Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19820518Uu~y'I ~..: "~ MINUTES MAY 18, 1982 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 18, 1982, at 7:30.P.M, in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Commissioners present: Chairman Richard E. Whitted, and Commissioners Norm Gustaveson, Shirley E. Mar•~hall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit. A• Board Comments There were no comments from the Board. B- Audience Comments There were no comments from the audience about matters either on or not on the printed agenda. D• Public Hearin s 1. preliminary Assessment Resolutian_-Mr. Miltan Skolaut, a resident of Oak Hill Road, spoke in favor of the Participatory Paving Project and asked that the Board approve the Resolution. With no others who wished to speak, Chairman Whitted declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for Oak Hill Road closed. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, to approve the Final Assessment Resolution for the Oak Hill Road Participatory Paving Project. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. .Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner,Gustaveson, to accept the Certificate of Mailing on the Oak Hill Road Participatory Paving Project offered by the Clerk to the Board. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker,to set the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Roll far Oak Hill Road on June 15, 1982. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 2. Department of Transportation Proposed 1982-83 Secondary Road P1 an for Orange County. Mr. Sanders Dallas, Jr., of the Board of Transportation, told the Board of Commissioners that due to the $0.03 per gallon tax increase on gasoline, adopted by the State that there was money available for Secondary Road Improvements. Mr. Dallas introduced the District Engineers and Mr. John Watkins to the Board, Mr. John Watkins made the,pOT's presentation on its Secondary Road Plan for-~the County to the Board (that plan is on page of these Minutes). ~. :.1.;.' Commissioner Whitted questioned the spending of Improvements money for projects that could be considered maintenance items .and then opened the hearing for public comments.. An unidentified man from Dodson's Crossroads asked about safety improvements to Dodson's Crossroads and Dairyland Road. Mr. Watkins said that portion of the road north to Orange Grove Road would be resurfaced. Ms. Josephine Barbour asked if it was proper to ask about signals; Com- missioner Whitted said this public hearing was properly about the Secondary Road improvement Plan for the County but. he was sure.the DOT officials would talk with her after the meeting. With no further persons who wished to comment, Commissioner Whitted declared the Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, the adoption and approval of the 1982-83 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Orange County. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Commissioner Gustaveson reminded Mr. Watkins that the Board of Commissioners had written DOT about the safety concerns at the intersection of Mt:-Carmel Church Road and 15-501 South of Chapel Hill. Mr. Watkins said DOT had investigated the intersection and agreed that •a flashing yellow light would improve the safety factor and it was on the list of safety improvements requested this year. He added that a letter to Mr. Dallas supporting the request might be helpful. Ms. Susan Smith brought, to the Board of Commissioners' attention recent changes in the way DOT classifies roads which changes the way roads are classified in the Participatory Paving Program. Ms. Smith told the Board these changes would be on a future agenda for its consideration of the priority list for the Participatory Paving Program. 3. Road Naming--State and Non-State Maintained Roads: Mr. Jim Polatty, Planning Director, provided the Board with background on the Road Naming Advisory Commission. Mr. David Shanklin, Chair of the Raad Naming Advisory Commission, read the list of proposed road names by the Township of their location. Any road names which had received o.r received negative com- meats from the public were stricken from consideration. A list of those names which did not generate negative comments is on pages of these minutes. Mr. Shanklin told those present to give Ms. Jane Atwater, Planning Staff, their suggested road names or to come to the RONAC meeting on July 21, 1982. t1ll~J~ ~~ ,;; ~ J All those who wished to be heard on the Road Naming Advisory Commission Public Hearing were heard. The Board of Commissioners asked that the final list of roads presented at this public hearing be on the Board's agenda for its first June meeting. The Board of Commissioners took a short break and resumed deliberations with all members present. E. REPORT--ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS' BUbGET PRESENTATION Mr. Oscar Compton, Chair of the Orange County Board of Education, reviewed the process used by the Board of Education for formulating its budget. Mr. Campton noted a request for increased capital funding for A.L. Stanback 5chool..He thanked the Board of Commissioners for its .past support of the schools. Mr. Mike Simmons, Superintendent of the Orange County Schools, made some general statements about the budget request, saying the operating budget is below the inflationary level. He added that the capital request was small in terms of total needs. Ms. Kathy Battern, Orange County Schools Finanee Officer, led the Boards through a line item summary of revenues and expenditures. Mr.•ban Lansford addressed specific programs, singling out the exceptional child program as an area of critical need. Mr. Norman Haithcock, Board of Education member, told the Commissioners that the children of Northern Orange were its future and asked that the Commissioners not let the programs "slide backwards." He spoke of understaffing problems and said the budget was directed towards "getting instruction" into the classroom. Mr. Max Kennedy, Board of Education member, told the Board of Commissioners of his concern that the capital request be funded at full level, saying that $250,000 was carried over from last year, $365,000 was needed for roofs and $33,OOD was needed fora microcomputer. Mr. James Ray Freeland, Board of Education•member, told the Commissioners that the roof repairs and maintenance needs are well documented. He asked that the school budget be funded at the full level requested. Mr. Walter Faribault, Jr., Board of Education member, told the Commissioners that public education was the "first line of defense....the base .for democracy." He said that the Code of Ethics of the Board of Education listed the education! welfare of the students as the first concern of the members of that Board. ulU'?a~ ~;~ ~' ~+ Mr. Simmons and other staff members responded to questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Willhoit asked if there was a decrease of State funding this year; Dr. Simmons said there was a 1.75% decrease of State funding. Commissioner Willhoit asked what the Board of Education members had done in response to the decreasing _. State funds for Current expense; he asked how the County was to provide mandated services (and from where these mandated services emanated) if the State didn't pro- vide funding. He noted that County revenues were up by about 2% while the County was asked to fund the Orange County Schools at an 8~ increase. Commissioner Willhoit added that the County could not meet the total education needs necessary with the.State basically having a "no increase budget;" he said current expense funding on the State level was decreasing each year and the County had difficulty meeting other educational needs while picking up this deficit. Mr. Eunsfard said he thought State funds would increase later while Dr. Simmons said the State's explanation was that the Federal Government was cutting the State. Commissioner Whitted said a shifting of responsibility for funding was occurring. Commissioner Whitted thanked the Orange County Board of Education members and Staff for the budget presentation. F. ITEMS FOR BOARD DECISION 1. Grant Application (III-B, Older Americans Act): Commissioner Willhoit . moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, approval of the grant application fo.r the III-B 01der.Americans Act grant funds. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 2. Vacant County positions: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, approval of the filling of the Recreation District Supervisor and Assistant Truck Driver positions. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 3. Proposed Water ahd Sewer Extension Policy; and 4. Requests for Special Public Hearings: The Board postponed action on these two items until the May 19, 1982, meeting. , 5. Budget Work Session Calendar: By consensus the Board of Commissioners set the following budget calendar: .May 25, Department of Social Services and Mental Health; May 27, Public Health, Department of Aging and RSVP; June 7, a general work session; June 8, Public Nearing on the budget; June 9, 10, and 17 were reserved as work sessions; June 15, regular meeting; June 22, budget adoption. ~uloooa ~ r:. ~ r ~:~~~:_ 6. Subdivision Activity in the Watersheds: Commissioner Willhoit said that at one of the Water Resources Task Farce meetings Planning Staff had presented two versions of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance based on one of the recommendations in the Task Force Report. He said it involved the exemption of minor subdivisions from some of the requirements of the PW-T District. Commissioner -. Willhoit said Planning Staff had data from the three watersheds in the County looking at the number of parcels and parcel size in the watersheds. Commissioner y Willhoit had a graph which displayed two curves; he noted that the upper curve "was the number of parcels as function of parcel size and 'the bottom curve was total acreage as function of parcel size." Taking the University Lake Watershed as an example, Commissioner Willhoit said, "that 82% of the land was in parcels that are 10 acres or .larger, and this accounts far only about 20% of parcels. And that 60% of the parcels account for about 8% of the acreage and are in 3 acres. or less and have a rather limited-potential for further subdivision." Commissioner Willhoit said that "several assumptions could be made, starting in ~uly.of '77 ~_ with the adoption of the-new State 5oi1 Evaluation .legislation. ..that the minor subdivisions...had been limited to the better soils. in the County." He said that when the lots were carved out.af the larger parcels that sites were chosen which perked and became the minor subdivisions while larger unsuitable building sites were carved out around the minor subdivisions; he added that most parcels in a minor subdivision were well over an acre or more. Consequently, Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to lift the moratorium on development in the Upper Eno and University Lake Watersheds for minor subdivisions. During the discussion, Commissioner 4lillhoit said that the restrictions on minor subdivisions had proved a hardship in some cases, particularly those involving family land. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Buffer requirements in the Zoning Ordinance are to be maintained, as Commissioner Willhoit clarified. Commissioner Willhoit further suggested that the Planning Staff draw up amend- ments to the Zoning Ordinance which would exempt minor subdivisions from the lot size requirements. The Attorney said that since the proposed amendments were less restrictive than those advertised far the public hearing scheduled for May 24, 1982, there would be no problem considering those arr~ndments at that Public Nearing. Commissioner Gustaveson moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that Planning ~-1~~1~ Staff draw up amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would exempt minor sub- divisions from the lot size requirements presently in the Ordinance. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. - 7. Lease Renewal: The Board chose to consider this topic at its meeting on May 19, 1982. With no'further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to adjourn until 7:30 P.M., May 19, 1982, to the Lincoln Center Board Meeting Room, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. L is ar E. , r Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk