Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-19-1999 - 9dE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 19, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. 9,_j SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) N ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Applications 2) Vicinity and Site Maps 3) General Information Memorandum 4) Public Hearing Minutes . 5) Planning Board Minutes (Draft) 6) Article on Zoning Hearings INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley, 245-2584, X2584 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4601 Durham 688-7331 ,-Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider the request of Ernie McBroom to rezone his property in Cedar Grove Township from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS Agricultural Service. This application requires a legislative zoning decision. The public hearing is completed. All testimony offered in oral and written form is entered into the record and will be duly considered by the Commission. All written testimony is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners. There is no need for further testimony. BACKGROUND: Request That a 10.01 -acre tract be rezoned from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS Agricultural Service. Location The proposed zoning lot is accessed at 750± Sawmill Road West (Tax Map No 2.34..51), approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road (SR 1507). Existing and Proposed Conditions Existing: The existing property is a 10.01 a lot with access from the south side of Sawmill Road. The tract currently is fallow cropland. Zoning. • The property and all surrounding properties lie within Orange County's jurisdictim-rand are zoned AR(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural-Residential (Little River Protected Vvatershed) in accordance with the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. K • The minimum lot size is two acres. • Permitted uses include agricultural activities, single family dwellings, duplexes on twice the minimum lot size, and those uses which are supportive of residential development such as churches, fire stations, utilities, etc.' I • The NCIDOT 1995 average daily traffic count was 800 for Sawmill Road at the intersection of NC 86. Proposed: The proposed zoning lot meets the 2-acre minimum lot size. A 12 percent (12%) impervious surface limitation for non-residential uses in the watershed would be imposed. BMP (Best Management Practices) would not be allowed to satisfy watershed requirements. • The proposed zoning for the 10.01 a site is AS(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural Service (Little River Protected Watershed). • Minimum lot size is two acres. • Permitted use includes rural non-farm, non-residential development which supports the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of AR districts as listed in the attached General Information Memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners. Development Processes, Schedule, and Action Public Hearing August 23, 1999: The proposed zoning atlas amendment was referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 21, 1999. Please refer to the minutes of the public hearing attached to this abstract. First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: - The Planning Board considered the matter at its regular meeting of September 1, 1999. After considerable discussion and 4estimony from representatives of the community, the vote was 3 yeas and 3 nays. Therefore, the proposal is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with no recommendation. Please refer to minutes of the September 1, 1999, Planning Board meeting attached to this abstract. Final Action: The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed amendment until sixty days after the first date of the public hearing or until the Planning Board makes this recommendation, whichever comes first. In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint public hearing, and any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. New evidence which was not presented in writing to the Planning Board may not be considered by the Board of Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public hearing is reopened to receive said evidence, and the item is re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board for recommendation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board makes no recommendation. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends denial of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone 10.01 a of the Ernie McBroom property from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS Agricultural Service. • Not all uses permitted by right in the AS Agricultural Service Zoning District, as listed in the attached General Information Memorandum, are suitable for this location given the density of residential development that has taken place in the surrounding AR Agricultural-Residential District. NOTE: Amendments to the Zoning Atlas are legislative zoning decisions. Findings of fact are not required. For more information on zoning decision proceedings, please refer to the attached article beginning on page 20. The public hearing is completed. All testimony offered in oral and written form is entered into the record and will be duly considered by the Commission. All written testimony is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners and may be reviewed in that office. There is no need for further testimony. g:\jim\ cd 01 999.doc\1 0.5.99\1 0. 1 2.99\jrh '3 r ' 4 RANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROL.�Ltl�� APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT Date: TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning At Las of Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1. The property is located on the ,Sbu` side of S. R. 13'4r (�AVMij _VN0hD Street /Road) between APE. # and S.R.# IlTol It is known as Lat[s)�o Block — of Orange County Tax Map .34 eapAg -G- Pogg Township. It has a frontage of feet and a depth of -feet, and contains square feet or M.o\ acres. 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing. property be rezoned from 49- to A5 •3— The ..foLL-owing. information has been _attached ..in__ support of the app L i cation f r changing the Zoning At Las ('� - requ i red on a L L app Li cations] . *a. A fu(Ly dimensioned map st.a *cats of not Less than one (1) inch squats one— hundred (100) feet nor more then one (1) inch squats. - twent'y " T201 'feet- -showi'ngg•--the tend --which is proposed to be rezoned. °b. A LegaL description of the land proposed to be rezoned. *a. A statement of justification addressing one or more of the fo L Lowi ng (1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detai Led expLanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detai Led reasons how the proposed amendment wilt correct the error. (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generaLLy, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and generaL welfare. *131 The manner in which the proposed amendment witL carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use PLan or part thereof. *(4) ALl other circumstances, factors and reasons which the appLicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not Limited to, documentation from service agencies (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utiLities agencies) assuring services provision capabiLity to the development. d. A List of aLL individuals, firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (500) feet of the property sought for rezoning is attached. The list is current as of .(Data) 'I certify that aLL information :o the best of my know Ledge. k p p L i c a n .t ( s) : ��niti c� mm-'� k d d r e s s: 2(co(o .... 0��12� Uca N 'hone: 7Z3 2- -61713 furnished in this application is accurate a. L4. O rr 0 t-h r CL d m rt m r 03 0 m m m Il-6 U3 n 0 r?, rr rn 00 O r- > rr m rt 0 0 co %4 C: b w n a. x "0 t1i m 1-6 m pi 0 0 ED w E5 0 zi r) 0 t-h R 0 b CO G W rt N W rr r 0 m 0 0 EO C n ya (D el l 0 :3 0 0 rr rr U) rr H. oho m rt rIr rD to H Z. co �d 0 rD :rl- 5 0 cn 0 0 W ?1 0 n ?v r M ?CI CL CL 10 M m m 0 *z En 03 Z* ED (D rt (D 0 (D m rn M awo z D) CD ril )--3 0 rr rD M > 9) .4 rT 0 (D s M m CD :n cm rr 0 m rr m rn CL ry 0 t-h co m Il-6 U3 n 0 r?, rr rn 00 O r- 0 rr m 0 rt b cn 0 rT ::r m 0 IzI E5 vi r) 0 b CO PI fD 0 0 EO C n Id el l H. :3 0 0 rr rr En m 0 Z. r? rr m m 03 n rr ED (D m Il-6 U3 n 0 r?, rr rn 00 O r- 1,d rr 0 . 03 0 rT m Il-6 U3 n 0 r?, rr rn 00 O r- PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: JUSTIFICATION: 6 REZONING REGUEST ,U Lot E, "Division of Property of Ernie McBri shown on plat recorded in the Orange Count in Plat Book 83 page 101. 1. No error alleged. 2. The closing of private landfills and the decreasing capacity of the Orange County Landfill has increased the need for a site where landscape debris (stumps and tree limbs) can be processed and recycled. This use is appropriate for the rural areas of the County and would be allowed under an AS zoning designation. 3. This rezoning would locate a use supportive of horticultural and agricultural activities in an area convenient to the supported uses. 4. This site is located near NC 86, on a collector road, and would be readily accessible to emergency services. No need for other public services is anticipated given the location and limited uses allowed under this Zoning designation. O l /gyp 1510 1508 HA kKINS RD Ono= 1508' Q �( WE / yq{Y�N 1508 — S 7—ST OLIN r o j �• v isgs �O j� / LITTLE RIVER CHU. a ci WEST �3 zM 'm ap. /S44 1 ,--/ lfls ^ 5P M\ t5 A 01v RD 135.E Rp STORE m 8 RD. 1547 t Z% Z SCHLEY RDA WOO LODI I RD. 1 Oft ANC'E' 1323 . RD. UR w Z -3 -99 ERNIE MCBROOM REZONING REQUEST - -- GENERAL AREA " = 4,000' 1 N r- m 5t@ r mss \ \ \ '258.3 9 1 \ 1 { 1 J \ 1 1 1 / 10.16A I �{ I 1 . i .I I I 1 1 � 1 \ m 5t@ r mss \ \ \ '258.3 9 1 \ 1 { 1 J \ 1 1 1 / 10.16A BE, ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 `aaatF .1 R 92 Co. MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Planning and Inspections Staff DATE: October 5, 1999 SUBJECT: Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM REZONING APPLICATION The contents of this memorandum are about the request of Ernie McBroom to rezone his property on Sawmill Road in Cedar Grove Township from AR Agricultural- Residential to AS Agricultural Service. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: OWNER: Ernie McBroom, Sr. Ernie McBroom, Sr.. 2606 Miller Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 LOCATION: 750-+- Sawmill Road (Tax Map No. 2.34..51) PROPERTY SIZE: 10.01 acres PROPOSED ZONING LOT: 10.01 acres I EXISTING LAND USE: Open and wooded SURROUNDING LAND USE IN GENERAL AREA: Wooded, open and residential NORTH - Residential, wooded, and open WEST - Wooded and residential r ' SOUTH - Wooded and open EAST - Wooded and open 11 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners DATE: October 5, 1999 PAGE: Two TRAFFIC COUNT: The latest NCDOT average daily traffic count for Sawmill Road was . 800 taken in 1995 at the intersection of NC 86. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Agricultural-Residential (Little River Watershed) EXISTING ZONING: AR(LITTLE-P" — Agricultural-Residential (Little River Protected Watershed) zoned in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan REQUESTED ZONING: AS(LITTLE-P" — Agricultural Service (Little River Protected Watershed) AS DISTRICT DEFINITION, INTENT, AND PERMITTED USES: Sec. 4.2.24 AGRICULTURAL SERVICE (AS) DISTRICT DEFINITION Commercial, activities offering goods and services which support production of agricultural products or processing of those products to make them marketable. Examples include, but are not limited to, soil preparation, animal and farm management, landscaping and horticultural services, specialized commercial horticulture, specialized animal husbandry, biocide services, retail sales of farm /garden products, supplies and equipment, equipment rental and repair service, tack shop, farmer, blacksmith, welding shops, facilities for animal shows, animal sales and auctions, agriculture-based clubs /meeting halls, storage and processing plants for agricultural products including wineries and canneries. INTENT The purpose of the AS Agricultural Service District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR Agricultural-Residential districts. The AS district is usually applied where the following conditions exist. 1. The site is within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural-Residential, 2. Lot sizes for individual uses are appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal, and 3. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned AS at any location shall not exceed ten acres. 12 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners DATE: October 5, 1999 PAGE: Three PERMITTED USES Accessory Uses P2 Botanical, Gardens & Arboretums P4 * Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P10 Govemmental Protective Services (Police & Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P17C Stealth Telecommunication Towers - 75 Feet or Shorter* P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S2 Agricultural Service Uses S3 Animal Hospitals, Veterinarians SIO Farm Equipment and Sales S11 Feed, Seed, Storage and Processing S13 Greenhouses (No On premises Sales) S14 Greenhouses (On premises Sales) S18 Commercial Feeder Operation S19A Class / Kennels S48 Sawmills S49 Stockyards S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoors The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit.- P11 Land Fills (Two acres or more) P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub-stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants PI 7B Telecommunication Towers - 20C Feet or Taller The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit.- P12- Land Fills (Less than Two Acres) P17 Elevated Water Storage Tanks PI 7A Telecommunication Towers - 199 Feet or Shorter P22 Transmission Lines S20 Class // Kennels, Riding Stables 13 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners DATE: October 5, 1999 PAGE: Four SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to: • Accommodate the establishment of an agricultural service business permitted by the Zonin Ordinance; and • Implement the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th property as Agricultural-Residential. The property is zoned AR. This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities - (agriculture, forestry) are related to the land in an appropriate location for the continuation of thes uses. The proposed rezoning to AS, therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For development of the subject property, the following AS requirements would apply: • The lot width must be a minimum of 200 feet. The front building setback must, be a minimum of 50 feet; • Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet; o A 75- to 100 -foot Land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon the use proposed; and 0 The maximum impervious surface shall be no more than 12 percent, including all structural "footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted outside storage areas. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SCHEDULE, AND ACTION Public Hearing • No decision is made at this stage. o Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning atlas amendment request was referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no earlier than September 21, 1999. r— PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS The application for the rezoning of the tract from AR to AS has been reviewed by Planning Staff. Findings required by Article 20.3 Procedure for Submission and Consideration of Applications for Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance follow: 14 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners DATE: October 5, 1999 PAGE: —Five There was no error made with respect to the property when zoning was adopted for Cedar Grove Township on January 1, 1994. The property was zoned AR in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the property to AS would be compatible with the stipulations set forth for an Agricultural-Residential plan category use given in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan would not need to be amended to accommodate AS zoning. Seventeen uses are permitted by right in the AS district. Three require a Class A Special Use Permit with approval of the Board of County Commissioners, and five require a Class B Permit with approval of the Board of Adjustment. Any of these uses, either by right or by Special Use Permit, could be allowed on the proposed zoning lot. Permitted AS uses are listed above. Uses permitted in AS not permitted in AR Uses Permitted by Right. Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians; Farm Equipment Sales; Feed and Seed Storage. and Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. Please refer to the above list of Permitted Uses. Uses requiring a Class &SPecial Use Permit(SUP). All uses requiring a Class A SUP within an AS district are also permitted with a Class A SUP in the AR district. Please refer to the above list of -Uses Allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit. Uses A requiring a qIK!n9ClA§A_BS_peclal Use'Permit(SUP). All uses requiring a Class B SUP within an AS district are also permitted with a Class B SUP in the AR district. Please refer to the above list of Uses Allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit. g:\ jim\ zatlasamend \mcbroom \ccinfomemo \10.5.99\jrh C MOTION: Selkirk moved to accept the criteria as delineated by Planning Staff. Seconded by Strayhom. VOTE: Unanimous. DR A Fla (2) Z -03 -99 Ernie McBroom, Cedar Grove Township Presented by Jim Hinkley. PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment requested by Ernie McBroom for his property in Cedar Grove Township. BACKGROUND: Re nest That a 10.01 -acre tract be rezoned from AR Agricultural - Residential to AS Agricultural Service. 15 Location The proposed zoning lot is located at 750± Sawmill Road West (Tax Map No. 2.34..51), approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road (SR 1507). Existing and Proposed Conditions Existing: The existing property is a 10.01a flag lot with access on the south side of Sawmill - Road. The tract currently is fallow cropland. Zoning: • The property and all surrounding properties lie within Orange County's jurisdiction and are zoned AR(LITTLE -PW) Agricultural- Residential (Little River Protected Watershed) in accordance with the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • The minimum lot size is two acres. • Permitted uses include agricultural activities, single family dwellings, duplexes on twice the minimum lot size, and those uses which are supportive of residential development such as fire stations, churches, utilities, etc. • The NCDOT average daily traffic count was 800 for Sawmill Road taken in 1995 at the intersection of NC 86. Proposed: The proposed zoning lot meets the 2 -acre minimum lot size. A 12 percent (12 %) impervious surface limitation for non - residential uses in the watershed will be imposed. BMP (Best Management Practices) will not be allowed to satisfy watershed requirements. • The proposed zoning for the 10.01a site is AS(LITTLE -PW) Agricultural Service (Little River Protected Watershed). • Minimum lot size is two acres. • Permitted use includes ruraCnon -farm, non- residential development which supports the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of AR districts. 8 Development Processes. Schedule, and Action 16 ® Public Hearing August 23,1999: The public was heard and the proposed zoning atlas amendment was referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 21, 1999. Public comments can be seen in the copy of the draft minutes of the public hearing attached to this abstract. ® First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board has 75 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered as a favorable recommendation. ® Final Action: Board of County Commissioners will consider an amendment to-the Orange County Zoning Atlas no sooner than September 21, 1999. RECOMNMNDATIONS: . ' Zoning Officer Recommendation The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the rezoning. • The request complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. • The proposal meets all dimensional requirements. ® Permitted uses listed for the proposed AS district are appropriate to service the surrounding agricultural uses. Please refer to the attached Information Memorandum. Hinkley stated that the public hearing oral part is over for this particular item but the books are open for people to write letters. He distributed letters to the Board received from interested citizens (copies attached). He discussed the concerns raised at the public hearing. He noted that Mrs. Ralph Berry's issue of not being informed of the meeting was legitimate. He stated that this was an error on the part of the staff because the land was shown on a different tax map. He noted that staff recommendations are noted above. McAdams stated that since Mrs. Berry was not notified, if she decides to bring this up to the court system, it could invalidate the Planning Board's findings. Benedict responded that there is a potential to that but that Mrs. Berry did have the opportunity to participate in the public hearing. Mrs. Berry stated that the apology letter she received, which said that everyone was notified, was also illegal. Selkirk asked again about what type of use will be on the rezoned property. Hinkley stated that the use can be discussed and if the property were rezoned it would be in no way bound to the use that was discussed. It would be bound to the uses that are permitted in the district, those by right and by Class A and Class B Special Use Permits. Bill Harrington, a member of the community, asked at what point the definition of the uses of the Agricultural Service zoning can be contested. Hinkley responded that it can be contested before the Board of County Commissioners in requesting them to consider changes in the list of uses that are permitted or to change the zoning text. Harrington stated that he thinks that the proposed use is not appropriate for the district. He stated that this is an industrial use and what has been proposed is not at all conducive to an agricultural environment. 9 Jim McCallum questioned one of the requirements for an AS district which states that frontage 17 shall be a minimum of 200 feet. Hinkley responded that he should have used the term lot width, shall be a minimum of 200 feet, and not frontage. Mrs. Berry expressed concern that there will be a lot of traffic at her yard. An unidentified lady stated that there is a family near Quiet Acres with newborn twins and an eight year old who will be strongly impacted by the noise and safety issues. She also expressed concern with the school buses. Robin Clark stated that there are over 83 houses with driveways on Sawmill Road. She stated that according to OSHA, the decibel level for the type of equipment required for a landscape recycling operation would be above what is considered harmful to the human ear which is 100- 110 decibels. She stated that this would give the residents nearby a constant sound which would be equivalent to a string trimmer or leaf blower. Allison asked what are the dimensions of the lot. Yuhasz responded approximately 350 feet across. Allison also asked about buffer requirements. Hinkley responded that for a use such as this next to a residential use is 100 feet around the property. Strayhorn asked about noise requirements. Hinkley stated that within certain districts there are regulations on noise but AS is not listed as one of those districts. The districts that are listed are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Community Commercial, Existing Commercial, Industrial 11 and Industrial III. He further stated that the Noise Ordinance is enforced by the Sheriff s Department. McBroom provided a brochure on the noise level for grinding. Hinkley corrected his previous statement and stated that noise levels for AS districts are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that if an AS district is next to a residential district then there are decibel limits during certain hours of the day. During the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the noise limit is listed at 45, for commercial 60 and for industrial 70.. He stated that during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for an AS district next to a residential district the decibel value would be 50. The Board went through each of the following findings of fact: 10 Katz asked how many school children or buses are on the road. The response was there are 83 houses but not sure of the number of kids or buses. 18 MOTION: Katz moved to reject the classification change. Seconded by Selkirk. VOTE: 3 in favor (Barrows, Katz, Selkirk) 3 opposed (Allison, McAdams, Strayhorn) MOTION: McAdams moved approval. Seconded by Allison. VOTE: 3 in favor (Allison, McAdams, Strayhorn) 3 opposed (Barrows, Katz, Selkirk) Benedict stated that the vote results in a neutral recommendation. Barrows stated that this item will go before the Board Commissioners on September 21, 1999. b. Text Amendments Related to Watershed Protection Measures in Cane Creek (November 23,1999 Public Hearing) (1) Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (a) Article VI, Section 6.23 Extra Requirements in Cane Creek Watershed (b) Article 22 Definitions (2) Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations (a) Section IV -B-10 Flexible Development Presented by Craig Benedict. PURPOSE: To prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners concerning proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new development standards for Cane Creek watersheds. BACKGROUND: Re uest Amendments, resulting from a three -year study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), propose changes to Article 22 (Definitions) and Article VI, Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV -11-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes incorporate subsequent recommendations made in October, 1997, by the OWASA Board of Directors. Location The proposed amendments will affect future development within the Cane Creek watershed Existing and Proposed Conditions Existing: ® Maximum density: 1 du/2 acres. ® 33% open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions using the conservation or cluster option (conservation - cluster). Proposed: Maximum density: 1 du/ five acres; Lots of record existing on date C of adoption may contain up to, but no more than, five lots as small as two acres in size. Overall density of 1 du/2 acres allowed in flexible developments using the conservation or cluster (conservation - cluster) options provided 50% of total area is reserved as open space. 11 Oct 08 99 10:43a Huck Tredwa!d (919) 644 -0246 19 2 Planning Director Craig Benedict spoke about site plan regulations, which he feels should adequately address some of the concerns of nearby residents. Karen Lincoln addressed the issue of kcnncis already being allowed in the AR district. (3) Audience Comments: None. A rnuliun was made by Commissioner Halklotts, seconded by Commissioner .Jacobs to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 21, 1999. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Z -03 -99 Ernie McBroom, Cedar Grove Township Planner Jim Hinkley made the presentation, stating that much of what he said about the first rezoning request is relevant to this request. Commissioner Brown requested more information on the property. Mr. Hinkley stated that the property 1s cleared, with access to the north and west, as well as other venues, with subdivisions nearby. There are low -lying wetlands and unusable portions of this property: Planning Board Member Barry Katz asked about the residences in place there now. (1) Audience Comments; Charity Smith, 1015 Saw Mill Road, stated that residents did not want to see their neighborhood turned Into a city. 'She suggested landscaping and recycling. Robin Clark, 003 Saw Mill Road, asked about the amount of land to be rezoned. Margaret Barry, 800 Saw Mill Road, stated that she lives across from this proposed rezoning and that she would not like to see anything change this residential area. She further stated that neighbors are concerned as to what will be placed on the property. Robin Clark asked as to what type of notification for the rezoning had been given. Planner Jim Hinkley stated that everyone who resided within 500 feet of the rezoning area was notified. Planning Director Craig Benedict verified this procedure. Margaret Barry stated that she did not receive a letter and a follow -up is to be conducted.to ascertain why she did not receive notification. A motion was made by Commissioner Halklotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 21. 1999. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. I Orange County Zoning Ordinanr„ p TAXt Amendments a. ' Amendments Related to Child Care Facility Provisions (1) Article 4, Section 4.3 Permitted Use Table; (2) Article 6, Section 6.27 Large Day Care Homes; (3) Article 8, Section 8.8.16 Day Care Facility; (4) . Article 22 Definitions. Planner'Jim Hinkley presented these text amendments. Commissioner Jacobs had several questions as to the amendments. Manager Link asked Planner Hinkley to consult with Marti Pryor -Cook and ensure the language is consistent and correct. Planning Board Member Onie Lea also had questions as to the amendments. Planning Board Member Karen Barrows questioned what the terminology was for someone who Is taken care of less than four (4) hours per day. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill spoke regarding the definitions of daycare. Planning Board Member Howard McAdams asked how many nonconforming day care centers we would have if these regulations were approved. Planner Hinkley stated that those day care centers are certified by the state, so there would be none. Popular Gov6rnment Spring 1993 http://ncinfo-iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.ht'm Zoning Hearings: 25 Knowing Which Rules to Apply David W. Owens This material is copyrighted by the Institute of Government. Anyform of copyingfor other than the individual user's personal reference without express permission of the Institute of Government is prohibited Further distribution of this material is strictly forbidden, including but not limited to, posting, e-mailing, faxing, archiving in apubfic database, redistributing via a computer network or in a printed form. Armed with petitions, lapel pins, and lawyers, 200 agitated citizens crowd into the courthouse to voice their objection to a proposed rezoning. They have been writing and calling the county commissioners ever since the notice of the hearing appeared in the local paper a few weeks ago. How should this hearing be conducted? Must everyone be allowed to speak for as long as he or she wants? May the board consider the strong personal opinions it is about to hear? Wh at about the petitions and the calls the commissioners got last week? If the board decides on a compromise that gives petitioners only part of what they want, is another hearing required? When it comes time to make a decision, does the board have to justify its conclusion? Consider another situation. On the same night, a few miles away, a city council is holding a hearing on a special-use permit application for a controversial project. This hearing room is also packed with angry neighbors, and the council members have to struggle with most of the same questions, plus a few more. Does everyone who speaks need to be under oath? Does there have to be a transcript of the hearing? Since the city's zoning ordinance calls for this decision to be made by the city council instead of a board of adjustment, can informal procedures be used? The answers are different in these two situations. They illustrate the two different types.of zoning hearings, which have different purposes and rules of conduct. Because both types are commonly called "public hearings," the difference is confusing to those attending as well as those, conducting the hearings. Zoning decisions can profoundly affect landowners, neighbors, and the entire community--often with a significant impact on property values, the character of neighborhoods, and even the future quality of community life--so the law imposes special requirements to assure the opportunity for full and open discussion of proposed zoning decisions. These requirements go well beyond what is required for most other city and county ordinances. This article distinguishes the two main types of zoning hearings and lays out the ground rules for how each should be conducted.w Types of Zoning Decisions Local governments are called upon to make myriad zoning decisions, ranging from a planning board's decision to recommend adoption of an initial zoning ordinance to a zoning enforcement officer's decision to issue a notice of violation when the terms of the ordinance have not been followed. Two . types of zoning decisions--legislative and quasi-judicialM--require formal public hearings. Legislative zoning decisions affect the entire community by setting general policies applicable ough the zoning ordinance. They include decisions to adopt, amend, or repeal the zoning ordinance (including the zoning map). Quasi-judicial decisions involve the application of zoning policies already established in the ordinance to individual situations--for example, variances special -'and conditional-use permits (even if issued by the: governing board), appeals, and interpretations. OuasiJudicial decisions J 26 Popular Government Spring 1993 http: / /ncinfo. iog.unc.edu /planning/pgsp93.htrn involve two key elements: the finding of facts regarding the specific proposal and the exercise of some discretion in applying predetermined policies to the situation. Advisory zoning decisions, such as review of a rezoning petition by a county planning board, do not require a formal hearing. Nor do administrative decisions, such as staff issuance of permits for permitted uses, initial ordinance interpretations, and initiation of enforcement actions. Types of Proceedings Government uses two different types of proceedings to formally obtain comment on proposed zoning decisions: legislative hearings and evidentiary hearings. Legislative hearings are sessions mandated by statute or ordinance to secure citizens' comments on a specific policy proposal. Legislative hearings must be conducted in a fair, orderly manner so as to allow citizen opinion to be expressed directly to those making zoning policy decisions. Evidentiary hearings are an even more formal means of gathering evidence before a decision is made in the application of a zoning ordinance to an individual situation. These hearings are much like a court proceeding -- witnesses present testimony, exhibits are submitted, detailed minutes are kept, and a formal written decision is rendered. Legislative hearings are required for legislative zoning decisions, while evidentiary hearings are required for quasi-judicial zoning decisions. Both types of hearings are open to the public and are intended to solicit comments, but they have different standards for the notice required prior to the hearing, as well as for who can speak, what issues are appropriately raised, the formality with which the hearing must be conducted, and the records that must be maintained. Why Are There Different Rules? Matters certainly would be simpler if there were just one generic "zoning hearing" that could be used whenever a city or county was required to hold a public hearing on a rezoning, a special-use permit, or a variance. Local officials could learn one set of rules and follow them for all zoning hearings. But that is not the way things work, and there are good reasons that different requirements must be followed for different types of zoning hearings. Because legislative zoning decisions such as a rezoning have such widespread impact, the state statutes authorizing local government zoning require broad public notice of the proposed decision. The policy choices in a zoning ordinance affect landowners, neighbors, business and industry, and all citizens concerned about the future character of the community. The statutes encourage full public discussion and deliberation before these decisions are made and leave substantial discretion in the hands of local elected officials regarding what these public policies should be. In quasi-judicial zoning decisions (such as a variance petition), on the other hand, while the hearing and deliberation must be open to the general public, the focus is on gathering relevant evidence and protecting the rights of the specific parties before the board. No new policies affecting the entire community are being created, so there is no need to-broadly solicit public opinion. But since the rights of the parties are being determined, the courts have imposed fairly strict requirements to assure an impartial decision based solely on legitimately acquired and considered evidence. The courts further require a clear rationale for the decision, because any appeal of the local board's decision to superior court will not result in a new hearing on the facts - -the courts must use the record developed before the local board. An expeditious judicial review ensures that these required protections of individual rights have been observed. These different types of considerations result in different statutory and constitutional due process requirements for the various types of zoning decisions. The purpose of a hearing on a legislative zoning decision is to gather public opinion; the purpose of a hearing on a quasi-judicial zoning decision is to gather evidence. Therefore different types of notice are required, and different types of hearings are conducted. (See Table 1 for a summary of differences between. legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions.) Popular Government Spring 1993 http:// ncinfo. iog.unc.edu/planningipgsp93.htm g.unc.edU/planning/pgsp93.htrn When to Apply Both Sets of Rules Local governments imposing special- or conditional-use district zoning must be especially attentive to these differences, because such district involves simultaneous application of a legislative zoning decision (the rezoning to a new zoning = with no permitted uses, only special uses) and a quasi-judicial zoning decision (the decision on the special-use permit for a particular project). Therefore both types of hearings are required, and the local government must exercise particular care in observing whichever rules apply to each stage of its decision making. Rules for Zoning Hearings Informal Public Meetings A local government may decide that it is advisable to hold informal public meetings on zoning issues prior to conducting the required legislative or evidentiary hearing. These may be held for a variety of purposes: to gather public opinion prior to an update of the zoning ordinance or the land-use plan, to discuss potential policy changes, to explain a new provision of the ordinance or to discuss a particularly controversial projector policy. They. maybe conducted, by the governing board, the planning board, staff, or a neighborhood advisory group. An informal public meeting is just that. It is not a formal hearing; it is not mandated by statute. While it needs to be conducted in a fair and reasonable manner, it is not subject to the legal restrictions that apply to the legislative and evidentiary hearings discussed below.M So the local government is free to set whatever reasonable ground rules it chooses for publicizing and conducting these public meetings. Legislative Hearings As mentioned above, state statutes and court decisions have established some detailed rules for hearings on legislative zoning decisions, which must be followed whenever a zoning ordinance is adopted, amended; or repealed. The requirements for notice of the hearing, its speakers, the information presented, and when an additional hearing is required are set out below. Requirements for a Hearing Since its adoption in 1923, North Carolina's zoning enabling statute has mandated a formal public hearing prior to the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance, as well as prior to repeal of zoning. [4l This hearing must be held by the govemig board; a hearing by the planning board alone is not sufficient. r5l The hearing may be conducted as part of the governing board's regular meeting or it may be held as a special meeting at a separate time and place. The planning board may also hold formal public hearings, but it is no longer required by state law to do so.0 Newspaper Notice A local government must publish notice of the governing board's required public I hearing on the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a zoning ordinance. G.S. 160A-364 for cities and G.S. 153A-323 for counties require that the notice be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the community once a week for two successive calendar weeks with the flist notice being published not less than ten nor more than twenty-five days prior to the hearing. The advertisement is usually run as a legal ad in the classified section of the newspaper, but some local governments purchase larger display ads to provide more prominent notice. While news stories about forthcoming zoning hearings are also common, they cannot take the place of the formal advertisement. Likewise, publication in a (-homeowners t association newsletter or other informal publication is permissible but may not substitute for newspaper publication. State statutes do not require posting of a sip on the site of a proposed rezoning, although a number of zoning ordinances add that requirement. The published notice must be sufficiently detailed to allow a citizen to determine what is I being proposed and whether he or she would be affected. M This does not mean that it must contain a legal description Popular Government Spring 1993 4.1 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm of the property affected, r8l nor that the text of the proposed ordinance be published. r9l But enough detail must be printed to let a person know the nature of the zoning change being proposed and to clearly describe the property involved (for example, by giving the street address). Just listing the ordinance number with the date and time of the hearing will not suffice; the court of appeals held such a notice to be inadequate. By reading the notice, even the most diligent owner of property . . . would have no reasonable cause to suspect that his property might be affected by the City's contemplated amendment to its ordinance. To be adequate, the notice of public hearing required by G.S. 160A-364 must fairly and sufficiently apprise those whose rights may be affected of the nature and character of the action proposed. F 101 Individual Mailed Notice In 1985 the General Assembly amended G.S. 153A­343 and 160A-384 to require individual mailed notice to those parties most directly affected by certain legislative zoning decisions: "zoning classification actions." In 1987 this provision was amended to exempt the total rezoning of an entire community from the mailed-no ' tice requirement. This exemption was itself modified in 1990 to require mailed notice in total rezonings if the rezoning involves olves "down zoning" or zoning to a less intense use. rl 11 (See Table 2.) Most aspects of the mailed-notice requirement are clear. The notice should include the same information contained in the published notice, should advise persons of the proposed zoning change, and should be mailed in time for receipt a reasonable time before the hearing. The mailed notice need only be made by first-class mail. It does not have to be registered or return-receipt mail. Some zoning ordinances go beyond this to require certified mail, and some zoning offices do so as- a matter of office policy, but that is not required by statute. Also, the notice is to be mailed to the owners as identified by the county tax records; an updated title search is not required. If there are no tax maps available for the area, the mailed-notice requirement does not apply. 12 All rezonings that amend zoning district boundaries require mailed notice. In general, it is also required for the application of new overlay zones, the application of zoning to new extraterritorial areas, and the initial adoption of zoning. Mailed notice usually is not required for most routine zoning text changes, since they do not affect the basic zoning classification of property. 13 The.mailed notice also must be sent to all "abutting" property owners. As a matter of practice, some cities send a mailed notice to all who would qualify to sign a -protest petition whether or not they have technically abutting parcels of land. This generally includes the owners of both the property being rezoned and the property within 100 feet (excluding abutting'rights-of-way) of that property. The statute does not require the local government to do the mailing if it is not initiating the rezoning.. Several zoning ordinances place much of the administrative and cost burden on the party requesting a rezoning, by requiring that person to provide a certificate that the mailing was done or to provide stamped, addressed envelopes to the local government to deposit in the mail. Many other local governments require that a list of those to be mailed notices be provided as part of any petition for a rezoning. The mailed-notice requirement has been subject to more modification by local legislation than any other mandated zoning procedure. Given the high cost of individual mailings when a substantial rezoning is proposed, eighty-five local governments have sought and received legislative relief. The most common modification has been to substitute publication once a week for four weeks of a large display advertisement in a local Awspaper in lieu of mailed notices. r 141 Speakers and ivid'ence Public hearings on legislative zoning decisions must be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, but the formalities of an evidentiary hearing--oaths, exhibits, cross-examinations, avoiding gathering evidence 29 Popular Government Spring 1993 http: // ncinfo. iog.unc.edu /planning/pgsp93.htm outside of the hearing, and the like - -need not be observed. After all, with these hearings the governing board is receiving comments, not hearing evidence. The general statutory guidance for legislative public hearings is G.S. 160A -81 for cities and G.S. 153A -52 for counties. The statutes allow the governing board to adopt reasonable rules governing the conduct of the public hearing, including but not limited to rules (i) fixing the maximum time allotted to each speaker, (ii) providing for the designation of spokesmen for groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions, (iii) providing for the selection of delegates from groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions when the number of persons wishing to attend the hearing exceeds the capacity of the hall, and (iv) providing for the maintenance of order and decorum in the conduct of the hearing. Therefore reasonable rules can be established to limit the number of speakers and the amount of time each speaker is given, provided that the hearing is conducted in a fair and reasonable fashion.' An example is provided in Freeland v. Orange County, 15 in which 500 citizens attended the required public hearing on the adoption of zoning for the Chapel Hill township. The chair allotted one hour each to the proponents and opponents of the zoning ordinance, with each side also having fifteen minutes for rebuttal. Some sixteen proponents and fifteen opponents were heard. By a show of hands, it appeared that those at the hearing were opposed to the adoption of zoning by a four -to -one ratio. About 200 persons indicated that they wished to speak but were not allowed to because of the time limitation. The court upheld this procedure, ruling that the legislative intent was to mandate a hearing and provide a "fair opportunity" for those in attendance to present their views. The governing board is allowed, however, to establish an "orderly procedure" for the hearing, as "[t]he General Assembly did not contemplate that all persons entertaining the same views would have an unqualified right to iterate and reiterate these views in endless repetition. "jl Given that the purpose of a legislative hearing is to broadly solicit public opinion, there is no problem with receiving petitions, hearing personal opinions, or with board members' talking to members of the public about the issue prior to the hearing. This is an important distinction between a legislative hearing and an evidentiary hearing. Also, unlike evidentiary hearings, no written findings of fact or explanation of the decision is required. Additional Hearings A question frequently arises as'to whether readvertisement and rehearing are required if changes are made in the proposed ordinance at or after the hearing. The general .rule is that an additional hearing is required only if there are substantial changes in the proposal after the initial notice. A.1971 case, Heaton v. City of Charlotte, set the standard for determining whether an additional hearing is required. The court held: Ordinarily, if the ordinance or amendment as finally adopted- contains alterations substantially different (amounting to a new proposal) from those originally advertised and heard, there must be additional notice and opportunity for additional hearing. However, no further notice or hearing is required after a properly advertised and properly conducted public hearing when the alteration of the initial proposal is insubstantial. Alteration of the initial proposal will not be deemed substantial when it results in changes favorable to the complaining parties. Moreover, additional notice and public hearing ordinarily will not be required when the initial notice is broad enough to indicate the possibility of substantial change and substantial changes are made of the same r" fundamental character as contained in the notice, such, changes resulting from objections, debate and discussion at the properly noticed initial hearing: r 17 In this instance, the court noted that the notice was broad enough to indicate that changes might be made, the changes were consistent with the fundamental character of the noticed proposal, and the changes were made as a result of comments received at the hearing. This led the court to conclude that an additional hearing "could have resulted only in repetitive statements by the same parties or parties Popular Goverment Spring 1993 30 http : // ncinfo. iog.unc.edu /plann ing/pgsp93.htm similarly situated.... The very purpose of the public hearing was to guide the City Council in making changes in the original proposal consistent with the views reflected at the public hearing. This is exactly what was done." rl 8 So, if in response to comments raised at the hearing the city council rezones less land than was requested or rezones it to a less intense category, a new hearing generally is not required. Occasionally lengthy legislative zoning hearings are recessed and continued at a subsequent meeting. In this situation no additional public notice is required. G.S. 153A -52 and 160A -81, the general provisions on public hearings, specifically allow hearings to be continued without further advertisement. r 19 Many zoning ordinances limit additional hearings after a decision is made on a rezoning proposal by establishing a minimum waiting period between consideration of rezoning proposals. A typical provision would be that once a rezoning petition has been considered for a particular parcel, no additional rezoning petitions will be considered for a set period, most frequently six or twelve months. These mandatory waiting periods have been upheld by the courts. 20 (Evidentiary Hearings It is important to remember the purpose of evidentiary zoning hearings. Unlike legislative hearings, they are not designed to solicit broad public opinion about how the board should vote on the matter before it. Rather, they provide an opportunity for the board to gather the facts it needs to apply policies already set.. in the ordinance. Therefore, while the notice requirements are not as broad, the standards on gathering evidence are much more strict than they are for legislative hearings. Requirements for a Hearing Quasi-judicial zoning decisions arise in -those situations where the decision maker must investigate facts, draw conclusions from them, and exercise some element of discretion in applying standards that previously have been set in the zoning ordinance to a specific situation. This includes decisions on variances, special- and conditional -use permits, and appeals of administrative determinations. These decisions may be made by the governing board, the board of adjustment, or the planning board, depending upon how the individual zoning ordinance involved is structured. The courts have held that the constitutional requirements of due process mandate that all fair trial standards be observed when quasi-judicial zoning decisions are made, no matter which local board is making the decision. This includes an evidentiary hearing with the right of the parties to offer evidence, cross - examine adverse witnesses, inspect documents, have sworn testimony, have the decision based only on evidence that is properly in the hearing record, and have'written findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence. r2 1 Notice of Hearings The notice requirements for an evidentiary zoning hearing are narrower than those for a legislative rezoning hearing. The purpose of the notice for these evidentiary hearings is not to let the entire community know about a proposed policy being debated but to alert those most directly affected about an opportunity to present relevant facts to those who are applying a policy already set in the ordinance. This is true even though there may be broad public interest in the outcome of the decision. Still, the constitutional guarantees of due process must always be observed: the parties to the matter must be given reasonable notice of the hearing. Thus an individual mailed notice to the applicant and any affected party who has requested notice must be provided. It is also a good idea to provide individual mailed notice to adjacent property owners, even though it may not be legally required. I�owever, the detailed newspaper notice and individual mailed -notice provisions in the zoning enabling statute do not apply to evidentiary hearings for quasi-judicial zoning decisions. Some local governments have voluntarily put these same requirements into their zoning ordinances for evidentiary hearings, and once in the ordinance those notice requirements are binding. Popular Government Spring 1993 Speakers and Evidence http:// ncinfo. iog.unc.edu /planning/pgsp93.htm The principal difference between legislative and evidentiary hearings arises in how speakers and evidence are handled. Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to carefully gather relevant facts to aid in decision making, restrictions on what can be heard and how it can be heard are applied to these hearings. These standards apply to any board making a quasi-judicial zoning decision, even the governing board. This places a particular burden on city councils and county boards of commissioners, which are usually more accustomed to conducting less formal hearings on legislative matters. In the leading case on this subject, Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, which involved the denial of a special -use permit for a gas station by the governing board in Chapel Hill, Justice Susie Sharp set forth the key requirements for an evidentiary zoning hearing: Notwithstanding the latitude allowed municipal boards, ... a zoning board of adjustment, or a board of aldermen conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, can dispense with no essential element of a fair trial: (1) The party whose rights are being determined must be given the opportunity to offer evidence, cross - examine adverse witnesses, inspect documents, and offer evidence in explanation and rebuttal; (2) absent stipulations or waiver such a board may not base findings as to the existence or nonexistence of crucial,facts upon unswom statements; and (3) crucial findings of fact which are "unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted" cannot stand. 22 If critical factual findings in a quasi-judicial zoning matter are based on unworn testimony or hearsay evidence, the decision may be overturned by the courts and the matter sent back for a new hearing.1231 If all the parties agree, however, the right to have witnesses under oath may be waived. r241 A question arises occasionally as to whether attorneys need to be under oath when making a presentation in an evidentiary hearing. If the attorney is just summarizing evidence presented by others and making legal arguments for his or her client, there is no need to be under oath. On the other hand, if the attorney is offering evidence directly, he or she would need to be sworn. like any other witness. The court tolerates but strongly discourages an attorney from serving both as a witness and an advocate in the same case. 25 Likewise, if the city or county staff is presenting evidence to the board in an evidentiary hearing, they should also be under oath. Oaths for witnesses testifying at these evidentiary hearings may be administered by the chair of the board or any notary. 26 Witnesses may affirm rather than swear. All individuals likely to testify can be administered the oath together at the beginning of the hearing in order to expedite matters. If this is done, each witness should be reminded of the oath at the outset of his or her testimony. Additional rules apply to assure that evidentiary hearings are conducted fairly. All of the parties to an evidentiary hearing have a right to know all of the evidence being considered by the board. Therefore it is improper for a board member to discuss the case or to individually gather evidence outside the hearing. If a board member has prior or specialized knowledge about a case, that should be disclosed to the rest of the board and the parties during -the heaxing.LZ71 Also, it is inappropriate in an evidentiary hearing to consider nonexpert personal opinions or hearsay testimony. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the board making the decision must adopt written findings of the facts upon which it is basing its decision. This contrasts with legislative zoning decisions, where no findings are required- -those decisions are left to the sound discretion of the governing board, and the board is not required to explain why it made a particular decision. But since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to produce well - documented evidence to support a decision, the parties are entitled to know what the board concluded are the facts. Any judicial review of the decision is based on the facts as determined by the board making the decision, so the courts also need to know what the board concluded. This is done by requiring written findings of fact. Since any subsequent judicial review is based on the record established in this hearing, it is important to keep detailed records of evidentiary hearings. Sound recording or a verbatim transcript of these hearings Popular Government Spring 1993 32 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm is not required. r281 Many boards do make audio tapes of these hearings in case a transcript is later desired. However, handwritten records and detailed summary of the testimony received are acceptable. Special care should be taken to ensure that the clerk to the board retains exclusive custody of any exhibits presented. The exhibits and record of testimony should be retained for at least the period within which a judicial challenge can be filed--thirty days after notice of the decision is filed and communicated to the parties--and the matter resolved. Additional Hearings With quasi-judicial land-use decisions, such as variance requests and special-use permits, the doctrine of res judicata applies, and a board may not reopen and rehear a case previously decided. 12J9 There is an exception if there is some material change in conditions, such as a new road being constructed at the site, additional development near the site over time, and the like. 30 Also, appeals of quasi-judicial zoning decisions go directly to the courts. It is not appropriate to seek a second evidentiary hearing before a different local board, such as appealing.a board of adjustment decision to the governing board. Conclusion Zoning hearings can be controversial, emotional, and confusing. Often the stakes are high for everyone involved. It is therefore important that these hearings be conducted in a fair and lawful manner. This requires that the local government body responsible for the hearing always keep in mind what type of zoning decision is involved, what type of hearing is required for that type of decision, and what the ground rules for that hearing are. B 11 It is also important that this information be communicated clearly to the participants in the hearing. Landowners, neighbors, and citizens need to understand what these rules are and why they exist-in order to participate effectively in zoning decisions. Each zoning hearing should open with a brief explanation of the rules that must be followed and their purpose. A written summary of the hearing ground* rules can also be provided in advance to the parties to the hearing. There will never be complete agreement on how zoning decisions should come out, and there will always be rooms full of people eager to make their strong opinions known to the boards making these decisions. However, the boards' being mindful of the standards for conducting zoning hearings fairly and clearly communicating these standards to all involved will help make zoning hearings more understandable, more efficient, and fair for all concerned. Addendum After this article was published, the 1993 General Assembly adopted amendments to G.S. 153A-343 and 160A -384 regarding individual mailed notices (1993 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 799). This statute repealed all of the local laws providing exemptions for mailed notices of proposed zoning classification changes, including nine additional exemptions that had been adopted earlier in the 1993 session. This new statute is effective January 1, 1994 (effective January 1, 1995, for Forsyth County and its municipalities). Local governments have the option of moving up this effective date to any time after July 23, 1993, simply by adopting an ordinance setting forth the earlier date. The new statute creates five exceptions to the requirement of sending an individual first-class mailed notice when a zoning classification action is proposed. The five exceptions are: 1,-+. a total rezoning of all property within a city or within a zoned area of a county, unless the C rezoning is to a less intensive category; 2. 2. an initial zoning of an entire zoning jurisdiction area; 3. 3. a zoning classification action that directly affects more than fifty properties, with at least fifty different property owners; 4; 4. a reclassification that is a zoning text amendment; or Popular Government Spring 1993 33 http://ncinfo-iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.h'tm 5. 5. a zoning classification done as Part Of adopting a mandated water-supply watershed protection program. Where these five exceptions apply, a substitute notice is required in lieu of the individual mailed notice. The substitute notice consists of both publication of a half-page newspaper advertisement for four successive weeks and the posting of a prominent sign at the site of the proposed rezoning. Also, individual mailed notice still has to be provided to those affected landowners who reside outside the newspaper's circulation area. Also, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in County of Lancaster v. Mecklenburg County, N.C. , 1993 N.C. LEMS 403 (Sept. 10, 1993), after this article was published. In this case the court reaffirmed that evidentiary hearings are required for quasi-judicial zoning decisions. The court emphasized that it is the nature of the type of decision--ratfier than what it is called in the ordinance or who makes it--that controls whether this more formal decision-making process is required. Those zoning decisions that involve findings of fact and application of discretion (typically special- and conditional-use permits, variances, and appeals of administrative decisions) are quasi-judicial. The court in this case also addressed the standard for avoiding conflicts of interest in zoning decisions. The court held that with legislative zoning decisions' "where there is a specific, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on a-member, nonparticipation is required. Additional considerations beyond these financial interests require nonparticipation in quasi-judicial zoning decisions. A fixed opinion that is not susceptible to change may well constitute impenhissible bias, as will undisclosed ex parte communication or a close familial or business relationship with the applicant-,' Id. at Table I Key Differences between Legislative and Evidentiary Zoning Hearings Legislative Evidentiary Notice of Hearings Both newspaper notice and mailed notice to owners and neighbors are Only notice to parties to the matter is required required. unless -ordinance mandates otherwise. Sparin eskers at He gs Number of speakers, time for speakers can be reasonably Witnesses presenting testimony can be limited limited. .to relevant evidence that is not repetitious. None is required; members are Substantial, competent, material evidence must Evidence free to discuss issue outside be put in the record; witnesses are under oath, hearing. subject to cross-examination; no discussion. of the case outside the hearing is allowed. Findings None are required. Written findings of fact are required. Records Regular minutes are satisfactory. Detailed record of testimony is required; clerk should retain all exhibits during period of potential appeal. Table 2 Summary of Requirements for Mailed Notice of Proposed Zoning Classification Actions Triggered by: Zoning classification action Sent to: Owner of parcel and abutting parcels, as shown on county tax listing How mailed: First class Exceptions: Not required for total rezonings of entire jurisdiction (but even here must be sent to any property that is put in less int- ensive zone) Verification: Certification to governing board of mailing to be provided by person making the mailing Popular Government Spring 1993 Notes 34 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/plannin�/pgsp93.htm 1. A more detailed discussion of the legal issues addressed in this article can be found in the author's forthcoming Institute of Government publication, Legislative Zoning Decisions: Legal Aspects. The book will be available in summer 1993. 2. In many respects this distinction is similar to the distinction between rule-making decisions and contested case decisions under the state's Administrative Procedures Act, G.S. Ch. 150B. 3. The open meetings statute does apply to these meetings and should be observed. See G.S. 143-318.9 to -318.18. Where a majority of the members of a board, council, or committee gather to conduct business or to deliberate, notice of the meeting must be provided and it generally must be open to the public. 4. The statutes that mandate hearings, G.S. 153A-323 and 160A-364, explicitly refer to adoption and amendment of zoning ordinances. The court has held that this also includes repeal of zoning provisions. Sofran Corp. v. City of Greensboro, 327 N.C. 125, 393 S.E.2d 767 (1990); Orange County v. Heath, 278 N.C. 688,180S.E.2d 810(1971). 5. Keiger v. Board of Adjustment, 281 N.C. 715, 190 S.E.2d 175 (1972). See G.S. 153A-344 and G.S. 160A-387. 6. Johnson v. Town of Longview, 37 N.C. App. 61, 245 S.E.2d 516, rev. denied, 295 N.C. 550, 248 S.E.2d 727 (1978). The county zoning statute does require a mandatory referral of a proposed zoning amendment to the planning board, but it is not required to hold a hearing. A number of zoning ordinances, however, still require planning board hearings; others provide for joint planning board and governing board hearings on rezoning proposals. If the zoning ordinance itself requires a formal planning board hearing, it must be held and should generally follow these rules for a legislative hearing. 7. Helms v. City of Charlotte, 255 N.C. 647, 122 S.E.2d 817 (1961); Walker v. Town of Elkin, 254 N.C. 85, 118 S.E.2d I (1960); Capps v. City of Raleigh, 35 N.C. App. 290, 241 S.E.2d 527 (1978). These cases held that actual personal notice of a proposed rezoning is not constitutionally required nor is it sufficient to substitute for compliance with-statutory requirements. 8. Capps, 35 N.C. App. at 290,241 S.E.2d at 527. 9. Though not explicitly required by the statute, a copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance or amendment should be available for public inspection at the time the notice is published. 10. Sellers v. City of Asheville, 33 N.C. App. 544, 549, 236 S.E.2d 283, 286 (1977). By contrast, in In re Raynor, 94 N.C. App. 91, 379 S.E.2d 884, rev. denied, 325 N.C. 546, 385 S.E.2d 495 (1989), the court upheld the adequacy of a notice that stated its purpose was "to consider proposed zoning and proposed long-range land use plans within the area recently added to the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction." The notice went onto provide a "rough description" of the area affected, using major streets as boundaries. 11. The legislature has also extended this mailed-notice requirement to'some land -use regulations other than zoning. G.S. 143-214.5(d) requires cities and counties that adopt water-supply watershed protection ordinances under their general police powers to use the mailed-notice provision if the ordinance imposes requirements quirements more stringent than the statewide minimum standards adopted by the Environmental Management Commission. 12. Frizzelle v. Harnett County, 106 N.C. App. 234, 416 S.E.2d 421, rev. denied, 332 N.C. 147, 419 S.E.2d 571 (1992). In this case, however, the ordinance itself required mailed-notice and posting, which was not done. Popular Government Spring 1993 http: // ncinfo. iog .unc.edu /planning/pgsp93.htm 13. Note that a zoning text change that substantially changes the range of permitted uses in a district can have the same practical effect as a map change and in those instances may be covered. 14. Many of the modifications are of only temporary duration. This trend of local modification is continuing. Some thirteen bills were introduced in the 1993 General Assembly to provide mailed -notice exceptions to thirty-three local governments. A bill is also pending that would extend these alternatives to mailed notice to all local governments. 15. Freeland v. Orange County, 273 N.C. 452, 160 S.E.2d 282 (1968). 16. Freeland, 273 N.C. at 457, 160 S.E.2d at 286. 17. Heaton v. City of Charlotte, 277 N.C. 506, 518, 178 S.E.2d 352, 359 -60 (1971) 18. Heaton, 277 N.C. at 518 -19, 178 S.E.2d at 360. See also Walker v. Town of Elkin, 254 N.C. 85, 118 S.E.2d 1 (1960); In re Issuance of CAMA Permit to Worthy, 82 N.C. App. 32, 345 S.E.2d 699 (1986). 19. Also, G.S. 160A- 71(b1) provides that regular and special meetings of the governing board may be recessed or adjourned to reconvene at a time and place certain (the comparable county provision, G.S. 153A -40, contains a similar provision for regular county board meetings). G.S. 143- 318.12(b)(1) in the state's open meetings law provides that if the time and place for reconvening are set in the properly noticed original meeting, no additional public notice is required. 20. See George v. Town of Edenton, 294 N.C. 679,242 S.E.2d 877 (1978); Nelson v. City of Burlington, 80 N.C. App. 285, 341 S.E.2d 739 (1986); Clark v. City of Charlotte, 66 N.C. App. 437, 311 S.E.2d 71 (1984). 21. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C. 458, 202 S.E.2d 129 (1974); Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C. 476,128 S.E.2d 879 (1963). 22. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 284 N.C. at 470, 202 S.E.2d at 137 (citations omitted).. 23. See, e.g., Jarrell, 258 N.C. at 476, 128 S.E.2d at 879; Brummer v. Board of Adjustment, 81 N.C. App. 307,343 S.E.2d 603, rev. denied, 318 N.C. 413, 349 S.E.2d 590 (1986). 24. Craver v. Board of Adjustment, 267 N.C. 40, 147 S.E.2d 599 (1966); Burton v. New Hanover County Board of Adjustment, 49 N.C. App. 439, 271.S.E.2d 550, cert. denied, 302 N.C. 217, 276 S.E.2d 914 (1981); Carter v. Town of Chapel Hill, 14 N.C. App. 93, 187 S.E.2d 588, cent. denied, 281 N.C. 314,188 S.E.2d 897 (1972). 25. Robinhood Trails Neighbors v. Board of Adjustment, 44 N.C. App. 539, 261 S.E.2d 520, cent. denied, 299 N.C. 737,267 S.E.2d 663 (1980). See also Rule 5.2, Rules of Professional Conduct of the North Carolina State. Bar. This rule prohibits a lawyer from testifying as a witness in a case he or she is handling unless the testimony relates solely to an uncontested matter, is related to legal fees, or if refusal to testify would work a substantial hardship on the client because of the distinctive value of the lawyer in the particular case. 26. A standard oath may be used, such as, "Do you swear (or affirm) that the evidence you give shall be the truth,. the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?" 27. Crump v. Board of Education, 326 N.C. 603, 392 S.E.2d 579 (1990). It is important to distinguish personal knowledge, which can be considered if disclosed, from personal bias, which disqualifies a member from participation. Personal bias is present if the member has a fixed opinion that is not susceptible to change regardless of the evidence presented. Also, in Rice Assoc. v. Town of Weaverville Bd. of Adjustment, 108 N.C. App. 346, 423 S.E.2d 519 (1992), the court held that participation of a member with bias does not invalidate the decision if the applicant is not entitled to a permit under any Popular Government Spring 1993 circumstances. 36 http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/planning/pgsp93.htm 28. Burton v. New Hanover County Board of Adjustment, 49 N.C. App. 439, 271 S.E.2d 550, cert. denied, 302 N.C. 217, 276 S.E.2d 914 (1981). The court of appeals has noted that while a verbatim transcript is not required, its presence would facilitate appellate review. In re City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation Dept., 107 N.C. App. 505,421 S.E.2d 179 (1992). 29. Little v. City of Raleigh, 195 N.C. 793, 143 S.E. 827 (1928). See also In re J. H. Carter Builder, Inc., 95 N.C. App. 182, 381 S.E.2d 889, rev. denied, 325 N.C. 707, 388 S.E.2d. 458 (1989) (rehearing by board of adjustment six weeks after original vote, made because chair wished to change his vote after reviewing the minutes, held improper because there had been no substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions). 30. In re Broughton Estate, 210 N.C. 62,185 S.E. 434 (1936). 31. There are other important differences in how legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions are made beyond the differences in hearings discussed in this article. For example, there are different standards on conflicts of interest, voting majorities required, creation of vested rights, imposition of conditions, and the time limits for seeking judicial review. The author is an Institute of Governmen 'faculty member who specializes in land-use law. Return to the N.C. Planning home page Go to the Institute of Government home page Last Updated. 2- Jan -1997 by Susan Dunn Rev. Gabriel and Mary DesHarnais 5500 Old Noble Road Cedar Grove NC 27231 September 23, 1999 Mr. Craig Benedict The Director Of Planning POB 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 Dear Mr. Benedict: Thank you for seeing me this afternoon. I think I under better the complexities surrounding planning in this county. Such knowledge, however, has not allayed our anxiety. You mentioned that the initial petition and the procedure enacted by the Planning Dept, had some defects wh may or not be substantial. We would expect that failure to inform peoich ple of the may rezoning application when those people are living within 500 feet of the ar ea in question is more than an Oversight, but, in fact, represents a failure of the system. Another alarming problem is that the fate of communfires from which land . Our sellers have Profited is totally ignored in the process o ezoning understanding is that the Person. who sold us the property must that'd responsible for the nature of that property. SO, too, the county approved of land use, well-drilling, and all other attendant expenses which w e undertook, is not devoid of responsibility to protect those invited tto�ve such an area. If the general trend of land sellers and the county is in develop a residential community, it flies in the face of all reason and for that county to enact a minimalist zoning law to up-end the stat trust us of all who have invested in this area. We were relieved to learn that future land use considerations will include the presence of residents in this area. We've all been invited to make our homes here. We think any change in zoning is a very grave matter and we appreciate Your promise to keep us informed . of our rights. Sincerely, 1.Z1 K 1133 L Clarke and Reign D. Clark 803 Sawmill Rd. Home Phone (919) 732 -2644 Cedar Grove, North Carolina 27231 Email sawmM803 @AOL.com August 30, 1999 Orange County Planning Board Members Planning and Inspections Department 306F Revere Rd. PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Planning Board Members, We are writing you to express our concerns regarding the rezoning of the Ernie McBroom Property on Sawmill Rd. Our concerns are as follows: 1. Safety 2. Noise 3. Roads 4. Pollution If Mr. McBroom were to create a landscape recycling center as his request for rezoning states, we feel that neighborhood safety would be a concern. There are approximately eighty -three houses on and associated with Sawmill Rd. The majority of these-houses are, at on.the-first half mile of the road west of the McBroom property . Mmiy taf-t$ese "'houses 'have children that wait-for-and and disembark the hoof us .flail Children wait by the roadside at the end of his/her driveway for the bus. Can we assure their safety with an increased number of large tonnage trucks traveling speeds of 45 m g hng at ph, which is the posted speed limit. How can we be assured that debris will be properly secured on these trucks. Sawmill Rd. is a quiet residential neighborhood and the noise that would be made by heavy machinery such as chippers, shredders, .bulldozers and large trucks coming and going would no longer guarantee quiet in places where - people seek it most - -the rural countryside:. According to OSHA, the dBA level for the type of equipment required for a landscape recycling operation would be above what is considered harmful (100- 110dBA) for those working the equipment, which in turn would give the residents near by a constant sound equivalent to the sound of a string trimmer or a leaf bower. We moved to the countryside for t*,',e peace and quiet of rural living, and a landscape recycling operation would destroythat tranquillity. Although NC considers all roads to be safe to carry all types and sizes of vehicles, Sawmill Rd. is narrow and if you look at the road you call tell it was not made for heavy traffic. Evidence of this type of damage can be seen on Sawmill Rd. near the intersection of NC 86, where the road was recently damaged by heavy trucks. .Pollution is a major concern to the air in the form of airborne particles that would be emitted from the equipment. Additionally, we realize that a diesel tank completely buried underground is allowable, however, all residents of Sawmill Rd. obtain his/her water from a well. A large portion of this land was once under water due to a beaver dam. What would it take to flood this land again? We pay a premium to live here. We paid a premium for our land and for our home. If you allow the rezoning to go through, that premium is lost. Sincerely, /Z C Lisa A. Clarke & Robin D. Clark ��Z Aug-31-99 10:52A USPS-NNSC Raleigh, NC 919 501 9724 August 31, 1999 RE: Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom Dear Sirs, It was only two days ago that we learned of plans for rezoning property behind ours. As we were not notified in advance or given a chance to speak at your meeting it now becomes necessary for us to register our disapproval of this proposed rezoning. When we purchased our home in the McBroom development of Grassy Creek, located off Sawmill Rd., we were told by the builder, Gary Whicker, and Ernie McBroom, the developer, that there were 50 undeveloped acres behind our property which would one day become part of our development, In other words, 25 more 2+ acre lots in a subdivision similar to ours. Something that we could definitely live with, as we like our comer of Orange County. We feel that the rezoning of this property would allow Mr. McBroom to use the property in ways that could have adverse affects on the community as well as the environment, • Sawmill Rd is a low tonnage road — frequent traverse by heavy equipment including trucks loaded with landscape debris would cause serious damage to this road. • Numerous children live along Sawmill Rd who ride the public school bus — heavy equipment and trucks on this road would put children's lives in danger. • The potential environmental hazards (noise, dust, etc.) generated by the activities that this rezoning would allow would be a great annoyance to residents in the area. • In addition, the possible pollution of the streams and groundwater in the area has not been addressed — Grassy Creek borders this property as well as that of residents of the Grassy Creek subdivision. The bottom line, members of the Planning Commission, is that we do not want anything behind our property other than what was originally proposed to us. Sincerely Yours, Ed and Donna Vaughn 5507 Old Noble Rd Cedar Grove NC 27231-9730 I I Aug. 30'x', 1999 Orange County Planning Board 306 Revere Rd Hillsboro, NC 27278 TO Whom It May Concern, s� LN E;X, .. This letter is in regard to the rezoning of 10 acres on Sawmill Rd. by Mr. Ernie McBroom. We would like to state for the record that we are very much opposed to this. Our reasons for this are as follows: I. It will decrease the property value for land owners in the area. 2. It will cause traffic problems. 3. We feel it could put the children in the area who ride school buses in danger. 4. The noise will be disturbing. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mr. &Mrs. John D. Bradsher `- `����F` �4 ` �►��\p�r�� 133 Bradsher Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Jo P ct, 41-Z bj i .ter 91 WED 17:13 FAX 5105455 NAM. O's),no C, CA nc Ul-n VQ av-�A k\ ]D 1A 0"', UC) Nr, \e� a C- L 1. n VQ - , erg 51t- IQ 09/01/99 WED 17:13 FAX 5105455 [1003 _ ..off U-F.-On. Al TT:XL L P) a-w4o-c 4, . t r �° 09/01/99 WED 17:14 FAX 5105455 11004 o\" Ljj I-k-\& b R• ' r i Rev. Gabriel A. DesHarnais 5500 Old Noble Road Cedar Grove NC 27231 Mr. John Link September 10, 1999 f The County Manager Ci POB 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 A Dear Mr. Link: . I am writing to ask for a reopening of the first phase of Mr. Ernie McBroom's request for rezoning. 1, ask this because the implications of the county acceding to such a request would have broad negative impact. Further, I am surprised that tie votes by the planning commission are viewed as consensual. It hardly seems a responsible way to deal with such issues. With this being the present law, there is probably little we can do about such motions. I also understand that the administration of this County has the power to quash this zoning request. I would ask you to seriously consider using your administrative power in this manner. I myself did not hear of Mr. McBroom's petition, apparently made in March of this year, until September 3. 1 was dismayed that the mechanisms for communication are so limited that one could miss an important notice by not reading the Hillsborough paper. While I do read it quite frequently, I do feel that direct communication by mail is far more effective. I understand that the zoning 'ordinance seeks to,notify only those within 500 feet of any property to be rezoned. When the repercussions are so massive both as to traffic and noise, a much broader and effective notification would seem to be in order. Mr. McBroom sold me this property with assurances that he owned other property for residential development across from Grassy Creek. Then he decides to change the nature of that land usage in such a way that my property would be devalued. This is, indeed, strange behavior for a land developer who presents himself as supplying land for homes. I can only guess at Mr. McBroom's motives based on his actions with the zoning officer and state laws regarding stream buffers. My hope is that rancor and revenge have not motivated him to so threaten those to whom he sold property now worth about $1.3 million. These homes are modest enough individually, but they represent a great. deal of trust in our county and a 2. great deal of disappointment arising from Mr. McBroom's behavior. I hope you, as County Manager, will see this project for what it is and decide in favor of those Of us who are invited here by Mr. McBroom's offering of this land. Please let me know whether you can quash this request as lacking merit or at least hear from us our deep concerns. - .Sincerely, Gabriel A. DesHarnais , copies to: Craig Benedict, Director of Planning Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney Mary B. DesHarnais 5500 Old Noble Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231 September 10, 1999 Mr. John Link City Manager POB 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 Dear Mr. Link, My husband, Reu. Gabriel DesHarnais, has already written to you expressing our desire to haue Mr. McBroom's rezoning request denied by administratiue decree or, at the very least, to have the hearing process reopened. I would like to add my own concerns in this matter. 1 am deeply dismayed that Mr. McBroom would care so little about the people to whom he sold his property. Not only am 1, along with many others in this neighborhood and along Sawmill Road, concerned that the traffic will be heaug and noisy, but also that the noise of the giant chipping machine he will need to use will destroy the uerg peace and quiet we were seeking by buying and building in this area. Please glue serious consideration to our request. Thank you. Mary B. DesHarnais copies to: Craig Benedict, Director of Planning Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney Craig Benedict Director, Planning Department PO Box 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 September 9, 1999 Dear Mr. Benedict, I had no opportunity to speak at the public hearing held August 23, 1999, in the new courthouse, concerning the rezoning of property behind my home. According to Zoning Ordinance Article 20.7.2, this letter now becomes new evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing for Ernie McBroom's rezoning request. Respectfully, Donna Vaughn 5507 Old Noble R Noble Cedar Grove NC 27231 Craig Benedict Director, Planning Department PO Box 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 September 9, 1999 N Dear Mr. Benedict, I had no opportunity to speak at the public hearing held August 23, 1999, in the new courthouse, concerning the rezoning of property behind my home. According to Zoning Ordinance Article 20.7.2, this letter now becomes new evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing for Ernie McBroom's rezoning request. Respectfully, Ed Vaugfilh 5507 Old Noble Rd Cedar Grove NC 27231 CRAIG BENEDICT DIR. PLANNING DEPT. 306F REVERE RD. HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 DEAR SIR(S); SEPTEMBER 9,1999 My NAME IS MIKE GORMAN My WIFE AND I LIVE AT 5506 OLD NOBLE RD. IN CEDAR GROVE NORTH CAROLINA. WE ARE WRITING TO YOU TO EXPRESS OUR D ISSAPPOINTMENT IN THE COUNTY'S DECISION TO REZONE OUR COMMUNITY. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF NON - RESIDENTIAL OF OUR COMMUNITY _RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE MAIN EXAMPLE IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRIVATE LANDFILL AT THE LOCATION OF PARCEL OF (436,036 SF) IN CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP. AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE THIS PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO OUR QUIET AND PEACEFUL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LANDFILL IN QUESTION IS ONLY TO BE USED FOR LANDSCAPE DEBRIS i.e. Tree limbs, tree trunks and other natural debris. SHOULD THIS COME TO PASS - WE WOULD LUCE TO KNOW HOW MONITORED: THE FOLLOWING WILL BE • HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO CONTROL THE NOISE POLLUTION GENERATED BY THE HEAVY EQUIPM[ENT?.i-e. dumptrucks,woodchippers,bulldozers etc. • HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO CONTROL THE EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC ALONG SAWMILL RD? WHICH WILL BE THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ACCESSING THE SITE, • HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO RE LANDFILL SITE? GULATE AND INSPECT THE PROPOSED HOW DOES THE COUNTY/STATE PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE PREVENT FLOODING? NATURAL WATERSHED TO WILL THE COUNTY/STATE GUARANTEE . THAT THERE WILL BE No UNLAWFUL DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT THIS SITE? HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL BE NO ILLEGAL DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON THE PROPOSED SITE? HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY SOIL OR WATER CONTAMINATION DUE TO ANY UNLAWFUL DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS? HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO CONTROL.. THE INCREASED DUST POLLUTION DUE TO THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT TRAVELING ON THE DIRT OR GRAVEL ROAD LEADING TO THE PROPOSED SITE? ° HAS THE COUNTY /STATE ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER? IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR EPA VIOLATIONS AS WELL AS STATE VIOLATIONS FOR RUNNING AN ILLEGAL, LANDFILL ELSEWHERE. ° IF THE ABOVE BEING TRUE. WHAT DOES THIS SAY FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPING PARTY? CAN THIS PARTY BE TRUSTED TO RUN THE LANDFILL ACCORDING TO GENERAL FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES? WE WILL CLOSE THIS LETTER BY SAYING WE MOVED TO THIS AREA SO THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE EXCESSIVE NOISE AND TRAFFIC OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO WANTED TO LIVE IN A PEACEFUL AREA FREE OF THE DISTRUBANCES OF HASTY COUNTY PLANNING. AS A TAXPAYERS AND CITIZENS OF THE LOVELY TOWN OF CEDAR GROVE, .I WANT TO GO ON THE PUBLIC RECORD AS STRONGLEY OPPOSING SUCH REZONING OR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NATURE. WE DO NOT WANT OUR PROPERTY VALUES DEPRICIATED NOR DO WE WANT TO LIVE IN SUCH AN UNPLEASANT ENVIRONMENT. FURTHER SINCE THE PROPERTY IN THE EFLAND DISTRICT HAS ALREADY BEEN ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY WHY CAN'T THIS SITE BE LOCATED IN THIS DISTRICT? WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE NEWS PUBLICATIONS FOR THIS COUNTY, THEREFORE WE WILL BE EXPECTING YOU TO NOTIFY US OF FUTURE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS MATTER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER MLKE AND BRENDA GORMAN 5506 OLD NOBLE ROAD CEDAR GROVE, NC 27231 CC JOHN M. LINK COUNTY MANAGER P.O. BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH; NC 27278 GEOFF GLEDHILL COUNTY ATTORNEY P.O DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 r � Director of Planning Craig Benedict 3067 Revere Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Jayme Hanzak 5502 Old Noble Rd. Cedar Grove, NC 27231 Dear Distinguished Board Member, Thank you for taking the time to read my letter on the proposed zone change Z- 03 -99. This is Mr. McBroom's request. First of all, I would like to apologize for missing the first meeting on this matter. I understand that there were several notices of the zone change in the newspapers, none of which I get regularly. I find the news coverage of Orange county to be `TAIR" at best. So I do not subscribe to them. I also heard that a public notice was posted in our area for a short time. One day from what I understand. I would have to believe this because I have a daughter that I run around to various activities through out the week, and I never saw a notice about the rezoning of the land on Sawmill Rd. I am sure if one was posted, my wife and I would have definitely noticed it. The word, "REZONING" does command attention. Is this a common practice in Orange County? Working for the PBS station, It reminds me of a program we air called, "Wish Bone ". In one of the episodes, a developer puts up a public notice and some how that notice was knocked down. So the rezoning passes because nobody is aware of the meeting, Very cloak and dagger. My wife and I bought a house in the Grassy Creek subdivision a little over two year ago. We are very pleased with our purchase and love the area'very much. We have great neighbors, the peace and quiet is wonderful. This little subdivision off Sawmill Rd. is a dream come true for my family. Especially for my daughter, she loves the horses and the wildlife. Mr. McBroom wrote some covenants for the Grassy Creek subdivision. The covenants are fair not only to the residents of Grassy Creek; but are respectful to all the Citizens on Sawmill Road as well. I have enclosed a copy of these covenants to let you see for yourself how fair they are. I would like to draw your attention to Covenant #8. The Nuisance Covenant. Please note the first sentence. 8. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any Lot nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the NEIGHBORHOOD. Mr. McBroom wrote this covenant himself for the Grassy Creek subdivision, but the Sawmill Rd. area is our neighborhood. Now Mr. McBroom is proposing to build a chipping plant in the middle of a Residential Area. I'm sure I don't have to explain the noise that will be produced by this plant. Even little chippers are noisy. This plant will be a Nuisances to all the Residents in the area, NOT only on Sawmill Rd., but all the Residences and Farms in the area. The Sawmill Rd. area is a Residential/ Agricultural neighborhood. There are better than 50 HOMES with in a quarter mile of Mr. Mcbroom's proposed chipping plant. Fifty homes where children play, go to school, Infants sleep and average citizens just want to have a QUIET, PEACEFUL neighborhood. Mr. McBroom is the only one asking for the zone change. Everyone I've talked to is against it. Passing this rezoning request would destroy this treasure and rob hundreds of a wonderful neighborhood. It would benefit one man and would. go against the wishes of MOST if not ALL of the Citizens of Orange County in and around the Sawmill Rd. area. Please deny the rezoning request. There are better places for a chipping facility where the land has been zoned for industry. In the middle of our neighborhood is not the place. With much thanks, And I hope you read this. GAG%' Jayme Hanzak ihaman@ME2E v . (919) 644 -2564 (919) 549 -7281 Prepared by and return to Sanet B. Dutton, P.O. Drawer 1523, Hillsborough, HC 2727$ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DECLARATION OF RFSTRIC71VE AND PRO EZ7. VE COVtNANTS COUNTY OF ORANGE ANN) CONDITIONS THIS PECLARATION OF RF MIC71VE, AND* PROTEC'17,VE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS, made and entered into this the cR tlay -Of March, 1994,, by and between ]ERNIE 3MiCBROOM, SR. and wife, JANICE M. MCBROOM (hex'einafter MCBROORSJ; and, PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS of Lots Nos. 1 through 12, inclusive, as showy and delineated on a plat entitled FINAL PLAT - GRASSY CREEK, a subdivision located in Cedar Grove TQwnft, orange County, North Carolina (hereinafter PURCHA.SERS�, WITN3ESSETH: WHEREAS, Ernie McBro+orn, Sr. has heretofore acquired title to a certain tract ,6r pared of land Which Iraq be= subdivided Into lots numbered I through 12, inclusive, .according to. a certain map Or plat entitled 1FINAL PLAT-GRASSY CREEK. (herduufter sometimes referred to as the subdivision "), wMC11 said map appears of record in the office of tter Register of Deeds of Orange County, in Plat hook 70, -Page 1$2; anal* WHEREAS,. MCBR,'OOMS .intend to convey said numbered lots as the same are shown and delineated on the above- mentioned -map, by deeds deeds of trust, mortgages, and other instruments to various persons, farms and/or corporations, subject to certain restrictive and protective ,covenants imd conditions which are deemed to malm (lie subdivision more desirable and to be for the benefit of all awse who acquire title to any one or more of said numbered lets to the end that the restrictive and protective covenants and conditions herein' set out sltall inure'W the bereft of each person, firm, or COMoration which may acquire title to 'my try all of said nrmbered lots 'and which shall be binding upon each such person, firm, or corporation to whom or to which M03ROO.MS tnay hereafter caonvey'any of said numbered lots by deed, mortgage, deed of trust, or ot1w ingtrarrtent. NOW. THERE'F'ORE, in consideration of the premises, MMRt: OMS hereby covenant and agt= with said ProspeX&6 Purchasers that each of -the aforementioned numbered. lots shall be held, sold, eneunlbered and conveyed subject to the restrlctive, and protective covenants and conditions hereinafter Set forth and said resndetive and protective covenants and conditions shall become a part of each ins(zument conveying any of said numbered lots as fully and. to the same eaitent as if set forth therein. As a condition Of the sale or conveyance of any of said. numbered lots, the purchase's agree and covenant to abide by and conform with said restrictive and protective covenants and condidons- THE RESTRTCTI'VE AND PR CTIVE COVENANTS AND -CONDITION'S ARE. AS FOLLOWS: 1. Lot. The word "Lot" as used heroin shall mean the saparaeiy nrltxibeted parcels depicted on the above- mZtioned map. Provided, however, that the pwner of 4 of a numbered parcel on said map- may combine with such numbered parcel, parts or portions of another numbered parcel or parcels and the QMD ­r mm I r-4 • �F 'tea 4 � rr+s r77 I'ROOle 1230,, F*4ge 4E6 469 Hayt,ms, , 0230 ma 467 aggregate shall be considered as one "Lot" for the purposes of these restrictive and protective covenants and conditions. 2. Laud Use and Building J' pe. 1110 structurb ishall be erected, alluedplaced or permitted to remain on any Lot other than for use as a singlp- family residential dwelling and only ode single -wily -residential dwelling shall be erected or permitted to remain upon any Lot. No mobile homes may be erected or permitted to remain upon. any Lint. A' private garage, outbuildings as herein expressly permitted and an ovearbe$d story for sertvanft quarters not rented, leased or utilized for any remuneration are emitted. No outbuilding shall be mct&d upon any Lot unless same is incidental 'to rite residential use of said Lot. It is provided, however, that the party of the first part, during the development stage, may maintain a. dwelling for' use as a model home to .arid sales in the subdivision, After development bas been completed., no such model home may be maintained in the subdivision. 3. Dwelling Size. (1) Any one -story dwelling erected upson. any Lot shalt contain not less than 1100 square feet, outside measumment, of enclosed floor heated area, exclusive of open parches and ,garages. (b) Any one and one - -half story dwelling erected upon any Lot shall contain not less than 13M square feet,' outside measurement, . of enclosed Ooor heated area, exclusive of open porches and garages, Such dwelling shall contain not less tban. 700 square feet, .outside measurement, of enclosed floor heated area on fihe ground floor, exclusive of open porches and garages. tv'ej Any two-story/two and one -half story dwolling erected upon any Lot shall contain not less than'•1300 square EW, outside measurement of enclosed floor heated area, exclusive of open pones and ,garages. Such dwelling shall contain not less Manx 700 square feet, outside measurement, of enclosed floor heated area on tine ground floor, exclud ve of open porches and ,garages. . 4. • l?wellin Qualitx. All dwellings and ouftldi ng$ erected upon any Lot shall be constructed of material of good grade, quality and appear$nce, and all cororacdon shall be pwformed In at good and workmanlike tmannef. The exterior cnnstsuction of *anty.dwelling shall ndt be of asbestos -shingle siding, imitation brick or st newll siding, or of concrete blocks. No "shell home," as the tin is generally understood at this time in this area, shall be erected or allowed to rwain on any of said Lots. The outside surface ofbeams,'wa is, and roofs of any appurtenant structures located on any► Lot shall be of manorial and quality of construction comparable in cost, design, and quality to the outside suifaces of the dwelling located oil said Lot. No -metal storage shed or barni shall be located on any Lot. Any storage sheet or barn shall be desig ed, constructed and rminnWned so as to be aesthetically compatible with the dwelling located on said Lot. 5. Setback Lines. No building shall be erected or permitted to remain .neap to any sit in said subdivision than the street setback lines as shown on the xecorded plat or said subdivision. No building shall be located nearer than 100 feet Tram the rig3ht of way of S.R. 1545, 5th' �m the right of way of Noble Road, or 30' from any side or rear lot line. It is pfovided, however, that eaves, steps, stoops and fireplace ebaises shall not rte considered a part of the building for the purposes of intetp sting this paragraph of this V ,, 33".K123 Ptu a i Declaration. An error in the placWent of structures. in an amount less than, ten pout of the setback requirement irk question Is not a violation of this Declaration or of the provisions of the recorded, plat 6. East errients. Easements for the installation and maintenance ofutilitles and drainagefacilities are reserved over the firont and rear ten feet of each of the aforesaid Uts, A drainage and utility easement five -feet In width is reserved along each sideline of each Lot Additional drainage easements and utility casements am reserved as more particularly shown and delineated oft the recorded map of the subdivision. Within said easements so res.erved, no structure, punting or otlYer materials shall be placeci or permitted to remain which may damage or inWm with ,remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities yr which, may interfere with drainage and the flow of water within the'eas rnent auras. The owner of each lot shall maintain that portion of said Lot lying within the easement areas as defined herein and shall maintain such improvements as may be located thereon except those improvements .installed and maintained by a public authority or utility company. Drainage easements are reserved as more particularly sbowu and designated on the recorded map of the subdivision. 7. Garbage and 11.efnse. l) No Lot shall be used or maintalned.in.au unsightly manner or as et dumping ground fir rubbish, trash Or debris. Rubbish, trash, debris, garbage and other waste shall be kept only in sanitary containers. All incinerators, Containers or other equipment for ft storage or dispostal of such waste materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition." $, Nuisances . No noxious or, offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon. any Lot nor shall anything.be done lhereon which may be or become a nuisance or annpyanw to the neighborhood. No truck or commerdal vehicle in excess-of litree- quarter ton Ioad capacity shall be parked or permitted to remain on any Lot. No wrecked or junked motor vehicle or vehicle without current license plates and mgistratiou shall be permitted to remain upon any Lot No trailer, mobile. home, tramper or like recreational vehicle shall be permitted for remain upon any Lot unless it is looted so as not to be visible from any street or road within the subdivision. 9. Temporary Structure. No structettve of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, barn, or other, outbuilding shall be used on any Lot at ,any time as a residence either ternpor6rily or permanently- . • 10. Mi ns. No signs of any kind Shall be displayed to the public view ota any Lott however, one sign of not more than Eve %care feet a lvertising the property for sale or rent and signs used by a builder to advertise, the property during construction and sales period are perniWble. 11. Livestock and Poultry. No animals, l.ivestoo k, or potiltry,of any bind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any Lot, except that -dogs, cats, or other household pets may be ,kept providing they are not ,kept, bred, or maintained for commercial purposes. 12. Time. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on ,all, persons acquiring title to any of the aforemeattioned: Lots -for a period of twenty years from the date of these covenants, 1995, at which time said, covenants shall be autoroati,cally extended for successive periods of twenty yeairs; unless by a written -instrument executed by a majority of the then - owners of the said Lots, and duly recorded in the Office of the gergister of lids of Orange County within 3 three months of a.ny anniversary date of any such automaft renewal.; it is agreed to change said_. covenants in whole or in part. ' 13, )Znforcemr_nt. • -Enforcement of these restrictions and conditions shall be by . pnoc+edding, at law or in epity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violates any covenant or condition, 610ter to restrain violation thereof or to recover damages therefor. Injunction shall not issue to compel tbe• removal of or moving of any completed residence for violation of side setback or front setback restrictions, the sole remedy d any offended peraQn being a suit for damages, 14. 5ey+erabilify: Invalidation of any one of these covenants or conditions by judgment or order of any court shall in no way affect any 4 the other ,previsions which shall remain in full force and effect. ' r IN TESTiMONy' WHEREOF, lir CBROOMS have hereunto set their hands and seals this the day and year first above written. ERNIE MCBROOM, 'SlR_ J F, M. MCBld,Of3M STATE OF NOM +CAROLINA. coukff OF i, a Notary Public of said State and County, •do hereby aertdfy. that Ernio McBroom, Sr. -and 7a nice- M. lvMcBroom personally appeared t done me this day and arinowledge,d the clue execution of the foregoing instrument. 'witness nay hand and notarial seal, this the a "—day of March, 1994. Ot�lIy lie �;* S#ato of North Carotin - 6ranga county �+' J SSIfn eXPIMS: ihs ,aragoing certi- rimtew Of 0 co 1o' ,,� A Nbtary�• CiW Public for the natad "m ntd ► 4unnts is c be COML Fl� Ott. 7hfs the y f3et#y� U. ttw of C ie& : 9��_ a9 Mr. Craig Benedict - Planning Director Rosetta L. Glover 306 F. Revere Rd. P.O. Box 881 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 September 19, 1999 Dear Benedict: We own property directly across the road from this site. We have secured a building permit to build a home. Our property was acquired some twenty years ago for the expressed purpose of building our retirement home in a peaceful setting similar to other neighborhoods in this area. All of the residents in this immediate area are opposed to this rezoning. It would be very unfair to the home owners to allow this commercial business to come in and create a nuisance with excessive noise and excessive traffic along Saw Mill Road. This will create a traffic safety hazard for the children in this area, especially during the school hours. It is little doubt that the loud noise created by this business will be � out of harmony with the neighborhood. The noise level will surely be above the maximum noise level now in affect by the zoning department for this area. New evidence has surfaced that lead us to believe that a denial or to reopen the joint hearing per article 20.7.2 of the zoning ordinance would be appropriate. Many citizens in this area work at night and would need to sleep during the day. This noise operation will create a serious problem for these citizens and others who purchased homes in this area expecting peace and quietness. We are requesting your assistance in helping to keep our neighborhood a safe and peaceful place for children to play and adults to live in harmony with the surroundings. Thanks so very much for your thoughtfulness and consideration. Sincerely yours, Qom- Rosetta L Glover- ri-A 0 Mr. Craig Benedict- Planning Director 306 F. Revere Rd. Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Willie L. Glover P.O. Box 881 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 September 19, 1999 Dear Benedict: UC3 We own property directly across the road from this site. We have secured a building permit to build a home. Our property was acquired some twenty years ago for the expressed purpose of building our retirement home in a peaceful setting similar to other neighborhoods in this area. All of the residents in this immediate area are opposed to this rezoning. It would be very unfair to the home owners to allow this commercial business to come in and create a nuisance with excessive noise and excessive traffic along Saw Mill Road. This will create a traffic safety hazard for the children in this area, especially during the school hours. It is little doubt that the loud noise created by this business will be out of harmony with the neighborhood. The noise level will surely be above the maximum noise level now in affect by the zoning department for this area. New evidence has surfaced that lead us to believe that a denial or to reopen the joint hearing per article 20.7.2 of the zoning ordinance would be appropriate. Many citizens in this area work at night and would need to sleep during the day. This noise operation will create a serious problem for these citizens and others who purchased homes in this area expecting peace and quietness. We are requesting your assistance in helping to keep our neighborhood a safe and peaceful place for children to play and adults to live in harmony with the surroundings. Thanks so very much for your thoughtfulness and consideration. Sincerely yours, Willie L. Glover LAW OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 129 E. TRYON STREET P. O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 919-732.2196 FAX 919-732-7997 September 23, 1999 Ms. Mary B. Des ' Harnais 5500 Old Noble Road Cedar Grove, North Carolina 27231 Dear Ms. DesHarnais: FROM THE DESK OF GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL I received your letter dated September 10, 1999 concerning the McBroom rezoning request and have forwarded it on to the Orange County Planning Department for consideration. GEG/lsg Xc: Craig Benedict V John M. Link, Jr. mydocuments/mcbroomrezfrm.1tr Very truly yours, 'AL0103TUT vk� 0:3 a) " 0 on Im VE, P. C. Mary B. DesHarnais 5500 Old Noble Road Cedar Groue, NC 27231 September 10, 1999 Mr. John Link City Manager POB 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 E C i l D SEP 1.. 51999 Dear Mr. Link, My husband, Reu. Gabriel DesHarnais, has already written to you expressing our desire to have Mr. McBroom's rezoning request denied by administratiue decree or, at the uery least, to have the hearing process reopened. 1 would like to add my own concerns in this matter. I am deeply dismayed that Mr. McBroom would care so little about the people to whom he sold his property. Not only am 1, along with many others in this neighborhood and along Sawmill Road, concerned that the traffic will be heaug and noisy, but also that the noise of the giant chipping machine he will need to use will destroy the uerg peace and quiet we were seeking by buying and building in this area. Please glue serious consideration to our request. Thank you. Mary B. DesHarnais copies to: Craig Benedict, Director of Planning Geoff Gledhill, County Rttorney LAW OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAvE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 129 E. TRYON STREET P. O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 919-732-2196 FAX 919 - 732 - 7997 September 23, 1999 Rev. Gabriel A. DesHarnais 5500 Old Noble Road Cedar Grove, North Carolina 27231 Dear Rev. DesHarnais: AD c> To e-(&E e FROM THE DESK OF GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL I received a copy of your letter to John Link dated September 10, 1999 concerning the McBroom rezoning request and have forwarded it on to the Orange County Planning Department for consideration. Very truly yours, COLEMAN, GLEDHILL &. HARGRAVE, P.C. -ah f f WE. Ke 'ill GEG/ 1 sg Xc: Craig Benedict/ John M. Link, Mr. mydocuments/mcbroomrezfrm.1tr Rev. Gabriel A. DesHarnais 5500 Old Noble Road Cedar Grove NC 27231 Mr. John Link September 10, 1999 The County Manager POB 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 Dear Mr. Link: I am writing to ask for a reopening of the first phase of Mr. Ernie McBroom's request for rezoning. I ask this because the implications of the county acceding to such a request would have broad negative impact. Further, I am surprised that tie votes by the planning commission are viewed as consensual. It. hardly seems a responsible way to deal with such issues. With this being the present law, there is probably little we can do about such motions. I also understand that the administration of this County has the power to quash this zoning request. I would ask you to seriously consider using your administrative power in this manner. I myself did not hear of Mr. McBroorh's petition, apparently made in March of this year, until September 3. 1 was dismayed that the mechanisms for communication are so limited that one could miss an important notice by not reading the Hillsborough paper. While I do read it quite frequently, I do feel that direct communication by mail is far more effective. I understand that the zoning ordinance seeks to notify only those within 500 feet of any property to be rezoned. When the repercussions are so massive both as to traffic and noise, a much broader and effective notification would seem to be in order. Mr. McBroom sold me this property with assurances that he owned other property for residential development across from Grassy Creek. Then he decides to change the nature of that land usage in such a way that my property would be devalued. This is, indeed, strange behavior for a land developer who presents himself as supplying land for homes. I can only guess at Mr. McBroom's motives based on his actions with the zoning officer and state laws regarding stream buffers. My hope is that rancor and revenge have not motivated him to so threaten those to whom he sold property now worth about $1.3 million. These homes are modest enough individually, but they represent a great deal of trust in our county and a 0 great deal of disappointment arising from Mr. McBroom's behavior. I hope you, as County Manager, will see this project for what it is and decide in favor of those of us who are invited here by Mr. McBroom's offering of this land. Please let me know whether you can quash this request as lacking merit or at least hear from us our deep concerns. Sincerely, Gabriel A. DesHarnais copies to: Craig Benedict, Director of Planning Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney Geoff Gledhill County Attorney PO Box 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 September 9, 1999 REC.RZYBI) SIEP 1. 5 1999 Dear Mr. Gledhill, I had no opportunity to speak at the public hearing held August 23, 1999, in the new courthouse, concerning the rezoning of property behind my home. According to Zoning Ordinance Article 20.7.2, this letter now becomes new evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing for Ernie McBroom's rezoning request. Respectfully, 0nna Vaughn 5507 Old Noble d Cedar Grove NC 27231 Geoff Gledhill County Attorney PO Box 8181 Hillsborough NC 27278 September 9, 1999 Dear Mr. Gledhill, SEP 1. 5 1999 I had no opportunity to speak at the public hearing held August 23, 1999, in the new courthouse, concerning the rezoning of property behind my home. According to Zoning Ordinance Article 20.7.2, this letter now becomes new evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing for Ernie McBroom's rezoning request. Respectfully, Ed Vaughn 5507 Old Noble Rd Cedar Grove NC 27231 .h.�..IADEIVED Ste t 1 1999 Mr. Geoff Gledhill - County Attorney Willie L. Glover P.O. Drawer 1529 P.O. Box 881 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 September 19, 1999 Dear Mr.Gledhill: We own property directly across the road from this site. We have secured a building permit to build a home. Our property was acquired some twenty years ago for the expressed purpose of building our retirement home in a peaceful setting similar to other neighborhoods in this area. All of the residents in this immediate area are opposed to this rezoning. It would be very unfair to the home owners to allow this commercial business to come in and create a nuisance with excessive noise and excessive traffic along Saw Mill Road. This will create a traffic safety hazard for the children in this area, especially during the school hours. It is little doubt that the loud noise created by this business will be out of harmony with the neighborhood. The noise level will surely be above the maximum noise level now in affect by the zoning department for this area. New evidence has surfaced that lead us to believe that a denial or to reopen the joint hearing per article 20.7.2 of the zoning ordinance would be appropriate. Many citizens in this area work at night and would need to sleep during the day. This noise operation will create a serious problem for these citizens and others who purchased homes in this area expecting peace and quietness. We are requesting your assistance in helping to keep our neighborhood a safe and peaceful place for children to play and adults to live in harmony with the surroundings. Thanks so very much for your thoughtfulness and consideration. Sincerely yours, Willie L. Glover S EP Z 1 1999 Mr. Geoff Gledhill - County Attorney P.O. Drawer 1529 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Mr.Gledhill: Rosetta L. Glover P.O. Box 881 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 September 19, 1999 We own property directly across the road from this site. We have secured a building permit to build home. Our property was acquired some twenty years ago for the expressed purpose of building our retirement home in a peaceful 'setting similar to other neighborhoods in this area. All of the residents in this immediate area are opposed to this rezoning. It would be very unfair to the home owners to allow this commercial business to come in and create a nuisance with excessive noise and excessive traffic along Saw Mill Road. This will create a traffic safety hazard for the children in this area, especially during the school hours. It is little doubt that the loud noise created by this business will be out of harmony with the neighborhood. The noise level will surely be above the maximum noise level now in affect by the zoning department for this area. New evidence has surfaced that lead us to believe that a denial or to reopen the joint hearing per article 20.7.2 of the zoning ordinance would be appropriate. Many citizens in this area work at night and would need to sleep during the day. This noise operation will create a serious problem for these citizens and others who purchased homes in.this area expecting peace. and quietness. We are requesting your assistance in helping to keep our neighborhood a safe and peaceful place for children to, play and adults to live in harmony with the surroundings. Thanks so very much for your thoughtfulness and consideration. Sincerely yours, Rosetta L. Glover LAW OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 129 E. TRYON STREET P. O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 919.732,2196 FAX 919- 732.7997 September 23, 1999 Mr. Craig Benedict Orange County Planning Director Orange County Planning Department Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Craig: FROM THE DESK OF GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL Enclosed is a "batch" of letters that I have recently received. I will forward any future letters that I receive concerning the McBroom rezoning request to you. Before the McBroom rezoning request goes to the Board of Commissioners for consideration we should review together the procedural questions raised by these letters. I a * lso think it would be appropriate for someone from the County to respond concerning the incorrect information contained in one or more of these letters. For example, Mr. and Mrs. Gorman's letter expresses their disappointment "in the County's decision to rezone our community." GEG/lsg Enclosures xc: John M. Link, Jr. mydocuments/benedict#4.1tr Very truly yours, COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C. edhill GEOFF GLEDHILL COUNTY ATTORNEY P.O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 DEAR SIR(S); SEPTEMBER 9,1999 SEP 2 a 1999 MY NAME IS MUM GORMAN MY WIFE AND I LIVE AT 5506 OLD NOBLE RD. IN CEDAR GROVE NORTH CAROLINA. WE ARE WRITING TO YOU TO EXPRESS OUR DISSAPPOINTN ENT IN THE COUNTY'S DECISION TO REZONE OUR COMMUNITY. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE REZONING OF OUR COMMUNITY WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF NON - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE MAIN EXAMPLE IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRIVATE LANDFILL AT THE LOCATION OF PARCEL OF (436,036 SF) IN CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP. AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE THIS PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO OUR QUIET AND PEACEFUL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. rT IS ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LANDFILL IN QUESTION IS ONLY TO BE USED FOR LANDSCAPE DEBRIS i.e. Tree limbs, tree trunks and other natural debris. SHOULD THIS COME TO PASS. WE WOULD LHCE TO KNOW HOW THE FOLLOWING WILL BE MONITORED: HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO CONTROL THE NOISE POLLUTION GENERATED BY THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT? .i.e. dumptrucks ,woodchippers,bulldozers etc. e HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO CONTROL THE EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC ALONG SAWMILL RD? WHICH WILL BE THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ACCESSING THE SITE. ® HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO REGULATE AND INSPECT THE PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE? o HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE NATURAL WATERSHED TO PREVENT FLOODING? ® WILL THE COUNTY /STATE GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE NO UNLAWFUL DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT THIS SITE? ® HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT TBERE WILL BE NO ILLEGAL DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON THE PROPOSED SITE? ® HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY SOIL OR WATER CONTAMINATION DUE TO ANY UNLAWFUL DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS? • HOW DOES THE COUNTY /STATE PLAN TO CONTROL. THE INCREASED DUST POLLUTION DUE TO THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT TRAVELING ON THE DIRT OR GRAVEL ROAD LEADING TO THE PROPOSED SITE? • HAS THE COUNTY /STATE ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER? IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CITED FOR EPA VIOLATIONS AS WELL AS STATE. VIOLATIONS FOR RUNNING AN ILLEGAL LANDFILL ELSEWHERE. • IF THE ABOVE BEING TRUE. WHAT DOES THIS SAY FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPING PARTY? CAN THIS PARTY BE TRUSTED TO RUN THE LANDFILL ACCORDING TO GENERAL FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES? WE WILL CLOSE THIS LETTER BY SAYING WE MOVED TO THIS AREA SO THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE EXCESSIVE NOISE AND TRAFFIC OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO WANTED TO LIVE IN A PEACEFUL AREA FREE OF THE DISTRUBANCES OF HASTY COUNTY PLANNING. AS A TAXPAYERS AND CITIZENS OF THE LOVELY TOWN OF CEDAR GROVE, I WANT TO GO ON THE PUBLIC RECORD AS STRONGLEY OPPOSING SUCH REZONING OR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NATURE. WE DO NOT WANT OUR PROPERTY VALUES DEPRICIATED NOR DO WE WANT TO LIVE IN SUCH AN UNPLEASANT ENVIRONMENT. FURTHER SINCE THE PROPERTY IN THE EFLAND DISTRICT HAS ALREADY BEEN ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY WHY CAN'T THIS SITE BE LOCATED IN THIS DISTRICT? WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE NEWS PUBLICATIONS FOR THIS COUNTY, THEREFORE WE WILL BE EXPECTING YOU TO NOTIFY US OF FUTURE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS MATTER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER MIKE AND BRENDA GORMAN 5506 OLD NOBLE ROAD CEDAR GROVE, NC 27231 CC JOHN M. LINK COUNTY MANAGER P.O. BOX 8181 .HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 CRAIG BENEDICT DIRECTOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE RD. HILLSBOROUGHNC 27278 ,q County Attorney SEP j .51999 Geoff Gledhill P.O. Drawer 1529 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Jayme Hanzak 5502 Old Noble Rd. Cedar Grove, NC 27231 Dear Distinguished Board Member, Thank you for taking the time to read my letter on the proposed zone change Z- 03 -99. This is Mr. McBroom's request. First of all, I would like to apologize for missing the first meeting on this matter. I understand that there were several notices of the zone change in the newspapers, none of which I get regularly. I find the news coverage of Orange county to be `FAIR" at best. So I do not subscribe to them. I also heard that a public notice was posted in our area for a short time. One day from what I understand. I would have to believe this because I have a daughter that I run around to various activities through out the week, and I never saw a notice about the rezoning of the land on Sawmill Rd. I am sure if one was posted, my wife and I would have definitely noticed it. The word, `REZONING" does command attention. Is this a common practice in Orange County? Working for the PBS station, It reminds me of a program we air called, "Wish Bone ". In one of the episodes, a developer puts up a public notice and some how that notice was knocked down. So the rezoning passes because nobody is aware of the meeting, Very cloak and dagger. My wife and I bought a house in the Grassy Creek subdivision a little over two year ago. We are very pleased with our purchase and love the area very much. We have great neighbors, the peace and quiet is wonderful. This little subdivision off Sawmill Rd. is a dream come true for my family. Especially for my daughter, she loves the horses and the wildlife. Mr. McBroom wrote some covenants for the Grassy Creek subdivision. The covenants are fair not only to the residents of Grassy Creek, but are respectful to all the Citizens on Sawmill Road as well. I have enclosed a copy of these covenants to let you see for yourself how fair they are. I would like to draw your attention to Covenant #8. The Nuisance Covenant. Please note the first sentence. 8. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any Lot nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the NEIGHBORHOOD. Mr. McBroom wrote this covenant himself for the Grassy Creek subdivision, but the Sawmill Rd. area is our neighborhood. Now Mr. McBroom is proposing to build a chipping plant in the middle of a Residential Area. I'm sure I don't have to explain the noise that will be produced by this plant. Even little chippers are noisy. This plant will be a Nuisances to all the Residents in the area, NOT only on Sawmill Rd., but all the Residences and Farms in the area. The Sawmill Rd. area is a Residential/ Agricultural neighborhood. There are better than 50 HOMES with in a quarter mile of Mr. Mcbroom's proposed chipping plant. Fifty homes where children play, go to school, Infants sleep and average citizens just want to have a QUIET, PEACEFUL neighborhood. Mr. McBroom is the only one asking for the zone change. Everyone I've talked to is against it. Passing this rezoning request would destroy this treasure and rob hundreds of a wonderful neighborhood. It would benefit one man and would go against the wishes of MOST if not ALL of the Citizens of Orange County in and around the Sawmill Rd. area. Please deny the rezoning request. There are better places for a chipping facility where the land has been zoned for industry. In the middle of our neighborhood is not the place. With much thanks, And I hope you read this. Jayme Hanzak Jiiaivak(46-u cty.o. (919) 6442564 (919) 549 -7281 r' J p 1 23 -. ­k .1. ': II. Prepared by and return to Janet B. Dutton, P.O. Drawer 1529, Hillsborough, NC 2727$ STATF, Or; NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE DECLARATION OF RFQSTR1C-fl'VB AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND CONDhIONS . . THIS VECLARATXON Olp RF-137 MIC71VE AND • PROTE=VE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS, made and entered into this VIC fty,of March, 1994, by and between ERNIE MCBROOM. SR. and wire, JANICE M. MCBROOM (heirlBafter MC13ROOM S5 ; and, PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS of Lots Nos. I through 12, inclusive, as shown and delineated on a plat entitled FINAL pLAT _ GRASSy CREEK, a subdivision located in Cedar Grove Township, tramp County, North Carolina (hereinafter PURCHASERS, WJ T N E S _SE T H: WFiEgEAS, Ernie McBroom, Sr. bw heretofore acquired title to a certain tract or parcel of land NyWch has been subdivided into lots numbered I through 12, inclusive, according tD• a certain map or plat entitled FINAL PLAT-GRASSY CREEK(licroluufter somWmes referred to as the subdivision"), which said map appears of record in the office Of lh6ftister Of D,eeds of C3range County, in)?Iat Book 70, -Page, 182; WHEREAS,. MCBRIDOMS intend to convey said numbered lots as the same are ShOWn and delineated on the above mentioned -map, by deeds, deeds of trust, mortgages, and other .instruments to various persons, finis and/or corporations, subject to certain restrictive and protective covenants and conditions which are deemed to milm 1110 subdivision more desirable and to be for the benefit of all those who acquire title to any one or mor, of said numbered lots to Lb0 end that the restrictive and proMCflve covenants and conditions hCrCin' Set Out shall Inure•to t4e benefit of each person, RM., or corporation which may acquire title to any Ox all of said wombeCed lots and which sliall be binding upon each such person, firm, or corporation to whom or to which MCBROOMS may hereafter convey any of said numbered lots by deed, mortgage, deed of trust, or Other hilitratnent. NOW. TiffiREF6U. in Q0ns1d1U4Ou Of the premises, MC%ROOMS hereby covenant and agr= with said ProspeCtiv6 FurcliaserS that each of -the aforementioned numbered lots sball be held, sold, encumbered and conveyed Subject to the restrIctive, and protective covenants and con . ditions hereinafter set forth and said restrictivo and protective covenants and conditions shall become a pat of each instrument conveying any of said numbered lots as fully and to lhe same citent as if set forth therein.. Asa cotiditiOu of the sale or conveyance Of any of said numbered lots, the purchasers agree and covenant to abide by and conform with said restxIctive and protective covenants and conditions_ THE RES IVE AND PROTECTIVE !gOVENANTS AND CONDITIONS ARE AaPOLLOWS- 1. Lot, Ille word "Lori as used herein Shall mean the MaraelY ftuMbered parcels depicted on the above-min"—fioned map. Provided, however, that the 6wner of all of a. numbered parcel on said map- may combine with such numbered parcel, p= or portions of another . numbered parcel or parcels and the r I L. F, J) am ­r MM C MM �u CIO M 3 3 }F; 1 4 41 t 0i !9:26i)rl 1230T F,,Aruel 466 Berl;i;y Jyurle Hayv�s, 5 g of .1 1a, ad si N C;, aggregate shall be considered as one "] OC' for the purposes of these restrictive and protective covenants and conditions. 2. Land Use and Buildin e, No structure shall be erected, altered pla ed or permitted to remain on any tot other than for use as a singly-- faraily residential dwelling and only ode single-duly residential dwelling shall be, erected or permitted to remai n upon any Lot. No mobile. homes may be erected or permitted to remain upon. any Lot. A' private garage, outbuildings as herein expressly permitted and an €averbead story for servaufs quarters not rented, leased or utilized for any remuneration are permitted. -No outbuilding shall be erected upon any Lot unless same is lacidental'to the r%denoal use of said Lot. It is provided, however, that file party of 11ze first paft, during the devclopment stage. may maintain a dwelling for'use as a model home to .aid sates in the subdivision. A#tec development has been completed, no such model home may be maintained in the subdivision. 3. . Dwelling See. (a) Any one -story dwelling erected upon any Lot MAN contain not less than 1100 square feet, outside measurement, of enclosed floor heated area, exclusive of opm porches and ,garages. (b) &ny one and one -half story dwelling erected upon any Lot $ball contain not leas than 1300 square feet.' outside reasurement, of enclosed floor heated area, exclusive of open porches and garages. Such dwelling. Sball contain not less titan. 700 square Beet, .outside measurement, of enclosed floor heated area on the ground floor, exclusive of open porches and garages. (C) Any two- storyltwo and one -half story dwelling erected upon any Lot shall contain not -less tlzau'.1300 square feet, outside measurement, of enclosed floor heated area, exclusive of opm porches and ,garages. - Such dwelling shall contain not less Mall 700 square feet, outside measurement, of enclosed floor heated area on Cite ground floor, exclusive of open porches and garages.. . 4. . ZDwelling uslitp. All dwelling$ and outbuildi ngs meted upon any Lot shall be constructed of material of gdod grade, quality and appear�ncu, and all construction shall be performed. In a good and workmanlike rnatmer. The exterior r„onstrtiCtiOn of'any dwelling sball.not be of aaestos-SWOgle siding, imitation brick or staneroll sitting, or of concrete blocks, No "shell home," as the term is generally understood at this time in this area, shall be erected or allowed to rmain on any of said Lets. 'The outside surface of beams, walls, and roofs of any appurtenant structures located on airy Lot shall be of malcdal and quality of construction comparable in cost, deign, and quality to thn outside sudaees of the dwelling located .r on said Lot. No metal storage shed or 'barzi shall be located on any Lot. Any storage sited or bars shall 'be designed, constructed and maintained so as to be aesthetically compatible with die dwelling located on said Lot. S. Setback Lin. No building shall be erected or permitted to remain nearer to any Stmt in said subdivision than the street setback lines as shown on the r=rded plat or said subdivisions. No building shall be located nearer than 100 feet from ft right of way of S.R. 1545, 50' from the fight of way of Noble Road, or 3W from any side or rear lot line. It is pt'ovidod, However, that eaves, steps, stoops and fireplace chaises shall not lie considered a part of the building for the purposes of inteq=ting this paragraph of this 2 at�r ih soad= ' �'.wE 468 , Declaration. An error in the plampent of structures, in an amount loss than ten percent of the setback regvji emetn in .question is not a violation of this Declaration or of the provisions of the recorded. plat 6. Easy serrients. Easements for the installation and maintenance ofutilities and drainage facilities are reserved over the front and near ten feet of each of ft aforesaid Lbt& A drainage and utility easement five -fed in width is reserved, along each sideline of each Lok Additional drainage easements and utility easements M reserved as more particularly shown and delineated +aft the recorded map of the subdivision. Within said a ements so rjsmed, no structure, planting or other materials shall be placed or permitted to remain which tray damage or interfere with remain which may damage or interface with tote installation -and maintenance of utilities or which, may interfhm with drainage and the flow of water within the'ea neat areas. The owner of each lot shall maintain that portion, of said Lot lying within the easement areas as deSned herein and shall maintain such improvements as may be located thereon except those improvements installed and maintained by a public authority or utility compauy. Drainage easements axe reserved as more particularly sbowu and designated on the mxorded map of the subdivision. 7. Garbage and Refuse Disposal. No Lot shall be used or maintained,bi,an unsightly manner or as a dumping ground for rubbish, trash or debris. Rubbish, trash, debris, &bap and other waste shall be kept only in sanitary containers. All incinerators, containers or 00= equipment for ft. StOraga or disposal of such waste materials shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.- a, Nuisances. No noxious or* offensive trade or activity shall to carried on upon any l'-.ot nor shall anything.be done thereon which nmy be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the neighborhood. No truck or cornmemial vehicle in excess. of three - quarter ton load capacity shall be parked or permitted to remain on any Lot. No wrecked or junked motor vehicle or vehicle without current license plates and reestra.tion shall be permitted to remain upon any Lot. No tratier, mobile home, camper or like recreational vehicle shall be pexrriitted to remain upon any Lot unless it is located so as not to be visible from any. stmt or road within the sabdivisiotl. 9. Temporary Structure, No smictum of a temporary ebaractcr, trailer, batsetnezot, tent, shack, barn, or other, outbullding shall be used on any Lot at arty time as a residence either temporkily or permanently- ' i No signs of any [dud shalt be displayed to the public view on any Lot. However, on Mai sign of not more than five ware feet advertising the PwPrtY for sale or rent and signs, used by a builder to advertise the property during construction and sales Period are permissible. , 11. 1•ivestock and P No animals, livestock, or ponitry.of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any Lot, except that •dogs, cats, or other household pets may be kept providing they are not Dept, bred, or maintained for commercial purposes. 12. Time. These covenarit,5 are to ruin with the land and shall be binding tin all persons acquiring title to any of the aforementioned Lots -for at period of twenty years from the date of these covenants, 1995, at which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty yea.is; unless by a written -instrument executed by a majority of the theri- owners of the said Lots, and duly recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County within 3 B091230 rtfiE 469 three months of any anniversary date of any such autonaatir. renewal; it is agreed change said.. covenants in whole or in part. ' 13, 16nfor, efTnent. - -Enforcement of these restrictions and conditions shall be by . proce6ding at law or in egvity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant or condition, Either to restrain violation thereof or to recover damages therefor. Injunction shall not issue to cc rnpel tbe• removal of or moving of my completed residence for violation of side setback or (rant setbaa restrictions, the sole remedy of any offended person teeing a suit foot darnages, 14. Seve>;abil M Invalidation of any one of these covenants or conditions by judgment or carder of any court shall in no way affect any -of the other provisions which shall remain in full ° farce and eflecL ' IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, MCBROOMS have hereunto set their hands and seals this the day and yW. first above lkritteri. ERM MCBROOM, 'SR. Jk4CS M. MCBR.00M • I STATE OF NOM CAROLINA. � cou O>? I i, a rotary Public of said State and County, ,do hereby oerttfy. that Braia McBroom, Sr. -and ?atnice'M. M'cBrsoorn personally appemd t dare me this day and an1mowledged the due execution of the fomgoing inSUUMent° Witness nay hand.and no seal, this the '-day of March, 1994: * ;� �•�'�'b� ~pan+ J' lie M Main of North Car€�tiraa.6nnga County IN Y Zr). ssien Expires: (h� Dreg ©ing certrli aiteft • 4 • Dutton' • i• yq'rq unfit • ^S a Du A Nbtary• dp4 Public Jor than r�atssct t�mm nis �t� +n4na�atis�k�4y 4units is to G be ''�?01'(�f'r`t ng This the y Q Betty ,tu of Chmo Re: New Evidence, McBroom Rezoning Issue Dear Mr. Gledhill; In the following pages of the public handout titled Notice of Public Hearing Orange Count), Board of Commissioners Orange County Planning Board, that was given out at the new courthouse in Hillsborough on August 23, 1999, before, during and after the meeting, I will attempt to show just cause, and new evidence to deny or reopen the joint public hearing regarding the McBroom rezoning. I have tried to go page by page, to reveal misleading statements of fact inaccuracies, omissions of standard and actions in violation ofthe ordinance. Pictures, plat maps and newspapers are available for viewing on request. This was all merely public information, obtained through research, purchases and obseimation, most of which, my fellow community members are aware and have first hand knowledge. I will forward later, my personal view with concerns about the McBroom rezoning, as well as whatever else I might find. Again my purpose here, is to request you to deny the McBroom Rezoning application or to reopen the joint public hearing about the McBroom Rezoning as suggested in Article 20.7.2 ofthe Zoning Ordinance Manual and to make my letter part of the public record. Sincerely, Pamela S. Alexander 5531 Old Noble Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231 919-732-8870 Email: talexa9550@aol.com cc: Craig Benedict-Director, Planning Dept. John Link Jr.- County Manager file NOTICE • PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONER ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD I A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, August 23, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: Rimini 1. Z-02-99 Johnny Cates Johnny C. Cates requests that a 2.8 acre (121,968 SF) portion of his 5.1 acre property at 3102 West Ten Road, Cheeks Township, be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts.. Permitted uses within the AS District that are not permitted in the AR District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agiricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is approximately 2,200 feet east of Mt. Willing Road interchange with 1-40/85 and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9854-14-8385. 2. Z-03-99 Ernie'McBroom ` Ernie McBroom requests that his 10.01 acre (436,036 SF) parcel in Cedar Grove Township be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. Permitted uses within the AS District that are not permitted in the AR District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment Sales, Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is located on the south side of Sawmill Road West (SR 1545) approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road, SR 1507) and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9868-43-4251. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. Orange County Planning Staff and NC Child Care Commission propose amendments to Article 4, Section 4.3 (Permitted Use Table), Article 6, Section 6.27 (Large Day Care Homes), Article 8, Section 8.8.16 (Day Care Facility), and Article 22 (Definitions) that change language in ordinance provisions for child care facilities to conform with language in North Carolina General Statutes regarding licensing provisions for child care facilities. g:Wincoln\0899phad.doc\8-4-99\kI IM 2. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to revise the time constraints in Article 2 (The Board of County Commissioners and its Administrative Mechanisms), Article 3 (Establishment of Zoning Districts and Atlas), Article 6.29.3 (Development Standards for Economic Development Districts), Article 8 (Special Uses), and Article 20 (Amendments). Proposed amendments will: • Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable agencies prior to completing reports to boards; • Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and • Delete provision that allows approval of applications- that do not meet ordinance regulations if processing time cannot be met. 1. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to revise the time constraints in Section III (Application and Approval Procedures), Section IV-13-7 (Sites for Public ' Use), and .SectionVI17D-4 (Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing). Proposed amendments will: • Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review from all applicable agencies prior to completing reports to boards; • Provide adequate time for board review of projects; and • Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations if processing time cannot be met. • Revise . process for appeal of staff decisions concerning subdivision classification (minor vs major) and approval of minor subdivisions. 2. Orange County Planning Board and planning staff propose amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations Section IV-13-10 Flexible Development: a. to amend D-1 Estate Lot Option to 1. reduce minimum lot size from 4.0 acres to 3.0 acres with average lot size of 3.5 acres; 2. provide a 150 ft. buffer along state maintained roads adjacent to subdivision boundaries; 3. restrict lot access to internal subdivision roads; and b. to amend D.3 Cluster Option to clarify that any transfer of density within a cluster development will not result in a greater density within any specific zoning district than the average density allowed by zoning restrictions within that specific district including overlay districts (eg. flexible development proposals spanning the critical area (CA) and the balance (PW) of a protected watershed cannot shift density from a higher density zoning (PW) to a lower density zoning (CA)). 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 and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. g:\klincoInXOBggphad.doc\8-4-99W Page 004 Item 1.) Publication of alp iouncenient of public hearing Although it is true, that in each of the stated News of Orange issues, the public notice of hearing appeared, neither issue of (lie Chapel Hill Herald, carried the public notice. All f I our complete issues are available for viewing oil request. .Altliougli the legal requirement was met, (.Article 20.6.1), the information given is MiSle4ldillg the PUbfiC into belieVin,(.1, (11,11 it Was published four tunes. I Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, . = through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 9 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. PUBLISH: - [dews of Orange Chal2@1 Hill Herald August 11 1999 August 12, 1099 August 18, 1999 August 19, 1999 g:\klincolnk0899phad,doc\84-g9NkI I Orange County shall be adopted by reference as though fully set forth herein. Any map amendments adopted by Orange County shall be officially denoted on the County zoning Atlas. Where there is inconsistency between the amendment procedures contained in this Article and those contained in the Jai t Planning Agreement, the provisions of the Joint Plannin3 Agreement shall apply. 20.4 LQL2=aA of AMMAOM2", Ama"At_&M 12 LUMkU LQAK4 Amended The Zoning-officer-shall submit-any application for 3/18/e6 amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board at the on of the 30-day first regular meeting after the expiration thereof. This period specified in 20.3.3 or any extension provision shall not apply to any application for amendment to the Zoning ordinance text. 20-5 TIM Lon" 91 992-n-ty is ars And &4A LLA-Anku 12ANd ghil IWA A Lqb;" A"Lin The Board of County commissioners and the Planning Board this ordinance in shall hear applications for amendments to a Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular meeting in August, November, February and May. 20.6 pUh1_jC L%§K_AAU and VS&ISI TherQ 20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be 7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in­t`h'e County, stating the time and place of such hearing and the substance of the proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty- five (25) days before the,date set for the public hearing.. in computing,the notice period, the day of publication is not to be included,. but the day of the hearing is to be included. 20-6.2 The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning atlas shall post on the applicant's affected property a notice of the public hear__1ngat,least ten days prior to the i date of said hearing. 20.6.3 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written . notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less 11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the orange County tax records and whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property. If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the County, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all 20-3 Page 025 Item 2.) Location -Tax A Iap Number Under (lie heading of Location, the Tax Map Number is stated to be 2.34..51. However, the plat recording the 10.01 acre lot (Plat boot: 83 page 19) indicates the Tax l\-lap No. 2.34..20. Plat boot: 83 page 19 available for viewing upon request. The stated TRI No. is uicorrect. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 025 AND PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 23, 1999 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBR•• M DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): Applications Vicinity and Site Maps General Information Memorandum Certificate of Mailing Staff Findings Action Agenda Item No. PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley, X2584 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181- Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment requested by Ernie McBroom for his property in Cedar Grove Township. BACKGROUND: Reques That a 10.01 -acre tract be rezoned from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS Agricultural Service. Location The proposed zoning lot is located at 750± Sawmill Road West (Tax Map No. 2.34..51), approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road (SR 1507). F I I L, 1; 0 M =-� K! M701 t U. Existing: The existing property is a 10.01 a flag lot with access on the south side of Sawmill Road. The tract currently is fallow cropland. Zoning: The property and all surrounding properties lie within Orange County's jurisdiction and are zoned AR(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural-Residential (Little River Protected Watershed) in accordance with the -adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. •. The minimum lot size is two acres. Page 025 Item 3.) Existing 10.01 acres Flag Lot It is stated that [lie existing Flag Lot has access on the south side of Sawmill Rd. The existing lot has no current access, only proposed access. a.) Flag Lots come under subdivision regulations per Article 22, page 22 -9 Subdivision Regulation Sec. II Defmition b.) B7 -13-5 (a -c) indicates a flag lot is to be Dart of a subdivision. This one is not. c.) IV -13-5 -d paragraph (f) states "no flag lot will be allowed if it increases the number of access points onto an arterial or collector street. This flag lot should not have been allowed. d.) B7- 13 -5 -e states all criteria musk be met, this does not. There is no existing road or driveway(2) e.) Page 33 -B IV- 1; -5 -d states 111a.xinmin length allowed on any flag lot is 700 feet. Map dimensions on Plat. book 83 page 19 indicate west flag lot. length 1,259.5' feet long and east flag lot length is in excess of 900 feet in length. The length is excessive for this fhag lot and should not have been approved or pertnitt:ed. ORANGE COUNTY , BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0 24 1 I AND PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 23, 1999 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT Z-3-99 ERNIE MCBROOM DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): Applications Vicinity and Site Maps General Information Memorandum Certificate of Mailing Staff Findings Action Agenda Item No. PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley, X2584 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181. Chapol Hill 968-4601 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment requested by Ernie McBroom for his property in Cedar Grove Township. BACKGROUND: Beset That a 10.01 -acre tract be rezoned from AR Agricultural-Residential to AS Agricultural Service. Location The proposed zoning lot is located at 750± Sawmill Road West (Tax Map No. 2.34..51), approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road (SR 1507). Existing: The existing property is a 10.01 a flag lot with access on the south side of Sawmill Road. The tract currently is fallow cropland. Zoning: The property and all surrounding properties fie within Orange County's jurisdiction and are zoned AR(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural-Residential (Little River Protected Watershed) in accordance with the -adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 0 The minimum lot size is two acres. activities listed above, including residences for the owners, operators or employees of the farm and their families. General livestock and poultry includes those animals involved which are customarily and traditionally.. raised on farms, such as beef and dairy cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, rabbits and horses, mules, ponies, chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese for the purpose listed above. Farming does not include agricultural services and processing, avocational farming, specialized commercial horticulture, and specialized commercial animal husbandry. Farm, Bonafide - The use of land for farming meeting one of the following criteria: (1) composing two or more acres on one or more tracts owned or leased by the bonafide farm unit; (2) average annual sales of $1,000 for the preceding three years; or a minimum of twenty of forest land for which a management plan has been prepared. Farming Definitions - (See Farming, Avocational Farming, Specialized Horticulture, Specialized Animal Husbandry, Commercial Feeder Operation, etc.) Amended Flag Lot - An irregularly shaped lot where the buildable portion of the lot is 7/5/88 connected to its street frontage by an arm of the lot (see Figures 1 to 4 on page 33c of the Subdivision Regulations). Amended Flexible Development - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design 7 -1 -96 creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through development approaches. At lease one -third (33 %) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through: (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50 %) are established for each lot, and the land area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or (b) a "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open space is preserved through the use of conservation easements applied to portions of individual lots; or (c) A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space; or (d) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded by open space; or IM REM SECTION H. DEFINITIONS Unless otherwise stated the following words shall, for purposes of this Ordinance, have the following definitions. Words used in the present tense shall be. understood to include the future tense. Words used in the singular shall be understood to include the plural. ALLEY - A roadway which affords only a secondary means of access to abutting property and not intended for general traffic circulation. DEDICATION - A gift, by the owner, of land for a specified purpose, or purposes. Because a transfer of property is entailed, dedication must be made by written instrument and is completed with an acceptance. *Amended *DWELLING UNIT - A room or group of rooms forming a 10-4-82 single independent habitable unit with facilities used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking and 'eating by one family; for owner occupancy or for rental, lease or other occupancy on a weekly or longer basis, and containing independent cooking, sanitary and sleeping facilities. Units- otherwise meeting this definition but occupied by transients on a rental or lease basis for periods of less than one week shall be construed to be lodging units. Mobile homes and modular units are to be considered dwelling units under this definition. *Amended *EASEMENT - A grant of rights by the property owner to 1-17-79 . a portion' of land for a specified purpose. *Amended'. *FLAG LOT - An irregularly shaped lot where the 7-5-88 buildable portion of the lot is connected to its street frontage by an arm of the lot (see Figures 1 to 4 on page 33c). Amended FLEXIBLE DEVE LOPIVIE NT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and 7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development approaches. At least one- third (33%) of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be preserved through: (1) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot, and the land area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or (2) A "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open ^ . J I space is preserved through the use of conservation easements applied to portions of individual lots; or (3) A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space; or 3 .j IV -B -5. LOT LAYOUT *IV- B -5 -a. The shape and orientation of lots shall 'be appropriate to the location of *Amended the subdivision and the development intended. Interior lot lines 7/5/88 extending from a street should be approximately perpendicular or radial 1/4/94 to the street right -of -way line. Lot lines shall be located to permit efficient installation and maintenance of utility lines on utility easements, to maximize buildable area, and, where applicable, to provide a suitable area for septic systems. Commercial and industrial lots shall be of sufficient size to include off -street -service'facilities, and off -street parking of all vehicles used by all patrons and employees. *IV- B -5 -b. Each lot shall abut a publicly dedicated street except in subdivision *Amended approved with private roads. In the latter situation, each lot must abut 1/4/84 a private road or a state maintained road which is shown on the approved plat and constructed pursuant to the standards set by Orange County. Upon recommendation of the Planning Board and approval of the County Commissioners, the construction of the access road may be postponed until building or market development is undertaken. In this case the lots shall be designated on the plat: "This lot may not be sold, nor a building permit issued, until the access road has been built as specified for this subdivision. " Except where reverse frontage is desirable, double frontage lots should be avoided. *IV- B -5 -c. All requirements shall conform to each and all of the requirements of *Amended the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for the zoning district and any 1/4/94 overlay district in which they are located. 33 *IV- B -S -d. Flag Lots a) Intent *Amended 7/5/88 Orange County discourages and restricts forming flag lots (as 8/6/90 defined in Section II - Definitions). A flag lot shall be 9/4/90 permitted if necessary to allow a property owner reasonable use and benefit from his land or to alleviate situations which would otherwise cause extreme hardship for him. b) Lot Standards Flag lots are allowed only: (A) where necessary to eliminate access onto arterials (See Figure 1); (B) to reasonably utilize irregularly shaped land (See Figure 2); (C) to reasonably .utilize land with difficult topography (See Figure 3); (D) to reasonably utilize land with limited sites suitable for septic tank nitrification fields (See Figure 4); (E) where it is unlikely that a road created in lieu of a flag lot would ever be extended, or otherwise needed to provide access to adjoining parcels (See Figure 5); or (F) to provide for the protection of significant natural or cultural resources. No flag lot will be allowed if it increases the number of access points onto an arterial or collector street. The length of a flag lot between the street onto which it has access and the point where a lot dimension parallels the street shall be based on the size of the proposed regular lot. The following table indicates the allowed length of the flag portion of the lot based on the required minimum width of the regular lot (see example). 33 -a y! *IV-B-5-e. 'All- lots created after the effective date of this provision shall be *Amended composed of contiguous land area, and that area shall not be divided 10/3/88 by street right-of-way or other lots. A private road easement may divide 10/18/94 a new lot only if all of the following criteria are met: 10/1/96 I the land underlying the easement in the same ownership as the remainder of the lot; and 2 the proposed easement contains an existing road or driveway which.is to-be,used.for. access " to new.lots;.OR the.prpposed easement if located along a property' line Wiffhave an irregular shape; and 3. the minimum lot area requirement can be met on one side of the road easement but not both sides. Those lots with land area divided by a public road right-of-way prior to the effective date of this provision shall not be further subdivided in a manner which creates any additional lots with divided area. 33-d 0 -j LocA.L STREET FIGURE FIGURE 3) STREET (Figure 5 SEPTIC TAN K NITRIFIC FI ELD LU LU cr- V) Amended 7-5-88 8-6-90 I KL ET FIGURE Z) -33-c- STREET (FIGURE 4 -"j ,;_j A Size of Regular Lot 40,000 sq.ft. to 1 acre 1+ acres to 2 acres 2+ acres .1-1- ­_ I-— I I Required Minimum Width of Regular Lot FLAG LOT REGULAR LOT width of regular lot 130 feet 130 feet 130 feet 130 feet S T R E E T EXAMPLE Length of Flag Staff Allowed 308 to 336 feet 337 to 671 feet 672 to 700 feet :-maximum length allowed length of flag staff allowed The maximum length allowed on any flag lot is 700 feet. The lot width and street frontage of a flag lot may be reduced to 35 feet. The Planning Director may approve further reductions to a minimum of 20 feet where topographical conditions permit the construction of an adequate driveway within that width. The Planning Director may also require greater widths where necessary to insure adequate access. -33-B- Page 026 Item 4.) First Action: Planning board tuning. It is stated, the Plaralhig Board has 75 days Vvitllul wliicll to prepare and submit... In Article 20.7.1 paragraph 2, the board has 60 days to submit. Tills is inaccurate inforination, possibly leadlllg to a iailUre of recotrunendatlon which could be then considered a favorable recoliurtendatlon per Article 20.7.1. 0 Permitted uses include agricultural activities, single family dwellings, duplexes on 026 twice the minimum lot size, and those uses which are supportive of residential development such as fire stations, churches, utilities, etc. )roposed: The proposed zoning lot meets the 2-acre minimum lot size. A 12 percent (12%) npervious surface limitation for non-residential uses in the watershed will be imposed. BMP (Best Management Practices) will not be allowed to satisfy watershed requirements. The proposed zoning for the 10.01a site is AS(LITTLE-PW) Agricultural Service (Little River Protected Watershed). • Minimum lot size is two acres. 0 Permitted use includes rural non-farm, non-residential development which supports the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural uses of AR districts. ME.M."MINUUMT MM F-71TWT, Public Hearing August 23,1999: No decision is made on the proposed amendments by either the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing. First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board has 75 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered as a favorable recommendation. Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance Mom The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the rezoning. • The request complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal meets all dimensional requirements. 0 Permitted uses listed for the. proposed AS district are appropriate to service the surrounding agricultural uses. Please refer to the attached Information Memorandum. The Administration recommends that the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment be referred to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned no sooner than September 21, 11999. g:kjim\zatiasamend\z-3-9gmcbroomkphabstract\8-13-99\jrh affected Property owners and to all adjacent property owners within 500 feet as provided above. The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such notices to the Board of County Commissioners. 20.7 Action 194912429—t to the Vate 21 Public AsArjqq 20.7.1. Following the date of public hearing, all proposed amendments shall be referred to the Planning Board for its Amended c•onsideration and-recommendation. Evidence not presented 2/5/90 at the joint public hearing (hereinafter called "new evidence") may be submitted in writing at or prior to the PI , anning Board meeting at which the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners is made., The Planning Board may consider oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The Planning Board shall within sixty days after the date of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of any application submitted by the public. Said time limit may be extended upon request of the applicant. Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not be subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of County Commissioners during the public hearing process. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions. 20.7.2 The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed amendment until sixty days after Amended the first date of the public hearing or until the Planning 2/5/90 Board makes this recommendation, whichever comes first. In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint public hearing, and any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. New evidence which was not presented in writing to the Planning Board may not be considered by the Board of Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public hearing is reopened to receive said evidence, and the item is re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board for recommendation. 20.8 Withdrawal 2.f A22ligation An applicant may withdraw his or her application at any time by written notice to the County Manager. However, any withdrawal of an application after the giving of the first notice as required in 20.6 shall be considered, for the purposes of Article 20, a denial of the petition. _D 1'agc 026 Item 5.) Under Development, Processes, Schedule and Action Article 20.7.2 indicates Process and Action could include New evidence not presented to Planning Board in writllig. Ajolln public hearing may be reopened and or referred back to the Phituting Board. Information on public handout was incorrect as it oiTUtted this possible action and Verbalization with zoning department did not indicate any, type of possible further action prior to CoiTunission i-neeting and Vote. 0 Permitted uses include agricultural activities, single family dwellings, duplexes on 026 twice the minimum lot size, and those uses which are supportive of residential development such as fire stations, churches, utilities, etc. wroposed: The proposed zoning lot meets the 2 -acre minimum lot size. A 12 percent (12 %) npervious surface limitation for non - residential uses in the watershed will be imposed. BMP (Best unagement Practices) will not be allowed to satisfy watershed requirements. 9- The proposed zoning for the 10.01a site is AS(LITTLE -PW) Agricultural Service (Little River Protected Watershed). s Minimum lot size Is two acres. Permitted use includes rural non - farm, non - residential development which supports the horticultural, silvlcultural, and agricultural uses of AR districts. Public Bearing August 23,1999: No decision is made on the proposed amendments by either the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing. First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board has 75 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered as a favorable recommendation. Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance ' s =. i & ! ! 1J I �► . i-01-01-4414-1416Y -�` 1 11 a The request complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. ® The proposal meets all dimensional requirements. e Permitted uses listed for the, proposed AS district are appropriate to service the surrounding agricultural uses. Please refer to the attached Information Memorandum. The Administration r®commends that the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment be referred to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned no sooner than September 21, 11999. g: yimi zatiasamendlz- 3- 99mobroomtphabstractld- 13- 99jrh affected property owners and to all adjacent property owners within 500 feet as provided above. The Zoning officer shall certify the mailing of all such notices to the Board of County Commissioners. 20.7 Action Subsequent to the Date of, Public Bear n 20.7.1 Following the date of the public hearing, all proposed amendments shall be referred to the Planning Board for its Amended consideration and-recommendation. Evidence not presented 2/5/90 at the joint public hearing (hereinafter called "new evidence") may be submitted in writing at or prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners is made., The Planning Board may consider oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The Planning Board shall within sixty days after the date of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of any application submitted by the public. Said time limit may be extended upon request of the applicant. Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not be subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of County Commissioners during the public hearing process. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions. 20.7.2 The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed amendment until sixty days after Amended the.first date of the public hearing or until the Planning 2/5/90 Board makes this recommendation, whichever comes first. in making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint public hearing, and any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. New evidence which was not presented in writing to the Planning Board may not be considered by the Board of Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public, hearing is reopened to receive said evidence, and the item is re-advertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board for recommendation. 20.8 Withdrawal of Application An applicant may withdraw his or her application at any time by written notice to the County Manager. However, any withdrawal of an application after the giving of the first notice as required in 20.6 shall be considered, for the purposes of Article 20, a denial of the petition. 20-4 Page 026 Item 6.) Recommendations .Bullet three. Stated permitted uses list iii rrtemorandum page 035 of handout. Inaccurate and misleading information given ill memorandum. Refer to page 035 with. attachments. + Permitted uses include agricultural activltles, single family dwellings, duplexes on 026 twice the minimum lot size, and those uses which are supportive of residential development such as fire stations, churches, utilities, etc. poposed: The proposed zoning lot meets the 2 -acre minimum lot size, A 12 percent (12 %) npervious surface limitation %r non - residential uses in the watershed will be imposed. BMP (Best 4anagement Practices) will not be allowed to satisfy watershed requirements. ®- The proposed zoning for the 10-01a site is AS(LiTTLE -PWi) Agricultural Service (Little River Protected Watershed). * Minimum lot size is two acres. + Permitted use includes rural non - farm, non - residential development which supports the horticultural, silviculturai, and agricultural uses of AR districts. Public Hearing August 23,1999: No decision is made on the proposed amendments by either the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing. First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board has 78 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered as a favorable recommendation. s Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance • I JIL65"714iAZIPWIRM 1611411 it-11P 11 1 '10 T U1 rlr- ® The request complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. ® The proposal meets all dimensional requirements. w Permitted uses listed for the.proposed AS district are appropriate to service the surrounding agricultural uses. Please refer to the attached Information Memorandum, The Administration recommends that the proposed. Zoning Atlas amendment be referred to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned no sooner than Septeimber 21, 1999. g: ljim\ zatiasamend\ z- 3- 99mcbroom %phabstract \8- 13- 99 \jrh Page 027 Item 7.) Applicant & Signature A i•., McBroorn filled out and signed application, however property is ,jointly owned by Janice M. McBroom per County Registry Book 1158 Rage 325. Application and signatures should be 1i-orn both owners. F ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 0 27 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 1 Date: TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The-undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1. The property is located on t h a ,SouT side. of S.R.# 13-44 (�A�&Wlu4 'tn, 4y Strest /Road) between -'A. �1G. 9& and S:R.# f5r)l_. It is known as Lots) Zo _ Black -- , of Orange County Tax Map 34 - C'e9f;! -Q2 -QJE Township. It has a frontage of feet and a depth of feet, and contains pquare feet or 10.01 acres. 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from Av- to •3.1- The ..fal4owing. information has bean _attached ..in__. support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas (* - required an all app lications) . M _ —• -• ter•• .. - .- .... -.. ..�. �. -�.�. . °a. A fully dimensioned map at •a aceLe of not Lass than one (1) inch equals one — hundred (1O0) rest nor more then one (1) inch aqua Ls — twenty • 1201 -feet" showlTrg••--the Land •xhich is proposed to be rezoned. °b. A LegaL description of the Land proposed to be rezoned. mc. A statement or ,justification addressing one or more of the fo L Lowi ng : (1) The alLeged error in the zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the zoning Atlas and detailed reasons-how the proposed amendment wiLL correct the error. (21 The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the.,County generaLLy, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public hasLth, surety and general weLfars. °(3] Thu manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part thereof. e(4) ALL other circumstances, factors end reasons which the appLicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not Limited to, documentation from service ag•enciss (e.g. fire, poLics, rescue and utiLitisa agencies] sasuring services provision capability to the deveLopment. d. A List of aLL individuaLa, firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (5013) feet of the property sought for rezoning is attached. The List is current as of .dostal I certify that -all information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge. A P p l i c an t (s) �-- �Yv►�•cr �� c� Yt2Pnn - .. .. .- . �� !Address : 2(cC)[a vtnlu�`�- RoT� Phone • Page 028 Item 8.) Owner and Proposed purpose a.) Property is jointly owned and space one should reflect that ownership. b.) Landscape Recycling, the proposed use of lot is not specifically mentioned in pern ii.tted uses, however this type of business would require storage of petroleum products (for machinery) Article 4.3 S31 which is not permitted for AS zoning, storage of goods outside Omulcll, recycled product). Article 4.3 S50 which is not permitted for AS zoning, possibly storage of iti,arellousing:inside building, Article 4.3 S51 which is 1.1.01 permtted for AS zoning, possibly wholesale sales, !Ulicle 4.3 S53 which is not permitted for AS zoning. Because of the type of business, with the above possible need of that business and their unavailability under the AS zoning, it makes this type of business inappropriate for the area. t `i R 028 w �+ Ti J � � m y u° u w ' •Q s H H r, ca z H 2 O N W a +- ,� a► W cu 0 O cn y � �� � � cC W 3 �•i cc 0: M a ro � ' 41 o w O to ai N w � m o m H u i H H C� m ai t:5k 0 � Li cu H 0 C1 al u OD ,� W •• cn C C ^c: ..1 0 w 2 N 0 a N 1Oi C ! r lJ 44 O 10 0 r4 0 W ii 0 M 0I 4j u y O � •c v H E+ H d U ai q Z +- r. ■ , I, L J_J-w� Ln Ln L, ww Ln Lr w Ln w tr, w Lo w In w I/) w In 11) Y, It, > P C) 10 = -j ON 4- > C) Ij - rl , Y, 77 rp X n X r. > x r, ;o C) — — — --- Fr C', 0 CD C) B EI n = a rz n N < a r > Ei R > r- A' r Ll % \/ } /R /§ In o -0 In E; a w < � \�ƒ(j� ® ®® ~ ;4f > 11 r) �:, L, 4- r- M —c > W m w \ \0 m r) r*) C: L, 0 m c In m C: -q In Er m > �? > M r) ,ao > — — — — — — — — --- — > > ;4f a) tA > 11 r) �:, L, 4- r- M —c > W m w \ \0 m r) r*) C: L, 0 m c In m C: -q In Er m > �? > M r) ,ao r� 61 -4 C,)o 42 2 > H P p p > > to > any o g > MM Z P� MEN No 0 ISOMIM NONNI Nil mom am I MINIMIN IMMININIIIII IMINIIIIII I go C,)o 42 2 > H P p p > > to > any o g > MM Z P� Page 029 Item 9.) Property to be zoned Stated as Plat Book 83 page 101 Actual - Plat Book 83 page 19 Plat available for -Ocivilig upon request, ZONING RE GUEST 0, ;•�� JUSTIFICATION: Lot E, "Division of Property of Ernie McBr, shown on plat recorded in the Orange Count in Plat Book 83 page 101. 029 1. No error alleged. 2. The closing of private landfills and the decreasing capacity of the Orange County Landfill has increased the need for a site where landscape debris (stumps and tree limbs) can be processed and recycled. This use is appropriate for the rural areas of the County and would be allowed under an AS zoning designation. 3. This rezoning would locate a use supportive of horticultural and agricultural activities in an area convenient to the supported uses. 4. This site is located near NC 86, on a collector road, and would be readily accessible to emergency services. No need for other public services is anticipated given the location and limited uses allowed under this Zoning designation. —. 0-30 1 I 1 \ • \ I 1 1 I \ I . I 1 i 1 1 1 i 10.16A 4 032 . y�V:. �,,: � -;. •: .MN.' _ t`.u.. ««w .Y.A1 nw.+. fA„•'vN A.w^�.n ««.Xw♦w'w`.n' NrNn M.•MYw.w. N.MMY• 'wN •AwNw.r «rm.r rvMwn.•nn.nlM M,«w••nn m ML.%•.� .!• :•.• n tw,wn, ,Y..Y.v.M.Mwnv.wwnvw «M Nry M,•.N•.wnwM tvwMN,�nN.iM•. ..r, «wr, Atti'.wnn• w� Aw,1, M.r�r� ^'ter M.w•n,•w•wvr•/«.w. vinW •n1:.. n•N.vnr.,u•!1: ...'�N�.•A.w..w.,.�frM�..M.Mw u...wY.A,A.r.w n +M t•M,Aw.,Y.� +AV«AY IwMYXAwrr.wYn•,w Nmv.mw;MAYN N.��.ti«..:w 'IY:M.;..,...w •• M n4 •e '^ nN wYnvA..vR: • JAWNA♦'M„w•nN•!r`ri,•vlw.nw n`rMt"^'•'•'IA VnVAwt. AYV.!• W.W♦MrM xwMY wM MYn•. /.NMN A «IN.M'M,vMNWM,w\Krsv • r4� .. µ. ... w.N,,,t AVwvv A1:nWM„t♦YmA nMMw...Vr•+Mtv.'.•/. YM1Ywt wAYMA •r'.A wn t�.MrvrrMw rMMVrvwVl. •1 rAl. NJh \.wwvIMVVYVwM'..n ��• MV.M„tYAVMW.,Vw• t MtIMtMMa :ifMV.w M.AYw� „� wVYMNNVM.nW.,,.NN I�M.WVW'MNwM�..'. YNW/.t.rN' An,r ris.lANN F .wf'V w,•..•.v„v.+NM , MR•n , ,M.•M,Y� •Va �Mlw�w �MY'w AM r:MNhM• n ♦w.� w•^n, � � Lr,AVn. « .t, .♦tNN♦VAYVAAVNt rM n NMWw.vnA! (y�� vO+Jw� W«VAVI«MMVM �v� rYly t•YW,tM•M.,.- tM'V/nrnN+.NAY �y �' ���iN A, A'gwnnVM.«Y.4Vrnw ^IX . Aww. N y.,.r.'Mnvtn «mryw yr•�y wwnn r• .f.� MtiVLV. ''' r•J.wnvr M MV VMV.rnnr.vin'�«V My �,µw.�' fV� µ; ♦rf :YAAwr O.♦wr.+.r.y\ MA.N rv.nwwrm� .i to •�yy !lntM, •fY •nMVM.vM.A .WnVNn ♦r„YJAY'eM 't rnJw Wlwww yrvJ fi,vl F."wAw�.•M lnvvvrn.r,N.AV� � wYV...wnvwA,w «� n""XMU„ANN,M.'' Y•.Xyr M.v+•/��11���r�11��nµ . VM1M.'. ♦nWw.vrVMNN•. N L •.e.NWA,•n rw.Mw.,•., M • wM'NN.VWMrn„♦ ,p,t n w wwwYA.nAwv.N..• �"a"wr♦`r^n'v^� yvnvww�Y�wN .wn,Yw....w MtYAwM vn � '�µi- In.YIAwY +.wN M +n.ww. .nNN,'AJ.n �tM�vmv..v , A N }} AWwA,r.q� wwwYMYrI.VVN. YNAM, hVANNN,YVMf.•M, FvnN YM'.lN• /rL,' ,.�' \.wY«,Y/wMM N«M,NVw �r �W"� ,'.'MYrV'.'«; nV AVMhN..... «��/���AV,vvvr«.r ' / � n Yn.WM h \MMwA+< /AwNSnM♦n..M, «t,.AV.,♦„Y .r♦'v IrA♦NY.N /•ylNw.,1NN 'wvM•M"'lvrNWMVAJ. VM AVN�Y.nMMw. ,v.NV.v MnNwAVr M.�. v NwnM.tw.•♦xwnrv., ,NA+ww.YA wNVrwffahw.YnM • � .yw tw.wvn.n �i•ur'r.wrr«vn MM.MY.rnY. r ,NA.v«wvrNrvNMw NJMNh NNwnaw ' .N,NN.MMYr♦tYn WAA•rMIA.♦,V.Mn .nvr,...wv�S:YVnvw X ��w�'v`r �9M1w�+>•' r�.vn, ♦lwYYM/ •A•wNr �«nM A,HMt .wHw MtwKr+'•.n,rMMM, ♦•wh.M«wr,w.v r•wYlw•Mn.nJNn.N h„ /',VAN.Y+.n'rA, nWXM„aMl r.,•.YV..mv..vv.•,.n•n w • hNwwV.N tN MNVr.YiPS ^ w•'/^wM,•MVnM•.•/lIMVA. Y.•.Vrv.•IY...N Mty,tVr,•.'NVrV.r 4 .. n♦w:A• nN. owW.♦,R A, .wx.NVlw awn xNM.N n'r^v^.w•.wwwtu . wwM+ Mw. � ✓r ^�^,.. �� YM µNM ti�•n�, w.«Ar...Y «A • w M .AMy ♦ �w 4Y. wYM� wIr! .. .wrgr h M•rr6.,•.,,vN •.•L. •M NwwM nwA.Anv. «w r�l..! rA�Y. •t /A✓ M';,' M v/..'W.Yw.• • YF• r ... M Y.,•rYMN NNY♦ w:. t,•w nM. •�rAN+t, '\4 wlw+.Ati•♦t t,N Nt ^N �wY NN wyy«.v.vM..MT jwmv•MYw+. n. \•r .. �jMM ✓n.N.♦.MM xr.'�i. w YMWIXJ� � !. w' .,r'.N •.M. •M'• r.� IrA•AN n� y� i+lrn�w.v �n w.w«vn « ,« n w ..w.•••••n • ..A ' . ; . ” �� n�K.i: � wrM„wtMN w.wwwvr� µ nN, N.{v}w nN N •rv.evn ♦Mt.rwtV .Y«.nN♦M rY/A,,,,•.vN/r.,V..'r, ' rn nM fV' 1.t . NAw VnWMtNnNhvntwtNM _ .n. ' w t .v v.Ywn\ .• n �• ..•N .NVn t ' . YF.A'nn,•.. M+w.. yMV k. rMM QJ \ �... ..I. WAM.vn r!, 'wN•il, i tNM �.♦r.. m\ NI a NMt 1 . � inn. n !•rn•. ,N _ •� Nl�f'wtnN .. .. ... .r � f'�I !'jr. t.a.�t N �✓^"^w'�,Mw♦r."'w.Y+n a"` a MNMM••M,Nwiw.n,vv : l / « n:; ;r'w WI r+M.+N ,MN, •• W. �wnw' •«Jw M,w...,+ '� ., w.4. :.w MN M�N' AvN M. rN• .vM....r.. r.. r' � •t ir'� /� wi'n'w/''�fw�Nn A^nANNN�, �Y rM �/NN,Am„w.N M NYM «In. ,n.M•.`..rJ r' fK i!f M ♦Jn�w, w, NWA,•.rMW'M ..N.w. � K r^`I� nNwM,�Y• A, Jn: I '"';.w�41d ^ � ♦i. 'w XA.WM.M.Mwr.,t „ • ,•M r' IRNYNwM' MK.AV/Krww♦Y v.M rNNM♦• 1. rV^n" .w. nN MY "w"MI � •wvAw �/A X. M'• W',Y A N.tNt Nr, +vM wNVAwv.v NAVM' � M♦wNwmv/N��I ' 1 N M.NVr r MANY♦ .v«At..,NY t•.in f l4 NH•w,NtYMwMtY.v +�rT wr . w, n. •.1 ^''�/ty4 4�++vnvA.x «w..+.wJ« ♦ 4`Mr «/.•+w.. "i fMY �n j• yw..ttNNVM, .. ..,Jw w �nYrn. w'mvwmnwMV.Nt •Y'•rn' �. •. `M •♦wN,NN ♦..YV..Mn.l..••.MMr..l.. w.n �AANr WAn ei.ww.. �NW.w,,.�t ..,YM rM. M•, R(}��,� vw.VMN•.. nwMWrn�` �.I'/.n.nw«N...NNw.IAYw.MI.wn MYln N, •. AtrN•.AA.w'.M.•AKVn „M, nMMY w • M.n wIry�•,rorMW.wn... N..vNtwnv..vxr,+,t Y.w w:.v.Y,.n.. ,. MM+rw.Y'rwrl::Il,' «AW.AWMA V•rJ«.M. �mN.�n Mt..Y'rwr,".'nM.nN wn,wAr.rvM n.....• '.w�,• wwMw.tN. 'r..r«w/.rrr.Wn.AAMr«nwM • W/N +w.Ntln +n.rNY/n. }�:w.{��.��..,. nvMnwn�YnMM.A,•xrMMrM.hwA,ww.tw 'M �W.•.'•wntMWnnrw•.nnJ.'n ntM• �Yw, Mvr..rArtJnY+wn�. r'/wrvrrry �: n w.�/ .{,!w•• • ��' rxrN/tMrnnvnw.r'i'Nlnw+NMwwt AVln.Amt....MNJ.v.n v ..wrtAVnY..v. «A..rn.NQt wNwn, n' hv.MAVNVnNYNNtNNNNln•.WYnM A•n....r. MVww.1A,t vr.vnNV WM•. ,•i.•.lxmwv.•.t•NNMt. + nM lYrw�M «,.wA.i �rn w+' w. wMY�ww•.♦• n'.'.,• Aw. w. An♦ vA' Awr•,. wvw ,..Mr.wrNYM•.N,N'n.r.♦wnA•+n,.A M....Mw M,Mm,.:N,vm.•!.•M'r v«r r..Y MMJwr'n « nxrw .'M+.YNrnnwm.�r..JMM!/NwvMA,J., n• w, nv.,• n• IMMiM' MwMtw /Awr.MYMwvnvA.MMVMAMWM.•/.r INA•.YMYx.•AM.NNMt : n..nw+Nn..wn tn'tnnt.M ,Nfww.nv.. wKt «.. nwr rnNxNw xX.WMNntNv N.X/Xn w,NM,VAnntxNw,tYMwmwAV nw MAAYM, MVM.NAMN.nr.rn.rrnr M,Y� �.��1•.��f •nwl.r,wh .♦vnk.♦,NYrn♦NNn•II♦M . nn XANn..M AtM„YhYrM.NrN AM n.. M..w A,n«N. Nw,Ywr «Mr'/., r .r'.rM M�wn.NM�..n.. r+nvfR�M•. M. wnN/. VAM 'M,Yn......ryW.bN.w.Vn.«V /M'w M•«.,'+A.w M w.WlnN.nvw,�.JA !Mn♦YN.«Ir n rJAVN.vnYn... M•MwwrM w.AVn MV..l.wN MAMw �., n.wwrr n H.N+NV.Mw'n♦!..vnv nMwrntw.vwX±MM.MrwnM,tNMM♦nwA. n trMwwwN.mvMww:. rn.A,« .wv ♦YA+•..A,YAKN .wA MnwtIlt MtnMM.. ..MtM•MwANJNx.N.Xnrh,WX �':WM n'm.�:ttr ' wM.V.Wn 'M NMtMVN.nM n•/vr YWhN .r�,'^'IIANwlntn.nwnwrY«,.N+w M wYMIrAVA,N'r /nr «n «!: _ wn•MNwwWr w,V AuvrWr«wwN•YM,L.V.n AwnM M♦.M+w.,, �.N•w•nt lh♦NwwNMnwx .•.wY Ynwwwur.M,VI .AwA.rA” INA.rAYmnlwxrlMrwYnrM A AYMI•YNwr•r. �:A M,M,n lr.•trwtw.livw NvM.vrwNn,•N.N. MWr+.r• ♦Yn AwMVMNnwMMM _ .w. n•rAMMMn„+W M'nN,}wA•MM r MMYMwVM',,.MVMYnw Ir.,NY MmM..vrnwmMV ri.,rn hnY'/•i,.xMww 'nwMVrwlA.w n.�M..wnr. �'v /•„ "M�•^'r'wwAAK,W. NA•NVMYM M,N,Y /M.Vrrwr.r M,NMM.rA'. M.wr NV.••Mn,Y.•ANY «.♦ • IMVnMw1t N �rMMY•v�r r w•wgTR9'.°lrw n.«.NwtwN.Mw/n.A+w.ANY.+rrwnln� N"'YM MtwnvVl.a„Nh' AFwM ♦.nM♦N m♦ MNNNVn♦.nnAwM.,.. rrAw.wwn.rAm nw•vMt«•rw ' nlA.t r" ..AAt.. w'x �NV..M..n MVwM•r..I..NY♦Mr AwrAV.•M,.M.MNW. N.••t'�.r"♦'A N•«INMrtY.wWr _w.lM..w.w.. •... «X.N.Y...�Nnrw•M ...wn«wj;«...nWnAY N.',w .��n!'u..w+. AM.VN � .. Ai.r, ,vMlw'tN. MM M ,YANn Nwµr«M Mw nnr ,µM •Anw. w.w. nw. - A.:d•ryt..� n AX n..VJ.w/w.♦ of Y Mw Awlh�µMwl .^, r . M• ♦%w rM.Nh \i nM,.,�•w I. MN« µr.•+..'•`•Y•^'{•, �•�.....r.•r• w rww.A.r•�M '�Mr •....... Y....r.w..••.N.. r .;W::••.....I t.•r. ..Aw..NNM AN. M.en.�'t •rnn.vw•t M...M.N♦. .w . ,..h ..A«wrwN,.n w , .W w. M Z -3 -99 ERNIE MCBI%OOI_i REZONING REQUEST.. VICINITY 1 " = 400' 1i N Page 033 Item 10 Memoranduin a.) Tax Map Number stated 2.31..51 However, from plat .book 83 page 19 Tax Map Number is 2.34..20 b.) SUITO LID ding land use in general area. West - should include protected watershed and residential (Grassy Creel: Sub) South - should include residential (Bradsher property buiklhig ui progress) Bast - should include residential, (subdivided lots and C1arklClarke) As stated, it misrepresents surrounding area that will be effected by business as proposed. Plat boot: 83 page 19 available for viewing upon request. 033 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306E REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 FROM: Planning and Inspections Staff DATE: August 13, 1999 6-11A --N 1 *0 AW&NPM The contents of this memorandum are about the request of Ernie McBroorn to rezone his property on Sawmill Road in Cedar Grove Township from AR Agricultural- Residential to AS Agricultural Service. 10 1 go] APPLICANT: Ernie McBroorn OWNER: Ernie McBroom, Sr. 2606 Miller Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 LOCATION: 750± Sawmill Road (Tax Map No. 2.34..51) PROPERTY SIZE: 10.01 acres PROPOSED ZONING LOT: 10.01 acres EXISTING LAND USE: Open and wooded SURROUNDING LAND USE IN GENERAL AREA: Wooded, open and residential NORTH - Residential, wooded, and open WEST - Wooded and residential SOUTH - Wooded EAST - Wooded and open 034 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board DATE: August 13, 1999 PAGE: Two COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Agricultural - Residential (Little River Watershed) EXISTING ZONING: AR(LITTLE -PW) — Agricultural- Residential (Little River Protected Watershed) zoned in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan REQUESTED ZONING: AS(LITTLE -PW) — Agricultural Service (Little River Protected Watershed) AS DISTRICT DEFINITION, INTENT, AND PERMITTED USES: Sec. 4.2.24 AAGRiCUL.TURAL SERVICE (AS) DISTRICT DEFINITION Commercial activities offering goods and services which support production of agricultural products or processing of those products to make them marketable. Examples include, but are not limited to, soil preparation, animal and faun management, landscaping and horticultural services, specialized commercial horticulture, specialized animal husbandry, biocide services, retail sales of farm /garden products, supplies and equipment, equipment rental and repair service, tack shop, farrier, blacksmith, welding shops, facilities for animal shows, animal sales and auctions, agriculture -based clubs/meeting halls, storage and processing plants for agricultural products including wineries and canneries. INTENT The purpose of the AS Agricultural Service District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non -farm, non - residential uses which support the horticultural, silvacultural, and agricultural uses of the AR Agricultural - Residential districts. The AS district is usually applied where the following conditions exist: 1. The site is within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural - Residential; 2. Lot sizes for individual uses are appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal; and 3. /Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned AS at any location shall not exceed ten acres. Item 11.) List Stated Perruit(ed Uses P2 P4 P7 P10 P1.7c NA P25 NA S2 S3 S10 S11. S13 514 S 1 NA S 19a NA S48 S49 S50 Storage of goods, outdoors PH P16 P17b NA P12 P17 NA P17a NA P22 NA S20 NA Page 035 Per Article 4.3 Table Mowed Not ,Wowed Class A Special Use Permit Class B Special Use Pernut Yes Yes Yes Yes Not found in zoning , book Not found in zoning book Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not found in zoning book Not found in zoning book Yes Yes NO Yes A Yes A Not found in zoning book Yes B Not found iti zoning book Not -found in zoning book Not found in zoning book Not found in zoning book One not allowed but stated, would be important to Us business. 1035 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board DATE: August 13, 1999 PAGE: Three PERMITTED USES Accessory Uses P2 Botanical Gardens & Arboretums P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church , P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police & Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P17C Stealth Telecommunication Towers - 75 Feet or Shorter* P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S2 Agricultural Service Uses S3 Animal Hospitals, Veterinarians S10 Farm Equipment and Sales S11 Feed, Seed, Storage and Processing S13 Greenhouses (No On-premises Sales) S14 Greenhouses (On premises Sales) S18 Commercial Feeder Operation S19A Class I Kennels S48 Sawmills S49 Stockyards S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoors The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit.- P11 Land Fills (Two acres or more) P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub-stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants P17B Telecommunication Towers - 200 Feet or Taller The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit., P12 Land Fills (Less than Two Acres) P17 Elevated Water Storage Tanks P1 7A Telecommunication Towers - 199 Feet or Shorter P22 Transmission Lines S20 Class 11 Kennels, Riding Stables .P 1 TT-t, 9 m :T. m 71 a.w Nr ��•+rNr 0J000D0� N to N A W W tv * m nuu � to to � O (At71►M7 -7 C Wpm �m m 10 11 to W c 0 HMM r" rr Mm t* m t'7 n rr w W W 00 V O/ V1 .P W N F+ w W N N r 4 a a :w H o a t7 d Q a x v 0 0 M O O N ro O Oro 0 m a E t t t a O a 0 0 m w 9 0 cL w rt 0 0 m rt 0 rt 'a V 9 >✓• ro a C w r M r r ro N w 0 W a 0 O r• v it r p 10 r r r r r n !7 w w 0 o +-• n n o m 0 rr 0 r a a %a M= r n O w O rt r n •-- m x a m a s rr l< m � x 9 rr r• I. n a rt a n n a .. .. _. m ^ -^• O O �C F+• 0 & a x w m H x O O 0 O C O M O < m to O kA a v �- 0 w m m �< 0 0 •- M cr 0 cr w m m w x rr m ro m a x o tr a o w 9 D w w w •-. 0 0 w w m 0 w 0 0 0 w rr � W .•. r rA r r to rr w a h•• 5 M w "j7 r 0� w N I m M m m tD p t m x rt x w h o 0 .a a m m w ro r, rr .. rr rt arSm rt N a A mw G OfS. O O pi Frt'• O taD N W ro K t�D m N O pmt M fO+• "tiy m h a ft ft 0 a a ft w m rWo n f1' W ab lF W W ri rb M• Ih 1F W W W W >f * W x z tom. Yr �F to W & f} 1F 7F la W F•+ tea * W W u w sF rt >f W N w w * W W >F >F * p w x a N W a 03 rt * rt a w W a w W iF rt Mr % 7F W ml :a p+ * * tv * W 7F IF Oh q• at >F bJ w W n * rt to M x Z n W * tF M• �" * N N (7 w to A c=i MM * W � tF �F W �F W �F ri• �#• fr � tF s H t+J isi H N iM H w r r rt H H N N M4 1-i W W 7F ?% W to �F c sp ep e4S •ua do an•O- Del- Z• � 04 zap V ro H H tF ero 9 m :T. m 71 a.w Nr ��•+rNr 0J000D0� N to N A W W tv * m nuu � to to � O (At71►M7 -7 C Wpm �m m 10 11 to W c 0 HMM r" rr Mm t* m t'7 n rr w W mmmm tz >- * r) is can En F.*- r) cl ci v0 0 %-� 00 F- w r; to fi IL a r; a -0 48-1 C: a 00 ;F P, C) 00 E . ^ n p f-j n. tm C'n 0 w cir in to • Ix to to > fm tu to rr) > En C/3 m s7a nd C ) )u Wdo oA.,a Djw u= of rP inu p S wd FDA 6 9 of uy j*j -d M > mmmm tz >- * r) is can En F.*- r) cl ci v0 0 %-� 00 1, >-�� LQ w ul cn cn cl C� cn n� 00 iv C6 y Ch .91 w N) 10 tiD u � C) C) > %D 'o cr c ■ . 0 Q E3 a El) fn 0' o o cn o a F, P6 o c6 r m on En F P, :r La A c) DQ -71 fr- I =17 11 IT-1 I I I • 1--TT11-9 1, >-�� LQ w ul cn cn cl C� cn n� 00 u � ■ 1, >-�� LQ w ul cn cn cl C� cn n� 00 1, 4- > rn > rr, Lel V. In V- w > \\/ m M rr, > A > > C. ., �11 �, —I z cr CA) Ln tr w tr Ln W In tr Ln w CD ID w 'I — C, — 4- w w IQ a IQ Y, h ;u > PZI > r. X < :3 > = E;, I E� ri n n I C5 > n fr- 0 F; -j F�p > 0 -Do'- = > zr z C) 0 V, a C- P IF d ::r �; m > \ {/2 0 S. "- --1 D 0 a o — < :3 > In El =R In o 0 1 In n E r \ <% \{ In > \ / / \§§ {\ z > cc 4- > rn > rr, Lel V. In V- w > \\/ m M rr, > A > > > X > = X > > V, > > > z > cc to rn n > > 4- > rn > rr, Lel V. In V- w > \\/ m M rr, > A 61 -4 W> p 6 n p p as rn r) ■ ONE some lomm lomm googol IRMO googol IRMO no logo Bill RONNIE m W> p 6 n p p as rn r) Page 036 Item 12.) Specific zoning requiremellis Bullet one states to acc011iniodate file estabEshillellt of an a business Perll�lted by zojj�jg ordinance. _gricUltUre service Tlljs is Misle,' (1ll1,0; - Landscape "ec" lilI I c �Itelpretalioii by Zollilig g is 'lot specified but su�jecjive Officer of stated intended use. Rather, stated intended Use would requil-e usage 1101 permitted by code. Example: S50, S51, S52, S53 Article 4.3 Tables. 036 T0: orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board DATE'. August 13, 1999 PAGE: Four SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to: ® Acoomrnodate the establishment of an agdcuil:ural service business permitted by the Zonin Ordinance; and s Implement the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th property as Agdoultural- Residential, The property is zoned Aid. This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities continuation (agriculture, forestry) are related to the land In an appropriate se t� location t with the Co mp ®hensivef Plan. . uses. The proposed rezoning to AS, therefore, would be consistent For development of the subject property, the following AS requirements would apply: i Frontage shall be a minimum of 200 feet. s The front building setback must be a minimum of 50 feet; s Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet; 0 A 75. to 100 Foot land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon the use proposed; and s The maximum impervious surface shall be no more than 6 percent, including all structural "footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted outsidestorage 61mas. r 71 Public Wearing s No decision is made at this stage. s Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning atlas amendment Tequest is referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be retumed to the Board of County Commissioners no earlier than September 21, 1999. PLANNING ,STAFF FINDINGS The application for the rezoning of the treat from AR to AS has been reviewed by Planning Staff. Findings required by Article 20.3 fir® Subcolosion and onsidam on fi iali a ions far —CO f,0 �Q W lSci as u as 44 WW W 4 O m� VWiUU F aaa Q Vi to LO H C Ca H V1 to °w m� N � II n II aI * 4 m MIV NMeq co co00Na vc,ccoa rlN�i ,ice MV `✓ Vr 0 IE V C 4 -ll R to Aiticle 3.2 - ve op en Sta da ds for °w N * 4 �C ''1 * n H H * tti N H H * r-1 1 rl H H it H �1 ts2 kI +c 40 'A * a * * m a m W .r M U N N (I u * 41 R9 z M a co m a * * * * m �C co x ,n m * * +s a m 4 * a+ * * a a V m 49 * 41 49 m * m * -M a M co -P it * -F W N m a m ** a « m m * * a a m m * a J.7 G ro- IV H -4 (a 4j ro fu 4 � ro G o 0 a o ro U »a to ro w � G(Uo m `4 ° m w 4 o S >a w .r m x x x 0) m Y•t m rl _ 1 r-i «, k. •+ r+ a •,•q ro m N m .,, ap I ri •r m c ai M C 1 o 41 -A O x ro m x•+ v .A m V a O o w m ►+ m O 0 C >, m M CP a+ o+ U }ro d +a +��y G G1 � 0 ro 4 O 4J 0 z 9 a G .1 � -, >4 U "4 a m o a o a n °H m U U .,, -i rQ l rG l '+ C O a p l! O m m r-4 r.4 F4 -4 s O 4 ., 0 s N . 0 U ?, (a O >+ ml m O m a H c O O H-1-1 + 0 E U 4 Q x 4 Q G w c>a tx x ro �xxxxxxm p x H N xx� N M x x 4 -ll !J W 4 C 9 fT N �► {u/ N p ro ro � cn �st So Ct Co ~ M S� 7 S. i DO�ooYloYii�YOY�B w min Mm .� p n ■��O1 oiDlYN�O Mll oYIi�Y� oil :�E 1111111 onnlime G 1111111111 MIN NINON goo NINON 1 0 MIN NINON long son logo lossommom MIN IN login I Elmo I m- Elmo INN W;0-* w Mm .� p n Z, Do tv C� M 00 cc 0 W C2, x C) C) M -n u o 0 -- to w > an 0 a a 9 = < F cr 0 g =, 9 Fr cv 5 q cr Al 9 E B E n C z g P, to F n a 72. fn = R cl 0 -5. En 0 EL n w 0 F>x. I I I I L I z H O m 0 Sol SI(I ((IR dol,.Ag(f OIL JOU00 Jt)uP 0 Spj PU3 S I 1;)W 101 A (I - Z' ;;I:)l IV JP 9 F tv C� M 00 cc 0 G 61 -4 Vyi tn w %^ t kA w C4 En W Do �j Ch 00���o���n���ne w b. LA C, rl R O -W o > N, to TIE a � ■tee ■�.�.....o :3 0 0 rri to :3 CZ 02 Im rl ck %b Ol Zj OC In > • as tz > m n 0 > m H> M 0o pp 00���o���n���ne TIE a � ■tee ■�.�.....o %b Ol Zj OC In > • as tz > m n 0 > m H> M 0o pp TIE Do W L7 LA LA O En %b Ol Zj OC In > • as tz > m n 0 > m H> M 0o pp Page 036 Item 13 Bullet three Frontage 200' Stated: Frontage sliall be Ininil-11LIM of 2001 Per Plat book 83 page 19, Frontage is not 2001 as above stated requirement. If inisstated to public, planning board and conunission in writing, it should be corrected to accurate wording of situation in writi-no:,r, and resubmitted. A/lisleads all. Plat book 83 page 19 available for viewing upon request. 036 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board DATE: August 13, 1999 , PAGE: Four SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to: ® Accommodate the establishment of an agricultural service business permitted by the Zonin Ordinance; and # Implement the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th property as Agricultural - Residential. The property is zoned AR. This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities (agriculture, forestry) are related to the land in an appropriate location for the continuation of thes uses. The proposed rezoning to AS, therefore, would be consistent with !he Comprehensive Plan. For development of the subject property, the following AS requirements would apply: 0 Frontage shall be a minimum of 200 fleet. 0 The front building setback must be a minimum of 50 feet; s Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet; A 75- to 100 -foot Land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon the use proposed; and a The maximum impervious surface shall be no more than 6 percent, including all structural footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted outside storage areas. Public Hearing ® No decision is made at this stage. Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning sties amendment request is referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no earlier than September 21, 1999. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS The application for the rezoning of the tract from AR. to AS has been reviewed by Planning Staff. Findings required by Article 20.3 frogd �r ,j'or Subcolesion and Conaideration of Apglipa tions for Page 036 Item 14.) Bullet G Land use Buffer Stated: a 75 to 100 foot land use buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon the use proposed, and We have the use proposed, (Landscape Recychi g). What is the hesitation in picking footage for a land use buffer? Is this to mislead, cOlifuse or what? Subjectit,e by zoiung officer at best. TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board DATE: August 13, 1999 , PAGE: Four SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to: 0 Accommodate the establishment of an agricultural service business permitted by the Zonin Ordinance; and a Implement the Land Use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th property as Agricultural-Residential. The property is zoned AR. This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities (agriculture, forestry) are related to the land in an appropriate location for th® continuation of thes uses. The proposed rezoning to AS, therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For development of the subject property, the following AS requirements would apply: • Frontage shall be a minimum of 200 feet. • The front building setback must be a minimum of 50 feet; • Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet; ® A 75- to 100 -foot Land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses Is required, depending upon the use proposed; and ® The maximum impervious surface shall be no more than 6 percent, including all structural "footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted ©utside storage areas. (M 11 { M Public Hearing e No decision is made at this stage. e Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning atlas amendment request is referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no earlier than September 21, 1999. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS The application for the rezoning of the tract from AR to AS has been reviewed by Planning Staff. Findings required by Article 20.3 E!Ca P. lim for Subtniallll ri a L ar Page 036 Item 15.) Bullet 7 Nla'ximum Irriper-\iious Surface 6916 I acre = 43,560 square feet 10.01 acres = 436,035.6 square feet ON 'l RlaXirnluirl Impervious Surface of 436,035.6 square feet -1- 26,162.136 square feet 26,162.136 square feet also equals .6006 acres. Driveways, aprons, cornpacted outside storage (mulch piles, yard waste to be recycled), building footings, fuel storage and pumping facility would be iirlper ions surfaces necessary to accommodate this business. Include parking kind loading areas and you don't Have enough impervious Surface to accommodate the business' needs. application is impractical, not feasible for proposed business on proposed lot. 036 T®: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board DATE% August 13, `1999 , PAGE: Four SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS The AS rezoning proposal has been initiated by the owner to: s Accommodate the establishment of an agricultural service business permitted by the Zonin Ordinance; and 0 implement the Land use Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates th property as Agricultural - Residential. The property is zoned AR. This category pertains to rural areas where prevailing activities (agriculture, forestry) are related to the land in an appropriate location for the continuation of thes uses. The proposed rezoning to AS, therefore, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, For development of the subject property, the following AS requirements would apply: 0 Frontage shall be a minimum of 200 feet. s The front building setback must be a minimum of 50 feet; s Side and rear building setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet; s A 76» to 100 -foot Land Use Buffer adjacent to residential uses is required, depending upon the use proposed; and s The maximum impervious surface shall be no more than 0 percent, including all structural "footprints," paved and graveled driveways, aprons, and all compacted outside storage areas. iltt MUZ Public Wearing No decision is made at this stage. ® Upon the recommendation of the Administration, the zoning atlas amendment request Is referred to the Planning Board fior a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no earlier than September 2'i, 1999. PLANNING ING STAFF FINDINGS The application for the rezoning of the tract from Aid to AS has been reviewed by Planning Staff. Findings required by Article 20.3 g9Ad1KDJ2E SUb o , n a.�fAaElia- �t�gnar Page 037 Item 16.) Bullet 4-7 Permitted Uses To beep Rom becoming too FeClUnclant but with the same complaint, please refer to page 035 and 036 along with Article 4.3 tables. 037 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board DATE: August 13, 1999 PAGE: Five Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance follow: There was no error made with respect to the property when zoning was adopted for Cedar Grove Township on January 1, 1994. ® The property was zoned AR in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the property to AS would be compatible with the stipulations set forth for an Agricultural-Residential plan category use given in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan would not need to be amended to accommodate AS zoning. Seventeen uses are permitted by right in the AS district. Three require a Class A Special Use Permit with approval of the Board of County Commissioners, and five require a Class B Permit With approval of the Board of Adjustment. Any of these uses, either by right or under special conditions, could be allowed on the proposed zoning lot. Permitted AS uses are listed above. Uses permitted in AS not permitted in AR Uses Permitted by Right. Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians; Farm Equipment Sales; Feed and Seed Storage and Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. Uses requiring a Class A Special Use Permit. All uses requiring a Class A SUP within an AS district are also permitted with a Class A SUP in the AR district. ® Uses requiring a Class 8 Special Use Permit. All uses requiring a Class B SUP within an AS district are also permitted with a Class B SUP in the AR district. g:\jim\zatiasamend\mcbroom\infomemo\8.3.99\jrh Page 038 Item 17.) Certificate of klailitlg Notarized statement by Zoning Officer suggests, properties within 500' of the Affected property of Mr IvIcBroonr were notified by certified mail. Article 20.6.3 indicates procedure and ordinance for notification and certifying that notification, however IVIrs I Iargarett Berry having 2 lots within 500' of affected property of I\l -. McBroom was not notified. The explanation for his error is stated as her property being on a different map. He was again in error in his letter to I\h•s. Berry not only with the hearing date not being that of August, 24, 1999 but he also stated and illOre nnporlantly, that her property on the north side of Sawmill was not wil:llin the 500' require distance, which by his own map you can see is also incorrect because you can easily see by the map that he sent her with the letter of apology, that property too, is easily within the 500' limit. mmi I,* James R. Hinkley, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina., DO HEREBY CERTIFY T1 AT: On or about August 6, 1999,1 sent by Certified Mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on August 23, 1999, at 7:30 pm in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom of the New County Courthouse at 106 E. Margaret Street in Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of providing all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against a proposal by Ernie McBroom to amend the County Zoning Atlas by rezoning his 10.01 -acre property (Tax Map No. 2.34..51) on the south side of Sawmill Road (SR 1545), approximately 4,600 feet east of the NC 86 and approximately 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road (SR 1507), from AR Agricultural - Residential to AS Agricultural Service. The notice was sent to 13 owners of parcels lying within 500 feet of the McBroom property. A list of parcels and their owners is attached.. James R. Hinkley, AICP Zoning Officer North Carolina Orange county 1, Debra M. Graham, a Notary Public, for said county and State, do' hereby certify that James R. Hinkley appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of tii�trntrlr ��.�� nthe foregoing instrument. 4( °• ••• jhess my hand and official seal, this the 6th day of August x (0f'Fi.0al.gl) o'., ' u s tl..! , . i -- No •arg Public 'IV ��iission expires May 29, 2002. ' /lltlliKWO g:\jim\zatlasamend\mcbroom\mailcert\8-6-99\jrh . Orange County shall be adopted by reference as though fully set forth herein. Any map amendments adopted by Orange County shall be officially denoted on the county Zoning Atlas. Where there is inconsistency between the amendment procedures contained in this Article and those contained in the Joi t Planning Agreement, the provisions of the Joint Plannin3 Agreement shall apply. AMlp 20.4 Rojerral of Amendment Application o Planning Board _ _t Amended The Zoning-Officer•shall submit-any application for the Planning Board at the 3/18/86 amendment to the Zoning Atlas to first regular meeting after the expiration of the 30-day period specified in 20.3.3 or any extension thereof. This to application for amendment provision shall not apply any to the Zoning Ordinance text. 20.5 The Boa 2jf gqRntX Commis ionera and the Flan inn _Board h a I I A kAh-1-19 Aft&—rihn-g The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board shall hear applications for amendments to this ordinance in last regular a public Hearing at the County Commissioners meeting in August, November, February and May.. 20.6 Public g qSSAn g and Not Thereof 20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be 7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a .- the County, stating the newspaper of general circulation in e the time and place of such hearing and the substance of proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice than twenty- appearing not less than tea (10) days nor more five (25) days before the-date set for the public hearing.. In computing•the notice period, the day of publication is not to be included,. but the day of the hearing is to be included. 20-6.2 r The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning atlas shall post on the �Fplicantls affected property a notice of the public he a ring at least ten days prior to the date of said he.ari.nq.. 20.6.3 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written notice shall be sent by certified mail t o the affected Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less 11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property. if amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the County, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all 20-3 � 7-r ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVE RE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Tuesday, August 24, 1999 Mrs. Ralph H. Berry 800 Sawmill Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231-9299 In the matter of: McBroom Rezoning Request (AR to AS) Dear Mrs. Berry: Thank you for coming to the McBroom rezoning public hearing in the New Courthouse in Hillsborough on Monday, August 24, 1999. Your comments were well taken. I regret that you did not receive an individual notice about the public hearing. It was discovered that your property is shown on a different map than where the McBroom property is shown. I was not careful enough to assure that you receive personal notice as your neighbors did. The southwestern tip of your property does fall within 500' of the northeastern tip of Mr. McBroom's access road across Sawmill Road. Please see the enclosed map of the properties. I enjoyed talking with you and your good neighbors in the parking lot after the hearing. it was good of them to bring you to the hearing, McBroom's rezoning request has now been referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. The Board will meet at 7:30 pm on Wednesday, September 1, 1999, in the County Agriculture and Planning Building at 306 Revere Road in Hillsborough. You end your neighbors may wilsh to attend that meeting also. Thank you for your good citizenship and especially for your patience with me. Please call at 732-8181, X2584, if you have questions about the matter. Sincerely, James R. fHinkley, AICP Zoning Enforcement Officer Enclosure: Map of Berry and McBroom Properties g:Njim\zatlasamend\mcbroom\letter\8.24.99\jrh - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ro Page; 039 and 040 Item 18.) Lists of affected property owners IVIrs. Margarett Berry AKA A/Irs. Ralph H. Berry, does not appear on either list of names of affected property owners. She is an affected property owner of 2 affected properties. Although her neighbors brought her to the public hearing, she was not notified by certified mail 15 day's miniinuin, before the hearing, which would have allowed her more time to evaluate the proposed rezoning and bring forth more before the joint public hearing. If just having shown up for the nleeti.ng were to be enough, no Matter when you found out, I would suspect a sign or handbill would be enough, rather than code Article 20.6.3. I Ip 1 039 Z-3-99 Cedar Grove Township Atlas Amendment Proposal of Ernie McBroom AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS within 500 feet Page One of Two Tax Map Number/Acres Property Owners 2.24-12 63.91a Melvin Durwood Smith 1009 Sawmill Road Cedar Grove, NC 272371 2.24..12A 5a Audis & Nannic S. Sanderson 607 Orange Heights Loop Hillsborough, NC 27278 2.24..12B 5a Robin D. Clark & Lisa A. Clarke 803 Sawmill Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231 2.34..18 <la Eugene Breeze 512 Sawmill Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231 2.34..19A <la. Mack Leonard Torain 600 Old Sawmill Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231 2.34..19B 0.92a Willie S. & Shirley Cates 518 Sawmill Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231 2.34..19C 0.46a Alphonzo & Dorothy Poteat 524 Saw Mill Road' Cedar Grove, NC. 27231 040 . . Page Two • Two I Ta-Y 14'5-z�! . �Tuw�Xer --- = Property 0-mm 2.34..19F 16.41a , 2.34..19G / 5a 2.34..19M / - 10.02a 2.34..21/ 89.87a 2.34.:30 / 31.71a 2.34..31A / 28.98a Willie L. & Rosetta L. Glover PO Box 881 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Alfred Roy & Quetta U. Long 624 Sawmill Road Cedar Grove, NC 27231 James & Carol Wood 5820 Quiet Acres Drive Cedar Grove, NC 27231 Dennis Roy Walters 405 Hidden Valley Road Wilmington, NC 28409 Benjamin Earle Bradshear, Jr. 5018 Hurdle Mills Road Hurdle Mills, NC 27541 Nancy F. Worley PO Box 3242 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 g:\jim\zatlasamend\mcbroom\mailcert\8-6-99\jrh Orange County shall be adopted by reference as though fully set forth herein. Any map amendments adopted by Orange County shall be Officially denoted on the County Zoning Atlas. Where there is inconsistency between the amendment procedures contained in this Article and those contained in the Joint Planning Agreement, the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement shall apply. 20.4 Bmisrral of Amendment'ARR11cation to Planning Boar!A 'Amended 'The Zoning-Officer -shall submit-any application for 3/18/86 amendment-to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board at the first regular meeting after the expiration of the 30-day period specified in 20.3.3 or any extension thereof. This provision shall not apply to any application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text. 20.5 The A2_arA of c_Qgnty CQmmissioners and the Planning Board Shall Hold A Public A_e_ar:Lng The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board shall hear applications for amendments to this ordinance in a Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular meeting in August, November, February and May. 20.6 Public R-oaring and Notice Thereof 20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be 7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in --the County, stating the time and place of such hearing and the substance of the proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty- five (25) days before the'date set for the public hearing.. In computing the notice period, the day of publication is not to be included,, but the day of the hearing is to be included. 20.6.2 The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning atlas shall post on the applicant's affected property a notice of the public heart"'I"i d' prior hearing at ten ays r to the date of said hearing. 20.6.3 in the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less 11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property. If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the County, notice shall-be sent by first class mail to a7l 20-3 Page 041 Item 19.) Specific Standards for Evaluating Rezoning Form used in Planlvng Board meeting and checked off there. Items a -e. Article 20.3.2 has in addition to a through e two omitted items which are f and g. Iten1 f deals with traffic and Axticle 13 which states the purpose - a S111(k y required of site plans, to identify any traffic problems associated with access from the site to e- istiug transportation network, and potential problems. Conducting and applicability with regard to this, article 22 page 22 -30 Traffic Generation low, nledlUm and high. Per Ivlr. IEnIdey at the planning board meeting of 09V01/99 stated that a DOT study done 3 years ago indicated that. Sawmill road West generated 800 trips per day. This puts us then at the medium to high level for traffic generation establishing need for a study for suspect problems and public safety. 1-4 041 O 0. 0 z z z z 0 0 u Z 21 z o 91 tn r- C14 0 E 0 •co -0 Ln 43 I u V3 E 0 o j:% = 0 2 = 'b. 0 co in = 0 0 = a c5e LA- ;z VI ul = .2 w 0 ti A V 0 0 CL 0 eu E CL CL ra ral ru CL CL C: 0 z Z Ln 0 cu A 0 z z LOR CL �— 0 z z VI LL. LA. 0 z 0 z 0 LM 0 �o VV w Z Z Z zoN z z 0 X Ln Ln .j I r tn n or- (u wl CL L 0 CL 0 . fi CL 4) = -S d o b4 4.A o M >, 0.0 a 4) E — 0 ba LL r =0 "OR 0 ;7l z E r 0-0 0 "a E 0 0 - r- to . E E 0 v p lu CL tj > z u I 'M 'a 0 E U g o = L5 15 a 0 00 LLI LL. L C-4 2 r- 04 U (D 04 N$ r_ C14 r- CL 10; Ln LU P < cg I�i Col ti r- t4.6 u *0 ,; r w cz F- .4 C04 CL c; C14 -5 C; N!L- cs N C; N E d 041 ARTICLE 20. AMENDMENTS 20.1 Statement of xqt_ent For the purpose ' of establishing and maintaining sound, stable and desirable development within Orange County this ordinance shall not be amended except to correct a manifest error in the ordinance or, because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the county generally, or to extend the boundary of an existing zoning district, or to rezone an area either to a different zoning district or to a corresponding Planned Development district, or to change the regulations and restrictions thereof. These amendments shall be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof. 20.2 Amendmen Initiation Subject to the limitations of the foregoing Statement of Intent, an amendment to this ordinance may be initiated by: a) The Board of County commissioners on its, own motion; b) The Planning Board; C) Application, by any person or agency. 20.3 PrQceduKA J-u Submisgo-A grad Consideration of, A92112MIons for Amendment 20.3.1 AIRRlic i10 u Submitted t oo ffj.cer _ All applications for amendments to this ordinance shall be in writing, signed and filed, two copies with the Zoning Officer and one copy with the County Manager for presentation to the Board of County commissioners. (For Planned Development amendments see Article 7; for Special Use Permits see Article 8). The Zoning Officer shall, before accepting any amendment application, ensure that it contains all required information, as specified in this ordinance. Applications which are not complete, or otherwise do not comply with the provisions of this ordinance, shall not be accepted by the Zoning officer, but shall be returned to the applicant, with a notation by the Zoning officer of the deficiencies in the application. 20.3.2 Contents of ApolicatiOU Amended Applications for amendments to the Zoning Atlas and/or 3/18/86 Zoning'Ordinance text, without limiting the right to file additional material, shall contain at least the following: 20-1 a) For amendments to the Zoning Atlas, a fully a scale of not ls than one would dimensioned map at e land which hundred feet to the inch showing th es d be covered by the proposed zoning Atlas amendment, an a legal description of the land; b) For amendments to the zoning Ordinance text, a copy Of the existing text provisions} which the applicant proposes for:amendment, and a written statement which describes in detail changes which the applicant .proposes to-make to-the text of, the Zoning Ordinance; C) The alleged error in the zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such anerror in the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text d detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct same; d) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or zoning Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare; e) The manner in which the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof; and *Amended *f) A traffic 2/1/88 *9) All other applicant Atlas and, 20.3.3 EQUIn Off ige impact study as required by Article 13. circumstances, factors and reasons which the offers in support of the proposed Zoning /or Zoning Ordinance text amendment. ProRares Analysis and Recommendation Amended The Zoning Officer shall, within 30 days of the receipt of 3/18/86 an application to amend the Zoning Atlas, cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The 30-day period may be extended with the written consent of the applicant, up to a maximum of 60 days. The 30-day provision shall not apply to applications for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text. 20.3.4 AiDiDlications for Amendments-Joint Planning Area Amended Applications for amendments to the Orange County Zoning 10/19/88 Ordinance and Zoning Atlas for the purpose of incorporating the provisions of the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance (and Zoning Maps) and /or the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance (and Zoning Maps) shall be as specified in this Article and as specified in the Joint Planning Agreement adopted November 2, 1987. Any text amendments adopted by 20-2 Prior to the preparation of a traffic impact study, a scoping meeting shall be held, including the planning staff, the applicant, and the preparer of the study. The discussion at this meeting should set the study parameters, including the study area, planned and committed roadway improvements (by NCDOT or others), road links and intersections to be analyzed, preliminary traffic distribution, other planned developments to be considered, traffic growth rate, available data, periods for which analysis is to be performed, and other staff concerns. The qualifications of the preparer may be discussed at or prior to this meeting. 13.3 &Wlipabililty *Amended Except as described below a traffic impact study shall be 8 -21 -90 required for all special use permits and site plans that meet the following criteria: Special Use Permit: estimated traffic generated by the permit exceeds 800 trips /day Site Plan: estimated traffic generated by the development exceeds 800 trips /day 13 -1 * ARTICLE 13. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 13.1 Pursose A traffic impact.study shall be required of special use permits and site plans as defined in'this Article. The study will enable Orange County to assess the impact of a *Amended proposed-special-use permit or development on the highway 2 -1 -88 system when that system is at or near capacity or a safety 8 -21 -90 problem exists. Its purpose is to insure that proposed developments do not adversely affect the highway network . and to identify any traffic problems associated with access from the site to the existing transportation network. The purpose of the study is also to identify solutions to potential problems and to present improvements to be incorporated into the proposed development. 13.2 Conduet A traffic impact study shall be prepared by a qualified *Amended professional traffic engineer and /or certified 8 -21 -90 transportation planner with previous traffic study experience.' The procedures and standards for the traffic impact study are set forth in Section 13.4 of this Ordinance. Prior to the preparation of a traffic impact study, a scoping meeting shall be held, including the planning staff, the applicant, and the preparer of the study. The discussion at this meeting should set the study parameters, including the study area, planned and committed roadway improvements (by NCDOT or others), road links and intersections to be analyzed, preliminary traffic distribution, other planned developments to be considered, traffic growth rate, available data, periods for which analysis is to be performed, and other staff concerns. The qualifications of the preparer may be discussed at or prior to this meeting. 13.3 &Wlipabililty *Amended Except as described below a traffic impact study shall be 8 -21 -90 required for all special use permits and site plans that meet the following criteria: Special Use Permit: estimated traffic generated by the permit exceeds 800 trips /day Site Plan: estimated traffic generated by the development exceeds 800 trips /day 13 -1 Temporary Use Building - A building, not intended for residential use, consisting of one or more modules constructed off the ultimate site of use. The building is also not attached to a permanent or semi - permanent foundation. Ten -Year Transition, Land - Land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, and are suitable for urban -type densities, including the provision of public utilities and services within the first ten year phase of the Plan. Tourist Home ,. A. building, or group of attached vr. detached,buildings containing, in combination, three to nine lodging units for occupancy for daily or weekly periods, with or without board, and primarily for occupancy by transients, as distinguished from rooming houses, in which occupancy is primarily by residents rather than transients. Amended Traffic Generation: Low - Uses which generate an average of less than 200 2/7186 vehicle trips per day. Amended Traffic Generation: Medium - Uses which generate an average of between 2/7/86 200 -800 vehicle trips per day. Amended Traffic Generation: I-iigh - Uses which generate an average of more than 800 2/7/86 vehicle trips per day. Amended Transmission Lines - 11/2/81 a) For lines carrying electrical energy, transmission lines are those which carry 45,000 volts or more. b) For lines which carry liquids or gases, transmission lines are those operating or designed to operate at pressures of one hundred pounds per square inch or greater. Amended Travel Trailer - A structure that is (i) intended to be transported over the 3/18/86 streets and highways (either as a motor vehicle or attached to or hauled by a motor vehicle) and (ii) is designed for temporary use as sleeping quarters, but that does not meet the definition of a manufactured home. Amended Trip Generation Rates - The total count of trips to and from a study site per 2/1/88 unit of land use as measured by parameters such as dwelling units, acres, etc. Twenty -Year Transition Land - Land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, and are suitable for urban -type densities including the provision of public utilities and services within the second ten year phase of the Plan. Urban Land - Land within the corporate limits of a town (and is therefore under, the jurisdiction of the Land Use Plan for the town). 22 -30 Page 042 Item 20.) Form used by Planning Board at 09/01199 meeting regarding criteria. Stated Article 4.2 more specifically 4.2. 11 a and b 1, 2 and 3. .Article 4.2.11 is for zoning district GC -4, General Commercial A' zoning. The voting,/findings of this page are not valid due to siting of wrong zoning ordinance. Remember this was not merely in internal memo where everyone luiows what should be there. This was public information, distributed by [lie August 23, 1999 7:34pm County Connnissioner's Public Hearing. We were nnisinformed, misled and shocked to be expected to fend errors after the fact. 'j, `042 < 1 z z z zI u f ! 1 z wl LU I f I 1 • �. C6 I 1 00 ou 41 Id ts tj a -- ,.. 'a te w '� ; •�, ti cn 4.2.11 General Commercial-IV (GC-4) District a) Intent The purpose of the General Commercial-IV (GC-4) District is to provide suitable situated and sized sites in Eno and Hillsborough Townships that allow a broad range of commercial, office and service uses. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the zoning district boundary. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: *Amended *1. The site is within an area designated as either 4-22-86 Commercial or Industrial Transition Activity 4-4-88 Node, by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Water and sewer mains exist at the site or are to be made available as part of the development process or the lot size for individual uses are appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. *Amended *3. All property to be designated for new development 4-4-88 under this classification shall have direct access to major collector streets, as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. *4.2.12 Existing Commercial-V ( EC-5) District *Amended a) Intent 10-4-82 4-4-88 The purpose of the Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) District is to provide a district to be used only during the application of zoning to previously unzoned townships to accommodate existing commercial uses or in zoned townships to previously zoned commercial property which is not located in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. b) Application Criteria *Amended This district will be applied to existing commercial 4-4-88 uses in unzoned townships and previously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing commercial at the time of application of this ordinance. 4.2.13 RESERVED 4-6 Pictures Item 21.) Placement of public hearing sign notice, on affected property, Per Article 20.6.2 ZOIlhIg Officer is to place notice of public hearing on affected property. Sign was Placed 01.1 pole amid the four subdivided lots of Mr. A/IcBrooni wJ.)jcj, is adjacent property, it was removed shortty, after placing by persous urflulowl, and replace offly oil 091/ol/99 ft, tile afternoon hi the same place originaflyset. Pictures (6) available for viewing upon request. Orange County shall be adopted by reference as though fully set forth herein. Any map amendments adopted by Orange County shall be officially denoted on the County Zoning Atlas. Where there is inconsistency between the amendment procedures contained in this Article and those contained in the Joint Planning Agreement, the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement shall apply. 20.4 Referral of Amendment Application to Planning Board Amended 'The Zoning'Officer-shall submit any application for 3/18/86 amendment to the Zoning Atlas to the Planning Board at the first regular meeting after the expiration of the 30-day period specified in 20.3.3 or any extension thereof. This provision shall not apply to any application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text. 20.5 The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board Shall RoldA Public Hearing The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board shall hear applications for amendments to this ordinance in a Public Hearing at the County Commissioners last regular meeting in August, November, February and May. 20.6 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof 20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to Amended this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be 7/2/84 given by publishing said notice at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the time and place of such hearing and the substance of the proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty- five (25) days before thedate set for the public hearing. , In computing the notice period, the day of publication is not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be included. 20.6.2 The Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning atlas shall post on the applicant's affected property a notice of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the date of said hearing. 20.6.3 In the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected -Amended property owner and all adjacent property owners not less 11/19/85 than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property. If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the County, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all 20-3