HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-17-2001-9f
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 17, 2001
Action Agenda
Item No. - 9-~-
SUBJECT: Hillsborough Area Economic Development District Atlas Amendments
DEPARTMENT: Planning $~ Inspections -PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) NO
ATTACHMENT(S):
Map of Areas
Ordinances for Areas
Draft Public Hearing Minutes 12/12/2000
Draft Public Hearing Minutes 2/26/2001
Planning Board Minutes 2R/2001
Draft Planning Board Minutes 4/4/2001
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Director, Ext. 2592
Robert P. Davis, Planner III, Ext. 2580
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 9fi8-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 33fi-227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider zoning atlas amendments of properties in the proposed Hillsborough
Area Economic Development District.
BACKGROUND:
The Orange County/Hillsborough Economic Development Districts Task Force has been
working since February of 2000 on creating a new classification of zoning districts for the
Hillsborough Area EDD. The seven- (7) zoning atlas amendments are as follows:
AREA 3a: From: R1. CC3. GC4. 13. PD-I-3. PD-I-1 To: ED-LO-1
AREA 3b: From: GC-4 To: ED-LO-1
AREA 3c: From: R1 To: ED-LO-1
AREA 1: From: R1 To: ED-LO-1
AREA 2: From: ~ To: ED-LO-1
AREA A: From: ED,;,PD-ED To: ED-LO-1
(NE, SE, NW, part of SW Quadrant)
AREA A: From: ED To: ED-LO-2
(Remainder of SW Quadrant)
Areas 3a and 3b were heard at a Joint Public Hearing on December.12, 2000. The
amendments were referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation back to the BOCC on
April 17, 2001. On February 7, 2001 the Planning Board recommended approval of Area 3b as
recommended. There are some outstanding issues regarding Area 3a that need more time to
research; the recommendation is to continue Area 3a until the May 15, 2001 BOCC meeting.
Areas 1, 2, 3c, A (large part) and A (SW quadrant) were heard at a Joint Public Hearing on
February 2fi, 2001. The amendments were referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation back to the BOCC on April 17, 2001. On April 4, 2001 the Planning Board
heard the remaining Atlas amendments and recommended approval of Areas 1, 2, 3c, A (large
part) and A (SW quadrant) on a 7-1 vote.
FISCAL IMPACT: There are no public fiscal impacts associated with this action.
RECOMMENDATION: Administration recommends Approval of Areas 3b, 3c, 1, 2, A
(large part) and A (part of southwest quadrant)
Administration recommends Continuing Area 3a until the May
15, 2001 BOCC meeting.
.7
EDD
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
`'~,~
A
78 ACRES
93 ACM
75 ACRES
91 ACRES
-~~-~~ -
~A~~
~-
:~ .
1f+w~.!ClJ~~r
i5z acRES - _ - -
-~
~~
-_ _.~_
_ - -
- Y38 ACRES _ _ --
~T - ,
r~~ _
as ~~ _ a
::, -
,~ _
~~~e .n-
~R~YrL-n-ti-.w~ ~."~i~__
9~8 ACRES
~~S ~
Office /Moderate Density Residenial
Office /Office Flex
Office /Office Flex with Residential
62~ Linear Office
Mixed Use
N
W E
a
1 " = 2000'
RESOLUTION OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
FOR A
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Date: April 17, 2001
Petitioner: Orange County
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves a petition submitted by Orange County to amend
the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from Rural Residential (R-1) to Economic Develo ment -
Limited Office 1 (ED-LO-11 property located along the eastern side of NC 86 between Fletcher Road and
Worth Street being further identified in the Orange County Land Records Office as Hillsborough
Township, Map 49, Block B, Lots 15, 16, 17, 18; 19, 20 and 22 (west side of NC 86 only); Map 50, Lots
6, 7 and 8 containing 97.67 acres more or less (excluding right-of--way). The property is more
specifically identified by the following description:
AREA 1
BEGINNING at a point, said point being the northeast corner of TMBL 4.50..6 and lying at the
centerline of the right-of--way of NC $6; thence, south approximately 2,900 feet along the
centerline of NC 86 to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.49.B.22; thence, west approximately 550
feet along the southern line of TMBL 4.49.B.22 to the sauthwest corner of TMBL 4.49.B.22;
thence, north approximately 220 feet to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.49.B.20, said corner
falling in line with the eastern line of TMBL 4.49.B.22; thence west approximately 1,260 feet
along the southern line of TMBL 4.49.B.20 to the southwest corner of TMBL 4.49.B.20; thence,
north approximately 2,750 feet along the eastern lines of TMBL's 4.49.5.20, 4.49.B.19,
4.49.B.18, 4.49.B.17, 4.49.B.16 and 4.49.B.1 S to the northwest corner of TMBL 4.49.B.15, said
corner also being a common corner of TMBL 4.4SC.A.S, 4.45D.A.6 and 4.45D.A.5; thence east
approximately 1,420 feet along the common 1rne of TMBL's 4.49.B.15, 4.45C.A.5, 4.45C.A.4,
4.45C.A.3, 4.45C.A.2, 4.45C.A.1, 4.49.B.16 and 4.50..6 to the point and place of
BEGINNING. (Said tract containing 97.67 acres more or less excluding right-of--way).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that
this Zoning Atlas Amendment is effective upon approval.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,the
foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2001.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2001 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing
and that said proceedings a"re recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2001.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
RESOLUTION OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
FOR A
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Date: April 17, 2001
Petitioner: Orange County
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves a petition submitted by Orange County to amend
the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from Low and Medium Intensity ResidentiallR-3) to
Economic Development -Limited Office 1 (ED-LO-1) property located along the northeastern section of
the I-40/Old NC 86 EDD between Beckett's Ridge Subdivision and Town of Hillsborough EDD and
being further identified in the Orange County Land Records Office as Hillsborough Township, Tax Map
40, Block A, Lot 22 (part) and Tax Map 45, Lot 2 (part) containing 92.57 acres more or less. The
property is more specifically identified by the following description:
AREA 2
BEGINNING at a point, said point being the northeast corner of TMBL 4.40.A.22 and the
northwest corner of TMBL 4.35..135; thence south approximately 2,785 feet along the western
property line of the following TMBL's: Hillsborough Township Tax Map 44, Lots 135-137; the
60 foot right of way of Beckett's Ridge Drive, Tax Map 56, Lots 71-49 and Lots 104 and 217;
Lots 40-38 to the common corner of Lots 38, 33 and 32; thence south approximately 85 feet to
the northeast corner of TMBL 4.45E.A.10, said corner falling in the western line of TMBL
4.56..32; thence west approximately 690 feet along the northern line of TMBL 4.45E.A.10, the 60
foot right of way of Fargo Road, and TMBL 4.45E.A.12 to the northeast corner of TMBL
4.45E.A.12; thence south approximately 470 feet along the eastern line of TMBL's 4.45E.A.12,
4.45E.B.4 to the southwest corner of TMBL 4.45..2 said corner falling in the westent line of
TMBL 4.45E.B.3; thence west along the southern line of TMBL 4.45..2 approximately 1,760 feet
to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.45..2; thence north approximately 1,320 feet following the
common line of TMBL' 4.45..2 and 4.45..2E to the Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction (ETJ) line
of the Town of Hillsborough; thence, north approximately 2,900 feet along the ETJ line to the
northern line of TMBL 4.40.A.22; thence east approximately 240 feet along the northern line of
TMBL 4.40.A.22 to the point and place of BEGINNING. (Said tract containing 92.57 acres more
or less).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that
this Zoning Atlas Amendment is effective upon approval.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,the
foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2001.
1, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2001 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing
and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2001.
5
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
RESOLUTION OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
FOR A
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Date: April 17, 2001
Petitioner: Orange County
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves a petition submitted by Orange County to amend
the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from Rural_Residential (R-1)_to Economic Develo meet -
Limited Office 1 (ED-LO-1) property located approximately 1,200 feet east of NC 86 and lying between
I-85 and Old NC 10 being further identified in the Orange County Land Records Office as Hillsborough
Township, Map 45, Lot 33 containing 12.95 acres more or less (excluding right-of--way). The property is
more specifically identified by the following description:
AREA 3C
BEGINNING at the northeast corner of TMBL 4.45..33, said corner also being in the southern
line of the I-85 right-of- way and also being the northwest comer of TMBL 4.45..19; thence,
south approximately 1170 feet along the eastern line of TMBL 4.45..33 to the southeastern corner
of TMBL 4.45..33 said corner falling in the northern line of the Old NC 10right-of--way; thence,
west approximately 580 feet along the northern right-of--way of Old NC 10 to the southwestern
corner of TMBL 4.45..33, said corner also being the southeastern corner of TMBL 4.45..11A;
thence, north approximately 1180 feet along the western line of TMBL 4.45..33 to the northeast
corner of TMBL 4.45..33, said corner also falling in the southern right-of--way of I-8S; thence east
approximately 200 feet along the common northern line of TMBL 4.45..33 and the southern
right-of--way of I-8S to the paint and place of BEGINNING. (Said tract containing 12.95 acres
more or less)
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that
this Zoning Atlas Amendment is effective upon approval.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded..by Commissioner ,the
foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2001.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the.County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HERESY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2001 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing
and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2001.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
RESOLUTION OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
FOR A
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Date: April 17, 2001
Petitioner: Orange County
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves a petition submitted by Orange County to amend
the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from Economic Develo ment District EDD and PD-ED
(existing zoning classification) to Economic Develo ment -Limited Office 1 (proposed zoning
classification) of property located along old NC 86 at the I-40 interchange and being further identified by
Orange County Tax Records as Hillsborough Township, Tax Map 49, Block B, Lots 4 (part), 5, 6, 6A,
6B, 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (part), 13B and 14; Block A, Lots 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E, 2F, 3, 4 (part),
SA, SB, SC, 6, 6B, 7, 8, 10, 11, 11A, 12, 13; Tax Map 47 Block C, Lot 7 (part), 8B, 20; Tax Map 44,
Block B, Lots 20, 20B, 20A, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; Tax Map 45, Lot 2E (part) and containing 520 acres
more or less (including rights of way). The property is more.specifically identified by the following
description:
AREA A (Large, Partl
BEGINNING at the northeast corner of TMBL 4.49.A.4, said corner falling in the southern line of
the I-40 right-of- way and also being the northwest corner of TMBL 4.49.A.13; thence west
approximately 3830 feet along the northern lines of TMBL's 4.47.C.8 and 4.49.A.4, said lines also
being the southern right-of--way line of I-40, to the northwest corner of TMBL 4.47.C.8, said corner
also falling in line with the southern right-of--way of I-40; thence east approximately 600 feet to a
point at the corner of the existing EDD boundary said point lying in the northern right-of--way of I-
40; thence north approximately 1,750 feet along the existing EDD boundary.to a point lying in the
northern line of TMBL 4.47.C.8 and approximately 30 feet east of the southeast corner of TMBL
4.53..77; thence east approximately 1,240 feet along the northern line of TMBL 4.47.C.8 to the
southeast corner of 4.42E.48; thence north approximately 1,175 feet to the northeast corner of
TMBL 4.42E..39; thence east approximately 180 feet to the northwest corner of TMBL 4.42E..39;
thence north 60 feet along the eastern right-of--way of Bonaparte Drive to the southwest corner of
TMBL 4.42E..34; thence east approximately 150 feet to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.42E..34;
thence north approximately 410 feet the the southwest corner of TMBL 4.42E..38, said point falling
in the eastern line of TMBL 4.42E..37; thence east approx-imately 375 feet along the southern line
of TMBL 4.42E..38 to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.42E..38; thence north approximately 300 feet
along the western right-of--way of Old NC 86 to the northeast corner of TMBL 4.42E..1; thence west
approximately 500 feet along the southern line of TMBL's 4.44.B.28 and 4.44.B.20A to the
southwest corner of TMBL 4.44.B.20A; thence north approximately 1,000 feet to the northeast
corner of TMBL 4.44.B.20; thence east approximately 500 feet along the northern line of TMBL's
4.44.B.20 and 4.44.B.22 crossing Old NC 86 to the eastern right-of--way of Old NC 86; thence south
approximately 2420 feet along the eastern right-of--way of Old NC 86 to the ETJ Line of the Town of
Hillsborough, said line being the northern line of the existing EDD; thence east approximately 1430
feet fallowing the Hillsborough ETJ line to a point in the northern line of TMBL 4.45..2E; thence
east feet along the northern line of TMBL 4.45..2E to the common corner of TMBL 4.45..2 and
TMBL 4.45..2E, said corner falling in the western line of TMBL 4.45E.B.3; thence south
approximately 550 feet to a point in the northern line of TMBL 4.45D.B.2, said point being at the
end of an unnamed street and being approximately 80 feet east of the northwest corner of TMBL
4.45D.B.2; thence west along the northern line of TMBL's 4.45D.B.2 and 4.45D.B.2A to the
northwest corner of TMBL 4.45D.B.2A; thence south approximately 400 feet along the western lines
of TMBL's 4.45D.B.2A and 4.45D.B.2B to the common corner of TMBL's 4.45D.B.2B and
4.45..2A; thence west approximately 460 feet to the northwest corner of TMBL 4.45..2A; thence
8
1,200 feet along the northern line of TMBL 4.49.B.14 to the common corner of TMBL's 4.49.B.14,
4.45D.A. 4 and 4.45D.A.5, said corner falling in the eastern line of TMBL 4.49.8.15; thence south
approximately 3,200 feet along the eastern line of 4.49.B.14 to the southeastern corner of TMBL
4.49.B.14; thence west approximately 1,400 feet to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.49.B.14, said
line falling in the northern right-of--way of I-40; thence west approximately 570 feet crossing I-40
right-of--way to the northern corner of TMBL 4.49.B.13B; thence along the southern right-af--way of
I-40 approximately 2,300 feet to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.49.B.13B; thence east
approximately 1,480 feet along the southern line of TMBL 4.49.B.13B to the southeast corner of
TMBL 7.2..29V; thence north approx-imately d50 feet to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.49.B.12;
thence east in a straight line approximately 1,400 along the southern line of TMBL 4.49.B.12
(exclude southern portion), crossing the right-of--way of Old NC 86 and along the southern line of
TMBL 4.49.A.12 to the northwest corner of TMBL 7.2.29D; thence south approximately 300 feet to
the soutwestern corner of TMBL 7.2.29D; thence west approximately 300 feet to the southwest
corner of TMBL 4.49.A:13; thence north approximately 2,130 feet to the point and place of
BEGINNING. (Said tract containing 520 acres more or less)
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that
this Zoning Atlas Amendment is effective upon approval.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,the
foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2001.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2001 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing
and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2001.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
8a -
RESOLUTION OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
FOR A
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Date: April 17, 2001
Petitioner: Orange County
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves a petition submitted by Orange County to amend
the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from Economic Development District (EDD) to Economic
Development -Limited Office 2 (ED-LO-2) property located approximately 500 feet west of Old NC 86
on the south side of I-40 being further identified in the Orange County Land Records Office as
Hillsborough Township, Map 47, Block C, Lot 8 and Map 49, Block A, Lot 4 and containing 175 acres
more or less. The property is more specifically identified by the following description:
AREA A (SW Quadrant)
BEGINNING at the northeast corner of TMBL 4.49.A.4, said corner falling in the southern line
of the I-40 right-of- way and also being the northwest corner of TMBL 4.49.A.13; thence, south
approximately 1050 feet along the eastern line of TMBL 4.49.A.4 to the southeastern corner of
TMBL 4.49.A.4 said corner falling in the northern line of TMBL 7.2..29Q; thence, west approx-
imately 690 feet along the southern line of TMBL 4,49.A.4 to the southwestern corner of TMBL
4.49.A.4, said comer falling in the eastern line of TMBL 7.1..12; thence north approximately 390
feet along the western line of TMBL 4.49.A.4 to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.47.C.$ said
corner also being the northeastern corner of TMBL 7.1..12A; thence, west approximately 1,040
feet along the southern line of TMBL 4.47.C.8, said line along being the northern line of TMBL's
7.1..12A, 7.1..39 and 7.1..40 to the southeast corner of TMBL 4.47.C.8, said corner also falling in
the eastern line of TMBL 7.1..10A; thence north approximately 1,320 feet along the western line
of TMBL 4.47.C.8, said line also being the eastern line of TMBL's 7.1..10A, 4.47.C.11 and
4.47.C.8A, to the northwest corner of TMBL 4.47.C.$, said corner also falling in line with the
southern right-of--way of I-40; thence east approximately 1,880 feet along the northern lines of
TMBL's 4,47,C.8 and 4.49.A.4, said lines also being the southern right-of--way line of I-40, to the
point and place of BEGINNING. (Said tract containing 175 acres more or less)
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that
this Zoning Atlas Amendment is effective upon approval.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,the
foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2001.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2001 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing
and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2001.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
9
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BORD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
FOR A
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Date: April 17, 2001
Petitioner: Orange County
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves a petition submitted by Orange County to amend
the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from GC-4 to ED-LO-1 property located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of NC 86 and Interstate 85 being further identified in the Orange County
Land Records Office as Hillsborough Township, Tax Map 40, Block A, Lots 9B and 9C and containing
5.34 acres more or less. The properties are identified by the following legal descriptions:
Tract 3b
BEGINNING at a paint, said paint being the northwest corner of TMBL 4.40.A.9B and falling in
line with the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Line of the Town of Hillsborough; thence, east following
the northern line of TMBL 4.40.A.9B approximately 670 feet to a paint, said paint being the
northeast corner of TMBL 4.40.A.9B and falling in the eastern line of TMBL 4.40.A.11 Q;
thence, south along the western line of TMBL 4.40.A.9B and the eastern line bath 4.40.A.11 Q
and 4.40.A.11G approximately 510 feet to a point, said point being the southeast corner of TMBL
4.40.A.9B and the southwest corner of 4.40.A.11 G and falling in line with the northern right of
way of Interstate 85 (I-85); thence, east along the right-of--way of I-$5 and the southern line of
TMBL 4.40.A.9B approximately 300 feet to a point, said point being the southwest corner of
TMBL 4.40.A.9C; thence east along the southern line of 4.40.A.9C approximately 180 feet to the
eastern property line of TMBL 4.40.A.9C; thence north along the western line of TMBL
4.40.A9C approximately 220 feet to the northeast corner of TMBL 4.40.A.9C; thence north
along the western property line of TMBL 4.40.A.9B approximately 200 feet to the northwestern
corner of TMBL 4.40.A.9B to the point and place of BEGINNING. (Said tract 3b containing
5.34 acres more or less)
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that
this Zoning Atlas Amendment is effective upon approval.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,the
foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2001.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2001 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing
and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of_ , 2001.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
1f
MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 AND
s ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 DECEMBER 12, 2000
7
s The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County
9 Planning Board on Tuesday, December 12, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services
l0 Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
11 '
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners
13 Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, and Barry Jacobs
14 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager
t6 Rod Visser and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be identified
17 appropriately below)
18 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leo Allison, Barry
t9 Katz, Karen Barrows, Howard McAdams, Runyon Woods, Rachel Preston
20 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Nicole Gooding-Ray,
21 Cranford Goodwin, Lynne Holtkamp, James Selkirk, Robert Strayhom
22
23 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
24 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING
25 WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS.
26
z7
28 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
29 Chair Halkiotis welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Chair of the Planning Board will
3o chair the public hearing items. Also, Commissioner Jacobs will make any expanding comments
31 because he has been intimately involved with the Town of Hillsborough in looking at these various
32 issues.
33
34 PUBLIC CHARGE
35 Chair Halkiotis read the public charge.
3b
37 B. AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK FINANCING FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION AT 112 AND
38 118 NORTH CHURTON STREET IN HILLSBOROUGH
39 Director of Central Stores and Purchasing Pam Jones made this presentation. She said that
40 Central Carolina Bank has accepted the County's offer of $485,000 for both pieces of property as
41 well as the land around it. The projected interested rate is fi.5%. The detailed information on the-
42 interest rate will be brought back at the meeting on January 18, 2001. The financing period will be
43 for ten years. The only outstanding issue is the environmental assessment. There is one
44 underground storage tank and it appears to be abandoned. This information will be confirmed by
4s January 18, 2001.
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to:
47 Approve the resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference and calls for the plan to
as purchase the property
49 • Authorize the Finance Director to seek financing for the acquisition; and
50 Establish January 18, 2001 as the date for public hearing on the acquisition.
51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
~;
11
t Commissioner Jacobs said that a couple of the issues that came up with discussions with
2 Hillsborough was (1) limiting the floor area of big box retail, and (2) limiting or eliminating drive-in
3 windows for air quality reasons. Also, he asked Craig Benedict that clear-cutting be covered in the
4 ordinance.
5 Barry Katz asked if Craig Benedict could identify a 650-acre parcel in the County. Craig
6 Benedict said that 6.6 million square feet is a build-out scenario and would not come online in 10,
7 15, ar even 20 years. The new South Point Mall in Durham is about 1.2 million square feet.
s Barry Katz made reference to maintaining the character of Hillsborough and asked haw
9 that would be accomplished by putting development at this site. Craig Benedict said that by
t0 focusing traffic to this area instead of traveling through the center of Hillsborough, this would be
11 the appropriate place for development.
12 Public Comment
13 Scott Radway asked about the proposed EDD development chart that has the
14 designations which are O-OF (office and office flex), O-MDR (office and medium density
is residential), and the last one for mixed use. He asked if it is intended to adopt as ordinance the
15 categories with uses when this comes back to the County Commissioners. He asked where this
17 fits within the continuing work of the EDD task force between now and when the moratorium ends.
18 Craig Benedict said that these are categories that are not assigned to any of the
19 properties at this time. These categories have not been assigned to any properties. The focus of
20 the work on A-1 and A-2 will be in this area.
2t A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
22 accept the staff and public input into the public hearing record, and to refer item C1 b to the
23 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no
24 sooner than January 1$, 2001.
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 C. Zoning Of parcels near the intersection of I-85/NC86 to "Limited Office." These
zs parcels were shown as 3a and 3b on the June 6, 2000 moratoria map including
approximately 77 acres. These parcels can continue their present activity
3o pursuant to existing zoning codes if presently developed. If the site is
31 undeveloped or previously noted site is to be redeveloped, then the parcel would
32 be developed consistent with Limited Office district or request rezoning through a
33 special use rezoning and pernnit process. These parcels would also be removed
34 from the moratoria.
3s Barry Katz made reference to South Point Mall in Durham and the exit ramps on I-40 and
.i6 asked if there are any plans for I-40 or NC $5 to sustain a reasonable flow of trafFic to this
37 development and what plan they would need to augment this future development.
38 Craig Benedict said that it was agreed at the Commissioners' retreat that the EDD task
39 force would evolve into a task force with a transportation emphasis at the end of the land use
4o issues. The task farce would focus on the issues raised above by Barry Katz. The task force will
41 take a look at aver 40 intersections and come up with a priority package by late summer 2001 and
42 submit it to the MPO by fall 2001.
43
44 Public Comment
45 Lawson Brawn, attorney from Alamance County, spoke representing Chandler Concrete
46 Company, which is located in area 3A. The Chandler Concrete site is a 5.8-acre tract of land
47 located between SR1710 and the railroad tracks. The easternmost two acres of this site are not
4s developed. Chandler Concrete Campariy has been in operation since 1973. He feels it is
49 important to note how this site is situated on Highway 10. The building was expanded to a two-
3o story building just a year ago. He asked that this site not be included in the EDD. If Mr.
S1 Chandler's property is included in this designation it will became a nonconforming use. He does
' t 0 12
t not think that Chandler Concrete is appropriately included in the EDD because of its unique
2 location, history, and unique size in relation to the railroad and 5R1710.
3 Hazel Lunsford said that her house is included in this proposed area. She said that
4 changing residential zoning to limited office or anything else would mean that she could not rebuild
5 her property in the event of a disaster because it would be nonconforming. Her property has been
6 a life investment. This will change the amount of property taxes that she will have to pay. If the
7 property remains residential, she said that she would also lose because no one would want to buy
8 in a limited and restricted residential area. She asked for protection of her property and rights.
9 She suggested a written agreement with the residents that are affected by this proposal.
to John Parker is one of the residents that is supposedly within the 500-foot area bordering
t t the rezoning. After~an answer from Craig Benedict to his questions about area 3A, it was
12 determined that he was not within the 500-foot area. He asked about the notification to citizens far
t3 projects in areas bordering whatever is being built. Craig Benedict said that if the property goes
t4 through a rezoning, there is a public hearing and two other meetings.
is Pete Landfer lives in Wildwood and asked about the traffic that may be generated. Craig
16 Benedict said that presently there is no public right-of-way connecting old NC 86 and new NC86.
17 When a project is submitted, there will be a basis that right-of-way be dedicated between those
t8 two corridors for all plans submitted in that corridor.
t9 Commissioner Gordon asked what the Economic Development District Review
20 Committee is and Craig Benedict said that this was a development review committee that was
2t made up of the Economic Development Director, the County Engineer, the Planning Director, and
z2 a member of project staff. When a project comes in, the staff meets with the Economic
z3 Development Review Committee and if the project meets the design manual, it will be approved by
24 the review committee.
Z5 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown to
26 accept the staff and public input into the public hearing record, and to refer item C1c to the
27 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no
z8 sooner than January 18, 2001.
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 d. Time period extension for the EDD moratoria area near I~t0/Old NC86, and I-85/O1d
32 NC86. These parcels include approximately 768 acres and were noted on the June
33 6, 2000 moratorium maps as parcels A, 1 and 2. The extension is proposed from
34 the original 6-month period ending January 2001 to April 2001 where the
3s moratorium will expire on said parcels. The Orange CountylHillsborough
36 Economic Development District task force is conducting open meetings on a
37 regular basis to complete its amendments to the EDD guidelines and regulations.
38
39 NOTE: the tape was not on at this point.
a0 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Craig Benedict said that the
4t moratorium ended and development proposals have begun to come forward under the new
42 regulations for these areas as identified. We are now focusing our attention on Al and 2. We are
43 on a course to make recommendations within the next two months with final adoption in early April
44 in advance of the expiration of the moratorium. The first four months of the moratorium focused
45 on I-85 and NC 86. The Town Attorney and the County Attorney spent time on 3A and 36
46 because that is where the focus of the work was. The County needs a few months to study and
47 make recommendations on how they will be addressing master plan issues and processes.
48 Geoffrey Gledhill said that the substantive provisions .....
49 Barry Katz understands that Hillsborough is providing water and sewer lines. Craig
So Benedict said that with the Hillsborough new reservoir that is coming on line, the Tawn feels that
s t they will have adequate water for this area. With some modification to their sewer plant, they will
52 be able to provide sewer service to this area. Hillsborough realizes that they will have to focus
~'=
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
February 26, 2001
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for
t t a quarterly public hearing on Monday, February 26, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle
12 Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners
1S Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordan, and Barry Jacobs
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board
18 Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be iderrtified appropriately below)
19 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nicole Goading-Ray and members
20 Leo Allison, Howard McAdams, Rachel Preston, James Selkirk, Runyon Woods, Bab Strayhom,
21 Theodore Triebel, Hunter Schofield, Barry Katz, Lynn Holtkamp, and Craufurd Goodwin
22
23 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
24 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING
2S ~ WILL BE KEPT FOR S YEARS.
25
27 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
28 Chair Halkiotis called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. He made reference to item
29 #5 on the agenda, the Preserve Planned Development Mixed Use and Special Use Permit, Class A,
3o and said that it had been withdrawn. He said that the developers from Maryland decided not to go
31 forward with this project and apologized far any inconvenience this may have caused. Item #4 an the
32 agenda, Public School Impact Fee, was moved up on the agenda, right after The Resolution to
33 Establish a Special Board of Equalization and Review.
34
35 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
36 The Chair read the public charge.
37
38 Chair Halkiotis said that Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chair of the Orange County Planning Board would
39 chair item C -The Comprehensive Plan Text Map Amendments, Orange County Zoning Text
4o Amendments, and Orange County Zoning Atlas Amendments.
41
42 ADDED ITEM: Resolution Creatin~a 5~~cial Board of Equalization and Review
43 Tax Assessor John Smith said that he was recommending that the County Commissioners
44 adopt a resolution that will create a special Board of Equalization and Review for the hearing of
45 appeals related to the 2001. revaluation.
46 Commissioner Gordon said that her understanding was that there would be three regular
47 members and then additional alternate members. She suggested a change in the language so that it
4s is clear that there would be altemate members in addition to the three regular members.
49 Commissioner Brown asked when the members would be appointed. Jahn Smith said that the
50 staff would put together a recommendation and present it to the Commissioners at a later Board of
s t County Commissioners' meeting.
13
~ u
~ '~ ~ ~
~ ~D ~
a
~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
s
3 1. CO
a - --
s
6 a.
~ b.
s c.
9 d.
to e.
11
MPREHEN5IVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3a
Area 3b
Area 3c
12 Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict presented this item. He said that
t 3 the next few items have to do with the economic development district area that is south of
t4 Hillsborough. Over the last 12 months, both Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have met
is to examine the existing land use pattems within and around the economic development districts that
t6 lie south of Hillsborough. The general area is around Old NC 86 between the interchanges of 1-85/1-
1 ~ 40 and New NC 86 near the intersection of I-85. The comprehensive plan is a base layer of land use
t 8 issues within the County. This gives general development pattems and is a guidance tool for zoning
t9 layers. He said that Gene Bell, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, would be explaining each
20 Economic Development District (EDD). He said that the EDD Task Force that has been meeting
21 since February 2000 has been one of the most prolific task farces that has met aver the last year.
z2 The task farce has met over 20 times and has analyzed a lot of issues that could potentially affect the
23 quality of life of residents in and around Hillsborough. There was interest within the task force to look
24 at issues such as transportation impact, transportation capacity, and the image of the entranceway on
2s the major interchanges. He said that in 1993, 1994, and 1995 Orange County developed Area A,
z6 ' which is a set of standards far economic development districts. Area A is not being amended
z7 because it is an existing economic development district.
28 Gene Bell went over all the areas as listed above. Area 1 is currently rural
z9 residential, and the proposed change is for aten-year transition and economic development activity
3o node. Area 2 is currently classified as 20-year transition, and the proposed change is to the
31 economic development activity node. Areas 3a and 3b are currently commercial activity nodes, and
3z the proposed change is to economic development activity node. Area 3c is currently 10-year
33 transition, with the proposed change would be to an economic development activity node. He spoke
34 about the procedures for amending the plan. The reasons for amending the comprehensive plan are
35 as follows: 1) because of a change or changes of conditions in a certain part of the County; 2) to
36 correct an error or omission in the plan; or 3) in response to a change in policies, objectives,
37 principles, ar standards governing the physical development of the County. This is from Article 2 of
3s the Zoning Ordinance. He made reference to Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance and said that the
39 plan was premised upon two basic strategies -activity nodes and infill development. Activity nodes
ao serve to cluster commercial and industrial development at major intersections throughout the County
at in locations appropriate. for serving the needs of residents. The infill development strategy is
42 .premised on the desirability of encouraging development to occur first within the corporate limits of
43 the towns. The proposed plan amendments that are being considered are consistent with the two
a4 basic plan strategies. Two goals that are particularly relevant to these plan amendments are: 1)
as Gaal #5 -the management'af growth so that it is directed to areas where growth is desirable and
a5 could be accommodated; and 2) Goal #6 -the promotion of economic development which
a7 emphasizes employment, meeting local needs while preserving the character of communities and
a8 protecting the natural environment.
49 Gene Bell said that within the plan, each category has a set of 11 location criteria.
So The criteria are land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public services and utilities, the
51 transportation system, energy use, existing land use, agriculture and forestry, population density; and
~~ 4~ ~~ -
4 1
l historical and cultural resources. Of the five areas, Area 1 was the only area that was consistent with `~,
2 all 11 criteria. There was an inconsistency related to agriculture and forestry. The Orange County
~ land records system indicates that lots 15, 16 and 17 and lot S are under use value taxation. Lots 15 \
d and 17 are taxed as forestland and lot 16 is taxed as agricultural land. The Planning staff
5 recommends approval of the proposed amendments for the reasons as outlined in the agenda
6 abstract.
~ Craig Benedict made reference to a map and identified each area and the uses
8 that would be permitted in each area. He said that he is not saying that everything must conform to
9 the uses as listed. He is saying that the areas are only identified as a guidance for what would be
to compatible with the land use. Transportation is one of the most important issues with any
1l development.
12
t3 Questions from Coun Commissioners or members of the Oran a Coun Plannin Board
1`i Commissioner Gordon asked about the essential differences between the uses
~ 5 now and what is being proposed. Craig Benedict said that the orange area that is proposed is very
lb similar to the primary 1 area that was there before, except that a higher intensity of use is suggested
17 to also allow residential in that area. Previously, no residential was allowed in the area. The potential
18 density would be 8-12 units per acre. The northwest quadrant previously allowed retail, but in the
19 new plan there would not be any retail because the orange area would have retail potential. In the
20 southwest quadrant, the primary change is that there is some residential allowed in the short-term
21 prior to the provision of water and sewer. Under the previous plan, there was some limited
22 residential, but now even more residential will be allowed. The southeast quadrant is very similar to
23 what it was previously with an extra emphasis on office flex, meaning office-industrial. Areas 1 and 2
2d were part of the 10-year transition that were intended for residential only and the new proposal is
2S suggesting that it be residential plus a limited office component. Area 2 is presently transition, zoned
26 R-3, and would remain the same but allow an office component.
27 Commissioner Gordon asked how the transition area would function in this plan.
23 She asked if it would be going from rural to urban. Craig Benedict said that these areas are outside
z9 of the Hillsborough ETJ, which is the definition of transition. This would have the potential of
3o annexation depending on Hillsborough's annexation rules. This proposal would make the transition
31 areas mare similar to the adjacent Economic Development District areas.
32 Commissioner Brown asked some clarifying questions, which were answered
33 satisfactorily by Craig Benedict
'`~ Planning Board member Runyon Woods asked about sewer lines in that area.
35 Craig Benedict said that water and sewer lines are feasible through that area along Cates Creek.
36 Hillsborough does liave the capacity to serve this area. It has been identified in Hillsborough's interim
37 master plan that water and sewer extension would occur in these areas. The only exemption is the
3s southwest quadrant, which could also be served.
39 Citizen comments were held until after the presentations.
~o
al 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
4'- a, Economic Development District Amendments for the Hillsborough Economic
`t3 District
`~ b. Amend Section 7.21 Zoning Ordinance
45 c, Add new section 2.1A in Design Manual creating subdistricts with
`t6 Hillsborough EDD
47 Craig Benedict said that the changes to the Zoning Text Amendments would create
~8 some sub-districts, which would be compatible with the Land Use Plan previously discussed. He
49 made reference to the map and said that a new zoning district known as Economic Development Flex
5o has been created that would allow light industry. Another zoning district known as Linear Office was
51 also created. A zoning area known as Limited Office was also created. In the Buckhorn EDD and the
C ' r~0
7
~ G r~ i,
r ~~ ~i . 5
s
x.85/US 70 EDD near Durham, these categories are not readily available because there is no
underlying land use plan that could be directed towards such zoning districts.
~~ The second part that is being changed is the Economic Development District Design
s Manual. The standards have now been abridged to the point where these standards can be used as
6 a site design manual. In Section 3 the I-40/Old NC 86 area has been renamed to the Hillsborough
~ Area. The most important part of what is occurring in area "A" from a zoning text standpoint is the
$ process requirements. In the present process, if someone brings in an application for 300 acres of
9 development in that area, it will go through a review process, and within two or three weeks, it could
10 be approved. The new proposal would create a new process where there is more input from the
11 Planning Board, Board of County Commissioners, and citizens. The goal is to take all of the
12 properties within areas A, 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 3c down to a limited zoning district, which is suggested as
13 Economic Develop (ED) Limited Office (LO) District 1. If someone comes in with a very large project
1a (i.e., multi-family complex or 200,000 square foot shopping center), they must apply for a rezoning.
15 The developer also must request a Special Use Class A application.
16
17
18 3. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
19 w
16
20 a. Area 1
21 b. Area 2
z2 c. Area A (NW, NE, SECONDED BY and Part of SW Quadrant)
23 d. Area A (Remaining SW Quadrant)
za e. Area 3c
25 Craig Benedict said that this proposal would rezone all of the areas to Economic
26 Development Limited Office 1. All of the areas would be given an office emphasis. In most cases,
27 areas A, 1, and 2 are relatively undeveloped. In areas where there are no uses or any structures, this
28 rezoning does not create any problems. In areas where there are houses or structures, it would be
29 taking residential property and rezoning to a higher use zoning area. If someone wants to stay in a
30 residential house that is rezoned, they may stay there the rest of their life. The house or structure
31 would have to be 75% destroyed before it would revert to the new zoning district. Other non-
3z residential nonconforming uses would have to be 60% destroyed before it would revert to the new
33 zoning district. He made reference to Chandler Concrete and said that if they wanted to expand, they
3a would have to expand their Special Use Permit and that would be unlikely since it would be a
35 nonconforming business. If there were a use that is no longer operating for 90 days, then the use
36 would have to conform to the zoning district. The rezoning that is being suggested is not a new
37 concept around the United States. It is putting growth in an area that is appropriate and may take the
3s pressure off of growth occurring in the rural area where there is no provision of water and sewer.
39 Notices outlining these changes have been sent out to the neighbors in the areas listed above.
40
al Questions from the Oran a Coun Commissioners or from members of the Plannin Board
42 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the nonconforming use and asked if he
43 could build an addition onto his house if it were a nonconforming use. Craig Benedict said that they
as would look at the intensity changes caused by the addition and probably determine that the intensity
a5 would not change. There is some flexibility with the nonconforming uses.
a6 Commissioner Jacobs recognized Commissioner Lloyd and Commissioner Sheridan
47 from the Town of Hillsborough. He made reference to the proposed courtesy review with the Town of
a8 Hillsborough and noted that this process would need to be included in the County's code. Craig
49 Benedict said that any jurisdiction could~very easily be plugged in for a courtesy review.
50
51 Citizen Comments
17
6
t \
2 Areas 1 and 2 \\
3 Mark Westhafer said that he understands that the reason for the changes on areas 1 ~\
4 and 2 was to provide a buffer between New NC 86 and area A. He said that he also understands that \'
5 area A remains undeveloped. He thinks that the residences between areas 1 and 2 are going to be
6 trapped between commercial areas. If the transition is really a valid idea, he suggests that area A be
7 amended to buffer the residences, and that areas 1 and 2 be left alone. He said that he thinks the
s bottom line is to create an access to New NC 86. He said that it would make sense to create an
9 easement from area A to New NC 86, and as the intensity increases talk about transitioning area 1.
to He would like to IeaYe areas 1 and 2 out of the rezoning until it becomes absolutely necessary.
t 1 Martin Brown is a homeowner who lives between area 1 and 2. His lot splits area A
12 and area 2. He has a concern with bringing in commercial development immediately adjacent to a
13 residential area. He would hope that the Board would consider keeping the area residential adjacent
t4 to present residential areas. With reference to the proposed roadways into the subdivision, he said
t5 that their road is not paved at this time and it would cause great concem to access a commercial ar
t6 large residential area. He said that this type of road would degrade the nature of the subdivision.
t7 Phil Shloss lives in Becketts Ridge and objects to the building of townhouses directly
t s behind his property. He said that we have created a subdivision and infrastructure, which will now be
19 used as office space. He feels that area 2 is an area that people are looking at developing right now.
20 He said that there were a lot of people from Becketts Ridge at the meeting that had already left, and
21 he hopes that there will be another opportunity for them to speak.
'' Pete Langon lives in Wildwood, which is above Becketts Ridge. He mentioned that it
23 looks like a road will be needed from Old NC 86 to New NC 86. He suggested planning a road below
24 the school so that the private homes will not be disturbed.
25 Iris Simon lives in Becketts Ridge and said that he is opposed to the expansion of a
2b business district behind their homes. If it does proceed, he would like to see at least a 20Q-foot
27 wooded buffer behind the homes in Becketts Ridge.
28 Don Charland, a resident of Becketts Ridge, said that he was concerned because
29 when he bought this property he understood that it was residential. He said that there are a lot of
30 children in the area and with increased traffic there would be an increase in the danger for children.
31 Also, noise would be an issue. He is opposed to the rezoning.
3'- Jeff Hillsburg, a resident of Becketts Ridge, is opposed to this plan. He feels that
33 there would be increased traffic with the thoroughfare between Old and New NC 86. Also, he does
34 not want light industry in his backyard.
35
36 Area 3a
37 Lawson Brawn spoke on behalf of Chandler Concrete Company. He supports
38 excluding Chandler Concrete from the rezoning. He said that the Planning Board recommended, with
39 a vote of 7-2, that Chandler be deleted from the rezoning of area 3a. He spoke about the reasons for
4o excluding Chandler Concrete -general land planning principles, peculiar character of this property,
4t historical use of this property, present zoning of the property, special use permit that is on the
42 particular property, extensive regulation of the existing use of the concrete facility by the state and
43 federal governments, and the fact that Chandler has been a stellar corporate citizen. He said that
44 basically, the Chandler property was the tail of the property, and across the street is a commercial
45 use and a trailer park on the north, which were originally included in 3a but have since been
46 excluded. He feels that the goals of economic development could be accomplished by the exclusion
47 of Chandler without wrecking any plans.
48
49 At this time, it was about 10:30 p:m. and the Board decided to hear the remainder of
cn ~L.....:a:___ __.v~__._
.~ 7
a
s
Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that there was a moratorium deadline and another 1t
meeting should be rescheduled quickly because this still has to go to the Planning Board, back to the
3 County Commissioners, and be completed before April 18'".
a
5 Area 3b
6 Carl Merritt was representing Merritt Marine. His property is zoned commercial
~ industrial. He is not sure if he is against the rezoning or for it, but he thinks he is against it. He is
8 trying to gather information about the impacts this rezoning may have on his property.
9
to Area A
l t Wayne Pollard lives adjacent to Stagecoach Run Subdivision and owns anise-acre
12 tract. He said that it looks like he will be surrounded on three sides by office space and he would like
t3 to see the boundary with him not included in it. He is actually not part of Stagecoach Run Subdivision
1a but has access to his property through the subdivision. He cannot subdivide his property because he
t5 is not on astate-maintained road. He would like for his property to be included as an additional tract
l6 in Area A. But if it is not going to be allowed for any residential or transition residential, then he has a
~ ~ concern for his neighbors that would be brought closer to a commercial area. He submitted a letter to
18 the Commissioners requesting that his tract of land be considered as an addition to the EDD, with
t9 consideration for possible rezoning to allow transitional residential as a buffer far Stagecoach Run
20 into office use.
zt
zz Commissioner Gordon had several questions. She asked about the new design
23 manual for these new areas and if the present standards would apply to the other two EDDs and
2a Craig Benedict said yes. The other EDDs will remain intact. -
z5 Commissioner Gordon asked what the advantages were of using the master plan
26 approach. Craig Benedict said that staff realized based on the Corbin Downs experience, that it
27 might be unrealistic to expect a developer to bring in a project of 300 acres and know exactly what is
z8 going to happen on every parcel. By allowing the master plan approach, the County Commissioners
39 can take a look at the big picture with the rezoning and the Special Use Permit to see what the
3o potential uses would be. This gives a reasonable amount of time for the County Commissioners to
31 see the plan and provide input into the plan. He clarified that there can be mini-master plans for
32 areas of two acres.
33 Commissioner Gordon asked why a person would need amini-master plan with such
3a a small area. She also asked that the standards be written so that they are easier to read and
35 understand. She said that the manual was still very complicated. She asked about the entire design
36 manual and Craig Benedict said that the entire design manual would still exist for the two other EDDs.
37 The abridged manual has statements of objective and subjective standards.
38 Commissioner Brown asked about the most logical and first places that sewer would
39 be extended. Craig Benedict said that sewer systems typically follow creek beds. He said that Cates
ao Creek does go under I-40, but it would be a lengthy process to provide water and sewer south of I-40.
at He used a map to show where water and sewer service is available and where it could be provided.
43 Area A is probably the next place for water and sewer to be extended. He said that Area A could be
a3 the focal point far a transportation hub for atransit-oriented development with access to I-40 and I-85
44 and access to potentially two four-lane divided highways in the future. This is probably the only
a5 opportunity that Orange County will have with the best transportation access.
a6 Commissioner Jacobs asked about plans for a connection through Becketts Ridge.
47 Craig Benedict said that there has been an accommodation for a connection through Becketts Ridge,
48 which is in the process at this time. The EDD Task Force will be looking at the transportation network
a9 in and around Hillsborough.
so Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was a requirement far public facilities like fire
51 stations, police substations, parks, and school sites in the EDD manual. Craig Benedict said that the
~,~,~
~„~
T
I design manual addresses the mixture of uses and compatible public facilities. He said that there '~
2 should be a generalized overview in the manual of the capacity concept for the transportation network ~~
3 in the area, Affordable housing will also be addressed in the generalized overview. ~
a Commissioner Jacobs said that the issue has been raised about limiting the size of
5 big-box retail to control the overall traffic impacts. Craig Benedict said that when discussing this topic
6 in the EDD Task Farce, it was the general consensus that this is something that the County needs to
7 be sensitive about so as not to hurt the downtown area of Hillsborough.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said that same of the uses indicate that there will be no drive-
9 through facilities in the Hillsborough EDD. Craig Benedict said that the intent was to not have drive-
to through facilities. ,
t t Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 67 and the linear office district. He
t2 made several notations, which Craig Benedict will take into consideration in editing the manual. The
t3 issues included vehicular connectivity, open space connectivity, and setbacks and buffers.
t4 Commissioner Gordon will write down additional comments and submit them to Craig
is Benedict before the Planning Board meeting in April.
16
17 .MOTION; A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
is refer the Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendments (items C, 1-3) to the Planning Board for a
19 recommendation to be returned to the Orange County_,Board of County Commissioners for
zo consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the Board of Commissioners April 17, 2001
2t meeting.
z2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 4. PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEE
25 The County Commissioners heard a report from the consultant, Mr. Paul Tischler, on the
26 calculation of maximum permissible public school impact fees that consider differentiated fees based
27 on housing type. After the report, public comment was received on the amount of the impact, fee and
28 an thin related thereto. At the conclusion of the public comment period, the County Commissioners
Z9 considered referring the report to the administration for a recommendation on whether the impact
3o fees should be changed or not, and if so, to what amounts. That recommendation is to come back to
31 the Board as the Board decides in the context of the Board's deliberation leading to the adoption of
3z the July 1, 2001 budget.
33 Planning Director Craig Benedict made introductory remarks. He said that the public
34 school impact fee for Orange County is unique. In 1987, the North Carolina legislature gave Orange
3S County the opportunity to assess impact fees. Impact fees are used to receive additional revenue to
36 help offset'the capital costs of certain types of facilities. In 1993 the first Impact Fee was enacted in
37 Orange County. This fee was set at $750.00 far both school systems. Over the last few years,
38 Chapel Hill-Carrbora City School District has increased the impact fee for their district from .$750 to
39 $1,500 to $3,000. This is a regular analysis that the County is doing. As part of this mechanism to
ao reevaluate the student generation rate and the casts of providing schools, the County also wanted to
~ t look at the amount of students that were being generated and added to the two school systems. The
42 two school systems are being evaluated independently because there are different growth rates.
43 Overall, there has been a lot of work during the last three years to determine the level of. service
Ott standards. The County chase to hire a consultant, Paul Tischler and Associates, to conduct the
4S school impact fee study.
a6
47 Questions from the Oran a Coun Commissioners and members of the Plannin Board
~8 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Craig Benedict said that if there were
~9 not an impact fee the property tax rate for existing properties would likely be higher. In brief, the
5o impact fee is having new growth pay far school capital needs associated with that growth. Also,
st impact fee's are not used for,renovations of existing schools.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4l
42
43
44
45
46
a7
48
49
so
51
52
S3
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 7, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nicole Gooding-Ray (Chair), Lea Allison, Howard McAdams, Rachel
Preston, James Selkirk, Runyon Woads, Bob Strayhorn, Theodore Triebel,
and Hunter Schofield
MEMBERS ABSENT: Barry Katz, Lynn Holtkamp, Craufurd Goodwin (all excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Craig Benedict, Joanna Bradshaw, Robert Davis, and
Carla Bateman
AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Gooding-Ray called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
None
AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MIN[1TES -January 1 1, 2001
MOTION: Schofield moved approval of the minutes for January 11, 2001. Seconded
by Selkirk.
VOTE: Unanimous
AGENDA ITEM #4: COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ACTION REPORTS
(None available)
AGENDA ITEM #5: PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair read the public charge.
AGENDA ITEM #6: CHAIR COMMENTS
None
AGENDA ITEM #7: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment - McAdams reported that the Board of
Adjustment did meet, but did not hear the scheduled appeal. The case
will be heard on February 12'x.
b. Agricultural Preservation Board - Strayhorn reported that most of the
discussion was about the Agricultural Summit that was held last week.
The summit was very successful. They are simplifying the document to
sign for voluntary agriculture districts. The Commissioners have not
approved the changes yet.
c. Ordinance Review Committee - no meeting
d. Shaping Orange County's Future -The report has been presented to
all of the local governments. The Planning Board will make any
comments concerning the report at the March meeting. Joanna
Bradshaw will make sure each member of the Planning Board has a
copy of the report.
20
21
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING lx/12/00
~ a. EDD Non-Residential Subdivision Amendment
4
5 Benedict made the presentation.
6
7 At this time in the EDDs, there are no minimum lot sizes. Based on the amendments, there will be minimum
8 lot sizes and requirements that the access is limited to the major roadways.
9
IO b. EDD/Text Amendments
11 (1) Creation of ED-LO-1 District
12
13 The new zoning district would be known as Economic Development-Limited Office- 1 District. This is a
14 very low intensity district that the County or Hillsborough could use to assign to properties. The rezoning of
15 the property 3a and 3b would eliminate the existing zoning categories and assign the limited office district.
16 Some of the uses in areas 3a and 3b would then be non-conforming. The uses can continue as normal, but
17 there are some criteria. If someone wants to rezone from limited office to another use, they will probably
18 come to the County for a planned development and a special use permit.. These standards are very elaborate.
19 The purpose of the EDD task force was to have good presentation at the entranceway into Hillsborough (two
20 I-85 access points and I-40 access point).
21
22 c. EDD Design Manual (Abridged Version) Amendment
23
24 The design manual handles two parts -design standards and special use standards. The moratorium on the
25 700 acres in the EDD will expire on April 18`h The revised manual will be in effect at that time.
26
27 The task force will now evolve into an EDD Transportation Task 1=orce. They will be addressing issues such
28 as the possibility of bypasses in and around Hillsborough to take the stress off of Churtan Street. The task
29 force will meet over the next seven months to come up with a joint Orange County and Hillsborough
30 recommendation to the Metropolitan Planning Organization in Durham. The task force is looking far a
31 representative from the Planning Board to serve.
32 ~
33 The staff needs a recommendation from the Planning Board to adopt the new subdivision standards, create
34 the new limited office district, adopt the new design manual, and recommend rezoning 3a and 36 to ED»LO-
35 1 district.
36
37 Several clarifying questions about the rezoning were answered satisfactorily by Benedict.
38
39 Schofield asked if there had been any discussion about an EDD architectural review board to address
40 continuity. Benedict said that the unabridged version of the EDD manual had a format for development, but
41 no Commission or Planning Board approval. The new process involves a legislative process, allowing for
42 input from the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. He said that architectural
43 guidelines could be implemented in the legislative process.
44
45 Schofield asked if there had been any conversation about an affordable housing component as a required
46 provision for this area. He said that an affordable housing component would make sense in this area because
47 it would be in immediate proximity to services and transportation. Benedict said that an affordable housing
48 component has been discussed. He said that the density of housing in this area would be able to
49 accommodate multi-family and affordable housing. Affordable housing will not be addressed in the manual,
50 but with a separate affordable housing policy.
51
22
1 Woods said that he was on the Affordable Housing Task Force and they have not addressed any interfacing
2 with this area at all. The work has been Countywide and not site specific. He will bring a report to the next
3 meeting on the Affordable Housing Task Force.
4
S McAdams said that there was one homeowner that was for the rezoning and one homeowner that was
6 opposed to it. Also, Chandler Concrete is opposed to the rezoning. He asked if there was any way to leave
7 the one homeowner and Chandler Concrete out so that they do not have to go through an arduous process to
8 be rezoned to their current use. Benedict said that the board could recommend that some properties be left in
9 or out. He said that it was generally not good to spot-zone.
10
11 Woods said that he was in favor of 9a, 9b, and 9c. In regards to 9d (listed as l Ob in the agenda), he does not
12 understand why a truck stop is not appropriate at the intersection of I-40 and NC 8.6. He asked where it
13 would be appropriate to have a truck stop.
14
15 There was no public comment about 9a, 9b, or 9c.
16
17 MOTION: Woods moved approval of the proposed amendments as given in item 9a.
18 Seconded by Allison.
19
20 VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (McAdams - he thinks four acres is an extremely large lot for
21 a business.)
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
MOTION: Allison moved approval of the creation of an Economic Development-
Limited Office 1 District in the Orange County permitted use zoning tables
as given in item 9b. Seconded by Selkirk.
-VOTE: ,
MOTION:
Unanimous
Selkirk moved approval of the proposed EDD Design Manual -Abridged
Version. Seconded by Allison.
Benedict said that, in regards to item 9c, smaller lot sizes are allowed by virtue of rezoning. This is in the
planned development standards.
VOTE: Unanimous
d. Zoning Atlas Amendment for Areas 3a and 3b located at NC 86/I-
SS/Old NC 10 Intersection
Allison said that there should be some type of "grandfathering" for non-conforming properties that already
exist.
Benedict said that residential structures could be rebuilt if they are destroyed up to 75% or more of the floor
area. No expansion is allowed, but there is an appeal process. With commercial/industrial structures, they
could be rebuilt if they are destroyed up to 60% or more of the floor area.
47 Woods said that he understands that the intent was that this area (700 acres) would be ahigh-density
48 commercial area totaling 6.6 million square feet. He asked when the Planning Board would talk about the
49 6.6 million square feet ofmixed-use development intended for the 700-acre tract. He reiterated his concern
~0 about an appropriate place for a truck stop in Orange County.
sl
S2 Strayhom asked what an appropriate use would be for the site at Chandler Concrete. Benedict said that an
53 appropriate use would be small office buildings or small retail uses.
23
1 5trayhorn asked where there could be a cement facility in the County. Benedict said that there were still two
2 EDDs in the County that allow those types of uses. Regarding the truck stop, there is a large grouping of
3 them in western Orange County and eastern Alamance County, The EDD Task f=orce thought that the two
4 entranceways on I-85 and I-40 were special, so they did not think that truck stops would be appropriate in
S that area.
6
7 Schofield asked several questions about Hampton Pointe and Benedict answered satisfactorily. Hampton
8 Pointe is solely in Hillsborough's jurisdiction and the area across the street is in Orange County's jurisdiction
9 and is being rezoned to limited office.
10
11 Schofield made reference to the rezoning in 3a and 3b and said that for a residential property owner not to be
12 able to add an additional bathroom to their home seems overly burdensome. He asked if there had been
l3 conversations about how to accommodate the residential property owners in a fair and just way. Benedict
14 said that there was a variance process with some criteria. An additional bathroom or bedroom would not
IS generate any additional intensity.
16
17 Schofield said that it does not seem proper. for someone to have to go the Board of Adjustment to argue for a
18 right that is naturally theirs already. Benedict said that the board could vote to include the lots or not include
19 them. The board could also ask the staff to address the non-conforming standards.
20
21 Allison would feel more comfortable asking the staff to reexamine the non-conforming standards.
22
23 Benedict said that changes to the regulations would have to go to public hearing. It would take at least six
24 months to implement the standards.
25
2b Selkirk asked if something could be done in the short term for the residents in this particular area. Benedict
27 will talk with the County Attorney about residential properties and their continuance.
28
29 Woods said that if Hillsborough approves Hampton Pointe, this plan gets blown out of the water.
30
3l Benedict stated that he needed to leave at this point to go to the Board of County Commissioners' meeting.
32
33 Lawson Brown, from Chandler Concrete, said that there was a small service station or retail establishment
34 across from Chandler Concrete and a fairly large mobile home park that was originally included in the
35 request. He said that he never got an answer about why this particular property was deleted from this
36 rezoning request. Benedict said that the graphic land use map included the area known as 3c, the mobile
37 home park, and the retail establishment. Some of the original maps indicated that 3c, the mobile home park,
38 and the retail establishment is noted as a transition area, which does not allow non-residential uses. Since it
39 was residential on the land use map, it could not be rezoned to office park. The staff will be suggesting next
40 month that area 3c should have a comprehensive plan change to take it from residential to non-residential.
41
42 Lawson Brown verified that if the building was destroyed by 59% or less, it could be rebuilt for the same
43 use. ~ ~ -
44
45 Scott Radway, a planning consultant, is on the EDD Task l;orce. He clarified some information about the
46 square footage and the amount of traffic in the EDD. He pointed out an area on the map that would have the
47 possibility of about 1.4 million square Feet ofnon-residential space and 600 housing units. He pointed out
48 another area that would have the possibility of 700,000 square feet ofnon-residential space. The Hampton
49 Pointe project will probably have 400,OD0-600,000 square feet of space. He said that there would not be,
50 within the next five to ten years, 6.6 million square feet ofnon-residential property. Amore realistic number
S 1 would be 2.5 million square feet. Regarding affordable housing, he said that the task force has been talking
52 about the political process and being able to address it irr the rezoning process. Chapel Hill has about three
53 or four projects with private developers committing I S% of their housing to affordable housing. He said that
24
the task force has been discussing the possibility of linkage fees for non-residential development to
contribute to affordable housing.
4 Lawson Brown pointed out the area occupied by Chandler Concrete on the map. There are 5.81 acres
5 including the part in the street right-of--way. There is also a substantial part that is in the railroad right-of-
6 way. This area could not be built on in the future. He said that there was a very narrow strip of land that has
7 been used for a concrete plant since 1973. Chandler Concrete has had the property for 15 years. He
8 introduced Tom Chandler, President and Ted Chandler, Vice President who were present to answer any
9 questions. He said that Chandler Concrete was not in the position to expand or to replace the facility. He
10 said that Chandler Concrete sees the rezoning as a taking away of their property rights. He said that it
11 appears that this rezoning is a fast track move on behalf of the Planning staff. He stil I does not understand
l2 the deletion of the residential area across the street from the rezoning. He said that Chandler Concrete could
l3 not be seen from NC 86 or the interstate and if the purpose of the rezoning was to beautify the entrance to
14 Hillsborough, then Chandler Concrete should be exempt.
IS
I6 Preston asked Davis about the current special use permit and if Chandler Concrete would be restricted from
17 expanding in the current situation. Davis said that a rezoning with a special use permit was different than a
18 regular special use permit. Existing now is a planned development zoning where the property was rezoned
19 and a special use permit was tied to the rezoning with conditions.
20 _
2l Lawson Brown said that he feels that the rezoning would jeopardize the current special use permit.
22
23 Freston said that Chandler Concrete was a good neighbor. She said that it would make sense to leave the
24 concrete plant out of the rezoning. She said that she understood that the high-speed rail would be going
25 through this area.
26
27 Schofield verified that the board could defer this to next month. This item-will go the Commissioners'
28 meeting on March 20`h, so there is time to consider this at the next Planning Board meeting.
29
30 Schofield said that he believes that it is the intention of Chandler Concrete that, given the existing use of the
31 property and the existing restrictions on the property via the special use permit, nothing that they are doing or
32 will do in the future will in any way be incompatible or inconsistent with the goals of Orange County with
33 the rezoning. He thinks Chandler Concrete should not be included in the rezoning because there is no net
34 gain or net loss. Lawson Brown concurred with this.
35
36 Woods asked, of the 46.8 acres, how many was Chandler Concrete. Lawson Brown said 5.81, of which
37 almost half is located in the railroad right-of--way.
38
39 Woods asked Tam Chandler what was done with the polluted water. Tom Chandler said that there were
40 three sediment ponds behind the fenced area to the east. The water goes through the sediment ponds and is
41 pumped back in to wash the trucks and put back into the concrete.
42
43 Woods asked if the State has cited Chandler Concrete with any violations of standards. Tom Chandler,
44 Chairman of Chandler Concrete, said that they have not been cited since 1986 when they expanded the plant
45 and got the additional property for the ponds.
46
47 Woods asked for the parcel identification numbers. Davis answered that the parcel identification number
48 was 9873-87-3644.
49
SO Strayhorn said that there was no financial impact associated with this and he does not agree with the
51 rezoning.
52
25
MOTION: 5trayhorn moved to deny the zoning atlas amendment of areas 3a and 3b.
Seconded by Allison.
4 Triebel said that he would like to focus on the ?4 people that work at Chandler Concrete and the impact on
5 their rights.
Woods said that he would like to take this parcel out and approve the rezoning. He would also like to pull
out the homeowner that is against the rezoning for her property.
l0 Davis said that if it was recommended to deny, it will go on to the Commissioners and the Planning Board
11 may not see it again.
l2
l3 Schofield said that there was an issue of fairness with Chandler Concrete and the homeowner because the
l4 Planning Board has interacted with them. He thinks the issue is the large tract of land across from Hampton
15 Pointe. He thinks it would be acting hastily to deny the entire rezoning.
16
17 Woods pointed out that Chandler Concrete was on the tail of the proposed area and could be taken out easily.
18
19 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Allison, Strayhorn, McAdams, Gooding-Ray); Noes, 5 (Preston,
20 Schofield, Triebel, Woods, Selkirk)
21
22
23 The motion failed.
z4
25 MOTION: Woods moved to approve the zoning atlas amendment, amending it to
26 exclude the 5.8 acres of Chandler Concrete, which is identified by PIN
27 number 9873-87-3644. Seconded by Preston.
28
29 Schofield made a friendly amendment to instruct the Planning Department to begin immediately the process
30 of reviewing the issue ofnon-conforming use that will affect the residential properties in the new zone, in an
31 effort to try to achieve some equity for the property owners. Woods concurred with the friendly amendment.
32 This was amended to say that the Planning Board would ask the Commissioners to consider a review of the
33 non-conforming uses Section of the ordinance.
34
35 Chair Gooding-Ray said that she was probably going to vote against this because she thinks it is wrong to
36 single out the one homeowner. She also has some problems with looking at 3a and 3b without looking at 3c,
37 which will come up later.
38 ~ ~ - .
39 Strayhorn said that he would vote for the motion because he has used the services of Chandler Concrete and
40 they have been good corporate citizens.
41
42 VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Preston, Schofield, Strayhorn, Woods, Selkirk, and Triebel); Noes,
43 3 (Allison, Gooding-Ray, and McAdams)
44
45 The motion passed and there was a brief break in the meeting.
46
47 AGENDA ITEM 10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 11/27/00
48
49 a. American Stone Company/OWASA Planned Development
so
51 1 a. Recommendation on Zoning Atlas Amendment
52 lb. Recommendation on Special Use Permit, Class A
53
D
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3l
32
33
34
35
3b
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
as
49
SO
S1
52
53
D~3L^~ff~
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
April 4, 2001E
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nicole Gooding-Ray (Chair), Craufurd Goodwin, Barry Katz, Howard
McAdams, Runyon Woods, Bob Strayhorn, Theodore Triebel, and Hunter
Schofield
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynn Holtkamp, Rachel Preston, James Selkirk.
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Craig Benedict, Joanna Bradshaw, Robert Davis, and
Eddie Kirk.
26
AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (Z/Z6/O1)
a. Hillsborough Area EDD Amendments
(1) ~CP-1-01 -Hillsborough Area Economic Development Activity
Node -Expansion of the I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development
Activity Node
(2) CP-2-O1 -Hillsborough Area Economic Development Activity
Node - Create a New Economic Development Activity Node in
the Vicinity of I-85 and NC 86
(3) Establishment of EDDSuh-districts and Development
Regulations
(4) Zoning Atlas Amendments
Benedict made this presentation. He said that the purpose of this item was to take any additional
testimony or public input that may have occurred between the public hearing and tonight. The close of
tonight's meeting formally closes the public hearing and no additional information can be provided by the
general public. The text amendments include areas A, 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 3c. He said that there has been
some additional editing of the abridged EDD design manual. He said that there were no changes being
suggested in the nonconforming uses. This item will be on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda
on April 17'h. He said that the Board of County Commissioners would most likely take the
recommendation from the Planning Board because the moratorium expires on April 18`h. He said that
there would be no more extension of the moratorium unless there are very critical circumstances. He said
that, in the past, developers would avoid Orange County's regulations and would prefer to follow
Hillsborough's guidelines. Under the new regulations, Hillsborough and Orange County's regulations
would be substantially the same in the Hillsborough EDD. He said that whatever proposals come
forward, there will be sensitivity to Beckett's Ridge and Stagecoach Run subdivisions.
Several clarifying.questions of the Flanning Board were answered satisfactorily by Benedict.
Chair Gooding-Ray asked if these amendments were creating a new world of opportunity for people to
come in and Benedict said yes, for anyone interested in non-residential development primarily in this
area: He said that Hillsborough was adopting similar regulations, if not the same.
Katz asked if there had been any discussion about Hillsborough annexing this land. Benedict said that
Hillsborough could, but they probably would not because, if properties are developed outside of town,
twice the water and sewer rates are paid. He said that this might be an overriding factor. However, if the
development is not in the Town, Hillsborough does not get the property tax.
Chair Gooding-Ray asked if the point of this was to raise money. Benedict said yes, this will be the
economic development core of the County because it has the best transportation routes of anywhere in the
County.
MOTION: Goodwin moved approval of the proposed amendment for expansion of
the Hillsborough Area EDD by adding Area 1 and Area 2. Seconded by
Woods. (Page 23)
Schofield reminded the board they approved the changes in Area 3a with the proviso that they would
actuagy allow the staff to come back and demonstrate a way where single-family homeowners in that area
would not be punished by the change. He does not want this to fall through the cracks.
VOTE: Unanimous
MOTION: Katz moved approval of the proposed amendment for expansion of the
Hillsborough Area EDD by adding Areas 3a, 3b, and 3c. Seconded by
Woods. (Page 49)
VOTE: Unanimous
MOTION: Katz moved to approve the Planning Staff recommendation of the
proposed text amendments regarding the proposed EDD subdistricts and
application requirements for the proposed Hillsborough Area EDD.
(Page 87)
VOTE: Ayes, 7; No, 1 (Chair Gooding-Ray -she does not want this to be the
only place in the County for non-residential development)
MOTION: Katz moved approval of the zoning atlas amendments on pages 113-117
(Area A (large part), Area A (SW quadrant), Area 1, Area 2, and
Area C). Seconded by Goodwin. ,
VOTE: Ayes, 7; No, 1 (Chair Goodin Ra
g- y -same reason as previous motions).