HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19830215 MINUTES
FEBRUARY 15, 1983
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
February 15, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in the Courtroom of the Old Post Office Building,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Commissioners present: Richard E. Whitted, Chair, and Commissioners Ben Lloyd,
Shirley E. Marshall, Norman Talker and Don Willhoit.
A. BOARD COMMENTS
Commissioner Whitted added Proclamation on School Bus Safety; Commissioner Lloyd
added discussion of the Town of Mebane participating in the Orange County Economic
Development Commission.
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were none.
C. MINUTES
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Wil-lhoit, to approve the
- 1
'Minutes of January 18, 1983, as corrected and resubmitted. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
I D. BOARD DECISIONS
1. Wild/Vicious Animal Complaints: The County Manager presented a summary of
,a report he had prepared on various aspects of wild animal ordinances (that report
lis on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board in the agenda folder for the pro-
{
�ceedings of this meeting). The Board discussed questions of regulation, enforcement
.or.complete ban on this issue.
Mr. Bill Sheffield, Durham attorney, told the Board he recommended that they do
as Chatham County did with regard to a wild animal ordinance. Mr. Sheffield further
suggested a simple ban on importation of more such animals into the County and raised
the question of "grandfathering" existing animals. He said the Board's options are
three: 1) regulate across the board; 2) prohibit some animals; 3)' out and out ban
on wild or undomesticated animals.
Mr. Stanley Bennett, who lives in Chapel Hill Township, said there were legitimate
reasons for some wild/undomesticated animals and that the University of North Carolina
ised many of these animals in research. He feels that UNC-CH should be exempted from
my such ban or Ordinance.
Mr. Tim Greene, Chapel Hill Township, said any such ban would drive the owners of
;uch animals "un,'_rground."
� i r
Ms. Lorie Stephenson, Chapel Hill Township resident, referring to the Manager's
estimate of $17,000/yr. to regulate wild animals, said "Why should County citizens
have to spend this money for the small percentage of people who have these animals?"
Ms. Stephenson favors a complete ban on such animals specifying the animals kept as
pets, not those• used for research purposes. She concluded by saying that these
animals are dangerous to people; that you can't put a price/value on a human life.
Commissioner Lloyd asked Ms. Stephenson if she would be "comfortable" with
regulations concerning the housing standards for such animals? Ms. Stephenson replied
standards strict enough to make it "almost impossible" for the animals to escape
were still not goad enough. She referred to the Manager's report (previously cited)
that said people who keep wild animals as pets consider themselves an "elite group."
She said why should the County spend money to regulate the animals thereby taking .
a chance for this "elite" group?
Pl Mr. Jack Griffith, owner of a "small, non-domestic cat," is in favor of regulation
Inot banning. He said it is his a) personal right to own such an animal; while, b)
-7 preserving safety for his neighbors. He •added that there is a difference between the
small, non-domestic cat, which is harmless to humans, and the large non-domestic cat.
Additionally, he cited preservation of species as justification for owning such
creatures.
Ms. Eva vonHougvitz, representing APS of Chapel Hill, said her group is "reluctantly"
I
;supporting a ban on such animals. The reasons are: 1) such animals are potentially
dangerous and don't make good pets; 2) the animals' welfare since they are not good
,pets. Ms. vonHougvitz agreed with Mr. Greene that a ban would probably drive some
.owners underground but at the same time those who are "lukewarm" on the question of
ownership will probably not keep their animals in the face of having to provide more
secure cages for such animals.
Mr. Michael Bleyman, Chatham County animal breeder, said that preservation of
endangered species is one reason for keeping such animals; he does not advocate the
keeping of such animals as pets. He said if the County enacted a ban prohibiting the
ownership of such animals that those who do keep them will not tell authorities when
and if the animals escape. Mr. Bleyman supports a ban on importation of such animals
into the County while the Commissioners consider ways of regulation.
The Board members discussed regulation, registration fees and penalties for
ton-compliance; however, no action was taken on these topics. Commissioner Marshall
F..
stated that APS could make recommendations to the Board on the feasibility of a CaLmty-
wide dog control ordumme and that this issue should not be considered along with
wild and exotic animals. She requested the County Attorney to research 1) penalties
that could be placed an those who violate-an animal control ordinance and 2) the
question of "grandfatlaeri ' of any animals already in the County if an ordinance
regulating such wild animals is enacted.
C mi sioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Cam3issioner Walker, to approve
the Manager's recamx ndation # 8, that is, "7he North Carolina General Assembly
should be requested to consider more extensive legislation wbi.ch will apply state-
wide. An expanded role for the State should be encouraged." Vote: Ayes, 5; noes,
0. It was agreed, by consensus, that this vote was separate from any other action
that would be taken.
Commissioner Willhoit moved to adopt recommendations # 7 and # 3 excluding
the animals at the University of North Carolina used for research purposes.
Notion died for lack of a second.
I
Commissioner Lloyd moved to adopt recommendations # 3 and # 7, that is,
"'Wild animals' shall include all species not traditionally considered domesticated;"
,and, "All persons, firms or coporations must register within 45 days all wild
animals in their possession with the County. The n tuber, species (Catmon and bio-
logical) name and location of the animals as well as the owner or possessor's name
and address should be provided;" the motion continues to exclude those animals used
by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hall for research and/or teaching pur-
poses. C=3i.ssioner Walker seeded the motion with an amendment, accepted by Cammi.s-
sioner Lloyd, that this registration is for infommation purposes only. Vote: Ayes, 3,
(Commissioners Lloyd, Walker and W Ilhoit); noes, 2 (Commissioners Marshall and Wk tted).
The County Attorney told the Board that this action world have the same effect
as an ordinance therefore, it would need to have a second reading at the next regular
meeting of the Board (March 7, 1983).
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to rescind the action
just taken and to move it in toto substituting 21 days for the 45 days in recommendation
# 7. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Caamissioners Lloyd, Walker, 14dtted and Willhoit); noes, 1
(Commissioner Marshall).
This will be on the agenda for a second reading on March 7, 1983. Folly a
ten minute break, the Board resumed deliberations with all members present.
D-2 MIEWAY AIRPORT
Mr. Marvin Collins, Planning Director, sum or zed the request from Midway Aixport
leveloper Fred Hazard that some of the condidnns placed upon the Class A Special Use
Permit granted to Buck Mountain Development be mollified. (See page of this book
for the abstract attached to and part of these minutes.) Mr. Hazard was present in
the absence of his attorney, Mr. Northen; he said he had been unable to obtain the
easements for the required approach-departure zone for the runway. He maintained that
he would follow FAA requirements for such distances but that this condition was unreasc
able. During discussion Mr. Rick Cannit y, Planning Staff, was asked where he derived
the figure of 5,000 ft. for the approach-departure zone. Mr. Cannity replied that
, FAA did not have standards for private airports, such as Midway is, but that he had gone
, to FAA guidebooks and based on the figures given for the size of the project, 5000 ft.
'was the distance recommended for the approach-departure distance.
After discussing the issue at length, the Board, by consensus, referred the
issue to the Planning Board and placed it on the agenda for March 28th for a Public
"Hearing; the basis is that it requires a substantial modification of the Special Use
'Permit granted to Midway and citizens should have input into the process. Ms. Crawford,
i '
!former Planning Board Chair, spoke as a private citizen, in favor of having a public
*hearing on these condition modifications and deletions requested by Mr. Hazard.
D-3 NORTHSIDE MULTIPURPOSE CENTER RENOVATION
I _
The Manager presented the complete bid results to the Board (those are on pages
of this book and are attached to and part of these minutes). While the amount
*budgeted for this project is $157,043 the bids came in at $228,665, or $71,621 over
'that budgeted. (See page 4qq of this book for the abstact attached to and part of these
'minutes for a summary.) Following discussion of the various alternates outlined by
.the Manager, Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve
*recommendation : 3, that is, to accept the low bids and seek additional funding by
•spreading construction over two budget years as permitted by 153A-13. Vote: Ayes,
04 (Commissioners Lloyd, Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit); noes, 1 (Commissioner Walker).
• D-4 DRIVERS' LICENSE EXAMINER'S OFFICE SPACE
• Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to approve a three
*year lease agreement with the Town of Carrboro for office space in the basement of
•Carrboro Town Hall for the Drivers' License Examiner's Office. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
• D-5 SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM
• Commissioner Walker moved, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, to authorize the
*Manager as official signatory on HUD form 62663, "Regulation for Partial Payment of
'Annual Contributions." Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
w6C
D 6-8 ROAD ADDITONS
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, the approval of
the addition of Pineview Drive, Pineview Road, Laine Road and Quail Hollow Drive to
the State Secondary Road System. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
D-10 PROCLAMATION
Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to proclaim the
week of February 20-26 School Bus Safety Week in Orange County. Vote: Ayes, 5;
'noes, 0.
D-11 MEBANE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATION
Commissioner Lloyd asked the other Board members if they would be willing to
'have a luncheon meeting with Mebane Town Council to discuss Mebane's participation
'in' the Orange County Economic Development Commission. There was a consensus that
'Commissioner Lloyd and the County Manager pursue such a meeting.
E- REPORTS
1. AUDIT APPEAL HEARING--Mr. Wallace Harding, Finance Director, told the Board
that the result of the November 19, 1982, was that the County would recover $52,229
'of previously diallowed costs due to the Department of Social Service's move into
I
the New Human Services Center. (Please see abstract on page 5a6 of this book.)
2. FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM--The Manager presented the revised
'Capital Improvements Program to the Board (please see page of this book attached
'to and part of these minutes). The Board agreed by consensus to accept this as a
'planning document.
• 3. SB 51 DISCUSSION--Commissioner Whitted summarized Senator Royall 's bill
'entitled (short) "4% State Sales Tax/No Tax on Food." Commissioner Willhoit noted
'that if the bill passes it would result in about $551,000 for Orange County; he suggested
'that the Board work through its legislators and the North Carolina Association of County
'Commissioners to remove restrictions oh how the funds are to be used.
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to endorse the
'concept of SB 51 and to relay that information to our legislative delegation. Vote:
'Ayes, 3 (Commissioners Marshall, Whitted, and Willhoit); noes, 2 (Commissioners Lloyd and
'Walker).
' D-9 EXECUTIVE SESSION--LEGAL MATTERS
Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to go into executive
'session to discuss legal matters. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, 0.
Richard E. Whitted, Chair
Paulette Pridgen, Clerk
�- Onx"rZ Cou"A=
$aZD O: Cal^aSSIOLvE4.S AGtiq:i r -,ate
ACTIN AG01all. =1 rZBSTI ACT
H=ZG DATE Februar 15 1983
Subject= Complaints as to wild and Vicious Animals
Depa.-WPnt: Planning & County Manager j Public Hearilzg: X
Attacba=t(S): Iiifo=ati= C=&-act=
Planning Director 732-8181 Extension 349
Ph=& NMObW: Manager Extension 501
?UpppW: To consider a staff report concerning a proposed policy regarding
the keeping of such animals in the county.
DEED: At its January 18, 1983 meeting, the Board of Commissioners
heard comments from the staff and various citizens regarding
whether to regulate or ban the keeping of wild animals in the
county.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Board instructed the
staff to prepare a report addressing the fiscal and
impacts of regulating wild animals in Orange County.
ZW.t=: The report will assist the County Commissioners in deciding
upon a policy to follow with regard to the regulation of wild
animals.
The report will be presented at the meeting.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the County place a ban in effect in 120 days.
2. The ban would prohibit the keeping of wild animals by any person,
firm or corporation, except recognized animal dealers, transporters,
exhibitors (zoos), researchers and authorized animal rehabilitation
programs, and would allow time for relocation of animals affected
by the ban.
3. "Wild animals" shill include all species not traditionally
considered domesticated.
4. "Recognized" shall include the follming criteria for assessing
the legitimacy of a program.
a. Proof of the long-term nature of the program. The affected
party must show that the program has financial stability
and that the program and facilities will be maintained.
b. Professional expertise. The party must be familiar with the
species of animal in question, conversant with pertinent
scientific literature and able to demonstrate a successful
program. The party must be able to successfully submit his
expertise to peer review.
c. Adequate facilities. The party must provide facilities
responsive to the species of animal involved. The facilities
should be able to pass professional review.
d. Appropriate care program. The party must be able to specify,
maintain and support an appropriate program of annual and
daily care.
5. Within the 120-day grace period, a further exception will consider
involving the keeping of smaller wild animals such serbals,
caracels, and lesser pandas. If regulations for these animals
are established, owners or possessors must show proof of the
non-dangerous nature of the animals and must agree to abide with
County standards for enclosures.
6. Within the 120-day period, a moratorium would exist, preventing
any person, firm or corporation from bringing additional wild
animals into the County and from transferring ownership or
possession of a wild animal to another.person, firm or corporation
within the County.
7. All persons, firms or corporations must register within 15-days
all wild animals in their possession with the County. The
number, species (common and biological) name and location of the
animals, as well as the owner or possessor!-,s name and address should be
provided.
8. The North Carolina General Assembly should be requested to consider
more extensive legislation which will apply statewide. An expanded
role for the State should be encouraged.
Bakm CB' cCc'=mssia.IBRS Action, Age-4a
A=IC~r AGaTaN rrEi E,as'MAcr
Subje,=-�: Special Use Permit - Midway Airport
F-De b] Hearing: es X.
Attachment(s) : 1/28/83 better of John Mr fnr;nt'im r^^-j-zct-- Marvin Collins
A. ,]orthexn and 10/5/82 Letter of Rick
C annity ph=e- N%zab= 732-8181 FKtensicn 349
WRPCSE: To reconsider the conditions set forth in connection with the Midway Airport-
Special Use Permit.
NIM: Cn Septayber 7, 1982, the Board of Commissioners approved a special use permit
for a general aviation airport for the Buck mountain Development Campoany.
Approval was granted subject to those conditions listed in the 10/5/82 letter
of Rick Cmu-ity.
Mr. John A. Northern, representing Buck ItXMtain Develapmment Co.r has requested
that the Board of Commissioners modify the conditions as follows:
#2 - Reduce the required approach-<departure zone distance from
5,000 feet to 1,000-1,500 feet due to inability to obtain
easements to control structure height.
43 - Allow a greater number of accessory uses; i.e., snack bar or
restaurant, aircraft sales office, etc., than shown on the
site plan and described in the project narrative.
#4 - Delete the requilment of providing an access road from the
airport to Tier Road to provide reduced response time for
fire protection personnel.
07 -.Delete the requirement of liniting flight training operations
to 50% of total operations, allowing flight training as
dwnand exists.
FACT: Crange County's role has been that of a permit agency, reviewing and approving
plans for the development of public/private airports. It has not attenl ted to
assist such developments through "hazard." zoning to control noise, structure
height, etc., nor has it attempted the acquisition and development of a public
airport. It has provided a review function rather than intervening directly
in such a development. It
One implication of modifying the conditions might be to alter the County's
role and increase its involvement in airport development. Specifically, a
reduction In the approach-departure zone would leave the County with two
(2) alternatives:
(1) To leave approximately 3,500 feet of the approach-departure.
zone unprotected from the standpoint of height restrictions
and crash potential.
(2) To implement zoning regulations surrounding the airport to
restrict structure height in the approach-departure zone
and to limit development due to excessive-noise levels
and crash potential.
In the latter case, the county mould become more involved in airport zoning„
a role which heretofore it has rejected.
Deletion of the 50% limitation on flight training may increase the number
of °touch and go" Susesmade to practice landing manuevers. An increase
in noise would occur and create a nuisance. problem.
Uses permitted at the airport under the special use permit were those identi-
fied and requested by the developer in the project narrative and those shown
an the site plan. An alteration of the allowable uses world probably require
another public hearing to formally amend the approved permit.
Deletion of the access road requirement would result in increased response
tame for fire protection purposes. The necessity of such access, however,
was greater for protection of the initial airport proposal; i.e. an aizpark,
including the airport as well as offices and warehouses.
The County Attorney will provide information relative to whetter another public
hearing will be required on all or some of the requested modifications.
RECaKMENDAMMS:
It has been the County's policy not to take a direct interest in the develcp-
ment of airport facilities, either through specific regulations such as air-
port hazard zoning, or through ccnstruct:car of a public facility. It has
assumed the role of "pemitting authority", establishing.through the special
use permit procedure necessary safeguards to secure the public health, safety
and welfare.
For this reason, conditim 02 should stand, making it enr u,mt ant upon the appli-
cant to secure necessary easements for control of the approach-departure zone.
Condition #7 should stand as well, pending developerent of the airport and the
establishment of records-as to demand for flight training. If the demand does
not exceed the established Limit, there is no need for modification of the
condition.
Condition #3 should stand, pending the suhmissicn of a list of specific uses
desired at the airport facility. These uses should be noted as well on the
site plain.
Condition #4 should stand, pending-a revaluation of the access problem by
fire/rescue personnel.
As noted previously, any changes are subject to the County Attorney'soPInlm
regarding the need for another public hearing.
- A , :...
NORTHEN, LITTLE & BAGWELL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
431 W. FRANKLIN STREET
CHAPEL HILL N. C. 27714 P. O. BOX A
JuHN A. �IIRTHEN
J ANDERSON LITTLE (919) 942.417
0, KENNETH BAGWELL JR. (919) 942.852. .
CHARLES H- THIBALT January 28, 1983
Mr. Richard Whitted, Chairman
Orange County Commissioners
Orange County Court House
Rillsborough, NC 27278
re: Midway Airport
Buck Mountain Development Co.
Dear Mr. Whitted:
By letter dated October 5, 1982, the Orange County Planning
Department notified us of the specific conditions which will become
a part of a Special Use Permit for Midway Airport. Upon receipt of
this letter, we reviewed the conditions with the members of the Buck
Mountain Development Company, and made inquiries to the adjacent
land owners concerning the availability of over-flight easements as
required by these conditions. At this point, and for the reasons
set forth below, we now formally petition the Orange County
Commissioners to reconsider the conditions set forth in the letter
dated October 5, 1982, in connection with the Midway Airport Special
Use Permit, and modify certain of those conditions as indicated
below:
1. The first imposed condition provides that jet aircraft
are not permitted at the facility, and that the owners shall notify
the Department of Commerce of this restriction. This condition is
generally in accord with our application, and we have no objection
to it.
2. The second condition requires us to own or control the
height of objects in the approach-departure zone as sketched in the
letter, which begins 200 feet from the end of the runway, and .
extends a distance of 5,000 feet, fanning to a width of 2,000 feet.
We have contacted the owners of all the property located within the
approach-departure zone as indicated on both ends of the runway, and
with very few exceptions have been refused such easements by the
property owners. in order to meet this condition, we would. have to
have the voluntary consent of the owners of the property, giving us
a written, recordable easement or right-of-way to comae onto their
property and limit the height of any objects thereon, whether the
objects be natural or man-made. Without the consent and approval of
the landowners, we are completely unable to comply with this
provision, through no fault of our own, and we do not have the -power
of eminent domain to force such compliance.
Hr. Richard Whitted
Page 2
At the present time, we own or control sufficient land to
provide an approach-departure zone of between 1,000 and 1,500 feet
on either end of the runway, but no more. We ask the County
Commissioners to reduce the requirements set forth in Condition 2 to
cover an approach-departure zone of 1,000 feet from each end of the
runway, or in the alternative no more than 1,500 from either end of
the runway. At a distance of 1,500 feet from the runway, objects
could be no higher than 75 feet, and we believe this would be
substantial compliance with the intent of the ordinance to provide
adequate safety measures for the use. of the airport. As the airport
is being built in a residential and agricultural zone, we do not
envision that any structures will be 'built to a height greater than
75 feet, and would therefore pose no problem to incoming aircraft
beyond the 1,500 foot distance.
3. We believe that the third condition,' restricting
commercial uses only to those uses specifically referenced in the
project narrative and the site plan, is unduly restrictive and would
greatly hamper the operation of the airport. For example, the
condition would appear to prohibit any type of normal accessory
commercial use, such as snack bar or restaurant, gift shop, office
for sale of aircraft, and other normal and incidental activities
associated with airport facilities. We believe this condition can
be made more flexible, and generally be within the intent of the
zoning ordinance dealing with accessory uses normally associated
with such projects.
4. The fourth condition contains many safety features which
are acceptable to the developer, but some are outside our ability to
obtain. The condition requires us to provide an access road from.
the project to Teer Road, but the developer does not have, nor is
there any indication that we can obtain, a right-of-sway across the
adjacent property located between the project and Teer Road. I
believe the fire chief indicated in his letter that such an access
road would be desirable, but would not be essential for the
provision of adequate fire protection services. Therefore we ask
that this condition of requiring the fire access road to Teer Road
be deleted from Condition 4.
S. The construction schedule set forth in Condition 5
appears to be adequate and reasonable.
6. The requirement of a bond for the public improvements set
forth in Condition 6 appears to be adequate and. reasonable.
Mr. Richard, Whitted
Page 3
7. The seventh condition limits flight training operations
to 50% of total operations for the facility, would be extremely
difficult for the developer to verify or enforce, and appears to us
to be an undue restriction on the operations of the airport. We ask
that this condition be deleted in its entirety, so that the airport
may be used for flight training as the demand may exist.
8. The remaining conditions, (Numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12)
all appear to be acceptable and reasonable as drafted.
Please place this matter on as a Petition on the next
regularly scheduled meeting of the County Commissioners, so that we
may ask the Commissioners to reconsider these particular items as
conditions on the final draft of the Special Use Permit.
Thank you for your attention in this regard.
Sincerely,
John A. Northeu
JAN:b3
cc: Buck Mountain Development Company
Peloquin Associates
Geoffrey E. Gledhill
Rick Canni.ty, Orange County Planning Department
Ben Lloyd
Shirley Marshall
Norman Walker
Donald Willhoit
t
i
October 5, 1982
Buck Mountain Development Company
do Mr. Fred Hazard, Agent
910 Airport Road
Chapel H" North Carolina 27514
Dear Mr. Hazard:
On September 7, 1982 the Orange County Board of
Commissioners considered your request for a Class A special use
permit for a general aviation airport. The Board approved the
application finding that the applicant had met its burden of
establishing by competent, material and substantial evidence the
existence of the facts and conditions which the County Zoning
Ordinance requires for approval of a general aviation airport provided
that the special conditions contained in this letter and which- will
become part of the special use permit are met by. the applicant. In
summary, the evidence supporting the action taken by the Board an
this application is as follows:
1. Special use permit sought for property located in s. -
- Bingham Township off Highway 54 Nest. The property and surrounding
area is in the agricultural-residential land use category. A rural
neighborhood activity node (BH 1) is within one quarter mile of the
sight. The land use plan does not address directly the appropriate
location for an airport.. The Orange County Airport Feasibility Study
evaluates this proposed airport sight along with a large number of
---- - - -other potential sites. The site proposed in this application compares
well to other sites identified in this study according to the evaluation
criteria set forth in the study. The site is away from current or
proposed residential development, close to Chapel Hill/Carrboro and
has good access along Highway 54. It has disadvantages in that it is
located within one mile of the proposed Cane Creek Watershed.
Evidence at the hearing of development pressure which could
accompany the development of this airport is seen- as a negative
factor in this agricultural-residential region.
2. Article 5 and Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance provide
dimensional requirements and the application of dimensional
requirements. Evidence presented at the public hearing indicates these
requirements have been met
3. The Orange County Health Department has approved an
area for septic tank installation near phase I of the development.
Phases 11 and III are to be serviced through the central disposal system
which has not yet received approval. Solid waste disposal will be
handled by a private hauler. The airport will be served by
decentralized wells.
4. Police protection will. be provided by the Orange County
Sheriff's Department. Twenty-four hour security mill be provided by a
security/maintenance vehicle with radio capability. to augment the
Sheriff's police protection. This plan has been approved by the Orange
County Sheriff.
5.. Rescue squad protection will be provided by the Orange
County FMS.
6. Fire protection will be provided by the Orange Grove
Volunteer Fire Company. The Board of Directors of the Fire Company
have indicated they can provide fire protection to the airport so long
as the special conditions contained herein are met by the applicant.
All other information required by Article 8 of'the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance and including that required in Section 8.8.x.1 was
provided by the applicant at. the public hearing.
T. Documentation from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation indicating that all FAA and State regulations governing
general aviation airports will be satisfied by the applicant were
presented at the public hearing.
8. The airport if operated as shown on the site plan and
stated in the narrative and according to the imposed conditions herein .
should not 'adversely affect adjacent existing land uses. There was
evidence presented at the public hearing indicating that adjacent land
uses could be adversely affected. The Board found however that if
operated as indicated and according to and in compliance with the
_special conditions that these adverse effects would be minimaL
9. Provided the applicant can obtain control of the height
of structures as detailed in the special conditions contained herein, the
applicant has demonstrated that it owns or controls land sufficient to
provide approach zones and overrun areas. The site plan and narrative
indicate that adequate land area is provided for all of the proposed
uses, buildings and storage areas provided the applicant can obtain
control of the height of structures as detailed in the special
conditions.
10. Site plan and narrative`indicate appropriate screening
of buildings, storage and maintenance areas and provided the screening
requirements contained in the special conditions are met.
1L There is a secured access easement to Highway 54.
The access road will be built to Department of Transportation
standards and dedicated to the public. .
12. The Ordinance requires that compatible land uses be
located in the final approach areas of the airport. The evidence
presented at the hearing indicates that the land use located in the
final approach areas for the airport will be compatible with an airport
of this size and scope provided the applicant can control the height of
structures to the degree set forth in the special conditions.
The following are the imposed conditions required of the
applicant for approval of this special use permit:
L There shall be no jet aircraft permitted at the facility
and the Airport Facility Directory published by the U.S. Department of
Commerce (N.O.S.) shall specify that jet aircraft are not permitted at
the facility. The applicant/owner shall be responsible for notifying the
U.S. Department of Commerce of this restriction and shall
demonstrate compliance with this condition.
2. The applicant shall own or objects
in an area at each end of the runway which fs •known as the
approach--departure zone. The dimensions of this zone are shown in
the diagram below. The approach-departure zone begins 200' from the
end of the runway and rises at a 20:1 slope to a height of 2501 at a
distance of 50001. The zone is 5001 in width at its beginning and 20001
in width -at its end. The easement rights negotiated with each
property owner must specify that the developer can control the heights—
of objects within the approach-departure zone. All easement
agreements and other evidence of ownership of the approach-departure
zone shall be in form and content approved by the County Attorney.
!{ ----. 5000-- -i
! I
r
I �
r �
I I
RE WAY
o ABPMACEI
o DEPARTURE 5001
N ZONE I I
I ! I
2001
• F
3. The final site plan and narrative of the project
incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final -
approval of the project are incorporated herein and made part of the
Special Use Permit. A copy of the final site plan and narrative are
to be maintained on fie with the Orange County Planning Department.
Only those commercial uses specified in the project narrative and on
the site plan, including but not necessarily limited to the sale of fuel
for aircraft, maintenance service and flight training classes, will be
qW permitted at the airport facility. All improvements as indicated shall
be .constructed according to the construction schedule set up in the
final site plan and narrative.
4. The following fire protection measures shall be provided
by the applicant: (1) construction of a fire access road to the
property from Tear Road; (2) a 24 hour/day vehicle for security, fire
fighting and maintenance purposes. The vehicle will be outfitted with
master keys, radio system, turn-out gear, portable-Trre- exfmguisher;
fire fighting foam and eirpack. Satisfaction of these requirements
shall be determined by the Chief of the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire
Company (Fire Company) and the County Manager; (3) three ponds
shah be constructed, each capable of supplying 30,000 gallons of water
over a two hour- period. The -water level of each pond shall be
maintained at a level sufficient to supply 30,000 gallons of water over
w a two hour period by the construction of wells and the necessary—
hardware, which would be activated when the water level drops below
the required level.. Drafting .stations shall be located and constructed
to the specifications of the Fire Company with all-weather access
provided. The ponds shall, be constructed in the following locations
and according to the following timetable: pond number one shall be
located 600 feet north of the phase one F.B.O. Hanger and Shan be
completed when phase one construction begins. Pond number two shall
be located 600 feet north of the phase two maintenance hanger and
shall be completed when phase two construction begins. Pond number
three shall be located 400 feet northeast of the phase three
maintenance hanger and shall be completed when phase .three
construction begins; Access. to Midway Airport shall be provided
periodically to the Fire Company and its successors in fire protection
responsibility for training exercises; (4) two hundred gallons of 6%
AFFF foam shall be provided to the Fire Company, a .portion
(determined by the Fire Company) to be kept on the trucks of the
Fire Company and the remaining stored in the airport maintenance
hangers and made available to the Fire Company at all tim es. An
additional 20 gallons of 6% AFFF foam shall be provided to Fire
Company annually for training purposes. Two foam nozzles and
educators, one for a 1--1/2" line and one for a 2-1/2" line shall be
provided to Fire- Company; (5) two portable 50 pound dry chemical fire
extinguishers shall be provided and maintained in each of the three
phases of the Airport. One shall be located in the fueling area, the
other stationed in the T-hanger area of each phase; (6) a contribution
to Fire Company in an amount not to exceed $10,000 to enable Fire
Company to purchase a water pump to be mounted either on a Fire
Company trailer or truck. This amount is payable on demand upon the
issuance to applicant of any building permits (7)' the following safety
features must be adhered-to by applicant: (a) the T-hangers must
contain no open-flatne heaters; (b) no loading or unloading or storage
of fuel shall be permitted in any hanger area; (c) the requirements of
(a) and (b) shall be prominantly displayed in all hanger areas and
incorporated into an Airport Operating Manual which manual shall be
• wade available to all airport users; (d) all FAA safety requirements
pertaining to construction and operation of a public airport the size of
Midway shall be adhered to; (8) a communication system between the
Midway F.B.O. control room and Fire Company shall be installed by.
applicant.
5. The following construction schedule, shall be adhered-to
by the applicant; Construction of the runway__shaiL.begin...withLn one
year of final approval of• the Special Use Permit and all construction
on the runway shall be completed one year after construction begins.
All construction detailed in phase one of the site. plan and project
narrative will be completed ninety (90) days after completion of the
runway. Phase two will be initiated within six months after the start
of construction of phase one and be completed within two years of
initiation. Phase three will be completed .within two years of
completion of phase two. =
6. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with
Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond
or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of construction of
all public improvements, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing
and stabilization. of all areas in public streets and the erection of
street signs, fire ponds and fire fighting equipment, plus 10%. The
amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction
contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the
grantee of this Speical Use Permit. Security for construction of the
improvements in this project-may be released according to the phasing
in the project Specifically, as improvements are completed in each.
phase, that phase and a corresponding amount of money may be
released from the security instruments or the security instruments may
be renegotiated .based on the unconstructed portion of the
improvements_
7. Flight training operations shall not exceed 50% of the
total operations for the facility.
8. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity,
telephone, sewer and water) installation, servicing and hookups to the
development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider.
9. All plans for drainage, son erosion and sedimentation
control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. The
project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
10. Dense evergreen screening shall be provided for any
buildings that are not at least 500' from the property lines of the
facility, These lines are the outside perimeter of the property
described in the following conveyances: Deed.Book 196, Page 527 and
Deed Book 126, Page 30, Orange County Registry. This screening
material shall be of sufficient size to provide a 6' hedge within 3
years of planting. Also acceptable as a screening material is a 6'
birm or a solid wood fence.
11. Any lighting of the runway or other parts of the airport
necessary for safety or convenience shall be of a design and so
located and screened so as not to create a nuisance to adjoining
Property owners..
12. All public improvements shall be maintained'in� ~�
Perpetuity. All documents specifying responsibility for maintenance of
the approved public improvements shall be approved by the Orange
County Attorney.
Rick Cannity,
Acting Planning Director
Orange County Planning Department
/jac
cc: Lee Mehler,
Peloquin Assoc;,. P.A.
John Northen
Kenneth Thompson
Geoffrey E. Gledhill
Richard E. Whitted
OBANC£ COTJhiPY
mAm CIF.anwassimEm Action Agenda
ACTXON AGENDA ITFM ABS".t'M= item NO-1
mE-r= mg February 15, 1983 .
Subject: Northside Multipurpose Center Renovation
L t: County . ananer public 13ea es no
A t s : Information Contact:
Yes County ;tanager's Office
phone N mber: 732.8181 ext. 501
pp;PCSB: To consider what course to take on the proposed renovation in light of
bid results.
rip: A bid openin. January 26, 1983, revealed a cost of $228,665 as necessary
to renovate the building (see attached bids). This compares to budgeted
funds for construction of 5157,043 or a difference of $71,621.
Such difference in amounts necessitated the architect to reassess the
cost elements and compare them to earlier nrojections. From this there
were five major explanations:
1. Prior to 1981 the budget was $138,568, construction cost.
Plans were to only bring the deficiencies up to code require-
ments and providin? ney heat and air conditioning.
2. In March of 1981 it was decided by the County to locate more
agencies-within the building in lieu of their beinn housed
in rented space. This created the need for internal narti-
tioning and additional HVAC cost of $15,321 ($6,000 HVAC and
$8,600 for partitioning).
3. It was aqreed to permit the Community School for People Under
Six Day Care to remain in the building and occupy an equivalent
amount of space. Day Care operation, however, created a dif-
ferent and more costly use category with which to comply for
licensing and building code requirements (Class E and' I institu-
tional). This was above what would have been necessary for the
rest of
-he building. While $20,000 of the project budget was
appropriated for the .Day Care addition actual cost added--aver
what would have been necessary for another use--is $56,300.
($12,300 in extra plumbing work of which $3,200 was added by
Day Care Staff, without Board approval,to house toddlers; $3,000
in added electrical ; $7;000 for a separate HVAC air distribution;
$4,000 in additional fire protection and $30,000 for the struc-
tural addition with 942 square feet required by State standards
versus the 600 square feet that was Board approved).
4. There would have been additional cost attributable to keeping
the day care function apart from whether the addition to the"
building had been approved. This was because the scope of
remodeling exceeded 50 per cent of the appraised value of the
building, requiring full compliance with code standards.
5. The architects' estimate for this degree of improvement is 527
per square foot and the bid cost interpret to $22 Der square foot.
Options include:
1. Reject all bids;
2. Seek space for day care in an alternate building which meets
the building standards for that use and rebid project; or
3. Accept bids and seek additional funding by spreading construc-
tion over two budget years as permitted by General katute 153A-13.
RE,CQTENDATI9NL1:_.___---...__
LOW BIDDERS
NORTHSIDE MULTIPURPOSE CENTER
Genera3 Contract:
Security Building Company
Chapel Hill, N. C. Base Bid: $114,800.00
(4 other bids received) Altenate
Carpet $ 3,980.00
$118,780.00
Electrical Contract:
United Electric
Cary, N. C. Base Bid: $ 33,865.00
(8 other bids received)
Plumbing Contract:
Brown Brothers Plumbing &
Heating Company
Durham, N. C. Base Bid: $ 14,940.00
(4 other bids received)
HVAC Contract:
Mechanical Associates
Cary, N. C. Base Bid: $ 60,660.00
(4 other bids received)
Total Project: $228,245.00
*NOTE: RESULTS OF ALL BIDS WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE BOARD MEETING.
4
J A M E S M . W E B B , A . I . A . - A . I . P .
A R C H ' I T E C T & P L A N N E R
MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AND AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of PLANNERS
CERITIFIED TABULATION OF BIDS RECEIVED 2 0 1 EAST ROSEMARY S T.
CHAPEL HILL, N. C. 27SIA
NORTHSIDE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER
TELEPHONE I 9 2 9-6 3 8 5
Date: January 26, 1983
Time 3 p.m.
Location:. Office of Purchasing Director, Orange County - Mark Rees
300 West Tryon :Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina
Bidder (General) License Bid Base Bid Alternates
No. Bond G-1 G-2 G-3 G-4.
C & A Constructio
Co.
. .. J035'7 570 SELL yvao xyoo ZZb/
Cumbus & Carter
Lf4/q 90 311$6 4000 2 ZG0 y3ca
Security Build
in Co.
ca
Triad, Inc, SSa /SY r, 6S`ed y/ao 3 P-;* z/fa-
Trout & Riggs
Y3 r40 /a// 440 3SOL yf-20 0 22c' 23v�
Constr.
/x 6~74.491 y 1p AA57
D. W. Ward Con-
struction Co.
9
• y r.i_
Bid Tabulation s
Bidder (Electrical) License Bid Bond Base Bid
No.
Adams and Tilley 493 - - :- - -
Alternate Electric ssar 1•r' S"9p yet 3743r
Barber Electric' s-z 1-77"
Bitting Electric V.Irl?u. 57. yicsq
Odell Electric 39ay u. 1-%, ko 3e o
Pedergraph & Thom- XV 3G f f 9
erson
United Electric 432.1 �` ?, 33 S6 I
Vaughan Electric S yvff J` 517, 3y 7G 3
Watson Electric ?-!s'U- r9P 38'yfY
Bidder.(Plumbing)
Acme /o2Y S3� �2 Sre
American Mechani- yy y
cal
Brown Brothers
Rural Plumbing of t7 S 1, y7
Sparrow at So.ns Lill o3 y 52. 18�S3
Bidder (H:AC)
Carolina Air Con- , yc�+ ,f9, L Sr1 Sra
di ti,oning
Hockaday Heating 2_,gg(- Sye 6�r'fr6 o.
Lee Air Condi- j5-77 3-7.1 G fro t o
tioners
Mechanical Assoc- 1&t4 S70 G 6 6Ga.
iates
9c-7 gyp G 7Z�
CRRN M CCUti'rY
BCAJ CF =d1=C2NZ 4S
Actionrryen'r-a
A=CN AGE2roA r_*"i It n r�o.1,
Subject: Rental of space in Carrboro Town Hall for Driver License Examiner's office.
Manager's & Purchasing Public fT�,4: es g no
Lease will be prgvidedpt;= c+--
at the meeting Mark laws, ext 501
Mark H. Rees, ext. 498
Pur=5e: To consider approval of a three year lease agreement with the Town of
Carrboro for the rental of approximately 800 sq. ft. in the basement of the
Carrboro Town Hall. This space will be used for the Southern Orange County
office of the State Driver License Examiner's office.
Office space presently being rented for the Driver License Examiner's office
is considerably higher in cost than will be charged by the Town of Carrboro.
Expected savings over the three year period will be a minimum of $15,000.00.
u == Orange County will construct office space in the basement of the Town Hall
at a cost of $8,100.00 including labor. Funds & labor for this project will
come from the FY 82-83 Public Works budget. In return for this improvement,
the Town of Carrboro will lease the space to Orange County for three years
charging only for janitorial services and utilities ($75.00/mo.). The Town of
Carrboro will reserve the right to cancel the agreement after one year if it
is determined that the Driver License Examiner's office is creating a serious
hardship on their operation in the Town Hall. If the Town of Carrboro exercises
this option, the County will be refunded a pro-rated amount for the improve-
ments that were made.
c��c� raaticn(s) : Approve lease
�)r ORANGE 03=
BOARD OF WOUSSTONEIS Action Age
ACTION AZFI\MA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.-IN
n EE= DATE February 15, 1983
Subject: Orange County Housinn Assistance Payments Program (Section 8 Housing)
De tment: . County Manaqer Public Hearing: _y_es no
Attachment(s) ormation Contact:
County Manager's Office
phone : 732-8181 ext. 501
PURPOSE: For the Board to authorize the County Manager as official sinnatory on
HUD Form 62663, "Regulation for Partial Payment of Annual Contributions".
NEED: One of the elements of the recently sinned contract between Orange County
and the Chapel Hill Housing Authority assigns to Oranne County the responsi-
bility, formerly undertaken by the Housing Authority, to make requests for
partial payments of annual contributions. In order for the county to
exercise this responsibility, the Board needs to comply with HUD's regulation
that the noverninn board of the requesting body authorize an individual as
official signatory.
INPACT: Strengthens internal control over nast requisition procedures and allows
the County additional monitoring capabilities.
it
RE COMMENDATION(S):
Approval.
- r
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
106 EAST MARGARET LANE
HILLSBOROUGH,N. C.
27278
mcannD s.msrrrEn,cry '
OM LLD=
s�Daier e MARSHAU
NORMAN VALX=
DON VULHM
w
P R O C L A M A T I O N
We, the Mayors of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the Orange County
Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim the week of February 20-26, 1983
to be
SCHOOL BUS SAFETY WEEK
We all wish to stress the importance of providing training for both
riders and drivers aad,-to-impress upon'.them the need- far being courteous and
i -L --operating our.--school-,buses; and,
helpful to each other"YwtiTe-`y- : _ ation b y parents,We wish_to oe of'cooper
teachers and stu&! tvL;4;and_=to`urge_a 'those;conterned::.fo=:work together diligently
- ��� ..i _1`-_ ;5�_....'�;!•�•.::jai..i�..�..,; ��Q!,..,.: "ij' .�f.��;�: ':v �-..:''..
to ensure that uec @ssary`safety precAutions• are tak—throughout the school year.
This the 16 t �a„ etsrar�� $ :�
County of Orange
Don Willhoit, Vice Chair
Town of Carrboro of Cha el 1
Robert Drakefoid, Mayor J L. Nassif mgor
y i ORANGE COUNTY
BDARD OF C�CMIISSxONEPS ACtiCn Agenda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item NO.4---1
DEETING DATE February 15, 1983
Subject: Report on Findings of the November 19, 1982 Audit Appeal Hearing
Impartment. Finance Public Hearing: yes X nC
Attachnient(g) ; Information Contact;
Yes Finance Director
Phone Nunber: 732-8181
PURPOSE: To report to the Board the resolution of the audit findings in the
June 30, 1981 DSS audit.
NEED: The County responded to the 6/30/81 DSS audit findings and was able to
resolve and receive allowances for disallowed costs in the amount of
$18,873. This brought the disallowed costs down from $64,271 to $45,398.
The majority of this disallowance was due to the move by Orange County's
Social Services to new Department facilities in July, 1980. The County
had claimed accelerated depreciation during the occupancy of the old
building and is required to pay back the difference between accelerated
and straight line depreciation. The County had not charged to DSS any
cost of space in the new building for the 1980-81 fiscal year pending
resolution of the above. Therefore, upon receipt of this finding the
County requested that the $52,229 not charged in. 1989-81 be credited
against the disallowed costs. We received a response to'this by- letter
August 26, 1982, which stated that Orange County did not have the required
prior approval for space costs in the new building until April, 1982,
Therefore, we would not be allowed to offset any of the disallowed costs
as we proposed. The County then requested and received an appeal hearing
on November 19, 1982. Our plea was that even though we did not receive
prior approval of space costs, we did provide the space and have documented
the costs of that space and that Orange should not be penalized for this..
As stated in the attached letter, the appeal board ruled in our favor.
IMPACT: Recovery of $52,229.
ORANGE WUNl.'X ?c
BDARD OF 00MUSSIONEIG Action Agenda
ACTION ACEMA rMN ABSTRACT Item No.Acj
MEETMC DATE February jr, 1gg�j
Subject: Report: Five Year Capital Improvements Plan
IDepartment: oun y manager public Hearing es X no
Attachniant s I for tion Contact:
Yes County Manager's Office
phone Number: 732-8181 ext. 501
FHB; To receive information on a tentative schedule of County cannital improve-
ments program over a five year period for budget and planning purposes.:
NEED: The County was to prepare this projection in preparation for a joint
meeting, February 21, 1983, with the two school boards per instructions
from a previous joint meeting. Staff has developed the attached list
by surveyinq each department. The list is tentative and subject to
change based on Board decision and subject to the availability. By
the Board indicating any additions or deletions, the Drocess can begin
to arrive at. a capital budget recommendation during the uncominq budget
process and provide staff guidance for compiling subsequent year projects.
Based on an analysis of the past ten years the items in Category I
projects are normally funded with bond issues or canital reserves.
Category II and III are usually funded from current operations.
At its meeting on February 7, 1983, the Board requested that the capital
projects for the current year be included as originally budgeted and in
a separate column as subsequently amended.
IWACr: Budgetary impact will depend upon the scope of proqrams finally adopted
in July.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
As the Board decides.
i