Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 198402271 131 I~ZII.7C' I'F'S ORAI~IGE COU.~Ti'Y BOARD O', CQ•II47SSIOI~IERS PUBLIC >`IEARIIdG FEBRUFf?Y 27, 1984 CC8•TItISSTOT?Ei2S PF~S~I': Don Taillhoit, Chair, and Commissioners Shirley tiarshall, N?orm'~n T+?al,ker and Richard F•~itted. ~r,~rr>~ ~P.~ I;1~r~.~~ tear: __ Alice Gordon, Chair, and mem~aers Valria Greenberc, Logan Izvin, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pillcey, Davie, 5hanl:lin and Carl *~?alters. PLA"~PdG STAFF PRFSE[~TP: i P9arvin Collins, Susan Smith, Jeff Coutu and Joanna Bradshaw. ~s~ ~~LdAP•;D CY.AI~Z;F~:. Planner Susan Smith made the presentation. Residents living on Riverboat Road, a private road fir. Little River Taanship, are petitioning the County to change the road narie to Summ?r Lane. The rec;•uested toad name change does not duplicate any road nano in Orange County. There was no pualic comment. The item is to be placed on the Comrtissioner's agenda for tiarch 5, 1984. ulrnlN~ oRDINAr1cR,~p~~Qrt~~r~ can~LrY- Recent events involving the Tim'~ers P•lobile Hone Park have indicated the laclc of authority for the Inspections Division of the Planning Department to inspect vrater/sewer connections/lines in mobile home parks. This authority can only be asswt~d folla•ring the adoption of Appendix D of Volume 11 (Plunking) of the North Carolina State Building Gode. Initial work to prepare an orcinance adopting Appendix D revealed that the County's ordinance adopting building and electrical cones in 1974 was in need of uplating. Further investigation indicated that a separate ordinance esistec regardinc the licensing of insulation contractors and the installation of energy u~iliaation equipment. Orange County is mandated to provide inspection services under G.S. 153A 351 in that counties vrith a 1970 Census population betv~en 50,OOp and 75,000 were re~.:ired to perform such duties as of July 1, 1981. The proposed ordinance would apply within the unincorporated portions of Orange County outside any nunicipality's building regulation jurisdiction. It would apply, however, within a municipality's jurisdiction v.~ere that manic- ' ir~ality had requevted and/or contracted vrith the County to enforce the building code. Certain types of activities are exempt from the provisions o£ the Ordinance including farm buildings located outside a municipality's jurisdiction. The rroposed amendrents incorporate the Energy Conservation Stancarc~s adopted in 1978 into the Building Ordinance and restructure the Oranance to include ^rovisions for the issuance of peermits and inspection of __... structures, procedures for the re.^ioval of unsafe buildings, adoption of regulatory codes anc the adoption o Ar^pencix D of the N.C. Plumbing Code. (see permanent agenc:a file for this proposed Ordinance). Collins proceeded to co through the proposed ordinance and explain changes and additions. f+Thitted questioner, Section 3.2 (Bone; required of contractors) as whether this eras part of the State Building Code. Collins responded "nc". Collins stated that although the prc.CtlCe 4raS not vride-spread, it vras strongly recommended by the Department of Insurance. V?hfitted states that it seemed the contractor would be Sound b~T contract with the otmers and that if building eras nnra ~rrnrr-i'inc to all rrrn~l~tinn~, thP County wnul.d have no reason to c?o In to 2 correct anything. Gledhill stated that recently the County had been drawn into such problems. F^rhitted further noted that if the County's Inspection De?artment had fulfilled its duties there vrould be no reason for further County involvement, but requested further discussion of the matter. I?e asked if this would be a one time bonc:ing rather than for each job and Collins replied "yes". T°7illhoit inG;,:ired if there had been any instances where this bonding vmuld have been helpful. Collins cited a recent case where a certificate of occupancy was issued ant the hamernmer *.aas not satisfied. He called in a consultant to inspect the structure and he reported violations of the State Building Code. Plost of the violations vrere found to be okay. but there were still sore things remaining tope done to homeovmer's satisfaction. l7hitted inquired if these were severed by the code and Collins responded "no". t^7hitted further stated that the issue was then between the hor.~ovmer and contractor. Collins noted the homeotmer had little recourse except to sue. Commissioner t~5arshall incvired if the County was suppose to interpose in such a situation. i•Ialker noted that usually the financial institution is involved and the homeovmer and the contractor settled these problems. F?e expressed concern that if the Inspector had done his job, it vaas up to the individual, the firm he v;as borrowinn from and the contractor. Gledhill respondec: it eras practical only when the inspector possibly made a mistake and liability could be determines: by negligence. Marshall inquired as to hose bondinc, contractors would help the County as far as inspections were concerned. Gledhill responded again that if an ir,- spector did rralte a mistake, the County would be held liable. ~~fi itted incuires if 3.6a and 3.6i were mandated and Collins responded "yes". He also asked ebout 3.F j and Aarshall responded that it was mandated also. tlals:er inquired if the contractors had to taste an exam to be licensed. Planning Board menber Pearson responded there was an exam to be taE:en. •The class .of license is indicated by the difficulty of the exam. Additional limits are based on knowledge of building and financial condition of the contractor. t•9arshall inquired if 3.6 feet (no permit shall be issued to any person who has failed after notice to remedy defective work or to otherwise comply with this ordinance or the re5ulatory codes adopted herein) were forever and Collins responded "no". She inquired how Iona. Collins responded that other permits could be issued after compliance with notice to remedy defective wont. A time limit could be specified. - County Attorney Gledhill had revieweG the proposed ordinance, and noted that Chapter 130 had been repealed and replaced by 130A (Items 3.6 c and d)'. This does not change the substance of these sections. T•~illhoit questioned Section ].. la about provisions not applying tb farm builcings located outside the building regulation jurisdiction of any munic- ipality. He ing:ired if farm buildings inside jurisdiction of a municipality were subject to the provisions. Collins respor~ed this eras a requirement in the General Statutes and of the State Building Cocie. `his gives the municipalities the right to control everything in their jurisdiction. Collins indicated that the argarizational r;~atter of the Inspections" could be set up ac~inistratively but having it as part of the ordinance Dives _ lecislative blessing to the _Tnspection Division itself. It identifies the responsibilities of the divivion. i•~7e are uns:er mandate by the State 3uilding ~. V .G 1 v ~% 3 Code Council to perform inspectipns. Having the inspections procedures in the ordinance identifies Kota tae plzn to perform to satisfy the mandate. t~iilJ.hoit co*.r¢:+snted that he thvur,. ht that the main thrust of the ordinance was to bring mobile hales under the ordinance. He questioned if an ad- ministrative sheet referring to the General Statutes would be better than nutting it in the ordinance. Collins responded that corbininq the '74 ans '78 provisions of the Building Cede would tie the ordinance and the General Statutes all together into a recognized/adopted ordinance in Orange County which would give it more strencth as mandated by the State and Commissioners. Gordon inquired where "use" is specified in the Ordinance. Collins re- sponded it was not listed specifically, but there is a space on the actual building permit trhere use is listed, and that it was required on the building r pers~it form. Gordon cited the Planning Board motion regarding enforc~nt procedures with developers starting v;ork before final plans were approved. She noted the Planning Hoard was also interested in tahether regulations needed to be tied to the plans and the question of fines. One section the Planning Soars might be interested in is Article II, Sec- tion 2.5e regarding certificate of occupancy. She expressed concern that the Zoning Ordinance canoliance eras listed in this section. After the building has been built vrhat kinds of considerations are used to see if the building is in compliance tr th the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County. Collins respor~led that when a person applies for a building permit in a zoned township, one of the first things that is checked is to see if they comply faith the applicable recNirements for the zoning district in wl=ich they are located. Building height, setbacks, buffer re;.uirerients, etc. are all checked before issuance of a building permit. Gordon then asked for clarification of fines in Section 3.9. The question was whether the 550.00 fine could be imposed for every day of violation as taell as 30 day imprisonment for each day of violation. Collins responded that that was his understanding. The next question Gordon asked related to Article N Section 3 Periodic Inspections. She questioned the right or ability of an inspector to enter a building for inspection. of v.~zt could be an unsafe building. Collins responded that if an occupant vrould not let an inspector into the building he could secure 2 warrant. Gordon also inquired about Article V, the licensing of energy and insu- lation contractors. She asiced why only these ttao were addressed. Collins responded that 11 other contractors vrere licensed by the State. Gordon noted that throughout the ordinance individuals were referred to as "he". the requested that the ordinance be made gender free. Planning Board member Pearson inquired of Attorney Gledhill about Article 3.1 - Registration of Con*_ractors, if this meant all persons licensed or un- licensed. G1ec'hi11 responded that everyone who carried on the business of a contractor must he licensed. Pearson further noted this seemed to mean everyone getting a building perr.:it vrould need to be bonded. Gledhill responded only if they vrere doing business. Pearson corcnented on Section 3.9a. He noted the term "permissible change" vras used loosely and there needed to be clarification of vrhat is or is not a 1.ermissi.ble change. Collins responds-c that if it was only a minor chance anc in compliance with the Cade, the B~:ilding Inspector could approve the chane~e or,-site. Pearson, cuestioned moving the house or removinn a wall and Collins r. asnonded as ].ana as the house eras in commpliance faith set-backs and it w~. a 4 minor change. Ch~1y if it vras a substantial ch~.nge would the owner have to come back to the Planning Department with requested charae. A caoman from the audience inquired i.f she were remodeling her kitchen ~,TOUld she or her contractor have to be bonded. Collins responded that if she hired a sub-contractor he would have to be licensed. If samleone is doing his ovm work, he does not have to have a license, but must have the proper permits. Collins further noted that the bond was a one-time thing for a licensed contractor. A rx~n from the audience eruestianed the requirement for plans signed by an - encineer or architect. Collins indicated this applied only to non-residential development over S45,D00.00. A man from the audience qu2~tianed the 2~-hour notice for inspections. He noted that time delays arx? weather could put personnel an hold and cause a handicap for footing inspections. Jir;Hopper indicated tip eras important to a contractor. He questioned the 48 hour maximum plan review period given limited inspection staff a~ staff time to review plans properly. He felt that the costs of undue bureaucratic requrements vaould be inflationary. He also questioned written confirmation of changes to plans especially on site changes. He questioned the Plumbing section regardinc repairs on the trap side of the house. Collins responded ro permits were required for minor repairs if repairs do not disrupt the provision of water supply and sewer service. Collins cited Section l.ld, page 2 regarding e:;~ptions to permit requirements. Hopper asked that the intent of Section 3.6g be explained asking if employees have to be licensed. Collins responded that the intent was to linut licensed contractors from getting a permit for an unlicensed person. Hopper _ asked how this was to be determined. indicating that in his opinion if the person is a'~le to do the work, he could occasionally look in on the job. Collins agreed that it is difficult to enforce but he, as a licensed contractor in the case described would be superintending. He added that there vmulc. be a problem if the licensed contractor never shovaed up. Fie.noted that the County relys on the ins? ctors on site to note vrhat is being done and by whom. Hopper felt that it would be difficult to comply with the requirement that a stamped, approved set of plans be kept on site. Collins felt on-site approved plans v,~ould allow the inspector to chec}: what a contractor is doing. I-?opper cl~estiorec requiring an s~loyee to c,rait on site for the insmctor. Collins responded that was unnecessary as only the plans need to be kept on site and available. Hopper e:cpressed concern that leaving expensive plans on site for others to easily pick up was mat a good practice. Hopper stressed that the County had a good Inspection Department but those requirements posed an undue burden on the staff and the public. i9i.llhoit referred sections on enforcement as they refer to zoning and subdivision procedures to the Planning Board for review and comment. t~thitted recommended that nxticle 3, Section 3.2 and Article 2, Section 2.1 and 2.2 be deleted and Section 3.6f be rewarded. t•Ialker felt Section 2.5;u may present personality problems anc7 suggested stating a time limit instead. Gledhill questioned kACa the Board :wished to record Section 3.6f. trrhitted respondea his concern was the implication that it be effective forever. P?otion: tlhitted moved 4o delete Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 3.2. °-Zarshall seconded the :notion. VCn'.^: Unanimous (a-0). 13~ 4 5 6'btion: I~lhitted moved to zefer the relevant sections of the proposed ordinance to the Planning Eoard. tiiall:er seconded the motion. VDT;;: unanimous (4-0) . T^xillhoit clarified that Agenda Item n.3 (Upper Eno Reservoir Feasibility Report) was not an item for decision, regareing adoption of the Plan, but to determine if and trher. to hold a public hearing nn the report. C-3 ~, r. ~j,mball Partin (L[N2-f3~s Tie applicant, v~. Kimball Partin, has requested a secvrrary amendment to the Land Use Plan for Ozange County to redesignate approximately 69.862 acres of a 1a~.7.02 acre tract identified on Tax T•iap 128 as Lot X20 located in Chapel fill Tavnship and bounded by US 15-501 and Old Lystra Road (SR 1915) from Rural Buffer to 7'en Year Transition. The remaining 5~4 acres located in Chatham County. The portion of t'~e lot under consideration is the entire portion of the lot in Orange County, in the County's jurisdiction with the exception of the northr~estern corner of the tract is located within Chapel Hill extzaterritorial planning jurisdiction. Mote that the Orange County tax map shots that the portion under consideration. in Orar_ge County is bounded by US 15-501 and Lystra Road and contains 91.71 acres. 'lhe survey map contained in the packet and included with the amendment application indicates that the tract extents east of Lystra ?toad anc1 contains 89`.862. This is a secondary amendment under the 1982 adopted procedures for amending the Land Use Plan as an e:tension Df a planned area tahere the additional area is contiguous to an area with the requested play. desiclnation and less than 100 acres. The redesignation of an area from one planned category to another requires the application of loca~ional czitezia to determine suitability far redesigna- lion from Rural T3uffer to Ten Year Transition Area. This locational criteria exe given and compazed in the agenda packet. They include an evaluation of land slope, hydzology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public services/utilities, historical and cultural facilities, transportaticn system, energy use, existing land use, agriculture anc~ forestry and population density. The azea r:~ets t11e criteria for land slope taydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, historical and cultural facilities, energy use, agriculture and forestry, and poses no undesirable impact under these CDnd l.t ].DI15 . Fuzther consideration should be given to the locational criteria, public" services/utilities, transportation, existing land use and population density. Tvith regard to public services ant: utilities the location for the Ten Year Transition Area assumes that the area is or can be reasonably and efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities. O[7A.SA has provided same cammer_ts on the extension of public tr~tez and sewer to serve the area and currently provides water service to a limited area __ in the southern part of .Orange County, includinc the intersection of U.S. 15-501 and Smith Level Road. An 8" water line is adjacent tD and e:ctends north along US 15-501 halfway to T?ave Road. Should public water service be e::tended, OTVASA would recuire the developer to loop the water system in the area and extend the lines throuch the property to Old Lystra Road. The developer would have to bear all the costs of construction and u~r-front financing. T9ith regard to trastewater treatment, the property lies in the ?~7i3sor, Creek subdivision (hart o{ Tiorgan Creek sub-basin - Smith bevel P.oad to Old Lyster RDad north anti to east Ir~tver I°iorcari Creeks) . OG•7ASA recommends that should rn~'~l i ~ Sr~tmr rc~rvi ce 5P ertenc.;ed. that the developer extend the gravity set:*er 6 system up T4ilson Cree}: as the preferred alternative. R. less preferable alter native would be to e::tend a gravity sewer up Fan Branch from the line proposed to serve Dogwood Place subdivision c•rith a public lift station to pump-a wastecaater from the tract into the Fan sranch outfall. T.~j~n gravity sewer is e::tendea to T•7ilson Creek, both the lift station and force main up Fan Branch crculd be abandonec. xhe developer croula have to bear all the costs of financing for the line installation. Q•,TASA has indicated that it prefers to extend ureter and sewer at the same time, rather than allow for disjointed service provision. Iiocrever, Of4ASA, as indicated earlier, is not interested in financing such service extension, but would look favorably on the extension of lines by a developer to serve a given area so long as the line site and location meet Q•TASA criteria. L*^7ASA submitted a letter core~enting on the proposal to be included in the record which reflects the above :mentioned policy. T~~ith regard to transportation, the area under consideration fronts on US 15-501 and Old Lystra Road. US 15-501 is a paved. secoru3ary road designated as a minor road in the Land Use Plan. Old Lystra Road is an unpaved secondary road designated as a minor rota in the Ixnd Use Plan. Traffic capacity of U5 15-501 and any improvements to Old Lystra Road would need to be addressed during further subdivision or rezoning approval processes if the amendrnurt to the Plan is approved. ~:isting land uses in the area include the follairing: To the north: undeveloped land and residential property with scattered Tedium density residential subdivision in the genera? area including Heritage I?ills, Dogwood Aeres and proposed Dogwood Place. T~iest and south of the tract at Starpoint are comr:~rcial uses which includes a tract in the County's jurisdiction zoned CC 3. South of the Orange/Chatham line considerable development pressures are apparent and evidenced by the Carolina t•leadovrs retirement cor.,arnrnity. One other consideration needs to be Trade in evaluating the amanrimant request: As part of their final activities the Joint Planning Commission recommYnd- ed that given the trend it cievelot*m~nt patterns around the Towns of Chapel Hill ana Carrboro that the Ten Xear Transition Area south of Chapel Hill be extended north to the edge of the Rural Buffer and the Twenty Year Transition Area b2 shifted south of Chapel Hill. 1n addition, the Commission recommended the Twenty Xear Transition Area south of Chapel Hill follow the drainage basin referenced as t~.organ Creek (ne~:t to Lower Piorgan Creek) which runs with Old Lystra F:oad ~o the east and then crosses and goes north of the extra-territorial line. No action has been ta}:en on the recommerxiation at this time. A map of the proposal is to be introduced as part of the record. (see permanent agenda file for this cop) The Tocan of Chapel Hill would like to comment on the proposal; the Toccoa Piarming Board has reviewer: the proposal; the 'Ian Council requested review of the proposal and are considering it this evening. The Tocan has asked that the public hearing be left oiler. to receive the Town Planning Board and Councils' comments and recommendation. Staff suggests that the public hearing be held oiler. until P~~rch 5, 19I;a. Gordon ruestioned vrhether the ,^roposal was afree-standing area. Smith respar~ed it was an extension or thn Ten Yeer Transition area. There eras discussion of the timing of receipt of the comments of the Planning Board and Chapel Hill. 13~ 7 Gledhill advised there was no need to nut the public hearing on hold; rather the Planning r3oard could receive lapel Hill's cor~nts. The public hearing on the item k~as continued until April 2, 198a to re' ceive both Chapel Hill's and the Orange County Planning Hoard's ccarurents. ~~~13EZ~'~I~ ~ ST ?-2~ 84 ~RP]Ori DAVE •- This is a request fora rezoning of 2.35 acres from A-R (Agricultural Residential) to ?JC-2 (?neighborhood Comtr~rcial-2) by Verson Davis. The property is located in Bingham Totivnship on Tax P7ap 308, part of lot- 8. The property is located on the south side of N. C. Highvray 5Q, east of the' Gulf Station/Store and vrest of Larry's Alignment Shop. Neighborho~ Commercial-2 vrould allow limited commercial development on the property. An individual septic system and well will be provided on the site. This site has direct access onto D?.C. Highway 54. This road is designated as an arterial in the Land Use Plan. Fire protection for the property would be provided by the Orange Grove Rural Fire District. Law enforcement protection would be provided by the Crange County Sheriff's Department. The area is characterized by the follawinn uses: Triple C Auto Parts-non' conforming use, Gulf Station-zoned 2IC-2, Larry's Alignment nonconform.ng use, Ray's Garage-zoned f~-5, Cld School zoned IdC-2. The site is Zesignated in the Ora+:ge County Land Use Plan as Agricultural- Residertial and as a Rural Community Activity Plode. To the north are single-family bores and R-1 District; to the south single family Names and A R District, to the crest Gulf Stationl5tore, Antique Shap and t?C-2 District. The purpose of the PTeighborhood Commerc;.al--11 (NC-2) zoning district is to provide an appropriate location site for limited comrrercial uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood 4nd rural level with convenience goods and personal services. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyorx] the lot boundaries of the use. Section a.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance states tl,.at the district designation 4rill be applied where the follot~~ing.conditians exist: 1. Designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as either a Cotmrercial Activity D?ode or Rural Neighborhood or Rural. Commwnity Activity Z?ocie. Staff Cora~nt ~ BII-2 node, paan category, rural community 2. Uses would serve a market area confined to the immediate area and would generally not serve commuters ar persons outside the surround- ing neighborhood. 3. Lot size for individual, uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. ~t_afr- C1??±?nan*_- There will not be iru3ividual uses or lots created out of this tract, only one tract with single operations for motor vehicle sales for new and used automobiles. t•7ater supply and sewage disposal facilities are - provided by means of an individual well and irx?ividual septic tank. 4. The maximum amount of land zoned b?C-2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of S acres shall apply where population density is loner and distributed mare widely than in the transition areas. 5ta Co., nt• There are presently five (5) lots with existing uses totaling 4.3g acres in the node. This request ~+rould increase the acreage total to 6.69 acres in the node. . ,,, 1v ! $ i;~ ~ 5. All sites designated PTC-2 shall have direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as de3ignated by the adopted Land Use Plan. '~ The subject property has direct access on NC 34 which is classified as an arterial by the adopted Land Use Plan. Ric}; Cannity, representative for the developer, indicated that retail sales on the site vacs the intended use. Coutu indicated that he had received citizen requests to hold the public hearing open for their letters. Gordan suggested continuing the L`x~blic hearing in April. t^Thitted questioned holding the public hearing oven to receive citizen letters. Coutu e:cplained the citizens vaere unable to attend the meeting. ti^fiitted felt to honor the citizen's request vrould set a precedent, and was not convinced the request was warranted. Gordon e.:pressed concern about new Planning Board public hearing procedure regarding acceptinc substa*~tive caa~m~ent after the public hearing and recoru:~ended that the public hearing be held open. Cannity stated the applicant submitted the request on time and that the Boards proceed with the decision along the calendar already established. Gordon e~.pressed concern about no staff preliminary presentation and the late receipt of the agenda packets by the Planning Board. ~~lhitted felt that the Board would be setting a bad precedent and would confuse the record by holding the ~lic hearing open to receive additional co~rnents. Marshall relt the public hearing should be kept open far the Planning Board to study the natter. Collins responded to Gordon's comment that the Planning Board had receives the essential information in a tir.~ly manner. There was Board consensus that the item be referred to the Planning Board without holding the public hearing open for additional citizen comment. The public hearing cues continued until April 2, 1984 to receive the Planning Board's recomriendation. - I 4'~ '7$- g The proposed amendment was requested by Fick Cannity on behalf of his client, Mr. Vernon Davis. P~Tr. Davis has requested rezoning of a 2,.35 acre tract to NC-2 for the purpose of developing a used car dealership. (See permanent agenda file fora copy of the letter). One correction to the content should be notes: - motor vehicle maintenance and repair (body shop) is ~ allowed. Amend Section 4.3 (S25) ~ by adding "Aiotar Vehicles Sales/Rental (New and Used)" to the list of permitted uses in the NC-2 D?eighborhhood Commercial-2 zoning district. "P•lotor Vehicle 5ales/1?ental (New and Used)" are currently permitted only in the GC-~ (General Com~ercial-~) anc EC-5 (57tisting Commercial-S) zoning districts. Tne intent of the Ateighborhood Commercial NC-2 District is to provide..... sites far limited corn:ercial uses designed to serve a population at the neigh- borhood and rural leve' with convenience goods and personal services. New and used dealerships are not normally associated with neighborhood service areas. Rowever, rural areas have traditionally had such establishrerts (particularly used cars), as well as body shops, to provide service to the farm .and rural non-farm residents. .each establishr,~nts are also smaller in size vaath opera- tions scaled to the surrounding service area. ~~ ~ i 'Representative of the developer .felt otY:er uses would generate more traffic and off-site imF~acts. L9arshall questioned the disturbance the use posed for the neighbors versus a neighborhooc serving use. She advised that cars ware not limited to neighborhoaa use. Carnity responded the neighborhoa3 needed to buy cars too. (`_F, pRD~l75~ ZON7T7G CJRI]TT~NCE i'IXT ATIk~7i~7EPTP - PS;TICL~E 2 There is a need to make all provisions in the Zoning Ordinance regarding advertisement requirements tu~iform. G.S. Section 153A vras amended in the 1981 Session Laws of the General P.ssembly to reduce the minimum period of publication notices and to clarify the nethod of cor:~utation of elapsed time for notice. 7.'he ;Jroposed tea;t amendment to bring Orange County's notice requirement intc corr~liance is as follows: Article 2. ThB BOARD OF CQ•II~IISSIDLTERS AP]D ITS ADI7]I72STRATIVE P~'[ECriAP7I5A7S 2.3.2 Rn~r jnc!-+mant Ar?mini~tr~t-inn The Board shall give notice of matters coming before it by causing public natation to be place-d in a nevrspaper of general circulation in Orange County. The notice shall appear once a week for two consecutive weeks, the first insertion to be not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty-five (25) days prior to the meeting date. In computing the notice period, the day of publication is not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be included. Changes in Section $ SPDCIP.L U5°S and Section 20 AP7EPTDP~~S wore approved by the aoaru of Cormissioners. 'i5ze proposed ctkanges veld bring the public hearing notice .requirements specified in Article 2 of the Zonina Ordinance into cor,~liance with amender G.S. Section 153A--323. 't'here was no public comment. This item continued until Peril 2. 1984 to receive Planning Board reconr- mendation. The Joint Public Hearing eras adjourned. Don V7i11hoit, Chair Beverly Blythe, Clerk ® ~, - AP7?ROVID ~+/2/8h ~~~; 1 T•I INUTES SPECIAL MEETING February 27, 1984 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on Monday, February 27, 1984 in Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough, .North Carolina. Commissioners Pzesent: Don Plillhoit, Chair and Commissioners Shirley Tdarshall, Tdorman Glalker and Richard Whined. 1. ACQUISITION OF B NEIn' I,prj~pFILL SITE -. County i•Ianager Ken Thompson presented information for consider- ation of the purchase of a 169 acre tract for future landfill use located adjacent to the present landfill. He e~:plained that four alternatives were explored and all were found not feasible. There is no financial impact since there are sufficient funds in the Landfill P.eserve Fund to pay the purchase amount of 5608,000. A petition was presented to the Board from three (3) neighborhood cor~niunities requesting the Orange County Board of Commissioners to delay the purchase of the "Green" property until serious questions were answered. They requested various information: (1) the results of an environmental impact study both to the garbage dump site and to the surrounding wells, ponds, streams, etc. and most important their homes; (2) the results of a cultural impact study as it relates to quality of life and the value of property; (3) record of any complaint filed against - the existing landfill; (4) the reports of geological or soil test studies ana the effects of runoff, and (5), the results of economical analysis that impair the "Green" property that takes into account the surrounding residents. The petition requested a delay because: (1) errors have been made ksy staff providing information on number and location of streams; (2) the potential pollution of water supply and (3) the total .cost of the site. A person in the audience complained about the present landfill and their operations. Commissioner [dillhoit requested County Manager Thompson to investigate the complaints. Commissioner Ylillhoit noted that the concerns raised by the petition will be addressed zt the time the landfill is zoned, and that the solid waste task force would be set up to review solid waste in Orange County and would provide an annual report on the state of the art of solid waste disposal. Commissioner riarshall noted that the landfill. site concerns certainly will be considered and that even though the landfill will be purchased that it can always be sold again. --. Commissioner tdhitted moved and Commissioner Marshall seconded the resolution which authorized the purchase of the 169+ acres tract, Chapel Hill Township trap 24, Lot 17A for a sum of 53,600.00 per acre or a total of 5608,400 from the Orange Regional Landfill Fund and directs the Town of Chapel Hill, as administrator of the Landfill, to take the necessary steps to effect this purchase as soon as possible. VOTE: UPdANIMOUS 2. CHILD C~ ~Q I~~II, REPORT County T~~anager Thompson reported that on February 21, 1984, the Board received the Child Care Council's report on the coordination of child care services in Orange County. Commissioner tidhitted moved and fnmmiccinnar Giarahall eannnnar7 tha ~nnrnval nfe (1) COriti,nuatlOn of the APPROVID x/17/$4 1`3~ 2 County to provide administrative staff support to assist the Council in the creation of anon-profit corporation, and, upon its creation, to assist the corporation in the establishment of a child care agency; (2) providing the services of the central service departments to assist in the establishment of the Child Care Agency; (3) providing other in-kind services to the agency to recuce operating expenses in the agency's first year of operation for information and referral and other enhanced children's services as identified. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner ~~:illhoit commended Peggy Politzer and the Council for their dedication and in meeting the deadline set forth by the Charge. 3. L~H_FN0 RIVERBASIN_ RESERVI?IR.~yEkQ12M~N~' Kim Fisher, Engineer with McAdams and Company, presented the report. Commissioner 47illhoit questioned (1) Corporation Lake being excluded because it floods historic property; (2) The current land use plan and how it campares with the one presented at the Public FIearing on November 28, 1983 and how it compares with the land use plan for Seven rule Creek; (3) the matrix used giving points 4hat weighed the decision which led to the final recommendation and whether it was justified Dr. Logan Ervin, planning board member, felt that economic development should be considered in choosing a site. Commissioner 4vhitted stated that the reservoir site needs to be reviewed from the point of the drainage area; what the current land uses are in terms of cropland, woodland, etc.; the major tributaries, and impact on the uses that are already there or proposed to determine the tradeoffs. Mr. Cox, citizen of Hillsborough, noted that there are a lot of inaccurate inadequancies that need to be addressed by the Board and that the Board should not accept this report or let it guide them in .development. Commissioner 4ihitted noted that before a public hearing is held that additional information is needed. Commissioner 47illhoit noted that the land use plan needs to be revised with the Seven i?ile Creek reservoir to see what it would look like. By unanimous approval, the engineering report was referred to the subcommittee of the Planning Soard for their review and recommendations. 4. ~PE9I~MFNTS Commissioner Marshall moved, Cammissioner Whitted seconded approval of the appointment of Dr. Anders S. Lunde to the Orange County Senior Citizens Board. VOTE: UtdANIHi0U5 Commissioner 4;hitted Waved, Commissioner Marshall seconded approval of the appointment of Dr. Huffines to the Orange-Person-ChatYiam Alental Health Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Marshall moved, Commissioner 4:~hitted seconded approval of the appointment of Larry G. Holt to the Recreation Advisory Cpmmittee. VbTE: UNANIh10US Commissioner 47hitted moved, Commissioner Marshall seconded approval of Dr. Anne Gross to the Board of Health. VDTE: UNANIP90US There being no further business to come before the Board, Commissioner whitted.moved, Commissioner rarshall seconded adjournment. Don 47illhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk