Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19770502~ 1J Mr. Dobson, the Planning Director, stated that he had received a call from Bill Dark, a field planner with the Department of Transportatien, and Mr. Dark had made reference to the Land Classification System map and the Zoning Amendments. He had asked the status of these programs and Mr. Dobson had responsed that the County was working on this. Mr. Coleman stated that he was concerned about who the individuals are who feel strongly about these routes coming through Orange County. He added that there may be friends we do not know about. He stated that Section 103 of the 23 U. S. Code states that the purpose of the Interstate Highway Act is to go from industrial center to industrial center, from city to city. This alternate is doing just the opposite of 'this. Instead of being the shortest passible distance between major industrial centers, they are .taking the long way around and not from city to city, but by-passing the cities. The Environmental Impact Statement contains language which appears to make the routes scenically attractive. He stated that somewhere in those Planning Departments there might be persons who could persuade others that this is not in keeping with the original act. He added that there is acknowledgement in the Depart- . ment of Transportation that these roads do violence to communities, how- ever, the technique used is to acknowledge the violence but to justify it. Commissioner Willhoit stated that the Department of Transportation had not really evaluated the cost benefit of the impact, only the cost of the road. Mr. Coleman asked that the Board be available to any calls that h might need to make to them. Commissioner Pinney requested that the Agriculture Department and the Soil Conservtion Service be contacted. The meeting was adjourned. ` ~/ /~~ ~~ ... II ~ ~ Richard E. Whitted, Chairman Agatha Johnson, Clerk MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MAY 2, 1977 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session an Monday, May 2, 1977, at 10:00 a.m., in the Commissioners' Room of the Courthouse in Hillsborough. Present were Chairman Richard Whitted, Commissioners Norman Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker, and Donald Willhoit. Others present were S. M. Gattis, County Manager, Neal Evans, Finance Director, Jeffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, A. B. Coleman, Jr., County - Attorney, was present for part of the meeting, and Agatha Johnson, Clerk. Chairman Whitted referred to Item 1 on the Agenda and asked if there --- were persons present who were not on this agenda t6 make their presence known. No one came Earth. The Chairman referred to Item 2 on the Agenda: Minutes of the Board meetings held on April 19th and April 26th. Upon motion o f Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the minutes of April 19, 1977, be approved. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, it was moved and adotped that the minutes of April 26, 1977 be approved. X80 Chairman Whitted referred to Item 3: The second reading of an Ordinance to set a fee for palmistry license in Orange County. The Chairman explained that at the April 19th meeting, the Board had set a fee shcedule of $500 for the sell of palmistry licenses in Orange County. The County Attorney had advised the Board that this motion had the effect of an Ordinance and would require a second reading since the vote on the motion was not unanimous. Commissioner Pinney moved that the palmistry licenses fee be set at $500. for Orange County. Commissioner Walker seconded the motion. The Chairman called for the vote and voting aye were Commissioners Gustaveson, Pinney, Walker and Willhoit. Voting nay was Commissioner Whitted. The motion was declared passed. Ttem 4: The position of first alternate on the Orange County Board of Adjustment is vacant. The Board agreed to leave this position open until the Subdivision Regulations are in order. Chairman Whitted referred to Item 5: A resolution requesting the Orange County Planning Board establish Advisory Planning Councils in the various townships. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, it was moved and adopted that this item be tabled until the Planning Board has had an opportunity to work further an this matter. The Chairman stated that Item 7: A resolution relating to the routing of Interstate Highway 40 would be deferred until latex in the day. . Mr. Whitted referred to Ttem 8: The Manager recommends tentative approval of the IV-D Child Support Program Budget. The agenda attachment stated that Title IV-D of the Social Security Act requries the implementa- tion of recripocal support program that will be at least partially supported by proceeds received from the support payments. A budget for this program must be submitted to the Department of Human Resources for its tentative consideration. The Finance Director informed the Board that this program looked very good in terms of finfancing, and that the program was close to breaking even. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the tentative budget for the 1V-D Child Support Program be approved. Chairman Whitted referred to Item 9: The Manager recommends approval of the attached budget amendments prepared by the Finance Director. A memorandum, addressed to the Board, from Neal Evans, Finance Director, stated that the budget amendment is a mixture of items to being the budget in line with actual expenditure requirements. The largest new sums are in the utilities, particularly, heating fuel, and insurance items for increased fire and casualty and errors and ommissions liability. Other items are primarily a transfer within expenditure accounts or an appropriation of revenue items. (For copy of this budget amendment, see page 191 of this book). Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Willheit, it was moved and adopted that the budget amendment as prepared by the Finance Officer be approved. Item 10: The Manager recommends the~Board allow credit toward longe- vity service for an employee who worked in the District Health Department and transferred to the County Department of Social Services. The agenda attachment stated that in 1962, a person was employed by the District Health Department as a full time clerk in their Hillsborough Office. At a later date, this person was transferred from the Health Depart- ment to employment by the County in the Social Services Department with no break in service. This person has since 1968 been employed by the Department of Social Services. ~~z The Personnel Ordinance requires, as creditable service for longevity pay, continuous employment by Orange County. A strict interpretation of this provision would disallow the six years of service with the nistrict Health Department as this agency certainly is nat,Orange County. However, we are now transferring some fifteen persons from District Health Depart- ment service to County employment and propose to give them full credit, including longevity, for their service with the District. The Gounty Manager recommends this person be allowed credit for her service with the Health Department as far as longevity pay is concerned. The Social Services Director concurs in this recommendation. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted to accept the Manager's recommenda- _ tion and to allow credit for service with the Health Department for the longevity pay. Item 11: The City of Durham is requesting release of certain Orange County Tax Bills, is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. Chairman Whitted referred to Item 12: Dr. Stanley R. Mandel is requesting a refund of interest paid on his 1876 tax bill. Commisisoner Pinney moved that this request be denied. Commissoner Gustaveson seconded the motion. Discussion on this matter was deferred until the Tax Super- visor could be contacted. Chairman Whitted referred to Item 14: Does the Board desire to establish a tentative budget hearing schedule for this time? The County Manager stated that the County School System and the Chapel Hi11-Carrboro School system would not have their budget completed until after the middle of May. The Health Berard will not be ready until May 15, 1977. The Board of Commissioners scheduled Tuesday, May 10, 1977, 6:30 p.m. as a dinner meeting with the Social Services Board. The two boards will reconvene after dinner in the Commissioners' Raom to discuss the Social Services Budget further. Wednesday, May 11, 1977, at 7:30 p.m., the board scheduled a meeting to talk with the Mental Health Board, the Library Board, the Council on Again, Joint Orange Chatham Community Action Board, and representatives from Switchboard. The Board scheduled Thursday, May 19th and Monday, May 23rd, as meetings with the two School Systems. Monday, May 16th, was scheduled as a meeting with the Recreation Advisory Committee and the Recreation Department. This meeting will be at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 17th is the regular third Tuesday meeting. The Boa~.d tentatively scheduled May 17th as the meeting to hear from EMS, the various Fire Departments and the Sheriff's Department. Thursday, May 26th, was scheduled as the presentation of the Manager's recommended budget. Other Departments, which the Board stated they wished to talk with regarding their budget were Administration, Register of Deeds, Agriculture Extension Service, and support agencies. Tuesday, June 14, 1977, was scheduled as: the meeting for the public hearing regarding the budget. The Chairman referred the Board again to Item 12: Dr. Stanley R. Mandel is requesting a refund of interest paid on his 1976 tax bill. The agenda attachment stated that De. Mandel has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to refund to him interest charged for late payment of his 1976 property tax bill and has set forth his reasons in a letter to the TAx Collector. The Tax Supervisor has investigated this situation and feels Dr. Mandel's problem is with Stockton-White Company, the agency servicing his property mortgage. Further facts are that in September of 1976, tax bills were mailed. Our copy indicated Dr. Mandel's bill was made and carried his correct address. This bill is not in our file of return mail. On three occasions Stockton-White sent lists to the County ~~z Tax Collector which requested copies of Dr. Mandel's bill along with the bills of other persons. On each occasion, however, these lists gave an incorrect description of Dr. Mandel's property, thus, the Tax Department was unable to identify the property in question. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that there was a potential error on the part of the Tax Department in that the bill was either lost in the mail or else sent to the wrong person a Another error could be on the part of the Mortgage Company in that they did not give the Tax Office the proper property description. He stated further that Dr. Mandel should make his claim against the Mortgage :Company. Commissioner Gustaveson called for the question. The original motion was made by .-- Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, that this request be denied. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and all members of the Board voted aye. The motion was declared passed.' Chairman Whitted referred to Item 17: The Manager recommends that the Board approve renewing a contract for administration of the county- wide Section 8 Program with the Chapel Hill Housing Authority. This contract will extend from fiscal year to fiscal year. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the contract for administration of the county-wide Section 8 Program with the Chapel Hill Housing Authority be approved. Chairman Whitted stated that the time was 11:00 p.m., which was the hour scheduled for the reconsideration of the Board's prior decision con- cerning a petition to rezone, filed by Raymond Williams. The Chairman asked if there were persons present who wished to speak for or against this reconsideration. No one came forth. The Chairman recognized Michael Brough, Attorney for Raymond Williams. Mr. Brough stated that if this property is not rezoned from its present -- zoning, that it will work a substantial hardship on his client, because of the use made of the surrounding property and the virtual impossibilities of using this property in the manner in which it is zoned. Mx. Brough read to the Board a letter from William Harold Cloninger, a real estate appraiser, who had evaluated the property in its current zoning as opposed to the potential use of the property if zoned as requested. Mr. Cloninger's opinion was that single family residential use was not the best and highest use of the property. He added that commercial business or special use zoning would allow Mr. Williams to make the best use of his property. Mr. Cloninger's letter spoke of the zoning trent of the area which were: adjoining the subject property on the South side is a mobile home park operation, across Hwy. 8fi, and to the East of the subject pro- perty is located a cemetery, adjoining the property to the rear and to the West side is the Farm House, adjoining the property on the North side '. is Allen's Bar-B-Que. Mr. Cloninger letter stated that these facts showed that the property should be used for commercial use. He added that an assessment of the property for residential use would be valued between $3500 and $4000, whereas, as a commercial site, the land would be valued according to its use. Mr. Brough stated that to the rear of Mr. William's property was locat- ed a 22 acre tract which was zoned for general commercial use. Across Hwy. 86, there is a chemical operation which is some type of non-residential use.__ He stated that the nature of the area is such that it would suggest that it is not suitable for residential development and is just not going to go residential. Another point Mr. Brough raised is that in terms of good planning for the area, the Planning Board recommended that the property be rezoned to commercial, and the land classification study has indicated that this area should be designed as a community development. He stated that all facts indicated that the property would be more beneficial to the community and to Mr. Williams should the property be rezoned to some commercial de- signation. Commissioner Gustaveson asked if Mr. Williams has understood that this Board had voted no upon the original request for rezoning. ~.CSa~ Mr. Brough replied that his client did understand that the request was denied. Mr. Gustaveson continued that Mr. Williams had continued with his plans and had constructed a building on the property that is a commercial structure. Mr. Brough replied that Mr. Williams had constructed a building on the property that had a potential commercial use. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that at the public hearing there were many people from the mobile home park area, who were concerned about this property. He stated that people who live in mobile homes live in residen- tial areas and have the right of good planning. He added that he was con- cerned that Mr. Williams disregarded the Board of Commissioners' ruling and went ahead with his original plan, and now comes back to this Board asking that the Board reconsider their original decision. Mr. Brough stated that his argument was not that the construction of the building would cause Mr. Williams a hardship, but the fact that the hardship would be in using the land for single family residential use. He added that the surrounding area is not being used for single family residential fashion. " Regarding the building, it is adapted for commercial use, however,. Mr'. Williams obtained a building permit for the construction for personal use with the hopes that the property would be rezoned. Commissioner Gustaveson asked if Mr. Williams, at this point, had done any work for any individual for pay? Mr. Williams stated that the building had been used to house Mr. Pinney's Son-in-law's race car. He added that after the Planning Board approved the rezoning request, he had ordered the building. This was before the County Commissioners had taken any action. He stated that he purchased the property at a residential pride with the idea that the pro- perty would be rezoned. Further discussion ensued concerning the adjoining properties and their zoned designation. Chairman Whitted asked if anyone was present at this meeting who wished to speak for or against the rezoning of the property. No one' came forth. Mr. Whitted reminded the Board that they had voted at their April 19th meeting to reconsider the rezoning request. The process itself calls for a 12'month waiting period before being resubmitted for rezoning. Commissioner WAlker stated that since the Planning Board was unanimous in their decision to grant this rezoning request, he moved to change the previous decision of the Board and to rezone t,•his property from single family residential to general commercial. Commissioner Pinney asked that he be excused from the meeting since he did have a potential conflict of interest in this matter. Mr. Finney was excused by the Chairman. The Chairman declared that Commissioner Walker's motion had died for lack of a second. Commissioner Gustaveson suggested that Mr. Williams resubmit his rezoning request through the normal procedure to the Planning Board at the end of a one year waiting period. Commissioner Pinney returned to the meeting. Chairman Whitted referred to Item 16: The Pine Community Center is petitioning, through its attorney, Richard TAylor, the County to release tax bills on its property in Chapel Hi11 for the years 1969 through 1976. Chairman Whitted recognized Richard Taylor, who stated that he was representing the Plnes Community Center, Inc., a non-profit Corporation which owns and operates a neighborhood center in a low income community. In February of 1969, two lots and a building was donated to the Center and has since that time been a focal point for recreational, social and l84 charitable activities, up until 1975. The building presently is in need o~ repairs and had applied to the Town of Chapel Hi11 for Community Devel- opment funds for improvement to the structure. Subject to the Pines Community Center being able to resolve their tax liability, the Town of Chapel Hill has approved the grant and the Center will be able to operate as a library, day care center and general recreational and community center. Mr. Taylor stated that it was his judgement that the Pines Community Center should be exempted from taxes for a revalent period. General Statutes stated that a non-profit organization, organized under Chapter 55A of the N. C. General Statutes is entitled to a release of any taxes levied against its property from 1969 until December 31, 1973. The law prior to January 1, 1974, made property owned by a non-profit corporation such as the Pines Community Center automatically exempt from ad valorem taxes. For the period from January 1, 1974, through 1ecember 31., 1976, an appeal may be made by the owner of property discovered by the Tax Supervisor if the property owner feels that he is entitled to an exemption. Further, the General Statutes exempts non profit community or neighborhood organizations such as the Pines Community Center if the property is used "Wholly and exclusively by its owner for non profit educational, scientific, literary, or charitable purposes". Mr. Taylor stated that at no time has this community group made applics~ion for exemption for 1974 to the present, therefore, for the year 1974 to the present, the Commissioners are hearing the appeal from the discovery. Mr. Taylor explained further that the community group acquired the building in February, 1969, and at that time there was a tax lien on the building and property which had,not been paid. He added that due to the state of the building, that it was not used at all during 1976. He requested that the Commissioners grant the tax exemption for the years 1974 and 1975. The County Attorney stated that the County could not legally exempt the taxes far 1969, and that they should be paid. The Tax Supervisor stated that whoever owned the building in January of 1969 is responsibile for paying the taxes. I~t was pointed out that the building was donated to the Pine Community Center in February, 1969. January 1, 1970 was the first year the property was listed as belonging to the Pines Community Center. ThA Tax Supervisor stated that he questioned whether the Commissioners could release the property. He suggested that the Board pxoceed under the adjustment of a tax bill for release of taxes for more than one year. He stated that there was another statute whereby the $oard of Commissioners could compromise a tax bill xather than the release procedure. The County Attorney stated that if the owner demonstrates that the property meets the conditions for exemption, the exemption may be approved by the Board of Commissioners at that time. Tn his opinion, the Board of Commissioners is not liminted to one year. Discussion ensued. The County Attorney stated that the Board was to consider an application for exemption for the years 1974, 1975, and 1976. The criteria is that this group was a non profit organization and the pro- perty was used wholly and exclusively by its owner for non profit educa- tional, scientific, literary, or charitable purposes." Commissioner Willhoit moved that the tax exemption for the years 1974, 1975, and 1976 be granted. This motion died fdr lack of a second. Further discussion ensued. It was pointed out that a full recreation program was in operation at the community center during the years ].974 and 1975. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the tax exemption for the years 1974 and 1975 be granted. Commissioner Willhoit seconded the motion. Commissioner Walker stated that he felt this action was inconsistent with other appeals, and that he did not agree with the opinions which had been expressed. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Voting aye were Commissoners Gustaveson, Pinney, Whitted, and Willhoit. Voting nay was Commissioner Walker. The motion was declared passed. ~~S The $oard of Commissioners discussed the use of the Pine Community Center during the year 1976. Richard Taylor stated that the building was not in used, however the playground was used. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the 1976 appeal for the Pines Community Center be denied. The Board adjourned for lunch. Commissoner Walker was not present far the afternoon session. The Board reconvened from lunch and the Chairman referred to item 7: A Resolution relating to Land Use Planning in Orange County. Mr. Whined stated that the County Attorney had prepared a Resolution in accordance with the April 26th meeting. The County Attorney, A. B. Coleman, Jr., stated that the Resolution makes reference to exhibits which he would present to the Clerk to the Board and that this would be a permanent file for future reference. Mr. Coleman presented copies of the Resolution to members of the Board, and presented the following exhibits to the Clerk. Exhibit 11: The Potentials for Outdoor Recreation Develo ment, Orange County Exhibit VII: A Plan for Recreation and Parks in Oran a County dated June, 1974, with particular emphasis to the maps on page 86. The County Attorney referred to one section of the Resolution which stated that Duke University Forest has been accepted as part of a national network of "Manipulative Ecological Reserves" by the Institute of Ecology. The County Attorney stated that he would add a document to the file concerning this acceptance. With reference to the Oosting Natural Area on Hwy 86, a letter will be forthcoming from Fred White for the file. He presented to the Clerk Exhibit VIII, a report on Recreation Use on an Urban Frin a Forest, Exhibit VI, Growth Options for Orange County, Exhibit IX, Energy in Orange County, Exhibit XTT2, a report entitled A Planning Mana ement Process for Oran a County, North Carolina with Recommendations for Sound Land Develo ment. Exhibit XIV, Proposed Zoning Amendments for Cha el Hi11 and Eno Townshi s, Exhibit XV, Proposed Subdivision Re ulations for Oran a County, Exhibit XII includes portions of the Sketch Develo ment Plan and other documents which explain efforts of the Planning Board and Department to clarify the plan. Commissioner Gustaveson asked that the Eno River Task Force Report be included as an exhibit, and the Clerk was instructed to add this section to the Resolution. Mr. Gustaveson asked that Mr. B. B. Olive be contacted regarding the resolution which was adopted by the Air and Water Resources Board and that the resolution be included in the exhibits. Mr. Coleman presented to the Clerk Exhibit I, A Land Classification S stem ma of Cha el Hill Townshi and Exhibit IT, a narrative statement of a Land Classification System for Orange County, Exhibit III, A Sketch, Develo ment Plan ma of Cha el Hill Townshi , Exhibit IV, A'narrative tatement of a Sketch Development Plan and Develo ment Patterns of Cha el Hill Tawnshi , and Exhibit V, Goals and Ob'ectives for Oran a Count based upon the Study of Chapel Hill Township. The County Attorney presented to the Clerk Exhibit l0 (a) Chapel Hill Quadrangle U. S. Department of Interior Geological Survey topographic map and Exhibit 10 (b) Hillsborough Quadrangle U. S. Department of Interior Geological Survey Topographic map. The maps showed colored dots which specified (1) Historic Places, (2) Endangered or Threatened Plant Species, (3) Endangered or Threatened Animal Species and (4) Unique Physical Features. The Planning Director informed the Board of Commissioners that the $~s Land Classification Map which goes with the narrative statement at~e~pted to show the intention of connecting the green belt area. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, it was moved and approved to adopt the Resolution as related to Land Use Planning in Orange County with the recommended additions. (See Page 193 of this book) The Clerk was instructed to sent copies of the Resolution to the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Boards of Aldermen, Region J Councils of Governments, and copies to the press. Chairman Whitted referred to Item 11: The City of Durham is requesting release of certain Drange County Tax Bills. _..... The Agenda attachment stated that in 1972, the City of Durham com- menced acquiring land in Orange County to construct a reservoir and per- haps a park. Land acquired by the City to be used for a governmental purpose is exempt from local property tax. rn late 1973, the City abandoned its efforts to construct a reservoir on the Eno and announced its intentien to sell the alnd acquired to the State. In 1975, the City did convey this land to the State. The Orange County Tax Supervisor placed this property on the tax records in 1975. The City of Durham is petitioning the County to release the 1975 taxes on this property that amounts to $440. The Chairman recognized the Tax Supervisor, Williams Laws who intro- duced to the Board Mr. Doug Johnston, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Durham. Mr. Johnston stated that the problem is in regard to certain tracts of land which the City of Durham bought in Orange County for the lake/park reservoir on the Eno. These parcels have subsequently been sold to the State, with a Warranty Deed on record, so now the City either has.ta pay the taxes or have a determination that they are exempted from taxes. Mr. Johnston stated that the Commissioners would have to determine if the City of Durham bought and held these property under a plan for public use thereof. Properties of cities and municipalities are exempted from taxes, according to the General Statutes, if they are used wholly and exclusively for muni- cipal purposes. Mr. Johnston stated that the Supreme .Court had held that as long as .the property is purchased and held under a plan for public use, that the requirements were met. He stated that he contended that the City of Durham did by and held this property under a plan for public use. Mr. Johnston introduced Ms. Parker from the staff of the Durham City Planning Office. Ms. Parker reviewed for the Board an application which was submitted to HUD September 18, 1972. The purpose of the application was to show the City of Durham's commitment to a plan far open space, recreation/reservoir use of the property. Ms. Parker also referred to a letter from Dexter Smith, Director of Planning for the City o£ Durham, which spoke of the recreation plan for Durham. Mr. Johnston stated that the plan was submitted to the Gity Council and approved September 18, 1972. On January 11, 1973, the Gity of Durham was notified that federal funds for the project were unlikely, and the Gity began to acquire the properties using their own monies. On July 12, 1973, the State of North Carolina presented a proposed Eno agreement to the City. The agreement expressed the State's interest in the Eno and stated that "the City of Durham should be responsible far acquisition of property in Durham County and the State of North Carolina should be res- ponsible for acquisition in Orange County. On October 25, 1973, the State, in a second proposal, expressed their interest in purchasing the pro- perties owned by the City of Durham along the Eno, west of Guess Road to establish a State park from Guess Road westward, and on•November 5, 1973, the City of Durham accepted the State's offer to purchase the Gity's park property and to proceed with further park development. Mr. Johnston pointed out that under North Carolina law, the property, which had been dedicated by the City of Durham for use as a park, cannot be changed from that use. The Tax Supervisor, William Laws, stated that one deed was conveyed to the State for tract numbers 2307,2309,2863,2865, and 2925 in October of 1975. ~8'~ Mr. Laws stated that from the Tax Department's records, November 5, 1973 to October, 1975, appeared to be a long time. The property was not discovered until 1975 because the property was not sold and was not being used. He stated that he contended that the eel had "fell through" in 1973 and yet the property was being retained with no use. He added that one year would have been a reasonable time to dispose of the property. The County Attorney, Jeff Gledhill suggested that the Board of Com- missioners should find whether or not the property in question was being used wholly and exclusively for a public purpose for the entire period (1975), He added that the Board could find that at some point the City had abandoned its plan. He concluded that there was evidence to make a decision either .way. -- Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted to release the taxes for the year 1975 certain properties owned by the City of Durham and located in Orange County, ~ Chairman Whitted referred to Item 13: The Board should reach a decision regarding relocation of the Public Library to the old Grady A Brown Shcool site, Commissioner Gustaveson moved to reaffirm the original plan that the Library be included in the Grady Brown structure and that the architect should continue his work toward renovation of the Library. Commissioner Willhoit seconded the motion. Chairman Whitted asked Commissioner Gustaveson if he would amend his motion to state that Grady Brown Building could be a temporary arrangement, for the library, should some outside funding become available for a new structure. Commissioner Gustaveson agreed to the "friendly amendment". - All members of the Board voted aye on the motion and the motion was declared passed. Item 15: The plats and rezoning petition listed are submitted for the Board's approval. A. Rezoning Petition of J.H.H, Associates: This proposal to rezone from residential to rural commercial was deferred by the Board in April as insufficient information concerning sanitary sewer service available to the property had been developed. The Chairman recognized Chris Edwards from the Planning Department, Mr, Edwards stated that regarding the request of J.H.H. Associates, he had talked with Everett Billingsley, Director of the Orange Water-Sewer Authority, and that Mr. Billingsley's opinion was that the original pro- posal to provide sewer for this project was not feasible in the sense that Section IV of Hertiage Hills- will have first chance at that pumping station. Another problem is that when the present pumps are working for Hertiage Hills, it has a tendency to overload the gravity system which it feeds into. Mr. Billingsley stated to provide sewer for the proposed pro- ject of J.H.H. Associates, the Hertiage Hills matter would have to be cleared, and new gravity lines would have to be installed. Mr. Fred Hazard, a developer for J. H. H. Associates, stated that he had received a letter from OWASA which stated the gravity feed which is present there is capable of absorbing the present sewer load, and appa- rently, the sewer load of Hertiage Hills Extension: The problem is getting _-._ it from Hertiage Hills to the gravity feed at the right tires, because the 'pipe can not handle the sewage from the two pumps at the same time. Mr. Hazard stated that OWASA had originally suggested that the building complex have a storage tank at the complex, and that sewage be pumped out during off hours of Hertiage Hills. Mr. Hazard stated that the building complex was a planned development for the area, and if disapproved by the Commis- sinners the use of the property could be less desirable than was originally planned. ~~8 Commissioner Willhoit stated that this appeared to be piece-meal sewage treatment to him and he does not like the idea of a holding tank and this should be something for OWASA to work out. Commissioner Willhoit moved that the rezoning request be denied until such time as adequate sewage lines and adequate sewage facilities are provided. Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he shared the concern of Mr. Willhoit, and that he was also concerned about the development of that whole area, that he preferred a good planned development to piecemeal planning. He added that the sewage system would have to be upgraded by OWASA ayway. Discussion ensued. Chairman Whitted reminded the Board that once the property is zoned general commercial, it would remain general commer- cial. Commissioner Pinney stated that sewer should not enter into the decision of this Board, because the Board does not have anything to do with providing sewer. He added that a decision should be made as to whether ar not this tract of land is desirable to be zoned commercial. The County Attorney, Jeff Gledhill, stated that the sanitation pro- blem is a legitimate consideration for the Board. Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Willhoit stated that it ppeared that OWASA had not considered the potential impact the proposed method of handling the sewage would have on the watershed, but that the impact had been viewed from an engineering consideration. He added that he had talked with Mr. Billingsley who spoke of the inadequancy of the gravity feed. Commissioner Gustaveson suggested that this rezoning request be tabled for three months to give OWASA time to present more specific statements of their plans for this area. He added that he was concerned about the developing of the area in the future. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the request be tabled to provide time for opportunity for further study on the part of the applicant and OWASA. Commissioner Pinney seconded the.~mation. Chairman Whined called for the vote on the motion. Voting aye were Commissioners Gustaveson, Pinney, Whined and Walker. Voting nay was Commissioner Willhoit. The motion was declared passed. Mr. Hazard stated that he would attempt to get in writing from OWASA, a definite means of the handling of the sewage in the area proposed to be rezoned, without being detrimental to Hertiage Hills and the University Lake watershed. Final Alatc B. Hunters Ridge Phase Iz - This plat proposes the division of a parcel into six fats each one acre in size. A private road will serve the property. This road will be paved to state standards, however, right of way clearing, ditching, etc. will not meet state requirements. Mr. Edwards stated that this plat was appfoved with a variance and with a private road. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner whitted, it was moved and adopted to approve the final plat for Hunters Ridge Phase 22. C. E. T. Cartee - This plat proposes the division of three (1~) acre lots from a ten acre tract. Access to the property will be provided through a private Class C road. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted to approve the final plat of E. T. Cartee. ,~~~ D, Woods Brothers - This plat proposes the division of a tract into fourteen one-acne lots, Access will be provided by a private Class C road. This plat was previously approved with a combination of a gublic and private type road. A letter has been received from the Department of Transportation stating that they do not approve of the use of both private and public type roads. The Department of Transportation has made suggestions, however, they will approve what ever the County approves. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted to approve the final plat of Woods Brother. E. Woodrow. Melton - This plat proposes the division of two (1) acre lots from a seven acre tract. This Board has previously approved a variance to relieve the developer from constructing this road to minimum state standards. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted to approve the final plat of Woodrow Melton. Preliminar Plats H. Douglas Hill -- This plat proposes the division of two (8) acre lots and one (3) acre lot from a 65 acre tract. All lots front on a State road, Pleasant Green Road. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adapted to approve the preliminary plat of Douglas Hi11. I. Richard Jackson - This plat revises one previously approved by the Board. A Class B private road has been substituted for a public road built to State standards. This division is 9 lots to be divided from a 13 acre tract. A gravel road has been built and the developer is resub- mitting this plat requesting that the road be a private orad and be built - to "B" Standards. The deed and the final plat will show that road frontage will not be used as an easement. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the revised preliminary plat for Richard Jackson be approved with the use of a private road built to Class B standards. Commissioner Willhoit seconded the motion. Commissioner Pinney questioned the use of a Private Class B road in a small subdivision. He stated that he though it was a policy to use public roads on small subdivisions, so that the County would not have to use matching road monies to pave the roads later. Cemmissioner Willhoit asked if the Planning Staff would work on a policy statement along these lines of using road funds. Discussion ensued. Chairman Whitted called for the vote on the motion. Voting aye were Commissioners Gustaveson, Whitted, Willhoit and Walker. Voting nay was Commissioner Pinney. The motion was declared . passed. J. Morris Grove Heights - This plat proposes the revision of a previously recorded subdivision. Four lots originally fronting on Old 86 have been re-oriented to front on the subdivision street and eliminates four driveways an Old Hwy 86. These four lots are 25,000 square feet in size and the Ordinance requires 40,000 square feet lots. The County Attorney has stated that the Planning Board, if they so __ desire, could grant a variance on one section of the Ordinance to allow the 25,000 feet lots to remain. Discussion ensued. The°Planning Board has recommended a variance to the 40,000 foot lots. Upon motion of Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted to approve the preliminary plat for Morris Grove Heights and that the four lots be redesigned. Final Plat of Martin McKey - Mr. Edwards stated that~•.this plat was being resubmitted for a time extension. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it, was moved and adapted to reapprove the final plat of Martin McKey. Aso G. Mary Belle Sparrow Estate/or June Sparrow - The sixty day time limit to place plats on record has expired on this plat. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, it was moved and adopted to reapprove the final plat of.Mary Belle Sparrow. Mr. Edwards informed the Bvard of the regular quarterly pbulic hear- ing which will be held on Tuesday, May 31, 1977. He asked if the Amend- ments to the Subdivision Ordinance should be presented at the public hearing. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Willhoit suggested that the amendments be included on the agenda for the public hearing, and that the Planning Board be prepared to make some recommendation in order that the Board of Commissioners could take some action by the third Tuesday in June, 1977. Chairman Whitted informed the Board of the North Carolina Association of Counties meeting in Raleigh on May 18, 1977. The Chairman asked that the Board talk about the Frank Porter Graham Contract. He stated that on an annual basis this amounted to $200,000 fox Frank Porter Graham and given the current status of the Title XX situation, at some point the contract would have to be discontinued, and that the school should be notified in order that they might begin negotiations with the STate to continue the program. Discussion ensued. The Gaunty Manager was requested to write to the administx'atron of the Frank Porter Graham School and to inquire if they have found alternative methods of funding their program since the Title XX monies will shortly be phased down. The County Manager brought to the Board's attention the request which was made by Mrs. Stewart Barbour of notification of all meetings held by County Boards, Committees and Commissions. He stated that this request woudl be almost an impossible task on the part of the County to know when all meetings were taking place. Discussion ensued. it was suggested that as complete a listing of meetings as possible be posted on the bulletin board, including a statement that this does not include all meetings held by County Boards. Commissioner Gustaveson suggested that a brochure be prepared giving the names and addressess of all boards, board members, and the time and place of their regular meetings. He added that the Board should talk. about this further during budget time. Chairman Whitted asked County Attorney, A. B. Coleman Jr., to bring the Board up to date regarding the agreement between the County of Orange and the Town of Mebane concerning water lines paid for by Orange County. Mr. Coleman stated that he had met with the Town's Attorney and that the Attorney was supposed to meet with the Town Board and then contact Mr. Coleman with some type of proposal from Mebane. He stated that this had not been done. The Board agreed that this was a matter that should be settled once and for a11. The County Attorney was requested to contct the Town Attorney and attempt to schedule a meeting to talk again with Mebane regarding this situation. Mebane should provide Orange County with their view of a reasonable settlement and if satifactorily action is not obtained, Mebane should be informed of the possibility of legal action. The meeting was ajourned. '~ / ='~ Richard E. Whitte d, Chairman Agatha Johnson, Clerk E 4 E' f ORANGE COUNTY • 197b-77 BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT s The 1976-77 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on June 24, 1976, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: Change the appropriation for the following line items in the funds indicated: INCREASE FUND --ITEM (DEGREASE TO TOTAL General Fund: Bldgs. & Grds- Heating Fuel 8;200 18,200 Bldgs. &Grds- Water & Sewer 750 2,250 Commission- Personnel 2,350 ~ 30,350 EMS Council- Personnel 5,3D0 9,700 Health- Personnel 3,000 3,000 Health- Travel 500 500 Recreation- Arts Couhcil° _ 5,000 5,OD0 Recreation- Capital Equipment (1,851) 11,734 Recreation- Contract Services 3,405 24,705 Recreation- Personnel (2,433) 58,232 Recreation Program Supplies 2,884 6,fi04 Recreation- Pub. & Advertising 200 350 Recreation= Telephone 400 2,ODD Veterans Service- Personnel 450 12,550 Bldgs. & Rents- Fire & Cas. Ins. 3,500 ~ 11,840 Bldgs. & Rents- Office Rents 330 5,130 Interfund Transfers- To Social Ser. (5,000) 642,560 Personnel Support- Employee Hosp. 1,OOD 21,000 Personnel Support- Law Enf. Retire. (400) 15,&OD Personnel Support- Liability Ins. 4,400 9,400 Personnel Support- Local Retire. 1,000 29,000 Personnel Support- Longevity Pay (5,350) 0 Personnel Support- 5ocia7 Security 1,500 56,500 Personnel Support- State Retire. (300) 2,850 Personnel Support-- 4lorkmen's Comp. (1,85D) 5,650 Misc.- Foreclosure Suits 3,000 4,pOD Misc.- Contingency (17,080) 28,276 $OGidl SerViGe5: Programs- Back to School (500) 2,500 Programs- Family Planning (38,000) 2,OOp Programs- General Assistance 9,500 17,000 Programs- General Medical (1,000) 500 Programs- Indv: Child Care (14,4D0) 0 Supp. Enf.- Equipment 200 200 Supp. Enf.- Personnel 800 12,710 Supp. Enf.- Telephone 150 450 Supp. Enf.- Travel (1,150) 650 1~3 •• INCREASE FUND - ITEM ~ '(DECREASE) TO TOTAL Title XX- Chore Support (7,500) 3,1 13 Title XX- Early Childhood (FPG) (60,OOD) . 77,607• Title XX- Geriatric (31,OOD) 13,984 Title XX- Housing 350 20 450 - Title XX- Legal Aid (28,000) _36,360 i - Change the revenues and fund balances estimated to be available .to rreet the foregoing.apprapriations in the funds indicated: INCREASE FUND - RESOURCE (DECREASE) TO TOTAL General Fund: EMS- Funds 5,300 5,300• Recreation- Arts Council - 1,000 1,000 • Recreation- Fees- 6,605 19,405 Social Services: • Donations to P~eedy Persons 8,000 8,000 Family Planning (3$,000) 0 Indv. Child Care (12,600) _ _ Legal Aid- FPG (5,244) p Title XX- Local Match (5,000) 25,000 - Title XX- State Shares (117,706) 124,714 .. Adopted this the ~ '~ day of ~,. 4 t .;. ~~ NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISS ORATdGE COUNTY R E S O L U T I O N May 2, 1977 WHEREAS, Oran~e County has historically been concerned and involved in efforts to preserve and protect the environment and provide for sound growth policies throughout the County; WHEREAS, in 1972 a study entitled "The Potentials for Outdoor Recreation Development, Orange County, North Carolina" (exhibit 11 was submitted to the Orange County Commissioners and taken under advisement by the Commissioners; WHEREAS, in 1974 the Commissioners were presented on October 4, 1974 with "A Plan for Recreation and Parks" in Orange County dated June, 1974, (exhibit VII, see particularly map at page 86), had a public hearing on said plan on the 19th day of November, 1974, after which said plan was taken under advisement by the Commissioners; WHEREAS, bath of said recreation studies have been reviewed and utilized by the Orange County Planning Department in its efforts to inventory and project recreation use and development throughout the County; WHEREAS, the Duke University Forest has been accepted as part of a national network of "Manipulative Ecological Reserves" by the Institute of Ecology; WHEREAS, the Oosting Natural Area on N. C. Hwy. $6, consistin of 160 acres in Duke Forest, has been dedicated by Duke University to "non-manipulative observational research"; WIN STON. COLEMAN a HERNHOLZ WHEREAS, in January of 1975 the Board of Commissioners ATTDRNBYS AT LAW GNAP2L NILL. N.c created an Orange County Planning Department and charged said NILlSBOROVGN. N. C. Planning Department to immediately undertake the research and ~~~ s preparation of a Land Classification and Sketch Development Plan for Orange County; WHEREAS, in the Spring of 1975 a report on "Recreation Use WINSTpN, GOL~MAN @ BERNNOLZ ATTORNEYS (•,T LAW CHAPgL HILL. N. C. HILLSgOROYGH. N. C. on an Urban Fringe Forest: An Input for Land Use Planning on I the Duke Forest," (exhibit VIII), was obtained, studied and utilized by the Orange County Planning Department in the develop- ment of the Land Classification Plan; WHEREAS, on October 21, 1975 the Orange County Goimnissioners adopted a report and findings of a conference of Orange Gounty citizens, the report being entitled, "Growth Options for Orange County" (exhibit VI); WHEREAS, on May ll, 1976 the Orange County Commissioners adopted a report entitled "Energy in Orange County" (exhibit IX) and its recommendations for energy conservation in Orange County; WHEREAS, on May 13, 1976 the Orange County Planning Depart- ment presented the results of community meetings, goals and objectives, and a land classification system for Chapel Hill Township and a slide show, prepared by the N. C. Office of State Planning, discussing the land classification system was also presented. In attendance were representatives of the Chapel Hill Board of Alderman, Chapel Hill Planning Board and. Planning Staff, Carrboro Planning Board and Planning Staff, Growth Options Steering Committee, Triangle J Council of Governments, Office of State Planning Land Policy Council Staff, Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County~Planning Board. The plan was referred to individual commissioners for detailed individual study; WHEREAS, on June 21, 1976 a Land Classification System was presented to Carrboro Planning Board and Growth Options Committee; WHEREAS, on June 24, 1976 a Land Classification System and Sketch Development Plan was presented to Chapel Hill Planning Board; ~~ va7o 7 _ __ __ WIN5TON, COLEMAN 8 BERNHOL2 ATTORN.YS AT LAW GHAP84 HIL4 N. G. HnLSeoROUCH, N. c. ~,1HEREAS, on June 24, 1976 a Land Classification System, Sketch Development Plan and Proposed Zoning Amendments to manage rural areas and water resources were presented to the Orange County Commissioners; WHEREAS, an or about July, 1976 the Orange County Planning Department presenthd to the Commissioners a report entitled "A Planning/Management Process for Orange County, North Carolina with Recommendations for Sound Land Development" (exhibit l3), which report was referred to each Commissioner for individual study; WHEREAS, on June 2, 1976 the Orange County Planning Depart- ment submitted proposed zoning amendments for Chapel Hill and Eno Townships covering flood hazard, conservation setback, conserva- tion residential, and agricultural-rural districts for said Townships, which proposals were given a public hearing and taken under advisement by the Commissioners (exhibit 14); WHEREAS, an 1'ebruary 28, 1977 the Orange County Planning Department presented to the Commissioners and Planning Board at a public hearing proposed sub-division regulations intended to protect Orange County water resources and manage growth through- out the County, (exhibit 15), which proposals are under active consideration by the Gommissioners; WHEREAS, adjoining the Oosting Natural Area there is a tract of land known as the "Johnston Tract," being approximately 456 acres, which is under negotiation for management and use as natural open space by the University of North Carolina; WHEREAS, since the initial presentation of the Land Classi- fication and Development Plan for Chapel Hill Township the Planning Board has labored to modify, expand and update said report (see exhibit 12 far studies and report of Planning Department that accompany the said Development Plan). Pale 3 - -~~s WINSTpN, COLEMAN II AND 6~RNHOLZ ATTOpNEVS A7 LAW CHAPEL HILL, N, C, HILLSSOgpUGN, N. C, [4HET2EA$, the Orange County Board o£ Commissioners has received a report from the Eno River Task Force which was present d on March 1, 1976,.by the Chairman of the Task Force, Mr. B. B. Olive; IT TS ' HEIiEI3Y RESOT,VFD TTIAT: The Orange County Board of Corunissioners hereby adopts A LAND CLASSIFICATION AND DEVELOPbIE!VT PLAN OF CHAPEL HILT, T0T7P7SIT2 ORANGE COUNTY, consisting of: (A) A Zand Classification System for Chapel Hill ToT•rnship consisting of: (a) A Land Classification System map of Chanel Tlill Township ,(exhibit 1); •(b) A narrative statement of a Lane.'' Classification System for Orange County (exhibit 2); (B) A Sketch Aevelopment Plan for Chapel Bill Township; consisting of: (a) A sketch development plan map of Chapel Hi11 Township (exhibit 3); (b) A narrative statement of a sketch development plan and development patterns of Chapel I~i11 Township (exhibit 4); (C) Goals and objectives for Orange County based upon the study of Chapel I3i11 Township (exhibit 5) . IT IS FURTHER ItESOLV7?T) THAT: i'fhe Qrange County Board of Commissioners recognizes and resolves to protect, preserve, anc? classify as unique natural area those regions of Orange County designated as unique natural a areas by the N. C. 7'~atural ITeritage program, as shown on the following exhibits: (1) Exhibit 10 (a) -- Chapel Hil7~ !~uac~rangle U. S. Department of Interior Geological Surrey topographic map; lq (b) -- IIi1_lsl,nroucrh, c7uadrangle U. S. Department of rnteriar. Geological ~urvey topographic r_:ap. Page n