HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080401 APPROVED 5/1/2008
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 1, 2008 RECONVENED FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2008
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses
Carey, Jr., Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill and Brian Ferrell
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon and Clerk to the Board
Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Craufurd
Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Renee Price, Judith Wegner, Michelle Kempinski, Bernadette Pelissier,
Jeffrey Schmitt,
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Knight, Sandra Johnson-Quinn,and
Brian Crawford
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Jacobs encouraged everyone that is going to speak to not repeat what has already
been said at the previous public hearing.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
The Clerk to the Board swore in the public citizens scheduled to speak.
1. Buckhorn Village Planned Development: Request by Buckhorn Road
Associates to rezone approximately 130 acres along Buckhorn Road from I-85/Buckhorn
Road Economic Development District (EDD) to Buckhorn Village Planned Development
EDD.
Craig Benedict: I have been sworn. This item, as has been stated, is the reconvening of the
February 25, 2008 public hearing, which was reconvened to tonight, a date certain, and it
involves the Buckhorn Village Planned Development, which is a rezoning from the I-
85/Buckhorn EDD to the Buckhorn Village Planned Development. This involves both a rezoning
and a special use permit. At the previous meeting, the applicant provided information
concerning their application and staff went through the criteria for both the rezoning and the
special use permit and stated which parts of the application met the criteria. Also, at the last
meeting, there were questions and comments from the public, and the majority of that public
hearing took that information and staff made notes of it as well as the applicant. The applicant
will be responding in writing tonight concerning some of those comments. Tonight's meeting,
the intent primarily is to be able to have time to hear from both the Planning Board and the
Commission about the application and to ask additional questions. There is also the opportunity
tonight for the applicant to submit additional evidence based on questions they had at the
previous meeting. At the conclusion of whatever we get through tonight, there are some options
within the abstract about convening into another public hearing or directing things to the
Planning Board for their deliberation, as shown in Options A, B, C, or D. There's not additional
staff presentation necessary tonight. The main intent is to hear additional questions so that the
applicant can respond with additional testimony or direct it to where the information is. The
applicant does have additional evidence they would like to provide. I'll turn it over to the
applicant representative.
Bill Hutchins: I'm the attorney for the applicant, and at this time, I would like to call Vic Knight
as a witness who is going to provide testimony as to how the project will affect the value of the
contiguous property. Mr. Knight, if you'll come up and state your name and your qualifications
and confirm that you have been sworn.
Vic Knight: I am a certified residential appraiser here in Orange County and have been
operating Chapel Hill Appraisals for close to 25 years, and have done a number of impact
analyses here in the County, including some of the previous cell tower locations, more
specifically, the Martin-Marietta quarry operation down on 54, we've made presentations to you
before. I do have an analysis here, I'll pass out some copies, and one original. I have been
sworn. Briefly, I was requested by the applicant to do an impact analysis on the surrounding
area of the Buckhorn Village development. These pages will summarize my findings in that.
Looking at the project and making the assumption that it was 100% complete, as proposed, I've
been given copies of a variety of their plans —transportation plans, land use plans, etc. —there
are select copies in your report as well. In looking at that, what we basically did was tour the
location with kind of a bird's eye view of the area and the surrounding communities and started
looking at various plans to make sure we kind of understood what was going to be proposed in
the area. Immediately, we began to look at competing or similar locations. I chose one that
we've used and done considerable amount of analysis with. The Wildwood subdivision, which
is located off of NC 86, just south of Hillsborough, which most folks would recognize being down
across from Piedmont Electric and more or less behind the Wal-Mart shopping center and
Home Depot. That subdivision has been in existence for quite some time, and the reason we're
choosing that as the beginning point was to get a general understanding of what's been
happening in there in terms of its appreciation levels, the market reacting to that location for a
couple of different reasons —one, it is close to the interstate, it is also on a major north/south
arterial here in the County. After looking at the analysis, which is contained on the back side of
the report, the analysis, over approximately the last 15 years, that particular development has in
fact been on average looking at about a 5.5% appreciation level. There have been a number of
sales and re-sales in that particular location that shows that continuation of appreciation in that
location. It also includes sales and re-sales in the Wildwood subdivision after the construction
and occupancy of Wal-Mart as well as Home Depot. In effect, what has happened with the
major commercial operation coming to that area, there hasn't been any negative effect on the
Wildwood subdivision over an extended period of time, including the creation of that particular
Hampton Pointe location.
The next step is to basically look at other locations and see whether or not it might be
unique in its own fashion, what would that do to Hillsborough, or Orange County, or some other
particular dynamic that might be going on. So, the next best location that begins to reach
similarity to this particular project is frankly, Southpoint mall in southern Durham. There are a
number of pages in the report. We looked at three different residential subdivisions in that area,
all of which are immediately south of the Southpoint mall location. If you can visualize a
triangulation between 751 and the east side of Southpoint, in essence come to a "V" south of
that location about a mile and a half or so. There's a series of residential subdivisions in there
and these all cluster together around each other. Buckhorn Village is one of them, Chancellor's
Ridge, and Eagle's Point. Looking at all three of those, they are newer in terms of age of
creation. They are roughly about eight years of age or less, but there are a number of sales and
re-sales in the development so you can begin to gauge the effect of that location and what
potential appreciation levels might exist, if any. In the Buckhorn Village, over that period of time,
there was about 4.6%; at Eagle's Point there's about 4%; and Chancellor's Ridge is 5.3%.
Coupling that with the proposed improvements as if 100% complete, I can't find any evidence
that would indicate that this particular location and the surrounding properties would be
negatively influenced by the Buckhorn Village development at all. I'd be glad to take any
questions.
Bill Hutchins: At this time I'd like to call Jim Parker of Southern Engineering, who is going to
provide some testimony as to how the developer has addressed some of the concerns raised in
our last hearing.
Jim Parker: I have been sworn. Just briefly, we received from the Planning staff after the
public hearing in February a list of questions from the public that was brought up here and some
questions that were generated from some committee meetings —the EDC and a few other
committee meetings within the County and within this area —and we have responded to those,
and I'd like to submit these as evidence. The staff already has copies of this, but this is just an
official submittal.
Chair Jacobs: To the staff, could we get a copy of the same list of questions and concerns?
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Charles Bowman: I have been sworn. I have lived in the Buckhorn community all of my life. I
own 33 acres right beside Petro, I've lived there for 38 years, and I've wondered when this was
going to happen. I'm looking forward to it happening, and I hope the Commissioners take it into
consideration to pass it because we have nothing on that end of the County; everything is in
Hillsborough towards the other end of the County, and we need something down on our end. It
may not be the best thing in the world to happen, but at least it's a start.
Adam Klein: I have been sworn. I am the Director of Government Relations and Economic
Development for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, and I wanted to talk a little bit
about Buckhorn Village and sort of the process that the Chamber is going through to review this
project. In February and March, the Chamber's Board of Directors and Government Relations
Committee reviewed the plan for the proposed Buckhorn Village and both voted unanimously to
support the project. There are three key, I would say, aspects of this project that both the board
and the committee particularly would like to bring up tonight. First, is that this project is locating
in a long-identified economic development district. This is land that has been set aside
specifically for this purpose. There is now a project that's been brought forward that's exactly
what this zoning is designed for. Second, is the amount of tax revenue that would be generated
by Buckhorn Village. In the winter, the Chamber contracted with a UNC graduate student to
basically analyze the economic impact of Buckhorn Village and found pretty strong results. If
you look at the sales tax revenue from the construction phase to the first year of operation, we
estimate that this project will generate somewhere around $6.5 million of taxes for Orange
County. That number factors out the amount of tax that would go to the State and to other
counties. In addition to that, we estimate that 1,700 jobs would be created for Orange County
residents, 2,500 jobs in all. When you consider those numbers in light of the budget situation
right now, that is much needed revenue with the long-term liability of this County. The third
point that I want to bring up is that this was a project that was initiated by you as
Commissioners, along with your Economic Development staff. You've handpicked three
excellent developers from Orange County, all are intimately familiar with the culture and values
in this County, and we're confident that they're going to deliver a good project. The last point I
want to make is that the Chamber would encourage the developers to include as many local
businesses as possible in this project. We're confident that they're going to do that in
conversations that we've had with them, both publicly and privately, they've expressed a similar
sentiment. That's really all I have tonight, I want to thank you all for your time and
consideration. On behalf of the Chamber, we ask that you would approve the rezoning of this
project.
Don Collins: I'm a direct property owner. I own property that directly adjoins this particular
property that is under discussion at two points. I own two properties. My thing is
congratulations, this thing has been years getting off the ground. I've had a sign on my property
for years for lease. If I've had one call, I've had a hundred from the Winston-Salem and
Greensboro area that says that this is probably one of the prime locations in the country for this
type of thing. Their comment was that it's near to the interstates, so I congratulate these people
for getting something rolling like that. Just go up there on Sunday morning, I used to do it, and
you can't hardly get through the place. Now, maybe something will get going, and I'm for it
100%.
James Carnahan: I'm a resident of Carrboro and I have been sworn. I wanted to clarify the
purpose of the materials that I submitted at the previous public hearing. Those materials
consisted primarily of information about the phenomena known as global warming, or climate
change— a phenomenon that is a consequence of carbon dioxide emissions primarily resulting
from human activity. A number of those consequences are dire. The point of submitting them is
not so much that I or any of the others who have been working on this could say specifically for
sure that this or that consequence is going to happen over the next ten years or in the next two
generations hence, but that the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is continually
accelerating, and a number of the indicators of the change in average temperature of the planet
are also speeding up. The point is that, for many of us, a lot of the worse consequences that
are possible given this planetary activity may not happen in my lifetime or even in the lifetime of
the youngest person in this room, but that as long as we continue on the path that we're on, we
are accelerating the possibility that these things will happen sooner rather than later and that we
are compromising the prospects for future human beings on this planet to enjoy the quality of
life that we now enjoy and would like our children to enjoy. And the fact of the matter is, at least
in my opinion, none of our policy documents reflects climate change as something that gives us
guidance in the kind of land use, and transportation, and economic models that we want to see
in this County. And we have a three- or four-decade history in this County of a very prudent
approach to development that is supported by a really strong environmental ethic. And now,
what we're looking at is one of the most significant phenomena taking place now on the planet.
And what that says to me is that until we've completed a carbon emissions inventory for the
County and until we have set goals and until we know the kind of land use models, and
transportation models, and economic models that we want, it's totally inappropriate and
imprudent to approve this project.
The Clerk then swore in some additional citizens that wished to speak.
Joe Phelps: I just had a few comments and maybe a suggestion later. I'm not really for or
against the project. One of the things that concerns me, I agree with most of the people that I
think it could be a great thing for the County, but I'd want to make sure that we look at
everything so it was a successful project and not a project that wasn't successful. I was Mayor
of Hillsborough when the Waterstone project was approved, and that project went through
several public hearings. One of my suggestions was that we had an informational meeting,
unlike a public hearing, and it was held at the Big Barn, and it was kind of a floating time, the
developer was there. Some of this information that was presented like during the first public
hearing, the room was kind of full and nobody on the left-hand side got to see the presentation.
So, if the developer was open to that, I would suggest maybe coming in the afternoon, or a day,
or a Saturday, or sometime that they would be able to present so that everyone could see what
information was presented and what it was going to look like. I know you can probably get that
information by individually bothering the County staff and Planning department, but I think that
would be a much easier way in having the developer there to answer questions for the people
who do have concerns. I think it would be a good thing, but I certainly wouldn't want to speed
through it as Waterstone took quite a while and a lot of giving on the part of the developer to get
it approved. I would hope the County would at least consider that. There was one comment
that a speaker made that I would like put in a different perspective. They stated something to
the effect that housing in the County costs the tax base. There is an economist at a state
college that disputes that fact. So I just wanted to bring that up, I'm not saying that commercial
doesn't more than pay for its way, but also there are economists that disagree with the
statement that was made earlier. I can get that economist's name for the public record if we
need to.
Mike Cross Hardin: I'm a local homeowner and I wanted to voice my concern for the project, I
think it's a great thing. Just as an aside, I also happen to be an environmental engineer, and I'm
not overly concerned that the project is going to contribute to the warming of the globe.
David Caring: I've lived in Alamance County, Orange County, and also Durham County. My
dad was founder of East Side Baptist Church in Mebane, North Carolina, so I'm very familiar
with the area here and what goes on here. I live within a mile of where that project's going to be
as the crow flies right off of Buckhorn Road there. I own 22 acres there. I knew when I bought
there that this was a growing area, and I think most people knew that this was a growing area. I
think it should not be denied, I think it would be good for our economy, good for our community,
and I think it would be a plus for Hillsborough and Orange County. I'd just like to make that
known tonight.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Carey: Everything I've read is an indicator that the residential property does
not pay for itself, and I'd like for this former Mayor to get the name and if that economist has
ever written anything, get us a citation for that, because I'd like to see it. That would be the first
time in a long time that I've seen anything to the contrary about the contribution of residential
property to paying the bills and providing services. Also, the document that the engineer
presented indicated that he's responded to some questions that were raised last time. I know
we will get that, but I think we need to make sure the public gets that. Perhaps staff can figure
out a way to get it on the website or something so that many of the people who raised the
questions that may not be here would be able to know that the questions had been responded
to.
Chair Jacobs: Well, if the developer decides to take up Mr. Phelps' suggestion for the public
information session, they could bring the questions and responses to that meeting.
Commissioner Nelson: First, I want to correct one statement that was made by Adam Klein
from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. It's not correct to say that there was
unanimity; there was a split vote on whether or not to proceed with this. I thought there were
some key questions that needed to be discussed in a public way before proceeding with this.
So, it's not really accurate. A couple of things were raised at the last time we discussed this and
I wanted to ask some questions about. Some are specific to the project, but some are bigger
picture things, because as you know, this is a legislative decision. The first question I had, there
were comments made, evidence presented that the 1-85 bridge would have to be widened and
some other road developments would have to be made. Who is going to pay for these?
Jim Parker: At this time, it would be on the back of the development. At this time.
Commissioner Nelson: At this time, do you think it's going to change?
Jim Parker: Possibly somebody could bring some money into the situation. DOT has certain
areas that we could explore, but currently, improvements that are in the TIA in the proposal are
based on the development itself, so it's their responsibility.
Commissioner Nelson: There are also some tax revenue figures in the document that was
presented. Have we done any analysis of our own to see what our estimates are?
Laura Blackmon: No, we currently do not have any estimates.
Commissioner Nelson: Can we get that? Along those same lines, I'd be interested in
knowing what the net economic impact would be of this project. We have a Chamber of
Commerce that talked only about the benefits, but there are costs. One of the presenters last
time made a significant comment about the wages of these jobs — retail jobs, hotel jobs of$8-9
an hour, which means government subsidizing. If you make $8 an hour, somebody's going to
have to subsidize your childcare; somebody's going to have to subsidize your child's free lunch
or reduced lunch. So, what are the net costs of this development for the community?
And he also stated that there would be 1,500 jobs, which would be great, but we only have
about 2,300 unemployed people in Orange County right now. My question is where those 1,500
people are going to come from. Are they going to move into Orange County to work at this
shopping center, and if so, where are they going to live? If they get $8 an hour, they're going to
need affordable housing.
Are there going to be other economic development incentives sought for this project besides the
potential 1-85 widening?
Jim Parker: At this time, I can't answer that question, but I will respond to that in writing when I
find out for sure. There could be several.
Commissioner Nelson: If there are, I think that needs to be brought up and put on the table in
a public place for the public to discuss.
The last sort of comment I have is about land use development and the comments that James
Carnahan made about global warming. I think it's easy to sort of laugh that off, you know, one
project doesn't have a significant impact on global warming. But the real key point that is trying
to be made, when we all talk about running for office, we talk about it on every street when
we're brainstorming the values of the County we want to pursue, is that you have to change
land use patterns if you're going to address global warming. So, my question, and I guess this
is to our Economic Development staff, is that we have three EDDs, and this is the one that's
furthest away from population centers. So, why put a shopping center in a place that's the
furthest away from the population center where people are going to have to drive? Why not use
one of the EDDs that are closer to the population center? I don't disagree that we need more
retail. Liberals agree with that, conservatives agree with that, republicans agree with that,
democrats agree with that; Orange County needs more retail. But if you're serious, as we say
we are, about global warming, why put this shopping center, which is going to have thousands,
and thousands, and thousands of vehicle miles traveled furthest away from the population
center where you have other alternatives?
The final thing, I'm a little troubled that we have so little vision for our economic development
districts and how we're going to develop them. When this first came up, I started asking
questions, "What is our plan for these EDDs?" What I remember from reading the paper,
because I wasn't on the Commission then, was that the plan for these EDDs was for research,
and development, that kind of thing. I don't remember ever reading major shopping center. So
I asked staff what is our plan for these EDDs? What I got was this stack of paper, and I had to
go through and read minutes from about 10-15 years of meetings, and sure enough, my
memory is correct, as far as I can tell, there really wasn't a vision articulated for the EDDs that
they would be shopping centers. The vision that was articulated was more substantive
economic development with a retail component in certain circumstances. The step that never
happened was coming back and making a plan for each one of these EDDs. I have some real
concerns about this shopping center in this particular place. Without any plan for what we want
to have done in those EDDs, a real plan, it makes it hard to argue that this is right and it makes
it hard to argue that it's wrong.
In our economic development plan, we have stated that we are searching for 5,000 new jobs in
Orange County. Has there been any articulation of what kind of jobs? Not all jobs are equal.
When I talk to people, they're not wanting new jobs for their kids at $8 an hour. My question for
staff is have we articulated what kind of jobs we're seeking when we do economic development
recruitment? What kind of businesses are we going to bring into Orange County that would
raise the quality of life and that give people opportunities to grow and give families opportunities
to expand? Not all jobs are equal and it's really hard to argue that $8 an hour retail jobs are
what we want for this County.
Chair Jacobs: I have a whole list of questions. I'm going to start with the small and move to
the large. On page 14, it talks about independent retail and service establishments and
discussed a ban on drive-throughs. We do in fact have a very detailed plan for the Hillsborough
EDD, despite what Commissioner Nelson may think, and in that we ban any drive-through
windows. I would suggest that I would oppose any drive-through windows in any development
in any economic development district in Orange County. If you want to talk about pollution,
that's a great way to needlessly pollute with one's vehicle.
On page 15, and then the charts on 16 about condominiums, there's no mention in here about
having affordable units, and I know if we were in Chapel Hill, they require a certain percentage.
I would hope that the developers would dedicate a percentage of each of these clusters or units
to be affordable units as defined within Orange County.
I had a question about District II versus District III in this comprehensive use plan map between
16 and 17. I just wondered how much you took into account the impact of having District III
closer to more of the lower density residential units and whether you thought that there was
more traffic and other impact from District III than District II. I couldn't really tell, but my
inclination is that District III actually might be more disruptive of the community than District II.
So, I would just be curious as to what the thinking was. And then something that Commissioner
Nelson said that I also wanted to point out, on page 17 at the bottom, it does say the EDD
Design Manual for the uses of light industrial and distribution uses. One of the questions that
was asked was about incentives and certainly the Department of Commerce is more
predisposed to support non-retail uses in considering whether or not to allocate any state
incentives. I was wondering why the developers decided not to include any light industrial or
even flex space in this development. I also think if you're going to have housing units within
these districts, that you might want to consider if you want to make it a viable community, that
there be some kind of recreation that people could access, whether it is a fitness area or
something. Because if you want them to actually stay there and live there, then you want to
make it somewhat livable.
On page 21, there's a whole discussion of transit. I would hope that the developers would
consider contributing to the public transit line that the County is discussing that would run
east/west on US 70 that might easily include this development so that people wouldn't have to
use automobiles to get there, so people who maybe couldn't afford an automobile could get
there, or were too young or too old to be driving to get there.
On page 22, it talks about designated smoking areas, and I would suggest that you might want
to reconsider whether or not we want to have designated smoking areas in a development in
Orange County.
On page 24, you talk about the stormwater impoundments and best management practices. I
think I saw it, and I'm assuming that you'll use those waters, especially now that the State has
become a little more flexible, to do your irrigation as opposed to having to use any potable
water.
I was also concerned what we're talking about on page 40 regarding the signage, the maximum
height being 50 feet. I'd just be interested in knowing more clearly what kind of lighting we're
talking about, what kind of sign we're talking about. There's some discussion later on, on pages
49 and 50 about relaxing some of the buffers in order, I assume, to make development and
signage more visible, but we also heard people speaking the other night who were concerned
about losing the green buffer along the interstate because it would make it louder. And as
somebody who lives about a third of a mile from 1-40 and 1-85, I can tell you it makes a big
difference. When they widen from four lanes to eight lanes and took out a lot of trees, it made a
tremendous difference. So, I would be really cautious about how much I would be willing to
reduce the buffer along the interstate or reduce buffers near residential areas. And I know
there's some discussion in here about that.
There's also mention of a public building site, but it's pretty vague. Mayor Phelps mentioned
Waterstone, the developer of Waterstone actually gave the Town a site and I believe is helping
them build the fire station. This is just a proposal to set aside a parcel with no clear offer of
anything - a gift to the public, a reduced price, a function. I'd be interested in knowing what the
proposal is. I saw the most recent documents that the proposal is to have three access points
onto Buckhorn Road and two onto West Ten. Some of the visuals, I only saw one access point
onto West Ten. I'm not sure why we need two onto what essentially is, of the two roads
involved, the secondary road, whether we want to be encouraging the traffic in and out to the
extent that we have two entrances on it. Some places showed that and some places didn't. 1
think we did get a little bit of a promise from DOT to give us some money for improvements, but
certainly not sufficient to do all of these improvements.
One of the things that was discussed, and I agree with Commissioner Nelson, I think in the
economic development plan that we have, that we do talk about the kind of jobs that we're
encouraging and they are all at least living wage jobs. I would think that it would be important
for the developers to talk about, within your control, whether that's the kind of jobs that we're
talking about. Any development that we've encouraged, I guess the only one was the window
sash company where we gave them a $50,000 water and sewer grant in order to hook into the
Orange-Alamance system for water.
Geof Gledhill: And also the Builder's First Choice project.
Chair Jacobs: In those circumstances, we require that they be living wage jobs, that there be
insurance provided for workers. I know those are the kinds of jobs that we envisioned when we
talked about getting 5,000 new jobs. We weren't envisioning McDonald's or Wal-Mart. Again,
within your capacity to assure those kinds of things, I think that would be important in Orange
County.
Finally, I agree to some extent with Commissioner Nelson, we do have a plan for the
Hillsborough EDD, we developed that over about 16 months with Hillsborough, and it's within
Hillsborough's jurisdiction. Commissioner Foushee has been working with the owners and staff
to do a very detailed plan for the Eno EDD, which is on the border of Durham and Orange
County. But, despite the requests over a number of years from several of us, we never did
develop a plan for this economic development district. That's not to say positively or negatively
whether retail or anything else should be in that economic district. But the fact is that, while we
could have done various things, we're kind of caught. This is the one economic development
district that really does not have a specific plan. That's not to say that it can't adapt to your plan,
yours is about a quarter of acreage that would be possible, if you take out the middle school and
the soccer complex.
Commissioner Foushee: I only have one other thing that I ask that we consider, and that
would be how we might recruit local businesses for this development.
Commissioner Gordon: I would just like to reinforce what's been said about the transportation
plan, for one thing. I have brought up before that there were concerns about the inner-
circulation and the walkability and how it would work out within the development. But there are
of course concerns about how the traffic would be handled outside the development, what kind
of road widening would be included, and then also what provisions would be made for transit.
Long-range, not only in Orange County, but regionally, we are thinking about an east-west
public transit line. But that could be given a big boost if this development were in a place where
that would be one of the parts, not only of the system, but if somehow the developer would
contribute to the system. This is all assuming that the development goes in this economic
development district, which has general guidelines, but it does not have specific guidelines. The
Economic Development Commission did start to talk about target industries, but I don't know if
they've ever adopted them. Of course the whole economic development district has changed
when we approved the middle school and the soccer complex; it changed the scope of what
could be accommodated there. It's correct that we have a general economic development
strategic plan, but we don't have a specific plan. I guess the thing I would like to have explored,
and my comments now do have to do with transportation, includes the points that have been
made about how much of the traffic and the patronage of the businesses do we expect are
going to be coming off the interstate, and what do we expect is going to come from major
population centers. Because that will affect the carbon footprint. If we're expecting people to
come from Mebane or to be coming off the interstate and that sort of thing, as opposed to
expecting people to come from places in Orange County, such as the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area,
that would have a definite impact on how this development would affect the carbon footprint. I
guess my comments have to do mainly with whether we could spend a little bit more time trying
to figure out not only the internal traffic flow, but how public transit could figure into it, and what
kind of carbon footprint do we expect to be generated by this. Where do we expect the
customers to come from?
PLANNING BOARD:
Renee Price: I have some of the same concerns the Commissioners do. One of the things I
wanted to ask Craig was, at the first part of the public hearing, you mentioned that we've
changed this area from Economic Development to Urbanizing. I was wondering when did all of
that happen?
Craig Benedict: The economic development areas and our transition areas are both
considered urbanizing. They have always been designated as a public water and sewer area,
which is that overall transition urbanizing category. There have not been any changes since the
1981 plan; this has always been designated as urbanizing. Prior to the EDD Land Use being
affixed in 1994, prior to that, it was designated as Commercial Industrial Node. For 13 years
prior to the EDD manual coming out it was still a non-residential use.
Renee Price: I thought we were saying that it was now more commercial as opposed to
industrial.
Craig Benedict: No, there's a mixture of uses that are suggested in the EDD.
Renee Price: I was unclear about the widening of Buckhorn Road. Is it to be widened to four
lanes, six lanes, both, depending on where you are?
Jim Parker: Basically, the actual configuration of where those numbers of lanes are at this time
is somewhat vague. The plans have not been prepared to a level of specificity to tell you that.
But certainly, at strategic points, like the main entrance to the development would be two turns,
probably two lanes in each direction, north and south, and probably an acceleration lane in the
northbound direction that may serve as a bus stop also. Across the bridge, more than likely it
would be a minimum of five lanes once you get past the termini of the ramps, then your lanes
are going to start to drop off as you go north and as you go south past the main entrance to the
development. At this point, they are not as specific until, certainly, approval and we proceed to
a construction plan stage to determine those lanes. The TIA kind of addresses the capacities
and the number of lanes that are needed.
Renee Price: Are there residents along there now that would have to give up part of their
yards.
Jim Parker: Certainly no one would be asked to give up their property. If there was a need,
certainly there would be compensation to that land. The intent of the developer is to try to
maintain everything within the existing right-of-way.
Renee Price: The other question that I had was the residential units and how many are you
proposing?
Jim Parker: Currently, there are 200 in the planned development.
Renee Price: At this point, it does not include single-family, because I noticed the staff
commented that they do not want single-family.
Jim Parker: Correct, multi-family.
Renee Price: I was concerned about the sustainability as well of the type of jobs that we're
going to have there, and also the viability of the retail business, particularly smaller ones in
competition with the big box stores. I think that's a problem we've had almost universally, or
throughout the country, is that the big box stores tend to push the small businesses out of
business. I have a concern about that, but you do indicate that you are going to be inviting
these kinds of businesses there.
Jim Parker: Correct. And we will try and respond to that in some written form for you.
Renee Price: And also, I'm concerned about the distance from other population centers. I'm
concerned about the amount of pollution. Has there been any work done about the amount of
pollution considering you've got 85 and 40 and all this parking area and the air pollution?
Jim Parker: We will respond to that also.
Sam Lasris asked if he could read aloud the question and answer sheet provided by the
developers and Chair Jacobs said no, because of the time factor.
Sam Lasris: Why were the parking decks eliminated?
Jim Parker: They're not eliminated; they may not be as clearly shown as before. The land use
plan indicates surface parking. If there are potential hotels, there may be some structure
parking. You asked about the questions just a moment ago that we've responded to. I'm not
going to say every question that has been asked tonight has been addressed in those
comments, but a lot of those questions that have been asked tonight have been touched on or
addressed. What I've listed was about the structured parking. The intent is not to eliminate it,
it's kind of use-driven, and so I think it will be more of a hotel use with the structure parking.
Sam Lasris: Can you explain the rationale for putting structures at three diverse places on the
property instead of having a more compact development? I mean, we used to have a very
walkable kind of shopping district where you pulled in, you parked and walked the whole thing,
and then when you were ready to leave, you got in your car. But, the way this is, there are three
distinct areas and you more of less have to drive from area to area. I know we talked about that
you could potentially walk, but most people are not going to walk, but they're going to drive.
What's the rationale for three separate districts and so far apart ?
Jim Parker: There was not a conscious effort to put them far apart. Looking at the walkability
plan that we submitted, there is anywhere from a five-minute walk to maybe a seven-minute
walk between those districts exists. The intent was to try and create three different theme or
three different areas that puts you into a different mindset or a different type of shopping
experience, yet maintain them to the point that you could walk. The other thing that drove those
three different distinct areas is just trying to provide that internal circulation that Commissioner
Gordon has asked about and to try to allow for a car to get in, park, and not be a tight,
congested development.
Sam Lasris: If you were to make it more compact, you'd have more land available for this
recreation and you'd have less of a footprint. I'm sure you've seen hotels attached to shopping
centers. I'm just wondering why that concept was rejected. Is it that the land is so affordable?
Jim Parker: We will try to expand on that answer as well for you.
Sam Lasris: I'm also wondering if we actually will be physically blocking the residents who
currently live around this property. Will they consistently be blocked off from walking into or
cycling into this development?
Jim Parker: We've had a couple of meetings with the neighborhoods around the site. We've
had two meetings — one with Crestview subdivision to the southeast of the project and then the
community to the north across 85. Crestview indicated to us at that meeting, there were some
concerns about not making that connection between the two, and we certainly encouraged them
to speak to that at the public hearing and we would try to support whatever we heard at that
point. There is currently not an intended connection point to that subdivision. It's not saying
that it's something we would not do, it's just we have not included that.
Sam Lasris: I know you're not the traffic engineer, but I was looking at the dates that the traffic
counts were made, and they were only made on weekdays. I'm wondering why no traffic counts
were made on weekends, and that's really where the traffic is coming heavily.
Jim Parker: Lynn Hill is our traffic consultant, but I will say that the major traffic concern now is
on the weekend because the road capacity is not designed for what's happening. In fact, there
are no improvements to the road system out there now to handle what is happening. Once the
improvements are made based on the traffic for the development, you're going to see quite an
improvement on the weekend.
The Clerk swore in Lynn Hill.
Lynn Hill: I think that what's happening out there now on the weekend would give it a distorted
view of existing traffic. That's why the decision was made to state the traffic counts on
weekdays because of the flea market in that area. It would distort the existing traffic.
Craufurd Goodwin: I have a question and then a comment. I understand that the
circumstance that the County is out of compliance with the ozone quite substantially. If that's
the case, does it make sense to support a project that will bring thousands of cars and will
increase the problem of ozone? I wonder if anybody has explored that, and if so, how will we
deal with the issue?
My observation is that the document we received, which is called an Economic Impact
Statement, is certainly not that. It's sort of a partial fiscal impact statement. I think that what we
really need, to do due diligence for this project, is a serious fiscal impact statement. For
example, taking not just sales tax, but also real estate tax, and all of the costs, all of the
expenses for police, and schools, and fire, and all of the other things. An economic impact
statement, a genuine one, would also be very interesting, but it is much harder to construct. I
think until you have that, it's very hard to reach any kind of conclusion.
Bernadette Pelissier: Yes, I had questions about the water and sewer. I guess on page 5,
there's a reference to this being within the Water and Sewer Management Boundary
Agreement. I don't know what agreement there specifically exists. I guess the specific
questions I have are, I know there are other tracts of land that are a part of this EDD that are not
in question here, and I am wondering if there are long-range plans that the Town of Mebane has
about what's the capacity to actually serve the remaining area of the EDD, and how would it be
impacted by this type of development here that's not light industrial. What else could you do on
the adjacent property? I'd like to know a little bit more about that. Are there any discussions
about whether or not Mebane would be intent on annexing any of the property since it's so
close. I think that's something we really need to look at. I'd like to see that there's some
agreement here with Mebane, and I don't know what's going on.
Chair Jacobs: We'll get to that.
Michelle Kempinski: The first one has to do with the types of uses that are being requested as
part of the planned development. On pages 15-16, it talks about that there's a series of places
for District I, II, and III. For example, District I lists retail trade as the uses. And then
accommodation, retail, finance/insurance, services in District II. Retail, services, residential,
and government in District III. The concern that I have is, not in that they're listed, but in the
specificity and the intended use. Because on page 17 there is a conversion table that allows
you flexibility of converting one to another based on design factors that will convert retail to
condos, or theater to retail, and so on and so forth. I would have a concern that the conversion
factor is a part of the application, because then it's not a specified use. If you could outline the
reason for the table on page 17, and what are some of the tentative scenarios that you would
expect to see that would lead you to request that there be a conversion factor as part of the
specified use.
Jim Parker: That was one of the questions that we responded to, basically what does retail use
mean, what does that encompass. We gave some outline items in our response as well as the
services. We responded to those and you'll see that. The conversion table is to convert theater
seats, hotel rooms, and condos from retail square footage.
Michelle Kempinski: In one direction only?
Jim Parker: You could go either way. The intent of that table was so that it does not
contaminate or change the traffic generation numbers that had been provided in the TIA. For
example, and these are just numbers that I'm pulling out of my head, so they mean absolutely
nothing. For example, we have 20,000 trips that are coming to this development based on the
land use plan that you have now and the square footage that you have in front of you in the
three district tables. We could use that conversion factor, the way that it's spelled out, and
those 20,000 trips don't change. They're still 20,000 trips. That was the reason for that table.
There's some level of flexibility built into this plan in order for us to be able to determine an end.
Is there one theater, is there one hotel, or are there two hotels with 400 rooms, or one hotel with
200 rooms? You can't just add that, you need to be able to balance the background.
Michelle Kempinski: I understand the implications of the traffic analysis, my concern is that
uses need to be specified in the special use permit and not be provisional as part of the
ordinance. Also, my concern would be that, for example, 200 condos may be deemed as an
undesirable use in the district after the application is approved, and the conversion table would
be used because it was also approved to delete those 200 condos and swap them out for retail.
That's a concern that I have.
Jim Parker: If the residential component was not approved, I think the developer is really open
that it is going to remain in, but if it was not approved, and everything else went forward,
certainly that conversion table would still need to be used for theaters or hotel use.
Michelle Kempinski: The plan listed in there is an optional tradeoff for retail space, so that's
just a concern. The other question that I had, or request, is if you could provide a larger, more
readable version of the development plan. What we have now is really difficult to read. It would
be nice to see how these transportation, pedestrian access, and uses are going to overlay on
each other. You know, to take those sheets and actually do those overlays so that we can see
a consolidated picture of the site plan in a larger, more readable version. The other thing that
kind of goes along with that is, after reading through the binder, I still don't really have a good
picture of what it will look like. Would it look like Southpoint, would it look like New Hope
Commons, would it look like Cary Towne Center, would it look like Crabtree Valley Mall? There
is a wide range of different types. It would be helpful to have an idea of what your idea is for the
town center.
Jim Parker: That's one of our responses also in that package, with some illustrations.
Michelle Kempinski: I want to ask a question about a report that was submitted by the Chapel
Hill Chamber on the economic impact of Buckhorn Village, and there's a couple of tables in
there that provide detail about how many restaurants, how many anchor retailers, how many
hotels, and I was just curious as to whether the student who generated the report got those
numbers from the developer or if those were guesses. It's more specific than what's contained
in the application.
Jim Parker: We did give them those estimates.
Jeffrey Schmitt: I'm not sure whether this is for Mr. Benedict or the County Manager, but my
colleague here referenced the economic study that was done. Could we have sort of a pro
forma look out to the end of this project if it were approved and the impact that it has on the tax
structure, principally the property tax structure in the County. It's my understanding right now
that it's about 85% supported from a residential perspective, 15% from business. That could
change substantially with what we see here from the increased sales tax and from the increased
business taxes. So if we could maybe figure out a way how that looks in 2014. Is that the
buildout date?
Renee Price: I don't know if this is maybe for the staff or the Commissioners, but if this is built,
I think we should also look at the bigger picture, what it's going to do to surrounding property.
The developers have already referenced Southpoint. When Southpoint was built, then there
was a whole range of development that has increased since then, and it keeps going and going.
I'm wondering if we want the same thing for Orange County. Will Orange County support that?
Once this urban development is dropped out in the middle of this rural area, will they continue to
change the landscape. We're getting water already for the project from Mebane. But beyond
that, can you support it with fire, police, whatever? Will it need to change from one house per
acre to townhouses?
Judith Wegner: There are two things that I've been tussling over. One is the relationship
between the different segments here, and I know that with large developments there's always a
risk if the economy takes a downturn or something like that, how much of the overall financial
potential here is leveraged against what the string of dominoes might be. This is going to have
such a substantial impact on the County, I think we really need to be sure we are smart about
what the different phases are, components are, and the risks we run if it's going to stretch over
a period of time. The other thing is I think we're all challenged by is this kind of overlapping
situation with the rezoning plus the permits and everything on top of it. I understand that if
you're asking for certain kinds of legislative determinations here, you can't get something that's
incredibly so specific that if the approval goes in and then somebody else acquires this property
and you really tie their hands. I hope you appreciate where we sit that, to the degree that these
are very open categories and things like that, it's very difficult to figure out our appropriate
balance of responsibility with regard to specificity and things that need to be nailed down. I just
would say that I think we are all doing our best to take it very seriously and I know the
developers here have done sophisticated projects like Meadowmont and so forth. But the more
you can work with us with this, given that it's a new structure that we don't have a lot of
benchmarks about ways in which to deal with these overlapping considerations and the
phasing, we're all better off. I feel troubled by what feels like a somewhat blank check as to
something that is really major, especially in our economic times. I think that we all need to be
very careful in thinking that through. I know that you have a very talented team there that's
doing a lot with this, but for example, if it's true that the State is going to be strapped for money
for various reasons because of the downturn in the economy that we all know is coming, then
assumptions about State money for transportation availability, economic incentives, one thing or
another, I think those are all pretty up in the air kinds of notions. I wish there were a way to deal
with this, and I think we can, but I'm just raising the notion, if it were districts a piece at a time, I
would feel better so that everything isn't hinged all the way out.
Jay Bryan: Two questions I think, possibly for the attorney about the process. In terms of the
two issues that are before the Commissioners, the rezoning and the SUP application, what
materials are to be considered by the boards?
Geof Gledhill: All of it. The rezoning is a legislative decision to consider everything that's been
presented to you in written form, of all of the statements, just about everything that's
reasonable.
Jay Bryan: And then with regard to the application itself, is there a distinction between what is
to be considered in terms of what the applicant submits to us. With regard to say, the
application materials that have been submitted, are those considered the total application that's
to be approved or not approved?
Geof Gledhill: For the special use permit aspect of this, the application I think is in front of you,
was introduced to you. Other additional written materials have been offered and put into the
record. Testimony of witnesses, most of the testimony that I've heard doesn't go the special
use permit issue, it goes more towards the rezoning issue. But to the degree that the testimony
is, for example, expert testimony from Mr. Knight concerning property value certainly goes to the
special use permit.
Jay Bryan: If there's an approval of the application, is that an approval of all of the statements
that are made in the application, that we approve everything that's in this document regarding all
of the proposals.
Geof Gledhill: I think at the end of the day, what you're going to have in front of you is the
special use permit that incorporates whatever it is that's in the application materials, whatever it
is that's been testified to that needs to be there for the special use permit.
Craig Benedict: Just to reiterate, the rezoning, there's criteria within your zoning code that is
the basis of the criteria to decide on the rezoning. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
those type of global, and as the attorney said, prior to acceptance or review of any application,
there will be special use criteria that will further elaborate what's in this application, it will lock in
specifically any conditions — underground electric and the like would be wrapped into the special
use permit. As part of that special use permit, findings of fact that address the criteria that's
also part of our zoning application criteria, and chapter eight would be illustrated.
Jay Bryan: So, the issue of their request for not having to abide by 14 of the criteria in the ED
Design Manual, the staff will make recommendations about their request about that prior to
either board voting on the application.
Craig Benedict: That's correct. They're asking for design solutions different than what are in
the original manual, and staff will make recommendations concerning them and both boards will
be able to deliberate if those design solutions meet the intent of the planned development.
Geof Gledhill: Let me add to that. The EDD Manual does not envision either a legislative
process or a special use permit process; it envisions a complex site development process, in
which the developer meets all of the requirements of the EDD Manual. If the developer planned
to meet all of the requirements of the EDD Manual, you would never see it; it would be handled
at the staff level. It could be a development as large as this one, or even larger. But because
this development has in mind some different ideas, some different design approaches, and
different uses, then it's coming to you in both the legislative and the special use permit process.
So, presumably, the special use permit itself will address the degree to which the design
solutions proposed by these applicants meet or exceed the requirements of the design manual.
Chair Jacobs: So, in that sense, there is a plan for this economic development district.
Geof Gledhill: This will be a subset of that economic development. If this is approved, this will
be the plan of this portion of that economic development district.
Chair Jacobs: You might want to make copies of the design manual available to Planning
Board members and Commissioners that don't have it, or at least put it on disk. You might want
to have maps. It might be easier to overlay things on a CD than it would be to have a whole
bunch of transparencies. I think it would be good to have some maps, but it might also be good
if you could make some CDs so that people could see how things overlay and have enough so
that we could share them with the public. And also, I think we need a land use map for the
area. One of our conversations with Mebane was very specific about where it will and will not
extend water and sewer, because we had the same concern about the kind of sprawl around
Southpoint that we don't want in Orange County, and neither did they. But you need to see that
on a map, and I think we need to see what we've agreed to with Mebane so that people can
understand what the parameters are in the conversation about water and sewer.
Michelle Kempinski: Is there still an opportunity, if a question comes up from any Planning
Board members to submit it to the developer after this meeting.
Craig Benedict: The process we have is depending on when the Commissioners close the
public hearing. Written questions can come forward; they are part of the public record, shared
with everyone — both the Commissioners and the general public. So, written questions can
come forward and the answers can be prepared by the applicant or others to address those
questions prior to the deliberations so that everybody has equal access to those. We would
suggest that they be asked within the following couple of weeks so that they can do the
research that's necessary, and we can distribute that before the next meeting is held. We have
to work on those special conditions.
Geof Gledhill: Whatever is going to be considered needs to be considered as part of the public
hearing. Nothing will be considered after the public hearing is closed.
Chair Jacobs: When the Planning Board asks a question during its deliberation, or if it asks for
additional materials, should we leave the public hearing open to include that?
Geof Gledhill: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You can leave the public hearing open for
the Planning Board recommendation, for any additional written materials that are submitted
between now and when the Planning Board makes its recommendation, or you can continue
this form of the public hearing to another day if you want to, to receive additional material. So
you have several options about it, but importantly, we need to leave the public hearing open to
receive everything that you're going to consider before you make a decision.
Chair Jacobs: I think we'll go in the former direction rather than the latter. Are you making
recommendations about a date at which the Planning Board would begin to consider this?
Craig Benedict: Options B and C, we've kind of moved past Option A, it would be a very fast
turnaround for the Planning Board to deliberate tomorrow night. Option B would ask the
Planning Board to deliberate on April 16th, about two weeks from now. Option C would ask the
Planning Board to deliberate by May 7th or May 19th. And then it would return back to the
Commissioners no later than May 19th. That's Option C, that may be a more realistic timeframe
based on the questions that came forward from both groups tonight. Even with asking the
Planning Board to come back with a recommendation by May 19th, probably two or three weeks
prior to that, all of the questions would have to be asked and answered by the applicant so that
full packets of information could be prepared and the special use conditions could be prepared
also. So, Option B, a quicker timeframe, Option C seems to give a little more latitude into the
process.
Chair Jacobs: So, is May 5th a compromise in terms of speed? It would seem that there's not
much difference between the 5th and the 7th as far as meetings. Are those regularly scheduled?
Craig Benedict: May 7th is a regular Planning Board meeting. May 5th would have to be a
special Planning Board meeting.
Jay Bryan: When is the Comprehensive Plan Update public hearing?
Craig Benedict: May 19th does ring a bell. But that's just "no later than."
Chair Jacobs: It is the 19th of May.
Craig Benedict: Setting that date would just say, "no later than," it doesn't mean that it would
actually have to occur on that night.
Chair Jacobs: It would seem to me that it might take more than one Planning Board meeting,
so I think you have to give the Planning Board time for two meetings prior to the public hearing.
Judith Wegner: What's the rush. I mean, this is an important set of deliberations for meeting
multiple times a week on the Comprehensive Plan. I would think we'd want to bring it closure
before you take your break, if that's appropriate. You've seen us die off one at a time here from
sickness or exhaustion or whatever, and we really want to do justice by the Comp Plan material
for you too, so if you want us to proceed, you've got to cut us a little bit of slack, please.
Sam Lasris: I want to give the public the opportunity to receive the material if there is an open
house, but is there going to be some time allowed for that?
Chair Jacobs: We need to work back from the fact that in June, we're going to be pretty
involved in the budget, and we're going to adjourn at the end of June. So, somewhere in
between there, we're going to need a recommendation from you, and we may need a fair
amount of time to discuss this as well, especially considering how difficult it's going to be for us
to even schedule an extra meeting, so we'll have to do this as part of one of our regularly
scheduled meetings and we probably won't get much else done. I'm still looking for something
that's a compromise, preferably before the public hearing on the 19th of May, but if not, certainly
before the end of June, I mean before the start of June.
Jay Bryan: What about after the public hearing on May 19th
Jeffrey Schmitt: One option to throw on the table in addition to this is that if we wanted to
defer the completion of the Comprehensive Plan three months.
Jay Bryan: Craig, do you have the Planning Board's meeting schedule regarding the updated
Comprehensive Plan?
Craig Benedict: Actually, there is roughly a ten-day, it's called a hiatus, after we prepare the
agenda for May 19th, roughly May 9th to the 19th, there is nothing. The documents would have
been prepared by that time. No special joint meetings occur from roughly May 9th to the 19th
So, there is some time prior to that quarterly public hearing. Maybe May 7th and May 14th, like
two Wednesdays in a row.
Chair Jacobs: Why don't we refer to the Planning Board for May 7th, and then you can decide
when you want to meet a second time to get it to us by the beginning of June. Maybe that will
work.
Geof Gledhill: Let me suggest that another way of saying that would be to refer it to the
Planning Board for a recommendation back to you no later than, pick some date and let them
decide on the meeting.
Chair Jacobs: No later than June 3rd, which is our regularly scheduled meeting.
Geof Gledhill: And then you would continue this public hearing until June 3`d
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
refer the Buckhorn Road Associates LLC Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit
application to the Planning Board for a recommendation back to the County
Commissioners no later than June 3rd. The public hearing will be left open until that time.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments:
a. Telecommunications Towers: Amendments to promote consistency with
December 1 , 2007 revisions to NC General Statutes concerning Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities.
Craig Benedict said that the County has now amended its ordinances to be consistent
with the State, and certain processes that promote co-location have been streamlined. Also, the
fees that are collected allow the County to have experts on behalf of the County to research the
issues for public safety purposes. The balloon requirements have been amended for better
visibility. Also, there are more detailed requirements for approval. This is a major change to the
Telecommunications ordinance. These amendments will continue to be able to have a Master
Telecommunications Plan to promote the limited amount of towers and more co-location. This
is to be consistent with State law. The ordinance was reformatted, but the good ideas from the
previous ordinance were not lost. He thanked the Attorney's Office for helping with this
amendment.
Chair Jacobs asked, after all is said and done, if this would wind up about the same
place that it was or significantly under where it was. He cannot imagine that the legislation will
let the County actually have more control.
Mr. Speaker said that the short answer is you did not lose any regulatory authority, you
just have to do several things differently.
Jay Bryan said that the general sense is that towers can be placed anywhere in the
County if they fit a set of criteria, and the public really has no ability to prevent individual towers
from being located if they meet the various criteria in the ordinance.
Craig Benedict said that the criteria are there to protect against the proliferation of
towers. For example, the need for the tower has to be proven and that there are not alternate
locations that could also serve the need. The federal government has certain interests to allow
the information highway to proceed. It is not an easy denial in those cases.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
forward the matter to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request that a
recommendation be submitted back to the BOCC no later than May 20, 2008.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Planned Development: Amendments to address inconsistencies between existing
ordinance requirements and NC General Statutes, specifically the requirement that
imposed conditions be mutually agreed upon by the County and petitioner.
Zoning Administrator Michael Harvey introduced this item. He said that he has been
working on this with the Attorney's Office. As the Attorney's Office and staff began earnest work
on developing the conditional use process as well as beginning to finalize work on the
Agricultural Services Enterprise project, it was discovered that there were several provisions in
the existing ordinance that were not consistent with some recent changes of the general statute
regular standards, specifically focusing on how conditions are proposed in certain projects. At
the time it was suggested that it was essential to bring the existing regulatory standards in line
with general statute requirements. The proposal is to amend Article 7 and modify how
conditions are proposed for planned development projects. Essentially the change would
require that any condition proposed be initially agreed to by the Board of County Commissioners
and the applicant through the public hearing process. The staff is asking the Board to allow the
Planning Board to review this and make a recommendation no later than May 7, 2008.
Commissioner Gordon asked what happens if conditions are proposed and the applicant
does not agree, then could the project be denied. Michael Harvey said that if the Board of
County Commissioners wishes to impose a condition for set reasons based on the information
provided during the quasi-judicial process and the applicant refuses, and the Board of County
Commissioners believes that the condition is vital to addressing a component of complying with
local regulatory or policy requirements, then that would be a basis for recommending denial.
Geof Gledhill agreed and said that he would recommend that it be handled at the
rezoning decision level and that the Board has in place all of the conditions necessary for this
project to work and that there be concurrence with the developer on these conditions. If there is
not concurrence, then the answer would be to delay the rezoning decision. This only applies to
conditional use zoning or special use zoning. It does not apply to the run of the mill special use
permits, where you still have authority to impose reasonable conditions.
Chair Jacobs said that one of the changes is removal of public, health, safety, and
welfare for approval or denial. Geof Gledhill said that except in specific ways in which its
addressed in the process.
Renee Price asked if this means that the applicant has no room to appeal.
Geof Gledhill said that, if we all do it right, the appeal will be to a legislative decision.
In answer to questions from the Planning Board members, Geof Gledhill said that the
issue in a planned development special use process, hopefully the appeal is not going to turn on
the denied condition or the condition that is not agreed on, but whether or not the decision to not
change the rezoning was wrong.
Jeffrey Schmitt said that the Planning Board is not limiting the opportunity for a plaintiff of
this case to appeal, it's just to whom the case is appealed. Geof Gledhill said that it is not to
whom, it's the nature of the decision that is being appealed.
Chair Jacobs said that what the attorney is saying is that he wants the County to work so
that if there's an appeal, Orange County wins.
Jay Bryan asked if Geof Gledhill could outline his suggestions concerning the overlay of
conditions regarding the application with regard to the rezoning. He also asked about the
language. The way the statute reads is that the conditions are designed to address
conformance of the use of the site to County ordinance and an officially adopted comprehensive
or other plan and those that address the impacts, etc. He also asked about the word "policies."
He is wondering if it is not correct to include under the proposed amendment part 4 7.5.5 that
the County Commissioners may grant the application in accordance with PD and other County
regulations, the Comprehensive Plan, any other plans, and County policies.
Michael Harvey said that under section 7.5.5, the conditions refer back to section 7.2.4,
which is where the language is about the Comprehensive Plan and County regulations. He said
that the Comprehensive Plan is the ultimate policy guide for the County. He said that he could
throw something in 7.5.5 if it would address the concern, but he believes it has been addressed
already.
Jay Bryan asked that the language match in 7.5.5 and 7.2.4.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request
that a recommendation be submitted no later than May 7, 2008.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED 511/2008
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
April 1, 2008
(Immediately Following Adjournment of 7:30 p.m. Reconvened February 25, 2008
Quarterly Public Hearing)
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 1,
2008 at 7:30 p.m. (immediately following adjournment of 7:30 p.m. Reconvened February 25,
2008 Quarterly Public Hearing) in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North
Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses
Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County
Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff
members will be identified appropriately below)
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Chair Jacobs suggested moving the Efland sewer public hearing to the front of the
agenda.
Commissioner Nelson suggested moving the said special presentations and resolutions
to the consent agenda.
Chair Jacobs said that only the Orange County Government Week resolution would be
moved to the consent agenda and the public hearing would be the first item with public
comment.
Additional items at the County Commissioners' places included an update on the Local
Revenue Options Committee and the County water levels.
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
None
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
below.)
5. Public Hearings
a. Northern Buckhorn CommunitylCentral Efland Sewer Expansion Project
Public Hearing for Preliminary Engineer's Report
The Board held the EPA-required (for State and Tribal Assistance Grant funded projects)
public hearing on the proposed project's preliminary Engineer's Report.
County Engineer Paul Thames said that the primary purpose of this item was to hold a
public hearing, which is a requirement of the State grant that will pay for 50% of the money that
the County has on hand. He made reference to page 3 of the abstract, which has a section on
public participation. These are the high points to comply with the public hearing process. He
made a PowerPoint presentation.
Preliminary Engineer's Report
Highlights of the proposed project to provide sewer service infrastructure to the Northern
Buckhorn and Central Efland communities
Project Purpose
Address the following issues
• History of failing septic tanks in the two areas
• Poor soils for septic systems
• Lack of adequate satisfactory soils for existing septic system repair area
• Most, if not all, properties are in the watersheds for local drinking water supplies
Proposed Northern Buckhorn Sewer(map)
Proposed Central Efland Sewer (map)
Cost Estimates
• Northern Buckhorn
— $582,000
— Completely funded by STAG grants
• Central Efland
— $3.67 million
— Partially funded by grant and bond funds
— Remainder of funding to be decided
Potential Options for Funding Shortfall
• Reduce the size of the project to fit the budget(Central Efland)
• Borrow from a FY2010-11 alternative debt financing process to cover the shortfall.
• Apply for a low interest(4%), 10 year loan from the State Revolving Loan and Grant Fund.
Include all or a portion of the loan payments in the sewer rate base over the 10 yr. period.
Potential Options for Funding Shortfall
• Seek additional funding through Community Development Block Grants and/or Rural
Communities Assistance Program
• Separate Central Efland project into base or core and add alternate components, then solicit
bids on that basis.
• This strategy does give rise to the possibility that some bidders will manipulate the bid
process, in that bids are awarded on the basis of the low bid for the base or core system.
• The portion of the project scope that is designated as the core or base system and submitted
and approved as such by the various review agencies must be built in its entirety.
Interlocal Agreements
• Northern Buckhorn
— Wastewater flows to Mebane — Industrial Drive Pumping Station
— Existing Interlocal Agreement with Mebane covers both the existing southern Buckhorn
sewer line as well as the proposed northern Buckhorn sewer section.
— New customers in this area will be City of Mebane customers
• Central Efland
— Wastewater flows to Hillsborough
— Agreement in place due to existing Efland Sewer system.
— New Customers will be Efland Sewer customers (Orange County)
Project effect on typical customer
• Northern Buckhorn
— This portion of the project will be paid entirely with STAG (grant) funding.
— The project cost will have no impact on new customers.
—A household producing 5000 gallons of wastewater per month will be billed $24.50 (City of
Mebane standard in-town rates of$4.90 per 1000 gallons).
Project effect on typical customer
• Central Efland
— For full project buildout, the projected budget is approximately $3.67 million ($1.7 million
budget shortfall).
— One option for funding this shortfall is by a low interest government loan (State Revolving
Loan and Grant Program, with a 10 year term at 4% interest)
— If the debt service for this loan was added to the sewer rates, the projected monthly cost
for this portion of the rate base alone would be $55 per month for a customer using 5000
gallons of wastewater per month.
Project effect on typical customer
• Central Efland
— For every $100,000 that is financed by some other means that does not require the
inclusion of annualized costs into the rate base, the projected $55 cost for each 5000
gallon per month customer would be reduced by $3 per month.
Paul Thames said that this information meets public hearing requirements and there is
additional information in the abstract that is not required for the public hearing.
Commissioner Foushee asked, regarding the CDBG funds, why the County has not
been successful. Paul Thames said that in past, the CDBG process has a scoring mechanism,
which is based on the population served and the income of the community that's applying for
the grant. He said that the incomes in the Chapel Hill ICarrboro area skews the entire
community, and the County has applied twice for these grants for the Efland community and has
been turned down. The County is in fairly good shape to apply because it does have a number
of low-income, elderly, and minority customers that will be taken into the system. There is also
a proven need for the system and the plans and specifications are prepared.
Commissioner Foushee asked about the timeframe if the County were to pursue the
rural communities' route. Paul Thames said that it would be pursued at the same time they are
in the review process for the Engineer's Report, and that is a lengthy period of time before
permission is given to advertise for bids, take bids, and EPA review.
Commissioner Nelson said that he wants to proceed with this and asked if staff would be
bringing back a recommendation at the next meeting on how to finance this and Laura
Blackmon said yes. She said that these figures for the second option were included in the
previous CIP discussion for the alternative financing.
Commissioner Carey asked if the $1.7 million shortfall was included and Laura
Blackmon said yes.
Chair Jacobs said that presumably this could be phased and Laura Blackmon said that
with the timeline, it is being pushed out anyway.
Chair Jacobs asked, if the County applies for grant money and does not get it, and it is
still committed to building it, if the timeframe takes that contingency into account. Paul Thames
said no, that the timeframe is based on his estimates of what it takes to go through the review
process, whether the County gets the grant or not.
Chair Jacobs pointed out that the STAG money only covers part of the project and the
rest of the project can be planned over any period of time.
Paul Thames said that what Chair Jacobs is talking about then is more like the add—
alternatives for the project, where the add-alternatives are phases.
Chair Jacobs made reference to the fifth bullet on page 2, which said that "The County
may choose to break the central Efland portion of the system down into core and optional
components."
Paul Thames said that when he was talking about optional components then, he was
actually speaking of the fitting process.
Laura Blackmon said that there are some economies of scale, and if it were put into
phases, portions of the project would be even longer. She recommends going forward with the
entire project.
Chair Jacobs said that it has already been delayed for 25 years.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Benny Cecil said that he has lived in Efland for 63 years. He said that since 1985 the
community has been trying to get this project. His youngest son was seven years old when this
started, and he is 31 now. He said that his son recently moved into a house in Efland with
sewage and he still does not have it. He said that the sewage is needed in Efland and it needs
to happen as quickly as possible. The systems are not working. He asked the County
Commissioners to try and speed up the process.
Aubrey Graham said that he has lived in Efland all of his life also and he is a neighbor of
Benny Cecil's. He remembers when the Efland-Cheeks school needed a new sewer system.
One of the things that the citizens of the community said, through a petition, was that they would
tap onto the sewer system if it came through. He thinks that there are more than enough names
on the petition to justify the sewer system. He said that in the 1997 bond, the citizens thought
they would get the project but it did not happen. He said that the Gravelly Hill Middle School
line goes right through the center of his property. He said that staff did soil samples around his
property and one portion that it crossed had some rock. He said that Paul Thames asked if he
could cut across his yard to place a line and he agreed, but he still does not have sewer. He
said that Efland needs sewer as soon as possible.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
receive the County Engineer's update/status report; receive the preliminary Engineer's Report;
and direct staff to bring this item for a decision at the BOCC's next regular meeting in
Hillsborough (May 1st).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Proclamations! Resolutions) Special Presentations
a. Turkey Farm Road Bridge Resolution
The Board considered approving a resolution concerning the Turkey Farm Road bridge
replacement.
Commissioner Gordon asked if this would cause any delay in bridge construction if the
Board approved this. John Kent said that they do not want any delay, but also think that now is
the time before the bulldozers start that they ask the questions that need to be asked about the
corridor and the environment that's there.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
approve the resolution from the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS the natural corridor of New Hope Creek preserves invaluable recreational and
educational opportunities, open space, wildlife habitat, and other historic and natural resources;
and
WHEREAS the preservation of the New Hope Creek Corridor is essential for maintaining the
health of Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River Basin; and
WHEREAS the section of New Hope Creek at Turkey Farm Road supports a unique community
of freshwater mussels already imperiled by drought and the impacts of urban development,
including two State Endangered Species and Federal Species of Concern (Carolina Creekshell,
Atlantic Pigtoe), one State Endangered Species (Brook Floater), one State Threatened Species
(Creeper), one State Special Concern Species (Notched Rainbow), one State Significantly Rare
Species (Eastern Creekshell), and additional rare species that may include a previously
undiscovered species of Lampsilis mussel; and
WHEREAS Orange County, Durham County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the City of Durham
have continuously reaffirmed our commitment to the preservation of the New Hope Creek
corridor and its natural resources since our joint funding of the New Hope Open Space Master
Plan in 1989, adoption of the Master Plan in 1991; appointment of the New Hope Creek Corridor
Advisory Committee to advise us on its implementation; and the subsequent expenditure of five
million dollars of local, state and private funds for land protection pursuant to the Plan;
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has in the past acknowledged the
uniqueness of the New Hope Corridor and the value of the corridor to the community by
responding to concerns of the local jurisdictions and the public with an expanded design for the
bridge on US 15-501 over New Hope Creek to 300 feet with a 10-foot vertical clearance to
enable safe wildlife passage and future greenway trails;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
respectfully requests that the North Carolina Department of Transportation, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, and other involved state agencies ensure the maintenance of high
water quality, pristine habitat for aquatic species, passage for terrestrial wildlife, and adequate
recreational access in the design and construction of the Turkey Farm Road Bridge at New
Hope Creek.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners respectfully
requests that the North Carolina Department of Transportation and other involved state
agencies consult with the Advisory Committee in any decisions that may impact the New Hope
Creek natural corridor and its planned preservation as laid out in the New Hope Corridor Open
Space Master Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners respectfully
requests that the North Carolina Department of Transportation conduct an environmental
assessment pursuant to the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act and a field meeting with
qualified ecologists to ensure that proposed demolition, construction, and final design of the
Turkey Farm Road Bridge will have no negative impacts on the high level of aquatic species
habitat, water quality, and other natural heritage features of the New Hope Creek area.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Public Safety Telecommunicators' Week
The Board considered approving a proclamation recognizing the week of April 13-19,
2008 as Public Safety Telecommunicators' Week in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to
sign.
Captain Dinah Jeffries from Orange County Emergency Services said that they are very
pleased to do this for their telecommunicators, who continue to be leaders in the state of North
Carolina as well as across the nation. Orange County continues to train telecommunicators
from across the state, because Orange County is at the cutting edge of training and the epitome
of professionalism.
Chair Jacobs read the proclamation.
PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATORS' WEEK
2008
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Thousands of dedicated telecommunicators daily serve the residents of the
United States and Canada by answering their telephone calls for law enforcement, fire, and
emergency medical services by dispatching the appropriate assistance as quickly as possible;
and
WHEREAS, The critical functions performed by professional telecommunicators also include
those related to forestry and conservation operations, highway safety and maintenance
activities, and many other operations performed by federal, state and local government
agencies; and
WHEREAS, Professional telecommunicators work to improve the emergency response
capabilities of these communication systems through their leadership and participation in
training programs and other activities provided by the Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials and the National Emergency Number Association; and
WHEREAS, These associations are organizations of more than 100,000 people engaged in
the design, installation and operation of emergency response communications, and have set
aside the week beginning April 13, 2008, to recognize telecommunicators and their crucial role
in the protection of life and property;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim the
week of April 13-19, 2008, as "National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week" in Orange
County, North Carolina, in honor and recognition of our County's telecommunicators and the
vital contributions they make to the safety and well being of our residents.
Adopted this 1St day of April 2008.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
approve a proclamation recognizing the week of April 13-19, 2008 as Public Safety
Telecommunicators' Week in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4. Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below:
a. Minutes — None
b. Appointments — None
c. Property Tax Refunds
The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to one (1)
request for property tax refund in accordance with N.C. General Statute 105-381.
d. Property Tax Releases
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property values
related to four (4) requests for property tax release in accordance with N.C. General Statute
105-381.
e. Property Value Changes
The Board approved value changes made in property values after the 2007 Board of
Equalization and Review has adjourned.
f. Applications for Property Tax ExemptionlExclusion
The Board approved two (2) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
taxation for the 2007 tax year.
g_ Renewal of Consolidated Agreement Between Health Department and NC Department
of Health and Human Services
The Board approved the annual consolidated agreement between the NC Department of Health
and Human Services and the Orange County Health Department, which provides State and
Federal funds to the Health Department to partially support mandated services and authorized
the Chair to sign, pending final review by staff and the County Attorney.
h. Bid Award: Tape Backup System Replacement
The Board awarded a bid for a Quantum Tape Backup System at a total cost of$33,263.60 to
CDWG of Shelton, Connecticut and authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the
necessary paperwork.
i. Valley Forge Road Property Lease Rate for Builder's First Source
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration.
L Dedication of Electrical Site Lighting Utilities to Duke Energy for Northern Park
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration.
k. Landfill Compactor for Orange County Landfill
The Board approved the purchase of a Terex Trashmaster TC 550 Landfill Compactor to be
provided by Road Machinery, Inc. of Statesville, North Carolina in the amount of$645,225;
authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork; and authorize the
Chair to sign it, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney and approved the
reimbursement resolution, which is incorporated by reference.
I. Orange County Government Week Proclamation
The Board approved a proclamation, which is incorporated by reference, in recognition of
National County Government Week in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign.
VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
i. Valley Forge Road Property Lease Rate for Builder's First Source
The Board considered approving the lease rate for property owned by the County at 401
Valley Forge Road, Hillsborough, and leased to Builders First Source; and received information
regarding compliance with the original economic development conditions established in the
1997 lease.
Commissioner Gordon said that she had looked up the tax records for this property, and
wanted to ask a few questions about the process. She asked if a market survey was done to
determine the value. She understands that the people that are renting the property now were
given a lower rate originally for a reason, but wondered what the rate should be now. Also,
there are seven buildings on the tax records, and the county is only charging rent on the
commercial building. She asked how the figure $2.50 per square foot was decided.
Jeff Thompson said that he would take it back to Purchasing and Central Services
Director Pam Jones to get these questions answered.
Laura Blackmon said that staff did look at comparable properties before beginning
negotiations.
Commissioner Gordon said that it is important to have comparable information when the
County rents properties.
Geof Gledhill said that the lease is for the entire property. Commissioner Gordon said
that, according to the tax records, three buildings have been built since 1997. She said that the
county should have a defined process for renting property.
Laura Blackmon said that the County does not charge on the acreage but the square
foot on a leased facility, and she will check on the other process questions.
Chair Jacobs said to bring this back at the April 15th meeting, and if there are policy
decisions implicit in the contract, then make them explicit.
Geof Gledhill said that the lease automatically renewed, but this is about the rent.
All agreed by consensus to having the questions answered and bringing this item back
at a later meeting.
Dedication of Electrical Site Lighting Utilities to Duke Energy for Northern
Park
The Board considered approving a dedication of electrical site lighting utilities built to
service the Orange County Northern Park, and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Chair Jacobs said that he does not know if they are taking out any trees and if there are
alternative routes to be taken.
Laura Blackmon said that Duke Energy does not do a tree survey when it applies for a
permit, but it is showing that the dedication is from point A to point B. She said that Duke
Energy does not want to deal with the removal of trees and it will work around the trees.
Chair Jacobs said that he does not trust utilities and he would like a statement of no tree
removal or have a survey before the dedication is made.
Laura Blackmon suggested that the County say that no trees will be removed, and this
can be monitored since staff is on the construction site.
Chair Jacobs suggested putting in an amendment to this resolution that no trees will be
removed without approval of the County.
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve a
dedication of electrical site lighting utilities built to service the Orange County Northern Park,
and authorize the Chair to sign, with the amendment of no tree removal.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda-NONE
7. Reports-NONE
8. Board Comments
Commissioner Carey— none.
Commissioner Nelson asked about the budget process and if items that were flagged or
brought up at the retreat that have budget implications would be incorporated into the budget
process. Laura Blackmon said that staff is in the process of processing all of those items from
the retreat. Some of those projects were already in the pipeline and staff will prioritize those.
Commissioner Nelson said that there were items from the retreat that the Board did not
discuss and he does not know if he supports them all. He asked about the process. Laura
Blackmon said that the staff would bring them back to the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Foushee — none.
Commissioner Gordon — none.
Chair Jacobs said that there would be an unveiling of road markers at the Government
Services Center on April 8th at 11:30 for the Scots Heritage Scenic Highway, which has been
designated in Orange County. Also, the State of the Economy Luncheon is on April 9th at 12:00
at the Carolina Club. Finally, the U. S. is spending $5,000 per second in Iraq. Six minutes of
that money would cover the shortfall to fund the Efland sewer.
9. County Manager's Report
Laura Blackmon said that she would like to have some direction from the Board on how
to proceed from the Assembly of Governments. There are a lot of things that have been coming
out at these meetings, and County Commissioners have commented that staff should work on
some things. She is finding that sometimes there is not a cohesive effort and she is not sure
who is supposed to take the lead on following through with some of these items.
10. Appointments (none)
11. Information Items
• Memorandum from Health Director Rosemary Summers Regarding Biosolids Program in
Orange County
Chair Jacobs said that this memorandum mentions that neither Hillsborough nor Durham
is being cooperative in reporting and monitoring, so he asked the Clerk to send a copy of this
memorandum with that sentence underlined to the Mayor of Hillsborough. The Clerk sent this
memorandum today.
• UNC Remediation Project Near the Animal Shelter
12. Closed Session-NONE
13. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
adjourn the meeting at 10:35 pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board