The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 07-19-1982 p� ORANGE COT;WrY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' HILLSBOROUGB NO C MOILIN.A. 27278 b� Me s � '4 ♦ ter• s i w i TD: Orange County Board of Cam,issixier5 and Orange County Planning ward FRCM: Planning Staff RMJECT: Publ c Hearing and Planning Board Meeting on Msnday July 19, 1982 at 7:30 1p.m. in the Superior Courtroom at the Courthouse in Hillsborough Ate`: July X15, 1982 7:30 1. Conti=nued Public Hearing on Buck ibuntain Develo-ore t Ccupany's request for a Class A Special Use Permit for a general aviation airport 2. Does Zany mmber wish to add to this agenda? 8:30 3. Apprc val. of the Oune 21, 1982 minutes. 8:35 4. Consideraticn of the minor subdivision by Ralph Warren 'ferry and wifd . Gail F. Terry. 8:45 5. Recao3mandation on the preliminary plat of Fox Run, Section 8, resub- divioion of lots 98--103. 8:50 6. Final l plat approval of subdivision of Fox Run, Section 9. 8:55 7. F I plat approval of subdivision of Sedgefield, section 40 revision 9:00 S. Recoitrn;ndation on the rezoning request by Fred. and Elizabeth Cates for property located off of orange hove Road, near Cates Farm: Apart- ments. 9:20 9. Chritopx Cooke and the Friends Cccnmit'1 wish to address the Board about. a problem they confront with their dr velopa--nt. 9:40 10. Staff requests Board input on a proposed change to the Existing Conrmr-- cial=5 zon-i nor district. �br the �-rds. information �a � 9:55 l.l. on the developwit of a- public-air- port in Person County is attached,. 3 d." 10:05 12. Does the Bayard vi.sh to change- the format for presentation"c& its- minutes? 10:15 13. Does the Board wish to change the format for the presentation of the findings f fact for n � Special Use Permits? 10:25 14. Discussion of the C=ty Attorneys Letter on conflict of inmost. 1.5. For the Boards information the adopted text an,ren dents for the Watershed Protection District Intent Statement are provide.. 16. ?'br the Boards i nfb= ticn copies of the final report for tin orange County COn miity Development prog-r-am 1980-»1982 are avai-1- able. .. ' MINUTES JULY 19. 1982 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a joint public hearing with the Orange County Planning Board adjourned from July 8, 1982^ to this time and place July 19, 1982` at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina, Commissioners present:' Chairman Richard E. Whittod` and Commissioners Shirley E. Marshall and Don Nil7hnit. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Norman Qustavmaon and Norman Walker. Planning Board Members present: Pat Crawford, Chair, and Sara 8oerioke, Logan Irvin, John Kizer, Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Lunsford` John Wilson and David Shanklin' Planning Board Members absent: Tom Bacon and Alice Gordon. Chairman Richard E. Whitted called the meeting to order announcing that it was a public hearing adjourned from July 8, I982, to receive evidence from ' and to question Mr' Bruce Matthews, Airport Development Specialist, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, on the Special Use Permit Request from the Buck Mountain Development Corporation. Mr' Matthews was present and was sworn in by Commissioner Whitted. Mr. Matthews said that, rather than make a formal statement or presentation to the Boards, be would respond to questions the members might have. Planning Board member Kizer: Said that one of the questions was of flight operations estimated per airplane per year using data derived from Horace Williams Airport /-Clerk's mute: Hereafter abbreviated as HWA7 and if the estimates could be considered reasonable given the fact that HWA "presumably has restricted operations." Mr. Kizer asked if those estimates were "conservative or pretty indicative of an airport this size." Mr. Matthews: Replied that if his memory were correct the estimates were 500/nperutinns per plane per year, and that if based on the HWA data, were repre- sentative of historical data in this area. He said the figures may err on the conservative side but "probably not a whole lot," He said that his research of airports around the state ranged from a 1uw of 185 operations/per plane per year to 1800 operations per/plane per year and that HgA data were used because Mr. Mehler wished to use HWA data. He said the flight training operations were in . . � ~9� `.. . - t. particular were probably "fairly indicative" of the County-wide demand for such o set-vice since anyone could Qn to HWA and take the flight training from any of the planes based there- Mr. Matthews feels the estimates are reliable as planning figures at this point' Hr. Kizer: Asked Mr. Matthews why the Division of Aviation preferred the method of traffic calculation based on the annual operations rather than the method "derivative of the number of airplanes." Mr' Matthews: "It is the operation that generates the traffic, not the airport . . We are more comfortable with a traffic generation tied to the actual activity of the airport itself." Mr, Kizer; "How did you get 5'8 trips?" Mr' Matthews: Replied that DOT highway engineers in the "Planning and Research Branch" provided the figures for him at his request; specifying that Mr. Springer" one of the engineers, said the "text references" used by DOT cited those figures and, Mr' Matthews added, would be used by DOT engineers for any airport in the State. Planning Board member Irvin: Asked Mr. Matthews in his "positiun" for DOT what he considered to be his principle function. Mr. Matthews: ~0 ensure that there are adequate airport facilities in t State to meat the requirements that are imposed upon such airports by the My/.!g public and by the communities," Mr, Irvin: Asked if airport safety was not important. Mr' Matthews: Replied that safety was #1 priority in arty project. Mr. Irvin: Told Mr, Matthews that, in his opinion, Mr' Matthews' letter of June 29^ I982, to then Planning Director Jim Polmtty, seemed to be biased in favor of the Midway Airport and seemed to convey the opinion that the Planning Department was "unreasonable" in the recommendations it mode with regard to the approach " requirements' Mr' Irvin asked Mr. Matthews if he'd have written the same letter if he, Matthews, had been the "recipient of a petition signed by 600 concerned and somewhat irate" citizens of Bingham Township? Mr Matthews: Said that he could not say what he'd have written had he been a member of the Planning Board and that he was not a member of the Board of Cr ' :i,uionars either. He said his office favors the Midway Airport because of ;'�veral factors: an unwillingness on the part of the public to either expand or continue HNA operations; and that his office had not seen evidence of �»�� interest on the part of the County to provide an airport to meet the demand that exists in the County for the ypmie- Mr. Matthews cited the North Carolina Airport System Study as the basis for the demand for regional air- port services in Orange County' Consequently, private development of this airport was encouraged given the above reasons, Mr' Irvin: Directed questions regarding the dear and approach zones to Mr. Matthews saying, that as he understood Matthews' letter of June 29, 1982, Bock Mountain Developers wbuld be required to control a distance of 1000' clear zone from the end of the runway plus 200' approach zone, making a distance of 1200' from the end of the runway to be controlled by Buck Mountain Development Corporation. Mr. Irvin cited the figure of 20;1 for rise in the approach zone (including the lOUO' clear zone), saying the rise for the I200' would be GD'. Mr' Matthews: Said that was not correct that the rise would be 50'. He elaborated saying: We would begin at run�ay elevation and gm out 200' at runway elevation so we have a rise of 0' /-zero feet/ for that first 200. The clear zone is defined by FAA as the-first 1000' of the approach surface or the point at which the approach surface is 60' above ground level . Assuming that we have a completely flat terrain, that would mean per at the ]OOO' mark' From the beginning of the approach surface to the IOOU' mark, the approach sur- face would rise SU'; so that the point 1200' from the runway the approach surface would be 50' above runway elevation. Mr. Irvin; Cited the heights of two different trees (loblolly pine and tulip ) noting that each grows to a reasonable average height of 100'. He suggested that someone who owns land in the approach might have trees of that size which would penetrate the approach zone. Mr. Matthews: Agreed but added that "The approach surface is a relative height; the absolute height of the treo'..is of very little importance at this point. Rather the relative height of the tree''ab.,for example, if one went out this 1000' if the ground at that point were 50' lower than the runway, we could have a lDU' tall tree a I000^ from the end of the runway and it would not penetrate through the approach surface." Mr. Irvin: Replied that then the converse must also be true, i.e., if the _ ground slopes upward the tree height would have to be added. Mr. Matthews: Replied that each site must be considered independently; that they would actually go out and measure the heights of the trees in the approach areas. Planning Board Chair Pat Crawford: Asked if NCDUT would then modify its requirements' 2K �.�. l.K.+�.c/'1r.,�►.�t...t„�..+ ��'� /vim', ''''`J S' �-- , �� °~^^= Mr, Matthews' Said that his office did not modify requirements but would look at "where the obstructions take place." He said the FAA looked at trees (obstructions) in two different ways: l) by definition, if something penetrated the approach zone, it is an obstruction, however, it may not be a hazard to air ' navigation; 2) the FAA would conduct a study to determine if the obstruction was hazardous to air navigation (the study would he conducted by the FAX General Aviation District Office out of Raleigh/Durham Airport). Ms. Crawford: Asked if the owner or developer would then be required to take appropriate action if an obstruction were determined to be hazardous, Mr. Matthews- Replied that with regard to a Federal Aid Airport the owner would have to either remove the obstruction or "displace the landing threshold." Mr. Irvin: Said that in this particular instance Buck Mountain Development could not move the runway too much because they only controlled 800' on the North, He continued, asking Mr' Matthews how he would control the heights of trees beyond the 1200' clear zone which penetrated into that zone; Mr. Irvin added that Mr' Matthews' letter suggested that the owners of the contiguous property would be reup6nnible for such removal of obstructions rather than requiring the developers to remove the obstructions. Mr. Matthews: Replied: The typical method by which the trees would be trimmed, and l will say this, I am not aware of any County in the State which has a zoning ordinance oriented toward a private airport. I would also say I am not aware of any County in the State that 1s proposing such a stringent private airport o/J- inanoe as Orange County is. Typically where a zoning ordinance exists, it gives the airport owner, the city or the county typically, the right, at its expense to remove or trim trees as it deems necessary. The landowner simply most allow the airport owner to trim the tree if that's appropriate, / or if they decide that it would be best, to remove it completely. And he would bear no expense under that ordinance. i ' Mr. Irvin: Said that would be "virtually a seizure of land" and one could not use the land for forestry. He continued that the only use of the land would be to fell the trees and use it for agriculture (soybeans for example). Mr. (,�atthewu: Responded that if the land owner felt that use of his land ^ were ' tduly restricted, assuming the passage of such a zoning ordinance, that it would be a "matter for the courts to decide." He added that he was not ] aware of any airports located in areas of tree farming, most were located in i agricultural centers and the understanding he has is that most of the property . / in the area of the proposed Midway Airport is agricultural. He did agree that if a landowner were a tree fanner and wished to grow a tree 100' he might have a problem; but if he were growing a smaller tree, he may not have a problem. ' � �� ~ . r � ' ' Mr- Irvin: Replied that he did not know of any "commercially valuable � � trees" that were only "50^ to 60'" (the figures used by Mr. Matthews), � Mr. Matthews: Disclaiming any expertise in forestry, said that in | areas of the country where there were airports near where forestry was uccurfng, ` Weyerhauser, for example, that it was sometimes more �eoonnmfcally feasible to ' cut the tree for timber at 40' than to wait till it was 100' (rate of growth was cited). But Mr. Matthews did agree that someone who wished to practice forestry may have a problem in the approach zone with tall trees. Mr. Irvin: Asked Mr. Mat4ewm if he didn't think, with this problem � in mind, wouldn't it be simpler to require the "developer of this airport" ! � to "have an easement to control the land beyond the clear zone and the approach | | zone." In that way, the developer would have to deal with the landowner, either � boy the land or compensate him for that, Mr. Matthews. Replied that that would be simpler and that the Special ' Use Permit Requirement in the Zoning Ordinance required the developer to control � ! "the entire approach surface." He added that even with the powers of taxation and eminent domain, counties rarely purchased either fees or easements, rather ! ! ' a county would usually buy the first lUOU'. He added that in his opinion, it ! was unfair to require an owner to do something that the county would not normally require of itself. Mr. Irvin: Said that if the County were developing the airport it would have more at stake, but the developers were asking the County to do something for a private company which was set up to turn a profit which would place 6 '`severe financial burden" on adjoining property owners. Mr' Matthews: Said he didn't agree with Mr. Irvin's conclusion regarding an airport placing a severe financial burden on contiguous property owners. He added that counties routinely provide money for private purposes and cited as an example, water and sewer extension lines. He stated that "If Orange County believes that an airport is necessary to serve the County, does not wish to build that airport itself, then it should take the steps to allow the airport that will - serve the county, if allowed to he built, to protect that airport so that it can be operated safely." Mr. Irvin: Asserted that Mr. Matthews had admitted that if someone wished to grow trees it would be a "severe burden." Mr' Matthews denied that, saying he �� ' — had admitted that the landowner might be restricted but that did not mean he would suffer a severe burden financially. My' Crawford: Asked when the last privately owned airport was built in the State and locations. Mr. Matthews: Replied they were being built on an almost daily basis and cited Wayne County and Harnett County as two locations. He elaborated that any- one wishing to build a private airport must receive a permit from the Division of Highways at DOT, whose engineers would examine the site to be sure all approaches clear the surrounding roads, He said that his department normally receives copies of such permits and his department tries to inspect each site also. He said normally 50-76 such requests per year were processed and that about 1/3 such builders actually submitted the permit request. Ms. Crawford: Asked of those he did see what was the average size. Mr' Matthews: Said those were mostly turf runways, 2000' long with no lights, no fuel tanks, designed for one or two airpl�nes and only as a con- venience to the aircraft owner. Ms' Crawford: Asked Mr. Matthews if his division had any recommendations on how counties should "draft zoning ordinances or advice to handle private airports." Mr, Matthews: Replied that his division did not have any policy or recom- mendations such as Ms. Crawford asked about. He added that there were few counties with county-wide zoning and usually the property owner was free to do as he wished regarding his lund. He cited an example from Onulow County of a man who had had a power hang�-g7idar airport opened next to his home. He said airports did not usually have this problem. Elaborating he said that counties more highly urbanized, examples given were Mecklenburg and Guilford and Buncombe, had "land use classffications"where airports were allowed but he was not aware of any counties which had "design criteria." Ma. Crawford: Continued by asking if he knew of any private airports com- parable to the size proposed by Midway? Mr, Matthews: "No." Mr. Kizer: Asked if Mr. Matthews thought that the market for that "number of planes" existed in Orange County for the next five to ten years. Mr. Matthews: "No. - ` — 296 . Mr. Kizer- Cited figures based on the number of operations per plane per year, which indicated an average of an operation every two minutes; Mr. Kizer asked Mr. Matthews if an:airport with only one runway could handle that kind of traffic. Mr' Matthews. Replied in the affirmative if the airport has one runway and o parallel taxiway. He feels that some airports probably exceed that number of operations for limited periods of time and cited the Nilson airport on a Sat- urday afternoon when that airport approached 50-60 operations per hour. Mr. Matthews said the total number of operations under FAA standards would be approx- imately two times that number estimated by Midway. Mr' Kizer: Asked if Mr' Matthews could outline the advantages for private versus publioally owned airports or vice verso. Mr. Matthews: Said his Division encourage public ownership of required airport facilities by the county. When Mr. Kizer asked why, Mr' Matthews con- tinued that if the airport 1x needed, and 1s serving County requirements, i.e. economic development, and providing facilities for owner/operators in the County, it was always subject to being displaced by a more lucrative financial operation. He said that several associations, the Pilots Association was cited` had approached his Division about introducing legislation to exempt privately owned but publioally serving airports from taxes, which his Division (feeling that it was u mutter for local legislation) had declined to introduce. The reason was that the owner has to pay taxes on the airport and improvements and he may get u better deal and close down the airport. He noted that his division was currently working with eight counties across the State which were trying to replace private airports which we.e being closed down. Mr. Kizer: Noting the problem that existed with HWA, asked Nr. Matthews if there was any way to prevent development around the airport and have to reface the NJA problem restated in several years. Mr' Matthews: Said that "zoning" was "the most appropriate method." He cited ' Raleigh-Durham Airport which had Airport Districts and permitted all uses except those of ' public assembly, schools, homes, churches, hospitals. Which means that the land can be used for industrial activities, shopping centers, offices. He listed other methods: conveoant restrictions, fair disclosure ordinances, County specifically withhnlding development of water and sewer lines to the airport area, and some building restrictions on homes near airports which specify acoustical treatments, etc'/ �� ~~ - and the owners of the airport buying the land and reselling it with nonvenant restrictions. He said that in North Carolina zoning was used most often' Commissioner Marshall/ Told Mr. Matthews that she thought he had earlier said that zoning was not often used in North Carolina and that airports were located in agricultural/residential areas. Mr. Matthews: Replied that there were airports located in agricultural/ residential areas. Commissioner Marshall : Asked Mr' Matthews that with regard to his knowledge of zoning ordinances if airports were "typically" located in agricultural/residential areas. Mr. Matthews: "Typically, yes." Commissioner Marshall: Noted that she was not a member of the Board of Com- missioners when the zoning ordinance was adopted and noted that previous testi- mony from the earlier part of the public hearing /-July 8" 19827 indicated that - - this (aQricu/tural/residential)zone was not the best place to put an airport. She asked if, according to his knowledge of zoning ordinances, if airports were usually located in such zones (agricultural/residential)? Mr' Matthews: Cited his knowledge of the ordinances in Rocky Mount, Clinton, said that most counties were not as "sophisticated" as Orange in their land use designations; i.e', they would have one or two industrial zones and every- thing else would be residential/agricultural. And typically, airports don't locate in densely populated areas and his dfVisiom does not encourage such locations. Commissioner Marshall : Said that the "perception" was that the HWA was a "nuisance to a certain extent for some people" but primarily it was of "concern" for the safety of the children in-the schools located in its flight pattern, "and you've already said that's not good;" but to the "quality of life" question, it's been said that'brnperty values are decreased becaaye"nf that" and she asked Mr. Matthews if, in his experience in seeing airports located, property values had fallen. Mr. Matthews: Disclaimed his expertise as n judge of property values but continued: I would say that the only areas where we've seen a major change take place has been,arownd airports that have stimulated economic development, in which case property values have gone up. I guess I would respond to HHA, I'm familiar v1thHWA, it's an airport I'm res- ponsible for in my Job along with about forty others in eastern ' North Carolina; and, I would say that if people are scared to death of HWA and property values are falling, you sure couldn't tell it 298 by the way development is taking place around the airport; it seems that that's where all the development in Chapel Hill is taking place right now. If H14A had not adversely affected property values I'd hate to see what it would loot: like out € there today, i Commissioner Marshall: With regard to the Midway Airport project now before the Board we /-the Board of Commissioners7 must find whether or not it is legally "within our adopted Zoning Ordinance or not" and many citizens who live in the area of the proposed site have "perceptions" of the airport having a "nuisance value." She continued asking Mr. Matthews if in his dealings } with other communities the citizens there had similar perceptions. Mr. Matthews: Replied that from attending public hearings on airports, only those who "literally live on the runway" and he specified 1000' to 1500' from the runway were those who were mounting the "concerted effort" opposing the airports. He cited the Warren Field in Washington, N.C., as an airport in use twenty-four hours a day and as having an area of "exclusive housing" near it. He said that there were jets using that airport and as far as he knew there was no major effort to close it down although he was sure some landowners objected to it, they had not banded together to get relief, Commissioner Whitted: Noting that Mr. Matthews was responsible for HWA, asked if that airport conformed to the established criteria for approach, clear zones. Mr. Matthews: "No, sir." Commissioner Whitted: "There are violations?" Mr. Matthews: "Substantial violations." He referred to a diagram showing approach and clear zones and related it to the HWA situation. He said that the HUA runway was East-West and the University of North Carolina probably owned about 500' to NC 86 which runs North-South, and, on the other side of NC 86 trees which are about 100' tall are growing giving an approach of about 10:1. He said at the other end of the runway at HWA the University owned about 1500' but that trees were growing to such a height there that the approach was only about 5:1. The University had been told to trim the trees but had not done so. Commissioner Whitted: Does that "constitute a safety hazard?" Mr, Matthews: "I'm not qualified to make that statement." He did, however, continue that there had been no accidents at HWA due to the height of the trees . to his knowledge. Ms, Crawford: Asked if Mr. Matthews knew what the flight patterns of Midway would be. '. - �»��g �� Mr. Matthews: The typical FAA approved traffic pattern altitude for small air- ports will bring an airplane in roughly half a mile off the side of the runway at an altitude, and this can be set by the airport owner; typically it's 800` above ground level. Some airports have chosen to raise that altitude to a 1000' to 1200''.. Primarily for noise. There are some airports that have a mix of high performance of jot traffic — lm, performance propeller' They'll put the props low and the jets high to separate them. The airplane typically would continue at this point about a half a mile off the center of the runway. Till it reaches a point roughly one half to three quarters nƒ a mile beyond the end of the runway at which point it would make a Q0v left turn and begin descending, it would actually begin descending at a point about udjooeot to the end of the runway. Na would begin a descent, torn another 90v left turn to line up with the runway, approximately 2500 to 3000` nut' At that point the airplane would be maybe 300' above ground level as it turned its final approach. The FAA specifies for all airports that a left torn pattern is standar& Which means essentially that in turning into a runway the airplane is always making a left turn; in taking off and turning away from the airport it's always making left turns. The problem with.-is, and HHA has u right hand pattern, on runway 20, being the approach from the East over NC 80. MN8 has adopted n right hand pattern for runway 26; a left hand pattern would have aircraft flying down here which of course 1y u very heavily developed residential apartment area, So HNA has a right pattern yu that when aircraft are operating back to the Nest they will make right turns landing and right turns taking off. This 1s one of the things we do for noise abatement. We would possibly raise the traffic pattern altitude; we might have preferential runways; you might decide, for example, that there are areas around the airport that are noise sensitive that should not have traffic over them either at any time or during specific times during the day in which case we might say between the hours of B P.M. and 7 A.M. land and take off only on a certain runway' There are several different things we could do to alter that traffic pattern if necessary. Mu. Crawford: Asked if there was any reason Mr. Matthews was aware of that would preclude its /�|dway'x7 using a left hand pattern. - - Mr. Matthews: Responded that he didn't know of any now. But that was an option that was completely up to the owner of the airport to choose to "imple- ment a right handed pattern or a higher or lower altitude" under FAA standards. Mr' Irvin: Referred to the public hearing of July 8 (nn this same request) ° and said that some people had said noise was not u ^ nblem around airports. He ° continued saying that now Mr. Matthews was indicating that it was a problem, citing "shifting air approach patterns" and acoustical standards for buildings near , airport zones. , Mr' Matthews: Agreed that noise was afactor for "some o 'eratiuns" and some , airports. He added that noise, he thought, would have been more of a consideration , in the Midway initial proposal because it would have had "virtually unrestricted , operations of jet aircraft." Now that won't be a problem, Mr. Matthews, said, ° because the owner indicated he would not allow regular operations of jet aircraft | .. �k�� =~,° at Midway. He said propeller aircraft were considerably less noisy. He said while he had not seen the final "noise exposure calculations" for Midway he doesn't think there will be u problem unless a house is very nearby' Ma' Crawford: "How do you define 'problem'?" Mr. Matthews: Said that it was a problem if the individual was uncom- fortable enough to go to u lawyer to do something about it. Commissioner Nillhoit: Asked howmanydec1hels that would be. Mr, Matthews: Replieq that he didn't know. Mr. Kizer: "How about the NEF rating?" Mr. Matthews: "8 very clear-cut NEF rating is a 40 NEF; the borderline is between the 30 and the 40." He said that the airport should control all "property inside the 40 NEF contours." He added that "there should be some type of zoning ordinance for properties between the 30 and the 40 NEF to restrict noise in compatible development." He said that a oaxa by case study should he made between the 20 and 30 NEF but there shouldn't be o noise problem within those contours. Mr. Kizer: Said that he understood that Mr. Matthews would not recommend agricultural zoning underanmirpmrt so would he recommend 1nd.otrial or what. Mr. Matthews: "Agricultural use is a compatible use." He said the Raleigh Durham Airport District grew out of some conferences held with the FAA in the 60's and it looks like a football oval that extends about three miles off the end of each runway' He said it conforms almost perfectly to the later developed 30 NEF contours. He added that the District says there should not be "noise sensitive development" or places of "public assembly;" this excludes residences. With regard to general aviation airports, according to the "book we're not supposed to have a problem." Mr- Kizer: Asked if in Hr' Matthews' opinion, airports stimulated commer- cial development. Mr. Matthews: Replied that some do and some don't. He feels that an air- port is a "prerequisite for economic growth" but that several factors enter into an industry's decision to locate n plant in a particular urea' He continued, responding to Ms. Crawford, that jet traffic was not necessarily allowed at those airports which stimulated growth. He said that with the increased cost of jet fuel and increased efficiency of propeller planes that the latter planes were becoming more competitive, particularly over the shorter trips (300-400 miles). �� "~�� He said there was no requirement that the runway be 5000' long and cited an airport in the Chicago area where the runway was 4000' long and had 650 based aircraft and some were jets. Commissioner Marshall : Asked if Mr' Matthews knew of any cane in which an airport located in an agricultural/residential district had begun a rash of rezoning requests "for industrial purposes" in the neighborhood. Mr. Matthews: Said that he didn't know of any such airports in the general aviation range although that had been the case at Raleigh/Durham because the owners saw the land as more valuable in the Airport District. Commissioner Marshall: Noted that the comprehensive Land Use Plan for the County did not see such development in that area as desirable; she had wondered if the pressure for development would be so strong as to force the Commiss: ix to "let it happen," Mr. Matthews: Said he didn't really foresee that uccuring with regard to Midway Airport; that there were so many different factors involved in an industry deciding to locate near an airport. There may, he continued, be an individual who decides that it would be o good idea since he was already located near the airport who might want rezoning for u special purpose, but it would be a real special purpose. He noted that the same thing would occur in northern Orange if 1-40 were built. In closing Mr. Matthews said his department saw the airport as o "much neJad facility" in Orange County and would much prefer that that County build the air- port but perceiving no interest on the part of the County to 6u that and with the developer willing to do it, they wanted to see it built' He offered any additional information the Board might need. Mr. John Nopthen , an attorney, approached the lecturn, and told Chairman Whitted, that his firm had arrange for Thomas HeffnQr, o real estate appraiser, to give testimony at this public hearing regarding the previous testimony given at the July 8 hearing about the property values if the airport is located and developed as proposed. He said that while Mr. Heffner was unable to attend the previcos meeting, and he, Mr. Northen , ,understood that the public hearing was co'`' I*mad to allow Mr. Matthews' testimony, he, Mr. Nmrthen, now had a letter frmo Mir. Heffner stating his opinion on property values near Hk0 and two other airports; he requested penuis�ion to introduce it into the record of this hearing' 3,or . � Chairman Whjtted: ,As I told you, Mr. Northen, the public hearing was continued to receive evidence from Mr. Matthews, That was the specific pur- pose of continuing the public hearing to this time. Others have asked if their ~' evidence could be submitted tonight and they have been told there was a specific purpose for this continuation so I think it would be unfair to have the record open to receive that information." There was some discussion among the Board of Commissioners members present regarding the advisability' of continuing the public hearing to receive additional significant information. Mr. Kizer: Said, in response to that possibility, that the public hearing had been duly announced held and adjourned and he questioned the legality of continuing the public hearing to receive more information from individuals who had not been at the earlier public hearing. Mr. Mehler: (The architect for the developer of Midway) Said that in the interest of time, he would be willing to "forego" the additional information which might be received. He additionally asked to clarify one point on earlier evidence offered on the proposal. Mr. Geoffrey Gledhill: When asked for an opinion from the Board Choir, re- plied that he did not know what Mr. Mehler was going to say therefore he couldn't give an opinion. He suggested the Board decide if the information clarified earlier testimony, if it is the case, he, Mr. Gledhill , dues "not see any pro- blem." Mr- Mehler: Said he would clarify the question of the number of aircraft to he "housed" at the airport "and what is housed?" The proposal said the 276 aircraft maximum to be hangared did not include tied down aircraft, and, was, Mr. Mehler said, "an incorrect statement." He said they, the developers, have said the number of aircraft housed will be 276, this includes hangared and tied down aircraft but dues not include transient aircraft. Mr. Kizer: Referred to Appendix & of the presentation for the Midway Airport and said "hangared planes: phase I-87 units; hangared planes: phase 2--total 183; hangared planes, phase 3-276 units," And asked Mr. Mehler if he was saying there would he 276 planes hangared plus tie downs? Mr. Mehler: "Nn," He said that be had picked "out of the air" at the in- sistence of the Placn1ng Department for o number and would be "limited to that number of planes based at this airport." �� -- - r Commissioner Nillhoit moved to adjourn this public hearing on the � Special Use Permit request by the Buck Mountain Development Corporation to August 23, 1902, at 7z30 P'M' to receive the recommendation of the Orange County Planning Board on this request; Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0' � With no further business to come before the Board` the members adjourned � by consensus. Richard E. whitted° Chair Paulette PridQen-Pond, Clerk ' ° STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KO. BOX 25201 UNT,JR.. RALEIGH 27611 JAMES B,H DIVISION OF AVIA GOVERNOR (919) 7332491 June 29, 1982 WILLIAM R_RoBERSON,JR. SECRETARY Mr. Jim Polatty Orange County Planning Dept. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborogiih, NC 27278 Dear Mr. P91atty: I in referen6e to Our telephone conversation of June 25, I have discussed with FAA their requirements for ownership or control of the apptoach surfaces for runways. FAA advises that their guidance relative to ownership is contained in Part 152. 9 and 152- 11 of the Federal Air Regulations (copy enclosed) . The pertinent 'arts of these regulations are: 152. 9 (A) "Whenever funds are allocated the Sponsor must own, acquire, or agree to acquire, runway clear zones. " (B a runway clear zone is an area at ground level that begins at each end of the primary surface . . . and extends with the width of the approach surface . - - to terminate directly . . . where the slope reaches a height of 50 feet above the runway end or 50 feet above the terrain. 152. 11 (A) "In projects involving grants-in-aid . . . a Sponsor must own, acquire, or agree to acquire property interest in clear zone areas (B) "on new airports, the Sponsor must own, acquire, or agree to acquire runway clear zone areas I (h), An airport owner is considered to have an adequate property interest if it has an ease- ment . . . giving it sufficient control to rid the clear zone of all obstructions" is Mr. Jim Polatty June 29, 1.982 Page 2 With respect to obstructions in general we call your attention to Part 77.21 (c) of the Federal Air Regulations (copy enclosed) which states: "the standards in this subpart apply to the effect of con- struction or alteration proposals upon an airport if, at the time of filing notice . . . (1) (the airport is) avail- able for public use and is listed in the Airport Directory. . . " After reviewing these regulations, it is my opinion that 1. The requirements for approach zone control and owner- ship are mandatory only for airports receiving federal aid funds. 2. Even for airports for which compliance is mandatory, the requirements extend only to the outer end of the clear zone as defined in 152. 9 (b) . 3. The requirement for reporting and review is applicable only on new construction or substantial alteration, at the time of the construction. in conclusion, it appears that if Midway Airport were a federal aid airport, it would be required by statute to concern itself only with obstructions in the clear zone. it would, therefore, seem appropriate for Orange County to only require Midway Airport to have sufficient land interest in the areas defined as "clear zone' . If I may be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Bruce E. Matthews Airport Development Specialist BEM/by cc: Mr. Fred Hazzard, Buck Mountain Development Co. Mr. Howard Robinson, FAA Atlanta ADO -7-Z N", (70 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 JAMES B. HUNT.JR, RALEIGH 27611 01VISION OF AVIA GOVERNOR June 30, 1982 (919) 733-2491 WILLIAM R.,ROBERSON,JR. SECRETARY Mr. Jim Pollaty Orange CounIty Planning Dept. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC Dear Mr. Ppllaty: I Per the request of Rick Cannity on June 29, 1 am pleased to provide the r following information with respect to aircraft operationsland ground traffic expected at the Midway Airport. i AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS I The projection of aircraft operations is a highly inexact art dependent upon a number of factors unique to each airport. FAA generally recommends consideration of 500 to 1.000 annual operations I (an operation is a takeoff or a landing) per aircraft permanently based at the airport, with an average of 750 used for prelimanary review. This figure is inclusive of all operations including transient traffic. In North Carolina, we find that actual annual operations per based aircraft at the at public general aviation airports range from a low1of 131 at Lexington to a high of 1737 at Wilson. The averagF is approximately 850. Lee Mehler has indicated that he would use the current figure for Horace Williams Airport, which is 500 annual operations per based aircraft (25,000 op6rations z. 50 based aircraft = 500) . Mr. Mehler believes the local airport use is indicative of future use of Midway Airport. I agree with him that a figure of 500 operations appears reasonable for planning use. Highway Tr I affic Generated: We have discussed with our Division of Highways the figures they would use to estimate generated highway traffic. They I r Mr. Jim Pollaty June 30, 1982 Page 2 use two different figures depending upon their analysis of potential, airport use. One figure is that each aircraft operation would generate 2.5 one-way highway trips. The other figure is that each based aircraft would generate 5. 8 daily one-way highway trips. Calculations for Midway Airport result in the folowing figures. A. Based on Operations 500 annual op /based aircraft x 276 based aircraft 138 ,000 annual. ops. ; 138 ,000 annual ops x 2.5 high- way trips/op = 345 ,000 annual vehicle trips; 345 ,000 annual vehicle trips 3365 days = 945 vehicle trips per day. B. Based on Based Aircraft 276 based aircraft x 5. 8 highway traps = 1600 vehicle trips per day We understand that the Division Of Highways is most comfortable with figures based upon annual. operations. Thus , we tend to accept the 945 vehicle trips per day as being the most appropriate for this study_ This concludes our. comments. Please advise if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, . � M tl Bruce E. Matthews Airport Development Specialist cc: Mr. Fred Hai z and, Buck Iviount ain Development Co. Mr. Hard Robinson, FAA Atlanta ADO 7- k V.- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 _- RALEIGH 27611 _ _ _ _ DIVISION OF AVU JAMES B.HUNT,JR, (919) 733249 GOVERNOR July i, 1982 WILLIAM R� ROBERSON,JR. SECRETARY Mr. Jim Pol.atty Orange County Planning beipt. 106 E. Margaret Lane Hill.sborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Mr. Polatty: It is our understanding that Orange County intends to require developers '0 f privately owned airports in the County to own or control ll of the land lya.ng under the FAA-defined "approach zone' . We believe that such a requirement is unreasonable and unfair to the private citizen who is using his own funds to provide vital air transportation access for the County. We are partacularl.y concerned that the County may be going far beyond FAA standards in its requirements for private airports. As Bruce Mathews pointed out in his letter of June 28, FAA requires ownership or control of only the clear zone. Any controls beyond the clear zone normally takes the form of a height restriction zoning ordinance. Such an ordinance is clearly beyond the ability of a private citizen and should be a County responsibility. We recognize that, Orange County shares our goals of the maximum possible operational safety for North Carolina' s airports, both public and private. We encourage the County to develop a cooperative' program with private airport owners to ensure safe facilities. Such a program would require the owner' s control of land underlying the clear zone, while a county zoning ordinancE would prov'�de protection against hazardous objects being erected or allowed to grow beyond the clear zone. We recognize the need for counties to develop and maintain adequate land use controls to benefit and protect the general public. However, we believe that Orange County' s requirements for private airports go far beyond that necessary for reasonable public safety and exceeds even the rigorous standards established by FAA. I r c. I . Mr. Jim ri.olat..ty truly 1, 1982 Page 2 We appreciate the interest of the grange County planning staff in using the resources of the Division of Aviation on this matter. If we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, Willard G. Plentl., Jr. , P.E. Director CC: Mr. Fred Hazzard Mr. Howard Robinson E a.e. peivquin a.i. lee n._mehier Vii. peIloquin associates p.a. glenT.Iehmariri a.-i. 0 architecture planning design/build route 4- box i74B chapel hill, n.c. 275 (919)929.71 .tune 80, 1982 Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Midway Project #81-116--U I To Whom it May Concern: 1. We a're resubmitting the site plans showing the loop road at the south end of the runway for low volume access to the hangar areas. In the opinion of Bruce Matthews (DOT Aviation Specialist) this � is the preferable method of crossover versus our previous crossover method. 1 2. We are resubmitting the ai►icraft and vehicular traffic calculations based on new information supplied to us by Horace Williams -- Airport and Bruce Matthews. Our old calculations were based on misinformations by the University. Sincerely, Tt.14V4.- Lee N. Mehler, A lA Principal, Peloquin Associates, P.A. Appendix A MIDWAY AIRPORT TRAFFIC GENERATION Hangared aircraft Phase one = 87 units = 87 units total Phase two = 90 units + 6 units = 183 units total Phase three = 87 units + 6 units = 276 units total From Horace Williams Airport' records = approximately 900 flights per month = 1800 operations/month including based, transient, and training aircraft for So based aircraft From Talbot Cox and Associates (Wilmington, N.C. and Columbia, S.C.) General Aviation Airport consultants Rule of thumb., standards: 2.3 occupants per landing/takeoff 1.3 vehicules per landing/takeoff 15 hours of operation/day average From Department of Transportation. 54 has 5000 trips per day From FAA master records estimation for Horace Williams for the twelve month period ending February 15, 1982: 25,000 operations per year = 500 operations per based aircraft per year Phase one 87 aircraft @500 operations = 3625 operations/month divide by 30 days = 120 operations/day average 15 hours per day = 8 operations/hour times 1.3 vehicles/landing = 10.4 vehicles/hour times15 hours per day = 156 vehicles/day Phase two 183 aircraft @500 operations = 7625 operations/month divide by 30 days = 254 flights/day average 15 hours per day = 16 operations/hour times 1.3 vehicles/landing = 20.8 vehicles/hour times 15 hours per day = 312 vehicles/day Phase three 276 aircraft 0500 operations = 11,500 operations/month divide by 30 days = 383 operations/day 4a Appendix A Midway Airport Page 2 ! Phase three cant. : average 15 hours per day = 25 operations/hour times 1,3 vehicles/landing = 32.5 vehicles/hour I times 15 hours per day 487 vehicles per day AN I I . V 1 t a.a. peloquin a,i.a lee n. mehler a.i.a i Jrchitecture pe!©quin associates p.a. glen r: lehmaDri a.i.a planning design/build route 4- box 174E chapel hill, n.c. 2751, (919) 929-716 ,tune 17, 1982 Orange. Cou ty Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 3 Re: Midway Project #81•-116-U To Whom It May Concern This is to c arify or answer questions regarding the updated drawings and specifications submitted to the County for Midway Airport. I. We are adding to the aerial photographs supplied to you tl''at stopped at the Alamance County line. The aerial photograph requirement in this case is disproportionate with the information imparted to the viewer and the area is not in your jurisdiction but we are supplying it anyway. 2. We are adding the isosonic contours below NFF30 although these noise levels are so small as to be non-existant. The State and F6deral government doesn't consider these to be important and y I u had defined that noise above NEF30 was :important. There is none of this noise generated by this facility so we are adhering to the letter of the law as defined by you. -3. Tl�e number of planes to be housed here will be 276 units as shown on the drawings. These may all be in T--h6ngars as sliown or be in tie down areas shown at the option of the developer. This figure is an estimate. Transient airplane traffic cannot be estimated accurately and will not appreci- ably add to traffic for this facility. This traffic is taken into account for the traffic calculations included herein. 4. AIEI runway/airport lighting will adhere to FAA standards and Orange County zoning requirements. 5. Screening or buffer shown shall be provided by existing growth or distance in excess of 500 feet from structures, or in the case of,, less than 500 feet screening shall be 6 foot high above grade within three years of planting, or solid fencing, or berm. 6. We _ will have control of all required FAA zones and safety areas. Since Orange County zoning Ordinance does not define these zones it is assumed that the FAA requirements will be sufficient. This makes logical sense for safety and practical reasons. Change County Page 2 June 17, 1982 7. The crossover vehicular situation defined in our documents is safe and efficient. It is acceptable to DOT-Aviation and adheres to FAA standards. 8. A letter is being written by Ed Johnson-Orange Grove Fire Chief regarding fire safety. We are agreeing to the following conditions in that document (since this doucment is not yet finalized by them, we will reserve the right to change our reaction until such time) 3 ponding areas for water supply with 30,000 gallon capacity automatically feed by well, all weather access 200 gallons of foam equipment on site 2 foam nozzles for and 22" line 50 lb. dry chemical on site no open flame heaters or loading fuel in T-hangars fire safety information in airport manual radio or phone hookup of FBO hangar to fire department. Sincerely, f Lee N. Mehler, AIA Principal, Peloquin Associates, P.A. E�. Joint L�l7b 2C Hearing DRAF ( July 8, 1982 Board of county C.'.cMissioners present: Richard Rutted, Nonran Gustaveson Shirley Mars�I, Norman Walker, Lyon Wi.l,hoit Planning B� Me . r Present: Pat Crawford, Logan Irvin, David Shanklin, Sal ly B eri r, Steve Kizer The public hearing was called to order at 7:40 p.m. All those wishing to present eui.dence were sworn in. Agenda Item # 1: Class A Special. Use Permit Inquest an Buck Mountain I Develo nt for a General Aviation Airport Cannity presented the findings of fact and recz�m� imposed �tir� for the special use proposal. He gave a short presentation on the three types of use in the permitted districts table of the Zoning Ordinance. e. These includ6 permitted uses, non-permitted uses and special uses. He i explained, applicant had the burden of establishing conpli arm with the ordinance and that the Board of County Commissioners must grant approval of the proposal unless the find the y proposal contradicts the items in Section 8.2.2 Anyone opposing the proposal on the crow stated in Section 8.2.2 a) 41) must provide substantial, evidence to support this claim. C.anni.ty added that the proposal must meet both required and imposed conditions and that Ayl i conditions run with the land and the use. Cannity prated the informatidn required and provided by the developer as well as addi.tional information including a letter from Bruce Mathews dated My :30, 1982 regard- ing aircraft operations. Cannity indicated that Mx. Mathes felt it reason- able to asstu� daily operations of 500 per plane. The added that with ;ward to vehicle trigs, DOT felt confortable with using annual. operations. MUM .t- C city stated that the proposal is substantially the same project and that the planning Department stags reconwndation rem i.zzs st�lastantial.ly the same as at the last public hearing on Midway Airpark. an Cam,ty noted the findings of fact were referencedipages 10-11 and 13-14. He noted an error in the title of the diagram on page 14 which should read: ach De Zone D=ene; S . C,anni.ty reviewed the reCaTErIf�.,nd d smpased Wticin noting that the c veloper's proposed imposed conditi.cns are generally the same except that the developer leavesthe ccopletion date open-Wended where as staff has specified an end date for completion. Kizer asked i.f M.,atl� based the annual operations figure on Horace Williams which restricts based aircraft. Cannity answered off'rmatively. Kizer asked if this was a reasonable basis for determining annual operations. Cannity responded that staff deferred. to Mathews as the auth!k#ty on the question. Whi.tted asl . Camuty suk ted a letter from �-1 Hill to the Boy -Hill- and itteutask that the dateot�rce of letter he noted and the (:hap regarding Horace Williams be attached as well as the minutes of the Jan.. ll, 1982 meeting. Kizer inquired if Mathews was prat. Cannity responded Mathews had ind-1- cated he could not attend. The staff presentation was oo hided. lee Mehler presented the developer's Proposal and cammc ts• Mehleac noted that this was a scaled down project due to the proceedings and decision on the Midway proposal. He indicated that the runway w shortened to 4000 feet and that overrun. areas were provided as4 +tp safety provision. He noted additional housing for 276 total aircraft would be provided in three Phases,. MAder referenced letters from C.D. Knight, ri.ff's Wit% Bobby Baiter, lam; and TX�`T' noting none of these agencies had problems with the project. Mehl.ex cited a letter fr n p��fpth DOT to Ji.m polatty which made reference to the relata cry p standards and ownership of east rights over land in the approach. zone:.. He anphasized that the condition # 12 regarding 5000 feet of approach area was the only item the developer questions. He noted that 1000 feet is a reasonable control area.. The letter 1000 (feet of c�ontmlt�ti�r�g RDtT and read. Mehl.er requested a change had 10 miles of control off the end of the runways. He added that conditions 1-11 were acceptable to the owners of the project. He noted that the June 29, 1982 revised. plan showed an access loop road which addressed condition # 10. whi.tted questioned the nmrber of vehicles per day, specifically noting the letter from Bruce Mathews. Mehler indicated that the original., source of the vehicle traffic data had errored and new calcul.aticm.s were resubmitted on June 30, 1,982. He noted there was still a deserepdxncy between the developer's and Brach Mattlz-n4 fiT.res- Mehler stated the key word in these calculations was in a statement made by Bruce Mathews that airport planning's e�"�" science. He suggested that a range of figures be used. i DRAF-1 Kizer ingi� if the developer was planning to restrict flights. M.shler asked in what way. Kizer clarified the question to mean restrict Operations. He, added that using Horace Williams fib would suggest consideration of restricted highway traffic. Mehler cited Mathews's'tatemnt of using a rule of thuft;b and added this was a conservative but accurate figure as transient flights will not increase five�,fold with a five fold increase in the number of based planes. i He added that Mathews has noted.-99t the price of operations can double or not the total number of operations. Kizer asked if Mehler woruld agr;--evthis figure is a conservative estiamate. b e aer responded that if you look at the Rol' e;<perience these figures are so highlas to be ridiculous, but that Mathews is the best source. He ix04--ated tkae problem of proportional relationship between 50 and 276 based air=aft. Kizer *,. ui red i.f NEr contours calculations included. the W yr nmber of based aircraft and c m parative frequency and number of operati oxns. Mehler responded that the new figures were used in the calculation and the Nom'' contours di.'splayed on the wall. Gustaveson asked if there were files of private airports of this size in the easrn Seaboard, Northwest or West Coast. Mehler responded there were nom:in this area and that such a size was generally o mnected with commercial ercial airports like FW. Gustaveson pursued the question. Mehler resp=W that elsewhere general avai.tion airports are considered desir- able with panned associated developrent. Gustavesson inquired if this w aul.d be orb the largest airports in the Eastern Seaboard. Mehler respond- ed he did not know and that their research had been cxnfirtie4,to this area. f Crawl ash if there would be restricted access to the roper:ty cji=ingAaur' ci.ve�looD i road,.. Mphler responded that .,�i "c F ct r�' nt� a l rtrd. t! h�l r � of � z5om� 604414 " �1►a�rx� /d r cr 7`l r 7r /f� �1 istryk'��15 df`�cCCtr 5 a , Twin inquired of the Buck Mountain Cionipanyr Inc. as listed on the applica- tion was incorporated in Nt7.rth Carolina. John Northern, attorney for Buck Muntai.ny said the company was formed a general partnership and that the reference to incorporation should bed I Txvin asked how much land the developer controlled off the end of the run- way either through purchase agreement or easement. A3 hler responded that the majority of land was controlled up to 1000 feet, some subject to crxnd,5.ticnal.i approval. He added that no effort had been made to control beyond 1000lfeet due to the FAA/wr judge ent regarding this matter. Irvin requited bi--hl.er to be more specific about the south end.. John Northern, described the property controlled by the developer adding that if a 1000 oontrol area was a dondi.ti on of approval it would be incumbent on the developer to shift or shorten the runway to get control of 1000 feet. He added that the zonirq ordnance does not define the approach zone that there had been much discussion of the length and that it would be d;,,.fficul.t to get easements for one mile.. Irvin clarified that the developer had controtv%nd south of the ranway up�o but not beyond W 54. Northern responded that the developer had control over the Walton pare only. He added the developer's control extended to the northern property Line but not into the Crawford property. 1, DRAFT *' Northern indicated the developer planned to charge maintenance and con ftninun fees. Crawford inquired what facing structure would be used: monthly leases, owner associations or sales of hangars. Northern respondled the developer dial not want to lock himself into a financing structures as it would depend on market opportunity and response. He added that buyers needed to be convinced that this is a viable project. Gustaveson asked if one option would be c ondomarium 11ges. Northern responded that Likely there wooled be fee ale sale of hangar space with condcmn m lake contents for maintenance and enforcement. Gustaveson inquired about projected operational. costs. Northern responded he did not know that information. Cannity indicated to the Board that copies of Plentl's &-tjer to Polatty dated July, 1982 were not introduced by staff because this was Plentl's opinion of the Zoning ordinance and not evidentfOry.. He distributed copies of the letter. %bitted noted Mehler has introduced the Letter as evidence. %bitted anted, Fred. Hazzard if he wished to present evidence.Hazzard responded no, but he had been sworn itase he was asked to respond to questions. Crawford asked, Hazzard if he knew details about his operations ie. employees, managers etc. Hazzard responded negatively adding the developers � were looking at models and similar local operations including Burlington Mazdcipal. . He indicated he would not discuss these details. He respon- ded to Gustaveson's question :regarding lake examples stating airports differ from locale to locale. He ranted he was concerned about; climatic aspects of keeping a runway operational- Crawford inquired about construction materials. hazard respcn that if there were not air evacuation operations at Midway it would be un- likely that they would raxrve the snow and would probably close the facility. He added they %ere: considering perpetual care operations for nxdmtenance purposes. Crawford asked if fuel would be sold. Hazzard ammnred. yes. Crawford inquired about hours of operation. Hazard responded that a packages of data would be provided following these procedures that would govern traffic: patterns, moise control, measures and hours of operation. Crawford asked when this would be provided citing the difficulty of selling a project nobody knows about. Hazzard responded that these item were hard to specify given unce.,rtanity about runway Length that would be approved.. wstaveson asked the cost for Phase 1. Hazzard responded:he.did not know it as the oast of labor, stoner and mom y are never the same from day to day and that they were not sure of amount needed and cannot negotiate- for costs until project is approved. Gustaveson asked for a range of costs. Hazzard responded well under a million in construction, costs noting counties could not keep costs so low. MUtted inga i red_about instr=ents at the airport. Hazzard indicated there Y E dvrinrr�� beacon would be installedil phase l. al tted askEk if total based aircraft would be 276. Hazzard indicated yes- at point the as-rport �1d be financially feasible ie. Whitted at what po' wt�ulcl be a 9-10 month negative the breakevm point. Hazzard. cash flow. ' a=Cra.ft aircraft and any number Crawford noted there Wcx�].d be 27� ht�nga�:�d of ti edowns; Crawford rice. if Hazzard quarreled With the estimated per- centage of transient aircraft. Hazzard re ponds i no adding hangari.ng gives 10--20� reduction in i.nsuranre. He noted there would be a trade off bebeeen security and less maintenance. Crawford inquired about hangar dimensions. Hazzard resF=1ed he did not know them. jCrawford asked what construction materials would be used. Hazzard indicated they were investigatigating mad me nance-(fM siding. Crawford as)�ed if hangars would be on paving or grass. Hazzard resp d paving would extend up to and between hangar67, Wherever planes would go. He ed�d that the bight concern ern would be fire protection access. Irvin askedi if the l$ million figure included hangars and acres road construction. Hazzard responded that it did not include the access road as this wasl a small. cost. He added access roads would be paved lit and as hands are sold. Crawford emhpasi.zed the condition that all of phase 1 be leted in a specified period of tine. Irvin asked the estimated cost of a hangar. Hazzard indicated he would not providei those figures as he Would be seling these hangars. Kite= noted, the haangars would be sold or leased. as necessary to make mommy. Members of the audience were asked to give evidence an the propo l.s. Miriam Sin I -� resident of Bingham Township; owner' of recently bought and :rem a= farmhouse: leasor of 10 acres under cultivation. Singer contested assertion of no adverse .impact of airport on adjacent l.an4ises from experience of living near an airport. She. cited major nuance po- tential of Eproposed number of hangared craft, and unspecified number of tid'�0:)wns. She expressed, concern regarding impact. on NC 54 citing heavy traffic at present. Singer urged denial of proposal.. Dr. nnas Griggs - representative of orange Grove. Fire Company Board of Directors. Griggs sutaai.tted Board's letter at rest of 'resident Ed Johnson• As genial. oamTent Griggs indicated the anxiety of both fire- fighters ark. Board mfrs with regard to the prgxzal citing Co�any Was o to defend residential �. He referenced the contactual a� th the Board of.County C..cmmissionexs to provide fire protection to all uses and the considerable elevation of responsibilities and Capa- bilities 56ggested by this project. Griggs specified the five Board axm=s 4A recommendations: l) Water Availability -- the required 30,000 and gallon capac01 could be provided by ponds serving as drainage arnars sulaple�rented Wells in dry WG1k : He asked that these measures be guaraM- teed prior to permitting. 2) Water Movement - Griggs noted the need for all weather access, dry hydrants and tanks and pumps necessary of apparatus for slmtf .i' water to hangars. 3) 'die need for a high expansion phone r' to be supplied by project. 4) Griggs specified a number of safety features in the hangars. 5) The provision of an access road off Teer Pnad is needed mar.i-3m.a.7 arw aiven the recent air crash in a remote area.. N� DRAFT. Miriam Murdock - Resident of Bingham Township. mardock stressed the ina- pprvpriatenes of this location for an airport. She added the residents sympathized with .residents near Horace William but noted that the Bingham, residents preceeded the airport and the difference between 50 based aircraft and 276 hangared plus tie c4 craft. Murdock referenced the designation of the areas,' for agricultural and rural residential uses and questioned the impact on property values. Murdock sited inadequate highway services, demands on the local tax burden, land consm-el by a nortb/south highway, the Lack of service provided to Hillsborough and northern Orange County, that only 10% of FDU pilots served would move to a site near 1-85, the potential for project failure and the advantages of sites on 1--85/U'S 70, particularly the site recently advertised for sale. Wallace Kaufman - real estate appraiser. Kaufman .indicated he was not an amTediate property owner but an apprai.sor addressing the question of air- ports and land values. Kaufman described his credentials and experience in making a sttatewmt on this matter of impact on property values. He responded to three sep4Wate issues. 1) How do su_`r•,rotrx i ng property uses react to any airport expansion? Citing local examples at Research Tri.ange Park and the expansion of RW, objections to intensive or expanded use of Horace Williams Airport and. the halt on military runs in parts of Chatham County he noted that values will dro as taste and attitude affect real estate value and investment . 2 ) Viat crea#,s value in land near the airport? Kaufman noted the desireability for residential development in rural, quiet sparsely developed areas raises values and protects and enhances values. 3) Mat deteratrines the value of one home vs. another home near an airport? The airport lowers values of homes already there and remains undisturbed by residential uses. Kaufman addressed the concept of compensation by either zoning all the areas industrial and there,'ay raising all Propel values or changing one piece of land for industry and thereby devaluing land for residential use. He noted that approval would clearly affect land value and the highest AFle was residential use inc autpatible with raising the value of the airport land. Speculation of the air port land would raise its value while lowering the value of Vpn. Speculation of surrounding land. He stressed that this view was documented.nted. by canon sense and literature. He added that the County needs an airport but that other areas are mere suitable and land would not be devalued at these areas: where there has been an unanswerd demand for develop rent. Bland Simpson - Resident of Bingham 'Township. Simpson urged. 40UAt of request. and submitted a letter from Dr. and Mrs. slriepler for the record.. Simpson cited Section 8.8.2 of the zoning ordinance as containing the di.. :tionary power of the Board. to weigh and assess evidence for car pliance or lack (with the Zoning ordinance and due process. He 641*4 Section 8.2.2b) must stUe surrounding area due to nature of use ie. air- planes. He noted for Mx. Shoepler that several buyers had withdrawn offers for his land due to the airport proposal., Ihereby causing economic and psychological effects. Simcpson noted. Hazzard's statement at the last. public hearing that the land is worthless for anything but planes, respoazding that the orange County Soil Survey (pps 601-65) references soils of this type as having high p04tial for cram, soybeans, and timber among other. Simpson cited the Naticn3 Agricultural Sands Stud : IIhe Protection of Farmland: A fernce (lade Book for State and Local wgenment Apps. 34- 35 with regard to the "impermanence »ndmm (which) leads to a reduction in on going investment in land inprovements and farm structures and in- creases the unevitabi,.l.ity of the end of agriculture." DRAF He cited the acreage directly and irxdirectly removed from agriculture as u-611 as conflict=s between the use and its impacts with Corals :3,5 and 7 in the Qrar4e County Land Use Plan. Simpson erbrute4 sympathy to residents near Horace Williams noting UNC was r �urnrranil {tr .. ji � ilns» nid 7 coi firm* closed. He ted that all references to UNC be sticken frcan project doctments Since they are uncommitted. Siq;)s . refe!renced sites 19 and 20 in the Airport Sites Study as well as a 137 acre tract advertised along 1-85. Citing Goal, 12.6 in the Land Use Plan he urged continued consideration of a County owned general aviation airport that we Uld be financially accountable. He noted a n mt)er of land use goals would be violated by approval and that the Board has the legal right to deny the request and earn a place in the protection of N.C. lands. Kizer request' ad Simon submit documents referenced for the record. Ralph Warrant -- Ba.ngharn Township resident. Warren messed procedural. questions: 1) Are we here properly with resubmmi,ttal of rat and is the time �nte„tval appropriate? Article 20 anexxbezt procedures references significant change to land use an orange County as subject to a resuxbmittal time frwre. He added that the rezoning amendment procedures are virtually the same as a spacial use and the same operations should apply to address the multiple hazard if riot double jeapardy .issue. 2) Since the staff present the findings of fact, what if valuable informaticm is presentedilam which world affect findings of fact. 3) Section 8.2.2 addresezaffects of lase on land owners but the primary though less specific concerns areinot weighed as heav4l.y as the specific considerations. Whitted indicated that the legality of these procedural questions wm ld be researched. Ilan. Bddelmn 1-- B.i.ngha n Township resident. FxId-%p= expressed concerns about the =1 W can the existing and preferred land uses in the area. noting 5% of the population of Orange County live in Bingham Township yet Bingham TaAashi.p accounted for 20% of the building permits, adding this would substantiate the need for Zoning and the conflicting land use . _ potential of ,!the airport. &Atay x noted that if an airport did not affect the public health, safety and wel.fate than why was the apposition to Horace Williams so committed. Fdd l ekxan addressed the impact of land vlaues'noti.ng a neighboring land owner''.- cmcerns about building on the Land. Ed JcIMSM - H m 7 bwnship resident. Jolson reviewed, possible con- sequences of the proposed Project. Be took issue with the estimate of 500 operatics Per day noting Burlington Mzdci.pal vrith 63 based planes had 51,000 operations per year,, 809 per plane: Southern Pines with 48 Planes had 3,000 operations per year; rMU' with 195 private based craft had 197,000 0�iarations; Gastonia with 71 planes and the largest airport without" cmm exr� planes had 57,000 opera#ms; and Horace WiLLiam had 50 planes with 35,000 operations. in Horace WilLiam equivel.ant units the proposed air traffic (750 operations x 26 planes = 207,500 operations) amounted to five Horace Williams. ,70hnsOn contiwed relating the proposal to the 20-40% ratio of hangared to ti e._down craft to equal 690 planes, 517,000 operations per year off' 15- Horace Will.,i..ams# Johnsen asked haw this could d be compatible with the 1 -7 DRAFT .- land. use goals/plans of the EMngh= Township) Advisory Council as found in the February 15, 1979 minutes. These minutes kt*A the preservation of agriculture as the #1 goal and maintenance of agriculture and prevention of land use conflicts as primary concerns. Johnson inquired if Midway could accomplish what it proposes, noting Hazzard's reluctance to respond in economic terms.. Johnsen rated statments 4 and 7 of the proposal for the November 30, 1981 public hearing which state. that "We are requesting the airpo airpark - _ �simultaneous.ly due to their symk�ot:ic relationship" and 0these dre mutually beneficial and dependent for survival! Johnson suggested the project as now proposed may be e==lically unvi.able . Johnson indicated he had researched as a developer the costs of the venture- noting that the normal activities of a general aviation airport generally cover only the day to day bills and that Counties generally supplement these revexmes. He iand.icated financing would c from hanger sales on long term leases. Citing all cost features and comparing these with examples of number of hangared and thei6owns crafts at local airputs, Johnson noted a significant shortJall in expenses vs. revenues and a lack of interest in investment. Johnson felt he was presenting a best estimation of market, cost and profit to show if this was a financially viable option. Fie continued on the basis of the proposoj actually becoming operational.. He noted that should the facility be viable and lure out Horace William. traffic what would happen if Horace Williams is closed and Midway fails. He suggested that pressures would be wed for 1) public take over of the operation 2) approval of other uses at the facility 3) closure of the facility. JOYmson r.-ecognize� the choice was difficult but recommended mmended denial of the prowl on the basis that it does not promote the public health safety and welfare; conflicts with the Land Use Plan for Bingham-ra mshipyand is an eccn* ly inviable project which may lead to a County bail out at a later date. Johnson added that if the Board grants approval it should be with stringent conditions including 1) no jets, given that he was advised that jets can land hers: and not damage the runway if not a routine operation and 2) a sizeable const.ructic bond of cost plus 10% for the life of the project construction phases. Johnson added that it is difficult to get a large turnout for a second public hearing and asked that the opposition presence make itsel f known. Julie Andersen - Chapel Hill Resident, Representative of Citizens for Airlxrt Planning. Andersen indicated that this group was formed. in 1970 to seek a solution to the health and safety problems of Horace Williams. She referred to the broad base of support for closure of Horac a Williams and emphasized that the existing airport was inexticably tied to the proposal. Sandra ant-.�- Chapel Hill resi den Chapel. Hill resident, Rothwell noted the location of schools and number U citizens in the vicinity of Horace Williams, citing the percentage of crashes occuring during take off. Using as an ale the unfforseeen car accident at University Mall which was decided by the courts to not be a case of negligence, -Rothwell emphasized that the likl ehood of an aircraft crash could be anticipated. May Lou Rubins - Chapel Hill resident, elementary sh,cool teach. Rubins ex- pressed concern about possible crashes citing the number of deaths in air crashes at Horace Williams and the increasing risk of crashes with more pri- vate pilot activity. She felt, it imperative that an alternative to Horace Williams be found. „ y -DRAFT, Ball `hwrPes - Chapel Hin resident. -T'horpes requested consioeratibri of the Horace Williais problem and asked how many Planning Board m - bers ue;re present. Mary Penta I Chapel. HI11 resident. Penta indicated that citizens Air- port Plam .9g was a large, varied group with a comm mn concern and rec amr- erded the...p�;oposal as a solution. Franklin Ki.* - Bingham Township resident. Kirby indicated that on the SO plans for the proposal, drainage facilities along the eastern side were located o n* his family's property and not on property controlled by the 1.evelop�r. David Curl-- Bingham. Township resi dent. Curl indicated his house was on the mach zca"e, 1600 :feet from the southern end of the runway. He inquired as to who Buck Mountain Ca aany was. Gordon Ruth I� .ford,- University of North Carolina Director of Facili..tes P:Imuung. Rutherford cited two letters introduced at the March 8, 1982 Public Hear�g indicating that the University's position remains the saw': as outlier-d in the April 17, 1981 letter from John Temple to Mayor Nassif. Rutherford ecmpbsi.zed tht financial. viability should not be deter- mined onn, the, basis of UNC involvement ccmni tment. He added that UNC has rdt and cannot make a cxaroamitment to an alternative airprort until it as deter- mined that the airport meets the requirements of the university and fund- ing it avai.116ble to move university operations to another facility. He continued that UNC would phase out the norr-university use of Horace Williams by 145 based planes. Rutherford stated the University was not Keen on the a t business and that the proposal does have a chancre to meet the university's reeds. He re ed considerable discussion of the pro- posal. Kizer asked faw meny planes were university - cawraed. Rutherford responded. five. Kizer, wired if AHD required a facility within ten. miles. Ruther- ford noted that was an AHEC criteria. Kizer asked if Duke had the same requi.r at.j Rutherford responded he dad not know. Kizer inquci pd about the use of monies obtained form the sale of Horace Williams land. Rutherford responded that Temple has indicated in a letter to Richard Whitted that the University cannot d.West-itself of party to determine available funds, but that the University expressedd a willingness to work with the County. Kizer inquired about long range plans if Horace Williams cl'. Rutherford indicated there were no plans. Kizer noted the suggests o a satelite at ors at Horace Williams. Rutherford responded that there was a rough Ol?liwA"t cap presently and there were not indicatec ns that it would be lifted. He added that future decisi.cins may raise enrollment td be qecomrxlated through a satellite ccnzprus. Kizer expressed concern thati the County would indirectly be funding a new campus by approval of the project and that UNC could close Horace Williams and that the land would be fre4d up for another use. Rutherford indicated there was no inten- tion of selling the land as much of the land was restricted the to being obtained as a gift to the University or putdiwed with state funds. Monies obtained fort the land would revert back to the N.C. general fund. Kizer ixxquired about the University's authority to exercise the power of eminent domain axaun`i Horace Williams. Rutherford responded that the Ura vet:.�.ty could dry so in the nacre of the state. Kizer questioned why this power" not been exercised earlier to control the area around the runway. Roger Smith I Efland resident. Smith expressed concern than both Horar,, x, Williams and the proposed Midway airport were wrong and that other sites-woul.d.T be preferable. �Canni.ty submitted tuo letters from Peloquin Associates for the Boards' infor- mation. Matted submitted letters from Martha and John Harris, Fischer family and Robert Fischer. the public hearing on Midway Airport adjourned at 10;25. The record of the public hearing would remain open for suhnittal of the referenced items given as evidence. Crawford requested sted that the public hearing remain open for the Board to questjo Bruce Mathews and asked the staff to request his presence at the July 19 Planning Board meting. The Board of County Corctussioners would also be pre-- sent for this matter. Wallhoit moved adjournment of the public hearing. tharshall seconded.. Motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item B. Re ama ng �Ra s frc m Fred and Elizabeth Cates (Fran Rl. to Rs) Cannity presented a description of the proposal and its Location. He explained the intent of the provision of districts in the Zoning ordinance. He noted that the proposal in conformance with the Land Use plan, but that there would be adverse impacts of the prqposa� R8 rezoning. Cannity added that a rezon- ing cannot address the following concerns; fare prrtecticn,. recreational facilities, central services, pedestrian circulation, interior cirucl.ation, parking, building to building setback and an overall developgent plan to assure adequate services and amass to the remainder of the tract. The staff recut •Tended denial of tha rezoning request. John btAdams, consultant to the developer, indicated this was a request to rezone four acres adjacent to the existing R8 development of Cates Farm. He noted that the developments was caught under the enforcement of the revised Zoning Ordinance and that the rezoning request would enable the continuance of the development according to the original plan for 32 units using the same vehicular access as the existing 48 units. M=Adam; addressed the staff comment regaxdng the proposal.. He indicated that it was the intent of the developer to Provide recreational facilities and that trash removal ar4 fire protection would be provided in the same manner as established for the fi rat 48 units. He emphasized that the existing developmr=nt provides the knowledge of the standard and that 80 units would provide for the feasibility of recreation management: and maintenance as intended and orginally conceived ved and planned. Kizer asked whether the roads would be paved. McAdams responded that there would be surface treatment of the road =mrnly referred to a Wi llhoit: inquired about the commitment of the Town to water and sir pro- vision. McAdams indicated the Tbwn was willing to extend lines sized for this purpose from the orginal. 48 units. Willhoit. asked if the Town's commitment was docLumntec7. Cannity responded negatively. Wil twit emphasized the inv ortanCe of the availability of.services. McAdams stated that it was the tap charge not the availability of services which was in question. He explained that under a 1973-74 agreement regarding liras to Grady Brown School there is a surcharge of $200.00 per tab collected by the Tow and for- warded to the Orange County School Board. The issue in this matter is t-hz? Xaw sw w DRAFT The School B6ard has declined to decrease the surcharge and the developer has decided it is cheaper not to tap can to these lines but to ext qd the 30 foot missing link for the line on Oakdate Drive and put in a water best purrs station I. Willho.it asked if this was the most ideal method. McAdams that a booster pump station woul_,d enhance the system by addressing a pressure pioblem in the pressure zone. Willhoit inquired about plans for water lines.1 McAdams responded that these plans were not finalized. Mi.tted asked if theme was a sketch plan for the next phase. NioAdamis indicat- ed no. Whi.tt-..ed expressed concerns regarding the streets asking about cry vention,al paving vs. surface treatment. I!M�ams responded that the main road of the Timbers was to state standards and the loop roads would have surface treatment. VOutted noted that the lack of snow removal,had forced residents tol park on orange { rove Road. He inquired about the design of the area to be developeAL to 3Wrove safety. McAdams responded that their consideraticr of the problem had been cussory but that concern for traffic was legitmate. He indicated that based, on theoretical opacity the road was lightly loaded. Whitted expressed concern about egress/ingress on the hill. I Kizer asked McAdams to briefly comment on each of the staff's concerns. McAdams reed.: #1 OK; #2 swimrtting pool proposed and other recreational faci r DRAFT He recomneax *d that the Board deny the request and reaffirm the decision to zone the area R-l. Ronald Wagner--Hillsborough Township resident. Wagner indicated he was a recent he eowner and expressed conerns about the devaluation of the neighborhood with Gates proposed actions. He noted that tm years=ago twenty families with a max.`im•zm of four persons per household and two vehicles per house, lived between 1-85 and Oakdale. He expressed concern about the drastic increase in houses and cars this project proposed. He ,n zed. that there were no stores in the area, no shoulders do orange G �s'rove, a 55 mph speed limit, many traffic ac.dents,poor sight distance] and children in the roads at this location.. He encouraged denial of the rezoning. Br. (21ristoperr Byrd - Representing Edi.e M. Hines, owner of 55 acres near site:. Byrd expressed concern that Mrs. Hines was being taken advantage of since the death of her husband who desired the preservation of the neighborhood and maintained the property as forest. He indicated a Plann- ing Board member had told them to sell out as the property 'would be devalued. Byrd emphasized that the existing unity's standards could not be main- tai ned. by the proposal. He expressed concerns about the increased number of stray clogs, increased noise, potential accidents at the crest of orange Grove road and the lack of pedestrian areas along Grange Grove Road. He indicated he and Mrs. Hines were apposed to the development and wanted to preserve the neighborhood.. Rooks emphasized that many residents in opposition to the proposal had attended the public hearing, but that as the night wore: on they had left. The public hearing on the Cates rezoning adjourned at 11;15 i X✓ l PLANNING BOARD DMWJES Juie 21, 1982 HERS PRESEfiT: Pat Cra dbrd, (dMajx) , John Wilson, David Shanklin, Stave Kizer, Sally BoeriCke, Logan Irvin, Tam Baca, Hazel Lunsford, Nancy Lazslo Ste': Jim Polatt-y, Rids Cannity, Fred Luce, Eddie Kirk, Keith Pbsem and AGENM ITEM 1� Minutes of April 6, 1982 Meeting NMON: Ki:Pr moved to approve the minutes of the April 6 meeting. Irvin sad. tOE: Mohan carried with unanimous vim. 6--0 Minutes of May 17, 1982 meeting MYIIC7K Irvin moved to approve the minutes of the May 17 meting. Wi.:.t scmn seconded. W'I Motion carried with unantxnjs vote. 6-0 AGENDA MEM 2: Fred Roberts Subdivisian - Final. Plat Kirk gave a description of the proposed subdivision. The ;property is located in Chapel Hill Tt wnship on SR 1716 (Mrmrphy School. Road) . Theme are 6 Lots proposed out of appucximately 20 acres. He stated that Cbunty had apprOv d the Class B road and that all lots had been approved by the Health L7epartmrmt. I rv_in asked how the strew,, would be oazducted under the road. Kirk answered that a culvert angled under the road would be used. MOTI : Kizer moved approval of the final plat of Fred Roberts Subdivision.. Bacoti seconded. VOTE: Motion carried with unanimous approval.. 6-0 AGENDA r]MM 3: Elizabeth Pegg Latta Subdivision-Final Plat Kink briefly described the proposal stating that :Lot A-1 has State Health approval fi;rr a law pressure septic system. The Property is located in Bingham Tmmshi.p an S.R. 1125 (Chestnut Ridge Read) . Theme are 2 lots proposed out of 14.99 ass. MMON: I:rvanmo;,,ed approval of the final plat i ' of the Elizabet Pegg Latta $ Wilson Subdivision. 1.son s nded. V)M; motion-carried six in favor, none dyad.- . LLrlstb d. �°^ obtained because she dial not hear the discussion on the prcposal. Armm SIAM, 4: Sedgefield Subdivision section 4 and 7 - Preliminary Kirk told the Board, that the developers of 5edgefield waited unti.l. the Tnterstabe 40 corridor had been established be:Eo e bringing in a revised Plan.. Property is located in Chapel Hill. Township off State Road 1731 Wt-field Pau). There are 15 lots proposed out of 40.3 acres. ',he proposed roads are to be public and ccnstxwted to North Carolina Department of `.Transpor- tation Standards. There wi31 be a =Mmzdty water system and the lots w.i.11 have individual septic tom. 'The lot sizes meet the minima., standards of the Zoning ordinance and Subdivision Regulations- The tract is located in the New Hope Rural Are District. Kirk told the Board that this plan had fawer lots and a different road cmi=igvratian. 'the Board heard that the recreation lot doesn`t have an approved septic site, bixt that lot 61 had been approved. NMON: Irvin moved oval of the preliminary plat revision of sections 4 and 7 of Sedgefield subdivision. wilscn seconded. %OM; The motion carried ui%lin tsly. AGMM T= 5: F bbx RLm Subd'tvis c n r section 9 -- Prel.a,m nary Kirk told the Board that the Health Tampa tnmt could only find cme septic site on each lot. He briefly desk the proposal. Property is located in Little River T.Onsha p off Little River Drive and Fawn Brook Drive. There am two lots proposed out of 13.8 acres C ne lot is 9.8 acres and Me lot is 4.0 acres. Both lots will receive access through stub out roads that have not been amstructed. The lot sizes z-eet the Ianin= standards of the Subdivasicn Regulatx.ans. The tract is designated Agricultural Rsidential in the LMd Use plan and is located in the Little Raver Fare District. YLizer moved approval of the preliminary plat for section 9 r Fox Ram Subdivisiaa. Bacon seconded, y The motion was unani musty ap raved. AGmm ITEM 6: Bracks mobile, acme Park -- Prelin nary Kirk gave a description of the rust. Property is located in Bingham TD`wnShi.p off S.R. 1956 (Crawford Dairy goad) . 'mere are 7 lots proposed out of apprcx nately 76 act. The proposed road is to be canstn cted to Private Class B standards. 'the lot sizes meet the minim n standards of the Zoning ce ordinan and Subdivision Regulations. The tract E is designated Agricultural. Residential in the Land Use Plan and E %hifiney fig district covers this area on a volunteer basis. He told the Board that the plat would need to show 40,000 squire feet for each lot outside of the mad right-of-gray. The Board heard that all lots had been approved by the j Health Depart rot. M 7TION. Kizer m z ed approval of the Bracks Mobile Home Park Preliminary Plat with a stipulation that each lot show 40,000 square met outside the road right-of-way. Lunsiord seconded. I 'try The motion carried unanimously. Atli ITEM 7 Jams Bennett - Preliminary Kirk gave a description of l the proposal stating that it met the 7o�n of Hills-- borough's Zoning requirenents. Property 1s located in the To wa of Hillsborough off Uaphine Drive. There are 11 lots proposed out of 4.56 acres. The public road is constructed try the equivalent of the Cnmty's Class A private road. standards. The lot sues meet the minimum standards of the Town of Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance. The tract its designated as Urban in the Land Use Plan and is located in the Hillsborough Flre District. This tract had a subdivision plat recorded several years ago. After several building per- mits had been issued it was found the original survey was not accurate. The Town of Hillsborough Planning Board has reviewed this subdivision. Their re- =mt ndati.ons are that the subdivision be approved with 20 font wide graml road. He referred, the Board to a letter Frr� the to n. Kizer expressed corn about access for the lots. Cannity explained that structures had been located an several of the lots and one would have to be related in carder to fit the ozi ctinal plan. He added that the unusual street configuration was chosed in order to give access to all of the lots. Cannity told the Board that the j County enforces its subdivision regulation's within the Tom, at the Tkrwn's request. Shank]-in stated that he didn't want to be involved with approving small lots and the request should be sent back to the Town for :Further action. Polatty told the Board only the County mould approve- the subdivisions and that the recatnwndatian its far the approval of the mad and I its alignment. Cannity added that this street ali gnm nt I and surface treat was not to be the Town's policy i on all subdivisions. Boeri.c ke was concerned that the Town would not be able to pave the street. 4 i �".�(N: Si1rfn lin noved that :the prelindnary plat fear jams-- Bennett be approved with the stipulation that the .road neet minirmn county standards. Wilson seconded. The nntion carried unanimausly. AGENDA ITEM 8: Wa thdra m AGENDA I° M 9: Taw bb=i,tt - Dzoaing cane ty described the rezoning request stating that a neighborhood cxm mrcial - II (NC--2) district was being reTmsted for a zming lot of 44,250 sq.- ft. 'phis lot is located on Highway 70 near the intersection of state mad. 1002 (Saint Mary's Road) and U.S. 70, in the Orange %Wal. Fie District. The property is Sham on Hillsborough Tomship Tax Map 22 Block @ part, of lot #l. ' `nm traffic counts in this area are 6250 daily trips on Hi.gt way 70 and 1600 trips on Saint Mary's Road. He addIed that Health Department approval had been given.. Cami.ty told the Board the Windex of the lot would be zoned R-1. Kizer express- ed concern about controlling the number of garb cuts. MXTON: Kizer moved approval. of the Ttwy M arri.tt Rezo ing re- quest. Bacon seconded. t1 lie motion was unaniamusly approved. AGENDA ITEM 10: Paul. Kempa - Darning at the intersection of US 70 and Pars hove Church Road. Car i.ty described the proposal explaining that there was a possibility of two separate lots being created :tc the property. Mike Parker, Keaa's representative, passed out Naps showing nearby ca mercial. uses. He told the Board that op- position to the ]rezoning voiced at the hearing was based on the belief that the intersection has a high :rate of tmffic a=idents. Parer presented a emgmter printout f=m DOT that listed one major accident at the intersection in the last 3 years. He added that other intersections along U.S. 70 East have higher accident rates. Per told the Board that the developers has no irm 3iate plans for the property until an alternate waste system is approved. Boeri.cke asked if 5 acres was the raci a R n total for cxacrcner,.Lal. deve.lopnmt with- in the node. Cmnity gold the Board that zcn..ing lots had been created arotmd the other uses, but that the Kernpa rezoning wiaul.d take up most of the renaining acres allotted for the node. A mm firm the audience told the Board that acne erosi cn damage had been caused by trees be cut drawn on the property. Cm-Lnity stated that until the st=V were ramoVed or the lot cleared the c',cnmty could not enforce the erosion control ordinance. S umUin ren=ked that if the PmP=rt3' was' reed sm'e erosican stabilizaticn would be dome by the req ;xed. Polatty told the Board that the nsjghbors Had not opposed the land use plan designation of a acrmexci.al node at the intersection during the land use plan hearings. M Barbour spoke from the audience that the I eighbol-s ICt`I ght y I not have known that i-..khe Intersection had been proposed as a caammmia.] area.. Pa ker told the Board that the curly "Logical" use of property would be cxon eel,. �C Kizer moved that the Board recd mend approval of the Paul Kempa remning request.. Bacon seconded. Irvin said that he was cma med that if the property were rezoned without sewage disposal that other amerci.al proposals might be encouraged. Polatty stated that the applicants had acted according to the adopted land use plan. I:f the land use plan were to be an-ended, then so be it but the applicants should not be penalized for having acted in good fa 3.th on an adopted plan. WTB: In, favor of noticxn: Bacon, Sbanlclin, Kizer, Lunsford OPP •w Wilson, Boericke, Laszlo, Irvin Crawford broke tie by voting favor of the nation. AGENDA ITEM 1 , Willie Wrlsm - Rezcnun.g Catrdty described the proposal I stating the applicant has zegmsted Garomal 0mnmrcu-a-IV (GC-4) designatim for property located in Eno Township I off Craig Road. 'the property is shown on Tax Map 17, Lot 13F, it is a 6.32 acre lot. The property is located on Wilson Road, a private street. It does not ham stage on a state mauntamed road. The Orange County Health Department had denied an movements Permit for this property. Cannity added that the Planning Staff receded denial of the repast because the rezoning was not in confJozanmee with the land use Plan. I MXTC N: I Kizer moved that the Board reccmend denial of the Willie Wilson rezani.ng regmst. Willson secmded. VOTE: I i fain: Kizer, Boericke, Wilson, Laszlo, Irvin mod: 5hankl.in, Lunsford, Bacon Motion carried. 5-3. AGENDA ITEM 12 a Roy Wilkerson -- Fezni.ng C:anni,ty described the request stating this existing camercial use is located in Hlll,sboroxgh Township and is shown on Tax May 5 Block B P/0 Lot. 4. It is an Highway 57 north and is within the orange Rural M-re District. 'This cormercial use was over- looked when wing was originally applied to Hills- borough ` ow�p on Septoenber 2, 1981. G north sideorf the property. He added that the four existing structures were included in the zonlng lot and that the staff fait that the 300' X 500' in- cluded the entire grading operation. Bacon, cited the storage of pipa on lot 4. Wilkerson's representative, C�allemymj asked that the request be taken back to Pub-1-1c hearing for the larger loti, My1TC1N: Shanklin imved. that the Planning Board recommend that the whole- 6.62 acres go back to public hearing for consiaeration. Bacon seconded. VYTE-. 1he motion carried unanimously. Aj=M ITEM 13; Rac=nendaticn on Water Resources Task Form Repott YMCN: Kizer moved that the Board reaffinn its initial recamlendat'on regarding the Water Resources Task Force peport. Boericke Barbo= asked how taxes an the buffer strips would be handled. Polatty answered that the tax rates would be adjusted, dcwn. Barbour asked if a double septic field would be required to rebuild an existing dwelling if it burnt dam. Polatty answw ed that there would be no effect upon rebuilding an existing WTE: qhe motion passed by a vote of 4 in favor,, one opposed, and because of a omflict of interest. Laszlo abstained because of nuoted feelings an the matter. AMqrA IMM 14 Rtacommmdaticn an proposed dianges to the Zoning Ordinance 4.2.19.B that item 2 and 3 in sectim 4.2. M)nCN: Wilson moved to recommend 19,B. be cortbined to mad Iltbe sites located outside the Chapel ijill and Carr-boro rural buf fer as designated in the land use plan." Laszlo seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 6 in favor, none opposedp and two abstentions. Irvin abstained because of a conflict Of interest. Lunsford abstained she was concerned with input and if it is compatible with the area involved. 6.3.1 Carinity described the proposed changes citing the stafl rec=nandaticn that the 3rd paragraph be withdrawn for fur- ther work by the staff. 7 M7PlCN: ! wil,son moved that the beard adapt the rec cmnanded changes j as amended ( 3rd pa'a%-aph deleted) . Kizer seconded. VOTE: ! She- motion passed by a vote of 5 in favor, two opposed, and I one abstention. For - wi lson, Boericke, Ki.z+er, Las 2a o, Shank lin opposed - Bacon, Lisfoard Obstaining -- Irvin Irvin abstained because of a conflict of interest.. MOTICN: 7.6 & 8.5 Kizer moved that the Board adapt secti.oan. 7.6 as written, and that the board adopt section 8.5 with word- ing dinged similar to section 7.6. Lansford seconded. 'GM: The mo an was approved imanimously. Protected Watershed Il District MMICN: Kizer moved that the Board apt the rec+a Mnded d a ages in the protected Watershed 2 District -sttiMAM out section 6.23.20. Win seconded.. VO IE: %he motion passed by a vote of 5 in favor, one opposed,, cane abstention. Bacm did not vote. For - Boericke, Kizer, Wilson, Laszlo, Lunsford Cpposed - Shm*lin Ob::tained - Irvin Irvin abstainedd because he spoke against the recommendation at the hearing. AGMM IgEM IS: Fred Cates - na-zoning - Preliminary C.antai.ty briefly described the Cates rezmi.ng proposal explain- ing that the request is for an addi..tial 32 units on 4 acres. A=mIm 16: Buck M=tai.n - Sal Use Permit Preliminary Canni..ty told the Board that this project had been resubmitted for a class A Special Use Permit. He added that a maximm of 276 planes are proposed to use the airport. The Board heard that the site plan had been modified and no corercial uses were now being proposed. The board expressed concern about approach zones. A diagram was presented by Luce. The staff stated that the ordnance required the developers control a wedge shaped area exbe ndi.ng out to 5000' from, each end of the runway. SAs wedge would be 500' wide at the end of the rmway, 800" wide 1000' out, and 2000' wide 5000' out. John Northern, Buck Mountain attorney told the Board that the Zoning Ordinance did not specify a length or distance for the approach, zone. Lee Buck M4t�2��i - s of 1000 to 200o �t arm ` ed that a WOU.a be a that-an aP� . ��tb a c Mgbt beams`art- � was H� �t y it is ncxt tY xx''ed that to an � �'�g' to the f� � Pine wottaa a, 'rac about� t�d the ms`s) ��lY. 750 ope'rat tJ aajnu=ea at 11:00 p.m, =LIZ L�:G DATE July x 9.82....,.,..._.,.._.. S eca- ProperL-1 of Ralph !garren Terry & wife Gail F. `l,'e*ry Departm-ant: P1ann#I g Public Hearing: yes � Attar;=-rit(s) : Cjiec.'cljst pg. 1 tZ-==-tj.0a Contact: Fick Cannity p pg. 2 ,� i's�-c�Der.. 732-8181 M. 347 To consider approval of the minor subdivision for the Property of nal ph Warren & wife (-i.? F. Tez y with a private 30 Foot partai.al width right-of�y. =L : Property is located in Chapel.. Fill Township off S.R. 1129 (Davis Fnad) . There is one lot (13.001 acres) proposed cut of 17.6 acres. Me road pressed is to be a Class C ,ar'vate road with a 30 foot easy-ment for approximately 820 feet ftom the Stake road to the lot. his lot is designated Agricultural-Residential in the Land I Use Plan and is in the Orange Grove F=al fare district. E TMP� T: The proposal tests the ex.3ting standa=rds for lot size, but does not ireet the right-off-way regu xerrnts. M"he lot is bordered by rural va©ode�-? and undeveloped land.. This request woiil,d have rinLml irpa,cts i.f approved.. The Plmmi.ng Staff recamiazds approval. g• ; F 4 MINOR SUBDI N "CHECKLIST Property.of OF SUBDIVISION Ralph Warren Terry & wife Gail F. Terry :' OWNER OR DEVELOPER ' Ralph'Warren Terry/Gail F. Terry RESS J&J ncbile FIa e 'Park, -Rt. 2, lot 12, Chapel Hill- N.C. 27514: FIR Orange Grove Rural .ISHIP Chapel Bill TAX MAP 10 HL©CK��©T P/u 12 E OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER David A. r;raffunder -- - A One phase (s) , Total number of acres 3.001 number of lots one To be developed in � Lcal dwelling units at present_ none or proposed modular 3R SUPPLY: Public(name) Communit al X. y Individual ` %GE TREATMENT: Public Community Ind'v dual Septic tank X ©L DISTRICT Orange County -- :ss onto State Road # 1129 Road Standard: Public X or Private Class A_t B_, 'C X sting critical areas such as streams( ) , Flood prone areas( , Historic Sites ( Other( } : Lain: None I Uses in the general area: Fa-inning and singe- family rest entl I kL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) 7/2/82 } All lots were approved Ey the Health- ealt Department = chard Wagoner Jr. 3/26/$2 Lots failing Health Department's approval are combIned Fr—lis ted propiarly7 properly on t e plat Board of Education approved. Date 717%82 � an tunsford I D } Erosion Control Officer approved. ate 7112/92 T,,Iarren FaircLojh Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) . Approved ' I } improvements have been provided for; completed, bond, letter of credit, cash. Date } OWASA approval (where applicable) Date i i I 1 i .�J V ry V3 Od 1"96 O/d VM-1 dVV4 3�S 01 t C C-2- „ r,21 a8r a�rr ° , h'0�2 1"9 6 9v •mil ! '/, `�. �t 9t, ! 97 r oM r.. 2 age, i �27 11 .5 lc:.i C° CC-:2 - t roc; .M .- r,,=TN-G DAT'F. 4uly 19, 1932 Subject: Re-SubuidL%ion Tots 98-103 Fox Trkm Section 8 T in �p �.�. t Qla wing _ public ��.a � Io r =tian n tact-: 'ark Caxxdty At� -ent(s) Cbbcklist pg, 1 Tatk imp Pg. 7 Phime- 't�ArzII'I,=X: 732-8181 MST. 347 Plan -- mm : To c miner approval of the Prelimixmry Plan for the Fe-Subdivision of lots 98-103 F'x Fm Section 8 NEED: Ptcsperty is located. .i.n Litt1.e River --,a hip cm ��.�, �ol3,aw Drive o�� SR 1593 (Little Firms Drive) . n e developer is adding, several a� of land. to the existing lots and =Arl ng lot lines around to create one additional lot. Thel mad is public and is being constructed to N.C. Oepartzient of Mrar'SPOTI*tati.an staxldar s. The lot sizes meet the minimm standards of the Zoning crai� and Subdivision Rec?ulations. n s tract i.s designated hgricul.tu�at-F identiaT.. in the land Use Plan and is in the Little River fire dis4ict. I The pmpexty is bordeze t_v t m Sout='h Fork of the Little Fiver and other sectims oir Fox .gym.. The area arm the subdivision is nzral weaoded land. 2AUrroval of this request uith. file Fioo&aay, as shmjn on the plan, would have :iu:ei h pacts. `he Plan Staff .. .. �1�.�11f� ''"E?1.^vGH1f'YId.S ap� .. E • 1 -MAJOR SUBDI CJ•IECKLIST f{ )F SUBDIVISION ne-subdivision..lots 98-1Q3 Fax Run Section 8 -OWNER OR DEVELaPER , 3S 127cCorttinential Drive Durham N.C. 28 BLOCK- LOT pXO9 Fire Distr#c� Little River 3IP Little F'.iver TAX MAP_„ ,__-__,_ F SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Credle Engineering Co. Inc. _ I b (one rte r) To be developed in—Phase(s), Total: number of acre number of lots s � _ -` or proposed i�sidential al dwelling units• at present _Individual. SUPPLY: Public(name) Community x community„� Individual 5egteic tAnk � •SCHOOL DISTRICT. t- TREATMENT: Publ.i.c - or Private Class A _ =. —.---� C-- ----- Exgl�zin:_.. ;s onto State Road 1Sg� __ Road Standard, Public x_ - Historic Sites ( ) , Other ( } :ing critical areas such as streams ( Xj, Flood prone areas ( X ) , South Fork Little Mver- uses in the general .area: idential �H FLAN RECEIVED (Date) pproved ( X ) Recommended Chan as ( ) ASINAItY PLAN RECEIVED (Bate) ? 12 -82= REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date)-. Review by Health DePartment_3oucJ �Io yfield:7/.14,82 Erosion Control. officer Ilaard of Education Dan Lunsfr�rd 7/13,82 Department of Transportation ©NASA (if possible) -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) -orange/Alamance (if possible) Upinary. Action by the Planning Board Lminary Action by the County Commissioners. , PLAT RECEIVED, (Date) 1 All lots mare approved by the Health Department , the plat i Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined -or listed properly on t -Road Maintenance Agree4ent submitted (where applicable) . Approved ' Improvements have been provided for; completed, bond, letter .of credit, cash. Data Final, 4WASA approval (where applicable) ton all plans & specifications. Date ' i .Final, DOT approval on plat Final action by the Planning Board +- C �r r Fz i b Ia► M80A HlnOS 1 r r i "fb101 q 1°£11 i i I . -00 '0V It,44q 'g -Aiv1 O'L-ov 19-O L f 4../ Pn. 1 MAJOR,SUBDIVjft CHECKLIST qW )F. SUBDIVISION ' Fox Burt S 01MER OR DBVEL{?PER F& W I7evelo xn rtts Inc. f iS' . 727 Cant' en - 11?- 'Little 'Ri y r TAX MAP'2R ° BLOCK" _I�4T P d ,�. Fire 3' itri ct Little River )F, SURVEYOR•ok ENGINEBR' Cred1p. Inn. riu�ilser af-"3.a�a•��"2 - Ts�fie.'d�vel:oped�,n��?ha�e�s);�T��a�_. number crf acres B it dw.qlling units= at present . w or proposed SUPPLY: Public(name) Community Individual X . TRLATMENT: Fublic �,Community ___„_;,Individual.. 8epteic. tank X SCiit?t}L DISTRICT r n e s onto - Road # 7593---„Road ,Standard: Public, x or Private-Glass A , B , Lpa critical areas such as streams ( X-)., 1� od prone areas ( ) : Historic Sites { } , other ( }, Explain: South Fork of Little ises in- the general. areat i.PLAN RECEIVED {Date) 5/2718 Approved. ( } Recommended Changes .( ,IINARY, PLAN RECEIVED' (Date) '6/8/82� REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) niriary Review by Health;Department mu Hol. field 6/11/82 L�rasion Control Officer6j2j82 EnT£'_ •Board of Education nan Tins f rd -- F/a ra? Department of Transportation 014ASA (flf possible) -Mebane Cif possible) { -Hillsborough .(if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if possible) unary Action by the Planning Board Iteco.7ue tded a . 1 unary Action by- the County CommissidnersRecomne ended a rc PLAT RECEIVED'--(Date) 7/1.4/82 All lots .xrere approved by the Health Department Lots failing liealth. Departments approval are combined -or listed properly on the plat Road-'Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) . :Approved Improvements have been provided for; completed, bond, letter of credit, cash. Date ' Final oWASA approval (where applicable) •an all plans & specificati.ons, Date Final. DOT approval -on plat Final: action :by the Planning Board f9*03S NnUIX04-1 0!2 dVV4 3as z zeo o sot 39018 Q, a Ix L r r 1XII Y,86A Hinos CO. I SI cfvw 33sH 14 0 v 06 Is; I -1 10 I'M '00 ov H7 IL2 V101 19 84 0 0 00 C: 6OLt7_V MAJOR SUBDIV CHECKLIST OF SUBDIVISION SE TIELD Fevision Sec. 4 & 7) OWNER OR,DEVELOPER Go SS 121 N. ColUrrbia Street- Chapel Hlll, 'N.C. 27514 lIg C..H. TAX MAP l7 .�.BLt�C;,_�__-__LOT •15. Fire District New Ftope� _ .. lr.SURVEYOR.OR ENGINEER Freehold Land Surveys, laic. number of lota-- 15 —To_'b.e_devel.oped-ix 2--�hase-(.a);Tot$l numher--of -acres - i1' dwel.ling units. at present Wane or,proposed individual ' SUPPLY: Public(name) Community X Individual ' TREATMENT: Public Community- Individual Septeic tankkOHOOL DISTRICT.- Cho 1 Hlll onto-State RoadF 17 1 ' Road Standard: Publics ,or-Private Class A , R , C Lng critical .'areas, such as -streams ( X ), Flood prone areas �(. }, Historic Sites ( } , Other Explain.-�� treams throe zpa.s in the general area.•- I FLAN• RECEIVED (Date) Approved ( } :Recommended Changes ( ) IINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 5,L1,C82 Binary, Review by Health Department' Ran- Holdwa 6/15/82 Erosion Control Officer Board' of Education 6 2 82 Pakela Mayer Department of Transportation 6/17/82 Mike Neils OTIASA '(if possible) Town of Chaff Hill-001= E2 .'-. a/$2 -Mebane (if passible) -Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if possible). Inary Action by the Planning Board 'Recomwnded a3nroval .6/21Z82 inary..Action 'by the County Commissioners Reccmmanddd a royal 7/6Z82 PLAT• RECEIVED {Bate} 7/14/82 Ail lots were 'approved by,the Health Department Lots failing. liealth Departments approval"are combined- or listed properly on the plat Road_Maintenance Agreement submitted •(where applicabld)-. Approved Improvements have been provided .for; completed; bond, letter of credit, -cash. Date--r--w- Finzil OWASA approval (where applicable) on all glans & spec3x 1.car ions. Date ?inal -DOT approval on plat 72.nal action by the Planning' Board E - i • ; 1 SEE MAP 17 B -� SEDGEFIELD SEC.3 r EE AP 1 D 5E GEFI LD SEC 4 +411 2938 '/ ic ,q os 22.61 AC. SEE MAP 17C � } SEDGEFIELD SEC. 2 SCE- AP 7E S GE L SE •`�i 1 S E M A 17 SEOGEFIEL SEE M P SEDGERE D SEC oJERLAP Th ISEE K �ti I _ IqW : k !T-1 :r Ti 1CI SL JJ°C`�2 Paquest by --ted & Wzabet h Catk's for" Pazor i.ng frOM. 11�msideatlal-1 (It-1) to nesidettia3. - 6 (R-B) i -.._.- } Fx& r» A A,;Pacati on :ate ac. 2ic Lannity jon ap/ c r 1. 8�8 cat ph=L�_ 732-8181. El.'s'. 347 I 2ts'T OSE:To receive input and eMMMts ==mint an application for M=Ilng "X= �i;asi&mtaa1-CR-1) to Tiesidenti.al.-8 (T.-•8) t I NEM: tae applicant has requested hich 6m,SitY residential (P.-B) aesi.cnatiOn for Prooerty located in F,Usb r_.h '"whip off Ord tIrOve r0ad, just south of T-85 the property is p/0 Lot 28 bl=k 8 ".14 38 and is ShOvrn m Tax ap 42, EjJlsbO TCWMia1.}P• --he tzlet is 115 c 5r 3b01T� 40 acres of ,*Iich lies south of I-85. property to the east and west has developed by the applicant with 49 mat units on 6 ac: of land. HiiLl.sborot2gh Tarim water and sanitary seder sery-:.. is available to the site. i ACC: The rezonj ng request is in general tca� 4rith tk oraange C7r�unty raw use Plan. RAever,r the high density develcSmt allots uncle tine n^8 designation may have a& rsa its on the existing develop .nt in this area. me rez ing fit, does not address the follamina i=-)Ortant C%xicel=: 1. Fire protection :5or the existing units and for tbose proposed. Devert at this density stzn" have fire hydrants no further than 3001 by road b= every unit. 2. nr a are no receational facilities existing on -he site, there are :KrI-- uropras-,. If approved there would be a total n 80 `mits..with no recreational area. 3. ft is m provision for central, serVi aes r With the nub of units there 5-bm c be sale prov).sim far laundry fam 3.i.ti.es 1 and central trash disposal. } � L eking the units to 4. ""taer.re i.s no �est:ri.an cirt^tal.ata.on one ax tk=, to trash disposal sites and to the main roads. 5. streets :dy not be ?Hard suuaeel nor a kite to handle tine ai met c! t ra'!fic generated by the amrber e- units a1lawe'.I. i 6. parking would hme to be provided according to t:a ZonL-19 O&Iinance. Yct new, the existing pal mnq .s5aces back directly out into the travel tray. --us is an unsafe situation and will becore wo=e iG the rezonisul is aPProved. 7. V ith a re=ni ng he b ldL--iu to bui.11:bng setbacks are gm"- d t y seatiraat 6.12 but the_+-e will be no limping :Wui�ts. 'r ae = plicrxt ik?S ;crovi ded r iniral Zartr3.sc�apinc3 around the exert= units. ?'he site is resently 'n up in lobolly pine. µ 8. There will be no overa-U developx nt plan to insure adequate provision ' of access, and other urban services. Pieca-,'ieal develogiec nt such as proposed costs more,in the l=a nm for both the Cb mty ah-d the developer. _ - - MMW2MPMC?N: Staff rectmnds denial of the rezoning request. i= EO=+_ OF item. z1b. 5t3b3ectFriends Community Development Problems Planning Pub)is Hearing: : Utter, Narrative, lri !O=ti= C=t ct— Rick Cannity Incorporation papers , Restrictive Covenents Phme Ncs 732-8181 Ext 347 To discuss with the Planning Board t1ie difficulty Friends Community finds itself in today and the possible alternativ, fob the development to meet existing standards. NEED: The project was started in the early 1970' s in Cheeks Towns) 100 + Ac. were purchased with the intention of creating 10 - 5Ac + lots. Five of tAe 10 lots were recorded by plat or deed pFior to the adoption of Subdivision regulations fob Cheeks Township in March 1978. There are presently 9 exlsting structures on this property. The Friends Communit, W would like to be able to record- a plat showing the 10 lots __- and the access to the lots. IMPACT: The existing development does not nreet subdivision Standard: that are in effect today. in fact there are now too many Lots using t-ie access road for it to qualify for a private road. The Staff has discussed the alternatives with re- presentiv+es of the Friends Corununity. The alternatives as Staff sees them are: 1. Upgrade road to NCDOT ser�ondary road standards and dedicate it for public use, ` s divide property according to regulations . 2. Create 1 acre tracts for those individuals that have not had their Land recorded. f G. J`Iiy 6, 1982 Mr. Rick Cannity Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mri Cannity : In anticipation of our presentation to the Planning Board on July 19, 1982, at 7 : 80 P .m. , T am forwarding to you the following materials : 1 . A summary statement regarding the history and current situation of Friends Community with regard to our desire to file the plat in question; 2 . A copy of the Friends Community Preamble and Corporate By-Laws; 3 . A copy of the Restrictive Covenants binding on property-owners in Friends Community, and 4. A copy of the plat which we wish to file, indicating that all ten lots had actually been surveyed prior to March, 1978. 1f you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me personally . If T do not hear from you regarding a change in the Board's schedule, we will plan to make our presentation on July 19 at 7 : 30 . 1 Sincerely, Christopher H. Cooke, Clerk CC :enclosures I Request to the Board of Planning Of Orange County By Friends Community, Incorporated July, 19, 1982 To the Board We are ten families, a community of neighbors and friends. Because of an unfortunate oversight several years ago, we now find I 'Id ourselves in difficulty, and we need your help. We have been to I that we cannot, under new regulations, file our community's plat. What we asklis that you make it possible for us to do so. I When our community was formed, some ten years ago, its designers made every effort to meet and even to exceed county standards. By July, 1973,1when we filed in Durham to make Friends Community a non- profit corppration, we had already written into our legal documents the intent and organization of the community. Our restrictive covenants and bylaws formally discouraged land speculation and set forth strict rules providing for the safety of the residents and the environmental quality of the entire property. I On ourJ110-acre tract, we laid out ten, five-acre lots, and sold them to people who wanted to live in harmony with one another, and with the natural resources around them. With the sale of each lot went a comm pity membership and a share of the remaining 60 acres. This common�y held property we devoted to parkland, gardening and recreation. Because of this shared property, we have always felt that, in a I very real sense, each of our households has ten acres of land. That I acreage is not all contiguous, however, and cannot be made so without badly disrupting the organization of our community. We enjoy having UP the shared property, and feel it effectively prevents the community from ever b4ing overdeveloped or too densely populated. It seems to us ironic that, had we chosen ten years ago to carve our land up into tea-acre lots, we would not now have trouble filing our plat. It wasin6t until several months ago, when we tried to find a copy of our platlin the courthouse, that we realized a mistake had been made. The 1979 survey of our property had been completed, but the plat had never been filed. An older plat had been filed. Five of our lots were on it; five were not. Before that discovery, nothing in our dealings with county officials ever led us to imagine that we might somehow be in variance with county regulations. In fact, some of us have even been issued building permits since the subdivision ordinance was enacted, and for the very lots now in question. But because the completed plat was not filed, several of our families can- not now sec re the permits necessary to build or improve their homes. We hav read the text of the subdivision ordinance, and, thanks to helpful explanations from the planning staff, feel we understand it. We do not feel, however, that this ordinance can in fairness be applied to us. Our reasons are as follows: 1. We can document that the division of our land was accomplished, in fact, before the ordinance was effective, and in concept as early as 1972. 2. At the time they were drawn, our lots met county standards and regulations, so as to exempt them from subdivision regulation. 3. Our lots exceed, by more than five times, the minimum size restriction required by even the present regulations. These lots may never be further divided, because of restrictive covenants. 4. Our restrictive covenants, binding on all our property owners, go well beyond the requirements of Section IV of the regu- lations, where they apply. The intent and spirit of the subdivision regulations are met and exceeded. 5. Our road is a dedicated private road, in use since 1972. We have contractual agreements for its upkeep. Modifica- tion of this road would present a financial hardship to the present users, who are satisfied with its present layout. 6. We are not a subdivision in the way this ordinance addresses. Rather, we are an intentional community of landowners whose incorporation is not for profit. We have committed ourselves to proper management of the land. Beyond these points, it seems to us that the subdivision ordi- nance has been designed to protect people like us from inadequate planning or poor development practices. We suffer from neither malady. Our community is, for the most part, built. Many of us have lived there happily for years. There is only one undeveloped lot,, and it has been sold. We are pleased with our roads and the community spirit our cooperative ownership has engendered. We do not need the protection of a subdivision ordinance. What we do need, however, is a legally filed and recorded plat. Such a document is essential to the conduct of our community's business affairs. And *that is why we need your help. It seems to us that, should you grant us our request, you will not fail to serve the interests of the county. You will simply help correct an over- sight, and allow us to finish the job we began ten years ago. Sincerely yours, The members of Friends Community Judy S. Gamble The Chairperson announced that Articles of Incorporation for corporation had been filed with the Secretary of State for the State o North Carolina on the 25th day of July. 1973, and had been approved b- Secretary of State and returned to the corporation. Upon motion it wai ordered that the Articles be accepted and that after the cer-ified cop, recorded with the Register of Deeds of Orange County, North Carolina, 1 it be inserted into the minute book of the corporation. The acting Chairperson, then suggested that the Board of Dirk adopt r ormed By-Laws of the corporation in order to govern the affairs 21) the co orlation. Upon motion duly seconded, the following were adoptec the By a of the corporation, baving first been read, *considered, ;di.and ,agreed upon section by section.' BY-LAWS OF FRIENDS COMMUNITY, INCORPORATED PREAMBLE Desiring to live in harmony with both nature and our fellow m the articles of incorp6ration and the by-laws set forth below are an at to realize a living community based on principles of hamoniott1 living. Traditio'nal Friends (Quaker) testimonies are our guiding ideals, foreir:i awng these being cooperation, harmony, non-violence both to ran and na tolerance, and moderation. We propose to leave the majority of the tract in its natural state, dedignating a limited number of "five-acre-tracts" to be deeded individuals who wish to join the community. The individual com.munity-M� owners would old title to their individual tract (s) and also be share in the remaining acres of property owned by the corporation. The respoi for managing the corporate land would be that of the community memberst- 14=m?fnj- lanes, a pond, communal garden space, and recreational areas w( be initial tasks. In addition, each community-member-owner would be responsible developing his own tract (s) (if he should choose to make any changes at all) in accordance with the spirit of the following by-laws which are d( to promote ecologically sound development. The community (corporation) to make 1* o financial profit. These by-laws,will, be interpreted by the c Munitypembers themselves in a spirit of harmony and responsibility. ARTICLE I Mutas Section 1. Principal Office: The principal office of the corp oration shall' be located at until such time as construcqion was completed in the property to be acqu by the corporation. Section 2. Registered Office: The registered office of the corp shall be located at 205—Sexetla_Street, Chane Section 3. Other Offices: The corporation may have offices at s other places, either within or without the State of North Carolina, as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine, or as the affairs of t corporation may require. ARTICLE II. MEETING OF SHARE-HOLDERS Section .l. Place o'f Meeting: All meetings of the shareholders s be held at the principal office of the corporation, or at such other place either within or without the State of North Carolina, as shall be designat, -in the notice of the meeting or agreed upon by a majority of the shareholdi entitled to be present thereat. Section 2. Annual Meeting: The annual meeting of shareholders shall be held during the third week of January of each year., if not a lega. holiday, and if a legal holiday, then on the next business day following at the same hour, for the purpose of selecting Directors of the corporatioi and for the transaction of such other business as may be properly brought before the meeting. Section 2. Substitution Annual Ileetka: If the annual meeting shali not be held on the date designated by these By-Laws, a substituted annual meeting may be called in accordance with the provisions of Section of this ArtiLle. A meeting so called shall be designated and treated for all purposes ao the annual meeting. Sectiou 4. Special Meetinp; Special meetings of the shareholder -niay be called at any time by the President, Secretary or Board of DirectorE of the corporation, or by any shareholder pursuant to the written request of the holders of not less than one-tenth (1/10) of all the shares entitled to be present at the meeting. Section 5. Notice of Meetings: Written or printed notices static the time and place of the meeting shall be delivered not less than ten (10) nor more than fifty (50) days before the date thereof, either personally ox by mail, or at the direction of the President, the Secretary or other perso calling the meeting, to each shareholder of record entitled to participate such meeting. in the case of an annual or substitute annual meeting, the notice of meeting need not specifically state the business to be transacted therea unless it is a matter other than election of Dirrectors, on which the decisi of shareholders is expressly required by the provisions of the North Caroli Business Corporation Act. In the case of a special meeting, the notice of meeting shall specifically state the purpose or purposes for which the meet is called. _ When a meeting is adjourned for thirty (30) days or more, notl the adj urned meeting shall be given as in the case of an original meetl When ameeting is adjourned for less than thirty (30) days in any one adjournment, it is not necessary to give notice of the adjourned meeting than by, announcement at the meeting at which the adjournment is taken. Section 6. Shareholder Lists: At least ten (10) days before e meeting of shareholders, the Secretary of the corporation shall prepare alphabe�tical list of the shareholders, with the address of and number of shares I he.ld by each, which list shall be kept on file at the registered for thecorporation for a period of ten (10) days prior to each meeting shall b!,e subject to inspection by any shareholder at any time during the usual usiUess hours. This list shall be produced and kept open at the 'meeting also and shall be subject to inspection by any and place of the shareh lder during the whole time of the meeting. Section 7. _q1Loru!j: The holders of a majority of the shares en to partl cipate, represented in person or by proxy, shall constitute a qu at meet ngs of shareholders. Such meetings may be adjourned from time t by the �ecision of a majority of the shares deciding on the motion to ad and, atrany adjourned meeting at which a quorum is present, any business be tran6acrad which might have been transacted at the original meeting. The shareholders at a meeting at which a quorum is pr:.seat may to do business until adjournment, notwithstanding the withdrawal of enou Section 8. Decision of Shareholders: Each outstandiag share h rights shall be entitled to equal weight on each matter submite at a se I eting of shareholders. Except in the election of Directors, the concensus, on any matt at a meeting of shareholders at which a quorum is present shall be the a of shar holders on that matter. Section 9. Informal Action hZ Shareholders: Any action which be taken at a meeting of the shareholders may be taken without a meeting a conse,6t in writing, setting forth the action so takeu# shall be signed all of Ithe persons who would be entitled to attend and decide upon such at a me!eting, and filed with the Secretary of the corporation to be kept the cor orate minute book. ARTICLE III. DIRECTORS Section 1. General Powers: The business and affairs of the co oration shall be managed by the Board of Directors by such Executive Com as the ard may establish pursuant to these By-Laws. Section 2. Number, Term and Oualification The number of Dire of the Forporation shall be not less than three (3) nor more than twenty Each Director shall hold office until his or her death# resignationo ret removal* disqualification, or his or her successor is chosen and qualifi Directors need not be resident$ of the State of North Carolina or shareholc of the corporation. Section 3. Selection of Directors: Except as provided in Sectior 6 of this Article, the Directors shall be chosen at the annual meeting of shareholders and those persons who receive the highest number of decisions be deemed to have been elected. It is the policy of the corporation that each shareholder, owning stock individually or jointly, shall be chosen as Director. Section 4. Vacancies: A vacancy occurring in the Board of Direc may be filled by the remaining Directors, though less than a quorum, or by the sole remaining Director, 'but a vacancy created by an increase in the authorized number of Directors shall be filled only at an annual meeting or at a apecial meeting of shareholders called for that purpose. The shareholi may choose a Director at any time to fill any vacancy not filled by the Directors. Section 5. Chairperson (clerk) ; There may be a Chairperson (Clerl of the Board of Directors chosen by the Directors from their number at any meeting of the Board. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directorg and perform such other duties as may be directed by the Board. Section 6. Com pensation: The Board of Directors shal' serve with- out compensation. Section T. Executive Committee: The Board of Directarq may, by resolution, designate two (2) or more Directors to constitute an Execut-l-le Committee, which committee to the extent provided in such resolution, shall have and may exercise all of the authority of the Board of Directors in the management of the corporation. ARTICLE. IV. MEETING OF DIRECTORS Section 1. Regular Meetings: A regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held immediately after, and at the same place as, the annual meeting of shareholders. In addition, the Board of Directors may provide by resolution the time and place either within or without the State of North Carolina for the holding of additional regular meetings. Section 2. Special Meetings: Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by or at the request of the clerk or any two (2) Directors. Such meetings may be held either within or without the State of North Carolina. Section 3. Notice of Meetings: Regular meetings of the Board of Directors may be held without notice. The person or persons calling a special meeting of the Board of Directors shall, at least two (2) days before the meeting, give notice - thereof1by any usual means of communication. Such notice need not speci the purpose for which the meeting is called. Attendance by a Director at a meeting shall constitute a waive :e of such meeting, except where a Director attends a meeting for express purpose of objecting to the transaction of any business because meeting� is not lawfully called. Section 4. Quorum; Attendance by the Clerk, or assistant Cler and twoladditional directors, shall constitute a quorum for the transact of business at any meeting of the Board of Directors. Section 5. Manner of Actin,&: At each meeting the manner of ac shall be by consefisus. The Clerk, or his representative, .,shall minute e. action 'and read it to the Meeting, each member of which having the oppor to indiclate his approval. The action shall be considered final and bind. only ifithere is no dissapproval expressed at its reading. Section 6. Informal Actioa_ky Directors; Action taken by the Directors, without a meeting, is nevertheless Board action if written coi to the action in question is signed by all of the Directors and filed wit the minutes of the proceedings of the Board, whether done before or aftei the action is taken. ARTICLE V. OFFICERS Section 1. Number: The officers of the corporation shall consis a Chairperson (Clerk) , a Secretary, a Treasuzer, and such Assistant Clerl Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Treasurers, and other officers as the BC of Dired I tors may from time to time choose. Any two (2) or more offices may be held by the same person. Section 2. Election and Term: The officers of the corporation be chos n by the Board of Directors. Stich selection may be held at any regularlor special meeting of the Board. Each officer shall hold office his deat resignation, retirement, removal, disqualification or his successor is selected and qualified. Section 3. Removal: Any officer or agent selected or appointed the Board of Directors may be removed by the Board with or without cause. Section 4. Compensation: The compensation if any, of all offic of the eprporation shall be fixed by the Board of Directors. I Section 5. Chair2erson (Clerk): The clerk (President) shall be principal executive officer of the corporation and, subject to, the contro, of the Board of Directors, shall supervise and control the management of corporation in accordance with these By-Lai4s. � He or she shall, when present, preside at all meetings of share and he shall sign, with any other proper officer, certificates for shares of the corporation and any deeds, mortgages, bonds, contracts or other instruments which may be lawfully executed an behalf of the corporation, except where required or permitted by law to be otherwise signed and exec, and except where the signing and execution there shall be delegated by the Board of Directos to some other officer or agent; and, in general, shall perform all duties incident to the office of the President and such other duties as may be prescribed by the Board of Directors from time to time. Section 6. Assistant Clerks ,-(Vice-Presidents): The Assistant C," in the order of their selection, unless otherwise determined by the Board Directors, shall in the absence or disability of the Clerk, perform the di and exercise the ppvers of that office. In addition, they shall perform t other duties and have such powers as the Board of Directors shall prescril Section 7. Secretary: The Secretary shall keep accurate records of the acts and proceedings of all meetings of shareholders and Directors. He or she shall give all notices required by law and by these By-Laws. H4 or she shall have general charge of the corporate boo" and records and of the corporate seal, and he or she shall affix the corporate seal to any 14 executed instrument requiring it. He or she shall have general charge of the stock transfer books of the corporation and shall keep, at the regist( or principal office of the corporation, a record of shareholders SIIOW'A6 I name and address of each shareholder and the number and class of thc share held by them. He or she shall sign such instruments as may req,uLre his of her signature, and, in general, shall perform all duties incident to the of the Secretary and such other duties as may be assigned to U-n or her fi time to time by the President (Clerk) or by the Board of DirecLorn. Section 8. Treasurer: The Treasurer shall have custody of all funds and securities belonging to the corporation and shall receive, depoE or disburse the same under the direction of the Board of Directors. He ot shall keep full and accurate accounts of the finances of the corporation I books especially provided for that purpose; and he or she shall cause a ti statement of its assets and liabilities as of the close of each fiscal ye, and of the results of its operations and of changes in surplus for such fiscal year, all in reasonable detail, including particulars as to convert securities then outstanding, to be made and filed at the registered or principal office of the corporation within four (4) months after the end c such fiscal year. The statement so filed shall be kept available for ins; by any shareholder for a period of ten (10) years; and the Treasurer shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the latest such statement to any share holder upon his written request therefor. The Treasurer shall, in general perform all duties incident to his or her office and suchother duties as assigned to him or her from time to time by. the President (Clerk) or by ti Board of Directors. Section 9. Assistant Secretaries and Treasurers: The Assistant Secretaries and Assistant Treasurers shall in the absence or disability the Secretary or the Treasurer, respectively, perform the duties and exe the powers of those offices, and they shall, in general, perform such of j duties as shall be assigned to them by the Secretary or the Treasurer, respectively, or by the President or the Board of Directors. Section 10. Bonds: The Board of Directors may by resolution any r all officers, agents and employees of the corporation to give the corporation with sufficent sureties, conditioned on the faithful of the duties of their respective offices or positions, and to comply othei conditions as may from time to time be required by the Board of ARTICLE VI. 3 i CONTRACTS, LOADS�, CHECKS AND DEPOSITS Section 1. Contracts: The Board of Directors may authorize Officer or officers, agent or agents, to enter into any contract or ei any instrument on behalf of the corporation, and such authority may b4 or coufined to specific instances. Secti= 2. Loans: No loans shall be contracted on behalf of the corporation and no evidence of indebtedness shall be issued in ite unlejs authorized by a resolution of the Board of Directors. Such aut may bye general or confined to specific instances. Section 3. Checks and Drafts: All checks, drafts, or other for the payment of money issued in the name of the corporation sha.Ll L signld 5y such officer or officers, agent or agents, of the corruratio in such manner as shall from time to time be determined by resolation the ard of Directors. 11�0 Section 4. Deposits: All funds of the corporation n-c other employed shall be deposited from time to time to the credit of the cor in su6 depositories as the Board of Directors shall direct. ARTICLE VII. CERTIFICATES FOR SHARES AND THEIR TRANSFER Section 1. Certificates for Shares: Certificates for shares the corporation shall be issued, in such form as the Board of Director: determine, to every shareholder for the fully paid shares owned by him certificates shall be signed by the President (Clerk) or any Vice-Pres: (Assistant Clerk) and the Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer or Treasurer. They shall be consecutively numbered or otherwise identifi( the name and address of the persons to whom they are issued, with the i of s6res and date of issue, shall be entered on the stock transfer bo( the e rporation. Section 2. Transfer of Shares: Transfer of shares shall be r on the stock transfer books of the corporation only upon surrender of I certificates for the shares sought to be transferred by the record hol( therei�f or by his or her duly authbrized agent, transferee or legal rej All certificates surrendered for transfer shall be cancelled before a r certificate for the transferred shares shall be issued. In lieu of d16sing the stock transfer books, the Boiird of Dif6c may fix in advance a date as the record date for any such detemination c shareholders, such record date in any case to be not more than fifty days and, in the case of. a meeting of the shareholders, not less than ten days immediately preceding the date on which the particular action requiring S determination of shareholders is to be taken. If the stock transfer books are not closed and no record date I fixed for the determination of shareholders entitled to notice of or to Tae present at a meeting of shareholders, or shareholders entitled to rece payment of a dividend, the date on which notice of the meeting is mailed or the date on which the resolution of the Board of Directors declaring s, dividend Is adopted, as the case may be, shall be the record date for sucl determination of shareholders. Section 3. Lost Certificates: The Board of Directors may author the Issuance of a new share certificate in place of certificate claimed t( have been lost or destroyed, upon receipt of an affidavit of such fact frc the person claiming the loss or destruction. When authorizing such issuat of a new certificate, the Board may require the claimant to give the corp( a bond in such sum as it may direct to indemnify the corporation against I from any claim with respect to -the certificate claimed to have been lost c destroyed, or the Board may, by resolution reciting that the circumstances justify such action, authorize the issuance of the new certificate without requiring such a bond. ARTICLE VIII. GENERAL PROMIONS Section 1. Dividends: No dividends shall be declared by the Boas of Directors. Section 2. Seal: The corporation's corporate seal shall consist two concentric circles between which is' the name of the corporation, the place of incorporation and in the center of which is the date of such into oration; and such seal as impressed on the margin hereof is adopted as the corporate seal of the corporation. Section 3. Waiver of Notice: Whenever any notice if required to given to any shareholder or Director under the provisions of the Aorch ,,Carolina Business Corporation Act or under the provisions of the charter w By-laws of this corporation, a waiver thereof in writing signed by the per, or persons entitled to such notice, whether before or after the time state( therein, shall be equivalent to the giving of ouch notice, Section 4. Fiscal Year: Unless otherwise ordered by the Board of Directors, the fiscal year of the corporation shall end on the 31st day of December each year. Section 5. Amendments: Except a I s otherwise provided herein, t4 By-Laws may be amended or repealed and new By-laws may be adopted by the consensus of the Directors then holding office at any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors. Section 6: General Policy: It shall be the right and responsibility of the Corporation to enquire into the attitude and beliefs of any prospective member to be reasonably sure that his behavior will be in harmony with the principles on which this corpora iou is based and as are stated in the Preamble to these articles. Section 7: Lea s ing. Members of the Corporation, if they are conslidering renting their property to tenants, are required to inform tlheir tenants fully of the nature of this Corporation and community. It is expected that the tenant will be in harmony with our idealls and will participate in the work and affairs of the Corporation in his Member's stead. Section 8: Consent to By-Laws: All new Members when joining the Corporation, will be required to read these Bylaws and Preamble and sign a statement that they understand and intend to abide bithese Bylaws. ARTICLE IX. STOCK OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER REqUIMIENTS Section 1. ownership Requirements: Only those persons approved, by the then current shareholders under the principles stated in the preamble hereto shall be eligible to own stock in the corporation. A five acre tract shall be deeded to a qualified individual contingent o: 'said individual having purchased stock in the corporation. Such stock shall be issued by the corporation to qualified individuals in an amount determined by the Board of Directors. Section 2. Stock Privileges; By virtue of stock ownership, each shareholder shall hold an undivided interest is the common grounds of the corporation with all privileges to the use thereof as may be designateld from time to time by the Board of Directors. Section 3. Limitation upon Transfer: Any shareholder desiring to convey his homesite shall also be required to convey his or her stock to the purchaser thereof at the time of transfer. � Any shareholder desiring to convey his or her property within the corporate community shall notify the Secretary of the cor- poration at least forty--five (45) days prior to the time such property is placed on the market through private solicitations or through a broker. If the Property being offered for sale is vacant (not yet improved with a dwelling), the corporation shall have forty-five (45) days from and after receipt of such notice to re-purchase said property or find an acceptable buyer at the original price at which it was purchased plus interest at six percent (6Z) per annum from atid afterl the date of acquisition. Upon the expiration of forty- five days* the withdrawing shareholder may sell to anyone of his or ---- - If such property is occupied by a dwelling at the time of such sale, t I he corporation shall have the option of purchasing said property at la price established by an appraiser selected by the with- drawing shar�,holder and the corporation. The corporation shall have forty-five (45) days after receipt of said appraisal in which to exercise itsi option or to find a purchaser of its choice for said property at �he appraised price. Upon the expiration of said period, the withdra .ng shareholder may sell to anyone of his choice. Alpy appraisal obtained as set forth above shall be only of the homesite and shall not include any portion of improvements which may be c;nstrudted on the common property of the corporation. Any property owner who is inv..olved in a forced sale of his or her propl ty shall notify the Board of such proceeding within two (2) days af%tr rd shall then attempt to , r receipt of notice. The Boa resolve the Oroceeding or find another purchaser for the property. In the eventlof a forced sale, or. in the event of failure to give the notice her'ei I h required, the property owner shall forfeit all rights in and to th6 stock in the corporation then held by him or her. S ction 4. Notice to Third Parties: In order to give adequate notice to any third party who may desire to purchase pro,)erty within the e rporate community, the officers shall cause a legear to be placed odiall stock certificates as follows: This stock is issued subject co limitations and restrictions on the trinsfer hereof as imposed by Article IX of the By-Laws of the corporation and any amendment thereto. As further notice, the officers shall cause restrictive covenants to be recorded �n the public registry of Orange County containing a specific reference to the provisions of this Article IX. A copy Of said restrictive convenants shall be attached to the minutes of the ARTICLE X. T e Board of Directors shall have no power to adopt a (1) requ iripg more than a majority of the shareholders for a quorum at a meetingof shareholders except where higher percentages are by law; (2)1 providing for the management of & corporation otherwise thlan by the Board of Directors or its Executive Committee and; (3) �creasing or declaring the number of Directors. go By-Law adopted or amended by the 'shareholders shall be altered or r t led by the Board of Directors. ^ Prepared by and - N.C. 27514 Return to:- John A. Northers, P.O. Box 207, Chapel Hill., DECLARATIONS OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS This Declaration, made this the - day of 1981 by Friends Community, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"), RC 2, Box 408-A, Hillsborough, North Carolina, and all the undersigned individuals, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Declarant"; W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain property in Cheeks Township, County of Orange, State of North Carolina, containing 103 acres more or less, according to plat entitled "Property of Friends Community, Inc." prepared by William Jerry Autry, R.L.S. , recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 164, Orange County Registry; i WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of Declarant, as well as to t benefit, interest and advantage of each and every person or entity hereaf acquiring any of the within-described property that certain covenants, conditions, easements, liens, and restrictions governing and regulating t use and occupancy of the same be established, fixed and set forth and declared to be covenants running with the land; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to provide for the preservation of the ---eminities and the desirability and attractiveness of the real property ,� described above; NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the property NORTHEN, LITTLE & BAGWELL described above shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the followin ATTORNEYS AT LAW 431 W,FRANKLIN ST•, CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 -3- within e property boundaries, except those required by county ordinance for home the and termite prevention. 6. No non-perishable garbage or waste material, such as glass, shall be disposed, buried, or permitted to remain up( aluminum or plastic, or underl the surface of the aforesaid property, except by s pecial consent Iand permission of Friend's Community, Inc- 7. Except as otherwise permitted by the Corporation, all utility lines shall be buried underground. successors and - Declarants reserve for themselves, their heirs, assign the perpetual. easement and right of way for ingress, egress, and regress over and across the 60-foot wide strip Of land, the center line I: I -foot road which is shown and designated on the aforesaid plat as 60 easement. Easements for the installation and maintenance of utilities at drainage facilities, including but not limited to common water and septic Ind their heirs, lines systems, are reserved in favor of Declarants, successors and assigns, over and across said 60-foot roa d easement and o Iand across the individual lots as provided in Paragraph 18 19. The corporate-owned common areas or recreational areas shall open Jo and available for the general use of all record owners, t I heir gu i and invitees. Such use is subject to the restrictive covenants, and any other reasonable rules and regulations the Corporation may approve. No cutting of trees, grazing of livestock, open fiVeso roads, water line I NOR"EN,LITTLE installation, or disposal of trash shall be permitted on the common area & BAGWELL I ATTORNE"AT LAW without the express advance consent of the corporation. 431 W.FRANKLIN ST. cow W L M14 _2 -2- easements, restrictions, covenants, and conditions, which are for the purpose of protecting the value of and desirability of, and which shall r with, the real property and be binding on all parties having any right, title, or interest in the described properties or any parts thereof, thei heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each own thereof. 1. The property which is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to this declaration is located in Cheeks Township, County of Orange, State of North Carolina, containing 103 acres, more or less, according to plat entitled "Property of Friends Community, Inc." prepared by William Jerry Autry, R.L.S. , recorded in Plat Book 22, z Page 164, Orange County Registry. 2. All portions of said property not located within the confines any individual lot shall be held by the Corporation as common or recreational areas, for the use and benefit of the record owners of the individual lots, their heirs, successors, assigns, and invitees. 3. All disturbed land areas within the property as shown on said plat must be provided by the record owner thereof with a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion within thirty (30) days after the initial, disturbance of said property-. 4. No hunting or use of firearms, including BB or pellet guns, and no use of dangerous weapons or traps of any sort shall be permitted in the NORTMEN, LITTLE property. The use of humane traps for the control of*garden and household & BAGWELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW pests is permitted. 431 W.FRANKLIN St., CHAPEL Hitt,N.C, ZnT4 5. No persistent pesticides or herbicides, flourinated hydrocarbons or, other substances considered toxic are permitted to b e stored or used 10. The Corporation shall be responsible for maintaining the con roads serving the development, maintaining the common wells and water li and pi 7oviding adequate water supply and water quality to individual lot! The Corporation may levy uniform assessments upon each lot, in a manner -1. 1 red by the Board of Directors, for the payment of common area expel includling but not limited to road maintenance, well maintenance, utility ;ion, taxes, liability insurance, and other expenses incidental to maintenance and preservation of the common or recreational areas. 1 11. The Corporation shall, from time to time, but not less than annua I Ily, fix and determine the annual budget for common area expenses Ithe continued operation of the Corporation. The Corporation shall deter I the total amount required, including the opera tional items such as insurance, repairs, emergency reserves, maintenance, and other operatini expenLs, as well as charges to cover any deficits from prior years and capit�l improvements approved by the Board. In the event the Corporati, should fail, for any reason, to determine the budget for the forthcomim year, then and until such time as a budget shall have been determined, budge It in effect for the preceding year shall continue to be in effect the forthcoming year until a new budget is approved. 12. In addition to annual assessments as set forth above, the Corporation, upon written notice to the record owners, may authorize an levy a special assessment for capital improvements as may be approved b NORTHEN, LITTLE Corporation Board of Directors. & BAGWELL ATTORNM At LAM! 13. Assessments may be due and payable in such manner and on su 431 W.FRANKLIN ST. I cot,Wt 27514 dates as may be fixed by the Corporation. Each such assessment, togeth (50) feet, nor shall trees be removed from a strip of land fifty (50) f( wide along the interior of each lot line, without the consent of the owr of the adjoining lot within the Friends Community property. 18. Individual lot owners, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors or assigns, hereby grant each to the other, mutual easements rights of way over and across individual lots for the installation and maintenance of any water lines, roads, utility lines, and drainage facilities provided same are approved by the Corporation. 19* In the event any record owner desires to sell an individual the seller shall give written notice to the Corporation of such intent t sell, setting forth the terms and conditions of the proposed sale. The Corporation, or its assignee, shall have a period of seventy-five (75) d following receipt of said Notice, to exercise a right of first refusal 4 purchase the property on the same terms and conditions as set forth in t proposed sale. in the event the Corporation or its assignee does not exercise such right of first refusal, this right of first refusal shall expire with regards to the sale proposed by the seller. However, any subsequent re-stale or proposed transfer shall again be subject to this r of first refusal. 20. Declarants, or any lot owner, shall have the right to enforc by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants, or reservations now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of NORTHEN. LITTLE this Declaration. Failure by the Declarant or by any lot owner to enfor & BAGWELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed 431 W,FRANKLIN ST. I CHAPEL HILL,IL C. 27514 waiver of the right to do so thereafter. 1 -7- 21. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions t judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions whi( shall remain in full force and effect* 22. Covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall -run wit and bind the land for a term of twenty (20) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time they shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years. This Declaration ma,. amended by an instrument signed by the owners of all of the lots, provi, that he amendment is properly recorded in the Orange County Registry. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has caused this Declaration to duly I executed the day and year herein first above written. FRIENDS comMMITY, INC. ATTEST: By. Seer tary president ---------- (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEA (SEAL) (SEA (SEAL) --(SEA (SEAL) (SEA MORVIEN, LITTLE & BAGWELL (SV ATTORNEYS AT LAW (SEAL) 431 W.FRANKUN ST. N.C.27514 ^g ` �trlr�\.l•.lL "`..ir�� .1!1.A 1�tl s�N�� y�{..G.l'.Y i.r.✓n - �- .�� .% DATE 7/19/82 - - Subject. Emoting Carical-5 District and its Township Plication in Chapel Hill and Eno Planrdna Public Hearing: itaL,:2Ft°''!t(S) : ray. List of Snf:ax;.tatioa Crrtt Rick ,riity Effected Ptvperty —P=po* test diange Ph=- 732--8181 M. 347 PURPOSE:: Discuss 'Fxi.sting Corr-xr,.i.al.--5 District and its Application in Chapel Rill and Eno Tb mship, Me on intent of FC-5 vras to apply it to unzaned, Tbn,,rnshi.p : with e=sti,n corrmr ial uses that were not at desi grated nodes as shown can the Land Use AdWL Plan. rae di-strict was, haWever, a9plied in the previously zoned tawtaships also, to prey-Ously zo ed P�'�-Y that was not located at a Nodle. nm are two basic options that can be used to correct this mistake. Caption 1 wou be to *_'ezare the properties to the closest appropriate zoning district. Option 2 would be to change the existing comm rci.al-5 district Intent and R-pplicaticn status to allow its use previously in zoned town-ships. LC'a..CT: Both opt=s:- slh� d be acceptable frcr the County v s point ox vier. 'I of be easiest to accxnsl.i.sh arx?. w- aad not regjj,- a t'ae xersan?ns properert�. 'ICN; Planning Staff Winds approval of the seccnd Option listed abov6. The proposed text change is attached. f ORANGE tJLT � 1'LAA.N�1-MG DEPARTMENT' nrUSBOROUGH NOS OgROLINA. 27278 b + 17 se MEW TO: planning Board From: planning Staff Chapel "Ill TO'm" Subject: Ming CM'Mrci.a] nistric agpl i ed in Enta and j�at;: May 14, 182 Preparation of the zoning atlas for CC1apel Hill and � Wan ships Ps bra the pr�'p lied to several =mle .a1. Exx.sting c rci.al 5..(BC-5) or Ex. was applied rcia.l 5 stated that the, uses. The application criteria for Existing � Townships. The existing district should only be applied to pry'-viOusly O=mv=ial u^� an Cpl 11i-ll, and. Eno which were not at intersect-ions desa.g- zoned Leal C=e=al-1, Neighborhood Cr- . noted as Nodes skrould have Staff �� that we change the application cation ci a l-2 t Cc�WInity C= ci.a1 5 to al it to be applied i n previously criteria for Existing parcels that are not located at desicr zoned to�rr� pS to ,pr-omjY zcned nated nodes. A w� `� V 4 {EC--S) Uistri.ct. .2.12 i.•n W.71 a) Intent District is The purpose of the Existing Cmrc�aa3. V {�`"�tt' app cation to provide a district to be used only during of zoning to Prev'iOus1.y uxmaied tcaishi-Ls to acconcdate exist- ing ca mnerci.al. uses or to Previously zoned cmunrci-al- property in zoned. townshipsch � Land U pin as designated as vity Nodes by o� b) APpl-ication Criteria njis lied to agate existing �rcia; duct will zoned �mescial, property located in area uses, and pravi.ously �s in the adopted Land Use 'l.an,. Ihis not descm designated n -ial vity be applied at the time of applica- des:i-gnation shall. c�.y tlon 69 this brdirmr'09' - NORTH CAROLINA Mr MEMO TO: Me ors of Planning Board FROM: Fred Luce DATE : july, 15 , 1982 RE: Pe�oon County Airport I cont cted Mr. Lower Pearson County Manager on July 2r 1982 earson County Airport. Pearson County has carried out about the P; a "mini-study" in lieu of a master plan study for $18,000. This was done byl'the consulting firm of Talbert and Cox and paid for by a 50-50 state/local match of funds. The study examined 39 sites and identified 3 as prime sites. Pearson County is now concentrating on a site just south Roxboro and west of route 501. They estimate $2000000 will be needed for acquisition pf the site and another $500 ,000 for development. The State will fund half of these costs with the rest coming from ADOPTED WATERSBED ZONING AMIMIRITS Revised Dec. 1, 1981 Revised Jan. 18., 1981 Revised May 6, 1981 Public Hearing May 24, 1981 Adopted June 6, 1.982 4.4.46 REsERvED 4.2.27 Protect ed Watershed II (FW-II) District a) Intent It is tIe intent of Orange County to regulate the uses of land and structures in watersheds which drain to reservoirs supplying drink- ing water to the people of Orange County. The quality of water in these tter supply watersheds can be affected by the activities of man includi g farming, construction of highways and rural subdivisions and thcJ growth of towns and industrial development. Types of water polluta4-s resulting From these activities include sediment, bacterial contaml!nation, heavy metals, synthetic organic compounds and low-level radioaAi:vity. A task force appointed by the County Commissioners has studied the problems of water pollution. They have documented their findings in a report entitled Report of the Or County Water Resources Task Force and dated May, 1981. That statement of problems and needs is included by reference. The intent of the Protected Water- shed IM needs ) district is to apply a set of regulations for watershed protection to portions of water-supply watersheds in the County which are presently mostly undeveloped and where it is desireable to maintain the . undeveloped character of the watershed In the future. b) Application Criteria The Protected Watershed II (PIN II) district is established as a district which overlays other zoning districts established in this ordinance. The new uselof any land or any new structure within the Protected Watershed II (Pw_'II) district shall comply with use regulations applicable to the underly I ing zoning district as well as the requirements of the PWII dis- trict. � 1. This district will be applied to the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds designated in the Land Use Plan. 6.23 SM-M REQUIREMMTS FOR PROTECMD WATER= DISTRICTS 1 6.23.1 Stream Buffers Reguired In Protected Watersheds. Within the Protected Watershed District, an area of land along perennial streams shall be required to remain in its natural state, unless the area is subjrct to serious erosion in which case an erosion resistant vegeta- tive coyer shall be established and maintained. Perennial stream are those streams in solid blue and dashed blue on the T Ij SGS Quadrangle map I series for Orange County. 6.23.1 a) Width of Buffer Calculated I The stream buffer area shall start at the outer edge of the flood plain and belmeasured 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 from 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 l of "' feet to determine total width of buffer area required. The I maximum buffer in any case shall not exceed 150 feet. The flood plain is defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, by special survey by registered engineers or suveyors, by the alluvial soil as designated in the Orange County soil survey, or through a site analysi by the Orange County Planning Staff. Slope shall be determined from the USGS Qpadrangle map, by on-site measurements,, or, by special survey by registered engineers or surveyors. 6.23.1 b) Development Advisory Committee's Review of Stream Buffers The Development Advisory Committee established in Article 2.4.2, can nevi. the buffer requirements for all developments and may recommend additional buffer area where necessary. 6.23.1 c) Peimitted Uses Within Stream Buffer Areas The fo :I owing uses are allowed as a matter of rigit in stream buffers. All other uses are prohibited. I 1. Above ground and buried utility lines for local distribution of electricity, telephone, and cable television service, accessory and appertent apparatus such as poles, guy wires., transformers and switching boxes. 1 2. Bona fide farms except any use of farm property for non-farm purposes 3. Nei�tborhood utility facilities located within a public ri�it of way with the permission of the owner of the right of way (State, City or Tow!n). 4. Pa)Lic and private streets, bridges, and railroad rights of way. When it i s necessary to construct streets, bridges, and railroad lines acr( bufIIfer areas, they shall enter and exit the area as nearby perendicul� to it as possible. 6.23.1 d) Strum Buffers Included As Fart of Minimum Lot Size E2aui :rements 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) Existing Vegetation In Buffer Areas, Existing forested areas or any healthy natural vegetation can not be re- moved fr(n a stream buffer except when replaced with vegetation resulting in comparable Storm water run off velocity and quantity one year after planting. 6.23.1 f) New Ve22tation In Buffer Areas Required New vegetation shall be planted to capture non-source pollutants before they reach the perennial stream, as per applicable Orange County standards. 6.23.3 Reserved 6.23.4 ervious 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 park- ing 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 stream with 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 streams impervious surface ratios shbll be required in Protected Watershed II (FW-II) District. MAMM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIONS - 0.7 GROSS LAND AM ZONING DISTRICT LUI RESIDENTIAL NON RESTDENTIAL DEVELO.PPM AR 22 6.0% 6.0% 22 6.0% 6.0% RI 22 6.0% 6.0% 22 6.0% 6.o% R2 24 6.5% 6.5% 26 7.0% 7.0% R3 28 8.9% 8.9% 30 10.0% 10.0% R4 33 12.0%- 12.8% 35 14.2% 14,2% R5 38 1.7.0% 17.00' 0 40 18.8% 18.8% R8 43 22.0% 22.0% 45 24.5% 24.1:% R13 - - - 50 31% 31.0% ZONING DISMIC."Ir LUT AL NON-RE,sll)DqTlf�; DEVELO � 30 10.0% 10.0% LCI 32 11.8% 11.8% NC2 40 18.8% 18.8% 42 21.0% 21.01'01 CC3 50 31.0% 31.0% 52 34.4% 34.4% GC4 53 35.0% 16.oop, 55 39.4% 39.4% EC5 53 36.0% 36.Olao' 55 39.41/10 39.4% ci 40 18.8% 18.8% 42 21.0% 21.0% El 23 6.3% 6.3% 25 6.3% 6.3% T'i 23 6.3% 6.3% 35 6.8% 6.8% 12 45 24.5% 24.5% 47 27.0% 27.0% 13 50 31.0% 52 34.4% 31.0% 34.4% AS - 6.0% 6.0% - 6.0% 6.0% ED - 6.oc,p 6.0% - 6.0% 6.0% PIS - 6.0% 6.ov, 'o - 6.0% 6.0% EI THOMAS H. HEFFNER • REALTOR • REAL ESTATE APPRAISER • CONSUM 137 FAST ROSEMARY STREET • CHAPEL HILL. NORTH CAROLINA 27514 • (919)968, July 19, 1.982 Mr. John Northen Attorney at Law 431 West Franklin IStreet Chapel Hill, Nort Carolina 27514 Re: - Midway Airport, Orange County, North Carolina. Dear Mr. Northenl Pursuant to your I�95uest, I have reviewed the plans for the above captioned property. It is my understanring that at the last public hearing on this project that a significant amount of discussion centered around the question of property value diminution as a result of airport construction. I regret that a previous commitment makes it impossible for me to attend tonight's Commissioner's meeting; however, I hope that you will submit this letter on my b6half as a comment on the property value issue. As you know, I am a fee appraiser in 'Chapel Hill and have just completed a term on the Orange County Board of Equalizati tached resume. on and Review. My additional qualifications are included in the at- It is my understanding that another local appraiser, Wallace Kaufman, spoke at the last public hearing and (raised the issue that property values might be diminished as a result of construction of the Midway Airport. To reach an dpinion on this question I examined land and 'lot sales in the area surrounding Chapel Hill's Horace Williams Airport and also received information from Mr. Hal Siler of the Sanford Chamber of Commerce concerning property values of land surrounding the Sanford/Lee County Airport. Most of us are familiar with the Horace Williams Airport in Chapel Hill. At the time it was built it was effectively in a rural setting. In the following years development occurred in the area surrounding the airport including single family residences, schools, and instutional buildings of the University i-versity of North Carolina as well as the Chapel Hill YMCA and a churc All of this developme' nt occurred with knowledge of the airport. While it would be difficul to contend that the 1pr*esence of the airport enhanced the value of these properties, it is, I believe, safe to sad that it did not have a detrimental effect on surrounding property values. In fact property values on the northern side of Chapel Hill, where the airport op is located, are among the highest in Chapel Hill. Residential developments such as Coker Hills West have been developed in what is essentially the flight pattern of the airport and command some to the'I -highest lot prices in Chapel Hill. In an effort to determine if the value and development condition in Chapel Hill was unique, I received information from Mr. Hal Siler, Director of the Sanford Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Siler was familiar with the growth and development of the Sanford/Lee County Airport Sanford was chosen for analysis since it is about the same size as Chapel Hill and its airpo, at 4200 feet is similar in size and projected traffic type to the proposed Midway Airport. I ^ Mr. John Northen July 19, 1982 Page Two Mr. Siler indicate,- that when the airport was built approximately fifteen years ago, the area was rural an,d was similar in population density and uses to the Midwaysite. Durin� the past fifteen years several subdivisions have been developed in the airport area and' lots are currently being developed and built on that are adjacent to the airport propertN Air. Siler indicated that these houses and lots sell in the same price range as o6erhom- of similar size and' design which are located in other parts of Sanford. The homes built in this area are ii�, the �55,000 to $75,000 price range which based on my knowledge of Sanford housing p . .,rices would be roughly equilivant to Chapel Hill houses in the $70,000 to $90,000 price range. Mr. Siler indicated that based on -his knowledge homes located i) the area around t ,�e airport were no more difficult to sell than homes anywhere else in Sanford. It shouj� be kept in mind that I have not personally verified the infor M- ation that was provided1by Mr. Siler but that I feel that he is a reliable source and has no conflict of interest on this matter. It is my feelinpg thalt the information gathered from Sanford tends to support the market as we know it in Clhapel Hill and it is my opinion that construction of the Midway Airport would not diminishl nor slow future residential development in the area around t,he airpor As to the imnact on existing property values and uses, I do not believe that land being used for tim�er p*poses will be damaged and likewise I do not feel that agriculturally used land would be significantly impaired by the airport. It is likely that existing commercial and in 6trial uses in the area might actually be benefited by construction of the airport. I I hope that my comments will be of use to you and I will be happy to respond to any questions that you might have. sin I Thomas H. Bef Real Estate Appraiser i THOMAS H. HEFFNER ` REALTOR • REAL ESTATE APPRAISER * CONSUL' 737 EAST ROSEMARY STREET • CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27524 • (929)964 THOMAS H. HEFFNER Education: Elelnienta and High ugh School - Glen Alpine Schools, Glen Alpine, N. C. Uni ersity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - AB Training: Graduate, REALTORS Institute - GRI - 1974 REALTORS National Marketing Institute Courses 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Course VIII Designations: Certified Residential Specialist - CRS - 1978 C rtified Real Estate Brokerage Manager -• CRB - 1979 C ndidate American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Memberships Chapel Hill Board of Realtors - Past Vice--President and President (1977) and Other Past Director, Chapel Hill Board of Realtors and North Carolina Assocaati Activities: of Realtors. Convention Chairman -- North Carolina Association of Realtors (1978) Ch1.rman, Education. Committee - North Carolina Association of Realtors 1 North Carolina Realtors Institute, Associate Dean (1980), Dean (1981) Instructor in Market Analysis (1980-1982) and Governmental Effects (198, Certified Real Estate Instructor - North Carolina Real Estate Licensing Board (UNC) - 1981 Chapel Hill Board of Realtors, Realtor of the Year (1980) Fund Raising Chairman, Orange County Heart Fund (1979) Director, Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce (1977) Vice President, Chapel Hill Jaycees (1976) Co missioner, Chapel Hill Housing Authority (1981 - 1982) Member Orange County Board of Equilization and Review (1982) Personal : Age - 33 Married - Kathie Mull Heffner Children Gray (daughter) age 12, Hunt (son) age 5 Home address -- 103 porter Place, Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Business address - Thomas H. Heffner, Real Estate Appraier 137 East Rosemary Street Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 CHAPEL HILL-CARPBORO CITY SCHOOLS LINCOLN CENTER, MERRITT MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 Pamela S, Mayer, Superintendent TELEPHONE 919-967-621 July 7, 1982 Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman Orange county board of Commissioners Room 12 1 106 East Marga i et Lane Hillsborough, rlorth Carolina 27278 RE: University of North Carolina Horace Williams Airport Public Hearing, July 8, 1982 Dear M>="hitt-te 1d: Enclosed isla copy of the Position which the Board of Education of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools took on September 22, 1980, concerning the I University of North Carolina, Horace Williams Airport. I Our positioip' on this matter has not changed, and we resubmit this position for your information and for the record of the public hearing scheduled for July 8, 1982. Thank you fdr your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Mrs. Phyllis Sockwell , Chairman Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education PS:hh Enclosure cc: Dr. Pamela Mayer LINCOLN CENTER,MERRITT MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL,N,C, 27514 (1fAR11%, II RIVIRS. ACTING SUPE RINTENDENT TELEPHONE September 23, 1980 The Honorable Joe Nassif Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill 306 N. Columbia Street Chapel Hill ,! North Carolina 27514 Dear Joe: The primary concerns of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education in relation to the Horace Williams Airport are for the Safety of students and staff and the noise factor related to its operation. Other major colcerns are Ifor the well-being of persons using our facilities when Schools are not in session (i .e. , recreation programs, Community schools pro-q raims. et and protecting the public investment in our buildings and grounds. The activities at Horace Williams Airport have been of great concern to Boards of ;Education for many years as evidenced by agenda items appear- ing for discu'ssion/action by the Boards many times. Some school locations were chosen on indications that Horace Williams Airport would be closed. With this historical background and the concern for safety the school board unanimously passed the following motion at its board meeting on September 22, 1980: "That the University of North Carolina pursue plans to close Horace Williams Airport as soon as is feasible but no later than 1990 and until the airport i� closed that the following restrictions be included in the Chapel Hill z(�I ning ordinance. i 1 . Restrict airport use to small aircraft as defined in the Unive!rsity operations and policies guidelines for Horace Wi lains Ai rpor t 1 2. A max6ura of 50 aircraft based at the airport 1 3, Flight patterns for all aircraft be planned to -avoid all I five school properties (Estes Hills, Phillips, Seawellj CHHS, iCarrboro) in that area 4. Use current town noise level ordinance as guide to regulate noisellevels over school property i 5. Use FFIA altitude ordinance to enforce altitude levels of plane over school property IN MINES= Page 2 Mayor Joe N September ?3, Igao 6' Phlase out all flying lessons M1 j bY 1983, at which time the iimuns number of tie-downs would be reduced accordingly Until Phase out date, restrict flying lessons to UNC faculty, staff and full-time students Restrict airport use by all aircraft to those used for University related DurposeS, except for emergency use 1 14 L 8- Modkfications to runways and other facilities are to be ! Pproved; b !a y the town council and are not to increase 1 the size, scope and !;urpose of airport operations. " C' representatives at the Public Hearing o n P L 4. +r, State OL;r PC54tion. Let us know if we can offer pssi�tance or clarif'icatLion in this r..,.atter. Sincerely, Phyllis X. Sockwe7l Chairman Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education PKS:Vf cc : Mr. GenelShipmian rur� Chrisltop,�er Fordhai-n Mr. j ic;nn 1-je, , Dr. Char';es Rivers 'I Meribers crf the Board of Education