Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19890905-._ . - ; `, APPROVED 10/2/89 - MINUTES ~- -~.- ; Y ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF C0."4MISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER S, 1989 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session at 6:30 p.m. in the Library at Orange High School, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Shirley E. Marshall. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Commissioner Dan Willhoit. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant Gounty Manager Ellen Liston, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A Blythe, Personnel Analyst Eleanor Cornish, Tax Assessor Kermit Lloyd, Public Works Director Wilbur McAdoo, Planner Mary Scearbo, and Personnel Director Addie W. Turner. A BOARD AND MANAGERS COMMENTS Commissioner Marshall suggested that the reference made in Item 4 to NRCD be changed to refer to NRCD or its successor the Department of the Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Commissioner Hartwell stated that the Commodity Surplus Foad Distribution program is in trouble. The recipients are dissatisfied because the good items such as cheese are no longer available. Far every distribution there is less food to distribute and less of a variety. He asked that the Social Services Board be directed to bring to the Board a recommendation for this program. There was a consensus of the Board that this be done. He also announced that when the intake system was changed sa that a client had contact with only one individual in the Social Services Department the caseload fell behind. With a lot of extxa help from management and staff during the last two months, they are nearly caught up with the caseload and things are looking brighter. He showed on a graph the amount of paperwork involved with each client.- B. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None 2. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Ms. Dana Wright asked to speak to item F-5. C. MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the minutes for the June 28, 1989 Regular Meeting as circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the minutes for the August 1, 1989 Regular Meeting as corrected. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. (Commissioner Hartwell abstained because he was not present at the August 1 meeting) .:. ~ PUBLIC CHARGE - - ~~ `~.- , Y , Chair Moses Carey, Jr. read the public charge. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium ~ INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE WATERSHED Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. made introductory remarks and read the Public Charge. He explained the purpose of this meeting is to hear citizen comments on the proposed interim standards for protecting water quality in the watershed. Planning Director Marvin Collins made the presentation. He noted that the regulations being contemplated are more restrictive and expansive than anticipated. The reason is that the County did not want. to close off possibilities. These are optimum standards, not what has already been decided. He described how these interim standards would affect properties of less than two acres in size, how they would affect properties which have already received some county approval and what projec-cs lacking any approval would be subject to these interim standards. For existing lots which are less than two acres in size and where the property owner has. no intention of subdividing his propexty, the affects of these standards would be practically none. These standards are not retroactive and basically apply only to new lots which are being created ar new development projects being. considered for approval by the County. If a person has gone through the process of filing far a minor subdivision and has received an approval by the County on their final plat, they would not be affected. Any property owner or developer who has submitted to the County an application for a major subdivision, and received preliminary plat approval, would not be affected by these interim development standards. Any project submitted to the Planning Department for site plan approval after the adoption of such interim development standards would be subject to these standards. Collins referred to a map of the County and showed the watershed boundaries and the critical areas around the watersheds and reservoirs. He described in detail each watershed and each reservoir. With reference to the interim development standards, he noted the recommended changes from what was originally advertised. He referred to the handout showing the comparison of existing/proposed minimum required lot sizes, and the interim development standards for Orange County watersheds. In all the designated watershed areas, there would be a six month prohibition on the use of any community alternative systems including package treatment plants, low pressure ground absorption systems, and also spray irrigation. For individual lots being developed by a single propexty owner, there would be no prohibition in terms of alternative systems. The only real impact on the individual's property is that there could not be an easement an an adjoining property for nitrification with the building on a separate lot. The nitrification field and the dwelling would have to be contained within the same lot lines ar propexty lines. Yn terms of the duration of the standards, they would last for six months from the date of enactment ar the adoption of new watershed protection measures, whichever occurrs first. Commissioner Hartwell expressed the hope that everyone at this public hearing would listen to one another. There needs to be a focus on the mechanisms available to compensate one another for pure water. He is an advocate for development rights which could be sold. He cares about the quality of the water because he cares to make this a good place to live. He does not want one group to run over another group and their rights. The story here tonight is about free people assembled in a democratic setting working to find solutions to problems that affect everyone. Any progress made is , news. Chairman Carey announced that he received some sigr-ed xeroxed statements, v . These statements number 274 and are included in these minutes by reference. A list is '= in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. The statement read as follows: "pear Mr, Carey and Members of the Commission, I am a resident of Orange County and I am concerned about the proposed watershed protection plans. I believe they are too restrictive to permit balanced, responsible growth and development in our county" Chairman Carey emphasized that the public hearing was requested by the Board so'that the citizens of Orange County could express their views and that the $oard is there to listen. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR GITIZEN C0.-~iMENTS. HORAGE JOHNSON spoke in support of protecting the watershed areas of the County. A copy of his complete statement is an attachment to these minutes an page DAVE GODSGHALK spoke on behalf of the Chapel Hill Town Gouncil. He spoke in support of protecting the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. A copy of his complete statement is an attachment to these minutes on page JULIE ANDRESEN read the resolution adopted by the Chapel Hi11 Town Council. A copy of this resolution is on pages of these minutes. KATHY EN .WELL, resident of Calavander, spoke in favor of interim development standards for the various watersheds and permanent controls within the near future. She supports the five acre minimum, and is willing to restrict development of hez own property in order to protect the water supply for other areas. DALE D FAULKNER of Jones Ferry Road feels each piece of land should be looked at individually rather than going to a definite five acre minimum. The taxes go up and the property owner is not compensated, He does not want to do anything to hurt the water quality but also does riot want to do anything to hurt the value of someones land. BEN LLOYD, local dairy farmer, does not disagree with reasonable protection of the water. He disagrees with the degree that it needs to be protected and what methods will be used and who will pay the bills when the property is devalued for public good. He referred to the County's past and present initiatives in placing regulations an different classes of land - PID, rural character., etc. He doesn't feel it necessary to place 57~ of the land in Orange County under water protection. He asked that the Board consider not just the people who propose such regulations, but also consider compensation where the land is so restricted. JAMES R. SMITH spoke in opposition to placing a moratorium'on development in order to protect the water quality in the watershed. He talked about the Cane Creek reservoir and zeferred to the section in the-final Camp Dresser and McGee report which indicates how much land is needed to implement the very" costly treatment processes which are necessary to protect the water supply. He feels it is the responsibility of government in a free society to plan for growth and development, not to plan and manage growth and development. MARVIN POYTHRESS spoke in opposition to the five acre minimum lot size. He told of the people who sold their land for University Lake. He criticized the use of ~s ..~ ~ : ~. consultants. He feels that ~WASA should treat the water to North 3ards for the Clean Water Act and put the added cost to the consumer and people in the watershed pay for OWASA probleius-._i He talked about the pollutants travel. He asked the people in opposition to this proposal to they did. ICHOLS who owns land in the Upper Eno watershed spoke in opposition to nterim development standards in the watershed. He described the e uses and stated that they do not affect the quality of his drinking against being asked to abide by a two acre minimum lot size to help f the cost of protecting the water in this area. He feels that .the main e runoff water. He talked about impervious surface and stated that he t of subdivisions do not need paved roads. He talked about the use value property and the money he borrows using that value as collateral. DURHAM, owner of land on Dairyland Raad, spoke about his cluster nd the length of time it took to get it approved. He asked where he dilemma. SHEPARD, architect of the W. T. Durham Subdivision, asked if this project ect to these new interim regulations. He expressed three concerns: (1) as a ten acre tract that is divided by an existing roadway with eight side and two on the other, will the Planning Staff require a landhook to wa tracts, (2) he hopes they retain the same cluster concept that is now (3) the County has moved away from allowing private roads. He hopes the llow more private roads for the developments in the watershed that e acre tract. FOUSHEE spoke out of concern for those who own a small amount of land little money. She stated that she opposes the minimum lot size She spoke on behalf of the community members who are in the lower groups who have dreams for themselves and their children. .E5 BURNS of Damascus Church Road spoke in opposition to the proposal racy interim regulatory standards have a way of quietly becoming ndards. This proposal to pxotect the water quality places unfair burdens landowner by shifting the cost of water quality to the rural landowner s to the consumption of the finished product for compensation. P POI'THR'ESS,.°a resident of the University Lake Watershed area, voiced a the, S 'atr.e :lot minimum. He felt it-would be prohibitive for people just ifi life and attempting to raise their families. He expressed a concern 'operty owners will be discouraged from trying to buy land in this area. HOLLINS, a property owner in the Upper Eno Watershed, stated that for property owners is one of the sensible things he heard during this He stated that every lot in this county drains into someone else's water Mess of where it is. HACKNEX stated that he feels the regulations are too strict and the use seems to be to regulate growth as opposed to protecting the water ~ryone is in favor of protecting the water, however, the residents of :an afford to pay for the treatment of their water. ?~ S EPHEN CRA,$TREE, a landowner in the University Lake Watershed area, stated --._ that he was opposed to the 5 acre minimum. He feels that this is penalizing County Y _ residents for owning land in the County. He also stated that the county residents are ~:. being asked to clean up the water system without getting the benefit of that system. He asked that the Town be charged for these services. He suggested that the GAC filtration system be purchased or a more reasonable alternative to this be proposed. WDRTH JOHNSON stated that he believed the proposed regulations are too restrictive, He mentioned that his mother-in-law has property which has been in the family for years, and she can't give it to her grandchildren, He suggested that outside consultants not be used to help make these decisions, EVERETT SQUIRES spoke in opposition to these interim standards. He stated that he did not want other people telling him what he could do with his land, He also mentioned that he believed that the county should hire local consultants. TED LATTA stated that he was opposed to these interim development standards mainly because interim standards tend to remain in place once initiated. He asked the Commissioners to check some of the major subdivision applications which have .been made of late. The trend is to go for larger lots rather than smaller lots. He also mentioned that the first time homebuyer will be eliminated from purchasing a home in Orange County if these regulations go into effect. He stated he believes that the North Carolina Constitution, in Article 1, Section 19 defines this situation as a "taking without compensation". PETE THORN, a Chapel Hill homebuilder and immediate past President o£ the ,, Hamebuilder's Association stated that Craig Morrison, the current President, asked him to deliver the Homebuilder's position. That position states that "a temporary moratorium is the worst possible of all choices. The contrived shortage will cause the price of any available lot to jump artificially upward. The effect will be to immediately increase the cast of already subdivided land, and subsequently new homes in Orange County. After the ban is relaxed there may be an extraordinary rush to subdivide more land. Since the time it takes to get a subdivision approved in Orange County is already sa great now, probably no one could get a subdivision approved before the expiration of the proposed ban anyway, kiausing costs far young people seeking their first home in Orange County are already prohibitively high for most of the population. An increased minimum lot size will also prohibit many landowners from deeding legacy land to perpetuate family traditions of homeownership when children are ready to move out and form new Orange County households," he emphasized. xt is within their power as elected officials to create an increased threshold of wealth necessary to obtain"homeownership. As contemplated, the Camp, Dresser and McKee study would add $3,000 per acre to the cost of a lot. Such additional cost would not be absorbed easily by most new'home buyers. He asked that the $oard consider the negative consequence carefully. In much of the watershed the quality of the soil imposes a growth management effect of its own. Much of the land in the watershed is unsuitable for septic tanks. The moratorium will increase the chances that the little amount of suitable land will not be allowed to be used to provide homes for people who want to live in Orange Gounty, This right was available for the current citizens of Orange County, iricluding many of those who want to restrict the rights of others to use their land. The Homebuilders Association is not opposed in any way to the assurance of high water quality standards for all citizens of Orange County. However, they believe the real issue is one of equity and fairness and not public health. The elected officials must find a fair and equitable method to spread the cost of maintaining high water quality standards to all citizens of the county who benefit from such standards. He asked that they not unfairly load that burden onto the backs of those people in the watershed with undeveloped land, thereby giving OWASA customers a free ride but to _ --~~~. meet this water quality challenge with a just and equitable-solution for all the citizens of Orange County without proposing a "taking of land". The Homebuilders Association encourages the Commissioners to review the alternative water quality proposals thoroughly before this drastic moratorium measure is taken. There are other . good ways to protect the water without imposing such inequities." He also stated that he understood there is an issue with respect to the tax base. That issue is that if all of the land is dawn-zoned into larger lots, he believed that the tax base would be appreciably eroded, and, therefore, if the same cost of government services were to be applied to a smaller tax base everyone's taxes would have to go up. CARL FTALTER5, a dairy farmer from North of Efland, stated that Duke University has been a good neighbor to Orange County, as has Duke Hospital. He does not believe that Duke should be zoned as a special interest district. He suggested that a special district tax be instituted if the citizens want that land to be rezoned as PID so that money can be generated to purchase that land. He stated that he fears that this will set a precedent which would allow this kind of rezoning to take place on other land in Orange County which is privately owned. He stated that he lives in the $ack Creek watershed. He believes that Alamance County will eventually ask far the same restrictions into their watershed. Any proposal used to limit growth in the watershed should use good reason and policies already proven. He suggested researching other alternatives to salve the problems of quality water. He mentioned that large acreage farms will eventually be impossible to own in Orange County if this current path continues. He indicated that the proposals he brought to the Commissioners were ignored and he believed that they were solid, indepth proposals. :. ~., BARRY SZOSTAK stated that equity on this issue was the only concern that he felt the Commissioners should be considering at this time. These property owners re:> should be allowed to develop their land. ALOIS CALLEMYN distributed a letter to the Commissioner which is incorporated herein by .reference and may be found an pages _ of these minutes and in the Permanent Agenda file in the Clerk's office. He spoke in opposition to these suggested interim development standards. ROY STROUD spoke in opposition to these interim development standards. ALLEN SPALT, a member of Protect Our Water, spoke in support of this proposal. He stated. that the concerns on both sides of this issue are real concerns. There are no people who will. suffer more from the degradation of the public water supply than the people who are least able to protect themselves. This is a much more complicated issue than land ownership, although land owners do have legitimate concerns which need to be addressed. It is possible that they need to be compensated but that compensation must came from us. He also pointed out that whenever a zoning decision is made, or D.O.T, builds a highway, changes in peoples land values are arbitrarily made. Most of the benefit of I-40 going through Orange County is being reaped by speculators who bought up the land. zf we want compensation, we could request it for both gains and losses. Much of the negative, angry feelings being expressed here tonight seem to be coming from the belief that people who support a proposal like this are not neighbors but rather people from an enemy camp. He agreed that some of the consultants that have been hired are probably not the appropriate ones. However, the consultants who did the OWASA study are not some foreigners. They are from the Triangle area. They were as surprised as anyone when they found that the -,~ ~.~ -µ ~~ ~, .~ recommendation that was needed to protect University Lake Watershed was one (1) unit per five (5) acres. It turns out that University Lake is a more fragile body than people thought it was. Even one (1) unit per five (S) acres; does not protect the - water. It results in significant degradation, at least 10$ over a period o£ time, if ~_. its developed according to the plan. This is a health issue, as well as an economic issue. He mentioned that if the hearing had been held in Chapel Hill or Carrboro many people would have attended who are in support of this proposal. The present use value'. taxation justifiably taxes the urban people by allowing legitimate farmers to get taxed at a lower rate. That is not the strongest kind of farm land preservation, nor is it a very good water protection measure but it is the best that has been gotten out of the General Assembly so far. There is a need to work for better measures. People who use well water will not benefit from the degradation of the water supply. Ground water is equally vulnerable from contamination and there will come a time in this county where people will be glad that there are some clean surface water supplies. Tf the ground water supply is contaminated it cannot be cleaned up. Protect Our Water supports these measures far at least the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. The people in the Northern end of the county have legitimate concerns. All water supplies need to be protected. However, it needs to be part of a democratic process. He urged adoption of the measures. MARY BUSHNELL; a Carrboro resident, stated that the present population of the county is about 103,000 people. There are projections that by the year 2000 the population could be 153,000. Even if its only 135,000 ar 140,000 people its still a major increase. .She stated that she believes there is a need to look at the development policies and regulations that are presently in place in the County. The interim measures would be a cautious way to proceed for a short periad of time while these questions are decided. She mentioned a need for an overall county plan which would include guidelines.on haw to share the cast of clean water. NANGY JOHNSON spoke in apposition to this proposal. She requested that the restrictions on the farmers be decreased. NANCY MUELLER, of the League of Women Voters of Chapel Hill and. Carrboro, read the following statement. "Thank you for the opportunity of speaking at this Public Hearing. The League of Women Voters nationally has been a strong advocate of conservation of natural resources for more than three decades. Our position has been that the best, most effective, and economical means of maintaining drinking water quality is by protection of the sources of supply. Locally, the League has made statements on several occasions regarding the protection of University Lake watershed, including at the Public Hearing December 16, 1987 of the Environmental Management Commission, regarding granting WSl status to University Lake as a source of drinking water. Recently,~at the February 2nd Public Hearing which was called by the Division of Environmental Planagement, the League urged the Orange Gounty Board of Commissioners to be very conservative in approving development in the watershed until all relevant governing bodies have had time to come to agreement as to the best strategy for total watershed protection. We urge the adontian of interim standards in compliance with the recommendations of the CDM study which would restrict residential development to a minimum of 5 acre lots in University Lake watershed and two acre lots in Cane Creek watershed as well as a ban on community alternative sewage systems in the watersheds". tiTILLIArI HOUSE, of Damascus Church Road, spoke in opposition of this proposal. He asked the Commissioners how he would be able to divide his 7 1/2 acres for his 2 children. ~~__~ ANNE NEVILL WILLIAMS, a resident of Old Greensboro Highway, spoke in . opposition to this proposal. She specifically mentioned the five (5) acre restriction which she felt would cause. it to be impassible to give their Fhildren and r grandchildren property and still be able to farm the land. - CLAUDIE WILLIAMS, a resident of Old Greensboro Highway, spoke in opposition to this proposal. A.R. R~TBIN,.a resident of Chapel Hill, read from a paper which was presented at the Individual On-site Wastewater Treatment Conference in Ann Arbor, Mich., by Robert Southport and Allen Hayes from EPA. He read that "alternative processes and techniques are defined as proven methods that provide for reclaiming and reusing water, particularly recycling of wastewater constitutants and energy recovery." He stated that his concern with the proposal was that it minimizes potential for utilization of alternatives that are proven and demonstrated technologies that will allow to better protect the water resources in the county. He urged the $oard to look carefully at the adoption of alternative technologies. ANN .70YNER, a resident of Cedar Grove, asked for evidence from the Commissioners that this proposal ~s the best solution to the problem of water qualify. She requested that the Commissioners contract for an independent review of the county's needs. She stated that the effect on the University Lake watershed would be that one lot, of five acres would cost $46,500. Using developer industry rule o£ thumb this should have a value of $188,000 for house and land package. To afford a $188,000 package a downpayment o£ $37,600 would be needed. At a 10~ interest rate and a. 30 year mortgage, the monthly payment would be $1,450. According to Hillsborough Savings and Laan this would require an income of $65,000. Eighty-five (85~) percent of current county residents cannot qualify to live in the University Lake watershed if this proposal is implemented. ;~ _ _... ~, GEORGE CHOCKLEY, from Cedar Grove Township,. spoke in opposition to this proposal. FORREST HEATH, a landowner in the University Lake watershed, spoke in apposition to this proposal. He stated that. if OWASA cannot take the water that is coming into University Lake and adequately treat it to provide clean water,~than representatives need to be sent to Fayetteville and Wilmington to see how they are cleaning up the water from Jordan Lake to meet Federal standards. LEE BIGGER, a resident of Carrboro and a real estate appraiser, stated that property values are not going to go up because of lower density. He indicated that there has been same speculation about land outside Washington where the land values went up. We will not be a parallel situation. He has three (3) lots which are each two (2) acres in the University Lake watershed. If this goes into effect, he will raise his prices because there will be no competition. Pete Thorn made the point of development costs of five acre vs, three acre lots. The land, if it is zoned five acres, will be developed at five acres, but the road is going to cost the same. The finished lots will draw only so much money, so you pay £or the road, you pay the profits and then that is the basis upon which you start negotiating the land prices. The land values will be critically affected. WAYNE RIGGINS spoke in opposition to this proposal. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the ter- W~ ~l Board no sooner than October 2nd. VOTE: UNANIMOUS - -~.-, Y RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS - - 1 bECLARATION OF EMS WEEK IN RANGE COUNTY Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to adopt the proclamation designating the week of September 17-23, 1989 as EMS Week in Orange County as stated below, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK WHEREAS, Governor James G. Martin has proclaimed the week of September 17-23 , 1989, as Emergency Medical Services Week in North Carolina, and. WHEREAS, the dedicated employees of the Emergency Medical Services provide professional, life-saving advanced care to the citizens of our County and persons in need from other areas of our County, and WHEREAS, the devoted voluriteers provide basic and advanced care to sick and r injured persons in our County through their many unselfish hours of training and service, and WHEREAS, the citizens of Orange County have unanimously supported the Emergency . Medical Services through both taxes and generous donations, now _ THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Gommissioners proclaim the Week of ~, '~ September 17-23, 1989 as Emergency Medical Services Week and encourage i,::'.,,,i all citizens of Orange County to continue to support their Emergency ~~ •~~ Medical Services program. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. PROCLAMATION _ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COA'I~iTJNITY ACTION AGENCIES Motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell ta~adopt the proclamation to celebrate the silver anniversary of President Johnson's signing of the Economic Opportunity Act as printed below: PROCLAMATION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES in cooperation with °THE JOINT ORANGE CHATHAM COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY WHEREAS, it has been twenty-five years since this nation declared unconditional war on poverty through the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act, signed into law on August 20, 1964; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this legislation was to eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty in this nation; and WHEREAS, the cornerstone of America's war on poverty has been the Community Action Agencies, created to offer the nation's poor "a hand up, r}ot hand "out" and - _a WHEREAS, the Community Action Agencies have continued to lead the struggle against poverty for 25 years, helping poor people overcome hunger,`~r~adequate housing, ~_ illiteracy, unemployment, discrimination, powerlessness, exploitation and lack of access to such remedial and vital services as health care and education; and WHEREAS, the Community Action Agencies have made an invaluable contribution to our nation, through the development of innovative and cost-effective programs which helped millions of poor Americans find their way out of poverty; and WHEREAS, the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty continues today when, although 1987 represented the fifth year of economic recovery, the poverty rate that year soared-higher than in any year in the 1970's, higher even than during the major recessions of 1974 and 1975; and WHEREAS, this nation must continue to wage a war on poverty in order to uphold its commitment to the least fortunate among us, including America's children, elderly, working poor and other disadvantaged groups, and WHEREAS, we know more today than ever before about effective, positive approaches to self-sufficiency; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners rededicates the Joint Orange Chatham organization to the continuing war on poverty and to the leadership of Community Action Agencies in advancing this struggle; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action Agency be included in the list of those to be presented to the U.S. Congress and to the President of the United States in conjunction with the National Association of Community Action Agencies' Rededication Ceremony in Washington, D.C., September 8th, 1989. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. REPORTS-N 0 N E F. TEMS FOR DECISION ~ CONSENT AGENDA Dana Wright, Granddaughter of Mrs. Robert L. Faulkner who is recommended to receive a tax refund under item F-5, informed the Board of the lengthy and complex process she had to go through to get this refund. Motion wa's made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as listed below; 1. HOUSING REHABILITP.TION CONTRACT AWARDS (The bid sheet for each of the three dwellings is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office). To award the three housing rehabilitation contracts to Morrow Construction Company far the fallowing units: Dwelling Unit X33 $ 9,080 Dwelling Unit 31 6,160 Dwelling Unit m27 15,525 2. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ~1 To approve Budget Ordinance amendment #1 as stated below: GENERAL FUND - - - `'~. ,~ - Source - Gharges for Services $ 800 - - Intergovernmental 800 - Miscellaneous 4,100 Appropriation - Human Services 5,700 _ •. Source - Intergovernmental 40,000 Appropriation - Human Services 40,000 j GRANT PROJECT ORDINANCE = HOUSING AUTHORITY SECTION 8 To (1) accept the approved Housing and Urban Development "Supporting Data for Annual Contributions Estimates" for the Orange County Housing. Authority Section 8 Program, and (2) approve the grant project ordinance for the 1989-90 Housing Authority Section 8 Grant. 4 FOREST SERVICE CONTRACT To approve and authorize the Chair to sign the renewal of the annual agreement between Orange County and NRCD'for the protection, development and improvement of " forest lands in Orange Gounty. 5 TAX REFUNDS RE UEST To approve eight (8) requests for refund of tax bills as listed below: NAME ACCT . # p,1+10~T Richard C. Harrington 110486 $ 56.30 ;.; Harriet Towne 25195 38.61 '`~'~~' L. Shelton Henderson 75354 34.10 Robert L. Faulkner 1383 581.82 Quintiles, Inc. 72473 2818.08 Juanita T. Yeargan 107578 1759.04 Stegman, Michael A. & Nancy 31046 281.88 John D. Seelye 64226 43.36 6. COURXER CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH OPG MENTAL HEALTH To approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Courier provision agreement with OPC Mental Health Center contingent upon final review by the Department .of Purchasing and Central Services. 7. SUBDIVISION TEXT A_-~ENDMENT _ MINOR SUBDIVTSION GLP55IFICATION To approve an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance Section III-B which pertains to the definition of Minor Subdivision and would establish a twenty-four (24) month time period during which a maximum of four (4) new lots may be created from an existing lot. 8. RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRP.M ~ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING To approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Memorandum of Understanding for the Rental Rehabilitation Program with the Town of Carrboro which sets forth the obligations of moth parties in the administration of this program. VOTE: UNANIMOUS G. ITEMS FOR DECISION = REGULAR AGENDA :_ ___ ~.. ~ RE OLUTION REGARbING ROCESS FOR ELECTION OF SITE FOR A NEW ~ANbFILL Chairman Carey stated that due to Commissioner Willhoit's absence, no action . will be taken on this item. It will be reconsidered at the next regular meeting. - - Wilbert McAdoo presented information as contained in the agenda abstract. Commissioner Hartwell expressed dissatisfaction that the focus seems to be on finding a site for another landfill instead of doing something different with the solid waste than just burying it. He feels there should be a"host of other things to consider with the siting of the facility. If an RDF facility is found feasible, it will need to be located near a railroad. The criteria should be more than just finding another landfill site. McAdoo explained that part of the joint task force is conducting additional studies to look at the other issues. Whatever method is chosen, there will be some refuse and that will require another landfill. It will take eight years far a landfill to become operational. All possibilities will be considered. The idea is to involve as many people as possible in the process. Commissioner Halkiotis agreed with Hartwell. He does not agree with moving the problem from Dump A to Dump $. The thrust needs to focus on more than just dumping into the ground. The entire concept of recycling needs to be worked into this process. _ _ Commissioner Marshall commented that it was her understanding that there is Tan intergovernmental task force that is looking at the water issues. The landowners group is working with that task force on the water issues and this group has asked that this task force be created to study the unique problem of siting the landfill. Wilbut McAdoo agreed with this statement, He explained that the Orange County/Durham County task farce is looking into all possibilities and whether it can be accomplished jointly or needs to be done separately. Commissioner Hartwell asked that a sentence be put in the process which indicates that the County is determined to reduce the waste put into the ground. County Manager John Link stated that all these comments will be taken into consideration by the Landfill Owners Group with emphasis on the entire or whole issue and not just finding a landfill site. 2 RESOLUTION ~ RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL UBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORI'~'y Background information as contained in the agenda abstract was given by John Link. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, to establish a public hearing date of September l9, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chapel Hill to hear public comment on organizing the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority.. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Pat Simmons, Assistant Director of the Department of Transportation informed the Board that a Special Tax District Committee is being set up with Wake County to provide emphasis an some taxing authority. 3 REVALUATION Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, Seconded by Chairman Carey, to approve the date of January 1, 1993 as the date for the next revaluation and to adopt a four year cycle from that date. VOTE: UNANIMOUS .. ~. ,l ~ r' .. 4 DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE O~L~ Y Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis -' to approve the revision of the Personnel Ordinance to incl,~ide a new section in Artic~e- II Section X Drug-free Workplace. This is attached to these minutes on pages - - ~~1' VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5 SHELTER ~ THE HOMELESS Motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve allocating $10,000 to the Inter Faith Shelter for matching purposes for the removal of asbestos. VOTE: UNANIMOUS H ~,PPOINTMENTS - No appointments were made. ADJOURNMENT With na further items for consideration, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on September 19, 1989 at 7:30 in the Courtroom of the old Post Office, Chape~_Hill, North Carolina. r Moses Carey, Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk - , -, We are at 2junctions here in Orange County, CRITICAL, and CRUCIAL. CRITICAL:. Because rapid growth has- begun to put-rt~emendious stress on '. ~ ~n . our water supplies. CRUCIAL: Because of what types of restrictions we impose ~' ~- to protect our water shed areas. We are at the headwaters of the Neuse River .- Basin in northern Orange County. There are no other streams from which we . could get our water supply. The same situation exist in the southern part of . ~ the county, relative to Cain Creek, with no other streams available for a water supply. The quality of water from Jordan Lake is suspect and, at this -~~- point, to many un-answered questions for any serious consideration to be given for its use as a viable water supply in the near future. There are times in := a democratic society when a govermental body must make some hard, difficult, but fair decisions. That time is now in Orange County. For property owners along and, in the affected water shed areas, any restrictions would seem harsh, however, not only are we taking measures to protect our watershed area we would be taking action to save a historic river. We can either protect and preserve ou•r watersheds and environment now, or, we can make the horrible mistake of allowing rampart development to ga un-checked thereby condemning future generations to inadequate or questionable water supply. Our location at the headwaters of the Neuse River Basin makes us truely our brothers keepers, because whatever action or in-action we take, it will affect every town along this basin from Orange County to the sea. We can suffer the pain now by enacting firm, but, fair zoning of our watershed areas or future generations will forever suffer from AT LEAST, POLLUTED WATER, at WOP.ST, no DRINYABLE, or WATER AT ALL. Let us in Orange County SET THE TREND, and, not be a follower of any trend far watershed protection . ,, ..--=' ~torace H. Johnson, Sr. _:, -. STATEMENT FOR SEPT. 5, l9$9 PUBLIC HEARING ~'' .. .. CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION WITH CONII~lENTS ON INTERIM COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE UNIVERSITY LAKE AND CANE CREEK WATERSHEDS We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on behalf of the Chapel Hill Town Council concerning protection of the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds. These two watersheds are the saurce of public drinking water for almost 6.0,000 people in southeast Orange County. The area served with the University Lake and Cane Creek water includes all of Chapel Hill, which has a population of about 40,000, of whom 22,000 are registered voters. These reservoirs may-also be a water source for Hillsborough area r residents from time to time until there is a new central Orange reservoir. We commend the Board of County Commissioners for calling this hearing and addressing .the need for interim standards far watershed protection. An excellent study of University Lake by a nationally recognized consulting firm is_.now complete. This study provides a very strong technical basis for decisions on protecting this water supply. While specific protections for this watershed are under discussion, our communities very much need interim development standards to prevent problems from becoming established before long-term regulations are in place. Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill have agreed that the Cane Creek watershed should also be studied to determine suitable development standards. Funding for this study is already budgeted. Interim standards are therefore also appropriate pending this study and future consideration by the local governments of permanent standards. On Monday, Aug. 28, the Town Council unanimously adopted the following resolution. Copies are being provided to you. [reading of full resolution including citations from CDM sdudy] presented by Council Members pavid Gads chalk and .]ulie Andresen .~ ~ ^;~ adapted 8/28/89 -,~. A RESOLUTION OFFERING COMMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION OF WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS (89-8--28/R-3) WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Chapel Hill Town Council entered into a Joint Planning Agreement on Nov. 2, 1987 which provides in part that the local governments jointly discuss watershed. protection procedures and standards following studies of the University Lake and Cane Creek watersheds; and WHEREAS, representatives of local governments are discussing implementation of watershed protection measures. on the basis of the Camp Dresser McKee report; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has scheduled a public hearing on interim standards for water supply watersheds; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council offers the following comments for consideration: Fi-.rte. the Commissioners are requested to adopt two objectives as the basis for development standards: (a) Protection of public health and safety is the most important consideration in watershed protection and related regulations. (b) The~~water quality goal for the University Lake watershed is mini~aal degradation or preventing significant future deterioration in water quality" as stated in the Camp Dresser McKee report. [page 9-1] seconder the Commissioners are requested to include the following in interim County standards for University Lake watershed: (a) A dive-acre minimum lat size with a 4%- limit on impervious surface. We believe the lot size exception far certain previously approved subdivisions ahd for developments with 5 or fewer lots is acceptable oro„ vided there is also a recorded prohibition, as part of all subdivisian approvals in the interim period, on further subdivision to less than 5-acre lots. The 5-acre/impervious surface standard ..is the optimum restriction far jurisdictions which elect to rely in whale or in part upon land use controls." [page 9-4 of the Camp Dresser McKee report]. Camp Dresser density and approach to report] and McKee stated that "Restrictions on imperviousness repr-sent the preferred ~ • watershed management." [page 9-2 of the "From the standpoint of less risk and greater safety, the. nonstructural approach (land use controls) is preferable." [page 9-2 of the report] (b) Limitation of wastewater systems to a.ndividual septic tank systems. [Please see page ~8-6, •table 8-2 of the rreport for comparison of relative risks of wastewater disposal systems]. The Council supports the proposed prohibition on community alternative wastewater systems as indicated in the hearing notice. In addition; we suggest that plat, special use permit and other development documents recorded in the Register of Deeds Office should include a clear statement that failure of any community system in the University Lake watershed shall not obligate the extension of public sewer. (c) Public sewers will not be extended into the watershed because,theY create the economic x~otentiax for development at urban ~densaaies. '-' "~• °_„` ,,,.` ,, (d) All of the University Lake watershed should be considered a critical area because of its size,••~stormwater travel times and other characteristics [page 3-26 of the CDM report]. , Third, the Commissioners are requested to adopt protective interim standards for the Cane Creek watershed pending the study to be commissioned and subsequent consideration of regulations for this watershed. For interim standards, a minimum lot size of 2 acres or greater is needed far the Cane Creek watershed. As .stated in the Camp Dresser McKee report: "fin the absence of a Cane Creek Reservoir management study, preliminary evaluations suggest that adequate water quality protection can be achieved with less stringent controls than are required for University Lake," which has less assimilative capacity. "At this juncture we would recommend that consideration be given to a preliminary nonstructural management strategy consisting of 2-acre single f amilt lot zoning." [page 9-9 of the report] .....-, BE YT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council expresses its appreciation to and commends the Orange County Board of Commissioners for initialing ~,,~ the process of establishing interim development standards and for providing the opportunity for citizens and local governments to provide comments. This the 28th day of August, 1989. ~_ .~. - I ALDIS CALLEMYN LAND SURVEYOR ~~.,; Y - 104 N, CHURTON STREcT HILLS90ROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 TELEPHONES: 732-3883 • 682.6240 September 5, 1989 Dear Orange County Commissioners: As a land owner of Orange County and a registered land surveyor for this county as well as North Carolina, z am very concerned about the-_watershed preservation program you are proposing which will restrict growth and development on almost 60% of the land in Orange County. I would also like to express some additional.thoughts on this matter. What is the average lot size carving before the Board now? r- Mare than minimum? Why? Because most land in Orange County already exists in odd sizes. For example: 5.52 acres will allow 6 minimum size lots. But with the new regulation, you would only be able to have two lots. Therefore, the "two acre" lot minimum would mean an averge lot size of 2.5-3 acres! This is a reduction of 33%!!! , When land usability is taken into consideration, 30-50% of land doesn't perk- This will also lower the percentage of available lots to an unacceptable number forcing the price of lots out of the average range for northern Orange County home buyers. Instead of having a "minimum lot size", whp not go for an "average lot size". This would allow for some flexibility in designing°subdivisions when perk sites are to be considered. 9 farmer can only use the "goad" land that he ovrns- This is the reason why only a small percentage of our land is "cleared" versus other places in this country where it is all open far farming. NOW, if you, the County Commissioners, were to tell all the farmers that they could only use 50% of their cleared land, there would be a revolt heard all the way to Raleigh! This is in essence what you are saying to the land owners--that they are only going to be able to use less than half of their goad land. •~ARM, LOT, BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHIC, LDAN, AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS • SUebIVISION pE$IGN ANO LAYOUT