HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-24-1982 ' � -��— -- —
��-
* °
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 24, 1982
7:30 P.M.
SUPERIOR COURTROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
A. BOARD COMMENTS
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
4N� 1. Matters on the printed agenda
�~ 2. Matters not on the printed agenda
C. MINUTES March 22nd and April 5, 1982
D. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
1. Rezoning requests
a. Tommy Merritt--from Residential-1 to Neighborhood Commercial--II
b. Paul Kempm--from Residential-1 to Neighborhood Commercial--II
c. Willie J. Wilson--from Agricultural-1 to General Commercial-IV
d. Planning Staff--from Agricultural Residential to Existing Som~
- mwrcial-5 for a portion of the property of Roy Wilkerson
z. Water Resources Task Force Report Amendments to the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance Text and other amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
Text
E. ITEMS FOR BOARD DECISION
1. Addition of Woods Road in Oak Ridge Subdivision to the State Maintained
System.
.
r r
1.
2.
3.
MINUTES
~^
MAY 24, 1982
6.
7. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session Monday
B. May 24, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse,
q° Hillsborough, North Carolina.
10, Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners
Il, Norman Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall , Norman Walker and Don Nillhoit.
12. Commissioner Whitted changed the order of the agenda in order that the
13. public hearing be held first.
114.. D. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
15. Planning Board members present: Chairwoman Pat Crawford, and Members
16. Sally Boericke, Logan Irvin, Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Lunsford and John Wilson.
17^ The Public Hearing was chaired by Ms. Crawford.
18. a. Tommy Merritt Property Rezoning: Mr. Eddie Kirk made the presentation
19, for the Planning Staff (see page for summary of Planning Staff findings).
20" He noted that the rezoning request is in conformance with the Land Use Plan.
21" There were no persons who wished to speak in favor of or opposed to the rezoning
22. request. Mr. Rick Cannity told the Boards that Mr. and Mrs. Robert Vanhook were
23~ unable to be present this evening and had asked that he convey their concerns
24, regarding commercial development of this area at the interection of St. Mary's
25° Road with Highway 70' They prefer that this area remained zoned residential
26, and that commercial development occur along Highway 86'
27, b. Paul Kempa Property Rezoning: Mr. Eddie Kirk made the presentation
28. for the Planning Staff (see page for a summary of Planning Staff findings).
29. Ms. Crawford asked those in favor of the pr0ject to speak first.
30. Mr. Michael Parker--Attorney for Paul Kempa--said the site would not
31, perk and was unusable for almost anything except a commercial venture. He said
32° access would be limited to Palmer's Grove Road.
33, Those opposed to the proposed rezoning spoke in turn.
34, Mr, Harris--Chairman of the Eno Advisory C ounc il is opposed to the
35^ latitude permitted in rezoning property. He preferred to have this considered
36, as a Planned Development where the individual who owns the property could carry
37° out his plans but not have commercial activity.
38.
19.
. .�
.` �
C.R. Laws+-Said he lives next door to the lot proposed for rezoning
and he is opposed to it. He cited the intersection as dangerous and he is
opposed to a business being located there.
Larry Turner--Pastor of Wayside Baptist Church--Cited the problem with
the traffic and said he and the residents want the neighborhood to remain
residential; they don't want it rezoned.
Sally Fedder--Own forty acres across from the Wayside Church. She
said she eventually plans to live there and that the proposed rezoning would
be detrimental to her property. There are presently no "unpleasant businesses."
Orrin Pilkey--A nearby resident--Said this was a dangerous curve, that
the traffic is bad and the accident rate here "must be one of the highest"
in the State. He feels that the intersection needs to be redesigned and suggested
that the accident rates be checked. He also asked that the residential status
be maintained and that commercial zoning not be permitted.
Carl Irvin--A landowner of adjoining property--Said that he and his
parents (who also own adjoining land) are opposed to the rezoning request.
Annie Hook--Said that her mother's property was across the road from
the lot in question and she does not desire, nor does her mother desire, com-
mercial development in the neighborhood.
Flora Garrett--A resident of Route 4, Eno Township--Asked that the rezoning
be denied for all the reasons given thus far. That the intersection is danger-
ous; that the access on Palmero Grove Road is on a steep hill and needs to be
redesigned to be suitable; and, local people are opposed to those who don't live
there opening businesses there.
L.L. Cates--Cited others (Adams, Ward, Hutchinson) who are also property
owners in the area and all, including himself, are opposed to the rezoning.
Michael Parker--The Attorney for the Paul Kempa Property rezoning request--
Said there were two commercial establishments across the road and that the traffic
was not as great here as at the intersection of 70 and St. Mary's Road. He
asserted that the site was appropriate for commercial rezoning and asked that
the Planning Department's recommendation be approved.
Sharlene Pilkey--Lives at Route 4, Box 46--Spoke to the accidents that
had occurred over the past seventeen years. She compared it to Hillsborough
Road in Durham which she said had been spot zoned and said she doesn't want it
to turn into a like situation. She is opposed to any more commercial zoning
U \ ()^9
`� �
.!"� '
zoning on this road.
Helen Laws--Lives at the intersection--She cited the wrecks and said
that she had been late to work this morning because a car was wrecked in her
fence. She is opposed to the rezoning.
Jim Polatty--Planning Director--Told the Boards that the Planning Staff
had recommended the rezoning because the intersection is identified as a com-
mercial activity node one the Land Use Plon,
Steve Ubans--A resident of Hillsborough--suggested that the Planning
Department examine how neighborhood nodes were chosen when this one had such
opposition from the residents.
Carey Pilkey--A resident--Said he had lived in the neighborhood for
fourteen years and the area was too dangerous for another business.
There were no others who wished to spebk either for or against the
rezoning'
c. Willie Wilson Property Rezoning: Mr. Eddie Kirk made the presentation
for the Planning Department (see page for those recommendations).
There was no one who wished to speak in favor of the rezoning; those
who are opposed spoke next.
Harold Bridges--Presented a petition from the property owners in the
neighborhood requesting that the rezoning be denied. They feel that the rezoning
doesn't fit into the Land Use Plan. A copy of that petition is on page
of this book and on permanent file with the proceedings of this meeting.
d. Roy Wilkerson Property—Mr. Eddie Kirk made the presentation for
the Planning Department (see page for a summary). Ms. Crawford asked
that those in favor of the rezoning speak first.
Alois Callemyn--A surveyor--said that Mr. Wilkerson asked that the
entire 6.5 acres be rezoned EC-5 rather than the smaller parcel that Planning
was requeyting. He said it would be a hardship on Mr. Wilkerson if the entire
lot wasn't rezoned.
Jim Polatty--Planning Director--Said that the Planning Department had
overlooked this business when the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance were being
formulated and that during that process, where businesses already existed, the
business was zoned EC-5. He added that the area the Planning Department wanted
rezoned included the three buildings on Mr. Wilkerson's property.
Alois Callemyn-8aid that the majority of Mr. Wilkerson's equipment was
U \ U80
stored outside and it wasn't possible to store the equipment inside a building,
Dan Collins--Route 3, Hillsborough—Spoke in favor of the rezoning request.
He said Mr, Nilkersun's business had been there for years.
Jim Polatty--Told the Boards that all the outside storage had been con-
sidered in the rezoning and was included in the rezoning request for Mr, Wilkerson's
property.
Ms. Crawford askeq that the Planning Department recheck this question.
There were none who opposed the rezoning request who spoke.
Mr. Merritt asked to clarify a point on his request to rezone from
Residential-1 to Neighborhood Commercial-II. He said the parcel was 4'17 acres
and he was only requesting rezoning of 1 acre.
2, WATER RESOURCES TASK FORCE/OTHER AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE &
TEXT.
Mr. Fred Luce, Planning Staff, addressed the water quality remarks
contained in the Water Resources Task Force Report. He noted a potentially
similar situation to the Mississippi River pollution existed in our area with
the drainage of the Haw River into the Jordan Lake. He cited four classes of
pollutants and noted that the How drained a heavily urbanized industrialized
area into the Jordan Lake. He said the Water Resources Task Force Report
found that water quality generally was of good quality in Orange County and one
of the goals is to divert detrimental development from the watersheds and to
place controls on the development that does occur in the watersheds to insure
good water for future generations.
Ms. Susan Smith, Planning Staff, reviewed the seventeen recommendations
contained the the Water Resources Task Force Report and noted the changes, if
any in each.
Mr. Polatty explained the other amendments suggested for the Zoning Ord-
inance Text. (All suggested amendments and the recommendations of the Water
Resources Task Force Report are on pages of this book.) Mr. Polatty
cited a study done by the Center for Urban and Regional Studies in Chapel Hill ,
noting some of the lessons learned from eight case studies around the country
regarding water supplies'
Ms. Crawford called for public comments on the zoning text amendments.
Josephine Barbour--Raised several points of contention. She voiced her
concern over public access of the greenways; questioned the definition of a water-
,
KVy 4 1.
shed; she said the buffer strips under the Flood Protection Ordinance had
caused a loss of land; she suggested an adjustment to taxes for Orange County
citizens; she feels there is a lack of consideration shown for industry; and
is concerned about the size of watersheds, She feels the public did not have
sufficient input into the Water Resources Task Force Report and that a County
Commissioner should not Chair such a group.
Ben Lloyd--Member of the Water Resources Task Force and Board of Directors
of the Orange Alamance Water System. He says he is concerned about water quality
and supply' Mr. Lloyd addressed the recommendations individually. #1--he
questioned whether or not that would affect the transfer of water from Jordan Lake
to Orange County if necessary; # 4--he said no park sites were considered as
reservoir sites, specifically Eno Park; #5--he said Eno River should be consid-
ered; # 8--said that Mcdowan Creek basin is his home andit'sa rural area and
that development could safely occur in watersheds; #I0--c1ted Efland Estates as
an example where sewage problems must be addressed; # 11--with regard to Cheeks
Township being zoned, he said they don't like the Zoning Ordinance as written and
would prefer a more acceptable form; # 12—he said no ordinance should control
the amount of land owned; # 14—He said an on-site waste disposal was precisely
what is being planned for Efland Estates and that sewage should be dealt with
all over the County.
Conoissioner Hillhnit responded to Mr. Lloyd: Park sites had been considered as
as reservoir sites; that Efland Estates had been declared an imminent health hazard
necessitating prompt response and therefore, the proposed use of a package treatment
plant was not inconsistent with recommendation # I4'
'
Logan Irvin--speaking a citizen and owner of land in the watershed--
complimented the Board of Commissioners on the Water Resources Task Force Report.
Rather than exempting minor subdivisions from development within watersheds, he
suggested empowering the Board of Adjustment to consider hardship cases. He
voiced concern over the proposed Cane Creek Reservoir, saying that farmland
needs to be saved too. He suggested perhaps drinking water from University Lake
and flushing toilets with water from Jordan Lake.
Everett Billingsley--Director of ONAIA-6aid this was an excellent report
from the Water Resources Task Force. He rend each recommendation aloud and said
in summation that the County and 0WASA must be bold in order to protect the children
of the future. (Clerk's note: Mr. Billingsley has provided me with a written copy
of his remarks and they are on file in this office with the agenda for this meeting.)
01042
DavidBlaha--of the Triangle J Council of Governments--said the Council
in general support the findings of the Report. He said rapid growth was pro-
jected for Orange County and a compromise would be needed between industrial
developers and private landnwnem.
Josephine Barbour--Wished to comment on the Cane Creek Watershed--
She said that the dairy activity in that watershed caused it to rank 6th among
100 counties in dairy production. She suggested above ground water storage tanks.
She protested the presentation of the document (the Report) to the COG before
the citizens of Orange County had commented on it.
Susan Smith, Planning Staff, said the Town of Hillsborough had approved
the Water Resources Task Force Report with no dissenting votes.
Mr. Rick Cannity, Planning Staff, reviewed the proposed amendments to
the Articles of the Zoning Ordinance and explained the amendments when queltioned
by members of the Boards.
With no further public comments on the quarterly joint public hearing,
it was adjourned.
Following the joint public hearing the Board of Commissioners proceeded
with its regular agenda.
A. Board Comments
There were no Board comments on the agenda.
B. Audience Comments
There were no audience comments on the agenda.
C. Minutes
The Board delayed action on the approval of the minutes until the next
meeting.
E. Woods Road--Oak Ridge Subdivision
Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to
approve the addition of Woods Road in the Oak Ridge Subdivision to the State
maintained Secondary Road System. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O.
With no further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Villhoit
moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to adjourn t 5
Ric ard E. i ed, Chair
Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk
• INDEX.
MAY 24, 1982
SUBJECT ACTION PAGE
Joint Pub. Hrg. w/ Plann. Bd.
Tommy Merritt Property Referred to P1. Bd. 1
Paul Kempa Property 11
1-2
(Pub. Comments pages 1-3)
Willie Wilson Property 11
3
Roy Wilkerson Property it
3
Water Resources Amend./other Amen.to
Zon, Ord,
3-5
Woods Road to St. End, Rd. System approved 5
' - • ' ' •
01043
ORAE COUNTY
E0i-IRD Caq01ISSIONEPS Action Agn.da
NO
ACTION AGE2MA ITE-1 Aus,Tr.,.Acr Item .0-la.
DATE Hay
24 , 1982
Subject; Request by Tommy Merritt for a Rezoning from R-1 (Residential-1) to
NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial II) .
[ CepamtslEnt: PLAUNING Public Hoaxing: x Yes
Cs): Rezoning Application pg.1 InfOrnlatiCri C°ntaCt: Jim Polatty
Rezoning Checklist pg.2, Location Map pg.:
Letter from the town of Hillsborough pg.4 Plr12 Ntrtmer: 732-8181 Ex-t.342 •
1:. PURPOSE: To receive input and comments concerning an application
for a rezoning from Residential-1 (Rrl) to Neighborhood
Commercial-II (NC-2)
NEED: The applicant has requested a Neighborhood Commercial-II
designation for a zoning lot of 44,250 sq. ft. This lot is
located on Highway 70 near the intersection of state road 1002
(Saint Mary's Road) and U.S. 70, in the Orange Rural Fire
District. The property is shown on Hillsborough Township
Tax Map 22 Block 0 part of Lot Pl. The traffic counts
in this area are 6250 daily trips on Highway 70 and 1600
trips on Saint Mary's Road.
IMPACT: The intersection of Highway 70 and Saint Mary's Road is
designated as a Commercial Transistion Node in the Land
Plan. The NC-2 District allows appropriate type develop
ment according to the Land Use Plan. The 4 acre tract
has Orange County Health Department approval for a septic
tank installation. The impact of this request on traffic
conditions would be moderate. The zoning on the remainder
of the tract should not be changed unless the request is
handled under the Planned Development section of the Zoning
Ordinance. This request meets the following application
criteria for the NC-2 district as set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance. It is located within areas designated by the
adopted Land Use Plan as either a Commercial Activity node
or Rural Neighborhood or Rural Community Activity Node.
Uses would serve a market area population confined to the
immediate area and would generally not serve commuters or
persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. Lot size
for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method
of water supply and sewage disposal. All sites designated
NC-2 shall have direct access to a street classified either
as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted
Land Use Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval because the request
is in conformance with the Land Use Plan and application
criteria for the district requested by the applicant.
^^���� � ,_ ���
, ^ W\ 44i
Hj• /�
_-_- - _ . _ - - _ -
1
-
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
DATE April /37
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Orange County, North Carolina '
gOMMZDGZO0ERD:
The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 22
Block number� c , Lot number 4`17 aFsliowo on_the accompanying plat,
which is presently in a Residential District be rezoned to
NC-2 for the following reasons:
This property is in the southeast quadrant of U.S. Hwy. 76-A bypass
and St. Mary's Rd. The land immediately adjacent on the west side is
retail commercial - convenience store. Property on the opposite side
of U.S. 70-A and St. Mary's Rd' intersection is retail commercial.
The °zo^ert fronts on Hwv, 0-A • , ° ' . 8 a of 32L. no
Applicant wishes to have same opportunity on this
•
signtie Address:
� ■
/r
�/'. l I94�
' �m~ a� o� ,
1Ld . ~ mp. ' ^ �
Hillsborough, m' C.___
_ . _
.. . . ,...
_.......4.0. ..,..r.-,„..,....,-..-..,......,_,....,....+H.:.:....n....i............4.;,..1o,1.......,...4.. ..................1..i.,.:-..4..,,-,..,...,::,......-.a-xi...At:a:,...-.;.:4.-.......t.■..1,,.■43.........r.-.•mer.,......‘4,'"••-•:.%* '. ,.......-.,.....-...-.--.---:,
. .
'ii I',..)4 6-
....
,.„
t."---
'4'..... 2
- -
›
› 6 0 p. H Ha H CI c. .1
P. r Pi 0 C) 0
4_,.. ot H. 0 P. 4 0 0
p to rr ro H. 0 Pi
n ri 1,- a .4 5 o a H.
rD ,.... 0 el ■-■• 0 0 a 0
O 0 0 P. -0 1-11 rr y4 a)
rt 0 1,--, 0 C 0
0 0 m a =
.0 1--• Di a
O 0 0 0
rt 0 0 ra 0 H' ,E9 fn
O P. p Oa 0 0
O to Cr F.. 4..q
I-. 0 Cr3 •• 0 0
cri 0 r? Cr Oa
0 0 M "tp.
O to ra H.I I-. Pt
pi, a H. rt rd 0 ID I
5 0 o f-s n .7 H 1_3
H
C) co 0 0 0 71' = C"
0
O 0 co
P. .0 U) Cr
C) PI 0 n m pi
..1,- fa 0 a P. a. DI
4 0 0 01
1
fp " cs to
O it 0 0 ti CI
O. fa Po = I
R., 0 fo C 1N.3 fa
fD rt 0
Z rD H at 0 1.1
rt to 0 0
M il rr
0 H.,
1.... :... P H rt"
O .4 rr 0 r1-
ro 0
7:1 to 0 H
5
G.-4 CT o
• (D fo .. rr to 0
O In En
rt H- c...
O 0+ P 0 0 .......
H. 0 i-.• 0 I-.. PTP
1-, n •.4 1-, a
Cl- I-.- n >
C) H., it n Pt 0
0 0 0 '1 0 tV
rr P
ro " r1 • r4 C
0
)-6
... -
(1) CD HI
' Pi '•-J
., •. .• '
- , rf - 0- , 0 .
.. ,,
- . ,,.,,
, , ,, „
. . " H. . CC 0 n - ' rs• • la- 1-;•. '
Pi • „„
!"""' H" 0 0 .. • 14
1.-, " Cr .g to P X"
H.
O e 0 a P. a- CI H
O 0 0 0 a cn
. 5 1-4 c ki 1-3
• 4 Cr rt. P 0 PI to .
0'. ..4 rr al 0
03' iz 0 0 0
II 0 0 rr X
0
H.. "0 re CC) i‘
0 0
0 rr 0
•0 ,.„:1 0 "
i--.
-. F., . H. Cr
‘-e fl •4 al C
O 0 H - F.,. to
'0 P. 0 0
E
ri P. 0- I-, D •
111 a -
1 H '4" p'''' ()I
CC 7 P. a' 0 <
fo P. 1-...
DI 0... P I,- ••
O n Iv •
1....
CC
O IO Co •
P Co . .
co V .• •
O Cr
0 ....-
Ii) n Ca
O 0
rt Cr ...
H- to
cr' 0 C
0 M
. PT.
it rr
X '4
al
N
w Cia
IN)
C-11
. Cs
. ._ ..
..,
, . 01046
...:---:
.7- r
• - \ 1./ A-----;-i. , 7 ::?..
1
6-3
',7;:.... -... . 1.-
....--
A„.„. ,,,,1 i
/
,,...„,„,,--y. 4 . 1 l ..
,....."!:7"?' ,,W "L%Cl rPi ‘,WI it
q Jei.,,,;;,....),„„!NrA MACE PC:. eli. ,, t.44 1. ,.......,..,
\
1 y i 3 P...„)::......--=,..--- ‘,07-
........4-0 -r \i'.. \- .......,„7 ?' t'^'14; • '.••••••
;— P• 7>c:-. 1 "1
1G' 1-1:74-.LSkR01)GH 0 I,:er5I lgorpor4ttyt;\ .,- ill
v71. I
i 17... 1 ■ k :-.1
r INV.• , 0." '-1(, i
- f 4
I.
n t
/4,-*JPag UL.I x,7 cr
4
C. $., I g Ilt.i 111. i 'CC! ti= 1 i
' V'1\ 4000
I tlfanSiri RI r , '1 u5.70 „... ,..,.
01
.. I
.... . /
0,4.rl _.......,........
II
i,. /•.:43
....` ."" .... :
cL...b.1
,,,-----------.. „„..-------
,...
i
, ..
, .
...
...,
.......„ ./.......'''''''''
.r.,, .....„
\.
CV Cr
... .
. .
I/i/ C) .... '
/
,...
,f,\.i
l';' ......-m'---.7-'----"7"-. . ........----*” -.,------ ....,-- ..........-...---.—
"-- . ‘00,1
.---------- SCAS. ,
-...---'
. r.-------- ....---------
-...----- .,------"-----A \
.I
..„,,,......---- ---------‘1-* %---‹ *--;::\AP
\/ --,-:- .-------.'-'-''''.--
TOMMY MERRITT REZON ING
...
/ 4
. /
/
:j fj:,16
I 40
h .
i 0 ■ _
.. , A
I/S Atilli ,,,
• N . \
0 Cs- i IY'r
. 1
h,11' N N ....• - (7,'P
/r/
- , I% ----______N. c-... ,,. ‘1)
.1 \,.. , IA,\ >, ,......_
CP -------NZ"------„......Ci NI -
--VI
/
2 - QY /
4, a
• -7,-, . 5 A
Q 2/ I
6 y
i,q Q
/ */
\,..... s., \ • ttco - .----,_
‘ .... --7. (V • f fl
/
.. k '4 -'- ■ yz.
/ if l'' 0 4v
/ _/
•.::)‘c\ ty
/ c f/1 ' il C •
cr3 \ 4 \ sk A \ii.9 , v ,4-
--4-. . -%., IAA (?)
N
4.1 - I Y3 1■4. ' /
,jd" q a:
'
KV
*: -% \ \'J ////I ./e•ri \N. - .
\ ' 4 c') ;• -
\04T-
'1
\/ //
......,,„ , . ,,. ■ •L' y ,1/4Q
\ ti ‘
a r /
/
\Ce 1- 4/o
/
:.- . \ • ■ N . % \1 ‘kt \ S ■.'
. ...-... -. -
) / ikkRk tk- X,,
/ .
1.1 /
/ • % Lt \, k
:: •44.1.7. k.. 41
/ z. . / ,. ,,...
,:-...
,
--,...\-i /
k
''_.=
% ,
K,, , , ', ..
- NE+. , •-1 X
%
ts' /\ \ k k1.1
/ \ . k.. -
\-1
/ . V.
.., ,...
\
t._.)
• ,,
U1U4
;ILI
ORA7NE COUNTY
BOARD OF Ca-MIS-SIGNERS
Action 2k.7=,-.da
Item o. 0-16
ACTION AGENDA rrEm stasTR,?..cr
MEET= DATE May 24 , 1982
Subject: Request by Paul Kempa for a Rezoning from Residential-1 (R-1)
to Neighborhood Commercial-II (NC-2)
Dopartment: PLANNING Public Hearing: yes no
AttaChTent(s) : pg.). rezoning Application IdfOrMatiCri Cbmt.aCt: Jim Polatty
pg.2 rezoning Checklist
pg.3 Tax Map Phone Ntrar: 732-8181 Ext. 342
T-
C
PURPCSE: To receive input and comments concerning an application
for a rezoning from Residential-1 (R-1) Neighborhood
Commercial II (NC-2)
NEED: The applicant has requested a Neighborhood Commercial-II
designation for the 2.3 acres involved in this request.
This lot is located at the northwest intersection of U.S.70
and S.R. 1562 (Palmers Grove Road) in the Orange Rural Fire
District. The property is shown on Eno Township Tax Nap
21 as lot 31. The traffic ociunts in this area are 6300
daily trips on Highway 70 and approximately 325 trips on
Palmers Grove Road.
IMPACT: The intersection of Highway 70 and Palmers Grove Road
is designated as a Rural Neighborhood Node in the Land
Use Plan. The NC-2 district allows appropriate type
development according to the Land Use Plan. The impact
of this request, if approved would be moderate, when
considered with the existing commercial use across the road.
This request meets the following application criteria
for the NC-2 district as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
It is located within areas designated by the adopted Land
Use Plan as either a Commercial Activity node or Rural
Neighborhood or Rural Community Activity Node. Uses
would serve a market area population confined to the
immediate area and would generally not serve commuters or
persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. 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. The Orange County
Health Department has denied request for an Lnprovements
Permit on any portion of this property. The last criteria
for an NC-2 district is direct access onto either an
arterial or collector sheet. This property has frontage
on Highway 70.
RECOMMENDATION: The type of development possible on this property is
restricted because of the unsuitability of the subsurface
soil for the installation of a septic tank and drainage
field. Therefore, the amount of traffic generated by
any use on this site should be reasonably small. The
Planning Staff recommends approval.
• 0I 4��
| .1
' -
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
»*T
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Orange County, North Carolina '
COMMISSIONERS:
��
The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Numberf�',ro .Z/ `
Block number Lot number , Shown nn^the accompanying plat,
^�' District be rezoned to
which is presently in a �� —�/ ___--�,
for the following reasons:
7.14-
' . .
/^� 7�' _ �� ,4_57-47 ,~ �° ,:f.":"
7�
---
-'" u 1 0 5 0
■( ' I
.. - -----—---,------— ..... -
2
:...
• tv n > ..4 0-3 ■-3 0 0
P. CD rt 0 0 0 '.4 C
I.. 0 P. x .0 rt =
O 0 rr M I"- 0 ,1 t,
O• la• 0 0 H- 10 0 = ••••
O 0- 0 0••• .0 Hs rr Gr4
I rr ID 1... 0 C
p 0 . 4 t4 =
rr
93 0 ri 0
ri V 0 (z\, 3 66 El
n P. 0 0
ID CO rr
I•H 0 '01 .• 0' sk".... 0
to co rr rr P,
M H (11 03
O 143 CD ..I i-a tt
0 I-a H r0 0 '4
o --
P- n:II 4 ID 1 o.
1.\$•■•,,,, (7, , 1,,
, (...\ En .‘"..„..............\
LI 93 N 0 S••• 4 • • \\*"
f g Ca 1-3 cr c., 0
ti:, 11 1;3
4 rr 0
4) Pi ID C
N. m ... TT ID
CD
rt2 ri N-1
N. ,......" 0..
0 CD
=
.... . 1.4 )0'..,* ,...k.
0
^4.. ...... I-6 PC2t '
fl. 0 --...,.....
- . 0
, , o
, -
. 0 1-n • "-k:CN,,.cl. .0— g
'A ^0
. ',..
1 .\''--.:. ° '
_ , 0,
• - , ,) ro o . c-a
■ o 0
. -. a 0 '0
0
.
4 0 G 9:1- 0- 0
tri
,1 a a o .,
,... ..-.. n (%, 1-1
r. p rr n" 0 0 rt
o
CD a- ..4 rr p g
PP a
ll
ca
. 02
I DI
''.7:1 rr H _IV) rr .1-C.,'4
CJ2 4' 1-* P.,
0 0 0
0
I sl 0 111
/--• .1Z3
..I
N., 'vs .4. 11 *-4 ..c."-•.„. m
-.-) ..) ' k r.- , •G 0 :C.
N.
, \-‘, 4-) .) 0.• 1--' .\ k
h ...z, •J., a. t.,,,, c 1-.^
co ....• 1--.. 1 1:‘ •
k t `11
CD.t ri ...,
CD r-• u, 'l
CD n cl N. '-'■
n o -.
\ ri rr
A 3 B
',..• I::r 0 O \
■ 0 .•-• O
\\ .. ..4. rD p.
. x r
C-.-
In
rr
0 •
I .
04
,
Oi )
i.'.
rl
.......,...;;"4'..1-.,..,...r......,.....,. ...4......-:. .14, ,, ,o,a4irr.I.,,,r....i.rtig.arr.,:.,r,.•-:-•,..z....` .:,,;..........,..,. ....r.,r-or.,....,io..r,,... o..fo.r;-r,,,•-.•.,, ...:...,,,..u.4...............,,-,r.ro.. -"............. ...,,,,......;.4.1..4.4,:....„..,„;,,,,,,,,..,
),.')I.
. . ... . . , .
,--
.: . 3
"....
.-
---..., '".•..........Lty.„,,,i,;;;;;) T.Fc,, ....e) . ..
1
1
..: ,,, • . ,,,,, ,,..„ 1 1-.-..,
.....
..,----,/-/.--..,,'r"',"ti"1 \■-5.%....,V.,-,-,,,,,.,..,.),..q,l.,p„I'=z..).-_'5..,.'IT.G,'.:.r 1.'A
r cs,,I
, '•'.
,)i r
/
....,.t7.5. 7_,,I. ■ "z,„, ..\r,l 2„.,.1,„ Ili „.......... .
. .
,„,„.....----N,:. mamy ",-,7'. .-,ar. •••-..--c., •xt
',;' .«••e. • 'a.=1.41:/:'''./-1 . PepPerti
Irt,, '-• "VI a . '\-`,. ' ‘ '•,,
. , 4;7, '•CI-4,-:.... f
'63.,LP,0 ,4', 0.?""c44f.e'",C!',&.•,.4.17., 6, L.)1...1. \
R3, ar ''''---"'"'"'N, "./-”'''' ...41,tr mi•------- '"--1- "-7--?'9 -. t, I
v .
1-,..1 , ., - --r• --,,,,..,I, :IA
1 ;
, C.‹). "7.,r, I /
-'*\ .•
q..21.*IV
' ,....•,. ,
! A 1 '‘';'.: !.1 ■
--..._ 85 ,r.I.f.' i ,....,...s..-.4..... ,.,..„,...79.e./...
""•*"."---
Plfc.r.f;t:11,74 7..., ..1":;:$.,\■\Z i vamp;,D.
.141't'..'3,i1,;',PS:44:12X''.;,7-7:, /1 IZT"?•••7
L-,•.:1;-2•7 "..;:r2,,-..;V;s•30.-c . .... f....; ‘'\Se. p s. r'—'I
-..„.,,,..,-(:.-T.17-:44;.:,•1=':":',-.- , sal -.
r.-'f....At:ttat-....”1:e.,..T,::i
.1,e/ , •.
.. , , ,. .
...' R.; .,
''''.\\ '•‘F. '-1 '".----1,r,:i• -',.,,,1
''' ...:-!..C. 4 -;---...".;"- ';-, •------11'''';'-'
::-...55 ; .......,-
, .. •
/ r.1.3) . ELF,•.:",a 1
,...,.. ,.... ... .,..,„,
..,
...... , .....N. "...
„..,...., „..0 ..... ...... . ,., , , . , ..... .. ...r.,,:,...,......,
•,
•• % %.„ - Jc..‘
\ ...
''''''',....."2. \.--..-2.--, 41i-t•--- ---; !1 ----'
•,-,-:4-:, ,...• ,••0, , I
...---..-----.... _..:,... .-------:—::• , ., i
F.,.C 40-,,—.s".7'. .-zi,;„,,,1,2- '1......,:%;:'41.,"-4,5• I ,,---s, ..
7:72,-,,,,,••• ,.. •,,.. ••-.7,...eq.:. :: •0•,.. .a ; o n,• .
t.......„.,,, !,;z.',."....,;.;•.\ .s:\ (4 i . i,.-* -:-..ig.;...7,,,,,i•.:---7,---;.,14 ---- I
; k•.7,,....,--... „ ,,, ,1\., v. ..„ -..,./ - ,....sf e..,,1 1 ....._..s.,
- .
• •:, ..• r rt..
.,. .? ...e•-",_„,„...1,..74—..., , ,,,,,-.....4,-, ;-, i---^", ,, ,....., f. , ,X,..
i ': \‘..:./,'*'.\
.D. -....,.,I ,,,,t, ,
'::--, ,-,1 .r4 7--.1 r---...• f \‘ \‘‘ 'r..iq--) I, 1' • '': I ____
s .. f ...1 - ,,; -.....--,. ..:::
,1 t )..,..,,,,;,...ra•--.... r I.`rt":. f I
i-'2.::7-1....., i -,,1.:,...--gi ""•-•/
•-... 'I f t i"'-: 1 Zr3C-3 i ,,i,'.3,,.,_, \.2:7 1 -,i------. 'i 1 13='''':r.. •••-• I
,. • i,7.j r,t ::-iii .....t , \. I -\\ \.;`, '-'-2-,,,,,,,,,,!,---„, • 164,4. ,q 1
•". i''4.1 '-':.o I,".4 .4.' I \„ ',:\ 1
L
-' I 2 li.7-\ i
......",?"-..
S
i ,...1 'i. • "7. ..
; ,.,'\., "":
I 2 "'Z.,7 7,.1 - -1-', ....,■ r , f. : ..^.
--:-fi.r. '.-:;:,,,,:::j -: -1 I■ ..-!"f .„ ....t.,'" - *.."-t •:f, .._.. 1
/:
..,.,...."'",-...--:f....,_ -. ..........,%1 ,.
. *.-...,.,-, ;.--:.:'•..:.... •
- - . ,■;
-;.:::, --:::-:., , ? ::;••; - -; r'
”;...;;....N;';;-...;• '. „_ -',74.47,,«--..::::t.'I .*:‘,..„ . ,I.
r',..11:.7;.., ..:....."..: :I.,-!.? '. .
0....".... •:....'.•:i , .),..,.' • ''''...;:',7,...,...s•-•„--.: ...,
.--..,t- 9•3 1 A.." „ -"-
Z..... .• .. I
. ' e , . ^.*.....'... ... -..I A'
.„.... i ' •..*1:"'.,.'.....,....c.! ,.,,z,,,f i
;..:-...:,..,
--.:: . •.---f *".-,...--„:, ws^--,. ,
M.X, IA AP I 7: 400' i
•••--t.?:‘:'1'.,
PAUL KEMPA REZONING
. _
01052
ti
il
-
la°.Ail
( .,
o
0 .
--7.--
\db
kse
\\CZZI\
9-- %
4 . •c5\.41"---
,is_
. / (
C) \
• 00
t 00-7\
< I •..,_ 0
crts
I0 r. ...4...
%''' •c., - o,
too' jL
4-or
r
00 1
0
1 , 04,4 It
.. 0
,.. ,.
, ..to-, •
,.. ., ..%
, z.... . 4,... o., , ,.... ,. 0
CO Vo
C'N i
C4 %
n Up . 1
/ e 4
1_053
ORA)Z-E COUNT:f
• 1
BOARD OF Ca-241ISSIONE-RS Action 1k:7-nee.
ACTION AGENDA ITal ABSTRACT
r.=. 1-W.:4 DATE May 24, 1982
Subject: Request by Wille J. Wilson for Rezoning from Agricultural-1 to
General Commercial IV (GC-4)
' Public Hearing: x yes F.0
Deloa±1.-17T.Ent: PLANNING
•
---_-__
InfonTation Contact:
Attachment(5) : pg. 1-2 Application Forms, Jim Polatty
Pg. 3 Location Map Phone Ntro] ..r:
•
PURPOSE: To receive input and comments concerning an Application for
Rezoning from Agricultural Residential-(AR) to General
Commercial IV (GC-4)
NEED: The applicant has requested General Commercial-IV (GC-4)
designation for property located in Eno Township off
Craig Road. The property is shown on Tax Zap 17; Lot 13F,
it is a 6.32 acre lot. The property is located on Wilson
Road, a private street.It does not have frontage on a state
maintained road. The Orange County Health Department has
denied an Improvements Permit for this property.
IMPACT: This Proposed Rezoning is not compatible with the Land Use
Plan, because it is not at a node. The intensity of dev-
elopment allowed under the GC-4 designation would be inaptpropriate at this location. The proposed request does
not meet any of the Application Criteria for GC-4 set forth
in the Zoning Ordinance. The criteria are: The site is
within an area designated as either Commercial or Industrial
Transition Activity Nodes, by the adopted Land Use Plan,
in Eno or Hillsborough Townships. Water and sewer mains
exist at the site or are to be made available as part of
the development process or the bat size for individual uses
are appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage
disposal. All property to be designated for new development
under this classification shall have direct access to major
collector streets, as designated by the adopted Land Use
Plan. Rezoning this property would have adverse impact on
adjacent :Residential Property.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request,
because it is not in conformance with the Land Use Plan or
the Application Criteria for the General Commercial-IV Zoning
District.
.,"
ulo54
1
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
DATE
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Orange County, North Carolina
CoMNISSIONERS:
The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number /7
Block number f3, , Lot number (:) , Shown on'the accompanying plat,
which is presently in a p District be rezoned to
C for the following reasons:
.---- /
• id, ;ie
v.),"/ ,
ZA---,0 r — /71- /5 Ze-c-5
1
Si gned: Address:
' ac "/..c
■ .. Y,
......,,,.41,...L."..:.L...'".;''."... .:1.".."1'...."'""........'"."'.2..",";.....- ,.......e......LtArliAd....,........ ,. ..... ......,..... .4'''..'.....-.'...'r.:-. 4,::,,,..-...-,....L....,.......,...-..::..:1,,,t,s.r....,;-
) 1
. ,
-:- 2
-,...
. .....
> cl o > H H H 0 0 -
N. 4 n o 0 p.■ '-< a Z
L. u, 1-, n N. X '10 ,13 2
03 n rr N I-, P ,-1 C1
n rt I--, o 4 5 n .....
a t-, 0 us s-, p 0 N _
4 Cr ID N. r0 rrs rr DI
. rr ra I-. 0 0
0 N Pi N 2
N I-4 0 Pt 1—• C0 0
N N Pi 0 N 4
11 i 4.0 ---. 0
n P. g 1
0 N
ID IC- 74,
-- frS.3 F' N •
in 0 rr rr
ID rt co t;t
o co ID si I-, LI
DS I-, Pi "0 0 ,a
I k
. 0 43 0 C
ID 4• 4. tow -a fts „....\
4 0 10
P. •M P:tv ra r'r kri
C) ri -.., N ID
, ID ID cn
CA NI co -.`■■--3
61 Ei• t-- 0 ,..
ID
(j, \ P.' ....‘-t rs
N
-1 ;,.. ,,fD n
o *-k fr' t,c
4 rr
1 IP fts eX.19 s-fs
il 0 E
03 0 1--.•
cm rr 0 a
a'
ro .. iT CD z.,1
Er; Pi t,i
0.. ,
k's. Cs P .1
I,- C
HI
/--P Cr
1—. ---- 03
14.
rr n P-t ti
. .
- ... ..
nt_' 0 Hi • • 1
. . .
.. - .. . . .. .. ...
. .. . • ' '' Ca" .. — 'Pcl. -; M '`,....- -
. . • ro
' r, rr 9 tfl Fs
;.-., .......--. 4 n _1-3
Pt rr rr as FS P1 .
• ,4 rr CD ID
ID ID CD 4
N., 0 rc rt
C4 0 a)
mi rt cn t--• LAI
F 0 Cl
H N N
•0
o
0 1,1
-.....,, Pi 0
4-4 II 4-4 rs,
0 I--I •• I Z Us
P. N 4 ID
N (
A Pt P. P.
4
r,
1,-
4
4
P. t st
4 0
I-' 4.
0-- r--,
I-,
I CZS.114
A 4
03 ' \ Li
4 0 S--. 0 i
rt ...A. ... (Zs,
11.IZ7 iii,
N _
cn -co F-, ‘ '
el rr
to n 0•1? ' A. , '4
O 0
rt rr
1- 0
rY 4 0 ,.-,, • %.,.
to
x
, . I..
rr i 'VI a NA
1-,
N
43D -4
. ,
• _. _
i.1 .'; :1
^1r -..........----........... .,
7
..ti IN ---'''
i --.,–. ...
( / __
I 1.„,„ /
,..) .0
)
) ‘ .,:z
\\....
.._„,
-Ei ... ,c,....
, I(c..• :.-6....,,... /1 i Z i Zil
t.
ta Lroperryil, 3
a....i *
1%1 tat.P4 i
Iti .3011
U. •
1
A -...„._ ---...
\ 1
i a
V
'1/41) :
......3
p.
a
. '
a
C. 3
...-"\,,,i•••••••••--.........._.--„,„„,......-------.....„,,,,i/ „,,fiatti,,,..,
X/".."
a
fie ..._ •r. ce:7.0 P.D.
....'
„.........--a. ''::"..„-•,.,- 670 c'",,,c1.7;-* - ---;,5,.
a
I '
,te.\ ,... ...../
i
,– , "' 1
--i r — eri, ) 1 =4000
,.. "-:,-----,.-■ ,... , ,, 4
— .-.........C...--........ ..—
...--.............------.
:t.
. '•\ 't i
if tt,_-• ' 1.Y%ti I
t . i I,:•" ' %,1,-; , i
„ ' :7 '', .Z.'i1.-••'—7,, -,,,7:7,--..-t,,,,,,,,.., ?.
.• . ', .1„-.3; •"I':,.....,:...,:„.•,..":-N,0..--,;.".:
,-
i . f."..:,, ,:,:•\•„ i :,,:-,,
t ■ „;./ N.,.:,.-4 i
?..' ' \1?..:1s,'..:...:1...t ,-■,, , 1 0
1 !;:
_1...—. ,'32,3. _1 ,12 ...
1 , --: .:. li:.37 1 -::r"...k.--'\,,t,•,:,-, c',:;f.1:-,.f____•,.,-..--/.1-0
1. .' 'r;•-•,:. :.;.... .I. ; -,..,,,•-•1;1,'....2,,-,.I \ "7,-;..... ^ :
1'''•- .• -
1 t
., ;,.'^. '
..,,,,, ,..---' s--_•_ ; - .,
I It
•1 s1
' ‘ 1 I I ttf t % — 't, ' --..,— : ..-1\
' ' ' rtii:1 ' 19,", t.,....--, • C.)
t -
. 1 '.■ .,■,,,,,...1-_-- — :!..::r„...., • 'S.
1 *, 1, ,,--,,,-;.••"t1". '4------- .....-7.-4, , .f, ; . t i
------",••..- • - 41 3 1
•,-1 .- ,....--.L.-"----"--'-r- , ,! ;
I , c...„,„, !,.4,1.- . i
i..,-- f.. i - ';:••-..„' :, 11;":-.4i•.-.`. t i
I . i
-'
. - .
... i
.
., .:..;j ' •,""/,.% . 1 i'.■:,. .. i
fr
).-...--t - . - :7 ■ • I '1 '... ., i
{ ,C7.F:., . l.. ...... ,, .•-.' '' i
33 . ,
`-;::.,;:,.) •
-7 ' r -11 ' \.4:: "1",'71-'7
,,,
' ‘ 1
I .
:
• t,
.,/ , • t
___...,.
ltii„d
-....-.....-.___
(''' 1400` r ,
t ,tp I
■ "TA..X■ fAh...P' 1 CI
WILLIE J. WILSON REZONING
\ ..
0 0?...a)1E COUNT(
EaariD O CCMISSIONEIRS Action il,13naa.IThI ACTION AGE IesTrocr Item No. 0-id
P1,..1.t.VEA, DATE May 24, 1982
Subject: Request by Planning Staff for a Rezoning from A-R Agricultural Residential
to EC-5 (Existing Commercial-5) on a portion of Roy WilIcerston'sProperty.
Cipart.17aInt: PLANNIUG PUblic HeAring: X Yes •17-0
•
..At .17rmEnt(S) : Rezoning Application pg.L laromation. CiOrit.aCt: Jim Polatty
Rezoning Checklist pg, 2
Tax Map pg.3 Phone NIM'iner: 732-8181 Ext. 342
PURPOSE: To receive input and comments concerning the Planning
Staff's recommendation for a rezoning from Agricultural
Residential (AR)
NEED: This existing commercial use is located in Hillsborough
Township and is shown on Tax Map 5 Block 8 P/0 Lot 4.
It is an Highway 57 north and is within the Orange Rural
Fire District. This commercial use was overlooked when
Zoning was originally applied to Hillsborough Township
on September 2, 1981.
IMPACT: All existing commercial uses in unzoned Township were
given the appropiate zoning classification when Zoning
was applied in SeptemLr of 1981. Since all other
commercial uses were designated, the Planning Staff
feels the Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) designation is
appropriate for this use also.
RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of the EC-5 designation
for a zoning lot of500 ' x 300' on Wilkerson's property.
U1.058
.1
F
1
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
DATE flay 10, 1982
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
•
Orange County, North Carolina
COMMISSIONERS
The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 5
Block number B Lot numberpart pc 4 0 Shown on-the accompanying plat,
which is presently in a A-R District be rezoned to
EC-5 , for the following reasons:
The existing commercial use was oyerlooked when zoning was adopted in Hillsborough
Township.
•
Signed: Address:
Orange County Planning Department Orange County courthouse, Hillsborough, N.C.
. . , .
,... . , . . .■., .-, '• "
. .,...',.'::4r.'.',...., ....,-,,,,......-...4..,..-Tti...,,,,,..al.cxaorcibi44.:•.,'....V..........14:4,1,...4-1,4,-....,,C3........,,,-,.............. .,:-.,,,,....',.a.V4...........,.....,„............--,,,....,.. ..'i...:-4.-/ ''',.• • ..................,.................:,..4.Z.,...
' . ()a ').''Til
I).j;),I
• -
- 2.,
• )-3 Ca rD -
7- H
= =4 -
n P- $
8 1-1 0
O 0 rr P I" (D ti tta
n 11 p- sn
n CA 1J- 0 0
CD CD. -0 rD r tn
in rr lo I-. 0 a ii t3 Z
rr 0 P
Pi .0 1-P p rr I--' ro 0
n 0
P.., C3 0 r% 0 0 1-1- ,El
et 0 ra u-; p 0 •
rr n P. DI 01, •C1 .
p. 0 03 •• C.'
En co rr rr co H
Ito Pi 0 CC
Pi 0 01 ra ftl
.1 1•W 1.4. B 0 0 11 .....n qa w
‘.0
CD ma 1"
0 P. P. .2
"
0 3 0 D:a DI r
Da P. 0 •ci CD rr 74-
O C)
m hi 0 so. PA 1.1
O co
R 0 g °' en
to Cl 0
, tn to z
qq. 1•'• r1 0
....CI
, (D• H• 0 r-q Ul C.' 1/1 . %n
ri
rr ›.' P (D C
5 1-3 •
co
p M 0' rl 10 rr
(-. to ri co rt p (c1
• 0 >. 0 P" Di
N ' 4 IT 0 11
p, in 0' co 9 ril 0 0
C 0"
02 0 I" 0
S P.— • CID rr 0 Cr
Ch 0 rr P " rl' (0 •
CD rr m rt C-4
• r" 0. . ra
' 41
ro In p 'Ini P 0
H H P. 0 it rt.
DI 0 1-.. cor• el- . •=:.
CD ,C /"
I,. 0 0
P. CD ri sra 'fl Pt • i ,
0 • ri ; • tl .
, ..
-, - (.,. , 0' - rri ' Cr 0 . .r7 en . . .
al- m - ..•0 '' :, 03
. . . .
. .
.. -
. -
, -
, ,, • 0 0 0 ca... - C' _.
o a C) '.0
• n rr CD 0 4 .-.—
1,- CD 0 C 1.•• C-•
.4 0 a P. P. CI }-... P-s
CD
P 0 0 1-1
P-1. tr: 0 rt ol cra
P-3
P ft rr 0 Ca r; tr
Pi p• :n.4 rr P SD a
O 10 0 C PI -
rt DI 0 0
W 0
X 0
.c1 rr cn (-- 1.-•
O 0 a Cl 0 ■-•
O rr 'V rr 0
Pt 0 .,0 i-'•• 0. 2:
I.-.
•-4 14 .-4 • C CI
0 H ••• CO •
P. 132 0 n ro
Pt P- 0-
0
1-, - < 0 0
CD 4( 1-.. er' °
0 0. 1--. '1
p. 0 C I-'- ° CD
1- 0
q D3 ' 1...a H (1(
CD 1-• m
P LO ID cl P-'
Pi
0 Co po
t:P IT
I
CD cuS11 pi
"- r.
co n co o 0,
Pt rr 0
1-.-
Di B 0 •
o• p 0
10 • ° 0 o
• 1-'" 1-1 .
LO rr 01
X I rr ,i
, i'• H. 0
CD 0 rr
r: M r"
1•'•
2
0
co
. . ;
„.
\ U1060
.. ' - •
, - .., '.•,...).:...i„
J./
1 ...:/).
,
. .. .
1 ...
71
$,
0
80.61 AC.
. .
Li ,cepi 1
.--.
- "
r /
;14 .,„.t4,•7-irrolF,,i,
E.' l •-.41; ..,,,,,,--,,,r-.id , ,
. .
_
::., :.,,,,,,u, ..„4„,
.000
, ..i.:..J.-,.;•..-1:*".-.z.4. 1745it
--.... I ..
r —
D. — J 1 1
I 1
..--' LO 5813 •
I 1
.---
1
/ -...
k$ 5.07 AC. 1 1
i / ..
..-______ ............,_
-------.
.-. ...„. -...t.--.,...-. 60*,Iv I 1
.... ...„-----------„,-..... w $
......._._ --..---- ..... .,...--='------:-...,..... i
0 I'' '"1 .... .
------....„ ---.."0 ......„___. --......
'',1---- 4 . [ ----------.°....1
$ f
.-•""--'' ''''c, ..1 ‘St77 -- 45,22 AC, 1
e /// / /1
, v
I
. ,
k.1
.. i ,
. 1•..i
7 "*" • '
NO4 __.NRKE --- --- ,siltvz...„
...............'''"...-/1.' 155
, 4 1....._
• ,
, ,1
LB •
; - ,i
•.
•
SE I
MAP 5B .1
‘ `,k (WILKERSON I i!
.:\ '\ •.l 4 CRES)
\\ ---j•-\--—1 ,
•--,, ,,,, '' .----*-- 04
-,--
:,',5: (---\\,. \ „-2.-1-240.- e „..-'-•
4.67 AC. i
—
.." i j
- '■ i Ac..: ?, "kk .4--- -. I.-9' -
' ■ ....:1 —\ 9soanRg...,,,,14-?*„.7,7:.
....
..... .7f,-,,,,12 j-1 2 AC„-z5 T q A -*1 5838 —
t '.4 t I
-..I-..)\ 1. a /
\ ' K7' " " .. /
278 AC \ I C.
I - i$
0 / •
.....":1. ,..§-f, • $ /
,..0.-.0-t- _, (:-..1-•ri"
Wco 3.50AC,/ I
„re../.'47.',----•-: C-13''''CT 'N 10A\ • i
.. 03# "1 ,1 -
\"*.7:'. 1-%.- :248=Lr" 1= /1
,y.,-,...,-,...e,... - ..\ \ , z , ., ..
.98 -
tinre5 !....... A .1. 1 .. ,rr,c II I/ -..,
. _.
1 ' - u lii 61
,
iAL Wilher5017
:J i S 5;0
\\..„.........._
\ 87-42-4/E —
732.42 total
7,--
163 82. (.115M." 86/ 75 .:
• ' :3:2/ , '
\ E./.7
25.00 .."3
.fl
.'■:-.1
,,., 0 ____,,,,, ti■
"..): ... 11 ..7 • 9 oe• .,:, 11 a ek: 4
\;') 0(94 oc.,_ • 61. •C 0 1.1Z:1
li
,$) .
...
01°Ci 1° COV.; / . q.
-.• /28.se' Mr" 23.2.765' //5‘6 Rt.
At .,
-.--- .
N 8747-28 W I 527:88' Iola/ 0,
I RA88/T Di:F/VE (private./ '.91
/
N 87-17-2.9 W 3.43.341 tkol I i / CO'
..„) 142.00' -... .
5ZO
i 2
•0°
0 NOTE A cess to/ s7.4171-,. .' .
kri is to b.-lrom btnt On .1,
' I
19. I/ ' 157oc. /
,'
i
) 4' I I
.„at;
1
Z..11 / /i
c•
-... ,
375591
.K..
‘153.49-51W 7009 In NC.-27.. -5.W/
5-.72-09-08W 34,23 „..01 Ifi
1/
son 4:,
0/ S / :;I
1 1
1 .
0
$.1
VS
0 Ki-.• 140 oc.
k4
CO /
'3 i 1 C/ s
.
q
b.,.
——1‘
0 4'873. 37N, .
CNOTE-Access to
.011141 11ns lot is M be ,i
from Rock/Lone, ...N.
, 40
1.22= -lc,.
cd I 610
...
1
, 5°1145/C
eN q /
o°.031 /
AP' •
--------- =Armor_CORNER
7 „vac-85_1a, )
5‘6 1
e. ROCA,Le. . a-03,,e,1r
'-, I
i
of ..t..//•
5 670/1 I
(
603 ".---■-..-...._...\_.___________7
r /
...„. ,.
., .
0.. , .
-,. ,...
/ 41,
. ...:,
i.
..?
:
1 ,
I
U1062
CRAI.ZE CCU=
13,00 CF ca2;1issraNERs Action
Item No.D-2
ACTIO:NI AGENDA 1=4 ABSTPACT
1,1:: TNG DATE May 24, 1982
rr
Subject: Proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text
•
Public Haaring: x yes no
D=.pa=tment: PLANNING
•
Attacbslent(s) : Text pages with under- Idformation ConteCt: Jim Polatty
lined amendments
Phone NEVENBr: 732-8181 Ext.342
(7 PURPOSE: To receive input and comments on proposed text changes
in the Zoning Ordinance.
NEED: The proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance Text are
intended to make the application of certain districts
more specific, allow the County manager to certify
that conditions for Planned Developments and Special
Use Permits have been met, and to implement some of
the recommendations of the Water nesources Task Force
Report on Watershed protection.
IMPACT: The changes to Article 4.2.19, Economic Development
District are more specific about the application
criteria of the district than the existing wording.
The proposed addition of Article 4.2.27 Protected
Watershed II (PW-II) District would implement some
recommendations on watershed protection. It will
be applied to all watersheds except the urban portion
of UcGowans Creek as designated by the Land Use Plan.
The proposed change in 6.3.1 would be more specific
than the existing wording about where and how duplex
units would be allowed. Another change in 6.3.1
would require all new lots, have frontage on state
maintained road or a private road built to Orange County
private road standards. The changes to Article 8.5
would allow the County Manager to certify that the
conditions of a Planned Development or Special Lot
Permit have been met.
3ECOMMENDATIONS;
. .
. _
;.■ ' ,a14■1•.,
Mt 3
in the adopted Land Use Plan (at the time of the application
of the zoning ordinance tb previously unzoned Townships) .
4.2.13 RESERVED
4.2.14 RESERVED
4.2.15 RESERVED
4.2.16 Office/institutional (WI) District
a) Intent
The purpose of the Office/Institutional (0/I) District is to
provide locations for medium intensity office and institutional
land uses and to function as a buffer between conflicting Land
use situations.
b) Application Criteria
This district will usually be applied where the following
conditions exist:
1. Site is located in areas designated by the adopted Land Use
Plan as Commercial Transition or Industrial Activity Nedes.
2. Site would provide a buffer or step down in intensity of
land use from a commercial use in a Neighborhood or Community
Activity Node.
3. Generally, these areas should have water and sewer mains
existing at site or are to be made available during the development
process.
4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned to this 0/I
classification shall not exceed five acres.
5. Vehicular access must consist of direct access to a street
classified either arterial or collector as designated by the
adopted Land Use Plan.
1
4.2.17 RESERVED
4.2.18 RESERVED
4.2.19 Economic Develooment (ED) District
a) Intent
The purpose of the Economic Development (ED) District is to
provide locations for a wide range of low intensity industrial,
_ . ,
•
U U 6 4
institutional, office and research uses with no adverse impacts
beyond the space occupied by the use. The Economic Development
District shall always be designated in close association with
the Federal Interstate Highway System.
b) Application Criteria
This district will!' usually be applied where the fallowing
conditions exist:
1. Site is located adjacent to a Federal Interstate Highway, with
direct access to either an arterial or collector road, and within
1.5 miles of an interchange on the interstate system.
(I 2. The site is located outside of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro rural buffer
areas.
3. The site is located outside the area desi. ated on the Land Use Plan
Map as Rural Buffer.
4. All lots shall be a minimum of 10 acres, and all lots shall have
frontage on the interstate or on the collector/arterial street.
5. No uses shall be located in a designated water supply watershed.
6. All operations other than loading or unloading, ould be conducted,
entirely within the building or buildings.
7. Urban services, such as water and sewer mains, are desirable, but ,
not required if acceptable alternatives are available.
4-7A
" ,}11111bZ3
Original Nov. 24, 1981
Revised Dec. 1, 1981
Proposed Watershed Zoning Amendments Revised Jan. 18, 1981
Revised Nay 6, 3,981
Public Hearing :lay 24, 1081
4.2.26 RESERVED
4.2.27 Protected Watershed II (Pti-II) District
a) Intent
It is the intent of Orange County to regulate the uses of land
and structues in watersheds which drain to reservoirs sunoly-
ing drinking water to the people of :/range County. The quality
of water in these water supply watersheds can he affected by
the activities of man including farming, construction of highways
and rural subdivisions and the growth of towns and industrial
development. Types of water pollutants resulting from these
activities include sediment, bacterial contamisation. heavy
metals, synthetic organic compounds and low-level radioactivity.
A '.ask force appointed by the County Comnissicners has studied
the problems of water pollution. They have documented their
findings in a report entitled Report of the Orange Count, Water
Resources Task Force arid dated say, 1981. That statsnent of
oroblpms and needs is included by reference. The intent of
the Protected. Watershed II (PT-II) district is to apply a set
of regulations for watershed protection to portions of water-
supply watersheds in the County which are oresently mostly
undeveloped and where it is desireable to maintain the rural
undeveloped character of the watershed in the future.
b) application Criteria
The ProtectedWatershed II (PW-II) district is established as a
district which overlays other zoning districts established
in this ordinance. The new use of any land or any new structure
within the Protected Watershed II (PW-II) district shall comply
with use regulations applicable to the underlying zoning district
as well as the requirements of the P7-II district.
1. This district will be applied to all protected water supply
watersheds kr the Land Use Plan, in areas designated in the Land
Use Plan as agricultural residential in protected watersheds.
, .
cn
F-
$1, V)
1LJ 0
IL- 0
Z 1
u, in .
_ 0
-J O.
cc
VI 7 CO
Ul La La Mt
L.>
Ul
1-1 =
r74 IL.—
w i 1.—
F- cr o
LI. I-
• -2'
: cl ...1•
I-• < ...
la . UJ VP .
CD 0 = ON
0 = CC r••
= <La
CI:l 7
a
•
. - a
• r.
...I I-1' LA
gco 1.1 ....
>- m 1^%
CC CO 4/1, a
, . .
. ,...
-,
1.0 0
= al
= I-. •-• .
la <CO
7 CC ,•• 1
la La U. 1
CC = 1
la
LI
U.1
V) CC 0
I.- U. •-• CO
= I I- •••• In
..... I-- < ›- .4
.11.
143 d cc ..
La. I..•
-.1 S.- al •-
I..- La CC ›-•
0 .-. La U-
P... ...I VI . .
'O..... c
„../..„."\\
.0 0 C
U
".•
in
in II .- 4-
... 4 O-
10 ••.I 0. a C
• 0
1.I C
L. C VI 0 "0 0 > C 0
4.J .... ci. 4, .0 W > ca 6) 7)
0
. G M CZL 1..1 el I.
< 01- -om vs — L. 0. Ja ft) ;/;.-
0 CU
! leg LI . .0 • 1...1 a
CCCCI 0 0 • 0 CS C
1 0 0 0 0 0 VI 1.4 U 0 L.) I-7 — ul 0
1 to .-. ...- "-".....■ .- 1.4 C) 1
0 4J 4-1 44 .1J 0 E d E e E U E
cc ccce0 ro c roP ni 11:1 •-• ill
a, U a; co C).c 4 "V 0 .0 .0 .c > .=
> > > > fu 4-P P-- 4.0 4-1 ,P-P 4-
1
a) .— 1... (O CO PO 0 IO
- I !)8 i L L. L. 1.. ...0 .0 $2.1 .0 .Z .0 VI =
0. 0. O. O. 1,4 1..$ 0- LS 14 O O
„. .
- 1H61'.1
• 6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTED WATERSHED DISTRICTS (7.4-=)
6.23.1 Stream Buffers Recuired In Protected Watersheds
Within the Protected Watershed District, an area of land along Perennial
streams shall be reauired to remain in its natural state, unless the
area is subject to serious erosion in which case an erosion resistant
vegetative cover shall be established and maintained. Perennial, streams
are those streams in solid blue and dashed blue on the USES Quadrangle
map series for Orange County.
6.23.1 a) Width of Buffer Calculated
The stream buffer area, shall start at the outer edge of the flood plain
and be measured a distance of fifty (50) feet away from the flood plain
plus an additional distance depending on the slope near the stream. The
slope shall be calculated by measuring a distance 250 feet frcm the cen-
ter of the stream, determining the average rise in elevation and multi-
plying that value by four. This value shall be added to the minimum
buffer of 50 feet to determine total width of buffer area reauired.
The maximum buffer in any case shall not exceed 150,feet.
The flood plain is'defined in the
Orange County Flood uamage Prevention Ordinance, by special survey by
registered engineers or surveyors, by the alluvial soil as designated
in the Orange County soil survey, or through a site analysis by the
Orange County Planning Staff. Slope shall be determined from the USG'S
Quadrangle map, by on-site measurements, or, by special survey by re-
gistered engineers or surveyors.
6.23.1 b) Develooment Advisor, Cmtmittee's Review of Stream Buffers
The revelopment Advisory Committee established in Article 2.4.2.,
can review the buffer requirements for all developments and may re-
commend additional buffer area where necessary.
6.23.1 c) Permitted Uses Within Stream Buffer Areas
The following uses are allowed as a matter of right in stream buffers.
All other uses are prohibited.
1. Above ground and buried utility lines for local distribution of
electricity, telephone, and cable television service, accessory
and aypertent apparatus such as poles, guy wires, transformers and
switching boxes.
2. Bona fide farms except any use of fazmtoronerty for non-farm purposes.
3. Neighborhood utility facilities located within a public right of way
with the permission of the owner of the right of way (State, City or Town)
4. Public and private streets, bridges, and railroad rights of way. WhE
it is necessary to construct streets, bridges, and railroad lines ea: is
buffer areas, they shall enter and exit the area as nearby perpendicular
to it as possible.
(ilOö
6,23.1 d) Stream 3uffers Included As Part Of Minimum Lot Size Requirements
Stream buffers may be used as part of the required lot area or
lot size for residential and non-residential developments.
6.23.1 e) Existin. venetation In Buffer Areas
existing forested areas or any healthy natural vegetation can
not be removed from a stream buffer except when replaced with
vegetation resulting in comparable stormwater runoff velocity
and quantity one year after planting,
6.23.1 f) New Vegetation In Buffer Areas Recuired
New vegetation shall be planted to capture non-source pollutants
before they reach the oerennial stream, as per applicable Orange
County standards.
6.23.2 Lot Size Reouirements In the Protected Watershed T.' cpw.....=, District
a) Irrespective of densities allowed by this ordinance, the
development of any land or structure within the Protected
Watershed II district shall require one of the following:
a) a minimum 5 acre lot size without stormwater
management techniaues.
b) a minimum 2 acre lot size yshen provision
is made to manage stormwater runoff. Runoff
from the 10-year storm on the developed site
shall not be greater than the rate of runoff
on the same site prior to the proposed develoo-
ment.
c) These regulations shall apply only to divisions
of land that qualify as major modivisions under
the Orange County subdivision regulations.
6,23.3 Reserved
6.23.4 Impervious Surface Regulated in Protected Watersheds
An impervious surface is any surface through which water
cannot penetrate or can only penetrate slowly. This would
include paved streets and oarking lots, concrete sidewalks,
and structures which. cover land. As a watershed becomes
developed, the amount of impervious surface increases causing
a decrease in soil absorption of storm water and an increase
in direct runoff to streams witn a resulting increase in
potential water pollution,
In order to promote infiltration of storm water into the maximum
soil and minimize direct and immediate runoff into strePms
impervious surface ratios shall be required in
Protected Watershed II (P';-EI) Districts.
-....,■...,..e........,;:.‘,..%':,...::,....,:- :: ;.:.
. ....,....":...4,........4 .1.,.:,..o..-.....“,.::„:".,i..: ,....e.:1.......,...:.:,..46....:...,,,,,t.,,,,,. ..:,:r.r,,..th,,,„;:i,. .,;,;.,,,,,,„..:.,.,„„, ,,„,.,..',...
Oi 0 )
____. ...._._
.._
. -
._
nA.x.z-mx zxpExacus 3trarAcz aAT:cs - N cl. lmoss t'aura xamA
01:4=0 0TS727CT GUI RESIDENT:AL
xa 22 4,4% 5.11
22 6.0% 6.0%
R1 22 6.0% 6.0%
22 6,3% 6.0%
92 24 6.5% 6.5%
26 7.1% 7,0%
i'..'
R3 28 3,5% a.9%
. 30 -10.0% 10,0%
R4 33 12.3% 12.3%
35 14,2% 14.2%
i as 38 17.0% 17.0%
40 18,3% 18.8%
i Re 43
22.0%
24,5% 22.0%
45
24.5%
I910 - -
i 50 31% 31.0%
i
30 10,0% 10,1%
1 :CL
32 11.8%
1 nc2 40 18,3%
42 21.0% 21.0% .... :„.
--
I
I
i C-3
50
31.0%
34.4% 31.0%
Si
34,4%
i
1.24 53 36.0% 36.1%
1 55 39,4% ' 39.4%
!
=5 53 36,3% 36.0% .
55 39.4% 39.41
!
i
at 40 13.3% 33.6%
42 21,1% :1.3%
23 5.3% 4.3%
I ET.
25 5.3% 5.3% .
ni. 23 5.3% 4.21
25 6,31 5.5%
--, 45 24,51 :4.5%
27.3%
47 27.3%
q
= 50 11-21 31.0%
52 34,4% 34.4%
AS - 6.21 4,31
6-3/
M - 5,21 5„21
- 4.21 4-3%
?TO - 4.3% 4.3%
- i.3% i-ZA
01070
. _
•
The Zoning Officer shall notify the Board of County Commission-
ers when such approvals have been obtained for the proposed de-
velopment as a whole or for any stage or stages of development
as contained in the approval of the amendment.
7.6 Zoning Administrator's Action On Approval Of Final Plans
After a PD dist-x.4ot has been established, no building permit
shall be issued therein, unless and until the Zoning Officer has
approved final plans and reports for the development as a whole
or stages or portions thereof deemed satisfactory in relation to
the total development.
The form and content of such final plans and reports shall be as
prescribed in the land development ordinance or other regulations,
generally or for particular PD districts, and in the rules of the
County and other affected agencies.
Approval of final plans and reports shall be based on compliance
with regulations applying at the time the land was zoned to PD
status, including such specific modifications as were made by the
Board of County Commissioners in its amending action.
The Orange County Manager shall certify that the conditions im-
posed by the Board of Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as
approPriate, have been met.
Upon approval of final plans and reports, building permits shall
be issued in the same manner as for building permits generally,
provided that any requirements concerning the order and location
in which building permits are to be issued in the particular PD
district shall be observed. Except as provided below, final plans
and reports approval shall be binding on the applicants and any
successor in title, so long as PD zoning applied to the land-
.
7.7 Ap.roval Of Detailed Plans, Etc. Is An Administrative Action
Approval of detailed plans and related material is an admini-
strative action. No public notice or hearing is required in
connection with approval proceedings of final plans or changes
in approved plans, but the Zoning Officer may hold meetings or
cause such meetings to be held with such notice as is deemed
appropriate in connection with such actions.
7.8 Changes In Approved Final Plans
Changes in approved final plans, specifications and reports may
be permitted by the Zoning Officer on application by the original
applicant or successor in interest, but only upon making a
finding that such changes are:
a) In accord with all applicable regulations in effect at the
time of the amendment creating the PD district, as modified in
the amending action; or
b) In accord with all applicable regulations currently in effect,
without modification; or
7-9
an=======m AMMO
„,
• U1U7
8.4.7 imposed Conditions
The Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Adjustment,
as appropriate, may impose such reasonable conditions upon
approval of a Special Use as will afford protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare, ensure that sub-
stantial justice is done and equitable treatment provided.
Such conditions shall run with the land and use, and shall be
binding on the original applicant (s) as well as all successors,
assigns and heirs.
8.5 Action Subsequent To The Board Action,
The Zoning Officer shall within seven days cause notice of the
disposition of the application to be sent by certified mail to
the applicant and a copy of the decision to be filed in the
office of the Zoning Officer.
The Zoning Officer, in the case of approval or approval with
conditions, shall issue the necessary permit in accord with the
Board's action.
The Orange County Manager shall certify that the Special Use Permit
with any imposed conditions is as approved by the Board of County
Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as appropriate.
8.6 Contents Of Application For Approval Of A Special Use
The application for approval of a Special Use shall be submitted
on forms provided by the Zoning Officer. Such farms shall be
prepared so that when completed a full and accurate description
of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and
operational characteristics shall be disclosed. Additionally,
the forms shall, when completed by the applicant, disclose the
name (s) and address (es) of the owner (s) of the property involved, -
the owner (s) , and all relevant information needed to show com-
pliance with the general and specific standards governing the
Special Use which is the subject of the application. (See
Section 8.2)
8.7 Minor Changes To Be Approved By Zoning Officer; Modifications
Require Action By Approving Board
The Zoning Officer is authorized to approve minor changes in the
approved plans of Special Uses, as long ap they are in harmony
with action of the approving Board, but shall not have the power
to approve changes that constitute a modification of the approval.
A modification shall require approval of the Board having juris-
diction and shall be handled as a new application.
8.7.1 Criteria To Be Used In Determination
The Zoning Officer shall use the following criteria in determining
whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification:
8-5
, '414
•
U I 0
ORA\GE COUN.7Y
BOA.PD o CMITSSIONERS Action Aganda
Item No. E-1
ACTION AGENDA =I reSTRACT
• a.TgG DATE 7ay 2:4, 1922
Subject Addition oE7oods Peed in Ca.k. Pid.7e Subdivision to the state-maintained
3-!ster.
Public Hearing: yes o
F E :tliEstnaznt: 7.1,„.7„ n
•
------------------
Attrwant(s): a) letter for.' Se ., Jones irlfomt-a#criCcIntact: Susan Smith
to :,anacer dated 5/11/32; b) Secondary
Toad Addition ination 7eport Itme Ntcher: 7324131 E . -39q
4_
PURPOSE: Petition from D0 for approval of the addition of 7.bods :pad in the Oak
FidFe Subdivision to the state - maintained secondary road system.
MED: Mr4ition of paved road to state maintained secondary road system.
- -
DTACT: The 7-'o9rd's decision 1.H11 be forwarded to the 2pari of 7ransportation for
their del4beration on accettance of the road onto the state - maintained
syster.
- P.731:rva1
U1A73
. '
i�
-
NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �
^ ,
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT
County Orange Co. File No Date
Township Eno Div. File No.
—__-
Local Name Woods Road Subdivision Name oak Ridge
Length O 1� Width �O' Type G-1 Condition Good
,�. .
Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such
streets? Yes Recorded 06-06-77 Book 27 Page 22
Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving?
Number of homes having entrances into road 13 ,
Other uses having entrances into road None
Does right-of-way obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement? Dedicated
If not, why?
Is petition (5R-1) attached? yes
Is the County Commissioners' Approval (SR-2) attached?
If not, why?
Does the road meet present minimum Division of Highways construction requirements?
Yes
If not, state what is needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance
condition under Remarks and Recommendations.
Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the
Planning Department? Yes
Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost S___Q_00
Grade, drain, stabilize S , Drainage S , Other
Remarks and Recommendations m'' .a,'m v '. '�emezt'- Recommend addition. ^�
•
Reviewed and approved
Board of Transportation Member __
Reviewed and approved J. W. Watkins G. B. Jones
----IN ENGINEER DISTRICT ENGINEER
~
^— =^
(Do not write e " this space - ������---'
_14 For use of Secondary Roads Dept.)
Petition No,
\ ---
\ \
(Do not write in this space -
For use of Planning Dept.)
'
"= E^v
u���
�
�'�
•.^ 4
IV
$
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766
JAMES 8.HUNT.
May 11, 1982 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JR
GOVERNOR
WILLIAM R.ROBERSON JR
SECRETARY
Orange Comity
Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson, County Manager
Orange County
106 East Margaret lane
Hillsborough, Ebrtb Carolina 27278
Subject: Petition for Addition — Woods Road in
Oak Ridge Subdivision
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Attached is Form SR,44, Secondary Road Addition In-
vestigation Report, for Woods Road in Oak Ridge Subdivision.
This is being forwarded to you for review by your
Board of Commissioners.
Yours very truly,
S. grircnes
DISTRICT ENGINKEE
Atta.
cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMISSIGMRS Action A3enda
Item No, E-1
AcTIONI,GEMAITIABSTRACr
puirrs.G DATE 2i!, 1922 --
Subject: ).dditioncrlcods .7nad in Oak adce Subdivision to the state-maintained
s?ster.
•
1 u Hearing;Hzring: yes
[ Departmant: n121-1,11nm npripstr,vt
. .
Attachrtent(s): a) letter from E 27, Jones Cc/ntact: Susan Srith
to Panarer dated 5/1142; b) Secondary
• Foad Addition Investiation Teport Phcrle Number: 7.32-301 T. 399
PURPOSE: Petition from DOT for a?urova] of the addition of '.;oods Tbad in the Oak
ridge Subdivision to the state - ra.intained secondary road aySter.
NEED: lY1-3ition of paved road to state rnintained secondary road system.
IMPACT: The I:oard's decision will be forwarded to the 3oard of Transportation for
their deliberation On acceotence cf.• the road onto tne state - rPintained
system,
FED7711NDATION: !=.7,)proval
1
OWASA
ORANGE WATER and SEWER AUTHORITY
P.O.Box 366/Caaboro,Korth Carolina 275 W
919-968 421 August 23, 1982
Ms. Paulette Pridgen-Pond
Clerk to Orange County Commissioners
Orange County Courthouse
106 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Paulette;
As you requested, enclosed is copy of the Water Resources Task Force Re-
port given by Mr. W. Everett Billingsley at the May 24, 1982 Public Hear-
ing before the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County
Planning Board.
Please advise if you need any additional information.
Regar0/ds,
0'0.0
Joan Cilgor
Administrative Assistant
Jg
Encs.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
` .
ORANGE COUNTY WATER RESOURCES TASK FORCE REPORT
MAY 24, 1982 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' AND THE
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
SUMMARY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY W. EVERETT BILLINGSLEY,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OWASA
Introduction
The Report of tteOran"o County Water Resources Task Force
contains 17 recommendations which pertain to the protection of th e
quality of the water resources in Orange County and the provision
of adequate supplies of pure drinking water for future residents
of the county. As you are aware, the Orange Water and Sewer
Authority (OWASA) is deeply committed to maintaining the quality
of all water resources and to providing the public with safp a nd
adequate quantities of drinking water. OWASA's philosophy with
regards to protection and utilization of water resources in our
area can be summed in one sentence : " If we are not bold tod�
you can be sure we will be sorry tomorrow. " �"
The Water Resources Task Force report is a good statement of the
x" a»
water resources-related issues and problems facing our county, and
the Task Force and staff of the Orange County Planning Department
are to be commended for their efforts. However, the 17
recommendations contained in this report represent only the
~
beginning step in the county-wide effort to protect local water
resources. Each of the recommendations in the report certainly
deserves more | n-depth analysis and the ultimate implementation of /
these recommendations will come only after some difficult
t»' ''
decisions are made by the local governing bodies.
In maintaining its commitment to sound water resources planning
an d management , OWASA would like to restate its willingness t o
develop
cooperate with all local governing bodies in an effort to d l op
a rational , coordinated approach to protecting our valuable and
fragile water resources' e a»
The following comments are brief summary statements on the
recommendations contained in the Task Force rvport .
Comments on Recommendations
Water SupP1Y
Recommendation #1o. The issue of int*rbasin transfers of wa t
is definitely a controversial one . However , OWASA feels er
intorbasio transfers can and should be ' ee m that
* Perm
in-stream flow needs of withdrawal h as iitted, provided that
basins are met .
1
milmommmilmmy
Perhaps a more beneficial goal for the Task Force to consider
would be to manage,, rather than to "minimize" total outflows
of water from one basin to another .
Recomme dation #2: In allocating the water in Orange Lake, it
must be kept in mind that construction of this lake might not have
been possible without the support of tax dollars from all
residents of Orange County, including those in the southern part
of the county. The residents of southern Orange County shoould
certainly have a right to use this public water supply during
times of need.
Recommendation OS: Water conservation should not apply only
to cases of interbasin transfers of water. Conservation can be an
important factor in ongoing efforts to manage water resources and
to reduce the economic burden on residents of the county to
finance water resources--related capital improvements.
If any agency in the county is qualified to speak on the benefits
of water conservation , that agency Is OWASA, which has been
recognized as having the most progressive water conservation
program of any utility in North Carolina. At OWASA, water
conservation has become an ongoing part of our water resources
management philosophy, as conservation provides numerous benefits
for the customer , the water purveyor , the county and the natural
eniromet. The tvnotntonbe included eintano overall rplan ofor rmanaging important far
water
i
resources.
Recommendation #4 OWASA agrees that Orange County and local
water purveyors should work together to develop and implement
means of protecting and preserving prime reservoir sites in the
county for future use . In this regard, OWASA has identified and
is actively planning to develop a reservoir site on Cane Creek in
Bingham Township . OWASA requests that.. the .county- actively support
that it quality. es
i n
R-commendation #5: OWASA also strongly supports the goal of
developing regional solutions to our- area's future water needs.
The meaning of the word "regionalization , " however , has b
misinterpreted by many people who think that regionalization means
centralization . At OWASA, regionalization means cooperation
rather than centralization .
OWASA will work towards developing regional solutions to water
supply needs, provided that such solutions are economically
feasible and that they do not present any adverse public health
impacts. In this regard, OWASA has expressed an interest in the
B. Everett Jordan Lake as a regional source of water in the
long-term.
2
� ~ .
Recommendation #6: OWASA recommends that efforts be made to
censerve all water resources, both surface and groundwater
supplies, throughout- the entire year .
Water Quality
Recommendation 07: The protection of public water supply
watersheds is a very important issue , one which local governing
bodies should carefully study. OWASA has adopted a progressive
Land Policy for the Cane Creek Reservoir Project in which it is
stated that OWASA will encourage land use activities which will the
the water quality and maintain the rural character of h
Canp Creek watershed. OWASA is currently participating in the p
Town of Carrboro's efforts to develop a sedimentation and erosion
control ordinance and land development plan for the pmrtion »f
land that Is in Carrboro's planning jurisdiction and also in th
University Lake watershed. the
Recommendation #8: OWASA agrees with this recommendation .
Recommendation Intergovernmental cooperation and
coordination is required if we are to protect water quality and
control development activities within public water supply
watersheds in Orange County. This is one of the most challenging
water resources-related issues facing the county. Th / s |
involves other issues, including the possibility of transferring
planning jurisdiction over certain areas for the ans+�r' �ng
providing a coordinated approach to guiding future purpose of
a manner which is compatible with water quality protection
development in
efforts. '
Recommendation #10: The recommendation that OWASA adopt a
policy which prohibits extension of water and sewer service into University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds (except in wnpr p
situations) is one that deserves much more attention . OWASA gency
number of concerns with regard to this recommendatio^ , has a
First , there are many complicated legal issues that must be
considered before such a policy could be adopted. Second, there'
e are alternative wastewater disposal and water sup ply techniques could be used should a decision b e made not to extend public water and sewer services into th ese areas. Use of alternative systems/ as we are all aware , can have a more detrimental on water quality th an would
the extension of a public water
or sewer line servicing the same area. Third, in a growing
community, restrictions on the extension of public water and sewer
services will ultimately restrict the supply of developable land,
3
. ~
and therefore would result in the escalation of land prices in
areas where the services are provided.
Adoption of such a policy by OWASA may not be such a »far-fetched"
idea. Howevep , th \ s. po1icy would have to be supported t_' t''. -� - use
^ and ordinances which are consistent w' ' that
pol \ cy ' This means would
Plans, policies that all of the local governing bodies wov
prohibits water and sewer line
have to support a policy which Pro d Cane Creek watershwds^
extensions into the University Lake an task to achieve this level
Needless to say^ it will not be an easy
of local cooperation .
Recommendation #11 :,. With regards to managing future u
development
c t- activities in the Cane Creek watershed, OWASA believes
met through sound
that current and future land requirements canoe me time a
small part for land use sp planning efforts by the county. At t�es�nn , blic
art of the township can be preserved use as a public
water supply reservoir .
Recommendation #12: Recommendation #12 should apply to all
�
residential development , regar dless of whether pr or not it involves
volo
es
a major or minor subdiv | sion . In this regard, OWASA recommends
that section 6.23.2(a) (c) of the proposed amendments to the
watershed zoning ordinance be deleted.
-----'Recommendation #13: As the Task Force report concludes,s' it has
been shown that vegetated buffer strips can play a very important
t
role in protecting water quality. OWASA supports the concept of
t ual | ty provided that ,
e
requiring buffer strips to maintain wa *ra ql )�hd"upon a sound
land requirements for such strips are st p �
technical basis.
Recommendation #14: OWASA
�upportsthe recommendation
proposing that a back-«p on-s/ `' wastewater disposal field be
formally rpquired. OWASA also agrees that there is a need for r a
county-wide plan for managing on-site wastewater disposal systems. ||
d t\ on #1�; OWASA also agrees with Recommendation #15
Recommen a such regulations are reasonable and are established". .
shed
provided that
upon a sound technical basis.
Recommendation 416: OWASA agrees with the recommendation
f a resource conservation and
g fpr Jo\ nt sponsorship ~ C oek end Univ*rsit� Lake
calling prnject in the Cane r t and is willing to work
development OWASA supports such a Projec North Carolina
w�tershpds^ l landowners, ar lt re
closely with loca �re, �rang� County, the Nor service , the U.S.Agricultural Extension �er , �, Department of Agriculture
Service .
and the U.S. Soil Conservation ery r .
4
� -
Recommendation #17: The potential for spills of hazardous
materials in public water supply watersheds is a matter of deep
concern to all watpr ' pupveyors, Including OWASA. OWASA supports
the development of a hazardous materials spill response plan , and
suggests that any such plan be developed in cooperation with local
water purveyors.
Summary
lnconclus(on , the Orange Water and Sewer Authority is very
encouraged by the County's water resources planning and management
efforts, and would be more than happy to cooperate with the County
in examining, in greater detail , the recommendations contained in
the Task Force report .
Efforts to protect water quality and to assure continued provision
of adequate supplies of pure drinking water will be successful
only if all local govopniog bodies participate actively in
developing solutions to our water resources problems.
5
•