Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 198401170~4 MINUTES JANUARX 17 , 19 8 ~! 1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 17, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old Post Office Building,.Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Commissioners Present: Donald G. Willhoit, Chairman and Commissioners Ben Llcyd,.Shirley Marshall, Norman Walker and Richard Whined. A. BOARD COMPiENT$ Commissioner Marshall added faun (4) sets of minutes to the agenda far approval. B. 1. Ala_t,~,ers_ o~,~,he Printes3~,g~x1~ None. Commissioner F7illhoit acknowledged there were persons who wanted to speak on the Minimum Housing Code. 2. M he Printed_Aaen~a None. C. .~gO~AL OF MINUTES Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner Whitted seconded approval of the minutes for May 23, 1983 as circulated. VOTE: Unanimous. Commissioner Y7hitted moved, Commissioner Marshall seconded approval of the minutes far August 22, 1983 as circulated. VOTE:" Unanimous. Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner Whitted seconded approval of the minutes for November 1S, 1983 as circulated. VOTE: Unanimous Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner Whitted seconded approval of the minutes for November 28, 1983 as circulated. VOTE: Unanimous. Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner Whitted seconded approval of the minutes for June 27, 1983 as circulated. VOTE: Unanimous. Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner Whitted seconded approval of the minutes for August 15, 1983 as circulated. VOTE: Unanimous. Commissioner Plhitted moved, Commissioner Marshll second- ed approval of the minutes for September 6, 1983 as circulated. VOTE: Unanimous. D. P[]BLIC Ei$ARING 1. P.ron~~~ Nin,imum Housina_ Cog County Manager Thompson cited three revisions to the proposed Minimum Housing Code. as a result of Board member and citizen comments received at the December 5, 1983 meeting: (1) the definition in 2.4 has .been changed to coincide with what is stated in 2.24; (2) 5.1 has been clarified to permit water and bath facilities to be in a separate building; and (3) 14.1 has been altered to eliminate periodic inspection. Dr. Seymour, Inter Faith Council, supports the Minimum Housing Code and stated while it is very minimal, it is the first step. More than 100 homes in Orange County have no indoor toilet facilities or ri+nninrt wa*or_ ThP flranna [:nnnty unit. of -dahitat fnr Ffiumanil-v amnne ors 2 other groups of citizens are concerned with raising .the standards for housing for the people of Orange County. Dorothy Bernholz^ Director of Student Legal Services UNC^ spoke on behalf of the Ordinance and identified problems with the Ordinance: (1)Section 4.7 "every exterior door shall be capable of being locked" needs further clarification-(lack defined); (2) Section 12.4 "Every oc- cupant of a dwelling unit shall keep all supplied plumbing fixtures therein in a clean and sanitary condition and shall be responsible for the exercise of reasonable care in the proper use and operation of same"^ state law adds "as the conditions permit"; (3) Article 14.1b "Whenever a petition is filed with the Inspector charging that any dwelling or dwelling unit contains conditions that do not meet minimum standards contained in this Ordinance", if a petition must be filed, the code will be ineffective. Lane Cook. supervisor of Child Protective services of the Orange County Social Services in the Chapel Hill office, supports the code citing that a Minimum Housing Code would help Social Services offer better services to the neglected children of Orange County. She cited a case where substandard housing contributed to a disorder that will remain with a 6-year old child the remainder of his life. verla Insko^ speaking as a private citizen interested in education, spoke in support of the code and gave information about the Human Services Needs Assessment which addxesses adequate housing needs for school children and how inadequate housing has an impact on learning. Moses Carey, interested citizen, spoke in support of the ordinance and felt it time the county go on record indicating their interest for the health, safety and welfare of the people who would be protected by this Ordinance. Mary McCollister, worker with housing programs since 1973, spoke in favor of the code and cited her experiences and concern for enforcement. Joyce Bolgar, Public Health Nurse, spoke in favor of the code and the need for proper shelter as a basic need before an individual can benefit from health care. Dana Baldwin, Chair of the Orange County Commission for Women presented and read a Resolution endorsing the Minimum Housng Code. (see page --~C~. for this resolution) Ruth Royster, member of the Orange County Commission for Women, spoke as a citizen and also a worker with Orange County children supporting the code and cited inadequate housing conditions in Orange County. Perry Burns, County Sanitarian who does inspections in Foster Care Homes and follow-up work an complaints, spoke in favor of the Ordinance and cited homes in the county which are substandard and in very bad shape - floorboard, water, sewage disposal, missing windows, garbage, etc. Bi11 Price, recently retired Episcipol Rector in Hillsborough, stated that he supports the Minimum Housing Code which is needed far the safety and wellbeing of the citizens. Betty Robinson cited problems with Elliott Woods Apartments and was referred to the Chapel Hill building and inspection department. U~ ~ 3 Jerri Gregory, public health nurse for fifteen (15) years, compared housing l5 years ago with the housing today and noted there had been no improvement within that 15 year period. Without proper housing people have a difficult time with physical, mental and social standards. She urged endorsement of the code. Francis Campbell, private citizen, urged adoption of the Ordinance citing the ordinance as vezy minimal which, because it was complaint triggered, does not deter the rights of the landlord. Any individual who is paying for shelter has the right to proper housing. Henry Whitfield, lifelong citizen and associated with rental property, while in favor of something being done objected to the code: (1> creates another level of county goverment and expense; {2) does not serve the needs that hale been addressed; (3) no provision for a hot water system; (4) creates a nuisance for the student populous? He suggested that people in the rental business be brought in to formulate these minimum housing standards. He favored the formulation of stiff standards that would provide sanitary conditions and very basic fundamentals. Winston Broadfoot, Member of the Chapel Hill Town Council, spoke in support of the Minimum Sousing Code: (1) slumlord exists to drain the property without putting any money into repair; (2) most landlords have in their lease an understanding as to the responsibility of the renter. The Minimum housing Code is a tool for working out SUCK problems and making sure the standards are maintained. Keith Aldridge, Executive Director for the InterFaith Council, defended the minimum nature of the ordinance: (].) a compromise of what should be and what is now; (2) in its minimum nature can produce a lot of goad within the housing section in Orange County; and (3) will not address all the problems but fs a start which Can be amended as deemed necessary. Commissioner rarshall recognized Mr. Whitfield's suggestion to have people who are involved in the rental business serve on an evaluation committee and suggested that the Minimum Housing Code be passed so that the minimum problems can be taken care of now, and that there be a period of evaluation after six (6) or nine (9) months whereby people in the rental business may have an input. Penalties are not the main emphasis. but housing is the main priority. Attorney Gledhill clarified: (1) every dwelling unit should be supplied with potable water and should have 24 hour a day access to a commode, shower or tub connected to a public sewer or other sewage disposal system approved by the Orange County public health department; (2) the ordinance is complaint triggered. In response to a question about frozen waterpipes, Dorothy Bernholz noted that while this ordinance would put the responsibility on the landlord to get the pipes repaired to restore the water, there is a common law of negligence that would protect the landlord. Attorney Gledhill stated that his ordinance would provide enforcement action against the landlord to get the water repaired and the tenant and the landlord may work out an agreement on the financial burden. Commissioner Marshall commented on the Manager's recommended changes (see page,5 92~~r~"'for this list): (1) agreed that the Community Development Department should be the enforcement agency; (2) definition o~~ 4 should be clear to include mobile home units; (3) requested and received clarification on the kitchen and indoor bathroom; and (4) agreed that landlords be given a reasonable time to correct deficiencies after the code has been adopted with July 1, 1984 as the effective date. After extended discussion, Attorney Gledhill clarified that the code does not talk about guest homes or owner-occupied dwellings and these dwellings would therefore not come under this code. ' By .consensus of the hoard, the Minimum Housing Code will be - presented, with the recommended changes, at the February 6, 1964 Board meeting. E. ~~~a^ FOR DEC~$jON E-1. - .,~Rmes P. Goforth Cmmissioner Marshall on January 3, 1984 requested an area map be prepared to show all of Weaver Dairy Road including the T-40 Corridor. In response to the presentation of the map and the comments received at the public hearing, Commissioner Marshall stated "I have been involved in development legislation in this area for over a dozen years; action I participated in as a Chapel Hill official have resulted in court actions that shape important parts of our current ordinances and I am deeply. concerned at the way in which we go about making vital development decisions. Development associated with VTeaver Dairy Road is in the last stages of a ten year transition period and growth, for this .area, will be continued finally, by the I-40 corridor. Thus we are able to guantify maximum allowable development in the ~w1~ of the area as we make critical land use decisions. We are told that our Comprehensive band Use Plan and our related Zoning Ordinance put in place a sophisticated protective approach; I dearly hope so. These rules, however, can only function as sophisticated, protective regulations if we challenge them to do so~-if we use them with sophistication. I believe that markedly adverse tensions have built up among citizens, developers, planners and officials because we always have been playing "catch-up" in developing our regulatory tools. If our Plan and Ordinance are truly in place as growth confronts us, our decisions should lead to decreasing fears and the building of trust. with this end in mind, I shall ask myself six questions as I look at developmental renuests -- they should not be incompatible. 1. Is it allowable under our adapted ordinance? 2. Within the land use district in which it lies (a) if that district were to be built to its maximum allowable density, what would be the impact on the community? i.e. traffic, schools, etc. and, (b) how much of that potential impact would be attributable to the proposal before us? 3. What are the responsibilities of the county to assure that future needs of all will be met? i.e. working with D.O.T; continuing to revise our regulations to work out inconsistencies and any other "bugs" we discover with use. 4. What are the safeguards to property owners? i.e. for safety, for property values, for quality of life. 5. What are the safeguards to the developer? i.e. the project can be developed as permitted and can make a profit recognizing that land, or partly completed projects that have to be sold for a tax loss are os~ 5 the greatest .threat to maintaining amenities and property values. And finally, 6. If the proposal is in a transition area, are we keeping our commitment, made explicit in the Land. Use Flan to respect the development needs of the municipality that will annex? i.e. as county commissioners we do not forget the policy of the State that states: that which is urban should be municipal. That we will turn it over in good shape. She expressed concerns of satisfying the needs of everyone. Planner Coutu presented the request on the proposed zoning change for 45 acres located in Chapel Hill Township on Tax map l7 and includes that portion of lot 15 that is south of the I-40 Corridor on the north side of Weaver Dairy Road. The recommendation from the Planning Board is that the property be rezoned to R-5 Residential. Commissioner 4Talker moved and Commissioner Lloyd seconded approval of the Planning Board recommendation that the property be rezoned to R-5 Residential. Commissioner Whitted expressed a concern for the traffic on 86 and Weaver Dairy Road.. Different information on the number of lanes on Weaver Dairy had been received from the Department of Transportation. Commissioner Willhoit expressed a concern for the traffic on 86 and Weaver Dairy Road. He expressed a concern of access; that recommending R--5 instead of R-8 does not address the basic issues of concern, -'. Commissioner Flhitted recommended that a request from Orange County for a meeting be sent to the Department of Transportation: (1) to determine the future use of Weaver Dairy Road; (2) inform DOT of the problems and concerns of the Board. Commissioner rarshall noted that knowing the accommodating carrying capacity of Weaver Aairy Road will help the Board determine the future use of the land. MOTION ON THE FLpORs VOTE: Ayes. Lloyd and Walker; Noes, Marshall, Willhoit and Walker. Commissioner Marshall questioned a possible contradiction in the planning ordinance about planned development. Attorney Gledhill will provide further clarification on this item. Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner whitted seconded denial on the proposed zoning change for 45 acres to R-8 Residential. VOTE: Ayes, Marshall, Whitted and Willhoit; Noes, Lloyd and Walker. E-2. $Fzonina,^Re$u~gt - pennis Howell Planner Coutu made the presentation on the proposed zoning change from R-1 Residential to Community Commercial-3 on three acres located - in Chapel Hill Township an Tax map 24 lots 27, 27C and 27A on the south side of vaeaver Dairy Road and on the east side of NC 86. Commissioner Marshall stated that since this property is located in a commercial transition activity no~3e the question is not if the property can be used for commercial, but the concerns are with the traffic problems and preserving the right-of-way. The use is not being denied but the question is whether it should get a straight rezoning. Commf.ssioner Lloyd moved and Commissioner Walker seconded approval on the proposed zoning change from R-1 Residential to Community Commercial 3. VOTE: Ayes, Lloyd and Walker; Noes, Marshall, Willhoit anti Whit?-ari _ 09C 6 Commissioner 4thitted moved and Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion for denial of the proposed zoning change to Community Commercial-3. vOTE: Ayes, Marshall, Willhait, and whitted; Noes, Lloyd and Walker. E-3. ~9~SZS~~D;~14 Ordin~&P T~Xt 8E-Q17L~ID~Pt~S -- AL~1~ jgQ~onformiti~ Commissioner Marshall maved and Commissioner Whitted seconded ---- approval of the Article II text amendments. Attorney Gledhill referred to subsection C and suggested the -- setback requirements be deleted. Commissioner Whitted moved, Commissioner Marshall seconded that the item be tabled. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E-4. Dak Knob Court (SR 1605~~arti~y~atory Pavina Proiect Commissioner v7hitted moved and Commisioner Lloyd seconded the motion for approval of the petition for the Oak Knob Court participatory paving project subject to meeting statuatory requirements. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E-5. $gQ~~aniy~tfon of t17 ~p~mpn} Commissioner Yihitted moved, Commissioner Marshall seconded approval to reconstitute the Community Aevelopment Department to the Housing and Community Development Department by consolidating the Secion 8 Existing and Moderate Rehabilitation Programs with the revitalization and economic programs of the Department. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Commissioner Marshall questioned if following this Board action, the Drange County Housing Authority should be dissolved. E-7. ~,~$QF_und $~quests Commissioner Lloyd moved, Commissioner Walker seconded approval of the requests far tax refunds: NAME OVER ASSESSED AMOUNT OF REFUND William F. Kehrer 32,040.00 189.04 Irma V. Rice 32.78 32.78 Susan G. Akers 35.77 35.77 Michael T. Stanley 33.38 33.38 GMAC Leasing Corporation 34.81 34.81 VOTE: UNANIMOUS E-6. Tax S r Law Enforce nt ~QntributiQ~ Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner Whitted seconded approval of the provision allowing employees' contributions to the N.C. Law Enforcement Officer's Retirement System (6~ of annual compensation) to be paid out of gross salary before Federal and State 'withholding taxes are computed and deducted. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E-8. ' ~ II1II13„Ssion Commissioner Lloyd maved, Commissioner Walker seconded approval that the Economic Development Resolution be amended to reflect a one gercent charge for the Town of Mebane's participation in the Commission, and that this action be taken in lieu of County contribution to the municipal programs of the Town. os~ 7 Commissioner b~7i11hoit noted that Mebane is being subsidized greater than Chapel Hf11 or Carrboro. VOTE: Ayes, 4; Noes, 1 (willhoit) E-9. Disposals County Property Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner Lloyd seconded approval for the adoption of the resolution declaring the trailer surplus and authorizing the County Manager to negotiate a private sale. VOTE: UNANIMOUS , E-10. ~~t,__8me~ em nts (Data Processing, Social Services, _. Economic Development Commission/Board of Commissioners) (see page .~,~ for these amendments.) Commissioner Lloyd moved and Commissioner Walker seconded approval of the proposed budget amendments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ~ - E-1l. Income SurveX• _~;fland Sewer Proiect County Manager Thompson explained that in order to determine .whether the County qualified for a F'armer's Home Administration sewer grant, a survey must be made at the household incomes within the proposed service district for the Efland sewer project. Commissioner Yihitted moved, Commissioner Marshall seconded approval for the manager to make expenditures for the Efland Sewer Project from the X10,000 in 1982-83 water and sewer carryover funds. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. With no further business to came before the Soard the meeting was adjourned. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Don Willhoit, Chair APPROVID 3/13/84 >~.~ ~' CCr^72SSIQ:~ Actio;t 3+~=r~ It~n Igo. D-1 ACTIN F~"~'a~ TI£I f~P•S'lT4~GT Nu~.TL1G R~~ 1/Y7 •R4 Suaj~: Proposed Minimum Housing Code ~~,,-~re±*~~: htanaoer's Office pubL+'C. gQar-i~z;: ~ pt~w~*+t(s) : Ordinance for r1i.r~mum ~ ~+'~~= CO~tY Manager's Office Housing Standards 732-8181, ext. 501 Phan_ I EQP.i?QSE: To receive citizen comment an the proposed code. ~, Following discussion of the proposed code at the December 5, 198: meeting it was noted that the authorization far adopting a housing code is in part contained in Article 19, Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes. Section 1S3A-323 requires a formal public hearing before the adoption of any ordinance authorized by Article 9 Chapter 16DA. Notice of the public hearing has accordingly been given to cover bath the January 3 and•-January 17 public hearings through publications . Decemmber 21, 1983, December 28, 1983, and January 4, 1983. Attached copy of 'the Code has been revised to reflect Board Member and citizen comments received at the December 5,.1983 meeting. Specifically: 1. The definition•in 2.4 has been changed to coincide with what is stated in 2.24. 2. 5.1 has been clarified to permit water and both fatalities to be in a separate building. 3. 14.I has been altered to eliminate periodic inspection. Further staff review has prompted .the raising of additional considerations for possible inclusion. Among these include: 1. Inspector is defined (2.11} to mean the Building Inspector of the County. If the term "public officer" could be used the language would conform to the statute and give .the Manager flexibility to assign the inspection function as an administrative matter. It is thought, far example, the function might better rest with the Community Develaoruent Denarirs~nt since the CP Code Enforcement Dfficers are experienced in bring existing units up to code and since possible Section 8 earned surplus funds could help pay the cost of the inspectors` time. They, moreover, have an indepth -. - knowledge of deteriorated housing and awareness of the means to correct deficiencies while maintaining rapport with rental property owners and tenants. 2. The definition of dwelling (2.4} is not clear as to whether it applies to mobile home units. Since there are a lot of these whict- are rented it should be expressly stated whether they come under the regulations. c~~ 1/3/sa Proposed Minimum Housing Code 3. Requir~ynents.fvr a kftchen and indoor bathroom anal plumbing are not included. It appeared that the bath and plumbing were omitted to avoid people'6eing put out of otherwise suitable dwellings and creating hardship far existing rental property owners. Was require- ment or' a kitchen left out for the saw reason? It would seem a kitchen is more fundamental. .Were a- kitchen required it could be accomplished by~adding the words "and cooking" at tie end of 2.4. 4. To allow time for start-up of the inspections and give landlords a reasonable time to correct deficiencies after the code has been adopted;an effective date of July 1, 1984 is suggested. RECO;+~'4EN bA7I ON (S) Following the hearing the Board should direct the Manager as to the revisions it wishes to be incorporated prior to the document being brought back for decision February 6,. 1984. Uy~3 ®ra~g~ Coun~~ ~o~r~issior~ For !P1/om~~ 131 Court Street Hillsborough: 732-alsl Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 ch~pei H'll' ~-s251 Exk 4s7 Mebane: 227-2031 488 Durham: 68$-7331 At their January 12. meeting, the members of the Orange Gounty Commission for Women voted unanimously to submit a resolution in support of.the proposed Orange County housing code. The resolution is as follows: WHEREAS the members of the Orange County Commission for Women have received and studied the proposed Orange County Housing Code, and WHEREAS it is the charge of the Commission to make recommendations re- garding policies which wiii address the identified needs of women in Orange County, and WHEREAS the heaith and safety of both women and children are placed in jeepea^dy by unsafe living conditions: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Commission for Women endorses the~,proposed housing code and urges its adoption by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. BE IT FURTHERED RE50LVEp that~the Coin nt~ mmissioners continue to study and monitor this issue through a committee.of the Human Services Advisory Commission to determine if the code needs further strengthening. January 12, 19$4 (,'y~ . o cOV~vrY ~.zaposr~a 19s3-s4 su~T ar~vis 'Ilse 1983-84 Budget Ordinance of Orange Cotmty as ar1apted azx .7une 27, 7983, and subsequently amexnded,, i.s hexeby a~rided as follows Gepexal Fund: . _ 1) Ap1~Priati.cn: L7cAl.th $ 240.00 ~~ Fro~s~ sso.o0 source: Social. Services 240.00 ~a~~-~ 160.00 -" Section 8 400.00 ~~- Services 320.00 Zb budget for purrl~ase of multiple~rs. 2) Appropriatia~n: Social Services $15,056.00 Source: Social Services WIlV 73, 550.00 ~~ ~~ ~ 1,506.00 To budget for Depar~+ait of Social Services WIN Program. 3) Apgrapriatian- . Ccnmty Cam~issioners $3, 310.00 F.concmic bevelognent 3,310.00 -. Scarce ~~- Servi-ces 3, 310.00 ___ Fi"r"""' ~ I]evelopment 3, 310.00 To budget for part-time clerics], position for Caemi_ssioner's aTld, Frrmrsn-i ~ Develo~ent. Approved this day of 19$4.