Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19900205 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING • FEBRUARY 5, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, February 5, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell , Shirley E. Marshall , and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and Ellen Liston, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Budget Officer Rod Visser, County Engineer Paul Thames, Budget/Management Analyst Donna Wagner, Data Processing Manager Keith Brooks, Tax Assessor Kermit Lloyd, Director of Personnel Addie,Wright Turner, Health Director Dan Reimer, Systems Analyst Jane Sparks, Programmer/Analyst Anne Presnell , Planner Mary Scearbo, Director of Revenue Johnny Horner, and Planning Director Marvin Collins. NOTE: Copies of all documents referred to in these minutes are in the permanent agenda 4 file in the Clerk's Office. ``N;; BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Halkiotis thanked Commissioner Hartwell for accompanying him to Talmage Stevenson property to gather data on a sewerage problem that has been going on since 1970. Paul Thames who also attended will do a written report on the problem. This report will also include recommendations for D.E.M. to carefully consider before they continue with the installation of the proposed new treatment package plant at Carden's Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that D.E.M. and county government have been unable to correct this' problem. Commissioner Hartwell indicated that there has been a clear miscarriage of regulatory process in this case. The most current permit issued in 1987 allowed them to continue to operate as they were. During this same time frame fines and enforcement action were pending. It is clear that D.E.M. has not done the enforcement job that is needed. The sand filter system has failed and the discharge of this system is not into a perennial stream which is a requirement for permitting such systems. This has relevance to the kind of regulations for community systems that are being considered by the County at this time. II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT. John Link stated that the staff's response to the County Commissioners' retreat will be forwarded to the Commissioners within the next several days. III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA None. �V AUDIENCE COMMENTS • A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Those in the audience who would like to speak to an item on the printed agenda will be recognized at the time the item is being discussed. B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Tom Roberts, a Hillsborough resident, requested help from the County in determining what the Public Service Company is planning for the County. They are actively surveying in the Northern part of the county. Roberts indicated that the County Engineer had not been informed by the Public Service Company as to their intentions even after he specifically requested that information. Chairman Carey asked that the Board be advised at the next meeting of what is being planned by the Public Service Company. Mr. Roberts will also be advised as to the findings. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Carey read the public charge. V. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall , seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as listed below. A. MEMO OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD To renew an agreement between the Health Department and Planned Parenthood to continue L'ne implementation of the minority AIDS education project, "In The Know". This agreement is for the period of October 1 , 1989 through June 30, 1990. The funds are not to exceed $14,200.00. B. WEATHERIZATION CONTRACT AWARDS To Award twelve (12) energy conservation improvements contracts for the County's Energy Conservation Program as listed below: DU 2 Taylor $7,870 DU 11 Hayes $5,540 DU 12 Hayes $4,950 DU 13 Hayes $2,950 (due to withdrawal) DU 14 Taylor $5,650 DU 15 , Taylor $5,400 DU 16 Morrow . $5,305 DU 17 Hayes $4,850 DU 18 Morrow $4,645 DU 19 Morrow $2,875 DU 20 Taylor $4,400 DU 21 Taylor $5,950 C. TAX REFUNDS REQUEST To approve the 10 requests for refund of tax bills listed below. ACCOUNT #. NAME AMOUNT 124915 Spransy, John $ 13.64 65006 Lakey, Steve 41 .28 136552 Bank, Dominion 76.38 87001929 Hughes, Stanley B. 34. 13 120219 Creative Credit 96,32 ACCOUNT # NAME AMOUNT 23294 Horne, Charles 24.22 110020 Eldred, Timothy 17.06 122372 World Omni Leasing 56.87 • 78092 Chansky, Arthur 364.75 D. REAL PROPERTY AND TAX LIEN ADVERTISEMENT To report on the amount of current unpaid Real Property Taxes as of January 31 , 1990 and to recommend the date of May 9, 1990 for the Tax Lien Advertisement. This is mandatory per General Statute 105-369. COUNTY $ 1 ,973,938.64 CHAPEL HILL 620,654.37 CARRBORO 119,820.88 HILLSBOROUGH 37,813.74 TOTAL $ 2,752,227.63 E. CORRECTION OF MINUTES 12-1-87 To approve the amendment to- the Orange County Board of Commissioners December 1 , 198 minutes on four amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance as presented by the County Attorney. This amendment is incorporated herein by reference and may be found on pages of thes( minutes. F. RENCHER STREET CDBG FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE To provide a quarterly status update to the Board of Commissioners on the Rencher St :' CDBG Program. VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS A. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FURTHER STUDY OF REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL The presentation was made by Gene Bell . The purpose of this presentation was to conside a resolution forwarded by the Orange County Planning Board. The resolution asks that the N.0 Secretary of Transportation consider the proposed light rail system as a reasonable alternativ to be studied and evaluated as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Raleigh an Durham outer loops. The Resolution does not call for the implementation of the proposal , but tha it be studied as a reasonable alternative. Mr. Jim Clark, President of "Save The Water" presented a petition with over 1000 names on i which has been circulated in Orange County. The Carrboro Board of Alderman and the Orange Count Planning Board have both passed resolutions supporting this study. He stated that Falls Lake i the sole source of drinking water for the City of Raleigh. The Little River reservoir and Lak Mickie are the two primary sources for the City of Durham. The headwaters area north of Oran County is also very important. The Department of Transportation has proposed outer loops for No r Durham and for Raleigh. These loops will enter the heart of the watershed. He stated that thi is a 1950's transportation philosophy applied to the 21st Century. He suggested that a' alternative to this ever increasing system of loops would be to use the existing right-of-way fr the rail lines to form an efficient mass transit system. This system would be called the Triang" Express. This system is expandable so that after Phase I was completed and in operation a i{-p_f service area could be reached through expansion. Hillsborough, Roxboro and Wake Forrest cou : tied into the system after the Durham, Chapel Hill , and Raleigh area section was completed. initial Phase would consist of 16 stations with most of the high traffic areas being se including the airport, RTP, the stadiums, and the downtown areas. Actually this proposal wou' achieve more transportation goals than the two outer loops because they would only serve ti 4. northern parts of Wake and Durham counties. The cost for this system would be about 1/2 of the 750 million projected for the loops; the drinking water supply and air supply would not be affected. Federal law requires that D.D.T. do environmental studies and that they study "all reasonable alternatives". This has been presented as a reasonable alternative. He indicated that the newly formed Triangle Transit Authority was being encouraged to undertake its own feasibility study. In response to a question from Commissioner Marshall , Mr. Clark indicated that although it may be necessary to expand the existing right-of-way, that would be much preferred to purchasing right- of-way through existing neighborhoods which is what D.D.T. will need to do for the proposed loops. In answer to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis about inducements to encourage people to ride the rail and the number of riders that would be needed daily to make it cost effective, Clark stated that the funding threshold by the Urban Mass Transit Authority was 50,000 trips a day which was close to what it is now. A first class system with secure stations and coordinating fleets of vans and taxi 's that would shuttle people to their destination would be needed. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to adopt the resolution as stated below and forward it to the N.C. Secretary of Transportation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION -1EREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners supports the development and promotion of public .transportation to supplement the continued construction of -highways and improvement of Nortl Carolina's transportation system. WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes that the increasingly urbanized any integrated nature of this Region requires regional cooperation in order to provide an adequate an, efficient transportation system for Triangle residents; WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has approved plans for the development of oute loops for the Raleigh and Durham metropolitan areas; and, WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly acknowledged the need for the development of hig occupancy vehicle and mass transportation alternatives such as rail service and allows for NCDO to spend up to $5 million from the Highway Trust Fund each year for this purpose; NOW THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners recommends that: - The Secretary of Transportation consider the Triangle Express Rail Proposal a reasonabl alternative to be studied and evaluated as part of the legally required Environmental Impac Statement on the programmed Raleigh and Durham Outer Loop projects; - AND, that the Triangle J Council of Governments Regional Transportation Committee and tt Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority work together to evaluate tt Triangle Express Proposal ; - AND, that the Governor's Rail Passenger Task Force also review this proposal as an integral pal of future rail passenger service in North Carolina. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS A. DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD--ANNE PRESNELL The presentation was made by Dan Reimer. The purpose of this presentation was to recognize Anne Presnell for her outstanding service to North Carolina Public Health. At the 1989 Annual Meeting of the North Carolina Public Health Association a distinguished service award was presented to Anne Presnell as the individual who has made a significant contribution to Public Health who is not employed in the Public Health sector. This award was received for the development of a model Health Services Information System Software Package that has been used by Health Departments across the state. VIII.PUBLIC HEARING A. For Citizen Comments 1 . 1990-95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC HEARING The Capital Improvement Plan was presented by Rod Visser. The purpose of thi: Public Hearing was to receive public comments concerning the Capital Improvement Plan for 1990- 1995. This public hearing allowed citizens the opportunity to provide written and oral comment: concerning the five year capital needs for Education, Public Buildings and Equipment, Public Safety, Public Works, Recreation and Parks, and Water and Land Resources. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to the communications tower and asked if the plan was add onto the existing fire service tower. Visser indicated that that was one option. However moving to another location is also being considered. In response to comments from Commissioner Willhoit, John Link indicated that the amount o funding for future land acquisitions was intentionally vague. It could be property th Commissioners decided to acquire around a reservoir over and above what may be purchased throuG the bond, or for recreation purposes or public building needs. Chairman Carey inquired about the school capital funding that the State approved. VissE indicated that those funds were included in pay-as-you-go funding and currently stands approximately Two (2) Million Dollars. THERE WERE NO FURTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to close tl Public Hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve t Capital Improvement Plan for 1990-1995. VOTE: UNANIMOUS REPORTS A. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANDARDS FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION • This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this item is to present a report outlining the applicability of recommended impervious surface standards for University Lake Watershed. In October, 1989, the Board of Commissioners adopted interim development standards for University Lake watershed. Specific concerns were raised at the November, 1989 public hearing involving the applicability of the proposed four percent impervious surface ratio in conjunction with the five-acre minimum lot size. The same concern has been raised about the six percent ratio as applied to two-acre lots. Commissioner Marshall stated that most of the people would not be using the total six percent. It would only be those people using the total six percent who would run into the problem of being told that they had reached the limit of impervious surface. Only a small number of people would have that problem. Chairman Carey stated that he liked the idea of a sliding scale which would eliminate some of the unfairness of a person having 1/10 of an acre too little. Commissioner Willhoit indicated that his understanding was that going to six percent would be acceptable if special attention was paid to how things were laid out on the lot. Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that he and Paul Thames went to Lake Orange and it was apparent : _t the thinking of the people was different when the lake was built. It would not be built that today. There are homes that come right to the water and the septic tanks are right there at the lake. He pointed out that many people today still feel that the Lake Orange model is just fine. He asked if other areas that are under similar water restrictions were studied to come up with the current model? Ed Holland indicated that data was collected from a variety of land use types. The assumption was that if this is what the watershed looks like in 30 years, this is the kind of run off that will be produced. That is the basis for the model . Craig Burch, a resident of Orange County, illustrated how he believed settlement ponds could solve the problems of runoff in the watershed. Mr. Link indicated that the recommendation contained in this report is one that both he and Mr. Gledhill agree. Going to the six percent impervious surface ratio and requiring further development standards of the developer is a way to protect the watershed and provide some flexibility to the property owner. Bill Burch mentioned that the guidelines from a N.C. Department of Environmental Management and Water Quality study shows two types of areas in the watershed. One of them at the critical point and the other one upstream and not so critical . According to these guidelines the critical point would require four percent impervious surface and two acre lots. Outside of the water critical area may exceed six percent by developing several settlement ponds and then increasing to as high s 35% impervious surface. He suggested raising the four percent ratio and going back to the two re tract. He also suggested using washed rock on the roads to filter the runoff. He believes gat gravel roads should not be included in the impervious surface ratio. Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the origin of the figures mentioned above go back several years. Those guidelines were based on Falls of the Neuse and Jordan watersheds which are large • • watersheds. University Lake has a small watershed and the entire watershed is considered to d4. a critical area. He also mentioned that the CDM report indicated that the recommended five acre minimum was probably more- severe than would be recommended for other watersheds. Ed Holland indicated that the important aspect of the University Lake watershed that requires the five acres is the size of University Lake watershed itself. X. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA A. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS---INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this item was to consider proposed amendments to the interim development standards applicable in University Lake watershed. The proposed amendments, if adopted, would provide more flexibility in the administration and application of the current standards contained in Article 6.15.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section IV-C-2 of the Subdivision Regulations. In March, 1989, the Final Report - University Lake Watershed Study was issued by Camp, Dresser, McKee (CDM). Orange County subsequently adopted interim development standards for the watershed for a six-month period, including a five-acre minimum lot size where more than five lots are created. OWASA also continued its moratorium on water and sewer extensions into the watershed. The Joint Chatham-Orange Work Group reviewed the study and provided recommended watershed protection strategies to its constituent jurisdictions. In October the Work Group completf. - proposed agreement on University Lake watershed protection and circulated it to the respect governing boards for comment and adoption. The proposed agreement included several provisi . . ; which, if implemented, would provide greater flexibility in the interim development standards by addressing potential hardships experienced by landowners in the watershed. The current standards require each lot to be at least five acres in size. The proposed standards would allow the subdivision to be approved, provided all other non-watershed standards. were met. The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on November 27, 1989. While many comments were received, those persons in opposition focused almost exclusively on the five-acrE minimum lot size requirement adopted on October 2, 1989. A specific concern raised at the hearing involved the applicability of the proposed four percent impervious surface ratio in conjunction with the five-acre minimum lot size. The same concern was voiced about the six percent ratio as applied to two-acre lots. At the December 12, 1989 Planning Board meeting the Planning Director was requested to present additional information to address the potential hardships resulting from the inability of citizen; to comply with the proposed ratios. At the January 9, 1990 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Director presented a more in-deptt analysis of lot-by-lot development scenarios using the four percent and six percent ratios. Hs indicated that compliance with the four percent ratio was feasible (60 percent compliance; would require significant education and design initiatives The proposed six percent ratio we greater concern, since only 30 percent of the lot scenarios indicated compliance with the stand At the Planning Board's request, the Planning Director presented various options utilizin technical solutions which would allow the raising of the impervious surface limits. The option • provided a mechanism to comply with recommended impervious surface ratios and included the following. - 1 . Accept the CDM recommended standards; 2. Increase the impervious surface ceiling; 3. Discount unpaved road surfaces; 4. Discount all unpaved surfaces, such as roads, driveways, and sidewalks; 5. Establish design standards which assure compliance such as a maximum permitted driveway length; 6. Increase the minimum required lot size requirement; and 7. Require compliance with a four percent impervious surface ratio and a density standard of one unit per five acres but permit a minimum lot size of two acres. Following consideration of the various options, the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the proposed revisions to the revised interim development standards with the following change to Article 6. 15.2 a.3.a. ) of the Zoning Ordinance: a) Basic Reouirements: In the University Lake water supply watershed, lot size averaging is permitted provided the overall residential density for any development application shall not exceed one dwelling unit per five acres, no lot shall be less than two acres in size, and no more than five two-acre lots may be created as part of any development application, except as permitted under subsection b) or c) . An identical change was recommended for Section IV--C-2 a.3.a) of the Subdivision Regulations, While still recognizing the difficulty of complying with the recommended impervious limits, the Planning Board felt that "averaging" provided the greatest flexibility for property owners. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve the proposed amendments per the Planning Boards recommendation as amended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. SYKES GLEN, PHASE 3---PRELIMINARY PLAN (REVISED) The presentation was made by Emily Crudup. The purpose of this item was to consider a revision to the preliminary plan for Sykes Glen, Phase 3. The property is located in Bingham Township on the east side of Oak Grove Church Road (SR 1117) 0.3 mile north of the intersection with Vernon Road (SR 1118). The total acreage of the tract is 74.03 acres. It is zoned Agricultural Residential and Protected Watershed II (Cane Creek). The original preliminary plan was approved for twenty-two -(22) lots to be served by new public roads, and by individual wells and septic tanks. Lot sizes range from 2.0 acres to 5. 12 acres. On May 1 , 1989, the Board of Commissioners approved the preliminary plan for Phase 3 of Sykes Glen with 6 conditions: 1 . Add to note #4 that septic tanks and wells are also prohibited in the stream buffer. 2. Re-align the entrance road to provide a 90 degree intersection with SR 1117. 3. Dedicate 10' x 70' sight triangles at all intersections. 4. Adjust the 30' drainage easements shown on lots 4 and 7 to follow existing swales. 5. When the entrance road is re-aligned, combine the resultant strip of land on the north side of the new right-of-way with lot 16. 6. Delete the plat note stating "A 2' strip will be left between the Road R/W and Property of Jonathan Sykes". i • 7 The intent of condition 05 was to prohibit connecting the resultant strip of land with,lot 1 on the opposite side of the road, to be consistent with Section IV-B-5-e of the Subdivision Regulations. The owners have decided to create a common area to be dedicated to the Homeowners Association for entrance landscaping and signage. Restrictive covenants have been prepared which include provisions for an assessment to be used for maintenance of the common area. Since condition 05 specifically required a combination with lot 16 creating open space, it is subject to approval by the County Commissioners as a revision to the preliminary plan. The owners' alternative plan is consistent with the intent of condition 05, since the strip of land will not be combined with lot one. The other five conditions of approval have been met. The revised preliminary plan for Sykes Glen, Phase 3, was presented to the Planning Board on January 16, 1990. The Planning Board recommended approval with the following conditions. 1. On sheet one, label the 30' drainage easement which crosses lots eight and seven. 2. Revise sheet one to include the square footage of the open space and label it as "Property of Sykes Glen, Phase 3, Homeowners Association, Inc. " A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve ' ' revised preliminary plan of Sykes Glen, Phase 3, as per the Planning Board and Administrati Recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. C. DURHAM ESTATES--PRELIMINARY PLAN This presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. The purpose of this item was to consider th. Preliminary Plan for the Durham Estates Subdivision. The property is located in Chapel Hill Township along Dairyland Road (SR 1112). W. T. Durha is proposing a subdivision with 10 lots to be created from a 60-acre tract. The property is zone Rural Buffer (RB), and Protected Watershed (PW-II - University Lake). The Land Use Pla designation is Rural Buffer and Protected Watershed. Adjacent land uses include Phase IV of Laure Springs Subdivision, other single family residential lots, and undeveloped land. The subdivision will be served by Dairyland Road, Creekstone Drive (public) in Laurel Spring subdivision and a Class B private road which is proposed to serve 4 lots on the north side c Dairyland Road. Individual wells and septic tanks are proposed. The average lot size is 5.2 acres and the smallest lot size proposed is 3.59 acres. There is a total of 2.60 acres propose for recreation /open space. A 1988 traffic count on Dairyland Road indicated 3,300 vehicles per day. The Orange County Health Department located a suitable area on each lot for a septic dispose OWASA has indicated that the proposal conforms to the major recommendations of the Camp, Dr, & McKee University Lake Watershed Protection Study. The North Carolina Departmen Transportation has approved the preliminary plan. The Orange County Erosion Control Office) ia indicated that the subdivision meets stormwater management requirements. An erosion control ph must be submitted and approved prior to road construction. Carrboro recommended that all Sept' • and well areas be located on each lot and shown on the plans. They also recommended that lots 7, 8 and 9 receive access from the road in Laurel Springs Subdivision. This has been added as a condition on the Resolution of Approval. The Recreation and Parks Department has indicated that the 2.6 acres offered for dedication as public open space/recreation exceeds the acreage required. The Concept Plan for Durham Estates was approved by the Planning Board on October 16, 1989 with the following condition: 1 . Lot #10 must contain a minimum of 5.0 acres in order to comply with interim development standards for Watershed Development. If development standards are revised to allow lot #10 to remain 3.60 acres, this may be reflected on the final plat. The Preliminary Plan was approved by the Planning Board on January 16, 1990 with the following condition: Amend D1 in the Resolution for Approval to read as follows: The applicant shall dedicate and deed to Orange County 2.6 acres of parkland locatec along Morgan Creek as shown in a cross hatch pattern on the Preliminary Plan. The applicant shall also dedicate a 60 foot wide parkland easement along Morgan Creel, extending from the 2.6 acres described above to Dairyland Road (SR 1112). Also recommended for approval was a revision to the Interim Development Standards to allow for lot size averaging. The latter proposal was considered by the Commissioners as a separate agend< tem. Mr. Mark O'Neill , of Flat Rivers Properties and representing Mr. Durham, pointed out that thi: parcel of property is unusual in that it has a lot of road frontage. This gave Mr. Durham al opportunity to create five acre lots without constructing a large number of public roads, any therefore did not hurt him economically. He also mentioned that the four percent imperviou: surface ratio is already becoming an issue in marketing efforts. The public is indicating the this is a concern. Some of these homeowners will own horses and will be putting barns on thei property. He is assuring potential homeowners that the 4% impervious surface excludes grave driveways. Commissioner Willhoit asked what the affect would be on a subdivision approved under the curren standards if the ordinance is changed and gravel roads are considered impervious. Mr. Link indicated he understands that six percent including gravel roads as impervious surfac and lot sizes of five acres minimum is basically the same regulations as presently in place wit the interim standards. County Attorney Geoff Gledhill mentioned that lot standards are not typically part of the revie process. They are established by the ordinance. The landowner does not acquire an invested rig when the property is purchased and the lot standards may change from time to time. If a propert owner buys a lot this week and gets his building permit 10 years from now he will have to compl with the zoning regulations in effect at the time the permit is issued. Legislators cannot resol\ this issue. The Board of Adjustment's function is to deal with unique situations and attempt t resolve them. Commissioner Hartwell pointed out that Collins was advocating, and possibly requiring, that t1 impervious surface restrictions be delineated on the plat. Gledhill indicated that Collins mentioned that as a possibility. That has not been decide The Planned Development Special Use permit is the means of dealing with those kinds of lot by conditions. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the Preliminary Plan for the Durham Estates Subdivision as recommended by the Administration. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. TRIPP'S TRAILER COURT--PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT-OF-WAY This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. The purpose of this item was to consider a request by Victor Tripp for a reduction in right-of-way width from 50 feet to 25 feet. On July 14, 1989, the Planning Staff approved a Minor Subdivision Concept Plan for the Tripp's Trailer Court property. The subdivision is located on the west side of Orange Grove Road between Teer Road and NC 54. The total lot size is 4.33 acres. A Class C private road about 450 feet in length is proposed along the northern boundary of the property. An existing well , which will serve both lots, is located about 25 feet from the property line within Lot 2. A mobile home is located on Lot 2. Reduction of the right-of-way from 50 feet to 25 feet is needed to exclude the well from the private road right-of-way. Staff can identify no reasonable alternative to the proposec location of the road. The Planning Board recommended approval of the partial width right-of-way on January 16, 1990 but indicated that administrative approval of a flag lot may have beer preferable in this situation. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approxf=,2. partial width right-of-way of 25 feet for Nightmare .Lane. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. E. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT . This presentation was made by Addie Turner. The purpose of this item was to provide information on an Employee Assistance Program for Orange County employees, dependents and retiree: through a contract with Human Affairs International . The primary purposes of the EAP will be 1 to enhance existing health and safety programs for Orange County employees, 2) to strengthen Orang+ County's compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 and 3) to position Orange County fo more vigorous management of health care costs as they move into the 1990's. Research on existin EAP's have shown employers will get a return of 3 times their cost. The Town of Chapel Hill , Tow of Cary, Northern Telecom, IBM, Honeywell and Mitsibushi are included in the list of organization which currently contract with Human Affairs to provide Employee Assistance Programs to thel employees. Employee °Assistance Programs strive to reduce health care costs by assisting employee in 1) more effective use of their health care benefits, and 2) more cost-effective use of healt care benefits. In addition, EAP's provide a further benefit to employees, thereby improvin employee morale. Mr. Link indicated that a benefit of this program is that they will be there to help Orana County employees in a crisis as well as help them access the services they need on a more long ter basis. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall , seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve th contract with Human Affairs International for the period beginning February 6, 1990 through 30, 1990 at a cost of $3,457.90. VOTE: UNANIMOUS } " • F. ADVERTISEMENT--FEBRUARY 26, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this item was to consider the legal notice and items for discussion. The regularly scheduled quarterly public hearing Will be held on February 26, 1990. The Board of Commissioners reviews notices of public hearing for form and content prior to advertisement. The Board also reviews proposals to be considered at public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the Notice of Public Hearing for February 26, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS G. ADVERTISEMENT--FEBRUARY 28, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this item was to consider setting February 28, 1990 as the date for a Joint Planning Public Hearing and to consider the legal notice and items for discussion. The purpose of the hearing is to receive public comment or proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement, and the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. The amendments, if adopted, would implement strategies for the protection of University Lake watershed. Discussion ensued and it was decided to advertise for the Public Hearing on February 28, 1990. It was also decided to call another meeting of the Intergovernmental Work Group before the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall , seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to recommend thal rebruary 28, 1990 be set as the date for a Joint Planning public hearing to consider proposes protection measures for University Lake watershed. VOTE: UNANIMOUS H. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT--ARTICLE 20.7 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT-. SECTION VII-D-4 This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. The purpose of this item was to conside proposed amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances establishing guidelines by whit information received after the advertised date of a public hearing may be considered by th Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners. Evidence received at a public hearing becomes par of the public record and is considered by the hearing body in rendering its decision. Unless hearing is specifically held open by the Board of Commissioners, new information or evident submitted by staff, other departments or agencies, or the public cannot be considered withou readvertising and conducting an additional hearing. The proposed amendment would allow fo information received after the public hearing date to be considered, if it is presented in writing and it is made available to the Planning Board prior to its recommendation to the Board o Commissioners. On October 16, 1989, the Planning Board recommended approval of the propose amendment, with provisions that testimony introduced after initial date of the public hearing b in written form. The amendment was further revised to specify that no new information will b considered by the Board of Commissioners in making its decision unless that information wa available to the Planing Board at the time of its recommendation. Commissioner Carey stated that this is a reasonable way to add some flexibility in what i considered after the Public Hearing but limits it to things that are submitted in writing to th Planning Board before they make their recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. A motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the propose amendment per the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS f- J . XI. APPOINTMENTS The following appointments were duly approved by the Board. ARTS COMMISSION Katherine Nelson and William Hannah ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - Jean Hamilton and Dan Eddleman XII MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the January 6, 1990 minutes as corrected. VOTE:. UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the January 8, 1990 minutes as. circulated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS XIII.EXECUTIVE SESSION_ None. XIV. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The n! regular meeting will be held on February 20, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old PU Office in Chapel Hill, N.C. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 1, 1987 MINUTES 7 , ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE CHANGES Beverly Whitehead made the presentation. The Board of Health recommended four changes to the Animal Control Ordinance. These changes are listed below: ( 1) No animals should be exempted from the Ordinance. (2) Change the designation of Non-Commercial Kennels to Class I Kennels and define it as follows . Any person maintaining an establishment where animals of any species, excluding domesticated livestock, are kept for the purpose of showing, competition, hunting or sport, and which establishment is so constructed that animals cannot stray therefrom, and which maintains six ( E) to nineteen ( 191 animals . (3 ) Change the designation of Commercial Kennels to • Class II Kennels and define it as follows . Any person maintaining an establishment where _ animals of any species, excluding domesticated livestock, are kept for the purpose of breeding, buying, selling or boarding such animals or engaged in the training of dogs for guard or sentry purposes, and which establishment is so constructed that the animals cannot stray therefrom; or any person owning or keening twenty (2 01 or more animals , excluding domesticated livestock, each of which is four months of age or older. (4) Change Section XIX (Kennel Standards) =13 to read as follows: provisions shall be made for the removal and disposal of animal and food waste, bedding and debris . Several citizens spoke in opposition to the recommendation. George Maynard asked for another recommendation exempting sportsmen who keep dogs to hunt. He opposed having to apply for a Kennel 's License. Octavious Tate noted he . owned fifteen dogs and cannot afford to pay $15 . 00 per animal. Willard Ward commented on the makeup of the committee that made the above recommendation. He made reference to a letter from Tony Laws which stated that exemptions may be allowed as long as it does not alter the intent of the Ordinance. Ward asked that hunting dogs be . exempted from the Ordinance. Commissioner Halkiotis expressed concern that if the fee for registering dogs is too high that not all animals will be registered. Be proposed a fee of $15. 00 for each of the first three unneutered or unspayed animals in a household with the fee for each additional animal set at $5 . 00 .with no limit. Commissioner Carev pointed out that the process used by the Board of Health that led to the above recommendation allowed ample opportunity for citizen input. The Board of Health expressed. Concern about the cost implications of these changes and therefore set the level for the two different designations of kennels . • Chair Marshall suggested postponing a decision on the recommendations until the December 15, 1967 Board of Commissioners meeting in order to get additional Health Board input. She asked_ whether this plan would permit enough time to prepare amendments, advertise and conduct a public hearing on January 4 , 1968. Commissioner Carey stated that Commissioner Halkiotis was not suggesting that the recommended ordinance amendments, be- changed but that the recommended fees be changed. Any change in fees would not require a public hearing. Chair Marshall observed that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the ordinance amendments recommended by the Board of Health. Commissioner Hartwell suggested taking action on Items (2) , ( 3) and ( 4 ) of the recommendation because there is apparent agreement on those items . County Attorney Gledhill informed the Board that amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance can be made without a public hearing• because the Animal Control Ordinance is not an ordinance for which a public hearing is required. •He• further stated that if the Board wants a public hearing on the proposed amendments it could now direct that the advertisement for the hearing state the Board is considering either the reduced fee approach or the no exemption/exception approach recommended by the Board of Health. Commissioner Hartwell moved, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, the adoption of the amendments recommended in recommendations (2 ) , (3 ) and (4 ) and the referral of recommendation ( 1) back to the Board of Health for reconsideration along with Commissioner Halkiotis ' suggestion on fees . Thereafter' a public hearing can be held to let people comment on the fees and exemption questions. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • •