HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-29-2008 Meeting CancelledJoint Greene Tract Work Session
April 29, 2008
7:30 PM
Southern Human Services Center
Chapel Hill, NC
Call to Order /introductions /Opening Comments
1) Greene Tract Development and Conservation — Summary of Issues for
Joint Discussion
2) Adjournment
,&,A - •Jt
CARRBOR0 BOARD OF ALDERMEN
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
JOINT GREENE TRACT WORK SESSION
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Data: April 29, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Greene Tract Development and Conservation — Summary of Issues for Joint
Discussion
DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) I No 1
ATTACHMENT(S):
1.
Solid Waste Management Inter
Local Agreement
2.
Inter Local Agreement Amendment
3.
Greene Tract Work Group
Resolution & Concept Map
4.
County Attorney Memo to the BOCC
5.
BOCC Greene Tract Minutes
6.
BOCC Greene Tract
Correspondence
7.
Greene Tract Environmental
Assessment
.8.
Sewer Service to Greene Tract
9.
Report from Affordable Housing
Partners re: Greene Tract
10.
School Site Selection Report re:
Greene Tract
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Blackmon, County Manager, 245-
2300
Gwen Harvey, Assistant Manager
Craig Benedict, Director, Planning
David Stancil, Director, ERCD
Tara Fikes, Director, H/CD
Gayle Wilson, Director, Solid Waste
Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney
PURPOSE: To present for discussion among the jurisdictions a summary of various aspects
and alternatives associated with the development and conservation of the Greene Tract, and
receive input and direction as may be desired on next steps.
BACKGROUND:
Inter Local Agreement
The use of the Greene Tract is subject to the Solid Waste Inter Local Agreement (ILA) of 1999,
as Amended 2000 to incorporate technical changes. The ILA describes ownership and land
use of the Greene Tract and the reimbursement formula. A work group was subsequently
established by the County and Towns to reach agreement on the ultimate disposition of the
property in joint ownership. The Greene Tract Work Group presented its resolution reporting its
recommendations to the County and Towns in June 2002. Its recommendations and concept
map offered the following guidance:
2
Tract 1 Orange County — 60 acres that "the County should consider protecting" by
conservation easement;
Tract 2: Joint Affordable Housing —18.1 acres;
Tract 3: Joint Open Space — 85.9 acres.
The BOCC adopted the ILA on September 29,1999; the ILA Amendment on March 14, 2000;
but there are no records to indicate that the Green Tract Work Group Resolution was ever
formally adopted by the BOCC.
Subcommittee of Elected Officials and Management
Discussion and development of the Greene Tract has come up regularly at the Assembly of
Governments (AOG). In spring 2007, however, the AOG agreed to use a subcommittee of the
Chair, Mayors, and Managers to examine more vigorously issues prerequisite and surrounding
the development and preservation of the Greene Tract. This was deemed especially important
since the Town of Chapel Hill was about to initiate its Small Area Plan of the Rogers Road
community whose boundaries embrace the Greene Tract.
Two meetings were convened by County and Town elected and management * officials —
October 3, 2007 and February 14, 2008 — to re-examine development feasibility options and
reimbursement to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. County, Town, and OWASA staff were
tasked with drafting various options and opportunities for locating the affordable housing on site
and providing road entry and sewer services as background to the work of the elected officials
and managers between meetings.
At the February meeting, County staff presented the results of joint staff discussions on land
use and ownership, environmental/natural features/preservation parameters, utilities — existing
and proposed, transportation and access, and affordable housing tract development
alternatives. Discussion arose on a proposed school site for the Chapel Hill Carrboro City
School District and its impact on acreage reserved for conservation and/or affordable housing.
County staff was asked to draft a set of guiding principles and parameters for enacting
conservation easements in anticipation of greater discussion on or before the AOG. meeting on
March 31, and what limitations might prevail for affordable housing. After County staff review of
the guiding principles and parameters for conservation purposes, the County Attorney prepared
a memorandum to the BOCC stating that nothing in the language of the ILA contemplated or
provided for the Greene Tract portion under County ownership to be used for other than solid
waste system purposes.
There was insufficient time for consideration of the Greene Tract item and its component parts
at the AOG meeting on March 31, therefore it was agreed to o schedule the topic for a previously
scheduled joint meeting set on April 29.
The BOCC, in preparation during a work session on April 8, reviewed the updated in i formation
postponed from the AOG meeting, and began a preliminary discussion of the development and
conservation issues previously identified by the joint staffs. County staff was then asked to
research and provide additional information for the joint meeting on April 29. Those issues are
addressed in Attachments 5-10.
County staff will provide a presentation on the development and conservation issues and
respond to any questions at the meeting on April 29.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: For the Greene Tract in joint ownership, the respective share of
reimbursement to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund is:-Orange County;43% of 104 acres -
$404,901; Chapel Hill, 43 % of 104 acres - $404,901; and Carrboro, 14% of 104 acres -
$131,828. Assuming repayment over a 5-year term at six percent interest, beginning July 1,
2008, the annual payment would be: Orange County - $90,549; Chapel Hill - $90549; and
Carrboro - $29,524.
RECOMMENDATION (S): The Manager recommends that the BOCC and its municipal
partners receive the presentation and provide any policy direction and feedback as may be
desired.
q C',rY1!
-ILA
A9=8a t far, Solid Waste HauRgemO t
TO establish a ^..... "nsive approach 'to solili to CM �t�her ��in -
issues r
and in on f e � �P�' Hill -
this �1dglree�t• tb�ty
and 9411 2sezVXfii herab'y agree- as follom: -
C�tF n assume Solid waste =119"t responsibiuty do
1. Tha .
fo1loWBe
T " county win operate :� system for the
plierate the 8v_rBtem Casa
the Top�ns and the persons and ^,-9 ", oCas
benefit b the testy. .The County n�.ty Will establish and enforce
v�3.thia their, jurisdictions - • �r,�„- „;,,Q the opezat3.oa and use of the
reasonable rules and replatioms emni ,,,,a*,,,p,-
• as efficient -and e=uomieal and
system, operate the Syste�► g the system is good repair and L
�;...�t'a -• Is the PrORbti-i6�i
sound operating condition..
Bfcliti®s.. TbO County Will provide
Provide Bol3d ate i
63.tioa of solid
suitable for tue
system Management Facilities and the prxBOus organizations Within
Waste by the County, the landfill, as �aeL1. as any 'successor
their �ura.sdictians. The existing to acct solid waste
system M�geuent FaCality. W1.7.1 �?e designated
generated e=lusively by ree[i &,wts r businesses and institute -ans ]orated
i n py�ge aunty slid that Portion of Chapel Hi11 located Within Durham
. t3oRiatgr, North CarolLaa. have the an9o�J �°�•� and
Ytie a �saXi_ c �' e%-&e , the
responsibility iak its. discretion U) to administer and 4P
system•in �crstdance with the Solid waste Management P� and .Polfaies
and. m to determine
and mmcli.fy the solid waste Management P3.a” and
Policies frcfm • time• to time.. The Parties affirm an the date of this
Agreement their coatani.tment• to the solid Waste *AUUUCU goals set out
in the =ategrated solid waste Management Plan. The Cu<ffitS" • agrees to
consult With tbs'other Parties and the Advisory' Board, frequently and
consistently, to determine tb� �?stthereto. 6o7..d .Waste Manaigemdat
Plan eind policies. and ppssible changes
eB. 811 of 'the system RV� e
W Will b
trapsferred to the County
and heroine [runty employees subject to the
• supervision of tine COUnty Manager is the saw fashion as other Cbvnty
. employees.
• The Part4es ark oWZedge that it is an impoitemt objective. of this .
,,greemeat that the C rmt total compeasatiom. PackaP. for system
Mployees be at a substantially . ec�u3.valeat level through
their transfer to the Cotnatyr alt'tiough the =ubinatioa cKE Ba1arY sad
benefits for any employee �Y 9e. The Panties recognize that all
cheats of r�mpeasatioa to system Employees after the transfer win
• . be subject to dlYangea in salaries sacs bone-fits in the sans fashion as
1
a . r... r_ c •._ _t. . a. . .... �, . I. . . . _
ICI
as the with
ttY�s failure to complY
•
or der requirement, so such win not • materially impair
the gal= during *tbp- period of the OM, a -prods ci ng �i a.ity CpBraticft
The County will make, az cause to be mailer W- .
to the System as �Y her.
reports ar audits re etiM reasonably be . tedr�far1.sh. such
The �,ty, as often as may available
atb�` �ormatim as the one. as the Adv"=Y Board ar any
,. oncezaing the System or its Operation which the parties• have
ply may reasonably tequW; The • t Y► wi].1 coopexate 3.a
designated as a •'locst7. ].end agie�Y� and .the TOMB that, a Party
t reports oar solid waste plans
a_r�� and submit tjq a al av�hori ti es, such .- the
my be yeg� Iced to file with .9 � .
state's Divi.si= of 6iaste Managemnt- '
_ � vr511 ,ppove the 1999 -2aoa'
System cperat_iug budget t09803dr ra3.th Chapel As3-1° .
qty win assume solid_ waste
%n
Effecte date. T9>e effect
the ive date of the Zouing of •'.
espognsibilitY the day following solid waste management
the Property described is gambit 8 which makes
uses•, not including burial of mo=d solid waste a Or
gill DwftlMment
denial itiaa waste. a perjnitted use. tinder the so long zs
�• �, part •5 of thi�'si�� �
,��i=at lase days der the ere of this
that odays of the System and so lomg as the Greene
Agreement by the current out the boundaries of the pacoperty dead in
Tract ome.rs have �d solid waste
it B. The date the County assumes reement',• provided.
responsibility is the effective date of this3 3.,'2000
however, the effective date of this Agreement wj �-1 be ' sam�a�.'y
obg' as this Ae�ree�t is �ecated * and de7.i vered t6 the:• ==Bht
so l s 7 1999 r the Mcmd g cbangc
owners of the system On ax before Sep eu - r thG • TOVn
and in Part 5 of this Agrewt is adopted by
described above 1, '2000 au. is effective . an of
of Chapel Sill CVA or before. saansarY haver on or before
before Janu=Y 1, 2000 Bad the Greece Tract owners described i�.:
January•ir 2000,.agreed 4m the boundaries of the>�de far is this '
Exhibit 8. T]ts Parties . shall take actioaa P ate; ia•' a
Agreement or mhi.ch viay atbeacwi.se be necessary i nz of r Ud waste
to permit tbs t�t7tnty� s. aBBiamp
. timely fash3.aa
respoazsjbMtY` M the :
effective date .
wia.I. deliver solid Waste Baud COMW Re -lee to
2.. the Pax-ties system.
Tomas all agree• to. deliver. oar • c aEvse to be
The County and the Facili ties for disposal err Pacaeessfag.
delivered, to system their
pectf ve].y, all Solid . Waste- and Ct=ty ite yc2ables Mader
E r� •v
e, cont=l. This delivery obYigatiaaa includes (without -
3
If at any time a Material tbat prev loeisly gdalified as Other
Racyclables begins to be processed by 'the County for recycling and
therefore becoMes Cbmn2ty Recyclebles, they any Party theretofore
pz- 6cessing such material w OLU= Recyclables sbill begip.-to process
such Material as City, Recyclables 'p. the. expiration of any contract .
for disposal. of the material as Other Recyclables that may be ' i.n effect
at the , tisae of the material's cha=p in status. '
3. . Solid waste collection and or�Bt�.CQn _ vdII Llemain
Parties in. all events, retain the- right to detexudme Cbei.r ceifin
syste fts 'and procedures for - tbe- collection, of Solid Waste and related
mattars, provided that such systems and .proc sball be xeasonablyy
designed to be consistent and .compatible .with' the approp33.ate Solid'
Waste M 2agemAn¢ Plea and Policies.
zt and .
uasGe managements must retain broad fleaibil tY belos, l order to
adjust rates, fees and otherge6• �.
'tbpcoiuJh the System to carry' out the
Ronerate suffTaient resources P7.an and PoUcies. The
;teats of tine Solid Waste �le for. 1133 -4ng
parties agree that the County 3s�� -t5 tely �. and .tbat.the
the available resources d anz the► either the
to
County u5nst -tberef � s�or both�aciu -eve Part .
xea,aurces or the System
1 of this Agreement provides for ' the County, authority � t = the • .
Waste VAnagemint Plan. and Policies. This Part .4 Pte. .
County s autboritY over the available resources Th
-
wd
tem �a311 be red ae an sin ®f - . e county �.7 i
Orion l a the sys"a' s acco=ts, MOUSYM
segregate for accx�nmting Pure provide for the system"-
8 assets,
and 3 hies ants . The. of tions to be presented in the Cbnmty° s •
Ziabilities and. results of oP�• find, in �� ,��
axmna�. audit as a sepa�xate enterprise .The ��, wiZl armually
generallgr . accepted admMuting Vrib=-Pl - with the m3imty's
adopt a separate budget for the Systeu► i. accordance accurate records and
usual budgetary Process. The County wiU P rmim4 . to .the
accounts of all items of costs and of all espeaditures - �ication of
hem, and of the System Mmonne-s collected and the aPP'
Sys to any Partin
System Revenues. Such retards and accrnmts will be open
inspection at aay 'reasonable ,tune upon. reasonable znti ee.
wily isa aeseratad oa a sue. € -� basin; ' The county
win establish and °; ;--� *y �=-'" a system of rates,
fees and ebarges for
the System which is
the use of. and for the sue• Provided, the chests)
_ reasonably designed to page' is fu7E] al,l t casts ` �-Y
of * out the County's responsibilities under this Agreementr� and
the solid Waste Management Plea and PoZic3es, incluciaag,
limitation, t1) costs of disposing of Solid. Waste, (2) costs of
collecting, Processing and disposing of County Rea bgj ales, i3) ri the
: extent permitted by lax, costs of provid:ig Pte'
.0 betiefits deta'a- �n;ite
to. be provided t .to Part C, and (4) costs o€ solid waste
Subject only to the apecifie limitations 'set
reduction activities. Sum *evise any.. ir -.. tes, fees and
forth in 'this. Agrommt, the county miay
charges at' any time and as often aS it shall deem •ap'Pr Priate,
D$mxitstione cm �8at7. Fiaas�:3.a�. Sote�3.thstaading any
mot, the C =ty wall ' not put into
other p5covisien of thin a ].ess the Cooity
first obtains
effect any Materiel Pinancial Change im
the consent of all Parties. It will be each Tom'n's obligati`b' to
determfab whether any' or proposed change to the b'olid haste
ManagamEM Plan and Policies • is a Materiel li a"� t9 ge with
respect to such Torn withi
Mized Solid to Fee- (1) The CMML7 may • d=eaGP- .
the Miated Solid. Waste TSWIZ g Fee f=xU tius to 1-271: is its 0,8=eti-au
with at least 30 days' of the increase to all other Parties,
The t�otaity m-ay not, , iaa-ease thiL - ' . Solid te. Tippping
Fee dig c r at the beginning of - aM• Fiscal Tber to a ,.fee that - .
weds the Mimed - So3.3.d. Waste Tipping. Fee in effect at the end of the
preceding Fiscal. Year - by more than 10 %, without the prior consent of
all the other Parties . Further,' the Parties i m&Amd and agree that the
county shall endeavor to adjust the Solid Waste Tipping Fee only -
anunally, with Ebanges becoming effective only at the. beginning of a
Fiscal 'Fear.
(3) The COUOtY may decrease the Mimed Solid Waste Tipping Fee -
from time to time in its discretion, without prior notice to or action
by any other Party. The q=u#y gill promptly notify the other Parties
of any decrease is the Mimed Soli d..Wwte Tipping Fee.
G tal FesB. (1) if the County determines that it is or
ma y. be advisable to create and impose any Fee, thew the
county will give :at least 30 days! notice of. the proposed Gtal
Fee to the other Parties. A Gover.iomote�tal Fee :may thee. be imposed only
if the creation ' and inposiUmn, of such C 02 Fee is-
subsequently - app mar by tine qty and at least me other • of the
-largest two (by opulati ch) local at Pan ties . A neu�
rove *+ba' Fee i i l.l. take effect as the and of the notice period or,'.
if later, the date of the last G Oazain Body approval necessary for
it to take effect. ,
(Z) The County may increase any individual Govetnmeatal Fee from
• time to dame in its 'discretion with at least 30 days t notice of the
;++cz+=a t0 a443. Qthes Parties. The Coun4 may not, however, increase
any iandi vi,dual Fee during or. e4t the beoinidm a of any
Fiscal Year to a fee than ems the fq a in effect at the and. of the
preceding' Fiscal Ydas by more than 10W, the prow cobsent of •
an the other Parties . The Parties , intend and agree that Mae County .
shall endeavor to adjust any and all G tai Fees only annually.
with c'hm2ges. be mg effective gnly at the.beginning of a Fiscal '
Year. .
(3) The County may decrease any G enta:i. Fee.. f ,x r time to
tine in its discretion., without', prior notice to or act cei by' other -
Party. Thos ' tly notify the, other Parties of any
decrease %n any tal Fee. -
G►tber gas (1) This sectUn applies to rates, fees or cbdxges '
that the County may create or change. Esther than the Mimed Solid Waste:
Tipping Fee and Fees. This -secti ch applies to -any Coubty
proposel to ,create, ;,;, rea=e or decrease an avail.abi li t-k fee.
' sel.to cal- ehe� my spo�
. seeti.O�n. aces s,nt apply eO anY Pia tend, the g�•l3[- apP,lf�
di stri ct t =e] area to � %� � Parties note that North
law' -shall gdvera any Tort�n's cooseaac to include any'
Card:linat lair cotreatlY- =e ms _.,,e.�,ia t strict, but
witbin. that Toes!.' 6 j�j sdiction .thin a special •` � tax i n its
C
that - the OC tY a the sate Of Bay .
discreti0a.
termiuMS that: it is or may be advisable' to
- (�) If the C�tY � this
create, increase Or decrease any sate,. fee or cbaxge covered by.
create a, then the �Y will. give at least 30 days' 336tiq-- Of
section age to the other Parties, and the Cmnty �aM request that
Board consider the YrOposed cha ge - If the Adsrisary
the Advisory ved, :then the- d haM9e may take .
Board- re that. tee change .
effect if the Cbvaby subseq�atlY aPP� ' it. "If . the advisory hoard
approved then the . r!haage may take
r- ecaarmaends that the change not be subsequently .
effect only if the county and, at lea on
st e . other Party. .
approve the change- A ebaa9•e Veal take effect at the end of the. notice
period or, if later, the date of the last governing Body appprobal
necessary for it to take - effect.
ion of this qtr the
(3) Notw:itbstaadiag a y Other t -jjh;_ to time in. its discretion,
C ouuty may at fir• dine; and from. fees gor the disposal of
or
cr8ata,' increase or decrease any min
,pertain classes of solid. haste (such as fees far: the disposal of yrrd.
waste os clean wood. waste) and minor charges for the sale of goods
(such as, for exai PI6, '01ch., r- tires. or clean wand aste3 f fee
ar, charge .shall be considered emincr" for the' purposes of this
pr harp i f the fee or charge produced less t#= I* Of the system's
total- revue far the last preceding Fiscal Year for vPbich audited
financial statements are available.
TISM admit omi fee Any approvals given by a
' party purs�iant . to the a nProval ►'� + ++-its of this Fart 4, to the
imposition or itcreass of Y fee 'will be of no further effect after
date of ilia • ac6i on granting approval (ox• Kfter such
9a days from the art of the action grant'ffi
shorter' or lonyer period as may be made p ��.
approval) . i f the iuposit Lon or increase so approved has aat by -
tiaae received all approvals required far its effectiveness.
bse 'of rem ono. for tema sin U
• Co�sn47,, use funds for Bsrst+e� rises. The •Oa�ty will use
system .s .001817.. to carry out the SCUA •waste
�sanagement Plain _
and Policies and =101Y for the benefit -af the system, iaaclnd$a9 (�,}
to pay costs of disposing of Solid waste, (af to . Pe-Y casts of
collecting, gtocessiug and disposing' of Racyelwles, (3) to the extent
permitted by 3", to pay costs of pravidfu� - gub'lic benefits detezmizsed
to be provided p==mt to •Fast 6, and (4)• to Pmt Costs of solid waste
reduction activities. 7he eMtY will not use System Revenues e tot Y
costs of collecting solid Waste iu Uu ncorFcrsted aseas of the Caaunty.
7
.i
Y■ ' M.. nlI ' � a..Y _ 1.�1 '• - _... t . w' 'w '1' _ _ - _ 3 _ � ❑ sY 'Yn c _: r r.-
' = 111::Ja . �� - t. _)! eta = Y)• • - -
with act to the S�Ystsm.
B
TMA Tice « .. .
gxhi bit S prapertY p �t�ecte �Y to staff. level site plan. - and•
D�� r,�t E5Oft- /Orai�ce, tee. ar similar processes .
similar review? and that sub3 ies with a plan, 3nclading
Chapel W-13 �es to prorvi*de the other roval$, to P'o'i
s - .the zcraing
a planned schedule- of revievr. and app
age described in this -paragraph.;
that tzothing that they have agreed to herei a
The parties agree Chapel Si 11 to' rune the
constitutes an agreement as the part of
in a particb ar wag. It i s instead, as afire °°"° -''!t
Exhibit S property is zaned a particular way one event'
that if the gciibit S PxcePertY
cui.11 fallow and i f tine Sxtribit S property is not zaased in a particular
wag another event will follow.
t Owners agree to bargaih•- together in goad faith
Tice Greene Tsac ave best efforts,
. and with all dote di-ligeace , and to use their �cespe� •rya { n�� of the
to determine an ultimate 'use or disposition, of the
Greene Tract as .anon as passible and in any•event by..December 31,
s after the effective date, whi-che�vor, is latex-
2003., or two year • Peso � Tract Owner shall make-
During
this o barga -0n3ng d, no Greene
any use of the remaining port,cm of- the• Greene Tract without the
consent of the other Greene Tact mss"
The •Greene Tract Owners agree that among the issues to. be
addressed iu the bargaining process are (1) the specific futurw uses,
or ranges' of use, to be made of the
remainder of the Greens Tract
(including Jsues of devoting different p^��''- to different vises.
public uses and the possibility of maw-
devoting partians to
portions•svbilable for sale or private use), and (2) whether to InPOsm
specific use x,estricti-on"s, either through deed restrictions or through
regulation. The Greene Tract Owners agree that during the
goverr�attental regn7 -a p e� abed p�dS app for public.
seid uses or. disposftiom ,
comment On possible at
prepo
During the ■ bargaining *parjody Ir no Greeds Tract Owner shall: (1).
file say- legal acticb- Or proceeding to- force any sale Or division. Of
the Groom Tract, or (Z) ePter into any agreement to s41, mortgage e
otherwise twandfar all Or any part of its Oundrship interest f a the
Greene Tract, in either case without the consent of a oagrees we
Tract owners. To the extent petmitted by law, Chapel Mt
to initiate any proceeding to rezone any portion of the Groom. Tract
during, the s bargaining �� 'coithantt the consent of the other
Greem T>cact Owners.
BM-acuti m and delivery of this Agremont by the
-Greene Tract Owners constitutes • =went of the Greene Tract Owns= for
Chapel. Sill to rezone the 8xhibit S property as described in •this Part
S. Chapel Sill states its current intent• tq ac to any wed:
upon future uses Or range of uses Of the remainder of the fteimb Tract
in. • its Development . code /ordinantOes and states its remme.6dation to
future Chapel Elie Governing Boards -to the same effeet.
9
a
division of the areene Ttaft, or _, te!r IIW�C MY _ .. - _
juterqr.t ju the Greene Tract, .1n, either —se, 4ithc= jiving the otb
Greene, Tract OWVMX8 at '12a t, 60 daY8' of sbc-b f iling or
notice ot aft election to be no �cngew bound by the� above rekiziLfiicps
eifective aLt the- end of the notice period?
The Parties agree that MW n= use of any portion of the
rema-Inder of the dritens Tract "MY 4.4-wition*cf. my portion of the
the - TI •' =Y _ 0000,.1-1, Amount for .': :.i• s - ') ■ - _ .:il .t• :Ji •r. _ - fund.
•1111;1:11,:1 • benefits :_ .ra`It1 �l funds to
the J. legally i
The Partiqz will cooperate to provide pilblic benefits to the
community of xesidamts and property cminers in the neighborhood of the
J.� a1
The Patties note the expected forthcpm=Iq report of the Landfill -
Conu ula ty ' benefits CdMi ttee that has been. studyjig the- gnesUoa • o£
c6uhunf ty benefits.. Upon the r 4ease of the report, each • Marty shat I
provide foz its Governing Board to discuss the working group ®s p3;apnsal
fox community benefits, -and sha31 provide for iuch legal and other
staff analysis of the proposed list' 4s it may deem appropriate
• (especially including legal analysis the use of System funds
*to pay the costs of such benefits). Miter each. Pasty has completed its
own analysis., ,.the Pasties shall work together,. -diligently end is :.goad
faith, to reach an. .agreemeat 'ao to camum.i•ty benefits ta- be provided.
• The process of Apo- erd n4nq community be fits shall continue to include .
participation by persons 'belonging -to the relevant community. Final
determinations of the -public benefits to be provided, the - sources *of
financing and the stichani.sas for providing the benefits, h6wever, shall
be mkde only by further agreement of all the Parties, .
The Parties state their ptef . dint benefits be . finance from ,
- System funds' to the extent • permitied by 2: m. To the •e3cj:'gmt permitted- by .
lam and by geaiftally aoc%epted fibg . per, to: UP anent
determ� ®tea
by the Parties an4 and other provisich. of ,
this Rg: eement, the costs of providing public benefits. as described is
this Part 6 upy be treated as an. expense of the Syftm. and may be paid
fsonn Systems 8evefine5. - �
4110
tbis . 6ectioa are to • be
The public - befits fated by anon deterad aed to
!' +
considered -or.. separate and � from say -as as determined by
be �?d four any 'itaka.ng° of an inte=St is property
state or federal lam-
7'. The 19sztiam rill. estsbLieh as sdviaozg std.
• The Parties hereby establish the orange County solid Waste
Manammn en Advisory Board to advise the t�nnty's Gdcnterni - ad
. matters related to the system and the solid Waste _
.Policies. The AdVisexy Board-shall meet :E= the first the
than er Novemb 1, 1999, aii the call of the members appo . by
county.
Th ,� parties. will cmtim to Work ti�roygh • the a .st3sag Iaandfi ll . .
s ° group, (.OLOGD ) an matters of solid vaste manage *ent Policy and `
opE°rations uatil the Advisory Board begins to mot. The LOG shalt
coatisiue to operate by - MfMaasus, butt the Parties intend that the LCO
shall make no rem financial caamni tme�ats until it
Baas for major f'
dissolves or is replaced by the Advisory Board.
Each Party sha11 appoint two members- to the Advisory .Board. .
Eikb,, it C sets foXth details cbneeruing the. Adir spry Board's
responsibilities and the.procednres that.it shall follow, and also sets
forth the Parties' agreement •as to the appointment and terms of office
• of Advisory Board enoubeis-
if at any time . the University of North Carolina agrees to comply
With the provisions of Pex•t 2 with respect . to its facilities and
operations - in orange County, then the Parties agree that the
IIniversity, through•its President, shall he entitled to appoint to the
Advi.soiy Board one 'voting member, having, one 'vote. Any, initial
Universi ty member sbrei i serve for a term ending M the third June $0
fo7:lawing the meuibsr °s appointment,. and any succeeding
University
member shall serve for a three -year term (with there being no limits .on
tide r,�ppointmeat of Uaivirsity members) . The limit
atxooas in Exhibit C
exclyu34ag employees of Parties from • serving . on the Advisory Board do
not apply to the University ar University manbers- The Parties 99=0 to
eater into a" supplement or amt to this agreement to include
provisions reasonably necessary Or appropriate to provide t�v,nathe
i7niversity°s participation om the Advisory Board in such circumstances.
• 11
IZXbjjbitF A cwatoxs Certain dPFiZZf that away tc' this
t. Exhibit a a taia6 certain addfff=al ',prorlgdms of tbf8
trJ
=mlndi3r CZ this page bw bom.lift P3=k
22
30
a
3� "
C33
35
szass or
gad state, �fy that '
Pnbl3.c of each rxmnty and ackn ged a, the
a Ply b � srE r2 QT, Bo=ot '� . and
R3apor aad Toga Clesk,
ttrat by eathori tp dn1Y given and as the art ofd �' it� 13831 �
mss signed in the TMMI6 same lay such Magror, .
attested by sneh TOM Qerk. -
my band and official•, stamp or seal., this .._.._ ClaY of 1999.
• Cam] --
' Botary Public
' My comm3.ssfon z -
ZOL bit JL - 1Dafiaitioas
Fo'r all. purposes of this Agreement ',• the €onowiug terms have the
following ,n_ ma --&gs, unless the contest clearly indicates otherwise
-IrAdvfsos�* Soardm means the Orange Cmmty Solid Waste Management
Advisory Board. created pursuant to Pa=t 7-
a�greemaeatt° means this �grem mt for Solid Waste Mauageneeat, as
it may be duly Emmuled•and supplemented from time to time.
Vsk imms I)ay" means axjy day other than a day on which naticual
banks are required or authorized to close.
aCaszb=r means the Town. of Caxrboro, North Carolina.
_ aChapel MLII- means. the ToWii of Chapel Bill, North Carolina.
aCpva�gyw qmm orange Cbunty, North Carolina.
xCo=L, zman rw mead.the Cbmty's• chief mr%Jnfstmt.LVVI afficeic- .
p��ti, 8ecycleblesm means all materials processed by the t�ountY'
for redycling and not disposed of at System Mahiagemmst Facilities, as
the sang: tray be established and amended from time to times 'nder -the
Solid Waste. Manag at ,1a18n an4
Polices.
®sg 8ystam 8eset8a meems all System assets as of the
Trmsfer Date, iucludisxg, • without limitation, the existing landfill. ..
all ather ' land and buildings, all eViPmeat, inwludisig rolling stock,
. all licenses, permits and other gwazMOGMtal aathorizmtibns,. -,'all
i contracts, all, customer records, all bank and other business records,
' and all cash and immstments,• including the capital reserve ac=mz' .
15
curicrently maintai"ed 'by Chapel I1411 an behalf of the land fi Yl Owners
feoat F aeons the "as fiscal. year beginning aluly 1, or
such other fiscal year as the City my , m&u Uy establish.
elected officials, as such govesaa.ing board may be constituted from time
to t'
"mental Feem will mem . any fee relatdd to activltles of tbe.
Systm that in inposect directly and solely an the Parties themselves,
otber than the Riled. Solid Vaste Tipping Pee. A possible emmWle, of
sucli a fee could be a fee. impgsed by the Cmnty on all the Parties
related to the Coaitya s providing of processing for County Recyclables
through the System.
edam Zito, means •thc .parcel of ].and =Mri.sjmg appranti ely
169 asses lying south of wanks Road described is plat Hoak. 14, Page .
193 and Plat Hank 15, Faye i38, Orange County Etegi stry, as m=e
specifically, described - in RseM 4 t D.
N0 ? 9a o roughm means the Town of . Ullsborough,' North C arolmna.
IL satogrsted fibz3d Mate ene � - the repot. mma
submitted ' pursuant to lam to State nit 1h6ri ties float descr i bed .the Lz g-
term plea for solid waste which the Cony', as designated
lead agency, filed an behalf of the Y and the Totes . The Parl:ies
have approved this - Plain and adopted its frwwwork by resolutions -
-adopted (a) by Comb ma an Olque, 24, 1997, (b) •ley Chapel B431 on aTums 9,
1997, (c) by Hi.lisboraiuigh on LM ae 17, 1997; and (d) by the County an
Mm 30, ' 3.997.
3`1
other fee. assess A for the use of Systew -
successor to that fee, or jy to the dispositions of Solid- Waste (snob
jJj�a�ment gaeilities related er station or materials
. as. a fee imposed fdr the use of a transfer
recce facility) -
®oflsei� ."7, IabZe$� .means mar°--, .s which. mould _ otherVse
which. are_ to be delivered to wane other.
constitute Solid Waste, but pt=, my nester al to constitute
amity and processed for � � to � the material is to he
ether. $eCy�' Sble6, V=ii aneiaA to be
delivered most, represent that such materials are intended .
processed for 'use is new pros f Material will not canstitiste Cher
amayclables, for exmple, if the entity to which it is to be delivered
Mends ra= deliver the meteriaa to smile other disposal facility
(such as a landfill . or incinerator) , oahether or, not such' material is
.F,,.,.tbg r gessing.befoze disposal.
" intended 'to be subject to. P�
collectively, the county and the Towns , and
means
„p rL7W means any an of theca individually.
y in' the ease of aspesition to
8eitrtb =emezxe Ja D=t:°1 means, ( }
.' a north Carolina local government that is also a Party, so 1.019 as that
w.vamet devotes the transferred portion to P -?•e purposes, (a)
$6o8,sm, being the pnnase price of the s Tract,
multiplaO (b) by. a fractim, the numerator .of which is the munber of
whole mores of the Greene Tract being • c�i cisid. and the deaomisaator of
which is y69, Plus (c), 'moompounded interest ono, the product Of (a) and
(b) at the'1 rate of G:oo� from March 30, 1984, to the effective
date of nay disposition, and. (Z) in t� case of any other disposition,
the greater of aither (a) the .Reimbarsement Amcunt to a North
net proceeds Of e,
local moveramaat that is also. a party, '
sale after the oasts of -the. sale are paid- .
RSolid Wsstew moans all materials- accepted by the County for
disposal at . System Management Facilities, as the same may. be
eutabl.ished ' an ' troaa time ,• to time reader the Solid Waste
Masamgetraeat Plan and• Pol..i.ci.es tubj ect to tiro grovisiouos of ParC uh3 eai
autborire the CotmtY to refuse to accept for disposal nay material or
snbstaace wish the Cxnmty reasonably determines io barred from such
di , ,• nay applicable law or regulation. or the restrictions of any -
• perc6it) , Other Haan tbuaty 8ecyclables .
■Sofia Waste management Pa&n sad palledesm :mums, the combination
Of (a) the Tategrated Solid Waste . ManagII_ Plea, and all 'forme
' modificatio0zs of that Plan, which is the report• subMitted pursuant to
law to State authorities describing the 1009'tefm plats for solid waste
management,
which the Comity, as. designated lead agency, files on.
behalf of the County and the Tourer, and (b) the Solid Waste Management
Po3lci4s, which are, collectively, all policies related to the System
and coordinated solid waste t for the C.bi nW; . the towas •Sad•
the persons and zatiaans is their i,xrisdietions, 'aa the same may
exist from time to -time ( inncluding all such: policies is effect as of
. the date of this Agreement). 7ILe term 0 solid Haste Mangy men¢ Plan: and
Poli-ci es° thereby a all policy choices, as . is effect €=om
time to -time, related td _ se
tbe' managenteint and operation o of tbe' system.. ,
6oftate- a40eS the state of North Carolina.. .
°8yeeemW memo all assets, including both real and perso�Ial .
property, used from time to tipa in the- conduct of the of
coilecting and . processing County reducing solid waste,
di.sp6sing of 13olid• Haste and mulching, composting -!NSA re- usxng'Solid
waste, and includes boar ' (a) the Existing Systeft Asseis and (b) all
m= Ws and investments related to such functions..
t
-- Byaeam I3ebe'- means all a for pmyms Cts o€ and
interest with respect to borrowed money in urted or assumed by' the
aounty in o mectioh. with. the ownership oar •operatic. of the System,
without regard to the form of the transaction, and specifically
including leases or similar figehei„g agreements which are riquir&d to .
be capitalized in accordance with generally accepters accounting
principles. System. Debt is a0utubandLayff at all times after it is'
issued. or contracted * nttii it is paid.
ffOyseem Zbp1ayease means euployeas. of Chapel Hill direc4ly
engaged in carrying out System business ness (bi=t exQ>: essly not including
1 of . .
emp ogees �e1 Rill's sanitatiof� a�arr� =+gig}
vsyaevm mnaamenk ,ac193t1asw means thbsb assets of the system
used to px cur i de (a) final disposal of solid waste, including
cdnstxvotion and demolition waste, such .as Land €i13.a, Ur (b) aby otber
handling or processing of materials placed in the custody' • of the
system, sudh as transfer stations, materials recovery facilities -at
facilities for cleaning, sorting an dthakc processing of . reci pZable
material. .
Bys ® iiteaas all amcnmta derived by the County from
the fnposi.tion of 3:ates, €ens and charges for the use o €,. and for the
services fu=lshed by, tine 'system-
° Stansm mesas, collectively, oro, Mngml Hill. and
8illsbordu .
® Mi8imfer Date" means the effective date.
• ld
r
w E�h32it s
kildf tiom -94 sf nns
•
may be modified or ceded only by
_ - ts.' � eemeat
� signed On bob If of all. the
s
vrittea amendments aw=e
Parties
• So,_ tires, =,
� - - _
-
(a) All notic*s or otbes
i.Catlpnt� re4e? °'z permitted by
thji.s Agresient .mmt be in writing- "
(b) Any notice or otbar
m-catian will be deeiined 'given U) ou
datbr it is received by mail►
the date de3.iveied by hand or (ii) oa the
a united States mail registered mail
as evidenced by the date sbom
oa.
receipt, in any case addressed
as• follows:
If to the s Cmmty, a
If to Carxb=. as -
follows
.
Tows of Moro
orange C=ty
Atffi: Iowa
Attn: Co�mty
Managbr
301- 'best Mafia
200 Scmt!b Caameroa
St.
Sillsbcrovgh, NC
St.
Carrboro. w
27278;
27510 '
If to Chapel Hill, as
If to - Hillsborough, as
follows:
follows
• Town of Chapel '
'
vown or
HiI.7.sb=ough
Hill
Menaertsr.
Attnd , °1'Ei6J11
Manacrar
Attne 1,01 n ,.. mag .
137 NOrth CWI;Etoa'
306 North - _
Columbia St .
• CbsRe7, Hill, NC
27278
27516
(u) Any PAY• my
different address far
conm�mi.cations by notice given
mdej this Section to each otber Party.
. (d) .Whenever in this Agreement the givitig of notice is regairet'i,
the giving of such notice may bd waived 'ia wri timg by the pafty
case the giving OW
entitled to- receive such notice, and is nay such
notice dill' not be a ' c=r'4 tim precedent . to the
. receipt of sorb
validity of nag EL.
is reliaaee uisen such waiver. When this
. _ i
Agree-nueat requires that--
noti ce be -given to mart tbazs one Party; the effective ' date %of the
notice will• be the .last date ou whi.eh notici is deemed' Oven to nag►
required Party.
- - or ':I:I it - ■
this Agreement - _ll person Other M the Parties _Il =ghts
'third-party beneficiaries of thii Ag-MeMOMOnt.
lr v v e. r:- i. '.•:_t. :l. covenants, riepreBenl� wit _ and
survive a
severabLLLW. 3:f G71 provision wn t%ds _
invalid or iforceable • .!1 c• Y of cmVatent jurisdiction, such'
holding W3,12 not invalidate or valider unenforceable any otfielt
provisi - ■ - Agreement.
X.t contract. V■. - A•.,• :.=11'1=11 including ■ -, imbibits,
constitutes l x..71 _ agreement between I - Parties with respect to
its subject ma
Cravat arts. Th; Agreement may be signed in several
counterparts, i nr1 ttd7 ilg separate counterparts . Each will be an .
original, but all -of them togetber constitute the same instrument.
Rey==dable Fc=. As this • Agreement limits the Parties ° gigots to
dispose of their respective ownwFlffilp interests in the Greene Tract,
any Ply may canee this Agreement to be filed in the real proPariyt
records in the office of the Register of Deeds- of orange county.
Wi 1. Any, Party may withdraw- from tbU Agreement (and
thakeby •cease _to be a Part y p this Agreement) upon •�vtice given to all'
the other - Patties abd subject to the xcallowing additional provisions:
(a) A withdrawal may be effective May upon the beg � -- "'g of a
Fiscal Year. A Tom may witbdraw only with at least one pear° S notice...
The County may withdzaw curly with at least two years1 natiee.
' has accrued prior to th erfectivs date of such par4y's �e3 *�'''� � -
OL my e
references to approvals or other actions
Actims ;k by
• • Party mill be deemed to be references to 'wr•r'r.rat3 t� by the .
party's s ic.diretitidn given
Governing Sward or taken purr, -cant to. expres .. .
by the Party- 9; Govemcdm ' $°ard•
•reed- -tTpon Psaesdurea• '� t8tw. ccnditicus and procedures for
�, and assets to the Cmnt:y as provided
for by Part
transferria9 GP s the property described on. �,'6it 8 to the
3., and for transf=Fiug s, in all cages shall be as agreed up=
Cbmtyy as provided for by Part
by the ianmty,, Carrb= wad,. Chapel $ill..
effect as
Effective riots! Taw 1'his P.gresment shall tales
pravi ded in Part 1. This Agreement
.li continue is effect so long as
there, are.. at least two ' Parties to, the Agreemmt
21 .
J
C
the
jualmle,
■ =. •- •17',11., =Y ), r l) .a. rlll - ':'.:• - .a CE _Yr c •II. _ and ' • wl• _ of
.services, and OthEW matters atf-A to the operation of the System;
suggest ameudmauts to _ Waste- T=I1 ::%ii..:1) _Y) and
Policiep;
to tam couni:y mmmager for use in the coun.ty
rev the budkiet, for the System as prqposed by the County NRuag= to
the f.w f) _ C• "'' - "nY ">, r - Board, -Yt. • to w w.I r.._ rpCMMqMUftt4ftnn to tim
i10 Yl.) _. IwY I Board for • - - ,4I •) - I.II:.J) •i11:'::IY the proposed
budget;
t. .
22
Ta
(a) The first . year 'of . the term 'of each initial member of the
Advisory Board hha3l be domed to expire, on ime 30, at?OQ. Thereafter.
each year of the term of an Advisory Board member will run fsae July
tbrough the subseguent Jtme 30, but each member sba11. Ctf'"s� to she
until such member's successor has been duly appointed an� qualified for
office.
(d) $aab Party may select and appoint Advisory Board members. in
its discretion, t that no employee of a Party may be aPPo as
an Advisory Board member. This A,Areemeat is no Way . =�'-� that my
member be am elected offi.cidl of tine appo nting Party. Any elected
official of a Party appointed to • tyre Advisory Board Will be • 'ems to
be serving an the Advisory Board -as a part of tbs. individkwl! 0• duties
of office, and Will , not be c:emsidered to be serving: is a sepasats'
office.. Any elected official of a' Party appointed to tbi Advlo=3y Board
will cease to e a member of the •AdvXv=y Board upon such -- dividual:1'®
cessation o ir
f service as an- elected official of such Party Whstb= Or for
not such member's successor Will be been appointed and qualif
office)', but such Party may reappoint such individual to the Advisory
Board. Bach member of the ,Advisory Board (including elected 04fic4als)
serves at the pleasure of the appointing Party, and' may be removed at
any tim by the -appointing Party, with or Wi•tb at cause.
(e) The Governing Board that appointed the person Who vacated the
Advisory Board seat will fill nay vacancy car the Advisory Board. In the
case of a vacancy created daring the t8"Id of a member, the _gypointmeat
- tb fill the vacancy will be mad ng e for the remaini portion of tho` term '
in order to preserve the staggered -terra patter". .
Psoceduice8. The dory Board may adopt its mm rules of
procedure oat inconsistent with the provisic 2g of thin Agiseme 'r and
net inconsistent •with the, pol i vies and ,procedures geiverfti n# the.' various
boards and 'cca and asions Of the Governing ;3oaz'4 of the Co=ty' ab those
policies and procedures exist ncx and as ibey may be amended from :time
to time - by resolution of 'tbs Governing Hoard o the County. 'Thy
Advisory Boar:d's proposed rules and : procedures shall be, presented tv. '
the Governing aoard of the County for reyjow and rabic tl not be effective
until apprpved by the • Lng Board ' Qi the ' County, but' 'tbs "Advisory .
. Board's procedures shall include the folloVing YCOvi sions :
(a) zich member of the Advisory Board. Will bane one vote, bZVOPt
that in tbs• event of the absence of a member, the other m�mbeg
a�ppainted by the same fatty as - the absent' maimber will -be entitled to ' • .
cast two votes. Any . Vniversity member appointed t •,`gu t to Part • 7
sbal.l bane only Done vofe, and that vote shall not be cast iri the
membetIs absence.
m
• (b) A der of •af; rr;ve votes equal to a . majority of the
axxtborized number -of Advisory Board members will . be necessary to take
any action.. , -
(a) The 1dvisory Board's 133;;m aS officer will vote as a member
of the Advisory Board, but will have no. mAr li t4 r al or tie - breaking
vats. '
_ (d) Representatives of a Party that has e„givm xLoticc-- of its
withdrawal from this Agreement UL21 have no vote oa nay matters that .
will affect tbe° „ System, beymd the effective date • of such Party's
r�i tbdr aural, and as to any such matters such mom= will not be deemed
to be within, the authorized number • of Advisory Hoard members for the
purposes of subsection. (b) • abmm.
r '
24 '
4
• 45
Rshndt D ae criWAS of the Greeiee mot
• . Exhibit S - begla Dwa yf •tioa of the Portion ok the area=
To 8ewoted to Solid Aaste g t Pnsiscsee
• diatc/Bi749�tekia.doc • - .
25
•r
i
rT
- - ■_.gin; -,
NEW
■ r
• - - it • 'M t'• = _ _
'- _ • _ _ .1 _. � • k s ,• . ,,, _ .. ..: .111 - _ ■ ■ , • - _
. ■ , 0 fit-
w . _
.'�. Tate fteene Tact wi.,.l rimidu a lasadft11 asset. Sizty
:awes of tbfik G reeae Tract win be reserved for System
1
pvsposes. aad the thsea o==x Itin work together to
detessdae the vltim3te'wke of the kemainAa+ N, ,
MINI
bp
vIx 61 will a
go
- ••__ • . .I t.c - 1.
A _
i, a.' • — • Isla.■ _ — _ ■ — _ _ — •)■ _
' During the "bargain1mg Period,° no Greene Tract Owner
shall (a) file any legal a.ctioa or pz}oceed3ng to €orce any .
sale. or division of the Greene Tract, or (2j eater into -
any agreement_ to sel1, mortgage or otherwise trawler all
or any part of its ownership.Inteiest in -the - Greece Tract,
- 2
! .;` ■ - 3 r ■ - _ -..'� .mil r ' 11 C' 'f _ r+ �■ _ C -
IWO
4■ ■ _ • • ■ _ / - - - • / - - � c.• 11;111.- ■ • . •71 Is -
7 _ - ❑ ■ i C7 J■ - l - ■ -
t • r ■ - • ■ - Ca - - Y - is •... Ya - - - 1 ■ ..
t _ • ■ •Il _ , - • .. t. !'.r ■. - • r • ill■ - - ■
xl-
Ail
it mi 21
31 M
- ■1■ G r - ■ 1. • ■ / - - - ■ _ 1 ■ • - ■ ' •'
111 •'r � tC _ - _ rll C •1■ Y C ii = _ ■ - • ■ - C7 - - ■ -
■ -�_r_ ■■ �, •rl •■ • 1 - :.11._1 ■ - Y ,- -:il-
fir: 1 ",! = r • )r -
� _ r I r.all • _. .5' Ir ■M. r 11. 1 ■ _ � r • • - _ r _ - • ct/ ..
0
RP .
t
• ni . WI�SO - ' F, - trrange County has caused this
,Agreement to Amend the Agreement for Solid- Waste Man genent ter. -
be • a =teii 132 • its .corporate name -by its duly .authorized
officers.
Date Apprcived by
ooywmiug Board
DRAM= COMM, CAROLINEL
�� 6 . one` : - : • 33Y. of CaMaiB s .
er]C card t 3.BBioaer6.
ard • �, BO.
STx= Ov ITMM CQBOLTM, OR C8M',L'Y'
I, a Notary Public of such County and State. C=Lifi fit- IM1830. LAM and .
'VVu' t�r.: i y caul: before me hide ami dnd aclanarvrledcred that the are the
_ Qom, =j6pectively, of the Bodrd of C=MJ BLOW= of Orange C57nmty, Nosh
t:aralfna, end tbaC by auht tY &ar given, aiad aB the act of Q==9e County, North -
66 r033.ua, the foresm1m g iastxvmwt. vas signed in the C bURLlf' a rums by such C B;d . .
sealed with it-0 corporate seal end attested. such Merle.
my hand and off4 &1 at stamp or seal, Ibis day of
• Batary .
My CcO1Qii6BfOdi expires: ia+r.• i pia ,
S.
0 MOB
• - gip• � •�•
4
• • XSECI PLAN FOR
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Towns of Canboro and Chapel Hill acquired the property
known as the Greene Tract in 1984 as an asset of the joint solid waste management system;
and
WHEREAS, title to 60 acres of this property was deeded exclusively to Orange County in 2000
under provisions of the 1999 interiocal °Agreement for Solid Waste Management'; and
WHEREAS, under the same interlocal agreement the County and Towns agreed to bargain in
good faith during the two year period following the effective date of the agreement to determine
the ultimate use or disposition of the balance of the acreage on the Greene Tract; and
WHEREAS, the end date of the bargaining period' as defined in the agreement was April 17,
2002, the second anniversary of the date upon which the County assumed overcall responsibility
for solid waste management in Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the Greene Tract Work Group considered direction from the respective governing
boards, comments from interested citizens and organizations, and information developed by
staff In response to Work Group inquiries in developing a recommended concept plan for the
balance of the Greene Tract; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group reported to all three governing boards in a resolution dated March
21, 2002 that it had reached substantial agreement on a concept plan providing for
approxiimately 78 acres to be earmarked for open space protected by conservation easements
and approximately 15 acres to be earmarked for affordable housing but had not yet reached
agreement regarding what designation should be placed on the remaining 11 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group had recommended In that March 21, 2002 resolution that the
following additional steps be taken:
® The area shown on the concept plan as open space should be protected by executing a
conservation easement between appropriate parties
® The Board of County Commissioners should consider protecting Its 60 acre portion of the
Greene Tract by executing a conservation easement with an appropriate party
® The Chapel Hip Town Council should consider Initiating a small area planning process to
examine desirable land uses for the Pumfoy Road area
® The property should be renamed in a manner that recognizes the significance of this area as
the headwaters for three important streams (Bohn Creek, Old Field Creek, and Booker
Creek)
e The governing boards should take note of the public investment already made in the general
vicinity of the Greene Tract, as cataloged in an accompanying table; and
WHEREAS, the governing boards of all three jurisdictions approved resolutions extending the
bargaining period beyond April17, 2002 in order to allow the Greene Tract Work Group
additional time to try to reach consensus on the basic uses to be established for the
approximately 11 acres at that time unresolved; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group received a technical report from the County Engineer outlining the
basic aitematinm s available and apprwdmate costs for provrdir� sewer service c a portion of the
Greene Tract, which service would be necessary for the economical and practical provision of
affordable houdng; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group concluded by consensus that `the carrying capacity of the land"
should be the deWMWM factor in estabrr"V how much of the unresolved 11 acres should be
and that the ridge line reflected on the accompanying concept
earmarked for spe cft purposes, matelyone- third) of th 11 acs that can practically be
map detemones 'the pasting (apps a sewer line that would access the Greene Tract via
used for affordable housing seared by
purefoy Road:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE it RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby .
recommend that the Carrboro Board of aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town C ncil, andk Group's
Orange County Board of Commissioners accept the accompanying map as the
consensus recommendation for a concept plan for that portion of the Greene Tract not deeded
exclusively to Orange County, with the acreage to be set aside for open space protected by
conservation easements appra"dmating 85.90 acres and the acreage for affordable housing
approximating 18.10 acres;
BE rr FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three governing boards that the acreage for m1ordabie housing be placed in the Larid Truss; recommend to
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Woo Grouted bursemen a Solid
the three governing boards that the Managers investigate pireons
Wask4l.andfill Enterprise Fund for the portions of the site designated far affordable housing and
open space; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract mom reimbursement two the recommend to
the three governing boards that the triggering mechanism
Washree gofilt Enterprise Fund should be formal, action taken by all three boards to approve
consenmtion*easements protecting the designated open space, with such approvals taking
effect no sooner than July 1, 2003, and no later than July 1, 2005.
This, the 2EP day of June, 2002
Moses Carey, Jr.
Chair
Greene Tract Work Group
V
XY A
March 14, 2008
Barry Jacobsc Chair
Moses Carey, Jr.
Va14rie P. FOushee
Alice M. Gordon
Mike Nelson
Orange County Board of commissioners
post* Off-ice Box 8101
Hillsborough, North Carolina. 27278
�u4 4�+
(MORMP. GLEDBUL
RE a Agzvemmt . for Solid Wants Management uG.-6eene Tract"
Dear Board Members:
I was recently asked•to attend a'staff meeting concerning
the future use. of the "Greene Tract." The focus of the
discustion was a documejit titled "Greene Tract: The Headwaters
Preserve and Campus This document contains gul I ding
principals" for the use of the 104 acre portion of the Greene
Tract jointly owned by Carrboro, Chapel Hill and orange County..
and paralteters f i0 r "Proposed Conservation Easements" an the 60
acre portion of the-Greene Tract owned solely by orange County.
A copy, of that document Is enclosed. At the staff .meeting there
was also a discussion concerning the County paying the Solid.
Waste System enterprise fund for the.60 gcre portion of the
Greene Tract. This letter is intended to bring to-your attention
what, in my opinion, is. a conceptual problem with the plan to
use the 60 acre portion•of the Greene Tract for conservation
purposes and, in my opinioh, a conceptual problem with the
County being solely responsible for reimbursing the Solid Waste
System enterprise fund•for this 60 acres'of land.
Enclosed with this.letter also are copies of the Agreement
to Amend the Agreement for Solid Waste Management (the
Amenftent) and•the Agreement for Solid*Waste Management (the
Agreement). Paragraph 5,ot the Agreement prescribes that the
10
Orange County. Board of Commissioners
Page 2
Match 14, 2008
County may use the "[60 acres] for System
burying mixed solid waste or construction
purposes"•except for
and demolition waste.
On the other hafad, the remainder of the property, the 104 acre
parcel, is contemplated to be used for other than System
purposes and that if it is used for other than System Purposes
there will be a 'payment to the.County of a Reimbursement amount
for deposit in the System enterprise fund." Since the 104 acre_
parcel is owned jointly by Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange
County, reimbursement by the three governments to the System,
enterprise fund for non-system use of the 104 acres will be in
proportion to their.ownership interests in the parcel (Carrboro
140, Chapel Hill 43%, Orange County 43%).
. There is nothing in the language of the.Agreement or the
Amendment that contemplates or provides for the 60 acre "System .
purposes" parcel to be used for othec'than System purpose8..Tn
fact, that parcel was deeded from 'Carrboro,. Chapel Hill and
Orange County solely for System purposes. At the time of the
.Agreement and the Amendment, it was contemplated that the 60
acres would be used for a MRF, transfer station I ar.both. A copy
of the minutes of the July 7, 1999 Chapel Hill Town Council
meeting minutes provides a snapshot of thip history. Further
evidence of the intent of the parties to the Agreement that the
60 acre parcel be dedicated to System purposes i6 the fact that
there is nothing in the Agreement or the Amendment that provides
for reimbursement to the System enterprise fund In the event the
60 acre parcel is not used for System purposes.
It is, of course, possible for Orange County and the towns
of Carrb6ro, Chapel Rill-and.Hillsborough to further amend the
Agreement to change the designation of the 60 acre parcel of the
'Greens Tract from "reserved for System purposes" to,
essentially, the same designation as the remaining portion of
the Greene Tract. Given.the staff and elected official work that
has been.done on Greene Tract uses, that seems to me to be
appropriate.'If such an amendment is adopted by the parties to
the Agreement, then'the 60 acre portion of the Greene Tract
would be available fok-other than System purposes triggering the
reimbursement to the System enterprise fund pursuant to the
Reimbursement provision of the Agreement.
orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 3
March 14,.2008
In summary, I think changing the use-'of the 60 acre portion
of thL;, Greene Tract from "reserved for System purposes" to some
other use must be accomplished by further amendment to the
Agreement. The logie'and the clear intent of the Agreement is
that such a further amendment would, in effect, call for
treating all of the Greene-Tract the same, triggering the
"Reimbursement amount" provision of the Agrepment in the same
-manner as with the 104 acie;parce 1. If the use of the 60 acres ro,.Chapel
becomes the public Purpose of•%Iconservation,ff Carkbo
Hill and the County would contribute to the reimbursement in
proportion to their pre Agreement ownership interest in the
entire Greene Tract, Carrboro 14%, chapel Hill 43t and Orange
County 430.•
Very.truly Yours,•
CWZMN, GMZDMUZ, P.C.
GEG/lsq
Enclosures
Kc: Laura E. Blackmon{
Craig Befiedict
Dave Stancil
isplettersWofem Agmt for Solid Waste mgmt Greene Tract Itr.dDc
Greene Thard
"The Headwaters Preserve and Campus"
March 14„ 2008
Gukima �A les for the 104cre Jointly- Owned Proaerty
a Future plans and uses of the*propady should ensure the pin of the
mature hardwood forest and wildlife habitat on the property.
o Future plans wind uses should protect water quality by the protection of .
stream buffers for each of the three stream headwaters (Bohn Creek,
Booker Creak, Gild Field Creek) thaf He within hin the property.
a Future plans and uses'of the property should ensure protection of the two
archaeological sites on the property (the remains of the Byrd and Dills -
ho►nesteads).
E3 The portion of the property designated for affordable housing should
adhere to community guidelines and goals for creating liveable and
sustainable communities.
o The portion of the property protected as open space should provide for
low-impact recreation (such as tre0s).
a.. A 100#cot corridor along -the rall Cane should be retained for possible future
Use' by the jurisdictions that jointly 6y- m the property.
E3 it may be desirable lo identify an area for potential for playing fields near
the portion of the property designated for affordable housing.
Proposed Conservation Easements
As an:added protection for the future well -being of the site, the Triangle Land
Conservancy has agreed to hold conservation easements on 1) the 86 -acre
'open .space" portion of the jointly- -held property, and 2) Orange County's 60 -6cre
adjoining parcel.
The basic parameters of the two easements would include the following:.
a Protection of the natural and cultural resources an_ d conservation valuues
on site In perpetuity.
®. protection of water quality through stream buffers and Obtention of ibresbed
lands to help finer stornwr. ter.
• Provision for unpaved•hikrmg trails designed in concert with the natural
setting and conservation values: '
• Provision for one paved greenway trait, designed in concert with the
natural setting and conservation values.
o Provision for a mountain We trail (non- motortzed only) designed in
concert with the natural setting and conservation values.
The adopted 2002 rewkftn caged for a new name to be &n b ibis site, this is bne•
suggestion.
Commissioner Jacobs asked County Manager John Link about the water and sewer in the
Buckhorn area He asked to receive a report on the process from Mebane's viewpoint He asked if
something like this is on Mebane's agenda.
John Link said that he is meeting with the Mebane Town Manager tomorrow and will be able to
report back to the Board by the end of the week.
Commissioner Jacobs commended those who worked on the housing summit He said that he
and Commissioner Brown originally envisioned the . establishment of two task forces as a major outcome
of the summit One task force would involve the university, the municipalities, and the County. The
second task force would make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on issues such
as refining evaluation criteria and assuring long-term affordability. He said that Commissioner Brown
suggested aiming for the April 11 ', work session to get the report from the Dispute Settlement Center and
develop the charge for these two task forces.
Chair Carey asked if the second task force would include those agencies which provide
affordable housing and Commissioner Jacobs said yes.
Commissioner Jacobs mentioned the high school site that was cleared on New Grady Brown
School Road. He said that there is no clarity on who is going to pay to replace the buffer area that was
cleared. He asked that the County Commissioners see thetranspod6tion plan before it is cast in stone.
With regard to the high school construction standards, he said that there is not much specificity about
existing vegetation or protection of buffers. He said that it does not seem, in some cases, that local
ordinances apply to school construction projects. He said that there needs to be some clarity on what
ordinances are going to apply so that the government in Orange County meets the same high standards
that is required of other developers. Commissioner Halklatis and Commissioner Jacobs will meet with
the Mayor of Durham City next week. They will discuss transportation, solid waste, recreation, and open
space.
Commissioner Gordon announced that she is on vacation this week but would be interested in a
summary of the housing summit She said that stakeholders for the one task force should also include
citizens. She made reference to the meeting with the Mayor of Durham and asked that Commissioners
Jacobs and Halklotis discuss with Durham City courtesy review of developments, especially large
developments that may have implications for transportation.
Commissioner Brown said that the two task forces from the housing summit should be defined.
She suggested that it be brought formally to the County Commissioners. She feels it would be a good
idea to discuss affordable housing at the work session on April 11"' and then decide where to go from
there.
Chair Carey asked the Board if the County Commissioners want to be involved with the IFC task
force regarding the relocation of the homeless shelter from downtown Chapel Hill. He said that the Town
of Chapel Hill would like to reconvene this task force. The IFC is searching for land. A meeting of the
task force has been scheduled for March 21st at 4:30 p.m. He thinks the Board should ask the IFC to
clarify its priorities for any sites that they are considering.
Commissioner Brown asked if there was actually a group of 'people who went ' out and searched
for land. Commissionbr Gordon said that she woUld'find out that information and report back to the
Board. i
Commissioner Gordon said that she would go to the IFC7ask Force meeting on March 21 s.
4. COUNTY MANAGERS REPORT - NONE
5. RESOLUTIONSIPROCLAMATIONS - NONE
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
8. ITEMS FOR DECISION-CONSENT AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halklotis to approve
the item on the consent agenda as stated below.
a. CJPP Grant Proposal FY 2000-2001
The Board approved submission of the grant proposal to continue implementation of the
Criminal Justice. Partnership Programs (CJPP) for Orange and Chatham Counties and authorized the
Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9. IT-E-M&FOR-DECISION-REGULAR AGENDA
Waste Matters — Greend Tract and Revisions to Interlocal Agree men t
I,,"— CP
John Link said that at the last Board of County Commissioners! meeting, the Board
discussed the interlocal agreement as it relates to the Greene Tract and the rezoning of the Greene Tract
The Board instructed the staff to continue with the analysis of the Greene Tract and, since that time,
David Stencil and the Environment and Resource Conservation Department have conducted the
assessment and will present the acreage on the entire tract that is best suited for parks, etc. He said that
the Board also asked that the change in language of the interlocal agreement reflect that the request for
rezoning of the Greene Tract was being withdrawn. Geoff Gledhill is going to speak to this.
Environment and Resource CiDriservation Director David Stancil said that the final report
on the biological survey was received. He said that there are not many things worthy to note in terms of
changes from the interim report. He showed some maps that indicated the two historic sites and the
primary habitat areas that are in the northern and southeastern regions of the tract He said that there
are a number of areas that would be suitable for parks, active and low-impact recreation. As noted in the
report, some of the more developable areas, the less ecologically sensitive areas, are in the west central
portion of the tract He noted two areas that would be suitable for development He said that the group
took an additional step to look at ways the entire tract could be used. He said that there are some ways
to configure this tract to accommodate all uses.
Commissioner Brown asked about the location of water and sewer and County Engineer
Paul Thames said that there is no sewer available in close proximity to the site at this time. The gravity
sewer lines would be laid in the drainage areas that run to the northwest and southwest. However, there
is no place for the lines to go in either direction. To receive sewer from the site, the sewer would have to
be extended cross-country, or pump stations would have to be built. He said that the water would come
along Puref6y Road.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the doffed lines on the map and David Stancil said
that these are potential roads for access to the property. He asked if David Stancil took into account the
type of grading that would be required for roads and power lines.
David Stancil said that the findings were conceptual based on the typography, the lay of
the land, the points of access, and the less ecologically sensitive areas.
Commissioner Brown asked if there were larger maps to show this property in relation to
the adjacent property that is contiguous to this 169 acres called the Greene Tract. She also asked about
the greenways that were proposed by Chapel Hill. She noted that in talking with Mayor Waldorf, Chapel
Hill would like to make the two developments form a significant greenway from the Greene Tract over to
Homestead Park. Commissioner Brown asked to see the area in a larger context
Chair Carey said that he hopes that the Board can identify the most preferable 60 acres
that could be transferred to the County. He would like to go ahead and identify the 60 acres as soon as
possible rather than segmenting the transfer and the identification of the 60 acres.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. R. D. Smith said that the County Commissioners are in the same situation the County was in
thirty years ago — no land for a landfill. Two weeks ago he was -in Princeville- and there was a swarm of
about 2,000 blackbirds on the ground and in the trees. He wonders what the County Commissioners
would *do if they were faced with that many birds at one time. He wonders what other sites are under
consideration for a long-term basis rather than on a short4erm basis. He said that the Commissioners
should be thinking long term instead of short term. He asked what would be the entrances and exits on
whatever sites are chosen.
Chair Carey clarified that the 60 acres that Mr. Smith is referring to as part of the Greene Tract
that would eventually be transferred to the County would not be used for burial of any waste materials.
Mr. Robert Campbell said that he sees the same thing happening now that happened in the early
70's when the landowners in the landfill area were promised that the land would eventually be turned into
recreation or used for affordable housing. He feels that someone needs to make a commitment to the
people in the landfill area about the safety of the water and asked when the residents would receive
water. He said that his understanding was that the landfill was never tested for MTBE. He said that the
wells were tested for MTBE and the newspapers received the results before the residents received the
results. He spoke about the number of trucks that come down Rogers Road to the landfill. He talked
about the small from the landfill and how it gets into their homes. He suggested that the County
Commissioners find another place to put the solid waste recovery facility. He said that at one time
asphalt was used as a covering for the landfill. He thinks that the MTBE in the well water may have come
from the asphalt that was once. used.
Chair Carey clarified that the Towns and the County have already agreed that a public water
system is going to be extended out to the Rogers Road community. He said that the County is going to
take over the responsibility for making sure the lines are extended. There is an 18 -month timeline for this
water line extension.
John Link said that from the date of the transfer of solid waste management to the County, the
next day OWASA could be authorized to submit request for proposals to run the major water lines to this
area From that date, OWASA expects that those major water lines would be in the ground between 12
and 18 months. He said that the only thing outstanding was an agreement between the County and the
other jurisdictions on how to fund the lateral lines.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board has been very clear in saying that they understand
what the residents of the Rogers Road neighborhood are saying. He said that the process is taking
longer than the Commissioners originally thought He clarified that a proposed agreement from OWASA
would be forthcoming within a month.
Health Director Rosemary Summers said that the wells in the Rogers Road neighborhood have
been tested twice for volatile organic chemicals, including the MTBEs. The wells will be tested quarterly.
The wells at the landfill have not been tested for MTBEs, but it is in discussion at this time.
Commissioner Halkictis said that he feels it is important to get a report back indicating that it is
possible that there are MTBEs coming from the landfill. the possible availability of that for the
. Commissioner Brown asked about CDBG grant money and
Rogers Road neighborhood.
John Link said that the staff would explore that possibility again, but as the County
Commissioners recall, Orange County does not rate very high in terms of eligibility for septic or sewer
systems. The chances of Orange County receiving federal funding for this are slim because of the needs
of the flood victims "in the eastern part of the state.
Rosemary Summers said that in reference to the reports of the well testing, there was no
intentional delay. This was only a miscommunication.
Mr. Gary Carver made reference to the public hearing with Chapel Hill about the rezoning of the
Greene Tract. He said that the meeting was very interesting and informative. The information was not
new information, but was the same information that the citizens have been saying for years. He does not
know how the County Commissioners felt about that meeting because there was not a vote. He said that
the presentation tonight centered mostly on identifying which 60 acres of the Greene Tract are of interest
to the County. He said that the amendment to the interlocal agreement accomplishes the same thing as
rezoning the Greene Tract for a materials handling facility and he feels that this is not right He said that
one of the major complaints at the public hearing was that it was a foregone conclusion. He understands
that there is no burial intended on the Greene Tract but the other facilities that are proposed in that area
are just as bad. He feels that the extension of the water lines to Rogers Road should not be tied to the
effective date of the intedocal agreement because it is a continual delay. He stressed the importance of
finding the source of the MTBEs in the wells.
Chair Carey said*that.the responsibility of constructing the water lines is bed to the effective date
of the transfer of responsibility because prior to that time no one knew who was responsible. Once the
responsibility of solid waste management is transferred to the County, -the County will take over that
function.
Commissioner Gordon said that she has a proposal for the 60 acres. She referred to the map in
the packet. The 60 acres would be at the northern and northeastelm part of the Greene Tract She
would hope that the 60 acres could stay undisturbed. She would also hope that the other 109 acres could
be left as open sp6ce with some affordable housing. She proposed that the Board ask the staff to figure
out the appropriate 60 acres.
Discussion ensued about the possible configurations of the 60 acres.
Commissioner Jacobs clarified that the 60 acres would be an asset of the solid waste operabon.
Chair Carey said that it would be a solid waste asset and anything done with that property would
compensate the solid waste fund.
Geoffrey Gledhill said that if nothing was done with the 60 acres, it would remain an asset of the
landfill. Commissioner Jacobs said that if Chapel Hill and Carrboro used the 109 acres as a park, he
thinks that it is important for the Board to decide the portion of the 60 acres where other functions could
be provided in the future (i.e., affordable housing; school site, County facilities, a MRF). He would rather
protect the most sensitive 60 acres.
Commissioner Jacobs asked Commissioner Gordon that in using part of section two (from the
map), since it has limited access by road, if she perceived that as a place for other functions.
Commissioner Gordon said that it is contiguous, but first of all, this sixty acres would remain
undisturbed. However, as an asset of the system, if someone in the future wanted to use it for something
else, then the area to the east is considered developable. Her preference is to leave the 60 acres
undisturbed.
Chair Carey thinks that the conceptual line developed by Commissioner Gordon does preserve
most options for a contiguous piece of land. He said that the Board should ask the staff to bring a more
concrete recommendation back at the next meeting. .
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the staff could analyze what the environmental affect would be of
having any development on section. two compared with section one.
Commissioner Brown wants to be sure that as much of the hardwoods as possible are included in
the 60 acres.
John Link said that there should be an adequate buffer around the historic site and the County
needs to exclude this buffer because it is assumed that all jurisdictions want to preserve that area.
Commissioner Gordon asked if staff could set the map in context so that the Board could see
where the other green space is and the 109 acres.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown to suggest
that the 60 acres as defined on the map in the agenda abstract be the conceptual plan for the 60 acres,
including all of the information requested by the various Commissioners.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEY TO REVISE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Geoffrey Gledhill said that he has recommended changes as outlined in the abstract. The first
change is in part one of the agreement, in the Acquired Property section. He added a section, verbatim
from the letter that was written to the Mayors, the language as follows: "The Parties acknowledging and
support the County's position., that as operator of solid waste operations it may, despite diligent efforts to
explore alternatives, settle upon the area on and proximate to the existing closed landfill site on Eubanks
Road as the location for additional solid waste facilities."
The second change was to rewrite the effective date, eliminating altogether the linkage between
the effective date and the rezoning of the 60 acres of the Greene Tract, and saying that the effective date
of this agreement and the County's taking over of the solid waste responsibilities in Orange County would
follow the last of two events - the approval of this amendment to the interlocal agreement ;and the
agreement on the boundaries of the 60 acres that will be transferred to the County. He linked the
effective date to pay periods so it could be handled administratively.
The third change was in part five, which relates solely to the Greene Tract. Particularly, he
eliminated all linkage to the rezoning of the 60-acre portion of the Greene Tract to the interlocal
agreement There is still agreement to put deed restrictions on the deed to the 60 acres, which will
prohibit burial on that 60 acres. The net effect of this change is that the 60 acres will not be available
under present zoning regulations for any solid waste activity that involves a structure. Also, the deed
restriction would not permit any burial of solid waste on the site.
Lastly, he recommended some clean-up changes regarding the advisory board. He said that the
reimbursement concept that is in the agreement relates solely to the 109 acres.
Cortimissioner Brown made reference to the advisory board' acid asked if elected officials could
serve on the Solid Waste Advisory Board and she was told yes. She does not think that elected officials
should be allowed to serve on the advisory board.
Commissioner Jacobs clarified that there-was no provision within this proposal that would in any
way presuppose that solid waste operations would take place on the 60 acres.
Commissioner Gordon questioned point number one in the effective date and asked If "governing
board" was referring to the County or if it should be plural.
Geof Gledhill said that the governing board of each owner must both approye and execute the
agreement .
Commissioner Gordon questioned point number four, 'by amending the date in the first
paragraph of Part Ir and suggested saying, "one month after the effective date of this agreement"
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the point raised by Commissioners Brown and Jacobs
ab6ut having elected officials* on the SWAB and said that she does not feel that an elected official should
be on this advisory board.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested asking the Chair when he meets with the mayors to see if they
have any objection to changing this part of the agreement to eliminate appointing elected officials to the
advisory board.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that he feels that if there is any elected official on any board that
wants to serve on this Board that they should be allowed to do so.
Chair Carey does not have a problem with having an elected official on the advisory board.
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adopt the
changes to the interlocal agreement and include the change regarding one month after the effective date
of the agreement
TE: UNANIMOUS
b. Text Amendments to Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance
Planning Director Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that the text
amendments that are being addressed in the ordinance refer directly to an Rem that was on the public
hearing agenda on August 23, 1999 and involve the timeframe in which decisions must be made for both
subdivisions and zoning. The original item that was brought before the public hearing removed all
timelines for staff, Planning Board, and the County Commissioners. There were no deadlines on which
decisions would have to be made. Based upon comments made at the public hearing, the staff sent
notices out to the participants of the public hearing and sent additional notices out to another 20
developers and representatives in the area and met with them in October. Of the 30 notices that were
sent out, only three showed up for discussion about the timelines. The staff then took the infi rmation'to
timelines. As the proposal came
an ordinance review committee with the Planning Board to discuss.the ti ss for the staff and the
forward to the Planning Board, there were guidelines placed on the decision proce
Planning Board. One of the differences is that if a decision is not made within the timeframes, the Rem is
considered approved without conditions. He said that the amendments now state that the item still moves
forward, but with the original staff recommendations and the minutes of-the meetings of the Planning
Board explaining why, a decision could not be made within the time period. The Rem' must be heard by
I mi
the County Commissioners within 90 days after the Planning Board hears it The County Commissioners
are allowed to table the item for a "reasonable amount of time." In addition, the language for an appeal
has been modified to give a 15-day period of time for an appeal.
. Commissioner Brown clarified that the "reasonable amount of time" was not allowing the
Board to put off the decision, but to ask legitimate questions and a . ctually work on making a decision.
Craig Benedict pointed out that the Planning Board recommends that after the item is
placed on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda, the decision is to be made within 60 days. This
is on the last page of the agenda abstract This is not his recommendation, but the recommendatiorf of
the Planning Board.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked the staff for giving the Board three proposals. He
suggested that on the bottom of page 30 the wording should be clarified to say, "during deliberations and
consideration of the application, the Board may defer consideration at any point to pursue additional
analysis and review." Also, on page 27, section 4, the wording could be clarified to say, "The Planning
Department shall notify the applicant of its action in writing."
Commissioner Jacobs said that he does not agree with the Planning Board about having
a 60-day deadline on the Board's decision. He made reference to the appeal of the preliminary plan of
minor subdivisions and said that the Planning Board is saying that it should come back to them and the
administration is saying that it should come back to the Board of County Commissioners. He asked if
there was a difference between matters of interpretation of the subdivision regulations and policy issues
related to the subdivision regulations. He does not think that the County Commissioners . need to be
involved in the appeal process unless it is a policy issue.
Geoffrey Gledhill said that most of the appeals have to do with public versus private
roads. Since staff is in tune with the County Commissioners on that issue, rarely is the staff denying a
private road where it is justified under the regulations. He clarified that the Planning Board's role is as an
advisory board and not a decision-making body.
Commissioner. Gordon asked I something is referred to the County Commissioners
without a Planning Board recommendation would it be reasonable to refer it back to the Planning Board.
Geoffrey Gledhill said that it would be reasonable. On page 33, section 30, about the application being
sent by certified mail, she feels it should be left as certified mail so there is a receipt indicating that the
application was sent The Board agreed that the application should be sent by certified mail.
Craig Benedict said that the staff has reviewed some of the State laws on advertising and
they are suggesting, as they go through the comprehensive plan in the future, that there will be some very
thorough and elaborate advertising guidelines. He would like to find other means of communication (i.e.,
intemet newspaper, etc.). He said that he would move the statement back to certified mail.
Commissioner grown feels it is important that the citizens are well served by these
revisions. She would like to see something come back to the Board about public notification of
development Sheds concerned that there is not enough time for citizens to respond to development
proposals. She made reference to section nine and asked why the concept plan was extended from one
year to two years.
ORANGE COUNTY
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 14, 2000
Action Agenda
Rom No.
SUBJECT." Solid Waste Matters — Greene Tract and Amendments to Solid Waste lnterlocal
Agreement
DEPARTMENT: Manager/ERCD/Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
Attorney
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
34)/00 Staff Review Memo Rod Visser, ext 2300; David Stancil, ext
Proposed "Agreement to Amend the 2590; Craig Benedict, ext 2592; Geof
Agreement for Solid Waste" Gledhill; 732 -2196
BACKGROUND: in September 1999, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel
Hill ouiminated a lengthy process of negotiation regarding solid waste management. That
process resulted in the signing by the three parties of an interlocal agreement under which
Orange County will exercise overall responsibility for the future management of solid waste in
Orange County. One of the provisions of that agreement included the rezoning of a 60 -acre
portion of the Greene Tract to make permissible, under zoning regulations, certain solid waste
management activities. The Board of Commissioners at their February 29 meeting decided to
withdraw the request. for that rezoning, and directed the Manager and Attorney to develop.
suggested changes to the approved interlocal agreement that would be needed as a result of
that decision. The target date for assumption by the County of overall solid waste management
authority was adjusted from March 20 to April 17, 2000. The additional time was intended to
allow the parties to agree to amendments to the interlocal agreement and on the exact
delineation of the 60 -acre portion of the Greene Traci.,
The Board commissioned two surveys of the entire Greene Tract to inform the decision about
which 60 acres should be transferred to the County. A final report on the cultural/
archaeological resources on the property, and an interim report on the biologicaVenvimnmental
resources, were considered by the Board in their February 29 deliberations. The final
consultant's report on the biologicaVenvironmental resources will be provided under separate
cover to the Board prior to this March 14 meeting. Staff from the Environment and Resource
Conservation Department have prepared an assessment of the Greene Tract and the two
surveys that analyzes which 60 -acre portion of the property might be most appropriate for a
variety of potential uses.
The County Attomey has also drafted an agreement that would amend the adopted interlocal
agreement on solid waste management to reilect changes needed because of the Board's
decisions regarding the previously contemplated Greene Tract rezoning, and other related
matters. The Board may wish to discuss both the. 60-acre designation and *suggested changes
to-the interlocal agreement, and forward recommendations on these two topics to the municipal
governing boards for their consideration and approval.. .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:, There is no direct financial impact associated with the discussion of the
Greene Tract survey reports and proposed changes to the solid waste management interiocat
agreement.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board review and discuss the .
assessment of possible uses for a 60 -4cre portion of the Greene Tract, and the proposed
amendments to the interlocal agreement; provide appropriate direction to the Manager,
Attorney, and staff, and communicate their proposals regarding these matters to the three
municipal governing boards.
3
To: John Link, County Manager
From: David r *% * Environment • Resource Conservation Director
Craig Benedlct� Planning Director
Date: March 9, 2000
Re: RLMew • . the Greene Tract for Potential
nTV,1-,Fc-M- —Pordo—ns or tne property. might be Mimi,
appropriate.
iI 1 . " !i i•^ Y ! F K L ♦ R' .i I _ !' 7 lr- __ _ 1 •. .
r r. M • '- •. a ''�_1-
While one of the surveys remains incomplete at this rime, it is apparent that there are two
primary implications that can be drawn:
1. The cultural survey has identified two sites that may qualify for the National Register of
Historic Places. Any land disturbing or human activities should attempt to avoid these -sites
and their immediate environs, for possible future archaeological work. (These sites are
shown on the map in a circular area Identified with an °H').
2. The biological resource survey appears to Indicate that the mesic oak (Le., dry or uplands
oak) and mixed hardwood fbrest In the northern portion of the Greene tract Is more likely to
host dw greater variety of species, and as such might be seen as the most significant
biological rA • •- on t- The potential t t . t and mIx6d hardwood forest In the
so 't c, r portion of the t- are also worthy of •t-
r rima!y Implicatims ITIft • • - • • • tr _r - -
yea i
- - r
4
- .- 14 I t. r'
if the primary intent is to preserve the most significant 60 aces from a natural any /wildlife
habitat perspective, there are likely two areas of focus. First, an area of roughly 30 acres in
the northi- central portion of the site (sector 1 on the attached map) contains meslc•oak and
mixed hardwood forest that is more likely to harbor diverse species. There is another area of
10 aces to the southeast (sector 4) that contains mixed hardwoods of note. These areas are
generally shown on the attached concept
within map
ector sectors lt�led as DNICi" on d�+e map) but it is
mixed hardwood forest Is also
somewhat more isolated.
It is again important to nee fiiat this is bawd on an 1000MPIOW M01091cal MOM
surrey. New tesarlt on wettand dellneWan and bof tomiand hardwoods could alfer
MIS OwIffation.
B. Evaluation for Use as a Park with Active Recreation Facilities
In looking at the Greene tract for active recreation facility sites (playing fields,
restrooms, picnic
shelters), the best location for an area of roughly 60 acres would be in the west - central portion
of the site, away from the cultural .resources, streams and hardwood forests. This is primarily an
area of pines and sparse tree cover — and recreation areas. could be placed with easy access to
the residential area to the west, or buffered from that area if desired. This area is shown on the
attached map as the portion of sector 2, west of the potential historic sine. However, this area is
only 25 aces in itself. Adjacent portions of Sector 3 could also be used for recreation fields to
fulfill a 60 -acre portion.
C. Evaluation for Land Disturbance and Butidin
Generally speaking, the best areas for development activities — whether they be for affordable
housing, government buildings or a- materials transfer station - would.be the eastem,
southwest and east-central portions of-the site. Access will be a determining factor for where
any development activity should be located. For example, a materials transfer facility might be
located along the rail line in the east and east - central �mmentbuor 2,, s could also north of the
potential •historic site), while affordable housing and g 9 be
accommodated in the southwest, east-�ceniral and the extreme southem portion of the site.
More- specifically, this latter area would be that listed above for potential recreation (sector 2
west of the potential historic site and sector 3),. as well as sector 5 on the map (taidng care to
avoid the potential wetlands by staying north and south of this feature). All of these portions
together comprise more than 60 acres, with 35 acres in the east - central portion of sector 2, a
total of 25 acres in sector 3, and 25 acres in sector 5.
Access will be 'a key issue for any development 'of the property. Access from the north may be
Important for a materials transfer_ station, and that access may need to come via the Neville
tract to the northwest. Access to areas potentiaify suitable for affordable housing, recreation or
other developed uses may need to come from the south and /or west.
2nd restrictive covenants that edst or be • . •e• on the r • perty.
�=IKMOTNISMIMT711W, M-1
In loo.Tng at these individual options on the siter ERM and Planning staff noticed that while
there Is overiap In the areas above (recreation and developable areas,, for momple),, there may
be ways to use the property that are not mutually-exdusrlve. If acce Issues can be resolved,, it
might be possible to do all of the following on the Greene tract (with the cooperation of all
ownership entities):
preserve 40 acres of the prime hardwood tbrest (sectors 1 and 4),
pmtect the potential historic sites,,
locate a 25 acre active recreation facility (the wesbern portion of secbDr 2),,
• reserve around 35 acres with rail line access for a transfer station (sector 2 north and east of
the pobential historic !-
• locate a 25-acre aftrdable housing site and another 25 acres 1br government buildings or
other developed - !• and
The conceptual plan that staffis worlmd up for accommodation of all uses Is shown on the
attached map.
Agreement to Amend the Agreement
for Solid Waste Management
Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and
Hillsborough hereby agree to amend the "Agreement for Solid
Waste Management.,
1. By deleting the paragraph identified as nAncruire
Rro,perty,.ff in Part I and replacing it with the following:
Acquire Rr=ertZ. The County shall acquire real and
personal property as it deems appropriate for System
purposes. There shall be no restrictions on the County's
acquisition , of additional acreage . at the existing
landfill. The Parties acknowledge and support the . County's
position that as operator of solid waste operations, it
may, despite diligent efforts to explore alternatives,
settle upon the area on and proximate to the existing
closed landfill site on Eubanks Road as the location for
additional solid waste facilities. The County states its
current 'intention not to acquire, and its recommendation
that future County Governing Boards not acquire, any of
the properties known as the Blackwood and Nunn properties
for System purposes.
2. By deleting the paragraph identified as "Effective
date." in Part 1 and replacing it with the following:
Effective date. The County will assume solid waste
management responsibility on the first day of the-second
Orange County employee pay period that follows the last
completed of the following two events: (1) the approval by
the governing board and the execution of this Agr I eement to
Amend by the current owners of the System; (2) Agreement
on the boundaries of the property described in Exhibit E
by the Greene Tract Owners. The date the County assumes
solid waste management responsibility is the effective
date of this Agreement. The Parties shall take actions
provided for in this Agreement, or which may otherwise be
necessary or appropriate, in a timely fashion to permit-
the County's assumption of solid waste responsibility on
the effective date.'
3. By deleting Part 5 and replacing it with the
following:
5. The Greene Tract will remain a landfill asset. sixty
acres of the Greene Tract will be reserved for System
purposes, and the tbree owners will work together to
determine the ultimate use of the remainder.
The Parties agree that the Greene Tract remains a
landfill asset.
Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the County (the ')Greene
Tract Owners") will transfer to the County title to that
portion of the Greene Tract described on Exhibit E, which
contains approximately sixty acres. The County may use the
e
proprty described on Exhibit E for System purposes. The
County . - states its current intention not to bury mixed
solid waste or. construction and demolition waste on any
portion of 'the Greene Tract. The County states its
recommendation to future County. Governing Boards that the
County make no such burial. The deed to this property will
include a restriction prohibiting the use of the property
described on Exhibit E for burying mixed solid waste or
construction and demolition wa6te.
.The Greene Tract Owners agree to bargain together in
good , faith and with all due diligence, and to use their
respective best -efforts, to determine an ultimate use or
disposition of the remainder of-the Greene Tract as soon
as possible and in any eveiat by December 31, * 2001, or two
years after the effective date, whichever is later. During
this -bargaining period," no Greene Tract owner shall make
any use of the remaining portion of the Greene Tract
without the consent of the other Greene Tract Owners. -
The Greene Tract owners agree that among the issues
to be addressed in the bargaining process. are the
spec if is future - uses, or ranges of use,. to be 'made - of the
remainder of *the Greene Tract- (including *issues of
devoting different portions to different, uses, devoting
portions. to public uses and the possibility of making
portions available for sale or private use), and (2)
whet-her to impose specific 'use restrictions, either
,
through deed restrictions or through governmental
r . egulation. The Greene Tract owners agree that during the
"bargaining period,' each should provide opportunity for
public comment on possible or proposed . uses or
dispositions.
During the "bargaining period," z%6 Greene Tract owner
shall (1) file any legal action or proceeding to force any
sale or division of the Greene-Tract, or (2) enter into
any agreement to sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer all
or any part of its ownership interest in the Greene Tract,
W1
in either case without the consent of the other Greene
Tract Owners. To the extent permitted by law, Chapel Hill
agrees not to initiate any proceeding to rezone any
portion ' of the Greene Tract - during the -bargaining
period," without the consent of the other Greene Tract
Owners. Chapel Hill states its current intent to
accommodate any agreed-upon future uses or range of uses
of the remainder of the Greene Tract in its Development
Code/Ordinances and states its recommendation to future
Chapel Hill Governing Boards to the same effect.
After the ubargainipg period" is completed, namely,
the day after the last day of the bargaining period, no
Greene Tract Owner shall (1) file any legal action or
proceeding to force any sale or division of the Greene
Tract, or (2) enter into any agreement to sell, mortgage
or otherwise transfer all or any part of its ownership
interest in the Greene Tract, in either 'case without
giving the other Griaene Tract Owners at least 60 days'
prior notice of-such filing or entering into an agreement.
In addition, after the "bargaining period" is completed,
any Greene Tract Owner may give 60 days' prior notice of
an election to be no longer bound by .the above
restrictions pertaining to the uses of and whether to
impose use restrictions on the remainder of the Greene
Tract, and such election shall be effective at- the end of
the notice period.
The Parties agree that any non System use of any
portion of the remainder of the Greene Tract or any
disposition of any portion of the remainder of the Greene
Tract shall result in payment to the County of the
Reimbursement Amount for deposit in the System enterprise
fund.
4. By amending the date in the first par@Lgraph of Part 7
to read
S. By amending subsection (c) of the `Members; Terms"
provision of Exhibit C to the Agreement to read as follows:
(c) The first year of the term of each initial member
of the Advisory Board shall be deemed to expire on .Tune
30, 2001. Thereafter, each year of the term of an Advisory
Board member will run from July 1 through the subsequent
June 30, but each member shall continue to serve until
such member's successor has been duly appointed and
qualified for office.
H
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Orange County has caused this
Agreement to Amend the Agreement for Solid Waste Management to
be executed in its corporate name by its duly authorized
officers.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Date Approved by
Governing Board
ORANGE COMUY, NORTH MROLnM
By:
die3ac-, Board of Commissioners . Chair, Board or Commissioners
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA;
1, a Notary Public of such County and . State, certify that and
personally came before we this day and acknowledged that they are the
Chair and Clerk, respectively, pf the Board.of commissioners of Orange County, North
Carolina, and that by authority duly given and as the act of orange county, North
Carolina, the foregoing instrument, was signed in the County's name by such chair,
sealed with its corporate seal and attested by such Clerk.
wimss my hand and official stamp or seal, this _ day of
2000.
ISM]
My commission expires:
Notary Public
A
F
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of Carrboro has 'caused this
Agreement to Amend the Agreement for Solid Waste Management to
be executed in its corporate name by its duly -authorized
officers.
Date Approved by
Governing Board
ATTEST: (S=) TOWN OF CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLna
By:
Town Clerk
Mayor
1, a Notary Public of such County and State, certify that and
— personally came before me this day and acknowledged that they are the
Mayor and To= Clerk, respectively, of the Town of Carrb6ro, North Carolina, and that
by authority duly given and as the act of such Town, the foregoing instrument
was signed in the Town's name by such Mayor, sealed with its corporate seal and
attested by such Tom Clerk..
NITMSS my hand and official stamp or seal, this _ day Of
1999.
[SEAL]
My commission Mwires.-
Notary Public
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, - the Tdwn of Chapel Hill has caused
this Agreement to Amend- thd Agreement for Solid Waste
Management to be executed in its corporate name by its . duly
authorized officers.
ATTEST: (SEAL)
Town Clerk
Date Approved by
Governing Board
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH chRoLna
By:
Mayor
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINAS OVJUM CGM=
I, a . Notary Public of such County and State; certify that and
personally came before me this,day and acknowledged that they are the
Mayor and Town Clerk, respectively, of the Town of Chapel Hill, North'Carolina, and
that by authority duly given and as the act of such Town, the foregoing instrument
was signed in the Town's name by such Mayo r, sealed with its corporate seal and
attested by such Town Clerk.
wITNEss my band and official stamp or seal, this day of
1999.
[SEAL]
Notary Public
My commission expires:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of Hillsborough has caused
this Agreement to Amend the Agreement for Solid Waste Management
to be executed in its corporate name -by its duly authorized
officers.
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
(SM)
Date Approved by
Governing Board
BY:
Mayor
1, a Notary Public of such County and State, certify that and
- personally came before me this day and acknowledged that they are the
Mayor and Town Clark, respectively,'Of the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina, and
that by authority duly given and as the act of such Town ' the foregoing instrument was
signed in the Town's name by such mayor, sealed with its corporate seal and attested
by such Town Clerk_
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of
1999.
IMMI
Notary Public
My commission expires:
lsq:branqecouaty\—d clwataqt-doa
been found so the kids could play this season. She is sorry that it is not closer to the neighborhood but it sounds like a
satisfactory solution.
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to direct the staff to
take the following next steps to secure playing and practice fields for the Fairview Youth Baseball group:
- Develop a formal arrangement with the Orange County Schools for use of the Hillsborough
Elementary and. Orange High School fields for the FYB this summer.
- Instruct the Recreation and Parks Department to prepare the Hillsborough Elementary School site for
use (skimming of the infield area).
- Develop a basic agreement between FYB and the County for use of these fields under County's
auspices and transportation to the fields.
- Instruct Recreation and Parks to develop, as soon as possible, a schedule of activities with the FYB
for use of these fields.
- Instruct staff to make arrangements with Orange Public Transportation for getting the FYB players to
the fields at scheduled times, where practical.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS iii6tioh of 60 -acre
The Board considered identifying a 60-acre portion of the Greene tract to be transferred to the County in
accordance with the proposed interlocal "Agreement to Amend the Agreement for Solid Waste!
David Stancil made reference to the map in the agenda and explained the surrounding areas on the map.
He pointed out that the map shows the open space areas that surround the Greene Tract in a larger context. He
explained some of the alternatives for the identification of the 60-acre area of the Greene Traci. He made reference to
a map and said that it was the conceptual area that was generally agreed to at the Board's March 10 meeting. This
encompasses the northern and eastern portions of the property. The area to the east of the existing Duke Power
easement would be excluded.
Commissioner Gordon said that this was not the conceptual plan that the Board approved.
David Stancil said that some modifications were made to make the area fit to 60 acres.
Alternative #1
This alternative addresses the issue of access to the rail line. In this alternative, there would be 600 feet
of frontage along the rail line to the southeast Some of the property along the potential historic site has been traded
for access to the rail line.
Alternative #2:
This altemative addresses the potential for maximizing more areas that could be used for development
with less of an emphasis on preserving ecologically sensitive areas. He pointed out the areas that would have pines
and. hardwoods.
Alternative #3:
This alternative addresses the potential for wildlife corridors on the property. The areas inside the heavy
boundary would be areas that could accommodate Wildlife corridors.
David Stancil summarized the handout on buffers, erosion control, and drainage patterns.
Commissioner Brown said that the Greene Tract has always been a place that needed to be preserved.
She feels that Orange County should build on Chapel Hill's resolution in preserving the Greene Tract. She said that
alternative #3 is interesting because it shows-the wildlife corridor.' She said that in considering . thewildlife corridor, the
areas of hardwoods that need to be preserved, and the headwaters of the three creeks, it is going to take a joint effort
to preserve the Greene Tract. She feels the Board's preliminary selection last week was a good first attempt for
Orange County to take responsibility to protect the northern part of hardwood forests and the two creeks towards the
north, and then join with Chapel Hill to preserve the other sensitive areas. There is also a possibility of having some
acreage on the Purelby Road side for affordable housing. She suggests that the County go with the original plan
adopted last week adjusting for the wildlife corridor. She also suggests that Orange County work with Chapel Hill and
Carrboro to preserve the entire Greene Tract.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the disposition of the Neville Tract after it has been excavated.
Gayle Wilson said that the site would be relatively flat draining toward the sedimentation basin. He said
that Mrs. Nunn was not interested in bringing it back to its original elevation with inert materials, so it will remain
relatively flat The main concern is erosion control. There will be restrictions on its use related only to solid waste.
There are some buffers around the perimeter of the tract.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he is totally supportive of protecting as much open space as possible. He
has concerns about road access. He said that it was his understanding that the 60 acres were needed as an asset of
the solid waste operation. If the County is going to choose the 60 acres that is most desirable to protect, then he does
not see how it is an asset of the solid waste operation. and said that whatever entity took over the
Commissioner Gordon responded to Commissioner Jacobs
management of solid waste needed some assets in order to offset the cost of managing solid waste. Since it is an
8
internal transaction, as long as the County has the asset it is not quite so important as to which pocket the money is
coming from.
Chair Carey said that the 60 acres would be a solid waste asset and if it were used for another purpose
the appropriate transfer would have to be made to the landfill.fund.
Commissioner Jacobs feels the Count
,y needs to leave some ability to do something other than,protect the
60 acres for future Commissioners. He said that if the 60 acres were going to be put in open space permanently, .
Orange County would need to do it with the understanding that they would pay the solid waste operation for the land.
Commissioner Halkiotis feels that the County has already lost the possibility of interconnecting three tracts
of land and looking at the possibility of establishing a mega-park. He made reference to a letter that was in the Chapel
Hill Herald today that suggested that the County sell the Greene Tract and put the money in the landfill fund. He thinks
there is an opportunity to make a statement for the future and keep the best piece of land as an asset and then figure
out what is in the best interest of the citizens.
Commissioner Gordon said that she prefers alternative #1. She said that her vision for the Greene Tract
is that it would remain undisturbed. She proposed that the County pursue obtaining contiguous property. She wants
the County to be interested in delineating the natural areas. She indicated on the map the location of the natural
areas. She said that theoretically the land is an asset of the landfill. She asked about the Duke Power restrictions on
the easement She also asked how much land the County would need to have access to the railroad. She said that
her vision for the Greene Tract is that it would be mainly open space. She would like the staff to research what the
restrictive -covenants are for the residences, what the Greene Tract buffers mean, and what would the other
jurisdictions do With the property adjacent to the railroad tracks.
Chair Carey feels that aftemaWe one does provide some potential for the area for both development and
protection. He feels that because the 60 acres is an asset of the system that some opportunities should be preserved
for it to be used for developable purposes.
Commissioner Gordon asked how much is designated along the railroad and David Stancil said between
500-600 feet She asked what it could be used for and John Link said that he would think that any structure would be
accommodated. She suggested having an alternative access in the northern part of the tract where the Duke Power
easement would not have to be crossed.
Geoffrey Gledhill said that someone could be employed to determine the needs of access to the railroad.
He said that since there are so many unknowns associated with the railroad, the County should focus on physically
making a connection to the railroad right-of-way.
Chair Carey said that the County could exclude a right-of-way from the 60 acres and negotiate with the.
towns for using it for that purpose as a part of the 109 acres without having to assume responsibility for it as an asset
Chair Carey supports alternative #1 because it provides maximum flexibility for the use of this property.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the buffers from the Neville TracL
Gayle Wilson said that in changing the Neville Tract to allow excavation of soil, the Town required a buffer.
The landfill required a certain amount of soil to come off the property, and it was determined that since most of the
property would have to be used for soil excavation, that the buffer was placed on the adjacent property, which was the
Greene Tract.
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adopt alternative #1
and send on to Chapel Hill the following: 1) the wildlife corridor map, showing and highlighting the various natural
areas with an explanation; 2) the goldenrod sheet showing the drainage pattern and what it means in terms of a
natural area being the headwaters of the creeks; and 3) a statement of support of Chapel Hill's resolution to maintain
the Greene Tract in a natural state to the greatest extent possible, since there has been a mention of affordable .
housing. The County's intent is to preserve the property in its natural state and build on the support of the Chapel Hill
resolution.
ZUNANIMOUS
i, Chair Carey Will circulate a letter to the other Commissioners before it is sent to Chapel Hill.
With regard to the resolution added to the agenda, Geoffrey Gledhill said that the application for rezoning
is still out there and pending and it will be processed if there is no formal action to withdraw the application for the
rezoning. By this resolution, Orange County as an owner of the property will withdraw their support for rezoning the
Greene Tract
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to withdrew Orange
County's support of the rezoning request of the Greene Tract
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Adoption of County Capital Protect Ordinances
The Board was to consider adoption of capital project ordinances for projects included in the 1999-2009
Capital Investment Plan. This item was postponed to the March 23, 2000 work session.
9
Affirmation of Process for Resolving the Disposition of the Greene Tract
The Board considered adopting a resolution affirming the general process by which
Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill will resolve the disposition of the
remaining 109 acres of the Greene Tract.
John Link said that this item was discussed at the April 2e work session and that there
were specific recommendations that have been addressed in this latest draft The recommendations
include that the work group should be limited to two elected officials from each of the three governing
boards and that there would be a more definitive decision by the Board as to what would be included
as the general uses.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the magnitude of the process and said that it
would probably be October-December before the completion of the work group. . "Th
Commissioner Brown would like to add to the "Now, Therefore" statement as follows: e
consideration of the uses are to be based on environmental and historical assessment reports." She
made reference to page 12 and said that these were the last agreements that we had with all the
jurisdictions with regard to environmental and historical issues.
Commissioner Brown would also not like to be pinned down to just affordable housing,
school sites, and non-solid waste public purposes. She would like to consider these uses, but not be
limited to them.
Commissioner Jacobs agreed that the resolution should be as non-binding as possible in
regards to the consideration of uses within the Greene Tract
Commissioner Carey feels we should leave affordable housing as one of the possible uses
in the resolution. He does not feel that everyone considers affordable housing as a public purpose.
Also, open space is an appropriate use for this property. He agrees with keeping the fight schedule
so that this issue gets resolved in a timely manner.
Commissioner Gordon agreed with the issue of the environmental and historical
assessment reports. She feels that the uses as identified should remain in the resolution. She does
not have a problem with the target dates as long as there is some flexibility. She feels we should
include in our transmittal the letter on page 11 along with the three maps and to also include the text
of uThe Agreement to Amend the Agreement" and the reimbursement amount.
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution as stated below, including the statement, "Now,
therefore, the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby affirm the consideration of the
Greene Tract for open space, affordable housing, school sites, and non-solid waste public purposes.
Also, the top bullet should say, "Consideration of the uses to be based on the environmental and
historical assessment reports." Also, the transmittal will include the letter on page 11, the maps, The
Agreement to Amend the Agreement (pp. 5-8), and the reimbursement amount on page 10.
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING A PROCESS FOR RESOLVING THE DISPOSITION
OF THE REMAINING 109 ACRES OF THE GREENE TRACT
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill acquired the 169-acre
property known as the Greene Tract in 1984 as an asset of the joint solid waste management system;
and
WHEREAS, title to 60 acres of this property was deeded exclusively to Orange County in 2000 under
provisions of the 1999 interlocal "Agreement for Solid Waste Management;" and
WHEREAS, under the same interlocal agreement the County and Towns agreed to bargain in good
faith during the two-year period following the effective date of the agreement to determine the ultimate
use or disposition of the remaining 109 acres of the Greene Tract and
WHEREAS, the end date of the "bargaining period" as defined in the agreement is April 17,
2002, the second anniversary of the date upon which the County assumed overall responsibility for
solid waste management in Orange County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners does
hereby affirm the consideration of the Greene Tract for open space, affordable housing, school sites,
and non-solid waste public purposes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby affirm
the following points as the process to be pursued jointly with the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill to
resolve the disposition of the remaining 109 acres of the Greene Tract
• All three governing boards adopt a formal resolution affirming the general proposed uses
of the property they would be willing to consider
• Consideration of uses should be based on the cultural and biological resources
assessment reports that were produced regarding this property
• Jointly appoint a working group comprised of two elected officials from each of the three
entities
• Each Manager assigns specific staff to support the work group in planning different
options, consistent with the general direction from the three governing boards
• Hold a public forum on the general uses affirmed by the three governing boards during the
early part of the process ,
• Consider the use of consultants to assist in developing a realistic site analysis and
preliminary land use plan
• Refer the options developed to each of the three jurisdictions' Planning Boards for
comment .
• Try to develop options that provide as much specificity as possible (e.g. roadbeds, utility
lines, drainage, building footprints, buffers, etc)
• Target completion of the work group recommendations during September -October 2001
• Target reaching agreement among all three goveming boards on the disposition of the
remaining 109 acres between October — December 2001
This, the I s'day of May 2001.
LTNTRIOUTF.M97158M
Commissioner Carey and Commissioner Brown volunteered to serve on this work group. *
e. Drinking Water Week
The Board considered proclaiming May 6-12 as Drinking Water Week.
Chair Halldofis said that there would be a historic meeting on May 15th where the County
Manager, the Chair, the Vice-Chair, the County Engineer, and the County Attorney will travel to the
Orange-Alamance Water headquarters. This was finalized yesterday.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation as stated below.
Commissioner Brown said that the Commissioners all appreciate OWASA's efforts over
the years to protect the drinking water supply in Orange County.
WHEREAS, water is one of the few basic and essential needs of human-kind; and,
ORANGE
er -r • • •
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 1, 2001
Action Amend
Item No.
SUBJECT: Affirmation of Process for Resolving the Disposition of the Greene Tract
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Resolution
Agreement to Amend the September 1999
Solid Waste Agreement
Potential Framework for Determining the
Disposition of the Greene Tract
Definition of °Reimbursement Amount"
3/24/00 BOCC Letter to Town of
Chapel Hill
(Topic Discussed at 4125/01 Work Session)
INFORMATION- CONTACT:
John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough
732 -8181
Chapel Hill
96801
Durham
686 -7331
Mebane
336 -227 -2031
PURPOSE: To consider adopting a resolution affirming the general process to be used by
Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill to resolve the disposition of the
remaining 109 acres of the Greene Traci.
BACKGROUND: The solid waste management interlocal agreement signed by the County
and Towns in September 1999 and amended in March 2000 lays out parameters under which
the Greene Tract owners will resolve the ultimate disposition of the 109 acres of that parcel that
remain in joint ownership. The agreement also addresses how the Solid Waste/Landfill
Operations Enterprise Fund is to*be reimbursed if the property-is put to uses that are not related
to the solid waste enterprise: The agreement anticipates that'the Greene Tract owners will
reach agreement on the disposition of the property during a bargaining period that would
conclude on April 17, 2002 (the two year anniversary of the effective date upon which Orange
County assumed overall responsibility for solid waste management in Orange County).
In preparation for the April 19, 2001 Assembly of Governments meeting, the County and Town
Managers collaborated to prepare a potential framework for resolving the disposition of the
Greene Traci. There was insufficient time for the governing boards to discuss the topic at that
meeting, but the item was carried forward for BOCC discussion at their April 25 work session.
The BOCC felt that the work group should be limited to two elected officials from each of the
three governing boards, as members of all three boards are already well familiar with the issues
involved with the Greene Tract. The BOCC also discussed accelerating the timetable far
completion of the process. The Board discussed, but did not reach a conclusion, on whether, in
addition to `open space° the general uses eked for the Greene Tract should include `affordable
housing" and °schools ", or a designation such as 'non-solid waste public purposes ".
2
Staff have prepared a draft resolution for the Board to review, 'Modify, and adopt at the May 1
regular meeting. After the B ®CC adopts the resolution, it wiii be forwarded to the Towns of
Carrboro and Chapel Hill so their governing boards can consider formal adoption of similar
resolutions. '
FINANCIAL. I PACT: • There is no financial impact associated with the discussion of this
resolution. However, the County and Towns will be obliged to reimburse the Landfill Fund for
the original 1984 purchase price of $608,000, plus interest, if the Greene Tract is used for . .
purposes other than those of the solid waste system.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board adopt the, resolution and
appoint two -Commissioners to serve on the -short term work group with elected representatives
of the Towns of Canboro and Chapel Hill.
i
•- • r • • 0 -
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill acquired
the 169 acre property known as the Greene Tract in 1964 as an asset of the joint.
solid waste management system; and
WHEREAS, title to 60 acres of this property was deeded exclusively to Orange
County in 2000 under provisions of the 1999 interlocal °Agreement for Solid
Waste Management; and
WHEREAS, under the same interlocal agreement the County and Towns agreed
to bargain in good faith during the two year period following the effective date of
the agreement to determine the ultimate use or disposition of the remaining 109
acres of the Greene Tract; and
WHEREAS, the end date of the "bargaining period" as defined in the agreement
is April 17, 2002, the second anniversary of the date upon which the County
assumed overall responsibility for solid waste management in Orange County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of
Commissioners does hereby affirm the general intended uses of the Greene
Tract to include open space, affordable housing, school aites, non -solid
waste public purposes (note: BOCC to identify which of these uses are
included in the approved resolution); and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of
Commissioners does hereby affiffn the following points as the process to be
pursued jointly with the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill to resolve the
disposition of the remaining -109 acres of the Greene Tract:
® All three governing boards adopt a formal resolution affirming the general
proposed uses of the property
® Jointly appoint a working group comprised of two elected officials from each
of the three entitles
• Each Manager assigns specific staff to support the work group in planning
different options, consistent with the general direction from the three
goveming boards `
• Hold a public forum on the general uses affirmed by the three governing
boards during the early part of the process
• Consider the use of consultants to assist in developing a realistic site analysis
and preliminary land use plan
ff
DRAFT
t •
a Refer the options developed to each of the three jurisdictions' Planning
Boards for comment
e Try to develop'options that provide as much specificity as possible (e.g.
roadbeds, utility lines, drainage, building footprints, buffers, etc)
Target completion of the work group recommendations during September -
October 2001 ,
® Target reaching agreement among all three governing bobrds on the
disposition of the remaining 109 acres between October — December 2001
This, the 18t day of May, 2001.
Stephen H. Haikiotis
Chair,
c
I
i
` Agreement to Amend the Agreement
for Solid waste Maaagemreat
Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and
Hillsborough hereby agree to amend the "Agreement for Solid
Waste Maaagement.0
1. By deleting the paragxap� identified.as %_As_cM4Xe_
==e=ze in '- and -r .- it with the following:
The County _ . - c . _ real -• •
• - -_. c •nom. _ property - = it deems - 6. • • • + System
-purwoed. Th=e- shall be no on fibs County Is*
landfill,'. The Partiei3.acknowledge and s4port the county"s
position that as operator of solid mate operations, it
may, despite diligent pffdrts to explore alternativesi
settle upon' the area - oll and proximate to the '.existing
:closed landfill site on Eubanks Road as the location for
additional solid waste ¢ ficilities. The County states c
curzent intention not to acquire, and to recommendation
that future' County Governing Boards not acquire# any of
the pr • _ _. - ..fir • ' *' • as ■ - Blackwood ■ ). Nunn properties
for System purposes.
2. By deleting the paraviph identified as
in Part I and roplacing it with the following4
-7-111 IN
acres of _ resezried for 0J,,
f
in. either care without the consent of the other Greene-
Tract' Owners. TO the extent. permitted by law, - Chapel Rill
ag:;ees not to initiate any 'proceeding to rezone any
pariod,ff without thb� consent of the oth Greene Tract
.Owners. '. Chapel Hill' states its, current intent to
accotmodate any _ ♦ ", - . _. ».»t• future uses or _ ■.. - of uses
of the remai nd of the Greene . Tract in its Davelepment
Code/ordinancea and states its readamendktion, to future'
Chapel Hill Governin4 Boards. to the same affect.
After the O . - » _ ■ •, • - •'• ° is •iii• _ _. • c l'i -
tbe'.Py after the last day-of the.. Mxg 1W peri6d, no
Greene Tract Owner- shall (1) * file any'legal action or
proceeding. to force any,sale or division of the Greene
or otberWipe transfer all or a4 - parE 'of Its
interest- in: the. fteene* Tract, in eitbe case without
giving the other Greene Tract Owners at least 6V days'
prior notice of such filing or entering into an agreement.
in addition, after the "bargaining - pdriodv is' completed,
any Greene ' Tract Owner may give 60 daysi prior notice of
an election to • - Y • longer • -• • • by the _ • •
restrictions artaining to the uses of and whether to
impose use reigtrictic�s` on the remainder of the Greene
Tract, and such election shal be effectivi at: the end of
the notice period
_ Parties _. _ • _ _ tbaLt any no • system use of aby
portion of the remi;Lnder of - thd Green Tract or. any .
disposition of my %)ortion.of the er of the Greene
Tract sball - 11 • _ Iii- • n'♦ j t-. deposit t • - ti _ - II - ■ - • _
•• •
BY repl,
.40 = M 0 the date in the first paragraph of Paxt
7 with the - following -. ione mimth after the effective date -of
his _
S. BY amending _ •_- r• of • -. *Members; _ _1_„
provision.of ZzbJ it C to the Agreement to read an. follows:
(a) The first year of the term of each initial member
of -the Advisory Board.sball be deemed to expire on 0=6
30F 2001. Thereafter,, each ydar of the term. of an AdVisory
Board member will run fro Jul7? I tbroug12. the subsequent
JUne 30 ',r but each rp-mb= shall continue to serve until
such meld-Mr's successor has been duly appointed and
qualified for office.
FA
April 2001
THE REMAINING 109 ACRES OF
One element of the Interiocai agreement on solid waste management consummated in
September 1999 was the transfer of 60 acres of the Greene Tract (owned jointly by Orange
County and the Towns pf Can•boro and Chapel Hill)'to Orange County as a condition for the
County's assumption of overall solid waste management in Orange County: The intedocal
agreement established parameters that would impact the manner and terms under which
some or all. of the partners might'divest themselves of their respective interests in the
remaining 109 acres; ofthe Greene Traci. Further, the agreement established a fimeframe
for the partners to try to resolve the ultimate disposition of the remaining property -- within two
years of the County's assumption of responsibility — by April 2002.
The following suggested process for resolving the Greene Tract disposition was developed
largely on the basis of discussion in late November 2000 between Chair Moses Carey of the
Orange County Board of Commissioners, Mayor Mike Nelson of Carrboro, and. Mayor
Rosemary Waldorf of Chapel HUI. General uses discussed for some portion of the property
include open space, affordable housing, and school sites. The suggestion was made that all
partners specifically Indicate the intent not to use any portion of the remaining 109 acres of
the Greene Tract for solid waste purposes.
• All three governing boards adopt a formal resolution affirming the general proposed uses
of the property, as mentioned above, and the proposed process
• Jointly appoint a working group comprised of two elected officials and the Planning Board
chair and vice -chair from each of the three entities - large enough to develop diverse
options while small enough to work efficiently
• Each Manager assigns specific staff to support the work group (ri planning different
options, consistent with the general direction from the three governing boards
• Include plans to hold a ,public forum on the general uses affirmed by the three governing
boards during the early part of the process
• Consider the use of consultants to assist in developing a realistic site analysis and
preliminary (and use plan
• Refer the options developed to each of the three jurisdictions' Planning Boards for
comment
• Try to develop options that provide as much specificity as possible (e.g. roadbeds, utility
lines, drainage, building footprints, buffers, etc) — this Is an area where consultant
expertise could be most helpful
• Target completion of the work group recommendations by October 2001
• Target reaching agreement among all three governing boards on the disposition of the
remaining 109 acres between February — April 2002
North Carol 4 na local overamimt that -in also a
parj:y, so long as that
08 being ,.. _ - -
.- Grams, Tract
m1wia acres of the Grams Tract being disposed
and the -anominator of
dUch is 3.69, _ .. . ,,, .. - . Interest .r.
tb e pr t of W and
(b) at tIm annual rate of 6.001k from Maw6h.30,
3.984, th the effective
date-oi any disposition,, and (2) in the case of
any otbaci dispositicn,,,
the greaCter of sither (a). the. Reimbursement Auv�ruat to a gorth Carolina
. a -
local . w' ... •IBS _Ji that also"
sale after-the costs of the k4le axe paid.
l
MasmCON ..1uL Ca4m -ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
5W�1t M=CXM P.O. BOX 8181
AfAmAwrWaw
AU "r'p 200 S. CAMERON STREET
A40WJACOM l- ILLSBOR'OUGH, N.C. 27278
'71M, off
The Honorable Rosemary Waldorf; Mayor
Town of Chapel Hill
306 N. Columbia Street
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
At-our meeting on March 21, 2000, the Orange County Board of Commissioners completed
discussions on the recent biological and cultural surveys of the Greene tract, and reached a
conclusion on the 60 acres of the tract to be transferred to the County under the proposed
interlocal solid waste agreement. Previously, at our meeting on March 14, 2000, the Board of
Commissioners approved an amendment to that agreement that removed rezoning of a 60 -acre
portion • of the Greene Tract as a condition for transfer of solid waste management responsibility
to the County. In addition, at the regular meeting on March 21, 2000, the Board unanimously
approved a resolution "to withdraw Orange County's support for the rezoning request" for the
Greene tract. The minutes of the meeting will reflect this action, and County Attorney Geoffrey
Gledhill has determined that this action is sufficient to document the County's position on this
With our actions on these issues, we have tried to maintain the momentum that we have all
worked so hard to achieve during the past year towards completing the reorganizatioa of the
solid waste management structure in Orange County. Our target now for the handover of solid
waste responsibility is Monday, April 17. In order to meet that timeline under the provisions of
the amendment to the interlocal agreement we have approved, there would also need to be
agrmnent from the governing boards of Canboro and - Chapel Hill by March 31 to the
delineation of 60 acres of the Greene Tract and to the interlocal agreement amendment. As we
understand it these are the only remaining policy decisions needed to complete the transfer from.
the Town of Chapel Hill to Orange County. The reason for the lag between final decisions by
the three governing boards and the effective date of the transfer is that County staff will need at
least one ;Cull two -week pay period to arrange pay and benefits enrollment, and to carry out
related administrative actions necessary to transfer the Solid Waste Department staff from
Chapel MR to Orange County employment. If either or both the municipal governing boards are
unable to reach agreement with the County on the 60 -acre designation and the amendment to the
intmiocal agreement by Match 31, then we will revise the target date far handover to the start of
the subsequent County pay period, which is May 1.
With regard to the 60 -acre Greene Tract designation, Map I (attached) shows the area that
Orange County would like to have transferred to County ownership. This area was selected after
considerable discussion and review of site characteristics, and offers an opportunity to preserve
- You Count In Crwga County
(919) 245-2130 • F"(919) 644 -0246
it •♦ :. 1! l :1 • 1. 1 \i • ''i : G;.:" • 1. 1 ♦ • 1 "• 1Y 1.. '.1 • t♦ / -•:a / 1:_ =•;: •
! '..• :'L y. +�: -. _ 1. _. III' I! T Al . r =i "11 : • / • •1t1 -.1:1 '.'Y • 7 a ' am.'14i
TPA
1" _. 1L _. ..• S11 `•1 "%.'t • t • 1 1. 1: If at :: 41 Fv.'f !' /= 'IMl +i • :1M • t. f 1 _. t••..a dt _ill .1 : 11
1. f: .� 1 ! i • f 1 1 _. i. • .1 t : !J ...I • 1 1 /1.. •' 11 • / •i/ • l r:. • 4• tl • • 1 %11.1 :, • 1: • 1 •
•.:.c ♦ 1 _ ai. x � n - t • 1' • � Y 1 a 1 - ; a :t a • :1■ n1 '1
1 t f : '.. ?: • t • 1 1 i. • -• -_ :7 ' ' ral •. :. 'i • T/ Y: 1 I Oro 777. t • 1 ..� _
.. a/ • :71 I • • •J :1 .� 1 f t 1. " � 1 • {. 1 / • t • t • 1 tri : 1 1
,. i :::.• ♦ 1 1 i ! :. {. / • 1 :.{ + : � -1 :- {111• : 1' / / : 1' t • / • ♦ :. i f. 1
\ 1 •' it - •. I 1 ' \ 1 1 • 1 1 - � - '+;. • 1 1 • / • 1 ) : 1 • 11 -. :-1 :1• f 1 • i -
• Ir., I M1 ♦ 1
a• al I • Y / t :1 / 1 1 t =f :If • 1 • •1. 11 1 1 li i :'II t ':-. t'+M.
' • • t • 7, '/ - It 111: 1 / I I • :. 11 / • • • ah •
7 / 1. : : 1 / 7 1 / • T 11 :1/ / 1 1 '1 • /1 \ill 1. • i, %. 1 •' 1 1 1 if .-.7 / / a /1 • y1. G �-�i
1+ • 11 ' U : y 11 • t y. _ Y1 %. '1 .: • - it _. ii ".-: • • t :1 1 1.
/ • • v f • • :11. 1 r >. I • :. L • ) 1 1 11 hk 4 1 ' : f a It . 1 r. 1 / -. t :. t • Zi. • :1 • 1 �. _..IY : / a.. f
1
•
is 1 9 All! ► •
is I
/ 1 • '1 • .-1 63 :.11 • • 111 • ^ t! .. / Y -1
1
>1• `r f ail\ : t • " 11 • • ;1 'r=i1 T • 1 1 ►+f • y '.
' !J '�- 11 11. I• ii ' 1 1 1 ' '., !J �" •/ :i 11 •I' • t � . : ' - : • : • +i1i +{11.
vtl 1
WHERAS, ancestral Armenian lands taken by the Ottoman Turks have not been returned to the
Armenian people, nor have the Armenians received compensation for their losses; and
WHERAS, Armenians traditionally designated April 20 as ARMENIAN MARTYRS DAY, in
recognition and remembrance of those who died during the Armenian genocide; and
WHERAS, Orange County finds it equally important to remember the atrocities committed against
others in the name or religious, racial and ethnic cleansing so that we do not forget the inevitable
outcome of our daily intolerances; and
WHERAS, it is important to remember history so that mistakes of the past are not repeated for
future generations;
NOW, THEREFORE, do we, the Commissioners of Orange County, proclaim April 24th, 2002 as
Armenian Martyrs Day and commend this observance to all Orange County citizens in
remembrance of the atrocities of the 20th century.
THIS, THE le DAY OF APRIL 2002.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Resolution to Extend the -q Period 'od for Disposition of the Greene Tract
The Board considered a resolution extending the bargaining period for Orange County and
the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill to resolve the disposition of the remaining 109 acres of the
Greene Tract
John Link said that they only need another 60 days to be able to accomplish the total mission.
Commissioner Brown said that the work group was trying to understand how a sewer line
would be extended. They are waiting for an elevation survey that would show how a sewer line could be
extended to the property. If a sewer line could not be extended, then affordable housing could not go in
this area.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve
and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution as stated on page two of the abstract and as stated below,
which extends the bargaining period for 60 days.for disposition of the Greene Tract that remains in joint
ownership.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SO-DAY EXTENSION OF THE BARGAINING
PERIOD FOR DISPOSITION OF THE PORTION OF THE GREENE TRACT THAT
REMAINS IN JOINT OWNERSHIP
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill acquired the property known as
the Greene Tract in 1984 as an asset of the joint solid waste management system; and
WHEREAS, title to 60 acres of this property was deeded exclusively to Orange County in 2000 under
provisions of the 1999 interlocal "Agreement for Solid Waste Management7; and
WHEREAS, under the same interlocal agreement the County and Towns agreed to bargain in good' faith
during the two-year period following the efil6ctive date of the agreement to determine the ultimate use or
disposition of the balance of the acreage on the Greene Tract; and
WHEREAS, the end date of the "bargaining period" as defined in the agreement is April 17, 2002, the
second anniversary of the date upon which the County assumed overall responsibility for solid waste
management in Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the governing boards of all three jurisdictions approved resolutions in November or
December 2001 that outlined their interests for programming basic uses of the balance of the Greene
Tract', and
WHEREAS, the Work Group was charged to develop a more detailed written and graphic concept plan
for the use of the remaining 109 acres for presentation to each board by March 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group has transmitted a resolution to all three governing boards that provides a
progress report and that indicates that they have reached substantial agreement on a concept plan as
outlined on the accompanying map (Straw Proposal Concept Plan 4); and
WHEREAS, the Work Group resolution indicates that they have not yet reached agreement regarding
what designation should be placed on the approximately 11 acres shown in blue on Concept Plan 4 and
would like a 60-day extension of the bargaining period to try to reach consensus;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners does
hereby approve a 60-day extension of the bargaining period to permit further Work Group effort to
finalize a recommended concept plan for subsequent approval by each governing board.
This, the 16th day of April 2002.
,VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f. Resolution Endorsing to SP
q and Agreeing Sponsor and Host a Water Summit
The Board considered a resolution endorsing and agreeing to sponsor and host a Water
Summit on May 16, 2002 from 4:00 — 8:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
Commissioner Gordon added some language to this as follows: Between the 5�h and 6fl'
"Whereas," —"Whereas, Orange County has sponsored in cooperation With the U. S. Geological Survey,
two studies of groundwater resources in Orange County." Also, in the last "Whereas" —"Whereas,
Orange County finds it desirable and necessary that all water utilities and other interested parties,
serving the citizens of the County have an opportunity to meet and discuss issues of mutual concern and
benefit including both surface water and groundwater resources." Also, in the "Now, Therefore" section,
she added "and other interested parties" before "and to direct staff..."
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve
the resolution and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution as amended and as stated below.
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING AND AGREEING TO SPONSOR
AND HOST A WATER SUMMIT
WHEREAS, Orange County, in discharging its statutory responsibilities to protect and enhance the public
health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of Orange County, does have a strong interest in assuring
the availability of high quality sources of potable water-, and
WHEREAS, Orange County owns and operates Lake Orange, a water supply reservoir that serves as a
primary water supply for the Town of Hillsborough and the Orange-Alamance Water System; and
WHEREAS, Orange County coordinates the use of water supplies drawn from the Eno River under the
provision of the Eno River Capacity Use Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Orange County has no pecuniary interest in the sale or transfer of treated or raw water
supplies within the County or elsewhere; and
�j 0 c4- I S, 2,,.002-1
Another student spoke about the finances. She said that they need $25,000 every year in order to
reach their goal of one home each year. The grant from the AAMC runs out in 2004. Over three years, they are
short $58,500. They are asking for a one-time supplement to the AAMC grant in the amount of $58,500. This will
allow the creation of a permanent endowment to support annual home construction. Their goal is to raise $500,000
for a SHAC Health for Habitat endowment by the year 2005. This money will be placed at the North Carolina
Medical Foundation. At a rate of 5% interest, this will accrue $25,000 annually, which is what is required to build
one home each year. This is a one-time request for funds.
Chair Jacobs said that it was great to see students that are committed to the community.
Commissioner Brown asked that Housing and Community Development Director Tara Ekes review
any proposals fiom SHAC.
Commissioner Carey said that this would be the next step, for them to put the proposal in writing.
One of the students introduced the faculty advisors.
b. Recognition of County Participation in the Cape Fear River Assembly
The Board received a special presentation of a plaque recognizing the County's participation in the Cape
Fear River Assembly. •
Dave Stancil said that last year the County joined the Cape Fear River Assembly. It is an organization
of over 400 members and has a Board of Directors. ' The charge of the group is to address quality of life and water
quality issues in the Cape Fear basin. He introduced Executive Director Don Freeman.
Don Freemen presented a plaque to the County and distributed bumper stickers. He is a former
student and resident of Orange County. He said that they have recently received $500,000 from the North Carolina
Attorney General's officefor environmental enhancement purposes. They intend to accomplish continued
availability of water for their use and for healthy ecosystems. He said that we cannot take water for granted. He
heard at a drought meeting that it takes 50 inches of rainfall to result in one inch of groundwater. He recognized
Orange County's leadership and commitment to proper resource management He thanked Chair Jacobs for his
participation on the Board of Directors. Don Freeman said that 27% of North Carolina's population is within the
Cape Fear River Basin. It extends from Greensboro down to Wilmington.
Commissioner Brown said that our County is the headwaters for both the Neuse and the Cape Fear
Basin and we are very cognizant of this fact Working together with the other counties is very important
C. omrnetYaations from the Greene.Tract Work Group
Thiel B6ikrd received a report from the Greene Tract Work Group regarding their recommendations to the
goveming boards of Orange County and the Towns of Can-boro and Chapel Hill regarding the disposition of the
104 acres of the Greene Tract that remain in joint ownership.
Assistant County Manager Rod Visser said that the Greene Tract Group has been working for a year.
Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro are the joint owners of 104 acres of the Greene Tract. The remainder of
the property is currently a landfill asset. The group had seven or eight meetings including a public input meeting.
The work group has approved a resolution, which lays out the recommendations. The main points include that 85
acres be held in open space protected by conservation easements and that 18 acres be earmarked for affordable
housing to be placed in a land trust The main factor that affected the decision about affordable housing was
related to the capacity of the land to. carry development that would be necessary for affordable housing. There was
a lot of discussion about how sewer lines could be developed to serve the development
Commissioner Carey chaired the work group and said that this is one of the most studied pieces of land
in all of Orange County. He thinks that the resolution and the concept plan achieve the charge and the group
should be commended as well as the staff.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve and
authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the second to the last paragraph and if this means reimbursement
for the open space and the housing area.
Rod Visser said that there is a fair amount of latitude that the local governments have on the timeline of
the reimbursement He does not have a direct answer to this question.
Commissioner Carey said there is no answer to this question, and that is why they asked.the managers
to work on this and bring some recommendations back.
Commissioner Gordon said that the housing area would have to be paid for whenever it is used for
housing. She asked if the whole 18 acres had to be paid for. She asked about the following paragraph, which is
about reimbursement of the Solid Waste Landfill Enterprise Fund for the portions of the site designated for
affordable housing and open space. She asked which options this was talking about:
Rod Visser said that there might be other options besides just the local governments coming up with their
own general fund money. There may be some grant opportunities or other options.
Commissioner Gordon wants to see more detail in the next to the last paragraph about when the
options for reimbursement will be brought back. She thinks that this should be in the resolution.
Commissioner Carey said that the charge of the work group was not to address the payment it was to
come up with a proposal for future uses. They added the payment on their own volition. He said that to tamper
With the language now would not be wise and that all representatives have agreed to this. He said that if you
amend the language then it will have to go back to the other boards.
Commissioner Gordon asked Geoff Gledhill what it says in the agreement about reimbursement Geoff
Gledhill did not recall what it says. He said that it is clear that when the property is put to a use other than solid
waste, then it triggers the requirement for reimbursement There is a lot of flexibility in how it is done.
Chair Jacobs said that this is a resolution that was adopted by the Greene Tract Work Group in June and
there is no resolution to adopt for this Board.
Rod Visser said that this is only a presentation to bring the Board up to speed on what the Greene Tract
't
r
Work Group has been doing. They were just looking for comments and questions from the County Commissioners.
Chair Jacobs pointed out that it was 10:20 p.m. He said that the Board accepts the. basic tenets of what
Work
group came up with and we are asking for more information on what the legal agreement was previously
regarding repayment and what steps the managers might recommend in the future regarding how and when the
reimbursements reimbursements would kick in.
Commissioner Brown said that there were excellent materials for the work group: and the these should
go out with this resolution.
Chair Jacobs asked about the study of the sewer possibilities and if they address the Neville tract. The
staff Will come back with an answer to this.
Chair Jacobs suggested doing the consent agenda and then items 9a and 9d.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - none
8. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve those items
on the consent agenda as stated below
a. Minutes
We Board approved minutes from the following meetings: April 22, 2002 budget1cip work session; April
30, 2002-work session; May 6, 2002 joint meeting With Hillsborough; May 13, 2002 (6:00pm) — work session; May
13, 2002 (7:30pm)-budget work session; June 6, 2002 (6:00pm)qoint meeting With the Planning Board; June 20,
2002- budget work session; June 24, 2002-budget work session; June 27, 2002-regular meeting; and August 20,
2002 — regular meeting.
b. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule
We Board changed its regular meeting schedule to change the beginning time of the October 21, 2002
Work Session to 5:30 p.m.; to move the Board Retreat from December 7, 2002 to January 25, 2003 beginning at
9:00am.
C. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Refunds
The Board adopted a refund resolution, Which is incorporated herein by reference, related to 36
requests for motor vehicle property tax refunds.
d. Budget Amendment
We Board approved budget ordinance and capital project ordinance amendments for Conservation
Easement, Whitted Human Services Center, and Northern Human Services Center for fiscal year 2002-03
e. Agreement Renewal Between UNC Hospitals and Oran- e County for the Senior Wellness
Pro-gram.
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign an agreement renewal to receive $50,000 from
the University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospitals for their co- sponsorship of the Department of Aging's Senior
Wellness Program from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003.
f. Contract Award — Piggy Back of Bid for 2. 100 Roll Cart Containers
We Board awarded and authorized the Chair to sign a contract for the purchase of 2,100 roll cart
containers from Toter Incorporated of Statesville, North Carolina.
g. Resolution Appointing Evelyn Cecil As Acting Deputy Clerk
The Board officially appointed Evelyn Cecil as acting Deputy County Clerk so that various functions
and duties can be performed in the absence of the Clerk to the Board while the Deputy's Clerk's position is vacant
h. Petition for Addition of Subdivision Roads to the State Maintenance Pro-gram.
We Board approved requests to add Rhine Road, Taproot Lane, Piney Bluff Court Loblolly Court,
Piney Hollow Court, Pine Needle Court, and Pine Cone Lane to the State Maintained Secondary Road System.
SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Greene Tract Work Group
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN). No
ATTACHMENT(S):
6126/02 Work Group Resolution
(incorporates Map of Concept Plan)
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 9684501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive a report from the Greene Tract Work Group regarding their
recommendations to the governing boards of Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and
Chapel Hill regarding the disposition of the 1,04 acres of the Greene Tract that remain in joint
ownership.
BACKGROUND: The solid waste management interlocal agreement signed by the County
and Towns in September 1999 and amended in March 2000 lays out parameters under which
the Greene Tract owners will resolve the ultimate disposition of the approximately 104 acres of
that parcel that remain in joint ownership. The agreement also addresses how the Solid
Waste/Landfill Enterprise Fund is to be reimbursed if the property is put to uses that are not
related to the solid waste enterprise. The intedocal agreement anticipated that the Greene
Tract owners would reach agreement on the disposition of the property during a bargaining
period that concluded on April 17, 2002 (the two year anniversary of the effective date upon
which Orange County assumed overall responsibility for solid waste management in Orange
County).
The Greene Tract Work Group provided an interim report to the three governing boards in the
form of a resolution dated March 21, 2002. That resolution requested that each of the three
governing boards approve an extension to the bargaining period to allow the completion of
discussions that could lead to consensus on a concept plan for the remainder of the Greene
Tract. All three governing boards approved an extension of the bargaining period, which led to
the Work Group (with Commissioners Brown and Carey representing the BOCC) reaching
consensus on a concept plan for the ultimate disposition of the 104 acres of the Greene Tract
remaining under joint ownership. The accompanying resolution and concept plan map reflect
the Work Group's recommendations, which now go to the three governing boards for
discussion.
2
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the discussion of this
resolution. However, the County and Towns will be obliged to reimburse the Landfill Fund for
the original 1984 purchase price of $608,000, plus interest, if, as recommended by the Work
Group, the Greene Tract is used for purposes other than those of the solid waste system.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the
recommendations from the Work Group and provide appropriate direction to staff.
DRAFT
GREENE TRACT WORK GROUP
Ja
WHEREAS, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Frill acquired the property
known as the Greens Tract in 1984 as an asset of the joint solid waste management system;
and
WHEREAS, tide to 60 acres of this property was deeded exclusively to Orange County in 2000
under provisions of the 1999 interlocal "Agreement for Solid Waste Management"; and
WHEREAS, under the same interlocal agreement the County and Towns agreed to bargain in
good faith during the two year period following the effective date of the agreement to determine
the ultimate use or disposition of the balance of the acreage on the Greene Tract and
WHEREAS, the end date of the "bargaining period" as defined in the agreement was April 17,
2002, the second anniversary of the date upon which the County assumed overall responsibility
for solid waste management in Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the Greene Tract Work Group considered direction from the respective governing
boards, comments from interested citizens and organizations, and information developed by
staff in response to Work Group inquiries in developing a recommended concept plan for the
balance of the Greene Tract; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group reported to all three governing boards in a resolution dated March
21, 2002 that it had reached substantial agreement on a concept plan providing for
approximately 78 acres to be earmarked for open space protected by conservation easements
and approximately 15 acres to be earmarked for affordable housing but had not yet reached
agreement regarding what designation should be placed on the remaining 11 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group had recommended in that March 21, 2002 resolution that the
following additional steps be taken:
• The area shown on the concept plan as open space should be protected by executing a
conservation easement between appropriate parties
• The Board of County Commissioners should consider protecting its 60 acre portion of the
Greene Tract by executing a conservation easement with an appropriate party -
• The Chapel Hill Town Council should consider initiating a small area planning process to
examine desirable land uses for the Purefoy Road area
• The property should be renamed in a manner that recognizes the significance of this area as
the headwaters for three important streams (Bolin Creek Old Field Creek, and Booker
Creek)
• The governing boards should take note of the public investment already made in the general
vicinity of the Greene Track as cataloged in an accompanying table; and
WHEREAS, the governing boards of all three jurisdictions approved resolutions extending the
bargaining period beyond Aprill 7, 2002 in order to allow the Greene Tract Work Group
additional time to try to reach consensus on the basic uses to be established for the
approximately 11 acres at that time unresolved; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group received a technicai report from the County Engineer outlining the
basic alternatives available and approximate costs for providing sewer service to a portion of the
Greene Tract, which service would be necessary for the economical and practical provision of
affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group concluded by consensus that "the carrying capacity of the land°
should be the determining factor in establishing how much of the unresolved 11 acres should be
earmarked for specific purposes, and that the ridge line reflected on the accompanying concept
map determines the portion (approximately one -third) of the 11 acres that can practically be
used for affordable housing served by a sewer line that would access the Greene Tract via '
Purefoy Road:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group'does hereby'
recommend that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the
Orange County Board of Commissioners accept the accompanying map as the Work Group's
consensus recommendation for a concept plan for that portion of the Greene Tract not deeded
exclusively to Orange County, with the acreage to be set aside for open space protected by
conservation easements approximating 85.90 acres and the acreage for affordable housing
approximating 18.10 acres;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three governing boards that the acreage for affordable housing be placed in the Land Trust;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three governing boards that the Managers investigate options for reimbursement of the Solid
Waste"ndfrll Enterprise Fund for the portions of the site designated for affordable housing and
open space; and
BE fT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to
the three governing boards that the triggering mechanism for reimbursement to the Solid
Waste/Landfill Enterprise Fund should be formal action taken by all three boards to approve
conservation easements protecting the designated open space, with such approvals taking
effect no sooner than July 1, 2003, and no later than July 1, 2005.
This, the 261' day of June, 2002.
Moses Carey, Jr.
Chair
Greene Tract Work Group
4
Environment & Resource Conservation
306 -A Revere Road / PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245 -2590, Fax: (919) 644 -3351
IkJ1;I►VJ * C : b h�
TO: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager
FROM: David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director
DATE: April 22, 2008
RE: Potential Environmental Impacts of Greene Tract Use Expansion
At the April 8 Board of Commissioners worksession, staff was instructed to assess the
environmental impact of expanding activity on the site into an area south of the
designated Affordable Housing segment (Tract 2). For purposes of this memo, this area
is- referred to as "Possible Tract 2 Expansion Area."
ERCD has evaluated this area immediately south of Tract 2. The evaluation is based on
ERCD's comprehensive resource GIS database, a site visit, and the findings from two
previous surveys of the Greene Tract —a cultural resource survey by TRC Garrow
Associates (2000) and a biological resources survey by Robert Goldstein and Associates
(2000). This has been augmented by stream buffer information obtained from the Town
of Chapel Hill Planning Department
The cultural resources survey (TRC Garrow) identified two historic sites that are
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Those two former home
sites are shown on-the attached map (Figure 1) as the Byrd House Site and the Potts
House Site. The survey recommended that any land disturbing or human activities should
attempt to avoid these sites and their immediate environs, for possible future
archaeological work. However, neither of these sites is within the Possible Tract 2
Expansion Area, and development in the proposed expansion area would not impact
either of the two historic sites.
The biological resource survey (Goldstein & Associates) identified the proposed
expansion area as pine - dominated forest A review of historic aerial photos suggests that
this part of the forest is somewhat older than the adjacent Affordable Housing area
(which was open fimuland in 1938) but not as mature as the hardwood forest located in
the eastern and north parts of the Greene Tract. Both Tract 2 and the Possible Tract 2
Expansion Area were identified as "prime forest wildlife habitat" in an inventory of
prime forest conducted by researchers for the Triangle Land Conservancy in 1999.
Two small streams (Bolin Creek headwater streams) extend north into this area from the
southwest corner of the Greene Traci. The Goldstein survey identified possible wetlands
within the narrow stream corridors shown on the attached Figure 1. The streams and
wetlands should be protected from disturbance associated with future development.
The Town of Chapel Hill requires stream buffers for any streams that qualify as a
Resource Protection District. For intermittent streams the Town requires 50 feet of buffer
on both sides of the stream and for perennial streams the Town requires 150 feet on both
sides. To determine the exact amount of buffer, a stream determination would be needed
from the Town's stormwater department.
In summary, any development in this area would need to work around the streams,
buffers and possible wetlands. However,Ihis does appear to leave an area of
approximately 12 acres that could be used for other purposes without impacting the
identified primary biological and cultural assets.
Copies: Willie Best, Assistant County Manager
Craig Benedict, Planning Director
Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager
10WASAI ORANGE WATERAND SEWERAUTHORHY
Quality Service Since 1977
�i I' U (I) =M
TO: Gordon Sutherland
FROM: Ed Holland
DATE: June 22, 2007
SUBJECT: Preliminary Concept Plans and Cost Fstimates for Providing Sewer
Service to the Rogers Road Study Area
Background and Overview
Per our recent meetings, OWASA staff has provided three concept plans and associated
cost estimates (preliminary) for a sewer collection system that could serve the Town of
Chapel Hill's study area east of Rogers Road. Virtually all existing parcels in the study
area have access to OWASA water lines; therefore, this exercise focused on sewer
service only. If the Town or others decide to pursue these or other sewer concepts,
additional engineering and professional services will be needed to provide site -level
detail and an overall determination of project feasibility.
The concept plans represent three potential gravity flow configurations. None
incorporate sewage pumping stations, which OWASA only approves in unusual
circumstances where property cannot be served by gravity options. We have found that
pumping stations are expensive to maintain and less reliable over time, due to the greater
risk of mechanical failure and resulting sewage spills, than are gravity systems. As
shown in Concepts A and B, wastewater from most of the study area would flow toward
the upstream portion of a sewer line that the Town of Carrboro is extending
approximately 900 feet to an area that was annexed in 2006. According to North
Carolina annexation laws, that facility must be completed by the end of January 2008.
Our concept drawings do not include portions of the sewer system that will be installed
for properties within the study area that are being developed by Habitat for Humanity,
nor do these concept plans anticipate service to most of the Greene Tract, which are
intended to remain as permanent open space.
Under Concepts A and B, sewer service would not be available to 11 existing parcels in
the study area, as indicated by purple cross - hatching on the drawings. Additional sewer
lines near the southeastern portion of the study area would be.needed to serve 10 of those
11 lots, as shown in Concept C. None of the three concepts plans could provide sewer
service to the single small lot in the extreme northwest corner of the study area
Preliminary Rogers Road Sewer Concepts
June 22, 2007
Page 2
Concepts A and B are identical, except for the manner in which gravity service is
provided to the several parcels immediately west of the Neville Traci. Concept A, which
directs gravity flow northward to the new sewer line that will serve the Orange Regional
Landfill, would be approximately 10 percent more expensive than Concept B, but would
likely offer gravity service to a greater number of fuh re lots. Concept B represents a
slightly less expensive configuration, but may not offer sufficient flexibility if the two
properties immediately west of the Neville Tract are subdivided for further development.
These preliminary conclusions still need to be confirmed by engineering analyses and
field surveys.
Concept C offers sewer service to the 10 existing lots within the study area that could not
be served by either Concept A or B. Concept C would also provide service to
approximately 20 additional lots in the Billabong Lane vicinity, which is outside of the
delineated Rogers Road study area.
A combination of either Concept A or B, plus Concept C, would therefore be needed to
serve all existing properties within the study area, except for the single lot in the
northwest corner of the study area, which cannot be served by gravity sewer under any of
the three configurations.
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Project Costs — The table on the next page summarizes the preliminary estimated cost
components of each concept plan. These were derived through the same methods used to
estimate OWASA's own capital project costs. Further details are available on request.
The following important caveats should be observed as these estimates inform the Roger
Road Small Area planning process:
• If the Town or others decide to pursue these sewer system concepts, additional
engineering and professional services will be needed to provide site -level detail and
overall determinations of engineering feasibility.
• Construction cost estimates reported below are only preliminary and are not based
on any assessment of field conditions. Cost estimates typically become more
precise as detailed engineering design proceeds.
• Estimates are based on the best information available as of June 2007. OWASA
assumes that project costs will escalate at a rate of 8 percent per yeaz. We
recommend that this inflation factor be used in any future interpretation of these
estimates.
• The overall extent of these concept plans and the number of unserved parcels will
change in the future if (or as) individual development projects extend new lines to
currently unsewered properties.
Preliminary Rogers Road Sewer Concepts
June 22, 2007
Page 3
The table includes prof costs only. Additional per lots costs for connecting
individual properties to the sewer system are discussed in the section below.
Estimated Project Costs of Three Seger System Concept Plans
for Chapel Bill's Rogers Road Study Area
Concept
Concept
Concept
Concepts
Concepts
A
B
C
A +C
B +C
Engineering Design
$220,000
$190,000
$100,000
$320,000
$290,000
Construction
$2,180,000
$1,900,000
$970,000
$3,150,000
$2,870,000
Construction Administration
$110,000
$100,000
$50,000
$160,000
$140,000
Construction Inspection
$110,000
$100,000
$50,000
$160,000
$140,000
Contingency
$260,000
$230,000
$120,000
$380,000
$340,000
Totals
$2,880,000
$2,520,000
$1,290,000
$4,170,000
$3,780,000
Individual Connection Costs — As noted, the preceding table only includes estimates of
constructing the sewer collection system itself. Additional ep r lot costs for connecting to
the new system would include the following:
OWASA Service Availability Fee — This one -time connection fee represents the
proportional cost of "buying in" to OWASA's existing facility infrastructure (main sewer
lines, treatment plant, etc.) and is assessed according to the square footage of residential
properties. The sliding scale of availability fees that will be effective as of October 1,
2007 ranges from $2,441 for homes of less than 1,300 square feet to $4,514 for homes of
greater than 3,800 square feet. Fees for multi- family residences will be $2,645 per unit.
A different scale of availability fees applies to non - residential sewer connections.
Private Plumbing Costs — The pipe that extends from a building to the OWASA sewer
line is called a lateral. Unlike pipes in OWASA's system, the lateral is part of the private
property served by the public sewer. Installation and maintenance of the lateral is the
responsibility of the property owner, who typically contracts with a private plumber for
installation. Costs depend on several factors, especially the distance from the building to
the OWASA sewer line. A recent telephone survey of several local plumbers indicated
prices in the range of $25 per foot. That is, installation of a 50 -foot lateral would cost
approximately $1,250, a 100 -foot lateral would cost approximately $2,500, and so forth.
Sewer Tap Charge — This fee is for physically connecting the private sewer lateral to the
OWASA sewer line. The base tap charge, effective as of October 1, 2007, will be $318.
Preliminary Rogers Road Sewer Concepts
June 22, 2007
Page 4
Monthly User Fees — In addition to the one -time service availability fee, tap charge, and
private plumbing costs, all OWASA customers pay monthly water and sewer bills that
include a fixed service charge plus a water and sewer commodity charge based on the
number of gallons used each month. The typical water plus sewer bill of a residential
customer using an average of 6,000 gallons per month will generally range from $60 and
-$70 per month. Bills will vary according to the actual amount of water used.
OWASA staff has appreciated the opportunity of providing this information to support
Chapel Hill's Rogers Road Small Area Planning process and will be glad to answer
questions or provide further details as needed.
Edward A. Holland, AICP
Planning Director
attachments
cc: Mason Crum, P.E.
Orange County
F-7rdm"A
306-A Revere Road I-PO-BOX-8181
Rillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919)245-2597, Fax: (919) 644-3351
Memorandum
To: Greene Tract Work Group
t
Date: February 26, 2002
Re: Sewer Extmdon to Greene Tract
On February 25th, County Engineer Paul Thames and I met with OWASA Engineering
Manager Todd Spencer to explore alternative means of extending sewer to the portion of
the Greene Tract being considered for development (based on discussions at the
February 2e meeting).
From an engineering standpoint, the most efficient and direct method of providing
access to the site continues to be via Bolin Creek However, the following alternatives
have been identified and explored in a preliminary way.
1. Bohn Creek Parallel, Existing Terminus to Greene Tract Boundary
This option wouldextend the existing sewer line from its current terminus on
Bohn Creek northeast of the Homestead Road/Rogers Road intersection.
However, rather than placing the line along the creek, this option would offset
the line extension to the northwest of Bolin Creek and parallel the creek to the
Greene Tract boundary. The extension of sewer could then move north of the
Bolin Creek corridor as it crosses the Greene Tract boundary, avoiding the
sensitive bottomland hardwoods along the creek on the Greene Tract The sewer
line could be routed in a manner to minimize disturbance along the creek and
reduce the amount of clearing necessary. While OWASA requires a 30-foot wide
easement for its sewer mains, it would be possible to limit the cleared portion to
only 20 feet minor adjustments to the alignment could also be made to avoid
larger specimen trees and retain the buffer along the creek to the greatest extent
possible.
This option would avoid more expensive pumping of sewer by using gravity lines,
and would be able to serve almost all of the proposed affordable housing area (on
the revised map for the March 7h meeting). Some easement acquisition would be
necessary for 4-5 tracts that lie along Bolin Creek between the current sewer
terminus and the Greene Tract
2. Easements from EXISt3ng Lines to Purefoy Road -
A second approach would be to attempt to extend sewer northward from 'a
manhole at the cul-de-sac in the Habitat for Humanity subdivision. Without an
engineering survey to evaluate grades and elevations, however, it is not. possible
to determine if this is a -viable option for extension of gravity sewer.mains to the
Greene Tract. Additionally, this option would require the acquisition of
easements from several occupied lots along Rusch Road and Purefoy Road. The
line could then extend east along Purefoy Road to the Greene Tract.
There are several disadvantages to this approach - including higher sewer line
extension costs due to the lack of slope for gravity lines, potentially-complicated
easement purchases from the occupied house lots, and most significantly, a
limited service area within the Greene Tract, bemuse of the topography.
Consequently, providing sewer via this approach would likely limit. the area Of
the Greene Tract that could be sewered to a much smaller area north of the
proposed road. The areas south of the proposed road slopes away to . Bolin Creek,
and could not be served in this fashion.
The possible sewer alternatives will be shown on the March 7 iteration of the
proposed concept plan map.
Orange County
Housing and Community Development
Date:
April 21, 2008
To:
Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager
From:
Tara L. Fikes
Subject:
Greene Tract Affordable Housing Tract
As requested by the Board of County Commissioners, I met with the following individuals
today regarding the above referenced subject — Robert Dowling — OCHLT, Susan Levy —
Habitat for Humanity, Delores Bailey — EmPOWERment, Inc. in addition to Loryn Clark
and James Harris of Chapel Hill and Carrboro respectively The results of this meeting
are summarized below.
1. The group believes that the acreage set-aside for affordable housing should
remain at 18 acres regardless of whether a school is built on the site. Additional
acreage could be gained from either the jointly owned and/or County owned
parcels.
2. Further, the group does enthusiastically support a school site on the Greene
Tract and is committed to the work of the Rogers Road Small Area Task Force
but does not want to lose the 18 acres as stated above. Regarding the Task
Force, it should be noted that the Task Force plans to host a design charette that
is tentatively scheduled for the first Saturday in June 2008 to allow the
community to develop a "Master Plan" detailing the type of housing and other
development the neighborhood would like to see evolve in their community. So,
this request was a little uncomfortable for the group since this conversation is
planned in the future.
3. There was agreement that an alternative roadway to Purefoy Drive is essential to
any future development.
4. The group estimates that given the current zoning and the best land development
scenario on the 18 acre portion of the Greene Tract, a total of 80-100 dwelling
units could be built on the site. Of these units at least 40 could be single family
dwelling units with the remainder built as attached housing. Ideally, the housing
would provide both rental and homeownership opportunities, would serve all
income segments of the population up to 100% of median income, and provide
some units in the three (3) BR and higher size range. There should also be some
market rate houses built in the community as well.
5. It was noted that there should be a more "global" view of the entire area to
include the current plans of Habitat for Humanity and St. Paul AME Church.
Habitat plans a 50 unit single family development and on a 20 acre tract at the
end of Purefoy Drive and St. Paul Church has plans to develop a, 21.3 acre tract
at the comer of Rogers Road and Purefoy Drive.
The church has submitted a Concept Plan to the Town of Chapel Hill that
includes a 600 seat sanctuary, community and day - care centers, thirty (30)
single-family homes, a senior housing complex with 50 rental units and another
building with an unknown number of townhouses.
Given this planned development activity in the immediate area along with
development of the Greene Tract, the group suggested that a map be developed
that will provide a visual of these proposed developments in context with the
Greene Tract. If agreeable perhaps Planning/GIS staff could assist with creating
this map.
If you need additional information, please advise. Thanks.
Subject: Site Selection Report from the Long Range Facilities Committee
Division: Support Services, Steve Scroggs Department: Support Services
Person Steve Scroggs, Long Range Facility Feedback Committee
Responsible: Committee Requested
F'rom:
Agenda Item... Prior Submission Dates Public Hearing Required: No
Work Session No Date
Discussion and Action' No Date
Attachment(s):
none
PURPOSE: To provide the Board of Education with a report from the Long Range Facility
Committee on the search for future school sites. This report is a component of the full Long
Range Facility report that will be presented to the Board in May of 2008.
BACKGROUND:
In October of 2007, a collaborative group of school administrators, county planners and city
planners met to begin searching for future school sites in the Chapel Hill-Canboro City
School district The committee was made up of the following individuals.
Title
First
Last -
Represents
Mr.
Steve
Scroggs
Assistant Superintendent
Mr.
Bill
Mullin
Director of Facilities
Ms.
Pam
Jones
Orange County
Ms.
I JB
Culpepper
Town of Chapel Hill
Mr.
Roy
Williford
Town of Carrboro
Ms.
Perdita
Holtz
Orange County
Mr.
Craig
Benedict
Orange County
STAFF
Orange County OIS
The District would like to thank all of participants for the effort and hard work.
I
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\04172008BoardAgenda\Site
Selection abstractdoc
The group focused on finding elementary school sites for elementary number 11 and 12 as
both are needed in a 10-year window. The need for upper grade sites was also reviewed.
Middle school number 5 is already sited at the Morris Grove/Twin Creek site and additional
high school capacity will be added at Carrboro High School, thus the search focused on
elementary sites.
The group was charged with the task of identifying any potential school site that should be
reviewed finther for consideration. The parameters for the search included the following:
• A mirrimum of seven acres
• Slopes less than 15%
• Within the Urban Services Boundary
• Not in the watershed
• Not in the Rural Buffer
• Manageable Resource Conservation Districts
Combination of different parceld to meet the parcel requirements was allowed and if
structures existed on the site, their value was considered.
The group developed a list of potential sites that was then researched further to provide
additional information for consideration. This information included the following:
• Accessibility to utilities
• More highly delineated Resource Conservation Districts
- Proximity to existing schools
- Potential land acquisition costs
At the end of that review, several areas for potential sites were developed. Those areas
identified were the following:
• Eubanks and Martin Luther King Blvd
• Homestead Road and Seawell School Road
• 1-40 corridor, including Erwin Road
• Greene Tract
• Carolina North
• Old Highway 86
• Mt. Carmel Road
This information was then shared with the entire Long Range Facilities Committee starting in
December 7, 2007 and concluding with their March 31, 2008 meeting. Additiofid -input was
solicited from The Rogers Road Task Force and other governmental bodies within the
county.
The map on the next page illustrates the general location of the sites reviewed. Please note
that specific locations are not provided for sites not under current consideration but areas are
provided to inform the Board of the wide range of sites explored.
Three sites have been identified for further review and a fourth site is still being researched.
The fourth site is privately owned and conversations with the owner will be undertaken by
the County. That site is not a first or second site choice but would be considered for land
banking if funding is available.
C,\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\04172008BoardAgenda\Site 2
Selection abstract.doc
Site: Northside
Owner. Orange County
Acreage: 8.94
Structures: Northside School, Orange County Pre- School
Topography: A 44 foot drop from east to west elevations, the site is already terraced with
prime buildable acreage to the east.
RCD: There is a resource conservation district on the western edge of the property,
no impact to the project would be expected.
Tax Value: $0
This is the site of Northside School located between Caldwell and McMasters Street in the
middle of the Northside neighborhood. The site has served as a school location since being
built in 1924. Orange County. is the current owner of the property. Services now provided at
the site will be moving to other locations in the future freeing the site up for consideration.
The current Pre -K. operating on the site provided an addition to the school and currently
serves 50 -60 students. The immediate surrounding neighborhood has been changing over the
past years from a residential area to a UNC student housing area. There are currently 60
elementary students living in the immediate area.
Pros
Challenges
If acquired from the County, land costs
Consideration for present Pre -K operation
would be minimal
would be required
Site is already terraced for construction
Careful consideration of attendance zones
would be required to meet Board
expectations for balance in SES and Free and
Reduced lunch
Utilities are already in place
Some demolition would probably be required
adding to construction costs
Entry from Caldwell and McMasters could
Consideration of historical nature of the
separate bus and walking traffic
building would be required. Lincoln Alumni
representative felt this could be accomplished
Natural walk zone exists with a complete •
In a Neighborhood Conservation District that
sidewalk network in place
would restrict the height of the buildings
This may be the only site in the central area
A prototype (Scruggs or Rashkis) would be
of either town that would ever be available
difficult to fit on the site
The SUP was approved on 12113/76 for
quasi - public use for institutional
or lions of an educational nature
School placement would be a positive to the
net borhood
C:\Documents and Settings\Adruinistrator \Desktop\04172008BoardAgenda\ .Site 3
Selection. abstract.doc
Site: Greene Tract
Owner. Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County Solid Waste
Acreage: 18+ (affordable housing area)
Structures: none
Topography: A 22 foot drop from north to south elevations
RCD: There is a resource conservation district south of the affordable housing area;
this may limit expansion in that area.
Tax Value:* $0
The Greene Tract is a multi-jurisdictional piece of property located at the end of Purefoy
Road. The ownership of the Greene Tract,, as defined in the April 8, 2008 Board of County
Commissioners agenda item on the tract, is provided below.
a. BACKGROUND; LAND USE AND OVAIMSHIP
1. The disposiGon of the Green Tract is subject to a 1999 Intedocal
Agreement and the Green Tract Workgroup of 2002.
Tract 1- 60-acre area owned by Orange County Solid Waste
Enterprise.
Tract 2 -18.1 -acre is Identified for Affordable Housing is jointly
owned by Orange County, Chapel Hill and Caffboro.
Tract 3 - 116.9-am 1% identified for open space is jointly owned by
Orange County, Chapel Hill and Cartboro.
The proposed location of a school would be in and/or near the affordable housing section of
the site. This site is on the western edge of the property closest to Purefoy Road. The location
of the site is indicated on the map.
Pros
Challenges
If acquired from the County, land costs.
The multi-jurisdictional ownership would
would be minimal
require careful planning efforts
Site is relatively flat
Careful consideration of attendance zones
would be. required to meet Board
expectations for balance in.SES and Free and
Reduced lunch
The use of a prototype (RashIds or Scroggs)
Sewer is not on site and would have to be
may be possible.
provided in conjunction with the affordable
housing. A water loop may be required by
OWASA.
The site received a positive first review from
Proximity to Seawell and Morris Grove
the Rogers Road Task Force
would make redistricting difficult
The site will be surrounded by open space
improvements to Purefoy Road would be
re aired
School placement would be a positive to the
neighborhood
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\04172008BoardAgenda\Site 4
Selection abstract.doc
Site: Carolina North
Owner. University of North Carolina
Acreage: 200+
Structures: See attached plans
Topography: The site has large flat areas where the airport is located and then slopes away
towards Bolin Creek to the west
RCD: There is a resource conservation district on the western edge of the property;
no impact to the project would be expected unless the school site is next to
Seawell, Elementary.
Tax Value: $0
Carolina North is UNC's long range education and research campus. Their definition of the
site states "a new kind of setting - one that enables public-private partnerships, public
engagement and flexible new spaces for research and education." The site is scheduled to
have classrooms, research centers (public and private), residences and public spaces. From
the beginning; UNC has stated that a school site would be made available on the Carolina
North campus. Current plans however, indicate that the need for a school on the site is not
immediate. The square footage dedicated to residential development in the next 15 years is
500,000 square feet. Elementary number 11 and 12 (2016) will both be needed before the
impact of Carolina North residential is felt.
Pros -
Challenges
If acquired by from the UNC, land costs
The site is surrounded by Seawell. and Estes
would be minimal
Hills schools
Present plans would indicate that most
The site will not be available to meet the
locations within Carolina North would be
needs of elementary number 11 and 12
relatively flat
Utilities will be in place
Entry would from MLK Blvd. across from
Piney Mountain Road to begin with. Entry
from Estes Drive would be possible in the
future
CADocuments and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\04172008BOardAgenda\Site 5
Selection abstractdoc
Area Sites Reviewed
The following areas were reviewed by the committee and staff for potential school sites. A
brief summary of those reviews is provided.
Eubanks and Mm-tin Luther King Blvd.
Sites along Eubanks Road from NLK Blvd. towards MiHhouse. Road and beyond were
examined. Sites along Eubanks would be very expensive and other parcels contained
residential houses. Parcels past Millhouse were close to Morris Grove and above Seawell
Elementary and were not considered further. One privately owned site in the area is still
under consideration.
Homestead Road and Seawel]. School Road
Several sites exist along Homestead Road near Seawell School Road. These sites were so
close to Seawell that theywere not considered further.
1-40 corridor, including Erwin Road
Two sites were considered along 1-40. After a review of buffer requirements from the 1-40
right of way, resource conservation and utility easements and the noise potential no further
examinations of these sites were made.
Old Highway 86
Several sites along Old 86 were examined. The proximity to Morris Grove and McDougle
Elementary removed them from further consideration.
Mt. Carmel Road
A site on Mt. Carmel was found but upon further review, the buildable part of the site was
not within the Urban Services Boundary and utility services would not be available.
Summary
A thorough review of available sites within the District confirms that the siting of schools
will become more and more difficult. A review of potential sites by a private real estate
developer agreed with the committee findings. While there are potential sites available, they
are either right next to existing schools, are topographically challenged, have excessive
environmental issues or have projects already planned on them.
The review does show that there are two potential sites for elementary number 11 and 12.
Both the Greene Tract and Northside School sites are publicly owned, both would be an
enhancement to the neighborhoods they exist in and both are buildable.
Support Services would recommend that the Board consider both these sites and then provide
direction to the administration on how to proceed.
Mr. Scroggs will be present to answer any questions you may have.
FINANCIAL DIPACT: None, at this time
CADocuments and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\04172008BoardAgenda\Site 6
Selection abstract.doc
PERSONNEL IMPACT: None
REC® NDATION: The administration recommends that all sites considered viable by
the Board be further investigated before a final recommendation
is made.
CADocuments and SettingslAdministratorl Desktop 104172008BoardAgendalSite 7
Selection abstract.doc
Ll
7