Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20020826 APPROVED 11/19/2002 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 26, 2002 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, August 26, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon and Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Katz, Craufurd Goodwin, Ted Triebel, Rachel Preston, Howard McAdams, Jay Bryan, Maria Tadd and Renee Price PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray and Vice Chair Hunter Schofield. Jay Bryan was the substitute Vice-Chair. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Barry Jacobs referred to all of the information in front of the Board of County Commissioners and identified the different colored paper articles — blue and orange - about Person County's moratorium on telecommunications towers. There was also a purple and a green sheet that dealt with Carrboro's annexation petition process. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments —Planning Board member Jay Bryan presided over this portion of the Public Hearing because the Chair and Vice-Chair were both absent. Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced item #1, which was an abridged edition of what is in the package. In March of this year the County invoked a 6-month moratorium on telecommunication towers. This moratorium expires September 6, 2002. The staff has been meeting with the industry and with stakeholders to get some ideas on the draft ordinance. Craig Benedict went over some of the new provisions. Section A has to do with new height and process restrictions. The suggestion is that class B special use permits will be those towers that are less than 150 feet. Any tower more than 150 feet will go to the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Section B is a suggestion that if someone brings in a tower with four potential sites or users, then they can go through the older process of 200 feet and below being a class B special use permit. This is a special incentive for co-location. Section C is a yearly Pre-Application conference that would occur in December or January of each year. This would be an open meeting where industry providers would be invited to discuss the intent to locate new towers within the County for the year. This might encourage co-location. The staff is suggesting a twice a year submittal of tower applications. The Board of Adjustment is concerned about having three towers to consider at one meeting. This is still under consideration. Section D is higher technical standards and a new fee structure, which will help the County bring on consultants to assist in the application process. Section E is periodic inspections for major and minor problems once or twice a year. This was not in the ordinance before. This is to make sure that the structural integrity of the tower is still there and that any special use standards are still being upheld. Section F is the Master Telecommunications Plan. There will be a placeholder in the ordinance for this when it is adopted. Section G is a requirement to submit a picture of the balloon test to staff and to notify residents of this test. This also includes some separation requirements, but there will be some exceptions. Section H is a fee schedule change for both applications and inspections. Building inspection fees will be $20 per linear foot for new towers. Zoning review fees are $10,000 for a class A process and $8,500 for a class B process. The majority of the monies will go to a consultant to help review the application. He said that this is a time consuming process and the fees are indicative of the time spent to review the applications. He said that after discussion of these items for about two years, the idea is to bring these items to the Planning Board at their September 4`h meeting and then bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners on September 17`h. Under this new ordinance, the process will start in January of next year. Between the adoption of this ordinance and the first submittal of applications, we need to adopt the Master Telecommunications Plan. This plan includes making available public and quasi-public properties for use to locate towers (i.e., fire stations, voluntary ag districts, etc.). This needs to be adopted before the first set of applications. Craig Benedict pointed out an error on the gold sheet in the motion. The date in the motion should be September 17`h and not September 20`h Questions from Board of County Commissioners Commissioner Carey asked about Section G and if there were any other issues besides visual that warrants this provision. Craig Benedict described the difference between the general and specific standards. This section is putting more standards in the general category so that all towers will have to comply with the general standards. Commissioner Carey asked about the rationale for no more applications until after the meeting at the beginning of the year. Craig Benedict explained that the meeting would identify who needs new towers within the year. This would identify potential co-location opportunities because the industry providers would be meeting together. There will be some emergency situations that are not identified at the meeting. Commissioner Carey asked about the exceptions to the 1/2-mile separation. Craig Benedict said that a tower could exist that is only able to hold one user. If someone wants to put another tower right beside this one, then they will have to explain why the tower could not be replaced with one that could accommodate more users. If the tower has four users and they can show that that is the area they need to service, then the tower would be allowed. Commissioner Brown is concerned that the public may see that the presentation accommodates the cell tower industry. She noted that in fact the Board of County Commissioners is concerned about the towers and how they affect the public. She wants clarification on the stealth towers, particularly the one on I-40 at RTP that looks like a pine tree at the top. She asked if there was a more elaborate idea about when the stealth towers are part of the terrain and do not look more ridiculous than the normal ones. Craig Benedict said that they would encourage multi-purpose sites and co-location sites. Anytime these sites have a public purpose the County can set what the tower will look like. The more cell users there are the lower the towers. Some towers could blend in with existing structures such as a silo. Some stealth towers could be shorter than some pine trees. The staff is also looking at attaching new telecommunications equipment to the electric power transmission lines. Commissioner Brown said that she was glad to see the part about the new payment schedule and is interested about the consultants and what type it would be. She asked if the consultant would work for the County's interest and the citizens. Craig Benedict explained that the consultants would be looking out for the interests of the ordinance. The consultant would look at the application material and the technical aspects. The County could also have a consultant to market public sites in the County. This would be a different type of consultant. Commissioner Brown asked how many towers would be out of compliance after this ordinance, particularly with the lighting. Craig Benedict said that there are about 50 towers in the County. The FAA regulates lighting. Commissioner Brown asked about lights around the base of the tower and Craig Benedict said that we could control that. This is not specifically addressed in this ordinance, but can be added. Commissioner Brown asked about going back into existing sites to fix the lighting problem. Craig Benedict said that he thinks the industry can work with the County with light pollution. This will be added into the ordinance. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the six-month moratorium and if it included the towns and Craig Benedict said no. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the tower behind Lowes on US 70 and if we could invite the towns to be a part of the process. This tower has no aesthetics. Craig Benedict said that the towns could be brought into our Master Telecommunications Plan. Commissioner Halkiotis wants us all to work together. Commissioner Gordon asked about something not in the hearing but in the Master Telecommunications Plan. Craig Benedict referred her to page 16 of the agenda. He said that they will bring to the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board a Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) and if they adopt it, it will become a part of the ordinance. Commissioner Gordon asked about how the public sites would be specified. Craig Benedict said that there would be a public hearing on all of the sites that want to be a part of the MTP. Commissioner Gordon asked about the process if someone volunteers a site. Craig Benedict said that this process has not been developed yet. If the MTP is not adopted, then this ordinance is still better than the existing one. Commissioner Gordon suggested that there be criteria and guidelines for the MTP. Chair Jacobs said that they would put the Master Telecommunications Plan on the September 3'' agenda because of the short time left in the moratorium. Chair Jacobs suggested that the ordinance state that there will be a sign about the balloon tests for residents near a tower. Chair Barry Jacobs referred to news articles about Person County's towers. Person County hired some consultants from Greensboro that review all tower applications for compliance. He pointed out some differences on page 12, item c-5. Person County has wording where they want the applicant to show that the site is the least visually intrusive. He asked if there was anything like this in our ordinance. Craig Benedict said that there were inferences. This can be added to the ordinance in item c-5. Chair Jacobs also pointed out that Person County uses 110 % of the height for a fall zone instead of 100%. He asked Craig Benedict to look into this because it seems to add a margin of additional safety. Chair Jacobs asked about the general thrust of the ordinance. He wants to make it is as easy as possible to have co-location and make it as difficult as possible to have taller towers. He wonders if we have adequately accomplished this in the ordinance. Craig Benedict pointed out the major incentive for co-location will be to allow a class B if the tower has four users. He thinks this ordinance is trying to meet the balance between height and amount of users and trying to bring the towers down overall. Chair Jacobs stated that we need to investigate the balance of these towers both with telecommunication and the environment. He distributed an article on birds and telecommunication towers from the Internet and asked that we invite a bird specialist from one of the universities to look at the flight patterns in this area so that we do not put towers in bird flyways. Commissioner Carey asked the Planning staff how we would respond to any public versus private sites and the criteria that we would use so that biases will not come up between the County and other entities. Craig Benedict said that they were discussing making voluntary ag districts a preferred site so that farmers could continue their farming operation. The staff is going to look at public competition. Commissioner Brown wanted to clarify the process of notification of the balloon test for locating towers. She asked if the applicant pays for this to make sure that the residents are notified. Craig Benedict said that the applicant provides a mailing list of residents within a certain radius. The staff sends letters to the applicant. The ordinance does not say that if the balloon can be seen, the tower is turned down. The balloon test gives a perspective about where the tower will be. Commissioner Brown asked about the 150-foot cut off with the Board of Adjustment and stated that the public is concerned about how to present their concerns to the Board of Adjustment. Craig Benedict said that the majority of the towers over the past couple of years have been between 150 and 200 feet. The 150 feet is a number that would seem to capture the majority of the applications and allow them to be heard by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon asked if the Board decided to change from 150 feet to something lower would there have to a public hearing? County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill said that it would have to be 75- 100 feet as the lower limit. He said that as long as the special use permit process is above 75 feet, we are within the range of the present ordinance. Commissioner Gordon asked about the visual intrusiveness of a tower and the criteria the Board of County Commissioners may use to decide whether something is intrusive. She would hope that the Planning Board would think about this. She wants to encourage co-location and something that is not visually intrusive. Geoffrey Gledhill said that there is no difference between a class A and a class B special use permit as far as the standards. The only difference is with the process and the audience. Commissioner Brown said that to her the standards would be not to be able to see any of these facilities. She would like them to be constructed in a way that is not visible because they are eyesores. Craig Benedict said that there are federal government requirements regarding cell tower communication. Commissioner Brown asked why the towers could not be covered. Craig said that in the future the towers might be as tall as the utility poles. The height of the towers is coming down, as there are more users. Questions from Planning Board Barry Katz asked about the companies that build these sites and if there is any concern about these companies, which are now going bankrupt. Craig Benedict said that there have been changes in the industry and we are trying to counteract the change by having a strong co-location ordinance to keep the tower builders in the process and bring other users in. Barry Katz asked Craig Benedict if he knew about how many would apply for these telecommunications towers in January. Craig Benedict stated that normally there are only 3-4 applications per year. He does not see a major rush of more or less applications in the coming year. Barry Katz asked about item 'c' in number four. He said that there is no cover about these buildings and asked if this is something to consider. Craig Benedict will look at landscaping standards of these poles and structures. Barry Katz made reference to the Master Telecommunications Plan and asked if publicly owned land would also have to pay an application fee. Craig Benedict said that they would try to keep the process as equitable as possible. Barry Katz asked if a resident sees the balloon during a test would the application be denied and Craig Benedict said no. The balloon test is more of a perspective of where the tower will lie. Barry Katz asked if the balloon tests could be done when the leaves are off the trees. Craig Benedict said that maybe they would look at this possibility in January. Barry Katz made reference to page 9 and appearance issues. He said that the final decision rests on the Planning Director or his designee. He asked if someone else could see this through. Craig Benedict said that there are parts of the ordinance that are more subjective than objective. At this time, there is no architectural review commission about how antennas can be incorporated into buildings. Renee Price asked about balloon tests and the time of day it is done and the color of the balloon and if they could add guidelines to address this issue. Craig Benedict said that the ordinance specifies a red balloon but does not address time of day. Renee Price asked about the notification process because she is concerned about electromagnetic fields and co-locating towers near schools and she wants this to be considered. Craig Benedict said that they could provide information about this issue to the public that addresses all electromagnetic concerns, etc. He said that recent information is that there is more electromagnetic radiation in your house than what emanates from these towers. Renee Price asked about the health concerns of the residents versus the Planning Department's health information and if there is a conflict. Craig Benedict said that there was general nationwide information about the health risks associated with towers of this type and that the general health risks are weighed against the criteria within the ordinance and the provision of telecommunication facilities in a neighborhood are the primary concerns of promoting new towers. Renee Price asked about the end of moratorium and Craig Benedict said that it ends on September 6`h. On September 17`h, if the Board of County Commissioners approves the new ordinance, there could be some applications that have been submitted between that time. The new ordinance requires that these applications that have not been acted upon would fall under the new ordinance. Renee Price asked about the reviews within the ordinance and if existing towers would be subject to review and Craig Benedict said no. These reviews are for new towers only. Renee Price asked if these existing towers can be added to the reviews and he said that the Board of County Commissioners would have to make that determination. Ted Treibel made reference to tower inspections on page 13, item 'b' and said that he does not think you get a valid inspection from the ground and that the wording needs to be changed. He said that you need to check up closely and not only from the ground. Craig Benedict noted this. Jay Bryan asked if a strobe light could be prohibited under certain circumstances. Craig Benedict said that at less than 200 feet you could possibly prohibit them but a lot of these items are under FAA. Public Comment Gary Pennington, who was representing Verizon Wireless, distributed a hand out with four issues. He stated that Verizon has over 30 million customers and is committed to providing quality service. Regarding general issues about the industry, he said that we are becoming a wireless society. In order to implement this, it is going to be necessary to build the infrastructure to support this use. Presently, over 115 million people are using wireless communications in the United States today. He said that every day over 100,000 calls are made to 911 using wireless phones. Regarding the ordinance, he asked that the County work with the industry and not make it so overly difficult that the growth of the technology is suppressed. He thinks that the ordinance is well written, but he gave some written comments. He said that the industry likes objective criteria so that they know what to expect with the application process. In some instances, the cost to prepare an application could range between $30,000-50,000. He requested that one body hear the tower applications —the Board of Adjustment - which has more experience in hearing such matters as these. He said that it was always his preference to be before a non-partisan board so that a technical application is heard by a technical board. He made reference to the limitations on the hearing dates and asked that the application process not be limited to only twice a year. Another point is co-location and he said that he would like to see a separate part of the ordinance that deals explicitly with the co-location process. He said that Verizon does encourage co- location. He said that the reality is that in order to provide the coverage needed for this technology, new towers will need to be built. Liz Hill with American Tower commented on the application fee and she stated that this is ten times over any other project. She said that since the bulk of the application fee is for the consultant, it might work to put the $9,000 into an escrow fund for the consultant to draw off of. Then if it does not take $9,000 the industry would not have to pay the full amount. Her other concerns were with tower ownership and tower maintenance. She asked if the periodic review would apply to all towers in existence now, or only towers built under this ordinance. She does not know of any other place that requires a 36-month structural analysis. She said that if a carrier has co-located on a tower, or if the tower has had a structural modification in the 36 months, then a structural analysis would have been required anyway. She made reference to visual inspections and asked if this would be included in the 36-month structural analysis. Since there would be a full review every 36 months, then why have other inspections during the year unless something critical happens. She then spoke about the financial viability of the tower companies. She said that, as a tower owner, they sign long-term contracts with carriers. Even if they go out of business, there is still a contract in place and whomever they sell the asset to, they still have to abide by that long-term contract. The tower will still be an operating entity for the carriers on the tower and the name on the fence would change. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than September 17, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Presentation: Carrboro Land Use Ordinance Amendments Discussion of County Response to amendments in Article 15 of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance applicable in the Northern Transition Area. Craig Benedict gave a brief introduction to this item. Planning Systems Coordinator Gene Bell stated that this item is an analysis by Planning staff of the amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance. As per the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, the County reviews the amendments to the Chapel Hill and Carrboro ordinances. In this case, the amendments with the village mixed use provisions of the Carrboro land use ordinance were submitted by Winmore Land Management, LLC. The agenda materials include the materials from Carrboro's May 28`h meeting (pp. 35-56). The staff looked for consistency with the Joint Planning Agreement and the small area plan for Carrboro's northern study area. The analysis is on pages 29-34. He said that there are three amendments that he is concerned with. Item 1 —this amendment would have allowed the Board of Aldermen to approve projects whose development standards did not specifically meet all provisions spelled out in the Carrboro land use ordinance. The staff's finding was that this was inconsistent with the Joint Planning Agreement. Item 6—the amendment was that brick borders no longer be required on sidewalks. The staff's finding was that this amendment was consistent, but the Board of Aldermen did not adopt it. He was told that the board wanted to keep this requirement as a "signature detail that has been used in downtown and in the villages." Item 10 —the request was to increase impervious coverage in developments from 50-65%. The staff's finding was that an increase in impervious surface would be inconsistent. The Board of Aldermen opted to keep the coverage for development at 50%. Gene Bell said that the Board of Alderman acted on this on May 28`h, but this does not preclude the Board of County Commissioners from making additional comments. The administration recommendation is that the Board receives this information and discusses the desirability of a formal response to the Town of Carrboro. Chair Jacobs asked that Craig Benedict expound on how Carrboro is going to proceed. Craig Benedict said that on Friday afternoon, the Town of Carrboro, through the County Manager's office sent us information that for the Carrboro Board of Aldermen meeting on August 27`h they would be receiving petitions for voluntary annexation from a variety of property owners that underlie the Winmore proposal and the adjacent UNC property. The aspects of a voluntary annexation have a few different steps. The aspects of the Town of Carrboro receiving and acting upon the annexation would put the property under the municipal limits of the Town of Carrboro. The zoning for that area would stay the same until Carrboro changed the zoning. Based on last Friday's information, Carrboro will at least accept the applications for voluntary annexation for the Winmore development. Depending on when they act on these petitions will determine how far along Orange County will stay with the review process of Winmore. On July 23'', the applicant for Winmore submitted a package to the County of a full rezoning application, which is under review. The staff is taking the steps to proceed towards an October 9`h JPA public hearing on this. Chair Jacobs verified that all that Carrboro is doing tomorrow night is certifying whether or not an application for annexation is complete. Craig Benedict said that Carrboro is accepting the application and directing the Town Clerk to certify at a later date. It would take two more meetings to act upon it. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about property owners listed as University of North Carolina and the State of North Carolina. He asked if it was standard operating procedure for the State of North Carolina, via the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, to be a participant in an annexation project. Craig Benedict said that they are a property owner, and presently their lands are within County jurisdiction and they would follow a similar annexation process as outlined by North Carolina General Statutes. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he does not ever recall seeing UNC with the State of North Carolina's name attached to it on any annexation proposal. He is confused. Chair Jacobs said that he has gotten some indications from Carrboro's elected officials that they will let the County know what is going on with the schedule. Commissioner Brown asked and Craig Benedict said that this does not commit Carrboro to annexation. Commissioner Brown asked about UNC and if they have gone through the process of selling property to the developer. Craig Benedict said not to his knowledge. The receipt of the petition for voluntary annexation is for properties more than the underlying property owners of Winmore. This includes all of the Horace Williams Tract and the Horace Williams Homestead Tract. Commissioner Brown asked about the laws of annexation for a town. Craig Benedict said that if it is contiguous to their properties, there are no limitations on how much they can annex. If they are satellite annexations, then there are percentage limits. Gene Bell pointed out the properties on a map that are being petitioned for annexation. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill said that what Craig Benedict was saying refers to voluntary annexations. There are rules about involuntary annexations. Jay Bryan asked about a report from the Northern Transition area and said that he did not see it in the packet. Craig Benedict said that he would supplement this from the Carrboro meetings. Gene Bell said that they attached information from the May 28`h meeting. Public Comment Susan Drake lives in the Northern Transition zone and asked the Board of County Commissioners not to acquiesce to those who would throw away the Northern Transition Plan. The plan took two years to develop. She opposes annexation and asked that the Board pursue all avenues to reopen the issue of public lands sold in a non-democratic fashion to developers when the County would have had an interest in such an area. She asked that the sale of the land by the University be denied by the relevant committees in Raleigh. Brian Voyce lives in the Northern Transition area and said that he will go to Carrboro to watch them present the petitions for annexation. He submitted some questions to the County Attorney in writing. He wants to know if neighborhoods in the JPA area in Carrboro could ask to be moved into the Chapel Hill JPA area. Geoffrey Gledhill responded by saying that there is a provision in the Joint Planning Agreement for relocating a line between Carrboro and Chapel Hill in terms of the joint planning area. He also submitted a list of issues that they wanted the Carrboro Board of Aldermen to present to their Planning Board to review. He said that it was interesting that the developers admitted that the reason they do not want joint planning is because an objective analysis of Winmore would probably reject their plans as they stand. He said that the overcrowding at Seawell Elementary School is to the point now that the SGC is recommending closing out certain grades. He said that he is speaking on behalf of over 100 residents and that they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into their homes on the promise from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County that the Northern Transition Area around Winmore would be R-20 zoning. He said that apparently, there is just an illusion of joint planning in this County. He said that an instant village is going to be shoved down their throats by the publicly land owned developer, the University of North Carolina. David Siebans asked that the Board of County Commissioners review the minutes from the Carrboro public hearing and he read an excerpt as follows from one of the community's architect, Giles Blundon: "Having the context of a specific design and its relationship to the surroundings would be helpful in understanding these amendments." Specifically, he asked the Board not to approve Sections 8 and 9, which relate to building heights. Chair Jacobs asked that the Board receive this as information only. He would like to get a copy of the minutes of the meeting where Carrboro discussed the changes in the amendments that Gene Bell identified as item #1. He personally still has confidence in the Board of Aldermen's commitment to joint planning. Commissioner Brown would like a registered letter to go to the University asking them to clarify their position on annexation and the whole public/private development process that is going on. Chair Jacobs suggested that the letter invite the University to come and make a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners and explain the philosophy and the intent of this. Commissioner Halkiotis and Commissioner Carey supported this suggestion. Commissioner Halkiotis asked that we address the letter to Nancy Suttenfield and to the Chancellor. Chair Jacobs said that the Chancellor would be here for the 250`h anniversary of Orange County. Chair Jacobs wants to make sure that we understand what the time frame is for the possible annexation. Commissioner Brown said that the Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee is a product of the Northern Transition Agreement. She asked that this body be involved in this process. Chair Jacobs suggested that we ask the committee that whenever they meet that the Board of County Commissioners gets copies of their discussions about development in that area. 2. Presentation: Master Telecommunications Plan To entertain a motion to direct Planning Staff to proceed with the development of a Master Telecommunications Plan and to bring back to the Board no sooner than October 15, 2002. This was postponed until September 3, 2002 regular meeting. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the handout from Trigon and asked about a publication from places like Trigon and the list of items. Craig Benedict said that there is a wealth of information and the ordinance takes into consideration the general wisdom of all ordinances in North Carolina and in sections of the nation. This list just discusses what elements the plan could include in the consultant's minds. Chair Jacobs pointed out that this is the consultant that Person County hired. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like the "jewels" in this list and Craig Benedict said that he would provide more Q&A information to her and the Board of County Commissioners and will talk more about this at the September 3, 2002 meeting. Commissioner Brown said that she would be more comfortable with a consultant from the Institute of Government or Triangle J and not someone from outside. Craig Benedict said that the consultants the County needs are more technical in nature. Commissioner Brown would like for the Planning Department to come back with information that Liz Hill from American Towers brought up. She also asked about the possibility of these towers being a financial boon to some farmers. However, she thinks we need to be careful because of the visual aspect. She made reference to a farm on NC 86 that put a tower back into his acreage and is not on the side of the road. 3. Presentation: Rural Planning Organization Memorandum of Understanding Chair Barry Jacobs stated that since the signing ceremony for the MOU has been postponed until a later date that the Board of County Commissioners do not have to vote on this tonight and can have more time to review the MOU. Transportation Planner Karen Lincoln addressed the RPO/MOU. She described what the MOU would do. It would provide a framework to establish the RPO and outlines its purpose and responsibilities. The Triangle J Council of Governments will be the administrative body for the RPO and will act and serve as the lead-planning agency. The counties will also be agreeing to give their portion of the 20% local match that will be divided between all of the members to the Triangle J Council of Governments. The MOU establishes the responsibilities and the membership of the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee. It also says that the local jurisdictions will support the RPO through staff to help with plans and data collection from the local areas. Any member can withdraw upon 90 days written notice if desired. Commissioner Gordon said that this MOU, compared to the MPO, is too general and does not cover some things that she thinks Orange County would want to see covered. For example, it did not really say anything about how one would set up bylaws or do amendments or changes. It also does not address how to do the voting. She thinks that the MOU was put together with the other counties in mind because they have a lot more area in this and they also have towns. She asked how many people would be on this board. Karen Lincoln said that it would depend on the municipalities that are not already within an MPO. Commissioner Gordon is concerned about how it will work out for Orange County and how the weighted voting will work. She said that there is no provision in the MOU for amendments or changes in the bylaws and exactly how you would change the boundaries. She thinks it is a good idea to have an RPO, but we need to think about this agreement. Karen Lincoln said that she had compared the latest MPO agreement she found and the basic differences between them were references in the MPO's MOU to federal regulations that they had to comply with. This is a state legislation and is much looser. Commissioner Gordon asked if the MOU that sets up the MPO addresses the voting issue. Karen Lincoln said that it basically establishes the framework, similar to this MOU. Chair Jacobs said that some of these RPO's are in existence and suggested that the Board ask Karen Lincoln for a copy of the oldest RPO MOU for review (with bylaws) and also ask if Triangle J has an estimate of how many will be in the RPO and what percentage of Orange County will be in the RPO. Orange County may be a minority number because of the jurisdictions. Chair Barry Jacobs asked about coordination with the MPO. He then asked about Section 3, item 1-b and asked if we were wedded to the name Research Triangle Rural Transportation Planning Area. He does not think of Moore, Lee, or Chatham as being part of the Research Triangle. Chair Jacobs asked that we schedule this for the second meeting in September. John Link referred to the RPO and said that we need clarification on the timeframe and also get that in writing exactly what we can and cannot do with this document. Commissioner Gordon asked about the 20% cost and if it is shared by all jurisdictions. Karen Lincoln said yes and that this would be something that the RPO members would work out. John Link said that he understands that some of this cost could be defrayed. Commissioner Gordon asked how to figure out the cost sharing. She said that all of these questions need to be resolved. She is in favor of having an RPO, but she would just like more understanding about how it works. Chair Jacobs said that the first issue is the time frame. F. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. The next meeting will be a Work Session to be held on Thursday, August 29, 2002 at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board