HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-04-1991ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1991 ON ALL ABSTRACTS
7:30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE
OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE CLERK'S OFFICE.
HILLSBOROUGH, NC
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 968 -4501.
I. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
II. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead
of time so that you are not overlooked.)
B. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
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 person 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.
III. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- CONSENT AGENDA
(Any item may be removed for separate consideration)
A. Budget Ordinance Amendment #5
IV. RESOLUTIONSIPROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation of December 1 -7, 1991, as Home
Care Week in Orange County
V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. For Citizen Comments and a Decision
1. SUP -1 -91 Green Hill Bed and Breakfast
VII. REPORTS
A. 1990 -91 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
B. Mainframe Computer Status
C. Proposed Public Swimming Pool
D. Hyconeechee Regional Library
VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION -- REGULAR AGENDA
A. Bid Award-- -911 Console Equipment
B. Cabarrus County Tax Case
C. Advertisement -- November 25, 1991 Public Hearing
D. Kaye Chambers -- Partial Width Right -of -Way
E. Health Department Fees
IX. BOARD COMMENTS
X. COUNTY MANAGERS REPORT
XI. APPOINTMENTS
XII. MINUTES
XIIi. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
( *) Indicates items that need immediate attention.
Approved November 19, 1991
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 4, 1991
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session
on Monday, November 4, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old
County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., Vice -Chair
Stephen Halkiotis and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and
Don Willhoit.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant
County Managers Albert Kittrell and Rod Visser, Clerk to the Board
Beverly A. Blythe, Data Processing Director Keith Brooks, Purchasing
Agent David Cannell, Finance Director Ken Chavious, Planning Director
Marvin Collins, Accountant Howard Fitts, Personnel Director Elaine
Holmes, Purchasing Director Pam Jones, Public Works Director Wilbert
McAdoo, Recreation and Parks Director MaryAnne Moore, Department on
Aging Director Jerry Passmore, Accountant for Social Services Rick
Poole, Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve, Health Director Dan Reimer,
Planners Jane Garrett, Eddie Kirk and Mary Scearbo, County Engineer Paul
Thames, EMS Director Nick Waters, and Management Analyst Sharon Siler.
NOTE: All documents referred to in these minutes are located in the
permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office.
BOARD COMMENTS
Chairman Moses Carey announced that he is aware of the concern
the citizens in Perry Hills Subdivision have raised with regard to the
proposed Frazier Road solid waste collection center. He has asked that
work be suspended on this site until further notice.
County Manager John Link stated that the staff is proceeding to
carry out a plan for the County which will provide for 12 -15 solid waste
management locations throughout the County. At each location there
would be the ability to handle that areas solid waste disposal and
recyclables. The location of sites is driven by available land. The
staff is evaluating the Frazier Road site as to soil suitability and
work at this site has been suspended. This same challenge will be found
as other sites are located throughout the County.
Commissioner Halkiotis stated that this facility is located at
the entrance of a well maintained community. He agrees with relocating
this site. Also, something needs to be done about the used car lot with
all the trash at the end of the road.
Commissioner Insko informed the Board that the subcommittee
looking at whether there is a need for one or two high schools did meet.
She will send out a written report with further information.
Ra
COIINTY MANAGER'S REPORT
1. REPORT ON EAS
John Link stated that the County Attorney has prepared for the
Board's consideration a "Petition for Intervention by Orange County ".
Within the next two weeks, County staff will prepare the actual request
for reconsideration as indicated at the last Board meeting. Geoff
Gledhill stated that the Utilities Commission entered an order granting
an extension of time to file notice of appeal in response to the public
staff's request that that be done. The public staff has until November
26, 1991 to appeal the Commission's decision entered on September 27.
That appeal would go to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The public
staff has also filed a motion for reconsideration and in response to
that, the Utilities Commission has established a schedule for all
parties to respond to the public staff's motion for reconsideration.
In addition, the Attorney General has filed a motion joining the public
staff's motion for reconsideration. The response to the public staff's
motion for reconsideration must be filed on or before November 27 and
replies from everybody would need to be filed no later than Friday,
December 13, 1991. It will probably be after the first of the year
before some response will come from the Utilities Commission. The first
step that Orange County must take to become a party to this action is
to be permitted to intervene. That petition has been prepared and
distributed to the Board this evening for their consideration.
Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
Commissioner Gordon to approve the filing of the application to
intervene in the Orange County EAS case before the North Carolina
Utilities Commission.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. RECOGNITION OF SHARON SILER AND JERRY PASSMORE
John Link introduced Sharon Siler, Management Analyst, and
stated that she will be assisting all departments with public education
and public information needs of the County as well as working on special
projects which will include coordination of services. Ms. Siler has
worked eight years for the State in health education.
John Link recognized Jerry Passmore, Director of the
Department on Aging, for receiving the Nathan H. Yelton award for his
contributions to the field of aging in the State. He was commended by
the members of the Board for this achievement.
I. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA - NONE
II. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - NONE
B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
Reverend Fred Jones, 607 Lancaster Road, asked why the
location for the solid waste collection site was picked and was an EPA
agent contacted. If the waste containers are put at this location and
the value of their homes depreciate, this collection site will be the
cause of depreciation. The County should be responsible for paying the
difference in the value of their homes.
Ms. Mary Fuller stated that the citizens of Efland and Cheeks
Township ask that the Board of Commissioners suspend further
development on the Frazier Road solid waste collection center in the
Perry Hills Subdivision. She stated that this site will be a health
hazard and will pose additional health problems. The citizens are angry
with the method used by the Board of County Commissioners and the
Planning Department in choosing the site. The location of the site is
what upset these citizens. She feels this site is not environmentally
safe and defeats the purpose of Senate Bill 111. She asked the County
to work with their community to locate a more suitable site -- one that
will benefit the community and the county -- and keep their homes and
families safe. She suggested that the county share with them the other
proposed sites and maybe a more suitable site could be found. Her group
is willing to assist in contacting property owners in that area. She
asked that the Board share with them the EPA report on this Frazier Road
site before any land removal takes place. She indicated that two sites
have been located if the property owners are willing to sell. The first
site in off the Efland exit and I -85. The second site is the dirt
portion of Frazier Road crossing over Lebanon Road. They definitely do
not want this solid waste collection site as proposed but are willing
to work with the County in locating another site.
Mr. Don Dickerson indicated that these citizens understand the
mandate from the State. Their concern is that perhaps this site is not
suitable. They feel it is environmentally unsafe.
Chair Carey thanked the citizens for expressing their concerns
and stressed that the County does have a responsibility for providing
a way for citizens to dispose of solid waste. He asked the citizens to
help the County in this effort.
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
III. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Insko to approve the one item on the Consent Agenda as
listed below:
A. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT #5
The Board approved the budget amendment as listed below:
GENERAL SOURCE
Source •- Intergovernmental $ 213,301
Appropriation - Human Services $ 213,301
(to budget for Daycare reallocation) "
Source - Intergovernmental
$
49,265
Appropriation - Human Services
$
49,265
(to budget for AFDC Transitional Daycare
funds)
Source - Miscellaneous
$
6,000
Appropriation - Outside Agencies
$
6,000
(to budget for grant funding to the
Triangle Transit Authority)
Source - Miscellaneous
$
6,025
Appropriations - Community Planning
$
6,025
(to budget for Regional Bicycle Plan)
4
NCMH EMS CONTRACTS FUND
Source - Charges for Services $ 18,000
Appropriation - Public Safety $ 18,000
(to budget for updated Carolina Air Care
Ground Unit contract renewal)
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
IV. RESOLUTIONS /PROCLAMATIONS
A. PROCLAMATION OF DECEMBER 1 -7 1991 AS HOME CARE WEEK IN ORANGE
COUNTY
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Gordon to proclaim the week of December 1 -7, 1991 as Home
Care Week in Orange County in accordance with the proclamation as stated
below:
P R O C L A M A T I O N
The citizens of Orange County have benefited from the advantages
of home care for decades. As an alternative to institutional care, home
care fosters a sense of independence and self- respect by affording
patients the right to receive services in the comfort of their homes,
with the reassurance and companionship of family and friends.
Through the dedication and caring of Orange County home care
providers and caregivers, a wide variety of home care services are
available to our citizens. Home care allows quality care to be brought
to all those in need: the young and old, indigent and wealthy, urban
and rural. By caring for the individual at home, home care not only
strengthens the family bond, but serves as a cost - effective method of
care by avoiding unnecessary institutional care.
Home care providers are recognized for their meaningful work with
our ill and disabled citizens. Through the special relationships formed
between patient and caregiver, a better quality of life and sense of
dignity are achieved by many Orange County resident each year.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do
hereby proclaim December 1 through December 7, 1991 as "National Home
Care Week" in orange County and urge our citizens to recognize the
efforts of home care providers and the families and friends of the
elderly and disabled who provide important services in the home.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hands and affix the seal
of Orange County, this Fourth Day of November, Nineteen Hundred and
Ninety -One.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS -
1. SUP -1 -91 GREEN HILL BED AND BREAKFAST
This item was presented for Board consideration of a request
for a Class A Special Use Permit for the non - residential use of the
historic "Green Hill" residence. The applicants, William Thomas
Proctor, III and Evelyn D. Proctor, have requested a Class A Special Use
Permit for a Non - Residential Reuse /Mixed Use of an historic structure
located at the southwestern corner of the intersection of US 70 and
5
Lawrence Road. On October 7, a public hearing was held. On October 21,
the Planning Board approved the application with the attachment of three
conditions.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to close the public hearing and to approve the
issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit as recommended by the
Administration which complies with the standards and required
regulations with the attachment of the following conditions:
1. Roads, parking areas, walkways, utilities, and landscaping
shall be maintained as shown on the approved plans. All
such facilities shall further be maintained and operated
in a safe manner.
2. The final site plan and narrative of the project are to be
incorporated herein and made a part of this Special Use
Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are
to remain on file with the Orange County Planning and
Inspections Department.
3. The Bed and Breakfast shall be operated according to the
site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer
and in compliance with the above conditions.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
VII. REPORTS
A. 1990• -91 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
The Board received this report for information only. The
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report covers all financial activity of
the County for the fiscal year 1990 -91. Finance Director Ken Chavious
highlighted several areas of the report.
B. MAINFRAME COMPUTER STATUS
The Board received a status report of the County mainframe
computer use and capabilities and future needs. Various questions from
the Board Members were answered by Keith Brooks. A report listing the
options for meeting future needs and the associated cost will be
forthcoming for Board consideration.
C. PROPOSED PUBLIC SWIMMING POOL
The Board received in their agenda packet a report on the
Recreation and Parks Advisory Council's recommendation which requests
the Board to include in this years CIP the construction of a public
swimming pool. Susan Waldrop, Chair of the Recreation and Parks
Advisory Council gave an account of the history and process which led
up to this recommendation. She explained how the proposed public -
private venture would work. John Link estimates that the lease
payments will cost $150,000 a year for twenty years at which time the
County would own the pool. The operating costs are questionable but may
be as high as $150,000. The Board requested additional information
which will be provided by MaryAnne Moore, Recreation and Parks Director.
51
D. HYCONEECHEE REGIONAL LIBRARY
Chairman Moses Carey reported on a proposed plan to address
the recommendations included in the September 16, 1991 State Auditor's
review and recommendation from the State Librarian. This plan includes
forming a special task force to implement these recommendations.
Motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to appoint Commissioner Verla Insko and Library Board of
Trustee member Jerry Eidenier to this Special Task Force.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA
A. BID AWARD - 911 CONSOLE EQUIPMENT
Motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner
Willhoit to award the bid for 911 Console Equipment to Motorola, Inc.
for a sum of $155,007.
VOTE: AYES, 4; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Halkiotis)
Other bids were received from the following vendors:
Communications Specialists $ 164,995
Radio Communications of Cary $ 154,142
(The equipment, as bid, was not in
compliance with specifications.)
B. CABARRUS COUNTY TAX CASE
Motion was made by Commissioner Insko to allocate $750 to
Cabarrus County. This motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to approve an allocation, to be funded from
contingency, of $1,408 to Cabarrus County to help with its legal costs
in the case concerning Tax Management Associates and Philip Morris.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
C. ADVERTISEMENT - NOVEMBER 25. 1991 PUBLIC HEARING
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Insko to approve the advertisement for November 25 as
presented with the deletion of 3(b) for Home Occupation Permits.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. KAYE CHAMBERS - PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT -OF -WAY
Othar Thompson wishes to subdivide his 5.5 acre tract into
three lots and convey one of the lots to his granddaughter, Kaye
Chambers, to construct a house. Because of existing structures, access
for all proposed lots cannot be provided within the tract. The existing
driveway on lots 11 and 12 will be extended approximately 130 feet
ending in a cul -de -sac. The entire length will be upgraded to Class B
private road standards. Two of the three lots will be served by this
private road while the third lot has direct access onto NC 86. A
partial width right -of -way of 25 feet is needed for the private road
since the location of existing structures preclude the provision of the
full right -of -way.
7
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to approve a request by Kaye Chambers for a
reduction in right -of -way width from 50 feet to 25 feet.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
E. HEALTH DEPARTMENT FEES
Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt changes in Health Department fees
effective this date as stated below:
(1) Increase the charge of a rabies inoculation given at
Animal Control sponsored Rabies Clinics to $5.00 per inoculation given.
(2) Adopt the Medicaid approved reimbursement rate of $475.00
for insertion of the contraceptive, Norplant.
(3) Set the fee for the rabies vaccination to Orange County
veterinarians and their staff at $30.00 per dose.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
XI. APPOINTMENTS
Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chairman
Carey to approve the following appointments:
(1) EMS Advisory Council - Carol Lorenz as the Hillsborough
representative for a three year term.
(2) Planning Board - James Gray as the Bingham representative who
will complete an unexpired term ending February 1, 1992.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
XII. MINUTES
Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the regular October 22, 1991
meeting as amended.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - NONE
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items for consideration, Chair Carey adjourned
the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, November
19, 1991 in the OWASA meeting room in Carrboro, North Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Budget Ordinance Amendment #5
DEPARTMENT Budget
--------------------------------
ATTACHMENT(S)
(1) Proposed Budget Amendment
Action Agenda
Item No _�JL- A
PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X
1
INFORMATION CONTACT
Budget Office, Extension 2450
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 968 -4501
Mebane 227 -2031
Durham 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To approve proposed budget ordinance amendments.
BACKGROUND: (1) Orange County Department of Social Services has
received additional Daycare funding for this fiscal
year. This amendment will increase the total
allocation for Daycare by $213,301 to $407,362. No
County match is required.
(2) Orange County Department of Social Services
has received $49,265 for a Transitional Child Care
Program. These funds will be used to provide up to
12 months of child care benefits to families who lose
eligibility for AFDC because of increased earnings,
loss of the earned income disregards, or increased
hours of employment. No county match is required for
receipt of these federal and state funds.
(3) On October 22, 1991, the Orange County Board of
Commissioners approved funding for the Triangle
Transit Authority in the amount of $6,000. This
allocation will be funded from contingency.
(4) On October 22, 1991, the Orange County Board of
Commissioners approved funding for the preparation
of a Regional Bicycle Plan. This plan will be
prepared by the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro
Transportation Advisory Committee. orange County's
share of this plan is $6,025 and will be funded from
contingency.
2
(5) On August 20, 1991, the orange County Board of
Commissioners approved the renewal of the Carolina
Air Care Ground Unit contract. The updated contract
provides for increased revenue to compensate
Orange County for the cost of an additional position.
This amendment will budget for these increased
revenues.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board of
Commissioners adopt the proposed Budget
.ordinance Amendments.
3
ORANGE COUNTY
PROPOSED
1991 -92 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
The 1991 -92 Orange County Budget Ordinance, as amended, is amended as
follows:
BEFORE AFTER
(1)
GENERAL FUND
Source:
Intergovernmental
$ 7,084,364
$213,301
$ 7,297,665
Appropriation:
Human Services
11,950,634
213,301
12,163,935
To budget for Daycare
reallocation.
(2)
GENERAL FUND
Source:
Intergovernmental
$ 7,297,665
$ 49,265
$ 7,346,930
Appropriation:
Human Services
12,163,935
49,265
12,213,200
To budget for AFDC Transitional Daycare funds.
(3)
GENERAL FUND
Source:
Miscellaneous
$ 725,153
$ -6,000
$ 719,153
Appropriation:
Outside Agencies
2,031,170
6,000
2,037,170
To budget for grant funding to the
Triangle
Transit Authority.
(4)
GENERAL FUND
Source:
Miscellaneous
$ 719,153
$ -6,025
$ 713,128
Appropriation:
Community Planning
1,251,550
6,025
1,257,575
To budget for Regional
Bicycle Plan.
4
BEFORE AFTER
(5) NCMH /EMS CONTRACTS FUND
Source:
Charges for Services $ 575,549 $ 18,000 $ 593,549
Appropriation:
Public Safety 575,549 18,000 593,549
To budget for updated Carolina Air Care Ground Unit contract
renewal.
BUDGET AMENDMENT #5
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. =Y - -,A
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Proclamation of December 1, - December 7, 1991
as Home Care Week in Orange County
DEPARTMENT: Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:
ATTACHMENT(S): Proclamation INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager's Office
Ext. 2300
TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To Proclaim December 1, - December 7 as Home Care Week in Orange
County.
BACKGROUND: The Home Health Agency of Chapel Hill has requested that this
week be proclaimed Home Care Week to coincide with National
and State recognitions.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board proclaim
December 1 - December 7 Home Care Week in Orange
County and authorize the Chair to sign the
Proclamation.
z
P R O C L A M A T I O N
The citizens of Orange County have benefited from the
advantages of home care for decades. As an alternative to
institutional care, home care fosters a sense of independence
and self- respect by affording patients the right to receive
services in the comfort of their homes, with the reassurance
and companionship of family and friends.
Through the dedication and caring of orange County home
care providers and caregivers, a wide variety of home care
services are available to our citizens. Home care allows
quality care to be brought to all those in need: the young
and old, indigent and wealthy, urban and rural. By caring
for the individual at home, home care not only strengthens
the family bond, but serves as a cost - effective method of
care by avoiding unnecessary institutional care.
Home care providers are recognized for their meaningful
work with our ill and disabled citizens. Through the special
relationships formed between patient and caregiver, a better
quality of life and sense of dignity are achieve by many
Orange County residents each year.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do
hereby proclaim December 1, through December 7, 1991 as
"National Home Care Week" in Orange County and urge our
citizens to recognize the efforts of home care providers and
the families and friends of the elderly and disabled who
provide important services in the home.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hands and affixed the
seal of Orange County, this Fourth Day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Ninety -One.
Moses Carey, Jr.., Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Z
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4_1991
SUBJECT: SUP -1 -91 "GREEN HILL" BED AND BREAKFAST
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT
Application
Vicinity Map
Staff Memorandum
Findings of Fact
Site Plan
Agency Letters
10/7/91 Public Hearing
Minutes
10/21/91 Planning Board
Minutes (Draft)
Traffic Information
Individual Letters
PUBLIC HEARING
1
Action Agenda
Item #_V.Z -,Q
Yes �x_No
INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 2582
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To consider a request for a Class A Special Use Permit
for the non - residential use of the historic "Green
Hill" residence.
BACKGROUND: The applicants, William Thomas Proctor, III and Evelyn
D. Proctor, have requested a Class A Special Use
Permit for a Non - Residential Reuse /Mixed Use of an
historic structure for the property commonly known as
the Green Hill residence. The property is located at
the southwestern corner of the intersection of US 70
and Lawrence Road (SR 1561). The property contains
6.46 acres. The proposed request would allow for the
house to be used as a bed and breakfast. Three out of
the four existing bedrooms would be used for the bed
and breakfast. There are no proposed changes or
additions to the existing house or changes to the
property.
The property is specifically described as Lots 66 and
67 of Tax Map 20 in Eno Township. The current zoning
of the property is Rural Residential (R -1) and the
Comprehensive Plan designation is Rural Residential.
The use of the property, as proposed, requires the
issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. Certain
development standards must be met and a Special Use
Permit must be obtained for the proposal to proceed.
Approval of the request would allow for the use of
"Green Hill" as a bed and breakfast facility for a
maximum of 6 adults.
The proposed Class A Special Use Permit was presented
for public hearing.on October 7, 1991. -Vic Knight, a
real estate appraiser, represented the applicant and
spoke in favor of the request. One citizen expressed
his concern and requested information about the reason
for the application.. The application was referred to
the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned
to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than November
4, 1991 and no later than December 4, 1991.
At its October 21st meeting, the Planning Board
reviewed the general standards, application, site plan
and all supporting documentation and found that the
applicant does comply with the standards and required
regulations. The Planning Board recommends approval
of the request with the attachment of the following
conditions:
1. Roads, parking areas, walkways, utilities, and
landscaping shall be maintained as shown on the
approved plans. All such facilities shall
further be maintained and operated in a safe
manner.
2. The final site plan and narrative of the project
are to be incorporated herein and made a part of
this Special Use Permit. Copies of the final
site plan and narrative are to remain on file
with the Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department.
3. The Bed and Breakfast shall be operated according
to the site plan and written narrative supplied
by the developer and in compliance with the above
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval as per the
Planning Board recommendation.
•
r
(PLEAS--- TYPE OR PRI1;T - INK ONLY) 8 /8S..
hPPLIC).71O FOR CLASS h SPEC1Ai 'SL pER1,.' T
OR,kNGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIO?*ERS
DATE: / ' / o, Sur
hPPL1CAT101` NUNIFER: ? - I 91
I (t+JC) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for it Article C;
Orange County Zoning OrdizarIce for use of the properry as a Beer F B*'eat- pe-
T Ac foliou.'iag infor8tian is pro \'idtt In Suppo-1 of .cis rcaucs::
A. PROPER-1Y I1\FORM. ,TICX:
Street Address 0- :.00at1O --: 1 2r r -rn�rc TJn
Oranrr County T az Mai 70 i.Ot(s) 66 o Ai T Own s:: :. -
onins District(S;: Orange Counz \'
:- of /P2rct) Sizc 6.46 cGres o-� 1�/ - - sCU2r_
1\'L�Der Of �:1S17:t �L`11C7n�S' L Gross :')Co- t_.Cc:^ �nrr_n- _ -c�- nn_n SC::2._
Nllrabt. Of FrODCSLC BL`:16;fi=S' SZmE Gross `!OC- f.rt2 cr+ne- *L_ - � _- S0L'Zr,
Wate- SLDDIV: —ell
k`astc�; atz. DisposzL'_se-- tic sys �ubiic (Sue_.! y) A /E, CDW ::trait\ )�.�'
StAooi DistritL: Orange Co_ua_ct'_ =ire Disiric.:
Cener2! , ZDG L'sCs :l: ArCZ:�'ccico- -ice -
C:lllcal none - - Slrc21M /J -2 :2_£eV�'2
X'/A Watt-shtd (SDGc:!y) K/L - -- --_5:� -.
0 I'D L- F- :z D1aIZ)
.. Si -.. ?LA?� Ih7ORI+!ATIO.N.:
none
Tu'e..iy -si. (26) oopits of 2 Site .._ cparcG by 'orn li� na
SLT \CYO- Or [fi�:DCt•, a -. DrDVIGGC as .aCt_rto by ArilzI: E.8 antl M'.^.lC CD:.LZ:n t�e
following infor=Z.,ion:
see
site Dian
lharti: painL, scale, Zad date.
r/1
ZxLemi of area to be dtvr!ODCL.
LOCZ60= Znd WldLLS Of all tas, =tZLS ZIld :1fi1SLS- Of-WZy WiLili= o: adiateni to
LAC SitL-
x
Location of zI) a isLln&C and DTODased sLructurts on L17L sit-t.
Of ell 2rC2.S Ofi L3G Siit sub_icct to flood AZIlZTd Or lDL`Ild2i70D 2s sho ='«
on flood =ays or solls =ZDS.
,f*
_OY1? l.OcaLioD Of P-11 U'attr Courses OD LAe Slit, 7nCllldlng direction of fIOU%
"
.,iSLIZE LOVOEraDA)' aL Z COfiLOL'r iatt-V2.1 Of f7Ve (D) ft-1 'Z2-Std on =t?—= SeZ
level tlZLL1 =. `
— +:SL:: a ZT_p DrODOStd fC:lt. =E, SCTeC.i,-!F„ EZLCS, Da.-k ZS;, StTVit --, ZZd S1C:22:
ZrLZS.
_
A.^.CLSs to silt, imalueiimc sich., dlsuncts on all roads used for aCCtSS-
( ?L^ASD C01r?L=_r R- =VER S= SID,)
4
C. 0'. HER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION:
Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
_ -ties ; wo ( :) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County i ax Mz;, one (1) cer�
wl,,) the property is question eicar)%' n arl;cd.
Tbc names and addresses of the properiN, owncr(s) and /or appliezni(s), and the
names and addresses are all persons owning properly Within fi -c 'cundred
(5DD) feet of the property in CUCStioL.
iR Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
Traffic impact study as required by Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance.
:Lpr ` c gAdditional information regarding the proposed 'Special Use as required by
ArtiCle 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
i a.n Nzrratiye (or letters from appropriate aeencies) indicating:
12, i3 Method and adequacy'' of provision of scw'age disposal facilities, solid
waste disposal, and Water service. Where public scwtr is not
ati-ailable,'a letter from the Orange Count%- :ieF)th DepartmenL
certifying the suilabiiity of the cxisling and /or proposed
w2siewzter Lreatmcni system for the property.
2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection.
�. MctnDd xAC aOegL'2 ^.\ ' of vtbicuiz, access t0 the Site ane trafflC
cozdiLi01S 27gOLI]d the Slte.
? cv c), the applicant(s), hereby Certify that the forccoint application and SL`pp071,7: g
Coct]^]i Gntatlon and aCCL`ratc. I un0ersLanG that it Swall De -ny
7eSpcnsipility t0 p7tsent evidence to the BOa7d of Co=.- :Ss1D9ers the fc-m o: leStlrno=y,
ei D`.biLt-, dgcumeatt-, models, plant-, and the like to support the - couest 10r Cf Lbe
C:at-S A JDeCiZI USe
,,PPIAC:,N T SIGNA, L)R-(S) v
NOTZ: If title to the above aentioned property is not in the name of the applicznt(s),
please include a letter from the o-wner(s) signifying approl•61 of the request.
................................................ ................._....... - - -...
-
D
_Z-S: r_3oant S
F OFD SF `� I AL. USE F'EFfr;: j
tL
r�
- �— �.~w�•.rrwrsr. .I nn
Tom— .•� i. •i%
�`.:.�'� -. -•'cam,
5
Greenhill
1205 LawrenCe P,
Hillsboroucr
STYLE: Restored lsth C. Colonial
AGE: 240 vepurs (oldest pail dates from 1750)
.. DJROOMS: Four
FATPS: Threc full and one hal1
H=ATED SPACE: 4,718 f,_
TOTAL =NCLOS =D SPACE. 7.295csc. f:.
`DT SIZE: 6.4 --Acres
+NEIGHBORHOOD: Greens,W of:'Isborough
SCHOOLS: Caznero� Stanford and Orange
SPECIAL FEATUR=S: From its seven working fireplaces to ns rean -o::
hoars, six panel 'Christian` doors. a.^id 18th centun, w ndou• _lass
Greenhill projects a sense of heritage and timeless stabili� - ,c
tangible. O gir2!y built in 1750, this historic home has underecr:=
exmansion rmce - once in 1810 and again in 2575 —with co._,D c:c
restoration in late 1989 and eariv 1090. Most recce: improvc_^en
include a Ccm lets update o;
P the kitchen and masts: cash. � s:z::a_ ;c:-.
r_•nt:-al heat and air conditioning, new ea..TDeting in the scc.ic -
2 975. nrw intcno- and +:lerior pay. -,t. c_-Lensn�e
:core. Onc fascinating feature to this grand "home is
'windowless interior space in 'which iht births of 56 babies G•
recvrccd duti-iL- the past zwo and a hall centuries'
Outbuildings include a €nine:- that pe:iorms t-:pic du,r as � c -ca-
garage /wo.'kzhoD and office , a rooke.nr. a restored 19; ,� ce::t : - \'• ::
house and a dog p--n.
y ±• Rte' �IL + +.�� '�� +.' + -�.- w ter. •. - a -
nz 4b
dw
j —t, A _.w °� ��w .`7'`• - ! --_" •� -,:� •sir.'`-- -'; =-• ;y i
ZF
.�,. �- • a� �r r- • ::_ -yam
•riTJwGr�j � MEN •� t�.�� r� —v
�� - - ....�:�n+► .. • -: �:,- - �� —y�r'� =• +�.r -+- �w�rnrr��NNUr�ttttitl'�a- it:i�Y
Yri�, -• ^•.) �..wur.f.r- - -•r7' ..� -- _ �`����"` - ,�� -' � �: - tea- N': -..
-,••- . - � -��=-- _ �,� '� z - _���: '.�'- - �,� - - - mot_ -.:,;y
-
s�.y_-.
xf
Nz
Iasi,- - - - - • - - _ - �•+�`�- . -a'',� .�'"- ":'r`• _' - '+s - -. - _ � - • - --��M
��+� -- r �'.•� ��~. -•_ � ^rte_•.. _ �y�,� y�� -
''
y S•••- y= _._•_�_
- - - .� ..�� r � -T, :1°�ft�'►- `.'.;- .,,, -- mac- �. ir�..� ..� .�y-r� �? � . -_ _ _. -. - •
_ ter. ..•. � —� r � � �+:- =� ;,,;ri_� .�'.' ri� �tY, �� - - -' �,.
- ti �a!dwr+ f!'•� !� � _ - _ ~- .��' �� i -'•� _mss -_ -�= •.�•� ' - - - -�� _
-rte.
•�' -T "w_ - w . /_- SIR Ala& dkj:,
Pe vie
- wf� fir: t� ?ar +�• '�+r: � . -
_ �N
0
ITEM 6.
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
AF 1T -R CON(SUL..T 1 NG W) TH k MLMSEN' OF THE 0 R Fl1'4 CiE: CC)IJI\Ii Y F'! f.tl�!
PDARD . WE WERE ADV I SCD THAT A F GRMAL "TI':AFF I C; S711DY" L,):JU:.C:
N,-IT "-i_- AF='F= 'C;OPRI ATE OR N --- E- DEI). 1'K.1 E SI- A7Et -1 NT I S rU;tl °I1 T i
LI. -U CIF= THE FORMAL, "TRAFf =1C 1111"ACT STUDY" F'Cr; F1DViCw GF' f= 'L.�aIVl�1IJ;
IICIFAF„).
THE PROPOSED USE OF TH 1 S c'RO''ERTY AS A h, =- AND
PRE( FAST WILL HAVE VERY L..% T TLE IMPACT - IF ANY - UP01V TI
EX IS T I N TRAFF I C , TRAFF I C. COUNTS, TRAFF 1'C FLOW OR TT: =7 = 1
PATTERNS OF THIS AREA T�rCALISw:
1. CQU
AS A "WORST CASE SCENARIO" THE INCn -ASE IIU T r:P1_ -; C L:.
AMOUNT TO AN ADD I T I ANAL THREE (C) AUTOMOBILES EN T ;. ,1 r\!C AN
DEPARTING FROM THIS PROPERTY.
THE PROP- R T Y IS SERVICED SY TWO (2) DR I V WAYS :
PAVED DRIVEWAY OF APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET LONG. iT LEADS TC THE
HDL'S= VIA A CIRCULAR DRIVE - OR BRANCHES OFF INTO AN TI::
THE GARAGE. THE SECOND, A LONG, GRAVEL DRIVEWAY O= AP?<RgX_N!r.` =! Y
600 FEET IS PRESENTLY USED ED AS A SERVICE
Dr(I VEWAY. E +pTH OF T
DRIVEWAYS COULD PROVIDE PARKING FOR NUMEROUS AUTOMOBILES. ___
T! -1SriS I S A LARGE TURN -A- ROUND . PAVED AREA PT T HE R 0r, `
OF THE GARAGE WHICH ALSO PROVIDES SEVERAL PARK.11V0 SPF1^ES W'E4L
AWAY PROM LAWRENCE ROAD.
A. THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ADDITIONAL THREE (D•) AUTOMCBILW'
ENTERING OR EXITING LAWRENCE ROAD OF7=RS SUCH A MINIMAL AMOUNT CF
TRAFF-`-7 THAT IT WOULD NOT IMPAOT IN ANY WAY ON THIS ROADWAY.
�
. TO SUMMARIZE: IN VIEW OF THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TRAF=IC
EVEN A "WORST CASE SCENARIO" MIGHT CREATE, THE OPERA-', ?ON 0= ,=
BED AND BREA {::FAST FACILITY AT THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE NO ADVSr=tS=
=-F F E„ T UPON NOR CREATE ANY PROBLEMS R-=LAT I V= TO TRAFw I C I N T .
AREA.
I TEM 7.
N
ITEM 7.
ADDITIONAL 1 NF ORMAT I ON REGARD: NG THE F•ROF'Ow-D SPECIAL USE AE
RECU I RED FAY ART 1 C L E C JF 7 H- 7 D ; t`'S 0R7 I N A N Z E
REFER E N C --- E'.. 7 .. F:R _ TEE 1 A TCJ IaE USED 1 N ::)ETEF;^; Iry
A) THERE IS NO PROPOSED u'HANGE IN ANY CONDI7IDN.
u) THERE WILL BE NO ENLARGEMENT OF THE FACILITY.
C) I NCREASE I N I NTENS I 7 OF USE WOULD ii C. F*CFS 1 LPL UL=T [7m
Ca1ST1NG DEDROOMS AS D---D AND HREA1:'FAS7 ACCOMMODATION. F,T THE
MOST . ONLY C BEDROOMS WOULD BE USED. 7 HE-SE ._ SEDROOMS CUFir =;ENTti 1'
-X i 57. NG AIL TYFtAT I DN , ENLAFtu M--NT OR ANY
F'F-,'O PCSE1) 7 D THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AGAIN,- THE NLIrIL4EF-�
F'EF,S01I S -F C) riE (-)Z;;'DI"II70Dr,TED A7 DrJE T 1 ItiE 1 �; C0 F.. 7
T�1 _ JJ ''L =C t Jr; ��
r;C'ST 6 ADULTS) .
I)) NO STRUCTURAL ALTERATION'S ARE r ROF'DSZ -1).
4) NO CHANGE IN AMOUNT AND /CR LCJCAT I ON OF Or'YN S! ='ACE RE'CREAT _ 0N,
FACILITIES OR ;_AND SCAPE SCF�EEI�'" Nu I a F'F:C)F'C SEC .
F) NO INCREASE 11\1 THE 5T7-:- Or: IQU11-iER OF S _ GNc !S
G) NO CHANGE 7N PARKING ARE -) "S NEED - D -- NO 1 NCF•CEA2 Cr( O�CF; -Acw
S F'ROF- '4^.S_D. - - _ r
H) NJ E;U STAN T I AL CHANaE IN F'E D= S T R I AN AND/OR V= 1-i I L JL �aF( A Z7-
CIR CIRCULATION IS PROPOSED. - - -
.) I'JD CHANCE IN SETEACI; =S nEMU I R =D Y THE PROV I S _ 0f\tiZ r = `L; _
ORE) I NANO. =.
J) NO CHANGE IN THE LCCAT:ON OR EXTENT DF S7R;cT AND LTIL
! MPROVEMENTS ,RIGHTS -OF -WAY • E7=. WHICH WOULD PROVIDE r ^' -• - -EIv-
LEVEL Or SERVICE :S PFr Cz'OS�D .
Y r
10
ITEM S.
F;EFER=N; =.
' C! E. L'.
''4 . 1 fi�)D I T j w)fJHL
IN � JF;ftu:l '' )w
E PLAN BY N . C . F <EG I STEREO LANZ) SUF; V+Y_nR 1 S
0
1 ) LOCATION, ;WIDTH AND TYF''E OF ALL 1 NTERI'QAL, H I L'ULAF• A1�'
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IS INDICATED.
C) THERE '_ S NO ON --SITE S I GNAGE EXCEPT FOR ENTRANCS
HILL" E101,4 WHICH HAS BEEN AT THE PROPERTY FOR M4I NI'
> �C1UNDAR I E: dF TH HE S, 1 T ARE: I NZ.LUD=TJ D -
KIFAREICT f�E.�71I)EI�IC'E HF�S: .:�- FG- 1fJC._
E'•) EiOUNDARY OI\1 RIGHT SIDE OF PR,0E-'EF i "Y 1 5 Ll . S , i-• WY
SO TH -RE AR= NO FEES I DENOES IN THIS D 1 `yEC71" 1 DN.
b)
THE R=
Y Pr� IUS FRONT G= F'iD F; T
1=R0F__IERTY FRONTS ON i;DH'J (;ND GC)Lw :C1Lli -
I' S ON OPPOSITE a : DE DF L 4
HWREN^ ' ROAD. y-
c) THE T HrRE_ ACRE TRACT O~" L AND DIQ1 THE L E 7 ... _ L)"
7HE PROPERTY IS VACANT LAND.
d) 7 H E REAR OF THE PRCIF'rRTY uAC};S L1F -11V
THAT ARz FART D Ti -lE F'OF'LA r; I DED A - - - -
I\~AREST RcSI'DEIUCE IS AF.- 'RJX,II`1 =T -_Y r,
F'=--r7 FROM THE RES I DENCZ AT SUBj E=7 PROP:::, ' .
B) DE- CR I P7I ON OF THE PROPOSED Ur"= OF THE- c - T_ AND THE
TH =R�ON: -
I . I NCL UD I NG AMOUNT OF AREA AL LOCATED - _ BEDROOMS
C. NUMBER OF FULL AND F'A>RT TIME EMPLOY = =S -_NONE .
I
I. NUMBER OF CLIENTS AND /OR OCCUPANTS EXPEC 7 ED TO USE
THE FACILITY: 1 TO b (C COUPLES 47 MOST)
4.F'ROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION: EVENINGS THROUGH THE
BREAKFAST HOUR.
C) BUILDING PLANS FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. NO NEW
STR'UCTUR =S ARE FROPOS =D.
SEE ATTACHED DRAFT Or FLOOR PLANS .
STATEMENT OF ENHANCEMENT OF THE PROPERTY IS ATTACHED
D) LANDSCAFF PLAN - S=_ TTA�H =D SIT_ -' ANSC L -
- A � � AP` c AN SHOD _ NE
EXISTING LANDSCAPING. NO CHAN37-S ARE PROPOSED.
E) STATEMENT FROM AF'F'ROF'R I ATE PUBLIC S =RV I CE
THE METHOD AND ADEQUACY OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER TF1EF;71- =t`
FOR THE PROPOSED USES IS ITEM 10 HERZOr.
ITEM -B. (CONTINUED) REFERENCE s ARTICLE 8.8.24.1
11
F) STATEMENTS FROM THE AmPIROGR I ATE FUEL I SERVICE Asr7N.^. I ES
CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF FIR-E, F'OL I CE AND RESCUE FF OTECT ION TO
1 THE SITE ARE ITEMS 11,12,AND 1_ HEREOF.
G) THIS) PROPERTY HAS HEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE OF NOt,7H
CAROLINA - SEE ITEM 9. HEREOF' - AS OF HISTORICAL S I Gig' I F I CANOE AN:;
Ir'(F'C)R7ANCE. THE PREV1DL'_= DWN :R MFG. :C!^1F?I'J, �;;)V ?SE) `HE ^�1F;nEP.i
OWN• RS T H /�' THE F'F;Dr='cF:TY . �' ALa,. EL. ]. CI I DLE. ! DR I HE Cllu « -L
HTS70R] C icEu? CT'CF';. f IDWEVEF,. _.H_ F'R'G-7--C'S 2F
THAT THE CURE"ENT OWNERS HAVE NCT UNDERTAKE-hi 1HE f= 'FtOCEwE.
H) THERE I -S NO F ='F OPOSED F URTHLR i)EVS.LCJF•'Mr' NT FUR TH I E
ATTACHMENT TO ITEM G. REFEF;ENCE: B EI. "'S... tC>
C1 4,TEME N7 OF- S I GN I r= I CANCC D 7 H�. F'Ftrr- r.,r,r�- 1' qN ri rlF I.
r FPPR0 - -- R1 A'7 "CN+ES ANJ :'HARAr: r
F�JPF ORII`S APPROVAL OF L'SE 0r= S r {CD r.
PRZA1,FAE7 FAC11 -17'Y
7I-4 INITIAL F:CSTDRAT I OIL!
A- -'F'rCCJXIIng'rCLY CC 1' -ARS ACED P
CrJM(A1,'. F;T 7 H A 7 7 I ME , 7!4E HOUSE
- WPE L J TERAL L Y CAWS w RDIn
SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE
c'ONE DRAMATIC CHANG4S IN THE I R
COMAN VACATED THE F Ro;: :I= RTY.-
APF'ROXIMATZLY THREE (T.) YEAF�S.
nF TH13 PR0F :'E R 7Y WPS• LII\ID -«.: 7 Al' :.I�'
TF I� PREV I DUS DWN-n -'RE. 111TH. AN:) I'1-; c" - PART OF- Wh - :ICH D47ES 77 TI- ?v.
I:> E 57F�LIC7'3 DN. A =`7S'r 7'F °II Cr
CCMMUN I TY , WITH AL)V(aNC i IVC F;G� p.N:�
P` REONAL S _ TUAT I ON , lit , . AN L) m, :z .
T T L A N G U 1 SHED D 7H=- M /= ,F;I::ST 701;:
IN Igt.q, WHEN WE AZZ- )U7R7 -D THS .T F1C.';?I�I JIB
THE VERCC Dr= SER I JUS DcCAY AND IVEuLE .T . .. T HG=.D r� I\ V ,. .,± 0
MORE I IOR= THAN TWO YEAF,S. REST0r; 1 N5 THZ F=,R,0F =F;T1' !- -;5 Ste- N
EXTENSIVE AND EXPENSIVE UNDERTAKING. WE 411 = _._CK-I1 S 7HC S:"��_F��.
4P M I T A!T THIS TIME 70 FURTHER ES T A�(L I- SH TF-H I S F+;DF'EF TY AS P. JV -:"
FART D!= THE COMMUN= TY AND O HE_P F'R'C`E: T *7 7 FRDIM
.=A! .L? NC I NTO AN A� +AI`ID0 \1ED~ AND N=GL__7:_D ElAT . I- -1
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE F-POF'4R7Y AS A P 1) AND riR_AI; = ASi' � ILIA! : _ IVC. :
POSSIBLE TO REALI7-- SOM7 REVENUE TO HELP SU= 'r'OR7 THE
_ I'EC� ~
MA 1 N T A I NANCE OF TH= PR N T ? ,
-Ll
PR=S-=RVAITIGN OF THIS PROF= -R7Y.
- Ur; I HcF' , Tl-1I S . S A rii0S7 P "FRO PR 1 A T _ USA 0= -ru I S 1F 0:
AND IN CHARACTER WITH THIS TYPE OF HISTORICAL
`57A7 - . T S _ -• _
AND LAYOUT OF THE STRU:TUR= MA!' :_ 171 VERY AMENPSt! E TO L!SC A-, e _
AND r�REAKFAST . THE S I 0= THE LOT ( c . b AC %ES > MAKE I T F'DSC - 7-,:
TO ACCOMMODATE PATRONS OF A SED AND BREA) FPST WITHOUT
I M =ACT
NEGATIVELY- UPON THE NEI GHSORHOOD OR AREA TRAr F I r F -
�. URTHcR . T� =•
FRO ='ERTY AND THIS COMMUNITY ARE THE TYPES OF PROPERTIES AND
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ATTRACTIVE TD SED AND BREAKFAST PATRONS,
AND HISTORICALLY, T i-".I S TY= _ 0= �+ED AND REA}:F AST }�E'_r
COMMUNITIES MAINTAIN THEIR CHARACTER AS WELL.
13
(i F` --. ". 'A :71 \' c) F A AND lllr� ,_A1:.--.P`._77 I N V 0 L V E, S tri ) N! I tn 7
T7,, 11 - i:-'- PTV D PE R 7 Y REAL.'! C, : CALLY . 4A'i ONE LJDLI; - D
c:
WDULD DN_'Y -(L- USED L
NIGHIS PER AT MAY1,MJt', L)(3-E-1 ONLY THREE (7,) WZI(j;
DE AVAILADLE: FOR USE C-0 THAT A MAX jt-JUm OF 7HREZ COUPLES OF; c.
ADULTS WOULD ElE USINS THE FACILITY AT ONE-: TIME
CUCITOMAR I L.Y, OWNERS ACT AS THE OPERATORS 0 N
wREAK'FAST SO THA-i No �-:mPLOYEES OR EXTRA STAFF ARE REDUiR-7.1.
S U!-1 'I PiF; Y .7Tyr
AL r-Ac I L: 7' y F D Fc 4�,
P E: A I F A S T _IN CHPRACTEF< AND Zz AND SETT INC. WE _1'FLJ'_L,
AF'F'F;DVElL OF THE S Z 2 14) L USE F` R 1'I I7 W H, W 0 U 1 17
LISE
17ZM
STATEMENT OF ME:7HCO AND ADEQUACY OF
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE AND OF
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AROUND THE SITE
14
METHUD OF ACCESS AND AWOUPly 07 VEHlCULA4 ACCESS H . o
ALREADY DELN ADDRESSED I TH: TRA7PIZ IMPACT STATEMENT ( I TIM
HEREOF) .
1PELIFI CALL Y, ACCESS TO THE PR
DRiVEWAYE: ONE PAVED AND APPRCX:MATELY
ONE GRAVEL AND APPROXIMATELY 600 FEE
PROVIDE MORE THAN ADEQUATE - IN FACT,
PROPERTY.
P -:-: Fi 7" Y 2 5 VIA TWO L Cl 1\1 r.
000 FEET LONG AND
T LONG. THESE DRJVEwpy-_-:;
EXCELLENT - ACCESS TO THE
TRAFF 1 C CONDITIONS AROUND THE SITE ARZ ALSO MORE T H0%,
ADEQUATE. THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS P R 0 P E R T Y AS D A
BREAKFAST WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT UPON SAME.
I
I i
I I I
I
j I p q
w i
i f
I
I I I
I
j I p q
w i
L 1 r -
iA
i
— r
� M
K -2
I II
Pj LA
qu
bn
J a'
I II
•
Ca I
i
v
AV, LC
i f
I
I �
I
I
I
I
L 1 r -
iA
i
— r
� M
K -2
I II
Pj LA
qu
bn
J a'
I II
•
Ca I
i
v
AV, LC
c;
y�
r, r
� p
G
C
15
i f
I
I �
I
I
I
c;
y�
r, r
� p
G
C
15
i I 1Lj
Lu
I
L I
C a T I
QOZ:0.
IV
I
i r o t
A
UI
ih
J
CY
G�
F
Q
16
1 ..
r
_ C
G
C
uk v
c �
17
. �AL8
1
07S4 / / \ 7`2 5 A
rg \ l
\\ \rC w
r+.8 AC. CAL. \ ry \\
\\ s[r \\ /r \� \\ \\ FU
MAP 2O^ IC \ /
/ 7E \ \ \ ✓' �\
/ G � \ \ \ .57A..0 \ \
(P?`Ji- AR ,7
cos C .;�4� :� 67\ \\
�.0 :�. yE �f k•= off''``, 1
7i
1.51 AC r \ \
Z.02 `r
Qf 1 r.,AP ? 1-50 \
I I P/0
A iZ1.46
/ 15.45 C. '
l Ff.
1 �v \� \
c.. - I 5 - 1 1 a
SUS�ti I I N51,, u -'_fir 50- a ° �- j ==7
rt�
/ 4'
c. JOHN K - ?O! G8' i h W1! �:nU
-=I O�NP cz_=
�Nr 4Y -105 W!i i ARC LAtir -- - -7F Z5 -160
PLAT �tErL-r.ENC S KR! µ 1757 I` ),•.�� _
FDR.S' I �/3 3_IacJlgPl�� HILL Y
quMrr uNIC
DG "c a/E 134 V. ARMF!E' D
I rp,rwzNiv yt�
�_ __ - -I� �. µ'!ILL;_- ! !, -•. II
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEtiT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH. 'FORTH CAROLINA :7:78
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ORANGE COUNTY PI- ANrl'ZNG BOARD
FROM:
EDDIE KIRK, PLANNER II
DATE:
JULY 24, 1991
SUBJECT:
SUP -1 -91 GREEN HILL
EYER A L DiFORMA TrON
AD 1'
William Thomas Proctor.Ill and Evelyn D. Proctor
1205 Lawrence Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Location:
Southwest corner of US 70 and Lawrence Road (SR 1561)
Requested Motion:
Approval of Class A Special Use Permit for Non - Residential Mixed
Use /Reuse of an Historic Structure
PU DOSC:
To allow Green Hill to be used as a bed and brew 7 iast with a three
bedroom capacity.
Lot size:
6.46 acres or 281,397.6 square f °..°t
Existing Land Use:
Single - family residential
Surrounding Land Use:
North -
US 70 and land zoned AR on the north side of US 70
East -
Lawrence Road and Oc; one=he~ Golf Course
South -
Residential land zoned R -1
West -
Residential land zoned R -1
19
;4iEMORANDUM
SUP -1 -91 GREEN ML
JULY 24, 1991
PAGE 2
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan: Rural Residential
Zoning: The property is zoned Rural Residential (R -1)
The intent of the Rural Residential (R -1) district is provided in Article 4.2.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
a) Intent
The purpose of the Rural Residential (R -1) District is to provide locations for
rural non -farm residential development, at very low intensities, in areas where
the short and lonc -term solutions to domestic water supply and sewage
disposal shall be individual wells and ground absorption system.
b) Application rite?
This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exis ::
I. Designated b}• the adapted Comprehensive Plan as Rural ResidentiL,
1. urban services, including water distribution and sewage colle.:tion
mains are not likely within 10 -20 years.
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PERTAINING TO
APPLICATION: SUP -1-91 GREEN HILL
Special Uses must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses. Article
8.2.1 b) requires written finding 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 Historic Structures - Non- Residential Reuse /Mixed Use '(Article 8.8.24 refers
to these 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 Board regarding the application in question. The
findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Board of Commissioners in its deliberations.
ARTICLE 8.2.1 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non-compliance)
Ordinance Requirements
8.2.1 The applicant shall have
the burden of establishing by
competent material and
substantial evidence compliance
with all required regulations
and standards including the
following general conditions:
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 (unless
the use is a public necessity,
in which case the use need
not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous property).
PLANNING
BOARD
FINDINGS
x WiLI Will Not
x Will Will Not
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
A letter submitted indicated
the Bed and Breakfast will help
maintain the house as a historical
Landmark, also the evidence from
NCDOT indicates this intersection
is not a particularly dangerous
intersection. Based on this
information the use will maintain
or promote the public health,
safety and general welfare.
Testimony by Vic Knight, Real
Estate Appraiser, indicated
this use will maintain or
enhance the value of contiguous
property.
Will Will Not
WiII Will Not
20
ARTICLE 8.2.1 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (continued)
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
3. 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.
is Is Not A Bed & Breakfast is allowed
in.this zoning district provided
the criteria are met for a Class
A SUP. All of the application
materials meet these criteria.
21
Is Is Not
ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; 'INoll indicates Non-compliance)
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
8.6 - Application submitted —x —Yes
on forms providing full and
accurate description of
proposed use, including
Location, appearance and
operational characteristics
8.8 a) - Twenty -six (26) copies Tx —Yes
of the site plan prepared by a
registered land surveyor or
engineer
8.8 b) - Elevations of all _x —Yes
proposed structures to be
used in the development
8.8 c) - A fee, as set by the _x—Yes
Board of County Commissioners
No A complete application on-appropriate Yes No
forms has been submitted.
No Twenty-six copies of the site plan, Yes No
prepared by Cradle Engineering have
been submitted.
No Shown on the site plan. Applicant Yes No
proposes to utilize existing house
for bed and breakfast.
No 5395.00 application fee has been Yes No
paid.
ARTICLE 14.2.2 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non - compliance)
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
a) Twenty -six (26) copies of _x —Yes No
the site plan submitted
b) Site plan application form _,x —Yes No
c) A copy of the Orange County x_Yes No
Tax Map with the subject
property identified
d) Legal documentation _x—Yes No
establishing entities responsible
for control of common areas and
facilities to be approved by
the County Attorney
26 copies submitted as previously
referenced in 8.8a.
Appropriate application form has
been submitted.
Tax Map has been submitted.
The applicants, William Thomas
Proctor, III and Evelyn D. Proctor
are the owners of the property.
There are no common areas
proposed.
zz
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
ARTICLE 14.2.3 - SPECIFICATION_FOR_PLAN PREPARATION ("Yes" indicates compliance: BIN& indicates Non- compliance)
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Reauirements
a) Boundary of lot labeled
with bearings and distances
b) Name, address, and phone
number of the applicant and
the property owner
C) Name of project, vicinity
map, north arrow, scale, tax
map reference number, date of
plan preparation, and subsequent
revision dates
d) Zoning of the property to
be developed and all adjacent
zoning and existing adjacent
Land uses
e) Adjacent right -of -way
widths with road names and
numbers
_x—Yes No Provided on site plan.
_„x —Yes No Provided in application.
_x—Yes No Provided on site plan.
_x—Yes No Zoning and land uses are provided
in the application.
_x—Yes No Right -of -way widths with road names
are provided on the site plan.
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
23
ARTICLE 14.2.3 - SPECIFICATION FOR PLAN PREPARATION (continued)
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Reauirements
f) Total gross land area of the
_x—Yes No
parcel, maximum and proposed
floor area, minimum and proposed
open space, and minimum and
proposed pedestrian /landscape
area (refer to Article 5.1.2
of the Zoning ordinance)
g) Maximum and proposed
_x—Yes No
impervious surface and required
stream buffers in PWII and WOCA
(Article 6.23 and 6.24)
h) Estimated traffic generated
_x—Yes No
by the proposed development in
trips per day (if it exceeds 800
trips per day, submit a traffic
impact study in accordance with
Article 13)
i) Front, side, and rear
_x —Yes No
building setbacks as required by
Articles 5 and 6 of the Zoning
Ordinance
j) Location of all proposed
_x_Yes No
buildings and structures labeled
according to floor area, building
height and function, and proposed
finished floor elevation
k) Vehicular use areas including
_x—Yes No
existing and proposed streets
and access drives, off street
parking and loading to comply
with Article 10 of the Zoning
Ordinance, and entry /exit points
of adjacent parcels
l) Overhead and underground
_x—Yes No
utilities with accompanying
easements and storm drainage
facilities /easements; (including
septic tanks and wastewater
disposal fields, wells, fire
hydrants, irrigation, and
security lights.)
Land Use Intensity figures are Yes No
provided in the application.
Not applicable. Yes No
The estimated traffic generated would Yes No
be minimal since a maximum of three
bedrooms will be used for the Bed A
Breakfast.
Front, side and rear setbacks are Yes No
met. There are no additional
structures proposed.
Location of existing structures are Yes No
indicated on the site plan. There
are no additional structures
proposed.
Vehicular use areas are indicated Yes No
on the site plan. There are two
access drives off Lawrence Road
Leading to parking areas.
Existing utilities are not proposed Yes No
to be changed.
24
ARTICLE 14.2.3 - SPECIFICATION FOR PLAN PREPARATION (continued)
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
ordinance Reouirements
m) Solid waste disposal _x—Yes No
facilities
n) All free-standing and wall- _x —Yes No
mounted signs in accordance
with Article 9 of the Zoning
Ordinance
o) A landscape plan demonstrating _x_Yes No
compliance with Article 12.3 of
the Zoning Ordinance
p) Existing contour lines (dashed) _,,,x_Yes No
and proposed contours (solid) at
5-foot intervals with 10-foot
contours bold. where site
conditions warrant, 2-foot
contours may be required
q) Retaining walls, tree wells, _x—Yes No
or rip rap as part of the grading
plan
r) Streams, ponds, drainage _x—Yes No
ditches, swamps, floodway and
floodplain boundaries
s) Phase lines and numbers if x Yes No
the development is to be phased
Solid waste is collected by private Yes No
contractor.
The existing entrance sign is Yes No
indicated on the site plan.
A landscape plan has been submitted. Yes No
The existing landscaping complies
with Article 12 of the Zoning
ordinance.
Contour lines are indicated on the Yes No
site plan.
There is no grading proposed. Yes No
The site plan indicates there are no Yes No
streams, ponds or flood areas on the
property.
Phasing is not proposed. Yes No
25
ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes"
indicates compliance•
"No" indicates Non-comotiance)
PLANNING
BOARD OF
BOARD
COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
Article 5 lists standards for
minimum Lot size, tat width,
front, side and rear setbacks,
maximum building height and
lot coverage, and development
intensity.
The applicant has applied for
a Class A SUP -R1 designation.
The standards for that district
are set forth in Article 5.1.1
and are as follows:
a) Minimum lot area per dwelling
_x—Yes
No
Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Yes No
unit - 40,000 sq. ft.
Planned development approved on site
basis.
b) Minimum Lot width -
_x —Yes
No
The lot has 234 feet of frontage on
Yes No
130 sq. ft.
Lawrence Road.
c) Required front setback -
_x —Yes
No
The house is approximately 400 feet
Yes No
40 ft.
from Lawrence Road.
d) Required side and rear
,x —Yes
No
The house is approximately 110 feet
Yes No
setbacks - 20 ft.
to nearest property line.
e) Maximum building height -
_x—Yes
No
Applicant is proposing no new
Yes No
25 ft.
structures. Existing residential
structure is 2 stories in height.
Compliance with lot coverage
and development intensity
standards is addressed in
Article 6.
26
ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ( °Yes" indicates compliance: °No!' indicates Non -compliance)
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
Article 6 lists specific
standards which apply to
various types of development
applications.
Article 6.12 contains those
development intensity
standards which apply to
developments controlled by
the Land Use Intensity (LUI)
system.
a) Minimum gross land area -
N/A
b) Maximum gross land area -
N/A
c) Maximum floor ratio -
.088
d) Required minimum open
space ratio - .84
Required minimum open
space - 253,554 sq. ft.
e) Required minimum pedestrian/
Landscape ratio - .21
Required minimum pedestrian/
landscape space - 63,388 sq. ft.
Tx—Yes
No
Applicant's site contains 6.92 acres
Yes No
or 301,851 sq. ft. gross land area.
_x—Yes
No
Applicant's site contains 6.92 acres
Yes No
or 301,851 sq. ft. gross land area.
_x—Yes
No
Maximum permitted by ordinance is
Yes No
26,562 sq. ft. Applicant's plans
indicate floor area of 3,211 sq. ft.
_x—Yes
No
Applicant's plans indicate 277,429
Yes No
sq. ft. of open space.
,_x_Yes No Applicant's plans indicate Yes No
pedestrian /landscape areas
totalling 256,352 sq. ft.
Note: See Appendix A for "Definitions ".
27
ARTICLE 8.2.4 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS ALL SPECIAL USES-("Yes" indicates c liance- "No" indicates on-comptiancel
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
Article 8.2.4 requires the
applicant to address the
following:
a) Method and adequacy of �x_Yes No Letter from the Health Department Yes No
provision for sewage disposal indicates the existing well and septic
facilities, solid waste and tank are functioning properly. Solid
water service. waste will be placed in individual trash
cans at each home and will be collected
by a private contractor.
b) Method and adequacy of _x—Yes No Fire protection will be provided by Yes No
police, fire and rescue the Orange Rural - Hillsborough Fire
squad protection. Department, rescue service by the
Orange Rescue Service, and police
protection by the orange County
Sheriff's Department (see attached
correspondence).
c) Method and adequacy of _x—Yes No Access to the site is provided by Yes No
vehicle access to the site two private drives from Lawrence
and traffic conditions Road (SR 1561).
around the site.
ARTICLE 8.8.24 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /HISTORIC STRUCTURES - NON- RESIDENTIAL REUSE /MIXED USE
"Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non -c liance
Article 8.8.24.1 indicates that the following information is required to be submitted as part of the application:
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
a. Site plan containing the
following:
1) location, width, and _x—Yes No There are two existing drives which Yes No
type of all internal will provide adequate circulation.
vehicular and pedestrian
circulation
2) location and dimensions _x —Yes No A small sign is existing at one Yes No
of on -site signage entrance. There are no new signs
proposed.
ARTICLE 8.8.24 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS (continued)
PLANNING
BOARD
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
3) boundaries of site and
_x—Yes
No
distance to nearest
residences
b. description of proposed
uses of site and structure
including the following:
1) amount of area allocated
_x —Yes
No
to each use
2) number of full /part-time
_x—Yes;
No
employees
3) number of clients /occupants
_x—Yes
No
4) proposed hours of operation _x—Yes No
c. building plans including _x —Yes No
description of impact on
historic features
d. landscape plan _x —Yes No
e. service'agencies comments _X —Yes No
on adequacy of water/ r
wastewater system proposed
f. service agencies comments _x—Yes No
on fire, police and rescue
protection
g. listed on National Historic _x—Yes No
Register or recognized by
N.C. as place of historic
interest
h. proposed development _x —Yes No
schedule for site
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Boundaries are indicated on the
site plan. The nearest residence
is 300 feet away.
There are three bedrooms proposed
to be used:
There are no full-time or part -time
employees proposed.
There is proposed to be a maximum of
6 occupants, or 3 couples.
Evenings through the breakfast hour
There are no changes proposed to
existing structures.
A landscape plan has been submitted
that meets the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
A 'letter from the Health Department
was submitted with the application
indicating adequate water and
wastewater systems.
Appropriate letters were submitted
with the application.
Letter of authorization submitted
with application. Recognized by
N.C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
as a structure of historical
significance.
The Bed & Breakfast could begin
operations immediately upon approval
and recordation of the Special Use
Permit. If approved, this Class A
Special Use Permit would only be
valid for 6 years.
28
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
29
ARTICLE 8.8.24.2 --STANDARDS OF EVALUATION "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates Non-compliance)
Article 8.8.24.2 indicates that the following standards of evaluation be used in deciding on an application for this
use:
The Class A Special Use Permit,
if approved, shall be valid for
six (6) years.
PLANNING
BOARD OF
BOARD
COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
a. site plan meets requirements
_x,Yes
No Site plan meets all requirements as
Yes No
of 8.8 and 8.8.24
specified.
b. proposed uses and facilities
_X—Yes
No The proposed bed 8 breakfast,
Yes No
are complementary and
presently utilized as a residential
compatible with surrounding
structure, does not conflict with
area; use preserves historic
residential uses of the area;
character of site and
preserves the historic character
building; development has
of the site; and generates no
no adverse impact beyond
adverse impact.
building, except for parking
facilities
c. historic character of building
_x_Yes
No Historic character of building is
Yes No
is preserved
preserved as evidenced in narrative
and photographs.
d. protective and water/
_X—Yes
No Proposed services are adequate as
Yes No
wastewater services are
evidenced by the Health Department
adequate
letter.
e. recreational /service /parking
,-,-,x,- ,,,Yes
No Existing service /parking and
Yes No
areas and screening are
screening facilities are adequate.
adequate
There are no recreational services
proposed.
f. site is served by direct
_x—Yes
No Site has direct access via two private
Yes No
access to a state - maintained
driveways to Lawrence Road (SR 1561).
road
g. internal vehicular/
_x_Yes
No Internal vehicular and pedestrian
Yes No
pedestrian circulation
circulation is adequate.
adequate
h. all applicable requirements
_x—Yes
No All requirements of the referenced
Yes No
of Article 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
articles have been satisfied.
and 12 have been satisfied
i. the property must be in an
_x—Yes
No The property is located in an R -1
Yes No
AR or R -1 residential zone
zone.
The Class A Special Use Permit,
if approved, shall be valid for
six (6) years.
Ki]
ARTICLE $ - SPECIFIC STANDARDS ALL SPECIAL USES "Yes" indicates c fiance- "No" indica es Non-cc fiance
PLANNING BOARD OF
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance RgSuirements
8.2.2 Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote the public health,
safety and general welfare, will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property or is not in compliance
with the general plans for the physical development of the County shall have the burden of establishing, by
competent material and substantial evidence the specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the
requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use.
Where 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 the application
must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific manner that:
a) The use will not maintain or
promote the public health,
safety and general welfare,
if located where proposed
and developed and operated
according to the plan as
submitted.
b) The use will not maintain or
enhance the value of
contiguous property (unless
the use is a public necessity,
in which case the use need
not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous property).
a) The use is not 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.
_x_Wi L l Witt Not
x Will Will Not
_X—Is Is Not
The letter submitted was not
adequate to make a negative
finding.
The letter submitted was not
adequate to make a negative
finding.
The Letter submitted was not
adequate to make a negative
finding.
Witt _Witt Not
will Witt Not
Is Is Not
7 Z M 9.
N'O—,,n CZrDllm2 Depar-,mcnz, of Culru-,21 Resources
j2rnc$ C. Martin, COVCMOr
pa-Tic C)orscy, Sccrcran,
Dctcher 6, 1989
Re
Cry -ce Count-
DiVi$10n Of ArCnIvn anC ',;lStC71'
V"iiiiarr. S. Frict, j-,., DirzLnoll
As =er %our recues-., = am sending vvu t'- is 2etter su==)c--.
s e;: e r m C
on US an-- :1awT=_7,Ce F-S red z-,, n t
Jr ante Co- .._. F- 1a' n c r C °_.- _M. e .....:se se_
E.s a .Dec 2.7.= as
A th�Iju_h Green 21 s nc;t isted in the N&tiona2 ":;ecister C-
stc7i_ laces, a!: Is and a r ='_- _J -. e c ur &
ain, wel aware ihz-, z_- .,s I th "'e- -4 r
E. ;.:Cme
a-, e 7�lne 'New .- -te
Weer. 6emol ishez' Ce r 7 n uS -
f not CeCIM
ec :O
move -..,)e structure to your ro z- e
,propert y near S:DC uc-
A t
M S t: at V ou r. a 0 L.
a C7 U i - e uree..
C: the Vol-, L.nc ce-I C_M_ nec: znp--- was iat ,-
�t ha6 a c_Teat deal of ar= - tectura-I
f a_-I c e F_ z e v c ii d a r e s e P-:- ch o n th e property a-n d. f 0 U.n, d t h
the Cr'z_!nF_l emuilder was L mLn n.amed Cries: Ies
t
t-- house on Iz.nd crEnt p7operty which he
he Kinc Of --nClan", thus gIvInz E"SD h�storic 1: S i
The resto7atizn work w.,.ich you car ried out was quite =u&__F_wzz!U
and he I -aed, to h i ch c'- t the mzny mpert ant arch ectur&I
e a tur
c the house. You are to ne commended for doing such.;
s am d: -; n cr j 0-'- c f s a v I z ; and az: -; ng the house
iC-? z2s: joncs No-T C?roliM2 :7611
31
I
32.
27A
There are numerous examples of National Register pro ?e�tie5
throughout North Carolina which have been successfuy converted
from residences to inns of this type. It is my oPillnion that
Converting the use of Green Y.ill `from a residence to a bed end
br eakfast Would be a sympathetic L'Se Cf the StrL]CtL're
on =e acai n ensure its cap t i 7Ued r anC NaL 1 c.'
prese, va t i on .
With best regards, * am
Sincerely yours,
Supervisor
Re54ar2:1cn Branch
State ..:s.cr.ti Preservat.ar C_`_`.ce.
Michael Southern
i
- rn
i EvvtRON►AENTAL HEALTH DrvISON
FNra1.L CONTROL DIVISION
F C E .. !1E..7C6(' kv.er6 Ad
1091 73;.8131
CHAPE'- HILL
ryl5) 067-9251
Daniel B. Reimer, MPH., Director
c • ' c,-
ME:E?ANE
October 1�, 1089
33
PERSONAL HEAL Ti,- 1n_1
DENTAL HEALTH D!v!5
P.0 60+ !t!•,. ]x v.
Hmsaorovor• ^ � ; . ; • E
2^_s _e :t ccnce_ rs �•e:: _ rc?e� :;• , _stec �s no _r.G .: sr m.4Y
mac= or c= -he cc_ne- of and'
�e --e; c � Flop
s _ eS,C °rce CC Oc . C-Oer
The _ °_SL_;-s Cr tP. °_ ���A� 5�— e n na:2 : -Ve . 1 ' -e ^ E.
rn.�o `yei -_ -Cr DaC . _
head c m 9ea 'S t0 De nrc" er -_ . = Ctec -r ec from SL= face
CF
C inFt. C:
SeVE- a cls'oosa, sys e= w G -lu_ t c -_ ��. r
.. 1 '�G -cc�Gn GCe C, Sr..•.
The sewa a G_s.pos&, sys Lez �_7v be SLl 4GD_I a to se.-ve ✓er_ a
.:•e �. �GSr �.-�° eS�..c�^. _.. G :per. r _
have not__ ied ^hard- Scep -r'oo c.- the Orange CcUrty FIE-zin; re'Da= t^er-
or .'here r1AG1n 5. you have ai, -• OUeS �?.C.^_S �� e25e CE- 7 =e a; C' C-
F�G _ .. .. De- -OC c -0 a.m.
ire - ,
Di).'_ . cb
SaJTN =�N ORANVL OF =ICE; Carr (dill MaII• SVIIV 225. I00 N. Grp.n500r0 $L, vermoro. h'.v.:,SIC, )S1B) ,L 1& -'•
:'
151 _' Ew.0
ORANGE COUN—ry
14ILLSBOROUGH
r'~ NORTH CAROLINA
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
P.O. Box Big)
929 -8109
732 -8161
June 28, !991
Ms. Lyn Proctor
120S Law ence Road
F. llshoz-ough, North Ca-olina 27278
Emeraency Medical covewage for Bed & Breakfast
AAplication
Dear *�s . Proctor,
The Oranae County Emergency
Provides emergency, medical sez *ices
Please direct cuesticns or concerns
of Emergency Ma.naaement Se=-vices in
if we can he of iL'rther assistance,
contact us.
.Sincerely
N-, ck haters
Director
34
El
i
Communications
EmM2en,} Medical 5er.i
Fite Marsnal
*'anagement Se_-Vices
to .1205 LaoarenCe Road.
to Nick Water, Dinectar
?._lishorough, N2.
?lease -Feel tree to
EMERGENCY MANAGEMES7
P.O. Box 8181
929 -8109
73: -8161
,Tune 2 8 , 19 91
ORANGE COUNTY
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
:7278
ME. Lyn Proctor
2205 Law-ence Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 2 727 8
RE : Fire Covexace for Bed � Breakfast a.s :. AT)-olication
Dear Ms. Proctor,
35
Communications
Emergency Medical Service
Fire Marsnal
The Orange Rural Fire Department provides fire
•oratection ser-vz7ces to 1205 Lawrence Road. The location of
One Orange Rural Fire Department is Churton Street,
shic ouch. Please direct rruestions or concerns to Chief
*'lark Gordon; address correspondence to P. O. Box. 30,
._�l�sborouca, NC 27278.
1f we can be of further assistance, please feel tree to
contact us.
Sincerely,
�7G
Y-dke
Fire Xa-rshal
36
1 VI
2
3
4 Tara Fikes, Director of Housing and Community Development,
5 stated this item is presented to receive citisen comments regarding the
6 Consolidated Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for orange
7 County. This document assesses county housing needs and outlines future
8 plans for addressing these needs. All comments will be incorporated
9 into the final document prior to submission to HUD on or about December
10 16, 1991.
11 No comments were received. Motion was made by Commissioner
12 Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to close the public hearing
13 for public comments. Written comments may be received until December
14 1, 1991.
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 I3ffP -1 -93. 798 THE GRESILA LPL 88D ANA..V2EARFABT
18 Eddie Xlrk, Vic Knight and James F. Davis were sworn in by the
19 Clerk to the Board.
20 Planner Eddie Kirk gave an overview of the request for a
21 Special Use Permit. He stated that the applicants, William Thomas
22 Proctor, III and Evelyn D. Proctor, have requested a Class A Special Use
23 Permit for a Non - Residential Reuse /Mixed Use of an historic Green Hill
24 residence. The property is located at the southwestern corner of the
25 intersection of US 70 and Lawrence Road. The property contains 6.46
26 acres. The proposed request would allow for the house to be used as a
27 bed and breakfast facility for a maximum of six (6) adults. The Zoning
28 Officer recommends approval with the attachment of three conditions.
29
30 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS
31
32 Mr. James F. Davis, neighbor of the Proctors, indicated he
33 needed additional information before he decides if he is for or against
34 this proposal. The house has been for sale for 1 -1 /2 years. He is for
35 the proposal if it will help his property, but against it if it will
35 hurt him. He questioned the motive of the need to have a bed and
37 breakfast with a $600,000 or $700,000 investment.
38 Chair Carey suggested that Mr. Davis could get a lot of his
39 questions answered by talking with the Proctors or by talking with the
40 County Planning staff. Commissioner Insko described for Mr. Davis the
41 process that will be followed before the Board will formally consider
42 this proposal for approval. There Will be ample opportunity for him to
43 comment and ask questions.
44 it was clarified that if a Special Use Permit is issued and
45 the property is sold that the Special Use Permit runs with the sale of
46 the property. Mr. Davis indicated this was his ruin objection. Also,
47 the information received tonight as well as written comments received
48 before the Planning Board meets will be taken into consideration. Mr.
49 Davis stated that he would be happy for the Proctors to have what they
50 want if they can convince him and his wife that it is going to be for
51 the good of the community.
52 Eddie Kirk cited the ordinance requirements as listed in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
_2
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
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
- _ r-. ti'ti . . u L=
37
Article 8.2.2. Mr. Davis feels that the granting of this SUP will
enhance the salability of the property.
Vic Knight, local appraiser, stated that he was hired to
evaluate the impact that this particular use would have on the subject
property. With regard to the value aspect as it pertains to the
adjoining and contiguous properties, he looked at the sales of
surrounding properties of two other bed and breakfast establishments and
how they may have been impacted by the granting of a SUP. What he
determine was that the value impact seems to be negligible or nil. M:-.
Davis' property was not used as a comparable because his property did
not change ownership. The use of the property as a bed and breakfast
would cause a significantly less impact than other uses might on this
property in that particular location.
Mr. Davis stated he doesn't want something in his neighborhood
that is not needed.
Chair Carey stated that it would be Mr. Davis' responsibilit_-
to present evidence that the value of his property would decrease i-O
this proposal is approved. After this public hearing, the Planning
Board may receive and take into consideration any written evidence,
including that which would be contrary to what has been presented.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Gordon that the application be referred to the Planning
Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
no sooner than November 4, 1991 and no later than December 4, 1991.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9JLL8BORQUG-E- -WUE8-T TO 21,BA 8IXTrig 4 INCX WATER LIN9
This report is in response to Hillsborough's request to OWASA
to purchase the OWASA sixteen inch water line which has been used to
transport water between Hillsborough and OWASA. In answer to a question
from Commissioner Gordon, Paul Thames stated that OWASA questioned that
if Hillsborough got control of the line and they developed in the area
served by the line to such an extent that the demand for water used up
a large portion of the carrying capacity of that line and OWASA needed
to get water in or out of Hillsborough through that line, how would that
be accomplished. Thames stated that in any event Hillsborough would
have to have a new pump station built at the boundary of the service
area because OwASA,s existing
high pressure zone. This pu:
overcome the high pressure zor
to satisfy the Hillsborough s
carry the water from OWASA tc
station can be designed to OTA
building a pump station would
this line comes into Guest
financially to build a 12" li;
Chair Carey emphasi
area of consistency use of the
any LUP that the Board agrees
the continued availability c
pumps wouia not De aerie to pump into a
zp station would need to be designed to
e and be able to run enough water through
arvice area water demand plus be able to
Hillsborough. He feels that this punp
kSA's satisfaction. The problem is that
be costly and the feasibility of buying
.on. Hillsborough may be better off
ie instead of buying this 16" line.
red that the Board's interest lie in the
line with the County's Land Use Plan and
on with the Town of Hillsborough and in
E that line for transmission purposes.
cf 111
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
V• _
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Orange County Planning Board
FROM: Eddie Kirk, Planner II
DATE: October 23, 1991
SUBJECT: Traffic Information Regarding Bypass 70 and Lawrence Road
Intersection
The Orange County Planning Staff requested the attached traffic
accident report information for the intersection of Lawrence Road
and Bypass 70. In summary, there have been 12 accidents at or
within 500 feet of this intersection in the last 5 years. Eight of
these accidents have involved injuries, however, there have been no
fatalities. There have been 4 accidents involving only property
damage, 1 night accident, 2 wet accidents, and 1 accident involving
alcohol. According to David Conner with the NCDOT Traffic
Engineering Branch, this would not be considered a high accident
area.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has informed the
Planning Staff that the widening of Bypass 70 and Lawrence Road has
been recommended in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan, but it is
not in the Transportation Improvement Program. Although the Town
of Hillsborough and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
adopted this plan in 1987, the County has not.
If Bypass 70 is widened based on recommendations in the adopted
plan, this would involve a 4 lane divided section with a 200 foot
right -of -way. The cross section would vary based on the width of
the median. Orange County tax maps indicate a 100 foot right -of-
way on Bypass 70, however, NCDOT has indicated that right -of -way
documents have not been recorded. Provided the 200 foot right -of-
way is acquired in the future, an additional 50 feet could possibly
be acquired on each side of Bypass-70.
Lawrence Road, in the adopted plan, is recommended to be widened to
a 4 lane urban section which would involve a 70 foot right -of -way
and a 52 foot cross section. Tax maps presently indicate Lawrence
Road has a 60 foot right -of -way.
39
'O'7VO9/T0788, N. C. DEPARTMENT OF 17A:SPGRTATION - TRAFFIC ENGINEERIN�
~ 0N DATE 101`3/91 (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ARTEKSECTIUN ANALYSIS) po&�
31v 07 GRUKTY ORANGE CITY NR. HILLSBORO TIME 09/01/36 THRu 06/m/9
^^.LOCATIOK...
US 70 DYP(CORN[LIUS ST) @ SR1561/00709/LAWRENCE RD
REQUESTED BY, EDDIE KIRK, ORANGE CO. PLANNINQ DEPT, 9i9-712 =2 fAm &�n w�z.
rKEPARED BY D. CONNER
�C S�A J[ ACCIDENT ACC AWCADENT
G' GEA DATF TIME TyyE
PROP INJURIn4 T �CON 0 v* F���
DAMAGE F A B C RD LGHT OB.�
i
132841
9/30/86 1800
ANQL;��
$2000
DRY DAY NONi�-
VEHi=TK2A
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=055
DIR=W
MANEUVER=GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
VEH2=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=010
DIR=N
KANEUVEK=ELOWING
OR SIOPP10,
�
025008
2/28y87 0758
ANGLE
$165O
DRY DAY NON[
VEHi-PASS
DVR-SOD=KNB
SPEED=050
PTR=W
MANEUVER-GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
VEH2=PASS
DVR-SO&=HNB
SPEED=OiO
DIR-N
MANEUVER=GOINC
STRAIGHT
AP[0
3
650733
4/11/87 2820
RAN OFF
ROAD
- RIGHT
$1200
i
DRY DARK DTC!|
VEHi=PASS
DVR-SOB=DAI
GPEED=055
DIR=W
MANEUVER-GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
4
899692
7/10/88 105
ANGI[
$5580
1 i
WET DAY NON�
VEH1=TK2A
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=045
DIR=W
MANEUVER-GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
VEH2=PASS
DVR-SOD=HNB
SPEED=030
DIR=N
MANEUVER-GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
5
151404
10/08/88 125e
!EFT TURN-CROSS
TRAF
$1100
i
DRY DAY hOTE
VEHi=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=005
DIR=N
MANEUVER=MAKING
TURN
LEFT
VEH2=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=055
DIR=E
MANEUVER-GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
6
O8870
6/09/89 1510
ANGLE
19000
3 i
DRY DAY NOQ�
VEHi=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=049
DIR=E
MANEUVER-GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
VEH2=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED-010
DIR=S
MANEUYEK=GOINN
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
7
149054
9/26/39 0800
ANGLE
$4000
!
DRY DAY NGN�
VEHi=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=035
DIR=N
MANEUVER-GOING
STRAI&HT
AHEAD
VEH2=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED-045
DIR=E
MANEUVER=GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
8
149660
9/77/89 0730
RAN OFF
K3AD
- LEFT
$iOOO
DRY DAY TKE[
VEHi=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=055
DIR=E
MANEUVER=GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
VEH2=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=020
DIR=N
MANEUVER=STARTINU
IN ROADWAY
9
148541
10/10/98 1730
RAN OFF
ROAD
- RIGHT
$fiOOO
2
WET DAY TREE
VEHi=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=850
DIR=W
MANEUVER=GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
iO
06028
5/08/9i 1005
ANIMAL
$180O
DRY DAY ANIM
VEHI=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPE[D=055
DIR=E
MANEUVER=GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
11
096861
7/13/91 1428
RAN OFF
ROAD
- RIGHT
$75
DRY DAY
i
TREE
VEHi=PASS
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=050
DIR=W
MANEUVER-GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
i2
103569
8/03/91 1625
REAR-END
7LCw
OP A70P
$14500
2
DRY DAY NUN:-
YEHi=PASS
DVR-SOh=n:n
WPE[D=O08
DIK=E
MANEUVER-STOPPED
IN TRAVEL
LANE
VEH2=
DVR-SOB=HNB
SPEED=045
DIR=E
MANEUVER=GOING
STRAIGHT
AHEAD
REPORT INCLUDES
ACCIDENTS
THAT OCCURRED
WITHIN
50OFT
OF RTE
ON INTERSECTIN6
KTE`
`ANNUAL ADT= 8,000
TOTAL-VEH-EXPOSURE= 14.60MILLTON-ENT-V70-
~
OTAL ACCIDENT RATE
82.19
ACC/100MEV
ATAL ACCIDENT � RATE
40
'
- ORANGE
- NR. HILLSBORO
54.79
ACC/100MEV
AIGHT ACCIDENT RATE
NUMBER
PER-TOT
DIRECTION
OF
TRAVEL
SUMMARY
ACC/100MEV
QUIVALENT PROPERTY DAMAGE
OF ACC
ACCS
PERCENT
OF VEHICLES
ON
ROAD-ON
7VERITY-INDEX= 20.55
EPDO-ACC-INDEX=
NORTH
�`'WTH
EAST
WEST
OTAL
ACCIDENTS
12
10810
3010
5.0
35.0
30 .8
ATAL
ACCIDENTS
8
0.0
010
0.0
010
0.O
.ON-FATAL
INJURY
ACCIDENTS 8
66-6
2311
7.7
38'5
3O.8
.OTAL
INJURY ACCIDENTS
8
66'6
23'1
7.7
38.5
30.8
'ROPERTY
DAMAlE ONLY
ACC' 4
33'3
42.9
0.0
28.6
28.6
0GHT
ACCIDENTS
i
O�3
O.O
00
010
i00.0
}ET ACCIDENTS
2
16^6
3313
0,0
0.0
66.7
'LCOHOL
INVOLVED
ACCIDENTS i
813
0.0
0.0
010
iOO.O
`ANNUAL ADT= 8,000
TOTAL-VEH-EXPOSURE= 14.60MILLTON-ENT-V70-
~
OTAL ACCIDENT RATE
82.19
ACC/100MEV
ATAL ACCIDENT � RATE
0.00
ACC/1O0MEV
4ON-FATAL INJURY ACCIDENT
RATE
54.79
ACC/100MEV
AIGHT ACCIDENT RATE
6.85
ACC/100MEV
VET ACCIDENT RATE
13.70
ACC/100MEV
QUIVALENT PROPERTY DAMAGE
RATE 1,689.04
ACC/100MEV
7VERITY-INDEX= 20.55
EPDO-ACC-INDEX=
246.60 EST-PROP-DAM= $52825-0O
'CC%DENT TYPE SUMMARY
NO
PERCENT
NO PERCENT
ACC
ACC
!NJ IN.(
'AN OFF ROAD - RIGHT
3
25.0
FATAL
INJURIES 0 O'O
AN OFF ROAD - LEFT
i
8.3
CLASS
A INJUR%ES 5 35.7
iNIMAL
i
80
CLASS
B INJURIES 4 28.6
KAR-END SLOW OR STOP
i
8.3
CLASS
C INJURIES 5 35.7
,EFT TURN-CROSS TRAF
i
8.3
TOTAL
NON-FATAL INJURIES i4 100.0
ZGLE
5
41.7
TOTAL
INJURIES 14 iOO'O
`
��
" ~
'
41
MONTHLY NUMBER
PERCENT
HOURLY
NUMBER 7TnCENT
SUMMARY OF
OF
GUMMARY
OF w
ACCIDENTS
TOTAL
ACCIDENTS [OlAL
JANUARY
0000-0059
FEBRUARY i
8.3
OiOO-0159
MARCH
0200-0259
APRIL i
8.3
0302-0359
MAY i
8.3
0400-0459
JUNE i
8.3
0500-0559
JULY 2
i6 .7
0690-065C,
AUGUST 11
07G6-0759
2
SEPTEMBER 3
25.O
0800-0859
i O 3
OCTOBER 2
16.7
0900-0959
NOVEMBE�
1000-1059
i 8.3
DECEMBER
iiO0-ii59
1208-1259
i 8.7
i3OO-i359
DAY NUMBER
PERCENT
1400-1459
OF
OF
1500-1559
i
ACCIDENTS
TOTAL
1600-1659
i
MONDAY
1700-1759
1
TUESDAY 2
i6'7
1800-1859
2
WEDNESDAY 3
25'O
1 900-i959
7HURSDAY
2000-2059
FRIDAY 2
16'7
2180-2159
SATURDAY 4
33.3
2200-2259
SUNDAY i
0 .3
2300-2359
JMBER OF ACCIDENTS
LIGHT ...ROAD CONDITION-
COND. DRY WET OTHER TOTAL
VAY kx 2 V �i
DARK i O O i
OTHER O O O O
TOTAL 10 2 O i2
'
TOTALS***
INJURY
'
43
7TTED OBJECTS NUM OF
PERCENT OF
VEHICLE TYPE
NUMBER OF
PERCENT"
3TRUIX SUMMARY OBJECTS
TOTAL OBJECTS
SUMMARY
VEHICLE TYPE
OF-TOTAL
STRUCK
STRUCK
ACC ACC
INVOLVED IN
VEHICLE.�
!NJ
!NJ
DAMAGE
THE ACCIDENTS
TURN TRN END OFF ANG SWP OTH
`AKKED VEHICLE
i
NOT STATED
1
.� n 7 0LE' MOPED
$2,000
PASSENGER VEH
17
U9Z
'EDE8TRIAN
STATION WAGON
i
$2,850
l6.7
STATION WAGON
TRUCK
2
'REF 3
5O.O
COMMERCIAL BUS
3
$6,600
!TILITY POLE
1
ION-BREAK LUM POLE
ACTIVITY BUS
'REAKAWAY LUM POLE
989
TRUCK 2 AXLES
2
i
QN-BREAK SIGN
5
TRUCK 3
84.iO
i 2
SREAKAWAY SIGN
i
TRUCK TRACTOR
SEMI
20MMERC%AL SIGN
$11,000
TRUCK TRACTOR
ONLY
TND SHOULD GUARDRAIL
TAXICAB
"AC SHOULD GUARDRAIL
FARM EQUIPMENT
991
3
�ND MEDIAN GUARDRAIL
i
FARM TRACTOR
3
061375
'AC MEDIAN GURADRAIL
i 1 �
MOTORCYCLE
i2
8
0D SHOULDER BARRIER
MOPED
$52,825
246.60
"AC SHOULDER BARRIER
MOTOR SCOOTER
ZND MEDIAN BARRIER
AMBULANCE
,AC MEDIAN BARRIER
OF
BICYCLE
REPORT
0D BRIDGE RAIL
RECREATIONAL VEH
"ACE BRIDGE RAIL
TRUCK CAMPER
VV-HEAD OF UNDERPASS
PEDESTRIAN
DIER ON SHOULDER
OTHER MOTOR VEH
`IER %N MEDIAN
TOTAL VEHICLES
19
1 00'O
ABUTMENT
TRAFFIC ISLAND
3HLD BASIN-CULVERT i
i6.7
lEDIAN BASIN-CULVERT
}ITCH BANK i
16.7
VAILBOX
vENCE OR FENCE POST
TONSTRUCTION BARRIER
3RASH CUSHION
3THER OBJECT
'OTAL FIXED OBJECTS 6
i0O.O
=CCIDENT
TOTALS***
INJURY
****** ACCIDENT TYPES ******
TOT
F INJ
PDO
F
ABC
PROPERTY
EPDO
LEFT RT REAR RUN wInt
'EAR
ACC ACC
ACC
ACC
!NJ
!NJ
DAMAGE
INDEX
TURN TRN END OFF ANG SWP OTH
986
i
1
$2,000
i.00
i
987
2
i
i
$2,850
20.iO
988
2
2
3
$6,600
38.20
1
i
989
3
2
i
5
04,000
84.iO
i 2
990
i
i
2
$11,000
64.00
i
991
3
2
i
3
061375
39.20
i 1 �
'O TL
i2
8
4
14
$52,825
246.60
i i 4 5 i
m* END
OF
T07000
REPORT
***
43
October 15, 1991
The Orange County Planning Dept.
ATTN: Ms. Elizabeth Eidenier
127 E. Union St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Eidenier:
Concerning the application nor the residence known as Green
Hill to be designated a bed and breakfast, we submit the following
as reasons to reject the request.
First, the property as proposed does not appear to fit the
ordinance for public safety. It is located on a dangerous
intersection of Hwy 70 and Lawrence Rd. with the identifying
entrance to the house at a corner where cars whiz by, leaving the
highway where the speed limit is 55 mph. Long range plans include
widening of Hwy 70, which would further limit the frontage of the
Plot which is now shown as 235 feet. Even if the entrance and exit
to the public facility were limited to the second gravel driveway,
slower traffic looking for the establishment cannot but endanger
the public. The "worst case scenario,, is a traffic fatality.
If in fact this residence does become a public facility, the
least that should be done should be:
I- Removal from the corner the existing sign and lights
which are very distracting and dangerous at night (and in
fact are on public right -of -way) and
2- .Installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection.
Secondly, the designation of Green Hill as a bed and breakfast-
will not maintain or enhance the value of neighboring property.
The current owners, the Proctors, have greatly improved the home
they purchased, which was in a deteriorating condition. As
adjoining property owners, we greatly appreciate the time and
investment involved. We, too, did a similar restoration in 1972
on property owned by James Coman II, parcel #65 on your map. We
can never hope to regain costs even if we rented rooms; only
personal satisfaction can repay our efforts.
We feel the small amount a bed and breakfast can return could
do little to defray costs the Proctors have undergone or continue
to undergo in maintainance. We, too, have a large investment,
which in short we do not feel would be enhanced by having a public
facility on the adjoining property.
44
Since the Proctors' property has been for sale for at least
• year, we fear this designation as bed and breakfast is to attract
• buyer who may be misled into thinking such an establishment is
• money making proposition, whereas, such a project would be doomed
to failure.
Thank you; z
James F. Davis
Mary Sue Davis
1311 Lawrence Rd.
Hillsboroug, NC 27278
cc: Mr. Moses Carey Jr.
Mr. Stephen H. Halkiotis
Ms. Alice M. Gordon
Ms. Verla C. Insko
Mr. Don 'Willhoit
11
10 -21 -91
Ms. Elizabeth Eidenier
Orange County Planning Department
127 E. Union Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Eidenier:
45
I have received a copy of Jim Davis' letter concerning
our application for a bed and breakfast permit for Green Hill.
I would like to address some of his concerns.
The location of the driveway has been there since 1975
(when the house was moved to its present location).
The only change we made was to concrete the driveway.
The sign "Green Hill" was in place when we purchased
the house in November of 1989. No alteration has
been made to the sign or its location. The lights
have also been in place since 1989 and no mention
has ever been made to us about them being distracting.
The second gravel driveway is on our property line
adjoining James Lane's property. This driveway is
located 235 feet from the intersection of Highway 70.
We do not see its location as being dangerous to the
public.
Mr. Davis' property and ours adjoin in the upper
left corner by only 99.73 feet. See attached map.
If we were given approval for the permit, the
worst case scenaro would be 3 additional cars entering and
exiting the property. We feel this would not cause any
additional traffic problems.
Sincerely,
Tom Proctor
10
ma
46
del
PAVED jAVE0_-*W
1. S-Im Z11 Ilk
00
6.5/±" ACRES
3 P)RKIW
SPACEA
V
SHE W-
Lu
041
OTT47-
ai
ce �7`7 b
CL_ 0
0 < P4KING
m z SPACES
k GRAVEL
Z
I V,
rb
!99.731'
N'65-2O' W
(0 JAMES F. DAVIS
N
70
.e
77
N 6 -AM 8' W
FJAMES BETTY LANE
O
Min. Lot Area Required = 40.000 sq. ft.
Total Lot Area - 6.5 cc. = 283.140 sq.ft.
(D
W
Max. Floor Area Allowed = 0.088 z 301.851 sq.ft. 26.562 sq.ft.
Floor Area Provided = 3.211 eq.ft.
j
Min. Required Open Space = 0.84:x_301.851 sq.i`L'=� 253,554 sq.ft
Wf
Ld
.n Space Provided
283.140 sq.ft. 3,211 sq.ft. (house)
In
2.500 sq.ft (2 sheds)
Open Space = 277.429 sq.ft.
Min. Required Pedestrian /Landscape
ET
0.21 x 301,851 sq.ft, -63,388 sq.ft.
a.
Pedestrian /Landscape Provided ENO
283.140 sq.ft. 3,211 sq.ft. (house) SCAL:
2.500 sq.ft. (2 sheds)
13,177 sq.ft. (gravel drive
LF
7,900 sq.ft, (payed drive]
Pedestrian/ Pedestrian Aandscape = 256.352 sq.ft.
WELL HOUSE,
10
ma
46
del
PAVED jAVE0_-*W
1. S-Im Z11 Ilk
00
6.5/±" ACRES
3 P)RKIW
SPACEA
V
SHE W-
Lu
041
OTT47-
ai
ce �7`7 b
CL_ 0
0 < P4KING
m z SPACES
k GRAVEL
Z
I V,
rb
!99.731'
N'65-2O' W
(0 JAMES F. DAVIS
N
70
.e
77
N 6 -AM 8' W
FJAMES BETTY LANE
O
Min. Lot Area Required = 40.000 sq. ft.
Total Lot Area - 6.5 cc. = 283.140 sq.ft.
(D
W
Max. Floor Area Allowed = 0.088 z 301.851 sq.ft. 26.562 sq.ft.
Floor Area Provided = 3.211 eq.ft.
j
Min. Required Open Space = 0.84:x_301.851 sq.i`L'=� 253,554 sq.ft
Wf
4
.n Space Provided
283.140 sq.ft. 3,211 sq.ft. (house)
In
2.500 sq.ft (2 sheds)
Open Space = 277.429 sq.ft.
Min. Required Pedestrian /Landscape
ET
0.21 x 301,851 sq.ft, -63,388 sq.ft.
a.
Pedestrian /Landscape Provided ENO
283.140 sq.ft. 3,211 sq.ft. (house) SCAL:
2.500 sq.ft. (2 sheds)
13,177 sq.ft. (gravel drive
7,900 sq.ft, (payed drive]
Pedestrian/ Pedestrian Aandscape = 256.352 sq.ft.
47
OCTOBER 21, 1991 1,
TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
SUBJECT: SUP-1-91 "GREEN HILL" BED AI;D BFE_�IiF�1ST
FROM: EVERETT V. I�NIGHT (STATE LICENSED APPRAISER)
THIS LETTER IS SUBMITTED AS A WRITTEN REVIEW OF MY GENERAL
STATEMENTS AND COMMENTS AT THE r;r: ?'•:CE COt "':Tz' BC_1RD Or
COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING ON C, i , 1991.
I HAVE BEE *; RETAINED BY THE OIL ?iERs OF THE PROPERTY TO _ ".SCE T:'I:..-
THF., SPECIFIC_ IMPACT THAT THE PROPOSED ISSUA:' GE OF A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT AT "GREEN HILL" THAT A BDED AND BREAKFAST WOULD HAVE 0
THE CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES. IN RED "IEW OF THE ORANGE COUINTY
ZONING ORDINANCE, A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON
REST_DENTIAL PROPERTIES SPECIFIC=,LI.,Y STATES THE STANDARDS OF
IAI''iT �I:iING OR PROIIOTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETI , AND 0E, 1, ERAL
WELFARE OF TIIE CCU'�Ti AND l:iT:I',I':v
CONTIGUOUS PROPERTILES, AND PROPOSED USE RARE HTOGBEUINHCOMPLIA " iCE
WITH THE GE'iER L PLr.N FOR THE PHi-SICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE
COUNTY.
MI ASSIGNMENT WAS TO DETERMINE WHAT IMPACT THIS SPECIAL USE
PERMIT SYOULD HAVE AS IT PERTAINS TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED F OmI
THE CURRENT ZO'iINC OFiINA`;CE
I HAVE REVIEWED THE SITE PL:'i:i, BACKGROUND, AND APPLICATIO',%
FOR THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SUPPORTING
DOLL' ^1E?�'TS SUPPLIED TO `IE $�° TIIE ORANGE G -
OUN,I PLANKING STAFF.
_AFTER REViE1.71 1-C
T .ESE DCCU�IE': T S IT ,
IS `;Y OPI';IO'� aH,,T 1,IE
ISSUANCE
OF SPECIAL; USE PERMIT FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST
OPERATED ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN AND OTHER WRITTEN AND
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WILL NOT HA %wE A 'iEGATIlrE IMPACT O "I THE
CONNTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.
TWO (2) MODELS WERE USED IN MAIiING MY DETERMINATIONS, BOTH OF
WHICH ARE REACTIVELY RECENT ISSUANCES OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR
BED AND BREAKFAST IN NORTHER ORANGE COUNTY.
SPECIFICALLY, THE "MATHASO'.V HOUSE" WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF TRYON STREET AND ST. MARY'S ROAD
INSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF HILLSBOROUGH. THE SECOND
BEI�:G CG�Ii10NLY IiNOjiN'
AS T ROCK HOUSE" YYHICH IS i.OGATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTIO_`i OF LAItiR% *;CE ROAD AND US-70A , O :E
BLOCK S077TH OF THE SUBJE,�T.
MY ANALYSIS IS LIMITED TO THE Ii1PACT THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL
USE PERMIT FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST WOULD HAVE ON THE
CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES OF THE SUBJECT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE
(PAGE 1 OF 2)
COMPARABLE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE 'LOCATED IMMEDIATELY CONTIGUOUS
TO TIIE RESPECTIVE COMrARABLES, INCLUDING OTHER PROI'I-:^�TIES
WITHIN THE GENER.yL NEIGHBORHOOD AREA OF E.'i;_'rI CC"IPrt Lr�BLE ''�
SLCSE t "E':T TO THE ISSi.ANCE OF TIDE. SP"�Clr +i SSE I'ERNIT FOR BED
,,1 1,7 D DFEAIiFAS 1 TO EACH COMPARABLE.
E :H `OD%LS, RESIDENTIAL SALES jtililC1 -I WERE CONTIGLTOL"S t'R
WITHIN THE GE':ERAL NEIGHBORIIOOD AREA OF EACH CO.4 RABLE Ii:'e
INDICATED THAT THEIR RESFEC T IVE OPEN NArZ iET SALES ARE NOT
MATERIAL EFFECTED BY THE ISSUANCE OF EACH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR 3, LED AND BRE.1I:FAST. TIIE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SALES
?WITHIN THE NEIMMORHOOD AREA AND SPECIFICALLY THOSE CONTIGUOUS
PROPERTIES OF EACII COMPARABLE MODELS IS LI`IITED TO THE LAST
5 YEARS SINCE THEIR RESPECTIVES ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL USE
PERMITS FOR BED AND BREAKFAST.
A THIRD COMrARABLE COULD HAVE BEEN ,USED WHICH IS "TEAR —DROPS
I'�`ti" ItiIIICII IS ALSO LOCATED Ii: TIIE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF
HILLSBOROUGH A ":D IS AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF KING
STREET A�,D WATiE STREET. THE RESULTS OF THIS COMPARABLE
APPEARS TO EE SIMILAR' TO Till: "MATII-kSON HOUSE"
.
OTIIrI CC "iF.- Rr�EL;.S ."SEE CL RRE;:TL1" _' ►V .ILALLE I.ti .�ORTHE.RN OR:1`vG%
COU\T_1 .
NOTE: ATTACHED TO AND HEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS REPORT IS THE
CERTII-'ICATION AND STATEMENT OF LIMITING COP,DITIOItiS, A.�D
CONTINGENT .ND LIMITING COI:DITIOis
RESPECTIVELY,
EVERETT V. II'� I GHT
(PAGE 2 OF 2)
48
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open 49
market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming
the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date
and the passing of title from seller.to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buver and seller are typically motivated. (2) both
parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time
is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of trash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by
special or creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anvone associated with the sale.
*Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are
necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are
readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments
can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that
is not already involved in the property or transaction- Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for
dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction
to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment.
CERTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS
CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that:
I. The Appraiser has no present or contemplated future interest in the property appraised; and neither the employment to
make the appraisal, nor the compensation for it, is contingent upon the appraised value of the property.
2. The Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect to the subject maner of the appraisal report or the partici-
pants to the sale. The "Estimate of Market Value" in the appraisal report is not based in whole or in part upon the race, color,
or national origin of the prospective owners or occupants of the property appraised, or upon the race, color or national origin
of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the property appraised.
3- The Appraiser has personally inspected the property, both inside and out. and has made an exterior inspection of all
comparable sales listed in the report. To the best of the Appraiser's knowledge and belief, all statements and information in
this report are true and correct, and the Appraiser has not knowingly withheld anv significant information.
4. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the assignment or by the under-
signed affecting the analyses, opinions, and conclusions contained in the report).
5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional
Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the appraisal organizations with which the Appraiser is affiliated -
6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are set forth in the appraisal report were prepared by the
Appraiser whose signature appears on the appraisal report. unless indicated as "Review Appraiser." No change of am• item in
the appraisal report shall be made by anyone other than the Appraiser, and the Appraiser shall have no responsibility for any
such unauthorized change.
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The certification of the Appraiser appearing in the appraisal report is subject
to the following conditions and to such other specific and limiting conditions as are set forth by the Appraiser in the report.
L The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title there-
to, nor does the Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. The property is
appraised as though under responsible ownership.
2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the prop-
erty. The Appraiser has made no survey of the property.
3. The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference
to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made therefor -
4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program
of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are
invalid if so used.
5. The Appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which
would render it more or less valuable. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which
might be required to discover such factors.
6. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the Appraiser, and contained in the report, were obtained from sources
considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished the
Appraiser can be assumed by the Appraiser.
7. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional appraisal
organizations with which the Appraiser is affiliated -
8. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to the property value,
the identity of the Appraiser, professional designations, rekrence to any professional appraisal organizations, or the firm with
which the Appraiser is connected), shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, the borrower
if appraisal fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, consultants, professional appraisal
organizations. any state or federally approved financial institution, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United
States or any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed
by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the written consent and
approval of the Appraiser.
9. On all appraisals, subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are
contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner.
Date: ../211'/ /......... Appralscrts) .
......... -.
F_ 498 JUL e! HPMa6 785 Fp 5 8W WpF1a WWOM� y 315 Wtir.rev -. NC- Ma— CT 05511 1 =00 263 -AS15 Item # 1 15800 F,. , 10046 JUL 56
M M I ff V
The Planning Staff recommends approval of a
partial width right -of -way as requested for the
private road.
MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton.
Waddell asked about access to Lot 8B. Garrett
responded it is landlocked. The applicant, Mr.
Thompson stated he is the owner of Lot 8B so
access is not a problem.
VOTE:
Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #9:
MATTERS HEARD AT 10/7/91 PUBLIC HEARING
a. SUP -1 -91 "Green Hill" Bed and Breakfast
o
M
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
'am Proctor, III and
!r -�
The applicants, Will Thomas
PP
Evelyn D. Proctor, have requested a Class A
Special Use Permit for a Non - Residential Reuse/
Mixed Use of an historic structure for the
property commonly known as the Green Hill
residence. The property is located at the
southwestern corner of the intersection of US 70
and Lawrence Road (SR 1561). The property
contains 6.46 acres. The proposed request would
allow for the house to be used as a bed and
breakfast. Three out of the four existing
bedrooms would be used for the bed and breakfast.
There are no proposed changes or additions to the
existing house or changes to the property.
The property is specifically described as Lots 66
and 67 of Tax Map 20 in Eno Township. The
current zoning of the property is Rural
Residential (R -1) and the Comprehensive Plan
designation is Rural Residential. The use of the
property, as proposed, requires the issuance of a
Class A Special Use Permit.
The proposed Class A Special Use Permit was
presented for public hearing on October 7, 1991.
Vic Knight, a real estate appraiser, represented
the applicant and spoke in favor of his request.
One citizen expressed his concern and requested
information about the reason for the application.
A letter from Mr. and Mrs. James Davis, is an
attachment to these minutes on pages .
The application was referred to the Planning
Board for a recommendation to be returned to the
T
51
Board of Commissioners no sooner than November 4,
1991 and no later than December 4, 1991.
Provided the Planning Board and County
Commissioners find in the affirmative on the
general standards, the Zoning Officer recommends
approval of the request. The Zoning Officer
does, however, recommend conditions to the
approval as follows:
1. Roads, parking areas, walkways, utilities,
and landscaping shall be maintained as shown
on the approved plans. All such facilities
shall further be maintained and operated in a
safe manner.
2. The final site plan and narrative of the
project are to be incorporated herein and
made a part of this Special Use Permit.
Copies of the final site plan and narrative
are to remain on file with the Orange County
Planning and Inspections Department.
3. The Bed and Breakfast shall be operated
according to the site plan and written
narrative supplied by the developer and in
compliance with the above conditions.
Waddell indicated agreement with the applicant
and appraiser's statement that the main issue
is improvement and maintenance of the property.
Hoecke referred to the letter from Mr. and Mrs.
Davis dated October 15 noting that he felt the
main purpose of the Bed and Breakfast was for
maintenance of the property rather than profit.
He noted also that he did not agree with the
statement "dangerous intersection ".
Eidenier asked about the problem with excessive
noise at the time of large gatherings such as
receptions. Kirk responded that the authorities
could be called to enforce the noise ordinance.
It seemed to be the agreement of board members
that noise would not be an issue that needed to
be addressed specifically.
Jobsis asked about the issue raised by the Davis'
letter regarding loss of property value. Vic
Knight, licensed appraiser hired by the
applicant, stated there would be no loss of
property value and referred board members to a
prepared statement which is an attachment to
these minutes on pages
f
The Board proceeded to vote on the Findings of
Fact. Copies of these findings are attachments
to these minutes on pages
Article 8.2.1 - Application Components
Article 8.6 and 8.8 -- Application Components
Article 14.2.2 - Submittal Requirements
Article 14.2.3 - Specification for Plan
Preparation
Article 5 - Dimensional Requirements
Article 6 - Application of Dimensional
. Requirements
Article 8.2.4 - Specific Standards /All Special
Uses
Article 8.8.24 - Specific Standards for
Evaluation /Historic Structures
Non- Residential Reuse /Mixed Use
Article 8.8.24.2 - Standards of Evaluation
Article 8 - Specific Standards /All Special Uses
By consensus the Board agreed with the Planning
Staff findings on all the findings of fact as
indicated on attached copies.
MOTION: Cantrell moved to approve the request for a Class
A Special Use Permit for "Green Hill" Bed and
Breakfast. Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (11/25/91)
a. Zoning ordinance Text Amendments
(1) Article 6.16.1 - Home Occupations
Presentation by Jim Hinkley.
Applications for Home Occupation Permits appear
to be increasing. The Zoning Ordinance provides
for the operation of home occupations in
districts allowing residential uses. This item
is to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning
ordinance to improve language and clarify
provisions for home occupations.
Copies of the existing provisions and proposed
amendments are attachments to these minutes on
pages .
There was considerable Board discussion on the
amendment. The Planning Board asked for more
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.-VW-,q
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT: 1990 -91 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
-----------------------------------
DEPARTMENT: Finance PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S). Financial Report INFORMATION - CONTACT - '- _ -
Management Letter Ken Chavious ext 2453
Single Audit Report TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Submitted under separate cover Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
T -
PURPOSE: To receive the ComprehensiveAnnualFinancial- Report - for the -
fiscal year ended June 30, 1991.
BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report covers all financial
activity of the County for the fiscal year 1990 -91. Presentation of this
report is necessary in order to fulfill the requirements set forth in
G.S. 159 -34 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The County Finance
Director will make a brief presentation, and will be available to answer
any questions, along with representatives of the County's certified public
accountants, Deloitte and Touche.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the
report for information only.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Mainframe Computer Status
DEPARTMENT Data Processing
ATTACHMENT(S)
10/31/91 Memo from DP Manager
0!
Action Agenda
Item No V=--Q
PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X
INFORMATION CONTACT
Keith Brooks, ext 2276
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 968 -4501
Mebane 227 -2031
Durham 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To receive a report on the status of the County's mainframe
computer use and capabilities, and to provide staff with Board comments
about the mainframe options discussed in the report.
BACKGROUND: Orange County has owned and operated its own mainframe
computer equipment since 1978. Since that time, computer hardware
capabilities have been upgraded approximately every three years.
During recent months, the Data Processing Manager and Purchasing
Director have solicited bids from computer vendors while exploring
possible methods to address the need to increase the capacity and
number of users of the County's mainframe computers. The current
configuration of equipment was approved for purchase by the Board of
Commissioners in March, 1989. Lack of disk space, limitations on the
number of additional connections to the mainframes, and slower
equipment response times are becoming a problem that will need to be
addressed fairly soon.
The attached report reviews the County's
status with regard to mainframe computer
results of the bid process, and examines
Orange County in improving our mainframe
Processing Manager will address question
report. No Board action is requested at
may be sought at a future Board meeting.
history and current
equipment, outlines the
several options available to
capabilities. The Data
s arising from the written
this time, although a decision
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the
report for information only and provide any appropriate comments to
staff about options discussed in the report.
2
M E M O R A N D U M
To : Orange County Board of Commissioners
From: Keith Brooks, Data Processing Manager
Re : Mainframe Computer Status and Options
Date: October 31, 1991
1. E i ment History
Orange County first became involved with mainframe computing
in early 1978, with the purchase and installation of a
Microdata platform. Prior to that time, the County had
received contracted computer support through a service
agency located in Winston - Salem. In late 1979, the County
added a second Microdata processor, which was funded
through a federal land records grant.
During the early 1980s, McDonnell Douglas Computer Systems
Company (MDCSC) purchased Microdata. Throughout the 1980s,
the County upgraded its platforms about every three years,
working through a sequence of Microdata and MDCSC
computers in "the 1400, 3200, 4000, 6000, and 9000 series.
In March 1989, the Board of Commissioners approved the most
recent upgrade of our existing.mainframe platforms, which at
that time were two MDCSC platforms: an M6000 with thirty two
users and an M9000 with one hundred and twenty eight users.
The M9000 was overloaded, very slow, and at maximum number of
user ports. The M6000 could have been upgraded but our
expansion needs were in the Tax /Land Records area, which was
on the larger system. The staff recommendation, approved by
the Board, was to replace both MDCSC platforms with a larger,
faster MDCSC system to meet our current expansion and thruput
speed needs, and to install a small Prime platform to meet
some of our long range goals, such as industry standard
communications and electronic mail.
The new MDCSC platform, an M9255, solved our immediate needs
for user expansion and increased thruput performance. We
increased our user ports to 176 and more than doubled our
processor speed. On the other hand, the Prime, a P4055, has
not worked out very well. The two platforms are not as
r+ I
3
compatible as we thought from our look at the proposal in
1989. The M9255's operating system is "REALITY ", a combined
Pick based operating /data base system, while the P4055's
operating system is "PRIMOS ", with "PRIME INFO" running.under
that for the data base management system. The electronic
mail software, "CONNECTION ", was just not workable with our
PC based word - processing solution already in place. All
three.of these Prime products are proprietary - they only run
on Prime platforms. We have used the Prime platform for the
development of our new 1993 Tax Revaluation software and we
have moved several other applications, including Elections,
to this platform. We have also successfully interfaced the
GIS workstations with both platforms.
2. Current Equipment
The following list recaps our current mainframe capabilities:
M9255
176 Open Ports
7 MB Memory
1 GB Disk
2 1/2 " Tape
Reality (Pic
P4055
(All in -use) 48 Open Ports (20 in -use)
16 MB Memory
.5 GB Disk (All in -use)
Drives 1 1/2 Tape Drive
k OS) Prime Info (Pick OS)
Prime Connection (E -Mail)
98 Adds CRTs
17 Prism CRTs (MDCSC)
37 Printers (Mainframe)
115 PCs (35 emulate terminals - dual PC /CRT function)
The M9255 current user capacity is full with all 176 ports in
use. The last users added to this platform were put on a
switch so three users could share one port. I have requests
for three more users to have access to this platform. The
P4055 current disk capacity is full with the Revaluation
files and the Board of Elections files loaded.
Our first option for dealing with capacity problems is to
upgrade both platforms. We can add 32 ports to the M9255, to
increase capacity to 208, which is the maximum physical
limitation of the platform. We can add 1.5 GB of disk to the
P4055, increasing it to its maximum capacity of 2 GB. The
MDCSC platform would require additional memory along with the
new ports as it is approaching unacceptable response times
with the 176 active ports. To add thirty two new user ports
and an additional 2 MB of memory to the M9255 and an
4
additional .5 GB disk (this can be added in half GB
increments) to the P4655 would cost around $35,000. For an
additional $30,000 we could add another 1 GB of disk to the
P4055 to bring it up to its 2 GB maximum.
The 1989 plans were to eventually replace the MDCSC platform
with a large Prime and to upgrade the P4055 or to replace
both systems with one large Prime platform. The 1989 long
range, all Prime options, are still available. However,
through dramatic technology advances in the last two years,
UNIX has emerged as one of the preferred business operating
environments. Accordingly, neither all Prime solution is
the current option of choice. Based on Prime's current
prices, to add our second Prime platform and upgrade the
P4055 would cost in excess of $300,000. We would still be
looking at a proprietary (or Prime only) solution. With the
UNIX solution, the County has many more options from which to
choose.
3. New O Lions
I was influenced to explore our mainframe options not only by
changes in technology but also by the ever increasing
maintenance contract costs of our existing two platforms.
These now total more than $75,000 annually - $55,200
for MDCSC and $20,380 for the Prime. I have been examining
solutions that could be financed largely by redirecting
planned future expenditures for maintenance to possible
hardware lease purchase payments.
In May, 1991, we mailed requests for proposals to a number
of vendors in an attempt to determine our current options.
The County received only two responses to the initial RFP.
We rejected those and mailed out the RFP again after
contacting several vendors. Once again, we received only two
valid responses - one from Infocel, our current longtime
vendor, and one from Computer Remarketing Corporation (CRC),
an Ultimate dealer and an IBM Business Partner from
Beachwood, Ohio. Either proposal would solve our problems
and both are very similar. Both are UNIX /PICK solutions,
both are based on the new Reduced Instruction Set Chip
(RISC), both propose the UNIVERSE /PICK solution and both
propose the UNIPLEX /E -Mail solution.
The major differences are that Infocel proposes a dual Prime
UNIX platform, total Ethernet solution, while CRC proposes a
single IBM UNIX platform with mixed asynchronous /Ethernet
solution. Another difference is in the type of conversion
I
proposed by each. Infocel's approach is to provide on -site
help for County staff to do the conversion and verification,
While CRC's approach is to do the conversion at their lab in
Ohio and then, with their help, have the County Data
Processing staff verify the results. I think this is the
better option as CRC does the actual conversion and we do the
verification, which we are going to do under either option.
Cost differences are also significant with Infocel being over
$50,000 higher. Bids were received July 2, 1991, and were
valid for a 90 day period. CRC has agreed to extend its bid
another 60 days, while Infocel indicated there would be a
price increase after the 90 day period. The original bids,
including trade -in credit for the County's two existing
platforms, were $275,088 from CRC, and $327,277 from Infocel,
with Infocel's total increasing approximately $40,000 after
November 1, 1991.
At this point, I would lean towards recommending the CRC
proposal. In addition to the strong points I have just
mentioned and those that I address further on, the CRC option
looks even better because of the potential for covering the
lion's share of lease purchase payments from money not spent
on MDCSC and Prime maintenance contracts. Hardware and
software maintenance for this proposal would be less than
$30,000 per year, after a first year maintenance cost of
about $20,000.
A recent trend has been increased reliability of computer
equipment. There are fewer mechanical components to
break. Mean time to failure has increased dramatically.
Equipment has more built -in diagnostic software that
identifies potential failures before they become major.. This
trend is reflected in the substantially lower maintenance
costs of newer versus older equipment.
4. Major Benefits
With the CRC proposal, the County would be moving to a new
state of the art platform, an RS6000. This series was
released by IBM in 1990 with the Model 550, the one proposed
here, just released in May of 1991. It is a "UNIX" based
platform using IBM's "AIX" operating system and VMart
"UNIVERSE" data base management system. "UNIX" was designed
from the very beginning with multiuser and multitasking as a
primary goal. "UNIVERSE" was designed to run "PICK" on many
different systems and is currently available on over seventy
platforms. It is aimed at the old Microdata or MDCSC client
base so it runs our existing applications with very few.
5
6
changes and our Data Processing staff will continue to work
with a programming language very familiar to them.
The major features of the proposed RS6000 Model 550 are:
128 MB of memory (vs. 23 MB on current platforms combined);
2.5 GB of disk space; 192 asynchronous ports (expandable to
256); and 64 Ethernet ports (expandable to 256). Total
annual mainframe maintenance charges are $19,824. This
covers 24 hour a day, 7 day a week IBM maintenance on the
hardware and VMart maintenance, thru CRC, on the software.
The bid of $275,088 includes the conversion of all our
application programs and data to the new platform, the above
hardware and software, training for the DP staff for AIX and
the differences in the new UNIVERSE DBMS, training for the E-
ntail package and all installation and shipping charges. The
trade -in allowance is only $12,000 on both current platforms,
so if we decided to keep those the total cost would be
$287,088. We are particularly sensitive to maintaining the
integrity of the revaluation system during any potential
conversion to a new platform from the existing Prime.
My'staff and I conducted a site visit to Randolph County,
which recently installed a smaller version of the RS6000, the
Model 530. They have two Model 530's installed, one with
88 users for their general county DP functions and one
for their GIS system. They are very pleased with the
performance of both platforms. I also felt it was important
to discuss system performance with other users comparable in
size to Orange County. Although I have not spoken with any
such local government users? I have received highly favorable
reviews of the new IBM equipment from three private sector
entities with up to 400 users. Since the Model 550 is so new
there are limited numbers of them currently in operation. I
also contacted several users that had contracted with CRC to
convert their application software and data to the UNIVERSE/
UNIX solution and all were very satisfied with the results.
S. Conclusion
Orange County has a number of options it can pursue with
regard to improving mainframe capacity and performance. I
plan to conduct further review of our system and financing
options, with assistance from staff of the Budget and Finance
Departments. I plan to incorporate Board comments into this
review process, and report back to the Board with a request
for decision at the appropriate time.
I
a
E
V
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT: REPORT -- Proposed Public Swimming Pool
DEPARTMENT: Recreation and Parks PUBLIC HEARING
ATTACHMENT(S): yes
1. Letter to Moses Carey (10/17/91)
2. Projected Construction Cost Data
3. Projected Operational Cost Data
PURPOSE:
1
Action Agenda
Item No._Vir-0
YES: NO: XX
INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnne Moore
TELEPHONE NUMBER- ext. 2664
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
To present a report concerning county staffs' efforts to plan for a
public swimming pool. Specifically, to report on the Recreation and
Parks Advisory Council's recommendation to immediately begin including
the construction of such a pool in county capital needs discussions.
BACKGROUND:
January 1990 --
BOCC Goal Setting Retreat. BOCC Goal set to "begin
planning for a public swimming pool" to serve both
central and northern Orange County,
November 1990 -
Staff includes pool in 1991 -1996 CIP; project not funded
March 1991 --
Mr. Dan Kidde requests BOCC to enter into a joint public -
private venture to construct a swimming pool /ice hockey
rink facility (Triangle Community Activities Center).
April 1991 --
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council begins to
investigate the feasibility of the county's involvement
in Mr. Kidde's proposal.
October 1991 --
Recreation and Parks Advisory Council unanimously votes
to recommend Kidde's proposal to the BOCC and to request:
1. that the construction of a public swimming pool in central Orange
County
be immediately included in any discussions regarding the
county's
capital needs; and
2. that funding for the design and construction of this pool be made
available in July 1991.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Manager recommends that the Board of Commissioners receive the report
as information only.
2
Orange County Recreation and Parks Department ter,
N C Post Office Box 8181 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 v� i
. Life. Be in it.
7104 i�
Mary Anne Black, Director October 17, 1991
Mr. Moses Carey, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Dear Moses,
Several months ago, the Board of County Commissioners asked the Recreation
and Parks Advisory Council to examine the possibility of the county leasing
and /or partially funding the pool at the proposed Triangle Community
Activity. Center. Since that time the staff at our request has thoroughly
researched the subject. On October 1, 1991, Recreation & Parks Advisory
Council reviewed the proposal by Triangle Community Center for construction
of a public swimming pool in central orange County. I am pleased to report
that we unanimously voted to recommend this proposal to you.
The construction offa public swimming pool fulfills one of the goals outlined
in the county's adopted Master Recreation & Parks Plan. We believe this
proposal to be the quickest and least expensive way to realize this goal.
Recreation & Parks Advisory Council asked the department staff to provide
us with projected construction and operating cost figures (both
expenditures and revenues). We have reviewed these figures and find them
to be realistic and conservative.
The council specifically and respectfully requests that:
a) the construction of a public swimming pool in central Orange County
be immediately included in any discussions regarding the county's
capital needs.
b) that funding for the design and construction of this pool be made
available in July 1991.
The need for this facility is great as well as long overdue. We believe
that the possible benefits will be both far reaching and long lasting.
Respectfully,
�I
i1t %--.�
Susan Waldrop, Chair
Recreation & Parks Advisory Council
Offices located at 300 W. Tryon Street, Hillsborough, NC
Telephones: 919 732 -8181 • 919 967.9251 • 919 688 -7331 • 919 227 -2031 • Fax: 919 732 -4743
3
PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY POOL
Central Orange County, North Carolina
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
November 1991
Pool Shell @ $43 /sf
Pool Enclosure @ $12 /sf (pre -fab exterior, finished interior)
Add: $10,000 patio doors
Pool Deck @ $3.50 /sf
Locker shower space @ $65 /sf
Office /Storage space @ $50 /sf
Capital Furnishings /Equipment =cash register,fire extinguisher
safety and lifeguard items,
instructional items, trash cans
FACILITY TYPE:
50- meter, indoor
Pool Size:
9,900 sf
Enclosure:
21,000 sf
Locker /Showers:
4,750 sf
Office /Storage:
2,775 sf
Pool
425,000.00
Pool Deck
37,450.00
Pool Enclosure
262,000.00
Mechanical
198,000.00
Electrical
150,000.00
Locker /Showers
308,750.00
Office /Storage
138,750.00
Sitework (mobilize, parking, roads,
300,000.00
water /sewer lines, grading)
Capital Equipment
48,000.00
Contingencies (10 %) 186,795.00
TOTALS 2,054,745.00
Call: 2,000,000.00
4 . I
Orange County Public Pool
50- meter, indoor
PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS, YEARS 1 -55
* Typicaland Pro osed Breakdown of Revenues Beginning Year 5:
Revenues = Fees (35 %) Admissions (daily, seasonal, spectators)
Lessons
Special Programs (meets, ect.)
Rental ( 5 %) Day Cares, Schools, Corporations
Private Parties
Swim Teams
Concessions ( 5 %) Food
Equipment
Public Funds (55 %) General Fund
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Total Projected
Expenses
203,150
165,850
177,460
189,882
203,175
Total Projected
Revenue
38,785
49,755
62,110
75,952
91,425
(25%
_ 3�)
(35%1
1
4- %)
Total Projected
Operating Costs
164,365
116,095
115,350
113,930
111,750
* Typicaland Pro osed Breakdown of Revenues Beginning Year 5:
Revenues = Fees (35 %) Admissions (daily, seasonal, spectators)
Lessons
Special Programs (meets, ect.)
Rental ( 5 %) Day Cares, Schools, Corporations
Private Parties
Swim Teams
Concessions ( 5 %) Food
Equipment
Public Funds (55 %) General Fund
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action AV
Item No. �f.e,
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Hyconeechee Regional Library
DEPARTMENT: County Manager
PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Kittrell
TELEPHONE NUMBER -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To report on a proposed plan to implement the` recommendations
from the September 16, 1991 State Auditor's review and the State
Librarian.
BACKGROUND: On October 29, 1991 the Chairs of the Boards of Commissioners
and County Managers from Orange, Person and Caswell Counties
met with the Deputy Secretary of Cultural Resources and the
State Librarian. The meeting was productive and established a
method for improving operations in the Hyconeechee Regional
Library system. Officials attending the meeting proposed
forming a special task force to implement the recommendations
included in the State Auditor's review of the regional
library; to assist the Regional Library Board of Trustees in
selecting a permanent director; and to examine the contractual
and structural organization of the regional library. The task
force would have a county commissioner from each county; the
county manager of each county; one member of each county's
library board and ex officio members representing the state,
county staff and the interim regional library director.
The Department of Cultural Resources, Division of State
Library encouraged the local governments in the regional
library system to ensure that internal management and fiscal
controls are implemented to rectify current problems and to
prevent difficulties in the future.
County staff has begun working with the interim regional
director. Many of the internal management and fiscal controls
can be implemented within the next 4 - 6 weeks.
2
RECOMMENDATION(S): Manager recommends that the Board appoint a Commissioner
and member of the County Library Board of Trustees to
the special task force. A list of current Library Board
of Trustees members is included under agenda item XI-
Appointments.
N
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. y 111- A
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT: BID AWARD; 911 CONSOLE EQUIPMENT
- -
DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SRVC. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO:XX
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT PAM JONES
BID TABULATION EXT 2650
CORRESPONDENCE FROM MOTOROLA Telephone Number -
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
Mebane - 227 -2031
Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To award a bid for console equipment for use at the 911 Center
to Motorola, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Bids were received again on October 22, 1991 for 911
Console Equipment.
As the attached bid tabulation shows, the apparent low bidder is Radio
Communications of Cary at a total of $154,142.81 for equipment and
$4,500 per year for maintenance. As is customary in bids such as
these, the specifications called for evaluation to include cost of
equipment and cost of maintenance over a five -year period.
The evaluation for this bid was accomplished through Ms. Rebecca
Yarbrough, Centrolina COG; Mr. Reed Whitten, RF Projects, Inc.; and
County staff. It was determined that while Radio Communications of
Cary was responsive in most respects, there was one exception that
would affect the functioning of the equipment in an unacceptable
manner.
r
2
Section 7.13 of the County's specifications call for the following:
"Redundant base station interface controllers shall be
provided for five (5) designated critical communications
channels. In the event of a failure of the primary control
card, switch -over to a "hot standby" controller shall be
automatic with no dispatcher intervention required."
Radio Communications of Cary responds as follows:
Comply with minor exception. The "hot standby" redundancy
will be available in July, 1992."
* *Note: Upon request for clarification, Radio Communications of Cary
later changed the software availability time to February 1, 1992.
The primary issue becomes, does the equipment, as bid, meet the
specifications. Consensus among all evaluators and others indicate
that it does not. This issue is not a technicality that we could elect
to waive, since the absence of this feature on the consoles directly
affects how they function. The result is that the Radio
Communications bid is rendered non - compliant to the specifications.
Further, we have shared our concerns with the staff at the Institute of
Government. They confirm that it would be inappropriate to award the
bid to Radio Communications of Cary since the equipment, as bid, was
not in compliance with specifications and to allow their bid to be
changed to reflect an earlier availability date would be considered
alteration of the bid, which is not acceptable. In view of the
problems uncovered, an evaluation was conducted on the next high bid,
Motorola.
As you are aware, Motorola basically met specifications during the last
round of bidding, with the exception of the manner in which the instant
replay recorders functioned. The recorders offered as part of this
bid provide voice playback on two different channels, and therefore
meet our specifications. It is the opinion of all evaluators of this
bid that the Motorola bid is compliant and should be recommended
for award.
During the October 29 work session, clarification was requested
on the following issues:
1. The availability of parts for the specified 20 year
period; and
2. Whether the equipment being purchased by the County was the
latest model in production and was not a model scheduled to be phased
out of their product line.
I
3
Motorola has provided responses to the County which state that
"Motorola will be capable of replacing any and all assemblies and
devices in this center for a minimum of 20 years." As a point of
reference, the consoles currently in use at the 911 Center were
manufactured in 1967 and are currently maintained with no parts
availability problems.
Attached correspondence indicates that the Centracom II console being
purchased from Motorola is a unit which is currently in production and
is not being considered for phase out. Motorola has indicated that the
Centracom II -Plus is available, but that it provides features beyond
what our specifications indicated we need. For example, two of the
features in the Centracom II -Plus console provides enhanced diagnostics
for service technicians and provides the ability to go to a CRT
controlled console. Pursuant to past discussions, the CRT controlled
console is not desired since it would compete with and duplicate
features which we will have available through the Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD) system and the E911 phone system. Further, Motorola
assures us that the technology driving the Centracom II console is the
latest technology available.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends award of a bid for 911 Console
Equipment to Motorola, Inc. for a sum of $155,007.
rn
BID TABULATION
DESCRIPTION: 911 CONSOLE EQUIPMENT
BID DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991
OPENING TIME: 3:00 P.M.
ADVERTISED: YES
INFORMAL:
Slated for BOCC approval: NOVEMBER 4,
1991
I
I BASE BID:
I **FIVE —YEAR
I NET BID
COMPANY NAME I BID DEPOSIT
I
I EQUIPMENT ONLY
I MAINTENANCE
I (5 YR COST)
CONSOLE SYSTEMS, INC.
I
I
I
(Bid through Piedmont Communications)
------- - ---------------
I NO BID
I NO BID
I
COMMUNICATIONS
SPECIALISTS I CERT. CHECK
1 164,995.00
I 4,595.00
1 183,375.00
MOTOROLA, INC. I BID BOND
I
1 155,007.00
I
I 4,700.00
1 173,807.00
I
------------------- - ---- I -- ------------ --
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
--- I ----------- - - - -
-- I -- _____ -- -
- -- I ---- ----
OF CARY I CERT. CHECK
---------- -- _- � ------ -- I ----------- - -
1 154,142.81
- - -- I ---___ ._-- ----__
I 4,500.00
I ----- ------- - - - -
1 172,142.81
-- I ----------
* %[EN CALCULATING CM OF FIVE YEAR MWERM, PLEASE NO'PE THRT FIRS! YEAR'S DICE IS
INCLUDED IN BASE BID AS fi OSTY.
I
SCOTT HURT
TEL No-1-919-663-3213 Oct.30,91 10:44 P.02
MQT4R[7t A
Communications and Electronics Inc.
MFMORANDIIM
TO: Orange County
FPOM: Scott Hurt, Motorola Communications
RF„ Aid Award; 911 Console Equipment
DATE: Octobcr.29, 1991
Motorola Communications fully complies with item number 6
under General Conditions of the Orange County Bid Number 163.
Orange County has asked for a clarification:
S
Addrpsa apply to:
3124 Ndtionvi Mivt
5vitt 12b
Ralcioh. NC 7702
(919) 787 -0344
Motorola will be capable of replacing any and all assemblies
and devices in this center for a minimum of 20 years. if
one of the items has become obsolete, it shall be the re-
sponaibility of Motorola to provide a device that will
appropriately replace the unit if replacement units are
ordered.
Regards,
�Su -64"�
Scott Hurt
Motorola Communications
6
AcidnYee IRO* LO:
9724 Natlonal OrNe
Suite 126
M0TCRDLA (MV) 7 T8 NC 27612
(S19) 7•93d
Commuosricedo" snd Eloctroftls:s Inc
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORANGE COUNTY
FROM: SCOTT HURT, MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS
RE; BID MEETING, OCTOBER 29, 1991
DATE: OCTOBER 30, 1991
This letter is to reaffirm to You that the Centracom II
console. quoted by Motorola on Bid Number 163, is state of
the art technology. It uses distrie iiad end e t micro-
processors and.time division multip lex
two -way radio systems. These techniques are presently state
of the art. The CCII is Motorola's current workhorse console,
and will meet all of your needs and specifications.
The model referred to by Tiler Glover of Communication
Specialist Cmodelyof II plus.
console is
as eilhasnts3d made
bid. It uses the same time division multiplex tecssithes and
distributed independent microprocessor technology
Most of the fithexo erator identical and the physical
appearance options o f o p
options of the CCII Plus are not required or needed to . tom°
pletelY fulfill your specifications.
The distinction between the && implied, obut ithat athey
of the art and one is not. as M.
are Simply different modsls of the same basic console-
of of the cart does not mean top of the line. They are
different fast financisalesavingsCtoSOrangelCountyrOver th e c
ePlus
entirely s
model. Motorola has no plans to calac.el the CCII pro uc as3
per attached letter.
Motorola is proud of its products and its services that have
spade us a leader in communications We
63 y for over ears. we have
highly object to any insinuation, by
anything other than the best interest of our current or
potential customers at heart.
Regssrds,
Account Executive
Motorola Communicatioaa
attachment
13m E Aiponquin Rd, SaMitumburg, Illinois emo6 (no ay.lwo
3
0
fiber 30, 1991
rAemo To: Soots Hurt
From: Joan Tomcik
Subj9ct: ORA GECCOOUNTY NOW 'H CAROUNA
The Sertes 11 Centracom Product will be around for yqM la +ooirns. There are no pfaMS to
cancel the product .
John Tomcik
Marketing Project Manager
(;@ntracorn Console Products
N
l
,
i
i
i
s
t
.1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Cabarrus County Property Tax Case
DEPARTMENT County Manager
ATTACHMENT(S)
8/2/91 Letter from NCACC
I
Action Agenda
Item No 1/Il%13
PUBLIC HEARING YES NO X
INFORMATION CONTACT
County Manager, ext 2300
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 968 -4501
Mebane 227 -2031
Durham 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To consider providing funding to assist Cabarrus County with
its legal costs in the case concerning Tax Management Associates and
Philip Morris.
BACKGROUND: The Association of County Commissioners has requested all
North Carolina counties to contribute to a fund that will help offset
the legal costs incurred in the Philip Morris case. Details are
included in the attached letter from the Association. The amount
requested of Orange County is $1,408.
Three primary options are available in dealing with this request. The
Board of Commissioners may want to appropriate the full $1,408
requested from contingency funds. The Board may decide to provide no
funding, in that Orange County does not participate in the type of
contingent arrangement entered into by Cabarrus County and Tax
Management Associates - that being the case, Orange County would not be
a primary beneficiary if the Property Tax Commission decision is
overturned on appeal. The Board may also feel that some smaller amount
would be a reasonable appropriation that might recognize the County's
tangential interests in maintaining autonomy for county governments in
the administration of tax matters.
RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides.
.� NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION -OF '�' R
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
0
c, cauNn c
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Managers, County Attorneys and Tax Supervisors
FROM: C. Ronald Aycock, Executive Director
DATE: August 2, 1991
SUBJECT: Cabarrus County Property Tax Case
As you are probably aware, the Property Tax Commission ruled that
the contract between Cabarrus County and a private consultant was
void as against public policy. (For further information see the
July 10, 1991, issue of CountyLines.) Philip Morris had appealed
the discovery of a substantial amount of business personal property
made by the county through the assistance of the consultant, Tax
Management Associates (TMA). The-Commission's holding, though
influenced by several factors, seems to have been driven by the
contingent fee nature of the contract. Cabarrus County has
appealed the Commission's ruling.and has requested the assistance
of the Association.
On June 21, 1991, a meeting was held at the Albert Coates Local
Government Center in Raleigh. Attendees included Cabarrus County
officials and other county officials, concerned with the potentially
adverse effect of the Commission's decision. The group unanimously
endorsed Cabarrus County's request for the Association's support.
Thereafter, the Association's Board of Directors made a decision to
support Cabarrus County on its appeal by: having an amicus brief
drafted and mailed to all county attorneys for review, filing the
brief on behalf of all counties, and coordinating the solicitation
of financial assistance for Cabarrus County's cost of the appeal.
Cabarrus County has already incurred approximately $200,000 in
legal fees to date and the estimated additional cost of appeal is
$100,000.
The Association will be sending out copies of the amicus brief to
all county attorneys for their examination. Copies of the brief
are- expected to be mailed in mid- August, with a filing deadline
falling within the first week of September, 1991.
-OVER-
ALBERT COATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CENTER • 215 NORTH DAWSON STREET
P. O. BOX 1488, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602.1488 • TELEPHONE (919) 832 -2893 • FAX (919) 733 -1065
9
Each county is also being given an opportunity to make a financial
contribution toward the cost of appeal. The Association recommends
a method of distribution which is based on two factors: (1) county
population and (2) current county participation in a contract with
a private consultant (similar to the one between, Cabarrus and TMA).
A rate of 2 1/2 cents per capita is suggested for those counties
that are presently participating in such contracts, and 1 1/2 cents
per capita for non - participating counties. A list including all
counties, their 1990 population, and the amount of requested
contribution is enclosed. A "Notice of Intent to Contribute" form
is also enclosed. Please return it to the Association as soon as
possible. Once the form is received by our office, you will be
invoiced for the amount specified on your notice.
The outcome of this appeal is most important to all counties, both
those currently participating in contracts with private consultants
and those that are not. An adverse ruling would limit the
counties' rights to contract in whatever manner it so chooses to
secure assistance in equitably applying the property tax to all
taxpayers. These contracting rights are of great value and merit
protection.
We encourage all counties to participate in this voluntary effort
to whatever extent is feasible. We appreciate your assistance in
this matter and look forward to hearing from you soon. For further
information, please contact me or our Staff Counsel, Jo Anne Spell
at our office.
f: \joanne \aLicus
1.
NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUPPORT CABARRUS COUNTY'S
PROPERTY TAX FINDING APPEAL -
1990
REQUESTED
COUNTY
CONTRACT
CENSUS POP..__._
CONTRIBUTION'S
BUNCOMBE
Y
174,821
$4,371
BURKE
Y
75,744
$1,894
CABARRUS
Y
98,935
$2,473
CALDWELL
Y
70,709
$1,768
CATAWBA
Y
118,412
$2,960
CHATHAM
Y
38,759
$969
CLEVELAND
Y
84,714
$2,118
COLUMBUS
Y
49,587
$1,240
DAVIDSON
Y
126,677
$3,167
DUPLIN
Y
39,995
$1,000
DURHAM
Y.
181,835
$4,546
GASTON
Y
175,093
$4,377
GUILFORD
Y
347,420
$8,686
IREDELL
Y
92,931
$2,323-
JOHNSTON
Y
81,306
$2,033
LENOIR
Y
57,274
$1,432
LINCOLN
Y
50,319
$1,258
MCDOWELL
Y
35,681
$892
ONSLOW
Y
149,838
$3,746
RANDOLPH
Y
106,546
$2,664
ROBESON
Y
105,179
52,629
STAN LY
Y
51.765
$1.294
SURRY
Y
61,704
$1,543
WAKE
Y
423,380'
$10,585
ALAMANCE
108,213
$1,623
ALEXANDER
27,544
5413
ALLEGHANY
9,590
$144
ANSON
23,474
$352
ASHE
22,209
$333
AVERY
14,867
$223
BEAUFORT
42,283
$634
BERTIE
20,388
$306
BLADEN
28,663
$430
BRUNSWICK
50,985
$765
CAMDEN
5,904
$89
CARTERET
52,556
$788
CASWELL
20,693
$310
CHEROKEE
20,170
$303
CHOWAN
13,506
$203
CLAY
7,155
$107
CRAVEN
81,613
$1,224
CUMBERLAND
274,566
$4,118
CURRITUCK
13,736
$206
DARE
22,746
$341
DAVIE
27,859'
$418
EDGECOMBE
56,558
$848
FORSYTH
265,878
$3,988
FRANKLIN
36,414
$546
GATES
9,305
$140
GRAHAM
7,196
$108
GRANVILLE
38,345
$575
GREENE
15,384
$231
$83$
HALIFAX
55,516
67,822
$1,017
HARNETT
NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUPPORT CABARRUS COUNTY'S
PROPERTY TAX FINDING APPEAL -
COUNTY
1990
CONTRACT CENSUS POP.
REQUESTED
CONTRIBUTION*
HAYWOOD
46,942
$704
HENDERSON
69,285
$1,039
HERTFORD
22,523
$338
HOKE
22,856
$343
HYDE
5,411
$81
JACKSON
26,846
$403
JONES
9,414
$141
LEE
41,374
$621
MACON
23,499
$352
MADISON
16,953
$254
MARTIN
25,078
$376
MECKLENBURG
511,433
$7,671
MITCHELL
14,433
$216
MONTGOMERY
23,346
$350
MOOR E
59,013
$885
NASH
76.677
$1,150
NEW HANOVER
120,284
$1,804
NORTHAMPTON
20,798
$312
ORANGE
93,851
$1,408
PAMLICO
11,372
$171
PASOUOTANK
31,298
$469
PENDER
28,855
$433
PEROUIMANS
10,447
$157
PERSON
30,180
$453
PITT
107,924
$1,619
POLK
14,416
$216
RICHMOND
44,518
$668
ROCKINGHAM
86,064
$1,291
ROWAN
110,605
$1,659
RUTHERFORD
56,918
$854
SAMPSON
47,297
$709
SCOTLAND
33,754
$506
STOKES
37.223
$558
SWAIN
11.268
$169
TRANSYLVANIA
25,520
$383
T YRRELL
3,856
$58
UNION
84,211
$1,263
VANCE
38,892
$583
WARREN
17,265
$259
WASHINGTON
13,997
$210
WATAUGA
36,952
$554
WAYNE
104,666
$1,570
WILKES
59,393
$891
WILSON
66,061
$991
YADKIN
30,488
$457
YANCEY
15,419
$231
TOTAL 24 6,628,637 $127,416
Counties with tax finding contracts assessed
$0.025 per capita: counties without contracts
assessed $0.015 per capita.
07/01/91
s_
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
Agenda Abstract
Item #
SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT - NOVEMBER 25, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes —X_No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Legal Notice
Proposed Public Hearing Items
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Planning Director X2592
PHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough
732 -8181
Mebane
227 -2031
Durham
688 -7331
Chapel Hill
967 -9251
PURPOSE: To consider the legal notice and items for
discussion at the quarterly public hearing
scheduled for November 25, 1991.
BACKGROUND: The next regular quarterly public hearing is
scheduled for November 25, 1991. The Board of
Commissioners reviews proposals to be considered at
public hearing for consistency with general County
policy and presentation format. Items to be
considered at the November 25, 1991 public hearing
include the following:
1. Extended Area Telephone Service
2. Planned Development Applications
a. PD -1 -91 Stonegate Mobile Home Park
3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
a. Large Day Care Homes
(1) Article 6.27.3 Application Procedure
b. Home Occupation Permits
(1) Article 6.16.6 Regulations for
Home Occupations
(2) Article 22 - Definitions
C. Infrastructure Facilities
(1) Article 6.16.12 Telephone Exchanges,
Subscriber Loop Huts, Pressure
Regulator Stations, and Water /Sewer
Pump Stations
4. Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments
a. Utility and Drainage Easements
F1
(1) Section III -C--3 Minor Subdivision
Review /Approval Procedures
(2) Section IV -B -2 Land Suitability
(3) Section V -C -5 Utility /Drainage Data
for Preliminary Plats
(4) Section V -D -S -c Utility /Drainage Data
for Final Plats
b. Standards for 10+ Acre Lots
(1) Section III -B Classification of
Subdivisions
(2) Section II Definition of Minor
Subdivision
(3) Section IV Required Minimum Design
Standards
C. Environmental Health Endorsement
(1) Section V -D -6 Certificates of
Endorsement /Final Plat
d. Mapping Requirements of G.S. 47 -30
(1) Section V -D Final Plat
(2) Section II Definition of Subdivision
(3) Section V -D -6 Certificates of
Endorsement /Final Plat
Approval of the notice will permit advertisement on
November 13 and 20, 1991 as required the N.C.
General Statutes. The Planned Development
application will require notification of individual
property owners. The notice must be mailed on or
before November 15, 1991.
The Planning Board considered the proposed
ordinance text amendments at its October 22, 1991
meeting and recommended that they be presented at
the November 25, 1991 public hearing for citizen
comment.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the
Notice of Public Hearing for November 25,
1991.
A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
EXTENDED AREA TELEPHONE SERVICE,
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, AND
ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North
Carolina, Chapter 153A, 240, 323, and 343; 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 in the Superior Courtroom
of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106 East Margaret Lane,
Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, November 25, 1991, at 7 :30
p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an
opportunity to speak for or against the following items:
EXTENDED AREA TELEPHONE SERVICE
See Page 3A.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
The Planned Development application to be considered is as
follows:
1. PD -1 -91 Stonegate Mobile Home Park
The property in question is located on Mount Herman Church
Road north of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and south of
Interstate Highway 85. The property contains 56.36 acres and
is specifically described as part of Lot 35 of Tax Map 26 in
Eno Township. The current zoning designation of the property
PD -H -R -4 [Planned Development Housing - Medium Intensity
Residential]. The proposed zonincr designation is the same_
A modification of an existing Planned Development, Stonegate
Mobile Park, is proposed. The existing mobile home park was
approved with 114 mobile home spaces on October 4, 1982.
Sewage treatment was to be provided by a package treatment
plant. The applicant is proposing to remove ten [10] mobile
home spaces and change the type of sewage treatment from a
package plant to a spray irrigation system, thereby adding
19.86 acres to the park. The applicant also proposes to
relocate the well and recreation sites, and to delete a
proposed boat storage area, car wash, and laundry facilities.
c
3A
The following notice of public hearing with regard to
Extended Area Telephone Service (EAS) will be advertised
separately from the remaining items on the Quarterly Public
Hearing agenda:
P U B L I C HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
NOVEMBER 25, 1991
Recently, the North Carolina Utility Commission denied a
petition submitted on behalf of Orange County citizens
seeking toll -free Extended Area Telephone Service (EAS)
throughout most of Orange County. The Commission also denied
a request that Orange County citizens in the CENTEL
(Hillsborough) and Mebane Home Telephone exchanges be given
the opportunity to vote their preferences on this issue.
The proposed additional monthly charges for toll -free service
among the Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Mebane (Orange
County) exchanges were:
Exchange
Residence
Business
Chapel Hill
$0.06
$0.13
Hillsborough
$2.65
$5.93
Mebane (Orange Co)
$3.61
$9.16
The Orange County Board of Commissioners would like to learn
the public's views about the Utility Commission's decision.
A public hearing on this matter will be held on Monday,
November 25, 1991, at 7:30pm in.the Superior Courtroom of the
new County Courthouse, 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough,
NC. Citizens unable to attend the public hearing are
encouraged to submit written comments to:
Orange County Board of Commissioners
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY!
4
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
are as follows:
1. Amend ARTICLE 6.27.3 LARGE DAY CARE HOMES - APPLICATION
PROCEDURES by allowing the Zoning Officer to approve minor
changes to approved large day care homes. The proposed changes
must be in accord with standards for such homes and the
conditions of the original approval. Otherwise, changes to
such homes must be approved by the Board of Adjustment.
2. Amend ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS by defining "Home Occupation" as
"the incidental and subordinate use of residential property
for business, production of goods, and provision of services ".
3. Amend ARTICLE 6.16.6 REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS
by rewriting the Article to provide for ease of understanding.
The amendment does not change the basic standards applicable
to home occupations but simplifies and eliminates excessive
narrative.
4. Amend ARTICLE 6.16.12 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
- TELEPHONE EXCHANGES, WATER AND SEWER PUMPING STATIONS, ETC.
by increasing the allowable building size from 200 to 800
square feet, requiring screening along the perimeter of a
parcel except where it abuts property owned by a utility
company, eliminates the need for a utility company to obtain
subdivision approval if the parcel or easement is recorded in
the Register of Deeds Office, and requires the provision of a
30 -foot access easement where a parcel does not have road
frontage.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations are as follows:
1. Amend SECTION II DEFINITIONS by amending the definition of
"Minor Subdivision" to clarify that a minor subdivision
creates no more than five [5] lots which are less than 10.01
acres in size. No reference to the size of the lots is
included in the current definition.
The definition of "Subdivision" in SECTION II DEFINITIONS is
also proposed for amendment. The amendment would require that
a certification be placed on an subdivision plat, exempt from
the Subdivision Regulations, regarding its status prior to
recording. The amendment will provide consistency with N.C.
General Statute 47 -30.
2. Amend SECTION III -C -3 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES [MINOR
SUBDIVISIONS] by permitting the Planning Department to submit
minor subdivision plats to public agencies for review and
comment. Upon receipt of agency comments, the Planning
61
Department may incorporate them as conditions of approval of a
minor subdivision.
3. Amend SECTION IV -B -2 LAND S'
which require that building
driveways, and utilities be
from stormwater innundation
drainage easements, natural
technical means may used
JITABILITY by adding provisions
sites be provided and /or roads,
installed so as to be protected
and erosion. Mechanical devices,
buffers, large lots and /or other
to achieve this objective.
4. Amend SECTION V -C -5 UTILITY AND DRAINAGE DATA [PRELIMINARY
PLATS] by requiring that existing and proposed drainageways
and channels be shown on Preliminary Plats for Major
Subdivisions.
5. Amend SECTION V -D -5 UTILITY AND DRAINAGE DATA [MINOR PLATS] by
requiring that storm drainage.easements be shown on Minor
Subdivision Plats.
6. Amend SECTION IV -B REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS by adding
minimum standards which apply to lots larger than 10 acres in
size where such lots are included on the same plat with lots
10 or less acres in size. Where all lots on a plat are greater
than 10 acres in size, the standards do not apply.
7. Amend SECTION V -D FINAL PLAT by deleting outdated
specifications concerning plat sizes, drawing medium, plat
material, scale, and margins. The amendment will provide
consistency with N.C. General Statute 47 -30.
8. Amend SECTION V -D -6 -a CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND ACCURACY to
include wording that the proposed subdivision is within Orange
County's jurisdiction. The amendment will provide consistency
with N.C. General Statute 47 -30.
9. Amend SECTION V -D -6 -e CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL to reword the
certification by the Orange County Health Department,
Environmental Health Division, to indicate that an area on
each lot has been tentatively designated for septic system
installation and repair. Such designation is not considered to
be an Improvements Permit nor approval of a septic system for
any lot in the subdivision.
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 whc
will answer your questions.
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
PUBLISH: November 13, 1991
November 20, 1991
7
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88
MODIFICATI01\ OF A
APPLICATION FOR/CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DATE: 10 /_07 / 91
APPLICATION NUMBER: PD- 1 91
Modification of a
I Rt) request a/Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article 8 7_ of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance for -modif' cation of the SpeCinl, Ii.P Parrnir p=inr_ed
October 14 1982 to Curtis and Dorothy C. Bane for the development of Stn ate Mobile
Home Park as revised and recorded in the name of Dorothy C. Ba
The following information is provided in support of this request:
A
PROPERTY INFORMATION:
[Vest side Mt. Herman Church Road (SR 1713) one —half mile
Street Address or Location:south of U.S. Interstate
Orange County Tax Maps 26 & 25 Block Lot(f) _ 35 Township
Zoning District(s):
Lot /Parcel Size: 35. 5 ars Park & 19.86 n(-qa�@g!RkxrF wastew-ater dispnsal
Number of Existing Buildings: Gross Floor Area: square feet
Number of Proposed Buildings: 104 Gross Floor 'Area: square feet
Water Supply: Public (Specify )Private wells Community Individual
Wastewater Disposal: Public (Specify) rz�ation _Community Individual
School District: Orange County Fire District: Eno
General Land Uses in Area: commercial and rural re
Critical Areas: Stream /Drainageway Flood Prone Area
Watershed (Specify) Historic Site
Other (Explain)
B. SITE PLAN INFO R''vlATION;
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:
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.
Existing 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)
R
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.
Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Additional information regarding, the proposed Special Use as required by
Article $ 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 the property.
2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection.
3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
I Rei), the applicant(4), 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.
APPLICA NT— SI G NAT URECAYP_
10 / 07 / 91
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.
. rrrrr. arrrr.. rraw. rrrr. r... rrrrrrraarrrrrrrtrrrrrtrrrrrrrrtrr .rrrr ■ *•rrrrrrrr.war
FEES: Amount S X250, Date Paid: /D / 22 /�_ Receipt ;T 2 �3/
{
n
0
HAYWOoD, DENNY, MILLER, JOHNSON, SESSOMS & PATRICK
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
EGBERT L. MAYWOOD ( 1911 - 19655) WACMOVIA BANK BUILDING
EMERY B. DENNY, JR. ( 1924 -1982)
201 WEST MAIN STREET
GEORGE W. MILLER, JR,
FUITE 400
JAMES SON, III
CHAPEL HILL OFFICE
B. M. SESSOMS
SOMS
POST OFFICE BOX 451
SUITE 530,EUROPA CENTER
MICHAEL W. PATRICK
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702 -0451
100 -UROPA DRIVE
KEVIN W, BUTTER FIELD
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514
E. ELIZABETH LEFLER
AREA COOK ( 919) 662 -5747
19191 9412.4462
ROBERT E. LEVIN
TELECOPIER NO (9191 S82 -5740
JOHN J, PADILLA
ANDREW T_ LANDAUER October 7, 1991
Mr. Eddie Kirk
Planner II
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
RE: Stonegate Mobile Home Park
Modification for Class A Special Use Permit
PD -H, R -4 Approved October 4, 1982, Revised
And Recorded September 18 -, 1989 _
Dear Mr. Kirk:
In connection with the above matter, we are providing the
following documents:
A. Application for Modification of a Class A Special Use Permit
dated October 7, 1991.
B. Check of Dorothy C. Bane, Applicant, for $250 in payment of
Planning Fee.
C. Narrative in support of Application for Modification of
Special Use Permit for Stonegate Mobile Home Park, including copies of
the following:
1. State of North Carolina, Division of Environmental
Management, Permit No. WQ0004370, Mrs. Dorothy C. Bane,. Stonegate
Mobile Home Park Wastewater Treatment and Spray Irrigation System,
orange County, dated May 31, 1991.
2. Relevant portion of North Carolina Administrative Code
showing Wastewater Flow Rates.
3. Form of sewer line easement from Mount Hermon Baptist
Church.
4. Narrative portion of 1982 Application when the original
Special Use Permit was granted on October 4, 1982 entitled, "Letter of
Intent ".
a
0
10
Mr. Eddie Kirk
October 7, 1991
Page Two
5. Memorandum presented on July 11, 1988 to Orange County
Board of Adjustments detailing work accomplished on Stonegate Mobile
Home Park.
6. Memorandum updating detail of work accomplished from
1987 to current date.
D. Copies of additional items submitted in connection with the
Application as follows:
1. Site Plan, "Stonegate Mobile Home Park ", Dorothy C.
Bane (Owner) by Credle Engineering Company, Inc. dated 9/16/91,
including:
Boundary area for Sewage Treatment Plant, Lagoon and
Spray Irrigation System, Stonegate Mobile Home Park, by Credle
Engineering Company, Inc. dated 7/31/91.
Plan showing Forced Main to Sewage Plant, Stonegate
Mobile Home Park, by Credle Engineering Company, Inc.
2. Orange County Tax Map 26 showing location of Stonegate
Mobile Home Park.
3. Orange County Tax Map 25 showing location of Sewage
Treatment Plant, Lagoon and Spray Irrigation System for Stonegate
Mobile Home Park.
The list of the adjoining property owners is attached as part of
Item C5.
We have provided the above information pursuant to Section 8.7.3
of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and your letter dated August 26,
1991; however, we wish you to review your decision that the change is
a modification of the Special Use Permit issued in 1982. Your letter
indicates that you based your determination on the factors indicated
in Sections 8.7.1(a) and 8.7.1(j) of the Zoning Ordinance:
a) Any change in a condition imposed during the approval of a
special use permit shall constitute a modification.
j) Any change in the location or extent of street and utility
improvements or rights -of -way, including water, sewer and storm
drainage facilities, which would provide a different level of service
shall constitute a modification.
You state that Conditions of Approval 18 and 23 of the Special
Use Permit have been changed by the substitution of sewage disposal
systems. Condition 18 merely states: "The private wastewater
Mr. Eddie Kirk
October 7, 1991
Page Three
treatment plant shall be included as part of the Planned Development
with access from Mount Hermon Church Road." Nothing has changed with
regards to this condition. Mrs. Bane will have a private wastewater
treatment plant with access from Mt. Herman Church Road. Only the
form of the plant has changed and the spray irrigation system is in
any event preferable because there will be no discharge into the
waters of North Carolina so that the only affected party will be the
owner of the land, Mrs. Bane.
Condition 23 stated that "the development shall be built and
operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by
the developer . . . 11. As stated above, Mrs. Bane fully intends to
follow the original Site Plan submitted in 1982 as subsequently
revised in consultation with your office. The "narrative" apparently
refers to a document filed with the County Commissioners as part of
the application for the Special Use Permit. The document states that
sewer will be provided by private package plant; sewer is still being
disposed of by package treatment plant. The only difference is that
the treated effluent that comes out of the package plant is being
sprayed on a field rather than dumped in a creek.
As for Section 8.7.1(j) of the Zoning Ordinance, we contend that
there has been no "change in the location or extent of . sewer .
. facilities . . . which would provide a different level of service"
so as to constitute a change. The type of facility has changed but
the level of service will remain the same, all mobile homes will be
provided with ample sewage removal capacity. The only difference is
that the sewage effluent will be sprayed on a field instead of
discharged into a stream. Such a change does not at all affect the
level of service which will be provided to the Stonegate Mobile Home
Park.
The change in the sewer system is clearly within the category of
minor change and should not be treated as a modification which would
required Mrs. Bane to resubmit an application for the Special Use
Permit.
Nonetheless, we have attempted to comply with Section 8.7.3 by
filing this Application for Modification of the Special Use Permit.
Section 8.7.3 requires that an applicant for modification submit a
revised Site Plan and written narrative outlining the specific changes
required. These documents as set forth above are enclosed.
There appears to be some confusion as to the need for a separate
Special Use Permit for the wastewater treatment site. Condition 18 of
the Special Use Permit also explicitly states that the private
wastewater treatment plant "shall be included as part of the Planned
Development ". Therefore, we question the necessity of a new Special
Use Permit for the spray irrigation field where no such permit would
12
Mr. Eddie Kirk
October 7, 1991
Page Four
have been required in 1982, the date of granting of the Special Use
Permit.
Therefore, we would request a meeting with you and Mr. Collins to
discuss these matters.
With all good wishes.
BMS /pje
cc: Dorothy C. Bane
Sidney V. Credle
Sincerely yours,
B. M. Sessoms
13
I
APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL
USE PERMIT FOR STONEGATE MOBILE SOME PARK
In response to a letter from the Planning Department dated August
26, 1991 and pursuant to Section 8.7.3 of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance, Dorothy C. Bane seeks a modification of her Special Use
Permit (Permit, herein) for the development of Stonegate Mobile Home
Park (Park, herein). This modification is necessitated by a change in
the wastewater disposal system for the Park.
The original Permit was issued in October of 1982 and called for
wastewater to be disposed of via a private wastewater treatment plant
(plant, herein) into Rhodes Creek (Creek, herein). At that time Mrs.
Bane held NPDES Permit No. NC0049808, Stonegate Mobile Home Park,
Orange County which had been granted by the State of North Carolina,
Department of Environmental Management (DEM, herein) effective March
1, 1980 (NPDES permit, herein). The NPDES permit was subject to
renewal each five years upon application six months in advance of its
February 28th expiration date. It had been timely renewed effective
March 1, 1985. The application for renewal to be effective March 1,
1990 was timely filed with and received by DEM on August 30, 1989. On
December 15, 1989 Mrs. Bane was informed by DEM that Rhodes Creek had
been reclassified and DEM gave notice of intention to deny the
application for renewal of the NPDES permit. DEM suggested several
alternatives to wastewater disposal into the creek, including spray
irrigation and low pressure injection.
After investigating several options, Mrs. Bane decided,.upon the
advice of S. V. Credle, Professional Engineer, Credle Engineering
Company, Inc., Durham, North Carolina (Credle, herein), to install a
14
spray irrigation system in order to dispose of wastewater. The spray
irrigation system is identical to the originally proposed plant in
that it uses two 12,500 gallon package units to treat the wastewater.
The only difference is that rather than discharging the treated
wastewater into the creek, it is sprayed on a field. Credle began
work on the renewal application for the NPDES permit and the
application for the spray irrigation system (system, herein) in
conjunction with the DEM and the Orange County Health Department
(Health Department, herein) to develop the design for the system.
This process included several designs and redesigns of the system as
well as a consideration of alternative locations for the field.
Credle began the process in August, 1989, and after extensive
consultation with DEM and the Health Department, approval was granted
for the system and the site. DEM issued Permit No. WQ0004370 to Mrs.
Dorothy C. Bane, Stonegate Mobile Home Park Wastewater Treatment and
Spray Irrigation System, Orange county on May 31, 1991 (system permit,
herein). A copy is attached. The system as approved will be located
on a 19.86 acre tract of land owned by Mrs. Bane which is part of the
same contiguous tract on which Stonegate Mobile Home Park is being
constructed.
The system has a maximum capacity of 25,000 GPD (gallons of
wastewater per day), a decrease from the 32,400 GPD allowed under the
previous NPDES permits. As a result, the number of units in the park
has been decreased from 114 as shown in the original site plan to the
104 units shown on the revised Site Plan dated 9/16/91 by Credle as
attached. The maximum capacity is calculated at a rate of 120 GPD per
K
15 x
bedroom by Credle, pursuant to DEM standards as set out in the North
Carolina Administrative Code, copy of the relevant part attached.
Therefore the Special Use Permit for Stonegate Mobile Home Park will
be amended to include a clause that under no circumstances will the
number of bedrooms exceed 208 requiring a maximum capacity of 24,960
GPD (120 x 208) which is within the system's capacity, thereby
guaranteeing compliance with the system permit.
The revised Site Plan also shows: the location of two wells
which have been drilled and tested and yield 65 gpm (gallons per
minute) and 85 gpm, thus insuring an adequate water supply; the
location of the pipes associated with the fresh water distribution
system; the location of the pipes associated with the wastewater
disposal and spray irrigation system; and all other requirements
incident to the Special Use Permit. Necessary easements from the
railroad are in the process of being obtained. Also attached is form
of easement to allow the sewer line to run across the property of
Mount Hermon Baptist Church. Executed copies of these to follow.
Since the number of units has been reduced, the burden on fire,
police and rescue services will be reduced and the impact of the park
minimized. The same is true as to adequacy of vehicular access to the
site and traffic conditions around the site. overall, the Stonegate
Mobile Home Park pursuant to the revised Site Plan will have a lesser
impact than as originally proposed and this is particularly true with
regards to the wastewater treatment and disposal system. Rather than
discharging into the public waters of this state, the spray irrigation
system will utilize the property of the owner, Mrs. Bane, and will
3
16
have such a limited impact that the site of the field will be suitable
for building from the moment the irrigation system is removed.
Except as noted above, the Stonegate Mobile Home Park as
described in the 1982 application for Special Use Permit has not been
changed and therefore a copy of the original narrative portion of the
1982 application is attached. In addition a memorandum presented on
July 11, 1988 to the Orange County Board of Adjustments detailing work
accomplished on Stonegate Mobile Home Park is also attached. A
memorandum updating detail of the work accomplished from 1987 to
current date will follow.
4
HAYWOoo, DENNY, MILLER, JOHNSON, SESSOMS & PATRICK
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
EGBERT L. HAYWOOD ( 1911 -196$)
EMERY B.. DENNY, JR,(1924 -1982)
WACHOVIA BANK BUILDING
201 WEST MAIN STREET
GEORGE W. MILLER, JR. SUITE 400
JAMES H. JOHNSON, 111 POST OFFICE BOX 451
B. M. SESSOMS
MICHAEL W. PATRICK DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702 -0451
KEVIN W. BUTTERFIELD
E. ELIZABETH LEFLER AREA CODE (919) 862 -5747
ROBERT E. LEVIN TELECOPIER NO.(9197 682 -5740
JOHN J. PADILLA
ANDREW T. LANDAUER October 18, 1991
Mr. Eddie Kirk
Planner II
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
17
CHAPEL HILL OFFICE
SUITE 530,EUROPA CEN7ER
100 EUROPA DRIVE
CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514
(91W 942 -4462
RE: Stonegate Mobile Home Park
Modification for Class A Special Use Permit
PD -H, R -4 Approved October 4, 1982, Revised
And Recorded September 18 1989
Dear Mr. Kirk:
In connection with the above matter and pursuant to your
letter of October 10, 1991 as discussed in our October 11, 1991
conference with you and Mr. Marvin Collins, we are providing First
Addendum to Narrative Submitted with October 7, 1991 Application
for Modification of Special Use Permit for Stonegate Mobile Home
Park. We are also providing the documents referred to therein.
As requested in the Application for Modification dated October
7, 1991, we also enclose twenty- -six (26) copies each of Site Plan,
Stonegate Mobile Home Park; and Boundary Area for Sewage Treatment
Plant Lagoon and Spray Irrigation System, Stonegate Mobile Home
Park, prepared by Credle Engineering Company, Inc.
We believe we have addressed the matters set forth in your
October 10, 1991 letter and are our October 11, 1991 conference in
order for the Application for Modification to remain on November
25, 1991 Public Hearing schedule.
With all good wishes.
Sincerely,
B. M. Sessoms
cc: Ms. Dorothy C. Bane
Mr. Sidney V. Credle
is
FIRST ADDENDUM TO NARRATIVE SUBMITTED WITH
OCTOBER 7,1991 APPLICATION FOR
MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR STONEGATE
MOBILE HOME PARK
This First Addendum is being submitted on October 18, 1991 to
amend and add to the Narrative submitted with the Application for
Modification of Special Use Permit for Stonegate Mobile Home Park
dated October 7, 1991 in response to Orange County Planning
Department letter of October 10, 1991 to Dorothy Bane and October
11, 1991 conference with the Orange County Planning Department.
The clause to amend the Special Use Permit discussed on page
3 of the Narrative will read as follows:
1124. In order to insure compliance with the 25,000 GPD
capacity of N.C. DEM permit number WQ0004370 issued to Ms. Dorothy
C. Bane, Stonegate Mobile Home Park Wastewater Treatment and Spray
Irrigation System, Orange County on May 31, 1991, the number of
units permitted in the park shall not exceed 104 with a total
number of bedrooms not to exceed 208. It is the intent of this
provision to limit the number of units in the park to 104 or less
to insure that the total number of bedrooms shall not exceed 208 in
combination whether contained in 1,2, or 3 bedroom units."
As discussed on page 3 of the Narrative, the well sites as
shown on the 1982 site plan had to be changed to conform to the
location where water was found when the wells were drilled. The
following items are attached to indicate that these wells have been
drilled and approved:
1. Three Orange County Health Department well permits issued
and dated in March, April, and May 1989 showing sites as approved.
2. Three Well Certifications by W. W. Maness & Sons dated
June 5, 1989. One Well Certification is for a well not shown on
the Site Plan as it yielded only 2 gallons per minute and will not
19 ,
be attached to the water system.
3. North Carolina Department of Human'Resources, Division of
Environmental Health - Public Water Supply Section Approval dated
January 22, 1990 of well sites as shown on the Site Plan.
4. N.C. DEH Bacteriological Analysis and Inorganic Chemical
Analysis for the 3 wells dated March 22, 1991.
5. Twenty -four (24) hour capacity pumping tests by Alamance
Pump Sales- Service, Inc. dated March 22, 1991 as submitted to North
Carolina Environmental Management Commission for the three wells.
The easement documents referred to on page 3 of the Narrative
are in process as follows:
6. Norfolk Southern Corporation. Credle has corresponded
with and made application for as evidenced by attached letter of
Norfolk Southern Corporation dated January 17, 1991 and Credle's
response dated October 15, 1991. It is indicated in the Norfolk
Southern letter that approval will be given upon receipt of the
necessary information.
7. NCDOT. Credle has discussed with DOT and completed Right
of Way Encroachment Agreement as shown on attached Agreement and
drawing. Upon DOT approval fully executed Agreement will be
provided.
8. Mt. Hermon Baptist Church. Resolution and Easement deeds
submitted to and approved by the Congregation in October 13, 1991
business meeting. Resolution has been executed, copy attached.
Deed will be signed by the Trustees within the next several days
and will be provided.
The September 16, 1991 Site Plan has eliminated the boat
20
storage area, carwash pads, and laundry facility as shown on the
1982 site plan. These uses were eliminated as boat storage is not
needed, a separate carwash area is not needed, and the laundry
facilities are not needed since mobile homes have washer -dryer
connections. This area is now designated as a recreation area and
will be grassed. The well areas in circles 1 and 3 and the entire
Duke Power easement have been designated as grassed recreation
areas to provide centrally located recreation areas.
A current list of Landowners Adjoining Stonegate Mobile Home
Park is attached as taken from the Orange County Tax Records.
The Memorandum updating detail of the work referred to on page
4 of the Narrative was submitted with the October 7, 1991
application.
: 21
'ads 27
C5.
9 ~ an2
5A 1.2. C.
e. �q 1
4363 AL
1 SEE
30 MAP 25-1 72 \ \ \', l
P/0 153 96AC. I' 3 \X \\ I
it 46-72 AC. \�
.esaz
2wi5 AC 3 ac.
SEE
MA
2 Pf0260. 5r Ac.
VC
o GC. =a55 (7C:
-
_ I 17cAG•
—� �� 12.7 AC 33 CC
1 � � Y
3390 �// • 35
I.S. 85� —
409 I AC
9506
50.5 AC.
1934 r
^ 392AC
35 3 5 %a . j/41
3.01 AC.
260 7� C (� 4 53 AG: F ?_
a
3 ? /T3T �NyfCN 34
2349
I'vcm± '
or
13.16 x
I roro
7
J �
v
/ A
�0 75 AC-
r
V
y;7ti.
22
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: ARTICLE, 6.27.3 LARGE DAY CARE HOME - APPLICATION
PROCEDURE
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: —x_ Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle x Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 25, 1991
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To provide a process where minor changes in approved large day
care homes may be approved by the Zoning Officer.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
Under current ordinance provisions any change in the operation of
a large day care home will constitute a modification and require
the approval of the Board of Adjustment. The proposed amendment
would clarify when a change could be approved by the Zoning
Officer and when Board of Adjustment approval would be required.
In many cases minor changes to approved large day care homes may
comply with the standards for evaluation that are specified in
Section 6.27.2 of the Zoning ordinance. The proposed amendment
would allow minor changes that comply with requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance to be approved by the Zoning Officer. All
changes that do not comply with large day care home requirements
will require approval of the Orange County Board of Adjustment.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
6.27.3 Large Day Care Home - Application Procedure
No large day care home may be operated in a residence
except as permitted under this Ordinance and only after
approval has been issued by the Zoning Officer.
An application for a large day care home shall be filed
with the Zoning Officer and shall be submitted on forms
provided by the Zoning Officer. Such forms shall be
prepared so that when completed a full and accurate
description of the proposed use, including its
2-4
location, appearance, and operational characteristics
are disclosed.
In addition to the application, the applicant is
required to submit a site plan of the property on which
the large day care home is to be located. The site plan
shall show the location of the residence in which the
large day care home is to be located in relation to
existing property lines and adjacent homes; the
location, number, and means of access to required
off- street parking areas; and the location and type of
required landscaping and /or screening.
Upon a determination that the application is complete,
the Zoning Officer shall cause a review of the
application to be made. The review shall determine if
the proposed large day care home conforms with all
requirements of this Ordinance. Based on the review,
the application will be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied..
If conditions are attached to the approval, they may
address deficiencies in meeting specific Ordinance
requirements or they may address specific impacts which
result from the operation of the large day care home.
In the latter case, the conditions may include, but not
be limited to, limitations on the hours of operation,
location of play area, the number of vehicles to be
parked on the premises, and the location of a storage
area or parking on the property. In addition, the
Zoning Officer may require greater setbacks and /or
additional landscaping or screening to adequately
screen the large day care home from adjoining
properties.
If the application is approved, either with or without
conditions, the Zoning Officer shall send the applicant
a letter informing him of the approval and of the
requirements of the Ordinance that apply to the large
day care home. The letter must be signed by the
applicant to indicate his /her willingness to operate
the large day care home in conformance with the
requirements and conditions set forth in the letter.
Each letter shall be kept on file by the Zoning Officer
and shall constitute the approval for the large day
care home in question.
If the application is denied, the Zoning Officer shall
notify the applicant of the denial and shall state the
reasons for denial in writing. The applicant may
appeal the decision of the Zoning Officer to the Board
of Adjustment as set forth in Article 21 of this
Ordinance.
24
Each large day care home approved by the zoning officer
shall be reviewed annually by him /her to assure
compliance with the standards of evaluation for such
facilities. The Zoning officer is authorized to
approve-minor chap es in the aRRroved large day care
home Provided the changes are in harmony with action of
the original aDRroval and provided any-change in the
operation complies with the standards of evaluation as
specified in Section 6.27.2 above. Any change in the
operation of the large day care home that does not
comply with the standards for evaluation as specified
in Section 6.27.2 above will constitute a modification
and require the approval of the Board of Adjustment
under the provisions of Article 8 of this ordinance. -In
shall be gelded by the preeedttres and eriteria
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: OCTOBER 3, 1.991
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
25
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Zoning
REFERENCE: Article vi, Section 6.16.6
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: Medium
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 25, 1991 JRH 10 -22 -91
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT
To edit the zoning ordinance text to improve language and clarify
provisions for home occupations.
ISSUES
Applications for home occupation permits appear to be on the rise.
National trends show that an increasing number of people are pursu-
ing their vocations by working at home. They are also supplementing
family incomes with money gained from hobbies and avocations. Fur-
ther, a more proactive zoning enforcement program may be partly
responsible for an increase in applications.
The purpose of the Home Occupation Section is to: (1) preserve the
principal residential ambience, integrity, and character of areas
zoned for residential purposes and, at the same time, (2) allow
residents to conduct business in their homes, respective accessory
structures, and outdoor storage areas, in manners that will not
detract from the purposes of the residential zoning district. Home
occupations are meant to be no more than incidental and strictly
subordinate to residential uses.
A number of minor changes are recommended to improve language,
provide clarity, reduce potential confusion, and make the section
more "user friendly."
Text Descri tion
Home occupations may be operated in residences or respective acces-
sory buildings after attaining a permit issued by the Zoning offi-
cer.
All sections in the ordinance on home occupations require that: (1)
delivery and sale of goods be incidental to the provision of servic-
es; (2) no equipment or process generate noise, vibration, glare,
odor, or electrical interference at lot lines of the property; (3)
traffic be kept to residential proportions; and (4) parking be off -
street.
�6
Section 6.16.6.1 lists standards for home occupations in areas where
highest residential densities are Rermitted. The section applies
to all districts where residential uses are allowed, except it does
not include the three lowest density zoning districts, namely: RB
(Rural Buffer), AR (Agricultural Residential), and R -1 (Rural
Residential). This section sets forth the most stringent home
occupation restrictions in the ordinance. All activities must be
conducted totally within residences and are limited to no more than
35 percent or 500 square feet of the total floor area of the resi-
dence, whichever is less. No external evidence of occupations may
be visible, although one sign is allowed which may not exceed two
square feet. Only one person not residing in the home may work in
the occupation.
Section 6.16.6.2 applies only to Rroperties in the RB AR and R -1
districts with less than 200,000 square feet (4.59 acres). Up to
1,000 square feet may be used for home occupations either in homes
or accessory buildings with up to 500 square feet allowed for
outside storage. Accessory structures, storage areas, and off -
street parking must be screened from view from adjacent properties.
One home occupation sign of no more than four square feet is allowed
in the RA and R -1 districts, or one sign of no more than two square
feet is allowed in the RB district. No more than two individuals
not residing in the home may work in the occupation.
Section 6.16.6.3 generally duplicates the provisions of Section
6.16.6.2., but applies only to properties in the RB AR and R -1
districts in excess of 200,000 square feet .,.,(4.59-acres) . Provisions
in this section that differ with those in 6.16.6.2 allow: (1) a
maximum of 2,000 square feet of floor area for use either in a home
or respective accessory structure; and (2) a maximum of 1,000 square
feet for outside storage. Two additional provisions require acces-
sory buildings to be set back at least 30 feet farther from the road
and 40 feet from side and rear lot lines.
Section 6.16.6.4 describes the aipRlication procedures for attaining
home occupation permits. Applications are handled administratively
by the Zoning Officer. Application details depend on particulars
of proposed home occupations and the districts in which they are
located. Site plans, and residence or accessory structure floor
plans, are required. Appeals to the decisions of the Zoning Officer
may be directed to the Board of Adjustment.
Amendment Issues
Article 22 DEFINITIONS uses the term "accessory use" to define a
home occupation. This is confusing. The term "accessory use"
should be removed from the definition. It is recommended that the
definition be rewritten to reflect better the nature of home occupa-
tions.
27
Section 6.16.6 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations, As An
Accessory-Use has the term "accessory use" in its title. Home
occupations may be situated in either homes or respective accessory
structures in the RB, AR, and R -1 districts. This is confusing.
The term "Accessory Use" should be removed from the title.
This section should include the four general provisions that are
applicable and common to all following sections on home occupations,
to reduce repetition and to avoid confusion. These four include
those on: (1) equipment noise, vibration, glare, odor and electrical
interference; (2) on- premises sales and deliveries of goods; (3)
neighborhood traffic; and (4) off- street parking.
Sections 6.16.6.2 and 3 tend to duplicate and repeat each other. It
is recommended that these two cumbersome sections be woven together
to accommodate their many common provisions and to integrate their
few disparate provisions. This will help to avoid user. confusion.
EXISTING PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
ARTICLE VI. APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
6.16.6
Regulations Concerning Home Occupations, As An Ae --
rw Use
6.16.6.1
2R
Home Occupations In All-Residential Districts Except
RB, AR and R -1
b) No more than thirty -five _percent (35 %) of the
`; »: <- floor area ` E ., : >;: <:.:;:;:...:;..,:,:> ` ' , . <;<» « }: ` `. »:> > '<: >::: >::<
.:::r.:..:� . e..... d.? Gtsqu x e t
of e a dwelling unit�....: arty: r. Aa.�..:h:`::::.::<.::: >:::.,:::
ir
_R____ f___ whichever is less, ean JS ] � be used
for tl:ie a home occupation. .............
'rfi l ea ; vibratren, giare, eder erlee ---
es at -- tire— let lines in the eas.. ef detaehed ar
ing unit, in the ease ef attaehed dwelling units.
ed, em ept in the ease ef the de!�6very and sales
).�e+ All activities shall be conducted within the dwel-
ling
)` } No more than one (1) individual not residing MG in the dife, , ing unit � c " may work in
the "home occupation. -
weeld nermally be- expeeted in a residential neiq#r-
6.16.6.2 Home Occu ations in RB AR and R -1 Districts
The following restrictions shall he applied � ..
home occupations in the RB, AR and R -1 districts. apt
a)
20
Un to I nnn
el) The sai s and delivery ef geeds whieh
en the premises are prehlbitedr
emeept in the ease ef the delivery and saies ef
geeds ineldental te the pre-visien ef a previding
e) Pie equipment 9F preeess shall be empleyed t
will ge..--- . - else, vibvatien, glare, eder- er
eleetrleal inter-ferenee deteetable at let lines ef
the let en. whieh the heme eeeepatien is I Reated
d) No more than two (2) individualsr not reslEling
N in the elling u may work in
tHe"'E"O"me occupation.
10
e)j Any outside storage of Materials the stored out -
doors for use in the a home occupation shall be
sreened from tike `scug roado and €gem adja-
cent property. ' =ice ='te the
storage area shall not
exceed 500 square feet
€ >> The
SetbacKs rrom or
the side and rear property fries shall be the same
as for an accessory building used as a home occu-
pation.
wetild nermally be - expeeted in a r!�rA-e-ntia neigh.,_
berheeds, and any need f-er parld rated by
eff the street and ether-than in -
w � .
an aeeessery b * 31
Pat-kep" kftlding fer use as a heme eeeu
The en premises sale del4vert—Of—geeds whieh.
&Pe not P�Fedueed en -t4ke-jwreealses is prohibited,
emeept in the ease ef e de3:!vert--&ffd__sa4e_.ef_
geeds ineldenta! te 4..,-- 19vevislen e a serviee.
e) ment or preeese shaii be empieye4 t
will generate heise,_. '4 1- ratlen, -er-
eleetvieal interferenee deteetabie at the iet
lines 8f the let en whieh the heme eeeupatien
eel
3"" Home OccuRation Permit A RRlica tion Procedure
An Application for a Home Occupation Permit
z;blia-L4 ve ziiea wizn tne zoning Officer"' .... iEjjjd-64j'jjJI':.:-:-:b:;�
sebinitted 9f'-fevms Provided by the Z nq 99fleer.
Gueh f9vffts she!! be prepaL-ed se that when eempleted a
full and aeeurate dese--.1tien ef the pr-epesed use,
ineluding its leeatlen, aPPear-anee, and eperatlena!
eharaeter-�Lsties shai! -r-equired.
in additien With" the application, tire --- applicant is
uir
reqed to su-...—''a site plan of the property eff-jfh7jeh
..........
-'d. The
tlFte hefae eeeupatlen is to be
site plan shall the location of"" :' "residence •
4..
dl!
,._Yjor accessory building in which the home occupation
te be leeated in relation to existing prop-
Is
............
erty ... adjacent homes; the location, num-
ber, and means of access to _r� � off-street parking
areas and the location ii and type ii of requ4-r�
landscaping and/or screening_
The applicant is also required to submit a floor plan
of the residencebr
accessory building in which the
..Y,
home occupation is to be located. The plan# shall show
the location, size, and use of each room or area within
the residence
or accessory building
h
Based on ire review the application
; ; .g
on 1
w ions, or den:'; Ied
32
.............. ..... conditions
if
I.J. are attaehed-
to
;O:v, ...... may address
, 10 .
deficiencies in meeting specific o h- 11-lance requirements
or they may address specific impacts which result
from the operation of the home occupation. n the
latter case, the conditions may include, but not be
limited to, 1=mitatrens hours of operation, the
number of vehicles 4%%§404 to be parked on the premises
at any given time, ;anA""f 'e"; location of aft accessory
............. rd eir parking areas
building�d, s torage areas4
y
..... fy .. . ....... ...
on the proper in the Genlii-rg offieer may
Greater setbacks, and/or addi-
. .............
. . .. .. .......
tional landscaping or screeh , i ng _.. . e __ a , dequately sereen
If the application is approved, either with or without
conditions, the Zoning Officer shall send the applicant
a permit letter informing himV'hOt of the approval and
conditions ef the r-'J- Rts e- erdinanee that
apply to the home occupation. The permit letter must
be signed by the applicant returned te the 99ning Offi
eer to indicate his/her willingness to operate the home
occupation in conformance with the requirements and
conditions set forth in
the er-
mit letter. The I 'iter tu6
.... .... .
....... . ...... r letter.. A
permit --
......
aii De Kept on riie ny tne Zoning Officer.
partleular ese in qeestie The home occupation may be
operated by the applicant as long as it is epera
,
4"i", J60 in conformance with the requirements and condi-
'ions-set forth in the permit letter.
If t4zke application is denied, the Zoning Officer
shall notify ify the applicant ewe-denial and shall
state the reasons for denial in writing. The app leant
The decisions of the Zoning Officer pgy..
f Adjustment as set f er-t4i in
t o the Board
0
Article 21 of this ordinance.
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: October 3, 1991
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: October 21, 1991
BOCC REVIEW:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6.16.12
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low
.Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 25, 1991
i_4 1T T9 rl 2-WO) AWr1 Y S"i 1[ 0) Y 0:4.447
To consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to modify
development standards for certain utility facilities.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
Article 4.1 of the Zoning ordinance lists 10 types of uses which
are permitted by right in all zoning districts. Several of these
uses are related to infrastructure facilities which are essential
to the distribution of services. Because they are part of a
larger infrastructure network, there may be limited choice for
their location.
Specific standards are applied to some of these facilities,
including water and sewer pumping station, electric substations,
and county greenbox sites. These standards relate to design,
screening, lot size, and other provisions which assure
compatibility with surrounding residential areas.
The minimum lot area for water and sewer pump station and
electric substations is 5,000 square feet. In 1989, Article
6.16.14 was amended to allow this 5,000 square -foot area to exist
as an easement or leasehold for electric substations without
being subdivided. This same concept was applied to greenbox
sites (although the minimum area is 40,000 square feet).
The proposed amendment would extend this concept to water and
sewer pump stations, as well as to some telephone- related
facilities. The standards for these uses are found in Article
6.16.12. Currently, these uses may be allowed on lots as small
as 5,000 square feet, but there is no provision to allow the lot
to be created by lease or easement..
It is also proposed that Article 6.16.12 be amended to allow
structures for water and sewer pump stations to contain 800
square feet. The current limit is 200 square feet.
The issue of size was raised upon review of a proposed pump
station for the Town of Hillsborough, which will contain about
33
r
34
750 square feet. Staff contact with the City of Raleigh Public
Works Department and OWASA confirm that the 200 square -foot limit
is unreasonably low. Pump stations may be above ground or
underground, and can vary in size depending on the size and type
of motors and other equipment. A limit of 800 square feet should
accommodate any facilities which are likely to be proposed in
Orange County, while remaining compatible with residential
areas.
A final change concerns screening and buffers. Again, it is
recommended that existing provisions which apply to electric
substations be applied to pump stations. The provisions relating
to substations do not require screening between two utility
facilities which are side -by -side. Screening requirements must
be met, however, where such facilities abut other types of uses.
EXISTING PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDKENT:
4.1 Establishment of Use Regulations
Except as otherwise provided herein, regulations governing
the use of land and structures are hereby established as
shown in the Schedule of Permitted Uses. Uses not expressly
permitted are prohibited.
Within all districts there are certain uses that are
permitted as a matter of right. The uses are:
1. Above ground and buried utility lines for local
distribution of electricity, telephone, and cable
television service, accessory and appurtenant apparatus
such as poles, guy wires, transformers and switching
boxes.
2. Bona fide farms.
3. Buildings and other temporary structures used in
connection with the construction of a permanent
building.
4. Neighborhood utility facilities located within a public
right of way with the permission of the owner of the
right of way (State, City or Town).
5. Off - street parking as a required accessory use to a
permitted use.
6. Public and private streets and roads. Railroad rights-
of-way.
7. Water and sanitary sewer lines, gas and liquid fuel
distribution lines.
8. Telephone exchanges (without business offices),
subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations,
water and sanitary sewer pumping stations. (See
Article 6.16.12).
35
9. Electrical substations, switching and metering stations
and associated transmission lines, where incoming
voltage does not exceed 100 kilovolts (kv). (see
Article 6.16.14).
10. Solid waste collection facilities owned and operated by
a public agency for the purpose of disposal of
household waste by Orange County residents. (See
Article 6.16.15).
Uses requiring special permits must meet certain conditions
specified in this ordinance. Only after the existence of
these specified conditions has been determined by the Board
of Adjustment, or the Board of Commissioners, as
appropriate, will a special permit be issued; otherwise such
uses are prohibited uses.
Regulations governing the use of land and structures within
a Planned Development district are as established in Article
7.
6.16.12 Telephone Exchanges (without business offices )_
subscriber IOGR huts ressure recrulator stations
water and sanitary sever pumping stations in all zoning
districts
The following restrictions shall be applied to the above
uses in all zoning districts:
a) The design of structures shall conform as closely as
possible to the character of the area in which it is
located.
b) Building or structures shall conform to the minimum
building setback distances for the applicable zoning
district and shall not exceed Q-&9 square feet in
area.
c) All buildings and structures shall be landscaped and
screened according to the standards that follow:
1. Buildings and structures which resemble
residential accessory structures must be
landscaped and maintained in the character of a
residential area.
2. Any outside storage areas must be fenced with a
minimum 5 foot fence and the area screened from
adjacent property according to the standards in
this section.
3. Lighting in and around these facilities shall be
constructed and shielded so as not to shine
directly on adjoining property used for or zoned
for residential purposes. Electrical and
telephone service to the structure shall be placed
underground. Types of lighting to be considered
shall include, but not be limited to, indoor
d)
lights when visible through windows, outdoor
lighting, automobile headlights and signs.
Devices to shield lighting may include shades,
fences, shrubs, trees and natural conditions.
4. Parking areas and driveways used in connection
with facilities constructed pursuant to this
Section 6.16.12 shall either be surfaced or shall
be located and maintained in a condition so that
dust and dirt will not settle on adjoining
properties as a result of their use. Driveway
entrances shall be located in a manner that will
create as few additional traffic hazards as
possible.
5. Buildings, structures, equipment or material shall
be screened by either a durable masonry wall, or a
fence, or by natural planting, designed to be
compatible with the character of adjoining
properties, in order to materially screen the uses
within the subject property from the view of
adi acent properties. ?nt
;..;`_ .`± walls and fences
:.:
,.....:
slice ..... e.. at" feast- -..5.- feet in height, but need not
be greater than 7 feet in height, measured from
the ground along the common lot line of adjoining
properties. Walls and fences shall be constructed
and maintained in a safe and sound condition.
Where natural planting is used as screening, a
strip of land at least 10 feet in width shall be
reserved for this purpose. The planting strip
shall be composed of an arrangement of shrubs and
trees. The shrubs shall be evergreen and shall be
arranged in 2 rows as minimum and planted at an
initial height of at least 3 feet, with distance
between shrubs being not more than 5 feet. The
shrubs shall be of such variety that an average
height of at least 6 feet could be expected as
normal growth within no more than 2 years from the
time of planting. Trees, which may be eight
evergreen or deciduous, shall augment the
arrangement of shrubs so that there will be a
screening effect of opacity to materially screen
the use within the subject property from the view
of adjacent properties.
The minimum required lot area for such uses shall be
36
37
6.16.11 Electrical substations . @Wit9-h-Ln-q and metering
stations and associated transmission lines where
incoming voltage does not exceed 100 kilovolts (kv).
The following restrictions shall be to applied to the
above uses in all zoning districts:
a) Perimeter fencing and setbacks for the utility
structure shall be provided in accordance with the
National Electrical Safety Code.
b) The components of the facility, including but not
limited to towers, transformers, circuit breakers,
metering devices, and supporting latticework,
shall be contained within a geometric area not to
exceed 12,000 square feet.
C) The facility shall be located on a parcel or
easement across the parcel, (whether owned or
leased by the utility) which has been recorded
with the orange County Register of Deeds.
d) Access easements extending from an approved public
or private road to the facility shall be a minimum
width of 30 feet. .
e) A Type E Landscape Buffer shall be provided along
any portion of the perimeter of the parcel,
easement, or leasehold located adjacent to
property zoned for residential use, except where
such property is owned, leased or consists of
other utility easements currently used for
electrical distribution or transmission purposes
or no other purposes.
Existing vegetation within an easement, leasehold
or parcel of a public utility may be used to
satisfy the landscaping requirements.
f) Modification to or replacement of existing
facilities shall be subject to the requirements
set forth in Article 6.16.14. Pre- existing
facilities may remain during construction of
replacement facilities, but shall be dismantled
after the replacement facility is in operation.
g) The parcel or easement across the parcel, (whether
owned or leased by the utility) on which the
facility is located shall contain a minimum area
of 5000 square feet.
6.16.15 Solid waste collection facilities owned and o erated by
a Rublic agency for the pur2086 of dis osal of
household waste by Orange County residents.
3a
The following restrictions shall be applied to the
above use in all zoning districts:
a) The site shall consist of a parcel, or easement
across a parcel, (whether owned or leased by the
public agency) which has been recorded by the
Orange County Register of Deeds.
b) The parcel or easement across the parcel, (whether
owned or leased by the public agency) on which the
facility is located shall contain a minimum area
of 40,000 square feet.
C) The parcel or easement shall have frontage on a
State- maintained road.
d) A Type B landscape buffer, 30' in width, shall be
provided along the perimeter of the parcel or
easement.
e) Fencing at least 6' in height shall be provided
between the landscape buffer and the improved
portion of the parcel or easement.
f) An entrance sign shall identify site as a
sanitation collection site, and shall identify the
responsible public agency. The sign shall contain
a maximum of nine (9) square feet and shall not
exceed eight (8) feet in height. Instructional
signs may be erected as needed within the
facility.
g) The entrance to the site shall contain a travelway
a minimum of 30' in width.
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 23, 1991
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
39
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: SECTION III -C--3 - REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
(Minor Subdivisions)
SECTION IV -B -2 - LAND SUITABILITY
SECTION V--C -5 - UTILITY AND DRAINAGE DATA
(on Preliminary Plats)
SECTION V -D -5 -c - UTILITY AND DRAINAGE DATA
(on Final Plats)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other: County Attorney
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X —High Middle Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 25, 1991
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To incorporate specific provisions for requiring drainage
easements.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
All subdivisions are reviewed by the Erosion Control Division
to determine if the drainage characteristics are such that
each lot is suitable for development. Drainage easements are
routinely recommended along streams, swales, or other
channels if needed to assure that development of a lot
will be safe and protected from damage caused by stormwater
run-off.
There are currently no provisions in the Subdivision
Regulations which refer specifically to drainage easements as
a means of rendering a lot suitable for development in the
event that reservation of drainage easements are recommended
by the Erosion Control Division. The proposed amendments
add text which specifies and clarifies this existing and
historical practice used by the Planning Department to meet
site suitability requirements with respect to drainage.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
III -C -3. Review and Approval Procedures
Upon acceptance of a minor subdivision application, the
Planning Department shall determine if the plat and
application conform with all applicable regulations,
including any applicable conditions of an approved Special
Use Permit. Auxiliary documents as required by Section
40
III -C -2 above shall be submitted by the Planning Department
to the County Attorney for his /her review and recommendation.
After receiving a complete Final Plat, the Planning
Department may submit copies of the Final Plat and
accompanying material to the officials and agencies listed in
Section III -D -2 -b for their review and comment. The officers
or agencies to which the plan is submitted shall provide a
certification to the Planning De artment as to the
suitability, provisional suitability, or unsuitability_ of the
ro osal. Recommendations of the review officers or agencies
may be incorporated as conditions of approval of the
subdivision.
The Planning Department shall take action on an application
solely on its findings as to compliance with applicable
regulations and conditions and shall:
(a) Approve the application;
(b) Approve the application subject to conditions; or
(c) Deny the application.
The Planning Department shall notify the applicant of its
action, including any conditions attached thereto, within
forty --five (45) days following acceptance of the application,
or within such further time consented to by written notice
from the applicant. If the Planning Department fails to
render a decision within the specified time period, or
extensions thereof, the application is approved as submitted.
----------------------------- ------------- --------- --- -- - - --
SECTION IV. REQUIRED MINIMUMDESIGN STANDARDS
IV -A. The avoidance of congestion and overcrowding and the
creation of conditions essential to public health,
safety and the general welfare may be best
accomplished through the application of design
standards providing for the distribution of population
and traffic, safe and coordinated street systems,
approved water supply and sewage disposal systems,
usable lots and conformance to plans for Orange County
as recommended by the Planning Board and adopted by
the Board of Commissioners.
IV -B. The following general requirements and principles of
land subdivision shall be observed:
IV -B -1. LOT STANDARDS
(minimum lot size requirements)
IV -B -2. LAND SUITABILITY
In reviewing subdivision proposals, the Planning Board
shall consider the overall design of the proposal in
41
light of the suitability of the land for development
to insure that the platting and development of the
subdivision will not create a danger to the health,
safety, and welfare of Orange County residents.
Land suitability shall be determined by an
investigation of conditions including but not limited
to flood prone areas, soil drainage, drainage
patterns, slope, historic sites, and unique natural
areas. The investigations shall be carried out by the
Planning Board, the Planning Department, or other
agencies, or individuals having the appropriate
technical expertise, including those listed in Section
III- D -2 -b.
IV -B -2 -a Flood -Prone Areas
IV- B -2 -b. Suitability for Se tic Dis osal
IV- B -2 -0. Drainage
Soil suitability, including slope and drainage, shall
also be evaluated according to soil characteristics
indicated by the Orange County Soil Survey and
topography indicated by the U.S. Geological
Topographic Maps.
Each lot shall contain a suitable building area safe
from innundation and erosion. Sanitary sewer systems,
innundat-tan by surface water. Roads driveways and
utilities shall be Rrotected from damage caused by
improper stormwater management. ,
Mechanical devices drainage easeme is natural
.buffers, large lots, andjor other technical means may
be used to achieve these objectives. Natural
drainageways are a preferred means of_stormwater,.run-
off removal. The characteristics (including capacity)
of natural drainageways shall be protected.
Runoff levels from the 25. -year storm after the site is
developed shall not be greater than the rate of runoff
on the same site in its natural state.
V -C -5. Utility gad Drainage Data
Proposed utility systems shall be shown on the plat,
including but not limited to, public or private
community water supply systems, public or private
42
community sewage disposal systems, and storm drainage
facilities including existing and RroRosed
drainageways and channels. Any easements associated
with such utility systems shall also be denoted and
the purpose for the easements designated on the plat.
V- D -5 -c. Utility and Drain4ge Data
Construction plans shall be submitted to proper
authorities, as required, to document any new public
or private community water supply system, public or
private community sewage disposal system, and storm
drainage facilities. Written approval and a set of
approved construction plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to approval of the Final
Plat.
The location and purpose of all new easements for
utility systems shall be shown on the Final Plat,
including, but not limited to, sanitary sewers, septic
tanks and nitrification fields, storm sewer lines,
water mains, gas, transmission mains and overhead
electric, telephone and CATV transmission mains, and
any other above or below ground utility systems which
are contained within a designated easement.
The location and purROse of storm drainage easements
shall also be shown including those along an existing
and/or Rroposed drainage swale or channel.
It is understood that utility distribution systems to
individual lots for gas, electric, telephone, and TV
cable service are customarily covered by "blanket
easements" or "general easements ". If these easements
have been recorded, the recording data shall be shown
on the plat. Otherwise, these easements need not be
denoted on the plat.
111- D -2 -b. Planning De artment Review Procedures
Upon acceptance of a preliminary plat application, the
Planning Department shall determine if the plat and
application conform with all applicable regulations,
including any applicable conditions of an approved
Special Use Permit. Auxiliary documents as required
by Section III -D -2 -a above shall be submitted by the
Planning Department to the County Attorney for his /her
review and recommendation.
After having received a complete Preliminary Plat
application from the subdivider, the Planning
Department shall submit copies of the Preliminary Plat
and any accompanying material to other officials and
agencies for review and comment. Officers and
agencies to which the Preliminary Plat shall be
submitted include, but are not limited to, the
following: 43 '
(1) The District Engineer of the N.C. Department
of Transportation as to proposed public streets,
.highways and drainage systems;
(2) The Orange County Health Department as to
proposed on --site water supply and sewage disposal
systems;
(3) The Board of Education of the appropriate school
district as to the reservation of proposed school
sites and the impact of the proposed subdivision
on school enrollment capacities;
(4) The Orange
the erosio:
plan;
(5) The Orange
Council as
facilities
areas;
County Erosion Control Officer as to
a control and stormwater management
County Recreation and Parks Advisory
to the location, suitability and
proposed for required recreation
(6) The Planning Department and /or Planning Board of
the appropriate municipality where a courtesy
review procedure has been established by
agreement between the County and the
municipality;
(7) The appropriate utility provider where public or
community water and /or sanitary sewerage systems
are proposed to serve the subdivision;
(8) The Orange Soil and Water Conservation District
as to a general soils description and
interpretation; and
(9) The County Attorney as to the format and
appropriateness of proposed restrictive
covenants, homeowners association agreements,
road maintenance agreements, performance bonds
and other similar documents.
The officers and agencies designated above shall
review the Preliminary Plat and shall provide a
certification to the Planning Department on the basis
of the suitability, provisional suitability or
unsuitability of the proposal.
Where it is determined that alternative measures are
required in order for the proposal to be classified as
"suitable ", a certification of "provisionally
suitable" shall be provided. If agency approval is
withheld on this basis, the agency shall identify the
reasons for such classification and recommend measures
through which the proposal may be made suitable. The
Planning Board may recommend, and the Board of
El
Commissioners may approve, such measures as conditions
of approval of the Preliminary Plat; provided,
however, the recommending agency shall have the
authority to enforce such measures.
where no alternatives are available to address the
concerns of the agency or officer, a classification of
"unsuitable" shall be provided. The agency or officer
shall provide a list of the reasons which resulted in
such designation.
Upon receipt of the comments and recommendations from
review officers and agencies, the Planning Department
shall submit to the Planning Board a written analysis
of the application and its recommendation. The report
shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Board
within eighty -five (85) days of the date of acceptance
of the application or within such further time
consented to in writing by the applicant. If the
Planning Department fails to prepare a report to the
Planning Board within the specified time limit, or
extensions thereof, the application is recommended
without conditions.
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1991
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
45
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: SECTION III -B CLASSIFICATION OF SUBDIVISIONS
SECTION II DEFINITIONS (SUBDIVISION,, MINOR)
SECTION IV REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x_ High Middle Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 25, 1991
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To provide design standards for subdivision lots larger than 10
acres.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
GS 153A -335 provides the definition of subdivision. The
definition includes a list of land divisions which are not
considered subdivisions. The provisions of the Subdivision
Regulations do not apply to land divisions created under one or
more of these.exemptions.
One of the exemptions is "the division of land into parcels
greater than 10 acres if no street right -of -way dedication is
involved ". This provision has been interpreted to mean that all
of the lots on a plat exempted under these provisions must be
larger than ten acres. If Any of the lots fall below the 10 -acre
minimum, then all lots; including those larger than 10 acres, are
subject to subdivision regulations.
There are several results of this interpretation which are of
concern, as illustrated in the following examples.
Example 1:
A property owner wishes to divide a 50 -acre tract into (4)
10 -acre lots, and (2) 5 -acre lots. If all lots are shown on
one plat, then a major subdivision is created.
All provisions apply to the 10 -acre lots as well as the 2-
acre lots, including landscaping and restrictions on any
further subdivision if a private road is proposed.
The same development could alternatively be done on 2
separate plats. One plat could be recorded for (5) 10 -acre
lots. This requires only the signature of the Planning
46
Department to indicate that no approval is required. A
second plat could be submitted to divide one of the 10 -acre
lots into (2) 5 -acre lots.
The latter option is generally used since it is much quicker
and much less costly to record two exempt plats, than to go
through the subdivision review process, and the lots would
be subject to restricions which would otherwise not apply.
Example 2:
A property owner wishes to divide a 50 -acre tract to create
(1) 5 -acre lot and (1) 45 -acre lot. The 45-acre lot is
again subject to all subdivision regulations since a 5 -acre
lot is being shown on the same plat. Again, if a private
road were proposed, the 45 -acre lot would be subject to
restrictions on further subdivision.
There are many other scenarios which arise, but the examples
given represent the following fundamental issues:
1) Whether or not subdivision standards apply to lots
which are 10 acres or more in size depends solely on
how the lots are created.
2) The standards contained within the Subdivision
Regulations are geared towards lots smaller than 10
acres, and many are inappropriate for lots greater than
10 acres.
The proposed amendment would specify the regulations which are
appropriate for 10+ -acre lots. Other standards would not be
applied. This would eliminate the need to record multiple plats
to achieve the same end.
The specific standards proposed to apply to 10 -acre lots are
listed in Section IV -D (new) of the attached amendment.
EXISTING PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
111 -B Classification of Subdivisions
All subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions
except those defined as minor subdivisions in this
Section.
A "minor subdivision" is defined as the division of a
tract of land that does not:
(1) Create more than five ( 5 ) lots
::: x.;:.::. > :.:.......::::.::: ;.
from` any "'one" (1) tract of land in any twenty -four
(24) month period;
(2) Dedicate or improve any new public street other
than widening an existing public street;
(3) Extend public water and /or sanitary sewerage
systems other than laterals to serve individual
lots; and
(4) Necessitate the installation of drainage
improvements which would require easements through
one (1) or more lots to serve other lots.
Minor subdivisions shall be reviewed in accordance with
the provisions of Section III -C. Major subdivisions
shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Section III -D.
SUBDIVISION, MINOR -- A division of a tract of land that does not:
(1) Create more than five 5 lots,
from any "one (1) tract of land in any twenty -four
(24) month period;
(2) Dedicate or improve any new public street other
than widening an existing public street;
(3) Extend public water and /or sanitary sewerage
systems other than laterals to serve individual
lots; and
(4) Necessitate the installation of drainage
improvements which would require easements through
one (1) or more lots to serve other lots.
SECTION IV. REQUIRED MINIMIIM DESIGN STANDARDS
IV -A The avoidance of congestion and overcrowding and the
creation of conditions essential to public health,
safety and the general welfare may be best accomplished
through the application of design standards providing
for the distribution of population and traffic, safe
and coordinated street systems, approved water supply
and sewage disposal systems, usable lots and
conformance to plans for Orange County as recommended
by the Planning Board and adopted by the Board of
Commissioners.
IV -B
is1fiF11414l A[z YR�i4 ;*!�}47F„1{�,,1fli:1:C•Aii:p 'F,. 'J,:
: >.. the
fo .. owing general"' requirements' and princxpl'es of'` `land
subdivision shall be observed:
47
4A
Yom'
...............
REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1991
hyftX 4 ZD!m - IGNI114 BID I mb 4A: m
BOCC REVIEW:
4q
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: SECTION V -D -6 -c (3) CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ENDORSEMENT
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low
comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 25, 1991
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To revise the current language of the Environmental Health
Division certification for subdivisions.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
The Environmental Health Division of the Orange County Health
Department is required to endorse all subdivision plats
certifying that the proposed lots, when public utilities are not
provided, are approved for sewage disposal through the
installation and use of surface sewage disposal systems. The
current endorsement is too general.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISION$:
Section v -D -6 -c Certificates of Approval
(1) A Final Plat for a minor subdivision shall show the
following form for Planning Department endorsement:
"I hereby certify that the subdivision plat shown
hereon has been found to comply with the Orange County
subdivision Regulations. Provided that this plat shall
be recorded within six (6) months of final approval,
approved by the orange County Planning Department on
(Date)."
Planning Director or Authorized Agent
(2) A Final Plat for a major subdivision shall show the
following form for Planning Department endorsement:
S
SD
"I hereby certify that the subdivision plat shown
hereon has been found to comply with the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations. Provided that this plat shall
be recorded within 1 -year of final approval, approved
by the orange County Planning Department on
(Date) ."
Planning Director or Authorized Agent
(3) Where sewage disposal within all or a portion of a
subdivision is to be accomplished through the
installation and use of surface sewage disposal
systems, the plat shall show the following form for
Orange County Health Department endorsement:
(4) where public streets are proposed in a subdivision, the
plat shall contain a certification that the proposed
roads meet the construction standards of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation.
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1991
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
SOCC REVIEW:
51
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
APPEAR
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT:
V -D - FINAL PLAT
II - DEFINITIONS (SUBDIVISION)
V -D -6 - CERTIFICATES AND ENDORSEMENTS TO
)N FINAL PLAT
Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public x Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC BEARING DATE: November 25, 1991
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To incorporate changes in Final Plat mapping and recordation
provisions, as required by a recently ratified amendment to G.S.
47 -30 (Plats and Subdivisions; Mapping Requirements).
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
An amendment to G.S. 47 -30 (Plats and Subdivisions; Mapping
Requirements) was ratified by the General Assembly on June 12,
1991. The changes will go into effect on October 1, 1991.
The statute pertains largely to the recording of plats in the
Office of the Register of Deeds. There are also some provisions
within the Subdivision Regulations which relate to this
legislation. The proposed amendment provides consistency with G.S.
47 -30 as amended.
A copy of G.S. 47 -30 is attached. The revisions address the size
of plats, the materials on which plats may be drawn, survey
information, certifications and attachments to deeds or other
instruments.
Three sections of the Subdivision Regulations need to be revised to
address these changes.
Section V -D - Final Plat
Section V -D Final Plat specifies plat sizes, drawing medium,
plat material, scale and margins. The current standards
reflect the earlier version of G.S. 47 -30. It is recommended
that most of this Section be deleted altogether. There is a
52
reference to G.S. 47 -30. Specific technical requirements for
drawing plats need not be repeated. Also, the current
provisions allow a plat to be prepared by a registered land
surveyor or engineer. It is proposed that the reference to
engineers be deleted. only land surveyors may prepare surveys
and Final Plats. The reference to engineers is out -- dated.
Definition - Subdivision
G.S. 47 -30 requires that one of five surveyor certifications
be placed on all plats including exempt plats. A reference to
the certificate requirement in G.S. 47 -30 is proposed as part
of the definition of subdivision.
V -D -G - Certificates and Endorsements to appear on Final Plat
An additional survey or certification would state that a
subdivision is being created, and that he land is within the
jurisdiction of orange County Subdivision Regulations. This
is one of the five possible certifications required by G.S.
47 -30.
An earlier draft of the proposed amendment was presented to
representatives of the N.C. Society of Surveyors, the Register of
Deeds, and the County Attorney. Several revisions were made based
on the input received from that meeting.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
V -D. Final Plat
The Final Plat shall be drawn in accordance with the
requirements of G.S. 47 -30 as amended and to the
specifications of this Section. The plat shall be
prepared by a registered land surveyor at a
scale of not less than one hundred (100) feet to the inch
nor more than twenty (20) feet to the inch. Eaeh plat
presented fer approval shall be a repreduelble map in
e -leth; linen; fiim er ether ...igned
fee drafting er drawing purpesesr
T n �
7r i77S
be f
sLa ll
All Final Plats
earG u'lly SrI With rR
ere permanent
.
have size ef
All pIR&I plats shall
four
an eutside marginal
inehes by 45hirty-six (36)
not mere than twenty
(24)
half !j2) inehes
lneheB HOE less than eight
and eme (8
inehes in-h for binding
the left
(I !j2)
en
land
- -seals to aSSuze
Where size iof areas,
er suitable
be twe (a) or
require, iegibility plats
imay plaeed on
lines
mere sheets illy!— apprepriate
sheets are numbered in
mateh
sequenee.
DEFINITIONS
53
SUBDIVISION - "Subdivision means all divisions of a tract or
parcel of land into two or more lots, building
sites, or other divisions for the purpose of sale
or building development (whether immediate or
future) and includes all division of land involving
the dedication of a new street or a change in
existing streets, provided, however, the following
are not included within the definition and are not
subject to any regulations pursuant to this part.
(1) The combination or recombination of portions
of previously subdivided and recorded lots if
the total number of lots is not increased and
the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the
standards of the County as shown in its
Subdivision Regulations.
Resultant lots, as referred to herein shall be
deemed to equal standards of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations if the following
standards are met:
a. No conforming lot standard becomes
non- conforming as a result of the
recombination; and
b. Any applicable impervious surface
standards are met; and
C. Access is provided to a public road,
either direct, or by recorded easement,
and
d. A site suitable for sewage disposal is
approved by the Orange County Health
Department. where soil is unsuitable for
sewage disposal, or soil suitability is
undetermined, a notice of restricted
development potential shall be submitted
and the lot(s) in question shall be so
noted on the plat.
(2) The division of land into parcels greater than
10 acres if no street right -of -way dedication
is involved.
(3) The public acquisition by purchase of strips
of land for widening or opening streets.
(4) The division of a tract in single ownership of
the entire area of which is no greater than
two acres into not more than three lots, if no
street right -of- way dedication is involved
and if the resultant lots are equal to or
exceed the standards of the County as shown by
An OuDgMaion ra "lfifini
V -D -G. Certificates and Endorsements to aRRMar on Final Plat
V- D -6 -a. Certificatel of survey and Accuracy.."', K r..,...F
The Final Plat shall be made by or prepared under the
supervision of a registered land surveyor licensed to
practice in the State of North Carolina and shall contain
a certificate- as required by Section 47 -30 of the
General Statutes and prepared in substantially the
following form and acknowledged by a notary public:
€ f "I, , certify that this plat was drawn
under my supervision from (an actual survey made
under my supervision) (deed description recorded in
Book , Page , etc.) (other); that the
ratio of precision Is 1: ; that the
boundaries not surveyed are shown as broken lines
plotted from information found in Book , Page
that this map was prepared in accordance
with G.S. 47 -30 as amended. Witness my hand and
seal this day of , A.D., 19 ."
Seal or stamp Surveyor
Registration Number
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: October 3, 1991
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
54
65
GiC i
G G�
� V previously used by Durham County which led to a
lawsuit against them resulting in a settlement in
excess of $100,000.00.
The proposed amendment would provide more
explicit information regarding the issuance of
septic system permits.
(A copy of the proposed amendment is an
attachment to these minutes on pages .)
Board members expressed concern with the wording
"tentatively designated for septic installation
and repair. Scott was concerned that it limited
the County's liability but, at the same time, did
not provide protection or certification for the
citizen /applicant. Eidenier responded in
agreement that the liability is on the seller and
purchaser of the land rather than the County.
Scott continued expressing concern that the
County should accept more responsibility.
Collins explained that at the time of subdivision
approval, the Environmental Health Division is
testifying that there is a suitable soil area
large enough to accommodate a three bedroom
house. A guarantee is not provided until the
applicant submits house plans and the actual
percolation test is done. Then the applicant may
be approved for more than three bedrooms.
AGENDA ITEM #11: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS
a. Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement
Eidenier informed the Board that the agreement has
been approved by Hillsborough and the County
Commissioners. There will be a series of meetings
v
beginning in January, 1992, to implement the Plan.
Meeting adjourned 10:20 p.m.
1
OR AN G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4 1991
Action Agenda
Item # VnT,,- ID
SUBJECT: KAYE CHAMBERS
PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT -OF -WAY
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes ,x No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Garrett
Extension 2581
Partial Width Right -of -Way
Checklist
Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Tax Map
Letters from Adjacent Property TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Owners Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Draft 10/21/91 Planning Board Durham - 688-7331
Minutes Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To consider a request by Kaye Chambers for a reduction
in right -of -way width from 50 feet to 25 feet.
BACKGROUND: Othar Thompson wishes to subdivide his 5.5 acre tract
(of which he resides) into three (3) lots and in turn
convey one of the lots to his granddaughter, Kaye
Chambers, to construct a house. Access for all
proposed lots can not be provided within the tract due
to the location of existing structures. The next
closest means of access (Lots 8 and 10 of the tax map)
also have problems with existing structures. Lot 12
(of the tax map) is willing to grant access but can
only provide the partial width due to the location of
the dwelling unit.
The existing structures on Lots 10 and 11 have non-
conforming side and rear setbacks. The edge of the
proposed right -of -way for Lot 12 is 29 feet from the
existing dwelling. While the existing drive for Lot
12 is within the same area, the existing front
yard setback is from NC 86. Therefore, the 20 -foot
minimum setback is met at the side yard setback.
There is an existing gravel driveway on Lots 11 and 12
which currently provides access to Lots 10, 11 and 12.
It is approximately 250 feet in length and 10 feet in
width which extends from NC Highway 86. This existing
driveway will be extended approximately 130 feet
ending in a cul -de -sac. The entire length will be
upgraded to Class B private road standards. Two (2)
ml 10
partial width right --of -way as requested for the
private road.
MOTION: Cantrell moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton.
Waddell asked about access to Lot 8B. Garrett
responded it is landlocked. The applicant, Mr.
Thompson stated he is the owner of Lot 8B so
access is not a problem.
VOTE: Unanimous..
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT 10/7/91 PUBLIC HEARING
a. SUP -1 -91 "Green Hill" Bed and Breakfast
W Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The applicants, William Thomas Proctor, III and
Evelyn D. Proctor, have requested a Class A
Special Use Permit for a Non - Residential Reuse/
Mixed Use of an historic structure for the
property commonly known as the Green Hill
residence. The property is located at the
southwestern corner of the intersection of US 70
and Lawrence Road (SR 1561). The property
contains 6.46 acres. The proposed request would
allow for the house to be used as a bed and
breakfast. Three out of the four existing
bedrooms would be used.for the bed and breakfast.
There are no proposed changes or additions to the
existing house or changes to the property.
The property is specifically described as Lots 66
and 67 of Tax Map 20 in Eno Township. The
current zoning of the property is Rural
Residential (R -1) and the Comprehensive Plan
designation is Rural Residential. The use of the
property, as proposed, requires the issuance of a
Class A Special Use Permit.
The proposed Class A Special Use Permit was
presented for public hearing on October 7, 1991.
Vic Knight, a real estate appraiser, represented
the applicant and spoke in favor of his request.
One citizen expressed his concern and requested
information about the reason for the application.
A letter from the citizens, Mr. and Mrs. James
Davis, is an attachment to these minutes on
pages
The application was referred to the Planning
Board for a recommendation to be returned to the
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. -V-=-- E
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Health Department Fees
DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X2411
1) Proposal to Increase Animal
Control, Rabies Clinic Fee
2) Proposal to Adopt Medicaid Approved TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Fee for the Insertion of Norplant Hillsborough - 732 -8181
3) Proposal to Set a Fee for Orange Chapel Hill - 968 -4501
County Veterinarians for Rabies Mebane - 227 -2031
Immunization Durham - 688 -7331
PURPOSE: To adopt changes in the existing fee for rabies clinics, to adopt
the Medicaid approved reimbursement rate for the insertion of the
contraceptive, Norplant, and to adopt the fee for the provision of
rabies immunizations to Orange County veterinarians.
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to G.S. 130A -39(g) the Health Director has recommended
fees described in the attached proposals to the Board of Health
which approved them.
The rabies clinic fee proposal demonstrates that the cost exceed
the current fee of $4.50. However, the cost would be covered with
a rate of $5.00.
The proposal for the acceptance of the Medicaid reimbursement rate
for Norplant demonstrates that the estimated costs of $399.84 will
be well covered by the reimbursement rate of $475.00.
The proposed fee of $30 per dose for the rabies vaccine for
veterinarians covers the cost of the vaccine plus supplies.
All three proposals have been discussed with and endorsed by the
Budget Department.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the attached fees proposed by
the Health Director and approved by the Board of Health be
adopted by the Board of Commissioners.
ITEMS NOT ON TH PRINTED AGENDA
If you would like to speak on an item that is not on the printed agenda please
complete the following information.
NAME
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBERS: ' HOME:
WORK: r Qv
BRIEF DESCRIPTION:
NLuviue important servaces in a ome.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hands and affixed the
seal of Orange County, this Fourth Day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Ninety -One.
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair `"1'`—
m
orange County Board of q ssioners
3
r
z
a
c
z
Q
a
_
a
0
¢
z
c
c
z
a
s
z
s
w
_
z
¢
c
L
DOCKET NO. P -55, SUB 953
DOCKET NO. P -55, SUB 952
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISION
DOCKET NO. P -55, SUB 953
In the Matter of )
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph )
Company - Orange County Extended Area )
Service )
PETITION FOR
INTERVENTION
BY ORANGE COUNTY
DOCKET NO. P -55, SUB 952
In the Matter of
Triangle J Regional Calling Plans
%/fir r -y 9
NOW COMES the Petitioner, Orange County, by and through its
attorney, and, pursuant to Rule R1 -19 of the Rules and Regulations
of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, petitions for
intervention in the above - captioned matter. Pursuant to Rule R1-
19, Petitioner offers the following:
1. The correct name and address of the Petitioner is:
Orange County
c/o Geoffrey Gledhill, Attorney
129 E. Tryon Street
P.Q. Drawer 1529
Hillsborough, N.C., 27278
2. The nature of the Petitioner's interest in the subject
matter of the proceeding, and the way and manner in which such
interest is affected by the issues involved in the proceeding are
set forth hereafter:
The inhabitants of Orange County are a body politic,
N.C.G.S. §153 -11, governed by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners. N.C.G.S. §153A -34. A significant number of the
inhabitants of Orange County are directly affected by the September
27, 1991 decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commission
denying EAS in Orange County. Further, a significant number of
inhabitants of Orange County are directly affected by the refusal
of the North Carolina Utility Commission to authorize EAS polling
for the Hillsborough and Mebane telephone subscribers and the
Commission's refusal to allow an EAS no- protest notice with respect
to Southern Bell's Orange County subscribers. Further still,
Orange County Government is a telephone subscriber which incurs
significant costs for toll calling within the County in its efforts
to conduct the business of the inhabitants of the County, which
cost is, as it must be, passed on to the inhabitants of the County.
3. The relief desired by the Petitioner is stated hereafter:
Petitioner requests leave to intervene in this matter in order
to support, as a party, the Public Staff's request for EAS polling,
which request was denied by the Commission in its September 27,
1991 Order, and to respond, as a party, to the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the Public Staff on October 28, 1991.
Respectfully submitted this day of November, 1991.
COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ,
GLEDHILL, HARGRAVE & HERMAN
Geoffrey E. Gledhill
N.C. State Bar #6633
Attorney for the Petitioner
129 E. Tryon Street
PO Drawer 1529
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 732 -2196
0"
a
a
F
Q
LQ
u]
z
x
z
a
a
W
x
«s
U2
c�
a
x
�i
_J
x
Q
L']
U
J
0
T
z
a
m
m
0
x
z
C4
M
M
z
a
u�
J
O
U
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Geoffrey E. Gledhill, Attorney for Respondent, do hereby
certify that I served the following Petition of Orange County to
Intervene to each of the parties of record in this proceeding or
their attorneys by delivering a copy of same in the mail, postage
prepaid, properly addressed to each.
This the day of November, 1991.
COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, BERNHOLZ,
GLEDHILL, HARGRAVE & HERMAN
Geoffrey E. Gledhill
N.C. State Bar #6633
Attorney for the Petitioner
129 E. Tryon Street
PO Drawer 1529
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 732 -2196
RIFICATION
Moses Carey, Jr., being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for
Orange County; that he is acquainted with the facts set out in this
pleading; that he has read the foregoing petition and knows the
contents thereof; and that the an is true of his own knowledge,
except as to those matters alleged on information and belief, and
as to those, he believes them to be true.
3
a Sworn and Subscribed before me
this day of November, 1991.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COmnigsion expires:
w
0
0
U
r r
m
0
3
(D
m
c*
cn
D
(D
N�
TI
O
r
r
O
i
H
Im
3
U)
ct
SIN
iCD
t
�
W
r r
m
0
3
(D
m
c*
cn
D
(D
N�
TI
O
r
r
O
i
H
Im
3
U)
1
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4 1991
Action Agenda
Item # VZZ2 D
SUBJECT: KAYE CHAMBERS
pARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT -OF -WAY
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Partial Width Right -of -Way
Checklist
Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Tax Map
Letters from Adjacent Property
Owners
Draft 10/21/91 Planning Board
Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Garrett
Extension 2581
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To consider a request by Kaye Chambers for a reduction
in right -of -way width from 50 feet to 25 feet.
BACKGROUND: Othar Thompson wishes to subdivide his 5.5 acre tract
(of which he resides) into three (3) lots and in turn
convey one of the lots to his granddaughter, Kaye
Chambers, to construct a house. Access for all
proposed lots can not be provided within the tract due
to the location of existing structures. The next
closest means of access (Lots 8 and 10 of the tax map)
also have problems with existing structures. Lot 12
(of the tax map) is willing to grant access but can
only provide the partial width due to the location of
the dwelling unit.
The existing structures on Lots 10 and 11 have non-
conforming side and rear setbacks. The edge of the
proposed right -of -way for Lot 12 is 29 feet from the
existing dwelling. While the existing drive for Lot
12 is within the same area, the existing front
yard setback is from NC 86. Therefore, the 20 -foot
minimum setback is met at the side yard setback.
There is an existing gravel driveway on Lots 11 and 12
which currently provides access to Lots 10, 11 and 12.
It is approximately 250 feet in length and to feet in
width which extends from NC Highway 86. This existing
driveway will be extended approximately 130 feet
ending in a cul -de -sac. The entire length will be
upgraded to Class B private road standards. Two (2)
lots of the proposed subdivision will be served by 2 ;
this private road while the remaining lot has direct
access onto NC 86.
A partial width right -of -way of 25 feet is needed for
the private road since the location of existing
structures preclude the provision of the full right -
of -way.
In its October 21st meeting, the Planning Board
recommended approval of the partial width right -of-
way.
RECOMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval per the
Planning Board recommendation.
KAYE CHAMBERS NIINOR SUBDIVISION
PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT -OF -WAY CHECKLIST
(Adopted from the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section IV- B- 3 -c -2)
NATURE OF SUBDIVISION
Topography - fairly flat land, no rolling hills
Surrounding Area - single family residences
Present Road - existing gravel driveway of approximately 250 feet in length
and 10 feet in width extending from NC Highway 86
Future Road Plans - Class B Private Road to serve current and proposed lots
only (5 total)
- Access by Public Safety Vehicles - topography good, existing driveway to be
extended approximately 130 feet ending in a cul -de -sac and entire length
(approximately 513 feet) upgraded to satisfy Orange County's Class B private
road standards
CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD
Proposed private road requires improvements to satisfy the County's Class B
standards.
RIGHT -OF -WAY WIDTH
25 feet wide with a length of approximately 513 feet
Fire District is Orange Rural Fire District
The required improvements for a Class B road is 12 foot travelway. The
largest emergency vehicles in the Orange Rural Fire District could use the
private road, the travelway would be wide enough for two passenger vehicles
to pass each other.
CONDITIONS
Pre - existing conditions preclude the provision of full right -of -way due to the
pattern of adjacent development. The property owners who are willing to
grant the full required right -of -way width are prohibited due to the location of
existing structures.
7
3
O
� O
J
_J
a
N
_b 4
k
LH
V1
I
a
832 c 1
4562. 9303 39.01 AC.
.0224
35
a 250
61
F',
I
wmAL. IV ivro it-O -W
57.6 t
I
\
36.6AC, .3553
. •
.27 AC. _ +� 19
1.06 3299 3.5 A C
125, 66 9056 L
a -96 o SEE- INSER '\ $012 16B .6021
f �
S. 1. 7A T800
PB 3-157 \\ 2 1. 8 AC. 18
15 8.75 AC.
/ . 1688 3 A�
WI
IA 503 \\? 14 C,
a I AC 2
4437 ' 1.45AC. _ 4-
2,� a 4.53 AC. 4269 P
.03
.C.. IA 1.7648AC1314.\ a 14G 3.043 14D 2
e \
.-5220 AC. 8.75 AC.
3243 _ 31 0123 _ - _ _ 829 2
2.2582 AC• Eeonrr II •3.3 9 $B �^
14 t39 N6AC. p 14B 52A 4.41 / / ` 8C
2.172 AC. 32 924 CA AC.
2�
Nw. r 1.37 I4A 14F 14 CAL. 17A /
7.17 , 9764 +
I AC. / / - 37 CC 57
..17 1.1 1 AC.8793 3' 62 zos.z2 5608 p 730
8.6 A c�.
X.
1643- . o P/O 1 c l 06 / 4.20 3.71AC•
A.,• 40 3A
3 (1.23 AC) - 840T ti14 JI
359 R 13 I.65 AC •F
3 AC . 16A
•8342 q
2371 42 1.48 AC • ' .1 / I 1
2.74 AC 16 5.25 AC.
a 2 .2 5101 61
1.8 AC- *5155 111, /
Q4 34 1.5 AC. 33 1.5 AC. RA 1.5 6� 8A / 1915
35 .4.5.AC. _ _ - 11 CA
S,pg� - _ / 38-5 A C -
-7879 � ~ I S AC. 596 t �\ o /
- - -" O , RO 2 AC C. \ 6 9738
3�1.5 AC. O C: 5 AC, 39 s / /
c \ 1.3AC• 5
-
4996 AC; 18 , 0627 5314 9654 °mss _ 4
050T- 255
- 3A 1.06 .449
'
19 :8AC 0446 \�
1.76 %
0243
1 . B ` 3C
Dol, N 1
1
1 0.74 AC . 9 232 I , �\OB -.994
Orange County Planning Board
306 Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is
Orange County.
borough on Hwy.
a single parent
housing for her
land to build a
_ 0
2413 Hwy. 86 North
Hillsborough, NC 27278
August 6, 1991
Othar Thompson and I am
I own 5.5 acres of land
86 North. My granddaugi
of three minor children
children. I am willing
home for her family.
a long time resident
lying north of Hills -
Zter, Kay T. Chambers,
and is in great need
to give her 1.0 acres
6
of
is
of
of
I have attempted to subdivide my land into two tracts. The
Orange County Health Department has approved a site for a home.
A preliminary survey has been completed and shows that the
existing dwellings (lots #1 and #2 on enclosed map) would fall
in the required 50 foot right -of -way. Therefore, I am requesting
a partial width right -of -way be granted to me. Due to the fact
that the houses will still be too close to the partial width
right -of -way and not meet Orange County setback requirements of
40 feet, I am requesting a variance on this issue (see map for
offsets). The proposed partial width right -of -way emcompasses
Lot #2 owned by me and Lot #1 owned by my son, Charlie Thompson.
Being that we are in support of Kay building a home for her
family, everyone is in agreement with this variance.
I would greatly appreciate your understanding and support of
this very important matter. You may contact me at my home
telephone number: 732 - 2684.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Othar Thompson
/- 3. 9, /p
RECEIVED
Rt. 2, Box 734, Hwy. 86 North
Hillsborough, NC 27278
August 28, 1991
Orange County Planning Department
306 Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
our names are Charlie and Hassie Thompson and we awn
property located off Hwy. 86 North. our daughter, Kay T.
Chambers is trying to subdivide a tract of land owned by her
grandfather, othar Thompson, so that she can build a home for her
three children.
We are in support of her receiving this 1 acre of land and
will help her in any way possible. We understand that she needs
a partial width right -of -way from us and other neighbors. We
definitely agree to give her this right-of-way. Due to the fact
that our home is too close to the right -of -way according to
orange County setback requirements, Kay has asked for a variance
from your department. We hope you will grant her this much
needed variance.
Thank you for your consideration in these requests.
Sincerely,
Charlie Thompson
r - �
Hassie Thompson
Sr
NEC RE I 7MVE jI
EMMOM
a,j gn SC
c; a L-
e i e 2oae
Eii;sou£ou§n 22 2222E
i)c6c 61c;
L�I cl;iL; (,,is Sor,
Char i i L, &I-11 PC eP a CeO to Make =he io lily Stm-�t-
_ra,,T,g -
ment's cegum Me 0-;, iTig oil" -,:,I"
selected site; . Sy Pzayez.y :.es -1 2 a se;ec =ea se=e c-
Bull
gr J.r
dccess the pcope,ty 0:, ticn. g± h is 110 oe cu1l-1.
3- Presently Lnece is a sna:ec access roac 0,-, m%,
proper arlo the prape= =y 02 a L- 7'
he easement being graritc-cl szlpQ le:ls
pre5eR z access road De enlarqecj ol,,-
zo mee-,
a2L: '.ne
r-izcrIe-- On el :her sloe.
�71 :
L; �
E i ; 1 e J, W a r- r e In
�
12-