Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19761019'f i ^ MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 19, 1976 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 19, 1976, in the Commissioners' Room of the Court- house in Hillsborough. Members pxesent were Chairman Flora Garrett, Commissioner Norman Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker and Richard Whitted. Members absent were none. Others present were 5. M. Gattis, County Administrator; Neal Evans, Finance Airector; Jeff Gledhill, County Attorney, and Betty June Hayes, Clerk to the Board. y xhe Chairman asked if there were persons present whose names did not appear on the agenda and who did have business to transact with the Board of Commissioners. Mrs. Garrett reviewed for the Board the plans for a Center for Dispute Settlement organized by members of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedmen. who appeared before the Board October 4, 1976. Representatives from the League stated that they were present tonight to request the Board of Commissioners to endorse the plan to establish a Center for Dispute Settlement. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the Board of Commissioners endorse the plan of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom to establish a Center fox Dispute Settlement in Orange County. The Chairman referred to Item 2 on the Agenda: Approval of Minutes far meetings held on October 4th and 5th. The Minutes of October 4, 1976, were reviewed and corrections indicated. The Clerk was instructed to rewxite the section concerning the legal clarification given by the County Attorney on the rezoning request. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adapted that the minutes of October 4, 1976, meeting be approved, subject to the recommended corrections and clarifications. The minutes of October 5, 1976, were reviewed and upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the minutes of October 5, 1976, be approved. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 3: Staff members from the Planning Department will present minor subdivision plats which were considered by the Planning Board an October 18, 1976. Mrs. Garrett recognized Chris Edwards from the Planning Staff. Mr. Edwards stated that the .first plat was that of Robert Pierce. The property is located in Eno Township with part of the land being in Durham County and part in Orange County. A 3.29 acre lot is being cut from the 27 acres located in Orange County. The lot fronts on Cole Mill Road. The Planning Board has approved this plat. Upon.motian of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Walker, it was moved and adopted that the plat of Robert Pierce be approved. Lamb Distributing Company - The land is located in Eno Township on University Station Road and is zoned commercial. This is a six acre tract being cut into half. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the plat of Lamb Distributing Company be approved. W. Ervin Yates and Marcum M. Yates - This land is located on Old Hwy. 86 South. Mr. Yates is cutting a two acre tract out of a four- teen acre tract. A 20 foot strip to the two acre tract will guarantee access. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the plat of W. Ervin Yates and Marcum M. Yates be approved. Jesse Council, Sr. - This land is located in Chapel Hill Township off of State Road 1944, west of Carrboro. This parcel is 1.2 acres which fronts on the road. Discussion ensued concerning what portion of land would be left. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the plat of Jesse Council, 5r., be approved. Turkey Run Phase II - Preliminary Plan which is located in Chapel Hill Township. The plat called for the approval of Lot 22 in its entirety, and half of Lots 21,23, and 15. The remainder of Lots 21,23, and 15 are located in Bingham Township. Two of the lots border on a State Road and two border on Turkey Farm Road, which is to be constructed to State standards shortly. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the Turkey Run Phase II prelimi- nary plat be approved. Commissioner Walker seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Garrett requested that a "friendly amendment" be added to the motion, that the plat be approved with the understanding that Turkey Run Road will be paved, and will front on a road constructed to State standards. Commissioner Gustaveson agreed to the amended motion. The Chairman called for the vote and all members of the Board voted aye. The motion was declared passed. The Chairman referred to ztem 4: The Board has agreed to hear ` two tax accessment appeals. 1. Mr. H. L. Workman - The Tax Supervisor, Bill Laws, stated that Mr. Workman was present. The evaluation of the house and lot was $4,800. with the land valued at $1,800 and the dwelling at $3,000. Mr. Workman stated that he felt the evaluation was too high because the house was old and not occupied except for two rooms. He stated that the house and land had at one time been evaluated at $4,100. The Tax Supervisor recommended that the Board reduce this evalua- tion 50 percent because of the condition of the building. The assessed evaluation would be $3,300. Commissioner Walker moved that the Board accept the Tax Super- visor's recommendation and reduce the evaluation by 50 percent. Commissioner Pinney seconded the motion. Commissioner Gustaveson asked that this matter be delayed until another time. Discussion ensued. ~ The Chairman called for the vote: Voting aye were Commissioners Garrett, Pinney Walker and Whitted. Voting nay was Commissioner Gustaveson. The Chairman declared the motion passed. 2. Ms. Mary J. Walker - The Tax Supervisor read a letter to the Board from Mrs. Walker stating that due to illness she would not be able to attend the meeting and requesting that her appeal be cancelled. Ttem 5 on the Agenda: The Tax Supervisor was asked to investigate the possibility of comparing voter registrations against tax :listings. He will make a report at this time. Mr. Laws stated that he had checked with other counties in the area, and to his knowledge no other county in the State had undertaken the task of checking voter registration against tax listing. ~7 i.~s He stated further that he had found that there were approximately 34,000 registered voters in Orange County and there are 31,800 tax accounts. He stated that to undertake this task on a county-wide basis, his department would need four additional clerical persons and would take approximately 90 days. The cost would be about $8,000 and would be time consuming. Commissioner Walker stated that he was the Commissioner who had brought this matter to light and it was obvious that there were certain people who were registered to vote declaring themselves as permanent residents here, yet they operate out-of-state licenses and the Depart- __ ment of Transportation says that they can do that if they are students here and if they visit home every ninty days. Mr. Walker stated that it was his opinion that a person could not have two permanent residents ... and he suggested that the Board request that the Tax Department cross reference the two listings in order to verify.. if voters are complying with the law. Commissioner Walker moved that the Board appropriate whatever monies is required to the Tax Department for making this check in order to verify if voters are complying with the law. Discussion ensued. it was pointed out that it would take the dis- covery of at least one million dollars base to pay the expense of this check . Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he felt the Tax Department was efficient and he did not think it was this Board's responsibility to undertake this task. William Ray and Max Kennedy spoke in support of Commissioner Walker's suggestion concerning the request to appropriate money to the Tax Depart- ment for personnel to cross check the voter registration and the tax listing. Commissioner Walker moved that the Board of Commissioners make a check of one precenct in the Chapel Hill area and one precinct in Northern Orange to cross check voters registration with the tax records and he asked the Board to appropriate sufficient monies to cover the cost of these two checks. Commissioner Pinney seconded the motion. The Chairman called for the vote. Voting aye were .Commissioners Pinney and Walker. Voting nay were Commissioner Garrett, Gustaveson, and Whitted. The motion was declared defeated. Chairman Garrett referred to Ttem 6: A Resolution requesting the North Carolina Department of Transportation to pave State Road #1711 with that right of way they presently gave. "WHEREAS more than seventy-five percent of the owners of real property situated along State Reads #1711, 1831, 1832, and 1833 have petitioned the Orange County Board of Commissioners to use its legal authority to assist in the paving of the aforementioned roads; and WHEREAS the North Carolina Department of Transportation has agreed to pave State Roads #1711, 1831, 1832, and 1833 through its participating paving program; and WHEREAS more than seventy-five percent of the owners of real - property along State Roads #1711, 1831, 1832, and 1833 have agreed to pay paving assessment levied by Orange Gounty against their property to provide a portion of the cost for the paving of these roadways; and WHEREAS representatives of the North Carolina Department of Trans- portation have advised the Orange County Board of Commissioners that the standard right of way for a paving project (sixty feet) is not available along approximately four hundred and ten feet(410) of State Road #1711, however, that right of way that is available is sufficient to allow the construction of usable and safe road- way; NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange• County Board of Commissioners does hereby request the North Carolina Department of Transporta- tion to proceed with the paving of State Road #1711, 1831, 1832, and 1833 using that right of way presently available." ~l~ . Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the Resolution requesting the Department of Transportation to pave State Road #1711 with the right of way they presently have was approved. The Chairman referred'.to Item 11 on the Agenda: Ms. Marilyn Riddle from the Community Development Task Force and Mr. Hal Minis from the County Planning Staff will present a recommendation concerning County Community Development application. The Chairman recognized Ms. Riddle and Mr. Minis. Ms. Riddle stated that the task force last year felt that submitting an applica- tion for community development funds was' a.useless activity since HUD guidelines were geared to urban areas. She said that it was important that the County support those urban areas that want to apply for these funds. She suggested to the Board that the County not file an applica- tion for •funds, but to support Hillsborough and Carrboro's efforts in their 1977 requests for community development funds. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the Board accept the report from Ms. Riddle and Mr. Minis and that a letter be written to the Mayors of Hillsborough and Carrboro informing them of the Board's decision in this matter and indicate to them that the Board was willing to cooperate with them in order to strengthen their applica- tion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whitted. Discussion ensued concerning the work of the Community Development Task Farce. The Chairman called for the vote on Mr. Gustaveson's motion. All members of the Board voted aye, and the motion was declared passed. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the minutes reflect the Boards' appreciation to Ms. Riddle and the Community Development Task Force for their work on this task force. Item 7 an the Agenda; One member, representing the .Orange County Sheriff's Department to the Youth Services Needs Task Froce. Deputy Archie Daniels has been recommended for this appointment. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whined, it was moved and adopted that Deputy Daniels be appointed as a member of the Youth Services Needs Task Force. B. Ms. Sue Arrington, Commissioner Whitted's appointee to .the Recreation Advisory Committee, has resigned. A replacement should be named. This item was deferred to the first Monday's meeting in November. Item 8: Chairman Garrett will make a report concerning activities of the Durham-Orange Manpower Council (Durham-Orange Employment and Training Services) and the activities of the Orange County Advisory Committee. Members to the Orange County Advisory Committee should be named for the coming year. Chairman Garrett stated that this was an important committee because there are a lot of federal funds that Durham County and Orange County re- ceive in public and private employment and ways to help the disadvantaged and low income to find employment. She stated that it was important that persons on this committee attend the meetings which are on the second Monday of each month. The Chairman stated that the Board would want to appcint another Commissioner to replace her to the Durham-Orange Employ- ment and Training Service Council. Discussion ensued. The Board agreed that letters should be sent to Jae Augustine and Ebert Pierce stressing the importance of active member- ship of the Advisory Council and requesting that if Messrs. Augustine and Pierce could not be active, that they suggest names of persons who could fulfill this commitment. The Board also agreed to have recommendations of consumers for the first Monday's meeting in November to replace Ms. Locklear and Mr. Kensil on the Advisory Council. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 9: Honorable Geoffrey Gledhill will review for the Board of Commissioners a revised contract between Orange Ccunty and the law firm of Winston-Coleman and Bernholz for the provision of IV-D Services. Mr. Gledhill stated that his firm had received a letter from Mr. Scroggs of the Social Services Division in Raleigh informing them that the previous contract initiated by Winston-Coleman and Bernholz and the County of Orange was out of line with the recommended guidelines from the Attorney General's Office. He stated that the present contract stated a different rate than the rate recommended by the Attorney - General Office, however, the County Attorney did perform the services for the 5ocial.Services Department at a rate of $50. per hour. The recommended rate by the Attorney General's office was $30. Winston- Coleman and Bernholz was requesting that the County compensate for all services based on a hourly rate of $40. per hour. Discussion ensued.,concerning the IV-D Program. Mr. Gledhill stated that there was a collection rate of about 75~ for the program. he proceed to review the status of the IV-D Program. The County Attorney stated that his firm was requesting the County to pay an additional $275.00 in legal fees, above that which was budgeted for the year. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adapted that the Agreement between Orange County and the law firm of Winston-Coleman and Bernholz for the provision of IV-D Service be approved. The Chairman was authorized to sign the Contract. (For Copy of Contract between Winston-Coleman and Bernhol? and Orange County see page of this book.) Chairman Garrett referred to Item 10: At a work session on Thurs- day, October 13, 1976, the Board of Commissioners agreed to consider further the amendments recently proposed to the County Zoning Ordinance by deciding at least the following: 1. Shall we proceed with the present document? 2. Sha11 we abandon the present document and tell the Planning Staff to start anew? 3. Appoint a technical committee to revise the document presently in hand? The Chairman read the questions that were contained on the agenda. She then inquired "shall we proceed with the present document? I think this means shall we proceed with the understanding that we are working on the document that means Chapel Hill and Eno Townships. I think Cathy wants. that point clarified. I do not know if you want to take the questions separately or all three of them." it was decided that all three questions should be reviewed prior to any discussion. Chairman Garrett then read the two remaining questions. Commissioner Gustaveson stated, "I think there is a general feeling that there should be a small committee to work on this and I think that the question is really shall the question be to start anew and work on either parts of the document in the district portion of University Lake and the Eno area or to take the total set of amendments that were pro- posed and work on all of them as the working framework. In the dis- cussion last week, everybody cam,. to the conclusion that there was a need for a small committee too." Chairman Garrett stated, "I do not think they did for after the meeting same people came up to me and said, 'I want to be on that committee' that's the problem I have if everybody wants to be on it. I am for a strong committee if, fine, but you know, if everyone said "T want to be on it'." Commissioner Pinney replied, "I don't want to be." Chairman Garrett, "fan, you are the one who made the proposal, seems like you ought to be on it." Commissioner Wkiitted, "I had to leave and did not hear the discussion on this technical committee, but that would certainly be my feeling at this point. I would hesitate to say start over for I do not know what the Planning Staff would do - start over on a new job. The framework is there in the present document. The questien of the technical nature needs to be clarified and 2 don't know what suggestion of the framework of the committee would be, but the technical committee suggest to me that it is not just us somebody needs to lend some tech- nical assistance to developing the amendments." Chairman Garrett stated, "the committee as proposed by Norm Gustaveson was two member from this Board, two members from the Planning Board, and the Planning Staff." Commissioner Gustaveson stated, "or two members appointed by this Board or two members appointed by the Planning Board." Commissioner Whitted stated, "so it is a misnomer then necessarily to call it a technical committee." Commissioner Gustaveson inserted, "the point of that was that is would be a committee that would really, you know, that would refine a document." Commissioner Whitted stated, "but they could use some technical folks like we had at the Carolina Inn." Commissioner Gustaveson suggested, "the work would be done by the committee as suggested." Commissioner Finney stated, "let me ask .one question._What.:are we going to do? Are you going to give the committee and say are .you going to come up with .a document and bring it before us and then we go either up or down with it or are we going to sit here and peck it to death." Commissioner Gustaveson stated, "I think the point is that we have been through two public hearings where a lot of questions were raised. We had one meeting with some technical experts where a whole series of other questions were raised. Some were answered and 2 would hope that anybody who serves on this committee would have heard of that give and take and I think this Board has raised a lot of questions about it. The charge to the committee really should be one, Z think, at least should be on the Agenda is to start anew - to come up with some new amendments to try to reach the objectives that we are concerned about or to take ~. the present framework as proposed in the present set of amendments and to refine those with a kind of technical refinement both in language and in concept." Commissioner Pinney replied, "you have still not answered my question Norm. Is this thing going to come up and we vote it down in one block or are we going to set here and Kassel over it,.every sentence, like we have done before?" Chairman Garrett stated, "what 2 would like to see, and I do not know if it can be done or not, but something that worked very effectively on the Land Policy Council was we had something called the Wording Committee and all they did, was to refine the document and present, after the big policy questions, a series of alternates and then the full Council could choose. You either take 10 percent slope, or you do away with slope, you have 100 feet setback, 200 feet, or no setback, and you present those clearly defined alternatives for the full policy force to vote on. Now that's the way I would like to think is the way out of the problem. There may be five different points of view here and I don't know how if two members of this Board serve on the technical committee and they come back with their opinion and, maybe, three other people here who don't think that is the right way to go, that's the difficuli~I see." Commr~ssioner Pinney stated,."or there may be a Minority .Report or a Majority Report from the Technical Committee. I still feel that since this is the Board that is going to have to make the "cold turkey choice' that we are the ones that should be revising.: it or doing what you want to with it." Commissioner Gustaveson added, "no, 2 think that the one policy decision is that to what extent is the presently recommended amendments within the ballpark as far as the objectives that we would like to reach and it seems to me that if that is decided, then the committee would have that as a pretty clear policy decision; and I think secondly and one of my concerns, and 2 indicated that at the meeting that needs to be worked on, is not only some of the technical questions whether its lot size, ~~ =~ •: 15 percent slope, and all of this is the second questions which is mainly an evaluation of some of the administrative aspects, and whether or not we are administratively pexpaxed to deal with these things and if not, recommend what we need to administrate." Commissioner Gustaveson continued, "to start discussion, T would like that we go on record with some indication that the document does generally speak to the objectives that this Board is concerned about and that we not throw out the suggested amendments, but that we use this as a fairly close to our objectives as far as what we are trying to do. In other words, these amendments as they are now written are close to what we would like to see in final print. I would qualify this in terms ,of some of the questions I think could be worked on that would not destroy the general intention of the document. This again is -- what I said at the work session. I think that'it really is three points that can be looked at in terms of the numbers. My own feeling is in talking with people and in meeting the l5 percent slope could probably be eliminated without xeally doing serious damage to the amendments. I think the question of 5 acre lots could be looked at very seriously and, perhaps have a bit more that might allow fox performance criteria in a smaller lot size, and this, of course, would have to be worked out in terms of how it could be administered. At least it would allow flexi- bility within the residential conservation setback. That would allow for lots of less than 5 acres that could meet certain performance stan- dards and, three, that the number of buffers for the conservation dist- ric:ts, that number might be looked at. So, in terms of the three numbers, technical numbers,.Iwould add to my general." Chairman Garrett interrupted by asking, "axe you saying use that amendment as a starting point? Use the present document?" Commissioner Gustaveson replied, "use that amendment, the different districts and then take a look at the three numbers that are presently in the document which, t think is where a lot of the debate is centering, are on those three numbers, plus the other concern that 2 have, in that, it was soma raised at the public hearing regarding some of the adminis- trative procedures that I think we need to xeally take a serious look at how much new administrative Kassel that we are building into the document, and whether or not this is absolutely necessary, and also in a sense of coordinating with this whether or not we are prepared at this point administratively to deal with the...." Chairman Garrett again interrupted Commissioner Gustaveson and further discussion ensued. Commissioner Walker stated, "I think it would be a goad idea to take a broader look. Now by your own admission Norm, in our last meeting you said we were going about this backwards. Let's start out with the same ideas that we started with in the beginning and let the Planning staff go into the community. Let them go into Eno Community. Talk to the people in that area and find out what they want and let the Planning staff tell them what sort of framework they can work within and this is the policy we started out with, Norm, and we left that policy when the Board began to put all this imput in as to what they as individuals wanted. We are forgetting that we are for the people and we want what the people want. LE~t the people help plan. This was the policy of this Planning staff when we hired it and this has been Irvin Dobson's conten- tion all along to have citizen imput into it and we've taken it away from the citizens and I think the two public hearings that we've had is definite proof that they just did not like what we had come up with. They did not have the proper imput into it and we have moved along too fast and I think we've done the whole planning program an injustice and it is going to take a long time to overcome the damage that we have done. -- So, let's start over again like we started in the beginning and start right, and let the planning, we've got the experts here, the planners to do a job so let's let them perform. We are not letting them perform. We've had them to come up with a program that we couldn't support and they couldn't support wholeheartly and we've fended them to a crowd that was vicious to them and I think we've done them a terrible injustice and then to sit back and brag on what a good job they have done. You know, if you ask those people that we met down there in the public hear- ing they would say we've done a terrible job and matter of fact, some of them said it, and it's because they did not have imput into it. We talk about citizens imput, now let's exercise citizen imput and that's the kind of discussion that I would like to have." '; Further discussion ensued. Chairman Garrett inquired. "was that a motion you made Norm?" She then reviewed the motion as follows: "appoint a subcommittee to work on the document that at a starting point to bring back a refinement of the document in terms of numbers and other criteria." It was suggested that Commissioner Gustaveson word his motion. Commissioner Gustaveson moved "that we appoint a subcommittee of two Commissioners, two Planning Board members, and the Planning Staff, as many as the Chairman of the Department wants to appoint to the committee." The Chairman recognized Kathy Hoffer of the Planning Staff. Ms. Hoffer stated that Mrs. Riddle was the only one who had volun- terred to do it, nobody else had time to do it. This is what the Plan- ning Board was worriEd about. They think it is a good idea, but nobody seems to have the time." Chairman Garrett stated, "Mrs. Anderson was not here last night, but she' was one of the ones after the meeting last Thursday who indicated that she would want to be on the committee so I think she probably will be willing to serve." Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Gustaveson restated his motion. "A committee be formed of two members of the Planning Hoard and two members appointed by this Board and members of the Planning staff to work on the present suggested amendments to the Zoning Ordinance." Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued concerning the proposed committee structure. Commissioner Pinney requested permission to summarize the discussion and the purpose of Commissioner Gustaveson's motion. He stated, "our policy statement is then to protect the water sources of this county 'in a nutshell'." Commissioner Gustaveson replied, "no, it is more than that because the purpose of each of the districts, I have no question with the descrip- tion and what is conservation district. Residential or conservation or the residential or agricultural. and if you read the little definitation which has a policy thrust, then I have no objection and those are all fairly radical steps in each of those districts." Further discussion ensued. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the motion. A11 members of the Board voted aye. It was pointed out that Don Willhoit had expressed a desire to serve on the;.proposed committee. Discussion ensued concerning committee appointments. Commissioner Whitted recommended Commissioner Gustaveson be appointed to the committee. Commissioner Pinney moved that Don Willhoit and Norm Gustaveson be appointed to the technical committee. ' Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. All members of the Board voted aye, and the motion was declared passed. Chairman Garrett inquired "who is going to be in chaxge of calling the first meeting? I think we need to work pretty expeditiously." Discussion ensued. It was agreed that the Planning Department and Commissioner Gustaveson would proceed with the matter. Chairman Garrett moved "that notices of all committee meetings be sent to every member of the Board of County Commissioners and t$ie ~ ~ Planning Board." Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Chairman Garrett called for the vote on the motion and all members of the Board voted aye. The motion was declared passed. Item 12 on the Agenda: The Planning Director will prova.de the Board with a list of signs and automobile junk yards not in compliance with County Land Use regulations. Chairman Garrett recognized Irvin Dobson, Planning Director. Mr. bobson introduced Kathy Hoffer by saying that she was the person who had worked on the field survey. Kathy Hoffer filed with the Board a report of her findings con- cerning sign locations within the two zoned townships. She stated that billboards are wi.~.hin tree provisions of the County Ordinance. It was pointed out that the signs must advertise a use which is on the premise that a sign is on, and there are a lot of billboards along z-8S and Highway 70 which do not advertise the product that is still there. She stated that the main violations that were noted from the survey were the distances from the right of way and I did explain (on the report) that no signs were supposed to be closer than 10 feet to the right of way. There is the problem of knowing just how wide these right of ways were so we took•the ditch or edge of the right of .way. Ms. Hoffer then reviewed her recommendations and •khe areas where the county has no jurisdiction. She suggested that it might be a good idea to have an appearance committee to review all signs that came in for approval. Discussion ensued concerning sign location and whether or not they were within the planning area. Chairman Garrett stated she felt the Ordinance was clear in the areas concerning signs and billboards, however, the Board might wish to revise the Ordinance to cover other conditions. Discussion ensued. The Board agreed that the Planning Department had the authority to proceed with the removal of signs and billboards that were not in compliance and that they (Planning Department) should move ahead in this area. The Chairman stated that the Planning Department had made a survey in the area of the automobile junk yards. Kathy Hoffer asked what the wishes of the Board were concerning signs and billboards that were not in compliance. Chairman Garrett replied, "get them down. write a letter requesting that they be removed as soon as possible." Chris Edwards inquired, "haw long do we give them and this sort of thing?" Chairman Garrett replied, "T think that would be up to you." Jeff Gledhill, the County Attorney, stated, "I think what you should do is to ask them to comply. Comply means to take the sign down. z think the wording should be careful. If the Ordinance calls for re- moval, then you should say removal. If the Ordinance calls for something to be changed then this should be done." The County Attorney and the Planning Director were instructed to - work together on the draft~n.g of a letter to property owners that were not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to signs and billboards. Commissioner Whitted moved that the Board extend the time of the meeting in order to complete the Agenda. Commissioner Gustaveson seconded the motion. The Chairman called for the vote. Voting aye were Commissioner Garrett, Gustaveson, Whitted, and Pinney. Voting nay was Commissioner Walker. The motion was declared passed. Chairman Garrett stated that it was the policy of the Board that we have an unanimous consent to a motion for extension. tion. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Walker agreed to withdraw his objec-- Chris Edwards began his report by stating that junk cars came under two types of classification. You have wrecked cars and junked cars. The problems does not seems to be as much as that except you have cars that are left derelick around the county, and evidently our Ordinance does not have the authority to deal with this, but, "I Have found two or three areas that did have cars left. In talking with the County Attorney, it has been found that wrecked cars are not defined in our Ordinance and this becomes a matter of interpretation as to whether these are wrecked cars or not." He stated, "we are not allowed to interpret the Ordinance, therefore, we have been unable to get any action on it. There are three places I have found in Chapel Hill Township and there is one out .on Hwy 54 behind the Church of God." Jeff Gledhill stated that the Ordinance was vague in the manner in which it was written, and he thought it was talking about operations. That means a commercial junk yard, and not somebody piling up a life time of cars. The County Attorney continued by saying that the Ordinance does not speak to wrecked vehicles or storage operations and that you would think only in terms of a junk operation. Discussion ensued concerning defination of a garage and other types of operation. Commissioner Gustaveson recommended that the Board postpone considera- tion of this matter until another time. The Chairman referred to Item 13: The Manager recommends the Board of Commissioner execute a contract with the Farmers Home Administration relating to a lean for the Orange Grove Rural Fire Department. The County Attorney will report on this review of the document. Mr. Gledhill stated there is one thing that needs to be specifically brought to the Board's attention. "In one section of this you are agreeing to levy a special tax about 15 cents per one hundred dollars valuation for all real and personal property in this district. Begin- ping with this fiscal year, the tax that will be levied annually will be based on the needs projected in the budget estimates submitted by the Fire Departments of the County and approved by the County Commissioners. By signing this contract, you are committing yourselves to buying a fire tx'uck and at budget time, when they come up with a request for what it takes to pay far this truck, then you will be hard pressed to deny it. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Walker, it was moved and adopted that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Con- . tract between Orange County and the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company. Item 14: Will the Board of Commissioners provide funds (about $2,000) for salary and travel to retain a temporary replacement for the Sediment Control Officer now on leave of absence? Commissioner Gustaveson moved for the approval of the request of $2,000 for salary and travel to retain a temporary replacement for the Sediment Control Officer. (To come from the Contingency Fund). For copy of Budget Amendment, see page of this book. Commissioner Whitted asked "since we granted a leave without pay why can't we use the line item that was already - use those funds to hire a beplacement?" The County Manager replied, "the CETA funds are acutely held by CETA and not by us. The only persons that could spend these funds for them would be a person qualified under to CETA guidelines for the sedimenta- tion program. I suspect that there are not more than one or two people around that could qualify and we are not going to be able to find anyone." ~~. _ - Commissioner Gustaveson again moved that the Board appropriate x2,000. for a temporary replacement for-the Sediment Control Officer. Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. The Chairman called far the vats on the motion. All members of the Board voted aye, and the motion was declared passed. Item 15: A date and format far a wgrk session shquld be set. The Board agreed to set .aside the time after lunch from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on November 1, 1976, as a work session and then decide upon a date for the completion of the work session. The meeting was then adjourned. ~~~,~~ Flora R. Garrett, Chairman Betty June Hayes, Clerk a . a ~i !~OZ~NGE COUNTX I~ ,~ THiS AGREE~~NT, made a^d entered into the 19th day ~; j;of October 1976, by and between TdID:STG~i, COiE31AN any: '; Il !'Ei?-~:HOLZ, attorneys at law, Orange County, ?north Carolir_a, here': I ~~-~.~4~:i xaferred to as ATTORT~EI'S and QR.~:vGE COUNTX, T~orth C::rol~.na I WTTi~:ESSETH: Wn~.P.~AS, the COUNTY has reed of legal servic~s~ not oth•--~..° ~' ~~ise provided bir the ATTORNEYS or otizer County agencies, in con- . nection with matters which arise out of th.e COUtiTY'S administra- i lion of the Child Support and Enforcement Program, Title IV--D az the Social Security Act under Article 9, Chapter 110 of the Nort:. +~ Gazolina General Statutes § 110-128 et sec; and i `- W?~EREAS, it is the desire of the COUNTY to enter into ~~~ j~:!v~srn a ter =ererrQd to as COU`TTX: I agreement of employment with the ATTORNEYS for the performance oz: ~' I such services that shall be required by the COUNTY from time to time•for the Child Support and Enforcement Program; and WHEREAS, the ATTORNEYS have agreed to represent the j COUNTY as is hereinafter provided for a term extending from and after the date of this agreement to and including ~'une 30, 1977; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual teams and agreements hereinafter set Earth, the COUNTY and the ATTORNEYS do contract, each with the other, as follows: Y--.- . ~ ~ . .. .. ~ C..._ _. - - - - -- -- .` ~ - .., - i -- -- ~....... __' _ a.- +., = +t, o^ cn -- s r a ham be--r srec~_ - - U^k.~an~s~oh-o-ace o~-s _~ ..- ~.. - _ ,. . ---- - ro e-r°l ane~a~E uate-1 re sent--the -..Ca[J~i Y.:.i~ -~ ~_~ .. ' °"'~._ .. tration of the Child ,Support and Enforcement Program. - ~ 2. The ATTORNEY shall be compensated far all service I rendered wn cor_rectior_ *=,ith paragraph No_ 1 above based on an hourly rate for services rendered of forty and no/100 dollars ~ i '-araruN,co~arn:.;~ j ($gp,00) per hour, such hours and amounts to be furnished to r.•:o aEaNr~n~z "'7~HNEYS A7 LA:Y -i1LLSUOgOUGF1, N. C. IJ ~ tI 1 1 JI~ `~ I N I ~' ii l~ ~i _ the County Finance Of=ice. fox paymer_~_ ~ 3. The AT'X'OR~iEY shall keep an itemized record of s•~c ~'-. perfoired =or the COJ~iTX in connection with 4he Child Suopcz-~ ~~___ 1 En.orce~3nt Pro ram on a case by case, basis and shall. subni ~ :.~:~ bi1J. ~.^crefare shoring a breakdown of those services performed or: T a case by case basis. 4. This agreement shall exist and continua fro,:, the da4% hereof to June 30, ?977, at which time either party shall be free to r4:~gotiate this agreement and modify the same as the then existing conditions may dictate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and the ATTORNEYS have 'hereunto signed this agreement in duplicate originals, one of w_~' is retained by each party hereto and either of which is sufficien~ as the oriryinal. ATTESTED: ORANGE COUNTY, ,NORTH CAROLINA /S/ Flora Garrett i i /S/•Betty June Hayes _ By; ~~~ _, 'Be.tty June fTayes, Clerk of the FLORA GARRETT, Cha2rman, ', oard of Camrnissioners, Orange Orange County Co~~unissione'-_ Gcunty WINSTON, COLEMAN and BERNHOLZ By:"/'S/Alanzo Srown Coleman, Jr. ALONZO BROWN, COLE_TMLAN, JR. General Partner L':I;JSTO V- GOLEttAN A16 EscRN40L2 ATTO~!1=v5 aT LAri Cr14vcL HILL, N. C. lIILL530.7OUCN, N, C-