HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19990823A~pR~VE~ 10!1 ~1~~
MINI~TE
CRANE ~IJNTY BARB ~F ~MMII~NER
ANB ~PAN~ FLINTY PLANNING BARS
.JOINT PIJBLI H~AfIN
Au~ut ,19~~
The grange bounty Board of ommissioner and the grange bounty Planning Board metfor~
joint public hearing on Monday, August , ~ X99 in a Judge F. cordon Battle courtroom, new bounty
ourthou~ in Hillsborough, North Carolina,
AUNTY ~MMII~NER PRESENT: chair Alice M. cordon, and commissioners M~rgar~t
W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen H, Halkiotis, and Barry ,Jacobs.
~UIVTY PLANNING BARD MEMBERS PRESENT: chair Karen Barrows, M~mb~r Barry
Katz, ~nie Lea, Leo Allison, Lynn Haltkamp, Robert tr~yhom, and Howard McAdams,
AUNTY ATT~RNE11 PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill.
AUNTY STAFF PRESENT: bounty Manager John M. Link, ~,Ir., Assistant County Managers
food Visser and Alberk ittrell, and clerk t~ the Board Beverly A. Blythe fall other staff members will be
identified appropriately below.
N- ALL U~CUMENT REFERRED T IN TH- MINUTES ASE IN TIE PERMANENT
AGENDA FILE IN THE DLERi' OFFICE. ALL REC~RDIN ~F THE MEETING
WILL BE i~EPT FAR ~ 1~EAR.
-----~
A. PENIN REMARi FPM THE CHAIR ~F THE BANE COUNTY BARD ~F
M I.l~NER
Chair ~rdon e~cplained that there will be two ~} sections to the meeting The first portion of the
m~~ting will ~~ ~ public hearing and will be chaired by the planning Board chair ~r~n Barrows. grange
bounty Board of Commissioners' Chair Alice cordon will chair the ~~~ond portion of the meeting,
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair cordon dispensed with the reeding of the public charge.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
~ , ~~~r~~e County onir~~ Atlas Amer~dr~~r~te
a~ -0-~~ .Johr~rry Cate, Chks To~vrr~hip
Planner,Jim Hinkley described the details of this item for action. The Cates have
requested to rezone a portion of their property from Agricultural residential ~AR~ to Agricultural service
~A~ forthe purpose of operating a kennel, Mr. Hinkley e~cplained that the Cates were requesting that
~~~ acres of their property be rezoned. Mr. Hinkley reviewed the perrrritted usages within A districts and
stated that the stipulation set forth in the ordinance would be quite stringent.
~~ ~ ~ue~tions from the Board of Caurrty ommissior~er~:
Commissioner Brawn sought clarification as to the definition of ~ kennel, as
to the nurr~ber of animals kept, which can be ~ or morn dogs, and questioned if there worn setbacks and ~,~
buffers required for kennels.
Cor~missior~erJacobs asked aboutA districts as regards waterqu~lity
critical ar~a~. Mr. Hinkley stated that anywh~r~ that an AR district is located, an A district can also be
located, and the same ups that would be allowed in ~ water quality critical area would apply to both AP
and A districts.
~~ C~ue~tiorrs from the ~rar~go o~r~ty Plar~r~i~g Board:
Board Member Karen Barrows asked for clarification for the hen~fit of the
new 1~lanning Board members.
L
Planning Director Craig Benedict spoke about site plan regulations, which
he fel should adequately address some of the concerns of nearby residents.
Karen Lincoln addressed the issue of kennels alr~~dy being ~Il~wed in the
AR district.
~~ A~adienc~ comments: Nine.
A motion was made by commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by ommissi~nerJacobs to
r~f~rthe proposed Zoning Atlas amendmentt~ the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned
to the Bard of bounty commissioners no sooner thin September ~ , ~ ~.
VOTE; UIVANIM~U.
b. -~-~~ Ernie M~~oom, cedar drove Township
PlannerJim Hinkley made the presentation, stating that much ofwhat he said
about the fiat rezoning request i relevant to this request.
~mmissioner Brown requested morn information on tha property.
Mr. Hinkley stated that the property is cleared, with access to the north and wart,
as wall as other venues, with subdivisions nearby. There ire Iow-lying wetlands and unusable portions
of the property.
Planning Board Member Barry Katz asked about the residences in place there
now,
~1 ~ Audience amrrrerrts;
charity smith, ~ 0~ 5 haw Mill R~~d, stated that residents did not want to
see their neighborhood tamed into a city. the suggested landscaping and recycling.
Robin Clark, ~0 haw Mill Rc~d, asked about the amount of land to be
rezoned.
Margaret Barry, ~~~ haw Mill Road, stated that she lives across from this
proposed rezoning and that she would net like to see anything change this residential area. the further
t~t~d that neighbors are concerned as to whit will be planed on the property.
Robin Clark asked as to what type of notificotion for the rozoning had been
given, Planner ,Jim Hinkley toted that everyone who resided within ~~~ feet of the rezoning area was
notified. Planning ~ir~ctor Craig Benedict vorified this procedure. Marg~r~t Barry stated thot she did nat
r~c~ive a letter and ~ follow-up is to be conducted to ascerkain why she did not receive notification.
A motion was made by omn~issioner Halkiotis, seconded by ommission~r Croy to
rf~rthis proposed Zoning Atlas amendm~ntto the Planning Board for recor~r~~ndationsto be returned
to the Board of bounty commissioners no sooner than September ~ , ~ g,
VOTE: UNANIM~~1.
~rar~~e ~~nty Zoning ~r~inance Text Amendments
a. Amendments belated to child dare paciiity Provisions
~~} Article 4, section Permitted ~Jse Table;
~} Article , section ~.7 Large Day ire Hamel;
~~ Article ~, action ~.~,1 any ire Facility;
~4~ Article Definitions.
Planner Jim Hinkley pr~onted these text ~rnendments.
ommissianerJacobs had several questions a to the amendments.
Manager Link asked Planner Hinkley to consult with Marti Pryer-~cok and ensure
the language is consistent and correct.
Planning Beard Member nie Lea also had questions as to the omendments,
Planning Board Member Caren Barrows questioned whit the terminology was for
someono who is taken care of less than four ~4} hours per day,
bounty Attorney eaffrey Gledhill spoke regarding tho definitions of day care.
Planning Board Member Howard McAdams asked how many nonconforming day
care centers we would have if these regulations were approved. Planner Hinkley stated that those day
c~r~ centers are certified by the state, so them would be none.
Manager Link reiterated thatday c~r~ centers are very highly regulated by the
state.
Planning Board Member Berry late sought clarification of some fanguag~ that had
b~~n struck from the amendments.
A motion was made by commissioner Carey, seconded ~y commissioner I~lallciotis to
refer the proposed coning tetamendmentsforchildcarefacilities to the Planning Board for
rec~rnn~endations to be returned t~ the Board of bounty orrrmissioners no saon~r thin November ,
1 ~~~.
VOTE: IJfVANIM~US.
~. Ar~~ndment Related to Time onstrainta fog p~vlopment Review end
Procedural hangea
~~} Article ~, general provisions;
~} Article , Section .~.~.1, ~~ard of Adjustment Administration;
~~} Article , Establishing of Zoning District and Atlas, Section .~,
Maintenance
Responsibility;
~q~} Article ~, S~ctipn .~., Development Standards for Economic
Development
D~str~cts, ~ Development Review lVleeting,
~~} Article ~, Special lJes
~a} Section ~.4.~, Zoning officer I~repares Analysis and
Recommendation;
fib} Section x.4.4, Recommendation Submitted to Planning Board or
Bowl of Adjustment;
~c} Section 5.~,, Planning Board Action on glass A Special ~Jse
I~ermits;
~d} Section 8.~, Action Subsequent to the Board Action;
~~} Article ~ Amendments
~a} Soction 0~~., Zoning officer Prepare Analysis and
R~cornmendation;
~~} Section ~,~, Referral of AmendmentApplication to planning
Board;
~c} Section 0~7., Action Subsequent t~ the Date of Public Hearing.
. ~ran.~e bounty Subdiwiion Re~ulati~n Text Amendrner~t
Running Director Craig Benedict made introductory remarks. Planner Robert Davis made
the presentation of the proposed text amendments
a. Amendment Related to Tune ~natrainta far ~~welopment R~wiew and
Procedural hangee
~~ ~ Section 1, Purp~~e, A~,thority, ~luriadi~ti~n;
~~ section III, Ap~licatian and Ap~r~wal Procedure;
~} Section III~B-~ classification of Subdivisions} d~tormination of
classification;
~f~} Section III--1 Approval Procodures for Minor Suf~divisions}
concept Plan Submission;
~c} Section III--, Review and Approval Procedures;
~d~ Section III--, Appeal I~rocedures;
fie} Section IIITD-1.d Approval Procedures for Major Subdivision}
Neighborhood Information Meeting;
~f} Section III-D-1-e, Planning I~epartn~ent review Procedures;
~~} Section III-D-~-f, I~I~nning Board Review end Approval
~rocedur~s; ~h} section III-D-~-~, Action uhsequent to Approval;
~i} Section III-~-~-h, Appeal Procedures;
~j} Section III-~--d ~onc~pt flan Approval in the Rural Buffer}
l~lannin~ Department Review Procdur~s;
~k} Section III-~--c, Planning Board Review and Approval Procedures;
~I~ Section III-~--d, Action Subsequent to Approval;
gym} ectiar~ IIITD--e, Appeal Procedures;
fin} Section III-~~-~ ~~roliminary PlatApproval~ Plannir~~ Department
Review Procedures;
~o} Section III-D--c, Planning Board l~eviw and Approval Procedures;
gyp} section III-~--d, Board of orrimissioners Review end Approval
Procedures;
~q} Suction 111-D-4-b Final flat Approval} Review end Approval
Procedures;
fir} Section Iii-D-~, Appeal procedures;
~~~ Section VII-D-4 ~~e~~l status Pr~visi~ns~ Amen~m~nt Procedure,
Action Subsequent tp the Date of Pul~iic Hearin.
~4~ Staff Preaent~tions:
Planning Director rig Benedict made introductory remarks.
Manner Robert Davis made the pr~sont~tion of the proposed tact amendments. Thy objectives of the
proposed review time changes were presented as benefits oach entity
~o~r~ of ours#y arr~r~iioners` ~~bjec~ive:
• ANALYSIS -Allows thorough analysis of proposals without default approvals.
• CERTAIN MINER SIJBDIVISI~NS - Discourages developers from s~~kin~ minor subdivision approval
in ordorto avoid major subdivision requirerr~nts.
LE ~NTRVERSY - Increases probability that rocommendationsvill reach commissioners
without major controversy.
Plar~r~rr~~ ~oar~ ~~jec~ive:
• IIIIIPR~II~S planing Board~ounty commissioners
~NENU - Eliminates recomr~~ndations doing to Soard of commissioners without action or
conditions.
AI~PEAL - Spcifi~s time limitations for filing appeals of Manning Deparkment decisions to Board of
Adjustments.
Staff ~b jeo#i vex:
~~RDINATIN -Allows all affected agencies sufficient time to review and work with applicants to
reach agreement on specific topics.
• DEFAULT APPROVALS ~ Eliminates default approvals on subdivisions where agencies hive yet to
reach accord with dveloperon specific topics.
• DEADLINES - bets deadline for Informatian~l Meetings in ordor to allow sufficient time to prepare a
concise staff report on proposals.
* MINER VS MAJOR - Amends classification prac~ss to require major subdivision review in cans of
disagreer~~nt between staff and developers.
ountyAttorney Geoffrey Gledhill made comments about the preliminary
plat. Manner Davis continued, speaking ~~ to the concept of appeal. Attorney Gledhill Mated them was
no time limitation forappeal.
~~~ questions frorr~ tl~e hoard of aunty omrnis~ioners:
ommissionerJacobs asked ~Ianner Davis to dicu~s the difference in
requirements between minor and major subdivisions. Planner Davis e~cplained the differences. chair
cordon stated that she believed staff would make the decision about minorormajor subdivisions. chair
cordon stated that a change had occurred in the -year rule and Planning Director Benedict concurred.
There is not an accumulative rule.
omrnissionerJacobs e~cpressed his belief that deleting many of these
time limits is a good action, He asked questions of Planning Director Benedict, which were addressed.
Planning Board Member harry Katz made reference to the website run by
the Town of nary, North erolina, and stated thatthe nary website includes a timeline for development.
Member Katz suggested grange bounty mightwantto develop and furnish similar information.
Planning Board Member Robert trayhorn expressed the importance of
informing the public as to the duration of time necessary to have action on an item taken by the Planning
Department. Member trayhorn also wanted to stress the importance of minor subdivisions to rural
grange bounty.
~~~ Audience amments:
Emily Cameron distributed a prepared statement that addressed her
support for staying within the timeframes. Ms. Cameron also had concerns about the actual tent of the
amendments if the Board of bounty commissioners approves them. commissioner Brown asked Ms.
Cameron if there was ever ~ concept plan that was denied. Ms. Cameron stated that the majority of the
time, they could wank it outwith the developer.
Planning Board Member Lynn Holtkamp made ~ statement about limiting
the timeframes. Ms. Cameron stated the timeframe for a preliminary plan was ~ days, Upon review of
the concept plan, any concerns should immediately be addressed with the developer for quick resoiu~ion,
Ms. Cameron reiterated that sloe does notfeel any additional time is necessary.
Vic Knight, of Miller Road, stated that he has many concerns about the
elimination of timeframes. Vllhile he agreed with extending the -day appeal timelines, he believes those
within grange bounty whp have rural developments represent a lame portion of the population, and
would see these open-ended timefremes as problems. Mr, Knight does not went to have time limits
eliminated,
Paul empa, 47 Crean Riley Road, made reference to Planning Board
Member Robert trayhorn's comments about keeping the process fordeveloping a minorsubdivision
separate from the one far major subdivisions. Mr. empa believes it is importantto leave the deter in
the ordinance.
Steve Yuhasz, 7~0 t. Mary's Road, ~s a lead surveyor and e~cpressed his
belief that elimination of tine limits is not a good idea and urged the Board of bounty Commissioners not
to do so. He stated that if all timeframes are eliminated, then accountability at the staff level is also
eliminated. Mr. Yuhasz Mated that knowing that there is an end to the process encourages people to go
into the process. If the ordinance is changed, there is no appeal of anything to the I~Ianning Board or the
Board of County commissioners. Mr. Yuhasz believes that to eliminate any kind of appeal process from
the ordinance is a mistake. Mr. Yuhasz also stated that it would be wrong to force urban rules on a rural
area, end that the only process changes between minor and major subdivisions is procedural. Mr.
Yuhasz also stated that there had been no suggestion that staff meet with developers before making
changes to the process, instead of making the developers perk of the changes that are proposed. Mr,
Yuhasz again stated the need for an appeal mechanism to be built into the system
Mark O'Neal, of Pickett Sprouse Real Estate, stated that he supporks the
timelines. Mr. O'Neal stated that in Durham County, North Carolina, there is a development review
board that meets once a week
John Hartwell, of Lawrence Road, stated that he does not like the proposal
because it is not good government in that there are safeguards built into the ordinance. If there is a need
to change a time, then specifically address that change. Mr. Hartwell stated that there was a Iogic that
led to the initial adoption of the -year concept plan. Mr. Hartwell stated he would like to see the abases
remedied, bit not by eliminating the timelines within the ordinance.
Scott ~adway stated that he was in favor of tho certainty of time limits for
the process. Mr. Railway believes that there needs to be accountability at the staff level, and that the
effected cltl~ns ere the ones most in need of adate-certain process, Mr. Railway stated that citizens
de~rve predictability by making the proc~s date-specific, even if some dates are shortened while other
dates are lengthened.
A oration was made by commissioner ~lacobs, seconded by ommisioner Halkiotis to
referthe proposed text amendment to the ubdiviion Regulations and Zoning ~rdin~nce to the
donning Board for recommendations to bo returned to the Board of bounty ommissionrs no loaner
than November ~,19gg.
VOTE: I~NANIM~US,
b. Section IV~B-~ ~, flexible ~~velapmer~t
~~~ ectior~ ~, Develapmont Star~da~ds
{a} ~. ~ , Estate Lot option;
~b~ D., duster option.
~~ staff ~I~entatior~:
Manning Director Craig presented this text amendment proposal
Benedict, ~~ ~ulestions from tine hoard of ~ulnty or-~mision~rs or
Plarrnir~~ Board -None.
~4~ A~Idier~ce omment~:
Steve Yuhasz, ~1~ St. Mary's load, sought clarification of the
amendment
Scott Railway questioned the ~ 5~ feet requirement and if this way within
the estate lot option only or others options. ~lenning Director Craig Benedict addressed hip concerns.
A notion was made by commissioner Jacobs, seconded by commissioner Brown, that
the proposed amendments b~ referred to the Planning Board for rocommendetions to bo returned to the
Board of bounty ommisioners no sooner than September 7,1 g9g.
VTI=: UNANIMOUS.
This ends the Joint ~uartarly Public Hearing with the Planning Board. hairordon ofthe Board of
bounty ommissioner will chair all remaining items on the agenda.
D. REP~~TS PRESENTED BY AUNTY MANAEI~ ,1~HN LINT
~ . khan ee ~~ orrrrr~isei~ners' Meetin Schedule.
The purpose of this item is to consider several changes or additions to the Board of
bounty commissioners' approved meeting schedule as follows:
fie} Sep~em~er 7, ~~9~: The consulting engineering firm will present its report
concerning the evaluation of proposed eanstructlon and demolition ~B~D~ Iondflll sites, Staff
recommends thatthe regular commissioners meeting scheduled for 7:Opm at the ~. cordon battle
courtroom be moved to the District courtroom on the second floor of the ourthoue, The second float
courtroom is bigger and more likely to accommodate the Jorge audience that may want to attend Chet
muting,
fib} e~fer~ber ~~, ~~~~: The commissioners may wish to schedule a public
hearing to receive public comment on the proposed ~~ sites. The meeting is also recommended to be
conducted at 7:opm in the second floor courtroom at the grange bounty ourthou~e in Hillsborough.
The Board may also with to invite the participation in this public hearing by the municipal governing
boards.
~c} epfer~ber , ~~~: The North erolina Administrative bode rewires
that before final oppraval i given to a municipal solid waste landfill, the local government when the
landfill is located ''shall hold at least one public meeting to inform tha community of the proposed waste
r~anagement activities"". The local government rrrust further "provide ~ public notice of the maeting at
least 0 days prior to the meeting", While extensive public information obout the &D activities that are
currently being considered hay already been provided, in order to moat the specific regulatory notice
requirement, staff recor~mends that the Board establish an additional special meeting for l:opm on this
data in the second floor courkroom of the grange bounty courthouse ire Hillsborough. should the Board
decide to approve the siting of a &~ landfill in the bounty's jurisdiction, this meeting would allowthe
Board to satisfy the requirements I~id out in the North Carolina Administrative bode.
There is no financial impact from these scheduling changes or additions and staff
recommends their adoption by the Board ~ outlined above and authorization for staff to publish the
required notice for the September ~,1 ~~9 public hearing.
A motion was made by commissioner Brown, seconded by commissioner Halkiotis to
accept the proposed changes in the omrr~isioners' meeting schedule,
VOTE: UNANIM~U.
~. Resolutipn ~ osin Coy reasional Le ialation - H,~, ~~~ and . ~~~8.
The purpose of this agenda item is to consider adopting ~ resolution stating the Board of bounty
ommi~sioners' opposition to two ~} bills under consideration by the United states congress.
At the August'17,19gg regular meeting, commissioner Carey suggested that the Eoard
adopt ~ resolution, to be transmitted to the President and grange bounty's congressional
representatives, which would state the Board's opposition to H. R. ~1 and ,10~. These bills contain
certain provisions thatwould inappropriately constrain the prerogatives of local governments to make
local zoning decisions, The Board requested that staff prepare a resolution for the Eoard's consideration
as soon possible, bounty Attorney Gledhill has prepared the resolution.
RE~LUTI~N F
THE BANE UNT BARD F IVIMIINE~
~PPIN ~NREI~NAL LEILATI~N H.~, ~ AND ,~08
WHEREAS, H.R. 7 and ,108 are bills that have been introduced in congress which would
essentially provide immediate federal court review of Iocal zoning decisions where the property owners
allege a ~-galled regulatory taking of property; and
WHEREAS thaw bills if enact ~ .
ed in a law, will fundamentally ohange the approach of the federal courts
to litigation involving local land use decisions which approach is founded on sound principles of
federalism and devolution; and
INHEREA, the precepts of federalism and devolution era principles repeatedly supported and
trumpeted by congress; and
WHEREAS, the present system of review of local land use decisions insures ~ proper balance amen
g
federal, state, and local governments, and protects the prerogative of locally-elected officials to act in the
best interests of the local community; and
WHEREAS, if enacted inta law, H.R. 1 and . ~~~, or either of them, would shift the authority over
local land use decisions away from local and state authorities to the federal courts in a way that would
encourage developers of land to intimidate county officials with the threat of fadaral litigation over any '~,
land use decision contrary to the developers request.
NSW, THEREFORE, BE IT RELVE~ by the Board of commissioners of grange bounty that: ~'
'I . ~t apposes enactment of aithar H. R. 7 or . 'I 0~, and opposes the enactment
of any similar federal legislation attempting to change local, state, and federal relationships with respect
to land use regulations;
. it urges the members of the United States House of Representatives and the
United States Senate to oppose and vote against H,R~ 7 and ~ ~~~, and any comparable bills;
it urges the President of the United states to veto an such le islation in ~e ova h
. y g nt
any such legislation passes congress;
4. it authorizes the chair of the Eo~rd of ~r~nge bounty commissioners to tansmit
this re~lution with an appropriate cover letter to President Clinton, Senators Edwards and Helms, and
~epreentative Price.
Upon motion cf ommissicner Carey, seconded by commissioner Halkiotis, the foregoing
resolution was adopted this, the rd day of August, ~1 ~~.
VOTE: UNANIM~U.
~. ~~ ort -Joint Maa~er ~ecrea~tian ~~d darks Plan
The purpose of this agenda item is to receive the report of ~e Joint Master recreation
and Parks Work group.
In November 1~1, the Eoard created the Joint Master recreation and Parks Vllork
group, which was charged to update and modify the Master recreation and Pis Plan to be ~ joint
long-range pital focilities Alen, including an inventory of facilities, an assessment of needs and
standards, end a review of payment-in-lieu programs and Iong~term parkland acquisition goals. The
Work group was comprised of elected beard and advisory board representatives from each jurisdiction,
and has worked to explore these and other topics. The report was completed on May , ~~, and
contains ~ nur~berof recommendations forthe bounty and other jurisdictions, including the formation of
~ new Parks and Resource Lands council ~s a Iong-term coordinating mechanism. The topics
addressed included:
~a} An update of recreational facilities countywide;
fib} An update of local recreation and parks needs;
~c~ Developing standards for parkfacilities and design;
~d} Establishing joint siting, design, and management of school and park sites;
fie} Setting tangible and realistic parkland acquisition goals;
~f} Reassessing payment-in-lieu of dedication program hand service area boundaries
for programs}; and
fig} betting dedication provisions for greenways in the ~loint Planning Area
The Work group met over a ~ l-month period, which included sic ~~} months of additional
subcommittee work, to produce this report,
The fiat priority was to establish where ~e bounty is at the present time, Tc do so, tuvo
~} committees were created within the Work group. The resource Inventory committee worked during
the spring and summer of ~~~8 to develop a template for tacking all existing recreational facilities and to
inform the public ~~ to their availability. The Needs Assessment committee met during the spring and
summer of ~ g~ to update recreation and parks needs from each jurisdiction. The Work group also
discussed the concept of a countywide set of standards for facilities and park design. The development
of ~ common set of standards was deemed an important consideration, but was deferred by the UUork
group due to tune considerations.
The second priority was to determine where the bounty proceeded from this paint. The
Work group believes that addressing future concerns might best be served by establishing a set of goals
and criteria forfuture land acquisition and facility sitings. In general, the goals and criteria encourage
joint siting of schools and parks, preservation of resources in conjunction with parks development,
awareness of environmentally~sensitive lands, the existence of matching funds, considering the intensity
of use, and locations for linear parks. The work of the choals and Land Use councils was recognized
as an important part of the recreation picture end the idea of joint management of school end park sites,
as well as possible joint acquisition, is a theme throughout the report. one topic the report notes
regards impediments to locating new active recreation facilities. These impediments exist primarily in the
context of lighting, intensity, traffic, end noise. In defining both active and IowTimpact recreation, it is
important to be consistent with surrounding lend uses. Ey -locating schools and parks, and combining
active and low-impact recreation in larger park settings to buffer residential areas, plus the need for ~
proactive lend acquisition program to purchase lands for Iong~term use ~ parks andlor schools, many of
these impediments can be adequately addressed. The report also addresses the need to coordinate
efforts with UN, ~WAA, and Duke University in meeting Iong-term needs of mutual interest.
The third priority is for adequate provision of parkland and natural corridors, one of the
most prominent needs identified is to preserve green corridors, whether in an urban or rural etking. This '~~
section of ~e repork addresses the potential for linking some existing and proposed greenway networks
in shape! Hill, arrboro, and Hillsborough to future parks and regional open space, such as Eno River
state Park and Duke Forest. In ~ ~~, a schematic plan for greenways extending from the chapel
Hilllarrboro area into the Rural l~ufferwas developed as part of the ~loint Planning Aran Land use Plan.
Wildlife corridors in the rural areas were introduced into bounty planning efforts through the 1 ~~
Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat and are important to the overall bounty and regional
ecosyster~ as part of the "green infrastructure", However, as the bounty and Towns continue to grow, it
will become important to link Town parks to regional corridors such as Eno River Mate Bark, nodes of '~
open space such as Duke Forest, and future bounty parks and open space. The identification of '
strategic corridors that might tie together these recreation facilities is suggested as a practical long-term
goal. ~~
~~
The fourth priority is coordinated land acquisition for parks. The ~ and 1 g7 reports
point to the need for coordinated capital funding. The work group placed a strong emphasis on the '~
need to begin land acquisition now far long-term park needs. In 1gg, grange bounty has taken steps to
create a mechanism to address this goal. Anew Department of Environmental and Resource
conservation began operation on January 4, ~~gg, with a primary focus on acquisitionleasements of
critical land resources. A Land Acquisition Program for grange bounty is currently being developed for
discussion in the fall of ~ ggg. This program will develop andlor use inventories, criteria, and a
management structure for the acquisition and stewardship of land resources deemed critical to the public ~,;
interest, as well as working with other existing land trusts and entities. The bounty is hiring a Land
Resources conservation Manager who will have expertise in site evaluation and land acquisition.
Funding for long-term parkland acquisition would likely involve local bonds and allocations, and grants
from programs such as sate Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, '"
The fifth concern of the Work group was the payment-in~livu programs. All jurisdictions in '~;
the bounty have provisions in their development ordinances addressing dedication or provision of
recreation facilities. arrboro and grange bounty also have payment-in-lieu dedication programs, which
allows for the payment of a fee based on the number of lots in lieu of providing recreation facilities.
grange bounty has special legislation that would allow forthe use of impact fees for public uses, ~~.
including recreation, but this proviso has not been utilised to date. As of 1 9, arrboro has collected
4~~,0~~.~~ through its payment-in-lieu program. grange bounty currently has 4~~,000 available.
The bounty has also received land dedications totaling ~4 acres since ~ g~, although this land is in
small pieces, exclusively in the Bingham and chapel Hill Townships. The Work group found that
difficulties exist with the existing payment+in-lieu programs such that funds must be geographically '~~
earmarked and spent within the area collecked. They must also be supplemented with matching funds. ~~
considerable research was done to e~cplore programs in other jurisdictions, and a special meeting with ~~
Richard Drucker from the Institute of government was held to review payment-in-lieu possibilities. '~
Finally, the si~cth area of the report addressed the recor~mendations of the wank group. '~
~a} r~a~e a darks ar-~ Resource Lar~~s aunor'I, whose possible duties might include; ~'~°
~1} developing and reviewing standards;
~~ Developing future parks bond proposals;
~~ Providing a coordinating mechanisr~ for parks plan updates;
~4} Making recommendations on allocations of future bond moneys; ~~
~~} coordinating acquisitions through the bounty Land Resource Acquisition '~~
Rrogram. ~
A resolution asking the local board to create the Rarks and Resource Lands
ounci) was presented,
~b~ rea~e InterTjurisdic#ional ~arrdar~; As previously noted, impediments exist to
the creation of common standards for use countywide, But if coordinated funding is pursued, the need
for same coordinated standard would be important. The Parks and Resource Lands council is
recommended as a mechanism to accomplish this goal.
io
~c~ Joinf r'lin~, ~e~ign, and N9an~~emenf of ohool and Pa- i#~: It i~
recomr~r~ded that grange bounty, with dedicated stiff resources and with ~ progr~rn for land ~~~
acquisition and a role in school siting, should take the I~ad role in coordinating they ~fforks.
~d~ ~ublicl~riuale ~~rfnorhips: The Work Croup considered and expressed tho
imporkance of establishing partnerships to coordinate recreational Hoods and plannod facilities.
~} ~1ain~ ~pifal Facililr'e ~lanninloo~dinafed Land A~uisifion: A meeting of the
Managers of each jurisdiction i recommended to develop ~ plan for coordination of long-term land
acquisition. With land prices continuing to escalate and little land available for parks within the Town
jurisdictions, action i needed in the immediate future to coordinate these effork and begin the process ~.
~~ Chan Facili~ie policy: In the spirit of inter-governmental coordination, the Work ~~
Croup believes that all bounty citizens should have the opporkunity to use facilities within the bounty,
regardless of their jurisdiction of residency. Attempts to restrict use will result in cumbersome
adrr~initrative work end is not constructive in the collaborative future of arks
tannin .
p p g
fig} ~aymerrf+in-~i~c~ l~ar~es: After considerable discussion and review, the Work
Croup finds thatth~ e~cisting payment-in-lieu programs are not likely to produce sufficientfunds to meet 'i
long-term needs, It is recommended that ~rar~ge bounty and arrboro develop plans to match other I~
funding with the current payment+in-lieu funds to use these resources, Even with its limitations, the
e~cisting payment-in-lieu programs should b kept and modified wherever passible, The potential for an
impactfee or ~mpactta should be explored, using existing legislation.
~h~ Add-~sir~~ ~~cislin~ Nd: While more thorough standards aro needed, ~
population-based standard from the ~g As~~mbly of Covornments report was u~d to deterr~ine '~
needs for parklands. Lying this standard, the bounty as a whole has a current deficit of X45 acres of
parkland. Wi#h epecked population growth, the bounty and Towns combined will have a deficit of ~,5
acres by the year ~~. Eased on average land sales ~w~ighted for urban and rural lands and existing
bond f~,nds, the cost of purchasing lands to erase the Iong-term daficit is ~ 0. ~ million in ~ g99 dollars. ~'~
Since this will only rise in the future, the Work Croup again recommends action in terms of land
acquisition.
~i} [use of ~rrer~l Fundy and Future F~rndin~-1Veed~: While it may ba more practical '~~
to develop recreational facilities aver time as the population incraases, a morn proactive approach to
land acquisition is needed to identify ar~d purchase sites that offer both active ar~d Iow-impact recreation ~~
potential. Matching funds from diffarent jurisdictions should ba an important componant, and an acreage
threshold and additional standards for joint schoollpark sites are also warranted. To address Iong-term
needs, the Work Croup recommends:
~~~ The remaining ,fig million for land acquisition fror~ a bounty parks
bond should be used for acquisition of lands identified as sites for Iong~term acquisition as soon as
possibly,
~~ The remainder of the ~ ~ million in long-term land acquisition should be
addressad through an ~ million parks band placed before the voters in Novamber ~Oo. The darks and
resource Lends council should develop the specifics of the band proposal. ',~
Manager Link stated that the Work Croup report was presented for informational purposes and
recommends that the Board consider the recommendations from the Work Croup, and discuss referral to
advisory boards. The report is slated to be formally presented at the September X0,1 g~ Assembly of
Covemm~nts meeting.
4. ~~~ort * Waterand Sewer Mana~emer~t Planning and ~aundaryA~reer~ent.
The purpose of this agenda item is to receive ~ report on tha work of tha Water and Sewer
Service Eoundary Task Force and review the final version of the Water and Sewer Management
planning and boundary Agreement.
The electad board of Orange bounty, chapel dill, arrboro, and hlillsborough, and the
appointed Orange Water and Sewer Authority ~~WASA} Board of Direc#ors adopted resolutions in April
~g94 to ornate a 1lvator and Sewer Service Boundary Task Forca to develop water acrd sewer service
boundaries forthe bounty's service providers. commissioner Moses Garay served ~ chair for the Task
Force that began mooting in ,dune 1 gg4. In December ~ 9g4, the Task Force issued a preliminary report
11
with ~ "straw" sit of service boundaries, acc~mp~nied by ~ list of interrelated obj~~tives to b~ addressed,
In ~ ~~~, the elected and ~~pointed boards passed resolutions agreeing at different I~vels of detail with
the initial report, and charged the Tasl~ Force to continue meeting to work through the issues and service
boundaries. After almost five ~~} years, the Task Force is pleased to present the "final" version of the
Water and ewer lVlanagem~nt Planning and boundary Agreement. There is no financial irnpact at this
time.
The Task Force recommended Water and fewer Management, ~l~nning and boundary
Agreement is provided as an attachment to these minutes.
Manger Linlc recon~n~~nded that the ~o~rd receive the report for information only at this time.
E.
AD~JIJRNMEN7
With no further items to be considered, the grange bounty Board of commissioners adjourned
their meeting. The next meeting a st~t~d on the regular rr~~~ting calendar is scheduled for August ~1,
19gg at 7:~ p.m. at the ov~rnment ervice inter in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Alice M~ pardon, chair
Beverly A. Blythe, cleric