Go To Search
Click to Home

 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

April 28, 2003

 

Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building

 

 

CITY MEMBERS:                                                    EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:

 

Don Starling, Chairman, Present                            Bud Apple, Present

George Byrd, Secretary, Present                             John Enoch, Present

Jim Burwell, Present                                              Celo Faucette, Present

Paul Cobb, Present                                                Gale Fletcher, Present

Rev. Greg Hargrave, Present                                   Richard Franks, Absent

Gordon Millspaugh, Present                                   Ellis Piper, Absent

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Robert R. Harkrader, Planning Director

John Emerson, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator

Russ Smith, Planner II

Kurt Pearson, Planner II

Dianne Fogleman, Office Assistant

 

 

       ITEM NO. 1Mr. Don Starling, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.   Commission Member Enoch acted as Secretary until Mr. Byrd arrived.

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Minutes of the regular meeting held March 24, 2003, were unanimously approved.  This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       ITEM NO. 3Consent agenda:  (City)

 

(A)   Final plat approval of the Hooper Construction Company Plat located at the southeastern corner of Cameron and Acorn Streets and bounded by Morehead and Tucker Streets as shown on a plat by Simmons Engineering dated April 1, 2003, and containing two lots.

 

(B)   Preliminary plan approval of Phases One and Two of the Piedmont Developers Subdivision located to the west of South Sellars Mill Road and south of North Mebane Street as shown on preliminary plans by Simmons Engineering dated March 7, 2003, and containing 75 lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of Item (A) and also recommended approval of Item (B) contingent upon all required engineering plans being submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of Items (A) and approved Item (B) with the contingency outlined by staff. Rev. Hargrave seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of Item (A) and approved Item (B) contingent upon all required engineering plans being submitted and approved by the City Engineering Department.

 

       The Commission found that the plats as presented met all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.

 

       Consent agenda:  (Extraterritorial)

 

(A)   Final plat approval of Section Five of the SNA Subdivision located on the northern side of Anthony Road approximately 1200 feet east of its intersection with Tucker Street as shown on a plat by Alley, Williams, Carmen and King, Inc., dated April 10, 2003, and containing two lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the final plat.

 

       Commission Member ­­­­Fletcher made a motion to recommend approval of the final plat. Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the final plat.

      

       The Commission found that the plat as presented met all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.

 

       ITEM NO. 4:  Mr.  Wade Williamson  presented  an  application  to rezone  from  R-15, Residential District, to R-12, Residential District, the property located to the south of South Church Street and on the western side of the Western Loop and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-27, a portion of Lot 6.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if there was R-12 zoning on both sides of the property and was told that it was.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning on the basis that it will be an appropriate extension of existing R-12 zoning.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.  

 

       ITEM NO. 5: Mr. Randy Ingle presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to R-12, Residential District, the property located on the western side of Springwood Church Road adjacent to the City of Burlington's new park facility and being as shown on Guilford County Tax Map 02-02-0080-0-0049-00-026 and the property on the eastern side of Springwood Church Road opposite the park and being as shown on Guilford County Tax Map 02-02-0080-0-0049-00, Lots 002, 021, 022 and 023. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked staff if the Town of Gibsonville had been contacted about the rezoning request and was told that it had.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked about the location of the new park facility in conjunction with this property and was told that the park is south of the subject property.

 

       Zoning/Subdivision Administrator Emerson stated that adjacent property located in the Town of Gibsonville had been rezoned to R-9 since the maps presented to the Commission had been copied.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning on the basis that R-12 zoning will be consistent with surrounding zoning.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Rev. Hargrave seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.  

 

       ITEM NO. 6: Mr. Randy Ingle presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to R-12, Residential District, and O-I, Office-Institutional District, the property located on the southern side of US Highway 70 approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Springwood Church Road and being as shown on Guilford County Tax Map 02-02-0080-0-0049-00, Lot 28.  The request is for the property 400 feet in depth and parallel to US Highway 70 to be rezoned to O-I, Office-Institutional District (approximately 14.7 acres), and the balance to be rezoned to R-12, Residential District (approximately 48 acres). 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Commission Chairman Starling asked if Gibsonville had been contacted about the rezoning request and was told that it had.  He also asked what is located across the road from this property and was told that a church and a mobile home park are located on the other side of the creek.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if staff had received any calls concerning the rezoning request and was told that staff had received a few inquiries but no one had voiced any opposition.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning on the basis that R-12 and O-I will be appropriate with surrounding zoning in the Church Street corridor.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.  


 

       ITEM NO. 7: Mr. Robert Edward Rogers presented an application to rezone from R-9 Residential District, to O-I, Office-Institutional District, the property located on the western side of Alamance Road (414 and 416 Alamance Road) between Trails Four and Five and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-15, Lot 3. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning. Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.  

 

       ITEM NO. 8: Mrs. Stasia Ennis presented an application to rezone from R-9, Residential District, to O-I, Office-Institutional District, the property located on the western side of Alamance Road (412 Alamance Road) between Trails Four and Five and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-15, Lot 4. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Jim Burwell seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.  

 

       ITEM NO. 9: Mr. Don Williamson presented an application to rezone from R-9, Residential District, to R-6, Residential District, the property fronting on Spence and Chestnut Streets and north of Polk Street and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 69, Block 308, Lot 229, and Alamance County Tax Map 64, Block 283, Lot 100. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked how many houses could be built on the property.  Zoning/Subdivision Administrator Emerson asked Mr. Williamson if he has an option to purchase an adjoining tract.  Mr. Williamson stated that he does have an option to purchase the other tract and that he can build approximately 20 single-family homes on the three tracts.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked how many acres are in the three tracts and was told five acres.

 

       Commission Member Enoch asked if  the number  of 20 houses was based on R-6 zoning requirements. Staff affirmed that it was. Mr. Williamson stated that a right-of-way would prevent the construction of more homes.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if staff had heard any comments from the community and was told that neighbors called to make sure mobile homes would not be placed on the property.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning on the basis that the development in the R-6 zoning will be positive for the community and that a change in density is warranted.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Jim Burwell seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.  

 

       ITEM NO. 10: Mr. Bruce Harris, representing Alamance Development Association, was scheduled to present an application to rezone from I-1, Planned Industrial District, to I-2, Light Industrial District, the property adjacent to the southern margin of I-85/40; to the east of Maple Avenue; and at the dead-end portion of Lawndale Drive and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 6-5, Lot 16. 

 

       The applicant withdrew the rezoning request prior to the meeting.

 

       ITEM NO. 11: Ms. Terri Lea presented an application for a Special Use Permit to allow a child care facility providing care for a maximum of eight children per shift (first and second shifts).  The property, which is zoned R-9, Residential District, is located at the dead-end portion of Rocklane Drive (2209 Rocklane Drive) and to the east of Alamance Road as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-5, Lot 43. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Ms. Lea stated that she has received her state license, and to meet state requirements, she plans to have a 3,000 square foot area in her front yard fenced. She had an estimate from a fence company showing how much the fence will cost. She explained that she was unaware that she had to get approval from the City to operate the child care facility since her home is not located within the City limits.  Ms. Lea told the Commission that she is currently keeping five children per shift.

 

       Ms. Suzanne Shoffner, 2320 Rocklane Drive, stated that she has concerns about traffic as well as the late hours.  She explained that she is not against day care centers but is concerned about an increase in the number of children and suggested that Ms. Lea find another location for the day care facility.

 

       Mr. Sam Shatterly, 2263 Rocklane Drive, stated that the cars going to and from the day care center are not observing the speed limit and that he has noticed more trash along the street.  He also pointed out that there are several elderly neighbors that utilize the street.

 

       Mr. Richard Sharpe, 2258 Rocklane Drive, stated that he was concerned about more traffic being generated by the child care facility and pointed out that there are only single-family homes in the area.  In addition, he stated that these residents had to pay for water and sewer to their homes as well as paving and that the street is the only way in or out for the day care center, which is located outside the City limits.  Mr. Sharpe stated that when the residents paid for the road, it was not intended to handle business traffic.  Also, he said that the street is unmarked and has no speed limit signs.

 

       Mr. Shatterly informed the Commission that a neighbor told him that he has observed "gray water" being released from the home.

 

       Commission Member Starling asked if staff had received many calls concerning the request and was told that it had.  In addition staff had received a petition signed by 16 residents of Rocklane Drive opposing the Special Use Permit as well as several individual letters from property owners.

 

       Mr. Starling stated that he received a letter prior to the meeting concerning Item No. 11.  He opened the letter and read it to the Commission.  The letter was from a homeowner in the vicinity who voiced opposition to the child care facility.

 

       Mr. Starling asked the size of the tract and was told two acres. Staff pointed out that it is a small lot within a large tract and that the pavement ends on Rocklane Lane before the drive to the lot begins.

 

       Commission Member Enoch asked Ms. Lea about the hours of the child care facility.  Ms. Lea stated that the first child arrives around 7:15 a.m. and that the last child is picked up around 12:30 am.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher asked what would the hours be if the Special Use Permit were approved and was told the same hours.

 

       Ms. Lea stated that she is now keeping five children and plans to go to eight after she has received more training.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave asked how long had she been in operation.  Ms. Lea stated that she had been in operation for three months at her current location.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked Ms. Lea if she owns the house and was told that she is renting with an option to purchase.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher stated that he was concerned about the gray water, and Commission Member Enoch pointed out that this was only hearsay but the City needs to check it out.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked if she has proof that she has approval from the state, and Ms. Lea stated that she had her state license number with her.

 

       Commission Member Enoch asked what time does she have all five children at her home and was told by 8:00 a.m.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked when does the second shift begin and when would all of the children be there.  Ms. Lea stated that the second shift begins at 3:30 p.m. and that she has all of the second shift children by 5:00 p.m.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave stated that he had concerns about the number of cars generated by the two shifts.  Ms. Lea pointed out that some of the cars were driven by family members and not generated by the day care facility.

 

       Mr. Shatterly pointed out that Ingle Day Care on Tucker Street started out as a small day care center but has grown to what it is today.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave pointed out that Ms. Lea has to meet state space requirements and that she would max out before reaching the size of Ingle Day Care Center.  He asked the size of Ms. Lea's home and was told it has 2,000 square feet.  He pointed out that with a two-acre lot, Ms. Lea could add onto her home.

 

       Mr. Shatterly pointed out that Ms. Lea has an in-ground pool in her backyard that is not fenced.

 

       Commission Member Apple asked Ms. Lea where was she before moving to Rocklane Drive and was told Logan Street.

 

       Commission Member Burwell asked about the night hours.  Ms. Lea stated that currently she has only four children at night and that the last one leaves at 12:30 a.m.

 

       Commission Member Byrd asked about parking and was told that parking was not a problem.  He asked Ms. Lea if she would have to be re-licensed by the state if she went from five to eight children and was told that she would.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave pointed out that the state requires 100 feet per child for the play area excluding infants; however, infants grow up and eventually require play area.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the fenced area would be separate from the pool area.  Ms. Lea stated that the fenced area will be in front of the house and that the pool is in back of the house and the children will not be allowed to go into the back yard.

 

       Commission Member Byrd pointed out that Ms. Lea is licensed by the state for five children and not for eight so how can the City approve her for eight children when the state has not.  Staff explained that the state requires that a petitioner meets all City standards.

 

       Commission Member Burwell stated that Ms. Lea seems to be making a good effort to operate her child care facility; however, some areas are just not suitable for this type of facility.  He stated that he has concerns with the location and the late hours.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher stated that he had concerns with the unsanitary wastewater being discharged and that the City Engineering Department needs to take care of the problem.  Staff pointed out that the house has a well and septic tank and that the City does not provide water nor sewer to the home.

 

       Commission Member Faucette stated that his biggest concern was with the pool and that someone's best efforts are sometimes not good enough.

 

       Ms. Shoffner pointed out that there is also a pond nearby that is not fenced, and Mr. Shatterly stated that there is another pasture pond nearby also.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher asked Ms. Lea why she moved from her Logan Street facility, and she stated that she needed a bigger home.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave pointed out that the state is meticulous when it comes to day care facilities and that he would like to have some kind of proof that the state has approved this property for a day care facility.

 

       Commission Member Burwell stated that the Commission must also protect existing residents and that he has concerns about late night traffic in the single-family neighborhood.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked how long was she in business on Logan Street and was told six to seven months.  He asked if she had a business before that and was told that she did not.  He asked Ms. Lea if she was making a profit now with five children and was told that she was.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher asked if she has hired help, and she stated that she does but it is family members.

 

       Commission Member Byrd stated that he was more comfortable with five children than eight; however he had concerns with the hours and traffic.  He asked Ms. Lea if she were willing to have earlier hours than 12:30 a.m. and was told that she would.

 

       Commission Chairman Starling commented that possibly Ms. Lea and the neighbors could work something out but he would still have concerns about the pool.  He stated that he knew how fast children could move.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave asked about the ages of the children in the facility.  Ms. Lea stated that the children range from two months to three years on first shift, and ages for the second shift are 6, 7, 2 and 1.  She pointed out that she has only one two-month-old infant.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh stated that he would feel better about keeping the maximum number of children allowed to five, but he still had concerns about the pool and nearby ponds.

 

       Commission Member Burwell stated that he just couldn't recommend approval of eight children on each shift.

 

       Commission Chairman Starling stated that he had a hypothetical question.  He asked staff if Ms. Lea's request for eight children was denied, would she have to wait another year before she could re-apply for five children and was told that she would not.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader pointed out that if the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text are approved by City Council (Item No. 13), Special Use Permit applications will be handled by the Inspections Department and Board of Adjustment, so there is a possibility that the Commission would not be asked to make a recommendation on this item at a later date.

 

       Commission Member Enoch stated that there are several issues that need to be addressed including the hearsay problem of gray water.  He made a motion to table the item until Ms. Lea, staff and neighbors could discuss all the issues.

 

       Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted six to four to table the item until the May meeting.  Voting to table the item were Enoch, Cobb, Fletcher, Byrd, Hargrave and Apple. Voting against the motion were Starling, Millspaugh, Burwell and Faucette.

 

       ITEM NO. 12: Mr. Michael R. Griffin, representing Carolina Environmental Associates, presented an application for a Special Use Permit to allow outdoor storage of petroleum products.  The property, which is zoned I-1, Planned Industrial District, is located on the western side of Lear Drive (3149 Lear Drive) between Anthony Road and Cessna Drive as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-5, Lot 56. 

 

       This was an extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Griffin stated that an existing shed will be expanded and the entire area will be fenced and there will be a closed circuit security system.

 

       Commission Member Faucette asked how will the retaining area be laid out.  Mr. Griffin stated that he had met with City and county fire marshals and that the retention design exceeds requirements.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked what would prevent a spill from occurring like the one near the airport. Mr. Griffin stated that the spill retention would exceed the required capacity.

 

       Commission Member Apple asked if the tanks will be above ground and how many will he have.  Mr. Griffin stated the tanks will be above ground and that there will be two tanks initially with more planned as business grows. The tanks will have an 8,000-gallon capacity, and that the spill retention will be 100 to 110 percent of the largest tank.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher asked if the tanks will be in a covered area and will they be on earth or on concrete.  Mr. Griffin stated that the tanks will be under a shelter and will be on concrete slabs.  Mr. Fletcher stated that the airport never thought that they would have a spill either, but it does happen.

 

       Mr. David Brown stated that he lives on Keck Drive and that he was opposed  to the Special Use Permit for outdoor storage tanks.  He stated that even with the petitioner taking every precaution, accidents can happen.  He stated that he was concerned because he lives in an R-12 zoned neighborhood with approximately 20 families within half a mile from the site.  He stated that he has four daughters that he was concerned about and that Keck Drive and Cessna Drive have become an extension of each other.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher made a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit.  Celo Faucette seconded the motion.  The Commission voted nine to one to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit.  Voting to recommend approval were Fletcher, Faucette, Starling, Byrd, Burwell, Cobb, Hargrave, Millspaugh, and Enoch.  Voting against the recommendation was Apple.

 

       ITEM NO. 13: Staff presented proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Zoning Ordinance text pertaining to the establishment of a Western Loop Corridor Overlay District, Planned Employment Center District and Conditional Zoning District and the development of the Conditional zoning process and other associated amendments.  The Commission tabled these items at the March 24, 2003, meeting. 

 

       This was a City and extraterritorial item.


 

       Planning Director Harkrader pointed out that the Commission and City Council had two joint meetings including one where Mr. Rich Ducker from the Institute of Government had made a presentation on Conditional zoning and that several public meetings had been held for citizen input.  He also pointed out that a newspaper article indicated how Greensboro is adopting the Conditional zoning process.

 

       Ms. Charlotte Straney stated that she had concerns that the Conditional zoning process will eliminate neighbors' input. 

 

       Mr. Harkrader explained that it is the opinion of staff that Conditional zoning will have an opposite effect whereas neighbors will have more say-so and will be aware of uses planned for property.  He added that Conditional zoning should offer more flexibility when it comes to community growth.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher stated that he had talked with someone from the Town of Mebane and that they were against Conditional zoning.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh stated that staff will have the full-time responsibility of carrying out the Conditional zoning process and the staff has worked hard on the amendments and that, in his opinion, if staff recommends approval of these amendments, he would also recommend approval of them.

 

       Mr. Lawson Brown, Attorney, stated that Conditional zoning will allow more flexibility than what the City has now and that he would recommend approval of the amendments.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments and proposed supplement to the  Southwest Area Plan (Item No. 14).  Celo Faucette seconded the motion.  The Commission voted nine to one to recommend approval of Item 13 and Item 14.  Voting to recommend approval were Cobb, Faucette, Starling, Byrd, Burwell, Hargrave, Millspaugh, Apple and Enoch.  Voting against the motion was Fletcher.

 

       ITEM NO. 14: Staff presented a proposed supplement to the Southwest Area Plan. The Commission tabled this item at the March 24, 2003, meeting. 

 

       This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       See Item No. 13 above.

 

 

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                             _________________________________

                                           Donald C. Starling, Chairman

 

 

 

 

                                           _________________________________

                                           George A. Byrd, Jr., Secretary