HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 199605013
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 NOTE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
APPROVED 10/15196
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
May 1, 1996
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on May 1, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in
the Old Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners William L.
Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Don Willhoit.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod
Visser and Albert Kittrell and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
ALL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON ALL ITEMS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES IS
IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. RECORDING TAPES ARE
KEPT ON FILE FOR FIVE YEARS.
ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Chair Carey added to the agenda a proclamation for "Safe Water Week".
I1. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A. MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
Chair Carey announced that citizens who want to speak on an item listed on the printed
agenda will be recognized at the appropriate time.
B. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA - NONE
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
III. BOARD COMMENTS
Commissioner Halkiotis expressed a concern about the price of gasoline. He talked with the
attorney general and asked that his office investigate the price increase. He asked that the County
Commissioners send a letter stating the Board's concern about what is happening in this world.
Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that yesterday at 9:30 a.m. a huge tree fell and power was out at
the high school and Stanford Jr. High. It took Duke Power more than one hour to respond. He had to deal
with some serious issues during that time when everything was down. EMS and the Sheriff's Department
responded immediately as did the Department of Transportation. However, nothing could be done until Duke
Power cut the electric. Once Duke Power was on the scene it took them 1-1/2 hours to get the power back
on. He asked that a joint meeting be set up between the County and Duke Power to talk about a solution to
the lengthy response time.
Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to an editorial in today's newspaper and emphasized that
the County is responsible for landfill operations. He feels the County Commissioners have a responsibility to
bring to a conclusion the landfill issue. He is ready for the County to take on this responsibility.
IV. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
John Link reported that the County had a wonderful "County Official for a Day" program last week
as part of the activities for County Government Week.
V. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
A. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR KEITH BROOKS
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
John Link introduced this resolution and commended Keith Brooks for his contributions
to Orange County.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Crowther
to approve the resolution as stated below:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR R. KEITH BROOKS
IN RECOGNITION OF HIS SERVICE
AS ORANGE COUNTY DATA PROCESSING MANAGER
WHEREAS, Keith Brooks served the citizens of Orange County faithfully for more than 19 years; and
WHEREAS, he served with honor, creativity, and distinction as Orange County's Data Processing Manager
since 1977; and
WHEREAS, he was primarily responsible for automating Orange County's programs and services, and thus
dramatically enhanced the ability of other County departments to provide Orange County citizens with timely,
responsive, and accurate service; and
WHEREAS, Keith Brooks retired from his duties as Orange County Data Processing Manager as of March
31, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby
recognize Keith Brooks for his superb leadership as Orange County Data Processing Manager and for his
distinguished service to Orange County for more than 19 years; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its appreciation to
Keith Brooks for his hard work, vision, and dedication in discharging his duties on behalf of Orange County
citizens, and offers its heartfelt congratulations and best wishes for his retirement.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
B. OLDER AMERICANS MONTH AND SENIOR CENTER WEEK PROCLAMATION
George Snowden, Chair of the Advisory Board on Aging, encouraged everyone to visit
the senior centers in the County.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
approve the proclamation as stated below.
PROCLAMATION
OLDER AMERICANS MONTH
WHEREAS, According to the latest population figures, there are more than 13,000 persons over 60 years of
age in Orange County; and
WHEREAS, The President of the United States has declared May as Older Americans Month with the theme
"Joys of Living"; and
WHEREAS, Orange County is proud of the older adults who live here and wishes to show appreciation for
what they contributed to their County, State and Nation; and,
WHEREAS, All Orange County citizens enjoy the fruits of older persons and their labors and are inspired to
continue to make Orange County a good place in which to live; and,
WHEREAS, Orange County also wishes to set aside a special month for recognition of the older segment of
its citizenry;
NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, join the Governor of North Carolina
and the President of the United States in Proclaiming May, 1996 as
OLDER AMERICANS MONTH
AND, further, do encourage all citizens to join us in honoring our older Americans.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to
approve the proclamation as stated below:
PROCLAMATION
SENIOR CENTER WEEK
WHEREAS, Local communities support over 10,000 Senior Centers in the United States, and,
1 WHEREAS, Orange County has recognized the importance of Senior Centers and has provided leadership
2 in the development and operations of such facilities in the County, and
3 WHEREAS, Senior Centers affirm the dignity, self-worth and independence of older persons by facilitating
4 their decisions and knowledge, and enabling their continued contribution to the community, and
5 WHEREAS, Encouraged and supported by the Older Americans Act, Senior Centers function as service
6 delivery focal points, help older persons to help themselves and each other, and offer opportunities to
7 become physically active, mentally challenged, emotionally supported and socially involved, and
8 WHEREAS, The month of May has historically been proclaimed Older Americans Month, and communities
9 across the country are giving special recognition to older persons and the role of Senior Centers in serving
10 them
11 NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby Proclaim the week of May
12 13 through May 19, 1996 as
13 SENIOR CENTER WEEK
14 AND, further, do call upon the people of our community to honor older Americans and the Senior Centers that
15 bring together activities and services to their benefit.
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18
19 C. RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) DAY PROCLAMATION
20 Kathy Porter, Director of RSVP, emphasized that these volunteers make a tremendous
21 contribution to the non-profit agencies in Orange County by volunteering their expertise and services.
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Crowther
23 to approve the proclamation as stated below:
24
25 PROCLAMATION
26 RSVP VOLUNTEER DAY IN ORANGE COUNTY
27 May 13, 1996
28
29 All citizens can be proud that Orange County is a leader in the volunteer movement. This spirit of
30 helping others involves hundreds of caring people and saves thousands in tax dollars. This tremendous
31 contribution is helping many Orange County citizens live better lives.
32 In addition, retired volunteers from all walks of life play a vital role in the success of schools,
33 libraries, community centers, senior centers, health services, and many other social service agencies.
34 Orange County's Retired Senior Volunteer effort is a movement that is a living testimonial to the
35 human spirit. This selfless giving to others is making it possible to continue vital programs, even with limited
36 resources.
37
38 WHEREAS, the RSVP has provided volunteer management programming for Orange County non-
39 profit agencies since 1973, we celebrate twenty-three years of service.
40 WHEREAS, 2,065 RSVP Volunteers have donated 1,221,169 hours to Orange County non-profit
41 agencies since 1973. Calculated at minimum wage, their contribution has an estimated value of $5,189,968.
42 We celebrate reaching and exceeding 1,000,000 hours.
43 WHEREAS, currently over 600 RSVP Volunteers are assisting approximately 96 Orange County
44 non-profit agencies.
45 NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners DO HEREBY PROCLAIM May
46 13, 1996 as
47 RSVP VOLUNTEER DAY IN ORANGE COUNTY
48
49 AND, FURTHER, urge all our citizens to recognize the volunteer contributions to our County and
50 extend appreciation to those who have given of themselves.
51 IN WITNESS THEREOF, as Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, I have hereunto
52 set my hand and affixed the Seal of the County of Orange this 1 st day of May, 1996.
53 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
54
55 D. PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Don Belk, Planner, introduced the members of the Historic Preservation Committee who
were present. He said that there is a lot of history that will be presented during National Historic Preservation
Week. He presented the proclamation on behalf of the Historic Preservation Committee.
A motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve
the proclamation as stated below:
PROCLAMATION
OF
THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK
WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing neighborhoods,
fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing livability; and
WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban and rural, and for
Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds; and
WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by
dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that has shaped us as a
people; and
WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to preserving its historic architectural and archeological resources
for its citizens and future generations; and
WHEREAS, "Preserve Community" is the theme for National Historic Preservation Week 1996, cosponsored
by the Orange County Historic Preservation Commission and the National Trust for Historic Preservation:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby proclaim
May 12-18, 1996 as National Historic Preservation Week
in celebration of the cultural heritage of Orange County and hereby urges all citizens to support historic
preservation efforts.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ADDED E. PROCLAMATION FOR DRINKING WATER WEEK
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
approve the proclamation as stated below:
PROCLAMATION
FOR
DRINKING WATER WEEK
WHEREAS, water is one of the few basic and essential needs of human-kind; and
WHEREAS, our health, comfort and standard of living depend upon an abundant supply of safe water; and
WHEREAS, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority serving Orange County, North Carolina, has insured that
facilities and systems provide our citizens with a safe, dependable quality and quantity of water both now and
in the future: and
43 WHEREAS, dedicated men and women have made significant contributions developing, operating and
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
maintaining these systems;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Moses Carey, Jr., Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby
proclaim the fifth through eleventh of May, nineteen hundred and ninety-six as
DRINKING WATER WEEK
in Orange County and urge all citizens to recognize the contributions and service of Orange Water and
Sewer Authority Board Members and staff to our community.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS -NONE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - SECONDARY ROADS
Dr. Gorman Gilbert, member of the North Carolina Board of Transportation, said that this
program is a partnership between the DOT and local government. John Watkins, District Engineer, reported
on last years program. All roads have been completed or are in the process of being completed except for
Forbes Road where right-of-way could not be obtained so this section will be dropped from the list. He listed
those roads which will be considered for paving this year. They are listed in the agenda abstract. This
program, when completed, will serve 156 homes.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to paving subdivision roads and John Watkins
said they have paved all subdivision roads with more than 50 cars. There are others that will probably be
added to the list once they are rerated.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT
Mr. Scott Sykes, representing those who live on the unpaved section of Arthur Minnis
Road, said that about 4 or 5 months ago this road was high on the list. However, because several property
owners would not give DOT the right-of-way, they are no longer being considered. He asked that this road
be reconsidered because of safety issues. He said that there were four accidents on this road last year.
Also, this road is impassable 80% of the time in the winter. With 1-40 only two miles away, they get a lot of
through traffic on this road. He asked that DOT try again to obtain these signatures.
Mr. Frederick who lives on Arthur Minnis Road said that all law enforcement and EMS
avoid this road because it is impassable. He asked that the process for making someone release the
property necessary to pave this road be initiated.
Mr. Ed Johnson said that he has spent 21 or 22 years as president of the Orange Grove
Fire Dept. and now serves as vice-president. He talked about Arthur Minnis Road and Buckhorn Road. He
thought they were to be paved in 94 -95. The fire department considers portions of Arthur Minnis Road and
Buckhorn Road so bad that they do not let fire trucks go on these roads. If they have a call on these roads,
they take the long way around which adds several minutes to the response time. He talked about the routes
they take for calls on these roads. They are worried about the health and safety of the people who live in
their fire district. He feels the traffic count is misleading. They have sent out letters to the 20 landowners
who live on that road. The majority want it paved and several had questions and one who said no would
probably change their opinion and one was a definite no. He knows that the Board would not like to use
condemnation, but asked that the Board use moral persuasion. He urged the County Commissioners to help
in this process.
Mr. Joyce Thompson spoke in support of paving Doc Corbett Road and told about
those who live on that road and the hardships they suffer because this road is not paved. He commended
the Rescue Squad for their quick response when his wife had an aneurysm.
Ms. Iris Chapman spoke on behalf of the parents who live on Doc Corbett Road. She
talked about the snow and how they could not get out for 10 days. She asked that the Board move this road
up on the list. The road is greatly eroded and they have a lot of elderly people who live on this road.
John Watkins said that the funds will be available in July. They do the surveying and
obtain the right-of-way during the winter and pave the roads in the spring of the next year. It is necessary
that they get free right-of-way and they depend on the residents to give them this right-of-way. The road
stays on the list and as soon as they get the right-of-way they put it on the list to pave. They don't do
condemnation because it is costly.
Commissioner Halkiotis encouraged those who live on Arthur Minnis Road to work with
those citizens who don't want to sign. He recognizes that there is a safety issue and something needs to
be done.
Commissioner Halkiotis commended DOT for lowering the speed limit at the new A. L.
Stanback School and asked that they continue to monitor that traffic situation. He asked that DOT look at the
old A. L. Stanback school and particularly the Nash Street entrance. It is very dangerous because of the hill
on Nash. There will be more traffic and more automobiles when the new Hillsborough Elementary School
opens in July and he asked that they look at this situation.
John Link asked DOT if there is one property owner who for various reasons will not sign
the right-of-way, will DOT consider paving on both sides of that individual's property. John Watkins said that
they do that on occasion if they can get a meaningful portion - at least half of the road. The problem on
Arthur Minnis Road is that those ten people who have not signed are scattered throughout. Dr. Gilbert said
that they will pave a section of a road if it is at all possible. John Link pointed out that if they can get all
except one person to sign the right-of-way that they can go ahead and pave some of the road.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
On Doc Corbett Road, John Link asked DOT if those who are affected got a petition
signed by everyone if DOT would consider paving that road. John Watkins said that they go by the priority
list. They do not obtain right-of-way and survey until the road is funded.
Jay Zaragoza asked about Lawrence Road and why it is not paved. John Watkins said
that it has been on the list but because of a large property owner not signing the right-of-way that they have
not been able to pave this road.
Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that DOT check to see if some of the right-of-way is
already dedicated as right-of-way and recorded as such. Mr. Watkins said that they do not get into a lengthy
survey and quite often when there is doubt they ask for signatures. They will check this out.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
approve the Secondary Road Construction Program for Orange County for 1995-96 as presented
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
VIII. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to
approve those items on the Consent Agenda as stated below:
A. APPOINTMENTS
The Board appointed Maxecine Mitchell to the Human Services Advisory Commission for
24 a term ending March 31, 1997.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
B. MINUTES
The Board approved the minutes for February 29, March 13, 19, 21, 1996 as presented.
C. 1996 GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION
This item was removed and considered immediately after the Consent Agenda.
D. BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT #6
The Board approved budget amendment #6 as stated below:
FIRE DISTRICTS FUND
Source - Appropriated Fund Balance $ 30,000
Appropriation - Public Safety (Eno Fire Department) 30,000
(for a down payment for a replacement pumper/tanker truck)
RESERVE FOR FUTURE PROJECTS CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE
Source - Transfer from School Capital Reserve Fund (90-91) $ 180,000
Appropriation - Reserve for Future Projects 180,000
The following amendment is anticipated to complete this transfer
Transfer to New Chapel Hill-Carrboro Elementary School 80,000
Transfer to Chapel Hill High School Phase II 80,000
Reserve for Future Projects 20,000
CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL (PHASE 11) PROJECT
Source - I ransier from miaale -icnooi Froject (y"i -uz) 4U,UUU
Source - Transfer from School Capital Reserve (92-93) 425,146
Source - Transfer from General Fund (93-94) 243,810
Source - Transfer from General Fund (94-95) 50,000
Source - Transfer from Chapel Hill High School Capital
Project (94-95) 4,547
Source - Transfer from Reserve for Future Project (95-96) 80,000
Source - Public School Building Funds (93-94) 381,190
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Appropriation - Public School Building Funds (93-94) $ 1,224,693
The following amendment is anticipated to complete this transfer
Transfer to New Chapel Hill-Carrboro Elementary School $ 100,000
Chapel Hill High School Phase II (100,000)
E. SETTING DATES REQUIRED LEGALLY FOR LOG PUBLIC HEARING
The Board approved June 13 or June 19 as possible dates to hold a statutory required
public hearing on the potential siting of a new landfill in Orange County.
VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS
ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
C. 1996 GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION
Commissioner Crowther asked that the Board consider, at a later time, for inclusion in
the County's Zoning Ordinance, provisions for obtaining timber deeds for all timber cut in Orange County.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the
resolution as presented and authorize the County Attorney to transmit the resolution to Orange County's
legislative delegation and authorize the Chair to send a letter from the Orange County Commissioners to the
County Commissioners of Person and Caswell Counties requesting the support of those two counties for
legislation to establish the boundaries between and among Caswell and Person Counties and Orange
County.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
IX. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA
A. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT/OPEN SPACE PROPOSAL
Marvin Collins presented for consideration a list of recommended revisions to the
proposed Flexible Development open space preservation strategies which were presented at public hearing
on November 27, 1995. These revisions are a result of comments from members of the Board of
Commissioners, Planning Board members and citizens. He also mentioned that other items under discussion
were groundwater impacts, community wastewater disposal systems and the village option. Information on
both of those concerns indicates that in terms of densities in clusters, part of the flexible development
provisions allow off-site septic easements. As those provisions are utilized, the same dispersion of well sites
as with one acre clusters will occur. The concerns regarding groundwater withdrawal and cluster
developments with 112 acre lots could be addressed in much the same manner as conventional subdivisions.
Staff feels that ample opportunity has been given for citizens and the Planning Board to comment and that it
is not necessary to solicit further comment on the village options. The village option, if used, would require
more than 33% open space. The larger the development the more open space would be required. The
Administration's recommendation is to approve the proposal, including the revisions that have been
recommended. The presentation was completed and he requested questions from the Board of
Commissioners and Planning Board members. Responses to those questions follows:
In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about locational provisions for villages, Marvin
Collins said that villages are one of the flexible development options and as such are allowed anywhere in
the County. However, in rural areas which rely on septic systems, the yield plan would determine how many
units would be allowed in the village. A village which intended to take advantage of density bonus provisions
would be allowed only in transit corridors, utility service areas, etc. There is a ceiling on the density in terms
of how many units a village would have. It is structured that way so that a "University Station" could not be
located in Cedar Grove Township. The ceiling is controlled by the Zoning Ordinance in the Density Bonus
provisions.
Commissioner Gordon asked if a developer would be allowed to ask for water and sewer if they had
sufficient density. Marvin replied that would be permitted only if the development was located in the
transition area or utility service area. He indicated that page 37 of this proposal states that "Systems are
permitted only in accordance with applicable water and sewer, and land use policies...."
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
There was a question concerning whether the groundwater study initiated by the Water Resources
Committee would give information about adequate groundwater capacity. Commissioner Gordon stated that
the study being conducted by USGS is somewhat generalized and will not give data about specific sites.
Commissioner Crowther thanked Marvin Collins for working on the neighborhood public meetings.
He felt that the wording was appropriate. He asked if the County had received any conservation easements.
Marvin indicated that the County had not received a conservation easement but it is being worked on now.
Commissioner Crowther asked how the median income is established for affordable housing. Marvin Collins
indicated that HUD establishes that figure based on local figures which are updated annually.
Chair Carey asked why a provision was being added to count land already dedicated under
conservation easement as open space. Marvin Collins stated that it is counted as open space only if it
remains in the ownership of the person developing the property. If it is subdivided it could not be counted.
The assumption is that if a piece of property has something significant enough on it to lead to the approval of
the conservation easement, then the owner should continue to be given credit for it. The further assumption
is that this is fair because they have already limited the amount of development that can occur on that
property.
Chair Carey supported the idea that developers who create affordable housing projects could
submit only one plan. He asked if the provision under discussion could enforce that.
Geof Gledhill referred to page 45 of the proposal. He mentioned that the second bullet "in lieu of a
three-part Concept Plan, one Concept Plan may be submitted if" is being recommended for deletion. This is
because of the staff's recommendation, following the Planning Board's vote, not to exempt affordable
housing projects from the requirement to submit a Flexible Development Option. Geof Gledhill suggested not
including an exception to the requirement to submit a Flexible Development Option until after the Ordinance
is revised to require review of those projects after the plat is required. He then referred to pages 42 and 43
where affordable housing was also discussed. He recommended that Page 42, G.2, 1st paragraph be
changed to read "A density increase is permitted, pursuant to Section 6.28 of the Zoning Ordinance". He
suggested that developers interested in affordable housing be required to go to the Zoning Regulations which
will explain how affordable housing can be accomplished with density bonuses. At the time the Zoning
Regulations were adopted not all of Orange County was zoned. That might have explained the necessity of
having affordable housing provisions in the Subdivision Regulations. The County is now entirely zoned and
the Zoning Ordinances applies throughout the County. He also commented that there may be questions
about whether the provisions do what the Board of Commissioners want. Further consideration of them in
the future could be accomplished. However, his current recommendation is to leave out the reference to
affordable housing. Page 43, G.3 should be changed to read "Location of open space bonus units only:
Density increases as permitted above to encourage additional open space are limited to flexible development
proposed in the following locations......"
Commissioner Gordon questioned whether the Board of Commissioners wanted to follow Mr.
Gledhill's recommendation.
A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to
adopt the County Attorney's recommendation to change the language as stated above.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Willhoit mentioned his desire for a mechanism which would require that housing
which is approved as "affordable housing" stay affordable. He referred this to the staff and Planning Board
for recommendation to this Board.
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Chair Carey, to address the
2 question of "how to assure that affordable housing remains affordable" for a recommendation to be
3 returned to this Board.
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Commissioner Willhoit referred to the Yield Plan. He stated that he understands what the Yield
7 Plan is but questions what is meant by "not needing a conventional plan if a flexible plan is being done". It
8 states that there is no need to do the Yield Plan if they are not going for the maximum. He asked if going for
9 the maximum means only one lot less than the maximum? Marvin Collins replied that it could be one lot less.
10 The Yield Plan could reflect characteristics of the soil and of the site. If the developer is attempting to get the
11 maximum number of units, they could be pursuing the limit in terms of the permitted zoning. If however, the
12 developer is providing lot sizes for specific markets, it could be less than what would be allowed by the Yield
13 Plan. Commissioner Willhoit again questioned if this would include a developer who wants to develop 99 out
14 of 100 allowed lots. Marvin replied that the Yield Plan is basically the conventional subdivision plan and they
15 would need to know how many lots could be developed doing a conventional development. Commissioner
16 Willhoit's concern was that a developer would not know how many units were allowed unless they did a yield
17 plan.
18
19 Marvin Collins and Geof Gledhill agreed to clarify this matter in the proposal. Marvin Collins said
20 that page 45 could be revised to read "the applicant may also combine the yield plan and site analysis with
21 the flexible development option into a single plan." Another sentence could be added that reads "if an
22 applicant uses this options they shall comply with the provisions for determining density in Section E.1.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, that
25 page 45 be modified to read "the applicant may also combine the yield plan and site analysis with the
26 flexible development option into a single plan and "if an applicant uses this option they shall comply
27 with the provisions for determining density in Section E.1."
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 Chair Carey suggested reviewing each bulleted option on page 12 and 13.
31
32 • Revised Section III-D-1-C: There was consensus on this recommendation.
33 • Revised Section IV-D-1-G: There was consensus on this recommendation to refer back to the Zoning
34 Ordinance in this item.
35 • Revised Section IV-D-10-G: There was consensus on this recommendation to eliminate subsection G.3
36 • Revised Section III-D-1-d: There was consensus on this recommendation
37 • Revised Section IV-D-10-B: There was consensus on this recommendation
38 Commissioner Willhoit voiced his concern that the Minor Subdivision process includes a
39 requirement that there not be dedicated roads. This encourages having each lot empty onto the main road
40 so that the road does not have to be dedicated. He asked that the procedure be reversed so that the Minor
41 Subdivision is exempted if they have only one entry point to a major road. Those that have multiple entries to
42 the major road would then require review. He referred this to the staff for review and recommendation to be
43 returned to the Board of Commissioners.
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to ask
45 County staff to review potential issues associated with changing the requirements for access to
46 major roads to read "Minor Subdivisions are exempt if they have only one entry point on the major
47 road. Those that have multiple entries to the major road would require review."
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49 • Revised Section IV-D-10-D-5: There was consensus on this recommendation
50 • Revised Section IV-D-10-C.3: There was consensus on this recommendation
51 9 Revised Section IV-D-10: There was consensus on this recommendation
1 Commissioner Willhoit asked that a tally be kept which would track this information. Marvin Collins
2 indicated that this would occur.
3 Revised Section IV-D-10-E: There was consensus on this recommendation.
4 Commissioner Gordon referred to the top of page 38 regarding the detailed soil analysis. She
5 asked what could cause a greater number of lots to be allowed at the Preliminary Plan stage. Marvin Collins
6 indicated that initial work with Environmental Health and Planning Staff could indicate that only 75 lots could
7 be developed out of 100. After the Concept Plan is approved, it could be that the perk tests show that 85 lots
8 are developable.
9 Revised Section IV-D-10-G.1: There was consensus on this recommendation.
10 Commissioner Gordon asked if this was intended to be more restrictive. Commissioner Willhoit
11 indicated that qualifying for the density bonus by dedicating land off-site is contingent on the County
12 accepting dedication of that property. The County is not required to accept the land. If it does not meet the
13 County's needs, it can be refused. Commissioner Gordon asked for further clarification regarding the 5
14 acres (primary) and 2 acres (secondary). She asked where the numbers come from. Marvin Collins referred
15 to page 42 G.1. He mentioned that studies have shown that the market value vs. the use value is generally
16 five to one. This Section IV-D-10-G-1 states that this 5 to 1 ratio must be used to preserve Primary
17 Conservation Areas. Five (5) acres would have to be preserved to get one unit.
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve
19 the proposed Flexible Development Ordinance amendments, including the recommended revisions, to be
20 effective July 1, 1996.
21 Commissioner Gordon mentioned the issue of conventional systems vs. the alternative community
22 systems; problems are more likely with the latter system. It was her understanding that approval could be
23 delayed until the financial arrangements are worked out by the attorney using the Wastewater Treatment
24 Monitoring Program. She noted that this does not seem to be included in this proposal.
25 Marvin Collins replied that he felt that if this was a concern it would be appropriate to have the
26 Board of Commissioners adopt a policy stating that flexible development proposals which use alternative
27 systems would have to have the financial security arrangements finalized prior to approval.
28 Commissioner Gordon asked how it would be handled.
29 Chair Carey stated that his understanding is that this could be handled by policy rather than
30 Ordinance.
31 It was suggested that page 37, D.6, 2nd bullet, be revised as follows "A community water and/or
32 sewage disposal system designed, constructed, and maintained in conformity with all applicable state,
33 federal and local rules, regulations and policies." Geof Gledhill indicated that he felt this could be reviewed
34 by the Board of Health and adopted by the end of the summer.
35 Commissioner Gordon felt that the village option did not have sufficient locational criteria. For
36 example, she felt that a village should be required to be on public water and sewer. In our Zoning Ordinance,
37 changes with comparable or even smaller impact generally include locational criteria.
38 Marvin Collins indicated that a 100 acre village could use wells and septic tanks. It is not true that
39 the village option would require a community system or public water and sewer. The village could be
40 clustered, surrounded by open space, and the septic field could be off-site in the woods or meadow.
41 Commissioner Crowther amended his motion, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to read "approve
42 the proposed Flexible Development Ordinance amendments, including the recommended revisions, and
43 policies on Section D-6, to be implemented on July 1, 1996.
44 VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: AYES, 4; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
45
46 Commissioner Gordon stated her concerns about the Flexible Development Ordinance. She
47 opposes off-site easements for sewage disposal in critical water supply watersheds, such as University Lake
48 and Cane Creek. She also believes it is a mistake to allow the village options without specifying locational
49 criteria for villages.
50 VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED: AYES, 4; NOES, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
B. 1996-2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
John Link said that on April 1, they presented the CIP for 1996-2006. He is asking the
Board to consider responding to the staff as to the major elements in the CIP that need to be addressed
between now and when the CIP will be adopted as part of the budget process. He summarized what he
understands they need to pursue between now and the end of June. The Board received a request on April
16 to help fund the gymnasium at Hargroves Center. Also, short-term, he mentioned the memo they
received on April 22 from Dr. Pedersen asking that the Board provide $600,000 up-front for planning money
for their new elementary school. He feels that staff can respond to that request. Neil also asked that the
County advance the amount of impact fees that have been collected to help in startup costs. The same
memo asked that the Board consider changing the recurring capital formula and they discussed going to a
per pupil format in calculating this in the future. He suggested using additional sales tax money to increase
the capital amount for Chapel Hill/Carrboro School system and to hold the Orange County schools harmless.
John Link said that this is a decision that needs to be made between now and the end of June. Also, Dr.
Pedersen asked that the County Commissioners increase the impact fee. Another issue they will act on
tonight is to consider setting a standard for school construction.
Commissioner Gordon asked that the Board begin to sketch a plan for addressing the need for
new schools. She feels the County needs to have an outline or a way to proceed if growth continues as
expected. She suggested the Board may want to form a committee to look at school capital needs. Also,
she would like to see the financing for Hargraves Center worked out.
Commissioner Willhoit asked about the possibility of using planning money from sales tax and
then pay this back from bond proceeds.
Commissioner Halkiotis again asked about getting the school systems to work together in
minimizing the spending for supplies, etc. and maximizing the potential for savings. He would like to see
some concrete examples. He asked if there is a maxing out student population in 2003 or 2004 and asked
for more discussion on this issue. He asked how many mobile units are in place in both systems and will
this get rid of all those mobile units.
Chair Carey feels the Board should encourage the County to work on providing planning funds
and see what the General Assembly will do this year. Chair Carey also recommends that the County provide
some funds to Chapel Hill/Carrboro School system to assist with construction of the Hargraves gym $25,000
a year for 10 years is what he suggested and he would like to tie that commitment in with the County's
request to appoint someone to the Chapel Hill Recreation and Parks Commission to represent the County in
some of the decision making. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that he is in support of doing something for
Hargraves Center. He wants discussion on achieving savings. Commissioner Crowther mentioned that he
is looking for funds to take care of the borrow pit and that OCIM is looking for funds to build a new thrift shop
At 10:30 p.m. a motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis
to extend the meeting for 10 minutes and move to reports.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
C. 1996-97 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES -delayed
D. UPPER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION - delayed
E. ADVISEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING _ MAY 28, 1996
Marvin Collins presented information from the technical report concerning the Impact Fee
and explained the justification for a fee increase. There are two major reasons for the change: (1)
construction costs have increased from $78 to $95 per sq foot and (2) the recommendations from the school
standards work group have been incorporated into this report. Also, the larger student generation rates have
also contributed to the increase. They have looked at the statistical work the students did last summer,
talked to some statisticians at the university and cannot find a correlation between size of dwelling and
number of students to develop a sliding scale.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
A motion was made by Chair Carey, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to use
$3,000 as the maximum amount for the impact fee for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Crowther
to approve the advertisement for the May 28, 1996 public hearing as amended.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
X. REPORTS
A. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
Meetina adjourned,: delayed.
XI. APPOINTMENTS
XII. MINUTES
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45. The next regular meeting will be held on May 14, 1996 at
7:30 p.m. in the OWASA Community meeting room in Carrboro, North Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk