addendum B to Land Use Plan Amendment Application of 410 University Station Associates Parcel Owned By Acreage Tax Map Reference Mrs. Frances Parker et ux 154.60 5.27. .20 and Mrs. Eleanor Byrd, .42 5.26. .20A et ux Central Carolina Bank & 159.72 5.26. .48 Trust Company as trustee for Henry C. Carr heirs Russell N. Barringer, Jr. , 160.23 5.26. .47 David M. Barringer, Amerylis B. Costner and Norma B. Nichols Craig Associates, a North 98.42 7.3. .13 Carolina general partnership 573.39 8886.01\L\006ADDEN.B 411 ' 410 146 = M3 See Tax Map provided wit h p revious application. Ii 147 jJegal Descriptions 410 411 . _ W1TNESSET H: . : : . 148 . • That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and _ other good and valuable considerations to her in hand paid, the receipt . . of which is hereby fully acknowledged, said party of the first part has • given, granted, bargained and sold and does by the fo! presents, give, grant, . • bargain, sell and convey unto him, said party of the second part and his . heirs and assigns, all her undivided interest in and to the following lot or parcel of land, lying and being in Eno Township, in said County and State bounded and described as follows, to-wit: BEGINNING at a point on the Southern margin, of the right-of-way, of the North Carolina Railroad Company (now Southern Railway Company) at the corner of the property owned by W. G. Strayhorn, said point being the Northeast corner of Tract No 17 on the Plat herein after referred to, and running thence from said Point South 110 West, 232 feet to a point on the Northern side of the margin of the old Durham-and Hillsboro, Main Highway, (Not the new paved Highway) thence in an Eastern direction ' along the Northern side of said Durham and Hillsboro Highway 5047 feet to a stake or point, at the Southeast corner of Tract No 21 , on the Map hereinafter referred to; thence North 10 15' East 886, 5 feet, to an iron stake; thence North 500 30' East, 718 feet to a point; thence North 74° 35' East, 572 feet to a stake or point; thence North 620 15' East 60 feet to a point; thence North 300 35' West 215 feet to stone Creek; thence with the meanders of said Stone Creek, North 60° East 116 feet,. to the right-of-way of the North Carolina Railroad Company now 411 Southern Railway Company thence in a Western direction along the boundary line of the North Carolina Railroad, right-of-way, to the point or place of beginning and being a portion of Tracts Nos. 17-1819 20 and 21, of the B. N. Duke property in Orange County N; C. as shown on Plat and survey made by J. B. Harding, C. E. in March 1916, and June 1919 and recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County, in Book of Deeds_75, page 524, to which may reference is here with made for a more complete and perfect description of said property. Said property being Bounded on the North-by the right-of-way of, the N. C. R. R. Co. on the West by the lands of W. G. Strayhorn, and on the South by the old Durham and Hillsboro Highway; and on the East by the property -- - • of Strayhorn. . . . See Deed Book 119 at page 230 112, Orange County Registry of Deeds. (No documentary stamps required) : . . - . 200 1,,.er 293 . . , . . Au IfILN''''.01:rilirgilFetl'ilek,te.11 .w. 15,::,:,..-1.,!;0).,:m...i,;,::p.i.,i,... . . .. • .4 .'"';'''' '17 W.'41.4.i"` lirr02,-0,":141':: 01,t‘1.1.:.•1 tr,44-1*,:x.:„g,:,..,„Airz:..A1P.97- :.:-..- . - • .... .. , ..• . :--11.1'... ti..' ..-1/4"'' '. e...i.p.p.,,NP--444..,,,,:.0:•.:,*-.::%174-.4e#:#.74-.:t?).4:;t%ir:..on....:. • ' ,' ' '' ...Jr,.e. ' •,.4;;r4. '4i*...120111,'3::"%it•'4,',t'.14.0:...1.'..*V.'::::"!7*T-:14;.'eg0.•••.-",'... .' •-. ,4•1, .arm 1,417,N,..fa....1,-,Artes,P1.-A,-.;..1,t+f 1.,:-.r.-r..'..Prvz:,-;•..,;:l.....) - - ' . . : .-• , ..;!7"G r bit.s..'Wz-, I,.,WI r.'f_wr'rir orkillta" •P',7r4 t,:r1",."'„; ^4.,' -.■.! 0.,•%.;'Ls.... ',.. ,. ' 71* v#rIpt-4"-.P ' ...." 4.; 1:"..-49,1.-#J4P-id.p.k■!iiir.,%.:‘:.-1.4:1..c.x..-c.t....:-.70.#.41.:-.#.4..1.1.,....;.41-4‘r•-.. . .. •"--- ..4:1, . ... - . ".4 r.T•If'Ir.'7 ,,::!-.'14:3,4'"'-''''!`;''''''S"Vg:.14.;•.t.,.-...-4.`..-.1,....,-. .....-. .. .. :.:y1,,,,...,-.),,Ait 44;;;;;;T...,.• 7 .. W.I....7;4:.:...!....1.1%...$1■................... .,..2. ,' .144 1 Assmatinaningini S '. •,.,: 149 ' .l'Y- - • 4 �w x• . p.`r,r •-r NORTH CAROLINA- iV4 •x: DEED ' jk i fi ORANGE COUNTY 'j .ik: THIS DEED, made and entered into this the 16th day of March, 1973, b t' ..., i and between RUSSET.1.N. HARBINGER and wife, MAELEE P. BARRINGER, of ?4:(::::::,: 111; : Durham County. North Carolina, parties of the first part: and VIRGINIA =',�atR..{ ;'. AMERYLIS BARRINGER COSTNER, NORMA PAGE BARRINGER NICHOLS. RUSSELL r .,• ,`l;',". N,.BARRINGER, JR., and DAVID MCKENZIE BARRINGER, parties of the second part; yp1 jam�. l. . � i'NJ; ;` WITN£SSETH:r ' l• m b �.•. . 4 That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars and •dsr iir-' 4 other good and valuable considerations to them in hand paid, the receipt of E^ �" 4 -,,L��t:.f i}�-tr�.• :v.;5rrir which is hereby fully acknowledged, said parties of the first part have is� :r:+�';„ ';;fig;.., given, granted, bargained and sold and by these presents do give, grant, '" '� rim r�' bargain, sell and convey unto each of .he said parties of the second part 1""cn•• " and their heirs and assigns, a five (5%) per cent undivided interest In and '•'4t?ir* ;3.z1'; to the following tracts or parcels of land, lying and being in Eno Township, i x • it y;;,K Orange County. North Carolina,"bounded and described as fellows: TRACT ONE: BEGINNING at a stake on the south side of the f' ': Hillsboro•Durham Main highway, :.here a division line branch ' '-T„; , w..;a;• crosses said highway; and running thence with said branch as 'm•� 7�•• 4. G•. it meanders in a southerly direction to the point where said !.• ;;t e: branch crosses the center of the old Fayetteville Road (abandoned): rd et - • r, •..- thence North 23 45' West about 150 feat to a stake: thence • i" ` - North 42. 00'West 300 feet to a stake; thence North 89. 25' West F ,, 953 feet to a stake; thence South 1. 00' West 473 feet to a stake; , , thence North 89. 00'West 256 feet to a stake; thence North 3• 41' : 10' East 2972 feet to a stake in the south side of the Hillsboro- Ala .. , ;• fir•: Durham main highway; thence with the southern side of said pia m r highway in ari easterly direction 1406 feet to a stake, the point or place of BEGINNING containing 100.6 acres; more or less, 4,- ,. same being Lot No 2 of the B. N. Duke Farm property of 7. S. ' e'•�^ Carr,N _7' It:. according to plat dated May, 1920;and registered in the .: "office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County in Plat Book rx ' ,3)1 i7i No. 75, at page 524. See plat of a. N:Duke Farm surveyed „i. ,' 1 . March, 1919. by I. S. Harding and registered in the office of r' •�' r - saooKS o eaoaxs the Register of Deeds of Orange County; and being the same MMEP • , .rrw.tn.t t+0 property referred to as Tract d2 in the Deed dated August, 1941, i ' i 0.. ....c iMC Riff • • ao'. 2.», ,,� 10F DEt.3'x.. 5 )UUTr,Ii. " .g-t, . 4 5,14,!1,,,,..n; . • Y r., fR Y •• spy F ,•:.. ;.+` '�i, TO HAVE AND TO NOLO the efcueseid undivided interest in and to the•�{fit,`= - �■;'R: -he ,�,�• eforbseid treats or parcels of land, together with all privileges on Ctr . t appurtenances thereon end thereto belonging, unto the said parties of the sip.-. 1: second part and thou heirs aria assigns forever In fee sirspie. : 'ii' And said parties of the first part for themselves and their errs . Ile-l ; •t." covenant to and with said parties of the second Part end their heirs and 1-'.',;•74 i assigns that they are seized of said premises in fan, and have good right 41s• i to convey the same in fee simple; that the same are free and clear of all 7 y,' encumbrances, except those of record and that they will forever warrant s"y-° s t . - and defend the said title to the same against the claims of all persons rt r. b, •,I', whomsoever. `�'' +. IN TESTIMONY WfIERE:OF, the said parties of the first pert have set . ,ii• .. ,. vl•'- . their hands and seals, this the day and year first above written. 1 �' , 14. s , ,h ti, 'f ✓• 2 t: G r .,.J � (Sat. Russell N. Barringer t t� Meelee P. Barringer • � if ;x of M4, 7 NORTH CAROLINA ' s c DURHAM COUNTY • ` do hereby certify c,,,r4".• .c[.c t; Gc - .'n Notary Public. 3"+ �' at and wife, Maeiea P. Barringer. each personally .t�1 that Russell N. Herring '�f'; `fr•4 . appeared before me this day end acknowledged the due executioe•of the faro -. �� ■ w purposes therein expressed. ;p +'!'• y., r t'••t r" going deed. for the purPo • "1 r *.' r WYmaas my hand and notarial seal, this the �?day of March, 19 ..•r+ aL :; �:.- Notary Public • f' ::,x:.; • n rt npooKS a aaooks My commission expires: �' i"�`•3+' 1 •TTW+wTTT AT WAN 4a L .. rail t • �• - • ' ! `a'.2~l • `' 1. : i i eons 241 r - •ti -n�' d• =: ` ,. 151 ; . i .143;giti;,14: '1t1 v •t t i +•• . : by Alton I. Knight, Commissioner, et al. to Russell N. Barringer. ;; ",;�it:'lefr'r v,r4..f • + recorded in Deed Book , at page ' , in the •''�`" t;, 1" 7 office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County, North Carolina, ' d:�'• • SAVE AND ACCEPT from the above described tract of land .4.14‘.•y e.. ;r t the 8 acres, more or less, conveyed by Russell N. Barringer, `fir 'L S;: et uX, to William Whit. 'a,1 ' iSe• - ' • •�jt•r C. •',ti•r1}ir- TRACT IWO: BEGINNING at a stake on the Soutn side of the •" off'r ,..g if,,,, 'ir.4:,.c w.4:. Durham-Hillsboro main highway, the N. W. Corner of Lot#2, "e°•. $5,4k1•1.:'• +Jc9";: and running thence along and with the West line of said lot " ti South 3° 10' West 2972 feet to a stake; thence North 89. 0' West -••; � r:1 257 feet to a stake; thence South 1° 0'West 726 feet to a stake; t ea46• " thence South 83° 45' West $52 feet to a stake; thence North 85' Ma ;,-.r'r'yt,,;; • 30' Weet 100 feet to a stake, the Southwest corner of Lot No. 4: t3 r:i ?h - thence with the East line of Lot No. 4 North 3° 10' East 3870 feet '.,'•• ..".0:4I.: • to a stake in the South side of the Hillsboro-Durham main highway; • 'a" -eit el.'" thence with the South side of said highway in an easterly direction t''f '1 814 feet to the BEGINNING, containing 68.3 acres, more or less, .• ` ,fl,.: and being Lot Na. 3 of the 8. 14. Duke Farm property of Julian S. ,',..t• Carr, Sr., according to Plat dated May, 1920, and registered in ' '�t''"r, the office of the Register of Deeds of Orange Cou.aty in Piet Sock �" , :; ;:ate.• No. 75 at page 524; and being the same property:aferred to as' Tract#3 in the deed dated August, 1941, by Alton J. Knight, •"' :.... Commissioner, et al. to Russell N. Derringer, recorded ut Deed "jo' , l"A°. Book at page , in the office of the . L,�r Register of Deeds of Orange County, North Carolina. q;' 0 $AVE AND EXCEPT from the above described tract of land . the 5.2 acres, more or less, conveyed by Russell N. Barringer. •' • et ux, to Gilbert Craig, as shown on the map entitled, "Property s: • of R. N. Barringer &Gilbert Craig, Orange County, N. C." by .. S. M. Cradle, C. .,C E dated 6-41-1942, recorded in Plat Book - , at page_ in the office of the Register of • Deeds of Orange County, North Carolina, to which reference is if •w- hereby made for a more detailed,description. 4 TRACT THREE, BEGINNING at a stake S. 88° 05' East 513 feet 1• •- from the northern point of the property conveyed by R. N. Barringer, 'tx .. at ux. to Gilbert Craig, containing 5.2 acres, more or less, as '.: shown on the map hereinafter referred to, and running thence ; • North 10 00' East 473 feet to a stake; thence South 88. 25' East • 441.0 feet to a stake; thence South 30 00' West 484 feet to a • stake; thence North 86. 05' West 425 feet to a stake, the point • and place of BEGINNING: containing 4.7 acres, more or less. and being the same property conveyed by Gilbert Craig to R. N. °■•• Barringer as shown on the map entitled 'Property of ft. N. • ,`• • Barringer & Gilbert Craig" Orange County, N. C. by S. M. _ Cradle, C. E., dated 6-11-1942, recorded in Plat Book , at page , in the office of the Register of Deeds of ,; ' Orange County, N. C.. to which reference Is hereby made. - . .. BROOKS b BROOKS �`�' a II o.°....w.C. -2 - i,..• • •r.w _�' •.••c.••: I . _ _ _ r.. •may.•I:•r"}tli•�•�R�(4m^.•in�_�4 r��;s.... i.i'��.•n s.•a�• rv.44 .w ++. .. o ^ d .Z�` 17: Ttii.rti - ,"r*w a3' � '�'atrkr 4,='. 1. r� ., .••[4 iy Z !$ iatM q�'�%yi lr,,. .3. .. AJ.'�; "r' ,r,'.,:!":r •�`!%N:' '� I ✓'}l ✓t µ ,"�7, t.7."•`'"•41' ,�,t�` 1 _, 1s1?ILl7iG16oL�4A Orwn �..._COt71i7 Q ^r n.flr'�.tgc.d Cs�'%r. �'[ y •.. ,d ..r .;• •ol I• 6rT,3 sYu�.^lw :•,': • ' sae Amor..r.rw!c+ry C C.r.n4 ati., r..ry lm+d. Corr -.-. {«I'rydwnli`a s ,' 4,s 1/4w•.•li `-4:1.'.. ••. Ali.... . • 'll. 5,. Ile " • 3. • :•:�'., tar.nor::crp:.a Garr t+ota •.ant ir.,�ca• Sonnt C.�r ►.oar �i.�.3-' ...!.....0'..1..4.���;'� r'r. ✓ i .4,,..,:,.... • p...l.Ta „,,,,,,,....0.„...„,.�'•r�'�, ,.a , i L t !'Vii°� ..�• i•••■.#4,...44{'rn'iti3':, . ".. .... . - d w��pm*trrrmmeamme r..:...: �� •`. ....**•••loo (liler.a ''�rnaN( C�t ,r 'f k..^,.`"'0.'ir'' '.•r.••••.!: ;r •-._"' Taa poi s-r>ti nni•,�rx•r I..dr.1.0.+:.Al,l'•-• �...,I ,l¢C 4y�t y'tt [•. a••''. •.'R:.:♦ _;sir...74°tMrniM..ernerArisd >-.....-. �- rr•i+.S 7_::Z1.0I4., i" N.tt`31:∎•�'al.,'"',; { 'f t...4.1.4 :•: .�...,nr„rs.d pm*.1.1.1•••-.....-.....-duo•.S 7•r bowleg, t F.1 Y•�;�t.P.�• •�+i�,1.,i i�-•g. ::;-6.I,'•., , :.C•.'-, �'..,•,'M�ttrq ..1....ram.bas r...eN r WW1 ble.+r wen ...d e•�•f•°duo ors Iwo b-.. lr<r.���,,•,,5••• � ;': ,0 ♦t'Y t. M• 4b y Iii .r .?. Err.rent i l.wr.+++ .r or....w t...or[ti4.60_ N,.�...�.ys A..nooni Jet ...._.on pens A Yr, 4 ;i1::i,lp24,,p:,..krav p!�S, T-t' h.. '.^..•..�.. t ant r.N+�..f._a wood 1 a�4:,'t ;£_, ,rj .... „:1t.p. •s ••r• Cn� ..� •...T..•a•r••es c.- ,...........-+ .:•..nets•:••.,;. v . 1..+r• t1.M.• • :key°c`"'+r` !e .a(u "t:: _41 744 i, x r. .,r.,v. �+ k 1r"ill th .Id. of the nttitwro-Oath....nein c_ '�' r•.!;s� 7; nCG{MIIti at • *tea* In the Sw ",t. i 4•74.,,,,b �, t wftnw.E wrn•t of Lai w. ) e.a v. ferny tuent. Swtn 4'".,.:it y;..„ �,it 17 6•r�.'t`•'4t, y::` .. .1gt..•y, tl.ts fast to • 1t••.: tn.n:. wrap*4 d.y. » .In• ti���y:..:'Z1,yP•"11„�'>' y"tyrr 3 dry. 10 .in• tots 3$74 �u 15 Air. Last S~S rem' ys2('{e.C.� Fit(f r ~ wu 1043 feet to o arts ' ctog. 0*In 3 t•aa• 1�I •'ei.. •- •y`i: [o • •Seine: tn.we iwttn Si 4.g. 10 floe rifer 311 rant :a + stn+.+ to Y••'•'iffi�i'� 'll�•. 4f.".X.*ti - 1ha•Goner of 1t* CP.nyt4 cm.e hosed; loan:. al th tns C.-;at ar 1410 I:•r,-R: r.s••r 1�•r.�,r y•l j• „'.s • • ✓uo foot so tM ...nt•P aft t • Iry I, free :a h. as.r• .r: t.• • w✓rtrtirly 41rw.iwn 1° l•t, •14yC �yt. dbrfi ►.c -yr erh:Y of A pflwt. rood; tnrnc.alto Eno cents/ of s•ia pi Iw.Ia Marla' It ;., .t�?`.7t. s7r4 1 jz t,; !��• e, :., ,,dn.3.rt In •LoftMA:af1y dIrietlon 2M'$] 1oe to • SIAM In tM �p7 r.'}:w.y ,� •}� F�.,.�, r•• •..nC• witty ti said {4' f ', ) ��, • s..th Std. at the Hll{ttgt9-Arrhoo ftin nlyn.+y; L It..�1.-ily •. �` 1 kt.r Ni . nl gn.oT In an L•1t•rlT 410'44110n a.Jl tent to Ire ►tdk.• trm peat. mar , •r,' �:r•,)tl I}lr 10;.. T r•• t �•L1,1,,, point at In an Emstm conuinlny ly 11 acrd, .,tf. a• i.„►. ►.a. o.laq 1�. 1'i 4t n �;" Tr•eta M.21. 4 and 11 of tm O. ti. 0.k• for., fa. (tern., d.ser{ Ilan w�C.hl `'1: /: 4,1 ,.,1 tri...sot* i► Nano,..d. to IM ,»D of tots a. r, tars• f•t. /sores+! •+ ', '1 h II ✓'+v,'''S'�["t�i, •r'r4 • ' in Plot 4 .• 1. ♦E Drg• 117. 4,or.). Cwnly MylsIla. �; f�y���J.] I 1y4�i?rt�%) 0 t..1;14.• t ,l• K r ! Of.n Ccwnty a.yt.t ry of tf..st. •!•ti wr• tp/s +" t y .Sw C.vd New. 128 p•rp 37 5+ r.i rte} �'''.n`x', lap doawntory stomp. r.q.lred.) r w4 e' . t I, .r •.�'• ; r '•,r. • ,a w�..t° t' i ' r lo[,.. y..e • d red ..e w r..�..w..ts•m....°°"`n...r roe ie+.a 't;'Xi. I .1• X tcl•'.SrM,kj'• 115 dowse r.•to ran. 's ....".. tl..•r ,e•...d.•••e a""."s..erg e...:.... .17.� ' t r.• `s[�itt4]j`` �..d..+[�..?•rI1:,ct„in. I1rtl P•[t..,.. _ . .._ . ...t.. s..,e.wr+•t u..li, iti'N'I'���r ' i•j i�' tI V . •• • . th- i Iv.., Emir .. . 1e.s..r.w.. ,... , ens.+e..•.r.n :1••.1"wjCy 4 r[1f ' •�-N: N. •.' ..`h. •r. A..t el..d yea./.°r.s..a•,....re rod nod r••••.,w er me t..intk 1•,..,4 low M,:1.i•�I.h. . G Y. ' . . ''a;'�� j;,t'rde , ' •r.....1 rAe•Seas ... .. ...�, • 1• R' C',I2�S 4 tee J..w+•M inn W easel d YI on•.+Y••+e`ts..1•10.1 �t•� •I :., :4v1 r well • /wwe- ..d..w.+wl mei r..w M.rw-P"°"us, ...a'a.e r•w..-r.-w•r.1, .µawe .' JL'"^.''.-j��ti I jti 4i}Il t•7 ,, rni r . [ms7...A, 7r...A I.t ..r • MIr ►r.�"t ("•I" n t.�,' .� ,'!!IN- 4t \ .` AI,. ;, Y fen a w yen» • ,� 1 (w., `✓!'f,,Y inner pAwt.l rw'.»}`4R4"• -•P`' 4.�y ��y+y� /tall //{ GJ li • tit" i 1.1 ul r-,:.1'. L74.; ''.,. 6•..t1:j l.^fl . • / - . _ ..•. •r tome/ • .. 11. rS r••� •r. 'f•) l,�y, 3 T'�rr, MG.11r s,tAArw.4,72 ..,_ •wen ra.r d.A•"•41* t.fv 1`:..“, AV %lei h UtM a •I� 7!( 4•...r✓Tr 1..E v y,tP�L1T y a••{1411 .I! �✓� sate, nary Lows W. Corr . ti,. r ���♦}} 1' el't-•t S•. r.•.es•r, Sere s•.n�' " •..r�.r„f''i y4s ar went.•n#.e.....,y...t..•L t'r4 ;f�. I.�T}f'<rr� (y; �t rr.r.wT•itlt"... M /.mot n. Mr r Cdvemerer r . it f Md7.,A'14..1 f�•"1 tllr.�+mil' '{ , - 4}._...ry d r. ...I✓'•..k .i.r.+we.n•r.ad�... I• '.47.4.L,'rF'T.:•!'SIV.rot eJsa r.. rr • -SS 1 :..'. 1 GI.tN/l••-____ tf�""�T' �•.n tut**. .-, .w t•rr IVIVP 1P4 ' •y� M6nTM ,,,,�/W.l..Is.C.Ir •...-wen Ire e/arty./ww N �..'11 ti4 q�1 ••n� rr3"3, ,., . r; it bnrr••0�'•�., ,.f'_"yJ Ca--I n C.:M;•+es•n s•,n.rod d..+. f, ii�!�y7•; i y J 0•,y...... (.or/ v „✓ d ct a s•r rJ .it . �.?1. /, f't/ .�MrfV! a e.e.M»-• w /3 �.1 /�',,r �Ir.".trf .nn w {!)[, •• ��'L•.� :4...1 b•y!}�,^i rG `//J1J..I r. r�� ''"1.4!•;•"'"wi A ,S. ■ I * 1 /'^"�'- .7oa n•n told'..C..., M: t' ` 1 L'''.•.;1 _nv tk .` �. tre.►+w-'n"....sty eer�.r _"`2) � '.•.-:a: v:ttLi,» �n'.��;y4.r'•.Y: •fl44- Mh r1T* ' •m.r Y• s. «..yq.••,.•.a,M. /• C .746 �•• r:',.',:.' 1 ;,; �liltZ•,' y r d Gns..t{ Goan vs t.1. •.tsen a t•w . •-.-C. a nets. i .ITgrilL �1 �{�'M�' • +"� ovs* ' *�."emu'-'t"� i l , a•f. "'t•'� T 1.';-e^ ,rf' (Je.r[C.' y '�t tt i.;.;: rn' .c r.X c0 a :err, 1.'J Usti. St•, }rrr.dn, 'I. .. r.r ., 7 ,IP 0r. 1.v. ► �ti y C 1 .t. T 1 . '2211 ... . • • ..• . - 1 • . • , . . . .. . • • . • . • i . r �y , . 1 . • .. . A 153 Mayor Ortuut Lit }II11hU1YUgI Town Clerk Fred S. Cates, Jr. Agatha R. Johnson Commissioners HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Street Supt. L. D. Wagoner J. Michael Kirby Horace H. Johnson sor■sar-44„ Water-Sewer Supt. Allen Lloyd y Clarence E. Rosemond A. Bobby P. Riley Water-Sewer Dist. Supt. Remus J. Smith P. Richard Cherry Chief of Police .rt• Larry C. Biggs Fire Chief Mark Gordon July 6, 1988 Planning Director Janet V. Rigsbee Ms. Ceil Mullins Amerivest Properties, Inc. 4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 108, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Dear Ms. Mullins: On Monday, June 27, 1988, the Hillsborough Town Board heard your pre- sentation and request for approval in principal of water and sewer service to the proposed University Station property development located southwest of Hillsborough on Old NC 10 between New Hope Church Road and University Station Road. Following your presentation and Board discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Remus Smith, seconded by Commissioner Riley to approve in principal your request conditioned upon all criteria being in place and that water and sewer capacity is available. • It you have any questions regarding the Board's action, please call here at Town Hall. We look forward to working with you and your firm in this development. • Sincerely, 1 " LJ- • Agatha johnson, Town Clerk • cc: Marvin Collins Orange County Planning • • . -'----------- - UNIVERSITY STATION ASSOCIATES,A NCGP .154 1015 . PHONEs19-787■7400 4801 SIX FORKS 822 S ROAD SUITE 108 66. RALEIGH,NC 27609 BIL 531 . • . 'id ORDER OF 0 an,a C•un nanni ji,1 De•arm-nt 1 $ 620.00 • ' ...`, Si hundred tint and no 100 1)01.1.ARS . . . UNITED . CAROLINA. 0 .,.: BANK„,c,„ rarEan,ri.C.27512 . . 1:1a 1(,...I a"—...ajg-Z-111.----litt re "" • 411-11- • 0...±.......d•4I . • :. I:a S 1 10E12211: 0 F.0003430 Sle Fs 15 . . . . . - . • . . . • . . • • ' . . • . .. . • . ' • ' . • ' _... • . • . _ -•- - - -- . • . •• - - . • I _ - . . I . I . 4 1 • 1 i . 1 - .-.... • SCHEDULE A BOCK 656 PAGE 13 410 BEGINNING at an iron stake in the northern edge of the right of way of State Road 1721 at the intersection of said road with the western property line of Ire W. Rigsbee, pursuant to Deed Book 171, page 344, Orange County Registry, and also pursuant to the plat and survey known as the "Property Of Craig Associates, a North Carolina Partnership", by Freehold Land Surveys, Inc. R.L.S. , dated Jar :ary 14, 1987, to which reference is hereby made for a more parti •;,lar description of same, and running thence from said iron stake North 6 degrees 28'59" East 552.44 feet to an iron; thence North 84 degrees. 34'58" West 320.03 feet to an iron; thence along and with the western line of the property of Reid H. Barbee North 14 degrees 47'00" East 37.44 feet to an iron; thence continuing along the same line North 00 degrees 25'57" East 124.42 feet to a point; thence North 15 degrees 34'00" West 109.22 feet to an iron; thence North 85 degrees 00'24" West 566.87 feet to a point; thence South 44 degrees 4'42" West 1015.32 feet to an iron; thence South 75 degrees 18'00" East 100.20 feet to an iron; thence along and with the eastern line of Wallace Draughon South 04 degrees 43'00" East 1949.60 feet to an iron; thence South 2 degrees 38'38" East 299.88 feet to an iron; thence South 88 degrees 38'51" East 1388.37 feet to an iron in the northern edge of the right of way of the Southern Railway; thence -continuing North 41 degrees 41'52" East 200.12 feet to an iron: thence North 6 degrees 3'33" East 1560.89 feet to a point; thence continuing North 83 degrees 52'13" West 457.55 feet to an iron; thence North 06 degrees 31'33" East 327.58 feet to an iron in the southern edge of the right of way of State Road 1721; thence North 6 degrees 29'18" East 60.34 feet to the point and place of beginning and containing 100 acres, more or less, and pursuant to plat and survey entitled "Property Of Craig Associates, a North Carolina Partnership," dated January 14, 1987, by Freehold Land Surveys, Inc. , R.L.S. There is reserved and excepted from this conveyance the following: 1. The right of way of State Road 1721, which extends into the property a distance of approximately 400 feet, more or less, as shown on the above-referenced survey. 2. A 30 foot roadway running from the western end of State Road 1721 North to the southwest corner of the property of Reid H. Barbee and wife, Ann P. Barbee, at Deed Book 512, page 648, Orange County Registry. (That roadway may be relocated and is more particularly described in Deed recorded in Book 296, page 130, Orange County Registry) . 3. An easement for ingress and egress and for the location of underground utility services over a .60 foot strip be innin at the southern edge of the right of way of State Road 1721 at the intersection of the western property line of Ire W. Rigsbee; and thence South 6 degrees 31'33" west 327.58 feet to an iron; thence raceffs I . csizsgmssuassagsa""mm"=P"-----____. _ 1 5 6 BOCK 656 PACE JA , North 83 degrees 33'50" west 59.99 feet to an iron; 40 • thence North 6 degrees 31'55" East 260.42 feet to an iron; thence North 6 degrees 31'20" East 74.98 feet to an iron in the southern edge of the right of way of State on 1721; thence South 76 degrees 7'59" East 60.46 feet to the point and place of beginning and • pursuant to plat and survey entltled "Property of Craig Associates, a North Carolina Partnership" dated January 14, 1987 by Freehold Land Surveys, Inc. , R.L.S. 4. A parcel of land containing 1.58 acres more or less, and more particularly described as beginning at a point south 6 degrees 3120" west 74.98 feet from the iron in the southern edge of the right of way of State Road 1721 and said iron being 60.46 feet west of the intersection of said southern edge of said road with the western property line of the property of Ire W. Rigsbee here inbefore described and pursuant to the below-referenced plat and survey, thence South 6 degrees 31'55" West 260.42 feet along and with the western line of the easement hereinbefore described as exception no. 3; thence North 83 degrees 31'19" West 248.47 feet to an iron; thence North 6 degrees 30'30" East 292.86 feet to a point; thence South 76 degrees 5'10" East 250.66 feet to the point and place of beginning and containing 1.58 acres, more or less, pursuant to plat and survey entitled "Property of Craig Associates, a North Carolina Partnership", dated January 14, 1987 by Freehold Land Surveys, Inc. , R.L.S. • .- . _ . 1 . 1 i • 1 . , _ .......m. 157 MRS. HARRY M. BOYD 1620 STERLING ROAD CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28209 , (7 'J 171)il. evata, afilline14-44/ Piee4 -7 40-4,1 0k /46-4-u71. ,A/e. vele fl),1,\aiL-147:t7 ,e, .-4,44) de • .04144-t -cria?jo juLt-rwri 0-1/A- ca,4-4e,A)) . a44.4 -htirtivtilka 0 . pLe -I.E.4:A4) 2,4442 - 0.2AV-46"74-x) „ c7-14) . 114,,,velp kra. ."1449,04,4 444; -74,t- -44,4”; 4.44-eL • 4-4.44%) --ifixze.4-e441464.o0,7) 1 44,4)--oltd&i,“4 /4te.„. ,d) ;61,60. ..zy i . . .L. . • 158 Att4;v4-4, ,24.-14--40.4-ia-ts,a../ 4,4,u '6:44iLL 61-eitttAa,&A iTtat:44-1-0.4:4A) /14121,444,r-facil /4,4-e12.4t-A-uLL ./ZT . gALt . , w— T " hitze co-Jed- - . 4 .44.44 i61-11 "ti'L) • a, L#-hi ALL-- eat 416 /tau) Zo e ,e;14) 75Ltd-) LL. seed-AL-L 0441.44÷r4e, ,/ "tixt. r „VIA) , AAre-viv 40-azdi ,e4:40 Affat7:1 istig24) • ..iidultli,„(A/z CiALL AWA-1.04-/ .L-41 -4.-4.1• eit.4) .,101104,1") eliti 412 dAti .20 aLe /6, LP/4 wietA4,4,1iiitAtb " 1 159 ,Let44-01, rte.AI .424) 44- „et1.444.6.0c, „ -1;te ,tAjx.Z-2; L. $ eat AtrtA,094e. d.,etati.,_ ith,y. ztae d4,44)-1Q2) tit 7:4 cr:1 -j 41111. ‘ g C94-Lei) hr A.04) , , -tift tai) A-e-44014/ >eu.t. 46,3 ,,tral,e -4, • 6L,Y)-142-e-i 1'1 jt-8-4G-k / %"'"- d-4rv-4#<"ile'Ledt:r7t1 rpo' (I 47 ‘414A1 Atero • . • 160 data,4) to • 1 7/4d 0.44-6; 0) • /27)m-tai diex , 227 .241. JO-Ph) • • • • • . 161 Post Office Box 2021 Durham, NC 27702 February 17, 1989 Mr. Marvin Collins Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: I am in receipt of your recent notice announcing a hearing scheduled for February 28, 1989, at which time the University Station Associates' request for re-designation from Rural Residential to the 10-Year Transition Plan will be heard. The attached map shows two parcels of land I own in Chapel Hill Township, 13-B and 13-C, one surrounded by and the other contiguous with the property under re-designation consideration. One of my parcels was already included in the master site plan you received for the University Station proposal, and other would-be developers as well have indicated they want both pieces. Whatever the outcome of my negotiations with interested parties, I am writing to state that I an not opposed to the request,before you providing 1) that both of my parcels receive concurrent re-designation to the 10-Year Transition Plan; and, 2) that this request for same be entered into the record for consideration at the time of your_Feburary 28 meeting. __ Please be advised that I am on call (at 286-0521), to file appli- cation fee or to fulfill any other requirements. you may deem ne- cessary for concurrent processing of my request. My thanks to . you,-and.your Planners, to Mr. Carey and each of the Commission- ers for your fair and equal consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, i)faUAIL Philip D. Scott Attachment Copy to Orange County Commissioners % Mr. Moses Carey MI : 1 . . sf■ . i ,' / . • _,103 °‘14L 1.62 • a: . . cc ——— • ii ek II I 1 /1 666 MAP 26..47 11 . ENO T . 11 pm 160.23 AC i4N /( ...,./\% 1797 0 .0,,,, \\ 4.5 AC,* // // \\ , i / 2 AC. • .4:„... ................-.......,,,, „„.....1(„, 0;1-17---,-------..... .4 --1, n,1oa s 4 s'11 f> ii , I• 225 AC 4 5 AC ........ ...... .* ......-••'^'N I,‘ i 1 wzr 0 ' • I. V I 3 52t0. wo 0 ---> I 4.. ."... -....,.L._. 1 — II _ amaluzia, '•=4.1-14 - . ..5.•'.. \*.,.. n /.41 _ _ .... ......,,, 10A -••"' 'S.."■*:. e/i if 11) 171.1740,1 S.. - ..t...4...............t.* : .....,..i . 192 •451 • -AC• A imp \ H.30 Ac. 0 • 9 \' , 96-42 AC. ' \' i 0 • - .5211 11 t I \ t ' - • • ,......5......"-M2 le - I I '-\ 10.09 -4-66 AC. . - I- I ,x. . • • -. --- . . -. 6,El AC. P.* - - *:- -- .. .. • . 9°4‘*' ' , ' '• ---• • 9319 - - -no-- - - - Oh -. • - - - e.-- r' -- • 11 -------tio4-Ac,-- .7554-AC.D.-=;.--.-• ii,_:4-•,-- __ . -" _ pH- 1 P I . _ ty_rirrAimir . . -• . . _._ . _ .•_ - . SCOTT , FAIAIF Al. 29,- N, - ... ., _.-...... ...._ • _ • - O. _. • • pRoPERIT _ -ATE Ar...:'• - '''-•-::-..7_..--:::. ;AZ:.- --.---*:-7.7., -7.• 7.• _ - _- • 6-7... .,/ - "'' .. -. . - - . ''.....:. - • UNIVEISrri 1 _ _ _ ,. i - 3.29kc. . sin-rims) i • _ . • - - - -• _ . • _ . . .._. . •-!-- • ..•------_,:-•,.:_-. : • ..-.--?....- . -- f , 1 2,.99—...--. . — . , .. . • ... 1110241C 71t9 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 163 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 4 • Aff February 23, 1989 Mr. Philip D. Scott P.O. Box 2021 Durham, NC 27702 Dear Mr. Scott; Thank you for your recent visit with myself and Gene Bell of the Planning Department. Unfortunately, in response to your letter of February 17, 1989, it will not be possible to consider your request for Comprehensive Plan amendment at this time, as the application deadline for consideration at the February 27, 1989 public hearing has passed. Your request that tracts in your ownership adjacent to the University Station amendment be included in that amendment has been duly noted and logged, and a copy of your letter is being forwarded to both the Board of Commissioners 411 and Planning Board. Although the deadline has passed for consideration of your request, you may submit an application for amendment to the Land Use Element on the next review cycle. The next deadline for submittal of a plan amendment is April 7, 1989. Submittal by this date would place your request on the May 22, 1989 public hearing agenda, with review by the Planning Board scheduled for June 19, 1989 and a possible decision by the Board of County Commissioners on July 10, 1989 (please see attached schedule) . If we may be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 688-7331. 144APSincer y, . P. David Stencil Comprehensive Planner II cc: Marvin Collins Planning Director Gene Bell Comprehensive Planner III EZEOPEREM=623=36112s34 .---_ . .1 • . . . , % 1647 1989 PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE (1) 410 . . ACTIVITY FEB 27(2) MAY 22 AUG as NOV 27 , • Application Deadline (3) 1/13/89 4/7/89 7/14/89 10/12/89 Application Accepted/Rejected 1/20/89 4/14/89 7/21/89 10/20/89 Agency Comments Solicited (4) 1/20/89 4/14/89 7/21/89 lo/20/89 Advertisement Approval - BOCC 2/6189 5/1/89 8/1/89 11/6/89 Hearing Notice To Newspapers 2/10/89 5/5/89 8/11/89 11/10/89 Post property/Notify .Owners 2/15189 5/10/89 8/16/89 11/15/89 Publish Hearing Notice (1st) 2/15/89 . 5/10/89 8/16/89 11/15/89 Preliminary Review - PB (6) 2/20/89 5/15/89 8/21/89 11/20/69. Publish Hearing Notice (2nd) 2/22/89 5/17/89 8/23/89 11/22/89 Public Hearing (5) 2/27/89 - 5/22/89 8/28/89 11/27/89 Recommendation - PB (6) 3/20/89 6/19/89 9/18/89 12/18/89 Decision - BOCC (7) 4/2/89 7/10/89 10/2/89 . 1/3/90 Notify Applicant/Revise Atlas 4/3/89 7/11/89 10/4/89 1/4/90 NOTES: (1) Applicable to all rezoning, Class A special use permit, planned develOpment, ordinance text amendment and secondary land use plan applications, exclusive of property located within the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Joint Planning Area. (2) Principal land use plan Amendments are heard only at the February 411 hearing. . (3) Applicants are required to have a pre-application meeting with the Current Planning staff to discuss the proposal. (4) Agency review comments solicited include, but are not limited to, NCDOT, municipalities, State and local health agencies, school boards, Recreation Advisory Council, Duke University, Eno River State Park, water/sewer providers, and police, fire and rescue personnel. (Note: Applicant must submit Agency comments with application package as required by ordinance. ) (5) 7:30 p.m. -Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse,Hillsborough . (6) 7:30 p.m. -Planning & Agricultural Center, Hillsborough (7) 7:30 p.m.-Courtroom, Old Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough I (8) Special public hearings are scheduled only as approved by the • Board of Commissioners and will be advertised as prescribed by 1 - State law and local ordinances. _ . . . . . . . . , . . . _ . , . . • . . . 4. . . • . , . , 1 . . . kEV• DISTRIBUTED /f, 3514 Bluestone Court EiVED • Chapel Hill, NC 27514 March 3, 1989 • • • Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey, • This letter is to express our concern over permitting the rezoning of the property on New Hope Church Road and Old_NC 10 from rural . . _ . residential to ten-year transitional. We are long term residents of Orange County and strongly support the Commissioner's plan to maintain and extend the rural buffer. And, because we are proponents of consistent residential growth, we advocate retaining the current rural residential zoning. We are already somewhat worried about the increased traffic if the land is developed as rural residential. Old NC 10 can be treacherous at bends and underpasses and New Hope Church Road will be the direct route to 1-40 past the new elementary school. We are strongly opposed to any urban growth that also yields gas stations, convenience stores, etc. We anticipate that rezoning would promote a "strip" connecting Durham and Hillsborough because of the proximity of this land to both cities! In summary, we oppose any development that would threaten the permanence of the rural buffer or the use of the Duke Forest lands. Sinc-rely, • _ . -ra -1) ars and Susan Knowles • 1 • • - , RECEIVED _ . . . ... .. . . . _ . . We, the undersigned citizens of Orange County, favor the Orange County Planning Board's recommendation to rezone Duke forest as a Public Interest District, thereby limiting development C.P. thii land. We do, however, OPPOSE the proposed 109 foot buffer on land bordering the forest that would limit private owner from building On their land. NAME AOWESS TELEPHONE 1?,,,,, 444442e7i nit 112064/A/77.. 4A 7 c.K. 1,• , rnaaloon 56// ilideat)al. 7)73 C.y. 933 -(ftfr 6 . ,.._, il F.-CUldWI PeZt , e,ti, 94 8---I fi • • ,, , /r, , -2-0/F 4„,..„ it,..;9_,,ve.-s-g i 4, 4, -. 4e-- t 80X AD e"-..21 'DIVLI14,1t--- 94. - /47 .---\-20,-lik"...Mi. flit -A . 1 ) C;■. - TZ) 1 -t 0-tv,-/,a„ c _ q le.F1-5' • . . . . :1U.a-tk r'td,14/,' 4 ( b)r: ot---f .. Dar- ,/-7-1°5 ?it?? --(-( .55 ,12.7o7 V-A- 4c,, elitd144, . Y‘7-- ,57ei 1 . . . . - . . " . . . _ • . . . _ . . . .. . . _ . i . i . . . . .. _ . . . . _ . . . .. • 1 I-- • Peter M. Pickens 3004 Cool Spring Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 February 28, 198g Dear Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners: Last night I spoke at the Public Hearing against changing the current zoning of the property owned by the University Station Associates from R-1 Residential to Ten-Year Transition. My argument was that be changing the zoning to Ten-Year Transition, you would in effect be making the property a part of the town of Hillsborough, which the Planning Department agreed would probably happen. I have nothing against the town of Hillsborough, but I do object to this 575 acres or rural property being made a part of a town - any town - or city for that matter. I believe that such a change would be very detrimental to the nature of not only the University Station Associaates' property but also surrounding properties, including Duke Forest - no maatter the proposed park and buffer - and would not be in keeping with the intents of our Land Use Plan. Even if only 1 home per acre were built on the University Station Associates' property, instead of a possible 13, by bringing town water and sewer to the development, you will, in consequence, have eraced 575 more acres of rural Orange County forever and threatened surrounding rural areas to a similar fate. • I hope that you will agree with me that the proposed Ten-Year transition zoning change for the University Station Associates' property is not a good idea and not in the best interests of the health of Orange County. Please vote against this proposal. Sincerely, ee,teA-- 111- 6). .17P-7 ME nn Led NMI LAI February 23, 1989 Mr. Marvin Collins, Dir. of Planning Orange County, 306 E. Revere Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: This letter is written on behalf of Craig Associates, a North Carolina General Partnership that currently owns approximately 100 acres in the Chapel Hill Township of Orange County (Tax Map Reference 7.3. .13) . Our parcel of land along with three contiguous parcels are currently under contract and the control of University Station Associates and are a part of the proposed University Station planned community. It is our understanding that University Station Associates has requested that all four parcels be reclassified from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transitional in the current Land Use Plan. This letter is to express Craig Associates' complete support of this amendment. When Craig Associates purchased the 100 acre parcel in 1987, it was with intent to develop it alone or in conjunction with an adjoining 180 acre tract. Plans were well on the way towards this development when we were approached by the parties of University Station Associates about purchasing it as a part of a much larger land plan. For numerous reasons, it was our ultimate decision to sell the property. Quite simply, what they proposed just made good sense. One large, well-planned community is much better for the county and - the citizens of the area than an eventual hodge-podge of smaller developments with no continuity. If we were to have developed the property ourselves, our land plan would have been dictated by the use of septic tanks and septic lines rather than good land planning with architectural design- criteria as this amendment would allow. What University Station Associates proposes is a community within a community with the public's best interests in mind. They plan low density housing, open space and recreational space along with a well-planned and well-constructed road system. They have even agreed to bear the FULL EXPENSE of bringing water and sewer to the property which will not only benefit those who purchase homesites within University Station but also those property owners along the line's path. Also, if this large area was developed with wells and septic tanks it would only add to the already potentially dangerous soil pollution caused by the large amount of manufactured homes in the area (often as many as six per acre) . For these reasons along with the fact that the property is not in the rural buffer or watershed area, we respectfully request and strongly encourage you to amend the Orange County Land Use Plan to include this property in the Ten Year Transition area as you did with adjacent Strayhorn Hills last year. It just makes good sense for the future enrichment of our county. Sincerely, Craig Associates, A North Carolina General Partnership L Harold 14.M. Barber, Sr. Patricia L. Mazzlr-"' . Air !ft, ' 4- ron R. Lacefield RECEIVED 3923 Stoneycreek Road 6 (c1 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 919-732-8650 March 3, 1989 Dear Mr. Carey: We wish to go on record saying that we do not support the proposed change in the Orange County Land Use -Plan as proposed by University Associates. Our concerns include the possibility that a 10 year transition area would allow for high density housing, apartments, and shopping centers, when clearly this area is rural in character and is gradually but steadily being developed as it should be--rural residential. To plant a development of 600 to 800 units here will serve no one -but the developers, whose interest in Orange. County appears to us purely financial. Further, it would sorely affect the already threatened flora and fauna of Duke Forest and Stoneycreek that so many of us have spent a good deal time and effort trying to protect. Neither of us are civil engineers. But even we can see that the North Carolina DOT report indicating that New Hope Church Road and Old NC 10 could support substantially higher traffic volume flies in the face of common sense. Both roads are narrow and are poorly maintained. There are potholes all along each road now, and during the melting that occurred after the last snow storm, Old NC 10 was flooded to a depth of at least two feet under the railroad trestle south of Hillsborough. Additionally, the "5" curve under that trestle is hazardous even in the best daylight weather. At night and during inclement weather, it is treacherous. Finally, bicyclists frequently use those roads. Substantially more automobile (and truck) traffic will greatly increase .the danger to them and to motorists attempting to maneuver around them. Clearly, widening those roads would be necessary but would, in the case of New Hope Church road, drive a spike (some would say a coffin nail) into the northeastern portion of the Rural Buffer. We dislike being labeled "anti-development," because we do support the right kind of development for a particular environment. But the so-called "University" (who are they trying to kid?) Associates development is NOT the right kind for our area. Please leave the classification "Rural Residential." Sincerely, Carmine and Elizabeth Prioli RECE1VcD Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane March 8, 1989 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 DISTRIBU ED Dear Moses, S--ei ,r„c, • /- As C21/A' s a resident of Stoneycreek, l am increasingly concerned about m es issues involving the property owned by University Station Associates and appreciate your taking-the time to read this letter. Regarding many safety, environmental, and aesthetic factors this expanse of land on N.C.10 should remain classified as "Rural Residential". The TEN-YEAR TRANSITION ZONE CLASSIFICATION that is currently under consideration is incompatible with the existing uses of this rural land in that it permits high density housing, entails is its rural t � All of One of the many attributes this area us share in a devotion to protecting this matrix from the indecorous commercial kudzu that infested 15-501 between Chapel Hill and Durham. The vulnerability this land faces toward becoming a commercial/urban corridor between Hillsborough and Durham is unsettling. The location of this property affords respect for the surrounding areas that would be effected both environmentally ad weraitlt Duke Forest and the Rural density development. This land i Buffer. Ito growing bisected bow density, and the area The adjoining areas are already growing p by municipal infrastructure. Also of major importance is the effect high density housing and shopping centers would have on our road system. We are already faced with a potentially huge increase in traffic when the Elementary School on,the corner of New Hope Church ural Residential, the this raff�i e flow on 0these back developed as anything i . roads will be intolerable and extremely hazardous. In conclusion, the caliber of this area is not only defined by the educational and occupational provisions but by the lush pine forests, tranquil creeks, and open spaces. I hope we can preserve this irreplaceable , RECEIVED 3 -Is-a-7 3820 Stoneycreek Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 12 March 1989 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: As a resident of the area near the proposed University Station development, I urge you and the County Commission to adhere to the current land use plan for the University Station property. The initial development plans, which called for a golf course and six hundred homes, would have been a far more compatible development for this area than the new plans that request high-density housing and allow for commercial development. The commissioners and many citizens of the county have worked long and hard to preserve the rural character of the land between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill and Durham. I urge you to continue your excellent efforts to ensure that Orange County, North Carolina, will never have to suffer the unchecked development of other fast-growing counties around the country. Y. rs Si cerely, 41, I Eli ii.eth L. Woodman • ��������� ���K^�K����� ��_a- (S"? 4019 Stoneycreek Rd. Chapel Hill , NC 27514 March 14, 1989 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: As a follow-up to the County Commissioner 's meeting on Feb. 27, I thought it would be worthwhile to list a few of the concerns which I , and believe my neighors, have about the rezoning request by the University Station Associates (USA) for the land on New Hope Church Rd and Route 10: o I believe the County Commissioners and other planning groups have done an excellent job in making long-range plans for this and other properties in Orange County, and I do not believe that the proposal by UGP takes advantage of these plans. Rather, the proposal seems to completely disregard the long-range plans. What good are plans, if profit motives disregard them? Certainly the plans should be reviewed occassionally, but they should first have a chance to stabilize. I do not feel that the proposed plan offers this stability. o With the establishment of the new elementary school at the corner of New Hope Church and route 86, the increased traffic at this site which would result -from the development being proposed could be a serious safety hazard. Although the actual number of residents - and therefore cars - which the new development would generate is vague at this time, it is not hard to envision over 500 vehicles, most of which would travel west on Nev Hope Church to reach route 86 of 1-40. This route would take them right past the school entrances/exits which are planned on New Hope Church ! New Hope Church Road is a small winding road which is not designed to take thi kind of traffic. There are many blind spots, including the entrance from Stoneyareek Rd. I believe that the proposed rezoning/development would create serious traffic problems - especially at the school site. o Since the proposed site is adjacent to both the Rural Buffer and thE Duke Forest land , both of these established land areas would be disturbed by the creation of the new development. I believe that this would be very unfortunate. o I seriously question the ability of present police and fire protection to service a new development the size of that being proposed. ] the town/county ready to expand at the rate that would be required if the new development became a reality7 I think not. Water and sewer requirement would certainly be other major considerations which would disrupt the long-range planning. o It would appear that the proposed development - at 575 acres - woul be more than half the area of Woodcraft in Durham - 880 acres. I am told that the latter presently has 1800 home sites and plans to expand to about 2200 sites. I would not like to see the school problems that Wopdcroft is presently having, occur in Orange County. I am not saying that Woodcroft i | - ---- -- ------- . ' -2- not an attractive area. However, if I had wanted to live in as dense an area as Woodcraft I would have moved there. I chose not to, desiring the more rural areas of Orange County. I would certainly be more in favor of the original plans for the development of the land in question, which would have a golf course and less dense housing - with one or two acre plots. I believe that this would be much more reasonable, and would help to maintain the beauty of the area I believe that such a development would also be 'profitable' to the right developer. Perhaps the biggest question in my mind concerning the proposed development of the area is the fact that the plans are very uncertain - that is, whether the site will have one acre plots, high-density condos an apartments, shopping centers or what. My feeling is that once one rezoning is made, another may shortly follow such that the situation will get completely out of hand. I think that now is the time to stick to the originally planned long-range development, which has been carefully considered. I do not believe that the proposed rezoning and potential site development has been carefully considered. I hope that the above information will been helpful in your consideration of the proposed rezoning. I have been impressed with the 'fairness' of the commissioners in hearing all views. Sincerely, ---6?1,4::: R W. Roth • • : _ __- • STONEYCREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASS8R,YRN PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT/TREASURER Josef Woodman Calle Warner SECRETARY 3820 Stoneycreek Road 3809 Stoneycreek Road Rol Stoneycreek Chapel HIII, NC 27514 Chapel I-ilL NC 27514 Chapel el NC Road 732-9668 732-5456 ChapF�NIA, NC 27514 6 March 89 967-3475 Ms. Kay Singer, Chair DISTRIBUTED ,I*� orange County Board of Education "Gus 200 East King Street �t 'Lc �a-s Hillsborough NC 27278 3ia � Dear Ms. Singer: Members of the Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association and I are becoming increasingly concerned about the site plan for the - .elementary school to be built on State Road 86-and New Hope Church Road: 1) The plan calls for three entranceways on New Hope Church Road, all close to each other. We wish to be assured this doesn't present a safety hazard, particularly in view of the fact that these entranceways and exits will occur road is on and near a hilly curve. As you know, 1-40 has created increased traffic on that road--much of it high-speed as people anticipate getting on the freeway. The additional congestion caused by school buses, parents and faculty may burden this stretch of road in a dangerous manner. We're concerned about adequate widening of New Hope Church Road, ample caution signs and traffic signal(s) . 2) The plan calls for a school bus parking lot to be placed within sixty feet of New Hope Church Road. With the right-of-way presumably to be used for widening, this puts the parking lot within fifty feet of the road. We do not wish to see full of school buses in a community that is defined by forest, open spaces and secluded residential dwellings. Last October, members of the Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association met with school board officials and were assured that the school -would reflect the rural character of this area. At public hearings, members of our association have repeatedly voiced their concerns over what appears to be a growing lack of regard for aesthetics in the midst of a host of other hurried considerations. To date, we have received no satisfaction that the school's appearance will reflect the high standards originally envisioned. At your early convenience, I would like to arrange a brief meeting with you to discuss these and other issues related to the school site. Sincerely Josef Woodman cc: ses Carey, OC Commission Barry Jacobs, OC Planning Board • • • • THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Office of Business and Finance CB#1000,300 South Building University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill,NC.275994000 February 27, 1989 Ms. Mary Scearbo Orange County Planning Office P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Ms. Scearbo: It is understood that Orange County plans to zone certain University properties as "public interest district-1," which is intended to protect lands in public and private ownership which are committed to a low intensity use, deemed to be of public benefit and are expected to remain in such use for a period of at least twenty years. The University Lake property is of this nature, and no objection is voiced to this zoning designation for the University Lake property. A map of the University holdings in the area of Mason Farm is enclosed. This map shows the areas that have been dedicated for use either by the Botanical Garden or for biological research. The zoning designation, as a public interest district, would be appropriate for these lands. You will note, however, there is an additional tract of University-owned property in this area which we refer to as the Parker property. This area is not a part of the biological reserve, and has been targeted as appropriate for development by the University. The Parker property land which lies within the Town of Chapel Hill zoning jurisdiction has been zoned R-1. It is requested that the land within the county zoning jurisdiction be similarly zoned. This zoning will recognize the development potential of the Parker property. • 165 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NO, ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 22, 1989 Action Agenda Item f 4—a.- SUBJECT: Z-1-89 - RICHARD ANDREWS - REZONING REQUEST DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _x_Ys No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Application for Rezoning Statement of Justification Agency Comments • Area Proposed for Rezone Certificate of mailing TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 i III Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment concerning a rezoning request submitted by Richard Andrews. BACKGROUND: The property is located on the north side of NC 54, just east of Morrows Mills Road. It is known as Lot 27A of Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The existing lot contains 2.94 acres and is currently in the AR - Agricultural Residential Zoning District. The applicant is requesting that 1.92 acres be rezoned to the NC-2 - Neighborhood Commercial District. The property is located within the BH-1 Rural Neighborhood Activity Node as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. • The Comprehensive Plan states that the NC-2 zone may be applied to no more than 5.0 acres within an activity node of rural population density. At present there are 3.08 acres within the node in the NC-2 zone, thus a maximum of an additional 1.92 acres of NC-2 may be approved. 410 Letters have been submitted from the Orange County Sheriff's Department, South Orange Rescue Squad and Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department indicating that 166 services can be provided. The Orange County Health Department has conducted a soils test, indicating that on-site septic disposal can be accommodated. The rezoning requested leaves 1.02 acres in the AR zoning district. The configuration of the remaining lot area meets dimensional requirements for a residential zoning lot. Thus, two principle structures could be permitted on the existing lot - one on the commercially-zoned area, and one on the residentially-zoned area. Access to the property would be directly from NC 54 which is designated as an arterial in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The latest traffic count is a 1984 count indicating 6,000 vehicles per day on NC 54. Traffic generation would vary based on the commercial use proposed and the size of the proposed building. ' The rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since this property is located in a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node.. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of rezoning the property from Agricultural Residential to Neighborhood Commercial-2. 410 -----,„.--aaw — sc....3i , ''N''.\,„1,...,... ..... . 19.18 AC161 3446 410 Z - 1 - 89 RICHARD ANDREWS Existing Zone: AR Proposed Zone: NC-2 L...) 1 _ _ . 1 ..-1, le 6 C) -3534 4446 ,.. .5 iI •3203 :;"4,1 I ' .til I 1 . 4 a3 r 2 l 6.O5 AC. • 0 1.96. 0 . •O639 10.19 AC. 56:9ECi 2 .:34711_13 410 tp QV C) 54 5649 601 Ac. 1 - ,., 01 2504 . 3.39-AC. 2 i t . * '2.01 e . . ..........._ .......... ............ ......., _............ RURAL ................., . .......I. I . a.544407,C1 Al.C5.. AC. .638i...... ........on "... ...... 1.24 AC. ,r.-J,,,,,, ---....... , .....,.... -% 0.- -----....... NC 5 4. - — 1. ------...,_ 4382 AC• Ili 11 S EE M4P —— --- — -- - ......re...... 9162.(D 0 ii 26 C -...... „ ......._ 10.7 AC. 1/ (044 L. CUAL) NI' — II 5.24 AC. 0*795I --1" ' 6914 . /1 6.79 A0. I. • - 3.3 AC. 4.22 6 4 4, • 4/4 I • - 1.68 3871 FIR; AC. Co . 3.08 AC. cy./55? 1/1 I - ED • f / MAP 268, -3letti-e, /ID L. CURL) „.,--c. ...' . 0 41 \ 31 i ,„...... ....,-,... \ ,, ,. \ • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 168 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 r •,11 est" MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1989 SUBJECT: Z-1-89 RICHARD ANDREWS GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Richard Andrews P. 0. Box 238 Carrboro, NC 27510 Location: North side of NC 54 approximately 850 feet 411 east of Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) . Lot size: 2.94 acres total, 1.92 acres requested to be rezoned to NC-2 . Existing Land Use: Undeveloped land zoned AR - Agricultural Residential Surrounding Land Use: North - Undeveloped land zoned AR East - Vacant commercial building zoned NC-2 South - NC 54 and PHE zoned GC-4 West - Undeveloped land zoned AR Land Use Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Zoning: The property is presently zoned Agricultural Residential. • 169 MEMORANDUM Z-1-89 RICHARD ANDREWS FEBRUARY 9, 1989 410 PAGE 2 The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial-II (NC-2) District is provided in Article 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial-II (NC- 2) District is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited commercial, uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level with convenience goods and personal services. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the lot boundaries of the use. b) Application Criteria • This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Located within areas designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan as either a Commercial 411 Activity Node or Rural Neighborhood or Rural Community Activity Node. 2. Uses would serve a market area population confined to the immediate area and would generally not serve commuters or persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. 4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned NC- 2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition areas. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) or planned developments. 5. All sites designated NC-2 shall have direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. ' 410 E=amutzwngssaaxu"ww'''wm°----------- 1 : \ MEMORANDUM 170 2-1-89 RICHARD ANDREWS FEBRUARY 9, 1989 PAGE 3 The following is a list of permitted uses in NC-2: H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single-Family dwelling w/wo efficiency apartment H3 Two-Family dwelling H4 Multiple family H6 Family Care Home Accessory Uses P2 Botanical Gardens P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church 1 P8 Community Center 1 P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police and Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P13 Military Installations P14 Public & Non-Profit Parks P15 Parking as a principal use P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music P24 Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S6 Banks and Financial Institutions III S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S8 Clubs or Lodges S13 Greenhouses (no on premises sales) S14 Greenhouses (on premises sales) S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S22 Libraries 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 S29 Offices & Personal Services That Generate Medium Traffic Volumes and Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Lot Boundaries S35 Recreational Facilities: Golf Club S37 Repair Service Electronic & Appliance S38 Research Facility . . S39 Restaurants: Carry Out ' $41 Restaurants: General _ S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, ' Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur 1 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 II Trips/Day) MEMORANDUM 2-1-89 RICHARD ANDREWS 171 410 FEBRUARY 9, 1989 PAGE 4 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 the Boundaries of Lot Where The Use Is Located. A) Medium Traffic Generation (200-300 Trips/Day) S45 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Merchandise & 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, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond the Boundaries of the Lot With Medium Traffic 410 Generation (200-800 Trips/Day) No Storage Or Display Of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit: P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub-stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit: H7 Group Care Facility ---- - P3 Buildings; Portable P22 Transmission Lines S34 Recreational Facilities (Non-Profit) FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE INING TO PLANNING BOARD PER ANDREGtS 89 IC _----- APPLICATION: =-- ON THE APPLICATION MATERIAL SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING STAFF BASED - THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOGING FINDING _com lia ce RECOMMENDS *on T ON R ZON I - emAS1DARDS �.-- � ice_ _�------`' o ind=--- „ ARTI� 20 = SPEC gIC �_-- OR SAL UATITN/RE' O I 'G ea" ind�ca es com fiance• "N"". �cates Q at t► T ! I PLANNING SPECIF C STAND � -BOARD - - ARTIC 2U -- -- - RECOMMENDED PLANNING STAFF' FINDINGS FINDINGS BASED ON SUBMITTED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS APPLICATION O i ance Requirements The application must comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Yes No Amendm_ ents. Those °=100' — requirements include: Site plan provided at scale of 1 20,32 a) Map showing affected ._._x Yes NO property at scale of not less Yes No than 1'=100" nor more than application — i„_2Q, Description provided with - x Yes No 20,3,2 b) Legal description — Yes No of property The applicant is not indicating an NJA Yes No alleged error. 20.3.2 c) Explanation Of be alleged error, if any, �-•► corrected by proposed amendment _X—Yes No Applicant has indicated that with the Yes No 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, property immediately south and east if any, which make amendment zoned Commercial, the subject property reasonably necessary to promote has been rendered undesirable for public health, safety and residential development and not general welfare. suitable for farming. x_Yes No Applicant has indicated that the YeS No 20.3.2 e) Manner in which Property is located in the BN-1 Rural proposed amendment will carry Neighborhood Activity Node. This is out purpose and intent of -designed to have small scale commercial adopted Comprehensive Plan. uses serving the population in the surrounding area. N Gal OF INT1Q APPLICATION CRIB ZA PLANNING i 'DISTRICT STATEMENTS O ____� BOARD PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS BASED FINDINGS ON SUBMITTED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS APPLICATION Ord�na, n_�e Reau�°-ts Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation- applicant fore has appied a Neighborhood Commercial-2 designation. The criteria for that district are set No forth in Article 4.2.9 as Yes follows: The property (a) Located within th areas is located in a Rural — X es NO Neighborhood Activity Node - designated by e adopted Comprehensive Plan as either a Commercial Activity Node or Rural Neighborhood Y No or Rural Community Yes — Node. The applicant indicates that the list ___--- x Yes _�_No of permitted uses from -the Zoning {b) Uses would serve a market at confined Ordinance are those which are des area Population to serve a neighborhood population to the iuunediatenaareS and the rural level. }p° would generally commuters or persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. (c) Lot size for individual xJYeB No The applicant indicates that a SOII Yes No the analysis has been completed was uses shall be appropriate Health Department. Thep s Y to the method of water found to be suitable for a subsurface supply and sewage disposal. sewage disposal system. An individual well is proposed for water supply. Yes No _x_Yes No e pp would not zoned licant indicates that the request — (d) Normally, the maximum to rezone 1.Th a 92 acres amount of land zoned NC-2 the maximum of 5 acres of land zoned at any node shall not NC-2 at this node. exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 aces shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition No areas. Yes x_Yes No The applicant indicates this has direct (e) All sites designated NC-2 _ access to Nt 54 which is designated as shall have direct access an arterial in the adopted plan. to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated comprehensive the adopted Comp Plan. CA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 176 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 21278 Ohl OFzi CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, BLIAIA ii Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about February 10, 1989, I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the regaftat fps EAgsaing 2f. 1,92 MM. j . AlAgLIAM ....._ETaail4a from karigUltlagAl Eglidatij11 ial t2 N212.11129.111201 Commercial LOA=.21, 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 lAth day of EgkEom 1911. 411 gzie; EDDIE KIRK ZONING OFFICER I ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 7 7 • • Date: • !C)AP? 0 , 198} TO THE BOARD OFOTYACOCOMMISSIONERS - ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . side of �"'�'G' 1 . The property is located on the ,I4�� ( 1.1161dAY 1958 and 54- Street/Road) between S.R.# of S.R.# 1100(40 It is known as Lot(s) 2706. ,. Block -- • Orange County Tax Map 2.(0 — IIUGN ■M Township . It has a frontage of s300 - feet and a depth of , 400 feet , and contains gip, ,OGCo square feet or 2-94 ,acres. E. It is desired and requested the t e foregoing property be rezoned - from A to I . . .8..- The •fo lLowing information has been _ attached _ in_ support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas (e — required on ell applications) ._,�. - ®s. A fully dimensioned cep at a soots of not loss than one I11 inch coquets o�20 unhdred one is proposed equals be it ... twenty rezoned. *b. A legal. description of the Land proposed to be rezoned. •c. A stateeent of justification addressing one or more of the following: ti) would®be e correctedrbyn the®proposed amendment with aany,etailed Zonin Ordinance, if OXLonitiOn of rea a error Zoning sons how theproposedamsndnsntwill ® correct the error. (2) The changed or ea conditions, say, the in the County g nerlly, whichmake thepoposedamendment reasonably necessary to io�oa promotion of the public hestth, safety and general. - •(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the, intent end purpose of the adopted Land Use Ken or pert thereof. `143 Alt other circumstances, factors and reasons which the 'Millicent offers in support of the proposed •eeodment including. but not Limited to, documentation free service agencies (e.g. fire, police. rescue and utilities egenclee) assuring services provision capability to the development. d. A list of• sit individuals, fires or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred attached. The 15001 The Liestiofcurrentpraserof sou ht tar r zoning is [Oats) __ if that all c art all information furnished in this application is accurate y to the best of my knowledge . W ` I ■ N A&1►r: 6•C a p pplicent(s) : L_ q. IA,.d d r s s s: . 2 4 asse a s 4Z w4 1DE PR•iVE... Phone: 9Z9-G.0G9 - *0, . 178 , _ esi n associates 511.1.. S�'iG p�rC� � � designers land planners landscape . . - ANDREWS REZONING TM REFERENCE 6.26..27A ORANGE COUNTY BINGHAM TOWNSHIP • TAT. NTOJ T11 - I• 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION Land Use Plan provides that commercial activities are appropriate The Orange County identified activity nodes and generally inappropriate n s within thu outside these Rural within certain ipe m Township 54 and SR The subject Property is located c Is centered at the intersection of NC Highway radius extends beyond the subject property,thereby • Neighborhoodl Activity Node which is • 1958. Its quarter-mile encompassing it as part of the node. areal from Agricultural-Residential request is to rezone 1.92 acres'of a 2.94 acre p to rezone aniy 1.92 acres will This repo 2 the property(1.rezone acres)shall remain i achieve to a whbod effect:Comma)The balance of The can y utilized acres) any shall NC-2• ai era a twofold ffer zoned effect. ( ublic ROW,and neither ca County emher a buffer lat d to or public of the parcel,and(2)hehe resultant the Orange zoned improvements related to d whic insures compliance with• shall not exceed 5.0 acres, Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Plan. ONIS 2.0 CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITI the subject the original zoning(AR)for Agricultural and Residential use,entl s Since rt was it of in an area where development trends had agricultural use and property was situated ide decline in the amount of land under agricult for farming. The establ slam With a small eels,the subject property particularly for the use and parcels, development of the parcels immediately souu the subject present commercial use .0.26.28&28A)and the pal immediately undesirable fopsub - _ _ . Proper reference .26.;6D); _ subject property - =•( render the �. ..__ property(tax reference _ __ .-,. residential development "` • . POSE OF THE LAND tjSE PLAN :. 3.0 (;pMPLIANCE 1htITH INTENT AMID pUR : ,is'to-- om tde... ._ - - . -. _..._ . - :- -2 zoning district,as stated i the illy inei C&, t . h the - __ The opr ase y the sites for commercial uses designed will comply wit appropriately located sought to berezoned - .. ..:-.77:. -.- ; :_ population at the rursment of prapertY zoned NG 2 in the following man _ ...• -. •-n. _^ r- �_�- � ....- criteria for establish . . Activity. • - . located within the BH=1 Rural Neighborhood ... 1. The subject Property is Coca _- --- _ NO as referenced above. II � . . - � � - rbor©, north caroling 27510. . l ' .424 waterside drive car• . ! ' (919) 929-6tj69 1 telephone C 179 • 2. The list of permitted uses from the Zoning Ordinance's Table of Permitted Uses are those which are designed to serve a neighborhood population at the rural level and would generally not serve commuters or other persons outside the surrounding rural area. These permitted uses,in addition to the performance and design standards of the Ordinance,will insure that no adverse impacts will occur either beyond the immediate space occupied by the building for certain uses or beyond the property boundaries for some other uses. 3. The lot size and configuration is appropriate for the method of water supply and sewage disposal systems necessary for development of the property. 4. The 1.92 acres sought to be rezoned to NC-2,in addition to the 3.08 acres of property which is presently zoned NC-2,would create a total of five(5.0)acres zoned NC-2 in this Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. A maximum of five(5.0) acres of land is permitted to be zoned NC-2 in this node at the present population density. The zoning ordinance will allow an increase to a maximum of nine(9.0) acres of land zoned NC-2 where the population density approaches that which is in the Transition areas and at the discretion of the County Commissioners. 5. The subject property has approximately 295 feet of frontage on the north side • of NC Highway 54 which is designated as an arterial in the adopted Land Use Plan, This amount of frontage,in addition to the existing horizontal and vertical alignment of NC Highway 54 at this location,will provide safe and direct access • from the subject property to an arterial. 8 . 4.0 OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTORS Water supply and sewage dispoasal systems shall be provided on-site by means of an individual well and an individual subsurface sewage disposal system.The Orange County Health Department completed an initial soil analysis of the subject property on May 13, 1988 and found it to be suitable for installation of a conventional subsurface sewage disposal system. The NC'-2 zoning district generally permits us s'which are low to medium traffic generators(0-300 Trips/Day). The volume of traffic generated by development of this property will have no significant impact upon the existing traffic load on NC Highway 54, and existing levels of service will be maintained _ _ - The Orange County Sheriffs Department,in a letter dated December 29, 1988,has : - - - - indicated that they will provide law enforcement services to the subject property without any additional personnel required to serve the general area.- The Orange Grove Volunteer F ire Department,in a letter received January 5, 1989,has- confirmed that the subject property is within the Orange Grove Fire District and indicated • their ability to serve the property. . - - - The Orange County Emergency Medical Services and South Orange Rescue Squad,in a letter - -- dated January 3, 1989,have indicated their ability to provide emergency medical services at the subject property. • • � -- A. 16 0 • On.it �+� if Cunt r . i • . «.a i *re Ooacd i 1 i co.. Cnts :d . BINGHAM • • .• -- ,0^\ - .�. 0-_..;*sow. • TOWNSHIP: :h.•+ - - a Eat • .rD7D / l4 ,_ - r ,.. •• .., , wart Ci.it Q ist „ .. • •: ill 1 AK WI, _ I w I ``.1. e ..i • r/ b Cl LOCATION MAP NO SCALE I e • 330.85” I .95.04- 235.85' I I i 6D 6C 0 •..r. 1.02 AC IW .v I AN 27A I it h - ; ? .x: 9.03:':: •... 0 SED .ZO 1\1- ZING.11 f a. NC 2 . - . :t.92'A ..:.::'::; •I�" • I I I i , I I 11 NC rAdre.....::..:.:::.::.::.....::._::::...... i 0 I I AI. • . ' OPPr. I /. I I I . I EFERENCE F/!ABER DATE PIN , MAP REFERENCE , H9089S SOIL ANALYSIS , 05. 13. 68 9739-64-8427 6. 26. .27A . ---- SIFE: OINNEit ANDREWS DICKIE SAURLING JAMES I 181 =1.3 HILLSBOROUGH RD _-,008 IliARRBORO NC 27510 12f . ' 107 LILAC DR el.EpwoNe 968-0662 OARRBORO NC 27510 PECHCATiONS: 1 SOIL ANALYSIS . 3cArtoN/D(RECTIONS. HWY 54W . EE. RECEFT: SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED/WENT: 35 To' ...4 027906 X gc..N.g..............„. ..)NFIRMED EP/PLANNER: FtANNER DATE caw • SLOPE •12 ' TEXTURE P5 STRUCTURE 25 DEPTH f'.› ..1 R. HOR : IN.DRAIN 1255 EX. DRAIN PERMEAB e5 OVERALL REMARKS: fluis+g-.Q. m,,,,,..4 ) 5.,51.0v1.. C 5v 6P1..: F a R-44. t.$44, "ZS 441 • 1.43,wrad4A4 34 f ILVA"- b....1114,-ro 7.b. ( .1 a e x,tp PCS:t1;..:.; • . . . . : / . . . . VI . 04 • • — . .. ‘4. • 4.0 - . . . 1 ..- ..•t..r.,• 1U 1:8'........ . - . - . eilfie • ) ITO . . . . . 1 • . . 1 . e- -......... 1 1 • / DATE 51-A-89 SANITARIA 1 • Il 4 LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732.2431 Chapel Hilt 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 1. .`y. /F5!`) if V:ta-&-8 i . TO: Orange County Planning Board G. Gregory Shepard FROM: Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass RE: Providing Law Enforcement Services , Andrews Property - Orange County - Bingham Township - Tax Reference 6.27..27A DATE: December 29, 1988 The Orange County Sheriff's Department can'and will-"provide Law Enforce- ment services to the property you are requesting to 'be,:.rezonedr ' Based on the acreage 6.27..27A we do not foresee any additional personnel required to service this area. • Amh I • • • • 183 • MEMORANDUM rP177-3 0 lit-v_..n2q, r To: MR. GREGORY SHEPARD IFS 1-- !, • SHEPARD DESIGN ASSOCIATES 424 WATERSIDE DRIVE CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27510 • FROM: ORANGE COUNTY EMS SOUTH ORANGE RESCUE SQUAD P. O. BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 RE: RESCUE COVERAGE DATE: JANUARY 3, 1989 In response to your request, Orange County EM'eraency 'Medical Services and South Orange Rescue Squad will provide emergency medical services for the property located on the north side of N.C. Highway 54, approximately 1000 feet east of the Tar 41, Heel Food Mart . • Should you need any further information, please call us at 96'7-1515 or 9929-8109 . I • • . t'iriwykl rteiht.e.,v, k"--Il.. .D •Pi rq irici 6)?6,441_, awe...) tflY 1 -585 1:::).) Rii 1: 1 6z-Lt rf- C. 184 . . ettrer-v-t0 , L VI - C : .. ..-V./01 (It 'S • . . , I:41 ti,, pc,A4...fcc,i,..4.,..g. ID 0.... . .9. na.{.., ,S,Pu-paitA ,,, ,..., ..)ae.. . ,Z, i9SS.' CV itrAtzi.... 4t .42.- -0442.0,.1-e.e..A, j - 41:ege- • 62 PA,..... 1))1,0-p.e.,4 166(4.-6...4 0-7,... dtt. 17(91X . 1 . 1 J/21a44)cd. 6'V 0-42- ..0-4421 Je 03 4 , 1-14J- 4wt` 'Il'ket/tt 1 6 q J• 4-174h A14 1 q 51 Li. (,,-.1„, Xis, eito-43(_, fLV e-, 4-1-4712- IDA-Cita . 1 . . . . e . • . . . . (. ,(,,kte..tic_a•t2) I - .. .1.P...1c.d . t. 1 j CYVIA(6-4- .- 4161 . . • a ; . . .. . ..i . . . %• . . . ' . . . .. . 0 . . • . - . , , . .... ._ . .. . . . . 185 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 27, 1989 Action Agenda Item bA--b a.n,► S •c�, SUBJECT: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT - Z-2-89 PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS-PID DISTRICTS (ARTICLE 4.2 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTENT/APPLICATION CRITERIA) (ARTICLE 4.3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE) (ARTICLE 5.1.2 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) (ARTICLE 6.26 - BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Location Maps Proposed Amendments 411 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of protecting lands of public interest, and on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas which apply zoning district designations and standards to land identified as Public Interest Areas in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: In order to provide consistency between the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, it is necessary to zone properties designated as Public Interest Areas to comparable and compatible zoning districts. The majority of land designated as Public Interest Area is owned by Duke University. Three classes of the proposed land classification system recommended in the Duke Forest report affect 410 portions of Duke Forest in Orange County. They include the following: 186 Class 1 - Permanent Research Forest Class 2 - Research Project Land Class 4 - Residual Endowment Land A fourth class, Class 3 - Institutional Use Land, 1 included lands for campus expansion in Durham County. To address the three classes of Duke Forest lands, there are two Public Interest District zoning districts proposed. The PID-I District is applied to Duke Forest lands designated as Class 1 - Permanent Research Forest where the existing uses are expected to continue for at least 20 years. For those areas designated Class 2 - Research Project Land where the planning horizon is less than 20 years, a PID-II classification is applied. Tracts of land designated Class 4-Residual Endowment Land would be placed in the same residential zoning classification as adjoining parcels. For example, if a portion of Duke Forest were designated Class 4, and it was surrounded by parcels zoned RB-Rural Buffer, the tract would be recommended for rezoning to that zoning category. Properties other than those owned by Duke University and proposed for designation as Public Interest Area 411 are: Eno River State Park; Moorefields Estate; Land surrounding Corporation Lake, University Lake, and Lake Michael; County-owned land at the Seven-mile Creek reservoir site; UNC Botanical Gardens; and Land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in the southeast corner of the County. PID-I zoning is proposed for all of the above areas. The owners of all property affected by the rezoning have been contacted and the uses permitted in the proposed zoning districts include all anticipated uses. In addition to the rezonings described above, Zoning Ordinance text amendments are proposed. The amendments are summarized below. 187 411 1. Article 4.2 - District Statements of Intent/Application Criteria Proposed text amendments are attached. The intent statement provides a detailed description of the PID-I and PID-II Districts referred to generally above. 2. Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table Proposed amendments to the Permitted use Table are also attached, incorporating specific land uses permitted in the new PID districts.. Noteworthy uses include single-family dwellings (in PID-2) , botanical gardens (in PID-2) , and parks, research lands, public water supply reservoirs, governmental facilities, water/sewer pumping stations, and historic structures (in PID-1 and PID-2) . 3. Article 5.1.2 - Dimensional Requirements for Non- Residential Development, The dimensional requirements reflect restrictions in lot size, minimum lot width, setbacks, height, and floor area ratio (FAR) . The PID-I requirements are identical to the p , existing PID district for lot size (500,000C // a'Al're° sq.ft. ) , height (25 feet) , and FAR ( .0125) . The PID-II requirements reflect a 200,000 sq.ft. (:ges) minimum lot size and a FAR ratio which provides for the same square footage as permitted in the PID-I. Minimum lot width and setback requirements are proposed to be 200 feet and 50 feet, respectively. These dimensions are consistent with those required for lots in the PWI (Protected Watershed - Industrial) overlay, which maintain-9. a comparable minimum lot size (400,000 sq.ft. ) . Q.42 a-A:J*10 4. Article 6.26 - Buffer Requirements Adjacent to • Public Interest Districts A 100-foot buffer is proposed on lands adjacent to areas in the PID-I district. However, to account • for situations where a buffer would deny an owner from the reasonable use of his property, criteria are proposed to allow for reduction in buffer width by the Planning Department. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezonings and the proposed Zoning Ordinance 410 text amendments. 189 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 4.2 - DISTRICTZSTATE ENTSA OF INTENT/ ARTICLE 4.3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE ARTICLE 5.1.2 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE 6.26 -PBU FERIREQUIREMEN S ADJACENT TO IC ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board BOCC _ Public "W'— Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: ___High •Middle X Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC NEARING DATE: February 27, 1989 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To consider proposed amendments to the Zoning ordinance for the purpose of protecting lands of public interest, and apply II such standards to land designated as Public Interest Areas in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. IMPACTS/ISSUES: In order to provide consistency between the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, it is necessary to zone properties designated as Public. Interest Areas to comparable and compatible zoning districts. The majority of land in the Public Interest Area Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation is owned by Duke University. There was considerable concern regarding the limitation on uses which would be permitted in the Duke Forest lands as a result of any rezoning. A long range plan for the use of Duke Forest was prepared by the University, and rezoning was postponed in order for Orange County to consider the results of the plan during the rezoning process. Three classes of the proposed land classification system recommended in the Duke Forest report affect portions of Duke Forest in Orange County. They include the following: Class 1 - Permanent Research Forest Class 2 - Research Project Land Class 4 - Residual Endowment Land 190 (A fourth class, Class 3 - Institutional Use Land, included 411 lands for campus expansion in Durham County. ) STRATEGY To address the three classes of Duke Forest lands, the following strategy was developed by the Planning Staff: 1. Amend the current PID - Public Interest District zoning classification to provide for two classes of PID designation, corresponding to Class 1 and Class. 2 above. a. Public Interest District-I (PID-I) The PID-I district would be established to preserve and protect certain public and private lands deemed of public interest where the use of the land for a designated purpose was assured for a period of at least twenty (20) years. The district would most closely align with the Class 1 - Permanent Research Forest Lands proposed by Duke Forest. The PID-I district would be essentially the same as the current PID designation with a minimum lot size of 500,000 sq. ft. or 11.5 acres. The types of uses permitted will include those which preserve significant natural or man-made resources, or are associated with an academic or research forest, public reservoir, or public parkland. The attached Permitted Use Table indicates specifically which land uses are proposed to be permitted in each zone. b. Public Interest District-II (PID-II) The PID-II district would be established to preserve and protect certain public and private lands deemed of public interest, and private educational lands where the use of the land for a designated purpose be assured for a period of between five (5) and twenty (20) years. The district would most closely align with the Class 2 - Research Project Lands proposed by Duke Forest. The minimum lot size is proposed to be five (5) acres in size. Permitted uses would be similar to those listed above. 1 9 1 • 2. Place tracts of land designated Class 4-Residual 411 Endowment Land in the same residential zoning classification as adjoining parcels. For example, if a portion of Duke Forest were designated Class 4, and it was surrounded by parcels zoned RB-Rural Buffer, the tract would be recommended for rezoning to that zoning category. IMPLEMENTATION To accomplish the above strategy the following amendments are necessary: Zoning Ordinance Article 4.2 - District Statements, of Intent/Application Criteria Proposed text amendments are attached. The intent statement reflects the general description of the PID-I and PID-II Districts above. Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table Proposed amendments to the Permitted use Table are also attached, incorporating specific land uses permitted in the new PID districts. 410 Article 5.1.2 - Dimensional Requirements for Non- Residential Development The dimensional requirements reflect restrictions in lot size, minimum lot width, setbacks, height, and floor area ratio (FAR) . The PID-I requirements are identical to the existing PID district for lot size (500,000 sf) , height (25' ) , and FAR ( .0125) . The PID-II requirements reflect a 200,000 sf minimum lot size and a FAR ratio which provides for the same square footage as permitted in the PID-I. Minimum lot width and setback requirements are proposed to be 200 feet and 50 feet, respectively. These dimensions are consistent with those required for lots in the PWI (Protected Watershed - Industrial) overlay, which maintains a comparable minimum lot size (400,000 sf) . Article 6.26 - Buffer Requirements Adjacent to Public Interest Districts, A 100' foot buffer is proposed on lands adjacent to areas in the PID-I district. However, in order to 411 preserve property rights, it is also proposed that criteria be established to allow for reduction in buffer 192 width, which could be approved by the Planning Department under certain circumstances. 411 Zoning Atlas Properties currently in the Public Interest Area Land Use category will be rezoned to PID-I, PID-II, or maintain the underlying zoning district. The attached maps indicate, by township, the areas proposed for rezoning. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: See attached. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: See attached. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 111 Ilms•■■■mos morn•MN MOM 1 • e TIP 1 Z014(116 193 MP VP NOY Os la ...,... gENKA R0 01171.10 ...... .... I Nks S \ ' - ) -7-A .../--....,/, .7' -----' \ 0- 441,.."„ 4, 4 OA" ....., .... ,/. rt )14.0 ..... MALLS mkt* RO — j A" 1 . ilitColf 14.\ L. 7 ....S.' 1 1, tf .'° '335 fis001040‘4,04,( i: r / ...... I Pc "I p A . 4) . .‘`et ..r^ - \ ir \ 0 . ar .iit..''• 044444 0474440 , / s A - ',4t, . / C t. 2 „ r -......., ' _m. 1 izt, .. ,.....444 - • ,. i .........*Es / W LEEIANwk ilt .411111110 ''' 4" -- -ION . I ,4 4 . 0 Oa • s. is. 40,4,,.. 006 1 ''''• ' ... 404 it. 4t. ...N.....V I i. N. WV ....., I tild 4k: w - ... \ ) k .ti 1 1;; ..ts...A E 6 4, Ter .Or's7■• 40-......,........., t - ' e .. '•-■ 14.\1 mown n IN‘ •••-• to-\\,1 - . D, _ !IR. oh at ' , 1 - I 1\ . . .. • i • , I . . s ••• . ............, ..,... 1.71. -Ilk 14S )141 OlIP 44 * .. di N' • • 70 . t' ,,44 w ' •. A t., - I I, "*".---inatir • 70 :evb / _.....-- _ §• 1 . ti 7... ‘ „..47,-„,. _. " , _ ., : ..... r, ' L /1 . , I/ a.m..,,,„ .,„,_ . jr.,- -....-- 151‘s" ,111___11 - - -ifs,/ Ell PD 41. .I t"t" ------'*;, \ / ---.'--"11 lit: .' tfland IFIESINNIIIIIME ii amwar.sma ...... ..----- - i N. II CP" . 4141113 St CUM IL • Re ....ei r 1 fr 0:eV TEN - 1 . -,oillIllgeSllnMMIIII WIST TENCRA- .....,_ wes0.............. ......,„ill■ , N' S. Ct...9 \ ‘.., loor sou:4i1.1k,_lb( 4:: KM itb. 111441111( I - 4 ." / 10.16.1,... „Al\ ff >too. GREF • / 0#4 111!" 1 I ..." t *\• 1.;------' N l'• i POR I SU> gr, e•• 0 Z \ 1 so • / 1 i ft••1 . ./ , ,.... ..,. „, , A4%1 1 1 1 ? \ .)".". ""--....."gm i . \ J 0- ------- 7-- . Qff gp \ , .., . .... ... / e. .,..........., ,.. .4..dtm..) i II i I ....... t „/'f . og Q.” 916„Buckhorn -., .-•-• 9. c 1 •..... • .......1.......... ' / 13/ ' in..... 4 4 a GiND 1 ' 40) Nrii • I 1111111111111111i 1 p 1 p 111111111111111111 SCALE: ENNOM 11.111111 UMUMIIIIII I MEM 0111111111.1 • 0 4000* pp"' 1 . . rX7777721'811=17"1"miag".."'w"''''' .-• ••-- ....."'. .' tu•l-k,:s.;247-- .. , % , ------------ \ -`\ -7 iiN.1-• ,' -. __..-,- .- •• •t, --•\ j.., `r" er--7 .f. - • ..--..--.4 . . , . ',,,,::: I 1..,.., \ • ,...- t 4.: 1 A 1 9.-1 ' \ 1, \ . •. -‘1 --- .-\ • _ , „:4-.• , ....., . ---- rex- .si.jm,,,l_.• , ...., „,, .., (0 *cc•.6,. . . . 1 \ 1 I i ,./ , / 114§ i 6 tsii ,I,‘,.. ,..,, .. ...., .i „ ,ii,sin 1 , ..,.. 1 104.--... -,.. e ,. i 6, i.7 .. / • ..... 2.' ‘1 ,.,... •••■ C .S. 1,,,, cz,... 1 . r. i .....,.• ....-_, ,riams":".cl. ,.... • • i ' ugt"...a>,,,,.'"`.cR ,„„„wrili.....„ ,,,,,, :.1.-, . / , r --• ''' C. • . "4" %. -.::: 4!: A ,, ,......... -10.0.------ ". , „ 1 _ ■ ' ) r 0 0 IP 11 ' - .", !!"-""146 ■ .• •.,..? - - ..... _.)-...\-217 , ., , • . „„. ..... • .. ..x. 11 44 i ,• 403 w i el s-,.., .%-.....,..„44. N:S■0,:4%,\...,,. _P, .. ..... \‘`‘' ,...... s wr....-- -t. I. . ...,,,,ai....tu ........ 2 .— ..fitsol ilk . .„."..4k • 1,,,, .,, .,... 1 ••••1 :Plane; .1 ilib'e,,k,%, \4.* ,.. 1. t„%. s., • .. ,,, ,,,.. . : "...Ili - - • 1 1. .. we..0 e ■ C.,. • ./*•" • -70111-•14.111r I l •INi withl' 7. ,r .. ,, ...c..,:,.........,...; ' *';' ' ''-' 414'44 1 -,----\ ii -.., ,,,,. i-oys---% t hi . ..T ••• II .- • -I ..- a .0.!„„ 116 .41...,Li. ' g• i "filk Cr 4,1 i; • . I Alleiiiik. 1'4 Ala& Pi• It"op si irrON1171 oir t 1111111111L 5 I' 1 ,,,,,A / :" I ) : lin \-1 J. - s - --..'\ .J . .Po or ih - *96 44, r.u.eff I 51. I i .••, ::: .,. • ..• , 1 ,"--* ,..... r ( i ''s• ., .... . ... ..nnrf*: ..•••. .. '• • 100 11 1 I Lt. ,>•. swn,1 EL ......W. I.Ar.0, . ri '— k. A. 1 ., . . f . Kt X V`'...0 1 ii 1 i • timo 2,F". -„, .. , Ir- I 1 • IMMO ../....... t, C.t L'.". '.■.-.0Y.•:,• • • •'•••,. ... ; . 4,,,, /........... ...... II r*.•■,• i(4e. kr e ‘9 7.. •• \ ....,-.1"4.5 ''::-,'":■%.7:.:' ......i:...^ .7 o•\: . A ''...4.::;'-' ....'r,:,,r,...2!::;:;•.1:::: N....*,..4.u . I / / t,,, ciplyN.arcier \ . N.".\-••:•'•... 10181phil I 0 It k .v,./7".• '.. , :.• ''... . i \, Cos IN, 1 ■ 1 .... . . I 1 - I P'.4•WE I'k:, %i. i . 4.4 •‘ .:.1 ...,47,;.: •-iY• h.... 414" .•:?1....7•,"" •iie.,...,, . .,, / ---.."-7-- WP. .... ,.. )\• V■Ii.ii /r... 4 -1""171§",,,"Ii-7l4i•ti,•I-.-:l.-.,1.,1.114t1ft5,r...o.:7.. ..:.•:.::.•.:.•: • .Iv. •• .*3/.. I _ .. ••":::: •_......... '.... '....•..():i. ...c.7>'. ,,,,,,,-• - -.....-___ , _- 444 ,IC ....a.,+:',:.•'--.. .,', . .1 . .... i ---='..V.s1'. .',.• ..4%. ......:,.2.. ' I I .,\I gi.„,,, - VIA 7: *--• , t, t. •,..‘-.-.7.4-2 .". t ..j.T...c . . .1., .. • ..,:i:'. t......2.\;- •■. .0.. I '' t IG • - 7`. ..-4:'..■. tr..'......'7.r,'il- " ..rt.:". •' '•••,..4 .• ..,;,...7.' II . n •-•'.;.:7.. ..* i r i-.••-;:.7: I I ' E 1 vt. • .k , .._ e 2 . 6 & i * ..: ‘ - oe- • .t.- (-2t.;• _ - rw t_ ,- .- -....E,. ::::.. ....:-.::;;-; ?- --1..';':.:,•-.1 " -" -' '-- -• ' '- *""- . - $44.. ,Irlikr",p...- 11.•r.. . .,.... . ,1113ib 01 Li.. lifft:4;"7. 112) 1 I UN. e- e... . ..A ... 1 k 2 Th. •",;:cf-' ''' ! il, of ....... AA, --'1."ri 44r AN Illin4 I'l t - • -, * ,, N.71.14:\ wit «,... ,. t 7 : ''''INA••■ 111. i , ••■••• . • • ..e.+Og„7...not" i ,•., ;It it....=...i.... ...je i I b • 14.4:46 7r • 07 l 5 t,,,--.f....,,,,-• e .ipz, PS .„.„, . ,i• .e.- ‘, . -. -....1 7-'"" ... ei qr • r ,-.... . 1- --,........27..., 1 f,Kale-.fr %,. . errs r k■ 1 0 SCi;ND * r•■•.......".'" ' „r -. ...Pt , lk. "7\ ' ... Or P ) ef• ,.., ‘ ......... / '.4.4*• V , 1 ......... "''''." . gn p10.1. ''' .....1 1 V. .- ' i . ..,sr.... i • I <i .. •41....1• V^ ■ ........• 1 ,2 1 1 *0 ve ?, G. Waal/1 00 • , ..,...... • 4 MP 1%4411 i '.'1, • sztext..E: .• .0= o 1 ',.-. • . 1 ' ,:i: . • I '''' ...*...............................................................N.O.MMOOOMOOMPOMOMMOMMNMag PO MN i ,' • A2---1....-4, �`y-...#4 2' ' ek-,, ,145 , r A_ s',... 'NS■ *Cg12"VE e. i ! 1 h l s', , 0 I ''''. ..) I (A 45) e'd O" t • u. L.1 - " t Q :,...,,• zt' aw+ ..../ :mar :S '".? QC' 2 ( —..✓'-`.'"t E6EkEZER C.' 1 z csJ f ( ) t 0. s cii / \ / i 1 / ../. 1.% ' ...._ 1 c 5. I f o� .% Eno le. n +�G a^- , �i \\ --%....S.' • \N-141'' ...0 , %. ."...7 o �ytE� d� t S 0 \ IN ., \ .- 0 ;. 1 or.es-?.."• / C. c i * 0 ,,,/btu ..6 S ' j �•� �q • ; NI x r r z .. v 1 ii IS!.L. L. j . t � i }., .,� Ste.-^-IC 4. �.� h w... s. i M l t mot, (�1.-M,arr r IrG r� 11 1 1' t ` �� i i ti\\'!....,,,?..-..VAgy t 10. Ia.t �, K 1... i Vii. — a.14..14.:.% i'7"-'''''...":""*.:1; 74',,..° yziii:**--2 ...r.Zr4:::::: -. 1 I 40* =1 PlDI . SCALD_ 1 a ° °0"' E. 0 I • 1 -- ' r r\.......,...., 0 . oir . ) 4'1 '' 1 ba+� \ \ I cc,� J- u 'K5 c•( \ j Iy ,14.5 .......... ° 1 II 1 \ t -� 1 I C 1 --7 pw0 RD 1 ril • Ati s a li, .. LI‘ k II 7 ` MINM$ / 1 i 1'.tC - - . ` CI 'O / i� p \ AI I ... NICK'S RL' ♦ 9 ill w;, 3 r 10iA01X1. J _ ."1 :rule a\\ ; 0 i 1 P f \� ��GrovgG \r ki liplr441' v ' 'tee .: ,r'd *DOOMS �-~ �,,,�., 'r' ,e•• • �ras.,roods f 1 �- i r _1 1 1 kn Noo ---e& ■ //r/ j \ el VI ■ 'd ' \ t}oar lilt �" f 0 0 4) x (j\ :ub. Il $� F ' lO ) ` r �� JO M t�\ tiii4 , i --..\ ( 7%N. III ' ••• N e • f ( ma 1 s •rl 5 � . t`y r 1•" Aso 1 ii.,) 2014114C". • 1 `°VV \ L,11 I i IF r i I o:< o - `� ir."c ,5-.� 1. • 10 x• / Q ��� L b �• 1 I y V I. \ / /=+ a x s r 0 8 ," ; b ti i /1 p . \. ~ • �r .�III wr arrrr`errr Nemo r gam r rrwy SCALE: Immr . pit;)-f • 1 ' � -------. i `i �-/ C , 197 . , • cGtt) -.. / 1 I pip 1/26 , r-... W01411416 -.?7.2 c ../ L ' /, al' . 1 . r 11 NO '*'"'•-•-4•••--a Q° , 1 `+p I 6>0 Bt 1 A", it �---- e#' "4 11111 311111P 4,0 ✓✓ el .., r .. b s,..0.! o / ( N ,� IOU 1 %C�>>i i .. / .,. 4.t = 1 �'�, Ro ".gy7oi LT, -.grtwt► ft ■ ' Kggr. C„ iDU' +'a.. x M ' CI C S 1 1! V- uVt R.M+3 tt a • ��aa� ca NO SAUCE FiF� mow � y . moo r ..63 . • �; _ y , a -f EWE_rte w b y � e:e 4 NI i •,:r'• ! Q• r . � .1• �E � { -1 a'• GH . .,m t� r a . { . S .. rwc .1 0 • tf••f:3,6 Vt j.,,,Aiii;• AMISIOV MC 1C.NO. �t %) US.TO iii INt awl= i A .7,3,. . _,-.. 1;,,, —�.. 1 r 1 .etc. ate !, app��� ,.. A,,D ti-�1 e i.I ! J r 1 Ii4lq 1'1,5 OLITALE liV 161.,, N'" 1 %•..\.55' Illtallrwilt a J f1iEX�W" 4 A G v T r. i Niclik ..„,4 ... ,. 1 t .1 •• ` I1 I i 1,..;G;ND . , Ata . ■■i • • isamminlatINI SCALE: r • PROPOSED AMENDMENT 198 411 Article 4.2 - District Statements of Intent/Application Criteria 4.2.25 Eltliq IlAtInat axial pigtglgt (existing provisions to be deleted) a) Intent The purpose of Public Interest (PID) District is to preserve and protect certain public laud' and private educational lands, deemed environmentally sensitive and of major scientific research significance from the impacts of development. In addition, these lands will be managed in ways that will prevent any intentionally generated adverse impacts from affecting surrounding property. b) Application Criteria This district will be applied to the following: 1. All Duke Forest lands, the Eno River State Park, all University of North Carolina lands, and all other public or private educational lands deemed to be environmentally sensitive and of major scientific or research significance. .14.1225, Public Intaraan jriCt = I tun=i1 41 Inkant Tha 211K92A1 21 the EID=I Pintnlat is t2 przataza And agatAat land& in VID112 PriMAtA 2NAAEXhip. ishiah are 22MMtttd tc a laN=Intnnaity use &mad. to2 ha 21 2W2112 hnnat4J. and AKA AN2A2tPli tg IA A2211 1112 12E a 2AEk2P1 of At lAARt YAAKI.L. APPligAtigg _Cringgia Tha district may ha A2211d 22 A M211MtAKY hAAiA 2A1Y.r. andAg thl 12112911Ma 22hat1ghll Tha Riatriat amanina At laant WIMP. AQRALA 12Stl ThA URA 21 thA 2;222Et/ la 21 212121.12. hAPALLI Q t aaah azi nrft&w.cat;an 21 hAtaKA1 gr_ MAgi:MAg% resources 2/ AighifISAMML AgAdAMIg Arch =MU. lAnd associated or EtAtft EAOLIANWIL gl gaglalW=1.42 MMidgaqg II available Indian:Um nhat r • 199 said use will be committed for a mAxigd oL au least 2A YaRK.4.2.. 411 4.2.26 Public Interest District - II antlaIl al Intent The parpgal of the PID-II plAtEigt IA tg =earn and mat lands in j kU watA gylAgrAllig which are committed to a low-intensity use deemed to be of miglg. benefit, and are expected tg Main in such use for a RAriga g . (5) to twenty lal Y.21.414. la Application Criteria The district may be applied on a mg.luntary basis only, =lag the following ggaditimi 1. The District contains at least 2AILIN AgIAQA feet; 2. The use g . property j . RuhlIg benefit or latgrAlti. such as: 2Lgaggliitian 2f LiAtALEL or man-made resources of Algal„tkaumala academic or research forest; land associated with a 242112 ZAAAKM21KL Regional, or State garklarAl. gl Satisfactory evidence j . indicating that said use will be committed, for a Rftricid Q . least fixft LAI xsara.t. Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (pages attached) ARTICLE 5.1.2 - Dimensional Requirements for Non- Residential Development (page attached) ARTICLE 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements 6.26 = suffer Requirements Adjacent to Public Interest piltrigta A buffer 100' in width, or lesser width as AggrgyAd by the Planning Director, shall be required on land adjacent, to any PID-I District. No new structures or disturbance shall be permitted within the designated, bgltAng. however, the Ill= may bp_ used for installation of a low pssAlme septic gyAtftmj. A lesser width may be approved hy the LIAM:tag Director 410 request of the applicant. A reduction in buffer width may be approved j . accordance with the tglLgEtkpaL Aj.. The PID-I district is located upslope from the addageAt 200 guch jce tm-t. will not r.L9S.3...-31t in eroslon or rui_3211 wijj___-ch could g_t_M-t.• the PID-I lb, It is 11§-q cif a - accommodation g_t bou_ II g . a 112 wat____LrialLt a 1:Luffpx area in excess of the r_P-V-2el.-- 1Mlte of the Z 0 r---ang— triCt. 514. bt.--IffAt re requirement wc__L-1110. §,192x--_*ive reasonable use _9-t rcP-1W-7-ta• 1 �� PF.RM�TTED Il�L. Amendments; (1) 10-4-82 (2) 2-19-85 * n PERMITTED USB (3) 10-4-82 A - CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8} (4) 1-5-87 g = CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) (5) 1-3-89 RD AR R1 R2 TIROR4 R5 R 8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI EI I1 I2 I3 AS ED PIDI PIDI g g H B B B B H1 Day Care Facility (1) (5) H2 w/wolOfficience yapartment * * * * * * * * * * « * * H3 Dwelling; Two-Family H4 Dwelling; Multiple Family * * * * * « H5 Dwelling; Mobile Home * * « « * « H6 Family Care Home B 8 B B B B B B H B B B B B B H7 Group Care Facility H8 Rehabilative Care Facility H9 Hotels & Motels 1110 Residential Hotel (Fraternities, A A A A A Sororities, and Dormitories) * « * Hil Rooming House B H12 Temporary Mobile Home (Custodial Care) B B B B B B H B B H12a Temporary Mobile Home (Use during construction/installation of permanent residential unit and for 30 days following issuance of Certificate of occupancy) (2) H13 Tourist Home (3) * « * * * Accessory Uses RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 RS RS R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 13 C5 QI EI II I2 I3 AS BD PIDI PIDI C) - �� pyrRMITTSQ ,� Amendments: (1) 1-5-87 * a PERMITTED USE A a CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) B CLASS a SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI El I1 I2* 13 AS *D PIDI PIDII Mi Manufacturing & Processing Operations Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Immediate Space Occupied By * ,� The Building M2 Manufacturing & Processing Operations Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The # Boundaries of the Lot 143 Manufacturing & Processing operations Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Zoning District Boundaries 5 OI EI 21 I2 13 AS ED PIQI PIDII RD AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC (1) AIML � . 4,3 PERMITTED USE TABLE * - PERMITTED USE A a CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE `?} B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE Q} FaB AR Rj R2 'R3 R4 R5 R$ R1 LCl "C2 C3 GC4 EC5 01 El 11 12 13 AS ED 101 IDI A A A A PI Airport, General Aviation, A A Heliports S.T.O.L. P2 Botanical Gardens S Arboretums — B B B B B B B B B B B B B :t :t P3 `Buildings, Portable � 3e st pis Bus Passenger Shelter P5 Bus Terminals & Garages B B B B B B B _ B :t :t P6 Cemetery — ;t ,t _ P7 Church g p$ Convnuni ty Center B g g B B B B A A A A pg _Extraction of Earth Products(1) plo Governmental Protective Services (Police & Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments' _ A A A A A P 1 1 Land F i l l s (2 Acres or 11ore) A A A — g B B B B P12 Land Fills (Less Than 2 Acres) B B B P13 Military Installations (National Guard & Reserve Armory) P 14A Community Parks,Pubt I c&Non-Profit* P14B district Parks, Public ,t S Non-Profit P14C Regional Parks, Public P15 Parking As Principle Use, DI ! Surface or Structure RD AR R1 R2 R3 R!E RS RP .13 LC_ NC2 C3 GC4 C5 Ctl EI t1 t_ 13 AS Ed PId C.: Amendments: (1) 4-1-85 (2) (2) 1-5-87 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE PERMITTED USE A - CLASS A SPECIAL USE {ARTICLE a} B - CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE Fi} . °d AR R} R2 'R3 R4 R5 R8 R1 LC1 HC2 C3 GC4 EC 01 El ' 11 12 13 AS ED IDiPIDII A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA P16 Public Utility Stations F' A A A Sub-Stations Switching Stations Teiephone Exchan es, Water �ewa a Treatme t PI nt Ling B B B B D e Radio C dio 6 Television Transmit B P17 Towers & Elevated B g B B B B � Receiving B B B B ----"'"'— Water Storage Tanks pi Research Lan s b nsta ations, Non-profit Pig Schools: Elementary. Middle 6 Secondary P20 Schools: Vocational Dance, Art b Music P21 Schools: P21A Non-Profit Educational A _ Cooperative (1) B B B B B B B B B B B B B P22 Transmission Lines 8 B P23 Universities, Colleges Institutes s4 3` 'ti •� t P23A Reservoir for Public Water Supply t s� t ,t t :t P24 Governmental Facilities 140 Buildings office B x ,� ;; :� ; • P25 Water S Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations i Amendments: (1) (2)• 1-5•-87 - � GC4EC5 CSI EI 11 12 ' 11 AS ED PIDf PID RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 RP 13 L NC. C 3 Amendments: (1) 1-5-B? TABLE * a PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE .$) B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 RS R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 DI EZ 11 I2 I3 AS ED PIDI PIDII * S2 Agricultural Service Uses # * # * * S3 Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians S4 Assembly Facility Lees Than 300 * * S5 Assembly Facility Greater Than 300 S6 Banks & Financial Institutions * # * * * S7 Beauty & Barber Shops S8 Clubs or Lodges; Social; + * * * # Fraternal or Union Clubhouses * * # * Sg Drive In Theatres * * S10 Farm Equipment & Sales * # # Sil Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing * # S12 Funeral Homes d # * S13 Greenhouses (No On Premises Sales) * * * # * S14 Greenhouses (On Premises Sales) S15 Health Services: Under 10,000 sq. ft. * S16 Health Services: Over 10,000 sq- ft. S17 Hospitals AS E RD AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 RB R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 0I El I1 I2 I3 D PIDI PIDII r D�tlMTTTF'D � TABLE . Amendments (1} 3-18-86(2) 1-5-67 * a pEgMITTED USE _ A CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE } B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) RB AR RI g2 R3 R4 R5 RS R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI El I* I2 I3 AS ED PIDI PZDII SIB Commercial Feeder Operation A A A B S19 Junkyards B B B B B . • S20 KennelsJRiding Stables S20A Massager e Business of (1) S21 Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services S22 Libraries 923 Motor Freight Terminals S24 Moto, Shop}le Maintenance & Repair (Body S25 Motor Vehicle Sales Rental (New & Used) S26 Motor vehicle Services Stations * * htclubs, Bars, Pubs S27 Nig ' S28 Offices & Personal Services, That Attract Few Customers or clients Generate Premises Other Than Emplo ess Low ondlThesSpacee Adverse impacts cts Bey Bey occupied by * The Building S29offices & Personal Services That Generate medium Traff is Volumes & Have No Adverse impacts R4 R5 It8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI EI I1 I2 I3 AS ED PIDI PID Boundaries RB AR R1 R2 3 R (1} Q b Amendments: (1) 1-5-87 �, psRMzTTSa USE TABLE ► r PERMITTED USE A - CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE B) B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 RS R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI El 11 I2 I3 AS ED PIDI PIDII * * * S30 Offices & Personal Services That Generate High Traffic Volumes & Have No Adverse ImIlActs Beyond the Zoning District Boundary « « « * S31 Petroleum Products: Storage & Distribution S32 Postal & Parcel Delivery Services S33 Printing & Lithography ' (Non-Profit) B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B S34 Recreational Facilities * « * * S35 Recreational Facilities (Profit/Non- Profit): Golf Club & Golf Club Countryclub R * S36 Recreational Facilities (Profit) * « * « S37 Repair Service Electronic & APPliance S30 Research Facility S39 Restaurants: Carry Out S40 Restaurants: Drive In * * « « S41 Restaurants: General RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI EI I1 I2 I3 AS SD PIDI PIDII {1) Q ti r . - 4s3 vgQMITTED I� �8-�- . Amendments: (1) 1-5-07 * � PERMITTED USE A =CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) B CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) R8 AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 RS R. LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI EI I1 22 I3 AS ED PIDI PIDII * * * * * S42 Retail Trade, Sales, 6 Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise Equipment Where No Adverse Imp acts Occur Beyond immediate Space Occupied By The Building A) Operations Are Designed To Attract Oft 6 Serve Few Customers Or nof The Premises Other Than Emp lo Y ees . Principle Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day) Within A Fully C) All Operations WthrNo outside Storage Enclosed Building S43 Retail.Trade, Sales, & Rental Of Convenience Goods# Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of Lot Where The Use Is Located. A) medium Traffic Generation (200-300 Trips/Day) S44 Retail Trade, Sales, Rental Bea & Convenience Goods, Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries- Of The Zoning District. Kigh Volume Traffic Generation R2 C1 NC2 CC3 GC EC5 OI EI I1 12 13 AS ED PIDI PIDII RS AR 1 R R3 R4 RS R& R13 I, (1) C7 c PERMITTED = TABLE * PERMITTED USE Amendments: (1) 1-5-87 A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) B . CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 02 El I1 I2 13 AS ED PIDI PIDII S45 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goode, Merchandise & Equipment, Where No 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 Premise Other Than Employeed 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, Merchandise & Equipment, Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Lot With Medium Traffic Generation (200-600 Tripe/Day) No Storage Or Display Of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S47 Retail Trade, Sales,, Rental Of Durable Goods, Merchandise, & Equipment, Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Zoning District. High Traffic Generation RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 RI3 LC1 NC-2- CC3 GC4 EC5 Oi EI I1 I2 I3 AS ED PIDI PIDII 0 All E RMI= TABLE * PERMITTED USE Amendments: (1) 4 71-85 A . CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) (2) 3-18-86 (3) 1-5-87 B a CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) (4) 10-5-87 RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LCI NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 02 EI 11 12 I3 AS ED PIDI PIDII * * S46 Sawmills * S49 Stockyards Storage of Goods, Outdoor S5Q A A S51 Storage & Warehousing: Inside Building A * * * & Toxic g52 Waste Management Facility; Hazardous •� S53 Wholesale Sales A lal t3ixed 354 Historic Structures Non-Residen� / A A * Use (1) and Packaging Operations Including S55 Assembly On-Premises Mail Order Houses, out Excluding Retail Outlets (2) S56 Crematoria .(4) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC 4 EC5 01 El 11 12 13 AS ED PIDI PIDI RB AR L �"r Mw -5.1. 2 SCHEDULE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT BY LOT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ` Amended RED MIN RIO.Kim 11-20-84 REQ. REQ. RIN.GROSS MAX.GROSS 21_29_85 MIN LOT MIN LOT fRONT SIDE 6 REAR MAX BLDG. LAND AREA LAND AREA LUI MAX- FLOOR OPEN SPACE PEDESTRIAN/ 1_6-86 AREA PER USE WIDTH SETBACK SETBACK HEIGHT (PD'SONLY) (FWSONLY) RATING AREA RATIO RATIO LANDSCAPE RATIO 3-18-86 87, 120 130 40 20 _ 22 .058 .84 1 Pi - - 25 174, 120 22 .058 .84 .21 2-5-87a o 87, 220 130 . 20 25 - - 22 .058 .84 ,21 AR �o: 40,000 I50 40 _ 25 80,000 - 22 .058 .84 . Po 40 000 250 22 .058 .1 .22 LOT 40,000 130 40 20 25 80,000 - 22 .058 .84 .21 R1 Po 40,000 130 - - 24 .068 .83 .208 R2 ppT 20,000 200 30 IS 25 - 26 .076 .82 .205 a5 45 000 _ 28 .088 .81 .203 Lax 15,000 100 30 25 25 30 000 - 30 .100 .80 .20 R3 Po 15 000 100 - - 33 .123 .79 .198 _ LOT 10,000 75 25 I0 25 _ 35 .141 .78 .295 R4 Po 10,000 75 - - 25 15,000 tOT 7,500 50 20 10 25 10,000 40• 200. 76 .195 R5 Po 7,500 50 - - _ 43 .246 .75 .088 5,000 so R8 20 5000 50 20 8 25 = = q5 .283 .74 .285 25 7,000 1OT -O0D 50- - _ 50 .400 .72 .18 Po 3 R�3 - 25 5,000 u, _ _ 30 .200 .80 .20 LOT 75 25 25 25 _ 421,344 32 .125 .79 .198 t� LCl Po - 40 .200 .76 .19 oc Tor 2,000 20 50 - 35 421.344 42 .230 .75 .188 NC2 Po 2 000 - - _ 50 .400 .72 .28 45 0 a LOT 2,000 20 50 _ 45___425 600 I 273,544 52 .459 .72 .I8 CCB Po 2 000 - - _ a GCH POT 40,000 75 35 _ 45 5 425 600 N© MAXIMUM 55 .566 .?I .278 Z - 45 - - 53 .492 .71 .278 EC5 LOT 40,000 7s 35 - 40- OI `�T 5,00000 5o 25 10 3s 35 200 000 NO MAXIMUM 42 .230 .75 .188 � _ 23 .200 .80 .20 El LOT 80 000 200 50 50 45 - 23 .200 .80 .20 LOT 80,000 200 50 5o 45 - .187 i� PD _ _ _ 45 80 000 NO MAXIMUM 25 •200 .75 g 45 - - 45 .300 .725 .181 I2 POT 20,000 100 50 20 000 45 200 000 634,144 47 .350 .700 .17 20,000 200 50 45 - 50 .400 .675 .169 I3 PD _ - 23.144 MAXIMUM 52 .450 .650 .163 Po 400,000 200 50 50 45 400,vou - 93 .246 .75 .19 PWi oT 400 000 - - 45 400, )00 - r .83 08 cox 40 000 zoo 50 20 45 ED LOT 400,000 200 50 50 45 - PlQI LOT 500,000 200 50 50 25 - - PID11LOT 200, 000 200 50 50 25 - - - .0323 - 212 - i . REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS I OF THE LAND RESOURCES C • 0 Prepared for: Duke University Board of Trustees With the Assistance of: Wallace Roberts&Todd Philadelphia,Pennsylvania December 9, 1988 LRC MEMBER S: _ Anthony D. Duke,Baugh 3 . . Anthony Bosworth John W. Chandler Dan Dertke George F.Dutrow,Ph.D Jane G. Elchlepp,M.D.,Ph.D John A.Forlines,Jr. Phillip A.Griffiths,Ph.D Fitzgerald S.Hudson 0 . John A.Koskinen EJ E.J.McDonald John F.Richards,Ph.D Margaret Rowlett Norb F.Schaefer,Jr. Knut Schmidt-Nielsen,Dr.Phil.,Dr.Med. Kay G. Stern Paul Vick Ili . 1 LRC STAFF: Sallie Shuping Russell Max Wallace CONSULTANT: Judson Edeburn d. . 0 K I 1 . . I . • . - 213 11111 III IV. PROPOSED LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM • In order to implement the policy recommendations for Duke Forest lands , the LRC has devised a system for designating Forest lands 1 according to four classifications with respect to future land use. This proposed land classification system creates a frame work for resolving differing institutional priorities, wherein some cases choices must be made between preserving Forest lands in their current state or committing them to alternative uses which will support other institutional programs within the Uni versity. The four land classifications are defined as follows: I - Class 1 - Permanent Research FOreSt . 1 ' Class 1 property includes lands most intensively used for academic and research purposes. These lands will be dedi- cated for academic purposes for a period of 50 years. it is expected that, prior to the expiration of this period, the University will again review the appropriateness of this designation. 11 Class 2 - Research Pro'ect Land Class 2 property will remain in its present forested state 1111 and continue to be used for current research and teaching activities. However, because these areas have less inten- sive academic usage at the present time, and research and 11 teaching may or may not be their most appropriate use over the long term, the LRC recommends that they be treated separately from Class 1 land. Any proposal that would effectively lock in land use for more than five years , for 11 example long-term ecological research or institutional expansion, would be made only after a proper deliberative review of all competing considerations by the Duke Land Resources Board, the cognitive management entity (see Sec- tion VII . Such review would be presented to and passed by the Board of Trustees, and if approved would result in the reclassification of the affected property to Class 1, 3 , or 1 11 4. Class 3 - Institutional Use Land . II • Class 3 property includes lands designated for campus expan- sion or other institutional use. These lands will.no long- 111 er be considered part of Duke Forest, although they may remain wooded for an indefinite time period. No Forest-re- lated research projects will be initiated on these lands without proper deliberative review by the appropriate man- agement entity (see Section VI) . Existing Forest-related research and teaching activities will be gradually phased out or relocated to other suitable areas. 1 111 . 14 ii . _ . , 214 1 1 AClass 4 - Residual Endowment Land 411 ma II Like Institutional Use Land, areas given a Class 4 designa- tion will no longer be considered part of Duke sorest. Unlike Class 3 land, the priority use of these lands will 11 be to generate financial return or other benefits to fur- ther the academic mission of the University. This does not imply that such land will be commercially developed or otherwise used in a manner inconsistent with its current forested state. If a decision were made to commit Class 4 property twoltah ::::::::::::::1C::::::en::::::::e. or trade should be considered as well as an outright sale. 11 In ac . adverse impacts upon sensitive environmental resources, perfor- 11 mance standards should be formulated for any proposal for alter- native use of either Class 3 or Class 4 land. The Base Land Area maps prepared by WRT will be utilized as the initial source II for identifying such environmentally sensitive features as steep slopes, floodplains, streams and unique natural areas. Addi- tionally, forested buffers should be maintained along public roadways such as Route 751 to protect visual quality. lii !II lil 1111 I ill 411 1 - o Z ' 215 O u. Iv 4C lie i CO I Aluneo• . 4 CO..4` :,; i;1;---___Munoo e8ue40 • CO ^ r-w ars- 0.- 0 o,�i a 4 o tl, ; IC!_ N - C„ Cl.),,c �- +� , '!{ r. t �c zs �w: _ c'c �`, . s it it ■ ■ N / •ry.i' a i tx l',":!.;.:::::"-.-.7.:.:.:.".:.: 1::x. 1:3 �� W 19 03 It 3�r r o_. ,,..„.1„_,„::......:..._...,- E§1. 13t a,. . ....-...- ---,. .0 13 _ - � _ wel..._ , c 0 0 N. 19 0 0 AEI • ` -- O CZ .+F�� Cg1 t -/' Ns • o aZ � WJ �t w d 5 It 6 a” .—= • ---4 1 _ 1l • a • a 2 -2 11:-.— i 4.4■44111.4•••■•■•■114.4..........4.44.4........------.-------- -i • 216 : . C. KORSTIAN DIVISION (Refer to Fi.ure 5) 41, . .- Area A 1111 - Total Area: 162 acres 1 Usable Area: 115 acres' Proposed Cla-ssification: 2 - . _ . _ Recommended for registry with the Natural Heritage Program due to the presence of a beechdominated community which has been undisturbed for more than fifty years. - - Used relatively little for research and not at all for classroom activities at the present time. • - Strategically located at the intersection of N.C. Route 86 and Interstate 40 . - Designation as Research Project Land would allow flexibili- ty with respect to future land use, considering the moder- ate level of current academic usage and future growth like- . ly to occur in the area as a result of the construction of 111 ill Are Interstate 40 . 1 Does not take into consideration recommended designation as Natural Heritage Area by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program a B Total Area: 51 acres Usable Area: 37 acres Proposed Classification: 4 Relatively little used for research or educational purposes. Isolated from main portion of Division by Erwin Road. - Presently zoned single-family residential. 4 Id 404 1111 ill - Presence of clay soils limit potential for on-site sewage disposal; public sewer would probably be required for any form of development. Area Total Area: 1,331 acres Usable Area: 576 acres Proposed Classification: 1 III , 1 ' . 217 • - Actively used for research and classroom activities. - Contains significant ecological resources including unique natural communities associated with New Rope Creek. - Environmental constraints, particularly steep slopes, limit potential for alternative uses. Area D •1 . Total Area: 164 acres - - . - --- - - -- -- Usable Area: 107 acres Proposed Classification: 2 - Used less intensively for academic and research purposes . - than Area C. __ - Subject to pressures from adjacent Stoneridge subdivision. - Class 2 categorization allows for potential future alterna- tive use while maintaining present role in buffering Area C 1 from adjacent residential development. Area E ill Total Area: 242 acres Usable Area: 210 acres ill proposed Classification: 2 - Used less intensively for academic and research purposes than Area C. ILI nil - Isolated from main portion of Xorstian Division (Area C) by Mount Sinai and Turkey Farm Roads and further subdivided by several roads in northerly portion of property. ill - Contains proportionately more usable land than Area C due lill to relatively level topography. - MI Class 2 categorization maintains flexibility with regard to future land use. 1 A 111 • I ' . ... 48 i `-`` o y I r: 1-.1v i 218 A ' Si C) ilia 1. W -Rio ! Eh i 0 r Q F.. NtAs."7,77...--4,ni ...1111111111 ..---', 4... ..1 1 Q ii lip _la= (------.. \ 0 6. • fif 1111111111111. 1 a a �;•.�� / pi.G.$8 'a1 co ii Q E rs W . We 173 : \\,s\ NJ �J -s b a 0 c A // 4 J J Q =Z a m A rt IIH • / ... • MN -`` - h ••' r N [h I Re ift....-4111 ., tillilirli-111\ EPH1 , . 1 I. - \ -imilili.l. 1- ii. ii; : ,.,.- g ....iumon , . . . , _ • . , (A _ . _ ....411 un Milir L• 1 itig* : ...' W itt co P - ..,,_ i ..,j L : • • CD UP-. 0 i 0 416k . i i — — . _ I _ i 11 . 219 E. HILLSBORO DIVISION (Refer tO Fi•Ure 6) irr Area A Total Area: 389 acres i Usable Area 257 acres IProposed Classification: 2 III - Moderately used for research and educational activities at i present time. Ai - . . . . . . . . Contains Duke Quarry, a source of stone for many campus ill - buildings. Within public water supply watershed of the Town of Hillsborough water system. 1 - Bisected by Eno River and associated unique natural area. IIIillis - Mayor of Hillsborough is interested in possibility of desig- nating approximately 500 acres as wildlife mitigation land if proposal for Seven Mile Creek Reservoir is implemented (Such designation would probably preclude clear cutting, it manipulative research or alternative use) . - Given moderate level of current academic usage, categoriza- ; tion as Class 2 would allow flexibility with respect to future land use, and special issues such as management of Duke Quarry and potential ,proposal for designation as wild- life mitigation land. 111 Area B UII Total Area: 193 acres Usable Area: 174 acres Proposed Classification: 2 ;ow ill - Isolated from main parcel (Area A) by Route 70 . i 1 - Relatively little used for academic or research purposes. Existing zoning and adjacent public water supply reservoir (Corporation Lake) Virtually preclude development as a iI 111 viable option. - Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Plan proposes . that a District Park be established in the vicinity of Corporation Lake. I • ..._ a- i 1 ■ ill 1 . gm 1 , ggs-• 220 ill - A Class 2 categorization would allow flexibility with re- 410 spect to future land use, whether for research and educa- tional usage and/or disposition for conservation, water supply protection, or recreation. • Al Area C - . - Total Area: 63 acres Usable Area: 48 acres • Proposed Classification: 4 - Isolation from main parcel and relative absence of academic uses suggest potential Class 4 categorization. i III - Existing zoning and location adjacent to Corporation Lake virtually preclude development as a viable option. - - 111 - Opportunities should be sought to dispose of for the purpos- es of public recreation, conservation and/or water supply protection. 111 . 410 lil 111 111 lil . • li1 _ 1 III . . 51 ■ ■ 221 111h I .. D. ENO DIVISION (Refer to Fi.ure 6) IArea A - lil Total Area: 484 acres Usable Area: 348 acres proposed Classification: 2 - Currently used for educational and research purposes, but contains relatively few permanent research plots. AI - Lies within the growth area of the Town of Hillsborough and has been included in the Town's proposed 50-year sewer :::c: ::: - service frontage on Route 86 with the exception of the south- .... _ west corner of the property, which is under a 50-year lease lilto the North Carolina Forest Service. 1 - Site of WXDU tower and transmitter. 1 lii - Acquisition of undeveloped residential lots along Route 86 would increase the value of this property. 111! - Categorization as Class 2 would preserve future land use options. 111 ' Area B 1 Total Area: 35 acres 111 Usable Area: 27 acres Proposed Classification: 4 Ili - isolated from main portion of Eno Division (Area A) by Southern Railroad. 1 011 - Almost no current use for research and educational purposes. 1 ill - Is subject to development pressure as evidenced by an adja- cent residential subdivision. ill - Presently zoned single-family residential. ill1 . , iii ., . tt. • ,.1 .w Art I illIPIr'._"‘"Illeg°11.1° - - °� ��c; 222 x U ii° ¢ 0 r r ♦ /.x b o v `, '�t��S"" r ca aa.. o , i titer: - ‘‘ 111111111111.110 p...:-.;.:41:...,"::-:7--..7.".'-'..-. 7...-...'"'"' '...:,-;IV; ■ \ la L.s j i 1, CA E z L..• .d N pia m t6 L.r w -' .J 0 CI �'' t 'y Q o ff, . U ...1 J J m .,. O Mtn u. p c°^ � ° C,C .0 O peod 4m+nD flu G� r N CO Elgil/ 1 1 a r vi 1 0 4 cn i o i B C i _ p . ■ m' -1 o aptt.b& o •w_ co Z. \ N i.LI" .,Z i IJ. •i ' •W� U = 0 Qi= �Q ! • ' ? • 1 111 223 F. BLACXWOOD DIVISION (Refer to Fi-ure 7) a Area A III To Area: 709 acres . Usable area: 439 acres - - Proposed Classification: 1 111 - Actively used for classroom instruction and research. - Contains unique natural areas, including Meadow Flats, Bald Mountain and a portion of Blackwood Mountain. 1 ill 111 - Southern portion is subject to development pressure from the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Urban Area and is adjacent to the Orange County Landfill off of Eubanks Road. 111 - Acquisition of one or more adjacent and inf ill parcels would enhance use for academic and research purposes and help buffer incompatible adjoining land uses. ill Area B Total Area: 91 acres • Usable Area: 70 acres Proposed Classification: 2 I - Isolated from main parcel (Area A) by Eubanks Road. 111 - Light to moderate present use for research and education. - Subject to development pressures from Carrboro/Chapel Hill Urban Area. . 111 - Lies within Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) sewer service area. I - Categorization as Class 2 would help to buffer research and educational uses on main portion of Division (Area A) while maintaining options for future use. Area C III . Total Area: 157 acres Usable Area: 129 acres IIIProposed Classification: 2 I 1 52 i ill - -rw III 224 4IM i III - Has no frontage on public roads and is isolated from main parcel (Area A) by intervening privately owned land. 111 - Not presently used for research or education. 1!II - If intervening land were acquired, it could be integrated into research and educational uses of main parcel. ill - Alternatively, it could be disposed of to a private landown- er. 111 - Class 2 categorization maintains options for future use. 1 . 111 Area D • . _ Imil Total Area: 41 acres ill Usable Area: 15 acres Proposed Classification: 4 I - Has no frontage on public roads (adjacent Interstate 40 is III a controlled access highway) and is isolated from Area C by intervening privately owned land. - Not presently used for research or education. . _ Economic value is reduced by environmental consraints, ,10111 111 including steep slopes and 100-year floodplain associated with New Hope Creek. 111 - Presently zoned single-family residential. G. DODSON'S CROSSROADS (Refer to Ei-ure 7) 111 Total Area: 112 acres Usable Area: 54 acres Proposed Classification: 2 - Not-currently used for research and educational purposes, III other than two managed timber stands. - Categorization as Class 2 would preserve future land use re- ___ options which include conservation, intensification of re- search and education, public recreation, and/or low-density residential development. lil 4,11 411 ill 1 53 r:D Z c 140 s 225 J..g•AAb 56'x' arrboro -_ • February 22, 1989 Mr.John Link Orange County Manager PO Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Dear Mr.Link: At their February 21, 1989 meeting,the Carrboro Board of Aldermen rev P iewed the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and proposed These amendments to the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. ordinances were referred to the Town for comment under Section 2.6 of the joint Planning Agreement. The Aldermen voted to refer to you and to the Board of Commissioners • the enclosed staff and Carrboro Planning Board comments on the proposed amendments. In addition to these comments,the Aldermen wished the to stress the importance of the first of the Planning Board's Environmental Impact Ordinance. The Aldermen would Impact Ordnance the intended applicability of the proposed Environm answered definitively before the public hearin e for February 27. if the intent is for the ordinance to be applicable ho m es that jurisdiction,including the Transition Area,there are several changes that must be made in the ordinance;if not the ordinance should clearly state, intent _. . .. Sincerely, • Robert Morgan • Town Manager • Enclosures • rwmlabw 226 Once the EIS has been accepted as adequate,the project a in question passed from proceed nty with the development approval process after es adequacy; after 60 days have . ' acceptance,in cases where the County '' passed from the transmission of the completed document to the State Clearinghouse, Where the Clearinghouse makes the determination of adequacy. PROPOSED TOE COMAS: 1) Applicability, As described above,the Town is concerned about the ordinance's proposed applicability. If the County does not want the ordinance to be applicable p ro p planning and zoning jurisdictions, it should clearly state that in the within municipal p g municipal� ordinance. If the County does want the ordinance to be applicable within, planning and zoning jurisdictions,the Town feels strongly t County shu d not be drafting and approving such an ordinance unilaterally,and in osuch unilateral action is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Joint Planning Agreement between the County and the Towns. 2) Effect. As it is currently written,the effect of requiring an Environmental Impact Statement will be to collect information about the expected There oc no pub impacts of proposed projects that might otherwise not be nearing required on an Environmental ilmFStatement th rnmisioners may elect to determination. of its adequacy,horev although hold one. Most importantly,once an EIS has been determined to be adequate,there impact mitigating measures laid out is no provision for requiring that the proposed � n processes. In in the EIS be incorporated into the subsequent S design and rg�out alternatives,and other words,a project can go through mitigate the inherent in each alternative, stating the measures necessary to mitia and,once the EIS is found to be adequate,can continue with design and permit review processes, all the way to construction, without including those mitigating measures. The County should consider incorporating in the ordinance some mechanism a echanism for tying the results of EIS prep aration and review into the permit processes for the developments which require them. • 2. Proposed Chan es to the Gaunt ?on'n�t di�ance :_ -- , A. Changes to the County's Public Interest DistrictFID E dlanati0n of Fr eposed Chian 'e: The County is proposing to amend its current w c Interest District(PIDM to reflect the recommendations of Duke University's Public Inter,.st Distri..,. Land Resources Committee Report. The Report classifies Duke Forest lands into four i a categories -- Permanent Research Forest,Research Project Land, different c;�`�g "�� Permanent Use Land,and Residual Endowment Land (see the attached map). Right inow, all those lands are zoned County PID,and as the County PID is written 4 • 1 Ze,0////j 1 • 40 \NI . SO i :n I 227 /1kiii......,... < el's life • .• t g • - :,•;-... ' '..-:. 1,•-• • • CT) I - • co • . 1 , ••.*'-:.... • t ...I •••• .. I. • u :::. 1 .. _ , S. li ' , p.,-....,-: . . ,. . N . '‘‘ CI •-• • .4 . f ' 1 ' , 0 1 • - . 1-,....: ' Ll.. .. O. 8 ... . . . . _ .. . .. 141111M 0, t ..-\ • iL.,• to . o 1 = • • t ___ .trool at _.r .11_111.11111 . • . : ■ . -4 t 1 .. • E • ■ . . . . . . •• • • L .0 ..... • J ' 9.-0- . • c N 40 LU . . . .. • To * . . _- . = • . on C . • I-,, o • I- . . . . 0 t 4., i.-, - 7-:: _. • 8 I I . • < c , . ..J .., CC, ID. ra sq ....... to...to " re . ..= k • c= .- C \ i t -• • . ••• E a to = 1 •-• et ,....., . -. : •- ' • _. 6,• dt• . ‘k .. .. .... . .. c.; _C. - A.-- I . • . . .. • • ..-- . • ..- , • . .." _ - "--- FI-• . I \ . - -i — • ......••••"*"."... -......__ - .-•-•-- t ' - 111111111 -. '.: : - '='' • - ' Cno - - . _, = • fas -- .... • c •A, N.• t .. \ i .1 \ ii.1111111111111 . 0 . •0 ..... 1111111111111.1111 .: - --- - ' .- ta z it i 1 ooroo --- --, 0 th 1°' \ 't . --...../.......-• Mil, t., o - 42, "'s, - 0 U) < *Fii t.) 5. '----• Cr LIJ J .‘-' — •- — k . . % U to 0 CC C Z \ i Ili D w 0 0 ‘i i ir- . 0 i .-,.• % % 0 .= . • - \ • - 0 C.1 2 0 0 r / .\ -.... - 1 228• currently,the permitted uses are limited to research activities and accessory uses, public utility uses, and public parks,botanical gardens and arboretus. The proposed text amendment would split the County PID zone into two classes: PID-I and PID-II;to correspond with.the Duke lD�ilands concept of Permanent expected to stay in Research Forest and Research Project Land. recreational and research uses for the next twenty yearsm. PID-�would PID-II lands are expected to stay in such uses for less than twenty s gy minimum lot size of 500,000 square feet(11.5 acres),and permitted uses to include essentially the same uses as permitted now in the PID,as well as nonresidential mixed use projects involving historic structures. P1D-II would have a minimum lot size of 200,000 square feet(approximately 5 acres),and would permit the development of single family homes,and nonresidential mixed use projects,involving historic structures, in addition to the list of uses now permitted in the PID. proposes to deal with the fourth category, Residual Endowment Land,by The ro a' 3ww? Th.. County p p zoning it the same as other land in its vicinity; and no land in the third category, Institutional Use Land (essentially the campus), lies within Orange County. NOTE: The County will also have to amend its Land Use Plan to reflect these changes. Town Comments: Under the Joint Planning Agreement, the area in Carrboro's and Chapel Hill's Joint Planning Transition Areas that abut Duke Forest lands have a . complicated split zoning,partially Transition Area (Town)zoning,and partially County Rural Buffer zoning. This requires that the owners of such properties go through two separate review processes,one through the County, and one through the towns, in order to receive permission to subdivide and/or develop their property. The purpose of this was to 'buffer'Duke Forest lands from development activities. Now the particular portion of Duke Forest in question,above Carrlaoro's Transition Area and south of Eubanks Road,is to be reclassified as permitting residential uses. if that is to occur,the Town would like to have removed the 400 foot'Rural Buffer buffer' between Carrboro's Transition Area II and Duke Forest, in that area. Cr�ri�es to the it:la. Sizes o f Mobile Home Planned Developments _ s:m� �e. Explanation. Proposed Changes: The County wants to—amend its Mobile Home es•. Planned Community zoning district regulations oe t ma n su communities on the basis of the number of mobile home P a included rather than on the acreage involved. Currently the ordinance limits such communities to 50 acres in size,with a minimum of 10 acres, and allows mobile homes to be clustered II on lots as small as 5000 square feet. The proposed ordinance would limit the size of such communities to 50 mobile home units,and establish the minimum size as 10 units. No change in the clustering provision is proposed. Town Comments: proposed amendment seems appropriate and in keeping with the desire to preserve a rural environr Tent in the Rural Buffer areas of the County. 5 T - . I ' X FAISON & BROWN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW G.wRUAM FAISON REGINALD B.GILLESPIE,ESPIE,MR. DURHAM OFFICE RALEIGH OFFICE GEARGES L.ELETC BROWN sTEPH mARTHA N B.BROWN NEASE SUITE 1400,UNIVERSITY TOWER SUITE 210 GEL IA L..MI NCH, JOHN C. C BROWN 3101 PETTY ROAD NORTH CAROLINA FEDERAL BUILDING A. EXF W.BUNCH,IR JOHN F.LOGAFP1t 4900 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD A.��WILLIS,� JOHN F.LOGAN POST OFFICE BOX 51729 POST'OFFICE BOX 19409 MARK C.=By RICHARD T.P6UN►AIN,M DURHAM.NORTH CAROLINA 27717 RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA W.BOBBINS COX GARY R.POOLE FROM DURHAM(919)489-9001 27619TH WILLIAM D.BERNARD THOMAS N.COCHRAN FROM CHAPEL.HILL(919)968-1111 T MINE C.BARBER WANDA BLANCHE TAYLOR FROM RALEIGH(919)821-7859 FROM RALEIGH(919)878-8060 AMINE I.DSO E M MB O S FACSIMILE(919)489-5774 FACSIMILE(919)878-8062 BRENDA M.PORI.MAN AIDA P.DOSS A.VANN IKYIN LAUREL$SOLOMON REPLY TO:DURHAM February 27, 1989 • Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners . 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Statement of the Brown Family Concerning Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment Z-2-89, Agenda Item D4-b and 5-a, Public Hearing of February 27, 1989 Dear Commission Carey: I am a spokesperson for Mrs. Betty T. Brown of Ef land and Mr. and Mrs. Douglas R. Brown of. Charleston, South Carolina. They are tenants-in-common of a tract of land situated on the south side of Seven Mile Creek and shown on Cheeks Township Tax Map 45 as Lot 15. This tract is part of the Brown farm through which Seven Mile Creek flows for several thousand feet. They recently received a notice from the Orange County Planning Department that the Board would be receiving public testimony on proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment Z-2- 89. I have been authorized to appear on behalf of Mrs. Brown (who is my mother) and Mr. and Mrs. Brown (who are my Uncle and Aunt) and to convey to you the position of the family with regard to this proposed amendment. The Brown property abuts in places land acquired by the County many years ago in anticipation of the construction of a reservoir on Seven Mile Creek. The County planning staff has proposed to have the zoning atlas amended to place, its property within the Public Interest District I ("PID-I") classification. If the zoning atlas amendment is approved as proposed, the Brown property will be burdened with a 100 foot buffer along its contiguous boundary with the county-owned land. There are numerous reasons - some legal, some practical and some economic - for deleting from the list of proposed PID I properties this acreage owned by Orange County. Each of these reasons is detailed below. Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman February 27, 1989 Page 2 Reason 1: Undue Expansion of "Public Interest District" Concepts. The proposed amendments unduly expand the existing concept of "public interest district." Under the present ordinance, the purpose of the "public interest district" is "to preserve and protect certain public land and private educational lands, deemed environmentally sensitive and of major scientific research significance from the impacts of development." Under this statement of purpose, it is clear that the land to be included within a "public interest district" must both be environmentally sensitive and of major scientific research significance. Section 4.2.25a. The "application criteria" currently specify that such a designation should be inclusive of all Duke Forest lands, the Eno River State Park, all University. of North Carolina lands and "all other public or private educational lands deemed to be environmentally sensitive and of major scientific or research significance." Section 4.2.25b (emphasis supplied) . Again, the land to be included must be both environmentally sensitive and of major scientific or research significance. Under Article 22 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, an "environmentally sensitive area" is defined as "land which is subject to special natural environmental conditions such as flooding that presents significant constraints to bilt development. " The proposed amendment significantly broadens the concept of the "public interest district." In the first place it divides the districts into two types. A PID-I applies, generally, to lands which are expected to benefit, the public interest for at least twenty years. The PID-II designation applies to lands anticipated to benefit the public interest for at least five, probably not more than twenty years. The most radical departure is that it expressly applies to "land associated with a public reservoir" regardless of whether such land is "environmentally sensitive" or "of major scientific research significance." Reason 2: Uncertainty Over Meaning Of Proposed Ordinance Language. In addition to deviating from the existing conceptual standards, the proposed language of the new ordinance, as applied to the County's Seven Mile tract, has two significant ambiguities. First, the proposed language specifically provides that a PID- I district may be "applied on a voluntary basis only. . .". The first ambiguity arises out of the "voluntary" criterion. Who must volunteer? Is it the owner of the property to be subjected to the PID-I designation? Or is it all parties that will be affected by the PID-I designation? With specific regard to this Seven Mile tract, if read narrowly only the County, as titled owner of its property, would have to "volunteer" the property for the PID-I Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman February 27, 1989 Page 3 designation. Under the more expansive reading, not only must the County "volunteer" it, it must also get the consents of the adjoining property owners whose tracts will be burdened by the 100 foot buffer. If this more expansive reading applies, i state on the record that the Brown family does not consent to any PID-I designation that will have the impact of burdening its property with a 100 foot buffer. The second ambiguity inheres in the phrase "land associated with a public reservoir." Does this mean a public reservoir that has been built? Or does it refer to a reservoir that is still on the drawing board? The site for the proposed reservoir has not yet been selected by the Board. If the Board selects the McGowan Creek site, will the definition "land associated with a public reservoir" not be satisfied as to the Seven Mile property? If Orange County determines not to make a selection between the two sites and the selection is left to a joint venture between Hillsborough and the Orange-Alamance Water System, will this have some impact on whether the land is "associated with the public reservoir"? Furthermore, what are the geographic criteria for determining whether land is "associated with the public reservoir"? In the case of the County's Seven Mile Creek tract, obviously a portion of it will border the impoundment. What about that portion of the property which is beyond the "take line"? Is that land which is "associated with the public reservoir"? In other words, is the "land associated with the public reservoir" strictly within the "take lines" or does it encompass all of the property acquired as a consequence of the threatened public taking? This could have a material impact on where the 100 foot buffer runs from. One choice would be to have it run from the take line. The other choice would have it run from the contiguous property line across on to the property of the adjacent owner. Reason 3: Equality. Perhaps the most cogent argument against the proposed zoning amendment is the imposition of a 100 foot buffer on adjoining lands. Proposed Section 6.26. This buffer requirement is new. Its articulated purpose is to insulate PID-I land from development. The proposed language expressly states that "no new structures or disturbance shall be permitted within the designated buffer. . .". (I am assuming that this does not apply to the soil disturbance activities of a bona fide farm as defined in Article 22) . The paradox is that the 100 foot buffer is not an equal one. Under both PID-I and II, there is a front, side and rear set back of only 50 feet. Thus, any permitted use within PID-I could be built up to 50 feet from the property line between a PID-I tract and the adjoining land owner. The reverse is not true, however. Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman February 27, 1989 Page 4 The adjoining land owner (who presumably did not "volunteer', his land for appropriation by the public interest) can only construct a permitted use within 100 feet of his own property line. Reason 4: The "Voluntary" Nature Of The Designation is Tantamount To Spot Zoning. Because the decision to bring property within PID-I is strictly voluntary, it is tantamount to spot or contract zoning. This would be especially true with regard to the County's Seven Mile Creek site. It has an inherent conflict of interest because it would legislating the zoning status of its own property. [ Reason 5: PID-I Designation Is Not Needed As To The Seven Mile Creek Property. Finally, impressed on the zoning atlas are already numerous zonings and overlay zonings which adequately protect the public's interest as to the County's Seven Mile Creek site. For example, the Brown property is zoned agricultural - residential. Superimposed on that zoning as an overlay is the Protected Watershed-II designation. Superimposed, in turn, over that overlay is the Water Quality Critical Area designation. To superimpose over all the foregoing PID-I designation really borders on overkill. Under Water Quality Critical Area specifications, the minimum lot size is already 80,000 square feet (with impervious surface requirements which tend to increase the amount of square footage per lot) . There is a structural set back of 150 feet and a septic system set back of 300 feet. These restrictions adequately protect the public interest. There is no need to superimpose a non- disturbance buffer of 100 feet when Water Quality Critical Area zoning restricts structures within 150 feet of the edge of the floodplain and septic lines within 300 feet of the impoundment. Reason 6: Economics. If the newspaper reports are to be believed, either the County, the Town of Hillsborough or the Orange-Alamance Water System (or a combination of them) will soon be embarking upon an aggressive program of acquiring property for the proposed reservoir. If that reservoir is to be located at Seven Mile Creek, the PID-I 100 foot buffer will be a matter of immense concern to every property owner who will sell land to (or have it condemned by) the acquiring entity. The spectra of a PID- I buffer will be taken into account in computing severance damages due the landowner. At present, land zoned agricultural-residential has a front set back requirement of 40 feet and lateral and rear set back requirements of twenty feet. The Protected Watershed-II classification has a set back requirement of 50 feet. The 100 foot buffer may, in many instances, more than double the amount of land Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman February 27, 1989 Page 5 actually "taken." If the shoreline of the Seven Mile Reservoir is calculated to be 10 miles, this would represent an additional strip of land 10 miles long and 50 feet wide that would have to be dealt with in terms of some form of severance damage. To give you some idea of the quantity involved, this would represent approximately 60 acres in some form of severance damage that would have to be dealt with. Since the Water Quality Critical Area overlay already protects the public concern, there is no need to put the public to potential extra expense when it is not necessary. The Water Quality Critical Area zoning will raise enough severance damage questions on its own. The public should not have to bear the expense of a PID-I buffer on top of it. Incidentally, we do acknowledge that the drafters of the proposed ordinance had the foresight to allow the Planning Director flexibility in waiving the width of the buffer requirement based on certain conditions being satisfied. After reviewing these conditions, however, we feel that they are quite narrow and relate primarily to the need to implement a septic system within the buffer. The legal consequences of the "taking" precipitated by the designation of the Seven Mile Creek site as PID-I are far broader than the stated exception adequately addresses. Summary. For all of the reasons set forth above, the Brown family respectfully requests the Board to withdraw its Seven Mile Creek site from the list of properties to be rezoned as a Public Interest District. The Brown family has no comment to make about the appropriateness of PID zoning in other portions of the county. With respect to its impact on the property owned by the Brown family, however, the family feels strongly that it would be legally, economically and practically unwise to make that designation. Since the County owns the property, it can always act at a later time. We commend to you a thorough study of all of the issues raised by this statement and hope, after you have read it, you will determine that this property should be withdrawn from the inventory of properties to be rezoned. Hon. Moses Carey, Chairman February 27, 1989 Page 6 I am available at any time to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely yours, FAISON & AV d n Brown CGB/cf cc: Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Direc •r Orange County Planning Department 306 F. Revere Road P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Mr. Geoff Gledhill, Esq. , County Attorney Mr. Douglas R. Brown Ms. Betty T. Brown CGB\LTR\135CAREY / MOORE & VAN ALLEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW OTHER OFFICES: . 30I WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE SOO CHARLOTTE, N.G. RALEIGH,N.C. POST OFFICE BOX 3843 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK,N.C. 'E. K, eCIWE DURHAM, N.C. 27702 SOUTH PARK-cp4ARLOTTE, N.C, pARTNER _____ TELEPHONE DiRECT IA (9191 St37-E+19 DURHAM 919-6BE-SSSA CHAPEL HILL 919-029-4B32 TELEFAX 919-68E-7739 February 27 , 1989 Chairperson and Members of the Board of Orange County Commissioners allsborough, North Carolina . Dear Chairperson and ComoI represent Mr. James M. Verner and Mr. Berl Bernhard in connection with the proposed rezoning of Duke Forest Lands lying in Orange County. My clients own approximately 90 acres adjacent to the Duke Forest Land in the vicinity of Old NC Route 86 within the Boling Creek Basin. Last year action was taken by various governing boards in Orange County providing for my clients' property extending 400 feet from Duke Forest on a frontage of approximately 2550 feet to remain in the Rural Buffer Zone and further providing that a 100 foot natural buffer extend from the Duke Forest border on each new lot in my clients' property adjacent thereto. There were further provisions that the 100 foot buffer may be disturbed only when necessary to install a ground absorption sewage disposal system. \ In connection with the public hearing to be held tonight, 1 I talked with the Orange County Planning Department and also the Orange County Attorney seeking information as to the effect that the proposed rezoning ordinance would have on my clients' property. It is my understanding from these ] conversations that the proposal calls for Duke Forest Property lying adjacent to the Verner/Bernhard property to be rezoned PID No. 1 and that the impact on the use of my clients' property, \ if this ordinance were to be adopted, would not be more restrictive than the present ordinance. I If I am incorrect in these assumptions or if as a result of information developed at this public hearing a more restrictive use is to be considered, I respectfully request an Opportunity to be heard on behalf of my clients prior to any final action being taken with respect to any rezoning RECEIVED ek . DISTRIBUTED i . . .., ....,_:..7 AN, a/403 S611 Hideaway Drive Chapel Hill, N.C. 27S14 March Mr. Moses Carey Chair, County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 . Hillsborouah, N.C. 27278 • Dear Mr. Carey: , I am writing in regard to the Orange County Planning Board's recommendation to rezone Duke forest as a Public IntereSt District. While I am in favor of the PID proposal, I am verY disturbed bi..4 the plan calling for no new strubtures on the 100 foot strip boardering the forest. I own a building lot bug the Duke forest and am planning construction for this summer. Such a proposal would interfere with my plans to build on my lot. I bought this land with the intention of buildig, and it seems that adding 100 Feet as a buffer would cause unnecessary hardshiP on Private citizens of Orange County. In addition to being unfair, such a proposal would be a bureacratic nightmare. Let me state that- I favor the. ea of a PIO Por Duke forest lands, but the 100 Foot buffer is unecessary, and harmful to Orange County citizens. Thank wou for your attention. Sincerely, . \ .• .), r 1 Jane Leserman, Ph.D. \ . • . 1 . , . • [ .....manowsmunems George W. Brumley 2812 New Hope Church Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27515 February 27, 1989. Orange County Commissioners Re: Duke Forest - PID-II; Buffer Requirements This letter is to be read into the minutes of the Public Hearing scheduled for tonight, February 27, 1989. This letter need not be read aloud during the meeting, but I wish for it to be part of the public record. As a landowner with property adjacent to the Eno Division of Duke Forest, I wish to register my strong opposition to the proposed 100 foot buffer to be required of all, adjacent landowners. It is my firm belief that any buffer required should be on the Duke Forest side of the property line or at minimum should be shared equally. secondly, the size of the proposed buffer is absurd. I do not believe that there is a buffer of such tremendous size anywhere in the County. Most importantly, this is a taking of property without compensation. By requiring a 100 foot buffer that cannot be disturbed, the County effectively reduces the usable land, that I own. I understand that this buffer only becomes effective when and if I decide to subdivide my property. In all cases the proposed buffer reduces the value of my or of any other landowner's property simply because that property is adjacent to Duke Forest. This strikes me as arbitrary and capricious. Lastly, I wish to register my strong disagreement with County policy for its willingness to transgress private property rights through downzoning and defacto condemnation. While I, more than most Orange County residents, would prefer that Duke continue to use the Forest in the same manner as they have in the past, it is their-property. They should have the right to do with it as they see fit, within current zoning regulations. They own it - fee simple. I believe that Duke has consistently acted as a responsible and civic minded citizen. I find it hard to believe that they would discard years of goodwill by irresponsibly developing or disposing of their property. I do not believe that the County should engage in the diminution of the value of any persons property without compensation and just cause. I believe that the current proposal lacks both. 71646, 43 George W. Brumley cc: Keith Brodie Max Wallace MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN M. LINK, COUNTY MANAGER ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: DAVID STANCIL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNER II RE: COMMENTS CONCERNING FLORA AND FAUNA APPLICABLE TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT LUP-2-89, ENO-2 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1989 The following comments are provided regarding compliance of the lo above mentioned auna. Theasta amendment to Locational Criteria follows: for flora FLORA AND FAUNA. (Located away from sites that would, if developed, create a threat to unique or endangered species as identified by the State or Federal government. ) Staff comments are as follows: [Significant portions of this area are located within 300 feet of the "Eno River Mountain Spleenwort and Rhododendron Bluff" site, as identified in the 1988 Inventory of The Natural, Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County. North Carolina, conducted by the Triangle Land Conservancy. This site is significant for the occurrence of two rare plant species, the mountain spleenwort and catawba rhododendron, as well as one regionally rare animal, the red- backed salamander. This location of the spleenwort is one of only two in the eastern Piedmont. Additionally, the steep north-facing bluff of the river contains a bluff of the aforementioned rhododendron, which is considered regionally rare in this area. The salamander is found here and at only two other sites in the county. The quality of the biological features on this site are rated as "primeTM . While the proposed amendment area does not include this natural site itself, the proposed amendment could easily impact the site. Additionally, the report's recommendations for this site include a wider buffer strip above the bluff be provided due to the fragility of the habitat., which requires cool and moist conditions to exist. ] . . 1 . I 1 i El 1 t frz 0 0 0 41 P..11 44 0 . --- 1Z04$4 01 I __ _ . _. = 1°4 4+ 0. . • ›..1 . a) A 01 . • $.4 •'0 _ 03 0) • r°24 0 •......01 • . 426409 Zatjoi"I:014.S;O:i • • 114 . .. - 411t - 1.04 14 . 41 43 •4 . 0 C.s.) • 0 0 . • 0413 t0 S4 e.4 P.—I Earl g--I 4, El 0 0 0 cl• . . toll . . • - - .:" .1 0 43 • - C 0"0 • . .4.4 IV 43 • ' 0 ' .... . EIN - ., 134 1044.4, • - . - . - • .- till - 0 . • . ... .-- •.1 ... • 04 - . . • ' • .- .,_-. • • "• . . - - • . - • • • . . . . . .. 0 " . . .. V di, • ' • ,........., 0.0 .• ON -4 10" • . •••,..." . C4)04 ................. . 2.-. • L03 2 0 t4 A 0 titl . U)r44 C 0 1.4 43 pi - . .............. Yi 4, . ■■■•■•• al 0 0 0 Ei 0 03 1101 I • 14 , 0 ' 44, 0" .43 0 40 0>44 00 P'4) is 4.1 44 t.1 4.4 03 0 a..1 U.01 0 el.4.1 VI 1.4* ............... 04 0 -0 0 *1 0 .40 14 .10 Ot -71- . • 14 • • A al 1:1 • • to 14 0 0 0 .44.... Cil 1P4o1 • . . . • • = Pi • • • ' CI i63 -.....4 • • • % .-........ WI) • E4 Z • ■ 404 g,/,' 4 2 . r4 S4 041..1 a p, m 43•cl 5 • 0 . 0•13 1'.2 0.41 0 0' fl 3 -1J a ,...0 . ... ..4.1 Al A 0 El z IN . . C.1 44 ."-.1g V,ttrit tilt = . hi • li 00 0 4 0 01 2 4..1 in Illassomorassosommeommos 1 1 . . 4 j t .",,44,x., - . *1 dt i` .• ..:; . • .-.‘1...... ' N; .. „II, ' f v.. . . //r - • J. \ 1 4 is...V ,.• , ■ +• 41' ,e4 ,A. , C.f 1' • ,.‘..'4.�v ., its r� 1!\ ,` % i �`'•. 1 + ` 1 \y ••tuned i`�; ` J` .l- f- —, --,••,1,; -� �.''.'" ,—""1 ./r</ .... :41 ./" R r 'T .,gCMtV T {' - ,\ �7r! {�yZ�t.AsJ,, xi t ti J7t f� a�\`• • •r` -••,.`l •; t `r .l'.r N �Ey����••� \ _(•ti , 1 !,'�' i .�'1, •,_ ... • 5t�• .1r .eft• % ,� ! ! .r.- + _M' { . ( 'r f, •�. t\ I ! . "\ ,..I ► ' I 1 'J • •....`n�,,,yy iy •• J,.A r iJ '1" 'Ty. /� BOR. 01- \v I, ♦t i ' ,ENO _ • NI i-.,. A-eitlEg .9.. .16, Alt ,, • 5 , ‘/, , f •,,, I . ', /I .,.,t, .4,- 1 4 ±;Zti. 1 • � .ti�71 I J. it'�6. 1 1+• • BSI ..r4 , �""tt , ►tS'`i I`'.�? ''y ' 'LA 'ti•..�rC- rt•-∎- �1�ww► ` • i�.,ul • 't ti .i. ,( . m'tS?�11Y1{. Yj �Q� „„.„,\. a ;II..'.I ' S ; �`.C• i1 ', (I Kioeo ' {/ )•.p4'` y. t- • k ,, ,, • . .„..„„,,.,, . .i .4.4 't1" . • ' j. 1: (' ',\•Liss ' - '•" -4.•• 1 - ' • • i 'efe;'-. i 1,,.1. \ ,1 `�i t t t z,1` `t.,.18 • Z• 9 I'IlsOtroai4( • !• + i., ) .{'gyp `v,` .../ + 117 •... •'IPNMYt 1+1106.' ,' ... ., , • r l•' T '.'` f t:n' •4,�pz1'� an1.' ® '~ �}i• {$ • �. i•' ►•` - 1 ,P01ll�' ' / a \1 1. [f,• Y.., t., 1... .." 131 ' ,id ` !•/AMC •,•:7.`\ ` �V . w . �'@ ,` it %y iivi.`.' 1, ll , 1® �, •' • ,rte :-,•:',•;. sY• � ,♦, ,. •� _�1 - • < .“ -4. "ti 1 . ‘W, t•I.' .,^ -\ ,v r'.23 '' P II PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN E HIBIT 6-1 • • . SUBDIVISION RESULATION TEXT AMENDMENTS -- RECREATION SITES • 11 FACT SHEET. . . FACT SHEET. . . FACT SHEET. . .FACT SHEET. . .FACT SHEET 0: 4 am a property owner in Orange County. . Would these subdivision regulations concerning RECREATION SITES affect me ? , • A: The regulations would only 'affect you if you subdivide your land. The regulations would not apply to existing homes* -- only to new houses being planned in new subdivisions. . 0: Why are these regulations being proposed? • A: Each new house in the county places additional demands on local services -- schools, roads, parks, etc. Each new house will now contribute to off-setting the additional costs of serving that new home with recreation and park services. Lack of revenue sources from the state and federal levels require us here at the county level to be wise planners of our limited resources. Adopting these regulations now would save the county money in the long run. • 0: What would these new regulations require me to do if I should subdivide my land ? A: The regulations would apply only if you subdivide your land. If you subdivide, then, either a payment or a dedication of land would be required for each house or dwelling unit that is planned • . within that subdivision. - Dedication would ONLY be required if: • a. there are rals or more houses/dwelling units planned in the subdivision, or . • . . b. there is an existing or proposed park site located within or adjoining the subdivision ( agmmnIk locations of proposed park sites have been identified in the Master , . • Recreation and Park Plan. See map on reverse side. ) , Payment would be required in all other instances. The amount of payment would be determined for each house like this Payment for each house = assessed value of 1/35 acre in the subdivision • These regulations are already in effect in the Joint Planning Area . . of Orange County. Experience shows us that the cost per house in that area (mostly Chapel Hill Township, where assessed values are • higher) is approximately $141 per house. Such payments should be .. . less in the central and northern areas of the county, where land , . , , values are not assessed as high. , . . • . . . 0: How would the money collected by the County be spent? A: Any money collected would be held by the County in a special account that could not be touched for any purposes other than for parkland acquisition. The money would be spent when enough funds were available to buy -parkland for the proposed park that will serve the people in the subdivision from which the money was collected. , , . • : 0: Would any of the money be used to purchase greenways 'or will any of. the dedicated lends be used for greenways? , a A: NO • . • ----------'...;--..................... ^ Inc. �aman� Wa�r System, POST OFFIC BOX 187 MEBANE, NORTH CAROLINA 27302 TELEPHONE: (919)563-6212 • February 27, 1989 Orange County Board of Commissioners Margaret Lane ' Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Attn: Mr. Moses Carey Dear Mr. Carey: Orange-Alamancma Water recently received notification of Orange County's proposal to include our property which surrounds Corpo- ration Lake in what you propose to be Public Interest District I. Our board of directors met on February 23rd and discussed this • matter in depth. Such severe restrictions such as creating a minimum lot size of eleven and one half acres for a twenty year period is of grave concern to our board. Concern was also ex- pressed relative to the one hundred foot buffer requirement that would be placed on adjoining property owners. These concerns along with the fact that since that portion of Duke Forest that surrounds the major portion of our property has been deleted from your Public Interest proposal , Orange-Alamance board of directors by a unanimous vote requests that Orange-Alamance Water System, • Inc. 's property be deleted from your Public Interest proposal . Sincerely yours, • ORANGE-ALAMANCE WATER SYSTEM, INC. T. J. Forrest, ~�---~�- • President • • • • . � - • Robert L.Wilson atig Elaine J.Hicks City Meleager Asst.Mgr./City Clerk/Finance Officer Bernice 0.Wilson C.Brooks Gardner MX Collector Mayor 106 E.Washington Street Gary Bumgarner Mebane,N.C.27302 athpowice Council: Timothy Bradley Donnie Laws (919)563-5901 Fire Chief Bob Hupman Jimmy Jobe Kay Slaughter Public Works Director Everette Pender Dennis Hodge Don Bradshaw r"Z r"47,r• "'■ Wasietreatotent Director n February 27, 1989 Marvin Collins Orange County Planning Director Mr. Collins, The City of Mebane is requesting that the Orange County Planning Board release the proposed zoning around Lake Michael. The City property around Lake Michael has an -R-40 zoning which is • a water shed controlled zone. The property of Lake Michael is with- in our one-mile jurisdiction and under our zoning control. The city has plans to annex this property and we feel that this proposed zon- ing of the property by Orange County should be exempt. Thank You, Robert Wilson • Chartered in 1881 r.,. Iiills.borough, North Caroling February 28, 1989 Dear Editor: Duke wa_s a big loser at Monday nights' Orange County CODlirliSSi013- e.rs meeting. A number of adjoining land owners turned out and objected to using an of their own lands to buffer Duke's prr_lperties. Faced with two dozen angry folks, Duke administrator Max Wallace catagorically denied that the T:niversity supported the idea. Be said that- Duke wanted no protection, even for those parcels recently desig nated by the Trustees as "Class One lands, property dedicat ed. to preservation and research for the next fifty years. This comes after two months of work by Mr. 'Wallace and County planners, devising zoning catagorie,s that would allow the 'University flexibility in mana,gin,g its properties while marking some of them as clearly special and deserving of preferential treatment by the commu nity as a whole, Throug,hout this process the Duke administration has tried to "have its cake and eat it, too" as regards the status of "Class Two lands, Such a strategy is bound to fail, of coarse, but it may be understoo.d as a predictable bureauc.ratic response to conflicting direc- tives. There has been no clear consensus within the Tjniversity about, the efforts that should be made to preserve the Class Two parcels; some of which are under considerable pressure from development now and obviously will become more difficult to defend in the future. •The committment to Class One properties owever, has not seemed to waiver heretofore, As recent lY as last week, Mr. Wallace made a -presentation to the Public,-Private. Partnership on these issues and spoke favorably . about the creation of separate zoning catagories for Class One and Class Two lands.. I personally thought that the proposals brought for :! ward for discussion at Monday's tet-in g had been too much written by I. Duke, written so as to impose a burden on the community out of pr.°- portion to the commitment made by the University. Land which can be developed for "office buildings" and "s.ingle-family residences with attached efficiency apartments" is not very different from other land in the county, in mY view, Certainly adjoining landowners should not be asked any particular sacrifice on its account. I was therefore quite amazed when Mr. Wallace publicly disavowed the proposals. 229 ORANGE COUNTY 411 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 2.2„, 1989 Action Agenda Item 10-5-10 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS (KENNEL) ARTICLE 4.3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE ARTICLE 8.8.11 - KENNELS (CLASS B SPECIAL USE) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Proposed Amendments Letter from Animal Protection Society TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 411 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to kennels, in order to (1) develop consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and Animal Control Ordinance, and (2) to include provisions for wildlife rehabilitation. BACKGROUND: The proposed ordinance amendment incorporates two separate but related proposals. The amendment is proposed to: 1) eliminate inconsistencies between the Animal Control Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance, and 2) to expand the definition of kennel to include provisions for the rehabilitation of wildlife. The current definition of kennel provides for the lodging and boarding of domestic pets. There is no • reference in the ordinance pertaining to breeding of animals. Because land uses not expressly permitted by the Zoning Ordinance are prohibited, the effect of the Ordinance is to prohibit breeding kennels in the zoned townships. The Planning Department believes that this was not an intent when the ordinance was adopted. 410 230 This problem of inconsistency was brought to the attention of the Planning Department through the !II investigation of a zoning violation for a breeding kennel. The amendment was also proposed by the Animal Protection Society, to allow for rehabilitation of wildlife. The current definition of kennel refers only to domestic pets. The Society has submitted plans for an animal shelter which includes facilities for rehabilitation of birds and other wildlife. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment. !I 1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 231 411 ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS (KENNEL) ARTICLE 4.3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE ARTICLE 8.8.11 - KENNELS (CLASS B SPECIAL USE) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board BOCC Public ----- Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _ x_High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC REARING DATE: February 27, 1989 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to kennels to provide consistency with the Animal Control Ordinance, and provide for rehabilitation of wildlife. IMPACTS/ISSUES: 411 The proposed ordinance amendment incorporates two separate but related proposals. The amendment is proposed to: 1) eliminate inconsistencies between the Animal Control Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance, and 2) to expand the definition of kennel to include provisions for the rehabilitation of wildlife. Inconsistency with Animal Control Ordinance The current definition of kennel provides for the lodging and boarding of domestic pets. There is no reference in the ordinance pertaining to breeding of animals. Because land uses not expressly permitted by the Zoning Ordinance are prohibited, the effect of the Ordinance is to prohibit breeding kennels in the zoned townships. The Planning Department believes that this was not an intent when the ordinance was adopted. Two classes of kennel permits are issued by the Department of Animal Control: Class I - For persons owning or keeping six (6) to nineteen (19) animals for: 41! A. Showing, competition, hunting or sport. 2322 Class II - For persons owning or keeping animals for 410 A. Breeding, selling, boarding. B. Selling and/or training guard or security dogs. C. Owning or keeping twenty (20) or more animals. The Planning Staff is proposing to define a Class I kennel consistent with the Class i Kennel Permit (Animal Control) and a Class II kennel consistent with the Class II Kennel Permit (Animal Control) . Class I Kennels would be permitted by right in certain residential (RB, AR, R1) and commercial (CC3, GC4, AS) zoning districts. Class II Kennels would be permitted in those same zones with approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. All kennels included under the current definition must be located in those zones and have Class B Special Use Permit approval. Additional Special Use Permit requirements (Class II Kennels only) include the following: Review and approval of the Site Plan and Building Plans by the Department of Animal Control. Posting of a sign at the main entrance of the facility giving names, addresses and numbers of persons to be contacted in case of an emergency. 41 Obtaining any Kennel permit required by the Orange County Department of Animal Control within 30 days of occupancy. Failure to obtain and maintain a required Kennel permit could result in revocation of the Special Use Permit. This problem of inconsistency was brought to the attention of the Planning Department through the investigation of an alleged zoning violation. A boarding and breeding kennel was denied Special Use Permit approval due to impacts on the surrounding area. The owner eliminated the boarding operation, but maintains about 20 animals for breeding. The neighborhood impacts are not significantly different, yet breeding alone is not addressed. The "kennel" does meet all requirements of the Animal Control Ordinance, and does have an approved Class II Kennel permit. If the Ordinance is interpreted literally, then the breeding of animals is not permitted in Orange County, and all such activity would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, including that which has permit approval from the Department of Animal Control. If it is not the intent to exclude breeding kennels, from Orange County, then it is the recommendation of the Planning --- 233 3 Department that they be subject to the same requirements as 411 boarding kennels, since the impacts are similar in scale and scope. Because the Zoning Ordinance does not permit breeding kennels at this time, existing breeding kennels would be required to obtain a Special Use Permit in order to come into compliance with the Ordinance. The Department of Animal Control has issued two (2) Class II kennel permits in the zoned portion of the County which involve breeding. Kennels which involve boarding would become non-conforming, and only future boarding kennels would require permit approval. Provision for Wildlife Rehabilitation it is also proposed that the kennel provisions be expanded to allow for rehabilitation of wildlife. This portion of the amendment was requested by the Animal Protection Society. The Society has submitted plans for an animal shelter which \ includes facilities for rehabilitation of birds of prey and other wildlife, and holding pens and corrals for stray \ animals such as cows and horses. The existing kennel definition refers to domestic pets only. • The portions of the attached amendment which relate to this \ request are item c) under definition of Kennel (Class II) , and Section 8.8.11.3c gthsg Agalkompttg. 0 Item c) adds rehabilitation of more than 5 animals as an activity which would be classified as a Class II Kennel. Section 8.8.11.3c Requires that permits required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or Wildlife Resources Commission be maintained in order for the Special Use Permit to remain valid. (State licences and permits are required for the rehabilitation or keeping of wildlife) . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: (See also Permitted Use Table attached) . ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS Kennels - An establishment offering lodging and boarding facilities for dogs, cats and other domestic pets. ARTICLE 8 SPECIAL USES 8.8.11 KA111101. gt RidiAg ItgillkWAGJEftRiP.A igial.P. a amaLai alpa 110 8.8.11.1 Additional 1.12t2Mg.t.101. . -4-t--------------------- 234 , 4 • In addition to the information required in 411 Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be submitted as part of the application. a) Plans for all kennels, barns, exercise yards, riding arenas, pens and related improvements. b) Site plan showing the improvements listed in a) above, other structures on the same lot, and structures on adjacent property. 8.8.11.2 atAAciandl of g3Alnati2A The following specific standards shall, be used in deciding an application for approval of this use: a) The site is of adequate size to protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the kennel or riding stable/academy. b) No part of any building, structure, runway or riding arena, in which animals are housed or exercised shall be closer than 150 feet from a property line, except property occupied by the owner/operator of the kennel. These minimum distances shall not apply if all portions of the facility, in which animals are housed, are wholly 41 \ enclosed within a building. c)\ Any kennel which is not wholly enclosed within a building shall be enclosed by a security fence at least 6 feet in height, which shall include primary enclosures or runs. d) The site plan shows parking, access areas and screening devices for buildings and animal boarding facilities. \ PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 1 ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS UAW, iglAAA 1.1 = AA Al11022t ICALPI 111,41AA5IAA Lara . thga lima LAI but laga thla tggatx IZAI gaimall Af ally 2PAALMEs. 01212,0112 dirlftlte:11 ystock thl aanaagg gl ahalitiagr. aggP!g0JL14.11... hanting, 2L 122KAJ. isgaml iglass III = An establilAMPAA inmaly.lag aaimalg at gaiiiiiiigs. excluding darkmg2LIJII.M4 • limgataata. 211-2Aggd IA gax at thg ____-------------..............---..... 2355 following: ol owning or keeping, for any purpose, 20 or more animals hl selling and/or training guard dogs or security, dogs gl the keeping of more than Liza (5) animals at any given time for the purpose of breeding, kaarding„. or rehabilitation. ARTICLE 8 SPECIAL USES 8.8.11 Kennels Or laid:km Stallles/Academies (Class B Class IT Special Use). 8.8.11.1 Additional Information In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be submitted as part of the application. a) Plans for all kennels, barns, exercise yards, riding arenas, pens and related improvements, including sianage.. b) Site plan showing the improvements listed in a) above, other structures on the same lot, and structures on adjacent property. 8.8.11.2 Standards of Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding an application for approval of this use: a) The site is of adequate size to protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the kennel or riding stable/academy. b) No part of any building, structure, runway or riding arena, in which animals are housed or exercised shall be closer than 150 feet from a property line, except property occupied by the owner/operator of the kennel. These minimum ' distances shall not apply if all portions of the facility, in which animals are housed, are wholly enclosed within a building. c) Any kennel which is not wholly enclosed within a building shall be enclosed by a security fence at 411 least 6 feet in height, which shall include primary enclosures or runs. ...............,,,...................-------------------- . I 23g d) The site plan shows parking, access areas and 410 screening devices for buildings and animal boarding facilities. Al =a al:ha Elan Ahall 1.2a. raylaigad hy tha gang C = l.ggahml PARAttmeg_ tf. And fanaft 111 conformance nth Aftatlaa KIK at tha Ankpal ggatolLgrdLmaaga. 1,3 gthat Raanitamanta AI Raildlas alana for Al kennel faallitiaa AMU ha raylftead And mamma hy tkg Director of Animal gaatrial Priar. t2 IgIggagg of Any hall-ding p—slerlta4. \ 121 A gigg RigALAY mIL211 from tha snap...ad...a:All ha pgatad At them mAla An=anga to tikg falit And ahall contain the nmaaa. Aanamaaa. And hal-A.211mm .......daultar.A NUAKA RAMARAA X.A1224gi1211 far tha jilt y MAY be atad At Agi hour 21 thg day 9.r. Ilightx. Ihg gi2g, ghg.11 ..._IgooglY Nith _....RidiggIL2Agi MA2AkrATAWIt9 as set farta 1.4 IgStiag Lai 21 tilia grdiaahaa, \ al VIAL% tavirad La the Anima gantral grdinAnaa A glall II Kg110.1 gormit shall be altAine51._ from the 41 Department 2f _ilital gantral Illthin the. it 2g dayl of gaga2aagyA. EA111111% t2. 2.0tAig Agd MAigtAin A valid glaal II Kennel Earmit or gthat ralatad pAgaitA whIgh MAY be rg2g1red 12I tha SA gr. &lags. Aftaantaaa gammiagian n11 molt ila revocation 21 tha gagal Use EamitJ. 1 ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMM/TTEE: January 12, 1988 I I PLANNING BOARD REVIWW: 1 \ BOCC REVIEW: I \ , i 's . . .4........10 .... Cl.. i . 237 a Lai , • ... , , If) * CO V) 0 < - . _ 41 es1 .... * * ...■ ..- * < it • '-'' ■ , . " • ... La U.) ' ... * . V\ .) * V1 C.) * * -g w .S• it * * * „.... ..-. 0 _ co a LU La 1..7 .... L.) ...) ..3 t 3 .. - . . . - C•11 1.; L.) . C./ ... .... II 1,-. 1•-• CC CC 4 . .... gC 4 4.-• .0 -g . .0 .0 -It (..) -....- ..... ...) ....1 uJ La net , - < 4L U.1 .... .... = IV IV 0 CC - LC) • CC tIN' 0. O. re ea al c) v7 V) ., -s w ..4- . a) i••• < 0 ...? cc < }- cd 0 1... ... v) V) ... 1 1 Z In (I, ce) cn W ca .4 < U) to ...I -I at' o .. • , • = s. LI :...) Cr.) CC 1 0 I II n CC • -.. U , .1 ,... - .. 1-... ..- CC ...., 0 . .Z CC re ca . Lt) O. . ... _ , ..... c..1 ON - OD (..0 C0 -..-• 0: 02 . .4' VA • 4. 0 .0 14-• a.z.,. u C o . to, I- to e.o In- o ..... 0 in I- - (1)the 1 ..... 0 0 0 I.. 1-,I- 4-, 0 .... •-• 0) 0 0 0) - 0 0 ...0 fa - to C C > E -C 3 g: •- > is. 5... ..... r0 a) In th 1... 04.401 0. /...1•••• 0 4-1 1 CO a) a) C 0 C esc so .0 0) 4.) 0 ...1 0) 0 c) > 0 oo I a. ... 4.. ... C 0 U 0 V) 1.4 > U VI E MI ...I ......1.11 0 „JO 0 C ... 4.• in - - a 00) 0 -0 (..) 0 < I I to it E c.....,. ID ..... susl < 0 •-•• -• a) re%.-- ... . 44.) 0 0 1,„, .... Q. ..... t.. - (1) us (0 0-0 0-C • a) v) in •-• a) M 0 (5 a) u) c 3 - u- 0 (0 c 0 = ..,0 ...-...-. . -V 0 0 I- z .c 0 (I) 1- 0 0 E 01 = U 0 = -c.) a) 0 C V) 0 vs v. 0 C ID v) 0'(5 ........... ea 4) 0 0 co L 1- a) 0 0. 4) Lt. C .... ).. .... in I- „,c ...- ,.. .-........ .-- -0 0 $10 0 U 0 U "0 U • 0 40 a. c0 > v) 0 01 4-0 01 0 4. O. U rt) c a. m = >. •• • . P..... Inwr 123 „,... -- 0 ••••■ 0 ..- 1t) IC C as Z a) - L. 4) 111 V) 4.0 .0 th) 1- 0 1.4 .0 '0 14 4.1 top CO 0 0 VA CC 443 VA 0 .0 CC/ . in .0 4.i... - C . 0 0) 1- CU..., 0) = 0 0 Z .., 0 in Co u, w, 1.. 0) E ),.. Li sra .-"0 r... 0112_ --is-, 14: " a4) "0 7) al <44 ./ °).- tna) 0 .-0 a) 0 la 4-0 ra L. - .&..1 u c0C_ *0 u E0 "4:3 -0 11 a) >• 0 15 Itt - •" - IA '...- %-s-. -p 0 ...4 „c - ■da 0 • 0 0 C ... C VA C > L. 0 le ... ... .a. .... 0 C C = C In 0 1-• .0 4.1 '''' CL 4., ... 4,.= ..+ .0 ..0 0 1 I ..1 0.1 48 0 01 '10. 0 • e0.7, ril 4.1 14..4... 0 7) ECL 0 2 0 Z (1) tO 45 0) ..- 0 00) 0 = _ tn z c, I... t.3 w co 1..... 0 1... .... co .C‘ r...... L., ....) be Z -1 111 ...1 Z Z Ce Z•-•" X VI • CC ›C CO In c a - 04 eri ...0 1." .40 La ... ... ts.) Csi N IN e..1 1•1 0.1 e.1 t‘l 0.4 " U) V) 4/) 1,4 „,V) tr) t,f7 4/1 cs) If) te) VI 411 • k-16 • 1 rillill"1111111111111111111.1111 238 El sia,„„minimmimami immumin 1111111111110 ITIESUMMI1111111 iiiimume gie rem II I I I an I 1 1 I Ills ism nil 2 . 1311111011111111111111111 immumms E111111111111111111111rirmaNNIIIM iIM 011111111111111121111"--ms...11111111101 111111111111111111111 ----1.1111113111111111 smirs_111213 EIIMMENUM , , as, co 1311111351101111115011111111111111g11111"111 w „, .... .., w ,.., _ inummunglaninvarlillgimmellgoa \ i I Li, w. onmummuummummiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,,,, 0 , -45 0 l'" LII Lt. Ca■ immumminammummullion in mow Elimmulleli... wororma < .• rauasmlimm—mllMilirrrraPinillIllIllMiMMMIIIIIIIIMIM 16111111111111111111111111MAMINIIIIN I 0 0^ L) L) mumullIall rimmimmumommillallENNO...... IMINIIIIIIIIIIM c, Emillailliniiallill immimmge.; ta Cs. rang1111111111111111.111 I 0 . 0•C 4.. a) 4- la 0 In 1-- U tt. 0 0 4J • 43 tO -- 0 a) d) W 21 * 1. ois in C C a) 0 > 0 ... m .0 0 4) co -1 0 °-"u ut C -o .-I CI CC 0 > tn "- - C (0 C Z tn in U 0 *C m C) — c 0) es. 0 vs a) -0 *-- %.0 0. 'V 14- ".` .... &J in .— i., w A.+ .4C a) z •-- -- 0 :c" cc ... 0 C C C C..... 0 . 70. V/ t° "= (41 Vilt Ca ta u, ... 0. ..' In m 0 I.. ...„ vs a) G) tvi 0 Itt 0 %., 0 0 e 0 Z 7-' th 0 II in to —* tis -as 0 I.. Z= v) to sr) Ls- 0 C "0 — iv > c C) 0 in %. 0 S 1- 1- 0 [ .0 or 0 a) cc ‘- 0 i.J m o 0) 4-, a. ca > ,, I o a) c — >- J 0 .,_ .0 ,m. .,- .....•.-.. .-■ . C. U 0 y. ,. C3., (0 = al in ... u.. ,- E 5 .; C:2 al 0-0 U -o LP ... * . .41 uy 1- 0 lo (CC •= ° 42 ssa t ta 015 °J 02 ._ tLi gra ..0 CD ..= to -0 Ar 0) • 0,,, c ■• Lsa VI 0 in 0 in 0 1- .... 0) 'I 0 ° 2 r3 U) ''' in 0 L. a) .- ›, C ' -5 -,z _ - 0 , 0 - 1,.. 0 < a U E U 05 0 U o cOEU CL 0) L. (.) 1-a. s- L.•-' I- 1- * .c .. Ar cu— = cuR t.. en fa 0 1:; .... w .- 0.Z 0 y. 1/) (11 0 3 0 -' 41... 0..... 10. so — - E ui 0 > L. 0 0 0. ,,,, ei 4-t iv cn t4. 0 ... tx, C a V/ e 0 (I 0 ° /"' "C3 4-1 4CJ) 0 0 46 rE. 1".; uJ 7 — 0 C 1" > I 0 c '''' en ii, tu -- () = cc tn ... = -.J I." -J CI ILI . al 0 r... co N (i) col 0) cn (I) (A tn 44 c4 = CL . Cl. ' i 4-16 k 4 ------------*'J■.o■ ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 239 1081 AIRPORT ROAD •• CHAPEL HILL. NORTH CAROLIN" 7514 apsTELEPHONE 919-987-7383 Mary Scarbrough January 3, 1989 306 Revere Road, Hillsborough, NC Dear Ms. Scarbrough: We are planning to establish an animal sanctuary that would include, among other things, Kennels, a large animal holding facility, and wildlife rehabilitation areas. These facilities will address important needs for the entire county. We have been looking at property along Eubanks Road in Orange County as a site for this animal sanctuary. In analyzing the provisions of the zoning ordinance re- garding a Class B special use permit for Kennels or riding stables/academies (Sec. 8.8.11) , we believe that the category of a humane shelter fits well within the spirit of this provision with no substantive changes required. Section 8.8.11 deals with 'kennels, barns, exercise yards, riding arenas, pens, and related 410 improvements all of which are consistent with the facilities associated with a humane shelter, which may handle a variety of species of animals. We believe that if the kennels, barns, or animal holding areas are appropriate for the species being housed, there are not substantive differences affecting public health or safety or rights of adjacent property owners so long as the requirements for the issuance of the special use permit pursuant to Section 8.8.11 are met. Indeed, at the Orange County Animal Shelter in Chapel Hill we routinely handle a variety of species of animals, including goats, owls, squirrels, etc. , without difficulty. We have enclosed a copy of Section 8.8.11 , which we have marked to reflect suggested changes in this section to clarifY the applicability of this section to humane shelters. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. - We look forward to working with you to process the necessary permits for the animal sanctuary. Sincerely, Donald Ingr ham • 411 President t L D 1 L 13,10 „ 24 oC 9 ccz arrboro ns.g•Mai. ..3>3n' • N.C. February 22, 1989 • Mr.John Link Orange County Manager • POD=8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Dear Mr. Link: At their February 21, 1989 meeting,the Carrboro Board of Aldermen reviewed the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. These ordinances were referred to the Town for comment under Section 2.6 of the Joint Planning Agreement. • The Aldermen voted to refer to you and to the Board of Commissioners the enclosed staff and Carrboro Planning Board comments on the proposed amendments. In addition to these comments,the Aldermen wished to stress the importance of the first of the Planning Board's comments on the Environmental Impact Ordinance. The Aldermen would lime the question of the intended applicability of the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance answered definitively before the public hearing scheduled for February 27. If the intent is for the ordinance to be applicable withinn Casrbor'o's planning jurisdiction,including the Transition Area,there are several c'hang a,�at must be made in the ordinance;if not the ordinance should clearly state intent.__... Sincerely, • Robert Morgan Town Manager Enclosures rwm/abw • * C. Changes to the County Permitted Use Table to Permit Breeding Kennels ant?41 Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers Explanation of Proposed Chang el This amendment would allow breeding kennels and wildlife rehabilitation centers as permitted uses in all zoned areas of the County where boarding kennels are now permitted. This is in response to a request by the Animal Protection Society and also to remove existing inconsistencies between the Courity's Zoning Ordinance which does not permit breeding kennels,and the County's Animal Control Ordinance, which does issue breeding kennel permits. Town Comments: This proposed amendment seems appropriate and in keeping with the desire to preserve a rural environment in the Rural Buffer areas of the County. D. Changes to the County Permitted Use Table Dealing with Retail Trade Categories planation of Proposed Changes: The County seeks to combine two sections of its Permitted Use Table, dealing with retail trade,'in order to reduce the number of pages in the permitted use table. Right now there are two classes of retail trade establishments --Retail Trade of Convenience Goods and Retail Trade of Durable Goods. All of the subcategories of convenience goods retail trade are permitted in the same districts as the same subcategories of durable goods retail trade,and the County sees this as needless duplication. The proposed amendment would combine retail trade of convenience and durable goods into one class instead of two ' 9 Town Comments: The Town of Carrboro generally supports these ordinance • amendments,unless the County originally intended that convenience goods and durable goods be classified_separately for some reason that is not reported in the • - County's staff report,and still holds that original intent. The original intent will not be satisfied by combining the two classes of:use. • 3_ Proposed Change to the County Subdivision Ordinance., A. Dedication of Recreation Space and Payment in Lieu Explanation of Proposed Chang m: The County proposes-to-make the dedication of recreation space,or payment-in-lieu thereof by new subdivisions a requirement everywhere in the County. It is not a requirement now. As proposed,the County would require that recreation space be dedicated where land that is called out on the County's Land Use Plan as recreation or open space land is included in a development,and payment in lieu required where it is not. Town Comments: The Town of Carrboro generally supports this ordinance -amendment. 6 • 243 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 27, 1989 Action Agenda Item #0.6-a• SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SITES ARTICLE 4.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF USE REGULATIONS ARTICLE 6.16 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN PERMITTED USES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING „x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Proposed Amendment Letter from Orange County Dept. of Public Works TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposal to include solid waste disposal collection sites as a use permitted by right in all zones, subject to minimum design standards. BACKGROUND: Solid waste disposal collection sites are needed by local governments or other public agencies responsible for managing solid waste disposal. The Orange County Department of Public Works has received approval of a Consolidated Solid Waste Disposal Plan, which identifies sites for the disposal of household solid wastes, to be developed over time. The County . normally negotiates with property owners to lease or purchase sites in the general location specified in the Consolidated Plan. A minimum of 40,000 square feet is needed to develop a collection site. Where zoning requires a lot size ,greater than 40,000 square feet, a larger area must be purchased or leased than is necessary to accommodate the facility. The proposed amendment seeks to permit solid waste collection sites with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet in all zones. Specific site development standards are also proposed. _ I . 244 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment. i . I 11 j4 245 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 4.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF USE REGULATIONS ARTICLE 6.16 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN PERMITTED USES ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public x Other: Dept. of Public Works STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC REARING DATE: February 27, 1989 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To include solid waste disposal collection sites as a use permitted by right in all zones, subject to minimum design standards. IMPACTS/ISSUES: 411 Solid waste disposal collection sites are necessary for. local governments or other public agencies responsible for managing the disposal of solid wastes. The Orange County Department of Public Works has received approval of a Consolidated Solid Waste Disposal Plan, which identifies sites for the disposal of household solid wastes, to be developed over a period of time. The County normally negotiates with property owners to lease or purchase sites in the general location specified in the Consolidated Plan. A minimum of 40,000 square feet is needed for development of collection sites. Where minimum lot sizes are greater than 40,000 square feet, current regulations require that a larger area be purchased or leased than is necessary to accommodate the facility. The proposed amendment seeks to permit solid waste collection sites in all zones, and require a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet in all zoning districts, as well as other development standards such as fencing and landscaping. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None. 411 PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 4.1 Establishment of Use Regulations (Uses permitted by right in all districts) 246 10. Solid was vallegtigg facilitigg gligad and 22amataci by a public agencx the Racaasa disagsal at household Ka:It.% by gra/1ga gal= rasidants,.. 6-16-15 Solid *Alta. collection Agilitiaa AMAPA AAA ARALAt24 by a mbila agaggy for :the pgrpAaft AL disagaal at hold NAltA. 1?..Y gt4AAA gaamtm rftsidAsts.u. The following restrictions shall Pa aaglisld tg the AbgyA use in. all zoning dlatrigtal The aitA Alga consist of a AAKAALL. or AAAIMAtt across a par=1, bghatbftr 2waftd or leased by the 21.11211A agancy) Nhiah has been LAAAVAAd MY the =TWA ORA= asaistar af Paads., 121 The DAMAO: Q alEAMIAt across the Rargala. (whether gr leased by the vitals agagq1 on which the facility, is located shall contain A minimum MAP. At 0410 A.ARAM Al The astasi At AdIAMAAt shall have trantaga (la a atataJnIULLAIJami raad, gl A Type a land:tams hnttaq_ az. it Alaittf shall hs provided alang the aarxmatac at the AAKAA.I. or Ant. 41 al Lanai= At laast Al iA hAlAtt ahAli tig prod between the landsaus buff ar and the imaumad 22rti2a of fag parcel or ammeat. fl An entrance alga shall identity site as a sanitation .111BAtiAa sitsa_ and shall idamtlEm tha rasaansEaLa anblia.agana.u. Tha sign shall contain a mazIgagm of nine Lal 12ga= feet and ahall AAt malad sight LAI fsst in hAight.f. itAttAAtkARA1 AIM MAY hp. erected la needed within tha 21 The entrance to the site shall Epatain a =MAIM a MIAIMAM of alf.. in Nidth.l. ******************************* ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: February 8, 1989 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: CC: Wilbert McAdoo, Public Works ...amoommome=10111110110101110119 14'°4 '61.111, range sun t u hitt arks 247 11/3 EAST RIABOARET FULSOBROUSII,MTH CAINUMA 2727$ Wilbert J. ilikiWee mann January 26, 1989 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director Orange County' Planning Department P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: Orange County Public Works is currently consolidating the green box solid waste collection sites in an effort to better serve Orange County citizens. We would like to request that the County Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow green box solid waste collection as a permitted usage in all zones. Additionally, we are requesting that lot size requirement for green box solid waste collection site be 40,000 square 411 • feet. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated as we have some sites now ready for consideration. Sincerely, • a,f2t2J-1. Ike=-4:MSw 70) Wilbert Jr. McAdoo WJM/p cc: Mary Scearb.o • 411 • Office Location Highway 86 North Hillsborough ,i.. • ..., . . rte✓ Y` . 1 , . • , • H Il � 17 5d lb.+N0� r- C+ 4, :4 c1 i ► ,}. .. lc • Vii. ' ' + ( ,l�C �; / I , /� . r . �, ... N ' :::::: • 44 otti v4; • 71 ,, r iN.,, te 11.-4°C: lin 1 /9.---- • ?, k , _ `r• 1 rk ilr -a. . . , .:. . . 1 1 . III VI ti 0 : ' i i* Ci ai b.. 041 ci IC ) .v k ~fir d1.�y 1 1P 1 :V . ..) to V3 2 • 1.. U f i 0 • 14 6 tie 1 0 ; . gin .,:,o ,..• 1 WI .t .''‘.5 ' il 1 N...f , r,""3.,-;...:-,4 , . . a R in Ca /J U •1 '-�-^ a w. 2i6 `tip` . 5 , - . ..,. tg 4 *-. — •(1,\-cl'.1, t :rbr: br---- , , : . ,...._.<1 ,tk.... (4 N N.....0-j, .t:^* . tc "i .5firEvalt .14 ll. . ;11 co., "''''. 63.)k{:,J :.). f- '%-% , . \, (7,7,-, .4 r ka.,,...).' i Lane I ..f"\ I wC y.,r, a 'c; 11 d ��• . ., �' v v v� �° . 1 • "4 '� • r J -0 `L • . _ fir:,.-.. re • 0 • s I 1 - a 249 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date February 274. 1989 Action Agenda Item # 10-6-di SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 7.20.2 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS/MOBILE HOME PARKS SIZE LIMITS) (ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS, "MOBILE HOME PARK") DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC SEARING: x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Proposed Ordinance Amendments Extension 574 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to Article 7.20.2 (Area Requirements for Establishment of District) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: In March of 1987, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to include requirements for the Planned Development - Mobile Home Park District. At that time the maximum area for a mobile home park was set at twenty-five (25) acres. The cap was increased to fifty (50) acres in October 1988, following a recommendation from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force. When applying the amended version of Article 7.20.2, the Planning Staff encountered difficulty in interpreting the maximum size requirement for mobile home parks. The proposed amendment regulates size according to number of mobile home spaces rather than by acreage of the mobile home park. The definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 should be amended to be consistent with the proposed size regulation. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 251 110 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 7.20.2 - Area Requirements for Establishment of District Article 22 - Definitions ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low Comment: Major Amendment Expected Public Hearing Date: February 27, 1989 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Article 7 .20.2 of the ' Zoning Ordinance by clearly identifying a size limit for mobile home parks and to make the definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 consistent with Article 7.20.2. IMPACTS/ISSUES: In March of 1987, the Zoning Ordinance was • amended to include requirements for the Planned Development - Mobile Home Park District. At that time the maximum area for a mobile home park was set at twenty-five. (25) acres. The cap was increased to fifty (50) acres in October 1988, following a recommendation from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force. When applying the amended version of Article 7.20.2, the Planning Staff encountered difficulty in interpreting the maximum size requirement for mobile home parks. The Ordinance Review Committee suggested that the size limit should be based on the number of units, not the total number of acres in the planned development. Existing ordinance provisions allow units to 111 252 11, be clustered on lots as small as 5000 square feet, resulting in urban densities surrounded by open space within the mobile home park. Orange County, of course, is not equipped to provide adequate services for large areas of concentrated residential development. Therefore, regulating park size by number of units instead of acreage is more effective in the case of this type of planned development. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS. 7.20.2 Area Requirements for Establishment of District - The minimum area of any site to be developed as a mobile home park shall be ten (10) contiguous acres and the maximum area shall be fifty (50) acres of contiguous ownership including rights-of-way and utility easements. (See definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 of this Ordinance. ) Article 22 - Definitions mobile Home Park - A parcel of land under 411 single ownership which has been planned and improved in compliance with the requirements of the Mobile Home Park District for the placement of mobile homes for non-transient (placement for the duration of the lease) use; consisting of two or more mobile home spaces and ten (10) to twenty-five (25) acres in size. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 7.20.2 Area Requirements for Establishment. of District - The minimum size of any mobile home park shall be ten (10) units (mobile home snacos) and no more than fifty (50) units shall be allowed in any one nark. (See definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 of this Ordinance. ) where a mobile home park is to be develoned adiacent to an existina mobile home nark containina fifty (50) spaces or more to facilitate location by sheriff and emercencv services, the nronosed planned development 253 111 shall be distinauishable from the adiacent•mobile home hark hy a different name and a separate entrance. Each development must maintain the 100' perimeter buffer and the screening adjacent to road rAphts-of-way as reauired by Article 7 .20.4J Article 22 - Definitions Mobile Home Park - A parcel of land under single ownership which has been planned and improved in compliance with the requirements of the Mobile Home Park District for the placement of mobile homes for non-transient (placement for the duration of the lease) use; consisting of ten (10) but not more than fifty (50 ) mobile home spaces. ORDINANCE REV/E COMMITTEE: 1-18-89 PLANNING BOARD: 411 BOCC: 01=51090011112.011111■111171111. 3:— C BO, _ arrboro ,,:���. ese, • lry!J February 22, 1989 Mr.John Link Orange County Manager PO Bog 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Link: At their February 21, 1989 meeting, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen reviewed the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances..These ordinances were referred to the Town for comment under Section 2.6 of the Joint Planning Agreement. The Aldermen voted to refer to you and to the Board of Commissioners the enclosed staff and Carrboro Planning Board comments on the proposed amendments. In addition to these comments, the Aldermen wished to stress the importance of the first of the PJAnning Board's comments on the Environmental Impact Ordinance. The Aldermen would like the question of the intended applicability of the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance answered definitively before the public hearing scheduled for February 27. If the intent is for the ordinance to be applicable within Carrboro's plpinning jurisdiction,including the Transition Area,there are several changes that must be made in the ordinance;if not the ordinance should clearly state that • intent. Sincerely, • • Robert Morgan Town Manager Enclosures rwmlabw • • currently, the permitted uses are limited to research activities and accessory us2,55 public utility uses, and public parks, botanical gardens and arboretums. • The proposed text amendment would split the County PID zone into two classes: PID-1 and PID-II, to correspond with the Duke report's concept of Permanent Research Forest and Research Project Land. PID-I lands are expected to stay in recreational and research uses for the next twenty years or more,and PID-II lands are expected to stay in such uses for less than twenty years. PID-I would have a minimum lot size of 500,000 square feet(115 acres),and permitted uses to include essentially the same uses as permitted now in the PID, as well as nonresidential mixed use projects involving historic structures. PID-II would have a minimum lot size of 200,000 square feet (approximately 5 acres), and would permit the development of single family homes,and nonresidential mixed use projects involving historic structures, in addition to the list of uses now permitted in the PID. The County proposes to deal with the fourth category, Residual Endowment Land, by zoning it the same as other land in its vicinity;and no land in the third category, Institutional Use Land (essentially the campus),lies within Orange County. NOTE: The County will also have to amend its Land Use Plan to reflect these changes. Town Comments: Under the Joint Planning Agreement, the area in Carrboro's and Chapel Hill's Joint Planning Transition Areas that abut Duke Forest lands have a complicated split zoning, partially Transition. Area (Town) zoning,and partially County Rural Buffer zoning. This requires that the owners of such properties go through two separate review processes, one through the County, and one through the towns, in order to receive permission to subdivide and/or develop their property. The purpose of this was to 'buffer'Duke Forest lands from development activities. Now the particular portion of Duke Forest in question, above Carrboro's Transition Area and south of Eubanks Road,is to be reclassified as permitting residential uses. If that is to occur, the Town would like to have removed the 400 foot 'Rural Buffer buffer between Carrboro's Transition Area I I and Duke Forest, in that area. 3. Changes to the Maidmum Sizes of Mobile Home Planned neve looments • - planation of Proposed Changes: The County wants to-amend its Mobile Home Planned Community zoning district regulations to define the maximum size of such • communities on the basis of the number of mobile home spaces included rather than on the acreage involved. Currently the ordinance limits such communities to 50 acres in size, with a minimum of 10 acres, and allows mobile homes to be clustered on lots as small as 5000 square feet. The proposed ordinance would limit the size of such communities to 50 mobile home units, and establish the minimum size as 10 units. No change in the clustering provision is proposed. Town Comments: This proposed amendment seems appropriate and in keeping with the desire to preserve a rural environment in the Rural Buffer areas of the County. • 5 • • • tc,vt\ltD • St _51 2.4.1 • ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD February 27,- 1989 It is my opinion the new proposal to allow mobile home parks to increase from 25 to 50 spaces will not 'create additional spaces for (2) two reasons as nbted by the following examples: . • . • Example 1 • • • • - • My park has 57 lots on 53 acres or the maximum one per acre - (40,000-6q.. ft.)'.and built in 1986 prior to the 25 maximum space limitation . . • requirement implemented later. Since then I have acquired 50 additional acres adjoining my park for a total acreage of 100 with 57 mobile home spaces. • • • If this proposal goes into effect in order to enlarge my park I will. have.to go down the road a few yards to build a new entrance road into the - Same parcel of land. The new road must be paved and a new park name must be..established at an additional cost of approximately $80,000. All this • accomplishes is an increase in the cost o1 lots which in effect increases .rent charged to the homeowner and (2) two separate parks hhve been established. Without the. separate road and entrance requirement additional spaces.could be provided by expanding the existing park at minimal costs. • , • Example 2 • ' New parks will not be built in, this county because of the high development costs. A park of 50 acres will require an' investment of $600,000 for 'land (50 ac: @ $12,000), $60,000 for water and'sewer to cluster (50 taps @ $1200)i, and $100,000 for paving streets plus expenses for grading, electrical, boxes and recreational equipment for a total invest- . ment of $800,000. Rental income on 50' spaces at $125 per month is $75,000 . a year.. Pmtemeat 84 an in-tostmentlef $.8014000Z2614646 prPMSPirateimill. • cgtt• $8e,dtio a year resulting in a $5,000 a year logs. This does not include any expenses incurred for maintaining the park such as mowing and utilities. If'you as commissioners and board ' members are sincere about improving the housing shortage for low and moderate income citizens of Orange County • relief can be sought in the area of mobile home parks. This can be accom- plished 'by letting the zoning regulation 'permitting one unit per acre • . control the expansion of existing parks which meet current' ordinances. and • regulations established by the commissioners and board members rather than placing a maximum number on the units allowed. Thank You • Roger D. Stephens • • • • • . . 257 ORANGE COUNTY 410 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 214. 1989 Action Agenda Item 4 "0-6-e SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 4.2 - PERMITTED USE TABLE (SECTIONS S42 THROUGH S47 - RETAIL TRADE) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Proposed Ordinance Amendment TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel. Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments combining sections of the Permitted Use Table to eliminate duplication of text. BACKGROUND: Sections 542 through S47 of the Permitted Use Table of the Zoning Ordinance pertain to Retail Trade. Sections S42 through S44 refer to "Retail Trade, . Sales, Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise, and Equipment. . . " broken down to low, medium, and high traffic impact. Sections 545 through S47 refer to "Retail Trade, Sales and Rental of Durable Goods, Merchandise and Equipment. . . " broken down to low, medium, and high traffic impact. If the words "Durable Goods" were added to Sections S42 through S44, then Sections 545 through S47 could be deleted. The amendment would simplify and clarify the Retail Trade Section of the Ordinance. There is also a typographical error in Section S43 of the Ordinance. Medium traffic generation should read 200-800 trips/day instead of 200-300 trips/day. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 410 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 259 ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: SECTIONS S42 THROUGH S47 - PERMITTED USE TABLE (RETAIL TRADE) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle xLow Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC REARING DATE: February 27, 1989 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To combine sections of the Permitted Use Table to eliminate text duplication and permit "mail order houses" in association with retail trade establishments. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Sections S42 through S47 of the Permitted Use Table of the Zoning Ordinance pertain to "retail trade" . In determining the appropriate zoning district for a retail use, the specific use proposed is not a factor other than to identify adverse impacts which might occur at building, lot, and zoning district boundaries as a result of the operation. In addition, the traffic generation characteristics of the use (low, medium, and high impact) are also evaluated. Sections S42 through S44 refer to "Retail Trade, Sales, Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise, and Equipment. . . " . Sections S45 through S47 refers to "Retail Trade, Sales and Rental of Durable Goods, Merchandise and Equipment. . ." . By adding the words "Durable Goods" to Sections S42 through S44, Sections S45 through S47 could be deleted. The proposed amendment would clarify the provisions and eliminate text duplication. Two other minor amendments are proposed. First, there is a typographical error in Section S43 of the Ordinance. Medium traffic generation should read 200-800 trips/day instead of 200-300 trips/day. Second, the words, "Including Mail Order Houses, " should be added following "Merchandise and Equipment. . . " . The proposed addition would address past and present concerns on the part of local businessmen as to 410 whether retail trade included such operations. • 260 410 EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: (See also attached tables) 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 Principle 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. 545 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Designed To Attract & Serve Few Customers 411 Or Clients On Premise Other Than Employees Of The Principle Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building & No Storage Or Display of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building 546 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Merchandise & 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, Merchandise, & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Zoning District. High Traffic Generation. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: (See also attached tables) S42 Retail Trade, Sales, And Rental of Durable And Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment, Including Mail Order Houses, Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: 410 261 A) Operations Are Designed To Attract And 111 Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principle Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day) C) All Operations Are Conducted Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage S43 Retail Trade, Sales, And Rental of Durable And Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment, Including, Mail Order Houses, Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries of Lot Where The Use Is Located. A) Medium Traffic Generation (200-800 Trips/Day) S44 Retail Trade, Sales, And Rental Of Durable, And Convenience Goods, Merchandise, & Equipment, Including Mail Order Houses, Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Zoning District. A) High Volume Traffic Generation (More Than 800 Trips/Day) S45, 846, S47 Deleted 110 ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: January 12, 1989 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: • 410 EXXSTTNG 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE . PERMITTED USE A a CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) B - CLASS B SPECIAL. USE (ARTICLE 8) P,B AR Ri R2 R3 R4 R5 tt8 R1 LC1 NC2 C3 GC4 EC 01 E1 i1 12 13 AS ED PID S42 Retali Trade, Sales, Rental of Convenience Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed To Attract S Serve Few Customers Or Ciient,s On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principle Use. B) Low Volume Traffic s' Generation (0-200 Trips/Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building with No Outside Storage S43 Retail Trade, Sales. s Rental of Convenience Goods, Her- chandise 6 Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond- Boundaries of Lot Where The Use is Located. A) Medium Traffic Generation (200-300 'trips/Day) A S44 Retail Trade, Sales, Rental Of Convenience Goods, Mer- chandise, 6 Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond- The Boundaries Of The toning District. High Volume Traffic Generation Amendments: (1) 1-5-87 RB ARC R1 R2 R3 R4 RS RP .13 LC1 NC2 C3 GC4 C5 01 El 11 13 13 AS ED P!Q (i) 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE EXISTING PERMITTED,USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) B - CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) RB AR Rj R2 R3 R4 R5 Re R1 LCi NC2 C3 GC4 EC4 Of E I 112 13 AS £D P ID S45 Retail Trade, Sales, 6 Rental Of Durable Goods, Merchandise s Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts•.Occur Beyond The Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Designed To Attract 6 Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premise Other Than Employees of the Principle Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Genera- tion (0-200 Trips/Day) C) All Operations Within A Fully Enclosed Building E No Storage Or Display of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S46 Retail Trade, Sales, b Rental Of Durable Goods, Merchandise 8 Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Lot With Medium Traffic Generation (ZOO-800 Trips/Day) No Storage Or Display Of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building. S47 Retail Trade, Sales, Rental of Durable Goods,Merchandise 6 Equipment Where No. Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries of The Zoning District. High Traffic Generation. Al i R1 RZ R3 R4 RS RP 13 LC1 NC? C3 GC4 C5 O1 EI I1 12 13 AS ED PID Amendments: (1) 1-5-87 (1) I I Pro gssed A.. PERMITTED USE TABLE Amendments: (1) 1-5-87 * = PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) 0 = CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE-8) RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI EI I1 I2 I3 AS ED PIDI PIDII S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable r&1d Convenience Goode, Merchandise & Equipment, including EAU Order Houses, Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed To Attract 6 Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principle Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Tripe/Day) C) All Operations Are -Conducted Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage S43 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental Of Durable And Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment, Including Hgal Order Houses, Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of Lot Where The Use Is Located. A) Medium Traffic Generation (200-,COQ Trips/ Day) S44 Retail Trade, Sales, Rental Of Durable And Convenience Goods, Merchandise, & Equipment, Including Ngjil Order Houses, Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Zoning District. A) High Volume Traffic Generation (More Than 800 Trips/Day) IRB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LCl NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OZ EI I1 I2 Z3 AS ED PIDI PIDII } - r:D i 14* 265 arrboro �• Jli=c•Mai••`..c.• February 22, 1989 Mr.John Link Orange County Manager PO Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Dear Mr. Link: At their February 21, 1989 meeting,the Carrboro Board of Aldermen reviewed the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. These ordinances were referred to the Town for comment under Section 2.6 of the Joint Planning Agreement. The Aldermen voted to refer to you and to the Board of Commissioners the enclosed staff and Carrboro Pruning Board comments on the proposed amendments. In addition to these comments,the Aldermen wished to stress the importance of the first of the Planning Board's comments on the Environmental Impact Ordinance. The Aldermen would like the question of the intended applicability of the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance answered definitively before the public hearing scheduled for February 27. If the intent is for the ordinance to be applicable within Carrboro's planning jurisdiction,including the Transition Area,there are several changes that must be made in the ordinance;if not the ordinance should clearly state that intent. Sincerely, Robert Morgan Town Manager Enclosures rwmlabw 266 C. ChangegAcItkeSonty Permitted Use Table to Permit Breeding Kennels and Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers Explanation of Proposed Changes: This amendment would allow breeding kennels and wildlife rehabilitation centers as permitted uses in all zoned areas of the County where boarding kennels are now permitted. This is in response to a request by the Animal Protection Society and also to remove existing inconsistencies between the County's Zoning Ordinance which does not permit breeding kennels,and the County's Animal Control Ordinance, which does issue breeding kennel permits. Town Comments: This proposed amendment seems appropriate and in keeping with the desire to preserve a rural environment in the Rural Buffer areas of the County. D. Changes to the Connty.Permitted Use Table Dealing with Retail Trade Categories • Explanation of Proposed Changes: The County seeks to combine two sections of its Permitted Use Table, dealing with retail trade, in order to reduce the number of pagesin the permitted use table. Right now there are two classes of retail trade establishments -- Retail Trade of Convenience Goods and Retail Trade of Durable Goods. All of the subcategories of convenience goods retail trade are permitted in the same districts as the same subcategories of durable goods retail trade, and the County sees this as needless duplication. The proposed amendment would combine retail trade of convenience and durable goods into one class instead of two. Town Comments: .The Town of Carrboro generally supports these ordinance amendments, unless the County originally intended that convenience goods and durable goods be classified separately for some reason that is not reported in the. County's staff report, and still holds that original intent. The original intent will not be satisfied by combining the two classes of:use. 3.. Proposed Change to the County Subdivision Ordinance • A. 'Dedication of Recreation Space and Payment in Lieu • • • • Explanation of Proposed Chan : The County proposea-to.make the dedication of recreation space,or payment-in-lieu thereof by new subdivisions a requirement everywhere in the County. It is not a requirement now. As proposed, the County would require that recreation space be dedicated where land that is called out on the County's Land. Use Plan as recreation or open space land is included in a development, and payment in lieu required where it is not. Town Comments: The Town.of Carrboro generally supports this ordinance amendment. • 4 • 6 267 ORANGE COUNTY 410 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 22, 1989 Action Agenda Item # ( -a. SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (SECTION rV-B-7-b RECREATION SITES) DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _X_!es No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Planning Director - Extension 346 • TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regulations which would extend dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions countywide. BACKGROUND: With the adoption of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan and its incorporation as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 5, 1988, amendments are necessary which provide consistency between the wording and intent of the N.C. General Statutes and the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The changes, if approved, would require the dedication of recreation sites or payments in lieu of dedication on a countywide basis as follows: 1. If a subdivision were presented to the County for approval, and it contained (within its boundaries) a recreation or open space area (or portion thereof) as designated in the Recreation Element or Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, the County would require the dedication of the area (or portion thereof) . The land so dedicated would serve the residents of the subdivision and the immediate neighborhood in which the subdivision was located. • 2. If a subdivision were presented for approval, and no portion of a designated recreation or open space area were located within the boundaries of the subdivision, a payment-in-lieu would be required. 1/4 The payments collected from subdivisions within the 268 immediate (service) area of a recreation area would be used to acquire additional land for that site. 410 Additional amendments are also proposed which also seek to insure consistency with the General Statutes. The proposed changes are as follows: 1. Provide a definition of "immediate neighborhood" to define a subdivision neighborhood in the context of the service area of a park site, thus establishing A connection between the concepts used in the enabling legislation and the Recreation Element. 2. Amend references to "acquisition and/or development" of recreation sites to "acquisition" , since the General Statutes permit payments-in-lieu to be used for this purpose only. A final amendment is to make the dedication/payment-in- lieu provisions applicable to All subdivisions. Minor subdivisions are currently excluded, provided the payments are made at the time a subdivision moves from a minor, to a major classification. The collection of payments "after-the-fact" is difficult to administer, and provisions for such payments should be applied equitably to all subdivisions. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed 411 amendments. 410 269 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 410 Draft: 11-17-88 (Proposed changes to the existing provisions are underlined. ) SECTION IV. REOUIRED MINIMUM DES/G! STANDARDS *IV-B-7-b. Recreation Sites *Amended 8-4-86 IV-B-7-b-1. Applicability Every person, firm or corporation who subdivides land for residential and/or non- residential purposes shall be required to dedicate a portion of such land for the purpose of public recreation/open space, including the preservation, of natural and, cultural resources, to serve the leisure needs of the residents of the subdivision and the residents of the Immediate neighborhood within which the subdivision is located. In all cases, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council shall review and make recommendations to the Planning Board and Board of 410 Commissioners on the provision or dedication of recreation/open space areas. (See Section II for definition of immediate neighborhoods. See also Appendix E for map showing location of neighborhoods. ) IV-B-7-b--2. Dimensional Requirements At least one thirty-fifth (1/35) of an acre shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit planned or provided for in the subdivision plan, except where land is located in the flood plain of a stream or river as indicated by the flood plain maps of the Federal Insurance Administration and/or is characterized by steep slopes (15% or greater) , then at least one twentieth (1/20) of an acre of such land shall be dedicated for each dwelling unit. If the application of the provisions of Article 5.1.1 (Required Minimum Recreation Space Ratio) and Article 6.12 (Land Use Intensity System) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance results in a greater amount of land, 411 then the difference between the application of the standards above and those of Article 5.1. 1 270 and Article 6.12 shall be established as private recreation for the use of the residents of the development. Amended The total land area dedicated as part of a 4-4-88 non-residential subdivision shall be determined by an analysis of the site, the use(s) to be located thereon and the designation of recreation and/or open space sites as shown on the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The site analysis shall be prepared by the applicant and shall identify in written and graphic form those areas characterized by steep slopes (15% or greater) , flood plains and wetlands, rock outcroppings, mature woodlands (trees of 18 inches or greater in diameter) , existing structures and cemeteries, and lakes, ponds, rivers and other water resources. A written and graphic description shall also be submitted by the applicant which identifies the proposed use of each lot in the subdivision, the approximate amount of building and parking coverage for each lot, and the approximate number of employees associated with each use. In no case, however, shall the total land area be less than that required by application of the provisions of Article 5.1.2 (Required Minimum Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio) and Article 6.12 (Land Use Intensity System) of the Orange' County Zoning Ordinance. IV-B-7-b-3. Site Suitability, • Land provided or dedicated for active recreational purposes shall be of a character, slope and location suitable for use as for play areas, tennis courts, multi-purpose courts, picnic areas, ball fields and other similar recreation uses. Active recreation areas shall be located on land that is relatively flat (0 to 7-1/2% slopes) , free of wetlands and/or flood plains, free of easements for public utility transmission lines, and is otherwise capable of accommodating active recreation uses. 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 271 life and wildlife cover, mature woodlands and 411 water resources. Amended In all cases, active and passive recreation 4-4-88 sites as well as open space areas designated on the adopted Comprehensive Plan shall be incorporated into the design of the subdivision. Criteria for evaluating the suitability of proposed recreation areas shall include but not be limited to the following: Amended (a) Location. Land dedicated for recreation 4-4-88 purposes shall be located so as to serve the needs of the residents of the subdivision and the residents of the immediate neighborhood within which the subdivision is located. Recreation areas shall be located so as to provide, insofar as possible, reasonable accessibility to all residents of the subdivision and residents living in the immediate neighborhood. Recreation areas shall be located where land more suited for recreational purposes due to shape, level slopes and/or dry soil conditions is present. 411 Where proposed park sites are shown on the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and a subdivision contains a portion of the park site, then the developer mgy be required to locate the recreation area in accordance with the park site as shown thereon. (b) Unity. Land dedicated for recreation purposes shall be a single parcel except where it is 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) Accessibility. Land dedicated for recreational purposes shall have at least fifty (50) feet of frontage on at least one (1) street within the subdivision. 411 Where a recreation area is not accessible due to lot arrangement, the Planning Board may recommend, and the Board of Commissioners may 4IM require, the dedication of connecting paths which link the recreation area with other streets within the subdivision (see figure below) . Connecting paths so required shall be in addition to the land required in Section IV-B-7-b-2 of this Ordinance. Connecting paths of up to fifty (50) feet in width may be required but in no case shall, the paths be less than thirty (30) feet in width. IV-B-7-b-4. Site Improvements Private recreation facilities, either required 411 or provided at the option of the applicant, shall meet the standards for site improvements contained herein. When choosing improvements for a recreational area, the anticipated characteristics and needs of the residents shall be considered in conjunction with the size of the development, any physical constraints posed by the site, and the availability of other improvements within the same general area as the subdivision. As, an example, the existence of a multi-purpose court in an adjacent, existing subdivision and the availability, of the facility for use by residents of the proposed subdivision may indicate to the applicant that another facility, such as a tennis court, would be more appropriate. Recreation facilities which are suitable for various age groups include, but are not limited to, those shown on the following pages. Trash receptacles shall be provided for all recreational areas regardless of the number and type of other improvements located thereon. 411 273 411 In addition to land provided or dedicated for active recreation purposes, sufficient area shall be provided to make available a minimum of five (5) off-street parking spaces for the first two (2) acres of each recreation site and one (1) space for each additional acre thereafter. . Where any of the following facilities are also provided, off-streets parking as required shall be provided in addition to the general standard above. Swimming pool One (1) space for each five (5) patrons Soccer and ball fields Eight (8) spaces per acre Tennis/handball courts Two (2) spaces 410 per court Picnic Shelter area One (1) space for each ten (10) patrons. Basketball courts Five 111 spaces per court Each off-street, parking space shall be a minimum of nine (9) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length. A minimum back-up aisle of twenty-four (24) feet in width shall be provided for access to and from each space. Bay parking is prohibited, and entrance to and exit from each parking area shall be by forward motion of the vehicle. One (1) of the parking spaces provided must be barrier-free and identified for use by individuals with physical disabilities. Handicapped spaces shall be at least twelve (12) feet •in width and shall be designed as follows: (a) So that handicapped individuals are not compelled to wheel or walk 410 behind parked cars; (b) So that handicapped individuals can get into and out of an automobile 410 onto a level surface, suitable for wheeling and walking; and (c) In conjunction with sidewalk cut- aways and/or ramps, not exceeding five percent (5%) slope. IV-B-7-b-5. Method of Provision or Dedication Land dedicated for public recreation area as required by this Ordinance shall be designated on both the preliminary and final plat(s) of the subdivision and must be dedicated to an appropriate unit of local government. Determination of the appropriate unit of local government shall be made by the Board of Commissioners, upon recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council and the Planning Board. Acceptance of the dedication • may be one in trust if deemed appropriate by the Board of Commissioners. Land provided for private recreation purposes must be conveyed to the trustees provided in an indenture establishing an association of homeowners. The recreation area must be 4IM conveyed to the trustees subject to covenants and easements to be approved by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners and which provide for the continued maintenance and control of the recreation area in a manner which assures its continuing use for its intended purpose. Where the recreation area is conveyed to a homeowners association, the subdivider shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions in accordance with the provisions of Section V of this ordinance. IV-B-7-b-6. Payments in Lieu of Dedication Any subdivider required to dedicate recreation area pursuant to this Ordinance may, with the Amended approval of the Board of Commissioners, make a • 4-4-88 payment in lieu of dedication or make A combination of land dedication and payment. • Before approving a payment in lieu of dedication, the Board of Commissioners shall find that no recreation and/or open space sites have been designated on the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the property in question. 275 A payment in lieu of dedication shall equal 411 the number of acres required to be dedicated multiplied by the fair market value of the land to be dedicated. Fair market value shall be determined by dividing the tax appraisal of the property at last re-evaluation by the current year assessment ratio. Upon approval by the Board of Commissioners, payment in lieu of dedication shall be made at the time of final subdivision plan approval or within one (1) year of approval of the preliminary subdivision plan, whichever occurs first. All monies received by Orange County pursuant to these requirements shall be used only for the acquisition of recreation, park and open space sites to serve the residents of the development and the residents of the immediate neighborhood within which the development is located. The Board of Commissioners shall also have the authority to sell land dedicated pursuant to these provisions with the proceeds of any such sale used solely for the acquisition of other recreation, park or open space sites within the immediate neighborhood within which the 411 development is located. (See Section II for definition of immediate neighborhoods. See also Appendix E fpx map showing location sit neighborhoods.) 410 276 410 SECTION II. DEFINITIONS *Amended FLAG LOT - An irregularly shaped lot where the • 7-5-88 buildable portion of the lot is connected to its street frontage by an arm of the lot (see Figures 1 to 4 on page 33c) . GROUP DEVELOPMENT - One or more principal structures built on a single lot, tract or parcel of land and designed for occupancy by more than one separate family, firm, business or other enterprise. IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD = A subdivision or area of the county which distinguishes j , other subdivisions or areas by virtue of its location within the service area of a park site or sites as shown on the adopted Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan or the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. The Recreation Element designates four 4.41 district park sites and six (6). ommunity park sites as shown on the map in Appendix E. The Joint Plannina Area Land Use Plan designates a comprehensive system of parks and open spaces designed to serve the residents of the more urbanized towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. *Amended *LEVEL OF SERVICE - Level of service as 2-1-88 described in the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual, • indicates how well traffic moves on a particular highway facility or through a specific intersection. There are six levels of servicing ranging from A through F. Level of service A indicates generally free movement. Level of service E represents maximum capacity of the facility. Level F indicates •congestion. Level of service C is considered the design level of service, representing a stable traffic flow and a relatively satisfactory travel speed. LOT - A piece, parcel or plat of land intended as a unit for the transfer of ownership or for development. 277 *Amended *LOT AREA - The total horizontal area within 110 10-3-88 the lot lines of a lot exclusive of street or highway right-of-way and easements of access. LOT, DOUBLE FRONTAGE-A continuous (through) lot which is accessible from both the streets upon which it fronts on opposite sides. *Amended *LOT, OF RECORD - A lot created by deed or 10-4-82 plat prior to the existence of the Subdivision Regulations. The area and dimensions of the lot shall meet any regulations in effect at the time the lot was recorded. The lot of record dates are as follows: Chapel Hill Township 12-4-67 Eno Township 3-2-70 Hillsborough, Bingham, Cheeks, Cedar Grove and Little River Townships 3-13-78 *Amended *MAJOR INTERSECTION - Any intersection where 2-1-88 traffic generated by a subdivision proposal will have significant impact on the operation of the intersection. 411 411 _� 1 k I / t yr i• •w.. • •�� q,__...,:.... ! . '•�J .� irk .,w •!�.. • , • ice* pm Qr-. ..' I , , if likcsrig • . . ' ` •V ,•. .4 '' , t ..,,'41.., • PA , it�.. r 27$ 0.r.-C-14-;-: i-.. it. ink,,,oger - ...9 , , ft „. RI! , - 0. a . ... ,, ., , _ . - ,..., ., w .... ,,, 7, .....\„,... . 4 • ii.„, ! •`,4• 14 YV �4' V' • i f// 1Yi"I iM I .17 i.�,► qi 40 41.... ,,,,,, . ,r .../.. , , „, A,,,,,4$W... Z 1111111 ,.. • iiika. .4-0 - NViiiipjlif, ilfri , . 1 :f-. " :: n E p it, Ir' _ " APPENDIX E• dlegr,..i le ,;,--- " • .' "" ` c._ u,. RECREATION SERVICE AREA "' .;r. Ly i .4 - �.._" BOUNDARIES �` 1111 • ��M.�Is •^mow - , •„e1.1„.:; ":,-,,70-%,...",t47p'....:-,,.."5..,A--,,, ,.r.ei'-'71, -1,-41:6',-,s..:1" `'. 0 • , ,:„.0 .iOv 9b � "• ' �`y e•.idy.ak �v"a7-' 7Sr�'- r " '� " � 6 am F, ^ • , . x — 4.• e,.t� s• `"s .mowx,,. „LL ,.4Fti . g t" , a 1. a fi t::-.z`' � y ?,'.» : : i'3• -pe . NK• RE©• , - , j s IC.rkA, .a L kY•: 8 4.cs c..•-. '.� k u ...„,....„-• r� teFt uu 1.; • �. " ,s . �sr s . 'd .�,.f x'-�` d' <•N '...1.,,-, c ^ ..: i . y � •d c `..,-. ," rte^-••w• a., aY-aw..... •; •b:�z ,?'77* e . m. ' � � fit a,"k'�'4b+.Y�.h " !' .�..�•. ;,.,k{�.r.� "SY q r i '' ''''''...9,'''W <.+ab'•ta•Y9`•,ny�R f" ^`,'.t` ^. 'y i•`g»�, 1 "".„,,,7 ur t••y'1",W'/1'''as.4.. 7,.(t• t L.:1,174.),'"-7z#., /1 • Legend: I • .4' "-: e Community Park " ,,,,Y .. 1 • j a District Park " . ' II " mil /1C 0 If x T 11:)11 Community Park Service / . Area Boundary District Park Service Area Boundary ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT , . h ' !i • I, , t RECREATION DEDICATION / PAYMENT-IN-LIEU REPORT DATE: 19 JAN 1989 PAGE: J!, j-°St18DIVISION.NAME '--- ---BEVEL:OPER_NAM£ PrAP-REFERENCE—UUR ACRE OE—ACC.—UATE—DEED.REF:--REC ATE—ii Y;rAMT' Yi'V;'DATE7RECPT + ` "AL:BERT•-R AV •--• _ - :i_' ;I ' .� ai .j 'I,.t. _�i•:,i:!ra.:..l '': .. 'iij � z E EJ'£STATE—' AIJDERT—REA VES-E3T'ATE-7�- + . 59:�0��778H�i7A7 's • BEECH BLUFF I I HAVES FORREST 7. 15..3,4 - - i• � �••' ' ..---...- - - 87_ 12959' v • 9 932.CO.00.3127_ i BL ACKWOOD FOREST DURA-HILL INVESTMENT 7: 14:.5 :I ,.. ,..,;.`, ::!.t• I i ; X7 "7` 7T-, ST2413• 826,0'? 0 :': .• tir, a 1471+}?. `�`•: -CAROLINA=FOREST=06'-PHASE'=DR-EDWARD'F7iSCARECLTITB: @. i :!: r I!.!,It CI ti ! J u DAL-RAE FOREST DALTON RILEY 6. 1,2..21 ' ;i•i JAiiD ,143.a0'!il�S/8Q 114749 I +° FO WRICHT t;r'•: ,..> 10 t �� }:, r;;fir x _ 17 EDWARD WRIGHT WR IflH7 ?.2.:20A �C• iw:: :.r•-, 1, t t!t• ' ,f (:..A. ,r i, i+ 106 :1 d96'� -Et'M'flROVE""''"'"�RARTFORIf C ONBTRUt.'TIDT10-7 rtr.:!t`. :i; ;•r,.,{: �a! `i!!' _'fi;: yi:l']„'::;f ' .•i!t '-r::t1:i:''•�.:= ::: •' s: j.: FOX MEADOW IV-8 K M CROUP 7.23E. .6 5.03 S/2/@B 727/441 . ,. 5_{/_31 Tt._8 8 HOMESTEAD HILLS PHASE 2 i RY 8 UCi 726/8 -:`�,"'..I•T'#!b,�9 1•j;I.'..r:'.1tf':—�1'1,'i,'�yj�u'.•'o;.1:,4 L•„gr..:t_S109..27$ ` 20 = JACK 7ACKTEB _ i@':.-'p'.'it'.f>.tc.F:• ' LAKE WOODS 04 NICHOLSON PROPERTIES 7. 116H. 3C 0. 16 4/19!88 713/13 3/28!88 E 41 jg� i, LOTS i8&1SA, PH2 LAKE WOO JOt1N COFFEV q t r `, : , !• 'f' �'+ _ .i f�' rr' '� •'�)I r�r� '' ', .'I,�F?At0 ii;9/lt'i187 .•1033 F. tvtiT,ro4A A- r-vs L-Dt's-2-and--'DR--B2tt-COLEMAN-"T-1T8-1SF► t' i ':ljF 1'•' •` ':i''0; t' r "�660'I�" ?Q s MEL-OAKS PHASE-IV - - CALVIN A AELLOTT 7- 117.'.30H (:5 !'' ! ` I + ;i• MOUNTAIN-PHASE L_44;Oo 1210 @%86 4912 t PINEY M HASE I MARK O'NEAL� :;.' :' • < ^ :i;:i•,}---,-,r- i;„• T :j• ,; '"'' t, i G ., . . �i '2.'3'•'1'!16/68: ` { 'a^.';. .��:.' ;! •=It1 ;I:I'•`••'!a'.':,� f•(.,�(�ti�; b;4i.e „�{,,, r`y.•-ri<G- '�'''t•. ' + 1r• '". `p ('E,Y={•.-,?,'.a .r- !�.. -:: ' ..i:''r!1 ;�• it. .�.a 'S�`'!`ri Lt ,?;• •.P- I ,. �•'--titJRl CVIEG ORREST-T-REA"Cii"�`_7"i IT-'Zi 3 r...l.. :;•,,`.'j t' �.'t ;•� ;f=,. t:I' '+ri.'.i”.,t�.: 1 i. ' B? " .7157?3'47-; 7.271` t•tt SYCAMORE HILL LISA PAKENHAM' i i i 1=�1`i� I: 6.3:.B ' ! ;6 b 'fA54.00 f+1+23/ 7: ,;15640 I f TED PARRISH - TED PARRI$H r;. 'r- i 0,:34.3/2lB8', ;; „• i 'q• i;'. 't;,.'h (-`;I';�ll iLK..:,a j: {:;5 r• '. r:;; s HOMAS-JEFFERSON`— EZ'OOC t. v r.'> . ;.:..'t' .;: ••i.. i i .r• -(r. j{.-7i". ,t, a GDil79 ,--0' � •` ."i251115�V:'t�'� +! !��, ir�:�s•�'i. `,',}1'};' 1 tf' rsi�t3",:�a s T140MASINA HILL THOMASINA JOHNSON . :7. IS.. 1D OC 9l1 _�......_. _ _......__ _..�_ _ 1 .�'1., •' •'' 't' TURTLEDOVE �, - SECURITIES :,- ;.r , 89-00• b/88 20862 _ TU SOUTHERN SE S '7. 115. 11E-. ..I r;'787 7 1 T i- �t:1; 'r ;0:.25 5/21$8;" '•t, /2 3 i' .^t 3/27%BQ T 5 , !' .y,ir}i;, .{;1h, �, !.,,'' •' ' lyr: :j',y� i —WQ j ,7.: :a:• r:,>,;'J•: �i!';e:" ,'I i „ i•!7. ;•f'�p t �`,•,.•tfu�-t, i_, ;';.T'.ij"E7 i� 1 OCBROOKE PRO r ZT/ 2 I,,4,l�t �,: I,; =•f a,��., - 472979@ i !!�''�.", It. __,�..___...._.�_ _ .,. �: .: ., '• • :� � .;•,�.I'? ' .I it t''1 " �' , to t'.•�� :.t• ,', "ai -,� ",i!�':!'::jjt:!!i �{{',•.'- �� ,?" •"�Q i''i --- ----- a-: !• .y:.1�1'I: ! :T ']tt''- ;(j�11�;1`!tr' i, h''jr Ey ORANGE (fOlJst`1TY kANNING•DEf iFTt+f `N i ' '' ;r:.•i ' - ' RECREATION, D DICIaM')'PAYfM£NV-IWLIEU'REPORT REC AT I't .,:, PAGE: 2 - Jar r N' !•I 1' DATE: 19 JAN 1489 ;�;! i ;.:•'`' : DSVELOPER1 Q 'DAT"UNIi'`I;•P`,AY`AMT,-'Py.A. 7T kr +"3J4�REA6E '1M1E --'-tIAP:REF6RENCEt -AT SUBDIVISI ON. VAf F^ t`:7• 1• j.:. fy f ri• • :i• .. - _ _ ,_ _,.r ,4.•;a� r;r.3 -".t•r�--•-'f•CT^ i'^'9 / PAYHEN TS TO DATv't TOTAL DEDICATIONS s -..._ .......... ...__.�.'i -,•_ �' 1ti —_ �tEPiO �>�1tF:d#M�Ut�1i: AG <`-" + I: �-:f•[ t:; �::•. �, 04 Y.+,6.�. — i :•..i i ,� ,I.i,J,-,�yY � i'_.. �fT,'r:R n 17 t— LITTLE RIVER - .-: ;v -- - ) -. } a. !' �: 0.;QQ.,` ly 1: l:• a . ``tt,L..r! 1,:',. :�: yy' _ ; :i{ :• _• t ) f?' ill f' :T•i !i ' ,t CEDAR GROVE =i;� •;)-�. _ �•<"• } . f 't{•�•- �,' , -'--CHEEKS_'._ . . i`. ..•.{• r `���� : . . '. :::: '`� �k:- �; .�•_' .I+ i ' r= d ,�•'�: •��:. is '- U t y HILLSBOROUGH 'Q' .u. ,_ :� .: -, !,-,'- ,_rGai:.'- - •t•:T_�, _�j • - •Q. - ... .. °!:t,. .t'.,• :I.• 1. 5.�, '�'.. ENO 't:7<•t,.:, i• ; I !- :,5, :r. !, BINOHAM GHAPEL HILL :'` f3:94 xi, ?'.! :j' r—• ' r x --r•.: ;r' MM, 6LL.,t ...-.. •_---„ !"'"3.` .. '1• :i: ':�'fi; .,1'.':fit �~-�•-'-+t.I 4- ';�. :!:iri. .h) t I i. "1�II 1� .#r.:. '7t.:.,.�t�3! .t ... X7...51 _ ':•:�- 1t::.� ,cY;,r.:. =.,t:•' - _ f� i� ..�: r .6 ALL TOWNSHIPS ;,fir:; }:d'�' e: � �:•- .'•1`a•, �' ::�f:(, •,. 't. _ :!. :_(„�:,i.•.a•. ,`�� .a y�::�•:'�:'i .� r, -1•.� �t (y�_.',.ti' iilT� C? ; �'1., ,`t11' 1”S"ri_ t. "kr...a t•• Ft ` `r.ar= jil •.�° ,.,�+ �'',. !� �L+:'(•:i ),''s `` `1'a. ,t( ` 1. � ttif4'T.I'!�! t :F' ,:!'r`•.:.•{�� is - <'_.'-'�r _ '.r �''�<�•c..='t` 3.S:{�:.:r`<�t:�:(:�' +t•k�1:->{ �,f: .F:t:�.��.{.a�• - �C;f.l'•, � �:.,,�<'t',fa=?i-,;:{.1: {P:• �.!�+'.'.ffI .. -:5-�- :•�'l,ri(:.�,�.' '! 1, - "°.�q*„u+�•r�•c'r�..csF•�+rr ,-1?'[•• :j ,i:r.(:`�' t�'Y�• :{.t{1,•• aT..:�I :1'i'::'i •iI .'1..s, l - t,•Y:::.;>.4?,:r•: ,-� e::•r t .!i• .Tr�r- q� ,i... ',.Lle- -.JS i• I :} ..�j''j; .1 i� •r' '4t'1!.: ,E,••! 1.7'1 ' •'I'.: ', •'`��j) ' �' -tV"'t n'r 1 _('•�a, }f'� ) �?•.t:f;;,l'' :j•.y'„ ai l: - '1`g �k}, t','.:.- :I'i. u`?a�. �, '.d'> P;, 'i .{:'." 4,i•.?. ',, i _ ;;i.:'t '-f116F di�>T:�',t �I' ..•C- C' '4'„4 � :r•' 10 4!. y. r• 't• .r r.•:�: a. - :'r°, t�..'•+-:•wa,• t�y4•>?�1�L ��•'+i '�_�`• ��''�. `�I- 1 '•��.���•.1�t t :..ti�5 ..�1. . -;�.'_ "1:..':.tf�.r'��^.�_, -r•=iT_ .�fi-• :r; : f- �...�r I:r,t:,,,) :t ,I, :. ;;•"c• _,; a' 4, :I is= •r 11: _ i;: 1^It.... t -- -- -r ', t.Ga:•' t,, k-.ji ..{' I[!.,-. �`,t(: !, , 1'y �. .. y f It. ,'. t'y:t - _ Soi-.?r�r.•4 --�., t'• .p, , "�-.•,Ir.i :I, ((1;�'f.'�� itl,l ' 'f.ii,, t+