Cary

Cary Town Council Minutes

Thursday, February 23, 2006

6:30 PM

Council Chambers

316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C.

Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Michael Joyce, Jennifer Robinson and Nels Roseland. Council Member Robison arrived late, and her arrival time is noted in the minutes.

_________________________

A. COMMENCEMENT

1. Call to Order (Mayor McAlister)

Mayor McAlister called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

_________________________

2. Ceremonial Opening (Council Member Robinson)

Council Member Jennifer Robinson provided the ceremonial opening.

_________________________

3. Adoption of agenda (Town Council)

Mayor McAlister stated the applicant has requested that the Northwoods Activity Center Concept Plan (item F.1. on this agenda) be tabled to the next meeting.

ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to table the Northwoods Activity Center Concept Plan (item F.1. on this agenda) to March 9, 2006. Mr. Roseland provided the second. Council granted unanimous approval. (Mrs. Robison was not present for this vote; she arrived later in the meeting.)

ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to adopt the remainder of the agenda. Mrs. Robinson provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval. (Mrs. Robison was not present for this vote; she arrived later in the meeting.)

_________________________

B. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on February 9, 2006, and the minutes of the economic development work session held on February 7, 2006. (Town Council)

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval. (Mrs. Robison was not present for this vote; she arrived later in the meeting.)

_________________________

2. Consideration of adoption of certificates of sufficiency and resolutions calling for public hearings to be conducted on March 23, 2006 on the following voluntary annexations. (Mr. Ricky Barker)

a. 06-A-06: Property is located at 2128 High House Road and contains 2.65 acres. The associated development plan is 05-SP-145, Stone Creek Village site plan.

Annexation Petition Number:   06-A-06
Property Address:   2128 High House Road
Wake County Parcel Number: 0744225423
Real ID Number:   0111637
Petition Date:   1/9/2006

Proposed Effective Date:   3/23/2006

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency:   2/23/2006
Staff Recommendation:      Forward to public hearing on 3/23/2006
Town Council – Public Hearing:   3/23/2006
Staff Recommendation:

OWNERS:

Robert G. and Suzanne Rabon

1805 Bay Meadow Court

Raleigh, NC 27615

LOCATION: At the intersection of Carpenter Upchurch Road and High House Road

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning:   OIP (Office & Institutional PDD)
Acreage:   2.19 plus .465% adjacent right of way = 2.65 total acres
% Contiguity:   48.60%
Corporate Limits:   Contiguous

Proposed Use:   Residential
Associated Rezoning Case:    None
Associated Development Plan:   05-SP-145 (Stone Creek Village)

UTILITIES:

Water:    On Site
Sewer:   8" PVC 30' east

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District:          Morrisville
Voting District:     A
Tax Value:           $754,544

(Resolution is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.)

_________________________

b. 06-A-07: Property is located 450 feet west of the intersection of Green Hope School Road and N.C. Highway 55 and contains 37.21 acres. The associated development plan is 05-SB-034, Highcroft Village subdivision plan.

Annexation Petition Number:   06-A-07
Property Address:   Green Hope School Road
Wake County Parcel Number: 0734760395
Real ID Number:   0063069
Petition Date:   1/11/2006

Proposed Effective Date:   3/23/2006

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency:   2/23/2006
Staff Recommendation: Forward to public hearing on 3/23/2006
Town Council – Public Hearing:   3/23/2006
Staff Recommendation:

OWNERS:

Highcroft Investors LLC

P. O. Box 3557

Cary, NC 27519-3557

LOCATION: 450' west of the intersection of Green Hope School Road and NC 55 Highway

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning:   PDD Major
Acreage:   37.21 plus 0.00% adjacent right of way = 37.21 total acres
% Contiguity:   39.18%
Corporate Limits:   Contiguous

Proposed Use:   Residential
Associated Rezoning Case:    None
Associated Development Plan:   05-SB-034 (Highcroft Village)

UTILITIES:

Water:    On Site
Sewer:   8" PVC 170' east

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District:          Morrisville
Voting District:     A
Tax Value:           $739,837

(Resolution is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.)

_________________________

c. 06-A-08: Property is located at 1727, 1729, 1735, 1741 and 1745 Green Level to Durham Road and contains 36.02 acres. The associated development plan is 06-SB-001, Horton subdivision plan.

Annexation Petition Number:   06-A-08
Property Address:   1727, 1729, 1735, 1741, 1745 Green Level to Durham Road
Wake County Parcel Number: 0726900444, 0726900931, 0726905944, 0725895921, 0726904136
Real ID Number:   0058516, 0273855, 0058517, 0159189, 0033365
Petition Date:   1/13/2006

Proposed Effective Date:   3/23/2006

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency:   2/23/2006
Staff Recommendation:    Forward to public hearing on 3/23/2006
Town Council – Public Hearing:   3/23/2006

OWNERS:

Village Investment LLC

1600 Morrisville Carpenter Road

Cary, NC 27516

LOCATION: 440’ south of the intersection of Evans Road and Green Level to Durham Road

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning:   PDD Major
Acreage:   36.02 plus 0.00% adjacent right of way = 36.02 total acres
% Contiguity:   69.68%
Corporate Limits:   Contiguous

Proposed Use:   Residential
Associated Rezoning Case:    None
Associated Development Plan:   06-SB-001 (Horton)

UTILITIES:

Water:    On Site
Sewer:   12" DIP 320' south

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District:           Morrisville
Voting District:      A
Tax Value:             $939,571

(Resolution is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.)

_________________________

d. 06-A-09: Property is located at the intersection of Carpenter Fire Station Road and Cary Glen Boulevard and contains 28.16 acres. The associated development plan is 05-SB-035, Cary Park TC-3 subdivision plan.

Annexation Petition Number:   06-A-09
Property Address:   Carpenter Fire Station Road
Wake County Parcel Number: 0735058091
Real ID Number:   0299235
Petition Date:   1/13/2006

Proposed Effective Date:   3/23/2006

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency:   2/23/2006
Staff Recommendation:   Forward to public hearing on 3/23/2006
Town Council – Public Hearing:   3/23/2006

OWNERS:

Builder Resource & Development Company LLC

300 River Road

Manakin Sabot, VA 23103

LOCATION: At the intersection of Carpenter Fire Station Road and Cary Glen Boulevard

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning:   PDD Major
Acreage:   27.69 plus 0.469 adjacent right of way = 28.16 total acres
% Contiguity:   49.77%
Corporate Limits:   Contiguous

Proposed Use:   Residential
Associated Rezoning Case:    None
Associated Development Plan:   05-SB-035 (Cary Park TC-3)

UTILITIES:

Water:    On Site
Sewer:   20" PVC 150' north

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District:          Morrisville
Voting District:     A
Tax Value:           $1,472,900

(Resolution is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.)

_________________________

3. Consideration of approving the appointment of Krissa Johnson-Sotomayor to the Sister Cities Commission to fill a vacancy with a term expiration date of February 1, 2009. (Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith)

_________________________

4. Consideration of approval of a request for additional funding for pending condemnation claims on Tryon Road. (Mr. Tim Bailey)

STAFF REPORT

Town Council, February 23, 2006

Additional funding for Pending Condemnation Claims on Tryon Road (EN06-102)
Consideration of additional funding for pending condemnation claims related to the Tryon Road widening project
Speaker: Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, PE, Director of Engineering
Prepared by: Patrick C. Lee, PLS, Real Estate Manager
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Several condemnations for the Tryon Road widening project (ST1073 – Tryon and Piney Plains Phase I) are proceeding through continued negotiations and the mediation hearing phase before coming to trial. In order to bring these to closure including trial possibility, $310,000 is needed in the project account.

Fiscal Impact: Current appropriations to this project total $14,558,000. To date, $12,547,420 has been expended and/or encumbered in this project leaving an available balance of $2,010,580. All encumbered and estimated available funds are designated for identified costs associated with this project and cannot be used to address the funding need identified above. The Town will need to transfer $310,000 of transportation development fee fund balance from the general capital reserve fund into the ST1073 Tryon and Piney Plains Phase I project to cover this additional expense.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends transfer of funds outlined in the Fiscal Impact portion of this staff report.

_________________________

C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS

There were no recognitions, reports or presentations on this agenda.

_________________________

D. PUBLIC HEARINGS

The following rules apply to the first quasi-judicial public hearing (05-SU-006)

This quasi-judicial hearing considers an application for a variance or a special use permit. It requires an evidentiary hearing on the application, which will be heard by Council acting as a quasi-judicial board. The purpose of the hearing is to enable Council to gather legally acceptable evidence in order to establish sufficient facts to apply the applicable ordinance. No ex parte contact of Council is permitted. This means that Council should not discuss or receive information about the merits of the case from the parties, or members of the public, before the hearing. All testimony before Council must be "sworn" testimony. All persons wishing to speak on this matter must be sworn in. Applicants may elect to be represented by legal counsel. All persons wishing to speak will be given a reasonable time in which to be heard; however, groups are encouraged to select a spokesperson to speak for the group in order to avoid repetitious testimony. All documents provided to Council to consider as evidence should be numbered and copies must be provided to the Clerk and to the other party. Inflammatory, irrelevant or repetitious testimony is not permitted.

The applicant has the burden of producing sufficient substantial, competent and material evidence for the Council to conclude that the standards of the applicable ordinance(s) have been met.

PROCEDURE FOR THE HEARING

The procedure for hearing this case is as follows:

· A staff representative presents a preliminary statement.

· The applicant is called on to present the argument in support of the application, followed by others who wish to speak in support of the application.

· Persons opposed to the application are invited to speak.

· Both sides are permitted to question the other side.

· Both sides are permitted to present rebuttals.

· The hearing is closed.

The Council deliberates in order to reach a decision. In the course of the deliberation, the Council may ask questions of the staff, the applicant or others who have testified, but beyond that, additional comments from the floor will be admitted only at the discretion of the Mayor.

1. Special Use (05-SU-006)
All speakers must be administered an oath prior to speaking.
The Greenwood Forest Baptist Church property is located at 110 SE Maynard Road and contains 5.80 acres. The request is to approve an expansion of the existing multi-purpose room and church parking lot in a residential district. Council may take action on this item. (Mrs. Debra Grannan)

STAFF REPORT

Town Council, February 23, 2006

Greenwood Forest Baptist Church Expansion (PL06-31)
Consideration of a Special Use Permit (05-SU-006) to expand the classrooms and multi-purpose room and to increase the parking by 40 spaces at Greenwood Forest Baptist Church

Speaker: Debra Grannan

From: Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Director, Planning Department
Prepared by: Debra Grannan, Senior Planner
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Requested Town Council Action

The applicant, Jon W. Steindorf of the Roberts Group has submitted a Special Use Application to increase the classrooms and multi-purpose facility at Greenwood Forest Baptist Church by 13,534 square feet. The site plan also proposes an increase of 40 parking spaces. The site is zoned Residential-12 and is located at 110 S.E. Maynard Road on 5.73 acres.

Special Uses are generally compatible with other land uses permitted in the zoning district. Because of their unique characteristics or potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and the Town, they require consideration as to location, design, configuration, and operation at the particular location proposed. Any use designated by the Land Development Ordinance as a “Special Use” shall not be established without the approval of the Town Council in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in LDO Sec. 3.8.1(A).

Proposal

A site plan is being reviewed by staff in conjunction with this application. Final action to approve the site plan may not occur until after approval of the special use. Expansions to such uses are permitted in this zoning district only through the granting of a Special Use Permit by the Town Council.

Neighborhood Concerns

Notices of site plan modifications and the special use permit request were mailed to surrounding property owners within 400 feet of the site. At the time of this report, no inquiries had been received. The property has been posted and advertised.

Staff believes that the request meets the Land Development Ordinance Use-Specific Standards in Section 5.5.2 E and the special use criteria set forth in Section 3.8.3 necessary for approval of the Special Use Permit.

Staff Recommendation: A worksheet is attached containing the five use-specific standards and the seven special use standards and suggested motions.

WORKSHEET AND SUGGESTED MOTIONS

Section 5.2.2(E) requirements

Any religious or other assembly use (i.e. club, lodge or hall) located upon residentially-zoned property that is 20 acres in size or smaller shall be required to meet the following standards:

1. Such uses shall obtain a Special Use Permit consistent with Section 3.8 of this Ordinance. This requirement shall also apply to residentially-zoned properties 20 acres in size or smaller located within an activity center overlay and/or a residentially-designated portion of a planned development district.

Staff comment: Greenwood Forest Baptist Church is located on 5.8 acres. The Special Use permit was submitted as required.

TEST SATISFIED? __YES __NO

2. New or proposed religious or other assembly uses shall be located on parcel or site which fronts a thoroughfare or collector roadway.

Staff comment: The site has direct access to SE Maynard Road. This is designated as a thoroughfare on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.

TEST SATISFIED? __YES __NO

3. Such uses shall meet all the development standards of this Ordinance, and minor modifications or other reductions to the standards shall not be granted. Existing religious or other assembly uses shall meet this requirement to the maximum extent;

Staff comment: The site plan submitted meets all of the standards of the LDO and no modifications or reductions are required.

TEST SATISFIED? __YES __NO

4. Any subsequent principal or accessory use associated with an existing religious or other assembly (which is required to obtain a Special Use Permit) that would increase the intensity of the facility shall also be required to obtain a special use. For the purposes of this Section, increases in intensity shall be measured as increases in vehicular trips generated and/or increases in impervious surface by five percent or more for either aspect.

Staff comment: The new multipurpose room and class rooms are an infill expansion on the existing buildings; therefore, the increase in impervious surface is less than 1%. The building expansion is designed to provide room to expand program capacity in the education classrooms and multipurpose room by 26%. No increase is proposed for the main sanctuary.

TEST SATISFIED? __YES __NO

5. Uses that have or are intended to have more than one worship ceremony or meeting within any two hour window shall be required to provide overflow parking at one space for every 2.5 persons of maximum fire-rated occupancy in addition to the standard parking requirements listed in Section 7.8.

Staff comment: Sunday Morning worship services are scheduled at 8:45 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.; therefore, overflow parking is not typically required.

TEST SATISFIED? __YES __NO

Section 3.8.3 of the Town of Cary Land Development Ordinance requires that the following seven general standards must be met in order for the Town Council to grant a Special Use.

(A) The proposed use or development of the land will generally conform with the Comprehensive Plan, other official plans and manuals or documents adopted by the Town.

Staff comment –The Land Use Plan designation for this site is Low Density Residential, however it is bordered on the south, east and west by office, institutional and commercial zoning and uses. The only residential use in vicinity of this site is to the north; across SE Maynard Road. Religious assembly use has a tradition of coexisting with residential uses in Cary.

TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(B) The proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger the public health or safety;

Staff comment – Any structural changes to the building must meet NC State Building Code. The plan proposes a new sprinkler system and improvements for handicapped accessibility.

TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(C) The proposed use is reasonably necessary for the public health or general welfare, such as by enhancing the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community functions or by providing an essential service to the community.

Staff comment – The proposed addition provides additional education, recreation, fellowship and assembly opportunities for a broad range of age groups in the community. Religious institutions, as an element of a residential neighborhood, help to promote positive property values through providing a basic institutional function that benefits the neighborhood.

TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(D) The proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property;

Staff comment – Existing streetscapes and buffers associated with this site must remain in compliance with the Land Development Ordinance. The plan proposes increased planting in the existing buffers.

TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(E) The proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is located.

Staff comment – The expansion to the existing building will match the colors and materials of the existing structure. Many of the existing trees that are affected by the expanded parking lot will be relocated.

TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(F) The proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal, and similar facilities.

Staff comment - The existing facility fronts a thoroughfare and is easily accessible for emergency response vehicles. The site is located inside the corporate limits of the Town of Cary and is serviced by Town utilities and emergency services. There is a 12” water main along both SE Maynard Road and Kildaire Farm Road and four existing fire hydrants adjacent to the property. One proposed new hydrant will be added to the north side of the addition.

TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

(G) The proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard or unsafe pedestrian pathway.

Staff comment – Engineering staff determined that a traffic study is not required for this site plan. The church currently has three points of vehicular access from public streets, two on SE Maynard Road and one on Kilmayne Road. Proposed on site parking will total 185 spaces. The applicant has recorded a shared parking agreement with the adjacent Browne Wynne Funeral Home to provide 45 additional spaces. This exceeds the parking requirement of 203 spaces calculated by the Inspections and Permits Department by 27 spaces.

TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO

MOTION TO GRANT APPLICATION

To approve the proposed special use:

BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I MOVE TO FIND THAT THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE 05-SU-006 HAS MET ALL THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF 5.2.2(E) AND THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF 3.8.3 FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND MOVE TO APPROVE.

To approve the proposed special use with conditions:

BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I MOVE TO FIND THAT THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE HAS MET ALL THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF 5.2.2(E) AND THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF 3.8.3 FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND MOVE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

FORMCHECKBOX The addition shall be developed in accord with site plan 05-SP-145.

FORMCHECKBOX No worship service or meeting scheduled within two (2) hours of any other service or meeting, unless overflow parking is provided.

MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION

BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I MOVE TO FIND THAT THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE HAS FAILED TO MEET ALL THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF 5.2.2(E) AND THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF 3.8.3 FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BELOW AND MOVE TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE. SPECIFICALLY, IT FAILS TO MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENT(S):

SPECIFIC STANDARDS: (choose the standard(s) you do not believe was met, and cite reason)

FORMCHECKBOX Such uses shall obtain a Special Use Permit consistent with Section 3.8 of this Ordinance. This requirement shall also apply to residentially-zoned properties 20 acres in size or smaller located within an activity center overlay and/or a residentially-designated portion of a planned development district. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX New or proposed religious or other assembly uses shall be located on parcel or site which fronts a thoroughfare or collector roadway. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX Such uses shall meet all the development standards of this Ordinance, and minor modifications or other reductions to the standards shall not be granted. Existing religious or other assembly uses shall meet this requirement to the maximum extent. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX Any subsequent principal or accessory use associated with an existing religious or other assembly (which is required to obtain a Special Use Permit) that would increase the intensity of the facility shall also be required to obtain a special use. For the purposes of this Section, increases in intensity shall be measured as increases in vehicular trips generated and/or increases in impervious surface by five percent or more for either aspect. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX Uses that have or are intended to have more than one worship ceremony or meeting within any two hour window shall be required to provide overflow parking at one space for every 2.5 persons of maximum fire-rated occupancy in addition to the standard parking requirements listed in Section 7.8. Specifically: ___________________________

GENERAL STANDARDS:

FORMCHECKBOX The proposed use or development of the land will generally conform with the Comprehensive Plan, other official plans and manuals or documents adopted by the Town. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX The proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger the public health or safety. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX The proposed use is reasonably necessary for the public health or general welfare, such as by enhancing the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community functions or by providing an essential service to the community. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX The proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX The proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is located. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX The proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal, and similar facilities. Specifically: ___________________________

FORMCHECKBOX The proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard or unsafe pedestrian pathway. Specifically: ___________________________

The town clerk administered oaths to: Debra Grannan, Jon Steindorf, Tim Carr and Randy Sherron (attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.

Mrs. Grannan outlined a power point presentation, a copy of which is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.

Council Member Robison arrived at this point in the meeting at 6:40 p.m.

Mr. Jon Steindorf, the architect for the project, stated they are not seeking special variances, and they believe the project will enhance the property by providing better circulation and better parking arrangements. He stated the landscaping will be enhanced, and the building materials will be compatible with the existing structures.

Mr. Tim Carr, chaiperson of the building committee at Greenwood Forest Baptist Church, affirmed that the church has studied this for several years, and they seek to expand their program to their members and the community.

No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland stated based upon the testimony and evidence presented, he finds that the proposed special use, 05-SU-006, has met all the specific requirements of 5.2.2.(e) and the general requirements of 3.8.3, including the findings set forth in the staff report (contained herein), and he moved to approve. Mrs. Robison provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

2. Budget Public Hearing
This public hearing provides an opportunity to the public to share their priorities for the Town of Cary’s Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Budget, which will identify services and infrastructure projects to be undertaken by the Town from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. No council action is required. (Mr. Scott Fogleman)

Ms. Karen Dumers spoke about special population programming (i.e., physical, mental or developmental disabilities) through parks and recreation funding. She stated currently the Town offers little to no programming for this population. It has been difficult for existing programs to accommodate her son, and it requires special training for staff.

No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.

_________________________

3. Public hearing and consideration of adoption of the following voluntary annexation petitions (Mr. Ricky Barker):

a. 06-A-02: The property is located at the intersection of Dillard Drive and Piney Plains Drive and contains 8.56 acres. The associated rezoning case is 05-REZ-31, Dellinger Planned Development. Council may take action.

Annexation Petition Number:   06-A-02
Property Address:   Piney Plains Road, 5739, 5730 Dillard Drive
Wake County Parcel Number: 0773408461, 0773507412, 0773502387
Real ID Number:   0339838, 0340403, 0339839
Petition Date:   11/28/2005

Proposed Effective Date:   2/23/2006

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency:   1/26/2006
Staff Recommendation:     Forward to public hearing on 2/23/2006
Action:   Forwarded to public hearing on 2/23/2006
Town Council – Public Hearing:   2/23/2006
Staff Recommendation:      Adoption with an effective date of 2/23/2006

OWNERS:

Dellking Family LLC

207 Annandale Drive

Cary, NC 27511-6503

G & G Cary Storage LLC

10800 Sikes Place, Suite #170

Charlotte, NC 28277

Palladian-Old Milton Parkway LLC

5784 Lake Forrest Drive, #275

Atlanta, GA 30328

LOCATION: At the intersection of Dillard Drive and Piney Plains Drive

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning:   PDD Major
Acreage:   8.11 plus 0.45% adjacent right of way = 8.56 total acres
% Contiguity:   67.52%
Corporate Limits:   Contiguous

Proposed Use:   Residential
Associated Rezoning Case:    05-REZ-31 (Dellinger PDD)
Associated Development Plan:   None

UTILITIES:

Water:    On Site
Sewer:   On Site

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District:          Swift Creek
Voting District:     C
Tax Value:           Under review

_________________________

b. 06-A-03: The property is located 2,500 feet northwest of Green Level Church Road and Roberts Road and contains 27.19 acres. There is no associated rezoning or development plan. Council may take action.

Annexation Petition Number:   06-A-03
Property Address:   Roberts Road
Wake County Parcel Number: 0733251732
Real ID Number:   0060307
Petition Date:   11/29/2005

Proposed Effective Date:   2/23/2006

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency:   1/26/2006
Staff Recommendation:   Forward to public hearing on 2/23/2006
Action:    Forwarded to public hearing on 2/23/2006
Town Council – Public Hearing:   2/23/2006
Staff Recommendation:     Adoption with an effective date of 2/23/2006

OWNERS:

Hubert E. Roberts Family Farm LLC

7517 Roberts Road

Cary, NC 27519

LOCATION: 2,500' northwest of Green Level Church Road and Roberts Road

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning:   R-40 (Wake)
Acreage:   27.19 plus 0.00% adjacent right of way = 27.19 total acres
% Contiguity:   0.00%
Corporate Limits:   Non-contiguous

Proposed Use:   Residential
Associated Rezoning Case:    None
Associated Development Plan:   None

UTILITIES:

Water:    30" DIP 4,7900' south
Sewer:    8" DIP 3,970' east

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District:          Hipex
Voting District:     A
Tax Value:           $530,205

_________________________

c. 06-A-04: The property is located at 2002 New Hope Church Road and contains 45.48 acres. There is no associated rezoning or development plan. Council may take action.

Annexation Petition Number:   06-A-04
Property Address:   2002 New Hope Church Road
Chatham County Parcel Number: 0715-83-6565.000
Parcel ID Number:   65997
Petition Date:   12/2/2005

Proposed Effective Date:   2/23/2006

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency: 1/26/2006
Staff Recommendation: Forward to public hearing on 2/23/2006
Action: Forwarded to public hearing on 2/23//2006
Town Council – Public Hearing:   2/23/2006
Staff Recommendation:    Adoption with an effective date of 2/23/2006

OWNERS:

Todd D. Hodge

712 Market Street

Wilmington, NC 28401

LOCATION: At the intersection of New Hope Church Road and Markham Plantation

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning:   RA-40 (Chatham)
Acreage:   45.48 plus 0.00% adjacent right of way = 45.48 total acres
% Contiguity:   0.00%
Corporate Limits:   Non-contiguous

Proposed Use:   Residential
Associated Rezoning Case:    None
Associated Development Plan:   None

UTILITIES:

Water:    8" DIP 1,900' southeast
Sewer:   8" PVC 3,450' southeast

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District:          Morrisville
Voting District:     A
Tax Value:           $669,197

*************************

Mr. Ricky Barker of the planning staff stated staff has determined that 06-A-03 should be tabled after the public hearing. He stated the applicant will submit an initial zoning application, and by tabling this annexation tonight, the rezoning and annexation can be processed simultaneously. He stated staff also recommends tabling 06-A-04, and he stated the applicant will submit an initial zoning application, and the zoning and annexation can be processed simultaneously.

Mr. Travis Morehead, representing the applicant for 06-A-03, stated he has met with staff regarding a potential subdivision plan which is designed to meet the conservation overlay district that was approved as part of the southwest area plan. He will file the rezoning request on Monday per the staff’s request.

Mr. Todd Hodge, applicant and owner for 06-A-04 (Chatham County), stated he will more than likely pursue the present zoning of R-40 for this tract. He stated about six months ago the Chatham County planning director made it clear that Chatham County did not have plans for serving this site with utilities or public safety services. He stated this knowledge prompted him to move forward with the request to annex into Cary. He stated the land is about ¼ mile from the new town park.

Mr. Rodney Keller (06-A-02) stated he was forcibly annexed into Cary three years ago, and the Town’s purpose of that annexation was to fill in the donut holes. He does not understand how the Delking family was able to avoid being forcibly annexed at that time. He stated this family has had several cases before the council where they requested removal of setbacks and buffers, and in one instance the council granted them an increase of square footage that was five times more than the parcel was zoned to accommodate. He stated buffers and setbacks are in place to protect adjacent property owners. He encouraged the council to review the southeast gateway plan and to involve the citizens. He does not want the council to deviate from that plan.

Mr. Joe Evans (06-A-04) stated the property is part of his subdivision, and the statutes do not allow the council to annex one parcel of a subdivision without annexing the entire subdivision. Refer to Exhibit for his comments and various exhibits (map of Chatham Woods Subdivision / Woods of Chatham showing phases of construction, the deed for phase 3, restrictive subdivision covenants, statute governing annexation, petition for annexation, and directory of property owners). Mr. Evans stated the petition is not valid, because it does not contain signatures of all landowners as required by the statutes. He urged the council to deny this annexation tonight instead of tabling it as recommended by staff.

Mr. Tom Madden (06-A-04) concurred with Mr. Evans’ comments.

Ms. Eileen Evans (06-a-04) gave a history of the development of the Chatham Woods subdivision, and she stated that she was assured years ago that phase 3 was part of the subdivision and was covered by their protective covenants. She stated this is important to her because it includes the frontage to New Hope Church Road, which is the entrance to their subdivision. She noted it’s important that the impression presented by any improvements compliment their subdivision, since it’s the first impression of their subdivision. She stated a phase 3 plan was presented a while back, but it wasn’t acceptable to the subdivision or to Chatham County officials due to the spray systems that would have been needed. She stated the landowners in this subdivision were not notified by the property owner or by Cary of the annexation request. She stated Cary should treat the restrictive subdivision covenants as valid and enforceable until a court decides otherwise.

Ms. Marilyn Madden (06-A-04) concurred with previous speakers. She’s concerned about the impact on the environment in this area. She stated the Chatham Woods subdivision utilizes wells for water. She stated recent blasting to further development damaged her well and plumbing system.

Mr. Larry Ballas (06-A-04) urged council to deny this plan tonight. He stated there is no plan in place for this area, and annexations and development shouldn’t occur until there is a plan in place. He stated an R-40 development is not in keeping with the character of surrounding development. He stated that good planning is essential to protect the lake.

Mr. Donald Tingen (06-A-04), a resident of the Woods of Chatham, stated Cary’s wastewater collection master plan shows that the Hodge property is intended to have sewer service from the proposed Indian Creek pump station to the west, the west Cary pump station to the south and the proposed New Hill site and several miles of gravity force main lines in between. He stated none of the infrastructure is installed or planned. He stated it doesn’t seem that Cary is ready to serve this property with utilities. He urged council to deny this request tonight.

Mr. Jeff Blythe (06-A-04) read comments stating his opposition to this annexation. These comments are attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.

Ms. Lynn Fass (06-A-04) stated she has a horse farm in the Markham Plantation on a 10-acre tract. She stated the subdivision acreage ranges from 5-16 acres per site. She stated the proposed annexation is across from her property. She stated any development should conform with the surrounding subdivisions instead of cluster development, which would negatively impact the environment, roads, schools and taxes.

Mr. Walter Durr (06-A-04) read comments from his neighbor, Steve Fitzgerald, in opposition to this annexation (see Exhibit attached to and incorporated in these minutes).

Mr. Steve Stephenson, a Cary resident, spoke in opposition to this satellite annexation (06-A-04). His comments are attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.

Ms. Kristi Casper (06-A-04), a Cary Park resident, spoke against this annexation. She doesn’t think Cary has a good relationship with Chatham County residents, and she stated this annexation will not benefit them. She referenced a rural landscape preservation project, but she can’t find any references to this project since 2002. She asked for the status of this project and the possibility of this being brought up in conjunction with this property in the event the council decides to annex the property. She stated everyone fears additional forced annexation if this site is annexed. She stated the infrastructure in this vicinity is not holding up, and she stated a high density development will make it worse. She stated Cary Park has many open space acres that homeowners pay to maintain with their dues, but this space is not visible to her. She wants to see the open space plans for any new development in the area. She does not think R-40 zoning is acceptable for this area.

Mr. Robert Sears (06-A-04), president of Chatham County United, spoke in opposition to the annexation. He gave a history of the property in this vicinity in Chatham County. He stated current residents have utilities and public safety protection, and they do not want Cary service. He stated they are already losing their rural character because of Cary development. He urged the council to deny this annexation.

Mr. Tom Kost (06-A-04), a Chatham County resident, stated it is not unlawful for council to deny this annexation request. He stated each annexation should be evaluated to determine if the parcel meets Cary’s goals, visions and plans. He stated five criteria have been used by progressive governments to determine if annexation is desirable: (1) fiscal impact analysis (he believes the existing Cary citizens will pay for to serve this site); (2) annexation boundaries should be drawn based on the Town’s ability to provide service (he does not believe the Town is ready to provide service to this area); (3) population should be sufficient to allow the annexation area to pay its fair share of cost to provide services (there is no site plan to determine this); (4) the area should contribute to the logical growth pattern of the Town (he does not understand this by looking at the map); and (5) the Town should carefully review the request (he’s not yet heard the council discuss the distance to the nearest fire station, police protection, school impact, etc.). He urged the council to at least delay a decision on this annexation until they determine answers to these five points.

Mr. David Fass (06-A-04), a resident of Markham Plantation, stated it’s important to have a plan for this area. He concurred with Mr. Kost’s comments.

Mr. Gary Mason (06-A-04), a Woods of Chatham resident, stated he wants to hear about Mr. Joyce’s meeting with Chatham County. He asked if anyone has flown over the Jordan Lake area after a rain storm. He added that Cary is adding mud to the lake due to the development in the area. He stated it’s important to have a long-range plan for this area.

Mr. Jeff Wall (06-A-04) speaks for himself and six other families who have small farms in the area surrounding the proposed annexation. He stated as a result of Cary inching closer and closer to this area, they’ve had to deal with increasing problems with the fox population and crop damage by the deer population. He stated as development increases, the rabies incidents increase. He stated their farming income this year is zero, and they can’t compete with development. Their way of life is forever changed by development. He stated agriculture and recreation makes up a large part of Chatham County’s identity. He urged the council not to annex any more land in Chatham County.

Ms. Tamara Manhard (06-A-04), a Windy Hill resident, stated the currently overcrowded Chatham County schools cannot handle the student growth from Cary’s development in this area. She stated the county plans to introduce a General Obligation Bond to the voters in the November election to finance new school construction, and this will result in increased taxes to pay for the school construction. She stated Chatham County’s debt load is higher than Cary’s. She stated the county’s recently approved capital plan increases Chatham’s per capita debt to nearly $2,800 per person, which is $200 more than Cary’s. She urged the council to deny this annexation.

Ms. Linda Jacobs (06-A-03), representing the Roberts family, stated they participated with the Town to establish the Greenlevel overlay district. She is puzzled with the staff recommendation at this meeting to delay this annexation, and she asked the council to approve this annexation tonight. She stated one of the elderly Roberts family members would appreciate the ability to consummate the deal before his health deteriorates more.

Mr. Ron Austell (06-A-04), a Chatham County resident, stated the land considered for annexation is across the road from his property on New Hope Church Road. He urged the council to deny this annexation.

Ms. Wendy Mason (06-A-04) stated Mr. Hodge took this property to Chatham County in September 2001, but Chatham County denied the plan, which