Orange County NC Website
Commissioner Willhoit asked that Phil Post address the fact that the <br />ponds, if located on the western side of the property, could have resulted <br />in them being part of the. land already properly zoned and would not have <br />required any further action for compliance. Post explained that the natural <br />runoff would flow by gravity in volumes that cannot be efficiently pumped. ~-~~. <br />By the change that was approved previously and the installation of the three <br />ponds, there was enough room for landscaping and the additional 0.59 acres <br />would add to the present landscaping. <br />In response to Planning Board member Dan Eddleman, Chandler said that <br />the ponds were in operation in accordance with the State environmental <br />protection laws to retain the water in ponds and not let it go into the <br />stream. He emphasized the need to be able to operate the ponds and the <br />reclamation system to keep the concrete plant in.operation. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis~asked if the water in the ponds could be used to <br />water grass and flowers. Posts response was that the water was not caustic <br />but may need to be diluted slightly. Mr. Chandler indicated that the water <br />e felt a better job was being done by handling all runoff from one location. <br />Planning Board Member Steve Yuhasz questioned why all the discussion <br />was centered on the operation of the concrete plant and the location of the <br />ponds, stating that Chandleros request is due to court action which found- <br />him in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated he felt the discussion <br />should be centered on extension of the zoning to bring Chandler into <br />compliance with the two acre minimum requirement. <br />Chair Marshall noted that the recommendation of the Planning Staff is <br />for denial and therefore the background information is relevant. <br />Planning Board Member Eddleman questioned the changed conditions in the <br />immediate area. Post responded that although the area is changing the major <br />change in conditions are environmental regulations by DEM. Another changed <br />condition would be that of buffer requirements. <br />JOHN CAPEWELL, an appraiser, spoke to the question of area changes. He' ; <br />noted that five parcels in the immediate area have changed to PD-OI, CC3 ands <br />CC4. <br />Chair Marshall noted that those changes were not inconsistent with the <br />Central Orange Area Study. <br />MR. ROBERT E. RHINE, owner of land across from Chandler Concrete, <br />stated that he and his sisters were the ones who opposed the original Land <br />Use Plan amendment and initiated court action against Chandler Concrete. <br />Since that time, an agreement has been reached between Chandler <br />Concrete and the Rhine family which states that if Chandler is granted the <br />amendment, replanting of the 0.59 acres will be done with loblolly pines. He <br />summarized the contents of the agreement, noting that there would be no <br />change or expansion of the commercial activity (the concrete plant). He <br />continued reading the entire:agreement, noting that the restrictions and the <br />affirmative obligations on Chandler would become effective only upon <br />approval by the orange County commissioners of the above specified <br />amendments to the Land Use Plan and Special Use Permit. <br />Mr. Rhine expressed concern that if the amendment is not granted, Mr. <br />Chandler will be legally forced to leave the area, and no replanting will be <br />done. While he does not enthusiastically support the amendment as requested <br />by Chandler, he realizes that without: the approval, the area could remain <br />bare which would be more detrimental to the surrounding property. <br />County Attorney Gledhill informed the Board that the agreement between <br />Mr. Rhine and Mr. Chandler should not be considered as evidence in this <br />public hearing. _ <br />Commissioner Willhoit asked why the original request was not for the <br />full two (2) acres as required. Gledhill stated that he had advised the . <br />Board to waive the two-acre minimum lat size. Since there is an expressed <br />reduction provision in the ordinance of 10~; a further reduction through a <br />general provision was not allowed. The 1.41 acres was determined to be the <br />minimum amount of land on which to build the three ponds. Gledhill <br />