HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19830523 413
MINUTES
1
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONES
May 23, 1983
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday,
May 23, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in the Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse,
Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Commissioners Present: Richard E. Whitted, Chair, and Commissioners Ben
Lloyd, Shirley Marshall, Norman Walker and Don Willhoit.
Commissioner , Whitted announced that this was a Joint Public Hearing with
the Orange County Planning Board, stating that the Chair of the Planning Board,
Logan Irvin would conduct the Public Hearing as usual.
Planning Board Members Present: Logan Irvin, David Shanklin, John Kizer,
Frank Pearson, George Allison, Nancy Laszlo, Tom Bacon, Sharlene Pilkey, Alice
Gordon, and Carl Walters.
Planning Board Member Absent: John Wilson
D-1 S ec1s] 3]�Q_ Permit piQdi�1D 141] _ Request From Midway
Developers
Rick Cannity made the presentation (see pages of this book)
He noted the location and description of the proposed Midway Airport; that
there are two major alternative methods that local government may employ to
regulate general aviation airports - airport zoning or special use permits. In
applying zoning to areas around a proposed airport, local government attempts
to control the types of land use that develop around the facility and
especially within the approach surfaces of the runways. The ordinances usually
control the height of objects that may be constructed or grown within the
approach surface. Zoning to control land use and heights of objects is usually
applied in conjunction with public airports. These facilities are ones which
are constructed by a governmental agency with some level of federal funding
through the F.A.A. The agency charged with construction of the airport,
because it is public in nature and can be expected to respond to the general
public's concerns, usually has the cooperation of the local government in
setting the land use districts within, the approach surfaces of the airport.
The other common method of local governmental control of general aviation
airports is through the granting of special use permits. Some of the
advantages seen by the Planning Staff in treating airports as a special use
are:
1. It appeared that Orange County was not in a positon to participate
financially in a public airport.
2. The County did not plan to restrict the development potential of property
owners adjacent to any proposed private airport.
3. Therefore, the construction of a general aviation airport would be a
private venture for the direct profit of the developers. It would be the
responsibility of the developers to meet the requirements for a special use
permit and any imposed conditions applied at approval.
Mr. Cannity stated that one of the important distinctions in the discussion
of Midway Airport is the difference between a pubic and private airport. The
FAA does not require private or public airports to meet the standards they have
developed, however Orange County has chosen to require that developers of such
airport facilities meet FAA standards.
On September 7, 1982, the Orange County Board of Commissioners found that
Buck Mountain Development had met the minimum requirements for the issuance of
a Class A Special Use Permit. However the Board also felt that several
n 1q
additional conditions should be imposed in the approval to assure that 2 the
development would protect the public health, safety and general welfare.
One of the conditions was that the applicant shall own or control the
heights of objects in the area at each end of the runway which is known as the
approach-departure zone. The approach-departure zone begins 200 feet from the
end of the runway and rises at a 20:1 slope to a height of 250 feet at a
distance of 5000 feet. The zone is 5000 feet in width at its beginning and
2000 feet 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.
In addition to not being able to quantify the amount of motor vehicle
traffic associated with the related uses proposed for the airport, the
requirements to remove the limit on flight training could also. substantially
increase the amount of traffic on Highway 54. The 50% limit on flight training
was intended to minimize the amount of noise created by airplanes making
practice runs at the airport.
The last condition the developers would like to have deleted concerns the
fire truck access required to the property from Teer Road. The Orange Grove
Fire Department asked that the road be required so that the response time to a
fire alarm might be reduced.
In conclusion, Mr. Cannity noted that the Planning Staff feels that the
conditions as they exist have not changed and therefore Staff does not feel it
is necessary to modify, amend or delete any of the conditions imposed on the
approval of the special use permit.
John Kizer, Planning Board Member, asked if the approach-departure zone
should be a 34:1 slope or 20:1 slope? He added that Bruce Matthews of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Divison of Aviation recommends a
20:1 slope.
Rick Cannity stated the Planning Staff needed to check the FAA Standards
regarding the 34:1 slope mentioned in Harold Robinson's letter dated March 5,
1982, that the Planning Staff used nationally developed standards in
determining traffic to the airport and also information from Bruce Matthews.
John Northen, Attorney for the developers, stated that the runway could be
shortened by shifting it. He stated that the affected landowners had been
contacted for discussion of the rights-of-way needed to construct the airport.
He noted that the FAA requirements have been met and the County has the power
to impose height restrictions through the Airport district. He further stated
they have studied the possibility of fire access road(s) by comparing the
_- original airport proposal to the current airport proposal.
Alice Gordon, Planning Board Member, asked if easements were required for
approach-departure zones? Could developers "get it" (obtain the easements) and
what efforts have been made to obtain the easements?
John Northen responded, saying letters were sent to each property owner
along with a copy of the diagram of affected property asking the landowners to
contact him to discuss the rights-of-way needed.
Alice Gordon asked if the letters contained a specific amount of money for
the rights-of-way? Did they offer any financial consideration?
John Northen answered, landowners were asked to get in touch, but the
developers had received negative responses.
Alice Gordon asked Mr. Northen what the developers were prepared to pay?
.T-1 TTn.tti+ar Ana '=A- `17'nn nn Ant 1 A sa-r—n} ham haan Apl-armi npn'.
415
3
Alice Gordon asked Mr. Northen if the developers would be willing to use
Horace Williams Airport as a guide for their uses?
John Northen responded, saying they do not have that information. Out of
the uses listed, those listed first are clearly accessory.
Alice Gordon asked if they would be small buildings?
John Northen responded, they would be enclosed in the hangars.
Alice Gordon: What is the total square footage of the structures?
- Commissioner Willhoit asked where would they be located?
John Northen: On the map, FBO and maintenance hangars.
Commissioner Willhoit asked if the structures were in the third phase? He
added, normally there is an indication of the structure for that use.
John Northen: It will be developed as needed by phase for operation of the
airport closest to Highway 54 first.
Alice Gordon: Would you be able to tell which uses, which phase, and what
footage for use?
John Northen: Could do it and submit it - but not off the top of his head.
Alice Gordon asked Marvin Collins, Planning Director, if there was any
information from the Horace Williams Airport?
Marvin Collins: Rick Cannity contacted the Horace Williams Airport
regarding the proposed uses and that most of the uses proposed correspond with
those at Horace Williams.
Alice Gordon indicated she had reviewed accessory uses located at the
Horace Williams facility and noted there was a combined pilot ready
room/lounge, Carolina Flying Service, maintenance area, vending machine
concession area, toilets and training area. There were no large maintenance
areas, radio area, concession or courtesy office.
John Kizer asked how far are the road entrances from the runway (primary
surface) .
John Northern responded, approximately 550 feet.
John Kizer asked if there will be one office for each tenant?
John Northern: Not limited by space.
Logan Irvin, Planning Board Chair, felt that with unlimited number of
trainers, there should be some concern about safety.
John Northern: They are experienced flyers and will continue to train.
Logan Irvin: But inexperienced trainees.
John Northen: All pilots wil continue to receive training.
Logan Irvin asked if inexperienced pilots need safety precautions?
John Northen: Yes, designed safely.
Logan Irvin: In Harold Robinson's letter dated March 5, 1982,to Jim
Polatty, he recommended a 34.1 slope for the approach zone and asked what is
the distance from the end of the runway to a pine tree growing at a height of
150 feet within the approach-departure zone. There followed persistent
questioning by Dr. Irvin about control of natural obstructions in the
approach-departure zone.
Northen responded, finally, that the developer had proposed in the
submitted modificaton request the area that could be controlled. He added that
the FAA and DOT indicated that the proposal met their criteria.
John Drake indicated there were long range consequences for the future of
airport proposals in Orange County. Representing the citizens for Airport
Planning, he read a prepared statement which was contained in the Board of
Commissioners' packets. He indicated that the AHEC program would not move a
substantial number of miles from Horace Williams and added that the Planning
416
4
Department had misled the Board of Commissioners. He continued that there was
no comparable airport with similar restrictions as proposed here and that
though listed in the FAA circular, the suggested approach-departure zone was
not the accepted practice - that only natural obstructions were limited. With
regard to the access road, Drake indicated obtaining the road would only be by
luck and if the County thinks it is important, then it should be obtained by
the exercise of eminent domain. Drake continued that it was reasonable to
limit training operations, but unreasonable to set the limit as a total
percentage of operations and should be based on the number of operations. He
concluded that the danger of accidents at Horace Williams was great.
John Kizer asked where Drake resided specifically inquiring if he lived in
the approach--departure zone. Drake responded he did not live in the zone.
Julie Andresen, representing concerned Citizens for . Airport Planning,
clarified that UNC has indicated it would transfer operations if an alternative
airport was proposed within reasonable commuting distance and given that the
long range planning report for the University says that the University would
feel obligated to remove operatins from Horace Williams if an alternative
airport was built. She cited the Chancellor's letter regarding removal of
operations if a suitable airport was built by 1989, adding that Horace Williams
Airport was zoned non-conforming in 1975 and that the schools were located
there with the understanding that the airport would soon be closed. She noted
that she had full confidence in the Board to keep development away from rural
areas. Andresen also expressed concern that actions on this proposal may set a
precedent for later airport proposals, continuing that if the County insists on
these .requirements being met then the County should decide to fund a public
airport.
Ed Johnson, . Chief of the Orange Grove volunteer Fire Company, reviewed
comments made at the February, 1982 public hearing and in the June 24, 1982
letter on the revised airport proposal. Johnson addressed access concerns for
fire protection, noting that the Teer Road access would cut the department's
response time in half. He cited his letter of May 11, 1983, which followed a
telephone call from Peloquin Associates and a letter from Rick Cannity, noting
that he had not received any further information on the access requirement and
reserved the right to comment at a later date on changes proposed. He
displayed a map showing possible access roads from the fire station to the
site, noting that the Teer Road access would reduce the distance from 4.3 miles
to 2.7 miles. He also suggested an alternative route through Meadowcrest
development. He explained that the Cane Creek area was all within an insurance
rated district and within a one mile tax district and, consequently, had lower
rates. He continued that the department was receiving more calls than in 1974,
and explained that all areas of the site should be within four road miles of
the firehouse for all trucks to respond; otherwise, only one truck can respond
and additional help is required from other districts, as determined by the
insurance policy.
Mr. Johnson then spoke as a private citizen noting the goals and objectives
in the adopted Land Use Plan. which were proposed and approved by the Bingham
Township Adivsory Council and particularly stressing the need to preserve the
agricultural and rural character of Bingham Township. He inquired if the
minutes of the last public hearing could be included in these proceedings.
Commissioner Whitted responded they could not as they were not germane to
the proposal.
Geoffrey Gledhill: An application for modification incorporates all
4I#
5
materials previously submitted as evidence and that if it is considered
applicable to the discussion it can be considered evidence.
Ed Johnson indicated he had consulted a tree book on the average heights of
trees common to the area. Although he did not survey actual tree heights
around the site, the terrain slopes downward off the southern end and is flat
and wooded at the northern end. He displayed a drawing showing the
relationship between the height of a tree and the approach departure slope.
Given a 100 foot tall tree, Johnson maintained the area out 2000 feet must be
controlled for the heights of objects.
Johnson cited the letter from the Manager to Bruce Matthews dated February
19, 1982, stating "objective. . . if public takeover is necessary. . . federal
funds for the purpose." He also cited a January 26, 1982 letter from Bruce
Matthews regarding requirements in which he advises the more stringent
requiremens in case of federal funding or a conversion to instrument approach.
He also cited the March 5, 1982 letter from Howard Robinson.
Johnson continued, citing a letter from George Warren, FAA Airport District
Office, Georgia, dated December 11, 1980, in which Warren indicates that the
plan submitted were agreeable but that the comments expire in 1982 if the
airport has not been constructed by that time. A letter from Leon Harrison
dated November 20, 1980, indicates the determination expires in two years if
the airport is not in operation by that time. Johnson asked if these permits
had been regranted.
Johnson expressed concern about whether Buck Mountain can do what it says
it can do and the consequences of achieving or not achieving their objective.
Johnson discussed the costs of constructing and operating Midway Airport,
suggesting that the cost would be $1.5 million spread over the proposed
hangars, resulting in the creation of condominium hangars at the cost of
. $20,000 each. He felt it was appropriate to ask if this was financially viable
and what would be the county response to failure of the private operation.
Gordon asked if fire services can be provided at an adequate level via NC
54 and if the road miles involved exceed four miles.
Ed Johnson: No, the department could send one tanker and call for mutual
aid. If Teer Road access can be used it permits the dispatch of more than one
piece of equipment and mutual aid as well.
Alice Gordon inquired if the request for fire access cannot be granted must
the request for modification be denied. Rick Cannity responded that the Board
of Commissioners must decide if the information supplied indicates that
adequate fire protection is available. Gordon asked Johnson if the fire access
recommended was necessary for the permit to be granted. Johnson replied tht it
was a matter of the degree of protection desired and that the Teer Road Access
would provide better protection.
Commissioner Willhoit inquired about the Meadowcrest access. Johnson
indicated it would come off of Teer Road and extend 1/10 of a mile.
Commissioner Whitted asked if it was an all weather road. Johnson did not
know.
Commissioner Willhoit indicated, based on the evidence, a fire access
longer than four miles might not enjoy a lower rating for fire insurance.
Ed Johnson indicated tht Horace Williams does not allow touch and go
landings for safety and noise reasons and that there also was a risk of
accidents with these operations, especially with a shortened runway.
Commissioner Willhoit asked if any additional equipment would be needed if
the only fire access was via NC 54. Ed Johnson indicated probably yes, but he
1-hc Rn=rA of nirwf-+Arq. 9P a1Rn indicated that the
418
6
Deparment had already negotiated with the developer regarding water
availability including the provision of two small ponds to be used for water
for fire protection.
Maurice Henkels, Orange County resident, expressed opposition to the
proposal on economic grounds. He felt that the County residents would end up
paying for the airport with tax dollars. Mr. Henkels made his comments as part
of a prepared statement. Developers of small airports make money either
through the airport itself or from profit from surrounding land which is
subsequently developed even after the airport fails and becomes publicly
funded.
Dan Edelman, County resident, reviewed a display indicating the intrusion
of a tree into the 20:1 slope of the approach-departure zone. He felt the
approach-departure zone could be reduced only to a minimum 22--- feet which
would allow for a tree height of 110 feet. Edelman also noted that the actual
conditions of the site revealed a wall of trees at the north end of the
proposed runway in which a tree 65 feet in height intruded into the
approach-departure surface for 15 feet.
Joseph Suggs, resident of Bingham Township, discussed the alignment of the
runway with prevailing winds. He presented information from the Greensboro
airport which indicated a 6.3-9.2 miles per hour NE/SW wind. He cautioned that
the smaller the airplane, the more affected it was by wind, especially
crosswinds. Suggs displayed a wind Vector diagram, indicating that the most
desirable alignment was 95% with the most wind coverage and the least crosswind
component. Suggs inquired if wind velocity and crosswind component had been
determined for the site.
Stanley Bennett, resident of Chapel Hill Township, felt that the 5000 foot
runway at a 20:1 angle was the safest specified angle of approach and that
failure of the airport due to economic limitations was very real.
Pat Crawford, citizen of Bingham Township, felt a 2000 foot approach-
departure slope was preferred and would allow control of naturally growing
objects. Crawford indicated that the conditions on the Special Use Permit and
the special use permit requirement itself placed the burden of minimizing
conflicting land uses on the applicant, rather than on an airport district or
the exercise of eminent domain by the County. She referenced documentation
which indicated that the approaches were critical areas deserving maximum
protection and safety. She noted that the proposal had the potential to be
five times larger than Horace Williams based on projected aircraft. She 'also
felt the County had the duty to reduce inherent conflicts and to not deny the
application for modification would be to make a farce of the ordinance.
Miriam Murdock,, citizen of Bingham Township, expressed her opposition to
the proposed airport.
Bland Simpson, citizen of Bingham Township, expressed his opposition to the
proposed airport in a prepared statement. He also read a letter from Mr. Eric
Schopler who could not attend the public hearing.
Noel Grady Brown expressed concern regarding traffic conditions along NC
54. Planning Board member Gordon asked what traffic conditions concerned her
and Brown cited the traffic coming west from Alamance County.
Barbara Page, representative of the Orange County Democratic Party, read a
resolution approved by the Party on April 30, 1983, expressing opposition to
the modification of the conditions imposed on the Special Use Permit.
Ray Kirby, citizen of Bingham Township, asked if runoff controls had been
7
addressed and expressed concern with the impact on the value of the adjacent
lands.
Roger Smith asked if the Horace Williams problem justifies removal of the
conditions placed on the Midway Airport Special Use Permit and answered his own
question with a negative response.
John Northen, Attorney, indicated that the developer would provide
information on the proposed accessory uses and the possible fire access through
Meadowcrest.
Commissioner Whitted indicated that the additional information and evidence
would be received at a continuation of the public hearing at a later date.
Pat Crawford, Bingham Township resident, asked if the additional evidence
would be available for public comment.
Commissioner Fitted answered affirmatively and indicated that the
continuation of the public hearing would be on June 27, 1983.
Commissioner Lloyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted to approve
continuation of the public hearing to June 27, 1983.
. D-2 Pr-QFcsed Private Road-Standards
Ricky Cannity made the presentation. (see pages of this book)
There were no citizen comments.
D-3 }division Reg)alaions
Ricky Cannity made the presentation. (see pages of this book)
There were no citizen comments.
D-4 Pror►osed Text
Ricky Cannity made the presentation. (see pages of this book)
Planning Board Member Kizer asked if this allowed the possibility of a
modification to the Special Use Permit without being subject to a public
hearing if passed. Member Kizer felt that the hearing should be continued to
obtain public input on these changes.
There were no citizen comments.
E-1 BOARL_n I,gTONS - Fas us�_PrQ�servat (zn__.A .cram
Logan Irvin, Planning Board Chair, indicated that the Planning Board
endorsed the program. He added that the sentence regarding I-40 should be
deleted in #4 of the findings of fact.
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to contract
for legislative drafting of the program into a form for legislative submittal.
VOTE: Ayes, 3; Noes, 2 (Commissioners Lloyd and Walker) .
Commissioner Lloyd indicated that he had two areas of concern with the
program: the. required sign-up for a ten or a twenty year conservation
agreement and the requirement regarding application of SCS approved erosion
control practices on critical areas. He noted that he would oppose a program
containing these items.
E-Z Watershed Prpi-pgtio
Rick Cannity gave the presention on the implementation of watershed
protection measures.
Irvin Logan requested that the Board reconsider the minimum lot sizes and
direct the Planning Board appropriately as the Planning Board felt that this
issue was critical to their consideration of industrial development. He noted
that there was quite a variation in opinion on minimum lot size in water supply
watersheds among Planning Board Members.
Commissioner Willhoit indicated that there was considerable misinformation
regarding the application of minimum lot sizes in the County, noting that many
erroneously thought or were led to believe that the minimum lot sizes would be
applicable countywide, and not just in the designated watersheds. He noted
�c.L
8
that stormwater management measures were not practical for small subdivisions
and the soil suitability may be self limiting. He added that for some time he
has opposed some of the watershed measures and proposed that the Board take no
action and recommended that the Planning Board proceed with the existing
planning for Cheeks Township with additional attention paid to stormwater
management for individual lots.
Mr. Steeple inquired if this was a public hearing.
Commissioner Wbitted responded that this was not a public hearing, merely a
request from the Planning Board for the Board of Commissioners to reconsider
whether or not they would like to direct the Planning Board to consider minimum
lot sizes in water supply watersheds again.
Commissioner Lloyd felt that the proposed resolution was the most
ridiculous thing he has ever seen in his life. He noted that stormwater
management measures were impractical and too expensive. He felt it unnecessary
to even consider the two acre minimum lot size and went on to discuss the five
acre minimum lot size. He reviewed the location of designated water supply
watersheds and existing and proposed reservoir sites in the County, indicating
that 'tomorrow' all these sites will be included in the implementation of the
water supply watershed requirements for the entire County.
Commissioner Lloyd asked Marvin Collins, Planning Director, if anyone could
build on a one acre lot in a watersupply watershed. Collins answered yes, if
the lot were a "lot of record."
Commissioner Lloyd then asked if a house built on a "lot of record" could
be rebuilt on the same lot if more than 75% of the structure was destroyed by
fire. Coliins answered, no.
Discussion then was diverted to perceptions of the ordinance as it affects
non-conformities. The Board of Commissioners asked that amendments be drawn to
clarify these questions that persist.
Attorney Gledhill stated that in his opinion such amendments were
unnecessary.
Commissioner Lloyd reviewed the minimum lot sizes as they would be required
in the Zoning Ordinance and questioned the affordability of lots for building
sites.
Commissioner Whitted clarified that the Planning Board indicated to the
Board that they would like to reconsider the minimum lot sizes as part of the
discussion on industrial development in water supply watersheds if the Board
would permit them to do so.
Logan Irvin noted in response to Commissioner Lloyd's comments that
stormwater management procedures were relatively inexpensive and very feasible.
He also noted that most of the opposition to the watershed protection measures
was from the most wealthy landowners in the area. Commissioner Lloyd responded
that nevertheless he represented the poor.
Carl Walters noted that the Planning Board thinks that stormwater
management should be a primary concern. He stated that in order to get jobs
the County needs to project the water supply. He also stated that industry and
zoning goes hand in hand.
Commissioner Whitted reminded the Board and the audience that this was not
a public hearing and that the Board was deliberating on the resolution from the
Planning Board to make a reasonable decision. He stressed that the three
designated watersheds should receive different treatment and that critical data
and empirical data should be collected and further study made of detailed areas
for further application.
421
9
Dr. Kizer stressed that the idea was for the Board to recharge the Planning
Board with reconsideration of the issue, not to make a decision.
Josephine Barbour asked if the Board was changing its policy regarding"
public comment and questions regarding specific proposals.
Commissioner Whitted commented that answers were not yet available and that
when information is available for public comment and response it would be an
appropriate time for discussion. He stressed that the Board was not changing
its policy regarding public input.
Josephine Barbour asked the Board to clearly identify the action by the
Board on this item on the agenda.
Commissioner Walker noted that listing this item under Board Decision was
the problem.
9
David Shanklin emphasized that the requested action was not to decide on
two or five acre minimum lot sizes but whether or not the Planning Board should
get involved further in this issue. He noted that Cheeks Township will
eventually be zoned and that this was needed as protection for industry. He
stated that the Planning Board needs to know about minimum lot sizes to
continue their discussions on industrial development.
E-3 Tbs_Ti=Pr_B. Extension- QSQuest
Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve
the request for an extension of time to complete Phase IV of The Timbers, as
requested by the Planning Department. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, 0.
E-4 Request for SDepial Public Hearing
The Board approved the scheduling of a public hearing for the Wildwood
Subdivision to be held June 27, 1983.
E-5 Tax Interest RelLase Request
By consensus, it was determined that the release of interest not be granted
as recommended by the Orange County Director of Revenue.
E-6 Housing Rehabs
Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitted to award the
three Housing Rehabilitation contracts as requested by the Community
Development Department. ( See pages for these contracts)VOTE: Ayes, 5;
Noes, 0.
E-7
Vehicle Renl
Upon a motion and a second the Commissioners unanimously approved the
expenditure of $6,982 for two UMTA vehicle replacements for the Orange County
Coordinated .Transportation System.
With no further business for the Board to consider, the meeting was adjourned.
Richard E. Whitted, Chair
Sharon Allison, Acting Clerk
APFROVSD 1/17/84
::1?` .' ,"�-r:1w'-,ii^° - _- ':�;�ii=�c�'`.,�.=n'- ;<i:4:- -�;w=�., .- .. :- -.-.d,:r";'..�-:�^fie.`:..,...,.:,d•-�4Yc.'•��p:�:.�w' w�. -
003::
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OR REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Notice is hereby given the Board'Of Adjustment and the Zoning Officer of an appeal
from the ruling of the Zoning 'Officer on the day of f 19
which ordered that
Modification of
or I request/a Special Use Permit as provided for in Section
for Mi ray Aigeort, owned bi Bu k�Noint-in Development Co
premises located in Bin ham Towtdshly, Highway 54 West
said premises being within the area of jursidiction of a Zoning Ordinance far Orange
Bingham ' ..
County as applied to TOWhphip ,:adopted by the Orange County
Board of Commissioners. Title for.. this pxrty' is in the name of
i
Buck Mountain Developmenea-CO an
The grounds,-for this appeal are as follows:
See attached materials, especially Paragraphs 2, 3, A. and 7 of letter
dated January 28, 1983. Applicant incorporates-by reference all materials revi.ously
su mitted and entered into evidence, and adds:�Revised site plan; Revised aerial. Into;
Statement from Peloquin Associates• Letter from Bruce. w aU-ex '
from John A. Northen dated Jan. 28, 1983; Letter from Rick Cannity dated October 5, 1.982.
Applicant also requests that all time restrictions be a tend
i runn ng tom znal decision on this application.
T Date
BUCK UN IN VELOPMENT. CO.
B : . er
yS nature o ppell-ant
c o Herb Holland Company
910•Airport Road
Address
Chapel Hill, N.C. 2751+.
If title to above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant and appeal
is on behalf of such property, attach a letter from the owner signifying his approva'•
Appeal must be accompanied by a small scale vicinity map, showing exact location of
of property with respect to existing streets, street numbers and size of lots, nature
(�
of adjacent property uses, and other important features, within and contiguous to
t the property. The names of the owners of all lots within 300 feet in all directions
---- from the.property will be shown.
i
" -. _ - - - .. - -tip•'.- _ _:•" -f_•S+'t'.
Kay ib, 1583
ORANGE COUNTY PnVATE ROAD STANDARDS
Orange County allows the construction of Private Roads to serve lots within
subdivisions that . not have access to state-maintained roads. The purpose of a
Private Road is to insure that all lots have documented legal right-of-way and to
provide adequate access for residents and emergency vehicles.
Private Roads p�2t be permitted in situations where one or more of the .
following conditions exist:
1. traffic volume would be small
x. the subdivision consists of less than 10 (ten) lots
3, the division would preserve a. natural area through deed restrictions
and special design features
4. the division is adjacent to property using an existing Private Road
for access .
5. the property does not abut any important street
6. the road would no> be accepted by the State even if .built to theit
standards because of the low housing density or Length
After initial construction of the Private Road maintenance must be provided
by the property owners that use the road. A Road' Maintenance Agreement or
Declaration between the lot owners is required to insure that the needed repair.&
are made. Since-Private Roads are not_constructed to.North Carolina. Department
of Transportation. standards, they will not be added to the Secondary Road System
and will not be maintained by the State or Orange County.
The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions i.n•
Orange County-and the class of road required depends on the nupber of lots served
by the road. A Class C road serves 1 to 3 lots, a Class A road serves 4 to -9 lots
and a Class A road serves 10 or more lots. (Class A road requites approval- of the : •-
Board of County Commissioners.) Generally, subdivisions with ten. (10) or more
lots are required to construct a road to the standards of the North Carolina j
Department of Transportation. (Exceptions to this may be allowed under the condi-
tions listed above.) Before the final plat of the subdivision can be recorded,
the Private Road must be built and approved-or the applicant must post a security
instrument with the county in an amount that would cover the cost of constructing
the road. Class C Private Roads that are 500' or less in length are not required
to be constructed to Orange County Standards or to be inspected before recordation.
of the final plat. However, Orange County recommends that these _Class C foods
be built to these standards in order to provide adequate access, es eci.a.l].y for
emergency vehicles which require the clearances and turn areas shown on the speci-
fications.
Construction of the Private Road must be.inspected and approved by.the Orange
County Planning Department. The road should be inspected during construction in
order that any changes necessary to insure approval can be-made before the final
inspection. In order for these inspections to be made during construction, the
property owner must inform the Planning Department prior to the start of grading
so that the inspections can be scheduled. The inspections by the Planning Department
are made only to-insure the road is built to the required dimensions, that an-
acceptable stone surface is provided, any disturbed areas are seeded in permanent
vegetation and the road sign is in place. The county does not assume responsibility,
for such quality control inspections as compaction of fill or construction materials. f
The person having the road built should have-a qualified grading contractor to insure
that adequate methods and materials are used.
1
Note. Construction of a Private Road must confrom with the requirements of the
' Orange County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance. This ordinance requires
that precautions be taken to pervent damage by soil erosion or sedimentation regard-
less of the amount of land disturbance. When the amount of land disturbance exceeds
20,000 square feet, the property owner or his agent is required to obtain the
necessary permits and to pay the appropiate fees. Generally, permits and fees are
required when the length of the Private Road exceeds 1,000 feet for a Class C road,
.770 feet for a Class B road or 570 for a Class A road. The permit must be
obtained before construction. begins. gontact the Erosion Control Officer for
assistance.
.GTJEMA . SETBDMSION APPROVAL MUENCE .
Submit request for subdivision and Private Road to Orange County Planning
Department. Check proposed road name with Planning Department list to avoid
duplication.
j
i
Apply f3br grading permit if land disturbance invlcves more than 20,000 I
square feet.
Receive subdivision approval.
' Construct road to Orange County standards or post security band for
construction of the road. �I
Record final subdivision plat with Register of Deeds.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
I Contact Planning Department before beginning construction so inspections
can be scheduled. Remove all trees, stumps, roots and other vegetation from the
width of.zight-o`-way necessary to construct the road to the required dimensions.
Fill and compact all depressions created by clearing. j
Build roadbed to required dimensions, cutting, filling and compacting where
necessary for a desirable grade.
Install culverts to provide cross drainage.
Construct side ditches and crown travelway.
Place and compact 4" of surface material.
Seed and mulch disturbed areas.
Install road name sign.
Final inspection by Planning Department.
2
;
- •(F'L; '::Yn',+ :_- +.�.,_.- •'�'^ 3*r;:r•r..,.c _ nr ^< .•�>;g•w'y a
Zif
f"
- -
STANDAPAS FOR PRIVATE ROADS
Travelway
The'travelway must be surfaced and compacted with a material acceptable
to orange County to the zequired width of the particular class of road. A
crown should be built into the travelway so that water will drain from the road
surface into the side ditch. 'Zhe crows should not be so great as to cause vehicles
to slide off the travelway when ice or snow are on the road.
Generally the road should be crowned as shown in the specifioations,sheet
so that runoff will drain. to the ditches cn both sides of the road. Howeverr In
some situations it may be desirable not to crown the road but to have the .
travelway sloped to a single ditch as shown below. This is applicable in l:
situations. where it is necessary to cut down an the length of a ditch in order
to reduce the erosion potential by decreasing the volume of runoff, or where
it it difficult to construct ditches due to rock or in, curves.
i
• _ I
i
I
PITCH• OF TRA VEL,WAY
i
Surface Materials
I
Acceptable material for surfacing the travelway is Aggregate Base Course
(commonly called "crusher run"). Soil type base materials (commonly called
"Chapel Hill Gravel" or"Chapel Hill Grit") will be accepted under the following
conditions.
The. material originates from a quarry approved by the North Carolina t
Department of Transportation.
The grade of the road is less than 8%.
Where the grade is greater than 8% a layer of crusher run stone will:
be placed over the Chapel Hill Gravel before compaction.
Sources of surface material shall be verified with the•Orange County
Planning Department before use.
Fin Material
where filling is necessary to raise the'roadbed, cross watercourses or
fill stumpholes, it shall be done with suitable material that is free of roots i
or other organic matter. The fill should be firmly compacted to reduce settle-
ment that will cause ruts or holes in the finished road.
i
i
3
QA
J Two-Way Traffic
Private Roads shall provide for two--way traffic in order to prevent conflict
of vehicles meeting head-on. Two-ray traffic can be accomplished by widening the
travelway at prescr1bad locations to allow vehicles to pass or to pull over and
stop while another vehicle passes.
Grade
s
The grade of the road should be between 3 and 12-per cent and shaU not
exceed 188 because of the difficulty of operating vehicles on such a
steep road and the high potential for erosion of the trayslway and ditches.
Where possible, the road should be constructed along the contour of the land .
to avoid steep grades.
Xntersecti.on with Pub31c Road
The intersection of the Private Road with the existing public road shall
permit a safe entrance and exit. Adequate sight distances alorr3 the public road I
shall be provided by choosing a good location for the right-of-way and clearing
sight triangles when building the mad.
. I
The intersection of a Private Road with a public 'road must provide an adequate
place for cars to stop before entering the public road. See the diagram below.
'CE
'lop
PUBLIC ROAD
?-0 NO UNACCEPTABLE
P�`VP�E
INTERSECTION
I
p0�`D
PUBLIC ROAD
141D R`VPZE RO ACCEPTABLE
P INTERSECTION
i
I
- i
The Private Road must flair at the public road in order to permit a
vehicle to enter the Private Road when another vehicle is waiting on the Private
Road. The dimensions of the required flair are shown cn the specifications
sheet for each class of mad.
i
4
I •
j
t
Draina
i Ditches shall be constructed to provide drainage from the road and adjacent
areas. The ditches shall be built with sufficient depth to carry the expected
volume of water. . The side slopes shall be graded so that they can be stabilized
and to prevent vehicles from becoming stuck if they slide into the ditch.
Where the road crosses streams or minor watercorirsesr culverts shall be
installed to prevent pondirng and washouts of the road. Cn streams where it is
not economical to install .a large culvert of the required size,, the Erosior.
Contzol Officer may allow the installation of a smaller culvert if provisions
are made to protect the road surface and fill slopes from erosion when runoff
tops the road:
Turn-Arounds
Vehicle turn-around areas- shall be provided at the end of all dead and
roads. This can be accomplished by ending the road in a cul-de-sac or a "T."�
Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum diameter of 701. A "T" turn-around must- conform !
to the dimensions in the diagram below. The "T" type turn-around is prefered.
The location of the turn-arouad .will depend on the arrangement of the lots in the
subdivision. If the Private Road serves only one lot the turm-around should be
located near the building site.. In a subdivision with several lots the turn-
around should be at the end of the road and -the necessary right-of-way provided.
i
50' -�
40'
12' fravelway
40'
rug
RUbt.of-Way
1
20'
Road Name and Si
i
The road name shall be verified with the Orange County Planning Department
to insure that the proposed name does not dupbicate an existing name. The road
sign must have one blade showing the name of the Private Road and another showing
the name of the existing State maintained road.
g i
i
• _ - _ .:9`r.r:;�'�. - _ _ 'mac
Right-of-Way
The right-of-way shall. be 50' wide and indicated on the final plat. Requests
for rights-of-way less than 50' wide,but at least 256 wide,must be approved by
the Board of Commissioners. Bends in the right-of-way must be at angles that will
permit construction of curves with a 1256 minimum centerline radius. See
"Minimum Curve Radius."
Permanent vegetation
All areas disturbed by the construction of the roads including the shoulders,
ditch banks, cut and fill slopes and any borrow areas,, shall be seeded in permanent
vegetation to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. Seeding should be done
immediately after grading is completed and before the final inspection by the
Planning Department.
The disturbed areas shall be smoothed and lightly harrowed to break up the
soil and prepare a good seedbed. The following materials are recommended per
1000 square feet. Other types of permanent vegetation may be substituted as
long as they provide adequate cover to prevent erosion,.
1.4 lbs. rescue grass seed
0.4 lbs. German or Browntop millet (to provide temporary cover until the
grass becomes established) .
90 lbs. lime i
23 lbs. 10-10-10 -Fertilizer
2 40 lb. Bales of straw for mulch (use enough to cover 75% of the ground)
Maintenance
Maintenance of the Private Road must be provided by the lot owners that are
served by the road. The Road Maintenance Agreement between the lot owners is -
required to insure that the cost is shared equally and a mechanism-for maintenance
is set up. This responsibility for maintenance is the property owners and neither
the State nor Orange County will maintain the road.
a
Regular attention shall be given to the following items in order to assure.
that the road will remain in good condition:
1. Vegetation: The vegetation should be mowed, limed and fertilized as
needed. Areas that erode or where seeding is
unsuccessful should be reseeded.
i
2. Drainage: Culverts shall be kept clear of trash and other obstruc-
tions that could prevent or reduce the culverts function.
If culverts are not kept-clear it will cause runoff to
flow over the road and may cause flooding upstream.
Ditch banks and bottoms shall be protected from erosion
by maintaining good vegetation.
3. Travelway: The travelway shall be maintained by grading the surface i
material to fill any potholes that develop and to evenly
spread the surface material where the soil has be uncovered i
because of erosion. j
i
4. Road Name Sign: The sign shall be kept visible and legible so that
visitors and emergency personnel can easily locate
the road.
• i
6
Verticle Clearance
A minimum of, 14' of verticle clearance must be providedabove •the trovelway
to permit the passage of large vehicles.under powerlines and tree limbs.
N. C. Department of Transportation Driveway Permit-
The property owner is responsible for obtaining the required permit for
access to the state maintained road. This permit can be obtained from the
DOT in Hillsboxough. Permits are normally graated on request.
Minimum Curve Radius '
Curves shall be constructed with a minimum centerline radius of 125'. 7'he
right-of-way must be designed with bends that will provide Sufficient width
to construct the road to this minimum,radius. For example, a 9Da bend in a
50' right-of-pray wil.1 not provide enough area to construct a road 18' wide. .
The right-of-way must inc4ude sufficient width for the txavelway and the
necessary shoulders, ditches and slopes.
The drawing below illustrates haw a curve with a 125' centerline radius
ca=ot. be contained in a 900 bend of a 50' right-of-way. The other drawings I
illustrate alternative bends that will contain a curve of the minimum. center
line radius, i
I
i
5U R/W
izs
--- ao' R/W
I
7
I
_ � � -. ��' .. .. � =�!?::�sy.�7yf i7i�`F'.vys.::-._ :•Y:ie'�sr'i;^4 �,� ;d'.=;.._ .. .. .� ,_s'r.o- -__ - -;s';....-.^rr-f_;,..-.,_.
-era
R
y
-
1
1z5� 100
- - f
50 R/W
150 -�-
� - I
50--R/W--b-
12-5 l
1
50�R/W
/ I
i
8
-- � - -:is _ - 4s�,•y' •� - - _ - :u^u,r.� _
- - �. >de _..a?ate'::�- `.�^y'r�;`_:::.. ,. rn, - `+-'�__�r...�`c.�n-Mr'•�'* I
0.
CLASS pA" PRIVATE ROAD
50r
SHOULDER R. MT OF WAY. . SHOULDER DrrcH
4 18r 3r 4-
TRAVE LWAY
L4. COMPACTED. SURFACE 4O
i
25
25
FLARE AT INTERSECTION WITH PUBLIC ROAD
. i
9 f
CLASS �B PRIVATE ROAD
I .
50
RIGHT OF WAY
SHOULDER S1IOULD R DiTqH
TRAVELWAY
It'll, !1 -4� GOMPAOTIED
5 ?� SURFACE
�.o I
}
CL
25
25
FLARE AT INTERSECTION WITH PUBLIC ROAD
Io
- i
.. ... � - -' 'S�cr- — .. -- ?�i�k1e�:3�.�•.-. ..,..___-e7�i:..'f`:`-f.�,..,��::��ysr.,,�,�- �:�^^F:..
CLASS C7 PRIVATE ROAD
• I
5 0`
R(GHT OF WAY
SHOULDER Co SHOULDER DITCH
4 ' TRAV E LWAY �� 4
%4
y� C OM PA'C
TED
.%.�`,� SURFACE i
• i
25
- i
25
FLARE AT INTERSECTION WITH PUBLIC RO
AD
o
C°.L=.mac. muz-'�'�C v
..... Yom_•.
sakro a'r ca-261 rav ��cEiat _ -- 4..
rIEE TN—G al nay '3. 9r:.-
su+ ]oat: proposed text changes to the Subdivision Regulations
public Hearing x yes no.
plarnina
N-*ytts): Tnfox ti C=taCt: Marvin Collins
Attadm-
Ph Ml-- �: 732-$1$1 EXT. 346
pC1RPWr-,: To receive citizen input on the proposed changes to the Subdivision'Regulatioiis
N;p_ The following,sections are Proposed to be deleted. ,
ITI - C - 3 - a. When access to a minor subdivision is proposed
via a pre-existing, platted, private road, and
where the private road provides access' to lots
in addition to the lot(s) created by the proposed
minor subdivision, the planning Board may recom-
mend a variance, pursuant to subsections VII-A
to -D of this ordinance, from the right-of-way j
and maintenance requirements of subsection IV
B-3-e of this ordinance. All variances shall I
be granted in accordance with Section VII Of
this ordinance.
IV - B - 3 - c - S. 'Offsets - Unless ecxeption is granted as pro-
vided in Section VII herein, an offset in
the alignment of a streat across an intersec-
tion shall not be pezmitted.•,
IV - B - 3 - c - 10. Reserve Stri s -.Unless exception is granted
as provided in Section VII herein, reserve
strips controlling access to streets shall
not be approved.
IMPACT: On October 4, 1982 the Variance Section was- deleted from the Subdivision
Regulations. The deletion of the above sections which refer to the Variance
Section will clarify the Ordinance.
Location, appearance, and operational characteristics shall be
disclosed_ Additionally, the forms shall, when completed by the
applicant, disclose the name (s) and address (es) of the owner (s)
of the property involved, and all relevant information needed to
show compliance with the general and specific standards governing
the Special Use which is the subject of the application. (See
Section 8.2)
8.7 Minor Changes To Be hpproyed By zoning-Officer; Modifications
'Action' 'h i-n 'Board
Whe Zoning Officer-is authorized to approve minor changes Jr. the
approved plans-of Special uses, as long as they are in harmony
with action of the approving Board, but shall not have the power
to approve changes that constitute a modification of the approval.
A modification shall require approval of the Board having juris-
diction i
s 807..1 -criteria To-Be'Used Yri-Determination
The Zoning officer shall use the following criteria in determining �
whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification:
a) Any change in a condition imposed durir►g• the approval: of
a special use permit Shall. opnst."Mute a moel .ca•ion.
b) Any change in use or enlargement of exisin�use shall. con- i
stitute a modification.- i
' c) -Any increase in intensity of use shall constitute a modilica--'.
tion. An increase in intensity of use shall be considered
to be an increase in usable floor area, an increase in the i
number of dwelling or lodging units.
gL) Structural alterations which significantly affeci:s; the basic
size, form., style, ornamentation, and or charactey of the
building as shown on the.approved site plan or described in
the applicants narrative shall be considered a modification. �
e) Substantial change in the amount and/or location of open
space, recreation facilities or landscape screening shall
-constitute a modification.
f) Any. i.nerease in the size or number of approved signs shall
oonstitute a modification.
g) Any change in parking areas resulting in an increase or
reduction of five percent or more in the number of spaces
approved shall constitute a modification.
h) Substantial changes in pedestrian and/or vehicular access
or circulation shall constitute a modification.
- i
i) Any change in a setback required by the provisions of
this ordinance or imposed as a conditionpproval s5-511
constitute a mod;Cfication.
j) Any change in the location or extent of street and utility
'.. . - ...: ...--..'i:r_. •. _ .- - -.. '.r .. .. - - �g-.,��,r;�c-acts
06.47
+
improvements or tights-of-way, including water; sewer
and storm drainage facilities which would-parovide a
different level of service snaIT cons i u e a mo x ica-
tion.
8.7.2 Review of Record Required
The Zoning officer shall, before making a determination as o
whether a p t:
proposed action is a minor chnnge or a modification,
review the record of the proceedings on the original applica-
tion for approval of the Special Use. The determination shall
be based upon the request of- the applicant, the review of the -
record of e approval of e origima.L request and e g
O facers I art gs under tne criteria or ec ion .
8.7.3 Action E222jred on Pro sed Minor Chan es or Modifications
The Zoning Officer shall, if it is determined that the a sea
action.1s a minor change, state the,findings in writing to the
applicant. The applicant shall file with the Zoning Officer an
amended site plan, or written statement, outlining in detail the �
minor changes(s) propose g eer' shall ale the
amended site pan or written statement with a appro s to
Ran
If it is determined that the proposed action is a'Modifi.cat:i.on,. the
Zoning officer shall require the applicant to summit a request far.
modification of the approved special use permit. The a licant
shall provide an amended site plan and written narrative outli.nin
_ the specific changes r•ecauested. The Zoning Officer shall submi.t:. +
the request to the Board which approved the original application;
If the Board finds the modification substantial in its iJn �
pact, or
wishes to have additional public_ input, it may seta Public heari a
to receive testimony concerning the modification request. Any
public hearing called pursuant to a modification of an approved
—g
s ecial use permit shall be held i n con formity with the requi;re-
ments of Section 8.4.4. The Board may approve, approve•with con-
ditions or disapprove the application fora modi.ficat on. T'ne
Zoning,Officer shall file the Board action in as o ice as an
amendment request to a origins app ica 3.on.
i
i
j
1-05
2z
COST
T ain Strppt
or
� :TAGE OF 810 OVER 4.65 COST ESTIMATE
JOB BiD I X
C 01-1,P AIN Y B AMOUNT
1. Gates Construction
2. Morrow Construction"
3. Frank Griffin & Associatea ]]_51n-00
4. William king
$. McDuffie Construction 10-990 W_
yids opened by: Roxanne Ydrren
ir•- o-IF Bid Openina: 3:00-o--m
Date of.Sid Opening: .-May 12.- 983
Witnessed by: Glenn Davis
........................ ........... ......
�.ceptabl
4r e Bid: 10,980.00
.-,otiated Amount:
N/A
:ntractor: McDuffie ConstriLqtiop
N 10M,E
Rt. 4 Box 402, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
732-6901
PHONE NUMBER
_;.NNENTS: Community Development's contribution towards the rehabilitation of this
dwelling unit will be $6,000.00.
__-pitted by ravf, DATE.
it A:proved by: Ii
ued s
�r!emceed Order: is Not :ssued
'7,}'M-NTS-
106
RESULTS Or BID OPENING
Teri ca Wallace APPLICATION HU-MIUR 71 I
,TRESS: Dixie Avenue _ COST ESTI14",7E:
CEIdTAGE OF BID OVER 10.52 _ UNDER COST EST Im ATE
. _a ONE: JOB B!D LX J )D' :,OT:::T.D
COMPANY B `D.AMOUNT
1. Gates Construction
I 2,. Morrow=Construction
3, Frank Griffin & Associates
4: William King — 8-954-
McDuffie Construction 8.55 0
aids Y
opened b : Roxanne Warren
?
lime of Bid Opening: _ 3:00
Date of Bid Opening: May 12, 1983
witnessed by: _ Glenn Davis
r.arr:rarr++raar.r+..v............r.ar.a..........e.+.+rr N6....rr+.YrfaY+rrarrr++♦
__+•:est Acceptable Bid: 8,535.00
._gotiated Amount- T NIA
c.ntractor: McDuffie Construction
Rt. 4 Box 402, Hillsborough, R.C. 27278
ADDRESS
732-6901
?HOME tIUMBER
,OMMENT5: Community Development's contribution towards the rehabilitation of this
dwelling unit will be $6,000.00
S-itmitted by: / L4 Laz DATE: s .14- F3
lid Approved by: �
Proceed Order: Issued ' I riot Issued
_C,ti:.^,cr17S
• 43^
RESULTS 07 340 OPENING
I
I
',,NER: Nalatha Russell APPLICATION NUMBER 8P j
Daye Street COS' ESTIrtHTE: 7 299.00
i
':RCENTAGE OF BID OVER UI•IDER 4.10 COST ESTIMATE
_ ECK ONE: JOB BID JOG NEGOTIATED
COMPANY u I D•AMOUNT
T
Gates Construction ,-,Z;_96n_nn
Morrow Construction 7,00n 00
Frank Griffin & Ass
William King - 91178.00
McDuffie Construction 7`340400 •_� I
i
aids opened by:
Rqxanna Warren
Time of Bid Opening- 3:00 .m
Date of. Bid Opening: May 12, 1983
witnessed by: Glenn Davis
- I
+*A¢b¢¢*♦*rt¢f+i+►b ......+We.r*+,}4.„+b.AM.b+,+Yt}+}b.}+**}ht}}}•r}**'R*t**¢
Acceptable Bid: 7,000.00
;egotiated Amount: _ N/A
:Tntractor: Morrow Construction
PNAME
Rt. 2 Box 394, Mebane, N.C. 27302
ADDRESS
j
I
563-3023
PHONE NUMBER
COP4ENTS: Ii
- 1
) � J f
Submitted by: (�J, 1 CAL. _ DATE: 5'/e/,
aid Approved by:
Proceed Order: Issued I J Not Issued
CO`tiENTS:
i
i
I
. . i