Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-30-1990r � , APPROVED 9 -18 -90 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY HEARING AUGUST 30, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint Session with the Orange County Planning Board for the regular Quarterly Public Hearing on August 30, 1990 at 9:15 p.m. in the auditorium of Phillips Jr. High School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley Marshall and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Betty Eidenier and members Chris Best, Virginia Boland, Clinton Burklin, Amanda Cantrell, Dan Eddleman, Jean Hamilton, Barry Jacobs, Bill Waddell, Larry Reid, and Pegge Abrams. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Lewis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bell, Emily Crudup, Eddie Kirk, Don Powell, Mary Scearbo and David Stancil, and Beth McIver. NOTE: All documents referenced in these minutes are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. John McGovern, Martha Klopfer and Emily Crudup were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. 1. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT a. PD -3 -90 Carolina Friends School This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed application for a Planned Development - Class A Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School. The property contains 32.94 acres and is currently zoned Rural Buffer. It is also designated Rural Buffer on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The proposed zoning classification is PD -RB, Planned Development - Rural Buffer. Article 6.20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits in the AR and RB districts large ground absorption systems for sanitary sewage disposal with a design capacity of 3000 gallons per day or more except as approved through a Special Use Permit or a Planned Development district. The existing sewage disposal system used by Carolina Friends School l consists of a package treatment plan, storage lagoon and spray irrigation system permitted by the North Carolina Division of Environment Management in 1978 and 1987 for a design capacity of 4000 gallons per day. Records have been submitted by the applicant which indicate that the actual daily flow of the system does not exceed 3000 gallons per day. Due to increased enrollment, the school has requested approval to expand the school facility by adding a modular classroom for twenty -five students. The sewage disposal system will not have to be upgraded to accommodate the additional students. However, a Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development is necessary to allow expansion of the school facility since the design capacity of the system already exceeds that allowed according to Article 6.20.1. The application for rezoning and a Class A Special Use Permit meets all ordinance requirements for approval with conditions. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD In response to a questions from Commissioner Willhoit, Crudup indicated that the Division of Environmental Management has a set of guidelines for estimating design flow for day school facilities. It is broken down based on number of students, whether or not the school has a cafeteria, gymnasium and /or shower facilities. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Mr. John McGovern, Assistant Principal of Carolina Friends School, spoke in favor of granting this Special Use Permit. He indicated that the water use was approximately 5.8 gallons per day per student which was well under the 10 gallons per day allowed by the State. Ms. Martha S. Klopfer, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Carolina Friends School, spoke in favor of granting this Special Use Permit. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be received before the end of this Public Hearing under Items for Decision. VOTE: Unanimous b. Z -4 -90 Dorothy C. Bane This presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a rezoning request submitted by Dorothy C. Bane and Willie F. Ward. The property in question is located on the south side of US 70 approximately 750 feet west of Mount Herman Church Road (SR 1713). It is known as part of Lot 35, Tax Map 26 of Eno Township. The total tract contains approximately 2 acres and fronts on US 60 for a length of approximately 25 feet. Access is proposed to be provided by a private road that extends along the south side of the property. The current zoning on the property is R -1 (Rural Residential). The proposed zoning is I -1 (Light Industrial). The l -1 zone allows a limited range of uses. The area is designated as Twenty Year Transition and Commercial /Industrial Node in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision for the proposed lot with a request for a private road along the south side of the property. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Kirk indicated that crematoriums were a permitted use under I -1. Commissioner Willhoit asked for an explanation of the difference between a crematorium and a pathological incinerator. Kirk will find out and forward this information to the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Dorothy Bane, owner of this property, spoke in favor of this rezoning request. Mr. Will Ward spoke in favor of this rezoning request. His prepared statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. In response to a question about the cost of cremation, he stated the cost is $700.00. He indicated that the State checks these facilities on a regular basis. He indicated that there is not a difference between a pathological incinerator and a crematorium in terms of pollutants going into the air. There is a difference in reference to certain types of pollutants and materials which are being disposed of. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than October 1. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. STREET NAME CHANGE a. Old N.C. Highway 86 from 1-85 to New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road - Change to Old Chapel Hill Drive This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to consider changing the name of Old N.C. Highway 86 to Old Chapel Hill Drive. The portion of highway affected by such a change extends from Interstate 85 to New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road. On May 29, 1990 a public hearing was held on the assignment of house and building numbers for Rural Route 7- Hillsborough and Mr. Bob Haas spoke in opposition to the road name, indicating that the road was called Old Chapel hill Road when he moved to the area years ago. Subsequent to this hearing Mr. Haas presented petitions from 42 of 66 property owners (66 %) requesting that Old N.C. Highway 86 be renamed to Old Chapel Hill 'Ray or Drive from I -85 to the New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road intersection. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that from Eubanks Road to Arthur Minnis there are several different road name signs posted. He asked who was responsible for these green signs. Collins indicated that they were the responsibility of the Public Works Department. If there are inconsistencies they will correct them. In response to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis, Mr. Haas indicated that this road was known as Old Chapel Hill Road when he moved onto it. It also mentioned that the Department of Transportation's address, in the phone book, is Old Chapel Hill Road. Chairman Carey entered a letter into the record from Janet Rigsbee, Hillsborough Planning Director, indicating opposition to the renaming of this road. Mr. Haas stated that he was in receipt of a letter from Horace Johnson, Mayor of Hillsborough, to the Orange County Board of Commissioner indicating that the Hillsborough Town Board voted unanimously to recommend that the road be named Old Chapel Hill Drive. Goff Coe, Planning Assistant for the Town of Hillsborough, indicated that the Planning Staff and the Town Commissioners held different views on this issue. Commissioner Willhoit asked if the name Old Chapel Hill /86 had been considered? Mr. Joe Tyler, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in favor of renaming of the renaming of Old Highway 86. Mr. Don Collins, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in opposition to the renaming of Old Highway 86. Ms. Sharon Tyler, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in favor of renaming of Old Highway 86. Commissioner Hartwell suggested dropping the word "Old" from the name and calling it Chapel Hill Drive /Hillsborough. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to table this matter to receive further information from the staff and for clarification of Hillsborough's position on this renaming. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE BUILDING NUMBERS a. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborough b. Rural Route 3 - Hillsborough C. Rural Route 1 - Cedar Grove This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Orange County Rural Routes 7 and 3 Hillsborough and Route 1 Cedar Grove. Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the US Postal Services, all rural box numbers are being converted to street addresses within the County. Route 7 Hillsborough encompasses an area from Wildwood Subdivision on NC 86, southward to include Stagecoach Run Subdivision, Wood's Edge Mobile Home Park and Acres of New Hope Subdivision at Cheyenne Drive; then crossing westward to Old NC 86 beginning at the DOT Maintenance Complex and extending southward to include Oakdale Drive, and ending at Davis Road. Route 3 Hillsborough begins at Davis Road and moves south on Old NC 86 to New Hope Church Road; then west on Arthur Minnis Road, south on Union Grove Church Road, west on Albert and Dairyland Roads to Orange Grove Road; then south to include Teer Road, returning northward along Orange Grove Road and eastward along Davis Road to the beginning point. Other roads included in part or in their entirety include: Ode Turner Road, Tree Farm Road, Kimbro Road, Borland Road, Rocky Ridge Road, Buckhorn Road, and Dodson's Crossroads North and South. Route 1 Cedar Grove encompasses an area north along Wilkerson Road from NC 57 to Person County, including portions of Sawmill Road East and West, Hawkins Road East and West, Ormond Road, and Olin Road; then southwest along Hurdle Mills Road, across NC 86 North to McDade Store Road, and south along Efland -Cedar Grove Road to Highland Farm Road; then west from Cedar Grove Community along Carr Store Road to Carr Community and eastward along NC 49 to Caswell County. Roads included in their entirety or portions thereof are: Wheeler's Church Road, Caviness Jordan Road, Art Road, Bama Road, Hensley Road, Allison Road, Burton Road, NC 86 North, Tom Pope Loop, McCullough Road, Oakley Road, Lee's Chapel Road, Governor Scott Road, Mill Creek Road, Lonesome Road, Lib Road, Penecost Road, Allie Mae Road,Doc Corbett Road, Made Loop and Wade's Dead End. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that the initiative to change these house and building numbers comes from the United States Postal Service. Collins indicated that assigning permanent house numbers will eliminate the problem of having to reassign house numbers whenever the rural postal routes need to be redistributed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to defer action on Route 3 and 7 in Hillsborough and to approve the assigning of building and house numbers for rural route 1 in Cedar Grove. VOTE: UNANIMOUS . ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Article 22 Definitions (Arts & Crafts Studios) b. Article 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses (Arts & Crafts Studios) This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to include arts and crafts studios as a permitted use in commercial zoning districts. An arts and crafts studio may qualify as a home occupation, but there is no category in the Table of Permitted Uses which addresses a studio as a freestanding use. The proposed amendment defines arts and crafts studios as the working area for artists or craftsmen and gives examples of typical studio uses. Studios would be permitted by right in the commercial zoning districts. Sale of only those goods which are custom -made could occur on -site. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these items to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Section IV -B -1 Lot Standards This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to establish minimum lot sizes needed to accommodate various types of wastewater disposal and water supply. It is recommended that 40,000 square feet remain the minimum lot size where both a well and septic tank are used. Where there is no well,the lot size could be reduced to 30,000 square feet. Where there is no well, the lot size could be reduced to 30,000 square feet. Where there is both public water and sewer, the minimum lot size is recommended to remain 15,0000 square feet. If an easement is proposed for use by another property, an additional 20,000 square feet is needed to accommodate a septic disposal system. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these text amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. section III -C -2 Application Requirements (Minor Subdivision -- Final Plat) This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to require that eight (8) copies of the Final Plat for a minor subdivision be submitted with the application. Five (5) copies of the Final Plat are now submitted with an application for Final Plat approval for minor subdivision. Additional copies are needed for distribution to the appropriate utility providers and school district. The cost to the applicant of supplying additional copies of the plat would not exceed one (1) dollar per copy, according to two local surveyors. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these items to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS In summary this item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to consider traffic impacts of efficiency apartments and duplexes in determining the private road classification required for subdivision approval and eliminate approval of Class A roads for minor subdivisions by the Board of Commissioners. To account for the traffic impact of potential additional residences, it is proposed that efficiency apartments and duplexes be considered in determining the appropriate classification for a private road. An efficiency apartment is expected to create about half of the traffic generated by a single - family residence. A duplex is expected to generate about the same amount of traffic as a single- family residence. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, to Board for a recommendation Commissioners no sooner th VOTE: UNANIMOUS ITEMS FOR DECISION Commissioner Marshall, seconded by refer these road standards to the Planning to be returned to the Board of an October 1, 1990. 1. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (Continued) a. PD --3 -90 Carolina Friends School ** *This item was presented earlier in the meeting. Ms. Betty Eidenier, Chairman of the Planning Board, read a prepared statement indicating that the Orange County Planning Board recognizes the need for expeditious consideration of the Special Use permits for the Carolina Friends School. However, they strongly protest the manner in which this matter has been considered outside the ordinary procedures and protections, such as allowing written public comment. They trust that no precedent has been set by this case. She stated that they found in the affirmative for the three conditions before approving the Special Use. They concur with the Planning Staff recommendation with the eight conditions, as amended. Commissioner Hartwell informed the Board that after a building permit was issued the staff at the school discovered that they had not gotten a permit for the deck. A representative of the school went to the Planning Department to get a permit. At that point, it was mentioned that the permit had been revoked. The problem arose from the fact that although the school staff was aware that they needed a special use permit, they were not aware that it was a different permit from the original building permit which they were issued. He pointed out that this exception was made only because of the oversight on the part of staff in explaining what was needed. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, that the Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with the General Standards, specific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards with the exception of those standards for which the Planning Board found a lack of compliance and as to those standards the Board finds that a preponderance of evidence is not present to indicate compliance. Provided, however, among the eight (8) conditions recommended by the Planning Board are conditions which if met will satisfy the standards not satisfied by the evidence. The Board further finds that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property and the use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the comprehensive plan or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, and therefore the Board approves the rezoning from Rural Buffer to Planned Development -Rural Buffer and the Class A Special Use Permit including the eight (8) conditions as recommended by the Planning Board and Administration as listed below: (1) The sewage disposal system must at all times be operated and maintained according to standards and conditions set forth by the NC Division of Environmental Management in Permit WQ0002161 and as may be amended in the future. (2) Provide and maintain screening along the eastern boundary line to screen parking areas and dumpsters. (3) Provide the legal description of the property to which the Special Use Permit will apply. (4) Revise the table of figures on the site plan to comply with Article.5.1.2. (5) With applications for building permits, provide documentation of how the proposed construction will access the existing sewage disposal system as well as estimates for any increase in daily flow through the system. Each application which will create additional demand on the system must be accompanied by an approval letter from the Division of Environmental Management. All information will be submitted to the County Engineer for review to determine that the system demand does not exceed 4000 gallons per day. No building permits will be approved for any additions /renovations without prior approval from DEM and approval of an amendment to this Special Use Permit. (6) The final site plan and supporting documentation for the project, incorporating all changes, deletions, and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and supporting documentation are to remain on file in the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Any applicable permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. (7) The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and attachments supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. (8) If any of the above conditions is held invalid, the Special Use Permit shall become null and void. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT With no further items for consideration, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on September 4, 1990 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Old Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 30, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met jointly with the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Planning Board for a Joint Planning Public Hearing on August 30, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the auditorium of Phillips Junior High School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley E. Marshall and Don Willhoit. CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL: Mayor Jonathan Howes and Council Members Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, and Arthur Werner. CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN: Mayor Eleanor G. Kinnaird and Aldermen Jay Bryan, Jacquelyn Gist, Hilliard Caldwell, Tom Gurganus and Frances Shetley. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Crudup and David Stancil. NOTE: All documents referenced in these minutes are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN Moses Carey, Jr. called the meeting to order and welcomed the members of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, staff members 'from the two municipalities, the Rural Character Study Committee and the citizens to the Joint Planning Public Hearing. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey Jr. read the public charge. C. JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE CLINT BURKLIN, Chairman of the Rural Character Study Committee stated that the Committee is composed of a broad sampling of the many groups that work and live in the rural buffer as well as other groups in the county. The diversity in both the committee and the community meetings taught them a lot about the needs of the rural buffer community. They learned from the farming community about the importance of land to their livelihood today and as a source of income when they retire. They learned from the established family about the importance of being able to give small portions of their land to their children and grandchildren. They learned from the conservationists and the custodians of Duke Forest about the importance of open space and natural areas to the supply of clean air and clean water and they learned from the Economic Development Commission about the importance of growth to the economic health of this community. They learned about the need for affordable housing. When they focused on developing recommendations, they learned how hard it was to meet the diverse needs of the many community groups in the Rural Buffer. They studied numerous options going back to the community for help and suggestions. Through the process they had to share in the give and take of individual benefits for the sake of the greater benefits of the community as a whole. Tonight, the Study Committee presents their recommendations to the governing boards. They feel the recommendations meet their two basic objections. First, the recommendations provide the residents of the Rural Buffer with greater flexibility to develop their land. There are five options in the recommendations with each option being the choice of the landowner and incentives for compensating the landowner for inconveniences of preserving rural open space. Second, the recommendations provide- greater protection for the beauty of the natural areas of the Rural Buffer. Each option promotes less disturbance to the land than the current development options. Burklin referred to a request that a study group of the three governing boards be established to take over the Rural Character Study after this public hearing. The Committee is concerned that this approach may overlook the vast amount of knowledge that has been developed by the Study Committee and runs the risk of reinventing the wheel and the time delays associated with that which may not involve the public in the process. He invited everyone present to take this opportunity to make this a learning process and to share and exchange ideas. LIVY LUDINGTON, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, talked about the committee itself. It allowed those with different backgrounds, interests and issues to work together and air their differences and come up with an agreement. The common bond of all these different groups is that they all care about this community. She feels they have a respect for each.other and an understanding about the priorities of each group which led to a plan which is a beginning. There has been a lot of giving and taking and a lot of listening to other people in the community. The Committee feels this has been a cooperative effort with a real balance in the plan. She hopes that those who work on the plan after tonight understand that there is a very continuous balance and that it is built on the trust that they feel they have established with each other and with other citizens in the community by listening to them. She hopes that those that make suggestions think about how they can all be working together and to be listening to each other. BOB STP.AYHORN, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, stated that he recommends the changes being presented tonight to his friends who own property in the Rural Buffer. The changes will make it better for them to live with the Land Use Plan and what is happening in the RB. If this is adopted, it will remove most of the frustrations in getting through the process. He stated that there is no way to satisfy those people who want no rules in the RB or those that want no growth in the RB. This is a good balance with a lot of give and take. They tried to be sensitive to the concerns of the landowner. He hopes that the Committee will be allowed to bring this study to a conclusion and that it will not be given over to another committee. NOTE: The following three items are so integrally related to each other that they were considered together under one presentation. Following each item is a brief summation of each topic. The presentation and comments follow these brief summaries: 1. CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BUFFER This item was presented to receive public input on the recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer, as adopted by the Rural Character Study Committee. 2. LUP -4 -40 JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN This item was presented to receive public input on a proposed amendment to the text of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. These amendments are part of a three -part package, related to the recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer entitled Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, and an amendment to the Joint Planning_ Agreement. The amendments to the text of the plan involve changes to the following sections: Section III. Infrastructure and Public Services Section V. Joint Planning Operating Principles Section VI. Future Land Use - JPA Section VII. Overview of Implementation Strategies These amendments all deal with one of the following issues: 1) Extension of water and sewer into a defined corridor for planned "Rural Villages ". 2) Development standards for lots in the rural Buffer. currently, a minimum lot size of two -acres is required. The proposed standards would retain that standard as one of five permitted development options, adding others that provide for larger lots and /or environmentally - sensitive site design through clustered or planned developments. 3) Creation of "Rural Villages ", with a small scale commercial core designed to serve the village only. 3. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT This item is to receive public input on a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement for Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. This amendment is directly related to and contingent upon the previous related items. Specifically, the proposed amendment would add language which refers to the creation of five permitted development options with a range of lot sizes and open space set - asides. Language would also be added to qualify the prohibition on public water and sewer service extension to allow an exception for extensions into a predefined service corridor only for the development of planned "Rural villages ". SLIDE PRESENTATION (The complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office). DAVID STANCIL made the presentation of the staff report. He stated that the Committee began by considering its four goals: (1) Agricultural Preservation (2) Natural Resource Protection (3) Visual Resource Protection (4) Growth Management Also, they considered a fifth unwritten goal of providing rural buffer property owners with more flexibility. In the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, each goal is addressed both individually and comprehensively. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION Since many farmers were concerned that making a living in agriculture was becoming more difficult, the Committee adopted strategies that would encourage agriculture to coexist with future development by allowing agriculture in open space set - asides. NATURAL AND VISUAL RESOURCES The Committee concluded that by recognizing and encouraging the protection of natural resources in the buffer by landowners, the goal of protecting the environment might be greatly furthered. This can best be accomplished by encouraging development to cluster with open space set - asides that include environmentally - sensitive areas. The further use of flexible site - sensitive design standards in the strategy for the rural buffer also enhances this goal. GROWTH MANAGEMENT The Rural Buffer, as a part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro plays a critical growth management role for the future of both the County and the Towns. Its purpose as a rural "greenbelt" separating the urbanized areas from other suburban and urban areas is very clearly stated in the Joint Land Use Plan. The Committee's goal was to find a way to encourage clustered development that discouraged rural sprawl, are low density and yet protect and preserve open space and resources through sensitive site design. Such a program would meet both the goals of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and the Committee. In hearing the concerns of the rural buffer residents (including those on the Committee) the task force decided that a fifth unstated goal of the study should include finding a way to achieve the aforementioned goals while at the same time providing flexibility for rural residents who have no desire to carve their entire tract into two -acre building lots. The allowance of current permitted uses, the provision of up to 2 1 -acre lots to keep "family- type" developments from becoming large- scale ones, and incentives for large -lots are ways that flexibility is provided in this package. THE FIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS In coming up with development options for the rural buffer, the Committee felt strongly that each option (with one exception) should be permitted by right, since all achieve the goals of the rural buffer in one manner or another. All of the options use voluntary conservation encouraged through open space set - asides and conservation easements in large lots. All allow slightly different overall densities depending on open space and resource protection. Even the most dense of the options the Rural Village has an overall low density. The options utilize a sliding scale that offers slight density bonuses in exchange for the provision of permanent open space. OPTION A is basically the current standard of two acre lot development. It would allow residential development averaging 1.84 acres per lot. This option would utilize voluntary conservation through conservation easements that might protect natural sites within the private open space of a lot. OPTION B encourages those who would go above and beyond the proposed low - density standard to create lots of five acres or more. Such developments would be limited to a maximum of 200 acres per development. OPTION C utilizes open space set - asides in return for slight density bonuses. Property owners determined to develop their land might set aside almost 1/2 of their tract in agriculture or natural forest and develop the other half with lots of almost 1 -acre in size. OPTION D expands upon Option C in that property owners wishing to develop might set aside 2/3 of their tract in agriculture or natural open space and develop on the remaining 1/3 using lots of 1/3 acre average. This development option would require community water and sewer. OPTION E is that of the Rural Village. The Rural Village would be a self - sustaining community that allows residential lots averaging at 1/4 acre surrounding a commercial core designed to provide services such as banking, dining and goods to the village residents only. This "urban -like atmosphere" would be surrounded by vast amounts of open space on all sides, such that it would be buffered from roadways and environmentally - sensitive areas. Four of every five acres in a tract to be developed as a rural village must be left in open space. Only one of every five acres could be developed. Public water and sewer would be required, and therefore these developments would be permitted only in a predefined corridor mutually agreed upon by the County, Towns and OWASA. A minimum tract size of 200 acres would be required. In order to augment the package proposed by the Committee, they identified several issues for further study. (1) the potential use of a Transfer of Development Rights System, (2) the endorsement of a Purchase of Development Rights system where agricultural and natural sites might be preserved (3) the endorsement of the proposed County Monitoring and Maintenance for wastewater systems and others. David Stancil concluded the slide presentation by stating that the Rural Character Study Committee has attempted to propose a package that recognizes both resource protection and private property rights for what they are, and identified a first step toward peaceful coexistence of these two land concepts as Orange County approaches the 21st Century. . STAFFS RECOMMENDATIONS All three staffs are in consensus on the positive aspects of the concepts that have been identified by the study committee in their strategy. In the agenda is a joint staff report. Four areas have been identified as concerns by the governing boards: (1) EXTENSION OF PUBLIC SEWER TO RURAL VILLAGES Currently water and sewer is not present in the buffer. By extending water and sewer into these areas, development may be encouraged at densities in the future beyond those seen in the Joint Land Use Plan. The study committee has recommended that these lines be designed to service these villages only. (2) OVERALL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BASIS The Rural Character Study Committee proposed that the overall minimum lot size calculations for developments in the RB revert back to a 1180,000 square footage" base rather than the current 112.0- acre" base. The concern of Chapel Hill and Carrboro staff is that reducing the minimum lot size from 2.0 acres to 1.84 acres will result in a greater number of dwellings in the Rural Buffer than was envisioned by the Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan. Orange County staff feels the increase that might be seen in number of dwellings is very slight, and that any increase would be offset by the flexibility granted - yielding more sensitive site design. (3) MINIMUM LOT SIZE VERSUS AVERAGE LOT SIZE The Rural Character Study Committee has recommended allowing the use of "average" lot sizing rather than "minimum" lot sizing for non - sewered residential developments in the Rural Buffer. The Chapel Hill staff is concerned that this flexibility would be achieved at the expense of increased densities and number of dwellings over what was envisioned in the Joint Planning Agent and Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The position of Orange County and Carrboro staffs is that the increase that might be seen in number of dwellings is very slight and that any increase would be offset by the flexibility granted - yielding a more sensitive site design. (4) ONE -ACRE LOTS FOR EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD The Study Committee proposed to allow 2 1 -acre lots for each 1987 lot of record. All three of the planning staffs agree that the allowance of all such tracts to create two one -acre lots might be damaging to the concept and function of the Rural Buffer. The staffs recognize the concerns that the Committee were trying to address and would pledge to pursue other methods and means of achieving that goal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF EACH JURISDICTION CHAPEL HILL PLANNING STAFF The Chapel Hill Planning Staff recommends conditional approval of the Rural Buffer strategies as outlined in the staff report. The staff recommends against specific provisions that would allow public sewer extension to rural villages, square-footage minimum lot size, average lot size flexibility and two one -acre lots per 1987 lot -of- record. In addition, the Chapel Hill staff further recommends that, as proposed in the Town Council's public hearing resolutions, a Joint Work Grou be appointed to further discuss the policy issues of the proposals. It is recommended that this Joint Work Group consist of elected officials from each jurisdiction, a representative from OWASA, and a representative from the Rural Character Study Committee. The Chapel Hill staff also recommends that the proposed amendments to the Joint Plannin Area Land Use Plan and Agreement be deferred pending conclusion of discussion by the Joint Work Group. CARRBORO PLANNING STAFF The Carrboro Planning Staff recommends endorsement of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer with two exceptions. First, that the provision calling for reintroduction of lot sizes based on square footage not be pursued, and second that the proposed allowance of two one -acre lots per 1987 lot of record also not be pursued. The Carrboro staff recommends approval of those amendments to the Joint Plannin Area Land Use Plan and Agreement that do not conflict with these exceptions. The Carrboro staff does not recommend the establishment of a joint work group unless said group was very narrowly focused, had a deadline for resolution and did not duplicate the efforts of the Rural Character Study Committee. ORANGE COUNTY The Orange County staff recommends endorsement of the strategies contained in the Conceptual Guidelines with the sole exception being the provision of two one -acre lots for each 1987 lot -of- record. They recommend approval of the proposed Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and A reement amendments. In regard to the Joint Work Group, the staff recommends against the establishment of such a group. However, if such a work group is desired, County Staff would recommend a limited scope of review to issues, specified timeframe and the appointment of two members of the Rural Character Study Committee to insure continuity. UESTIONS COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BOARDS MAYOR ELEANOR RINNAIRD questioned if an option is chosen for the large acreage of land which is setaside, how can the land be guaranteed to be setaside forever. David Stancil indicated this would be a condition of final plat approval. COUNCIL MEMBER JULIE ANDRESEN asked what assurances would be made to be sure that roads are adequately built so that the cities would not need to repair or replace them at a later time. Stancil stated that this concern would be addressed in the County Ordinances. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR BETTY EIDENIER stated that the Rural Character Study Committee has worked to achieve a consensus. She feels it extremely important that elected officials accept these concepts and begin to implement them rather than study them further. In answer to a question about the extension of water and sewer, David Stancil stated that other communities have been able to address this concern but not in the same context. COMMISSIONER STEPHEN HALKIOTIS stated that the report represents a compromise. He does not support alternative systems. He supports the extension of water and sewer which is controlled by sizing and regulations. COUNCIL MEMBER JULIE ANDRESEN stated she is greatly disturbed about putting water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. She feels it would change the Rural Buffer to something that is urban and by adding that element change significantly the Joint Planning Agreement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS JUDSON EDEBURN, Duke Forest Resource Manager, read a prepared statement. He asked that a paragraph be included in Section II.4 of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer which would provide appropriate measures to protect and enhance the values of the large contiguous tracts of open land represented by the Duke Forest within the Rural Buffer and facilitate continued management of the Duke Forest as a research and teaching resource. LOIS HERRING, Chair of the OWASA Board of Directors read a prepared statement. OWASA believes that the recommendations for limited extensions of public water and sewer service into portions of the Rural Buffer may not be possible to implement. They feel that these issues should receive substantially more technical and policy consideration before the Joint Planning documents are amended. Also, OWASA would like a clear answer regarding what role, if any, OWASA is expected to play regarding water and sewer service in the Rural Buffer. VICTOR TRIPP, speaking on behalf of the Chapel Hill and Bingham Landowners Group, commended the Rural Character Committee for their work. He read a prepared statement endorsing the recommendations. He stated that the recommendation reflects the true consensus of the Property owners. They are workable and less complicated than the regulations now in place. These recommendations promote development at affordable prices. He feels the rural boundary will be protected as well as the resources. Also, the rights of the property owner to develop their property have not been denied. MARK O'NEAL, local real estate broker and developer, commended the Committee for their time and effort to understand the issues and to build a consensus among a varied group of individuals. He supports the recommendations because they have taken an approach which creates incentives as opposed to mandates. With the creation of the Rural Buffer, houses in excess of $200,000 are being created. The Committee's proposal creates an Opportunity to create housing in the $150,000 category. Through the tighter clustering process, the preservation of green space is greatly enhanced and the areas are larger. Many of the concerns of the smaller property owners are addressed in the recommendations. In summary, he feels the County has a very good framework to move forward and he hopes the governing representatives will approve. DON COLLINS voiced his approval of the Conceptual Guidelines. While he does not approve of alternative septic systems, he does agree with extending water and sewer into the Rural Buffer because there is 60 -70% of the land in the RB that will not perk. HENRY WHITFIELD asked about land that does not perk. He asked who will suppart the empty land or open. space. He asked how many total people they estimate would be put in this 38,000 acres. He wanted to know if development in this area would increase the tax base or cost the County additional money. In answer to Whitfield's question about land that does not perk, David Stancil indicated that according to soil scientists, 45% of the land does not perk. There are two provisions that enhance this situation. With regard to open space, it could be private, public, deeded to a private conservation organization, etc. It is entirely up to the property owner. The proposal will not alter the number of people placed in the Rural Buffer. The big difference is that two to three times more open space will be preserved. Mr. Whitfield feels the County has put constraints on the use of the property he owns in the Rural Buffer. SCOTT RADWAY, land developer consultant, expressed concern about the open space. He feels that once there is a consensus from a diverse group, the governmental bodies should be very cautious about changing it. He feels that lot averaging may give someone one or two lots and feels it has many more benefits than problems associated with it. He stated that if lot averaging allows someone one or two more lots and is a good design and functions and can provide a variety of lots and a variety of housing which may have different pricing within the same development area that these things are all positives -- not negatives. As he understands the permitting of two one -acre lots would add about 330 additional units in that option which would represent the consumption of one percent of the land area. He feels this is a minor issue. He referred to Option B and indicated that the process of approving a plan is important and input is valuable. JEF stated that the society of the County is changing. He feels that as society changes so will development. He does not feel that the concept of infill will be avoided by clustering. He feels the Conceptual Guidelines should include regulations for annexibility. TED LATTA commended the Study Committee for the work they have done. He stated that one thing not mentioned is that the Rural Buffer was put in place to stop Chapel Hill /Carrboro growth. He feels that Chapel Hill will continue to grow and that there will be water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. He feels the plan is a good one and one that the governing boards should consider and approve. DOLLY HUNTER, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, noted that in regard to ownership of open space, that in a cluster development, all the people that buy into the development could jointly own the open space and have in their covenants guidelines for doing so. The ratio the Committee created for the cluster plans and the rural village presents some different options. She stressed that these numbers were very difficult to get to. These options help a lot toward affordable housing. She asked that they not be changed. The have recommended that the villages y be near the municipalities so that it will be affordable to extend water and sewer. CHAIRMAN MOSES CAREY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING CHAIRMAN CAREY asked for a motion to refer the recommendations to the appropriate planning staffs for a recommendation and /or specific items to a work group for further study. COMMISSIONER HARTWELL noted there is not a consensus on extending water and sewer. He made a motion to refer the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, except scenario "E", to the Orange County Planning Board and for action to the two Town Boards. Commissioner Marshall seconded this motion. (This motion was withdrawn after further discussion). COMMISSIONER WILLHOIT suggested that those items be referred on which there is a consensus and the remaining items be considered separately to determine how to handle. COMMISSIONER MARSHALL stated that one of the main reasons for a work group is the complexities of what citizens don't exactly feel and understand. She does have a problem with the work group in that the last time there was a work group, there were suggestions made and yet there was an awful lot of feeling that because the group was composed of members of each governing body that the final agreement would be one that would be endorsed by all. This was not the case. Not one or two members of any board can speak for the whole board. It is extremely important to understand that this is advisory. She commended the Committee for facing up to the difficulties encountered and the leadership provided to reach out into the community which has gained public support. She would like at least four or five members of the Rural Character Study Committee on any study group that is developed to do any further studying. MAYOR JONATHAN HOWES commended the members of the Study Committee. The degree of support is quite unique on issues of this kind in Orange County. He does not want to do anything to revisit the issues that would destroy the consensus that the Committee has brought to the process. The suggestion that some kind of a working group be created was an attempt to recognize that as the Committee gets the recommendations to a point of being adopted by the governing boards that those governing boards are going to have the final say and need to work it over a little bit to be sure they are comfortable with it. The concern of staff and Town Council is the issue of water and sewer extension. The question of lot size has a technical dimension that also has a policy dimension. These are concerns that will require some deliberation by the Council. He is not sure what the composition Of such a group should be but is not against there being a substantial representation of the Rural Buffer Task Force or as many as possible. TOM GURGANUS stated he has never heard such consensus for any one group as for this Study Committee. He encouraged the group not to form another committee or subgroup. He feels the issue would center' on water and sewer and once that issue is turned over to the public officials, it would possibly unravel everything the committee has recommended. He endorses all the recommendations of the Study Group. COMMISSIONER STEPHEN HALKIOTIS stated that there is no way anyone de has a full unrstanding of what has been involved with doing this study. He feels that a study group is not necessary. If a study group is approved, it is vitally important to use the expertise on the Study Committee. CHAIRMAN MOSES CAREY stated that there seems to be a consensus that if a study group is established that members of the Study Committee be included as well as a limited number of elected officials from -each of the governing boards and a member of OWASA and the Economic Development Commission. The purpose of the working group is to provide a forum for which elected officials can be educated more than they have up to this point and to continue discussions in a forum that move the issues closer to consensus. He also asked that Hillsborough be included in the discussion to broaden their knowledge of the issues addressed by these guidelines. CHAIR CAREY restated the motion to refer all options except "Ell to each of the towns and to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to come back no sooner than October 1. SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMMISSIONER WILLHOIT made a substitute motion to refer to a study group made up of members of each municipality, the Rural Character Study Committee and OWASA the issue of extension of sewer into the Rural Buffer and that the remainder of the Conceptual Guidelines be referred to the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than October 1. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Marshall. NOTE: NO VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION. COMMISSIONER MARSHALL noted that there is a disagreement on the dividing of two one -acre lots. The Planning Staff indicated their awareness of this problem and that this would again be restudied for a resolution. She feels that this should also be studied by the study group as well as the extension of sewer into the Rural Buffer. COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER stated that in order to implement this proposal, action will need to be taken by three separate governing bodies. The Chapel Hill Council has not discussed this fully and not expressed their opinion and he believes Carrboro has not fully discussed it either. He would like to have the opportunity for the Council to discuss the entire study so they can decide their position without having any of the options ruled out before doing so. He asked how the Study Committee felt about adopting parts instead of the whole report. Clint Berklin stated he feels it very important to discuss it as a whole package because it is part of a balance of a give and take effort. It is best discussed as an overall package. The Committee would be willing to supply as many committee members to help with the education effort. They have worked with the public during the entire process. If the report was taken apart, they would feel it important to go back to the community groups they have promised the whole package to because it would not be the same thing they took to them before and their comments would not apply. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to refer the entire package to the Governing Boards for consideration and to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to come back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1. COMMISSIONER HARTWELL WITHDREW THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE FLOOR. THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECAME THE MAIN MOTION ON THE FLOOR VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered at this Joint Planning Public Hearing, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr., Chair ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 1990 7.30 P M NOTE: GUY B. PHILLIPS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM ESTES DRIVE CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA BACKGROUND MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR CLERK'S OFFICE NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732- 8181 or 966 -4501. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner; both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. C. JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING NOTE: THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING INVOLVES THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD, AND THE GOVERNING BOARDS OF THE TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL AND CARRBORO. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE ITEMS UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL BE REFERRED TO THE GOVERNING BOARDS OF CHAPEL HILL AND CARRBORO FOR A DECISION AND TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR A PAGE RECOMMENDATION. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL MAKE A DECISION ON THE PROPOSALS NO SOONER THAN OCTOBER 1, 1990- 001 1. Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer 037 2. LUP -4 -90 Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan 049 3. Joint Planning Agreement D. ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING NOTE: THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING INVOLVES ONLY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD. FOLLOWING W® THE CONCLUSION OF THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL ITEMS UNDER CONSIDERATION EXCEPT THE CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL REQUEST WILL BE REFERRED TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PAGE FOR A RECOMMENDATION. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL MAKE A DECISION ON THE PROPOSALS NO SOONER THAN OCTOBER 1, 1990. 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment 059 a. PD -3 -90 Carolina Friends School NOTE: FOLLOWING THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING BOARD WILL ADJOURN TO AN ADJOINING ROOM TO PREPARE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM. DURING THIS PERIOD, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS 2 AND 3. 2. Street Name Change v 101 a. Old N.C. Highway 86 from I -85 to New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road - Change to Old Chapel Hill Drive 137 3• Assignment of House /Building Numbers a. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborough b. Rural Route 3- Hillsborough C. Rural Route 1 -Cedar Grove NOTE: THE PLANNING BOARD RETURNS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Continued) 149 b. Z -4 -90 Dorothy C. Bane 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 167 a. Article 22 Definitions (Arts & Crafts Studios) 167 b• Article 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses (Arts & Crafts Studios) S. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments 173 a. Section IV -B -1 Lot Standards 181 b. Section III -C -2 Application Requirements (Minor Subdivision - Final Plat) 185 6. - Private Road Standards E. ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment 059 a. PD --3 -90 Carolina Friends School F. ADJOURNMENT i 11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY /CHAPEL HILL /CARRBORO JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Sections 240, 323 and 343; Article 20, Sections 20.5 and 20.6, and Articles 2.2.12 and 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and Article 2 Section 2.4 of a Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro;, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held at Phillips Junior High School on Estes Drive in Chapel Hill, N.C. on August 30, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: STRATEGY - CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BUFFER The Rural Character Study Committee, a group of 16 Orange County citizens, has been charged with developing a strategy for the preservation of the rural character of Orange County. The Committee's goals in this effort were to develop strategies for the County, with a primary focus on a program for the Rural Buffer portion of the County. The Committee's objectives in this study are the preservation of agriculture, the protection of natural and visual resources, and the management of growth. The Committee has met with a number of rural residents and civic groups in drafting and adopting a document entitled Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer. The Conceptual Guidelines represent a policy guide for land use development patterns in the Rural Buffer. The Guidelines attempt to address the objectives of the study by recommending five development options that help preserve agriculture, protect natural and visual resources, and serve as a growth management tool. At the same time, the Guidelines seek to recognize decades of land stewardship by rural residents as well as the private property rights of individual landowners. The Conceptual Guidelines have been presented to Rural Buffer residents, and they are presented at this public hearing for general comment. The Guidelines in and of themselves do not require official action, since they are a conceptual statement of recommended policies. To be implemented, however, the Conce tual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer require certain amendments to the Joint Planninct Area Land Use Plan, shown below as LUP -4 -90. 2 4F JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN The proposed amendment to the Orange County - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan is as follows: 1. LUP -4 -90 Rural Suffer Strategies As stated in the previous section, the Rural Character Study Committee's recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer - the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer - requires certain accompanying amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The amendments are necessary to make the plan consistent with the recommended strategy. The amendment involve text changes to six sections of the plan. The proposed amendments all'deal with one of the following issues: 1) The creation of "Rural Villages ", including a small -scale commercial center designed to serve the village only. 2) The extension of water and sewer services into a predefined corridor of the Rural Buffer for planned Rural Villages ". 3) Development standards for lots in the Rural Buffer. Currently, a minimum lot size of two acres is required. The proposed standards would retain that standard as one of five permitted development options,. adding others that provide for expedited review and environmentally - sensitive site design through clustered or planned developments. The proposed amendments would make the ,joint Planning Area Land Use Plan consistent with the strategy outlined in the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer. No changes to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Map will be required. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT The proposed amendment to the Orange County - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint, Planning Agreement would amend Article I, Section 1.2 (g) , Definition of the Rural Buffer, to add language which refers to the creation of five permitted development options with a range of lot sizes and open space set - asides. Language would also be added to qualify the prohibition on public water and sewer service extension to allow an exception for extensions into a predefined service corridor only for the development of planned "Rural Villages ". F 3 All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence receiving in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing and the decisions of the Chapel Hill Town SCouncil and Carrboro Board of Aldermen will be considered by of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals that reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department, the Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, or the Town of Carrboro Planning Department. The Orange County Planning Department is located in the Orange County Planning and Agricultural Center at 306 Revere Road in Hillsborough. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday- Friday. You may also call 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), 688 -7331 (Durham), 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill), or 227 -2031 (Mebane). Please enter extension 2590 or 2589 for the Comprehensive Planning Division. The Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department is located temporarily in the Police Department on Airport Road in Chapel Hill. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m Monday- Friday. You may also call the department at 968 -2728. The Town of Carrboro Planning Department is located in Carrboro Town Hall at 301 West Main Street in Carrboro. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday- Friday. You may also call the department at 968 -7714. Marvin Collins Planning Director Publish: August 15 August 22 ds9/73190 rbad830 y � 4 -I F, 5 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date August 30, 1990 Action Agenda Item # 0- L SUBJECT: CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BUFFER ...As Submitted by the Rural Character Study Committee DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: * - Letter of Transmittal David Stancil, Extension 2590 * - CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BUFFER TELEPHONE NUMBERS: * - Joint Staff Report Hillsborough - 732 -8181 * - Analysis by Milton Heath Durham - 688 -7331 * - Letter from Duke University Mebane - 227 -2031 * - Related News Articles Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public input on the recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer, as adopted by the Rural Character Study Committee. BACKGROUND: The Rural Character Study Committee, a group of 16 County and Town citizens, was charged in 1988 with developing a strategy for the preservation of Orange County's "Rural Character ". The Committee's objectives in this effort were to develop strategies for the County, with primary focus on a program for the Rural Buffer portion of the County. The Committee's goals in pursuing this strategy are the preservation of agriculture, the management of growth, and the protection of natural and visual resources through environmentally - sensitive site design. The Committee has met with a number of rural residents and civic groups in drafting and adopting the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer. These Conceptual Guidelines... represent a policy guide for land use development patterns and resource protection methods in the Rural Buffer. The Guidelines attempt to address the objectives of the study by recommending five development options that provide for resource protection and environmentally - sensitive site design. At the same time, the Guidelines seek to recognize decades of land stewardship by rural residents as well as the private property rights of individual landholders. The Conceptual Guidelines... have been presented twice to Rural Buffer residents, and are presented at this hearing for consideration by the boards of all three jurisdictions of the Joint Planning Area. In order to be implemented, the Conceptual Guidelines... do require certain amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan text and Joint Planning Agreement. These amendments are integrally related to the Conceptual Guidelines.... , and it is therefore prudent to consider these amendments in conjunction with the strategy document. RECOMMENDATION: The Town of Carrboro Planning staff recommends approval of the Conceptual Guidelines document, with two exceptions as noted in the attached staff report. The Town of Chapel Hill Planning staff recommends the the Conceptual Guidelines... be received by the Town Council with conditional approval of the strategy contained'within - with the exception of four specifi sections as noted in the attached staff report. Chapel hill staff also recommends that, following thi public hearing, a Joint Work Group be established to consider issues outlined in the staff report. It is further recommended that this work group include one representative each from OWASA and the Rural Characte Study Committee. Orange County staff recommends approval of the Conceptual Guidelines—, with one exception as noted in the attached staff report. y r ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 TO: MOSES CAREY Chairman, County Commissioners FROM: CLINT BURKLIN Cb105 Chairman, Rural Character Study Committee DATE: MAY 25, 1990 RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE FOR THE RURAL BUFFER As you know, over the past eight months, the Rural Character Study Committee has met with rural and urban residents, civic groups and elected and advisory boards in attempting to draft an Open Space /Rural Character strategy for the Rural Buffer, as the primary focus of the Rural Character Study. As previously discussed at Commissioners meetings in April and May of this year, the RCSC has reached a consensus on a recommended set of strategies, attached herewith. These strategies can perhaps best be described as trying to strike a "balance" between the often competing interests in private property ownership and the preservation of natural resources. The five development options included attempt to address concerns of flexibility, environmentally - sensitive design, and clusterin of development with o en s ace set- asides. The Committee feels strongly that the most equitable and ultimately the most effective way to achieve the aforementioned balance is through an incentive package - rather than a set of restrictions that have more negative connotations. The strategies represent tradeoffs in certain areas in trying to be practical and pragmatic, but at the same time do not compromise the goals and objectives of the Rural Buffer as set out in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Committee feels that the tradeoffs and compromises that have occurred in the consensus - building process have been healthy, and are worthwhile tradeoffs in the overall Picture. Therefore, the RCSC respectfully presents these strategies to the Board of Commissioners, to be considered along with accompanying JPA Plan Amendments (LUP -4 -90) for public hearing on June 27, 1990, as proposed. a • .� �� C IIL[4HaJNL• i 11: ea1IS1i\M:11177a: ■ .IGIMM■A: .YAIIIKO 10 , CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BUFFER I. DEFINITIONS A. Terminology Cluster: The arrangement of single- family residential lots so as to allow environmentally - sensitive site design. This is accomplished by preserving portions of a tract containing resources to be left in open space. The majority of the housing units are clustered on portions of the tract more feasible for development. Density: The ratio of dwelling units to overall acreage of the whole tract. This rate is expressed as a ratio representing the number of residential lots or dwelling units per 1.0 acres of land by tract. For example, a density of 0.50 means 0.5 lots /units per acre. This ratio can also be represented as 50 units per 100 acres, or one unit per two acres. Minor Subdivision: For the purpose of this document, Minor Subdivisions shall be construed to mean: - the subdivision of land into not more than four (4) single - family building lots; or - the subdivision of land into single- family building lots such that the overall average lot size is equal to or greater than 4.59 acres. Open Space: An area that is not used for development purposes, but is kept in either its natural, environmental state; used for active agricultural purposes; or used for passive recreation activities that generally protect the natural state of the land (trails and greenways, golf courses). Purchase of Development Rights: A system allowing for the fee - simple purchase of the development rights from a tract of land, where the site's actual development rights are not applied on this or other tracts. Such a system would be utilized by governments, non - profit conservation agencies, or other designated agencies. Rural Buffer: Land located within the Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint _Planning Area designated as such on the ,joint Planning Area _Land Use Plan and Man. The area generally includes two sub - basins; the New Hope Creek basin located north of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and the University Lake basin - located west of Carrboro. The Rural Buffer contains land that is rural in character and contains land uses that are of an overall low - density. Rural Character Study Committee (also, The Committee, or RCSC): A committee of 16 citizens from across the County representing a variety of occupations and interests. This Committee has been charged with developing a strategy for the preservation of natural resources, visual resources, agriculture, and growth management. I 11 Transfer of Development Rights: A system of allowing the actual developmnt from one tract designatedotractdelsewherea erred from for g development. Definitions for other terms used in this document are as expressed in the Land Use Element of the Com rehensive Plan �..ka ;.,; -; ^n uArT„ i at; nns and Joint Pl-Enning ArE B. The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement In 1987, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro entered into an agreement to jointly establish, administer and utilize a land use plan for a 45- square mile area to the north and west of the Towns where a mutual interest in the pattern and pace of development was held by all three parties. As this JPA)eLandthe UseJoint Plan andPlanning Area wasadpted (hereinafter by all three jurisdictions. In summary, this JPA Plan created land use plan categories that identified 1 Major Classes of land use 2 Subclasses of land use, and smaller, more specific 3 Cate ories of land use within the Joint Planning Area, or JPA. The Major Classes identified and adopted were Transition, Rural, and Conservation. The Transition Class contains land that is located adjacent to the Towns. These Transition Areas recognize the transitional nature of these areas from rural uses to more urban uses. The remainder of the JPA, located in the outlying areas to the north and west, contains land that is more rural in nature and is therefore classified as Conservation and Rural. Because these categories are inter - related and inter - dependent, the JPA Plan combines them into one subclass, entitled Rural Buffer. It is this Rural Buffer that is the focus of the strategies contained within this document. II. GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS FOR THE RURAL SUFFER The charge of the 16- citizen Rural Character Study Committee has been to consider the current land use conditions, development standards, and resource protection methods for the Rural Buffer. In so doing, the objectives of the Study have been defined as follows: To guide and direct the development of a comprehensive Rural Character Study /Open Space Plan for the County, with an objective of coordinating the issues of: - Agricultural Preservation - Natural Resource Protection - Visual Resource Protection - Growth Management `A 12 ` into a workable plan that provides new development options with respect to these four objectives, as well as incentives for landowners who help meet these objectives by aiding the maintenance of the rural character in the area through environmentally - sensitive practices in future development. The Committee, in its deliberations and meetings with rural residents throughout the County, has come to several recommendations in the form of policy statements. The manner in which these statements address the goals and objectives of the study can be examined by looking at the study's components. 1. Agricultural Preservation The need to preserve agricultural land is a long -term need. It goes beyond the short -term economics of agriculture as a business, to the long -term food production needs of society. Farming is resource - dependent, and therefore much of the attention is based on the resource - the land. But the land is valuable for food production only when there are farmers who can make a living in agriculture. The amount of land in farms and the amount of farms themselves has declined dramatically since 1955. Since 1982, the County has lost another 13% of its farms, and another 11% of its land in agriculture. The Committee has met with a number of rural residents. In these meetings, including the Rural Buffer, this loss of land and difficulty in making a living in agriculture was a significant concern. But of an equal concern was any potential loss in the farmers investment in his land, since the land serves as the farmer's pension - providing savings for retirement and other family needs. Mindful of these concerns, and in order to be receptive to the needs and concerns of farmers and rural residents, the Committee has gathered input from these residents, as well as the members of the farm community on the Committee itself. This has led Lhe RCSC to recommend the following direction for the protection of agriculture in the Rural Buffer. 1. The Committee recognizes agricultural activities as being in keeping with the preservation of open space and the protection of resources.'The committee recommends that agricultural activities should be a permitted lard use in designated open space set asides. 2. The Committee recommends that a Purchase of Development Rights system be instituted and used as a tool to assist the farm community and other users. 3. The Committee endorses and recommends an Expedited subdivision review process to allow large -tract owners (such as farmers) to subdivide small parcels of land as needed for family members and other purchasers, as this will enable many farmers to realize small immediate needs without complete subdivision and sale of the farm. 4. The Committee endorses the "Right To Farm" law, and further recommends that the County adopt the provisions and 3 t 13 recommendations of the Agricultural Advisory Task Force - including the identification of all active farm operations over 25 acres in the County, and furthermore make their location known to future purchasers of nearby land to avoid nuisance suits. A number of other strategies put forth in this document also relate to agricultural preservation. It is the feeling of the Committee that any further complicated protection efforts (such as Large -Lot or Agricultural zoning) would neither be as effective nor as responsive to the needs of the farm community. 2. Natural and Visual Resource Protection There exist a number of methods to preserve and protect natural and visual resources. Such resources are a large part of the nebulous rural character of orange County. After analyzing and discussing a number of such methods with the public, the Committee has found that the most feasible way of ensuring resource protection while recognizing property rights is to loosely put together a program that recognizes the resource protection that has historically been accomplished through rural citizens, and sets forth incentives and compensation to facilitate the continued preservation of wooded areas and rolling vistas. This program, like much of the Committee's recommendations, is accomplished through measures that attempt to achieve more than one goal. The heart of the resource protection program recommended by the Committee, attempts to turn the tables somewhat on perceived methods of preservation. Instead of recommending regulations and restrictions on property owners that could be burdensome on rural land owners and possibly ineffective, the Committee has approached the subject by recommending incentives for property owners who do utilize methods that preserve our finite resources. The provision of different development options, to be outlined later in this document, allow for additional development to occur on smaller- than -the -norm lots if the property owner %developer is willing to set -aside 40 -80% of that total tract as permanent open space (either agricultural or wooded natural areas - depending on the case). This basic provision is simple in its application, but will go a long way towards protecting both natural resources (by encouraging developers with significant natural resources present to leave those natural while clustering development on the less critical portions of the tract), and visual resources (by providing a way to realize development potential without compromising vistas and landscapes). It is the feeling of the RCSC that rural landowners - who have been stewards of the land for many years - will continue to be conscious of the resources present on site and, when the time comes, adopt development methods that will be environmentally - sensitive to both natural and visual resources. 4 The Committee does recognize that there are special areas within rural Orange County that are significant wildlife habitats or natural areas where endangered fauna and flora exist. For the purposes of this document, these sites are documented in two works: the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats in Orange County, and the Inventory of Sites of Cultural,. Historic, Recreational Biological, and Geologic Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County. Given the importance of these sites, two other protection measures have been recommended by the Committee for use herein. These measures can be found in IV. PROTECTION OF RECOGNIZED NATURAL AREAS. 3. Growth Management One of the primary functions of the Rural Buffer concept in the existing JPA Land Use Plan is to serve as a growth management tool. With the presence of a number of growth factors and development pressures in southern Orange, the JPA Plan has attempted to head off rampant suburbanization and urban sprawl by encouraging an infill policy for the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and by designating that outside of Transition Areas, current rural areas in the buffer will remain so in the future. This is accomplished largely through zoning of the Rural Buffer at a flat two -acre minimum lot size. The thrust of the Rural.Character Study's work in this area has been the identification of different and sometimes innovative development options that do not compromise the concept of the Rural Buffer as a growth management tool. In hearing from Rural Buffer residents on the Committee and in meeting with other residents, the byword most often heard is flexibility. The two -acre lot size, while certainly accomplishing some of its goals, has not in itself created a Rural Buffer. In fact, if left in its current inflexible state, there is no real incentive to preserve either resources or open space. The possibility of a large, low- density suburb is a real possibility over time. In addition, the current standards do not allow much flexibility for property owners wishing to subdivide their land. The doubled lot size has made subdividing lots for children or others infeasible for many landowners. Once again, the strategies set forth by the Committee in this document are inter - related and interdependent. All of these concepts have at their base a desire to continue serving as a growth management tool. They do, however, try to find other ways of meeting these goals that might provide land owners some relief and at the same time encourage (through incentives) the provision of open space, natural areas and farms. In this sense, the entire document is a policy statement on growth management strategies. �1 Y 15 4. Other Policy Statements The following are a series of various policy statements adopted by the Committee that overlap into different goals /objectives, or serve as supplementary roles to other objectives and statements. I. The Committee finds that land uses currently permitted in the Rural Buffer, such as residences, churches and schools (as designated in the Zoning Ordinance), should continue to be permitted uses in the Rural Buffer under these premises. 2. The Committee finds that the development options that it recommends for the Rural Buffer should be permitted as a matter of right - with the exception of "Option E" developments, that would necessitate special conditions as spelled out in Section III of this document. 3. The Committee further finds that, as a matter of right, that existing lots of record on January 6, 1987 be allowed to subdivide in such manner as to create up to two (2) 0.92 - acre lots; provided however, the remaining land shall be developed in accordance with the standard provisions put forth in Part III of this plan. (See Section II.1.3) 4. The Committee finds that the use of incentives for large - lot developments (average lot size of 4.6 acres) will aid efforts to preserve and protect natural resources. Incentives such as an expedited subdivision review process, private roads and lower fees will enable landowners to keep more land in open space or agricultural uses. Furthermore, the use of conservation easements will enable even more protection within large lots. The Committee recommends that such incentives be instituted as a part of this package. 5. The Committee recognizes that two development options listed herein will require some form of water and sewer service because of their clustered lots. The Committee recommends that this issue be addressed as follows: a) That Option E Rural Village developments should only be developed within a defined sector where public water and sewer can be made available. Such lines should be adequately sized and limited to serving the village only. b) That Option D developments should also utilize public water and sewer where possible. Where public water and sewer extension is not cost- effective, the use of community alternative wastewater systems would be permitted. The use of such systems would be contingent on participation in a Monitoring and Maintenance program adopted by the County and such systems should also be built to public specifications. 6. The County Commissioners have found that the University Lake Watershed portion of the Rural Buffer, as the water supply for southern Orange County, warrants special protection measures. These measures have been addressed by action of the County Commissioners on April 2, 1990 through the ire designation of a University Lake Watershed (ULW) overlay district. Therefore, since special protection measures have been designated, the Committee recognizes that such special provisions (adopted on April 2, 1990) take precedence in this portion of the Rural Buffer over the development options outlined herein. ********************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** III. RURAL BUFFER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS After due consideration, the Committee has reached a consensus on recommending five distinct development options for land in the Rural Buffer. As previously stated, these options are designed in accordance with the goals of the study, and are written so as to strike a workable compromise between r.he. private property rights of the landowner, and the county -wide need for the preservation and protection of natural, visual and agricultural resources through a comprehensive growth management program. 1. OPTION A Option A allows for two -acre lot single - family residential subdivisions, as permitted currently in the Rural Buffer. Natural resources would be protected through voluntary conservation and environmentally - sensitive design. AVERAGE LOT* SIZE: 1.84 ACRES REQUIRED OPEN SPACE * *: 0% 2. OPTION B Option B allows for five -acre lot single - family residential subdivisions, to be treated as Minor Subdivisions with an expedited review process, the option of private roads, and lower fees as incentives. Resources would be protected through voluntary conservation and environmentally - sensitive design. AVERAGE LOT* SIZE: 4.59 ACRES REQUIRED OPEN SPACE * *: 0% SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The maximum tract size for development with the Option B incentive package is 200 acres. Option B developments of greater than 200 acres in size would be permitted in accordance with the provisions of "mayor subdivisions ". 3. OPTION C Option C allows for a clustered 1 -acre lot single - family development where 40% of the tract is left in open space (either agricultural or natural). AVERAGE LOT* SIZE: 0.92 ACRES REQUIRED OPEN SPACE * *: 40% OF TRACT 7 17 4. OPTION D Option D allows for a planned residential development with a density of 0.72 (72 units per 100 acres) where two - thirds, or 67 %, of the tract is left in open space (either agricultural or natural). NUMBER OF UNITS: (DENSITY) REQUIRED OPEN SPACE * *: 72 UNITS PER 100 ACRES 67% OF TRACT SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Option D developments should utilize public water and sewer where possible. Where public water and sewer extension is not cost - effective, the use of community alternative wastewater systems would be permitted. The use of such systems would be contingent on participation in a Monitoring and Maintenance program adopted by the County, and such systems should also be built to public specifications. 5. OPTION E (RURAL VILLAGE) Allows for the development of a "Rural Village ", a planned residential community with a small -scale village -level commercial /service core. The overall residential density of this Rural Village would be 0.84 (84 units per 100 acres). In order to develop under this option, four- fifths, or 80 %, of the tract must be left in open space (either agricultural or natural). NUMBER OF UNITS: (DENSITY) REQUIRED OPEN SPACE * *: 84 UNITS PER 100 ACRES 80% OF TRACT. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The Committee finds that Option E is significantly different from other residential options, and should therefore be permitted with the following conditions: A minimum tract size of 200 acres shall be required for development of a Rural Village. Public water and sewer extension is required. Rural Village developments shall be permitted only within a defined "Development Sector ", to be analyzed and defined in the future through cooperation with local governments and utility entities. Such a sector would factor in the location of arterial and collector roadways and feasible public utility extension to create a logical, cost - effective and easily - defined corridor of the Rural Buffer where such developments would be encouraged. 8 l� Rural Village developments should be located within one -mile of arterial or collector roadways for traffic management reasons. Such developments should not be located on intersections, and should be buffered from roadways. The Commercial /Institutional core of the Rural village should be designed at the village level. This should include a road network designed to protect the visual resources of the rural character and discourage passer -by activity. * - Single - family residential lots * *- Roadways and easements, except easements, cannot be placed in set - asides. only. pre - existing utility or subtracted from open space IV. PROTECTION OF .RECOGNIZED NATURAL AREAS A. Recognition of Natural Areas As previously stated, the Committee recognizes that the protection of the County's natural resources is of utmost importance as a consideration for future land use development patterns. There are two county Inventories that identify sites of specific natural cultural and historical significance in the County. The first is the Inventory of Natural Areas and _Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, produced in 1989 by the Triangle Land Conservancy. This document lists 64 sites in Orange County that contain important natural areas or wildlife habitats. This Inventory is recognized by Orange County currently in its Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The Committee also recognizes this inventory (though not complete) as an important source for identifying natural sites to be preserved. Also, the biolo ical ana ueolo icai bi ni=icance inurajojcLe Lounzv, proauc in 1986 -88 by the County Planning Department, is recognized by the County's ordinances. The Committee also recognizes this document as containing important information on sites of significance to the County's Rural Character to be preserved. Therefore the Committee recommends that, outside of the open space set -- asides required in three of the five development options in the Rural Buffer, prioritized efforts for the protection of Orange County's natural, historic, cultural, and geological resources be focused on the preservation of as much of the sites identified in these two inventories as possible, including the Purchase of Development Rights and other preservation measures to be studied in the future. B. Methods of Voluntary Protection The Committee finds that the preservation of natural resources can best be fostered through voluntary methods. It is 9 T, 19 the opinion of the Committee that rural property owners, who have for years been stewards of the very land that embodies the area's rural character, will endeavor to provide for and protect the natural resources present in the future as well. The RCSC recommends that one strategy to be pursued should be a Purchase of Development Rights Program - to be instituted in Orange County for use by designated agencies to purchase development rights on property that has special natural resource or water quality significance. One such use of this system would be a programmed purchase of prioritized, vulnerable inventory sites. The RCSC recognizes that a PDR program will by necessity be limited in scope. Therefore, the Committee recommends the following voluntary measures be undertaken. In three of the five development options for the Rural Buffer, the open space set - asides can be utilized to provide for the protection of special resources. Environmentally - sensitive site design, along with this open space, should adequately protect resources. In the two "large -lot" development options, open space set - asides are not required but can be voluntarily utilized. The development of five -acre and two -acre lot minimums will in and of itself help preserve the rural character of the Rural Buffer to some degree. Beyond that, however, the Committee recommends the use of environmentally - sensitive site design through the encouragement and cooperation of the Planning Department. For lands that contain special natural or other identified sites, the Committee further recommends the following measures: The Committee recommends that, upon receipt of any development proposal for land that contains a site identified on the two inventories aforementioned, the Planning Department shall work with the developer and recommend the use of a voluntary Conservation Easement to protect the site in question. Such an easement would be designed to allow development to occur at the behest of the property owner, while preserving portions of the natural or other site contained within private property. This Conservation Easement should allow for annual inspection by a designated party, but should otherwise be maintained as private open space - not for public use unless so deemed by the property owner. The Committee further recommends that, upon receipt of a development proposal as described above, the Planning Department will contact private conservation organizations in order to facilitate mutual protection by discussion between the potential developer and the conservation organization. The committee wants to emphasize that any decision by a landowner to establish some form of conservation easement will be strictly voluntary. FUS 00 4W V. ISSUES REQUIRING FURTHER STUDY In the course of consensus- building on the issues defined herein, the Committee has identified a number of issues which cannot reasonably be resolved by this Committee either through the scope of their review or the nature of the concern at this time. For this reason, the Committee lists these issues within this closing section, with a recommendation that they be studied and analyzed in the near future to enhance the implementation of the strategies proposed herewith. 1. The Committee recommends that, for future potential use as an open space and agricultural preservation tool, the governing bodies of the Joint Planning Area petition the North Carolina General Assembly for enabling legislation to allow the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights within Orange County. Although TDR's currently would have limited application, the Committee feels that it could be an effective tool in future land use issues. 2. The Committee endorses the proposed Purchase of Development Rights program for Orange County, and further recommends that such a program be studied for application in Orange County for the preservation of natural, historic and visual resources, agricultural preservation, open space provision and compensation to property owners for any loss in property values due to the enaction of measures for the provision of the common good, health, safety and.general welfare of the County as a whole. 3. The Committee endorses the proposed Health Department Maintenance and Monitoring Program for alternative wastewater treatment systems, and recommends that some manner of the proposed program - specifically that relating to the monitoring and maintenance of alternative wastewater systems - be enacted by the County Commissioners after due process. 4. The Committee recommends that a renewed effort on the part of County administration be taken with regard to the Agricultural Advisory Committee, to more comprehensively address the concerns and needs of the County's farm community. ADOPTED BY THE RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE ON MAY 24, 1990 PDS/52490 cg524fin 11 + r 21 EMBERS OF THE RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE Clint Burklin, Chair Dolly Hunter, Vice -Chair Dwight Compton Dr. Carole Crumley Elizabeth Dyer Judson Edeburn Barry Jacobs Livy Ludington Lorraine Parker Bob Strayhorn David Swanson Carl Walters Dr. Stephen HaUdotis Dr. Laila Moustafa ' Lester Ray Ex- Officio Roger Waldon (Planning Director, Chapel Hill) Roy Williford (Planning Director, Carrboro) Ed Holland (OWASA) Mary Anne Black (Orange County Recreation and Parks) Marvin Collins (Planning Director, Orange County) Janet Rigsbee (Planning Director, Hillsborough) Consultant Lane Kendig, Lane Kendig Inc. Project Team David Stanch, Principal Planner /Coordination Emily Crudup, Project Planner Gene Bell, Initial Coordination Don Powell, Initial Graphics Deborah Graham, Minutes/Clerk to the Committee Donna Bell and Sarah Warner, Interns /Graphics SPECIAL THANKS TO_ Bill Mainous (Former Chair) Minerva Kenyon Mark O'Neal A2 3 [Z-1091•.1!91 To: Carrboro Board of Aldermen Chapel Hill Town Council Orange County Board of Commissioners From: Carrboro Planning Staff Chapel Hill Planning Staff Orange County Planning Staff Date: August 22, 1990 Subject: Staff Report on the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer Introduction On May 24, 1990, the Rural Character Study Committee adopted a set of strategies for the Rural Buffer portion of the Joint Planning Area of Orange County. The Committee has forwarded these strategies to the Orange County Board of Commissioners with a request for their implementation. The implementation of these strategies, as per the Joint Planning Agreement, would require text changes to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement. The public consideration of these changes (amendments) and the strategy document Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer is the purpose for this public hearing. Background The Orange County Rural Character Study was initiated in 1987 as an outgrowth of the County's preparation for an Open Space Plan and a Rural Buffer Workshop held in June 1987 to consider strategies for the conservation of rural lands. In November 1987, the County Commissioners appointed a task force of citizens from across the County, representing a broad range of diverse backgrounds and interests. This task force, which soon became known as the Rural Character Study Committee, contains members of the development community and conservationists, farmers and academia, urban representatives and rural residents. The charge of the Rural Character Study Committee was to develop a set of strategies designed to achieve four objectives: - the preservation of agriculture - the protection of natural resources 1 2 ,1 , - the protection of visual resources - the enhancement of growth management The primary focus of the Committee's work was to consider strategies for the Rural Buffer first, before proceeding with consideration of the remainder of rural Orange County. This project was provided assistance and professional guidance by consultant Lane Kendig and County staff. During most of 1988 and early 1989, the Committee went through a lengthy period of "education and reconnaissance" -- discussing planning and open space concepts with both consultant and rural residents; examining issues of importance in the County; and meeting on a great number of occasions with citizen groups - organized first by field of interest and later by geographic area. Some of these meetings met resistance from Rural Buffer residents, who initially espoused a "leave us alone" policy. Even so, these early meetings were to prove helpful to the Committee as it proceeded to draft a strategy with the help of some of the same citizens who spoke in opposition. On October 10, 1989, Kendig presented his preliminary recommendations to the Committee and County Planning Board. His - recommendations called for the consideration of a number of possible zoning districts - including one for the Rural Buffer designed to promote the clustering of development through a sliding scale of open space provision for different development options. A series of goal- setting sessions on the part of the Committee ensued in early 1990 as the Committee continued considering a strategy for the Rural Buffer. At the same time, meetings with Rural Landowners Associations and civic groups around the County were initiated. Particular time and effort was devoted to meetings with Rural Buffer residents, and a number of community meetings were held between February and May 1990. These sessions with rural residents enabled the committee to begin to tailor their strategies to respond to the expressed needs of the rural residents. Believing that citizen involvement was paramount to producing a successful strategy, landowner's associations and rural residents played a significant role in the Committee's deliberations. The Committee was very cognizant of the balancing act that they would need to take in regard to the often - competing interests of land conservation and private property rights. While many rural residents were involved in helping to inform the committee of rural needs, the task force was very aware of the need to protect the integrity of the Rural Buffer concept through its actions. 2 On May 24, 1990, the Rural Character Study Committee adopted their strategy for the Rural Buffer, entitled the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer. These strategies are summarized below. The Conce teal Guidelines for the Rural Suffer The resource protection /growth management strategy for the Rural Buffer contained within the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer is designed to strike a balance between the often - competing interests of private property ownership and natural resource preservation. This is accomplished by expanding development options within the Rural Buffer from the existing two -acre lot standard to five options, contingent upon compliance with prescribed levels of resource protection and open space provision. The method chosen by the Committee to achieve their goals has been to address the objectives of resource protection (natural and visual), agricultural preservation and growth management from an incentive standpoint rather than a restrictive tack. In this manner, the proposals differ from the usual method of traditional zoning. The proposals are of a performance - based" nature, recognizing that it is possible and practical to allow for tradeoffs that help achieve the ultimate goal of the study and do not compromise the integrity of the Rural Buffer. There is a sliding scale present in the.five development options. For example, it is possible, under development Option D, to create lots averaging about 1/2 -acre (20,000 square feet). To do so, a developer must set aside 2/3 of the tract (including any environmentally - sensitive areas) in permanent public or private open space. In so doing, the actual density of the development is less than one unit per acre, with an overall average lot size of 60,000 square feet and 67% of the tract in permanent open space. Other development options would allow the current two -acre lot development (Option A) and a new five -acre lot option with private roads (Option_B), both using voluntary conservation easements to achieve private open space. Also, one -acre lots on 60% of a tract could be developed under Option C with 40% of the tract in permanent open space (overall average lot size of 1.7 acres). The final development option is Option E, also termed the "Rural Village" concept. Rural Villages would be designed as self - sustaining communities of 200 acres or greater, having a small, village -level commercial core and a variety of housing types (averaging at about 10,000 square feet per unit). These villages would only be permitted in a corridor adjacent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and would have other conditions and design constraints placed on them. One important issue with development Options D and E is that of wastewater disposal. Options A B and C would create lots of 3 ,) G r adequate size for septic tanks.. Options _D and E however, will have clustered densities that require some form of public sewer or community wastewater disposal systems. The Committee has recommended that Option D utilize public water and sewer where feasible, but that such developments may be permitted with private "package" sewer - if and only if the County adopts a Monitoring and Maintenance Program such as that currently being developed by the Orange County Health Department. It should be noted that without such a program, the Committee does not recommend allowing this development option - thereby linking it directly to a proposed program. As for Option E (Rural Village), the Rural Character Study Committee recommends that this option utilize only public water and sewer to be extended from the Towns into a predefined and mutually - agreed corridor to serve the villages only. The Committee proposes to protect recognized natural areas through an incentive program of voluntary protection. This would involve the use of conservation easements on the large -lot development options (where no open space set- asides are used), and the protection of sensitive or recognized areas through the permanent open space system in those options with such provisions. There is also a recommendation that a Purchase of Development Rights program be pursued, with protection of natural areas as one possible use. There are a number of other policy statements and issues for further study mentioned in the document. The following is a capsule of these statements. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION: The Committee's development options in themselves would foster this effort, through the use of permanent open space for agricultural uses. This would allow a farmer to, if the need arose, realize monetary return on his investment (the land), subdivide a portion of the tract (cluster) and farm the remainder (permanent Open Space) - while realizing a equitable return through increased density on the developed portion. The Committee also recommends coordination of efforts such as Purchase of Development Rights, expedited subdivision review, the Right -To -Farm law, and an identification program to make potential lot buyers and developers aware of the presence of a farm in the vicinity - to minimize nuisance suits. INCENTIVES: The Committee proposes the use of incentives on the five -acre lot development option. it is their opinion that an expedited subdivision review process, private roads and lower fees will foster rural character by allowing rural landowners to see return on their investment without "carving up" the entire tract. The allowance of two one -acre lots on existing lots of record is another effort in this regard. 2 r 1 ' 27 Discussion of Issues The joint planning staffs have identified four key issues for discussion from the proposed strategies. These issues are listed below, with a brief discussion of the pros and cons for each. Each issue is denoted by () (OC- Orange County, CH- Chapel Hill, CA- Carrboro) , which represents the staff that raises concern about the Committee's proposals in this particular regard. 1. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC SEWER TO RURAL VILLAGES (CH) The Rural Character Study Committee recommends that extension of public water and sewer lines be required for the proposed Rural Villages which have a maximum density of 84 units per 100 acres and have 80 percent of the land in permanent open space. Further, the Rural Character Study Committee recommends that extension of public water and sewer be permitted (where available) for Planned Residential developments with a maximum density of 72 units per 100 acres and two - thirds of the tract in open space. The Rural Buffer is presently defined as a low density area consisting of single family homes on two -acre minimum lots and not requiring public water or sewer service. One concern with extending water and sewer into the Rural Buffer is that the presence of the lines would encourage or at least allow additional development beyond the densities and scale envisioned in the Joint Planning A reement and Land use Plan. The densities in the "built" portion of the Rural Villages would be of an urban scale, surrounded by 80% of the tract left in permanent open space. Once urban -type densities have been achieved, pressures for annexation could increase and potentially undermine the intent of the Joint Land Use Plan. The Rural Character Study Committee suggests that the lines could be sized to serve designated areas only. It is not clear whether tap -ons from intervening property owners could be legally prohibited. These are issues that need further study. One option to consider is to create a community -scale water and sewer system, not tied by a pipe to an existing system, but still fully operated and maintained by a- public entity. This type of system might serve well if properly sited, designed, installed and operated. Thought should be given to how to ensure that these systems would be well -built and maintained, and what public entity would be responsible for oversight and maintenance. The issue of water and sewer extension into the Rural Buffer merits close consideration as it has the most potential of all the recommendations for altering the character of the Rural Buffer. 5 2S r 2. OVERALL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BASIS (CH, CA) The Rural Character Study Committee has proposed that the overall minimum lot size calculations for developments in the Rural Buffer revert back to a "80,000 square footage" (1.84 acres) base rather than the current "2.0- acre" base. In 1987, when Rural Buffer zoning was implemented, a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres was instituted - replacing the previous County standard of 0.92 acres (40,000 square feet). The latter County standard is still applied in the rural parts of the County and stems from the minimum lot area needed for septic tank permits. This base of 40,000 square feet is also used in the lower density Water Quality Critical Area, which has a. minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet (1.84 acres) rather than 2.0 acres. There appear to be arguments in both directions. The acreage -based standard is consistent with the Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan. The square - footage base is consistent with all Orange County residential options outside of the Rural Buffer. The concern of Chapel Hill and Carrboro staff is that reducing the minimum lot size from 2.0 acres to 1.84 acres will result in a greater number of dwellings in the Rural Buffer than was envisioned by the Joint Planning-Agreement and Land Use Plan. Orange County staff feels the increase that might be seen in number of dwellings is.very slight, and that any increase would be offset by the flexibility granted - yielding more sensitive site design. 3. MINIMUM LOT SIZE VERSUS AVERAGE LOT SIZE (CH) The Rural Character Study Committee has recommended allowing the use of "average" lot sizing rather than "minimum" lot sizing for non - sewered residential' developments in the Rural Buffer. The purpose for this provision is to allow additional design flexibility for property owners and developers in producing site - sensitive developments. For example, a 50 -acre tract of land with moderately -good soils currently could be subdivided into 20 -22 single - family dwelling lots of 2.0 acres each. A 50 -acre tract with worse soil conditions would likely contain fewer lots. Under the proposed "averaging" provision, the property owner would be allowed the flexibility to create a certain number of lots less than 2.0 acres in size (but larger than 40,000 square feet), only if these smaller lots were balanced with lots that were respectively larger. Thus, the property owner might create 11 one- - acre lots and 11 three -acre lots - using the better soils for the smaller lots and the poorer soils for the larger lots, and fitting the lot lines to the tract with some flexibility. 11 r 2J The Chapel Hill staff concern is that this flexibility would be achieved at the expense of increased densities and numbers of dwellings over what was envisioned in the Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning-Area Land Use Plan. The position of Orange County and Carrboro staffs in this matter is that the increase that might be seen in number of dwellings is very slight, and that any increase would be offset by the flexibility granted - yielding a more sensitive site design. Another approach might be to allow the averaging of lots as provided, but provide that the balance of land not be placed into larger lots - but into permanent open space. In such a manner, the flexibility to create slightly smaller lots might be permitted, but there would be no larger lots to offset the smaller -- with regulation lot sizes and permanent open space making up the balance. If the averaging provision is adopted, one specific concern to be addressed at the ordinance level is the provision of conditions on recorded subdivision plats that prohibit larger lots (created in the balance of averaging) from re- subdividing into smaller lots. 4. ONE -ACRE LOTS FOR EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD (OC, CH, CA) As a means of addressing hardships and simplifying subdivision procedures for property owners not wishing to completely develop their land, the Rural Character Study Committee has proposed that all existing lots of record in the Rural Buffer (New Hope basin) as of the creation date for the Rural Buffer district (1/6/1987) be allowed to create up to two (2) one -acre lots. All three of the planning staffs agree that the allowance of all such tracts to create two one -acre lots might be damaging to the concept and function of the Rural Buffer. Staff analysis shows that over 330 tracts would have this option available - potentially creating 660 new lots and introducing close to 1700 persons into the Rural Buffer over what was envisioned in the Joint Land Use Plan. While the staffs realize that not all properties would utilize this option, and that some of these lots might eventually be created through other options, it is still the opinion of all staffs that this provision could have an unintended hazardous effect on the buffer - compromising the intent and purpose of the district. The staffs do recognize, however, the situations that the Committee was hoping to address in its provision. One means of addressing this concern might be the examination at staff level of methods toward this end that would not cause potential damage to the Rural Buffer. VA 3U Conclusion The three planning staffs, in considering the recommendations of the Committee, have attempted to outline the concerns of each jurisdiction in this memo. These concerns were identified and discussed at staff level after two recent meetings. On July 25, the three planning staffs of the Joint Planning Area gathered to identify issues and areas of concern as related to the recommendations of the Rural Character Study Committee. Milton Heath of the Institute of Government was contacted to provide additional expertise in the area of water and sewer extension, and his comments are provided as part of this agenda packet. On August 16, the staffs met again with OWASA Research and Planning Administrator Ed Holland and County Attorney Geof Gledhill to hear Mr. Heath and prepare this joint staff report. At this time, there are three items on the table for consideration by the governing boards. First is the concept or strategy itself - the Conce tual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, which has been described above. This document, and the strategy contained within, have created the need for amendments to both the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement, which represent the second and third related agenda items. In general, the staffs of the three jurisdictions are in strong consensus on positive aspects of the strategies outlined by the Committee. The concept of clustering the development that will occur while preserving large tracts of open space and agriculture is an attractive one. The staffs would like to jointly recognize the outstanding work and contributions that the Rural Character Study Committee has made - especially in regard to its diligent efforts in meeting with citizenry and civic groups. As for the related plan and agreement amendments, the staffs have differing recommendations based on their analysis of the Conceptual Guidelines... document. In the section that follows, the respective planning staffs will be putting different recommendations on the table for consideration by the respective boards. Although there is a strong consensus as to the overall strategies, the four key issues outlined above have elicited different responses on the part of staffs. Recommendations CARRBORO: The Carrboro Planning Staff recommends endorsement of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Suffer with two exceptions, as shown in the Discussion section of this memo. First, that the provision calling for reintroduction of lot sizes based on square footage (1.84 -acre minimums) not be pursued. E3 � Y 31 Second, that the proposed allowance of two one -acre lots per 1987 lot of record also not be pursued. The Carrboro staff recommends approval of those amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and A reement that do not conflict with these exceptions. In regard to the formation of a Joint Work Group following the public hearing (see Chapel Hill below), Carrboro staff could recommend creation of a Joint Work Group only if the proposed work group were very narrowly focused (i.e. designed to deal only with the question of water and sewer provision in the Rural Buffer or a similar issue identified at the public hearing); had a deadline for resolution; and did not duplicate the efforts of the Rural Character Study Committee. CHAPEL HILL: The Chapel Hill Planning Staff recommends that the Conceptual Guidelines... document be received at this time with conditional approval of the strategies contained within - with four exceptions. Those exceptions are as outlined and described in the Discussion section of this memo, and relate specifically to concerns over 1) the extension of public sewer to Rural Villages, 2) the use of "average" lot sizes, 3) the reintroduction of a square footage base for Rural Buffer lots (1.84 - acre minimums), and 4) the allowance for two one - acre lots to be created out of 1987 lots of record. The Chapel Hill staff further recommends that, as proposed in the Town Council's public hearing resolution, a Joint Work Grouv be appointed to further discuss the policy issues of the proposals. It is recommended that this Joint Work Group consist of elected officials from each jurisdiction, a representative from OWASA, and a representative from the Rural Character Study Committee. Topics for discussion would be the policy changes recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee, and organizational issues related to the provision of public water and sewer service in rural areas. The Chapel Hill staff also recommends that the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement be deferred pending conclusion of discussion by the Joint Work Group. 0 3 '2 ORANGE COUNTY: Orange County staff recommends endorsement of the Conce tual Guidelines... document with the exception of the proposed allowance of two new one - acre lots for each 1987 lot of record. County planning staff further recommends the approval of the proposed Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement amendments. County staff does not recommend the establishment of a Joint Work GrouR to further study the Committee's work. This recommendation is based on the premise that the Committee has been a microcosm of the County, and has served as a work group for the past two years. County staff has seen firsthand the rapport that has been established with rural residents, and feels that the Committee - with representation from both urban and rural interests - has come to a working consensus on a strategy for the Rural Buffer that respects and maintains the integrity of the Rural Buffer, seeks to protect its resources, and yet provides needed flexibility for those citizens who live in the bu fer. For these reasons, County staff feels that the Committee's ability to coalesce urban and rural viewpoints into a workable compromise agreement should not require further study, and recommends against the establishment of a work group. However, if the governing boards do opt for the creation of such a work group, County staff would recommend that 1) two representatives of the Rural Character Study Committee be appointed; 2) the Work Group limit its scope of review to the four issues defined above, plus other issues identified by any elected official, and 3) a designated time frame for work group review be considered. In this manner, a Work Group might have a clear, focused objective and timeframe, without re- examining and duplicating many facets of the Conceptual Guidelines... which took months of consensus - building among a diverse and representative task force. xc: Robert Morgan, Carrboro Town Manager Cal Horton, Chapel Hill Town Manager John Link, Orange County Manager Milton Heath, Institute of Government Ed Holland, OWASA Rural Character Study Committee pds /81590 jtmemo /dsll 10 K MH /IOG 8/16/90 — Rev. A NOTE REGARDING NORTH CAROLINA LAWS AND REGULATIONS 3 3 CONCERNING SEWER LINE TAPS Attached are excerpts from several North Carolina statutes and state rules that may have a bearing on controlling sewer line taps. This note reflects recent conversations with the water quality section of the DEHNR Division of Environmental Management (DEM). (1) "lion—Discharge" Permits The DEM program that is most closely related to sewer line taps is the permit program for "Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters " - -often referred to as "Non— discharge permits." Under the state rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC), non - discharge permits are required, among other things, for sewer systems.* NCAC Title 15A, Subch. 2H, §§ .0200 and .0204. These rules were adopted pursuant to GS § 143- 215.1(a) (2) —(3), which prohibits construction, alteration, or operation of a sewer system without obtaining an EMC permit and complying with its conditions. Under the state rules, a non — discharge permit can be denied on any of five grounds, of which the first is "where necessary to effectuate the purposes of GS Chapter 143, Article 21." (The other four denial grounds involve matters not relevant to this note.) From my conversations with DEM it appears that DEM may deny a sewer line permit on the basis of soil science or engineering considerations, or because the associated treatment system is at capacity, but is unlikely to deny sewer line permits or taps into permitted lines for growth control or zoning — related reasons. I was given no examples of permit conditions that effectuate growth control or zoning purposes. From a read - ing, of the statute and state rules, and from what I can learn about the administration of the non — discharge permit system, I think it is unlikely that DEM would use this permit s stem to control taps into sewer lines except where, the to would overload the capacitv of the treatment system,- or for technical reasons (e-g., en ineerin or soil science reasons). 2. Delegation of Sewer System Permits to Local Governments EMC may delegate to a local government the conduct of the permit program for sewer lines, under authority granted by GS 143- 215.1(f) and 15A NCAC 2H, § .0218. The procedures and criteria for delegation, as spelled out in the statute and rules, are rather complicated. Under the statute, EMC may revoke or suspend its certification of a local program which is not functioning to its satisfaction. * "Sewer systems" are defined'as "pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and appliances appurtenant thereto." NCAC Title 15A, Subch. 2H, § .0203 (19). -2- 34 There is some experience with both full and partial delegations, and with memoranda of agreement between local governments and DEM that contemplate anything from designating local governments as DEM's "eyes and ears" to authorizing a local government to take all steps short of formal issuance of permits. From my conversations with DEM I judge that a local government which received a _full delegation the line permit program might have some discretion to broaden the administration of the program into the area of controlling taps for growth control. If it were brought to DEM's attention that the permit system were being administered_ in a manner inconsistent with DEM's practice, EMC could and might revoke the delegation or ^MOA. One technical consideration might affect a county's ability to obtain a permit delegation for lines that it did not own and control. Both the statutes and the rules authorize delegation of permit authority to local governments only for systems "in their ,utility service areas." GS 143 - 215.1(f) and 15A NCAC 2H, §, .0218(a). (3) Discharge Facilities Inconsistent with Local Zoning or Sub Re s The 1989 General Assembly responded to widespread complaints that package treatment plant permits were being issued contrary to strong local preferences by enacting legislation that required advertised public meetings on discharge permit applications (if requested), and that gave local governments some control through local zoning over the issuance of such permits. The provision concerning zoning and subdivision prohibits EMC approval of certain discharge permits if the city or county government having jurisdiction informs the Commission in writing that the discharge facility would be inconsistent with a local zoning or subdivision ordinance -- unless the EMC then determines that approval of the application "has statewide significance and is in the best interest of the state." GS 143- 215.1(c)(6). It should be noted that this provision applies only to "new non-municipal domestic wastewater discharge facilities." The effect of the 1989, amendment is to give local governments a measure of control through local zoning and subdivision ordinances over a limited class of discharge systems: non - municipal domestic discharging systems. It does not in it present form give similar local input to decisions on "municipal" discharge systems or decisions on non - discharge systems, such as sewer lines and taps. There is nothing to prevent future amendments, however, that could extend the coverage of the 1989 legislation to additional types of systems, or to apply it comprehensively to all of the water pollution control permit programs. r Puke VniliersitV 3 J DURHAM NORTH CAROLINA 27706 SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST July 19, 1990 Mr. Clint Burklin, Chairman Rural Character Study Committee 113 Stoney Creek Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear Clint: TELEPHONE (919) 694.2421 The Duke Forest Advisory Committee has had the opportunity to review the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, as prepared by the Rural Character Study Committee. The incentives designed to encourage the preservation of open space and the concern for the protection of property owners' rights received positive comments from the Advisory Committee. Several members did note, however, that increased densities allowed in several of the development options may overburden existing road systems and increase pressure for extension of water and sewer. These factors may lead to widening of roads and other measures which could detract from the "rural character." The Advisory Committee suggests that the following statement regarding the role of the Duke Forest in the Rural Buffer should be included somewhere in the Conceptual Guidelines, perhaps under "Other Policy Statements." "The Rural Character Study Committee recognizes the environmental significance of the large contiguous tracts of open land represented by the Duke Forest within the Rural Buffer. These lands are important for the enhancement of natural and visual resources and the protection of water quality, wildlife habitats and species diversity. As development progresses throughout the Rural Buffer, the Committee recommends that consideration be given to appropriate measures which will protect these values and facilitate continued management of the Duke Forest as a teaching and research facility." We should discuss this at our meeting Thursday evening. cc: Dean George F. Dutrow Dr. Charles E. Putman Ms. Lois Artis Duke Forest Advisory Committee Sincerely, rB'Y1 Judson D. Edeburn Duke Forest Resource Manager 30 Planning August 1990 P L A 3 11 N N I N G N E W S Help keep us up -to -date. Send newspaper clippings about significant local planning issues or brief descriptions of events, con- troversies, or noticeable trends. Include names of sources if possible. We'll follow up. Send to Jim Schwab, Planning, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637, Loudoun County Clears the Way for Hamlets Following up on a two - yearlong planning process, the Loudoun County, Virginia, board of supervisors in June passed a new zoning ordinance that encourages developers to group rural subdivisions in clustered "hamlets:' The new zoning allows clusters of five to 25 lots, each as small as a third of an acre, in districts pre- viously zoned for three -acre lots. In exchange for the higher density, developers must designate 90 percent of their acreage as permanent open space. The cluster development harks back to the area's traditional rural settlements, ac- cording to county planning coordinator Richard Calderon, who says it is the first known use of such zoning in a rural con- text. See "Repent, Ye Sinners, Repent," August 1989.) When proposed last year, Calderon says, the idea met considerable support in most quarters but "uncertainty and doubt" in the development community. But he says developers are responding favorably, in- cluding one who had originally proposed four- and five -acre lots on about 1,000 acres of land, but recently substituted a plan conforming to the hamlet design. In a letter to county planning director Milton Herd, Miami architect Andres Duany, who has done site planning for several Loudoun County developments, Increased density and an open space buffer go hand in hand in Loudoun County's new hamlet zoning. F F c Christmas trees help to anchor a wetlands resloration project at Lahe Pontchartrain, of Louisiana's first annual wetlands plan, which focuses heavily on coastal a praised the ordinance as encouraging an "ideal pattern of low- density develop- ment." However, planning consultant Marc S. Weiss, of Leesburg, president of the county chapter of the Northern Virginia Building Industry Association, says the 400 -foot buffer required around clustered housing leaves developers too little flexibility to adapt to the terrain and find appropriate septic fields, "Developers support clustering, but the ordinance is geared more to visually pleasing the peo- ple passing by than to the people living there;' Weiss says. Louisiana Weakens Wetlands Law No net loss of wetlands may be national policy, but in Louisiana, that idea is still struggling. Bowing to industry and legislative pressure, the state Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority, part of Gov. Buddy Roemer's office, deleted a no net loss provision from the final version of its first annual wetlands plan, submitted to the state legislature in April. For Louisiana, says Paul Kemp, ex- ecutive director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, the problem is serious. The state, which contains 40 percent of the nation's coastal wetlands, lost about 40 square miles of them last year, largely due to development connected with the oil and gas industry, The state has also lost large amounts of inland wetlands to agriculture. The authority's draft plan, released in March, listed as a plan objective achiev- ing "a goal of no net loss of fu ctional wetland values due to permitted activities by 1996:' That language ran into a buzz - saw of opposition from business interests and the legislature's natural resources committees, forcing some compromises. The revised version instead suggests pro- viding "for replacement of functional coastal wetland values lost due to future [permitted] activities." That language triggered further debate, and another bill— giving to the state natu- ral resources department rul making authority on replacement of coastal wet- lands— passed in the closing hours of the session last month. That measure, says Kemp, may still allow no net loss to be achieved through the. rulemaking process, where he predicts "hard battles over the fine print. We're concentrating now on the nuts and bolts" of mitigation. Last fall, state voters approved a referen- dum allocating 525 - million year] for wet- lands protection and restoration, with the money coming from state mineral revenues. The measure also created the new coastal authority and required it to produce an annual wetlands plan to outline policy and list planned r storation projects. .. r±•' s��. ��. 9- �+`' ,;rL.y�.,- :..a% "�3:`s.: *��w`..- - - .- ., .. .. ....... _. � ice' ^_ ...- � =,�� - •�;«.� =.:rte y. �� Christmas trees help to anchor a wetlands resloration project at Lahe Pontchartrain, of Louisiana's first annual wetlands plan, which focuses heavily on coastal a praised the ordinance as encouraging an "ideal pattern of low- density develop- ment." However, planning consultant Marc S. Weiss, of Leesburg, president of the county chapter of the Northern Virginia Building Industry Association, says the 400 -foot buffer required around clustered housing leaves developers too little flexibility to adapt to the terrain and find appropriate septic fields, "Developers support clustering, but the ordinance is geared more to visually pleasing the peo- ple passing by than to the people living there;' Weiss says. Louisiana Weakens Wetlands Law No net loss of wetlands may be national policy, but in Louisiana, that idea is still struggling. Bowing to industry and legislative pressure, the state Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority, part of Gov. Buddy Roemer's office, deleted a no net loss provision from the final version of its first annual wetlands plan, submitted to the state legislature in April. For Louisiana, says Paul Kemp, ex- ecutive director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, the problem is serious. The state, which contains 40 percent of the nation's coastal wetlands, lost about 40 square miles of them last year, largely due to development connected with the oil and gas industry, The state has also lost large amounts of inland wetlands to agriculture. The authority's draft plan, released in March, listed as a plan objective achiev- ing "a goal of no net loss of fu ctional wetland values due to permitted activities by 1996:' That language ran into a buzz - saw of opposition from business interests and the legislature's natural resources committees, forcing some compromises. The revised version instead suggests pro- viding "for replacement of functional coastal wetland values lost due to future [permitted] activities." That language triggered further debate, and another bill— giving to the state natu- ral resources department rul making authority on replacement of coastal wet- lands— passed in the closing hours of the session last month. That measure, says Kemp, may still allow no net loss to be achieved through the. rulemaking process, where he predicts "hard battles over the fine print. We're concentrating now on the nuts and bolts" of mitigation. Last fall, state voters approved a referen- dum allocating 525 - million year] for wet- lands protection and restoration, with the money coming from state mineral revenues. The measure also created the new coastal authority and required it to produce an annual wetlands plan to outline policy and list planned r storation projects. t. l O R A N G E C O U N T Y 37 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 30, 1990` Action Agenda Item # C -0, SUBJECT: LUP -4 -90, AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): * - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE JPA PLAN * - EXISTING TEXT - JPA PLAN * - STAFF REPORT (See staff report for Conceptual Guidelines._, item one of JPA packet) PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Stancil, Extension 2590 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public input on a proposed amendment to the text of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. These amendments are part of three -part package related to the recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer entitled Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, and an amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement. BACKGROUND: The Rural Character Study Committee's recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer - the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer - requires certain accompanying amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement in order to make the plan consistent with the new options in the recommended strategy. The amendments to the text of the plan involve changes to the following sections: Section III. Infrastructure and Public Services. (Page 32). Section V. Joint Planning Operating Principles (Page 60). Section VI. Future Land Use - JPA. (Pages 83 and 84). Section VII. Overview of Implementation Strategies. (Page 90). These amendments all deal with one of the following issues: r . 1) Extension of water and sewer into a defined corridor for planned "Rural Villages ". 2) Development standards for lots in the Rural Buffer. Currently, a minimum lot size of two -acres is required. The proposed standards would retain that standard as one of five permitted development options, adding others that provide for larger lots and /or environmentally - sensitive site design through clustered or planned developments. 3) Creation of "Rural Villages ", with a small -scale commercial core designed to serve the village only. No changes to the Land Use Plan Map are necessary. Because of'this item's inter- relatedness to the other two items, it may be considered as a part of the same hearing. Thus, no separate hearing on this individual item is needed. This item may be deferred as a part of the consideration process. RECOMMENDATION: The Carrboro Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments as written. The Chapel Hill Planning staff recommends that this item be deferred pending consideration of this and other matters by a proposed Joint Work Group. Orange County Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment as written. 39 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO JPA LAND USE PLAN AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT The following are amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and ,joint Planning Agreement that represent changes reflecting the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, adopted in final form by the Rural Character Study Committee on May 24, 1990. The specific changes to the text of the JPA Plan are shown below in chronological order as they would occur in the plan. These amendments can be categorized as.-dealing with one or more of the following three issues: 1) Extension of water and sewer into a defined corridor for planned "Rural Villages ". 2) Development standards for lots in the Rural Buffer. Currently, a minimum lot size of two -acres is required. The proposed standards would retain that standard as one of five permitted development options, adding others that provide for larger lots and /or environmentally - sensitive site design through clustered or planned developments. 3) Creation of "Rural Villages ", with a small -scale commercial core designed to serve the village only. In regard to the Joint Planning-Agreement, the strategies are consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, requiring only a change to the "Definition of the Rural Buffer" found in Article I, Section 1.2(g). Specifically, this amendment would add language which refers to the creation of five permitted development options with a range of lot sizes and open space set - asides. Language would also be added to qualify the prohibition on public water and sewer service extension to allow an exception for extensions into a predefined service corridor only for the development of planned "Rural Villages ". No other changes to the Agreement are necessary. Where text changes are proposed, the paragraph in question has been provided, with proposed new text shown in boldface. Words or phrases deleted from existing text are indicated by the [DELETES symbol. Provided as an attachment to this document are the actual pages from the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan that would be amended, in their current form. 40 1. SPECIFIC CHANGES TO TEXT OF JPA LAND USE PLAN SECTION III. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES Pacre 32 "Water and Sewer Issues..." last graiph "The New Hope Creek Basin <DELETE> is "over the ridge" from - the existing wastewater collection system and treatment plant. Limited expansion of utility service to a specific corridor is feasible, however. Such expansion would only be permitted in the development of a "Rural Village ", which would involve service to a clustered, self- contained village within a predefined service area only. Any such extensions would be sized to service only the corridor where Rural Villages are permitted. Alternative means... SECTION V. JOINT PLANNING OPERATING PRINCIPLES . Page 60 "Rural Buffer and Conservation" The Rural Buffer area is defined as being a low- density area consisting primarily of single - family homes situated on lots having an average lot size of 1.92 acres or greater, or lots within planned developments that provide 40 -80% open space with a density of between 0.5 and 0.84 units per acre. The Rural Buffer is further defined as....... SECTION VI. FUTURE LAND USE - JOINT PLANNING AREA Page 83 "Rural Residential" The Rural Residential category represents a low - density area consisting primarily of single- family homes. The average lot size in this category varies depending on the amount of open space provided, but shall not exceed a density of 0.84 lots /units per acre. This category is identical to the Rural Buffer category contained in the current Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Buffer category is described in the element as land adjacent to an Urban or Transition area which is rural in character and which should remain rural; contain <DELETE> low- density residential uses; and not require urban services (water and sewer) during the Plan period - except in a predefined corridor in close proximity to existing service areas where the development of planned Rural Villages is encouraged. To the north of Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the New Hope Creek drainage basin, low density.. ..Residential developments 41 similar to Sedgefield, Stoneridge, Oak Hills, Birchwood Lake Estates and Falls of the New Hope are expected to continue, relying either on wells and septic tanks; or County - approved monitored and maintained alternatives for water supply and sewage disposal. Pacie 84 "Rural Residential" Cont. to of a e There are approximately 9260 acres of land designated for Rural Residential purposes in the Land Use Plan. If developed at an average density of 0.473 dwelling units per acre of land, with 15% of the land subtracted out for streets and roads, the holding capacity of the area in terms of residential dwellings is 3,723. If multiplied by the 1990 estimated population per household (2.52), the population would be 9,382 at buildout. Pacie 84 "Retail Trade Areas" category Add third paragraph.. The potential for limited retail areas, only as designed as a component of a planned Rural Village, does exist in the defined service corridor. Such a retail area would be permitted according to standards defined in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, and would be designed at a pedestrian -scale to serve only the Rural Village area, discouraging external passer -by traffic from entering the community. SECTION VII. OVERVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Page 90,_ Water and Sewer Extension -Policy The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) is the provider of water and sewer in the JPA. OWASA policy is to extend water and sewer in accordance with the adopted policies off the applicable local governments. Current Orange County policy is to approve water and sewer extensions only to: 1) Areas designated as Transition on the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; 2) Areas designated as Transition in this document and its accompanying Land Use Plan Map; and 3) Planned Rural Village developments in the Rural Boundary - only in the predefined Rural Village Development Corridor. Only Rural Village developments in this corridor are eligible for such extension. 4) Emergency situations requiring the extension of water and sewer services, as defined in the Orange County Water and Sewer Policy. Suggestions have been made.. <DELETE LAST SENTENCE? END OF PROPOSED JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS T 4 52,000 persons. 43 The Mason,Farm waste treatment plant serves the Chapel Hill - Carrboro area and has a treatment capacity of 8.0 MGD (million gallons per day). The population served by the plant is 45,000 and the average daily wastewater load is 5.2 MGD. OWASA has defined its current service area -- areas with water and sewer lines in place, or areas where extension of existing lines can be easily accommodated. OWASA has also delineated tentative future service areas -- where lines might be extended In the future, but at considerable expense. In looking at possibilities for water and sewer extensions, it is im- portant to look at drainage basins. There are four main drainage basins in the Chapel H111 /Carrboro area: - Bolin Qreek Buln.,L containing developed and developing areas to the northwest and east of Chapel Hill and north of Carrboro. - Lower Morgan Qrgek .SCs1n& containing newly developing areas to the south . containing undeveloped or sparsely developed areas west of Carrboro. 'containing developing areas to the north. Bolin Creek and Lower Morgan Creek basins can all be served, ultimately, by a gravity sewer collection system that will feed into OWASA's existing wastewater treatment facility. Sewer lines have not been extended into the University Lake Basin and Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro have committed to keeping this basin sparsely developed in order to protect the area's water supply. Significant questions are being posed, however, about whether or not sewer service should be extended into the New Hope Creek basin to the north since substantial portions of Duke Forest are located there. Extensive development in that basin may upset the research and educational aspects of that resource. Maps of these basins and existing land use shows a great deal of undeveloped land in the Bolin Creek basin, most of it northwest of Chapel Hill and north of Carrboro. There is also considerable undeveloped land in the Lower Morgan Creek Basin to the south. These are all areas that can be served by gravity sewer systems. The New Hope Creek basin cannot easily be served since it is "over the ridge" -from the existing wastewater collection system and treatment plant. Alternative means of providing wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services in the New Hope Creek basin are: - Major pump station and force main - Limited number of smaller, Interim pump stations - Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility Series of private package treatment facilities Individual on -site wastewater disposal systems 32 44 planned for urban expansion. .suburban Residential Areas are designated for housing densities ranging from one (1) to five (5) dwelling units per acre. Such areas in located where land is changing from rural to urban, suitable for urban densities, and to be provided with public utilities and services. Housing types range from single - family homes to duplexes to multi - family dwellings. urban Residential Areas are similar to Suburban Residential Areas in terms of both housing types and public service availability. However, densities are higher, ranging from six (6) to thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre. office-institutional Areas is a category consisting of establishments which offer an array of financial, insurance, real estate, legal, medical, and business services. Such areas generally have public utilities and services available and are located adjacent to heavily traveled streets. Future UNC Development is a category established for lands owned by the University of North Carolina, including Horace Williams Airport and adjacent parcels. Such lands are contemplated for expansion of the UNC campus, provided the Airport is relocated. Rgtail Irade Areas are limited in Transition Areas, including existing establishments at Starpoint and Calvander. Modest room for expansion is available in both areas. Light Industrial Areas are singular, consisting of the Chapel Hill industrial Park on Eubanks Road. No additional industrial growth was projected in Transition Areas. D snosal Use Areas consist of landfill sites, either existing or future. The existing landfill on Eubanks Road and the proposed site between Eubanks Road and Homestead Road are included in this category. Rural Buffeg and Conservation. The basic categories of Rural Buffer and Conservation have been combined in the Joint Planning area Land Use Plan to form a single land use classificat*n - Rural Buffer. The Rural Buffer is defined as being a low- density area consisting of single- family homes situated on large lots having a minimum size of two (2) acres. The Rural Buffer is further defined as land which, although adjacent to am Urban or Transition Area, is rural in character and which will remain rural, contain low- density residential uses, and not require urban services (public utilities and other Town services). The Rural Buffer consists of the following Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan categories: Rural Residential; Agricultural; Public - Private Open Space; Resource 0 1 01 tl 11 11 I I i I 11 it 45 the Planning Area boundary. As development occurs in these areas, it will be of a very low- density nature and will generally consist of farm dwellings and outbuildings. Watery Quallty Critical Areas Only one Critical Area exists within the Joint Planning Area though others have been designated in Orange County. A Water Quality Critical Area has been established around University Lake, the primary raw water source for Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The Critical Area includes all lands which drain directly to University Lake and to major trunk streams feeding the reservoir. Only low - density residential uses are permitted in this area at densities not to exceed one dwelling per two acres of land. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category is a low- density area consisting of single - family homes situated on large lots two acres in size or greater. The Rural Residential designation is identical to the Rural Buffer category contained in the current Orange County Land Use Plan. The Rural Buffer category is described in the Plan as land adjacent to an Urban or Transition area which is rural in character and which should remain rural; contain very low- density residential uses; and not require urban services (water and sewer) during the Plan period. To the north of Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the New Hope Creek drainage basin, low- density residential development has taken place along Whitfield Road, Sunrise Road and Erwin Road. Residential developments similar to Sedgefield, Stoneridge, Oak Hills, Birchwood Lake Estates and Falls of the New Hope are expected to continue, relying on wells and septic tanks for water supply and sewage disposal. To the west of Carrboro, Rural Residential development is also expected in University Lake Watershed. Adopted County policies prohibit the extension of public water and sewer services into the watershed except in emergency situations. For this reason, residential development will continue to rely on wells and septic tanks. Initially, a two -acre minimum lot size requirement applied in designated Water Quality Critical Area. A one -acre minimum lot size requirement applied in the remainder of the watershed. with the adoption of the Rural Buffer zoning district and its application in the Joint Planning= -'lea, the minimum required lot size became two acres throughout Uniygrsity Lake watershed as well as the rest of the Rural Buffer. The remaining area designated for Rural Residential development is the Southern Triangle area in the extreme southeastern portion of the County. The area drains to the southeast toward Jordan Lake and is beyond the ridge line of the Morgan Creek basin, an area which can be served by gravity sewer lines. The Southern Triangle is also characterized by environmental constraints such as steep slopes, flood plains and soils with poor stability,, so low- density development is projected. 83 46 There are approximately 9,260 acres of land designated for Rural Residential purposes in the Land Use Plan. If developed at an average density of one dwelling unit per two acres with 15% of the area subtracted out for streets and roads, the holding capacity of the area in terms of dwellings is 3,935. If multiplied by the 1980 Census figure for population per household (2.6), the estimated population would be 10,231. Retail Trade Areas No new retail areas have been designated in the Rural Buffer. Any substantial increase in retail acreage is expected to take place in the planning jurisdictions of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The existing activity node at Blackwood Station has been retained, and there is room for modest expansion of low intensity commercial and service uses. The approximate retail acreage at Blackwood Station is 16.1 acres. Extractive Uses This Land Use Plan category, along with Disposal Uses in Transition Areas, has been established to identify sites which pose problems in terms of planning for appropriate land uses. One such site has been identified in the Rural Buffer, the American Stone Quarry west of Carrboro on N.C. Highway 54. 84 economic development plan and contribute to reducing potential economic development patterns. 4'7 related policies would significantly problems resulting from inappropriate A sewer and water extension policy refers to an official or unofficial policy or policies regarding the expansion of centralized sewer and water systems into previously unservlced areas. The presence or absence of water and sewer facilities significantly affects location and intensity of development in a given area. Without the provision of centralized sewage collection and disposal, land can only be developed for rural uses and at rural densities. . The Orange Water and Sewer Authority is the provider of water and sewer in the JPA. OWASA policy is to extend water and sewer in accordance with the adopted policies of the applicable local governments. Current Orange County policy is to approve water and sewer extensions only to recognized transition areas. Suggestions have been made on a refinement of this policy whereby water and sewer extensions be limited to Ten Year Transition Areas for a specified time or until a certain level of development is attained. This would cause urban growth to proceed incrementally and promote the goal of inflll development. The only exception to extensions outside of Transition Areas is the extension of water /sewer lines into protected watersheds to address emergency situations. Development of a capital improvements program and budget is a key implementation tool. it requires integrating both County and municipal plans with recommendations and priorities for programming the fiscal outlay for capital improvements during the plan period. This administrative tool provides decision— makers with guidance mechanisms aimed at coordinating the improvement of the provision of public services and facilities with the private development they are intended to serve. In particular, the provision of water and sewer facilities, roads, schools and parks, among others, should be considered and approved in,light of their development inducing impact on a specific area. A successfv'1. and acceptable planning program necessitates the maximization off- coordination between the Land Use Plan and other official plans and policies and the minimization of "conflicting signals ". The Plan should seek consistency with existing local, regional, state and federal plans and policies. The primary and most effective implementation tool is the acceptance and commitment of the general citizenry to the concept of the planning process and the product evolving from that process: a Land Use VIC, 4S r f T � 1 ORANGE COUNTY 49 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date August 30 1990 Action Agenda Item # C -3 SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT ...as per the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X—Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): * - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE JPA AGREEMENT * - EXISTING JPA AGREEMENT TEXT * - STAFF REPORT (See staff report for Conceptual Guidel_ines..., item one of JPA packet) INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Stancil, Extension 2590 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public input on a proposed amendment to the Joint Plannina Agreement for Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. This amendment is directly related to and contingent upon the previous related items. BACKGROUND: The Rural Character Study Committee's recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer - the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer - would also require an amendment to the Joint Plannina Agreement, adopted in November 1987. The proposed Rural Character strategies are consistent with the doctrine of the Joint Plannina Agreement, and require only a change to the "Definition of the Rural Buffer" which is found in Article I, Section 1.2(g). Specifically, the proposed amendment would add language which refers to the creation of five permitted development options with a range of lot sizes and open space set - asides. Language would also be added to qualify the prohibition on public water and sewer service extension to allow an exception for extensions into a predefined service corridor only for the development of planned "Rural Villages ". No other changes to the Agreement are necessary. Because of this item's inter - relatedness to the previous two items, it may be considered as a part of the same hearing. Thus, no separate hearing on this individual item is needed. This item may be 50 T r � deferred as a part of the consideration process. RECOMMENDATION: The Carrboro Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment as written. The Chapel Hill Planning staff recommends that this item be deferred pending consideration of this and other matters by a proposed Joint Work Group. Orange County Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment as written. z � �1 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO JPA LAND USE PLAN AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT The following are amendments to the Joint Plannincl Area Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement that represent changes reflecting the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, adopted in final form by the Rural Character Study Committee on May 24, 1990. The specific changes to the text of the JPA Plan are shown below in chronological order as they would occur in the plan. These amendments can be categorized as._dealing with one or more of the following three issues: 1) Extension of water and sewer into a defined corridor for planned "Rural Villages ". 2) Development standards for lots in the Rural Buffer. Currently, a minimum lot size of two -acres is required. The proposed standards would retain that standard as one of five permitted development options, adding others that provide for larger lots and /or environmentally - sensitive site design through clustered or planned developments. 3) Creation of "Rural Villages ", with a small -scale commercial core designed to serve the village only. In regard to the Joint Planning Agreement, the strategies are consistent with the provisions of the A reement, requiring only a change to the "Definition of the Rural Buffer" found in Article I, Section 1.2(g). Specifically, this amendment would add language which refers to the creation of five permitted development options with a range of lot sizes and open space set - asides. Language would also be added to qualify the prohibition on public water and sewer service extension to allow an exception for extensions into a predefined service corridor only for the development of planned "Rural Villages ". No other changes to the Agreement are necessary. Where text changes are proposed, the paragraph in question has been provided, with proposed new text shown in boldface. Words or phrases deleted from existing text are indicated by the <DELETE> symbol. Provided as an attachment to this document are the actual pages from the ,joint Planning Area Land Use Plan that would be amended, in their current form. 2 2, PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT adopted November 2, 1987. (Also herein referenced as Appendix A, Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan). ARTICLE I Section 1.2 G (Page 3, "Rural Buffer ") ...This area is further defined as being a low- density area consisting primarily of single - family homes situated on lots having an average lot size of 1.92 acres or greater, or lots within planned developments that provide 40 -80% open space with a density of between 0.5 and 0.84 units per acre. The Rural Buffer is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an Urban or Transition Area, is rural in character and which will remain rural, contain low- density residential uses, and not require urban services (public utilities and other Town services), with exception only in the case of "Rural Village" planned developments as defined in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, which shall be permitted only in a predefined corridor in close proximity to current service areas. END OF AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT J. CY.JDA boundary. Exhibit A is an accurate copy of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as of the effective _ P.. Transition Area. That portion of the Joint Planning Area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map 3 date of this agreement. However, it will only be changed as the Joint Planning Area Land Use Hap is amended if the Map amendments change the location of either the CJDA or the CHJDA. Joint Courtesy Area. F. Review A portion of the northern Rural Buffer Area bounded on the east by I -40 and shown as such on Exhibit A. G. Rural Buffer. That portion of the Joint Planning Area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as designated in the Joint Planning Area Land Use such and Plan as Rural Residential, Agricultural, Public /Private Open Space, Resource Conservation, Extractive /Disposal Use and the overlay district designated water Quality Critical Area. This area is further defined as being a low- density area consisting of single - family homes _ situated on large lots having a minimum size of two (2) acres. The Rural Buffer is further defined as '_and which, although adjacent to an urban or Transition area, is rural in character and which will remain rural, contain lob•- density residential uses and not r *cUl re urban services (public utilities and other town services). _ P.. Transition Area. That portion of the Joint Planning Area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map 3 J �� ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT .� . 306F REVERE ROAD J J HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 e' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE, THE ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO RURAL POSTAL SERVICE ROUTES, AND ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AND PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH „CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Articles 6, 18, 240, 323, and 343, and Chapter 113A, Article 1; Article 20, Sections 20.5 and 20.6, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held at Phillips Junior High School on Estes Drive in Chapel Hill, N.C. on Thursday, August 30, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: STREET NAME CHANGE The public street proposed for a name change is Old N.C. Highway 86 from Interstate Highway 85 to the New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road intersection. The proposed new street name is Old Chapel Hill Drive. The proposal is based on a petiticn received from property owners adjoining the street. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS The postal service routes proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned house and building numbers are as follows: 1. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborough Route 7, Hillsborough, includes an area beginning at Wildwood Subdivision on N.C. Highway 86; then southward to include Stagecoach Run Subdivision, Woods Edge Mobile Home Park, and Acres of New Hope Subdivision at Cheyenne Drive; then crossing westward to Old N.C. Highway 86 (proposed Old Chapel Hill Drive) beginning at the NCDOT Maintenance Complex and extending southward to include Oakdale Drive and ending at Davis Road. 2. Rural Route 3 - Hillsborough Route 3, Hillsborough, begins at Davis Road and extends south on Old N.C. Highway 86 (proposed Old Chapel Hill Drive) to New hope Church 56 Road; then west on Arthur Minnis Road, south on Union Grove Church Road, west on Albert and Dairyland Roads to Orange Grove Road; then south to include Teer Road, returning north on Orange Grove Road and east along Davis Road to the beginning point. Other roads included in part or in their entirety are: Ode Turner Road, Tree Farm Road, Kimbro Road, Borland Road, Rocky Ridge Road, Buckhorn Road, and Dodson's Crossroads North and South. 3. Rural Route 1 Cedar Grove Route 1, Cedar Grove, encompasses an area north along Wilkerson Road from N.C. Highway 57 to the Person County line; then southwest along Hurdle Mills Road, across N.C. Highway 86 North to McDade Store Road, and south along Efland -Cedar Grove Road to Highland Farm Road; then west from Cedar Grove Community along Carr Store Road to Carr Community and eastward along N.C. Highway 49 to the Caswell County line. Roads included in their entirety or portions thereof are: Sawmill Road East and West, Hawkins Road East and West, Ormond Road, Olin Road, Wheeler's Church Road, Caviness Jordan Road, Art Road, Bama Road, Hensley Road, Allison Road, Burton Road, N.C. Highway 86 North, Tom Pope Road, McCullough Road, Oakley Road, Lee's Chapel Road, Governor Scott Road, Mill Creek Road, Lonesome Road, Lib Road, Penecost Road, Allie Mae Road, Doc Corbett'Road, Wade Loop, and Wade's Dead End. VONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas are as follows: 1. Z -4 -90 Dorothy C. Bane The property in question is located on the south side of U.S. Highway 70 approximately 750 feet west of Mount Herman Church Road (S.R. 1713). It is known as part of lot 35, Tax Map 26 of Eno Township. The proposed zoning lot contains 2.00 acres and is part of a larger 260.75 acre tract. The current zoning of the property is R -1 Rural Residential. The proposed zoning is I -1 Light Industrial. The property is part of an area designated on the Land Use Plan as a Commercial - Industrial Activity Node. 2. PD -3 -90 Carolina Friends School A planned development is proposed on property located on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road (S.R. 1718) and west of Carolina Friends School Road (S.R. 1719). The property contains 32.94 acres, specifically described as lot numbers 20A, 20B, and 26A of Tax Map 7 in Chapel Hill Township. The property is currently zoned RB - Rural Buffer. The proposed zoning classification is PD -RB Planned Development - Rural Buffer. The proposed planned development is not a new facility but represents the expansion of an existing private school. Approval of a planned development application and Class A Special Use Permit is required, because school expansion is proposed, and wastewater disposal T is provided by a ground absorption system with a design capacity of more than 3,000 gallons per day. A permit for the operation of the disposal system has been approved by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are as follows: 1. Amend ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS to provide a definition of arts and crafts studios. 2. Amend ARTICLE 4.3 TABLE OF PERMITTED USES to allow arts and crafts studios as a use -by -right in commercial zoning districts. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT The proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations are as follows: 1. Amend SECTION IV -B -1 LOT STANDARDS to reflect the minimum lot sizes needed to accommodate various types of wastewater disposal and water supply facilities. 2. Amend SECTION III -C -2 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (MINOR SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT) to require the submission of eight (8) blueprint copies of a final plat instead of five (5) for distribution to review agencies. PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Private Road Standards are as follows: 1. Eliminate the requirement that Class A private roads for minor subdivisions be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Provide standards for determining the number of lots served by a private road when lots are occupied by an efficiency apartment, a duplex, or a home occupation. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning & Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also call 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), 688 -7331 (Durham) or 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill- Carrboro). Please ask for Extension 2585 or 2575. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: August 15, 1990 August 22, 1990 FILE: 8- 30AD.DOC L \ v J� O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 30, 1990 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: PD -3 -90 CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Application Extension 2580 Vicinity Map Site Plan Agency Comments DEM Spray Irrigation Permit TELEPHONE NUMBERS: System Flow Data Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Findings of Fact Durham - 688 -7331 Certificate of Mailing Mebane - 227 -2031 Draft Class A Special Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 Use Permit PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on on a proposed application for a Planned Development - Class A Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School. BACKGROUND: Carolina Friends School is an existing private school located on the north side of Mt. Sinai. Road (SR 1718) and west of Friends School Road (SR 1719) in northern Chapel Hill Township. The property contains 32.94 acres and is currently zoned Rural Buffer. It is also designated Rural Buffer on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The proposed zoning classification is PD -RB, Planned Development - Rural Buffer. Article 6.20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits in the AR and Rural Buffer districts large ground absorption systems for sanitary sewage disposal with a design capacity of 3000 gallons per day or more except as approved through a Special Use Permit or a Planned Development district. The existing sewage disposal system used by Carolina Friends School consists of a bU K package treatment plant, storage lagoon and spray irrigation system permitted by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management in 1978 and 1987 for a design capacity of 4000 gallons per day. Records have been submitted by the applicant which indicate that the actual daily flow of the system does not exceed 3000 gallons per day. Due to increased enrollment, the school has requested approval to expand the school facility by adding a modular classroom for twenty -five students. The sewage disposal system will not have to be upgraded to accom- modate the additional students. However, a Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development is necessary to allow expansion of the school facility since the design capacity of the system already exceeds that allowed according to Article 6.20.1. The attached Staff findings show that the application for rezoning and a Class A Special Use Permit meets all ordinance requirements for approval with conditions. In addition, the Board of Commissioners must make findings on the following general conditions before approving the application for Special Use: (1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; (2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; (3) The use is in compliance with the general plan fo the physical development of the County as embodie in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of Count Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the applica- tion for rezoning from Rural Buffer to Planned Development -Rural Buffer and the Class A Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School with the following conditions: 1. The sewage disposal system must at all times be operated and maintained according the standards N 4 61 3 and conditions set forth by the NC Division of Environmental Management in Permit WQ0002161 and as may be amended in the future. 2. If existing vegetation is not sufficient, provide and maintain screening along the eastern boundary line to screen parking areas and dumpsters. 3. Provide a legal description of the property to which the Special Use Permit will apply. 4. Revise the table of figures on the site plan to comply with Article 5.1.2. 5. With applications for building permits, provide documentation of how the proposed construction will access the existing sewage disposal system as well as estimates for any increase in daily flow through the system. Each application which will create additional demand on the system must be accompanied by an approval letter from the Division of Environmental Management. All sup- plementary information will be submitted to the County Engineer for review to determine that the system demand does not exceed 4000 gallons per day. No building permits will be approved for additions /renovations which would increase sewage discharge over 4000 gallons per day without approval from DEM and a revision to the Special Use Permit. 6. The final site plan and supporting documenta- tion for the project, incorporating all changes, deletions, and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and supporting documen- documentation are to remain on file in the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Any applicable permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 7. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and attachments 62 = to supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. 8. If any of the above conditions is held invalid, the Special Use Permit shall become null and void. •F 63 J� -i060 (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88 APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATER /__6_/_i0_ APPLICATION NUMBER: PD- I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article 2c). of the Orange Co�nty Zoning Ordinance for �ardl,17o- Fr/enol5 � nni D The following information-is provided in support of this request: A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street Address or Location:__ 4190 9 54006 ;D %�U,ef/f��f XleC .227%05 Orange County Tax Map Z Block Lot(s)ZA o,We2g�4TownshipCjjhe*,c, atl;L Zoning District(s): 2U1?L,4t -_ �L) FEfL Lot /Parcel Size: acres or square feet Number of Existing Buildings: _Gross Floor Area: square feet Number of Proposed Buildings: / Gross Floor Area: 1.200 square feet Water Supply: ell Public (Specify) Community Individual Wastewater Disposal: 4ZW6PD RAWrPublic (Specify) Community Individual School District: . Fire District: ENO 1/010M7 'E,ly, General Land Uses in Area: (37 ,_P Critical Areas: -Ptytd rkM Stream /Drainageway Flood Prone Area Watershed (Specify) Historic Site Other (Explain) B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: Twenty -six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the following information: t� North point, scale, and date. �— Extent of area to be developed. Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to the site. ✓ Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site. ✓ Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. ✓ Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. NA fiExisting topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum. ✓ Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage areas. Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access. (PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. ✓ Two (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) copy with the property in question clearly marked. ✓ The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and /or applicant(s), and the names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. �aS Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. fk Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating: /1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed wastewater treatment system for-- roperty. 22 Method and adequacy of ppWce; fi�re,Tand re ie squad protection. `3. Method and adequacy of vehicular "access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our) responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony, exhibits, documents,. models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the Class A Special Use Permit. a_P ICANT SIGNATURES) /8 / /U / ?z) DATE NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s), please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request. rrrtrr *r.rrtrrrr. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*• rrrr• r* rrrrrrrr .rrrrrrrrrw ■•rr..rrrrr *rrrrrr FEES: Amount S _ 52r• 0D Date Paid: _L_1 _LQ_/ 90 Receipt JB�� 1. ® some m ..w — Q �/Ie a w 1 • ��, •�' �Fmc;M 1 Q qK•'�� 1 son \ \\ A NOT � • 1 w ; I • LN O 1 1 • i O ® 1 T Nam& - ago- ~~ less s. 1 IL ` was �I w 1 00 MIC to qmL r"49 40 at do CAe-OL-IA.JA O EXIS- rlkjg ZOAJ1 1q" CO241— PUFFED * •» �' ~~ j1• FPZF05Ep: PLANtitEp pEVF ..Opt4MAL " CZUV-di_ $UFFElZ. A/ o ° »ar l l a'i M U q ac - HUDAK 1 WAS O •� + i p O .. � ,•� psi GAM �. 1� a•c ® we s r AND a AMA 1 291* a*SOL .n i r • aK w GAP � 1 aaa� wart 1/411 Ow a .� p O a. o e MIA At AMV O e) 1 i • -I r 1 R1•» ��• w . • r r 1 e e 1 •r 04C r r� ' 1 e Carolina Friends School s Eb Route 1, Box 183 I Friends School Road 1 Durham, NC 27705 I (919) 383 -6602 1 (919) 929 -1800 August 9, 1990 Mary Scearbo Orange County Planning Department P. 0. Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mary Scearbo, As Chair of the Board of Directors of Carolina Friends School and as President of the Corporation, I hereby submit to the Orange County Planning Committee this request for a "Special Use Permit" for one modular classroom. The addition of this unit will greatly enhance our Lower School program and enable us better to serve the children of this area. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Martha S. Klopfer, Chair Carolina Friends School Board of Directors a Ei r Carolina Friends School Rout< 1. HI,.r 183 / Friends Schr,nl Read Durham- Vr 277(); f 9191 1A3 -660? 9M 919- 18()() August 1, 1990 To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter to give information about our outflow of wastewater at the Carolina Friends School. It is my understanding that if our outflow is less than 3000 gallons a day then we do not need a "Special Use Permit." Clearly, looking at the date my highest .outflow was bewtween 3/12/90 and 3113/90. On that day I recorded an outflow of 2300 gallons. With 395 people on the campus that works out to 58 gallons a day. Our request for an additional twenty five students would add an additional 146 gallons to our outflow. That would make the highest outflow of 2446. I hope that this letter helps to clarify the data and support our contenton that a Special Use Permit is not needed. I sincerely hope that this problem will be brought to an immediate resolution. Sincerely, /Jclhn,McGovern Assistant Principal Carolina Friends School Route 1, Box 183'1 Friends School Road I Durham, NC 27705 1 (919) 383 -6602 I (919) 929.1800 August 10, 1990 Mary Scearbo Orange County Planning Department P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mary Scearbo, Having reviewed the impact of the additional children on the traffic situation at the Carolina Friends School, I have concluded that the additional traffic will be minimal. We anticipate an additional ten to fifteen cars daily. There would be a need for two additional staff parking spaces. We have ample spare parking now (25 spaces). The increased traffic load would put the cars using the facility daily at about 100. Sincerely, 10�'41AIII� /John McGovern Assistant Principal r1 F OFFICE PHONE HILLSBOROUGH 732 -2431 CHAPEL HILL 942 -6300 TO: FROM: DATE: REF: LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT LINDY PENDERGRASS, SHERIFF AUGUST 8, 1990 n° Io C D 0 Lr� RES- PHONE 929 -5.535 ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CAN PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR THE ADDITIONAL MODULAR CLASSROOM ADDED TO THE EXISTING FACILITY AT CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL LOCATED ON FRIENDS SCHOOL ROAD, DURHAM. THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL OR EQUIPMENT TO PROVIDE ROUTINE SERVICE. LP /jc CC: JOHN MCGOVERN ORANGE COUNTY ' u HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA D D 27278 $ ` 13` VO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Communications P.O. Box 8181 Emergency Medical Ser 929 -8109 Fire Marshal 732 -8161 MEMORANDUM T0: MARY SCEARBO ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX $181 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 FROM: ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES P.O. BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 RE: FIRE AND RESCUE DATE: AUGUST 9; 1990 In response to your request, Orange County Emergency Medical Services and Eno Fire Department will continue to provide emergency medical and fire service for Carolina Friends School. Should you need any further informtion, please call us at 929 -8109 or 732 - -8161. ces TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 August 20, 1990 Ms. Emily Crudup, ASLA Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Lr L �g.z� -90 �l Telephone (919) 968 -2700 Re: Courtesy review of development application in the Rural Buffer Dear Ms. Crudup: Thank you for providing an opportunity for the Chapel Hill Planning Department to review and comment on the Carolina Friends School's development application for a modular classroom. We have no comments at this time. Sincerely, V V Dan Moseley Planner cc: J.B. Culpepper, Development Coordinator Ca State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Raleigh Regional Office James G. Martin, Governor William W. Cobey, Jr.. Secretary DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT May 30, 1990 Mr. John McGovern, Assistant Principal Carolina Friends School Route 1, Box 183 Durham, NC 27705 Subject: Re- Inspection Carolina Friends School Spray Irrigation System Permit # WQ0002161 Orange County Dear Mr. McGovern: As per your request Mr. Robert Harding of the Raleigh Regional Office re- inspected the subject facility on May 22, 1990. At the time of the re- inspection it was noted that the noncompliant items indicated on previous inspection reports had been corrected and the system appeared to be functioning properly. As a result of this inspection your request for an- increase of the student population is approved. However, you must understand that for any system to function properly the system must receive proper maintenance, and we trust on our next inspection we will not find the school's disposal system in a noncompliant status. If you should have any questions please contact Mr. Harding at (919) 733 - 2314.-' AM: RH:bas Sincerely, c� t:�;7 A thur �Mouberr' y, P.E. Regional Supervisor $00 Barrett Drive. Suite 101 • Raleish, N.C. 27609 Telephone (919) 733 -2314 a FAX Number (919) 733 -7072 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer T. Y 0713 State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Raleigh Regional Office James G. Martin, Governor William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT July 25, 1990 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning 306 F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Carolina Friends School WQ0002161 Orange County Dear Mr. Kirk: Per your request of July 25, 1990 enclosed are: - Copy of permit WQ0002161 - Letter of flow increase from John McGovern - water use data - Division guideline on estimated water use As per my May 30, 1990 letter, which you have a copy of, the Division has reviewed the request and has given our permission for the increase in the student population. Based on the data presented we feel comfortable that the requested increase in the student population will not result in an exceedance of the 4000 gpd flow limit in the permit. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Arthur Mouberry, P.E. Regional Supervisor AM: bas cc: John McGovern 38W Barrett Drive, Suite 101 • Raleigh, N.0 27609 Telephone (919) 733 -2314 • FAX Number (919) 733 -7072 An Equal oppotunity AffimratiV a Action Employer Carolina Friends School 74 Route 1, Boa 183 / Friends School Road I Durham. NC 27705 i (919) 383 -6002 ' ;911) )29-1900 April 4, 1990 Arthur Mouberry Division of Environmental Management Raleigh Regional Offices P. 0. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Dear Mr. Mouberry, 'v 0 I am writing this letter to ask for approval of a flow reduction. At present our wastewater treatment facility is designed to meet a daily flow of 4000 gallons. It appears through our metering of water coming into our system and water leaving our treatment facility that our daily water usage is approximately 2000 gallons a day. In light of these figures, I am requesting that the Caroli Friends School be allowed to increase our student population by approximately twenty -five students for the 1990 -91 school year. With this increase our total population at our main Friends School Road Campus, would be no more than 425. At present, the population at the main campus is about 395. I will continue monitoring the water usage at the school f an entire school year. At the conclusion of a complete year of monitoring, I would like to set a permanent level for our schoo with the existing treatment facilities. It would seem possible that with a year of data, we could set a new daily usage for th Carolina Friends School. Please find enclosed a copy of the data that I have compile this year. If you have any questions please call me at 383-6602 We will be closed for Spring vacation the week of April 9. We will reopen on Tuesday, April 17. 1 will attempt to contact you on that date. Sincerely, John McGovern Assistant Principal Enclosure IV� J LLyu L r L J Gll I Carolina Friends School 75 Roue 1, Roe 183 /Friends School Road ( 1]uriiam, NC 2770 ; . 919. 383 -6602 1 ;9191 4_7 -1800 lao � „�L( f /iY,YZ <SrYI�L� -Cl /�C /v �¢ LlJ�Lf. (a�%%�iY ,rrr� air ��oyQ�mc: /V c. /C/ `/G 1.('h�datfs - ccaA.� 7S1/60 94&Yxo (6 NRCD - E-A'VIRO,' AfEAITAL MANAGEMENT T15: 02H .0200 Offices — per shift 25 gal /person Residential Care Facilities 60 gal /person Resort 200 gal /room Restaurants 40 gal /seat or 40 gal /15 ft2 of dining area (whichever is greater) Schools Day Schools With cafeteria, gym, and showers 15 gal /student With cafeteria only 12 gal /student With neither cafeteria nor showers 10 gal /student Boarding 60 gal /person Service Stations 250 gal /water closet or urinal Stadiums, Auditoriums, Theaters, Drive —ins 5 gal /seat or space Stores, shopping centers and malls — Note: if food service is included, add, 40 gal /seat 120 gal /1000 ftz Swimming Pools and Bathhouses 10 gal /person (3) An adjusted daily sewage flow may be granted upon a showing that a sewage system is adequate to meet actual daily water consumption from a facility included in Subparagraph (1) or (2) of this Paragraph. Documented, representative data from that facility or a comparable facility shall be submitted, consisting of at least 12 consecutive monthly total water consumption readings and daily total water consumption readings for at least 30 consecutive days of water use. The daily readings shall be taken during a projected peak sewage flow month. The adjusted design daily sewage flow shall be determined by taking the numerical average of the daily readings that fall within the upper 10 percent of the daily readings when ranked in descending order. (m) Additional requirements: (1) distance between water supply wells and waste facilities in accordance with Rule 2C .0107(a) of this Chapter or, if a greater area may be impacted, a distance in accordance with the perimeter of compliance described in Rule 2L .0103(h) of this Chapter; (2) compliance with the groundwater standards specified in Subchapter 21, of this Chapter; (3) where applicable compliance with rules on "coastal waste treatment disposal" found in Section .0400 of this Subchapter; and (4) For subsurface disposal systems, compliance with rules on subsurface disposal systems found in Section .0300 of this Subchapter. (n) Alternative Design Criteria may be approved by the director. This approval will only be given in cases where the applicant can demonstrate that the Alternative Design Criteria will provide the fol- lowing: (1) Equal or better treatment of the waste; and (2) Equal or better protection of the waters of the state; and (3) No increased potential for nuisance conditions. History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 143- 215.1; 143- 215.3(a)(/); Eff. October 1, 1987; Amended Eff. August 1, 1988. .0220 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION Prior to the operation of any sewer system, treatment works or disposal system permitted in accord- ance with this Section, a certification must be received by the permitting agency from a professional engineer certifying that the sewer system, treatment works or disposal system has been installed in ac- cordance with the approved plans and specifications. For facilities with phased construction or where there is a need to operate certain equipment under actual operating conditions prior to certification, additional certification may be needed as follow -ups to the initial, pre - operation, certification. NOR 771 CAROLINA AD. INISTRA77VE CODE 02122189 pagc 21 State of North Carolina J�' ,ern '99 Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary September 28, 1989 Mr. John McGovern, Asst. Principal Carolina Friends School Route 1, Box 183 Durham, NC 27705 R. Paul Wilms Director Subject: Permit No. WQ0002161 Carolina Friends School Wastewater Treatment Facilities Spray Irrigation Orange County Dear Mr. McGovern: In accordance with your application received on July 31, 1989, we are forwarding herewith Permit No. WQ0002161, dated September 28, 1989, to Carolina Friends School for the construction and operation of the subject wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until September 30, 1992, shall supersede Permit No. 15154, which was issued on September 21, 1987, and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. This permit modification includes the addition of a septic tank, pump station, and force main to serve a bathroom in the proposed wood shop. If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit modification are unacceptable to you, you have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within 30 days following receipt of this permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 11666, Raleigh, NC 27604. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding. Pollurion Preveruion Pays P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 -7687 Telephone 919- 733 -7015 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer !b One set of approved plans and specifications is being forwarded to you. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Randy Jones at 919/ 733 -5083. Sincere , /l__R. Paul Wilms cc: Orange County Health Department Raleigh Regional Office Philip Post & Associates John Campbell Groundwater Section NORTH CAROLINA i , ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES RALEIGH SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM PERMIT In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO Carolina Friends School Orange County 0610-01A construction and operation of a 4000 GPD non - discharge type wastewater treatment and disposal system consisting of an existing 4000 GPD wastewater treatment plant, a 66 GPM pump station with dual pumps and high water alarm, two -2000 gallon capacity pump tanks, a tablet chlorinator, approximately 800 feet of 2.5 inch force main, a 55,903 gallon capacity storage lagoon, a 90 GPM pump station with one pump and high water alarm, a 600 gallon baffled septic tank, a 40 GPM pump station, approximately 130 linear feet of 2 -inch force main, a 34,636 square feet irrigation field, and all associated valves, piping and appurtenances to serve Carolina Friends School, pursuant to the modification request received on July 31, 1989, and in conformity with the project plan, specifications, and other supporting data subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and considered a part of this permit. This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until September 30, 1992, shall supersede Permit No. 15154, which was issued on September 21, 1987, and shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification must be received from a professional engineer certifying that the permitted facility has been installed in accordance with this permit and the approved plans and specifications. Mail the Certification to the Permits and Engineering Unit, P.Q. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611. 2. The Raleigh Regional Office, phone no. 919/733 -2314, shall be notified at least forty -eight (48) hours in advance of operation of the installed facility modification so that an in -place inspection can be made. Such notification to the regional supervisor shall be made during the normal office hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding State Holidays. The spray irrigation facilities shall be effectively maintained and operated at all rimes so 3U 3. The spray irrigation facilities shall be effectively maintained and operated at all times so that there is no discharge to the surface waters, nor any contamination of ground waters which will render them unsatisfactory for normal use. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of nuisance conditions or failure of the irrigation area to adequately absorb the wastewater, the Permittee shall take such immediate corrective action to correct the problem, including actions as may be required by the Division of Environmental Management. 4. The issuance of this permit shall not relieve the Permittee of the responsibility for damages to surface or groundwaters resulting from the operation of this facility. 5. The sludge generated from these treatment facilities must be disposed of in accordance with General Statute 143 -215.1 and in a manner approved by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 6. Diversion or bypassing of the untreated wastewater from the treatment facilities is prohibited. 7. The following buffers shall be maintained: a) 400 feet between wetted area and any residence under separate ownership, b) 150 feet between wetted area and property lines, c) 100 feet between wetted area and wells, d) 100 feet between wetted area and drainageways or surface water bodies, e) 50 feet between wetted area and public right of ways, f) 100 feet between wastewater treatment units and wells, g) 50 feet between wastewater treatment units and property lines. 8. A leakage test shall be performed on the newly installed septic tank and dosing tank to insure that any exfiltration occurs at a rate which does not exceed twenty (20) gallons per twenty -four (24) hour per 1,000 gallons of tank capacity. The engineer's certification will serve as proof of compliance with this condition. II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REOUIREMENTSi 1. The facilities shall be properly. maintained and operated at all times. 2. The Permittee shall employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator to be in responsible charge of the wastewater treatment facilities. The operator must hold a certificate of the grade at least equivalent to the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment facilities by the Certification Commission. Within thirty days after the wastewater treatment facilities are 50% complete, the Permittee must submit a letter to the Certification Commission which designates the operator in responsible charge. 3. A suitable vegetative cover shall be maintained. 4. Irrigation shall not be performed during inclement weather or when the ground is in condition that will cause runoff. 5. Adequate measures shall be taken to prevent wastewater runoff from the spray field. 6. The facilities shall be effectively maintained and operated as a non - discharge system prevent the discharge of any wastewater resulting from the operation of this facility. 4 7 . The application rate shall not exceed: a) 52 inches per year and b) 0.25 inches per hour. 8. No type of wastewater other than that from Carolina Friends School shall be sprayed onto the irrigation area. 9. No traffic or equipment shall be allowed on the disposal area except while installation occurs or while normal maintenance is being performed. 10. Public access to the land application sites shall be controlled during active site use and for the 12 -month period following the land application event. Such controls must include the posting of signs showing the activities being conducted at each site (including the storage lagoon). III. MONITQRIMG AND REP RTIN RE IREMENT 1. Any monitoring (including groundwater, surface water, soil or plant tissue analyses) deemed necessary by the Division of Environmental Management to insure surface and ground water protection will be established and an acceptable sampling reporting schedule shall be followed. 2. Adequate records shall be maintained by the Permittee tracking the amount of wastewater disposed. These records shall include, but are not necessarily limited to the following information: a) date of irrigation, b) volume of wastewater irrigated, c) field irrigated, d) length of time field is irrigated, e) continuous weekly, monthly, and year -to -date hydraulic (inches /acre) loadings for each field, f) weather conditions, and g) maintenance of cover crops. 3. Three copies of all operation and disposal records (as specified in condition III 2) and any other data as may be required shall be submitted annually on or before January 31 of the following year to the following address: NC Division of Environmental Management Water Quality Section Facility Assessment Unit PO Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611 -7687 4. Noncompliance Notification: The Permittee shall report by telephone to the Raleigh Regional Office, telephone no. 919/733 -2314, as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next working day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of any of the following: Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility incapable of adequate wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures Of pumps. 3 S2 b. Any failure of a pumping station, seNver line, or treatment facility resulting in a by -pass directly to receiving waters without treatment of all or any portion of the influent to such station or facility. Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report in letter form within 15 days following first knowledge of the occurrence. This report must outline the actions taken or proposed to be taken to ensure that the problem does not recur. IV. GROjJNDWATER REQ1111REMENTS Any groundwater quality monitoring as deemed necessary by the Division of Environmental Management shall be provided. 2. It was required in the originally issued permit that prior to beginning wastewater disposal operations, two (2) monitor wells, one (1) upgradient and one (1) downgradient, must be installed to monitor groundwater quality. The location and construction details for these wells must be approved by the Raleigh Regional Office, from which a well construction permit must be obtained. 3. The monitor wells must be sampled initially after construction (and prior to waste disposal operations) and thereafter every March, July and November for the following parameters: Nitrate pH Total Ammonia Total Organic Carbon Total Dissolved Solids Chloride Water Levels Total Organic Halides (in November only) Total Coliforms The measurement of water level must be made prior to sampling for the remaining parameters. The analytical methods used for Total Organic Halides must be capable of detecting the total of all halogenated organic compounds present at a concentration of 5.0 parts per billion (ppb) or greater. Any individual halogenated organic compound present at a concentration equal to or above the method detection limit (MDL) must be identified, quantified, and reported with sampling results. The results of the sampling and analysis shall be sent to the N.C. Division of Environmental Management on Form GW -59 ( Compliance Monitoring Report Form ) . V. INSPECTIONS Adequate inspection, maintenance, and cleaning shall be provided by the Permittee to insure proper operation of the subject facilities. 2. The Permittee or his designee shall inspect the wastewater treatment and disposal facilities to prevent malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors and discharges which may cause or lead to the release of wastes to the environment, a threat to human health, or a nuisance. The Permittee shall keep an inspection log or summary including at least • S3 the date and time of inspection, observations made, and any maintenance, repairs, or corrective actions taken by the Permittee. This log of inspections shall be maintained by the Permittee for a period of three years from the date of the inspection and shall be made available upon request to the Division of Environmental Management or other permitting authority. Any duly authorized officer, employee, or representative of the Division of Environmental Management may, upon presentation of credentials, enter and inspect any property, premises or place on or related to the disposal site and facility at any reasonable time for the purpose of determining compliance with this permit; may inspect or copy any records that must be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; or may obtain samples of groundwater, surface water, or leachate. VI. GENERAL NDITI N This permit shall become voidable unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with the conditions of this permit, the approved plans, specifications, and other supporting data. 2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of wastes described in the application and other supporting data. 3. This permit is not transferable. In the event there is a desire for the facilities to change ownership, or there is a name change of the Permittee, a formal permit request must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Management accompanied by an application fee, documentation from the parties involved, and other supporting materials as may be appropriate. The approval of this request will be considered on its merits and may or may not be approved. 4. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may subject the Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of Environmental Management in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143 - 215.6. 5. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by other government agencies (local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction. 6. Prior to any transfer of this land, a notice shall be given to the new owner that gives full details of the materials applied at this site. 7. A set of approved plans and specifications for the subject project must be retained by the Permittee for the life of the project. The annual administering and compliance fee must be paid by the Permittee within thirty days after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee accordingly may cause the Division to initiate action to revoke this permit as specified by 15 NCAC 2H .0205 (c)(4). 9. The Permittee, at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of this permit, shall request its extension. Upon receipt of the request, the Commission will review the adequacy of the facilities described therein, and if warranted, will extend the permit for such period of time and under such conditions and limitations as it may deem appropriate. 0 � i, S4 Permit issued this the 28th day of September, 1989 NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION .� R. Paul Wilms, Director Division of Environmental Management` i, By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission G` [:9 1 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT J PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: PD -3 -90 CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses as well as those set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 8.8. These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article 7 standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4). (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements). Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its deliberations. ARTICLES 886 AND 8_8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS 8.6- Application submitted on _x—Yes No Submittal includes application forms, —Yes No forms providing full and accurate description of proposed use, including Location, appearance and operational characteristics 8.8 a) -Seven (7) copies of the _x—Yes No site plan prepared by a registered N.C. land surveyor or engineer containing: 1. North point, scale and date _x —Yes No 2. Extent of area to be _x—Yes No developed 3. Location and width of all _x —Yes No easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to the site 4. Location of all existing or _x_. Yes No proposed structures on the site site plan and supporting documentation on the sewage disposal system. 26 copies of the site plan were provided by Philip Post and Associates. Shown on the site plan. Site plan indicates extent of area to be developed. The rights -of -way of Mt. Sinai Road and Friends School Road and required drainage easements are shown on the site plan. All structures are shown. 5. Location of all areas on the _x —Yes No The area south of the pond is not site subject to flood hazard detailed on the Flood Insurance Rate or inundation as shown on Maps. The orange County Soil Survey flood maps or soil maps does not indicate soils subject to ILooding in this area. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ARTICLES 8,.6 AND 888 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) PLANNING STAFF Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS 6. Location of all water courses lx —Yes No on the site, including the direction of flow 7. Existing topography at a _N /A Yes No contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum S. Proposed or existing fencing, ,_x_Yes No screening, gates, parking, service and storage areas 9. Access to site including Yes _x —No sight distances on all roads used for access 10. Elevations of all structures _N /A Yes No proposed to be used in the development 11. Names and addresses of „x—Yes No owners and applicants 12. A fee, as set by the Board —x—Yes No of county commissioners Sight distances are not shown on the plan, Yes No but an on -site inspection proved the sight distance at the entrance on Friends School Road is adequate. An elevation of the proposed modular Yes No classroom is not critical to the request by Carolina Friends School. Provided with application. Yes No $525.00 application fee paid on 8/10/90. Yes PLANNING BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS All intermittent streams and direction Yes No of flows are provided. A pond is also shown on neighboring property. Topography is not provided. All features Yes No shown on the site plan are existing with the exception of a future classroom, utility shed, and the proposed modular classroom which will not require significant grading. Existing parking and service areas are Yes No indicated on the plan. Sight distances are not shown on the plan, Yes No but an on -site inspection proved the sight distance at the entrance on Friends School Road is adequate. An elevation of the proposed modular Yes No classroom is not critical to the request by Carolina Friends School. Provided with application. Yes No $525.00 application fee paid on 8/10/90. Yes S7 ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS /ALL SPECIAL USES ( "Yes" indicates comoliancei "No" indicates non - compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of —x—Yes No provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service b) Method and adequacy of police, _x_Yes No fire and rescue squad protection c) Method and adequacy of vehicle _x —Yes No access to the site and traffic conditions around the site 3 Applicant has provided copies of permits Yes No from the N.C. Division of Environmental Management as well as actual daily flow data for the existing sewage disposal system. The system includes a package treatment plant, storage lagoon and spray irrigation system with a design capacity of 4,000 gallons per day. The system's actual flow does not exceed 3,000 gpd. Dumpsters are shown for solid waste disposal, and a water tower for water supply. Letters from the Orange County Sheriff, Yes No Emergency Services, and Eno Fire Department were provided with the application. All agencies will be able to provide services to Carolina Friends SchooL. The school has access to Friends School Yes No Road (SR 1719). A statement has been provided with the application which indicates that the proposed addition will not significantly increase traffic to the site. Jb '4 ARTICLE 8.8.23 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 - Planned Developments ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non- compliance) PLANNING STAFF Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS Article 7.4 indicates the application must first comply with aLL requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2 s) Map showing affected Rx_Yes No property at scale of not less than 1" =100' nor more than 1 " =20' 20.3.2 b) Legal description of Yes —x—No property 20.3.2 c) ExpLanation of aLLeged Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if _x—Yes No any, which make amendment reasonably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare 20.3.2 e) Manner in which —x—Yes Ne proposed amendment will carry out purpose and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Site plan provided at a scale of 1" =100' No legal description was provided. (Condition #3) N/A - No error alleged. Increased enrollment created a need for additional classroom space. Expansion of the school facility required a Planned Development Special Use Permit. Goal Fourteen of the Comprehensive Plan caLLs for "Full and equal educational opportunities for the residents of Orange County consistent with ... the needs of the County residents." The applicant has requested the rezoning to PD-RB in response to a need created by increased enrollment at the school. PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No r ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS -(Continued) PLANNING STAFF Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development _ Rural Buffer designation. The criteria for the Rural Buffer district are set forth in Article 4.2.1 and are as follows: a) Designated by the adopted _x—Yes No countywide Land use Plan as Rural Buffer or by the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as RuraL Residential or both. b) Urban services, including _x—Yes No water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10 -20 years c) Yes No d) Yes No The property is designated as Rural Buffer on the County Land Use Plan and Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Orange County water and Sewer Policy prohibits the extension Of water and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer except to address public health emergencies or for public facilities. Under those exceptions, water and /or sewer lines are sized to serve only the purposes for which they are extended. 5 S9 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No e) Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 7 _ SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING STAFF Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Article 7.4 then indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Developments. These include: 7.4.1 So located with respect to —x—Yes No Access is provided via a private drive major streets and mass transit off of Friends School Road (SR 1719). facilities and designed so as not No minor residentiaL streets will be to create 'traffic on minor streets affected by this project as proposed. in residential districts 7.4.2 So located with respect to —x—Yes No The proposed development will not have water, sewer and storm drainage access to public water, sewer or storm facilities that enlargement or drainage facilities; therefore, no extension will not result in higher net public cost will result. higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost and So located with respect to police fire and rescue services, and schools and parks so as to have access in the same manner as permitted under the existing zoning r, 9U 6 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No —x—Yes No Letters regarding adequate service Yes No provision have been received from the Sheriff's Department, and fire, and rescue services. 7.4.3 Site suitable for —x —Yes No The area south of the pond is not Yes No development without hazard detailed on the Flood Insurance Rate from flooding, erosion, and soil Maps. The orange County Soil Survey subsidence or slipping does not indicate soils subject to flooding in this area. Slopes adjacent to the drainageways average 10% gradient. ARTICLE 7 _ SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING STAFF Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Article 7.14.3 sets forth "site planning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external relationships" are as follows: a) 1. Access points provided to _x —Yes No encourage smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Use of minor streets by substantial traffic is discouraged. a) 2. Safe and convenient routes _X—Yes No provided for pedestrians and motorcyclists. Crossings safely marked, located and controlled. a) 3. Visibility provided at N /A-Yes No intersections (pedestrian and vehicular) in accordance with Article 6.8. a) 4. 100 -foot open space provided N /A_Yes along perimeter of PD -II district. Recreational use and off- street parking set back at least 75 feet of district boundary. a) 5. Yards, fences, walks or _x —Yes vegetation provided to screen off undesirable views, lighting, noise, etc. Parking /loading areas and refuse collection/ storage areas screened. Access will be provided via a private drive to State Road 1719, Friends School Road. No minor streets will be affected by this development. Since there is no through traffic, vehicle speeds are slow, allowing for safe pedestrian circulation. Most of the existing structures /facilities are Located on the west side of the entrance drive which minimizes pedestrian crossings. There are no internal intersections. Sight distance is adequate at Friends School Road. No N/A - 100 foot open space not required. Schools are permitted in all residential districts. No new parking is proposed. Existing parking areas are at least 25 feet off lot boundaries. No a) 6. Maximum building height _,x —Yes No complies with standards set forth in Article 6.12.3 and Article 5.1.1 a) 7. Signs to be erected in _x—Yes No accordance with Article 9. Most of the parking is screened by existing vegetation. (Condition #2) N/A - Maximum building height in Ra district is 25 feet. The height of the modular classroom is fifteen feet. The existing sign meets the requirements contained in Article 9. 91 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS 7 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 92 ARTICLE 7 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD ordinance RR uirements. FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Standards regarding "internal relationships" are as follows: b) 1. Streets, drives and parking _x_Yes areas provide safe and convenient access for dwellings and emergency vehicles, and do not create smaLL block sizes. b) 2. Vehicular access controlled as follows: No a) Streets serving 50 or _x—Yes No Less dwellings provide direct access to parking /service areas. b) Streets serving greater N/A Yes than 50 dwellings provide access to parking areas so located, designed and controlled as to channel traffic without interruption. The existing drive is sufficient to provide access for emergency vehicles. The existing entrance drive provides access to parking /service areas. No Not applicable. b) 3. Walkways form safe, ,x—Yes No convenient system of access to dwellings, facilities and off -site designations. Maximum walking distance between dwellings and parking; delivery and refuse collection areas does not exceed 100 feet. Walkways used as play ^x —Yes areas or school routes by children located and designed to minimize contact with vehicular traffic. Crossings appropriately marked and safeguarded. b) 4. Protection of visibility - See 03. and 03. above. No system of walkways is shown. The maximum distance between a school building and parking is approximately 75 feet. I 'B Yes Ni Yes N Yes P Yes No Since there is no through traffic, Yes vehicle speeds are slow, allowing for safe pedestrian circulation. Most of the existing structures /facilities are Located on the west side of the entrance drive which minimizes pedestrian crossings. b) 5. open space and spacing _x —Yes No Open space requirements are met. No Yes between buildings - standards are provided in Article 6 for See Article 6 standards. spacing between non - residential buildings. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance) PLANNING STAFF Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD -H -R B designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5.1.1 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per non- _x —Yes No The lot size shown on plan is 1,110,780 residential use - 87,120 sq. ft. sq. ft. b) Minimum lot width - 130 ft. —x—Yes No The lot width shown on plan is 240 feet c) Required front setback - —x—Yes No Typical 40 -foot front yard setback is 40 ft, noted on plan. d) Required side and rear —X—Yes No Typical 20 -foot side and rear yard setbacks - 20 ft. setbacks are noted on plan. e) Maximum building height - _x —Yes No Maximum building height is 25 feet. 25 ft. The height of the modular classroom is fifteen feet. Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed in Article 6. 93 9 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No J4 ARTICLE 6 _ APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "Np" indicates non -com Hance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF BOARD Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system. a) Minimum gross land area - 174,240 sq. ft. b) Maximum gross land area - None ,specified sq. ft. c) Maximum floor ratio - 0.100. Maximum floor area permitted - 11_� sq. ft. d) Required minimum open space ratio - .84. Required minimum open space - 937,440 sq. ft. e) Required minimum pedestrian/ Landscape ratio - 0.21. Required minimum pedestrian/ Landscape space - 2334 3,72 sq. ft. 10 —x Yes No Applicant's site contains 25.5 acres or Yes No T 1,110,780 sq. ft. The gross land area is 1,116,060 sq. ft. N/A Yes No Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Yes No —x—Yes No _x,YeS No Maximum permitted by ordinance is 111,606 Yes No sq. ft. Applicant's plan indicates (in table) the proposed floor area is 44,120 sq., ft. Applicant's plan indicates 1,066,660 Yes No sq. ft. of open space. —x —Yes No Applicant's submission indicates Yes No . 998,130 sq. ft. Note: See Appendix A for "Definitions ". ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Emily Crudup, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 10, 1990, I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the proposed rezonincr of Carolina Friends School iprovertv in Chapel Hill Township from Rural Buffer to Planned Development-Rural Buffer, to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.5.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 10th day of August, 1490. �9�f �-6� EMILY CRUDUP ZONING OFFICER NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY COUNTY OF ORANGE 96 DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL USE PERMIT KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned property owner, Carolina Friends School, having applied to Orange County for a Class A Special Use Permit for the use and development of the property hereinafter described, the same was granted by Orange County on August , 1990, the terms of which are as follows: NAME OF PROJECT: Carolina Friends School TYPE OF SPECIAL USE: Class A Special Use Permit for a ground absorption system for sewage disposal with a design capacity of 4000 gallons per day in the Rural Buffer district NAME OF DEVELOPER: 48091FriendseSc School School Road Durham, NC 27705 PROPERTY OWNER: Carolina Friends School DESCRIPTION OF RR.EMISES LOCATION: North side of Mount Sinai Road (SR 1718) west of Friends School Road (SR 1719) AREA OF PROPERTY: acres or square feet DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 7, Lots 20A, 20B, 26A and more particularly described as: [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION] 9'7 The Board of Commissioners of Orange County approved a Class A Special Use Permit on August 1990. The property subject to this Special Use Permit is described above and as shown on the Site Plan prepared by Phil Posdt and Associates, dated 8/7/89 and revised Carolina Friends School a modular classroom on the site as indicated on the site plan. The terms herein contained are binding on Carolina Friends School and its successors in title and in interest until the earlier of the expiration of this permit and any extension of its expiration date, or until such time as this permit is otherwise changed by governmental action. The modular classroom shall be located in accordance with the site plan dated August 7, 1989 and revised . The conditions of approval of the Special Use Permit are as follows: 1. The sewage . disposal system must at all times be operated and maintained according the standards and conditions set forth by the NC Division of Environmen- tal Management in Permit WQ0002161 and as may be amended in the future. 2. Maintain required screening along the eastern boundary line to screen parking areas and dumpsters. 3. With applications for building permits, provide documentation of how the proposed construction will access the existing sewage disposal system as well as estimates for any increase in daily flow through the system. Each application which will create additional demand on-the system must be accompanied by an approval letter from the Division of Environmental Management. All supplementary information will be submitted to the County Engineer for review to determine that the system demand does not exceed 4000 gallons per day. No build- ing permits will be approved for additions /renovations which would increase sewage discharge over 4000 gallons per day without prior approval from DEM and a revision to the Special Use Permit. 4. The final site plan and supporting documentation for the project, incorporating all changes, deletions, and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and supporting documentation are to remain on file in the Or County Planning and Inspections Department. Any applicable permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 5. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and attachments supplied by the 91) developer and in compliance with the above conditions. 6. If any of the above conditions is held invalid, the Special Use Permit shall become null and void. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Orange County has caused this instrument to be executed in its name as evidence of the issuance of said permit, and the undersigned being all of the property owners of the property above described, have executed this instrument in evidence of their acceptance of said Special Use Permit as a covenant running with the land. ATTEST ORANGE COUNTY BEVERLY BLYTHE TO THE BOARD OF BY JOHN M. LINK, JR. CLERK COUNTY MANAGER COMMISSIONERS ACCEPTED: Carolina Friends School Board of Directors, Owner and Developer ATTEST MARTHA S. KLOPFER CHAIR (SEAL) NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, BY SECRETARY a Notary Public in and for said County and State do hereby certify that Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commisioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by John M. Link, Jr., County Manager and attested by herself as its Clerk. WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this the day of £y NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid certify that personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he is the Secretary of the Carolina Friends School Board of Directors and that by authority duly given and as the act of the Carolina Friends School Board of Directors, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its Chair, sealed with its official seal attested by himself as its Secretary. WITNESS my hand and official stamp gr�oseal, this the day of f l Notary Public My Commission Expires: 101 O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 30, 1990 Action Agenda Item # -7- 2 -0. SUBJECT: STREET NAME CHANGE - OLD N.C. HIGHWAY 86 DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 5/29/90 Public Hearing Minutes Planning Director - Extension 2592 Road Name Change Petitions G.S. 153A -240 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: PAS Report Excerpt Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Convissor 7/15/90 Letter Durham - 688 -7331 8/6/79 Commissioners Minutes Mebane - 227 -2031 4/8/80 Commissioners Minutes Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To consider changing the name of Old N.C. Highway 86 to Old Chapel Hill Drive. The portion of highway affected by such a change extends from Interstate 85 to New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road. BACKGROUND: On May 29, 1990, a public hearing was held on the assignment of house and building numbers for Rural Route 7- Hillsborough. Mr. Bob Haas, a resident of the Old N.C. Highway 86 area, spoke in opposition to the road name, indicating that the road was called Old Chapel Hill Road when he moved to the area years ago. The Board of Commissioners agreed to delay action on the assignment of house numbers, pending receipt of a petition from area residents to re --name the road. Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Haas presented petitions from 42 of 66 property owners (66 %) requesting that Old N.C. Highway 86 be re -named to Old Chapel Hill Way or Drive from I -85 to the New Hope Church Road /Arthur Minnis Road intersection. G.S. 153A -240 permits a county to re -name any public road not in a city provided: 1. The N.C. Board of Transportation agrees with the proposed name change; 2. The proposed name change does not affect the number assigned to the road by the N.C. Board of Transportation; or 3. The proposed name is not deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicinity. �1 102 At its August 6, 1990 meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved the addition of the proposed road name change to the August 30, 1990 public hearing agenda. "Old Chapel Hill Drive" was advertised instead of "Old Chapel Hill way ". A "way" generally refers to a dead -end street under 1,000 feet, whereas a "drive" is a winding, curvilinear street longer than 1,000 feet that connect with or continues through to other streets. The petitioners for the name change indicated that either designation would be satisfactory. On July 7, 1990, Ms. Linda Convissor, representing the Cross - County Communities Association, corresponded with Commissioner willhoit, indicating that the group opposed the re- naming of the road. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that Old N.C. Highway 86 not be re -named to Old Chapel Hill Drive. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. Although the N.C. Department of Transportation has expressed no opposition to the name change, and the change would not affect the number (S.R. 1009) of the road, there are two roads with similar names. There is one Old Chapel Hill Road just across the county line in Durham County which is an extension of Durham Road from Chapel Hill. Another Old Chapel Hill Road is located on the western boundary of Orange County, extending off Mebane Oaks Road into Alamance County. 2. At its August 6, 1979 meeting, the Board of Commissioners established a Road Naming Advisory Committee and endorsed policies and procedures for road naming. Among those policies were: a. There shall be no duplication of road names among governmental jurisdictions; and b. Road names which are similar in sound shall be avoided. 3. At its April 8, 1980 meeting, the Board of Commissioners approved the road names submitted by the Advisory Committee for Orange Rural Fire District, including Old N.C. 86 from Orange Grove Road to Dairyland Road. The Planning Staff feels that changing the name would lead to confusion on the part of residents, visitors, and emergency services personnel, since the name has been in existence for 10 years, and it duplicates others in adjoining jurisdictions. _ lei SEN JOHN ROO FARM RD. sum m CAMP OWL RID- 1113 ail Amst HM OL FORD Lp DAII Jo MAC Word Cls S. UISCH RD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4 6 47 48 49 50 51 52 1011 3 Mr. Norman Patterson, of Patterson Road, indicated that his road has been named a street sign has not been erected. He asked if the county would put up a road na sign. Mr. Collins indicated that because this is a private road the residents are responsible for erecting the sign and the county will then maintain it. Mr. Joe Taylor indicated that in March of 1989 he was given a permanent address 2511 Old NC 86 South. He asked for clarification as to why his number was being changed again. He was advised that this was a human error which is now being corrected. Mr. E. C. Brooks, a resident of Scarlett Mountain Road, indicated that Scarlett Mountain Road is a public road which does.not have a road sign. He asked that consideration be given to the proper placement of this sign when it is erected. but of Commissioner Willhoit asked for clarification on the present road signs on Old 6. He was advised that it is called Greensboro St, and then Old 86. Commissioner - Halkiotis pointed out that strong support has already been receive from the residents of the Calavander area to name this road NC Old 86 and their wishes need to be considered when a final decision is made. Commissioner Hartwell indicated he was in agreement with naming at least a portion of this road Old Chapel Hill Road. He indicated that New Hope Church Road could be the dividing line. He suggested delaying a decision on this until the wishes of the community can be heard. He also spoke in support of not renumbering the houses in Cornwallis Hills. Commissioner Marshall suggested that before this item is brought back to the Board of Commissioners, Mr. Haas circulate a petition to the residents of this road to see how much interest there is in this renamin; issue. These petitions should be received in the Clerks's office before July 15th. It was the consensus of the Board to delay action for 60 days on Orange County Rural Route 7 until a Public Hearing on the name is held. This may be scheduled for August 27th during the regularly scheduled Quarterly Public Hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, approve the proposed house and building numbers for Rural Routes 1 and 7 (partial) followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster, the Durham Postmaster and N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G. S. 153A.240. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E.EA'VIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE 1. Environmental Impact Ordinance 2. Related Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Article 8.8 Special Uses b. Article 14 Site Plan Approval 3. Related Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Section III -C Approval Procedure -Minor Subdivision to the io5- Excerpt from 5/29/90 Public Hearing Minutes 2 1 error in the Zoning Atlas by shifting the EC -5 district west to its proper location 2 and out of the right -of -way; and 2) extend the district three (3) feet to the north so 3 that the structure and a proposed addition will meet required setbacks. 4 5 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR 6 CITIZENS. 7 8 A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to 9 approve the proposed rezoning from AR to EC -5 as per the Planning Board's 10 recommendation. 11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12 13 D..4SSIGNMENT OF HOUSE &- BUILDING N'L BERS. 14 15 1. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborough 16 2. Rural Routes 1 & 7 -- Durham 17 This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was 18 presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be 19 assigned to Orange County Rural Route 7 served by the Hillsborough Post Office and 20 Rural Routes 1 and 7 (partial) served by the Durham Post Office. 21 22 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD 23 24 Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he has received inquires about road names. 25 Collins informed the Board that if a road was previously named, a Public Hearing would 26 be needed to change the name. For a road without a name, the wishes of citizens who 27 live on that road would be taken into account. 28 29 Chris Best stated that he felt the Emergency Management employees would greatly 30 benefit from a one -time training class which would explain the new Enhanced 911 31 system. They need to have a thorough understanding of the grid system in each 32 district so that they can continue to serve the public in the shortest amount of time 33 possible. 34 35 Chairman Carey indicated that he had received several letters from citizens who were 36 scheduled for address changes. These people do not feel confident that this will be 37 the last time their addresses will change. 38 39 COMAfENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS 40 41 Mr. Bob Haas indicated that when he first moved to this area the road he lived on 42 was called Old Chapel Hill Road. Over the years the road has gradually come to be 43 known as Old 86. He spoke in opposition to this road being officially named Old 86. 44 He stated that he believed it was confusing to have two roads with such similar names. 45 46 Mr. Mark Johnson, a Chapel Hill resident and a member of the Cornwallis Hills 47 Property Owners Association, spoke in opposition to the renumbering in their 48 development. He suggested that the numbers not be changed in that portion of 49 Cornwallis Hills which is developed. A letter from the Cornwallis Hills Property 50 Owners Association outlining their opposition to this renumbering is in the permanent 51 agenda file in the Clerk's office. 52 ?%Nj\QA 1NF� DES Mr. Don Powell, Information Services Supervisor Orange County Planning Department 106-F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27272 Dear Don: L E C E IME �D Route # 7, Box 121 Hillsborough, NC 27278 July 12, 1�'i90 Enclosed you will find Petitions from forty - -two (42) of sixty-six (66) landowners along the 010 Chapel Hill 'Road from 1 -85 to New Hope /Arthur Minnis Road requesting that our road-be re-named Qld gbyo gl Hill Way or; if this is not going to be possible, O1_d ChapsQ E11 1 Ari v-g. A good number of our landowners would prefer "Way" rather than "Drive ", but all would accept either. These citizens have expressed feelings that their desires be recognized and honored and want your people to understand that very few on these petitions have bothered you on other matters ever. We would appreciate fair and considerate action in this matter of dealing with our property and our having to live a lifetime with your decisions. Of the eighty-two (82) names on the list that you sent me, numbers 14, 13, 22, 26, 31, 34, 44, 49, 57, 61, 69, and 76 are repeated one or more times (a total of sixteen repeats), leaving sixty-six (66) names total. Our petitions represent forty -two or 64% of the total landowners involved in the request, and we are still receiving one or two mail returns daily (four in the last two days) . I do wish to speak to our petition as may others. Please keep us informed as to what progresses. Thank you for your consideration. 5' erel y, Bob and June Haas Petition Workers ` r N Q PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned residents of Orange County, hereby petitzon you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hi I! OLD CHAPEL HILL �rath�an Old N. C. X 6. We fur -t ;er petition that numbered addresses be 1 i ated as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL -RGP&. Lrjh- A. NAME ADDRESS 14 1 f' k2jv ` ---------------------- - / --------------------------------------- mn�za-L �n --- ------ -- ----- - - - - -- Q1: 41 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We. the ender- igne:: resx_ionts o-F Orange County, r,er =by r�tition to permanently name * :.';,2 ~:d road fr•c:m Hi.-11sboro;.tgh toward Ct- =pel L-+i 1 1 OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD rather than Old N. C. G=. W- $urt�•Er petition th:.t r+t :.tired addresses be listed a -- <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD. NAME ADDRESS. qL(, 6 -2&-- - :4� . ?T _A, �' �z 25 27 E " L/ r7 �G � � �� u PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned reszdents of Orange County, hereby �etition ycu to permanently name the -Id road from Hillsborough toward C�-�pe1 OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD rather than Old N. C. 96' We furt�er petition th.E�t numbered *ddresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD. NAME ADDRESS ________________________________________________________ ---------- -''-----'----------- ------'------------------------------------- - ''----------------------------------------------------------- -------------'------------------------------------------------ ------------------'--------------------------------------_____ U okil- N"i 1 iWD PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We. the undersigned residents of Orange Caunty, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Ct-:f =1 Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL ReM rather than Old N. C. S6. We * Lir-ther pat i. t.i on that numbered a.ddress,(�s be listed a.s <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROfffi. J Ja, Q NAME ADDRESS \/ V ---------- -- - --- --------------------------------- ------- PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT W . e, the Undel"S19FILMd pj,c)pej-j,.y ownei,s along the Old ch-RiDEl Pill Road, YOU to P&rf!18-r!elltlY nw.me the L7ld road - F! QM AA -ather - Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL R K? toward ChapE�l C. f,E-';6. We 'IUMbered adcif-rsses be listt.2d <NUMBER> CL CHAPEL HILL -9@AB- Uj ft � NIAME ADDRESS �'.,._. ,of .. . .... ..... ..... - ------------ -- ---- PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition YOU to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL -ROATi rathe,L than Old N. C. 86. LJA241 eft ztwe- We further petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD. NAME ADDRESS --------------- - ----- - - ------------------- VAVIA F. PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, they undersigned property owners al ongg' the Old Chapel Hill Road. 1-reret;y petition you to permanently name the old road From Hi l l sboroLtgh toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL D rather- than Old N. C. 86. t411 &A_ DAcA^4 Wri f Urther petition that numbered addre+ss.s be listed :ass <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ReAXY- Ufi" NAME ADDRESS G ---------------- � 1..z./� L •� t- �7 �? a 7-/ Cl2e- PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Wte, the undersigned property owners al ongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, '-:._retry petition you to permanently name the old road from Hi l 15borough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL - R9� ra.the than Old N. C. 86. 4v*� A-t,..Di-. N We fUt- w`,er petition that numbered addresses be listed as NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL RB€tD. L(/* &-1.IJL:" Trustees' of First Baptist Church, of Hillsborough All ADDRESS �_.__.- - - -- � -- � 2fJS �{ - ---------------------------- -------------------------------- r-p- -- __CQ.r.2 Zs.v I R � t"em PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from, Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL eMAD rather than Old N. C. S6, We further petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL dR.OAS. (VA1 NAME j� ADDRESS ____ ___-___________- ______._ -- - -- --_---- _-_________-____. PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners along the Old chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the oYd road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL ReP& rather ' than Old N. C. 86. 1411V &V � We further petition that numbered addressed be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL Pl. W#� &Vbht&g NAME ADDRESS 491-Y - -- - ---------- _______! - _-- ___ - - -___ - _�-___ _ 3 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petitii Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. 86. We 'further petition < NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL 114 4 property owners alongO the Old Chapel Hill an you to permanently na -me the old road from CliapEil Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL mr, rather A"J that numbered addresses be listed as HILL NAME ��R_ii- _s��sl�L_�sha.!�."n,C . PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you, to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL 4ZOAD rather than Old N. C. 86. tieLy &A_, alVr-R, We further petition that numbered addressz's be listed as {NUMBER? OLD CHAPEL HILL ROA1e WA.y o,,, zh-v -C It NAME I e ' J r / �r J / *170 �� ol ►t, �/NN PETITION a7 TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We. the under si gned property owners al on.q the Old Chaps -�l Hill R; d, h -:r -hy P;�. itian You to prr-ma- nently n_�me the r_:id r�. =-d- tr'om • H:i l 1 sbc:r'ouy!i 'tawar- d C:h,:'.pel Hi 1 1 OLD CHAPEL HILL W� ra^tnh�er t:. h' n O 1 d . C , r, We �_:rt p = �.. ±. t''i: -.t nt:ml�ered addre - sees bw listed ass <NUMEIER> CLD CHAPEL HILL 4;9AB. ` tuft"/ v" 2.,.rt NAME PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alonggf the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hi'l l OLD CHAPEL HILL �rathe�' than Old N. C. 86. + AV N*kll z We further petition that numbered addresses be listed as < NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL fH�FD. tkkU Av NAME ADDRESS BY: - ---- --- -- - - - -- --------------- irust office[ PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners al ongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the pfd ro. -.cl From Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL fbD< rather than G l d N. C. 36. (,{ �v - �►�N -L We further petition that numbered addresses be listed a.s { NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL PgWdry (p �,,�jl� r AME ADDRESS __ . -____ ____.________ _______ _?_��o_ _ r- 2757 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNT( PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petitii Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. 86. We farther petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL a property owners al ongX the Old Chapel Hill on you to per.manentl y name the old road -from.- Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL fgNkb rather that rUmbsred addresse be listed as HILL FOA Ubj Qv :DhA44 - NAME ADDRESS PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petiti Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. 86. We further petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL NAME 11'7-1a property owners along% the Old Chapel Hill On yoiI, to permanently name the old road from Chaps;.l Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL 449AP rather that r:uunb r-sd addressee be listed as HILL Q@&M ADDRESS _ -- -------------------------_---- - -� -- --------------------------------- -__ ..__..____- _--- ___.__-- ___ -___ - _- _.-_---- ---- __- _ - -___ PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petiti Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. 86. We further petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL Property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill On you to permanently name the old road from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather f]v l that numbered adds- esses�r-be listed as HILL #V _ NAME ADDRESS - =- ------------- �"_._� Rm�Xj"�_- _____ -___ __________ ____________ ___ _______ -r;�ls.l� Nc__ v PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners alongo the Old Chapel Hill F.oad, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather ' than Old N. C. 86. 1 � er 6'L�cN`� We further petition that numbered addresses be listed zxsi < NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ~'(P' &,\., ZA*4P NAME Ady ADDRESS ---__- ._________ _______________-_ 0 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL &PAR rather than Old N. C. 86. (_,tJG�I/I�LQQyy We further petition that numbered addresse& be listed as < NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL NAME ADDRESS _ AID _ _______-______ �---- - ___- _-_.- _w_________ ___ __ ____ _ ----- _ -__ -. __. - ______________ ___ ______ FAN PETITION v TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 79- V I We, the undersigned property Owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby Qition you,to permanently name the old rosd from Hilsboough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD rathvr l r than Old N. C. p­- position that numbered addresses be listed a:s We furlh4v . _ <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL KQQ0. NAME ADDRESS -------------------------------------------------------- PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Neq the undersigned orooertj owners vlonqX the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to p ermanently name the old road from toward Chapel Hill OLD CHA PEL HILL 4T!T�aLhe- HillEborough then Old N. C. 86. We further petition that numbered addresses -Ir he listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL fRK9WkrD _. 6j"a &,-, o-t-t NAME ADDRESS -JI:! 60- � q PETITION FTO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 We, the Undersigned Toad, hereby petiti( Hi l l sbor-ough toward t.han Old N. C. *86. We -Further petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL property owners along the Old Chapel Hill an you to permanently name the ofd road -From Ch�'tpel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL443-ftD rather that numbered addre5sei5 be listed as HILL RB&A : d)v b&Vl�° - NAME ADDRESS ----------------------------------------- PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT LJe the UnderS'Figned i:1, hereby rk ?titi[ toward Old N. C. x'86. !:,!E;, +Ltrther ptetition .'NUMBtR> OLD CHAPEL NAME S property owners along the Old C1_1a!:)a'1 Hi 1 1 an YOU to permanently name th.— _1d , o a d fr °'tDm Chapel I-Jill OLD CHAPEL HILL L / .49 t—za -ther that r:umbered addresses be listed as HILL R ". C �ZhtlV'L°. ADDRESS PETITION TO THE ORANL;E COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT I) f l We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Cha1:)E.,1 Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL-RJ3' D rather - t:.han Old 114. C. #-a6. G'&, .laxI We f �_trther petition that numbered addresses be listed ass NUMDER> OLD CHAPEL HILL -RGAD-v 1'� x", , . NAME ADDRESS ----------------------------------------- ...... of ../ . PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ✓ We, the Undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hi l l sbor-ough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL JRQkB rz..ther - t.:han Old N. C. 4186. war �.. 2vkl,-e We fLlrther- petit 'ion that Numbered resses 1, s - -d as f NUMEIER> OLD CHAPEL HILL R9:kJ3. NAME ADDRESS PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petitit Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. #btu. We further petition <NUMEIER> OLD CHAPEL property owners along the Old Chapel Hill 3n you to permanently name the old rrrad from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL -ROAP - rather that numbered addresses be listed aS H ILL 4WAR s (Iil , AA, Z� NAME ADDRESS IL 0 �; 3 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners ai ongjd the Old -i jaael Hill ',cad, hereby petition yoi: to permanently n -ame the Old road +rom Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL POI!"D thsr - than Old N. C. Sb. We further petition that numbered addresses be listed as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL R6149. �� NAME ADDRESS -------------------- 7 - - - - -- - - -- --.___._. -7- +- ._- _-- - - - - -- PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 3 X25.4 We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL -R9AD rather than 01 d N. C. #+86. (.c.� a--, ZDA44-4 We further petition that numbered addre -ses be listed a5 { NUMEIER ? OLD CHAPEL HILL -Rake; 0�y /I�• NA ADDRESS Gail C. Gibbs !T_ Rt. 3, Box 975,Hillsbozough, N.C. 27278 PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petitii Hi 1 1 sbor-ough towiard than Old !'J. C. '.06. We - Furt,ner petition < NUME :ER > OLD CHAPEL Dn YOU to permanently name the old rr5,d from Chapel Hi 11 OLD CHAPEL HILL 44eleM rather ��A, that number-e addresses be l i sted as HILL C P NAME ADDRESS -------------- _'� 3 ___� 9x_2 ---------- J PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the, undersigned property owners alongi the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hi. 11sborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather than Old N. C. 86. •�G We further petition that numbered addresses ,ge listed as < NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ,- ",I 4K, ZA4j4e - N ADDRESS - -- -_�,- PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, the. undersigned Road, hereby petit. Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. 86. We further petition < NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL J J l �s9 property owners al ongA the Old Chapel Hill 7n you to permanently name the old road from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL4k@P9 rather Ct A"t, that numbered addresses be listed as H I LL +H9fl$: (,(fin e0-, ' NAME ADDRESS r f) T ____- _______- ?taoo r�oo� 12�2_.�R�__����1i9! Ave-l-7 o�C ` T`"`___________ -_ __-- ___- .__-__- ________-___ -- PETITION j TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 12-0 We, the undersigned property owners along the Old Chapel Hill Road, hereby petition you to permanently name the old road from Hillsborough toward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather- than Old N. C. #86. We further petition that numbered addres es jbe 1 i stead as <. NUMBER} OLD CHAPEL HILL IMMT. 611V NAME ADDRESS �I3 ifsr APrsr � r� V/ PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT We, tI je. t.,ndersi fined property owners al ongo the Old Chapel Hill Road, he=reby petition you to permanently name the old mac! from Hi.11aborough tcaward Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rat er e than Old N. C. 86. We further petition that numbered addresses J_:)e listed as < NUMBER ? OLD CHAPEL HILL 4A9= bl&lf &V DkZ*8 Trustees' of First Baptist Church, of Hillsborough �ME ADDRES5 l RaS 7 e c - � - - - - -- r ! /Za i Twe� PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLAhlNING DEPARTMENT We, the undersigned Road, hereby petitir Hi l 1 sbor•©Ugh toward than Old N. C. #fib. We f Urther petition <NUMIrER? OLD CHAPEL property owners along the Old Chapel Hill an you to permanently name the old road frorn Chapel. Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL ftOnp rather &v dti(�C 1 that numbered addre��� listed as ILL ME aDRESS -AK 3 1� V %f PETITION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT W(---. the undersigned residents of Orange County, hereby petition yo,, , to permanently name the old road from Hi.11.51:)Or'C�Ugh toward Cr: peI Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL rather than Old N. C. lrqm ., X vL,4, e , furthef- pe-tit.i.on that numb&r-ed addrr -sses be i S+ -F=d as <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL fir$. �+- �/ •�J NAME ADDRESS 4q. R. _ . 7 _ _� ; -4 . Local ModiStatioa. - Brunuwick: 1979. 2nd Seas., c. 1319; Cabarrus : 1981, C. 566, amending 1979, 2nd Seas., c. 1319; Avery. 1983, c. 98; Brunswick: 1983, c. 98; Cabarrus: 1983, a 98; New Hanover. 1983, c. 98; Stakes: 1983, C. 299; Surry: 1983, e. 299. 153A -240. Naming roads and assign - ing street numbers in unin- corporated areas. A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road within the county and not within a city, and may assign or reassign street numbers for use on such a road. In naming or renaming a public road, a county may not (1) Change the name, if any, given to the road by the Board of Trans - portation, unless the Board of Transportation agrees; (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Trans- portation, but may give the road a name in addition to its number-, or (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicin- ity. A county shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street numbers on a road until it has held a public hearing on the matter. At least 10 days before the day of the hearing, the board of commis- sioners shall cause notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing to be prominently posted at the county court - house, in at least two public places In the township or townships where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of such hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation published in the county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to be given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of Transportation, and to any city within five miles of the road. This section does not repeal or modify ARTICLE 12. Chapter 945 of the Session Jaws of 1953, which pertains to naming streets in Roads and Bridges. Kannapolis. (1957, c. 1068; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1; 1981, cc. 112, 518.) 5 153A -239. Public road defined. In this Article 'Public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway, thor- oughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without regard to whether it 1s open for travel. (1973, c. 822, s. 1.) Local Modification. - Brunswick 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, amending 1979, 2nd Seas., a 1319; Forsyth: 1981, r- 558; Guilford: 1979, c. 283; Avery: 1983, c. 98; Brunswick: 1983, c. 98; Cabarrus: 1983, r- 98; New Hanover. 1983, c. 98; Stokes: 1983, c. 299; Surry: 1993, r- 299. Editor's Note- - Pursuant to Session Laws 1973, a 507, s. 5, "Board of Transportation" has been substituted for "State Highway Commission" and for 180 Ebcoerpt from PAS report -- "Street PImniZg & Property Nhrmhering Systems" geographical prefixes or suffixes to indicate direction: in that system, directional suffixes fixes follow a street name (e.g., 120 Place, N.E.) and indicate a north -south road, while di- rectional prefixes indicate an east -west road (e.g.. N.E. 200 Place). In order for this to be helpful, rather than con- fusing to citizens, this distinction would have to be widely publicized. In other systems, such prefixes and suffixes are used to denote quadrants of a geographical area and not direction of a street in relation to a base line. Postal service officials differ as to preferences for suf- fixes or prefixes; one representative of the Postal Service in Washington contended that suffixes are much more likely to be dropped than prefixes and that prefixes should be preferred. An article in American City,' how- ever, suggests that directional suffixes —which allow streets to be filed alphabetically --are to be preferred over directional prefixes. The typical method of assuring uni- form assignment of thoroughfare designations is through a check in the subdivision review process, but, in at least one community, suffixes are assigned by the Police De. partment to achieve this objective. If property numbers radiate from the base intersecting streets and there are a lot of through streets, it is easier to locate streets having directional suffixes. STREET NAMES AS LOCATIONAL DEVICES There are a number of ways of naming streets systema- tically to facilitate locating a particular street in a com- munity. The use of names based on existing physical or political features is the simplest example of this mecha- nism. The methods to be discussed in this chapter are: thoroughfare designations, theme names, alphabetical se- quencing, the quadrant system, and the coordinate or Lyman system. THOROUGHFARE DESIGNATIONS The use of thoroughfare designations as a locational de- vice is probably the simplest method of street naming. In such a system, thoroughfares with specific physical char- acteristics are defined and certain street -name suffixes are consistently applied. The most common designations are those of "street" and "avenue." Historically, "streets" has been used for east -west thoroughfares and "avenues" for north -south thoroughfares. Such a system can be applied regardless of whether names or numbers treated as names are used. Just this differentiation be- tween north -south and east -west streets can cut the search for a location by one -half. A systematic thoroughfare designation for all types of roads is a logical extension of the street and avenue sys- tem used by some communities. (See Figure 2) A standar- dized list of thoroughfare designations can define the direc- tion, width, and function of streets. This review of the literature indicates that there is only some similarity in the definitions of thoroughfare designations used by different municipalities. The following is a list of definitions that have been used in some communities. Lack of standardization between municipalities is rela- tively unimportant as long as a uniform designation of 6. Moore. J. Brewer, and Trant. Bruce S.. "Street Renaming Is No Cinch." American City, August 1962, pp. 82 -84. 1'),() streets of different types is followed within the same ju- risdiction. Nevertheless, it would greatly increase the use- fulness of the designations if they were standardized throughout the country. Definitions of Thoroughfare Designations Used by Various Jurisdictions Boulevard A street with a median reflecting the boulevard character implied in the name. (Same definition applies to parkways) A major thoroughfare running in a diagonal direc- tion, rather than east -west or north - south. It must connect at least two sections and act as a collector. Unusually wide thoroughfares in residential sections with shade trees or shrubbery in the center plat, and the name can even be used with numbered thoroughfares. (Same definition for parkways) A street divided by a landscaped center island and generally designated by a name, not a number used as a name. Courts Permanently closed streets such as cul-de -sacs. Dead end rights -of -way under 1,000 feet in length which run east and west. A minor street less than 500 feet in length, ending in a turnaround. Horseshoe - shaped streets generally designated by one name throughout their entire length. Places or courts are all cul-de -sacs or permanent dead -end roads. East -west streets less than 1,000 feet in length. All dead -end streets. Drives a Winding thoroughfares. Curving streets longer than 1,000 feet. Diagonal, curvilinear, or other types of roads not previously mentioned. Roads that meander about and continue through to other rights -of -way. Secondary facilities that connect with each other. A curvilinear street of more than 1,000 feet in length, generally designated by a name. Highways Designated state or federal highways. This term could be used even when a road generally runs north -south or east -west. U.S. routes are designated as highways. Interstate Roads of the highest order, characterized by limited access, wide right -of -way, prohibited adjacent to de- velopment, and with through- traffic preference. Lanes Indicate the direction and to some extent the loca- tion of minor dead -end streets lying between num- bered thoroughfares. Reduced rights -of -way branching from courts; places, or ways. Curving streets of less than 1,000 feet. An unin- terrupted street ending in a cul-de -sac and generally designated by a name. Secondary roads connecting with each other Loops and Circles Circles could be short streets that return to them- selves. Loops could be short drives that begin and end in the same street (as shown in Figure 3) Circular or semicircular roads. A circle is a secondary road that begins and circles back to terminate on the same road. Circles —loop streets. A street forming a closed loop, generally designated by a name. Parkway (See also boulevard) A special scenic route or park drive, generally designated by a name. Paths A minor local street running in a diagonal direction, usually between a north -south "avenue" and an east -west street; a path may also be a diagonal con- nector between offset portions of a north -south or east -west collector thoroughfare. Pike State primary- numbered roads. Place A cul-de -sac or permanent dead -end road. FIGURE 3. EXAMPLES OF STREETS THAT MIGHT HAVE LOOP OR CIRCLE DESIGNATIONS � C /x2CLE b LOOP 577e Efi-T 6 1; 3 1'.) , Dead -end rights -of -way under 1,000 feet in length, running north and south. North -south streets less than 1,000 feet in length. Permanently closed dead -end streets. Short streets parallel to the grid pattern or in be- tween the regular grid streets. A short curvilinear or diagonal street generally designated by a name. Indicates the direction and to some extent the loca- tion of minor or dead -end streets lying between numbered thoroughfares. Roads Limited thoroughfares that are frequently used, have heavy traffic volume, and run in any direction. Thoroughfares running at oblique angles to the grid pattern. Secondary facilities connecting with a U.S. or state primary highway. Diagonals longer than 1,000 feet and designated by a name. Diagonal streets. Streets and Avenues' Streets run north and south and avenues run east and west, but this may be reversed. Streets are roads that generally run in an east -west direction, avenues are roads that basically have a north -south orientation. Avenue —a thoroughfare running principally in a north -south direction and usually terminating at an east -west street. Street —a thoroughfare running principally in an east -west direction and usually terminating at a north -south avenue. Avenues run east and west; roads run north and south. Street and avenue designations are reversed for use in incorporated places with a grid pattern. Streets are north -south roads longer than 1,000 feet; avenues are east-west roads longer than 1,000 feet. Trails A diagonal local street serving as a collector for one or more local thoroughfares. All curvilinear streets. ways, ,,d!'r _ _Dead -end -rights-of -way under 1,000 feet running at oblique angles to the four points of the compass. ` A minor street that changes direction or begins and ends on the same thoroughfare. Diagonal streets less than 1,000 feet in length. 7. According to "The Science of Street Names" leditoriaL American GYi November 1960, P. 7 -), the unwritten rule when using the grid system w that streets ran east and west, avenues north and south. A basic princii is that streets and avenues run in different directions. DISTRIBUTED � X IL `� rarar� o lo 7D 131 Don Willhoit July 15 , 1990 Orange County Hoard of Commissioners Hillsborough, N.C. Dear Don, This letter is in regard to the proposed renaming of Old 86. As president of the Cross- County Communities Association, 1 represent members who reside on or near the existing Old Chapel Hill Road located in the southeastern part of the county. We as a group unilaterally oppose the renaming of Old 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road. Our opposition to renaming Old 86 is based on our concerns for health and safety. We feel that confusion may occur in emergency situations that call for fire and /or rescue responses. Especially in situations where the person calling 911 has time only to yell the address into the telephone before evacuating his home or giving first aid. Our neighborhood currently splits fire and rescue protection between Parkwood and East Chapel Hill. We already have to go through a list of questions for the dispatcher to determine which department will respond to our location. We don't feel that we can afford to play 20 questions when our house is on fire. Renaming Old 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road would certainly add to the confusion. There are other reasons for our opposition to renaming Old 86, Old Chapel Hill Road. However these reasons pale in comparison to those mentioned above. When this issue is brought up again in August, at the Orange County Hoard of Commissioners, I hope you will make our concerns public. We, certainly respect and appreciate the attempt to give historical recognition to old and important areas of the county. Unfortunately, in this instance, health and safety concerns outweigh any historical benefits that those persons would gain. Thank You, (/v& ".. 01�) Linda Convissor Cross - County Communities Association P.O. Box 3031 Chapel Hill 27515 Durham/ Chapel Hill 27707 Fxeerpt .frcgm r=mLissioner_s 8/6/79 Minutes. Conmissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Cormrissioner Willhoit, to reappoint Mrs. Ruth Long to serve on the Jury Conenission. Vote: ryes, 5; noes, 0. Agenda Item 5C: Vacancies on-CountX ABC Board It was the consensus of the Board to postpone making appointn; ^nts to tire County ABC Board until the first meeting in September in order to give Board members an Opportunity to interview persons who had sho,:rn an interest in serving on the ABC Board. en e _ oa amin 'Advisory 'CoirmittW7, Dram: s _ o e . a ne tine 2 econ s ; ommissioner Gustaves n, �as oa 'am7 ng v sorCommi tteeandto. endorse the g: a, ed�,pgi es n' pocedu" rs mied' for: Orari e" Count Road' ahr ng and'House- Tlumi;e� og�r'a_Vot aye's' oes, 0. For copy-of these policies and procedures, see page 629 of this book. Commissioner Barnes moved, seconded by Coin.-nissionar Willhoit, that all persons who submitted resumes and have expressed interest in serving on the Road claming Advisory Committee, including Mr. Bobby Eal:er, Communications Director for the County, be appointed to the Road Naming Advisory Committee; and, further, the Committee is granted the power of naming to the Road Naming Advisory Committee persons who represent special areas of expertise who have not yet submitted resume forms. Vote: ayes, 5; noes,. U. The following persons were thereby appointed to the Road Naming Advisory Conviittee: David Erwin Hughes, John Den;uod Kennedy, Lloyd H. Senter, Jim Carter, Charles Blake, David M. Shanklin, Lois R. Efland, Frank Perry, Louise R. Clayton, Gordon Liner, Charles W. Snipes, Cecil W. Riley, Chris Nutter, Randy Baker, John W. Forrest, Douglas Keith Efland, l•Jilliam Breeze and Bobby Baker. Agenda Item SE: Voting Delegate to State Association of Cou. +LV Cua�aiisii_ hers Annual Conference Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to designate Chairman Whittod as voting delegate to the 1ICACC Annual Conrerence to be held 'in Raleigh Aue;ust 16 - 19. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, 0. 132 B. Program,, Coordinator - assigns house nubers - coordinates with eight local Post Offices property o;•:ners - presents house numbers at Local Information keit ing; - pr-pares and circulates list of new addresses to "pax D ^!parzment., Utility Co.'s etc. J. 3'. ` V . -7- U. There shall be no duplication of road names among governor ntal jurisdictions C. Road n,:: ; ;os which are similar in sound shall he avoided. Q. Efforts shall be made to preserve existing road names. E. In cases where duplication of road naines exists: a. Priority shall be given to the Torras (i.e. in cases ti•;,►ere a road name is duplicated among jurisdictions, tI;E: County shall adopt a new official name). b. Priority shall be given to historic road names. c. Priority shall be given to read names that also name intitutions. d. Priority 'shall be given to names of roads serving the greatest number of dwelling units, businesses and in- = StitUtiOnS.•1 e. Priority shall be given to narnes of those roads serving the greatest numtIer of users. f. Priority shall he given to those roads "longest in distance. F. The following standard thoroughfare designations shall be used: a. Circle. shall be the suffix, for short roads that return to thernselves. b. Court or place shall be the suffix for cul -de -sacs, permanent dead -end roads. c. Higir•tay shall be the suffix for state, federal or interstate hi ghr,ay s . d. Loop shall be the suffix for roads that circle back to terminate on the same road. e. Road shall be the suffix for all other thoroughfares. - G . A continuous public road, running primarily in one direction, should have only one name. H . If a road jo7s sharply for a substantial distance, the portion running in a different direction may be given another name provided the ; -L: a. The road jogs at an angle of at least 60 degrees. b. The portion of the road which jogs is at least 500 feet ir, length. YI House Numbering 1. Actors - Two zctors will be involved in the House Numbering Procedure. The.; are the Program Coordinator and the Board of Commissioners. Their roles are k outlined below:. A. board of Commissioners - adopts a house numbering ordinance - has oversight over the program - holds a minimum of 3 Public Hearings - approves additional Public Information Meetings adopts official house numbers B. Program,, Coordinator - assigns house nubers - coordinates with eight local Post Offices property o;•:ners - presents house numbers at Local Information keit ing; - pr-pares and circulates list of new addresses to "pax D ^!parzment., Utility Co.'s etc. E I*. MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APRIL '8, 1980, The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 8, 1980, at 10:00 a.m., in the Commissioners Room, Orange County Courthouse, in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Commissioner Richard Whitted, Chairman, and Commissioners Anne Barnes, Norman Walker, Norman Gustaveson and Don Willhoit. The following items were added to the agenda: Agenda Item 20: Requested Space for Day Care Facilities Agenda Item 18B: Announcement re Brigadoon Drive Mr. Stuart Barbour requested the Eno River Group be given an opportunity to address the Board for approximately two hours at its next evening meeting. The Chairman said he would let Mr. Barbour know of the next evening meeting in which the Board would be able to hear his request. Agenda Item 3: Minutes Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the minutes of March 24, 1980, as corrected. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, 0. C� Agenda Item 4: Road Naming Recommendations y Commissioner -Gustaveson requested a letter concerning the naming of Road T 1353 be submitted to the Road Naming Advisory Committee. Commissioner Barnes moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve those names submitted by the Road Naming Advisory Committee for New Hope Fire District, Orange Rural Fire District and South Orange Fire District. Vote: ayes, 5; noes, 0. For copy of these names, see page 385 of this book. Agenda Item 5: Tax Release Re uest of Mr. Jeffrev A. Hoffman The Tax Supervisor read to the Board Mr. Jeffrey Allan Hoffman's request for release of 1979 taxes. 1.34 357 ,f r-, NEW HOPE SR # Recommended Name Description 1203 Hideaway Drive NC 86 South - Dead Ends 1717 Kerley Rd. 1q1$- bu9tlA,4 &-bNd 1718 Pit. Sinai Rd. NC 86 South - Durham Co. 1723 New Hope Church Rd. 1009- 19/0 1725 Mill House Rd. 1727 - NC 86 1726 Clyde Rd. 1725 - NC 86 1727 Eubanks Rd. 1009 - 14 wy9a 1729 Rogers Rd. 1727 - 1777 U3 Turkey Farm Rd. 1731 - 1718 731 Whitfield Rd. Mv/.PC- 1734 1733 -35 Weaver Dairy Rd. NC 86 - 713L 1734 Pickett Rd. 1734 - Durham Co. 1303 1737 Erwin Rd. (Includes a portion of 1734) '- (Durham Co.) 4 15 -50 1772_ Homestead Rd. NC 86 IP09 1789 -90 Camp Circle •- NC 86 South-66, i 1791 lit. Moriah Rd. 1734 -- Durham Co. 1 :3 1794 Tiraberly Drive 1734 - Dead Ends 1803 - 23--24 Wilkens Drive 1718 - 1718 1839 Alexander Drive NC 86 South - Dead Ends 1842 Rusch Rd. 1729 - Dead Ends 1865 Northwood Drive NC 86 - 1727 1866• Pebble Court 1865 - Dead Ends 186.7 Groomsbridge Court 1865 - Dead Ends 1868 Hunter Hill Rd. 1865 - Dead Ends 1869 Mosswood Court 1868 - Dead Ends 1870 Autumn lane 1865 - 1868 1871 Walden Place 1870 -- Dead Ends 1872 Ivy Court 1865 - Dead Ends 1930 wnmoz Z" Fiwy- $fp- 19sq I/ ; ORANCE RUR -,kL SR re Reco=ended Name Description 1002 -St. Yary's Rd. 1536 -- Durham 1706 Orange Grove Rd. 1009 - Huy_ 54 1009 E> Old N.C. 86 1006 1104 1129 Davis Rd. ` 1006 1009 1144 Vest Ten Rd. liwy. 70 -- llf 1144 Dan Johnson Rd. Hsry. 70 - lit I 1328 Raucette Mill Rd. liwy. 72 -- 1379 135 136 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 30,_ 1990 SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): G.S. 153A --240 Location Map Notification Letter Legal Notice Memos to Planning Director Letter from Cornwallis Hills Letter from Cross- County Communities Associaton Brochure 137 Action Agenda Item # "a- 3 _. PUBLIC HEARING _X—Yes NO INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Powell TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Orange County Rural Routes 7 and 3 Hillsborough and Rural Route 1 Cedar Grove. BACKGROUND: Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the US Postal Service, all rural box numbers are being converted to street addresses within the County. The conversion is a continuation of the project begun in 1987 to change all County addresses to permanently assigned house numbers. To date twenty two (22) routes have been changed (Chapel Hill routes 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,13 and 15; Hillsborough routes 1,2,4,5 and 8; Durham routes 1,2 and 7; Rougemont routes 2 and 3; and Hurdle Mills route 1). Route 7 Hillsborough was postponed at the request of the Board of Commissioners at the May 29 Public Hearing. The Cornwallis Hills concerns have been resolved and information has been made available to Robert Haas at his request, in his efforts to gain Board approval for the renaming of Old NC 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road between I -85 and New Hope Church Road. Route 7 Hillsborough encompasses an area from Wildwood Subdivision on NC 86, southward to include Stagecoach Run Subdivision, Wood's Edge Mobile Home Park and Acres of New Hope Subdivision at Cheyenne Drive; then crossing westward 1Jb to Old NC 86 beginning at the DOT Maintenance Complex and extending southward to include Oakdale Drive, and ending at Davis Road. Route 3 Hillsborough begins at Davis Road and moves south on Old NC 86 to New Hope Church Road; then west on Arthur Minnis Road, south on Union Grove Church Road Road, west on Albert and Dairyland Roads to Orange Grove Road; then south to include Teer Road, returning northward along Orange Grove Road and eastward along Davis Road to the beginning point. Other roads included in part or in their entirety include: Ode Turner Road, Tree Farm Road, Kimbro Road, Borland Road, Rocky Ridge Road, Buckhorn Road, and Dodson's Crossroads North and South. Route 1 Cedar Grove encompasses an area north along Wilkerson Road from NC 57 to Person County, including portions of Sawmill Road East and West, Hawkins Road East and West, Ormond Road, and Olin Road; then southwest along Hurdle Mills Road, across NC 86 North to McDade Store Road, and south along Efland -Cedar Grove Road .to Highland Farm Road; then west from Cedar Grove Community along Carr Store Road to Carr Community and eastward along NC 49 to Caswell County. Roads included in their entirety or portions thereof are: Wheeler's Church Road, Caviness Jordan Road, Art Road, Bama Road, Hensley Road, Allison Road, Burton Road,, NC 86 North, Tom Pope Loop, McCullough Road, Oakley Road, Lee's Chapel Road, Governor Scott Road, Mill Creek Road, Lonesome Road, Lib Road, Penecost Road, Allie Mae Road, Doc Corbett Road, Wade Loop and Wade's Dead End. General Statute 153A -240 requires that a Public Hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in two other public places within each proposed area. A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of the hearing. REC01r MNDA- TION: Approval of the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster, the Cedar Grove Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A -240. 13% Local Modification. -- Brunswick: 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, amending 197 9, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Avery: 1983, c. 98; Brunswick: Cabarrus: 1983, c. 98; Cabarrus: 1983, c. 98; New Hanover: 1983, c. 98; Stokes: 1983, c. 299; Surry: 1983, c. 299. $ 153A -240. Naming roads and assign- ing street numbers in unin- corporated areas. A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road within the county and not within a- city, and may assign or reassign street numbers for use on such a road. In naming or renaming a public road, a county may not (1) Change the name, if any, given to the road by the Board of Trans- portation, unless the Board of Transportation agrees; (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Trans- portation, but may give the road a name in addition to its number; or (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicin- ity. A county shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street numbers on a road until it has held a public hearing on the matter. At least 10 days before the day of the hearing, the board of commis- sioners shall cause notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing to be prominently posted at the county court- house, in at least two public places in the township or townships where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of such hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation published in the county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to be given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of Transportation, and to any city within five miles of the road. This section does not repeal or modify ARTICLE 12. Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of 1953, which pertains to naming streets in Roads and Bridges. Kannapolis. (1957, c. 1068; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1;1981, cc. 112, 518.) § 153A -239. Public road defined. In this Article "public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway, thor- oughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without regard to whether it 1s open for travel. (1973, c. 822, s. 1.) Local Modification. - Brunswick. 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus- 1981, c. 568, amending 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Forsyth: 1981, c. 558; Guilford: 1979, c. 283; Avery: 1983, c. 98; Brunswick: 1983, c. 98; Cabarrus: 1983, c. 98; New Hanover: 1983, c. 98; Stokes: 1983, c. 299; Surry: 1983, c. 299. Editor's Note. - Pursuant to Session Laws 1973, c. 507, s. 5, "Board of Transportation" has been substituted for "State Highway Commission" and for 180 T, 9 A iL.!`►Y a, 1 As I &W ! "Al 2 ` .,. ..4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT t 306F REVERE ROAD 141 1 HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 r' IE "` Dear Resident: In April, 1987, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange County addresses. To date twenty two (22) postal routes have been converted to street addresses. Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have been assigned street addresses adhering to the county -wide system. All addresses are computer- maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions (voter registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal service areas. Within the year, all of Orange County will have street addresses and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past. Cedar Grove Rural Route 1 is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Thursday, August 30, 1990, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on Rural Route 1 served by the Cedar Grove Post Office. The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium of Phillips Junior High School in Chapel Hill. If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural routes and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least one (1) inch high. The proposed NEW ADDRESS which reflects the , »hysical location of your residence at tcx map reference is as follows: OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask, however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned hcuse number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning Department staff members below. Miriam Coleman (Extension 2576) or Beth McFarland (Extension 2578) Orange County Planning Department 306 -F Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Phone: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 Durham 688 -7331 Sincerely, Marvin E. Collins Planning Director ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 142 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Dear Resident: In April, 1987, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange County addresses. To date twenty two (22) postal routes have been converted to street addresses. Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have been assigned street addresses adhering to the county -wide system. All addresses are computer - maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions (voter registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal service areas. Within the year, all of Orange County will have street addresses and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past. Hillsborough Rural Routes 7 and 3 are now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Thursday, August 30, 1990, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on Rural Routes 7 and 3 served by the Hillsborough Post Office. The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m, in the auditorium of Phillips Junior High School in Chapel Hill. If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural routes and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required, to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least one (1) inch high. The proposed NEW ADDRESS which reflects the h� vsical location of your residence at tax map reference is as follows: OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask, however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned house number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning Department staff members below. Miriam Coleman (Extension 2576) or Beth McFarland (Extension 2578) Orange County Planning Department 306 -F Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Phone: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 Durham 688 -7331 Sincerely, Marvin E. Collins Planning Director • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 143 HILI.5BOROL:GH• NORTH CAROLINA 3778 MEMORANDUM TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Don Powell, Information Services Supervisor SUBJECT: Follow -up to Citizen Comments at May 29 Public Hearing DATE: June 1, 1990 ENCLOSURES: 3 1. Comment by Planning Board Member Chris Best concerning classes to familiarize volunteer firemen with County's house numbering procedure /rationale: - Michael Tapp, newly appointed County Fire Marshall is in frequent contact with this division concerning house numbers, road names, etc. I will discuss this issue with Mike. He well understands the numbering system and this may be a subject which could best be integrated within his training scheduling, under his supervision. 2. Bob Haas' request to change the name of Old NC 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road: - I am still opposed to the change for the reasons cited in my May 23 memo to you. An additional reason not to change is that Old NC 86 comprises the southern portion of the North /South axis, the very core of the Equal- Interval numbering system, and is written into our adopted house- numbering ordinance as such (Old NC 86). - I am not familiar w_th the 1961 official road naming material which you briefly mentioned to me at the hearing. "I await further instructions from you as to what policy to pursue in satisfying the Commissioners' directive to pursue this issue. 3. Mark Johnson, President of Cornwallis Hills Property Owners Association; request to keep old addresses: - Memo to you (enclosed) acceding to his request. 4. Norman Patterson's question pertaining to why citizens must place road signs on private roads: - Answered at hearing. 144 S. Joe Taylor's inquiry concerning non - sequential, pre- assigned house numbers on Old NC 86. - Letter to Mr. Taylor (enclosed). 6. E.C. Brooks' concerns regarding placement of road -name signs in DOT right -of -way: - Citizens who place private road signs are sent a copy of the Private Road Sign Standards, which instructs as to proper placement. - Public Works, which replaces state road signs, are aware of the proper placement. 7. ,lean Forest's concerns about the similarity of her house number with a Wood's Edge MEP lot number and the potential for confusion with the new house numbers: - Answered at hearing. Letters have been mailed to Hillsborough route 7 citizens informing them cf Coma; =sioners' decision to delay for approximately 60 cays the street addressing of that route (letter enclosed- New hearing set fo, August 27, 1990. Notices will be mailed by June 7 to citizens of the approved Durham routes 1 and 7 confirming their proposed addresses. Printouts will be sent to NC DOT and the affected post offices, as riell as the other important County agencies /of=fices as is customary. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA =7278 145 On MEMORANDUM TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Don Powell, Information Services Supervisor SUBJECT: Cornwallis Hills House Number Assignments DATE: June 1, 1990 COPY: Mark Johnson Mark Johnson's comments regarding the house number assignments in Cornwallis Hills were well taken. Miriam Colenan and I had discussed the feasibility of allowing the subdivision residents to keep their pre - assigned addresses because the numbers were in most cases so similar to the ones we were assigning. Additionally, the roads are so twisted that it was a judgment call at best to establish which followed the north /south or the east /west axis. This memo is to inform you that I have spoken to Mr. Johnson by phone (May 31) and have agreed to his request to allow homeowners in the original section of Cornwallis Hills to retain their old address. we further agreed to assign new street addresses applying the County's system to all new construction within the subdivision, consistent with the two new houses on Lafayette Drive mentioned in Mr. Johnson's letter. we are changing our computer files to reflect this change and I will forward a copy of this memo to Mr. Johnson for his official records, w�,ich he may use in his report to the Cornwallis hills Homeowners Association. As a personal aside, I would like to remark on the trofessional manner in which Mr. Johnson presented his comments, both orally to the Commissioners as well as his letter to this department. His approach was forthright and unimpassioned, his remarks well organized and logical, and for his most gentlemanly delivery, he has my highest retard. r� L.o1"te���LZLLIJ Z, operty Oumcrs A.ssociuti.on, r7rc. T.J. 3m 1 V.113, ' lfA anyugA, , l- 78 Don Powell Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 June 11, 1990 Dear Mr. Powell: 146 o L. - i c i h I would like to thank you and the rest of the Planning Department for your assistance in dealing with the question of the house numbers in Cornwallis Hills. We are, needless to say, completely satisfied with the conclusion. The feedback I have received has al been very positive, and I came away with a good deal of respect for the Planning Department. Thank you also for sending me the copy of your memorandum to Mr. Collins, and for the kind words therein. I have enclosed a copy of the letter we just sent out to the residents of Cornwallis Hills. believe that it accurately describes the contents of our phone conversation and your memorandum, but if I have misrepresented any item, please call me at 732 -6540. Thank you again for your assistance. Sincerely, Mark W. Johnson President Cornwallis Hills Property Owners Association n° l r/ /Iwo W ��7 r ti C 0 v �M 0 'JI 'll U 0 C> { 0 W C 1..n G v� n O c W n° l r/ /Iwo W ��7 r ti C 0 v �M 0 'JI 'll U 0 C> { 0 W C 1..n G W rJ Oxon D •'•ti 1 I I I ^•• � � b ••y :•r otvN�► v^ o h r.t ' � - � � ��Z~N L:� Z•• w. r J •t� 1 W ..a L w• 1 14 1 1 1 c a to a D Z O y+ = w O C F 1• G O 11 1 .. r.r,i.• �, � y.. >~ ti •> > r. CI . t� lit I 1 1 ..��:1�• � .� Z•-r C O D=•��N «7 l 1 •� � v 1O c, Q +'+� m I L-5 s -Z �. a _n M O l+ 3 •-•1 P O G rA O D cry :� ;a U •� L' D vi G = -1 C G~ -4 L, :b�U -4 3 U i1 G r•1 t:7 - C t7 :D- - O O C IJ :61 v ^.3 •--I O D p to LW O v }, = y w = D J a a+ c r-d a, U ;a O 0 = L-4 0 G It = vi O •-•t b G b -% •-I x U O ►-4 N G tr, L:...I :I :� '•i - G L D x +ti z L 3 D� to ri G= •O O V 0 0 V •� c7 Ic U C --+ m w ,� ri D G E v in a ---I O _CI D b C D br --i •w1 u1 D -4 V rn D G "O O fl O G C J r i� = E . c U a > a r -••I In c� y in M m `s .~ 54 w.0 C :.I v cr C O a C D G O •:_- V to w D U La O D O .:� ^. r U U :1 -..t L" > C O rt v, O r .y t� w cx trl Mf a `ri o •••1 G^ - +. v ^ W w O Dt a iC D V C U p w •D o D D ++ At to J w.• D a :+ a vI cx r b D a C >1 • cx Z Lr (U : 17 U - -O -6) —4 'C m �Ga7�:., a��roaam O CI J.J C U a--4-4 S.; L+ - * m C .61 4a c cu a a7 .0 O f s» G C r �•► U C `' a7 Lj t a w yj �+ m m U a] a3 m W � tiA > a Z Cl- U- s > C+3 w c C = S + al L+ > rC = m G Q -w tJ � � � ' .y r• � U7 X44,4 �o CNJ } • ca i old 86 0 r CZ I 7 C- 1.1 m= U .-..1 c U -4 1J •.-1 m o � 1J CO C � as ra .� C rO �► U - t+ E as a .a G C^ Q W a7 3 ~~ °a tjoro U w> J�03 CL 7- 0 w criw 'a C• "a �, E U as 0.4cua Qa - .�ajQU� 1+ N A w W .•..1 U G U '" k >~ Cl. a'1 a CL N y m O .-4 r0 a 9+ r+ r+ - C a -4 m a.Omq O Em 0 4 . V 41 OO �>la0 W ma�O��c� � a =-.4 Q a a � 0.0 �.��» >r. d3cn= m E +Jac 0U U y _ , 4 >1 m � -W �+aaa c mU3 m m> a 0 -0 ---4 p rr Ji a. U m 14 la A+ •.+ 7 4J --+ O " 1 L . • a .�0. � Lm. m -.4 .r al $d m m C O ,4 -4 C L► cL+ C.Cr70� Qa� O aa0� elk Ll �UrZcn . -43�Q r- 1..~_.Q" as 0 O= U= v O W> m ..� U U 1,J U a-W x tJ w ....1 • 4 m 3 �-q m --+ x m U c iJ U z C w >4 41 IC —4 Z L —4 m Q •�• .- A ^i ti; . �! C as p U ca C l4..1 O U2 Z ) a -2 • 4 S~ al -r•1 G m 2 - aw 3 malmo ca 73U c a C4 CI-4 G ""t c Cs U a L -'J -4 C.' -4 G is -w 41 D4 a c ti~ �i r + c v • m S-i E r� Q d m e "� > m m Ct th as a ' d U a 41 � 1 a3 a '>+ 1r C7 Q7 a7 a1 .a a Q? ?• u J.d 92 0 4 C y: m r3 >. cc .0 C H E- JJ rp U Ze`4 ^ W y1 --4 -L) C� U E s m e•1 O -4 m --4 ....+ .-1 d 0 � as U C O 47 7•• �, -4 AJ C� Jr a.J a1 a1 C i s U c 3 U c G4 • i O, J7 m a ••� C, U O Z a ci H- 4 3 U-W U -W as a "a a1 -a r �-1 a ++ G .•I Q m tw -w a s La m U o u La a x . E m w �x a�oa ��a•- �.;.;�aca�+pmm p •-1 C O q as 4-4 Q a 0 w C C• •� -••1 � N U r U 4••1 ••••w 4� isi - •1 I m 4••1 .•1 --4 41 ca a �> >... .:. S� to p 0 a) c 3 >-' U a v0 3 m m �.► a b C. w JJ M M 4 i m 0 m 3 z = z a y CI >1 12 w '";�E�mc�c �1)Sa .. ca ,4 1~ 3 . m O = == 1.1 ns as --+ 44 +' s 1J -W ..4 m U� 1J at a� —4 m 7•v Q --1 a C �. 0 d p w a C a) 9 43 as 4d W cu U w 1J m rC r.0 -a C U 0i-0 -W3�m '� G�U°�Q0U (n .4 aJ C Ln a d) G� � y J m � G ••• � G 41 U "i ,.� m ti~ C m> -4 t1] G rz • •- 4 C C: 41 4 S4 -4 Q a m w •- a.- aJ co it C7 al rC {+ U m C' = m m rG C+ W co G ••. �+ a) 'D C.0 A m 47' -J —4 a p ..n U> N C -u E:- C 0 U a) = 0= 3 w w a a a C m -4 ra b a a ==-=:== F N -w r -- a --I E G A m-0 A- 4a c= a r w —.0 1 � 1 � t � 1 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 4J ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 30 1990 Action Agenda Item #'D -1 -b SUBJECT: Z -4 -90 - DOROTHY C. BANE - REZONING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes —x —No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 2582 Application for Rezoning Planning Staff Memo Planning Staff Findings TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Agency Comments Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Area Proposed for Rezone Durham - 688 -7331 Certificate of Mailing Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a rezoning request submitted by Dorothy C. Bane and Willie F. Ward. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located on the south side of US 70 approximately 750 feet west of Mount Herman Church Road (SR 1713). It is known as part of Lot 35, Tax Map 26 of Eno Township. The total tract contains approximately 2 acres and fronts on US 70 for a length of approximately 25 feet. Access is proposed to be provided by a private road that extends along the south side of the property. The current zoning on the property is R -1 (Rural Residential). The proposed zoning is I -1 (Light Industrial). The I -1 zone allows a limited range of uses (see attached staff memo). The area is designated as Twenty Year Transition and Commercial /Industrial Node in the Comprehensive Plan. Letters have been submitted from the Orange County Sheriff's Department and Orange County EMS for rescue and fire response. These letters indicate that services can be,provided. Agency comments have been received from the Health Department and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The Orange County Health Department has indicated the soil is suitable for a septic system. This system would only be approved for bathroom waste. The North Carolina.Department of Transportation has indicated that a driveway permit would have to be submitted and appropriate fees paid. a The latest NCDOT traffic count on US 70 is a 1988 count. This indicated 8,000 vehicles per day just west of Mount Herman Church Road (SR 1713). A general light industry on two acres of land could create approximately 104 trips per day. The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision for the proposed lot with a request for a private road along the south side of the property. The planning staff is presently reviewing the private road justification submitted with the application. If it is determined that a private road is justified the planning staff will approve the minor subdivision with a private road. However, if a.public road is required the subdivision will be brought before the Planning Board and County Commissioners for approval as a major subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning from Rural Residential (R -1) to Light Industrial (I-1). . ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA �J 9 1 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT Date: —7—//8 1'�Fo TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1. The property is located an the S0i1TTH -side of S.R.# 17 I . Street /Road] between S.R.# 70 and S.R.# It is known as Lat(s) Pjrf dam, Block `f of Orange County Tax Map — -5'FMG Township. It has a frontage of feet and a depth of feet, and contains square feet or acres. 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from 1� =S 4/7114 &_- � to �rn1� _L L�G�S�7'1�� i 3.- The - -fallowing infarmetian has been - attached - In_. support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas I* — required on ell app li cat ionsI `'a. A fully dimensioned map at * seals of not lass than ane (1) inch equals one - hundred (100) feet nor more than ono (1) inch equals, twenty - 1201 feet- shawin'g, t'he land which is proposed to be rezoned. wb. A legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned. *c. A statement of justification addressing one or more of the following: (1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance. 11F any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a datailad explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. {2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the eras or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, aafaty and gsneral welfare. `(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the sdopted Land Use Plan or part, thereof. *(43 All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service agencies (e.g. fire. police, rescue and utilities agencies) ■souring services provision capability to the devoLepwent.' d. A list of all individuals. firma or eolFporatiena awning property, adjoining or within five hundred (5003 feet of the property sought for rezoning is sttaah *d. The List is current as of - [Date] I certify that aLL information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge Applicant(s7: A d d r a a a r� �g' s Phone: - /�— cz'_-'V` 'S F V7 V-4 a U W U F U3 0 z M z a N w a a v J r u ti N W u W a V 'V. r h ti M• 2 G m c7 b G G � w N O � N O 1-4 cc v a. O -W ,G G U V co N •rl C C tv F, 0 V �Jti c c� • c x a, j `J p � v a � � O cq v a rn \3 b a m $4 rl C!7 l..I y Or N � (U (U i T U O 7 ci o o r- +4 `X aj $4 u a r� cn o a" u cn O w N W �+ w eC u o 6 u o a a a �) •• a .� 0 H ai O r-1 c0 Q CO s w o � H 4 to r- Qj, cJ 3 $-, � � o ro •o 41 (n v. m o CL x a ro o m ir a) O 06, fO+ r0-i W C4 cu F+ Co u +J O O .. cn Oo ro-1 01 a`di o a N i+ n1 G O O rl w LW 72 m C O cC -H N u R' N 7 N rl i. O. X 'd Q T4 u v E-4 H H a v J r u ti N W u W a V 'V. r h ti M• 2 G m c7 b G G � w N O � N O 1-4 cc v a. O -W ,G G U V co N •rl C C tv F, 0 V �Jti 61 1�3 C. (2) -Due to the limited available arable land, yet ever increasing demands for services in the Triangle area, it is believed with your approval of rezoning this two (2) acre track of land to I--1, I.2, or I -3 will enable the best use and benefit ecologically, economically and aestheticly. Thereby, making our county a more desirable place to work, live, retire or visit. r' ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 r• 'e r. M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD F 15 6 FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 21, 1990 , SUBJECT: Z -4 -90 DOROTHY C. BANE GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Dorothy C. Bane and Willie F. Ward 3519 Old Highway 10 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 LOCATION: Located on the south side of US 70 approximately 750 feet west of Mount Herman Church Road (SR 1713). REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Light Industrial (I -1) Rezoning Request PURPOSE: To allow a light industrial use to be located on this property. LOT SIZE: 2.00 acres or 87,120 square feet. EXISTING LAND USE: Wooded land zoned R -1 (Rural Residential) SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING: NORTH - Duke Power transmission lines EAST - US 70 and Duke Power land SOUTH -- Undeveloped wooded land owned by Dorothy Bane WEST - Undeveloped wooded land owned by Dorothy Bane LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Twenty Year Transition and Commercial /Industrial Node ZONING: The property is presently zoned.Rural Residential (R -1). � W C MEMORANDUM Z -4 -90 DOROTHY C. BANE AUGUST 21, 1990 PAGE 2 The intent of the Light Industrial (I -1) is provided in Article 4.2.21 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent The intent of the Light Industrial -I (I -1) District is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited industrial uses engaged in manufacturing, processing, creating and assembling of goods, merchandise or equipment. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the immediate space occupied by the building. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Site is located within areas designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan as either an Industrial Transition Activity Node or a Rural Industrial Activity Node. 2. Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. 3. Access would consist of direct vehicular access to streets designated either arterial or collector by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Access to rail service is desirable but not required. The following is a list of permitted uses in I -1: Accessory Uses M1 Manufacturing & Processing Operations where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Im;�ediate Space Occupied By The Building P2 Botanical Gardens & Arboretums P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P5 Bus Terminals & Garages P7 Church P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police and Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P14 Parks, Public & Non -- Profit P24 Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings P25 Water & Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations MEMORANDUM Z -4 -90 DOROTHY C. BANE AUGUST 21, 1990 PAGE 3 S18 Commercial Feeder Operation S23 Motor Freight Terminals S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building S29 Offices and Personal Services That Generate Medium Traffic Volumes & Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond The Lot Boundaries S31 Petroleum Products: Storage & Distribution S33 Printing and Lithography S35 Recreational Facilities (Profit /Non - Profit): Golf Club & Golf Club Countryclub S36 Recreational Facilities (Profit) S38 Research Facility S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoor S51 Storage and Warehousing, Inside Building S53 Wholesale Sales S55 Assembly and Packaging Operations Including Mail Order Houses, But Excluding On- Premises Retail Outlets S56 Crematoria The following uses are allowed with a Class y Special Use Permit: P1 Airport, General Aviation, Heliports, S.T.O.L. P9 Extraction of Earth Products P11 Land Fills (2 Acres or More) P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub - stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants S19 Junkyards The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit: P12 Land Fills (Less Than 2 Acres) P17 Radio & Television Transmitting & Receiving Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks P22 Transmission Lines S34 Recreational Facilities (Non- Profit) N L57 9 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: Z -4 -90 DOROTHY C. BANE BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIAL SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ARTICLE LO _ SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION REZONING ARTICLE 20 _ SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "NO" indicates Non -cow Liance) PLANNING STAFF PLANNING FINDINGS BASED BOARD ON SUBMITTED RECOMMENDED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements The application must comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected property at scale of not less than 1" =100' nor more than 1" =20' 20.3.2 b) Legal description of property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if any, which make amendment reasonably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare. _x —Yes No Site plan provided at scale of 1" =1001. Yes No _x—Yes No Description provided on site plan. Yes No ,x —Yes No The applicant is not indicating an Yes No alleged error. _x —Yes No The applicant has indicated that "due Yes No to the limited available arable land, yet ever increasing demands for services in the Triangle Area, the rezoning will enable the best use and benefit econogically, economically and aestheticaLLy. Thereby, waking our county a more desirable place .to work, live, retire or visit." 1oR ARTICLE 20 _ SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING "Yes" indicates com L_ 'iii "No" indicates Non - compliance) PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS BASED ON SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 20.3.2 e) Manner in which _x —Yes No Applicant has indicated that the proposed amendment will carry property is located in a 20 -year out purpose and intent of Transition Area and Commercial/ adopted Comprehensive Plan. industrial Activity Node. These are areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan that are -in the process of changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban type densities and should be provided with public utilities and services within the second 10 -year phase of the Plan. It is also focused at designated road intersections and is appropriate for retail and other commercial uses and /or manufacturing and other industrial uses. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTENT AND APPLICATION CRITERIA PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS BASED ON SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a Light Industrial designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2.21 as follows: (1) Site is located within areas _x—Yes No The property is located in an area designated in the adopted designated 20 -year transition and Comprehensive Plan as either Commercial /Industrial Transition an Industrial Transition Activity Node. Activity Node or a Rural Industrial Activity Node. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Yes No PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Yes 15;) 11 ARTICLE 4 _ DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTENT AND APPLICATION CRITERIA (continued) PLANNING STAFF PLANNING FINDINGS BASED BOARD ON SUBMITTED RECOMMENDED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements (2) Lot size for individual _x—Yes No The applicant has submitted a soil Yes No uses shall be appropriate analysis from the Orange County Health to the method of water Department indicating an area has been supply and sewage disposal. approved for bathroom waste. Water will be provided by an individual well. (3) Access would consist of _x—Yes No The property has 25 feet of frontage Yes No direct vehicular access to and would have direct access to US 70 streets designated either through a proposed private road extending arterial or collected by the along the south side of the property. adopted Comprehensive Plan. Rail access is not provided. Access to rail service is desirable but not required. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham. North Carolina 27253 -0766 August 6. 1990 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY ORANGE COUNTY Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306 -F Revere Road Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 160 13 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRAT Subject: Dorothy Bane Rezoning Application off US 70 Dear Mr. Kirk: This is to advise that the subject rezoning request has been reviewed by this office. The proposed access road does not appear to be in conflict with the future widening of Interstate 85: however, plans at this time are preliminary and may be subject to change. A driveway permit for this entrance must be submitted to this office for review and approval along with appropriate fees. If you have any questions. do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, E. M. Cowan, P. DISTRICT ENGINEER EMC /SPI /pi An Eoual D000rtunity / Affirmative Action Emolover 7R f�[el"Aulia TO: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AS REQUESTED BY WILL WARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE P.O. BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 RE: FIRE AND RESCUE DATE: JULY 16, 1990 In response to your request, Orange County Emergency Medical Services and Eno Fire Department will continue to provide emergency medical and fire service to the area in Orange County Hwy. 70 east to its intersection with the Durham County line. Should you need any further informtion, please call us at 929 -8109 or 732 -8161. OFFICE PHONE HILLSBOROUGH 732.2431 CHAPEL HILL 942.6300 LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNINP DEPARTMENT FROM: LINDY PENDERGRASS DATE: JULY 16, 1990 RE: CONSTRUCTION OF CREMATORY THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CAN PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR A CREMATORY THAT IS TO HE CONSTRUCTED ON HWY 70. THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL OR EQUIPMENT TO PROVIDE ROUTINE SERVICE. LP /jc CC: DOROTHY BANE 15 , RES. PHONE 92i9 ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 163 16 DATE PON 5. 26.. 35 EFERENCE NUMFIER 0(_ SOIL ANPLYS"S W 9893 OWNER: EGUESTEL BANE DCFC TDB C BnNE DORE-T-11Y E OLD HWY J,rA - -51'V 0!1.-D CHPOEL HITLL 2, 7- P;_- L il C, 2,%r 1 85- 2-663 PECIFICAnONS: TO BUILD A CREMATION DCATION / DIRmnoNs: n,'J HWY 70 SIGNA RE0FQWNt:HVmAV'mu- -----' EE, RECEIPT: 0 - PLANNER PLANNER ONFIRIVIED BY PLANNER: I CLERK T E X 37: L cE` Pk."o fir' i iNi, DR ------ E X R. POR INE;�P!L.L - L2 72 ------------------------------ -7- C7 P, L c lbw, H I L i C- .Vqz. MIT c -- -- - c) SANITARIAN -- ---------------- ---------- 1.9 „ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 16 b 306F REVERE ROAD m HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Eddie Kirk, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 10, 1990, I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the Dorothy C. Bane and Willie F. Ward request for a rezoning of apip-raximately 2 acres in Eno Tawnshi from Residential -1 R -1 to Light Industrial I -1 to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 10th day of August,- 1990• EDDIE KIRK ZONING OFFICER t O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 30 1990 16'l Action Agenda Item #:7 _CL-�h SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Article 22 - Definition (Studio, Arts and Crafts) Article 4.3 - Table of Permitted Uses DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X—Yes ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 M PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to include arts and crafts studios as a permitted use in commercial zoning districts. BACKGROUND: An arts and crafts studio may qualify as a home occupation, but there is no category in the Table of Permitted uses which addresses a studio as a freestanding use. Recently a building permit was requested to construct a kiln for the firing of sculptures. Manufacturing and Processing, allowed only in industrial zoning districts, was identified as the use category which most closely matched the proposed use. The Standard Industrial Code Manual classifies a studio as a service - oriented use. The proposed amendment defines arts and crafts studios as the working area for artists or craftsmen and gives examples of typical studio uses. Studios would be permitted by right in the commercial zoning districts. Sale of only those goods which are custom -made could occur on-site. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 1(A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 22 Definitions -- Studio (Arts and Crafts) Article 4.3 - Table of Permitted Uses ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: K Staff Planning Board BOCC X Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 30, 1990 F;1iJ�j {OJ- J�Kojj'.`ir!Zi �' is) VV124 1�4F To include arts and crafts studios as a permitted use in commercial zoning districts.. IMPACTS /ISSUES: The Zoning Ordinance does not contain a specific reference to arts or crafts studios. A studio may qualify as a home occupation, but there is no category in the Table of Permitted uses which would permit a studio as a freestanding use. Recently a building permit was requested to construct a kiln for the firing of sculptures. The property was in a LC -1 Local Commercial zoning district. Manufacturing and processing, allowed only in industrial zoning districts, was identified as the use category which most closely matched the proposed use, since an object was being produced. The Standard Industrial Code Manual classifies a studio as a service - oriented use. Other types of arts, such as dance and music, do not involve production of goods, and, unless considered as a home occupation, are not addressed at all in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment defines arts and crafts studios as the working area for artists or craftsmen and gives examples of typical studio uses. Studios would be permitted by right in the commercial zoning districts. Sale of only those goods which are custom -made could occur on -site. Studios would continue to be permitted in residential districts as a home occupation, provided.existing home occupation standards are met. 1!40 1 , ORANGE C O U N T Y HOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Au ust 30 1990 1 "1.3 Action Agenda SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT Item # a -5 -0. SECTION IV -B -1 Lot Standards DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment Diagrams 8/10/90 Letter from Board of Health INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to establish minimum lot sizes needed to accommodate various types of wastewater disposal and water supply. BACKGROUND: The initial purpose of this amendment was to formalize a policy requiring twice the minimum lot size for a lot which provides a septic easement for another lot. During the development of the amendment, the policy was re- evaluated. The amendment was also expanded to establish a minimum lot size for lots served by public water or public sewer, but not both. The attached diagrams provide examples of minimum lot sizes necessary to meet requirements of Environmental Health, and setback and frontage requirements. It is recommended that 40,000 square feet remain the minimum lot size where both a well and septic tank are used. Where there is no well, the lot size could be reduced to 30,000 square feet. Where there is both public water and sewer, the minimum lot size is recommended to remain 15,000 square feet. If an easement is proposed for use by another property, an additional 20,000 square feet is needed to accommodate a septic disposal system. The Orange County Board of Health endorsed the proposal on July 26, 1990. The potential for increased density in the unzoned townships was identified as an issue by the Planning Board on August 20, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 17 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION IV -B -1 LOT STANDARDS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff X_ BOCC 175 Planning Board Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X,High Middle Low Comment : PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 30, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise lot standards to reflect the minimum lot sizes needed to accommodate various types of wastewater disposal and water supply. IMPACTS /ISSUES: This amendment was originally proposed to formalize a policy requiring twice the minimum lot size for a lot which provides a septic easement for another lot. It was presented for public hearing on November 27, 1989. The Board of Commissioners directed staff to receive comments from the Orange County Board of Health regarding area requirements for wells and septic tanks so that the policy might be re- evaluated. The current policy of requiring twice the minimum lot area for a lot providing a septic easement for a different lot was established during approval of the Preliminary Plan for Morelands Subdivision. However, that policy was never translated into a development standard in the Subdivision Regulations. Another aspect of the amendment addresses situations where a lot will be served by public water or public sewer, but not both..That situation is not now addressed in the subdivision regulations. The Orange County Division of Environmental Health indicated that a septic tank drain field and repair are can be located on an area of about one - fourth (1/4) acre (10890 square feet) under conditions of ideal soils and topography. An area of about 3/8 acre (16335 square feet) is more typical. It is required that the well be located at least 100 feet from the septic tank or drain field, and at least 50 feet from any structure. Setbacks of at least ten (10) feet are required for both well and septic tank /drain field. The attached diagrams provide examples of minimum lot sizes that would be necessary to meet requirements of Environmental Health, and setback and frontage requirements for rectangular lots in the unzoned townships. The absolute minimum size needed for a lot would depend on the specific location of the well, septic tank, residence, and driveway, and could be larger or smaller than any figure chosen as a e. minimum lot size. The diagrams illustrate two typical lot configurations with the septic field in front of the residence and the well behind. The total area of the lots shown in the diagrams would be needed to accommodate a well and septic tank under average conditions. The hatched areas indicate portions of the lot that would not be needed if public water were available. The cross- hatched area shows those portions that would not be needed for the septic tank and drain field if soil and topography conditions were ideal. It is recommended that forty - thousand (40,000) square feet remain the minimum lot size where both a well and septic tank are used. Another benefit of 40,000 square feet is that in the event that the zoning restrictions are ever applied in the unzoned townships, non- conforming lots would not be created. Where there is no well, the lot size could be reduced to 30,000 square feet while accommodating the residence and septic area. These figures would accommodate average situations, while providing a small buffer to account for variables such as lot design, house size, etc. Where there is both public water and sewer, minimum lot size is recommended to remain 15,000 square feet. Where an easement is proposed for use by another property, an additional area of 20,000 square feet is needed to accommodate a septic disposal system. The Ordinance Review Committee recommended that the minimum lot size for a lot served by a community well be no less than the lot size that would be required if a well were located on the property. A decrease in lot size for a community well would result in a higher density and more intensive use of groundwater. The proposed amendment also includes a text changes to make the provisions more easily understood. The proposal was presented to the Orange County Board of Health on July 26, 1990. The Board endorsed the amendment and a letter of support is attached. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: IV -B -1. LOT STANDARDS The minimum lot size shall be as required by the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance, or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance whichever is applicable. a) Lots served by on site sewage disposal and water systems shall be at least 40,000 square feet. b) Lots served by public or community water and sewer shall comply with the appropriate Zoning Ordinance. c) Lots served by public or community water and sewer that are not governed by a Zoning Ordinance shall be at least 15,000 square feet. 17'7 1 The minimum lot size in zoned townships shall be overned by the Orange Count Zonin Ordinance. 2 The minimum lot size in unzoned townshi s shall be determined by the method of watersupply and wastewater disposal. a Lots served by individual sewage disposal systems and private or -community wells shall contain at least 40,000 square feet. b Lots served by an individual sewa a dis osal system and 2ublic water shall contain at least 30,000 square feet. c Lots served by ublic water and Rublic sewer shall contain at least 15,000 square feet. 3 Any lot which provides an easement for individual septic dis osal for use by a different lot shall contain the minimum area re uired for that lot plus an additional 20,000 square feet to accommodate the se tic easement. LOT AREA N ff ff- CAS FOR WELL) S F-hT I G TA Q K, LOT WIDTH 41P S ET5A r-S - pffsIgwI .$F WCK- K ru d6S�lC� So' of WF-L . I °o ISaO 5F 1 I �, II ► � -6o Ix -:50,) (MwiHotl AAA FOQ kl 1 i ► 1 I i it I W E LL Ahl D SE.PRG TAKIK. STIZE E T IDEAL 2.8 1 470 0 sepne. -,AMK, FUSLIG WATER 1 i I I 1 I L 'I l7 D' Cotilvt-rlous 0 IT O K 0 M Y ►n I I 0 I 1 m� K ADDITIOMAL AF-'EA m Dep Fob 5 EST`) C TAW Y. vi POsA L L) 117r-IZ AVr-eACjr-. Cotil lTtbtll� 371 230 T ARC, MaWMD TO P15Mr 2g , 5s o sEPdP,Amoka M MIT` oP- A.►1Cjt CoV1lT`l PLAQMMJC1 J0L_./ loan r k t r d 0 0 lo M LOT AREA KJ E ff- nS FOR WELL, S EPT I C TALI K, LOT W I PT'H Ail P S ETDACK5 E)ff-s I G N JE WELL ipr-A 1._ AV1 =1ZA1 r-; CokjP(rl0lj5 CCUPIT1L*)Mt j Wr-LL &Q 12 zs,470 9( 35,490Ff SMFnC, TAKIK. I 5E�-PTI c T4A,1 K, 2a, X20 PL) E� L l G W 4Trr~ 1500 3F t? MlVellCE �3o'X5-a) I I '"'` lo' meow- 5epric SETBACK 130' nor W%pri ST V.eET '29, (,400 APPI`MAJAL AeffQ ME�PffP MOZ 5ffPT10- TAA r C;115POS&L UKIPM AVM4 F-z oo&IPmCJS AV-f4 ti.1 ffl ~Pc7 'M Mf-�--a-' S�PAP�,4T1D1t.1 PSG U l �M�tl`(� �o rz W �1�Lr orzA�f-=: Coo&JT`i PLA0,14,14 J U L-`( 19 ,30 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION P.O. Box 8181, 306C Revere Rd. Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 HILLSBOROUGH (919) 732 -8181 August 10, 1990 (Oftuge Coutnty 54edth (l epotmeot CHAPEL HILL (919) 967 -9251 Daniel B. Reimer, MPH, Director �ownir "N d P t � 0 17 3? xa a Mr. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 MEBANE (919) 227 -2032 REFERENCE: Planning Board's Policy on Minimum Lot Size Dear Mr. Carey: 1�(1 PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISION DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 8181, 300 W, Tryon St. Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 DURHAM (919) 668 -73 At the Orange County Board of Health Meeting of July 26, 1900, Mary Scearbo from the Orange County Planning Department presented background information on the above mentioned policy. Ms. Scearbo had consulted with our Environmental Health staff to obtain pertinent information which was taken into consideration in the development of the policy. The components of the policy were discussed at some length by the members of the Board of Health and a motion was passed by the Board endorsing this proposed policy, setting minimum lot sizes.needed to accommodate various types of wastewater disposal and water supply. Would you kindly assure that the position of the Board of Health is noted,as you see fit,in conjunction with the public hearing on this issue scheduled for August 30, 1990. Please do not hesitate to call myself or Mr. Daniel B. Reimer, if you wish to clarify our position further. Sincerely, c �'''�'�^'i %4 . Ruth A. Royster, Chair Orange County Board of Health cc: Mary Scearbo ^A Tony Laws Daniel B. Reimer SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE. Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225, 100 N. Greensboro St- Carrboro, N.C. 27510, (919) 942 -4168 r A O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 30, 1990 SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT SECTION III --C -2 Application Requirements (Minor Subdivision Final Plat) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING 1,s Action Agenda Item #'D-6-k2 PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendment Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to require that eight (8) copies of the Final Plat for a minor subdivision be submitted with the application. BACKGROUND: Five (5) copies of the Final Plat are now submitted with an application for Final Plat approval for minor subdivisions. Four (4) of these copies are sent to Land Records, Emergency Medical Services, Information Services, and the County Attorney, leaving one copy for the Planning Department files. Additional copies are needed for distribution to the appropriate utility providers and school district. It is sometimes necessary to distribute copies to the Recreation and Parks Department, NC Department of Transportation, or the Planning Department's Environmental Planner. It is recommended that eight (8) copies of the plat be submitted with the Final Plat application. This number would be sufficient in most cases. Additional copies could be requested if needed. The cost to the applicant of supplying additional copies of the plat would not exceed one (1) dollar per copy, according to two local surveyors. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment. t F t S ORDINANCE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION III -C -2 Application Requirements (Minor Subdivision Final Plat) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle X Low Comment: PUBLIC SEARING DATE: August 30, 1990 --------------------------------------- PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To require that eight (8) copies of the Final Plat for a minor subdivision be submitted with the application. IMPACTS /ISSUES: It is now required that five (5) copies of the Final Plat be submitted with an application for Final Plat approval for minor subdivisions. Copies of the plat are sent to Land Records, Emergency Medical Services, Information Services, and the County Attorney for all subdivisions. This leaves only one copy, which must remain in the Planning Department files. Additional copies are needed for distribution to the appropriate utility providers and school district. It is sometimes necessary to distribute copies to the Recreation and Parks Department, NC Department of Transportation, or the Planning Department's Environmental Planner. It is recommended that eight (8) copies of the plat be submitted with the Final Plat application. This number would be sufficient in most cases. Additional copies could be requested if needed. It is also required that five (5) copies of the Final Plat be submitted for major subdivisions. It is not necessary to increase the number of copies submitted for major subdivisions because the applicable agencies and departments received a copy of the Preliminary Plan. The cost to the applicant of supplying additional copies of the plat would not exceed one (1) dollar per copy, according to two local surveyors. I. S 4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: III -C Approval Procedures for Minor Subdivisions III -C -1 Concept Plan Approval III -C -2 Apiplication Requirements Upon approval of the Concept Plan by the Planning Department, the subdivider may proceed with the preparation of the Final Plat. (See Section II - Definitions) Applications for minor subdivision Final Plat approval shall be filed with the Planning Department and shall contain the following information: (a) Minor subdivision application form as prescribed by the Planning Department; (b) Original mylar of the Final Plat and fie (-5-) eight 8 copies thereof prepared in accordance with Section V -D of this Ordinance; O RANGE C O U N T Y r BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1_ s `) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Au ust 30 1990 Action Agenda SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS Item #--D-(p — DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendment Mary Scearbo ext. 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comments on a proposed amendment to consider traffic impacts of efficiency apartments and duplexes in determining the private road classification required for subdivision approval and eliminate approval of Class A roads for minor subdivisions by the Board of Commissioners. BACKGROUND: The Zoning Ordinance was amended on August 6, 1990 to permit use of detached efficiency apartments up to 800 square feet in area in residential zones. The number of efficiency units may increase due to the relaxation of restrictions. To account for the traffic impacts of additional residences, it is proposed that efficiency apartments and duplexes be considered in determining the appropriate classification for a private road. An efficiency apartment expected to create about half of the traffic generated by a single - family residence. A duplex is expected to generate about the same amount of traffic as a single- family residence. It is proposed that a parcel containing an efficiency apartment count as 1.5 lots, and a parcel with a a duplex as two lots when determining the appropriate private road classification. It is also proposed that the requirement that Class A private roads for minor subdivisions be approved by the Board of Commissioners be deleted, as this has not been the practice, and it is inconsistent with the current policy of Procedural simplification. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Ibb PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1_S7 ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Private Road Standards ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: „`X_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle X Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 30, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To consider the traffic impacts of efficiency apartments and duplexes in determining the private road classification required for subdivision approval and eliminate the requirements that Class A roads for minor subdivisions be approved by the Board of Commissioners. IMPACTS /ISSUES: One of the Zoning Ordinance amendments presented on May 29, 1990 proposed that efficiency apartments up to 800 square feet, whether detached or attached, be permitted in residential zones. The amendment was approved on August 6, 1990. The number of efficiency apartments may increase due to the relaxation of restrictions. To account for the traffic impacts of additional dwelling units, it is proposed that efficiency apartments be considered in determining the appropriate classification for a private road. It is also proposed that traffic generated by duplex structures be considered. Traffic generated by home occupations is also of concern. This issue will be addressed through a more comprehensive review of the of the home occupation regulations According to the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, a single - family residence generates on the average 10.06 trips per day. This figure declines by 3.4 trips if there are no more than 2 household members, and declines by an additional 1.5 trips if there is only one family vehicle. Due to the size limitation of efficiency-apartments, it is expected that these two factors would apply, reducing the estimated traffic generated by an efficiency apartment to 5.7 trips per day, roughly one -half (1/2) of that expected for a single - family residence. The Trip Generation Manual includes trip rates for apartments buildings containing 4 or more dwelling units, but does not specifically address duplex units. Trip generation for apartments is less than that for single - family units due to closer proximity to urban centers, allowing greater opportunities for pedestrian trips or mass transit. Since these factors are would not apply for most of the areas in Orange County where duplexes are permitted, it is presumed that the trip generated by duplexes approximate that for single - family residences. Under present regulations, a Class C road serves up to three lots. A w s GS.:r Class B road serves four °that a nine lots. parcel containng a Ain efficiency or more lots. It is proposed apartment count as 1.5 lots, and a parcel with a duplex count as two lots. It is also proposed that the d by Class A for minor subdivisions be approved by deleted, as this has not been the practice, and it is inconsistent with the current policy of procedural simplification. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions in orange County and the class of road required depends on the number of lots served by t r to 3 lots, A Class B road serves t4 to nu99 lotsand_s servedAbroadprivate road, more lots. In determining apartment shall count as 1.5 1,2 ) lots All classes of Private Roads in a ma or (fir more f i v lots) e subdivision require the approval of the Board of Commissioners. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUSCoOI�IIT�T�Een�ent ondJulyc2,R1990wand recommended considered the prop approval., PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: SOCC REVIEW: M Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968 -4421 COMMENTS TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN, CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL, AND ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT AND JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN REGARDING RURAL BUFFER RECOMMENDATIONS OF ORANGE COUNTY'S RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE Phillips Junior High School Chapel Hill, North Carolina August 30, 1990 Presented by Lois T. Herring, Chairman Board of Directors Good evening. My name is Lois Herring. I chair the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, and am speaking tonight on its behalf. OWASA congratulates the Rural Character Study Committee for its tireless work to build a consensus around a challenging set of issues. We especially commend the Committee's educational efforts of the past year to reach out and touch so many members of the County's rural community. OWASA's comments tonight do not address the issues of agricultural, natural, or visual resource protection that received much of the Committee's attention. Our comments are directed at the water and sewer aspects of the proposed amendments. In short, OWASA believes that the recommendations for limited extensions of public water and sewer service into portions of the Rural Buffer may not be possible to implement. We think that these issues should receive substantially more technical and policy consideration before the Joint Planning documents are amended. The OWASA Board raises a number of questions that should probably be addressed in further discussions by the Towns and County: An Equal Opportunity Employer Orange Water and Sewer Authority Joint Public Hearing Comments August 30, 1990 Page 2 1. If public water and sewer service are extended, who do the Towns and County expect - or intend - to provide those services? We would like to know at the outset if you want OWASA to play a role in the Rural Buffer. 2. What exactly do we all mean by "public water and sewer service "? The term usually refers to conventional facilities extended from a centrally located and publicly owned system that typically serves a municipality. But, a number of other community, scale arrangements might also qualify as "public water and sewer service" if operated and maintained by a reliable public entity. You're familiar with the examples: community well systems for water supply; alternative wastewater collection systems, such as small diameter sewers and pressure effluent systems; and community treatment and disposal alternatives, such as package plants, land application, and subsurface low pressure disposal systems. Utilities such as these might well serve clustered or Rural Village developments if properly sited, designed, installed, and operated by a reliable public entity. We respectfully suggest that such a community scale concept of "public water and sewer service" might also avoid the growth management pitfalls and uncertainties often attributed to conventional utility extensions into the Rural Buffer. From a technical, economic, and legal standpoint, It is probably more feasible to limit future service tap -ons to a community scale utility than to the extension of a central system. Let's think about it. 3. OWASA also notes the increasing number of existing Rural Buffer subdivisions served by privately owned and operated community scale utilities. We ask who will eventually assume the responsibility for these systems when the utilities become old or obsolete? OWASA recently denied a request by the Stoneridge /Sedgefield Homeowners Association to assume ownership of a community water system in the Whitfield Road area. If the Towns or County expect - or intend - a future OWASA role in Rural Buffer areas now served in part by private Orange Water and Sewer Authority Joint Public Hearing Comments August 30, 1990 Page 3 community systems, then we need for you to tell us that; and, we would then need a more direct front -end role in the proper site selection, design, and installation of systems that we may be called upon to operate. It's clear that these issues require more discussion than any of us can give them tonight. It may be premature to amend the Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan until such discussion and clarification can take place. We need a clear answer regarding what role, if any, you expect OWASA to play regarding water and sewer service in the Rural Buffer. If we may expect a request for service from you, OWASA must begin now to develop our response through feasibility studies, resource assessment, and policy re- evaluation. On behalf of the Board, I want to reaffirm OWASA's commitment to be guided by the land management plans of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County. But, I also want to remind you of our commitment to making economically sound and technically reliable utility management decisions on behalf of our customers. It's not always easy to fulfill both commitments at the same time, but we'll continue to try. Should you proceed with the Town of Chapel Hill's recommendation for a joint work group of local officials to further refine these issues, OWASA will appreciate the opportunity to participate. Thank you very much. August 23, 1990 01 own of 11ii11sbnruug4 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Chairman Moses Carey Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 101 E. Orange Street P.O. Box 429 (919) 732 -2104 Dear Commissioner Carey: An item on the August 30, 1990 Public Hearing concerns me and as Planning Director for the Town of Hillsborough.I would like to go on record as being opposed to the renaming of'01d Hwy. 86 to Old Chapel Hill Drive. Although the name 0ld Chapel Hill Drive is very colorful, I believe it will create needless confusion and possible danger. The reasons for my opposition to renaming Old Hwy. 86 at this time are: 1. The name Old Hwy. 86 is very traditional and even if it is renamed people will probably refer to it as "Old 86 "; 2. Although there is no Old Chapel Hill Dr. in Orange County there is a well -known Old Chapel Hill Rd. parallel to Hwy 15 -501 and a lesser known Old "Chapel Hill Rd, near the Orange County /Alamance County line. This duplication will create confusion and danger when citizens are using the the Emergency 911 system; 3. According to the Orange County.Subdivision Regulations Section IV- B- 3- -c -11, "Extensions.of existing and named streets shall bear the name of such existing streets and if renamed, Old Hwy. 86 will not follow this adopted law; 4. There will be additional expense in signs and map editing; 5. It is not logical as Old Hwy. 86 links with Carrboro not with Chapel Hill and as the term "Drive" is seldom used to describe a major road. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If possible, I or a representative for me will attend the Public Hearing and read the above statement. Be s4 regards,, Qix Ce JeAet V. Rig ee Planning Director cc: Orange County Commissioners Don Powell, Planner DISTRIBUTED .Alc e/ Don Willhoit July 15 , 1990 Orange County Board of Commissioners Hillsborough, N.C. Dear Don, This letter is in regard to the proposed renaming of Old 86. As president of the Cross- County Communities Association, I represent members who reside on or near the existing Old Chapel Hill Road located in the southeastern part of the county. We as a group unilaterally oppose the renaming of Old 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road. Our opposition to renaming Old 86 is based on our concerns for health and safety. We feel that confusion may occur in emergency situations that call for fire and /or rescue responses. Especially in situations where the person calling 911 has time only to yell the address into the telephone before evacuating his home or giving first aid. Our neighborhood currently splits fire and rescue protection between Parkwood and East Chapel Hill. We already have to go through a list of questions for the dispatcher to determine which department will respond to our location. We don't feel that we can afford to play 20 questions when our house is on fire. Renaming Old 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road would certainly add to the confusion. There are other reasons for our opposition to renaming Old 86, Old Chapel Hill Road. However these reasons pale in comparison to those mentioned above. When this issue is brought up again in August, at the Orange County Board of Commissioners, I hope you will make our concerns public. We, certainly respect and appreciate the attempt to give historical recognition to old and important areas of the county. Unfortunately, in this instance, health and safety concerns outweigh any historical benefits that those persons would gain. Thank You, c�y,l 6WVW--0t) Linda Convissor Cross - County Communities Association P.O. Bose 3031 Chapel Hill 27515 Durham/ Chapel Hill 27707 W-1 14 0 1 qu I Q 9 U 0 4.} q j a j I " j j a , P r 0 ! I i� t ) . .! -"4 ,'j J, I abla"m now a lqoms W-0 to 11v4 n1"$wOu"u02 0"' Nt Un""! "On ..,0 dL 68 ULU POLM6•01 of nu3Van4,,6 ult.., 411103 JMOj istut OW . ; Woe Unk tc I mad nwmr�o mj%"m 0 11 i lot IND ISM ante xW"VE Jll "P am• 10 W�n fib Onmlaq 403 eludw O"OLKOJI2 ut"; yannubb top I im -A bm buawA ILI nmew NO AN L I no W W QWw g..' I I r jWS"P fu Jim I & OPOU 10 T up al 000 Y. to"aqebi 111w Komi —quh dal Ow ao" lie' "! W "WW"uuP "I Yalu u ; " luf 4 ",1 WO m ''I'laftj WAO W 0' LAO 1j; I alml IM A . ,j ii?,J ii-ifl) -ii epom's I 4 -tJO! j kJ We, the undersigned Road, hereby petiti� Hillsborough toward than Old N. C. #86. We +urther petition <NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL property owners along the Old Chapel Hill in you to permanently name the old road from Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD rather that numbered addresses be listed a.s HILL Z*AD 4 ;!E NAME ADDRESS r,S�c Lea id��.�ovz"r.�f, C 20, l/C z s-f Doti; ___._.___..:_ --------------- C-c�H % �Ce ---Q Oftuge Contg 94edth lTepotment August 10, 1990 DISTRIBUTED Mr. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P.Q. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 REFERENCE: Planning Board's Policy on Minimum Lot Size Dear Mr. Carey: At the Orange County Board of Health Meeting of July 26, 1900, Mary Scearbo from the Orange County Planning Department presented background information on the above mentioned policy. Ms. Scearbo had consulted with our Environmental Health staff to obtain pertinent information which was taken into consideration in the development of the policy. The components of the policy were discussed at some length by the members of the Board of Health and a motion was passed by the Board endorsing this proposed policy,setting minimum lot sizes needed to accommodate various types of wastewater disposal and water supply. would you kindly assure that the position of the Board of Health is noted,as you see fit,in conjunction with the public hearing on this issue scheduled for August 30,.1990. Please do not hesitate to call myself or Mr. Daniel B. Reimer, if you wish to clarify our position further. Sincerely, " 4. P&r-z&)- Ruth A. Royster, Chair Orange County Board of Health cc: Mary Scearbo Tony Laws Daniel B. Reimer SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE: Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225, 100 N. Greensboro St., Carrboro, N.C. 27510, (919) 942 -4168 Daniel B. Reimer, MPH, Director D R @ a V 11 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION Coupty or ��, PNAL HEDIVI I L ISI ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION 618Y, W. Try P.O. Box 8181, 306C Revere Rd. b� +*' ° P.O. Box 300 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 , Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 IT S; :ems HILLSBOROUGH CHAPEL HILL '}o ° MEBANE DURHAM (919) 732 -8181 C,kto" (919) 967 -9251 (919) 227 -2032 (919) 668 -7333 August 10, 1990 DISTRIBUTED Mr. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P.Q. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 REFERENCE: Planning Board's Policy on Minimum Lot Size Dear Mr. Carey: At the Orange County Board of Health Meeting of July 26, 1900, Mary Scearbo from the Orange County Planning Department presented background information on the above mentioned policy. Ms. Scearbo had consulted with our Environmental Health staff to obtain pertinent information which was taken into consideration in the development of the policy. The components of the policy were discussed at some length by the members of the Board of Health and a motion was passed by the Board endorsing this proposed policy,setting minimum lot sizes needed to accommodate various types of wastewater disposal and water supply. would you kindly assure that the position of the Board of Health is noted,as you see fit,in conjunction with the public hearing on this issue scheduled for August 30,.1990. Please do not hesitate to call myself or Mr. Daniel B. Reimer, if you wish to clarify our position further. Sincerely, " 4. P&r-z&)- Ruth A. Royster, Chair Orange County Board of Health cc: Mary Scearbo Tony Laws Daniel B. Reimer SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE: Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225, 100 N. Greensboro St., Carrboro, N.C. 27510, (919) 942 -4168 ,Vuke Anibersi#V DURHAM NORTH CAROLINA 27706 SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES TELEPHONE (919) 664 -2421 OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST August 30, 1990 Statement for the Public Hearing on Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer On behalf of the Duke Forest and Duke University, I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to have served on the Rural Character Study Committee in the preparation of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer being presented here tonight. The many hours of open and frank discussions among committee members have produced a set of recommendations which should reasonably represent the interests of the citizens of Orange County living in the Rural Buffer. The Study Committee has worked to achieve logical compromises between environmental, agricultural and development interests, and to recognize the rights and concerns of individual property owners. As a land owner in Orange County, Duke University commends these efforts, and as Resource Manager of the Duke Forest, I fully appreciate the complexities of management for multiple goals. I would like to propose the inclusion of the following paragraph in Section II.4, Other Policy Statements, of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer.. "The Rural Character Study Committee recognizes the environmental significance of the large contiguous tracts of open land represented by the Duke Forest within the Rural Buffer. These lands are important for the enhancement of natural and visual resources and the protection of water quality, wildlife habitats and species diversity. As development progresses throughout the Rural Buffer, the Committee recommends that consideration be given to appropriate measures which will protect and enhance these values and facilitate continued management of the Duke Forest as a research and teaching resource." Judson Edeburn Duke Forest Resource Manager Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968 -4421 MEMORANDUM �RE TO: Commissioner Moses Carey, Jr. Mayor Jonathan Howes Mayor Eleanor Kinnaird FROM: Everett Billingsley DATE: August 31, 1990 SUBJECT: Rural Buffer, Water and Sewer Issues Attached for your information is a copy of OWASA's statement to last night's public hearing on proposed amendments to the joint planning documents regarding the Rural Buffer. Your comments are welcome. i Everett Billingsley Executive Director cc: Mayor Horace Johnson Mr. W. Calvin Horton Mr. John Link, Jr. -Mr. Robert Morgan Mr. Phillip Whitaker An Equal Opportunity Employer 1 4 1' ... „ .............w.... ,....r...,..1A �� ; r ` - - -� - -� Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones Ferry Road OWAS-A P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968 -4421 COMMENTS TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN, CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL, AND ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT AND JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN REGARDING RURAL BUFFER RECOMMENDATIONS OF ORANGE COUNTY'S RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE Phillips Junior High School Chapel Hill, North Carolina August 30, 1990 Presented by Lois T. Herring, Chairman Board of Directors Good evening. My name is Lois Herring. I chair the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, and am speaking tonight on its behalf. OWASA congratulates the Rural Character Study Committee for its tireless work to build a consensus around a challenging set of issues. We especially commend the Committee's educational efforts of the past year to reach out and touch so many members of the County's rural community. OWASA's comments tonight do not address the issues of agricultural, natural, or visual resource protection that received much of the Committee's attention. Our comments are directed at the water and sewer aspects of the proposed amendments. In short, OWASA believes that the recommendations for limited extensions of public water and sewer service into portions of the Rural Buffer may not be possible to implement. We think that these issues should receive substantially more technical and policy consideration before the Joint Planning documents are amended. The OWASA Board raises a number of questions that should probably be addressed in further discussions by the Towns and County: An Equal Opportunity Employer m Orange Water and Sewer Authority Joint Public Hearing Comments August 30, 1990 Page 2 1. If public water and sewer service are extended, who do the Towns and County expect - or intend - to provide those services? We would like to know at the outset if you want OWASA to play a role in the Rural Buffer. 2. What exactly do we all mean by "public water and sewer service "? The term usually refers to conventional facilities extended from a centrally located and publicly owned system that typically serves a municipality. But, a number of other community scale arrangements might also qualify as "public water and sewer service" if operated and maintained by a reliable public entity. You're familiar with the examples: community well systems for water supply; alternative wastewater collection systems, such as small diameter sewers and pressure effluent systems; and community treatment and disposal alternatives, such as package plants, land application, and subsurface low pressure disposal systems. Utilities such as these might well serve clustered or Rural Village developments if properly sited, designed, installed, and operated by a reliable public entity. We respectfully suggest that such a community scale concept of "public water and sewer service" might also avoid the growth management pitfalls and uncertainties often attributed to conventional utility extensions into the Rural Buffer. From a technical, economic, and legal standpoint, it is probably more feasible to limit future service tap -ons to a community scale utility than to the extension of a central system. Let's think about it. 3. OWASA also notes the increasing number of existing Rural Buffer subdivisions served by privately owned and operated community scale utilities. We ask who will eventually assume the responsibility for these systems when the utilities become old or obsolete? OWASA recently denied a request by the Stoneridge /Sedgefield Homeowners Association to assume ownership of a community water system in the Whitfield Road area. If the Towns or County expect - or intend -- a future OWASA role in Rural Buffer areas now served in part by private i T Orange Water and Sewer Authority Joint Public Hearing Comments August 30, 1990 Page 3 community systems, then we need for you to tell us that; and, we would then need a more direct front -end role in the proper site selection, design, and installation of systems that we may be called upon to operate. It's clear that these issues require more discussion than any of us can give them tonight. It may be premature to amend the Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan until such discussion and clarification can take place. We need a clear answer regarding what role, if any, you expect OWASA to play regarding water and sewer service in the Rural Buffer. If we may expect a request for service from you, OWASA must begin now to develop our response through feasibility studies, resource assessment, and policy re- evaluation. On behalf of the Board, I want to reaffirm OWASA's commitment to be guided by the land management plans of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County. But, I also want to remind you of our commitment to making economically sound and technically reliable utility management decisions on behalf of our customers. It's not always easy to fulfill both commitments at the same time, but we'll continue to try. Should you proceed with the Town of Chapel Hill's recommendation for a joint work group of local officials to further refine these issues, OWASA will appreciate the opportunity to participate. Thank you very much. T ORDER OF PRESENTATION ON RURAL CHARACTER ITEMS AUGUST 30, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING 1. INTRODUCTION TO HEARING BY MOSES CAREY 2. RECOGNITION OF CHAPEL HILL, CARRBORO AND COUNTY BOARDS BEGIN JOINT PLANNING ITEMS ITEM #1 CONSIDERATION OF RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE'S CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BUFFER (strategy) MOSES: The three items on this matter (1. Conceptual Guidelines strategy, 2. Joint Plan amendments and 3. Joint Agreement amendment) are so integrally related to each other that holding individual hearings on each item would be repetitious. Therefore, the three staffs recommend that all three be considered together under the following presentation and single hearing. Action on any parts of the three -part package as defined above may be considered individually by any of the boards. A. CLINT BURKLIN, CHAIRMAN - RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE 5 minutes. Clint introduces... B. LIVY LUDINGTON, MEMBER - RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE 3 minutes. Livy introduces... C. BOB STRAYHORN, MEMBER - RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE 3 minutes. Clint introduces... D. SLIDE PRESENTATION - DAVE STANCIL, ORANGE CO. PLANNING DEPT 12 minutes E. PRESENTATION OF STAFF REPORT - DAVE STANCIL (7•minutes). 3. MOSES CAREY OPENS PUBLIC HEARING' • First speaker is Judson Edeburn, representing Duke Univ. • Second speaker is -- - - -, representing OWASA. • Others as signed up... 4. MOSES CLOSES HEARING, ASKS FOR BOARDS DESIRED ACTION. Note to Moses: Chapel Hill staff and Council will call for a Joint Work Group. Orange County and Carrboro Boards have not stated positions on a work group - staffs oppose work group and have suggestions on scope of group if formed. 5. BEGIN ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING Q 2v SLIDE PRESENTATION When the Rural Character Study Committee began deliberations on a set of strategies to reserve the rural character of the Rural Buffer ' , the Committee began by considering its four goals: Agricultural Preservation Natural Resource Protection Visual Resource Protection Growth Management. and a fifth unwritten goal of _providing rural buffer E roperty owners with more flexibility In considering these ggoats, the Committee realizes that each plays a special and vital role in the Rural Buffer portion of the County. In their product, the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, each goal is addressed of individually an comprehensively. Agricultural Preservation The New Hope Creek portion of the Rural Buffer, in the 30 years since 1960, has lost over 50% of its land used for i agriculture. This s a trend that is widely seen in our region and state. Nonetheless, agriculture remains a integral part of the character and resources of the buffer. Are there ways of helping to ensure that agriculture will continue to be a part of the Rural Buffer in the decades to come? In discussing this question with farmers and other interested Vio arties, it became clear to the committee that the best way enhance the viability of agriculture is to make strategies for agricultural preservation an integrahpart of the totar strategy - not a separate issue. The Committee learned that many farmers were concerned that making a livingg in agriculture was becoming more difficult, but that they ad an equal concern over a potential loss in their lifelon investment - the land itself - since this land is of en the farmers retirement and pension. Therefore, the Committee has adopted strategies that would encourage agriculture to coexist with future development - through allowing agriculture in open space set - asides. This means that a farmer who is faced with financial straits need not sell off all his /her land to be carved into subdivision lots. Through clustering of lots with open space set - asides, the farmer can realize return on his land (investment) and keep the better fields in agricultural open space - buffered from the low density residential development. This concept practised at Fearrington Village on US 15/501 in Chatham County. Other means of fostering agriculture include a Purchase of Development Rights program, and endorsement identifyin existing farms to potential developpers or lot buyers - tgereby minimizing the nemesis of the farmer in developing areas - the nuisance suit! Natural and Visual Resources is of The Rural Buffer portion of the County is amply blessed with an abundance of natural resources. From our streams and forests, to specific sites of wildlife habitats and endangered flora, protection of these resources must be of paramount importance. In addition to these natural resources, many also play a visibly pleasing role. Our rolling vistas and bucolic pastoral settings are indeed a resource unto themselves our visual resources. How then to coordinate the often -conflicting concepts of property owners development rights and protection of resources? The Committee considered a number of alternatives to come u with a resource protection strategy for the Rural Buffer. After much deliberation both with residents and experts in the field, came the realization that the rural property owners in the buffer have been stewards of the land, many for generation upon generation. Instead of assuming a worst case and recommending inflexible restrictions on landowners to protect resources, the committee opted to turn this negative around and utilize voluntary incentive measures. The Committee came to the conclusion that by recognizin and encouraging the protection of natural resources in the buffer by landowners the goal of protecting the environment might be greatly furthered. This can best be accomplished by encouragin development to cluster with open space set - asides that include environmentally -sensitive areas. The further use of flexible site - sensitive design standards in the strategy for the rural buffer also enhances this goal. Growth _Management The Rural Buffer, as a part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro plays a critical growth management role for the future of both the , County and the Towns. Its purpose as a rural greenbelt separating the urbanized areas from other suburban and urban areas is very clearly stated in the Joint Land Use Plan. Therefore the Committee recognized very early that whatever strategy they recommended for preserving the rural character in thel�uffer must also complement and maintain the integrity of this vital growth management tool as defined in the Land Use Plan. In examining the New Hope portion of the buffer in detail, the committee asked itself two important questions re the rural buffer. 1. Is the current development standard of single - family residential lots of at least 2.0 acres fostering the protection of the buffer's rural character? 2. Is that rural buffer development standard helping to preserve open space and resources? After considerable study and discussion the answers to these questions were determined to be NO on the first count and "not necessarily" on the second. In a very real sense, the rural character of the buffer is becoming eroded by the plethora of cookie - cutter two -acre subdivisions. While this does promote a low- density of development it alsoapromotes a "rural sprawl" that the current standard actually encourages. The Committee found that a rural buffer consisting of a linear two -acre lot subdivision is not rural at all. Nor are there incentives or reasons for developers to protect resources. Although the buffer contains vital natural and visual resources, there is currently no package that encoura es the preservation of these resources beyond the good wilFof the developer. Isn't there a way to encourage clustered developments that discourage rural sprawl, are low density, and yet protect and preserve open space and resources through sensitive site desi n? Such a program would meet -both the goals of the Join Plannin Land Use Plan and the Committee. This question played a signilicant role in the committee's strategies as relating to growth management. Throughout all of these deliberations, the Committee's discussion was enhanced by lively and spirited ideas from rural buffer residents in any of several meetings. Ideas and suggestions were also suggested from such diverse groups as environmentalists, developers and academia. In hearing the concerns of the rural buffer residents includingg those on the Committee) the task force decided hat a fifth unstated goal of the study should include finding a way to achieve the aforementioned goals while at the same time providing flexibility for rural residents who had no desire to carve their entire tract into two -acre building ots. One finds this flexibility question in the heart oT this strategy, and the Committee feels fortunate that it has found a workable compromise that -provides flexibility while not compromising the intent of the buffer. The allowance of current permitted uses, the provision of up to 2 1 -acre lots to keep "famil - type" _developments from becoming lar a -scale ones, an c7 incentives for large -lot are ways tha? flexibility is provided in this package. (Univ Lake has special regs for water quality goals The Five Development o tions As stated earlier, the New Hope basin of the rural buffer is currently a 20- square mile area in which is permitted only single- family residential lots of two acres or more, with institutional uses such a churches and schools being generally the only other permitted uses. In coming u with development options for the rural buffer, the Committee felt strongly that each option (with one exception) should be permitted by right, since all achieve the goals of the buffer in one manner or another. The Committee considered a veritable plethora of different development concepts before deciding on the five options to be presented tonight. In general, all o1 these options have the following in common. All use voluntary conservation encouraged throw h openspace set - asides and conservation easements in large -lots. All allow slightly different overall densities depending n open space and resource protection. Even the most dense of the options the Rural Village -has an overall low density. Taken together, they represent a "workable compromise" on rural development patterns that developers, environmentalists, farmers academics and planners were able to hammer out over a eighi months meeting twice and sometimes three times per month. The opfions utilize a stiding scale that offers slight density bonuses in exchange for the provision of permanent open space. Open space in this concept means land left in a natural or cultivated state - undeveloped as to construction. The first option is basically the current standard of two acre lot development. Option A would allow residential development averaging at 1.84 acres per lot. This option would utilize voluntary conservation through conservation easements that migh# protect in natural sites within the private open space of a lot. The Committee felt that it was important not to take away development options, although other options may well be better suited to the terrain and environment. OPTION B Takes a slightly different tack toward residential development by encouraging those who would go above and the beyond the proposed low- density standard to create lots of five acres or more. This type of development is very. . conducive to protecting resources through conservation easements, and since it achieves many of the goals of the study this option would have as incentives the use of private roads to enhance rural character, an expedited subdivision review by staff, and lower fees. For practicality, such developments would be limited to a maximum of 200 acres per development. OPTION C is the first of three options that utilize open space set - asides in return for slight density bonuses. In this case property owners determined to develop their land might set aside almost 1 /2 of their tract in agriculture or natural forest, and develop the other half with lots of almost 1 -acre in size. The result of such a development would be a "cluster" of single - family lots averaging out a roughly two acres per lot. OPTION D expands upon this concept. In this case, property owners wishing to develop might set aside 2/3 of their tract in agriculture or natural open space, and develop on the remaining 1/3 using lots of 1 /3 acre on average. This development option would require community water and sewer. Recognizing that unmonitored community water and sewer could become a problem in the future, the committee recommends allowing this option if, and only if a proposed public monitoring and maintenance program is instituted and has oversight over the facilities. In this manner such facilities may be safely run and responsibility may be clearly defined. The final development option is that of the Rural Village - OPTION E. The Rural Village is a concept that is beginning to be seen in many areas striving to protect their rural character while allowing community service provision and affordable residential development options. The Rural Village as proposed by the RCSC is similar in some respects to the Fearrington Village south of Chapel Hill. The Rural Village would be a self -sustaining community that allows residential lots averaging at 1 /4-acre surrounding a commercial core designed to provide services such a bankingg, dining and goods to the village residents onl . This urGan -like atmosphere would be surrounded by vasyt amounts of open space on all sides, such that it would be buffered from roadways and environmentally - sensitive areas 80% , or four of every five acres in a tract to be developed as a rural village must be left in open space. Only one of every five acres could be developed. Public water and sewer would be required, and therefore these developments would be Permitted only in a predefined corridor mutually-agreed upon by the County, Towns and OWASA. A minimum tract size of 200 acres would be required. In order to augment the package proposed by the Committee, there are several issues for furfher study that the Committee identifies: the potential use of a Transfer of Development Rights System, the endorsement of a Purchase of Development Rights system where prioritized agricultural and natural sites might be preserved* the endorsement of the roposed County Monitoring and Maintenance for wastewater systems, and others. Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro are at a crossroads in their collective futures. We have, in the Rural Buffer, abundant natural and visual resources contained largely within private ownership. The concepts of land as a commodity and land as a resource are often conflictin Certainly, here are other means by which one concep ?can be furthered at the expense of the other. In recognizin that both resource protection and private RroperR rights are important parts of our way of life, the ural Character Study Committee has attempted to propose a package that recognizes both of these facts for what they are and identifies a first step toward peaceful coexistence of these two land concepts as Orange County approaches the 21st Century. h ^ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Rural Character Study Committee From: Dave Stancil, AICP05 Date: August 21, 1990 Subject: August 30 Public Hearing Materials Just a few brief notes about the package herein: 1. Public Hearing is at Phillips Junior High School (Estes Drive, between Franklin Street and Airport Road) at 7:30 p.m on Thursday night. we will have a section cordoned off for Committee members. The presentation and hearing will be made before the County Commissioners, Chapel Hill Town Council, Carrboro Board of Aldermen and County Planning Board. The regular County public hearing will follow the Rural Character item, and it is possible at this time that one brief "County -only" hearing may precede our items. 2. There has been construction at Phillips this summer, so parking spaces may be limited. You may want to arrive a few minutes earlv. 3. If you would like to speak at the hearing, please call me by Wednesdav at 5:00 and T_ will have your name put on the list. Scheduled to speak on he'.alf of the committee as a part of the presentation. are Clint Burklin, Livv Ludington and Bob Strayhorn. 4. Attached in the body of the packet is a Joint Staff re_.ort, which outlines staff recommendations. You may want to look at this. µ 5. Also attached is a "Fact Sheet" on the Rural Buffer for vour use. 6. Lastly (unrelated to Thursday night), those of you not present at the last meeting have included in your package a questionnaire regarding strategies for the remainder of rural Orange Coun -v. Please bring the completed survey to the September 20 Committee meeting. See you Thursday night in Chapel Hill: ..- . 'u '' RURAL BUFFER FACT SHEET Rural Buffer is split into two sections: 1. New Hope Creek Basin (north of Chapel Hill /Carrboro) 2. University Lake Basin (west of Carrboro) THE RURAL CHARACTER STRATEGIES DEAL ONLY WITH THE NEW HOPE BASIN! Facts on the New Hope_Basin of Rural Buffer Land Area: 19,000 acres (30 square miles) (10,000 acres east of 1 -40, 9,000 acres west of 1-40) Developable land: 10,500 acres Rate of septic tank percolation: approx. 55% of land "perks "* Population: approx. 5,500 persons (1990) Dwellings: approx. 2000 Current density: 3.5 acres for every person Number of lots: 1,850 Number of lots that could be subdivided: 450 Number of 1987 lots of record "subdividable ": 350. 75% of lots, 5?`z of acreage and 80% of population east of I -40. 60% of larger lots (4 acres) and 48,, acreage west of I -40. 80% of the New Hope Rural Buffer is in Chapel Hill TtiIP 20% of the New Hope Rural Buffer is in Bingham TWP. * - Soil Scientists, Orange County Health Department. Figures provided are rounded. allESTIONS FOR THE SEPTEMBER_ MEETING 1. What differences do you see between the Rural Buffer Area and the remainder of rural Orange County? 2. What should the overall goal of the Committee be? (Please clearly define your terms) 3. What objectives will achieve this goal? 4. What important issues dealing with rural Orange County must be discussed further before we move forward? 5. what course do you think the Committee's should take with the many water supply watersheds in rural Orange? 6. How can the Committee have a coordinated strategy for rural Orange that takes into account the different character and land use patterns of certain areas? 5h oKld w e divide -K e- Coon- k4 ;r)�a recelons cic onshIps) ? _ 7. Should we use the general Rural Buffer approach to address the remainder of rural Orange? 8. If yes to the above, what types of adjustment might be necessary? If no, what type of approach might, we take? 9. Natural constraints can be limiting factors on development. These factors can be "eased" somewhat through man -made systems. Do you think that natural constraints and water /sewer availability should "naturally" be limiting factors on development in rural areas, or should this be altered? 10. How do you think the Rural Village concept might work in outlying rural areas? Should these villages be encouraged as "new" developments, or should they be part of existing communities like White Cross or Cedar Grove? PLEASE COMPLETE AND BRING TO SEPTEMBER 20 MEETING. 1 AN OVERVIEW OF THE CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BUFFER MAY 24, 199U P4 w pq cn � v � Q a U 0 .0 Q FBI �I ul �1 • 41 41 �I �i �I bi 4-1 PM �I �I 1 I C/I 0 •f.,,a • cd 0 U2 � C o w Cd C � I U2 � 0 Cd 0 U2 1 �"4 0 Cd 0 0 0 • FE' 0 U2 I I I i a i AFN 41 Cd u W v U •P' Q) � pt Ul Ul m PE4 cd A-4 M m c cd U2 9 a) 0 �2, I� I C/I cd . F.., 4d Cd 4d 1": 5 Cd cd Q C/D 0 a� P4 k pm r-4 I I I I F z w w F-I F-4 Cf) H C:) P-� x w x H 0 r I I cd Cd A V� R V r ■� A all r7 0 0 e I Cd Cd Cd cd m Y rn Cd co 0 cd cd cd c T I I I� -1!!� N r �1 N Q] 9 �� 1r V ■ cd cd 0 r7 I� V cd W cd r I0 I a I I 9 U Cd U o � o N cd Cf) 0 CD �Q b a� S' $— cUd � ai cd cd � � o 00 � It �a rti 4) a 0 a � T V� PO P4 P-4 po 9 I W r� V � •� as W I I I I y ra ra E-+ ,Oj ho 0 tka a u 0 � k �o • a� ed cd o p P�-1 Z w 0 onwn of RttiohorouO HILLSHOROUCII, NORT11 CAROLINA August 30, 1990 Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Offices P 0 Box 8181, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Renaming of Old Highway 86 South Dear Sirs: 101 E. Orange Street P.O. Box 429 (919) 732 -2104 The Hillsborough Town Board has not been asked to speak to the renaming of Old Highway 86 South which will be discussed at tonight's meeting, however, in official session on Wednesday, the Board voted unanimously to recommend the road be named Old Chapel Hill Drive. The Town Board appreciates your consideration of this recommendation. Sincerely, &we-, W- Aw Horace H. Joh ?son, Mayor .Buke Vnilieriaitg DURHAM NORTH CAROLINA 27706 SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES TELEPHONE (919) 664.2421 OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST August 30, 1990 Statement for the Public Hearing on Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer On behalf of the Duke Forest and Duke University, I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to have served on the Rural Character Study Committee in the preparation of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer being presented here tonight. The many hours of open and frank discussions among committee members have produced a set of recommendations which should reasonably represent the interests of the citizens of Orange County living in the Rural Buffer. The Study Committee has worked to achieve logical compromises between environmental, agricultural and development interests, and to recognize the rights and concerns of individual property owners. As a land owner in Orange County, Duke University commends these efforts, and as Resource Manager of the Duke Forest, I fully appreciate the complexities of management for multiple goals. I would like to propose the inclusion of the following paragraph in Section II.4, Other Policy Statements, of the Conce tual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer.. "The Rural Character Study Committee recognizes the environmental significance of the large contiguous tracts of open land represented by the Duke Forest within the Rural Buffer. These lands are important for the enhancement of natural and visual resources and the protection of water quality, wildlife habitats and species diversity. As development progresses throughout the Rural Buffer, the Committee recommends that consideration be given to appropriate measures which will protect and enhance these values and facilitate continued management of the Duke Forest as a research and teaching resource." Judson Edeburn Duke Forest Resource Manager Route # 7, Box 121 Hillsborough, NC 27278 August 31, 1990 Orange County Board of Commissioners P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborcugh, �dorth Carolina 27270 _ Dear Sirs and Madam: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in what I thought would be a fair hearing of the desi, -es of the landowners along our road-held last night. After the hearing on May 29, 1990, I felt real good about the manner in which you handled our request and proceeded to move on they petition that you asked us to secure. Our honest effort on the petition seems to have fallen on deaf ears. We would have hoped that sixty -five (65% percent of the landowners on our road favoring a name change to Old Chapel Hill Drive would have received more respect. These citizens and landowners deserve the right to the pride which comes with living on a street or road named according to their choosing. The climate of the meeting last night was that you are willing to ignore, not only the petitioners, but those who spoke in favor of the renaming because only ONE landoL•)ner spoke against it. In the hearing you allowed the presentation of evidence of "some eighty names" of people tyho are not even landowners along our - road. You also allowed ane person to suggest that he could get seventy or eighty names of people against the change from Hillsborough to Car- rborc. No one informed the person that we arcs not dealing with -the entire road, but just froth I -85 to New Hope /Arthur Minnis Road. When we first started working our petition, we were told Ly the Llanninq Department- that t_ -hey would Only ccnsider- -,amen of . _.ctual i ando-•ar-ers along our road. It certainly appears that the planning people are now using dirty, underhanded tricks in order to gain their desires. I would hope that the Commissioners would -not allow this. Regarding the letter from Mrs. Rigsbee of the Town of Hillsborough Fla) -�ning Board, I have learned that her letter (on Town stationery) ._a not authorized by the Town Board, and I waa told by ne Hi 11c-bL rough authority that her action was influenced by �1; -. Litt,ni —, t,ho i5 C017ne. -toed with U po- oposed shopping cV enter.° so,_Iti, c'f Hi 1 � �_bcrough. I h, .Ave 5pcdke , to M,r-. hi ttmi_tin 6.,ho that he did not oppose the (old Chapel Hill name and that he ;,)ill Le - .end ;- a l i.'t ter to th i s Pffe_ t . Doe, th i _. r ee ,. c- if F . , , =. ; , .-J t ~i t r. , f i .. t F =' l 1 .ir _ L; f y - 7: j F l sire the i. 7 - C.. d t,•, "i . I l V --hapel Hill or Old Chapel Hill Road and that it has been Cld NC 6 far seventy, eighty, or ninety years. Mr. Michael Hill, a - esear -cher with the North Carolina Department of Archives end -iistory has provided me with the following chronology of our -o ad according to listed maps of the period: :77r -- There were only two roads running south out of Hillsborough: one to the large farm and _property of one T. Lloyd: the other to Patter-son's farm. NFr official road name5.1 Roads south out of Hillsborough much the same as l 177Cj . No official road names.. _.._ 1833 - Roads south out of Hillsborough myh the same as In 1770, No official road names. 1 891 - Our road first appears as OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD. NeL•a- Chapel Hill Road (presently New 86 which was built betwev 1870 and 1e8o) first appears on maps of the ?rea. 1921 - State of North Carolina assumed management of North Carolina roads as the N. C. Highway Commission. 1923 - First official map of North Carolina roads was printed by N. C. Highway Commission. This map shows our road as N. C. 14 and designates it as a topsoil and clay road. 1929 - Our road was upgraded to an oil- treated road. 1933 - Our road (sti11 1V. C. 14) A�,as first paved - -and - - remained N. C. 14 until 1944. 11944 - New Chapel Hill road became State Highway Cab, and N. C. 14 (our road) became State Road 1 009 (NOT OLD 86) . t until eight years ago (1982) did the Department of Trans- start officially designating our road as "Old 86 ". summarize, our road'­ official designations are: 1791-1923, 32 years - Old Chapel Hill Road 19 3 -1944, 21 years -- r.;. C_ 14 - , -1982, '.8 years - -- State Poad 100C) 1 ° j ye ,Ar s t r :Jer:tC� f ±:�E f7av•- „30 D L' VJ (Jf -r lC1,il1, �:) �ItI. -+ P, 311 f -. 1.�i_• -._ f.:r: "• L:i -_._ !I -... '��: .1__, f.,�R.l'�� '`.I. I- !�l�l'1W�_�r' ��`- �r1 r r -eaI - ty, however, our road was first named exactly what we want 7o be named now. OLD 17�7�HPEI HIl_± ROAD. This is all. that 65% of the landowners along nur- road tiarit you to do......give us back .vhat was ours originally, Th nk you !/ Bob Haas, Spokesperson and Petition Circulator for Renaming Old NC 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road HH;jjh =Collet, 1770 `=ripe- atrother, 1909 4MacRae- -E'raz ier , 193,3- George W. Tate, 1991 Route # O, Box 969 Hillsborough, NC 27278 September O, 1990 Orange County Board of Commissioners P.- O. Box 8181 - Hillsboi -ough, North Carolina 27278 Gent 1 emen : Alt'iough I spoke against naming Old Highway 86 Old Chapel Hill Road at the August 30th hearing, I now have learned more about the history of our road and feel that I no longer wish to oppose its renaming. I am aware that many of my friends and neighbors support -and feel st+-ongly about renaming our road, and I am willing to support then in their efforts. nc rely, Don C,o 1 1 i ns r. Route # 7, Box 121 Hillsborough, NC 27275 September 3, 1990- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Our recent efforts to reclaim the original Old Chapel Hill Road name for our .-road has involved us with the bureaucracy, mainly the Orange County Planning Department and an unauthorized opinion on Town stationery from Janet Rigsbee of the Town of Hillsborough Planning Department. Some of this leaves us smelling something "rotten in- Denmark ". I want to say up front that my-comments in no way have reference to Don Powell, who has been both helpful and completely above board. Nor does it deal with the fine people involved with building codes, permits, and inspections who are quite competent, capable, and considerate. When we were first instructed by the Orange County Commissioners to circulate a petition, we secured several names of people who did not own land on this road. We were told at that point by the Orange County Planning Department that th o ld only consider names of property owners. Interestingly,�ilgollins of the Planning Department submitted at the August 30th hearing a list of some eighty names of people from around the county (not property owners along Old Chapel Hill Road) to support his opposition to our request for renaming our road. We realize that with sixty--five percent (65 %) of the property owners along our road favoring-Old Chapel Hill Road, Mr. Col -lips senses the possibility of another "L" on his already questionable record and apparently is willing to resort to questionable tactics to secure a ''W" at any cost. Apparently there has also been some collusion between Mr. Collins' office and Ms. Janet V. Rigsbee, Planning Director for th•e Town of Hillsborough, who took it upon herself, without action of her board or the Town Commissioners and on offici -al Town-- stationery to oppose the renaming of our road. The Town Board ofricially endorsed OUT renaming at a recent meeting, and the letter of endorsement was supposed to be read at the August 30th hearing. A representative from the Town apparently "forgot'' 3r;c! read Ms. Rigsbee's letter instead. Ms. Rigsbee's reasons for opposing the landowners' request for - e-,aming sere that it is "try +ditional" to refer to "Old 26 ': cr_nfusion and danger with 911; Subdivision Regulations U,hich say tll t "Extensions of Existing streets bear the name of cxisti:�[� e ±. - "; Expe- of addition.] s ,gr 6Trtj map udit:ing; end that. art.lr:g to U 1 d Ch..apc�l Hill Road would not be "logical' c` c, , - i �4 :,itf Ca r...r_bcr-o, no` -'' ip _, i'1_,. Rigsbee 1a,�1r..' :;t.a,icJs up. f -- ti n =.tior,. Olci ! a;_r1 !1i11 Road ha: d do_.n. Or_,r, - r,,,r+ was or rgir al 1y no-ned 0 ld Chapel 11i 1 1 d T --,ere wa crfficial nam/og �° �lJ C e 911 a msnt. this 1� t h I s p o � e �-jith a representati%e o \i this wea� an� was tol t with the information secured o l t hat t are not at all li�<ely to c��fuse like strcet namr--s, more C_­speciallv �_ipon the activation of a -rarker board �tiich Iights op the �peci�ic locatio� of each 911 call. My experience with q1 personnel is that they are bot� intelligent and knowledgeable and are r-:;sters at estanlishing all details regarding 911 calls" location 1ncluded' As for the ^e^tension^ argument -- would Ms. Rigsbee have us rename thi� road "Churton Street" (which 3 was told is -` what she would li�,e), and if so, is "street" not an illogical name for such a major road? Finally, Ms. Rigsbee`s argument 'that it is not ..logical as Old Highway B6 links with Carrboro, not with Chapel Hill^, If Ms. Rigsbee would bother to study just_ a little of the history of our area, she would know that when our road was named., there was no Carrboro. The Old Chapel Hill Road did in fact run to Chapel Hill, and present Carrboro was a car barn where students could load and unload baggage, and passenger _ train cars could deliver and pick up students, visitors, and special events fans to the Great University of North Carolina. - The actions of Mr' Collins and Ms. Rigsbee both deserve to be investigated. The least that we should get from paid government employees is competency. Along with it we should expect honesty and strong opposition to anything that can be seen as collusion. Taxpayers, are you asking any questions??? If not, expect what you get for your money!', Oh, yes! Ms. Rigsbee refused to talk to me when I calfed her on the phone regarding her unauthorized letter! inc ely - - Bob Haas -- --- -- RBM:jjh � 0 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27275 c M E M O R A'N D U M 1� 6 TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 21, 1990 SUBJECT: Z -4 -90 DOROTHY C. BANE GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT:. Dorothy C. Bane and Willie F. Ward 3519 Old Highway 10 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 LOCATION: Located on the south side of US 70 approximately 750 feet west of Mount Herman Church Road (SR 1713). REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Light Industrial (I -1) Rezoning Request PURPOSE: To allow a light industrial use to be located on this property. LOT SIZE: 2.00 acres or 87,120 square feet. EXISTING LAND USE: Wooded land zoned R -1 (Rural Residential) SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING: NORTH - Duke Power transmission lines EAST - US 70 and Duke Power land SOUTH - Undeveloped wooded land owned by Dorothy Bane WEST - Undeveloped wooded land owned by Dorothy Bane LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Twenty Year Transition and Commercial /Industrial Node ZONING: The property is presently zoned Rural Residential (R -1). 0 �.J 0 V X53 0 C. (2) Due to the limited available arable land, yet ever increasing demands for services in the Triangle area, it is believed with your approval of rezoning this two (2) acre track of land to I -1, 1-2, or I -3 will enable the best use and benefit ecologically, economically and aestheticly. Thereby, making our county a more desirable place to work, live, retire or visit. 40 • WI t WCA rd's li- 5 nt RURAL CHARACTER STUDY RURAL CHARACTER STUDY JOINT PUBLIC HEARING