Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-18-2012 APPROVED 11/20/2012 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING September 18, 2012 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill. N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Foushee COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Gwen Harvey, Clarence Grier, Michael Talbert, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) 1. Additions or Chanqes to the Aqenda Chair Pelissier went through the items at the County Commissioners' places. - White sheets — guidelines for items 6-a and 6-b, Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit Modification — Spence Dickinson; and Class A Special Use Permit — Public Utility Station (Solar Array) - One blue sheet and two white sheets from Commissioner Gordon regarding item 7-c - Transit Interlocal Implementation Agreement Chair Pelissier introduced Frank Clifton who then introduced Carla Banks, the new Public Affairs Officer. Carla Banks thanked the County Commissioners for bringing her on board. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda Don O'Leary spoke on the County's act of high treason by forming an alliance with International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives. He said that the County was using Agenda 21 and terms like "sustainable development". He made reference to the Mountains to Sea Trail and said that the trail follows the waterways and aquifers so perfectly and one might assume that it is deliberate. He said that if the County has enough control of easements and waterways, then it could disallow grazing or fertilizing anywhere near it, taking away the property owners' rights of their own land use. He said that the County refuses to obey the laws of the Constitution. Chair Pelissier said that she forgot to mention that Commissioner Foushee could not attend this meeting. b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Hemminger asked that the BOCC write a letter in support of Holden Thorpe to encouraging him to stay in leadership at UNC. Chair Pelissier said that this would be referred to the Agenda Review Team. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Oranqe County Arts Grant Recipients The Board presented checks to local artists and nonprofit organizations receiving Spring 2012 Orange County Arts Grants. Martha Shannon, staff support for the Orange County Arts Commission, presented these awards. In the Spring 2012, the Arts Commission received a total of$52,546 in grant requests. The awards total $40,482 in Grassroots Program Funds from the Retrolina Arts Council. Sprinq, 2012 Grant Recipients: Attendees: ArtsCenter - Tracy Thomas Chapel Hill Carrboro Children's Museum — NOT AVAILABLE TONIGHT dba Kidzu Children's Museum Chapel Hill Carrboro Public School Foundation - NOT AVAILABLE TONIGHT Deep Dish Theater Company - Not AVAILABLE TONIGHT Door to Door of UNC Health Care - Joy Javits Ephesus Elementary School PTA - Nicole Kushner Estes Hills Elementary School - Christine Cohn Franklin Street Arts Collective dba FRANK Gallery— Barbara Tyroler Glenwood Elementary School PTA - Kate Underhill Grady A. Brown Elementary School PTA - Tracy Thomas Hillsborough Arts Council - Heather Delisle McDougle Elementary School PTA - Michelle Melet McDougle Middle School PTA - Michele Melet North Carolina Symphony - Bob & Connie Eby Orange County Artists Guild - Sandy Beeman Town of Carrboro Recreation & Parks - Gerry Williams (Carrboro Music Festival) 5. Consent Aqenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded Commissioner Hemminger to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Shown below: • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda d. 2012 Property Tax Releases The Board considered adoption of a resolution to release property values related to one hundred eighty-three (183) requests for property tax release in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. Commissioner Hemminger said that this is a big number and she asked if this affects the budget. Tax Administrator Duane Brinson said that this corresponds to the annual billing process. Last year the number was twice as much. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve the adoption of a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to one hundred eighty-three (183) requests for property tax release in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from June 7, 14 and August 21, 2012 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted of a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to thirty-five (35) requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds, in accordance with the NCGS. c. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values related to forty (40) requests for property tax release and/or refund in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. 2012 Property Tax Releases This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. e. Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budqet Amendment#2 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2012-13 for Department of Social Services, Health Department, Board of Elections, Planning/Inspections and Orange Public Transportation, and the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation. f. Approval of Financinq Arranqement for Efland Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. to Purchase a Fire Enqine Truck The Board approved a request from Efland Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. to enter into a financing arrangement to purchase a fire truck for $45,000 from the Company's unassigned fund balance; and authorized the Board of County Commissioners' Chair to sign the appropriate documents related to the financing arrangement. g_ Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment Schedule for November 2012 Joint Quarterly Public Hearinq — Outdoor Liqhtinq The Board approved the process components and schedule for a Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment for the November 19, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing regarding amendments to existing outdoor lighting regulations. h. Amendment to Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates Contract: Buckhorn-Mebane EDD Water and Sewer Extension Proiect— Phase 2 The Board approved Contract Amendment#3 to the Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates (HUA) contract for design of water and sewer utilities in the extended Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Economic Development District (EDD) area and authorized the Chair and Manager to sign; and authorized the manager to negotiate and sign any changes to the cost of this amendment that may arise once the actual construction cost and scope are known. i. Trustee Appointments to the Oranqe New Hope Firemen's Local Relief Fund Board The Board appointed Eddie Walker and Brian Blalock to the Orange New Hope Firemen's Local Relief Fund Board. i Trustee Appointment to the Central Oranqe Firemen's Local Relief Fund Board The Board appointed Jim Fuller to the Central Orange Firemen's Local Relief Fund Board. k. Bid Award — Front End Loadinq Garbaqe Truck The Board awarded a bid at a total cost of$252,720 for the purchase of a new Front End Loading Garbage Truck from Carolina Environmental Systems, Inc. (CES) of Kernersville, NC, and authorized the Finance Director to execute the appropriate paperwork. 6. Public Hearinqs a. Rezoninq and Class A Special Use Permit Modification — Spence Dickinson The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, closed the public hearing, and considered a decision on a request submitted by Mr. Spence Dickinson to rezone a 4.003 acre parcel of property to Rural Buffer and modify an existing Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') for the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development by removing the subject property from its provisions. Chair Pelissier explained the purpose of the item is to receive the Planning Board recommendation for Spence Dickinson. Michael Harvey: Good evening. Tonight's request is to receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, make a decision on the request submitted by Mr. Spence Dickinson to rezone an approximately four-acre parcel of property; to rezone the parcel of property from Rural Buffer to Planned Development Housing and remove this parcel from the confines of the existing Class A Special Use Permit for the Parkwood at Blackwood Mountain subdivision. As part of the attachments for the siting, you have the July 11, 2012 Planning Board abstract, the excerpt from the approved May 29th Quarterly Public Hearing notes; an excerpt from the approved July 11, 2012 Planning Board regular minutes; responses from the applicant regarding conditions associated with this project. In Attachment 5, the Planning Board recommended the Findings of Fact. Attachment 6 is an Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas. Attachment 7 is an Ordinance Denying an Amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas. Attachment 8 is a Resolution of Consistency for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Attachment 9 is a Resolution of Inconsistency for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Chair Pelissier declared the public hearing re-convened and asked staff to make their presentation. Michael Harvey: You also have a script that was produced by staff, providing you with an outline of the actions that staff will be taking this evening and to aid you in making your motions. Please remember that this is a two-sphered process. You're going to be taking action of modification to a Class A Special Use Permit, specifically removing this lot as shown on the overhead projector from the confines of an existing Class A Special Use Permit. The second action you're going to take this evening is a legislative action to rezone the subject property to Rural Buffer. As you will remember from meetings past, we have had a new procedure that we had to follow as a result of the State Supreme Court decision on rezoning. Previously, we had combined Statements of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas. According to a recent State Supreme Court case, we can no longer do that, which is why you now have two attachments. In this case, I am referring to Attachment 6 and Attachment 8. Attachment 8 states that you are adopting outlining how this project is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Please remember that previous to this, or previous to the last meeting when we looked at the Eno Economic Development District, we put this information in one central resolution. We now have to split it out. The cadence for adoption is also specified by the State Supreme Court and that you must adopt an ordinance amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas first, and then adopt a Statement of Consistency to the Comprehensive Plan. Having said that, what I would like to do this evening is briefly review with you the actions of the Planning Board. As you will note from Attachment 5 of your abstract packet, the Planning Board went through the Findings of Fact and determined that the applicant had met his burden with respect to compliance with the individual requirements of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance for the approval of this request. They also made specific Findings of Fact on the compliance with Section 5.3.2 (8) 2 a, b, and c, with respect to this project's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, with respect to this proposed amendment would not have a negative impact on adjacent property, and last but not least, the applicant had met his burden of proof that the proposal was consistent with surrounding land use. The Planning Board is recommending unanimous approval of this process and of the proposed rezoning. The applicant specifically in Attachment 4 has indicated his support for the conditions with one exception —the applicant requests that that the Board not impose a condition about the wooded access from this lot of the Pathway Court. As you will recall from the Quarterly Public Hearing, and this is detailed within Attachment 2 of your abstract packet, concerns were expressed by adjacent property owners about the potential for a road or a drive access from this property and ultimately the existing camp property to the east operated by Mr. Dickinson onto Pathway Court. Staff recommended the imposition of the condition at that time. Staff still recommends the imposition of this condition. The applicant respectfully requested in writing that you not impose it. Unless you have any questions, that is the end of my presentation at this time. Commissioner Jacobs: To the point he just made, do you feel that adequately addressed the concerns of Mr. Lamb that are on page 33 of our packet regarding the impact on the Heartwood development? Michael Harvey: I feel it does and with all due respect to Mr. Dickinson, I take a different viewpoint of why the condition was imposed. As this parcel of property is being removed from the confines of the Heartwood at Blackwood Special Use Permit and is not subject to the conditions of the Special Use Permit or the imposition of fees or other actions by the Heartwood Homeowners Association that is responsible for maintaining Pathway Court, it is my considered opinion that it would not be reasonable for us to allow there to be access onto Pathway Court by the adjacent camp, even though the property has frontage on it and even though there are other lots that were approved after the issuance of the Special Use Permit that have access on Pathway as well. I would argue that the County in hindsight, should have required an amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow for further subdivision activity to occur in the 80's and early 90's, which it did not. We do not need to perpetuate the same mistake, as this property has been removed from the confines and SUP and not subject to the local homeowners control and purview, it is my considered opinion that it should not be allowed to have access on a street that is maintained by that homeowners association. Commissioner Jacobs: Just in reading what Mr. Lamb said, I thought he was concerned that the parcel be restricted for use for the septic field and it says, "and no other activities or services or hindrances along the border of the community." Michael Harvey: As I articulated that evening and spoke with Mr. Lamb later, it is my position that Mr. Dickinson does have the right to go back to the Orange County Board of Adjustment, which is his plan, in seeking expansion of existing camp retreat center that this property has the ability to utilize for other purposes than just a septic system, allowing for expansion of the existing camp retreat center, and I don't feel it necessary at this special use permit process hinder that ability with the imposition of additional conditions on the use of this parcel. The Board of Adjustment is going to go through a similar public hearing process where adjacent property owners would be notified and allowed to present the case on why that specific land uses should not be allowed. I also don't think there's been any evidence submitted into the record at the Quarterly Public Hearing or at the Planning Board meeting that#1, any proposed redevelopment of this will have a negative impact on adjacent lots, and #2, even if there was it would not germane to this request as this request is intended to solely amend the existing Heartwood SUP to remove this lot. I don't believe it's essential for this Board to impose any additional restrictions other than what the ordinance would impose as part of what's customary. Chair Pelissier: As I understand it, the only other person who would speak would be Spence Dickinson. John Roberts: If I can address that. This portion of the hearing, the specific purpose, if you allow Mr. Dickinson to speak, you cannot consider what he says as part of your decision making. I recommend that he not be permitted. What his position is has been put in the record by Mr. Harvey, but if you allow him to speak to this subject now, what you are in effect doing is accepting additional testimony in a quasi-judicial hearing, which could open the Board's decision up to be overturned in the event of an appeal to Superior Court. Chair Pelissier: Are they any other questions of staff? Once we close the public hearing, we can no longer ask any questions of staff. I just want to make sure there are no other questions. Commissioner Gordon: I just want to make sure we understood the status of the condition that staff recommended that Mr. Dickinson would like removed. Is it your contention and do I understand it that we impose this condition even though he doesn't agree? Michael Harvey: Yes ma'am. The condition is designed to address a community concern as well as preserving the integrity of the SUP process without allowing for additional use of the roadway that was never envisioned in the SUP as originally approved by this Board. And I'm talking about the Heartwood Special Use Permit. Commissioner Gordon: So he does not have to agree. There are other situations in which the person would have to agree, but not this one. Michael Harvey: Correct. Commissioner Yuhasz: Do I understand this correctly that if we impose this condition we are then creating a landlocked parcel? Michael Harvey: No sir. As articulated and testified during the Quarterly Public Hearing, Mr. Dickinson is going to be recombining this parcel with a parcel to the east, this camp retreat center property, which has access on Millhouse Road. It will become one large parcel of property designed to support and promote the continued operation of a legally permitted camp retreat center that is operating under the current Class B Special Use Permit issued under the Orange County Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Yuhasz: I understand that's the intent, but that won't happen until after this decision is made. Michael Harvey: That is also a correct statement. Commissioner Yuhasz: And what we are doing, just to be clear, we are imposing a condition not on this property, but on the Special Use Permit that— essentially we are imposing a condition on the remainder of the lots, not on this lot. Michael Harvey: What you're essentially doing is caused the existing Special Use Permit to be modified to remove this lot from the confines and regulatory requirement of that permit. You are also stipulating that this particular parcel of property, as it currently exists and as it will exist when recombined with the parcel to the east, will not be allowed to have any drive access onto Pathway Court. Commissioner Yuhasz: I just want to be clear on where we are imposing that condition. I don't know whether, in a general rezoning, we are allowed to impose conditions like that. Michael Harvey: You're not imposing as part of the general rezoning, you're imposing as part of the special use permit line. Commissioner Yuhasz: I just want to be clear, we're imposing it on the special use permit that sits on the rest of the lots and not on this particular one. Michael Harvey: Correct. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close the public hearing. NOTE — once this is done staff cannot answer questions or provide additional detail. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The BOCC then took action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action was as follows: A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed on pages 39 through 41 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed on page 42 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed on pages 43 through 46 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed on pages 47 through 48 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger that there is sufficient evidence in the record that complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare if located where proposed in the development and operated as the plan is submitted. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner, McKee seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract, • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and July 11, 2012 Planning Board, • Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning Board regular meeting, and • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger finding there is sufficient evidence in the record that the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and July 11, 2012 Planning Board, and • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger finding that there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract, • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and July 11, 2012 Planning Board, • Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning Board regular meeting, and • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the Special Use Permit imposing recommended 4 conditions as detailed on page(s) 51 through 52 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The Board then took action on the ordinance amending the zoning atlas (Attachment 6) and the resolution concerning comprehensive plan consistency (Attachment 8). As you may recall, a recent State Supreme Court decision impacted how zoning atlas amendments are processed and acted upon. In the past, staff has produced an Ordinance amending the zoning atlas containing a statement detailing how the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest. Now, we are required to take 2 separate actions when dealing with a zoning atlas amendment, specifically: • Adoption of an Ordinance approving or rejecting the proposed atlas amendment, and • Adoption of a separate statement denoting the atlas amendment complies with an adopted comprehensive plan. This statement must describe whether the action is: `consistent with any controlling comprehensive plan and explain why the action is reasonable and in the public interest'. It should be noted that according to North Carolina General Statute, this statement is not subject to judicial review. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adopt the Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Atlas as contained within Attachment 6 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adopt the Resolution of Comprehensive Plan Consistency as contained within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Class A Special Use Permit— Public Utility Station (Solar Array) The Board considered receiving the Planning Board recommendation, closing the public hearing, and making a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) request submitted by Strata Solar and the Bradshaw Family Partnership proposing the development of a public utility station, solar array, on a 53-acre portion of a 122-acre parcel of property in accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter `UDO') Chair Pelissier explained that the purpose of this item was to receive the Planning Board recommendation. For Strata Solar the purpose of the meeting is as follows: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a decision on a C/ass A Special Use Permit request submitted by Strata So/ar and the Bradshaw Family Partnership proposing the development of a public utility station, specifically so/ar array, on a 53 acre portion of a 122 acre parcel of property in accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance Chair Pelissier declared the public hearing re-convened and asked staff to make their presentation. Michael Harvey: Good evening, once again, Michael Harvey, Orange County Planning, here to present the Planning Board recommendation concerning the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit to allow for the development of public utilities, specifically the solar array on a 53- acre portion of a 122-acre parcel of property off of White Cross Road in Orange County. As part of this item, you have Attachment 1, which is the July 11, 2012 Planning Board abstract. Attachment 2 is additional information supplied by the applicant at the July 11, 2012 Planning Board meeting. Attachment 3 is the excerpts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. Attachment 4 is the excerpts of the approved July 11, 2012 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes. Attachment 5 is a letter from the applicant accepting the recommended conditions. Attachment 6 is the Planning Board recommended Findings of Fact. You also have at your place a script to assist you in making the required motions associated with this project. As you will recall, this item was presented at the May 29th Quarterly Public Hearing. There were certain questions asked during the hearing, which we have included in Attachment 1, the Planning Board abstract for your review. You will note that the Planning Board at their July 11 th regular meeting found unanimously that the applicant had met their burden with respect to all facets with respect to the project and various standards of the UDO. As we articulated in the script, as well as articulated in Attachment 6, there are specific references with compliance Section 2.2 and 2.7(3) UDO Class A Special Use permit application submittal requirements. Section 2.7.5 indicating that all applicable notification criteria has been adhered to, Sections 3.3 and 6.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance had been adhered to. As a result the application was deemed to be compliant with respect to UDO submittal requirements. Compliance with Sections 5.9 and 6.8.6, the specific land use regulations governing the development of utilities and development of land use buffers on the property, compliance with the specific findings of fact contained in Section 5.3.2. The Planning Board also made affirmative findings on Sections 5.3.2 (A) (2), a, b, and c; all of which is contained within your packet. The Planning Board recommended approval of this project. The Planning staff also supports the issuance of the Special Use Permit. There are going to be a total of six conditions as part of this project. The applicant is technically meeting all of those conditions and we believe there is sufficient evidence articulating this fact already present within the record. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that you have at this time. Commissioner Hemminger: Isn't it possible to put one of these on the screen and group them that way. John Roberts: There has to be a record in case it's appealed. Unlike your normal minutes, a quasi-judicial hearing has to be verbatim, so there has to be something for a judge to read if a case is appealed to Superior Court. Putting it up on the screen I don't think transfers very well to a transcript. Commissioner Hemminger: It would be helpful, though, I think, for the public to see what we're reading off instead of just reading off very quickly, to be able to see what we're actually doing, because with the dates and times and subsections and numbers, no one is going to be able to track that in the audience. John Roberts: I misunderstood what you were saying, I thought you were saying put it up on the screen and vote on what you see. Commissioner Hemminger: I would still prefer to have it on the screen so that they know what we are doing. Chair Pelissier: I know that it is our plan to arrange to be able to do that for all of our motions. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows (NOTE —This script has been written based on the belief the permit will be approved. If not, the Motion from the BOCC would be to reject the Planning Board's recommendation and make a finding the applicant had not met their burden. Please bear in mind if this is the case, there will need to be evidence provided indicating how the BOCC member making the motion arrives at the conclusion the applicant has not met their burden): A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed on pages 85 through 87 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed on page 88 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 3.3 and 6.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed on pages 89 through 90 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.9 and 6.8.6 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed on pages 91 through 93 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, as detailed on pages 94 through 95 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee that there is sufficient evidence in the record that the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows: - finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract, • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and July 11, 2012 Planning Board, • Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning Board regular meeting, • Additional information supplied to the Planning Board by the applicant at its July 11, 2012 regular meeting, and • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS - A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and July 11, 2012 Planning Board, • Testimony from Mr. Richard Kirkland at the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing relating to the use maintaining and enhancing the value of adjacent property, and • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS - A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan. This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Attachment 1, the application, of the public hearing abstract, • Staff and applicant testimony from the Public Hearing, • Abstracts from the May 29, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing and July 11, 2012 Planning Board, • Staff findings as discussed during the July 11, 2012 Planning Board regular meeting, and • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence in the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, plans, or other materials entered into the record indicating the applicant had not met their burden in accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) of the UDO. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve the Special Use Permit imposing recommended 6 conditions as detailed on page 98 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Continued Public Hearinq on Zoninq Atlas Amendment — Darrell Chandler Conditional Zoninq — REDA-CZ-1 The Board continued a public hearing on a request submitted by Mr. Darrell Chandler to rezone a 12-acre portion of a 35.8-acre parcel of property (PIN 0910-34-5040) to NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA-CZ-1) Conditional Zoning and receive site plan approval for a proposed self-storage facility. Michael Harvey said that this is a continuation of a public hearing. He said that at the August 27th Quarterly Public Hearing, several questions and concerns were raised about the site plan and the project. It was determined that the Board wanted additional review opportunity and requested additional information from the applicant and staff. The Board adjourned the hearing until tonight to solicit additional comment and to have staff address some additional issues. This is slated to go to the Planning Board at the October regular meeting. The Planning Board is asking for additional guidance. The abstract includes responses from the applicant on various issues. He made reference to page 4 of the abstract and the concerns related to transportation and access management issues. He said that the applicant has addressed Transportation Planning staff concerns over turn radiuses around the building of the site plan. Regarding the installation of a well, the applicant will do it if it is required and is investigating this with the Orange County Health Department. He continued to go through the table with the concerns and responses. The applicant is still showing a retail area, which will be offices. It will be limited to the self-storage facility and will consist of storage materials. There is no desire to sell general retail items and the staff recommends that this be a condition that this facility cannot be used as a general retail outlet. Commissioner Hemminger said that she wanted this project to succeed but she does not understand about the water issue and why there would not be a well there. Michael Harvey asked the applicant's representative to respond. Chad Abbott with Summit Consulting said that the applicant does not feel that there is a need for a well. There is a cost issue. He said that a well would have to go across the road and there would have to be an encroachment from DOT. He said that the applicant would rather not have a well. Commissioner Hemminger expressed concern about not having an active water system. Commissioner McKee said that he is wholly supportive of this project, but without water he has a problem. He said that every business has expenses, but he considers water availability as a problem. Chad Abbott said that the applicant does not want to cancel this project just because of a well. Commissioner Hemminger asked how much a well would cost and Michael Harvey said that he will try and get a number for the next Planning Board meeting and before this comes back to the Board on November 2ptn Michael Harvey clarified that any conditions imposed have to be mutually agreed upon by both parties. Chair Pelissier said that all County Commissioners have concerns about the water and she suggested giving direction to the Planning Board on how to deliberate on this. Michael Harvey said that it would be good to state for the record what the County Commissioners would like to see regarding documentation from Orange County Environmental Health, Tom Konsler, and others in order to give the Planning Board an idea. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would be willing to listen to a phased approach and the Board agreed. Commissioner Gordon said to ask the Planning Board to consider a phased approach and not necessarily direct it. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board is supportive of this project and they recognize that Mr. Chandler has limited resources, but since this is an entranceway to Orange County, there should be standards in rural areas as in other areas. He asked staff to provide some pictures of other storage units in Orange County that have buffers or clustered buffers so that they can see what it will look like before making a decision. Commissioner Gordon supported this. There was continued discussion about the buffers. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of Commissioners in time for the November 20, 2012 BOCC regular meeting, with specific additional attention on the water issue as well as other issues discussed; and adjourn the public hearing until November 20, 2012 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reqular Aqenda a. Sitinq Criteria for Southern Branch Library— Final Recommendation The Board considered approving the siting and locational criteria governing the review and site selection process for the southern branch of the Orange County library. Library Services Director Lucinda Munger said that this is the updated criteria for the Southern Branch Library and staff has included modifications based on feedback from the work session and from the Carrboro Board of Aldermen in March. The staff has incorporated modifications to the criteria. The first modification is combining the previous Phases 1 and 2 into the 1 St phase entitled Preliminary Phase, Technical Review, and Assessment. The physical attributes of a site, including environmental factors, various modules of public transportation and access, alignment with planning tools, location, costs, and availability will be taken into account. This phase will be done by internal Orange County staff and is estimated to take anywhere from four to eight weeks, depending on the number of properties under review. Many items can be done simultaneously. Phase 3 in a previous version is now the 2nd phase entitled Primary Phase, Public Input, and Assessment. The Board will put before the community a top site choice or choices after the completion of the technical review and analysis. This portion would involve significant input from residents of the surrounding communities. Estimated time for this phase would be anywhere from three to five months. On August 30th, staff along with Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert, met with Carrboro Manager David Andrews and some of his staff to review the criteria and answer any questions. Mr. Talbert also indicated that this would be brought back at the September meeting. As noted in the agenda, the Town of Carrboro has already begun its own internal process of evaluating sites based on compliance with local development regulations and other processes. The change from the original title — Southern Branch from Southwestern Branch was done after a request from the Board at the June work session expressing the desire to see a clear visual representation as to what constituted Southwest. The map was prepared by Mr. Harvey in Planning. The primary reason for the change from the longstanding title of Southwest is that they wanted to more accurately reflect the area that this library will serve, making sure that it will be seen as an inclusive place to serve the needs of all the surrounding community. Michael Harvey explained why the name was changed from Southwestern to Southern. Chair Pelissier said that when this was discussed in June the Board agreed in concept, but this is for final approval. Commissioner Gordon asked if the Town of Carrboro was in agreement with the criteria. Lucinda Munger said that the Town Manager would prefer that the Board of County Commissioners vote on this first, but staff has not heard of any problems or objections. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to a grammatical change on page 4. He suggested referring to vision plans instead of planning tools. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to "site conditions, allowances, and constraints" and said to write out what C and A mean. The Board agreed with the suggested changes. Commissioner Gordon said that she does not feel the need to add brown field vs. green field and Commissioner Jacobs said that in his mind it means that the County is weighing those two values as one of the decision points. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be all right. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to: 1. Approve the attached Southern Branch Library Locational Criteria; and 2. Authorize the Chair to send a letter to the Town of Carrboro that: a. Transmits the Board-approved locational and site selection criteria to the Town, with changes and b. Requests that the Town initiate public solicitation and review of properties for the southern branch of the Orange County library property based on the approved criteria. Commissioner Gordon said that there is nothing about costs of construction. It might cost more to construct something on a brown field. She suggested saying something about costs. Frank Clifton suggested adding the words "cost per site acquisition and construction." Commissioner Gordon agreed. Commissioner Hemminger and Commissioner Jacobs agreed with this amendment. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Pelissier suggested that the letter ask Carrboro how to share costs for permits and expediting rezoning. She suggested including this in the correspondence to Carrboro. She would also like the correspondence to provide some explanation of the responses to the suggestions. This is a way to acknowledge that the County understood the comments and the concerns are going to be addressed. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the friendly amendment made by Chair Pelissier. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Burlinqton-Graham and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planninq Orqanization Boundaries The Board considered receiving information, providing direction, and/or a recommendation on Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundaries within Orange County pending the September 20, 2012 discussion with the City of Mebane. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri introduced Abigaile Pittman, Transportation and Land Use Planner. He made reference to the background information in the agenda packet. The overview of MPOs and RPOs began on page 8 of the packet. He then showed maps of the boundaries of the MPOs. There have been many staff ineetings and discussions over the last 8-9 months regarding various boundary options. Staff believes that the recommended boundaries will meet the needs of both MPOs. He made reference to a summary of why Option 4 has been recommended and has been determined to be ideal. It meets all of the federal criteria and standards, including all of the urbanized areas. Staff is asking for Board action in support of Option 4 as it has been presented. As indicated in the Manager's Recommendation, if there is support from the Board for Option 4, it should be contingent on agreement from the City of Mebane. Commissioner Gordon said that this is a good proposal and as long as the City of Mebane concurs, then Option 4 is a good choice. She generally supports Option 4. Commissioner Jacobs said that Option 4 is a proposal that Mebane is comfortable with. He made reference to the bottom of page 2 and said that Attachment 5 says that it is an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of Option 4, but he did not get any analysis of these advantages and disadvantages. He wanted to have this for the Board of County Commissioners' consideration. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the recommendation which stated that the BOCC is in agreement with Option 4 (attachment 3) and contingent on the City of Mebane discussion and support on September 20, 2012 authorizes the MPOs to proceed with its implementation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Transit Interlocal Implementation Aqreement The Board discussed various aspects of the Interlocal Implementation Agreement of the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (IIA/OCBRIP) and provided decisions regarding aspects to be incorporated into the final draft. Chair Pelissier said that at the last MPO meeting, she asked staff to come and respond to questions at this meeting. John Roberts said that this Implementation Agreement is referred to in Article 43 of Chapter 105 of the North Carolina General Statutes as the Implementation Agreement. The purpose of this agreement is to provide that the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County may be reviewed or revised from time to time. There are still several items of disagreement. The biggest disagreement is between Orange County staff and TTA on whether or not the MPO should be a party to the agreement, since the staff believes it should be a two party agreement. It is a decision that the Board of County Commissioners can make whether or not to include the MPO as a party to the agreement. Should the Board choose not to include the MPO as a party, the MPO still will have a significant role in dealing with the plan. It will come down to a decision by the Board of whether to include that organization as a party. The MPO has expressed the desire to be included as a party. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that in June of this year, the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan was approved with conditions, and it will tell how the '/�-cent sales tax will be spent if it is approved in November. The Implementation Agreement contains 14 sections. He reviewed each section. Chair Pelissier said that she would like to speak on the signatories on the documents and the letter in the packet from the MPO. She said that since the Board has not yet responded to the MPO, it would be good to at least decide who the parties will be to the agreement. Commissioner Gordon said that she wanted to introduce this item and to explain the handouts she put at their places. She first reviewed the motion concerning the Bus and Rail Investment Plan which the BOCC had approved. Motion from June 5t", 2012 approving the Bus and Rail Investment Plan Move that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve the Draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan (BRI Plan) in Orange County, contingent on the approval of an Implementation Agreement between Triangle Transit and Orange County, and subject to the following conditions: A. That the following inconsistent sections in the BRI Plan be addressed, as shown below 1. The difference in the cost of the Hillsborough rail station on page 25 (Orange Financial Plan Data) and page 31 (Appendix A, Assumptions) REVISION: on Page 25, add a note, referencing the Hillsborough Rail Station, which states that Orange County will only be responsible for a 10% match 2. The difference in the number of expenditure categories on page 25 (Orange Financial Plan Data - 9 categories), and page 32 (Appendix A, How All Dollars Are Spent - middle pie chart - 8 categories) REVISION: Change the last bullet, which references the borrowing of$25 million, into a Note. B. That the language concerning the Implementation Agreement on pages 25 and 26 of the BRI Plan be changed to reflect the actual contents of the agreement, once that agreement is revised. C. That the Rail Investment Cost Sharing Agreement with charts and map be included as an Appendix to the BRI Plan, in substantially the same form as presented on June 5, and with the dollar amounts verified and corrected, as needed. ATTACHMENTS (to be included with the cost sharing agreement): LRT Reference Map (Cost Sharing) Rail Investment Cost Sharing Agreement Charts D. That Orange County and Triangle Transit will work together to identify any other inconsistencies, misstatements, or omissions, and to provide the changes to the BOCC before the Implementation Agreement is scheduled for approval by the BOCC. The BOCC wishes to note that, even though not all of the stipulations in the BOCC transit plan motion of May 15 were addressed, the BOCC wishes to move the BRI Plan forward at this time, in the manner stated above. NOTE: The above attachments (LRT Reference Map and Rail Investment Cost Sharing Agreement Charts) are included in the agenda materials and are hereby included by reference in these minutes. Commissioner Gordon then went through some background information that she had distributed to the County Commissioners. Background Information for Item 7c on the BOCC September 18, 2012 agenda: Transit Interlocal Implementation Agreement The following information on the funding process, and on revenues and costs for the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (BRI Plan), is provided as background information for the discussion on transit. I. Funding Process A. Federal Funding of Light Rail Transit - Three Critical Points in the New Starts Process At the September 12, 2012 meeting of the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee, the TAC received a description of three critical points (benchmarks) in the federal funding process for Light Rail Transit. Description of the Phase Time Needed to Accomplish of Development That Phase Enter into Preliminary Engineering 2 to 3 years ("get into the pipeline") Receive Record of Decision 2 to 3 years (complete Preliminary Engineering) Receive Full Funding 3 to 4 years Grant Agreement (FFGA) You will note that the total period is about 7 to 10 years. This information should be helpful when the BOCC discusses sections 8 and 10 (the second number 10) of the Implementation Agreement. The BRI Plan (page 26) states that the FTA typically considers the FFGA during Final Design. That information might be helpful when the BOCC discusses section 12 (B). B. State Funding of Light Rail Transit The TAC also learned that during the Preliminary Engineering phase would be the time to start contacting the state about funding, with the ultimate goal of receiving a State Full Funding Grant Agreement. II. Summary of Revenues and Costs in the Orange County BRI Plan Appendix A of the BRI Plan includes a page with three pie charts which give a summary of total revenues, total costs, and Orange County costs. That page is given in the attachment for your review. This information should be helpful when the BOCC discusses sections 8, 12, and 13. Chair Pelissier introduced Jim Ward from the Chapel Hill Town Council. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jim Ward, Chairman Chapel Hill Transit Public Transit Committee, said that he would not read the resolution that he just distributed, but he would just go through the gist of it. He said that Chapel Hill Transit is supportive of the process and of the Bus and Rail Investment Plan, but the Public Transit Committee cannot support the current proposed implementation agreement, which unnecessarily restricts Chapel Hill Transit's ability to operate the transit system in a manner responsive and responsible to the interests and needs of the riders and citizens of the community. He said that the current draft of the Implementation Agreement establishes a baseline of the number of hours of route service provided in 2010. The agreement prohibits funds from the local sales tax from being used to support operating costs below this floor. He said that the legislation requires that new funds do not supplant or replace existing funds, not existing hours of service. The latter interpretation could result in their not being able to support new or expanded service. He said that the current language of the agreement does not allow for any funds to be used for relief in the event of state or federal funds should they be reduced. This could force service cuts on established routes, but providing funding for introduction of new service. He said that they would not advocate support for this referendum with the current Implementation Agreement. The resolution is shown below: A RESOLUTION FROM THE PUBLIC TRANSIT COMIMTTEE REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE BUS AND RAIL INVESTMENT PLAN IN ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit is a public transit provider in Orange County funded by the communities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit serves the Orange County communities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as scores of rural Orange County families who work in our communities, and WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit serves a population of over 90,000 persons and provides 7 million rides annually, and WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit and its supporting partners have supported the legislation to provide local option tax, and WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit and its partners participated in the development of the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County, and WHEREAS, the Public Transit Committee of Chapel Hill Transit consists of representatives of the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Public Transit Committee of Chapel Hill Transit has endorsed the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County and the allocation of funds recommended in that plan; The Public Transit Committee cannot support an Implementation Agreement that unnecessarily restricts Chapel Hill Transit's ability to operate the transit system in a manner responsive and responsible to the interests and needs of the riders and citizens of our community. The Public Transit Committee encourages the development of an implementation agreement that is consistent with the Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County and includes appropriate representation from all entities affected by the Bus and Rail Investment Plan and the associated referendum. This the 18th day of September, 2012. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to item #1 in the draft implementation plan and said that he believes the Burlington-Graham MPO is not interested in being a part of this implementation agreement. Craig Benedict said that this is correct. Commissioner Hemminger asked Wib Gulley to come forward and said that she would be ok with having the MPO as a third party if there were stipulations that two groups could not outvote the third group. All three have to be in agreement or the process does not go forward or a change does not happen. She said that it is implied that this is true in Section 11, but not really. Wib Gulley said that the intent is that unless each and every party agreed on a change, then there would be no change. This language can be clarified in item 12 to say that each and every party would have to approve of a change. Commissioner McKee said that in section 12, the statement limits this agreement to a two-party agreement. He thinks that the MPO needs to have an advisory role. Wib Gulley said that it now reads as a two-party agreement. If the MPO were added, it would say three entities. John Roberts said that he is comfortable that, regardless of how many parties there are, the current language makes it have to be all three parties or both parties to make effective any material changes. He said that he agrees with Wib Gulley. Commissioner Gordon said that she had expected that there would be language in this agreement to specify a role for the MPO, and that the MPO should have an important role. She said that she had written down some roles that the MPO could play, and also some other suggestions concerning the Implementation Agreement. The suggestions are given in her handout shown below: Suggested Changes to the Implementation Agreement Alice Gordon - September 18, 2012 The suggestions given below are the ones that are the most complex. I may also have other comments which I will state at the meeting. I. MPO Role The MPO on June 13, 2012 requested that the BOCC specify a "role" for the MPO in the agreement. Here are some suggestions for specifying what the MPO role would be, instead of being a "party." A. After the first paragraph, add the following language (after deleting the letters "DCHC" in the first paragraph): The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, the regional transportation planning agency for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban area pursuant to US DOT regulation CFR Part 450 and 49 Part 613 ("DCHC"), will have a significant role, as delineated in the provisions and procedures of this agreement. B. Add a new paragraph, after section 9 (or another place, as appropriate). The first sentence would be: The important role of DCHC in planning for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban area is recognized. The rest of this paragraph would then need to be developed. The paragraph would indicate that the MPO staff would participate in all meetings of the SWG. The remainder of this paragraph would then use, as starting point, the language in the side notes made by John Roberts on the last page of the agreement. II. Assessment of progress in getting federal and state funding Here is suggested language, adding benchmarks and also adding state funding to the assessment process. 10. (second number 10). Eight years after the date of execution of this Agreement, the Parties agree to assess if the New Starts application for the LRT project in the Plan is still in the federal pipeline for New Starts rail projects and making reasonable progress to receive federal funding. The rate of progress will be measured by the following benchmarks and timelines: (1) whether the project has already been allowed to enter Preliminary Engineering (2 to 3 years after submission of the New Starts application), whether the project has already been issued a Record of Decision (additional 2 to 3 years), and the rate of progress being made toward receiving a Full Funding Grant Agreement (additional 3 to 4 years after receiving the Record of Decision). If not, the Parties agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and Rail Investment Plan which reflects this fact and sets out revised funding for transit projects and services. At the same time, there will be a similar assessment of whether the project is making reasonable progress toward receiving a State Full Funding Grant Agreement. If not, the Parties also agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and Rail Plan, as specified above for federal funding. III. Definition of"material" change. In section 12 of the agreement, definitions of material changes are given for several categories of revenues or costs. These definitions are given as percentages. The pie charts in Appendix A of the BRI Plan show the dollar amounts for costs and revenues. A comparison of section 12 with Appendix A appears to show that the dollar amounts for a material change could vary between $300,000 and almost $42 million. It would be prudent to recognize dollar amounts, or at least use smaller percentages for large dollar amounts. Here are the rough estimates for the five categories, along with total dollar amounts. Also given are the amounts that would be defined as a material change, given the percentages that are specified. All of these numbers would need to be verified by staff, and are given here for illustrative purposes. (A) Total revenues = $706.0 million 5% _ $35.3 million (B) LRT capital cost = $418.3 million 10% _ $41.8 million, 5% _ $20.9 million (C) LRT operating cost = $59.1 million 5% = about $3 million ($2.955 million) (D) Overall funds for bus service. This would appear to combine the costs for several categories: MLK bus lanes ($24.5 million), bus operations ($106.8 million), buses ($17.6 million), and bus capital projects ($6.7 million). The total amount is $155.6 million. If that total is correct, 5% _ $7.78 million If the MLK project is considered separately, then 5% = about $1.23 million. (E) Funds provided to bus operators = 5% or $300,000, whichever is greater, but it is not obvious where this amount would be in the summary information. Also in Appendix A there is $19.2 million for debt service. Presumably a lot of that would be for financing the LRT project. In addition, it is not obvious how the $8.9 million for the Hillsborough train station would be handled. The handout ends here. Commissioner Yuhasz asked what would happen with the revenue if there was a material change warranted and the three parties did not agree. Wib Gulley said that the monies would be put in escrow until an agreement would be reached. Frank Clifton said that the issue for him is that all of the costs and projections and revenues should not be allocated or spent without the Board's approval. Wib Gulley said that he agrees with the Manager, but the decision about how to spend the funds needs to have the support of the majority of the Board of County Commissioners before any decision is made. Chair Pelissier said that it is crucial to have the MPO as a signatory. She said that if the plan is not in the MPO Plan, it cannot be eligible for federal funds. She said that it is vital that everything in the plan also be part of the MPO's plans. She said that this is a regional plan and the towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough do not have representation on other transportation boards, but do have representation on the MPO. Therefore, the MPO should be part of this agreement. Commissioner McKee said that he does not believe the MPO should be a party to this agreement as a signatory because the Board of County Commissioners was elected by the citizens of Orange County and Triangle Transit is the transportation authority, so these two entities are the two responsible agencies. He said that he needs someone to explain to him how not having the MPO as a signatory to this agreement will cause this plan to crash and burn. Mark Ahrendsen, staff from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and Chair of the Technical Coordinating Committee, said that the legislation called for the development of a plan to be approved by three parties —the MPO, Triangle Transit Authority, and the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner McKee asked what would happen if the MPO were not a signatory. Mark Ahrendsen said that basically two parties could change the plan that three parties approved. This is the fundamental reason. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is in favor of having the MPO to be a part of this plan. Commissioner Jacobs asked Jim Ward about the underlying issues on the agreement and item #7. He asked if the disagreement had to do with supplantation or the ability to access additional funds beyond what is currently committed to Chapel Hill Transit as part of the plan. Jim Ward said that the level of funding will be maintained and the Town of Chapel Hill is not asking to supplant any funds with these new revenues. The issue is that there are a number of elements within the Implementation Agreement which are above and beyond what is legally required. The main issue is keeping the floor at the current level of service that was added in 2010. Steve Spade, Chapel Hill Transit Director, made reference to supplantation and hopefully increasing the amount of funds and said that Chapel Hill Transit has supported the cost allocation recommendations in the plan that break out the percentages of the funding that would go to the bus systems after paying for rent. The concern is how to use the funds that the plan allows them to have. Chapel Hill Transit is in support of adding new services, but there are also needs to continue the current operation. He said that they are not out to get more money. Commissioner Jacobs clarified with Steve Spade that it is an issue of reallocating funds within a pool of funds. A motion was made by Chair Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to direct staff to include the MPO as a signatory and to include the appropriate language. VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner McKee) Frank Clifton clarified that this vote means that all three parties will have to agree before changes are made. John Roberts said that the signatories to the agreement were the main sticking point between Orange County staff and Triangle Transit, and since that has been resolved they can bring the other smaller details back later. Chair Pelissier said that at the Triangle Transit Operation and Finance Committee meeting there was some discussion on this issue and there is a difference between making a legal determination on the definition of supplantation versus a policy decision on supplantation. She said that there was grave concern at this meeting that if Orange County allowed the use of the '/�-cent sales tax that it would probably stop Wake County from ever doing anything and putting it on a ballot. There is a lot of mistrust of government and if the County sells a plan as new services and then turns around and uses it for existing services, then the County will lose all credibility of the public. Commissioner Jacobs thanked Commissioner Gordon for her discussion of the MPO role. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would entertain an attempt from Chapel Hill Transit to provide a definition of the change in the document and then ask staff to analyze it. He thinks that the plan will serve people throughout the County. He thinks that most of the staff and elected officials have worked really hard to make sure that there is increased service throughout the County. As long as this basic premise is not being threatened, he is open to a proposal. Commissioner McKee said that this is becoming political. He is not sure that there are a dozen people in Orange County that could give a legally binding definition of supplantation. He does not even understand it fully. He has a real concern that this is a move away from what the County Commissioners should really be doing for the citizens. Commissioner Yuhasz said that 60% of the budget comes from the University and the scenario that the Board has heard is that the University is now putting satellite facilities out and may not need the same kind of services. Unless there is a commitment from the University to maintain their level of funding, there could be a significant drop in the funding to Chapel Hill Transit. He asked if Chapel Hill Transit would make up that significant amount of money from the '/�-cent sales tax, or if Chapel Hill Transit could meet its obligation to maintain the level of funding, much less the level of service. He is not opposed to working something out. Commissioner Hemminger suggested sitting down with both parties and specifying where all of the funds are coming from. Commissioner Gordon said that she thinks they should try and find a way to work with their partners to accommodate the case for changes in the agreement that Chapel Hill Transit has put forward. Chair Pelissier said that her concern is that UNC is not making any contribution to the transit plan but contributes 60% to Chapel Hill Transit. She does not want Orange County subsidizing UNC. She asked Steve Spade if there was any formal agreement about a continued commitment by UNC that does not put Chapel Hill Transit in jeopardy. Steve Spade said that there are a couple of agreements in place. One is that there is an annual agreement that is contractual with a cost allocation formula that determines how each of the partners pay. There are also requirements that UNC will be a member of the partnership as long as there will be development in Carolina North. Discussion ensued between the County Commissioners and Steve Spade. Commissioner McKee noted that the University's ability to fund at any particular level is contingent upon the legislature. Chair Pelissier said that what she hears is that there is no specific direction on this issue, but the parties will continue to work on this issue and see what kind of recommendations will come back. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to be more specific and invite a proposal from Chapel Hill Transit in consultation with other partners to include in the Implementation Agreement that would address the concerns that Chapel Hill Transit has raised without straying beyond the parameters that are already within the agreement. A motion was made by Chair Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon then went through the language on item II of her suggested changes, as shown below: II. Assessment of progress in getting federal and state funding Here is suggested language, adding benchmarks and also adding state funding to the assessment process. 10. (second number 10). Eight years after the date of execution of this Agreement, the Parties agree to assess if the New Starts application for the LRT project in the Plan is still in the federal pipeline for New Starts rail projects and making reasonable progress to receive federal funding. The rate of progress will be measured by the following benchmarks and timelines: (1) whether the project has already been allowed to enter Preliminary Engineering (2 to 3 years after submission of the New Starts application), whether the project has already been issued a Record of Decision (additional 2 to 3 years), and the rate of progress being made toward receiving a Full Funding Grant Agreement (additional 3 to 4 years after receiving the Record of Decision). If not, the Parties agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and Rail Investment Plan which reflects this fact and sets out revised funding for transit projects and services. At the same time, there will be a similar assessment of whether the project is making reasonable progress toward receiving a State Full Funding Grant Agreement. If not, the Parties also agree to work collaboratively to develop an Alternative Bus and Rail Plan, as specified above for federal funding. Commissioner Hemminger made reference to section 8 that says that every four years the plan is reviewed by the parties. She thinks that the entities will review all aspects and she does not feel the need to put in benchmarks right now that might be significantly different four years from now. Chair Pelissier concurred with Commissioner Hemminger. Commissioner Jacobs agreed that it may not be appropriate to set benchmarks at this point but they should be built into the process. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the idea of some kind of benchmarks is a good idea, and he suggested taking this back to the technical people for some regional benchmarks. Frank Clifton suggested amending the paragraph indicating that the three entities will come back with a set of benchmarks in four years for further determination. The Board agreed. Commissioner McKee made reference to the margin note, JR13, "The Manager proposes a new subsection to be added, which requires any increase in tax revenues above those forecast to be allocated within the sole discretion of Orange County." He thinks that in order to ensure that this Board can direct funds to local bus service that there needs to be a discretionary amount. He requested that this be included. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is not interested in this and that it is a partnership. Chair Pelissier agreed. Commissioner Gordon made reference to her item II on her sheet regarding State funding. She said that there should be something in the agreement about State funding. Chair Pelissier said that when they spoke of benchmarks, she presumed that they were benchmarks in general and included federal and state. Commissioner Gordon said that in #8 there should be some mention about securing state funding because it is not addressed. Chair Pelissier said that the Board is giving general direction to staff and it will come back with appropriate language. Commissioner Gordon made reference to item III on her sheet concerning the definition of"material" change and reviewed this. III. Definition of"material" change. In section 12 of the agreement, definitions of material changes are given for several categories of revenues or costs. These definitions are given as percentages. The pie charts in Appendix A of the BRI Plan show the dollar amounts for costs and revenues. A comparison of section 12 with Appendix A appears to show that the dollar amounts for a material change could vary between $300,000 and almost $42 million. It would be prudent to recognize dollar amounts, or at least use smaller percentages for large dollar amounts. Here are the rough estimates for the five categories, along with total dollar amounts. Also given are the amounts that would be defined as a material change, given the percentages that are specified. All of these numbers would need to be verified by staff, and are given here for illustrative purposes. (A) Total revenues = $706.0 million 5% _ $35.3 million (B) LRT capital cost = $418.3 million 10% _ $41.8 million, 5% _ $20.9 million (C) LRT operating cost = $59.1 million 5% = about $3 million ($2.955 million) (D) Overall funds for bus service. This would appear to combine the costs for several categories: MLK bus lanes ($24.5 million), bus operations ($106.8 million), buses ($17.6 million), and bus capital projects ($6.7 million). The total amount is $155.6 million. If that total is correct, 5% _ $7.78 million If the MLK project is considered separately, then 5% = about $1.23 million. (E) Funds provided to bus operators = 5% or $300,000, whichever is greater, but it is not obvious where this amount would be in the summary information. Also in Appendix A there is $19.2 million for debt service. Presumably a lot of that would be for financing the LRT project. In addition, it is not obvious how the $8.9 million for the Hillsborough train station would be handled. Commissioner Gordon noted that the amount of money in a "material" change varies greatly from one category to another. Wib Gulley said that A, B, C, D, and E speak to different circumstances. He said that the logic is that you can bring every change to the plan and it has to be brought back to all three parties. Some changes are so small that the thought was to look at meaningful changes only to the plan. Chair Pelissier suggested getting a revised copy at the next meeting and if there are questions, then the County Commissioners can submit those with comments to staff. Commissioner Gordon said that the next TAC meeting of the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro MPO is October 10th. She said that it is critical to have this Implementation Agreement finalized by October 10th before the referendum goes to the voters in November. 8. Reports a. Update on the NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail — Oranqe County Section The Board considered an update on the progress of establishing a section of the NC Mountains-to-Sea State Trail through Orange County, as directed by the Board in June. Director of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation Dave Stancil made a PowerPoint presentation. Land Conservation Manager Rich Shaw presented a portion of the PowerPoint presentation. NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail Orange County Section NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST) What and Where is the MST? • Concept in 1973 (proposed rustic trail thru 37 counties) • Authorized by Gen. Assembly 2000 (NC Park System) • 1,000-mile footpath (Great Smoky Mtns - Outer Banks) • Nearly 530 miles open for use Eastern Piedmont section is challenging NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail thru Orange County - Around 28 miles - Eno River -> Hillsborough -> Seven Mile Creek -> Cane Creek - Natural and cultural points of interest along the route NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail Segment thru Orange County Partners - State Trails Program (NCDENR & trust funds) - Friends of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail - Orange County - Town of Hillsborough - Eno River State Park - OWASA - Private landowners (voluntary)! NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail thru Orange County How We Got Here - State corridor planning sessions 2005-07 - State Parks approved Eastern Piedmont Corridor (2008) - BOCC viewed planning corridor (2009) - Review by advisory boards & town councils - BOCC endorsed State's corridor (2010) - Collaborating with Hillsborough - 7-Mile Creek Preserve planning/acquisition - Coordinating with OWASA OWASA Cane Creek Reservoir Lands - OWASA BoD supports MST initiative (Dec 2009) o Must be consistent with primary mission (providing safe & reliable drinking water) o No compromise of water quality o No expenditure of OWASA funds - Field reconnaissance (still underway) - County/FMST report to OWASA staff(upcoming) - Public input/ involvement (upcoming) - OWASA BoD consideration/approval (upcoming) Public Information Efforts to Date - Neighborhood meetings & tours (spring/summer) - MST Open House (August 13) - Websites, Email updates, FAQs - Public meetings (Q&A session) - On-line questionnaire (upcoming) Dave Stancil said that there would be a Q&A forum to allow residents an opportunity to ask their questions. Chair Pelissier made note of the time and said that she would cut off public comments at 11:25. She said that any other members of the public that wish to make comments may submit them in writing. PUBLIC COMMENT: Martha Keating read a prepared statement: - I am representing all homes who share a border with OWASA land on Thunder Mountain o Art and Martha Keating, 7508 Thunder Mountain o Harry Nelson, 7401 Thunder Mountain o Travis and Prity Kukovich, 7113 Thunder Mountain o Alex and Anne Gordon, 7101 Thunder Mountain o Greg and Linda Smith, 6701 Thunder Mountain - We are the only residents on Thunder Mountain that share property borders with OWASA - We do not represent the entire Thunder Mountain Community - Our 5 households do not oppose the MTS and embrace the potential of having public access to beautiful land that we have been fortunate enough to live near for many years - Our support for this proposed section of the MTS is contingent upon: o The location of the trail being placed on the agreed upon alternate routes (farthest from the houses) by the residents closest to the MTS. o MTS being used as a footpath hike-through section (no bicycles, motorized vehicles, horses, etc.) o MTS being open from dawn until dusk, with no overnight camping or fires permitted o The county being able to provide a suitable location for parking at posted access points to divert anyone from parking or accessing the MTS from Thunder Mountain o OWASA's commitment to preserve the scenic beauty of this land such that it is not subjected to timbering - Done properly, we believe this segment of the MTS would have no significant adverse impact to the water quality of the Cane Creek Reservoir - We believe this is a rare opportunity for the residents of this area of Orange County to work together to be part of a positive legacy for generations to come. Joe Boyle said that there are supporters and those in opposition to this trail. He wants to learn about this issue. He said that there did not seem to be a market for this trail. He would like to know the original motive for this MTST. Audrey Booth read a prepared statement. "I am Audrey Booth. It is my pleasure to address the Orange County Commissioners in order to bring a ringing endorsement of the Mountains to Sea Trail and for the local link that we may offer to make it as seamless as possible. We, in the Piedmont, are fortunate to be the beneficiaries of the vision of Western NC environmentalists and decades of fund raising and sweat equity. It is the "Trickle Across NC Theory." We have an opportunity to help "pay it forward" with our region's public and scenic land to extend the trail. The Falls Lake trail and bridges, already paid for and built, await the link from Cane Creek. I have understanding and respect for the uneasiness that some neighbors from the aera have even though the trail will not be on their personal property. I come from a farm background too and we lived far apart and privately, thanks to the land of others. My 20 years in land conservation in Orange County and the Greenways Commission in Chapel Hill, further taught me the important of addressing that fear of invasion of privacy by fully answering all questions. I understand that has happened. Perhaps a visit to Falls Lake link or other western links in the trail would be reassuring to those who are still uneasy. The Cane Creek trail link is a tiny but sparkling component in an ambitious and wonderful vision of a 930-mile trail from Pilot Mountain to Jockey's Ridge. I sincerely hope that we will contribute a small piece of our gem to "Trail Trickle" through the scenic Piedmont." Carl Shy read a prepared statement. "Re: Section of Mountains to Sea Trail Proposed for OWASA Property at Cane Creek "My name is Carl Shy. I own property whose southern border is approximately 2,000 feet from the proposed MTS trail through OWASA property. I am strongly in favor of the location of this section of the trail, which will pass through some of the most beautiful parts of Orange County, containing a dense and large variety of native trees and shrubs, rolling landscape and views of the Cane Creek Reservoir. At present most of this OWASA property, other than the waters of the reservoir, are not accessible for public use and enjoyment. I believe that my neighbors will value living close to and having the use of this wonderful recreational asset. Three concerns are commonly raised by persons living near public trails: safety (including crime and trespassing), littering, and decline of property values. Regarding safety, a number of studies have been published on the Internet. One study in particular, performed by the Rail-to-Trail Conservancy, received responses to survey questions from managers of 372 rail-to-trails throughout the U. S. Overall, the results showed that the rate of major crimes is extremely low on trails compared with rates in comparable nearby urban, suburban and rural locations. Likewise, minor crimes such as trespassing and graffiti were similarly relatively rare and far less common then in comparable areas. Littering of a minor nature was reported as occurring on only '/4 of the trails. A number of neighborhood groups near trails were organized to monitor sections of trails and to perform periodic clean up. Overall, littering was not considered to be a problem issue. According to evaluations by real estate agents, proximity to trails had no negative effect on property values, and in some cases proximity to trails was considered an asset in the sale of a home. Some recommendations have been proposed in the literature for minimizing potential problems with safety, littering and trespassing: 1) Do not allow motor vehicles on trails. Law enforcement officers say a potential criminal is often deterred from criminal action when he/she does not have the use of an escape vehicle. 2) Keep the trail clean and well maintained. This discourages littering and other types of trail abuses. 3) Foster the organization of volunteer community or neighborhood trail patrols to perform periodic inspection and clean up of trails. The majority of rail-to-trail locations have developed some type of patrol organizations." Allan Green lives on the corner of Dairyland and Orange Grove Road. He said that he is an enthusiastic backpacker and he wished he lived on the MTST. He is the Bingham Township representative of the Parks and Recreation Board. He has also hiked the entire MTST section of Orange and Durham Counties. He is in favor of this section being in the OWASA corridor. He hopes that there would be an economic benefit from people using the trail with trail shops, etc. Bonnie Hauser was speaking for Orange County Voice. She lives in Bingham Township and she lives on the swath of the MTST. She said that this is a connector project and connects existing green spaces throughout the state. In Orange County, the trail connects the Eno River State Park, the Occaneechi Speedway Trail, Ayr Mount, and Hillsborough's River Walk. The advantage of having the trail go this route is that the Hillsborough River Walk and Alamance's Haw River Trail get priority for grant funding. She supports the citizens that do not want the trail going through their property. Orange County Voice recommends that work on the Bingham segment of the trail be stopped until some things such as security and safety are clarified. Christine Silva read a prepared statement: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 Orange County Board of Commissioners Meeting From Christine Silva, Thunder Mt., Efland, NC 27243 Request to Oranqe County Board of Commissioners to Create A Motion to Eliminate the Mountain-to-Sea Trail Seqment Throuqh the Cane Creek Watershed Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns over the proposed Mountain to Sea Trail (MST) through the Cane Creek watershed. I respectfully request that my presentation this evening be part of the official record of this meeting. It is commendable that through the years, from its creation to the present day, OWASA has steadfastly protected the Cane Creek Reservoir. It is also commendable that Orange County has hundreds of miles of trails already in existence for hikers and continues to develop trails to keep our residents and visitors happy and fit. Since there are hundreds of miles of trails already in existence in Orange County, the small segment of the proposed MST through the Cane Creek watershed offers no meaningful gain for the county and its citizens. It does, however, present serious concerns and loss of privacy in a rural environment. Perhaps, those rural residents who support the Cane Creek segment can offer their driveways to hikers looking for a place to park so they can access the proposed MST Cane Creek segment! In years to come, this segment could be detrimental to the peaceful rural Cane Creek community as this area of the township is literally placed on the map. There is no controlled access to the Cane Creek segment of the trail. One modest fire and those who rely on the water provided from the Cane Creek Reservoir— Chapel Hill and Carrboro —will be asking questions to the government entities that permitted an unregulated trail through the reservoir. Of course OWASA will come under fire for permitting unregulated access to a trail within yards of the reservoir. Furthermore, the area of land behind Thunder Mountain is small and narrow. If the trail is moved one way it is unacceptably close to private residences; and if the trail is moved the other way, it is placed literally on top of the reservoir. Years ago, the decision to protect and secure the water supply showed great wisdom and insight into the future. The Orange County Commissioners would be serving the best interest of all who rely on the water today and for years to come, if they eliminate the proposed segment of the MST that goes through the Cane Creek watershed. Thus, I want to put forth a request to our Commissioners that they make a motion and vote to eliminate the MST through the Cane Creek watershed. Thank you, Christine Silva cc: Ed Holland (EHolland(a�owasa.orq) OWASA Bob Epting (bobeptinq(c�qmail.com) OWASA NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT— A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to enter into the public record all comments and to submit them to the Clerk, along with all emails. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Landfill Neiqhborhood Illeqal Dumpinq Cleanup/Collection Update The Board received an update on the landfill neighborhood cleanup activity authorized by the Board of Orange County Commissioners (BOCC) at its March 13, 2012 meeting. 9. County Manaqer's Report DEFERRED 10. County Attorney's Report DEFERRED 11. Appointments a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to appoint Ms. Teri Driscoll to a one-year training term for the At-Large position with the one-year training term expiring 09/30/2013. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Advisory Board on Aqinq —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Advisory Board on Aging. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Mr. Richard White to a first full term for the At-large Position with the term ending 06/30/2015. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Mr. Daniel Hatley to a first full term, ending on 06/30/2015. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Oranqe County Arts Commission —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Arts Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Mr. Todd Neal to a partial first term expiring 03/31/2014. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Board of Health —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Board of Health. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to appoint Mr. Alexander White to the Citizen/Commissioner position for a first full term expiring 06/30/2015. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Oranqe County Housinq Authority Board —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Housing Authority Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Ms. Diane Beecham to a partial first term expiring 06/30/2014. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Mrs. Dee Jackola to a partial first term expiring 06/30/2014. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments DEFERRED 13. Information Items • September 6, 2012 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request for Additional Board Action on Fracking • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request by Commissioner Earl McKee - Mountains-to-Sea Trail • BOCC Chair Letter Requesting Additional Public Meeting Regarding Mountains-to-Sea Trail • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request by Commissioner Barry Jacobs - Burlington- Graham MPO • BOCC Chair Letter Requesting Support for Creation of Alternative Energy Task Force • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding County's Pet Identification Policy • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request That County Ban Certain Wells • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Request by Commissioner Earl McKee - Recognition of Volunteer Fire Departments 14. Closed Session DEFERRED "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(5). 15. Adiournment A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the meeting at 11:26 P.M. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board