Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-16-1989 - - ORANGE COMITY OLD BOARD OF AGENDA REVIEW _ HUMAN SE EQUALIZATION CHAPEL KILL' AN F BOARD�NEi,=, �►T• EXT. , 41 REGULAR NESTING T19$9 TUESDAY , NAY 16 , 1 :30 P.M. OFFICE OLD POST CHAPEL HILL, NC W AV NOAGE ' TAW COIF d Agenda B. the Prints 1 . Matters on appreciate you signs time so that(We would You are not Dyers \ .\ 2. Matters not on the Printed Age \ , _ pClBLICG$ edges ------ ers pledge! of Commissioners omm i sss i on The Bo The Board its respect . Orange County a reset] themselves in a r f to conduct the . Board and w the fell both with member e should any public charge. time this s P me• to observe leave the person to cont individual regains perSonal conr i:ndivid,,ial Chair © he restored, th®twine c©mmita t time that a g such e is obserVed. charge ONS - rte,c�w,�w■_�yJ jam,IO'NH plt _-,--- AT w STi/�'^- - • T1 Al's • L „ P. ITENS R DECISION--CONEY AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate 1 1 . Budget Ordinance .Amendment #9 2. Bid Award--Packer Unit and Chassi 3 . Authorizing Submission of the Tit Application 4 . • Authorizing Submission of Applica Home Services 5, Rencher Street CDBG ReviewFinancial R®cord/ 6 . CDBG Environmental Rencher Street Project 7 . Tax Refunds Request G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--RErGULAR AGENDA 1 . Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. LOP Amendment . Errol 2eNvdey S b. LOP Amendment 2 . policy Consideration--Subdivisio 3 . Subdivision Regulations Sites 4 . Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Kennels b.:. Solid Waste Collection Site c. Mobile Home Parks d. Retail Trade 5 . Richard Andrews--Rezoning 6 . Orange Regional Landfill Tipping 7 . Imp1®mentation of Session: 8 . Adopt ion of Budget 9 . Proposed Carrboro Land Use Ordii H. APPOIENTS I . ADJOURNMENT (*) Indicates items that need immediate a ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. C. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 16, 1989 SUBJECT: MINUTES DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER-_ 732-8181 Hillsborough Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted, for consideration: March 29, 1989 - Joint Meeting with Chatham County March 30, 1989 - Joint Meeting with Carrboro and Chapel Hill April 3, 1989 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes,arheentered governing Board has the legal duty to approve into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. II _ 2 released from their fund balance. The unappropriated fund balance for this district was $11,221 on June 30, 1989. These funds will be used for part-time paid fire duty. These persons are available for fire calls during the day when many volunteers are at work. A letter of request from Mr. Edward Johnson, President of the Orange Grove Fire Department, is attached. RECOMMENDATION: (1) Approve an expenditure of $27,070 from the General Fund Contingency account for the purpose of monitoring the Eno River capacity use. (2) Approve amendments to the 1988-89 Budget Ordinance by the proposed amendments. (3) Approve motion to adopt the Lake Orange Capital Project Ordinance. asmonappegampotammi..........--.................--_ 1 . 1 :-- — ,,•• ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda - Item ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: • SUBJECT: Older Americans Month Proclamation DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _ _ No Aging ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Proclamation TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181. 1 Chapel Rill - 968-4501 Mebane Durham - 227-2031 - 68S-7331 PURPOSE: To join'Federal and State governments in designating the month of May as a time to honor our older citizens for their contribution to society. \ . . . . • For a number of years; the Orange County Commissioners have BACKGROUND: issued an Older Americans Month Proclamation. . . . :: • RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve Resolution and authorize Chair to sign. -' • 2 • PROCLAMATIO N WHEREAS, According to the latest population figures, there are over 10,000 persons over 60 years of age in Orange County; and, WHEREAS, Orange County is proud of the older adults who live here and Wishes to show appreciation for what they have given and for what they have contributed to their County, State and Nation; and, WHEREAS, Because of them, the rest of the citizens enjoy the fruits of their visions and their labors, and their example is an inspiration to continue to make Orange County a good place in which to live; and, WHEREAS, orange County wishes to set aside a special month for recognition of the older segment of its citizenry; and, NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, join the Governor of North Carolina and the President of the United States in PROCLAIMING May, 1989 OLDER AMERICANS MONTH AND, further, do encourage all citizens to join us in honoring our older Americans. Moses Carey, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners • ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 • MOSES CAREY..TR. STEPHEN H.HALKIOTIS JOHN HARTWELL SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL DON MUMS • PROCLAMATION • OLDER AMERICANS MONTH WHEREAS, According to the latest population figures, there • are over 10,000 persons over 60 years of age in Orange County; and, WHEREAS, Orange County is proud of the older adults who live here and wishes to show appreciation for what they • have given and for what they have contributed to their County, State and Nation; and, WHEREAS, Because of them, the rest of the citizens enjoy the fruits of their visions and their labors, and their example is an inspiration to continue to make Orange county a good place in which 'to live; and, • • WHEREAS, Orange County wishes:to set aside a Special month for recb4hitiork,pf-the older segment of its citizenry, and, . . . NOW, THEREFORE, Wei,- the..0i.ange County:Boardof Commissioners, join be -qoverncor:Pt:North Carolina and the Preegent,PX:the.VPited States in Pr00141Ming May, 1904.0-.OWE* AMERICAN; *Montt and; • FURTHER, do encourage allbitizene-td join us in honoring • • our older Americans. Moses Carey, Jr. , CIF!. Board of CommissioAV • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.____ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16, 1989 SUBJECT: User Fee Study DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: USER FEE STUDY (Under Separate Cover) Kenneth T. Chavious TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough -- 732-8181 968-4501 Chapel Hill Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive information from id M . Griffith and Associates regarding the County User Fe BACKGROUND: In December,d Associates to perform Griffith G an The fee areas covered by the study included Environmental Health, Emergency Services, Recreation and Parks, Land Records and planning. The consultants will report on their findings Recommendations recommendations in the fee areas studied. a for implementing any changes in current fees will be submitted with the Manager's Recommended Budget. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Receive as information. I i II 4 LAKE ORANGE CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE Be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following capital project ordinance is hereby adopted: Section 1. The project authorized is improvements at Lake Orange. The project will be financed by an appropriations from the General Fund, County Capital Reserve Fund, Senate Bill 2 Funds and funds received from orange/ Sewer and the Town of Hillsborough. Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the project within the budget contained herein. Section 3. The following revenue is anticipated to complete the project: Lake Orange Capital Fund $ 55,000 Transfer from General Fund $ 82,070 Section 4. The following amounts are appropriated for the project: Professional Services $ 10,000 Improvements 1 30,000 Fencing 27.070 Eno Monitoring $ $2,070 Section 5. This ordinance supersedes all previous Lake Orange capital project ordinances. Section 6. This ordinance shall be in effect from the date of adoption until June 30, 1994. Adopted this 16 day of May, 1989. 5 April 24, 1989 John Link County Manager P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Mr. Link, The Eno Volunteer Fire Department currently has $13,897 in fund balance. We wish to use this fund balance to help purchase a new fire truck. The new fire truck will be bought in June of 1989. The cost of the truck will be $127,000. The remainder of the cost of this truck will come from current reserves of the Eno Volunteer Fire Department and from a bank loan. We formally request that the County commissioners approve the expenditure of $13,800 in fund balance for the purchase of a new fire truck. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, tee► , Fred F. Crabtree N/6 • JP') AIR 01885 .709 Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company ROUTE 3. BOX B 1 6 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Mr. John Link, County Manager March 28, 1989 Court House Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Link, • I am writing to request, as I mentioned when we chatted at the airport information session last week, a release of a portion of the Fund Balance that has accumutaled for Orange Grove. As I understand it, these funds may only be used for fire protection in Orange Grove Fire District. Many rural volunteer fire companies, ours included, experience a manpower shortage during the day because so many volunteers work outside the community- In response, we started to experiment last July with hiring trained firemen for part-time duty during the normal working hours. In our financial request to the County last year we requested $3200 for a trial run. When we finalized our budget internally in June we made a transfer of funds from one line item to another to bring this up to $5000. Our trial run was so successful during the summer and fall of 1987 that the Board of Directors decided to make the position full time. We put out a call for applications and selected a highly qualified person who began full-time work in the middle of January. We now project that we will, be unable to finance his salary from our 1988-89 budget without a suppliment. Below are expenses to date and projections through 6/30/29: Wages • Social Security Unemployment Tax 1st Quarter $ 1488 $ 0 $ 50 2nd Quarter 2202 165 101 3rd Quarter 3566 265 lee 4th Quarter 3500 263 150 TOTALS $10756 $693 $451 Grand Total $11900 Amount Budgeted $ 5000 Balance Needed $ 6900 The Board of Directors has asked me to request that Orange County release to us $6900 from our Fund Balance to cover this shortfall . When we submit our 1929-90 budget we will, request an increase in out -Fire tax from 4 to 5 cents to cover this expense in the future. The community response to this new program has been quite positive so far. Our response time for daytime fires has • • improved, the equipment is now kept in better shape and morale is high. We would not be at all surprised to see other Companies in the County follow our lead. incere;y, ete/. 47 weeleeleer Edward 8.//6ohnson, President y 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No F--1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16, 1989 SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #9 DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Finance (1) Proposed Budget Ordinance TELEPHONE Hillsborough ER - 732-8181 Amendment (2) Lake Orange Capital Project Chapel Hill 968-4501 Ordinance Mebane 227-2031 (3) Letters of Request Durham 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve proposed budget ordinance amendments. BACKGROUND: GENERAL FUND (1)The Orange County Department of Social Services has received additional funding from the State and from private donors. The programs that will be affected include AFDC($156,343) , Title XIX Transportation ($2,839) , DayCare ($121,416) and General Assistance - Donations ($3,000) . (2)On April 18, 1989, the Board of Commissioners approved an appropriation from General Fund Contingency to be used for construction and equipment for monitoring the Eno River capacity use. These funds will be transferred to the Lake Orange Capital Project Fund. ENO FIRE DISTRICT FUND The Eno Fire District has requested that $13,800 be released from their fund balance. The unappropriated fund balance for this district was $13,897 on June 30, 1989. The monies will be used to aid them in the purchase of a new fire truck for their district. A letter of request from Mr. Fred F. Crabtree, Head Trustee, Board of Directors, is attached. ORANGE GROVE FIRE DISTRICT FUND The Orange Grove Fire District has requested that $6,900 be 3 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1988-89 BUDGET AMENDMENTS The 1988-89 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND Source: Intergovernmental $4,860,448 $283,598 $ 5,144,046 Appropriation: Human Services 8,001,771 283,598 8,285,369 To budget for additional Social Services State and donation revenue. GENERAL FUND Source: Miscellaneous $ 76,483 $ 27,070 $ 52,413 Appropriation: Transfers to Other Funds 1,650,975 27,070 1,678,045 To transfer funds from the General Fund Contingency to the Lake Orange Capital Project, ENO FIRE DISTRICT FUND Source: Appropriated Fund Balance $ 0 $ 13,800 $ 13,800 Appropriation: Remittance to Eno Fire District 97,675 13,800 111,475 To appropriate unappropriated Fund Balance in the Eno Fire District Fund. ORANGE GROVE FIRE DISTRICT FUND source: Appropriated Fund Balance $ 0 $ 6,900 $ 6,900 Appropriation: Remittance to Orange Grove Fire District 53,000 6,900 59,900 To appropriate unappropriated Fund Balance in the Orange Grove Fire District Fund. BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: Al 1 ACTION WTI COUP ITEM NO. '- DECOMMISSIONERS gO ON END A ITEM %TIIP9/79 ACTION I% D X"' MAY M�,ET ******* ***�:*****YES NO AND CRASSIS *********** *�*�*** PACKER UNIT******RVYCES ** ***�****B*p►R ********ES BO:SUBJECT: B*�* W*A*R*U**********CNTRA'6 SE********* S *** AND ******* INFORMATION CONTACT' P**** *98 ***** PURCYSAS*NG ****** INFO **** UGB 72"'81 DEPARTMENT:*********** 732"93 OR ***** NEIZT{S) : pBONE NUMBERS: S L�BOROUGR 9i ATT ACB EL BILL 9 67" CSAP E 227..21 BID TABULATION Dpfl **8$ *************************** ******************* id for one 36 yard Font Loading Sanit awarding a b were To consider 89 budget bade PURPOSE: Truck. the 1988 Sanitation Truck• nation in Loading of the bid is to the appropriation yard Front Lion Puteuant t m three vendors. A tabula BACKGROUND• sola.cited from le bid that Were received responsible The apps the lowest res ►885.04. not meets attached' submitted coot o£ did UPS�"SOUTB, INC. a delivered EQUIPMENT CO 5P yards of capacit. LO tions SIMPS only speci£ica red by a it provided Chassis to LOD Al law biicat on because red. speci£ of 36 yards was epeci£. lmum he Packer Unit and Ch min t ATIO�t: Award the bid 5106, 885.00 RECOMMENDATION: ECOMME� SOUTR for a sum o£ (/! j c.1 0 2 \ \ 4.• 24 st._ 4: c..,s.7 C 7..35 :.0..i C 3. 1.. \ •-• h IIIII •Vi 111Mi b 1. \ .. tr. k v as - 06 At, - X11 •' w 8 c" 4.. t ° I ; G w 1., \ e- A \ 1 t a \ \ . - `4 1 n A 0 H r. . 1 \ co oo to o o d :r- d 0"4 Ct t 2 a l '^ O .3 °• 1 \ 1 l I I Eli 1 1 i I ins mile 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rl_ COY CMMO COMPIXOSIONE112 gotten Agoras it Ma- - MIS; e Saikam May 1, 1989 g _ TI Authorizing Sub ission of the Title III-8 $D Application INEPAIFISEIlf{ �� i� �s Nib arfacismsr UP a Aging ' noromionam Ct3 TAGTo Pasawore eAt 280 3EPHAE M - Nazlsbarough 720-111111 961,-4501 chapel Hail Olableas 227-0031 Surber - ems-7331 ptgp©sEs To consider authorizing the submission of Title III-8 operations) Older Americans Act (social services/senior center pe'r' the application to the Triangle J Council of Government 1heQ County Manager, effective July 1, 1989 through for federal/state funds in the amount of # 110,489. County matching funds would not increase over previous years. OPCMON010182 This is .8 yearl y continuation application covering the fallowing services which are a part of the ppar t�went on Aging+s current budget: Transportations Senior Operations and Case Management This applications will also include a small amount of special emphasis funds for respite care (Title l l i-D - $ 1, 145) and legal assi5tar*I-r (Title III-B -- t 2, 187) required by the revised Older Airpericam Act. The Dept. an Aging would continue to emphasis ACCESS SERVICES in order to facilitate service delivery by a multitude of n+weunity organizations. Respite care manpower and Legal assistance would be subcontracted to other agencies. These DOA services were ranked as high priority according to COB and local needs assessments. NECIIMIENMATIOii'81 a Authorize submission of State Title III-B & D Older Americans Act Application. ii OMMOOME COUNTY Mae CC CONMOMOSONENB Action nos Falal.1-1' garage awaffse man assroact Ma61ais Roams Nay 1, 1989 if* Authorizing Submission of Application for State Irvihome Services SEPROMISOffirs Aging FOLIC OCIONIOSI Was las X ATIEVIOSSIDif s ISSINISMIF aterracra Jerry Passe/Bore tELEPINSINE OADOIEVI- MMIlabaraugh 731e-4ied Chapati Mdll 96110,114 Iftbsne ser-41561 9.0ham - 6407331 PUNPOOEs To consider authorizing submission of an application for state funds available from the Triangle 3 Council of Governments, effective July 1, 1909 through June 30, 1990. Funds allocated to Orange County are State Title III-D Supplewental for Frail (Home Repairs) - $2,307 and SSDS Respite Care - $3,464. OPOKOMOURIMa This long term care funds are targeted for the frail or fragile elderly to remain in their homes and to avoid institutionalization. Both County Directors an Aging and Socal Services have conferred an the use of these limited funds. The Aging Director would coordinate the application process and if approved, administer the grants. The service requests would be coordinated through the Inter-departmental Care Management Team of Aging and Social Services. The Respite Cave Manpower would be subcontracted to Home Health Agency or an other appropriate agency provider. NECONNENNATIONOM, Authorise submission of State Title 111-D Supplemental for Frail. •,ra 1 • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16, 1989 SUBJECT: RENCHER STREET CDBG FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x ATTACHMENT(S) : Status Update INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Pikes TELEPHONE NUMBER-- 732-8181 - 732-81 Hillsborough Chapel Hill - 01 968_ 5 81 Mebane Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To advise the Board of Commissioners of the status of the Rancher Street CDBG Program. BACKGROUND: One of the requirements of the County's plan for CDBG Program Administration for the Rancher Street Project is the provision of quarterly status updates on f expenditures and accomplishments to the Board obis County Commissioners. In order to comply requirement, the Housing and Community Development Department will submit these updates to the Board at the end of each quarter until the project is II completed. This is the second update which covers the second quarter which ended March 31 , 1989. II RECOMMENDATION(S) : Receive as information. II A mom 2 RENCHER STREET CDBG FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE: EXPENDITURES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS • PROJECT AREA: Rencher Street Area. REPORTING PERIOD: Second Quarter ending March 31 , 1989 REPORTING DATE : May 16, 1989 ACTIVITY: BUDGET: EXPENDITURES: Acquisition $ 3, 000 -0- Street Improvements 99,925 -0- Sewer Improvements 249,441 -0- Water Improvements 64,718 -0- Clearance 1 , 700 -0- Housing Rehabilitation 185, 128 -0- Administration 81 , 388 $ 8,201 TOTALS $685, 300 $ 8,201 ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 1 . Hired a Community Development Coordinator to assist in implementation of project activities. 2. Completed the Fair Housing plan. 3. Completed the Environmental Review Record. 4. Held a successful 1989 Community Development Day Celebration in the project area - March 29, 1989 . 5. Held quarterly Project Area Committee meeting with neighborhood residents - March 13, 1989 . • i ALS:4-C ..1 r ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL Agency respono'ble for Proiect :fiTwint '3'11..117W Clearing House No. Date C.ornnleted: Count of Oran.e IP . 11 * - • e 4 3 89 Contact Person: Address Phone Tara L. Pikes P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborou.h, N.C. 27278 919 732-818 - . •ropect *escnption Briefly Describe Project: The Rencher Street CDBG Project is a Community Revitalization effort designed to address the housing needs of this area. Activities proposed include: 1. Rehabilitation of 23 housing units and clearance of one (1) • dilapidated structure; 2. Installation of 2,000 linear feet of 6" water lines with 17 connections; .. 3. Installation of 3,000 linear feet of 8" sewer lines with 20 connections; and 4. Construction of 1,350 linear feet of street paving. CDBG No. 88-C-7730 Enviromental Impact Status Project Activities CDBG Funds Other Funds Exempt CAT.Excluded E.A. 1. $ $ 2. Acquisition . I 3,000 0 0 3.. Street Improvements 99/925 CI 0 0 4. seyer Tmproyemanto 91L680 R.I.onn 0 0 0 1 & Water Improvements . 64.718 C3 0 M 6. Clearance ... 1/700 . 0 0 7. Rehabilitation 185,128 . 0 M 0 3. Administration 81,388 0 119 0 9. • 0 0 0 W. 0 0 0 .... - C 0 EIS R- IIT, -d Arf:014.941■. ol , • • ID Original Sigriature of Chief Elected ' ik . 0 Revision Dated 1 0 Amendment Dated • Chair 0 Prior Clearing Review Title Has Taken Place County of Orange. . - . • . :. . : : . - . . • • • k Agency and Address 18 1 ' I. Statutory Checklist Checklist of Applicable Statutes and Regulations Rencher Street Improve'dents C,- 1. Project Narne and Identification No. 1 2. Attach project map. . 3. Are all activities of this project exempt from NEPA procedures? 0 Yes a;No (If yes,this Statutory Checklist need not be filled out.) 4. Are activities of this project categorically excluded from NEPA procedures? 0 Yes cs No (If yes,this Statutory Checklist and all required actions must be completed.) - - - Area of Statutory—Regulatory diOV Compliance e tif :047# f Iii--Ai, Neste Oszeurrance Decumentadon Impact Cotegories Project. has no significant Historic Properties effect on historic proper- ties (See Appendix./) Floodplain Management X • Wetlands Protection X Noise X Air Quality No significant iapact on existing air quality - X -Qonditions (See s-1) Manmade Hazards • Then:led/Explosive Hazards x Airport Clear Zones X Water Quality Sewerlines require permits from Division of Environmental Mgt. Navigable Waters X pursuant to GS143- 35.1 (d) ,'See A-1) • Aquifers Solid Waste Lead based paint removal caution; solid waste disposal (See A-1) Coastal Areas • Coastal one Management Coastal • Barrier Resources • Endangered Species No record of endangered plant and animal species. X (See A-1) *Attach evidence that required actions have been taken. -'19 Data Sources and Documenatation Environmental Review Coordinator Historic Properties N.C. Division of Archives and History Floodplain Management N/A • Wetlands Protection N/A Noise . N/A Raleigh Regional Office AirQuality Division of Environmental Management ManmadeHazards N/A Raleigh Regional Office WaterQuality Division of Environmental Management SolidWasteDisposal Solid Waste Management Section N.C. Division of Health Services • Coastal Areas N/A Natural Heritage Program EndangeredSpecies N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development FarmlandsProtection N/A • Natural Heritage Program UfddwWSamicvem N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Orange County Health, Social Services, Soil and SuggellecalStatutes Water Conservation, Recreation and Planning Departments -------_ Send 14 copies of this form and al maps to Meow,Division of Community Assistance P.O.Box 27687 Raleigh,ft C.27611 • 20 • 1 • Environmental Assessment Checklist • Pima 1 Project Name and Identification.No. Rencher Street Improvements — 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 dt . 4r 4' -.+P 4ir -4? p .40 4,,,f "t"' 1 SOUS=or Socerossesoldion (Note dole oi cootect or Walesa wattlesbi impact Categories it'. 4. 44. 41,4tt asoechod. Lod.Dewlap:punt Conformanee With mpree Project consistent with County Comprehensive Plan Plans and Zoning X (See A-I) Cor4mMetyand Urtwkwe X "Same" Sow X "Same" EmoWn Confirmation by local Soil and Water Conservationist (See A-I) X Sog Suitability • • Same Above • Hazards and Nuisancs,Including Ste Safety X N/A Energy CanasmoMn X N/A Nn Diem al Ambient Noise quality should not be Noise on Project and affected (See A—I) Contrislion to Cam- X meaty Noise Levels 21 • Environmental Assessment Checklist (continued,page 2; Project Name and Identification No. •Rencher Street Improvements C-1 . /1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ce 4117 1 4P 0.1 ,S 11 4" /I .14; 441' • Source or Documentation (Note date of contact or • -a ge teference) • 451 et et ti.t a.el efr ussterial troy be Impact Categories a #4.ett attached Air Qualitto Effects of Ambient Ao 1 • QualitylmPmjectand I No Impact on Air Quality Contributtion to Com anticipated. (See A-I) munity Pollution Levels 'Environmental Design and Historic Vahms Vistsl QuaMY Coherence.Diversity Visual Quality will, be improved Computable the,and X by the project. Scale Histonc,Calmat No historic properties will be arei Archaeological Mmmscn affected by the project (See A-I) X 1111111■11=10. rSonoscomnk Dmiowqmo Demographics will not be changed Character Changes by the project. X Displacement No relocation activities will take place, no one displaced. X — Employment and Activities should improve Innarehimsm • employment activities. X Conannity Fams' astd Services Educatioral Fealties — No educational facilities in the area. X Cowermcial Rates No commercial facilities will be involved in the project. X Health Care Significant beneficial effect on the health of residents (See A-I) X ScnWSavices No significant effect. (See A–I) S . X • 22. 1 • Environmental Assessment Checklist • (cannoned.page 3) R Project Name and Identification No. Rencher Street Improvements C-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 414" iv IA,* I / • et. "Q. - Somme or Documentation dr 1 elf 1.41, e Woos date of contact or Viditir=rial ma y be 4.1 4°49. ete eti" Impact Categories attached Community Facilities and Services(Continued) Solid Waste Solid waste should be disposed - of in a state permitted facility; X Lead based paint removal cautions. Waste Water Waste Water services will be tin- proved by the project. X Storm Water Storm drainage system will, be im- proved by the project. X Water Supply Water supply will be improved due to extension of Town water system. X X MlicSidevRAm Police protection is adequate. X Fire Fire protection should be improved X X due to addition of four fire hydrants. Effemmry MakW EMS is adequate. X On opssims Space and See A-/ Recreation X ileandm X See A-I Cultund Project is not located near any FamTnies cultural facilities. X Trasnsportation Transportation facilities should be improved. X 23 Environmental • Assessment Checklist (continued,pew 4) Project Name and identification No. ...iilaabar...atraetafflatgmemenzas=j_______ 1 2 3 4 6 7 Irs itte Ne ecti Some or Documentation h. 10 Impact Categories 1:11 Not dote ot contact or watiregirenco) , 4.617 -at fi moy attached Natural Features Water Resources water resources will not be affected. X Surface Water Surface water will not be affected. X Floodolains Not applicable to project area. X - Wetlands Not applicable to project area. X Coastal Zone Not applicable to project area X UniqueNatural Project will not impact any Featuresand AgdculttuWiamls unique natural features or X agricultural lands. Vegetation and Wildlife No impact anticipated (See A-I) • X 214 Assessment Checklist (continued.lonSte-S1 Summary of Findings and Conclusions: The Rencher Street Community Revitalization Project will result in no long term adverse impact on the community. Rehabilitation, street improvements and water/sewer activities should only inconvenience residents temporarily. The long term benefits of these activities will offset any temporary inconveniences. Summary of Environmental Conditions: The existing environmental conditions will not be adversel affected •by project activities nor will the environment negatively impact project activities. Project Modifications and Alternatives • Considered: Caution will be given to the handling of solid waste and lead base paint removal to ensure conformance with prescribed environmental precautions. • 25 Assessment Checklist (immitiW.page6) Additional Studies Performed(Attach Study or Summary) No additional studies necessary. • --- Mitigation Measures Needed: Any solid waste generated by the project will, be disposed qf in a state permitted facility. Caution will also be given to the removal of lead based paint which could be considered a hazardous waste. 26 • • Environmental Assessment Checklist pie 7) 1. Supply a clear,legible map of the proposed site and surrounding area.Mark area to be acquired and construction site. 2. Utilities t Mines to Serve Project Projected Demand per Day Length of Lines to be Capacity of Lines Envircednemally Sensitive Areas Constructed (inches diameter) to be Cut(for Utility acres Electric N/A Potable Water N/A UNK 3/000 L.F. 8" Soiid Waste Disposal N A 3. Land Alterations • Alteration Present Use Previous Use Precent of (planned use) (before change) (historical) Acres Project Area o Be Acquired • - r ' . . -• r,•• ' - . u :: " , - r e o Be Developed N/A N/A " o Be Originally Cleaned Nn " n • O Bs Landscaped Nei rr " n . • • (mare bet) No " n " o Be Cut(cubic yards) No u n n o Be Feed(cubic yards) No " 4. Cultural Resources(archeological,historical,architectural) a)Please give any known archoelogical or historical,sites on project land: None b)What kind,if any,site preparation has already been conducted . c)Has area been Previously surveyed by archeologist?If so,give name of principal hwesdgator and date of survey: d)D YES O NO Are structures on site now?(abandausd barns,faun bridges,etc.) e)Ages of each building/structure: • f)Will any of these structures be demolished?(indicate which): g)Will any of these structures be rehabilitated or renovated?(aulcate which): I ' 'h)Please include photographs of any buildings constructed prior to WWU if probed activities include Rehabilitation,Acquisition,' Clearance or Demolition.__. ._ __• _ _ _ 27 Environmental Assessment Checklist (continued,page 8) 5. Topography Types of Vegetation %of Soil Types Forested Non•Forested Slope Acres Area (use USDA and SCS classification) 11=11=2111=11 Brush rassland •O' 0-5% 11111111111 1111111_- 5=10% 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • 11111 over 10% 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 6. Stream that surface runoff from project area drains into(illustrated relative position on reaps used in Section): N/A D Yes Site includes/borders on 0 Yes Site includes/borders on 0 Yes Site includes/borders on D No classified trout waters 0 No estuarine waters 0 No drinking water source The project will involve impoundment or withdrawal of water.If yes,mark impoundment on map.If impoundment is planned, the amount of water DYes • 0 No to be impounded is approximately I acre/feet and surface acres/feet 7. Note classes of wildlife known to exist in the general area: N/A ❑ Bear 0 Turkey 0 Small Game(squirrel,quasi,rabbit,racoon;dove,etc.) D Deer 0 Waterfowl 0 Endangered/Threatened Species(osprey eagle,aerator,red cockaded woodpecker,etc.1 1. Will proposed forestry practices such as burning clearcutting,or thinning have adverse effects on any of the above specials? Explain: N/A • f . 9. Are proposed pesticides or herbicides known to have adverse effects on humans or any of the above species? Which pesticides/herbicides?Which species? • N/A 20 • . Environmental Assessment Checklist (continued.vase 9) • 10.Give name,position and office telephone number of an individual in the appropriate local government unit that can confirm the compatibility of the proposed activity with existing and/or proposed land use economic deveiopmen; plans: Name: Position: Phone: Tara L. Fikes 1, 10 , . . ' - • • • -- 8. 11. t • ► '. . tate permits, authorizations and license that must be acquire• to initiate and complete proposed activity: Permit NC General Statute Application Date Approval Date a)Stationary Air Contaminant Source 143.215.108 N/A b)Air Quality Complex Source 143.215.109 N/A c)Construction of Wastewater Pretreatment Facilities 143.215.1 6/1/89 d) Wastewater Discharge(to surface waters) 143.215 6/1/89 e)Approval to Construct Public Waters Facility NIA f)Dredge and Fill 113.229 N/A g)Withdrawal of Water from"Capacity Use Area" 143.215.15 N A h)Erosion Control Plan 113A.61 N/A i)Zoning Change or Variance j)Coastal Resource Commission 113A.118 N/A k)Noise Control Regulations 153A.113 N/A I)Others(list) (euPP)1' ) 1. Is project in compliance with applicable laws and regulations? El Yes 0 No 2. Is an EIS required? 0 Yes Ill No 3. A Finding of No significant Impanct(EONS!)can be matte.Project will not significantly affect the quality of the human envieonment. Ili Yes 0 No 4. Send 14 copies of this ERR for State Environmental/Clearinghouse Review To:Dhector,Division of Community Assistance P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh,N.C.27611 Prepared by Title • Tara L. Fikes Housing Services Director • Date: . • • , Ii 29 • a 0$40/1; 16. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL • • - Agency responoble for Project hcf III f,C1gVC:11'Sr" Clearing House No. Date Completed. County of Orange • . • - • 4 3 89 Contact Person: Address Phone Tar- . F' - - - 41 : • . : : . • • • 61 1, • • 66.: : : - . 'roject I escnpdon _ Briefly Describe Project: .. The Rencher Street CDBG Local Option Project is a Community Revitalization i - effort designed to treat the remaining sewer needs of this area. This will • be accomplished by connecting 500 linear feet of 8" PVC sewer line in the local option area and installing 2/000 linear feet of 4"PVC Force Main in order to connect to deposit into an existing sewer manhole. • . *CDBG - No. 88-C-7730 (Local Option) I Enviromental impact Status Project Activities CDBG Funds Other Funds Exempt CAT.Excluded E.A. 1. $ $ • 1 . 2. Sewer improvements 66/753 0 0 El - _ 3. I __ 0 0 0 4. L 0 0 C:1 I • 1 . 5. 0 0 0 6. I 0 0 0 , . 7. • 0 0 0 , 8. . 0 0 0 . 9.- . . 0 0 0 10. 0 0 , 0 ... , — D J Required ... Ii 2.6h:S. .........A..!..t...1.4, ' 0 Original Signature of Chief i„" . . 0 Revision Dated . . . 0 Amendment Dated .Cha i / O Prior Clearing Review Title Has Taken Place County of Orange e_n- Rnie FL]Al 14 ilighorciugb/ N C. Agency and Address • 1 8 Statutory Checklist Checklist of Applicable Statutes • and Regulations Reacher Street Improvements th-1 1. Project Name and Identification No. 2. Attach project map. 3. Are all activities of this project exempt from NEPA procedures? CI Yes No (If yes,this Statutory Checklist need not be filled out.) 4. Are activities of this project categorically excluded from NEPA procedures? 0 Yes DB No (If yes,this Statutory Checklist and all required actions must be completed.) Area of Statutory—Regulatory Compliance /111?4,/1 Nate Canapriance Dacenaentatian Impact Categories c, Historic Properties X Floodplain Management X - Wetlands Protection X Noise X Air Quaky No significant impact on X existing air qualit •,, --. 4- Manmade Hazards • Thermail/Explosive Hazards X Airport Clear Zones X cea' r Janes reauiremnresgtsi • Water Quality rom et Emir gement pursuat th Navigable Waters X 43-2 n 15.1 (d)(See ) Aquifers Solid Waste . • X • • Coastal Areas Coastal • Zone Management X Coastal Barrier Resources X Ersdangered Species X *Attach evidence that tequited actions have Wei taken. • :19 Data Sources and Documenatation Historic Properties Environmental Review Coordinator N.C. Division of Archives and History Floodplain Management N/A Wetlands Protection N/A . I Noise N/A Quality Raleigh Regional Office Division of Environmental Management • ltitsnmade Hazards N/A Raleigh Regional Office WaterQuahty Division of Environmental Management • Solid Waste Management Section SolidWasteDisposal N.C. Division of Health Services Coastal Areas N/A $ Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development FemdandsProtection N/A Natural Heritage Program WadandSceiclavars N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Orange County Health, Social Services, Soil and StateolLocadStstates Water Conservation, Recreation and Planning Departments Send 14 tam of this farm and el maps to: Director,Division of Commistity Assistance P.O.Box 27687 Ralph,N.C.27611 20 • • • Environmental Assessment Checklist p* 1 Project Name and Identification No. Rencher Street Improvements - L-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ei it dr- *4 firefr ;:::arggrImmitta * Jr dr 11 Walimedeligtili=may be Impact Categories 4 seambeel. 'Land Development Conformance With Project is consistent with Comprehensive County Comprehensive Plan Pions end Zoning X (See A-I) Compatibetyand UrbarOmma X "Same" slope X "Same" Emsem Confirmation by local Soil and Water Conservationist (See A-I) X &ASI.AelAtir X Same Above Hazards and Nuisances,Includins Sift5ahW N/A Envy • Commagom N/A • Nokse • Enacts of Miriam Noise on Project end Noise quality should not be ComilutiontoCam x affected (See A-1) • rntarity Noise Lev* 21 . • • Environmental Assessment Checklist (continued.page 2t • Project Name and Identification No. z - - ". . - " - . - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 464 Aty ;17' 4F ,sr it / it Ili 4/ it4 Oar '*' • SCUM*Of Documentation (Now date coma or k7 ° re 41r- page reenact) 4 Impact Categories 3, ie eie .t■ Addition material be al may attached. A=1111•01ill Air Quality Effects of Ambient AN 1 I I • Quality on Project oral I No Impact on Air Quality Contributtion to Com- anticipated. (See A-I) • munity Penman Levels X I I 4fflosaffszonmwwo Environmental Davao and Historic Values Visual Quality Visual Quality will be improved Coherence.Divasitv C.ompaubis Use.and X by the project. Scale •'Historic,Cultural. No historic properties will be and Archaeological affected by the project (See A-I) • •Ittimmmai X Socioeconomic • • Character Chaim Demographics will not be changed by the project. - X - Dissiscsssm No relocation activities will X take place, no one displaced. ErnolosMent and Activities should improve humus Patterns employment activities. • X ComormftOnclitiosmaSaviam Fealties No educational facilities in X the area. 'Commercial Fealties No commercial facilities will be • involved in the project. X 'Health Care Significant beneficial effect on the health of residents (See A-I) X Social Services No significant effect. (See A-I) X 1 22 Environmental Assessment Checklist (cannnusti.page 31 Project Name and Identification No. Rencher Street Improvements 2 3 4 5 6 7 •e) cf .1 4 4, at -47 01/41, • • 4.105' Source or Documentaticm (Plote date al conuct or 4,41/ 4tif =ZIA=tint may be impact Categories- 4b° 4° e 44* attached. CommunitY facilities and Semites(Continued) Solid Waste - X See A-I Waste Water Waste Water services will, be im- x proved by the project. • 'Storm Water Storm drainage system will be im- X proved by the project. WaterSupply Water supply will be improved due X to extension of Town water system. Pubhc Safety Police Police protection is adequate. X Fire protection should be improved due to the addition of four fire X hydrants. tmagency MalicW • EMS is adequate X Open Open Seam Spans and Recrestaen X See A—I Secenation X See A-I Gamma FmOties X Project is not located Trantsporton Transportation facilities should be improved. . X 23 • Environmental Assessment Checklist (continued,tient 4) Project Name and Identification No. Rencher Street Improvements L-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 see V 41, 4/411 $cum or Doeoweereation (Note dote of concoct or .11 f meendlearezelid be Impact Categor i ies e 4,- maths& Natural Features Water Resources Water resources will not be X affected. Surface Water Surface water will not be X affected. Romiplains Not applicable to project area. X Wetlands X Not applicable to project area. Coastal Zone X Not applicable to project area. UniqueNatural Project will not impact any Featuresand x unique natural features or AwkulinusiLarWl agricultural lands. ralltionand No impact anticipated (See A-I) X 24 • • Assessment Checklist (continued.pegs$' Summary of Findings and Conclusions: The Rencher Street Community Revitalization Local Option Project will result in no long term adverse impact on the community. Sewer activities should only inconvenience residents temporarily. The long term benefits of these activities will offset any temporary inconveniences. Summary of - Environmental Conditions: The existing environmental conditions will not be adversely affected by project activities nor will the environment negatively impact • .ro 'ect activities. • • Project Modifications andAltunatilma Coma*tred Caution will be given to the handling of solid waste and lead base paint removal to ensure conformance with prescribed environmental precautions. • ..01.■■•■•=11/M■wr. miwoMelowlissolwOr • .ae•■■' ..•■•■■■•■■■■ 25 • Assessment Checklist (continued,page 6) Additional Studies Performed(Attach Study or Summary) No additional studies necessary. .M1/••■■■■••■■•100•■■■■■•■•• 4N/P/M.M■ristals■mosaeoggorsism■ ••■■■•■ - Mitigation Measures Needed: Any solid waste generated by the project will be disposed of in a state permitted facility. Caution will also be given to the removal of lead based paint which could be considered a hazardous waste. • 1 26 • Environmental Assessment Checklist • konensird,pp 7) 1. Suly a clear,legible map of the proposed site and surrounding area.Mark area to be acquired and construction site. 2. Utilities Utilities to Serve Project \Projected Demand per Day Length of Lines to be Capacity of Lines EtwironmerstaBy Sensitive Area Constructed (inches diameter) to be Cut(for Utility acres, _ Electric • N/A Potable Water Ni A NO significant 1,r1crease 3300 8"/6" Sad Waste Disposal TVA Natural Gas N/A Water N/A 3. Land Alterations Alteration Present Use Previous Use Precent of (Planned use) (before change) (inunical) Acres Project Area To Se Acquired N/A . ot3e Developed N/A o Be Origin.*Cleated N/A • a Bs Landscaped N/A o Be Covered by Imam- .• Surtsce(square feet) N/A o Be Cut(cubic Yards) N/A o Be Red(cubic yards) V/A 4. Cultural Resources(archeological,historical,architectural) a)Please give any known archoelogical or historical,sites on project land: NONE. b)What kind,if any,site preparation has thready been conducted: c)Has area been previously surveyed by archeologist?If so,sive name of principal bleestiaatee and date of teeveY: d)0 YES 0 NO Are buidags/structures on site now?(abandoned barns,farmhouse,tabacoo sheds,bridges,etc.) ,1 e)Ages of wish bulding/stracture: • f)Will any of these structures be demolished?(indicate which): g)Will any of these structures be rehabilitated or renames&(Indicate which): 'h)Please include photographs of any buildings constructed prior to WWU if project activities include Rehabilitation,Acquisition, Clearance or Oemolition. 27 1 • Environmental Assessment Checklist ▪ (contmued,page 8) 5. Topography Types of Vegetation % T Soil Types Forested No .Forested Slope Acres Area (use USDA and SCS classification) _ = !` rauland 0::e • 0-5% 11111111111 11101111111111111111111 i 5-10% IIIOIIIMNIIIMIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIMIIMIIIIIIIIIIIII over 10% 6. Stream that surface runoff from project area drains into(illustrated relative position on maps used in Section): • N/A O Yes Site includes/borders on O Yes Site includes/borders on O Yes Site includes/borders on O No classified trout waters 0 No estuarine waters O No drinking water source The project will involve impoundment or withdrawal of tinter.If yes.mark impounahnent on map.If impoundment is planned, the amount of water CI Yes 0 No to be impounded is approximately[ Iacre/feet and I surface acres/feet 7. Note classes of wildlife known to exist in the general area: N/A .C) Sear. 0 Turkey 0 Small Game(sgwrrel,quail,rabbit,racoon,dove,etc.) O Deer 0 Waterfowl 0 Endangered/Threatened Species(osprey eagle,altor,red cockaded woodpecker,etc.l 8. Will proposed forestry practices such as burning clearcutting,or thinning have adverse effects on any of the above specials? Explain: N/A i 1 9. Are proposed pesticides hor herbicides known to have an or any of the above species? Which p� 1 N/A . Ii Zu • Environmental Assessment Checklist (coninucd.lag*9) • 10. Give name,position and office telephone number of an individual in the appropriate local government unit that can confirm the compatibility of the proposed activity with existing and/or proposed use economic developmen: per: Name: Position: Tara L. Fikes Housing Services Director 919)732-8181 11. fist • `. . tate permits, authorizations and license that must be acquired to initiate and complete proposed activity: Permit NC General Statute Application Date Approval Date a)Stationary Air Contaminant Source 143.215.108 b)Air Quality Complex Source 143.215.109 N/A c) Construction of Wastewater Pretreatment Facilities 143.215.1 6)1/A9 d) Wastewater Discharge(to surface waters) 143.215 K/ /Rg e)Approval to Construct Public Waters Facility N/A • f)Dredge and Fill 113.229 g)Withdrawal of Water from"Capacity Use Area" h)Erosion Control Plan i)Zoning Change or Variance N/A i)Coastal Resource Commission 113A.118 N/A k)Noise Control Regulations 153A.113 N/A � 1)Others(list) i .y)- ) • • 1. Is project in compliance with applicable laws and regulations?. ®Yes 0 No 2. Is an EIS required? O Yes ®No 3. A Finding of No significant Impend(EONS!)can be made.Project ad not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. ®Yes O No 4. Send 14 its of this ERR for State Enviroarnental/Clearineiouse Review To:Dinette,Division of Canttnunity Assistance P.O. Box 27587 Raleigh,N.C.27611 Prepared by Title Tara L. Fikes Housing Services director Date: April 31 1989 29- ' Orange County Environmental Review Record Rencher Street Improvement Area • - I APPENDIX IA1 ) - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ! , • ' • JANUARY 1989 • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD CONTACTS 1 . HISTORIC PROPERTIES Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early Environmental Review Coordinator N.C. Division of Archives and History 109 E. Jones Street Raleigh, N.C. 27611 * Photographs of the area were forwarded to this agency 2. SOIL CONDITIONS Michael Washington Orange County Soil and Water Conservation Office P.O. Sox 8181 • Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 3. ENDANGERED SPECIES, FISH, WILDLIFE, WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Alan Weaklay N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 4. SOLID WASTE Gordon Layton Solid Waste Management Section N.C. Division of Health Services P.O. Box 2091 Raleigh, I.C. 27602 5. RECREATION MaryAnn Black, Director Orange County Parks and Recreation Department • P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 • • • • 6. HEALTH CARE, WATER AND SEWER Daniel Reimer, Director Orange County Health Department P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 • 7. SOCIAL SERVICES Marti Pryor-Cook, Director - Orange County Department of Social Services P.O. Box 8181 • Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 8. SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS Ed L. Berry N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Environmental Management P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 9. CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ZONING Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Department 1 P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.G. 27278 10. WATER QUALITY • Sill Kreutzberger N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development • Division of Environmental Management P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 • 11 . AIR QUALITY 1 Kenneth,. Schuster N.C. Department of Natural Resources • and Community Development Division of Environmental Management P.O. BOX 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 ** Letters mere sent to the above agencies requesting comment on the proposed CDHG activities. A sample of these. letters and their responsies -are in the Appendix of this document. O"'"===TXtirre-MicCor- ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 West Tryon Street P.O.Sox 8181 vousm OPPORTUNITY Hillsborough,North Carolina 27278 TARA L FIKES SATELLITE OFFICE: Director 103 Laurel Avenue Carrhoro,N.C. 27510 January 27, 1989 Dear • Orange County has been awarded a Community Development Block Grant from the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Funds from this grant (CDEIG NO. 88-C-7730, Local Option) will support the following. activities: 1 . Construction of 500 linear feet of 8" PVC sewer line in • the local option area (outside the C-1 area) ; and 2. Connection of 2,000 linear feet of 4" PVC Force Main into an existing sewer manhole. Prior to the release of funds, the County must complete an environmental assessment of the project. The assessment is designed to determine whether the project activities will adversely affect the project. In order to complete the environmental review, your assistance is needed. Enclosed for your review is a map showing the location of the proposed activities. To facilitate your review, I have enclosed a form which you may use to mark the appropriate items. Please feel free to provide any additional comments, and return to the address indicated on the form. Also, please inform us of any special permits which may be required as a result of the project. Please note that this project is adjacent directly to our larger C-1 project area. A prompt response would be appreciated since any delay will also delay the release of funds. If you have nay questions, please contact me at (919) 732-8181 . Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Tara L. Pikes Director TLF/rw Enclosure TIMER/ONE& Main Office: (919)732-8181 • 967-9251 • 688-7331 • 227-2031 Satellite Office: (919)933.1197 • 933-1380 -----ZOVWTAKe, • 466 ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 West Tryon Street P.O.Box 8181 EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY Hillsborough,North Carolina 27278 TARA L.PIKES SATELLITE OFFICE: Director 103 Laurel Avenue • Carrboro.N.C. 27510 January 10, 1989 Dear Orange County has been awarded a Community Development Block Grant from the North Carolina Department. of Natural Resources and Community Development . Funds from this grant, (CDBG NO. 86-C-7730) will support the following activities: 1 . Rehabilitation of 23 housing units and Clearance of one ( 1 ) dilapidated structure; 2. Installation of 2,000 linear feet of 6" water lines with 17 connections; 3. installation of 3,000 linear feet of 8" sewer lines with 20 connections; and 4. Construction of 1 ,350 linear feet of street paving. Prior to the release of funds, the County must complete an environmental assessment of the project. The assessment is designed to determine whether the project activities will adversely affect existing conditions or whether existing conditions will adversely affect the project. In order to complete the environmental review, your assistance is needed. Enclosed for your review is a map showing the location of the proposed activities. To facilitate your review, I have enclosed a form which you may use to mark the appropriate items. Please feel free to provide any additional comments, and return to the address indicated on the form. Also, please inform us of any special permits which may be required as a result of the project. A prompt response would be appreciated since any delay will also delay the release of funds. If you have any questions, please contact me at (919) 732-8181 . Thank you for your assistance. sincerely, Tara L. Fikes • • Director TLF/rw Enclosure TELEPHONES: Main Office: (919)7324181 • 9874251 0 888-7331 • 227-2031 Satellite Office: (919)933-1197 0 933-1380 • • r O ,, C . . , 4. ,... . .1.. a 3 2 , 3 ge il 3 g I: -a 3 ii. v I 3 a c) 0 ! illia I 3 0 el o I•••••••••ano um wee.....0 mu ammi "...--.. 71 ow II ccrn ni L4 ta• ICL;J 3 0 23111- I 0 klp o I , 1 ,usri , f\13 =! , 7 0_1 ..J . . 0 I ell = II cr. IS1 Z t5 Via X = g csi Fs) a • 0 2. N .."*" - j 111.1.14.".""" "--....41,..„443 CI 1 2 ci...A A. 5 EI a • 14, ).. el jiiV '''• .. `. ..., W. 1:31- fys g "1 go J.g 0. ..........,.....a. a 3 . a 3 4 o 4 X .Z' 44. 2 to 2 a•- -4.a 0 . 4 ■- • rt o 0 6 a 0 a 0 ) um D, tat 2 171 la as= U7 0 = 0 sit ...1 - • — 4 ile . cc . • - o - a . LA CI 1■40 :- . 1- .0 Z . • . (7 _,....... - a CL — . _.-- _a- o E . 0 z F. LLI - • • a o Z > 0 4 . D. 1 CC 2 0 CI to us . • 0 2 a- 0...., i--.: Z 4 0 E •z = us a 3 3 o o 0 cc tu - o az D. Lc Ix z a >,- 111,„_ 1--„, CC la th I " 4 Z 0 la . Z a 2 MC a 1 4 4 a " ID %II Z U.1 Lire a. a = az ° - '4, a laig wa ., = 0 0 o 4g . 0 Z 'It n CI C a . z es C K4 • ›... ko M ai 0 . o z I Ltj Z u i 0 i I o _-- 0 D 1 Lu I ... . Z M 19 131 c 0 I ' C I- CC 0 U.1 CC II . --- 0 (..) CC CL • . , - .. 02-15142it, • • • DEVTL,C7MET RISC:: :RANT RT--c7:an • ICCAC:nN: :range County PROJ7C7: L-1 RenCher Street Impro-rements (ERR No. 8e--2-'772c ! REVIEW :S77: ENVIRCNMENTAL -IMPACT: : have reviewed the proposed project •-:=7.=-rm::-.e-.71 that: A. :mpact of Pr::,..ect on Environmental Review :ssue ( 1 ) Prcject will have no significant e%isting conditions; OR ; 2) Project will have significantly adverse effect upon e.: sting conditions. R. .:7.oact of Environmental Review Issue on Protect Project will not be affected by ey*a.tng oondons; OR Proje:t will be adversely affected by ex:at :n; oondLticns. please check the appropriate response for both A and B. If ( 2 ) is checked as the response to either A or B, provide a brief explanation below or attach a letter documenting areas of concern. COMMENTS: Signature Date Title Return to: Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County dousing and Community Development Dept. Post Office Box 8181, Hillsborough, N.C. - 27278 • ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD LOCATION: Orange County f PROJECT: C-1 Rencher Street Improvements (ERR No. 88-C-7730) • REVIEW ISSUE: Historic Properties ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: I have reviewed the proposed project • deter:Tu.:led that : A. Impact of Project on Environmental Review Issue y/ (1 ) Project will have no significant effect- upon existing conditions; OR (2) Project will have significantly adverse effect upon existing conditions. - B. Impact of Environmental Review Issue on Project (1 ) Project will not be affected by existing conditions; OR (2) Project will be adversely affected by existing conditions. Please check the appropriate response for both A and B. If (2) is checked as the response to either A or B, provide a brief explanation below or attach a letter documenting areas of concern. COMMENTS: Signature _ 134 V;640 Dat Title Return to: Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County Housing and Community Development Dept. Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 . . . . • ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD LOCATION: Orange County PROJECT: C-1 Rencher Street Improvements (ERR No. 88-C-7730) REVIEW ISSUE: Soil Conditions ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: I have reviewed the proposed project determined that: A. Impact of Project on Environmental Review Issue 7 ( 1 ) Project will have no significant effect - • , upon existing conditions; OR (2) Project will have significantly adverse • effect upon existing conditions. B. Impact o Environmental Review Issue on Project V. ' (1 ) Project will not be affected by existing conditions; OR (2) Project will be adversely affected by existing conditions. Please check the appropriate response for both A and S. If (2) is checked as the response to either A or B, provide a. brief explanation below or attach a letter documenting areas of concern. COMMENTS: -/-■ Signature - _ ____ ii_. (71-1... S cv V4 /w1h.s I- --------- — Date Title Return to: Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County Housing and . Community Development Dept. Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 4464.06sEArto. Pr".rmiPci, cr? - 2 "2,3 State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 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 1, 1989 Ms. Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County Housing and Community Development Department P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. pikes: Subject: C-1 Rencher Street Improvements, Orange County Environmental Review Record we have no record of endangered plant and animal species in the proposed project area. This site was probably not included in the natural area inventory for Orange County. This project area is unlikely habitat for rare and endangered species due to the close proximity of the urban infrastructure. Future project plans should take into account the potential occurrence of significant plants and animals near the city boundaries. For example, a population of Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - a state listed threatened species of mollusc, was found in the Eno River near the southern section of Hillborough. Such consideration is important for development projects that may result in loss of habitat through negative impacts such as soil erosion, water quality degradation, etc. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact us if you • have further questions. - Sincerely, cip Jo Anne Tippett Natural Heritage Program JAT/des N/2 PO Eno 27687,Raleigh,North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919.733.4181 An Equal Opponuniry Affirmative Action Employer - ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD LOCATION: Orange County PROJECT: C-1 Rencher Street Improvements (ERR No. 88-C-7730) REVIEW ISSUE: Solid Waste ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I have reviewed the proposed project determined :hat: A. Impact of Project on Environmental Review Issue ( 1 ) Project will have no significant effect - upon existing conditions; OR (2) Project will have significantly adverse effect upon existing conditions. B. Impact of Environmental Review Issue on Project ( 1 ) Project will not be affected by existing conditions; OR (2) Project will be adversely affected by existing conditions. Please check the appropriate response for both A and B. If (2) is checked as the response to either A or B, provide a brief explanation below or attach a letter documenting areas of concern. - p COMMENTS: r57b i L.-,43/( 51,9 // .04.17 e 0.47/PJ C ; A 5 75/le ex,—.1 7444-; C40,4 oft. b , /re, j 4'.93 ealfri es I 1,4,41;r.*4. h 4-2,..9.-4 10 cc-y 14s/<_ c7"7//41 S gnatu e 2fei.-4.19.11 Date Title titeLt 45,eir 21,10 (31-40c4. Return to: Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County Housing and Community Development Dept. Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 • ' • - - • ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD LOCATION: Orange County PROJECT: C-1 Rencher Street Improvements (ERR No. 88-C-7730) REVIEW ISSUE: Recreation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: I have reviewed the proposed project determ:hed that: A. Impact of Project on Environmental Review Issue xx ( 1 ) Project will have no significant effect. upon existing conditions: OR (2) Project will have significantly adverse effect upon existing conditions. B. Impact of Environmental Review Issue on Project xx ( 1 ) Project will not be affected by existing conditions: OR (2) Project will be adversely affected by • existing conditions. Please check the appropriate response for both A and B. If (2) is checked as the response to either A or B, provide a brief explanation below or attach a letter. documenting areas of concern. COMMENTS: • • Sign re .3-67433 • irealw- Date Title Orange County Recreation & Parks Dep Return to: Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County Housing and Community Development Dept. • Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 • ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD LOCATION: Orange County PROJECT: L-1 Rencher Street Improvements (ERR No. 88-C-7730) REVIEW ISSUE: Health Care & Water and Sewer ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: I have reviewed the proposed project determined that: A. Impact of Project on Environmental Review Issue X (1 ) Project will have no significant adverse effect upon existing conditions; OR (2) Project will have significantly adverse effect upon existing conditions. B. Impact of Environmental Review Issue on Project X (1 ) Project will not be affected by existing conditions; OR . (2) Project will be adversely affected by existing conditions. Please check the appropriate response for both A and B. If (2) is checked aS- the response to either A or B, provide a brief explanation below or attach a letter documenting areas of concern. COMMENTS: A. This project will have a significant beneficial effect on the health of residents of the area. • ° Signature Feb. 7, 1989 Health Director Date Title Return to: Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County Housing and Community Development Dept. • Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 ( V2,44:11. 'Loot 4 viertevuz,„ oe--ev-g9 ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD LOCATION: Orange County PROJECT: C-1 Rencher Street Improvements (ERR Na. 88-C-7730) REVIEW ISSUE: Social Services ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: I have reviewed the proposed project determined that: A. Impact of Project on Environmental Review Issue __ ( i ) Project will have no significant effect_ upon existing conditions; OR (2) Project will have significantly adverse effect upon existing conditions. B. Impact of Environmental Review Issue on Project • U/ (1 ) Project will not be affected by existing conditions; OR (2) Project will be adversely affected by existing conditions. Please check the appropriate response for both A and B. If (2) is checked as the response to either A or B, provide a brief explanation below or attach a letter documenting areas of concern. COMMENTS: • 51Y8-)e? Signature t" ffr Date Title • Return to: Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County Housing and Community Development Dept. Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 • r 10 VSS3 • RE-C'E-1 ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD LOCATION: Orange County PROJECT: C-1 Rencher Street Improvements (ERR No. 88-C-7730) REVIEW ISSUE: Conformance with Comprehensive Plans: and Zoning ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: I have reviewed the proposed project determined that : A. Impact of Project on Environmental Review Issue ( 1 ) Project will have no significant effect upon existing conditions; OR (2) Project will have significantly adverse effect upon existing conditions. B. Impact of Environmental Review Issue on Project 1/7 (1 ) Project will not be affected by existing conditions; OR (2) Project will be adversely affected by existing conditions. Please check the appropriate response for both A and B. If (2) is checked as the response to either A or B, provide a brief explanation below or attach a letter documenting areas of concern. COMMENTS: Signature 3418/ &AA att4A■1111A-044-) Date Title Return to: Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County Housing and Community Development Dept. Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 • • . ' ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT - 306F REVERE ROAD _ HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 i,.n .,e , r, .. . ..___ ,,, . MEMORANDUM TO: Tara Pikes . Housing & Communi De lopment Director FROM: Marvin Collins Planning Director DATE: February 21, 1989 SUBJECT: Orange County CDBG Block Grant I have contacted the Town of Hillsborough to determine if the proposed improvements are in compliance with the Town of Hillsborough Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The zoning of the property in the improvement area varies. All of the lots along the north and south of Rencher Street are zoned Residential 10 (R-10) for single family houses. The R-10 zone covers the rest of the improvement area south of Rencher Street except in the area of ,lack's Quick Lunch at the northwest corner of NC 86 and US 70. This corner is zoned General Commercial. The houses north of the lots along Rencher Street are zoned Residential-40 (R-40) and are also single family residential. The proposed improvements comply with the adopted Hillsborough Land Use 'Plan in several ways (see attached) . First, goal 5 of the Hillsborough plan indicates that general improvement of the area by Community Development efforts are encouraged and extended as a Town goal. The Land Use Plan also states that it is an objective of Hillsborough to provide housing assistance to its residents in need. These two statements along with goal number 4, which encourages residential development on water and sewer indicates that the proposed improvements are in compliance with the adopted Hillsborough Land Use Plan and Housing Element. I : MEMORANDUM . February 21, 1989 Page 2 The water and sewer line extensions must receive approval from the Town and appropriate State agencies. It has been determined that the project is not in the Town • Historic District, therefore the Historic Commission will not be required to review the project. Before construction can begin on the houses in the area, water and sewer lines must be approved and a zoning and building permit must be obtained. A zoning permit would be obtained from the Town Hall. A copy of this fee schedule is attached. To obtain the zoning permit, site plans for each house must be submitted. If it is determined that the existing structure is non-conforming in some way, an application to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment for a variance will be required. When the zoning permit is obtained, the appropriate person can apply for a building permit through the County. If there are any questions concerning the above comments, please contact me at the Planning Department. • ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD LOCATION: Orange County • PROJECT: C-1 Rencher Street Improvements (ERR No. 88-C-7730) REVIEW ISSUE: Water Quality ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: I have reviewed the proposed project determined that: A. Impact of epaitat on Environ ental Review issue ( 1 ) Project will have no significant effect - upon existing conditions; OR (2) Project will have significantly adverse effect upon existing conditions. B. Impact of vironmental Review Issue on Emoimst (1 ) Project will not be affected by existing con.itions; OR (2) Project will be adversely affected by existing conditions. Please check the appropriate response for both A and B. If (2) is checked as the response to either A or B, provide a brief explanation below or attach a letter documenting areas of concern. COMMENTS: ,,q 4,-exa 04'IS I -3e“, I O. Ana-041140,4.i.4 LVS (.44,4L 1 G 5 Pi3 --;X/67/60 , i/dts-t. Signature D e Title Return to: Tara L. Pikes, Director Orange County Housing and Community Development Dept. Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 • P ^ 44 to • .,44v OECEIVED F.73 State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Raleigh Regional Office James G Martin, Governor William Larry South, Regional Manager W Cobey,Jr., Secretary DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 1VIANAGEIVIENT February 6, 1989 Ms. Tara L. Fikes, Director Orange County Housing and Community Development Department Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 SUBJECT: Rencher Street Inprovements Air Quality Impact Orange County Dear Ms. Fikes: In reference to your request of January 10, 1989, I have reviewed the Proposed project and determined that the project should have no significant impact on or be affected by existing air quality conditions in the area. Sincerely, C 31/4÷4/ C.W. Sanford, Jr. Environmental Chemist II Air Quality Section CWS/jf 3800 Ban=Dff•e,PU Bco[rag;Raleigh N .27611.7687•Telephone 919.7334314 An Eqwl°morality Affirmative Action EmPlowr 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No.E-1.0 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16 , 1989 SUBJECT: CDBG ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD/COMBINED NOTICE - RENCHER STREET DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Pikes Environmental Review Record (2) Combined Notice TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel. Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To authorize execution of the Environmental Review Record for the Rencher Street CDBG Program and authorize publica- tion of a Combined Notice to the Public of No Significant Impact on the Environment and Request for Release of Funds. BACKGROUND: The Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) requires that an environmental assessment be conducted in each funded CDBG project area. This assessment is done to determine whether CDBG activities will have a significant environmental impact in the project area. It is also a condition which is attached to each grant award. An assessment was conducted of the Rencher Street Area which found that proposed CDBG activities would have no significant environmental impact on the community. The findings of this assessment is recorded in the attached Environmental Review Record (ERR) . This document must be approved by the Board and executed by the Chief Elected Official before submission to NRCD. Additionally, the County is required to advertise at least once in a newspaper of general circulation a Notice to the Public of No Significant Impact on the Environment . Since • the County found no significant impacts, the notice can also announce the County's intent to request a release of funds. The Combined Notice attached, in a format prescribed by NRCD will accomplish both of these tasks. Upon approval , this notice will be published May 18, 1989 in the Durham Morning Herald. The public would have a 15 day comment period and could also review the ERR. After the comment period has ended the County can make a formal request to NRCD for the release of funds. RECOMMENDATION(S) : 1 . Approve the ERR and authorize the Chair to sign the document on behalf of the Board. 2. Authorize the publication of the Combined Notice in the Durham Morning Herald on May 18, 1989 2 COMBINED NOTICE NOTICE TO PUBLIC OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT , AND NOTICE TO PUBLIC OF REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS May 18, 1989 County of Orange C/O Orange County Housing and Community Development Dept . P.O. Box 8181 300 W. Tryon Street Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 ( 919 ) 732-8181 Ext. 425 TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, GROUPS AND PERSONS: On or about May 16, 1989 the County of Orange will request • the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development to release Federal funds under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (PL 93-383) for the following project: PROJECT TITLE Rencher Street Improvement Area C-1 PURPOSE OF NATURE OF PROJECT Community revitalization which includes housing rehabilitation, acquisition, street improvements, water and sewer improvements and clearance. • PROJECT TITLE Rencher Street Improvement Area L-1 • PURPOSE OR NATURE OF PROJECT Sewer Improvements LOCATION OF PROJECT Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina CENSUS TRACT Tract 110 • 3 Purpose of Notice This Notice is intended to meet two separate procedural requirements of 24 CFR Part 58: ( 1 ) To provide notice to the public that the County of Orange has determined that the request for release of funds for the above named project will not have a significant impact on the environment, ( 2) To provide notice to the public that the County of Orange is requesting the release of funds for the Rencher Street Improvement Area. Finding of No Significant Impact It has been determined that such request for release of funds will not constitute an action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and accordingly the County ' of Orange has decided not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PI, 91 -190) . The reasons for such decision not to prepare such Statement are as follows: 1 . The findings of the the Environmental Review indicate that the adverse impacts to human and natural environment are not significant and can be minimized by appropriate safeguards. 2. The proposed community revitalization project will improve the community conditions for the project area residents. 3. No negative comments were received from the statutory and related agencies. An Environmental Review Record respecting the within project has been made by the County of Orange which documents the environmental review of the project and more fully sets forth the reasons why such Statement is not required. This Environmental Review Record is on file at the above address and is available for public examination and copying upon request at Room A-25 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5: 00 p.m. No further environmental review of such project is proposed to be conducted prior to the request for release of Federal funds. • 4 Public Comments on Finding All interested agencies, groups and persons disagreeing with this decision are invited to submit written comments for consideration by the County of Orange to the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department , P.O. Box 8181 , 300 W. Tryon Street , Hillsborough, N.C. 27278. Such written comments should be received at (the address specified) on or before May 15, 1989 . All such comments so received will be considered and the County of Orange will not request the release of Federal funds or take any administrative action on the within project prior to the date specified in the preceding sentence. Release of Funds ' The County of Orange will undertake the project described above with Block Grant funds from the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The County of Orange is certifying to NRCD that Moses Carey, Jr. , in his official capacity as Chairman, Board of Commissioners consent to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal courts if an action is brought to enforce responsibilities in relation to environmental reviews, decisionmaking and action; and that these responsibilities have been satisfied. The legal effect of the certification is that upon its approval the County of Orange may use the Block Grant funds and NRCD will have satisfied its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. • OBJECTIONS OF STATE RELEASE OF FUNDS NRCD will accept an objection to its approval only if it is on one of the following bases: (a) that the certification was not in fact executed by the certifying officer or other officer of applicant approved by NRCD; or (b) that applicant 's environmental review record' for the project indicates omission of a required decision, finding or step applicable to the project in the . dnvironmental review process. Objections must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the required procedure (24 CFR Part 58) and may be addressed to NRCD at P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 . 5 Objections to the release of funds on bases other than those stated above will not be considered by NRCD. No objection received after June 2, 1989 will be considered by NRCD. comments must specify whether they concern the finding of no significant impact or the intent to request release of funds. • The applicant is the County of Orange, located in Orange County, North Carolina and its chief executive officer is Moses Carey Jr. , Chair, Orange County Board of Commissioners, 109 Court Street , P.O. Box 8181 , Hillsborough, N.C. 27278. May 18, 1989 • • • : • • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda' Item No. f-r1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: SUBJECT: Tax Refunds Request DEPARTMENT: Assessor)s Office PUBLIC HEARING:. Yes X No ---- • ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Individual Request TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 • PURPOSE: To consider 8 request for refund of tax bills. • • • • • BACKGROUND: General Statutes 105-381 (b) Action of Governing Body - Upon receiving a taxpayers written statement of defense and request for release or refund, the governing body of the Taxing Unit shall within 90 days after receipt of such a request determine • whether the taxpayer has a valid defense to the tax imposed or any part . thereof and shall either release or refund that portion of the amount that is determined to be in excess of the current liability or notify the taxpayer in writing that no release or refund will be made. • RECOMMENDATION(S) : Board approve request for refund of tax bills: TWP Chapel Hill 2 tt ACCT # 125722 736811,736810,736809,736808 TRACT # 736806,736804,736803,736802 736801,736805 MAP 8821445 8821444 BILL # 8821443 8821442 8821440 8821438 8821437 8821436 Landwright Corp. 8821435 8821439 P.O. Box 1847 Durham, NC 27702 [ COMMENT: Ten (10) townhouses picked up in April 1988 but construction did not actually begin until after Jan 1, 1988. Buildings should not have been taxed for 1988. REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1988 tax overpayment to developer. Valuation: $68,130 $58,185 $60,439 $60,439 $68,130 $60,439 $60,439 GO. (.00645) 439.43 375.29 389.83 389.83 439.43 389.83 389.83 G2 (:0054) 367:90 314:19 326:37 326:37 367:90 326.37 326.37 CH (:001775) 120.93 103.27 107:27 107.27 120.93 107.27 107.27 928.26 792.75 823.47 823.47 928.26 823.47 825.47 Valuation: $60,439 $62,558 $62,558 GO (.00645) 389.83 403.49 403.49 $928.26 G2 (:0054) 326.37 337:81 337.81 792.75 CH (:001775) 107.27 111:04 110.04 823.47 823.47 823.47 852.34 852.34 928:26 823.47 823:47 823.47 852:34 .RECOMMENDATION: Approve 852:54 $8,471.30 Total Refund ORDER: DATE: TWP 3 3 ACCT # 124541 TRACT # 334793 3.6..31E MAP BILL # 16692 Romell T. Wilkinson 131 Dogwood Dr. Mebane, NC 27302 COMMENT: House should have been taxed at only 10% complete as of 1-1-88. REF: GS 105-381(a)(1)a. A tax imposed through a clerical error. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1988 tax overpayment. Valuation: GO $325.75 fB 15.15 $340.90 •RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: • 4 • et""----.. TWP 7 ACCT # 58718 TRACT # 703085 MAP 7.83.F.6 BILL # 8836121 • Alice & Paul Neebe Rt 6, Box 400 Hillsboroughf, NC 27278 ( COMMENT: Additional construction picked up incorrectly. Attic not finished, only added a pull down ladder. REF: GS 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUEST ): Refund 1988 tax overpayment VAluation: $9,606 GO $61.95 G2 51.87 CH 17.05 ■ $130.87 • - .RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: • --- AUL 5 ACCT # 115328 TRACT # MAP BILL # 8843774 3 James P. Evans Rt 5, Box 807 Hillsborough, NC 27278 ( COMMENT: Charged with rate code 23, should have been rate code 00 REF: GS 105-381(a)(1)a. A tax imposed through a clerical error. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1988 tax overpayment Valuation: $6,160 RC 23 $69.30 RC 00 42.91 26.39 Refund •RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: TWP 7.135..8K 6 ACCT # 120943 TRACT # 735034 MAP 7 BILL # 8847628 Jack Shreffler 117 Lynwood Pl. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 C COMMENT: Owner failed to indicate percentage of house completed on 1-1-88 and house was taxed at 100% complete. Later provided letter indicating 35% complete on Jan 1, 1988. REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1988 property tax refund. Valuation: $138,014 GO $890.19 ' s CH 244:97 G2 745.27 $1880.43 .RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: TWP Chapel Hill 7 ACCT # 46025 TRACT # MAP BILL # 884031 Lisa James Breeze 124 Chaucer St. Carrboro, NC 27510 COMMENT: Requested refund for 1987 and 1988. Listed 1986 Toyoto for 1987 and 1988. Actually owned by World Omni Leasing Inc. and leased by James Breeze. REF: C.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: 1987 Valuation $8,270 (RC 01) 1988 Valuation $7,875 (RC 21) GO $50.12 GO $50.79 FL 6.53 G1 46.79 CH $56.65 $111.56 $ 56.65 111.56 $168.21 Total. Refund .RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: 8 ACCT # 111341 TRACT # 233764 MAP 2.40 BILL # 8744578 Mary Poteat Rt 1, Box 238 Cedar Grove, NC 27231 COMMENT: Doublewide mobile home leasehold should not have been included on above tract. Remove homesite value from lot. REF: GS 105-301(a)(1)b., An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1987 tax overpayment Valuation $335 GO $ 2.03 11 .18 $ 2.21 .RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: 9 ACCT # 111341 TRAcT # 233764 mAp 2.40 BILL # 8744578 Mary Poteat Rt 1, Box 238 Cedar Grove, NC 27231 COMMENT: Doublewide mobile home should not have been included on above tract. REF: GS 105-301(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax overpayment for 1987 Valuation $24,000 GO $145.44 Fl 12.96 $158.40 • .RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: • • 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Nay 16, 1989 Action A enda Item #__ SUBJECT: LUP-3-89 UNIVERSITY STATION ASSOCIATES DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X_,-No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: - 2-27-89 Public Hearing Minutes Planning Director - Ext. 346 Minutes of 4-4-89 Planning Board - Application Materials - Staff Analysis TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation 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 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 Ten-Year Transition plan category. This amendment would apply to both the Eno Township and Chapel Hill Township components 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. 2 This matter was presented at public hearing on February 27, 1989. Eleven citizens spoke in reference to the proposed amendment. Three spoke in favor of the amendment; five were opposed; and the remaining three expressed serious concerns, but no outright opposition. The attached minutes indicate specific citizen, concerns. On April 4, 1989, the Planning Board considered the proposed plan amendment, and recommended approval of the request by a 6-3 vote. Draft minutes of this meeting are also attached. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment per the Planning Board recommendation. PAGE 9 PU BEIC HEAR ING MINUTES 272 7/89 he be allowed to stay in the GC-4 zoning classifications and be allowed to operate his business and make a living. • Ms. Carol Tingley, representing the Division of Parks and Recreation, stated - concern about the implications of this proposed land use change. The Eno River State • Park is very close to this property. Some of the 25 acres is adjacent to land which is proposed for acquisition in the master plan for the Park. Any type of high- intensity:commercial or industrial use at this location could be detrimental to the 3 park. Facilities which could result in excessive noise, polluted runoff, smoke, 1 odors, or. tall buildings would significantly reduce public enjoyment of the river and - the park. Although Mr. Kennedy's plans may not change, changing the Land Use Plan :leaves the door open to future development of this kind. The County's current Land Use Plan is very clear that this particular quadrant of the intersection should be treated differently than the other quadrants because of its proximity to the park. The existing Land Use Plan indicates that the areas including the park and the river should be protected from adverse development pressures. In referencing the activity node at the 1-85 and U.S. 70 interchange, the plan indicates that the Eno River State , Park, as well as the flood plain along the Eno River, are located north of this interchange and therefore industrial and commercial development should be confined to the area south and east of the interchange. In a letter to the Division of Parks and Recreation last March, the County indicated its commitment to maintain the land use designation in the Land Use Plan which will provide low density, non-intensive uses • • around the parks periphery.' She asked that the Land Use Plan not be changed. However, if this amendment is approved it needs to include a provision to protect this land from future intensive uses which are not a part of the present proposal but which could be available. to a land owner if the Land Use Plan is changed. Examples would -- include a limit on buildini.heighf, protections from noise and excessive lighting, ' . -e Garry 1.7: Dean' of Ratite 1; Dove Creek Road in Orange County spoke in support of . Kennedy:sirequest stating the land was sold to him as GC4 and he should be able - • • . . • • to use and maintain it as GC4.!-:. - . . . • ' - • , - - THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS .CLOSED:, Commissioner Marshall- stated that the Board of Commissioners are in agreement that when the County makes a mistake it must do everything possible to correct the mistake without hurting the property owner. The Board of Commissioners did agree on another approach that will be presented later on the agenda that would certainly show respect for the State Parkland and the Board's commitment to that quadrant. . - • . • • . • ' A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit,. seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis; to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be presented to the ' Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3rd, .1989. • - VOTE: UNANIMOUS • . - • • • c. - LIT-3-89 University Station Associates - (Rural Residential/Agricultural/Resource Conservation to 10-Year Transition) The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan submitted by University Station Associates. The property is located south of the Southern Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. • • . . . . . , PACE 10 . . . ..... . - • - -. 4 . . 1 10 (Sr 1710). The site is further referenced as lot 20 of Orange County Tax Map 27, 2 Eno Township; lots 20 A, 47 and 48 of Orange County Tax Map 26, Eno Township; and lot 3 13 of Orange County -Tax Map 3, Chapel Hill Township. The property which contains 575 4 acres is located primarily in Eno Township with the southernmost boundary crossing 5 into Chapel Hill Township. The property fronts on New Hope Church Road for a distance 6 of 2900 feet and old N.C. 10 for 4920 feet. The area is currently zoned R-1 7 Residential and is shown as Rural Residential-Agricultural Use and Resource . 8 Conservation on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed 9 . amendment to the plan would reclassify this site to the 10-Year Transition plan 10 category.s . . .. . . . • . . . 11 . • - : . • , .. - . 12 . QUESTIONS OR. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD. . . . . 14 • • Commissioner Marshall asked when the update of the Comprehensive Plan for the Eno 15 and. Chapel Hill Township was approved and was told by Collins that it was in July, 16 1988. ' • 17 . - - • 18 -... Commissioner Marshall questioned if the staff and the Planning Board looks at the 19 . three reasons (changing conditions, error and omissions and changing policies) when 20 making recommendations to the Board for the annual update of the Plan. 22 .-7: • ' Mr4.: Collini. indicated. that they do look at those conditions and in particularly 4 23 .7.'io see which conditions have changed:- With the construction of 1-40, the potential 24 :'.for greater demands for development in this area, particular at higher densities, ,5 -: - - could be' seen. However, at' that time there appeared to be some agricultural use of 76 ..... the, property ' and because of the proximity of- Duke FOrest, it could go either way'. , It 27 was decided to approach it on'the' side of caution rather than on the side of proposing - 28 ..;*- . • .....:the extension.:::::`:::::1- -.; - .-:'':•----.•. .1.-..-.::-.-.....`"•-,.?•;':.......-.",•-...: ...-"7".:"'- . . , . . •. . . • ' : . . . 30 '' .L" 1- Commissioner Maiihallexpreised concern about the integrity of the Land Use Plan . . 31f" aile( the'prOCi^si.:by.which changes are made..? She stated she does not'recall discussing ' . 32 :: this'aspect of the Plan. She stated her understanding of the process is that the Plan . 33:%; iaupdated every 5 years so that the County has a direction for the future. If these 34 . changes were adopted in July or August, there would need to be changing conditions 35 that have occurred since that time to necessitate a change in the Land Use Plan. This 36 . update was just made and certain criteria have, been established for what the County 37 expects of Rural Residential. - One thing that was.not expected in a Rural'Residential 38 area was a full range of urban services. However, Rural Residential is clearly 39 identified by saying that rural areas are to be developed as low density and low- -0 density residential. The applied zoning district is R-1 Low Density Residential which 41 says nothing about changing, conditionS. Commissioner Marshall stated she cannot think 42 of anything that is going to change conditions more than such a large area suddenly 43 being taken from something that has been reaffirmed a few months earlier as Low,- -44 Density Residential and putting this kind of a planned development on it. This is the 45 way suburbs are created and all the things which are undesirable. 46 ... - . . . . Collins' stated that there are a couple of things which have changed during that - 49 .... time span. One is the whole issue of the school. It was not determined for sure if 49 ... the school was going in that location. An argument could be made that a school in a 50. .' rural area is not anything new, but sometimes a school by its very nature brings on 51 connotations of more development in an area. • . . 53 ' Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the school wIll be filled the minute the 54 door is open. . 55 . - - • 56 , 57 58 . • . • PAGE 11 j • 1 Mr. Collins agreed. Another change may occur when a water/sewer service area 2 with the various utility providers is established. There is a gap between what our 3 transition areas show and what the various utility providers indicate they would like 4 to see for their 20 year service areas. The point could be argued that the utility 5 ' providers should match up with the transition areas instead of the County extending 6 out to their proposed boundaries. At any time, an applicant may come into the office 7 ' and ask to have the Land Use Plan or the Comprehensive Plan amended. They may have 8 .- specific ideas in mind and things may have happened, like the adoption of the Master 5 Recreation and Parks Plan or.the issuance of a Natural Areas Inventory, and you begin 0 :..to see that perhaps an amendment like this may be okay. There are certain goals that 1 are Contained in the Comprehensive Plan that could be achieved if something like this - developed. What happens in the process is that all the work put into updating the . 3 . plan is wasted. As things change and new information is available it affects thinking 4 as well. 6 Commissioner Marshall indicated that she felt these wai not enough flexibility in 7 the Plan. The way the plan is proposed the people who have the resources to put 8 together a huge amount of acreage have an advantage. This then breaks down the 9 ' expectations that people have built up about the plan as well as the credibility of 0... the Board itself. Where water and sewer is available, development can be controlled 1 .. by way of the Land Use Plan. It is important to work out the meaning of integrity and 2.'• how to maintain it 3 - 4 Steve Yuhasz commented that he thought that to some extent the County failed to 6 Land Use anticipate properly the growth that will occur within Orange County at the time the Plan was: adopted:%.* This was pointed out at the time the Land Use Plan was '7: discussed. , Some of the, difficulrylin maintaining the integrity of the Land Use Plyn--.7 _V :.is`a result of adopting' i plan that is overly conservative initially. If a better job - 9 ? could be done in anticipating where the growth is going to occur and then include that in' a Land Use Plan,. the integrity would have a better chance of being maintained. • Chairman Carey pointed out that Collins mentioned changed circumstances in the . 3--" County rather than changed circumstances in that particular area and questioned the 4 .; intent of this statement. . • ' Collins . stated that there have been changing conditions in this area. This 7 . property has very little chance of continuing in its agricultural use. The property 8 does have some development limitations in terms of soils that are unsuited for septic 9 .. tanks. There is the presence of alluvial substandard soils in the flood plains and 0 along Stony Creek which limits the extent to which the property could be developed. 1 Collins stated he felt that sometimes too much emphasis is placed on whether or not conditions'have changed in a specific area, when sometimes there are larger issues to 3...nook at such as what is going on in the County as a whole which may justify a change. 4.2:1The Master Recreation and Parks Plan is a good example even though there is a specific site recommended here. The school and perhaps even the Environmental Impact Ordinance 6 that was discussed earlier would cause changing conditions. • • . - 8 Barry Jacobs asked if under the proposed Water and Sewer Policy an R-1 9 development would be allowed in this area, and if a water line passed by it, would he 0 be allowed to take advantage of the opportunity to tap into that line. 1 2 Collins answered that if there was a water and sewer line extended by this 3 . development to serve a public purpose, such as a school, or to an emergency situation, 4 . 5 6 7 3 PAGE 12 d - - - - - - - - • 1 (subdivision with failing septic tanks), then this particular site could access a 2 public water and sewer line and maintain a density of one unit to the acre. 3 4 Jacobs stated that it would therefore not necessitate a higher density in order 5 to make available water and sewer: Collins agreed that it would not. The assumption 6 is that public water and sewer would be extended by this development for one of those 7 two purposes stated above.' 8 - - 9 Jacobs asked how the limits of this transition area were being defined stating 10 that already the adjacent property owner to the east has made it known that he would 11 like to change to a transition area. Jacobs asked how far the transition area along . • • :2 Old Highway 10 would be extended. • „ 3 _ „ . • .. . . 4 Collins stated that the railroad. spur that comes off the Southern Railroad and 5 runs down to Chapel Hill might be an appropriate dividing line. To the southeast is 6 existing residential development. .7 '8 Jacobs indicated that that'was at one unit per acre. He asked if conditions 9 change would other properties have an opportunity to change their Land Use designation _0 . and Collins stated that they would always have the option of making that request. _1 :2 3 ' : Jacobs asked when property is sold in this transition area if the new owner could request any zoning density from two units per acre to 13 units per acre.- Collins :4 -agreed with that statement. • 5 . _ • Commissioner Willhoit commented that the R-1 classification has to do with a lack of availability' of water and Sewer and' that water and sewer services' are.not expected 9: within the 10.to. 20-year' time.frame:...7 Therefore, one unit per acre becomes the density', ' -.. critetion because that is what is required in the absence of water andsewer... Be .0- stated• thatas water and sewer is extended and therefore becomes available it would . • l 'fseeti- to bei. candidate for. change becauie one of the basic criterion then of R1 no • ' , 2 . longer seems that the more basic question of how fax you go and at what 3 '. speed' has-to do' with the ability to provide urban services. The availability of water 4 "and' sewer should not be the only criteria that is used in making these decisions. One 5 • of the things that is of concern here is that the logical growth meet the land use 6 plan as it relates to the availability of urban type services. 7.. • .: --• •. '• • 8 : : In answer to a question about the placing of a sewer line so that it will not 9 disturb the wildlife trail, Collins indicated that the creek bisects the property in a 0 southwest-northeast direction. The property falls on both sides toward the creek. 1 One way to install the sewer lines and avoid the wildlife corridor is to have parallel 2 systems which would parallel both' sides of the creek, the wildlife corridor and the 3 development on either side flowing into it. Another way is to have the sewer lines 4 further away from the wildlife corridor.- This would depend on the layout of the 5 " roads. If the roads follow the natural fall of the land, the sewer lines could do 6 likewise. - - _ Jacobs asked what the minimum requirement would be and Collins stated that there was none and that it presently could not be required. The inventory just recommends 0 that a minimum requirement be considered but there is no provision in the ordinance to 1 require it. 2 3 In answer to a question from Commissioner Villhoit about water and sewer and the 4 designation of transition areas, Collins stated that one way is to say this looks good • 6 7 3 . ' PAGE 13 _ . . . . - • 7 , .. - . . . . . - . ' ' f: . l'-':-.• .-- "..... -- '-2: . ... --.. ' - ' 1 as a transition-area as it is in the path of urban growth. Then you designate it 2 without any consideration of anything else. The way this is done and the way that it 3 was addressed in the Hillsborough Comprehensive Sewer Plan, is to project the 4 population for that area. Then that population is converted to the land needed for 5 new housing units based on some assumptions about densities. Those densities may be 6 on an average in the range of two and one-half units per acre for transition areas. 7 The outcome of this is protection based on population projections. This is then. B .: allocated around the community based on where growth is likely to occur or where you 9 . want to see growth occur. . .. . . • ... .• - -• - . .. • •. . . 1 ...:15 .„... Jacobs asked about what would be the limit in terms of extending the transition 2... Orea...... Collins- stated,that, this would actually, with the exception of a few parcels 3%-:!..immediately adjacent on the east,. be the limit of the transition area from a 20 year 4 'Planning perception, because. therein lies the limit of the 20 year Hillsborough. 5 _ . service area. Beyond that point, is another drainage divide and the cost for service 6 into an area like that becomes more prohibitive than serving this particular project 7. . -becauseyour pumping over one ridge and then over another ridge. This project, if 9 . developed, would require the installation of pump stations. 0 . Commissioner Marshall-pointed out that Hillsborough created this plan without 1 _ consulting with Orange County about what we expected to do for land use. ' . -. .. . 2 l' . ' :r ' ....',.. . • . . •- • , • . . • •- _ . 3 : PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN'COMMENTS . . : . .. . . . . . 4........ . . ".:. : I.- - -J-'1::::::- . • -. . . -- .• - : - . - • • .. • ... . 5 • '..... % Gordon Brown, an attorney representing University Station Associations and a 6 .... resident of Orange.County, stated that the Land Use Plan Amendment .was first brought.- ' .. .. . . , 7";i forward in JulY.7..;; It was heard at a Commissioners meeting in August and then. withdrawnR...-: ~ . .8.1.. by the:applicant: in September.L.:The driving force behind this withdrawal was:a. concern.l...,-.. . ..; 9%i.:......that the County's water and sewer policy had:not yet developed to the point that the':::: , . .. '. 07EdeveloPei....conld-escertain whether the project-would be feasible in relation to public . .- . • 1.-:IT;:waterand,sevierThehallmark of these developers is they want to do this project- ......L......, ! , 2-.ifight;;;'. They-believi-that" public water, and. sewer should be available: They share the: - 3.-":, distrust'of a. lot of people. about package plants and community water systems. '. The . ..... :.. : 4Y: technolna to: date just may not be there. The soils-on some of this project do not- - , * 5.:, lend themselves.to septic tanks and drainage fields. They feel that to get a quality • 6-.-. development there, and one that is reliable and in the public interest, that public ' V..: woter.and'sewer. should,be available. That explains the hiatus between the summer and EF-1.today - The County's water and sewer policy is a long way toward realization and with .. respect to that realization the developers felt that they should take advantage of the 0. ....once a year Land Use Plan Amendment which this hearing is on tonight. Consequently, f.2.:-:.they are applying for a change to bring this property within the transition area which . - 2-..':. is also coterminous with.Billaborough's 20 year water and sewer plan. It is important 3 to realize that in the fall there was no guarantee that whatever was done on this property the public water and sewer would be extended to it. -- Under the proposed . 5 :Twoter and sewer policy; water and sewer can be extended to this project if it is in a . 6 ...=: 10 year transition area. 1.7.-This does not mean if this is changed to a transition area, 7.'4. that developers,can come' in and automatically alter the density in this area. They gi...,:would come in under the existing R1 classification that allows approximately 1 lot per 9 .. . acre. . A lot of things would then have to be looked at to determine what they apply 0 ' for'as the next stage. One option available is to simply apply for a planned 1 _development at a density of one unit per acre. Another option would be to apply for a 2 rezoning change to a higher density. If that happens then it would be for only very 3 . specific reasons. It may be to take advantage of the affordable housing policy that 4 the Board may be in the process of adopting now. It could want to take advantage of 6 7 . 3 I 1 _ PAGE 14 1 bonus densities' afforded by providing more recreational amenities. It may be 2 influenced by the cost of bringing water and sewer to the project itself and making it 3 generally available to other parcels including some of the neighboring subdivisions 4 and mobile home parks that are' already existing in this area including sewer to 5 Strayhorn Hills:. There are a lot of things that could influence the question of 6 considering a higher density but the important 'thing is that the Board of 7 Commissioners has controls at the rezoning level where the criteria for discussion are 8 :different than what they are' tonight. Collins and his staff have looked over this 9 application and determined that conditions have changed and are changing and will 10 . probably continue to change... They have looked at the location criteria and determined 11 .-. that this property is suitable for a more urban density. Hillsborough,. on page 153 of 12 ' the,agenda, has indicated_that,: provided it has .the capacity, they will provide water •- - ••- 13'1.'and,sewer service'.to this project; :.This is-within the 20 year water and sewer plan' . :4' for Hillsborough: For all of these reasons; Mr.' Brown asks positive consideration of - . 5 this application.'' He 'stated that what this developer wants is to make sure that this - .6': project is developed properly and that there are adequate safeguards in the planning . ;7 ; process.' The question of the ultimate density of the project and how it is developed .8-' still.needs to be addressed. : With reference to this application, Brown stated that he 9 believes that the Land Use Plan is served and is consistent with its application. )1 :• __ Patricia Mazza of Craig Associates indicated that each of the Commissioners were anta copy of her letter which supports. this amendment dated February 23, 1989. This letter. is.made part of these minutes-by. reference and.is a part of the permanent . . agenda file in the Clerk's Office:' - - • •. • - • •' • '6 Clint Burklin of the.,Stonycreek Neighborhood Association is the Chairman of their. : "..:. ?7, committee,:on zoning and' land-use_planning issues:' ;The Association requests that the 28; County Commissioners. reconsider.the recommendation that this area be changed to a 10 9 year_;transition area: `Changing- to.a 10 year."transition' zone. opens..this area up for a wide range'•"of"possible "uses`;= These':include"very high-densities and support services." ;1.N Tlie':University; Associates..have-.'changed their proposal=-at least once and are now-, 2 undecided about many of the original'assets _that had been explained as being in their:••,:-;` `'` •lans •;';'Because'.of this flexibili ;3�� p {•• ty; we are very concerned about this redesignation.•• •.:•::-��'•• ;4 Burklin'pointed out' several; things This property is adjacent to Duke Forest. It is ::5 adjacent to, the Rural Buffer.' Changing to 10 year transition is not compatible with• '' the current development that.has occurred in the area. . It is not a logical extension ,7•.: Of the •10.year transition zone:.around Hillsborough which should be a uniform ' transition zone movement:''• It is .a finger that reaches way out and there is a fear' :9 • that this is going to be an island of high-density in what is now a low-density area -o with a 'mixed use and it is not compatible. • He also pointed out that this area is very .41 likely to be impacted by• the outcome of the rural characterization study that is being, • ,2';:; done at this time.' The findings of this characterization study are going to be out ' - .;3: shortly:'• The Stonycreek Association recommends that you uphold the current Rural • • 44::_Residential designation and leave the Land Use Plan intact as it stands right now. • ;5 The plan- is good and the Association does not-think it needs"to be changed. • :7`' "'Jim Mitchell;='of Strayhorn Hills lives- directly behind this proposed development: ': • g' .He-stated that one of the reasons- for the meeting tonight is the Impact Tax for the •- g•";:; park system.- He does not think it-will be possible to get 25 acres donated for a park .0 •: if 25 or 30 different developers go out and develop this piece of property in a . i1 disorganized fashion. Large scale planning is generally better. Be asked that this point be considered. . He indicated that he spoke with quite a few of his neighbors and'" that he did not find any opposition to this development. - - • - _6 7 • 8 •• PAGE 15 • T • 9 1 - . Alan Seiferheld agreed with Commissioner Marshall's comments. The plan for the area was rural low-density.- He moved to this area eight months ago partly because it 3 was close to the new interstate and is rural. The possible density using three people 4 per family means that the minimum number would be 1700 and the maximum could be 5 22,440. Seiferheld stated he did not move from Cary to be in the middle of an area 5 . like that, Approving this recommendation opens this area up to high-density. The 7 '•' voices you hear supporting this change are motivated by a desire to develop this area 8 for profit. .. 3 `` '' George Brumley', owner of 30 acres across the street from the proposed new 1 ':. •subdivision disagreed strongly with the previous speaker. He feels that new families 2:==in this area will be to our advantage.. He does not want to see his property values 3' • diminished:. "Relating to Hr.--.- Mitchell's concern, a park is very desirable for this large. stale development offers the potential to acquire a park, .whereas there 5 - is not that opportunity with the smaller developments. 7 :' ': = Spence Dickinson felt that this property was naturally in the Rural Buffer Area. 8 In the past 18 years the farm mentioned as not being used has been a dairy farm, a 9 horse farm, a summer. camp and last year it was farmed for crops. This property has 0 $300,000 to $400•,000 worth of agricultural buildings. It is filled with wildlife.. He 1 is not opposed to planned development but is opposed to 20,000 people moving into this 2 area. . He is also opposecl: to more farmland being destroyed. Putting in sewer is not a 3 ;.negative.. However, having a large•number. of people is unacceptable. .. - .5 =:= -, Joe Wordburn;• President' of the Stonycreek Neighborhood Association, spoke for 6::;that:Association.::•:•-They are not opposed to- residential and commercial development in -7.: ,Orange_••County: They,are_very concerned about any large development which would alter= _$'`the:;character..of Orange County. including the Rural Buffer and Duke Forest. . This 575• • I 19�:':.•acre tract is'in"an"extremely important.•rural area that protects- the towns' of Chapel -. ;p •Hill; Durham and•Hillsborough from growing together. into a big urban sprawl:- Any: - . 1.:;.;.change: in the Land Use Plan. that would allow' another city to spring•up within the next ;2•=,:.^decade.makes.a• mockery,of'the'plans that have been nurtured by the. Commissioners over ;3A: the:course of the past' decade::- He asked that the Board not allow such a breach to • The.best way to control. that is to, control the density' of the• land use over a :5 ' long period of time.::= =.: : ' • �7:_,. : �. •,Todd Yarning, a resident of the N.C. 10 area along Strayhorn Hills, encouraged the 39-_; Commissioners, to:leave the-Land Use Plan intact.- He stated that the attorney for the 9•• University Station Associates paints a very attractive picture but there is no 40 - guarantee. about what they will really do with this land, He noted the development . • :1:-,.,could end up with.7,000 homes. He asked what will this do to services and the roads: part' of- the- rural'nature of Orange County. This area deserves. attention and _3 .:.preservation :' He asked that the Board please• leave the current Land Use Plan intact. 45 .Peter. Pippens, resident of Orange County, was told by the Planning' Department • . 46 that. 10 year. transition means that in 10 years the.transition area would be ' 47-- Hillsborough City limits._,,_He•expressed opposition to this. • • clarified this stating that it means that the character of the - 30 :.development' in that area would be urban in nature. If it did develop urban and the 51. Town of Hillsborough was serving it with public water and sewer, it could be brought -2 into their corporate limits by annexation. . 73 • - 74 Roy Roth of the Stonycreek Area spoke in opposition to this development. He 55 • 56 ' 57 • 58 • PAGE 16 - • • 1 stated that roads are already at capacity and cannot handle an increase in population: 2 Also, a new school is going into this area. He asked what criterion was not in 3 compliance with the Planning Boards' regulations.•4 . - 5 • A. T. Carrington of Strayhorn Hills mentioned that Old #10 is a curvy road with a 6 very dangerous underpass. It will need to be upgraded because it will be the access 7 into Hillsborough. A new water main will be required for this development. He asked 8 who will pay for the water and sewer. Collins indicated that the developer would pay 9 for' extension of water and sewer unless the Town of Hillsborough would share the cost. 0 - - 1 - THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS,CLOSED; . • 3 :- • A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer.. 4 this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of ' 5 .Commissioners no sooner than April 3rd. 6 . VOTE: : UNANIMOUS : - -. ._ • • . . g 9 . • 4. Zoning Atlas Amendments • - .. . • . • - 0 " a.• • Z-1.89. Richard Andrews • - • • 1 _:•.;•.•:.. :•. ';• . •-. The presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary,. this item is to - • 2 receive citizen comment on, the proposed rezoning request submitted by Richard Andrews. 4 The property: is located on the north side of NC 54', just east of Morrows Mills Road. It is known as Lot 127A• of Tax Map 26 in Bin 4••'' p Bingham Township. The existing lot contains � • 5 :,: 2.94' acres and is currently in the AR-Agricultural Residential Zoning District. The: :• 5 -' applicant'is°'requesting that 1.9_ acres be;s•raezo- ne' d to NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial•:-7is -7. - District .4,,:2_» -n1`;.::r:i:. _ : r:' r-:. ' e _ a - : 'if N .''`"' -- - . .. :`i. ° . _`;. _. ...-.•: • ' '9.....--.: THER �EEING NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD -- •0 1 -THE•PUBLIC HEARING WAS' OPEN-.FOR• . • _ PUBLIC•CQM33ENT��=M . ":•- '`'�:' '•3 :.- -:_ :F.. Greg Shepard"of.Shepard Design soc • As iates spoke as a representative of the _. ' .4 developer. • He stated that the balance of this property shall remain zoned AR to meet '=' 3 the dimensional requirements of the AR. Zone and remain zoned in that way. ' The" • • ; .`•.resultant area of•1.92 acres proposed to be zoned will ensure compliance with the ' • • 7 •:•intent of the Orange County. Zoning Ordinance in not exceeding the 5.0' acres which is 3•. set as a maximum'limitation.... In regard to the other criteria as-'set forth in section ' •4.2.9. of the Zoning Ordinance,' the property is located within the Rural Neighborhood . :..,.Activity, Node...: The permitted uses within the NC2 zoning classification are designed'. • • 1 -to- serve the neighborhood population;'• There-are performance standards within the ••:'-..=.••.. • -, •-• Ordinance that would ensure that any adverse. impact would not go beyond the immediate - 3 •::'.space-occupied by_the building or the boundaries of the property. The subject ' + ::. property has frontage on Highway 54 which is an arterial as shown on the Land Use:' -.. . - Plan.••• Confirmation has been.received from the 'Orange County Health Department - , • ; .;sue:approving;water;_and sewage_disposal systems on site.:.: The Orange County Sheriff's .. - - • -:::_:.-Department; Orange Grove.Fire Department and Emergency Medical South Orange Rescue • ' Squad have. indicated they could serve the property. Commissioner Hartwell asked if this property was east of White Cross Road and • • •: Shepard indicated that'it was west of White Cross on the north side of 54. Located • opposite the P&S Sporting Goods and the north side immediately adjacent to this property there is a white concrete block building which is presently vacant. The previous use was Town and Country Homes. • • . 11 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4/4/89 21 at the expense of one individual property owner. He stated that he felt it would be an appropriate compromise to extend the node to include only Mr.. Kennedy's property and not the intervening property between Mr. Kennedy and Pleasant Green Road. VOTE: 4 in favor. 5 opposed (Yuhasz, Lewis, Boland, Eidenier, Eddleman - all had the same concern as Yuhasz presented in the above statement) . MOTION: Yuhasz moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Land Use Plan be changed to include the subject property only within the activity node. Seconded by Lewis. VOTE: 4 in favor. 5 opposed (Jacobs, Best, Pilkey, Hamilton - preferred the Planning Staff recommendation; Eddleman - indicated he was uncomfortable with both alternatives) . (3) LUP-3-89 University Station Associates (Rural Residential/Agricultural/Resource Conservation to 10-Year Transition) Presentation by Marvin Collins. The property requested for amendment by University Station Associates is located south of the Southern Railroad on both sides of Old NC 10 (SR 1710) . 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 NC 10 for 4920 feet. The are is currently zoned R-1 Residential and is shown as Rural Residential-Agricultural use and Resource Conservation in 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 components of the Plan. The purpose of this request if to allow the applicant to make application for approval of a planned residential community. This matter was presented at public hearing on 1 22 2 February 27, 1989 and eleven citizens spoke in reference to the proposed amendment. Three spoke in favor, five were opposed and three expressed serious concerns but no outright opposition. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Best asked if there is a formula by which to expand transition areas. Collins responded that the only formula is the application of the 10- . Year Transition category. Staff addressed the criteria in its analysis presented at public hearing. He noted that 7 of the criteria were satisfied, 3 borderline and only 1 questionable. He noted that there are few if any requests that meet all of the criteria. Best continued asking if there is more transition area available within the county and Collins responded yes, giving those areas that are vacant. He noted that the point was made at public hearing that one of the reasons Staff felt this should be included in the transition area was an initial effort to derive some consistency with the 20-Year sewer service areas with the Town of Hillsborough and the County Transition Areas. Pilkey asked about the 20 and 50-year sewer service areas and Collins reviewed them on the map. Yuhasz asked Collins what kind of development • pattern could be expected if the request is granted and becomes a transition area. Collins responded he would expect to see more between this proposed development and the Town of Hillsborough since the infrastructure would be coming out to this development. He noted that this area is the easternmost extent of the 20- year service area and the Town and County are attempting to get utility providers to agree to those service areas. Jacobs asked about the pressure problems mentioned with the existing water lines. Collins responded that the water lines waorile: have to be upgraded by the developers. This would also benefit other residents in the Best expressed concern with the changing of the Land Use Plan so soon after the update in August 1988. He questioned the stability of the Plan if it is to be changed so often. Collins responded that when 1:pdates are done, the best information MMEMM■mmmummmimmmw 2 13 3 available at the time is used to make projections. If someone comes in with a project such that would expand the transition area then it must be dealt with. Collins continued that one of the things that changed his position was that the University Station Project fit in with the effort to provide consistency with service areas and the County Transition Areas. He note if the request for the change in the Land Use Plan is approved, the developer could then either ask for a straight rezoning or present a planned development proposal. Pilkey asked how the property could be developed if the Land Use Plan amendment is not approved. Collins responded that it would probably be developed in the individual tracts that make up this entire tract. He continued that the master planning of a project this size has many advantages for the County as well as the applicant. Eidenier stated that she shared concerns about changing the Land Use Plan but she felt that development will be occurring in this area and she would much prefer to see planned development rather than individual developments. Eddleman also noted concern with changing the Land Use Plan so soon after an update. Lewis indicated he felt there had been an under- estimation due to not taking into account the utility service areas and providers. MOTION: Yuhasz moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Lewis. VOTE: 6 in favor. 3 opposed (Eddleman - did not desire to change the Land Use Plan so soon after an update; Hamilton and Pilkey - not convinced that the area should be a Transition Area) . Jacobs noted part of the consideration, at least on his part, is the fact that the Board still has the option to zone the property at whatever density seems appropriate. b. Zoning Atlas Amendments (1) Z-1-89 Richard Andrews ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 14 HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA .17278 XIP • LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION All persons requesting an amendment to the Land Use Plan of Orange County are required to complete the following application as completely as possible: • • OFFICE USE ONLY . • • REOUEST ILLUP- 21 - kECEIVE • DATE D: 1111)01 • STAFF PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE: G•emeex,ltkk4t,C1 54,44•CS • GENERAL DATA: See Attached Addendum A • Property Owner(s) Name: . . Hailing Address: • " • • Phone: (B'orne) (Work) • Agent(s) Nanie: John 0. Cooper, Jr. , c/o Amerivest Properties. Inc. Mailing Address: /1601 Six Forks Road Suite 108. Raleioh. NC 2760* . . Phone: (919) 787-7400 --,SPEC.IF C"DATA: -• See Attached Addendum 8- • • Tax Reference: Township Tax Map Block Lot Public/Pr.lva-te Road Name: New Hope Church Road (NCSR 1723) and Old NC 10 (NCSR 1710) • Ley: Acreaoe -- 575 •Scre •Footaoe. 25,047,000 • - • new Hope Unurcri Road 2,900 feet • .. Lot* Frontage Old NC 10 4,920 L©t Depth Current Plan Category Designstion(s) : General Rural Residential , Aoricultural-Activity Node Watershed Joint Planning Area • • • • 25 RE0:7ST =LUP- 'DECIFIC DATA (continued) : ascribe Land Uses in the General Area: Rural Residential , Ten Year Transition On Adjacent Parcels of Land: Rural Residential • EQUEST: • • • and Use Plan Category Desianation(s) Requested: Ten Year Transition !Pe. of Amendment: Primary x Secondary * * * * * * * * * * is application should be submitted with the following materials: dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel, or portion thereof, in question. • x Legal description of the parcel, or portion thereof. • .. • .... • - ...•• 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 support o: the". proposed amendment o statement of the changed or changinc conditions in the • area, or in the Cognty generally, which make the proposed . amendment reasonably necessary. . _• (we) , the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this )plication are true and to the best of my (our) knowledge and that the :plication as submitted is complete. niversity Station Associates 647)- a • NAME OF Alr-PL2CANT GNATURE OP' AP:DgIOANT(S) January 23, 1929 DATE • 16 • Addendum A to Land Use Plan Amendment Application of University Station Associates 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--- NC 27707 Phone: Home: 489-9409 Work: 383-7451 - - 5-.-- Property owner(s) Name: Craig Associates, a North Carolina general partnership Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 2971 • Durham, NC 27705 Phone: Home: 493-8066 Work: 493-4166 8886.01\L\005ADDEN.A 17 Addendum B to Land Use Plan Amendment Application of 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 • •�i d �' ',�� • wO ttB K N I ! /� '`� Lf '� �rtr - I ..-- \ - : r; '� i/.— --+ I I A // / / � 1 7i ♦ H _ i I i ,- 1 t 1 1 - t ' ' ! ' 1 f 1 1 ]M S.e{ I:e. ` t u - f , •I 1 ID.• / •'.� • t QLr� II �� + I tt.K ;1 ~yn t!^� • e.e. lal K _ - - � 1 1W 14 44 sac".' f.Ct .a (fit .. . • .•.0 :,'+K �7 N4. I O rr New• .wK 1 O 4O i..t OYY•r 1 VV. ,^ 1.1 KK-:A.•~ I i M. .0.7 K XI')K v I f il ft iii-' V YO .f.G N M H- `y I 116:11 .•.•.0 r • Yo e7•e0 I 4:4 0 .....0, ew ♦i u • ga 1 7x • +-- -- 4r,..... ,.. , 6A,,... IF-71v . _ ..41 ,,ire . - . 4, 'o ^ Iowa .. q / Si r1t 04..E WOW o■lie • �11��� - ‘,"-:.-- e • . • . 7 .s"%'%f / igr- .F ..1. .t JwK t V•'-' 0 i 4441C .14,1 Ile .. i ©1 • 4111 • \t,-- V 4,-...r ... , '�+' f - •! - - 7.(; 4e/q�.d. r- .tom frApip. -• ;• t b pat. I M / ® )_ry e •.tV "Mere . f ,// eel�' /J/ 7 A. , ........ ....„,....,. ........ ...___ 44I 44 f • � . � UNIVERSITY STATION ASSOCIATES REQUEST F «.:31 o-, r Q FOR Met - ■ `r'.,,/ AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE PLAN a w.. 4' tea. , 144 FROM TO I Rural Residential. 10 Year Transition N .,) ,.,.c k's 0 I e », K Feb. 1, 1989 Scale: 1' = 1000' ti • 19 Mayor anuri Jai 71...hrilistarrougli Town Clerk Fred S. Cases, Jr. Agatha R. Johnson HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Street Supt. Commissioners L. D. Wagoner - J. Michael Kirby • Voter- Sewer Supt. Horace H. Johnson '11■• Clarence E. Rosemond Allen A. Lloyd Bobby P. Riley Water- Sewer.Dist. Supt. Remus J. Smith eb2 rog P. Richard Cherry • Chief of Police c'"Itl IP%It• Larry C. Higgs Fire Chief Mark Gordon July 6, 1988 Planning Director Jane V. Rigsbce Ms. Ceil 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 propPrry 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 mode 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. If you have any questions regarding the Board's action, please call here at Town Hall.- Ile look forward to working with you and your firm in this development. • .Sincerely, _ • - , • Agatha Johnson, Town Clerk cc: Marvin Collins • Orange County Planning • 20 January 23, 1989 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director Orange County Planning Department 306 F Revere Road - - V 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 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 13 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 Partnership 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. 21 • Mr, Marvin Collins, Planning Director January 23, 1989 Page 2 1. The Pro.osed Amendment Will Carr 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. " (Id. ) . The Partnership respectfully submits that it 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 • 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 22 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director January 23, 1989 Page 3 Property, this geographic feature does not appear to present any major obstacle to the extension of water and sewer lines. Hydrology. 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 Neuse 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 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. :kc7.7in:t1=1:Trfg7ttPTTIr1:17P.Doari=1"pric=:1!ri= buffers 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. soil 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 be taken into account in the overall planning of the site. The 23 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director January 23, 1989 Page 4 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. Transportation System. 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. • Energy Use. 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. -- - Existin Land Use. 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. AgrtglWal/lLandForestry. 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 24 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 "Millie 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) . Stravhorn Hills certainly meets this criterion as well as other pockets of 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. 1Z) . 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 identified public interest areas. " There appear to be no state or 25 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director 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 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 a part 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. 26 Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director January 23, 1989 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. Changing 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. • 27 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, • • af92‘C-22:17D. Cooper',J.24;:'11 f University Station Associates 8886. 01NIA003COLLI • 28 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 will 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 am 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 286-0321)1 to file appli- cation fee or to fulfill any other requirements you may deem ne- cessary for concurrent processing of my request. Hy 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, Philip D. Scott Attachment Copy to Orange County Commissioners % Mr. Moses Carey ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 29 • 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 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 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. Sincer 2.6,,taxj) P. David Stencil Comprehensive Planner II cc: Marvin Collins Planning Director Gene Bell Comprehensive Planner III 30 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. - 1 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 REQUIREMENTS 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 _ ®R 32 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 be 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 overnin the physical development of the County. g (No change in policies, objectives, principles or standards r s 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 32 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 tk.e 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 33 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 34 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 building or septic potential. The Stoney Creek are 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. Public Services/Utilities Located in areas which are or could be reasonably and efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities. 35 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. 36 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 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. OUESTIONABLE. The Eno Division of Duke Forest is located west of the site and has been included in the Natural Areas J 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, Biological and Geological . Significance in the Unincorporated Portions, of 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 v 38 - 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. $ - - . ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16, 1989 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: LUP-2-89 ENO-2 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT - ENO TOWNSHIP DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: - 2-27-89 Public Hearing Minutes David Stencil, Extension 566 - 4-4-89 Planning Board Minutes Gene Bell, Extension 565 - Previous Agenda Materials - Staff Analysis - August 22, 1988 Public Hearing Agenda Items - 12/20/88 Board of Commissioners TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and/or amendment to the Zoning Atlas for Eno Township. BACKGROUND: The area in question, in its original form, 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 10 acres of property belonging to Mr. Johnny Kennedy 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, 1989 meeting following comments by Mr. Kennedy's attorney that it was his understanding that the property was in the activity 2 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 meeting on January 3, 1989. The Staff reported at the January 3 meeting that the property was outside the node and was incorrectly zoned in 1981. As a means of addressing M . 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 an 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 • corridor, and would result in a uniform expansion of the Transition Area lying 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) . This matter was presented at public hearing on February 27, 1989. Concerns relative to the proximity of the Eno River State Park were made by Carol . Tingley, N.C. Department of NRCD, Division of Parks and Recreation. Comments in favor of the amendment were made by the applicant and a nearby property owner. On April 4, 1989, the Planning Board considered this item for recommendation. A motion to deny the proposed land use plan amendment failed 5-4, and a subsequent motion to approve the proposed amendment also failed 5-4. Therefore, this item appears before the Board of Commissioners without recommendation. Some Planning 1 3 Board members expressed dissatisfaction with either approving or denying the request. A related proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance text is also being considered. That amendment, if approved, would permit mail order houses in commercial zoning districts. The amendment would permit Mr. Kennedy to continue his school bus parts mail order business. If the Land Use Element amendment is denied by the Board of Commissioners, the Board may proceed with rezoning of the Kennedy tract from GC-4 (General Commercial) to EC-5 (Existing Commercial) to provide consistency between the Land Use Element and the Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing on the rezoning of the Kennedy tract (as well as other parcels in Eno Township) was held on August 22, 1988. On December 20, 1988, the Board approved the rezoning proposals except for the Kennedy tract. Since a public hearing has been conducted on the proposal, action on the rezoning from GC-4 to EC-5 may be taken. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends denial of the proposed Land Use Element amendment. The Administration further recommends that the Kennedy tract be rezoned from GC-4 to EC-5 as .proposed at the August 22, 1988 public hearing. The rezoning, coupled with approval of a proposed amendment to the permitted use table (Retail Trade) , would permit the applicant to continue his mail order operation. DK2:ENO2ABS.DOC . _ PAGE 7 MINUTES 4 PUBLIC BEARING- inINUTES 2/2F/8q . • - . . . • ' . . 1 Chairman Carey pointed out that he would not have to do an environmental impact statement unless the assessment had been done and he corrected the statement indicating the section under discussing is on the Environmental Impact Statement. 4 . . 3 . 5 Wade Parrish, Orange County citizen, spoke in opposition to the Environmental 7 Impact Ordinance. He disagreed with the entire proposal. He believes the state is 3 taking care of regulating these matters and they do not need to be duplicated by 9 Orange County. . . - . . . • . . . . . ... . . .. l ': -:1'. • — • •: . * • • . ••.• • . • 2 _1-::.---% A motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to refer 3 this item to. the Planning Board, This Public Hearing will remain open to receive 4. written comments until March 13th, which is a week before the Planning Board meets. 5 . This matter will be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3rd. • . 7.• VOTE: UNANIMOUS. . 8 . 3 : 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS . 0 a. /.LUP-1-89 Land Use Element - Section 4.0 Plan Categories-Zoning District Matrix- 2 . . • • . .- The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to 3 • receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to Section 4.0 of the Land Use Element 4 ' of the Comprehensive Plan.. . The proposed amendment would revise Section 4.0 of the 8...- Land Use Element. to:' :, ::,..... : .. . : , _ , . . • . . . . . , t : . . . :°.::-.-..-:-F:::: '"-'-::'.-1, 1.`:2-„ RefleCt,tha zoning of Cheeks Township: . . .. , .. .. . . • Ir";,. ...- ...,.--.-.1.-: 2:.:::'Reflect the adoption of zoning plans for Chapel Hill and. Carrboro 1":- Transition Areas'. - - ..- . - • . - . " .. • • . ... . • _. ....,,:-.,.,% ..-._:.-f- . . , . . 8..7..-.-:::.-,..--.:%Y...,;',. 3:"... Reflect the application of the Rural Buffer zoning district and . • • ;0 - ,...,:-, ..-' associated development standards to the Rural Buffer area designated . 11 :- ..: . ,.. . ...' '. ' - on the Joint Planning Land Use Plan; and . . . . 4::- Reflect proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text and atlas :" establishing.and applying two distinct Public Interest District Zoning . , :4 :-.. .•• . ' ' . •- " , •district designations.- - PID-1 and PID-2. .. . . • 35 • .' • - . .... • .... .,.. . 56 '.. NO COMMENTS WERE MADE •-.... .-.. • . . . -. . .• . • • 37 • . . • 38 • . . . . . . . . • .. .. .. 39 ... . .. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to 40.-.;:referthis item to the Planning Board for a 'recommendation to be returned to the Board 41-" of CommissiOners no sooner than April 3, 1989. . • . 42..F,'••••-,2.• ' • '. .: - . . • - • - • • • ,, ........ . ... .- . - . . . . . . - 3 , VOTE: UNANIMOUS . . •• . . . . - - . • ... . . 44-::::',.• '---. _ -: -• , - • . . . . . . . . . • • . b. IUP-2-89 Activity Node 1-2 - Eno Township - See also Item # D.5.e . • . . . . . 46:-iT'-': :: • (Rural Residential to 20-Year Transition) .:.- . . ' • 47'::::-..:" - --. ---- The presentation was made by Planner David Stancil:, In summary this item 48- is to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the . 49 .Comprehensive Plan. The area in question contains six lots and a portion of another 50 north of the Interstate .85/0.S. 70 interchange in eastern Eno Township near the Durham 51, County Line. The 25.44-acre area, fronts on Interstate 85, however, it is accessed 52 through Laurel Ridge Road and. Pleasant Green Road. The Eno River is located less than 53 1/4-mile to the north. The proposed amendment, if approved, would change the Land. Use 54 • 55 . . 56 57 . . 58 PAGE 8 5- 1 Element designation of the property from Rural Residential to 20-year Transition. 2 3 Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted for Eno Township on July 5, 1988 and staff- 4 initiated rezonings to promote consistency with the Land Use Element of the Plan would 5 have changed the zoning on Mr. Johnny Kennedy's property from GC-4, the classification 5 it has had since 1981, to EC-5. 3 The Staff analysis presented to the Commissioners at their January 3rd meeting 9 indicated this property was outside the activity node and was incorrectly zoned in 1981. The Staff proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments that would broaden the 1 scope of the EC-5 district. Mr. Kennedy was not pleased with this suggestion and was 2 instructed to meet with the Planning Staff to discuss alternatives. At that meeting 3 an amendment to the Land. Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was identified as the 4 only alternative which would provide consistency between the Zoning Atlas and the 5 Comprehensive Plan. Mr.Kennedy indicated his approval of this suggestion. The ; proposed amendment would enlarge the existing 20-Year Transition Area that abuts the 7 area on the south and which includes the other three quadrants of the U.S. 70/1-85 3 interchange. Property other than that owned by Mr. Kennedy is included in the 3 proposal, since it adjoins the access road which parallels U.S. 70 and 1-85, is in the 0 path of Durham's urban growth corridor, and would result in a uniform expansion of the 1 Transition Area to the south. 2 ' • 3 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD 4 • 5 -- Commissioner Hartwell indicated that, there appears to be a used car lot on this 6 property and requested clarification as to- its- exact location 'ofthe parcel the cars 7 are• locatedon.. ::' . _ _ 3 • • " 74 " • 9 :.17,::::., Mr,"Stancil indicated that. there. is a residential use near the corner of Pleasant 0 Gieen. Road and. U.S. 70. The ten acre tract is currently used by Mr.. Kennedy as a . 1 school bui repair operation which...is èì GC4. type use'. ' He was not aware of the presence 2 of a used car operation. There are some commercial uses across Pleasant Green Road 3 Zsuch as Bull City Radiator. . • 5 . Commissioner Halkiotis stated that Mr. Kennedy does not repair school buses, but 6 .. sells parts to school systems to repair their own buses. That is the mail order 7 : component of the operation.. . There are seven or eight automobiles and trucks parked in 3 - the driveway area as you approach Mr. Kennedy's property. 9 3. ' THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZENS COMMENTS. 2 - Mr. Kennedy airified that he does have a small used car operation which started 3 out as bus sales but that the Insurance Commissioner stopped that business due to the 4 - fact that churches and private institutions are unable to afford the cost of insurance 5 - on their buses.'. The used car lot is to recoup part of the money he was receiving from the used and new bus sales. 7 . • . . • _ • -- - - 6 Kennedy stated that he met with Mr. Collins and his staff about the proposed 9 changes. ' They agreed with him that the County was in error in thinking that Laural 3 Ridge. Road was a private road rather than a public service road which is part of 1 Highway 70. When he got a building permit to build his building he had to go to DOT 2 and give them copies of plans showing that Laural Ridge Road is part of Highway 70 and 3 serves as a service road to that tract of land. Mr. Collkn's office admits there was 4 an error. Kennedy stated he tried to this error corrected last summer. He asked that 5 7 3 PAGE 9 - " "' 6 .. . _ .... ....._ _ .... . • ._ .. . . . . . . . . ..:.-• • . he be allowed to stay in the *GC-4 zoning classifications and be allowed to operate his ! business and make a living. Ms. Carol Tingley, representing the Division of Parks and Recreation, stated . concern about the implications of this proposed land use change. The Eno River State Park is'very close to this property. Some of the 25 acres is adjacent to land which is proposed for acquisition in the master plan for the Park. Any °type of high- 3 intensity:commercial or industrial use at this location could be detrimental to the ) park. Facilities which could result in excessive noise, polluted runoff, smoke, ) odors, or. tall buildings would significantly reduce public enjoyment of the river and I the park. ' Although Mr. Kennedy's, plans may not change, changing the Land Use Plan leaves the door open to future development of this kind. The County's current Land 1 Use Plan is very clear that this particular quadrant of the intersection should be . I : treated differently than the other quadrants because of its proximity to the park. The existing'Land Use Plan indicates that the areas including the park and the river should be protected from adverse development pressures. In referencing the activity ' node at the 1-85 and U.S. 70 interchange, the plan indicates that the Eno River State 3 Peek; as well as the flood plain along the Eno River, are located north of this ..? interchange and. therefore industrial and commercial development should be confined to ) • the area south and east of the interchange. In a letter to the Division of Parks and . 1 Recreation last March, the County indicated its commitment to maintain the land-use - . ' designation in the Land Use Plan which will provide low density, non-intensive uses 3 . around'the-parki Periphery. She asked, that the Land Use Plan not be changed. . • 4 ' - However, if this amendment is approved it needs to include a provision to protect this _ . land from future intensive uses which are not a part of the present proposal but which 3 'C could be available to a land owner if the Land Use Plan is changed. Examples would 7 include a limit on building height;. protections from noise and excessive lighting - - , t , 3 :::;,:.:wed:::.:z..:.::.1..:.:,....:.....:::::,....z-.±-,:.::7-,,-:.:....--.....7„..,...,•;,-=. , . ...;.,..,,-.,-..--..:-..,..-,-_-,-..--.7-. .. -; — --• . 3 :-...--,:-..:'4 :':-.'.7.:....".;',.• '.:::,''..:::::::•f":::Y-.--.4-.1,-,•-•-',;7-4:'' : : •'''.'":.'---I.."'• ''': "*.---.-'-' - • ' . . •. .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . - ) -...7.:-7T. Garry W,;-Dean-of ROute.11,::' Dove Creek Road in Orange County spoke in support of . iir.-..:; Karnedy:Crequest stating the land was sold to him as GC4 and he should be able : 2 -. to use. and maintain-ieas GC4.-- ---... ." :-:. -- * . : • . . . .. . - . . . - ... . . . . i — TIC PUBLIC HEARING WAS 'CLOSED:- -- . • • . . . . ...•• . .. ._ . •• .. _ _ . . • : . • _ . . • . , Commissioner Marshall stated that the Board of Commissioners are in agreement 7 that when the County makes a mistake it must do everything possible to correct the 3 _mistake without hurting the property owner,. The Board of Commissioners did agree on 4 another' approach that will be presented later on the agenda that would certainly show ) respect for the State Parkland and the Board's commitment to that quadrant. , • - - • - . . .. • . . .• , . . . . . . . . - -.. - . A motion was made by Commissioner Wilihoit,. seconded by Commissioner HalklotiS; 3 . to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be presented to the 4 • Board, of Commissioners no sooner than April 3rd, 1989. - - • — . • . , . . 2 - . . . ' S • VOTE: UNANIMOUS .... . •• • ' . . . . •• . • .• • .. • • - - ; . ---... . c. . LUP-3-89 University Station Associates - (Rural • - ' 5 . . Residential/Agricultural/Resource Conservation to 10-Year Transition) 3 . ' . The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to . receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of 2 the Comprehensive Plan submitted by University Station Associates. - _ 3 . . 4 The property is located south of the Southern Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. 5 . . . . . . . 7 • ) .■ 7 20 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4/4/Bf Collins responded that the statement could be added that "the Planning Board may recommend and the Board of Commissioners may approve the upgrading of the existing private road to public road standards when a proposed mobile home park is built adjacent to an existing mobile home park. " MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation with the addition of the statement proposed by Collins. Seconded by Best. VOTE: 6 in favor- 3 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz, Jacobs - all objected to the reference to the size limitation) . a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (2) LUP-2-89 Activity Node E-2-Eno Township Presentation by David Stancil. A copy of the abstract with presentation and the Planning Staff recommendation is an attachment to these minutes on pages • MOTION: Best moved approval of the recommendation presented by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Pilkey. There was discussion of a previous greenhouse operation at the site but Stanch' indicated he could not verify dates of that operation. Lewis asked-when the applicant purchased the property. Stancil responded 1984 and the incorrect zoning of GC-4 was applied in 1981. Yuhasz asked if the applicant had to purchase any kind of permits during the period from the time he purchased the property until the present application. Stancil responded no. Lewis asked if this issue had all occurred due to a County error. Stancil responded yes, that and the inconsistency between the plans . Stancil continued that Staff is attempting a compromise that will allow the property owner to continue his use while not introducing the transition area into this environmentally sensitive quadrant. The property owner would not be non-conforming if the EC-5 designation is applied. Yuhasz expressed concern with protecting the park 8 21 at the expense of one individual property owner. He stated that he felt it would be an appropriate compromise to extend the node to include only Mr. Kennedy's property and not the intervening property between Mr. Kennedy and Pleasant Green Road. VOTE: 4 in favor. 5 opposed (Yuhasz, Lewis, Boland, Eidenier, Eddleman - all had the same concern as Yuhasz presented in the above statement) . MOTION: Yuhasz moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Land Use Plan be changed to include the subject property only within the activity node. Seconded by Lewis. VOTE: 4 in favor. 5 opposed (Jacobs, Best, Pilkey, Hamilton -- preferred the Planning Staff recommendation; Eddleman - indicated he was uncomfortable with both alternatives) . (3) LUP-3-89 University Station Associates (Rural Residential/Agricultural/Resource Conservation to 10-Year Transition) Presentation by Marvin Collins. The property requested for amendment by University Station Associates is located south of the Southern Railroad on both sides of Old NC 10 (SR 1710) . 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 NC 10 for 4920 feet. The are is currently zoned R-1 Residential and is shown as Rural Residential-Agricultural use and Resource Conservation in 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 components of the Plan. The purpose of this request if to allow the applicant to make application for approval of a planned residential community. This matter was presented at public hearing on 9 - - - - - - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ITEM: Land Use Plan Amendment LUP-2-89, Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Activity Node ACTION: Agency Comment Solicitation FROM: David StanciX5Comprehensive Planner II DATE: January 30, 1989 .A proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan is currently pending public hearing on February 27, 1989, with action to be taken by the County Commissioners on the proposal no earlier than April 2, 1989. • The amendment is being generated by the Planning Department and its purpose is to promote consistency between the Plan and the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The area in question is located north of the Interstate 85/U.S. 70 interchange, east of Pleasant Green Road in Eno _ Township near the Durham County line (please see attached map) . The total area is comprised of six lots and a portion of a seventh fronting on Interstate 85 right-of-way. Access • to the area is provided via Pleasant Green Road and Laurel Ridge Road (SR 1582) . The proposed amendment would enlarge the existing 20-Year Transition Area at said interchange by approximately 24 acres. Three lots are currently zoned GC-4 (General Commercial) . By virtue of being included in the transition area, owners of the other lots could request rezoning in the future to other non-residential zones which are compatible with the plan. If your agency wishes to comment on this proposal, please submit those comments to my attention by Friday, February 10, 1989. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions regarding the proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 732-8181, 967-9251 (Chapel Hill) , or 688-7331 (Durham) . ir 40, 10 twtrr Ig IEllEiVll State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Developm tl. ` 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 Stancil 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.S. 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 node. Therefore, industrial and commercial development should be confined to the area south and east of this inter- change." P.O Box 27687,Raleigh,North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919.733.4181 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 11 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 1-85/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 10ct . / 1 n e` R / • a_ ' . „....i.. _..,...,..;, .,... . . al ., 4 -. . s. •• - cl ..... .... - i * ll '`,.,- stls,' 0. c-4. '"•_,Ep, E ts 0,,, ...„...- 5 1. f1IIM •f O , • 3 a // Lid-tt �8r \`-® // R�`,E G3 !. ..... .... 2 „ . . "4 .. . . .7 • fill R R- // � Q Q fi ./7 D . -. ... \ ...,-.-:' ... - . -- U��•i+.. .I /' Iii.....1- _•..1 _ : 1,7`-• 4f1 y.4 . • t �R •1� r ;. . . _ -. .: -.-. . --,,, .r.i ( ._ . • , .: . ... ._. _ • ) • �• - ; \� 3 • . : • , -- ... III •'•�I� 9' (4#4) •R;.i_ al,` ` +.*NI! . , till "fr /�� • . /. 1j ! 'c, a fir, , _ _ 1111 7r i''_ / ", '� w'`+ - - -.- • J . ' // !• ([.III �I - _ ..'�� I ., z 1E _ill I r ( /j11.IIIn� 1l - k's,/ .•/-'=• x.•• %� 11 it II / 0 i • ���� ...;:;. : .-•• •k:_ -'^''/���a -- •114%%%/ .,� 4.. �• 0 . � . . �:-, III 11 W `` lEgri:0 ©��J w.„....• 040 -:::: '; - ---. ... . - •J/ t i 472414r,441:413, i �,4 , - -•- h// - _ III!- Rp�a�j 16 , R' , -a • +�� e R IJ ` �t ` ' e c : S 130 I R ♦ R i u •it t l l ' M ' ilai tikstl '� * rill • °„ill• // a �� :NI � � ` R• 0 rl` [gyp - - 1111 ,,/^-- P. '\'..:: - ''+( ' 1 Ito I� `•Y o 1-®. : — ©'-ll •a iii �'i +.+ • ° C - , "'Wit-VI' I( • ! E Int s • �Y�S �. 1 1 id N 1 �I = i@l�J if R\:/ flit R i .. 1 i 1-1 i co `r � .(J �/ j Iii i' "?. 1 . ti to ,R' 1 .7 _` w ;111 !tt Ft) 1-1 X Fit K H r t 1 il. I'D W N• 0 +'''.. I• F- Rs.' (1/ © - alt H• I DI CA 1 i/=EMI:R® t' :1114 t'1' ".3 K @ 1^. 1' c_ys t /l!t E .t 1 i:1 . 0 i W ! tll l/:4 iilj 1 AI b ti t i-t 5 i 8 // �. '!� 1111 n M• N • O V_ I 1 A % 1: . ' IIII m I'• m ,7 • �{�♦l e1 1a. // �.R.. 1111 rA C1' H• ts1, T C 1. l,, - -- H- II.I 13 . . 11 • • • 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 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 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 or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the county. 14 In this case, the area proposed for amendment is located along one of North Carolina's "Strategic Corridors" as 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 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 the "Eno-2 Commercial/Industrial Node" . The area proposed for 15 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 igl of this same section relates that "a correction of an error or omission" to the plan j . 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 man and leaal 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. 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. 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. 16 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 public services and utilities. 17 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 f!, 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 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. ) DOES NOT COMPLY. No actively-used agricultural land is located in or in the immediate vicinity of this area, therefore impact to agriculture would be minimal and 18 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. 1981 The proposed amendment is contradictory to the adopted Eno Township Plan. Page 3.10. 16-1? of the Eno Township 19 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 41% intent of the Plan was to protect the environmentally- C. 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 1.4 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. 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. • .• • • I . _. ._.__. :24�..— NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS, AND FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Sections 240, 323 and 343, and Article 20, Sections 20.5 and 20.6, and Articles 2.2.12 and 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, August 22, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: ORANGE COUNTY,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan is as follows: 1. CP-1-88, University Station Associates, The property in question is located south of the Southern Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. 10 (SR 1710). It is known as lot 20 of Orange County Tax Map 27 - Eno Township, and lots 47 and 48 of Orange County Tax Map 26 -Eno Township. The property contains 575 _ acres or 25,047,000 square feet. The property fronts on New Hope Church Road for a - distance of 2900 feet, and on Old N.C. 10 for a distance of 4920 feet. The current zoning designation of the property R-1 Residential. The applicant is requesting that 100 acres of the property at the intersection of Old N.C. 10 (SR. 1710) and New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) be re-designated in the Eno and Chapel Hill Township Components of the Comprehensive Plan from Rural Residential, Agricultural Use, and Resource Conservation to Ten-Year Transition. The purpose of the request is to allow the applicant to make application for approval of a planned residential and golf community. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas are for the purpose of providing consistency between the Zoning Atlas and amendments recently adopted to the Comprehensive Plan. • • 1. Cheeks Township - - • • The following zoning atlas changes are proposed for Cheeks Township, based on �.. amendments to Section 3.8 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (Cheeks Township Land Use Plan), adopted July 5, 1988; a. From Agricultural Residential to R_11 Residential - An area roughly bounded by west Lebanon Road to the south, Mill Creek Road to I • • • _ 21, the west, Cedar Grove Township and Harmony Church Road to the north, and Efland-Cedar Grove Road to the east. - - The area lying immediately north of Bushy Cook Road. b. From R;1 Residential to Aericultural Residential • An area bounded generally by McGowan Creek to the south, Efland-Cedar Grove Road to the west, and Lebanon Road to the north. - The area lying south and east of Moorefields Road and extending to Bingham and Hillsborough Townships respectively. c. From R-1. Residential Le Public Interest District - A portion of the land surrounding Lake Michael. • d. From Agricultural Residential to Public Interest District • - Orange Alamance Water System lands at Corporation Lake. - Moorefields Foundation lands. - County-owned lands in Seven Mile Creek basin. e. To be desiunated Protected Watershed II Overlay - The northern portion of the Upper Eno Watershed to Cedar Grove Township. - The Back Creek watershed. f. To be designated Water Quality Critical Area Overlay. - The area immediately adjacent to the Eno River in the northern portion of the Upper Eno'watershed to Cedar Grove Township. g. From Neighborhood Commercial-2 and General Commercial-4 to Existing Commercial-5 - Scattered commercial parcels outside the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node. h. From Existing Commercial-5 to appropriate commercial zone - Scattered commercial parcels inside the Commercial-Industrial Activity.Node. • i. • From Existing Industrial to appropriate industrial, zone - Scattered industrial parcels inside the Commercial-Industrial Activity-Node. j. From Industrial-1 to Existing Industrial • A parcel lying on the west side of Efland-Cedar Grove Road and north of McGowan Creek. • 2. Hillsboroueh Township The following zoning atlas changes are proposed for Hillsborough Township, based on amendments to Section 3.9 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan • I � _ (Hillsborough Township Land Use Plan), adopted July 5, 1988; a. To be designated Protected Watershed It Overlay - Little River Watershed. • - The Upper Eno Watershed lying generally north of U.S.70 and west of Coleman Loop Road. b. From R-1 Residential to Public Interest District - Duke Forest lands south of 1-85. - - c. From Agricultural Residential to R_1 Residential - Approximately nine acres adjacent to the Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Highland Woods Subdivision, and an area bordered by Dimmocks Mill Road, the Township line, and the Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. • d. From Neighborhood Commercial-2 to Existing Commercial-5 - One parcel on the west side of N.C. 86 north near Coleman.Loop. e. From Existing Commercial-5 to appropriate commercial zone - One parcel on the west side of N.G. 86 south of Wildwood Subdivision, one . , ' parcel in the activity node south side of Old N.C. 10, and one parcel on the , . north side of U.S. 70-Bypass near St. Mary's Road. - f. . From Existing Industrial to appropriate industrial zone - One parcel on the south side of Old N.C. 10. g. To be designated Water Onality Critical Area - Portions of the Upper Eno Watershed draining directly into main trunk streams of the Eno River. • 3. Eno Township • The following zoning atlas changes are proposed for Eno Township, based on amendments to Section 3.10 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (Eno Township Land Use Plan), adopted July 5, 1988; a. To be designated Protected Watershed It Overlay .. . - Little River Watershed district. • b. From R_1 Residential or Agricultural Residential to Public Interest District - Duke Forest Lands and Eno River State Park. . c. From R-1 Residential to Agricultural Residential - An area roughly bounded by Palmers Grove Road on the west, U.S. 70 on the south, Pleasant Green Road on the east, and an AT&T easement on the north, excluding Brigadoon Subdivision. 23 • d. From B-1 Residential to 11.2 Residential - Whispering Pines Subdivision. 0 e. From General Commercial-4 I2 Existing Commercial-S - Three parcels north of I-85 and east of Pleasant Green Road. f. From Neiehbrorhood Commercial-2 ,kg Existing Commercial•5 . • - One parcel on the south side of U.S. 70 near Piney Grove Church Road. g. From Existing Commercial-5 t,t Agricultural Residential • - A portion of one parcel on the north side of St. Mary's Road. • 4. Chapel Hill Township • - The following zoning atlas changes are proposed for Chapel Hill Township, based on amendments to Section 3.12 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (Chapel Hill Township north of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan), adopted July 5, 1988, and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, adopted October 18, 1986: a. From R.1 Residential or Agricultural Residential to Public Interest District . . - Duke Forest lands, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer lands, and UNC lands in the Southern Triangle and in University Lake watershed. - b. From Agricultural Residential to R�1 Residential . . . • An area bordered by the Joint Planning Area on the south, Davis Road on the north, Old N.C. 86 on the east, and the Township line on the west. c. From General Commercial-4 to Existing Commercial-5 - A portion of one parcel on the south side of N.C.54 -One parcel on the south side of Old Greensboro Road. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are as follows: • 1. Amend ARTICLE 7.20. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS - MOBILE HOME PARKS to remove the 25-acre size limitation on new mobile home parks. - . 11 2. Amend ARTICLE 6.8 VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS by changing the current sight distance • triangle required at street intersections from 25 feet by 25 feet to 10 feet by 70 - feet as required by the N.C. Department of Transportation. 3. Amend ARTICLE 7.2.8. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS - TIME LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION to clarify the approval criteria for requested time extensions to initiate . construction of a planned development. - • . . 24 4. Amend ARTICLE 6.25. MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (MTC) DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS by adding standards governing the installation of additional planting in the 100-buffer required adjacent to Interstate highways. 5. Amend ARTICLE 23. VIOLATIONS, PENALTIES, AND REMEDIES to clarify and add provisions governing enforcement procedures used when a violation of the Zoning Ordinance occurs. 6. Amend ARTICLE 6.3 REGULATION OF PRINCIPAL USES by clarifying the regulation of one principal structure per lot. 7. Amend ARTICLE 22. DEFINITIONS by revising the definitions of "zoning lot", • "subdivision lot", and "mobile home park". ORANGE COUNTY, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, The proposed text amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations are as • follows: 1. Amend SECTION IV-B-5. LOT LAYOUT by adding standards which require that subdivision lots be comprised of contiguous acreage. 2. Amend SECTION IL DEFINITIONS by adding a new definition • for "lot area".. • 3. Amend SECTION IV--B-8. LANDSCAPING & BUFFER REQUIREMENTS by adding requirements for landscape plan approval, simplifying the schedule of required landscape buffers, and providing consistency with the Zoning Ordinance standards. 4. Amend SECTION IV-B-3. STREETS by adding standards for the installation of street name signs in new subdivisions. 5. Amend SECTION III. PROCEDURE FOR PLAT APPROVAL by rewriting the section in entirety to set forth revised application and approval procedures for new subdivisions. 6. Amend SECTION V. IMPROVEMENTS by renumbering it to SECTION VI. and renaming it COMPLETION AND MAINTENAN providing new MAINTENANCE OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS, and rove a ne P g SECTION V. entitled SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLAT DRAWINGS which sets forth requirements• for the preparation of subdivision plat drawings. , 7. Amend SECTIONS VII-XIII by combining the current provisions into a new SECTION VII entitled LEGAL STATUS PROVISIONS and adding additional provisions governing enforcement procedures. - ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS • The proposed text amendments to the Orange County Private Road Standards are as - follows: 1. Amend the Private Road Standards to provide a new section entitled Two-Way Traffic which sets forth standards for the approval and installation of medians on private roads. • 2. Amend the Private Road Standards by-adding procedures for the inspection and certification of private roads. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE 1. Amend ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS by adding definitions of "Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision" and "Expansion to an Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision". 2. Amend ARTICLE 4.5. MANUFACTURED HOMES by adding provisions governing the elevation of the lowest floor levels in existing manufactured home parks or subdivisions. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public • comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence presented at the public hearing will be examined by the Planning Board and.Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. • Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning & Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also call 732.8181 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham) or 967.9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro). Please ask for Extension 350 or 359. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. • Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: August 10, 1988 August 17, 1988 • • . • • 26 • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August, 22, 1988 Action Agenda Item # 2(e) SUBJECT: Z-3-88, AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS REZONING OF SELECTED PARCELS IN ENO TOWNSHIP bEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: xYes No ATTACHMENT[S] : INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad .Torgan List of affected parcels TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed rezonings in Eno Township in order the bring the Orange County Zoning • Atlas into conformance with the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed changes are as follows: 1) Designate the Little River Watershed as a PW-II overlay district. 2) Duke Forest Lands and Eno River State Park from either R-1 Residential or Agricultural Residential • (AR) to Public Interest District (PID) . • 3) Approximately 1500 acres in an area roughly bounded by Palmers Grove Road on the west, U.S. 70 on the south, Pleasant Green Road on the east, and an AT&T easement on the north, excluding Brigadoon Subdivision, from R-1 Residential to Agricultural Residential (AR) . 4) Whispering Pines Subdivision from R-1 Residential to R-2 Residential. 5) Three parcels north of 1-85 and east of Pleasant • Green Road, totaling 10.14 acres, from General Commercial-4 to Existing Commercial-5. 6j A portion of one parcel on the north side of St. Mary's Road, totaling approximately one acre, from Existing Commercial-5 to Agricultural Residential (AR) . BACKGROUND: The Eno Township Land Use Plan, adopted 5 July 1988, 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 Sta€e 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 1983, and in the 1988 plan. One of the policies embodied in the Land Use 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 US70. The 1988 plan rolled back the node, making 1-85 and U.S.70 its northern boundary. Three commercial parcels on the north side of I-85, however are still zoned as though they were inside an activity node. The proposed rezoning would change their classification to Existing Commercial-5, the classification used for commercial property outside activity nodes. A portion of one parcel on St. Mary's Road zoned EC-5 no longer contains a commercial use. Because the site is not in a node, staff proposes that the .zoning revert to.the, surrounding residential classification. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the rezonings and their incorporation into the Orange County Zoning • Atlas. - The Planning Board will prepare its recommendation at its meeting of 19 September 1988. The Board of Commissioners will consider the items for decision on 3 October 1988. • Tr . .81., .. 28 . ...._ • ....___ 2 ----_ - fr. C.: • . • ...... = < E 0 1.... . . • O 0 < ft, . w 0 .4a • C..1 -- . ..:. = _ 0 0 ,... • - • La 0 .., - • Lc, • 1--- Nr 0 41) - r• R 0 - 0 a Z0 . ..., - ia. .40 I . < u.1 w • h 0 $a 16 0 L.; Ch 0 M • < '% .-. v ^ 2 N M = • n At n no a a 0 - ' N Z h. 00 r u 1-. .." M 0 t. hh o... .... . 0 n Z En 0 1... ONN W ... • • .... rs• 0 00• 0 ONM ...i = .0%. ,,., • Z . 0 h. W ".'" 0 h • h00 .... o 0 00M - W 0 M0Z = E Z lie . S a NO C •••■ 0 M = i-- 5- - h 0 U a UOZ M 0 C h. n 0 . 000 n a . w 0 o h 0 h 7...C< h. 0 m - ' whN h VP. es v • 0 0 2- • C 0 uOroa h 0 0 0 00 h a 0 -Ea. 0 B •n= 0 a a2so#... h0 = 00h0M CY h. h 0,...0.4,0 0 "_-za . 0 - 4 4th t-n=MEn In P. :.■ N non ou 0 n 0 0 01 r h ha r0<a0a0 00 w 0 a hal aha 0WW W a 014 &yr, o Z. h.0 0 - a 10<h -nuo 00> m ..i ..),...E< U ,... u U x=-m= In < o0,... ...... ..; 0 0 ux0=Ja0-.000 a= .. I- 3 00 C C 0 J -N h CC= a... ... 0 Z zo/or... =N4 o < -, •••=1.1:00_ Mh ar..2a ara_no a 2 N illhM0.0 VV00 00.. 0 < 0 <0...= CP. iuon .c 0 0 In h. = 7. V.P. 04 <0 00=0< m < am2 =Oh4 '00 u N .--a.ah .-. 0.e a O coounn txxommm 00_0< _ C =h=001, N UEZ NECCh 0 NN0 tr. MI 0,00==Oha0m"-OW 0 h.D.O< hauaoh020 111 -ja - hc00 W Wau.cerZha===ha<' ,h5hJ 0 EC.ON...hh ZOOM= 0:0 W NZ M J J 0....a-v amm -ra0".a 0 0 rda4au Nh 0 < 00<<40 W bt h m < g 13=z<g.nu .anu=0 u 00- 0,... .....=nr,-u=<n_Nznon, > von= c..- u..., 30 0 C 0 Oax=au <aa,..0...h.ah 000 ... 2= < ...c0t0oo-- 1 -.0 ocacun .0 00 0 ,__ ca0Mavvva J 0 a thr Ov ==c4a....2 ..- v04 .0 4-0a*x <=0001-... 0 C C 0 =nzE 0 n nmEot...< .0 <v0=4 V V 4.30 00003Z<Z0x 1.,....xwX.. < 0 o .0 ..G000v ftca0c6-0 4<<v- c_1004-0<=0 ... < 002=000= C h00 • < -)00 0 o tc<Ev.u.„ Zx x <o c: -0 =0006-imr. 000100 > E0< x ac rmxt,..->.0x 0 <=),I-0 0 x xa 0a0v<<O<M vaa 0 W 0 ...W r, 0 In L,..=cn g)c-0_c:o 0 ER=O4 =.. :2 C2 C:-7 0 - o 4....=um n C cm n cm 0 01-0> C) 0 c:o o..,0 -03 0: :) CD N.0 0-' g: =...""C.=vl e-=t: .2_i 'COO in 14. 0< J xt.I.Cu ...m<=6- Ca a 0 5w o -0c..c.0*-000,-1- 0 0<0 1 0 0.-21,-:.0 u-uw. .0 MI a....7..a=W M. 0 ,- Crivx004 0.==0v==0 0 Z M4N*4 n . r -o ) - C) wrm< o < 1... O. r.,w7., 0 ...4J6-24a v...40 0 riov..Z axS44 u=01 x222x a M<W< U1 ow WN... o v ...", =v =00<u - 0 nt*.xo... .e.0 0 0 W..1WW 0 -, <20 0 xa x a 0 0>0.-xo.m.c..roanw...40z=z0 0 o 0 J <<I1.40< 9.-J-.,,.2ax0 -.0ax. .1 cza 3 .00 • sm o_,0.c. www «< 0a....p. -2.00M=40w.:›-no= 5:0 0)...=z- m>10n.-xx ne--/ n.a...;.Jur.-za C 00 -I - . ...... --... . 0.<:: = 0..i >01,--<-0J0=wz =00UP.Mw x www ......-.... LiS2 0 W JJWJ=Ja<43=0 MMOn-' rJMJ0<= - ..... 0= V ha=0 ---1-JJJ). mwtsla la 00,-.0w0,2 < a2N 0 utliw.aZO=raa<= a o.. 0<00 0000Z 02 C 0000 a 0004 0 ==Ma W ", r Jaftax›.0 444 =”M 4 <<1-40<=1W011. 4<!-C4u ..==. C < .0 <0 00 J Ow En <<<.0 cc-)--J In 0130>000 < 0 -= fa 4 04040 w...%.,X 04.4.-6-waM4= 00000000..• h .-6 6- M a waa= -;.... ..) zu x -00u < o... 2 n=4= M.... w ==c=n=o o-w 0 >0 o u=<= >41, w no-o ><w< =r>»,..===< < -w 0 ,......0.- ..,013WW...0620WaaMW0 ,- ...0..0,0.•-Mwwa 0 3 0 W202Wr...... -a .... 0 0,....= a< 20- . c 00.. -. 0-=== -<00a0 .O 2. 0a0=c0 <.J .0. a 000-0<0000 . J = C ....2...3w...0=Ww0<aww w aw-0<04...J a ',0 ww4<3<-a=000a........ c .c•-• U C . 0 ... ca0021<h22,..2w..,J 0 0 2 0 =200 0<00 a-rn= a ...2-, a a ILLI.cwwu..mwo ....4 -<-=<Ja a 00 4* 0.‹....Y>=ww•r..< <ILLLIJ 0 w - 00000.00 120 0 - -a ---- o 0= ....)-5-)-0..00.-- <go- = < <LO 000.3 2", .70 3 < 000 W W -A=1=-) in ", 1000 = co -, ww=w-Jw-t.=<<aww.... 0 W w=wal...3.1.1- ,-..t>.> wwwgwwww ill0..•02. ' 0 W ....... .....J0=rwz012/0:0w0.-0.-000r0,--.../e000w0ww.... .- -r.,ow=e- - a = -. C r- 0.-wr-=-<<u-0--:-..-u-r.w.-u00>0>u., - 2 ... 0>1 000030.r300000JMJJ0000M0JJ20012W0JJJJ0000J0000000000100>0> C 6. - J 0 . a J 010 < C < CO C < 0 <00 0ommvo41.0.00--amvo C CO...mnco4mmvvvomhar vv4a ..: W. 0.0h0>10M0a umnnnu0unngrn04ao- mnuummuunn nnnn • < j . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r CU 0 : v r r s-1r K.mr mr r e 0 0 0 us 0 0 0 0 01 irs o r ri ei 04 g 0'0 04 vi i 04 04 04 pi 0000 w i mnunnununn4umumunnnuummunnumumnnumummunnunnnurannon unnu U. = = nirionmonnonnmuiminmndieinnmiriricinmiringinnonmmoonnonon neisriei s ‘ ta# 6 ll. /6 4 a • • b ..1 000C,X,... MINUTES Or 12/1.10A3E3 - . P distributed. - • 7„. ITEMS FOR DECISION - cONSENT AGENDA . 1. CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE WATER/SEWER POLICY JANUARY 17 Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner-Halkiotis to approve continuing the public hearing on the proposed Water/Sewer Policy to January 17, 1989 in conjunction with the regular Commissioners meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Post Office on East Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the draft policy as presented at the November 28 hearing and all comments, both written and verbal, received since that date will be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation on January 23. The Planning Board's recommendation will be presented to the Board of Commissioners at its February 6 meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. G. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA 1. ENO RIVER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (A copy • of the agreement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office). Manager John Link explained that Orange Alainance has endorsed this agreement and the Town of Hillsborough and Piedmont Minerals will be considering endorsement in the .near future. . Commissioner Willhoit suggested an amendment on page 2 of the agreement adding "and subsequent loss of local control" to the last WHEREAS. - Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the agreement as amended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. . . . '- ' 2.—COMPREHENSIVE REZONINGS FOR CHEEKS AND ENO TOWNSHIPS' -:--> Planner Gene Bell gave background information stating that amendments to the • land use element of the comprehensive plan were adopted on July 5, 1988 for Cheeks, Hillsborough, Eno and North Chapel Hill' Township. To promote consistency between the • adopted amendments and the Zoning Atlas, proposed rezonings were presented at the • public hearing on August 22. On October 18, the rezonings were approved for _Hillsborough and Chapel Hill Townships. Additional information was requested by the — Board on Cheeks and Eno Townships. That information has been provided. . -. -- The Administration recommend approval of the comprehensive rezonings as presented on October 18, 1988 with the following exceptions: • . (1) The area bounded by Efland-Cedar Grove Road, McGowan Creek, Upper Eno WQCA, and Lebanon Road should retain the existing zoning (El), and (2) Scattered commercial parcels outside the Commercial-Industrial Activity Nodes in Cheeks and Eno Townships currently zoned NC-2 and GC-4 should be rezoned to EC-5 consistent with the County . Attorney's December 12, 1988 legal opinion. .: '. Cyrus Hogue, attorney for Johnny Kennedy, referred to comments that Mr. Kennedy made at the public, hearing supporting his request that his property' remain GC-4. If- the 'property is rezoned, Mr. Kennedy would not be able to expand his business and his property would have greater controls placed on it. ' . In response to a question from Chair Carey, Bell explained the rationale for the • • recommendation for the Kennedy property. - - Commissioner Halkiotis_stated that he visited Mr. Kennedy's business and he _ - warehouses and wholesales spare parts for school buses. He asked about the impacts on -this business if it is rezoned. Attorney Gledhill stated that since Mr. Kennedy's - business will not be listed on the permitted use table for EC-5, he would not be permitted to expand his business as a mail order house. He suggested that the permitted use table be reviewed for possibly adding this type of business in that zone. Marvin Collins clarified that given the uses for EC-5, Mr. Kennedy's property • • would become a nonconforming use and he would be allowed to exist and operate as long as he does not cease operation for a period of more than six months. He could not expand beyond the confines of the operation they have now. Chair Carey encouraged the staff to move along as fast as possible to consider an amendment to•the permitted uses in EC-5 to include Mr. Kennedy's type of business so he will be allowed to expand if he so wishes. Commissioner Willhoit suggested that the staff review this situation and bring back a recommendation at the next meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Administration's recommendation for all parcels with the exception of the rezoning of Mr. Kennedy's property. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. • Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to request that the Planning Staff present a recommendation on the possible modification of the permitted use table at the January 3, 1989 meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3. WORK PLAN -DUKE UNIVERSITY PROPERTIES REPORT Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the schedule listed below for consideration of the Duke Forest report and the PID zoning proposals: January 3 Max Wallace presents Duke Forest report to Board of Commissioners February 6 Board of Commissioners considers January 10 Planning Board recommendation and sets public hearing date for February 27 Quarterly Public Hearing. . • =' February 27 Public Hearing held -- _ April 3 Board of Commissioners considers Match 20 Planning Board recommendation. • Commissioner Hartwell stated he talked with a young man with the Save Duke . , • Forest group and that a request from the University may be for i modification of the' ' Public Interest District or the introduction of a new zoning classification similar to the present PID. The new zoning classification would allow for carrying out the sort of research that the University has in mind on some parcels which involves sometimes the construction of a meteorological tower and sometimes a position of a trailer as a temporary research headquarters, or may involve construction of a greenhouse. Temporary buildings are not permitted in the PID classification. He asked if the proposed work plan would allow for the development and/or modification of the zoning district. Marvin Collins stated that the zoning proposals presented at the public hearing 7. will address the concerns expressed by Commissioner Hartwell. There is a question of whether or not the PID needs to be amended to be reflective of the Duke Forest report. The schedule will allow time for addressing these types of concerns. VOTE:. UNANIMOUS. ' -• 4. RURAL CHARACTER STUDY MEETING WITH LANE KENDIG; CONSULTANT - `- . • After a brief discussion on the objectives and the areas to be included in the rural character study, it was the consensus of the Board to meet with Lane Kendig on . January 24, 6:00 p.m. at Huey's Restaurant, Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of reviewing the goals of the Rural Character Study and to discuss the strategies necessary to achieve those goals. • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 1A, 1989 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: POLICY CONSIDERATION - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (SECTION IV-B-7-b RECREATION SITES) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC REARING: Yes _L....Y0 ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Extension 574 4/17/89 Draft Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a policy for application of the amended recreation requirements of Section IV-B-7-b to subdivisions currently in the approval process. BACKGROUND: On February 27, 1989, an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations was presented at public hearing which would extend recreation dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions countywide. This amendment would apply to major as well as minor subdivisions. The Planning Department recommended that a policy be established regarding application of the recreation requirements to subdivisions already in the approval process. The following subdivisions were proposed to be exempt from the recreation dedication/payment-in- lieu requirements: 1. Major subdivisions which receive preliminary plan approval prior to the effective date of the amendment to Section IV-B-7-b; and 2. Minor subdivisions which receive final plat ft • - 2 approval prior to the effective date of the amendment to Section IV-B-7-b. The effective date of the amendment was recommended to be 45 days after approval (June 30, 1989) . This would have allowed for completion of the Preliminary and Final Plats which are now being processed. Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board considered this item on April 17, 1989. The Planning Board recommended that major or minor subdivisions which receive Sketch/Concept Plan or Preliminary Plan approval by the effective date be exempt, and that the amendment be effective immediately upon approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the policy, per the Planning Department recommendation, including the June 30 effective date. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Mall 16, 1989 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (SECTION IV-B-7-b RECREATION SITES) ■•■•••••■■•••■■■•••••••■•10.2111211.0.11M=11111••MOM 0, DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Ammo=■■■■•10 adM.M.N*1101No M11111••■•■■•■ ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendment 2/27/89 Public Hearing Minutes Planning Director - Extension 346 4/11/89 Draft Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 _______ ■■••■■•••••....mrms.aolimmi*Nms... PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regulations which would extend dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions countywide. This item was presented at public hearing on February 27, 1989 . 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 ________ magnangammassmoil 2 • 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. The payments collected from subdivisions within the immediate (service) area of a recreation area would be used to acquire additional land for that site. 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. No comments were received at the public hearing. The Planning Board considered this item on April 11, 1989, and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendments. 3 • PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Draft: 11-17-88 (Proposed changes to the existing provisions are underlined. ) SECTION IV. REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN. 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 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, then the difference between the application of the standards above and those of Article 5.1.1 . 4 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 5 life•and wildlife cover, mature woodlands and 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 j . 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. Where proposed park sites are shown on the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and a subdivision contains a portion of the park site, then the developer may 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) Accessibilitx. Land dedicated for recreational purposes shall have at least fifty (50) feet of frontage on at least one (1) street within the subdivision. Where a recreation area is not accessible due • 6 to lot arrangement, the Planning Board may recommend, and the Board of Commissioners may 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 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. ' 7 • 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 per court Picnic Shelter area One (1) space for each ten (10) patrons. Basketball courts Five (5) spaces • Der 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 behind parked cars; 8 (b) So that handicapped individuals can get into and out of an automobile 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 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. 9 A payment in lieu of dedication shall equal 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 • development is located. (See Section II for definition of immediate neighborhoods. See also Appendix E for map showing location of neighborhoods. ) 10 • • 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 it from other subdivisions or areas lay 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. Recreation Element designates four (4) district park sites and six /AI community Park site as shown on the map in Appendix E. The Joint Planning 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. 21 *Amended *LOT AREA - The total horizontal area within 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. • ,............. • .. . , , ...,.... • Li ! . - i F. •F• - .0.. df • •. .r• NiL., • r • •ll- • . ''''' • .. - ' .7.° Fkr, 1••• I " 12 i.a..........w.=,........ ...• •sar...••••110.4...,:z .. 1:,,, ...,...k....., ;.b.. ••' it...,.. % .:1■111 7 I 2. . • .1'•••• • I $ C..% . . •••,et* . jhj 1 4.v ••.• i ' ma, Is .. 4 AIM a- . ,..., : .. . . 1111,:„.. • am 1: I= an. ... ...,.in,. 14 \,..... 4,,,, . Asit,••• .. ! • L., - . , .- . - . : - , 714 , „JAY. 4 , .....0....7'."•ti •• a.. di;• • , ,t,.•.4 11'1..1.''ll' ... i . • "t I a•S'4. '''.1;.': . , .. ., "■• ma 9, , ., ....4...J._ `A, 7 I a,. \ s• 4.4. 1 it°Al ....4..." • Y, 40 . la a. ,•11. ma ' i.../ um . • •■04,4., • 11' *VgaL ' b". . •- . .40• i i s ••■•••• ' • - k . . • ......0. . •••. Ir ., ..... ,..• -.4.1 .., , • ,... .,. ..., ! .... 1 ... ,• .• ,.... , . ••./.\1•••• 4 . „....iipmai .440i, DP."..!._ 1... • Mi. . • ••• \-•-\ Aih,.. - I , .. .4, ,kw. .4 ._.. . • __. . 1 .t. 1 r-- MI 1 .• OIL,. • 1 AY, . .. 11.. .**16:i .:- " 441 4 .i 6t.crt:41,........./.....:-„ .r.. ..::: ...,,,,:Nii..........;,,,_ ... ........ A/45N i ....• L•.4 Lr .... S1?.. 18iralL 4.1 • • O. ) 1104 . ).2•••Ifttsti., •; Z ••••.: .... • MI •., • ••••NY•••• ........il 11..alkra, I A110114 Cw.ik% ... . - • 4-4. •••••• 1 .1.1.. ...9 -T• Yak 0 '''....e..,....L,..-1. .......... .r. ii. ,... .....,_,.. . ...I. •E ''...'•.•••111... 1 •• r-- .0-- — A.. Ir. .-- ....----.....'• . - 11111.---- . • -•„,-.4.0..,, . ...... .. „ , • . .___..--- ..., _ ._ -. ,:..-. •,-7, . „..- .1 . -; .. , 1 .... .... .A. • wi I . .--- . ... -■-... . .... 1r.. . —do.* — "........i.1 --. - . ..,,,E...,„ .... -, -,4...,,„....T. ...... i y ...,,.... r .... ad APPENDIX E 7-..7%, - .. . . , ......,..0 1 litor... .• ,L... • • f ' ..--, ... ... . .txt ;>.* * .i... ‘ti..' IP - ' .* • , . ..* ... ! .. * •• ' • 4.0.• " ., 4: WS\.•••• . . ma •• Me 1 RECREATION SERVICE AREA ,. • -..” ••• - •i VA ". PP !I'M • 4"11•On .• % II '.."' --"----twt16 ....._._.. ......). •..e .1, 11 `..T .,:.."*. ,i, ...... --,,,' BOUNDARIES . L" ..ettr- , . , .,-....„ .,..„ „e... .......z.„...I....ft. •.• . • AM• , - WA I/ ILA 413 ta.,.....1 a • . . • 1 gg. at. • '::' 10' ' •• P dr'• • . S,. aos • .s.. .. m • , .... i, iMa -' . i • - -; ••••*7'-`-“'S.i. ( .dir • -- • - 4. "4.. --s:s•451••- • ---.-AgareN S.-,%*,?, ar - ■ • ••.''-'-'-•-._..T-,?S;:•1, ,..!.,.41,q .....,,---,--.',... ....,,, -:-,4i. •, .... ' I'''' \/. .1%. ) . / . .-•.-Ire 74,04,...4 ............... ite. ,...,, •.'1 7;1 ....4 gr: \ - 2 \ ..4 ° " .tt$,. '*'14.:.".....:::.•:PtV.:...,:...." •: ''trdr.: . 4° \ A-. %. ...,- . - .. .. ..li.,,,,, ,..-,...,...•-. - . ,. . ,..,., .....-: .. ..- ... — . • • — e ir— . , •• _.•=-A...,,,4-4.... ,0,--,,,w..'tt..., ft:..;,..; • ,.. •..... ) 4.- .. ...... ..,...,....... 0....41..e.:.„ . . r• • '...,•.r.,,, ......ca,.. .•.3:• • • • :.,. ...„'7,41.7.......,..--4=.........f, et- -- ...1 •wi.,* i ..... 111Mli ' •o■ 44..::::`,..;.:., •...v,',...- -:..4 . .. r. \ .,.; .......;....t" X. -4, . - --*.• •••=te**:••ex.74,-••••'•.-.':ev • , ,g;, i.„:. •,,,,,j_ s • • • 00:-...,:* ,........... 136. -,": /1.7-1,. c•-••...r • . ii,.19.„AREA • i . leor-A4-• -v-.4, rai;sir,„:01.:e. ....:w•. ...."-au. • ......: •,,.. ne" .e. 1. t •• /1-* - ' -.;. f,-. ..w• . •,. fib 4 "r7..**1•40S.I.j . t 1.\ ,.., .... J ..:1' S c*: 41... "4........ ' .1=4'.4=1,t".4,,, '..".,. •ovriti.Ni'or...:'' <,5. '4 ''''''"' = . ■\''.:1,_..) i .' .'.. ....c.....x.. ,,,•-ii......-3.nr.t.---.:. .,,......,..0• ......„7,....?„..... .• , •„ ..4,110 Cc/r- --4.:- . . .. ' .., .1 • ' '4- • - v&"'. -75::.:4,..q. .-,...:,:iv. • r•f w,n. .i 4-0 it - 0- I 111...v......4 "c•••• 1,i,i;i,,: t,' ..••••••■1-*.,-;0'',At.0.. ...a,'-..`''. ..":"...e.*2 • s ■ .... ; • 0.•••%—:•--- . ''•-:•;?.,f" - -,.....3.,„„-..X.A. .. „ ••••:„....a's„.12.... i‘ r ' "°...a, ..... . ,... s'" - ..".7.4,—. ....- .*. ...,.. 4. - - -• • - -- - • 1.... •........ •..., . ' ' Va N. •••• a.f. • .. A.- .. ' ...IQ, - . 7,:..Zr;••-'.•.,;.:,, .• .--4 . .tVZ),..:-...-. . .0•Ii•-\..7•Ks, :tvertiFi, . .4...... a. ...„,••-•• •%''' - . '.. •'•.7...::■-•1: .•' - .4"...••• z....., . ,tek:*;••• 4‘1 • - •'' - ••.-., . • 4;,•Zy*? ,1"..",b..-•, x• ..,,. .7. • ...i 1 cr,,,,,,,,. .--• .,•,,,,,•• ........,. ,.......,,,,„ .__.7 . . .. ,,,,__;•' - =,--.4,,-,,e..... •.,,T.t"-"-7: - .-..4,14..;~1. 1„. ....\ — F.:,... ,........z.. : ...... ..,......o.„! ........„,z,. . .....: . • Legend: --‘,..:. • ...; .C1,, ..... -4.704t,"0.- 1 1M. • ~,..:-..*%--- wilia- •.. -,z,,.'-_-,. r— g fr---77.7-"....__L )1_ oci,,,,,,,,,. . ,.,,i.• j • Sli ...."."*.•4....ot*;:4....$,..a ,r4..., ..' ' '.4.... .."' 0 Community Park . • I • , .... A a District Park t , C n a , 1 ... " A r.• t• 1COUNTT ( ) Community Park Service •. - • / %.....,' Area Boundary KINEI District Park Service • Area Boundary -. • . - . . .. , , . , r ( e ( ( )•. , • . , ( .. ...• . • i, , - . .......nflp,..,.)O.--1,.1'..•,5, ',4"41T.:,,•:,....,.::::::::::.0, - • •- ,0.04.11..11.1.•ftle1:17.12IIIV:2 T.:!!!".."r'''let 4".',.1 14.'•..". It•"70'4'3"'Tr1"."1:10%...11'.....'...t.,••'''....•;1?..".:•":•'•!'"'''''''''"W''".. .• •'...'s • •'. . . •,,,, •,4,, •'. ..••.:...•••,,,,,.••, ••• •:r.Lt.":2:. • '• ..'. .::"'• ....., kflElt..1•;; '..". .....: ... -r- - ,'..":73i•,- - -•- .'itgc_41,,„4-.: '"•-•••- .1.-,;:;i•-"Y:;.. - 11-,:d.-.....;..- -- ,:.--.'•-..!-‘•-•-• ---7.-- ..7e--:' -...,--:':-• -- ,...--.'-:,7-*Zif-`ri 1......044• rg 1..•••••.:• • :•:.r•-1:-=. •- • • ..-.4;-•-• 0 - V* r•;/*-• 04 ••■rif,-.. .,1•11••4'• .3 '••; r)••,:'A - . '-•-:',-Ea, „ '4, ce;c2.-.,co . rc-i■r.,..1.1%•,T .r. 13 ... ........-.....,,,-. c.,.f.-•r... n --tr•-•:. ‘r '•43 1.rt'.:- 7.:ea-'t-0 '- ''" n-- to. oi:t...--... : . ‘r c.7.,.•-...=-0-. -,•=-- ' • :..--••_:..... . ::.-‘:•.•_. t^4'"-CP.-••• t".•' '''' •ws' 43- .:.-....r.sty__0.....i.v..,.: ... .43 t....1.. • :.- -s•-:- c.,-.-• 4:1•',-- Cp '-'1"..t, 0 -• -1,7 --,.. •-•--tr 0 -0-.-- .. _v.,....•_.r,.... D.,-,,,...7_,• -- tr3 ---f.,..r,0 O'_,,::...,:..5:- .• -. • - 7......... • - - '4' •Ill-•*:." r% -alp L1%4 '.f.•1 I....7.11j •:-.- -: -:-.g.);4. . --.-b.!...:_r- •_..r 1,.....i__ii:::;:;:-. --..r...7.a._..-.:..7...f4.. •,...e.,.-.1.. •..- .,..,-:,-,-• - --•--- et..,. ..... ,„,„,,__ . 71., • J..,- . ..,,y.•-i :4:1.7-,--..7. ; . -,-_Y.f.:Ti .. -1•'.17.:% ----- --..::,-,:.;77-::'‘,... _. .:.._ 01 7---- •• f• r•••••43 .. -,-- -- ----'`• --.•-r ,,,,_or....._03.,,,,•• ......7.,•i-' r..[-•,47-‘,..--0 1,-•al nr--..:_.±. •:.-- -•••.- • -., •.. --.-- w- ■-•,-.5.^1:37 1.•15:al 4:•133 - °--,:-[air.E-7::::::,...L.::-1,- •--z-r---r-m= m_:......•-•`-•,..:,... ._...*--ca 4.4-..-.i--,-0:.::al.-..„.1.,.....3..?.-.------t - , - -.:-... _ «.-. .. '• - °----4z.--, m *-141::::"•'•r";•' m •: ,-, ::-..1 .....- 0. -• 1:.,.... ,.... m ,,..........„. .. .... --... --........r.....1,.....::...,.....-.,,,, .,..,e.,,,...: .._i. i..,.,,- .¢ • 0..:!......_1.... • •••• ;V*: CO ''... ..:41.1,.. - .• • ... .': u.--•.... -:-•,..„,- ,..,0_-_,,-• •_ irl•.:•••••-..• •- - „,_12„.. i...-.-:1,--... '.'P. :?-CI '43, -0,--0.2 CV•• • .4.0•••••,-ta._•;--.:- - "."l',:-:*;rrz-•:"--.. pi LI-IV-7-;1....'4-.7:;.--.-- :!-* ..*:-::::: -.::- - -----.-- -.4--;.": -- ::• :74...•••••F-..• - ••••'-'-'-''''74-7: • =•-•7•••••7;fr^':"•••'-'111 1.,;.•--;••:•••ts.„17.7.j1::m-.•:- --4-0,., t-..,.--,-,-14.--1-.," -....--:..r...:-11 1.---:-.,..e..`-.....'i."*.1-.. ......L. .,.... ,",•!.......7 -.•-•t7-4,-".. ". -' ••,,,,,..7.;;;;.. -...- . ','-'•_-- -..-,- .4-.7.sf,1 r,...,..,....7•.,,,t7L'o . ' . ....r2 a-7;-:,'T.0.;,.0 ....-•v..ilfs'..-;-! -:-!•-tt,'.7 _•;.•:r.-'-_o*.f•-•:-'..,---. --=i•------.--.4,_;',2.1-.. .-.7._:-::-:`:-..• • •• ." -p,....i..,,7-.-....11-=•••• '.-_ -1---,- -:t.:,-- - ..w4i,,,, -r- -.=.--,---.4-_,...-_-__.L..,....---1-1 --- i•-•;..-:•,.7'-17=7--,------,_ ....- ..,;:.: t.r, ..7...,_„:..........--4, .•-••: . ,, - • -' ---'-'---,....=-•,•- r,.."-- -o4,-la-,-4----"ir ,o. - . 0:.-._..0=0--•=!--t"4-r-7.-..-. 0 pF.Fri.&•-..1.„0..t.-0....i.-7....-44.-- A.,..,-;_rf...,.. _ 7. .-... -•-=""e"'":7-t1"."1"--•1""`'...,•-•--- - - -. .-.r.---' .-7-7-: : 0--;••--F3-:-: :-•-••0•-•-0.--0 r?"-;-""•-•:.7 0 r.........*:..0.....,0 4:4F-A..-.T. •-•T'''' '''',.•4'-',.. . .:...:7.:•:r.,••:' ' .;,...„- ;,,-*.-Z•:.:•%:'..0:": 0 :1.0-7'0•.0 1:• "`'-..T:.12 ";•• . ..• -:-. ".1 ' .......•-. 1 • ...-.;:' •'4.44.•-•-'0,- • -.lea..., ••- • .P.,1,,N .•,7•••:•-•.--".1 ''.'-.*:-.J, '..- ..'.._4;7..;-. ... _i. .....„.„.., . ....: ::„,. .• ..„...,..... •••.... .,_.., ____ •-'.•.Z..,•••:;_f,..;:i.1.a.•.%*••.• '•••0: ......."•.••••••••• r...--.0•_,7.-::-• ..........-_,;+••• .....„....- ••••-• - ....--:;.,:..---7 .;•• '--e--- ;. "'-.--:: -';'''Irl.--- (.9 1-•-:•7 41(11-7-r--;.-64°':.---•'-'-'C)".r?...17‘r''''s D'r):.7.1:7 ‘r••7..4..: 11:-: -.T•:'••••"-•:;7÷%:-;r:t11?-:.--77.1401. •••• CIZ" -F*.•'•.-.".4'1.'7.•-•••-:•'•11`41. ...."7:k4!".:•EZ.41I.:■11-•t•t12.i•Z•Z`'::.•••7•:- '•:: ••••4•V:• • .,-Ii.4.-4.- 1,1":7-7.:7;.:-. 7•T".:7.,..a-_',2,L__.• .........-.,,•„.... ....<_r....., in_.....-1 •••"-":"9„,.7.:7.•-±Lf..!‘„,,,;1.5i-15,-..7.-7:;=^•-..;;411-".., -.---t-.•.--j-4',_._-7",,.•••• ..,..,-:"."154.-;7,-;-'77-177-. ....:4„-zi,t.::: -•;t“..,-:"•=;.-f,, . • • -7..:..-.4,...="_. • ...._ :• - --'-•.••"- F-...fi•,7--7:-: ..:•: ....-7.Y,'..,;':"r.-7 ' 4'..'-'..45.-'- -.:-:,,.'- 7: . -- ...---:'1,1,J;....',:. ........-: .-f..,--::::::,,l'.-.....:::.L.:..'..ce•-• .• .'-, .,• ,1•,;-...0.,,7?-1., .!:L: 144F..--.-..._ -- ._: •.:--.:._,,, -5 .-- : ,..;:-z7 ...7 .:' : Z-F....:-; ....,'•:--7 „.•,- ,..:;,. -.Tr- ' -.•=-7:. -....:.:1:---,:::;.":,',7:: -,:- -.:-.:;-77„1": •• .,.-144-',-,-;_.-.::7:.:„ v.;,;;;;:.--- in -....__.,,--..• I-I•,;7"-,• '• .,„ .,-,..--__,-:,..-.....„ e.,.„n,:ir,-.- - *.;,....• .---. .s'ni-,- ' .0,r7.:c.r:.t,sr.-7-'4.1 7-.V.:-ill . .."4 I:.A.4; ••, -- 77•••••••%••• •• - ''."•••r*,......; .'. • -77•- •'7-1,• ..nr., •••••••r• -,..... .r,f... ,.. :...• .1••••■• •.......r, V Irr.• .......4.•: ".;•• ••■■• 1 . •r..;/....iv., .', ..;•,..',...f• .... . ...... .,,,,,;...,.., •••••=•.7. ••••-4...?..... •4...f.....:•• - •.'•-• •-;•-•:-0-,7•.•"•":. '"''-:".•“-. • :•-•-• e.Z••••fzIF.::!'"••••.,-••••- '1.!..1i,:-: • - 74'745'7 ••••"""7.7.•-_,2:•:-.”-.,•••71 ,:'•,•:„,...;;;;,:-....F;IT ' 5'...... •-•......7.1•4i.:;.....:-.....• f;;;;r4-,.C.-_.- ;;. -,:„...-....„..... r .7..,.........„.„....._:.,:.•et,--:-;;* -• .." ‘3,....,.1....::' --- '.-:. 2,7-,3...;: : .7-.'-' ....?;:f.-;:-::-:.-al- Tv.:-.4.:... -7-.,-'i_if7;-.7- --,„. ,,.:,,7...:i.:•,;: -••,;.. ••,;-,r..:.•',..: ..,••••-••• 'F'•:-.-1.• ,•••••••--11-•••• ': •1 ,..:-L-•Z-7:••'-i--id••'''''••. •.....• :,...:.Z.....4, ---- ...-.--'-. ,1,, .•kr.:-,f-1-:•.., -..... ---r7,17.7...... --.;,_:::7-*•,-7`'. ----•••:-7- ',I.-71-:-.7•-•'' ,:=T.:::co .: t •.:_-. .*... - •-,•.• - ••*":--••:••• • 1_ - - • •---."-:- ,•-••:t-'1,'"-tit-:-_-:7-: .....03 - 41...; -..CO••-i:-.... •.••••'' • p__ 7 to -,-:;2.-. - .r m ._03.• -.17.;,.E.,,, _ -.._ i-- ••- -'-_12•*""-... - - *. ''.:-:=4"=7"•:7-i-: :::-;---•-...,*."-N-= --_,'-'''.• ...."!-:--,,, •.-'---77.7"-'17..-.,1t771.-_-- -.---,--,----.,. '.... •T...r%•"..::'0. :..:.- -;-.7.1..! -4-•----_-_-:•,-T,7":. ' - . •'••m- - 0 • cr)-:-- -•-2 .:.*;--7--. --.,-...."--.F,i•' ---,7- ',,,,..._'..2,- .!---• - • - •...•1.17:-.--: -. -----. ‘--C".. .; "t."'":•- ..- -7..-'-'77.- t•-•.477--1'77-,. •-••••,,--••• • - ''1---`• • -..• - " - - ' - - "--"-=• : • • •"-- --.....-..-..--..: -I:-:.;.7 -. :-::.. .. . -; ,....• -.... ---, - - -.---....-., • .,....,..., -_. ...;..'7.,:- -:,....1.-••••..-z•••••- '.,...:,-. L.-”•.--- .". 1•='-'..;' •. . ,.„,-,--....rA;,-, -• •.----•-........... •7',•• tr••••,••••• '71••'• t 7...:...4,... • ..... .0.-.1 01 ..-- .•nr•rirr-, .. . ..,.._72, •.- : ..; - **- W •••="': .-7 "• '7.:••- ' • '• --- - ,- :-0.'.-•:- n ..7...4,7:- -.-•• .... ..•0 -.." ;_`,...,., - ... . N.,.r1I t• - -,.. • , I.;,.,.._•;_. ..,.. i_ • tc. „:„....... ... ... -•••:-L-,• .•,•...,:•••„:..v.•, •••:, er _ ....,,,, . -.:::-.•.:.; , _ ...:',...* ,•::.in , ..,:7?-:-.,. :-... • 'n1:t.Fr .._ - ...-.:-.7.,•.• • ".•-•-• .-.,- ... .KT• -•...., ••• --. -,,-_ ....,. . •- _::. cr .- liti ..,4v, :--,- -!,-.:-. ---. -,-,•--- .... .....P • N. -.,''••• . • r;lf-••;"': P%-•-• . 474• :',. '1.....7 '7 •:::•, .77.- i.7.747:---r. *• 0- •77.. W•''•-r-:•• ---...1 '' - w !=.,7. •,-, •:::=7:.'" -•' -71...e. -" C0 '••• n1 .- -4 -.---..•••.. _-:.;-.. -7-7,4,-;.--0_ v..-••••,..-71•••••• ••••:* •. -.r..-:ri - z• ':•••.‘":".?"' - 7..,,-;t*,... -:- - -*-. •.7.,-;:-'••; -. f- :.?•;"4".. • "•••• -::1•11.7--4 : r.. •-.:r....-i... ' P. 7:1-.31F.L . . :-..^ -t::.. - r.:.oi.',..: .- _...,..... . .:..,,,:.,:a-.. . ;,;;;,...... •-.-% - -..;:,:.._ . :- .:-.....4.-" ' • .I.• ..._•,..„ :.;•:,!..:,..... „ , , ', 3-7: • :•---4.7- . . .' - : ...!1-P-. .• : x-,r." .....!.. •.-....... ..,. .......„ 2. ... • zD'.- '---T-,, : • • .4.....:-,.. .,..••• .337-:_•,;-. --• . r::15'-!-F-• •• ^•::."''• • .•--":"" - •.;,-'- --,.•:.-*--11....:;:::.. -•:'. 1..7 -' • .- `:',g-4- •,-- -- ..--?•"::•-:,,,. w w - • .. P...r; ---,. ..,.. - -- :-......;,-,,. • • • ,t•:-,-• co :-.-, -_-_- . ., -7133-..:.-. .-. ,..?. , „,. .7--.4; --.7...; • r•-• ....:_ - -."4g.••• • - - ,C4'...4, .--,- ••• "--';..-- a -,..r.Z.;77:17, . .a •■■"•,•,• ''. I.. ''. 7-CD'''' ..; -. ra•:-..7, - •.....- *Q.0 •• -••••*.IIII. .--- 4:-..t.'.',/;•• *-- I.. 1.-.*. -;;',:,;;44.., .::.....1%,.... ...: ,......1,,I., - a I.r..eAlt,',..: ..- .,,,„. ...'„C4a,,Z? ';:,-. ..,.,....7 a •...-- ,:co.,. ......,..• .• to.,-,..,N. , 77-1:-A...:.• •,., ..- 4,1„,...-,..::: :- tr I .:. -IP -•'•••:.'"- ... ."...r...;:.'fe•-" -- -17-., ..... ' :=7;r1 - cr. -.5:44"g-•:"..t '- •••••40:7•••••••-•• -:-4.i . •:•.:. . 4.:a p. , ... ...et:.;;VI. . - ..,..„t.../ . •C Z ; "- i„.1.•"-1,1.r1:: • - ..,.. ,... .i:^r•';` ••...:. ',:.:..:,.,4-7-,... .-.:Ev ` ''‘..,.: .. ... •,-.,a,!..", **,:- --..4•r..0 '..• .:". *•:ni.x...:,' •:..'.. ,.-.7,-,....--,-,.., -- -.„----,-.. ''•-0....0 .••••LA 7,:;;Kc: -. * ..:2,44%.-- '.--* ,-,---.`r....--::-. " ....„ :4,-“,::::-:4- :-....., ".":::'...- .:- :::: ".......-..V.,.., -. .. ..••■f;....7. •. •-• .""••••••,t, --- .-.,-.47-4,; • • •••rIV.v.:•*:••• •• ••"••••'••••• " in i-',";•:.47;.•: ' 4. "-.7A;-..-:. . • -.ni:.,;,•h.•.: .-.-cm`-,..,',',.'•• '" •;:.-0.::::;.P" *-:- ''‘,74",r2.3.... . ...- CI Ir. •-r- IC : -, g-._. .- . -...le-.7, . . -......-4,. .• • .. .....,....,--: - -% • .;,--IF.:• -- '"'""vv.;.- -I' • Z •. ii/4"4-.'"4• •. t..• li.;21;*:: --- 7.,,,I•e:4.• -• n •:-.1.1i- '•• .43 '''''''.*. • ''"'''.". ;"0'T.:*:a ' •:',e:4i...- ..' , P.-4 u., - .:.:::,-,.r...ir • • •,-..,.,......z..: . zo w - 2..........t.•,, .._. .., :..,,_,f; . _,,,T.,47.,. . 0 ..„,.....0. ...„ ;,.-.-E.i.;!,:..- . ,• -....:-;,...„...L ....-;•rs.;,-;;.,. ...,...• /.;:',...!:.,-,,..r: • 27:4.-iir. .. - - -,.... 4,---...- = • 0•(..,..-F..,-•• - ....•.-7,.,,,,,,.. • ,....,...,::::. .....,45, _ . ...,..,-,•,;:. . , •'m.,...--.• .• - :.:-v....• .. ... '` ifi -.,•,-; - . :-.11.;•-fi."- • •-•.r•Ti:::.--71,-:: . • • :;-6.tf,..: .. 45 . .-. ..-...• .;,....-,,-,- •...... , 0.,..:. .. r.:.• ..,i:5-4. . r C. =--.7.,...s. • . .e .*- . . ,- ,u::.,.,..:7:,` ' ".1.-1.1-ir.:'!' ' :1;A:;,'-:; • • '-•••,".*7- ••t*=t4Z•C; •.-• '7':.::A'- • 4.•;"'.....1 ••• ‘...i:7,;"••'. • "••••••'1•1:. • ...,..... •< • ...J 4.. • < 7.7.:( • :•••■■•••,-.:;t: -, '•'•-•''', '. ti:.*;;;7:•••, .- 2.4i4'.;*:-. - .- :.....,..,..4; -- • •-,-,!-;:..1: • :-..to .r., LI. • I ..1?,••tfe;.- ...„..,.. ..-. . .. ....*:..:41,.:..,•_ '.1.1..421?..:, a F•.;':::-.,.i.I!!..ii•;•• • .. -..-E-7•17,14 ' Z • 0•••"1•7"1::•• . ■f,•';-..-.; ,- -0•••.• "-CI ft-, -...,,4_,-:,..• . . .•- :4; ... .•'..•74*„;: 7 0 --k..../:: 1.....:*•c:, r••*•••••• ZI- . - -. -5 f'... ••• ;...:•••:.-• '...:1'.1.n,•;7,-• ..- ,,,,,....... .. ■••.,:....P.,• - --;:a1.1,1. . • `r-•*-.,-, •■•;;••....,.. ...1.,....r• ., • ;-..-■••••="4.` . . ••-:7.:,:. ' .'r ',4^'•:--- •• --.74:• " -",-4.1• ' ' '4-::• •• . ,-:•:‘: •,•• • -7.-1,:,- • '''-'.•:',:::. . •' .-.; .-.7 -.' 0 0 . a - • .."0..- . "4- ' • .•:1;',,-,7, .; • (.1.1 Z••••••t;•1 • •1/4-7..:.• . • . •••11:" 0':'-'. U .•' ••••••• pia„'1:1 ir-• • .; •. W ,. • '•-.7. ,1.7,'•:••.:-* , - 0 •■••• .t. • .-.•!•;•- ••• 1•01 St• ,';•••••••• 0 •:*•••',I.•P• • t.2. ,• n _ ' ''!..**.:::,tr) :._,._ w lig ' ITI '...t.:...I --`,••'.. ry ..» < :... J 43 : CV:., 14 - *.,1„•.,%,,-...r. 0 -.".',T1:1,„ 0 - ,•......• 0 0 ...-4 --- - .;••.i.:....,•••• • ;-,-..-7." .:;.:-...... ■••• -• ;: •'... .....:.; z<z..:. taw ..:.••.'-':: 4ii ' 6 .111..1 1: cll."' N.. 'r: : .... :**''.1: ± ±".:.;.-.1: - •• '---..':...• a "-.....--...,i• f; - 6 ..... • , _ ._. ...., ix a . m 1 - 1 w - 0, • III 41 43 ,• ID 14. '',...•.:-, . ,-.•..,.:..• . • • • 0 4.4•.7 44 •. _. • 0...• 1 ••r:r:44 It) 45-• r4 0 1• ..•, ID 1.. ...- ... ...., .-. ..-..., •••••• .ra: ... ry . -._-_ i- - - --..:..- - ........., L. --....,.r -- .- • -':'••••;:. , - < . 1.••••••::. W E •. • r•-: r•••4. 1•••• -a r•.-; r.s I.- !N..: 1.... ......... -p... ..,,...;:s..„,.. . .... . . cr .... . • . -.:-.. . ...... -- ...- --.. c.) 1- `•.J ••• :: 0 •:.:-.....1 1,...- ... - .. • 1 0.....0 - ••• -•....•• , W . •..•-•:••••• r•c. Z .'L.1 ,:...,...... W .. .... s':.•••••;i* - .:. • • •-i.,,.. . . . . . .. -..... • Ul W '.I - - .:.:. , .::,.• ...■ .":1,,Z...:, .I- •r.-'* :. F- • < cc .." •••,' Z . 1- ..7.".-•,,:•; 0 : I-,.:••0 • 10 :--• .cr I- ••••=.;.•:-= •••::'5. en - ■••••.,-. = • .4.2,..••• z •re : re ..„. 0 '-;•t W' -I : ...• < = •.:...•:• .74: 0 :: l'" ' .:,:-••-•.: • • • E •••• Ul I- > .• < F- ' DI ...f"..,':• cc • • '-.l.1 -1 *:" W < '••••• = 0 0'.- Eft •... **: < • W C/1 .Z ... 2 >.• -= *2 -4 W Z •• ••-. IL. >•:" 0 W -...V..Z Z =.•,- E.) II...*..;...... <>• ExU1 ,-.1_ ...•1:3, JUI ri - 0 - -";•„,;: • A w ,*.t ..E w...t-.; L Zia ••...2•:-. Do 4 . ,... .."-::::-..' .... . . ... • . -. = .-*--. W = . -1 = •-• re E c.,.. .. I•if z ...:.• • •- . .. . .. ..,:c z •: cc....w z z• • . w . . CZ 0 .1 . < CC 2 D C.)7.. 1... 0 Ii• ' • V. -• 1 IL 1". 2 .' CC 0 D :•• L ... • ... .. •..:. • c3 - I- = CI Z 0 - 0 •cc In.. 0 -J • 0• •••• Z 0.'. In• a. •te:E,.-- w 40 . W : =44•:...I • 0 0 1 * W 0 IX I.I. 0 •• -" 1 0 • - g13 1.1 '• W W• .. W • W W < I I- < •i- .>. - Y = .- Z .: I >I ''• cc < • *. 44 •= I- ... . -• . • a >. CC I• -J . 2 • •2 ',' c.) U - J. J cC 2 W 0' D_ x0 Do Fi) • ...•••,. -Sc›W • ...., <,. D 2 <• 0 < 0 44.1 = 0 A 0 U1 M 0 , -3 Z .'3• 0 1.) Z U., ..J I-.: /.1 I- 0 1:4 • .- • I .1 - • •-•- .•' •,-• . . , ' •• :* . ,. _ • W ' a:- 13 .. '%'' ...... - ..:.• . . • of - • =,-' = •. ... _ . . . • . I m • . .. .. • • i f .• 1- 1 . - . iti -.• -. 03 tii. -1 • . . . .... ' ..• • :.:. • - . , . AE . 1 4E • ...' . • ' W 1 • 0•• •• • . 1 ... :- . 0 s ' • . . ... 1 I., - .'. 1 ...1 • IA I. . 13 I- I- X • I °• •• •14 3 1 Z I •„.' Z i -• % Cr. W 2 I- 11 . fis p ••• , 0. • ... •,-- w to t- I • n i m . = -'4.1 1 I I . •- 0 1 • . ic , ... . 41 VI 1••• • ' •• ' I • ...I • n.. •• I W • Z • • - -•.: .m -1• • Z Z CO' •-• I 2. W t.D t-I- • >I .1 ': D. I ."' s• 0 I •-• .J I • • •CC J 1 -' ,.. -. Sc • LU 0 2 w : I , _,,1 ,... . oc 1. - •tu < , < .. ..1; • W 44 I ..-• . I .1 -3 "; • U. ! U. 0 2: C., I = •• i < c• S • 1- • ..4 1 = • U. =I '• I ' : a .,:r w i U. c;) i ..... 31 - •0) 2 ; ID Ls,_ n. I .Z .' =I CO U. I Ul ' 111 • - •• i _... I •• 0 .4.: • W D . CI -I U. t CC • W 0 • CI - W C3 • -4•-< ! 7 ••2 ...... w <• > ••1....,: I '••'. 1 1.: ... co ... „ 2. c2-I li 00 . z< uj I•2 - > CI 1 < : I- 0 I .3-'•I 0 l' 0 - 0 W I 0••••1") ..-"" 1 0.: 0 0 4c ; w - < Ot a)-!.. .c• f2 ...... 21 2•• • 4.41 Cp• 0 1 - • • > •- 1- • • 7.• .4 Sc : 0 • CC In , I- ••0 3 :.•..• •:-0 < ,........^..> a I < .y.tn_ .ccn : ..ila..: CA ... .4. - 2 ''.11 •- :.1 ,CC • CC 0 E i" Us --1 r - o 0 1,• >--•• J E• IL < I _ I . . .. U1 0 w 4,) ,1/40 0 i . < : 1 w WIC) . 2 1 , In .: •-• <1 • E Z ! I. - c.30 I- a 1- 4 JI Z < a ' 00 0, 2 - 2 UJ I; < Cc -1: 7.* _E • x I •= • U - • ". • •• I Lu = = 1 D _.43 1 •. . a D ...1 LI . -.0 Sc Sc ' a _1 CI cl . < < , 0 m. 41 ,.•-• .D >- . . I --• 0 111 < 121 011 U 0 i 14.1 W U. = 13 -I ; .1 •a Z ; 2-• 0 Ul I- r . i i I I , • i . . . . 1 _ , •• • I 1 - . ! •I ._. _ • - • . . , . • . - .. _,„,,,,,.„,,„„„......„,,,_,:........•.„.!•,-..t,...,.. • .,•-,•, •••:,' ..„;. ': •••14' .'... ,',..'r.:..7,•.'"... •'!. .t. •-• .7.:•••„:.tr,-...• - :'-',1• -'•:•••- ,•••=..-7:• ..7-.:•••••••••:•.• .....•.-''...' •• • 1,,• . ....,...-• .. ... 1....,......--;.: . •••••..--' . -..;.-.5-.• . . -"-------• •-:•%t=4,- •.:• - ..-,-.,......, ---L•.. --- ,-- _-,.."--_43,--... ,•,,, ......7.4., .......:.-: ...,..4:-. "-4 ..-75:-*- ..-.... ' 7---,..._.-.1*-:,•.. --,---- -,...,„,-,...i.,-.A..-_,:..,... 51 f.F.,=7•••r. ,,.. ,r.„.„... - . -- ....,...,..---,-.-... ,,........-.; . . ...•-„,...-P.:••- '."'"-• '•::,:." :-,-. - .•--71:-` -r-,•• - ••••r;,.1-••I• •-- -••• .1.--.:1•••■•••7.• '.14-"..411;;;;. - ••-,......,-.. . ... r-7.,..•,,7 - ..:..,-.7:: . .-.:.2.-.;.-- .. .....,,,,....:. ..- . ,:,-4-'1'.---.. .- • ,:•,,■••,:•.. ..• :•••,-.:.-:: _. -:.•....'•"- . •,..•••••■••:tr.. .- •.4.•:-‘.r.. - 1•••■-••:"•'-'..' •-; J 77:!..-z.„... . .••••7„- la la .4."7:7-, , . .••,-;- -7 .•,,7,-. - •-.• r4--*•••:.:..- - ••s-- -...'"....--..- •-' - •••%'••;.-'...Z. -- - ••:-....,'.7..... • •• -1--,:::=1:. :- • ......z;.:,.. • - •,--...-=7 .-- •-- ,--.- p -• Int...,,,,,,,•" -'..--- . -,•••,:„:„.1 - --••--,. - ..:::-,.,--,-•- ...,..: -..2......- . - -. -...,..,.••• -..: ,,.,.r.--_,..-•-• -•,,,....-:-;.•. ..---: ..,e.:•--,. ,....nr..•■ .1,:er.,..., ... ••....: ,C..., CI........77....."•••••••••r•r;TM,'..1,:••••••• ..... .7.•••••,....="....•7.1". ; , •-•••••.--.-.4.......-..t..74,••,.•... ..--...-...-=-......-.74:-..:..,...,.-,_ ••: ... -.;.---...,-,.,.-.:. ----7--: -z---.77.zi. - -.--,. ...,,,,.7-,.-.?* --• •• - -a.,...2-i ••.-:.:, -. . .- .........:':--••• ..:- 1.....11,.•......:-,• ,.. , 1:::,,,,t,..... .- 11....*.::.: -,. -.. :...":„;‘,".::•;"•,•.-. .: "•:',114.5.1. .....-.........l.":47.41. --•.----.f:•••.7?:::','2.: • •• •••%••=,•/:::: ..: -.:.77._A- •••7•,->"--.÷...: --"-'--:-:•,-:-.::,e74•'"•7-1:7-1t;;7t--; .- • :•••.......,1••••••7••-•"."1:4-41:::775 "'•7•••••'-•• 4".Z..-1:::-,•••••, ..,.•••••-"-'17-- :- ---47-'•`•t:L•k%7t. --- ::1•"-?'..7.--". - ''''''=":"'S,:::#"-•-•'--- -7 ...L--.-._. ,,___..,,..... .,.;.....„,..1...4.....,;-;-•*:-.._.-....„.„,...t..,......,...,i_. .-,..,..-.4,...: ...,* ..-L,,,::.....t_....:.:,_.....-:---7-_,,,„‘..A,....-"_....--..,-,",•-.7-:--ild ..„,,-;:t"-.7,..,-••-,...... .7-7. ""'"•:••••= 7.,•:•.;;.",-7-2:-..7.-::, =..„-7.-_-„... .:I...._.-.I.:-.....-.,: ..---7.-=-.••-•-•••..,r..-1.••,,,7„•-j,.', :;::; r -....7.5......A...,-•:,•ri.-:.:•:-•4: ••••••7'-:'47.•■•-•%':.'4":, '-'"--• . '1 ,..--,--------:•-• ---.----.:77... ., ,t.:T.T.-'Z'i.'-':•-:--'-'71..,:••7";:'- 1.-..7..:-.r.:-.':'''.....=...ra_-:-_te.---!....,.4;x4.7...;..-=.:.--i crit--ye.r. -....:,...,..- ,.....Ar, ....-- ,. 1 •=rt•••••••••••-t• r•-..7-•••-•_ -- -:1.••• .'.. .-- •.'' .i-V-1,`"- -,, - ' --•-•''• ---'.'- • •-•••-,4.-----•"..... --4,--.I..2,..i•-r--.-•--,- ••••- -Z...:14v.•••-•\•--- -4.-4:1-- .:Ad I.--,-.7,••••, ,•:.....410.r..- -- 1'e' --•- ,...7,. . ,-..--....- .. . .,4"•••4•:-r ..,:•:7---E-,.;„.,. • _- - ...:7-........:. - •--.- 1---.1.-=:--•.• •-._.:•-:-•“;:r.--:_•.: ..,-.I__.-- - 4--7.:"---;•''''''..-" 7•::-.7_1-1•7 '4-1:*-",-;--...-----r+-'7:-"::-.Mri-- 4-%4.--....,,77-'•••:-6-•7C:::••• -.•.= --.-.0,,,•::7.2 f..',7.4,.......,1_74.:-I•u...1.:41---1.4—.-:.:..t.•-•,...1- .:.,.....-..,...4.-•ram.•r •- r:-....-...-.•7-:.••------.- :......-„*.• . " .-- -:.,• ::,--_, „1 -,-...--, -•--::**'_ •: -.1-*. -- ---:: ••-.7!_:.'11;r::::::', '"'. ••'. l':•••?..:72_:. _77.-__1...-._,...:•.:: _:.;if •.•.-.;• - - - t...:_;-2-7, -7-. .2.:.:-.:,:,:r....:::-.-....,•:•„4-,.;••-•....".-.• -. ,;_;-_';1••• . , ...::•74.-L-.7. ....--.---...--.__..:,...1 .. ---..„--.... :-...-...-..-.. .-..-..... -:..---..._7-.•--•- , ,',,: ..__:".-. „_____,I,7;.- . ,_--.....-..,.....--......•••....S...., ••••■,.--:-".---s.V.,.. ••••-•• •-■ ,,;••••4.••=7.5 • . -7''". - .7 I.-----,- '••• -- -".•:_.::"7.' _ - 7;;••••••••,..": -—• I'.1,:.:,...... -..." ..,,•-•-•" ..• •• „-7 -.P:•.',...T•j• ..7•2-•• r••":F.,711'....;.. ....... ...........;••••---•'',7.- ::•,,• -- "7: ''' Z7 ••••■•• ... •-11..:7:4••-•-• -....-._I :: -_'---.r, . .. .. .:-....._, .. -,-. -- ..:.7,--:.:. - _ -...:,,,•,-,747... .....-,;.-. LL.•,:r __:.,_. :,•_:;;.-±:_-:- . --- . :.,,:*•-•-.... _ 1 . ---' - -r."::-• --:-•,- :7••,.•-,— -,.--:. -:,---..;•,:::: .-.. -.- -.....7:1,r--.- "•---.. --.-1;-.:.-7, .1.••:,.--../•::-,-,••?-••••:--r,:„...,•:,,,•-•••;:,..+7,-.-r-,,-r,„:- . ,fc,„4. •-••-,•,„,„;-••-■-•.! -• r_. ,0.7.r-,,-, •••% '■-7-•."...., =•'?"';'''.; ';•' ... •.,... .e4 - -.• •I..•;•"-.„*. • --. •"..:•.:••• .:,, 'I-••••;;;',.:e---%'-' : . :,;•,,..:,.,:-, "., - ::•%•••".--"..: 11•'7.-0.1:pi •••-;..;.:;: . - .• ,,,,,,,,5.1.::, '.., • ---.1.•.-. Li--,:--- -- - - --:,' :•-• - - j..--:::::: . •..,..s..„.;„-:.-_-.;-.- .-. -'.. .,-:_-_...,: • .-. -.!. .,:.;•,,. _......,,--Itg.-....,..2, _ -. 1...-5_,-...-1.-.., -"..':7.'7:. • ...:. . "."•"-' < • ■.7•:........---..- 1.--:-. :77. .•-- C3 •--—;—...---I -.. ;... „:-.. _..--...L..:-..-. ---:-1.:::..:-",..--:--...... ,-.:X. .-..--, , -,- :.—.- ..•:-:.. _-:-----.•.::;;;„- ..%•-,,-I.:..1-7.:-.. . ...''_‘- -- ',•6 -il' • • - •-•'`': '-.'-•••• .'".---•-•••-• ' ••:. ",,:,:::''''- --- '' ."'-'7"'.:"j'.. - .7'.' -.Zr-,-;-',-.....-r:'"'''. '''',-..-:'...rtfi-. :-"::-. i5,•-■',`-". ..--'-:" .-•"...F.- •• ':.-' •%'-.•••4....• . •• - . .-. ....-.. '"."- ' --•- ---g."... "---..=."1'-='''''-"'" •-••• l'-'-'4-•"' ' '- 1,...-•.:-.•-•:::- :•'••••,..."..rft-T, -• •.-t"--'•----.... - ..--4.:.•'-',..--::•••:. ":-••••••,•:- • •-•- .. -‘.-:..•-:-'-- - -....,•••••;•,-„•;•-,... --: • . . •::"----"----•-- '''''''''•:74. '..-"- I"'":4:-- - 11.7-:::-:::- ----:•• r"...',4--;-: .-..'. '1-'..--'1':"•7. ... - ';: .:7--.;•.".q.':: '--"' , ...:4::-..•••.7-:.:.-.-7:: ••••••.•;-•,-,..---...,.;' .'- ••;-'..:',7•.:-2,- - •''..!---7::z••••:',-, 7 - - -•-• .-----...---: w. -:_: -:, ,..• - - 0 1.,0 0 0.:. 0 0 :.0-.t: _ z ©`..0 .. 0 .ol-o.: 10 oro: . ....-...,:••..- . .,,....5.3.,1,.• - - r,....:...,.,-.:. _ . - ,...• --..:-.--,.. . ..-...... - 0 - . ri.--v,-,. -.. . 4:-::::-LT-. 0 : ci ..: - •d - ci.:,,-.a _ti 4-2r)-=', ------- -1',•_:= 't•. -:-• t.."..;.. .. •-.-• ...... ....„1-'.. :- - 4.t...C.%•••■ . -_ ..."--?-', - • . ig -: -,: . • • ,...:-:.:.•E • -.•,......• ...... .7;,.., N ..4 . m.„-.; -- z.......,., --t- -.•••,:::••;. - --.. .- ...,,r,,. LA:- - -..--*••,.:0. W r."•,%' • -;7:: --•ct•:- -... •-:-: . . •1:,--,-:-.. In . ts. -7 It-.''' . ....:• _•,••• .- --■17.,.,•••. ••-- 7:••••, `?; ,--- V.,--7--.,-- • •- ---^S415.•F•' . " l',•1.1,...,,,.. ' • .7-,;,.:4---" -.,„--hz:- _.--- ,-....7.••*Lr_ ••'.t.'t.',., - ,'........4,..••• • 2 0 ..''.:'''''" ::1;•..T.";"•:..• < .... ' *;',11..:.: • • r .....,... •••:.•'.. -tr4• ••- •:....,-• ..:. • -,:-.4.•,:-..• .'. ..• .••-_ ,„...*:,0 ,• .--..,•,:::_"-,,•,.., - ••• ..1 ,••`,,••-...*•,-••-•" UJW - .-7" -1-;-I .•0. :•••.L-- '••--ry.:-5: •:-—•:,-",,,r," — 7," •--,-- 1.7,y1'.•:-;.!..: -:--.-. .--%.•...F.1. -.. .' ,...-1•-•':0, = ." •%•-•.T...: •• • -r..S.:::::"1*. - . Z■••• ' M••..,':%...■ •• .- ..,.-- - ,•••'-••••;:..t::•••' -T.:-• - '4V"......: : '74,, ='' .. • •••'.=r1j!..■• . 1..-..1 <-:...,44:=. ' '• *:...7•7:1:1 . '..:::•T:,..:•• •••• TIV::::f-'••:: • '''!" -t7.....••••:- - --!-•;=:'..:.. -- .1 4°,1=1,'.,!.:•, .•,•: ... •••-••:;;.,,, ...-. i,-.4.4-;,•:4=. . . ;;...:,,..., ::- CG1 tlai. .--,.. ., r:°'•••,•‘•'. • •••••■•r•••=',.: ' ':;:;.*:',..•••-•:r • .__. :4:::,..if...,-. ..,..,. •4,..,4.:•-•• 1.-.... E.,:.,1••••=,,,, ...,..,_, ....74,,„„„J„,•,_•....... ....„.....m,... ••. ...,._.„,....., <Z ' :' . A•.••:".• .• ' ,---.•1• • •• -•17••,:::.- „•.•,:•''' -- ""--••• ' • ••••••••'.f.•'::- ''-—••.;•::.`•` •-.1-•-• . 4'7'''" '7'1--- -r 4,—--. • . vt.4-.t..,... - ..... -,-....,..k.....:.- —._ •••,Ii...d. .:..,- ,...,.....rlyi.,:. -.•• ,..k...,,,, --..-.. ......r.,.4.4.0- , LI3 I • U ;..q.,-, • " ..i4- -., --•• ::•,,.",•''; ' • • .- . .• • • ..-"..';;•,:r. '.'' ' 5:••ti•-•-• --- . •14,' .::::•: .d..42.-.,.':•1 -:-.1:-:- -2:1/4'4_91: • 7". ..,,,t7.''.,-_,•"1,1* -•-1:4•••• •••••••• •=4,1;•• - * 0 1- •,•- <"'":,•".• '..::.3.,••••••,r. 1-. .g.: . • 2-•-•::::: ". "•-•••• 0 z ..1.:4?..,--•-i; . .-.,:i...: ..• • -....%.:-,s:,.:. -. • .;.,..:;.,_,,.-.1. . ...:•....--.--.. . -,- •...,.,-..., - -... .•-..:,. .... . —• „..,1,,-4,.... . ...i.'.!lef.:' U.I•:jag - • ..........34... .- • • , .-..a.vr...•-•-••-••••:;••••‘...., - --•••---- •-,,--- -,••••••;1-7":":" --i-.',.-- .-"-1-17,.4-,••••••: .1,..•."-4,714_. . ••--- •••••c4.-%., - •••••• 4-•••:-.,-.- - ZE CD•••••:,:•,•; -,..-..,.... •,:-...,-3, • :4-•,.-:',41.-.• • - . 41.,11:','"•%.. .••• . ••-•.1.-11.1... ... de7'....4"..:L'r . - ,0., : - :*,,w:1•2..t:. • .3..;.7,•.:::,,,,•• o.> .7-i-.•1t,, • --. .-/e;-,- •.• -',"-,i-': .• 7 '0:,:= • ' ,.....'U%tr!%,:••1 • ..• *....*:•,,'N.L''' '':- ::".'41.:•-•1 - •••„„••••`17%;`.". z.4c • „ Li:%•••••:,;I:, :. • '.••••.:.•.;•_.• . . ,-,,,y.:.• Zn. .......• -.....:; • • .., .a.-.1. :■••••= 1. • • ...:.••=i1.:77....: .1:•7..:F4j. •• .. ,:',"L":" .•, •. :. U -- .*::;.-.1-.,m. • . :.-.-&rf"-:,:,. - . •,t.t...d..-;...* ... .1-,.r-r.it.: ..- -•v-.473.4-- -r. ..• .,,..•■•;4•4:, •....• 1-7=a.00 ...:,. r.A;p1f..:••• -• ...--,,,t...7 -e.f.:'....c ...4......=:t. . .-••••...Tr.'• ' :•••••;,..1 •: . .. :....... •..: . .•-• ....44.•••••;4:' `. •...V.,:r•;t• ••••• ....kV°i• -...;•••■•.7.. a. I "-:-",^• ....,-.• -:;;,•.' •..:••••• •• (f"•,,, -...-.. •I'•,-"-4•4:- • ,. • • '''::::......f.. • '."'-':,.•:.;q• . - 7"••••= • ' - "•••••••• •J::::.e5i.."... ' -I.,.. "•• ....•.•:rli',..• cc.....:::••4 • ... .,...... ''• •-•• -' •' . ••••••-•,, •••,i,.....: DZ r."-;i* • - .-•- • ..-.••• :-,....- , :."4,..,•,•,.; • • ..,...”......:. • • ••omots•I':— ........1.7,:. I.",.. • •iii) -..,;••• •;1/4..-:. •' •••- ..•_.,. , ,••••••:7••:. •127,eg• ..*:: : . ....-l-.1.,.• .•..a•" Z1- • •.•••,.•,,,,,„ .. . 0< '"•'•• . •••••." •• -::... .....,2‘;,":!.:•:-: • .1"..1-.!!"'-: ■•••••....•- ..:-.,.. -1,...P.' ••-• •- •,•F_-:t-- •• - - -- - • .,5ft.1. .F,:;-•,•:,••• • . .../•,„„„_, •sl.",4'...1r. -•. _ , ,We 4:-• • -...::,r.f.• '*.i.':,:. ' l'`'''''''" -••::''•-,,,`.1.-: ..;,.::....... f••,•.:...LU 0 -0 :.:0 00 .0 ....t , ........., ,. , • •''''•r.: .., -,'•..::, LLI LLI 0 ••" ' t• ••••,-• 0 - . .. . in IT .V)'. , .'..•;.2.:::"••.•., :,4,6,•,. .'............., '...1.a......i.,•••• C. 0 U ....''''' ;;'•: . < :i..t.:,. • .--•::: •.•' I • :., • Z Lt. :, - •.. • . . .•*.tr,•,.....: • •.;i:::.•,T, <Z • LL1 : . 72.r. . ..,, ':-•••:,.:' CC 0 C I. `'::.5c-1 • .- ...,. ...• • . .:7:. ... . . - •.••,,r1.•--" . •'••,..• •• • ...,•,:•:',7• 0- I.• ' • , - 1- .....*..." . .•..... < -- ..••-.•.• •••••• „.... --,':',.'%. ':,.t..:•:...-1. W E - • •.••• . . ,...... . •.. • •:...••: '••••.1-7 ' 0 • •'". .. .,-,,,,,. - .:::;:.1" • .. • 1.3 •. . . . • ... .• ' •.•_•"•:.,,:' .- -•.•• I ' .,..:., . • ,•;,..,:.•-. ....• W ' , ' •'•' • - • •-.•:-... • ....,,••••• , IX • • . . .-,_ .,, •• ± :.. ."... . '- .•- ',.- •:-...•-•.-••••. • " • .- . ..-••' ' • :"'.• •.',',.'•:•-•: :..,r,x.- ..:!...I.,.• . .: ..- ..--. ........i.'•; , r•••:•••• '.`..'r 1 • ••:••••,.J. Z • ' .••' "-...4....:"..,.• -t.•': :••....:14..... ' ,....47: :■'•'........• •Ilf.k.".;(:.• •:.'....,..;- < -.. ".."-••:-.7". :•'.....i.: •"..7:-:•, --1.'.'..1.:,.. Z '• ...! , . ..._ ••. . I. • W r' :• • ...s,•..' .-...- • M . ' I 1-•• • ... .. ... . .. ....... .:;•.:',.... * .•,--•:: ::,./ -' ---• '•••:;,,::, CI. - 0 • . • •,•....,1;• •• •• • ._" J O -...• ...4+.• , i C2 5 :...._ . .. -• .,- - . .7........ -.: L... • W - t P"' - • -.: _- > . 1-.. ...'••5- ;:„..:.::. .-*-. .. W W 1 • , . .. .. • • '• L.,..- ••.; .. --. ..r-.. 1:1 i 1..., 1 I : ••• : • • 1 I 6 •. , . . . •...: • 1 -I .,.= . I ..:- 1 5 .. • ..,"-• ,:::. ' •' - • ' •','". 1,• . . 1 - I 1 • 5 1 - .... ., ! ; 13. I•- -:... . •; :•• ...,... ....,. . • • .... . -.... .,. • • •• • . - .. . ,. .. - ... •:...; CD I. : 01 ! I - I :• --. :5 • • 0- LL, i Z i I - . ' .• • •••,, z : 0 I • I . ..•.• - -• • < i .... I i tn. . • • 5-- _. _ z z . I I- - • S. .. • • • < 1 ix 1• 1 X 1 -1 .'- . ,•_- ' - -- .-..- - -) 2' , c) 1 ta ; U.1 ol .. • ...-, . ----• c; : — I > ; > 0 , ' -1 I E • • 0. ....• I , m , ...5 I 0 . m • - ,-, 5 En . '•- ...5 in . , W ; CC ' CC , IX 1 -', , . X ; "s"..- •.• 5., I , C:1 I . --"---:..--.................--:-•.. ...--, . . .7t. ....1 i 0 ••-.'• •• ''''' • : -1 •. ...1 • Cc Y M : -.. X W I 1-, .. ... . -......,_. •- • - ILI 0 • 1 ' < : 1- 1 < ' la ....11 - o - cL, 1: • . . ... -I i'-':- -" •••:-:_-.•:-..-. . .. • ... - . i-- ; 1- 110 41 -110 ' .- < 0 1 0 1 .. 11.1.1 = -.. : Z ... El ...1 . . .. . ... .. •• O Ui • ! 1- 1 -.■ L.> _ CP X. I W . cgi ul ..t -. ...• •'...• .... . 1 I 1 I 1 . -• -... T • , I • - . __, • •7 • 7 ` • - 7 7 ' -" .• " 7 ••-• - "-- - Z 7 " . -• 55• tt.•.:.•-',.•-t••:_ •- : •,__` t..::.:..t. ..• •Z....•_:;'•_; ;-•...;._;.:•;,.:.:1:y1/ „...__. i • ;1..1 15 • C Bev arrboro Aotr Mao-5....,ege. 1::•7 :Iwo. Pe,e• N.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 1g 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 Cairbores pinning 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 • wn . . •• --• • _ . • Enclosures _ rwra/abw • . - • - •- 16 C. .eS to the County Permitted Use Table to Permit Breeding Kennels and Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers planation of Proposed Chang it 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 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. •• 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 tothe County Subdivision Ordinance - A. Dedication of Recreation S 'ace and Payment in Lieu • Explanation of Proposed Chances: The County propose.5-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 developnlent, and payment in lieu required where it is not Town Comments: The Town of Carrboro generally supports this ordinance amendment. • 6 • 17 - • - PACE-'27 1 10 6 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT, AMENDMENTS 2 a. Section IV-B-7-b Recreation Sites 3 (Dedication/Payment-in Lieu Provisions) 4 There was no presentation. In summary this item is to receive citizen 5 comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-7-b of the Subdivision Regulations 6 which would extend dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions countywide. 7 8 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. lo A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to 11 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the 12 Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. 13 14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 15 16 E. ADJOURNMENT 17 With no further items to be considered, the meeting was adjourned. The next 18 regular meeting will be held on March 8, 1989 at 7:30 in the Courtroom of the Old 19 County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 20 Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair 21 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk 22 23 24 25 • • • • _4;4. . • is (3) Retail Trade (a) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table MOTION: Yuhasz recommended approval of the amendment. Seconded by Lewis. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments lk (1) Section IV-B-7-b Recreation Sites (Dedication/Payments-in-Lieu Provisions) Best asked if the Dedication/Payment-in-Lieu provision is only in the Subdivision Regulations. Collins responded yes: He continued that there is an equivalent standard in the Zoning Ordinance but it is called RSR (recreation space ratio) which is used for Planned Developments. Best expressed concern that this would be a premature effort in unzoned townships, noting that in the two unzoned townships there would be no way to protect the sites. Collins responded that he felt it states a position by which to obtain the land before development occurs. Jacobs asked the reason for including minor subdivisions. Collins responded it is a question of equity. At the present time, minors in the Joint * Planning Area are excluded from the payment-in-lieu provision. Once a subdivision moves from a minor to a major classification, the developer must make payment-in-lieu for the lots created by the minor subdivision. He noted that creates administrative problems which could be avoided if handled with each subdivision. MOTION: Best recommended approval of the amendment noting that he felt that it is dangerous since the land purchased would be unprotected particularly in unzoned townships. He continued that either zoning or some type of land use protection should be in place for Little River and Cedar Grove Townships. Seconded by Pilkey. She agreed that there should be one standard for the entire County. Best stated that he felt dedication/payment-in-lieu using the Master Parks -and Recreation Plan is a good idea to provide for all the citizens of the County. Be noted that his only reservation is the fact that the land purchased is unprotected land. VOTE: Unanimous. 1 ORANGE COUNTY - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May lit 1989. Action Agenda Item # 6-446 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) ... ••••■•■■•••11111,.■■■■■••■ ollni■10 1■•■ ■••=1 1110•■•••■••■ DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Proposed Amendment 2-27-89 public Hearing Minutes 4-11-89 Draft Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider 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. This problem of inconsistency was brought to the attention of the Planning Department through the investigation of a zoning violation for a breeding 2 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. A question was raised at the public hearing on February 27 regarding applicability to existing kennels. Boarding kennels, which require a Special Use Permit under the existing Ordinance provisions, would also require a permit under the revisied provisions. Any existing Special Use permit would remain valid. If the facility were to be modified or expanded in the future, a new permit would be obtained. Breeding Kennels are not presently addressed in the Zoning Ordinance, but would require a Special Use Permit if the proposal is approved. Section 11.6 of the Zoning Ordinance states that "any (existing) use that would require a Special Use Permit under terms of this ordinance shall be deemed a conforming use. However, enlargement, replacement, or modification of such a use shall require a Special Use Permit as though it were a new use. " Thus any existing breeding kennels, or boarding kennels which have not received approval of a Special Use Permit, including any kennels which are currently in violation of the Zoning Ordinance will be deemed conforming. The permit requirements for the Class II Kennels shall apply only to those developed after the effective date of the ordinance revision. The Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendment on April 11, 1989. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment per the Planning Board recommendation. . 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT _ _ 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 Publid Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _x_High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING 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: 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: A. Showing, competition, hunting or sport. • 4 Class II - For persons owning or keeping animals for: 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. 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 5 • Department that they be subject to the same requirements as 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 Other Requirements. • Item c) adds rehabilitation of more than 5 animals as an activity which would be classified as a Class II Kennel. Section 8.8.11.30 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 Kennels Or Riding Stables/Academies (Class B Special Use) • 8.8.11. 1 Additional. Information 6 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. 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 ' 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: ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS Kennel, (Class - An establishment which maintains more than five (5) but less than twenty (20) animals, of any species, excluding domesticated livestock,, for the purpose of showina, competition, hunting, or sport. Kennel (Class ;I) - An establishment involving animals of any species, excluding domesticated livestock, engaaed in Any of the 0 7 • following: owning or keeping, tar any. pArmsfe, 20 or more animals sellina and/or training quAnd dogs or security dogs the keeping of more than five, (5) animals at any given time for the purpose of breeding, boardina, rehabilitation. ARTICLE 8 SPECIAL USES 8.8.11 Kennels Or Riding Stables/Academies (Class it Class II Special Use) 8 .8.1.1.1 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, includina signage. 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 l 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 least 6 feet in height, which shall include primary enclosures or runs. 8 d) The site plan shows parking, access areas and screening devices for buildings and animal boarding facilities. Site Plan shall be reviewed la the Orange County Animal Control Department, and found in conformance, with Section XIX of the Animal Control, Ordinance. 8.8.11.3 Other Requirements. Al Building plans for all kennel facilities shall be reviewed and approved hy the Director of Animal Control prior to issuance of any building permits. 121 A sign clearly visible, from the around shall be posted at the main entrance to th gilit and shall contain the names, addresses, and telephone numbers, where persons responsible for the facility may be contacted at any hour of the day or night. The sign shall comply, with dimensional requirements as set forth in Section 9 .11 of this. Ordinance. gl Where required hy the Animal. Control Ordinance a Class II Kennel Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Animal Control within the first 30 • days of occupancy. Failure to obtain and maintain a valid Class II Kennel Permit or other related permits which may, be required by the USDA or Wildlife Resources Commission will, result in revocation of the Special, Use Permit. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: January 12, 1988 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: • _ . _• 1a111 111111111111111111111 .v. 1 - -• . _ 111 _ a a..., 9 111 11Mal gg OM < rc1 1111111111111111111111111mmi j 4t 101 Two im c.1 ammingullimminimm .... ....w .g mulonimmimi ._ _ min ra j • 111111111=1111111111111111 0 inmain i 01 ammis to .g ,...7 Lc . L.,,, 22511111111111111111li11111111 ..... ....... ,.., cr.t, co r3 misminimmv ,A., • ui -1 -J L.: L.1 . LA Mr •1....• 1..'. 6.••■ cC ea , i• .- < < .- -c -1-. II LI ...I ..... I II 1 . ....I 1.1.) LI., l'Il In In 1,... = = e , -r -11 1 1 < < = cc ta — — ce in LI 1.3 = LA LL) La LA 0... CI.• CC I ui e ca v) tr) 1 1_ < 1- I 1 I • . = in tra CM Iv1 LLI IZ < < Ce. 1 1 1 1 1 • tfl LLI ...J -I . 0 ts1 6.1 1 I I I 1 C4 g:3 li gl a = uJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I CG ...- ' =' I • a a 1 r4 ia < Ico I I 10 CZ- v., ____ Z11 . I co I• - - 1 I \ A' • . 0 .1-0 . . • C — L.) .. . L. co 1.-- (11 • U in— C Go 0 () I . 0 • ' " a) IV UL i- ,--- 10 •- U 14- 0) - • .--- I.) 4.-4 -- 0 IE. - a) 0 — 0 0 ..D -- ' 0 . ut t. in .......- 01 11.1 on in 1... 0 4-1 0 1 0. 1-1- 0 aa I c0 - 1 0 • a) • • 0 0 a to -o 0 .1.1 C0 -.4 0 0 0 > 0 c0 1 - .-tri - .. ci. . .- sl- -- • C C) U 0 in in ,. 0 . vo C -CI --1 • . 0 '.0 0. C — ..., U) • ..... • In 0.) '"O O- . O < '• • I I • al ID C c 0.... 0,1 • > ■••••• t...) Cif 4•0 < 0 ....... 0 r•••■.-- '_co'0 0 "" - •.* . . . . • _ ... _.- A./ tli 0 2.- .-- CL .- L. .. 0 in CD ... a) in in .-• 0 0 0 0 0 in C 3 — 1- .0 0 c 0 = 4-JI .--..-. _ -- 0 1.) 1- = .0 1.0 tra 1... 00E0 = 0 • CD = . -........ -. C) •- ai C in 10 In Ll... 0 C CD in. ' 0 ID . - - L. 0 > C 0 -. . C >-, J.J 0. 0- 0 . . • .... in I-. ..0 .... ).. .••■...... •••■ CC' La) ..J G. SI CI> inaL 01 0 A-1 10 0 -12 0 03 C 7 I t.) 'V t) 1:1 U .. 11.. 1.3 fp C Ct. 0 .- >-• -* • -— • in CDC ••= (1) — . a) IA in --- — c0 — — 0 ..- 0 — .i.0 .0 0 u 0 0 -C -0 0 CI) 0 c) 6) . 0 In ia 0 a) e- co ••• in -C c _ . _ • — 'V -.... - U) 0 L. 11/••••.• 0 = 111 0 in so a) ■P- -- ....-• in 4.1 In 0 in — In ll) In In I... 0 0 I. in 0 >. 0 .- Ls.. 0. 7 7 C - to 0 ei (.0 0 4., 0 E I.. CD — E n L.- 0 L. L. t.) 0 U 0) .-.6 .1.1 )+ "0 0 y.. 4) a) -0 — 0 L L • s- L. — 4.0 V C 0 E Ca 01 0 E ° C I c-O • .IJ ..,a ..... 4./ 0,1 — 0 v -- A-100C E .,..% C 0 C > L- 0 0 0 O 0 ,.... O. 0 ii. 0 -- G 0 . ,,, C c C 1/1 0 1- -0 " " 0- " 0 jj ft/ Cn i- --" g--6 -6 , ... - oE0 - t a• • - z 0 0 a) to 0 0 .- 0 00 0 = 0 •&I -- u- — •-- ...- 4C -- ' • g_, --) bd D: -J in -J M: .... Ca =.•-•'' Z: LI h- = CD 1- 0 Lu :, CO I-- 0 I-- ›. -- uo co , • . • — >d u.I < - c0 ON 0 0 -- .- .- cif c4 c4 c•-•1 roO --1. r4 IN C•4 LA VD (+1 INI N. CO CV CV • CT c-4 1 en in U) cti ,in U) i./1 U) cro LA col V) Lri • 4-16 • 1 • I .........................ma" :Irmo. *,:i ...' • 0 ' . ••■ CI • .: ' .g CZ .., .. , LcI ..d < 4; 0 . < . t . ■ , . .. fet re't • - .... Cs: < -g 4: -g iNt ,.- moor . . - ..... 11••• W ' LIJ . A■Nowsaa, . ' 11 01 .g .% •■••• . 0 . ■ i ■ ' - LIN ILA . L5 4: 4: 4: 4: -g c..5 LLI u.1 C..• < -g I ,... ...... LI • C., , C3 C . . . fet fet LAJ uJ •-• -c I en 4,.•,. 4: -g -g -g 4: •K I: t-5 -J ,..5 ,, • • . - LI 4 ' NI 4: 4: -g •C 4: • hi .... -. •-• F- I-- L.5 i: ce • , . ' , , = < < • .... -g -g 4: 0.4 * 11... • I -5 • -.I • La La. In ' • . 4 ' , tf) VI hot • , . ...1 -.) -et < co co 1 uj• - - X • X . ion 1.5 L5 . = La IJJ . • UN . • CI. CL. • IA La CI (1) tn " . . - c. ...1 LL.1 ....: OF- '' <, 00 ...7 < I- = = • I- -- Les c./1 4 • , 1 ' . • = LI VI CFI • • I/1 < < , CC . . 1"111 U) I.1.1 .....1 ...J • L., CV IV to n n n I C.: LLI . < Cr3 IN.- • d 1--- - 4:10 - cC . = • . X at la < I ,..".... Sor, Co. '.... ' <co rel. co • ..o co ---- . - - --.- - = i r , Ul . U o c — U C ro 11.0 10 i- M in .-- . • 0 .t.1 • ""'" Q) U) L. 0 4- - - 4-4. - En ' 0) fa ,_- 1.• L. L. h- U 4.1 - 0.) a) 0 0 ch - I'D In .. - - ID .en - 'an C a > E J.T. 3 0 L$ C > L. L. • L. • c ....... co •—• to ca in in L. 0 J 0 L. cl) - L. F- 0 J-0 0 - C 4.0 C 4) .0 0 4.0 CD J a) 0...-0 a) > 0 • O. a -a *.6. --- - 0 C C 0) -- da - 0 t) 0 in CM m 0 ...t VI ...• in E -0 ...; C... 0 < ' • • L. = 'S.. In 21 E C•-• a) • > L. - C. - L. .. -I; C.; 0 4-/1 .4x 0 0 •-••• - 0 10 M -C cm n) -a 0 ..0 05 in In .... 0 RI 0 ITI • • 0 • to 0 X - 1.. 0 Fr C al .... s., - I CZ 0 - C) •.> h- Z z In tn L. 0 0E0 = C) 0 Z .....-......_ • _ •_ . • C) • - <LI C - to to wo Ls. 0 C -0 .- 0 05 "1" ' • *****4" 0 .. C) M., - >- 4-0 0 C) 0) co L. L. CU al c I-- t.. C) > C I • .- --. • - C C Lo's 1.., .0 .--- >. .....■•••• ..... 41) 4., 0., (-I > 0 0 a-4 IC 0 0...... • C 0.) = 0 01 U 'C U "ID U .• 0.. U 0 >. >. C.. RI = >. -... - - - • 0 0 *-- -- 0 - 0 .- 0 RI I - - - - c0 in X -- -o Fa m 0 ,... 43, 0 =1 0 m ...0C u> "I- 0 0U1 .tO ...z •1/3 0C 4.6 0 0 -04 U I- - C) >- C -7 14.4) : 1=1 -C> in .." } C .... VI .1■1 In (I) In tn 10 In Cl/ 111 In L. .... ...sod - 1... CO I C) L. L) L. t. rA) 0 0 0 .4 4., >. 0 J...1 ..... 0 0 a) -Ls al a) D... In II4 0 -0 - cp 1.. I-- L. 3- - " U C 0 E LI 0. U E U -0 •• In i14 in c > 1- 0 0 0 0 3 0 Ja -C - J., 11, — = es) = -- 4-1 = ro C In E C la to C )... ..0 0-• Ja o. 4/I a) .J ••• 01 I.- so -- 0...- C. U Is- ())- C. C J.., O Z ■-• ^ M IC C') -- 0 DC) 0 = 0 4.1 ...." 16.• = ■•••••• E 0 E Lb) t" .00E0 c 0 c..› —, t..) 2: —i tol -.I .1.7. .1."' = 1.7---- 7::.*: U) = 0 I- L5 LLI ›, - 0 0 I- ›. - II0 0/ ' • LLJ I Cri 'V CD < < C 0- 10:1 Cr') Cl 0 0 - CV 01, ..1".• 1.141 LO N. CO al . 0 0 CC .... ..... ..... CSI r4 c%1 In tn V) VI tn VI Cs4 INI tNa Lin tft 411 INI U-4 tNI En CV r4 U') tr) CSI VI E < , . • 4 1 6 ................................ 1 _ ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 1081 AIRPORT ROAD • CHAPEL HILL. NORTH CAROL.-- 7514 apsTELEPHONE 919-967-7383 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 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, 7,110 -1.9 Donald Ingr ham . President : • • 12 • - • Sc,33'r vv.-s- 5....)0.• arrboro • • c."9 .74:-E-.7,1t N.C. February 22, 1989 Mr.John ink Orange County Manager POBox8181 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 withhiCairbOro'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 - rwm/abw . • - 13 C. Changes to the County Permitted Use Table to Permit Breeding Kennels and Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers • . planation of Proposed Chang 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 County Permitted Use Table Dealing with Retail Trade Categories al:planation of Proposed Chancres: 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 coiribine retail trade of convenience and durable goods into one class instead of two. Town Comments: The Town of Carrboro generally supports these ordinance mendinents, unless the County originally intended that convenience goods and durable goods be classified separately for some reason that is not reported in the C •unty's staff report, and still holds that original intent. The original intent will not be satisfied by combining the two classes of:u.se. 3. Proposed Change to the County Subdivision Ordinance A. Dedication of Recreation Space and Payment in Lieu Explanation of Proposed Changes: The County proposee-to•maks the dedication of recreation space, or payment-iri-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 Cornnients: The Town of Carrboro generally supports this ordinance amendment • 6 -- • _ . /4 PAGE 24 1 (3) Art. 8.8.11 - Kennels (Class B Special Use Permit) 2 The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to 3 receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provisions 4 relating to kennels. in order to (1) develop consistency between the Zoning Ordinance 5 and Animal Control Ordinance, and (2) to include provisions for wildlife 6 rehabilitation. The current definition of kennel provides for the lodging and 7 boarding of domestic pets. There is no reference in the ordinance pertaining to 8 breeding of animals. The effect of the Animal Ordinance is to prohibit breeding 9 kennels in the zoned townships. The Planning Department believes that this was not the intent of the ordinance. The amendment was also proposed by the Animal Protection 0 1 Society to allow for rehabilitation of wildlife. The Animal Protection Society has submitted plans for an animal shelter which includes facilities for rehabilitation of 2 birds and other wildlife. 3 . 4 . The Planing Staff is proposing to define a Class I kennel consistent with the 5 6 Class I Kennel Permit (Animal Control) and a Class II Kennel consistent with the Class II Kennel Permit (Animal Control). Class 1 Kennels would be permitted by right in 7 :8 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 9 :0 Special Use Permit. All kennels included under the current definition must be located .1 in those zones and have Class B Special Use Permit approval. :2 23 •THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD 24 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS 25 . . . ,6 • • %. • . . . Mr. Owen Door spoke in opposition to these zoning amendments. He spoke ./es representing his father-in-law Ted Green and wife Cindy Door who are partners in a o kennel. Through the new amendments; their kennel is a Class II kennel. He asked what 29- zoning district they are in?. Collins indicated that they were zoned Rural Buffer. 30 . Door stated that 13 years ago they were given approval to operate the kennel.' They 31 . are licensed and inspected by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and the State of North 32 . Carolina. They feel they are over-regulated. He asked that their kennel, Green 35 Valley Farms Kennel'be exempt from the requirement to procure a Class B Special Use 34 Permit. 36 .:. Mr. Jacobs stated that because it would be a non-conforming project, as long as 37 the existing facilities and operations are not expanded nothing would need to be done. 1 38 • . .. • * • Door asked if it was necessary that he continue to be inspected by Orange County i 40: even though he is USDA licensed and inspected. Chairman Carey indicated that he would 41' need to continue obtaining the licensing and being inspected as it is a requirement of 42 :the Animal Control Ordinance which is separate from the County's zoning regulations. 43 - , .- . • 44 , .. . . : Don Ingram, on behalf of the Animal Protection Society, asked that the Board ;15 . favorably consider the recommendations regarding amendments to the Zoning Ordinance 46 'with regard to expanding the kennel operations definition to include wildlife 47. rehabilitation. - . . . 58 .. . . . . . - - • 49 ..,. .. Ted Latta indicated that Alma Johnson asked him to make several remarks for her. 5° He commented on Class I - 8.8.11.2 (a) referring to the site size to protect adjacent 51 - properties. Latta stated that Ms. Johnson believes that a noise limit needs to be . 52: included in this section to protect adjacent property owners from barking dogs. Also, 1 53 on Cl ass II - 8.8.11.3(a) referring to building plans being reviewed by the Animal - _ 55 . - . . 1 . , . I - - - 15 • . PAGE 25 1 Control Officer prior to issuance of a building permit, the Building Inspector should 2 be included in that requirement. He also indicated that Ms. Johnson believes that 3 some thought should be given to the manner in which enforcement of the ordinance will 4 be carried out. 5 6 Rayford Mayes indicated that he applied for a Class II kennel permit last year. 7 Ms. Johnson inspected his kennel and indicated that it was an excellent kennel in 8 every way. He asked what he will have to do to get this extra permit. 9 10 Jacobs indicated that he would not need to do anything to be in compliance. An 11 existing facility would not do anything unless it expands. 12 13 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 14 15 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell,. 16 to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the 17 Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. 18 . 19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS . . . 20 21 c. Solid Waste Container Sites . 22 (1) Art. 4.1 - Establishment of Use Regulations 23 (2) Art. 6.16 -Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses 24 No presentation was made. In summary this item is to receive public 29 comment on a proposal to include solid waste disposal collection sites as a use 26 permitted by right in all zones, subject to minimum design standards. The proposal 27 amendment seeks to permit solid waste collection sites with a minimum lot size of 28 . 40,000 square feet in all zones: Specific site development standards are also • 29. proposed. 30 31 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. 32 - 33 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to z4 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board '; of Commissioner no sooner than April 3, 1989. 36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 37 38 d. Mobile Home Parks 39 ' (1) Art. 22 - Definitions 40 (2) Art. 7.20.2 - Planned Developments/Mobile Home Parks 41 The, presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to 42 receive citizen comment on the proposed amendments to Article 7.20.2 (Area 42 Requirements for Establishment of District) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning 44 Ordinance by clearly identifying a size limit for mobile home parks and to make the 45 definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 consistent with 7.20.2. This would change the cap on mobile home parks from 50 acres to 50 units. 47 ' . • THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 58 43 THE PUBLIC HEARING VAS OPENED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 51) . 1 51 Sheryl Moody asked if this amendment applied to new as well as old parks and 52 Collins indicated that it applied to new parks only. 53 54 ' 55 . • . . ... r . 16 • b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Kennels (a) Art. 22 - Definitions (b) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (c) Art. 8.8.11 - Kennels (Class B Special Use Permit) MOTION: Eidenier recommended adoption of the amendment. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) Solid Waste Container Sites (a) Art. 4. 1 - Establishment of Use Regulations (b) Art. 6.16 - Additional Requirements • for Certain Permitted Uses MOTION: Eddleman recommended adoption of the amendment. Seconded by Yuhasz. Best asked if this applied to zoned and unzoned townships. Collins responded zoned. Scearbo responded that she had worked with the Public Works • Director, Wilbert McAdoo, and he had indicated that at least 40,000 sq. ft. was needed to develop a site. John Link, County Manager, stated that the future for solid waste container sites is the roll-off process with larger sites that are buffered and hidden from the road. He noted also that the County would be purchasing the sites and recycling centers would be located on the same site. _ . ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May lf, 1989 Action A enda Item # - 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 Yes _x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Proposed Amendment 2-27-89 Public Hearing Minutes 4-11-89 Draft Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider 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. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on February 27. There were no comments. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment _ _ =11, 2 on April 11, and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 3 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 HEARING 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: 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 =operty 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 distrfcts, as well as other development standards such as fencing and landscaping. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 4.1 Establishment of Use Regulations (Uses permitted by right in all districts) 4 10. Solid waste collection facilities owned and operated by a public agency for the purpose of disposal of household waste by Orange County residents. /See Article 6, 16. 15) 6. 16.15 Solid waste collection facilities owned and operated la a public agency for the purpose of disposal of household waste by Orange County residents. The following restrictions shall be applied to the above use in all zoning districts: •Al The site shall consist of a parcel, or easement across a parcel, (whether owned or leased by the public agency) which has been recorded by the Orange County Register of Deeds. hi The parcel or easement across the parcel, (whether owned or leased by the public agency) on which the facility is located shall contain a minimum area of 40,000 square feet. pa The parcel or easement shall have frontage on a State-maintained road. gl A Type B landscape buffer, 30' in width, shall be provided along the perimeter of the parcel or easement. Fencinq at least 6 in height shall be provided between the landscape buffer and the improved portion of the parcel or easement. LI An entrance sian shall identify site as a .sanitation collection site, and shall identify the responsible public aaency. The sian shall contain a maximum of nine (9) square feet and shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. Instructional signs may be erected as needed within the facility. gl The entrance to the site shall contain a travelway a minimum of 30' in width. ******************************* ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBcOMMITTEE: February 8, 1989 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: CC: Wilbert McAdoo, Public Works 5. • 4,.0.0111111116N 40 a 8 Mrattge Tuuttig Pubtir hi; arils • a fa,/ . pig:Ii! 1131C t ° 14,.. 106 EAST MARGARET LASE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 N astO Wilbert J. McAdoo • DIRECTOR 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 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, . • 02.4,..1j. lik_e a-443d E-y) Wilbert J. McAdoo • WJM/p cc: Mary Scearb.o • • . • . • • • • . - • Office Location Highway 86 North Hillsborough i . .4 .?..c., ci 0 ' Q i - fr,Pt - z. ... . •••••° .or-- • t . c..---s\ . ..r\c": 1_. j 1 --, ....4% t)......, . . • ' • ii i; ...0.:. .., . • ..'1 • ! .+; is.,,),,'` of ` O.fli •• - r a N I 0,3Q,'. ®J C' ,r 1 r— • �y . 4 ) ' 4^ N r I a 6� ! a4 Ui j • ..N ‘ Q ' sit !cq r+ .r ; . ( ... ,gN .., 1 • -i-'1,- l'..i: ' ,X.,.. . ., 9r" e- -,,,, F, T. • . • • ,. . g , ,,,...,. _ , . ... v .. . i , , ! . x . ._ ... .. .. ). & , I, .... kt ..-- ,,, A z , a � r N• •• 1 0 A.1„.k.2 • ..), , ' .) s ) ' •*- '...,...) — %\ Lt1/4 I 1 v. 1 . Jy ?}• � o. 4 . . 1— ■ "3_ ' 1.. X li rw . . e 4 . ...ii...., ti• 1 1 io P- ..0 ,„ 33 331 4..- Q . —, is.-hl , • 1, 1 •a • '• r 7! Z - I[44 ;•• 4 u • • • 7• - . • . PAGE 25 1 Control Officer prior to issuance of a building permit, the Building Inspector should 2 be included in that requirement. He also indicated that Ms. Johnson believes that 3 some thought should be given to the manner in which enforcement of the ordinance will 4 be carried out. 5 6 Rayford Mayes indicated that he applied for a Class II kennel permit last year. 7 Ms. Johnson inspected his kennel and indicated that it was an excellent kennel in 8 every way. He asked what he will have to do to get this extra permit. 9 10 Jacobs indicated that he would not need to do anything to be in compliance. An 11 existing facility would not do anything unless it expands. 12 13 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 14 • 15 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell,: 16 to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the 17 Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. 18 19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 20 21 c. Solid Waste Container Sites 22 (1) Art. 4.1 - Establishment of Use Regulations 23 (2) Art. 6.16 -Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses 24 No presentation was made. In summary this item is to receive public 25 comment on a proposal to include solid waste disposal collection sites as a use 26 permitted by right in all zones, subject to minimum design standards. The proposal 27 amendment seeks to permit solid waste collection sites with a minimum lot size of 28 40,000 square feet in all zones. Specific site development standards are also 29 proposed. 30 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. 31 32 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to 33 34 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioner no sooner than April 3, 1989. 5 36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 37 38 d. Mobile Home Parks 39 (1) Art. 22 - Definitions 40 (2) Art. 7.20.2 - Planned Developments/Mobile Home Parks 41 • The presentation was made 'by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to 42 receive citizen comment on the proposed amendments to Article 7.20.2 (Area 43 ' Requirements for Establishment of District) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning 44 Ordinance by clearly identifying a size limit for mobile home parks and to make the 45 definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 consistent with 7.20.2. This would 46 change the cap on mobile home parks from 50 acres to 50 units. 47 • 58 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 49 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 50 51 Sheryl Moody asked if this amendment applied to new as well as old parks and 52 Collins indicated that it applied to new parks only. 53 54 55 8 • 6 • (a) Art. 22 - Definitions (b) Art. 4. 3 - Permitted Use Table (c) Art. 8.8.11 - Kennels (Class B Special Use Permit) MOTION: Eidenier recommended adoption of the amendment. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. • (2) Solid Waste Container Sites (a) Art. 4. 1 - Establishment of Use Regulations (b) Art. 6. 16 - Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses MOTION: Eddleman recommended adoption of the amendment. Seconded by Yuhasz. - Best asked if this applied to zoned and unzoned townships. Collins responded zoned. Scearbo responded that she had worked with the Public Works Director, Wilbert McAdoo, and he had indicated that at least 40,000 sq. ft. was needed to develop a site. John Link, County Manager, stated that the future for solid waste container sites is the roll-off process with larger sites that are buffered and hidden from the road. He noted also that the County would be purchasing the sites and recycling centers would be located on the same site VOTE: Unanimous. (3) Retail Trade (a) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table MOTION: Yuhasz recommended approval of the amendment. Seconded by Lewis. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Section IV-B-7-b Recreation Sites 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16,, 1989 Action Agenda Item if 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 HEARING: Yes X_ No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily diudup Proposed Ordinance Amendments Extension 574 2/27/89 Public Hearing Minutes 4/4/89 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider 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. The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on February 27, 1989. Citizen concerns expressed at the hearing included the cost of providing separate entrances, additional roads and signs for new mobile home parks adjacent to existing mobile home parks. As a result, the cost per unit 2 would increase, defeating the County's goal of encouraging affordable housing developments. Further comments were made in reference to the perceived prejudice the County has against mobile homes and that there should be more equity in the regulations that apply to mobile home parks and conventional single family developments. Changing from an "acreage" to a "unit" size limit on would have the effect of placing a ceiling on mobile home parks of 50 units. For example, a mobile home park of 50 acres in size and developed in a zoning district where the minimum lot are per dwelling was 40,000 sq.ft. would be limited to approximately 50 units not just by the 50-unit ceiling but by the minimum lot area per dwelling as well. However, in a zoning district where the minimum lot area per dwelling was 20,000 sq.ft. , the ceiling would still be 50 units even though the minimum lot area per dwelling standard would permit approximately 100 units. Application of the 50-unit ceiling to zoning districts where greater densities were permitted would result in a greater disparity. Based on the above comments, mobile homes would be treated differently from single-family developments. Single-family dwellings could be developed on lots as small as 3,000 sq.ft. (R-13 zoning district) and with no limitation on unit numbers other than minimum lot area per dwelling limits. Requiring a separate entrance for each mobile home park could result in unwanted parallel roads and multiple (and adjoining) access points to public roads, particularly if mobile home parks are developed adjacent to each other. While a separate entrance may be desirable, allowing the entrance to be provided from a private drive or road leading to an existing mobile home park would reduce the number of access points to a public road. The additional expense for a sign at each entrance is not unique to this amendment. The current ordinance provisions would require separate signs. The same reasoning applies to the 100-foot buffer requirement. Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments with the following changes: 1. Amend Article 22 (definition of "mobile home park" ) to read as follows: 3 Mobile Home Park - A parcel of land under single ownership which has been planned and improved in compliance with Article 7.20 (Planned Development- Mobile Home Park District) for the placement of mobile homes for non-transient (placement for the duration of the lease) use, consisting of at least ten (10) mobile home spaces, and not less than ten (10) acres nor more than fifty (50) acres in size. 2. Amend Article 7.20.2 to read as follows: 7.20.2 Area Requirements for Establishment of District A mobile home park shall contain at least ten (10) mobile home spaces and be at least ten (10) acres in size. The maximum size of any mobile home park shall be fifty (50) acres, including rights-of-way and easements. (See definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 of this Ordinance. ) Where a new mobile home park is to be developed adjacent to an existing mobile home park, the proposed park shall be distinguishable from the existing park by a different name and a separate entrance. Where an existing mobile home park is served by a private drive or road, the entrance for the proposed park may be extended from the private drive or road. The Planning Board may recommend, and the Board of County Commissioners may approve upgrading of the private drive or road to public standards if warranted by projected traffic volumes. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval per the Planning Board recommendation, with addition of provisions to include public dedication of right-of- way where existing private roads are required to be upgraded to public construction standards. 4 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 Rearing 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 5 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 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 spaces) and no more than fifty (50) units shall be allowed in Any one park. (See definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 of this Ordinance. ) Where a mobile home oark is to be developed adjacent to an existing mobile home park containing fifty (50) spaces or more, g. facilitate location hy sheriff and emergency services, the proposed planned development 6 shall be distinguishable from the adjacent mobile home park by a different name and a separate entrance. Each development must maintain the 100' perimeter buffer and the screening adjacent to road riahts-of-wav as required hy 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 J10) but not more than fifty (50) mobile home spaces. ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: 1-18-89 PLANNING BOARD: BOCC: • 7 o."i Sok 33•• .rrJ%r o .. �.� w,e•-�..�. _ c•c °1- c•a • • ,;.. 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 - • rvymiabv,7 . 8 • . • ' currently, the permitted uses are limited to research activities and accessory use public utility uses,and public parks, botanical gardens and arboretums. The proposed text amendment would split the County PID zone into two classes: PID-I and PID-I I, 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(11.5 acres), and permitted uses to include essentially the same uses as permitted now in the P1D, as well as nonresidential mixed use projects involving historic structures. PID-11 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 Carrbores 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. Thepurpose 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 II and Duke, Forest,in that area. Chanves to the lelaeineum Sizes of Mobile Horne Planner; Development • --- -• • r . . - . - . - ExRlanatiOn of Proposed Changes:* The County wants torarnend 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 vise as 10 units. No change in the clustering provision is proposed. Toven reenments• This proposed a.mendment seems a.prerolreriate and in keeping with • th desire to preserve a rural environment in the Rural Buffer areas of the County. • 5 • 9 . . ' . - . . . PAGE 25 1 Control Officer prior to issuance of a building permit, the Building Inspector should 2 be included in that requirement. He also indicated that Ms. Johnson believes that 3 some thought should be given to the manner in which enforcement of the ordinance will 4 be carried out. . 5 . 6 Rayford. Mayes indicated that he applied for a Class II kennel permit last year. 7 Ms. Johnson inspected his kennel and indicated that it was an excellent kennel in 8 every way. He asked what he will have to do to get this extra permit. 9 . 10 Jacobs indicated that he would not need to do anything to be in compliance. An 11 existing facility would not do anything unless it expands. 12 • 13 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ' 14 • 18 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell,: 16 to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the 17 Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. 18 • 19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS . 20 - 21 c. Solid Waste Container Sites . . • _ 22 (1) Art. 4.1 - Establishment of Use Regulations 23 (2) Art. 6.16 -Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses 24 No presentation was made. In summary this item is to receive public 25 comment on a proposal to include solid waste disposal collection sites as a use 26 permitted by right in all zones, subject to minimum design standards. The proposal 27 amendment seeks to permit solid waste collection sites with a minimum lot size of a 40,000 square feet in all zones. Specific site development standards are also 29 proposed. 31 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. 32 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to 33 3 4 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board 15 of Commissioner no sooner than April 3, 1989. 36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 37 38 d. Mobile Home Parks 39 (1) Art. 22 - Definitions 40 . (2) Art. 7.20.2 - Planned Developments/Mobile Home Parks 41 - The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to receive citizen comment on the proposed amendments to Article 7.20.2 (Area 42 43 Requirements for Establishment of District) and Article 22 (Definitions) of the Zoning 44 Ordinance by clearly identifying a size limit for mobile home parks and to make the 45 definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 consistent with 7.20.2. This would 46 change the cap on mobile home parks from 50 acres to 50 units. 47 ' 58 7 HERE WERE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 49 50 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT I . - 51 Sheryl Moody asked if this amendment applied to new as well as old parks and 52 Collins indicated that it applied to new parks only. 53 ' 54 • 55 . . 1 10 • - • - PAGE 26 Moody recommended that the wording be made clear that this is for new parks only. The Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force increased the acreage to 50 acres and it seems that this staff is working against that. Mobile Home Parks are an excellent way of providing low and medium cost housing. This amendment is fighting against it. It places more restrictions on private property. Roger Stephens, a park owner in Orange County, spoke in opposition to the amendment. A copy of his written comments are made a part of these minutes by ) reference and are located in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Joey Cockley, Durham resident and Orange County Mobile Home Park owner, requested clarification that this applied only to planned, new parks. He read and accepted that the one change was going to be from acres to units. However, when he read the proposed amendment it went a step beyond by requiring a 100 foot perimeter buffer ; which he opposes. He indicated that he perceived a double standard in the County with , little encouragement being given to the development of low income housing. 3 Forrest Heath, a mobile home park owner, asked that it be spelled out in the 4 Ordinance that this amendment applies to new parks only. He also feels that the ) County is setting double standards for mobile home parks. He indicated that he could 1 develop a subdivision and expand it at a later date. However, with a mobile home park , he would be required to create a park. The size of a subdivision is based on its merit, but mobile home parks are restricted arbitrarily. He asked that the Board 3 consider letting the size of a mobile home park also be decided upon it merits. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ' - 7 ' ° . „ - A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell,. seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the . Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. 1 VOTE: . UNANIMOUS ' 3 -- e. Retail Trade • 4 5 (1) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table - See also . . Item # D.3.b. No presentation was made. In summary this item is to receive public 3 comment on proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments combining sections of the 9 Permitted use Table to eliminate duplication of text and to correct a typographical error in Section S43. - QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD 22' • Commissioner Hartwell commented on the proposed change to EC-5 stating that this 5 addition might suit not only the particular location that caused it to come to the Boards' attention, but could be compatible with other areas of the county that are Existing Commercial. This would be a wise thing for the Board to adopt. 8 THERE WERE NO CITIZEN COMMENTS. 9 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. 13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5 ' A Crudup indicated that the County Attorney advised that notes regarding restrictions be listed on the plat since preliminary approval had been granted prior to regulations regarding the recording of a separate document for such information. This deletes condition #3 which makes the Planning Staff recommendation with only three conditions instead of four. MOTION: Lewis moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation with the three conditions. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: 8 in favor. 1 abstained (Yuhasz - due to professional conflict of interest) . • AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING - 2/27/89 MOTION: Pilkey moved extension of the meeting to consider the Land Use Plan Amendments, Zoning Atlas Amendments, and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (Mobile Home Parks only) with the remainder of the agenda deferred to the Long Range Planning Meeting on April 11, 1989. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: Unanimous. Collins suggested that Agenda Item #10a (1) - LUP-1-89 Land Use Plan Element - Section 4.0 Plan Categories - Zoning District Matrix, also be deferred to the April 11, 1989 meeting. He continued that the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment regarding Mobile Home Parks could then be considered at this time. The Board agreed. C. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (3) Mobile Home Parks (a) Article 22 - Definitions (b) Article 7.20.2 - Planned Developments/ • Mobile Home Parks Marvin Collins presented the item. A copy of the abstract information is an attachment to these minutes on pages Collins noted one change which has been recommended since presentation at the public • • hearing on February 27, 1989. Staff is recommending that in the definition of Mobile Home Park (Article 22) the minimum be retained at 10 spaces or 10 units with the minimum acreage of 10 acres. The recommendation continues that the 12 maximum size be 50 acres rather than 50 units. Collins continued that the reason for this recommendation is that when the words "fifty units" rather than "fifty acres" is used, the implication is that mobile home parks are being singled out and treated differently from other single family developments. If an area is changed from an R-1 to and R-2 district and the maximum allowance is 50 units, then an arbitrary ceiling is being set for mobile home parks and an R-2 district would allow 100 units on 50 acres. Collins reminded the Board that the history of working with mobile home park owners/operators indicated the treatment should be the same, insofar as possible, as that of other single family developments. He noted that he felt this , was a distinct difference in treatment that regardless of the zoning, a 50-unit maximum was the allowance for mobile home parks. Yuhasz expressed the concern that any size limit would be arbitrary. Jacobs noted that during the time of meetings with mobile home park owners/operators the number 50 was considered by them to be a more fair option. Jacobs also noted that the Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force had recommended that no limit be set but that they did not appear at the public hearing to make that recommendation. Collins continued with the second change since the public hearing which is that the following sentence be added to the second paragraph of Article 7 .20.2: Where an existing mobile home park is served by a private drive or road, the entrance for the proposed park may be extended from the private drive or road. • MOTION: Best moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation for Article 22. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: 6 in favor. 3 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz, Jacobs - all objected to the reference to size limitation) . Best expressed concern that there seemed to be no intent of upgrading of the private road if indeed it was accessed by an adjoining mobile home park. 13 • Collins responded that the statement could be added that "the Planning Board may recommend and the Board of Commissioners may approve the upgrading of the existing private road to public road standards when a proposed mobile home park is built adjacent to an existing mobile home park. " MOTION: • Pilkey moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation with the addition of the statement proposed by Collins. Seconded by Best. VOTE: 6 in favor. 3 opposed (Lewis, Yuhasz, Jacobs - all objected to the reference to the size limitation) . a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (2) LUP-2-89 Activity Node E-2-Eno Township Presentation by David Stancil. A copy of the abstract with presentation and the Planning Staff recommendation is an attachment to these minutes on pages MOTION: Best moved approval of the recommendation presented by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Pilkey. There was discussion of a previous greenhouse operation at the site but Stancil indicated he could not verify dates of that operation. Lewis asked when the applicant purchased the property. Stancil responded 1984 and the incorrect zoning of GC-4 was applied in 1981. Yuhasz asked if the applicant had to purchase any kind of permits during the period from the time he purchased the property until the present application. Stancil responded no. Lewis asked if this issue had all occurred due to a County error. Stancil responded yes, that and the inconsistency n iste ncy between the plans. Stancil continued that Staff is attempting a compromise that will allow the property owner to continue his use while not introducing the transition area • into this environmentally sensitive quadrant. The property owner would not be non-conforming if the EC-5 designation is applied. Yuhasz expressed concern with protecting the park 1 j - ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16, 1989 Action agenda Item # (.40-P1-d SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 4.2 - PERMITTED USE TABLE (SECTIONS S42 THROUGH S47 - RETAIL TRADE) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x_No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Proposed Amendment 2-27-89 Public Hearing Minutes 4-11-89 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments combining sections of the Permitted Use Table to eliminate duplication of text. BACKGROUND: Sections S42 through S47 of the Permitted Use Table of the Zoning Ordinance pertain to Retail Trade. Sections 842 through S44 refer to "Retail Trade, Sales, Rental of Conven.Lence Goods, Merchandise, and Equipment. . . " broken down to low, medium, and high traffic impact. Sections S45 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 S45 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. The proposed text amendments were considered at the February 27, 1989 Public Hearing. There were no comments at that meeting. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on April 11, 1989, and recommended approval. 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment per the Planning Board Recommendation. • • • • • • • 1 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 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 x Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING 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 $42 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 545 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 whether retail trade included such operations. 4 EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: (See also attached tables) 542 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. S45 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 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 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 (200-800 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: 5 A) Operations Are Designed To Attract And 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, S46, S47 Deleted • ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: January 12, 1989 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: • -6 al . cm .. -, . - • W1.1.1.■■■■••••■•• III r Cit . C3• la MA . ■ ............. ,111.01•41.W.P., 41.) in .........., I < vomemsamom lto", ........1 I 1 : . • ........; IN I . - ...-... . ... • _ I -- - .- uJ _ I go ....-.........., ........... .... Cs I 0 ..., - .. -.......... • in (....1 .g .g I uN 141 • I-) uJ .0- ...? , LA •X ' ..k I ..): 1...) ..... ...... LI 10 cr.), 40 ....................-.............---..... re$..I .g •C I .g 1."1 IJJ ial L., 1.., ...1 ,...1 t , ,. 1•••%.. - . 4.4.1 4.: C•4 I IN C.3 ..... ..... ...1 .Z 1-. 1- ..... CZ ........... < < ..... ..-, .6.... . C.3 I •C .-3 ...) IA) 11.) r•11 V) V) ... • ce• 0 = = ..- .111•11.•■■•••■••••••■ .0. -J ....1 < < =1 0,... w .... .... ., ' 1.0) L, La - , ...- = u.) La 1.11 • .. C. = 1 1 v) ..--- UN La cz va . • ...J U.1 - ., ce) - I-, ..- • -a < I- ec I . I- - vl V) . "'- 1,r1 V1 U.) 2 < < c: • • u ) W -1 -1 • . - . CV I tL.1 t:1 A a II c I . U.) _ 1 --- 1-* • < CZ 1 I I •••• /... • 4.10 411•••■ 1 = = • . 1.1.1 < ... • • < C.. I rot . ..... CZ I I itZ ..... • c: = ........ I _Tr • . A-- Cs) 0 0 U .... 0 1..., in Z.. - 0 C = 1 ' 101 = -0 1,.. Ls. .... ..... . ID = .0 0 .0 01 1...• I dal 0 >. ..0 V C U >,- >,- *0 C 0 .... ..- r: I C) 0 0 L. L. >a C 0 44 ■••• CI 0,10 '-' - "• 4 1 1,- 1... >0- to d..1 t. 0 >. .-- s- . C) C) C) "0 0... g:) I- s..... L. a) = a) ID a) 1._ C 0 - C) 0 1- af - 0 •c... In- -0 .0 ... "" a) a) 0 La •- - in 0 La U C.4.0 0 - ut 1.. c = n) co , 1.- 0 0 C.3 0 CD ,-.- .-- C 1./1 In .... L. C) C) ..., "... I= = I 0 -000- La AA 0 0 0 us •-• L. L. 10 0 aa . In 4) 0 "" 0 ... cit C 0 ..0 0 irt L) .. 3 •- %-.., f- ..... 0 0) 0 0 U U 0 0 CD E ED en 0 C) tri"0 C U 0 0 0 U ...... In -0 al 0 IS* •••• La >.• 0 0 EL, 0 I •■•••• .... 0 E 00 I.. I- U. ej 1- L„ 0 C C .--* 0 E Q JI ..-. 11) ..-- C.0 I . ›. C CZ Z. 0 < 1- 0 F-- 0 0 10 0 ID 0 CI. 0--- LI.. 0 ED to •••• 0 OS. . _ . .. ... I* •••• In a) ..:: a) C.., r•f- = - to - in •..I • 0.-"*... Le) 0 V) "' ... • 0 = d.1 0 u) > In a) i :a }.. 0 0 ,,ur -e, ID vl a) cr,.1) 1.11 Ch ...... •t• 0 CT ti f0 C 1,.. c 0 2 0 0 .--. ,'" U 0- U 6- 0 1,.. 0. ... 0 Ls., U 0 - • 4,1 0 LA.I 1 4 0.. 01 0 4) 0 CI 0•-••• 1-.... ,..." 0 C 1.4.1 0 0 ..4 1". Pew Ca c Ira ..... = `0 C) C.VI c -. v) >,.. ...... ej c .... -70 CD O. ID 1.. -0 C3 ii.5 C. 1... .. - 4.' In 0 0 c 0.i.L. 113 - 14 E vb 0 E 3-,- ED - E RI •• In - U 1- ....- - 0 -a ta on da - > 0 0 3- c - 0 0 = 31.., ....-- -- 0 - 0. ...? V •.••0^ Ia. CC. ••••• < at I• 1- 11) 0 .- -./ .- CZ I- 0 0 c: 4-1 0-- C > sa 0 0- a) 4-0 0 = ..4."'"' . CJ > 11. .) 1- -0 1=) > 411 0 0 +a 0 - 0 ... In-..- = 1:3- 0 -. 1.1.1 00 ....^ C - V/ .....• C .,-. 4/11031/1r,1 - C ... 00 .- M I . • - 0 -0 1.. -= 0 0 ID... ■•1 3.• < - "0 0 .." 0 *0 L. .0 ••••• z I •••• 0 "0 L. CZ L.. L. "0 ..0 ...."' - 0 ..= .-- 1.. 0 1,.,) c c) c 0 ro c..) c CD .-1 0.1 . .-. *1 ID > - 0 .1.., ID a) ...: ...* •-• 0 4-0 al > 0 0 0 -1-' 0 > 0 In ....,"" b' el • • 0 Li* ." II, t •••......4. 1... ^" sr .,-. 0........... = ..) 0 Ls. •-• .n.s. rt ...s E I 0 1.1 < ••••• P- < < 0 P. 0 in =- 0 7., <"- i6 --..<--tv- g 18 "cu "v< 17: 6- czw < E.; U.4 III NI . .... on ..:0" 1..1".• ... .... tr) • li-1 8 1 7 ... - ......, 0 0-. ... . . ___. G.. - 0 I tz ' w la ........__. .. 1 I vs 1.01 • I ...,_,..._. t...% I _ ....-, ... .1•111•111111•■■••••••••• n.1 I IN .... • - NM. . I .......•••••■■•■■••• , 41■••■■••••■■41milowitmoyou•••■■■■• .., mom I ... La VAGINO•111•., '............. , . ... I Saw ■ /1••••■■•••■■■■••••• ••■•■••■••■■••••■■■■•■• lort ....... . W W •U • Nmwm..•■■•......, AL. j 14-2 ..7' 1..) •N .. ..): .0.. .... 4: i..) 0 Cf.: CO , 1 Amomm,■••■•■•■•••••• eel La La 1,.) .4 .4 I .0 •••'"i • ....1 •--1 I 1... ............-._ .,_„,,„„„„„.„,,„„„„„„„,,,,, 1.-.' LI r,,,,,, tv • ..... .... U i . , ..... ,... e e - --.__ < < - .. 4: • ... ...., • U -.1 -J 1.1.1 W . te) U) = = = ..... ....-.0 t, •,...1 ....1 1 .••••••••... --. < <• M'A 112.1 ••••• •■• = - in L.) L.) ' .----, • = - la 14 Li'i . C.. C.. • • La 0 in Va I I 1 < ...t La CO 1-. < < 1.... < 1-.. ft- in In ....... in .... V) in 14 a- < < c: I in La -1 ...1 • 0 O. t../ (..) ------ --- --- 41111616110.4111111.4141=1*4IIIIMMOW.1■1111..... 1. -. rt.) e3 M V Q . = I 4.1 F.. •,g < go .- *is. I 1 _ ----- _ LLI < I ' C.. I - re'• ICI -- I • O.. 4a = ,,...... ■ra. • • IL" • • 4) • moo I il) Uor 1. - CD • in C. ID - C) Ch< (;) 414 1" ••• 1.. 0 0 in 0 II) 111 , ., - In 7.- ID L. U 0 < Z an . J./ .... in I,. C) ••• ii, .... • • '0 1... = 0 E V Z.' C "V C V U. z- 0 V 1,0 0 C2 . .. - - .- • . •. • r) C 0 F..• 0 "- •-' 0 C 160 0 0 0 ..I s... gap ._. 0 0 C > CD ...• 0 in of • , = gp) i... cj 01 • ..., r".. C) "0 til 0 C.. • " u... 4.3' 103 O .... 0 .. M ....' .1••• CO lb 0 < 1■7 ... 10 Z . 1.).-... A./ C 44 4.) U < I.. 44 0 n c = 'V > t- - 0 : • L. 0., ."" kJ ci cu - ).„_ - u... o s., 4,o ID 0 - C 'V - U.■ • W 0 V = Er, . - ,- iro - 0..- • 0 0'V 0 L. "V • eD < V 0 A-, in .4.• = 4- U .•• ... 3 .... ...., 44 c _ 10 VI ..e- = "• ....1 C).•••.... Of ••••• in '" C INI 11) 0 0 1.) 0 an 0 e c ...„ 0 - ,... - C) 5 a ›.--0 - ej u o 0 u. - - 0 >,..o 2- 0 u. v ,,... L.. In c = t; ii - . 0 >. Cl 0 to 0 = - 1- = >. eu C.1 fD aro 1... 0 (3) = 1.- 0 1- c. 0 cz - I'D 101 1- a) ,- ir.., /0 0 = 0 0 _ - - . , V) '0 C) 02 C) ..- C) C. - C. ,.. v) -C3 0 CO t- ....... 0 Ln ••••, ;747 C) 0)) I- C) . 0 ^^ U ‘11 > tri ID U. .1-,-0 In-. 0 ^' v.) us "V - .. . 0 L. (13 C )" C 0 ' =1•••• 0 12.1 - "- • 0 1- ‘,".- 0..•••• c) -.. in 0 L. L- . .. C) CO Z 0. 0) ID 11) 0 C) Z L. 4/3 0 0 0 CV M Ci 1-- - 0 in C) -0 _T. 0 0 U • -0 4.0 i.) ul C - 10, • >. - 0 C) 0 U. "0 ./.// 0 U.. 1.. 0 .0 0 U ..". •• In to cu c U - ..-, in 0 0 0 LI. L. to e., c u 0 to i- 5...-- (DO U in 1- 1.. .`• 41 0 0 1... rs L.) I.. .0 E. - .6, ••••• L. C0 1 C Cei I- 0E ..- 1... 0 .... o IF. C ••• 0 .. • • 0.. il1. 0 ... (2) 4.4 0 E C)) La 0 C1 C 0 0 P... V. )... 0 C.la 4) 4) 1,11 1.. 3.- "" L. '• .1"""" 0 O. U "." LW 0,......... Cr.'0 •--. ..... i.. ..... Ad ID •E cz on -- E .1..) • •-• = = U-V 0 0 co .... ---1 < >,.. I"G - "V - V = U 'V = I - )-- - .0 0- U 0 ID 0 CT C ILI 1- C.) C • r. ,... .- 1°. 4,/... C CD 0-- ra C.." - 0 0 .... co rp .... rj •-••1 W O. .. 0 Sj i. ID 0 0 - 0 4-; - 4.3 LW 0. .... .0 03 •••• 4.1 U. 0 0. 0 7:r3 9 l-f . C) ‘.... - = = 4-••••• 4../ U. ... ty;....... -...... = ..j •-• = E"._ E 0 0 es/ 1- = 0 0 0- E 0 - ....- • E•1 = 0 4..1 - - 1- < < 0 1- = cc A./ c....) 14. 4" Cr, 0) = .." 03 A........CO 3.1. = 03 LIJ ...° 0) ..' .. tS) 6i LA UN U5 1.-... -- -:-.- ..1- th • • • 14••'13 ___ 8 t .. 4 , . .4 7:4:1 i I .4 to, ----- ••i ••• :::45.1 ■ ta .-1 a, ez to .-. 0 0 4 en o'l .-1 4.4 - N N 1.4 P41 4.1 444 1.4I 444 444 1-4 la Ea 44-4.444 ■ 4 .-1 i:, 8 U., in o . . U 0.1 10 ..... ..., vp, .4. 0 0 U * * a U 0 Ca0 fs,1 .••••••.. - ...1 A m rr, U U U 4, * . a U .1 4.4 U U E. Es Z te N N .- 4 4 U s * U e = . E0 0 ..4 U) U 1.1 a U = = 0 ..1 - .3 .4 1 r4 •.1 .1 "' 441 Z U L.) 0 G3 el ca a* al a. ca . le . 0 ca ca _____ (23 in I in M El 4 co C ad i4 .4 CO 0 sr I .a. Z 03 C0 Z 1:4 . DV 4 g 1 CO ...1 60 es. 04 T.) t., WM I Z II il I Iv ri44 a 4 CO ''' al ■ 1 4I2 I -. 4 • . co I co-• -• u • 'a - op (I) co 0.1 0 0 al 0 0 04 0 .4 44 0 .il...I 0 ....4 Z ...E.• 0 ••;..... . .0 01 •4 E V J1 ca' U 01 LO! 0 Cr Z I) 4.) Cl W La..= 0 •0r0 0 444 as 01-0 .. al a.4 0 144 444.0 0 al cat c-2 0 0...I 0 04 04 .0...I ..n:• 0 ••7 0 C31 0 04 0 14 -4 C Z I21 0 0;>.0 I.4 0 0 7, • 0 0 0 .1.3 0 L.) W 0 0 ri DI I4,4 444 C: 0-4 /0 u 3 o io LI 0 . -to *0 = 0 IC tat el -- 14 .4 44.4 = 0 1.4.0 0 141.4 0-..4 = 0;LE tif 14-100140.0 ••• 4:41.•10 =e.• 0 4.3 A.a.) 4.1.ty ......c•ck= 0 0 SI a*a at 0 444 Lt(3 E• = 0 0-4 C.= L4'U .0 0 0 0 04 0 CI Li ::.-•••1 .0 U 01 0 0 0 .-1 T1 al u•^4 E = La 0 ta •0.....c. 0 '0 V 0••4 0..-4 6. 0 C= 0 0•-41 En J.) JJ 0 C). c U 0 0 ==...,at 0 c.41 0 CM 7.1 Di '4C C,, 0 V 0. 0 Lt 0 0 a.; C 0 44 ..Z U•.4 ...4 Li 0 0 as ...Z U L. Ca = L=U.4 00 0 la 0. 0 0 U 0 la to 0 V C la - . C 0-4 44 0 .-'0 C.= 0..-.. ..,, 01:'.1,0 ti-r C tb 0 Z E 0 0 0 0%L.I 4-4 00 EC.1 *.t. ca0 C1ENLA CL . 0 0.41104 U 0 0 40i U Cl 0 ...4 0 C) 0 4.41.4 0 4.1 , r. ...LI 0 0 CJ >4 0 4"...CO 0 ...4 0 .0 U 1:3 .^4 0"..1 0 I, I-, el 0 0 0 IA E 0 4 as *3 C 01 0 0..1 0 ca 0 0 0 4 0...E4 V 0 0 on 0-4.0..ow•-.. rio co to E. in u 1.4 U .1.30. 0-.‘ >.Ca 0 01 14 '40 ._ I .a 44 . c • 0 t 14 0 0 0 0 o tE 0..a..4 0 0 42.40 C 0 4.44 0 0 m - 4 v o•- 0 . -4 s >. >0 0 ta "0••1 '0 0 CU = 04 Li = 0 IS••4 -0 E. 1.4: 1::1 4.1 '0 .4 -I C•••••4 0 .0 C) = ..4 al E. C) CI w AJ 0 0 id 0, U) 14 o.4.3 oo E LI 0 J.,1 a U, c ...... E. > = 0 J, 0 l a.= E s 0 4 E. *. c 0.. 01 E. > o-o -a a 0= 0 L.,a.E. co 00Z0••40 ... 0 E -4 - 1 3 o-I -1 C) C) c oz -1 a cp -1 t..) r.•c..o c o.oo Li 0 0...4....4-i ..-W LI 0 1:1 0 I ••4(.) Cl.0 IS••4 0 .L1 c -t140140 CD.1 cs1 4.a al c -4 wczto z 0 0'El 0 E IV lo..= I .0.0 :.)1 0 0 0 0 .0 Z'.7. 0 = 0 • tn o 0 E j: €D es=-ca A)-.0-...4 ,- 0 0.0 0 .....N1 0.1 0.1 0'.= 0••• 414 '''.7-'4 cil 0=•••••U 0 =4./10 04...- KJI4X104,. C 0 N 1/3 on th , 1 9• _. Bc• 3r • arrboro • NI 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 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 plprmitig 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 Mana.ger • • Enclosures • • • rwm/abw C. Changes to the Countv Permitted Use Table to Permit P•reeding 1:ennels and Rehabilitation renters • Erplanation of Proposed Chang m 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 Ar±nal 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 Catrorie.s Explanation of Proposed Changes: The County seeks to combine two sections 01 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 establislithents -- 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 Su.bdivision Ordinance A. Dedication of Recreation Space and Pavment in Lieu Explanation-of Proposed Changes: The County proposee-to•make the dedication of recreation space, or payment-in-lieu thereof by new subdivisions a requirement everywhere in the County. It is riot a requirement now. As proposed, the County • - would reouire 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 inclu.ded in a development, and paythent in lieu required where it is not • Town Comments: The Town of Carrboro generally supports this ordinance amendment. • 6 ------. 42"8551134111411 11 PAGE 26 Moody recommended that the wording be made clear that this is for new parks only. 1 The Low and Moderate Income Housing Task Force increased the acreage to 50 acres and 3 it seems that this staff is working against that. Mobile Home Parks are an excellent 4 way of providing low and medium cost housing. This amendment is fighting against it. It places more restrictions on private property. 5 7 Roger Stephens, a park owner in Orange County, spoke in opposition to the 3 amendment. A copy of his written comments are made a part of these minutes by 9 reference and are located in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. 1 Joey Cockley, Durham resident and Orange County Mobile Home Park owner, requested 7 clarification that this applied only to planned, new parks. He read and accepted that 3 the one change was going to be from acres to units. However, when he read the :+ proposed amendment it went a step beyond by requiring.a 100 foot perimeter buffer 5 which he opposes. He indicated that he perceived a double standard in the County with 5 little encouragement being given to the development of low income housing. 7 3 Forrest Heath, a mobile home park owner, asked that it be spelled out in the 3 Ordinance that this amendment applies to new parks only. He also feels that the 3 County is setting double standards for mobile home parks. He indicated that he could 1 develop a subdivision and expand it at a later date. However, with a mobile home park 7 he would be required to create a park. The size of a subdivision is based on its 3 merit, but mobile home parks are restricted arbitrarily. He asked that the Board 4 consider letting the size of a mobile home park also be decided upon it merits. • 6 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED 7 • • 3 A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwelle seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the 9 .Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. 0 . • VOTE: UNANIMOUS • 3 4 e. Retail Trade 5 . (1) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table - See also 5 Item # D.3.b. • 7 No presentation was made. In summary this item is to receive public 3 comment on proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments combining sections of the Permitted use Table to eliminate duplication of text and to correct a typographical error in Section S43. • 7 QUESTIONS OR. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD 3 4 Commissioner Hartwell commented on the proposed change to EC-5 stating that this addition might suit not only the particular location that caused it to come to the 5 • Boards' attention, but could be compatible with other areas of the county that are 7 Existing Commercial. This would be a wise, thing for the Board to adopt. 3 - THERE WERE NO CITIZEN COMMENTS. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to I • refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4 - 12 1 - 6 (a) Art. 22 - Definitions (b) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (c) Art. 8.8. 11 - Kennels (Class B Special Use Permit) MOTION: Eidenier recommended adoption of the amendment. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) Solid Waste Container Sites (a) Art. 4.1 - Establishment of Use Regulations (b) Art. 6. 16 - Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses MOTION: Eddleman recommended adoption of the amendment. Seconded by Yuhasz. Best asked if this applied to zoned and unzoned townships. Collins responded zoned. Scearbo responded that she had worked with the Public Works Director, Wilbert McAdoo, and he had indicated that at least 40,000 sq. ft. was needed to develop a site. John Link, County Manager, stated that the future for solid waste container sites is the roll-off process with larger sites that are buffered and hidden from the road. He noted also that the County would be purchasing the sites and recycling centers would be located on the same site VOTE: Unanimous. (3) Retail Trade (a) Art. 4.3 - Permitted Use Table • MOTION: Yuhasz recommended approval of the amendment. Seconded by Lewis. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Section IV-B-7-b Recreation Sites - - 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16. 1989 Action Agenda Item #C-5 SUBJECT: Z-1-89 - RICHARD ANDREWS - REZONING REQUEST DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x_No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk 2-27-89 Public Hearing Minutes 4-4-89 planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider 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. Letters have been submitted from the Orange County Sheriff's Department, South Orange Rescue Squad and Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department indicating that services can be provided. The Orange County Health Department has conducted a soils, test, indicating that on-site septic disposal can be accommodated. 2 , . 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. The proposed rezoning was considered at the February 27, 1989 Public Hearing. Mr. Greg Shepard, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the rezoning. There were no other comments at the meeting. The Planning Board recommended approval of the rezoning at their meeting on April 4, 1989 with no discussion. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of rezoning the property from Agricultural Residential to Neighborhood Commercial-2. . ,_..., - 19.1B At' 3 - Z - 1 - 89 RICHARD A.NDREWS 3446 Existing Zone: AR • . Proposed Zone: NC-2 '..."----.....‹ J /.23 0 •Z.5.34 4446 • . . 4.16 AC. 4.1 5 k lel " ■.5 -3203 . .0 4.16 AC. . .41 . . . I .. . a 3 e I Z 6.05 AC. • 0 0 . I •4'RS —.._ .... , 0 -0639 569(Th . , 1 , 1 1.96 ; 10.19 AC. AC. 1 1 -pr- .71416II 0 ..sss-- 4 ' 5649 • 601 AC. 1 2504 '1 i i.544c Ite`"- '2_01 " 3.3ELA c ....._._ 4 ,........, Z .........,,,._._... —...., ...........- -.---._........ ".-.... RURAL. C) 0 , ......._. _...._ _..........._ _ .: Ac. ........ • _,..... .0;38.1 -- 9182 1/ 7 6 C --_-- --... , 10.7 AC. 1 .aki.§_i_ ■ 6-0 5.24 AC. ' ( . .d L. CURL) _ 6914 - // I ' • 6-79 AC, 1?-4 - A.7.. ' 951 1 ' • 6. . 4 3.3 . - . Ica 387: 4-22." CD ' • 3.09 AC. F I Rtt AC. -•- .51:7, L26", .P.AP 76B I A Cr*-7,...czY . - - - 1 - I . „....,,,....., 31 -' ........--,---zx ,...; . , • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 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 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. 5 • Y2MORANDUM 2-1-89 RICHARD ANDREWS. FEBRUARY 9, 1989 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 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 suDnly 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 ) 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. • 6 - MEMORANDUM Z-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 P8 Community Center • 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 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 S41 Restaurants: General S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: • A) Operations Are Designed to Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day) • 7 - MEMORANDUM • Z-1-89 RICHARD ANDREWS 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 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 Transmitsion Lines S34 Recreational Facilities (Non-Profit) ----- - --- _ . . . . . .- . 8 0 0 0 Z z Z O CI 1 al ..4 0 . . . Z 2: C) O 0. Z Z >.• ›. >41 I oa O .4 C) U3 p4 C4 a - . 0 u ..4 V cr) 6.1 - g = . .. . 0 • 1 ..zi lt is. H4 cn - E. . 0 • C) CU Co C C) a ,-.4 U U a . 0 .. -.4 U 715 V 0 0 CI) to -.4 CC • X .4 4 0 J.) O E 0 V I) . ca U) E •0 0 . 0 ca •0 "o m . LI r.4 . U r:3 m -I z z I., 0 0 C-' ••4 0 •••I • z z 0 . 4-4 > i., . Z 4 44 Z 0 0 4414 4 01 0 14 c 0 •Na t] .. U 0 04 0 fa L.8 Cu Cl) ...4 0 0 C.1 14 -I -4 0 Z 0 rS.1 0 .c.) .-4 0 C.„) 6-I H U .-4 Z E a el . Z 0, •••I 0.0 ru z o LI 4 0. 0 ca w u - Iv C.) Z E4 Ez• 0 " . 44 0 0-4 I o•I V) 7. > •••4 Cl .,c H V.2 Z 1 C2 •.• gx) ul 0 E. 0 La1.4 0 Z ..... Z 4 i Z4-4 gE4 61 E 2 i , 0 w ,, .. 4 .4 Z z O Z 6-3 0 00 - 0 0 0 0 P. at. Do to z z z , P 04 co r.T., ■ EA 11.3 C:3 P.: r.c.. C:3 - 0 14 = = <0 0 . • 0 U g '..4 z E < WZ 1-4 0 to 04 ....'4 1.4 E. " 0 = E. . co tr) •-• E. to w w Z a 00 4 Z 0 = 4 . a) al 0 4-1 4 E-, a M M h. Z 0 (..) ›. >.• 0 E. 114 Fl 40 Z ' 0 " x i I 41 • Z " H Z W > > Z a. X i .... 0 W 1.41-. ZG Z C 0 P4 Ct. 0 i 4 I 1 0 '0 $.3 4t3 Ct. tri 1 < U 1-• Z ctl CI . .0 = Da . , E •-4 4 a) to . WE 4 > 0 >. 4.3 a) c 4-0 Z t7.1 Z .--4 r..)H = 0 C ct 04 I CU • F3 .4 DC) 1 . Z tit E 4.6,4 4.)..... .4.) 4.4 .1 0 1-4 V: C/3 0 C t4.4 0 .1.1 O. 0 CI H til t.) t'4 0 r. ..-i .. U U 0 >IV < CG I-4 •-■ U) 4.) i 9 0 *4; Cm u t 14 -c I!: 0 0 0 0 Cu 0 00.4 '0 0010 0 ••4 0 c4 F4 re: Fq H Z 0 0 4) 0 -^c F. 0 34 0 a E-4 U U CI EE-4m-4 30 V 01 a•I II . 1 , . a L) fla 14 a) 4.) 0 U o-I t.I c•■•4 0 * el. E. as as -.I 0 $.1 Li s•-•.". 0 .0 0 0 ..4 Iti ' 4 Cl) to z 0•-! 4 E.*.4 C.0 U C 4:1 F.4 .os Oss ••••• ..4 n . to 0) 0414 C•3 E• 'I '1 4) .c..1 0•4 0 CO Ct. z C) X 0 >1 = 0 cu...4 •,,t) 0 .t.) o .4 >, aa $4.0 01 cal US.. talc Zoo 4) w . 0 N (41 a) •4 v 4.» a) .-4 ....W ....0.0 Z Z • U ...I..i 0 U 5 ---›..II .00 U 0 00 c:1 Ii) 0.-.... 0 a) 0 ..).• 04 '0 3.' z .3 .1 C L 0 t4-I E C. 14...-4- ex 0 N W U 05 U U ID ---1-0--I c' C) 0 • t.. • CP 0 00 4-4 +-• 0 U E-q E. ....1 ''' UU MOA.- C%2 en 0, r) 0 14 '0 0'45010' • Ol'O' ll • ---414 - 4 Cs3 14 ..0..-1 0,5.. 0 0 t..- ; 04-4 0 --1 0 ■ - = C 4 4 0 E. X to 4 14 cs) 0444- c40 ca fa t.) ... .. ■ I • . ,. 9 ..... . • I o z z 1 . co co • >. I : -4 >•4 40 0 .44 .-4 -4 . 4 la 4 al 0 Ca ca co g 4 - 0 ."I E J.) • —I 0014 .1-■ 1:$ 0 0 4../ 111 C 4,2 tu--I .4.4 lo c.)•••4 • O 44.0"0 0 •.-4 C — f0 C 0 0 I a.)..1.).0 44 41 4.) '"li C.)•-■ i Z Z•■•I :71 0 GI .1.) ; TS 0 CO Co si '0 z 0 i 0 al 0 0 0 0 .4.) 0 V 0 • Z >40 C g. Oct to .44 40 CO. -4 E 0 ..4 V 0-4 ••-• 41.1 7. tp gat 73 .1.1 ...0 0-4 E .0 A.)mei • 1 ' O 0...483.1014 0 0 .44 0 0 0 -4-4 0 44 > a) -4 C.)0 ,..%) to>11- 140 I 1:1 4,4 44 (1)kW ! 0 0.) U 13'0 40 ri .0 to 0 E 1.4 C $4 4:1 V CT rEa) o—lo .roloo = ca 1 • • • -4 a 44 0 14-i ..4 0 .0 0.1 C. .4) a ••4 4..) ..0 ...I . CI .1.• 3 C.) tp =4-4 fa 4,) 0 0 0 q I 0 A LI 44..0 co ..4 a)•0 A V iti --4 0....=_"" 01 0 .-4 ao 0 ..-I 4.■ .••1 Oa GP•••I 0 to4 04 0 C co co-4 CL 0-4 co 0 44 04 44 0 40 4) 0 O.44 0 0 co 0 i 40 C44 N- 14 co ' 0.Z I . I 4 0 0 . Z Z 1 1 . . . . . 0 C.) 74 >4 i X I x I : I I i ; 1 0 .0 DI 0 0 14 C C 0 la • O SD L4 SO = •••4 a 0.',O, .V. t)ss-s CCI • 4.)'0 - t) 0-4 •,-I C 0 113 •••4.-I zi ' 1:1 CO ./,) -1•--i a.) . a E i U 140) 41) al CO 40 • 14 0 a) :. • cr•e a 0) • C.) 4.4 C-0 C 113 CD.0 01.....• 0 C 0 0 44 41 4) U-1 -4.-4 ..r. 20) a- 43 sz 5 0 u '0 -•0 ^-1 0 Ls•-a - N >4 C 0 0 rst tt) Z 0.1 • C 0•^4 14 • 0 Os-L) M Zs IA•-I 0) r's 04 Oa • co.1:1 0 • 0 .4) o o c41 tu 0 0 0 Sa Z".0 01•,-1 1., 0.01 CV ca.0 10 10 . - o 0 • z • z ! .; . . . tx.1 1 1 0 ED Z CI) a) a) Z CO 0 11) C,3 "4 Z Z >4 Z0211-4 ZWOCI . 15, < OZ 1 ! 6-6 0 ra2 1-1 04 al IC Cu . . . . V) '0 ED 4.3 CD 4.3 _ Z CO •-4 --4 01 . .-.4 -I = . Z 0 071173 0 p.4 14 PL, o •- ..•:..4-0 .r.J .J c 0 • 0 0),-1 c4 CI .1.)az id o . O CI C) 04 04 C 0 -.."" 0 0 a. -4'0 0 0 '0 z In ••4-V . 03 O 4-1 >t 1) 0X0 E4 • C) 4J C) 14 aC U--4 (.1)44 0 14 0 0 > •,-1 0 0 tr.) .-•-•.4 E-• .I.) e 0).:_••..,„„ • . . . E-4 OW •••4 0 4-1 0,1••••4 i 1-4 .-44 Z •1.3 0 0 > • ; ./..10 al 0 03 .-4 i ti) • 140 0 43 0 -4 4.4 0 •••-4 rel c1-t- U 00 Z 1.)0 04 14 0 14 0 14 0 1-1 a)..4 a) -0 a) , CM I w HZ H004-34-1 1 I . 1 z Z , . . Cl• Lz. GC 1 . E. 4MZ , ej a) C3 'v. 0 • • = 0 V) 0•4 E. Z ED Z /4 a) - a) $.. zzU .. >- i Zi zl-dmi-1 ZJ .... ...4za, 04C04 I I • ti ›. : .0 1 >4 6-1 0.4 6.-0 0 N 0 IC) ......- t4•-I.04.1.6) co 3./ E 0 E. 0 al id 0 0 U) in 014..5 ga ku.-.. 0 to U .)-) as ••••■-E1 4.) -13 > 0-4 C) -4 0 > 4..) J...1.0.4 CU 1.1 14 4..) 0 in 4 0 0 WV 0 4 4 0 ca 0 C it: U1 7.. 1.4 CC ro...1..4 .1-1 3J "0 0 04 13 C > -se 0 0 14 Os • 14 C 0 C 0..4 0 0 ..1 =%).4 Ca V)13 00• 0000 O 0 m 0 • J 0 c -4 •-0 1.,-4 0 • 0=,-) 00.-4 0 0 1414 E. e. ..d 00000 1-6 14 cs) 4.4 04 s4 Z 0 > C 4.3 >4 0 14 - U C) 1•64,-4 C 0 0•-t E 03 • C a) 0 14 0 0•-. O.V . •••4 E -1-1--I c.)••-■,-1 = •e• -4 >4 0 E,-4 E 03.4-.4..1 Ca • W. tU .1).-"4 E .1-) .."-oo .i.) -.0 > E10 .5. 0.1-1-0 la id -0 74 -10140 03 0 14 0 Ca 0 . 0 . 0 Cl CC) E----1"4 ..4"0 GO(.../ C (,) *0...1 = 0 .0 0 33 43-1 01 .0 1-6 W • 0 R ... we: 0... 00 ,J..-1 .0 0 0 .... 00.4 ED I., • "4.0 00 100 • 1:13-1 V 03 6=. Lc ell 00 CP 0 0 0 . I I .*1 r4. C 3)..c._-. - C•••4 14 OCOWOW 0.0 )'0.0 •3001:3 740-04 4.3 al 1.1 0 0 - .0-0 0•,-i.c •71 0 .v, 4.1....1 ;-1Q.p.1 ID....i al= 0 Z CO tO 10 4.3.-1 E co ol U c 4J )Jem4J .1.) e - uoE .0-0 '0 00 eE )..)...1 W e 0...1-0000= cm.do 000-40140 c14000 = 0 a ra -1Wou-i0eo...T. ..7.-00oz0Z Z4Q....) 300 = 4) C ..4 ..-1 ...1 •.1 =.--t 4.).-4 Cl...) 4.).--) E. 73 .0-.1 0.0 0,Z 0 w 14-4 .... .... ... 166 14 161 0 06.4 C. 0 0 0 0 0 .0 . 4 0 4 0.0 fa-CI c4 0 7,44 114 u-1 ` - 1 111102111======.6 . . • 1.Z • . . 0 0 0 z z z Cl) 03 co C) . a) a) >4 >4 >4 • .13 . to 4,., .-4 4) a) 0 1,-•V 0 41 14 •--4 4) IVO 4) 0.1 In 444 (1) 3 44..-4 • 14 U = .0 el * 0. 44 > >1 X0 4.1 • co J.) >4:::••4."4 W W N 01 40 • .1.1 co•c) CL to C c 0 >4 1••.C2 e 04 .1.3 4.)1:, .40 4) 0...I a 0 0 ...■...I L - .0 0 .--I 70•-• 0) 14 ttI 4 14 .0-0 "V V . 4.1 13, 4) 44 4.4 144 4.3 4) . 0) 14 4) 0 0 to 3.3 1. a) 0 • fa C 0 44 0 4 E E•4 0) 4.4 CO ..0 ••••-0 . a) 0 44 44 LI to a: 14 es ti 43 0 U ..-1 44 0 t.) CO t) U-44 . . •••I •A P14.4 •••• 14 C) • •••I •-• 0 .1:1 C 4.1 RI tD 0U 0 i 4 4) c 44 V C MI 4.41-0 C 43 ..-4 0) CD•••1■•-i 4) •••I 0 ..4 v• i A E a ta to 04 44 c 3.11 C 4.1 .x..> 113 ID 0 -I4 Or 0 41 ••••1 4 01 14 0 CL c • co CU al fa CI 0 04 0 Its .-4 5--I 0.0 04.0 C4 14 t.) =.0 U 14 •••4 0 •..4 C. •.4 a) E 4.1 --I 0•■••1 . •-• to 01 0 1:1 ,...I C.,11 • ...4 4., 14 CL-4 4.3 44 CI,0 00 4,3 CI 44 CL 41.4 Q.4 04 N 0 to CI.,co 4.) 40 0 E • 14 c•4 e 41 CD CI 41 C 3*4 4) Wt e t) E'4 $33 CI 4-1 CO E4.1„3.1.) z E. 0 0 0 0 o Z Z Z 1 I . I . , rn rn 01 4) 4) 0 I >•• >4 >. X1 X1 • X1 1 1 1 I . I • I •-.4 4) rtf eg cv >4 ' ■•-I R3 0 t.) •-I >4 C..) to 0'0•••1 'CI,-1 14 CL Z 41 44 "" .44 = 4)'CI 4) Ur = Li 0 CO e .6) 0 ^ 5 WO o 0)••4 .43 = 10 CL 41-4 -V 0..0 co•••1'0-0•4•4 -0 (.)•••4 0 re C) • ••••4 0 4 3 .0' g 0 0 J.) .-...I 4.3 0) ra 4-4...-1 ... • > 14 3 4-4 C ... (I) ft) RI .-4 4.3 .,.1 0., a) X 0-4 u) 0)•-4 ct RI .4) t0 0 4.4 14 "CI CL134 01 el 44-4 0) LI $, 0 .1.1 C V 4) 41 CI CL i . C CO 0 RI E 40 14 U 0.0 LI 0 CA CD 40 14 4) .5 -.4 V- I.) 44 0 0 1,4 .,-1 14•-i 03 V 0 0)V 0) CD C 40 0 0.0 = C1 CD••4 0 U • $4.0 0 te ..4 ro in •-4 W V 0 ra 0 .0 43•••1 0 0) 4) V 4) 13 4) 41 at'CI • 14-I...1 4.3 V V C LW 14 01 4--- 0 a) a) 0-.4 o c.).....4 I. ..)) a: > a) c 1., 4.J .- ,-.I E >4.0 C -3-1 ..4.- .1.1 .1.30 • 4.)..4«4 - •••I 0 Li 0 V CO .0-4 4.0 C 0 (1) E >,-.4 Li GO ID•-I 0 CD IC • C 140 T.I X 0...."" CD 111 4) •-3 r0 43-4 03 41 0 0) 0 = 0 E co a.o...4.... Li •..4 0..4 0.c-I 1.4 Z 44 41 2 41 40 4) = re"0 V 4.4 41 ...... - ........ I . U ..... 0 0 ...... •• ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 12 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 SOH t • S°.:A"1: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Eddie Kirk, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about February 10, 1989, I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the reauest for rezoning of 1 . 92 acres in Bingham Township from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neiahborhood Commercial (NC-2) , to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20. 6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 14th day of February, 1989. Lai ,e42 EDDIE KIRK ZONING OFFICER • ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA • APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 23 • Date : , ,. MOAV;' Co (989 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1 . The property is located on the lJt4714 aside of .$-rR U•C• ( .14161.4✓AY 'S4- Street/Road) between S.R. # 1458 and S.R.# ICO . It is known as Letts) 27A ,, Block of Orange County Tax Mop ZG' - 'BIUGNAM Township . It has a frontage of = 300 . feet and a depth of x 40D feet , end contains 12..6,0W0 square feet or 2.94 acres . 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from ,4R to WC-2. • . 3•,- The -folL-owing information has been . attached •..in_, support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas Is - required on alt applications) . *a. A fully dimensioned map at ■ scat• of not lees than one (1) inch equals one•hundred (100) feet nor more than one (1) inch squats twentf (201 Teet'•ahbwing'---th■ • land which is proposed to be rezoned. "b. A Legal description of the Land proposed to be rezoned. *c. A statement of Justification eddraasing one or wore of the following: (1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any. which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of ouch error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reason' how the proposed amendment will correct the error. (2) The changed or changing conditions, if ■ny. in the eras or in the County generally, which alike the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. *13) The wormer in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use plan or pert thereof. *(A) ALL other circumstances, factors end reasons which the -- —• - applicant offers in support of the proposed emendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service • agencies t■.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities .agencies) assuring services provision capability to the development. d. A list of ell individuals, fires or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred 1500) feat of the property sou ht for 65 rezoning 1s attaense. The List is current as of 2-9- [Date) - I certify that ell information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge . AppLicent(s) K�_ .,. n � SFErAo Address:. n -r:. Sµ-spArx P $I S ASSac4A-ES Phone : 964D-M,41- C ttir-S .},{.C. 27610• 929- 069 . '5111?° . 14 she card design associates land planners • landscape designers ANDREWS REZONING • TAX REFERENCE 6.26..27A ORANGE COUNTY BINGHAM TOWNSHIP STAT MENT O STIFI TION 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION The Orange County Land Use Plan provides that commercial activities are appropriate . _ within certain identified activity nodes la m Township gne al and lsropriat outside t Rural these � The subject property is located in Bing Neighborhood Activity Node which is centered at the Intersection of NC Highway 54 and SR • 1958. Its quarter-mile radius extends beyond the subject property,thereby encompassing it as part of the node. • '-. • - This request is to rezone 1.92 °(NC-2).�Trhepequceest tome once only 1.92 ac�estw 11 • • (AR)to Neighborhood Commercial-2 • achieve a twofold effect: (1) The balance of the property(1.02 acres)shall remain as .- : 15 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. • • • -• . ••t'• • • 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 uses 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 Sheriff's 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- ._ . . i . _The Orange Grove Volunteer Fire 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._ _ '-':•-• _ . -'- T: -_-The Orange County Emergency Medical.Services and South Oranas Rescue Squad, in a letter '= • _�. .--- • ; dated January 3, 1989,have indicated their ability to provide emergency medical services • • _ "• at the .. ••. subject ty. • . . hop . arr Ors.ve awl CIIP•f . ..:e I • P..., I : 000%4 Cris& _ r _:4 - . . • -. ...... . .. ___. ..... • ""7 7w • _ Oitt I II.. .." .." . . ..I Woor ao 4 "''"" : •. ... .. :d '1, ZI, /..•••\701 . :_• ' .. . . • •017 t. _ -- . ...%, .1 • ' ''''' -— .- - •^•^- "--i ...7r "1 . T 0 W ti S 1 P I E - .• • •-•-- •• '.•■ Z .... .r.• - ! v (f)3 .1,1111 I % / I . •• • . . ' . . — ..- . e.........6.. / I gatflU Mot I % . • • I P.14• 0 / a . 1 • ... FOP ni VOW* CI MI • •- "... . • Inn II . SAO I,IIP AO I 7; • .40 (S.N •ri J • . ' . I 4.. . ' .0 filag . ea — b . r) LOCATION MAP NO SCALE al C , • I — . , . . . ._ _. . . . I 3 330.85' 1 . -::::.:.9 5.0!::.•:•.:- 2 .85' i • • 235, 1 I ... I II 6D 6C 1 0 2 AC . en i iiii en . ::::::::::::•::::•:-:•-•.:-:•::t.. tri 17 p ....,............... . . ....... ... .............. .. ..... I • ..... .._........-•"• 27A IZ „A-.• •.•.•••...... ...–.•••••••••••. > 1 zo .::::::::::::::_:„.::::,:::,:%-::::::..,....... . — • c; .,.,...„:::„.,:.: ::i:,:::i:;::::;:::::::::::•:.::--;:::: :::::::::-2-79.°3..:::_..:„...:.. 14: 1 - --........ rs 0 .:--:-....-::-:•:.:::-:::::„::::•:::::::•_•:::-:-::-:::•.:::::::-:;-:::...:...:.....:::•:-:•.:::::..-:,...• • I b• - r., r'N 59 0 os p. ...--,-,.......::::::::::,..:::n::..:::.:::::-...:,::::.:::::.... ; .............._•. ...• .......,„,. ... ED *:•••••-•--:.."---' -. NI • . 1 .......:::::.:::::::.:•:.:,•:•:•:::,,,,::::,::-:.- _ ..,...,..:::::•:::::.....,....::::.„-:•.::::,...,.....,....:.: •.N...... -:,. 0 - . .:".:7?Nc.:.:„..,...:::::•:.::::....... ...::..„..„: .•...•....::.•••,........,. ... ... . ZO ." 6' ' I'. v ! I ! I I ; 1 . . • ..,...-..:.:•::•.:•%...,*.7.. -.-.:.- 0 c, ...,.. •.•• - •::::.::•:::•:::::-:.::::::4::;;;”:...I.:: • . . ,.... . , ,_•:•::•.-.:' . ci— •....• . I , 1 1 I , -•".-":•,,:,:::::-!::...,•::::::::,,?:-7,:.::::::::-::-?.,::::-..:::?.....::1•,,,,,:-.:-:::. : 1 ,, .... ... :....,...i.:::.:::,.....7•:,.. .,,..: I.:,:,: . . ::::::-:,;-:-..... - • 1- :- — ' : , - . „„ 1 1 1 , . 1 ...:...:.:::.:„.:.-::.:_:::::::,,,,,:::..:.::.,:,,:,:-:,.:::-....,:.:::...:-...:...-:•::::....,::::•:,.:...:-:.,:,::::::::,.1 1 i , , 1 . Il I .... .........„,.„.....,........::..........::.::....:......,.....i.......:... NC 51 . •.. •........ ...••..••..•......... •..••••••..................,...... 1 . , / //// ,./ • , , V ///// / / , . . ._ f-ERENCE NumBER LATE FIN ' aNkso REFERENCE H9089S SOIL ANALYSIS 05. 13. 88 9739-64-8427 6. 26. . 27A . /7 OUESTEE: • OwNER, ANDREWS DICKIE - SPURLINS JAMES I 213 HILLSBOROUGH RD _7008 CARRBORO NC 27510 /2f . 107 LILAC DR _pecks: . 968-0662 CARRBORO NC 27510 Ecir-isATIoNs: . r •- - o 1 SOIL ANALYSIS :grog/04HECTIONS: HWY 54 W RECEIPT: SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT: 1,,e..,. ... 027906 Y 0 c,. 1 Jf lAMED BY KANNER: KANNER DATE --- ELOPE TEXTURE P5 STRUCTURE 65 DEPTH lc%) R. HOR .5 IN. DRAIN J21. ......0 ._.. PERMEAB ef5 OVERALL 25 . • REMARKS AliNft...k Cor.404443 _,P 5.-.3:1-rwl gw, soc3 ,6in p.s.„..j4.zs.,t.,4,241 k r-'- kx--4cf24--co 7.b.- t • • . . - . • X 1.0 .e;-.,: . ' • . . .. .. . . 04 • . . • . _. ':' .,.. .....,• . ... kli . it) . • . .. . . . . 4 . i--1,4 • /....:&-2. . . • • /141‘..— — . . • - • _ . . . - . • . e" --...... — 17 tl , . . DATE 57-/ -89 SANITARIA CINDY PENDERGRASS • Sheriff of Orange County S Hillsborough, North Carolina, 2727818 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 • Residence Phone: 929-5535 Li• • - Lz.-71Viir3,1.77,) iy 11 Jt • • 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 Law Enforce- ' ment services to the property you are reguesting -to -biirezonedr-- Based on the acreage 6.27..27A we do not foresee any additional personnel required to service this area • • • ..• • •-- . • • • • - • - • • 19 MENORANDUm D TO: MR. GREGORY SHEPARD SHEPARD DESIGN ASSOCIATES Lit III- —) -89 424 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 yoxir request, Orange County Emergency -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. eat of the Tar Meel Food Mart . Should you need any further information, please call us at 96,-1515 or 9929-8109 . • • • , 0)FET,a FE,1174171€ • tOia kifte,2, JAZ 4.414 fel.• -S-rO5 '41 1 itat 20 • fg-er,-,0, Lfl . . • Lt • k.L-I.N.) kmai.,_ ca-t.) ,L,a; h-E4, 16;1.4....t ti.) Ct. .9-1-tra,L, EA-reiruir C ,9 1 4tYvalL, , 1)414,1-0-P-A./ j,LL --1004.-12e1 rt..LL &-c-4/4.-) *ELL- 0-12.4t- 1 Pt4... Joliet-Ca &a-A-, .4-1.11,-- .1 - StP.2.4),„ Jat, ,144.(1. xr.(' , • —1 IC S1 0.1:11tiaa . , ( • • • . ..•.• • -- . 22 • - 1 stated that roads are already at capacity and cannot handle an increase in population. 2 Also, a new school is going into this area. Be asked what criterion was not in 3 compliance with the Planning Boards' regulations. 4 5 A. T. Carrington of Strayhorn Hills mentioned that Old #10 is a curvy road with a 6 very dangerous underpass. It will need to be upgraded because it will be the access 7 into Hillsborough. A new water main will be required for this development. He asked B who will pay for the water and sewer. Collins indicated that the developer would pay 9 for extension of water and sewer unless the Town of Hillsborough would share the cost. 3 1 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 2 3 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman Carey, to refer 4 this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of 5 Commissioners no sooner than April 3rd. 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 8 9 4. Zoning Atlas Amendments 3 a. Z-1-89 Richard Andrews 1 The presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary, this item is to receive citizen comment on the proposed rezoning request submitted by Richard Andrews. 3 The property is located on the north side of NC 54, just east of Morrows Mills Road. It is known as Lot 127A of Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The existing lot contains 5 2.94 acres and is currently in the AR-Agricultural Residential Zoning District. The 6 applicant is requesting that 1.92 acres be rezoned to NC-2 - Neighborhood Commercial 7 District. 8 9 THERE BEING NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD 3 1 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 2 3 • Greg Shepard of Shepard Design Associates spoke as a representative of the developer. He stated that the balance of this property shall remain zoned AR to meet 5 the dimensional requirements of the AR Zone and remain zoned in that way. The 5 resultant area of 1.92 acres proposed to be zoned will ensure compliance with the 7 intent of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance in not exceeding the 5.0 acres which is 3 set as a maximum limitation. In regard to the other criteria as' set forth in section 3 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, the property is located within the Rural Neighborhood D Activity Node. The permitted uses within the NC2 zoning classification are designed 1 to serve the neighborhood population. There are performance standards within the Ordinance that would ensure that any adverse impact would not go beyond the immediate 3 space occupied by the building or the boundaries of the property. The subject property has frontage on Highway 54 which is an arterial as shown on the Land Use 5 Plan. Confirmation has been received from the Orange County Health Department 5 approving water and sewage disposal systems on site. The Orange County Sheriff's 7 Department, Orange Grove Fire Department and Emergency Medical South Orange Rescue 3 Squad have indicated they could serve the propetty. Commissioner Hartwell asked if this property was east of White Cross Road and Shepard indicated that it was west of White Cross on the north side of 54. Located 2 opposite the P&S Sporting Goods and the north side immediately adjacent to this 3 property there is a white concrete block building which is presently vacant. The previous use was Town and. Country Homes. 5 • 22 . THE PUBLIC BEARING WAS CLOSED 1 . A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, 2 to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the 3 Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 3, 1989. If 5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6 7 8 b. Z-2-89 Public Interest Districts - See Item # D.5.a. 9 The presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item is to (1) 10 receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text for the 11 purpose of protecting lands of public interest and (2) a proposed amendment to the 12 Zoning Atlas which apply zoning district designations and standards to land identified 13 as Public Interest Areas in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it 14 is necessary Co zone properties designated as Public Interest Areas to comparable and 15 compatible zoning districts. The majority of land designated as Public Interest is 16 owned by Duke University. Three classes of the proposed land classification system 17 recommended in the Duke Forest report affect portions of Duke Forest in Orange County. 18 They include the following: 19 Class 1 - Permanent Research Forest 20 Class 2 - Research Project Land 21 Class 3 - Institutional Land 22 Class 4 - Residual Endowment Land 23 There are two Public Interest District zoning districts proposed. The PID-I 74 District is applied to Duke Forest lands designated as Class 1 - Permanent Research 25 Forest. The existing uses are expected to continue for at least 20 years. For those 26 areas designated Class 2 - Research 'Project and the planning horizon is less than 20 27 years and a PID-II classification is applied. Class 3 - Institutional Land is land 28 located in Durham County and earmarked for campus expansion. Class 4-Residual 29 Endowment Land would be placed in the same residential zoning classification as 30 adjoining parcels. For example, if it was surrounded by parcels zoned RB-Rural 31 Buffer, the tract would be recommended for rezoning to RB. 32 33 properties other than those owned by Duke University proposed for designation as 34 Public Interest Areas are: 35 Eno River State Park; 36 Moorefields Estate; 37 Land surrounding Corporation Lake, University Lake. and Lake Michael; 38 County-owned land at the Seven-mile Creek reservoir site; 39 UNC Botanical Gardens; and 40 Land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in the southeast corner of 41 the County: 42 PID-I zoning is proposed for all of the above areas. 43 In addition to the rezonings Zoning Ordinance text amendments are proposed. The ,.14 amendments are summarized below. - 1. Article 4.2 - District Statements of 7ntent/Application criteria 4, Provides a detailed description of the PID-I and PID-II Districts. 47 58 2. Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table Incorporates specific land uses permitted in the new PID districts, 50 51 3. Article 5.1.2. - Dimensional Reouirements for Non-Residential Development 52 'Reflect restrictions in lot size, minimum lot width, setbacks, height, and floor 53 54 55 -- the Land Use Plan so soon after an update; Hamilton and Pilkey - not convinced that the area e should be a Transition Area) . 23 Jacobs noted part of the consideration, at least on his part, is the fact that the Board still has the option to zone the property at whatever density seems appropriate. b. Zoning Atlas Amendments BOARD MINUTES (1) Z-1-89 Richard Andrews DRAFT -4-89 PLANNING --------....M.."' ■■ ....... ■. ■ ■ . Marvin Collins stated that there were no comments . on the requested rezoning at the public hearing except those made by Greg Shepherd representing the applicant. The Planning Staff recommends approval of rezoning the property from Agricultural Residential to Neighborhood Commercial-2. MOTION: Lewis moved approval as recommended by the • Planning Staff. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #11: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS b. Joint Orange County-Hillsborough Planning Board _. _ Meeting 2 - (Proposed Meeting Date: April 11, 1989) ; Collins referenced the meeting between 1 • Hillsborough Town Board and Orange County Commissioners for the purpose of discussing reservoirs and joint planning. The outcome of that meeting was the suggestion that the two Planning Boards meet to discuss ways of • approaching joint planning. . .... With the number of items being deferred to the Long Range Planning Meeting, Collins suggested • that perhaps a special meeting should be set for a later date with the Hillsborough Planning Board. Jacobs suggested dates which would be presented to Hillsborough for their • consideration. Meeting adjourned 11:15 p.m. „....,--- ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Qr- Meeting Date: March 21 , 1989 SUBJECT: Orange Regional Landfill Tipping Fees DEPARTMENT: Public Works PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbert McAdoo Ext. 480 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a request from the Town of Chapel Hill , Administrator of the Orange Regional Landfill , to establish a new schedule of tipping fees beginning July 1 , 1989. BACKGROUND: The 1989-1990 landfill budget was presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners on March 21 , 1989. Since the beginning of the joint partnership, the tipping fee has been used to finance the cost of landfill , maintenance operations, equipment and related services. The reserve from the tipping fee has been used to purchase land, equipment and related services or materials. The current tip fees are: General trash $10/ton Construction waste and bulky waste Ash from U.N.C. Power Plant $12/ton $15/tan Asbestos Pick-up trucks or trailers $100/ton each h eac Cars $3 each The proposed 1989-g0 tip fees are: General trash Construction wastes and bulky wastes $15/ton $17/ton Ash from the U.N.C. Power Plant $19/ton Asbestos Pick-up trucks or trailers $100 a chn $6 e Cars ach $3 each RECOMMENDATION(S) : Recommend adoption of new landfill fee schedule. a. . 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. (7.-1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16, 1989 SUBJECT: Implementation Plan for the Youth Symposium Recommendations DEPARTMENT: Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S): Implementation Plan INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office TELEPHONE - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 958-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To approve an Implementation Plan for the Youth Symposium Recommendations. BACKGROUND: On February 6, 1989, the Board received the "Improving the State of the Adolescent in Orange County" Final Report. The report outlined the recommendations from the one day symposium on services for youth held on November 5, 1988. The topics discussed at the symposium were Education and Drop-Out Prevention, Teen in Crisis, Teens and their Families, Employment, Poverty and Leisure. After submission of the Final Report, the Youth Symposium Steering Committee developed the attached Implementation Plan for the recommendations. RECONMENDATION(S) : Approve the Implementation Plan for the Youth Symposium Recommendations and authorize staff to begin planning for a "Forum on Poverty". I f , ,-- 2 /MPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE YOUTH symPoszum RECOMMENDATIONS The Youth Symposium Steering Committee met several times and agreed on the following: TOPICS: EDUCATION AND DROP-OUT PREVENTION Implementation of Recommendation: In March, 1989, Orange County Schools' Drop-out Prevention Task Force submitted a report to the County School Board. The recommendations, intended to reduce the number of dropouts in the Orange County School System, will be addressed by the County School Board, In April, 1989, Chapel Rill-Carrboro Schools sponsored a workshop entitled -At-Itimall..L, Recommendations from the conference will be discussed by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board. Rather than develop an implementation plan for Education Drop- out Prevention recommendations, the Steering Committee suggested that the Assistant County Manager meet with the respective Assistant Superintendents to coordinate a cooperative implementation plan after the School Board's discussions. Timetable: Fall , 1989 TOPICS: TEENS IN CRISIS, TEENS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND LEISURE Implementation of Recommendations: The Steering Committee members concluded that the recommendations under these topics should be the focus of a new position. This position should be established within the county government structure to coordinate and disseminate information about services for youth. Descriptions outlining how the position would function have been submitted to the County Manager. The County Manager will include this position in the Manager's 1989-90 Recommended Budget. Timetable: July, 1989 TOPICS: EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY implementation of Recommendations: All recommendations under the Poverty and Employment should be addressed at a Orange County Commissioners' sponsored "Forum on Poverty" to be held Fall 1989. In addition to addressing the recommendations, the one half day forum should promote a greater awareness of the continuous trend of poverty that can erode growth in the County and become more taxing on all human services systems. Essentially, the forum would foster dialogue among approximately 50 representatives from 3 community groups, private business concerns, churches, local governments within the county, and educational institutions. Poverty and employment issues can be more effectively combated by the formulation of partnerships and the development of specific strategies. Forum participants will focus on: - Implementing a sound networking system to identify those students who actually live in poverty and need assistance - Providing special training for teachers to work on the critical element of guidance services, as well as to eliminate built-in attitudes regarding poverty. - Providing action and awareness sessions on poverty to alleviate feelings of hopelessness, helplessness and isolation in disadvantaged youth. - Urging school superintendents to provide leadership in addressing the adverse effects of poverty on students in public schools. - Developing better transportation system to serve Orange County with better access to places of employment. - Providing a location for Durham Technical Community College and/or Alamance Community College in Orange County in order to establish permanent branches for residents. - Educating the community and planning the economic future of Orange County by defining needs and by developing compatible resources. - Diversifying the tax base by inviting environmentally acceptable businesses and industry into Orange County. - Providing increased cooperative education programs to introduce students to the work world. Timetable: Fall, 1989 TSCOMMRP 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item NO. 0.4 SUBJECT: Budget WorktSessiioneScheMay 16 dule, 1989 DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x ATTACHMENT(S) : 1 INFORMATION CONTACT: TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSES To approve a schedule of budget work sessions based upon the feedback given by Commissioners. BACKGROUND: The proposed schedule uses a format similar to last year's budget process. Three daytime meetings are scheduled and three evening meetings are proposed. Budget adoption would be anticipated on Thursday, June 15 or Friday, June 16th. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve proposed budget work session schedule. 2 SPECIAL MEETINGS ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BUDGET WORK SESSIONS JUNE 1989 The budget document will be submitted to the Board of Commissioners at a Special Meeting on May 30 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. After the document has been presented it will, be placed in the Chapel Hill and Hillsborough libraries and several copies will be available for public review in the Commissioners Library at the Court Street- Annex in Hillsborough. The County Manager will give a short overview of the budget at this May 30 meeting. JUNE 1 FROM 8:00 TO 12:00 NOON - a budget work session will be held in the Agriculture Extension Meeting Room, Revere Road, Hillsborough. The County Manager and staff will review highlights and objectives of the budget and revenue projections will be discussed. Discussion of departmental budgets will begin. JUNE 12 FROM 10:00 TO 5:00 P.M.- a budget work session will be held in the Agriculture Extension Meeting Room, Revere Road, Hillsborough. The departmental budgets will be reviewed between 10:00 and 12:00 noon and at 1:00 p.m. Other budget related items may be discussed. JUNE 13 AT 7:00 P.M. - a budget work session will be held in the District Courtroom new county Courthouse in Hillsborough with the two school systems to present and discuss their budgets. JUNE 14 AT 7:30 P.M. - a public hearing on the budget will be held in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse in Hillsborough. The purpose of this public hearing is to hear public comments on the budget. Comments will be limited to three minutes. JUNE 15. AT 6:30 P.M. - a budget work session will be held in the Agriculture Extension Meeting Room for discussion of non- departmental agency budgets and/or budget adoption. JUNE 16 AT 8:00 A.M. - IF NEEDED a budget work session will be held in the Agriculture Extension Meeting Room for the purpose of further discussion of the budget if needed, and adoption of the budget. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Board of Commissioners ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 16, 1989 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: PROPOSED CARRBORO LAND USE ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ACTION BY: MAY 16, 1989) DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X _No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Weeks 5/1/89 Letter Planning Director - Extension 346 Proposed Amendment Status Report - April 6 Joint TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Planning Public Hearing Items Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Town of Carrboro Land Use Ordinance. BACKGROUND: At the April 6, 1989 Joint Planning Public Hearing, two proposals by the Town of Carrboro were considered. The first proposal was to amend the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan (LUP-6-89) to change the designation of a 400-foot strip of Rural Buffer between Carrboro's Transition Area II and Duke Forest to Transition Area II. The second proposal was to change the zoning (Z-3-89) on the 400-foot strip from Orange County Rural Buffer to Carrboro R-R (Rural Residential) . The proposed amendment to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance would require that a 100-foot undisturbed, naturally vegetated setback be maintained along any common boundary line with properties designated Public/ Private Open Space (wording change) on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. No structures, clearing or utilities would be permitted within the setback. The proposal is essentially the same as that previously adopted by the County. A public hearing on the proposed Land Use Ordinance amendment has been scheduled for May 23, 1989. Section 2.6 C. of the Joint Planning Agreement provides for a 30-day review/comment period before the day of the hearing. If no comment or objection is made by Orange County, P, ado tion of the amendment by the Town would automatically effect a corresponding amendment to the 2 Land Use Ordinance adopted by reference by the County. If the County objects to the amendment on grounds of inconsistency with the Land Use Plan, the Town may adopt the amendment, but it will not be effective until after it has been adopted by Orange County. The Land Use Plan amendment has been recommended for approval by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The Zoning Map amendment has been recommended for approval by the Town of Carrboro. The Orange County Planning Board is scheduled to consider the proposals at its May 15, 1989 meeting. The items would be placed on the Board of Commissioners agenda for June 5. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the County not object to the proposed amendment, since it would be subject to the approval of the Land Use Plan (LUP-6-89) amendment and the Zoning Map (Z-3-89) amendment by the Board of Commissioners. The Administration further recommends that the letter stating Orange County's position clearly indicate that the position should not be construed to mean that the County will or won't approve the Land Use Plan (LUP-6- 89) amendment and the Zoning Map (Z-3-89) amendment. The County's position on those amendments will be determined upon their presentation to the Board of Commissioners in accordance with Joint Planning Agreement procedures. 4 MEMORANDUM STONEYCREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION t TO: Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Orange City Commission Stephen H. Halkiotis John Hartwell Shirley E. Marshall Don Willhoit FROM: Joe Woodman, President SNA Calle Warner, Vice President SNA Clint Burklin, Chairman SNA DATE: May 16, 1989 SUBJECT: University Station Associates Proposal We have met with the residences of Stoneycreek Neighborhood several times and once with the University Station Associates to discuss their need to change the Orange County Land Use Plan. This memorandum presents the recommendations of Stoneycreek,Neighborhood based on those meetings. The area along Old N.C. 10 being considered for redesignation as transition area in the Land Use Plan is a very unique area. While it is bordered on one side by Railroad tracks and has some regions of poor soils, JI the area also contains a mile stretch of scenic Stoneycreek and some ` environmentally sensitive low lands. With the uniqueness of this area in mind, Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association requests that you not redesignate the Old N.C. 10 - New Hope Church Rd junction as transition area at this time, for the following reasons: 1: 1. The area in question is 3 miles from Hillsborough and would essentially represent a satellite transition area. However, this transition area is not needed to meet Hillsborough's growth requirements. 1 RECETURn conm FROM JOHN HRRTWELL / P. 2 lik'opor°' . . .. , 4 2. The proposed Land Use Plan change is a localized change, akin to "spot zoning". The Land Use Plan is a cohesive plan and spot , - changes disrupt the semetry of the overall plan. The Land Use plan is best changed during its periodic comprehensive review. . _ 3. The area under consideration is a valuable component of the rural character of the county with its scenic creek and rolling hills. The Rural Character Committee will be making recormmendations for this area. We should preserve the' opportunity to develop this . area in a manner consistent with the committees recommendations. 4. Land uses proposed by University Station Associates that are compatible with preserving the character Of the area such as parks, golf courses, cluster housing, and condominiums can hopefully be accommodated without the threats proposed by redesignating the area as "transition area". The University Station Associates has proposed uses for the Old N.C. 10 - New Hope Church Rd area such as parks, golf courses, cluster housing, and condominiums which are compatible with the constructive use of the land. t E At the same time there are the serious issues listed above which argue i against changing the Land Use Plan. The Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association recommends that the Orange County Commissioners request • University Station Associates and the Orange County Planning Board thoroughly explore other ways to achieve their goals without altering the Orange County Land Use Plan. .. C .2. Ai/157/4 ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA anaaes's C ie�e s 'isru.l 1752 May 19, 1989 Mr. Robert Morgan, Town Manager Town of Carrboro 301 West Main Street Carrboro, North Carolina 27510 Dear Bob: At its May 16, 1989 meeting, the Orange County Board of Commissioners considered a proposed Carrboro Land Use Ordinance text amendment. The proposed amendment would require a 100-foot undisturbed setback along all Carrboro Transition Area II property bordering lands designated Public/Private Open Space on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. As you are aware, the proposed amendment is related to two Carrboro requests. The first is to amend the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan to change the designation of a 400-foot strip of Rural Buffer adjacent to Duke Forest to Transition Area II. The second is to rezone the 400-foot strip from Orange County Rural Buffer to Carrboro Rural Residential. The proposed amendment to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance is contingent upon the Board of Commissioners approval of both requests. They will be considered by the Board at its June 5, 1989 meeting. While the Board of Commissioners did not object to the proposed amendment due to inconsistency ' istency with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, it g did express on c cern ou ab t the 100-foot buffer concept. A similiar proposal was presented - at public. hearing recently by Orange County. It drew considerable opposition from property owners adjoining Public Interest Districts where the 100-foot buffer would be required. Specific concerns identified at the County hearing were as follows: 1. The application of buffer requirements to adjoining property but not the the site to be protected; and 2. The desire of "public interest" properties to be treated , +y the same as other property; i.e. , same zoning and development standards, yet receive the benefit of lower density zoning adjacent to its boundaries. While recognizing that the 100-foot buffer concept has already been incorporated into the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, the proposed Carrboro Land Use Ordinance amendment and the above mentioned concerns prompted the Board to further suggest that the whole buffer concept be considered at the next Joint Planning Area public hearing on September 14, 1989. Please convey this information to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen at the May 23, 1989 public hearing on the proposed Land Use Ordinance amendment. If you have questions regarding the Board of Commissioners action, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sinc- -ly Ja- . Link, Jr. fne County Manager CC: Mr. Geoffrey Gledhill, Orange County Attorney Mr. Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director Mr. Roy Williford, Carrboro Planning Director Ms. Ann Brewster Weeks, Carrboro Senior Planner • 3 ., =t a r rb o ro 301 West Mainn St eet Carrboro.North Carolina 27510 ' w• . . n.... _ . ..... ..,. . . (919)968-7700 (919)942-8541 - N.V. Planning Department May 1, 1989 Mr.David Stancil Planner II -Orange County PO Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Dear David: As you know,last Tuesday night our Board of Aldermen considered the items heard at the April 6, 1989 Joint Planning Public Hearing. I am enclosing copies of the resolutions and ordinance adopted by the Board last Tuesday. In addition, the Aldermen requested that we amend our Land Use Ordinance to require that an undisturbed setback be left on properties bordering Duke Forest properties at the joint boundary between Duke Forest and the Transition Area. I am enclosing a copy of that proposed Land Use Ordinance Text Amendment,submitted to you for the County's review and comment in accordance with Section 2.6.0 of the Joint Planning Agreement The Aldermen are scheduled to hold a public hearing on this amendment on May 23, 1989, and the Planning Board will hear the amendment at its May 4, 1989 meeting. This schedule is necessarily tight in order for the public hearing to be held and a decision.made by the Aldermen on this text amendment before.the County Commissioners'meeting on June 5, 1989. I am sorry that the schedule is so tight,but hope that you will have time to review the amendment before the deadline for the Aldermen's packets, which is May 16, 1989. If you have any questions,please let me know: my number is 968-7727. &fro 67144dtit INVL Ann Brewster Weeks Senior Planner Enclosures .:_.-. . The following ordinance was introduced by Alderman duly seconded by Alderman and AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CARRBORO LAND USE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THAT AN UNDISTURBED VEGETATED SETBACK MUST BE LEFT ALONG ALL CARRBORO TRANSITION AREA II PROPERTY BOUNDARIES BORDERING LANDS DESIGNATED PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AREAS ON THE JOINT THE BOARD OF ALDERIh EN OF THE TOWN OF CARRBORO HEREBY ORDAINS:USE AREA LAND USE PLAN SECTION 1. Section 15-184 of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance is hereby amended by adding a subsection (m), to read as follows: (m) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)or (b), ro r ' located in Carrboro Transition Area II,and zoned R-R shall be required to maintain a 100 foot undisturbed,naturally vegetated setback along an common boundary line with properties designated Rubkcrinte D•any the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. No structures,clearing, or utilities R public/Private CS pace ate shall be permitted within this setback. Areas on SECTION 2. All provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance are repealed. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners,of LUP-6-89,an amendment the Joint Planning Land Use Plan to change the designation of the 400 foot strip of Rural Buffer located between Carrboro's Transition Area II and Duke Forest to Transition Area II;and 2-4- Transition Area II properties from Rural Buffer to R-R (Carrboro Rural new Residential). Rural The foregoing ordinance,having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this the day of 1989. AYES: NOES: _ ABSENT OR EXCUSED: 5 JO/NT PLANNING ITEMS FROM APRIL 6 - STATUS REPORT ENVIROTEK Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial Chapel Hill Town Council Deny Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial Carrboro Board of Aldermen Deny Orange County Planning BoardMay 15 Orange County CommissionersJune 5 CAM= INC. Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval Chapel Hill Town Council • Approve • Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Denial • Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve • Orange County Planning BoardMay 15 Orange County CommissionersJune 5 CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Denial Chapel Hill Town Council Approve Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve Orange County Planning BoardMay 15 Orange County CommissionersJune 5 ZONING CARRBORO 400-FOOT BUFFER Orange County Planning Board. . .May 15 Orange County Commissioners. . . .June 5 Carrboro Planning Board Recommend Approval . - Carrboro Board of Aldermen Approve GREEN TRACT Orange County Planning BoardMay 15 Orange County Commissioners. . . .June 5 Chapel Hill Planning Board Recommend Approval Chapel Hill Town Council Approve ds/51089 jpastat.doc ammsmnpnazm=wda=gw..___, _ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. ,y Meeting Date: May 16, 1989 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on commissioners' appointed boards and commissions. BACKGROUND: The following recommendation is presented for consideration of appointment: CARRBORO PLANNING BOARD: The Carrboro Board of Aldermen have recommended the appointment of Jane (Mickey) Edwards to fill one of the extra-jurisdictional slots. This position has been vacant since the resignation of Steve Chandler at the end of his term in February. Ms. Edwards term will expire in February, 1992. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides.