AGENDA #8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Report: Beechridge Development Special Use Permit – Request to Extend Completion Time Limit
DATE: November 27, 2000
The attached Resolution A would approve the request from Beechridge Development Company to extend the completion time limit for the Beechridge Development Special Use Permit. The subject property is located on Bayberry Drive near Azalea Drive in the Morgan Creek Subdivision.
Resolution B would deny the request.
On September 11, 2000, the Council considered a request for an extension of the completion date for the Beechridge Development. Several questions were raised at the meeting, and the Council deferred action to allow response to a citizen petition which included concerns about the Beechridge development.
On October 11, 2000, the Council received the
Town Manager's response. However, some issues remained unresolved and several
residents again expressed concerns about the Beechridge development. A copy of the October 11 agenda item is
attached for reference.
We believe that the Council can reasonably make these three findings regarding Beechridge. Please refer to attached October 11 memorandum (which includes the September 11 memorandum) for further background information.
KEY ISSUES
Following the October 11 Council meeting, Town staff met with each resident who had expressed concerns about the Beechridge development. During those meetings, we specifically identified the residents’ concerns and the remedial action(s) that they were seeking. We then met with the Beechridge developer, Mr. Kevin Huggins, on two occasions to review and discuss the residents’ concerns and how they might be satisfactorily resolved.
The following summary notes the concerns that were identified and the mitigation measures that Mr. Huggins has agreed to pursue. Please refer to the attached September 15 letter from Mr. Huggins for further information about these matters.
Issues identified by the Franciscos (333 Bayberry Drive): The Franciscos report that the roadside ditch and shoulder around their lot was disturbed, and that the ditch needs to be reshaped and the shoulder scarified, reseeded, and otherwise stabilized.
Staff comment: Mr. Huggins has agreed to perform the identified work provided that the Franciscos agree to sign a release form relieving him from further responsibility for the condition of the shoulder and ditch in question.
Issues identified by the Smiths (328 Azalea Drive): The Smiths report that an existing drainage swale at the front of their lot needs to have silt removed and the surrounding area reshaped and stabilized. They further report that the embankment areas adjacent to the sidewalk and downstream from the end of the curb along the new Beechridge Court need to be reshaped and stabilized.
Staff comment: Mr. Huggins has agreed to perform the requested work provided that the Smiths agree to sign a release form relieving him from further responsibility for the condition of the swale and embankment areas in question.
Additionally, at Town staff’s request, Mr. Huggins has agreed to install an additional catch basin on the new Beechridge Court to better intercept stormwater runoff which, under certain conditions, could potentially impact the Smith’s property.
Issues identified by the Trauts (400 Bayberry Drive): The Trauts report that Beechridge construction encroached on their property and damaged a tree which needs to be replaced. They are also asking that the lawn sprinkler system on the roadway shoulder adjacent to their lot be redirected so as not to water their property, and that they be reimbursed for legal fees incurred as a result of these and other issues with the Beechridge development. The Trauts also expressed concern about whether or not their sanitary sewer line was properly replaced after it was disturbed by the installation of a storm drain line from Beechridge.
Staff comment: Mr. Huggins has had the sprinkler system adjusted as requested. Mr. Huggins also has agreed to pay the Trauts $200 for a replacement tree (or to use otherwise as they wish) provided that the Trauts remove the derogatory signs posted at the front of their property and agree to sign a release form relieving him from further responsibility for the identified encroachment damages. Mr. Huggins has advised us that he will not agree to reimburse the Trauts for any legal fees they may have incurred as a result of their issues with Beechridge
We discussed the sewer replacement issue with Mr. Huggins, and he reported that the replacement was done properly and in accordance with accepted procedures for such work.
Additionally, at Town staff’s request, Mr. Huggins has agreed to install a storm drain inlet in the drainage ditch in front of the Traut’s lot to mitigate the potential for standing water in the ditch during and after rainstorms. This work would occur within the State right-of-way, not on the Trauts’ property.
Issues identified by Dr. Henry and Dr. Harp (404 Bayberry Drive): Dr. Henry requests that consideration be given to eliminating the common recreation area platted by the Beechridge development. Dr. Henry also contends that clearing of the sanitary sewer easement adjacent to his lot required him to install landscaping for privacy, and that he should be reimbursed for those landscaping expenses. He also noted that the color of a driveway replacement section installed by Beechridge does not match the existing driveway, and that the embankment in front of his lot is eroding.
Staff comment: Beechridge was approved by the Council as a Planned Development-Housing. When the Special Use Permit was approved, recreation space was required in order to comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance. As a Special Use Permit requirement, this platted recreation space cannot be removed without modification of the existing Special Use Permit.
Ordinarily, the original applicant or his successor in title would need to apply for a modification. In this case, it is likely that all who have an ownership interest in the land encumbered by the Special Use Permit would also need to sign the application for a modification.
Consideration of a Special Use Permit Modification requires a public hearing and action by the Town Council. During consideration of the Special Use Permit Modification application, the Council would need to make the necessary public purpose finding to modify the recreation space requirement and exempt the development from a recreation requirement. If the recreation space requirement was modified by the Town Council, the platted recreation space could be "undedicated" by the Homeowners Association and added to existing adjacent lots, provided that the land was offered by the Homeowners Association and accepted by the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Huggins has advised us that he will not agree to reimburse Dr. Henry for his landscaping costs, and reports that the sewer easement in question was platted and had already been cleared prior to Dr. Henry’s purchase of the property.
We inspected the driveway section in question and found it to be satisfactory. The color difference is a result of the newer concrete being slightly lighter than the older concrete. We would expect this color differential to diminish with age.
Mr. Huggins has agreed to reseed those areas of the embankment which are eroding, provided that Dr. Henry agrees to sign a release form relieving him from further responsibility for the embankment.
Speed of Traffic on Bayberry Drive: We also met with Dr. Kenneth Sugioka (319 Bayberry Drive) whose name was included with the petitioners at the September 11 meeting. Dr. Sugioka expressed concerns about speeding on Bayberry Drive and the need for a stop sign installation to slow traffic. Because this area is outside of the Town Limits and involves a State roadway, we recommended that he work with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department for speed enforcement, and with the State for installation of stop signs. We recommended that he bring these matters to the County Commissioners’ attention, and that they could request assistance from the State and the Sheriff’s Department on Dr. Sugioka’s behalf.
Article 18.6.3 of the Development Ordinance sets forth the requirements for the completion time limit of Special Use Permits:
If all construction and actions authorized or required by a Special Use Permit or Modification of Special Use Permit are not completed by the completion date stipulated in the Permit or Modification, the permit holder may request an extension of the completion time limit from the Town Manager. The Town Manager may grant a single extension of the time limit for up to twelve (12) months if he determines that: a) the permit holder submitted the request within sixty (60) days of the completion date; b) the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith; and c) conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development.
If all of the construction and actions authorized or required by a Special Use Permit or Modification of Special Use Permit are still not completed by the extended completion date granted by the Town Manager, the permit holder may, within 60 days of the revised completion date, request additional extensions of the completion time limit from the Council. The Council may grant extensions of the time limit for periods of up to twelve (12) months if it makes determinations a) ‑ c) above.
As noted above, the Town Manager has granted one twelve-month extension. This request is before the Town Council.
In order to grant the extension request, the Council must determine that:
A) The permit holder has submitted the request within 60 days of the completion date;
B) The permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith; and
C) Conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development.
Determination A: The permit holder has submitted the request within 60 days of the completion date. The request was filed August 22, 2000, which is within 60 days of June 24, 2000.
Determination B: Work on this development has been ongoing. The Phase III Zoning Compliance Permit was approved on August 1, 2000. We believe that the Council could make the finding that the applicant has proceeded with due diligence and good faith toward the completion of this project.
Determination C: The Special Use Permit was approved by the Council in 1996. At this point, evidence has been presented regarding changing conditions. We believe that the Council could make the finding that conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development.
We believe that the Council can make the three necessary determinations and grant the extension.
Based on our observations and understanding of the issues, we believe that the Town does not have a legal basis to withhold extension of the Beechridge Special Use Permit. If the extension were withheld, the development would be in violation of the ending date of it Special Use Permit. The means of enforcement would ordinarily be to be to fine the developer on a daily basis until he completes the development described in the permit.
That the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the request for an extension of the completion date of the Beechridge Development.
Resolution B would deny the request.
RESOLUTION A
(Manager’s Recommendation)
A
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE COMPLETION DATE
FOR BEECHRIDGE DEVELOPMENT (2000-11-27/10a)
WHEREAS, Wood Partners has requested an extension of the completion time limit for Beechridge Development; and
WHEREAS, Article 18.6.3 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance requires Council to make the determination that a) the permit holder submits the request within 60 days of the completion time limit; b) the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith; and c) conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development; and
WHEREAS, a) the permit holder submitted the request within 60 days of the completion date; b) the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith; and c) conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the request of Beechridge Development Company for the extension of the completion date of the Beechridge Development to June 24, 2001.
This the 27th day of November, 2000.
RESOLUTION B
(Denying the Request)
A
RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE COMPLETION DATE FOR
BEECHRIDGE DEVELOPMENT (2000-11-27/R-10b)
WHEREAS, Beechridge Development Corporation has requested an extension of the completion time limit for Beechridge Development; and
WHEREAS, Article 18.6.3 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance requires Council to make the determination that a) the permit holder submits the request within 60 days of the completion time limit; b) the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith; and c) conditions have not changed so substantially as to warrant Council reconsideration of the approved development; and
WHEREAS, the permit holder has not proceeded with due diligence and good faith toward the completion of this project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council denies the request of Beechridge Development Company for the extension of the completion date of the Beechridge Development, and refers Beechridge Development Company to the Special Use Permit Modification process to reactivate the development proposal.
This the 27th day of November, 2000.