Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 01-04-1983
A ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, 10:00 A.M. JANUARY 4, 11983 COMMISSIONERS' ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Maters on the printed agenda 2. Maters not on the printed agenda C. MINUTES December 6, 14, 1982 D. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR t.y. FOUNTAIN —__ . E. BOARD DECISIONS µ' 1. Pu lic Hearing to receive Planning Board recommendation on the Class A Special Use Permit Request from Piedmont Power 2. Lan Use Plan Amendments for Piedmont Power 3. Rez ning and Class A Special Use Permit Request from Piedmont Power 4. Rez ning--Cornwallis Hills 5. Rez ning-.-Hill Country Furniture 6. Preliminary Plat Extension---Deerfield 7. Preliminary Plat--Sherwood Park 8. Preliminary Plat--Faucette Slope 9. Preliminary Plat--Holt's Landing 10. Minor subdivision--Kristie Lennon 11. Minor Subdivision--Danny & Bonnie May 12. Planning Board Bylaws 13. Road Addition--Foxfire Drive & Edwards Drive 14. Economic Development-CAe 7,-,-,,,s49:, 15. CD--Relocation of Power Pol.eE 16. CD-1-Grant I, 17, CD- PPaving Contract 18. EMS Vehicle 19. Financing Agreement--Front End Loader & Computer Equipment 20. Budget Amendments 21. District 9 Board Membership 22. Meeting Location 23. Appdintments MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1983 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 4, 1983, at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners Ben ' Lloyd, Shirley E. Marshall , Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. A. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Whitted added a property update on the Annie Obie Riley pro- perty matter. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Lawrence Allen and Delmas Adams were present for the Piedmont Power Special Use Permit hearing; there were no others who wished to speak. C. MINUTES Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Minutes of December 6, 1982, as submitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to approve the Minutes of December 14, 1982, as corrected. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. D. RESOLUTION Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to adopt the Resolution of Appreciation for Congressman L,H. Fountain and to have the Clerk mail the Resolution to Mr, Fountain, Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0, (See page of this Book.) Commissioner Whitted read the Resolution of Appreciation for L.H, Fountain. E. PUBLIC HEARING--PIEDMONT POWER Commissioner Whitted announced that the Public Hearing on the Class A Special Use Permit request from Piedmont Power was open to receive the Planning Board recom- mendation. Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director, was sworn in to provide the Plan- ning Board's recommendation, Mr. Collins said that the Planning Board had met on December 20, 1982, to ' consider the two requests from Piedmont Power: 1) the Land Use Plan Amendment from 'Rural Residential to Commercial Transition Activity Node; and, 2) the Class A Special 'Use Permit for a PD-OI request. The Planning Board recommended denial of the Land 'Use Plan Amendment Mr. Collins said and the reason carried over into the way the • Planning Board had considered the Class A Special Use Permit. Rather than con- sidering it as a Planned Development-Office Institutional, the Planning Board treated the request as a Class A Special Use Permit in a Rural Residential area under provisions of Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such an interpretation would bring it within the same type of uses as substations, utility stations, switching stations, telephone exchanges and water and sewer treatment plants. Mr. Collins described the property and its location, Mr. Collins continued, saying, the Planning Board recommended approval as a Class A Special Use Permit in a Rural Residential area because all the Zoning Ordinance requirements had been met. Mr. Collins added that the Planning Board also considered the request as a Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development-Office Institutional, as advertised and requested, and "found that it met all the requirements with the exception that it did not comply with the Land Use Plan." Mr. Collins said Staff's recommendation to the Planning Board was that it could not consider this request under the provisions of Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance and that if it did so readvertisement was necessary. Mr. Collins cited the precedent of the Commissioners' granting the PD-OI classification and use to Duke Power Company for its site on Homestead Road in Chapel Hill, The Planning Board recommended against changing the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Whitted clarified the issue saying this request was for a Class A Special Use Permit for a PD-OI and was advertised as such and the public hearing was held on that request, not for a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for under Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, in a Rural Residential District. The County Attorney said, in his opinion, that the use Piedmont Power plans for that area is more intensive than just "substations" and that there would be more traffic generated than for a substation. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to close the Public Hearing on the Class A Special Use Permit by Piedmont Power Company for a PD-OI on NC 86 in Hillsborough. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O, E-2 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT--PIEDMONT POWER Commissioner Whitted asked Mr. Cannity, Planning Staff, to point out on the map how the Land Use Plan would be changed if the request for Commercial Transition Activity Node were granted. Mr. Collins replied, while demonstrating on the map, that the node was presently located in a half mile radius circle at the intersection of I-85 and NC 86. The request would result in the node having (ibL a "fingerlike" projection down NC 86 and ballooning out to encompass the 33.92 acre tract owned by Piedmont Power. Commissioner Willhoit suggested that the Zoning Ordinance might be amended to permit large scale development outside designated nodes provided sufficient buffers are provided. Commissioner Willhoit continued, saying that this particular use should have minimal impact on the residential area adjoining the tract. There was a concensus that the Planning Staff should re-examine this particular node, the , Harmon-Young Node; Mr. Collins said Staff should complete its revaluation of this area in four to five months. Mr. Collins added that the Planning Department had , received inquiries about the tract across from Piedmont's on NC B6 for potential commercial/industrial development. Commissioner Willhoit noted two potential problems with this particular , request: 1) traffic safety; and, 2) lights glaring into neighboring homes; both, , he thought,could be resolved. Commissioner Walker moved to deny the Land Use Plan Amendment (from Rural , Residential to Commercial Transition Activity Node) for Piedmont Power Company; he , withdrew his motion» Commissioner Willhoit asked Mr. Collins if he could resolve for the Board , the question of spot zoning outside a node. Mr. Collins responded that there , were two or three ways of accomplishing that: 1) amend the Zoning Text to allow , "this" as a permitted use in a R-1 area; 2) dissociate changes in the Land Use Plan , from the zoning process; or, failing those, 3) adopt another kind of node that would , be apart from an activity center. Mr. Collins responded to a question from Com- , missioner Willhoit that the node concept as adopted by Orange County permits mixed , uses in the nodes, that is, all development within a node does not have to be com- , mercial or industrial . Commissioner Willhoit asked if the Staff could consider , the possibility of having Planned Developments above a given size (25 acres) with , the proper buffers and relatively self-contained permitted in all areas and not , restricted to the node concept. He added that the problems the Board seemed to , be having with this proposal was that it was a good one but "does not conform to , the node concept." Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the • , Planning Staff recommendation to amend the Land Use Plan from Rural Residential to , Commercial Transition Activity Node for the Piedmont Power Company's 33.92 acres, , Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. • o16,I Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, "that the Planning Department review and revise the entire HB-4 Activity Node within six months of the date of this approval"; Commissioner Willhoit amended, and Commissioner Marshall accepted, the motion to include in the study the possibility that Planned Developments of large acreage be allowed outside the nodes, Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0, E-3 REZONING AND CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PIEDMONT POWER COMPANY Commissioner Walker moved to approve both the rezoning and Class A Special , Use Permit for Piedmont Power Company; he withdrew his motion for discussion. Commissioner Willhoit noted that one of the conditions recommended by the Planning Board dealt with the tungsten lights rather than specifying that the out- side lights from the development shouldn't glare onto the adjacent residential areas. The Attorney told the Board that if specific evidence was not presented at the public hearing on the lights that the condition and recommendation on lights imposed by the Planning Board was inappropriate and could not be considered by the Board. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the rezoning and the Class A Special Use Permit request by Piedmont Power Company for a PD-OI based on the "Findings of Fact" of the Orange County Planning Department and the summary of the evidence presented at the public hearing contained in the Orange County Planning Department's "Findings of Fact" accompanying these Minutes (on pages Sa6`63df this book) and with the imposed conditions proposed by the Planning Board and Planning Department, as amended by this Board (see pages .3131-) of this book). /Clerk's note: the amended conditions are with regard to Condition 2 from the Planning Board, and are that the outdoor lighting from the development be shaded or shielded so that there is no glare into the adjacent residential areas.- Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0, E-4 CORNWALLIS HILLS Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve rezoning Cornwallis Hills Phase I Subdivision from R-1. to R-3. Vote: Ayes, 5; , noes, O. Ew 5 HILL COUNTRY FURNITURE Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve the Planning Board recommendation torezone the Hill Country Furniture site (.88 acres) from R-1 to EC-5. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E--6 DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve 062 a one year extension of the preliminary plat for Deerfield Subdivision. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-7 SHERWOOD PARK Commissioner Whitted noted that this subdivision is within Hillsborough's Town limits and questioned the County's approving subdivisions within Hillsborough in the absence of standards expected by the Town. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the Sherwood Park Subdivision preliminary plan with the three conditions requested by . the Town of Hillsborough. (See page 3 3 9of this book for those conditions.) Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-8 FAUCETTE SLOPE Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the Planning Staff's and Planning Board's recommendation to approve the preliminary plan for Faucette Slope Subdivision, Commissioner Whitted moved to amend the motion to reflect the request that the developer consider redesigning the final plan for this subdivision to minimize the number of entrances directly onto Borland Road (SR 1126), i.e. shared driveways; , Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion to amend. Vote: Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Whitted, Marshall and Willhoit); noes, 2 (Commissioners Lloyd and Walker). Vote on motion to approve the subdivision as amended: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-9 HOLT'S LANDING Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve , the preliminary plan for Holt's Landing Subdivision as recommended by the Planning , Board (including the condition), Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-10 KRISTIE D. LENNON PROPERTY, Commissioner Lloyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the , partial right of way easement as recommended by the Planning Board for the Kristie , D. Lennon property off SR 1562. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. E-11 DANNY & BONNIE MAY PROPERTY Commissioner Lloyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve the , Planning Board's recommendation that the partial width right-of-way be granted , for the Danny and Bonnie May minor subdivision off SR 1958. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Following a short break the Board resumed deliberations with all members present as indicated at the beginning of the meeting. U a E-12 PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS • Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve the Planning Board By-Laws as submitted with one amendment, that Article IV-C • read that "The Planning Board Chair or his (or her) designee may have the opportunity to review the minutes of the Planning Board minutes...." Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. E-13 FOXFIRE DRIVE & EDWARDS DRIVE Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, approval of the addition of Foxfire Drive and Edwards Drive to the State Secondary Road • System. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. The Board of Commissioners adjourned for lunch and resumed deliberations • at 1:30 P.M. with all members present. In order to accommodate the County Attorney • who needed to leave the meeting early the Board moved added item # 24, Update on ▪ Annie Riley Obie Property, to this time. E-24 ANNIE RILEY OBI£ PROPERTY UPDATE The Clerk reported that she had not received any upset bids on this property. ▪ Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to accept the offer from b Mr. John Sealye to purchase the Annie Riley Obie Property subject to the conditions • contained in the agreement between Mr. Sealye and the County (see pages of ▪ this Book). Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. E-14 RECOMMENDATION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF CHEEKS TOWNSHIP • Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to adopt • the four recommendations as detailed in his memorandum to the Board dated December 3• 0, 1982 (see pages.5y d7°of this book). Commissioner Lloyd requested information cited in the memorandum on Cor- • poration Lake. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. E-15 RELOCATION OF POWER POLES Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve the Manager's recommendation to authorize removal of eight Duke Power Poles in b the Northern Fairview Community Development area. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. E-16 GRANT AGREEMENT WITH NCDNRCD Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, to approve • the grant agreement with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and • Community Development for the third year of the CD Block Grant Program. Vote: b Ayes, 5; noes, 0. • E-17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PAVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT • Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve the Manager's recommendation to amend the streets improvements contract in Northern Fairview to include the complete paving of Hill Street. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. • E-18 AMBULANCE PURCHASE Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the purchase of one ambulance from Southeastern Emergency Equipment of Wake Forest for $22,738.00 as the low bidder (for complete bid results see page 6/ • of this book). Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. • E-19 FINANCING AGREEMENT FOR FRONT END LOADER AND COMPUTER EQUIPMENT The Manager told the Board that the lowest interest rates that the County ▪ was able to obtain on a lease purchase agreement (13.1%) led him to recommend out- • right purchase of the equipment rather than a lease purchase plan. He recommends ▪ outright purchase of the equipment by using: $45,000 of the water and sewer exten- sion appropriation in the CIP fund (which will leave $10,000 in that fund for this • year); $10,000 from the Old Courthouse restoration project; $32,000 from the con- , tingency account; and, $52,000 from the current year's Local Option Sales Tax (which is coming in at approximately 21/2 above budget). • Some Board members questioned using the water and sewer extension funds, saying they wanted to build that fund up over the years, even if it wasn't expected • to be spent this year; some Board members questioned the commitment of Local Option • Sales Tax monies. The members felt such a commitment would reduce the Board's • flexibility in meeting unexpected needs during the budget process. Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve • the Manager's recommendation for outright purchase of the front end loader truck and computer equipment (as outlined above). Vote: Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Lloyd, • ▪ Walker and Willhoit); noes, 2 (Commissioners Whitted and Marshall). Commissioner Whitted asked that the Capital Projects be reviewed by the Board. E-20 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to approve the budget amendments as recommended by the Manager. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, O. (Amend- ments are on pages '4 this book.) E-21 DISTRICT 9 NCACC BOARD OF DIRECTORS There was a concensus of the Board to recommend Jack Dossenbach, Jr., to 6 0Uu , fill the vacancy on the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Board of Directors created by the retirement of Wake County Commissioner ,3,T. Knott. E-22 BOARD MEETING LOCATION There was a concensus to hold the Board's third Tuesday meeting of each , month in Chapel Hill at the Old Post Office Building Courtroom for six months on , a trial basis. E-23 APPOINTMENTS Planning Board: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to reappoint Sharlene Pilkey and Alice Gordon to the Planning Board. Commissioner Walker nominated Frank Pearson and Michael Woods to the Planning , Board, Following discussion, Commissioner Willhoit withdrew his motion and , these appointments are to be returned to the February first Monday meeting. Energy Commission: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner , Marshall , to appoint Doug Guild to the Energy Commission. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Nursing Home Advisory Council : Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by , Commissioner Marshall, to reappoint Ms.Hudson and Mr, Tyler to this Council . Vote: , Ayes, 5; noes, 0, The three remaining appointments are to be returned to the February first • Monday meeting. Mebane Board of Adjustment: The Clerk told the Board she had not received • any applications for this appointment. It is to be returned to the first Monday • meeting in February, The Board instructed the Clerk to advertise for the Economic Develoment • Commission appointments. With no further business to consider the Board of Commissioner adjourned by ▪ concensus. 4 • Richard E. Whitted, Chair , Paulette Pridgen, Clerk • O ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUG I. N. C. 27278 RICHARD E.wHirrED.CLd• BEN LLOYD SMOIRLEY E.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER DON WILLHOIT NOTICE Effec lye January, 1983, through June 30, 1983, the Orange County Board f Commissioners will adhere to the following schedule of regular meetings: The first Monday of each month at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, NC The third Tuesday of each month at 7:30 P.M. in the Courtroom of the Old Post Office Building, Chapel Hill , NC 7he fourth Monday of each month at 7:30 P.M. in the Commissioners ' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, NC Filed in the Office of the Clerk to the Board January 4, 1983. 'aule to P i.gen Clerk to the Boa t" of Commissioners OBE COUNTY BOARD OF CG ISSIONE S Action Agend ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT t AC 2 Item No. .1) MEETLNG DATE TUESDAY, +IARHARV 4, 1983 Subject: RESOLUTIOI OF APPRECIATION FOR L.H. FOUNTAIN ...p nt: :s' f 1 0" i 7 abl.ic Bearing: yes X noj. Attachment(s): Infirm-cation Contact: CLERK TO THE BOARD YES, RESOLUTION Phi Number: 732-8181 ext. 510 PURPOSE: To consider adopting the attached Resolution of Appreciation for Congressman L.H. Fountain. NEED: Congressman Fountain has served North Carolina in elected offices since 1947 (NC Senate); since 1952 he has served in the US House of Representatives. He announced this year that he would not seek re-election to that office. ZAPACT` Appreciatilon to Mr. Fountain for the service he's rendered to his District, State and Nation over the years. RECOMMENDATION: A opt the Resolution. The Clerk should be instructed, if the Rdsolution is adopted, to have it printed and framed and to mail it to L.H. Fountain. 1 1 1 Dec ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION For ■ Katurente B. . nuntain WHEREAS, L. H.Fountain was elected to the North Carolina Senate in 1947, and after serving two terms,sought election to the United State House of Representa- tives and was elected by the voters of the Second District to that Office. where.since 1952,he has served his State and Nation for fifteen consecutive terms;and, WHEREAS, While in the House he helped establish the Advisory Commission on Inter- governmental Relations and served on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Federalism, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Government Operations,and,in addition,served as an effective watchdog for the public in health and consumer affairs;and, WHEREAS, L.H.Fountain has served the people of North Carolina in elective office since 1947 and in various public roles for over fifty years;and, WHEREAS, He has been a good friend of the Second Congressional District, serving Orange County faithfully and responsively since its inclusion in that District ten years ago, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.acting on behalf of the citizens of Orange County,that the service,dedication.devo- tion and unceasing efforts of L. H.Fountain on behalf of his District, State and Nation are deeply appreciated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners wishes for him and his family every happiness and good fortune in the years ahead and directs this Resolution be presented to L. H Fountain. with a copy sent to the press,and the Resolution be spread on the Minutes of this meeting,this 4th day of January,1983. r' «r- Richerd E. hltted Chair .. -J:t P_ _. F. Ben Lloyd / [J/JJ !/// Member %- ,AV.,,'- N Shirley b-•--n N "���fi r / Member o an Walker _ �A DIA. Don Willhoit Member I .� r.-.' _ Paulette Pridgen-Pogd crk CCZ"T"r B.G74,m'J C7: COP• LSSlClES Action AGT� G =-1 P sTI Aa' DEM=A4 DATE January 4, 1983 SebyetZt: Amendment to the Land Use Plan for Piedmont Power-Company (Rural Residential to Commercial Ira nsit:on:Activi.ty Node) • DL�7.�. G Fan�-3^.0: VK,.S x A, `?r:-:-- " (S) : Harmon Young Node Map; t C. a:C -C=7.: Marvin Collins Public Hearing Minutes of 11/22/82; Planning Board Minutes. of 12/20/82. P_ .`C© '^'' 2 732-8181. Extension PCIRPCSE: To cons der a recommendation from the Planning Board in regard to a proposed amendment to the Land- Use Plan from Rural Residential to Commercial Transition Activity Node. mac ' : T'n 1974, Piedmont Power Company purchased a 33.92 acre tract Located south of Ie 85 on the east side of N.C. 86 in Hillsborough Township with the intention of using the site as an office building and maintenance/warehouse facility. Following the purchase, the company made application for approval to proceed with the planning and design of the facility. During the late 19.70's and early 1980's, Orange County developed a land use plan and zoning ordinance. The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance were officially applied to Hillsborough Township on September 2, 1981„ The area in which the property is located was zoned R-L at that time and limited the use of the property to primarily residential purposes at densities no greater than one (1) dwelling unit per acre. In the fall of 1981, Piedmont Power Company brought the problem to the attention of the Planning Department, Several options were outlined, including a land use plan. amendment coupled with a request for a general use zoning classification (Office Institutional) and a land use plan change coupled with a request for a planned development district classification (Office Institutional) The applicant decided upon the latter approach since plans for the use of the property were known. eeirea *: The proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan would result in a "finger-like" projection ( 3,000 feet ) of the Harmon Young Commercial Transition Activity Node south along the Y.C. Highway 86 right-of-way to include the Piedmont Power- Company property. The amendment would result in a change in the type of land uses proposed for the area; ..e. , office/institutional type facility as opposed to residential uses, However, the proposed use would not be incompatible in that impacts such as traffic generaticn, visual appearance, etc, would be considerably less than a more intensive retail type of use. Furthermore, there is an existing commercial development on the opposite side of N.C. Highway 86 from the Piedmont Power Company site, and the site has adequate access by-way-of N.C. Highway 86, An on-site sewage disposal system and well are proposed to serve the facilities. M*_EYCATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the requested change to the Land Use Plan.. A review and possible revision of the entire HB-4 activity node will be undertaken at a later date as part of the annual work program. The Planning Board recommended that the Board of• County Commissioners consider Piedmont Power Company's application as a "Class A" Special Use Permit as indicated on page 4-13 of the Zoning Ordinance, The proposed use would be considered in the same class as public utility stations and substations, switching stations, telephone exchanges, and water and sewer treatment plants. The proposed use would be allowed, in the Rural Residential (R-1) district under the special use permit procedure without changing the zoning classification. .,,,..m,.I,e«. "r nor r}rn nrnnnaal w ,1,4 ,•anuire r=adwercisement ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.6 6 FETING DATE January 4, 1983 ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. CONTINUED RECOMMENDATION: would be left to the County Attorney. (Continued) The Planning Board also recommended that the requested change to the Land Use Plan be denied in that a modification of the Plan is inappropriate at this time. • o kico ( .ti..,1 -. O _ t c ..r- O,� �f� i .+ ri4:k_ ,r ..i _ k Noci8 H B - 4 }�•:Y'C:s::::�:.4...'-r'-M1i is•..". .: r1•,..::*'? t .Y - �e \J x :ra N4CE AREA, ,,7-4- j 0!.a ik:.s �,� �. arIE-C( Sccle r l" = 2444' ti - '%�':: w 0, 1- F•Y F? ,, • .�l- "' ' ,2,. �# >:z f : '� - ter/ ' f y` . s t 1a :, '1I AnK I o C' t.t.,t,,,i'f'Sg:I.W.§.%::::S i --,_t7C-5 I OR- ; 1 T. ,....,,7 :\ /6411 " u: .. - --/ :_=1..._'.. .. 1:1... f:1? ,i, .,- . !. -- ; c,01 L\ ,ckqk'••■•;—•''.--••• _------"----"—*''-"- I ; /Z-.4 \... • �=� Y � • r e +Y- t �. !1 ./ � %4 'Ir3 L-7. °'1 G�` 'y ..5_„! \ .,'"'tea �' -� Jam” ' r \` '\ 1..+ 7 'Ari 7"' 1 \. ..• \\,--1"--1 \g, .7_,,,, .w. _t � f y �^ r � 17 /G'''-?j (,..0 NC\ •-t ! ; .1. :_•,71 -.^ i 'C , i r. -.-7.i. 7.:-.:-.'-'.....7.-.1:-.7:17.7.4 ! .� f ' ' N 1. 2 2. 3. ' (y. Mrs. James Rippy, an adjacent property owner, asked the difference between R-4 and 11-3 zones. t1r. Cannily responded to her satisfaction. 6. C. 3. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDF1NTS . Mt. Cannity made the presentation on the proposed zoning text amendments to 8. the Boards. (Mr. Cannity's verbatim remarkes are on pages of this book.) 9. Following his presentation on the proposed changes, Me. Cannity responded to j74« questions from the Boards and members of the audience, clarifying the Changes as 1 1. and if necessary, 12. C. 4. AMENDMENT TO TEE LAND USE PLAN—PIEDMONT POWER COMPANY Ms. Susan Smith, of the Planning Staff, made the presentation to the Boards 14. on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan for Piedmont Pdwer Company. She • sited the location on NC 86 and said the request is reasonable given the proposed use and it is not incompatible with existing development. 317. Mr, Delmas Adams, representing Piedmont Power's architectural firm, said 11396 the site had been purchased in 1974 and it had been Piedmont's intention to locate • its facility on that site. Ms. Bezel Lunsford, speaking as a private citizen, spoke in opposition to 2 • the- proposed changes; she cited the changing character of the area from its present 2 . rural character. She said her opposition was dot directed at the company. 20. Mr. J. T. Squires from Fayetteville spoke for Mr. and Mrs. Millis who own property along NC 86. He wanted to know what the effect of the proposed use 26. would be on Mr. and Mrs. Millis' property. He asked if the buffer zone is 2 . entirely on Piedmont's property. Kr. Cannily replied yes. { Mr. Cannity, responding to Commissioner Wilihoit, said Piedmont had acquired 2 . the property in 1974 and even if Piedmont's plans had been known chat knowledge 29 would not have affected the designation given the site during the zoning process. 30. Commissioner Wilihoit asked if money had been expended for planning on the 31 . site at the time zoning was adopted. • 32. Mr. Adams replied that he did not know wham zoning was implemented in Orange 33. County, however, following the .purchase his firm had been commissioned to do the 3#� site study. He added that the "final map" indicated that the site was to be used • 3S. for office purposes, "storage yard and related power company facilities." Ms. Smith, responding to Ms. Crawford said that the plat recorded showed • ' w-''` 1. '- 3 '" 2. 3. . !It. Planning Board Member Kizer voiced concern that the Land Use Plan was _ w being revised to accommodate Piedmont's request. He indicated that the proposal E. was likely to have a major impact to the area extending up to SR 1710; adding chat ' s a review should be made of the entire area. Commissioner Wil,lhoit felt that a project begins with the expenditure of Q, considerable funds. id. Planning Board Member Elzer said that the Zoning Ordinance makes clear what 3J11. is evidence of the start of a project and he was not sure that the Piedmont 12, proposal meets this criteria. 1 13. There were no further questions. 14. C. 5. SPECIAL USE PERMIT R1:.UEST AND REZONING FOR PIEDMONT �. 1. . POWER COYPANT 11. Chairman Whicted chaired this public hearing on the Special Uae 17. Permit Request by Piedmont Power Company for a PD-0I designation, at 18. their property located on NC 86 in Hillsborough 'Township. All persons 11. who presented evidence were sworn by Chairman Uhitted. 20. 1(r. Caamity presented the evidence an behalf of the Planning department 21. to the Boards. Mr. C.m reity's verbatim evidence follows. 22. Piedmont has requested a rezoning to PD-OI in a tract of land in Hillsborough Township. The area of the parcel is 33.92 acres, it is 23. on NC 86 south of the town of Hillsborough adjacent to Joppa Oaks and Duke Forest and across from Wood Brothers co+dmercial uses. 2 . As previously indicated, the adopted Land Use Plan would have to be amended in order to accommodate the proposed use. 25. Piedmont purchased this property in 1974 with the intention of using the site as an office building and yard storage area After the 26 purchase, the Corporation made application of Washington O.C. for the approval to go ahead with the planning and design of the structure. 27 During the lace 1970's and early 1980's Orange County was developing a Lend use plan and zoning ordinance which would be applied to Hillsborough z8r Township on September 2, 1981. The property was zoned R-1 which means it could be used for residential, purposes at a density of one unit to 241r r the acre. Piedmont brought the problem to the attention of the Planning Staff. The Staff outlined the options open to the developer and the 30. developers decided to apply for a planned development desigaatton. The Orange County Health Department has approved an on site ground 31. sewage disposal system for the Office Building. However, the developers are continuing to investigate the possibility of extending a sanitary 321 sewer line from the existing service near the intersection of US 70 and NC 86. The application contains letters from the Orange County Sheriff's 33. Department and rescue squad which state they can provide service to the development. Orange Rural Fire Department wrote that lc can service the ` building. The application contained all the pertinent material required by ! 35. Section 8.8. The site is located adjacent to NC 86 which is designated as an 36. arterial in the adopted Land Use Plan. According to rh mncr ,wr©..r . S 2. k. 1• Planning Board Member' Pilkey asked the width of the buffer on the Joppa 5. Oaks side of the property. Mr. Cannity said that the buffer was only 60' wide �S. in that area due to an access road to the Jones property that was granted prior 7• to Piedmont's purchase of the property. 8 1 • Commissioner Gustaveson expressed concern regarding traffic safety at 7. Soppy Oaks and at this site's proposed entrances. He cited Duke Power's 10. widening of the road at the intersection of Homestead Road and NC 86 in Chapel Z1. Hill as an example that might be followed here. Mt. Cannity said the physical 1 12. considerations on Piedmont's site and NC 86 were considerably different. At 13. Duke Power the entrances are at the top of two hills, where vehicles could be • below grade and not easily visible. Piedmont's site at NC 86 is flat with good 1 • sight distance in both directions. 19 Commissioner Gustaveson stated that the design considerations were good at 17. Joppa Oaks also. He said he would like for the design people to address the 1E. question of traffic. Hr. Adams indicated that Piedmont was working with NC DOT.. 19. on this problem. 20. Hr. Cannity replied to Planrtng Board Member Shanklin than the ground elevation 2 is 701.' at its highest point and 631' at its lowest point in the northwest corner. Planning Hoard Member Shanklin asked what the height of the communications 23. tower was. Lawrence Allen, a Piedmont engineer, stated that the tower would be 241• between 200' and 250'. 25. Commissioner" Gustaveson said he wanted the record to note that he has serious 26. reservations regarding the traffic safety at the proposed entrances. 27. Commissioner Gustaveson suggested chat prior to a finsl decision being made 28 on this Permit that NC DOT should submit a proposal to address the traffic problem. 29: fir. Adams indicated that the public entrance was located so as to avoid steep 301. terrain on the site, resulting is the service entrance located in the buffer area. 31. He added the office building was located on the crest of the site leaving the 32. flatter certain for the operations center. 33III Commissioner Whirred inquired as to the current location of the communications 341 tower for Piedmont Power. Mr. Adams responded the cower is presently located is 35. southern Person County. The proposed site would become the regional headquarters 36i for Piedmont Power. 1+ 6 • 3. deal with potential business from all twelve satellites and a large portion. 51. of Piedmont's storage requirements. Commissioner Gustaveson inquired if the . proposed development included an assumption of expansion of Piedmont Power's 7. facilities. Mr. Adams responded that the site contains ample space. 8 Planning Board Member Irvin inquired about the nature of the stream to the 9. earth of the storage line all night lighting. Mr. Adams responded that there 10. was 40' Co 50' of trees and that the lights would be oriented into the site. 11. He added that lighting was primarily eo serve security purposes. 12 Planning Board Member Kizer asked for an estimate of the total cost excluding 131. the purchase of the property. Mr. Adams replied the total project coat excluding property was approximacely 1.75 million dollars. Mr. Kiser asked how much 15. Piedmont Power invested. Mr. Adams responded chat REa contributes approximately 16. 402 and that the remainder is covered by the private sector. 171 Planning Board Member Shanklia expressed a concern about airports within ni 1w 7 miles of a communications cower with the type of lighting proposed being a 191 potential obstacle. He continued that given common pilot procedures, it would 20. be beet to use strobe Lights rather than a rotating beacon. Mr. Adams indicated 2111 his firm had not yet considered this and that he had assumed that a red light is 22: used on low towers and a strobe light on high towers. 23. Mr. Squires asked if the Millis' property would still be residential, expressing 2E1.. concern about "spot coning" of the property, Kr. Cannity responded that all 251 property not otherwise designated is residential. 26J Commissioner Aillhoit moved to adjourn the Public Hearing for a Special. Use 27 Permit from Piedmont Power to Ja wary 4, 1983 at 10:00 a.m. to receive the 2$1 recommendation from the Planning Board; Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion. 29. vote; Ayes, 5; Noes, O. 30. Following a short break, the Board resumed deliberations with all members 31. present as indicated at the beginning of this meeting. 32. A. BOARD COMMENTS 33. Chairman Whitted deleted consideration of Joint Planning from the agenda and added MACo dues increase; he announced that the order of the agenda would be 0-1, 35. D-5, and 0-8, in order to accommodate those members of the audience who are waiting, 36. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 A li 1 4yGiu.rN�..... STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES 8 HUNT,JR. Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM R. ROBERSON,JR. December 15, 19$2 SECRETARY Orange County Mr. Delmar Adam Keener, W IUlams and Adams, P. A. Durham, N rth Carolina Subject: Review of Proposed Driveways Dear Mr. dams: After a review of the preliminary plans for the proposed Piedmont Electric headquarters building on NC 86 South, pro-- . posed driveways are approved provided they are constructed as shown. Consideration should be given to tapering the nose of the proposed island to allow easier left turn movement into the complex and if at all po sable to construct a taper for right turns leading into the customer driveway. I.f you have any questions, please advise. Yours eveery truly, S. },. j nes DISTRICT ENGINEER SHE'/mMM/kww ( KEN Cat . \ ) .. -,.. j - f .1 .. ' �� '; -1,? .- r./. . •t'o .. _w ::,1 .� '. . ,._- ___--I NVESTMI • (a� , ?'�! , , ; t �- .. -- -D5 -230.,.// ,1 �} 3� ' S. 86 ° 02' -' li/ / .' rf) 1. II / ci, ca.: 1 .. , , ,, r • ili Ct • I . 9/ .-,. / fi ;',..4.:/4,4, !, / •.t? M / E. 0.... , A, / 1 Nj ./ �! , . / ;-� ire r111ri l 11 IiMii5.ii,!_ _' AZ:,�,..,�''..,• 2 Lp.ivj co' /At I • "' //'/ 4f r . . 41 / . .. / / fI ' \ is9.„', • / / // i 1 4. `rte ,�.\ / ; t' '� - --_ efdsh.. 6 E,o .- -•. "Wc:) , / 9-•• •I' '..:-.." .." —....-11----«. . dr 11414 „ s - ,• . / I I Y'•: 1''` - Sp«.�ww"'""r 1,�• •— . �'' - m \ w / ' 1,, I ' '/ • //c y- : , ' :. . _... -,.,...... ,.. . \‘:,s, 1016i,11," ,:i 4:1 , -".. -------.. ":-.--. sr \ \.,, „, ,... ,-- :, ''---'''.\\ IP .•,.., (4-.N , / • i \ \ ., . - ‘'.N. aidill:111.•, . \,., / \. , I '� f -...- N\\ _ . 61° : "i .":N .,.‘ ') ml DRAFT AGENDA ITEM # 10: Recommendation on proposed change to the Land Use Plan for Piedmont Power Company. Kirk gave the following presentation: The applicant has requested a PD-4I designation from 33.92 acres located south of 1-85 on the east ;vide of N.C. 85 in Hillsborough Township to construct an office building and a maintenance/ warehouse facility. The tract is bounded on the north by Joppa. Oaks subdivision; on the east by Duke Forrest; on the south by the properties of David Jones; and on the west by Wood Brothers complex and property of Kendrick Estates Investment Corporation. The proposed change to the Land Use Plan would extend the Harmon Young (HB-4) Commercial Transition activity node south along the right-of-way N.C. 86 to ,encompass the Piedmont Power property. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan would allow the proposed use of the tract. The proposed change to the Land Use Plan would extend the Harmon Young (HB-4) Commercial Transition activity node south along the western edge of the right-of-way of N.C. 86 to the northern property line of the Piedmont Power property, west along said property line and continuing around the perimeter of the proerty, then north along the eastern edge of the right-of-way of N.C. 86 to the edge of the existing activity node. The requested change is reasonable given the nature of the proposed use. The proposal would not be incompatible with the existing development in the area. The site has adequate access via N.C. 86.. An on-site sewage disposal system and well are proposed to serve the facilities. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested change to the Land Use Plan. Staff will be reviewing and revising the entire HB-4 activity node at a later date as part of the annual work program. Boericke opened discussion expressing concern about "tail- like" extension of a node specifically called a commercial transition activity node in order to accomodate Piedmont Power. Lunsford expressed concern about the incompatibility of rezoning the residential area and possible future develop- ment of the area. Irvin noted that in drawing the activity node some property that is inapproriate for commercial and industrial uses was included and other more appropriate property was excluded . , . / € DRAFT Kizer added that Board actions on development proposals at the nodes has been reactive in nature, not planning. shanklin cited Piedmont's seven-year ownership of the site, but indicated Piedmont Power failed to mention their proposed use of the site at public hearings on the Land Use Plan. Lunsford expressed concern about the lack of awarness of community residents outside of the immediate vicinity of the Piedmont Power property. Gordon noted that the proposal was contradictory to express policy regarding piece-meal amendment to the Land Use Plan and consideration of amendments with rezonings. Walters noted the utility in fine-tuning the plan to provide a basis for decision making in future cases similar to this. Kizer responded that there is a problem with enforcement as well as support for the plan among the County Commissioners. He also added that some- development proposals may be more valuable than others. Crawford emphasized the Planning Board is an advisory body-, and that the BOC consider and makes decisions for the County as a whole. Collins :agreed there were prOblems, with. the node concept.- Collins added his preference was to.delay-a recommendation until such time a a study of the Harmon"Young-activity node, could be completed. Crawford asked what time frame this would require. Collins responded the effort could begin in January at the earliest and possibly February due to staff reduction. Delmas Adam representative of Piedmont Power emphasized that the property was purchased for development in 1974 and ne- gotiations with REA had been taking place ever since. He noted that a delay in decision could possibly result in loss of Federal funding. Mr. Adams added that given the concern, about the changing nature of a community and the impact on development proposals, consideration should be given to the likely impact of the specific project being discussed. Kizer stressed that length of ownership is a separate con- sideration from the demonstrated intended use. Mr. Adam responded that Piedmont had purchased this property • DRAFT _ . Collins restated that there are difficulties in avoiding a reactive position in administering a Land Use Plan. Lansford asked if the node was defined by a stipulated center Collins responded that the center was the intersection. Gordon cited that the node concept is intended to cluster development and avoid strip development.. Shanklin inquired if a second node could be created. He added that he did not think extending the node was an appropriate means of accomodating Piedmont Power to make- it acceptable to the Land Use Plan. Collins disagreed stressing the definition of a node accord- ing to the Land Use Plan focused on the "intersection of arterial and collector roads. Shanklin responded that the application of the node concept was impractical. Kizer stated that if there were "teeth" in the enforcement of the concept the desired clustering would likely result... The Board discussed. the enforcement of the node concept. Walters moved that the Board approve the request by Piedmont Power now and continue discussions on changes to the Land Use Plan to address the issues of concerns expressed.. Irvin stated there needed to an interim of flexible decisions until a more rigorous plan is developed as the Board agreed to do a few months ago. Crawford asked what kind of amendment the Piedmont proposal was. Irvin seconded the motion. Irvin emphasized he did not like 'shuffling of the rode boundaries nor the circular concept. Se added the node should be planned. Cordon noted this was a principal amendment. Kizer asked if Piedmont was a public utility adding that if it was it may be considered. for a "Class-.A" Special' Use Permit as permitted in this area and classified as a public utility station. DRAB'" Gordon noted that a principal amendment could only be considered once a year Luce indicated that at the time the. policy was adopted the Piedmont Power proposal was already being processed. Crawford asked Luce why this proposal could not be con- sidered for a"Class A" Special Use Permit: public utility station. Luce responded that the proposal included more than a sub- station facility. The Board discussed the consideration of Piedmont Power as a speical use. Irvin withdrew his second to the motion. Lunsford indicated she would vote against any motion that extended the node. The Board discussed revising the motion on the floor. Collins indicated any redesignation of the proposal would require re-advertisement of'the public hearing. Walters withdrew his motion. MOTION: Kizer moved that the Board recommend that the County Commissioners consider Piedmont's application under P-16 on page 4 13 and grant them a "Class A" Special Use Permit to con- struct the project on 33.92acres with the notation that the Planning Board feels that since this is a more re- strictive classification than the P/t) application it need not necessarily be re-advertised. Gordon asked if the reference to advertisement could be deleted and left up to the County Attorney. Kizer revised the motion to delete all wording after classification. Irvin seconded. VOTE: 8 in favor Abstained - Wilson because of financial interest Irvin indicated the importance of the minutes sharing in detail the discussion which led to the decision. MOTION: Gordon moved that the Board deny the requested change to the Land Use Plan because it did not feel a modification is appropriate at this time. Lunsford seconded. 177 AFT The Board discussed how to approach the Standards of Evaluation, since the previous action prevents it from recommending rezoning of the site. Kizer indicated that there are certain "general standards" which apply to all special uses, and that there are certain "specific standards" which would apply only to a public utility. Crawford stated that the Board may wish to consider both sets of standards, including those presented by the Planning Department for a PD-OT district so that the Board of Commissioners would know the Planning Board's opinion in both situations. Crawford then reviewed the required information that the applicant must show on the site plan or supply otherwise. The Board noted that all information had been provided, including the names and addresses of owners and applicants and all required fees, with one exception. That exception was the failure to indicate the height of the proposed radio tower. The Board then considered whether the applicant had complied with the requirements of Section 8.2.4 regarding the methods of sewage disposal, provision of water service, adequacy of fire, police and rescue protection, and adequacy of site access. The Board found no evidence to indicate any problems in these areas. The Board then reviewed the specific findings necessary for a PD-OI request as stated in Sections 7.16.2 through 7.16.5 and found that the applicant had complied with all require- ments. The Board then reviewed the required findings in regard to site planning standards contained in Section 7.16.6. In regard to External Relationships, the Board found that all require- ments were satisfied except two. First, the applicant should revise the site plan to incorporate the recommendations of the NC21OT as stated in a letter dated December 15, 1982 from S.H. Jones, District Engineer. Second, the lighting of the storage lot would be better accomplished through the use of incandescent bulbs rather than the proposed sodium vapor lights. In addition, a question remained as to whether the proposed radio tower should be required to have strobe lights placed on it. • niq FT The Board then reviewed the findings required under Section 8.2.2 of the Ordinance. It found that all standards were met except that the request was not in compliance with the Land Use Plan. The Board then reviewed the conditions which the Planning Department felt should be imposed on the request. All members agreed with the recommendations but felt that condition N4 should be expanded to include compliance with the recommendations of the NCDOT as stated in its letter of December 15, 1982. A question was asked concerning the need for lighting of the radio tower. Mr. Adams indicated that Piedmont Power Company would return for a subsequent approval of that structure as soon as specific plans for its installation were known. In regard to the lighting of the storage lot, Irvin moved, seconded by Walters, that tungsten incandescent lighting be utilized in .lieu of the proposed sodium vapor lighting. Crawford then stated that in case the Board of Commissioners wished to grant a special use permit to Piedmont Power as a. public utility, the Board needed to review the specific findings required in Section 8.8.3 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to such uses. After reviewing the findings, it was the consensus of the Board that the applicant complied with the required standards of compliance. MOTION: Kizer then moved that the minutes reflect that the application and site plan show that the standards of evaluation had been met by the applicant with the addition of the imposed conditions_ Irvin seconded the motion. VOTE; 8 in favor Abstained - Wilson. Crawford indicated to Mr. Adams that the Board's action did not reflect on the plans of the company. Mr. Adams indicated that the company is investigating the possibility of extending water and sewer to the site. CAGE COUNTY BOARD OF CCYVISSION S Action Agenda Item: No. 3 Acric i AGE`a; ITe2'l ABSTN C mal' G DATE January 4. 1983 . .,. Subject: Request by iedmont Power Company for Rezoning froth R-1 Rural Residential to Planned Development - Office Institutional and Class A Special Use Permit • Lep Cu r 1 P l anrling Public yes x ri j AttsgirmElt(S) : Plan Tax Map; Application Inf0t.Ar7 Con Marvin Collins and Narrative; Staff Findings; Public Hearing Minutes of 11122/82; Planning Board Phone Nt : 732-8181 Extension 349 Minutes of 12/20/82. PURPOSE.: To consider a recommendation from the Planning Board in regard to a proposed rezoning frgm R-1 Rural Residential to Planned Development - Office Institutional and approval! of a Class A Special Use Permit. NEED: The applicant has requested a PD-OI designation for property located on N.C. Highway 86 alouth of 1-85. An office building to serve customers and a maintenance/ warehouse facility is planned. The 33.92 acre tract is proposed to have access only onto N.C. Highway 86, Traffic figures for that highway in 1981 were approximately 4,100 trips per day. The orange County Health Department has approved th€ lot for on-site sewage disposal, and a well is proposed. The site is wooded and the building is proposed to be set back from the road. The site is also located in the Orange Rural Fire District. IMPACT: The propert}* is located in a Rural Residential area as designated by the Land Use Plan. Fcjr the proposed use to conform to the Land Use Plan, the Harmon Young (H8-4) Commercial Activity Transition Node would need to be extended south along N.C. Highway 86 to encompass the site. The development intensity of the proposal! meets the minimums required for open space; pedestrian/landscape space and dales not exceed the maximum allowed floor area. COMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the project with conditions , The Planning Board recommended that the Board of County Commissioners consider Piedmont Poer Company's application as a "Class A" Special Use Permit as indicated on page 4-13 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use was considered to be similJr to public utility stations and substations, switching stations, telephone edchanges, and water and sewer treatment plants. The proposed use would be allowed in the Rural Residential (R-1) district under the special use permit procedure wthout changing the zoning classification. A decision regarding whether or not the proposal would require readvertisement would be left to the County Attorney, I! The PlanninEj Board reviewed the findings required for both the requested PD/OI designation and the findings required for a Class A Special Use Permit for a public utility. ThP Rnarri fnf.nA 1' . .. • ,� °.. sss �. s r4 .. ":" 37 j7 AC. �s w� `�. 1 6153 `\\ /' 1l seaor.+or ,.. `` i S:/AV(T o•EF:c.+ 1: I / ' I ;it O \ 8,9A\. ,!: 1i ! 19 ,t• 50:`''�.-. \`7308.=r`� 7575�\ / fa8Z .C..1I ■ 10 09 AG ~� — r. ���`"' 'ti L96 8A1 AC,t; 10 \� •'w Zd�9 r lf!` ""� W �,. __- - AC t.l7A1C faG �1tos .i• O.0 ° 9o52r r -•�k ,�,,55.-I _.�1 y' 137 AC 10^. l9A--Z-` y ` ie ia,r c, 1 F3A. =4CAD- .�`s9Sa ~_Y �` 1 f '" 1 ` 199 is 3 ,�,1 - -/ 11 2-51 AL 1 ' / s� srk �✓ T - TTTQ . 7 ''11 f .�/ 1 I '''w w., \ i { I I~ I I 'w\1 i 6234 an \ `..,.� ! I 11 I : I 3 r„� 404iG 5 .; !MaP 434, I I i s t 4 ; ' / 11 1 1 ' F \./ 7 f✓pPPA Lta r5 1 I f✓QPP4 G'tOjc „E1 f✓OFPF aA A'S.gi..5 IrFg3AC CAi. 6A1..—tAr r SEarl seat/ Inc• i i it 1/ / IGI : I l/j I?I I i)1 /~\ .�1 1 1 i /I 58- •3Q ■ iii // 5..,.t AG ' 1 1gf ! I / "tr""..-.•--•�, '31 1 ! '1 ' t III I "fitS E C.s! 14.47,/ h1 I A p 45 -- t _ ,0973 1 I +� I I . (i,17‘),' I 0 1 I f✓aP,4f 3AKS'. I !5.7 8 AC. f ; fr. I 11 SEC°' � f X51 1 �� I" I I lig nil ,[I J 7 75 AC. // 1 '... .__9566 1 1 / ! r« M g K M h' ------ 1 ,ran r l 1 ..0'......'''''''. ...... ... ..":1 - • ••.;._vt.:A.•:`z.,d..:•ev-ill,i', .,-,•,-.:-,--■7...;,'„i".4.:.:,..01.-tit•_21:74!,0•7,1•!ii....i'-:.r..:.:1;.,-;:,:..k-~. =-:-..;.-•;42k." -410=-' r,r. - 477"4'sf..1•45'-'•' "‘--.7°.rf.,`. `'!— .'!'":-‘44'...' --4.'"n.411A. et..-,,,--',-.-- . „i.,,, : •,,..,..„,.....,_,,,.„..,,..:,..„.,„..,,,,,,...,.,..,,,,....:,„:„.,,,,r,,,,-,.„,.,-„,,,,,„,.„..,...„..,,,,„,,7...,,,,..,..„,.„...„.....,,,,,,<,z....... ..,.__,....„t2:-.•.- 4.1.i. v ... .-,,,,-•!.. .4.. 54,. ., -,,,,,-,y7,: 41..',?i IgZ:Z-''g•''*rri;,.*•'Eet•T'?4r'...e•Ftq::'.";.''..,•.,'7.•■•;'.;r:lk•:';'•TL.,;::l:'•:''.•37"'efa-''a:; ..-:;:'Ld•;L::..::P:Fk',■,',::.S;,;f4'.i7„ '..+.,. ,,,, ,t•t-,j'ae.tafilaa'°,.t_ •4.•$.•0, "E'i... ....6,4&1.7.17,-.111',..4.ii-A. -r,ii,-.4.r.4.414,1„,: .4,•7.,, • ,,,,,,, ' r...;-• .„...,,,-;„:-,,,,,,, . .. ". • .•••.••,,, ,,.....„.:•,•• • ,....-.v., ..., . . • L.:.Z.: ...2,404.4.1ere.'.. ,...c..Ft ,,,.. . -s, ','.:',.'',..,' ....,-.'",„,,,""'"'',I;,, ,,,, . :•-„it,.:.74F- ,;/;,.-:,.-::..r... ':'..,v.'.'..z",.-7,44-.7.,,i7.,... "'!A:',.:1'4_,ii .-..gi.:"..-44.,.':•.- -r.Ssia';74,"-d1'.4;.' .;krz.i#44-itirii.p.0.774-1"kr..":::ii.:?..‘....7..i`.4:-:....4414itrAgkilta:N.s.zrr.:,..,,,,,T,,,' ::'.."0,t;uP. :. . .k...0 T4..."'--t- -...0„,-.3i•-'''AIt.'4°.'.15:. -".-14.1.`-‘" ...2;.: t*:'&11-:4: 3.72.,FP„;4,-9' ,.; • • .^',- 4 - -.-- ..eci4e-=':,v-of. . , - -.=, ..,..---.7',.t,4,• ;*-1-4.1. .i.W'r.v-e-riffii::.: aft ,.:;,,;:t......,,,...E.,,,,„,.....cs....4t........ izz ,,,...,.: „;,::/,,,,.... . .e,l'.,1.,, ti., '---Z. -..YA: %*4-.1101-i^ . . -::7.V1.■.,A..., r''..''-L 'r-,,„' ...''..4...,',.; ■5. ..'.--.:',''''''''','• - - -44.1.. - . - - - - .,1`,-- REQUEST The Owner, Pietwont Electric Membership Coroporation, seeks a rezoning to Planned Development - Office Institutional and a Special Use Permit for Property preser►tly zoned Rural Residential. SITE LOCATION & CHARACTERISTICS The 33.92 acre site is located on the east side of N.C. 86, an arterial road, and is south of interstate 1-85. Contiguious property owners are Joppa Oaks Estate Sub-Division, Duke University Forest, Willie D. Jones, Archie E. Millis, and Kendrick Estates Investment Corporation. A three-phase power distribuiton line exists along the west side of N.0 86, and a single-phase power service exists along the eastern property line, with a thirty foot wide easement. Underground telephone lines exists in each shoulder of N.C. 86. A sixty foot wide easement (Book 294, page 136) exists along the northern and eastern property lines, providing an access road to the Willie D. Jones property. Public water and sewer does not exist to the site. Proximity of existing public utiliti s, however, is being investigated in order to determine the feasibility of extending such services to the site as opposed to an on-site well and waste treatment facilities. A location for a well and for a septic tank and field has been established on the site should this measure become necessary. Being a major artery between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill, with a hundred foot right-of-way, good line of sight distance exists on N.C. 86 at the property: South - 850 feet, North - 800 feet. Because of the arterial relationship to Hillsborough, the area is easily served by the Orange County Sheriff's Depart- ment, the Orange County Rescue Squad, and the Orange County Fire Department. The setting of the property is one of natural repose and forested with mature deciduous trees. A ridge running east to vest, about mid-way between the northern and southern boundaries, punctuates the site. The land slopes away from the ridge in all directions at a 10% to 12% slope, gently flattening out in the norther quadrant. Major rock outcroppings on the northern slope. As is characteristic of so much of the terrain in Hillsborough, the site is rustic and beautiful., inviting recognition and respect for the setting. The Owner, as a long standing member of the Hillsborough business community and who wishes to remain so, very sensitively recognized this as the search was.. begun to find land adequate to meet the growth demands which have occurred and are antici. ated within the electric membership corporation. 1 SITE SEARCH & SELECTION In any business enterprise, management has to recognize when growth begins to outstrip existing spaces and when functional relationships are being sufficiently strained to endanger the efficiency of operations. Several years ago Piedmont Electric Membership Cooperation, because of growth and forecasts, recognized such was the impending situation for them. With a committment to remain a corporate citizen of the Hillsborough com- munity, a search was begun to locate property sufficient in size and char- acter to accommodate both their administrative and operations centers on a common site. Because the need included not only buildings but extensive yard storage a well, the site had to be large. Due to the service functions of the cooperative, the location had to be directly related to major traffic arteries. The site which PEMC seleceted was the only one available in the area that met 11 these criteria. Therefore the property was purchased and registered withl Orange County as the site for Office Building, Storage Yard, and Related Power Company Facilities on October 31, 1974. In March, 1975, the architectural firm of Keener and Williams, P.A. was commissioned f r professional services in developing the program for a new headquarters building and operations center, During the last half of 1975, PEMC conducted and analysis of its present and future needs, department by department. I 1976, activity concerning the new facility slowed, due to multi-million dollar transmission line contracts under construction. Begin- ning in 1977, PEMC and the architect began to solidify the program require- ments . In May, 1977 schematics were developed and applications submitted to the Rural Electrification Administration for review and approval. Between 1977 and 1980 refinements to the program and schematics were made, all the time keeping REA appraised and involved. In May, 1980, a Soils Engineer was engaged to perform seismic surveys in order to dete 'ne the predominance of rock beneath the surface of the site. Following that, revised applications and schematic drawings were presented to REA for review and funding. Satisfied that all aspects of the programs have been thoroughly explored, that the site mere than adequately accommodates the criteria, and that the necessary funding is available, PEMC has authorized Keener, Williams and Adams, P.A. to proceed as quickly as possible with design development documents. Following all necessary approvals , the architects have been instructed to pFoceed immediately with contract documents , with construc- tion to begin a early in 1983 as possible. SITE DEVELOPMENT The program calls for the site to serve a dual function. The Headquarters Building relate directly to the public: adminstration, membership relations, billing, accounting, and data processing. The Operations Center incorporates the service functions and is not related to the public: warehousing, yard storage, line and service crews, operations management, engineering, and monitoring/disp .tching. The character of the site delimits these functional relationships naturally and well. The "public" side of the property occurs on the southwestern quadrant of the site, relating directly to N.C. 86. Visual glimpses up the slope introduces the building. A sign, of maximum allowable proportions, anchors the public entrance at N.C. 86 and identifies the corporation. The "service" side of the property is to the north and east, protected and screened off from the public by natural barriers . A sign of lesser proportions designates this entrance as private. The "public" side is open and inviting. The "service" side is visuall closed and protected by a security fence. Public access an'd service access has been separated. The road gently leads one p $ y into the site anld to the crest of the property where the building appears to rise up out of the ground. The road is designed to move naturally across the landscape, respecting the subtleties of the site that occur along the way. The service access occurs at the northern end of the property where the land is flatter. Theroad moves through a natural setting to a point where it enters into and becomes a part of the storage yard. From that point it continues around the eastern side of the property and into the warehousing yard. Public and personnel parking occurs on the "public" side of the property, being sited with respect to the contours and in a manner that retains as much of the natural character of the setting as possible. The building and land- scape are used t? physically separate and screen off the service side of the Operations Center. All service vehicles park in the warehouse yard. Power and teleph.ne lines enter the site from N.C. 86 and are installed under- ground to the building. The public drive, parking, and building will have night lighting that provides visual accessiblity and security, and will harmonize with the natural landscape. The service road, yard and warehousing area will have security lighting oriented to focus into the site. A 200' to 300' high radio antenna limited to PEMC's operation will be located on the highest point of the site, near the erehouse yard. Closed circuit television monitoring of the site is being considered. The building has been situated on the site in such a way as to take maximum ad- vantage of orientation and view. From N.C. 86, the view presents a low structure that appears to 8e an extension of the hilltop. The drives and parking have been slightly carved out of the land, letting the landscape get back to its natural state as quickly as possible. Offices have been placed along the southern ex- posure, inviting the sun and view. The warehouse, yard, and service road are orientated to the east, turning their backs to the winter winds and inviting the warmth of the winter sun. t ARCHITECTUIIAL STATEMENT The building is (designed as a one-story structure to harmonize with the setting and appear as a natural extension of the crest of the site. The floor and the ground become th+ same plane. The roof has a' gentle slope that acknowledges the sloping terrain, and hovers over the building much like the tree canopy. Walls react to the spaces they envelope, rising up and receding much like the rock outcroppings in the area. Glass is used to invite natural light, permit passive solar energy, and to allow an intimate relationship between the inter- ior spaces and the landscape. Materials and finishes take on a natural char- acter, matching the tone, texture, and grain of the setting. All too frequently, designers tend to overemphasize the importance of the physical shell they are creating, thinking their personal additions will have an overwhelming impact on those who come to use it. The architectural firm of Keener, Williams L and Adams feels very strongly that, to the contrary, any additions or modifications that are made to a site such as the one PEMC has should appear as la natural form, and only a modification of the continuous total interplay between inhabitants and their surroundings. Therefore, it is hoped the building will be viewed and accepted as a very natural part of the site; that it will have to offer no apologies for its existence; that it will be devoid of applied ornamentation but express itself with clarity; chat it will be sincere, warm, humane, and evoke a sense of charm and familiarity. mOWNIMMIN JUSTIFICATION Since the property was purchased by PEMC in 1974, an Orange County Zoning Ordinance has b4en adopted which places the site in a Rural Residental Zone. Therefore, in o der for PEMC to construct a Headquarters Building and Opera- tions Center on (the site, a special use permit must be sought. Justification sufficient to persuade all concerned parties that the health, safety, welfare and tranquility !of the area will not be jeopardized by such development must be presented. As a result of careful consideration to these concerns by the Owner and Architect, along with other consultants, the position is taken that the area will not be penalized or violated as a result of PEMC developing the site. Quite to the contrary, it is hoped that the narrative more than sub- - stantiates that the Owner has approached the entire scope of the project sensitively, and that the desire of PEMC is to be a good neighbor that, in fact, enhances the entire area. The requested special use permit to Design Development - Office Institutional is being made with highest regard for present occupants and landowners in this Rural Residential area. PEMC feels it has satisfied all its program on the site, and in relation to H.C. 86 and contiguous properties without adversly impacting traffilp patterns or the community environment. Piedmont Elelctr c Membership Corporation is a non-profit, community oriented business which must, by its very existence, be easily accessible to the commun- ities and customers in serves. To this end, the direct relationship of this site location to major arteries, such as N.C, 86 and 1-85, is of utmost impor- tance. At the same time, PEMC is not such that traffic is adversly impacted by its day-to-day operation, since the business will impact N.C. 86 with not more than two hundred counts per day, ?EMC presently has 53 employees and anticipates growth not to exceed 75 employees. Since tremendous areas of the site are being left undisturbed and large natural buffers are being retained around the entire perimeter of the property, excellent visual screening and acoustical diffusion has been achieved. Coupled with the fact that PEMC is a clean, non-hazardous business, the tranquility of the area remains unchalle tged. The placement of this long-term investment in this area, by a corporation already a well established and respected citizen of the Hillsborough business community, will enhance and even provide a stabilizing influence on the entire community. Without this type of long-term investment, one might well expect continued attempts at small scale commercial development that brings with it changing land use char- acter from one tennent to another as market conditions change. The type land use offered in this request does not tend to encourage such strip commercial development. The requested land use plan allows for extensive review and protection of adjacent properties, both for now and the future. Not only does this request enhance and protect adjacent properties, it also recognizes the potential that lands adjacent to and across N. . 86 will be made more valuable by such development activity as PEMC is proposing]. Page 2 long range planning considerations, since an assumption could be made that some properties in th+ area may already be viewed as transitional in use when compared to rising land values generated by these very factors. In conclusion, one might validly assume that the development PE4C is proposing has in it the ability to serve as an anchor for a high quality office, institu- tional, and industrial complex that could become the pride of the community. Job opportunities as well as an increased tax base for the entire county of Orange can readily be realized from this. i r��y",. � oa"2JO.fin,y�,p �•�i � azKg, G!v� s-»�.e'a i � , a.17- Z,2- IC ' - - , � .�_ _ _ - .r._ r . .. �OM�. /`/Ei•/C7E�LL1�i�F�/'.' C�j�/G�f.7��TliOfY � � Tw..0 a e:q.v �- C'ar✓�v ry fa OL v: _`�? !`� .:i �`' �• ••.S r � 9 �-GAGS',•f i.ZOa� merle✓sfYB� 09';6or'.ZQ. /.�7"'�.': .a tA0 ,p,i\1riGE r rp��` '•'1 i - _ _.rt�? ,C LI.G,j) wvxie tanerUnN _ 1' O f `.. O �ME.T ��.yT fl7twfn,r niv+rrs• r`1r';aliy�, . i. - .. d-•2O,y,_,o � r i aa..i I....rars rar rar.rr...w...er...�....d t.+w�.•....r. .Q r: 4' '� .wr...w,r.-.f.,r•.,.,..,,.,ran,♦rrsr...•.....�N�..r�a4.�../ L�639 �. E i " �tio Mo ar/f".�r' Fd.� O FFiCE l3u �� � ` �rL�iNG:. !_..C�� a�; @ 3 +�'r.,rr���Flrr���`� �. _ rtosssU�'xnntaNh.ppnncL r.n3rRfIY •_s. _-.� f,2J - 'aTWa.¢N� Rsv�.9CJd.SC rm'F.P (�`�rFe,4'L•A7/S 7""rY/.7� _'Y .r �:�3�< ..k �•µ�'ld .r.s nnumd iz � 't prPY G.C�_R' t3. /..�9'F� w APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE 15 OCtober 1982 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS . The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 45 - Block number 64 , Lot number 32 , Shown on° the accompanying plat, which is presently in a ._. A-1 District be rezoned to PD-OI, SPECIAL USE for the following reasons: The land was purchased sever (7) years prior• to the zoning ordinance and the planning for thel new operational facilities has gone forward to the present time. See attached narrative for detailed analysis. • Sign Address: l �fPiedmont Electric Membership Corporation L.D. Allen _ P.O. Drawer 1179 Manager of Engineering and Operations Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 A --.. y /0 NO' ICE OF APPEAL TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR REQUEST SPECIAZ. USE PERMIT Notice is hereby given the Board of Adjustment and the Zoning Officer of an appeal from the ruling of tge Zoning Officer on the 15 day of October . 19 $2 , which ordered that Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation, Hillsborou:h N. C. N. C. or I request a Speci=l Use Permit as provided for in Section 8. 4. 1 for - premises located on, N. C. 86 South T . 45 k nrsmber 64 said premises being iithin the area of jursidiction of a Zoning Ordinance for Orange County as applied to apel Hill and Eno Townships, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioner . Title for this property is in the name of Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation, Inc. . The grounds for this appeal are as follows: The land was our Xa ed spvpi (71 ypars prior to the Zonin- Ordinance and the •tannin:, for new o•erational facilities has zone forward to resent time . ■ October 15, 1982 Date Signature of Appellant 129 E. T'von Strn t. Address �" Hillsborough, N. C. If title to above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant and appeal iS h behalf ehalf of such property, attach a letter from the owner signifying his approval. Appeal must be acoocnpanied by a small scale vicinity map, showing exact location of of property with respect to existing streets, street numbers and size of lent. n=4 .'.- REZONING ttE VEST CHECKLIST If Piedmont Electric Membership Corp, ADDRESS- Draw -, 1179, 1011yboy ,pShIN.C• 27278 _-- i nin R-1 Total number of acreg 33.92 Current land use Vacant -- _- _ i ' 1 zoning requested PD-OI, SPECIAL, USE Proposed land use Commercial 45 Block # 64 Number of lots l `proposed Water Supply: Public x Community_ Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public Community Individual septic tank X o state road 6 NC 86 Average daily traffic count on the state road 4,000 Describe existing real: Flood prone areas None Poorly drained areas Done Streams None Other sensitive areas None and uses in: General Area Commercial, Resi`den,tial, and Vacant j i arcels of hand Commercial in -front, Residential` ta one side and rear, Vacant on other side. I t . j 44- (e) C �'n� R RCER ;{ --A',2- 7 C !NSHIP .. rAx :,iAP O. 5 AIPP j OT NAME OF PROPERTY ( NER: ' - .,.C;-y t , ./, + ]7 .. LaLt ■ � J PERSON REOUESTZ,NC TEST: 1 ' IT -tiT?erent from owner - auttioriied by owner: YES NO ADaRE55: �' 1 ''' .. . . ' ;. . . , - ' �.rr` _ / i'? / rid / / w TELEPHONE: : ' i r. CIRECTIQN/PROPE;RTY DESCRIPTION: , \. w©RK RE1UESTMD: I FEE PAID: ID: / P�'ELIMINARY LOT EVALUATION / SOIL ANALYSIS ot oep . IM ;QVEt•iEtN PERMIT INSPECTION ��1 CERTIFICATION OF CCt-TPL.:'"i IO 4 INSPECTIQ,+! PURPOSE QF REQUEST is to determine suitab_;qty for ground absorption sewage Pis- oosa.i syet4m. _.. SPECIFICATION CF PROPOSED STRUCTURE: .. .44AP CI.N R. F AU T HORr.7" AGENT: (rHis signature ndicat s permission :,a fed to enter r ;.rWCer M•/ for purposes author ized dy this 'Nark :order.) + _,.A:. Ir I - ; ICN Cr SCrL FAOTCR c ;CIRCLE) : S S 3r SLOPE � X � E � w�UCTJRE CT) DEPTH C� RESTRICTIVE C;:„`5 c U ,r-........., . .. rC +., .�s N1�A” " 1 J Lt "h a r'wis .� : . . .r,AA TNIt"� - r , y OM= PHONE 732-2491 HILLSBOROUGH 942.8500 CHAPEL HILL HZ& PHONE 792-2878 6„ 11.434± Sheriff of Orange County Fin,tmoRoueic NORTH CAROLINA Oc..tobea 15, 19&2 To wham it May Concerns Ow'. department cof,P.Q, pa JwL the area on new 86 4oath adjacent to Joppa Octh4 Dxv.i .ion 4evenaZ. ..tme4 dwr ing a 4h.i .t. Th.ib Lo ow po o.y on a.e a bua.inead e a an dW to new Piedmont F.Lec a ic. Membeuh..p Co .onati.on buieding wi.& be added to owl. patnaC chechua. (22 C. V. K �, Shetc.i.i6 Onang e y CDK/p 1 °°*'.;N:k1 COTangt ..RrAfaitt Di= 261 S. CifusTart Sr.. Err. 1-Ltr.a.sacRoucn, NOT CA.ROLINA 27278 October 15, 1982 • The Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. , can provide emergency services to an area on State Highway No. 86 - one mile South of 1-85. Chief of Orange County Rescue Squad, Inc. r'g _ PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP COOPERATIVE N.C. 86 Hillsborough, N.C. EMPLOYER/E/FLOYEE DATA Number of Employees 60 Number of Employees that remain 32 on premises during the day Number of Employees that go out 28 all day and leave parked vehicles Number of Contractors that come 3 in and leave parked vehicles Estimated ber of customers 75 per day (50% of these occur at night) Some of there actually drive company vehicles, thereby not leaving parked vehicles when they are away from the facility SOLID WASTE TREATMENT There will be a septic tank and a shallow drain field as per the recommendation of the Orange County Heal ' Department. Piedmont Power Company's Class A Special Use Permit Application The following information is the Orange County Planning Staffs findings of fact concerning Piedmont Power's request for a Class A Special Use Permit under section 8,8.23 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The corresponding zoning district applied for. is Office-Institutional, The following evidence. has been supplied by the applicant or by the Orange County Planning. Department. Ariicle 8 Special Uses. Ordinance, requires-: Findings: 8.2.1 a) The applicant shall have the The Planning Staff finds that the burden of establishing, by competent applicant has presented competent material and substantial evidence, the material and substantial evidence existence. of the facts and conditions for the approval of. the request; which this ordinance requires for with the attached imposed condition approval; and, 8.2.1 b.) The Board shall make written The applicant has provided figures findings certifying compliance with that indicate compliance. with the specific rules governing such Article 5 Dimensional Requirements individual Special_ Use and that the use and Article 6, Application. of which is listed as a_ Special Use in. the Dimensional. Requirements . There district in which it is. proposed to be are no requested variances from located., complies with all required me- requirements. gul.ations and standards, including the provisions of Article 5 and 6 of this ordinance, unless- greater or different regulations are contained in the indi- vidual standards for the specific Special Use. It shall be the res- ponsibility of the applicant on pre- sent evidence in the form of the testi- mony, exhibits, documents, models, plans. and the like to support the application for approval of a Special Use. • • • • • • • • 8,2.2 Where the Board finds a perpon- derance of evidence to indicate compli- ance with the general standards, spe- cific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application muse be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific manner that: a) The use will not promote the public a) The Planning Staff finds that health, safety and general welfare, if there is a perponderence of evident Located where proposed and developed to indicate compliance with the according to the pain as submitted; general standards and specific ruff governing the Special. Use and that the use. complies generally with re- quired regulations. The following imposed conditions are to be con- sidered a part of the general standards and specific rules for this request. b) The use will non maintain or en- b) No evidence was presented to the hence the value of contiguous property Planning Staff to show that it will (unless the use is. a public necessity, not enhance or maintain property in which case the use need: not maim values of contiguous property, twin or enhance the value of contiguous property); c) The use is non in compliance with c) The use proposed is non in cam- the general. plans for the physical devel- pliance with the present Plan. opmeno of the county as embodied: in these The Land Use Plan mush be amended regulations or- in the Comprehensive Plan, from Rural Residential to a or portion thereof, adopted by the Board Commerical Transition Activity of County Commissioners. node for this use to be appropriate 8.2.4, In addition to the General Stand- dard's stated in 8.7_ the following Specific Standards shall be addressed by the. applicant before the issuance of a Special. Use 'Permit: a) Method and adequacy of provision of a) The Orange County Health Depart- sewage disposal facilities , solid waste, sent has approved an area on this and water lot for an in ground. sewage dispose system. The Planning. Staff feels that eventually sanitary sewer Lines should be extended to serve this site . A. well will be Located on the property for water. Solid vast disposal, will be by contract with a private hauler. • b) Method and adequacy of police, b) Police protection will be by t^ fire and rescue squad protection. • Orange County Sheriff's Department Fire protection will. be provided by the Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department, rescue protection by Orange Rescue Squad, This develop ment should not present any proble to these agency's. c) Method and adequacy o'f vehicle c) This site is located in Hills— access to the site and traffic condi— borough Township on NC 86. A tions around the site. traffic count by the North Carolin Department of Transportation was 4,1.00 Motor Vehicles/Day in 1981. This highway is designated as an Arterial, by the Orange County Land Use Plan. The Planning Staff estimates that this development will generate 45Q trips per day, There are two entrances proposed. for this development; the public entrance is. located 186' south of the service entrance, d) Specific requirements of all special use requestes: • 8.8 a) The following a.dditiona? infor—• The following are specific require nation is required for all Special Use tents for this special use request. Applications: Three copies of the Site Plan prepared A site Plan has been suapLied, by a registered North Carolina land sur- veyor or engineer- which sail contain the following: L. North point scale and date. 1. North Point, scale and date shown, 2, Extent of area to be developed 2, Extent of area to be developed is indicated; possible future development is also shown. • • 07 r u • Fyn 3. Locations widths of all, easements 3. The Location of easements and rights of way within or adjacent and rights of way are shown, to the site. 4. Location of all existing or pro- 4. ALL existing and proposed posed structures on the site, structures are shown an the site plan. 5. Location. of all areas on the site 5. There are no flood prone areas subject to flood hazard or inundation on the site, as shown on flood maps or soil's mans.' 6. Location of all water courses on 6, There are no water courses shy: the site, including direction of flow. on the site plan. 7. Exiatiag topography at a countour T, Existing topography is shown, interval. of five feet based on mean Level datum. 8.. Proposed or existing fencing, 8F Outdoor storage areas, enclasF: screening, gates, parking, service storage areas and warehousing and storage areas. facilities are shown on the site plan, Outdoor storage areas are screened and fenced from adjac t uses. Landscape Plan has be submitted with this proposal a'...... the Planning, Staf_ feels. the plan. is, adequate Access. to site including site 9.. Access to the. site is shown on distances on all roads used for the site plan access_ 10, Elevations of alL structures 10'. Architectural elevations have proposed: to be used. in the develop- been supplied to the Planning Staff' meet. LI Names. and addresses of owners anti 11, The name and address of the applicants_ owner have been supplied. I.Z. A. fee, as sec by the Orange 11. The application fee has been County Board of Commissioners, paid by the applicant. 8.8.13 Planned Development,- 8.8-.21.1_ Additional Information 8.8.23,1 This refers to the stan- dards set forth in Article 7 P1 - ned Development, En addition to the information re- quired in Subsections 8.2 and 8,8, information shall be supplied as pars of the application as per applicable requirements of Article 7. • • • • 074L Article 7 Planned Development Districts 7.4.1. Relationship of Planned Devel- 7.4.1, Relationship of this projec ovment to Major Transportation »aci- to major transportation facilities titles. (See 8.2.4 c above) Requires that Planned Developments make use of major roads for access; and public transportation facilities available, • 7.4.2 Relationship of Planned De- 7,.4,2 Relationship to Public Util velovment to Public Utilities, Fa- ties, Facilities, and Ser vices. ccilicies, and Services. (See 8,2,4 a above) Requires that Planned Developments make use of existing utility systems and not require the public extension. of such systems. Tt also requires Chat the Planned Development make use of public transportation if available. 7.4.3 Physical Character of the site; 7.4,3 Physical Character of the S Relation to Surrounding Property. Relation to Surrounding Property. The Site shall be suitable for the type This Site is located on a hill wit: development proposed and be free from a maximum elevation of 702.6' near adverse natural impacts_ the proposed antenna to a low of 631` along the northern property line. The site has mature tree growth on the majority of the land.. This area has a mixture of devel- opment types with single family dwellings located to the North and Northeast. Duke Forrest to the F.asc, Undeveloped land to the south, undeveloped land and severe commercial uses cc the west across NC• 86. 7,16 Planned Development -- CFW;^R and Institutional Districts. 7.16.1 Planned Development - Office The Staff feels that this develop- and Institutional Districts Defined; meat as proposed is substantially Intent; where Permitted. in compliance with the intent of the PD-01 section, Planned. Development - Office and Institutional Districts are districts for the establishment of complementary groupings of office and institutional uses- -- • r-s E, oiu k Where existing developments exist, are proposed and areviously.approved-devel- onments are (in progress, which are of nature substantially in accord with the intent. of these regulations they may be rezoned to PD-OI status, and shall there- after be subject to the regulations and requirements for such districts) . = It is the intent of these regulations. to. provide for development of such districts at locations appropriate- is terns- of the Land Use Plan and the Orange County .. Thoroughfare Plan and in accord with standards set fore herein.. It is further intended that PD-OI devel- opment shall be scaled, balanced and. located, to reduce general traffic con- gestion- by providing employment to close to principal places or residence, and convenient pedestrian c_cttlati.cn systems and. mass transit devices to Further reduce need for ori.vate auto- mobiles. Within such districts, it is intended that uses shall be aaanged. horizon,- and vertically: (:. I- That major vehicular. flows. and other disaui.etin,g influences be so san- arated.. from res.identi a T areas as to protect orivacv and ea ui?*-ty; l_ that ge_ner._l commercial and ser7-ice uses be corscent,ratad. for maximum pedestrian convenience and located for easy accessibility by workers and visitors a. vi..'ic by mass transit;- and -there such districts adjoins. resi- dential neighborhoods, it is in- tended that arrangement of bu.i.ld- ings, uses, cpen. space and vehi- cular access be such as to pro- vide app:cer'iate transition and reduce 3otaritially adverse effects_ C 0? 7.16.2 Permitted Principal. Uses and Structures The requirements and limitations that The proposed use_ and buildings apply within PD-OI districts are estab- are permitted in the 0I district fished in Article. 4- and Article 5, and the proposed buildings does not exceed maximum allowed levels 7.1.6.3 Height Limitations Height. limitations within PD-OI dis' The proposed building does not dricts shall be as established in exceed allowed heights. Article 5 and Subsection 6..2 7,1,6.4- Permitted Intensity of Development The requirements and: limitations that The intensity- proposed for this apply within the PD-0I District are development does not exceed ellowE established i.a .articles 5 and 5. levels, 7.1.6.6 Site Palnning a) External Relationships: The site plan should, show haw the development will provide protection for the- development Erm potentially. adverse surrounding influences and. provide protection for surrounding. areas from potentially- adverse in- fluences within, the development_ l._ Principal access points shall be 1. Access to the site as proposed designed to encourage smooth is- good and should allow a traffic flow. Street layout smooth, flow of traffic into shall. not connect minor. resi- the project. The proposed dential streets with collector access makes use of a 2-lane streets, Arterial Road. 2. Access for pedestrians and motor 2_ There is a sidewalk proposed cyclists shalt be safe and con- from the customers Parking venient. Where there are street to. the Entrance. No street crossings, they shall be so crossings are proposed, located as to be safe, shall be marked and. controlled, 3, Protection of visibility at inter- 3, The sight distance at both sections. Shall be as set forth in drives should be a minimum Article 6. of 400' in each direction. 4. Uses adjacent to single family dis- G-. There is a 100` buffer propose tricts. which cannot be used for along all property lines . parking. • • 0': • 5. Yards., fences, walls or- vegetative 5. There is an outside storage screening, at the edges of. the ?0-- yard proposed, this is to 01 district shall be such as to pro- be fenced and should be., vide protection from the development to screened from all ad,jacec adjacent properties_ property by existing- vege clan, The building itssl._ will be screened by natural vegetation. b) Internal Relationships The site plan shall provide- for- safe, efficient, convenient and harmonious groupings of structures; uses and fa- cilities, and for preservation of de- sirable natural features and minimum disturbance of natural topography, I., Streets, drfives and parkins. 1_ Generally the site plan makes .._. safe and convenient use of Streets and drives shall provide the property. safe, and convenient access to There is separation of visitor, the site and other facilities if and service access to minimize necessary. Streets shall ids- conflicts, The parking areas courage through traffic and block will. be paved and the spaces shall be laid out to macimize marked. The proposed number efficient use of the property, of spaces meets the m4aim requirements. Z.. Grays for" pedestrians shall fecem a Z. Pedestrian. access is- adequate. safe logical and convenient system., for this area. for- pedestrian access to all units, project facilities. and any principal off. site destinations, 3, Protection. of -.risibility for auto- 3- Visibility should be good a: mobile traffic, cyclists and pe- all intersections where motor destrians. Visibility protection vehicles, cyclists and. pede.s- shall, be as set forth in Section trians might meet. 7.15..15 a) 3 above. 4. Open space. and smacint of buildines. 4. The project uses about 1/7 of The requirements for open space, pedes- allowed floor area, and provid trian/landscape space; and spacing more than the required minimum of buildings are contained. in Articles in open space, pedestrian/ 5 and 7. Definitions are in Article S. landscape space and parking spaces. The building is sited at least 100' from any property Line. 7,15,7 Sian Limitations General Identification Signs for the development as a whole. • • • 0, SW, be permitted as follows: Cue Signs for the project shat. conform sign structure, not exceeding twenty in all ways to the standards contained, feet in height, and having not more in 7.16.7. than two sign surface areas, each limited to twenty square feet, may be- erected inside or outside required setbacks adjacent to public streets, provided that no such sign shall over- hang any public way or be so located or constructed as to create a. dangerous impediment to traffic visibility. Such signs. may identify the development as a_ whole and bear directional informa- tion, b1Xt" shal.l cons- i,, no advertising matter. . Minor Directional Sign Stz:.rctures- Having not more than two sign surface areas, each limited to four square feet may be- erected. as reasonably necessary - for the safety aid convenience of visitors to the center.. Such signs shall bear no advertising matter other than the name of the- development as a. whole or as indication of the norticn of the development to which direction is given_ • u ( ' • i V • The Planning Staff feels that there is a preponderance of evidence to indicate substantial compliance with the General Standards and specific rules governing the Planned- Development-•Office-'institutional, Class A Special Use Permit. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request, with the following imposed conditions: 1. That- all signs for the development shall be according to Section 7-, 16 and Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation plans shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. The installation of control devices and bn going construction work shall. be inspected by Orange County. The site shall at all times be in conformance with the. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Oridnance. 3. That the proposed dumpster- be• placed an a 10' x 20' concrete pad 6" thick, with wire mesh. k. That the service entrance from NC-86 to the entrance gate into the storage yard be paved to Y.C. Department of Transportation Secondary road stan- dards. S. Than the- developer mark the 100' buffer an the perimeter of the site and take precautions to insure that the grading contractor does not disturb the• area.. 6. The final site plan and. narrative of the project incorporatias all changes,. deletions and additions through. the. final approval of the project are in- corporated herein and made part of the Special Use. Permit.. A copy of the final site plat and narrative are to be maintained on file. with the Orange County Planning Department. Only those uses specified. in the project narrative and on the site plan, including but not necessarily limited to the offices, warehousing, maintenante. ser'rice and outside storage of utility- materials will be permitted at the e f i,ce facility. All improvements as indicated shall be constructed according to the consturc- rion schedule set forth, in this. permit, 7, The following construction. schedule shall be adhered to by the applicant. Construction shall begin within. six months of the issuance of the Special Use Permit, 8. All necessary easement to permit utility (electricity, telephone, sewer and. water) installation, servicing and hookups to the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. • • • . ' . ' ~ ` '_- '_- __-'_ - . ...—)4Le‘ :,...:-.."":„./.d . ' I i....-.... rr--•,....(\e..,,,,,. ..:7 i= A ' \ 1.. 5 1 N ./. .,,L.(`~7-� - .. . : ,t -----"") ; _Iv .- I '_La■IP" '1' ' . i,...7 _.i ( \ T. 7 if ' , . E ..=, ile,e/f ---, 1"----\-. 1. 1 7 ,,,,-,4 e,.---r--11 4........t irxprl,:p.afi f...... ..../ ""'" LL, S' '. al\ : Lii .) . 07 TP. -^.*---.. =1-7..V—7"".'1 I SCALE � ~___' � __— ____— _ _ �'--_--___--_— • • ` .. , ' • • ' � ' . ` 1 CPT cct BOARD OF' COMISSIONERS -- • NE:nr.m3 DATZ. January 4, 1983__ Subject:. Request by Planning Staff for a Rezoning- from R-L (R.esidential-1) to R-3 (Residential-31 on Cornwallis Hills Phase I. rte2.17L"`^*"(S) = Rezoning application pg.1; TG-t-0=- Vic: Rick Cannity rezoning checklist. pg.. 2; map. pg_3z minutes f 11./22/82 joint public hearing Fes° '-- 732-81.81 exc. 347' _ ': To hear. th Planaimg Board's r d tim of this rezoning request. ti=0. This subdivision is located in Hillsborough Township and is show on Tax Map 42E. It is located. on Old- N.C. 86 (SR 1009) and is. in the Orange Rural Fire Dist7i.ct.. This subdivision was approved on August 17, 1981 and. recorded prior to they iHi mA zoning was adopted in Hillsborough Township. When zoning was adopted,, this subdivision was overlooked and received R-1 zoning instead of the appropriate .--3. The subdivision contains 38 Lots. aCr: tors were approved under the Subdivision Regulations and have public sewer and water, There should be no adverse impacts associated with the development. RECO UDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval of the R-3 designation for Cornwallis Hills Phase I. The Planning Board recommends approval of this rezoning. Pg. 1 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE 10/26/82 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 42E Block number , Lot number , Shown on'the accompanying plat, which is presently in a R-1 District be rezoned to R-3 for the following reasons: Phase I of Cornw .11is Hills was approved and recorded •rior to the time zoning was adopted in Hillsborough Township. It was approved with minimum 15 000 sq ft. lot sizes since Hillsborough water and sewer was available. When zoning was adopted this subdivision was overlooked and received R--1 zoning instead of ' the appropriate R-3. Signed: Address: Oranee County Planning, Department Hy,llsborntrgh, N C. REZONING REQUFST'tHr,-CKLIST Old 86 Limited Partnership Mel Rashkis & Associates Inc. OWNER'S Ii1MB Cornwallis hills Pro ert tlwners ADD112SS 212 East Rose Current zoning R 1 Total number of acred ' t8 }. Current land use Type of rezoning requested R--3 Proposed land use Residential Tax map 42E Black. -__ _Number of late 38 '•I�roposed Water Supply: Public _x .Commur f Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public X Community -Individual septic tanl i Access onto state road #1 d -a--C 80verage daily -traffic count on the state road >E rax'250fl Iescrib4 Poorly drained areas critical areas: Flood prone areas JA i Streams N/A other, sensitive areas N/A -Describe land uses in: General Area Residential-wooded' Wooded to the West Vast and South, Residential to the North Adjacent parcels of land ' Fire District Orange Rural i i E reimeiter■••••■■••=1.011111. . . • • , . . . i .. ....-.-........,...........-- ................ ..,..,......„,___,................7._ .. Pg., 3 .• ••■••! UV a+. .... 4.. 1.11 1 ...- , 4... , ! II ; , i JIL(L.c. ....,..._,...._v,....g.i., •– ...._.,.. _ . _.. ......— --..,..._,L. - .. t -,......... -......,...____ : „....,....._............,......,i i 111 „.. i ......_ . ....... ... ..... . . 1 ..-...... „. ........, -. . . .., - ..„ . ii 3) ..---,.. . • ..,„ g! 4A— 9 • 1"---,.......,, 22 S; AC.. ''-' '...7:36 •:, '- • - - - tkx i 3304 04 AC "..„L . .. -. .. , .1 91013 1 .....- i-....., •. i •--e” .------.-,,,,,, 4e . 1 . r..............,.. i i .• ,..,.. , ......— ; . 1, [ 724:7.. ...... / • ...., _ ,.... _ 1 1 • . ■ 5 5 AC 40 , . , . . . r,I, . . .......... -.575 1 . \ . I . 1 / ,•, , 7 '.r.: : . i i I set MAP 42A, PI p4E- v„, 108 '■ e5e IOGS,',6 i . ..„17----1 7,Er„.11 i r \I 8 „......"A.P.74$' •'..P. . . "----7—'''''.-- _# I ■ , i • , 1., ,••; . ..,, . • i . . . . .....4:6?...... . , \ , n .., ./ . : NI LIP --* • -14S* d 14 i'i ''•, \ ir.*\ t • ..-•-•-ti4x m g tin H 's i ! ' ..... ,...... R 1 ..., H \\A i.• Ix s mg '''7 ;-::: ,....:,'S • -." 1".• :.2. N '4.-: r!--.MINIMI..■■■■•••■•• ••••....... I• s,..„ ........,.. -l...t e 1.,'...,■,,.....',P.. .. ,52.. . . .... ,... / , /.. 7...'L''',.1 .., ' / . " \c,. , \ H ,.. ., .:.. • i E 1. . 1 I. 3. 4' MINUTES 1 5' NOV MER 22, 1982 6. 1 . 7' The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session _ 1i I° on Monday, November 22, 1982, At 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange l' County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina, 10. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whizzed and Camaisaianers 111• Norman Guscavesan, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker, and Don t7illhoit. 1`"' Commissioner tihitted announced that the Board mould first consider ' the Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Board. 141. Planning Board Members present: Pat Crawford, a:airwoman, and Sally . • Boericke, Alice Gordon, Logan Irvin, Steve Ricer, Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Lunsford, 1 • Sharlene Pilkey and David Shanklin. 17. Planning Board Members absent: Tom Bacon. 18. Pat Crawford chaired the Joint Public Bearing and announced the order 191 for the procedures. 20L C. I. REZONING--RILL COUNTRY FUPSITURE FROM Tt-I to EC-5 21' Hr. Rick Canal tl of the Planning Department made the presentation . 231"1 to the Boards and the public for the Hill Country Furniture. Mr. Cannity cited the location of the property and provided background on this lot and building. CA 2l.. detailed statement is included in these minutes on page of this book.) us. 254 Crawford asked for a list of permitted uses in the EC-5 zone; Mr. C2nni ty rend 261 the permitted uses from the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. John Northam, an attorney, spoke for Mr. Gregg saying that this 281 property has always been used as a small commercial establishment. Mr. Northea sup 29 ports Planning Staff's recommendation approval of the EC-5 designation for this 30 property. 31. C. 2. CORNWALLIS HILLS SUBDIVISION REZONING FROM R-I to R-3 32 Mr. Rick Cansity made the presentation for the Boards on the Cornwallis 331 Subdivision. Mr. Cannity cited the location of the subdivision and provided 31.4H background information of this subdivision. He said the requested change in the 35j designation to R-3 meets the application criteria for the R-3 district. The designation 36 change is nnnrAnr-..e F-+ .tis_ v____. 1 '` , n 2.. 2. 18. I 4• Mrs. James RippY. an adjacent property owner, asked the difference between S. a-i and R-3 zones. Mr. Cannily responded no her satisfaction. I • C. 3. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 7. Mr. enr,niny made the presentation on the proposed zoning text amendments to ils the Boards. (Mr. Cannity's verbatim remarkes are on pages of this book.) 9. Following his presentation on the proposed changes, Mr. Cannily responded to 10. questions from the Boards and members of the audience, clarifying the changes as 11• and if necessary. 12.. C. 4. AMENDMENT TO TEE? L. USE PLAN—PIEDMONT POWER COMPANY 13. Ms. Susan Smith, of the Planning Staff, made the presentation to the Boards 31. on the proposed amendment to the Lead Use Plan for Piedmont Power Company. She 9. cited the location on MC 86 and said the request is reasonable given the proposed i , use and it is not incompatible with existing development. 1.x. Mr. Delman Adams, representing Piedmont Power's erchicectural firm, said 18.. the site had been purchased in 1974 and it had been Piedwanc's intention to locate 19. its facility on that site. 20. Ms. Hazel Lunsford, speaking as a private citizen, spoke- in opposition to 2i. the proposed changes; she cited the changing character of the area from its present 24. rural character. She said her opposition was not directed at the company. 21. Mr. J. T. Squires from Fayetteville spoke for Mr. and Mrs. Millis who own 241. property along NC 86. He wanted to know what the effect of the proposed use 25. would be on Mr. and Mrs. Millis' property. to asked if the buffer tone is 26. entirely on Piedmont's property. Mr. Cannily replied yes. 27. Mr. Cannily, responding to Commissioner klillhoit, said Piedmoac had acquired 29. the property in 1974 and even if Piedmont's plans had been known that knowledge 29� would not have affected the designation given the site during the zoning process. i 30. Co, icsioner 'Willhoit asked if money had been expended for planning on the 32. site at the time zoning was adopted. 32. Mr. Adams replied that he did not know when zoning was implemented in Orange i ' 334 County, however, following the purchase his firm had been commissioned to do the 1 34, site study. He added that the "final map" indicated than the site vas to be used 35, for office purposes, "storage yard and related power company facilities_" 36i Hs. Smith, responding to Ms. Crawford said that the plat recorded showed � � 0 8 BaR GCQttZSICt S D Actic7^. _ = . Ito:. LO.. ,5 r -.1.I.Ii. In= January 4, 1983 — . subject; st by Planning Staff for Pezoning from R-1 (Residential-I) to ECy-5 (Existing Corrue-r1•-5) on Hill Country rurniture site. L tea.'"= nt: , Planning •[ [ pu.c Few 'rg: - yes x r:; .rte-c '(S) Rezoning applicaticn. Pg.1; o `,:i a a t-- Rick Cannity Pezoning Est Pg.2; tax map L g.3; T.mutes 11/22/82 joint public hearing Ptr�sas.I : 732--E18]. »"" 347 ''Zt:.ct,. ; To hear t-hr. Planning'Board's reccunendaticn of. this rezoning request. n NE=:. 'tae a .sting use is in Chapel Ri_I .L Township and is sham on Tax ?lap 115, Lot- l..' It is located. on state road 1005 (Old Greensboro 2.oad) and is within the area that Eli. Whitney fire depa.rtaent from Alaman County serves on a volunteer bases-. Until. 1973 thi q, lot was not recognized as a separate lot and it was taxed in Bingham Township as part of a. larger tract even tough a d� had been recorded for the ..88 ac=e lot in. 1964.. appears Chapel.Fill T' Township was zoned t o property was not. tr � because it was thought th be in. 3ingbam Township.. In 1981 when 3ingaamr. Township was zoned the property was not zoned because it was in. C el .ill Township„ ' - n ^hi pro e_• t'r and 'building have been used for several ci.ffa.- nt uses since it was csnstrszct°rt in 1964. ALL otherrcial uses were designated :item zoning went into effect in Caa el Rill 17ownship, the Planning Staff feels the DC.st,ing Caurercri.al-5 (EC-5) designation is apgrcori at© for this use. ECailZi t.Tl i:. Planning Staff Winds approyal of the EC-5 c,:signa't.;.cn for the .36 ac...:.e lot_ The Planning Board recaare_nas approval of this rez'"'ag. I Pg 1 APPLICIITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION DATE October 26 1982 The Honorable Board of County Commissioners �._ Orange County, North Carolina _ COMMISSIONERS: The undersigned request that property located on Tax trap Number 115 Block number , Lot number 1 , Shown on'the accompanying plat, which is presently in a R-1 District be rezoned to EC-5 for the following reasons: At ' • • r^ I , • s - r • . w n- e ' +e! F •t .Nice It wis built 8.5 a stork and has .been used as a furniture p1.ant .since the mid 70`s . _ w.� w.rxxnxwnw..7..w' Signed: Address: ! Orange County Pia. ning Department Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, N.C. REZONING ALg CTCST CHECKLIST OWNER'S NAME plexandu S_ Gregg-Jr. &_-a0e ADDRrSS . Current Zoni.n Ct-1 Total number of acre d _ $lL. . Current land use Type of rezoning tequested EC--S Proposed land use hill C r Tax map # 1 N Block umber of lots L -.11roposed Water Supply: Public Gommuc Individual X Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public� 6mmunit Individual septic tanl Access onto state road # 1005 Average daily -traffic count on the state road 1500_ Describ( critical areas: Flood prone areas NA Poorly drained areas NA Streams NA Other, sensitive areas KA -Describe land uses in: General Area Farming and resid�nt:ial Adjacent parcels of ]and Dairy Farm and Residential ` Fire District ..t ,- .._.. . -......-........ . ,., . ■ ( F ' Pg. 3 ; + . . 1 . . . , . . • , . — ; . . . . i • 7:tze/ — 1: -- i. .. . ■ - i . ■ I . . . i ...1 trX MAP 0.0, • ; . , ., El INtogAel -rwP . .- . A.C.- . . ! , 1 . . ; . ..0 \ .. i ! ., , • 1 : tl„, \ . , . I . — 2 .2 7 ! , , . i 4 , ...„... ;-• .... , . • .. i 2 . , .4 ....z.,- , No — & , . . . , ..,.. — g .t • I . .......-- ...a. . . , H • . i . i - •. .• . ,...1- I , 3.9 . 1 f„Ar...' • - ,-. T7-- .. :.- • t„,...v , izap...,44 4-- ••. .: H •• ,..,. ,.. ':. . 4. : I GO.6 AC •! i i . ..:1 . ft :. • .,1 ri- see _':: 314444+Ab■ TV.VP. : .., P/0 20 1,0 i3 lA„, .... . .., • • 4. KiNUTES 5. NOV1'MBER 22. 1982 7. The Orange County Board of Commissioners net in regular session ' on Monday, November 22, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange 7. County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 1 I 31` Commissioners present: Chairman Ri.ehard E. Whitted and Commissioners 1!" Norman Gustaveson, Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Walker, and Don Willhoit. 12. Commissioner Whitted announced that the Board would first consider 1?• the Joint 'Public gearing v-tth the Planning Board. • 94. Planning Board Members present: Pat Crawford, Chairwoman, and Sally 1 * Boericka, Alice Gordon, Logan Irvin, Steve timer, Nancy Laszlo, Hazel Luneford, 11s Sharlene Pilksy and David Shanklin. Ise Planning Beard Members absent: Tom Bacon.. 1(' Pat Crawford chaired the Joint Public gearing and announced the order 19. for the procedures. 20. C. 1. REZONING--•HILL COUNTRY FURNITURE PROM R-1 to EC-5 21. Mr. Rick Canna of the Planning Department made the Cannity B p presentation 21' to the Boards and the public for the Fill. Country Furniture. Mr. Cannity cited the 23' location of the property and provided background on this lot and building. (A 21" detailed statement is included in these minutes on page of this book.) Ms. Crawford asked for a list of permitted uses in the EC-5 zone; Mr. Cannity read 21. the permitted uses from the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Mr. Jahn Northam, as attorney, spoke for Mr. Gregg saying that this ` property has always been used as a small commercial establishment. Mr. Norther sup.. 2 ' ports Planning Staff's recommendation approval of the EC-5 designation for this 3 (, property. C. 2. CORNWALLIS HILLS SUBDIVISION REZONING FROM P.-.1 to R-3 32' Mr. Rick Cannity made the presentation for the Boards on the Cornwallis 33" Bills Subdivision. Mr. Cannity cited the location of the subdivision and provided 34" background information of this subdivision. Re said the requested change in the 3 " designation to Ft 3 meets the application criteria for the R-3 district. The designation • 3 ` change is appropriate for this location. U 6 ccr D"N. BOARD CT. cavisaroms Action. .N:=17.al =TM E Assrm= 0.3= Janua 4, 198L._ StabjeCt: Subdivision ,Cerr.e.o..--Lcrent: [ Prd-?1';(-- F.e.ering: jS- Letter inroz=ation_ Contact: Rick_Canrd.ty 1.`1137=-.e....-•-: 732-3181 r2.E.. 347 To 1,Pa,- Planning- Board's recarnendation to consider a one year ex'=-Isicn for arprov-al of the Preliminary Plan for Dee....rfiald Subdivision. Property is located. in Ch el wi T1 mship off Ridgavood ase.d. There are nine lots =Dosed with the road to be ccnsk..'-rx.otsd to Cepartmmit of Transpor- tztion. Standards. The miner is requese..ng a one year extension for anoroval of the Preliminary Plan. Due to high interest rates and poor econanic .-.• conditions he has not been. able to =pieta the road in the SI1hr41 The Planning Board. reccrrnerrled. approval of the Preliminary Plan 1/5/85 and. the County Commissioners anormed. it ]/19/82- The proposal ;rests the existing s"--andards for lot size- This tract does Lie in the rIniversity lake C,Tatershed and the lots wotilrl. not treat the mi.:lin-an te..ria as set. out in the Water Task For . Report however, this subdivision is one of those ,.--ca-roptad.. 4:..-c.aa the morstoritmi in the University Lake C.7atershed. ;MCCD.240.7D.N.Tial: The Planning Sf reconnends approve]. of the one year The Planning Board retool:wends =prove]. of the one year extension. E i ' November 12, 1982 Mr. Eddi Kirk, Planner Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 RE: DEER IELD SUBDIVISION Dear Eddie, I am wri :ing in reference to the above mentioned Subdivision for which preliminary plan approval was given by The Orange County Commissioners January 19,, 1982. I understand that this approval was good for one year. Due to t very high interest rates and very poor economic conditions we have exp rienced this year, it has been impossible for me to build and pave the road and prepare everything necessaryfor Final Plat Approval. Therefore, I respectfully request a ONE YEARS EXTENSION on this preliminary plat appoval and that you place this request on the agenda for the December 42 meeting of The Orange County Planning board, that they might consider this request at that time. Thanking lyou in advance for any assistance you might be on this matter, I remain, Sincerely, „.:L.44-1/4411°14---- C24- CCU' L` •BC3a20 C)'- CaSzTSSTC:t 5 ACtiCt _'- Item NO.A2 ACT-Mg t u4. rrza_pesrnAcr :. \L roam: January 4, 1983 .� Subject:- Sherwood Park Subdivision Attach=e' t(s) Checklist p L , Idt"Crrra-'` itt Cott C : Rick Camnity 5^ Tax Map, Letter pg. 1 3 � a 732-8181 EAT. 347 Plan pcmc .: To hear the Plraaing Board's recommendation to consider the approval of the Preliminary Plan. for Sherwood Park. NEED: Property is located in the Town of Hillsborough off Forrest Avenue. There are six. (6) Lots proposed out of approximately 1.65 acres. The proposed road. is to be dedicated. and constructed to Tower Standards. The proposed lot. sizes meet the Town of Hillsborough's standards. This tract is designated Urban in the Land. Use Plan and is located in the Town of Hillsborough (Orange Rural) Fire District_ rxoa�+; The: proposal meets the existing standards for lot size and is bordered by other residential development: and a stream. This area is designated Urban and development with the- lot sizes proposed would have minimal impact. )t iENDATTON: The Planning Staff recommends approval with the three conditions pointed out by the Town of Hillsborough iaa their letter. The width of the drainage easement to be determined by the Erosion Control Officer, The Planning Board recommends approval with, recommendations as recuired by the Planning Staff. E � s MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION Sherwood Park OWNER OR DEVELOPER ADDRESS P.U. Box T014NSHIP Hil.lsbotough. TAX M Z7- BLOCK LOT t i; + Fire District Town (Orange.,Rural DAME OF SURVEYOR. OA ENGINEER Alois Call.e n Total number of lots- 6. To be developed in _,__.Phases), Total• number of acres 1 Typical dwelling units at present none or proposed sin le Family W 14ATER SUPPLY: Public(t ame) Hi I?cb0XQj gh Community Individual. SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public x Community Individual Septeic tank ..SCHOOL DISTRICT-QraaU coo_ - f Forrest .Access onto'State Road #Ave. Road Standard: Public or Private Class A , .B , C Existing critical areas such as streams { A, Flood prone areas ( ), Historic Sites ( ) , other { ) , Exp Land uses in the general .a ea: Residential SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 1,1-17-,32__- --- tproved ( Recommended Changes ( X ) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) - REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department- Erosion Control Officer Board of Education Dan jun, Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) Hillsborough (if possible) December 7, 1982 -orange/Al.amance (if possible) Prel.iMinary. Action by the Planning Board Recommends approvaL W I'th . Preliminary. Action by the County Commissioners . . FINAL'PLAT RECEIVED (Date) , ( } All lots were approved by the Health Department Lots fa�3ingl t Departments approval are- ccmb� V17 13�ted-properly-on he-plat— — ( ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable). Approved ( ) Improvements have been provides for; completed, bond, letter .of credit, cash. Date ( ; final. OWASA approval (where: applicable) ion all plans & specifications. Date . ) Final, DOT approval on plat i final action by the Planning Board - - __ - Pg.2 Mayor ali= Aitughttrougll Town Clerk Lucius M.Cheshire Jr. Agatha Johnson Commuslonea HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Supt. water Works Allen A.Lloyd C.E.Rosemond W. Paul Martin �*rk1N�k— Remus J.Smith Street Supt. Rachel H.Stevens / L D.Wagoner Lynwood 1.Brown " �;' w Cblef of Police s j! 4 fa♦o Arnold W.Hamlett � December 7, 1982 Eddie Kirk, Plaint r Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Eddie: Thank you for your comments concerning the Sherwood Park Subdivision. The Hillsborough Planning Board has made the following recommendations: - Utilities (including water and sewer lines and taps) should be installed prior to application of stone and final road surface treatment. - The road should be hard surfaced with six inches of crusher run and three applications of asphalt and gravel. - The Plann ng Board is concerned about the sedimentation potential from the property and expect that a thorough study be made and appropriate easements designated for the creek. The Hillsborough Planning Board them recommended that this plan (redrawn for lots five and six) be forwarded to the Orange County Planning Department. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, -4711(11ffitif Kay Maltbie Zoning Officer | - ` ' 7, ....0..,„:.i.,.........„ ,„.."w „.•. „........ ...,.. . . :„ ..,...,•-• " . . . ,i .fri-..:. :.;.•,,,...., . ","1 azo-a-----;........__3oa a 200.0 g• .. , . I / HetiG ::1---- --i._.......,. NI 205 .....,„. .... 0 ......79. . 8 ..., / t vs! -.."•-• • / : "--- ........... ......._............, ....."•:.•::"*" 0 .2728....AI .2. 1..., I (." ::: #41 co--. .....,--.. i .... -..... to . • 7..... .... . ....... . —___ . ..: , 11.,...,41.';'Ir. .. ..:...:..,....\.."L' . "—..: I. tb. , I .......... . • a....p ....,,,„ .7_0.27759' —,-- ---- II I / . -.. i+ow , • ..+.... ..r...7 - 3 oc,s-:.- -- -- --, ---: -- i / cD I ---7 Me& tr" • . . , 44 '2654 2: . • / •.. ,-."• s.,""••••••.' .2. •? ,.,.h7i it t).. 7 (045 B? / , • 4...- . . , . ;.. , ',. ...3- : 111 / ....... .1 ...... I. CI e 0 .. : •.. i L&- , .....t..., . . ........:, .... „ 7 (1)1 14:--- tit Cy / . Ili (2)43 63 / i . . — ,..„, ............ . . , . . . . .. , „ ... .r . . :,,,,,.,6,4c CAL 2 .. /51 ., .., . ..... ..._... , 9048 . , , . \ . • ,. : : . ..... • . „„ ..,..:..., ....,.. ......._ : ,..„ . ...,...., :„. ......... ... ............. ........ .....„. .. ....„. .... .. .. ...„. . .. ..„....„. ..„.., ...... .,. .„..... ...,.. . ,.., .. ...... . ......._ ....... ..... .,. _ � cAN=. T 0 8 4 HQAM a" ca Jasims-Ps ABHM rrp„� .C..T .._ � D m= WT. January 4., 1983 Faucette Slope Subdivision e a=tM©„: Planning public PlibliC Hearing: ' TIO P r ”e '(s) = Checklist pg.1 IC"C T Rick Cannity Tax Map pg. 2 Plan ° Ni:""t ,s 732-8181 EXT. 3-7 FM:CM% To hear the Planning Board's recommendation to consider the approval of the Preliminary Plan for Faucette Slone, Property is- Located in Bingham Township on SR 1126 (Borland Road). There are five (5) Lots proposed out of 18.4 acres, The proposed road is to be constructed to private "Class C" standards, The lot. sizes meet the minimun standards. of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. This tract is. designated Water Supply Watershed in the Land Use Plan and is located in the Orange Grave Rural. Fire District. 2,41=4C% The proposal meets the existing standards- for lot- size and is bordered by other residential and wooded undeveloped land, This area is designated Water Supply Watershed. in the Land Use Plan and development with the Lot sizes proposed would have minimal impact. e MMMENDc?TIOK: The Planning Staff recommends approval The Planning Board recommends approval. MAJOR SUBDIVISIO14 CHECKLIST rn NAdtfE OF SUBDIVISION Faucette Slope OWNER OR DEVELOPER James Rae Freefand F • i ADDRESS P.O'b Box 836 11illsborou h TOWNSHIP Bingham TAX MAP 4 BLOCK' LOT ?y - Fire District NAME .OF SURVEYOR. OIL ENGINEER Al is- Total number Of lots-- 5 To be developed in phase(s), Total- number of acres Typical dwelling units; ;at present none _ or proposed •n ` WATER SUPPLY: Public6ame) Community. Individual x 'SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Community Individual. Septeic tank 7; SCHOOL DISTRIG.T aw=j r,�„��s ,.Access onto State Road # 1126 Road Standard: Public _ or Private Class A , -D , C x Existing critical areas such as streams Flood prone areas ( ) , Historic Sites { }, Other Land uses in the general area: SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 10-15-82 _______Approved Recommended Changes ( ) • REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) .PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department Ron 1 �-` Erosion Control Office ,Board- of Education Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if -possible) .Preliminary. Action by the Planning Board '.Recommends approval 12/20/82 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners , FINAL PLAT RECEIVED. (Date) (. ) ,]�lo.ts were approved by the Health Department ( ) Lots failing liea3CYi Departments approval are comb3neri or. I3sted0p"ery on-the-per (" ) Road' Mainfenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) . Approved ( ? Improvements have been provided for; completed, bond, letter .of credit, cash. Date { I Final OWASA approval (where applicable) =an all glans & specifications. Date .Final, DOT approval on plat J Final action by the planning Board .• .. : :.7.. . ._. r ....,......, ..1 10 6 8143 0 N ,t-, 242.. R1 AC 51-17 AC. 0553 ? C ::::1 r • 1 i MAP 4-23 P/0 242. 11 AC. f \\ SEE "\\\ MAP 3- \\ P/0 110.04 Ad, \\\ z i \\ \\ ,„..--*-0 110\ :Cj7A r 8- H \ , ©s r . i Wirir . 49 ,\ MAP • -2 p ..- = 22 �, P/0 •. 58 , . it �""' ; 5166 G f.. ,: 474 AC 1 43'' t, ; - 1 �i 0.38 AC CO 13.54 n. aS r i. w I1 3 C RANM ccr rr 08 G 3CAR.a a CC 2:1 SIC*c S AC'`'a= i4`^17 . Imo. na. T Q DIE 7 MAZE January 4, 1983 Subject: Holt's Landing Subdivision '""' =i..:;2a: Planning Puh3'^ Hearing:' yes X At17m ti. t(S) = Checklist ► iSi»G =1" ' Rick Cannity Tax. flap Plan Phczne_ Na±-er-: &32-8181 EXT. 347 --------- F : 'no. hear- the. Planning Board's. recommendation to consider anoroval of the Preliminary Plan for Holt's Landing. i NEEDc Property is located in. Hillsborough Township off NC 86. There are four (4) lots proposed out of 3,79 acres, The proposed road is to be constructed to Private "Class 8" standards. The lot sizes meet the minimum. requirements. This area is located. in the Orange Rural Fire District, ?'w The proposal meets the existing standards. for lot size and is bordered by wooded undeveloped land,. This area is designated Agricultural Residential in, the Land Use Plan and this development would have minimal impact. ?MLM.ENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval with lots C-2 and C-3 labeled as unsuitable for septic tanks. The Planning Board recommends approval with lots C-2 and C-3 combined with lot C-1 to form one lot. -MA OR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST ' r" P NAME OF SUBDIVISION 014NER OR DEVELOPER James Rae -Freel nd. ADDRESS P.E). :DOX 896, Hillsborough, N.C. TOWNSHIP nillsborough TAX MAP 49 BLOCK'B LOT P/Oi21 Fire District Orange Rural NAME .OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEERlos Ca}iemyn Total number of lots, 4 To be developed in 0hase(s), Total number of acres 3.79 acres Typical dwelling units- at present_..,_ or proposed MATER SUPPLY: Public(name) Community Individual Y 'SEWAGE TREATMENT:-Public Community Individual Septeic tank X -SCHOOL AISTRICT_Q=zqe r ,,,t* - Elementary Access. onto State Road #iac 86 Road Standard: Public or Private Class A , B X , C Existing critical areas such as streams ( �, Flood prone areas { ), Historic Sites ( ) , Other ( } : Exr Land uses in the general .area: SKETCH 'PLAN RECEIVED (Date) y'j-]n_ Approved ( X ) Recommended Changes ( } PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date)- �i-IA-Rz REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVER (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department _ _ Erosion Contra3'Office, -Board of Education I Department of Transportation 014ASA (if possible) Oehtr -Mebane (if passible) i` -Hillsborough (if possible) Orange(Alamance (if possible) Preliminary. AcCian by the Planning Board 1<" Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners. . FIWAL'PLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( All lots were approved by the Health Department - { ) Lots failing Heap Departmen s apprc�v3 sreombinari or-Iished-pxoper-ly-oz-the-plat ( ) •Rbad Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable). Approved ( ) Improvements have been provided for; completed, bond, letter-of credit, cash. Date . ( ) Final OWASA approval (where applicable) �on all .pl.ans & specifications. Date .Final, DOT approval on plat Final action by the Planning Board ti � N �1 1 `�. DAVIT-ONE Pg•` If tt 1 k 1 k 1 i I 1 L,I B 17 6534 1`'1 } 15 AC. GO'E: s E v7 t 1 -- z.; 52714 194c 1 3 y}� /� CD af_ 19 • 374 AC 1 \ H,E2 r-;- .95 C 2AC. '3 ---.—, 4882 1 : t Lr t l 1 1 it 2 X20 MN \1 11 1 rl ' ' 16.84 AC. ` i Ili F 5O89 "\ t ,��---^�� T .___ 8 .3 5 AC. f i E4) 377 AC. 4 24 \•393 'eels 1 •3718 4 35 94 %.0 8;54 AC. 1 \ t 2573 ono ! - . ` wrw w.r rw r . .-_ ...lgre.31 �.__ .� .. ....... ,4p T . �' • f y� Q Mo.4: /v nis DATE January 4, 1.983 % Se:o7e : Property Surveyed for Kristie D. Lennon. PublC yes K • Checklist pg. 1 Rick Cannity Tax. Map pg,. 2 gs- Q ri- '"� 732-8181 arr. 347 Letter- pg. 3 _' . Tv conside.= angzava.L of -a par q l. wi,dtIx si ri:.t-af.'-rav for the minor subdivisi©n of 4-his pronetty surveyed for tristie D,. Lennon, N Property is located in Eno. Township off SR 1552 (Palmers Grove Road) There is one one-acre lot proposed out of 5.41. acres.. The road proposed. is to be a: "Class B." private: road with a 30 foot partial width right-of-way across Pal.mers Grove Methodist Church property, The remainder oz. the road will have the required right-of-way. This lot is designated Rural Residential in the Land. Use Plan and is- Located: in the Eno Rural Fire District, Pale:..'s Grove-o ope Church because they use. the. area: fora. parkingiLot...easement across: their nronerty X attached. Letter) . 7,1 CT"- The- proposal meets the existing standards for Lot sire, but does not meet the right-of-way requirements. The subdivision is bordered by other residential and undeveloped land. This area is designated Rural Residential and" this lot would_ have a minimal impact. 4 OMEPD}ATIQN: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the partial width right-of-way. The.. 'Planning Board recommends approval of the partial. width right-of-way. r _ ..„ - 1 • '- -K::,' -"• --- ' .., 1 e a4o .... b,„.,...„... „.„..._.„. \ Pg 2.1 / ,• :- _2_ \ \_.....)%,3s '..:2. ..`,■"2. " .: 47' a 7 NI''''''" t",-, , 1,4065 1 ..„....,,.. ...,,,,=,...t.._t_j,„,...---:-.' ..,..-• , , 1, . /r ....—...,....,....... \ 1 .1. k V n - .,-_,1-'. .;,-------'14,4— -- , ! , i \ ...,-. 0.3eip .., .-471,4: --------.....,1 -,,. ....,__ : . - - — , • A.: ....1,,, 1 i 61\ i . T---. ---- .......__ ... ri \ c ‘t ,„ ••__ . _____ • .,xr 25p 77:43 V. s;,..\\ , / —----, \ -;P..N.,....c-I;•,. i;.'.33 'SS6 2, ,-.,__ . ,.._....., "1/4„...\„,..::...A•::-..., ,..., .... ------ ‘ 5,..,(;..- 1 - '^•--.'-"<;.7:•s.i 4d\\: AC.CAL ... •-- .__._"- I .- .. .„ •/ -,4 _.. . _....I .— .7,6* • ?Z' -1-'..--•\,,.". "li .,,'. . i .. , 1,:\••\* . : A' / .. I li ,,.., ,•---• 7/, 1 i ikI4 '' I2r 1-- IA I (CAI( RIDGE, i,' \--I, 4 72. AC IA\ s 9as , 12,42, WL /541\iLkli/...1'1,,,,. ,' i''\ '41 t\'... ii 1735 / le‘v I i I 1 1,(.9 1 s4`1' -------.........,,..„....„,...1.:::".V \A ;— — I E 4LA\.54,33 1 (-,-:::,, N....,,, ,,...: ■.--"A"T"--....„„,.., 1 I''. '2! PT-'• 14 A. \ . /,,-; ..........• 013 AC. J 26r5 I-I /17,t; ' O25! —....----/--..„). ,.:,,\\\Ac ,4. I \ f 9.1. 1\\ \ Li . II \ 7144 ' _41 '‘,...1‘ -; \\ \ 1. 5 41,=2..CAL. Ni,.... ,.. -- rria.N •_',A,1 .'...:. -.- .....-------,--..-..,.-- 1 _.,...— , \ ,--T--39ii- ...1•'-. ,--7- \ nALmER ,IFOSOz 'i (3A1 1 . METH CHURtti 1 a.,,,,, , ,-,._...../ -_,........ ..._ _,_ ... \...\\,. ,....__,,,...,, ...--.., •,..:1\),...„ ED I f 53 , i.14 '. .\'- ( -,^1 ) k ,1- \LL„, A ._. .. 1 ,._,•••„,• ,,.. 3 r 4 A , ..., 1 ,..2.. 1 55 t 7 - • c, .: AL S'.,,, r•••''''s / ,.,......._ksa,f...z, .„.. A CAL.. .,__1 \ ' /-'N. (434) I/ - .. • I 9,4 ..' ilf . :2526 (—N.. ...L...... „ j....„....1,___j J., 7....•71,,., , ..... 77 • . I I • 4.0 1 e I 7 32 AC.. 1 -59..,,.., 7—.733$ I " ,,337? .86 ! ... ,....., ::-.., Ai lc / , • - tc.-1 FL4-.1111 i. .if) i AC. ... ,, `---.- -,3 si-7.itg li i: '''-' -- -4-- ----fogr;') 15( 21 /- 's.is,-.-3.....44.s...,.. , -----—1 ...,...., /7146 • Q•"/.411 Iir.t 1'i l't -4 I 4 148 : , f_ 1.1 50..ktir., _ , (47CA) ' 15 -- .,- ! 2c,AC I ;, 3z 1 1 1 ,- -, e9os ''''... [ k,...„' " i cli 1 ( 48) • `--"- • 1 81 / ___.......________ \A . I a: F.1 "\ — 6, ....77.7wermamot './1111111111.7117.1.1.717■7777mA77.7.71.771.117.2.7■1•7•777.77., - i 1 t..GEND __.q. g4, 5 3 , i .. I MINOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST 15ION Kristie D. Lerman ,l OWNER OR DEVELOPER -Same Box 478 Hillsborough FIRE 01 rT Ena TAX MAP 20 BLOCK LOS' 42 OR OR ENGINEER Alois Callemyn f lots To be developed in hase (s) , Total number of acres )ut 6f 5.41 acres ng units at present One Family or proposed Public (name) Community Individual VT• Public Community Individual Septic tank X P Orange County ate Road # 1562 Road Standard: Public or Private Class A , B C r gal areas such as streams ( ? . Flood prone areas ( l ► Historic Sites( Other( � . 1 4 ie general area: 1 3 31VED (Date) 6-25-82 were approved By—ithe Health Department 1 2-- -82 Ling Health , Department'•s approval are combined or listed properly on the plat Education approved. Date 6-30-82 Dan Luns ford :ontrol officer approved. Date 6=21-82 warren Paiiclo h itenance Agreement submitted (w ere appl1r.cable. . Approved I _nts have -been prodded for: completed, bond, lettek of credit, cash. Date )roval- (where applicable) Date f I I � S -3- Eno - Palmer's Grove United Methodist Charge Robert W. Rollins, Jr. Pastor 7324694 Rt 4 Box 481 December 3, 1982 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Mr. Jessie Lennon Route 4 Hillsborough N. C. 27278 Dear Jessie, This is in response to your recent phone call with respect to an official request of Palmer's Grove United Methodist Church to consider granting a road easement of Blackberry Hill Road to fifty feet rather than the thirty feet which was approved a few weeks ago. I presented your request in an official meeting of the church's Administrativ Council on November 29, 1982. The Administrative Council took the posipion that, during all of the various meetings required in the process of granting the thirty-foot easement, there was no sentiment to grant more than the thirty feet because of the very small footage owned by the church for parking. As it now stands, the church's parking be inadequate to accommodate the cars if all of the members attended rformay any one occasion. At the meting on November 29, the Administrative Council felt that your best interest would be served by notifying you in writing of these sentiments so that you would not be further delayed with your plans for moving your m bile home. Also at its meeting on the 29th, the Administrative Council expressly gave permission for you to move any church--owned property along the roadway, or to travel 4 any church property necessary, to facilitate your moving your mobile hope onto your property at your earliest convenience. It is our hope that this communication will speed up a granting of your petition to the Orange County Planning Department. It is also our hope that you will feel free to call upon us if further questions arise. Sincerely yours, 1- BOARD CF; castrzataivs. Action A43 ,-.da, Item go..4-/1 FR TL inzE, -Tannery 4, 1983 Stlb'3eC7-: Property of Danny May and wife Bonnie May : public Esa ;-*lc3: ve-S X no Planning A '•. - t(S) Checklist pgM Rick Cannity Tax Map P8: p1 S ,.,;, .r 732-8181. EXT. 347 Plan _ To hear the Planning Board's recommendation to consider approval or a partial width right-of-way for the minor subdivision of the property of Danny May and wife Bonnie: May. NE?J: Property is located in Bingham Township off SR 1958 (Morrow Mill Road.).. There is 1.0 acre proposed out. of 4.32 acres- The road. proposed is to be a: "Class B" private road. with, a 27 foot partial width right-of-way - out to Morrow MILL Road. This tract is designated Agricultural p;R in the Land Use Plan and is located in the area where Eli Whitney Fire Department serves on a volunteer basis. Ms'_ May has attempted to secure right-of-way from the adjacent property owners, he as not been successful,. 77=1=7, The proposal meets the existing standards for lot size-, but does not meet the right-of-way- requirements. The subdivision is bordered by ocher residential and undeveloped land. This request would have a minimal impact. r Dt NDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the. partial width right-of-way. The Planning Board. recommends anoroval of the partial width right-of-way.. ! 1 y MINOR SUBDIVISION 'CHECKLIST i i 'ISION Property of Raney May & wife 'Bonnie 146y OWNER OR DEVELOPER 'Danny and Bonnie May f Box 167A Cha el Hill, N. C. 27514 FIR Eli Whitney-(volunteer) ;ham TAX MAP 31 BLOCK LOT P/€3 15A OR OR ENGINEER Stephen D. Puckett -7 o s 1 To be developed in 1 phase(s) , Total number of acres 1.0 acres ng units at present Mabiie Home or proposed i Public(name) Community Individual x ITT: Public Community Individual Septic tank X T Orangre County -- ate Road # 1958 Road Standard: Public or Private Class A , B X , C I --al areas such as streams ( ) , Flood prone areas : } , Historic Sites ( ) . Other( 1 , It It ae general area: IVED (Date) were approved by the, Health Department Lang Health Department'•s approval are combined or listed properly on the plat Education approved. Date 12/14/82 Dark *Lunsford' :ontrol :Officer approved, Bate warren airs- oth itenance Agreement submitted (w ere applicable) . Approved :nts ha e -been, provided for; completed, bond, letter of credit, cash. Date ` )roval where applicable) Date ' t 3 r .I -3207—. f �if �2r �r _ // 822 } 9089 i: 4-1414%C. ,-;>%/:"...- r"/� o .,- CD ;�� ,�,'� 75 25 Ac \\ ri•/15- /..../.. 1 _______________________ ....... . /1 _ ,, ,,,... , . 7\ .-/- , k ,.,,..„ ,; ,., ti ) ,..,-- (15) • • • ,,.....- . ,..... ...... ‘, n '''- • s Ac; 5 `9.✓ /// tt51k \\8209 I H. .I / 7955 ` • .� -i f,� \ -,,..- 14.11. 11 z CD' \ !� ►` 432 a \\ _ ::� it �re fn 1 ge 3 . , it 12, , ...„._ GA. �,r' ■+ *7404 �`�..'`.,. \ 1 / 1 r "' AC.• r!r 4242 11 V 1 • !1 j `�..AO I LO... ��` 6973 ! 4122 ■ •`5 20\% ‘IlD i .-- f6 . ( 'k;3A1; 28 AC.. s.__.__.___ 96 $6 AC CAL. ]] 0 ,3571 Ir C 1 LOVER 31 AC 0 c�u Ali H • 1394 �-- ._ • 5290 :3 5i AC i fH. \ iD 8 64 4 ... L 0 RED.an o cz casiassialvs Action t,To.G",� MATE January 4, 1983 -,_ • Planning Board Bales of Procedure .-w „w. Planning ?�si�t1+r Esaxia : vas. X Rules of Procedure Infrat=Ectiaa C:macho Marvin Collins 12.13:m Ntzer-err 732-8181. Extension 349 To consider" approval of the Planning Board Rules of Procedure as required by Section 2.2.5- of the Zoning Ordinance. �IE.r7: The Planning Board has extensively revised its Rules of Procedure in conjunction with the revised Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Board. recommend. anoiuvd.l of the Rules of Procedure and that the Board of County Commissioners approve. them. LACE: Approval of the Rules of Procedure by the Board of County Commissioners would allow the Planning Board to conduct its meetings and perform other duties and responsibilities in. accordance with rules which. are up-to-data and in accord with those under which the Commissioners. function .. The Planning Board has been operating under procedures which. were oreviously- adopted on April 18, 1977 ;, 'NDATION: The Planning Board. recommends. annravel_ of the Rules of Procedure. Changes have been made to the original draft based, on the discussion which occurred. at a joint meeting of the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners held. on November 22, 1982_ The changes incorporate the following: 1. The Planning Director shall serve as Secretary to the Planning Board., The Planning Board Chair nay have the opportunity to review the minutes of Planning Board meetings prior to their Submission to either the Planning Board. or the Board of County Commissioners. (article FT-C) Previously-, the Planning Director might serve as Secretary or the Planning Board could anoint a. Secretary from within.n, or outside its membership. 2.. The Planning: Director she/7 not be eligible to vote. Previously, this was unclear, and the Planning Board felt this provision should be stated explicitly. (Article I'4--C) 3- The Planning Board voted to leave article '7I - Township Councils - as writhe until. an appointed subcommittee could study the section and bring back a recommendation concerning proposed revisions. 4. Each miler' shall vote "ves" or "no" except when excused by the Chair. The Chair shall, be entitled to the same voting privileges as any other member of the Board. Previously, members were to vote yes, no or abstain. The Chair could only vote in case of a tie. The Planning Board felt that a "yes" or "no" vote was desirable, but it felt some benefit should be given a member who was concerned about a possible conflict of interest. In such instances, • the member would have to identify specific reasons for not wishing to vote, and the member could only be excused from voting with the am:ravel of the Chair. (Article VIt--E-2) (.Over) ORANGE COUNTY C i f • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE January 4, 1983 ACTION AGENDA ITEM. NO. CONTINUED RECOMMENDATION: 5. Any amendments to the Rules of Procedure must be (Continued) approved by the. Board of County Commissioners in accordance with Section 2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance_ This provision..was missing, and the Planning Board felt. it should be added to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. (Article IV) . • • 1g05 RULES OF PROCEDURE PLANNING BOARD ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA DECKER, 1982 APPROVED BY PLANNING BOARD ON • 1982. CHAIRPERSON • RULES OF PROCEDURE ORANGE CC hT1y PLANNING BOARD ! `- ARTICLE I - PURPOSE AND WI ' RULES \-..,: A. Puy The purposes of the Planning Board shall be as set forth in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, dated September '2, 1981, and other general and special state laws relating to Planning in Orange County. The Planning Board shall have those powers and duties delegated by ordinance to the Board by the Orange County Board. of Commissioners. The Orange County Planning Board is hereinafter referred to as the Planning Board. B. General Rules The Planning Board shall be governed by North Carolina General Statutes Chanter 153A and other general and st,ecial acts relating to planning and related activities in Orange County as well as by the ordnance which est fished the Board. ARTICLE II - OFFICERS AND DUTIES The elected officers of the Planning Board shall consist of a Chair and a Vice Chair. e"."7-`".. A. Chair -,„.2_ The Chair shall preside at all meetings and hearings of the planning Board and have the duties normally conferred by „'Parliamentary usage an such officers. The Chair may apps :nt or recommend the apnointnier t of Board members as representatives to other official boards as the need arises. B. Vice Chair The 7ice Chair shall serve as acting Chair in the absence of the Chair, and at such times shall have the same powers and duties as the Chair. C. Election Procedures The procedures far election of the Chair and Vice Chair shams, be as follows: 1) These officers shall be elected by the Planning Board from among its members at the regular ting in January of each year. Pg. 2 - 3) The officers sha?l be elected for a term off one .b year. They sbr11 be eligible to sue eed them- selves for not more than three consecutive terms. 4) Vacancies in the office shn` 1 be filled immediately for the unexpired terra by the regular election procedure. ARTICLE =I - m c a- A. MEMBERSHIP Membership on the Planning Board shall be governed by the ?erms of Chanter 153 A.of the General Statutes of Nortn Carolina and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. B. ATTENDANCE ANCE .) Anv members of the Board who miss more than tree consecutive et ,ns ('monthly meeting on the third Monday) or public hearings, or who miss more than one-half of the meetings in a calendar year, for scything other than an approved absence as deter- mined by the Chair, may lose their status as member of the Board and may be replaced by the Board. of -- -r of Commissioners. 2) Absence due to sickness, death of an immediate family member, professional leave, or other valid reason shall be considered approved absence and shall not affect the member's status. ) In the event of a long illness or other cause for prolonged absence, the member may be replaced. ARTICLE 1V — AWMTISMATION A. The OranEp County Planning Department shall serve as staff to the Planning Board. B. The expendit les of the Board, exclusive of gifts, shall be within the amounts appropriated for that purpose by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. . • The Seo_a Maly, subject to the direction of the Chair and the Board, shall keep all minutes and records of the Planning Board, provide notice of the regular and special meetings to me rs, arrange proper and legal notice `� of hearings, attend to legal correspondence of the Board, and other such duties as are normally carried out by a secretary. Planning Director shall not be eligible to vim. ARTICLE V - COMMIT' 'S A. The Plannx.g Board may establish such standing or temporary committees as it mayldeem useful in its work. The members of these committees shall be pointed by the Chair of the Board. B. The P1.2. Board shall establish sn a committee on Ordinance Review which shall be responsible for a continuing review of ordinances re- lated ated to the business of the Planning Board. The members of this Committee shall be appointed by the Chin of the Board. ARTICLE VI - TOWNSHIP ADVISORY COUNCILS A. The Planning Board shall recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the establishment and/or continuation of Township Advisory Councils, as provided in Section 2.2.11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. B. An Advisory Council shalll be established for each township. It will be composed of residents of that township, who sbel, serve a ten of two years. Members of the Advisory Council can nominate new members, while e any citizen of the County can recommend members for nomination. C. The membe s of the Councils shall be appointed by the Chair of the Planning Board upon approve. by the Planning Board. . er D. A member of the Planning Board from each township shall serve as liaison to the appropriate Advisory Council. ARTICLE VII - MEETINGS A. ReFu ,ar Meetihgs Regular mee l�tings of the Planning Board shall be held the third Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. at the Courthouse in Hillsborough or other place within Orange County designated by the Chair. The meetings shall adjourn not,, later than 10:30 p.m. unless extended for the meets in session by vote of the Board. B. Snecial Ivetinzs Specialmee4 ngs may be called by the Chair or by the written request of at leash three other members of the Ply Board. The not:1 r.P nr 'g. 4 Except in xtraord ,many circumstances, there sbP11 be a maximum of three meetings ai dUcr hearings per month. D. Quorum A quorum sS '1_ consist of a majority of the regular appointed members of the Flanni. g Board. A quorum shall be present for conduct of forma. business. B. Voting The vote of a majority of those members present shall be sufficient to decide all matters before the Planning Board, provided a quorum is present. Ex--of'f'icio members shall not vote. 1) No Plane ice; Board members shaall participate in the decision of any matter in which they have a personal financial #Iterest. 2) Each �l �iot� "yes" or "r. " except � exbused by the Chair. The hshal7. be entitled to the Same voting privileges as any other me ber cif the Board. F. Conduct of Meetings 1) Agenda. All business to be considered shall be listed on the agenda �. and to secure such consideration a request„therefore mist be received by the Paair or Secretary at least seven days before any regular scheduled meet. No other business nay 'be considered except by Unani- mous cor`sent of the Board members present. All special business or it not specifically noted on the regular meeting agenda may be deferred by the Planning Board until the next regular meeting date. 2) Omer of Business The order of business at regular meetings shall be: a) Cell to order and roll call. b) Call for approval of rtn lutes of previous meting. c) Consideration of additions to the agenda. d) Consideration of its on the agenda. e) Adjo �I e. t. The orde of business for special meetings shall be as set out in 7 .—•-.\ G. Cancellation of Meetings `-�� Whenever th e is no business for the Planning Board, the Chair may dispense with a regular meeting by Etztznotice to all members not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time set for the meeting. ARTICLE VIII - JOB' PUBLIC BEARINGS Joint Public heal ings., attended by both the Board of County Commissioners and the Plan ng Boat., shall follow the procedures given below. A. Bearing won Rezc .ini and Other Hearings Conducted by the P1ann . n- Bo Chair 1) Call of agenda its by the Chair. . 2) Presentation by staff. a) explanation of the effect of the proposal b) technical evaluation. 3) Statements in support of the proposal. 4) State ent4s of opposition to the proposal. ( 5) Rebuttal statements by Stprrorters. 6) Rebuttal statements by the opposition. 7) Board ' c'.zssion. 8) Board a ion. Before beginning this procedure, the Planning Board may determine the maximum number of minutes to be allocated to each of the above items, with the constrain:, t=at supporters and opponents shall be given equal time. B. Hearings on Special Use Permits and other Hearin Conducted by the Commissioners' Chair. The hearings shall follow the procedures deal tented by the Board of County Commissioners. Pg ARTICLE IX - AMl4S These Rules of Procedure may, within the limits allowed by law and the Zoning QFdianance be recommended for amendment at aa~ay ti by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the regular appointed members of the Board, provided that such amendment shall have first been presentgd to the membership in writing, at a regular meeting, preceding this meting at which the vote is taken. The Board of County Coaaissioaers shall approve all amendments to these Rules of Procedure. ORAZZE COrP+ Y BOARD OF CO,S ISSiONERS Action :xr c3 Item r-,v.£"43 ACTION AMID.; =at INESTRACT l'ilEETMC; DATE_ .January 4. 1983 Subject: Addition of Foxfire Drive and Edwards Drive in Foxboro Estates Subdivision to the State-maintained road system DeP tent: •].anni.nl. Public HP-.A ring: K no At ' t(S) : (a) Letter from Sam Jones idfOratatiOn. COnt Ct: Marvin Collins to Manager dated 12-2282; (b) Secondary Road Addition Investigation Report P. r° Natilmer: 732-8181 Extension 349 PURPOSE: Petition rom NCDOT for approval of the addition of Foxfire Drive and Edwards Drive in Foxboro Estates Subdivision to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. Addition f paved roads to State-maintained Secondary Road System. IMPACT: The Board's decision will be forwarded to the N.C. Board of Transportation for their deliberation on acceptance of the road to the State-maintained Secondary Road System. RECOMMENDATION: Appro ia1. 0„,...,,i.c., 4.,i>,,i,; ., ., ., ,:..., :,I,,,..P ■3,,-) Wlf ,nr STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF"TRANSPORTATION JAMES B HUNT_JR GOVERNOR Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM R ROBERSON JR December 22, 1982 SFCRE CFt3 y Orange County Mr. Kenneth R. 'Thompson, County Manager OrangeiCounty 106 East Margaret Lane Hi1.1sb rough, North Carolina 27278 Sub jec : Petition for Addition - Foxfire Drive and Edwards Drive In Foxboro Estates Subdivision Dear j. Thompson: Attached. is Form SR-4,, Secondary Road Add Lion In- vestigation Report, fpr Foxfire Drive and Edwards Drive in Foxbor l Estates Subdivision. This is being forwarded to you for review by your County Board of Commissioners. Yours'very truly, p,/n. Jones DISTRICT ENGINEER f jbh Atta. cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins FORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS . SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT - County __ Orange _ . Co. File No. _ _ _- Date Township 211Emm__- _ _ --.,. Div. File No TM___Local NameFaxfir Drive ah_d_ dk as d Drive_ __ Subdivision Name Fo horo Estates Length O.4O and 0.09 Width 20 i - Type F2 Condition Fair Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? Yee I Recorded 04-28-72 Book 19 Page 200 Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? _VA ____ Number of home, having entrances into road Seven (7) Other u` ' 'ng entrances into road Five (5) homes use the road for access ay obtained meet present Division of Highways requirement? Dedicated why i i __ — z:, ;.ition (SR-l ) attached? Ye _ Is the County Colmissioners' Approval 7SR-2) attached? If not, why? . 1 �... __ Does the road meet present minimum Division of Highways construction requirements? No If not, state what is needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attache( indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department? Yee Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $__2000..L___ 00 Grade, drain, st bilize $ 0.00 Y , Drainage $ 0.00 , Other _.. Remarks and Recommendations Some patching is needed. Recommend addition. Reviewed and apphoved Board of Transportation Member -_ _._ �__ _ _ _..._. Reviewed and approved J. W. Watlflns _ S. H. times DIVISION ENGINEER D STRICT ENGINEER � u _ ._. _ ..- - - _ _(Do not write in this space - ---------. '�" For use of Secondary Roads Dept. )it,' Petition No. ,___ _ _ . x '41 ORAL . Car = BOARD CE CO1ISSION5tS Action Pserea. It t . 147 =ON:SZE.NIDA. J.11M-ABSTRACT. NEEIM7G DATE T15,SDALAMEL983 Subject: Economic. Development Departrrent: Board of Commissioners Public Fc,Pririg: yes y 0 AttaChrVent S) Corrtact Commissioner Wi ilhoi t Yes, Memorandum Placne.Number-_ 732-8181 ext.. 510 To consider several recommendations for the economic development of Cheeks Township. • NEED Z See memorandum front Commissioner- WilThoit to Commissioners Lloyd, Marshall,. Walker and Whitted attached to this abstract. • 11SS'ACT: See memorandum RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides_ MEMORANDUM TO: Commissioners Lloyd, Marshall, Walker and Whitted FROM: Commissioner Willhoit RE: Economic Development—Cheeks Township DATE: December 30, 1982 Creation of the Orange County Economic Development Commission (hereinafter' OCEDC) marks a significant milepost in our efforts to $.-provide a systematic approach to accommodating commercial development in the County. According to the Resolution creating the OCEDC,, the Commission is to rely on the respective planning agencies to provide "zoning designed to- identify potential industrial and commercial sites and protect them. against types of developments that would lessen, their attractiveness or their compatibility with surrounding uses." In order for the planned development of Cheeks Township to proceed,\and to facilitate the task of the OCEDC.the following need to be done: • 1) Adoption of Amendments to Land Use Plan for Cheeks Township: The last public hearing on the Cheeks Plan was held September 27,. 1982. The amendments proposed at that public hearing would, among other things, add a commercial/industrial transition activity node centered on the intersection of I-85 and Mt. Willing Road. (SR 1120).. The existing ten and twenty year transition areas would be expanded to include the areas adjacent to 1-85. The primary effect of the proposed. changes would be to relax development restrictions in the. Seven Mile Creek sub-basin, the site of a proposed reservoir. The rationale behind the proposed changes was the suggestion by the State Office of Water Resources that a larger dam at Corporation Lake would result in a reservoir with a yield approximating that of the proposed Seven. Mile Creek Reservoir. At their October 18, 1982 meeting, the Planning Board voted to postpone taking action on the proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan for 2-3 months in order to study alternate plans for designating areas appropriate for industrial development. Clearly, industrial development should not be limited only to nodes as currently designated, nor should it be permitted at random in the "US-70 - 1-85 Corridor".. The Planning Staff has suggested "pre-zoning" _ property as Planned Development:- Industrial (PD-1). This would have the advantage of indicating to industrial prospects, property suitable. for industry, but. would ensure, through the Special Use Permit process, that industry was appropriate. Recommendation: The Commissioners should delay action on the Land Use Plan amendments for another month or two, as requested by the Planning Board, to give the Planning Board time to identify additional industrial zones or develop a process for selecting industrial sites, such as by "pre--zoning", The Planning Board and Planning Staff should give this matter top priority in their work plan. 2) Extension of the Zoning Ordinance to Cheeks Township: At their October 18, 1982 meeting, the Planning Board voted to recommend that extension of zoning be delayed until consideration of amendments in the Land Use Plan is completed. Recommendation: Delay consideration of extension of zoning until a decision is made on amending the Land Use Plan_ When the Zoning Ordinance is extended into Cheeks Township, the use of the "existing Commercial" and "existing Industrial" Classifications should be limited to those uses in place at the time of the Planning Staff's September, 1982 field survey. This should minimize .-pre-emptive'development, ire...:.. development,: that may be rushed to beat the effective date of the Ordinance. 3) Designation of Future. Reservoir Sites: The most controversial aspect of the Orange County Water Resources Task Force was its recommendation regarding protection of reservoir sites in Cheeks Township and, at the same time, providing for industrial development along the US 70 and 1-85 corridor. The Task. Force recommendation was to restrict development to the McGowan Creek sub-basin, and impose strict controls of development in the Seven Mile Creek sub-basin, a long standirtig potential water supply. Just prior to the August 23, 1981, Public Hearing on the Cheeks Land Use. Plan, the' NRCD Office of Water Resources released a report which indicated that an expanded Corporation Lake would have a yield essentially equivalent to the proposed Seven Mile Creek Reservoir. The implication should be obvious: If an expanded Corporation Lake were to be selected as the future water supply for Northern Orange County, the Seven Mile Creek site could be abandoned, opening up the Seven Mile Creek sub-basin for development. Although an expanded Corporation Lake, as an alternative to the Seven Mile Creek site, would solve a major part of the Water Resources Task Force's concerns, the expanded reservoir would still be adversely affected by development in the McGowan Creek sub-basin. The ideal solution would be to locate a. reservoir upstream of the confluence of McGowan's Creek. and the Eno River- A preliminary analysis indicates that such a site exists.. Recommendation: Authorize: the County Manager to have an engineering report pre- pared on the economic and geologic feasibility of an expanded Corporation Lake and upstream alternative reservoirs.. 4) Development of a Flan for Financing Water and Sewer Line Extensions from Hillsborough into Cheeks. Township: Recommendation: Request the County Manager to have an engineering report prepared on extension of Water and Sewer lines into Cheeks Township and to explore methods of financing the lines, Attention should be given to creation of a special tax district or other equitable means of financing in order that use of the.County's General Fund be avoided for this purpose. 4 If an alternative to the proposed Seven. Mile Creek Reservoir can be identified, then development in the Seven Mile Creek sub-basin will present less of a long term water quality problem. However, protective measures will need to be taken to protect Lake Ben Johnson as long as it is Hillsborough's primary water supply. In the event that the Seven Mile Creek Reservoir project is abandoned, then utilization of the County-owned property in this sub-basin might be considered as the nucleus for an industrial park site. This prospect should be considered by the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission as they proceed with their deliberations.. ORANGE COUNTY (. t.-f 5' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agneda 1 Item No 4".r 5 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT mEETING DATE January 4, 198 subject: . Relocation of Power' Poles Department: Community �evela.ment i Public Hearing: yes x no Attachment(s) : 1 Information Contact.: Albert K.ittrell Letter from John McAdams Phone Number: Ext. 425 • °appose; To consider authorizing the relocation of eight Duke Power Company power poles in conjunction with street improvements. activities in the Northern Fairview Community., lead: The John McAdams Company, consulting engineers, inadvertently omitted the relocation of approximately eight power poles from streets improvements plans and specifications._ The McAdams Company was. unaware the power poles exist on NC Department of Transportation (DOT) right-of-way without an encroachment agreement. The reason there is no encroachment agreement is that DOT acquired rights-of-way in the area of concern in March T972 and the power poles existed before that date., After several discussions with Duke Power and DOT, it was determined the County should bear the cost of relocating the poles. ::.moacc: DOT will not accept improved streets unless power poles are re- located. The cost of relocation is 55,271 85. This amount will not impact the community development street improvements budget, funds are available. =ecorrenendation(s : Board authorization of power pole relocation, ,r7 COMPANY, INC. THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPAN , CONSULTING ENGINEERS 100 HAYES BUILDING, GLEN LENNOX CENTER,CHAPEL HILL P 0 BOX 2896,CHAPEL HILL. NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (919)967.7079 December 21, 1982 Mr. Albert Kittrel ., Director Orange County Community Development 106 East Margaret !Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Northern Fairview C.D. Street Improvements OCO 8001 Dear Mr. Kittrell:l This letter is written at your request to explain the unforeseen expense of $5,271.85 for the relocation of several Duke Power Company power poles in the Northern Fairview area Several of the str,eets where improvements are being made are being widened, and the widening necessitates in some cases that certain power poles be relocated farther from the centerline of the road. In all of our past experience, when power poles needed to be relocated in association with improvements to a road on the NC DOT system (as these roads are) , the relocation was carried out at the expense of the power company. The reason the power company would bear the expense is that tle power company `encroached" on the DOT right-of-way in making the initial power ine installation, and the standard conditions of a DOT encroach- ment agreement are that the utility owner must relocate the utilities if they interfere with a future road improvement. The situation at llortherh'Fairview is different. In the area where the power poles are to be relocated, which is along the southern part of Old Cedar Grove Road, DOT acquires the 60-foot right-of-way there in March of 1972, and the power poles were already existing at that time, Although additional right-of-way was acquired in 1972 l,y DOT, and this additional right-of-way included the land on which the power poles stand, there was no way to impose on Duke Power a condition they had not agreed to at the time of initial installation. Thus, if the power poles are to be relocated, Duke Power must be paid to do so. We regret that weldid not foresee DOT's inability to require Duke Power to relocate the power poles a Duke Power's cost. On discovering the problem, we have worked with DOT and Duke Power to reduce the number of poles to be relocated by more than half (and reduce the cost from an original quote of $19,000) . We now believe that certain poles must be relocated in order to construct the streets properly, and we believe that the $5,271.85 is a necessary cost of the project, Sincerely, THE JOHN . ADAMS COMPANY, INC. BY: klirk,44014.e. JO R. McAD S, P.S. Pr si,dent JRMc:ow ORANGE COUNTY 095 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agneda Item No '/6 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT "EETIIG DATE_Jarny a, 1413 ' .:hject: Execution of Grant Agreement Public Hearing: yes no :eoarcment: Community Development_ _.�_, � 9� ✓ ,.,.X ..tachment,(s) ; �—' Information Contact: Albert Kittrell Grant Agreement Funding Approval Phone Number: Ext, 425 =jrpase: To authorize County to enter into an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) regarding third year fund- ing of the Northern Fairview Community Development Block Grant Program. :_ed: NRCD wilt release the County's third year CDBG funding (5938,000) after the Board accepts the terms and conditions of the Fiscal Year 1982 Grant Agreement. NRCD's 1982 Grant Agreement is similar to HUD's Grant Agreements executed by the Board i n• 1980" and 1981 . The Grant Agreement is attached. • :,mpact: Execution of the Grant Agreement will facilitate the timely implementation of ongoing community development activities. ?ecorrmendation(s) : Board acceptance of the terms and conditions of NRCD's 1982 Grant Agreement. I NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Upon ex cution of this grant agreement, the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. (NRCD) agrees to provide to the recipient the Community Development Block Grant assistance under Title I1of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (P,L. 9.M°383) authorized by the NRCD funding approval, the North Carolina Communitty Development Block Grant administrative rules, applicable laws and all other requirements of NRCD now or hereafter in effect., The grant agreement is effective on the date the grant agreement and funding approvals are signed by the recipient The grant agreement consists of the attached funding approval signed by NRCD and the recipient, the NRCD approve4 application, including the certifications , maps, schedules and other submissions in the application, any subsequent amendments to the approved application and funding approval and the following general terms and conditions: 1 . Definitions Except to the extent modified or supplemented by the grant agreement, any term defined in the North Carolina Community Development Block Grant Administrative Rules , 15 NCAC 1.3L shall have the same meaning when used herein . (al Agreement means this grant agreement, as described above, and any amendments or supplements thereto (by Recipient means the entity designated as a recipient for grant assistance in the grant agreement and funding approval (c Certifications mean the certifications submitted with the grant application pursuant to the requirements of Paragraph (j) of Rule .0407 of the North Carolina Community Development Block Grant Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 13L . 0407(j) (d Assistance provided under this agreement means the grant funds provided under this agreement (e) Program means the community development program, project, or ACtivities ,aCtivit.ies , i.nclrrcliatg the administration thereof, for which assistance is being provided under this agreement. 2. Obligations of the Recipient The recipient shall perform the program as specified in the application approved by NRCD, The recipient shall co'jmply with the certifications pursuant to Paragraph (j) of Rule .0407 of the North Carolina Community Development Block Grant Administirative Rules , 15 NCAC 13L .0407(j) . The recipient shall also comply with all other lawful requirements of NRCD, all applicable requirements of the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina and any other applicable laws and Executive Orders currently or hereafter in force . 3. I Obligations of Recipient with Respect to Certain Third Party Relationships . NRCD shall hold the recipient responsible for complying with th provisions of this agreement even when the recipient designates a third party or parties to undertake all or any part of the program. The recipie t shall comply with all lawful requirements of NRCD necessary to insure hat the program is carried out in accordance with the recipient's certifi ations including the certification of assumption of environmental responsibilities under Rule . 1004 of the North Carolina Community Development Block Grant. Administrative Rules, 15 NCAC 13L .1004. 4, Interest of Members, Officers,_ or Employees of the Recipient, Members of Local Governing Body, or Other Public Officials. No member, officer, or employee of the recipient, or its agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any financial interest, are direct r indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to he performed in connection with the program assisted under this agreement. Immediate family members of said members, officers, employes, and officials are similarly barred from having any financial interest in the program. The recipient shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated , in all such contracts or subcontracts, a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purpose of this section ThJ assistance provided under this agreement shall not be used in the • paymentlof anyt .bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining NRCD approval1 of the application for such assistance, or NRCD approval of applications for additional assistance, or any other approval or concurrence of NRCD required under this agreement, or the North Carolina Community Development. Block Grant Administrative Rules , with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical, consult nt, managerial or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as program costs- 5. Reimbursement to NRCD for Improper Expenditures: The recipient will reimburse NRCD for any amount of grant assistance improperly expended. 2 l Upcin execution of this agreement by NRCD and the recipient in the spaces below, the recipient hereby accepts the assistance on the terms of this grant agreement, effective on the date indicated below, and further certifies that the official signing below has been duly authorized by the recipient's governing body to execute this grant agreement. Date: 12/15/82 Secretary of Department of Natural Resources and Community Development By: .f2L1,_ i3; Di rector, Division of Community Assistance (Title) Date: I- --- _' --- Name of Recipient By Signature of Authorized Official . .. (Title) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDING APPROVAL Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program 1. NAME AND ADDRESS OF RECIPIENT 2 NRCD GRANT NO. 82-C-6285 Orange County . .- 106 East Margaret Lane { y ORIGINAL, 12 101 f82 Hillsborough, NC 2727R (data) ( ( AMENDMENI (date) 3 APPROVED PROTECTS. NRCD Project Number Protect Name Approved Amount C-1 Nurthvrn Fairview $938,00 ) rural CDOG Funds Approved T 938,000 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS-. Funds for the following activities are released because they are es loot !rum NEPA and SEPA requirements or because the recipient has satisfied the applicable environmental review requirements: Administration Funds for all other activities i tclnding future prultr.tm amendmenet are cuuditiurnally approved and will nut be ruIeraed to tine rcciir�t��t until the environmental requi emcnts arc satisfied. S. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 6. SIGNATU• . OF A%FIORIZE ?�1i�t;lf F CIAI, 7 SIt;NATIIRL OF AUTHORIZED I,OCAL. OF tAt. 'may/�( j//� NAME • t'imsley NAME Secretary, DNRCD 12-1;-82 TITLE I„ DATE _.... IITI,E 11,1‘L r _ //r _ _ _ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agneda Item No.4"/ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE January 4, 1983 -- Subject: Street Impro')ements Contract Admendment Department: Community e.Inpment __ Public Hearing: yes x no_ Attachment(s) : lInformationCContact: Albert Kittrell Target 11rea Boundary Map (Phone Number: Ext. 425 Purpose: To consider amending street improvements contract for the Northern Fairview Community Development Project. Need: During the designing and planning of street improvements for the Northern Fairview Community Development Project, all streets were earmarked to be paved completely except Hill Street. A small section of Hill Street (340 feet) just north of U.S. 70 is within the 'flown Limit of Hillsborough, Therefore, this section was omitted since the Community Development Target Boundary is techni- cally outside of the Town Limit. The Northern Fairview Community Development Task Force has suggested Hill Street be paved in its entirety from Revere Road to U.S. 70. HUD will authorize the additional street paving contingent on (1 ) Board approval , (2) no opposition from target area residents and Town of Hillsborough, (3) xtension will not create a significant environmental impact. In addition, extended paving will necessitate the relocation of one power pole. Impact: Paving Hill Street in its entirety will enhance the street improve- ments project as well as the traffic pattern. The extension will cost $10,375 ($9,375 for construction and $1 ,000 for relocation of a power pole) . The estimated construction cost is an actual , + , I I f =1 ■ f 3 1 1 f S t , 7►101r + a i I _ , t, A M D r E E L 1 r #37x7[ ' 1 ci________ A r(I s, 1 1 / . ii NOM �t 1 ORANGE it 1 COUNTS t 1 PROPERlY \I% Il A,: 7iAaPtn l rP t4c 4'" 14 .et, �" e... t Q s= 4 /DRAIN S7, 11330) O 1 e 1 1 :hs, LAWNDALE RD. imn 1 I a../ t, 5388! 11 S 0,10- '1c. .. op It e` y t L ........ es 1 1 1 1 y�` 3. 1 J �O 5•t r 1 i 1 .. _ rjJ 0� T 05, a1 AA i M r _ An PCI4VIA Se CAI 0411 , CO TY.I1ORT Et:1 3 Fe nE171 REDEVEL.@ 1 T P1 — H01 ......., V ti PROJECT DOUR ARY LINE III , mow.....+..— —+ --. ..- ...�.�........... _....�.�,...... ���-_:�.�� —.+ _ "" u 6 Action A=1:01. ABSTR3-= Tz maw JANUARY 4, 1983 cam,-.fie: Acquisition of Ambulance Cepa mint: Purchasing & Central Services ] 77777.777777717 ,7e5 Y .ttad_ t(j) . — Trr ,3`-.c C:n Mark H. Rees N 0 .7! a Inn-Scat: ext 498 To consider awarding the purchase of a 1983 Ambulance to Southeastern F ^.€ncy Equipment of Wake Forest North Carolina at the cost of ,4J8 00, on the basis of this being the Lowest responsible bidder. _.rya: The purchase of this Ambulance was authorised in the 1982-83 budget_ Bro RESULTS: Sid Price Southeastern Emergency Equipment $22,738.00 Wake Forest, North Carolina Ashley Ambulance Sales & Service $22,990,00 Jefferson, North Carolina Emergency Vehicle Services $22,824.50 Winterviile, North Carolina Z.M .: $25,000.00 was budgeted. for this vehicle, leaving $2,262.00 for the purchase of radios and other equipment. ?.mc :w.: icn(s) : Award the bid to Southeastern Emergency Vehicles. 09- Af ORANGE COUNTY _ BOARD OF 020USSIONETS Action Agenda f C� A0 ON AGENDA TEEM ABSTRACT Item HE=ZIG DATE January 4, 1983 . Subject: Financing of Front End Loading Refuse Truck and Computer Equipment Department: 'urc acing .7nance I Public Heara:ng_' _-- yes no Attar t s nfor etion. Contact: Yes. Mark H. Rees, ext. 497 - Pho Nter: Wallace Harding, ext. 496 PEE: To consid"er two alternatives for financing Front End" Loading Refuse Truck and Computer Equipment. . Alternative 1 : Award lease purchase agreement to Municipal Leasing Corooratio1 / as being the lowest responsible bidder (see attached bid summarl 13_1% interest rate. Alternative 2: Purchase equipment outright by using: $45,000 of the water and sewer" extension appropriation in the CIP fund. This will leave $10,000 in that project for this year and is all that is expect: to: be spent; $10,000 from old courthouse restoration project" which will leave $55,000 in this project and will be enough to match grants of $29,000; $32,000 from the Commissioners contin- gency account which will leave $40,900 for the remainder of the year,- 352,000 from current years Local Option Sales Tax which is coming in approximately 215.%" above- budget. NEED: Previous Board action authorized purchase of this equipment subject to financing arrangement. T PACTr At the lease purchase rate of interest of 13.1% and the current investment rate of 9% the County would benefit materially by buying the equipment outright. Interest expense (13.1%) 28,074 Interest earnings (9%) (18,793) 5,281 Assuming a 5% annual inflation rate the $9,281 loss would be $8,375. RECOMMENDATION(S) :. Purchase equipment outright (see proposed budget amendment.) BID SUMMARY LEASE/PURCHASE FINANCING CAPITAL COSTS Front End Rea fuse Truck $80,000.00* Computer Equipment 110,997.00 $190,997.00 Municipal Leasing Corp. , Raleigh, N.C. 3 Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Computer _ 5 Year-Computer Equipment Refuse Truck. 88,960_00 88,960.00 Computer Equipment 130,116.60 144,104.37 Total 219,076.60 233,064.37 Total Interest 28,079.60 42,067.37 Interest % 13..1%. 13.1% First Continental Leasing Corp_, Dallas, Texas 3 Year-Refuse Truck. 3 Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Computer 5 Year-Computer Equipment Refuse Truck 92,445.60 92,445,60 Computer. Equipment 133,550.55 145,527.09 Total 225,996.15 237,972,69 7 Interest 34,999.15 46,975.69 * Actual purchase price for refuse truck is $77,907.00, however, bids for financing were received prior to that. bid. Payments will be negotiated downward, per bid specifications. • 1 . ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE ,tk,e,,n.SUBJECT: tudi i. Emend t;n DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: YES ! NO .I • ATTACHMENT S) : .,,, l� INFORMATION CONTACT: PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL — 967-9251 MEBANE — 227-2031 DURHAM — 588-7331 PURPOSE: Cna tit;do&tick. % .pt,mainaw,d- amid q,t 00- -a-w-ha. NEED: ,u. . : 1 '.)JD • .coc cutcii taca.L viirtra.. ...ct.. ,u.a& 0.0- cwaitat,cx-. .sra ,t.liA, Rx,au. . Claus-I:4. ittpattat t- a� *tilt, wkuiw 4')vb cad. tax a.d.dit ox j- �.�.ct.ua!- aa.d- J,t h i ti. .fr ub& .i4.nt, ax1. eu,n,ta/A aLlik. Qxcu r r,, t a t. 1 A.t,ta.t., OUU/41.0.4 IMPACT: wta,L 41.titat,: ) %J.kea etruk nrrt. ,wiJj tsu./u_a_m_c- .5tt1.,. cuitu.R.1 i ,ietappryp,pluatiLL at_tala.cttr otti .t- ./kluo artlucirail wilt- i_ieuaur- lUlt tAALCW- tat 1.a. a�.lL &truiLt 4 Vottd.�., VOtvitts u 1 qr ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE November 15 1983 SUBJECT: Data Processing Budget Amendment. 1 DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING: YES , _NO ' • ATTACHMENT(S); Yesl INFORMATION CONTACT: Wallace Harding PHONE NUMBERS; HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-1331 PURPOSE: Ta amend budget to reflect contract revenue from the Town of Carrboro ($7,600), Town of Hillsborough ($12,500), Orange County Board of Education ($5,500), and Land Records Grant ($4,200), NEED: GENERAL FUND: In ord r to provide for the necessary expenditures in support of these rojects, an appropriation is necessary. • IMPACT: GENERAL F ND: • Adherence to contracts. 1 ORANGE COUNTY' PROPOSED 1982. 83 BUDGET AMENDMENT The 1982-83 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 22, 1982, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: GENERAL FUND Appropriation:. Data Processing $ 111,000. Public Works 43,000. Source: Transfer from CIP $ 55,000- Contingencies 32,000. Saes Tax Revenue" 52,000. Trade-in of Fixed Assets 15,000. To budget for purchase of front-end loading refuse truck and computer equipment. Adopted this day of , 1983- ,. `, • C11.w7E COUNTY Action_hgerlia Thera. Vro-f*420 ACTION AG; a.k. .L'1'.6il ABSTRACT Iw1r�.� G D1TE January 4 1483 . Subject: Budge-t Amendments } Depart-rent: f-uncrnce j [Public Hearing: yes x r� AC .cc rnent(s) = ye4 atformation Contact: Patit.,14,itz B. Stotts Phccrie ��., , . 9ra 737.- 1R1 Fxt_ 495 P J1 PGSE: To co &L.den. p+rapa.aed budget amendments. ma): GENERAL FUND a picav unds bon pwcchade o6 nant-end eaadtng teivaer .ticuch and camput r equipment CETA 7o^accept additLon t CETA 6edercal~ 6wida and. to adju.6.t prrogrcam budget& in ac'ondance. utith Smote_ budget back-up. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' Ta accept an addc,ti,onat Community Veveeapment g'utnt_ MEACT: GENERAL FUND Sea agenda. item no. /1 CETA. TT�-ame�rdmestit cuitt piwvide add,L tIona.e. 6unding in the. Wainge County CETA pttagicarn_ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This amendment usJL incteade 6und4 a.va.i,Eab.ee- Son county community deve~apment pito ea t&. RECOMME 1DAIIION: Apvcava f_ ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1983-84 BUDGET AMENDMENT The 1983-84 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 27, 3983 and subsequently amended,'is,:bereby amended as follows: GENE I L FUND: Appropriation: Data Processing - Capital $29,800. Source: Data Processing Contract Services 25,600. Land Titles Grant 4,200. To budget for Data Processing contract revenue. Approved tiis day of , 1983. 0 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1980-81 PROXECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The 1980-.81 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on December 1, 1980, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows Appropriation: Community Development IV — ArtmLnistration $ 101,102. .. Rehabilitation 565,206. • Landfill and Park 120,528.. Acquisition of Real Property: 714-,564. Clearance Activities 7,500. Relocation Payments Assistance 71,100. Source: Community DeveIapmentilV Grant $ 938,000. • Adopted this day of , 1985. • OR4NGE: COUNTY PROPOSED COMPREEDISIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT 1982-83 PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The- 1982-83 Project Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on September 27, 1982 is hereby amended as follows: Appropriation: Ceta ll - I & R Service Staff $ (1,745.) I' & R Participants ABE Service Staff 2,226. ElRD, Service Staff 1,141. OJT Service Staff 5,571. OJT Participants (2,571.) AWE Service Staff 194. AWE Participants (3,914.) 'Z'WE Service Staff' 4,268. NE Participants (4,329..) Source: Ceta IIB Federal Grant $ 2,329. Adopted this day of , 1983. A • Avinumummemommiimi HILLSBOROUGH VOLUNTEER le RE DEPARTMENT BID SUMMARY LEASE/PURCHASE FINANCING CAPIYAL COSTS Frpnt End Refuse Truck $80,000.00* Computer Equipment 110,997.00 $190,997.00 Municipal Leasing Corp. , Raleigh, N.C. 3 Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Computer 5 Year-Computer Equipment Refuse Truck 88,960.00 88,960.00 Computer Equipment 130,116.60 144,104.37 Total 219,076.60 233,064.37 Total Interest 28,079.60 42,067.37 Interest 13.1% 13.1% First Continental Leasing Corp. , Dallas , Texas 3 Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Refuse Truck 3 Year-Computer 5 Year-Computer Equipment, Refuse Truck 92,445.60 92,445.60 Computer Equip ent 133,550.55 145,527.09 Total 225,996.15 237,972.69 Total Inter st 34,999.15 46,975.69 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ax artciA AC TON SIG tO'. i N ABSTRAC:r Item too.E":"‘"2 MEEIL`G DATE JANUARY 4, 1983 Subject: NCACC District 9 Board Member Recommendation ^ Depart .nt: Board] of Commissioners [ public Hearing: yes X no Attachment(s) : Information Contact: Richard E. Wh i tied No - Phone fir: 732-8181 ext. 510 PURPOSE: Consideration of a recommendation for the NCACC District 9 Board of Directors. NEED: The retirement of Wake County Commissioner J.T. Knott from that Board creates al vacancy in the District 9 representation on the Association's Board of irectors. The Association's Constitution Article III, Section 5, reads: Vacancies. Any vacancy in the offices of Phesident, First Vice President, Second Vice President or Third Vice President shall be filled for the unexpired term by the Board of Directors. Any vacahoy in the office of a District Director shall be filled for the unexpired term by the Board of Directors; provided, the Board shall accept the recommendation of the county officials from the district affectd. Such recommendation may be decided upon at district meetings. The Orange County Commissioners are asked to take official action tp make al recommendation .to the AsSociation,.for a County_ :ommissi.oner from District 9 to fill t ,i s vacancy;-71 asks that it- be notified of-your recommendation by letter no later than January 15, 1983.E RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. ORAIsZE COt3NTY" BaaRD OF Ca4MISSIO ERS Action Agenda AC'rIoN AG a; ITEM .�AABSTRACT Tt m NO. IvIEETMG DATE TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1983 Subject: BOARD MEETING LOCATION f Department: BOA�D F C OMMISSIONERS liNearing: yes na� Attachmett(s) : 1 Izifort on Contact: chairman Wh i tied/ NO Clerk to the Board- `Phone mss.: 732-8181 e x t. 510 PURPOSE: Consideration of holding one Commissioners` meeting a month in Chapel Hill . MED: Interesli has been evinced in having one of the three Commissioners ' meetings each month in the Chapel Hill Courtroom (Old Post Office Buildin ). The third Tuesday meeting is suggested as the rheeti d to be hdld on a regular basis in the southern part of the County. Traditionally only special meetings or those meetings which have special significance for citizens living in that geographic area (for example, budget Rresentation for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools) have been held in Chapel Hill or Carrboro. The Courtroom in Chapel Hill is available to the Commissioners on the third Tuesday of each month. IMPACT: Holding meeting on a regular basis in the southern portion of the County m y result in increased citizen participation and interest from tha area. It would increase access to the Commissioners'meetings for those citizens usually unable to travel Ur-Hillsborough (for example, the elderly) . RECOMMENDATION: AS THE BOARD DECIDES. ORAME COUNTY - BOARD C ISSIERS M Action. Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM AB5`1 Acr ltern Nq., . 2 3 MEEI.iG DATE TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1983 Subject: Appointriaents Departmkt: :.ar o •mm1seioners j Lpublic Hearing: ee Un°1 Atta�t(S) : IxMoan Gantt: Clerk to the Bred Yes, resumes Phone Njnber: '732--8181 ext. 510 PURPOSE: To main ' Commissioners' appointed boards at effective membership levels. NEED: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD: There are four vacancies occurring between. 1/28/83 2/18/83. Sharlene Pilke --expiring 2/18/83, representing Eno Township. She is eligible) for reappointment and is willing to serve again. Alice Gordon--- expiring 1/28/83, is eligible and willing to be reappointed. The terms of Pat Crawford an Hazel Lunsford expire 1/28/83; neither is eligible for another term. These have been advertised. Resumed are attached for: Eugene Brandt; Frank Pearson) John Michael Woods; David Gephart and Sandor Freedman. ENERGY COMMISSION: There are currently four representative seats vacant: Chapel. Hill, Hillsborough Towns' and Orange County and Chapel Hill—Carrboro Schools'. Recommendations on appointees are expected in January. The resume for Doug Guild is attached for an at—large seat. NURSING HOME ADVISORY COUNCIL: All terms (except one) expired 12/31/83; Ms. Hudson- and!Mr. Tyler are -.'z l ng to be reappointed, I am attaching resumes for Ma. Gru aaugh (a nursing home employee) and Mr. Brandt (who is also interested in the Planning Board), I have not heard from Ms. Rogers as to her willingness for reappo 'tment. There are two vacaneles, assuming Ms. Rogers is •:willing to serve again and that you reappoint Ms. Hudson and Mr. Tyler. Update: MEBANE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Please see attached letter from Town Manager Whitfield. PAc I have advertised this position (12/29/82) ;f' e3^tisr" . •!i^1'.'T I , � 1 :3:- J. .r.r J es: . '• ' , i,k. � _ °" M,_NW „ s.-f $' , .•? 7., ��,;:.�- . '>t 4�r-.ft.r, F : r. a1 amr w : ^=E-iiY:A :1'r{,G.a '1.«•^' ,!.f_ "k 1p::" _ L4$, s Irt e:»�V•r..,:,71,.'?4fii _ r.,4 .-r..,dy:•- :� F Ai'r x7{�fa :.�.�i•��•:. ,+ 1 S.rSM '4;.,..:�''1•.".{��- 4.,%:".,:,.1,1';. - S-, �{...�I..l�:.�;'.ry.'.f::.,�`. i 5/ t,� ; �,yrr .f.1 -'�+:••:: S�.a. ���� .ti: 1/41 ,� ' { e V � r� .�wti s. -t`;'. — ',:y., '' 0. !j�, r....4 4 1; AoJ"• .?:-:�y� " tJ..� ,l..n s M�;' S t_,• .:.s:T,A t ',:, s. e.�Pr I.1 Cdr r •y ,. ���. I „�`d•4I:rtp�^ .•r -'fy'fL�'�, "JrtM+.'Fs7;- V S •�I� 7' r .'r... �i.+ `{rr r>,,,�.,-•*•.Cv?r+•iK-"a':C.Sr� rr t 3 ��'�`t ri`. ^I [ L r',' a �'f �. --1' 6 ''.I'�;t M4.3'•i;�: �.'..-( t: =,r,, . . t ,ti +•.. r r .e !•, _ poi�. A-A:., �+ J.,�✓ ' 4�•��T: r�i. �'a �', rY•:? 3'� „y�_•-rq�rLi.� �iy%r:'+�� � 1''ft[.5".{• + S+• '�` •LL�•�i ��° - '� ,C 1 ,+y *!� 'ray "o-' 4,j M* I .��..2. G. ,'7- �, �.1" t Ik�;A„ 1' r � r1'�..n.S I .'4',-,7.-. rT .!4 .1 ," +l 'r�Yr �. TA,''r• -.�IrH I n::',7,:i 1.C,:rp 'qv,I�`, w -11 �,r../l F,7 ,-4{-.y.�y..yr...,-.G1'y'`'-r,,"• ��^.'..�., r .l st I. 'F r<i j...:ru.:, '«c.,�'a-*All.01.7 . G .r. n•ti, .rrre.r. 'r -:..•t 'iY... I, t, ;4,�,` ., y Jr ..4.1,:-*,,,,sr- • ��,.. �. a� ref'. V,r yi,•-,, ".v••:..,. ,�y�;.:z: :: _ '. r.y l 't '1�� w "�' f RESUME NAME: , jO 4, . .�- MAILING DRESS: ».L�= • 4 Vb.", �.. _:_______•--._..._ - .,. -. - --- ZIP..CODE: 6yJ/3,.. ;i!!�,// J M �w TELEPHONE: ./.a:_©.5- HOME 96 -/1///). BUSINESS ETHNIC B GROUND: BLACK _,------ .INDIAN �_ WHITE . OTBER • SEX: __. . _ FEMALE v"" " AGE: EDUCATION: (HIGHEST) . /2,742. J,..•t. _.....• ,�.• OCCUPATT N: / -.r _ !Le"_ _ 1.... : _.. s/Iir.�� 01_ . - • COMMiTL+]IT INTERESTS AND ACTIVITIES: eu �-- w z. - ` ..‘1.26.....",;(2141.49100,,-.—.....----. ..—.—.,"..-- " IN WHICH TOWNSHIP DO YOU RESIDE? IF _.r,. _ - .._..., (not applicable in some instance!) L I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON: (- Jt •,dr, C] *-E' 4. a. DATE: / Cc . S IGNATURE` I9_W„cr24? 41P74 _ RETURN TO: Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane 1+ ";�4i.- `:%._ '`�..f.'C.ti�:i'r"+•s.` �{� :�'..M.'i' p,".'., .1 a. 'i`c'iih: .r{• r+' 1''ia....,"t. P":41t u.47 5 Tig,41't��C,!i.3` . .•1 lj.r• o ,.4,0. - , 1 . '• .r� r+ + .:: .ai . { r . % . '" S .' + ' •; a r. a 't _ ' '.5r" ;.:, r .ViT;, :e., r ` . ' a1 ^ .7, a . ; ; :rS, -." yr,,,-4F,..%;Y<` t ,1'' $444.' »fY -*, t,A f Tp ,.0 N -. i':i..,r ..n, k ::t, '4i iA,L` , 1e 10:{;" a* a k :r 4nR '; _, :4„ t t '- ' v" .l ? .^ 'tpFr_ �.:- r _:. . r . "3. 01,,-72.s.,,,,,,� h:. . rw, `. Y. . ly:- ..';'-' ' X% - • - . Ck : y.,,b• , .=" nC „A4`....1 ■ ^ ',14 y + f r;`7;kiwi; ”: Ls,k.,.1 .-, • , RESUME . ' NAME: 41 is - --�.-�--�"�-'-- MAILING ADDRE S: /G24' fit(,&A..dur." 1: • 4 , /• I"Y.aac i' ZIP CODE: ..-..._�:-.-• r •__ -. TELEPHONE- c1 HOME /, BUSINESS ETHNIC BP1CKGROUND: BLACK -INDIAN . ._._ WHITE ✓ OTHER - SEX: MALE Y' _ FEMALE . * AGE: , EDUCATION: (HIGHEST) a � --- .- ----» OCCUPATION:4 .,. ..� / .g,.R-i_ C... 4', / ,42,ey-,� - , ___ • COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND ACTIVITIES: . -a„—:— . 04 , — .'�a -, ` . , - ` - ./.r G f''l;,/�+ --- - IN WHICH TOWNSHIP DO YOU RESIDE? ,,,.,,___.. . .r',„...,„-r (not applicable in some instances) _ _ ....e(,./2:3.. ...,...,_ I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON: .R , — — —____ _. _ 4.. 4. DATE: SIGNATURE: 6 !,. _ . .e. 1 re RETURN 9O: Clerk to the Board of County commissioners Erb of Arbanr Clendel Stephenson,Mayor CHARTERED IN 1887 Elaine J•Hicks Town Clerk Mebane, N. C. 27302 Bernice O.Wilson Tax Collector Council: Virginia S. Whitfield, Town Manager Chief of Police Barbara Byrd Curtis Clark Jr, ArchurBradlcy December 20, 1982. Chief Fire Dept. Everette render Delmar Lankford Public Works Director William R.Hupman,Jr. Dwight Teague Marshall Taylor Chief Inspections Mrs. Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk to Orange County Board of Comm. , Room t 12, 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, N. O. 27278, Dear Mrs. Pridgen-Pond: Thank you for your letter of December 9, 1982. As you may be aware, the Mebane Town Council has served as its own Board of Adjustment for some time now. It was because of this, that changes were made in the structure of they Board. In addition to the five Council members, we alo need one representative from within our one-mile extra-territorial jurisdictional area on the Orange County side, 'as well as one member from the Alamance County side. Alamance County has appointed a member to hold office for a three-year term starting January 1, 1981. We did not hear from our request to Orange County for a representative. Therefore an appointment on your part for a member to begin his/her three-year term as of January 1, 1983 would stagger the tt rms (which we need) . Thank you for your interest and concern in this matter. We are delighted with the renewing of the cooperative efforts between the two entities. Yours very truly, //;° Virginia S. Whitfield. 1 . _.,._-. _.�._ _7 ,_ .3 r. IMMO E CLIPPING OF I EBAL NORTH CAROLINA j ADVERTISEMENT ORANGE COUNTY ATTACHE)HERE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY , This Offer male this `� day of ...u.GCvr, , 19 7, by and between JOHN D. SEELYE of 219 W. Queen Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to els Buyer, and The County of Orange, hereinafter referred to as Seller. W ITNES SETH: O t N WHEREAS, Seller holds title to a certain parcel of land in Hillsborough Township,! • Orange County, North Carolina, described in. Deed at Book 165, page 241, Orange County 1 g gRegistry; and g z WHEREAS, Seller pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 160A-269 may v 2 negotiate a sale t Buyer of the dwelling house located upon the said property, such sil. I m ! 1 being subject to u0set bid as by law provided ; and x 3 WHEREAS, Annie Obie Riley of Lawndale Drive, Hillsborough, North Carolina, herein - t after referred to Is Lessee, holds a lifetime lease to the said real property and its ' 4 i' appurtenances as recorded in Book 165, page 241, Orange County Registry; and ° WHEREAS, Lessee is 98 years of age and entirely unable to manage herself and her o affairs, and care if Lessee's person and of her affairs has for many years been in the hands of Lessee's aughcer, Mrs. Naomi Riley Bell; and m O WHEREAS, said Lessee's daughter has granted an option to Buyer to buy Lessee's a g interest in the said property and has agreed to deliver a recordable conveyance therete w• as guardian, if necessary; u Z NOW, THEREFOR4, Buyer hereby offers to purchase the dwelling house Located upon ale 3 g 3